McKenna v. Elliott & Horne Co.

California Court of Appeal Jun 18, 1953 No. Civ. 19356Published

Before: White

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the plaintiff's action to quiet title was barred by the doctrine of res judicata based on prior judgments, and that the trial court properly dismissed the action as sham and without merit. Furthermore, the court held that the various post-judgment orders challenged by the appellant were not appealable.

Issues

Whether the plaintiff's quiet title action was barred by the doctrine of res judicata due to prior judgments.
Whether the trial court properly dismissed the action as sham and without merit.
Whether the various post-judgment orders challenged by the appellant were appealable.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Appellant’s claims were adjudicated in these two actions, and her present suit, to be successful, must be based upon a title acquired subsequent to such adjudications.”

“It is also established that a trial court has inherent power to dismiss an action which is clearly shown to be sham and without merit.”

“None of the orders made by the trial court in denying the various motions made by appellant after judgment are appealable.”

[552]

WHITE, P. J.

Appellant, Catherine A. McKenna, brought an action to quiet title to real property consisting of two lots described as Lots 75 and 76 of Tract 2704 in the county of Los Angeles. Respondent, Frank R. Sipe, filed a demurrer and motion to dismiss the action. The demurrer was sustained with leave to amend. Upon the filing of a first amended complaint, respondent again demurred and moved to dismiss. The motion to dismiss, supported by affidavit, was upon the ground that the issues presented by the action were res judicata between the plaintiff and defendant Sipe, by reason of judgments entered in two previous actions in the superior court. The motion to dismiss was granted, and plaintiff appeals from the judgment of dismissal. Plaintiff has also appealed, quoting from her notice of appeal,

“And from the order of the court, denying the plaintiff’s motion to vacate and set aside the said order and judgment made herein on the 12th of March, 1952.

“And from that certain order of the Court, on the 20th day of March, 1952, and from the order thereon made denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike out defendant’s motion of defense of res adjudicata, and motion to dismiss, and demurrer, and to enter judgment for plaintiff on the pleadings.

“And from that order made on the 31st day of March, 1952, denying the plaintiff’s motion, to set aside and strike from the file the said order and judgment of Dismissal of the action as to Frank R. Sipe, and from the whole thereof.

“And from that Order of the Court, made on the 27th day of March, 1952, denying the Plaintiff’s Motion, to Dismiss, and the affidavit on Motion to dismiss, filed on the 27th of March, on the behalf of Frank R. Sipe, and the denial of the plaintiff’s motion to enter judgment on the pleadings under the provisions of sections 437, and sections 446 and 447, Code of Civil Procedure, and from all and each and every of one of the said orders, so made by the Court, on the 20th day, March, 1952, and denying the motions of this plaintiff Being To-Wit :

"1—Motion to vacate and set aside Minute Order, putting Demurrer off Calendar, and denying motion to restore the Demurrer to the Calendar, and that the Court rule on the Demurrer on the merits, and from the order denying the Motion to strike from the file, the Demurrer, and the Motion of Frank R. Sipe, to dismiss the action as to Frank R. Sipe; and the order denying the plaintiff’s Motion to enter judgment on the pleadings in favor of the Plaintiff.

McKenna v. Elliott & Horne Co.

AI Brief

WHITE, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief