American Bakeries Co. v. Vining
| Decision Date | 10 January 1936 |
| Docket Number | No. 7963.,7963. |
| Citation | 80 F.2d 932 |
| Parties | AMERICAN BAKERIES CO. v. VINING et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Marion E. Sibley, W. L. Reed, and E. B. Kurtz, all of Miami, Fla., for appellant.
Edward F. P. Brigham, of Miami, Fla., and William W. Ogden, of New Orleans, La., for appellees.
Before FOSTER, SIBLEY, and WALKER, Circuit Judges.
A bill was filed by American Bakeries Company in the District Court of the United States to enjoin a threatened sale under a judgment from a state court of Florida on the ground that the verdict for damages on which the judgment rested was procured by a conspiracy between the father as next friend of the plaintiff and certain witnesses that the latter should falsely testify, two of them to the circumstances of the occurrence in issue, they not having seen it, and a third as to the seriousness of the injury. On appropriate motions a temporary restraining order was dissolved and the bill dismissed, this appeal following. No evidence was introduced, the decision being given on the face of the bill and its exhibits, together with two opinions of the Supreme Court of Florida which are put into the record. The District Judge in a careful opinion held that the very matters in substance now put forward had been tried and adversely decided in the state courts and were not open to retrial on this bill. 13 F.Supp. 323. With this conclusion we agree.
Briefly stated, the case is that Eugenia Vining, while about eighteen months old, was run over by the truck of American Bakeries Company and injured. Suit was brought by her father as next friend. On the trial three witnesses appeared for the plaintiff claiming to be eyewitnesses and swearing to circumstances showing negligence; the driver of the truck and another being witnesses for the defense and swearing otherwise. A physician testified for the plaintiff to hearing murmurs in the femoral artery which he said showed serious injury to it. Other physicians disagreed with him and, as we understand the bill, so testified to the jury. A substantial verdict for the plaintiff was rendered. A motion for new trial was granted by the presiding judge on August 8, 1933, but on appeal the grant was reversed (118 Fla. 572, 159 So. 670), the Supreme Court of Florida holding that the evidence fully authorized the verdict for the plaintiff, and it ordered judgment on the verdict which accordingly was entered April 9, 1935. Meanwhile, during August, 1933, the Bakeries Company had discovered that two of the three persons testifying for plaintiff as eyewitnesses were not present, but had so testified at the request of the plaintiff's father on promise of pay if the case were won. This discovery was not made the ground of any motion in either the Supreme or trial court until the trial judge about April 12, 1935, made inquiry into the matter. Before him one of the two attacked witnesses admitted his perjury, as did the other after arrest on that charge, but neither witness has been brought to trial therefor. On April 15th the plaintiff's father committed suicide, leaving a note stating that he "had been framed in the court house." Thereafter the Bakeries Company filed in the trial court an extraordinary motion for new trial, but it was thought that leave ought to be asked of the Supreme Court to set aside what was really that court's judgment. Accordingly, in May, 1935, and during the judgment term, an application was made in the Supreme Court of Florida whose allegations are in substance the same as those of the present bill except that the physician was not included in the alleged conspiracy. On elaborate consideration the Supreme Court denied the application and reaffirmed the former judgment. 163 So. 396. On rehearing the court said that, after a careful re-examination and reconsideration of the case in all its phases, it was satisfied that no sufficient legal cause, discretionary or otherwise, appeared to warrant receding from or modifying its previous opinions and judgments in the case. 163 So. 519.
It is apparent that the facts testified to by the soi-disant eyewitnesses and by the physician, who is now claimed to have produced by pressure on the artery the murmurs which he heard, were actually contested in the trial. The fraud and perjury were not so successful as to deceive the opposite party and prevent a contest. The truth of the testimony was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Griffith v. Bank of New York
...and duress. 3 Of course, a state judgment on the merits of fraud is res judicata in the federal courts as elsewhere. American Bakeries Co. v. Vining, 5 Cir., 80 F.2d 932; Bailey v. Willeford, C.C.W.D.N.C., 126 F. 803, affirmed 4 Cir., 136 F. 382, certiorari denied 199 U.S. 606, 26 S.Ct. 746......
-
Trust Co. of Chicago v. Pennsylvania R. Co.
...of the highest court of a state as to the powers and the extent of the jurisdiction of the courts of that state. American Bakeries Co. v. Vining, 5 Cir., 80 F.2d 932, affirming D.C., 13 F.Supp. 323; Manning v. Ketcham, 6 Cir., 58 F.2d Since the Stephenson and Davidson decisions by this cour......
-
Bryan v. Bryan
...the State Courts have fully acted, is well illustrated in American Bakeries Company v. Vining, D.C.Fla., 13 F.Supp. 323, 324, affirmed 5 Cir., 80 F.2d 932. The proceedings prior to the Federal Court case are similar to those that have been had in the Courts of the State of South Carolina in......
-
Raymond v. Wickersham
...Vining v. American Bakeries Co. et al., 121 Fla. 116, 163 So. 396, a decision by the Supreme Court of Florida, and American Bakeries Co. v. Vining et al., 80 F.2d 932, by the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Fifth Circuit, the latter being a suit aimed at enjoining a threatened sale under a ......