A final judgment pronounced in an action of ejectment, where the
claim of title in fee simple absolute by the parties respectively
was the sole subject of controversy, instituted and prosecuted
under and according to the forms and in the manner prescribed by
the statute laws of the State of Arkansas -- that is to say by a
suit between the real litigants by name and where the land is
accurately described -- is a valid legal bar to a like action
subsequently instituted between the same parties for the same lands
or premises, involving the same identical title and rights to the
possession of such lands or premises and none other.
Semble. The doctrine is applicable generally in
ejectments, in the form above described, in those states where no
provision is made by statute for a subsequent trial.
Sturdy brought ejectment against Jackaway in one of the state
courts of Arkansas to recover a tract of land in that state, the
action being brought not in the English fictitious form used still
in some states of the Union, but in the way now more common with us
-- and which prevails in Arkansas -- where the parties sue, as in
other cases, in their true names and where the land claimed is
described so as to be capable of complete identification. Judgment
was given for the defendant, and the case having gone to the
Supreme Court of Arkansas, the judgment was there affirmed. He then
brought another ejectment for the same premises in the Circuit
Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Arkansas,
and the defendant having pleaded the former judgment the plaintiff
demurred. The judges of the
Page 71 U. S. 175
circuit court being opposed in opinion as to the sufficiency of
the demurrer, the following questions were certified to the
court:
1st. Is said plea good in law as a bar to this action?
2d. Is a final judgment pronounced in an action of ejectment,
where the claim of title in fee simple absolute by the parties
respectively was the sole subject of controversy, instituted and
prosecuted under and according to the forms and in the manner
prescribed by the statute laws of the State of Arkansas, a valid,
legal bar to a like action, subsequently instituted between the
same parties, for the same lands or premises, involving the same
identical title and rights to the possession of such lands or
premises, and none other?
There was nothing shown by the record or otherwise to indicate
that the statute law of Arkansas made a distinction between
ejectment and other actions as to the conclusiveness of a verdict
and judgment.
MR. JUSTICE GRIER delivered the opinion of the Court.
The two questions certified by the court below constitute but
one.
It is a well settled principle of the common law
"that in personal actions concerning debts, goods, and effects
(by way of distinction from other actions), a recovery in one
action is a bar to another. This principle is not true of personal
actions alone, but is equally and universally true of all actions,
whatsoever
quoad their subject matter, and that an
allegation on record, on which issue has been once taken and found,
is, between the parties taking it and their privies, conclusive,
according to the finding thereof, so as to estop the parties
respectively from again litigating that fact once tried and found.
[
Footnote 1]"
The action of ejectment was devised for a lessee of a term
Page 71 U. S. 176
of years, who was ousted of his term, and who, having but a
chattel interest, could not support a real action to recover
possession. It was but an action of trespass in effect, and the
remedy was in damages only for the dispossession. But afterward,
the court determined the lessee should not only recover damages,
but also his
term, which soon brought the action into
general use, and, by the formal scaffolding of a lease, entry, and
ouster, the action was converted into a method of trying,
collaterally and incidentally, the title of the lessor.
Hence, as the title of the freehold was never
formally
and
directly is issue by the pleadings, but only a
trespass committed by John Doe on Richard Roe, in forcibly
expelling him from a term of years, no verdict between these
parties for the supposed trespass could be pleaded in bar to
another action of trespass by Thomas Troublesome on Timothy
Peaceable.
It was in this way that the doctrine crept in that a verdict and
judgment were conclusive only as regards personalty.
Afterwards, when this fictitious scaffolding was demolished in
many states, and the parties made their issue in their own names --
where there could be no difficulty as to the estoppel -- the idea
of a difference between rights to real property and personalty
still continued in many states to linger, and a single verdict and
judgment in ejectment was not considered conclusive. In such
states, provision was usually made by statute for a second
trial.
But where no such provision has been made, the party's privilege
to plead his estoppel, according to his right at common law, has
always been recognized by the court. [
Footnote 2]
We find nothing in the statutes of Arkansas or in their judicial
decisions making any exceptions or difference as to the
conclusiveness of a verdict and judgment in real or personal
action.
This question must therefore be answered in the
affirmative.
[
Footnote 1]
Outram v. Morewood, 3 East 356.
[
Footnote 2]
See Miles v.
Caldwell, 2 Wall. 35;
Blanchard
v. Brown, 3 Wall. 245.
