Carey v. Brown

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1881 No. No. 7,080Published

Before: Sharpstein

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that individual landowners with separate interests in land cannot maintain a representative action under the Code of Civil Procedure for quiet title, and that third parties cannot intervene to seek similar relief after a final judgment has been entered.

Issues

Whether a plaintiff may sue on behalf of other landowners with separate interests in land to quiet title under the Code of Civil Procedure.
Whether third parties may intervene to obtain a judgment in their favor after a final judgment has been entered in the original action.

Disposition. Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“After a trial had been had between the actual parties, and a final judgment entered in favor of one of them, it was Too late for other parties to intervene in the action.”

Synopsis

Complaint—Demurrer —Pleading—Parties—Action bt One in Behale op Numerous Parties.—If a plaintiff attempts to sue in behalf of others as well as himself, and does not allege the facts necessary to entitle them to participate in the action, his allegations in this behalf are redundant, and may on motion he stricken out, or their insufficiency may constitute a good ground of objection to any participation in the action by such third parties; but the complaint, if otherwise sufficient, is not open to demurrer on this account.

Id.—Parties—Intervention—Action to Quiet Title.—In an action to quiet title, the only question involved is one of title to the land claimed by the plaintiff and the defendants adversely; and the fact that the defendants claim an interest or estate in a larger tract, including the land claimed by the plaintiff, which, if valid, would be equally valid as to land claimed by many other persons, does not constitute a question of such common or general interest to many as will enable one to sue for the benefit of all.

Id.—Id.—Id.—The code permits one to sue or defend for the benefit of many persons, only in cases where they are so united in interest with the person who brings the action, or defends against it, as to make them necessary parties under the first clause of § 382, Code Civ. Proc.

Id.—Id.—Id.—Even where the complaint is sufficient to show the plaintiff is entitled to sue on behalf of others, and such others might intervene at some stage of the proceedings, it is too late for them to do so after final judgment in favor of the actual plaintiff.

Id.—Id.—Id.—Where the recovery is of something in which persons other than the plaintiff are interested with him, the case is different; and ig such case a Court of equity has the power to provide for a distribution of the property recovered among those who are entitled to share in it.

Construction of Findings—Sufficiency of Findings.—A finding that all the allegations of the complaint are true, and all the allegations of the answer untrue, is sufficient; nor can the objection be sustained—that it is contradictory—because some of the allegations of the complaint are repeated in the answer. The findings are upon the issues of fact, and must be limited to the conflicting allegations of the pleadings.

Patent—Mexican Grant.—The patentees of a Mexican grant can not be permitted while the patent stands, to aver that the complaint comprised other or different lands from those mentioned in the patent.

Apfeal—Stipulation—Supreme Court—Practice.—A stipulation that an appeal has been duly perfected is conclusive on this Court, and can not be avoided here on the ground that it was entered into under a mistake of fact.

Sharpstein, J.: The plaintiff alleges that he is the owner and in the possession of certain lots, pieces, and parcels of land, in the County of Yolo, which are described in the first paragraph of the complaint. In the next paragraph he states that the defendants claim to be the owners of an undivided interest of seven eighths of a tract comprising about thirty thousand acres, which includes the land described in the first paragraph, besides the lands of a large number of other persons who derive their titles from the same source that the plaintiff derives his. He states that he brings this action “in behalf of himself, and all other persons interested in common with plaintiff, in the subject-matter, and question hereinafter mentioned, who shall in due time come into Court and seek relief by and contribute to the expense of this action.” He prays, that the claims of the defendants to the lands owned by the plaintiff and others in whose behalf he sues, be determined and adjudged to be invalid.

The complaint was demurred to on several grounds which, [182]with one exception, are based upon the attempt of the plaintiff to sue on behalf of persons not named in the complaint. The exception is that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. In our opinion it does. If everything relating to. persons other than the plaintiff and defendants named in the complaint should be stricken out, enough would remain to constitute a cause of action as between the parties named. And it seems to us that if the plaintiff attempted to sue on behalf of others as well as on his own, and did not allege the facts necessary to entitle them to participate in the action, his allegations in that behalf were redundant, and might, on motion of the defendants, have been stricken out. Or the insufficiency of the allegations in that respect would constitute a good ground of objection to any participation in the action by persons not named in the pleadings.

The demurrer was overruled, the defendants filed an answer to the complaint, and a trial was had which resulted in a judgment in favor of the plaintiff named in the complaint against the defendants. Afterwards several persons presented petitions to the Court in which they stated in effect that they severally owned land in said thirty thousand acre tract, and that they derived their several titles from the same source as the plaintiff derived his, and that the defendants claimed adversely to them as well as to the plaintiff, and prayed that a decree similar to that entered in favor of the plaintiff might be entered in their favor. The Court thereupon ordered that the defendants show cause why said prayer should not be granted. In response to that order the defendants appeared before the Court and objected to any further proceedings under it upon several grounds, which it seems to us may be reduced to these two, viz.: That the allegations of the complaint were not sufficient to entitle the petitioners to become parties to the action; and that if they were the application came too late.

Carey v. Brown

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief