Opinion
Appeal from the District Court of the Fifteenth District, City and County of San Francisco.
The plaintiff commenced an action against several defendants to recover possession of a tract of coal-bearing land, and to procure an injunction. No damages were prayed for in the complaint, and none were stated or claimed in the summons. The cause was tried on the complaint and answer of two of the defendants, and judgment was rendered against all the defendants for twelve thousand five hundred dollars damages. From this judgment, Cline and Goldstine, who made no answer, brought this appeal.
COUNSEL:
The rendition of judgment against the defendants, who failed to answer, for damages, was error. (Practice Act, Secs. 39, 147; Stephens' Pleading, marginal page, 420; 1 Chitty's Pleadings, marginal page, 452; Van Santvoord's Pleading, 361; Raun v. Reynolds, 11 Cal. 19; Gage v. Rogers, 20 Cal. 91; Parrott v. Denn, 34 Cal. 79; Lamping & Co. v. Hyatt et al. 27 Cal. 102; Gautier v. English, 29 Cal. 166; Lattimer v. Ryan, 20 Cal. 628.)
Thomas A. Brown, for Appellants.
No brief for respondent on file.
JUDGES: Temple, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Mr. Justice Wallace, being disqualified, did not participate in the decision.
OPINION
TEMPLE, Judge
The complaint in this case states facts sufficient to sustain a judgment for damages, but the amount of damages is not stated in the complaint, nor is there a prayer for damages. No damages are stated or claimed in the summons. The defendants, who appeal, made default, and judgment was rendered against them for twelve thousand five hundred dollars damages. This was clearly erroneous, and that part of the judgment which awards damages against the appellants must be reversed and set aside; and it is ordered that the judgment be so modified.