Carrigan v. Carrigan, 4-9379
| Decision Date | 19 February 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 4-9379,4-9379 |
| Citation | 218 Ark. 398,236 S.W.2d 579 |
| Parties | CARRIGAN v. CARRIGAN et ux. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Mallory & Rasmussen, Hot Springs, for appellant.
Hebert & Dobbs, Hot Springs, for appellees.
This appeal stems from the efforts of the appellant, Iverna Carrigan, to collect from her former husband, Walter Isaac Carrigan, her judgment for unpaid alimony. The question now to be decided is whether the decree of the Garland Chancery Court in appellant's prior suit (No. 16,125) was res judicata in appellant's present suit (No. 25,534) in the same Court.
In August 1941 of Garland Chancery Court granted Iverna Carrigan a divorce from Walter Isaac Carrigan; and in the decree he agreed, and the Court directed him, to make semi-monthly payments of alimony. Shortly after the decree, Walter Isaac Carrigan married his present wife, Ruby Carrigan, and allowed his alimony payments to appellant to become, and remain, in arrears. In February 1949, Iverna Carrigan filed against Walter Isaac Carrigan her petition (in Case No. 16,125) in the Garland Chancery Court, seeking, inter alia, (a) judgment for back alimony in the sum of $13,884, and interest; and (b) 'an order sequestering 1 the property of the defendant, Walter Isaac Carrigan, until he shall comply with the orders of this Court, * * *'.
There was a trial in Case No. 16,125: eight witnesses testified, and the transcribed testimony and exhibits contained 79 pages. On April 20, 1949 a decree was rendered in favor of Iverna Carrigan for $16,014.66 back alimony. The decree also stated:
'* * * That the evidence fails to show that the defendant, Walter Isaac Carrigan, is the owner of any property, real or personal; that there is insufficient evidence to establish a basis for ordering a writ of sequestration * * *
'* * * that the prayer of plaintiff's petition for an order sequestering the property of the defendant until he shall comply with the order of this Court be, and the same is hereby, denied * * *.'
Thereafter, when execution, issued on the $16,014.66 judgment was returned nulla bona, Iverna Carrigan instituted, on October 4, 1949, in the Garland Chancery Court, the present suit, No. 25,534, against Walter Isaac Carrigan and Ruby Carrigan. The petition alleged, inter alia, that Walter Isaac Carrigan was in truth and in fact the owner of the Shamrock Liquor Store which was fraudulently in the name of his present wife, Ruby Carrigan, in order to prevent Iverna Carrigan from collecting her judgment; and prayed, inter alia, that defendants be required 'to divulge to the Court and to the plaintiff the true ownership of said business, namely, Shamrock Liquor Store, * * * and any other assets, real or personal, in which the defendant, Walter Isaac Carrigan, had an interest or may have an interest, * * *'
In resisting Case No. 25,534, the defendants claimed that Ruby Carrigan was the real owner of the Shamrock Liquor Store, and stated in their answer: '* * * That in said cause number 16,125 in the Garland Chancery Court of Arkansas the plaintiff herein sought an order of sequestration of the property of the defendant, Walter Isaac Carrigan, and that in such cause said defendant, Walter Isaac Carrigan, fully divulged to this court and to the plaintiff herein, the true ownership of said business, namely Shamrock Liquor Store * * * The defendants further state that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief * * * in that both defendants herein have, in the said cause 16,125 in Garland Chancery Court, heretofore fully revealed and divulged to this court all of their respective assets * * *.'
At the trial of Case No. 25,534 the plaintiff introduced the judgment and some of the pleadings in Case No. 16,125, and consented that the defendants might introduce all the other pleadings. Then the defendants sought to introduce all of the transcribed testimony and exhibits in Case No. 16,125, offering as a reason for such introduction: 'In this proceeding' it is asked
Over the objection of Iverna Carrigan the trial court admitted into evidence all the said testimony and exhibits in Case No. 16,125; and in the final decree in Case No. 25,534 (the present case) the Chancery Court denied plaintiff's petition, saying: 'That the issue herein of whether the defendant, Walter Isaac Carrigan, was on the 20th day of April, 1949, and prior thereto, the owner of any property located in Garland County, Arkansas, or the owner of the Shamrock Liquor Store * * * was an issue in the hearing in which the decree rendered in Chancery Action No. 16,125, wherein the plaintiff in this cause was plaintiff and the defendant in this cause, Walter Isaac Carrigan, was defendant and prayer for sequestration of said defendant's property was made.'
The net effect of the decree of the Chancery Court in this Case No. 25,534 was to deny Iverna Carrigan's petition on the basis that the decree in Case No. 16,125 was res judicata of the issues in Case No. 25,534. The ruling on res judicata is determinative of Iverna Carrigan's present appeal. In Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. McGuire, 205 Ark. 658, 169 S.W.2d 872, 874, and again in Shatford v. Shatford, 214 Ark. 612, 217 S.W.2d 917, we stated the rule of res judicata from 30 Am.Jur. 908: "* * * the doctrine of res judicata is that an existing final judgment rendered upon the merits, without fraud or collusion, by a court of competent jurisdiction, is conclusive of rights, questions, and facts in issue, as to the parties and their privies, in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Turner v. State, 5488
...evidence must show that the particular question at issue in the subsequent proceeding was involved and determined. Carrigan v. Carrigan, 218 Ark. 298, 236 S.W.2d 579. In Meyer v. Eichenbaum, 202 Ark. 438, 150 S.W.2d 958, we adopted the following as one of the two main rules of the doctrine ......
-
Charles Keeshin, Inc. v. Farmers & Merchants Bank of Rogers
...in question in another court." In accord: Fleming v. Cooper, 225 Ark. 634, 284 S.W.2d 857, 58 A.L.R.2d 694 (1955); Carrigan v. Carrigan, 218 Ark. 398, 236 S.W.2d 579 (1951); McCarroll, Comm. of Revenues, v. Farrar, 199 Ark. 320, 134 S.W.2d 561 In examining the above statement, it appears th......
-
Larcon Company v. Wallingsford
...in the Bankruptcy Court that resulted in the judgment now pleaded as res judicata by the plaintiff. In Carrigan v. Carrigan, 218 Ark. 398, at page 403, 236 S.W.2d 579, at page 582, the court quoted with approval 30 Am. Jur. 960, as "`The strict rule that a judgment is operative, under the d......
-
Hastings v. Rose Courts, Inc., 5-3074
...to the effect that a grantee, under the doctrine of res judicata, stands in the relation of privy to the grantor.' In Carrigan v. Carrigan, 218 Ark. 398, 236 S.W.2d 579, we quoted the language of the United States Supreme Court in Russel v. Place, 94 U.S. 606, 24 L.Ed. 214, which language h......