“If the record of the former trial shows that the verdict could not have been rendered without deciding the particular matter, it will be considered as having settled that matter as to all future actions between the parties or their privies, and if a judgment necessarily presupposes certain premises, they are as conclusive as the judgment itself, for the judgment is an adjudication on all matters which are essential to support it.”
How later courts described this case
- “If the record of the former trial shows that the verdict could not have been rendered without deciding the particular matter, it will be considered as having settled that matter as to all future actions between the parties or their privies, and if a judgment necessarily presupposes certain premises, they are as conclusive as the judgment itself, for the judgment is an adjudication on all matters which are essential to support it.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BENNETT, J.,
Specially Concurring. — In this case I concur with the opinion of Mr. Justice Bean as to the admissibility of the judgment transcript of the previous trial in the action by the plaintiff against Allen and Reddy, but I think the case should be reversed and remanded for a new trial. I do not wish to concur in the implied construction of Section 3 of Article VII of the Constitution of Oregon, adopted in 1910.