Claflin v. Fletcher
| Decision Date | 31 May 1881 |
| Citation | 7 F. 851 |
| Parties | CLAFLIN and others v. FLETCHER and another. |
| Court | United States Circuit Court, District of Indiana |
Gordon Lamb & Sheppard, for plaintiffs.
Rand & Taylor and Baker, Hord & Hendricks, for defendants.
GRESHAM D.J.
This suit is brought by Claflin & Co. against Stoughton A Fletcher and Francis Churchman, for the value of a lot of dry goods which one George Hazard, by fraudulently representing that he was solvent, when in fact he was insolvent, induced the plaintiffs to sell to him on time.
It is averred that Fletcher & Churchman bought the goods at sale on execution against Hazard, after being notified of the latter's fraud, and that the plaintiffs had cancelled the sale and demanded possession of the property.
The defendants answer that for some time before their purchase of the goods they had been in the custody of John W. Cottom Robert S. Foster, and Ellis G. Shantlin, as the agents of the defendants; that prior to the marshal's sale the plaintiffs demanded possession of the goods of such agents, who, under instructions from the defendants, refused to surrender the same; that the plaintiffs then commenced an action of replevin in the superior court of Marion county, Indiana, against the agents, Cottom, Foster, and Shantlin, for possession of the goods; that the defendants appeared, and in the name of their agents controverted the title of the plaintiffs to the goods; that the right of the plaintiffs to the goods was litigated, and a verdict and judgment were rendered for the defendants, and that this judgment is in full force and unreversed.
After admitting in their reply that they prosecuted their action in replevin to judgment, the plaintiffs aver that the defendants in this suit were not parties to the suit in the state court; that the suit in the latter court was not tried on its merits; that the right of the plaintiffs to the goods was not determined by that action; and that the plaintiffs failed in the state court because they had not, prior to the beginning of their suit, surrendered or offered to surrender to George Hazard the note that he had given for the goods; for which reason the court instructed the jury to return a verdict for the defendants.
The judgment of the state court is conclusive between the same parties and their privies. The defendants in the first suit were the agents of the defendants in this suit. Through these agents the present defendants resisted ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Dollar, 30407.
...La Compagnie Des Sucreries, 217 U.S. 475, 486, 30 S.Ct. 608, 54 L.Ed. 846; Lovejoy v. Murray, 3 Wall. 1, 18, 18 L.Ed. 129; Claflin v. Fletcher, C.C., 7 F. 851, 852; Maloy v. Duden, 2 Cir., 86 F. 402, 404, 30 C.C.A. 137; James v. Germania Iron Co., 8 Cir., 107 F. 597, 613, 46 C.C.A. It was t......
-
United States v. Candelaria, 208
...Compagnie des Sucreries, 217 U. S. 475, 486, 30 S. Ct. 608, 54 L. Ed. 846; Lovejoy v. Murray, 3 Wall. 1, 18, 18 L. Ed. 129; Claflin v. Fletcher (C. C.) 7 F. 851, 852; Maloy v. Duden, 86 F. 402, 404, 30 C. C. A. 137; James v. Germania Iron Co., 107 F. 597, 613, 46 C. C. A. Coming to the seco......
-
United States v. Candelaria
...La Compagnie des Sucreries, 217 U. S. 475, 486 30 S. Ct. 608, 54 L. Ed. 846; Lovejoy v. Murray, 3 Wall. 1, 18 18 L. Ed. 129; Claflin v. Fletcher C. C. 7 F. 851, 852; Maloy v. Duden C. C. A. 86 F. 402, 404; James v. Germania Iron Co. C. C. A. 107 F. 597, The answer to the second question was......
-
White v. Miley
... ... 207; Coles' Adm'x v. Illinois Cent. R ... Co., 120 Ky. 686, 87 S.W. 1082; Hatch v ... Coddington, 32 Minn. 92, 19 N.W. 393; Claflin v ... Fletcher (C. C.) 7 F. 851; Herriter v. Porter, ... 23 Cal. 385; Burdge v. Kelchner, 66 Kan. 642, 72 P ... 232; Kline v ... ...