Case Name: ELIZABETH A. BURKE v. GEORGE CARRUTHERS, and BROOK B. EDMONSTON
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1866
Citations: 31 Cal. 467
Docket Number: 
Parties: ELIZABETH A. BURKE v. GEORGE CARRUTHERS, and BROOK B. EDMONSTON.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 31
Pages: 467–471

Head Matter:
ELIZABETH A. BURKE v. GEORGE CARRUTHERS, and BROOK B. EDMONSTON.
Dental of Allegations of Complaint.—If the allegations in a complaint in forcible entry and detainer are conjunctively stated, an answer which denies them in that form does not raise an issue.
Interest on Judgment.—A judgment for damages in forcible entry and detainer bears interest at the rate of ten per cent per annum from the time it is entered, whether it is so provided in the judgment or not, and the insertion of a clause in the judgment making it bear such interest is merely surplusage and not erroneous.
Appeal from the County Court, City and County of San Francisco.
The following were some of the allegations of the complaint :
“ Plaintiff further alleges that, being so, in the peaceable and quiet possession of said described premises, and entitled to the possession of the same, the said defendants, on the 13th day of January, A. D. 1864, with great force and violence, and with a multitude of people, unlawfully, and with force, entered on said described premises, and with force and violence removed, put out, and expelled the said plaintiff from so much of said premises as is described as follows: Commencing on the east line of said Yerba Buena Place, distant one hundred and twelve and one half feet south of Clay street, thence running southerly two and one half feet, thence easterly thirty-seven feet, thence northerly two and one half feet, thence westerly thirty-seven feet to the place of beginning, and took possession of the last described premises; and the said defendants have ever since illegally, forcibly, and unlawfully detained possession of the said last described premises from plaintiff, against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, to her great damage, to wit: the sum of one hundred dollars; and has committed waste and injury upon said premises, to the great damage of said plaintiff, to wit: in the sum of twenty-five dollars. Plaintiff alleges that the monthly value of the rents and profits of said last described premises is ten dollars.”
The response in the answer of defendant Carruthers to the foregoing allegations was as follows :
“ And the said defendant, further answering, says that he denies that on the 13th day of January, 1864, or any other day, this defendant, with great force and violence and with, a multitude of people, unlawfully and with force entered in said described premises, and with force and violence removed, put out, and expelled the said plaintiff from so much of said premises as is described in said complaint, and took forcible possession thereof, or that he has ever since illegally, forcibly, and unlawfully detained possession of the said last described premises from the plaintiff, against the form of the statute in such cases made and provided, to her great damage of one hundred dollars or any other sum, and defendant denies that the monthly value of the rent and profits of said last described premises is ten dollars.”
Defendants appealed.
The other facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
P. G. Buchan, for Appellants.

Opinion:
By the Court, Currey, C. J.:
This is an action of forcible entry and unlawful detainer. The complaint, which was duly verified, set forth by proper allegations the plaintiff's cause of action. The defendants answered separately. Upon the issue joined the parties proceeded to trial before the Court, and a finding and judgment were rendered in plaintiff's favor. The appeal is from the judgment, and all that is presented by the record for review arises upon the judgment roll alone. Most of the material allegations of the complaint stand confessed, because the answers fail to controvert them. (Fish v. Redington, ante, 185.) The only matters upon which issue was joined were decided by the Court in favor of the plaintiff against the defendants, and we are unable to discover from the record any ground that would justify a reversal of the judgment.
Judgment affirmed.