res judicata is that an existing doctrine in Arkansas

1963Co. v. McGuire, 205 Ark. 658 , 169 S. W. 2d 872 , we quoted the language from American Jurisprudence to explain res judicata: “ ‘Briefly stated, the doctrine of res judicata is that an existing final judgment rendered upon the merits, without fraud or collusion, by a court of competent jurisdiction, is conclusive of rights, questions, and facts in issue, as to the parties and their privies, in all other actions in the same or any other judicial tribunal of concurrent jurisdiction.’ ” In Robertson v. Evans, 180 Ark. 420 , 21 S. W. 2d 610 , Mr. Justice Humphreys, speaking for the Court, said: “T

1963Co. v. McGuire, 205 Ark. 658 , 169 S. W. 2d 872 , we quoted the language from American Jurisprudence to explain res judicata: “ ‘Briefly stated, the doctrine of res judicata is that an existing final judgment rendered upon the merits, without fraud or collusion, by a court of competent jurisdiction, is conclusive of rights, questions, and facts in issue, as to the parties and their privies, in all other actions in the same or any other judicial tribunal of concurrent jurisdiction.’ ” In Robertson v. Evans, 180 Ark. 420 , 21 S. W. 2d 610 , Mr. Justice Humphreys, speaking for the Court, said: “T

1963Avera v. Rice, 64 Ark. 330 ; Treadwell v. Pitts, 64 Ark. 447 ; Doss v. Long Prairie Levee Dist., 96 Ark. 454 .” In Pogel v. Butter, supra, we quoted an earlier case: “ ‘To render a judgment in one suit conclusive of a matter sought to be litigated in another, it must appear, by the record, or by extrinsic evidence, that the particular matter sought to be concluded was raised and determined in the prior suit. ’ ’ ’ In Hatch v. Scott, supra, we said: “In Smith v. McNeal, 109 U. S. 426 , ( 3 S. Ct. 319 , 27 L.

1963Avera v. Rice, 64 Ark. 330 ; Treadwell v. Pitts, 64 Ark. 447 ; Doss v. Long Prairie Levee Dist., 96 Ark. 454 .” In Pogel v. Butter, supra, we quoted an earlier case: “ ‘To render a judgment in one suit conclusive of a matter sought to be litigated in another, it must appear, by the record, or by extrinsic evidence, that the particular matter sought to be concluded was raised and determined in the prior suit. ’ ’ ’ In Hatch v. Scott, supra, we said: “In Smith v. McNeal, 109 U. S. 426 , ( 3 S. Ct. 319 , 27 L.

1963Avera v. Rice, 64 Ark. 330 ; Treadwell v. Pitts, 64 Ark. 447 ; Doss v. Long Prairie Levee Dist., 96 Ark. 454 .” In Pogel v. Butter, supra, we quoted an earlier case: “ ‘To render a judgment in one suit conclusive of a matter sought to be litigated in another, it must appear, by the record, or by extrinsic evidence, that the particular matter sought to be concluded was raised and determined in the prior suit. ’ ’ ’ In Hatch v. Scott, supra, we said: “In Smith v. McNeal, 109 U. S. 426 , ( 3 S. Ct. 319 , 27 L.

1963Avera v. Rice, 64 Ark. 330 ; Treadwell v. Pitts, 64 Ark. 447 ; Doss v. Long Prairie Levee Dist., 96 Ark. 454 .” In Pogel v. Butter, supra, we quoted an earlier case: “ ‘To render a judgment in one suit conclusive of a matter sought to be litigated in another, it must appear, by the record, or by extrinsic evidence, that the particular matter sought to be concluded was raised and determined in the prior suit. ’ ’ ’ In Hatch v. Scott, supra, we said: “In Smith v. McNeal, 109 U. S. 426 , ( 3 S. Ct. 319 , 27 L.

1963Co. v. McGuire, 205 Ark. 658 , 169 S. W. 2d 872 , we quoted the language from American Jurisprudence to explain res judicata: “ ‘Briefly stated, the doctrine of res judicata is that an existing final judgment rendered upon the merits, without fraud or collusion, by a court of competent jurisdiction, is conclusive of rights, questions, and facts in issue, as to the parties and their privies, in all other actions in the same or any other judicial tribunal of concurrent jurisdiction.’ ” In Robertson v. Evans, 180 Ark. 420 , 21 S. W. 2d 610 , Mr. Justice Humphreys, speaking for the Court, said: “T

1963Co. v. McGuire, 205 Ark. 658 , 169 S. W. 2d 872 , we quoted the language from American Jurisprudence to explain res judicata: “ ‘Briefly stated, the doctrine of res judicata is that an existing final judgment rendered upon the merits, without fraud or collusion, by a court of competent jurisdiction, is conclusive of rights, questions, and facts in issue, as to the parties and their privies, in all other actions in the same or any other judicial tribunal of concurrent jurisdiction.’ ” In Robertson v. Evans, 180 Ark. 420 , 21 S. W. 2d 610 , Mr. Justice Humphreys, speaking for the Court, said: “T

1958But, says appellees: “The circuit court’s order of dismissal dated August 28, 1957, was res judicata or law of the case with respect to the circuit court’s order of dismissal dated November 7,1957, and appellant’s failure to prosecute an appeal from the first order of dismissal by the circuit court constitutes a complete bar to this appeal.” We do not agree, for the reason that on the date (August 28, 1957) that the order of dismissal was made by the circuit court Garner was not then a party to the action, and that judgment could therefore have no effect on his rights. “. . . the doctrine of r

1958But, says appellees: “The circuit court’s order of dismissal dated August 28, 1957, was res judicata or law of the case with respect to the circuit court’s order of dismissal dated November 7,1957, and appellant’s failure to prosecute an appeal from the first order of dismissal by the circuit court constitutes a complete bar to this appeal.” We do not agree, for the reason that on the date (August 28, 1957) that the order of dismissal was made by the circuit court Garner was not then a party to the action, and that judgment could therefore have no effect on his rights. “. . . the doctrine of r

1957The doctrine of res adjudicata was stated in the case of Watson v. Suddoth, 218 Ark. 960 , 239 S. W. 2d 602 , in this language: “Briefly stated, the doctrine of res judicata is that an existing final judgment rendered upon the merits, without fraud or collusion, by a court of competent jurisdiction, is conclusive of rights, questions, and facts in issue, as to the parties and their privies, in all other actions in the same or any other judicial tribunal of concurrent jurisdiction.” See also Missouri Pacific RR Co., Thompson, Trustee v. McGuire, 205 Ark. 658 , 169 S. W. 2d 872 .

1957The doctrine of res adjudicata was stated in the case of Watson v. Suddoth, 218 Ark. 960 , 239 S. W. 2d 602 , in this language: “Briefly stated, the doctrine of res judicata is that an existing final judgment rendered upon the merits, without fraud or collusion, by a court of competent jurisdiction, is conclusive of rights, questions, and facts in issue, as to the parties and their privies, in all other actions in the same or any other judicial tribunal of concurrent jurisdiction.” See also Missouri Pacific RR Co., Thompson, Trustee v. McGuire, 205 Ark. 658 , 169 S. W. 2d 872 .