Reid v. Singer Sewing Mach. Co.
| Decision Date | 20 December 1928 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 185 |
| Citation | 218 Ala. 498,119 So. 229 |
| Parties | REID v. SINGER SEWING MACH. CO. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; John Denson, Judge.
Action for trespass by Elizabeth Reid against the Singer Sewing Machine Company. From a judgment of nonsuit, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Jacobs & Carmack, of Birmingham, for appellant.
Martin Thompson, Turner & McWhorter, of Birmingham, for appellee.
A judgment in a former action between the same parties is not only conclusive of the questions actually litigated, but which could have been litigated in the former suit. Crowder v. Red Mountain Co., 127 Ala. 254, 29 So 847; Irby v. Commercial Bank, 204 Ala. 420, 85 So 509. The best and perhaps most invariable test as to whether a former judgment is a bar is to inquire whether the same evidence will sustain both the present and the former action. If this identity of evidence is found, it will make no difference if the form of the two actions is not the same. Whatever be the form of the action, the issue is deemed the same whenever it is supported in both actions by substantially the same evidence. If it be so supported, a judgment in one action is conclusive upon the same issue in any suit, though the cause of action is different. Cannon v. Brame, 45 Ala. 262; Crowder v. Red Mountain Co., 127 Ala. 254, 29 So. 847; Freeman, Judgments, § 259.
Applying the foregoing test to the case at bar, while one complaint is trespass to the plaintiff's home and for taking a machine therefrom and certain misconduct as an incident, the other suit, though for a trespass in taking the machine, charges an entry into the plaintiff's home and certain improper conduct in connection with the taking or conversion of the machine. Each charges the same act or transaction, and each involves the same evidence. Indeed, this identical question seems to have been decided by most respectable courts. A trespass upon land and a trespass to personal property and the conversion of same in one continuous transaction gives the plaintiff one right of action only, so that a recovery for the one bars an action for the other. Roberts v Moss, 127 Ky. 657, 106 S.W. 297, 17 L.R.A. (N.S.) 280; Savage v. French, 13 Ill.App. 17; 1 Van Fleet, Former Adjudications, § 153.
The case of Irby v. Commercial Bank, 204 Ala. 420, 85 So. 509, is in no wise in conflict with the foregoing rule. There there were two separate and distinct mortgages and debts, and we held that an action in detinue for the personal property conveyed by the chattel mortgage was no bar to a suit to collect or enforce...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Austill v. Prescott, 1170709
...of the questions actually litigated, but [also of those] which could have been litigated in the former suit. Reid v. Singer Sewing Machine Co., 218 Ala. 498, 119 So. 229 [ (1928) ] ; Hathcock v. Mitchell, 277 Ala. 586, 173 So. 2d 576 [ (1965) ].’" 331 So. 2d at 259." Hester, 402 So. 2d at 9......
-
Ex parte Ashton
... ... et seq.; Cooper v. Maddan, 6 Ala. 431. See the ... recent case Reid v. Singer Sewing Mach. Co., 218 ... Ala. 498, 119 So. 229, in which there ... ...
-
Terrell v. City of Bessemer
...331 So.2d 257 (Ala.1976); Gulf American Fire and Casualty Co. v. Johnson, 282 Ala. 73, 209 So.2d 212 (1968); Reid v. Singer Sewing Machine Co., 218 Ala. 498, 119 So. 229 (1928). It is clear that Terrell could not have litigated his common law theories in the United States District Court. Al......
-
Robinson v. Holley
... ... Mitchell, 277 Ala. 586, 173 So.2d 576 (1965); Reid" v. Singer Sewing Machine Co., 218 Ala. 498, 119 So. 229 (1928) ... \xC2" ... ...