Keller v. Thompson
| Decision Date | 06 November 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 340,340 |
| Citation | 134 So.2d 395 |
| Parties | Sarah R. KELLER et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. James W. THOMPSON, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Gold, Hall & Skye, by Jimmy M. Stoker, Alexandria, for defendant-appellant.
Camden K. Staples, Alexandria, for plaintiffs-appellees.
Before TATE, FRUGE and SAVOY, JJ.
By this action two co-owners seek reimbursement from a third co-owner for the latter's proportionate share of necessary repairs to the co-owned premises. The premises were leased to and in the possession of a lessee. The repairs were made by the plaintiff co-owners over the objection of the defendant co-owner, who felt more permanent reconstruction preferable to the temporary repairs of the damaged roof structure.
The defendant was cast for $321.40, his proportionate share of the temporary repairs; and he appeals.
This is the second time that this litigation has been considered by the appellate courts. The threshold issue of this appeal, and the one upon which it turns, is whether the ruling of the first appeal provides the law of the case which should be applied by this court in the disposition of this second appeal.
Initially, the trial court had sustained the defendant's exception of no cause of action and had dismissed the suit. This judgment was reversed, and the case remanded for trial, upon an appeal to the Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit, which then had jurisdiction of appeals from Rapides Parish (prior to the reorganization of the appellate court structure of this state effective in 1960, subsequent to which the present court of appeal has jurisdiction of such appeals). 121 So.2d 575. The Second Circuit refused rehearing; the Supreme Court denied defendant's application for certiorari on the ground that the judgment was not yet final.
On the remand, as the trial court held, the evidence at the trial on the merits showed that the repairs were necessary and that the price was reasonable. The trial court rendered judgment against the defendant, finding that the allegations of the petition had been proven, which the Second Circuit had previously ruled constituted a cause of action by which, if proved, the defendant was liable to the plaintiffs for his share of the repairs.
This second appeal is by the defendant from such judgment on the merits. By the present appeal, the defendant co-owner again urges his basic defense that a co-owner may not be compelled to reimburse his co-owners for his proportionate share of reasonable and necessary repairs to leased premises when such repairs are made contrary to his wishes and over his protest. This of course is the identical issue upon which the Second Circuit ruled adversely to the defendant's contentions in the prior appeal in this action, when such appellate court overruled the defendant's exception of no cause of action and remanded the case for trial on the merits. 121 So.2d 575.
Defendant's able counsel concedes that the judgment appealed from should be affirmed if the Second Circuit correctly interpreted the law. But, it is argued, the present different court of appeal is free to reconsider the issue and to reach a different determination of the legal point involved, since a court is not bound by rulings of other courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction, and since one Louisiana court of appeal is not bound by decisions of other courts of appeal, however persuasive they may be. City of Shreveport v. Baylock, 236 La. 133, 107 So.2d 419; Ellis v. Travelers Insurance Co., La.App. 4, 123 So.2d 780, 781.
Counsel refers, however, to the effect as a precedent to be given to a prior ruling by the same or another court of appeal on the identical question of law in proceedings involving Other parties. There is a distinction between this effect, and between the effect to be given to prior rulings disposing of the identical issue earlier in the Same proceedings involving the Same parties. The principle applicable to the latter situation is referred to as the 'law of the case', a principle which has as its purpose the avoiding of indefinite relitigation of the same question and the expediting of its final determination. As compared with the court's consideration of the merely persuasive effect of a precedent resulting from a decision in Another suit, an earlier ruling in the same litigation ordinarily 'dispenses with the need of (the court's) considering again what has been previously decided in the same suit'. Lummus 'The 'Law of the Case' in Massachusetts', 9 Boston U.L.Rev. 225 (1929).
As succinctly summarized in the comment, 'Developments in Law--Res Judicata', 65 Harv.L.Rev. 818 (1952), 820, the law of the case principle relates (a) 'to the binding force of trial court rulings during later stages of the trial', (b) 'to the conclusive effect of appellate rulings at the trial on remand', and (c) to 'the rule that an appellate court will not reconsider its own rulings of law on a subsequent appeal in the same case'. The comment continues that, in the latter sense, 'law of the case is limited to rulings of law and to the framework of a single case. Formerly applied as strictly as res judicata, even where an intervening case involving other parties had overruled the prior decision, law of the case now serves most courts as a discretionary guide. Reargument will be barred where there is merely doubt as to the correctness of the former ruling, but will be permitted in cases of 'palpable error' or 'manifest injustice'.' See also: Freeman on Judgments (5th ed., 1925), Sections 627a (p. 1324), 630 (p. 1328); 1 Moore's Federal Practice (1960), Section 0.4041.
This principle has application in Louisiana. 'With respect to an appellate court the doctrine prevailing is that its final ruling on an exception is the 'law of the case' as to the point covered', if after the remand the same point is re-urged upon a second appeal to such court on the merits, Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Theard, 225 La. 98, 72 So.2d 310, 313. See: City of Gretna v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 207 La. 1085, 22 So.2d 658; Hoey v. New Orleans Great Northern R. Co., 164 La. 112, 113 So. 785; Davis v. Lewis & Lewis, La.App. 1 Cir., 72 So.2d 612 ().
This doctrine thus applies, although a judgment overruling an exception of no cause of action and remanding the suit for trial on the merits is indeed merely an interlocutory judgment deciding only preliminary matters...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Succession of Gaudin
...by the law of the case. This identical question was resolved recently in the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, in the case of Keller v. Thompson, La.App., 134 So.2d 395 (Advance Sheet No. 2, Dec. 14, 1961.) The Court concluded therein that the law of the case having been established by a fina......
-
Thibodeaux v. Parks Equipment Co.
...decision of the same issues in the first appeal is binding on the parties in this court on this second appeal. See Keller v. Thompson, La.App. 3 Cir., 134 So.2d 395, certiorari denied.' Emphasis ours. In Keller v. Thompson, La.App., 134 So.2d 395, the Court said: 'This principle has applica......
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Travelers Ins. Co.
...does furnish the 'law of the case' which ordinarily we (but not a higher court) must follow in subsequent proceedings. Keller v. Thompson, La.App. 3 Cir., 134 So.2d 395. Nevertheless, since our pioneer decision in Lincombe nearly two years ago in an issue which has become a matter of litiga......
-
Day v. Campbell-Grosjean Roofing & Sheet Metal Corp.
...Co., 207 La. 1085, 22 So.2d 658 (1945); Wall v. American Employers Ins. Co., 250 So.2d 172 (La.App.1st Cir. 1971); Keller v. Thompson, 134 So.2d 395 (La.App.3d Cir. 1961) (full discussion). See also Moore's Federal Practice, 0.404 (1965); Freeman on Judgments, Section 30 (5th Ed. 1925); Not......