Harnischfeger Sales Corporation v. Sternberg Dredging Co

• Decision Date: 03 June 1940
• Docket Number: 33421
• Citation: 191 So. 94,189 Miss. 73
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: HARNISCHFEGER SALES CORPORATION v. STERNBERG DREDGING CO

191 So. 94

189 Miss. 73

HARNISCHFEGER SALES CORPORATION v. STERNBERG DREDGING CO

No. 33421

Supreme Court of Mississippi, Division A

June 3, 1940

September 11, 1939, April 8, 1940,

Suggestion Of Error Overruled April 8, 1940.

APPEAL from the chancery court of Warren county HON. J. L. WILLIAMS Chancellor.

Suit by the Harnischfeger Sales Corporation against the Sternberg Dredging Company for the balance due on a series of notes wherein defendant filed a cross-bill and jurisdiction of the chancery court was obtained by means of garnishment proceedings against the defendant. From an adverse judgment plaintiff appeals. Reversed and rendered.

On Suggestion of Error. Suggestion of Error Overruled.

On Motion to correct decree. Motion Sustained.

Reversed and judgment for appellant. Suggestion of error overruled. Motion to correct decree sustained.

Dent, Robinson & Ward, of Vicksburg, Green, Green & Jackson, of Jackson, Theus, Grisham, Davis & Leigh, of Monroe, La., and Arthur W. Coppin, of Milwaukee, Wis., for appellant.

The judgment rendered in the sixth judicial district court for the parish of East Carroll, Louisiana, affirmed by the Supreme Court of Louisiana, upon the fourteen notes herein sued on, constitutes, as between plaintiff and defendant, a final adjudication as to (a) the amount due --$ 16, 541.00, with interest from August 1, 1930--on said fourteen notes--without diminution by reason of anything arising from the sixty-foot boom and the two-yard bucket, directly or collaterally--wherefor foreclosure was decreed.

The demand on the fourteen notes was on the same cause of action, between the same parties, in the same quality and the adjudication as to the amount took place with reference to the object of the judgment.

41 C. J. 672; Gardner v. Maxwell, 27 La. Ann. 561; Williams v. Morancy, 3 La. Ann. 227; 19 R. C. L., p. 120 and p. 667, Sec. 482, and Secs. 357, 365; Stark v. Mercer, 3 How. (Miss.), 377, 380; Cobb v. Duke, 36 Miss. 60; 42 C. J. 164; 3 Jones on Mortgages (8. Ed.), 486, Sec. 2034; Dobbins v. Economic Gas Co., 182 Cal. 616, 189 P. 1073; Wardlaw v. Middleton, 156 Cal. 585, 105 P. 738; Murray v. Pearce, 95 N. J. L. 104, 112 A. 314; McMillan v. Teachey, 167 N.C. 88, 83 S.E. 175; Ex parte Cockfield, 118 S.C. 239, 110 S.E. 393; 2 Van Vleet's Former Adjudication, p. 749; Bigelow on Estoppel (6 Ed.), 92; Producers' Naval Stores Co. v. M'Allister (5 C. C. A.), 278 F. 13, 31 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1023; State Mut. Bl. & L. Assn. v. Batterson, 77 N. J. L. 57, 71 A. 115; Union Cent. Life Ins. Co. v. Saathoff, 115 Neb. 385, 213 N.W. 342; Anderson v. Walsh, 109 Neb. 759, 192 N.W. 328; Pfeffer v. Corey, 211 Iowa, 203, 233 N.W. 126, 128; Smith v. Heppner, 276 Mich. 463, 267 N.W. 882, 884; Mann v. Bugbee, 113 N. J. Eq. 434, 167 A. 202; Mut. Ben. L. Ins. Co. v. Bachtenkircher, 209 Ind. 106, 198 N.E. 81, 104 A. L. R. 1135.

But assume, for the sake of the argument, that the cause of action on the notes to obtain a decree for foreclosure is not upon the same cause of action, yet there having been actual litigation as to the amount of the indebtedness, the amount thus adjudged is conclusive.

Harding Co. v. Harding, 352 Ill. 417, 186 N.E. 152, 88 A. L. R. 569; Note, 88 A. L. R. 575; Adams v. Railroad Co., 77 Miss. 265; Clark v. Norred, 4 La. App. 394; Morgan v. Callahan (La.), 171 So. 135; Sklar Oil Corp. v. Standard Oil Co. (La.), 181 So. 487; Typhoon Fan Co. v. Pillsbury, 166 La. 882, 118 So. 70; Cotton v. Walker, 164 Miss. 208, 144 So. 45; Fair v. Dickerson, 164 Miss. 432, 144 So. 238; Collister v. Loan Assn., 44 Ariz. 427, 38 P.2d 626, 98 A. L. R. 1020, note at 1027; Charles v. Davis, 62 N.H. 375; Ryan v. B. & L. Assn., 50 S.C. 185, 27 S.E. 618, 62 Am. St. Rep. 831; Dallas Trust & Sav. Bank v. Brashear (Tex.), 39 S.W.2d 148; Dobbins v. Economic Gas Co., 182 Cal. 616, 189 P. 1073; Murray v. Pearce, 95 N. J. L. 104, 112 A. 314; McMillan v. Teachey, 167 N.C. 88, 83 S.E. 175; Henry v. Gant, 75 Ind. A. 218, 129 N.E. 409; Stewart v. Phoenix Nat. Bank (Ariz.), 64 P.2d 101, 107; Mitchell v. State, 179 Miss. 814, 176 So. 743; Hardy v. O'Pry, 102 Miss. 197, 214, 59 So. 73.

Parol evidence is inadmissible to affect the written contract of purchase.

Harnischfeger Sales Corp. v. Sternberg, 179 La. 317, 154 So. 10, 14; 88 A. L. R. 574; Harding Co. v. Harding, 352 Ill. 417, 186 N.E. 152; Ludeling v. Chaffe, 40 La. Ann. 645, 4 So. 586; Hinkle v. McGuire (La.), 182 So. 551; Harnischfeger Sales Corp. v. Sternberg Co., 180 La. 1059, 158 So. 556.

There is no liability arising from warranties contained.

The E-270 (Mass.), 16 F.2d 1005; Renne v. Volk, 188 Wis. 508, 205 N.W. 385; 2 Mechem on Sales 1088, Sec. 254; Reed v. Rea-Patterson Milling Co., 186 Ark. 595, 54 S.W.2d 695; Marsh Wood Products Co. v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., 207 Wis. 209, 240 N.W. 392, 398; Bowser & Co. v. Birmingham, 276 Mass. 289, 177 N.E. 268, 270; RCA Photophone, Inc., v. Carroll, 174 S.C. 183, 177 S.E. 23; 75 A. L. R. 1080; Ohio Elec. Co. v. Wisconsin-Minnesota L. & P. Co., 161 Wis. 632, 155 N.W. 112; Fox v. Boldt, 172 Wis. 333, 178 N.W. 467; Russell Crader Mfg. Co. v. Budden, 197 Wis. 615, 222 N.W. 788; 34 A. L. R. 535, 542.

Alleged wrongful acts of agent do not invalidate contract because: (a) no actionable misrepresentations; (b) the representations being of an agent, without power to do more than submit proposals, are not imputed to the manufacturer who reserved to its chief executive officer the exclusive right to contract, when the proposal expressly provides the extent of the agent's powers, and that it contains all terms of the agreement.

Scott County Milling Co. v. Powers, 112 Miss. 798, 73 So. 792; Ohio Millers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Artesia State Bank, 39 F.2d 400; Cooper v. Robertson Inv. Co., 117 Miss. 108, 77 So. 953; Hirsch Bros. & Co. v. Kennington, 155 Miss. 242, 124 So. 350; Tallahatchie Home Bank v. Aldridge, 169 Miss. 597, 153 So. 820; Colt Co. v. Odom, 136 Miss. 651, 101 So. 853.

This action having been brought in Mississippi, the rules of pleading and evidence are those of the forum.

11 Am. Jur. 521, par. 203; 12 C. J. 447; Restatement of the Law, Conflict of Laws, Sec. 597 et seq.; U. S. F. & G. Co. v. Yost, 183 Miss. 65, 183 So. 260, 185 So. 564; Colt Co. v. Odom, 136 Miss. 651, 101 So. 853; Colt v. Harris, 177 Miss. 536, 171 So. 697; Tenn. Joint Stock Land Bank v. Bank, 179 Miss. 534, 172 So. 328; Restatement of Law of Agency, Par. 260, Miss. Annotations; 75 A. L. R. 1046.

But, assuming the Mississippi law inapplicable, then the general rule in Louisiana and elsewhere is precisely the same.

3 C. J. S. 152, Sec. 236 (e); Harnischfeger Sales Corp. v. Coats (Cal.), 40 P.2d 875; Harnischfeger Sales Corp. v. Coats, 4 Cal. (2d) 319, 48 P.2d 662; Speck v. Wylie, 1 Cal. (2d) 625, 36 P.2d 618, 95 A. L. R. 760; Hill & MacMillan v. Taylor, 304 Pa. 78, 155 A. 103, 75 A. L. R. 1022; 2 Am. Jur., Sec. 365; 75 A. L. R. 1046, 1068, Annotation; Hunt v. Hurd, 205 Mich. 142, 171 N.W. 373, 374; Somerville v. Gin Co., 137 Tenn. 509, 194 S.W. 576, 59 A. L. R. 1219, and note; Maxwell Co. v. So. Oregon Gas Corp. (Ore.), 74 P.2d 594, 75 P.2d 9, 114 A. L. R. 703; Kolodzeak v. Peerless Motor Co., 255 Mich. 47, 237 N.W. 41; Barnsdall Refining Corp. v. Birnamwood Oil Co. (7 C. C. A.), 92 F.2d 817; The Nuska, 300 F. 231, 11 F.2d 103; Bowser v. Birmingham, 276 Mass. 289, 177 N.E. 268, 270; Barnebey v. Collier (8 C. C. A.), 65 F.2d 864, 866; Lasher v. Laberg, 125 Me. 475, 135 A. 31, 32; Hauer v. Martin, 284 Pa. 407, 409, 131 A. 187.

A failure by the chancery court to enforce said Wisconsin statutes and said Louisiana judgments in accordance with the laws of Wisconsin and Louisiana, respectively, constitutes (1) a deprivation of property without due process of law; and (2) a denial of the full faith and credit clause, both as vouchsafed by the federal constitution.

U. S. F. & G. Co. v. Yost, 183 Miss. 65, 183 So. 260, 185 So. 564; Hartford Acc. & Ind. Co. v. Delta & Pine Land Co., 292 U.S. 143, 78 L.Ed. 1178; Fauntleroy v. Lum, 210 U.S. 230, 52 L.Ed. 1039; Protective Life Ins. Co. v. Lamarque (Miss.), 177 So. 18.

The defendant in opposing the plea of res adjudicata on the ground that the judgment sought thus to be interposed is strictly one in rem loses sight of the character of a judgment in rem. There are two types of judgments in rem: One is the type which results strictly from an attachment or other proceedings which bring the property itself rather than the person of the defendant within the jurisdiction of the court. In such a proceeding the defendant receives no personal service whatever. The proceedings are instituted strictly by taking jurisdiction and physical possession of the defendant's property and bringing it within the jurisdiction of the court, and the theory upon which such a judgment can be rendered is that the court having taken possession of the res itself has jurisdiction to adjudicate all claims upon it without any personal service against the defendant, or any process against the defendant other than by publication or other notice provided under the state law. In such a proceeding the defendant is not before the court, need not personally assert his rights, and any judgment which might be rendered can only operate against the property of which the court had physical possession and jurisdiction. This is the type of judgment in rem which the defendant now urges as having no extraterritorial effect whatsoever. The other type of judgment in rem is a judgment rendered in a proceeding where the court has jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the cause of action, but without having jurisdiction to render a personal judgment against the defendant such as is the case here.

19 R C. L. 667, Sec. 482; Stark v. Mercer (Miss.), 3 How. 377,...