Estate of Theodore C. Chemodurow, Deceased, Gail C. Williams, Executor - Page 21




                                       - 21 -                                         
          in privity to a party, to the prior judgment, we conclude that it           
          is satisfied.  Respondent has, therefore, satisfied all of the              
          Peck requirements.                                                          
                    2.  The Ranch Equipment                                           
               In Cause No. 96-60, plaintiffs claimed that, by the                    
          livestock agreement, decedent leased to them the Abagail ranch              
          and, in connection with that lease, agreed to provide and                   
          maintain the ranch equipment for their use.  The State court                
          found that the livestock agreement was a valid contract, and the            
          intent of the parties to the livestock contract was to make it              
          binding on their respective heirs, personal representatives, and            
          assigns (including Ms. Williams, as decedent’s personal                     
          representative).  Plaintiffs claimed that Ms. Williams,                     
          “individually and as personal representative of the Estate [of              
          decedent]”, had breached the livestock agreement specifically,              
          that provision of the agreement by which decedent agreed to                 
          provide and maintain the ranch equipment for plaintiffs’ use.  In           
          the answer and counterclaim, Ms. Williams averred that she owned            
          the ranch equipment.  She prayed for a judgment on her                      
          counterclaim that, among other things, “the Plaintiffs return to            
          the Defendant the possession of the Truck * * * [and] tractor and           
          other farm and ranch equipment unlawfully held by the                       
          Plaintiffs”.  The State court found that, with respect to the               
          ranch equipment:  “[T]here was nothing presented at trial to                
          indicate that she [Ms. Williams] paid anything for the                      




Page:  Previous  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011