(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 IN 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 1 Brock. (Va.) 266; Garnett v. Macon, 6 Cal. (Va.) 308. Compare Cunningham v. Ashley, 45 Cal. 485; Connolly v. Connolly, 26 Minn. 350. Nor is a judgment against an heir or devisee binding on the executor or administrator. Dorr v. Stockdale, 19 Iowa 269. The heirs are not bound by the allowance of a claim against the estate which is sought to be satisfied out of the real estate. Estate of Hidden, 23 Cal. 362; Beckett v. Selover, 7 Cal. 215; Stone v. Wood, 16 Ill. 177. Compare Speer v. James, 94 N. Car. 417. A judgment against the personal representative has been held prima facie evidence against the real estate. Sargeant v. Ewing, 36 Pa. St. 156; Steele v. Lineberger, 59 Pa. St. 308. Compare Saddler v. Kennedy, 26 W. Va. 636; National Bank v. Good, 21 W. Va. 455. But not conclusive evidence unless the personal representative is himself the heir or devisee. Boykin v. Cook, 61 Ala. 473; Stewart v. Montgomery, 23 Pa. St. 410; Willett v. Malli, 65 Iowa 675. 1. Sprague v. Tyson, 44 Ala. 338; Shay v. McNamara, 54 Cal. 169; Helm v. Hardin, 2 B. Mon. (Ky.) 231; Martin 7. Reed, 30 Ind. 218; White v. Haynes, 33 Ind. 540; Clemons v. Elder, 9 Iowa 273; Prewett v. Land, 36 Miss. 495; Harris v. McBane, 66 N. Car. 334; Fish v. Howland, 1 Pai. (N. Y.) 20; Schenck v. Ellingwood, 3 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 175; Whelan v. Whelan, 3 Cow. (N. Y.) 537: Campbell v. Johnston, I Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 148; Reed v. Reed, 16 N. J. Eq. 248; Dunn v. Seymour, 3 Stockt. (N. J.) 220; Willink v. Morris Canal, 3 Green Ch. (N. J.) 377; Collins v. Lofftus, 10 Leigh (Va.) 5; s. c., 34 Am. Dec. 719; Piatt v. Oliver, 2 McLean (U. S.) 269; Caldwell v. Taggart, 4 Pet. (U. S.) 202. Compare Beals v. Illinois etc. R. Co., 27 Fed. Rep. 721. 2. Lindsey v. Stevens, 5 Dana (Ky.) 104; Whitford v. Crooks, 54 Mich. 261; Johnson v. Robertson, 31 Md. 476; New Jersey etc. Co. v. Ames, 1 Beasl. Ch. (N. J.) 507; Peterson v. Lathrop, 34 Pa. St. 223; Keely 7. Weir, 38 Fed. Rep. 291; Calhoun 7. Dunning, 4 Dall. (Pa.) 120; Corcoran v. Chesapeake Canal Co., 94 U. S. 741. A judgment against an assignee under an assignment for the benefit of creditors is binding against the creditors unless avoided for fraud or collusion. Field v. Flanders, 40 Ill. 470; Kerr v. Blodgett, 48 N. Y. 62. The equitable owner of a chose in action is bound by a judgment in an action prosecuted in the name of the owner of the legal title. Rogers v. Haines, 3 Greenl. (Me.) 362; Boynton v. Willard, 10 Pick. (Mass.) 166; Curtis v. Cisna, 1 Ohio 432. A decree of foreclosure against a mortgagee binds his cestuis que trustent. Johnson v. Robertson, 31 Md. 476; Willink v. Morris Canal Co., 3 Green's Ch. (N. J.) 377; Van Vechten v. Terry, 2 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 197. Compare Martin v. Reed, 30 Ind. 218; Henley v. Stone, 3 Beav. 355; Thomas v. Dunning, 5 De G. & Sm. 618. Where by statute the assignee of a chose in action must sue thereon in his own name, a judgment for or against him is binding on an assignor who retains some interest in the chose in action. tion. Wetmore . San Francisco, 44 Cal. 294; Cottle v. Cole, 20 Iowa 481; Wilson v. Clark, 11 Ind. 385; Castner v. Sumner, 2 Minn. 44; Williams v. Norton, 3 Kan. 224; Allen v. Brown, 44 N. Y. 228; Sheridan v. Mayor etc. of N. Y., 68 N. Y. 30; Curtis v. Mohr, 18 Wis. 615; Boynton v. Willard, 10 Pick. (Mass.) 166; Rogers v. Haines, 3 Greenl. (Me.) 362; Curtis v. Cessna, I Ohio 432. 3. Greenl. Ev., § 189; Bloodgood v. Grasey, 31 Ala. 575; Ladd v. Durkin, 54 Cal. 395; Shay v. McNamara, 54 Cal. 169; Webster v. Adams, 58 Me. 317; Campbell v. Hall, 16 N. Y. 575; .. 1 =: = == (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. Judgment against a bailee is not a bar to an action by the bailor against the Hair . Wood, 58 Tex. 77; Wood v. "But it should be noticed that the Assignees, Vendees, etc.-Bona fide purchasers without notice are not privies. Hager . Spect, 52 Cal. 579. A judgment in a suit between an assignee and a third person is not binding on the assignor. McDonald v. Gregory, 41 Iowa 513. A grantee or assignee is not bound by a judgment in relation to the property rendered against the grantor or assignor in proceedings commenced after the conveyance. Marshall v. Crow, 60 Ala. 121; Todd 7. Flourway, 56 Ala. 99; Cook v. Parham, 63 Ala. 456; Coler v. Allen, 64 Ala. 98; Winslow v. Grindal, 2 Greenl. (Me.) 64; Powers v. Heath, 20 Mo. 319; Bartero v. Real Estate etc. Bank, 10 Mo. App. 76; Mathes v. Cover, 43 Iowa 512; Weed Sewing Machine Co. v. Baker, I McCrary (U. S.) 579. "The rule of privity applies also as well to the judgment itself as a valuable claim as to the subject of the judgment and the issues decided by it." Big. on Estop. (4th ed.), 141; Bank of California v. Shaber, 55 Cal. 322. See also Kidder v. Blaisdell, 45 Me. 461. The rule does not apply to persons who might have claimed through a party to the litigation, but do not. Spencer. Williams, L. R., 2 P. & D. 230. The foreclosure of a lien is not binding on any other lien holder not made a party to the action. Lyon 7. Sandford, 5 Conn. 544; Brush v. Fowler, 36 Ill. 58; Brainard 7. Cooper, 10 N. Y. 356; Matter of Smith, 356; Matter of Smith, 4 Nev. 254. See also Sexton 7. Weaver, 141 Mass. 273. 1. Principal and Agent.- Lawrence 7. Ware, 37 Ala. 553; Pico v. Webster, 12 Cal. 140; Warner . Comstock, 55 Mich. 616. Unless the principal authorized the bringing of the suit. Nemetty v. Naylor, 100 N. Y. 562. In the absence of fraud or collusion. a judgment against the agent on a cause of action for which the principal is liable is probably conclusive upon the latter. Lyman . Faris, 53 Iowa 498; Clark v. Wolf, 29 Iowa 197. 2. Adams 7. Barnes, 17 Mass. 365. Thus a judgment against a feme sole is conclusive against her future husband with respect to any interest in the estate claimed through her. Hawkins 7. Lambert, 18 B. Mon. (Ky.) 99. A judgment against the claimant of property is conclusive against him in a subsequent action for the property against the purchaser at an execution sale. Shirley . Fearne, 33 Miss. 653. 3. Kent v. Hudson River R. Co., 22 Barb. (N. Y.) 278; Green v. Clarke, 12 N. Y. 343; Calkins Calkins v. Allerton, 3 Barb. (N. Y.) 171. Where the bailee delivers the property to a third person whom he believes to be the owner and is sued by the bailor, he may defend by showing a judgment against the bailor and in favor of such third person. Bates v. Stanton, I Duer (N. Y.) 79; Burton 7. Wilkinson, 18 Vt. 186. 4. Steamboat Farmer v. McCraw, 31 Ala. 659. 1 successful party. But judgment against a bailee in an action defended by the bailor is binding upon the latter.2 (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. compelled to pay.3 In some States 1. A judgment for plaintiff in replevin was held no bar to an action in trover against him by the master of the defendant in the former action. Alexander . Taylor, 4 Den. (N. Y.) 302. 2. Tarleton v. Johnson, 25 Ala. 300. 3. Garnishment.- See generally GARNISHMENT, vol. 8, p. 1242, et seq. The defendant may show that his claim against the garnishee is greater than the amount of the judgment against the latter. Mills v. Stewart, 12 Ala. 90; Ross v. Pitts, 39 Ala. 606; Barton v. Allbright, 29 Ind. 489; Canady v. Detrick, 63 Ind. 485; Greenman v. Fox, 54 Ind. 267; Allen v. Watt, 79 Ill. 284; Wigwall v. Union etc. Co., 37 Iowa 129; Groves v. Brown, II Mass. 334; Ladd v. Jacobs, 64 Me. 347; Hirth v. Pfeifle, 42 Mich. 32; Savin v. Bond, 57 Md. 228; Brown 7. Dudley, 33 N. H. 511; Baltimore etc. R. Co. v. May, 25 Ohio St. 347; Tams 7. Bullitt, 35 Pa. St. 308; Noble v. Thompson Oil Co., 69 Pa. St. 409; Morgan v. Neville, 74 Pa. St. 52; Robeson v. Carpenter, 7 Mart. (La.), N. S. 30; Baxter 7. Vincent, 6 Vt. 614. The garnishee is discharged to the extent of the amount that he has been compelled to pay though the judgment is erroneous; Duncan v. Ware, 5 Stew. & P. (Ala.) 119; Gunn v. Howell, 35 Ala. 144; Pierce v. Carleton, 12 Ill. 358; Webster 7. Lowell, 2 Allen (Mass.) 123; Dole v. Boutwell, 1 Allen (Mass.) 286; Wise v. Hilton, 4 Greenl. (Me.) 435; Killsa v. Lermond, 6 Greenl. (Me.) 116; Brown v. Dudley, 33 N. H. 511; Lomerson v. Huffman, 4 Zabr. (N. J.) 674; Anderson v. Young, 21 Pa. St. 443; Stearns . Wrisley, 30 Vt.661; v. Stevens v. Fisher, 30 Vt. 200. According to Drake, the garnishee to prove his discharge must show: the judgment against himself. Barton v. Smith, 7 Iowa 85; Leonard v. New Bedford etc. Bank, 116 Mass. 210. That the judgment was valid. Loring v. Folger, 7 Gray (Mass.) 505; Matthey v. Wiseman, 18 C. B., N. S. 657. See also Westoby v. Day, 2 El. & B. 605. That payment was not voluntary; and not simulated or contrived. Wetter v. Rucker, Brod. & B. 491. That the court had jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties. Harmon v. Birchard, 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 418; Richardson v. Hickman, 22 Ind. 244; Robertson v. Roberts, 1 A. K. Marsh. (Ky.) 247; Ford v. Hurd, 4 Sm. & M. (Miss.) 683. And the garnishee is protected if, having contested the jurisdiction of the court, the decision was against him. Gunn v. Howell, 35 Ala. 144; Wyatt v. Rambo, 29 Ala. 510. That before obtaining execution the plaintiff performed all acts required by law as conditions precedent thereto. Oldham v. Ledbetter, 1 How. (Miss.) 43; Grisson v. Reynolds, 1 How. (Miss.) 570; Myers v. Uhrich, 1 Binn. (Pa.) 25; Moyer v. Lobengier, 4 Watts (Pa.) 390); Drake on Attachment, § 711. The garnishee need not contest the lack of jurisdiction of the defendant when the latter is present; otherwise he must. Wheeler . Aldrich, 13 Gray (Mass.) 51; Thayer v. Tyler, 10 Gray (Mass.) 164; Morrison 7. New Bedford Inst., 7 Gray (Mass.) 269; Pratt v. Cunliff, 9 Allen (Mass.) 90. The garnishee must take advantage of any defects which would render a judgment in the main case void. Laidlaw 7. Morrow, 44 Mich. 547; Cota v. Ross, 66 Me. 161; Erwin. Heath, 50 Miss. 795; Woodfolk z. Whitworth, 5 Coldw. (Tenn.) 561. But he cannot take advantage of mere irregularities. Earl v. Matheney, 60 Ind. 202. A judgment for for the garnishee, charged with holding defendant's personal property by a fraudulent transfer, is a bar to an action on the case against him for aiding in the alleged fraudulent transfer. Bunker v. Tufts, 57 Me. 417. The garnishee is bound by the judgment against him, though he was defaulted. Flanagan v. Cutter, 121 Mass. 96. It seems that a voluntary payment does not discharge the garnishee of his liability to the original defendant. Wetter v. Rucker, 1 Brod. & B. 491; s. C., 4 B. Moore 172; Hebel v. Amazon Ins. Co., 33 Mich. 400; Schindler v. Smith, 18 La. An. 476. See also Hirth v. Pfeifle, 42 Mich. 31. the judgment alone is a bar,1 but in others it is not a bar until it has been satisfied. A judgment for or against a garnishee is not binding upon other creditors of the defendant.3 (6) Heirs and Devisees.-A judgment for or against a person is conclusive evidence for or against his heirs and devisees.4 An heir or devisee is not bound by a judgment against the other.5 (7) Lessor and Lessee.--A judgment against a lessor is binding upon a subsequent lessee; but not upon a lessee in possession when the action was commenced." The lessor is not concluded as against the successful party by a judgment against his lessee,8 The garnishee is not discharged by a judgment by default. Sessions v. Stevens, 1 Fla. 233; Sargeant v. Andrews, 3 Greenl. (Me.) 199. He must have availed himself of all proper defenses. Newton v. Walters, 16 Ark. 216; Funkhouser v. How, 24 Mo. 44; Dobbins v. Hyde, 37 Mo. 114; Whipple v. Robbins, 97 Mass. 107; Wilkinson v. Hall, 6 Gray (Mass.) 568; Hull v. Blake, 13 Mass. 153; Pierce v. Chicago etc. R. Co., 36 Wis. 283; Johann v. Rufener, 32 Wis. 195; Bushnell v. Allen, 48 Wis. 460; Watkins v. Cason, 46 Ga. 444. See also Schrauth v. Dry Dock etc. Bank, 86 N. Y. 390. Payment by the garnishee under a judgment against him is a bar to an action against him by an assignee of the debt under an assignment made after service of the writ of garnishment. Newman v. Manning, 79 Ind. 218; Bushnell v. Allen, 48 Wis. 460. A garnishee is not protected by a judgment against him, if having notice of an assignment he neglects to bring the fact to the attention of the court. Smoot . Eslava, 23 Ala. 659; Larrabee v. Knight, 69 Me. 320; Casey v. Davis, 100 Mass. 124; Dawson 7. Jones, 2 Houst. (Del.) 412; Greentree v. Rosenstock, 61 N. Y. 583; Noble v. Thompson Oil Co., 79 Pa. St. 354; s. c., 21 Am. Rep. 66; Lewis 7. Dunlop, 57 Miss. 130. The recovery of a debt or demand by garnishment in a court of a sister State or foreign country, or in a Federal court, is a protection to the garnishee against his original creditor. Taylor v. Phelps, 1 H. & G. (Md.) 492; Wilkinson v. Hall, 6 Gray (Mass.) 568; Barrow v. West, 23 Pick. (Mass.) 270; Hull v. Blake, 13 Mass. 153; Rothschild v. Burton, 57 Mich. 540; Embree v. Hanna, 5 Johns. (N. Y.) 101; Holmes v. Remsen, 4 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 460; s. c., 20 Johns. 229; Barney v. Douglas, 19 Vt. 98; Kimball v. Gay, 16 Vt. 131; Chase 2. Haughton, 16 Vt. 594. 1. Bigelow on Estop. (4th ed.) 132; Sessions v. Stevens, 1 Fla. 233; s. c., 46 Am. Dec. 339; Coburn v. Currens, I Bush (Ky.) 242; Covert v. Nelson, 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 265; King v. Vance, 46 Ind. 246; McAllister v. Brooks, 22 Me. 80; Norris 7. Hall, 18 Me. 332; Matthews v. Houghton, 11 Me. 377. But according to some authorities execution must have been sued out against the garnishee. Brown v. Somerville, 8 Md. 444; Home Ins. Co. v. Gamble, 14 Mo. 407; Burnap v. Campbell, 6 Gray (Mass.) 241: Meriam 7. Rundlett, 13 Pick. (Mass.) 511; Lowry v. Lumberman's Bank, 2 W. & S. (Pa.) 210; Cheongwo v. Jones, 3 Wash. (U. S.) 359. 2. Cook v. Field, 3 Ala. 53; s. c., 36 Am. Dec. 436; Brannon v. Noble, 8 Ga. 549; Hammett . Morris, 55 Ga. 644; Farmer v. Simpson, 6 Tex. 303; Flower v. Parker, 3 Mason (U.S.) 247; Meriam v. Rundlett, 7. Rundlett, 13 Pick. (Mass.) 511; Brown v. Somerville, 8 Md. 444; Lowry 7. Lumberman's Bank, 2 W. & S. (Pa.) 210. 3. Strauss 2. Ayres, 87 Mo. 348; Wheeler . Aldrich, 13 Gray (Mass.) 51; Tams . Bullitt. 35 Pa. St. 308; Breading v. Siegworth, 29 Pa. St. 396. 4. Lock v. Norborne, 3 Mad. 142; Boykin v. Cook, 61 Ala. 472. 5. Cowart v. Williams, 34 Ga. 167. 6. Bennett v. Couchman, 48 Barb. (N. Y.) 73. 7. Satterlee 7. Bliss, 36 Cal. 489; Sampson v. Ohleyer, 22 Cal. 200; Goerges v. Hufschmidt, 44 Mo. 179; Garrison v. Savignac, 25 Mo. 47; Ex parte Reynolds, 1 Cai. (N. Y.) 500. 8. Chant . Reynolds, 49 Cal. 213; Bartlett v. Boston Gas Light Co., 122 Mass. 209; Read v. Allen, 58 Tex. 380; Ryerss 7. Rippey, 25 Wend. (N. Y.) 432; Kent v. Lasley, 48 Wis. 257; Read unless the issue involved the title to the land and he assumed the defence of it.1 (8) Ejectment.--A judgment in ejectment is conclusive as to the right of possession against persons entering upon the land under, through or in collusion with the defendant after the commencement of the action.2 (9) Officers and Successors.--A judgment for or against an officer affecting the rights and privileges of the office is binding upon his successors.3 A judgment for or against his right to hold the office is binding upon those who claim under him.4 (10) Co-owners of Property.-A judgment for or against an owner of property is not conclusive evidence for or against a Co-owner. 5 (11) Life Tenant and Remainderman.- Where several remainders are limited by the same deed, a judgment for or against the first remainderman is evidence of the rights of all. Where there are contingent limitations, a judgment against the first person having an estate of inheritance, or if there be no such person, against the tenant for life, is a bar to an action by any remainderman, although he may not have been in esse when the judgment was rendered." v. Allen, 56 Tex. 176. Compare HanCompare Hanson v. Armstrong, 22 Ill. 442. A judgment against the vendee of land in possession under an unexecuted. contract of purchase was held not to bar an action by the vendor to recover the land, although he had notice of the former action. Cadwallader v. Harris, 76 Ill. 370. Ben And it was held that a landlord was not bound by a judgment against his tenant in an action to which he was not a party, although he was notified of the action and refused to defend it. nett v. Leach, 25 Hun (N. Y.) 178. 1. Ryerss v. Rippey, 25 Wend. (N. Y.) 432; Lowe v. Emerson, 48 Ill. 162; Cadwallader v. Harris, 76 Ill. 370; Douglas v. Fulda, 45 Cal. 592; Chant v. Reynolds, 49 Cal. 213; Reay v. Butler, 69 Cal. 572; Valentine 7. Mahoney, 37 Cal. 389; Stridde 7. Saroni, 21 Wis. 173; Samuel v. Dinkins, 12 Rich. (S. Car.) 172; Maguire v. Labeaume, 7 Mo. App. 179; Chirac v. Reinecker, 2 Pet. (U. S.) 617. Compare Rodgers v. Bell, 53 Ga. 94; Smith v. Gagle, 58 Ala. 600. 2. Howard v. Kennedy, 4 Ala. 592; Satterlee v. Bliss, 36 Cal. 489; Hanson v. Armstrong, 22 Ill. 442; Oetgen v. Ross, 47 Ill. 142; s. c., 95 Am. Dec. 468; Jones v. Chiles, 2 Dana (Ky.) 25; Long v. Morton, 2 A. K. Marsh. (Ky.) 39; Jackson v. Tuttle, 9 Cow. (N. Y.) 233; Wallen . Huff, 3 Sneed (Tenn.) 82; Smith v. Trabue, 1 McLean (U. S.) 87. 3. Bounker v. Atkyns, Skin. 15. 4. King v. Grimes, Buller's N. P. 231. But a judgment against one who draws in question the right to an office or franchise is not conclusive against another person drawing such right in question. State v. Cincinnati Gas Co., 18 Ohio St. 262. See Freeman on Judg. (3rd ed.), § 170. 5. Williams v. Sutton, 43 Cal. 71; Walker v. Perryman, 23 Ga. 309, 314; Bennett v. Hethington, 16 S. & R. (Pa.) 195; Hammett v. v. Blount, I Swan (Tenn.) 385; Bass v. Sevier, 58 Tex. 567; Read v. Allen, 56 Tex. 182; Gerirsh 7. Bragg, 55 Vt. 329. 6. Johnson v. Jacob, 11 Bush (Ky.) 646; Pyke v. Crouch, I Ld. Raym. 730; Doe v. Tyler, 6 Bing. 390; Buller's N. P. 232; Rushworth v. Pembroke, Hardr. 472. 7. Meade v. Mitchell, 17 N. Y. 210; Cheesman v. Thorne, I Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 629; Freeman v. Freeman, 9 Heisk. (Tenn.) 301; Campbell v. Watson, 8 Ohio 498; Faulkner v. Davis, 18 Gratt. (Va.) 684; Baylor v. Dejarnette, 13 Gratt. (Va.) 152; Faulkner v. Davis, 18 Gratt. (Va.) 688. Compare Downin v. Sprecher, 35 Md. 478; Detrick v. Migatt, 19 III. 146; McConnell v. Smith, 23 Ill. 560. |