Henry F. Lanham v. Robert L. Howell, Individually and as of the Last Will and Testament of J. D. Lanham, Deceased

Fifth Circuit

Henry F. Lanham v. Robert L. Howell, Individually and as of the Last Will and Testament of J. D. Lanham, Deceased

200 F.2d 799, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 2260

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided January 14, 1953·No. 14014_1·Published

Opinion

RIVES, Circuit Judge.

This appeal is from a summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the matter is res judicata having been finally determined by the Supreme Court of Mississippi in Lanham v. Howell, 210 Miss. 383, 49 So.2d 701. The complaint claims federal jurisdiction on the ground of diversity of citizenship, alleging but not specifying fraud and seeking to invoke the equity powers of the federal court to' annul the will of J. D. Lanham, deceased, hoping thereby to vest the entire estate in his heirs at law. Two of the persons who would be heirs at law of J. D. Lanham, deceased, if he had died intestate, are residents of Mississippi ; and if they were made parties, the court would be deprived of jurisdiction. While logically the question of jurisdiction should be the first decided, the district court *800 passed it over because it seemed so entirely clear that the matter was res judicata. We agree. The final judgment in the state court on the merits between the same parties is conclusive in this court. Jarrard v. Southeastern Shipbuilding Corporation, 5 Cir., 163 F.2d 960, 961; Hudson v. Lewis, 1 Cir., 188 F.2d 679, 680; Larter & Sons, Inc. v. Dinkier Hotels Company, Inc, 5 Cir., 199 F.2d 854. The judgment is therefore Affirmed.

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

RIVES, Circuit Judge.

This appeal is from a summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the matter is res judicata having been finally determined by the Supreme Court of Mississippi in Lanham v. Howell, 210 Miss. 383, 49 So.2d 701. The complaint claims federal jurisdiction on the ground of diversity of citizenship, alleging but not specifying fraud and seeking to invoke the equity powers of the federal court to' annul the will of J. D. Lanham, deceased, hoping thereby to vest the entire estate in his heirs at law. Two of the persons who would be heirs at law of J. D. Lanham, deceased, if he had died intestate, are residents of Mississippi ; and if they were made parties, the court would be deprived of jurisdiction. While logically the question of jurisdiction should be the first decided, the district court *800 passed it over because it seemed so entirely clear that the matter was res judicata. We agree. The final judgment in the state court on the merits between the same parties is conclusive in this court. Jarrard v. Southeastern Shipbuilding Corporation, 5 Cir., 163 F.2d 960, 961; Hudson v. Lewis, 1 Cir., 188 F.2d 679, 680; Larter & Sons, Inc. v. Dinkier Hotels Company, Inc, 5 Cir., 199 F.2d 854. The judgment is therefore Affirmed.

Henry F. Lanham v. Robert L. Howell, Individually and as of the Last Will and Testament of J. D. Lanham, Deceased, 200 F.2d 799, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 2260 (5th Cir. 1953).

Pincite

200 F.2d 799 (Henry F. Lanham v. Robert L. Howell, Individually and as of the Last Will and Testament of J. D. Lanham, Deceased) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related