Pray v. Hewitt
| Decision Date | 08 November 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 43644,43644 |
| Citation | 254 Miss. 20,179 So.2d 842 |
| Parties | Hubert E. PRAY, Deceased (Revived in the name of the heirs-at-law) v. Chester A. HEWITT et ux., Erema Pray Hewitt. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Roach & Roach, McComb, for appellant.
Allen & Patterson, Brookhaven, for appellee.
This is a suit for specific performance of a contract to deed land. An original bill was filed by the appellant, Hubert E. Pray, now deceased (suit revived in the name of his heirs) in the Chancery Court of Pike County, Mississippi. The contract sought to be enforced was attached as an exhibit to the bill. A great many persons were named defendants because of their mineral interest in the land, but owners of the minerals were released on a demurrer. The appellees, defendants in the trial court, filed their answer denying that they should be required to specifically perform the contract, by giving them a deed to a one-half undivided interest in the lands described in the bill. They pleaded, as a part of their answer, (1) res judicata; (2) limitation of actions; and (3) laches. The defendants filed interrogatories, which were later answered by the original appellant. When the case was called for trial, the attorneys stipulated that the court file in Cause No. 5,951 of the records of the Chancery Court of Pike County, styled Mrs. D. Turner, et al. v. Chester A. Hewitt, et ux., might be introduced as a part of the record, and it was agreed that, 'this cause shall be submitted to the court, on the pleas, interrogatories, and answers thereto in the file in Cause No. 5,951.' The chancellor entered an order taking the cause under advisement for decree in vacation, and thereafter rendered his opinion, and entered a final decree sustaining the pleas filed by defendants to the original bill, and dismissed the suit with prejudice.
After a careful study of the facts pleaded, we are of the opinion that the chancellor was correct in holding that the plea of res judicata was a bar to the suit, and that the action should have been dismissed. We do not reach the other pleas filed by the defendants since it is not necessary to discuss these pleas to affirm the decree of the trial court.
The decree in file Cause No. 5,951 dated December 18, 1929, stated 'That the defendants, Chester A. Hewitt and his wife, Erema Pray Hewitt, by virtue of certain Deeds of Conveyance, appearing of record, have vested in them, as against all other parties to this suit, the following described lands, situated in Pike County, Mississippi.' The land in litigation in that suit is the same land as is now sought to be relitigated in the instant suit. The original complainant in the suit at bar was one of the complainants in that suit. The contract sought to be enforced in this suit was attached to the answer in the first suit. The plea of res judicata here in issue seeks to relitigate an issue settled by a former decree of the chancery court in the county where the instant cause was filed.
The Latin idiom 'res judicata' means the thing has been decided. In law, it means the same issue has been decided by a court of competent jurisdiction. Since the time of ancient Roman law, there have been four conditions essential to establish the plea of res judicata. They are (1) identity in the things sued for, (2) identity of the cause of action, (3) identity of persons and parties to the action, and (4) identity of the quality or character in the person against whom the claim is made. 50 C.J.S. Judgments Sec. 598, Essential elements, p. 18 (1947). All of the foregoing elements of res judicata...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pro-Choice Mississippi v. Fordice
...are precluded from re-litigating any previously decided issues in a subsequent lawsuit. Dunaway, 422 So.2d at 751; Pray v. Hewitt, 254 Miss. 20, 24, 179 So.2d 842 (1965); Golden v. Golden, 246 Miss. 562, 568, 151 So.2d 598 (1963). Furthermore, res judicata is conclusive not only of what was......
-
Estate of Smiley, 57539
...tried in the prior lawsuit, as well as all matters which should have been litigated and decided in the prior suit. Pray v. Hewitt, 254 Miss. 20, 179 So.2d 842 (1965); Golden v. Golden, 246 Miss. 562, 151 So.2d 598 (1963). In other words, "the doctrine of res judicata bars litigation in a se......
-
Black v. North Panola School District
...as identity "in the thing sued for." Forbes v. Columbia Pulp & Paper Co., 340 So.2d 734, 736-37 (Miss. 1976); Pray v. Hewitt, 254 Miss. 20, 179 So.2d 842, 844 (1965); Campbell v. Campbell, 231 Miss. 658, 97 So.2d 527, 528 (1957). Most recently, the Mississippi Supreme Court defined subject ......
-
City of Jackson v. Lakeland Lounge of Jackson, Inc.
...are precluded from relitigating any issues in a subsequent lawsuit if decided in a prior lawsuit. 1 Dunaway, at 751; Pray v. Hewitt, 254 Miss. 20, 179 So.2d 842 (1965); Golden v. Golden, 246 Miss. 562, 151 So.2d 598 (1963). Furthermore, res judicata is conclusive not only of what was actual......