From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hartson v. Shanklin

Supreme Court of California
Jan 1, 1881
57 Cal. 558 (Cal. 1881)

Opinion

         Department Two

         Petition for a writ of mandamus.

         COUNSEL

          J. C. Bates, for Plaintiff.

         A. L. Hart, Attorney-General, for Defendant.


         OPINION

         The Court:

         This is an application for a writ of mandamus directing respondent to issue to petitioners a certificate for $ 51.10, under § 3571 of the Political Code. The matters set up in the answer are not denied, and are, in substance, that the State of California commenced an action against the then holder of the certificate of purchase No. 3394 (being the same mentioned in the petition), in which action judgment was rendered foreclosing the interest of the holder and annulling the certificate, and for $ 53.85, costs of said action; on which judgment execution was issued and returned unsatisfied; and thereupon the amount of § 51.10 of the moneys paid on said certificate was applied toward the payment of said judgment. The petitioners claim that the State had no interest in the lands described in the certificate, and therefore the whole amount paid should be returned. It is sufficient to say that the matters substantially involved in this proceeding were necessarily passed upon and adjudicated in the action referred to; petitioner's assignor had his day in that action; and by permitting his default therein to be entered and judgment rendered without interposing the matters involved herein as a defense, he and his assignees are estopped.

         Application denied.


Summaries of

Hartson v. Shanklin

Supreme Court of California
Jan 1, 1881
57 Cal. 558 (Cal. 1881)
Case details for

Hartson v. Shanklin

Case Details

Full title:C. HARTSON v. J. W. SHANKLIN

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Jan 1, 1881

Citations

57 Cal. 558 (Cal. 1881)

Citing Cases

Taylor v. Hawkinson

If it is a default judgment (it became final by default) then we apply the rule that a judgment by default is…