Case Name: SILBER et v. CATHOLIC SLOVAK UNION
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1926-11-15
Citations: 5 Ohio Law Abs. 148
Docket Number: No. 7710
Parties: SILBER et v. CATHOLIC SLOVAK UNION
Judges: (Levine, PJ., and Vickery, J., concur.)
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 5
Pages: 148–148

Head Matter:
SILBER et v. CATHOLIC SLOVAK UNION
Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist., Cuyahoga Co.
No. 7710.
Decided Nov. 15, 1926
Attorneys — J. W. Kulka; H. R. Hill for Sil-ber et; E. W. Valko for Union; all of Cleveland.

Opinion:
SULLIVAN, J.
It appears that prior to 1920, one Michael Zoldak, now deceased, was a member of the First Catholic Slovak Union, and as such was insured for $1000.00. He designated as his beneficiaries, his children, Mary Silber and George Zoldak. In Sept. 1924, in due form, he changed the beneficiaries and made _ the policy to his daughter Regina Projanowski, as beneficiary. He died March 25, 1925.
By reason of conflicting interests, the Insurance Co. filed a bill of interpleader and after all claims were made, the court gave Regina the $1000. Said cause remained unreversed, unmodified and unvacated and no proceedings in error whatsoever were had. Therefore the judgment remained final.
Subsequently a second suit, the case at bar, was begun to recover on the first policy in favor of Silber et., on the ground that the issue of insanity, at the time of the change in beneficiary, was not raised in the first proceeding; and it is claimed that if such issue were raised, the change in the beneficiary would he null and void. The lower court found in favor of the Insurer and this is a proceeding in error to reverse same. The Court of Appeals held:
1. A party defending is bound to set up all matters which are strictly matters of defense and if he omit to do so, he cannot afterward re-litigate those same matters in a new action. 28 OS. 668.
2. When a matter has been finally determined in an action between the same parties by competent tribunal, the judgment is conclusive not only as to what was determined, but also as to every other question which might properly have been litigated in the case. 82 OS. 121.
Judgment affirmed.
(Levine, PJ., and Vickery, J., concur.)