Johnson v. Southwestern Battery Co.

• Decision Date: 08 February 1966
• Docket Number: No. 40739,40739
• Citation: 411 P.2d 526
• Parties: Nota JOHNSON, Plaintiff in Error, v. SOUTHWESTERN BATTERY COMPANY, Inc., and Jimmy Nightingale, Defendants in Error.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Page 526

411 P.2d 526

1966 OK 16

Nota JOHNSON, Plaintiff in Error, v. SOUTHWESTERN BATTERY COMPANY, Inc., and Jimmy Nightingale Defendants in Error.

No. 40739.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Feb. 8, 1966.

Syllabus by the Court

Generally speaking, a judgment does not preclude relitigation of an issue where the court rendering it would have no jurisdiction to determine the issue in an action brought directly for that purpose, but does necessarily and properly resolve it in deciding the case before it.

Where a party has been afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate an issue in a court of unlimited jurisdiction, and has voluntarily elected to waive it, there is no reason for application of an exception to the rules of res judicata and estoppel by judgment and they apply to bar his subsequent separate action involving the same subject matter as that previously adjudicated.

Appeal from District Court of Tulsa County; W. Lee Johnson, Judge.

Upon cross-action by defendant, Nota Johnson, against plaintiffs, Southwestern Battery Company and Jimmy L. Nightingale, transferred from The Court of Common Pleas of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, to The District Court of said County, the trial judge sustained pleas of res judicata and estoppel by judgment and dismissed said cross-action, from which Nota Johnson appeals. Affirmed.

Doerner, Stuart, Moreland & Saunders, by Harry D. Moreland, Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.

Covington & Gibbon, by A. M. Covington, Tulsa, for defendants in error.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal presents a single troublesome question with several different facets. The facts are briefly stated as follows:

Involved in the courts below was an automobile accident occurring at an open street intersection in the City of Tulsa. One vehicle belonged to Mrs. Anna Klentos, being driven at the time by Nota Johnson, admittedly an authorized agent of Mrs. Klentos, and the other vehicle belonged to Southwestern Battery Company, Inc., hereinafter referred to as Southwestern. Southwestern filed a suit in the Court of Common Pleas of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, against Nota Johnson and Anna Klentos claiming only damages to its vehicle as the result of the collision arising out of alleged negligence of Nota Johnson. Answers and cross-petitions were filed on behalf of each defendant, each asserting negligence of the driver of Southwestern's car, with Nota Johnson claiming personal injuries and Anna Klentos claiming damage to her vehicle. In her cross-petition, Nota Johnson demanded $50,000.00 as damages for her personal injuries and because of this, and by agreement of counsel, the entire cause was transferred from the Common Pleas Court, where it was originally filed, to the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, where it was then thereafter pending. After the issues were made up in the District Court, and for the express purpose of making a re-transfer of the Court of Common Pleas Possible, Nota Johnson amended her cross-petition, with leave of court, to reduce her demand to $10,000.00 which is the maximum jurisdictional amount of the Court of Common Pleas of Tulsa County. The entire case was thereupon transferred from the District Court to the Court of Common Pleas where it had originated and had been pending before its transfer to the District Court. The cause was there set for trial, a jury was empaneled, opening statements had been made and testimony had been begun when Nota Johnson sought and obtained leave of the trial court again to amend her cross-petition, as it then existed, to increase her demand for damages from $10,000.00 to $50,000.00. At this time counsel for Nota Johnson stated in this amendment that the cross-petition of Nota Johnson was being reserved 'for trial in the District Court of Tulsa County.' With the cause in this condition, Jimmy L. Nightingale was made a joint plaintiff and the cause proceeded to the conclusion of the trial in the Court of Common Pleas resulting in a jury verdict finding 'the issues for Neither Party.' Upon this verdict the Court of Common Pleas entered a judgment that neither of the plaintiffs nor the co-defendant, Anna Klentos, was entitled to recover and 'that said parties shall take nothing herein.' The journal entry of this judgment recites the previous withdrawal of the cross-petition of Nota Johnson from said cause, that the jury had been sworn to 'well and truly try the issues joined between plaintiffs and defendants,' and that Anna Klentos had proceeded with the trial in the defense of the claim which the plaintiff asserted against her individually and with her individual cross-petition against plaintiff in said cause. This judgment became final and was not appealed from.

The cross-petition of Nota Johnson, as last amended as aforesaid, was transferred to the District Court of Tulsa County and there docketed as a pending cause. Southwestern had answered this cross-petition in said cause and specifically pleaded the defenses of res judicata and estoppel by judgment by virtue of the verdict and judgment aforesaid in the action theretofore pending in the Court of Common Pleas. At the pre-trial conference it was stipulated that Nota Johnson's cross-petition would be deemed to run also against Jimmy L. Nightingale. Southwestern and Nightingale moved for judgment in their favor upon the basis of these pleas and stipulations of counsel agreeing to the above stated facts and agreeing that the court should rule upon these pleas and their effectiveness or lack of effectiveness at that state of the proceeding.

The District Court sustained the aforesaid motion of Southwestern and Nightingale and rendered judgment in favor of Southwestern and Nightingale, dismissing the cross-petition of Nota Johnson. After motion for a new trial was duly filed and overruled, this appeal was taken and lodged in this Court.

The plaintiff in error asserts error, relying upon the oft-stated exception to the rules and principles of res judicata and estoppel by judgment to the effect that neither res judicata nor estoppel by judgment shall apply to an issue which could not have been litigated in the previously pending case because the matter in issue exceeded or was beyond the jurisdiction of the court in which the earlier case was pending, and particularly where the right to litigate the matter in another court of competent jurisdiction was expressly reserved. Defendant in error contends that notwithstanding the jurisdictional limitations upon the court in which the matters were earlier tried and decided, the principles of res judicata and estoppel by judgment fully apply when later asserted in a court of competent jurisdiction against the party who otherwise would have been bound by the judgment of the court of limited jurisdiction.

Under the particular facts and circumstances in this case, there is much to be said and much can be argued supporting each side of the controversy. It would seem not to be questionable that in this jurisdiction res judicata and estoppel by judgment will not apply so as to be conclusive against a party who was forced to litigate the questions involved in a court of limited jurisdiction where the claims and demands of such party, legally assertable and asserted, could not be litigated. In truth, this Court has previously held that the statutes of this State are not in all cases mandatory to require the assertion of a counterclaim or cross-petition but that the only requirement in such cases of noncompulsory counterclaim is that if cross-petition or counterclaim be not asserted, the party in whose favor it exists cannot recover costs in a...