Reay

Reay v. Butler

Good Law
1885 Cal. LEXIS 852·2 Cal. Unrep. 501·7 P. 669
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 30, 1885No. 8937California2,064 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

McKee, J.

From a final judgment entered on the 31st of December, 1879, and from an order made and entered on the 28th of December, 1880, denying a motion to vacate and set aside said judgment, the appeal in this ease has been taken. The judgment was rendered in a proceeding of intervention filed in an action of ejectment, brought by J. W. Eeay against John Butler and P. H. .Owens, defendants, to recover possession of a tract of land “situate in the city and county of San Francisco, described as follows, viz.: Commencing at a point 8.04 shains south of the quarter section post in the center of section 7, township 2 S., range 5 W.; thence north 22.54 chains; thence east 26.80 chains-; thence running north 80% degs., east 3.08 chains; thence south 24.85 chains; -thence west 29.44 chains, to the place of beginning containing 54.30 acres, more or less, being the land immediately west of what is known as the ‘Dana Tract,’ and what was formerly the Sans Souci rancho, and located near the Lone Mountain cemetery, and adjoining Kilian’s -and Culver’s land.”

The .complaint was filed on the 20th of February, 1866. On the 2d of March, 1866, the defendants appeared, by J. P. Treadwell, their attorney,…

Concurring Opinion

Rossmckinstry, J.

We concur in the judgment, and in what is said by Mr. Justice McKee down to the words “moreover, the intervener admitted,” etc. We also agree that the facts stated in the complaint of Tread-well are insufficient to show a cause of intervention on his part in the action of ejectment.

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.