REBECCA MURPHY
v.
CLEO DALRYMPLE MURPHY
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.
Rebecca Murphy appealed a circuit court judgment affirming a county judge's order recognizing Cleo Murphy as the widow of Frank R. Murphy and entitled to administer his estate. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that Cleo was barred by res judicata and estoppel from relitigating her marital status after voluntarily dismissing her alimony suit against Frank Murphy.
Cleo Murphy is barred by res judicata and estoppel from relitigating her marital status. The court rejected Cleo's argument that the res judicata doctrine should not apply to cases involving marital status because the State is a third party to marriage contracts, holding that she exhausted her remedy, had her day in court, and cannot have a second day in court to litigate her personal marital right.
“The law appears settled by the above and many other decisions of this Court; that where the same facts were litigated the parties and their privies are estopped to further litigate such facts.”
Establishes the core principle of res judicata and estoppel by judgment applicable to the case
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCleo Murphy filed an alimony suit against Frank R. Murphy, which required determination of their marital relationship. After testimony was taken on th…
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 Marital Status cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is from a judgment of the .Circuit Court of Volusia County affirming an order of the county judge, which in effect declares Cleo Murphy, the widow of the late Frank R. Murphy. This controversy is between Cleo Murphy and Rebecca Murphy. Both claim to be the widow of the late Frank R. Murphy and entitled to administer his estate.
It appears that Cleo Murphy, the appellee, prior to the death of Frank R. Murphy instituted a suit for alimony against Murphy; an issue was framed on the question of the relationship of marriage. On this issue the court proceeded to take testimony before proceeding with other phases of the case. After some testimony was taken the wife filed a praecipe to dismiss her suit with prejudice. The husband agreed and the chancellor thereupon dismissed her suit as requested. Shortly thereafter and without cohabitation or change of status Murphy died.
The question naturally arises whether Cleo is barred from now litigating her relationship to Frank R. Murphy.
The law of res adjudicata and estoppel by judgment has many times been before our Court. The test is identity of cause of action. Identity of relief sought is not essential. See Prall v. Prall, 58 Fla. 496; 50 So. 867; Knabb v. Duner, 143 Fla. 92, 196 So. 456; Smith v. Pattishall, 129 Fla. 498, 176 So. 568.
*372The law appears settled by the above and many other decisions of this Court; that where the same facts were litigated the parties and their privies are estopped to further litigate such facts. Appellee claims that while this rule may be sound yet it should not apply in cases where the marital status is involved since the State is a third party to marriage contracts. With such claim we do not agree. Appellee has exhausted her remedy and had her day in court and she will not be allowed to have a second day in court to litigate her own personal right under the guise of representing society. There is another side to her contention. Frank R. Murphy closed his eyes in death with the. knowledge that a court of competent jurisdiction determined in his favor on an issue of marriage vel non.
It is the judgment of this Court that the judgment appealed from be reversed with direction to proceed further not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed.
BROWN, C. J„ WHITFIELD, and BUFORD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Warren D. Hinchee et ux. v. Charles E. Fisher et ux., 93 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1957)…. The fact that an unjust enrichment type of relief is made more explicit in the second complaint does not alter the conclusion that for purposes of applying res adjudicata the second complaint is equivalent to the first. See Murphy v. Murphy, 1942, 151 Fla. 370, 10 So. 2d 136; Caldwell v. Massachusetts Bonding and Ins. Co., 1947, 158 Fla. 677, 29 So. 2d 694. Broadly stated, the purpose of the doctrine of res adjudicata is to prevent the relitigation of matters and to enforce the court’s power to finally de…
-
Cornelia ANN Fowler and Trustee under the last will and testament of John A. Cunningham v. Augustus G. Hartridge, 156 Fla. 585 (Fla. 1945)…rs v. Anders, 153 Fla. 54, 13 So. (2nd) 603; Harding v. Harding, 140 Calif. 690, 198 U.S. 317, 25 Sup. Ct. 679, 49 L. Ed. 1066; Freeman on Judgments, 5th Edition, Vol. 2, page 1910; Vol. 31, C.J.S., Section 7, page 194, (Estoppel); Murphy v. Murphy, 151 Fla. 370, 10 So. (2nd) 136. For the reasons stated the petition is granted and the order of the Circuit Court is quashed with directions to enter a decree not inconsistent with this opinion. Reversed. CHAPMAN, C.J., TERRELL and BUFORD, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Prall v. Prall, 58 Fla. 496 (Fla. 1909)
- Smith v. W. A. Pattishall under the last will and testament of Mary O. Beeman, 129 Fla. 498 (Fla. 1937)
- Lucius Knabb v. Duner, 143 Fla. 92 (Fla. 1940)