
    [No. 9993.
    Department Two.
    September 22, 1885.]
    JOHN MURPHY, Respondent, v. J. D. SNYDER, Appellant.
    Fokcibke Detainee—Possession—Lease as Evidence.—In an action .foi- a&rgible detainer, a lease to the plaintiff under which he had formerly possession of the land in controversy, held, admissible in evidence for tl pose of showing the extent of such possession, and his right to possession aTH time of the alleged forcible detainer.
    Id. — Pbactice—Findings—Conclusion of Law.—A direction added by the court to its findings of fact, that judgment be entered in accordance with the findings in favor of the plaintiff for restitution of the premises, and for his costs and disbursements, states a conclusion of law.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Santa Barbara County, and from an order refusing a new trial.
    The plaintiff claimed the right of possession under the lease mentioned in the opinion; the defendant under a subsequent lease. The term of the plaintiff’s lease had expired at the time of the alleged unlawful entry of the defendant, but the lease contained a clause giving the plaintiff the privilege of retaining possession of the land on a certain condition which he claimed to have fulfilled. The remaining facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
    
      Jarret T. Richards, John T. Boyce, R. M. Dillard, and Chas. E. Huse, for Appellant.
    
      McNulta & Oglesby, for Respondent.
   Thornton, J.

Action for a forcible detainer. There was no error in admitting in evidence the lease to plaintiff. It was admissible in connection with plaintiff’s former possession to show the extent of such possession.

In an action for a forcible detainer the plaintiff is entitled to recover on showing the forcible detainer, and that he is entitled to the possession at the time of such forcible detainer. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1172.) The lease was admissible also to show that plaintiff was entitled to the possession..

The objections of plaintiff to certain questions asked by defendant of witness Mullaney were properly sustained, as was also theX objection to a question asked plaintiff. These questions related to matters which were entirely irrelevant to the issues to be tried.

There Jpas evidence tending to prove the allegations of the complajpt.

-urged that the court below, in giving its decision, stated d^Kclusion of law. The record shows that after finding the ^Pcs the court adds this direction: “ Let judgment be entered in accordance with the foregoing findings in favor of plaintiff for restitution of said premises, and for his costs and disbursements in this action.”

'jDhis, in our judgment, is in substance a conclusion of law stated by the court that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the possession of the premises sued for. It would be yielding too faryto mere form to hold that the above is not a conclusion of law.

Judgment- and- order affirmed.

Morrison, C. J., and Myrick, J., concurred.  