Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

79 Cal. 603

Crossman v. Davis

California Supreme Court

Decided July 4, 1889

California Supreme Court · decided 1889-07-04

It appears from the findings of the court below that the prior action referred to in the opinion as having been compromised and dismissed was an action for partition of the same real estate brought by the grantor of the appellant against the grantors of the respondent; and that the compromise involved a release and discharge of all claims between the parties, and the settlement and dismissal of another action. The further facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Relies on Merritt v. Campbell

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1889-07-04

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently January 1950

14 state decisions

6018891890190019101920193019401950decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Works, J.

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

¶2The appeal is from the judgment, and comes to us on the judgment roll.

¶3The 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.)

¶4The plaintiff had full knowledge of the agreement and dismissal, and must be held to have been bound thereby.

¶5Judgment affirmed.

¶6McFarland, J., Paterson, J., Thornton, J:, Sharp-stein, J., and Beatty, C. J., concurred.

/79/cal/603 · .json · Public domain