McKnight v. Taylor
| Citation | 1 Mo. 282 |
| Parties | MCKNIGHT v. TAYLOR. |
| Decision Date | 31 May 1823 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
This was an action of assumpsit in favor of Taylor, against Knight, on a promissory note. Plea, non-assumpsit. The plaintiff gave in evidence the note declared on, and rested his case. The defendant set up as a defense a former action upon the same note, in which judgment was given in his favor on the issues of non-assumpsit and payment. The record of the former action and judgment were given in evidence, and it was admitted by the plaintiff that the note given in evidence in the former action was the same given in evidence in this suit. Thereupon the defendant in the court below prayed the opinion of the court that the yerdict and judgment in the said former action was a bar to this action, and that upon the above facts the verdict ought to be for the defendant; which opinion the court refused to give, but were of opinion, and so declared, that the said verdict and judgment were no bar to this action. To this opinion the defendant below excepted. Judgment was given for the plaintiff. The only point is, whether the opinion of the court below, which was excepted to, was correct. We think the court below erred in that opinion, and that the judgment must be reversed with costs. The former suit being for the same cause of action as the latter, being between the same parties, and necessarily supported by the same proof, and being in the same form of action, it must be a bar to any other suit so long as the judgment remains unreversed. The rule is well settled, that when the same subject matter has been fairly put in issue, and once tried upon its merits, it cannot be again litigated. (a)
(a). See Lindell v. Liggett, post 432; Penrose v. Green, post 774. A judgment against one of two several obligors is no bar to an action against the other.--Armstrong v. Prescott, 5 Mo. R. 476; Thompson v. Wineland, 11 Mo. R. 243; Taylor v. Larkin, 12 Mo. R. 103; Corl v. Riggs 12 Mo. R. 432. See also, Haile v. Hill, 31 Mo. R. 612. When a matter has become res adjudicata it is equally binding on both parties-- Bell v. Hoagland, 15 Mo. R. 360. A judgment recovered is conclusive between the parties as to the matters directly in issue, but this rule does not extend to matters collaterally or incidentally considered--Ridgley v. Stillwell, 27 Mo. R. 128. But in ejectment a judgment is no bar to a subsequent action between the same parties--Slevin v. Brown, 32, Mo. R. 176; Holmes v. City of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Noe v. Cox
...the notes having been reduced to a valid judgment which remained unreversed, no further action could be maintained on the notes, McKnight v. Taylor, 1 Mo. 282; See v. (Mo.), 242 S.W. 951; Bircher v. Doemler, 204 Mo. 554; Savings Bank v. Tracy, 141 Mo. 252. (3) The judgment rendered in the I......
-
State ex rel. Noe v. Cox
...the notes having been reduced to a valid judgment which remained unreversed, no further action could be maintained on the notes. McKnight v. Taylor, 1 Mo. 282; See v. See (Mo.), 242 S.W. 951; Bircher v. Doemler, 204 Mo. 554: Savings Bank v. Tracy, 141 Mo. 252. (3) The judgment rendered in t......
-
Ballard v. Standard Printing Co.
...merge therein the cause of action on which the action is brought, from the date of the judgment. 30 Am. Jur., p. 903, sec. 150; McKnight v. Taylor, 1 Mo. 282; Crim Crim, 162 Mo. 544; State ex rel. Noe v. Cox, 19 S.W.2d 695. Bohling, C. Westhues and Barrett, CC., concur. OPINION BOHLING H. A......
-
Burns v. Marsh
... ... 227. (2) It was ... decided at the earliest day in this State that, in order to ... be a bar, a judgment must be on the merits. McKnight v ... Taylor, 1 Mo. 282; Garrett v. Greenwell, 92 Mo ... 120. (3) And if the case has been decided without an ... examination into the merits, ... ...