State ex rel. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Hughes

• Decision Date: 12 March 1941
• Docket Number: 37326
• Parties: State of Missouri at the relation of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, a Corporation, Relator, v. W. C. Hughes, Wm. Dee Becker and Edward J. McCullen, Judges of the St. Louis Court of Appeals
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

148 S.W.2d 576

347 Mo. 549

State of Missouri at the relation of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, a Corporation, Relator, v. W. C. Hughes, Wm. Dee Becker and Edward J. McCullen, Judges of the St. Louis Court of Appeals

No. 37326

Supreme Court of Missouri

March 12, 1941

Rehearing Denied March 12, 1941. Mandate Conformed to May 6 1941.

Record quashed.

Fordyce White, Mayne, Williams & Hartmann and Oliver & Oliver for relator;

Harry Cole Bates of counsel.

(1) The Supreme Court will, upon a writ of certiorari to a Court of Appeals, eliminate conflicts between such Court of Appeals and the latest controlling rulings of the court on the subject either as to a general principle of law announced or to a ruling under a like, analogous or similar state of facts. This court will, so far as it is possible, maintain harmony in the law of this State. State ex rel. Vulgamott v. Trimble, 300 Mo. 92, 253 S.W. 1014; State ex rel. Kroger G. & B. Co. v. Haid, 323 Mo. 9, 18 S.W.2d 478. (2) Where a plaintiff recovers judgment upon trial upon the merits, and that judgment is reversed outright by an appellate court, he cannot maintain another action upon the same cause of action. Ginnocchio v. Ill. Cent. Ry. Co., 264 Mo. 522; Strottman v. Railroad Co., 228 Mo. 193; Berry v. Majestic Milling Co., 304 Mo. 301. (3) "It is also well settled that a former judgment is a bar, not only as to all matters which were raised, but also as to all defenses which could have been raised." United States ex rel. v. Lufcy, 49 S.W.2d 14; State v. Bliss, 99 S.W.2d 72; Leslie v. Carter, 268 Mo. 428; Summit v. Realty & Brokerage Co., 208 Mo. 511.

W. A. Brookshire for respondents.

(1) The judgment of the Springfield Court of Appeals, which reversed the judgment in favor of Charles F. Adams, for the reason that notice and due proof had not been furnished the relator, is not a bar to the present suit. It was not on the merits. 34 C. J. 777, sec. 1195; 2 Freeman on Judgments, secs. 739, 723, 725, 732; Gould v. Railroad Co., 91 U.S. 532; Hughes v. United States, 4 Wall. 232; Hoover v. King, 43 Ore. 285; Crow v. Abraham, 86 Ore. 103; Brown v. Fletcher, 182 F. 966; Moody v. Atkinson, 165 Ala. 302; Reilly v. Perkins, 6 Ariz. 190; Cooper v. McCoy, 116 Ark. 505; Armstrong v. County of Manatee, 49 Fla. 275; Callaway v. Irvin, 123 Ga. 351; Pepper v. Donnelly, 87 Ky. 262; Barr v. Poor, 28 C. C. Rep. 257; Buchanan v. Banks, 203 Pa. 601; Strottman v. Railroad, 228 Mo. 186; Lilly v. Tobein, 103 Mo. 477; Baldwin v. Davidson, 139 Mo. 126; Short v. Taylor, 137 Mo. 527; Couch v. Harp, 201 Mo. 464. (2) Due proof as required by the contract of insurance was furnished the relator when at its home office in New York City the first petition filed in this case, to-wit, on or about the 5th day of March, 1932. Adams v. Met. Life Ins. Co., 74 S.W.2d 899; Wollenberg v. Equitable Life Assur. Society, 96 S.W.2d 57.

OPINION

Tipton, J.

This is an original proceeding in certiorari to review the record in the case of Adams v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., reported in 139 S.W.2d 1098, wherein the respondents, as Judges of the St. Louis Court of Appeals, affirmed a judgment obtained by the plaintiff against the relator growing out of a policy of group insurance issued to the St. Joseph Lead Co., by whom the plaintiff was employed. The plaintiff was injured on December 16, 1923, and he claims he received permanent disability, and, therefore, that he comes within the terms of the policy.

The essential facts as found by respondents are as follows:

"On March 5, 1932, respondent filed suit, based on the same disability as this suit, in the Circuit Court of Madison County, which case was transferred to the Circuit Court of Butler County and there tried before a jury, and a verdict and judgment given for respondent for the full amount sued for, $ 2,808.75. In due course an appeal was taken by the defendant to the Springfield Court of Appeals, and on the 24th day of August, 1934, that Court reversed the judgment. For further statement of that case see Adams v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 228 Mo.App. 915, 74 S.W.2d 899. Thereafter respondent on November 1, 1934, filed in the Supreme Court its petition for a writ of certiorari, seeking to set aside and quash the said judgment of the Springfield Court of Appeals, and a writ of certiorari was issued. Thereafter on September 7, 1935, the Supreme Court quashed the writ of certiorari for the reason, as shown by its judgment, that relator had failed to comply with the rules of that court.

"This suit was filed in the Circuit Court of St. Francois County on August 12, 1935, an amended petition being filed on November 9, 1936, and trial before the court, a jury being waived, on November 18, 1938, resulting in a judgment for plaintiff for the full amount sued for, $ 2,808.75, from which judgment, after unavailing motions for new trial and in arrest of judgment, defendant appeals.

"The defense plead and now relied upon is that the judgment of the Springfield Court of Appeals in the prior suit and the judgment of the Supreme Court quashing its writ of certiorari are res adjudicata as to this case, . . ."

In ruling that the judgment of the Springfield Court of Appeals was not a bar to this suit, the respondents said:

"The plaintiff in this case is in precisely the same position as though his first case had been non-suited or dismissed because prematurely brought. The first suit and the Springfield Court of Appeals' judgment therein is res adjudicata of every issue determined in that case, or that could have been properly determined. The Springfield Court of Appeals only determined that due proof had not been made before the institution of that suit, it did not and could not determine that a cause of action could not arise thereafter by the furnishing of due proof. And while its opinion correctly states the law as to the issue then before that court, so likewise does the Wollenberg case, supra, correctly state the law."

The relator contends that this ruling of the respondents contravenes the latest controlling holding of this court. It is to be remembered that the first case was tried on the merits in the Butler County Circuit Court where a judgment was obtained against the relator. On appeal to the Springfield Court of Appeals, that court entered a judgment reversing the judgment of the trial court. It did not reverse and remand the judgment to the trial court with directions to dismiss the plaintiff's petition. The respondents interpreted the opinion of the Springfield Court of Appeals to hold...