Robinson v. Howard
PRESCOTT ROBINSON, Trustee of Anna D. Howard v. CHARLES G. HOWARD
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Solomon Heydenfeldt (author)
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion — Heydenfeldt
Heydenfeldt, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.
Murray, C. J. concurred.
There can be no doubt that the first judgment set up in the answer was a bar to this suit. A judgment upon demurrer is not always a bar to a subsequent action, but only when it determines the whole merit of the case.
Here the averment of the answer shows that the demurrer went to the validity of the contract which gave rise to the claim, and this averment is found to be true as alleged, by the Judge at nisi prius, upon inspecting the record of that case.
Judgment affirmed.
Cited by
- Keidatz v. Albany L. A. 22418 · 1952-10-31
- Eulenberg v. Torley's Inc. Civ. 2989 · 1943-01-14
- Andersen v. Charles Civ. No. 3502. · 1921-04-16
- Wiese v. San Francisco Musical Society No. 12470 · 1890-01-30
- City of Los Angeles v. Mellus No. 7,048 · 1881-07-01