BROWN v. BROWN

Supreme Court of Georgia1956-02-15No. 19184

212 Ga. 202

Summary · law.co

Holding. The prior injunction judgment is neither res judicata nor an estoppel by judgment on the question of whether a common-law marriage existed, and the trial court's finding of a valid common-law marriage was supported by evidence. Judgment affirmed.

The plaintiff argued that a prior injunction judgment should bar the current divorce suit because it supposedly resolved whether a common-law marriage existed between the parties. The court rejected this argument, explaining that the two cases involved different legal questions. The injunction suit concerned property rights and whether one party could interfere with the other's property; the divorce suit concerns marital status. A prior judgment on property rights does not resolve the separate question of whether the parties were married, since spouses retain the ability to seek injunctive relief against each other regarding property matters.

The plaintiff further contended that even if the prior judgment was not formally res judicata, it should operate as an estoppel. The court found this argument equally unpersuasive because the prior judgment never directly decided the marital status question. On the merits, the trial court found sufficient evidence of a valid common-law marriage, and the appellate court declined to disturb that finding where the evidence was in conflict.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether a prior injunction judgment bars a subsequent divorce action
Whether res judicata applies when prior and present suits involve different causes of action
Whether estoppel by judgment applies when marital status was not directly decided in the prior proceeding
Sufficiency of evidence to establish common-law marriage

Procedural posture

The plaintiff appealed a judgment from the trial court that found a valid common-law marriage existed between the parties in a divorce action.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

Wyatt, Presiding Justice.

It is contended by the plaintiff in error that by the judgment in the injunction suit above referred to it was determined, or under the rules of law it could have been determined, that the defendant in error was not the common-law wife of the plaintiff in error, and that this judgment is res judicata on the question of whether or not there was a common-law marriage subsisting between the parties to this action. We can not agree with this contention. The doctrine of res judicata is that all matters which were in issue or which under the rules of law could have been put in issue in a former suit between the same parties upon the same cause of action are barred so long as the former judgment stands unreversed. This rule of law does not apply to the facts in the instant case, since the present action is not upon the same cause of action as the former suit which is pleaded as a bar to the instant suit, the former suit being for an injunction to restrain an unlawful interference with property rights, and the instant suit being a suit for divorce.

If it be insisted that the plea in the instant suit is not a plea of res judicata, but is instead a plea of estoppel by judgment, it would still not apply- to the facts in the instant case. The doctrine of estoppel by judgment differs from the plea of res judicata, in that, while res judicata applies only as between the same parties and upon the same cause of action to matters which were actually in issue or which under the rules of law could have been put in issue, estoppel by judgment applies as between the same parties upon any cause of action to matters which were directly decided in the. former suit. In the instant case, it was not decided directly or otherwise that the plaintiff in the instant case was or was not the common-law wife of the defendant. Whether or not the defendant in the injunction suit was or was not the wife of the plaintiff in that suit would not and did not determine whether or not the plaintiff was entitled to an injunction restraining an unlawful interference with his property rights, since one spouse may restrain the other from an unlawful interference with property rights. Lemon v. Lemon, 141 Ga. 448 (81 S. E. 118); Lyon v. Lyon, 102 Ga. 453 (31 S. E. 34, 42 L. R. A. 194, 66 Am. St. R. 189); Blanton v. Blanton, 163 Ga. 361 (136 S. E. 141).

It follows, therefore, the former judgment granting to the husband an injunction is not res judicata nor an estoppel by judgment upon the question of whether or not there was a marriage subsisting between the parties in the instant suit.

It is next contended that the evidence was not sufficient to support the finding that a common-law marriage existed. The evidence upon this question was in sharp conflict. This being true, the judgment of the court below finding that there was a valid common-law marriage subsisting between the parties will not be disturbed.

It follows from what has been said above, the judgment complained of was not error for any reason assigned.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.