Pomponio v. Larsen

• Decision Date: 06 December 1926
• Docket Number: 11454.
• Citation: 80 Colo. 318,251 P. 534
• Parties: POMPONIO v. LARSEN.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

251 P. 534

80 Colo. 318

POMPONIO v. LARSEN.

No. 11454.

Supreme Court of Colorado

December 6, 1926

Rehearing Denied Dec. 27, 1926.

Department 2.

Error to District Court, Adams County; Samuel W. Johnson, Judge.

Suit by Feliz Pomponio against Frank Larsen. Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings was sustained, and the action dismissed, and plaintiff brings error.

Affirmed.

Gabriel, Mills & Mills, of Denver, for plaintiff in error.

Harry S. Class, of Denver, for defendant in error.

SHEAFOR J.

The plaintiff, Pomponio, brought this suit against defendant Larsen, to enjoin defendant from operating two tile drains which, plaintiff alleged, collected the water on the land of defendant and emptied the same upon the land of plaintiff.

The defendant set up a number of defenses, among others that the matter was res judicata, and, in connection therewith alleged in his answer that, previously, the plaintiff had brought an action against defendant for damages alleged to have been sustained to plaintiff's land, because of surface water from a reservoir maintained by defendant, and because of seepage water which defendant had caused to be collected by means of a tile drain and discharged upon the means of of pliantiff's land; that in the action for damages the court found, inter alia, that defendant had constructed certain drains as early as 1916, which accumulated water from seepage and waste upon his own land, and had drained that water upon the public road, thence through a culvert and down onto the land of the plaintiff as early as the year mentioned; alleged that the cause was tried upon the merits, evidence heard, findings made, and judgment rendered in favor of defendant, and that said judgment had become final; and further alleged that, by reason of the foregoing, all of the issues tendered by the complaint in the present action had been definitely and finally settled, determined, and adjudicated in the former action.

Plaintiff replied, admitting that there had been a controversy between plaintiff and defendant, as alleged in defendant's answer, but denied that all matters in controversy in this case, and upon which issues have been joined, had been settled, determined, or adjudicated in any former proceeding between the parties, and alleged that the former action was one for damages and not for equitable relief.

A motion by defendant for judgment on the pleadings was sustained, and the action dismissed. Plaintiff brings the case here.

Plaintiff's position is that, the former action being for the recovery of damages and the present suit being one for injunctive relief only, the questions involved are different, and the one cannot be set up as a bar to the other; also, that, in the instant case, the allegation is that defendant caused to be erected and maintained two drains which collected both surface and seepage water which was discharged upon plaintiff's land, while, in the former action, the allegation was that defendant had caused seepage water to be collected by means of a tile drain.

To constitute a valid plea of res judicata, there must be identity of the subject-matter, of the cause of action, of the persons and parties, and in the quality of the persons for or against whom the claim is made.

The general principles of law applicable to the plea of res judicata are so firmly established in our system of jurisprudence as to scarecely need the citation of authorities.

Formal distinctions between actions at law and suits in equity are abolished and only one form of civil action now exists; all the pleader needs to do is to state the facts, and all the facts, constituting his cause of action or defense, where they relate to the same subject-matter, and the court will grant relief, regardless of the prayer.

It is fundamental and well understood that the judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, so long as it remains unreversed, is conclusive upon the parties and their privies when the judgment is rendered upon the merits, and without fraud or collusion, upon a matter within the jurisdiction of the court rendering the judgment. Such a judgment is an absolute bar to the prosecution of a second action on the same claim or demand, not only as to matters actually in controversy in the first action, but as to every matter which might have been litigated and...