De Peralta v. Simon

California Supreme Court

De Peralta v. Simon

5 Cal. 313, 1855 Cal. LEXIS 123

DecidedJuly 1, 1855

StatusPublished

This text of 5 Cal. 313 (De Peralta v. Simon) 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

De Peralta v. Simon, 5 Cal. 313, 1855 Cal. LEXIS 123 (Cal. 1855).

Pincite

Opinion

Heydenfeldt, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

Murray, C. J., and Bryan, J., concurred.

The complainant states in her bill, that she joined her husband in a conveyance to Eugene G. de Gaston, and in another, by way of mortgage, to the defendants, Yates and Mathews.

There was then no reason for making these persons parties to the suit. Their presence was unnecessary to determine any of the rights which the complainant sought. Her object was to remove the cloud upon her property, created by her husband’s deed to Simon; and the latter, therefore, and those claiming under him. were alone necessary for the complete adjudication of the questions raised by the allegations of the bill.

The demurrer was properly sustained for au improper joinder of parties, and the judgment is affirmed.

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

Heydenfeldt, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

Murray, C. J., and Bryan, J., concurred.

The complainant states in her bill, that she joined her husband in a conveyance to Eugene G. de Gaston, and in another, by way of mortgage, to the defendants, Yates and Mathews.

There was then no reason for making these persons parties to the suit. Their presence was unnecessary to determine any of the rights which the complainant sought. Her object was to remove the cloud upon her property, created by her husband’s deed to Simon; and the latter, therefore, and those claiming under him. were alone necessary for the complete adjudication of the questions raised by the allegations of the bill.

The demurrer was properly sustained for au improper joinder of parties, and the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Cal. 313, 1855 Cal. LEXIS 123, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-peralta-v-simon-cal-1855.