The eastern clarion. [volume] (Paulding, Miss.) 1837-1863, 1861-04-12
Sr1rH.
Judgment affirmed
William B.. Wilkes, Exor !
93Os.
homas Coopwood.

Thomas Coopwood.
This action was instituted on the 18th
November 1856, to recover certain sums
Of money alleged to be dse the plaintiffs
testator, Mark Prewett, by the defend
ant, for money paid and expended, and
for work and labor. The declaration
AYERS, that on the 18th April lS47. an ac-
ton was instituted by the plaintiffs tes-
tator in his life time, against the defend
ant, that on the 2Sth March, 1855, o judg-
ment was rendered in favor Of the plain
tiff 3 testator, in that suit for 5000 from
which the defendant took an appeal to
this court, where the judgment was re-
versed on the 18th of February 1856, and
that the present action was instituted on
the same cause of action, within year
after said reversal by virtue of the statute
authorizing the Redistribution of suit in
such cases. The defendant pleaded TO
this amongst other pleas, that at the
March term 1858, of the Circuit Court Of
Monroe county, a judgment was rendered
/ in favor of the defendant against the
| plaintiffs testator for costs in an action
brought by him against the defendant fol
the same causes of action on which this
action is founded, which Judgment was
I
! further, that at the same time of the said
Circuit Court, and in an action brought by
by said testator against the defendant
for the same causes of action on which
this action is founded, q verdict wa
rendered for the defendant, and OF
the Doth Of March, 1856, a judgment
was rendered in this court in favol
of the defendant on that verdict, anC
that the same remains in full force ant
nnreversed. To these pleas the plaintiff
replied, that the verdict and judgment il
kshe pleas mentioned, were q portion o
proceedings in. the previous suit be
y .6een the plaintiff 5 testator and the de
fendant referred to in the plaintiffs de
claration in this case. The defendant de
INJURED to these replications, the demul
rer was sustained and judgment rendere,
for the defendant, upon the plaintiff de-
Ginning to plead over.
The question now is whether the cour
erred in sustaining the demurrer.
The facts in relation to the two judC
ments mentioned in these pleadings
not appear TO be set forth with clearnet
or certainty.
II appears by the pleas, that a verde
and judgment were rendered for the d,
action embraced in this action, and ths
judgment was rendered thereon in tia
court which remains in full force TIL
would certainly be bar to a subsequer
action founded on the same causes of a
ton. But the plaintiff replies that tn
Judgment was . part of the same DIT
eeedings referred to in the declaration, /
, which the judgment in his favor was r
: versed in this court, and this is admitte
3 by the demurrer. 1t thus appears tn
two judgments were rendered in Il
; same cause in this court, one reversing IL
judgment of the Circuit Court renders
ir March 1855, in favor Of the plaintiff
testator, and one rendering judgment
favor of the defendant and against Il
plaintiff 3 testator upon a verdict rende
I. ed in the Circuit Court in the same eau
: at the March term 1853. How this W
, done does not clearly appear by Il
: pleadings. But il is clear that the on
fact stated in the Replication. to-wi
: that the judgment rendered in this coul
for the defendant was part Of the san
: case in which the Judgment in favor
the plaintiff testator was reversed, is n
a sufficient answer to the bar created
the judgment for the defendant. tn
rendered in the same action does not 4
I less render it not bar 10 the same {
mands in a subsequent action.
Il is insisted in behalf Of the plainti
= in error, that the statute REV. Code A
:, art l9. authorizes the institution Of NJ
- action after the reversal of the plaintiff
: judgment and within one year the
after.
y But the pleadings here not only she
- that the plaintiffs Judgment was reverse
y but that judgment or verdict was re
~ dered for the defendant in the previo
y suit. Such case is Clearly not will
=, = the statute; for the judgment for the {
PENDANT must be presumed to have be
q rendered on the merits of the demand
- it was upon verdict; and such a ju'
-. ment remaining in full force, is in ]
e a final and conclusive bar to another
=. ton on the same account; and this ril
~ TO the defendant was not intended to
disturbed by the provisions of this statu
Judgment affirmed. HANDY