Respondent Brief in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Meredith v. John Deere Plow Co.

FILE COPY

i Otice Supreme Court, U.S. 7]

pee ss LD

ae JAN 24 1959

Ga. * . . ae

e

TRACES RRO MENG, Clerk’ |:

Supreme Court of the United’ States —

October Term 1958

No. 915 aint

Civil .

"a

M. M. MERE pUiHl,

‘ ; Petitiones ‘ana Appe lhant ms in

‘

Vs. ,

JOHN DEERE PLOW COMPANY OF MOLINE,

ee x i? I. NOS. A. <: Orpor ATION, .

Pe spond wi nde App liv, Be ee

_ RESPONDENT’ S BRIEF RESISTING PETITION

,

FOR CERTIORARI -

>

4 =-¢y

c Rayaexp AL SMITH, :

301s: Park Butldine,

Council Blutts, lowe.

Pr ere y for Be spramid ae ;

OF Counsel:

oo) Prrer EK. Mareterti. 8)

1032-42 Onlaha National Bani Ide,

(dinate, Nebrask: i.

m Cocane Peintinc Company, Omdha-- The Caretul Law. Boet Printers

-lied U

re cument..

o 2 . a

i

7 “

INDEN . rg

;

. Paves

1

Summary of Points to be Argued and Authorities Re-

_— sen sdsekionihenie ; =

Bez a)

Point I.

Pomt U1.

/

Point TH.

P oint IV.

Point V.

Appendix

Appendix

* Statement of Case

ae ee Claini’ of Cause of Action Has

seen Fnlly Adjudicated. 0. |

« «&

Judgment In. The Preceding Cases Are

“Res Adjudieata

A. Court OK Phe United States May. Grant

-An Injunctidn To End Litigation and Re-

quires Petitioner To Accept And Abide By

The Previous Decisions Of The Court

A Court Of The United States May Grant

An Injunction” To Stay Proceedings In A

State Court Where Necessary To Protect

“Or Effectuate Its Judgments...

Writs Of Certiorari Are Only Grairted Un-

der Special Circumstances And ‘In Cases

Of General Importance _. ,

Agere es | Shines

C ASES C TED

American > aaa Bank & Tru: t Company vs. Tats.

sig, 7th Cir, 255 Fed. 2d 7a ee.

Angel vs. ‘Dallincton, 330.U. S. 188.

Denton vs. City of Carrollton, oth cM, 235 Fed. 2d

Exparte Crandall, 7th Gir. 55 Fed. 2d 969

10

li

CASES CIT ED-- Continued .

9 | Paes

Federal Home. Loan Bank of San i rancisco Vs. Halt

oth Cir. 995 Fed. 2d: A Se my Mee <i

ier ae Brown Shoe Co. vs. Wolfe Bros. & Co., 240°

Pe eee ee OE Farr a

¢ : ; é ,

Heiser vs. Wandeutt et eS ae ea a

Jackson vs. Carter Oil Company, 10th Cir. sa ‘Fed,

NW O24, Cert. denied, 340 U. S. 812... incall gaa

Lee.vs. Federal Trade ( omMissi@M, Sth Ci ir, 114 Fed.

2d O83 an

BABE or em

ee 2 Meredith vs. - Seen Deere Plow Commany ot Mo-

line, Hlinois, ge Cir, 185 Fed. 2084981. Cert. de-

_ med. 341 U. 8.9: 6... CAC ee eke ee

M. M. Meredith vs. Jols Deere Plow Company .of Mo-

- line, Mfnois, 8th Cir., 266 Fed: 2d 1962 Cert. de-

nied 346 U! S. 898... RY Ee nen EON inant ty

| M. M. Moredith-vs. John Deere Plow Company of Mo

line, IHinoisy Sth wa -» 244 Fok 2d 9.. Cert. de-

@.

niea Soo L. & Bz... Se a Nie ee a oe

Miller vs. Ellis, 232 lowa 58, 5 N. W, 2d 8 eae

National Liler Relations B oard Vs. Pittsburgh S. . Sa

ee a0 U, Gh Rey eS AMO Let el te cere ee

Northern Pacifie Railway C ‘ompany vs. Sh: aght, 205 U.

rs ks wal res a aaron

ae of Ohio ex rel. Seney vs. Swift «& Co. 260 Bac hie

pA oe ae eet ea ance ed eae ce

Toledo Scale Company vs. C sities Seale C ompany,

261 U. S. 399, 423-426... LS SaNG A 3 eave ro a Se

L.S. va M ansingwear, Ine., Sth Cir., 8 Fea, 2d 204,

”

ae

: AUTHORITIES CITED

Rule 4 (bh), Federal Maes of r Til. P rocedure, 2 U,

*)

obs

eS 4 bs

28 V; ie Be A. Secti tion ‘2283 SEITE 1)

\ ett

a .

a

g

id

Poa

° >

> _ P .

2 .

Supreme Court of the United States

<

; os October ‘Term 1958 | ‘

eimai es :

3

(> -

ME ME MEREDITH,

‘ { Petsiteier and Apgie tliat Die best’.

JOHN DEERE PLOW COMPANY OF MOLINE, —

ILLANGUS. A Corporation, ; p3

Be epromede wi aie App LE ’ Beli.

a | we ae

©

e

RESPONDENT’ Dae RESISTING PETITION

. FOR CERTIORARI

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This action was originally Drought ptr thee Vo aritere

Stites Distriet Court for the Southern Pistriet of Powe,

Te enor petitioner there front eomtiiing. eomimeterns

oP prosecuting and proceeding agaist respondent im Stat:

mor Federal Court. artempting to relitigate: the sigan eiiuss

of action Gr anv right. question or facet redatimg te the

<abjeet matter thereef, whieh had been iavelwed i th

decisions of the United States District Court and affirm,

eneés made ‘thereof by the tmited States Court lot Ap

(

petitioner was not entitled tof

) ‘

_ ‘ * .

peals for the Eighth Cirenit, aud in which certiorari was

denied by the gs yeme Court of the Unites (States in eneh

of thie ‘followin CASES -. aes t aa

Mo Meredith wa, Jolin Der rep Pla Cy HN Panny:

of Moline, Hitnors, Sth Cir. PSo) Ped. 2d 4st,

Cert. denied 341 U.S. 986 (9ST, ioe

MoM. Meiedith es. dohin Deere Plow Companu

of Moline, Minois Sth Cir, 206 Fed. 2d) 190,

: Cert. dented 346 U.S. 808) (19953).. ,

© OM. OM. Meredith vs, Jehu Deere Plow Company,

Sth Cir. 244 Fed. 2d 0. Cert. demied 355 UL S

S3 C1057). ; pat oe

A very concise statement of the various claus mada,

by petitioner in this litigation and the ixsyes Mmvolved

herein’ and history of the proceedings, 48 to be toand in

the opinion of the ‘United ‘States Court of Appeals for

the Eighth Cireuit, in this case, a eopy being attached to .

py?

the Petition for Writ of Certiorari, as Appendix A.”

Not only does the opinion above referred. to set Forth.

the pertinent, facts, but this Court as before it, the rec.

ord in each af the three cases in which ortintas Was

denied. It seems unnecessary to repeat what is. and has

been béfore the ( ‘ourt and about which, <6 far ax the facts

are concerned, ‘there 1s, ne disypmite. ‘

SERED aun | eeiennaie Comite

‘SUMMARY OF POINTS TO BE ARGUED AND

AUTHORITIES TO BE RELIED UPON

BY ee a.

Pe “<a Ke ; . eo

.%

Petitioner has had.a trial of the issues in each of the

. three preceding cases. The Count considered all allega-

trons of the complaint well plead, and’ then found the

‘ccover. Petitioner's clanu

aan See Ca

_ @ ; .

or. c¢atse of action has heen -fully adjudicated in three

separate suits, has Teen appe aled, and in each Case cer

tiorari denied.

< :

Rile 41 (bo. Federal: Rules of Civil Procedure,

ane & A,” = =

Pan MV. rs Me redeth Oe dolu Di ove Plou Compas

of Moline, Mlinois, Sth Cir. 185 Fed. 2d 48h.

Cert. denied 341 US 936,00 “

Mo. Mo. Meredith vs. John Deere Plow Company

of Moline, Minois, Sth Cir. 206° Fed. 2d 196,

Cert. dented 346 UL So 8,

MLM. Mesedith vs. Jolin Deere Plow Company

of Moline, Hho, Sth Cir. 244 Fed. 2d 9,

| Cert. denied 255°U. S. 83. 3 : .

{ Northern ~~ Railway Company vs. Slaaht,

205 0. S> 122, 130-181. :

gJugel rs, so, rs. isd,

United States vs. tsp Pina Tne. Sth Cir. 178

Red. 2d 204. 340 US. 56 affirming.

ea

~ The judgments in the precedmg suits of MoM. Mer-

ith vs. Jolin Deere Place Company are res jadicata as

to-the vahdity and’ enforceability and the ‘rights of the

parties under the alleged contract which petitioner insists

tlhrat he intends to again litigate ina State Court,

M..M. Miredith &s. John Deere Plow Compas,

Sth Cir. a4 Fed. 2d rs ah

a ae Meredith Qt Fishin Decre Pinu oo

Sth Cir. *e 206 Ped, 2d 196. :

Heiser UN: W oodruff, may ig S. 62h, ‘

(as ange He Live Company rs, Federal Trails Coan:

mission, Sth Cir W128 Fede 2d ds3- ;

U.S. vs: Muns my Jue, Sth Cir. WS Fed.

(2d 20g, 206-200

4

Il.

A court of the United States may grant an injune-"

a

. a

tion to enjoin petitioner from continuing , commencing, or

— and proceeding against respondent in State

r Federal Court, attempting to relitigate the same cause

re action or any right, question or fact .relating to. the _

es

subject matter thereof, which have Ween previously de-

cided in-three decisions, to make an end of litigation and

to require the petitioner to accept and abide by the de-

cisions of the Court.

Toledo Scale eo rs. C ompuling Scale Com-

pany; 261 U. S. 399, 423-426. .. ; ae

- Federal Honie Loan Bank of San Francisco us.

Hall, oth Cir., 225 Fed, 2d 349, B85..

» Miller vs, Ellis, 232 Towa 558, .5 N. W: 2d 928. .

“WV.

A court of the United States may grant 4n injunction °

to stay proceedings in a- State Court, where: neéessary, to

protect ‘or effectuate its judginents._

\ ‘ re -

2S U.S. C. AL, Sectiohi 2283.

Jackson vs. Carter Oil Company, 10th Cir. 179

* Fed. 2d 524. Cert. denied, 340 U.S, 812.

American National Bank & Trus st Company 2 a

Pee Tth.€ ir. a 290 Fed. 2d 765, 769,

‘se | HL OW. De nton, et alo vs, City of Car rollton, oth

psi 235 Fed. od 481, “st.

yy rparte Crandall? 7th Cir. 95 Fed. 24 969. .

ee zt .

Writs of Certiorari, to review judgment of the Courts

of Appeal, axe only granted. under special cireumstances,

f

and’ such jurisdiction should: be sparingly exercised, and

only in eases of peeuliar gravity and ge ‘eral importance,

‘to secure uniformity of decis ions,

‘Hamilton: bite it Bho: Co. vs, Wolfe Brosad Co.

240 TLS. POL, 257, 25s. a

State of. Ohio ex rel, Sene y rs. Swift & Co,, a

‘Ea, a re ery A

grure sag Relations Boaid rs, Pittsbirgie

S, 5. . AO et. . 498. ,

= i oe o0—-————--— : a ’

ARGUMENT

Point I. | :

This is the fourtih time this. matter . in one form or,

another, has been beford this Court on petition for. writ

Of certiorari, This faet ‘aduue should: be strong me idence

that petitioner, M. M. Meredith, has had his, day% in court,

that~ the ‘question of law has’ ‘be ‘en fully considered and

‘that there should and must bé an\ end to litigation.

‘In each of ‘the three wiiseediaas CANES, petitioner has

sduight to establish a contractual relationship between the

parties upon which to base either a claim for damages &

or equitable relief, The: District Court.and the. Court. of

Appeals in seach case have patiently aud: ‘to pet

~tioner *, appearing pro se, that they: have eiven kareful con-

sideration to his complaints and that he has no\cause of

“

action. The mattd as heen, Fully adjudicated, \

2 é.

The Court, in J/. 1/. hy redith vs.dohu Dew re Plow.

Company of Moline, Minoie/ 206 Fed. 2d 196, said that

the plaintit!’s claim in that ease “six Ne same as that,

Jae

‘

ee = ; 3 a

whichy was the subject matter of his complaint which was

dealt with in the opinion of the Court in M. M. Meredith

John Deere Plow Company of | Moline, Mlinois, 8th

we ir, 185 Fed. 2d 481, and the parties are identical. “s

\

Pi ‘The Court theri added: ‘The Distrid Court, in rm

missing the plaintiff's complaint in the. instant’ case relie1

od

‘upon the decision of this court as having put an“end to

this* contr oversy.”’

NXgain in MM: M. Meredith us, John Deere Plow Com: :

pong of Moline, ‘Illinois, 244 Fed. 2d 9, the Court reviewed

the two previous suits, and.reférred to Rule 41 (b) of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U..8. €. A. ( Ap-

pendix A), anc held that the prior dismissals operated °

as an adjudication’ upon the merits of ‘petitioner’s claims.

This rule has been clearly: announced in the ‘ease of

Angel vs, Bullington, 330 ‘Uv. S. 183, 192-193, in which it

Was said that: b ; . :

¢ '

~s he doctrine of res’ judicata reltecte the refusal

of law to tolerate’ needless litigation. - Litigation is

‘needless if, by fair process, a controversy has once -

gone through the courts to conclusion, (Citing cases.) |

And it-has gone through, if issues that were or could |

have been dealt with in af earlier litigation are raised

anew between the s sameA/parties.”

<, Munsingwear; ‘Ine. 39400 TU:

Court said. @) .

“The general principle announced in numerous

‘ases 18 that a right, question or fact distinetly put

Likewise in @.

36, 37, 39, wherein Fi

j in issue and directly. determined by a court of com-

petent jurisdiction, as a ground of recovery, cannot

be disputed in a subsequent suit between the same

parties or their privies ; and eyen if the Sedond suit

. 4 “ . -

- ° ,

«

is for.a different cause @f action, the right, question,

or fact once so determined must, as between the same

parties or their privies, be taken as conclusively. es-

. tablished, so long as.the judgnfent in the first suit re-

‘“ s* mains reset tee se ,

There can: be no question but that petitioner has had

_2. 4 trial of the eause which ‘he claims to have against re-

t Kporident. The courts have carefully considered the alle-

ry gations of the petition. They have found that ‘the facts

Mleged do not entitle petitioner to recovery, The matter |

has been fully adjudicated. Petitioner is not entitled to

annoy and harass respondent. with further attempts to re-

litigate the same’ cause of ‘action.

v9.

a . Point II.

led ‘It neeédearily ‘follows that the judymenty in the three .

preceding suits of M. M. Meredith rs, John Deere Plow

Company are res judicata as to the validity and the en-

torceability and the right of the parties under the alleged

contract which petitioner insists that. he ‘intends to again ;

relitigate in a state court.4 ‘ah .

. Petitioner in his answer in this present -suit, as we aT

asin his. bribes. has: insisted that he intends to make fur-

ther attempts to. r. olitigaté his claim of @ contract. In fact

in his — for writ? of certiorari to this Court (page

») he SHS

«

“Petitioner has been ‘ishing of ibecotning a Citi-

zen of,the same state as respondent; and then start-

_ ing his action in a court of that.state — an action.

»~ * wherein he will charge that respondent ix despoiling

* him by fraud when it ‘ails to perform the aforesaid

acts: and will charge that respondent is injuring hini

by breach,of contract when it fails to honor its prom-

ixe to insure! (Decree, p. 3 ‘par. 3.)”

ea | ev

\ A . . 7 | 4 S ; oe ,

It is very apparent that he intends to attempt: to re- “4

litizate the. matters which have already been fully ‘fd ju

dicated. . i | ; P |

a ae, oe : . 4. il ee ;

be It is unthinkable that anyone -should claim’ that the

~, ( “Oats of the United States are without power to enforce

their eeisions, ‘Justice requires that the final determinia-

tion, of 1 HL whether in the trial, eourt or appellate

court, nist be Tespweted by the parties litigant. tae \

a: - 3

The covrts. have power, to enforce. their. decisions.

There. ix no question but that the subject matter of the

. three. suits were, identical and the subject | matter of the

intended suits has been fully adjudicated.. The District

Court held that it had’ the power to enjoin petitioner.

from any further attempt to relitigate his claimed cause. “K

of action. ‘The United States, Court of Appeals for the

. Fight -Cireuit affirmed. that decision.

4

oe grantingsof the indunetion against petitioner Was”

in accordance with the rule amouneed. by Chief Justice

- Tatt in Tole do. pers Company rs. C omputing Seale ( Com-

en pani, 261 te 399, 425- 426. ; sa

S v

t an the case of Federal Home haus Bank of San Fr ran-

CISCO US . Hall, Oth Cir, 225) Keds 2d. 349, 385, the Court.

be ‘issued its writ of injunction and mandamus requirifig lifi- ‘

; vant to: abide hy the previous decision of the Court.

The Supreme ‘Court of Iowa hias hold to like effect, int

the case of Milley vs, Ellis, 232 lowa 98, 5 ON. W. 24 626,

amd said that’. gene! falls. equity may enjoin ‘vexatious suits

“not brought in good faith and, instituted for annoyance .

(“in oppression or to cause unnecessary litigation.. The

° “

ae

_—

te

a

Court quotes from 2 Story’s Raquity Jurisprudence, 14th

Md., See. 1479, as fallows: « :

** “+ Another class of .cases°to which bills of peace

are now ordinarily applied, is where the plaintiff has

after repeated and satisfactory trials established his

right at law and yet is in danger of. further -litiga-

. tion and obstruction. to his right from flew attempts

to“controvert it. U nder such circunistareps: Courts of,

Equity. will interfere and grant a perpetual 93 Ine-.

tion. to quiet the possession. of the plaintiff and to.

suppress future litigation of the right.”

Petitioner. in effect admits that respondent was entitled

_to the injunction insofar that: he would be enjoined from

proceeding in Fede¥l Courts. It: respondent was entitled

to an injunction against petitioner from bringing an ac-

tion in the Federal Courts, he was entitled to “enjoin pe-

_titioner from bringing actions in any ‘court, w hich had to

“do with the same subject matter.

A

‘

: : Point IV. ola Sade tee

Potidenes presents two questions for review. ‘The

first claiming that the cause of action had: never been

-brought to trial. The records show clear ly to the contrary. -

A second question is whether the. Federal Court: can

prohibit an individual: from starting an action, on the same.

cause of action, | in the State Court. |

The answer seems obvious, ; as Was pointed out by

Judge: ‘Jolinsen in the opinion in the. ‘Court of Appeiils,

When he’ said: | !

,- “The obvious answer, of course, is that the’ in

junction issued does not reach at action on thte part:

ata state court, but at action on the part ot —

lant.”

C

»

‘the petition.

10

The atatutes of the United States cover such FY sit-

uation. ° hal Bey ae |

28 v. S.C. A. See, 2283- (Appendix B), wherein it is

provided that a Court of the U nited States may grant ain °

injunction to stay proceedings in the State Court: where

necessary to perfect or effectuate its judgment.

A somewhat similar situation,to that in thercase at

bar is found in Jackson vs. Carter OiACompany, 10th Cir.,

179 Fed. 2nd 524, and‘in which certiorari was denied 340

U.S. 812. There the Court held that Federal courts did

have the power to enjoin relitigation of cases and: contro-

versy which had been fully. adjudigated, even though the

proceedings- were in the State Court. The Court held that

the injunction was proper. 2

n the case of American National Bank & Trust Com-

_ pare ‘hicago vs. Taussig, 255 Fed. 2d. 765, it is held

ea 28 TS. C. A, See. 2283 gives Federal Courts the

power to enjoin the relitigation of cases ‘and controv ersy”

which had been fully adjudicated in State Courts.

. a °

Lg

W. e tare endea®ored to present to the Court. the

Answers to the twe-tjucetions which petitioner presented °

for review. We. believe it unnecessary to ‘discuss the re:

raainder of the petition: for fhe reason. that the correct

answers to” the * questions presented for review make it

unnecessary to consider the diseussion which follows in

~

-

We submit to the Court that there has teen no gen- -

uine constitutional question, nor question of great public

\ ’

11

‘interest, or policy, nor ‘is it show n that there is a division

among the circuits.

We submit that the - ‘petitioner has shown no grounds:

whatsoever that would require this Court to grant a writ

of certiorari. This Court has repeatedly vheld that writs

| of certiorari to review judgments of courts of appeal are

q only granted under special circumstances. amd. such juris-

diction should be sparingly exercised; and only-in cases

of peculiar gravity and general importaace, or to secure

uniformity of decisions. As pointed out in National Labor

Relations Board vs. Pittsburg S. 8. € 0., supra, certiorau

Was granted only in such. cases involving prineiples, the

settlement of which is important to the public, as distin-

guished from that of the parties, and in cases where there :

is a real and embavtassing conflict of opinion and ayithor-

ity between the Courts of Appeak. .

Respondent submits that no Writ of Certiorari ery

ISSUCqin the case at bar. Petitioner does not show wherein.

it is a case of peculiar gravity and ceneral importance. . P

Neither the District Court nor the Cireuit Court of Apes”

peals has decided an important question of Federal law

which has not been, but should be settled. by this Court;

there is, no contlict between the de ‘CISIONS of the Court 3

of Appeals’ in this ease,-and thoke 6f other circuits on the,

same matter; the Court of Appeals lias followed the de-

cisions of the Supreme Court of the State of?lowa which

are determinative of the rights as between the parties, and

which the Federal Courts were obliged to ‘follow.

, es > etitioner has presented no valid reason which would

Warrant the Court in issuing a Writ of Certiorari. The

petition herein should be denied. “

ae e

Respectfully submitted, .

Raymonp A. SMITH,

301-8 Park Buifding,

— Couneil Bluffs, Lowa:

ha ‘ a e

lftorney lor Respondent,

~

Of Counsel:

Perer I. Marcuerti,

1032-42 Omaha Natl. Bank-Bldg,,

~ Omaha, Nebraska,

%

a

-. APPENDIX A,

Rule 41. ‘Dismissal of Actions.

“-(b) Involuntary Dismissal: Etfed hereof,

or failure of the plaintiff to, prosecute or to comply

with these fules: or any order of court, acdefendant

may move for dismissal of an action or of any claim

‘against him. After the Plaintiff has completed the

presentation of his evidence, the defendant, without

waiving his right to offer evidence in the event the

motion is not eranted, my niove for a disniissal on

the ground that upon the facts and the law the plain

tiff has shown no right to relief. Ivan a

by the court witl out a jury the court ay

facts may then determine them and ror

ion tried

rrer of the

Ger judgement

& against the plainti® or may decline to render any

judgment -until ‘the close of all: the evidence., If thy

. court renders judgment on the ‘merits against the

plaintiff, the court shall make findings ag provided

in Rule 52(a). Unless the court invits order for dis-

jnissal otherwise specifies, a dismissalgunder this sub-

division and any dismissal. not provided for in this

rule, other than’ a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction

or for improper venue, operates as an adjudication

upon the merits. As amended Dee. 27, 1946, effective

March 19, 1948,

‘ Sao

--APPENDIXB. .— ~

U. 8. C. A. 28, Section: 2283.

Stay. of State court proceediiigs.

A ecaurt of the United States may not grant an injune-

tion to stay proceedings in a State court exeept as

expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where

necessary in aid of its Jurisdiction, or to protect or

Cate

effectuate its judgments. —June 25, TDAR: ©. 646,

‘

62

C.

“

IC gs

"2