Gray v. Gray
| Decision Date | 23 January 1926 |
| Citation | 107 So. 261,91 Fla. 103 |
| Parties | GRAY v. GRAY. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
En Banc.
Error to Circuit Court, Duval County; Daniel A. Simmons, Judge.
Ejectment by Frank Gray against Clara Gray. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
Estoppel rests on equitable principles; res judicata rests on maxims that one ought not to be twice sued for same cause and that there should be an end of litigation. Estoppel rests on equitable principles, while res judicata rests on two maxims which were its foundation in Roman law, and are as follows (1) No one ought to be twice sued for the same cause of action; and (2) it is the interest of the state that there should be an end of litigation.
Judgment rendered on merits is absolute bar to subsequent action judgment in prior action operates as estoppel only as to matters or points in issue, on determination of which finding or verdict was rendered. There is a difference between the effect of a judgment as a bar or estoppel against the prosecution of a second action upon the same claim or demand and its effect as an estoppel in another action between the same parties upon a different claim or cause of action. In the former case, the judgment, if rendered upon the merits constitutes an absolute bar to a subsequent action; but where the second action between the same parties is upon a different claim or demand, the judgment in the prior action operates as an estoppel only as to those matters in issue or points controverted, upon the determination of which the finding or verdict was rendered.
To constitute res judicata there must be identity of object of suit, of causes of action, of persons and parties, and of quality in persons for or against whom claim is made. When the cause of action is the same, in order to make a matter res judicata there must be concurrence of the following conditions: (1) Identity in the thing sued for; (2) identity of the cause of action; (3) identity of persons and parties to the action; and (4) identity of the quality in the persons for or against whom the claim is made.
McGill & McGill, of Jacksonville, for plaintiff in error.
Gov. Hutchinson and Gordon McCauley, both of Jacksonville, for defendant in error.
In August, 1916, Clara Gray brought suit in chancery for the purpose of restraining Frank Gray from prosecuting a suit at law ejecting her from certain described premises in Duval county, and for the purpose of having herself adjudged and decreed to be the owner in fee simple of an individual one-half interest in said lands. Upon final hearing June 30, 1921, on the pleadings and the report of the master, the chancellor found the equities in the cause to be with Frank Gray, and dismissed the bill of complaint.
In April, 1917, Frank Gray brought an action in ejectment against Clara Gray to secure title and possession of the identical lands described in the bill of complaint filed by Clara Gray in August, 1916. An amended declaration was filed in March, 1918. Various and sundry pleadings were filed, and the case came on for trial in February, 1923, on plaintiff's replication to the declaration. After hearing the testimony and inspecting defendant's replication, the court instructed the jury to return a verdict for the plaintiff.
The record discloses that by leave of the court two additional replications were filed on the part of the plaintiff, the first of which defendant in error contends sets up an estoppel by matter of record, and the second sets up res judicata. A demurrer to the second replication was sustained, leaving the first replication which made the issue to the declaration, on which the trial was held. It appears that the trial court, in disposing of the demurrer, treated it as attacking both replications.
The sole question presented for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mcgregor v. Provident Trust Co. of Philadelphia
...of quality in persons for or against whom claim is made. Lake Region Hotel Co. v. Gollick, 110 Fla. 324, 149 So. 204; Gray v. Gray, 91 Fla. 103, 107 So. 261; Brundage v. O'Berry, 101 Fla. 320, 134 So. This is in line with the second of the two rules above stated by Black; the first is commo......
-
Kelliher v. Stone & Webster
...v. Perin, etc., Co., 125 U. S. 698, 8 S. Ct. 1024, 31 L. Ed. 839. See, also, Robbins v. Hanbury, 37 Fla. 468, 19 So. 886; Gray v. Gray, 91 Fla. 103, 107 So. 261. Under the Florida practice at least, a decree finding the equities with the defendant and unconditionally dismissing the bill of ......
-
Baldwin Drainage Dist. v. MacClenny Turpentine Co.
...party who claims the benefit of the former adjudication. See Prall v. Prall, 58 Fla. 496, 50 So. 867, 26 L.R.A., N.S., 577; Gray v. Gray, 91 Fla. 103, 107 So. 261; Bagwell v. Bagwell, Fla., 14 So.2d 841. Our in State by Watson v. Covington, supra, may be presented as defensive matter. The d......
-
Matthews v. Matthews
...680.3 Yulee v. Canova, 1864-1865, 11 Fla. 9, 56; Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. Fisher, 1909, 58 Fla. 377, 50 So. 504; Gray v. Gray, 1926, 91 Fla. 103, 107 So. 261; Brundage v. O'Berry, 1931, 101 Fla. 320, 134 So. 520; Coral Realty Co. v. Peacock Holding Co., 1931, 103 Fla. 916, 138 So. ......