Court Opinion

ID: 9533409
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:31:34.718611+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:29:02.843359
License: Public Domain

Mr. Chief Justice Holland
dissenting:
I cannot concur in the majority opinion in the above entitled matter. It is my desire to briefly state my opinion as to a question raised by the majority opinion and not particularly stressed in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Frantz.
From my study of the record, it is abundantly clear that in a former action between the same parties and upon the same subject matter (the former case referred to as “B-629”), the final judgment there was a judgment upon the merits, and, as is borne out by the statement of the trial court in entering the judgment, that evidence was taken to the conclusion of plaintiff’s case and judgment of dismissal entered thereon. This is further supported by plaintiff in error’s brief on page 4 in discussing the matter of the first case designated as “B-629,” wherein counsel states, “After the conclusion of Admiral’s case, Trio orally moved for a dismissal * * *.” Applying Rule 41 (b) of our rules of civil procedure, where, as here, the trial court did not otherwise specify, the order of dismissal then made operates as an adjudication on the merits. In my opinion the rule of res judicata is clearly applicable, and the second case between the same parties and upon the same subject matter, cannot be sustained.
The judgment should be affirmed.