ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, TAMPA ASSOCIATION OF CREDIT MEN, A CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
HOLLIE D. WHIDDEN, JOINED BY HER HUSBAND, C. W. WHIDDEN, APPELEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's decision to overrule a plea of res judicata, holding that a prior demurrer does not bar a subsequent suit if the new pleadings contain essential allegations omitted from the first.
No, a prior judgment on demurrer is not a bar to a second suit for the same cause if the second suit's pleadings supply essential allegations omitted from the first.
“In general, a final judgment on demurrer is not a bar to a second suit or action for the same cause between the same parties as an estoppel by judgment because of the former adjudication, where the pleadings in the second suit or action supply the essential allegations omitted from the first suit or action, though the conduct of the parties in not presenting the case when an opportunity was afforded may under special circumstances operate as an estoppel in pais.”
This quote explains the general rule regarding demurrers and res judicata, particularly when subsequent pleadings are amended.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant filed a plea of res judicata against the appellees' amended bill of complaint. The chancellor overruled this plea, leading to the curren…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Res Adjudicata cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
In this case a plea of res adjudicata was addressed to the amended bill of complaint. The plea was overruled, from which order appeal was taken. The order of. the chancellor should be sustained on authority of the opinion in the case of Prall v. Prall, 58 Fla. 496, 50 Sou. 867, 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 577, in which the Court say:
“In general, a final judgment on demurrer is not a bar to a second suit or action for the same cause between the same parties as an estoppel by judgment because of the former adjudication, where the pleadings in the second suit or action supply the essential allegations omitted from the first suit or action, though the conduct of the parties in not presenting the case when an opportunity was afforded may under special circumstances operate as an estoppel in pais. Conclusions of law are not admitted by demurrer. ’ ’
Affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.