TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Parker v. Stambaugh

Parker v. Stambaugh, 71 Ga. 735 (1883)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Georgia · State Highest Courts
Decided
September 11, 1883
Judges
Jackson
Citations
71 Ga. 735
Headnotes
Prior to the Code, a-second suit for land was not barred by a former judgment in ejectment, but since the adoption.of the Code, a judgment in ejectment is conclusive as to the title between the parties thereto, unless the jury find for the plaintiff less than the fee. Therefore, a judgment in ejectment for the defendant will bar a" subsequent action of complaint for land by the lessor of the plain- ■ tiff in the first action. (a.) Code, §3363, was codified from the acts of 1855-6; and in so far as it militates against §3362 it is repealed thereby. The marginal reference in the Code to the acts of 1865-6 is an error.
Summary
Ejectment. Judgments. Bes adjudicata. Laws. Before Judge Estes. Lumpkin Superior Court. April Term, 1883. Parker brought complaint for land against Stambaugh; who Avas tenant in possession. Martin, the real owner, was made a party defendant by subsequent order. The defendant pleaded former recovery., and supported his plea with the record of an ejectment case which hadbeenbrought by John Doe, on the demise of the same plaintiff against the defendant for the same land. Plaintiff demurred to the plea; the entire issue was submitted to the judge ; he held the plea good, and sustained it. Plaintiff excepted.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Jackson

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Jackson, Chief Justice.

The single question made by this record is, whether an action of ejectment, brought in the statutory form, is barred1 *736 by a judgment between the same substantial real parties on an action brought under the common law form. The lessor of the plaintiff in the former action is the plaintiff in the present suit; the defendant, who claimed title to the land before, is the defendant now, being in possession by a tenant in both cases, and the land sued for is the same as that recovered by the defendant before.

Before the Code of 1863, the present suit would not have been barred by the former judgment, but by the 3275th section of that Code—section 3362 of the present Code—it is declared that “ a judgment in ejectment shall be conclusive as to the title between the parties thereto, unless the jury find for the plaintiff less than the fee.” This changed the law, and made the judgment between the same real parties to the title conclusive against those parties, with the single exception that, if the fee was not involved, but a less estate, the claimant of the fee could sue again, though he had been defeated on a trial of an estate less than a fee in the same land.'

Section 3363 does not affect the question. The note on the side page refers to the acts of 1865-6 as the date of that enactment. This is a mistake; it was enacted in 1855-6, and in so far as it may militate against this construction of section 3362, it was repealed by the Code of 1863.

The result is that the court below was right in holding that the plaintiff is barred by the first judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1892: 11919: 11929: 11941: 11949: 118922026peak 1892 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Happy Valley Farms Inc. v. Wilson16 S.E.2d 720 (Ga. 1941)
  2. Kennedy v. McCardel14 S.E. 710 (Ga. 1892)
  3. Vada Naval Stores Co. v. Sapp98 S.E. 79 (Ga. 1919)
  4. Poore v. Rigsby55 S.E.2d 547 (Ga. 1949)
  5. Merritt v. Hutchings148 S.E. 916 (Ga. 1929)

Most recent

  1. Poore v. Rigsby55 S.E.2d 547 (Ga. 1949)
  2. Happy Valley Farms Inc. v. Wilson16 S.E.2d 720 (Ga. 1941)
  3. Merritt v. Hutchings148 S.E. 916 (Ga. 1929)
  4. Vada Naval Stores Co. v. Sapp98 S.E. 79 (Ga. 1919)
  5. Kennedy v. McCardel14 S.E. 710 (Ga. 1892)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list