King Sales Co. v. McKey, No. 39422
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | NICHOLS |
| Citation | 125 S.E.2d 684,105 Ga.App. 787 |
| Parties | KING SALES COMPANY, Inc., et al. v. Minnie McKEY |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 39422 |
| Decision Date | 04 April 1962 |
Page 684
v.
Minnie McKEY.
Rehearing Denied April 24, 1962.
Page 685
Syllabus by the Court.
The judgment for the plaintiff was authorized by the evidence, no error appears from the rulings complained of in the amended motion for new trial, and the trial court did not err in overruling either the defendants' plea in bar or plea of res judicata.
[105 Ga.App. 788] This is the second appearance of this case before this court. On the first appearance, wherein rulings on the defendants' demurrers were reviewed, it was held that the petition set forth a cause of action but certain of the special grounds of demurrer were held to be sufficient and two paragraphs of the petition were ordered stricken.
Page 686
For a complete statement of the issues see King Sales Co., Inc. v. McKey, 104 Ga.App. 63, 121 S.E.2d 48. After the judgment of this court was made the judgment of the trial court the defendants' pleas of estoppel by judgment and of res judicata were tried and a judgment against the pleas rendered. The main case was then heard and a judgment for the plaintiff rendered, both trials were tried by the court without the intervention of a jury. Thereafter, the defendants' amended motion for new trial was overruled and they now assign error on the judgments adverse to them.Bruce B. Edwards, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
Bullock, Yancey & Mitchell, Kyle Yancey, Atlanta, for defendants in error.
NICHOLS, Presiding Judge.
1. The defendants' pleas of estoppel by judgment and res judicata were based on the trial of a previous case between the plaintiff and a finance company that had advanced money to pay for the merchandise sold the plaintiff. The finance company had sued the plaintiff in the present case and she, in her answer, had alleged a conspiracy between the finance company and King Sales Co. to defraud her. Neither the defendant King Sales Co. or the defendant Roy King was a party to such action.
"Under the doctrine of res judicata, 'a judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction shall be conclusive between the same parties and their privies as to all matters put in issue, or which under the rules of law might have been put in issue in the cause wherein the judgment was rendered, until such judgment shall be reversed or set aside.' Code, § 110-501. A somewhat different rule applies in regard to the doctrine...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. U.S., No. 76-2197
...judicata and collateral estoppel. Mundy v. Cincinnati Insurance Co., 141 Ga.App. 106, 232 S.E.2d 621 (1977); King Sales Co. v. McKey, 105 Ga.App. 787, 125 S.E.2d 684 (1962). Thus, since the present appellant was not a party to the Johns case and could not herself have been bound by any judg......
-
U.S. Cas. Co. v. Thomas, No. 39585
...712; Bailey v. Holmes, 163 Ga. 272, 275, 136 S.E. 60; Rowell v. Rowell, 211 Ga. 127, 130, 84 S.E.2d 23; King Sales, Inc. v. McKey, 105 Ga.App. 787, 789, 125 S.E.2d Nor could any inference of causal relation arise here, since claimant's own witness refuted it, but if one could, it was entire......
-
Delta Airlines, Inc. v. Woods, No. 51213
...265, 266-267, 154 S.E.2d 646; Life & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Webb, 112 Ga.App. 344, 348, 145 S.E.2d 63, 67; King Sales Co. v. McKey, 105 Ga.App. 787, 125 S.E.2d The determination of total disability as found by the Board under the workmen's compensation laws is a finding of total economic disa......
-
Hardee v. Allied Steel Bldgs., Inc., No. 73742
...because she is not a party to this suit. See Delta Air Lines v. Woods, 137 Ga.App. 693, 695, 224 S.E.2d 763; King Sales Co. v. McKey, 105 Ga.App. 787, 788, 125 S.E.2d 684. Vouchment is a right granted to the defendant under the statute, as is the binding effect of the judgment against the v......
-
Johnson v. U.S., No. 76-2197
...judicata and collateral estoppel. Mundy v. Cincinnati Insurance Co., 141 Ga.App. 106, 232 S.E.2d 621 (1977); King Sales Co. v. McKey, 105 Ga.App. 787, 125 S.E.2d 684 (1962). Thus, since the present appellant was not a party to the Johns case and could not herself have been bound by any judg......
-
U.S. Cas. Co. v. Thomas, No. 39585
...712; Bailey v. Holmes, 163 Ga. 272, 275, 136 S.E. 60; Rowell v. Rowell, 211 Ga. 127, 130, 84 S.E.2d 23; King Sales, Inc. v. McKey, 105 Ga.App. 787, 789, 125 S.E.2d Nor could any inference of causal relation arise here, since claimant's own witness refuted it, but if one could, it was entire......
-
Delta Airlines, Inc. v. Woods, No. 51213
...265, 266-267, 154 S.E.2d 646; Life & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Webb, 112 Ga.App. 344, 348, 145 S.E.2d 63, 67; King Sales Co. v. McKey, 105 Ga.App. 787, 125 S.E.2d The determination of total disability as found by the Board under the workmen's compensation laws is a finding of total economic disa......
-
Hardee v. Allied Steel Bldgs., Inc., No. 73742
...because she is not a party to this suit. See Delta Air Lines v. Woods, 137 Ga.App. 693, 695, 224 S.E.2d 763; King Sales Co. v. McKey, 105 Ga.App. 787, 788, 125 S.E.2d 684. Vouchment is a right granted to the defendant under the statute, as is the binding effect of the judgment against the v......