Property Exchange & Sales, Inc. v. Garrett, 924 S.W.2d 30 (1996)
- Citation
- Property Exchange & Sales, Inc. v. Garrett, 924 S.W.2d 30 (1996)
- Parent Document
- Property Exchange & Sales, Inc. v. Garrett, 924 S.W.2d 30 (1996)
- Jurisdiction
- Missouri (state)
- Effective Date
- 1996-06-04
Other Sections in This Document (11)
- Property Exchange & Sales, Inc. v. Garrett, 924 S.W.2d 30 (1996)
- Property Exchange & Sales, Inc. v. Garrett, 924 S.W.2d 30 (1996)
- Property Exchange & Sales, Inc. v. Garrett, 924 S.W.2d 30 (1996)
- Property Exchange & Sales, Inc. v. Garrett, 924 S.W.2d 30 (1996)
- Property Exchange & Sales, Inc. v. Garrett, 924 S.W.2d 30 (1996)
- Property Exchange & Sales, Inc. v. Garrett, 924 S.W.2d 30 (1996)
- Property Exchange & Sales, Inc. v. Garrett, 924 S.W.2d 30 (1996)
- Property Exchange & Sales, Inc. v. Garrett, 924 S.W.2d 30 (1996)
- Property Exchange & Sales, Inc. v. Garrett, 924 S.W.2d 30 (1996)
- Property Exchange & Sales, Inc. v. Garrett, 924 S.W.2d 30 (1996)
- Property Exchange & Sales, Inc. v. Garrett, 924 S.W.2d 30 (1996)
Full Text
734 charsPlaintiffs sole argument on appeal is that the trial court erred in sustaining defendant’s motion to dismiss this action. Plaintiff claims that this cause of action, based on a writing for the payment of money, was a separate and distinct cause of action, unrelated to the previous litigation between the *32parties. The defendants contend that plaintiff has impermissibly attempted to split a cause of action, because this suit arises out of the same transaction as the previous litigation. Defendants also note that the allegations plaintiff makes in the present litigation have all been raised in the prior suits, and therefore the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel bar a trial court’s consideration of this matter.