Richardson v. Watson
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. The opinion of the court contains a sufficiently full statement of the facts. I. A judgment is no bar to another action unless the same matter were in issue in both cases. The issue in this case and that in the case before the justiee, are not the same. There, the question raised was, whether the paper was the property of Richardson.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. The opinion of the court contains a sufficiently full statement of the facts. I. A judgment is no bar to another action unless the same matter were in issue in both cases. The issue in this case and that in the case before the justiee, are not the same. There, the question raised was, whether the paper was the property of Richardson. Here, his property is admitted, and the question is, whether the respondent unlawfully detained it. Therefore the judgment of the justice is no defence to this action. (1 Phillips’ Ev. part 2, ch. 2, sec. 1, p. 321 ; 1…
1Opinion of the Court
Ryland,
Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.
This was a suit for a quantity of wrapping paper, brought by plaintiff against Watson, the plaintiff claiming' to be the owner of the paper. The defendant answered, setting up a special property in himself as constable of St. Louis township, in virtue of a levy made under a writ of attachment issued by a justice of the peace, in favor of one Carl, against James Graham; and also a former judgment rendered by the justice who issued the attachment, on a claim of property made before him by Richardson, the plaintiff, in which judgment the justice “…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Richardson v. JonesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1852
3Cited by2 opinions
- Ladd, Patrick & Co. v. CouzinsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1865
- Hewett v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1895