Harnischfeger Sales Corporation v. Sternberg Dredging Co.
| Decision Date | 08 April 1940 |
| Docket Number | 33421. |
| Citation | 195 So. 322,189 Miss. 73 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | HARNISCHFEGER SALES CORPORATION v. STERNBERG DREDGING CO. |
Motion to Correct Decree Sustained June 3, 1940.
See 196 So. 504.
Appeal from Chancery Court, Warren County; J. L. Williams Chancellor.
On suggestion of error.
Suggestion of error overruled.
For former opinion, see 191 So. 94.
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.
O'Niell & O'Niell, of New Orleans, La., and Brunini Wright & Brunini, of Vicksburg, for appellee.
In the Louisiana court, in the original proceeding there, the Sales Corporation averred that its debt, for the recovery of which that suit was instituted, amounted to approximately $16,000, the debt being evidenced by a series of notes, secured by a chattel mortgage. The Dredging Company there appeared and presented as its defense against the debt, a counterclaim for damages and adduced substantially the same evidence which has been presented in the present case, under which, if its claim for damages for what it then called a breach of warranty had been sustained, it would have owed the Sales Corporation nothing; and no decree could have issued against the Dredging Company, for, as we pointed out in our original opinion, it was necessary for the Louisiana court to find and adjudge that the debt demanded by the Sales Corporation was due and owing by the Dredging Company, else it could not have ordered the sale of the encumbered property. The ultimate issue whether the debt existed and was due was a necessary and vital issue, without the determination of which in the affirmative favor of the Sales Corporation no further adjudication could be made, save to dismiss the entire proceeding. The debt issue was not one which that court could have laid to one side, and still have proceeded with other features of the case.
But whether the debt existed, and was due in the full amount demanded, depended upon whether the counterclaim interposed by the Dredging Company was sustained under the facts, and that issue was there fully heard. The Louisiana court held that the counterclaim was without sustainable merit either in part or as a whole, and furnished, therefore, no obstacle to the enforcement of the debt.
The argument by the Dredging Company now further pressed is that inasmuch as the counterclaim interposed in the Louisiana court against the demand there made for the purchase...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Minichiello v. Rosenberg
...Ky. 155, 60 S.W.2d 368, 89 A.L.R. 1095 (1933); contra, Harnischfeger Sales Corp. v. Sternberg Dredging Co., 189 Miss. 73, 191 So. 94, 195 So. 322 (1940). Other authorities have concluded that a quasi in rem judgment may work an estoppel on issues of fact that the defendant has actually liti......
-
Hodge v. International Derrick & Equipment Co.
...acceptance, both express and implied. Stillwell v. Biloxi Canning Co., 79 Miss. 779, 29 So. 513; Harnischfeger Sales Corporation v. Sternberg Dredging Company, 189 Miss. 73, 195 So. 322, 323; 55 C.J., Sales, Sec. 491, pg. We consider it unnecessary to pass upon the other questions presented......
-
Harnischfeger Sales Corp. v. Sternberg Dredging Co.
...Court, Warren County; J. L. Williams, Chancellor. On motion to correct decree. Motion sustained. For former opinions, see 191 So. 94; 195 So. 322. Robinson & Ward, of Vicksburg, Green, Green & Jackson, of Jackson, Theus, Gresham, Davis & Leigh, of Monroe, La., and Arthur W. Coppin, of Milwa......