Cromwell v. County of Sac

Facts

Cromwell sued an Iowa county on four bonds, each for $1,000, and four interest coupons attached to them, each for $100. The bonds were issued in 1860. They were payable to bearer in New York in 1868, 1869, 1870 and 1871, with annual interest at ten per cent. The county defended by pointing to an earlier case. In that case one Samuel C. Smith sued the county on earlier maturing coupons from the same bonds, and the county won. The county offered proof that Cromwell owned those coupons and that Smith's action was brought for Cromwell's sole use and benefit. The findings in Smith's case showed that the county's voters authorized bonds of $10,000 to build a courthouse. The county judge issued the bonds to a contractor, Meserey, who gave one bond to the judge as a gratuity. The courthouse was never built. Smith had held the coupons before maturity, but there was no finding that he ever gave value for them. The court there held the bonds void against the county, and this Court affirmed. In the present case Cromwell offered to prove that he received the bonds and coupons before maturity and gave value for them. That evidence was excluded.

Issues

1. When a judgment in one action is pleaded in a second action between the same parties on a different claim, does it bar only points actually litigated and decided, or also points that might have been litigated?
2. Did the judgment against Smith, who did not prove he gave value for the coupons, bar Cromwell from proving that he gave value for the different bonds and coupons now in suit?
3. Could the county offer evidence that Smith's earlier action was brought for Cromwell's sole use and benefit?

Holding

The judgment against Smith did not bar Cromwell from proving that he took the different bonds and coupons now in suit before maturity and for value. That judgment settled only what it actually decided: that the bonds were void against the county in the hands of holders who had not acquired them before maturity and given value, and that Smith, who had not proved value, could not recover. Evidence that Smith sued for Cromwell's sole use and benefit was properly admitted.