Story v. Story & Isham Commercial Co.

California Supreme Court

Story v. Story & Isham Commercial Co.

34 P. 675, 100 Cal. 41, 1893 Cal. LEXIS 745

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 10, 1893

DocketNo. 19077

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 34 P. 675 (Story v. Story & Isham Commercial Co.) 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

Story v. Story & Isham Commercial Co., 34 P. 675, 100 Cal. 41, 1893 Cal. LEXIS 745 (Cal. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

The Court.

This action is closely connected with the action of Story & Isham Commercial Company v. [42]*42Story et al., No. 19015, ante, p. 30, and was argued and submitted to the court at the same time. After the former action had been brought against the present plaintiff, she commenced the present action for the purpose, among others, of restraining the defendants from interfering with the property conveyed to her by the agreement, of which a copy is set forth in the opinion in that case, and to have the demands and dioses in action that had been assigned to her thereby sold or collected under the direction of the court, and applied in payment of the indebtedness of the corporation to herself. The two actions were pending in different departments of the Superior Court in the county of San Diego, and the action in which the present appellant was defendant was tried first, and judgment therein rendered against her December 10, 1891. Thereafter the corporation defendant filed a supplemental answer herein, pleading the judgment in the other action as a bar to the plaintiff’s right of recovery, and, upon the submission of the cause, December 23, 1891, the couit made its finding to that effect, and rendered judgment in favor of the defendants. From that judgment the plaintiff has appealed.

The court erred in holding that the judgment rendered in the other action was a bar to the plaintiff’s right of recovery for the moneys paid by her under the agreement. At the time that the court made its decision in the present case the other action -was still pending (sec. 1049, Code Civ. Proc.), and while that action was so pending the judgment rendered therein could not be a bar to the prosecution of the present action. (Naftzger v. Gregg, 99 Cal. 83; Estate of Blythe, 99 Cal. 472.) The -justice of this rule is apparent, in view of the fact that the judgment pleaded by the respondent, and determined by the court below to constitute a bar to the plaintiff’s cause of action, has been reversed in this court.

The judgment is reversed.

Rehearing denied.

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

The Court.

This action is closely connected with the action of Story & Isham Commercial Company v. [42]*42Story et al., No. 19015, ante, p. 30, and was argued and submitted to the court at the same time. After the former action had been brought against the present plaintiff, she commenced the present action for the purpose, among others, of restraining the defendants from interfering with the property conveyed to her by the agreement, of which a copy is set forth in the opinion in that case, and to have the demands and dioses in action that had been assigned to her thereby sold or collected under the direction of the court, and applied in payment of the indebtedness of the corporation to herself. The two actions were pending in different departments of the Superior Court in the county of San Diego, and the action in which the present appellant was defendant was tried first, and judgment therein rendered against her December 10, 1891. Thereafter the corporation defendant filed a supplemental answer herein, pleading the judgment in the other action as a bar to the plaintiff’s right of recovery, and, upon the submission of the cause, December 23, 1891, the couit made its finding to that effect, and rendered judgment in favor of the defendants. From that judgment the plaintiff has appealed.

The court erred in holding that the judgment rendered in the other action was a bar to the plaintiff’s right of recovery for the moneys paid by her under the agreement. At the time that the court made its decision in the present case the other action -was still pending (sec. 1049, Code Civ. Proc.), and while that action was so pending the judgment rendered therein could not be a bar to the prosecution of the present action. (Naftzger v. Gregg, 99 Cal. 83; Estate of Blythe, 99 Cal. 472.) The -justice of this rule is apparent, in view of the fact that the judgment pleaded by the respondent, and determined by the court below to constitute a bar to the plaintiff’s cause of action, has been reversed in this court.

The judgment is reversed.

Rehearing denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 P. 675, 100 Cal. 41, 1893 Cal. LEXIS 745, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/story-v-story-isham-commercial-co-cal-1893.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack