Bingham v. Wilkins
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
In admiralty. Libel [by Delucena L. Bing-ham against Job W. Wilkins, late owner and master of the schooner Hero] for wages, with a capias against the master. The libel-lant commenced suit against the respondent, on the 21st May, 1836, before an alderman of the city of Philadelphia, for the same cause of action. The warrant was returned, and the parties appeared, on the 11th August.
Read the full summary
In admiralty. Libel [by Delucena L. Bing-ham against Job W. Wilkins, late owner and master of the schooner Hero] for wages, with a capias against the master. The libel-lant commenced suit against the respondent, on the 21st May, 1836, before an alderman of the city of Philadelphia, for the same cause of action. The warrant was returned, and the parties appeared, on the 11th August. After a partial hearing, the suit was adjourned till the 27th August, but was immediately discontinued by the plaintiff, who, on the same day, after the discontinuance, filed his libel, and issued a capias against…
1Opinion of the Court
HOPKINSON, District Judge.
As to the claim being satisfied, or the debt discharged, by the discontinuance, there is no such law. A discharge from a ca. sa. on a judgment, is a legal satisfaction; but not from mesne process, or by discontinuance of the suit If the debt were satisfied, it might be ground of final decree in favor of libellant, but not of quashing the suit, even if he could show a receipt or release.
The rule that no one shall be twice vexed for the same claim, applies only to the bail; and does not afford ground to quash the proceedings. On such a hearing, the court will take care…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Brooklyn Heights R. v. PloxinCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1923
- Ploxin v. Brooklyn Heights R.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1919