Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Allen v. Holt 2 Cal. Unrep. 485

← Cases

Allen v. Holt

2 Cal. Unrep. 485 Court Cal. Decision date 1885-06-23 Docket No. 8997 English

Delivered by *486 THORNTON, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 485
ALLEN v. HOLT and Others.
No. 8997;
June 23, 1885.
7 Pac. 421.

Headnote

Ejectment—Allegations of Ownership.—In an action of ejectment, a complaint that alleges ownership in fee in plaintiff, and an ouster by defendant on a day named, before commencement of the action, is sufficient., without further alleging that plaintiff was the owner in fee at the commencement of the action.
APPEAL from Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco.
Saffold & Menx for appellant; H. A. Powell and F. M. Husted for respondent.

Appeal from an order granting a new trial. The complaint in this case states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The point as to the averment of ownership is settled by the case of Salmon v. Symonds, 24 Cal. 264 . See, also, Kidder v. Stevens, 60 Cal. 414 ; Van Rensselaer v. Bonesteel, 24 Barb. (N. Y.) 370; Teetshorn v. Hull, 30 Wis. 167 . The court therefore erred in granting a new trial on the ground that the complaint was defective is not stating a cause of action. We see no ground on which the order can be sustained. The order'is reversed, and cause remanded, with directions to the court below to deny the motion for a new trial.

So ordered.

We concur: Sharpstein, J.; Myrick, J.

Cases cited