Barton v. Petit and Bayard

Decision Date05 March 1812
Citation3 L.Ed. 313,7 Cranch 194,11 U.S. 194
PartiesBARTON v. PETIT AND BAYARD
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Present. All the Judges.

ERROR to the Circuit Court for the District of Virginia.

The transcript of the record which was sent up, began by stating that 'Heretofore to wit, at rules held in the clerk's office of the said Court in the month of December, in the year 1807, Andrew Petit and Andrew Bayard, by Philip N. Nicholas, gent. their attorney appeared and filed their certain bill against Seth Barton and Thomas Fisher, which bill is in the following words, to wit: United States, fifth Circuit, district of Virginia, to wit: Andrew Petit and Andrew Bayard, citizens and inhabitants of the state of Pennsylvania, merchants and partners, trading under the firm of Petit and Bayard, Plaintiffs, complain of Seth Barton and Thomas Fisher, citizens and inhabitants of the state of Virginia, late merchants and partners trading under the firm of Barton and Fisher, Defendants in custody, of a plea that the said Defendants render unto the said Plaintiffs the sum of four thousand dollars, also one thousand and four pounds of tobacco at twelve shillings and six pence the hundred weight, being of the value of twenty dollars and ninety-two cents, which to the said Plaintiffs the said Defendants owe, &c. stating a judgment of the General Court of Maryland.

The record then states, that the Defendant, Seth Barton, having been arrested upon the capias ad respondendum, and being called, but not appearing, it was ordered that he appear at the next rules and give special bail, &c. which he did and pleaded payment, upon which the issue was joined, and verdict for the Plaintiffs. Whereupon the Defendant, Barton, moved in arrest of judgment; because,

1. The declaration states a joint cause of action against this Defendant and a certain Thomas Fisher, and therefore a judgment ought not to be rendered against this Defendant alone.

2. Because the Plaintiff has not in and by his declaration made a profert of the judgment stated in the declaration, under the seal of the General Court of Maryland, where the said judgment is stated to have been rendered.

3. Because the said Thomas Fisher ought, upon a joint judgment against him and this Defendant, (the said Thomas being stated to be in life and a citizen and inhabitant of the district of Virginia) to be a party to the judgment, if one is rendered against the said Defendant; and

4. Because the verdict is insufficient, uncertain, and wants form.

This motion was overruled, and judgment entered upon the verdict against the Defendant, Barton, alone, 'for 4,000 dollars, also one thousand and four pounds of tobacco at twelve shillings and six pence the hundred weight, of the value of twenty dollars and ninety-two cents, and their costs, &c.' Whereupon the Defendant brought his writ of error.

P. B. KEY, for the Plaintiff in error.

1. The suit being joint, upon a joint debt, and the declaration being against both, averring both to be in custody, the judgment against one alone is erroneous.

The writ of capias, not being considered as part of the record, according to the practice in Virginia, does not appear in the transcript. The record states, that Barton was arrested, but says nothing as to Fisher. No reason appears upon the record why he was not a party to the judgment. The declaration avers them both to be in custody, and complains against both. That is an averment of a fact upon record which the Plaintiffs cannot contradict.

If it appears on the declaration, or in any of the proceedings on the part of the Plaintiff, that another was jointly bound with the Defendant, and is still living, judgment against one is error and must be reversed. 1 Sand. 291, (C.) note 4. 5 Bur. 2614.

It is a rule in good pleading that the count must conform to the writ, and the bar and judgment to the count. Co. Lit. 203, a.

If this count conforms to the writ, which in good pleading it ought to do, then both were taken, and the judgment is erroneous.

But if both were not taken upon this joint writ for a joint debt, yet there is error. At common law, if there be process against two on a joint cause of action, and one only be taken, the other must be outlawed before there can be any other proceeding. Strange 473, Edwards v. Carter. But if you could proceed against one, you must, upon the return of the writ, count against one, stating that the other was not taken, according to the truth of the case, and this must appear upon the record to justify a judgment against one. To authorise a judgment againt one, upon a joint suit against two, there must be a discontinuance, abatement, or outlawry, or death suggested upon the record. You cannot aver any thing out of the record to support the judgment. Every thing necessary to justify the judgment must be affirmatively shewn in the record by the Plaintiff.

2. The Court below erred in rendering judgment for more money than was authorized by the Maryland judgment, which was filed and declared upon as a judgment of record.

This is not an action of debt upon a simple contract, but technically upon a judgment on record.

The act of Congress of May, 1790, declares the mode of authenticating a judgment; and when so authenticated it is to have the same faith and credit in every Court within the United States as in the Courts of that state in which it was rendered.

It may be declared upon in the same manner as if it were a judgment of a Court of the state in which the suit upon it is brought. 2 Dal. 303, Armstrong v. Carson.

Whenever a judgment or matter of record is the gist of the action, it must be certainly and truly alleged. Any variance is fatal.

The Maryland judgment is for 4,000 dollars, and 1,004 lbs. of tobacco at 12 shillings and 6 pence per hundred. This 12 shillings and 6 pence must be Maryland currency, as the judgment was rendered in Maryland, where the dollar is 7 shillings and 6 pence. The value of the tobacco was only 16 dollars and 73 cents, whereas the judgment of the Court below fixes its value at 20 dollars and 92 cents, which was at the rate of 12 shillings and 6 pence, Virginia currency, per hundred.

The Court was bound to take notice of the Maryland currency. It was matter of law; and if they have mistaken it, it is error.

But if t was matter of fact, it ought to have been found by the jury; and their not having found it is error. Cro. Eliz. 536, Bagshaw v. Playn.

If it is an error, it is not amendable. 1 Cranch 283, Thompson v. Jameson. And in such a case there can be no remittitur. 2 Salk. 658, Incledon v. Crips.

E. I. LEE and SWANN, contra.

1. There is no evidence in the record that will authorize the Court to take notice of the Maryland currency. Upon the plea of payment it was not necessary for the Plaintiffs to produce the record of the judgment in Maryland. Besides, it was a matter for the jury to ascertain, and they have found it. Their verdict was 'that the Defendant hath not paid the debt in the declaration mentioned.'- The debt in the declaration mentioned was 'the sum of four thousand dollars, also one thousand and four pounds of tobacco at twelve shillings and six pence the hundred weight, 'being of the value of twenty dollars and ninety-two cents.' This was the debt which the Defendant pleaded that he had paid, and which the jury found that he had not paid. 2 Wash. 149, Strode v. Head.

2. The averment in the declaration that the Defendants are in custody is only matter of form, and is always made in cases where the Defendants are not in custody, and cannot be holden to bail. In this very case, (it being debt on a judgment) according to the decisions in Virginia, the Defendant cannot be holden to bail. It is an immaterial averment, and if it appear by the record that one of the Defendants never was taken, a judgment against the other is not erroneous. 1. Wash. 9, Brown v. Belches.

The omission of the clerk, at the rules, to enter the suit abated as to Fisher, is not error.

By the statute of Virginia respecting the District Courts of that state it is enacted 'that where the sheriff or other officer, shall return on any writ of capias to answer in any civil action, that the Defendant is not found within his bailiwick, the Plaintiff may either sue out an alias or a plurias capias, until the Defendant shall be arrested, or a testatum capias where he shall be removed into another county; or may at his election sue out an attachment against the estate of the Defendant to force an appearance.' Rev. Code, p. 86, § 33. And 'on the return of the pluries, that the Defendant is not found, the Court, instead of the process of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Harrington v. Bowman
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • 6 de julho de 1932
    ...... was outlawry. The rule on this subject was thus stated in. Barton v. Petit, 7 Cranch, 194, 201, 3 L.Ed. 313,[3]as follows:. . . . 'The. general rule ......
  • Goodhue v. Palmer
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 15 de dezembro de 1859
    ...... Hence all are parties to the suit in all its stages. Barton v. Petit, 7 Cranch. 194.--Davis v. Graniss, 5 Blackf. 79, and. note. But our statute has changed ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT