“Where a situation arises which so obviously calls for application of the doctrine of res judicata ... definitions of ‘privies’ and ‘privity’ drawn from other situations do not constitute an obstacle to reaching a sound result.”
How later courts described this case
- “Where a situation arises which so obviously calls for application of the doctrine of res judicata ... definitions of ‘privies’ and ‘privity’ drawn from other situations do not constitute an obstacle to reaching a sound result.”
- Dominican law applied in Puerto Rico
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
KNIGHT, J., Dissenting.
It is my conclusion that the defendant’s petition for rehearing should be granted in order to reconsider that portion of our decision dealing with the question of the application of the defenses of estoppel and election of remedies, insofar as those defenses affect the defendant company’s liability for the payment to plaintiff of the amount of the dividends which admittedly said company has already paid to plaintiff’s husband. Furthermore, our decision affirming that portion of the trial court’s judgment is based largely upon the assumption that the trial court found that in making such payments said company did not act “in good faith reliance on any of the Philippine adjudications, or transactions”; whereas as pointed out by the petition for rehearing the record does not support that assumption. The trial court’s decision contains no finding that in making said payments the company did not act in good faith, nor did it find that it did not rely on the Philippine judgments and decrees. In fact, so far as the record shows, plaintiff has never charged in any of her pleadings that said company did not act in good faith in making said payments or that it did not rely upon the validity of the Philippine adjudications.
For the reasons stated it is my opinion that a rehearing should be granted.
C Appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court is denied January 28, 1943.