Case ID: cal_5/html/0313-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Heydenfeldt, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

PAULA SEPULPEDA DE PERALTA, Appellant, v. CLAUDE SIMON, and others, Respondents.
    The plaintiff filed her bill to remove a cloud upon her title to land, created by her husband’s deed to one of the defendants ; and she joined in the bill three other defendants, one of whom had bought a portion of the land from t.be plaintiff and her husband, and two of whom held a mortgage upon the property executed by them. Held, that the latter were unnecessary parties, as the grantee in the deed, and those claiming under him, were the only parties necessary to the complete adjudication of the case.
    Appeal from the-District Court of the Third Judicial District, Santa Clara County.
    The opinion of the Court contains the facts.
    
      Wallace & Ryland, for Appellants.
    In support of the appeal, cited Story's Eq. Pl., § 72. Brinkerhoff v. Brown, 6 Johnson's Ch., 139. Mitf. Ch. Pl., 209. Ward v. The Duke of Northumberland, 2 Anst., 469. King v. Berry's Ex., 2 Gr. Ch., 52. Caldwell v. Jagart, 4 Peters, 190. Mechanics' Bank v. Seaton, 1 Pet., 306.
    
      Peter O. Minor and L. Archer for Respondent, cited no authorities.
   Heydenfeldt, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

Murray, C. J., and Bryan, J., concurred.

The complainant states in her bill, that she joined her husband in a conveyance to Eugene G. de Gaston, and in another, by way of mortgage, to the defendants, Yates and Mathews.

There was then no reason for making these persons parties to the suit. Their presence was unnecessary to determine any of the rights which the complainant sought. Her object was to remove the cloud upon her property, created by her husband’s deed to Simon; and the latter, therefore, and those claiming under him. were alone necessary for the complete adjudication of the questions raised by the allegations of the bill.

The demurrer was properly sustained for au improper joinder of parties, and the judgment is affirmed.