Fowler v. Stebbins

• Decision Date: 18 March 1905
• Docket Number: 2,053.
• Citation: 136 F. 365
• Parties: FOWLER v. STEBBINS et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

136 F. 365

FOWLER v. STEBBINS et al.

No. 2,053.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

March 18, 1905

Syllabus by the Court

Identity of parties is as essential to the estoppel of res adjudicata as identity of causes of action.

Identity of names is presumptive, but it is not conclusive evidence of identity of persons.

Where the pleading upon which a judgment or decree is based discloses the fact that there were two persons with the same name who may be identified by their descriptions in the pleading, and that one of these persons was made a party to the suit, and the other was not, the latter may exempt himself from the estoppel of the decree by applying to himself by competent evidence the description in the pleading.

The plaintiff, Lewis Fowler, brought an action of ejectment against the defendants, A. G. Stebbins, A. W. Dennison, and the Citizens' State Bank. They answered that he was the same person who was a party defendant under the name Louis Fowler in a suit to partition the property in controversy which had been brought by John Martin Fowler, the nephew of Hiram H. Fowler, who died intestate, the owner of the land in December, 1894, that service of the summons or notice had been made upon the plaintiff in that suit by publication that a decree had been rendered therein that he had no interest in the property, and that the property be sold, and the proceeds be distributed among others, who were adjudged to be the owners of it; that the defendant Stebbins purchased and obtained a conveyance of the land under that decree; that he and the other defendants hold it under that title; and that the claim of the plaintiff to the land was rendered res adjudicata by the decree in that suit in partition. They attached and made a part of their answer the petition summons, or notice, and decree in partition. One of the parties named as a defendant in the partition suit was Louis Fowler. The petition contained these averments concerning him: 'That said Hiram H. Fowler did not leave either widow or children surviving him, nor any parents, and, under the laws of this state, said real estate descended in equal shares to his brothers and sisters, and to the children of his brothers and sister who were deceased. ' 'That the decedent, Hiram H. Fowler, formerly had a son named Louis Fowler, who died more than ten years ago, and the defendant Louis Fowler, who claims to be an heir of the decedent, Hiram H. Fowler, is not the son of said Hiram H. Fowler, and is not in any manner related to him, and is not an heir of said decedent, nor in any way interested in the above-described land. ' The petition contained this, among other prayers: 'And that defendants Louis Fowler and Maria Fowler be found and adjudged to be in no wise related to the decedent, Hiram Fowler. ' The notice published informed the defendants that, unless they answered, a decree would be rendered against them that John Martin Fowler and others were the owners of the property; 'that the defendants Louis Fowler and Maria Fowler are in no manner related to the deceased, Hiram H. Fowler, and have no interest whatever in and to said premises'; and that the property or its proceeds be divided among its owners. The decree contained a finding that the facts set forth in the petition were true; that Hiram H. Fowler died without leaving either widow, children, or parents; that the defendant Louis Fowler was not the son of Hiram H. Fowler, was not in any way related to him, and had no interest in the property; and it adjudged that he was barred and estopped from setting up any claim to the land. The plaintiff replied to this answer that he is the only son of Hiram H. Fowler, and that he is the owner of the property by descent from his father; that he is not the same person who was made a defendant in the suit in partition by the name Louis Fowler; that that person was some Louis Fowler to him unknown, who was not related to Hiram H. Fowler, while he is that son of Hiram H. Fowler, who the plaintiff in the suit in partition supposed and alleged was dead, and consequently did not make a party to that suit. Upon the trial of the action the defendants objected to the introduction of any evidence by the plaintiff upon the ground that, under the admission in the pleadings that the defendants had the title under the decree in partition, the claim of the plaintiff was res adjudicata. The court sustained this objection, directed a verdict, and entered a judgment for the defendants.

C. H. Brooks (J. D. Houston, on the brief), for plaintiff in error.

A. L. Redden (T. A. Kramer, on the brief), for defendants in error.

Before SANBORN and VAN DEVANTER, Circuit Judges, and PHILIPS, District Judge.

SANBORN Circuit Judge, after stating the case as above, .

Identity of parties is as essential to an estoppel by res adjudicata as identity of causes of action. Conceding that the difference in the name Louis Fowler in the proceedings in partition and the name of the plaintiff, Lewis Fowler, is not...