Felter v. Mulliner
New York Supreme Court
The return to certiorari in this, cause stated, that Mulliner in the court below, declared against Felter, for that his horse had killed the plaintiff’s mare, through the negligence of the defendant s servant. The defendant pleaded a former judgmént in his favour, in the same cause of action, before another justice.
Read the full summary
The return to certiorari in this, cause stated, that Mulliner in the court below, declared against Felter, for that his horse had killed the plaintiff’s mare, through the negligence of the defendant s servant. The defendant pleaded a former judgmént in his favour, in the same cause of action, before another justice. On the trial, ° # the evidence of the former judgment was, that the jury , „ , , . , returned no cause oj action, and that no judgment was rendered thereon, and the plea was overruled. The jury brought in a verdict of 25 dollars damages, and 6 cents costs, and the justice gave…
1Per curiam
The verdict in the former cause, was equivalent to a verdict for the defendant. The intention of the jury was manifest and beyond doubt. They found the issue against the plaintiff, and though the verdict was faulty in point of form, the justice ought to.have entered it according to the substantial finding. We are to overlook matters of form, and to regard proceedings before justices of the peace according to the merits. Being a verdict for the defendant, it was a bar to a farther prosecution by the plaintiff below for the same cause. Nemo debet bis reocari pro eadem causa. The omission by the…
2Cited by25 opinions
- Capital Traction Co. v. HofSupreme Court of the United States · 1899
- Shapiro v. McCarthyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1932
- Hume v. SchintzTexas Supreme Court · 1896
- Lynch v. KellyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1871
- Corthell v. MeadSupreme Court of Colorado · 1894
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.