Bullock v. Crouch

• Decision Date: 02 November 1955
• Docket Number: No. 389,389
• Citation: 89 S.E.2d 749,243 N.C. 40
• Parties: Johnnie Norman BULLOCK v. M. F. CROUCH, trading and doing business as Crouch Brothers.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

Page 749

89 S.E.2d 749

243 N.C. 40

Johnnie Norman BULLOCK v. M. F. CROUCH, trading and doing business as Crouch Brothers.

No. 389

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 2, 1955

D. Emerson Searborough, Yanceyville, for appellant.

Burns & Long, Roxboro, for appellee. Edwin B. Meade, Danville, Va., of counsel.

DENNY, Justice.

The appellant insists that by virtue of the provisions contained in Article IV, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States, we must give full faith and credit to the judgment entered in the Circuit Court of Pittsylvania County, Virginia, in the action of Bullock v. Cherry. Conceding this to be so, it does not follow that such judgment is binding on the defendant in this action.

To bind Crouch by the Virginia judgment it must appear that he was a party to such action or in privity with the defendant therein. Bigelow v. Old Dominion Copper Mining & Smelting Co., 225 U.S. 111, 32 S.Ct. 641, 56 L.Ed. 1009, Ann.Cas. 1913E, 875; Green v. Bogue, 158 U.S. 478 15 S.Ct. 975, 39 L.Ed. 1061; Meacham v. Larus & Bros. Co., 212 646, 194 S.E. 99; Thomas v. Reavis, 196 N.C. 254, 145 S.E. 226; Hines v. Moye, 125 N.C. 8, 34 S.E. 103; Simpson v. Cureton, 97 N.C. 112, 2 S.E. 668; Bennett v. Holmes, 18 N.C. 486; Briley v. Cherry, 13 N.C. 2, 18 Am. Dec. 561; 30 Am.Jur., Judgments, section 220, page 951.

Since it is admitted that the defendant in this action was not a party to the action in which the judgment sought to be enforced was entered, neither the doctrine of res judicata nor estoppel applies unless there was a privity of relationship between this defendant and Cherry.

In the case of Bigelow v. Old Domminion Copper Mining & Smelting Co., supra [225 U.S. 111, 32 S.Ct. 644], the Supreme Court of the United States said: 'No judgment can be regarded as res judicata as to any matter where the rights in the subjectmatter arise out of mutuality, and not by succession, unless the party could, as matter of right, appear and defend, even though he may have had knowledge of the suit. Otherwise, he might be bound by a judgment as to which he had never had the opportunity to be heard, which is opposed to the first principles of justice.'

It is likewise said in 50 C.J.S., Judgments, § 802, p. 347, '* * * where the master is not a party to the action against the servant, either actually or through privity of relationship to his servant, a judgment against the servant is not res judicata as against the master', citing Sherwood v. Huber & Huber Motor Exp. Co., 286 Ky. 775, 151 S.W.2d 1007, 1012, 135 A.L.R. 263.

In the last cited case, a judgment had been obtained against the servant, or employee, as in the instant case, and in the suit against the master, or employer, the question was raised as to whether or not the defendants were bound under the doctrine of res judicata by the judgment rendered in the action against their servant. The Court said: 'To hold that the judgment in such latter...