Linderman Machine Co. v. Hillenbrand Co.
127 N.E. 813, 1921 Ind. App. LEXIS 254, 75 Ind. App. 111 (1921)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant who successfully asserts fraud as a defense to a contract action is not barred by res judicata from later bringing a separate action for special damages arising from the fraud, even if those damages could have been sought through a cross-complaint in the original action. A party is not compelled to file a permissive cross-complaint.
Facts:
- The appellant (seller) sold a machine known as a 'jointer and matcher' to the appellee (buyer).
- The seller allegedly made fraudulent representations to induce the buyer to sign an order for the purchase of the machine.
- The agreement was for the machine to be delivered on a trial basis, subject to the buyer's approval after testing.
- The buyer incurred expenses for freight, installation, removal of the machine, and lost materials and time in attempting to operate it.
- The machine failed to perform the work for which it was intended.
- The buyer refused to accept the machine, notified the seller to remove it from the factory, and did not pay the purchase price.
Procedural Posture:
- The seller (appellant) first sued the buyer (appellee) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Indiana to recover the machine's purchase price.
- In the federal action, the buyer filed an answer asserting fraud as a defense but did not file a cross-complaint for damages.
- After a trial on the merits in federal court, a judgment was rendered in favor of the buyer, ordering that the seller take nothing.
- Subsequently, the buyer (appellee) initiated this new action in an Indiana state trial court against the seller (appellant) to recover damages for fraud and deceit.
- The seller's demurrer to the buyer's complaint was overruled by the state trial court.
- The seller filed an answer asserting that the buyer's claim was barred by res judicata due to the prior federal judgment.
- The trial court sustained the buyer's demurrer to the seller's res judicata defense.
- The state trial court found in favor of the buyer and awarded damages.
- The seller (appellant) now appeals that judgment to this 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:
Is a defendant who successfully asserts fraud as a defense in a seller's action for the purchase price later barred from bringing a separate action for damages resulting from that fraud, if they did not file a cross-complaint for affirmative relief in the initial suit?
Opinions:
Majority - McMahan, C. J.
No. A defendant who successfully uses fraud as a defense is not barred from later bringing a separate action for affirmative damages because a cross-complaint for such damages is permissive, not mandatory. The court distinguished between using fraud as a defense (a shield) and using it as a basis for an affirmative claim for damages (a sword). While a party must raise all available defenses in an action, they are not required to file a cross-complaint for an affirmative cause of action. The doctrine of res judicata only applies to issues that were actually litigated or could have been litigated under the pleadings. Since the buyer's claim for special damages (e.g., costs of installation and freight) was not put at issue in the seller's initial suit for the purchase price, the judgment in that case does not preclude a subsequent action to recover those damages. The court also held that a buyer who rescinds a contract due to fraud can still recover special damages that are the natural and proximate consequence of the seller's fraudulent act.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of res judicata, specifically distinguishing between a defense and a permissive cross-complaint (counterclaim). It establishes that a defendant's choice to use fraud purely defensively does not result in a waiver of their right to later seek affirmative relief based on the same fraudulent conduct. This prevents the doctrine of claim preclusion from compelling a defendant to litigate their own affirmative claims in a forum and at a time chosen by their opponent. The case reinforces the principle that rescission of a contract does not preclude recovery for special damages directly and foreseeably caused by the initial fraud.
