Case ID: colo_67/html/0530-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Denison", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 9726.
    Mason v. Walker.
    
      Judgment — Conclusive Effect. Action upon sundry promissory notes. Payment pleaded. Reply averring prior adjudication, to the contrary. The issue was tried and a verdict directed for plaintiff.
    
      Error to Denver District Court, Hon. Thomas J. Black, Judge.
    
    
      Department two.
    
    Mr. George F. Dunklee and Mr. Edward V. Dunklee, for plaintiff in error.
    Mr. H. E. Luthe, for defendant in error.
   Mr. Justice Denison

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was a suit by Walker against Mason upon promissory notes. The defendant pleaded payment. The plaintiff denied' payment and added a further replication pleading res adjudicata on that issue.

The court directed a verdict for the plaintiff, and rendered judgment accordingly. The defendant brings error and asks for a supersedeas.

By the replication and by the evidence it appeared that Mason had preyiously brought a suit against Walker concerning the same notes, alleging that they had been paid and praying their cancellation. Payment was denied by the then defendant, Walker, and that issue was tried and determined in his favor.

It thus appears that as to the identical notes, the identical issue, payment vel non, had been previously adjudicated in Walker’s favor against the defendant, Mason.

The law is familiar and requires no authority; the judgment is right; the supersedeas should be denied and the judgment affirmed.

Garrigues, C. J., and Scott, J., concur.