Peterson v. Weissbein

Belcher, C. C. —This action was brought to recover possession of two hundred and forty acres of land situate in Nevada County. The complaint alleged the plaintiff’s ownership of the demanded premises, and his ouster therefrom by the defendants, in September, 1885. The answer denied the plaintiff’s ownership, admitted the defendants’ possession, and then set up a further defense as follows: —

“Defendants allege that ever since the twenty-sixth day of December, 1883, they have been the owners of the said premises, and entitled to the possession thereof; that up to November, 1882, plaintiff was the owner and entitled to the possession of said premises; that on said date said premises were duly attached in a suit against this plaintiff from the justice's court of Grass Valley township; that thereafter, in said suit, judgment was duly given and made against plaintiff herein (Peterson), and by virtue thereof execution duly issued to the constable of said township, and the said premises were duly sold thereunder to one Goldberg, who on November 26,1883, duly received the constable’s deed therefor; and thereupon transferred said premises to these defendants.

“ That in February, 1883, said Peterson began suit in this court to set aside said justice’s court judgment and said constable’s sale, because the complaint was filed on a holiday, etc,; that plaintiff therein had judgment, from which judgment defendants therein appealed to the supreme court, who reversed the same in the case entitled Peterson v. Weissbein Bros. & Go. et al., and thereafter said superior court duly gave and rendered judg[176]ment in favor.of defendants therein, affirming the validity of said justice’s court judgment, and the said execution sale thereunder.....And that said judgments were duly given and made, and estop the plaintiff from again contesting the validity thereof, and defendants hereby plead them as estoppel.”

At the trial the plaintiff introduced evidence showing that he acquired the title to a portion of the demanded premises in 1874, and to the balance thereof in 1875, and rested. Thereupon the defendants, to maintain the issues on their part, offered in evidence the judgment roll in the case referred to in their answer, and promised to show that it related to the premises in dispute, and that defendants had succeeded to the interests of Goldberg therein. The plaintiff objected to the judgment roll being received in evidence, on the ground that it was irrelevant and immaterial, and not pertinent to any issue involved in the case; that the parties to that action were not the same as in this case, and it was therefore not admissible by way of estoppel. The court overruled the objection, and the plaintiff reserved an exception.