71 P. 869 | Utah | 1903
Tbe complaint in this ease alleges: “(1) That on the 23d day of February, 1899, at Price, in tbe county of Carbon, State of Utah, the plaintiff was tbe owner and entitled to tbe possession of an undivided one-balf interest in tbe following described personal property, to-wit: One annex building and fixtures, one bogpen and ten bog^, one lumber stable; all of said property being upon tbe premises of Hotel Clarke, in Price town, Carbon county, TTtab. (2) That the personal property above described was on said date of tbe value of $300, and plaintiff’s undivided one-balf interest therein was of tbe value of $150. (3) That on. said 23d day of February, 1899, and while plaintiff was such owner as aforesaid, defendants wrongfully and unlawfully took possession thereof, and converted tbe same to their own use, to plaintiff’s damage in tbe sum of $150.” Tbe complaint contains' tbe usual prayer for judgment. Tbe defendants demurred to the complaint on tbe grounds: “(1) That there is a defect of parties plaintiff ... in this: that it does not appear from said complaint who was tbe owner of tbe half interest of tbe property mentioned therein of which plaintiff was not tbe owner; (2) that there is a defect of parties defendant in this: that it does not appear from said complaint who was tbe owner of the half interest of tbe property mentioned, therein of whichi plaintiff is not the owner;” and that said complaint does not contain facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Tbe court sustained tbe demurrer. Tbe plaintiff declined to amend, and tbe court • entered a judgment dismissing tbe action at her costs. Plaintiff appeal's to this court, and assigns as error the ruling of tbe court in dismissing tbe action.
There is no merit whatever in the first two' grounds alleged in the demurrer. Counsel for respondents, in their brief, concede the well-established rule that one joint or co-tenant may maintain an action for tbe conversion of
It is urged that the complaint does not state facts- sufficient to constitute a cause of action because it does not appear who the parties were who- owned the half interest in the prop*-erty not claimed by plaintiff, and, for aught that appears in the complaint;, it may have been the respondents- themselves* The complaint charges the defendants with the conversion of the property mentioned therein; in fact, it contains all the essential allegations to constitute a conversion; and
The judgment, is reversed, with, directions to the trial court to reinstate the case and overrule the demurrer, costs of appeal to be taxed against respondents.