
    WILLIAM EWING, Respondent, v. JOHN ANDERSON, Appellant.
    No. 1400;
    December 1, 1868.
    Forcible Entry and Detainer. — On Appeal from a Judgment for plaintiff in a forcible entry and detainer case, the judgment should be affirmed if the evidence is considered to have been sufficient to sustain the court’s findings of peaceable possession by the plaintiff, forcible entry by the defendant during plaintiff’s temporary absence, breaking in by the defendant of the doors and windows of the building on the premises, expulsion of the plaintiff from the latter by the defendant, that defendant continued to withhold the premises from the plaintiff by means of threats, etc., and that the defendant’s entry was without color of right.
    APPEAL from County Court, Solano County.
    L. C. Hayes & Wm. Ewing for respondent; McKenna & Lamont for appellant.
   SAWYER, C. J.

This is an action under the forcible entry and detainer act of .1866. Plaintiff had judgment; and the only question is, whether the evidence is sufficient to justify the court in finding a forcible entry and detainer within the meaning of that act. The court found that plaintiff was in the peaceable possession of the premises; that while so in possession the defendant, in the absence of plaintiff, entered into possession with force, broke open the doors of the house situate thereon, and expelled the plaintiff therefrom; that he continued to withhold with threats; that his entry was without color of’right.

We think the evidence clearly sufficient to sustain all the findings necessary to support the judgment, and that they constitute a forcible entry and detainer under the act: Minturn v. Burr, 16 Cal. 109, and 20 Cal. 48; McEvoy v. Igo, 27 Cal. 375.

The judgment is affirmed, and remittitur directed to issue forthwith.

We concur: Sprague, J.; Rhodes, J.; Sanderson, J.; Crockett, J.  