McConnell v. Davis

• Decision Date: 03 April 1924
• Docket Number: 11453.
• Citation: 122 S.E. 399,128 S.C. 111
• Parties: MCCONNELL v. DAVIS, DIRECTOR GENERAL OF RAILROADS, ETC.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

122 S.E. 399

128 S.C. 111

MCCONNELL v. DAVIS, DIRECTOR GENERAL OF RAILROADS, ETC.

No. 11453.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

April 3, 1924

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of York County; J. E Peurifoy, Judge.

Action by L. D. McConnell, by his guardian ad litem, S. J McConnell, against J. C. Davis, Director General of Railroads, etc. From a judgment entered on a directed verdict for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

The second and fifth exceptions follow:

"(2) That the ruling or order of his honor, Judge H. F Rice, was res judicata of the plea of res judicata as made by the defendant, and the Court erred in not so holding."

(5) That the order or ruling of Judge Rice was the law of this case, and binding upon his honor Judge J. E. Peurifoy, and the court erred in not so holding." J. Harry Foster and Dunlap & Dunlap, all of Rock Hill, for appellant.

Glenn & Glenn, of Chester, and Thos. F. McDow, of York, for respondent.

WATTS J.

This is an appeal from a directed verdict by his honor, Judge Peurifoy, for the respondent at a court of common pleas for York county, December term, 1922.

His honor directed a verdict for the defendant on the ground of res judicata, and the exceptions, five in number, raise the issues as to the application of this doctrine. The doctrine of the question of res judicata has been followed since the case of Hart v. Bates; these being: (1) Identity of parties, (2) identity of subject-matter, and (3) identity of legal issue determined. 17 S.C. page 40. As these set forth, the doctrine of res judicata is very old, and founded on principles of wise policy and justice. The rule as stated in Hart v. Bates is as follows:

"First, that the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, directly on the point, is as a plea in bar or as evidence conclusive between the same parties upon the same matter directly in question in another court; secondly, that the judgment of a court of exclusive jurisdiction directly upon the point is in like manner conclusive upon the same matter between the same parties coming incidentally in question in another court for a different purpose."

It does not make any difference that the decision was made by a court other than the court in which the defense of res judicata is being pleaded, for it is said in Maxwell v. Conner, 1 Hill, Eq. 22, that a decision by a court of competent jurisdiction is binding upon other courts of concurrent power. This doctrine has been recognized and followed by this court in many cases. Sarratt v. Manufacturing Co., 77 S.C. 90, 57 S.E. 616; Greenwood Drug Co. v. Bromonia Co., 81 S.C. 516, 62 S.E. 840, 128 Am. St. Rep. 929; Morrow v. Railway Co., 84 S.C. 224, 66 S.E. 186, 19 Ann. Cas. 1009; Jenkins v. Railway Co., 89 S.C. 408 71 S.E. 1010; Barfield v. Barnes, 108 S.C. 1, 93 S.E. 425; Beattie v. City Council, 113 S.C. 541, 102 S.E. 751; and the more...