Parks v. Libby

• Decision Date: 01 March 1897
• Citation: 37 A. 357,90 Me. 56
• Parties: PARKS v. LIBBY.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

37 A. 357

90 Me. 56

PARKS

v. LIBBY.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

March 1, 1897.

(Official.)

Report from supreme judicial court, Somerset county.

Action by David M. Parks against Oren E. Libby. On report. Action to stand for trial.

S. S. Brown, for plaintiff.

F. W. Hovey and F. J. Martin, for defendant.

PETERS, C. J. It is a well-settled doctrine in this state that, if any issue be judicially established between parties to a litigation, the benefit of the finding will inure in favor of the winning party, whenever such issue again arises between the same persons or their privies in any other suit. This is upon the principle of estoppel which declares that an issue or fact once judicially proved is forever proved. But it must clearly appear, in order that a judgment shall have such a potential effect, that the facts in question are the same in each case. The issues must be identical.

The plaintiff here invokes this principle of estoppel, and claims that its application is complete.

The facts bearing on the question presented in the present suit are reported to us as follows:

"February 1, 1893, the defendant made a written contract with the plaintiff to drive the plaintiff's logs and cedar to the booms in Clinton. Afterwards, the same winter or spring, the plaintiff sold the logs and cedar named in the contract to one McNally, to be delivered before the next summer of 1893 at the booms in Clinton. In the early part of the summer McNally complained to the plaintiff, Parks, of shortage, and on October 6, 1894, McNally began an action against the plaintiff, Parks, returnable to the superior court for Kennebec county at the November term, 1894, to recover damages for breach of the said contract between McNally and Parks in not delivering the logs and cedar as agreed. The plaintiff, Parks, thereupon notified the defendant, Libby, of the beginning and pendency of the said action, and requested him to assume and provide for the defense thereof, informing him that he should hold him responsible for all costs, expenses, and damage. The action, McNally and Parks, was tried in the superior court for Kennebec county at the April term, 1895. In the preparation of the case for trial, and at the trial, Mr. Libby, the defendant, was consulted, and advised to some extent, and was present and testified at the trial. In that trial the main question at issue was whether the logs and cedar had been driven down and delivered at the booms in Clinton, and the said logs and cedar were the same referred to in the written contract between the plaintiff and defendant. The verdict was for McNally in said action, and judgment was rendered for McNally against Parks, the plaintiff, for the sum of four hundred and two dollars and sixty-seven cents ($402.67) damages, and costs of suit taxed at ninety-one dollars and sixty-seven cents ($91.67). The date of the judgment was the 28th day of May, 1895. This judgment the plaintiff, Parks, paid. The plaintiff, Parks, in the preparation and defense of said action of McNally,...