McNeil v. Ritter Dental Mfg. Co.
Decision Date | 16 April 1925 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 360 |
Parties | McNEIL v. RITTER DENTAL MFG. CO. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; J.C.B. Gwin, Judge.
Goodwyn & Ross, of Bessemer, for appellant.
Mathews & Mathews, of Bessemer, for appellee.
It is provided by statute that, if a contract be entire, but one suit can be maintained for the breach thereof; if severable or if the breaches occur at successive periods in an entire contract (as installment payments), an action will lie for each breach; "but all the breaches occurring up to the commencement of the action must be included therein." Code 1907, § 2505; Code 1923, § 5721; Callan v Anderson, 131 Ala. 228, 31 So. 427; House v Donnelly, 7 Ala.App. 267, 61 So. 18; Mason v. Mason, 5 Ala.App. 377, 59 So. 699.
In Callan v. Anderson, supra, an action on a promissory note, the judgment and pleadings in a former suit were in evidence as the legal method of showing such former suit, and the issues of law and of fact embraced therein. A judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction is res adjudicata and a bar to the maintenance of a subsequent suit, when it is pleaded and ascertained that the subject-matter of said suit is the same embraced or presented under issues in the former suit broad enough to have comprehended all that is involved in the issues of the second suit--not what was actually litigated, but what might and ought to have been litigated in the former suit, is the test. Redd Bros. v. Todd, 209 Ala. 56, 95 So. 276; Steele v. Crute, 208 Ala. 2, 93 So. 694; Schillinger v. Leary, 201 Ala. 256, 77 So. 846; Terrell v. Nelson, 199 Ala. 436, 438, 74 So. 929; Hall & Farley v. A.T. & I. Co., 173 Ala. 398, 56 So. 235; Drinkard v. Oden, 150 Ala. 475, 43 So. 578; Hanchey v. Coskrey, 81 Ala. 149, 1 So. 259; Haas v. Taylor, 80 Ala. 459, 2 So. 633; Wood v. Wood, 134 Ala. 557, 33 So. 347; Gilbreath v. Jones, 66 Ala. 129; Tankersly v. Pettis, 71 Ala. 179; Chamberlain v. Gaillard, 26 Ala. 504; Mason v. Mason, 5 Ala.App. 377, 59 So. 699.
Appellee relies upon Herrin v. Buckelew, 37 Ala. 586; Ryall v. Prince, 82 Ala. 264, 2 So. 319; and Gravette v. Allen Graphite Co., 1 Ala.App. 656, 56 So. 17, as justifying the ruling excluding the record in the former suit, and in sustaining plaintiff's objection to the question propounded to defendant as a witness in his own behalf. The question to Dr. McNeil was:
"Now, at the time this suit was filed and this judgment was rendered against you, Doctor, were these three notes that you are being sued on now due?"
The bill of exceptions then proceeds:
In Herrin v. Buckelew (1861) 37 Ala. 585, it was declared that the splitting up of a debt in sums under $50 involved no fraud upon the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace; that the same thing may be done by the creditor "by his own separate act, bringing by a receipt a debt over $50 within the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace," and "by the concurrent act of the creditor or debtor, in dividing a debt into several debts, each for an amount under $50." The decision in Ryall v. Prince (1886), 82 Ala. 264, 2 So. 319, declared:
So, also, of Davis v. Preston, 6 Ala. 83.
The decision in Moore v. Johnston, 108 Ala. 325, 18 So. 825, was to the effect that the rule against splitting a cause of action did not obtain as to suits for breach of covenants of seizin, and that for covenant against incumbrances--for the reason that the two suits were not based on the same cause of action. This was the rule applied in Gravette v. Allen Graphite Co., supra, for separate breaches of contract; Strauss v. Meertief, 64 Ala. 299, 38 Am.Rep. 8, and Liddell v. Chidester (1887) 84 Ala. 508, 4 So. 426, 5 Am.St.Rep. 387, actions for breach of contract of employment where wages were due and demandable at the end of each month; Ebersole v. Daniel (1906) 146 Ala. 506, 40 So. 614, 119 Am.St.Rep. 52, assumpsit. The notes to the last-cited case contained in 119 Am.St.Rep. 52, 54, are to the effect that a judgment for a part of an entire demand is a conclusive bar to another suit for another part of the same demand. Alie v. Nadeau, 93 Me. 282, 44 A. 891, 74 Am.St.Rep. 346; Bullard v. Thorpe, 66 Vt. 599, 30 A. 36, 25 L.R.A. 605, 44 Am.St.Rep. 875, citing Liddell v. Chidester, 84 Ala. 508, 4 So. 426, 5 Am.St.Rep. 387.
In Jasper Mercantile Co. v. O'Rear, 112 Ala. 247, 20 So. 583, an action on account, the question was as to the consent of one partner to split the firm debt and bind the other partners; held, such could not be done. It was said the rule against splitting, for the protection of the debtor, may be waived by him. Such, in effect, was the decision in Herrin v. Buckelew, 37 Ala. 585,
and K. C., M. & B.R. Co. v. Robertson, 109 Ala. 296, 19 So. 432.
We may observe that the foregoing decisions, and Liddell v. Chidester, 84 Ala. 508, [1] and Callan v. Anderson, 131 Ala. 228, 31 So. 427, were before this statute, section 2505 of the Code of 1907. In Liddell v. Chidester, 84 Ala. 508, 509, 4 So. 426, 427, 5 Am.St.Rep. 387, Mr. Chief Justice Stone made the proper distinction as to suits for salary paid in gross or monthly, as follows:
."
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Phillips v. Sipsey Coal Mining Co.
... ... 46; Clark v. Whitfield, 213 Ala. 441, 105 So. 200; ... McNeil v. Ritter Dental Mfg. Co., 213 Ala. 25, 104 ... So. 230; Cogburn v ... ...
-
Crowson v. Cody
... ... ( McNeil v. Ritter Dental Mfg. Co., 213 Ala. 24, 104 ... So. 230), dividing the ... ...
-
State v. Clements
...v. Saks, 214 Ala. 58, 106 So. 185; Boon v. Riley, 171 Ala. 657, 54 So. 997; Terrell v. Nelson, 199 Ala. 436, 74 So. 929; McNeil v. Ritter Co., 213 Ala. 24, 104 So. 230), was done on the former pleading and facts before the court in 217 Ala. 685, 117 So. 296. These matters and questions have......
-
Lawrence v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
... ... action (McNeil v. Ritter Dental Mfg. Co., 213 Ala ... 24, 104 So. 230), dividing the ... ...