Case ID: us-ct-cl_17/html/0217-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Nott, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Samuel Strong v. The District of Columbia.
    
      On the defendants Demurrer.
    
    
      The defendant seis up the same matter by way of comiter-claim in several actions between the same parties in this court; and previously set up the same matter in a suit between the same parties, still pending in the supreme court of the District. The claimant files a replication setting forth these facts; the defendant demurs.
    
    I. A court will not allow a defendant to be deprived of bis defense because it is already pleaded in a foreign jurisdiction where it may never avail bim anything; neither will it allow him to set up within its own jurisdiction the same defense over and over again and thereby perhaps defeat or suspend a number of distinct actions when rightfully it should constitute a defense to only one.
    It. The peculiarities of this court’s jurisdiction of cases against the District of Columbia under the District claims Jet 1880 (1 Supplmt. Rev. Stat., 562) are such that a matter pending in a court of the District must be regarded as pending in a foreign jurisdiction.
    III. As to suits against the District of Columbia pending in this court, in all of which the same matter has been set up by way of counter-claim, the defendant must elect in which suit it shall be pleaded.
    IV. The purpose of the District claims Act 1880 (1 Supplmt. Rev. Stat., 562) was to secure substantial justice, and the court will not allow a claimant thereunder to obtain an undue advantage by pressing to trial a suit in which there is no defense, and hindering one in which the defendant has set up a counter-claim.
    
      
      The Reporters’ statement of tbe ease:
    Tbe following are tbe replications of tbe claimant demurred to by tbe defendant:
    “In tbe Court of Claims of.tbe United States.
    “ SAMuel- Strong ) vs. >No. 200. The District oe Columbia. )
    “And now comes tbe plaintiff, and to the plea filed herein by tbe Attorney-General for and on behalf of tbe defendant says that tbe matters and things set forth in said plea.are true, excepting in this, to wit: that at tbe date of tbe filing of said plea, viz, March 1st, 1881, tbe said action was not depending in the supreme court of tbe District of Columbia, but that tbe same was on tbe 24th day of February dismissed by order of tbe plaintiff herein, no trial having taken place in said case, as by the records of said court will appear, a copy of which records is filed herewith and made a part hereof; and in this: that tbe jurisdiction of tbe supreme court of tbe District of Columbia-, in which said case was pending, was limited and confined, viz, being strictly legal, while tbej urisdiction of this court is extended so as to be both legal and equitable, and in this, in point of fact, is not tbe same, but different. And this tbe plaintiff is ready to verify, etc.
    “ William A. Cook,
    “ Attorney for Petitioner and Claimant.
    
    “Frank T. Browning, “Benj. F. Butler,
    “ Of Counsel.”
    
    “In'the United States Court of Claims.
    “ Samuel . Strong vs. The District oe Columbia. | No. 200.
    “And now comes Samuel Strong, the claimant as aforesaid, and in answer to tbe plea of tbe defendant by tbe Attorney-General-in its behalf, says that said supposed counter-claim set up in said plea arises, if at all, in a claim of overpayment to said Samuel Strong for work done and materials furnished in carrying out certain contracts and doing certain extra work for said District, and not otherwise, which claim for said' work and materials furnished is made by said Samuel Strong and is now pending in this court, to be beard and determined upon other petitions of said Strong, being numbers from 190 to 199, inclusive, and that' said supposed counter-claim may and ought to therein be pleaded and not filed in answer to the petition herein.
    
      “And tbe said claimant, the said Samuel Strong, denies the existence and validity of any such claim, but, on the contrary thereof, avers that said District still owes him for said first-named work and labor done and materials furnished a much larger sum than all the payments made to him by said District; all of which he is ready to verify.
    “And for a further answer to said plea, said Strong says that said plea of set-off has been made and filed by said District in certain other suits, not being suits, for this claim, now pending in the supreme court of the District of Columbia, and to be heard and determined therein.
    “Wi. A. Cook,
    
      " Attorney of Record.
    
    “Benjamin F. Btttlee,
    “Fkank T. Beowning-,
    “ Of Counsel.”
    
      Mr. J. C.Fay (with whom was the Assistant Attorney-General) for the demurrer.
    
      Mr. Benjamin F. Butler opposed.
   Nott, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The defendant has set up certain matters by way of counterclaim, and the claimant has filed a replication averring, first, that the same matters have heretofore been set up in certain other actions between the same parties now pending in this court; and, second, that they have likewise been set up in another action between the same parties now pending in the supreme court of the District of Columbia. The defendant has demurred to each replication.

The cases cited upon the hearing depend so much upon local law and local practice that we do not regard them as furnishing a binding authority for the peculiar jurisdictional conditions of this and similar cases. Nevertheless, the general principle which governs or should govern in such cases is this: That on the one hand a court will not allow a defendant to be deprived of his defense because it is already pleaded in a foreign jurisdiction where it may never avail him anything, and on the other hand, that a court will not allow a defendant to set up within its own jurisdiction the same defense over and over again, and thereby, perhaps, defeat or suspend a dozen distinct actions when rightfully it should constitute a defense for only one.

Applying that principle here, we think that the peculiarities of this court’s jurisdiction of these cases against the District of Columbia are sucb that a matter pending in a court of tbe District must be regarded as pending in a foreign jurisdiction. As to suits pending in this court, we think that a claimant should not be harassed twice by the same subject-matter of defense, and that the defendant must elect in which suit it shall be pleaded. But the court will recognize the fact that the purpose of the statute is to secure substantial justice for the parties, and it will not allow a claimant to obtain an undue advantage by pressing to trial a suit in which there is no defense, and hindering or delaying one in which the defendant has set up a cross-action or counter-claim. •

As to the first replication demurred to, the judgment of the court is that the demurrer be overruled; as to the second replication demurred to, the judgment of the court is that the demurrer be sustained.