Hannon v. Nuevo Land Co.
Before: Shaw
Synopsis
Improper Action — Joinder op Dependants — Cause op Action not Stated Against Either—Unauthorized Proceeding.—A complaint showing that the action is brought upon the theory that plaintiff has sustained damages from the wrongful acts of one or the other of two defendants, but not both of them, and, not knowing which is liable, impleads them together, and asks the court to fix the liability, without stating a cause of action against either, shows on its face a wholly unauthorized proceeding. It cannot be justified under section 379 or 389 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Id.—Counterpart of Bill of Interpleader not Permissible.—The law recognizes no procedure in the nature of a counterpart of the bill of interpleader.
Id.—Assumption of Distinct Causes of Action—Unnecessary Parties.—Assuming that the plaintiff, which derived title by deed from one defendant, has a cause of action upon its implied covenant against the encumbrance of a lease to the other, such other defendant is not a necessary party to such a cause of action. Assuming that, without authority from its grantor, the other defendant has trespassed upon its rights by removing crops to plaintiff’s damage, the grantor is not a necessary party to such a cause of action. The two actions, not only as to parties, but also as to subject matter, are entirely independent and distinct one from the other.
Id.—Change of Venue—General Bule as to Parties.—When an action is brought against two defendants, one of whom resides in the county where the action is brought, and the other is a nonresident, the change of venue depends upon the necessity of the parties. If the resident defendant is not a necessary party, the nonresident is entitled to the change, otherwise both defendants must join in the demands.
Id.—Test as to Necessary Parties must be Determined from Complaint.—The question as to who are necessary parties must be determined from the complaint alone unaided by affidavits.
Id.—Complaint Showing Both Parties Unnecessary—Belative Positions—Bule of Necessary Parties.—Where the complaint shows on its face that both defendants resident and nonresident are unnecessary parties, the defendants occupy the same relative position to each that they would if both were necessary parties, and hence their respective rights are to be determined by the rule which denies the right of the nonresident party to a change of venue when both defendants are necessary parties.
Id.—Bights of Besident Defendant.—Conceding that no cause of action is stated against either defendant, yet no good reason appears why the resident defendant should be deprived of the right to have the action disposed of as against it in the county wherein it is commenced, rather than to have it transferred to another county upon demand of another defendant against whom no cause of action is stated, and who likewise is an unnecessary party.
SHAW, J.
The defendant Nuevo Land Company appeals from an order of court denying its motion for a change of place of trial from Los Angeles county, wherein the action was commenced, to the county of Riverside.
The motion was made upon the ground that said defendant was a corporation having its principal place of business in the county of Riverside; that its codefendant Union Hardware and Metal Company was not a necessary or proper party in the action, which involves the determination of an interest or estate in real property located in Riverside county. It appears both from the complaint and affidavit filed in support of the motion that the Nuevo Land Company is a resident of Riverside county.
It is alleged in the complaint that the Union Hardware and Metal Company granted plaintiff an option to purchase certain lands in Riverside county; that within the time specified in the option plaintiff elected to purchase the lands, and that said defendant Union Hardware and Metal Company, for the agreed price, made, executed and delivered to him a
[702]
grant deed (which is fully set out in the complaint and is without limitations) whereby it conveyed the property to plaintiff; that prior to the execution and delivery of this grant deed plaintiff learned that defendant Nuevo Land Company had entered upon and was in possession of said lands, having seeded the same to grain, all of which was done prior to the giving of the option to purchase; that thereupon plaintiff made inquiry of one Scheller, an officer of the hardware company, as to whether the acts of the Nuevo Land Company were had and taken pursuant to a lease of the land, or by virtue of any authority from the grantor, and was informed by Scheller that no lease had been made to the Nuevo Land Company, and that the acts of the latter in occupying and cultivating the land were without knowledge on the part of the hardware company and wholly unauthorized by it; that relying upon such statements plaintiff completed the purchase; that the Nuevo Land Company, without plaintiff’s consent, harvested crops of the value of $4,000 and refused to account to plaintiff for the same or any part thereof, claiming that its acts in entering upon the land and the use thereof in growing and harvesting the crops was under and by virtue of authority so to do granted to it by said hardware company. It is then alleged that “by reason of the conflicting claims of the defendants, to wit, the claim by the Nuevo Land Company that it had a lease of said land from the Union Hardware and Metal Company, and the claim of said Union Hardware and Metal Company that it had no such lease, plaintiff is unable to determine the facts with respect thereto, and therefore joins said defendants in this action in order that the court may determine said matter and render such judgment as is meet and proper in the premises. ’ ’ The prayer is for judgment against both defendants in the sum of $4,000, the alleged valúe of the crops harvested. It does not appear that the hardware company was ever served with process or that it ever appeared in the action.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)