31 Mo. App. 397 | Mo. Ct. App. | 1888
Lead Opinion
I. The first question, in order, for determination is, as to the admissibility in evidence of the record in the suit of O’ Bryan vs. Koontz. The gravamen (A plaintiff’s complaint is, that by reason of defendants ’ false and fraudulent representations respecting the ownership of the property he was induced to release the same from his levy, whereby he was subjected to damage. As his loss was consequent upon that judgment, it was competent to plead and put in evidence that record to prove the judgment, and its satisfaction. Freeman on Judg. 416, 417; Walker v. Deaver, 79 Mo. 678; Blasdale v. Babcock, 1 Johns. 517. It being admissible for one purpose, it was proper not to exclude if on a general objection to its entire competency. The proper practice, where the evidence offered is competent for a certain purpose, but incompetent for others for which it might be misused before the jury, is to limit and qualify its proper application by instructions to the jury. Babb v. Ellis, 76 Mo. 460; Schlicker v. Gordon, 19 Mo. App. 479.
II. The further question arises, did the court err in giving or refusing instructions respecting the effect or office of said judgment ? On the part of the defendants the court refused to direct the jury, that in determining
It is a fundamental rule of the doctrine of res judicata that judgments in personam conclude only parties to the record and their privies. They cannot be invoked by strangers. Big. Estop. 59; Quigley v. Bank, 80 Mo. 290. These defendants were not parties of record in that action. Were they privies in contemplation of law % In its strict sense, privies are those who have mutual or successive relationship to the same rights of property, or subject-matter, suchas “personal representatives, heirs, devisees, legatees, assignees, voluntary grantees, or judgment creditors, or purchasers from them with notice of the facts.” Henry v. Woods, 77 Mo. 281. As these defendants assert title and ownership anterior to the judgment, they are not bound as privies thereunder, in the ordinary sense ; for “no one is a privy to a judgment whose succession to the rights of property thereby affected occurred previous to the institution of the suit.” Freeman on Judg., sec. 162; Henry v. Woods, supra.
The doctrine as to parties has been extended so as to
The facts of the case at bar fall far short of these requirements as to one who assumes to control the litigation. The evidence in this case only shows that one
The case of Yorks v. Steele, 50 Barb. 397, so often cited both by courts and text-writers, is a decided authority against the defendants being bound by said judgment, as to the ownership of the property, on the ground of their participation at the trial. One Pond obtained judgment against the plaintiff Yorks, and, under execution issued thereon, one Chase, as sheriff, levied on a horse in the possession of the defendant Steele as the property of Pond. Steele brought suit against Chase. On the trial of that issue, Yorks employed an attorney for the sheriff, and himself testified in the case. Steele recovered judgment, on the ground that the horse was not subject to the execution against Yorks. In the action then brought by Yorks against Steele to recover this horse, Steele was permitted to put in evidence the record of said judgment in Steele vs. Chase, and plaintiff took a nonsuit. The court held the judgment inadmissible. Johnson, J., said: “It is of no consequence, prima facie, that the plaintiff was a witness for the defendant in the action brought by this defendant. He had no right, as a witness, to examine or cross-examine other witnesses, or to call other witnesses, who might have a better knowledge of the facts than himself. In short, as a mere witness, he had no charge or control of the case whatever. And supposing that judgment was erroneous, for any reason, he had no right of appeal and no standing by which he
III. If, therefore, that judgment concluded the defendants on the question of own ership of the property, it must be on the only remaining rule, that, where a party is answerable over to another for the subject-matter of the judgment, he is bound by such judgment, when he has been notified of the pendency of the litigation, and had an opportunity to defend the action. This arises
It follows that if the judgment was binding on the defendants, it must rest upon the further rule, that the defendants are answerable over by operation of law, which is akin to the doctrine of respondeat superior. This has been applied to the instance of one who places obstructions, or commits some nuisance, in the streets of a town, whereby a person receives injury. The town being primarily liable to the injured party, if mulcted in damages at the suit of the sufferer, has a cause of action over against the wrong-doer whose immediate act caused the injury. In such case, if the municipal corporation when sued gives notice to the wrong-doer of the pendency of the suit, he will be bound by the verdict and judgment therein rendered, as to the fact that the highway was defective, that the person was injured, and the amount of the injury. Wells Res. Judicata, sec. 193; Littleton v. Richardson, 34 N. H. 187; Chicago v. Robbins, 2 Black, 418. This doctrine, or rule, has also
IY. Appellants further contend that the court erred in refusing the fifth declaration of law asked by defendants. There is no question in my mind but that, in view of the defendants’ evidence, they were entitled to an instruction to the effect that, if defendants only made separate claims to separate portions of the property, and separately represented to plaintiff that he claimed such portion, a joint action would not lb*, without further proof of a prior combination between them thus to mislead and deceive the plaintiff. But the misfortune to defendants’ contention is, that the instruction as framed did not clearly enough express such idea. It is: “If the jury believe, from the evidence, that the defendants each claimed a separate portion of the property, and that they separately notified Koontz in writing of their said claims.” This could all be true, that each claimed a certain portion, and so notified Koontz, and yet the fact remain, as testified to by plaintiff, that they made these statements in each other’s presence, that the other also owned the part he claimed. The
V. The court erred, however, in refusing the second instruction asked by defendants, and in giving the second instruction for plaintiff. As already stated the gist of this action is the fraud and deceit of defendants in claiming to own the property. The allegations of the petition are that said representations “were false and fraudulent, and known to said defendants at the time so to be false. and fraudulent; that said false and fraudulent statements were knowingly made by said defendants, for the purpose of inducing plaintiff to release said property.” These were essential averments, of facts constitutive of the cause of action, well known to the intelligent pleader, without which the petition would have invited a demurrer. The gravamen of the action is the false statement made with intent to mislead, followed by damage. Medbury v. Watson, 6 Met. 259; Barney v. Dewey, 13 Johns. 226; Arthur v. Man. Co., 12 Mo. App. 335. “It seems to be established that an action based upon the deceit or fraudulent representations of another cannot be maintained in the absence of proof that the party making them* believed or had good reason to believe at the time he made them that they were false, or that he assumed or intended to convey the impression that
While the question as to Charles Kaufman’s ownership of the property has been adjudicated, the other question, as to whether the representations and statements by defendants to Koontz were made in good faith or fraudulently, remains at issue, with the burden of proof on the plaintiff. That issue of fact was not properly submitted to the jury, and there has been no finding thereon. The case must, therefore, be retried.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Rehearing
On motion for rehearing.
I. It is first suggested, in justification of this motion, that the judgment of reversal is placed upon grounds not distinctly made and relied upon by appellants in their brief; and, therefore, respondent’s counsel did not cite the authorities now relied upon to show that the instructions criticised in the opinion have been substantially approved by the Supreme Court. The case of McKenzie v. Railroad, 24 Mo. App. 396, 397, is cited in support of the proposition
The statute directs the appellant or plaintiff in error to file in the cause a specific assignment of errors “on or before the first day on which causes from the same circuit are set for hearing, in default of which such assignment of errors the appeal or writ of error may be dismissed,” etc. The other party shall then join in such error within four days. Rev. Stat., secs. 3764, 3765. Where no such assignment of errors is made, the court will dismiss the writ, etc. 57 Mo. 602; 51 Mo. 412; 59 Mo. 143; 44 Mo. 604; 32 Mo. 230. This is to make an issue in this court. The statute directs us to examine the record, as presented here, on the assignments, and to affirm or reverse, as the fact and law maybe. The brief of counsel is designed to aid the court in its investigation of the case. But we are by no means limited in our inquiry or conclusions to the points made or grounds taken in such brief.
In the assignment of errors in this case, the action of the lower court in giving and refusing instructions is distinctly alleged for error. Although counsel in their brief might urge one or more special criticisms and objections to the instructions, yet, if the court, in its examination, should discover other patent error or objection, it could not shut its eyes to the fact and the law,
If some instruction contains a verbal inaccuracy or hidden technical defect, to which the attention of the court was not called by appellant, and the court should affirm the judgment, the appellant ought not to be heard afterwards to complain. But where the error, as in this case, was patent, and acted on by the court, it can be no ground for a rehearing, at the motion of the respondent, that the appellant, in his brief and argument, laid no special stress on the error. This much we deem it important to say touching this practical matter of appellate practice.
II. It is conceded in the motion for rehearing, that fraud and deceit constitute the gist of this action ; and that the burden of establishing the existence of the fraud rests upon the plaintiff. But it is contended that the instructions given on behalf of plaintiff met the requirements of the law, and gave the defendants as much as they were entitled to on this issue.
The gist of the action being, as all the courts agree, the intent to deceive, with consequent damage, it is a question of fact to be found by the jury. While the mode of proving this essential fact may vary with the attendant circumstances of each particular case, the central idea and principle remains fixed, that the element of fraud must be made to appear in some form or other. And while it is true, as asserted by the learned counsel, that it is not essential that actual falsehood should be uttered to give the right of action, it is as equally true that the mere utterance of a falsehood, or a fact, is not alone sufficient. The language of Naptow, J., in Dulaney v. Rogers, 64 Mo. 203, 204, is, that the plaintiff must prove that the party making the false statements may have “believed, or had good reason to
So the instruction approved by the court contained the essential requirement. This is again distinctly brought out by Norton, J., in Kenny v. Railroad, 80 Mo. 572, in which he says: ‘' The generally received doctrine now is that,, in order to support an action for fraudulent representations, it is not sufficient to show that a party made statements which he did not know to be true and which were in fact false. There must be fraud as distinguished from mere mistake. It is not, however, always absolutely necessary that an actual falsehood should be uttered to render a party liable in an action for deceit; if he states material facts as of his own knowledge, and not as a mere matter of opinion, or a general assertion about a matter of which he has no knowledge whatever, this distinct wilful statement, in ignorance of the truth, is the same as the statement of a known falsehood, and will constitute a scienter.” In this it is to be observed that the assertion of a fact as of his own knowledge is qualified with the words “ in ignorance of the truth.” This was necessarily so to make it harmonize with the holding of Napton, J., supra.
So in the later case of Nauman v. Oberle, 90 Mo. 669, the instruction approved was, that/‘if defendant falsely and fraudulently represented, etc., and knew the representation was not true.”
Applying these rulings to the instructions under review, it will be found that while they were framed with some regard to the rule, yet they are so artfully (not in an invidious sense) drawn, as to not unreasonably warrant the jury in making the inference that if defendants stated that they owned the property, as of their own knowledge, and that statement turned out to be untrue, the scienter was proved without more. They do
The fraudulent intent being the gist of the action, the defendants were entitled to have this issue of fact distinctly and sharply submitted to the jury, in such perspicuous language as to leave no just grounds for their minds being misled. As said in Gray v. McDonald, 28 Mo. App. 492, approving the language of Story, J., in Livingston v. Ins. Co., 7 Cranch, 544: “'If in any point of law, the defendant was entitled to such direction, the court erred in its refusal, although the direction afterwards given by the court might, by inference and argument, in the opinion of this court, be pressed to the same extent. For the party has a right to a direct and positive instruction; and the jury are not to be left to believe in distinctions where none exist, or to reconcile positions by mere argument and inference. It would be a dangerous practice, and tend to mislead instead of enlightening the jury.”
It is clear to our minds that the instructions, as drawn by plaintiff, were not calculated to convey as they should to the apprehension of ¿he jury the real gist of this issue.
The motion for rehearing is denied.