Res judicata requires prior competence and the same issue directly and substantially in issue; an incidental title finding is insufficient.

Res judicata bars a later claim only where the earlier adjudication was by a court competent to try the subsequent suit and the same issue was directly and substantially in issue. Here, the earlier rent suit was decided by a court lacking competence to try the present title dispute because of the subject-matter value, and the question of title arose only incidentally rather than directly and substantially. On that basis, the plea of res judicata failed and could not defeat the claim for title and possession.

---

---

Issues: Whether the former rent suit operated as res judicata so as to bar the present claim for title and possession.

Analysis: The former decision was rendered in a court not competent to try the present suit by reason of the value of the subject-matter. The question of title in the later suit was not directly and substantially in issue in the former proceeding, but at most arose incidentally. A plea of res judicata cannot succeed unless the earlier adjudication satisfies the statutory requirements as to competence and identity of the issue decided.

Conclusion: The plea of res judicata failed, and the dismissal of the suit could not stand.

Ratio Decidendi: For res judicata to apply, the earlier decision must be by a court competent to try the subsequent suit and must determine the same issue directly and substantially in issue.

---