Hukill v. Guffey
West Virginia Supreme Court
I.— If the fact of forfeiture is not res judicata, the -plaintiff ought to have the relief prayed for in the bill. — 15 S. E. Rep. 151; 2 Pom.
Read the full summary
I.— If the fact of forfeiture is not res judicata, the -plaintiff ought to have the relief prayed for in the bill. — 15 S. E. Rep. 151; 2 Pom. Eq. § 880; 34 W. Ya. 375 ; 34 W. Ya. 397. II.' — At common law and now clearly by statute a judgment in an action of unlawful detainer does not settle the title to the property, and is no bar to any subsequent action in which the title is directly involved. — Code (1849) e. 134, s. 4 ; Code, c. 89, s. 4; 3 Munf. 397 ; 6 Munf. 433; 5 Litt. 185 ; 71 Cal. 428 ; 3 Sneed 115 ; 106 Ill. 189 ; 120 Ill. 9 ; 36 Kan. 604; 12 Graft 462. III. — But even if the…
1Dissent
ENGLISH, Judge,
(dissenting.)
I am unable to concur in the conclusions reached in the foregoing opinion for the following reasons: As I understand the question presented for our consideration, it is not whether a forfeiture of the lease on the part of E. M. Ilukill has occurred, but conceding that a forfeiture has occurred, how far a court of equity, under the circumstances of this case, would be warranted in relieving against such forfeiture. It is true that in the case of Guffey v. Hukill, which was an action of unlawful detainer, which came to this Court on writ of error and was decided on…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Jenkins v. HarrisonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1880
- Western M. & M. Co. v. Virginia Cannel Coal Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1877
- Nelson v. CarringtonSupreme Court of Virginia · 1815
- Newlin v. BeardWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1873
- Vangilder v. HoffmanWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1883
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.