Cater v. Taylor., (CC 584)
Decision Date | 09 April 1938 |
Docket Number | (CC 584) |
Citation | 120 W.Va. 93 |
Parties | G. A. Cater v. L. C. Taylor et al. |
Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Pleading
Privity, in a legal sense, ordinarily denotes "mutual or successive relationship to the same rights of property." Gerber V. Thompson, 84 W. Va. 721, 727, 100 S. E. 733, 7 A. L. R. 730.
Certified from Circuit Court, Fayette County.
Action by G. A. Cater against L. C. Taylor and another for, damages to automobile, owned by plaintiff, in collision with automobile owned by the named defendant. The Court overruled the plaintiff's demurrer to the defendants' plea of res judicata, and certified the ruling to the Supreme Court of Appeals.
Ruling reversed.
Mohan, Bacon & White, for plaintiff. Love & Love, for defendants.
An automobile owned by L. C. Taylor and driven by his son collided with one driven by Mrs. Louie Cater, who was accompanied by her husband. L. C. sued Louie for damages done to the Taylor car by the collision, and recovered a small default judgment which was paid. The car driven by Mrs. Cater belonged to her husband's brother, G. A. Cater, who now sues the Taylors for damages done to the Cater car in the collision. They plead the judgment of L. C. against Louie, as res judicata. The circuit court overruled the demurrer to the plea, and certified here its sufficiency.
In addition to the judgment, the plea alleged thatG. A. and Louie lived together and were in business together; that G. A. was fully informed of the action of L. C. against Louie, and of the judgment taken therein; and that G. A. and L. C. had automobile accident liability insurance policies in the same insurance company. The position of counsel supporting the plea, as stated in their brief is this:
Privity, in a legal sense, ordinarily denotes "mutual or successive relationship to the same rights of property." Gerber V. Thompson, 84 W. Va. 721, 727, 100 S. E. 733. Accord: 50 C. J., Privity, section 1. Since Louie did not own the automobile...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Conley v. Spillers
...Oil & Gas Company, 111 W.Va. 596, 163 S.E. 443 (1932). 4 The term "privity" is a somewhat fluid concept. In the Syllabus of Cater v. Taylor, 120 W.Va. 93, 196 S.E. 558 (1938), we said: "Privity, in a legal sense, ordinarily denotes 'mutual or successive relationship to the same rights of pr......
-
State ex rel. Division of Human Services by Mary C.M. v. Benjamin P.B.
...[Edward F.] Gerber [Co.] v. Thompson, 84 W.Va. 721, 727, 100 S.E. 733, [735,] 7 A.L.R. 730[, 734 (1919) ]." Syl., Cater v. Taylor, 120 W.Va. 93, 196 S.E. 558 (1938). 5. The dismissal with prejudice of a paternity action initiated by a mother against a putative father of a child does not pre......
-
West Virginia Human Rights v. Esquire
...and HRC were in privity with parties in the first suit. This Court defined the word "privity" in the syllabus of Cater v. Taylor, 120 W.Va. 93, 196 S.E. 558 (1938), by saying: "Privity, in a legal sense, ordinarily denotes `mutual or successive relationship to the same rights of property.' ......
-
Dosch v. Dunn
... ... , 217 W.Va. 454, 460, 618 S.E.2d 463, 469 ... (2005)( quoting Syl., Cater v. Taylor , ... 120 W.Va. 93, 196 S.E. 558 (1938)) ... As we previously ... Pt. 8, in ... part, Conley v. Spillers , 171 W.Va. 584, 301 S.E.2d ... 216 (1983), and these conditions-an identical issue and a ... prior ... ...