Case Name: LAWRENCE and Others v. GETCHEL
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1884-08-26
Citations: 2 Cal. Unrep. 359
Docket Number: No. 9093
Parties: LAWRENCE and Others v. GETCHEL.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Unreported Cases
Volume: 2
Pages: 359–360

Head Matter:
LAWRENCE and Others v. GETCHEL.
No. 9093;
August 26, 1884.
4 Pac. 544.
Costs.—Where the Issue is Found Against the Plaintiffs they are not entitled to recover any costs or disbursements incurred in the action.
Injunction.—The Pleadings of a Party to Whom Belief is Granted must be Sufficient to warrant the relief. Where plaintiff, therefore, does not allege that defendant asserts any claim to his property, he is not entitled to a judgment restraining defendant from asserting such a claim.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Nevada County.
Cross & Simmons for appellants; W. A. Long and J. M. Walling for respondent.
Cited with approval in Dorris v. McManus, 4 Cal. App. 150, 87 Pac. 288, but held not to apply to a suit to quiet title in which the plaintiff cannot know the nature of the defendant’s claim until the defendant pleads it.

Opinion:
By the COURT.
The plaintiffs' complaint can only be construed as one to obtain an injunction restraining the defendant from the commission of the acts complained of. Upon the cause of action, and the only cause of action set forth in the complaint, the court below found against the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were not therefore entitled to recover of the defendant any costs or disbursements incurred in the action. Nor, under the pleadings, were the plaintiffs entitled to judgment restraining the defendant from asserting a claim to any part of the property described in the complaint; for the plaintiffs nowhere allege that the defendant asserts any such claim. It is a cardinal rule that the pleadings of a party to whom relief is granted must be sufficient to warrant the relief.
Cause remanded, with directions to the court below to modify the judgment in accordance with the views here expressed.
I concur in the judgment: McKee, J.