Russell v. Mallon
Before: Rhodes
Synopsis
When Landlord bound by Judohent aoainst Tenant.—In an action of ejectment against a tenant, if the landlord assumes the defense and puts Ms title in issue, the judgment rendered therem bmds Mm as evidence by way of estoppel, the same as though he was made a party on the record.
Decided on authority of Valentine v. Mahoney, (37 Cal. 389.)
Rhodes, J., delivered the opinion of the Court: The question here presented is the same as that which was discussed and passed upon in Valentine v. Mahoney [263](37 Cal. R. 389), which is, whether a judgment in an action of ejectment, in which the landlord of the defendant defends the action for and in the name of his tenant, and puts his own title in issue, is admissible in evidence, by way of estoppel, in an action of ejectment brought by the same plaintiff against such landlord. Upon the authority of that case, we hold that the Court below correctly admitted the judgment in evidence. That judgment being decisive of the question of title, it becomes unnecessary to consider the question of admissibility or effect of the judgment in the action of Russell against Weeks to quiet the title to the premises.
Judgment affirmed.
Sawyer, C. J., expressed no opinion.
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)