Michigan Supreme Court, 1864

Tucker v. Rohrback

Michigan Supreme Court · Decided October 2, 1864 · Martin, Other

13 Mich. 73; 1864 Mich. LEXIS 59

Counsel

T. M. Cooley and F. G. Fuller, for plaintiff in error:

Cases that cite this one

37 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

West Michigan Park Ass'n v. Fogg (Mich. Ct. App. 1987)
DeCare v. American Fidelity Fire Insurance (Mich. Ct. App. 1984)
Pike v. City of Wyoming (Mich. 1988)
Gose v. Monroe Auto Equipment Co. (Mich. 1980)
Strachan v. Mutual Aid and Neigborhood Club, Inc. (Mich. Ct. App. 1978)
Bugg v. Fairview Farms, Inc. (Mich. 1971)
Jordan v. CA Roberts Company (Mich. 1967)
Hatch v. Wayne Circuit Judge (Mich. 1904)
Verbrugghe v. Select Specialty Hospital-Macomb County, Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2006)
Sherrell v. Bugaski (Mich. Ct. App. 1988)
In re Koernke Estate (Mich. Ct. App. 1988)
Admiral Merchants Motor Freight, Inc v. Department of Labor (Mich. Ct. App. 1986)
Michigan Oil Co. v. Department of Natural Resources (Mich. Ct. App. 1985)
Brownridge v. Michigan Mutual Insurance (Mich. Ct. App. 1982)
Ward v. Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange (Mich. Ct. App. 1982)
Bray v. Department of State (Mich. Ct. App. 1980)
Grano v. Ortisi (Mich. Ct. App. 1978)
Ferguson v. VILLAGE OF MONTROSE (Mich. Ct. App. 1977)
Curry v. City of Detroit (Mich. 1975)
American Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. v. Mich. Mut. Liab. Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 1975)
American Mutual Liability Insurance v. Michigan Mutual Liability Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 1975)
Sheridan Drive Assoc. v. Woodlawn Backproperty Owners Assoc. (Mich. Ct. App. 1970)
Malesev v. Garavaglia (Mich. Ct. App. 1968)
Giegling v. Helmbold (Mich. 1959)
Sovereign v. Sovereign (Mich. 1958)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Martin Ch. J.:

That a judgment, to constitute a bar .to a claim in a subsequent action, must be rendered upon the merits,, upon the same mattér in issue, and between the same parties or their privies, is unquestionable.

In the present case, testimony was offered, and received, tending to show that a portion of the property here in litigation had been the subject of a former suit,, between this same plaintiff, and the defendant and his-, wife, and that judgment was given therein. What that judgment was, or upon what founded, we are not informed. It may have been rendered upon the merits,, or for misjoinder of parties,- or other collateral reason. *76We are not sufficiently informed respecting- it to attribute to it any force, or to determine its character. We only know, that it was a judgment against other parties than the one now before us as defendant.

The judgment is reversed, with costs, and a new trial ■ordered.

The other Justices concurred in the result.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.