Rowe v. Bacigalluppi
Before: Cope
Synopsis
A misjoinder of parties plaintiff must be objected to by demurrer or answer, and cannot in the absence of such objection be made a ground for nonsuiting such of the plaintiffs as show themselves entitled to recover.
One tenant in common in a mining claim may, as against mere trespassers, recover in ejectment the entire claim.
In an action brought by several plaintiffs to recover a mining claim the answer, without alleging any misjoinder, denied plaintiffs’ title and asserted an independent and better title in defendants, and the proofs showed that some of plaintiffs had no interest, and that others of them had a title superior to that of defendants as tenants in common with persons not made parties : Held, that those of plaintiffs thus showing title should recover of defendants the entire premises.
Cope, J. delivered the opinion of the Court C. J. concurring.
This is an action to recover possession of a mining claim in the county of Calaveras. The appeal is from a judgment of nonsuit, and the only question is whether the nonsuit was properly granted. It was granted on the ground of a misjoinder of parties, there being as to some of the parties plaintiff no evidence of any interest in the subject matter of the suit.
By the forty-fifth section of the Practice Act objections to the misjoinder or nonjoinder of parties must be taken either by demurrer or by answer, and if not so taken are to be deemed waived. In this case the objection was not taken by demurrer or by the answer, and we are of opinion that the nonsuit ought not to have been granted except as to the parties who failed to establish an interest in the property. It is admitted that as to the plaintiff Rowe the evidence was sufficient, and under the statute no question of a misjoinder could arise at the trial preventing a recovery on his part. His position, according to the complaint, was that of a tenant in common with the other plaintiffs, and as against mere [636]trespassers, as the defendants would seem to be, there can be no doubt of his right to recover.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded for a new trial.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)