Court Opinion

ID: 9671364
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:35:11.31986+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:09.541305
License: Public Domain

Black, J.
(concurring). Not caring to join the Court’s unnecessary waltz around the country to the variable outstate music of estoppel by judgment, and being quite content with the concededly applicable value of our own pertinent precedents, particularly Clark v. Naufel (1950), 328 Mich 249 (syll. # 4), I concur in reversal.
Judge Quinn, dissenting below (20 Mich App 140, 147), was quite right in applying Clark v. Naufel, and in calling it to the attention of two Brethren *53whose choice it was to ignore that authority in favor of a new doctrine. That doctrine was drawn apparently, but quite erroneously, from Justice Cooley’s opinion of Fifield v. Edwards (1878), 39 Mich 264. The holding there was that an estoppel by previous judgment cannot prevail where the specific claim in question was actually excluded from judicial consideration in the first action.
T. Gr. Kavanagh, J., did not sit in this case.