Kelley

This appeal from a judgment on the pleadings, quieting respondent’s title to certain real property presents for decision the sole question: Does the answer state a defense? If it does not, the judgment is correct. (Ham-man v. Milne, 179 Cal. 634 [178 Pac. 523]; White v. Jacobs, 204 Cal. 334 [ 267 Pac. 1087 ].) A brief summary of the essential allegations of the complaint and answer suffices for a determination of this question. The sufficiency of the answer is to be measured in the light of the following rules: Every affirmative allegation of the answer must be deemed true and, if the answer is sufficient, as against a general demurrer, the judgment cannot stand. (Cuneo v. Lawson, 203 Cal. 190 [ 263 Pac. 530 ].) Consideration cannot be given to matters outside of the allegations of the answer, including its admissions; nor to formal defects in the answer, which can be reached only by a special demurrer. (Elmore v. Tingley, 78 Cal. App. 460 [ 248 Pac. 706 ].)

The complaint alleges that in a prior action to foreclose a mortgage upon the same property, wherein respondent was plaintiff and appellants were defendants, the Superior Court in and for the City and County of San Francisco,…