Legal Opinion

Cohn v. Kelly

California Supreme Court

Decided April 15, 1901No. L.A. No. 785PublishedCited by 3 opinions

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. M. T. Allen, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw,j.

—This was an action to quiet title. Defendant answered, denying the title of plaintiff to the property in controversy, and then, “for a further and separate answer and defense to said cause of action set out in plaintiff’s complaint,” alleged fraud in the procurement of plaintiff’s deed. At the conclusion of the evidence offered hy plaintiff upon the trial, defendant moved for a nonsuit, urging, as he here urges, that his separate defense was in reality a cross-complaint; that plaintiff’s failure to answer it as a cross-complaint was equivalent to his admission that the matters set up were…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Shain v. BelvinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  2. Doyle v. FranklinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1870
  3. Brannan v. PatyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
  4. Carpenter v. HewelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
  5. Goldman v. BashoreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Estate of SchererCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
  2. Williams v. ParkerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1916
  3. Rogers v. BaileyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944

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

Powered by the Exa API