Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

V.

judgment could be binding only upon ford (1856) 25 Conn. 180; State v. the parties to the criminal action or Bradnack (1897) 69 Conn. 212, 43 their privies, remarked that if the case L.R.A. 620, 37 Atl. 492; McKenna v. turned on the applicability of the Whipple (1922) 97 Conn. 695, 118 principle of res judicata, there would Atl. 40. be little difficulty in reaching a con- Delaware. Jarvis v. Manlove clusion, that there is no identity of (1854) 5 Harr. 452. parties, and that the parties to the Georgia. Cottingham v. Weeks civil action are not privies to those in (1875) 54 Ga. 275; Claton v. Ganey the criminal proceeding; but based (1879) 63 Ga. 331; Tumlin v. Parrott its decision upon the fact that the civil (1889) 82 Ga. 732, 9 S. E. 718; Seaaction was founded upon the result board Air-Line R. Co. O'Quin of the criminal action, and could not (1905) 124 Ga. 357, 2 L.R.A.(N.S.) be maintained but for that result. 472, 52 S. E. 427; Powell v. Wiley

(1906) 125 Ga. 823, 54 S. E. 732; II. General mile.

Beckworth v. Phillips (1909) 6 Ga. a. Rule stated.

App. 859, 65 S. E. 1075; Curtis v. The rule supported by the great Macon R. & Light Co. (1916) 18 Ga. weight of authority is to the effect App. 145, 88 S. E. 997; Metropolitan that a judgment of conviction or ac- L. Ins. Co. v. Hand (1920) 25 Ga. quittal rendered in a criminal prose- App. 90, 102 S. E. 647. cution cannot be given in evidence in

Illinois. - Corbley v. Wilson (1874) a purely civil action, to establish the 71 Ill. 209, 22 Am. Rep. 98; Schreiner truth of the facts on which it was ren

v. High Court, I. C. 0. F. (1890) 35 dered.

Ill. App. 576; Illinois C. R. Co. v. United States. Stone v. United

Quirk (1893) 51 Ill. App. 607; Young States (1897) 167 U. S. 178, 42 L. ed.

v. Copple (1894) 52 Ill. App. 547; 127, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 778, affirming Kitterman v. People (1913) 181 Ill. (1894) 12 C. C. A. 451, 29 U. S. App. App. 682; Watson v. Kammeier (1916) 32, 64 Fed. 667; Chantangco v. Abaroa 203 Ill. App. 31. (1910) 218 U. S. 476, 54 L. ed. 1116, 31 Indiana. Seibold v. Welch (1922) Sup. Ct. Rep. 34; Chamberlain v. Pier

Ind. App.

- 135 N. E. 258. son (1898) 31 C. C. A. 157, 59 U. S. Kentucky. -- See Sovereign Camp, App. 55, 87 Fed. 420; United States v. W. W. v. Purdom (1912) 147 Ky. 177, Donaldson-Shultz Co. (1906) 79 C. C. 143 S. W. 1021. A. 403, 148 Fed. 581; Sibley v. St. Paul Louisiana.—Steel v. Cazeaux (1820) F. & M. Ins. Co. (1878) 9 Biss. 31, Fed. 8 Mart. 318, 13 Am. Dec. 288; Lewis Cas. No. 12,830; Countryman v. United v. Petayvin (1825) 4 Mart. N. S. 4; States (1886) 21 Ct. Cl. 474; Kusnir Lennon v. E. C. Palmer Co. (1906) 3 v. Pressed Steel Car Co. (1912) 201 La. App. (Orleans) 356. But comFed. 146; Sanden v. Morgan (1915) pare Louisiana cases set out infra, 225 Fed. 266. And see Burt v. Union III. Cent. L. Ins. Co. (1902) 187 U. S. 362, 3 Massachusetts. Cluff v. Mutual 47 L. ed. 216, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 139, Ben. L. Ins. Co. (1868) 99 Mass. affirming (1900) 59 L.R.A. 393, 44 C. 317; Parker v. Kenyon (1873) 112 C. A. 548, 105 Fed. 419.

Mass. 264; Fowle v. Child (1895) 164 Alabama. Carlisle v. Killebrew Mass. 210, 49 Am. St. Rep. 451, 41 (1889) 89 Ala. 329, 6 L.R.A. 617, 6 N. E. 291. So. 756; Mobile Light & R. Co. v. Michigan. - Smith v. Brown (1851) Burch (1915) 12 Ala. App. 421, 68 So. 2 Mich. 161. 509; Jay v. State (1916) 15 Ala. App. Missouri. Myers v. Maryland 255, 73 So. 137, certiorari denied in Casualty Co. (1907) 123 Mo. App. 682, (1916) 198 Ala. 691, 73 So. 1000. 101 S. W. 124. And see Summers

California. See Marceau v. v. Rutherford (1917) Mo. App. Travelers' Ins. Co. (1894) 101 Cal. 195 S. W. 511. 338, 35 Pac. 856, 36 Pac, 813.

Montana.-Doyle v. Gore (1895) 15 Connecticut. Betts v. New Hart- Mont. 212, 38 Pac. 939.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

V.

Nebraska. · Lillie v. Modern Wood. 1:6 Vt. 426; Robinson v. Wilson (1849) men (1911) 89 Neb. 1, 130 N. W. 22 Vt. 35, 52 Am. Dec. 77. 1004.

Virginia.- Honaker v. Howe (1869) New Jersey. - Kowalski v. McAdoo 19 Gratt. 50; Shires v. Boggess (1919) 93 N. J. L. 340, 107 Atl. 477, (1913) 72 W. Va. 109, 77 S. E. 542. affirmed on opinion below in (1921) And see Stevens v. Friedman (1905) 96 N. J. L. 293, 114 Atl. 927, and 58 W. Va. 78, 51 S. E. 132. certiorari denied in (1921) 257 U. S. West Virginia. INTERSTATE DRY 649, 66 Fed. 416, 42 Sup. Ct. Rep. 57. GOODS STORES v. WILLIAMSON (reported

New York.-Wilson v. Manhattan R. herewith) ante, 258. Co. (1892) 2 Misc. 127, 20 N. Y. Supp. England. Rex v. Warden (1699) 852, affirmed on opinion below in 12 Mod. 337, 88 Eng. Reprint, 1363; (1894) 144 N. Y. 632, 39 N. E. 495; Gibson v. M'Carthy (1736) Cas. t. Vadney v. Albany R. Co. (1900) 47 Hardw. 311, 95 Eng. Reprint, 211, App. Div. 207, 62 N. Y. Supp. 140; and Hilliard's Case cited therein; Chernes y. Rosenwasser (1918) 181 Hillyard v. Grantham, as set out in App. Div, 837, 169 N. Y. Supp. 38; Brownsword v. Edwards (1750) 2 Ves. Rosenberg v. Salvatore (1881) 16 Sr. 246, 28 Eng. Reprint, 159; Smith N. Y. S. R. 801, 1 N. Y. Supp. 326. Rummens (1807) 1 Campb. 9; Compare New York cases set out in- Hathaway v. Barrow (1807) 1 Campb. fra, III.

151; Hart v. M'Namara (1817) 4 North Dakota. Engstrom v. Nel- Price 154, note, 146 Eng. Reprint, son (1919) 41 N. D. 530, 171 N. W. 424, note, 18 Revised Rep. 690; 90.

Castrique v. Imrie (1870) L. R. 4 H. Oregon. Meyers v. Dillon (1901) L. 414, 39 L. J. C. P. N. S. 350, 23 39 Or. 581, 65 Pac. 867, 66 Pac. 814; L. T. N. S. 48, 19 Week. Rep. 1, 5 Re Young (1912) 63 Or. 120, 126 Eng. Rul. Cas. 899—H. L. Compare Pac. 992; Jenkins v. Jenkins (1922) English cases set out infra, III. 103 Or. 208, 204 Pac. 165.

Canada. Casgrain v. Leblanc Pennsylvania. - Breinig v. Breinig (1893) Rap. Jud. Quebec 4 C. S. 350; (1856) 26 Pa. 161; Bennett v. Fulmer Rex v. Walker (1913) 23 Can. Crim. (1865) 49 Pa. 155; Summers V. Cas. 179, 18 D. L. R. 541. Bergner Brewing Co. (1891) 143 Pa. A fortiori, a conviction which is 114, 24 Am. St. Rep. 518, 22 Atl.

not final because of the fact that an 707; Wingrove v. Centre Pennsylvania appeal has been taken therefrom is Traction Co. (1912) 237 Pa. 549, 85

not admissible in a civil action arisAtl. 850. And see Hutchinson v.

ing out of the same altercation in

which the acts for which the conMerchants' & M. Bank (1861) 41 Pa.

| viction was had occurred. Pendleton 42,80 Am. Dec. 596.

v. Norfolk & W. R. Co. (1918) 82 Philippine. Worcester v. Ocampo

W. Va, 270, 16 A.L.R. 761, 95 S. E. (1912) 22 Philippine, 42.

941, so holding in an action for South Carolina. Fonville v. At

damages for assault and battery, lanta & C. Air Line R. Co. (1912) 93

wherein it was attempted to be shown S. C. 287, 75 S. E. 172, rehearing that the plaintiff had been convicted denied in (1912) – S. C. -, 76 S. E. of an assault and that the defendant 615.

acted in self-defense. Tennessee. Massey v. Taylor In Wilkes v. Dinsman (1819) 7 How. (1868) 5 Coldw. 447, 98 Am. Dec. 429. (U. S.) 89, 12 L. ed. 618, it was held

Texas. Shook v. Peters (1883) that an acquittal of the commanding 59 Tex. 393; Landa v. Obert (1890) officer by a court-martial, when tried 78 Tex, 33, 14 S. W. 297; Gulf, C. & for the same acts by order of the S. F. R. Co. v. Moody (1895) Тех. . government, is not admissible eviCiv. App.

30 S. W. 574; Stewart dence in a suit by a private for damv. Profit (1912) Tex. Civ. App. —, ages. 146 S. W. 563.

1 In Jones v. White (1717) 1 Strange, Vermont. - Quinn v. Quinn (1844). 68, 93 Eng. Reprint, 389, where the

[ocr errors]

question was raised whether a coro- McKenna v. Whipple (1922) 97 Conn. ner's inquest upon the body of a 695, 118 Atl. 40. suicide could be given in evidence up- Georgia. - Cottingham v. Weeks on an issue devisavit vel non, to show (1875) 54 Ga. 275 (different parties that the suicide, who executed the and different rules as to competency will shortly before killing himself, of witnesses and weight of evidence); was a lunatic at the time, the judges Claton v. Ganey (1879) 63 Ga. 331 were equally divided, two of them (difference in degrees of proof and considering it was a criminal matter, sufficiency of evidence); Seaboard Airsince it might evidence a forfeiture of Line R. Co. v. O'Quin (1905) 124 goods if the deceased had been found Ga. 357, 2 L.R.A.(N.S.) 472, 52 S. E. felo de se, and ought not to be given 427 (see case as quoted infra, this in evidence in a civil proceeding, subdivision). while two judges thought the inquest Illinois. Corbley v. Wilson (1874) admissible on special grounds.

71 Ill. 209, 22 Am. Rep. 98 (different

parties and want of privity); Illinois b. Rationale; dissimilarity of object,

C. R. Co. v. Quirk (1893) 51 Ill. App. issues, proof, parties, etc.

607 (different parties); Young v. Various reasons for the rule of in

Copple (1894) 52 Ill. App. 547 (no admissibility have been assigned, in

mutuality and different rules of decicluding dissimilarity of object, issues,

sions and course of

of proceeding); procedure, degree and elements of

Kitterman v. People (1913) 181 Ill. proof, parties to the action, etc. See

App. 682 (plaintiff in civil action the following cases, which discuss

neither party nor a privy to the crimthese reasons:

inal prosecution). United States. Stone v. United

Kentucky. - See Sovereign Camp, States (1897) 167 U. S. 178, 42 L. ed.

W. W. v. Purdom (1912) 147 Ky. 177, 127, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 778, affirming

143 S. W. 1021. (1894) 12 C. C. A. 451, 29 U. S. App.

Louisiana.-Steel v. Cazeaux (1820) 32, 64 Fed. 667 (degree of proof and

8 Mart. 318, 13 Am. Dec. 288 (res element of criminal intent discussed); Chantangco V. Abaroa (1910) 218

inter alios acta; different rules of

evidence); Lewis v. Petayvin (1825) U. S. 476, 54 L. ed. 1116, 31 Sup. Ct.

4 Mart. N. S. 4 (same); Lennon v. Rep. 34 (different parties and dif

E. C. Palmer Co. (1906) 3 La. App. ferent rules of evidence); Chamber

(Orleans) 356 (lack of opportunity lain v. Pierson (1898) 31 C. C. A. 157,

to cross-examine witnesses). 59 U. S. App. 55, 87 Fed. 420 (lack

Massachusetts. Cluff v. Mutual of mutuality); United States v. Don

Ben. L. Ins. Co. (1868) 99 Mass. 317 aldson-Shultz Co. (1906) 79 C. C. A.

(no privity of parties or identity, of 403, 148 Fed. 581 (different issues

issues); Parker v. Kenyon (1873) 112 and measure of proof); Countryman

Mass. 264 (different parties and isv. United States (1886) 21 Ct. Cl. 474

sues); Fowle v. Child (1895) 164 (parties different); Kusnir v. Pressed

Mass. 210, 49 Am. St. Rep. 451, 41 Steel Car Co. (1912) 201 Fed. 146 N. E. 291 (acquittal was

res inter (different parties).

alios acta). Alabama. — Jay v. State (1916) 15 Missouri. Myers v. Maryland' Ala, App. 255, 73 So. 137, certiorari Casualty Co. (1907) 123 Mo. App. denied in (1916) 198 Ala. 691, 73 So. 682, 101 S. W. 124 (different parties 1000 (dicta as to effect of difference and different rules as to competency of parties and of degree of proof).

of witnesses and as to weight of California.—Marceau v. Travelers' evidence necessary); Summers Ins. Co. (1894) 101 Cal. 338, 35 Pac. Rutherford (1917) Mo. App. —, 195 856, 36 Pac. 813 (different parties). S. W. 511 (different parties, and no

Connecticut. - State v. Bradnack opportunity to examine witnesses). (1897) 69 Conn. 212, 43 L.R.A. 620, Montana.-Doyle v. Gore (1895) 15 37 Atl. 492 (dicta as to effect of dif- Mont, 212, 38 Pac. 939 (different parferent parties, objects, and results); ties, and possibility of perjured or in

[ocr errors]

v.

[ocr errors]

competent testimony, collusion, or 154, note, 146 Eng. Reprint, 424, note, prejudice on part of court or jury). 18 Revised Rep. 690 (different par

New York. Wilson v. Manhattan ties). And see Hilliard's Case as R. Co. (1892) 2 Misc. 127, 20 N. Y. cited in Gibson v. M'Carthy (1736) Supp. 852, affirmed on opinion below Cas. t. Hardw, 311, 95 Eng. Reprint, in (1894) 144 N. Y. 632, 39 N. E. 495 211. (difference of parties, rules of deci- Canada. Casgrain v. Leblanc sion, and course of proceedings); (1893) Rap. Jud. Quebec 4 C. S. 350 Chernes V. Rosenwasser (1918) 181 (different parties); Rex v. Walker App. Div. 837, 169 N. Y. Supp. 38 (1913) 23 Can. Cr. Cas. 179, 18 D. L. (different parties); Rosenberg v. Sal- R. 541 (different parties). vatore (1881) 16 N. Y. S. R. 801, 1 In Seaboard Air-Line R. Co. v. N. Y. Supp. 326 (different parties and O'Quin (1905) 124 Ga. 357, 2 L.R.A. lack of mutuality in the two actions). (N.S.) 472, 52 S. E. 427, supra, holdCompare Maybee v. Avery (1820) 18 ing that a conviction of plaintiff in a Johns, 352, as set out infra, III.

criminal prosecution for using proPennsylvania. — Breinig v. Breinig fane and vulgar language at the time (1856) 26 Pa. 161 (different parties); he was ejected from a train was not Hutchinson v. Merchants' & M. Bank admissible in an action brought to (1861) 41 Pa. 42, 80 Am. Dec. 596 recover damages for wrongful ejec(person wronged not chargeable with tion, the court discussed the reason the conduct of the prosecution); Ben- for the rule that judgments in criminett v. Fulmer (1865) 49 Pa. 155 (dif- nal prosecutions are not admissible in ferent parties).

civil actions, to establish the facts Philippine. — Worcester v. Ocampo on which such judgments were ren(1912) 22 Philippine, 42 (different dered, as follows: "This rule rests parties, and different rules of evi. upon the reasoning that the two prodence and degree of proof required). ceedings are not, ordinarily, between

South Carolina. Fonville v. At- the same parties; different rules as lanta & C. Air Line R. Co. (1912) to the competency of witnesses and 93 S. C. 287, 75 S. E. 172, rehearing as to the weight of evidence exist; denied in (1912) - S. C. 76 S. E. and the issue in the criminal proceed615 (different parties, and different ing is not necessarily the same, either rules of evidence, degrees of proof, as to scope or as to its attendant etc).

results, as that involved in the civil Texas. Landa v. Obert (1890) 78 action. In this state, the defendant Tex. 33, 14 S. W. 297 (res inter alios is not, in a criminal case, permitted acta).

to testify, and his version of the Vermont. Quinn v. Quinn (1844) transaction may be believed or re16 Vt. 426 (verdict might have been jected in the discretion of the jury; obtained on evidence of person of- while, on the other hand, the party fering it); Robinson v. Wilson (1849) against whom the civil action is 22 Vt, 35, 52 Am. Dec. 77 (same). brought should not be held bound by

Virginia.-Honaker v. Howe (1869) the result of the criminal proceeding, 19 Gratt. 50 (want of mutuality). not being a party thereto and not

West Virginia. INTERSTATE DRY having the right to examine or crossGOODS STORES V. WILLIAMSON (re- examine witnesses, or to control the ported herewith) ante, 258 (different conduct of the case.” parties, rules of evidence, purposes, And in Stone v. United States and objects).

(1897) 167 U. S. 178, 42 L. ed. 127, England. Rex v. Warden (1699) 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 778, affirming (1894) 12 Mod. 337, 88 Eng. Reprint, 1363 12 C. C. A. 451, 29 U. S. App. 32, 64 (different parties); Hillyard v. Grant- Fed. 657, in holding that an acquittal ham, as set out in Brownsword v. of a defendant on an indictment for Edwards (1750) 2 Ves. Sr. 246, 2 cutting or removing timber from Eng. Reprint, 159 (different parties); government lands was not a defense Hart v. M’Namara (1817) 4 Price, to an action against him by the United States for conversion of the timber, Illinois. Corbley v. Wilson (1874) the court adopted the rule that the 71 Ill. 209, 22 Am. Rep. 98; Illinois record of the criminal proceeding was C. R. Co. v. Quirk (1893) 51 Ill. App. not evidence to establish or disprove 607; Young v. Copple (1894) 52 Ill. any of the material facts involved in App. 547; Kitterman v. People (1913) the civil action, and pointed out not 181 Ill. App. 682. only that a greater degree of proof Louisiana.-Steel v. Cazeaux (1820) was requisite to support the indict- 8 Mart. 318, 13 Am. Dec. 288; Lewis ment than is necessary to support the v. Petayvin (1825) 4 Mart. N. S. 4. civil action, but also that criminal Massachusetts. Cluff v. Mutual intent was an essential fact of one, Ben. L. Ins. Co. (1868) 99 Mass. 317; but not of the other. In the latter Parker V. Kenyon (1873) 112 Mass. connection, Justice Harlan said that 264; Fowle v. Child (1895) 164 Mass. to support the criminal action it 210, 49 Am. St. Rep. 451, 41 N. E. was necessary to prove a criminal 291. intent on the defendant's part, since Missouri. Myers v. Maryland Casuan honest mistake would be a defense alty Co. (1907) 123 Mo. App. 682, 101 to the indictment, but not to the S. W. 124; Summers v. Rutherford civil action, which would be main- (1917) Mo. App.

195 S. W. 511. tainable upon a showing that the Montana. Doyle y. Gore (1895) timber was in fact the property of the 15 Mont. 212, 38 Pac. 939. United States, whether the defendant New York. Chernes v. Rosenwasknew that fact or not. In fact, "It ser (1918) 181 App. Div. 837, 169 cannot be said that any fact was con- N. Y, Supp. 38; Rosenberg v. Salvatore clusively established in the criminal (1881) 16 N. Y. S. R. 801, 1 N. Y. Supp. case, except that the defendant was 326. not guilty of the public offense with Pennsylvania. — Breinig v. Breinig which he was charged. We cannot (1856) 26 Pa. 161; Bennett v. Fulmer agree that the failure or inability of (1865) 49 Pa. 155. the United States to prove in the Philippine. — Worcester v. Ocampo criminal case that the defendant had (1912) 22 Philippine, 42. been guilty of a crime, either for- South Carolina. Fonville v. Atfeited its right of property in the tim- lanta & C. Air Line R. Co. (1912) 93 ber or its right in this civil action, S. C. 287, 75 S. E. 172, rehearing upon a preponderance of proof, to re- denied in (1912) – S.C. -, 76 S. E. cover the value of such property." 615.

The reason most generally assigned Virginia.—Honaker v. Howe (1869) for the rule of nonadmissibility is 19 Gratt. 50. want of mutuality, a considerable West Virginia. INTERSTATE DRY number of cases having passed upon GOODS STORES v. WILLIAMSON (rethe question under consideration as ported herewith) ante, 258. affected by want thereof.

England. - Rex v. Warden (1699) United States. Chamberlain v. 12 Mod. 337, 88 Eng. Reprint, 1363; Pierson (1898) 31 C. C. A. 157, 59 Hillyard v. Grantham, as set out in U. S. App. 55, 87 Fed. 420; Country- Brownsword v. Edwards (1750) 2 Ves. man v. United States (1886) 21 Ct. Sr. 246, 28 Eng. Reprint, 159; Hart v. Cl. 474; Kusnir v. Pressed Steel Car M'Namara (1817) 4 Price, 154, note, Co. (1912) 201 Fed. 146.

146 Eng. Reprint, 424, note, 18 ReAlabama. See Jay v. State (1916) vised Rep. 690. 15 Ala. App. 255, 73 So. 137.

Canada. Casgrain v. Leblanc California. Marceau v. Travelers' (1893) Rap. Jud. Quebec 4 C. S. 350. Ins. Co. (1894) 101 Cal. 338, 35 Pac. Thus, in Corbley v. Wilson (Ill.) 856, 36 Pac. 813.

supra, the court said: “It is an axiom Connecticut. McKenna v. Whipple of the law that no man should be (1922) 97 Conn. 695, 118 Atl. 40. affected by proceedings to which he

Georgia. - Cottingham v. Weeks was a stranger-to which, if he is a (1875) 54 Ga. 275.

party, he must be bound. He must

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »