MURRAY HUNTER REAL ESTATE, LTD., of Toronto, Canada, by and through its attorney-in-fact, JOSEPH W. GARBOR, Appellants, v. HON. S. BENONI DUNBAR, SR., Circuit Judge, Sixth Judicial Circuit, Montserrado County, and MEINECKE, KOERNER and Co., Appellees.

APPEAL FROM RULING OF JUSTICE PRESIDING IN CHAMBERS DENYING A WRIT OF ERROR TO THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT, MONTSERRADO COUNTY. Argued December 21, 1968. Decided February 7, 1969. 1. A withdrawal of an appeal before the Supreme Court, accepted by the Court and reflected in its decision ordering the case stricken from the docket, is res judicata and the identical matter cannot be litigated again. 2. During the pendency of a matter before a Justice in chambers, a party may withdraw his application and reserve his right to reapply, for a full court has not been constituted. Plaintiffs in error petitioned for a writ of error, and upon being denied a peremptory writ by the Justice presiding in chambers, took an appeal to the full Court. The appeal was docketed and a date assigned for hearing, but was withdrawn at the time and the matter disposed of by the Supreme Court by granting the application to withdraw. Subsequently, the plaintiffs in error again applied to a Justice in chambers, seeking the same relief against the same parties. The application was denied and an appeal was taken from the ruling of the Justice. Ruling affirmed. Philip J. L. Brumskine for appellants. for appellees. Jacob Willis MR. JUSTICE WARDSWORTH delivered the opinion of the court. This case grows out of a petition filed for a writ of error and possesses a very peculiar feature, in that this is 217 218 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS the second time a petition for identical relief in an identical matter has been submitted. The circumstances surrounding this cause may briefly be stated. The plaintiffs in error in these proceedings, in the first instance, filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of error against the same defendants in error in these proceedings, before Hon. Lawrence E. Mitchell, presiding in chambers, who ordered the issuance of an alternative writ commanding the defendants in error to appear and show cause why the peremptory writ of error should not be issued. Accordingly, the defendants in error, acknowledging the service of the writ on them, made and filed their return in compliance with the command of the said writ. This case was assigned for hearing and determined by Mr. Justice C. L. Simpson, Jr., assigned Justice in chambers, who dismissed the petition predicated upon the noncompliance of the plaintiffs in error with statutory requirements. The plaintiffs in error noted an exception and prayed an appeal to the Court, which was granted. The matter of the appeal in these proceedings was docketed by the Clerk of the Supreme Court, duly assigned for hearing, and was disposed of during the October 1967 Term of this Court, based upon the withdrawal of the said matter by the appellants, or when the Court, sitting en banc, took judicial notice of the withdrawal of the appeal filed by the appellants and rendered a decision in said matter, ordering the Clerk to send a mandate to the trial court below informing it of the withdrawal of the appeal. Subsequently, the appellants, now plaintiffs in error, filed another petition reviving the cause disposed of. The petition embraces ten counts, which we do not consider necessary to quote herein, for we have decided to consider the underlying principle involved in this case, that is to say, whether or not it is permissible for a party LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 219 to withdraw an appeal pending before the Supreme Court and subsequently revive the subject matter of the said appeal in the trial court, or in the chambers of a Justice of this Court. The defendants in error deny the permissibility of such a course. In subordinate courts of record the plaintiff may withdraw his case, amend, and refile same, but this cannot legally obtain in the Supreme Court. A withdrawal of an appeal by the appellant, pending before the Supreme Court for hearing and final disposition, concedes the correctness of the trial court’s decree or judgment and says that he will abide by it in keeping with the decision and mandate of the Supreme Court in said case. On the other hand, during the progress or pendency of a cause in the chambers of the Justice presiding, a party or petitioner for a remedial process may withdraw his petition, reserving the right to amend and refile same. But it is legally impossible to appeal from the ruling of the Justice in chambers to the full bench and withdraw an appeal for the purpose of renewing the cause in the chambers of the presiding Justice. Were this Court to indulge in such practice a case would go on endlessly, with hardly any definite settlement of any of the appeals taken to this Court for adjudication. In Phelps v. Williams [1928] LRSC 14; 3 L.L.R. 54 (1928), the Court held, at p. 57: “And just here we will premise that where a matter has been decided by this Court it becomes res judicata, if there is a concurrence of the following conditions, viz: Identity in the thing sued for; identity of the cause of action ; and identity of persons and of parties to the action. Such judgments are conclusive upon the parties and no party can recover in a subsequent suit. . . .” Further, statute provides : “The Supreme Court shall have jurisdiction of all 220 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS appeals from courts of record and from rulings of individual Justices of the Supreme Court on motions for writs. “The judgments and decisions of the Supreme Court shall in all cases before it be final.” Judiciary Law, 1956 Code 18 :501. In view of the foregoing, the ruling of the Justice is hereby affirmed with costs against appellant. And it is hereby so ordered. Affirmed.