Pickel Stone Co. v. Wall
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. R. M. Foster, Judge. (1) The thing sued for and the cause of action in the former suit between the parties are entirely different from that in the case at bar. The judgment in the former case is, therefore, no bar to this action.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. R. M. Foster, Judge. (1) The thing sued for and the cause of action in the former suit between the parties are entirely different from that in the case at bar. The judgment in the former case is, therefore, no bar to this action. “To make a matter res judicata, there must be a concurrence of the four conditions following: identity of the thing sued for; identity of the cause of action; identity of persons and parties to the action; identity to the quality of the persons for or against whom the claim is made.” Railroad v. Commissioners, 12 Kans.…
1Opinion of the CourtReyburn, J.
— On appeal from judgment before a justice in plaintiff’s favor, this action was tried anew in the circuit court, and under instruction of the court a verdict for plaintiff for $128.17 was returned, being the amount deposited by defendant with the clerk for use of plaintiff. Plaintiff, a corporation, was owner of a sawmill, by which it shaped cut stone of dimensions required for building purposes and defendant was *498a builder of stonework. When the . stone involved in this controversy was contracted for, one Allen was general contractor erecting a residence in Portland Place, in the city of St.…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Winham v. KlineMissouri Court of Appeals · 1898
- Mason v. SummersMissouri Court of Appeals · 1887
- Case v. GortonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1889
3Cited by3 opinions
- Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. American Surety Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1921
- Marston v. CatterlinSupreme Court of Missouri · 1921
- Couch v. HarpSupreme Court of Missouri · 1907