From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Swanson v. Siem

Supreme Court of California
Aug 31, 1936
7 Cal.2d 267 (Cal. 1936)

Opinion

Docket No. Sac. 5001.

August 31, 1936.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County granting a motion to set aside dismissal of an action. L.J. Maddux, Judge. Affirmed.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Hjelm Hjelm for Appellant.

William N. Graybiel for Respondent.


[1] In a prior action, plaintiff, surviving member of a partnership, sued defendant, widow of the deceased partner, for recovery of possession of partnership property. Plaintiff had judgment but was directed to account for money thus received. Thereafter, on December 7, 1932, defendant procured an order directed to plaintiff to show cause why an accounting of the partnership moneys had not been given. Subsequently, on July 8, 1933, plaintiff filed an action against defendant alleging that he rendered an account, and asking that his rights be declared. Defendant filed an answer demanding an accounting from plaintiff. After a number of continuances, plaintiff dismissed his action on April 4, 1935. Defendant moved to set aside the dismissal on the ground that the answer sought affirmative relief, and the court granted the motion. Plaintiff appealed from this order.

It is quite clear that the answer sought affirmative relief, and consequently the plaintiff had no authority to dismiss the action. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 581; Islais Salinas Water Co. v. Allen, 132 Cal. 432 [ 64 P. 713].)

The judgment is affirmed.

Curtis, J., Waste, C.J., Shenk, J., and Seawell, J., concurred.


Summaries of

Swanson v. Siem

Supreme Court of California
Aug 31, 1936
7 Cal.2d 267 (Cal. 1936)
Case details for

Swanson v. Siem

Case Details

Full title:ELMER SWANSON, Appellant, v. JESSICA SIEM, Executrix, etc., Respondent

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Aug 31, 1936

Citations

7 Cal.2d 267 (Cal. 1936)
60 P.2d 281

Citing Cases

Philpott v. Robinson

This contention has considerable merit. (§ 581, Code Civ. Proc.; Calhoma Oil Corp. v. Conniff, 207 Cal. 648 […

In re Mercantile Guaranty Co.

[2a] State claims that the demand in its complaint that the assets unclaimed by missing preferred…