Case Name: ALLEN v. HOLT and Others
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1885-06-23
Citations: 2 Cal. Unrep. 485
Docket Number: No. 8997
Parties: ALLEN v. HOLT and Others.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Unreported Cases
Volume: 2
Pages: 485–486

Head Matter:
ALLEN v. HOLT and Others.
No. 8997;
June 23, 1885.
7 Pac. 421.
Ejectment—Allegations of Ownership.—In an action of ejectment, a complaint that alleges ownership in fee in plaintiff, and an ouster by defendant on a day named, before commencement of the action, is sufficient., without further alleging that plaintiff was the owner in fee at the commencement of the action.
APPEAL from Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco.
Saffold & Menx for appellant; H. A. Powell and F. M. Husted for respondent.

Opinion:
THORNTON, J.
Appeal from an order granting a new trial. The complaint in this case states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The point as to the averment of ownership is settled by the case of Salmon v. Symonds, 24 Cal. 264. See, also, Kidder v. Stevens, 60 Cal. 414; Van Rensselaer v. Bonesteel, 24 Barb. (N. Y.) 370; Teetshorn v. Hull, 30 Wis. 167. The court therefore erred in granting a new trial on the ground that the complaint was defective is not stating a cause of action. We see no ground on which the order can be sustained. The order'is reversed, and cause remanded, with directions to the court below to deny the motion for a new trial.
So ordered.
We concur: Sharpstein, J.; Myrick, J.