' The case of the Niagara Consolidated Gold Mining Company v. The Bunker Hill Consolidated Gold Mining Company, 59 Cal. 612, was an action to quiet title to certain mining ground in which the plaintiff recovered judgment. The case was taken to the Supreme Court on three bills of exceptions, and in the course of its opinion the court said:
As the court finds that the plaintiff was in possession of the premises at the time of the commencement of this action the decree must be affirmed, for his mere possession is sufficient to enable him to maintain an action to quiet title as against the trespasser, or one who establishes no title in himself. (McGovern v. Mowry , 91 Cal. 383; Kockemann v. Bickel , 92 Cal. 665; Brandt v. Wheaton , 52 Cal. 430, 433; McCormack v. Silsby , 82 Cal. 72; Orr v. Stewart , 67 Cal. 275, 277; Wilson v. Madison , 55 Cal. 5; Code Civ. Proc., subd. 11, sec. 1963; Civ. Code, sec. 1006; King v. Gotz , 70 Cal. 236, 240; Pierce v. Stuart , 45 Cal. 280; Niagara Con. G. M. Co. v. Bunker Hill etc. Co ., 59 Cal. 612; Pierce v. Felter , 53 Cal. 18; Pralus v. Pacific etc. M. Co ., 35 Cal. 30, 34.) JUDGES: In Bank. Harrison, J., being disqualified, did not participate in the decision.
(Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1963; Civ. Code, sec. 1006; King v. Gotz , 70 Cal. 240. See also Pierce v. Stuart , 45 Cal. 280; Niagara Cons. G. M. Co. v. Bunker Hill Cons. Mining Co ., 59 Cal. 612; Pierce v. Felter , 53 Cal. 18; Pralus v. Pacific G. & S. M. Co ., 35 Cal. 34; Smith v. Brannan , 13 Cal. 114; Crook v. Forsyth , 30 Cal. 662; Horn v. Jones , 28 Cal. 203.) JUDGES: Sharpstein, J. De Haven, J., and Harrison, J., concurred.
(Civ. Code, sec. 438, 442; Wilson v. Madison , 55 Cal. 8; Germania S. Soc'y v. Wagner , 61 Cal. 349; Miller v. Luco , 80 Cal. 261.) New parties cannot be introduced by cross-complaint. (Harrison v. McCormick , 69 Cal. 616; Niagara Mining Co. v. Bunker Hill Mining Co ., 59 Cal. 612; Shields v. Barrow, 17 How. 417; Story's Eq. Pl., sec. 389; Daniell's Chancery Practice, 1647.) The demurrer to the cross-complaint should have been sustained.
And the attempt to show that the land was in the possession of a third person, to say nothing of its inconsistency with his own claim, could not aid him. It could not avail him in any way, unless he could show some connection on his part with whatever right or title Luey may have had. (Niagara M. Co. v. Bunker Hill M. Co ., 59 Cal. 612; Wilson v. Madison , 55 Cal. 5; Funk v. Sterrett , 59 Cal. 613.) All of these cases were to quiet title to land.
" Carlton vs. Townsend, 28 Cal. 219-224. " Niagara M. Co. vs. Bunker Hill M. Co., 59 Cal. 612. " Foot vs. Murphy, 72 Cal. 104, [13 P. 163].