Connecticut Indemnity Co. v. Prunty

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Connecticut Indemnity Co. v. Prunty

56 N.W.2d 540, 263 Wis. 27, 1953 Wisc. LEXIS 313

CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 6, 1953

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 56 N.W.2d 540 (Connecticut Indemnity Co. v. Prunty) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Connecticut Indemnity Co. v. Prunty, 56 N.W.2d 540, 263 Wis. 27, 1953 Wisc. LEXIS 313 (Wis. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

Martin, J.

This is not a proper matter for summary judgment. The defendant in this action, while before the court in the previous actions that were consolidated for trial, was not a party nor was she impleaded as a defendant in the actions brought by Marie C. Prunty, individually, and Metal Mending Products against Vanden Berg and his insurer, the plaintiff here. No judgment could have been rendered against the estate of Felix L. Prunty since it was not a party to those actions.

Contribution is based on common liability, Ellis v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. (1918), 167 Wis. 392, 167 N. W. 1048, and there can be no common liability here until Marie Prunty, as administratrix of the estate, is made a party to an action in which liability is found on the part of her intestate. Grant v. Asmuth (1928), 195 Wis. 458, 218 N. W. 834; Western *30 Casualty & S. Co. v. Milwaukee G. C. Co. (1933), 213 Wis. 302, 251 N. W. 491; Milwaukee Automobile Ins. Co. v. Felten (1938), 229 Wis. 29, 281 N. W. 637.

Consolidation of cases for trial does not operate to make each and every party in one case a party in each of the consolidated cases.

“. . . consolidation is permitted as a matter of convenience and economy in administration, but does not merge the suits into a single cause, or change the rights of the parties, or make those who are parties in one suit parties in another.” Johnson v. Manhattan R. Co. (1933), 289 U. S. 479, 496, 53 Sup. Ct. 721, 77 L. Ed. 1331.

Defendant contends that the issue of contribution is res adjudicata because the instant plaintiff’s motion for contribution against the estate at the trial of the four previous cases was denied and such decision was not appealed from. The argument has no merit, since one of the elements necessary to make an issue res adjudicata is that the same parties shall have been involved.

By the Court, — Judgment reversed and cause remanded for further proceedings.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Martin, J.

This is not a proper matter for summary judgment. The defendant in this action, while before the court in the previous actions that were consolidated for trial, was not a party nor was she impleaded as a defendant in the actions brought by Marie C. Prunty, individually, and Metal Mending Products against Vanden Berg and his insurer, the plaintiff here. No judgment could have been rendered against the estate of Felix L. Prunty since it was not a party to those actions.

Contribution is based on common liability, Ellis v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. (1918), 167 Wis. 392, 167 N. W. 1048, and there can be no common liability here until Marie Prunty, as administratrix of the estate, is made a party to an action in which liability is found on the part of her intestate. Grant v. Asmuth (1928), 195 Wis. 458, 218 N. W. 834; Western *30 Casualty & S. Co. v. Milwaukee G. C. Co. (1933), 213 Wis. 302, 251 N. W. 491; Milwaukee Automobile Ins. Co. v. Felten (1938), 229 Wis. 29, 281 N. W. 637.

Consolidation of cases for trial does not operate to make each and every party in one case a party in each of the consolidated cases.

“. . . consolidation is permitted as a matter of convenience and economy in administration, but does not merge the suits into a single cause, or change the rights of the parties, or make those who are parties in one suit parties in another.” Johnson v. Manhattan R. Co. (1933), 289 U. S. 479, 496, 53 Sup. Ct. 721, 77 L. Ed. 1331.

Defendant contends that the issue of contribution is res adjudicata because the instant plaintiff’s motion for contribution against the estate at the trial of the four previous cases was denied and such decision was not appealed from. The argument has no merit, since one of the elements necessary to make an issue res adjudicata is that the same parties shall have been involved.

By the Court, — Judgment reversed and cause remanded for further proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 N.W.2d 540, 263 Wis. 27, 1953 Wisc. LEXIS 313, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/connecticut-indemnity-co-v-prunty-wis-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack