Altschul v. Doyle
Before: Myrick
Synopsis
Estoppel—Former Judgment — Landlord and Tenant.—If a landlord defends for and in the name of his tenant, and puts his title in issue in aid of tho tenant’s right of possession, a judgment against the tenant is a bar to a subsequent action by the landlord against the party recovering the judgment. But it must appear that tho subject-matter or question was not only the same, but that it was submitted on the merits, and actually passed upon by the Court.
Id.—Id.—Id.— Accordingly, in an action of ejectment, where there was a plea of a former judgment in favor of defendant against plaintiff’s tenant, and it appeared that the plaintiff was originally a party defendant, and conducted the defense, but that on the close of the testimony, on motion of the former plaintiff, the suit was dismissed as to him, and his deraignment of title stricken out, and that the Court refused to permit the defendants to show that they were his tenants, and to justify under his title: Held, that there was no estoppel, and that it made no difference that the rulings of the Court were erroneous, and that an appeal might have been taken.
Id.—Id.—Id.— Statute op Limitations — Adverse Possession.—In an action to establish an involuntary trust as to real estate against Mary P., and to compel a conveyance of the legal title, it appeared that the cause of action accrued more than eight years before the commencement of tho action, but that the plaintiff was at that time in the possession of the land by his tenant, and remained so until about December, 1867, at which time the defendant entered upon the land by collusion with the tenant, and thenceforth claimed to hold adversely. Held, upon a plea of the Statute of Limitations, that the plaintiff was not barred.
Myrick, J.: The appeals in these cases were heard before Department two of this Court, and an opinion was filed March 17th, 1880, affirming the judgment and order of the Court below, and a hearing in bank has been granted. The substantial question at issue in the Court below was, and in this Court is, whether the plaintiff, Altschul, is barred of his recovery in the actions by the proceedings and judgment in a former action in ejectment commenced by Mary Polack against Lynch, Altschul, Mary Doyle, Eix, and others. In the last named action the defendants answered, alleging title in themselves and those under whom they claimed. During the trial the plaintiff dismissed the action as to Eix. At the close of the evidence the plaintiff dismissed the action as to Altschul, and moved to strike out all the documentary evidence showing dcraignment of title by Altschul from one Dorland. The defendants objected, on the ground that James Doyle and Mary Doyle were defending under the title of and by Altschul, they being his tenants and he defending for them, and that they were entitled to the benefit of his title. The Court overruled the objection, and struck out the evidence. The defendants, James and Mary Doyle, then moved the Court to open the case, and to allow them to show that they were the tenants of 'Altschul, and to prove his title. The Court denied the motion, and judgment was rendered dismissing the case as to Eix, Altschul, and James Doyle Sr.j and in their favor .for costs. Lynch moved for a new trial, which was granted, and the action was subsequently dismissed as to him. These dismissals left the case standing in favor of Mary Polack, plaintiff, versus Mary Doyle and James Doyle Jr., defendants, and judgment went for plaintiff and against defendants.
In the cases at bar, the recovery in the former suit was pleaded in bar of these actions; and after hearing the evidence, the Court found that at the instance and motion of the plaintiff in the former action, said action was dismissed as to the defendants therein, Eix, Lynch, and Altschul, and by and upon motion of said Mary Polack, said Altschul was not permitted to defend the same for his tenant, James Doyle Jr., and all the title of said Altschul to the premises involved in said action was, upon [639]like motion, excluded from all consideration in said action, and that Altschul is not in these actions in any manner barred or estopped by the judgment in said former action from asserting his title to said lands. Judgment was rendered for plaintiff in both actions, and from the judgments, and from the orders denying motions for new trial, the cases are here.
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)