# Home Owners Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Northwestern Fire & Marine Insurance

> Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · June 7, 1968 · 354 Mass. 448

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9718163

## Case

- **Full name:** Home Owners Federal Savings & Loan Association vs. Northwestern Fire & Marine Insurance Company
- **Court:** Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
- **Decided:** June 7, 1968
- **Citations:** 354 Mass. 448; 238 N.E.2d 55; 1968 Mass. LEXIS 838
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Cutter
- **Judges:** Wilkins, Spalding, Whittemore, Cutter, Kirk, Spiegel, Reardon
- **Cited by:** 82 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9718163

## Opinion text

Whittemore and Cutter, JJ.
(dissenting).
1. We concur in Mr. Justice Kirk’s view that the doctrine of collateral estoppel has no application to the present case. The doctrine, even between the same parties, applies only to those findings in the first litigation which were specifically made (or are necessarily implied in a general finding) and which are necessary to, or at least support, the first judgment. Cambria v. Jeffery, 307 Mass. 49, 50 . Restatement: Judgments, § 68 (1) and comment (o). James, Civil Procedure, § 11.21. Moore, Federal Practice (2d ed.) §§ 0.442 [2], 0.443 [5], pp. 3855-3861, 3919-3929. Findings which were actually an alternative basis of decision in the earlier case may be within the rule. In the case before us, the finding of the trial judge in the first case (that the policy was in effect) does not seem to us to have been necessary to the ultimate decision in that case or to support it.
The usual rules governing collateral estoppel, in the long run, are likely to avoid unfairness and waste of judicial time. In most cases, as here, it is easy to ascertain the actual ground of the adjudication in a former case. Substantial *457 inquiry, however, may be required to discover what other issues of fact were litigated and decided otherwise than as the ground of relief.
2. We do not dispute the view of the majority that, in cases to which the doctrine of collateral estoppel is applicable, a defendant in a later action is not to be prevented from relying defensively upon a determination in a former action (in which the plaintiff in the later action was the plaintiff) merely because the defendant in the later action was not a party to the former action. To this extent, as a practical matter, the requirement of mutuality of estoppel has already been modified by this court. See Albernaz v. Fall River, 346 Mass. 336, 339-340 (where, however, collateral estoppel was not applied offensively).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9718163. Public record. Not legal advice.