Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/177/649/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 12:16:45+00:00

Document:
(1) That, the plaintiff having abandoned her suit in the district court, it was too late to move to dismiss the appeal.
(2) That the decree, not having been pleaded in the state court, could not now be resuscitated.
(3) That the judgment of the state court was res adjudicata of all the issues between the parties, and that the decrees of the circuit court and circuit court of appeals reversing the decree of the district court and dismissing plaintiff's bill should be affirmed.
the bill, the bill being amended by a new prayer that the defendants make, execute, and deliver to the plaintiff a deed for the property in question.
The case was heard upon pleadings and proofs, and on June 26, 1879, a decree was rendered in favor of the plaintiff declaring her to be the equitable owner of the land in suit; that defendant Cambell was chargeable with notice of her rights, and was bound to convey according to the prayer of the bill. An appeal was immediately taken by Arthurs and Campbell to the circuit court, where the case was docketed August 30, 1879. Here, the case rested, without further action, for sixteen years, and until December 20, 1895.
Meantime, however, and in February, 1880, Jane Bryar and her husband in her right began an action of ejectment in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County against Thomas Campbell, John W. Beckett, and William B. Rodgers, for the land in controversy, which resulted, May 19, 1881, in a verdict for the defendants, and a writ of error from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, which, on November 14, 1881, affirmed the judgment of the court of common pleas. 30 Pitts.Legal Jour. 12.
for any further proceedings upon the appeal, and that he and his vendees had ever since been in undisputed possession of the land. The motion to dismiss the bill, or rather to declare the appeal deserted, was denied, and the death of the plaintiff Jane Bryar being suggested, it was ordered that her heirs at law, the appellants, be substituted as plaintiffs.
The appeal subsequently went to a hearing in the circuit court upon the former testimony, and new testimony put in by Campbell in support of his answer, and resulted in a reversal of the district court, and a dismissal of the bill. Plaintiffs appealed to the circuit court of appeals, which affirmed the decree of the circuit court, 62 U.S.App. 435, whereupon plaintiffs appealed to this Court.
Plaintiffs ask for a reversal of this decree upon the grounds, first, that the appeal from the district court to the circuit court in bankruptcy was not claimed and notice given to the clerk of the district court within the time prescribed by the rules, and second because it affirmed the decree of the circuit court upon its merits.
It appears that the decree of the district court was entered June 26, 1879, and that a petition for an appeal was addressed to the judge of the circuit court, the jurat to which was dated June 28, and on June 30 a bond for costs on appeal was filed. The appeal, however, to the circuit court was not allowed and filed until July 16, twenty days after the decree of the district court, and it does not appear that any notice was given to the clerk of the district court, or to the defeated party, as required by sec. 4981; but it further appears that the petition for appeal, the allowance thereof, a copy of the docket entries and a bond for costs were filed in the circuit court, August 30, 1879. Here the matter rested until December 20, 1895, when Mrs. Bryar, the prevailing party, moved the circuit court not to dismiss the appeal for the reason that it was not taken in time, but, stating that it had been "duly allowed," to obtain an order declaring it deserted, for the reason that the appellants had failed to bring up the record from the district court, pay the entry costs, or prosecute their appeal. This was apparently treated as a motion to dismiss, and was denied. After a lapse of sixteen years, it is now too late to ask this Court to hold that the appeal should have been dismissed for a reason which does not seem to have been called to the attention of the circuit court when the original motion was made to declare the appeal deserted. If the plaintiffs in that case had intended to insist upon their rights under the decree, they should either have moved to dismiss the appeal within a reasonable time or pressed it to a hearing in the circuit court, instead of abandoning it and bringing a new suit upon the same cause of action in the state court.
1874 by James Bryar, namely, one to Thomas McClintock for $3,000, the other to E. R. James for $2,000, which mortgages were, in 1878, foreclosed and judgment entered. In the opinion of the supreme court of the state, it is stated that William R. Rodgers, one of the defendants in the ejectment action, as the attorney for Campbell, purchased the judgments obtained upon the mortgages, issued execution, sold the seven acres at sheriff's sale, and bought the same for $50. A deed was made by the sheriff to Rodgers, who gave a memorandum to Campbell, stating that he would convey to anyone Campbell might wish when requested so to do. It was not disputed that Rodgers bought and held in trust for Campbell whatever title he obtained by the sheriff's deed.
Upon this state of facts, the court held that the mortgages were valid liens, and the fact that the mortgagees were entirely unaffected by any notice of the secret equity of Mrs. Bryar being undisputed, it necessarily followed that, whether Campbell had notice of not, he stood in their shoes when he purchased the title derived from them.
"It is contended, however, that Campbell having bought at the assignee's sale subject to these mortgages, was bound to pay them off, and when he did so, they were extinguished. But unless he expressly or by necessary implication agreed to pay them, he was not bound to do so, and had an undoubted right to secure his own title by purchasing them and proceeding to perfect his title under them."
It will be seen from this that Campbell did not rely upon his purchase at the assignee's sale, as to which the district court seems to have held that he had notice of Mrs. Bryar's equity in the premises, but upon the purchase of the rights of the mortgagees, who appear to have taken the mortgages, supposing the property to belong to James Bryar, in whose name it stood upon the record.
We are advised of no substantial reason why the judgment of the state court does not operate as res judicata in this case. The original suit in the district court was begun by Mrs. Bryar, one of the original plaintiffs in the ejectment suit, for the purpose of compelling the defendant Thomas Campbell to convey to her as the equitable owner thereof the premises now in dispute.
The ejectment suit was begun by her and her husband, in her right, upon the same title against three defendants, one of whom was Campbell, to obtain possession of the same property. The action was brought by Mrs. Bryar upon her equitable title, a procedure allowable in the courts of Pennsylvania, where an equitable ejectment is the full equivalent of and substitute for a bill in equity. Peterman v. Huling, 31 Pa. 432; Winpenny v. Winpenny, 92 Pa. 440. Such procedure, though not authorized by the practice of the federal courts, will be respected when the question arises upon the effect to be given the judgment. Mills v. Duryee, 7 Cranch 481; Miles v. Caldwell, 2 Wall. 36; Faber v. Hovey, 117 Mass. 107. While it appears from the opinion of the supreme court of the state that the decree of the district court was called to its attention, it was not set up as a bar to the ejectment in the state court for the obvious reason that Mrs. Bryar had abandoned it by bringing suit in the state court, and there was no object in pleading it, while Campbell did not plead it because it was adverse to him. It would seem too that under the practice in Pennsylvania, a decree cannot be used as res judicata pending an appeal to a higher court. Souter v. Baymore, 7 Pa. 415. He could not even plead the pendency of the former suit. Smith v. Lathrop, 44 Pa. 326; Stanton v. Embrey, 93 U. S. 548, 93 U. S. 554.
the issues made by the parties, and as neither party saw fit to set up the former decree as a bar to the action, the state court was not bound to notice it. It did not affect in any way the jurisdiction of that court. In addition to this, however, Campbell relied upon a wholly different defense from that set up by him in the former suit, and one which had accrued to him after the decree in that court was rendered. Whether the decree, if properly pleaded, would have operated as a bar it is unnecessary to determine. As the same issues are presented here as were presented in the state court, it is entirely clear that they cannot be relitigated.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.