Sharon v. Sharon
Citations
- 84 Cal. 424
- 23 P. 1100
- 1890 Cal. LEXIS 816
Syllabus
<p>Conflict between Federal and State Courts — Priority of Jurisdiction — Conclusiveness of Judsment. —When the circuit court of the United States has first acquired jurisdiction of the persons and subject-matter of an action before the commencement of a subsequent action in a state court between the same persons, essentially involving or depending upon the same subject-matter, the judgment of the circuit court, no matter when rendered, whether before or after the date of judgment in the state court, becomes binding and conclusive as to that subject-matter, upon all parties and upon all other courts and tribunals whatsoever.</p> <p>Id. — Canceling Forged Contract of Marriage — Allowance of Alimony. — If the circuit court, having prior jurisdiction, has rendered judgment canceling a forged instrument, claimed by the defendant to be a subsisting contract of marriage with plaintiff, and enjoining the use of such instrument, or the claiming of any rights or interest in property thereunder, its judgment will prevail over the judgment of the superior court of this state declaring that a contract of marriage subsisted between the parties by virtue of said instrument only, and granting a divorce and alimony, counsel fees, and costs, in an action for a divorce subsequently commenced in such superior court by the defendant in the circuit court against the plaintiff therein, though the judgment of the superior court was first rendered and was affirmed upon appeal.</p> <p>Id.—Motion for Judgment against Executor — Decree of Circuit Court as Defense. — When, upon the going down of the remittitur from the supreme court upon appeal from the judgment in such divorce case, and from the order granting alimony and counsel fees, a motion is made for judgment against the executor of the defendant, who had been substituted as defendant for the purposes of appeal, the executor may present and rely upon the decree of the circuit court as a complete defense to the motion.</p> <p>Id. — Effec
Judges: Fox
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
4 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Smith v. Walter E. Heller & Co.California Court of Appeal· 1978-06-13· cited 20×
- Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. v. BaumanNebraska Supreme Court· 1937-01-25· cited 12×
- State ex rel. Spalding v. BentonMontana Supreme Court· 1892-03-28· cited 9×
- Cochrane v. McDonaldCalifornia Superior Court, San Francisco County· 1895-01-22
Cites
5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Sharon v. SharonCalifornia Supreme Court· 1888-01-31· cited 149×
- Gaylord v. Ft. Wayne, M. & C. R.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Indiana· 1875-02-15· cited 26×
- Union Mutual Life Insurance v. University of ChicagoU.S. Circuit Court· 1881-03-23· cited 24×
- Withers v. DenmeadCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1864-10-21· cited 20×
- Gibson v. TiltonMaryland Chancery Ct· 1827-07-23· cited 5×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.