Cole v. Segraves
Citations
- 88 Cal. 103
- 25 P. 1109
- 1891 Cal. LEXIS 652
Syllabus
<p>Ejectment—Pleading—Tax Title—General Allegations—Demur, rer. — A complaint in ejectment consisting of two counts, the first of which attempts to set up a tax title to the premises, and the second of which contains the usual general allegations, is not liable to a general demurrer.</p> <p>3d. —Surplusage—Validity oe Tax Title. —The first part of the complaint may be treated as surplusage, the second part being sufficient to show a cause of action, and the validity of the tax title need not be determined upon the general demurrer.</p> <p>Id. — Ouster—Clerical Error in Date — Construction of Pleading. — An allegation of ouster subsequent to the filing of the complaint will not justify an order sustaining a general demurrer, where it is evident on the face of the complaint that there is a clerical error of one year in the date of the ouster, and the complaint alleges that the defendant “ now withholds wrongfully the possession.” Controlling force should be given to the latter allegation upon a general demurrer.</p> <p>Id.—Location of Property — Jurisdiction — County Seat. — A complaint in ejectment is not objectionable on the ground of want of jurisdiction by reason of not alleging that the demanded premises are in the county, if it shows that they are situated in a town which is the county ■ seat.</p> <p>Id. —Judicial Notice. —The courts take judicial notice of what towns are established by law as the county seats of the respective counties of the state.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- the holding at issue “is a four-decade-old statutory precedent that created a workable rule . . . and thus it should be followed as a matter of stare decisis”
- the holding at issue “is a four-decade-old statutory precedent that created a workable rule . . . and thus it should be followed as a matter of stare decisis”
- “We do not reach the merits of the underlying case; instead, we answer the questions posed to us only in a general sense, not as applied to the specific facts and circumstances of this ongoing litigation in federal court.”
- “We do not reach the merits of the underlying case; instead, we answer the questions posed to us only in a general sense, not as applied to the specific facts and circumstances of this ongoing litigation in federal court.”
- guarantors may waive condition precedent requirement of confirmation statute
- guarantors may waive condition precedent requirement of confirmation statute
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.