Ex parte Proctor

• Decision Date: 07 June 1945
• Docket Number: 4 Div. 373.
• Citation: 22 So.2d 896,247 Ala. 138
• Parties: Ex parte PROCTOR.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

22 So.2d 896

247 Ala. 138

Ex parte PROCTOR.

4 Div. 373.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 7, 1945

Rehearing Denied July 26, 1945.

Powell & Fuller, of Andalusia, for petitioner.

Powell Albritton & Albritton, of Andalusia, for respondent.

SIMPSON, Justice.

This suit, in essence, seeks to revest title in the estate of A W. Woodham, deceased, and out of J. W. Griffin to certain lots in Andalusia, Alabama. The original bill, filed in 1938 was by George H. Proctor, as administrator de bonis non of the estate of A. W. Woodham, deceased, against Mrs. A. W Woodham, J. W. Griffin, Mrs. Mary W. Barley and P. D. Wright, as respondents, seeking to quiet title to the property. After several amendments a substituted bill was filed in 1944, in which Lillie Mae Woodham Shanks, as the only heir of Woodham, was added as a party complainant.

In the original bill Proctor, administrator, the sole complainant, averred that he, as the personal representative of decedent, was the owner and in peaceable possession of the described lands. In the substituted bill it was averred that both complainants were in the peaceable possession of the property in controversy and that complainant Proctor claimed to hold possession of the property as personal representative of decedent Woodham and that complainant Lillie Mae Woodham Shanks claimed the legal title to the property as decedent's heir.

The respondents, Griffin and Wright, interposed as a defense to the claim of the administrator a plea of res judicata, asserting that the issue now presented had been previously adjudicated between the parties in the case now reported of Barley v. Wright, 233 Ala. 283, 171 So. 247; and to the claim of Shanks a plea in abatement that as to her, with Proctor out of the case on the plea of res judicata, there was an entire change of parties.

For a correct understanding of this case, it is necessary to consider the previous case of Barley v. Wright, supra, where the property now in suit was also involved.

The former case (233 Ala., 171 So.) was for a rescission of an exchange of real estate consummated between Mrs. Barley and her co-partner, said A. W. Woodham (now deceased, of whose estate complainant Proctor is the administrator de bonis non) on the one hand and defendants Wright and Griffin on the other. In that case it was shown that Barley and Woodham, in 1933, purchased the Cleere Hotel property in Haleyville, Alabama, from Wright and Griffin. Said Woodham, who was the owner of the lots involved in the present litigation, conveyed them to Barley, who in turn, as part of the purchase price of the hotel property, conveyed them to Wright and Griffin, who mortgaged the same to J. W. Griffin. J. W. Griffin, after default in the mortgage debt, duly foreclosed the mortgage in 1936 and became the purchaser of the property at the mortgage sale, hence his present claim of title.

In the original bill in that case (233 Ala., 171 So.) complainant Barley sought a rescission of the contract for the purchase of the hotel property on the ground of fraud allegedly perpetrated by Wright and Griffin and made her co-partner Woodham and his wife parties respondent. In answer to Barley's bill of complaint Woodham and wife filed a cross-bill admitting substantially the allegations of the original bill and in addition thereto alleged that his physical and mental faculties had become impaired and because of this he was unable to prudently transact the stated business and that Wright and Griffin, knowing this, fraudulently induced him to enter into the hotel transaction aforesaid. Complainant Barley and all of the respondents to the original bill, including J. W. Griffin, the present defendant who claims title to the lots, were made defendants to the Woodhams' cross-bill. In addition to joining in the prayer of the original bill of complainant, Barley, for a rescission of the hotel transaction, the cross-bill of the Woodhams also sought to have the deed which Barley had executed to Wright and Griffin to the lots in the present suit set aside and avoided on the same ground of fraud. In the cross-bill to this end it was prayed 'that the respondents (Wright and Griffin) to the original bill be required to deliver all mortgages and deeds (the one to the instant lots, included) described in the original bill for cancellation and that said deeds and mortgages separately and severally be cancelled.'

To this answer and cross-bill Wright and Griffin duly replied, denying the allegations of fraud and the mental impairment of Woodham and among other things alleged that at the time of the transaction, so far as they knew, Woodham was in complete possession of his mental faculties and 'was fully informed as to all matters and facts relating to the property in question and with full knowledge of these facts voluntarily consummated the same.'

It also appears that during the progress of the proceedings and before final decree Woodham died and an administrator ad litem was appointed by the court to represent his estate, and the cause revived.

Upon a hearing on the merits, the trial court in that case rendered a final decree denying all relief to complainant Barley and to the cross-complainants, Woodham and wife, and, upon appeal to this court by the complainant Barley, that decree was affirmed (233 Ala., 171 So.).

The plea of res judicata sets forth, in extenso, the foregoing facts and pleads in bar of the present suit the final decree in this first case. The primary question now for consideration is whether or not this former proceeding, ending in the decree aforesaid, is a bar to the present claim to the property by Proctor as administrator de bonis non of Woodham's estate because of Woodham's alleged unsoundness of mind when he executed the deed to Barley.

The pertinent rule which we have adopted as axiomatic is thus stated:

'When * * * there is no question as to the jurisdiction of the court, or as to the identity of parties, the inquiry, whether the subject-matter of the controversy has been drawn in question, and is concluded by a former adjudication, is determined, when it is ascertained that the matters of the two suits are the same, and the issues in the former suit were broad enough to have comprehended all that is involved in the issues in the second suit. The inquiry is not, what the parties actually litigated, but what they might and ought to have litigated in the former suit. * * *' Tankersly v. Pettis, 71 Ala. 179, 186.

Reaffirming this principle, in the recent case of Savage v. Savage, 20 So.2d 784, 786, this court said:

'The rule recognized in our jurisdiction is that, where the issues were broad enough to comprehend all that was involved in the issues of the second suit, the test is not what the parties actually litigated, but what they might or (and) ought to have litigated.'

The following cases are also in point: Glasser v. Meyrovitz, 119 Ala. 152, 157, 24 So. 514; King v. Coffee, 222 Ala. 245, 131 So. 792; Adams v. Powell, 225 Ala. 300, 142 So. 537; Gilbreath v. Jones, 66 Ala. 129, 132; Chamberlain v. Gaillard, 26 Ala. 504.

When the plea of res judicata is tested by the stated principle, it becomes manifest that it was sufficient as a bar to the instant proceeding by Proctor, administrator aforesaid, and the trial court correctly so ruled.

'The doctrine of res judicata has been declared to be a branch of and grounded in the law of estoppel' (30 Am.Jur. 912, § 167) and the complainant Proctor, as Woodham's said representative, is clearly estopped to maintain the suit.

The validity of the title to the lots now in controversy was necessarily involved in the former suit of Barley v Wright, 233 Ala. 283, 171 So. 247, was an issue which, under the pleadings of that case, could and should have been there litigated and the result there determined the issue between all who were parties. The purpose of the original bill to which Woodham was a party defendant, as well as Woodham's cross-bill, was to set aside and avoid the entire hotel transaction, including that part which vested in Wright and Griffin the title to the lots now in suit,...