How have courts interpreted the meaning of the word 'lawful possession' in the context of a trespass claim?

We find the case of Fisch v. Nice (1909) 12 Cal.App. 60, 106 P. 598, instructive upon the question under consideration. In that case the issue before the court involved the interpretation of a statutory provision conferring a right of recovery for trespass upon the 'owner of or person who is in the lawful possession of land' trespassed upon by defendant's animal. (Id. at p. 62, 106 P. at p. 599.) The court held that the words 'lawful possession' as contained in the statute meant only "peaceable or quiet possession, contradistinguished from possession which is not merely constructively tortious, but actually so.' (Citation.)' (Ibid.) The court declared that plaintiff's burden under the statute was satisfied by a showing of actual possession. (Id. at p. 63, 106 P. 598.)