## Facts

- Miller (plaintiff-landlord) claimed Jacobson (defendant-tenant) owed rent under a written lease.
- In an earlier action, Miller sued Jacobson for rent that was then due under the lease.
- In that first case, Jacobson did not dispute that he had executed the lease; instead, he argued he was not liable because he had not occupied the premises during the period for which rent was sought.
- The court entered judgment for Miller in the first action.
- After that judgment, Miller filed this second action against Jacobson to recover later rent payments that came due after the first suit, under the same written lease.
- In the second action, Jacobson denied executing the lease and denied liability on that basis.
- Over Jacobson’s objection, the trial judge admitted the prior judgment as conclusive proof that Jacobson had executed the lease.
- Based on treating the earlier judgment as conclusive on execution, the trial court entered judgment for Miller.
- Jacobson appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Does a prior judgment awarding rent then due under a lease conclusively establish, in a later suit for subsequently accruing rent under the same lease, that the defendant executed the lease when execution was not actually contested in the first case?

## Decision

- No. The earlier judgment was not conclusive evidence that Jacobson executed the lease in the later action for different rent installments.
- Because execution of the lease was not actually put in issue and determined in the first action, Jacobson was not barred from disputing execution in the second action.
- The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the judgment and remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Separate rent installments that mature at different times generally create separate causes of action; a later suit for later installments is not the same claim as an earlier suit for rent already due.
- Issue preclusion applies only to issues that were actually litigated and necessarily determined in the prior action; matters assumed, admitted, or not contested are not conclusively settled for later litigation.
- A prior judgment for rent does not, by itself, make the existence or execution of the lease conclusively established in a later action when that issue was not contested and decided previously.
- A party’s failure to raise a particular defense in an earlier action does not automatically bar the defense in a later action on a different claim, unless the earlier action necessarily determined the point.

## Conclusion

Because Miller’s second lawsuit sought later rent installments and the first judgment did not necessarily decide whether Jacobson executed the lease, the trial court erred by treating the earlier judgment as conclusive proof of execution; Jacobson was entitled to contest execution in the later case, so the judgment for Miller was reversed and the case remanded.


Jacobson v. Miller, 41 Mich. 90, 1 N.W. 1013 (1879)