Dorris

Dorris v. McManus

Good Law
1906 Cal. App. LEXIS 2·4 Cal. App. 147·87 P. 287
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 20, 1906Crim. No. 212.California2,353 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Chipman, J.

Action to quiet title. Plaintiffs had judgment from which and from the order denying their motion for a new trial defendants Laura McManus and Martha, S. McConnell appeal.

There are numerous defendants, none of whom appeal, except the defendants Laura McManus, Martha McConnell and Charles Bohnert, the latter of whom appealed on separate transcript (No. 207, Sac. No. 1339). We affirmed the judgment and order in that appeal on May 15, 1906. (Dorris v. McManus, 3 Cal. App. 576 , [ 86 Pac. 909 ].) The present appeal is presented by different counsel who urge points not made in the Bohnert appeal and for this reason alone we again examine the case.

The complaint is unverified and contains the usual averments that defendants claim an estate or interest in the lands adverse to plaintiffs, and that such claim is without right. Plaintiffs further aver “that by means of the false representations and pretenses aforesaid of the said defendants, and each and every of them, the plaintiffs, and each of them, are greatly embarrassed in the free enjoyment, use and disposition of their said described lands,” and that plaintiffs’ interest in said lands is “greatly depreciated by reason of the…

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.