Karas v. Karas
| Decision Date | 02 April 1936 |
| Citation | 294 Mass. 230,200 N.E. 922 |
| Parties | KARAS v. KARAS. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Suit in equity by George Karas against Carrie Karas. From an interlocutory dedecree sustaining a plea by the defendant, and from a final decree dismissing the bill, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Appeal from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Swift, Judge.
D. S. Turetsky and L. Lebowitz, both of Boston, for appellant.
H. J. Booras and J. A. Edgerly, both of Boston, for appellee.
In Karas v. Karas, 288 Mass. 460, 193 N.E. 18, the plaintiff sought to obtain, as the cestui under a resulting trust, a half interest in real estate the title to which had been taken in the name of the defendnat, his wife. It was not found that the plaintiff paid the whole price, although he paid almost all of it. Each, it was found, was to have some undefined share in the property. Upon these facts, the bill was dismissed, and on appeal the final decree was affirmed.
Afterwards the plaintiff brought a new bill, alleging as before that he paid the purchase price and was to have a half interest. But in the new bill he prayed, not for a conveyance of a half interest, but for the payment to him of the value of a half interest. The defendant filed a plea of former adjuciation, which was sustained, and the new bill was dismissed with costs. The plaintiff appealed.
If the earlier bill was based upon the same cause of suit as the new bill, the final decree dismissing the earlier bill on the merits adjudicates against the plaintiff not only every issue raised and decided in the earlier suit, but also every issue that could have been raised and decided therein. Corbett v. Craven, 193 Mass. 30, 78 N.E. 748;Hanzes v. Flavio, 234 Mass. 320, 329, 125 N.E. 612;Eastman Marble Co. v. Vermont Marble Co., 236 Mass. 138, 148, 149, 128 N.E. 177;E. C. Bowman & Son Co. v. Hern, 239 Mass. 200, 206, 207, 131 N.E. 334;Cleaveland v. Malden Savings Bank (Mass.) 197 N.E. 14;Sandler v. Silk (Mass.) 198 N.E. 749;Tait v. Western Maryland R. Co., 289 U.S. 620, 623,56 S.Ct. 706,77 L.Ed. 1405.
The question is, whether the claims or causes of suit, presented by the bills, are the same. Both bills were founded on the same facts, and sought relief on the ground that the plaintiff had expended money and had been denied the expected benefit. The only difference was in the form of relief expressly claimed in the prayers. This difference does not impair the identity of the claims or causes of suit, even if it be assumed that the relief now sought could not have been given upon the earlier bill without amendment. Mackintosh v. Chambers, 285 Mass. 594, 596-598, 190 N.E. 38, and cases reviewed. Gallagher v. Wheeler (Mass.) 198 N.E. 891;E. C. Bowman & Son Co. v. Hern, 239 Mass. 200, 131 N.E. 334;Baltimore Steamship Co. v. Phillips, 274 U.S. 316, 47 S.Ct. 600, 71 L.Ed. 1069;Vinson v. Graham (C.C.A.) 44 F.(2d) 772. But we see no reason why the plaintiff, under the prayer for general relief implied in every bill (G.L.[Ter.Ed.] c. 214, § 12), and actually contained in the earlier bill, could not have obtained upon that bill as drawn the relief now sought, if he had been entitled to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Bucknam v. Bucknam
-
Reeves v. Scott
...and the other for damages, is to be construed as containing a general prayer for relief. G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 214, § 12. Karas v. Karas, 294 Mass. 230, 231, 200 N.E. 922:Howland v. Plymouth, 319 Mass. 321, 325, 65 N.E.2d 535;Boylston Housing Corp. v. O'Toole, 321 Mass. 538, 543, 74 N.E.2d 288,......
-
Whitney v. Whitney
...Merrill, 222 Mass. 308, 310, 110 N.E. 626;Cheraska v. Ohanasian, 259 Mass. 341, 344, 156 N.E. 715, 52 A.L.R. 1149;Karas v. Karas, Mass., 200 N.E. 922;Abbott v. Bean, Mass., 3 N.E.2d 762;Bonifazi v. Breschi, Mass., 6 N.E.2d 816. See, also, Reid v. Holmes, 127 Mass. 326. The case at bar is di......
- Weathers v. Jarvis