Cromwell v. County of Sac
94 U.S. 351 (1876)
Rule of Law:
A prior judgment between the same parties on a different cause of action operates as an estoppel (issue preclusion) only as to those matters in issue that were actually litigated and determined, not as to matters that might have been litigated but were not.
Facts:
- The County of Sac, Iowa, authorized and issued $10,000 in negotiable bonds to a contractor, one Meserey, for the construction of a courthouse.
- The bonds were made payable to the bearer and had interest coupons attached.
- Immediately upon receiving the bonds, Meserey gave one of them as a gratuity to the county judge with whom he had made the contract.
- Meserey never constructed the courthouse as required by the contract, and no other person did so pursuant to the agreement.
- Cromwell acquired some of these bonds and their attached interest coupons before they reached maturity.
- A prior lawsuit was initiated by Samuel C. Smith, acting on behalf of Cromwell, to recover payment on an earlier-maturing set of coupons from the same bonds.
Procedural Posture:
- In a prior action, Samuel C. Smith, acting for Cromwell, sued the County of Sac in federal court to recover on certain interest coupons.
- The trial court in that action found the bonds were issued with fraud and entered judgment for the County of Sac because Smith failed to show he gave value for the coupons.
- The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that prior judgment.
- Cromwell then filed the present action in the U.S. Circuit Court to recover on four of the bonds and a different set of coupons from the same series.
- At trial, the County of Sac argued the judgment in the 'Smith' case operated as an estoppel.
- The Circuit Court agreed, excluded Cromwell's proffered evidence that he paid value for the instruments in this suit, and entered judgment for the County of Sac.
- Cromwell brought a writ of error to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a prior judgment against a plaintiff on one set of bond coupons, where the plaintiff failed to prove he was a bona fide holder for value, preclude him in a subsequent action on different bonds and coupons from the same series from proving that he did, in fact, give value for them?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Field
No. The prior judgment operates as an estoppel only as to matters actually litigated and determined, not as to matters that could have been litigated but were not. The first lawsuit established the fraudulent inception of the bonds and that the plaintiff failed to prove he gave value for the specific coupons at issue in that case. However, the question of whether the plaintiff gave value for the different bonds and coupons in the present suit is a separate factual matter that was not litigated or determined in the prior action. Therefore, the plaintiff is not precluded from offering such proof in this subsequent case on a different cause of action.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Clifford
Yes. The prior judgment should act as a complete bar to the present suit. The title to the bonds and the coupons is the same, and the question of whether the holder gave value was a central issue that could and should have been fully litigated in the first action. The plaintiff alleged he paid value but failed to prove it. Allowing a plaintiff to bring a second suit on the same underlying title, simply because he neglected to bring forward all his proof in the first instance, undermines the principle of finality in judgments and encourages endless, piecemeal litigation.
Analysis:
This case is foundational for modern civil procedure, establishing the critical distinction between claim preclusion (res judicata) and issue preclusion (collateral estoppel). The court's holding clarifies that for issue preclusion to apply, the specific issue must have been 'actually litigated and determined,' not merely an issue that could have been raised. This prevents a single failure of proof on one claim from automatically dooming all future, distinct claims arising from the same transaction, which is particularly significant for cases involving serial obligations like bonds or installment contracts. The decision champions fairness by giving a litigant their day in court on issues not previously decided, while still respecting the finality of what was actually adjudicated.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Cromwell v. County of Sac (1876)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"