Pautsch v. Clark Oil Co.

Appellant contends that because different matters would have had to be proved in the previous action than are necessary to be proved in this one, the causes of action are not identical and thus the issue in the present action is not res adjudicóla.

In the prior action the Clark Oil Company elected to exercise its option to accelerate the maturity of the note and sued for foreclosure of the mortgage and a deficiency judgment. The only cause of action it had under the note and mortgage was the debt obligation when it became due. That is the identical cause of action which appellant seeks to set…