Imperial Farming Co. v. Van Horn

Good Law
107 Cal. App. 717·1930 Cal. App. LEXIS 320·290 P. 1077
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 18, 1930Docket Nos. 425, 426.California1,402 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Ames, J.

These appeals were taken from judgments entered in favor of the defendants. It was stipulated by counsel that they are companion cases and involve substantially the same situation and are governed by the same legal and equitable principles and that the decision of this court in the case of Imperial Farming Co. et al. v. Van Horn, No. 425, shall apply to and govern its companion case. In the ensuing opinion we shall refer to the .facts in that case without reference to its companion ease.

The action was brought for the purpose of quieting plaintiff’s title and right of possession to a three-fourths share of a crop of cotton, which was growing and maturing upon certain real property in Imperial County at the time of the institution and trial of the action and requiring a delivery thereof to plaintiff or a receiver to be appointed by the court. It appears from the findings that on or about the first day of February, 1917, one Sarah F. Donley, as plaintiff, commenced an action in the Superior Court of Imperial County against Erwin Ray Van Horn, the defendant herein. This action was in ejectment and at the time of its institution Sarah F. Donley, as plaintiff, filed a lis pendens in…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.