65 N.Y.S. 859 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1900
The plaintiff seeks in equity a judgment which shall establish a clear title in him to property located on the southwest corner of James and Oak streets in the city of ¡¡New York. There is no certificate in the appeal book or record that it contains all the evidence given on the trial, and, therefore, the questions of fact, so far as they are in dispute, are not before us for review. The solving of these, however, is-not of controlling importance for the reason that the decision of the Special Term, as well as our conclusion, turns on a question of law. As there is little or no dispute about certain of the evidence, we may refer to this and to the pleadings as well in order to have the question of law clearly presented and show precisely how it arose.
The answer states that by virtue of the redemption by Samuel Boyd of the premises in question in August, 1875, he became possessed of the title to the property in his own right, and that the cer
At the trial the judgment roll in the action referred to in the defendant’s answer brought by the plaintiff in the Superior Court against David Boyd and Malcolm Campbell, was introduced in evidence. The complaint therein alleged the ownership of the plaintiff in the property, the rendition of the United States judgment against him and the sale to Oliver Fiske ; that by the advice of his attorney he permitted Samuel Boyd to obtain judgment against him, and thereafter furnished money with which the property was redeemed for his benefit; the death of Samuel Boyd and that he never claimed any title in the premises ; that David Boyd was appointed administrator and obtained by conspiracy with Malcolm Campbell a deed" and a certificate of redemption from Oliver Fiske. In addition, the complaint stated that prior to April 16, 1883, Samuel Boyd made
On the trial of the present action the judge at Special Term held that the judgment of. the Superior Court in the action brought' by Robert Boyd against David Boyd and Malcolm Campbell constituted a bar to the maintenance of the present suit, and he, therefore, dismissed the complaint upon the merits. Whether the dismissal for such reason was justified is the single question which we find it necessary to consider on this appeal.
A comparison of the pleadings in the present suit with those in the action brought in the Superior Court discloses, with but two points of difference, that the issues presented were identical. One of these differences is that in the Superior, Court action there was,
The appellant argues, however, that in the action in the Superior Court “ the plaintiff adopted the theory and constructed his complaint upon the issue of the existence or execution by Samuel Boyd to him of an assignment or conveyance which had been delivered td said Campbell for the purpose of filing and recording,” showing that “ the pleader presented as the basis of relief no cancellation of instruments,” and insisting that in the Superior Court “ there is no finding whatever that such deed actually passed or conveyed the
So far, therefore, as the main question is concerned, namely, who obtained title to the certificate of redemption and deed, the Superior Court judgment is a complete bar to the present action unless it appears that the causes of action from some other reason are separ rate and distinct. The only distinction pointed out is the allegation in this complaint, already adverted to, that the plaintiff since the purchase of the property from the marshal has paid to Samuel Boyd the amount of his judgment. In both actions, however, the issue was the title to the certificate of redemption and deed, and the only variance relates, not to the causes of action, but to the difference in evidence between that formerly presented and that which is now introduced for the purpose of establishing in plaintiff such title. Thus in both cases all the underlying facts tending to establish title down to the procuring of the certificate of redemption and deed by David Boyd as administrator were the same; but in the Superior Court action the claim asserted was that the plaintiff had obtained from Samuel Boyd an assignment of his interests in the property. In the present case the plaintiff must concede that he is bound by the former adjudication that he did not obtain an assignment, and must admit that David Boyd, as administrator, is the legal owner and holder of the certificate of redemption and deed; but he seeks in effect to destroy such title by asserting an equitable title and demanding that the certificate of redemption and deed issued to David Boyd be canceled, alleging that he paid the judgment of
It will be seen, therefore, that the real questions in both actions were whether Samuel Boyd, 'by purchase as a judgment creditor, acquired an equitable as well as a legal title to the certificate and deed, and whether, at the date of the Superior Court action, the plaintiff had legally or equitably succeeded to Samuel Boyd’s rights. In both actions the object sought was to destroy the title to the certificate and deed which David Boyd had obtained, and such destruction was in the former action sought to be encompassed by a claim that Samuel Boyd during his lifetime had assigned his rights to this plaintiff, while in the present action the same object is sought by insisting that the judgment of Samuel Boyd during his lifetime had been paid. The fact that there is a difference in the form of relief demanded does not change the causes of action, for whether it be adjudged that the deed and certificate should be assigned to the plaintiff, or that they be canceled and annulled in the hands of the defendant, is a difference in form and not in substance, since the result in either case would be to destroy the legal title outstanding in David Boyd.
The Superior Court judgment determined that Samuel Boyd had redeemed the property and that his administrator was entitled to the certificate and deed, and the same issue was again presented, there being no other questions which could not have been previously litigated. In other words, the subject-matter of the action in the Superior Court was whether the outstanding deed and certificate,
This rule has been many times formulated, and where, as here, the same claim or demand is involved, the prior judgment is a complete bar as to every matter litigated, or which might have been litigated. Thus the operation of a judgment as an estoppel is accurately stated in Cromwell v. County of Sac (94 U. S. 351), where it is said: “ There is a difference between the effect of a judgment as a bar or estoppel against the prosecution of a second action upon the same claim or demand, and its effect as an estoppel in another action between the same parties upon a different claim or cause of action. * * * It is a finality as to the claim or demand in controversy, concluding parties and those in privity with them, not only as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim or demand, but as to any other admissible matter which might have been offered for that purpose. * * * But where the second action between the same parties is upon a different claim or demand, the judgment in the prior action operates as an estoppel only as to those matters in issue or points controverted, upon the determination of which the finding or verdict was rendered. In all cases, therefore, where it is sought to apply the estoppel of a judgment rendered upon one cause of action to matters arising in a suit upon a different cause of action, the inquiry must always be as to the point or question actually litigated and determined in the original action, not what might have been thus litigated and determined.” The rule thus clearly expressed was cited with approval by this court in Felix v. Devlin (50 App. Div. 331) wherein other authorities are collated and discussed. (See, also, Bruen v. Hone, 2 Barb. 586; Campbell Printing Press & Mfg. Co. v. Walker, 114 N. Y. 7; Bell v. Merrifield, 109 id. 203.)
That rule should be applied here, and our conclusion agrees with that of the learned trial justice, upon whose able opinion (reported in 26 Misc. Rep. 679) we might well have rested our decision were it not .for the strenuous insistence of the appellant and the interests
The judgment accordingly should be affirmed, with costs.
Van Brunt, P. J., Ingraham, McLaughlin and Hatch, JJ., concurred.
J adginent affirmed, xvith costs.