King v. Richardson

Decision Date09 May 1934
Docket Number6106
Citation54 Idaho 420,33 P.2d 1070
PartiesWILLIAM T. KING, Appellant, v. FRED RICHARDSON and JAY LEONARD, Respondents
CourtIdaho Supreme Court

JUDGMENT-RES JUDICATA.

Judgment, dismissing appeal from judgment quieting title against one alleging that purported deed was mortgage, held res judicata of such question and all connected questions, which could have been raised in such action, in suit to set aside judgment.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, for Lemhi County. Hon. Guy Stevens, Judge.

Action to set aside decree of the district court quieting title to certain lands in respondents. Affirmed.

Judgment affirmed; costs awarded to respondents. Petition for rehearing denied.

F. E. Tydeman and Lot L. Feltham, for Appellant.

The appearance by motion of appellant's counsel, in case No. 2, asking that the default be set aside and he be permitted to answer, was a special appearance only and did not bring the appellant under the jurisdiction of the court, and did not become res adjudicata on the matter of service of summons in that case. (Central Deep Creek Orchard Co. v. C. C. Taft Co., 34 Idaho 458, 202 P. 1062; Elliott & Healy v. Wirth, 34 Idaho 797, 198 P. 757.)

E. W. Whitcomb, for Respondents.

Former adjudication or res adjudicata precludes appellant from any recovery in this action. (Hilton v. Stewart, 15 Idaho 150, 96 P. 579, 128 Am. St. 48; Neil v. Hyde, 32 Idaho 576, 585, 186 P. 710; Wood River Power Co. v. Arkoosh, 37 Idaho 348, 215 P. 975; Marshall v. Underwood, 38 Idaho 464, 221 P. 1105.)

GIVENS, J. Budge, C. J., and Morgan, Holden and Wernette, JJ., concur.

OPINION

GIVENS, J.

The preliminary transactions of this controversy fully appear in Richardson v. King, 51 Idaho 762, 10 P.2d 323, respondents here, appellants there being stalemated because the proper action was not brought, the real issue being whether an instrument given respondents by appellant was a deed or mortgage and if the former whether fraudulently obtained.

Thereafter respondents brought an action to quiet title, wherein appellant sought to have his default set aside urging no service had been made, and in his proffered answer again set up fraud and that the instrument was a mortgage and not a deed. The court refused to set aside the default and appellant's appeal was dismissed (Richardson v. King, 53 Idaho 134, 22 P.2d 134), because of failure to have the sureties on his appeal bond justify, which dismissal in effect resulted in the affirmance of the judgment quieting title in respondents herein on the theory that the instrument in question was a deed not a mortgage, thus becoming res adjudicata not only of this phase of the controversy (Bernhard v. Idaho Bank & Trust Co., 21 Idaho 598, 123 P. 481, Ann. Cas. 1913E 120; Kelley v. Sakai, 72 Wash. 364, 130 P. 503; 34 C. J. 891; 15 R. C. L. 987; Chezum v. Claypool, 22 Wash. 498, 61 P. 157, 79 Am. St. 955; Seattle Nat. Bank v. School Dist. No. 40, 20 Wash. 368, 55 P. 317; Spokane Merchants' Assn. v. First Nat. Bank, 86 Wash. 367, 150 P. 434, L.R.A. 1918A 323; J. W. Copeland Yards v. Sheridan, 136 Ore. 37, 296 P. 838, 297 P. 837; Last Chance Min. Co. v. Tyler Min. Co., 157 U.S. 683, 15 S.Ct. 733, 39 L.Ed. 859), but also of all connected questions which could (Joyce v. Murphy Land etc. Co., 35 Idaho 549, 208 P. 241; South Boise Water Co. v. McDonald, 50 Idaho 409, 296 P. 591; Judish v. Rovig Lumber Co., 128 Wash. 287, 222 P. 898; St. John Irr. Co. v. Danforth, 50 Idaho 513, 298 P. 365; 34 C. J. 781, 818, 909; United States v. County Court of Knox County, 122 U.S. 306, 7 S.Ct. 1171, 30 L.Ed. 1152; In re Bell's Estate, 153 Cal. 331, 95 P. 372; Allen v. Allen, 159 Cal. 197, 113 P. 160; Bushnell v. Larimer & Weld Irr. Co., 56 Colo. 92, 136 P. 1017; Hare Mining & Milling Co. v. Keys, 120 Okla. 217, 251 P. 77; Cooley v. Snake River District Imp. Co., 78 Ore. 384, 152 P. 1190; Fischer v. Hammons, 32 Ariz. 423, 259 P. 676; Armijo v. Mountain Elec. Co., 11 N.M. 235, 67 P. 726; Hawkins v. Reber, 81 Wash. 79, 142 P. 432; State v. Glover, 165 Wash. 567, 5 P.2d 1014), or should have been raised in such action. (Joyce v. Murphy Land etc. Co., supra; South Boise Water Co. v. McDonald, supra; Judish v. Rovig, supra; State v. Glover, supra; 34 C. J. 780, 818, 909; 15 R. C. L. 962; First Nat. Bank v. Schruben, 125 Kan. 417, 265 P. 53; Conner v. Bank of Bakersfield, 183 Cal. 199, 190 P. 801; Smith v. Braley, 76 Okla. 220, 184 P. 586; Cook v. Elmore, 27 Wyo. 163, 192 P. 824.)

This action therefore is not maintainable because appellant has heretofore had his opportunity for defense and attack, and an adverse judgment determining all these matters, both actually and potentially has become res adjudicata thereof. (Bernhard v. Idaho Bank & Trust Co., supra; Kelley v. Sakai, supra; Architectural Decorating Co. v. Nicklason, 72 Wash. 415, 130 P. 506; Chezum v. Claypool, supra; Meisenheimer v. Meisenheimer, 55 Wash. 32, 104 P. 159, 133 Am. St. 1005; Flueck v. Pedigo, 55 Wash. 646, 104 P. 1119; Gray v. Hall, 203 Cal. 306, 265 P. 246; 34 C. J. 891; 15 R. C. L. 987; Smith v. Smith, 76 Colo. 119, 230 P. 597; McDuffie v. Geiser Mfg. Co., 41 Okla. 488, 138 P. 1029; Thompson v. Connell, 31 Ore. 231, 48 P. 467, 65 Am. St. 818; Last Chance Min. Co. v. Tyler Min. Co., supra; United States v. County Court of Knox County, supra; Warford Corp. v. Bryan Screw Mach. Products Co., 44 F.2d 713; Atlantic Dredging & Const. Co. v. Nashville Bridge Co., 57 F.2d 519.)

Judgment affirmed; costs awarded to respondents.

Budge, C. J., and Morgan, Holden and Wernette, JJ., concur.

Petition for rehearing denied.

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Robinson v. Robinson
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • December 15, 1949
    ...were (or should have been) litigated in the action. The principle is equally applicable in cases of judgment by default. King v. Richardson, 54 Idaho 420, 33 P.2d 1070; Last Chance Mining Co. v. Tyler Min. Co., 157 U.S. 683, 15 S.Ct. 733, 39 L.Ed. 859, 50 C.J.S., Judgments, §§ 631, 706, pp.......
  • H. S. Cramer & Co. v. Washburn-Wilson Seed Co.
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • July 2, 1951
    ...remedy he is attempting to pursue in the action at bar.' This decision has been followed with approval on this point in King v. Richardson, 54 Idaho 420, 33 P.2d 1070. Peri v. Groves, 183 Misc. 579, 50 N.Y.S.2d 300, 308, reviewing at length and discussing and laying down the principle that ......
  • Bower v. Smith
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • October 14, 1941
    ... ... that time, as well as to all connected questions which could ... or should have been raised in such proceeding. King v ... Richardson, 54 Idaho 420, 421, 422, 33 P.2d 1070 ... Moreover, the mere failure of the board to award appellant ... compensation ... ...
  • Lewiston Lime Co. v. Barney
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • July 21, 1964
    ...1031; Gibbs v. Claar, 59 Idaho 763, 87 P.2d 471; Village of Heyburn v. Security S. & T. Co., 55 Idaho 732, 49 P.2d 258; King v. Richardson, 54 Idaho 420, 33 P.2d 1070; Joyce v. Murphy Land, etc., Co., 35 Idaho 549, 208 P. To the extent that any issues raised in the present proceeding were l......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT