Farris v. Merritt
California Supreme Court
Appeal from, a judgment of the Superior Court of the county of Yolo. The action was ejectment. One of the defendants was sued by a fictitious name, and the complaint was afterwards amended and the true name inserted. The defendants demurred separately to the amended complaint on the ground that the action was barred by the Statute of Limitations. The demurrers were sustained, and the plaintiffs declined to amend.
1Opinion of the CourtMcKee, J.
The court erred in sustaining the demurrers to the amended complaint filed on the 2d of April, 1882.
The demurrers admitted all the material allegations of the complaint. These showed that the plaintiffs were the owners in fee, and entitled to the possession of the demanded premises, and that the defendants were in possession of the same, and wrongfully withheld them from the plaintiffs. The cause of action was, in no respect, different from that stated in the first complaint, which had been filed on the 8th of August, 1881, except that it ran against a party named as a defendant, whose name…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- de McKinlay v. TuttleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
- Lawrence v. BallouCalifornia Supreme Court · 1875
- Baldwin v. MorganCalifornia Supreme Court · 1875
- Sacramento Sav. Bank v. SpencerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1879
3Cited by16 opinions
- Austin v. Massachusetts Bonding & InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
- Lockley v. Law Office of Cantrell, Green, Pekich, Cruz & McCortCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001
- Redington v. CornwellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Crouch v. H. L. Miller & Co.California Supreme Court · 1915
- Day v. Western Loan & Building Co.California Court of Appeal · 1940
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.