Opinion
Appeal from an order denying a new trial, in the Third District Court, City and County of San Francisco. McKee, J.
The former judgment, referred to in the opinion, was in the action of Meyer v. Tully, Durkin, and Pierson, the facts of which are stated in the report of the case in 46 Cal. page 70. After the filing of the remittitur, the case was tried on the merits, and resulted in a judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The complaint in this case alleges that, pending the appeal in that case, the defendant and his coplaintiff in the case of Tully and Durkin v. Meyer caused an execution to be issued in that case, and the property of plaintiff's testate sold under the same for the sum of $ 301. The judgment in this case was for that sum and interest.
COUNSEL:
J. C. Bates, for Appellant.
P. B. Ladd, for Respondent.
JUDGES: Department No. 2, Sharpstein, J. Myrick, J., and Thornton, P. J., concurred.
OPINION
SHARPSTEIN, Judge
The only question before us on this appeal is, whether the plaintiff's testate paid and satisfied a certain judgment which the appellants obtained against him before they caused his property to be levied upon and sold on execution issued upon it. That question was determined before this action was commenced, in an action in which said testate was plaintiff and the appellants defendants, in the Nineteenth District Court. The judgment rendered in that action must be held to be final and conclusive upon the points involved in it, whenever they arise in another action between the same parties.
Order denying a new trial affirmed.