Opinion
May 21, 1974.
Editorial Note:
This case has been marked 'not for publication' by the court.
Lewis, Jones & Ellwood, Henry V. Ellwood, Denver, for plaintiff-appellant.
Mason, Reuler & Peek, P.C., Maurice Reuler, Denver, for defendant-appellee.
SILVERSTEIN, Chief Judge.
Plaintiff, P. K. Levy, sued Business Adjustment Service, Inc., to recover damages for the alleged wrongful filing, by defendant, of a civil action against plaintiff in the county court. Defendant, in its answer, asserted that the claim was barred by the doctrine of Res judicata. Following a hearing, the court dismissed the action on that ground. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment of dismissal. We affirm.
From the sketchy record before this court it appears that in the action in the county court the defendant sued, as assignee, to recover on accounts allegedly owed by Levy. Levy filed a counterclaim which, except for the amount of damages claimed, alleged, almost word for word, the same claim asserted in the present complaint. The county court entered judgment in favor of Business Adjustment Service.
Having been asserted and determined in the county court, the present claim is barred by the doctrine of Res judicata. The county court had jurisdiction to hear the counterclaim. See C.R.C.P. 313(b)(2). '(T)he judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, so long as it remains unreversed, is conclusive upon the parties and their privies when the judgment is rendered upon the merits, and without fraud or collusion, upon a matter within the jurisdiction of the court rendering the judgment.' Fort v. Bietsch, 85 Colo. 176, 274 P. 812. The record discloses that the above criteria have been met in the present case. Questions litigated in one action may not again be litigated by the same parties in another action. Bijou Irrigation District v. Weldon Valley Ditch Co., 67 Colo. 336, 184 P. 382. See Sloniger v. Rains, 120 Colo. 339, 208 P.2d 941.
Other issues asserted by plaintiff in this court were not raised in the trial court and therefore will not be considered here. Fallis v. Zurich Insurance Co., 28 Colo.App. 235, 472 P.2d 174.
Judgment affirmed.
COYTE and ENOCH, JJ., concur.