Young and Al v. Black

• Decision Date: 12 March 1813
• Citation: 7 Cranch 565,11 U.S. 565,3 L.Ed. 440
• Parties: YOUNG AND AL v. BLACK
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

11 U.S. 565

7 Cranch 565

3 L.Ed. 440

YOUNG AND AL v. BLACK.

March 12, 1813

ERROR to the Circuit Court for the district of Columbia.

The suit was brought by Young, Deblois, and Lawrason, against Black to recover the proceeds of the sales of a cargo shipped by the Plaintiffs to the West Indies, on board the brig Active, of which the Defendant was master, and to whom the cargo was consigned.

The Plaintiffs, Young and Deblois, had each an interest of three eighths in the cargo, and the Plaintiff, Lawrason, the other two eighths. Upon the general issue a verdict and judgment were rendered for the Defendant.

At the trial the Plaintiffs took four bills of exception.

The 1st was to the admission in evidence of a record of a judgment between the same parties together with parol evidence that it was for the same cause of action.

The 2d and 3d bills of exceptions were to the admission of parol proof that the Defendant had an interest in Lawrason's two eighths of the cargo, after the Plaintiffs had shown their written instructions to the Defendant with his promise to obey them, his bill of lading of the cargo, and his account of sales of it.

The 4th bill of exceptions states the whole evidence offered as well by the Plaintiffs as by the Defendant, and that the Plaintiffs offered to demur to the whole

evidence, but the Defendant refused to join in demurrer and the Court refused to compel him to join.

E. I. LEE, for the Plaintiffs in error .

1. The record mentioned in the first bill of exceptions was not admissible evidence, because it was for a different cause of action. The former action was for a breach of orders, and founded upon a disavowal of the conduct of the Defendant; but the present action affirms his conduct and seeks for payment of the balance due upon his account of sales.

2. The Court ought not to have permitted the Defendant to use parol evidence to contradict the written documents which proved the property of the cargo to be in the Plaintiffs.

3. The Court ought to have compelled the Defendant to join in the demurrer. 3 Bl. Com. 372, 373. 1 Wash. 150, 220. 2 Call. 555, 571. 3 Tucker's Blackstone, 372, note.

SWANN, contra.

The record and parol evidence were properly admitted, and the jury were to decide whether it was for the same cause of action as the present.

As to the demurrer: it does not appear that the whole evidence was stated. The Defendant was not bound by any rule of law to join in the demurrer, nor was the Court bound to compel him. It was a matter entirely within the discretion of the Court.

March 16th.

STORY, J. delivered the opinion of the Court as follows:

The present action was brought by the Plaintiffs in error as joint owners of the brig Active and cargo to compel the Defendant who was master of the said brig to account for the proceeds of said cargo, which was sold during a voyage to the West Indies. Young owned three eighths, Deblois three eighths, and Lawrason two eighths of the cargo.

At the trial upon the general issue several execeptions were taken by the Plaintiffs, which have been argued, and we are now to pronounce our decision respecting their validity.

The Defendant offered in evidence a record of a former suit between the same parties, in which judgment was rendered for the Defendant, supported by parol proof that the former suit was for the same cause of action as the present suit. The Plaintiffs denied its admissibility under the general issue; and we are all of opinion that the objection cannot be supported.

It has been long since established that under non assumpsit the Defendant may give in evidence any thing which shows that no debt was due at the time when the action was commenced, whether it arise from an inherent defect in the original promise or a subsequent discharge and satisfaction. And the precise point now in controversy has been adjudged to be completely within the rule. If the former judgment had been for the Plaintiff, there would be no doubt that it would have extinguished the demand; and it is not less conclusive because it was for the Defendant. The controversy had passed in rem judicatam, and the identity of the causes of action being once established, the law would not suffer them again to be drawn into question.

The second exception was taken to the decision of the Court admitting evidence to show that the Defendant had a subinterest in that portion of the joint cargo which belonged to Lawrason—an interest which was not proved to have been known to or acknowledged by the other owners. And we...