State v. Kaemmerling
Decision Date | 05 November 1910 |
Docket Number | 16,916 |
Parties | THE STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant, v. DINA KAEMMERLING, Appellee |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided July, 1910.
Appeal from Crawford district court.
Judgment reversed.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
JUDGMENTS--Res Judicata. (A. T. & S. F. Rld. Co. v. Comm'rs of Jefferson Co., 12 Kan. 127, syllabus.)
Fred S. Jackson, attorney-general, and John Marshall and George H. Stuessi, assistant attorneys-general, for the appellant.
This is an appeal by the state from an order of the district court of Crawford county sustaining a plea of former adjudication in an action against the appellee, Dina Kaemmerling, and George Pierce and Henry Pierce, for an injunction to enjoin them from maintaining a nuisance in violation of the prohibitory law. The petition alleged that the appellee, together with two other persons by the name of Pierce, was maintaining a nuisance on April 1, 1906, and ever since had been engaged therein, upon certain specifically described premises in Chicopee, in Crawford county. The appellee, as an answer and a bar to the action, pleaded a judgment wherein she, together with one William Monroe, had been perpetually enjoined from maintaining a nuisance at such place. The petition charged that these parties had been maintaining such a place since March 1, 1908. This was held by the district court to be a sufficient bar to the pending application against Dina Kaemmerling, and the state has appealed from such ruling.
The law of res judicata requires that the cause of action pleaded in bar must be identical to the one in which the plea is made in the following particulars: (1) in subject matter (2) in cause of action; (3) in the person and parties to the action; (4) in the quality in the person for or against whom the claim is made. (Benz v. Hines and Tarr, 3 Kan. 390; A. T. & S. F. Rld. Co. v. Comm'rs of Jefferson Co., 12 Kan. 127.) The cause here pleaded in bar seems to be essentially dissimilar instead of identical. They are not the same as to time when the nuisance was maintained nor as to the persons who were...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Evans v. Davidson
...38 Idaho 464, 221 P. 1105; Neil v. Hyde, 32 Idaho 576, 186 P. 710; Mayerhoff v. Wortman, 92 Okla. 66, 218 P. 842; State v. Kaemmerling, 83 Kan. 383, 111 P. 443; Alfrey v. Colbert, 44 Okla. 246, 144 P. In order to constitute an estoppel by judgment it is necessary that the precise question i......
-
Lux v. Columbian Fruit Canning Company
... ... That ... rule was again declared in A. T. & S. F. Rly. Co ... v. [120 Kan. 118] Comm'rs of Jefferson Co., ... 12 Kan. 127; The State v. Kaemmerling, 83 Kan. 383, ... 384, 111 P. 443; and in Rea v. Telephone Co., 87 ... Kan. 565, 569, 125 P. 27 ... In ... Marshall v ... ...
-
Crowe v. Warnarkee
...of the quality in the person for or against whom the claim is made." Turner Tp. v. Williams, 97 N.W. 842, 17 S.D. 548; State v. Kaemmerling, 111 P. 443, 83 Kan. 383; Creegan v. Hyman, 46 So. 952 (Miss.); Siegfried v. Boyd, 85 A. 72, 237 Pa. 55. ¶25 We have no fault to find with the rule ann......
-
Privett v. United States
... ... 698, 700, 8 ... Sup.Ct. 1024, 1025 (31 L.Ed. 839); Turner Tp. v ... Williams, 17 S.D. 548, 97 N.W. 842, 843; State v ... Kaemmerling, 83 Kan. 383, 111 P. 443; ... Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. Fisher, 58 Fla ... 377, 50 So. 504, 507; Vincent v. Mutual ... ...