Cited by

11 O’Neil v. Rueb, 215 Minn. 296 , 10 N. W. (2d) 363 ; Fox v. Fox, 154 Minn. 169 , .

“I have concluded that the case falls within the exception to the general rule [that such a judgment is a bar to a second action be *427 tween the same parties involving issues covered by the pleadings in the first action] expressed in Fox v. Fox, 154 Minn. 169 , at page 174; Steinberg v. Silverman, 186 Minn. 610 , at page 612, and O’Neill v. Rueb, 215 Minn. 296 , .” The facts are as follows: On November 16, 1919, the Johnsons, by warranty deed, conveyed the premises to Ella Dorr who, in turn, a

respect to the rule: “* * * The rule stated may be subject to some exceptions, as for instance it might be shown that a particular issue or question was not in fact litigated by reason of its express withdrawal before the trial or final submission of the case * * * or, in a case involving several causes of action, that one of them was dismissed or expressly abandoned before trial.” In Fox v. Fox, 154 Minn. 169, 174 , , we said: “* * * A doctrine generally approved by the courts is that, where a

Przyblyski v. Pellowski, 141 Minn. 193 , ; Fox v. Fox, 154 Minn. 169 , ; Melady-Briggs Cattle Corp. v. Drovers State Bank, supra; City of Vicksburg v. Henson, 231 U. S. 259 , 34 S. Ct. 95 , 58 L. ed. 209; United S. M. Corp. v. United States, 258 U. S. 451 , 42 S. Ct. 363 , 66 L. ed. 708; Oklahoma v. Texas, 272 U. S. 21 , 47 S. Ct. 9 , 71 L. ed. 145.

Andrews v. School District No. 4, 35 Minn. 70 , ; Przyblyski v. Pellowski, 141 Minn. 193 , ; Fox v. Fox, 154 Minn. 169 , .

Craver v. Christian, 34 Minn. 397 , ; Conrad v. Bauldwin, 44 Minn. 406 , ; McCune v. Eaton, 77 Minn. 404 , ; Cartwright v. Hall, 88 Minn. 349 , ; County of Morrison v. Lejouburg, 124 Minn. 495 , ; Lower v. Froelich, 151 Minn. 552 , ; Fox v. Fox, 154 Minn. 169 , ; Fifield v. Biesanz, 167 Minn. 399 , .

Fox v. Fox, 154 Minn. 169 , 174 , 191 N.W.

Relief Assn. 84 Minn. 184 , ; Skordal v. Stanton, 89 Minn. 511 , ; Fox v. Fox, 154 Minn. 169 , ; James v. Pettis, 134 Minn. 438 , ; McEvoy v. Bock, 37 Minn. 402 , ; Doescher v. Spratt, 61 Minn. 326 , .

In Fox v. Fox, 154 Minn. 169 , , plaintiff brought a first action to recover for breach of a contract which provided for the support of the plaintiff and in addition thereto for the payment to her of stated sums in money.

The question was considered in Bojko v. City of Minneapolis, where this statement is made [ 154 Minn. 169 ]: “It is immaterial in what language the failure to perform the governmental function or authority be couched in the complaint; the rule of law on the subject cannot thus be changed.

The question was considered in Bojko v. City of Minneapolis, where this statement is made [ 154 Minn. 169 ]: "It is immaterial in what language the failure to perform the governmental function or authority be couched in the complaint; the rule of law on the subject cannot thus be changed.

170 ; Fox v. Fox, 154 Minn. 169 , 191 N.W.

Co. v. Jacobson, 133 Minn. 326 , ; James v. Pettis, 134 Minn. 438 , ; Venie v. Harriet State Bank, 146 Minn. 142 , ; Fox v. Fox, 154 Minn. 169 , .