Boles v. Cohen

15 Cal. 150
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1860
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 15 Cal. 150 (Boles v. Cohen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Boles v. Cohen, 15 Cal. 150 (Cal. 1860).

Opinion

Cope, J. delivered the opinion of the Court

Baldwin, J. concurring.

This is an action of ejectment. The case went off in the Court below, upon a demurrer fo the complaint. The complaint contains much superfluous matter, but it distinctly alleges prior possession in the plaintiffs, and an entry and ouster by the defendants; and that the defendants are still in possession of the property. There can be no doubt of the sufficiency of these allegations. (See Yount v. Howell, 14 Cal. 465; and Boles v. Weifenback, ante.)

[152]*152One point in the demurrer is, that the action is brought to recover two separate and distinct pieces or parcels of land. This objection is fully answered by the provisions of the sixty-fourth section of the Practice Act. It is expressly provided that such causes of action may be united in the same complaint, when they affect all the parties to the action, and do not require different places of trial. When thus united, they must be separately stated. None of these provisions are violated in the present case.

The superfluous matter in the complaint is inserted by itself, and entirely independent of the averments upon which we think the plaintiffs entitled to recover. It was set up to meet a defense which it was supposed would be made to the action ; and it may become very material as evidence in this case, but has no proper or legitimate connection with the complaint.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded for further proceedings.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Rogers v. Rogers
121 P.2d 819 (California Court of Appeal, 1942)
Cosme v. Márquez
49 P.R. 764 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1936)
Concepción Cosme v. Márquez
49 P.R. Dec. 783 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1936)
Whalen v. Smith
125 P. 904 (California Supreme Court, 1912)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
15 Cal. 150, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boles-v-cohen-cal-1860.