Miller v. Gillespie

Citation59 Mo. 220
PartiesDAVID D. MILLER, Defendant in Error, v. JAMES A. GILLESPIE, Plaintiff in Error.
Decision Date28 February 1875
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Error to the Clay Circuit Court.

D. C. Allen, for Plaintiff in Error.

I. No contribution can arise save where there is mutual and equal obligation. Gillespie and Miller were not jointly bound to pay the judgment wherein they were defendants. (Wagn. Stat. [Ed. 1872], 71, § 3; Pickering vs. Mississippi Val. Nat. Tel. Co., 47 Mo., 457; Langford vs. Sanger, 40 Mo., 160; House vs. Powell, 45 Mo., 381; Syme vs. Str. Indiana, 28 Mo., 335; Freem. Judg., 89, § 120; Jones vs. Fuller, 38 Mo. 363; Biddle vs. Boyce, 13 Mo., 532; 1 Par. Cont., 31, § 3 [Ed. 1864,] et seq.; Labeaume vs. Sweeney, 17 Mo., 153.)

II. In the case of the State ex rel. Clark v. Long, the judgment in favor of Gillespie and against his co-defendants was conclusive between all parties to the cause, and destroyed any right of contribution as between Miller and Gillespie, if any ever existed. Miller rested satisfied with that judgment and did not seek to reverse it. If he was not satisfied, he should have appealed or sued out his writ of error. (Par. Cont., supra; Freem. Judg., 125, § 154; Offutt vs. John, 8 Mo., 120; Ridgley vs. Stillwell, 27 Mo., 128.)

Samuel Hardwick, for Defendant in Error.

I. It is only between opposing parties that matters are finally determined, and the judgment is binding. (Freem. Judg., § 158; Buffington vs. Cook, 35 Ala., 312; McCrary vs. Park, 18 Ohio St. 1.)

II. A judgment is not binding on any one, unless he has a right to sue out a writ of error or take an appeal. (Leonard vs. Bryant, 11 Met. [Mass.], 370; Downs vs. Fuller, 2 Met. [Mass.], 135; Gilbert vs. Thompson, 9 Cush. [[[Mass.], 348; Bacon's Abridgement, Title Error, B.) As to Gillespie, the plaintiff could have dismissed as to him or agreed to a judgment in his favor, and Miller had no right to complain. (1 Wagn. Stat., 269, § 4.)

III. The debt was created while the administrator with his sureties was acting in a fiduciary capacity--to execute a will. In such case bankruptcy affords no discharge. (See Bump Bankr., 4 Ed., 439, § 33.)

NAPTON, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

This suit is by a surety on an administration bond to recover of a co-surety one-half of the money the plaintiff paid on a judgment against the administrator and himself as surety.

The defense is that in a suit against the administrator, and the plaintiff and defendant who were his sureties, the defendant pleaded bankruptcy, and his plea was adjudged good and he was therefore discharged from all liability to the plaintiff in that action; and this judgment is relied on as res adjudicata in the present action.

On the trial, the proof was clear that the plaintiff paid the debt of the administrator, for whom Gillespie was surety, and this was all the proof offered by plaintiff.

Whether Gillespie's discharge in bankruptcy will operate to discharge him from liability against a suit by his co-surety on an administration bond, is a question not raised in the case.

This question was decided in the case of Jones & Cullom vs. Knox (46 Ala., 53), and we think rightly. The discharge operated to release the defendant Gillespie from all his liabilities, except such as arose from a fiduciary relation; but the surety occupied no fiduciary relation to any one, though the principal did.

In the case of Halliburton vs. Carter, (55 Mo., 435) this view is conceded; and, therefore, though a discharge of the principal would not release the sureties, a discharge of the surety, under the bankrupt law, will be a bar to any action based on such liability.

But it will be observed, that the petition in this case, alleged a bond, a suit on it by certain persons in the name of the State, a judgment in such suit, and a payment by plaintiff of the entire amount, and, therefore, he asks for contribution. The defendant first...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Fiene v. Kirchoff
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • July 2, 1903
    ...res judicata, the same as if they arose between opposing parties." [21 Am. and Eng. Ency. of Law (1 Ed.), p. 134.] The cases of Miller v. Gillespie, 59 Mo. 220; McMahan v. Geiger, 73 Mo. 145; and Bank Bartle, 114 Mo. 276, 21 S.W. 816, relied on by the plaintiffs, illustrate the rule above l......
  • Henthorn v. Tidd
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • November 21, 1916
    ...said mortgage were not in issue, nor litigated in the first proceeding. 23 Cyc. 752; Jackson v. Lemler, 83 Miss. 37, 35 So. 306; Miller v. Gillespie 59 Mo. 220; Jones v. Vert et al., 121 Ind. 140, 22 N.E. 882, 16 Am. St. Rep. 379; Hoxie v. Farmers' & Mechanics' Bank, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 462, ......
  • Shannon v. Mastin
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • March 2, 1908
    ...between themselves, unless they were adversary parties in the original action." McMahan v. Geiger, 73 Mo. 145, 39 Am. Rep. 489; Miller v. Gillespie, 59 Mo. 220; Bank v. Bartle, 114 Mo. 276, 21 S. W. 816. It is not meant that, because the parties to a suit may be arrayed on the same side, th......
  • Hoyt v. Greene
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • December 11, 1888
    ...were not adversaries in the mechanic's lien suit. Freeman on Judg., sec. 158; 2 Herman on Estoppel and Res Adjudicata, 149; Miller v. Gillespie, 59 Mo. 220; McCrary Park, 18 Ohio St. 1; Buffington v. Cook, 35 Ala. 312. E. B. Sherzer, for the defendant appellants. The adjudication in the lie......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT