Ellis v. Rademacher

Citations

• 125 Cal. 556
• 58 P. 178

Syllabus

<p>Judgment Upon Admissions op Answer — Relief Must be Warranted by Complaint.—In case of a judgment rendered upon an answer admitting all of the averments of the complaint, and presenting no issue, whether it is in effect the same as a judgment hy default or not, the relief granted to the plaintiff cannot exceed that which the law awards as the legal conclusion from the facts alleged, or he inconsistent with the case made by the complaint.</p> <p>Id.—Complaint fob Specific Performance—Improper Relief.— Under a complaint for the specific performance of a contract to convey a half interest in a mine in consideration of the building of a mill hy plaintiff, and to work the mine upon equal shares, alleging interference by defendant with the performance of the contract by plaintiff, and his ejection of plaintiff from the mine, a judgment directing specific performance by the defendant, and not by the plaintiff, and enjoining the defendant from conveying any part of the mine to anyone other than plaintiff, and from working the mine, without reference to any performance of the contract hy the plaintiff, is improper, and grants relief inconsistent with the case made by the complaint.</p> <p>Id.—Judgment fob Co-Plaintiff—Insufficient Allegation.—a judgment in favor of a co-plaintiff is not authorized or sustained by an allegation that plaintiffs are informed and believe that such co-plaintiff has or claims to have some interest in the mining property.</p> <p>Id.—Indefinite Judgment—Refebence to Exhibit of Contbact.— A decree^ enforcing a contract should be definite as to the things to be performed by each of the parties, and as to the acts enjoined; and a decree enjoining a defendant from doing any act whatever which will in any way interfere with the rights of the plaintiff under an exhibit of the contract attached to the complaint, is too uncertain and indefinite to be enforced.</p>