Muller v. Muller
| Decision Date | 14 August 1962 |
| Citation | 206 Cal.App.2d 731,23 Cal.Rptr. 900 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Lelah MULLER, Plaintiff, Cross-Defendant and Respondent, v. William MULLER, Defendant, Cross-Complainant Charles Reagh, Cross-Defendant and Charies Reagh, Cross-Defendant and Respondent. Civ. 20399. |
William Muller, appellant, in pro. per.
Charles Reagh, San Francisco, for respondents.
This is one more facet of the fantastically repetitious litigation arising from property aspects of the divorce of appellant and his former wife (see cases collected in Muller v. Hallenbeck, 200 A.C.A. 363, 365, f. n. 1, 19 Cal.Rptr. 251). The principal dispute of the parties in all cases prior to that just cited concerned lot 5 in a San Mateo County subdivision. This action, however, was commenced by the former wife to quiet title to lots 6 and 7 of the same subdivision. Muller disclaimed any interest in the property in favor of one Hallenbeck. The latter had himself brought in as a party and filed a cross-complaint seeking to quiet his (Hallenbeck's) title to lots 6 and 7, and also to lot 5. Mrs. Muller's action was dismissed for lack of prosecution and the case went to trial on Hallenbeck's cross-complaint. Mrs. Muller did not press her claim to lots 6 and 7 but did successfully assert her claim to lot 5, title to which was quieted in her. That judgment was affirmed (Muller v. Hallenbeck, supra).
Meanwhile, appellant William Muller, appearing in propria persona, had filed a corss-complaint against Mrs. Muller and her attorney 'for injunction and multiplicity of suits and damages; for injunction to enforce breach of contract or promise and damages; for abuse of process and damages.'
Upon sustaining of demurrer, appellant filed an amendment to his cross-complaint, incorporating the original document therein. Demurrer to the amended pleading was sustained without leave to amend. Muller appeals from the ensuing judgment of dismissal.
We find little aid in the briefs of appellant. Painstaking review of the 69 pages of clerk's transcript occupied by the original cross-complaint, and the 39 pages required for the amendment thereto, discloses no statement of a cause of action.
There is an element of wry humor, but no merit, in appellant's assertion that multiplicity of actions would be prevented by the injunction he seeks against prosecution of an action to quite title to property he disclaims; that action has been dismissed as to him and terminated by final judgment as to Hallenbeck's cross-complaint against Mrs. Muller.
The 'injunction to enforce...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Abbott Ford, Inc. v. Superior Court
...Cohen (1944) 66 Cal.App.2d 450, 458, 152 P.2d 485; Cain v. Burns (1955) 131 Cal.App.2d 439, 443, 280 P.2d 888; Muller v. Muller (1962) 206 Cal.App.2d 731, 733, 23 Cal.Rptr. 900), and thus the fact that a settlement takes the form of such a loan does not in itself render the settlement 27. T......
-
Golden v. Dungan
...fn. 8, 66 Cal.Rptr. 697, 438 P.2d 345); Kyne v. Eustice (1963) 215 Cal.App.2d 627, 631--634, 30 Cal.Rptr. 391; Muller v. Muller (1962) 206 Cal.App.2d 731, 733, 23 Cal.Rptr. 900; Fairfield v. Hamilton (1962) 206 Cal.App.2d 594, 603--604, 24 Cal.Rptr. 73; Tellefsen v. Key System Transit Lines......
-
Muller v. Muller
...entered upon the sustaining of a demurrer to his amended pleading without leave to amend was affirmed on appeal. (Muller v. Muller, 206 A.C.A. 825, 23 Cal.Rptr. 900.) He again made no contention therein that he had any right, title or interest in the lots in question but asserted that he ha......
-
Savage v. Seed
...and emphatically held that California has never adopted the common law doctrines of champerty and maintenance (Muller v. Muller (1962), 206 Cal.App.2d 731, 23 Cal.Rptr. 900; Cain v. Burns (1955), 131 Cal.App.2d 439, 280 P.2d 888; In re Cohen's Estate (1944), 66 Cal.App.2d 450, 152 P.2d 485)......