Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

105 Wis. 48, 81 N. W. 125. A writ of error from this court was allowed by the Chief Justice of the supreme court of Wisconsin. It was therein recited that in this suit there "was drawn in question the validity and binding effect of a title, right, and privilege claimed by the said National Foundry & Pipe Works, Limited, under authority exercised under the United States, and decrees duly entered in the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Wisconsin," and that "the decision of the said supreme court of the state of Wisconsin was against the right and privilege specially set up by said National Foundry & Pipe Works, Limited, under said authority and decrees."

Mr. George H. Noyes argued the cause and filed a brief for plaintiff in error:

The state court failed to recognize the validity of, and to give due effect to, the decree of the United States circuit court for the eastern district of Wisconsin under and by virtue of which the plaintiff in error acquired and claims its title to the property in question, thus presenting a Federal question.

Dupasseur v. Rochereau, 21 Wall. 130, 22 L. ed. 588; Embry v. Palmer, 107 U. S. 3, 27 L. ed. 346, 2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 25; Crescent City L. 8. L. & S. H. Co. v. Butchers' Union 8. H. & L. S. L. Co. 120 U. S. 141, 30 L. ed. 614, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 472; Pittsburgh, O. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Long Island Loan & T. Co. 172 U. S. 493, 43 L. ed. 528, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 238; Green Bay & M. Canal Co. v. Patter Paper Co. 172 U. S. 58, 43 L. ed. 364, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 97; Hancock Nat. Bank v. Farnum, 176 U. S. 640, 44 L. ed. 619, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 506; Avery v. Popper, 179 U. S. 305, 45 L. ed. 203, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 94.

Hewitt v. Butterfield, 52 Wis. 384, 9 N. W. 15; Barr v. Gratz, 4 Wheat. 220, 4 L., ed. 555; Baudin v. Roliff, 1 Mart. N. S. 165, 14 Am. Dec. 181; Webb v. Den, 17 How. 576, 15 L. ed. 35; Crescent City L. S. L. & S. H. Co. v. Butchers' Union S. H. & L. S. L. Co. 120 U. S. 141, 30 L. ed. 614, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 472; 2 Jones, Ev. § 607.

The mechanic's lien decree, sale, marshal's deed on sale, and order of confirmation were conclusive, not only as against the Oconto water company, but as against the defendant in error, unless attacked for want of jurisdiction in the court, or for fraud or collusion.

Candee v. Lord, 2 N. Y. 269, 51 Am. Dec. 294; 1 Black, Judgments, § 260; 2 Black, Judgments, § 605; Freeman, Judgments, §§ 335, 418; Wells, Res Adjudicata, pp. 150, 151; Bigelow, Estoppel, 5th ed. 150-152; Lauman's Appeal, 8 Pa. 473; Hall v. Spaulding, 40 N. J. L. 166; Naylor v. Mettler (N. J. Eq.) 11 Atl. 859; Swiggart v. Harber, 5 Ill. 364, 39 Am. Dec. 418; Oakes v. Williams, 107 Ill. 154; Pickett v. Pipkin, 64 Ala. 522; Sidensparker v. Sidensparker, 52 Me. 481; Insley v. United States, 150 U. S. 512, 37 L. ed. 1163, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 158; Ehrsam v. Smith, 61 Kan. 699, 60 Pac. 740; Andrews v. National Foundry & Pipe Works, 36 L. R. A. 153, 23 C. C. A. 454, 46 U. S. App. 619, 77 Fed. 774; McCoy v. Quick, 30 Wis. 521; Hassall v. Wilcox, 130 U. S. 493, 32 L. ed. 1001, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 590; Southern R. Co. v. Bouknight, 30 L. R. A. 823, 17 C. C. A. 181, 25 U. S. App. 415, 70 Fed. 442; Central Trust Co. v. Charlotte, C. & A. R. Co. 65 Fed. 257; Sioux City Terminal R. & Warehouse Co. v. Trust Co. of N. A. 27 C. C. A. 73, 49 U. S. App. 523, 82 Fed. 124; Newark City Nat. Bank v. Crane (N. J. Eq.) 45 Atl. 975; Voorhees v. Jackson eɔ dem. Bank of United States, 10 Pet. 474, 9 L. ed. 500; Crescent City L. S. L. & S. H. Co. v. Butchers' Union S. H. & L. 8. L. Co. 120 U. S. 141, 30 L. ed. 614, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep.

The state court gave undue effect to the judgment of the state court under which defendant in error claimed title; and also gave undue effect to the decree of the Federal court under which defendant claimed its 472. right by res judicata. Whether the defend- A stockholder is privy to a decree against ant in error obtained such rights or title or lawful possession as it claimed by virtue of such judgment or decree is a Federal question which this court will review.

Reynolds v. Stockton, 140 U. S. 254, 35 L. ed. 464, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 773. See also cases above cited.

The plaintiff in error is not estopped to assert its title to the property sold under the mechanics' lien decree, if, as we contend, due effect and due faith and credit only are given to the decree pleaded as res judicata on the question of such title. Both the parties therefore rely upon rights under Federal authority, and, as the right of plaintiff in error was denied by the court, the writ of error lies.

Factors' & T. Ins. Co. v. Murphy, 111 U. 8. 738, 28 L. ed. 582, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 679.

The plaintiff in error proved title to the property and franchise of the Oconto water company by the record, marshal's deed, and order of confirmation in the suit brought to force its mechanic's lien.

a corporation, and cannot set up or claim any defense to the action which was available to the corporation, except in case of fraud or collusion, and especially cannot set up collaterally, or in another action, the same defense that was set up and urged by the corporation in the suit in which the decree was entered.

Hawkins v. Glenn, 131 U. S. 319, 33 L. ed. 184, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 739; Hancock Nat. Bank v. Farnum, 176 U. S. 640, 44 L. ed. 619, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 506; Bissit v. Kentucky River Nav. Co. 15 Fed. 353; Chicago & A. Bridge Co. v. Anglo-American Pkg. & Provision Co. 46 Fed. 584; Hendrickson v. Bradley, 29 C. C. A. 303, 55 U. S. App. 715, 85 Fed. 508; Wilson v. Seymour, 22 C. C. A. 477, 40 U. S. App. 567, 76 Fed. 678; James v. Central Trust Co. 39 C. C. A. 126, 98 Fed. 489; Stutz v. Hundley, 41 Fed. 531; Singer v. Hutchinson, 183 Ill. 606, 56 N. E. 388; Crescent City L. S. L. & S. H. Co. v. Butchers' Union S. H. & L. S. L. Co. 120 U. S. 141, 30 L. ed. 614, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 472.

The defendant in error acquired only a party doing work or furnishing material in contract right, if any at all, and not a title the construction of a building or other to the water plant. structure for a quasi public corporation.

Oconto City Water Supply Co. v. Oconto, 105 Wis. 76, 80 N. W. 1113. See Linden Land Co. v. Electric R. & Light Co. 107 Wis. 493, 83 N. W. 851; State ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Portage City Water Co. 107 Wis. 441, 83 N. W. 697.

Andrews and Whitcomb were privies to the mechanic's lien foreclosure suit so far as their rights under their second mortgage were concerned.

Union Trust Co. v. Southern Inland Nav. & Improv. Co. 130 U. S. 565, 32 L. ed. 1043, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 606; Brown v. Cohn, 95 Wis. 90, 69 N. W. 71; Stoddard v. Myers, 8 Ohio,

203.

The plaintiff in error was an encumbrancer and lien holder, and therefore a necessary party to the mortgage foreclosure proceedings in order to be affected thereby and to be foreclosed of its lien.

Wiltsie, Mortgage Foreclosure, §§ 62, 63; Redmon v. Phoenix F. Ins. Co. 51 Wis. 292, 37 Am. Rep. 830, 8 N. W. 226; Davis v. Bilsland, 18 Wall. 659, 21 L. ed. 969; Brooks . Burlington & S. W. R. Co. 101 U. S. 443, 25 L. ed. 1057; Van Stone v. Stillwell & B. Mfg. Co. 142 U. S. 128, 35 L. ed. 961, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 181; Goodman v. Baerlocher, 88 Wis. 287, 60 N. W. 415; Re Kerby-Dennis Co. 36 C. C. A. 677, 95 Fed. 116; Fitzgerald v. Walsh, 107 Wis. 92, 82 N. W. 717; Rees v. Ludington, 13 Wis. 277, 80 Am. Dec. 741; McCoy v. Quick, 30 Wis. 521; Whitney v. Higgins, 10 Cal. 547, 70 Am. Dec. 748; Hodson v. Treat, 7 Wis. 263; Green v. Dixon, 9 Wis. 532; Boggs v. Fowler, 16 Cal. 559, 76 Am. Dec. 561; Title Guarantee & T. Co. v. Studebaker, 100 Fed. 358; Atkins v. Volmer, 21 Fed. 697; Noyes v. Hall, 97 U. S. 34, 24 L. ed. 909; Stout v. Lye, 103 U. S. 66, 26 L. ed. 428; Vilas v. McDonough Mfg. Co. 91 Wis. 607, 30 L. R. A. 778, 65 N. W. 488.

The law in existence when a contract is made enters into and becomes a part of such contract, and becomes a rule of property.

Brine v. Hartford F. Ins. Co. 96 U. S. 627, 24 L. ed. 858; 2 Jones, Mortg. § 1051.

The remedy subsisting in a state when and where a contract is made and is to be performed is a part of its obligation, and any subsequent law of the state which so affects that remedy as substantially to impair and lessen the value of the contract is forbidden by the Constitution, and is therefore void.

Hill v. La Crosse & M. R. Co. 11 Wis. 215; La Crosse & M. R. Co. v. Vanderpool, 11 Wis. 120, 78 Am. Dec. 691; Carney v. La Crosse & M. R. Co. 15 Wis. 503; Vanderpool v. La Crosse & M. R. Co. 44 Wis. 652; Purtell v. Chicago Forge & Bolt Co. 74 Wis. 132, 42 N. W. 265.

The judgments of the United States courts of the Wisconsin districts are to be treated as domestic judgments of the superior court of that state.

Ballin v. Loeb, 78 Wis. 404, 10 L. R. A. 742, 47 N. W. 516; Metcalf v. Watertown, 153 U. S. 671, 38 L. ed. 861, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 947.

The true rule is to give a change of judicial construction in respect to a statute the same effect in its operation on contracts and existing contract rights that would be given to a legislative amendment; that is to say, make it prospective, but not retroactive.

Douglass v. Pike County, 101 U. S. 677, 25 L. ed. 968; Taylor v. Ypsilanti, 105 U. S. 60, 26 L. ed. 1008; Ralls County v. Douglass, 105 U. S. 728, 26 L. ed. 957; Burgess v. Seligman, 107 U. S. 20, 27 L. ed. 359; 2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 10; Green County v. Conness, 109 U. S. 104, 27 L. ed. 872, 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 69; Anderson v. Santa Anna Twp. 116 Û. S. 356, 29 L. ed. 633, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 413; German Sav. Bank v. Franklin County, 128 U. S. 526, 32 L. ed. 519, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 159; Knox County v. Ninth Nat. Bank, 147 U. S. 91, 37 L. ed. 93, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 267; Union Bank v. Oxford, 90 Fed. 7; Wade v. Travis County, 174 U. S. 499, 43 L. ed. 1060, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 715.

A decree in equity in the United States court does not in itself transfer or convey title to real estate. The legal title remains as before the decree, unless the parties make the necessary conveyance in accordance with the terms of the decree.

Gay v. Parpart, 106 U. S. 679, 27 L. ed. 256, 1 Sup. Ct. Rep. 456; Hart v. Sansom, 110 U. S. 151, 28 L. ed. 101, 3 Sup. Ct. Rep.

586.

If, however, there is a statute in the state where the land is situated, providing that such decree shall have the same operation and effect as if the conveyance ordered thereby had been executed conformably to such decree, the Federal court sitting in that state will enforce such provision of the statute.

Langdon v. Sherwood, 124 U. S. 74, 31 L. ed. 344, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 429.

Where, as in this case, the second action is based upon a different claim or demand, the decree in the prior action operates as an estoppel only as to those matters in issue or the point controverted, upon the determination of which the finding or judgment was rendered.

Walker v. Whitehead, 16 Wall. 314, 21 L. ed. 357; Barnitz v. Beverly, 163 U. S. 118, 41 L. ed. 93, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1042; Green v. Biddle, 8 Wheat. 1, 5 L. ed. 547; Peninsular Lead & Color Works v. Union Oil & Paint Co. 100 Wis. 488, 42 L. R. A. 331, 76 N. W. 359; H. W. Wright Lumber Co. v. Hixon, 105 Wis. 153, 80 N. W. 1110, 1135. The construction given by a state court to a state statute becomes a part of the statute as though such decision was in Southern P. R. Co. v. United States, 168 terms written therein. The mechanic's U. S. 1, 42 L. ed. 355, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 18; lien statute had been construed by the su- Story, Eq. Pl. § 791; 1 Dan. Ch. Pl. & Pr. preme court of Wisconsin to give a lien to a 5th ed. § 661.

Under this rule the answer in this case was not sufficient to support a decree of res judicata.

Washington R. Co. v. Bradley, 10 Wall. 299, sub nom. Washington, A. & G. R. Co. v. Washington, 19 L. ed. 894.

Furthermore, if there is an uncertainty as to what was necessarily involved and de cided in a case where several defenses were made and judgment given for defendant, or if the complaint contained more than one count and judgment was for plaintiff, the whole subject is open for disposition, and no estoppel exists.

Russell v. Place, 94 U. S. 606, 24 L. ed. 214; Belleville & St. L. R. Co. v. Leathe, 28 C. C. A. 279, 53 U. S. App. 718, 84 Fed. 103. Every decree in a suit in equity must be considered in connection with the pleadings, and if its language is broader than is required it will be limited by construction so that its effect shall be such, and such only, as is needed for the purposes of the case that has been made, and the issues that have been decided.

Barnes v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. 122 U. S. 1, 30 L. ed. 1128, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1043; Reynolds v. Stockton, 140 U. S. 254, 35 L. ed. 464, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 773; Graham v. Chamberlain, 3 Wall. 704, 18 L. ed. 247. A "matter in issue" has been defined in a case of leading authority as "that matter upon which the plaintiff proceeds by his action and which the defendant controverts by his pleading."

Reynolds v. Stockton, 140 U. S. 254, 35 L. ed. 464, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 773.

The court could not adjudge to the defendant in error an absolute and paramount title free and clear of any claim, title, or right of redemption on the part of the plaintiff in error, unless such matter was in issue, and unless the defendant in error had, by cross bill, sought such affirmative relief. Mays v. Pryce, 95 Mo. 603, 8 S. W. 731; Unfried v. Heberer, 63 Ind. 67; Grunert v. Spalding, 104 Wis. 193, 78 N. W. 606, 80 N. W. 589; Hart v. Moulton, 104 Wis. 349, 80 N. W. 599; Reynolds v. Stockton, 140 U. S. 254, 35 L. ed. 464, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 773.

ed. 464, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 773; Cook v. Good. year, 79 Wis. 606, 48 N. W. 860; Gilchrist v. Foxen, 95 Wis. 428, 70 N. W. 585.

Plaintiff in error can recover, as it holds title under a prior lien.

Louisville, N. A. & C. R. Co. v. Boney, 117 Ind. 501, 3 L. R. A. 435, 20 N. E. 432.

In Wisconsin the owner of the legal title to land, though not in possession, may maintain an action in equity against a party claiming under a subsequent lien to set aside a void decree constituting a cloud upon the title, and to recover possession of the land.

Kruczinski v. Neuendorf, 99 Wis. 264, 74 N. W. 974.

An action at law in ejectment will not lie to recover an incorporeal hereditament, such as an easement or franchise, by the owner of the legal title thereto; but the action must be in equity.

Racine v. Crotsenberg, 61 Wis. 4S1, 50 Am. Rep. 149, 21 N. W. 520; Miller v. State, 77 Wis. 271, 45 N. W. 1129.

The plaintiff in error with an existing mechanics' lien, valid as against the owner of the property, not having been made a party to the mortgage foreclosure suit in the state court, had and has the right, if necessary to exercise it, although holding a prior lien or title, to pay off and redeem the mortgage in a suit brought for that purpose and asking for an accounting as to the rents and profits received from the mortgagees in possession, with an offer to pay the amount of such mortgage after deducting therefrom, when ascertained, the amount of the net rents and profits from the operation of th plant.

Murphy v. Farwell, 9 Wis. 102; Allen v. Case, 13 Wis. 622; Clark v. Reyburn, 8 Wall. 318, 19 L. ed. 354; Chicago, D. & V. R. Co. v. Fosdick, 106 U. S. 47, 27 L. ed. 47, 1 Sup. Ct. Rep. 10.

Such action to redeem will lie in favor of the plaintiff in error because it was in privity with the Oconto water company as mortgagor; that is, because it held a valid lien on, or title to, the mortgaged premises, or some part of the same, as against the mortgagor, although such lien or title is held void or for any reason unenforceable, as against the mortgagee, or against a purchaser at the mortgage foreclosure sale, ha7 ing notice of its rights.

An action brought to set aside proceedings on foreclosure of a mortgage in which the defendant, purchaser at the sale, did not seek affirmative relief, but rested upon pure defense, is not a bar to an action instituted by the defendant in the former action Rand v. Cartwright, 1 Ch. Cas. 59; 1 Powagainst the plaintiff therein for possession ell, Mortg. 261; 1 Robbins, Mortg of the premises, inasmuch as the determina- 694; 2 Spence, Eq. Jur. 660-669: tion of the issues in one does not determine Howard v. Harris, 1 Vern. 190; Taskthe issues in the other. er V. Small, 3 Myl. & C. 63; & Story, Eq. Jur. § 1023; Tiedeman, Reaf Prop. § 334; 1 Herman, Mortg. § 20; Hodson v. Treat, 7 Wis. 263; Green v. Dixon, 9 Wis. 532; Bovey De Laittre Lumber Co. v. Tucker, 48 Minn. 223, 50 N. W. 1038; Turman v. Bell, 54 Ark. 273, 15 S. W. 886; Beach v. Cooke, 28 N. Y. 508; Powers v. Russell, 13 Pick. 69; Stevenson v. Edwards, 98 Mo. 623, 12 S. W. 255; Stone v. Welling, 14 Mich. 514; Bradley v. Snyder, 14 Ill. 263, 58 Am. Dec. 564; Compton v. Jesup, 15 C. C. A. 397, 31 U. S. App. 486, 68 Fed. 263.

Piper v. Sawyer, 82 Minn. 474, 85 N. W.206. A judgment of default against a party defendant is an admission of the truth of the allegation in the complaint, made against such party.

Thomson v. Wooster, 114 U. S. 104, 29 L. ed. 105, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 788; Last Chance Min. Co. v. Tyler Min. Co. 157 U. S. 683, 39 L. ed. 859, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 733; Hefner v. Northwestern Mut. L. Ins. Co. 123 U. S. 747, 31 L. ed. 309, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 337; Reynolds v. Stockton, 140 U. S. 254, 35 L.

It does not lie in the mouth of the mort-pending in the Federal court may be in form gagee or purchaser with notice to say, when Federal. But, as the court below said, it is offered his money on redemption, that as to immaterial. The mortgages were valid. Dehim the redeeming creditor has no lien or title, provided the lien or title is valid as against the common debtor.

See authorities supra.

In determining what has been adjudged, the courts will regard the decree, and in case of ambiguity, but not otherwise, will be governed by an accompanying opinion; where it is free from ambiguity it speaks for itself, and cannot be qualified by an opinion by which it may have been preceded.

1 Herman, Estoppel & Res Adjudicata, p. 471; New Orleans, M. & C. R. Co. v. New Orleans, 14 Fed. 373.

Anything in a decision or a decree outside of the issues properly raised in the record is invalid, and is treated as a nullity. Reynolds v. Stockton, 140 U. S. 266, 35 L. ed. 468, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 773.

Any attempt to adjudge a paramount title free and clear of any adverse claim, either in Andrews and Whitcomb, or in defendant in error, would have been beyond the issues made by the pleadings, no such affirmative relief having been sought by cross bill or otherwise as a foundation for such adjudi

cation.

fendant in error was in possession through an attempted foreclosure. If, for any reason the foreclosure was void, it still had the right of possession.

Bryan v. Brasius, 162 U. S. 415, 40 L. ed. 1022, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 803; Bryan v. Kales, 162 U. S. 411, 40 L. ed. 1020, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 802; Cunningham v. Macon & B. R. Co. 156 U. S. 400, 39 L. ed. 471, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 361; McCormick v. Herndon, 78 ̊ Wis. 661, 47 N. W. 939.

The question whether the judgment should give affirmative relief is not Federal. There must be a real Federal question to give this court jurisdiction.

Hamblin v. Western Land Co. 147 U. £. 531, 37 L. ed. 267, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 353; New Orleans v. New Orleans Waterworks Co. 142 U. S. 79, 35 L. ed. 943, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 142; Millingar v. Hartupee, 6 Wall. 258, 18 L. ed. 829.

It is stare decisis in the state court, and res judicata between these parties, that plaintiff in error never in fact had any lien, and had none by judgment estoppel against defendant in error.

Chapman Valve Mfg. Co. v. Oconto Water Chapin v. Walker, 6 Fed. 794; Brande v. Co. 89 Wis. 264, 60 N. W. 1004; Andrews Gilchrist, 18 Fed. 465; Armstrong v. Chemi-V. National Foundry & Pipe Works, 36 L. cal Nat. Bank, 37 Fed. 466; White v. Bow-R. A. 139, 22 C. C. A. 110, 46 U. S. App. en, 48 Fed. 186; Wood v. Collins, 8 C. C. A. 281, 76 Fed. 166, 36 L. R. A. 153, 23 C. C. 522, 60 Fed. 139; Jackson v. Simmons, 39 A. 454, 46 U. S. App. 619, 77 Fed. 774; BunC. C. A. 514, 98 Fed. 768; Washington, A. & G. R. Co. v. Bradley, 10 Wall. 299, sub nom. Washington, A. & G. R. Co. v. Washington, 19 L. ed. 894; Armstrong v. Pierson, 5 Iowa, 317; McConnel v. Smith, 23 Ill. 611. If defendant in error had been aggrieved by the final decree as entered, and had thought that the circuit court had misconstrued the mandate of the court of appeals, or had failed to give full and correct force thereto, or had not granted to it affirmative relief or all the relief possible under the issues made by the pleadings, or had failed to adjudge all that had been considered in the opinions filed by Judge Woods, its remedy was by mandamus or appeal. It is too late now to complain of, or ask unwarranted rights under, such final decree.

combe County v. Tommey, 115 U. S. 128, 29 L. ed. 307, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 626, 1186; Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Forest County, 95 Wis. 89, 70 N. W. 77; Corser v. Kindred, 40 Minn. 467, 42 N. W. 297; Horn v. Jones, 28 Cal. 195; Jaycox v. Smith, 17 App. Div. 146, 45 N. Y. Supp. 299; Franklin Sav. Bank v. Taylor, 131 Ill. 376, 23 N. E. 397; Dull v. Blackman, 169 U. S. 243, 42 L. ed.. 733, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 333; 13 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, p. 899; New Orleans v. Citizens' Bank, 167 U. S. 371, 42 L. ed. 202, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 905.

Re Sanford Fork & Tool Co. 160 U. S. 247, 40 L. ed. 414, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 291. Messrs. George G. Greene and Jerome R. North submitted the cause for defend

ant in error:

Although the decrees in the lien and creditors' suit were by Federal courts, the mere question whether and to what extent the determination in the latter suit was a bar does not present a Federal question.

Chouteau v. Gibson, 111 U. S. 200, 28 L. ed. 400, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 340; San Francisco v. Itsell, 133 U. S. 65, 33 L. ed. 570, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 241.

Where, as here, the plaintiff in error seeks legal relief,-possession of the property and a money judgment, and shows no distinctive ground of equitable relief, the objection is not waived by failure to answer or de

mur.

W. 304; Stein v. Benedict, 83 Wis. 603, 53 N. W. 891; Kilbourn Lodge No. 3 of A. F. & A. M. v. Kilbourn, 74 Wis. 452, 43 N. W. 168; Avery v. Ryan, 74 Wis. 599, 43 N. W. 317; Sullivan v. Portland & K. R. Co. 94 U. S. 806, 24 L. ed. 324.

Burnham v. Norton, 100 Wis. 13, 75 N.

When the common process of the court will not serve, but a new bill and new decree have become necessary to enforce a former decree, equity will not give relief if the former decree is erroneous.

Lawrence Mfg. Co. v. Janesville Cotton Mills, 138 U. S. 552, 34 L. ed. 1005, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 402; Wadhams v. Gay, 73 Ill. 415; The question whether the mortgage fore- Gay v. Parpart, 106 U. S. 679, 27 L. ed. 256, closure in the state court was void because 1 Sup. Ct. Rep. 456; Compton v. Jesup, 15 foreclosure of the mechanics' lien was then C. C. A. 397, 31 U. S. App. 486, 68 Fed. 263;

2 Beach, Modern Eq. Jur. § 904, and cases; | Mathwig v. Mann, 96 Wis. 213, 71 N. W. 3 Enc. Pl. & Pr. 604, and notes; O'Connell 105; Rees v. Ludington, 13 Wis. 276, 80 v. Macnamara, 3 Dru. & War. 411; Law- Am. Dec. 741. rence v. Berney, 2 Rep. in Ch. 127.

To give the relief here prayed for in effect enforces a mechanics' lien on a waterworks plant contrary to the public policy of the state.

Olcott v. Fond du Lac County, 16 Wall. 694, 21 L. ed. 388; Chapman Valve Mfg. Co. v. Oconto Water Co. 89 Wis. 272, 60 N. W. 1004; Cohn v. Wausau Boom Co. 47 Wis. 324, 2 N. W. 546; East Alabama R. Co. v. Doe ex dem. Visscher, 114 U. S. 350, 29 L. ed. 140, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 869; Buncombe County v. Tommey, 115 U. S. 128, 29 L. ed. 307, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 626, 1186.

A corporation which succeeds to the property and franchises of another corporation by purchases is not liable for its debts.

Neff v. Wolf River Boom Co. 50 Wis. 585, 7 N. W. 553; Menasha v. Milwaukee & N. R. Co. 52 Wis. 414, 9 N. W. 396; Pennison v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. 93 Wis. 344, 67 N. W. 702; Wright v. Milwaukee & St. P. R. Co. 25 Wis. 46; Child v. New York & N. E. R. Co. 129 Mass. 170; Hoard v. Chesapeake & O. R. Co. 123 U. S. 222, 31 L. ed. 130, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 74; Memphis Water Co. v. Magens, 15 Lea, 37; 1 Thomp. Corp. $263.

The defendant in error as purchaser under foreclosure, even if such foreclosure was void, is entitled to the possession as against those not having paramount claims until the mortgage debt is paid.

Bryan v. Brasius, 162 U. S. 415, 40 L. ed. 1022, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 803; Bryan v. Kales, 162 U. S. 411, 40 L. ed. 1120, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 802; Cunningham v. Macon & B. R. Co. 156 U. S. 400, 39 L. ed. 471, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 361.

The question is concluded by the decision in the creditors' suit.

Cincinnati v. Emerson, 57 Ohio St. 132, 48 N. E. 667; Grunert v. Spalding, 104 Wis. 193, 78 N. W. 606, 80 N. W. 589.

A judgment in suits to enforce mortgages or other liens only affects the parties and the interest of the defendant in the property.

Day v. Micou, 18 Wall. 156, 21 L. ed. 860; Dupasseur v. Rochereau, 21 Wall. 130, 22 L. ed. 588; Hassell v. Wilcox, 130 U. S. 493, 32 L. ed. 1001, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 590; Dull v. Blackman, 169 U. S. 243, 42 L. ed. 733, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 333; McCoy v. Quick, 30 Wis. 521; Lampson v. Bowen, 41 Wis. 484; 2 Black, Judgments, §§ 793, 795; 2 Jones, Liens, § 1571.

A purchaser's rights on foreclosure are not affected by knowledge of claims for the At the date of the lien decree, the mortbetterment of the mortgaged property which gagees were in possession claiming right to are not liens paramount to the mortgage. it, and if their foreclosure were void they This is so whether the consideration for the could not be thus evicted. unsecured claims or junior liens went for the construction, existence, or repair of the mortgaged property.

Galveston, H. & H. R. Co. v. Cowdrey, 11 Wall. 482, 20 L. ed. 206, 93 U. S.. 352, 23 L. ed. 950; Wood v. Guarantee Trust & 8. D. Co. 128 U. S. 417, 32 L. ed. 472, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 131; Kneeland v. American Loan & T. Co. 136 U. S. 89, 34 L. ed. 379, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 950; Lackawanna Iron & Coal Co. v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co. 24 C. C. A. 487, 52 U. S. App. 91, 79 Fed. 202; Central Trust Co. v. East Tennessee, V. & G. R. Co. 26 C. C. A. 30, 47 U. S. App. 663, 80 Fed. 624; Raht v. Attrill, 106 N. Y. 423, 13 N. E. 282; Ellis v. Boston, H. & E. R. Co. 107 Mass. 1; Hale v. Nashua & L. R. Co. 60 N. H. 333; Hooper v. Central Trust Co. 81 Md. 559, 29

L. R. A. 262, 32 Atl. 505.

The mortgage, when executed, embraces the property in its then improved condition, and also embraces all subsequent improvements free from unsecured debts and junior secured debts for the improvements.

2 Jones, Liens, § 1184; Ellison v. Jackson Water Co. 12 Cal. 542; Rees v. Ludington, 13 Wis. 276, 80 Am. Dec. 741; Wilson v. Rudd, 70 Wis. 98, 35 N. W. 321; Mushlitt v. Silverman, 50 N. Y. 360; Benton v. Wickwire, 54 N. Y. 226.

By mistake the mortgage was not recorded for a few weeks. But as to creditors not obtaining a lien before it was recorded, that is immaterial. It is also immaterial as to one who obtains a mechanics' lien after the execution, before it is recorded.

Bryan v. Brasius, 162 U. S. 415, 40 L. ed. 1022, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 803; Bryan v. Kales, 162 U. S. 411, 40 L. ed. 1020, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 802; Terrell v. Allison, 21 Wall. 289, 22 L. ed. 634.

The state court had jurisdiction of the suit to foreclose the mortgages.

Wilmer v. Atlanta & R. Air-Line R. Co. 2 Woods, 409, Fed. Cas. No. 17,775; East Tennessee, V. & G. R. Co. v. Atlanta & F. R. Co.. 15 L. R. A. 109, 49 Fed. 608; Compton v. Jesup, 15 C. C. A. 397, 31 U. S. App. 486, 68 Fed. 263; Re Hall & S. Co. 73 Fed. 527; Jenks v. Brewster, 96 Fed. 625; Shields v. Coleman, 157 U. S. 168, 39 L. ed. 660, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 570; United Lines Teleg. Co. v. Boston Safe Deposit & T. Co. 147 U. S. 431, 37 L. ed. 231, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 396; Pittsburgh, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Long Isand Loan & T. Co. 172 U. S. 493, 43 L. ed. 528, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 238.

The judgment gives the right relief.

5 Enc. Pl. & Pr. 958; Dan. Ch. Pl. & Pr. 1st ed. 635; 1 Black, Judgments, § 146. There is no right of redemption under the general prayer for relief.

Stout v. Lye, 103 U. S. 66, 26 L. ed. 428. To redeem from a mortgage after foreclosure one must have had a definite lien or interest before the foreclosure suit was begun.

Ibid.; Cedar Rapids & M. River R. Co. v. Herring, 110 U. S. 34, 28 L. ed. 59, 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 485; Hollins v. Brierfield Coal & I. Co. 150 U. S. 371, 37 L. ed. 1113, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 127; 2 Jones, Mortg. 1048, 1049, 1055.

« ForrigeFortsett »