Rehearing 27 Cal. 104 at 105.
Appeal from the District Court, Fourth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco.
The complaint was in the usual form in ejectment. The answer denied the allegations of the complaint, and set up in abatement of the suit the pendency of an action brought by defendant and his wife against plaintiff. The suit pleaded in abatement was brought by Landers and wife against Bolton, to quiet title to the same premises in controversy here. It was stipulated in this case that the statement in Landers v. Bolton should be the statement in this case. The facts are found reported in the case of Landers v. Bolton, 26 Cal. 393.
Plaintiff recovered judgment, and defendant appealed.
Bennett & Love, for Appellant.
Daniel Rogers and S. A. Sharp, for Respondent.
JUDGES: Currey, J. Mr. Justice Sawyer expressed no opinion.
By the Court, Shafter, J., on petition for rehearing:
Petition for rehearing. In the case of Landers v. Bolton (26 Cal. 393), which was a suit to quiet title, the defendant, Bolton, claimed in his answer that he was the owner of the premises, and set forth a deraignment of his title. A deed from French and Robinson to the defendant was the last link in the chain, and the making of the deed was not denied by the replication. It was stipulated in this case that all the " testimony given on the trial of Landers v. Bolton should be deemed as having been given in Bolton v. Landers; " and it was further stipulated that " all the papers on file in Landers v. Bolton were in evidence in this case." The complaint in Landers v. Bolton was a " paper," and so were the answer and replication; and all these papers were on " file" in that case, and both papers were in evidence in this case, according to the stipulation; and being in, they proved prima facie in this case what the two taken in connection proved conclusively in the other, to wit, the conveyance by French and Robinson to Bolton.
Petition for rehearing denied.