Russ Transport, Inc. v. Jones
| Decision Date | 11 October 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 3,39140,Nos. 39139,s. 39139,3 |
| Citation | 104 Ga.App. 612,122 S.E.2d 282 |
| Parties | RUSS TRANSPORT, INC. v. H. C. JONES. V. L. REAGAN v. H. C. JONES |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
Before a judgment in a former action will operate as a bar to a subsequent action involving the same subject matter, it must appear that the former action was between the same parties, or their privies. Where plaintiff's wife, who is still in life, was a party to the former action, but is not a party to the present one, and plaintiff was not a party to the former action, they are not privies, within the meaning of Code § 110-501, and the judgment in the former action is not a bar.
H. C. Jones filed suit in Haralson Superior Court against Russ Transport, Inc. and V. L. Reagan seeking to recover from them damages by reason of alleged negligence of the defendant Reagan in operating a motor vehicle of his employer, Russ Transport, Inc., which negligence he alleged was the cause of injuries to his wife. Recovery of medical expenses incurred and damages for loss of services and consortium was sought.
Each of the defendants filed a special plea in bar, attaching thereto a certified copy of a suit that had been brought in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia by Russ Transport, Inc. against plaintiff's wife, Mrs. Irma Lee Jones, and a cross-action which she filed therein seeking the recovery of damages on account of her personal injuries growing out of the same accident and based upon the same charges of negligence as in the suit here, and in which the jury returned a general verdict for the defendant, upon which a judgment was entered that 'defendant, Mrs. Irma Lee Jones, is discharged of any obligation hereunder to Russ Transport, Inc. and Russ Transport, Inc. and its insurer, Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company of Wisconsin, are discharged of any liability hereunder on the cross-bill filed by Mrs. Irma Lee Jones.' The plea in bar of both defendants here was overruled, and they separately filed their bill of exceptions, assigning error upon the overruling thereof.
Murphy & Murphy, Thomas B. Murphy, Bremen, Richard C. Freeman, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
E. B. Jones, Jr., Bremen, Howe & Murphy, Harold L. Murphy, Buchanan, for defendant in error.
Code § 3-607 provides that: 'A former recovery, or the pendency of a former suit for the same cause of action, between the same parties, in the same or any other court that has jurisdiction, shall be a good cause of abatement * * *.' Code § 110-501 provides: 'A judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction shall be conclusive between the same parties and their privies as to all matters put in issue, or which under the rules of law might have been put in issue in the cause wherein the judgment was rendered, until such judgment shall be reversed or set aside.' That these sections of the Code are applicable in tort cases, such as we here deal with, is made clear by Code § 105-1805: 'Former...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aycock v. Calk
...159 Ga.App. 874, 285 S.E.2d 566 (1981). A husband and wife are not privies for purpose of res judicata. Russ Transp. v. Jones, 104 Ga.App. 612, 613-614, 122 S.E.2d 282 (1961); Blakewood v. Yellow Cab Co. of Savannah, 61 Ga.App. 149, hn. 4, 150-151, 6 S.E.2d 126 (1939). Joint tortfeasors are......
-
Smith v. Wood, 42603
...heirs at law does not afford the privity required. Cf. Blakewood v. Yellow Cab Co., 61 Ga.App. 149, 6 S.E.2d 126; Russ Transport, Inc. v. Jones, 104 Ga.App. 612, 122 S.E.2d 282, dealing with pleas of res This is not to say that any defense which would have been available to the defendant, h......
-
Wren Mobile Homes, Inc. v. Midland-Guardian Co. of Ga.
...Wren. Wren is not a privy of Midland-Guardian within the meaning of Code § 110-501. See Owens v. Williams, supra; Russ Transport, Inc. v. Jones, 104 Ga.App. 612, 122 S.E.2d 282. 2. In support of its general demurrer, defendant also points out that the plaintiff has incorporated the pleading......
-
Blakely v. Couch
...parties, in the same or any other court that has jurisdiction, shall be a good cause of abatement.' Also see Russ Transport, Inc. v. Jones, 104 Ga.App. 612, 613, 122 S.E.2d 282. It would have simplified this case if Couch could have gone into federal court and filed a plea of pending suit, ......