Carter v. Scaggs
| Citation | 38 Mo. 302 |
| Parties | ROBERT P. CARTER, Respondent, v. SAMUEL SCAGGS AND HARRISON C. GREEN, Appellants. |
| Decision Date | 31 July 1866 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Appeal from Boone Circuit Court.
Ewing & Smith, for appellants.
The only question presented by the record in this case is whether or not the Circuit Court was right in striking out defendant Green's answer. The defendant Green's answer pleads, in bar of plaintiff's right of recovery, an arbitration and an award. Arbitrations, or agreements to submit any matter of difference. may be verbal or by parol--Kyd on Awards, 9, 10, 261; or in writing, in conformity to the statute. This arbitration, it is insisted, constituted a good plea in bar to the plaintiff's right to recover--Kyd, Awards, 261, 381, et seq.; 2 Blackst. Com. 15, and authorities cited. The arbitration was between plaintiff and the widow Scaggs, under whom Green holds, and is as binding between plaintiff and the widow's assignee, Green, as between plaintiff and said widow.
The defendant Green's answer presents the question whether or not, when a suit under the forcible entry and detainer law is prosecuted for the recovery of the possession of premises, and the plaintiff in such suit is successful and gets possession, and the defendant therein acquiesces in a judgment for such possession by not appealing, or seeking to reverse such judgment, such judgment can be pleaded in bar to a suit in ejectment between the same parties when the same identical matter is sought to be re-adjudicated; or whether in this controversy, or not, such adjudication of the matter in difference between the parties does not render the same adjudicated matter, and if so, whether the same is a bar to the plaintiff's recovery--McKnight v. Taylor, 1 Mo. 282. The matter set up in the latter part of defendant's answer as a bar is clearly res adjudicata. The answer states sufficiently the four necessary conditions to constitute the same res adjudicata; that is to say, identity of things sued for, identity of the cause of action, identity of parties, and identity of the quality of persons--2 Bouv. L. Dict. p. 465, tit. Res Judicala;3 Pet. 433.
The motion for a new trial, for one or both of the above reasons, ought to have been sustained. The answer, if true, is a bar to the plaintiff's suit, and should not have been stricken out.
This was an action of ejectment, in which the plaintiff recovered the possession of the land in controversy. No exception was taken to the proceedings on the trial. The only point raised in this court is, whether the court below committed any error in striking out a part of the answer of the co-defendant Green. The portion stricken out (on motion of the plaintiff) alleged in substance, by way of special defence, first that the plaintiff had, about the month of March, 1861, leased the premises to one Stephen Scaggs, for a term of six years, by a written lease, which was lost; that said Scaggs died in 1863, leaving a widow, who remained in possession of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cantrell v. City of Caruthersville
...Three Missouri cases decided after the repeal of the Section 33 were cited -- Slevin v. Brown, 32 Mo. 176, decided in 1862; and Carter v. Scaggs, 38 Mo. 302, Holmes v. City of Carondelet, 38 Mo. 552, both decided in 1866, in which cases this court went back to the common-law rule. And this ......
-
Martin v. Trail
...to prove his title to his life estate were competent both under a general denial and the special plea of title made in his answer. Carter v. Scaggs, 38 Mo. 302; Meyers v. Gale, 44 Mo. 416; Davis Penler, 65 Mo. 189. (6) Ejectment does not lie by joint action against several defendants holdin......
-
Patton v. Fox
...93 Mo. 452, 6 S.W. 347; Stocker v. Green, 94 Mo. 280, 7 S.W. 279.] Or that the plaintiff has not the present right of possession. [Carter v. Scaggs, 38 Mo. 302.] Or that defendant has acquired the title of the plaintiff at a sheriff's sale. [Davis v. Peveler, 65 Mo. 189.] Or an agreed bound......
-
Horton v. St. Louis, Kansas City & Northern Ry. Co.
...ninth instruction is right, a suit in ejectment is not a bar to another action. Holmes v. City of Carondelet, 38 Mo. 551; Carter v. Scaggs et al., 38 Mo. 302; Graham v. City of Carondelet, 33 Mo. 262; Slevins, Trustee, v. Brown, 32 Mo. 176. (8) The court committed no error in giving plainti......