Isler v. . Harrison

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Isler v. . Harrison

71 N.C. 64

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedJune 5, 1874

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 71 N.C. 64 (Isler v. . Harrison) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Isler v. . Harrison, 71 N.C. 64 (N.C. 1874).

Pincite

Opinion

PbaesoN, C. J.

The effect of a verdict and judgment in an action for land, under C. C. P., when the title is put at issue and directly adjudicated, to work an estoppel in respect to the title is so fully discussed in Falls v. Gamble, 66 N. C. Rep., 455, as *65 to relieve us from the duty of attempting to make any further explication of the doctrine.

Our labor has been to decide whether the verdict and j udgment in the first action and the averment of such verdict and judgment set up as an estoppel in respect to the title by the answer filed in the second action, have sufficient certainty and directness to bring the case within the application of a doctrine which, Lord Coke says, is odious, because it shutteth a man’s mouth from speaking the truth,” but which, according to modern authority in respect to matters m jpais, enforces good morals by not allowing one of those who claim, under him, to gainsay what he had directly and in a solemn manner affirmed to be a fact 5 and in respect to matter- of record, enforces a principle of public policy, “ there should be an end of litigation,” by not allowing one of those who claim under him to ask for a second adjudication of an issue of fact or law which had by final judgment been decided against him.

In our case the draftsman of the answer did not advert to the difference between a plea in bar of the second action. “ Former judgment between the same parties, for the same cause of action,” which could be met by the replication of title since transferred to plaintiff by defendant, and so a new cause and the plea “ of estoppel by the record” in respect to the title.

Rut we find in the case made up for this Court by the counsel of the appellant the clause, “ It is admitted by the plaintiff that the facts set forth (in the answer) as to the former judgment and verdict are true.”

This admission, beyond question, brings the ease within the operation of the doctrine of estoppel, and sustains the ruling of His Honor.

There is no error.

Pee Cukia'M. Judgment affirmed.

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

PbaesoN, C. J.

The effect of a verdict and judgment in an action for land, under C. C. P., when the title is put at issue and directly adjudicated, to work an estoppel in respect to the title is so fully discussed in Falls v. Gamble, 66 N. C. Rep., 455, as *65 to relieve us from the duty of attempting to make any further explication of the doctrine.

Our labor has been to decide whether the verdict and j udgment in the first action and the averment of such verdict and judgment set up as an estoppel in respect to the title by the answer filed in the second action, have sufficient certainty and directness to bring the case within the application of a doctrine which, Lord Coke says, is odious, because it shutteth a man’s mouth from speaking the truth,” but which, according to modern authority in respect to matters m jpais, enforces good morals by not allowing one of those who claim, under him, to gainsay what he had directly and in a solemn manner affirmed to be a fact 5 and in respect to matter- of record, enforces a principle of public policy, “ there should be an end of litigation,” by not allowing one of those who claim under him to ask for a second adjudication of an issue of fact or law which had by final judgment been decided against him.

In our case the draftsman of the answer did not advert to the difference between a plea in bar of the second action. “ Former judgment between the same parties, for the same cause of action,” which could be met by the replication of title since transferred to plaintiff by defendant, and so a new cause and the plea “ of estoppel by the record” in respect to the title.

Rut we find in the case made up for this Court by the counsel of the appellant the clause, “ It is admitted by the plaintiff that the facts set forth (in the answer) as to the former judgment and verdict are true.”

This admission, beyond question, brings the ease within the operation of the doctrine of estoppel, and sustains the ruling of His Honor.

There is no error.

Pee Cukia'M. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 N.C. 64, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/isler-v-harrison-nc-1874.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack