From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Daniels v. Landsdale

Supreme Court of California
Oct 1, 1869
38 Cal. 567 (Cal. 1869)

Opinion

         Appeal from the District Court of the Eighth District, Humboldt County.

         The defendant appealed.

         COUNSEL:

         Elisha Cook and T. H. Hittell, for Appellant.

          George Cadwallader, for Respondent.


         JUDGES: Sanderson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

         OPINION

          SANDERSON, Judge

         This is an action of ejectment. The defendant admits, in his answer, that he is in possession, but denies that his possession is unlawful or wrongful. He does not deny the plaintiff's title, but alleges that he holds the legal title in trust for him, and asks that such be the judgment of the Court, and that the plaintiff be made to convey it to him. To this equitable defense the plaintiff demurred. The Court below sustained the demurrer, and ordered what it termed the cross-complaint to be dismissed. No further trial was had and no further order or judgment made, except an order staying proceedings for fifteen days, to enable defendant to perfect an appeal to this Court. Thus it appears that there has been no judgment in the Court below, except upon the demurrer to the answer. No appeal lies from such a judgment. (Pr. Act, Sec. 336; Moulton v. Ellmaker, 30 Cal. 527.)

         Appeal dismissed.


Summaries of

Daniels v. Landsdale

Supreme Court of California
Oct 1, 1869
38 Cal. 567 (Cal. 1869)
Case details for

Daniels v. Landsdale

Case Details

Full title:H. S. DANIELS, Respondent, v. F. T. LANDSDALE, Appellant

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Oct 1, 1869

Citations

38 Cal. 567 (Cal. 1869)

Citing Cases

Rickert v. Zoeger

An order sustaining or overruling a demurrer is not an appealable order. (Moraga v. Emeric, 4 Cal. 308;…

Miller v. Chrisman

(Castle v. Womble, 19 L.D. 455; Tam v. Story, 24 L.D. 442; Book v. Justice Min. Co., 58 Fed. 120-125; Lindley…