Durell v. Abbott

44 P. 647, 6 Wyo. 265, 1896 Wyo. LEXIS 11
CourtWyoming Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 3, 1896
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 44 P. 647 (Durell v. Abbott) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wyoming Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Durell v. Abbott, 44 P. 647, 6 Wyo. 265, 1896 Wyo. LEXIS 11 (Wyo. 1896).

Opinions

Conaway, Justice.

This is an action to quiet title brought by defendants in error as plaintiffs below to quiet title to realty of which they allege that they are in possession, and to which they claim title in fee. To this petition there was a demurrer on the ground that the allegation that plaintiff claims title in fee is not sufficient, but that the nature of the title should be .set up. The authorities cited by plaintiff in error are generally as to what evidence is necessary to prove title. The evidence need not and should not be pleaded. The petition is in a form which is well approved by the best authorities. The demurrer was properly overruled. Defendant defaulted in failing to plead further in the time given by the court for that purpose, which was twenty days from June 1, 1893. On the 7th day of October the cause was continued by consent of parties until the next term. Afterward, on the 11th day of November, and during the same term, judgment was taken on the default.

[268]*268Plaintiff in error claims that this was error, and asks this court to reverse the judgment. Tl^is question is raised for the first time in this court. Whatever relief the plaintiff in error is entitled to, if any, should be sought in the first instance in that court. The district court had unquestioned jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the suit to try and determine and render judgment in the case, and there was a general appearance by plaintiff in error by filing his demurrer and taking time to answer. It is insisted that this court should reverse the judgment on account of an alleged irregularity which has never been called to the attention of the trial court. We are of the opinion that this would violate well-established rules and precedents. See Bradley v. Syndicate Imp. Co., 13 Pac., 79 (supra).

Judgment affirmed.

(xroesbecK, C. J., and Potter, J., concur.

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

Related

Meyer v. Ellis
411 P.2d 338 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1966)
Hunziker v. Knowlton
322 P.2d 141 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1958)
See Ben Realty Co. v. Gothberg
109 P.2d 455 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1941)
Huber v. Delong
91 P.2d 53 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1939)
Pregal v. Stickney
243 P. 392 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1926)
Kraus v. Congdon
161 F. 18 (Ninth Circuit, 1908)
Lange v. Robinson
148 F. 799 (Ninth Circuit, 1906)
Gillis v. Downey
85 F. 483 (Eighth Circuit, 1898)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
44 P. 647, 6 Wyo. 265, 1896 Wyo. LEXIS 11, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/durell-v-abbott-wyo-1896.