Ennis-Brown Co. v. Central Pac. Ry. Co.

Good Law
228 F. 46·1915 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 964
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaDecember 1, 1915Nos. 88-95, 101-103, 126-130California3,297 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Fleet, J.

This is one of several actions (the numbers of which are above shown) of a precisely similar character, commenced at the same time against these defendants, affecting the title to contiguous portions of the river front in the city of Sacramento. Excepting only as to the name of the plaintiff and the particular parcel of land involved, the bills are in all respects uniform in their aver-ments, and a statement of the facts set forth in the instant bill will serve for all. In form the action is one to quiet title, and, omitting the jurisdictional averments and description of property, the material facts set up in the amended bill are in substance these;

That the complainant “is and at all the times herein mentioned was the owner in fee simple” of the property described, and that the defendants and each of them claim an estate or interest in such property adverse to the plaintiff, which claim is without right, and defendants have not, nor has either of them, any estate, right, title, or interest in or to the property or any portion thereof; that the defendants are, and each of them is, engaged in the general business of railroad corporations as common carriers of passengers and…

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.