Gardner v. Samuels
Before: Harrison
Synopsis
Pleading—Demurrer to Complaint — Misjoinder of Parties—Sufficiency of Form.—A demurrer to a complaint upon the ground of a misjoinder of parties which designates the defendants who are improperly joined with the demurring party, sufficiently calls the plaintiff’s attention to the objection to the complaint and is sufficient in form. It is not necessary to incorporate into the demurrer an argument in support thereof, or to state therein the reasons why the misjoinder is improper.
Id.—Proper Parties Defendant—Cause of Action against One.—If the relief sought by a plaintiff by reason of the cause of action as framed in his complaint, would render all of the persons named as defendants proper parties to entitle him to such relief, a defendant against whom a sufficient cause of action is stated, cannot demur for misjoinder of defendants because the complaint does not sufficiently state a cause of action against another defendant.
Id.—Action by Lessee to Enforce Lien for Improvements against Lessor—Purchaser of Land a Necessary Party.—In an action by a lessee of land against the lessor to have the value of certain improvements placed upon the land by the lessee declared to be a lien thereon, and to have the land sold for its payment, a subsequent purchaser of the land, who purchased it after the termination of the tenancy, is a necessary party defendant, and he cannot be said to be improperly joined as a defendant, even though the complaint does not sufficiently state a cause of action for affirmative relief against him.
Id.—No Lien for Improvements without Express Agreement.—In the absence of an express agreement to that effect, a tenant has no lien upon leased land for the value of improvements placed thereon, under an agreement that the landlord shall pay for the same, at the expiration of the term.
Landlord and Tenant—Lease—Personal Covenant of Lessor—Payment for Improvements—Purchaser after Breach not Liable.— A covenant in a lease of land by the terms of which the lessor agrees upon the expiration of the term to pay for any improvements which the lessee might put upon the land under a permission therefor in the lease, without any covenant by the lessee to make improvements, is a personal covenant upon the part of the lessor, and not one which can be enforced against one who purchases the land after the breach of such covenant.
Harrison, J. The plaintiff leased from the defendant, Samuels, November 18, 1886, a tract of land in Napa county for the term of three years from May 2, 1887, and entered into possession of said land at the commencement of the term, and at its expiration, May 2, 1890, surrendered the premises to the plaintiff. The lease contained the following agreement: “ It is further mutually covenanted and agreed by and between said parties that said party of the second part may at any time, prior to the going into effect of this lease, go upon [87]said premises to make such improvements as he shall deem necessary, and said party of the first part, for himself, his heirs, administrators, and assigns, agrees to pay unto said party of the second part, at the expiration of this lease, for any and all improvements placed upon said premises by said party of the second part, not to exceed the sum of fifteen hundred dollars,” with provision for the determination of the value by agreement or by arbitration. In pursuance of this agreement the plaintiff made certain improvements of a permanent nature upon the land, which, at the expiration of the term, were of the value of two thousand two hundred dollars. The defendant, Morris, became the owner of the land on the tenth day of November, 1891, and since that time has been the owner, and in possession thereof, and before he purchased the same had full notice that the plaintiff had made these improvements, and also of the agreement by Samuels to pay him therefor, and of his failure to make such payment. At the expiration of the term Samuels refused to agree with the plaintiff upon the value of the improvements or to pay him anything therefor, and in April, 1894, the plaintiff requested Samuels, and also the defendant, Morris, to submit the determination of their value to arbitration, as provided in the lease, and named an arbitrator therefor, but they each refused either to submit the same to arbitration or to pay for said improvements. Plaintiff thereupon brought the present action to recover from Samuels the sum of fifteen hundred dollars, and that it be decreed to be a lien upon the land so leased, and for a sale thereof in satisfaction of said lien. The defendants severally demurred to the complaint for want of facts to constitute a cause of action, and also for a misjoinder of parties defendant, each specifying in his demurrer that he was improperly joined with the other. The court sustained the demurrers, and from the judgment entered thereon the plaintiff has appealed.
1. The demurrer was sufficient in form. Each of the [88]
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)