Natoma Water & Mining Co. v. Clarkin
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Sixth District. Clarkin and some of the defendants, in their answer aver, that plaintiffs are not a legal corporation ; that the land in suit is not necessary for the purposes of such corporation, if it exist; and, that defendant, Clarkin, has been in the actual possession of a portion of the land since 1850, and has not cut more timber than be had a right to cut, and admit that Leidesdorff had a Mexican grant, but deny that it embraces the land in suit, or…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Sixth District. Clarkin and some of the defendants, in their answer aver, that plaintiffs are not a legal corporation ; that the land in suit is not necessary for the purposes of such corporation, if it exist; and, that defendant, Clarkin, has been in the actual possession of a portion of the land since 1850, and has not cut more timber than be had a right to cut, and admit that Leidesdorff had a Mexican grant, but deny that it embraces the land in suit, or that Leidesdorff ever owned it. One of the defendants avers, that he is in possession of one hundred and sixty acres of…
1Opinion of the CourtField, C. J.
The complaint in this case seeks a recovery of certain premises, situated within Sacramento County, as in an ordinary action of ejectment; and also, an injunction to restrain the commission of *548trespass in the nature of waste, pending the action. This blending of an action at law, with a petition for ancillary relief to the equity side of the Court, is admissible under our system of practice. But to prevent confusion, and preserve the simplicity and directness requisite in the averments of a complaint in an action at law, the grounds of equity interposition should be stated subsequently to,…
2Cited by59 opinions
- Cowell v. Springs Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1879
- John V. Farwell Co. v. WolfWisconsin Supreme Court · 1897
- Hulbert v. California Etc. Cement Co.California Supreme Court · 1911
- City of Atlanta v. Blackman Health Resort Inc.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1922
- United Railroads v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
54 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.