Russell v. Mallon

California Supreme Court

Russell v. Mallon

38 Cal. 259, 1869 Cal. LEXIS 145

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1869

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 38 Cal. 259 (Russell v. Mallon) 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

Russell v. Mallon, 38 Cal. 259, 1869 Cal. LEXIS 145 (Cal. 1869).

Pincite

Opinion

Rhodes, J., delivered the opinion of the Court:

The question here presented is the same as that which was discussed and passed upon in Valentine v. Mahoney [263]*263(37 Cal. R. 389), which is, whether a judgment in an action of ejectment, in which the landlord of the defendant defends the action for and in the name of his tenant, and puts his own title in issue, is admissible in evidence, by way of estoppel, in an action of ejectment brought by the same plaintiff against such landlord. Upon the authority of that case, we hold that the Court below correctly admitted the judgment in evidence. That judgment being decisive of the question of title, it becomes unnecessary to consider the question of admissibility or effect of the judgment in the action of Russell against Weeks to quiet the title to the premises.

Judgment affirmed.

Sawyer, C. J., expressed no opinion.

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

Rhodes, J., delivered the opinion of the Court:

The question here presented is the same as that which was discussed and passed upon in Valentine v. Mahoney [263]*263(37 Cal. R. 389), which is, whether a judgment in an action of ejectment, in which the landlord of the defendant defends the action for and in the name of his tenant, and puts his own title in issue, is admissible in evidence, by way of estoppel, in an action of ejectment brought by the same plaintiff against such landlord. Upon the authority of that case, we hold that the Court below correctly admitted the judgment in evidence. That judgment being decisive of the question of title, it becomes unnecessary to consider the question of admissibility or effect of the judgment in the action of Russell against Weeks to quiet the title to the premises.

Judgment affirmed.

Sawyer, C. J., expressed no opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 Cal. 259, 1869 Cal. LEXIS 145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/russell-v-mallon-cal-1869.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack