Russell v. Mallon

38 Cal. 259, 1869 Cal. LEXIS 145
California Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1869·Published·Cited by 4 cases

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

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

38 Cal. 259 (Russell v. Mallon) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wadley v. Oertel
78 S.E. 912 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1913)
Loftis v. Marshall
66 P. 571 (California Supreme Court, 1901)
Reay v. Butler
7 P. 669 (California Supreme Court, 1885)
Altschul v. Doyle
55 Cal. 633 (California Supreme Court, 1880)