Ryan v. Tomlinson

Citations

• 31 Cal. 11

Syllabus

<p>Case Affirmed.—Rieles v. Reed, 19 Cal. 551, as to jurisdiction of County Court to determine conflicting claim to town lots, as provided in the Act of 1860, affirmed.</p> <p>Proceeding to determine Right to Town Lots not Appellate.—The proceeding in a County Court to determine conflicting claims to town lots under the Act of 1860, (Laws I860, p. 6,) is original and not appellate, and the action is governed by the same rules applicable to actions commenced in a Court of record.</p> <p>Judgment without a Plaintiff Void.—When the plaintiff, in a suit in the County Court to determine conflicting claims to town lots under the Act of 1860, is permitted by the Court to withdraw as a party, and the suit is dismissed as to him, the suit is ended, and a subsequent judgment determining the rights of the defendants as between themselves, is void, and not admissible in evidence, even though the order of dismissal provides that the suit shall he continued for the purpose of determining the rights of the other parties.</p> <p>There must be a Plaintiff to an Action.'—The Court cannot proceed and determine a controversy between defendants to an action after there has ceased to he a plaintiff.</p> <p>Stipulation of an Attorney.—An attorney at law for one of the, parties in a proceeding in a County Court to determine conflicting claims to town lots, cannot, after the Board of Trustees of the town have awarded the lot to his client, pass the client’s right or title by a stipulation in the ease for the entry of a void judgment.</p>