Crossman v. Davis

California Supreme Court

Crossman v. Davis

21 P. 963, 79 Cal. 603, 1889 Cal. LEXIS 781

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 4, 1889

DocketNo. 12920

StatusPublished

Cited by22 cases

This text of 21 P. 963 (Crossman v. Davis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Crossman v. Davis, 21 P. 963, 79 Cal. 603, 1889 Cal. LEXIS 781 (Cal. 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 P. 963, 79 Cal. 603, 1889 Cal. LEXIS 781, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crossman-v-davis-cal-1889.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack