Republic Auto. Ins. Co. v. Maedel
| Decision Date | 07 April 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 157.,157. |
| Citation | 253 Mich. 663,235 N.W. 819 |
| Parties | REPUBLIC AUTOMOBILE INS. CO. v. MAEDEL. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Genesee County; James S. Parker, Judge.
Action by Republic Automobile Insurance Company against Edward Maedel. To review an order dismissing the case, plaintiff brings error.
Reversed.
Argued before BUTZEL, C. J., and WIEST, CLARK, McDONALD, POTTER, SHARPE, NORTH, and FEAD, JJ. Neithercut & Neithercut, of Flint (Richard C. Fruit, of Flint, of counsel), for appellant.
Alex B. Simonson, of Sandusky, for appellee.
The automobiles of Edward Maedel and Ivan Lambert collided on a highway in Sanilac county. Lambert's insurer, Republic Automobile Insurance Company, plaintiff here, settled with him and took assignment of his rights, if any, to recover against Maedel. Maedel commenced a tort action against Lambert in the Sanilac circuit court to recover damages arising out of the collision, averred to be due to Lambert's negligence. This suit is pending. Later, plaintiff, assignee of Lambert, commenced this tort action against Maedel in the Genesee circuit court to recover damages of the same accident, averred to be due to Maedel's negligence. Defendant Maedel entered general appearance, and pleaded the general issue, and later amended his plea by setting up thereunder matter in challenge of jurisdiction of the cause on the ground of former suit pending, and on the ground, too, of lack of jurisdiction of his person because of residence.
An order was made dismissing the case because of former suit pending. Plaintiff brings error. If defendant is right in either of his reasons advanced for dismissal, the order must be affirmed.
The defense of former suit pending is availing when-‘if the first suit had been decided it could be pleaded in bar as a former adjudication.’ 7 R. C. L. p. 1069. A verdict of no cause of action, and judgment thereon, in the former suit would not be a bar to the second suit. The statute, Comp. Laws Supp. 1922, § 12477(1), permitted, but did not require, plaintiff, or Lambert, its assignor, to file cross-declaration in the cause in the Sanilac circuit. Plaintiff might bring its separate suit, as it did. The defense of former suit pending is not sustained. Seager v. Foster, 185 Iowa, 32, 169 N. W. 681, 8 A. L. R. 690, and note, 694. Defendant waived right to challenge jurisdiction of his person by entry of general appearance. 1 Green's Mich. Practice, 378; Morgan v. Hoey, 209...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rose Weiner v. the Prudential Insurance Company of America
... ... 637; Buck v ... Colbath, 3 Wall. 334, 18 L.Ed. 257; Republic ... Auto Ins. Co. v. Maedel, 253 Mich. 663, 665, ... 235 N.W. 819. This ... ...
-
Weiner v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 278a.
...Stock Co. v. Lewis, 241 U.S. 440, 36 S.Ct. 637, 60 L.Ed. 1084; Buck v. Colbath, 3 Wall. 334, 18 L.Ed. 257; Republic Automobile Ins. Co. v. Maedel, 253 Mich. 663, 665, 235 N.W. 819. This court said in Gilley v. Jarvis, 94 Vt. 135, 137, 109 A. 41, 42: "The rule that, where two courts have con......
-
Chunko v. LeMaitre
...questions raised by automobile accidents involving both property damage and personal injuries. See Republic Automobile Insurance Company v. Maedel (1931) 253 Mich. 663, 235 N.W. 819; National Liberty Insurance Company v. Foth (1931), 254 Mich. 152, 235 N.W. 821; Heck v. Henne (1927), 238 Mi......
-
Jones v. Chambers, 12
...service of defendant's plea.' C.L.1948, § 615.11 (Stat.Ann. s27.836). The statute has been thus interpreted in Republic Automobile Ins. Co. v. Maedel, 253 Mich. 663, 235 N.W. 819. See, also, Seager v. Foster, 185 Iowa 32, 169 N.W. 681, 8 A.L.R. 'The general rule is that a defendant, having ......