Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Maxfield v. Burtt, 121 Cal. App. 2d 102 (1953)

Citation
Maxfield v. Burtt, 121 Cal. App. 2d 102 (1953)
Parent Document
Maxfield v. Burtt, 121 Cal. App. 2d 102 (1953)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
1953-11-04

Other Sections in This Document (78)

Full Text

1,244 chars
The ease was tried before the court without a jury, and the court found in substance that on August 2, 1938, and December 18, 1942, proper and sufficient written notices of default under said option agreement were given to appellant; that appellant failed to cure his defaults within a period of 30 days after said notices, or at all, and that any rights which appellant may have had under said option agreement of June 23, 1936, were thereby terminated; that in the prior action in ejectment all the issues raised by appellant in this action were raised as defenses and that all of said issues were determined adversely to appellant, and, therefore, all the issues raised by appellant herein have been conclusively determined and adjudicated against him and are res judicata, and this action is thereby barred and appellant is estopped and precluded from relitigating said issues in this action; that prior to this action, defendants Burtt, Feykert and Crummey had disposed of all of the shares of the Mining Company; that appellant’s alleged cause of action is barred by Code of Civil Procedure sections 337(1), 338(4), 339(1) and 343. Plaintiff has appealed from the judgment in favor of defendants entered in accordance with said findings..