Thrasher v. Haines
Superior Court of New Hampshire
A. and B. haying a controversy respecting certain accounts between them, agreed to refer the same to arbitrators; C. appeared before the arbitrators at the hearing as B.’s agent, and assisted in managing the case.
Read the full summary
A. and B. haying a controversy respecting certain accounts between them, agreed to refer the same to arbitrators; C. appeared before the arbitrators at the hearing as B.’s agent, and assisted in managing the case. The arbitrators made a report in favor of A., who procured a judgment upon the same report, sued out an execution, and caused the execution to be extended upon land which B. had conveyed to C, and then brought a writ of entry against C. to recover the land : it was held, that C. was not estopped by the judgment to shew that there was nothing due from B. to A. This was a writ of…
1Opinion of the CourtRichardson, C. J.
There is no doubt that the judgment which Thrasher recovered against Eastman would be conclusive evidence of a debt in any suit between the parties to it. Phil. Ev. 223.—3 John. 157, Smith vs. Lewis.-3 East 348, Outram vs. Morewood.
It is equally Clear, that in general ⅛ judgment is not conclusive evidence of a debt against strangers, whose interest may be affected by it. 1 Mass. Rep. 165, Alexander vs. Gould.—11 ditto 89, Young vs. Hosmer.—6 ditto 242, Pierce vs. Jackson.
But there are cases where a judgment will be plenary evidence of a debt, even against strangers to it. Thus, where a third…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Coffin v. CoffinMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1808
- Alexander v. GouldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1804
3Cited by3 opinions
- Tarbell v. WhitingSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1829
- Warren v. CochranSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1853
- Warren v. CochranSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1854