Willie Peevyhouse and Lucille Peevyhouse, Husband and Wife v. Garland Coal & Mining Company, a Foreign Corporation

Tenth Circuit

Willie Peevyhouse and Lucille Peevyhouse, Husband and Wife v. Garland Coal & Mining Company, a Foreign Corporation

356 F.2d 979, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 7071

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 24, 1966

Docket8348

StatusPublished

This text of 356 F.2d 979 (Willie Peevyhouse and Lucille Peevyhouse, Husband and Wife v. Garland Coal & Mining Company, a Foreign Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Willie Peevyhouse and Lucille Peevyhouse, Husband and Wife v. Garland Coal & Mining Company, a Foreign Corporation, 356 F.2d 979, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 7071 (10th Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is taken from a summary judgment entered by the District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma holding that the asserted cause of action pleaded by plaintiffs-appellants had been fully litigated in the state courts of Oklahoma. Peevyhouse v. Garland Coal & Mining Co., Okl., 382 P.2d 109.

The state action was one for damages for breach of a coal mining lease. The instant action is between the same parties, involving the same lease, and seeks specific performance or, in lieu thereof, money damages. Particulars of alleged damages have been expanded both by addition of new elements and raising the amount claimed. Otherwise the actions are in all ways identical. Appellants sum up their argument thus: we “submit *980 that $300.00- (the amount of state court recovery) is not an adequate remedy at law and that in order for equity to prevail this court should reverse this decision of the trial court and enter judgment for the Appellants as a matter of law.”

The judgment of the trial court is manifestly correct. Appellants have fully litigated their claims in state court, have recovered a judgment, and offer nothing to meet the doctrine of res judicata except dissatisfaction with the amount of the state court judgment.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is taken from a summary judgment entered by the District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma holding that the asserted cause of action pleaded by plaintiffs-appellants had been fully litigated in the state courts of Oklahoma. Peevyhouse v. Garland Coal & Mining Co., Okl., 382 P.2d 109.

The state action was one for damages for breach of a coal mining lease. The instant action is between the same parties, involving the same lease, and seeks specific performance or, in lieu thereof, money damages. Particulars of alleged damages have been expanded both by addition of new elements and raising the amount claimed. Otherwise the actions are in all ways identical. Appellants sum up their argument thus: we “submit *980 that $300.00- (the amount of state court recovery) is not an adequate remedy at law and that in order for equity to prevail this court should reverse this decision of the trial court and enter judgment for the Appellants as a matter of law.”

The judgment of the trial court is manifestly correct. Appellants have fully litigated their claims in state court, have recovered a judgment, and offer nothing to meet the doctrine of res judicata except dissatisfaction with the amount of the state court judgment.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

356 F.2d 979, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 7071, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/willie-peevyhouse-and-lucille-peevyhouse-husband-and-wife-v-garland-coal-ca10-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack