TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Wells v. Moore

John M. Wells, in Error v. George Moore, in Error

Wells v. Moore, 49 Mo. 229 (1872)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Missouri · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 15, 1872
Judges
Adams, Other
Citations
49 Mo. 229
Headnotes
1. Pleadings — Demurrer — Judgment on res adjudícala. — Demurrer being filed to a petition, on tbe ground of certain formal defects, a final judgment thereon^ and which does not reach the merits of the case, is no bar to a subsequent suit between the same parties touching the same cause of action.
Summary
Error to Cass Circuit Court. I. The decision and final judgment rendered by the Kansas City Court of Common Pleas was rendered upon a special' demurrer to petition, for the reason that-the petition did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. This cannot constitute a bar to a subsequent suit for the same cause of-action. (See 21 Pick. 250 ; 10 Pet, 299 ; 12 Curtis’ Dig. 130-3; 21 Ind. 190 ; 12.Mo. 103.; 15 111. 300; 1 Black! 56 ; 6 Black! 56.) II. To constitute a former judgment on adjudication a bar to a subsequent suit upon the same cause of action, it must appear to have been upon the merits upon a proper state of pleading. (See the authorities above cited.)

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

Opinion of the Court — Adams

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

Adams, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court

This was a suit by plaintiff against the defendant as indorser of three several promissory notes, one of which was a negotiable note and the other two non-negotiable.

The only defense relied on was a former judgment on demurrer, rendered in a suit between the same parties in the Kansas City Court of Common Pleas. In the latter suit the defendant demurred to the plaintiff’s petition, and alleged as causes of demurrer certain defects in the petition, and this demurrer was sustained and a final judgment rendered on the demurrer in favor of the defendant. The cause was submitted to the court, and the court decided that the former judgment was a bar to this suit.

It is a well-established principle that where a matter has been once adjudicated on its merits, in a suit between the same parties or their privies, such adjudication is a complete bar to another action. (See Thompson v. Wineland, 11 Mo. 244 ; 1 Greenl. Ev., §§ 522-3; 11 Mass. 445 ; 2 Johns. 210 ; 8 Johns. 383 ; 9 Johns. 232 ; 14 Johns. 377 .)

But the principle is equally well settled that where the former adjudication was not on the merits, it forms no bar to another action. The merits of this case were not touched by the first judgment. The court did not pretend to decide anything except that the plaintiff’s petition was defective. Whether that decision was right or wrong, it is unnecessary now to inquire. It is sufficient to say that such an adjudication is no bar to another action between these parties. (See Lepping and Kedgewin, 1 Mod. 207; *231 Bell v. Hoagland, 15 Mo. 360 ; 12 Mo. 103 ; 10 Pet. 299 ; 12 Curtis, 130-3; 21 Ind. 190 ; 1 Blackf. 56 ; 6 Blackf. 56 .)

Let the judgment be reversed and the cause remanded.

The other judges concur

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 14 cases

View all citing references →
1872–1873: 11874–1875: 11884–1885: 11892–1893: 11894–1895: 21896–1897: 11902–1903: 11910–1911: 11914–1915: 11922–1923: 21926–1927: 11930–1931: 118722026peak 1894 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Wilson Company v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co.254 S.W. 266 (Mo. 1923)
  2. Dahlberg v. Fisse40 S.W.2d 606 (Mo. 1931)
  3. Hickerson v. City of Mexico58 Mo. 61 (1874)
  4. West v. McMullen20 S.W. 628 (Mo. 1892)
  5. Terre Haute & Indianapolis Railroad v. State ex rel. Ketcham65 N.E. 401 (Ind. 1902)
  6. Nelson v. Barnett27 S.W. 520 (Mo. 1894)

Most recent

  1. Dahlberg v. Fisse40 S.W.2d 606 (Mo. 1931)
  2. Julian v. Commercial Assurance Co.279 S.W. 740 (Mo. Ct. App. 1926)
  3. Public Service Commission v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co.256 S.W. 226 (Mo. 1923) · Dissent
  4. Wilson Company v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co.254 S.W. 266 (Mo. 1923)
  5. Capaccio v. Merrill110 N.E. 626 (Mass. 1915)
  6. Swing v. Karges Furniture Co.131 S.W. 153 (Mo. Ct. App. 1910)

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 8

DepthCaseCited by
Brockway v. Kinney, 2 Johns. 210 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1807) 20
Sherry v. Foresman, 6 Blackf. 56 (1841) 20
Smith v. Whiting, 11 Mass. 445 (1814) 18
Bell v. Hoagland, 15 Mo. 360 (1852) 16
Johnson v. Smith, 8 Johns. 383 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1811) 14
Grant v. Button, 14 Johns. 377 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1817) 11
Estep v. Larsh, 21 Ind. 190 (1863) 8
White v. Ward, 9 Johns. 232 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1812) 7

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