The weekly Thibodaux sentinel and journal of the 8th Senatorial District. [volume] (Thibodaux, Lna. [i.e. La.]) 1875-1898, 1897-06-12

went 10 the effect rather than to the
admissability Of the evidence, and
bills of exception were taken by plain
tiff.
The Judgment Of the court below
was favorable TO plaintiff. 1t was
held that an analysis Of the rlradings
and judgments of the prior litigation
demonstrated that, in 80 far as the
boundary line was concerned, the
same Issues were tried and determin-
ed there az are now sought to be
raised airesh in the instant case.
Plaintiffs plea Of res adjudicata was
sustained.
With regard to defendants attack
upon the final Judgment Of the first
suit. it was held that when the only
ground of nnllity advanced consists in
error of decision upon the issues in
volved. the Judgment npon those
issues by a competent Court operates
as a conclusive estoppel between the
parties before the Court, and that the
case at bar comes within that rule.
An appeal was taken up by Gefen-
dant to this Court. and in June. 1896.
after full consideration il was deemed
advisable TO reverse the Judgment ana
and remand the case "a the lower
Court for another trial. Accordingly,
this was done. In remanding no in
structions were given. Sec. 4S An
1902.
III February Of the present year the
case was again tried in the Court
below on the same issues and evil
dence, together with additional testi-
many aGduced on behalf of both par
ties.
Again was it decided in favor of
nlaintiff. and for the second time it is
before us OF appeal by defendant.
A full review of the case has
brought ne to the conclusion that the
learned Judge of the Court below has
properly e%xpounded and applied the
law that must govern its determine
ton.
The plea of res ddjudicatd. conten-
ded for by plaintiff. founded on the
Judgment or this Court in the case of
the Parish of Lafourche vs. the Par
ish of Terrebonne, 81 Ann 1880 must
be sustained. The boundary lines
between plaintiff Parish and defend
ant parish as construed, set forth. fix
ed and determined by that decision
must be upheld as having the authori-
ty Of the thing %ad,indged.
1t is well settled that a defense
having heen urged and decided adj
versely in a former suit, cannot be
set up again in a second suit between
the same parties and in the same
cause of action. (Anthorities.)
Every material allegation or state
ment which. having been made on
one side and denied on the other,
was at issue in a cause and was
determined in the course of proceed
ings, is merged in rem adjudication.
(.Authorities.J
The same issues, finally determined
between the parties, cannot be again
raised ever on the grouud of a SUISSE
quent discovery of new evidence.
(Anthorities.)
Nor would it make any difference
that the Judgment pleaded in estoppel
may have heeu erroneous. Res adju-
dicufn pro reritdte hdbetur. (Autllori-
ties
Defendants attack of nullity upon
the Judgment pleaded as res adjudica-
ia "a. avail nothing. The ground
of nullity advanced can be .neld to be
no other than error 81 decision upon
the issues involved. Where this is
the case. a decision upon those issues
by a competent Court operates as es-
toppel between the parties to the
81 An S13.
A careful examination OF the Opin-
ion and decree of this Court in the
case t34 An. $780, leads US to
conclusion that there is no
such ambiguity or conflict in the
terms thereof as requires construction
Or Interpretation at M hands.
1t definitely fixes EBayon Blue Wa
ter otherwise known as Bayou Du
.hene" as the lower boundary between
the Parishes following its right bank
to the sea.
So that at the sea, at Timbalier
the point of division between IKE
Parishes is the mouth of said Bayou.
1t follows that the ~prolongation of
his line across Timbalier Bay would
properly partition the waters Of the
Bay between the Parishes, giving to-
the Parish Of Lafourche the oyster
beds on the East of that line and to
he Parish of Terrebonne those on the
West of the line.