Cited by

For more than 100 years Minnesota has consistently applied the principle of res judicata first enunciated in Thompson v. Myrick, 24 Minn. 4 (1877): a valid and final judgment extinguishes the claim and precludes any subsequent action on that claim.

7 Cf. Thompson v. Myrick, 24 Minn. 4 .

Thompson v. Myrick, 24 Minn. 4 ; Bazille v. *309 Murray, 40 Minn. 48 , ; Swank v. St.

Thompson v. Myrick, *6 24 Minn. 4 .

But it has always been held that a final judgment on the merits is an absolute bar to another action between the same parties on the same cause of action.- Thus in Thompson v. Myrick, 24 Minn. 4, 11, 12 , it was said that : “Where the cause of action is entire and indivisible, the judgment determines all the right of the parties upon it, although it may be but partially presented to the- court.

Co. 119 Minn. 238 , ; Eder v. Fink, 147 Minn. 438 , ; Thompson v. Myrick, 24 Minn. 4 , Plaintiff had but one cause of action, arising from the alleged fraud in procuring from him the deed of his prospective inheritance.

Thompson v. Myrick, 24 Minn. 4 ; McKnight v. Minneapolis St.

If there are several grounds for relief, they constitute but one cause of action, and the judgment determines them all.” Thompson v. Myriclt, 24 Minn. 4 .

Thompson v. Myrick, 24 Minn. 4 ; Pierro v. St.

Thompson v. Myrick, 24 Minn. 4 ; Murray v. Nickerson, 90 Minn. 197 , ; Baumgartner v. Corliss, 115 Minn. 11 , .

In Thompson v. Myrick, 24 Minn. 4 , decided in 1877, the court held that a judgment decides “every matter which pertains to the •cause of action or defense set up in the action, or which is involved in the measure of relief to which the cause of action or defense •entitles the party, even though such matter may not be set forth in the pleadings, so as

McClung v. Condit, 27 Minn. 45 , ; Thompson v. Myrick, 24 Minn. 4 ; Northern Trust Co. v. Crystal Lake Cemetery Assn. 67 Minn. 131 , ; Kaufer v. Ford, 100 Minn. 49 , .

In Thompson v. Myrick, 24 Minn. 4 , this rule, stated in Harris v. Harris, 36 Barb.

’As stated by Chief Justice Gilfillan, in Thompson v. Myrick, 24 Minn. 4 , 12: “If, then, the cause of action upon which this action is brought, is the same as that upon which the first action was brought—if this action presents no new cause of action, but only new grounds for relief upon the same cause of action—the judgment is a bar.” This proposition is unquestionably sound both in reas

Thompson v. Myrick, 24 Minn. 4 ; O’Brien v. Manwaring, 79 Minn. 86 , , 79 Am.

In Thompson v. Myrick, 24 Minn. 4 , it was held that,- in an action for specific performance, to convey real estate, any claim which the plaintiff may have to compensation on account of defendant’s inability to perform his contract pertains to the cause of action, and, whether presented by the pleadings or not, is determined by the judgment.

Co., 39 Minn. 451 , ; Thompson v. Myrick, 24 Minn. 4 ; Ziebarth v. Nye, 42 Minn. 541 , ; O’Brien v. Manwaring, 79 Minn. 86 , .

Thompson v. Myrick, 24 Minn. 4 ; Long v. Webb, Id.

Thompson v. Myrick, 24 Minn. 4 .

See Thompson v. Myrick, 24 Minn. 4 .

Thompson v. Myrick, 24 Minn. 4 .

176 ; Cromwell v. County of Sac, 94 U. S. 351 ; Thompson v. Myrick, 24 Minn. 4 ; Hatch v. Coddington, 32 Minn. 92 , ( 19 N. W. *51 Rep.

Thompson v. Myrick, 24 Minn. 4 ; Memmer v. Carey, 30 Minn. 458 , ( 15 N. W. Rep.

See Thompson v. Myrick, 24 Minn. 4 .

Thompson v. Myrick, 24 Minn. 4, 11 .