Tompkins

Tompkins v. Sprout

Good Law
55 Cal. 31
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 1, 1880No. 6,706California1,936 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Ross, J.

The complaint in this case is a combination of several independent and distinct causes of action, and could not have been sustained had a demurrer been interposed. The main purpose of the action seems to have been to have declared null and void two certain deeds to a block of land situated in Santa Barbara; but, in addition to the averments respecting that cause of action, the complaint contains the usual allegations found in a complaint to quiet title, and also in one of ejectment. The prayer is, that the adverse claims of the defendant to the premises be determined by the Court; that it be adjudged that the defendant had no title to or interest in the block, and that he be forever debarred from asserting any claim thereto adverse to the plaintiff; that plaintiff recover possession of the premises from the defendant, and that the deeds be decreed to be null and void, and defendant be compelled to execute a conveyance of the premises to plaintiff. The complaint was not verified, and the answer was a general denial of all of the allegations of the complaint, except the allegation “ that the defendant claims *34 some estate or interest in said premises, in the complaint named,…

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.