McFarland v. Matthai (1908) · DecisionDepot

McFarland v. Matthai

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Court of Appeal Feb 22, 1908 No. Civ. No. 374.Published

Before: Hart

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action for ejectment and that the defendants' cross-complaint was properly dismissed because it did not relate to the property or transaction at issue in the main action.

Issues

Whether the complaint sufficiently alleged the essential elements of an action in ejectment.
Whether the defendants' cross-complaint was properly dismissed for failing to relate to the subject matter of the plaintiff's action.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The essential allegations necessary to an action in ejectment in form are the estate of plaintiff, possession by defendants at the commencement of the action and their wrongful withholding the same.”

“The affirmative relief sought by the purported cross-complaint, does not relate to or depend upon “the contract or transaction upon which the action is brought,” or does not affect “the property to which the action relates.””

Synopsis

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Louise Matthai, Rose Matthai, and Warner Temple, for Appellants.

HART, J.

Action in ejectment. The appeal is from the judgment and is brought up on the judgment-roll alone. •

The complaint is in the usual form in actions for the recovery of possession of real property. It alleges that the plaintiff for many years prior to the commencement of the action had been, and “he now is, the owner and entitled to the exclusive

[600]

possession” of the premises in dispute, and' that the “defendants have been and now are in possession of said premises,” and “have wrongfully and unlawfully withheld, and do now wrongfully and unlawfully withhold, the possession of said premises, and the whole thereof, from plaintiff. ’ ’

A general demurrer to the complaint was overruled by the court, and properly so. The essential allegations necessary to an action in ejectment in form are the estate of plaintiff, possession by defendants at the commencement of the action and their wrongful withholding the same.

(Haggin

Kelly,

136 Cal. 483, [69 Pac. 140] ;

Hihn Co.

Fleckner,

106 Cal. 97, [39 Pac. 214] ;

Hihn

Mangenberg,

89 Cal. 268, [26 Pac. 968]

; Rego

Van Pelt,

65 Cal. 254, [3 Pac. 867] ;

Payne

Treadwell,

16 Cal. 246.)

McFarland v. Matthai

AI Brief

Synopsis

HART, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief