McDuffie v. Geiser Mfg. Co.
| Decision Date | 18 November 1913 |
| Citation | 138 P. 1029,41 Okla. 488,1913 OK 660 |
| Parties | MCDUFFIE v. GEISER MFG. CO. ET AL. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Feb. 28, 1914.
Syllabus by the Court.
A fact or question which was actually and directly in issue in a former suit, and was there judicially passed upon and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, is conclusively settled by the judgment therein, so far as concerns the parties to that action, and persons in privity with them, and cannot be again litigated in any future action between such parties or privies, in the same court, or in any other court of concurrent jurisdiction, upon the same or a different cause of action.
The essence of estoppel by judgment is that there has been a judicial determination of a fact, and the question always is has there been such determination? and not, upon what evidence or by what means was it reached?
The inquiry of res adjudicata is not limited to the mere formal judgment. It extends to the pleadings, the verdict, or the findings, and the scope and meaning of the judgment is often determined by the pleadings, verdict, or findings.
The question of jurisdiction over the defendant Geiser Manufacturing Company was by said defendant directly put in issue by its motion to vacate and set aside the former judgment of December 9, 1907. A hearing thereon being had the motion was overruled, and the court's judgment became final. Held, in a subsequent trial between the same parties, concerning the same subject-matter, that the judgment so rendered was conclusive upon said defendant, and that the question of jurisdiction could not again be considered, though grounds therefor existed that were not before, but could have been, urged.
Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 1. Error from District Court, Alfalfa County; James B. Cullison, Judge.
Mortgage foreclosure proceedings, brought by the Geiser Manufacturing Company against D. Puffinbarger and Rilla Puffinbarger, and to declare plaintiff's mortgage prior and paramount to the interest or claim of the defendant McDuffie. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant McDuffie brings error. Reversed.
Titus & Carpenter, of Cherokee, for plaintiff in error.
Burford & Burford, of Guthrie, for defendant in error.
On the 15th day of March, 1906, the Union Central Life Insurance Company instituted an action in the district court of Woods county, Oklahoma territory, in which Andrew J. Williams Tallie Williams, D. Puffinbarger, Rilla Puffinbarger, the Geiser Manufacturing Company, G. J. McDuffie, Jacob G. Winne, and Scott E. Winne, partners as Winne & Winne, were named as defendants. The action was to foreclose a mortgage on a tract of land, situated in said county, given to secure a note executed to the plaintiff by defendants Williams and wife. In the petition it was charged that the remaining defendants had, or claimed to have, some interest in the mortgaged premises, which it was asserted were junior and inferior to plaintiff's said mortgage. The defendant McDuffie filed therein his answer and cross-petition, and asked to have foreclosed a mortgage on said lands, executed to him by his codefendants, D. Puffinbarger and Rilla Puffinbarger, admitting in his said cross-petition the priority of the mortgages held by the Union Central Life Insurance Company and Winne & Winne, and in which it was asked that the pretended claims or liens of Williams and wife and the Geiser Manufacturing Company be extinguished and held for naught, and they forever barred of any right, title, or interest in and to said premises. The defendant Geiser Manufacturing Company, being a nonresident, was not served with summons, but an attempt was made to obtain service by publication. No appearance was entered by said defendant, and on the 9th day of December, 1907, the case coming regularly on for trial, judgment was rendered in behalf of the plaintiff Union Central Life Insurance Company foreclosing its mortgage, and also foreclosing the mortgages held by Winne & Winne and McDuffie, the latter being found to be inferior only to that of the plaintiff therein and the defendant Winne & Winne; the court further finding that the Geiser Manufacturing Company, although duly and legally summoned to appear, was in default, and, it was determined, had no interest or claim in or to the premises sought to be foreclosed.
The present action was filed in the district court of Alfalfa county on the 30th day of June, 1909, and the Puffinbargers, McDuffie, the Union Central Life Insurance Company, and Y. G. Patterson were made parties defendant, though no summons was ever served on the two defendants last named. Plaintiff's action was brought to foreclose a certain alleged mortgage, executed to it by the Puffinbargers, on the same land involved in the original foreclosure suit, brought in the district court of Woods county, by the Union Central Life Insurance Company. In its petition it asks to have its mortgage declared superior and paramount to any interest, lien, or claim of the defendant McDuffie.
On February 11, 1910, the defendant Geiser Manufacturing Company filed in the district court of Woods county its motion to vacate and set aside the judgment rendered against it on December 9, 1907, as well as to the sheriff's deed and the decree of confirmation, subsequently made and entered in said action. On the 6th day of May, 1910, said motion was overruled. No appeal from this order was ever prosecuted, nor was any further attempt made in said original proceedings to vacate or set aside the original judgment.
On the 10th day of March, 1911, in the present action, judgment was rendered, foreclosing the mortgage of the Geiser Manufacturing Company, and decreeing that the defendant McDuffie was without right, title, or interest in and to said lands, senior and superior to plaintiff's right, except as assignee of the Union Central Life Insurance Company and Winne & Winne. This, presumably, from the fact that McDuffie had purchased the land at the foreclosure sale held in Woods county, and that said last-named mortgagees had received, on account thereof, the full amount of their claims.
In the motion to vacate and set aside the judgment filed in the district court of Woods county, the defendant in error Geiser Manufacturing Company charged that the pretended service by publication against it was null and void, and of no effect, for the reason that no sufficient affidavit, upon which to base service by publication, was at any time filed in the original case prior to the rendition of judgment therein barring and foreclosing it of its right, title, and interest in and to the premises in question; that no other service of summons was made or attempted, and no appearance entered by it in said proceedings. To the present action defendant McDuffie answered, pleading, in bar of plaintiff's right to prosecute its action, the judgment rendered by the district court of Woods county on May 6, 1910, overruling and denying the motion of the Geiser Manufacturing Company to vacate and set aside the judgment theretofore rendered against it in that court. The amended answer sets out in extenso the pleadings, judgment, motion, and final judgment overruling motion, as tending to show the former adverse adjudication of plaintiff's claim. The plaintiff filed both an original and amended reply, but in neither of which was issue taken with the defendant's allegations of what occurred in the district court of Woods county. In both the original and amended replies it was contended that the judgment, rendered against it by the district court of Woods county, was void and of no force or effect, by reason of the fact that the publication notice was based upon an insufficient, defective, and void affidavit, and that at no time had it any knowledge of the pendency of the original action, and by reason thereof the judgment rendered against it was a nullity.
The land sought to be foreclosed by the several mortgages was situated in that part of Woods county which, upon the advent of statehood, became a part of Alfalfa county (section 326b, Williams' Ann. Const.). The action being one pending in a district court of Oklahoma territory, at the time said territory became a part of the state of Oklahoma, and not being transferred to the United States court, was properly proceeded with, held and, determined by the district court of Woods county. Section 3, Amendment to Enabling Act (chapter 2911, 34 Stat. at L. 1287); section 27, art. 25, Constitution.
It is...
To continue reading
Request your trial