Porter v. Garrissino
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Nineteenth Judicial District, City and Couuty of San Francisco. Ejectment to recover a lot on Fifteenth street, between Valencia and Guererro streets, city and county of San Francisco. The defendant Garrissino was defaulted for failure to answer.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court, Nineteenth Judicial District, City and Couuty of San Francisco. Ejectment to recover a lot on Fifteenth street, between Valencia and Guererro streets, city and county of San Francisco. The defendant Garrissino was defaulted for failure to answer. McDermott intervened, and i_i his pleading, called an answer in the transcript, he denies the title of both the plaintiff and defendant to a part of the demanded premises, and avers that he is, and that he and his predecessors in interest have been, for moro than five years, in the adverse possession of such part of…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court:
The “matter in litigation” was, at the time of the intervention, the alleged right to the possession on the part of the plaintiff, and the ouster of plaintiff by the defendant.
*561The intervention contains no averment that the intervenor is in any way connected with the right to the possession asserted either by plaintiff or defendant, but, on the contrary, alleges that he has title paramount to both, and that he has been in the actual possession for more than five years. The intervenor, therefore, had no interest in the matter in litigation.
If the intervenor is the owner, and in…
2Cited by6 opinions
- B & B Sulphur Co. v. KelleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
- Barcroft v. LivacichCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
- Lindsay-Strathmore Irrigation District v. Wutchumna Water Co.California Court of Appeal · 1931
- McNamara v. Crystal Mining Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1900
- Reay v. ButlerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.