Tucker v. Rohrback
| Decision Date | 02 October 1864 |
| Citation | 13 Mich. 73 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Chester S. Tucker v. John Rohrback |
Heard May 19, 1864
Error to Branch circuit.
This was an appeal to the circuit court from the judgment of a justice of the peace.
In the circuit, it was referred, and the referee reported, among other things, that this claim had been litigated in a prior suit, before A. L. Potter, Esq., a justice of the peace of the city of Coldwater, wherein the defendant in this cause was plaintiff, and the plaintiff herein, with one Sophia Rohrback, were defendants; and that plaintiff in that case sought to recover for the same corn-stalks, for which he made claim, under a notice of set-off, in this case; "that said matter was submitted to the justice, who rendered judgment thereon."
The referee found that said judgment was a bar to defendant's claim of set-off, and exceptions to his report were duly filed. The judgment of the court below sustained the report.
Judgment reversed, with costs, and a new trial ordered.
T. M Cooley. and E. G. Fuller, for plaintiff in error:
I. A judgment, to constitute a bar to a claim in a subsequent action, must have been rendered upon the merits, upon the same matter in issue, and between the same parties or their privies: Outram v. Morewood, 3 East. 351, 364-6; Ward v. Wilkinson, 4 B. & Ald., 412; Carter v. James, 13 M. & W., 147; Simpson v Pickering, 1 C. M. & R., 529; Jones v. Fales, 4 Mass. 255; Wilbur v. Gilmore, 21 Pick. 253; Gardner v. Buckbee, 3 Cow. 126; Burt v. Sternburgh, 4 Cow. 562-3.
The matter in issue is the same when the same evidence will support both actions; and this is the only test by which to know whether a determination in a former suit is a bar to a subsequent action: Outram v. Morewood, 3 East. 364; Towns v. Nims, 5 N. H., 260-3; King v. Chase, 15 N. H., 15; Kent v. Kent, 2 Mass. 355; Spooner v. Davis, 7 Pick. 148; Eastman v. Cooper, 15 Pick. 286; Arnold v. Arnold, 17 Pick. 9; Gilbert v. Thompson, 9 Cush. 348; Harding v. Hale, 2 Gray 400; Rice v. King, 7 Johns. 21; Miller v. Manice, 6 Hill 114.
II. The judgment in the case of Tucker v. John and Sophia Rohrback, was not a bar to the set-off offered in this case: 1. Because the parties were not the same; 2. Because the issue was not the same. The issue in that suit was, whether the two defendants were indebted to Tucker for the present demand. That issue could only be supported by proof of a joint liability. Proof of the individual liability of John Rohrback would have defeated the claim. But on the issue in this case, the set-off must be supported by proof of an individual liability; and proof of a joint liability defeats it. The issue in the two cases was, therefore, antagonistic; and evidence which would support the one would defeat the other: Outram v. Morewood, 3 East. 364-6; King v. Chase, 15 N. H., 15; Harding v. Hale, 2 Gray 400; Miller v. Manice, 6 Hill 122, 129-31.
That a judgment, to constitute a bar to a claim in a subsequent action, must be rendered upon the merits, upon the same matter in issue, and between the same parties or their privies, is unquestionable.
In the present case, testimony was offered and received, tending to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gose v. Monroe Auto Equipment Co., Docket Nos. 60752
...is not the raising of a matter, but the adjudication or decision of the matter which requires application of the bar. See Tucker v. Rohrback, 13 Mich. 73, 75 (1864); Morgan, supra. As was stated in Machen v. Budd Wheel Co., 265 Mich. 530, 535-536, 251 N.W. 580, 581-582 "The doctrine of 'res......
-
American Mut. Liability Ins. Co. v. Michigan Mut. Liability Co.
...subsequent case alleged to be barred by or merged in the prior case involved the same 'cause of action' as the prior case. Tucker v. Rohrback, 13 Mich. 73 (1864); Sovereign v. Sovereign, 354 Mich. 150, 154, 92 N.W.2d 600 (1958). In order to determine whether the same cause of action is invo......
-
Verbrugghe v. Select Spec. Hosp.
...for res judicata purposes. A judgment, to constitute a bar to any subsequent claim, however, must be rendered on the merits. Tucker v. Rohrback, 13 Mich. 73 (1864). "`No judgment in any legal proceeding can be a bar unless the rights of the party whose claim has been presented for adjudicat......
-
Strachan v. Mutual Aid & Neighborhood Club, Inc., Docket No. 31118
...be satisfied: (1) identity of subject matter, (2) identity of parties or their privies, and (3) a judgment on the merits. Tucker v. Rohrback, 13 Mich. 73, 75 (1864); Curry v. Detroit, 394 Mich. 327, 331, 231 N.W.2d 57 In the present case it is undisputed that the parties and the subject mat......