Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

judgment could be binding only upon the parties to the criminal action or their privies, remarked that if the case turned on the applicability of the principle of res judicata, there would be little difficulty in reaching a conclusion, that there is no identity of parties, and that the parties to the civil action are not privies to those in the criminal proceeding; but based its decision upon the fact that the civil action was founded upon the result of the criminal action, and could not be maintained but for that result.

II. General rule.

a. Rule stated.

The rule supported by the great weight of authority is to the effect that a judgment of conviction or acquittal rendered in a criminal prosecution cannot be given in evidence in a purely civil action, to establish the truth of the facts on which it was rendered.

United States. Stone v. United States (1897) 167 U. S. 178, 42 L. ed. 127, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 778, affirming (1894) 12 C. C. A. 451, 29 U. S. App. 32, 64 Fed. 667; Chantangco v. Abaroa (1910) 218 U. S. 476, 54 L. ed. 1116, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 34; Chamberlain v. Pierson (1898) 31 C. C. A. 157, 59 U. S. App. 55, 87 Fed. 420; United States v. Donaldson-Shultz Co. (1906) 79 C. C. A. 403, 148 Fed. 581; Sibley v. St. Paul F. & M. Ins. Co. (1878) 9 Biss. 31, Fed. Cas. No. 12,830; Countryman v. United States (1886) 21 Ct. Cl. 474; Kusnir v. Pressed Steel Car Co. (1912) 201 Fed. 146; Sanden v. Morgan (1915) 225 Fed. 266. And see Burt v. Union Cent. L. Ins. Co. (1902) 187 U. S. 362, 47 L. ed. 216, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 139, affirming (1900) 59 L.R.A. 393, 44 C. C. A. 548, 105 Fed. 419.

Alabama.

[ocr errors]

Carlisle v. Killebrew (1889) 89 Ala. 329, 6 L.R.A. 617, 6 So. 756; Mobile Light & R. Co. v. Burch (1915) 12 Ala. App. 421, 68 So. 509; Jay v. State (1916) 15 Ala. App. 255, 73 So. 137, certiorari denied in (1916) 198 Ala. 691, 73 So. 1000. California. See Marceau V. Travelers' Ins. Co. (1894) 101 Cal. 338, 35 Pac. 856, 36 Pac. 813.

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Delaware. (1854) 5 Harr. 452. Georgia.

[ocr errors]

Manlove

Cottingham v. Weeks (1875) 54 Ga. 275; Claton v. Ganey (1879) 63 Ga. 331; Tumlin v. Parrott (1889) 82 Ga. 732, 9 S. E. 718; Seaboard Air-Line R. Co. V. O'Quin (1905) 124 Ga. 357, 2 L.R.A. (N.S.) 472, 52 S. E. 427; Powell v. Wiley (1906) 125 Ga. 823, 54 S. E. 732; Beckworth v. Phillips (1909) 6 Ga. App. 859, 65 S. E. 1075; Curtis v. Macon R. & Light Co. (1916) 18 Ga. App. 145, 88 S. E. 997; Metropolitan L. Ins. Co. v. Hand (1920) 25 Ga. App. 90, 102 S. E. 647.

Illinois. Corbley v. Wilson (1874) 71 Ill. 209, 22 Am. Rep. 98; Schreiner v. High Court, I. C. O. F. (1890) 35 Ill. App. 576; Illinois C. R. Co. v. Quirk (1893) 51 Ill. App. 607; Young v. Copple (1894) 52 Ill. App. 547; Kitterman v. People (1913) 181 Пl. App. 682; Watson v. Kammeier (1916) 203 Ill. App. 31.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

Louisiana.-Steel v. Cazeaux (1820) 8 Mart. 318, 13 Am. Dec. 288; Lewis v. Petayvin (1825) 4 Mart. N. S. 4; Lennon v. E. C. Palmer Co. (1906) 3 La. App. (Orleans) 356. But compare Louisiana cases set out infra, III.

Massachusetts. Cluff v. Mutual Ben. L. Ins. Co. (1868) 99 Mass. 317; Parker v. Kenyon (1873) 112 Mass. 264; Fowle v. Child (1895) 164 Mass. 210, 49 Am. St. Rep. 451, 41 N. E. 291. Michigan.

2 Mich. 161. Missouri.

Smith v. Brown (1851)

Myers v. Maryland

Casualty Co. (1907) 123 Mo. App. 682, 101 S. W. 124. And see Summers v. Rutherford (1917) Mo. App. -,

195 S. W. 511.

Montana. Doyle v. Gore (1895) 15

Mont. 212, 38 Pac. 939.

[blocks in formation]

New Jersey. (1919) 93 N. J. L. 340, 107 Atl. 477, affirmed on opinion below in (1921) 96 N. J. L. 293, 114 Atl. 927, and certiorari denied in (1921) 257 U. S. 649, 66 Fed. 416, 42 Sup. Ct. Rep. 57. New York.-Wilson v. Manhattan R. Co. (1892) 2 Misc. 127, 20 N. Y. Supp. 852, affirmed on opinion below in (1894) 144 N. Y. 632, 39 N. E. 495; Vadney v. Albany R. Co. (1900) 47 App. Div. 207, 62 N. Y. Supp. 140; Chernes v. Rosenwasser (1918) 181 App. Div. 837, 169 N. Y. Supp. 38; Rosenberg v. Salvatore (1881) 16 N. Y. S. R. 801, 1 N. Y. Supp. 326. Compare New York cases set out infra, III.

Kowalski v. McAdoo

North Dakota. Engstrom v. Nelson (1919) 41 N. D. 530, 171 N. W. 90.

[blocks in formation]

Meyers v. Dillon (1901) 39 Or. 581, 65 Pac. 867, 66 Pac. 814; Re Young (1912) 63 Or. 120, 126 Pac. 992; Jenkins v. Jenkins (1922) 103 Or. 208, 204 Pac. 165.

Pennsylvania. — Breinig v. Breinig (1856) 26 Pa. 161; Bennett v. Fulmer (1865) 49 Pa. 155; Summers V. Bergner Brewing Co. (1891) 143 Pa. 114, 24 Am. St. Rep. 518, 22 Atl. 707; Wingrove v. Centre Pennsylvania Traction Co. (1912) 237 Pa. 549, 85 Atl. 850. And see Hutchinson v. Merchants' & M. Bank (1861) 41 Pa. 42, 80 Am. Dec. 596.

Philippine. Worcester v. Ocampo. (1912) 22 Philippine, 42.

[ocr errors]

South Carolina. Fonville v. Atlanta &C. Air Line R. Co. (1912) 93 S. C. 287, 75 S. E. 172, rehearing denied in (1912) S. C., 76 S. E. 615.

Tennessee. Massey v. Taylor (1868) 5 Coldw. 447, 98 Am. Dec. 429. Texas. Shook v. Peters (1883) 59 Tex. 393; Landa v. Obert (1890) 78 Tex. 33, 14 S. W. 297; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Moody (1895) Tex. Civ. App. -, 30 S. W. 574; Stewart v. Profit (1912) Tex. Civ. App. —, 146 S. W. 563. Vermont.

[ocr errors]

16 Vt. 426; Robinson v. Wilson (1849) 22 Vt. 35, 52 Am. Dec. 77.

Virginia. Honaker v. Howe (1869) 19 Gratt. 50; Shires v. Boggess (1913) 72 W. Va. 109, 77 S. E. 542. And see Stevens v. Friedman (1905) 58 W. Va. 78, 51 S. E. 132.

West Virginia. INTERSTATE DRY GOODS STORES v. WILLIAMSON (reported herewith) ante, 258.

[blocks in formation]

Rex v. Warden (1699) 12 Mod. 337, 88 Eng. Reprint, 1363; Gibson v. M'Carthy (1736) Cas. t. Hardw. 311, 95 Eng. Reprint, 211, and Hilliard's Case cited therein; Hillyard v. Grantham, as set out in Brownsword v. Edwards (1750) 2 Ves. Sr. 246, 28 Eng. Reprint, 159; Smith Rummens (1807) 1 Campb. 9; Hathaway v. Barrow (1807) 1 Campb. 151; Hart V. M'Namara (1817) 4 Price 154, note, 146 Eng. Reprint, 424, note, 18 Revised Rep. 690; Castrique v. Imrie (1870) L. R. 4 H. L. 414, 39 L. J. C. P. N. S. 350, 23 L. T. N. S. 48, 19 Week. Rep. 1, 5 Eng. Rul. Cas. 899-H. L. Compare English cases set out infra, III.

[ocr errors]

Canada. Casgrain v. Leblanc (1893) Rap. Jud. Quebec 4 C. S. 350; Rex v. Walker (1913) 23 Can. Crim. Cas. 179, 18 D. L. R. 541.

A fortiori, a conviction which is not final because of the fact that an appeal has been taken therefrom is not admissible in a civil action arising out of the same altercation in which the acts for which the con|viction was had occurred. Pendleton v. Norfolk & W. R. Co. (1918) 82 W. Va. 270, 16 A.L.R. 761, 95 S. E. 941, so holding in an action for damages for assault and battery, wherein it was attempted to be shown that the plaintiff had been convicted of an assault and that the defendant acted in self-defense.

In Wilkes v. Dinsman (1849) 7 How. (U. S.) 89, 12 L. ed. 618, it was held that an acquittal of the commanding officer by a court-martial, when tried for the same acts by order of the government, is not admissible evidence in a suit by a private for damages.

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

question was raised whether a coroner's inquest upon the body of a suicide could be given in evidence upon an issue devisavit vel non, to show that the suicide, who executed the will shortly before killing himself, was a lunatic at the time, the judges were equally divided, two of them considering it was a criminal matter, since it might evidence a forfeiture of goods if the deceased had been found felo de se, and ought not to be given in evidence in a civil proceeding, while two judges thought the inquest admissible on special grounds.

b. Rationale; dissimilarity of object, issues, proof, parties, etc. Various reasons for the rule of inadmissibility have been assigned, including dissimilarity of object, issues, procedure, degree and elements of proof, parties to the action, etc. See the following cases, which discuss these reasons:

Stone v. United

United States. States (1897) 167 U. S. 178, 42 L. ed. 127, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 778, affirming (1894) 12 C. C. A. 451, 29 U. S. App. 32, 64 Fed. 667 (degree of proof and element of criminal intent discussed); Chantangco v. Abaroa (1910) 218 U. S. 476, 54 L. ed. 1116, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 34 (different parties and different rules of evidence); Chamberlain v. Pierson (1898) 31 C. C. A. 157, 59 U. S. App. 55, 87 Fed. 420 (lack of mutuality); United States v. Donaldson-Shultz Co. (1906) 79 C. C. A. 403, 148 Fed. 581 (different issues and measure of proof); Countryman v. United States (1886) 21 Ct. Cl. 474 (parties different); Kusnir v. Pressed Steel Car Co. (1912) 201 Fed. 146 (different parties).

--

Alabama. Jay v. State (1916) 15 Ala. App. 255, 73 So. 137, certiorari denied in (1916) 198 Ala. 691, 73 So. 1000 (dicta as to effect of difference of parties and of degree of proof).

California.-Marceau v. Travelers' Ins. Co. (1894) 101 Cal. 338, 35 Pac. 856, 36 Pac. 813 (different parties). Connecticut. State v. Bradnack (1897) 69 Conn. 212, 43 L.R.A. 620, 37 Atl. 492 (dicta as to effect of different parties, objects, and results);

McKenna v. Whipple (1922) 97 Conn. 695, 118 Atl. 40.

[ocr errors]

Georgia. Cottingham v. Weeks (1875) 54 Ga. 275 (different parties and different rules as to competency of witnesses and weight of evidence); Claton v. Ganey (1879) 63 Ga. 331 (difference in degrees of proof and sufficiency of evidence); Seaboard AirLine R. Co. v. O'Quin (1905) 124 Ga. 357, 2 L.R.A. (N.S.) 472, 52 S. E. 427 (see case as quoted infra, this subdivision).

Illinois. Corbley v. Wilson (1874) 71 Ill. 209, 22 Am. Rep. 98 (different parties and want of privity); Illinois C. R. Co. v. Quirk (1893) 51 Ill. App. 607 (different parties); Young v. Copple (1894) 52 Ill. App. 547 (no mutuality and different rules of decisions and course of proceeding); Kitterman v. People (1913) 181 Ill. App. 682 (plaintiff in civil action. neither party nor a privy to the criminal prosecution).

Kentucky. See Sovereign Camp, W. W. v. Purdom (1912) 147 Ky. 177, 143 S. W. 1021.

Louisiana.-Steel v. Cazeaux (1820) 8 Mart. 318, 13 Am. Dec. 288 (res inter alios acta; different rules of evidence); Lewis v. Petayvin (1825) 4 Mart. N. S. 4 (same); Lennon v. E. C. Palmer Co. (1906) 3 La. App. (Orleans) 356 (lack of opportunity to cross-examine witnesses).

[blocks in formation]

competent testimony, collusion, or prejudice on part of court or jury). New York. Wilson v. Manhattan R. Co. (1892) 2 Misc. 127, 20 N. Y. Supp. 852, affirmed on opinion below in (1894) 144 N. Y. 632, 39 N. E. 495 (difference of parties, rules of decision, and course of proceedings); Chernes v. Rosenwasser (1918) 181 App. Div. 837, 169 N. Y. Supp. 38 (different parties); Rosenberg v. Salvatore (1881) 16 N. Y. S. R. 801, 1 N. Y. Supp. 326 (different parties and lack of mutuality in the two actions). Compare Maybee v. Avery (1820) 18 Johns. 352, as set out infra, III.

Pennsylvania. - Breinig v. Breinig (1856) 26 Pa. 161 (different parties); Hutchinson v. Merchants' & M. Bank (1861) 41 Pa. 42, 80 Am. Dec. 596 (person wronged not chargeable with the conduct of the prosecution); Bennett v. Fulmer (1865) 49 Pa. 155 (different parties).

[ocr errors]

Philippine. Worcester v. Ocampo (1912) 22 Philippine, 42 (different parties, and different rules of evidence and degree of proof required).

South Carolina. Fonville v. Atlanta &C. Air Line R. Co. (1912) 93 S. C. 287, 75 S. E. 172, rehearing denied in (1912) - S. C., 76 S. E. 615 (different parties, and different rules of evidence, degrees of proof, etc).

154, note, 146 Eng. Reprint, 424, note, 18 Revised Rep. 690 (different parties). And see Hilliard's Case as cited in Gibson v. M'Carthy (1736) Cas. t. Hardw. 311, 95 Eng. Reprint, 211.

Canada. Casgrain v. Leblanc (1893) Rap. Jud. Quebec 4 C. S. 350 (different parties); Rex v. Walker (1913) 23 Can. Cr. Cas. 179, 18 D. L. R. 541 (different parties).

In Seaboard Air-Line R. Co. v. O'Quin (1905) 124 Ga. 357, 2 L.R.A. (N.S.) 472, 52 S. E. 427, supra, holding that a conviction of plaintiff in a criminal prosecution for using profane and vulgar language at the time he was ejected from a train was not admissible in an action brought to recover damages for wrongful ejection, the court discussed the reason for the rule that judgments in criminal prosecutions are not admissible in civil actions, to establish the facts on which such judgments were rendered, as follows: "This rule rests upon the reasoning that the two proceedings are not, ordinarily, between the same parties; different rules as to the competency of witnesses and as to the weight of evidence exist; and the issue in the criminal proceeding is not necessarily the same, either as to scope or as to its attendant results, as that involved in the civil In this state, the defendant is not, in a criminal case, permitted to testify, and his version of the transaction may be believed or rejected in the discretion of the jury; while, on the other hand, the party against whom the civil action is brought should not be held bound by the result of the criminal proceeding, not being a party thereto and not having the right to examine or crossexamine witnesses, or to control the conduct of the case."

Texas. action. Landa v. Obert (1890) 78 Tex. 33, 14 S. W. 297 (res inter alios acta).

Vermont. Quinn v. Quinn (1844) 16 Vt. 426 (verdict might have been obtained on evidence of person offering it); Robinson v. Wilson (1849) 22 Vt. 35, 52 Am. Dec. 77 (same).

Virginia. Honaker v. Howe (1869) 19 Gratt. 50 (want of mutuality).

West Virginia. INTERSTATE DRY GOODS STORES V. WILLIAMSON (reported herewith) ante, 258 (different parties, rules of evidence, purposes, and objects). England. Rex v. Warden (1699) 12 Mod. 337, 88 Eng. Reprint, 1363 (different parties); Hillyard v. Grantham, as set out in Brownsword v. Edwards (1750) 2 Ves. Sr. 246, 2 Eng. Reprint, 159 (different parties); Hart v. M'Namara (1817) 4 Price,

And in Stone v. United States (1897) 167 U. S. 178, 42 L. ed. 127, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 778, affirming (1894) 12 C. C. A. 451, 29 U. S. App. 32, 64 Fed. 657, in holding that an acquittal of a defendant on an indictment for cutting or removing timber from government lands was not a defense to an action against him by the United

States for conversion of the timber, the court adopted the rule that the record of the criminal proceeding was not evidence to establish or disprove any of the material facts involved in the civil action, and pointed out not only that a greater degree of proof was requisite to support the indictment than is necessary to support the civil action, but also that criminal intent was an essential fact of one, but not of the other. In the latter connection, Justice Harlan said that to support the criminal action it was necessary to prove a criminal intent on the defendant's part, since an honest mistake would be a defense to the indictment, but not to the civil action, which would be maintainable upon a showing that the timber was in fact the property of the United States, whether the defendant knew that fact or not. In fact, "It cannot be said that any fact was conclusively established in the criminal case, except that the defendant was not guilty of the public offense with which he was charged. We cannot agree that the failure or inability of the United States to prove in the criminal case that the defendant had been guilty of a crime, either forfeited its right of property in the timber or its right in this civil action, upon a preponderance of proof, to recover the value of such property."

The reason most generally assigned for the rule of nonadmissibility is want of mutuality, a considerable number of cases having passed upon the question under consideration as affected by want thereof.

United States. Chamberlain v. Pierson (1898) 31 C. C. A. 157, 59 U. S. App. 55, 87 Fed. 420; Countryman v. United States (1886) 21 Ct. Cl. 474; Kusnir v. Pressed Steel Car Co. (1912) 201 Fed. 146.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Illinois. Corbley v. Wilson (1874) 71 Ill. 209, 22 Am. Rep. 98; Illinois C. R. Co. v. Quirk (1893) 51 Ill. App. 607; Young v. Copple (1894) 52 Ill. App. 547; Kitterman v. People (1913) 181 Ill. App. 682.

Louisiana.-Steel v. Cazeaux (1820) 8 Mart. 318, 13 Am. Dec. 288; Lewis v. Petayvin (1825) 4 Mart. N. S. 4. Massachusetts. Cluff v. Mutual Ben. L. Ins. Co. (1868) 99 Mass. 317; Parker v. Kenyon (1873) 112 Mass. 264; Fowle v. Child (1895) 164 Mass. 210, 49 Am. St. Rep. 451, 41 N. E. 291.

Missouri. Myers v. Maryland Casualty Co. (1907) 123 Mo. App. 682, 101 S. W. 124; Summers v. Rutherford (1917) Mo. App., 195 S. W. 511. Montana. Doyle v. Gore (1895) 15 Mont. 212, 38 Pac. 939.

[blocks in formation]

Canada. (1893) Rap. Jud. Quebec 4 C. S. 350.

Thus, in Corbley v. Wilson (Ill.) supra, the court said: "It is an axiom of the law that no man should be affected by proceedings to which he was a stranger-to which, if he is a party, he must be bound. He must

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »