Birge-Forbes Co. v. Heye - 251 U.S. 317 (1920)


U.S. Supreme Court

Birge-Forbes Co. v. Heye, 251 U.S. 317 (1920)

Birge-Forbes Co. v. Heye

No. 76

Argued November 13, 14, 1919

Decided January 12, 1920

251 U.S. 317

Syllabus

A judgment for an alien enemy is objectionable only in so far as it may give aid and comfort to the other side in the war. P. 251 U. S. 323.

A judgment recovered in the district court by an alien enemy before he became such, the satisfaction of which was delayed by the other party's appeal until the intervention of war, may properly be reviewed during the war and affirmed with direction that the money be paid to the clerk of the trial court to be turned over to the Alien Property Custodian, and a motion to dismiss or suspend the action is correctly denied. Id.

Where a broker who became liable for his principal on several arbitration awards sued for their aggregate amount and was given a directed verdict and a judgment against the principal for the part which he

Page 251 U. S. 318

had then paid, and, having paid the remainder, sued again to recover that also, held that the former judgment was conclusive in the second action as to the validity of the awards, it appearing not only from the petition and judgment, but from other parts of the record of the former case, including the answer, the judge's charge and the opinion of the circuit court of appeals, that the validity of all the awards alike was there in issue and was sustained. P. 251 U. S. 323.

In determining whether a former judgment, given upon a directed verdict, involved the same issues of fact as are presented in a second action before the same judge in which both parties submit the point by requests for a peremptory instruction, especial weight attaches to the judge's decision. P. 251 U. S. 324.

The objection that the deposition of a plaintiff in the district court cannot be taken on his own behalf is waived by a stipulation waiving time and notice and allowing the officer to proceed to take and return it on interrogatories. Id.

That, in the return of foreign depositions, the officer commissioned did not put them into the mail and certify to the fact on the envelopes, as required by a state law, is immaterial where the war made compliance impossible and where the officer transmitted them in the only practicable way, though an American consul to the State Department, and thence by mail to the clerk. Id.

The six months' limitation of the German Civil Code § 477 on claims for defect of quality in goods sold does not apply to awards of arbitration based on such claims. P. 251 U. S. 325.

In an action to recover amounts paid on defendant's account in Germany, it is not error to take the value of the German mark at par in the absence of evidence that it had depreciated when the plaintiff made the payments. Id.

248 F. 636 affirmed.

The case is stated in the opinion.

Page 251 U. S. 322



Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.