gno.law

Crossman v. Davis

California Supreme Court · No. 12920 · 1889-07-04 · Published · 79 Cal. 603 · 21 P. 963 · 1889 Cal. LEXIS 781

EZRA A. CROSSMAN v. C. J. DAVIS

Area
civil
Panel
John D. Works (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 — Works

Works, J.

—Action for the partition of real estate. Findings and judgment for the defendant, that he was the owner of all the property in controversy.

The appeal is from the judgment, and comes to us on the judgment roll.

The only real question presented by the record is, whether or not a certain agreement between the grantors of the parties to this action, by which said parties compromised and dismissed an action pending between them, involving the title to this same property, was a bar to the plaintiff’s claim to an interest therein. The court below found that the dismissal of the action under a special agreement involving other disputed matters was sufficient to bar the plaintiff’s claim, and in this we think the court was right. (Merritt v. Campbell, 47 Cal. 542.)

The plaintiff had full knowledge of the agreement and dismissal, and must be held to have been bound thereby.

Judgment affirmed.

McFarland, J., Paterson, J., Thornton, J:, Sharp-stein, J., and Beatty, C. J., concurred.

Cites, in this corpus

Cited by