From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lawrence v. Getchel

Supreme Court of California
Aug 26, 1884
2 Cal. Unrep. 359 (Cal. 1884)

Opinion

          In bank. Appeal from the superior court of Nevada county.

         COUNSEL

          [2 Cal.Unrep. 360] Cross & Simmons, for appellants.

         W. A. Long and J. M. Walling, for respondent.


          OPINION

         THE COURT.

          The plaintiffs’ complaint can only be construed as one to obtain an injunction restraining the defendant from the commission of the acts complained of. Upon the cause of action, and the only cause of action set forth in the complaint, the court below found against the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were not therefore entitled to recover of the defendant any costs or disbursements incurred in the action. Nor, under the pleadings, were the plaintiffs entitled to judgment restraining the defendant from asserting a claim to any part of the property described in the complaint; for the plaintiffs nowhere allege that the defendant asserts any such claim. It is a cardinal rule that the pleadings of a party to whom relief is granted must be sufficient to warrant the relief.

          Cause remanded, with directions to the court below to modify the judgment in accordance with the views here expressed.

          McKEE, J.

          I concur in the judgment.


Summaries of

Lawrence v. Getchel

Supreme Court of California
Aug 26, 1884
2 Cal. Unrep. 359 (Cal. 1884)
Case details for

Lawrence v. Getchel

Case Details

Full title:LAWRENCE and others v. GETCHEL.

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Aug 26, 1884

Citations

2 Cal. Unrep. 359 (Cal. 1884)
2 Cal. Unrep. 359

Citing Cases

Dorris v. McManus

The court also found that on the date of the transfer of said lands to plaintiffs, to wit, on June 29, 1900,…