Elliott v. Porter

• Decision Date: 29 November 1899
• Citation: 59 P. 360,6 Idaho 684
• Parties: ELLIOTT v. PORTER
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

59 P. 360

6 Idaho 684

ELLIOTT v. PORTER

Supreme Court of Idaho

November 29, 1899

JUDGMENT-CONCLUSIVE OF ALL QUESTIONS INVOLVED.-The judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, so long as the same is unreversed, is conclusive of all questions involved in the issues, presented by the pleadings and passed upon by the judgment of such court as to parties and privies.

(Syllabus by the court.)

APPEAL from District Court, Nez Perces County.

Reversed and remanded, with instructions, costs of the appeal in favor of the appellant.

Eugene O'Neill, for Appellant.

This case having been adjudicated in the probate court as to the ownership of the property involved, the decision of the district court reversing that unappealed adjudication is a readjudication of a former adjudication and is ex necessitate wrong. The rule of law, we contend, is the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction directly upon the point is as a plea, a bar and as evidence conclusive between the same parties and privies upon the same matter directly in another court. (Love v. Waltz, 7 Cal. 250; Wiese v. San Francisco Musical Soc., 82 Cal. 645, 647, 23 P. 212; Bell v. Alleghany County, 184 Pa. St. 296, 63 Am St. Rep. 795, 39 A. 227 et seq.; Marsh v. Pier, 4 Rawle, 273, 26 Am. Dec. 131; Wann v. McNulty, 7 Ill (2 Gilm.) 353, 43 Am. Dec. 58; 9 Ency. of Pl. & Pr. 611, 612; New Orleans v. Citizens' Bank, 167 U.S. 388, 17 S.Ct. 905.)

James W. Reid, for Respondent.

The only question at issue is, "Did the court err in submitting the question of former adjudication to the jury?" I submit that it was not error. (9 Ency. of Pl. & Pr. 611; 1 Ency. of Pl. & Pr. 836; 36 Cal. 28; 42 Cal. 371; Winfield's Adjudged Phrases, 533.)

HUSTON C. J. Sullivan, J., QUARLES, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.

OPINION

HUSTON, C. J.

In July, 1897, Elliott and Emery, as co-partners, instituted a suit in the probate court of Nez Perces county against Al. Lamott and William Ross for the recovery of certain personal property, consisting of one set of double harness and two horses, of the alleged value of $ 175. It seems that some time prior to the institution of said suit the plaintiffs and defendants therein had made a contract or agreement wherein and whereby the said defendants agreed "to deliver, in Clearwater river, in 1896, five hundred thousand feet of logs, at three dollars per thousand for common lumber, and five dollars per thousand for clear lumber," and plaintiffs therefore agreed to convey and give title to a team of horses, with harness, called "Pete" and "Barney," said horses and harness being same property described in plaintiff's complaint, as pay for one hundred thousand feet of said lumber agreed to be furnished by the said defendants, the price of said horses and harness being estimated at $ 300, and to pay for the balance of said lumber, to wit, four hundred thousand feet, in supplies to be furnished to defendants as required, at the rate of three dollars per thousand feet for common lumber, and five dollars per thousand feet for clear lumber. Separate answers were filed in said cause by both defendants; also cross-complaints and answers to cross-complaints. Upon the issues raised by these numerous pleadings (which seem to have been simply to determine the title to the two horses and harness described in the original complaint, and incidentally the title to one hundred and eighteen thousand feet of lumber claimed to have been delivered by defendants to plaintiffs in payment of said horses and harness), the case was tried by the probate court without a jury. The probate court found as facts, inter alia, that the title to the horses and harness was in the plaintiffs; that "the defendants . . . . placed on the bank of Clearwater river, at a place called 'Big Island,' one hundred and eighteen thousand feet of logs, by Ross' scale; that these logs were not delivered under the terms of said agreement, and not delivered at all, and remained and are the property of the defendants." As conclusions of law from the facts stated, said probate court found "that the plaintiffs are the owners and entitled to and to retain the possession of the horses and harness described in the plaintiffs' complaint; that the defendants, Al. Lamott and William Ross, are the owners of all the logs cut by them, not delivered in the water, but left on the bank of the river"; and entered judgment accordingly, with costs in favor of plaintiffs. Subsequently to the...