Garrett v. Garrett

California Supreme Court

Garrett v. Garrett

172 P. 587, 178 Cal. 131, 1918 Cal. LEXIS 430

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedApril 15, 1918

DocketL. A. No. 4179. Department Two.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 172 P. 587 (Garrett v. Garrett) 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

Garrett v. Garrett, 172 P. 587, 178 Cal. 131, 1918 Cal. LEXIS 430 (Cal. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

WILBUR, J.

This is an appeal from an order denying defendant Garrett’s motion for a change of venue, based upon his residence in Sacramento County. It was denied because two other defendants resided in Los Angeles County. The suit is brought by plaintiff to secure support and maintenance from her husband, defendant Garrett. The complaint alleges that the defendant Garrett recorded a deed of certain real property to his codefendants, but that such deed was1 never delivered and that title did not pass. Plaintiff seeks to remove said cloud upon the record as ancillary to her action for support. Garrett’s codefendants answer and disclaim. The complaint shows that defendant Garrett has ample property to maintain the plaintiff other than that covered by the deed to his codefendants. Therefore plaintiff is not injured by the cloud upon the record title, and cannot sue to remove the same. As no cause of action is stated against the codefendants of Garrett, his motion for a change *132 of venue should have been granted. (Remington Sewing Machine Co. v. Cole, 62 Cal. 311; Sayward v. Houghton, 82 Cal. 628, [23 Pac. 120]; McKenzie v. Barling; 101 Cal. 459, 461, [36 Pac. 8].)

Order reversed.

Melvin, J., and Victor E. Shaw, J., pro tern., concurred.

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

WILBUR, J.

This is an appeal from an order denying defendant Garrett’s motion for a change of venue, based upon his residence in Sacramento County. It was denied because two other defendants resided in Los Angeles County. The suit is brought by plaintiff to secure support and maintenance from her husband, defendant Garrett. The complaint alleges that the defendant Garrett recorded a deed of certain real property to his codefendants, but that such deed was1 never delivered and that title did not pass. Plaintiff seeks to remove said cloud upon the record as ancillary to her action for support. Garrett’s codefendants answer and disclaim. The complaint shows that defendant Garrett has ample property to maintain the plaintiff other than that covered by the deed to his codefendants. Therefore plaintiff is not injured by the cloud upon the record title, and cannot sue to remove the same. As no cause of action is stated against the codefendants of Garrett, his motion for a change *132 of venue should have been granted. (Remington Sewing Machine Co. v. Cole, 62 Cal. 311; Sayward v. Houghton, 82 Cal. 628, [23 Pac. 120]; McKenzie v. Barling; 101 Cal. 459, 461, [36 Pac. 8].)

Order reversed.

Melvin, J., and Victor E. Shaw, J., pro tern., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 P. 587, 178 Cal. 131, 1918 Cal. LEXIS 430, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garrett-v-garrett-cal-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack