McConnell v. Davis, Director General

Supreme Court of South Carolina

McConnell v. Davis, Director General

122 S.E. 399, 128 S.C. 111, 1924 S.C. LEXIS 182

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedApril 3, 1924

Docket11453

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 122 S.E. 399 (McConnell v. Davis, Director General) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McConnell v. Davis, Director General, 122 S.E. 399, 128 S.C. 111, 1924 S.C. LEXIS 182 (S.C. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Watts.

This is an appeal from a directed verdict by his Honor, Judge Peurifoy, for the respondent at a Court of Common Pleas for York County, December Term, 1922.

His Honor directed a verdict for the defendant on the ground of res judicata, and the exceptions, five in number, raise thejssues as to the application of this doctrine. The doctrine of the question of res judicata has been followed since the case of Hart v. Bates; *113 these being: (1) Identity of parties, (2) identity of subject matter, and (3) identity of legal issue determined. 17 S. C., page 40. As these set forth, the doctrine of res judicata is very old, and founded on principles of wise policy and justice. The rule as stated in Hart v. Bates is as follows:

“First, that the judgment of a Court of competent jurisdiction, directly on the point, is as a plea in bar or as evidence conclusive between the same patties upon the same matter directly in question in another court; secondly, that the judgment of a court of exclusive jurisdiction directly upon the point is in like manner conclusive upon the same matter between the same parties coming incidentally in question in another court for a different purpose.”

It does not make any difference that the decision was made by a Court other than the Court in which the defense of res judicata is being pleaded, for it is said in Maxwell v. Conner, 1 Hill, Eq., 22, that a decision by a Court of competent jurisdiction is binding upon other Courts of concurrent power. This doctrine has been recognized and followed by this Court in many cases. Sarratt v. Manufacturing Co., 77 S. C., 90; 57 S. E., 616. Greenwood Drug Co. v. Bromonia Co., 81 S. C., 516; 62 S. E., 840; 128 Am. St. Rep., 929. Morrow v. Railway Co., 84 S. C., 224; 66 S. E., 186; 19 Ann. Cas., 1009. Jenkins v. Railway Co., 89 S. C., 408; 71 S. E., 1010. Barfield v. Barnes, 108 S. C., 1; 93 S. E., 425. Beattie v. City Council, 113 S. C., 541; 102 S. E., 751; and the more recent cases of Johnson Crews Co. v. Folk et al., 118 S. C., 470; 111 S. E., 15, and Coleman v. Rush (S. C.), 116 S. E., 449.

We think Judge Peurifoy was correct in directing a verdict as he did under the law as announced and established by this Court and the evidence as developed at the trial before him. There is no question in our minds that the action in the Federal Court terminating in a directed verdict *114 adjudicated the precise point sought to be raised in this second suit.

The second and fifth exceptions are overruled for the reasons assigned by his Honor, Judge Peurifoy, in excluding the record of Judge Rice’s rulings on question of res judicata at the previous trial.

All exceptions are overruled, and judgment affirmed.

Mr. Justice BrasEr concurs. Mr. Justice Marion concurs in result. Mr. Ci-iiEE Justice Gary did not participate. Mr. Justice Cothran disqualified.

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

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Watts.

This is an appeal from a directed verdict by his Honor, Judge Peurifoy, for the respondent at a Court of Common Pleas for York County, December Term, 1922.

His Honor directed a verdict for the defendant on the ground of res judicata, and the exceptions, five in number, raise thejssues as to the application of this doctrine. The doctrine of the question of res judicata has been followed since the case of Hart v. Bates; *113 these being: (1) Identity of parties, (2) identity of subject matter, and (3) identity of legal issue determined. 17 S. C., page 40. As these set forth, the doctrine of res judicata is very old, and founded on principles of wise policy and justice. The rule as stated in Hart v. Bates is as follows:

“First, that the judgment of a Court of competent jurisdiction, directly on the point, is as a plea in bar or as evidence conclusive between the same patties upon the same matter directly in question in another court; secondly, that the judgment of a court of exclusive jurisdiction directly upon the point is in like manner conclusive upon the same matter between the same parties coming incidentally in question in another court for a different purpose.”

It does not make any difference that the decision was made by a Court other than the Court in which the defense of res judicata is being pleaded, for it is said in Maxwell v. Conner, 1 Hill, Eq., 22, that a decision by a Court of competent jurisdiction is binding upon other Courts of concurrent power. This doctrine has been recognized and followed by this Court in many cases. Sarratt v. Manufacturing Co., 77 S. C., 90; 57 S. E., 616. Greenwood Drug Co. v. Bromonia Co., 81 S. C., 516; 62 S. E., 840; 128 Am. St. Rep., 929. Morrow v. Railway Co., 84 S. C., 224; 66 S. E., 186; 19 Ann. Cas., 1009. Jenkins v. Railway Co., 89 S. C., 408; 71 S. E., 1010. Barfield v. Barnes, 108 S. C., 1; 93 S. E., 425. Beattie v. City Council, 113 S. C., 541; 102 S. E., 751; and the more recent cases of Johnson Crews Co. v. Folk et al., 118 S. C., 470; 111 S. E., 15, and Coleman v. Rush (S. C.), 116 S. E., 449.

We think Judge Peurifoy was correct in directing a verdict as he did under the law as announced and established by this Court and the evidence as developed at the trial before him. There is no question in our minds that the action in the Federal Court terminating in a directed verdict *114 adjudicated the precise point sought to be raised in this second suit.

The second and fifth exceptions are overruled for the reasons assigned by his Honor, Judge Peurifoy, in excluding the record of Judge Rice’s rulings on question of res judicata at the previous trial.

All exceptions are overruled, and judgment affirmed.

Mr. Justice BrasEr concurs. Mr. Justice Marion concurs in result. Mr. Ci-iiEE Justice Gary did not participate. Mr. Justice Cothran disqualified.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 S.E. 399, 128 S.C. 111, 1924 S.C. LEXIS 182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcconnell-v-davis-director-general-sc-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack