Case Citation: MANGOLD V. BACON 237 MO.

496

Date: 27 NOVEMBER 1911

Petitioners: JOHN MANGOLD

Respondents: ERNEST BACON

Syllabus Topic: LAW OF THE CASE

Thesis Statement:

Issue: Whether or not the selling of the forty acres of land is a fraud; and
Whether or not the ruling on the first case is strictly res adjudicata.

The Facts of the Case: 1.) In 1902, Mangold owned 40 acres of land and sold it to the Hogans for
$900. The Hogans paid $100 in hand, and $800 secured by a deed of
trust;

2.) In 1903, Souders, a collector of revenue brought suit against Mangold,

the Hogans, and the others, to enforce the State’s Lien for taxes for the
delinquent years of 1900 and 1901 – Summons issued – Mangold and
the others received their copies;

3.) Mangold wrote Souders for the amount of taxes, penalties, fees, cost,
etc. – Souders respond with a $15 statement – Mangold paid in full –
Souders sent Mangold a tax receipt and marked the tax book paid for
those years, thereby, the State’s lien was satisfied and extinguished;

4.) In spite of that fact, the sheriff made return of his writ showing personal
service to all the defendants – the Hogans reconveyed the forty acres of
land to Mangold for $800;

5.) Souders went on with the suit and took judgement by the default – the
sheriff advertised the land for sale – it was struck off to Bacon for $12.50
only (Forty acres worth $1200);

6.) The Sheriff executed a deed to Bacon and he is now claiming title to the
locus in quo under the tax judgement, execution and deed, leaving
Mangold with nothing – the trial court’s judgement was rightfully
for the defendant (Bacon);

7.) The opinion of the court on the former appeal is the law of the case;
that opinion is res adjudicata as against the appellant (Mangold);

RTC:

CA:

Petitioner’s Mangold (Petitioner) prays the tax judgment be declared void, that the tax
Contention: deed be canceled
Respondent’s It does not count on fraud in the actual sale. It charged no notice to Bacon
Contention: (respondent) of irregularities nor did it charge inadequacy of price except
inferentially.

SC Ruling: Reversed and Remanded (with directions)

The appellate court decides that the decision of the lower court was wrong and
unjust – the court cancels the first decision; ordering the lower court to re-hear
or retrial the case again.

The general rule is that legal conclusions announces on a first appeal,

whether on the general law or the law as applied to the concrete facts, become
and remain the law of the case, not only upon retrial, but upon a second
appeal. But the rule is without exceptions; if law have been incorrectly
declared on the first appeal, or mistake of fact has been made, or injustice to the
rights of parties would be done by adhering to the first opinion, the rule
relaxes, and the court will examine and correct its own errors on the second
appeal in the same case.

The ruling on the first case is not strictly res adjudicata; it would be better to
say that it is in that “nature of res adjudicata.”

Other/Notes: Ponente Justice Sheppard