Freeman v. Gray-Cowan, Inc.

California Supreme Court Sep 27, 1933 No. Docket No. L.A. 14116.Published

Before: Thompson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. On an appeal based solely on the judgment roll, the court presumes that evidence supporting findings outside the original pleadings was introduced without objection and that the parties tried the issue by consent.

Issues

Whether a judgment can be supported by findings that fall outside the scope of the original pleadings.
Whether an appellate court must presume that evidence supporting findings outside the pleadings was admitted without objection when the appeal is on the judgment roll alone.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“where the parties voluntarily submit and try an issue without any specific pleadings they may not thereafter complain that the findings and judgment were not within the issues framed by the pleadings.”

“Upon a direct appeal from the judgment upon the judgment roll alone, it will be assumed in support of the judgment that all objections to evidence in support of the findings were waived.”

THOMPSON, J.

This appeal is from a judgment in favor of plaintiff quieting his title to the easterly 10 feet of the southerly 98.25 feet of lot 1 of Grand View Boulevard tract as per map recorded in book 7, page 122 of maps, records of Los Angeles County, and decreeing that defendants have no right, title or interest therein, and restraining them from claiming any title thereto or interfering with plaintiff’s possession, use, enjoyment or occupation thereof and directing them to remove all obstructions placed thereon by them or at their direction.

The complaint alleged ownership by the plaintiff of the south 98.25 feet of lot 1 “ (except the Easterly 10' thereof) that the defendants were the owners of the easterly 10 feet thereof; that the plaintiff owned a right of way over the 10-foot strip which was the only means of access to the flats and garages maintained by plaintiff on the remainder of the south 98.25 feet of lot 1; and that the defendants now forbid the use of the right of way by plaintiff and Ms tenants and had placed an obstruction thereon and threatened to forcibly prevent the use thereof. The answer of- defendant George W. Cowan denied all the allegations of the complaint and denied that he had any interest in the 10-foot strip except as a stockholder and officer of Gray-Cowan, Inc., which corporation owned the 10-foot strip. The answer of Gray-Cowan, Inc., denied that plaintiff owned or was in possession of a right of way over the strip or that the same

[87]

was necessary as a means of ingress or egress to the other part of the lot as alleged in the complaint, thus admitting, by failure to deny, plaintiff’s ownership of the southerly 98.25 feet of lot 1 except the easterly 10 feet, its own corporate capacity, and its ownership of the easterly 10 feet of the southerly 98.25 feet of lot 1.

With the issues thus presented the court found that all the allegations of the complaint were true except the allegations of defendants’ ownership of the 10-foot strip; that George W. Cowan had no right, title or interest therein; and that, by reason of a sale under a deed of trust, plaintiff “became the owner in fee of the aforesaid ten-foot strip”. This appeal being on the judgment-roll alone, it must be assumed that these findings were supported by the evidence.

Freeman v. Gray-Cowan, Inc.

AI Brief

THOMPSON, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief