Case ID: wash_47/html/0069-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[No. 6560.
    Decided September 6, 1907.]
    Angie B. Collins et al., as Executors, etc., Appellants, v. James P. Gleason et al., Respondents.
      
    
    Judgment—-Res Adjudicata—Actions—Splitting Causes. Judgment in an action for breach of an entire contract, granting the specific performance prayed for by plaintiff, is a bar to a subsequent action by the same plaintiff seeking to reform the original contract, as the two might have been joined in the first instance, and plaintiff cannot split his cause of action.
    Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for King county, Albertson, J., entered May 19, 1906, dismissing, after a trial on the merits, an action to reform a deed.
    Affirmed.
    
      William Martin and Jas. F. McElroy, for appellants.
    
      John B. Hart and Maurice D. Leehey, for respondents.
    
      
      Reported in 91 Pac. 568.
    
   Per Curiam.

This action, which was commenced on June ££, 1901, arises upon the same memorandum of agreement upon which cause No. 6561, Collins v. Gleason, ante p. 62, 91 Pac. 566, decided by this court on this date, is based. The plaintiffs here sue to reform a deed executed by the defendant, the Fidelity Trust Company, in part performance of that agreement, it being alleged that certain land was, by mutual mistake, incorrectly described therein. From a judgment in favor of the defendants, the plaintiffs have appealed.

The appellants have heretofore recovered a judgment for specific performance in a separate action on the same contract ; hence on the authority of Collins v. Gleason, supra, the judgment herein must he affirmed. Although the appellants here seek to reform the original contract, there has nevertheless been a splitting of actions, as actions, to reform and specifically enforce the same contract may be joined. We will, however, state that we do not find the evidence sufficient to sustain the appellants’ allegation of mutual mistake.

The judgment is affirmed.