SPRINGER v. BIEN ET AL, N.Y., Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Attorney(S)

George F. Danforth for appellants. John W. Boothby for respondent.

Judges

ANDREWS, J.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This action arises from an alleged employment contract under which the plaintiff, John H. Springer, was to act as agent for the defendants, Julius Bien et al., procuring orders and receiving a ten percent commission on money realized from those orders. The plaintiff sought an accounting for monies received by the defendants after March 4, 1889, on orders procured before he left their employment but paid afterward.

The defendants did not specifically deny the contract but asserted as a defense that a prior judgment in a former action barred the current claim. The prior action involved the defendants seeking to restrain the use of the trade name "The Central Lithographing and Engraving Company," which Springer and others had organized after his employment ended. That prior judgment enjoined the defendants from using the name and required them to account for contracts and property obtained by Springer as agent under that name, appointing a referee to take the account.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the judgment in the former action constitutes res adjudicata (a bar) to the present claim for compensation by the plaintiff.
Whether the contract for compensation included commissions on monies received after the termination of employment for orders procured during employment.

Arguments of the Parties

Defendants' Arguments

The defendants argued that the prior judgment barred the current claim under the doctrine of res adjudicata.
They contended that evidence and findings in the former action showed the ten percent commission applied only to monies received during employment, excluding commissions on monies received afterward.

Plaintiff's Arguments

The plaintiff maintained that the prior judgment did not address or bar the current claim for compensation on monies received after employment ended.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Webb v. Buckelew, 82 N.Y. 555	Judgment, not findings or verdicts alone, constitutes a bar under res adjudicata.	The court applied this principle to hold that findings irrelevant to the final judgment do not bar re-litigation of the same issues in a subsequent action.
Stannard v. Hubbell, 123 N.Y. 528	Irrelevant facts litigated and found in prior action do not prevent re-litigation if not incorporated in judgment.	The court relied on this precedent to determine that the prior judgment did not bar the plaintiff's claim on compensation because the issue was immaterial to the prior judgment.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed whether the prior judgment operated as res adjudicata on the plaintiff's claim for commissions. It emphasized the legal principle that only the judgment itself, not preliminary findings or evidence, constitutes a bar to subsequent litigation. Although evidence and findings in the prior case touched on the terms of the compensation contract, these were irrelevant to the relief granted and were not incorporated into the judgment.

The judgment in the former action focused on enjoining the defendants' use of a trade name and ordering an accounting related to contracts and property obtained by Springer as agent, but it did not address or resolve the issue of compensation commissions. The court therefore held that the compensation claim remained open for litigation, as it was not inconsistent with the prior judgment.

Holding and Implications

The court affirmed the order below, holding that the prior judgment did not bar the plaintiff's claim for commissions as res adjudicata.

This decision permits the plaintiff to pursue his claim for compensation on monies realized after the termination of his employment. The court did not establish new precedent but reaffirmed established principles regarding the scope and effect of judgments in relation to res adjudicata.

Show full summary ...

JOHN H. SPRINGER, Respondent, v. JULIUS BIEN et al., Appellants.

ANDREWS, J.

The sole point relates to the effect of the judgment in the former action of the present defendants against the present plaintiff and others, as res adjudicata upon the question involved in this action.

This action is based upon an alleged employment of the plaintiff by the defendants under a contract that he was to act as their agent in procuring orders for their work, and was to receive as compensation ten per cent on all money realized by their firm from orders so procured. The relief demanded was an accounting by the defendants of moneys received by them subsequent to March 4, 1889, on orders obtained by the plaintiff before he left their employment, but upon which the moneys were not realized until after that time.

The defendants in their answer do not deny specifically the contract alleged in the complaint, but set up among other defenses the judgment in the prior action as a bar to the claim in the present one.

The former action was brought to restrain the use by the defendants therein of the name of "The Central Lithographing and Engraving Company," in the business of a corporation organized under that name by Springer and others after Springer had left the employment of the defendants. The plaintiffs in that action claimed the name as their trade-mark and that they were exclusively entitled to its use. After issue joined the case was heard before a judge at Special Term, who after the evidence was closed, made findings of fact and law, upon which judgment was entered for the plaintiffs therein among other things enjoining the defendants from using the name of "The Central Lithographing and Engraving Company," and the judgment contained a further provision requiring the defendants and each of them to account to the plaintiffs for all contracts, letters or other property which may have been obtained by the defendant John H. Springer, as the agent of the plaintiffs in the name of "The Central Lithographing and Engraving Company," and for such purpose William J. Fanning was appointed referee to take and state the account. The claim is that this judgment is res adjudicata upon the claim for compensation upon which this action is brought. It is said that on the trial of the formor action evidence was given as to the terms of the contract for compensation, from which it appeared that the ten per cent commission was only to be paid upon moneys received by the defendants on orders placed by Springer during his employment by Bien Co., and that moneys received thereafter on orders procured by Springer, but which were unexecuted when his employment ceased, were not subject to the commission. We are also referred to certain findings made by the trial judge in the former action, which, as claimed, sustain this construction of the contract. It is a sufficient answer to the claim of estoppel by the former judgment, that conceding that the evidence in that action warranted a finding that the present plaintiff was only to have commissions on money actually received during his employment, and that the findings bear the construction contended for, nevertheless, they were wholly irrelevant to the issues and did not enter into and were not involved in the final judgment. Neither the verdict of a jury nor the findings of a court in a prior action upon the precise point involved in a subsequent action between the same parties, constitute a bar unless followed by judgment based thereon, or into which the verdict or finding entered. It is the judgment which constitutes the bar and not the preliminary determination of the court or jury. So also, and for obvious reasons, although judgment has been entered, the judgment does not prevent the re-litigation of any irrelevant fact, although it may have been litigated and found in the prior action. ( Webb v. Buckelew, 82 N.Y. 555; Stannard v. Hubbell, 123 id. 528.) The question whether the contract for compensation included commissions on all orders procured by the plaintiff during his employment, upon which moneys should be realized by the defendants at any time, or only on orders procured, upon which money was realized during the employment, was immaterial to the judgment and relief granted in the former action. The accounting provided by the judgment did not embrace the matter of compensation and that question was still open, notwithstanding the judgment, to subsequent controversy. The claim now made is not inconsistent with any matter adjudged in the former action, although it may have been covered by the evidence and embraced in the findings.

We think the judgment of res adjudicata was properly disposed of below and the order should, therefore, be affirmed.

All concur.

Order affirmed.

SPRINGER v. BIEN ET AL