Burton v. Hazzard

4 Del. 100

Opinion

By the Court:

—The verdict and judgment in the former case, are not evidence here; 1st. Because the parties are not the same, nor are they privies. Polly Burton was not a party to the former «suit, and she has no privity here with John H. Burton. 2d. The verdict for the defendant in the former case, was on a plea of non cepit as well as on a plea of property in Polly Burton. How then can any one say, the verdict there concludes this question of property in Polly Burton. 3d. Even if the verdict in the other suit was on the plea of property in Polly Burton, it was rendered on proof of her declarations, and might have been, on her testimony. Shall then the plaintiff be precluded, on an action against him- for the same property, from denying that this is Polly Burton’s property. Suppose the verdict in that case, had been for D. Hazzard, would it have been evidence in this case against Polly Burton ? Certainly not. Shall it then be evidence for her. The rule is, that the benefits of a verdict must be. mutual, to- make a party liable to its conse.quences.

Record ruled out.