Pierce

Pierce v. Hilton

Good Law
102 Cal. 276·1894 Cal. LEXIS 634·36 P. 595
Supreme Court of CaliforniaApril 25, 1894No 19344California454 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Harrison, J.

Ejectment for a tract of land in Santa Barbara county, a portion of the Rancho Lomas de la Purificación. The plaintiff had judgment, and the defendant has appealed directly from the judgment without any bill of exceptions.

The defendant pleaded in his answer that the predecessor of the plaintiff had commenced an action against him to recover the same property on the 17th of June, 1887; that summons was issued in said action, and served upon him, and that, on the seventh day of July, 1887, he filed his answer therein denying every allegation in the complaint; that on the 23d of July, 1888, the attorney for the plaintiff in said action entered and signed a dismissal thereof upon the register of actions kept by the clerk, and that thereafter, October 3, 1891, the court, by its judgment, formally dismissed said action. To this defense the plaintiff demurred, and the court sustained the demurrer. The defendant now contends that this was error, for the reason that the judgment in the former action operated as a bar to the prosecution of the present action, and cites Merritt v. Campbell, 47 Cal. 542 , in support thereof, that case, however, the judgment was rendered upon .greement by…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.