Bush's Heirs v. Hampton
| Decision Date | 31 May 1836 |
| Citation | 34 Ky. 83 |
| Parties | Bush's Heirs v. Hampton and Others. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR CLARKE COUNTY.
Mr Hanson and Messrs. Morehead & Brown for plaintiffs.
Mr Clark for defendants.
The bill.
Bush's heirs exhibited their bill in chancery in this case against Hampton, as administrator of John Holliday, deceased, who was the administrator of their father, Ambrose Bush, deceased for a settlement and distribution of the estate of their father, that came to Holliday's hands; and especially charge, that a bond of two hundred dollars, executed by P Hieronymus to said decedent, A. Bush, was not contained in the list of bonds returned by the said Holliday to the County Court, nor has the same been accounted for by him, or the proceeds thereof distributed among the complainants, but the same was fraudulently assigned away by said administrator, to one of the complainants, Jeremiah Bush.
The defendants set up and rely on, in bar of this suit, a previous one, brought by the same complainants against said Hampton, as administrator aforesaid, for a settlement and distribution of the estate of said Bush, in which the same matters were involved and finally tried, and upon full hearing the complainant's bill dismissed. A copy of the record in the former suit, is exhibited in their answer, as a part thereof, by which it appears that, the said suit was between the same complainants, or those under whom they claim as privies against said Hampton as administrator aforesaid, for a settlement and distribution among them, as distributees of the estate of said Bush, deceased, which had come to the hands of said Holliday, as his administrator; and the said defendants also deny any knowledge of said note on Hieronymus, or that it belonged to said estate of Bush, or was assigned away fraudulently or otherwise, or was not accounted for.
Defence--res judicata, & c.
The Circuit Court, on full hearing, dismissed the complainant's bill, and they have brought the case to this Court.
Public policy requires that limits should be set to the continuance of litigation. Hence it is a well established principle, that the judgment or decree of a Court of competent jurisdiction, between the same parties, or their privies, and about the same subject matter, is conclusive, and a good bar to another suit, as long as it remains in force. Reipublicae interest ut sit finis litium. 1 Starkie on Evidence, Part II, 185.
The judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, is a good bar to any other suit between the same parties, or their privies, upon the same subject matter.
Suit by heirs, against the adm'r. of their ancestor's adm'r. for an account, settlement and distribution, in which there was a final decree. The heirs file a new bill, and charge that a certain bond due their ancestor, was fraudulently assigned away by his adm'r, and not included in any settlement; held, that the former suit was a bar, upon this. or any other liability of the defendant. Upon facts discovered after the former decree, (this was not so there might be a bill of review--not a new suit.
But to escape the force of this rule, it is contended that in the former suit, the bond on Hieronymus was not taken into consideration and litigated between the parties. The former suit was for a general settlement of all the accounts of the administrator, and for a distribution of the balance due, if any, among the complainants as distributees. The bill contemplated a final settlement of the estate, and was broad enough to embrace all demands, and each and every item of demand, in their favor against the said administrator. The whole matter was in controversy, and was litigated generally and in detail, and must be considered as closed. A contrary principle would result in endless litigation. Each and every item in an administrators' account, or of demands against him, might be...
To continue reading
Request your trial