Bell v. Staacke

[194]

HENSHAW, J.

This is an appeal by John S. Bell and his wife, Kate M. Bell, from an order made by the superior court of the county of Santa Barbara, directing the issuance of a writ of assistance to dispossess appellants of about twenty acres of land, upon which are a residence and outbuildings connected therewith. It is one phase of protracted litigation between the parties, the full history of which will be found in

Bell

v.

Staacke,

137 Cal. 307, [70 Pac. 171];

Bell

v.

Staacke,

141 Cal. 186, [74 Pac. 774];

Bell

v.

Staacke,

148 Cal. 404, [83 Pac. 245], and

Bell

v.

Staacke,

151 Cal. 544, [91 Pac. 322], Louis Jones was made a party defendant to the litigation. He was foreman in charge of the ten-thousand-acre ranch of which the twenty acres here in controversy is a part, and was called upon for an accounting of his stewardship. He answered, declaring the nature of his employment, that he had managed the ranch, made leases, collected rents, and expressed his willingness and desire to account. At the commencement of the first trial

(Bell

v.

Staacke,

141 Cal. 186, [74 Pac. 774]) plaintiff moved for a continuance on the ground that the defendant Louis Jones was absent and not represented. The defendants Staacke and Teresa Bell, as administratrix, requested that the ease be continued as to defendant Louis Jones and that the trial proceed as between the other parties. The court so ordered, and this was done. The first trial resulted in a judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the ten thousand acres, directing the defendants to convey the same to plaintiff’s grantees free from any claim or lien of the estate of Thomas Bell. A judgment in favor of the administratrix on the cross-complaint in the sum of $51,120.15 was given against Bell personally, but it was declared not to be a lien upon the realty. Staacke and the administratrix appealed from the order denying their motion for a new trial upon all issues except those relating to the indebtedness of John S. Bell to Thomas Bell, deceased; in other words, as to all issues excepting the finding that plaintiff John S. Bell was indebted to the estate of Thomas Bell in the sum of $51,120.15. On that appeal this court reversed the order denying a new trial except as to the issues relating to the indebtedness of John S. Bell to Thomas Bell