John Sheppard and Others, Plaintiffs In Error v. John Wilson

• Decision Date: 01 January 1848
• Parties: JOHN C. SHEPPARD AND OTHERS, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. JOHN WILSON
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

47 U.S. 260

6 How. 260

12 L.Ed. 430

JOHN C. SHEPPARD AND OTHERS, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. JOHN WILSON.

January Term, 1848

THIS cause was brought up by writ of error from the Supreme Court of the Territory of Iowa.

It was an action commenced in the District Court of Scott county, in the Territory of Iowa, by Wilson against Sheppard and others, for a breach of a contract for hiring a steamboat. It is not necessary to state the facts in the case, or any other circumstances than those upon which the decision of this court turned.

On the 7th of October, 1841, the cause came on for trial in the District Court of Scott county, when the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, and assessed his damages at $1,837.50.

A bill of exceptions, containing a recapitulation of the evidence

upon both sides and sundry prayers to the court, is found in its proper place in the record; but the date of its signature by the judge is the 21st day of December, 1843, whereas the trial took place in October, 1841.

A motion for a new trial was made by the counsel for the defendants upon several grounds, which it is not necessary to specify.

In April, 1842, the court commenced in Scott county on the 4th, and in Clinton county, in the same district, on the 11th. But on the 12th of April, whilst the court was in session in Clinton county, the following entries were made in Scott county:——

JOHN WILSON v. JOHN C. SHEPPARD et al.—Assumpsit.

And now come the parties by their attorneys, and the defendants move for judgment on the motion for a new trial, made and argued at the last term of this court in this cause, and held under advisement until the present term.

Judgment.

It is considered by the court, that said defendants take nothing by their said motion; and thereupon the plaintiff moves the court for judgment upon the verdict rendered by the jurors aforesaid at the last term of this court in this cause. It is therefore considered by the court, that the plaintiff recover of the defendants the said sum of eighteen hundred and thirty-seven dollars and fifty cents, his damages aforesaid in form aforesaid assessed, besides his costs by him about his suit in this behalf expended, and that execution issue therefor.

Appeal granted.

And thereupon, the said defendants, by their attorney, pray an appeal, which was allowed.

Whether or not this appeal prevented the District Court of Scott county from correcting the erroneous entry was one of the questions before this court.

At October term, 1842, the following proceedings took place in the District Court of Scott county:——

Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment.

And afterwards, to wit, on the third day of October, in the year of our Lord 1842, the said plaintiff filed in the court aforesaid the following motion for judgment in this cause, to wit: —

WILSON v. SHEPPARD AND OTHERS.

And now, at this day, October term, 1842, comes the said plaintiff, by Mitchell & Grant, his attorneys, and moves the

court to enter up judgment in this cause, as of the last fall term of this court.

MITCHELL & GRANT, for Plaintiff.

Second Judgment.

And afterwards, to wit, on the 7th day of October, in the year last aforesaid, the following proceedings were had, to wit:——

WILSON v. SHEPPARD AND OTHERS.—Assumpsit.

This day came the said plaintiff, by his attorney, and it appearing to the court, that, at a previous term of this court, to wit, the October term, 1841, the issue previously joined in this cause was submitted to a jury, who, after hearing the evidence and arguments of counsel, returned into court the following verdict, to wit: they find the issue for the plaintiff, and assess his damages at the sum of eighteen hundred and thirty-seven dollars and fifty cents.

Appeal prayed by Defendants.

Whereupon, a motion was made by the attorney for defendants for a new trial herein, which motion was, at said October term, taken under advisement by the court; and it further appearing to the court, that this court has not at any time since decided said motion, but that said motion was continued under advisement until the present term, that the order of continuance at last term was not entered of record. It is therefore ruled, that said order of continuance be entered 'nunc pro tunc'; and the court, having now fully considered the said motion for a new trial, doth overrule the same. And it is further considered by the court, that the plaintiff have and recover of and from the said defendants the said sum of eighteen hundred and thirty-seven dollars and fifty cents, his damages in manner and form aforesaid assessed, together with his costs by him about his suit in that behalf expended, and that a special execution against the property attached issue therefor; thereupon the defendants prayed an appeal to the Supreme Court.

To this judgment of the District Court, the counsel for the defendants took a bill of exceptions, with a view to carry the case up to the Supreme Court of Iowa.

In January, 1844, the case came before the Supreme Court of Iowa, when the counsel for Wilson moved to strike from the record, and reject from the consideration of the court, the bill of exceptions filed and dated in December, 1843; which motion the court sustained.

The counsel for Sheppard then moved for a mandamus, directed to the judge of the District Court of Scott county, requiring

him to sign and seal, nunc pro tunc, the bill of exceptions tendered on the original trial. But the court refused to grant the mandamus.

After some other proceedings, which it is not necessary to state, the Supreme Court of Iowa, in January, 1845, affirmed the judgment of the District Court of Scott county.

To review this affirmance, a writ of error brought the case up to this court.

It was argued by Mr. Clement Cox and Mr. Learned (in print), for the plaintiffs in error, and by Mr. Grant, for the defendant.

The counsel for the plaintiffs in error assigned twelve causes of error, the last six of which are as follows:——

7th. The court erred, in entering an order for a continuance of this cause, nunc pro tunc, on motion therefor, at the October term, 1842, and in rendering a judgment upon the verdict of the jury at said term, upon a mere motion of the plaintiff.

8th. The court erred, in rendering a judgment at the October term, 1842, the second judgment in this record, after a writ of error had been sued out and served, and made a supersedeas by the allowance of a judge of the Supreme Court, which was then pending.

9th. The Supreme Court erred, in expunging from the record the defendant's bill of exceptions, tendered at the trial of the cause before the District Court of Scott county.

10th. The Supreme Court erred, in refusing the writ of mandamus, on the motion of the plaintiff in error, to the judge of the District Court of Scott county, requiring the said judge to sign and seal, nunc pro tunc, the bills of exceptions tendered at the trial of this cause before the District Court, by the defendants below, or show cause against the said motion.

11th. The said Supreme Court erred, in reversing the judgment of the District Court, rendered upon the verdict of the jury on the 12th of April, 1842, on the ground that the supersedeas bond did not appear in the record with the writ of error.

12th. The Supreme Court erred, in affirming the judgment of the District Court, rendered on the 7th of October, 1842, being the second judgment rendered in said cause, and which said judgment was rendered when a writ of error was pending, and after the cause had been removed thereby from the jurisdiction of said District Court.

The argument on behalf of the plaintiffs in error, upon the above points, was as follows.

We will now examine the 7th and 8th errors assigned, as

they are connected in substance, and inquire what this first judgment of April was in its character.

Suppose the plaintiffs in error had acquiesced in this judgment, and had not taken any steps to have it reversed, could not the plaintiff below have enforced his judgment? Was it not a final judgment in the cause, conclusive on its face, upon the parties to it, upon the subject-matter embraced in the suit? Suppose the plaintiff below had issued his execution, levied it upon property, and sold the same in satisfaction of the judgment, while the judgment remained unreversed, and without any supersedeas to restrain its operations, could an action have been maintained against the officer for levying upon, taking, and selling the defendants' property in satisfaction of the judgment debt? We say it could not; and the defendant in error thought so, too, for he did issue his execution upon this judgment, which appears by the records, and the officer made his full return thereof before the writ of error to reverse the judgment was sued out. In 6 Peters, 8, the Supreme Court decide,—'If execution issue upon an erroneous judgment, the party who acts under it is justified until it is reversed, for it is the act of the court.' So in 9 Peters, 8, the court say,—'A judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction,' (which means, I suppose, a court having a legal jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the suit,) 'while unreversed, concludes the subject-matter of it between the parties to it.' In 3 Cranch, 300, the court decide, that 'a judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, although obtained by fraud, has never been considered void, and all acts done under such judgments are valid as respects third persons.' Such judgments, then, by these authorities, would protect the sheriff acting under the authority of an execution to enforce them. Such is the case of the first judgment rendered in this cause, as the record will show. Again, in 3 Dallas, 401, the court say, that 'although a judgment of an inferior court be defective, yet, if in its nature it is final, and one on which an execution can issue, the party is entitled to his writ of error.' This judgment of the 12th of ...