Robinson v. Howard
5 Cal. 428
Opinion
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Robinson v. Howard, 5 Cal. 428 (Cal. 1855).
5 Cal. 428 (Robinson v. Howard) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Keidatz v. Albany
249 P.2d 264 (California Supreme Court, 1952)
Eulenberg v. Torley's Inc.
133 P.2d 15 (California Court of Appeal, 1943)
Andersen v. Charles
198 P. 641 (California Court of Appeal, 1921)
People ex rel. Chilcoat v. Harrison
97 N.E. 1092 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1912)
Ayres v. Cone
138 F. 778 (Eighth Circuit, 1905)
Lockhart v. Leeds
76 P. 312 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1904)
Frye v. Miley
46 S.E. 135 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1903)
Board of County Commissioners v. Cross
73 P. 615 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1903)
Lindsley v. Union Silver Star Min. Co.
115 F. 46 (Ninth Circuit, 1902)
Wiese v. San Francisco Musical Society
23 P. 212 (California Supreme Court, 1890)
City of Los Angeles v. Mellus
58 Cal. 19 (California Supreme Court, 1881)
Gould v. Evansville & Crawfordsville R. Co.
91 U.S. 526 (Supreme Court, 1876)
People v. Stephens
51 How. Pr. 235 (New York Supreme Court, 1876)
Stowell v. Chamberlain
3 Thomp. & Cook 374 (New York Supreme Court, 1874)
Lockett v. Lindsay
1 Idaho 324 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1870)