Kapp v. Shields

Citations

• 17 Pa. Super. 524
• 1901 Pa. Super. LEXIS 349

Syllabus

<p>Res acljudieata — Former judgment — Evidence.</p> <p>The judgment of a court of concurrent jurisdiction directly on the point is, as a plea, a bar, or as evidence, conclusive between the same parties on the same matters directly in question in another court; but neither the judgment of a court of concurrent or exclusive jurisdiction is evidence of any matter incidentally cognizable, nor of any matter to be inferred by argument from the judgment.</p> <p>In determining whether a question is res adjudicata by reason of a former judgment, parol evidence may be given to show the basis of a former recovery, provided that such evidence does not contradict the record. The charge of the court in the former suit may also be examined to determine, if possible, on what point the recovery was had.</p> <p>Res adjudicata — Former judgment — Landlord and tenant.</p> <p>In an action against a surety for rent to recover instalments of rent alleged to have accrued since a former judgment for prior instalments, a claim that a total exoneration from liability under the lease based upon the broken promises of an alleged agent, was the matter, “ directly in question ” in the former trial, is not sustained, where a fair inference drawn from examination of the statement of claim, the affidavit of defense, the charge of the court, and a portion of the testimony, at the former trial, was that the question in issue was whether the tenant was not entitled to a partial deduction by reason of the landlord’s failure to do certain work upon the property as stipulated for in a parol agreement.</p>