Booth v. Stow

STURTEVANT, J.,

pro tem.

is an action to quiet title. The defendants had judgment in the trial court and the plaintiffs have appealed. The appellants have brought up the judgment-roll and a bill of exceptions. From the record before us, it appears that the dispute arose over the location of a boundary line; the plaintiffs filed a complaint in the ordinary form of an action to quiet title; the defendants appeared separately and filed separate answers and at the same time filed cross-complaints; the plaintiffs answered the cross-complaints, and, among other defenses, they pleaded the statute of limitations (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 338, subd. 4). The case was tried on the issues made by the above-mentioned pleadings. The trial court made findings which included a finding that the plaintiffs were estopped, and one that the defendants were not barred by the statute of limitations. The finding on estoppel is in the general words that the plaintiffs are estopped, but no facts are set forth, and it appears on the face of the finding that the same is a conclusion of law out of place. As the sole question that is in dispute is the location of the boundary line between the plaintiffs and the defendants, it is patent that a judgment for or against the plaintiffs is, conversely, a judgment against or for the defendants. In such a case a cross-complaint is unnecessary.

(Wilson

v.

Madison,

55 Cal. 5, 8;

Miller

v.

Loco,

80 Cal. 257, 261, [22 Pac. 195].) When such is the condition of the record, the court Avill treat a cross-complaint as an answer containing affirmative matter.

(Pauley

v.

Rogers,

121 Cal. 294, [53 Pac. 808];

Phillips

v.

Hagart,

113 Cal. 552, [54 Am. St. Rep. 369, 45 Pac. 843].) So treating the pleadings, a

[193]