Hill v. Snidow

McCOMB, J.

Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment in favor of defendants in an action to recover monies allegedly due plaintiffs as the result of a transaction entered into between the parties relative to a 17-acre citrus grove which is the subject of litigation between the same parties in

Snidow

v.

Hill,

ante, p. 31 [222 P.2d 958]. There are also purported appeals from the order denying their motion for a new trial and from an order denying a motion for a jury trial.

Facts:

In June, 1945, Mr. Snidow and Mr. Hill entered into an agreement relative to the purchase and sale of a 17-

[38]

acre citrus grove owned by defendants. A dispute having arisen relative to the contract between the parties, Mr. Snidow and his wife on April 24, 1947, filed an action to quiet title to the property. In such action Mr. Hill and his wife were named as defendants. On the same date Mr. Hill and his wife filed an action in the superior court entitled, 1 ‘ Complaint for Reformation of Contract, Money Had and Received, and an Accounting,” wherein Mr. Snidow and his wife were named as defendants. This action was predicated upon the agreement of the parties relative to the citrus grove which was the subject of the quiet title action filed by the Snidows. Thereafter Mr. Hill and his wife dismissed the suit which they had filed on April 24, 1947. The Hills filed an answer and an amended and supplemental answer to the quiet title action instituted by Mr. and Mrs. Snidow. The case was tried, and judgment was entered in favor of plaintiffs Snidow and reversed on appeal. (See

Snidow

v.

Hill,

87 Cal.App.2d 803 [197 P.2d 801].)

On December 16, 1948, plaintiffs filed the present action in the superior court. Defendants as an affirmative defense to this action pleaded, ‘1 That there has heretofore been another action by and between the same parties arising out of the same transaction which said action is referred to in plaintiffs’ complaint in paragraph XIV thereof and that in said action the plaintiffs herein omit to set forth the facts in the complaint, which facts in truth and in fact arise out of the transaction set forth in the complaint referred to and said plaintiffs are barred from now alleging a grievance arising out of said transaction. ’ ’