White

This is an action to quiet title in which there was a cross-complaint. It is stated in one of the briefs, however, that the pleading mentioned was interposed merely for the purpose of bringing in a new party, and, indeed, that alone could have been its purpose, for a cross-complaint is not ordinarily necessary in an action to quiet title, every defendant relying upon his own title being under his answer an actor whose endeavor is to establish his title (Wilson v. Madison, 55 Cal. 5 ; Bulwer Con. Min. Co. v. Standard Con. Min. Co., 83 Cal. 589 [23 Pac. 1102]; Booth v. Stow, 38 Cal. App. 191 [ 175 Pac. 705 ]), and the word ordinarily is used by us advisedly, for special circumstances may appear in such an action which will make a cross-pleading necessary (Winter v. McMillan, 87 Cal. 256 [ 22 Am. St. Rep. 243 , 25 Pac. 407 ]; Islais Water Co. v. Allen, 132 Cal. 432 [ 64 Pac. 713 ]), but no such circumstances occur in the present instance. We do not regard these remarks as .having any real effect upon the controversy before us, but they are interposed for the purpose of dismissing from consideration various fugitive statements in the briefs, and of clearly narrowing the points…