Pepper v. Bankers Life and Casualty Company

• Decision Date: 06 August 1969
• Docket Number: No. 19481.,19481.
• Citation: 414 F.2d 356
• Parties: J. H. PEPPER, Appellant, v. BANKERS LIFE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

414 F.2d 356 (1969)

J. H. PEPPER, Appellant, v.BANKERS LIFE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 19481.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

August 6, 1969.

Bernard Whetstone, Little Rock, Ark., for appellant.

Dennis L. Shackleford, of Shackleford & Shackleford, El Dorado, Ark., for appellee.

Before VAN OOSTERHOUT, Chief Judge, and MEHAFFY and GIBSON, Circuit Judges.

VAN OOSTERHOUT, Chief Judge.

This is a timely appeal from final judgment dismissing plaintiff Pepper's complaint upon motion of defendant, Bankers Life and Casualty Company, upon the ground of res judicata.Jurisdiction based upon diversity of citizenship is established.

The Trial Court held that the cause of action in the present case is the same cause of action finally adjudicated adversely to Pepper in a prior action brought in the same Court by the same parties.In that case, the jury found for the defendant and the case was dismissed.Such judgment was affirmed upon appeal.Pepper v. Bankers Life and Casualty Company(8 Cir.)387 F.2d 248.The controlling issue upon this appeal is whether the plaintiff is barred by res judicata from prosecuting the present action.We hold the Trial Court properly gave an affirmative answer on this issue and we affirm.

As we pointed out in Engelhardt v. Bell & Howell Co.(8 Cir.), 327 F.2d 30, the broad term res judicata is used to cover a number of situations.Res judicata here relied upon is of the broad type which we have previously labeled as claim preclusion.

The law of res judicata as it relates to claim preclusion is well settled.The rule is well stated in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Sunnen, 333 U.S. 591, 597, 68 S.Ct. 715, 719, 92 L.Ed. 898, as follows:

"The general rule of res judicata applies to repetitious suits involving the same cause of action.It rests upon considerations of economy of judicial time and public policy favoring the establishment of certainty in legal relations.The rule provides that when a court of competent jurisdiction has entered a final judgment on the merits of a cause of action, the parties to the suit and their privies are thereafter bound `not only as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim or demand, but as to any other admissible matter which might have been offered for that purpose.\'Cromwell v. County of Sac, 94 U.S. 351, 352, 24 L.Ed. 195.The judgment puts an end to the cause of action, which cannot again be brought into litigation between the parties upon any ground whatever, absent fraud or some other factor invalidating the judgment."

In Towle v. Boeing Airplane Company(8 Cir.), 364 F.2d 590, 592, we said:

"The law of res judicata/claim preclusion is well established.Whenever a court having jurisdiction has rendered a final judgment upon the merits of a cause of action, that judgment is binding upon the parties and their privies not only as to every matter that was litigated but also to every matter which could have been litigated.In event of subsequent litigation upon the same cause of action, the parties and their privies are precluded from receiving relief."

Such is also the law of Arkansas.In Timmons v. Brannan, 225 Ark. 220, 280 S.W.2d 393, 394, the Arkansas court holds:

"The test is not whether the matters in the second suit were actually litigated in the former suit between the parties, but whether such matters were necessarily within the issues and might have been litigated in the former suit."

SeeMissouri Pacific R. Co. v. McGuire, 205 Ark. 658, 169 S.W.2d 872, 874, andMeyer v. Eichenbaum, 202 Ark. 438, 150 S.W.2d 958, 959.

The record in...