Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Insurance Co. of North America

• Decision Date: 30 June 1916
• Docket Number: 6962.
• Citation: 89 S.E. 438,18 Ga. App. 341
• Parties: SEABOARD AIR LINE RY. v. INSURANCE CO. OF NORTH AMERICA.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

89 S.E. 438

18 Ga.App. 341

SEABOARD AIR LINE RY. v. INSURANCE CO. OF NORTH AMERICA.

No. 6962.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

June 30, 1916

Syllabus by the Court.

One having the right of subrogation under the law, and having a subrogation agreement from his predecessors, may maintain a suit on that right, and is not precluded from enforcing his right of subrogation by reason of the fact that his predecessors sued and recovered a judgment against the defendant for the same cause of action, when it appears that the right of subrogation and the agreement thereto antedated the filing of the suit in which the recovery was had, and that the suit and judgment pleaded in bar did not cover and include the items of damage to which the plaintiff was subrogated.

Generally a single cause of action producing several elements of damage admits of only one action or suit, provided there is an identity of subject-matter and of persons and parties.A judgment rendered in a suit wanting in these two elements does not operate as res adjudicata as to the rights of another person claiming under a subrogation accruing before the bringing of the suit, the foundation of the judgment pleaded in bar.

Judgments of courts of competent jurisdiction are conclusive, between the parties to the case and their privies, as to all matters put in issue, or matters that could legally have been put in issue; but one with a right of subrogation accruing before the bringing of the suit which was the basis of the judgment pleaded in bar is not a privy, so as to be concluded by the judgment, especially when the right of subrogation is claimed on an item of damage expressly excluded from that suit.

Error from City Court of Elberton; Geo. C. Grogan, Judge.

Action by the Insurance Company of North America against the Seaboard Air Line Railway.Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.Affirmed.

Cobb Erwin & Rucker, of Athens, and Z. B. Rogers and H. J. Brewer both of Elberton, for plaintiff in error.

Worley & Nall, of Elberton, for defendant in error.

HODGES J.

It appears, from the agreed statement of facts, that the Messrs. Swearingen composed the firm of Elberton Planing Mills and they owned the planing mill and other buildings, and that the Seaboard Air Line Railway set fire to the mill and the houses adjacent thereto.After the fire the Swearingens and the Elberton Planing Mills entered into an agreement of subrogation with the Insurance Company of North America, whereby in consideration of the payment of certain amounts of insurance carried by the company on a certain frame barn and two frame dwelling houses, on McDonough street, Elberton, Ga., the company was subrogated to their rights as to these items.The railway company, by sparks emitted from one of its locomotives, destroyed the planing mill and its contents, and injured and damaged the property covered by the policies of insurance.After making the agreement of subrogation with the insurance company, a suit was brought by J. C. and H. B. Swearingen for certain items of damage, and suit was brought by the Elberton Planing Mills for certain other items of damage against the railway company.These two suits did not cover and include the items of damage claimed by the insurance company under its alleged right of subrogation and the agreement made by the Swearingens and the Elberton Planing Mills before the bringing of the two suits described above, but, on the contrary, the items of damage, for which the insurance company claimed the right of subrogation, were expressly excluded in these last-mentioned suits.Judgments were recovered in behalf of the Swearingens and the Elberton Planing Mills which the railway company paid.On the trial of the suit filed by the insurance company, the railway company pleaded that the insurance company was concluded and bound by the payments already made on account of the fire, and that, as to the insurance company, all matters and things that were put in issue upon the trial of the cases brought by the Swearingens and the Elberton Planing Mills, or that could have been put in issue, were res adjudicata, the railway company contending that the insurance company was concluded as to its rights, if any it had, as a privy of the Swearingens and the Elberton Planing Mills.Judgment was rendered in favor of the insurance company against the railway company.

1.Under the law, the insurance company, having paid the insurance, had the right of subrogation under the insurance contract, and parties to the insurance contracts made agreements recognizing the right of the insurance company to subrogation some time in June, 1911, before the filing of suit against the railway company, by any one, for damages accruing out of this fire.Whatever rights the insurance company had by way of subrogation (under the agreed statement of facts upon which this case was adjudicated by the trial court) accrued to the insurance company at the time of its payment of the insurance money to the insured and at the time of the making of the subrogation agreement between the Swearingens and the Elberton Planing Mills and the Insurance Company of North America.It will be observed that the Swearingens composed the Elberton Planing Mills, and that they brought two separate actions for...