
    Angus M’Eachern vs. James G. Cochran.
    A transaction between two parties in a judicial proceeding is not binding upon a third; therefore in an action for wages as mariner and master of the defendant's sloop, a decree of the admiralty between A. and the plaintiff is inadmissible.
    TlilS was an action of assumpsit for wages earned as mariner and master on board of the coasting sloop’ Sally, belonging to the defendant. In support of the charges for his services as mariner, the plaintiff offered a decree of the court of admiralty in the case of Archibald Mf Pharl vs. Angus MyEachern, master of the sloop Sally. By the proceedings in that case it appeared, on the application of the . said Archibald, a common sailor,- a summons was issued against the sloop. It further appeared that a libel Was filed for wages by the said Archibald, and that afterwards, Angus 3P Eachern, the plaintiff in this action, appeared and claimed the vessel. This claim was filed; and after the examination of witnesses upon interrogatories, the court decreed that the sloop should be sold, and the wages of actor and respondent, (the said Angus M’> Eachern,) as seamen, should be paid. This decree the presiding Judge permitted to go to the jury, as prima fa-cie evidence of the claim of the plaintiff.
    A verdict was found for the plaintiff; and notv a new trial was moved for, on the ground that the decree ought not to have been received in evidence against the defend» ant, as he was not a party to it.
   Mr. Justice Hager

delivered the opinion of the court

The general rule is well established; “ a transaction be» tween two parties in a judicial proceeding is not binding upon a third and the reason of the rule is very satisfactory. He who is not a party has it not in. his power to make a defence, or to examine witnesses, or to appeal from a judgment which may be erroneous. The proceedings of the admiralty are in rein. The owner of the sloop was not constructively or absolutely present. He was not abr sent by default. He was in no respecta party to the suit. The plaintiff ip this action was on the contrary both actor pnd respondent. The decree ought not to have been admitted m evidence. The motion for a new trial is therefore granted, unless the plaintiff shall remit so much of Ibis verdict as was recovered for wages as a seaman.

Justices Bay, Nott and Johnson, concurred,  