Daily Los Angeles herald., 1878-04-24
Supreme courl.

Tho following decisions in Lol
Angeles cases have been rendered
by the Supreme Court, sitting al
Sacramento:
Sanchez VS. Temple - Judgmen
and order affirmed.
Beaudry vs.. Los Angeles-Judg-
ment affirmed. Wallace, G. j., did
not express an opinion in the case.
Cruz VS. Martinez-Ordered to be
placed upon the calendar for the
October term, 1878, for reargum emit.
johnson VS.. Heliman-Ordered
to be placed upon the calendar for
the October term, 1878, for reargu-
ment.
Wanzer VS.. Somers-We shall
assume that the acts of defendant
looking toward the acquisition of
title prior to June II, 1868, when
his application was filed in the Sur
veyor Generals office, are not to be
considered as in any way strength.
ening his claim.
But that application, however
defective, was made valid and eff
fectual by the curative statute of
March "a, 1870. The plaintiffs APP
plication was not filed until after
the last named date. When there
fore the defendant made application
there were not "two or more ap-
plicants for the purchase Of the
same land or conflicts between
claimants"
The defendant is therefore enti-
tied to purchase the land from the
State.
Judgment reversed and cause re.
manded with directions to the
Court below to enter Judgment for
defendant.
Robinson VS.. Gleeson-Amo ng
the matters of defense the answer
AYERS that after the purchase by
the defendant from the plaintiff of
the land In controversy and prior
to the commencement of the ac-
ton, he (the defendant) sold por-
tons of the land to Taylor. Nc.
Cracken, Cummins, Lanseur and
Mcdonald, ten acres to each, and
the purchasers entered into possess
ion thereof, OF which the plaintiff
had notice. The answer raises the
point that these persons were nee
essary parties to the action, with
out whose presence O complete de-
termination of the controversy
cannot be had. At the trial it was
admitted that all the aver ments of
the answeri in this particular were
true, with the additional fact that
the contracts OF sale from the de-
PENDANT to Taylor and Others were
not OF record at the time of the
commencement Of the action, and
that the plaintiff had no actual
notice thereof; but that Northam
and Martin, two Of the beneficial
rles of the trust, had such notice.
1t Is commended on behalf of the
plaintiff, that it was unnecessary
to make these persons parties de-
fendant, for the reason that their
contracts of purchase were not of
record at the beginning of the &C.
ton, and that the plaintiff had no
actual motto, thereof. But section
726 of the Code of Civil Procedure
applies Only to an action for parti-
ton. The present action is not |
within either of these categories,
and these sections do not apply to |
1t. The purchasers from the de-
PENDANT who had succeeded in his
interest in and to the several tracts !
sold to them respectively, and who
had entered into the possession OF
and erected Improvements thereon,
could not be deprived OF their in
terest or claim Of title, nor be dis
turbed in the possession, without
irst having had their day in court;
nor could there be complete de.
termination Of the controversy in
the absence of those parties. When
the facts were brought to the at.
tention of the plaintiff by the an.
swer, it was his duty to amend his
complaint and bring in these per.
sons, and If he neglected to do so,
the court of its own motion should
have ordered it to be done, at the
proper time, in order that the
whole controversy might be settled
in one action,
Judgment and order reversed and
Cause remaudal for n new trial