Rosecrans v. Ellsworth
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Seventeenth Judicial District, County of Los Angeles. Ejectment to recover forty acres of land, part of the north-east one-fourth of section sixteen, township two south, range Ho. 13 west, San Bernardino meridian.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court, Seventeenth Judicial District, County of Los Angeles. Ejectment to recover forty acres of land, part of the north-east one-fourth of section sixteen, township two south, range Ho. 13 west, San Bernardino meridian. The answer of defendant alleged that Jose Rubio was residing upon and entitled to purchase the quarter-section from the State when the same came into market; and that on the 13th day of March, 1868, one C. H. Larrabee represented to Rubio that he was the agent of the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff could and would procure from the State of…
1Opinion of the Court
The Court erred in not striking out the petition of intervention.
The practice of intervention pertains only to causes in equity, and not to actions at law.
It is intended to supply the place of the ancient chancery practice, by means of which all persons interested in the subject-matter of the suit could be brought before the Court, and their interests adjudicated. *
Indeed, it is impossible to conceive a case where the action only involves the strict legal title to a chose in action, a chattel, or a tract of land, in which an intervention would be proper. The reason is obvious. If one who…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Horn v. Volcano Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1859
- Stich v. DickinsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
- Montgomery v. TuttCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
- Dutil v. PachecoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863
- Quiriaque v. DennisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
3Cited by1 opinion
- McNamara v. Crystal Mining Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1900