Luco v. De Toro

HARRISON, J. The appellant’s right of recovery depends upon the performance by Hartman of his contract with Olvera to procure the issuance of a patent for the Rancho Ex-Mission of San Diego. This agreement is set forth at length in the opinion of this court rendered upon the former appeal: 91 Cal. 405, 27 Pac. 1082. Upon that appeal the judgment of the court below was reversed for its failure to make a sufficient finding upon this issue. The finding which it had made was held to be ambiguous and [292]uncertain, inasmuch as in one part thereof the court found that immediately after the execution of the agreement Hartman entered upon the performance of the stipulations therein contained to be performed on his part, and that, in connection with the plaintiff herein, he continued to prosecute them to a final conclusion, while in a subsequent portion of the same finding the court found that there had not been a full and complete or substantial performance of that agreement. It was also said in the opinion that the appellant “was entitled to an unequivocal finding on the question of performance.” Upon the subsequent trial of the cause, from which the present appeal-is taken, the court finds that “the said contract was not fully or substantially performed by the said Hartman, nor did the said Hartman procure to be issued the patent for the said rancho,” and it also finds as a fact that after the case was sent on to Washington, in 1871, Hartman rendered no services, but abandoned the case. As there was evidence before the court in support of these findings, the findings themselves must be accepted in this court as'forming the basis of the judgment, irrespective of any conflict or preponderance of evidence upon which they were made. It is, however, contended by the appellant that, as it was said in the opinion upon the former appeal, after determining that the finding was ambiguous and uncertain, that “if, however, the finding can be construed as a finding in favor of respondent on that subject, it is sufficient to say that in our opinion it is not supported by the evidence,” and, as the evidence at the last trial was substantially the same, the opinion upon the former appeal has become the law of the case, and that the trial court should have made its finding in conformity thereto.

The determination by this court of the rights of the parties in an appeal from the superior court is a final adjudication of those rights, and the questions of law decided by this court become a rule for the guidance of the trial court as well as of this court if the same questions are again presented in that controversy upon a retrial of the issues or upon a subsequent appeal. The principle upon which this rule rests is that the judgment is an estoppel binding upon the parties and to' be enforced by the court: Klauber v. Car Co., 98 Cal. 105, 32 Pac. 876. The rule is not limited to contro