{ "id": 1537568, "name": "Thompson v. Southern Lumber Company", "name_abbreviation": "Thompson v. Southern Lumber Co.", "decision_date": "1914-06-15", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "380", "last_page": "384", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "113 Ark. 380" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "51 So. 529", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "So.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "118 N. Y. 163", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "85 Mo. App. 659", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mo. App.", "case_ids": [ 1492579 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mo-app/85/0659-01" ] }, { "cite": "107 Fed. 597", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.", "case_ids": [ 7853184 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/f/107/0597-01" ] }, { "cite": "86 Ky. 128", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ky.", "case_ids": [ 1320684 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ky/86/0128-01" ] }, { "cite": "28 W. Va. 794", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "W. Va.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "70 S. W. 1109", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "83 Ark. 545", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1527180 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/83/0545-01" ] }, { "cite": "52 Fed. 371", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.", "case_ids": [ 1630347 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/f/52/0371-01" ] }, { "cite": "79 Ark. 62", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1495699 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/79/0062-01" ] }, { "cite": "104 Ark. 196", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1350582 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/104/0196-01" ] }, { "cite": "17 Ark. 203", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8725527 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/17/0203-01" ] }, { "cite": "73 S. W. 96", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "82 Ark. 419", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "83 Ark. 157", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "96 Ark. 409", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "96 Ark. 454", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "105 Ark. 86", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1347088 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/105/0086-01" ] }, { "cite": "52 Fed. 371", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.", "case_ids": [ 1630347 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f/52/0371-01" ] }, { "cite": "79 Ark. 62", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1495699 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/79/0062-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 472, "char_count": 9813, "ocr_confidence": 0.465, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.3553981856764012e-07, "percentile": 0.6344182614507641 }, "sha256": "3f4947c5034db88f95507769c05bc08315b2c9b373da418659eb63cf8fb6b45e", "simhash": "1:b8ebc5a60664ccb7", "word_count": 1724 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:15:31.349152+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Hart, J., and Kirby, J., dissent." ], "parties": [ "Thompson v. Southern Lumber Company." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Wood, J.,\n(after stating the facts). It appears from the pleadings and the evidence that Gladys Thompson, .who was one of the children of Mattie Thompson and Tom Thompson, and an heir of Tom Thompson, was not a party to the suit that had been formerly instituted in the Bradley Circuit Court by Mattie Thompson, for herself as widow and as next friend for her children, Pebble, Yerdie and Tom Thompson, against the appellee for damages alleged to have been sustained by them on account of the alleged negligent killing of Tom Thompson.\n\u201cA judgment is conclusive only between the parties and their privies.\u201d Biederman v. Parker, 105 Ark. 86; Doss v. Long Prairie Levee District, 96 Ark. 454; Cleveland-McLeod Lbr. Co. v. McLeod, 96 Ark. 409; Updegraff v. Marked Tree Lbr Co., 83 Ark. 157; Albie v. Jones, 82 Ark. 419.\nThe judgment as set up in the plea of former adjudication, was a personal judgment, and could only bind the parties to that record and their privies. Bigelow on Estoppel, p. 127. Gladys Thompson was not a privy in interest to any of the parties to that suit. Whatever damages she might have been entitled to recover for the alleged negligent killing of her father were given to her by the statute (Kirby\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 6290), and her proportionate part of those she would receive by virtue of the statute, independent of the widow or any of the other heirs of her father, Tom Thompson. She was not connected with any of these in any way as to her part of whatever damages the widow and heirs at law of Tom Thompson might have been entitled to recover. She was therefore not a privy in interest to any of them. As she was neither a party nor a privy to the former suit, she was not bound by the judgment therein.\nIt does not follow, however, that because she is not bound by the proceedings in the former suit, that she is is entitled to recover in this action. In St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Needham, 52 Fed. Rep. 371, the circuit court of appeals, through Judge Sanborn, construing the above statute, held, that the widow and all other persons entitled to share in the distribution of the personal estate of the one killed by the wrongful act of another, are heirs at law, and when the -widow, in the absence of personal representatives, brings a suit under the act, she must join all persons having an interest in the subject-matter therein.\nAnd in McBride v. Berman, 79 Ark. 62, following'the construction of the court of appeals, we said, construing the same statute (Kirby\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 \u00a7 6289, 6290): \u201cManifestly these statutes did not intend this splitting of the cause of action, and contemplate this multiplicity of actions for one act of negligence resulting in death. The statute (commonly called Lord Campbell\u2019s Act) intends one action to be brought for the death sued on. This action must be brought by the personal representative, if there be administration. If there is no administration, then the action must be brought by the heirs at law of such deceased person. While the wife is not technically an \u2018heir at law,\u2019 yet she is specifically named in this statute as a beneficiary in such action for the recovery for \u2018pecuniary injuries,\u2019 resulting from the death of the husband, and the term \u2018heir at law\u2019 is used in the broader sense of one receiving a distributive part of the estate and a beneficiary of the action created by these acts. * * *\n\u201cIn default of a personal representative an action brought under Lord Campbell\u2019s act must make the widow (if there be one) and the heirs at law parties thereto.\u201d\nIt follows from these decisions as an indispensable prerequisite to the maintenance of a suit under the statute' supra, that the widow and heirs of the person killed by the wrongful act of another shall all be made parties.\nIt appears as an undisputed fact in this record that Mattie Thompson was the widow of Tom Thompson, and that he bad other children who were his heirs at law, and none of these were made parties. As the making of the widow and other heirs parties was a condition precedent to the maintenance of the suit by the appellant as next friend for Gladys Thompson, the court did not err in dismissing her complaint, although it gave the wrong reason therefor. While the plea of res adjudicata was not technically sustained because the rights of Gladys Thompson had never been adjudicated in any former suit, nevertheless the judgment of the court dismissing her complaint was correct -for the reason we have stated. This court can not reverse a judgment that is right upon the undisputed facts presented in the record, although the trial court may have based its ruling upon an erroneous reason and a misconception of the law.\nThe judgment of the court dismissing appellant\u2019s complaint and thereby abating the present suit is correct and it is affirmed.\nHart, J., and Kirby, J., dissent.", "type": "majority", "author": "Wood, J.," } ], "attorneys": [ "Mehaffy, Reid & Mehaffy, for appellant.", "Wynne \u00e9 Harrison and Fred 8. Purcell, for appellee. ." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Thompson v. Southern Lumber Company.\nOpinion delivered June 15, 1914.\n1. Judgments \u2014 parties\u2014conclusiveness.\u2014A judgment is conclusive \u25a0only between the .parties and their privies. (Page 382.)\n2. Judgments \u2014 parties\u2014privies.\u2014A person who is neither a party , nor a privy to a suit .is not bound by the judgment \u00a1rendered therein. (Page 383.)\n3. Death by wrongful act \u2014 pleading\u2014parties.\u2014In' an action for damages for wrongful death under Kirby\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 \u00a7 6289, 6290, it is an indispensable prerequisite to the maintenance of the suit that the widow and heirs of the person killed by the wrongful aot shall be made panties. (Page 383.)\n4. Death by wrongful act \u2014 action\u2014parties.\u2014An action for damages for death by the wrongful act of defendant, can not be maintained under Kirby\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 \u00a7 6289, 6290, unless the widow and all the heirs at law are joined. (Page 384.)\n6. Appeal and error \u2014 correct judgment \u2014 reasons therefor. \u2014 The Supreme Court will not reverse a judgment that is right upon the undisputed facts presented in the record, although the trial court may have based its ruling upon an erroneous reason, and a misconception of the law. (Page 384.)\nAppeal from Bradley Circuit Court; II. W. Wells, Judge;\naffirmed.\n. STATEMENT BY THE COURT.\nAppellant instituted this suit against the appellee in the Bradley Circuit Court, alleging that Mattie Thompson was the mother of Gladys Thompson, a girl child of the age of five years; that Gladys Thompson was the daughter of Tom Thompson, deceased, and his surviving heir at law; that Tom Thompson was, on the 27th day of October, 1910, an employee of the appellee lumber company, and was injured and killed by the negligence of the lumber company, setting out in detail the acts alleged as negligence. Appellant prayed judgment against the appellee in the sum of $10,000.\nAppellee filed a plea of res adjudicaba, alleging that at a former .term of the Bradley Circuit Court, Mattie Thompson, for herself, Pebhle Thompson, Yerdie Thompson and Tom Thompson, minors, instituted suit for the collection of damages against the appellee for the alleged negligent killing of Tom Thompson; that at his death the said Tom Thompson left surviving him the plaintiff as his widow and Pebble, Yerdie and Tom Thompson, his children and heirs at law; that a trial was had and a verdict rendered in favor of the appellee and judgment was entered in its favor, from which an appeal was taken to the Supreme Court and the judgment affirmed; that the cause of action in this suit was the- same .as that set forth in the complaint in the present suit; that the present appellant, for Gladys Thompson, had no other or greater cause of action against the appellee than plaintiffs had in the former suit, and that this cause therefore had been formerly adjudicated. Appellee made as exhibits to its plea the complaint, answer and judgment and verdict in the former suit.\nThe appellant filed a response to appellee\u2019s plea, denying that the same issues were raised in the cause formerly adjudicated; denying that the parties to the former suit were the same, and denying that Gladys Thompson, for whom the present suit was instituted, was a party to the former suit, and setting up that the record did not disclose that Gladys Thompson was a party to that suit, and averring that as a matter of fact she was not made a party, and that as she was an infant, she could not act for herself and make herself a party to that suit, and that therefore the court, in the former suit, had no jurisdiction over Gladys Thompson to hear and determine any rights that she might have had in the trial of that cause; that the reason Gladys Thompson did not become a party to that suit was because of an oversight and mistake of counsel representing the plaintiff, who had no personal knowledge of the existence and being of Gladys Thompson, minor, or her rights in the premises, which mistake and oversight she was not responsible for.\nThe court, after hearing the testimony on the issue thus raised, sustained appellee\u2019s plea and entered a judgment dismissing appellant\u2019s complaint and adjudging costs against her, from which she duly prosecutes this appeal.\nMehaffy, Reid & Mehaffy, for appellant.\nPlaintiff is not estopped by the former judgment, nor was she concluded by the doctrine of res adjud\u00edcala. Personal judgments conclude only parties and their privies. Bigelow on Estoppel, 127; Herman on Estoppel & Res Adjudicata, Yol. 1, p. 140; 73 S. W. 96; 17 Ark. 203; 20 Jd. 91; 82 Id. 419; 96 Id. 454; 20 Id. 629; 23 Id. 338; 64 Id. 330 ;\u2022 75 Id. 1; 77 Id. 477; 96 Id. 409; 105 Id. 86.\nWynne \u00e9 Harrison and Fred 8. Purcell, for appellee. .\nThere was but one cause of action from the alleged wrongful death, and that was settled in 104 Ark. 196. The matter is res adjudicata. 79 Ark. 62; 52 Fed. 371; 83 Ark. 545; 117 111. App. 512; 70 S. W. 1109; 28 Id. 83: 28 W. Va. 794; 86 Ky. 128; 107 Fed. 597; 85 Mo. App. 659; 118 N. Y. 163; 51 So. 529." }, "file_name": "0380-01", "first_page_order": 400, "last_page_order": 404 }