Stockton v. Ford

59 U.S. 418, 15 L. Ed. 395, 18 How. 418, 1855 U.S. LEXIS 713

• Court: Supreme Court of the United States
• Decided: February 28, 1856
• Status: Published

Opinion

Mr. Justice NELSON

delivered the opinion of the court.

' This is an appeal from a decree of the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Louisiana.

. The bill was filed by the plaintiff to charge the plantation and slaves of the defendant with a judicial mortgage, originally obtained by one Prior, against the firm of N. and E. Ford and Co. The plaintiff claims an interest in this mortgage, first, by purchase on execution against Prior; and second, by a trust created in the assignment of the same by Prior, under which the defendant derived title to-it. The bill sets out the sale of the mortgage and purchase by the plaintiff, and also the assignment of the same by Prior to Jones, and by him to the defendant. The assignment to Jones provided for the payment first of. the attorney’s fees and all other costs out of the proceeds of the judgment, and the balance to be applied to the debts of Prior for which Jones was responsible, and the surplus, if anv, to the assignor.

The plaintiff prayed that the defendant might be decreed to pay the attorney’s fees and costs on obtaining the judicial mort-' gage, according to the condition of the assignment; and, also, any balance that might be found due after satisfying the debts for which Jones was responsible.

The defendant, among other defences, set up a former suit in bar.

A previous bill had been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant, seeking to foreclose this judicial mortgage, in which the same title as in this case under the execution and sale against Prior was relied on. And among other defences to that suit, the defendant set up the assignment of the mortgage by Prior to Jones previous to the said sale on execution, and by Jones to the defendant.

This right of the plaintiff to the judicial mortgage under the sale on execution, and of the defendant under the assignments, were directly involved in that suit, and presented the principal questions in the case. The validity of the assignments over the-claim of the plaintiff was maintained by the judgment of the court below, and which was affirmed on appeal to this court. 11 How. 232. This - court, after a full examination of the pleadings'and proof, say, “that.in any view, therefore, that can be properly taken of -the case, the plaintiff has shown no right or interest in the judicial mortgage, yvhich he seeks to enforce against the plantation and slaves in question. The whole interest is in the defendant. .

The court also observed, “ that the assignment (to Jones) was made upon full consideration, without any concealment, or, for aught that appears, intent to hinder and delay creditors; and was well known to the plaintiff long before he became the purchaser at the sheriff’s sale. It passed the legal interest in the judicial mortgage out of Prior, and vested it in Jones, as early as the 12th of March, 1840, and we. are wholly unable to perceive any ground of equity in the plaintiff, or of those under whom he holds, for disturbing it through a judgment against the assignor, rendered nearly two years afterwards. The sheriff’s sale, therefore, could not operate to pass any interest in it to the plaintiff.”

One of the questions now sought to be agitated again is precisely the same as this one in the previous suit; namely, the right of the plaintiff to the judicial mortgage under the execution and sale against Prior. The other is somewhat .varied; namely, the equitable right or interest in the mortgage of the plaintiff, as the attorney of Prior, for the fees and costs provided for in the assignment to Jones, But this question was properly involved in the former case, and might have been there raised and determined. The neglect of the plaintiff to avail himself of it, even if it were tenable, furnishes no reason for another litigation. The right of the respective parties to the judicial mortgage was the main question in the former suit. That issue, of course, involved the whole or any partial interest in the mortgage. We are satisfied, therefore, that the former suit constitutes a complete bar to the present.

The court, in the former suit, also expressed the opinion that the plaintiff was not in a situation to maintain his claim of title to the mortgage under the execution and sale against Prior; as it appeared in that case that he was the attorxiey of Prior in the judicial mortgage, and stood in that relation to Jones at the time of the purchase, and, for aught that appears, had made the purchase without his knowledge or consent; and that, under such circumstances, the pxrrchase would enure to the benefit of the client and those holding under him.

- It is due to the plaintiff to say, that the evidence in this case, explanatory of the point in the former, shows that he did not stand in the relation of attorney to Jones at the time of the sale; or, at least, had no reason to suppose that he stood in that relation ; and that no just ground for censure exists in. the transaction against him — the explanatory evidence has fully removed it.

"We think the decree below is right, and should be affirmed.