Ming v. Suggett

• Decision Date: 31 January 1864
• Citation: 34 Mo. 364
• Parties: CHARLES A. MING, ADM'R, &C., OF LARKIN CARSON, Defendant in Error, v. THOMAS SUGGETT, ADM'R, &C., OF JOHN E. SUGGETT, Plaintiff in Error.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

34 Mo. 364

CHARLES A. MING, ADM'R, &C., OF LARKIN CARSON, Defendant in Error,

v.THOMAS SUGGETT, ADM'R, &C., OF JOHN E. SUGGETT, Plaintiff in Error.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

January Term, 1864.

Error to Callaway Circuit Court.

C. H. Hardin, H. C. Ewing, and J. L. Smith, for plaintiff in error.

I. The court erred in refusing defendant's instructions. There was certainly evidence tending to show that the property was delivered and the money paid as a compromise, and if so, the instruction should have been given.

II. The court permitted the plaintiff to introduce improper evidence.

Plaintiff read in evidence the acts, such as settlements, &c., of Larkin Carson's administrator, to show the value of the yearly hire of “Jim.”

This was not competent evidence to show that fact. (1 Greenl. Ev. § 522 to 528.)

These records might have been read to prove that a certain judgment (for settlements are judgments) had been rendered, but not to prove the value of hire. (1 Greenl. Ev. § 538.)

III. The court erred in striking out the several answers of the defendant.H. C. Hayden, for defendant in error.

I. Upon a reversal of the judgment of the Circuit Court in this case of Suggett v. Carson, the defendant of right was entitled to be restored to all things lost by reason of the judgment, to-wit: the slave, the damages assessed, and the hire of the negro during the time the defendant held him under the judgment. (Bacon's Abridg. Title Error, p. 389, 390; Tidd's Prac. 1836; 2 Bibb, 518; A. K. Marshall, 217; 2 Bow. Law Dict. Title Rest. 47; 1 Archb. Prac. 260, 291; 6 Peters, 8; 8 Cowan, 297; Cro. James, 246; Ralls' Abr. 778; Yelv. 179; Brownl. 107, 108; 1 M. & S. 25; 10 Mass. 433; 5 Id. 264; Shields v. Powers, 29 Mo. 317; 26 Mo. 514; 26 Mo. 152; 29 Mo. 472.) After dismissal of snit defendant was entitled to return of property.

II. The Circuit Court committed no error in striking out that portion of each answer setting up Suggett's original cause of action as a defence to this proceeding. (Watkins v. State, 7 Mo. 334; 24 Mo. 265.)

BATES, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

Suggett sued Carson's estate in the Callaway Circuit Court for a negro, and recovered judgment for the negro and damages. The negro was delivered and the damages paid to Suggett. Afterwards the case was taken to the Supreme Court, which court reversed the judgment of the Circuit Court and remanded the cause to that court, where Suggett voluntarily dismissed the case.

This suit was then brought against the administrator of Suggett, who had died, for the return of the negro and the damages paid him, and also for the hire of the negro while he had him.

The defendant answered, and, among other things set up as defences, alleged the original title of Suggett to the negro, (but did not set up any title acquired since the judgment of the Supreme Court.) This defence was, on motion, stricken out of the answer. This was proper. After the decision of the case by the Supreme Court, Carson's estate was entitled to be restored to all that it had lost by means of the original judgment of the Circuit Court. This of course included the return of the negro and the money, delivered in performance of the original judgment; and this should have been done without any reference to or effect upon Suggett's right to the negro, and which he might have established and enforced in that or another action. Having dismissed that action voluntarily, he cannot now require Carson's administrator to establish his title to the property, nor can he resist the claim of Carson's estate by showing title in himself acquired before the judgment of the Circuit Court in the former case.

The answer upon which the case was tried, also alleged that the administrator of Carson voluntarily and as a matter of compromise of said suit, and as a complete settlement between them of all matters in controversy in relation to said slave Jim and in relation to said suit, surrendered and delivered to said Suggett the possession of said slave Jim, and paid to said Suggett the said sum of two...