Schuler v. Israel
| Decision Date | 07 March 1887 |
| Citation | 30 L.Ed. 707,7 S.Ct. 648,120 U.S. 506 |
| Parties | SCHULER v. ISRAEL and another. 1 |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
D. P. Dyer, for plaintiff in error.
J. E. McKeighan, for defendants in error.
The plaintiff in error, who was plaintiff below, brought two separate suits in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, Missouri, on the same day, against C. W. Israel and J. N. Israel, as partners in the banking business. One case was brought upon a note for the sum of $10,000, and the other upon a draft made by C. W. Israel & Co. for $11,250 on the Laclede Bank, on which payment was refused when presented at the bank, and the draft duly protested. In each of these cases a writ of attachment was issued at the commencement of the suit, which was served, by way of garnishment, on the Laclede Bank, also of St. Louis. An order of publication was made in the state court against C. W. Israel and J. N. Israel on account of their being non-residents, and the two suits were removed into the circuit court of the United States for the Eastern district of Missouri, upon the application of the plaintiff, upon the ground that he was a citizen of the state of Kansas and the two Israels were citizens of the state of Texas. They were there consolidated and heard as one case.
J. N. Israel appeared, and filed an answer for himself alone, in which he made no defense to the suit on the check, but set up as a defense to the suit on the note that, before the institution of the present suit in the Missouri court, the plaintiff had commenced an action on the same note in the circuit court of the United States for the Northern district of Texas, and had, at the time of the plea filed, recovered a judgment against the defendant J. N. Israel on said note, whereby he claimed that the note was merged in said judgment, and no judgment could be rendered on it in this action. Judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff for the amount of the check. The suit was dismissed by plaintiff, before hearing, as to C. W. Israel.
The Laclede Bank, in its response to the garnishee process served on it under the attachment, and in answer to interrogatories propounded to it by thep laintiff, admitted that there were on the twenty-fourth day of October, 1885, standing on its books, to the credit of the three several banking companies of which J. N. Israel was a partner, certain sums of money. The attachment process was served on the Laclede Bank, November 2, 1885; and the bank in its answer says that on the twenty-fourth of October the said Israel, being wholly insolvent, made, executed, and delivered a deed of general assignment in conformity with the laws of the state of Texas, where he resided, for the benefit of all his creditors, which assignment is set forth in the answer, and that the bank had notice of this assignment immediately after it was made. It further answered that the said J. N. Israel individually and as a member of the several banking houses before referred to, namely, C. W. Israel & Co., the Exchange Bank of Harold, and the Exchange Bank of Wichita Falls, was indebted to the Laclede Bank in an amount exceeding all the sums on deposit with that bank at the date of the service of the attachment.
The plaintiff demurred to the answer of the defendant Israel, setting up the judgment recovered in the United States court for the Northern district of Texas on the note, and he demurred also to the answer of the Laclede Bank as garnishee, and the case was submitted to the court on these demurrers. The court rendered a judgment overruling both demurrers, finding for the defendant Israel in the suit upon the note, and rendering judgment against him in the suit on the check. It also discharged the bank as garnishee.
The plaintiff brings this case here by writ of error, and the two questions presented are, first, as to the sufficiency of the answer of J. N. Israel setting up the judgment in the action on the same note in Texas.
While it is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harrison v. Remington Paper Co.
... ... His ... position would be sound, if this was an action upon the notes ... against their maker. Schuler v. Israel, 120 U.S ... 506, 509, 7 Sup.Ct. 648, 30 L.Ed. 707. But it is a suit ... [140 F. 395] ... against a third party, not upon the notes, ... ...
-
State v. Cooke
...and undecided. Neither court would be bound to take notice of the judgment in the other court judicially. ' Schuler v. Israel, 120 U.S. 506, 7 S.Ct. 648, 649, 30 L.Ed. 707. To like effect see State v. McMilliam, 243 N.C. 775, 92 S.E. 205; Reid v. Holden, 242 N.C. 408, 88 S.E.2d 125; Hampton......
-
Thomas v. Nat'l Bank of N.J.
...N.Y. 419, 423; Nashville Trust Co. v. Fourth National Bank of Nashville, 91 Tenn. 336, 18 S.W. 822, 15 L.R.A. 710; Schuler v. Israel, 120 U.S. 506, 7 S.Ct. 648, 30 L.Ed. 707; Carr v. Hamilton, 129 U.S. 252, 255, 9 S.Ct. 295, 32 L.Ed. 669; Scott v. Armstrong, 146 U.S. 499, 13 S.Ct. 148, 36 L......
-
Kansas City And Travelers Insurance Co. v. Field
...211 F. 58; Spellman v. Chaffee, 5 Colo. 243; Crittenden v. Leitensdorfer, 35 Mo. 243; Broom's Legal Maxims (8 Ed.), p. 331; Schuler v. Israel, 120 U.S. 506; Winham v. Kline, 77 Mo.App. 46. (4) And the bar this suit by the State's Statutes of Limitations is not at all affected by the provisi......