Zorick v. Jones, 44188
| Decision Date | 19 December 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 44188,44188 |
| Citation | 193 So.2d 420 |
| Parties | Anton A. ZORICK and W. L. Baker v. Edward D. JONES, Jr. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Michael D. Haas, Bay St. Louis, for appellant.
Harmon W. Broom, Jackson, Gex, Gex & Phillips, Bay St. Louis, for appellee.
This case involves the question of whether a personal judgment by a court of another state, which is based on a contract of the parties and which orders a conveyance of real property in Mississippi by one of the parties, may be recognized and is conclusive of rights under the contract, and thus whether it may be the basis of a suit in this State for enforcement of the foreign judgment. We hold that it is, and, applying the doctrine of collateral estoppel, affirm the decree of the Chancery Court of Hancock County, Mississippi.
Anton A. Zorick, appellant-defendant, and Edward D. Jones, Jr., appellee-complainant, were both residents of the State of Louisiana when they executed a contract in that State in 1962. Jones agreed to transfer to Zorick certain property in New Orleans, and in exchange, Zorick agreed to transfer to Jones 50 acres of land in Hancock County, Mississippi. Jones conveyed the New Orleans property to Zorick in accordance with the contract. When Zorick refused to carry out his part of the bargain, Jones filed suit for specific performance in the District Court of Orleans Parish, Louisiana, and obtained a judgment on April 14, 1964, declaring Jones to be owner of the Mississippi land and ordering Zorick to specifically perform his obligations under the contract. The Louisiana Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment. Jones v. Zorick, 171 So.2d 674 (La.Ct.App.1965).
After the district court judgment was rendered, Zorick filed the present action in the Chancery Court of Hancock County, Mississippi. It was based upon the Louisiana judgment, and prayed for a decree adjudicating him to be the owner of the Mississippi property. The chancery court so ordered. It found that the Louisiana court had jurisdiction of the parties to the contract, which was the subject matter of the litigation. Hence, the Louisiana judgment was binding on the parties, and the chancery court adjudicated Jones to be the owner of the Mississippi land. W. L. Baker, also an appellant, had intervened as a party-defendant, asserting ownership of a note and deed of trust on the property. However, the decree stated that it did not affect that lien, and made no ruling on it.
This is a typical case for application of the doctrine of collateral estoppel. The subject matter of the action in the District Court of Louisiana was the contract between the parties. It was executed in that State, and the parties were residents of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tideway Oil Programs, Inc. v. Serio, 53626
...on real property located in another state. It is true that a Mississippi court cannot try title to Louisiana property. Zorick v. Jones, 193 So.2d 420 (Miss.1966). Nonetheless, if the suit is not one to try title but is a suit against the person of the defendant, the question is not one of s......
-
Kountouris v. Varvaris
...thereupon enter a personal judgment, even though the controlling substantive law is that of a foreign nation. Compare Zorick v. Jones, 193 So.2d 420, 421 (Miss.1966). Such an adjudication, if finally made, would effectively bind the parties in this state and presumably in all other states, ......
-
Anderson v. Sonat Exploration Co.
...431 So.2d 454 (Miss.1983), where we said: It is true that a Mississippi Court cannot try title to Louisiana property. Zorick v. Jones, 193 So.2d 420 (Miss.1966). Nonetheless, if the suit is not one to try title but is a suit against the person of the defendant, the question is not one of su......
-
Sanders v. Sanders, No. 2:95CV126-B-B (N.D. Miss. 5/__/1996)
...located outside the boundaries of the state. Tideway Oil Programs, Inc. v. Serio, 431 So. 2d 454, 457 (Miss. 1983); Zorick v. Jones, 193 So. 2d 420, 421 (Miss. 1966). A federal court sitting in diversity has no greater jurisdiction than the courts of the forum state. Anderson v. Moorer, 372......