Samuel Leathe v. Edward Thomas

• Decision Date: 11 November 1907
• Docket Number: No. 21,21
• Citation: 207 U.S. 93,52 L.Ed. 118,28 S.Ct. 30
• Parties: SAMUEL H. LEATHE, Plff. in Err., v. EDWARD L. THOMAS
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

207 U.S. 93

28 S.Ct. 30

52 L.Ed. 118

SAMUEL H. LEATHE, Plff. in Err.,

v EDWARD L. THOMAS.

No. 21.

Argued October 17, 1907.

Decided November 11, 1907.

Messrs. John Maynard Harlan, James S. Harlan, and Victor Koerner for plaintiff in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 93-94 intentionally omitted]Mr. Edward L. Thomasin propria persona for defendant in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 94-96 intentionally omitted]Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:

This is an action upon judgments obtained in Missouri by the plaintiff in error against the defendant in error, hereafter called respectively plaintiff and defendant.The defendant, not denying the judgments, pleaded four pleas in set-off.The first was for money had and received, interest, and upon an account stated.The second was upon an alleged contract of January 24, 1893.The third set up an alleged contract of March 25, 1893, to pay the debt of a railroad company to the defendant, a suit and judgment for the defendant against the railroad company, a bill in equity brought by the plaintiff to enjoin the proceedings in that suit, upon which one of the issues was the liability under the contract, and that after a hearing the bill was dismissed.The fourth plea was on the contract of March 25, without more.There was a general replication denying the pleas, and also a special replication to the third and fourth, to the effect that a suit upon the alleged contract was brought against the plaintiff for the use of the defendant and removed to the United States circuit court and there determined in favor of the present plaintiff, the proceedings set up in the third plea being held not conclusive.The suit referred to is Belleville & St. L. R. Co. v. Leathe, 28 C. C. A. 279, 53 U. S. App. 718, 84 Fed. 103.The case was sent to a referee to report his conclusions of law and fact.The referee reported in favor of the defendant and also reported the evidence.The trial court ordered judgment on the referee's report.This judgment was affirmed by an intermediate court and then was taken by writ of error to the supreme court of the state.That court held that the judgment of the United States circuit court made the matter of the third and fourth pleas in set-off res judicata, and reversed the judgment of the court below.But, upon a rehearing, the court, while adhering to its judgment upon the third and fourth pleas, stated that it had overlooked the first and second, that the judgment could be sustained upon them, that there was evidence to support them both, or at least the first, and that the referee's finding might be supported under the first.On these grounds the judgment was affirmed.218 Ill. 246, 75 N. E. 810.

The case now is here on a writ of error, the errors alleged being that full faith and credit was not given to the judgment of the United States court, and that the present judgment was rendered without due process of law.It is true that the judgment of the United States court was held binding against the pleas to which it applies, but it is said that it is emptied of all real effect if a judgment can be entered upon the first and second pleas, referring to earlier stages of the same transaction, because it is said that there was no evidence to support those pleas and no finding upon them, so that to support the judgment by their presence on the record is a mere pretense, and either is a denial of due credit to the former judgment or deprives the plaintiff of his property without due process of law.

In order to dispose of the case it is not necessary to state the dealings in detail; the following outline is enough: The defendant wanted money from the plaintiff to start a railway company.An agreement with regard to it was made on January 24, 1893, out of which, with the accompanying and subsequent transactions, the defendant sought to establish a right to be reimbursed for his advances to the road.L ater, on March 25 of the same year, there was a conveyance of its property by the railway company to the plaintiff and a conveyance by him to another company.The former deed was for $1 and 'other valuable considerations to it from him moving,' and the defendant alleged that the other considerations embraced a promise of the plaintiff to reimburse him.The referee's report refers to the dealings of January, but seemingly discovers no contract of reimbursement in them.It shows that the plaintiff insisted that all that he did was under the agreement of that month, but says that the evidence does not prove it conclusively.It says that matters culminated in the agreement of March 25, and finds that as part of the consideration of that deed the plaintiff promised to pay.

The judgment purported to be based upon the referee's report,...