Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 21.pdf/566

 Latest Important Cases Res Adjudicata. Judgment Between CoDefendants Who Were Adversary Parties a Bar—Joint and Several Obligations. N. Y. In Kohly v. Fernandez (July, 1909, N. Y. Law Jour., Aug. 31, 1909), the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, first de partment, rendered a decision holding the judgment of the Cuban courts between codefendants who were essentially adversary parties a bar to any subsequent action brought by one of such defendants against the other founded on the same cause of action. The Court (Scott, J.) said:— "Of course a judgment to be res adjudicata as to one of the parties must be so as to both, and therefore, if the judgment in the Cuban court would have been conclusive upon respon dent if it had established the validity of the mortgage, it is conclusive upon the appellant to establish its invalidity. The mortgage was clearly a joint obligation of the brothers who signed it. It may also have been several, but it was certainly joint, as was their obligation to pay under its terms. Hence any judgment that determined its invalidity as to one must of necessity equally determine its invalidity as to the other. The fact that the respon dent, after entering an appearance in the action, did noti answer, but permitted judg ment to go by default, did not affect the binding force of the judgment as to him (Bell v. Gittere, 9 N. Y. Supp. 400, aff'd 134 N. Y. 616). Nor does the fact that appellant and respondent were co-defendants in the action in Cuba deprive the judgment of its conclusive

535

force as between them. They were essentially adversary parties." Usury. National Bank May Enforce Usuri ous Mortgage Held in Good Faith and for Value.. N. Y. A mortgage void as to usury under the laws of the State of New York may be enforced when held in good faith and for value by a national banking institution, was the declara tion of the New York Supreme Court, Appel late Division, first department, in its decision in the case of Slade et al. v. Bennett (July, 1909, N. Y. Law Jour., Aug. 23, 1909). On this particular point the Court (Laughlin, J.) said:— "There is no doubt, I think, that by virtue of the provisions of sees. 5197 and 5198 of the Revised Statutes of the United States the bank, if it be an innocent holder for value, could recover the principal due on the bond and mortgage, even though the instruments were tainted with usury ( Hazeltine v. Central Nat. Bank, 183 U. S. 132; Schlesinger v. Kelley, 114 App. Div. 546; Schlesinger v. Gilhooly, 189 N. Y. 1; Schlesinger v. Lehmaier, 191 N. Y. 69). . . . The serious ques tion arising on this branch of the case, if it were necessary to meet and decide it, would be, I think, whether the evidence shows that there was any valid consideration for the assignment to the bank which would give it the right to enforce the instruments, if void, as between the original parties." Usury. See Disorderly House.

James Coolidge Carter By Harry R. Blythe Men walked with him and talked with him And in his life-work saw A fight so earnest it was grim, For honor, truth and law. Men wrought with him and fought with him But whether friend or foe, When came at last the Reaper grim They saw a hero go.