King v. Felton
California Supreme Court
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
- Martin v. PorterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. WagnerCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1908
- Adjustment Corp. v. MarcoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
- Ward v. HealyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Farnsworth v. SutroCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902