Dubbers v. Goux

51 Cal. 153
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1875
DocketNo. 4830
StatusPublished
Cited by27 cases

This text of 51 Cal. 153 (Dubbers v. Goux) 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
Dubbers v. Goux, 51 Cal. 153 (Cal. 1875).

Opinion

By the Court:

The court erred in permitting Mrs. Dubbers to be substituted for her husband as plaintiff. It is not pretended that she had succeeded to any interest held by her husband pending the action, nor that she had any joint interest with him in the subject-matter. On the contrary she was substituted as plaintiff on the theory that she was the only-party in interest at the commencement of the action, and had ever since continued to be so. She was permitted to [155]*155become the sole plaintiff, not to prosecute the same cause of action stated in the complaint, on the ground that she had succeeded to it, but another and distinct cause of action in her separate right. In effect, it was permitting her to prosecute a new suit, for another cause of action, by merely substituting her as sole plaintiff in the former action. It is scarcely necessary to say that section four-hundred and seventy-three of the Code of Civil Procedure affords no warrant for such a proceeding.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

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

Related

Phoenix of Hartford Insurance v. Colony Kitchens
57 Cal. App. 3d 140 (California Court of Appeal, 1976)
Robinson v. Smith
211 Cal. App. 2d 473 (California Court of Appeal, 1962)
Vick v. Grasser
338 P.2d 223 (California Court of Appeal, 1959)
Chatten v. Martell
333 P.2d 364 (California Court of Appeal, 1958)
Klopstock v. Superior Court
108 P.2d 906 (California Supreme Court, 1941)
Alvez v. Toprahanian
102 P.2d 566 (California Court of Appeal, 1940)
Ramón Morán & Co. v. District Court of San Juan
55 P.R. 618 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1939)
Ramón Morán & Co. v. Corte de Distrito de San Juan
55 P.R. Dec. 637 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1939)
Vere de Garcés v. District Court of San Juan
54 P.R. 248 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1939)
Vere de Garcés v. Corte de Distrito de San Juan
54 P.R. Dec. 262 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1939)
González v. White Star Bus Line, Inc.
53 P.R. 328 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1938)
Anderson v. Star-Bair Oil Co.
243 P. 394 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1926)
Cox v. San Joaquin Light & Power Co.
166 P.2d 578 (California Court of Appeal, 1917)
Altpeter v. Postal Telegraph-Cable Co.
148 P. 241 (California Court of Appeal, 1915)
In re Nagao
4 Alaska 678 (D. Alaska, 1913)
Reardon v. Balaklala Corsol. Copper Co.
193 F. 189 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California, 1912)
Merced Bank v. Price
98 P. 383 (California Court of Appeal, 1908)
Sears v. Dunbar
91 P. 145 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1907)
Hackett v. Van Frank
96 S.W. 247 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1906)
Franklin v. Conrad-Stanford Co.
137 F. 737 (Eighth Circuit, 1905)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
51 Cal. 153, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dubbers-v-goux-cal-1875.