Barnett v. Kilbourne
Before: Heydenfeldt
Synopsis
Where a bill disclosed that the same subject-matter had been litigated between the same parties in a prior suit, and that in the said suit, the plaintiff in this suit, had set up the same equity which he claims by this bill, the bill was ordered to be dismissed.
The allegations of ignorance in malting the necessary averments, or of insufficient conduct, in the prosecution of a former suit, does not constitute ground for relief in chancery.
Heydenfeldt, Justice, delivered the opinion of the court. Wells, Justice, concurred.
The demurrer in this suit ought to have been sustained. The bill seems to be only an application for a new trial. It shows upon its face that the same subject-matter had been litigated between the same parties in a prior suit, and that in said suit the plaintiff in this suit had set up in defence the equity which he claims by his present bill. The allegation of ignorance in making the necessary averments, or of insufficient conduct in the prosecution of the first suit, do not constitute grounds for relief in chancery.
The judgment is reversed, and the bill dismissed.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)