Carpenter v. Natoma Water & Mining Co.
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of El Dorado County. The facts are stated in the opinion of Department Two, adopted by the court in Bank.
1Per curiam
We concur in the views of Department Two with respect to this case. The result reached by the department is sustained by decisions in other States. (Wood on Limita, tians, 272; Doe ex dem. Kennedy’s Heirs v. Reynolds, 27 Ala-377; Smith v. Hornback, 4 Litt. 233; Jackson v. Haviland, 13 Johns. 228.)
Lord Mansfield, in Aslin v. Parkin, 2 Burr. 665, speaking of the effect of a judgment, recovered in ejectment, as evidence in an action for mesne profits, remarked: “This judgment only *617concludes the parties as to the subject-matter of it. Therefore, beyond the time laid in the demise, it proves…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Smith v. HornbackCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1823
- Killmer v. CraryNew York Supreme Court · 1816
3Cited by10 opinions
- Montecito Valley Water Co. v. City of Santa BarbaraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Wehle v. PriceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
- Gould v. CarrSupreme Court of Florida · 1894
- Barrell v. Title Guarantee Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1895
- Ebell v. City of BakerOregon Supreme Court · 1931
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.