JOHN L. JONES, APPELLANT,
v.
C. C. MORGAN, E. J. REGISTER AND HILTON S. HAMPTON, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
John L. Jones sued C.C. Morgan and Hilton S. Hampton in a prior case that was dismissed. Jones then filed an identical second suit against the same defendants plus a new defendant E.J. Register, who purchased the property in controversy from the original defendants after the first case. The court affirmed the lower court's dismissal based on the doctrine of res judicata.
The doctrine of res judicata applies and bars the second suit. The new bill involves identically the same subject matter and issues as the former bill and is between substantially the same parties (with the new defendant being in privity with the original defendants). Additional facts alleged in the second bill that were not in the first do not overcome res judicata because such matters might have been alleged and litigated in the original suit.
“The new bill involves identically the same subject-matter and issues as did the former bill and is between the same parties with the exception of the new defendant E. J. Register, and he is shown to be in privity with the two defendants in the former bill being a purchaser of the property in controversy from them since the adjudication of the former case.”
Establishes that res judicata applies because the new suit involves the same subject matter, issues, and parties, with the new defendant being in privity with the original defendants.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis is the second appearance of the same litigation. In the first suit (Morgan v. Jones, 52 Fla. 543), the lower court entered a decree of final dism…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Claim Preclusion cases and more on FLexlaw
Taylor, J.
This is the second appearance of this litigation in this court. For a complete statement of the facts see the case of Morgan v. Jones, 52 Fla. 543, 42 South. Rep.
242. Since the mandate of this court in the case was sent to the court below, that court, in obedience to said mandate, entered its decree of final dismissal of the complainant’s bill. Since that time the same complainant in the former bill, John L. Jones, has again filed another bill in the Circuit Court of DeSoto County against the. same defendants C.
C. Morgan and Hilton S. Hampton for identically the same cause of action and praying the same relief as in his first or former bill, adding to the last bill one E.
J. Register as a new party defendant. To this last bill the defendants have interposed the plea of res judicata. This plea was sustained by the court below and the complainant’s new bill was dismissed, and from this decree the complainant appeals to this court assigning said decree as error. There was no error here. The new bill involves identically the same subject-matter and* issues as did the former bill and is between the same parties with the exception of the new defendant E.
J. Register, and he is shown to be in privity with the two defendants in the former bill being a purchaser of the property in controversy from them since the adjudication of the former case. Some additional facts are alleged in the last bill that were not contained in the former, but all such matters might have been alleged and litigated therein, and are not sufficient to overturn the propriety of the former disposition of the cause. The plea res judicata applies to every objection urged in a second suit, when the objection was open to the party within the legitimate scope of the pleadings of the former one and might have been presented in it. Herman’s Law of Estoppel, p. 179.
In an action upon the same claim or demand the former adjudication concludes parties and privies not only as to every matter offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim, but also as to every matter which might and should have been litigated in the first suit. 24 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law (2nd ed.) p. 714.
The decree of the court below in said cause is hereby affirmed at the costs of the appellant.
Hocker and Parkhill, J. J., concur;
Whitfield, C. J., and Shackleford and Cockrell, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tilton v. Horton, 103 Fla. 497 (Fla. 1931)…was a subject-matter that “could have been litigated and finally adjudicated” in the former chancery suit; and the position of the defendant in error seems to be based upon the wording of the decisions of this court in the cases of Jones v. Morgan, 59 Fla. 542, 52 So. 140; Semple v. Semple, 90 Fla. 7, 105 So. 134; and the later case of Hay v. Salisbury, 92 Fla. 446, 109 So. 617, wherein this Court, quoting with approval from 15 R. C. L. 963, stated that when the second suit is between the same parties as…
-
Lucius Knabb v. Duner, 143 Fla. 92 (Fla. 1940)…to sustain or defeat the claim, but as to every other matter which might with propriety have been litigated and determined in that action. See Mabson v. Christ, 104 Fla. 606, 140 Sou. 671; Wade v. Clower, 94 Fla. 817, 114 Sou. 548; Jones v. Morgan, 59 Fla. 542, 52 Sou. 140. And to like effect is Prall v. Prall, 58 Fla. 496, 50 Sou. 867, 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 577; Tilton v. Horton, 103 Fla. 497, 137 Sou. 801, and 139 Sou. 142; Sauls v. Freeman, 24 Fla. 209, 4 Sou. 525, 12 Am. St. Rep. 190; Hay v. Salisbury,…
-
State ex rel. Henry v. Sbordy v. William M. Rowlett, 138 Fla. 330 (Fla. 1939)…f competent jurisdiction, is conclusive not only as to every matter which might with propriety have been litigated and determined in thát action. Mabson v. Christ, 104 Fla. 606, 140 So. 671; Wade v. Clower, 94 Fla. 817, 114 So. 548; Jones v. Morgan, 59 Fla. 542, 52 So. 140; Boca Raton v. Moore, 122 Fla. 350, 165 So. 279. So I think the return to the Rule Nisi in Prohibition is insufficient and the writ of Prohibition absolute should be awarded.…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Morgan v. Jones, 52 Fla. 543 (Fla. 1906)