La Crosse Lumber Co. v. Audrain County Agricultural & Mechanical Society
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Audrain Circuit Court.—Hon. E. M. Hughes, Judge. (1) Where the former suit is not a part of an entire and indivisible demand, or where the demands arise out of separate and distinct causes of action, the judgment in the former suit is not a bar to a second suit on a cause of action not actually adjudicated in the former suit.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Audrain Circuit Court.—Hon. E. M. Hughes, Judge. (1) Where the former suit is not a part of an entire and indivisible demand, or where the demands arise out of separate and distinct causes of action, the judgment in the former suit is not a bar to a second suit on a cause of action not actually adjudicated in the former suit. Brown v. King, 10 Mo. 56; State v. Morton, 18 Mo. 53. When the demand results from several and distinct transactions the demand is divisible, and the items of each several transaction form the subject of a distinct action. Flaherty v. Taylor, 35 Mo. 447.…
1Opinion of the CourtRombauer, P. J.
The plaintiff is a lumber dealer, and the defendant a corporation owning grounds used for agricultural and mechanical fairs. Between July 12, 1892, and August 3, 1892, the defendant bought of the plaintiff, on current account, lumber to the aggregate value of $1,276.32, which the defendant used in erecting certain buildings and inclosures on its fair grounds. On October 24, 1892, the plaintiff instituted an attachment suit against the defendant for the recovery of this' balance, and it stands conceded that such suit included all the items included in the ■ present suit and more, being a suit…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Union Railroad & Transportation Co. v. TraubeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1875
- Simmons, Garth & Co. v. CarrierSupreme Court of Missouri · 1875
- Moran v. PlankintonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
- Wibbing v. PowersSupreme Court of Missouri · 1857
- Steinkamper v. McManusMissouri Court of Appeals · 1887
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Puckett v. National Annuity Ass'nMissouri Court of Appeals · 1908
- Wycoff v. Epworth Hotel Construction & Real Estate Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1910
- Hayden Slate Co. v. National Cornice & Iron Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1895
- Hill v. Chowning, Scott & Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1902
- In re Interstate Refineries, Inc.District Court, W.D. Missouri · 1926