Taylor v. Sledge
| Decision Date | 21 May 1903 |
| Citation | 75 S.W. 1074 |
| Parties | TAYLOR v. SLEDGE et al. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Smith & Trezevant, for appellant. Caruthers Ewing, for appellees.
Complainant rented to the defendants a house in Memphis, to be occupied by them as brokers and commission merchants. Some time after defendants took possession and moved their stock of merchandise into the house, the floors of the second, third, and fourth stories gave way and fell; and a controversy arose between the parties as to whether the catastrophe was caused by the defective construction and want of repairs of the house, or by the wrongful and negligent action of the defendants in overloading the upper floor. The defendants sued the complainant, Taylor, in the circuit court of Shelby county, to recover the damages sustained by them by the falling of the floors; and, no defense being made, judgment by default was taken, and upon writ of inquiry the damages of the plaintiffs were found to be $1,148.50, for which a final judgment was entered. Complainant then brought the case before this court by writs of error and supersedeas, and assigned as error the action of the circuit judge in executing the writ of inquiry without the intervention of a jury — one having been demanded in the declaration — which assignment was overruled, and the judgment affirmed against him and his surety upon his supersedeas bond. This case is reported in 108 Tenn. 719, 69 S. W. 266. Thereupon this bill was brought, charging that the summons in the action of Sledge, Wells & Co. against Taylor was not served upon complainant Taylor; that the circuit court did not have any jurisdiction of his person, and that the judgment recovered against him was for this reason absolutely void; also that the collapse and falling in of the floors of the house rented defendants was caused by the negligence of the defendants in overloading the upper floor, and that they were liable to complainant for $465.46, the cost of repairs — with a prayer that the collection of said judgment be enjoined, and that complainant have a decree against defendants for $465.46, damages alleged to have been sustained by him. Other relief was prayed, but need not be noticed here. The defendants, answering, say that the complainant was served with process in the original case, but that the question is not now an open one, as he entered his appearance and submitted to the jurisdiction of the court when he sued out writs of error and supersedeas and had the case reviewed by this court, and that the former case involved the same subject-matter as this one, so far as the complainant seeks to recover damages for injuries done his house; and they plead the judgment in that case in bar of this part of the relief sought by them. Thus two questions of law are presented, the determination of which must be conclusive in this cause.
1. Did the complainant, by suing out the writs of error and supersedeas in the case of Sledge, Wells & Co. against Taylor, enter his appearance in that case, and submit to the jurisdiction of the court? We hold that he did. He had the election of two remedies to correct any error committed against him. If there was error in the face of the record, he could have the judgment reversed upon writ of error from this court. If there was no jurisdiction of his person, the judgment was absolutely void, and he could have had it so decreed, and its collection enjoined, by proper proceedings in the chancery court. It was his right and his duty to choose between these two remedies. He could not have both, because a party is entitled to only...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Buck v. Mueller
...seq.; Developments in the Law--Res Judicata, 65 Harv.L.Rev. 818 (1952). The doctrine applies to judgments by default. Taylor v. Sledge, 1903, 110 Tenn. 263, 75 S.W. 1074; Annotation: Doctrine of Res Judicata as Applied to Judgments by Default, 128 A.L.R. 472 (1940). But in the absence of a ......
-
In re Thomas
...Massengill v. Scott, 738 S.W.2d 629, 632 (Tenn. 1987); Lawhorn v. Wellford, 168 S.W.2d 790, 792 (Tenn. 1943) (quoting Taylor v. Sledge, 75 S.W. 1074, 1075 (Tenn. 1903)). BASED ON ALL OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS ORDERED AND NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that:1. Summary judgment is hereby GRANTED in fav......
-
In re Bursack, Bankruptcy No. 393-04249-KL3-7. Adv. No. 393-0359A.
...action between the parties or their privies. Lawhorn v. Wellford, 179 Tenn. 625, 168 S.W.2d 790, 792 (1943); Taylor v. Sledge, 110 Tenn. 263, 75 S.W. 1074, 1075 (1903). See Beare v. Burnett, 162 Tenn. 610, 39 S.W.2d 737, 737 (1931). "The rule is that the defendant, by suffering a default ju......
-
Chappell v. Chappell
...He had his choice of a writ of error and supersedeas, or a bill in chancery to enjoin the enforcement of the judgment. Taylor v. Sledge, 110 Tenn. 263, 75 S.W. 1074. Instead of pursuing either of these remedies, he, for some eight or nine years, led his former wife, to say nothing of the co......