J. K. Orr Shoe Co. v. Edwards

Citations

• 111 Miss. 542
• 71 So. 816

Syllabus

<p>1. Judgment. Conclusiveness. Different claims. Matters which could not have been adjudicated limitation of action. Fraud. Discovery. Conspiracy. Equitable jurisdiction.</p> <p>A judgment for defendant in a former suit for shoes sold by plaintiff to defendant which judgment was awarded defendant on his plea that he had not received the goods and also that plaintiff had released him in consideration of his assigning of the cause of action against the railway for non-delivery, does not bar a later suit by the same plaintiff, alleging a fraudulent conspiracy hy defendant with another to defraud plainttff of the value of these goods, which was discovered after the first judgment.</p> <p>2. Limitation or Actions. Fraud. Discovery.</p> <p>Where complainant exercised reasonable diligence to discover a fraud, the statute of limitations does not run against him until the fraud is discovered.</p> <p>3. Conspiracy. Equitable norisdiction.</p> <p>Where a bill charges a fraudulent conspiracy in obtaining- goods belonging to complainant and prays discovery and for an accounting, it shows a case for equity jurisdiction.</p>