40 Ga. 493 | Ga. | 1869
Lead Opinion
Nothing-is better settled than that the judgment of a Court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive between the parties as to the matters at issue between them: 2 Phillip’s Evidence,
2. Nor does this rule confine the effect of the judgment to such matters as were in fact pleaded. It is the bounden duty .of parties to plead'every fact, pro and eon., that effects their respective rights, so far as the Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the questions which such facts give rise to: 2 Phillips Ev., 2-26.
But if the Court have no jurisdiction over the rights growing out of the facts, as if the judgment be a judgment at law and there exist a state of things which, by the powers of the Court, it cannot have, and which are within the exclusive jurisdiction of a Court of Equity, then the judgment at law does not conclude the parties. They may, after the judgment is complete, go into equity, enjoin the judgment at law, and have the matter reheard by a Court of Equity in the light of the facts which create equitable rights: Pollock, Adm’r,
So, too, if the defendant have a right — a legal right — of cross action, as set-off or recoupment, he may or he may not plead it in reply to the plaintiff’s claim. If he do in fact plead it, and the facts are investigated and enter as an element into the judgment of the Court, the right cannot be again set up: Seddon vs. Tutop, 6 T. R., 607. See also, 2 Phillips Ev., 113-15; Cowen & Hill’s Notes, volume 2, 154, 155. But unless this right of cross-action or-recoupment be set up, a judgment between the parties in another matter, does not conclude it: Cowen & Hill’s Notes; Phillip’s Ev., vol. 2, 154, 155.
A judgment is, then conclusive between the parties as to all matters which were, or by law must have been heard by the Court rendering the judgment. But equitable rights are not concluded by a judgment at law, unless they be in fact set up and adjudged. Nor are cross-actions concluded by a judgment in which they were not in fact considered. The Constitution of 1868 gives full force and effect to all judgments obtained under the previous látate organizations, except as therein provided: Art. 10, sec. 2. This provision of the Constitution is the paramount law, and binds the General Assembly as well as the Courts, and any Act of that body, the object and effect of which is to deny to such judgments full force and effect, is beyond the power vested by the Constitution in the Legislature. But this clause- can hardly mean that such judgments are to be enforced at all events. It was intended simply to cure certain supposed objections to judgments obtained between January, 1861, and the going into operation of the new government, and to transfer over to the new Courts both them and the judgments of the Courts of the State government, which went to wreck in the revolution. These judgment are declared to have full force as though there had been no interruption in the Courts. In other respects, they are still subject to attack by the Courts under the law, as they might have b9en when obtained. If there be equitable. reasons why they should not be paid,
In these cases the defendant made his affidavit as the statute-requires. When the term arrived, they had a right to mako out their claims against the plaintiffs, and if they were good/ under the pleading, they had a right to have them submitted} to a jury. This the Court refused thereby dismissing their-affidavits, and in this we think the Court erred.
Judgment reversed.
Concurrence Opinion
concurring.
In my opinion the judgment of the Court in both these-causes, which were argued together, was erroneous.
1. I hold that when a party is sued in a Court of law, he is bound to make any legal defense which he has against the claim of the plaintiff, and if he is not prevented by fraud,
2. A defendant sued at law is not bound, however, to set up a defense purely equitable, and a Court of Chancery may grant an injunction in such case before or after judgment; and I take it to be a correct principle that the Legislature may authorize any relief in a Court of law which can be had in Chancery without such legislation. But it must be such an equity between the parties as would be the proper subject of equitable interference, as the insolvency of the plaintiff, the fact that he is beyond the jurisdiction of the Court, or some other equitable defense or claim. In such case I see no good reason why the Legislature may not authorize the equitable claim of the defendant to be set-off against the judgment of the plaintiff, or why it may not authorize the judgment to be opened for that purpose.
This view of the power of a Court of Chancery to set aside or enjoin a judgment is sustained by numerous author-ties. I quote a single one from the opinion of Judge Lumpkin, in Polloch vs. Gilbert, 16th Georgia, on page 402, as follows: “ But when a case involves matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of equity, its final decision at law will not preclude a re-examination in Chancery. Under such circumstances the doctrine of res adjudicata does not apply. For as the matter in which the intervention of equity is asked could not have been determined at- law, it cannot be within the estoppel of the legal decision. The existence of an equitable defense, which could not have been made available as a legal defense, is therefore a sufficient ground for obtaining an injunction before or after judgment: 2 White and Tudor’s Leading Equity Cases, 96. And after reciting the cases of Foster vs. Wood, 6 Johns’ Ch. R., 89, and the Marine Insurance Company of Alexandria vs. Hodgson, 7 Cranch, 332, and Truly vs. Wanger, 5 Howard, 141, these annotators con
* * * “ The general principle with regard to injunctions, after a judgment at law, is this: that any fact which proves it to be against consoience to execute-such judgment, and of which the party could not have availed himself in a Court of law, or of which he might have availed himself at law, but was prevented by fraud or accident, unmixed with any fraud or negligence in himself or his agents, will authorize a Court of Equity to interfere by injunction to restrain the adverse party from availing himself of said judgment ?”
From these authorities it appears that there is a class of cases where a Court of Equity may at any stage of the proceedings interfere by injunction, and arrest the proceedings at law, even after judgment, and I am well satisfied that the Legislature has power to authorize any such defense as might be made available in equity, to be made in the manner pointed out in the Relief Act, in a Court of law, after judgment has been rendered.
I will simply add, that the judgment may, in my opinion, be opened under the authority of an Act of the Legislature, to Jet in an equitable defense, which originated since its rendition, if the ends of justice require it, and it would be against equity and good conscience for the plaintiff to enforce the judgment
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting.
This case, as well as the case of Bonner vs. Martin, (last case ante,) involve the question of the constitutionality of the second section of the Relief Act of 1868, and'w.ill both be considered together. In ihy judgment, the second section of .that Act, which provides for the opening of judgments rendered by the Courts of this State on contracts made prior to the first day of June, 1865, for the causes therein sidled, is in violation of the 10th section of the first article of the Constitution of the United States, for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Cutts & Johnson vs. Hardee, 38th Georgia Reports, 381. The reasons given by me in that case, as applicable to the first section of the Relief Act of 1868, apply with increased force and strength to the second section of the Act, which relates to the opening and sealing judgments which are debts of record. The second section of that Act is a. more palpable and obvious violation of the Constitution, if possible, than the first section thereof. Besides, that