New-York tribune., 1876-06-20
THE POINTS OF THE DECISION.

Albany basin, and remove eNcavaed material lot
70 cents a yard. Tho contract was assigned
to Gale, who represented Belden and Den
ison. The fulflment of the contract is conceded
The alleged wrongful OF the defendants. FOR which
redress is songhi were naeT9r M to 5ns sXgeo oil me
ALLEGED that, on the 2sth day OF December lebb the
mem 10 receive proposals TO do the work. wlicn
lei before stated Ia the defendant, Stephens ana pr
formed by Gale, Belden. and DcnSOn. Ihi IN ofuer
to compel the plaintiffs to let the work at hgher
rates than it was reasonably worth, orsaniHeu
for such work was sold at auction by which certain OF
the defendants obtained the control OF the bids mat
drawn others made Informal, other bidders we're
induced 10 Withdraw, aud by those means much larser
price was agreed to be paid than the work was res n
ably worth aud thus the state was greatly Injured ~ Tie
The present trial with a struck Jury began April 2,
1876 The defendants move for non'ni'' claiming,
action by of former Judgment or TINS court
render ed IN brought by these paiuhs against Two
defendants. stephens aud Gale, on the ID day
of June Is7O; second, that Whatever conspiracy e&
i,ted. the State. having with fun knowledge thereof IN,
having voluntarily, with complete information OF every
fact now relied upon as ground OF rrcolrry ps'd is
money, is in no situation To recover danHges Tor acis
which itself directed, and which, by sneh drecion' u
determined should Ice incurred. These propositions
discussed with very great learning an "bly y
the counsel, aud present questions ot griNlS "nd l
daily duty IN The courtroom afforded aud the results ol
such consideration viii now De stalled
HISTORY OF THE OTHER CASE.
The prior suit the judgment in which is pleaded asa
bar to any recovery in tnis was begun In November
1868 The object Of the action was TO set aside the same
agreement which il the subject of controversy in this on
account Of the identical alleged unlawful and Illegal
acts which urged the grounds OF recovery III the
present and damages which the State
had sustained There is substantial fact alleged IN
the complaint tie present which was not also
averrcd in the other and many parts OF each are cohed
In the same language To the complaint IN the former ac
tion demurrer was incrposed Dy the 0-'chdhht'
.Igiug three grounds viz lIrsi that there n de-
feet o parties defendant, va, tha the persons arE'u 20
have combined and Coniedcratcd wh sail defendants
.bould have been named, and should have been made
pafe, defendant; second. that several causes o aci"
have been Improperly united; third mat t.e Complaint
does not state facts sufficient To const ute cause Of ac
ton" TINS demurrer was argued al specI 'oil hed
b., Mr. Justice Miller ~ Albany On the "a a.! "l june
1870 Judgment given for dciondauts upon tAc dc
murrcr Win leave To the piainIih' 10 aHehd "i'Hh ~
dny, uIou payment of costs.
In l523 Mr BARLOW "a Attorney General OF the state
appealed from such order to the General Term 81 me
supreme Court Ine appeal was on Mdg . - - - ~ a.
missed. On appeal from shoh CIu,r oi usi'aI ~ lAt
sustained upon ground that the parties TO th' action
had agreed 70 be bound Dy the decision o. dhe p,S
appeal. (-ee opinion OF tno court oi Appca, In -
& ~ m no,inn made dnrng tue progress of is irai 20
aside tho judgment entered IN ihs acuonl iue JiS
sr in evidence upon this tal. Tie eject OF that ig
mont upon the present action IS the hrs1 quesuOh "hen
tue motion . nOnsuit presents
CouPLurENE- : or THAT DECISION.
The Judgment Of court Of competent Jurisdiction
upon question directly at issue between parties un
less reversed forever concludes and estos all parties TO
the action and those in prIyy with them, from ques
tioning its accuracy Justice in another action This
rule 80 essential peace and repose and 50 preventive
of endless and vcxitious gatiOus Il 50 irmy lOCtc
aud grounded in every enlightened system of JuIlspiE
dcnce that ID at once conceded nor has u no" been
ouestipncd That this principle Is fully applicable to
iuIncut rendered upon demurrer, the plaintiffs con
ee and The authorizes are abundant to iusti such
concession. urdenaDd agt Das. . Demo, -15 NUM- t
ar Terrell : j. j. Marsh, 67 Wilson agL Ray, II
Gray ggt Gray, 81 n,oT fn, ~ ~ a.. DIV Rank
agt Waldon, La AHn Tho counsel Iuf ,hv p,,%i,,ns %
nevertheless urge that a. the demi,r SuGa,t % @ p
both O the first two which dd not meet lne n,lh W
the action, and not upon INC thlIn' "en u nnu i
fore 1t does not appear that court "i Sonpe In
dctou has decided that the alleged Acls aH1id'u W
The plaintiffs ground OF action upon the consl nor
redress and conpels .uon lor tne uaiIas iT'.nt
have sustained In its performance of S ~ I1.l1&n, nv
as whole aud thai could only bo done by rcacGing
CONCLUSION unfayOraDc to the psntii, upon every issue
1901 Bch agt. Funk q Mete. Ky 40, and GRIMM AT.
seymour u6 Iowa, 3o In most u not all lne ass
ctoI by the plaintiffs counsel did not presumpt'vp
appear that the pont involved in the action sought ,o DC
maintained had been decided ia the former me inoso
ta could be said IN favor Of the eopptl was hat c
record not inconsistent with the decision VI 'n0
question it nigh. or m gna hTi rf M /, o" Of hat char
acier II differs very widely from ease IN Tnien tue
Judgment PROCESSES 10 cover every po as "e nav 1
eavoTed previously To show IL the demurrer, the
whole Of IT, which the order prOe'sed 70 sustain, ,ior
The limits Of an opinion f0rDd cIlt'a LII ,'inn
o every case cited the learned counsel Tor le pam
tins upon the argument they WIZ nc lVnns' h9"p'
easily painaDs upon the Prncl?lc we nav
that j, presmptyely appear t9as he 4%es'oa
involved IN the second suit wa, decided ~ c ~ shich
very large number Of caSrs sustaining ine fY
we stated can also be found few and 9 Eoe
al Gibbs Il Gray, il2 Jenn.on. treasurer AZ, i1
Labitants Of West Springfield us Gray 1lb' ny o. "a
Vseltc (2J Indiana, Az, Champion agl fIyhoutI m m
scceiy az barbour 44, Bqrwe ar k9ish t1I Ba.
bouY 26gi The YOnkers aud Ncw-i iOrs flis llsu % III
Company agt Bishop Il DAILY i4'|' ana one'oo" "S' i'
We should did not recent decsion OF INC supreme INC
neccssary endeayor to show thht by these aut'o'
principles decisive Of tho question under Mini
len C22 Wallace 42 not cited by counsel on ~ a. nont
There was demurrer to the bill In chancer., whrn sss
up several grounds, some reaching Thn ino d"mnr,
per was sustained. On appeal to tne Htsrscd insnosdi
LEGAL tribunal Of the nation WIS an a har
another suit Judge Miller SAID that 1t ana hot apr.a'
Lv tur decree, oi by the order sustaining thc
o tnsd nr on what ground the bill dismissed the
decree had dismiss Il the b without pi'luJ,, ~ nrr
sicd as the ground Of dlsmis sal the laoiu' :" ind
fiss or want interest in two of Them, We rrut
have affirmed it; but 10 prevent "hat a, and remand
iniu. nee We must reverse thePreseh' "eeieo '"'
the .,.,..,. ,,,,, ,u,borlty controlling
u.s. to argue from the apparent il must
grounds Of demurrer. that tue ordtr , -, merits
have been based upon the third, when wen. ~ h ~ cnn
nf I'm. action Tue order as II STANDS mus. u ~ Gis
srlcd and we have therefore former % reol he
@ tabisIine thaas against the defendants, Gae
and stephens, at least the state mas upon % o Tne
fact and
es,,npc i'm favor OF stephens and Gale II cohe'e ii -
IN c,Iect upon the other defendants must next oc o
cred. ,,-.-.., oa,,r1. no uro-
lection 10 the defendants Ied ana ID hl,on, n.r
Marty may fail to against one lO!hb
and vet succeed against others 1bls Is ,r -,
ny lac sufficient 10 Iusy a recovery against one pu,
insufficient as another. Ha' IT, however .oi ~ ',a
held that upon the proof against Two, ,o ,', %
court would he justified In holding the one euy ,o VI a."
tonable conduct while the other was MOI. o,ep' rn
Gale" Bedcn and Denson TO speak, ths pni p,n
cinnl cousprators IL that when tlcY o,ai,u ,