Root

Root v. Conlin

Caution
65 Cal. App. 241·223 P. 1023
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 11, 1924Civ. No. 4199.California3,068 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Works, J.

This is an action to quiet title to a group of mining claims and to enjoin defendants from removing certain improvements, fixtures, and machinery therefrom. Decree went for plaintiffs and two of the defendants appeal.

The first point made by appellants is that the complaint is insufficient in that it contains no allegation that respondents were entitled to the possession of the claims at the time of the commencement of the action. There is an averment in the pleading, “That the plaintiffs are now the owners of, and for a long time prior to the commencement of this action have been owners of and entitled to the possession of” the property in suit. This allegation is equivalent to an allegation that plaintiffs were entitled to possession when the suit was begun, as the right to the possession of property follows as a matter of law from the ownership of it (Jones v. Peck, 63 Cal. App. 397 [ 218 Pac. 1030 ]).

The controlling point on the appeal is that next presented by appellants. The trial court admitted in evidence a sheriff’s deed purporting to convey to one of respondents the mining claims in question in the suit, although there was no offer of any judgment or execution as a…

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.