Legal Opinion

King v. Felton

California Supreme Court

Decided January 23, 1883PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the county of San Bernardino.

1Per curiam

The demurrer of the defendant Felton should have been sustained.

*67First—There was a misjoinder of parties defendant. From the case as presented by the complaint it is not apparent to us why either the Riverside Land and Irrigating Company or S. C. Evans was joined with the defendant Felton. There is no statement of fact showing that either of them was a necessary or proper party; the facts stated apply alone to Felton as a defendant. The demurrer was sustained as to the Riverside Land and Irrigating Company; it should have been sustained as to Evans.

Second—The complaint does not state facts…

2Cited by5 opinions

  1. Martin v. PorterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  2. Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. WagnerCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1908
  3. Adjustment Corp. v. MarcoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
  4. Ward v. HealyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  5. Farnsworth v. SutroCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API