*1 470 Co. v. Johnston-Crrws ' Syllabus ! seem that that anwas the jury, be determined and not the and that absence Judge, the of conflicting should not testimony affect the It question. entirely possible that, jury concluded in view of may the vital full a of importance recovery damages character óf interstate one should be es jouriiey tablished, some doubt was cast truth and reason ableness, circumstances, under the narra plaintiff’s tive, and true; declined to it as accept right which jury had. But until unquestionably the Court is prepared overrule cases of Horn, 71 C., Uzzell 51 426, S. S. E., 253; Mills, C., Bank Innam 76, E., 74 951, S. S. Co., Co. v Slaughter 338, E., Lumber that, they are binding authority, holding where the evidence, defendant offers no and the evidence plain tiff all way, one direct a points Judge may verdict. of this Court is that the judgment ap- from affirmed. pealed v. FOLK ET
JOHNSTON-CREWS AL. CO. 15) E. (111 S. Declaring Judgment—Decree Suit Valid 1. Creditor’s Deed Adjudicata Action__ Held Res in a Not Creditor’s Sueseouent decree, holding A a deed valid in a creditor’s action to have it void, declared adjudicata fraudulent subse- quent creditor’s action to have set under recording aside Act, validity of the wherein the deed as between grantor conceded, not, grantee matter as such and could not have been, involved former action. Adjudicata.—The Judgment—Essential op essential Elements Res adjudicata identity parties, elements of res are identity subject-matter, and an adjudication in the former suit precise sought to be raised in the second suit. Judgment—Where Adjudication op Former is Conclusive Issues Might identity Been Raised.—If That Have established, identity of causes action have been ad- v. Folk Term, conclusive, judication *2 precise of the issues raised determined, but of might affecting such as have been raised issue, established, main identity parties but if the has been not, identity any appear- of action has the causes
ing actually adjudicated to have been con- former suit clusive parties subsequent action. Before 1921. Affirmed. J., Hampton, April, DeVore, Action Co. Richie B. Folk Johnston-Crews for and defendants Judgment plaintiff appeal. The decree of DeVore was as follows: Judge This matter comes before me on of the referee report herein. This is an action to declare invalid a from deed G. J. Folk, Choven, Folk B. to Richie nee as it affects the rights cir- other creditors like situation and plaintiff 24, cumstance. The deed in December is dated 1912, 20, was recorded January It .and purported 1,000 one-third interest in convey a acres of land in Hampton County, C. The value land is between $10 acre. On the per executions on the various $30 judgments proved, returns nulla bona have been made by Sheriff. claims following have been proved: Company, 21, dated February Johnston-Crews 1917, $591.67; Fertilizer Southern & Chemical Company, 25, dated 1917, $572.10; C. Peeples B. June Clothing Company, judgment 21, 1917, February dated $110.25; Hardware Crumley-Sharp Cpmpany, judgment 21, 1917, dated February $83.67; w’ B. Hat Douglas dated Company, judgment 21, 1917, February $133.75; International Shoe Company, judgment dated February 13, 1917, $300.00; H. Co., Meinhard & $513.44—all which accrued during '
In addition to the foregoing quite number of creditors claims which were holding made between the date of the deed and the thereof recording were filed with the attorney referee. Foek
Circuit Decree There little the facts seems be very regarding dispute of the case. Folk at Brunson G. operated during store J. 1913, and made numerous accounts. far as the records So went, in the office of the Clerk of Court there was nothing deed in There question. disclose the transaction of the him faith is some credit was advanced on testimony 1,000-acre one-third ownership_ of his ostensible He this in and the deed conveyed plantation. wife, not recorded the' until 1914. G. grantee, Folk testified that he was “broke” when he in busi- went ness. He was insolvent as shows. record No ap- has arisen between the dispute argument *3 parent concerned, Hence, the facts. case is as to so far as this of the must be prayer granted. defendants, The some of whom sub- recently Folk, deceased, stituted for G. now and rely, mainly J. me, of counsel before relied certainly argument of res in the qdjudicata set answer. plea There was up a suit H. Meinhard for brought by & Co. itself and others Folk G. and his wife to the against prior bringing J. suit this for itself others Company the same defendants. The Meinhard suit was an action to set aside the deed for fraud as the dis- complaint short, closes. The final order in that suit is and is as fol- lows :
“The above-entitled came case before up me upon excep- tions to the of the Referee herein report Special and after I find that there was argument, hearing sufficient tes- me in to warrant aside timony the deed in setting fraud, for but the one complaint stating cause of action was not for fraud. complaint drawn to set aside the Act.” deed under recording observed that in the Meinhard It will suit it was adju- there that stated but complaint dicated the one cause fraud, and that the for of action there specifically v. Fork Johnston-CrSws n Term, 1921 set aside the stated that the was not drawn to complaint under Act. If all other essentials deed recording judicata the establishment of the ad were pres- plea ent, is this Court of the opinion
Meinhard case the successful would prevent interposition A com- in the instant case. the two plea reading discloses that different causes of action are plaints clearly therein; fraud, stated the one for the other being Act. recording Therefore, ordered, adjudged decreed n Chovin,
title deed executed Folk Richie G. B. J.' 24, 1912, 20, 1914, dated December and recorded January 22-D, im Book at in the office of the Clerk of page C., be, Court for and same Hampton County, hereby, invalid, is set aside as to those cred- unpaid declared itors hereinabove mentioned and those creditors whose ac- counts with Folk G. were created between the date of J. deed, wit, 24, 1912, the said December and the date of thereof, wit, record 20; 1914, January those to whom G. Folk became indebted between said dates. are
There quite number of creditors whose claims were filed with plaintiff’s at attorney commencement *4 action, of this also and filed with the Referee. In order that such creditors may the benefit this participate of decree, it is that ordered M. be E. Peeples appointed Special Referee to herein determine the validity and dates of the claims, and, said if no be taken from appeal the decision n ofsaid Referee, such then claims bemay to par- allowed in the benefit this of decree. ticipate
It is further ordered that be, M. F. Thomas and he is hereby, Master for the appointed Special specific purpose n for sale and offering selling property mentioned and described the said deed and hereinafter described. It is n orderedthat the said M. F. Thomas, Master, Special .be, he is hereby, offer required for sale or sell the at. Co. v. S. Decree C.
Circuit said in front the courthouse at S. Hampton, property C., on some' convenient hereafter to the highest sales day sale, bidder for cash hours of said sale to during legal time, weeks, be after made three advertisement place, Guardian, condition of sale County said Hampton such advertisement by newspaper, posting copy C.; on the courthouse that such of Hampton, door S. make, execute, sale the said Master and de- shall Special liver to the and sufficient title deed to purchaser good Folk, one-third interest his of G. estate and to all or tract of land County, piece, parcel, Hampton C., 1,000 acres, less, more or bounded on the containing S. Church; north lands and Beach of Gifford Branch by on Greenleaf, others; the east Parnell and on the south by the estate of Franklin and that on the west Johnson; lands Lawton; estate of that out of the Mears and proceeds first such sale the said Master shall the costs Special pay of this and then to the creditors expenses pay in the benefits of this decree as hereinabove participating claims, and, their forth amount of if set respective there be funds in hands such any remaining Special Master, such be held for disbursement to the subject further orders of this Court.
Further that either shall have leave to ordered party this order at foot of for such further orders as apply desired, be such shall may at least provided applicant give five, notice to the adverse party of the for days’ grounds such further order. this order served counsel for the copies
Let forthwith. defendants DeLoach, B.
Mr. cites: appellant, W. When former n E., 644; C., C., is a bar: 96 28; S. S. 17 S. C., 508; *5 Hanna, Warren and George
Messrs. O. Hugh for re- cite: When judgment is a bar-. spondent, 17 S. 475 n Term, [1921] C„ C., 202;
C., 35; Cas., 424; 2 17 19 S. Smith’s Lead. S. C„ 156; C, C., 87; C, 80; 440; 41 52 43 50 S. S. S. S. 6Ó7; 289; C., C., C., C., 510; 460; 53 55 68 77 S. S. S. S. C., 254; C„ 89; C., 508; C., 196; 77 84 19 49 S. S. S. S. C„ 580; 412; 176; S.-C., C., 598; 26 37 31 36 S. S. S. C.: C„ 519; C., 176; C., C., 35; 512; 41 52 49 52 S. S. S. S. 510; 503; C., 175; C., C., C., 519; 77 81 84 87 S. S. S. S. 133; 192; C., C., 88; C., 98 110 113 541. Judg- S. S. S. ment a case Act on questioning constitutionality of one will ground adjudicate on constitutionality 541; C., S., another 113 279; ground: 146 U. 101 S. S., 677; C., 516; C., 56 15; U. 43 352; 78 S. S. S. A., 493; A., C. 38 C. C.
C. to Estoppel 639; S., point 351; S., 94 U. actually litigated: U. 71; S., S., 510; S., 356; S-, 103 U. 104 U. 109 U. 117 U. 565; S., S., 532; 317; 121 U. S., 440; 122 U. 227 U. 610; C„ S., S-, E., 802; U. U. S. 27, 1922.
February The opinion was delivered Mr. Justice Cothran. bill,
A creditor’s to the Court in- seeking declare valid, concerned, far so as their claims are a certain deed executed the debtor woman young (afterwards wife), not recorded within the statutory period, subject interest of the debtor of said payment " claims. facts 1912, following appeared: year G.
Folk, debtor, Brunson, was a farmer near C. He deed, testified that the grantee Chovin, Richie B. Miss had been a member of his family since she was 8 years old; he lost his wife and the woman, young then, who was about 18 years old and in school in Charles- ton, was induced return to his home and assume *6 Johnston-Crews
Opinion her household, to to convey of his his promise cares to in which belonged tract land interest his one-third 1,000 and valued wife, acres about containing his deceased return, De- acre; and on did that she to per at $30 $10 in the deed 24, 1912, and delivered he executed cember that he married the young agreement; with compliance 1912, in executed though This deed 1914. in woman mean- 20, record January not put upon in the mercantile 1913, time, Folk embarked in August, debts 1913 contracted business, and during year amount to the aggregate and others merchants wholesale these were claims in the $2,500. Early year of about returns were entered upon bona in nulla judgment, put 1918, 13, February time At some prior the executions. record, an action was does when exactly appear Folk—a Bro., creditors G. Meinhard & instituted bill,- him and his wife—for purpose against creditor’s void, under fraudulent deed of having said declared This terminated action was of Elizabeth. Statute decree of Judge the defendants by following favor Spain: me came before ex- above-entitled case
“The up herein, and, Referee Special the report ceptions I find that there was sufficient hearing argument, after me warrant aside deed setting ques- testimony fraud; the but one cause stating for of action complaint tion The was not drawn to fraud. set aside the complaint for Act.’’ under the recording deed dated decree was This On Febru- February thereafter, 20, 1918, a week plaintiff, ary Johnston- instituted this action for the Crews Company,' purpose stated. above that, insist defendants
The come having creditor, Meinhard suit as a decree in into that case far so as the present cause of adjudicata, action is (cid:127) et Foek Term, 1921 decree, concerned. re- Judge Devore which will be defendants, ported, held the contention of the full' granted relief prayed plaintiff.
debtor instituted, died after the has suit was it present been administratrix, continued his against heirs at law and who have from the The appealed decree Devore. Judge decree of the Circuit was and should be Judge right, sustained.
The adjudication the to be sought by plaintiff established in the action at bar is that in Folk G. executed a 1912 J. valid deed his conveying interest in the to Miss Richie land B. Chovin ; his (afterwards that deed this not was wife) recorded that the meantime Folk contracted until debts, land; the being owner of apparently the that while Folk’s title fully passed the deed by to his the grantee, latter the holds title subject to the claims of subsequent creditors.
The adjudication to sought by established plaintiffs in the former action that in 1912 was Folk executed G. deed, an invalid his convey interest attempting Chovin; land to Miss Richie B. that this deed exe- was hinder, with the intent cuted and defraud cred- delay, his itors, void; and was title of Folk out never passed him; and that the land of Folk sub- was property ject to the claims of his adjudication creditors. This denied to the the Court on the plaintiffs; contrary holding fraudulent, that the was not valid conveyance but was a transfer of Folk’s title to reserving grantee, expressly raised in the action at bar. by the doctrine of by adju
Tested principles dicata, we do see how to decide possible action, second involving diametrically is concluded adjudication established theory, opposite The former action. first attacks viciously deed; of the the second concedes and denies validity Johnston-Crews C. Opinion of the its as between seeks to validity, grantor grantee, enforce the creditors the holder rights subsequent deed, of the title under that matter which legal and could not have been involved in the former action. declared be the essential following elements of res adjudicata: Identity par (1)
ties; an ad of the (2) subject-matter; (3) identit}'- suit of the question sought judication precise Bates, in the second suit. Hart v. be raised has It be assumed that identity may & that of Meinhard The former been established. bill, Com- Bro., in which a creditor’s their claim. by proof intervened and participated pany bill instituted at bar is creditors’ The action Johnston- *8 Crews Company. as vari- or of the subject-matter, to the identity' As demands, 'claims, causes of action: the or expressed
ously essentially in the two suits are of action The causes .differ- made, as are requiring different allegations ent. Entirely one, of the deed is In the the validity evidence. different void; in other it is conceded the attacked as fraudulent and one, the could have succeeded to be In the plaintiff valid. the inten- with that the was executed deed only by proving of hindering, of both and grantee, tion on the grantor part creditors of the grantor. the and defrauding delaying, what was by can succeed conceding the the other plaintiff deed, suit, by and of validity in a fide creditor of bona plaintiff proving him the faith of credit to to extend induced grantor, land, the title to which apparently of ownership his but not execute^, the deed him, previously unaffected by were contracted. after debts until recorded the case illustrated than of by be better cannot The point C., In that case the Stevens, Whaley plaintiff the defendant his obstructing brought v. Folk et Term, of right way, and obtained a Upon verdict. (24 appeal this 479) that, Court held plaintiff having alleged his that he complaint was entitled to a way gross, right a right or to his way appendant appurtenant land, and there no evidence that being confessedly was entitled to a he could right way gross, recover, even he though that he was may proved entitled to way or right appendant appurtenant theqe land described in that, were complaint; essential and marked between the distinctions two kinds of rights, the violation of these different and rights present distinct causes which would have to be asserted different and established distinct allegations proofs, plaintiff’s for leave amend application could not be under the granted provisions of the Code. Judg- rendered, ment therefore dismissing complaint. Thereafter suit, plaintiff brought second alleging that he was entitled to right way appendant appur- tenant and not in as he in the former gross, alleged action. defendant the first suit pleaded was an adjudica- him, tion of the and barred plaintiff’s rights, adjudi- cata, from the second. The maintaining was sustained plea the Circuit this Court Judge. Upon appeal (Justice Mclver held as fol- rendering opinion Court) lows:
“It is manifest that the in very allegations the complaints filed in different, and, the two actions were essentially as think, we it is manifest that equally the issues presented the actions were different. It is entirely two true is, same; in both of the actions was object general for the same obstruction of what damages to obtain appears road,' evidence be substantially from the same and restrain defendant of from injunction and contin- order But to obtain the obstruction. relief sought uing by said boimd to establish the he was affirmative of the plaintiff, Johnsron-Crrws C.
Opinion of the Court First, two issues: whether he of was entitled to a right second, as way, whether defendant alleged complaint; Now, had obstructed said that the second way. conceding cases, the first was issue was the same both of the issue case, not. Court held in the former For, as this certainly is enti was whether the the sole presented plaintiff defendant, á of gross of over land right tled way in the action is whether the issue presented present while way to a of right appendant ap entitled As known ‘Caneslatch.’ to his plantation purtenant ‘These two differ rights former case: in the held was and in form but in their nature merely, substantially, different of these rights present The violation results. as would have to causes of and distinct allegations distinct established different and and serted amend leave to it was for this reason that and proofs’—and therefore, follows, been already refused. It that it has cases are of actiop. the causes two adjudged that one cause obtained on same, certainly to an action res adjudicata of cannot be pleaded action; such a case one for in another cause upon action,’ to a identities, necessary in the cause ‘identity lacking, would be of such plea; maintenance successful v. Gos not be sustained. Mauldin could hence plea C., 576. sett, 15 S. of action in both that the cause to be supposed
“It seems road, obstruction defendant’s the cases But same in both cases. therefore, was the that it and, to make up elements going one this As said in on Rem- action. Pomeroy cause plaintiff’s 554, action is based 555: ‘Every edies, pages Section plaintiff, held upon right some primary defendant corresponding such resting duty act or omission of the de- wrongful of a means By right. this are invaded and duty right fendant, this primary *10 ' v. Foek Term, 1921 broken, the breach and there arises from immediately a new remedial remedial and new of plaintiff, right remedial and Finally of defendant. such duty right are consummated and satisfied the remedy, duty by action, its of the and which is means obtained through Now, according it is. the words object. very plain, using their their natural to technical according import, rise the “cause of action” is what import, gives legal evidently or the of which is right, remedy, remediál right term, the same as the used action” “right frequently and text This remedial or right writers. judges right, act or omission does not arise from wrongful delict, defendant, alone, from the of the nor plaintiff’s and the defendant’s right, corresponding primary primary alone, these taken together. but from two elements duty action,” therefore, must always The “cause of consist and the factors: right two plaintiff’s primary (1) whatever be duty, defendant’s corresponding primary character, which they relate—person, property, subject delict, of omis- contract; acts wrongful (2) defendant, right duty which the primary sion of violated,’ etc. been the de- this, that the act it follows wrongful “From .of indeed, it was in obstructing fendant wrongful), (if, not constitute cause of action did question, road case, such be one of the elements of only but would either cases, could in combination with in both cause element, the con- plaintiff’s primary right, necessary other action; nature and as the of the cause plaintiff’s stitute a case, first different in the was essentially as alleged right, action, it would seem present alleged that from action in the two cases could the causes follow same.’’ be the answers suggestion might pos- case
This fully made, in each effort plaintiffs that as sibly 32—s. C. *11 Co. v. et al. Fork
Opinion of the Court case was to the subject debts, land to the of their payment the of action causes were identical. n 3. As to the third element as stated above:
3 the Bates, case of Hart C, element
is stated in rather tabliod form thus: “The pre cise point must have been ruled.” This requires some If the amplification. identity and the iden parties of the causes established, of action tity have been for conclusive, mer adjudication is not only of the issues precise determined, raised but such as been might have raised the main issue. If the affecting of the has identity parties established, been but the of the causes of identity action has not, any appearing upon record or extrinsic ev idence to have been adjudicated in the former suit is conclu sive in a upon parties action. If subsequent the iden tity has been established but identity not, the causes of action has the former is judgment con clusive as to only those determined; is, issues actually the rule of conclusiveness as to matters which might been has litigated no The last application. is proposition one of only the three bar, to the applicable case at will be re-enforced only by authorities.
“But that, is weight authority where the second action, although between same is on a different parties, action, cause of is judgment not conclusive on all mat- ters which might litigated or only such points as were questions actually therein.” adjudicated issue and 23 Cyc., 1297, citing many cases from Court of Supreme United States other jur- L., isdictions; 15 R. C.
“If the second upon same claim or demand pleaded as that which the rendered, absolute bar is*an decided, what was but of what been decided. If might have the second action demand, different claim or then the judgment v.
Joi-inston-CrRws Term, con issue or to those matters estoppel ‘only points troverted, finding the determination of 520; S., Bodie, 245 U. verdict was'rendered.’” Bates v. 355; 1918C, Ct., 182; Ed., 444; A., R. Sup. L. L. Ct., S., 78; 54 Kirven, 252; V-C 30 Sup. 215 U. F. S., Ed., 434; 33 Co., 227 Troxwll v. Railroad U. *12 586; 231 Ct., Ed., U. 274; 57 v. Sup. Myers, L. Radford Co., S., 725; Ct., ; Ed., 454; 34 Hart v. R. 249 58 L. Sup. Ct., S., 294; 506; Ed., 244 37 61 1148. U. L. Sup. therefore, that a which is so used “The often language, recovery not as judgment every ground estops only action, as to or but also defense actually presented strictly have been is every presented, ground might accurate, or claim in contro 'when to' demand applied * * * But where second action between versy. demand, the .a different claim or same parties upon only in as an action prior operates estoppel judgment controverted, in upon matters issue or points as to those ren or which the verdict was determination of finding * * * in a litigation dered. On principle, point settled conclusively cannot received’ one action cause, a different because subsequent any in the first action.” Cromwell been determined have might Ed., S., 351; 24 195. Sac., 94 U. L. v. County of the same on suit the same between subsequent in the former suit is conclusive as claim, judgment determined; but, where might matter every claim, the former a different judg suit is upon the second deter those issues actually conclusive only ment Fed, S., 736; A., 116 v. U. 196 C. C. Jew mined. Lim Fed., 685; A., 95; 121 202 C. C. 364; Groff, v. Grider 66; Co., Colo., Pac., 254; 59 148 Central v. Scott Savage Atl., 314; 965; 634; Cas., 78 Ann. Scott, 83 Conn., v. denied, D. Wilder, certiorari 28 App. v. Blackford Ct., Ed., 788; 541; 922; 51 v. S., 27 Prall L. Sup. 205 U. 484 v.
Opinion of the Court Prall, Fla., 496; 58 South., 867; 50 26 R. A. (N. S.), L. 577; v. Mo., State Center Co., 490; Creek 262 Mining W., 356; 171 S. Kennett, Vt., 99; Atl., Tudor v. 87 88 520; Elk Garden v. Fed., 206 Thayer (D. C.), 212 Martin, Vt., Atl., Campbell 214; 494; v. 89 95 Hudson v. Co., Va., 402; 71 E., 797; W. 76 Land v. Campbell Hammer, Or., 612; Pac., 475; Mims, Campbell 530; W., 161 Ky., 1176; v. Wilkins, Reinkey 515; Wis., W., 179 N.
“Bar of in another suit for same cause of action between same extends, those parties, privity, that which suit, earlier litigated been; but, also that which if might second on suit is different cause of bar of earlier is lim- ited to that which was determined.” actually Eastman Co., Mass., Vermont E.,N.
“Where second suit is different cause of ac- *13 tion, first, but between same as. the parties the judg- ment in the first action operates as an as to estoppel every issue in the actually litigated first but not con- been, clusive as to matters which have but were not might litigated.” Pierce Bank 268 (C. Fed., C. A.), v. 487.
“Where the second action is a different claim but same between the parties, judgment prior'action as an as to those operates matters in estoppel only issue or points determination of which the controverted or Est., verdict was rendered.” findings Walsh Re. . 565; Atl., 80 56 N. 74 3 Eq., J. “The that a not rule judgment as to the mat- only estops but also ters as those that actually litigated, be might to actions based on litigated, same claim or applies McKimmon, Caulk, C., demand.” Currie & Co. v. 170 N. E., 54; 809. 86 S. of a jurisdiction
Judgment having the cause and held to parties their estop as privies 485 Co. v. Fork Term, 1921 4.70] to all issuable matters contained in the and which pleadings, material, were were, fact, determined, as to matters which might or causes of litigated action which have plaintiff might joined. Whittaker v. Garren, 658; E., N. 759.
“The rule that
conclusive,
a
of the
judgment
only
determined,
actually
all
but of
matters
might
suit,
been
decided
refers
to matters
only
to the
properly belonging
subject
controversy
the scope
Walker,
within
of the issues.” Fourche
v.
Ark., 540;
“A is conclusive judgment by way estoppel facts existence and or admission of proof without which it could not have been rendered.’’ Sharbero Miller, 248; Atl., 72 N. Eq., to be an in a
“For a on an issue estoppel prior suit, it must from the subsequent record that appear issue was to the determination of such necessary judgment, such must shown extrinsic evidence that or it Butterick, Minn., Anderson v. litigated.” was actually W., 1045. 30; 155 N. matters raised by is conclusive upon
“While *14 adjudi- or which might properly pleadings thereunder, to causes of action it is not conclusive as cated not, in have but which were joined, might which plaintiff or included Ludwick pleadings.” fact, joined E., C., 104; N. Penny, Fed., 41; A., 547; C. C. City, Co. v.
In Water 219, the sued on an express plaintiff S.), R. A. (N. 19 L. ren- and city, for light supplied contract Opinion of the Court in favor of the He then city. dered a second brought a suit based meruit. The quantum defendant pleaded bar, the first in adjudication but the held that different, causes of action were overruled plea. They say:
“The fact that a mistake ex- through to party attempts to he is made ercise a which not entitled or has right existed, never remedy choice of a which supposed pur- existed, never does the Court that it adjudged until sued a him from afterwards pursuing remedy not preclude he relief, conscience is entitled.” good which law creditor, a brought A filed in who has. suit made his debtor by to have conveyances shortly prior .void, a declared fraudulent making general assignment, ad- bill to thereafter maintain a may conveyances Meyer v.Co. assignment. Elgin judged part general Fed., C.), (C. cited, a debtor executed the case last insolvent being debts; certain
certain conveyances plain- payment-of have them fraudulent and declared tiff brought its to the to< subject property payment void and found in the issues favor the defendant. were judgment; a brought alleging Thereafter the plaintiff second and satis- payment made though the conveyances, indebtedness, merely should be treated faction conceded under the rule by general assignment, part time nearly made at the same or the same all conveyances his are adjudged parts an insolvent all property of res adjudicata assignment. plea of one general . overruled, in a decree Circuit Judge interposed, Court, of the Supreme Brewer, afterwards Justice who mistakes his is not remedy the ground real thereafter asserting rights from merely estopped There no decided case remedy. his real and pursuing doctrine this. contrary that states this State *15 v. Folic n WO] Term,
In Connor, Maxwell Hill, 14, the defendant Eq., an action at law a note to which he was failed surety to set the defense up that he had been un- discharged debtor, warranted extension of time principal went judgment him. It against held that in properly action in subsequent on equity, involving liability note, same he was estopped by adjudication. Thomson, 247, Trimmier v. the defendants were testator; sued executors upon a note of their they pleaded administravit; plene went judgment generally them. against The second suit was .them indi- note; vidually, the same they to establish attempted the defense formerly Court held interposed. that they The were the former estopped by adjudication, neces- which the issue sarily adjudged plene administravit. C., 42,
Court reaffirms the Bates, case of Hart 17 S. . decided, then but recently from case as quote follows:
“This Court has in the case of lately, Hart v. Bates, 17 C., 42, define attempted doctrine of res adjudicata as follows: Tt seems that, to be now settled though another proceeding jurisdiction, the judgment will provided conclusive Court had jurisdiction and the * * *' on the judgment directly claimed, It is point. however, rule, of this that the sequence defense extends to adjudicata which every question could have been made, it considered whether was or not. There are cases extent, seem to to that we think go the decided sustains authority the more preponderance reasonable not, doctrine, “That a technically, conclusive matter, if the matter is not such that it of neces- any had. before the could to be determined sity, collateral nor to be merely v/as inferred given; 6 Wait, Def:, Ac. judgment.” from & by argument v. Davis, Ga., 413, Hunter and other cases. citing *16 488
Opinion of the Court Or, in the of Mr. language Miller, of the Supreme Justice Court of the is, United “The States: rule that when a former judgment is iton must from the rec- appear relied ord that the in point controversy was decided necessarily in suit, or be made to extrinsic appear by proof ’ ” that it was fact decided.”
A similar Tozer, arose very question Willis S. C., 1, the Trimmier where case was cited with approval, the Court declaring: it,
“A is conclusive between decided, matters as to those which were actually also all such as were involved in its rendition.” necessarily
In Co., C., 516; E., Co. v. Drug Bromonia S. S. 128 Am. defendant a former ac- Rep., St. tion had recovered judgment against drug company an account. In that action fraud an issue. The drug company paid judgment, brought second action the Bromonia for damages Company on account of fraudulent in' the sale of misrepresentations The Court» course held that the former goods. sale, effect to the contract of was conclu- judgment, giving 'that it free from fraud or sive evidence al- illegality action; such issue was not that the though raised ad-, in the contract was validity necessarily implied a bar to the second action. As and that was judication; announced in that case: Judge the Circuit n same; to the are the the Court is the “The parties Bromonia, same; and the advertisement subject-matter, it, exact issue in the first case was: same. owe the the Greenwood Bromonia Drug Company Did medicine, for lot of for out paid money Company That, too, the medicine? is the in the advertisement case, It was in the first case. decided second in the the controversy.” ends Co. v. Johnston7Cre;ws Fouk Term, 1921. C., 185; E., 399, Cox, Cannon v. the de fendant has distrained plaintiff’s property; sued out and re claim plaintiff delivery proceedings covered he then an action for judgment; damages brought distress; an unreasonable and excessive the defend alleging ant contended that the could presented claim and her delivery demand proceedings damages, so, and, not done adjudicata; having *17 force; that me to considerable contention appears possess Bates, held 17 but the Court the of Hart v. authority upon 424; Co., C., 493; E., 77 C., 40; Kirven v. V-C 58 S. S. S. Id., 252; Ct., 78; Ed., 179, S., 215 30 54 Sup. U. L. 195, S., 351; Ed., v. 94 24
Cromwell U. County, Sac. L. This' that the defense res could not adjudicata prevail. case is cited in the for holding leading opinion authority it that the defense It to me prevail. should that occurs sustains the conclusion. opposite Means, 85, C., 127; E.,
In v. 87 the Woodmen 69 S. S. held: Court
“As the to be made this case the questions sought defendant, the Mollie Fincher present plaintiff against ' in the Means, in the decision were involved necessarily Fincher Mollie Means the brought by former action adjudicata the said is res present plaintiff, now the same questions presented.” Rich., Dec., 749, 45 Am. In v. Murphy, Davis limited to “that adjudicata principle in the former suit. in issue” was directly McBride, Cas., 202, v. Rich. In Bradley Eq. plaintiff action to set aside deed conveying Sheriff’s brought defendant, fraud. upon ground property had an action brought against the previously The defendant title and recover land. In try trespass set the former adjudication the defendant up case the later the Court it was denied bar, upon ground but aas v. Opinion of the Court that the issue of fraud was not involved the first action. Bates, This case is cited with v. Hart S. approval strikes me doubtful as of accuracy. E., 629, Co., C., 166; In v. R. Willoughby S. S. distinctly decided where an was' point in an in a sub- adjudicated it became res adjudicata action between the sequent subsequent whether action was the same or different cause upon action. Rhoad, E., 536, Patrick, C., 517; 16
In 37 S. suit, that a in a former adjudicated held point there, raised res adjudicata, citing although Hart cases. Roberts is,
“A test of the of the cause of action Would identity the evidence in the second have been adequate recovery Maccia, first?” 90 N. sufficient to Sarson support Atl, 433; 108 Eq., Roberts, C., 150, was sus- Parte plea Bx the matter in
tained the ground dispute *18 in adjudicated involved and the pro- necessarily C., Mark, 32 and to the same effect v. is S. ceeding; Steen 93; C., 328, E., Brown, 23 286; 11 v. S. S. D'unsford E., C., 68; Neal, 27 560.' v. 50 Nezvell S. S. is the 'in case
Another reason this overruling plea reversed decree by Judge that it was practically C., Hunter, Hunter v. 63 in the former suit. S. Spain 33; E., 663. 78; 90 Am, Rep., St. S. that, where a general judgment recognized principle
“The been rendered, all matters that might interposed is between the adjudicata are considered par- a defense a decree ties, when specifically not expresses applicable determined, relief which the granted, the issues are R. judicata.” such issues res case in which Fed., C.), R. Co. R. (D. v. v. Foek Term, 1921
iiO] Tested another rule the plea this Court adopted by of res adjudicáta Charleston, must fail. In Fraser v. C., 399, the Court
S. saj^s: offered, “It does not that appear clearly proof Court; decided point question but actually not matter indispensable, provided precise issue, was involved in the so that it had of to be necessity decided before the could have been given.” Ruff C„ v. 173; E., 707; I Doty, 4 Am. S. S. St. Rep., of creditors under the record- rights fhe before, Act, involved ing was not present Court in the A Meinhard case. decision of it at was not all fact, involved in the issue of a fraudulent deed. In adjudication the deed was con- validity entirely sistent with the establishment of the subse- rights creditors. It quent adjudicate necessary . had no sustain the deed. Conse- they order to rights did not have “to be decided before that question quently deed) could (sustaining given.” Case to Fra- says, referring Doty Ruff ser v. Hart v. Bates: Charleston and decide,
“These considered briefly, two cases together, and not raised in a that a matter involved necessarily case, in- if adjudicata, is not necessarily previous concluded, raised, not, it is especially volved and so, mat- knew of the adjudication if the denying party trial, it at the either and could have interposed previous ter claim or as a defense.” support E., Cave, In Anderson Court declares: *19 case, then, that the of this for “Conceding, purposes
' jurisdiction had full proceeding- Probate Court claim it, that the question plaintiff’s before ovf ' its ad- could have been presented, there presented, was that Court to render judication to enable not necessary was Pinckney et al. v. et Knowles Syllabus hence such judgment,'and is not judgment conclusive (cit- From these ing authorities). that, authorities it follows even if the' Court proceeding of Probate be given full force and effect as a it proceeding.for partition, that the necessary claim of the should and, been there there is not the adjudged; slightest evi- was, fact, dence that it adjudged, such can- proceeding of res support adjudicata.” plea this is that the Circuit Court be affirmed.
Mr. concurs. Fraser Justice Gary: I result, concur in Mr. for Chief Justice Honor, the reason that his ruled Judge Spain, in the first case was not drawn to set complaint .aside the deed, under the Act. recording ET AL
PINCKNEY ET AL KNOWLES
(111 E. 370) Jury Boundaries—Evidence Held to Take to the Question Controversy op Whether Land Was Part Island possession an action to Conveyed Defendants.—In recover land, sufficient, conflicting, though a tract of evidence held take jury part whether land in controversy conveyed by plaintiffs’ predecessors of an island to de- title fendants, part plantation another island which was of a and not defendants, to refuse to direct so not error leased plaintiffs. verdict for November, 1920. Affirmed. Shipp, Before J., Jasper, P. C. Pinckney Action Edward Eeonora L,. Knowles and Cope Elizabeth Elliot Huguenin real estate! Verdict defendants and recovery for the appeal. plaintiffs