In a suit against B. upon his contract guaranteeing the payment
of the purchase money of certain land, A. recovered judgment for
the first installment. In a subsequent suit for the remaining ones,
B. set up the same defense as in the first suit, that the contract
was induced by the fraudulent representations of A. as to the
quantity of timber on the land, and he moreover alleged that they
amounted to a warranty, upon the breach of which he was entitled to
recoup the damages sustained.
Held that the judgment,
having been rendered upon the finding of a referee that such
representations were not made, is conclusive, as to the facts
found, in all subsequent controversies between the parties on the
contract.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
MR. JUSTICE FIELD delivered the opinion of the Court.
In the preceding case between these parties, we affirmed the
judgment of the court below recovered for the first installment of
money due upon the contract of purchase of certain timber lands in
Michigan, the payment of which had been guaranteed by the defendant
below, the Lumber Company. The present action was for the remaining
installments of the purchase money.
To the first action the defendant set up that it was induced to
make the contract of guaranty by certain false and fraudulent
representations of the plaintiff as to the quantity of merchantable
timber on the land. To the present action it sets up the same
defense, and also that the representation made as to the quantity
of timber, to induce the execution of the contract, amounted to a
warranty, upon breach of which it was entitled to recoup the
damages sustained. To meet these defenses, the plaintiff produced
the judgment in the former case, and the question presented for
determination is whether that judgment was conclusive.
As to the first defense, there can be no doubt that such must be
the effect of the judgment. The case was between the same parties
for the first installment on the contract guaranteed, and
Page 101 U. S. 639
a recovery was there resisted upon precisely the same ground
here urged.
The extent and effect of a former recovery between the same
parties upon the same question raised in a new action have been so
often considered and determined by this Court that it would be a
waste of time to go over the argument and repeat our views on the
subject. Our latest expression of opinion, made after deliberate
consideration, is found in the case of
Cromwell v. County of
Sac, 94 U. S. 351. To
the reasons there adduced we have nothing to add. And we are of
opinion that the second defense is also concluded by the former
adjudication. The findings of the referee, upon which the judgment
was rendered -- and this finding, like the verdict of a jury,
constitutes an essential part of the record of the case -- shows
that no representations as to the quantity of timber on the land
sold were made to the defendant by the plaintiff or in his hearing
to induce the execution of the contract of guaranty. This finding
having gone into the judgment is conclusive as to the facts found
in all subsequent controversies between the parties on the
contract. Every defense requiring the negation of this fact is met
and overthrown by that adjudication.
Judgment affirmed.