Doyle v. Franklin
California Supreme Court
Appeal from tbe District Court of tbe Twelfth District, City and County of San Francisco. Tbe facts are stated in, tbe opinion. Tbe Court below erred in refusing to allow plaintiffs to introduce testimony in support of tbe allegations of tbe complaint, and in granting defendants’ motion for judgment on tbe pleadings.
Read the full summary
Appeal from tbe District Court of tbe Twelfth District, City and County of San Francisco. Tbe facts are stated in, tbe opinion. Tbe Court below erred in refusing to allow plaintiffs to introduce testimony in support of tbe allegations of tbe complaint, and in granting defendants’ motion for judgment on tbe pleadings. Tbe Court was led into botb these errors by reason of a mistaken idea as to tbe theory of pleading, and by a misconception of Sees. 46 and 50 of tbe Practice Act. Sec. 46 of tbe Act provides that tbe answer of defendants shall contain * * *. Second, A statement of matter in…
1Opinion of the CourtTemple, J.
The complaint in this action avers that, on the 28th of April, 1865, plaintiffs were the owners and in the exclusive possession of the premises in controversy; that, on that day, the defendant (Franklin) commenced an action against certain parties to recover the property, but the plaintiffs in this action were not made defendants in that action, and were not served with summons, and had no notice in any way of the pending of the action until the issuance and service of a writ of possession under it; that the plaintiffs were ousted *109under that writ and Franklin put in possession, and is still…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Harrison v. McCormickCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Reay v. ButlerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Shain v. BelvinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Mauldin v. BallMontana Supreme Court · 1883
- Cornblith v. ValentineCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.