Carson City daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1907-1930, 1916-12-01

and its appurtenances or any part
thereof as a homestead or that said
premises was or could be claimed as
a homestead: denies that said prem
Uses was ever used by the plaintiff AZ
a homestead"
The case was tried before the
court without a jury, and the court,
in its findings of fact. found that "at
the time the declaration Of homestead
was made and filed plaintiffs were
intention to use, and did not actually
use and occupy the premises describ-
ed in said declaration as a homestead
as required by section 2l42 OF the
Revised Laws Of Nevada, 1912"
Judgment was entered dismissing the
action, and for costs in favor of re-
spondents.
The application % this court to re-
verse the judgment Of the trial court
and to order that court to enter judg-
ment on the pleadings in favor of ap-
pellants is based upon the idea as set
forth in the following language quoted
from the brief of counsel for appel
lants: Z
1T is admitted in the p~leadings,
since it is not denied in the answer,
that respondents have no right, title,
interest, claim or demand in or to the
real property described in the COM
plant and that appellants are the
threof, seized in fee simple
absolute, in the possession and entitl-
ed to the immediate possession OF
said real property, and the responds
ents are clouding said real property
as alleged in the complaint" !
In other words. as we understand
the contention of counsel for appel
lants, we are asked to make the order
mentioned for the reason that the
answer of defendants failed to deny
that they had no right, title, interest,
claim or demand ih the property in
question:. r'1
In view of the fact, as appears from
the complaint of appellants, that re-
spondents are seeking to satisfy a
judgment in favor of one of the re-
spondents and against the appellants
it would indeed be a rather remark
able situation ifs respondents were
aiming to sell property which belongs
to respondents, CT either of them, in
stead of proper+~ OF appellants. We
a not imagine whose property re-
s%pondents would sell if not the prop
erty of appellants. Surely they would
not sell the property rights of re-
spondents. However, if respondents,
or either of them, had or CANNED an
interest in the property (not adverse
to appellants), we know of no reason
why they might not sell such interes,
in the proSerty as appellants might
have, whether it be an undivided one
half or an equity. As we read tine
complaint, respondents are seeking to
sell whatever interest appellants have
in the property, and we know OF nc
way to stop them, so long as the
Judgment stands upon which the ex-
ecution was issued.
Plaintiffs complaint can not be con-
strued as n to quiet title, either un:
der our statute or independent OF
state. Section 55l4, Revised Laws Of
Nevada, relative to actions to quiet
title, reads:
San action may be brought by any
person against another who claims
IN estate or interest i'm real property
adverse to him, for the purpose of de
termining such adverse claim"
Mr.. Pomeroy, in his work on Code
Remedies Sd ed.), at section 368
says.
"The nature OF the action to quie,
title is such that it is impossible to
lay down any but the mos, general
rule in relation to it's parties defend
ant. The very object of the proceed.
ing that there are other
claimants adverse to the plaintiff
setting up titles and interests in the
land or other subject-matter hostile
to his. OF course all these adverse
claimants are proper parties defend
ant, and if the decree is to accom-
plish its full effect of putting all liti.
CATION to rest, they are necessary de-
PENDANTS. Originally, and independ-
ent Of statute. this particular juris.
diction of equity was only invoked
when either many persons asserted
titles adverse to that of the plaintiff
or when one person repeatedly as
serted his single title by a succession
of legal actions, all of which had
failed, and in either case the object
of the suit was to settle the whole
controversy in one proceeding. The
action has, however, been greatly ex-
tended by statute. especially in the
western states, and is there an ordin-
airy means Of trying a disputed title
between two opposite claimants"
The court. in Low VS.. Staples,
New, on p. 213 in speaking of the ef-
feet of the statutory action to quiet
title, as the statute existed at that
time, said: s a
y y the old equity 1uris-
prudence of the court is extended, but
further than this we do not think i,
affected"
Thus it will be seen that there is
practically no difference in the ma
ture of the action under our statute
and as it exists independent~of stat
ute, and hence we should have very
little trouble in determining if the
complaint is GOOD. Whether we look
to our statute or the nature of the
action as it exists independent Of
statute to ascertain the essentials of
a complaint in an action to quiet
title, we find that n of the essen
tials of a good complaint in such an
action &c that # musf ShOw thai I%ne