Clay County v. Chickasaw County

• Decision Date: 06 February 1899
• Citation: 76 Miss. 418,24 So. 975
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: CLAY COUNTY v. CHICKASAW COUNTY

24 So. 975

76 Miss. 418

CLAY COUNTY v. CHICKASAW COUNTY

Supreme Court of Mississippi

February 6, 1899

November 1898

FROM the chancery court of Clay county, HON. BAXTER MCFARLAND Chancellor.

The appellee, Chickasaw county, was the complainant in the court below. Clay county was defendant there. Clay county was created in 1871 ^[*] (laws 1871, p. 800), under the name "Colfax, " which name was changed to Clay in 1876 (laws 1876, p. 128). A large part of the territory of the new county was excised from Chickasaw county, and, by the act creating the new county, it was provided that it should pay a relative portion of the debts of the old counties respectively, from which it was formed. In 1882 Chickasaw county sued Clay county for the latter's pro rata share of a railroad bonded debt contracted prior to the formation of the new county, and recovered a judgment for $ 14, 972.22 after protracted litigation. See Chickasaw County v. Clay County, 62 Miss. 325; Clay County v. Chickasaw County, 63 Miss. 289, and Clay County v. Chickasaw County, 64 Miss. 534. The decree was paid. This prior litigation, judgment, and payment were pleaded in bar of the present suit. The present action is predicated of a claim which Chickasaw county, after the satisfaction of said judgment, was compelled to pay, on warrants and other evidences of debt issued by the county before Clay county was formed. Chickasaw county denied liability on the claim for years, and only recognized its validity after it was reduced to judgment, and this, too, after vigorous litigation. See Taylor v. Chickasaw County, 70 Miss. 87, and Taylor v. Chickasaw County, 74 Miss. 23. The facts in reference to the presentation of the claim for payment to the board of supervisors and its rejection by the board are stated in the opinion of the court.

Decree entered.

S. M Roane, for the appellant.

An adjudication is final and conclusive, not only as to the matters actually determined, but as to every other matter which parties might have litigated and had decided. It is not sufficient to say that the matters in second suit were not discovered at time of first suit. The test is, did they exist then? State v. Morrison, 60 Miss. 74. Can Chickasaw county divide up her claim against Clay county, and bring separate suits for each item of indebtedness due by Chickasaw county at the time of dismemberment? Indivisibility of issues generally. 21 Am. & Eng. Enc. L., 204. Indivisibility of issues arising ex contractu. Same authority, 206 to 212. Indivisibility of issues arising ex delicto. Same authority, 212, etc. What might have been litigated. Same authority, 116, 217, and notes. Rule in equity. Same authority, 220. The claim of Chickasaw county does not arise ex contractu, but is purely statutory. Clay County v. Chickasaw County, 64 Miss. 534. Said claim is indivisible. There was no presentation to the board of supervisors of Clay county before suit brought, and this was a condition precedent. The letter of the attorney of Clay county was not a presentation of the claim sued upon to the board of supervisers of Chickasaw county for allowance.

Newnan Cayce, for appellee.

The claim was presented to the board of supervisors of Clay county, and by them referred to their attorney, who afterwards, and before the suit was instituted, informed the attorney for Chickasaw county that the appellant would not pay the claim. The fact of presentation and of rejectment may rest in parol; no written order of the board is necessary to be made. Brookhaven v. Lawrence County, 55 Miss. 187.

At the time the former suit between appellee and appellant was pending, the claim here sued on was also pending in court against Chickasaw county, the board of supervisors of the latter county refusing to pay it or to acknowledge it as a debt against said county, and it was more than twenty years afterward before such claim, by judgment of the supreme court of Mississippi, became an indebtedness of Chickasaw county. The appellant became liable to pay its proportionate part of said debt when it was reduced to final judgment. This claim was not, nor could it have been, involved in the former suit for manifest reasons. Perry v. Lewis, 49 Miss. 443; Shattuck v. Miller, 50 Miss. 391. One of the essential and indispensable elements of res adjudicata is the identity of the cause of action. In this case such identity is wholly...