{ "id": 236642, "name": "Frederick Dent, plaintiff, vs. Chester Ashley, administrator of William M. O'Hara, deceased, defendant", "name_abbreviation": "Dent v. Ashley", "decision_date": "1828-04", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "54", "last_page": "55", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "1 Ark. Terr. Rep. 54" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Super. Ct.", "id": 9132, "name": "Superior Court of the Territory of Arkansas" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "4 How. 467", "category": "reporters:scotus_early", "reporter": "How.", "case_ids": [ 1503942 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/45/0467-01" ] }, { "cite": "6 Hill, 554", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Hill,", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "2 Met. 114", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Met.", "case_ids": [ 4372650, 2041012 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ky/59/0114-01", "/mass/43/0114-01" ] }, { "cite": "6 How. 44", "category": "reporters:scotus_early", "reporter": "How.", "case_ids": [ 3349435 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/47/0044-01" ] }, { "cite": "4 Mass. Rep. 613", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mass.", "case_ids": [ 2003997 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mass/4/0537-01" ] }, { "cite": "1 Munf. 373", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Munf.", "case_ids": [ 2094043 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/va/15/0146-01" ] }, { "cite": "7 Cranch, 271", "category": "reporters:scotus_early", "reporter": "Cranch,", "case_ids": [ 572723 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/11/0271-01" ] }, { "cite": "5 Mass. Rep. 67", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mass.", "case_ids": [ 2002212 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mass/5/0049-01" ] }, { "cite": "2 Rawle, 431", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Rawle", "case_ids": [ 1820565 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/rawle/2/0431-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 248, "char_count": 3103, "ocr_confidence": 0.548, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.00914107347571229 }, "sha256": "e7682af34459fd2007ab3cd840a11e7725dc77c5bdf94c7fc70af64d53e76d58", "simhash": "1:a9a14796848e554c", "word_count": 538 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:05:42.619619+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Frederick Dent, plaintiff, vs. Chester Ashley, administrator of William M. O\u2019Hara, deceased, defendant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Eskridge, J.\ndelivered the opinion of the Court. \u2014 This is an action of debt, brought by the plaintiff against Ashley, administrator of the estate of William M. O\u2019Hara, deceased, upon a judgment recovered in the State of Missouri by the plaintiff Dent against Susan O\u2019Hara, administratrix, and Paul Anderson and Robert Simpson, administrators of the estate of William M. O\u2019Hara, in the State of Missouri.\nThe defendant filed five several pleas; to the second, fourth, and fifth of which, the plaintiff' demurs generally, and takes issue upon the first and third. This state of pleading enables us to look back to the declaration, and ascertain whether a sufficient cause of action has been set forth in it, to authorize a judgment in favor of the plaintiff. Beauchamp v. Mudd, Plardin, 164.\nThe judgment upon which ^jis action is founded, is against the administrators of O\u2019Hara, in Missouri, and we are at a loss to see how it can be used as evidence of debt, or be the basis of a suit against the administrator\u2019s of O\u2019Hara here. There is, unquestionably, according to the well-known rules of law, no connection or privity between the administrators in Missouri and the administrator in Arkansas. 3 P. Wms. 369; 2 Rawle, 431; 5 Mass. Rep. 67.\nThe principle is universally acknowledged, that no one can be bound by a verdict or judgment unless he be a party to the suit, or be in privity with the party, or possess the power of making himself a party. The reason is obvious. He has no power of cross-examining witnesses, or of adducing evidence in maintenance of his rights; in short, he is deprived of all means provided by law for ascertaining the truth, and consequently it would be repugnant to the first principles of justice, that he should be bound by the result of an inquiry to which he is altogether a stranger. Wood v. Davis, 7 Cranch, 271; Davis v. Wood, 1 Wheaton, 6; Paynes v. Coles, 1 Munf. 373; Turpin v. Thomas, 2 Hen. & Munf. 139; Jackson v. Veddor, 3 Johns. R. 8; Case v. Reeves, 14 Johns. R. 79, are in illustration of this rule.\nIn the case of Grout v. Chamberlin, 4 Mass. Rep. 613, it is decided that a judgment recovered by an executor is no bar to an action brought by the administrator de bonis non, cum testamento annexo, for the same cause, there being no privity. The first judgment cannot, at common law, be enforced by the administrator de bonis non, but becomes inoperative. We are, therefore, of opinion that the declaration is insufficient in not setting forth a ground of action. Judgment for defendant.\nStacy v. Thrasher, 6 How. 44; Pond v. Makepeace, 2 Met. 114; (as to privity, Greenl. Ev. \u00a7 523) ; Chapman v. Fish, 6 Hill, 554; Aspden v. Nixon, 4 How. 467.", "type": "majority", "author": "Eskridge, J." } ], "attorneys": [], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Frederick Dent, plaintiff, vs. Chester Ashley, administrator of William M. O\u2019Hara, deceased, defendant.\nWhere administration of an estate is granted in two States, there is no privity between the administrators, and hence a judgment against one cannot be made the basis of an action against the other.\nApril, 1828.\n\u2014 Debt, determined before Benjamin Johnson, Thomas P. Eskridge, and William Trimble, judges." }, "file_name": "0054-01", "first_page_order": 70, "last_page_order": 71 }