Hodson v. Union Pacific Railway Co.

• Decision Date: 28 January 1897
• Docket Number: 681
• Citation: 14 Utah 402,47 P. 859
• Court: Utah Supreme Court
• Parties: J. R. HODSON, RESPONDENT, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, APPELLANT

47 P. 859

14 Utah 402

J. R. HODSON, RESPONDENT, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, APPELLANT

No. 681

Supreme Court of Utah

January 28, 1897

Appeal from the Second district court, Territory of Utah. Hon. W. H King, Judge.

Action by J. R. Hodson against the Union Pacific Railway for damages sustained by the killing of a horse. From a judgment for plaintiff defendant appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

Williams Van Cott & Sutherland, for appellant.

Evans &amp Rogers, for respondent.

No briefs were filed.

BARTCH, J. ZANE, C. J., and HART, J., concur.

OPINION

BARTCH, J.:

This action was brought to recover damages for the negligent killing of the plaintiff's horse by the defendant. It is averred, in substance, that on December 9, 1890, the plaintiff was the owner of a certain mare, of the value of $ 70, which was negligently killed by the defendant near Layton, Davis county, Utah. After denying the allegations of the complaint, it was alleged in the answer that on or about October 15, 1891, in an action pending in the district court, wherein Thomas H. Hodson was plaintiff and this defendant was defendant, a judgment was duly rendered in favor of said Thomas H. Hodson and against the said defendant for the value of the horse sued for herein, together with damages for another horse, with interest from the time of the killing, and for costs of suit; that said Thomas H. Hodson obtained said judgment for the horse sued for herein as assignee of the plaintiff in this action; that by said judgment it was ascertained and adjudged that said Thomas H. Hodson was such assignee of the plaintiff herein; and that afterwards, in 1891, the defendant fully paid and satisfied said judgment. At the trial of this cause the defendant introduced in evidence, without objection, the record of the former trial, from which record it appears that the same subject-matter herein was in controversy therein, and that the assignment by this plaintiff of his interest in the value of the horse sued for herein to the plaintiff in that suit was made an issue both in the pleadings and proof in that suit, and was submitted to the jury, who returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff therein, and against the defendant, for one entire sum, including damages and interest, of $ 281.70, although there were two horses sued for, and there being two separate counts in the complaint,--one for the value of a horse by right of ownership, and the other (being the one in controversy herein) by right of assignee. It further appears from such record that the court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff therein, in accordance with said verdict, and that, thereafter, upon the hearing of defendant's motion for a new trial, the plaintiff, by his counsel, in open court, remitted from the verdict the sum of $ 73.05, which was the amount of the principal and interest for the second cause of action, being the cause on which this suit is founded, and on which the plaintiff has recovered judgment against the defendant for the sum of $ 91.40 and costs. It also appears that the assignment was made by the plaintiff in this case with the intention that an action should be brought for the value of the horse in question. Such are the pleadings and the material evidence on which the appellant relies to release itself from the obligation created by the judgment in this suit.

The only question which is necessary to be considered on this appeal is whether the former judgment on the second cause of action is a bar to this suit, and operates as an estoppel to another judgment for the same cause of action. We think this must be decided in the affirmative. There is no question that the court in the former suit had jurisdiction to render that judgment, and the judgment has never been reversed or modified. It is therefore binding on the parties and their privies, and conclusive of the questions litigated, even though erroneously decided. The question whether the plaintiff in this suit had assigned his interest in the subject-matter on...