271 S.W. 551 | Ky. Ct. App. | 1925
Reversing.
Eliza Shifflett died a resident of Butler county in the year 1918. She was survived by her husband, Jacob Shifflett, and by her sisters, C.H. Moore, Bettie Duncan, and Dora Gardner, and her brother, W.A. Bailey, who *462
were her only heirs at law. Soon after her death, her sisters and brother brought suit against Jacob Shifflett for the sale and division of a 60-acre tract of land located in Butler county. According to the petition the land was devised jointly to plaintiffs and their sister, Eliza Shifflett, by the will of their uncle, Manassa Bailey. Thereafter, C.H. Moore conveyed her one-fourth interest to Eliza Shifflett, who at the time of her death owned an undivided one-half interest in the land, the other two-fourths being owned by Bettie Duncan and Dora Gardner. The petition also averred that Eliza Shifflett died intestate, so far as plaintiffs were advised, and that upon her death they each inherited a one-eighth undivided interest in the land, thus making Bettie Dunean the owner of three-eighths, Dora Gardner the owner of three-eighths, and C.H. Moore and W.A. Bailey the owner of one-eighth each. It was further alleged that Jacob Shifflett was in possession of the land and was claiming title thereto, and it was asked that he be made a party defendant and be required to set up his interest, or be forever barred from doing so. Jacob Shifflett filed an answer denying the allegations of the petition, and pleading that his wife was the sole owner of the land at the time of her death. He further pleaded that his wife left a will which was duly probated in the Butler county clerk's office, by which she devised the entire farm to him. The court was of the opinion that Mrs. Shifflett was the sole owner of the land at the time of her death, and that it passed by her will to her husband, Jacob Shifflett, and rendered judgment dismissing the petition and quieting Jacob Shifflett's title to the land. On appeal the judgment was affirmed. Moore, et al. v. Shifflett,
Thereafter, plaintiffs in that action prosecuted an appeal from the judgment probating the will of Eliza Shifflett. Thereupon, Jacob Shifflett brought this action against them to quiet his title. In support of his claim he pleaded the foregoing proceedings and judgment, and alleged that the defendants, regardless of whether the will was set aside on appeal, were estopped by the judgment from ever asserting any title to the land. To the petition the defendants filed an answer, to which a demurrer was sustained, and, they having declined to plead further, judgment was rendered in accordance with the prayer of the petition. The defendants have appealed. *463
There is no dissent from the rule that when the second suit is between the same parties as the first, and on the same cause of action, the judgment in the former is conclusive in the latter, not only as to every question which was decided, but also as to every other matter which the parties might have litigated and had determined. Stockton v. Ford, 18 How. 418, 15 U.S. (L. ed.) 395; Elswick v. Matney,
Having this view of the question we conclude that the petition should have been dismissed.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. *464
