Neale v. Morrow

California Supreme Court Aug 6, 1912 No. S.F. No. 5892.Published

Before: Angellotti

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a prior appellate judgment reversing a trial court's order sustaining a demurrer constitutes res adjudicata regarding the sufficiency of the complaint, precluding the trial court from reconsidering the issue upon remand.

Issues

Whether a prior appellate decision reversing a judgment based on a demurrer constitutes res adjudicata as to the sufficiency of the complaint.
Whether a trial court may entertain an objection to the sufficiency of a complaint after an appellate court has already directed the demurrer to be overruled.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We see no escape from the conclusion that the sufficiency of this complaint against any objection that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, in whatever form such objections may be made, is res adjudicata”

“The judgment of this court reversing the judgment of the lower court, with directions to the lower court to overrule the demurrer, was necessarily an adjudication that the demurrer was not well taken”

Synopsis

Appeal — Judgment Entered on Demurrer Specifying Several Grounds—Reversal of Judgment-v-Res Adjudioata as to Sufficiency of Complaint—Where a demurrer interposed to a complaint on several specified grounds is sustained hy the trial court, an appeal from the judgment entered thereon presents for review the sufficiency of the complaint as against all of the grounds specified in the demurrer, and the judgment of the appellate court reversing the judgment is res adjudicata as to the sufficiency of the complaint as against all of such grounds, notwithstanding the court, in its opinion on such appeal, confined its discussion to one of the grounds of demurrer.

Id.—Objection That Complaint Fails to State Facts Constituting Cause op Action.—Where one of the grounds specified in such demurrer was the failure of the complaint to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, the trial court, after the reversal of the judgment, was without power to further consider such objection, for the reason that the appellate court had rendered an adjudication thereon that forever concludes the matter.

ANGELLOTTI, J.

This is an appeal by plaintiff from a judgment given in favor of defendant in an action upon a promissory note. The judgment was based upon an order of the superior court, made September 6, 1910, sustaining an objection interposed by defendant at the time the action came on for trial that the supplemental and amended complaint of the plaintiff on file in said action does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

The supplemental and amended complaint was filed September 18, 1903. A demurrer was interposed thereto on November 9, 1903, the grounds thereof being (a), that the same “does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this defendant” (b and e), that the cause of action set forth is barred by the provisions of section 337 and 342 of the Code of Civil Procedure (d), that said complaint is uncertain in a - certain respect, specifying it. On February 23, 1904, the superior court made an order “that said demurrer

[447]

be and the same is hereby sustained with leave to the plaintiff to amend his said amended and supplemental complaint within ten (10) days.” Plaintiff failed to amend, and judgment was thereupon given in favor of defendant. From this judgment an appeal was taken to this court. The appeal was decided by this court on February 2, 1907. The judgment given herein was as follows: “The judgment is reversed, with directions to the lower court to overrule the demurrer and allow the defendant to answer. ’ ’ The only question discussed by the court in its opinion was that presented by the objection that the alleged cause of action was barred by the statute of limitations. (See

Neale

Morrow,

150 Cal. 414, [88 Pac. 815].) On the going down of the

remittitur

from this court, the trial court overruled the demurrer in accord with the mandate of this court, and the defendant subsequently served and filed his answer. The case was set for trial, and when it was regularly called for trial the defendant made his objection that such complaint, which had not been changed in any respect since its filing on September 18, 1903, did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. As already stated, this objection was sustained by the trial court, and thereupon judgment was given for the defendant.

Neale v. Morrow

AI Brief

Synopsis

ANGELLOTTI, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief