Banning v. Banning
California Supreme Court
Appeal from an interlocutory decree of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Vanclief, C.
Action for partition of land. The complaint is in the most general form, alleging that the parties own the land as tenants in common, and specifying the undivided portion to which each party is entitled. The answer denies that either of .the plaintiffs has any estate in the land, and alleges that the defendant is the sole and exclusive owner, and in the exclusive possession thereof.
In addition to her answer, the defendant filed what she denominated a cross-complaint, which in substance was only a repétition of her answer.
The plaintiffs unnecessarily answered this so-called…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- de Arnaz v. EscandonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
- Grant v. WhiteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
3Cited by14 opinions
- Hutchinson v. StoneSupreme Court of Florida · 1920
- Le Mesnager v. HamiltonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- First National Bank of Hailey v. GlennIdaho Supreme Court · 1904
- Myers v. EbyIdaho Supreme Court · 1920
- Ryan v. Bank of Italy National Trust & Savings Ass'nCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.