Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

as a feme solc, and also in any action commenced against her before her marriage. The judgment commenced in an action after marriage upon a contract made by her before marriage should be against both husband and wife, unless otherwise provided by statute.3

(3) Lunatics.--A judgment is neither erroneous nor void because rendered against a lunatic."

(c) PERSONS ACTING IN REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY—I) General Rule.-- Judgment against a party in one right or capacity is not binding upon him in another right or capacity.” 7'. Long, 65 Pa. St. 383. See also Seeley, 25 Vt. 220; Platner v. Patchin, Baines v. Burleridge, 15 La. An. 628. 19 Wis. 333. See infra, this title, JUDGMENT BY 4. Sacramento Savings Bank CONFESSION.

Spencer, 53 Cal. 737; Foster v. Jones, Ordinarily a married woman can ob- 23 Ga 168; Stigers 2'. Brent, 50 Md. tain relief in equity against a judgment 214; Lamprey v. Nudd, 29 N. H. 299; only by establishing facts that would Johnson v. Pomeroy, 31 Ohio St. 247; entitle her to relief independent of the Wood v. Bayard, 63 Pa. St. 320; Clarke fact of coverture. Green v. Branton, v. Dunham, 4 Den. (N. Y.) 262. See i Dev. Eq. (N. Car.) 500; Van Metre v. also Fleming v. Seeligson, 57 Tex. 524. Wolf, 27 Iowa 342. Compare Bowman The judgment should be against the v. Kaufman, 30 La. An., pt. 2, 1021; lunatic, not his guardian. Walker 7'. Griffith v. Clarke, 18 Md. 457.

Clay, 21 Ala. 797. 1. Alexander v. Bonton, 55 Cal. 15; The remedy against a judgment imMarlow v. Barlew, 53 Cal. 456; Glover properly rendered against a lunatic is 2. Moore, 60 Ga. 189; Huff v. Wright, by proceedings in equity. Sternberg v. 39 Ga. 41; Jones v'. Glass, 48 Iowa 345; Schoolcraft, 2 Barb. " (N. Y.) 153; Van Metre v. Wolf, 27 Iowa 341; Mus. Clarke v. Dunham, 4 Den. (N. Y.) grave v. Musgrave, 54 III. 186; Hart v. 262; Robertson v. Lain, 19 Wend. (N. Grigsby, 14 Bush (Ky.) 542; Goodnow Y.) 650. See generaliy INSANITY, vol. v. Hill, 125 Mass. 587; Labaree v. Col- 11, p. 127 by, 99 Mass. 559; Davis V. National 5. Stockton etc. Assoc. l'. Chalmers, Bank, 5 Neb. 242; Cashman v. Henry, 75 Cal. 332; S. C., 7 Am. St. Rep. 173; 75 N. Y. 103; Corn Exchange Ins. Co. Stoops v. Woods, 45 Cal. 439; Brookr'. Babcock, 42 N. Y.613; s. c., I Am. ing v. Dearmond, 27 Ga. 58; Benz v'. Rep. 601; Charles v. Lowenstein, 26 Hines. 3 Kan. 386; Marshall v. Rough, How. Pr. (N. Y.) 29; Vosburgh v. 2 Bibb (Ky.) 628; Crenshaw v. Creek, Brown, 66 Barb. (N. Y.) 421; Foster v. 52 Mo. 101; Lord v. Wilcox, 99 Ind. Conger, 61 Barb. (N. Y.) 145; S. C., 42 491; Elston v. Piggott, 94 Ind. 14; How. Pr. (N. Y.) 176; Wilson v. Her. Bartlett v. Kochel, 88 Ind. 425; Unfried bert, 41 N. J. L. 456; Wadsworth v. v. Heberer, 63 Ind. 67; Moorney v. Henderson, 16 Fed. Rep. 447.

Maas, 22 Iowa 380; Coonan v. Frizell, Where a married woman is person- 42 Ill. 319; Mansfield v. Hoagland, 46 ally liable for an anti-nuptial debt, per- Ill. 359; Slocomb v. De Lizard, 12 La. sonal judgment may be rendered against An. 355; s. C., 99 Am. Dec. 740; Lander her. Travis v. Willis, 55 Miss. 557; V. Arno, 65 Me. 26; Parker v. Moore, Smith v. Beard, 73 Ind. 159.

59 N. H. 454; Dawson v. Coles, 16 2. Phillips v. Stewart, 27 Ga. 402; Johns. (N. Y.) 51; Lewis 7. Smith, ni Evans v. Lipscomb, 28 Ga. 71; Sackett Barb. (N. Y.) 152; Rathbone v. Hoon7. Wilson, 2 Blackf. (Ind.) 85; Com. V. ey, 58 N. Y. 463; Frost v. Koon, 30 N. Phillipsburg, 1o Mass. 78; Roosevelt v. Y. 428; Landon v. Townshend, 12 N. Dale, 2 Cow. (N. Y.) 581; Parker v. Y. 93; Eshelman v. Shuman, 13 Pa. Steed, i Lea (Tenn.) 206; Cooper v. St. 561; Jones v. Blake, 2 Hill Ch. (S. Hunchin, 4 East 521. And see preced. Car.) 629; Blakey v. Newby. 6 Munf. ing note.

(Va.) 64; Leggeit v. Great Northern R. 3. Gray v. Thacker, 4 Ala. 130; Mc- Co., 1 Q. B. D. 599. Dermott v. French, 15 N. J. Eq. 78; But a judgment against a person who Mallory v. Vanderheyden, 3 Barb. Ch. represents himself as well as others (N. Y.) 9; . c., 1 N. Y. 453; Cole v. may bind him as an individual. Cor

(2) Executors and Administrators.-A judgment against a deceased person is binding upon his executor or administrator 2 to the extent to which he succeeds to the property rights of the deceased person. A judgment for or against an executor is conclusive evidence for or against another executor under the same will who has qualified in the same State.3 Creditors and legatees of an estate are bound by a judgment against the administrator.4 A judgment against an executor or administrator is not binding upon an administrator de bonis non, or an executor or administrator who has qualified in another State, 6 or upon heirs or devisees. 7

Scott 355

son

coran v. Chesapeake Canal Co., 94 U. 379; Thomas v. Sterns, 33 Ala. 137; S. 741. See also Denegre v. Denegre, Graves v. Flowers, 51 Ala. 402; s. c., 23 33 La. An. 689.

Am. Rep. 555; Grout v. Chamberlin, 4 Appearing in an action as the heir of Mass. 611; Allen v. Irwin, I S. & R. one will not estop the party to claim (Pa.) 549; Wenrick v. McMurdo, 5 the same property as the devisee of an- Rand. (Va.) 51. Compare Latine v. other, or as a lien holder. Lord v. Clements, 3 Kelly (Ga.) 426; ManiWilcox, 99 Ind. 491; Elliott v. Frakes, gault v. Deas, 1 Bai. Eq. (S. Car.) 283; 71 Ind.412. See also Lantz v. Maffett, Boykin v. Cook, 61 Ala. 472; Dykes v'. 102 Ind. 23.

Wookhouse, 3 Rand. (Va.) 287; Stacy But judgment by default of plea v. Thrasher, 6 How. (U. S.) 44; Hill v. against an administrator is a conclusive Tucker, 13 How. (U. S.) 466. admission that he has assets and there- A recovery by one suing as adminisfore binds him personally. Grace v. trator without authority is no bar to an Martin, 47 Ala. 135; Rock v. Leighton, action by the rightful administrator. i Salk. 310; 1 Ld. Raym. 589; Leonard Pond v. Makepeace, 2 Met. (Mass.) V. Simpson, 2 Bing. N. C. 176; 2 114

6. Hatchett v. Berney, 65 Ala. 39; 1. Executors and Administrators.- Rosenthal v. Renick, 44 III. 207; JackLadd v. Durkin, 54 Cal. 395; Mani- v. Tiernan, 15 La. 485; Pond v. gault v. Deas, i Bail. Eq. (S. Car.) 283. Makepeace, 2 Met. (Mass.) 114; Tal

2. Wolfinger r'. Betz, 66 Iowa 594; mage v. Chapel, 16 Mass. 71; Low ?'. Steele v. Lineberger, 59 Pa. St. 308. Bartlett, 8 Allen (Mass.) 259; Taylor v. But administrator and intestate are not Barron, 35 N. H. 484; Latine v. Clein privity in regard to land. Hall v. ments, 3 Kelly (Ga.) 426; Brodie 7'. Armor, 63 Ga. 449. But see Wolfinger Bickley, 2 Rawle (Pa.) 431; Hill v. v. Betz, 66 Iowa 594.

Tucker, 13 How. (U. S.) 466; McLean 3. Hill v. Tucker, 13 How. (U. S.) v. Meek, 18 How. (U. S.) 16; Stacy v. 466.

Thrasher, 6 How. (U. S.) 44. 4. Pickens v. Yarborough, 30 A la. Trustees appointed by a court to re408; Castellaw v. Guilmartin, 54 Ga. ceive legacies for minors and an admin299; Stone 2. Wood, 16 Ill. 177. Com- istrator of the same estate qualified in pare Weeks v. Ostrander, 52 Ñ. Y. Su- another State are not in privity. Low per. Ct. 512; s. C., 16 Abb. N. C. (N. v. Bartlett, 8 Allen (Mass.) 259; RosenY.) 143; Mauldin v. Gossett, 15 S. Car. thal v. Renick, 44 Ill. 202. 565.

7. Scott 2. Ware, 64 Ala. 174; It has been held that a judgment in Starke v. Wilson, 65 Ala. 576; Lehman an action between the administrator v. Bradley, 62 Ala. 31; Teague v. Corand heirs is not binding on the legatees. bitt, 57 Ala. 529; Combs 2'. Tarlton, 2 Valsain v. Cloutier, -3 La. 170; s. C., 22 Dana (Ky.) 464; Jones v. Commercial Am. Dec. 179.

Bank, 78 Ky. 413; McCoy v. Nichols, A judgment against an administrator 4 How. (Miss.) 31; Ford v. Hennessy, in favor of a distributee of the estate does 70 Mo. 580; Collinson ?'. Owens, 6 G. not estop other distributees from show. & J. (Md.) 4; Dale v. Rosevelt, 1. Pai. ing that the first distributee obtained (N. Y.) 35; Vernon v. Valk, 2 Hill Ch. judgment for more than his share. (S. Car.) 257; Early v. Garland, 13 Wright ? Phillips, 56 Ala. 69.

Gratt. (Va.) 1; Robertson v. Wright, 5. Hudgens i. Cameron, 50 Ala. 17 Gratt. (Va.) 534; Alston r”. Munford,

(3) Trustees.—Ordinarily, a cestui que trust is not bound by a judgment for or against the trustee alone, but in cases where the trustee is authorized by law or the terms of the trust to represent the cestui que trust in the action, the latter is bound by the judgment.2

(d) PERSONS OTHER RELATIONS—(1) Privity.-- Judgments are conclusive upon all persons in privity with the parties thereto, the term privity denoting mutual or successive relationship to the same rights of property.3

IN

[ocr errors]

i Brock. (Va.) 266; Garnett v. Macon, Johnson v. Robertson, 31 Md. 476; New 6 Cal. (Va.) 308. Compare Cunning- Jersey etc. Co. v. Ames, 1 Beasl. Ch. ham v. Ashley, 45 Cal. 485; Connolly (N. J.) 507; Peterson v. Lathrop, 34 Pa. . Connolly, 26 Minn. 350.

St. 223; Keely 7. Weir, 38 Fed. Rep. Nor is a judgment against an heir or 291; Calhoun v. Dunning, 4 Dall. (Pa.) devisee binding on the executor or ad- 120; Corcoran v. Chesapeake Canal ministrator: Dorr Stockdale, 19 Co., 94 U. S. 741. Iowa 269.

A judgment against an assignee unThe heirs are not bound by the allow- der an assignment for the benefit of ance of a claim against the estate which creditors is binding against the credis sought to be satisfied out of the real itors unless avoided for fraud or col. estate. Estate of Hidden, 23 Cal. 362; lusion. Field V. Flanders, 40 III. Beckett v. Selover, 7 Cal. 215; Stone r. 470; Kerr v. Blodgett, 48 N. Y. 62. Wood, 16 Ill. 177. Compare Speer z'. The equitable owner of a chose in acJames, 94 N. Car. 417.

tion is bound by a judgment in an action A judgment against the personal prosecuted in the name of the owner of representative has been held prima the legal title. Rogers v. Haines, 3 facie evidence against the real estate. Greenl. (Me.) 362; Boynton v. WilSargeant v. Ewing, 36 Pa. St. 156; lard, 10 Pick. (Mass.) 166; Curtis v. Steele v. Lineberger, 59 Pa. St. 308. Cisna, i Ohio 432. Compare Saddler v. Kennedy, 26 W. A decree of foreclosure against a Va. 636; National Bank v. Good, 21 W. mortgagee binds his cestuis que trusVa. 455. But not conclusive evidence tent. Johnson v. Robertson, 31 Md. unless the personal representative is 476; Willink v. Morris Canal Co., 3 himself the heir or devisee. Boykin Green's Ch. (N. J.) 377; Van Vechten v. Cook, 61 Ala. 473; Stewart v. Mont- v. Terry, 2 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 197. gomery, 23 Pa. St. 410; Willett v. Malli, Compare Martin v. Reed, 30 Ind. 218; 65 Iowa 675.

Henley v. Stone, 3 Beav. 355; Thomas 1. Sprague v. Tyson, 44 Ala. 338; v. Dunning, 5 De G. & Sm. 618. Shay v. McNamara, 54 Cal. 169; Helm Where by statute the assignee of a

Fardin, 2 B. Mon. (Ky.) 231; Martin chose in action must sue thereon in his v. Reed, 39 Ind. 218; White v. Haynes, own name, a judgment for or against 33 Ind. 540; Clemons v. Elder, 9 Iowa him is binding on an assignor who re273; Prewett v. Land, 36 Miss. 495; tains some interest in the chose in acHarris v. McBane, 66 N. Car. 334; tion. Wetmore v. San Francisco, 44 Fish v. Howland, i Pai. (N. Y.) 20; Cal. 294; Cottle v. Cole, 20 Iowa 481; Schenck v. Ellingwood, 3 Edw. Ch. (N. Wilson v. Clark, ni Ind. 385; Castner Y.) 175; Whelan v. Whelan, 3 Cow. 7'. Sumner, 2 Minn. 44; Williams v. (N. Y.) 537: Campbell v. Johnston, i Norton, 3 Kan. 224; Allen v. Brown, 44 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 148; Reed v. Reed, N. Y. 228; Sheridan 7. Mayor etc. of 16 N. J. Eq. 248; Dunn v. Seymour, 3 N. Y., 68 N. Y. 30; Curtis v. Mohr, 18 Stockt. (N. J.) 220; Willink v. Morris Wis. 615; Boynton v. Willard, 10 Pick. Canal, 3 Green Ch. (N. J.) 377; Collins (Mass.) 166; Rogers v. Hlaines, 3 v. Lofstus, 10 Leigh (Va.) 5; s. C., 34 Greenl. (Me.) 362; Curtis v. Cessna, i Am. Dec. 719; Piatt v. Oliver, 2 Mc- Ohio 432. Lean (U. S.) 269; Caldwell v. Taggart, 3. Greenl. Ev., 189; Bloodgood '. 4 Pet. (U. S.) 202. Compare Beals v. Grasey, 31 Ala. 575; Ladd v. Durkin, Illinois etc. R. Co., 27 Fed. Rep. 721. 54 Cal. 395; Shay v. McNamara, 54

2. Lindsey v. Stevens, 5 Dana (Ky.) Cal. 169; Webster '. Adams, 58 Me. 104; Whitford v. Crooks, 54 Mich. 261; 317; Campbell v. Hall, 16 N. Y. 575;

[ocr errors]

(2) Principal and Agent.--A principal is not bound by a judgment in an action conducted by the agent in his own name and for his own benefit. 1

(3) Assignees and Vendees.-Assignees and vendees of property are bound by and may take advantage of prior judgments for or against their assignors and vendors.2

(4) Bailor and Bailee.-A judgment for or against a bailor is conclusive upon the bailee 3 A recovery and satisfaction by either bailor or bailee is a bar to a subsequent action by the other; but a recovery and satisfaction by the bailee has been held not to bar an antecedent action by the bailor.4 Judgment against a bailee is not a bar to an action by the bailor against the

a

are not

Hair v. Wood, 58 Tex. 77; Wood v. who might have claimed through a Davis, 7 Cranch (U.S.) 271; Doe '. party to the litigation, but do not. Spen. Derby, i Ad. & E. 783.

cer v. Williams, L. R., 2 P. & D. 230. *But it should be noticed that the The foreclosure of a lien is not bindground of privity is property and noting on any other lien holder not made personal relation. To make a man a party to the action. Lyon 7'. Sandprivy to an action he must have ac- ford, 5 Conn. 544; Brush '. Fowler, 36 quired an interest in the subject matter III. 58; Brainard 7'. Cooper, 10 N. Y. of the action either by inheritance, suc- 356; Matter of Smith, 4 Nev. 254. See cession or purchase from a party sub- also Sexton v. Weaver, 141 Mass. 273. sequently to the action." Big. on Estop. 1. Principal and Agent.- Lawrence (4th ed.) 135; Scates v. King, 110 111. z'. Ware, 37 Ala. 553; Pico v. Webster, 456; Dooley v. Patter, 140 Mass. 49; 12 Cal. 140; Warner v. Comstock, 55 Coles v. Allen, 64 Ala. 98; Chester 2. Mich. 616. Unless the principal auBakersfield Assoc.. 64 Cal. 42; Bryan v. thorized the bringing of the suit. Malloy, 90 N. Car. 508; Zoeller v. Nemetty v. Naylor, 100 N. Y. 562. Riley, 100 X. Y. 102.

In the absence of fraud or collusion, Assignees, Vendees, etc.Bona fide a judgment against the agent on a purchasers without notice

cause of action for which the principal privies. Hager 7. Spect, 52 Cal. 579. is liable is probably conclusive upon A judgment in a suit between an as- the latter. Lyman v. Faris, 53 Iowa signee and a third person is not bind- 498; Clark v. Wolf, 29 Iowa 197. ing on the assignor. McDonald v. 2. Adams 2. Barnes, 17 Mass. 365. Gregory, 41 Iowa 513.

Thus a judgment against a feme sole A grantee or assignee is not bound is conclusive against her future husby a judgment in relation to the prop- band with respect to any interest in the erty rendered against the grantor or estate claimed through her. Hawkins assignor in proceedings commenced v. Lambert, 18 B. Mon. (Ky.) 99. after the conveyance.

Marshall 7'. A judgment against the claimant of Crow, 60 Ala. 121; Todd v. Flourway, property is conclusive against him in a 56 Ala. 99; Cook v. Parham, 63 Ala. subsequent action for the property 456; Coler v. Allen, 64 Ala. 98; Wins- against the purchaser at an execution low 1'. Grindal, 2 Greenl. (Me.) 64; sale. Shirley v. Fearne, 33 Miss. 653. Powers v. Heath, 20 Mo. 319; Bartero 3. Kent v. Hudson River R. Co., 22 v. Real Estate etc. Bank, 10 Mo. App. Barb. (N. Y.) 278; Green v. Clarke, 12 76; Mathes v. Cover, 43 Iowa 512; N. Y. 343; Calkins V. Allerton, 3 Weed Sewing Machine Co. v. Baker, Barb. (N. Y.) 171. Where the bailee i McCrary (U. S.) 579.

delivers the property to a third person "The rule of privity applies also as whom he believes to be the owner and well to the judgment itself as a valu- is sued by the bailor, he may defend able claim as to the subject of the judg: by showing a judgment against the ment and the issues decided by it." bailor and in favor of such third per. Big. on Estop. (4th ed.), 141; Bank of son. Bates v. Stanton, i Duer (N. Y.) California v. Shaber, 55 Cal. 322. See 79; Burton v. Wilkinson, 18 Vt. 186. also Kidder v. Blaisdell, 45 Me. 461. 4. Steamboat Farmer v. McCraw, The rule does not apply to persons 31 Ala. 659.

successful party. But judgment against a bailee in an action defended by the bailor is binding upon the latter.?

(5) Garnisher and Garnishee.-A judgment against a garnishee is a bar to an action against him by the defendant for the amount which the former has been compelled to pay.3 In some States

man

1. A judgment for plaintiff in re- court had jurisdiction of the subject plevin was held no bar to an action in matter and the parties. Harmon v. trover against him by the master of the Birchard, 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 418; Richdefendant in the former action. Alex- ardson v. Hickman, 22 Ind. 244; Robander v. Taylor, 4 Den. (N. Y.) 302. ertson V. Roberts, I A. K. Marsh.

2. Tarleton v. Johnson, 25 Ala. 300. (Ky.) 247; Ford v. Hurd, 4 Sm. & M.

3. Garnishment.- See generally (Miss.) 683. And the garnishee is proGARNISHMENT, vol. 8, p. 1242, et seq. tected if, having contested the juris

The defendant may show that his , diction of the court, the decision was claim against the garnishee is greater against him. Gunn v. Howell, 35 Ala. than the amount of the judgment 144; Wyatt v. Rambo, 29 Ala. 510. That against the latter. Mills v. Stewart, before obtaining execution the plaintiff 12 Ala. 90; Ross v. Pitts, 39 Ala. 606; performed all acts required by law as Barton v. Allbright, 29 Ind. 489; conditions precedent thereto. Oldham Canady v. Detrick, 63 Ind. 485; Green- v. Ledbetter, 1 How. (Miss.) 43; Gris

v. Fox, 54 Ind. 267; Allen v. son v. Reynolds, 1 How. (Miss.) 570; Watt, 79 Ill. 284; Wigwall v. Union Myers v. Uhrich, 1 Binn. (Pa.) 25; etc. Co., 37 Iowa 129; Groves v. Moyer v. Lobengier, 4 Watts (Pa.) Brown, 11 Mass. 334; Ladd v. Jacobs, 390); Drake on Attachment, $ 711. 64 Me. 347; Hirth v. Pfeifle, 42 Mich. The garnishee need not contest the 32; Savin v. Bond, 57 Md. 228; Brown lack of jurisdiction of the defendant 7'. Dudley, 33 N. II.511; Baltimore etc. when the latter is present; otherwise he R. Co. v. May, 25 Ohio St. 347; Tams must. Wheeler V. Aldrich, 13 Gray 7'. Bullitt, 35 Pa. St. 308; Noble v. (Mass.) 51; Thayer v. Tyler, io Gray Thompson Oil Co., 69 Pa. St. 409; (Mass.) 164; Morrison v. New Bedford Morgan v. Neville, 74 Pa. St. 52; Robe. Inst., 7 Gray (Mass.) 269; Pratt v. son v. Carpenter, 7 Mart. (La.), N. S. Cunliff, 9 Allen (Mass.) 90. The gar30; Baxter v. Vincent, 6 Vt. 614. nishee must take advantage of any de

The garnishee is discharged to the tects which would render a judgment extent of the amount that he has been in the main case void. Laidlaw v. compelled to pay though the judgment Morrow, 44 Mich. 547; Cota v. Ross, is erroneous; Duncan v. Ware, 5 Stew. 66 Me. 161; Erwin v. Heath, 50. Miss. & P. (Ala.) 119; Gunn v. Howell, 35 795; Woodfolk v. Whitworth, 5 Coldw. Ala.

144; Pierce v. Carleton, 12 I. (Tenn.) 561. But he cannot take ad358; Webster 7. Lowell, 2 Allen vantage of mere irregularities. Earl v. (Mass.) 123; Dole v. Boutwell, i Allen Matheney, 60 Ind. 202. (Mass.) 286; Wise v. Hilton, 4

Greenl. A judgment for the garnishee, (Me.) 435; Killsa v. Lermond, 6 Greenl. charged with holding defendant's per(Me.) 116; Brown v. Dudley, 33 N. H. sonal property by a fraudulent transfer, 511; Lomerson v. Huffman, 4 Zabr. is a bar to an action on the case against (N. J.) 674; Anderson v. Young, 21 Pa. him for aiding in the alleged frauduSt. 443; Stearns v. Wrisley, 30 Vt.661; lent transfer. Bunker v. Tufts, 57 Me. Stevens v. Fisher, 30 Vt. 200.

417. According to Drake, the garnishee The garnishee is bound by the judgto prove his discharge must show: the ment against him, though he was dejudgment against himself. Barton v. faulted. Flanagan v. Cutter, 121 Mass. Smith, 7 Iowa 85; Leonard v. New 96. Bedford etc. Bank, 116 Mass. 210. That It seems that a voluntary payment the judgment was valid. Loring v. does not discharge the garnishee of his Folger, 7 Gray (Mass.) 505; Matthey liability to the original defendant. Wetv. Wiseman, 18 C. B., N. S. 657. See ter v. Rucker, 1 Brod. & B. 491; s. C., also Westoby v. Day, 2 El. & B. 605. 4 B. Moore 172; Hebel v. Amazon Ins. That payment was not voluntary; and Co., 33 Mich. 400; Schindler v. Smith, not simulated or contrived. Wetter v. 18 La. An. 476. See also Hirth 7. Rucker, i Brod. & B. 491. That the Pfeifle, 42 Mich. 31.

« ZurückWeiter »