A property right cannot be affected by a judgment to which the holder of the right is neither a party nor privy.34 Where a husband and wife bring separate actions against the same defendant for damages for personal injuries sustained by the wife, the judgment in one action is not evidence in the other.35 § 1453. Evidence of property rights Scheduling of property as exempt by a bankrupt and approval by the referee is not res judicata as to ownership of property as against third parties who are not parties to bankruptcy proceeding.36 A judgment quieting title constitutes no estoppel, and is not evidence against a person whose claim of title antedates the commencement of the action, and who was then a minor, had no notice of the pendency of the action, was not a party thereto, and was not represented by guardian or otherwise.37 That part of the judgment in a suit to quiet title, which recited that any of plaintiff's children thereafter born should have no interest in the property, is ineffective, where no party to the proceedings had rights in common with the unborn heirs.38 DIVISION VI.-MATTERS CONCLUDED § 1454. Scope of estoppel A matter directly in issue, and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, is conclusive as to the parties and their privies, as his, and the judgment being against it only as his property, the debtor and his privies are concluded, but no other persons. Davies v. Thompson, 61 Okl. 21, 160 P. 75, L. R. A. 1917B, 395. 34 Chittenden v. Crosby, 48 P. 209, 5 Kan. App. 534. In an action on an open account against a company and its principal stockholder, finding of bankruptcy court wherein plaintiff was not a party that goods had been purchased by purchaser from defendants as a sole trader doing business under defendant company's name held not res judicata. Ratcliff-Sanders Grocer Co. v. Bluejacket Mercantile Co., 63 Okl. 298, 164 P. 1142. Where testator's grandchildren who were the ultimate beneficiaries of a trust were not parties to proceeding in which the trust lands were partitioned between two of testator's sons who were trustees, facts as to title may be shown in proceeding by creditors of one of sons to subject to their claims lands received by him. Niblack v. Knox, 101 Kan. 440, 167 P. 741. 35 Mundell v. City of Greeley, 92 P. 1117, 76 Kan. 797. 36 Swaydan v. Ellis, 59 Okl. 175, 158 P. 434. 37 Peck v. Ayres, 100 P. 283, 79 Kan. 457. HON.PL.& PRAC.-87 (1377) and cannot be relitigated by them in an action in the same court or in a court of concurrent jurisdiction on the same or a different cause of action.39 39 Comanche Ice & Fuel Co. v. Binder & Hillery (Okl.) 172 P. 629. When a fact has once been determined in a judicial proceeding, and a final judgment has been rendered in accordance therewith, it cannot be again litigated between same parties, as public policy does not permit correctness of former decision to be impeached. Uncle Sam Oil Co. v. Richards (Okl.) 175 P. 749. The adjudication, in mandamus brought by the holder of a certificate of purchase of school land to compel the county treasurer to accept money to redeem the land from taxes and to pay interest, held conclusive on the rights of the parties in a subsequent action by such holder to enforce his rights against the grantee of the person to whom a patent for the land was issued. Plummer v. Scott, 151 P. 1115, 96 Kan. 390. Where, in an action on a note, the court has determined whether any of the parties jointly and severally bound are sureties, and no appeal has been taken, a party claiming to be surety is not entitled to have the question redetermined in another action. Emery v. Farmers' State Bank of Washington, 155 P. 34, 97 Kan. 231. Where a judgment was obtained against a railroad company for personal injuries, and receivers were appointed in a foreclosure suit, and, under a decree of the United States court, all the property was sold, and judgment was allowed except as to interest, and paid by the purchaser at the foreclosure, the order of allowance was conclusive on the plaintiff in the judgment to the extent that it cannot be relitigated in another action to recover the amount of the claim for interest disallowed by the federal court. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Cross, 66 P. 620, 63 Kan. 564. Where an issue is presented by the pleadings and tried in foreclosure, it cannot be again tried at the instance of the losing party on a motion to set aside the sheriff's sale in the same action. Greenwell v. Moffett, 93 P. 609, 77 Kan. 41. A party brought ejectment to recover land from the grantee of a purchaser at sheriff's sale, and a mortgagee of the claimant was made a party, and pleaded that he purchased the judgment at sheriff's sale to protect his mortgage, and attacked the sheriff's sale and deed as void, and prayed that he be given a lien on the land as the property of the claimant. The sheriff's sale and deed were sustained, and the judgment was affirmed on appeal. The mortgagee and the owner of the judgment sued the successful defendant in the first action for the land, asking that the title conveyed by the sheriff's deed be decreed to be held in trust for him. Held, that the matter was res judicata. Ullrich v. Bigger, 106 P. 1073, 81 Kan. 756. Where, in a prior action, a stock of goods had been attached as the property of a partnership, and in the litigation following the fact that attachment defendants were a partnership was fully litigated, the judgment not having been appealed from, the question of the existence of a partnership was concluded by the judgment, and could not be raised in a subsequent action. Bishop v. Smith, 58 P. 493, 9 Kan. App. 602. In an action for rent of premises, including a quantity of personal property, An estoppel by judgment is not confined to the judgment, but extends to all facts involved in it as necessary steps or as groundwork upon which it must have been founded, including pleadings, verdict, and findings.*1 40 A final judgment is conclusive between the parties in a subsequent action involving the same subject-matter, not only as to matters determined, but as to all germane matters which might have been litigated and determined.42 But a judgment of a court of brought after the destruction of buildings and property by fire on a lease, by the terms of which defendants were not to be liable for the rent in case of such destruction, a judgment for defendants is conclusive as to plaintiff's right to maintain another action for the value of the personal property destroyed by the fire, but alleged to be wrongfully converted by defendants. Whitaker v. Hawley, 1 P. 508, 30 Kan. 317. 40 Uncle Sam Oil Co. v. Richards (Okl.) 175 P. 749. A fact or question in issue in a former suit and judicially determined is conclusive as to the parties and their privies. Deming Inv. Co. v. Shannon, 62 Okl. 277, 162 P. 471. 41 Cressler v. Brown, 79 Okl. 170, 192 P. 417; Hawkins v. Ferguson, 79 Okl. 273, 193 P. 35; McDuffie v. Geiser Mfg. Co., 138 P. 1029, 41 Okl. 488. 42 Dill v. Flesher (Okl.) 175 P. 359; Baker v. Leavitt, 54 Okl. 70, 153 P. 1099; Cook v. Elmore (Wyo.) 192 P. 824; Corrugated Culvert Co. v. Simpson Tp., McIntosh County, 51 Okl. 178. 151 P. 854, 4 A. L. R. 1170; Kingfisher Improvement Co. v. Talley, 51 Okl. 226, 151 P. 873; Parks v. Haynes, 52 Okl. 63, 152 P. 400; Norton v. Kelley, 57 Okl. 222, 156 P. 1164; Ely Walker Dry Goods Co. v. Smith (Okl.) 160 P. 898; Pioneer Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. State, 138 P. 1033, 40 Okl. 417; Alfrey v. Colbert, 44 Okl. 246, 144 P. 179; Prince v. Gosnell, 47 Okl. 570, 149 P. 1162; Earl v. Earl, 48 Okl. 442, 149 P. 1179; State v. City of Leavenworth, 90 P. 237, 75 Kan. 787; Stroup v. Pepper, 73 P. 896, judgment reversed 76 P. 825, 69 Kan. 241; Sanford v. Oberlin College, 31 P. 1089, 50 Kan. 342. Party claiming a life estate and also a fee and suing to quiet title as to the fee after an adverse judgment is affirmed by Supreme Court cannot maintain another suit based upon life estate, which might have been pleaded and proven in first action. Sweeney v. Coleman (Okl.) 169 P. 495. Final judgment in mandamus requiring school district treasurer to register warrants of district, not being appealed from, is res judicata as to validity of warrants. Bank of Chelsea v. School Dist. No. 1, Rogers County, 62 Okl. 185, 162 P. 809. A fact or question directly in issue in a former suit, and passed upon by a court of competent jurisdiction, is conclusively settled by the judgment as to parties in that action and persons in privity with them. Woodworth v. Town of Hennessey, 122 P. 224, 32 Okl. 267. Notes for the price of machinery were secured by a chattel and a real estate mortgage. Before they became due plaintiff declared himself unsafe, and brought replevin to recover possession of the chattel security, and obtained the same, and never returned it to defendant. Pending the trial of the action competent jurisdiction between same parties is conclusive in a pending suit only upon questions and rights litigated and determined or which might properly have been adjudicated in such former action.43 the debt became due, and the court instructed the jury if they found for defendant, and return could not be had, a verdict should be returned for the value of the property, less the amount of the debt. Verdict was given for defendant for possession, and, if a return could not be had, fixing the value of the property at $906. Plaintiff paid the judgment and brought action to foreclose the real estate mortgage. Held, that the verdict in replevin was res ju dicata as to any further attempt to enforce the notes. Nichols & Shepard Co. v. Trower, 78 P. 575, 14 Okl. 461. When fact has been determined in a judicial proceeding and final judgment rendered, it cannot be again litigated between same parties. Estoppel of a judgment is not confined to the judgment, but extends to all facts involved in it as necessary steps, or as the basis upon which it must have been founded. Upon a plea of former adjudication, a matter will be held res adjudicata, although not in issue under pleadings in former action, if from the record it appears that it formed one of the premises upon which judgment necessarily rested. Johnson v. Gillett (Okl.) 168 P. 1031. Judgment in action by one who has distrained animals for their trespass is conclusive as to right to damages for trespass in subsequent action by owner of animals for their possession. Brown v. Calvert, 57 Okl. 364, 157 P. 284. Under a plea of former adjudication a matter will be held res judicata, though not raised by an issue of the pleadings in the former case, where from the record it appears that it formed one of the premises on which the judg ment necessarily rested. Bleakley v. Barclay, 89 P. 906, 75 Kan. 462, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 230. Where a person acting under a void appointment, as receiver for a corporation, appeared and defended a claim against the corporation, a judgment against him and the corporation was not an adjudication that he was duly appointed. Lynn v. McCue, 147 P. 808, 94 Kan. 761, rehearing denied 150 P. 523, 96 Kan. 114. A former decision, that a school district had no right to tax territory which had been detached therefrom and attached to another district, would be res judicata of another action by the same plaintiff involving the same question. School Dist. No. 116 of Sedgwick County v. School Dist. 141 of Sedgwick County, 99 P. 620, 79 Kan. 407. In mandamus proceedings by a railroad company against county officers to compel them to issue bonds in aid of the company, it appeared that the parties were the same parties to a prior injunction suit, wherein were litigat ed, or might have been litigated, all the questions which could arise in the mandamus proceeding, except a question as to the tender of the company's stock for such bonds. Held, that all such questions, except the question of the tender of stock, were res judicata. Chicago, K. & W. R. Co. v. Commissioners of Anderson County, 47 Kan. 766, 29 P. 96. In suit for fraud in procuring deed from plaintiff, where former judgment 43 Scrivner v. McClelland, 75 Okl. 239, 182 P. 503, § 1455. Identity of subject-matter To constitute a good plea of res judicata, the subject-matter of the actions must be the same.* 44 against defendant in another county, setting aside plaintiff's deed and quieting her title, was pleaded as res judicata, it was error to sustain demurrer to plaintiff's evidence on ground that damages should have been pleaded in former suit. Campbell v. Cubbon, 158 P. 1121, 98 Kan. 642. 44 Harris v. Milligan (Oki.) 171 P. 850. Matters involved in prior decision by the Supreme Court in a suit for a partnership accounting are res adjudicata as to the account as between plaintiff and defendants and their creditors in a subsequent suit. Alexander v. Clarkson, 164 P. 294, 100 Kan. 294, L. R. A. 1917F, 1006. A final judgment in action for replevin of cotton is not res judicata of action for damages sustained by defendant as a result of malicious and unwarranted institution and prosecution of replevin suit, subject-matter not being the same. Harris v. Milligan (Okl.) 171 P. 850. Where one who has received money contends that it was given him under an express contract for services performed but is defeated as to that contention in an action against him to recover the money he is not thereby precluded ' from maintaining an action for the reasonable value of the services. Clifton v. Meuser, 129 P. 159, 88 Kan. 408, 43 L. R. A. (N. S.) 124. Where the board of railroad assessors assessed real estate of a railroad corporation, and the county clerk refused to recognize such assessments on the return made by the auditor of state, and the land was subsequently assessed by local assessors, in an action by the railroad corporation to enjoin the sale of the premises by the county treasurer for nonpayment of taxes so assessed, the question to be determined was whether the premises were assessable by the board of railroad assessors, or by the local assessors, and it appearing that the same question had been determined in a former adjudication between the parties, and the facts not having been changed, such former adjudication was res adjudicata. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Board of Com'rs of Wyandotte County, 77 P. 274, 69 Kan. 572. A judgment perpetually enjoining the city from the collection of an assessment under a former ordinance is not res adjudicata of the validity of an assessment under a subsequent ordinance. Shepherd v. Kansas City, 105 P. 531, 81 Kan. 369. A judgment affirming the validity of a sale and transfer of property is conclusive upon the parties thereto, with respect to all the property covered by that entire transaction, although but part thereof was in fact the subjectmatter of the issues. Peterson v. Warner, 50 P. 1091, 6 Kan. App. 298. In an action upon one of three notes given at the same time to secure one entire debt, payable in one, two, and three years, it was determined that defendant was surety thereon, and was released by a material change in the contract. Held, that the judgment is conclusive in an action between the same parties upon the other notes. Peru Plow & Wheel Co. v. Ward, 51 P. 805, 6 Kan. App. 289. |