Townsend v. Driver

Action to Quiet Title—Intervention—Title Claimed by Interveners—Effect of Order.—An action to quiet title is one for the recovery of real property; and an order of the superior court granting leave to interveners, who claim title against the plaintiff to intervene, determined that the interveners had an interest in the matter in litigation.

Id.—Bights of Interveners—Procedure and BEmedies of Defendants.—Under section 387 of the Code of Civil Procedure, such interveners were entitled as parties to avail themselves of all the procedure and remedies to which the defendants were entitled for the purpose of defeating the action or resisting the plaintiff’s claims.

Id.—Adverse Interest—Position of Interveners.—Where the interveners claimed the exclusive title and served their complaint in intervention upon all parties, their claim to the subject matter is an interest adverse both to the plaintiff and to defendants; but as against the plaintiff, they occupy under the law the position of plaintiffs in intervention uniting with defendants in the cause in resisting the demands of the plaintiff in the cause.

Id.—Inaction of Defaulting Defendants—Interveners not Prejudiced.—The inaction of the defendants in permitting their default does not preclude the interveners from their relief.

Id.—Eight of Plaintiff to Dismiss—Dismissal Against Interveners—Belief Against Defendants.—Where it appears that the only relief sought by the interveners was that plaintiff take nothing and that interveners recover costs, the plaintiff had the right completely to dismiss the action against all of the defendants, and the interveners; but where he did not elect to do so,- he had no right to dismiss the action as to the interveners only, and then proceed to take the relief sought against the other defendants, without disposing of the issues raised by the complaints in intervention, where the order allowing the intervention had not been set aside.

Ib.—Erroneous Befusal to Vacate Judgment.—Where the partial dismissal against the interveners was by action of the plaintiff only, and not by order of the court, the court erred in refusing an application of the interveners to set aside the judgment against the defendants, because notice of the hearing was not served upon the interveners nor waived by them.

Id.—Becital in Judgment—dismissal by Plaintiff—Order of Court not Presumed.—Where .the judgment entered recited that the action as to the interveners was dismissed by plaintiff, and does not purport to make any order or direction upon the part of the court, the doctrine of intendment in favor of the judgment cannot be carried to the extent of presuming that done by the court which it expressly declares to have been done by the plaintiff.