Southern Railway Co. v. Davenport

167 S.E. 916, 46 Ga. App. 447, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 90
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedFebruary 10, 1933
Docket22395
StatusPublished

This text of 167 S.E. 916 (Southern Railway Co. v. Davenport) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Southern Railway Co. v. Davenport, 167 S.E. 916, 46 Ga. App. 447, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 90 (Ga. Ct. App. 1933).

Opinion

Bboxles, C. J.

1. “A judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive between the same parties and tlieir privies as to all matters put in issue, or which under the rules of lato might have been put in issue in the cause wherein the judgment toas rendered,.” (Italics ours.) Civil Code (1910), § 4336.

£. The plaintiff in the instant case originally brought his suit against the Southern Railway Company and Tull Waters, its engineer, and his cause of action was predicated solely on the alleged negligence of said Wlaters as tire agent of the railroad company. A verdict and judgment were returned in favor of the defendant Waters. It follows that no valid judgment could thereafter be rendered against the railroad company on the same cause of action based upon the alleged negligent acts of other employees of the company. “It is a settled principle of law that a party seeking to enforce a claim legally or equitably must present to the court, either by the pleadings or proofs, or both, all the grounds upon which he expects a judgment in his favor. He is not at liberty to split up his demand and prosecute it by piecemeal, or present only a portion, and leave the rest to be presented at a second suit if the first fail.” Standard Steel Works Co. v. Williams, 158 Ga. 434, 451 (124 S. E. 21). In such a case the plaintiff “must discharge all his weapons, and not reserve a part of them for use in a future rencounter. He must realize that one defeat will not only terminate the campaign, but end the war.” Perry v. McLendon, 62 Ga. 598, 605. See also Conwell v. Neal, 118 Ga. 624 (45 S. E. 910).

3. Under the preceding ruling it was error for the trial judge to strike the defendant’s plea of res adjudicata. The plea may have been subject to special demurrer, but it should not have been stricken on motion of the plaintiff.

4. The error in striking the plea rendered the further proceedings in the case nugatory.

Judgment reversed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur. W. M. Sapp, O. B. Hardin, S. B. Maddox, Maddox, Matthews & Owens, for plaintiff in error. Mann <& Mann, Mitchell & Mitchell, contra.

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

Related

Perry v. McLendon
62 Ga. 598 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1879)
Conwell v. Neal
45 S.E. 910 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1903)
Standard Steel Works Co. v. Williams
124 S.E. 21 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1924)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
167 S.E. 916, 46 Ga. App. 447, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 90, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southern-railway-co-v-davenport-gactapp-1933.