Case Name: JAMES R. BOLTON v. JAMES LANDERS. (No. 1.)
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1864
Citations: 27 Cal. 104
Docket Number: 
Parties: JAMES R. BOLTON v. JAMES LANDERS. (No. 1.)
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 27
Pages: 104–106

Head Matter:
JAMES R. BOLTON v. JAMES LANDERS. (No. 1.)
Abatement op Action.—The pendency of an action to quiet title to land, "will not abate a subsequent action between the same parties to recover possession of the same land, in which the same facts are litigated.
Denial op Landlord's Title by Tenant.—If a tenant denies his landlord's title# the denial makes him a trespasser, and he is not entitled to notice to quit before the commencement of an action by the landlord to recover possession of the premises.
Appeal from the District Court, Fourth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco.
The complaint was in the usual form in ejectment. The answer denied the allegations of the complaint, arid set up in abatement of the suit the pendency of an action brought by defendant and his wife against plaintiff. The suit pleaded in abatement was brought by Landers and wife against Bolton, to quiet title to the same premises in controversy here. It was stipulated in this case that .the statement in Landers and Wife v. Bolton, should be the statement in this case. The facts are found reported in the case of Landers and Wife v. Bolton, 26 Cal. 393.
Plaintiff recovered judgment, and defendant appealed.
Bennett & Love, for Appellant.
Daniel Rogers, and S. A. Sharp, for Respondent.

Opinion:
By the Court, Currey, J.
This action is brought to recover the lands described in the complaint in the case of Landers and Wife v. Bolton. It involves the same questions decided in that case, and they must be determined in the same way.
The plea in abatement of the pendency of the action in the case of Landers and Wife v. Bolton cannot defeat this action. Although the same questions are litigated in both, the relief sought is different.
The effect of the denial of plaintiff's title by defendant was to make him a trespasser, and he was not entitled to notice to quit. (Smith v. Ogg Shaw, 16 Cal. 88; Ingraham v. Baldwin, 5 Seld. 46, 47.)
Judgment affirmed.
Mr. Justice Sawyer expressed no opinion.