Carman v. Ross
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the county of Stanislaus. 0 The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court.
1Per curiam
— The demurrer to the complaint should have been sustained. This action is to recover possession of specific personal property, and it is averred in the complaint that the plaintiff was and is the owner and in the possession of the property sued for. This is an averment that the plaintiff was in the possession of the property sued for when this action was commenced. This being the case, the plaintiff had no cause -of action. We do not think that this is cured by any other averment in the complaint.
The answer was demurred to on the ground, among others, that it did not state facts sufficient…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Learned v. CastleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Fanta v. MaddexCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1926
- Lathrop v. Fargo-Moorhead Street Railway Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1912
- Coons v. ThompsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
- Ramacciotti v. GalianoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943