Alfrey v. Colbert
Decision Date | 17 November 1914 |
Docket Number | 3599. |
Citation | 144 P. 179,44 Okla. 246,1914 OK 549 |
Parties | ALFREY v. COLBERT ET AL. |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
In order to constitute a good plea of res judicata, the following elements should be apparent: First, the parties or their privies must be the same; second, the subject-matter of the action must be the same; third, the issues must be the same, and must relate to the same subject-matter; fourth, the capacities of the persons must be the same in reference to the subject-matter and to the issues between them--and where these elements are clearly apparent, the plea should be sustained.
A judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction delivered upon the merits of a cause is final and conclusive between the parties in a subsequent action upon the same cause, not only as to all matters actually litigated and determined in the former action, but also as to every ground of recovery or defense which might have been presented and determined therein.
When a former judgment is set up as a bar or estoppel, the question whether there is such an identity of the parties and of the subject-matter or cause of action as will support the plea of res judicata is a question of law for the court when it is determinable from an inspection of the record.
Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 2. Error from District Court, Rogers County, T. L. Brown, Judge.
Injunction by R. J. Alfrey against Perry Colbert and another. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
Jesse W. Watts and Chas. G. Watts, both of Wagoner, and Alvin F Molony, of Muskogee, for plaintiff in error.
Henry M. Brown and Robert F. Blair, both of Wagoner, for defendants in error.
This was an action by R. J. Alfrey against Perry Colbert, a Creek freedman, and his guardian, James A. Harris, to enjoin the sale of a portion of the lands allotted to such freedman which lands, upon petition of his guardian, had been ordered to be sold by the county court; the plaintiff alleging that he was the legal and equitable owner by virtue of a deed executed to him by Colbert July 10, 1906, and that the sale of such lands by order of court constituted a cloud on plaintiff's title. Wherefore he prayed that such sale be enjoined. The defendant Colbert, through his guardian Harris, answered plaintiff's petition by denying specifically every allegation not admitted, and filed a cross-petition against plaintiff setting up a former judgment and decree of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, wherein the rights of the plaintiff in error and Colbert to the tract of land in question were alleged to have been finally adjudicated, and praying for the dismissal of plaintiff's petition and for costs and damages, and that plaintiff be enjoined from further interfering with the disposition of Colbert's land. Plaintiff replied, admitting, in substance, that the decree of the federal court pleaded by defendant in his answer had the effect of adjudicating the rights between plaintiff and Colbert in reference to the land in question as evidenced by two former deeds, but contending that such decree did not have the effect of adjudicating the issues presented in the case at bar, for the reason that plaintiff had a later deed. When the cause came on for trial, defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings, which motion was sustained by the court on the theory that all rights between the plaintiff and Colbert in reference to the land in question had been determined by the United States District Court and on appeal by the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (168 F. 231, 93 C. C. A. 517), and that the doctrine of res judicata was applicable, and from such judgment the plaintiff appeals.
Two material propositions are presented: First, whether the doctrine of res judicata was applicable under the state of the pleadings; second, whether the defendants were entitled to judgment on the pleadings.
The history of the facts involved and issues determined, both in the former judgment and decree and in the case at bar, is well stated in the finding of facts and decree of the trial court in this case as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial