46 Kan. 285 | Kan. | 1891
Opinion by
This was an action of ejectment brought by the plaintiff in error against the defendants in error, in the district court of Shawnee county, to recover the southeast quarter of section 11, in township 10, of range 16. The defendants set up a claim of title under a certain tax deed, and also alleged that the question of the defendants’ title had been finally adjudicated in a suit commenced in the district court of Leavenworth county, and set up such decree and judgment as being res adjudícala. The case was tried by the court without a jury, and judgment rendered in favor of the defendants.
It seems that George R. Hines was the owner of the undivided half of this land on the 1st day of July, 1873. In October of the same year, he conveyed his interest to W. H. Carson, who deeded to Harrison C. Hines, and he sold the same to the plaintiff in error on the 18th day of August, 1884. The defendants’ claim to the land is based upon the possession of Eli W. Metzger, on March 1, 1883, under a certain tax deed, and a foreclosure suit commenced by W. J. Buchan, as trustee, in the district court of Leavenworth county, on the 7th day of March, 1883, against George C. Hines, Harrison C. Hines,. Eli W. Metzger, et al., to fore
A final judgment and decree were rendered' in the foreclosure proceedings in the district court of Leavenworth county. A personal judgment was rendered against George R. Hines and in favor of W. J. Buchan, as trustee, and certain lands were ordered sold to satisfy that judgment, but the land in controversy was not included in this decree. The question, then, which this case presents is this: Did the special finding in favor of Eli Metzger, concerning this land, become a part of and was it included in the judgment and decree finally rendered by the district court of Leavenworth county? If it did, the question must be answered in favor of the defendants; if it did not enter into the final determination of the case, nothing was settled by this finding. It is true, as counsel for plaintiff in error contend, that no man should be bound by any litigation until there is a final judgment; but in this case there was a final decree, and our judgment is that the finding was considered in rendering this decree, for the reason that the land claimed by Metzger was not included with the other tracts of land to be sold. This land was described in the mortgage; the plaintiff in the foreclosure suit asked that it be sold with the other lands, to satisfy the mortgage. The defendant Metzger answered that he was the owner, by virtue of a tax deed. The ownership of this land thus became one of the issuable questions to be settled, and, as the holder of such title, he had the right to make full defense. (Bradley v. Parkhurst, 20 Kas. 462; Pattie v. Wilson, 25 id. 326.) The record shows a trial and finding in favor of Metzger, and this finding was confirmed by the judgment of foreclosure of the mortgage as to the other tracts of land
“ When a fact has been once determined in the course of a judicial proceeding, and a final judgment has been rendered in accordance therewith, it cannot be again litigated between the same parties without virtually impeaching the correctness of the former decision, which, from motives of public policy, the law does not permit to be done. The estoppel is not confined to the judgment, but extends to all facts involved in it as necessary steps, or the ground-work upon which it must have been founded. It is allowable to reason back from a judgment to the basis on which it stands, upon the obvious principle that, where a conclusion is indisputable, and could have been drawn only from certain premises, the premises are equally indisputable with the conclusion.” (Burlen v. Shannon, 99 Mass. 200; Board v. M. P. Rld. Co., 24 Wis. 124; Freeman, Judgm., § 257; Wells, Res Adj., § 226; 1 Herman, Estop., § 111.)
Counsel for plaintiff in error rely upon the case of Auld v. Smith, 23 Kas. 65, where this court said:
“A thing contained in the findings or verdict, but not included in or confirmed by the judgment, cannot be considered as an adjudication, or used as evidence, unless some other ground can be found for its use than merely that it is contained in such findings or verdict.”
Our view of this case does not conflict with the principle there decided. We think the judgment rendered in the foreclosure suit in Leavenworth county was in accordance with the special finding in favor of Metzger; and the fact that the
We recommend an affirmance of the judgment.
By the Court: It is so ordered.