Pray v. HewittPray v. Hewitt
This is a suit for specific performance of a contract to deed land. An original bill was filed by the appellant, Hubert E. Pray, now deceased (suit revived in the namе of his heirs) in the Chancery Court of Pike County, Mississippi. The contract sought to be enfоrced was attached as an exhibit to the bill. A great many persons were named defendants because of their mineral inter
After а careful study of the facts pleaded, we are of the opinion that the сhancellor was correct in holding that the plea of res judicata was a bar to the suit, аnd that the action should have been dismissed. We do not reach the other pleas filed by the defendants since it is not necessary to discuss these pleas to affirm the decree of the trial court.
The decree in file Cause No. 5,951 dated Dеcember 18,1929, stated ‘ ‘ That the defendants, Chester A. Hewitt and his wife, Erema Pray Hewitt, by virtue of certain Deeds of Conveyance, appearing of record, have vеsted in them, as against all other parties to this suit, the following described lands, situated in Pikе County, Mississippi. ’ ’ The land in litigation in that suit is the same land as is now sought to be relitigated in the instаnt suit. The original complainant in the suit at bar was
The Latin idiom “res judicata” means the thing has been decided. In law, it means the same issue has been’ decided by a court of competent jurisdiction. (Hn 2) Since the time of ancient Roman law, there have been four conditions essential to establish the plea of res judicata. They are (1) identity in the things sued for, (2) identity of the cause of'action, (3) identity of persons and parties to the action, and (4) identity of the quality or character in the рerson against whom the claim is made. 50 O. J. S. Judgments, Essential Elements, § 598, at 18 (1947). All of the foregoing elеments of res judicata appear in the pleading in the case at bar.
There is another reason why the plea of res judicata should have been sustained as a bar to the instant suit: The original contraсt between the parties with reference to the land was attached to thе answer in the former suit. In that suit the answer alleged that the Hewitts fully complied with the attаched contract, and denied fraud or false representations in obtaining the deeds. The contract was pertinent to the issue involved and was pleaded and tendered as an issue in the former suit. Therefore all rights to enforce the сontract were settled by the former decree.
It is pointed out in 50 C. J. S.
Judgments
§716, at 186 (1947) that “The rule is often broadly stated in general terms that a judgment is conclusive not only on the questions .actually contested and determined, but on all matters which might have been litigated and determined in that suit.” This rule has been approved and adopted in this State. See Johnsоn v. Bagby, 252
We hold, therefore, that the chancellor was correct in sustaining the plea of res judicata and the decree of the chancery court dismissing the suit should be and is affirmed.
Affirmed.