Dean v. Chapin

• Decision Date: 12 January 1871
• Citation: 22 Mich. 275
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: Henry S. Dean and Sedgwick Dean v. Charles A. Chapin et al

22 Mich. 275

Henry S. Dean and Sedgwick Dean v. Charles A. Chapin et al

Supreme Court of Michigan

January 12, 1871

Heard January 11, 1871

Error to Washtenaw circuit.

This was an action of assumpsit brought by appeal from a justice's judgment into the circuit court for the county of Washtenaw, in a suit between Henry S. Dean and Sedgwick Dean, plaintiffs, and Charles A. Chapin, Charles H. Richmond and Ebenezer Wells, defendants. The action was for the purchase price of thirty-six oil barrels. The defendants pleaded the general issue, and gave notice of set-off. The cause was tried by a jury, who, under the charge of the court, found a verdict for the defendants. The plaintiffs removed the cause to this court by writ of error.

Judgment reversed, with costs, and a new trial granted.

D Cramer, for plaintiffs in error.

R. E Frazer and E. Lawrence, for defendants in error.

OPINION

Campbell Ch. J.

Plaintiffs in error sued defendants to recover the price of certain oil barrels which had contained kerosene oil, and when empty had been bargained for by defendants.

The defense relied upon was, that before delivery the plaintiffs had failed to cancel the inspection brand, whereby the sale was made illegal and the property forfeited to the United States. And evidence was given of an actual seizure and forfeiture.

It is urged as ground of error that this defense is not admissible under the general issue. But under the laws such forfeitures relate back to the time of the offense committed, and defeat any title. The defense is equivalent, therefore, to denying the delivery of any valuable thing and any lawful sale, and goes to the whole original cause of action under the contract. It is not a subsequent failure of consideration, but a sale in violation of law. The sale itself is the offense.

A serious question in the case arises upon the proof of illegality, and the effect of the United States judgment, and the mode of proving it.

The judgment record was proved by the certificate of the United States district clerk, under the seal of the court, in the full form declared sufficient by our statutes, and in conformity to the common law, but not, as it is claimed, in such form as to make it evidence in all places under the acts of congress, declaring the manner of proving such judgments so as to make them admissible everywhere. We could not reject such evidence of a judgment of that kind as congress shall have declared conclusive, but we are not compelled to require it unless we choose. And our statutes have not only provided for such evidence as was here produced, but they have not undertaken to rescind the common law rules not in conflict with them. They have merely provided additional methods of proof. And the rules which we recognized in Capling...