Leet v. Rider

California Supreme Court

Leet v. Rider

48 Cal. 623

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1874

DocketNo. 4,223

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 48 Cal. 623 (Leet v. Rider) 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

Leet v. Rider, 48 Cal. 623 (Cal. 1874).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court:

The action cannot be maintained upon the facts appearing in the findings. Eider, the sole defendant, did not claim for himself any interest or estate in the premises described in the complaint, and, therefore, should not have been made a party defendant in an action to quiet the alleged title of the plaintiff. Eider is a mere agent or servant of the City of Sacramento; his acts done in the scope of his authority are the acts of the city, and the action cannot be maintained against him.

Judgment affirmed.

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

By the Court:

The action cannot be maintained upon the facts appearing in the findings. Eider, the sole defendant, did not claim for himself any interest or estate in the premises described in the complaint, and, therefore, should not have been made a party defendant in an action to quiet the alleged title of the plaintiff. Eider is a mere agent or servant of the City of Sacramento; his acts done in the scope of his authority are the acts of the city, and the action cannot be maintained against him.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 Cal. 623, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leet-v-rider-cal-1874.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack