Sayre's Adm'r v. Harpold

• Decision Date: 15 March 1890
• Citation: 33 W.Va. 553,11 S.E. 16
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: Sayre's Adm'r. v. Harpold et al.

11 S.E. 16

33 W.Va. 553

Sayre's Adm'r.

v.Harpold et al.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

March 15, 1890.

Res Judicata—Foreign Judgments — Equitable Relief.

1. An adjudication by a court having jurisdiction of the subject-matter and the parties is final and conclusive, not only as to the matters actually determined, but as to every other matter which the parties might have litigated as incident thereto, and coming within the legitimate purview of the subject-matter of the action. It is not essential that the matter should have been formally put in issue in a former suit, but it is sufficient that the status of the suit was such that the parties might have had the matter disposed of on its merits. An erroneous ruling of the court will not prevent the matter from being res judicata.

2. The above rule applies not only to judgments and decrees of the courts of the same state, but to the judgments and decrees of the courts of any state of the Union, whenever questioned in any sister state, provided there was personal service or an appearance of the parties to the suit in the sister state.

3. The mere insolvency of a judgment creditor will not, of itself, justify an injunction against the enforcement of a judgment at law upon the ground of a set-off, which might have been pleaded at law at the time such judgment was recovered.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Appeal from circuit court, Mason county.

Tomlinson & Wiley and C. E. Hogg, for appellants.

Simpson & Howard and J. B. Menager, for appellee.

Snyder, P. On August 13, 1878, E. C. Harpold made his negotiable note for $562, payable 30 days after date, to the order of the Tyro Mill Company, at the First City Bank, Pomeroy, Ohio. Before maturity, this note became the property of John W. Sayre. In the fall of 1879 said Sayre hired from Julia W. Harpold, the wife of said E. C. Harpold, a certain barge, named the "Hattie, "to use in carrying a cargo of freight from the city of Pomeroy, Ohio, to New Orleans, La., and agreed to pay for the use of said barge the one-half of the amount received by him for the freight carried on said trip; and, further, to return said barge to the plain tiff. Atthesametime the said Julia W. Harpold delivered to said Sayre an order in writing, signed by her, directing him to apply so much of her share of the earnings of the barge Hattie on said trip as would payoff the aforesaid note of her husband, and pay the residue of said earnings to her husband for her. Under this arrangement Sayre took possession of the barge, and made the trip to New Orleans, but on the way back the barge was lost in the Mississippi river, and never returned. In May, 1883, Julia W. Harpold and E. C. Harpold, her husband, brought an action in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, in the state of Missouri, to recover $840 as the one-half of the earnings of said barge, and $3,000 as the value of the said barge. Personal service to answer said action was had in the city of St. Louis on said Sayre, and he appeared thereto by counsel, at first for the purpose only of moving to dismiss the case on the ground that he was a non-resident of the state of Missouri, and had been improperly enticed to come to St. Louis by the plaintiffs for the purpose of serving the summons upon him; but afterwards he appeared, and on his motion the case was transferred to the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Missouri. After the case had been so removed, the defendant Sayre filed in said last-mentioned court his answer to the plaintiffs' petition, in which he denied all and singular the allegations of said petition. And thereupon, on September 27, 1884, the case was tried by a jury, and a verdict and judgment rendered against him for $840, with interest and costs. In April, 1885, the said Julia A. Harpold and E. C. Harpold, her husband, commenced in the circuit court of Mason county, in this state, against, the said John W. Sayre, an action of debt for $1,232.64, the aggregate amount of the debt, interest, and costs of the judgment recovered by them against him in the circuit court of the United Statesas aforesaid. While this action was pending and undetermined the said John W. Sayre filed his bill in the said circuit court of Mason county against the said Julia W. Harpold, E. C. Harpold, and others: and upon the allegations of his said bill he on February 3, 1886, obtained from said court an injunction to inhibit and restrain the said Harpolds from further prosecuting said action until the further order of said court. The plaintiff Sayre, in his bill, after setting out the foregoing facts, avers that the recovery had against him in the said United States court was for the hire of the barge alone, and nothing was recovered for the loss of the barge; that he had a good and valid defense to said action, but was prevented from making the same, for the reason that his defense consisted in showing that he had paid the entire amount of the hire of said barge, and the same was in part paid by the aforesaid note of $562, and he had at the time misplaced said note, and could not, after diligent search, find it; that he offered to prove before said court that he had paid said hire by crediting said note thereon, and paying the balance to E. C. Harpold in pursuance of the aforesaid order of Julia W. Harpold; but the court ruled out the evidence, and would not allow said facts to be proved in the absence of said note; that he has since found said note, which he exhibits with his bill; and he further avers that the defendants Julia A. and E. C. Harpold are non-residents of this state, and that they are both insolvent. The defendants Julia A. and E. C. Harpold demurred to the plaintiff's bill, and answered the same, denying that the plaintiff ever misplaced the said note of $562, or that he offered any evidence on the trial in the said United States court, or that said court ruled out any evidence offered by him. They also denied that they were insolvent, or that said judgment had been paid as alleged in the bill. The plaintiff having died, the cause was revived in the name of H. G. Nease, as his administrator. The cause was, on September 20, 1887, finally heard upon the pleadings and proofs; and. the court being of opinion that the plaintiff was entitled to a credit on the judgment of the United States court in favor of the Harpolds for the amount of the said note of $502, it overruled the demurrer to the bill, and made the...