Case Name: BETTS v. MOUSER
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1834-11
Citations: 1 Ohio Ch. 744
Docket Number: 
Parties: BETTS v. MOUSER.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases at law and in chancery Ohio
Volume: 1
Pages: 744–745

Head Matter:
BETTS v. MOUSER.
Agister of cattle — trover—former recovery — evidence—change of property.
An agister of cattle may have trover against one converting them while in his possession.
The owner may also have an action for their conversion.
The judgment in the first is evidence for the defendant, under the general issue, in the second.
But it may be shown that the judgment was not on the merits, or was only for the injury to the qualified property, and thus its prima facie effect be done away.
A verdict by the owner of a chattel, or by his authority, against a tort feasor, for the value of it, vests the property in the chattel in the defendant.
Error. A. B. was a pasturer for hire, and pastured cattle for Betts and Mouser at the same time. Betts took away his cattle first, and Mouser alleging that he also drove away three of'his cattle, brought trover against him for them before a justice of the peace, in the name of A. B. On trial, Betts obtained a judgment for costs. Mouser then brought another action of trover in his own name, against Betts. Upon the trial of the issue of not guilty, Betts offered to prove the former suit and recovery in defence, and that it was brought by Mouser. The Court of Common Pleas ruled out the evidence. To reverse the judgment, because that evidence should have been admitted, this suit is brought.
Douglas, .for the plaintiff in error.
Bond, contra.

Opinion:
By the Court.
An agister of cattle has such an. interest in -the cattle he keeps as to enable him to maintain trover against any one taking them away without right, and recover their value, or, for the injury he has sustained. If he has sued by authority and has recovered the value, the recovery is conclusive of the subject. If the agister sue and recover the value, he elects to hold himself answerable to the owner. If the owner sanction the suit, he cannot afterwards question the right. If we are right in this, the only question for us to decide on the record is, whether .a former trial and judgment upon the same .subject may be given in evidence under the general issue in trover. A recovery of damages in trespass or trover, changes the property of the chattel converted: (2 Sir. li. 1078; 4 Esp. C. 251; 3 Camp. R. 317; 1 Bing. R. 371". If, then, the right to sue, and the recovery of damages changes the property, the determination of the right of the defendant, may be equally conclusive, if with a person having the right, and if decided on the merits. The defendant, under not guilty in trover, may give in evidence any thin'g which shows the plaintiff had no property, or a former recovery: (3 WUs. R. 308; Blk. R. 831: 1 Pick. R. 65.) The judgment merges the original cause of action, while it remains in force. The evidence tended to make out the defence and should have been admitted. Iiow far the judgment was conclusive is a different question; if the decision was not upon the question of right, that might be shown by rebutting evidence, as it would have been by replication, if it had been specially pleaded. Judgment reversed.
case was argued and submitted in Ross county, but the' opinion was pronounced in Pickaway.