Josias Pennington, Plaintiff In Error v. Lyman Gibson

• Decision Date: 01 December 1853
• Citation: 57 U.S. 65,16 How. 65,14 L.Ed. 847
• Parties: JOSIAS PENNINGTON, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. LYMAN GIBSON
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

57 U.S. 65 16 How. 65 14 L.Ed. 847 JOSIAS PENNINGTON, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. LYMAN GIBSON. December Term, 1853

THIS case was brought up by a writ of error from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Maryland.

The facts of the case are set forth in the opinion of the court.

Page 66

It was argued by Mr. Schley, for the plaintiff in error, and by Mr. Frick and Mr. Collier, for the defendant in error.

Mr. Schley stated that there were three causes assigned for the demurrer to the declaration. They were——

1. For that it appears from the declaration, that the cause of action is an alleged decree of an alleged court of equity, as set forth in said declaration; whereas, an action at law cannot be maintained in this court, on such a decree; at least without averment in pleading, that said decree, within the limits of its territorial jurisdiction, is of equal efficacy with a judgment at law.

2. For, even if an action at law can be maintained for the recovery of the sums of money directed by such alleged decree to be paid, as stated in said declaration, yet the form of action adopted in this case is not the proper form of action for the enforcement of such recovery.

3. For that it does not appear in and by the said declaration, nor is it therein averred, in any manner, that the said alleged court of equity had any jurisdiction to pass a decree against this defendant for payment to the plaintiff of any of the sums of money in the said declaration mentioned.

After joinder in demurrer, the court gave judgment upon the demurrer in favor of the plaintiff below, for $6,134.86, and $3,000 damages; the damages to be released on payment of the debt, with interest from 25th November, 1848, and costs of suit.

The counsel for the plaintiff in error will insist that said several causes of demurrer were well assigned.

As to the first ground. There is no averment that said 'Supreme Court in Equity of the State of New York,' is a court of record. The decree is referred to 'as remaining in the office of the County Clerk of Steuben county.' No averment that such a decree in the State of New York is of equal efficacy with a judgment at law.

It is conceded that it has been held, in many cases, in this court, that a decree in Chancery is equally as conclusive as a judgment in a court of common law. In Hopkins v. Lee, 6 Wheat. 109, the decree was evidenced by the record of the proceedings in Chancery in the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia; and being offered in evidence in the same court, the only question was as to the effect of said decree as evidence.

Page 67

But Hugh v. Higgs, 8 Wheat. 697, is an express decision on the very point, and sustains the demurrer. Smith v. Kernochen, 7 How. 217, merely decided the effect, in evidence, of a decree in Chancery, as between the parties. It was not the case of an action at law grounded on a decree. On this point, the following cases will also be relied on: Carpenter v. Thornton, 3 B. & Ald. 52; Houlditch v. Marquis of Donegal, 8 Bligh, N. S. 301; and 1 Stat. at Large, 122, and notes there, will be cited.

On the second point, the following cases will be cited: Walker v. Witter, 1 Doug. 1; Dupleix v. De Roven, 2 Vern. 540; Crawford v. Whittall, and Sinclair v. Fraser, Doug. 4.

As to the ground of demurrer thirdly assigned, it will be insisted that the courts of the United States cannot judicially know the extent or character of the jurisdiction of the said Court of Equity; and of course cannot know whether it had jurisdiction over the subject-matter, or over the plaintiff in error. There is no averment in the declaration as to the jurisdiction of said court; nor is it even averred that said court was holden at a place within its jurisdiction, or that said decree was pronounced within its jurisdiction. It is consistent with all that is averred in pleading that the decree may be merely void. The following cases will be cited: Boswell's Lessee v. Otis, 9 How. 349; Allen v. Blunt, 1 Blatch. Cir. Court, 480; D'Arcy v. Ketchum, 11 How, 165; Crawford v. Howard, 30 Maine, (17 Shep.) 422; Burckle v. Eckart, 3 Denio, 279; Cobb v. Haynes, 8 B. Mon. 137; Van Buskirk v. Mulock, 3 Harr. 184; Moravia v. Sloper, and Herbert v. Cook, Willes, 30, 37; Read v. Pope, 1 Cr. Mee. & R. 302; S. C. 4 Tyrw. 403. It is not to be intended that because a court is termed a superior court, that it is a court of general jurisdiction. It may be an inferior court, and of limited jurisdiction.

The counsel for the defendant in error thus stated and argued the points.

The questions for argument arise upon the demurrer, which raises substantially three points, namely:

1. That an action at law cannot be maintained in the courts of the United States, upon the decree of a State court of equity.

2. That if such action be maintainable, the declaration must set forth that the decree, within the limits of the State in which it is passed, is of equal efficacy with a judgment at law; and also that the court had jurisdiction to pass the decree in question.

3. That the action, if maintainable, must be assumpsit, not debt.

Page 68

1st. Under the Constitution of the United States, and the laws of Congress, the judgments of the courts of each State are to be regarded in all other States, not as foreign, but domestic judgment; and as equally conclusive with domestic judgments. Mills v. Duryee, 7 Cranch, 481; Hampton v. McConnell, 3 Wheat. 234.

And where the court has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject-matter, a decree in chancery is equally conclusive between the parties with a judgment at law. 'In this there is, and ought to be no difference between a verdict and judgment in a court of common law, and a decree of a court of equity. They both stand on the same footing, and may be offered in evidence under the same limitations; and it would be difficult to assign a reason why it should be otherwise.' Hopkins v. Lee, 6 Wheat. 113, 114.

In all the States where the question has arisen, (in Kentucky, Louisiana, Tennessee, South Carolina, Maine, and New York,) decrees in Chancery have been held to be within the Constitution and act of Congress; which make them equally with judgments at law, of the same dignity in all other States, as in the State in which they are pronounced. See Cowen and Hill's Notes to Phillips's Evidence, Part II. p. 900, and the cases there cited.

This being so, the money decree of a court of chancery of competent jurisdiction is in every other State, the final and conclusive ascertainment of a debt, upon which at legal obligation to pay arises. And there can be no sufficient reason, why an action of debt should not be maintained as well on such a decree, as upon a judgment at law. There may be decrees in Chancery, which cannot well form the basis of a suit at law. Such are decrees for specific performance, or such as contain multifarious matter, or require acts and conditions to be performed by each party. But this objection cannot be made to a final decree for the payment of a specific sum of money, free from conditions or qualifications of any kind. A legal obligation to pay is necessarily implied by such a decree.

'Every man is bound, and hath virtually agreed to pay such particular sums of money, as are charged on him by the sentence or assessed by the interpretation of the law. Whatever the laws order any one to pay, that becomes instantly a debt, which he hath beforehand contracted to discharge. This implied agreement gives the plaintiff a right to institute a second action, founded merely on the ground of contract, to recover such a sum. So, if he hath obtained judgment, he may bring an action of debt on this judgment, &c., &c.; and the law implies, that by the original contract of society, the defendant hath

Page 69

contracted a debt, and is bound to pay it.' 3 Blackstone, Comm. 160. It is on this ground alone, that 'assumpsit' lies on foreign judgments; and why not on a decree in equity for the payment of money?

It has been said, that a legal obligation cannot be implied from a merely equitable obligation to pay; and that an action at law cannot be maintained upon a decree in equity for the payment of money founded on equitable considerations only. Carpenter v. Thornton, 3 Barn. & Ald. 52, (5 E. C. L. R. 225.) In that case, it appeared from the record, that the bill was filed for the specific performance of an agreement to purchase; and the decree was manifestly on the ground of that particular equity. The chief objection to the suit urged in argument, was, that it had been brought in England upon a decree of the High Court of Chancery of England, having, of course, the power to enforce its own decrees in the territory in which the suit was brought. It was determined, under the circumstances of that case, that the action would not lie.

But in a subsequent case, Henley v. Soper, 8 Barn. & Cress. 16, (15 E. C. L. R. 147,) it was admitted and held that debt would lie on the decree of a colonial court of equity (in Newfoundland) for the payment of a specific balance found to be due by one partner to another. Lord Tenterden, (by whom Carpenter...