Court Opinion

ID: 8311923
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-10-17 15:50:58.36234+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:44:45.603250
License: Public Domain

THOMPSON, Circuit Justice.
The question now presented for decision arises on an exception to the report of the master, under an order of reference. This order directed an account to be taken of the monies arising from the merchandise, shipped in the Chinese, in 1809, by Consequa, and consigned to the defendants; and of the disposition of the said monies, and of the amount due on said consignment to Baring & Co., by virtue of the assignment of Consequa to them, set out in the bill. And if the proceeds, or any part thereof, shall have been remitted to Conse-qua, or otherwise disposed of prior to the 5th of August, 1811, so that the same have not come to the hands or use of the said Baring & Co., that then an account be also taken, and stated between Consequa and the defendants, down to the 5th day of August, 1811, so far as the same may be necessary to ascertain whether.the balance, if any. due by the defendants to Consequa, for monies or merchandise, which may have come to the hands of the defendants, be sufficient with the remaining nett proceeds of the said merchandise, to make up the original invoice value of the same merchandise, amounting to forty-three thousand and twenty-five dollars eighty-seven cents. Upon the reference, the complaints offered in evidence, a certain decree heretofore obtained in the court of chancery of the state of New-York, by Con-sequa, one of the complainants in this cause, against the above defendants, and the proceedings in the suit in which said decree was obtained. This evidence was objected to on the part of the defendants, but admitted by the master, as competent and conclusive in the present case. By that decree a balance was found due from the defendants to Con-sequa, of upwards of one hundred thousand dollars; and the master has accordingly reported in the present case, that there is due to Baring & Co. the whole balance claimed by them, including interest, amounting to eighty-seven thousand one hundred and forty dollars sixty-one cents, being the amount of the forty-three thousand and twenty-five dollars eighty-seven cents, assigned by Con-sequa to Baring & Co., and the interest on the same.
The objection taken to the admissibility of this decree is, that it was res inter alios acta. The general rule on this subject is, that judgments and decree are evidence only between parties and privies. But it is contended, that there are exceptions to this general rule, under which the decree in question was admissible, and the broad principle is assumed, that the final decree or judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, deciding ex directo on any matter, is conclusive as to that matter, in any other court, between any other parties. This position, if admitted to embrace the present case, is not supported by authority, and cannot, I think, be sustained on any sound principle applicable to the rules of evidence. The matters in controversy in the court of chancery of this state, related to the mere private rights of the parties. The exceptions to the general rule, (which requires that verdicts or judgments should be admitted in evidence only between parties to the suit, or privies,) which are mentioned in the books, relate generally to some question of custom, right of common, right of way, right of election, &c. In such, and the like cases, a former verdict in an action between any other parties, is admissible in evidence, when the point there directly decided is in issue. But it is not in such case conclusive. The common reputation of the place would, in these cases, be evidence of the right; and the verdict of twelve men, upon oath, is considered at least of equal weight. Phil. Ev. 233.
Nor are the cases of judgments, or decrees in rem. or of courts of exclusive jurisdiction, applicable to the present case. The court of chancery of New-York had not exclusive jurisdiction of the matters in contro*794versy, nor was the decree there rendered a decree in rem. There is nothing, therefore, in relation to the subject matter in controversy in that suit, or the nature and operation of the decree, that should take it out of the general rule. As between the same parties, it is right and proper that the verdict of the jury finding a fact, or the judgment or decree of a court on facts found, should be conclusive, and operate as estoppels. [Hopkins v. Lee,] 6 Wheat. [19 U. S.] 109. But such estoppels should be mutual, and no one be permitted to have the benefit of a judgment or decree, who would not have been prejudiced by it, had it been the other way. Gilb. Ev. 34; Cas. t. Holt, 135; Bull. N. P. 233. Had the decree been in favour of the defendants, it would not have concluded the rights of Baring & Co. They not having been parties to that suit, had no opportunity to set up and maintain their claim against the. defendants. There would, therefore, be no mutuality of benefit to the parties in the present suit. Paynes v. Coles, 1 Munf. 373. The case of Chapmans v. Chapman, 1 Munf. 398, is very analogous to the present suit. It was there laid down that a record in one suit cannot be read as evidence in another, on the ground that the defendant and one of the plaintiffs in the latter suit, were parties to the former, and that the same point was in controversy in both; another plaintiff, and the person under whom both the said plaintiffs jointly claimed, not having been parties to such former suit. Phil. Ev. 222-334, where most of the cases are collected. But if no well founded objection lay to the admission of that decree in evidence, by reason of the variance of parties in that and the present suit, I am unable to discover that the matters in controversy, in this cause, have been there decided. The bill, in this case, seeks a particular account of the proceeds of the shipment, by the Chinese, on the 2d of December, 1809, consigned to the defendants, and which had been assigned by Consequa to Baring & Co.; the first cost of which cargo amounted to forty-three thousand and twenty-five dollars eighty-seven cents, and also of the payments and remittances on account of the same. And that the defendants might admit funds in their hands belonging to Consequa, to the amount of forty-three thousand and twenty-five dollars eighty-seven cents, or render an account of all other goods, monies, and effects in their hands, belonging to Consequa, at the time of notice of assignment to Baring & Co., on the 5th of August, 1811, and of the sales, payments, and disposition of the same.
Por the decree and proceedings in the court of chancery of this state, reference, by consent of counsel, is made to the report of the case, 3 Johns. 587, and 17 Johns. 511; by which it appears that the shipment of the 2d of December, 1809, was not at all in question, but was excluded from the account then taken. The report of the master, in that case, did not, therefore, purport to state an account of the proceeds of the shipment now in question, and of the payments and remittances-on account of the same, which, was a direct and particular subject of reference to the master in this case. In this case any inquiry into the state of the accounts between Consequa and the defendants, is-by the order of reference made contingent, depending on the facts, whether the proceeds-of that shipment, or any part thereof, had been remitted by the defendants to Conse-qua, or otherwise disposed of prior to the-5th of August, 1811, so that the fcame had not come to the hands of Baring & Co.; and if they had, then the master was directed to state an account as between Consequa and the defendants, down to the 5th of August, 1811. The proceedings in the case of Consequa against the defendants, do not ascertain these facts; the report of the master there states the balance as it stood on the 31st of January, 1818, and not as it stood on the 5th of August, 1811, as is required in this case; so that neither of the inquiries referred to the master, in thi¿* case, were directly decided in the case of Consequa against the defendants. The proceedings in that case were not offered in evidence, to show admissions by the defendants, of any particular facts necessary to be established in the present case; but to show a final and conclusive balance in favour of Consequa, to an amount sufficient to cover the plaintiffs’ claim; and for this pin-pose, and to-this extent, the evidence was received by the master, which I think cannot be sustained. The report must accordingly be set aside, and the cause referred again to the master, under the orders of reference heretofore entered in the cause.