# Murphy v. Crowley

> California Supreme Court · September 4, 1903 · 140 Cal. 141

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3310299

## Case

- **Full name:** ELLEN E. MURPHY, Appellant, v. MARGARET E. CROWLEY, and RICHARD O’CONNELL, Respondents
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** September 4, 1903
- **Citations:** 140 Cal. 141; 73 P. 820; 1903 Cal. LEXIS 565
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by McFARLAND
- **Judges:** Shaw, Van Dyke, McFarland
- **Cited by:** 64 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3310299

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that “although the main ground of the action is fraud or mistake, whereby the defendant has obtained the legal title to the land in controversy, and the chief contention between the parties is with respect to the fraud or mistake alleged . . . the action is in reality …

## Opinion text

McFARLAND, J., concurring.
I concur in the judgment of reversal. I do so, however, solely upon the ground that the law on the question involved has been settled by former deeis
*151
ions of this court in accordance with the conclusion reached in the above opinion of Mr. Justice Shaw, and that the rule of
stare decisis
applies strongly to a case where the disturbance of a settled principle would shorten the period of limitation. If the question were an open one, I would be clearly of the opinion that in the case at bar the three-year limitation applies.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3310299. Public record. Not legal advice.