Chicago, Kansas & Western Railroad Co. v. Board of Commissioners of Anderson County

• Decision Date: 06 February 1892
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court
• Parties: THE CHICAGO, KANSAS & WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY v. THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF ANDERSON COUNTY et al

29 P. 96

47 Kan. 766

THE CHICAGO, KANSAS & WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY v. THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF ANDERSON COUNTY et al

Supreme Court of Kansas

February 6, 1892

Original Proceeding in Mandamus.

THE opinion herein, filed February 6, 1892, contains a sufficient statement of the facts.

Geo. R Peck, A. A. Hurd, and Robert Dunlap, for plaintiff.

James D. Snoddy, for defendants.

OPINION

Per Curiam:

Motions have been filed upon the part of the plaintiff against the defendants to quash the return filed to the alternative writ, and also for a peremptory writ of mandamus to issue at once, notwithstanding the allegations contained in the return. The motions will not he sustained at this time; but, in view of the arguments before the court concerning the allegations of the return for a peremptory writ, that there may be no attempt to relitigate or reargue questions which have already been settled and determined in the case of C. K. & W. Rld Co. v. Ozark Township, 46 Kan. 415, 26 P. 710, decided at the January term of this court for 1891, which was subsequently entered under a mandate from this court by the district court of Anderson county, we deem it necessary to say something concerning the proceedings in the latter case. The parties in this action are virtually the same as in the action of the C. K. & W. Rld. Co. v. Ozark Township, supra, and the subject-matter between the parties is the same, excepting the recitation in the writ in this case of the tender of $ 10,000 of the stock of the railroad company subsequent to the entry of the judgment against Ozark township by the district court of Anderson county. The rule of res adjudicata applies as well to facts settled and adjudicated as to causes of action. When a matter is once adjudicated, it is conclusively determined between the same parties and their privies as to all matters which were or might have been litigated; and this determination is binding, as an estoppel, in all other actions, whether commenced before or after the action in which the adjudication was made. (Hentig v. Redden 46 Kan. 231, 26 P. 701; Railroad Co. v. Comm'rs of Jefferson Co., 12 id. 127; Whittaker v. Hawley, 30 id. 327; Hoisington v. Brakey, 31 id. 560; W. & W. Rly. Co. v. Beebe, 39 id. 465; Comm'rs of Marion Co. v. Welch, 40 id. 767; Shepard v. Stockham, 45 id. 244; Freeman, Judgm., § 249; Poorman v. Mitchell, 48 Mo. 45; Allis v. Davidson, 23 Minn. 442; Casebeer v. Mowry, 55 Pa. 419; Franklin Co. v. Savings Bank, 142 U.S. 93, 35 L.Ed. 948, 12 S.Ct. 147.) We therefore are of the opinion that everything that was litigated in the action of C. K. & W. Rld. Co. v. Ozark Township, supra, or that might have been litigated therein, was determined in that case, and cannot be opened up again. Therefore, there can be no litigation in this action over the...