Griffin v. Seymour

• Decision Date: 09 June 1863
• Citation: 15 Iowa 30
• Parties: GRIFFIN v. SEYMOUR
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

15 Iowa 30

GRIFFIN v. SEYMOUR

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

June 9, 1863

Appeal from Johnson District Court.

THE plaintiff in 1859 brought his action against Grundy County and the defendant in this suit, jointly, upon a county order issued by the said county, and a separate written guaranty executed by defendant. To that action the defendant Seymour demurred: 1. For the reason that there was a misjoinder of parties. 2. That the petition did not show such a state of facts as would entitle the plaintiff to recover. This demurrer was sustained, but upon what ground it does not appear. The plaintiff appealed from the ruling of the District Court, and upon a hearing in this Court the judgment was affirmed. By referring to the opinion (see 10 Iowa 226) it will be observed that this Court held that there was a misjoinder of parties, and that in this respect the demurrer was well taken. The question presented by the second cause of demurrer does not appear to have been raised, or at least passed upon.

Affirmed.

Clarke & Davis for the appellant.

L Robinson for the appellee.

Hon. CALEB BALDWIN, Chief Justice, Hon. GEORGE G. WRIGHT, Judge.

OPINION

BALDWIN, Ch. J.

The present suit is against Seymour alone, upon his written guaranty. The defendant interposed the plea of former adjudication. A demurrer to this being sustained, he appeals therefrom, and assigns this ruling as error.

It is conceded that this suit is between the same plaintiff and one of the same defendants, and upon the same cause of action as the one formerly determined by this Court--the appellant now insisting, however, that the case was there adjudicated upon its merits, the appellee insisting that the only question there determined was the one in relation to the misjoinder of parties.

It is claimed in the argument, by appellant, that the demurrer in the former case raised two questions: 1. Whether the defendant was liable jointly; and 2. Whether he was liable at all; and as the Court sustained the demurrer without stating that it was overruled, in so far as it presented any other question except as to the misjoinder, it is proper to infer that it was sustained as a whole, and that, therefore, there was a complete and full adjudication of the whole case.

In order to enable the defendant to interpose the plea of a prior adjudication successfully, it must be made to appear that the actual point in issue between the parties has already been determined, and such determination or decision must have been upon the merits. Was the point in issue in this case, that is, whether the plaintiff had used such diligence against the defendant as to make him liable on his special guaranty, decided in the former cause? In the first place, we think that the presumption would legitimately arise, that where there are two objections raised against the...