Loughridge v. Morris

3 Citing cases

  1. Wilson v. Vance

    1952 OK 19 (Okla. 1952)   Cited 2 times

    "A former judgment cannot be relied upon in support of a plea in bar unless the former suit in which the judgment was rendered was based on the same cause of action upon which the latter suit is based." The application of the rule is aptly illustrated in the case of Loughridge v. Morris, 68 Okla. 80, 171 P. 451. In that case the court held:

  2. Schleicher v. Schleicher

    120 Conn. 528 (Conn. 1935)   Cited 92 times
    In Schleicher v. Schleicher, 120 Conn. 528, 182 A. 162, 104 A.L.R. 572, the Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors held that one who, believing himself to be the owner of realty, has in good faith made improvements or expenditures upon such property, is entitled on equitable principles to reimbursement by the true owner, of the amount to which the value of the property has been enhanced by such improvements or expenditures.

    The present ground of claimed recovery is distinct and severable from the claim made and litigated there. The plaintiff is entitled to maintain an independent suit to recover for those expenditures after the determination of the title to the land in the former judgment. Maloney v. Rust, 42 Conn. 236, 242; Kane v. Morehouse, 46 Conn. 300, 304; Lovell v. Hammond Co., 66 Conn. 500, 512, 34 A. 511; House Cold Tire Setter Co. v. Ingraham, 83 Conn. 31, 33, 75 A. 80; Viall v. Lionel Mfg. Co., 90 Conn. 694, 698, 98 A. 329; Brady v. Anderson, 110 Conn. 432, 436, 148 A. 365; Loughridge v. Morris, 68 Okla. 80, 171 P. 451; 34 C. J. pp. 823, 836. In Ensign v. Batterson, 68 Conn. 298, 36 A. 51, the facts were that the defendant had purchased a vacant lot from a savings bank which had acquired title by foreclosure.

  3. Oklahoma State Bank v. Dotson

    109 Okla. 190 (Okla. 1925)   Cited 3 times

    The necessity arises where the facts are material to the case and not where the facts occurring constitute a new and different cause of action, which may or may not be joined in the cause already pending, in a separate count as provided in sections 266 and 273, Comp. Stats. 1921. This holding is supported by many authorities. In Loughridge v. Morris, 68 Okla. 80, 171 P. 451, it is held: "The rule is well established that a former judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction between the same parties and involving the same subject-matter is conclusive, not only as to every matter involved in the former case, but as to every matter which might have been pleaded or given in evidence whether same was pleaded or not. Prince v. Gosnell, 47 Okla. 570, 149 P. 1162, and cases cited.