Case Name: Buford v. Buford
Court: Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 1814-03-24
Citations: 4 Munf. 241
Docket Number: 
Parties: Buford v. Buford.
Judges: 
Reporter: Virginia Reports
Volume: 18
Pages: 97–98

Head Matter:
Buford v. Buford.
Argued Thursday, January 6th, 1814.
i. Evidence — Record of Proceedings ot Court of Sister State — Effect. —A record, legally authenticated, of the proceedings of a court of competent authority, in any other of the United States, is conclusiye evidence in the courts of this state, to shew that a judgment was rendered, and that the party was compellable to pay the amount recovered against him; but it may be opposed by proof of fraud or collusion, or of subsequent payments or discounts.
a. Award Pendente Lite — Setting Aside — Evidence, — The only competent evidence, that an award,, made pendente lite, was afterwards set aside on exceptions taken, is a transcript of the record thereof duly authenticated.
In an action of assumpist, in behalf of William Buford, (who sued for the benefit of John P. Patrick,) against Henry Buford, the declaration contained a general count for money paid and advanced by the plaintiff for the defendant; another general count for money had and received by the defendant for the use of the plaintiff ; and a special count, stating, that “whereas, also, the said defendant was jointly bound with the plaintiff as security for James Buford to Isham Talbott, the said Isham Talbott had recovered two judgments on the bonds given jointly as aforesaid, in the District Court of the state of Kentucky, held at Danville, against the said James Buford and the plaintiff, whereupon the said plaintiff, in part discharge thereof, (the said James Buford then and there still being insolvent,) did pay to the said Isham Talbott the sum of 13331.; whereby the said defendant became liable to pay to the said plaintiff the one half of the amount so as aforesaid paid, to wit, one other sum of *6661. 10s. 0d.; and being so liable, he assumed, &c. nevertheless the said defendant refused, &c.”
Issue was joined on the plea of non assumpsit. On the trial of the cause, the plaintiff offered in evidence the records of the two judgments rendered in the state of Kentucky ; which the defendant admitted to be duly authenticated ; “but to the admission of which, as evidence, he objected, agreeing that, if the court should be of opinion that they were admissible, the copies of the bonds therein recited should be of as much efficacy to the plaintiff, as if the originals were produced, and proven to have been executed by the defendant: but the court overruled the objection, and instructed the jury, that the aforesaid records were conclusive evidence, between the parties in this suit, as to the amount recovered, and the sum that the plaintiff in this cause was bound to pay Isham Talbott, the plaintiff in the suits referred to in the said records; and that the defendant should not be at liberty to prove any circumstances to impeach said judgments, except that they were obtained by fraud ; and this he must prove expressly. The defendant also offered to prove, that Isham Talbott, the plaintiff in the said records, and William and James Buford the defendants, in the year 1796, submitted to arbitrators all their causes of difference, both of law and equity, (which embraced the causes of controversy in the records aforesaid,) who awarded that the said James and William Buford should pay to the said Talbott, 6491. 18s. Od. in full of all accounts ; which the said Talbott was willing to receive ; but the said James and William taking exceptions to the same, finally had it set aside; and, in the mean time, James Buford became insolvent; which proof the court would not permit the defendant to produce to which opinion the defendant filed exceptions.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, assessing his damages to 6661. 10s. Od. with legal interest thereon, from the 20th day of July, 1800, till paid, besides his costs : and judgment was entered accordingly; from which the defendant appealed.
*Wickham for the appellant.
Wirt for the appellee.
Thursday, March 24th, 1814,
"Evidence — Record of Proceedings of Court in Sister State — Effect.—Eor the proposition laid down in the first headnote the principal case was cited with approval in Ray v. Clemens, 6 Leigh 602; Wilkinson v. Jett, 7 Leigh 115; Draper v. Gorman, 8 Leigh 636, 639, 654. In Ray v. Clemens, 6 Leigh 603, the principal case is distinguished from the case at bar.
Judgment — Effect as Evidence. — A judgment of a debt is conclusive evidence of it against the parties; but, as against third persons, a verdict in a civil case, is no evidence whatever; for, the first principles of natural justice require that a man should be heard, before his cause is decided, and if he were bound, and in the least degree prejudiced by a verdict when he had no opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, it would in effect, be overturning the most salutary rnle of jurisprudence. Munford v. Overseers of the Poor, 2 Rand. 313, citing principal case, and Peake on Evidence, vol. 1, p. 26
Awards. — See monographic note on “Arbitration and Award” appended to Bassett v. Cunningham 9 Gratt. 684.

Opinion:
the following opinion of this court was pronounced by
JUDGE ROANE.
The court is of opinion that there is no error in the opinion of the Superior Court, admitting the judgments in the bill of exceptions, to be exhibited as conclusive evidence to shew the amount recovered against the appellee by Isham Talbott, and the amount he was thereby compellable to pay : and, not understanding that court as prohibiting evidence on part of the appellant, tending to reduce the sum claimed against him in consequence of such judgment, or to shew that the same was fraudulently or collusively obtained ; and being also of opinion that, as the award, mentioned in the latter part of the bill of exceptions, is stated to have been set aside by the appellee and James Buford, on exceptions taken thereto, and the record thereof not having been exhibited, which is supposed to have been the only competent evidence ; the court, thus understanding the opinion and judgment of the Superior Court aforesaid, affirms the same.