Rodman v. Michigan Cent. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 27 January 1886
• Citation: 59 Mich. 395,26 N.W. 651
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: RODMAN v. MICHIGAN CENT. R. CO.

26 N.W. 651

59 Mich. 395

RODMAN v. MICHIGAN CENT. R. CO.

Supreme Court of Michigan

January 27, 1886

Error to superior court of Detroit.

Campbell C.J., dissenting.

Conely, Maybury & Lucking, for plaintiff.

Henry Russell, for defendant and appellant.

SHERWOOD, J.

A case between these parties, involving the same transaction, was before this court, and decided at the October term, 1884, (55 Mich. 57; and 20 N.W. 788.) It was held in that case, upon demurrer, by the judge of the superior court of Detroit, that the plaintiff's declaration did not state a cause of action, and judgment was given for the defendant. From that judgment the plaintiff appealed to this court, and the judgment of the superior court, on an equal division of this court, was affirmed under the statute.

Since then the plaintiff has renewed his suit in the same court at Detroit, and upon a new declaration, and, as he claims containing the averments omitted in the old one, which by the prevailing opinion here proved fatal thereto; and upon a trial before a jury thereon has succeeded in obtaining a judgment in his favor for the sum of $1,500 damages. From this judgment the defendant appeals.

The entire proceedings had in the case are now before us for review. The defendant's counsel did not demur in the present suit, but pleaded to the declaration the general issue, and gave notice thereunder that he would insist, upon the trial, that the judgment in the first case is a bar to the present suit. The defendant's counsel now claims the issue sought to be tried in this case is res adjudicata; that the judgment in the first case is still in force upon the merits, upon the same cause of action, and between the same parties; that the judgment was final and conclusive between the parties. I am not prepared to accept this doctrine. How it can be said that the merits of a plaintiff's cause have been passed upon, when the declaration does not state his case, or any merits, I am not able to comprehend. It was twice adjudicated that the declaration in the first case was without merits, that it did not state the plaintiff's cause, or any cause, for the demurrer was held general. How a declaration containing a statement of facts, entitling a plaintiff to nothing, can be made to defeat a recovery under a declaration containing a statement of facts entitling the plaintiff to a judgment for $1,500, I confess I have never been quite able to understand. A practice which will allow this to be done can find no support in reason or justice, and can never receive any sanction. This, however must be done if the bar in this case is to be maintained.

The question of res adjudicata seems to have been the principal one raised in the case, and I think no error was committed in the ruling upon the subject. The changes made in the...