Case Name: MUNN v. COOK
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1890-01
Citations: 24 Abb. N. Cas. 314
Docket Number: 
Parties: MUNN v. COOK.
Judges: 
Reporter: Abbott's New Cases
Volume: 24
Pages: 314–357

Head Matter:
MUNN v. COOK.
N. Y. Supreme Court, First Department, General Term;
January, 1890.
Pleading; action on agreement established by former judgment.J* Plaintiff brought this action to establish and enforce her rights-under certain agreements made with the defendants by the terms-of which certain property of one of the defendants was vested in. the other defendant in trust for the benefit of plaintiff. The complaint, in addition to the agreements, set forth that an action had been commenced by plaintiff against the defendants in the high, court of chancery of Great Britain; that a judgment had been, rendered therein establishing plaintiff’s rights under the agreements, directing an account, removing the trustee, etc.
Upon the trial at special term,—Meld, that the action was upon the-judgment; that the agreements were merely preliminary to it, and should be stricken out of the complaint; that the judgment was-merely interlocutory, and therefore insufficient to sustain an action-, and that the complaint should be dismissed.
On appeal the General Term reversing this judgment held (per Daniels, J.) that the cause of action depended upon the agreements,. without which there was no cause of action; that setting forth the interlocutory judgment in no manner changed the basis of the action, it being merely evidence of the rights derived from the agreements themselves; that the judgment being interlocutory and . therefore failing to conclusively establish these rights, the plaintiff wis entitled to fall back upon the agreements themselves for that purpose.; that the court had no authority to dispose of the issue presented by the agreements by striking out the allegations of the complaint in that regard, but that plaintiff was entitled to present her entire case and to recover upon the agreements in the event of the decree being insufficient.
(Per Tan Bkunt, P. J.) That the judgment was a formal and final determination establishing the rights of the plaintiff upon the main question in controversy, and therefore was admissible as evidence here.
Appeal from judgment dismissing complaint and from order denying a rehearing.
The action was brought by Ellen Munn against Joseph M. Cook and George Frederick Munn. The nature of the action and the proceedings are fully stated in the opinion of Daniels, J.
O. E. Tracy, for appellant.
E. Luther Hamilton, for respondent.
The following opinion was delivered at Special Term on dismissing the complaint:
Barrett, J.—The judgment of the English court was not final. It was an interlocutory judgment rendered upon the defendant’s default. It simply followed the prayer for relief contained in the plaintiff’s statement of claim, and then provided that the further consideration of the action be adjourned, with liberty to any of the parties to apply as they might be advised.
Apart from this latter provision, it is apparent that the judgment could not be executed without further proceedings and a further application to the court. Such proceedings were necessary to enable the court to give its final direction, settling the rights of the plaintiff and the duties of the defendant—in other words, to enable it to render a final judgment.
The judgment under consideration merely settles the principles upon which the cause is to proceed. It “ declares ” that the defendant holds certain moneys and securities as trustee under a given instrument, and it orders him to be removed from such trusteeship, substituting in his place “some fit and proper persons ”—not named—to be appointed, and directing an account.
Here there is nothing final. The account must first be taken, the substituted trustees appointed, and the final judgment then pronounced, namely, that the defendant deliver the moneys and securities in his hands, together with the income chargeable against him, to such substituted trustees.
What is here styled a judgment is therefore nothing more than the direction of a court of equity upon a bill taken pro confesso, with further consideration reserved. Such a judgment is plainly interlocutory, and being interlocutory, it is not conclusive upon the parties nor res adjudicate*, as between them.
It is interlocutory because it is not final; and it is not final, because, as was said by the chancellor in Johnson v. Everett, 9 Paige, 636, “ a decree can never be said to be final where it is impossible for the party in whose favor the decision is made ever to obtain any benefit therefrom, without again setting the cause down for hearing before the court, upon the equity reserved, upon the coming in and confirmation of the report of the master, to whom it is referred to ascertain certain facts which are absolutely necessary to be ascertained before the.case is finally disposed of by the court.”
This rule is not affected by the fact that a final determination with regard to some of the issues involved is made in the interlocutory judgment. In the cases cited, the vice-chancellor had decreed that the conveyances there in question were fraudulent and void as against the complainants, that the judgments were valid and subsisting liens, and that the complainants were entitled, out of the lands, to be paid the amount of their judgments and costs. Yet the chancellor dismissed the appeal because the decree was not final, or that an account had been ordered, and a further hearing thereon was requisite to enable the court to give practical effect to what had been declared and adjudged.
In King v. Barnes, 107 N. Y. 645, it was also held, under our present system, that a judgment was not final but interlocutory, although it finally determined certain matters in controversy and ordered an accounting before a referee. A fortiori, when the cause is in terms kept open for further consideration (Webb 9. Buckalew, 82 N. Y. 555). So long as the judgment remains interlocutory it is. subject to modification and revision (Fourinquet v. Perkins, 16 How. U. S. 82 ; Public Works 9. Columbia College, 17 Wallace, 529, 530; Russell v. Lathrop, 122 Mass. 800). These cases go so far as to hold that where an accounting has been directed by the interlocutory judgment and the cause is finally heard upon the exceptions to the-report thereon, the court may dismiss the bill.
Here the plaintiff was at least bound to show that this foreign judgment was final and conclusive between the parties in the country in which it was pronounced (In re Henderson, 37 Ch. D. 244; Plummer v. Woodburn, 4 B. & C. 625; Frayes v. Worms, 10 C. B. [N. S.} 149).
In this she has clearly failed. She really asks us to complete the-unfinished work of the foreign tribunal, to take up the suit where it stopped, to conclude the defendant by the adjudication so far as it has. there proceeded, to compel him to account, to appoint the “ fit and proper persons,” and to direct the defendant and his agent to pay-over the moneys, securities and income to such “ fit and proper persons ;” in effect, to render a final judgment here upon the interlocutory judgment there.
This position is, of course, wholly untenable, and my conclusion with regard to it must unfortunately result in the dismissal of the-complaint.
If the plaintiff had not relied upon the English judgment as final and conclusive upon the defendant, the original controversy could have-been considered and determined upon its merits.
By her attitude, however, she has prevented the defendant from raising the questions underlying the judgment. She offered the agreement upon which the English action was founded, and followed this up by the introduction of the judgment, claiming for the latter conclusiveness as to all the issues here involved. Upon this, the agreements were stricken out except as explanatory of the judgment and as. a basis for an accounting against the agent Cook. This was the logical result of the situation in which the case was placed by the plaintiff’s course. Her counsel claimed that the action was upon the agreements, and that the judgment was merely evidence, but still conclusive-evidence, of her rights under the agreements. In other words, he-claimed that the defendants were bound by the judgment and could. not set up any defense to the agreements which might have been set up in the English court. It was immaterial therefore whether he sued upon the judgment or upon the agreements conclusively established and enforceable by the judgment. In either case the defendant Munn was to be shut off from all his defenses except as to the jurisdiction of the court that rendered the judgment. The defendant’s counsel took every proper means to protect his client against this contemplated injustice. He commenced by moving that the plaintiff elect He then objected to the judgment as interlocutory and as neither final nor ■conclusive. He further moved to' strike the judgment out, when the plaintiff announced that the action was upon the agreements, contending that if the issues upon which the judgment was rendered were still open, it ha’d no place upon the present trial. When the plaintiff insisted that those issues were not open and that the judgment was ■ conclusive evidence in his client’s favor thereon, the defendant’s ■counsel finally moved to strike the agreements out, and that motion was granted.
This was but common justice to the defendant. He could do no more than he had done, and it would have been most unfair to leave him in doubt as to whether he should defend himself against the original claim or against the judgment, or both. If the plaintiff had relied upon the cause of action which resulted in the judgment, without introducing the latter 'as conclusive upon the defendant, there would have been an opportunity for a trial upon the merits.
As, however, she rested upon the judgment, claiming for it con■clusiveness, the defendant had no course left but to attack it; and he was limited in his defense to that attack.
It follows that the plaintiff must fail, for the defendant, as we have seen, is not concluded by the judgment, and no case has been made upon the agreements.
The complaint should accordingly be dismissed, but, under all the circumstances, without costs.
Upon a subsequent motion for a rehearing the f ollowing opinion was rendered:
Babkett, J.—Upon further consideration I am of opinion that the action was in substance upon the judgment. The agreements are •pleaded as preliminary to and for a proper tinderstanding of, the judgment, A party cannot plead evidence, and we cannot assume that the judgment was pleaded as such. It is true that upon the trial the plaintiffs counsel denied that the action was upon the judgment, and claimed that the latter was merely evidence (in the nature, however, of a conclusive adjudication) in support of the agreement. But he did not ask to amend his complaint by striking out the averment with regard to the judgment. This position was unfair to the defendant, for the reason that the same force was claimed for the judgment, thus pleaded and proved, as though the action were specifically and avowedly founded upon it.
As counsel observed: “ We are entitled to use it in evidence for the purpose of excluding any offer of evidence they may makein other words, to prevent Munn from defending himself against the agreement.
It was at this point that the plaintiff’s counsel was informed that it seemed to the court “ very clear that he must rely either upon the state of facts which resulted in the judgment or upon the judgment itself.”
Notwithstanding this observation, the counsel made no election; and when the defendant’s counsel followed the court’s remark by a motion to strike out the judgment, it was answered by still insisting that the judgment was conclusive upon the defendant Munn—a position from which the plaintiff has never receded, and which was reasserted upon the argument on this application for a rehearing.
In view of the nature of the complaint and of what occurred upon the trial, I think I was right in striking out these agreements, as against the defendant Munn. That was in effect informing the plaintiff that if she persisted in her attitude, she must stand or fall by the judgment. She perfectly understood this, for there was an exception to my ruling striking out the agreements; and the cause then proceeded advisedly upon the judgment alone. If the plaintiff had not desired to so proceed, if, on the contrary, she had desired to proceed upon the agreements, she should then have receded from her false position, asked to amend her complaint by striking out all reference to the judgment, and withdrawn the evidence on that head. Instead of that, she suffered the trial to proceed solely upon the question of the validity of the judgment. The cause was submitted for decision upon that single point, and the decision being adverse to the plaintiff, she must abide the consequences.
The application for a rehearing must be denied.

Opinion:
Daniels, J.
The plaintiff is the wife of the defendant George F. Munn. Before their marriage, an agreement was entered into between them by which he assigned and trans ferred to certain persons named as trustees, articles of household furniture and other things for the use, benefit and enjoyment of the plaintiff after she became his wife; and it was further agreed that if the defendant Munn then was, or during the marriage should become, seized or possessed of, or entitled to, any real or personal property, either in Eng land or the United States of America, he would also convey, assign, and assure the same, and cause it to be vested in the trustees, in trust for the plaintiff during her life, for her separate use, and from and after her decease in trust for such person or persons, and for such purposes as the defendant Munn should by will or deed appoint. This agreement was executed by these two persons, and also.by John Leslie Thomson, one of the three trustees ; and, so far as it related to household furniture and other articles then owned by the defendant Munn, it appears to have been performed to the satisfaction of the plaintiff. A further agreement was made between these two persons on January 30, 1886, which was after their intermarriage, by which it was agreed that the persons named as trustees, including the individual subscribing, in that capacity, the preceding agreement, should be released from the obligation previously declared, and that all these articles should thereafter belong to the plaintiff absolutely, and that the share and interest of the defendant Munn, under the will of his father, should belong to him free and discharged from all the trusts and powers in the preceding agreement mentioned. In the meantime the father of the defendant Munn had died, and this defendant had become entitled to one-fifth of his estate On February 1, 1886, a further and third agreement was entered into, which was executed by the defendant Munn, in substance agreeing that the plaintiff should become entitled to the income of this one-fifth derived from the estate of his father; and the object, more especially, of the complaint in the action was to enforce the observance of this part of the agreement. To secure that end, the plaintiff set forth the substance of these agreements, so far as they were essential to her right of action, in the complaint, and alleged the acquisition of this fifth of the estate of his father by the defendant Munn, and that it had passed into the .possession, under his authority and for his use, of the defendant Cook, who had been requested, but refused, to hold the securities for the benefit of the plaintiff. The complaint further stated that an action had been commenced in the high court of chancery of Great Britain, by the plaintiff against the defendant, to secure the same relief, and that her right to that relief had been determined by the court, and an interlocutory judgment entered to that effect on the determination. Issue was taken by the defendants upon these allegations contained in the complaint, and it was the issues so framed which carné on for trial at the special term ; and, to support the plaintiff's case as it was presented by her complaint, these agreements, and the interlocutory judgment entered in the English court of chancery, were proved and read in evidence. And it was further proved, in support of the plaintiff's case, that the defendant Munn had become entitled to one-fifth part of his father's estate, amounting to $33,325.50, and that under his power and authority it had passed into the possession of the defendant Cook, to be held and managed by him for the interest of the other defendant.
When the evidence was completed. on the part of the plaintiff, a discussion arose between the counsel as to the ground upon which the plaintiff proposed to maintain her action; and it was then stated by her counsel that the action rested upon the agreement, and that the judgment which had been introduced was evidence in support of it. It was further stated that the plaintiff was not suing upon the judgment, but alleged it, and offered it as evidence; and as such it was claimed to be conclusive against the defendant Munn upon the matters which had been adjudged and determined by the English court of chancery. The right of the plaintiff to proceed upon the agreements, and to use' this judgment as evidence in her behalf sustaining her action, was denied by the defendants ; and, inasmuch as the plaintiff's counsel claimed to rely upon the judgment as conclusive evidence against the defendant Munn, the court was asked to strike out the contracts or agreements which had been introduced in evidence on behalf of the plaintiff. This motion was opposed by her counsel, but the court directed the agreements to be stricken out as against the defendant Munn; and to that direction the plaintiff excepted. Evidence was then given on' behalf of the defendants, tending to impeach the decree on the ground of the alleged incapacity of the defendant Munn to be sued and proceeded against as he had been in the action in chancery. The court, however, determined that the evidence was insufficient to impeach the decree, but finally decided that it was noa controlling and binding- upon the defendant Munn in this action, being interlocutory only by its terms; and, as the agreements remained in evidence affecting only the defendant Cook, and the plaintiff was not entitled to maintain her action against her husband upon the decree, and those agreements having been stricken out, so far as they affected him, the action was not-supported, and the complaint was ordered to be dismissed. This direction, however, was qualified by the further statement that it was without prejudice to any action the plaintiff might be advised to bring upon these agreements, or any or either of them. The plaintiff filed exceptions to these decisions, and has relied upon these exceptions to support her appeal.
Her cause of action depended upon the agreements which were made between herself and the defendant Munn. They were the foundation of whatever right, either legal or equitable, she had acquired against him. Without them, she had no cause of action whatever ; and it was necessary, therefore, that these agreements should be set forth, or referred to, as they were, in the complaint, and proved upon the trial. And the fact that, in addition to the agreements, the interlocutory decree was also set forth in the complaint, and proved upon the trial, in no manner changed the basis or foundation of her action. It still remained necessary for her to establish her right under the agreements to secure her any success or relief whatever ; and the statement of the decree which had been obtained in the court of chancery in no manner changed or superseded her dependence upon these agreements. The only effect which possibly could be followed by the proof of the decree was that of evidence tending to establish whatever right she might derive from the agreements themselves; and the circumstance that her counsel claimed this decree to be conclusive in her favor still left her dependent upon the • agreements, unless the court should hold, which it did not, that her right to relief was in fact adjudged and conclusively determined by this .decree. The court made no such adjudication, either during the trial or at its conclusion; but the adjudication made was that the decree had not become entitled to any conclusive effect against her husband, and that appears to have been correct, as an interlocutory decree of another State or •country is entitled to no such weight or effect (Brinkley v. Brinkley, 50 N. Y. 184, 202).
In these respects, this case differs essentially from that of Krower v. Reynolds, 99 N. Y. 245 ; for there the facts alleged prior to the recovery of the judgment presented no right of action. And the judgment, as it was described, was final and conclusive upon the rights of the plaintiffs ; and they could recover, if at all, only on the judgment. As evidence, this decree consequently failed to maintain the right it was given to support; and, having failed in that respect, the plaintiff was then remitted to the agreements previously set forth and referred to for the purpose of maintaining her action against these defendants. She was legally, as well as equitably, entitled to insist upon maintaining her case under the agreements, if it should be determined that the decree was not evidence on which that could legally or equitably be done. By relying upon it, she in no manner forfeited her right.to proceed and depend upon the preceding allegations contained in the complaint. What was done in her behalf was to present the entire ease as it was proposed to be maintained by the agreements, and also by decree ; and, if she was legally held to fail in her dependence upon the latter, she was entitled to go back to the agreements, and sustain her action under their covenants, if that could legally or equitably be done. These agreements had been made an essential part of her action, and issue had been taken upon her complaint by the answers which the defendants severally interposed ; and what the court had to do at the trial was to try these issues, and it could not avoid the necessity for doing so by striking out from the evidence the agreements which had previously been received. Upon this subject, it has been declared by section 965 of the Code that an issue either of law or of fact must be tried as pre scribed in this chapter unless it is disposed of as prescribed in chapter 6 of the same act. Neither of these issues was disposed of under any authority contained in the sixth chapter of the Code of Civil Procedure. They were therefore before the court for trial, and each party had the legal right to give any evidence admissible under the issues, which was in her or his power, for the purpose of maintaining them ; and section 969 has further declared that an issue of fact, not specified in the preceding section, which includes cases to be tried by a jury, must be tried by the court unless a reference or a jury trial is directed. The issues under these provisions were before the court for trial upon all the pertinent evidence which they would allow either party to-give in support of the action, or by way of defense, and these agreements were such evidence on the part of the plaintiff. They were strictly within the issues, and formed, as the case was decided by the court at the trial, the entire foundation on which the plaintiff could rely to maintain her action ; and for these reasons it was error on the part of the court to strike the agreements out after they had been received as part of the evidence.. The plaintiff was entitled to present the case to the court upon all the facts having either a legal or equitable tendency to support her right; and, if she failed in her dependence on the decree as. evidence, that did not prevent her from relying upon the other allegations and proofs given .by her in the action for the purpose of maintaining it. This general subject, as a. matter of pleading, was considered in Boyce v. Brown, 7 Barb. 80, and the rules were there generally collated and considered ; arid it was added, in the course of the opinion, that " any number of facts constituting one cause of action or defense may be combined, but each cause of action or defense should be stated separately " (Id. 88). And this-complaint was within this rule; and, as it presented but one-cause of action against the defendant, the plaintiff was at liberty to prove her right to maintain it, either upon the-agreements or upon the decree on both. And she did not; forfeit that right by claiming in her behalf more than she was entitled to claim as the effect the decree was entitled to have. All the evidence was legally and properly in .the case, and she had the right to require its decision, not only upon the decree, but upon the agreements themselves; and if, in the judgment of the court, she failed in her position as to one, that failure did not prevent her from then relying in support of her action, upon the other.
The decision of the court, as it was finally made, proceeded upon the conclusion that the plaintiff's right of action depended upon the agreements ; but yet she was prevented from maintaining it by the direction which was .given striking them out as evidence against the defendant, Munn. No better illustration could be given than this direction of the impropriety of striking out the agreements; .for, if that had not been done, then, when the court determined that the action could not be maintained by force of "the decree, the other evidence would have been accessible upon which the plaintiff's right to recover was held to •depend. Striking that put, deprived her of the basis upon ' which the court held she could alone proceed, and prevented lier from obtaining a decision as to the effect of the covenants in the agreements in the way of supporting her action. The trial proceeded throughout upon this erroneous theory, and the plaintiff was thereby prevented from having the legal effect of the facts set forth as a ground of her action in the complaint, and the evidence given to support it upon the trial. No authority has been found sustaining this course of proceeding, but the system of practice, as it has been provided for, will entitle the party to have the action considered upon any legal ground contained in the pleadings on which it may be sustained, and, if the facts are alleged disclosing a cause of action, the additional circumstances that others are inserted in the pleading, on which' the party is incapable of succeeding, will not prevent by any legal rule a recurrence to the allegations and evidence upon which the suit may be maintained. But, on the contrary, if one ground for recovery is found to fail, and another is disclosed, upon which the action or defense may be sustained, that is entitled to all its weight and effect in the. case, the same as though the faulty or inefficient part of the case or defense had been wholly omitted. The judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered with costs to the-plaintiff to abide the event.
Brady, J., concurred in the result.