Case ID: shan-cas_2/html/0488-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Freeman, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

POLLY M. HARTMAN, IN ERROR, v. JONATHAN HARTMAN.
    Knoxville,
    September Term, 1877.
    INJUNCTION. Against suit at law; on condition of confession of judgment. Without condition, decree is res adjudicaba against defendant at law.
    An injunction to stay proceedings in an action at law, applied for by the defendant therein, should be granted only on condition of confession of judgment by him in such suit at law. But where the injunction was granted •vyithout such condition or requirement annexed, and the injunction suit was finally dismissed, the plaintiff in the action at law may introduce into his suit at law the record and final decree in the injunction suit as res adjudicata of the questions therein involved, and thus prevent the defendant from re-litigating these questions further in the suit at law. [See Mathews v. Douglass, Cooke, 136; Hendrick v. Dallum, i Tenn., 427; Cocke v. Dotson, 1 Tenn., 169; Code, sec. 4835, and notes.]
   Freeman, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

Jonathan Hartman, in February, 1869, commenced an action of ejectment against defendant below. After this, she, in her own right, and as next friend of her children, in conjunction with the administrator of her deceased husband, filed a bill in the chancery court enjoining the prosecution of the ejectment suit, claiming the deed under which plain,'tiff claimed was fraudulently obtained, and possession for time sufficient to perfect title under the statute of limitations, asking the deed to be declared void, and cloud removed from title. This suit was prosecuted until, on appeal to this court, it was decided against complainants, and, on appeal, the decree of the chancellor was affirmed, but, from oversight probably no writ of possession was asked for or obtained. The ejectment suit which had been enjoined, was then prosecuted and brought to trial for the purpose of getting such possession. The record of the chancery case and decree of this court were introduced by plaintiff, as evidence, to show that the matters of the suit had been adjudicated in the chancery case, but defendant insisted on going into- the matters of title and defense that had been set up in that suit.

The court held the matter res adjudicata as to all matters thus involved. There was no offer to show a different title.

In this there was no error. The proper practice before granting an injunction in such cases is, to grant it on condition of confession of judgment in the action of ejectment, but this was not done. Yet it is certain the very identical questions between the parties had been adjudicated in the chancery case that were sought to be presented in defense of the ejectment suit.

The court properly refused to allow these questions to be relitigated.

Affirm the judgment.