Jacob S. Mayberry, in Error v. James H. Thompson, 46 U.S. 121 (1847)

46 U.S.
121
5 How. 121
12 L.Ed. 78
JACOB S. MAYBERRY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,

v.
JAMES H. THOMPSON, DEFENDANT.
January Term, 1847
THIS case was brought up, by writ of error, from the Circuit Court of the
United States for the Southern District of Alabama.
It was originally brought by Mayberry in the District Court of the United
States for the Middle District of Alabama. Mayberry was a citizen of
Mississippi.
The action was brought at the May term, 1841, and was an action of
trespass to recover damages from Thompson, for forcibly taking, seizing,
and carrying away certain goods, wares, and merchandise of the plaintiff,
at Warsaw, in Sumter county, Alabama.
At the November term, 1842, the cause came on for trial, when the jury
found a verdict for the plaintiff, and assessed his damages at $3,709.94.
On the trial, the defendant's counsel filed the following bill of exceptions.
Be it remembered, that, in the trial of this cause, the plaintiff in the first
instance introduced testimony tending to show that some time in February
or March, 1841, he sent cotton and drafts to Mobile, and received the
proceeds thereof, about $3,200, and that he went with the same, and with
letters of recommendation, to the city of New York, for the purchase of
goods, and there purchased sundry bills of goods, of different houses, for
which he paid to each house about one half of the price of each purchase
in money, the proceeds of the cotton and drafts aforesaid, and gave his
own notes to said several houses for the residue of the purchase money,
maturing at different dates, which said notes still remain unpaid, and that
the sellers of said goods knew no persons in the transaction except the
plaintiff; that said goods were marked in the name of the plaintiff, and
sent forward to his address for Cooksville, in the State of Mississippi, but
that, before reaching their destination, they were seized by the defendant,
at Warsaw, in the State of Alabama, and by him sold.

The defendant then introduced testimony, conducing to show that a
fraudulent and collusive arrangement had been entered into between the
plaintiff and one James Randalls, some time in June, 1840, for the purpose
of screening the property of said Randalls from claims of his creditors, by
which a certain stock of goods and other property, which said Randalls
then had, were collusively passed to said plaintiff, and the business of said
Randalls thereafter, until after the seizure of said goods by defendant, was
carried on in the name of said plaintiff; but that said business, including
the sending of said cotton and drafts to Mobile, the raising of said money,
and the purchase of said goods in New York, though done ostensibly by
said plaintiff, and in his name, was really done by said Randalls, acting by
and through said plaintiff, and in his, the plaintiff's, name, and that said
goods, seized and sold by the defendant, were by him seized and sold as
an officer on process in his hands against said Randalls, as his, the said
Randalls's, property, and for his debts; and also that the plaintiff had little
or no cotton at or about the time said cotton was forwarded to Mobile as
aforesaid.
The plaintiff then introduced the said Randalls as a witness, and asked
him the single question, whether he had interest in said goods seized, at
the time they were seized and sold; to which question the witness
answered that he had not. The defendant then, on cross-examination, for
the purpose of contradicting said Randalls by the testimony of other
witnesses, if he answered in the negative, and thus impeaching his
testimony, inquired of him whether he had stated to an individual, at about
the time said cotton was sent to Mobile, that he, the said Randalls, had
succeeded in sending cotton to Mobile, so that the same had not been
attached; but the plaintiff's counsel objected to the witness answering the
question, and the court ruled that the inquiry was of matter collateral and
irrelevant, and that the witness need not answer the question propounded,
and he did not answer the same. The defendant, also, for the same purpose
last expressed, proposed to inquire of said Randalls, whether he had not
stated to a certain individual, at or about the time said plaintiff left for
New York, for the purchase of said goods, that he, the said Randalls, had
sent said plaintiff for goods; but it was ruled by the court that it would not
be competent for the defendant to discredit said witness by showing that
he had made statements when out of court, and not on oath, different from
his testimony given in court; and the question was not permitted to be put.
The court instructed the jury, that if they believed that the goods
purchased by the plaintiff in New York were purchased with the money of
the said Randalls, and that the plaintiff acted merely as a shield for said
Randalls, to protect the said goods from Randalls's creditors, that the said
goods were to be considered as the goods of Randalls, and were lawfully
attached by the defendant on an execution against Randalls; but that when
the goods were purchased for said Randalls in part with the money of
Randalls, and in part upon the credit of plaintiff, he giving his note to the
several New York mercantile houses from which the purchases were
made, and they being ignorant of any fraud between the plaintiff and said
Randalls, then the said goods thus purchased could not lawfully be sold
by the defendant on execution against said Randalls; that the remedy of
creditors of Randalls, when the goods were purchased in part with the
money of Randalls, and in part upon credit of plaintiff, was in a court of
equity, where the interest of all concerned might be apportioned and
adjusted.
The defendant thereupon requested the court to instruct the jury, that if
they should find for the plaintiff, they might, in making up their verdict,
deduct from the amount the money and lawful interest thereon, in all
cases where said goods were purchased in part with the money of
Randalls, and in part upon the credit of the plaintiff; which charge the
court refused to give.
And the defendants took exception to the beforementioned ruling and
charge of the court, and the refusal to charge as requested, and prayed that
his said exceptions might be signed, sealed, and allowed, and the same is
done accordingly.
The defendant, Thompson, sued out a writ of error, and carried the case to
the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of
Alabama, under the act of 1839, ch. 20 (5 Stat. at L., 315).
At March term, 1843, the Circuit Court passed the following order:'This
day came the parties, by their attorney, and this cause coming on to be
heard upon the transcript of the record, and the matters assigned for error
being heard by the court, and mature deliberation being thereupon had, it
is considered by the court that there is error in the record and proceedings
of the said District Court; whereupon, it is ordered and adjudged by the
court there that the judgment of the District Court be reversed and
annulled, and that the said plaintiff recover his costs.'
From which judgment Mayberry sued out a writ of error, and brought the
case up to this court.
It was argued by Mr. Brockenbrough and Mr. Sherman, for the plaintiff in
error, and Mr. Dargan, for defendant in error.

The third point of the counsel for the plaintiff in error was the one upon
which the opinion of this court turned, and is therefore the only one
inserted. It was as follows:
III. As to the venire facias de novo and an absolute reversal.
There can be no doubt that if the Circuit Court was clear, from the record,
that the plaintiff had no cause of action, and was not entitled to recover in
any event, under the facts, that that court was right in absolutely reversing
the judgment. But if the Circuit Court considered the District Court correct
in its judgment as to the illegality of the levy and sale, but wrong as to the
question of evidence in the cross-examination of Randalls only, then it
should not have reversed the judgment absolutely, but have remanded it
with a venire de novo, that the plaintiff might have the benefit of his
meritorious right of action, and the defendant not be deprived of his full
rights in the cross-examination.
But as we contend the District Court was right in both points, we ask to set
aside the reversal, and set up the judgment of the District Court.
But if this court thinks the District Court did not err upon the main
question, but did err on the question of the cross-examination, then this
court will reverse the decision of the Circuit Court, with the proper
directions; because that court did not award a venire facias de novo.
The counsel for the defendant in error noticed this point as follows:
The act of Congress that established the Middle District of the State of
Alabama, and allowed appeals and writs of error from that court to the
Circuit Court for the Fifth Judicial Circuit, does not by any express words
make it obligatory on the Circuit Court to award a venire de novo, but is
silent on the subject, therefore we must look to the general rules of
practice on this subject. I admit that the Circuit Court may award the
venire de novo on reversing the judgment of the District Court, but I deny
that an omission to do so can be reached by a writ of error, unless the
party claiming the venire had asked the court below to award it, and the
court had refused it. It is a settled rule, that a party complaining of errors
must show it affirmatively; he must show that the inferior court erred, and
this error was prejudicial to his rights. Bradstreet v. Huntington, 5 Pet.,
402.
Now, the defendant in error in the Circuit Court (who is plaintiff here)
could have demanded a venire de novo, but he did not; the Circuit Court,
therefore, did not deny him the right of the writ of venire, nor act on it.
How did this action of the Circuit Court leave the rights of the plaintiff in
error?
The judgment of the District Court was reversed, and held for nought. The
parties were put by this judgment in the same situation they occupied
before the suit was brought; and the plaintiff in error in this court could
have issued a new writ. In Bank of the United States v. Bank of
Washington, 6 Pet., 8, the Supreme Court held, that a party who had
derived a benefit from a judgment which had been reversed, must make
restitution; that is, the reversal of the judgment puts the parties in statu
quo. So in 2 Gall., 216, it is held, that a judgment reversed is no bar to an
action on the same subject-matter. So in 1 Root (Conn.), 421, it is decided
that, if a judgment on a note is reversed the note is revived; to the very
same effect see 10 Mass., 433; 5 Id., 264; 3 Johns. (N. Y.), 443.
These authorities, I think, settle the point that Mayberry, on the reversal of
the judgment by the Circuit Court, could have brought a new suit in the
State or federal courts, or he could have demanded a venire de novo. But
he had the option to do the one or the other; he did not inform the court
which remedy he chose. Can he now complain of error that the court left
him to select for himself? Can he complain that the court did not grant
him a remedy which he did not apply for, when he had the power to select
between two remedies? This view will show that the court did him no
injury,the court was merely passive; it did not decide on any right, nor
act on any. Will error lie, therefore, in such a case? If so, may I not well
ask, in what did the court err?
Again. The motion for the venire must be made in the court below. I think
it plain that the party cannot come here by writ of error, and, for the first
time, move for the venire in this court; the object of the writ of error being
merely to make such a motion.
Mr. Chief Justice TANEY delivered the opinion of the court.
Upon looking into the record, in this case, we find that there was no final
judgment in the Circuit Court, and consequently no writ of error will lie from
this court.
It appears that the plaintiff in error brought an action of trespass against the
defendant, in the District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, for taking
and carrying away certain goods and chattels alleged to be the property of the
plaintiff, and recovered a judgment for $3,709.94 and costs.
3
A bill of exception was taken by the defendant to the rulings of the court upon
several points raised at the trial, and the case removed by writ of error to the
Circuit Court for the Southern District of Alabama, where the judgment of the
District Court was reversed with costs. And upon this judgment of reversal,
without any further proceedings in the Circuit Court, the plaintiff sued out a
writ of error from this court.
The writ of error to remove the case to the Circuit Court is given by the act of
1839, ch. 20, 9; and as this law contains no special provision in relation to the
judgments of the Circuit Court in such cases, the decisions of that court must be
re examined here, in the manner and upon the principles prescribed in the
general laws upon that subject.
The judiciary act of 1789, 24, provides, that where the judgment of a District
Court is reversed in the Circuit Court, such court shall proceed to render such
judgment as the District Court should have rendered. Under this act, however,
the judgment of a Circuit Court upon a writ of error to a District Court could not
be re examined in this Court; no writ of error in such cases being given. And so
the law stood until the act of July 4th, 1840, ch. 43, 3, which provides that
writs of error in such cases shall lie, upon the judgment of a Circuit Court, 'in
like manner and under the same regulations, limitations, and restrictions as
were there provided by law for writs of error on judgments rendered upon suits
originally brought in the Circuit Court.' And, under the 22d section of the act of
1789, writs of error on judgments rendered in a Circuit Court upon suits
originally brought there will lie only in cases when the judgment is a final one,
and the matter in dispute exceeds the sum or value of two thousand dollars,
exclusive of costs.
It is evident that the judgment of the Circuit Court now before us is not a final
one. It does not dispose of the matter in dispute. And if it was affirmed in this
court, it would still leave the matter in dispute open to another suit; and might
result in another writ of error to remove it to the Circuit Court, and then again
to this court. The act of Congress certainly never intended to sanction such
fruitless and inconclusive litigation; and therefore directed that the Circuit
Court should give such judgment as the District Court ought to have given, that
is to say, a final judgment upon the matter in dispute. Instead of suing out a writ
of error upon the judgment of reversal, the plaintiff should have taken the
necessary steps to bring his case to a final decision in the Circuit Court, in the
same manner as if the suit had been originally brought there. And if he
supposed any of the rulings or instructions of the court at the trial to be

erroneous, he would have been entitled to his exception, and this court could
then by writ of error have re examined the judgment of the Circuit Court, and
finally decided upon the matter in controversy in the suit.
7
But upon the judgment of reversal only, which leaves the dispute between the
parties still open, no writ of error will lie, and the writ issued in this case must
therefore be dismissed.
ORDER.
8
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit
Court of the United States for the Southern District of Alabama, and was
argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered and
adjudged by this court that this cause be and the same is hereby dismissed for
the want of jurisdiction.

Jacob S. Mayberry, in Error v. James H. Thompson, 46 U.S. 121 (1847)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jacob S. Mayberry, in Error v. James H. Thompson, 46 U.S. 121 (1847)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jacob S. Mayberry, in Error v. James H. Thompson, 46 U.S. 121 (1847)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

46 U.S.

JACOB S. MAYBERRY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,

at Warsaw, in the State of Alabama, and by him sold.

error, and Mr. Dargan, for defendant in error.

supposed any of the rulings or instructions of the court at the trial to be

You might also like