Carey v. Brown

Sharpstein, J., delivered the opinion of the Court:

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 this 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 30,000 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 plain[25]tiff and others in whose behalf he sues to be determined and adjudged to be invalid.

The complaint was demurred to on several grounds, which, 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 30,000-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.