Noyes v. Belding

• Decision Date: 18 April 1895
• Citation: 62 N.W. 953,6 S.D. 629
• Parties: NOYES et al. v. BELDING et al.
• Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

62 N.W. 953

6 S.D. 629

NOYES et al. v. BELDING et al.

Supreme Court of South Dakota

April 18, 1895

Syllabus by the Court.

1. The purpose and end of a judicial decision is the settlement of some question in dispute, and, so far as such question is submitted and decided, the judgment is conclusive upon the parties and their privies. It is final as to the claim or demand in controversy, not only as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim, but as to every other admissible matter which might have been offered for that purpose; but, where the second action between the same parties is upon a different claim or demand the judgment in the prior action operates as an estoppel only as to those matters in issue or points controverted upon the determination of which the finding or verdict upon which such judgment rests was rendered.

2. K. & M., partners, made a sale in form of certain property to one K. On an execution against K. & M. the sheriff levied upon such property. K., the alleged purchaser, sued the sheriff who defended on the ground that the pretended sale was without consideration, made with intent to defraud creditors was not followed by change of possession, and was void as to creditors. The trial court so found, and rendered judgment for defendant sheriff. The wives of the said judgment debtors then proceeded under the statute (section 5133, Comp. Laws) to claim such property as exempt, and such proceedings thereon were had that the sheriff turned the same over as exempt. In an action by the judgment creditors against the sheriff for turning over such property, held, that the judgment in the former action of K. against the sheriff was not conclusive as against the claim of the wives that such property was not exempt, there being nothing in the record to show or suggest that the question of the exempt character of the property was presented to or passed upon by the court.

On petition for rehearing. Denied.

For opinion on appeal, see 59 N.W. 1069.

KELLAM J.

The opinion in this case is published in 59 N.W. 1069. The only ground which we desire to notice, upon which appellants ask for a rehearing, is that "this court did not take into consideration the effect of the judgment for defendant in the conversion suit of William G. Knowles against Sheriff Belding for the attached property." The particular question now in hand is the right of the wives of Knowles and Marshman to claim exemptions from the property of their husbands. Prior to the assertion of such claim, Knowles and Marshman, it would seem, had attempted to sell the property referred to, to one William G. Knowles. After such attempted sale the sheriff had levied upon it as the property of the assignors, Knowles and Marshman, and William G. Knowles, claiming to be the owner, brought suit against the sheriff. In this action, as shown by the abstract in the case, Knowles alleged his ownership and possession and the wrongful taking by the defendant sheriff. The answer denied his ownership or possession, alleged that the pretended sale was without consideration, was not followed by change of possession, and was made with intent to cheat and defraud the creditors of Knowles and Marshman. This action was determined in favor of the sheriff, the court holding the transfer to William G. Knowles to be fraudulent and void as to the creditors of Knowles and Marshman. Appellants insist that this judgment is res judicata as to the nonexempt character of the property attempted to be transferred, and this is the ground upon which it is claimed that "this court did not take into consideration the effect of the judgment for defendant in the conversion suit." This point seems to have been neglected in our former opinion, hence we notice it briefly now.

The purpose and end of a judicial decision is the settlement of some question in dispute, and, so far as such question is submitted and decided, the judgment is conclusive upon the parties and their privies. It is final as to the claim or demand in controversy, not only as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim, but as to every other...