Summary
In Crossman v. Davis, 79 Cal. 603 [21 P. 963], it was said: "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.
Summary of this case from Patterson v. Spring Valley Water Co.Opinion
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the county of San Bernardino.
COUNSEL:
Crossman & Woodside, for Appellants.
Rowell & Rowell, and A. B. Hotchkiss, for Respondent.
The dismissal in the former suit was by agreement, and the same effect will be given it as is given a retraxit at common law. (Freeman on Judgments, sec. 262, and cases cited; Merritt v. Campbell , 47 Cal. 543; Phillpotts v. Blaisdel, 10 Nev. 19.)
JUDGES: In Bank. Works, J. McFarland, J., Paterson, J., Thornton, J., Sharpstein, J., and Beatty, C. J., concurred.
OPINION
WORKS, Judge
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.