
    Erwin’s Heirs and Assigns v. Bissell & Al.
    A plea which states that a final settlement had taken place of all accounts and transactions oetween the parties at a certain period, is an admission which precludes the party making this plea, from claiming any balance apparently due before that period.
    
    The judgment forms the authority of the thing adjudged .upon all matters and demands set up in the pleadings. — á L. 88; See 6 jST, S. 6SS.
    Appeal from the court of the fourth district for the parish of Iberville, the judge of the district presiding.
    This is an action to compel the defendants to compensate a judgment which the latter had obtained against Erwin’s heirs, with one which it is alleged Erwin’s heirs recovered against one Abram Wright, the first husband of Mrs. Bissell.
    The plaintiffs allege they are the heirs and assignees of Joseph andLavinia Erwin, deceased, and that their ancestor, Joseph Erwin, in 1824, obtained a judgment against Abram Wright, on which a balance remains due and unpaid of $3344 86, with interest. That Ellen Davis, widow of A. Wright, deceased, and now wife of Frederick Bissell, and Ann E. Wright, Widow Lindsay, her daughter, are the sole heirs of Wright , and have accepted his succession and are liable for his debts. That Bissell and wife have obtained a judgment on account of Wright’s estate against them, which they pray may offset and he compensated by the one they hold against Wright’s heirs and estate. [93] They also obtained an injunction to stay Bissell and wife’s judgment until this could he tried.
    The defendants pleaded a general denial; averred that they were in no way liable for the plaintiffs’ demand; that said judgment set up as the basis of their demand had long since been paid, satisfied and extinguished; and particnlarly in the suit between these respondents and the heirs of Joseph Erwin, in which the judgment now sought to be extinguished by compensation was obtained ; in which case all matters of indebtedness between said parties, that is to say, between the widow and heirs of A. Wright and the heirs of Joseph Erwin, which have been settled and compensated in said suit as shown by the pleadings therein. They further plead prescription, liquidation, settlement, payment and res judicata, and pray that this suit be dismissed.
    The injunction suit of the plaintiffs was cumulated and tried with this one. The defendants prayed for the dissolution of the injunction with damages.
    The records and judgments of the former suits between the parties were produced in evidence. The defendants relied on their plea of res judicata, that the demand now set up by the plaintiffs had been already settled, adjudicated upon and passed in rent judicatam in the suit, in which they recovered the judgment now sought to be compensated. It appears that in the suit of Bissell and wife against Erwin’s heirs, in which the judgment now enjoined was recovered, the defendants there, that is, Erwin’s heirs, pleaded in defence, “ that the plaintiffs in their capacities (as heirs of A Wright) are justly indebted to them (the defendants as heirs of Joseph Erwin, deceased) in another and further sum of $14,000, for this, to wit: that the said Joseph Erwin and the said Abram Wright having long and intricate accounts existing between them for several years, did on or about the year 1828, come to a complete settlement of all existing accounts and transactions, by which it appeared said [94] A. Wright fell indebted to the said Joseph Erwin in the said sum, and which the said Wright then and there acknowledged to be justly due the said Erwin,” &c. This plea was put in by Erwin’s heirs among others in the suit in which Bissell and wife obtained their judgment of $4000, now contested, and all the issues made up were passed upon by the jury and a verdict given for a balance of $4000 due the heirs of Wright by Erwin’s heirs on their warranty after settling all their accounts.
    The judgment set up by Erwin’s heirs in compensation, was obtained against Wright as far back as 1824.
    The district judge, however, was of opinion the old judgment had never been extinguished or paid, rendered judgment perpetuating the injunction and compensating the two judgments. The defendants appealed.
    
      Edwards & Winchester, for the plaintiffs,
    contended that the moment Bis-sell and wife obtained their judgment against Erwin’s heirs for $4000, it was compensated by operation of law by the judgment the latter had obtained against A. Wright in his lifetime, and for which his widow and heir had become liable and bound to pay by accepting his succession. The two demands were of equal dignity, and compensation was the immediate effect and consequence as soon as the last judgment was rendered.
    
      Labauve, for the defendants,
    insisted on the reversal of the judgment and dissolution of the injunction with damages. He relied- on the plea of res judicata; that by the plea or answer to the Bissell suit, all demands whatever of Erwin’s heirs against Bissell and wife were put in and at issue and passed on by the jury.
   Bullard, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

The heirs of Erwin commenced an action against the heirs of Wright to revive and make executory against them a judgment alleged to have been [95] recovered in 1824 by Erwin against Wright, the ancestors of the respective parties. Pending that suit execution issued on a judgment recovered by the defendants, now known as Bissell and wife, against the heirs of Erwin for $4000 in an action of warranty. See 15 La. Rep. —. Thereupon the plaintiffs obtained an injunction on the allegation that the two judgments, being between the same parties, were both extinguished by compensation. The two suits were cumulated and tried together, and the injunction having been made perpetual, the defendants appealed.

The defence principally relied on, in the court below as well as here, is, that in the case of Bissell and wife v. The heirs of Erwin in warranty, the latter had averred in their plea to the action, that a final settlement had taken place between Erwin and Wright in 1828 of all their money transactions, which resulted in a balance due the former of $14,000, which was claimed in reconvention.

On recurring to the record in the case of Bissell and wife v. The heirs of Erwin, we find the following plea or exceptions: “ And the defendants would further allege and avow that the plaintiffs, in their capacities above mentioned, are justly indebted to the defendants, as heirs, &c., of the late Joseph Erwin in another and further sum of $14,000, in this, to wit: that that the said Joseph Erwin and the said Abram Wright having long and intricate accounts existing between them for several years, did on or about the 25th day of November, 1828, come to a complete and final settlement of all their previously existing accounts and ti'amactions, by which it appeared that the said Abram Wright fell indebted to the said Joseph Erwin in the said sum, and which the said Wright then and there acknowledged to be justly due to the said Erwin.” They conclude by praying judgment against the heirs of Wright for the said sum of $14,000, as well as for other sums.

The court below treated this merely as a plea of res judicata and did [96] not consider it as sustained by the exhibition of the record in the case of Bissell and wife v. The heirs of Erwin. We are of opinion, however, that whether the plea of res judicata ought or ought not to have been sustained, and wh ether the judgment in the case of Bissell and wife v. The heirs of Erwin adjudicated finally upon all accounts between the parties or not, that the plea in which it is averred that a final settlement had taken place in 1828, was an admission which precludes the heirs of Erwin from claiming a balance apparently due on the judgment of 1824. The terms of the plea are general and embrace all accounts and transactions between the parties down to the period of the settlement. The balance due on the judgment of 1824, must therefore have been merged in the balance of $14,000, found due upon settlement.

But it appears to us that the demand in reconvention formed a part of the issue submitted to the jury, and the verdict being for $4000 in favor of Bis-sell and wife, negatived that demand. Admitting that it might have been assigned as error that the jury took no notice of the reconvention, yet no objection was made to the form of the verdict on the appeal, and in our opinion the judgment forms the authority of the thing adjudged, upon all the matters and demands set up in the pleadings.

The judgment of the district court is therefore reversed, and ours is that the injunction he dissolved, and that the defendants recover of the plaintiffs ten per cent, damages, and costs in both courts.  