Couch v. Schley, 3424

• Decision Date: 28 November 1956
• Docket Number: No. 3424,3424
• Citation: 297 S.W.2d 228
• Parties: A. M. COUCH, Appellant, v. Jack A. SCHLEY, Sr., Appellee.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 228

297 S.W.2d 228

A. M. COUCH, Appellant, v. Jack A. SCHLEY, Sr., Appellee.

No. 3424.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Waco.

Nov. 28, 1956.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 3, 1957.

W. H. Wren, Hamilton, for appellant.

H. J. Cureton, Jr., Meridian, Abney, Hammett & Lynch, Lampasas, H. W. Allen, Hamilton, for appellee.

HALE, Justice.

Appellant, A. M. Couch, instituted this suit on February 24, 1956, against appellee, Jack A. Schley, Sr., for 'title and ownership' of $1,000 in currency which he found buried in the ground on January 7, 1952, while working on premises belonging to appellee. In answer to the suit, appellee interposed a plea of res judicata based upon a prior judgment rendered by the trial court and affirmed by the Supreme Court, and moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion and rendered judgment summarily that appellant take nothing.

Appellant predicates his appeal upon three points of error, as follows: '(1) The trial court erred in ruling that the appellant's suit for title and ownership of the money in question was res judicata, in that such questions had been decided by the Supreme Court in its decision; (2) the appellant having alleged in his petition that the same is a suit for title and ownership to the money, and, having alleged issues of fact in support of the same that have occurred since the original suit and trial for possession, the same shows upon its face that the decision in the case is not res judicata; and (3) the appellant having alleged and plead disputable issues of fact in the case at bar, he is entitled to a jury trial to decide them, and the trial court erred in thereby granting the appellee's Motion for Summary Judgment.'

In our opinion, the trial court did not err in rendering summary judgment that appellant take nothing in the present suit. We think it appears without dispute from the pleadings of the parties herein and the showing made upon the hearing of the motion for summary judgment, that the subject matter, cause of action, parties and capacities of the parties in the present suit are identical in all respects with those involved in the prior suit wherein the judgment of the court below was adverse to appellant herein, and such judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Texas upon the grounds set forth in its opinion, which is reported in the case of Schley v. Couch, 284 S.W.2d 333. Under the doctrine of res judicata, the parties to a final judgment rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction are precluded from relitigating in a second suit the issues which were, or could have been, pleaded and proved in the prior suit. Maxwell v. Campbell, Tex.Civ.App., 282 S.W.2d 957, pts. 4 and 5 (er. ref.) and authorities there cited.

Appellant alleged in his prior suit 'that the plaintiff as finder of said money, is entitled to same and all of same. That the original owner of same is dead...