Buchholz-Hill Transp. Co. v. Baxter

• Decision Date: 29 June 1912
• Citation: 99 N.E. 180,206 N.Y. 173
• Parties: BUCHHOLZ-HILL TRANSP. CO. v. BAXTER.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

206 N.Y. 173

99 N.E. 180

BUCHHOLZ-HILL TRANSP. CO.

v.BAXTER.

Court of Appeals of New York.

June 29, 1912.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

Action by the Buckholz-Hill Transportation Company against John F. Baxter. From a judgment of the Appellate Division (142 App. Div. 25,126 N. Y. Supp. 514) affirming a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

See, also, 202 N. Y. 537, 95 N. E. 1124.

Norman B. Beecher, of New York City, for appellant.

Pierre M. Brown, of New York City, for respondent.

WILLARD BARTLETT, J.

In this action the plaintiff has recovered damages against the defendant for his failure to fulfill the obligation of a contract, whereby he undertook to mark with a buoy or other suitable beacon the place in the North river where a canal boat belonging to the plaintiff had sunk. In consequence of the failure to buoy the wreck, as required by the laws of the United States, the plaintiff was adjudged liable for the injuries sustained by a tug belonging to other parties, which was sunk by collision with the submerged canal boat. This liability was enforced by a suit in admiralty, to which the defendant in the present action was made a party upon an allegation that he had contracted to perform the statutory duty of marking the place of the wreck. The United States District Court awarded damages against the Buchholz-Hill Transportation Company for the sinking of the tug, but dismissed the proceeding as against John F. Baxter, on the ground that his liability should be determined in a separate action. An appeal was taken by the Buchholz-Hill Transportation Company to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, where the decree of the District Court was affirmed.

The only question which has been discussed upon the argument of the present appeal is whether this judgment of affirmance in the United States Circuit Court of Appeals should have been received in evidence as proof of a former adjudication fatal to the plaintiff's claim. The judge who tried the case in the District Court, although he dismissed the petition to bring in Baxter as a party, nevertheless expressed the opinion that Baxter had not in fact undertaken to buoy the wrecked canal boat; and the opinion in the Circuit Court of Appeals, where, under the federal practice, all the evidence was considered de novo, shows that the judges of that tribunal entertained the same view, so far as Baxter's liability was concerned. It seems that such an opinion in a federal court is deemed equivalent to a decision containing findings in a state court (Cahill v. Standard Marine Ins. Co., 204 N. Y. 190, 97 N. E. 486); and that if, in the case under consideration, it had been followed by a simple decree of affirmance the adjudication would have been conclusive against the claim prosecuted by the plaintiff in the present action. The United States Circuit Court of Appeals, however, before any mandate had been issued upon its decision, entertained an application by the Buchholz-Hill Transportation Company as to the form of its decree, and the decree was worded so as to order an affirmance of the decree of the District Court, ‘but without prejudice to the bringing of a new action by appellant [the Buchholz-Hill Transportation Company] against the said John F. Baxter for the relief prayed for in its petition against said Baxter.’ The Appellate Division has held, as we think rightly, that the effect of this language was to prevent the decree in the admiralty suit from being available to the defendant under his plea of former adjudication.

The phraseology thus limiting the effect of the decree is analogous to that of a decree in equity which dismisses the bill without prejudice. ‘Where a bill in equity is...