Legal Opinion · Dissent

Newhall v. Hatch

California Supreme Court

Decided October 1, 1901No. S.F. No. 2407Published

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1DissentMcFARLAND, J.

—I am not able to agree with the conclusion reached by a majority of the court in this case. Waiving all other questions, I think that the judgment in the first action is a bar to the present action. “ Whether a former judgment will operate as a bar to an action depends upon the identity of the two causes of action and of the parties.” (Parnell v. Hahn, 61 Cal. 131.) In the case at bar, the two actions were between the same parties, and upon the same identical cause of action,— namely, a promise to pay four thousand dollars, and a mortgage to secure it, made and executed in 1892. Respondent…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Crew v. PrattCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
  2. Southern Pacific Co. v. ProsserCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  3. Hamilton v. QuimbyIllinois Supreme Court · 1867
  4. Shaffer v. ScuddySupreme Court of Louisiana · 1859
  5. Terry v. HammondsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1873

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API