Bamka v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railroad
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for St. Louis county, Moer, J., granting plaintiffs motion for a new trial. Upon the trial defendant objected to the introduction of evidence on the ground that the matters involved in, and the subject matter of, the action had been determined and adjudicated in the former action referred to in the opinion. The court sustained the objection and dismissed the action.
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for St. Louis county, Moer, J., granting plaintiffs motion for a new trial. Upon the trial defendant objected to the introduction of evidence on the ground that the matters involved in, and the subject matter of, the action had been determined and adjudicated in the former action referred to in the opinion. The court sustained the objection and dismissed the action. The determination in the former action of matters essential to both causes of action constitutes a bar. Herman, Estoppel, § 96; Outram v. Morewood, 3 East, 346; Keokuk R. Co.…
1Opinion of the CourtCollins, J.
Plaintiff brought this action to recover for loss of services, for expenses incurred by him in procuring medical attendance, and for compensation for the care and trouble sustained by him, growing out of certain injuries to his minor son, alleged to have been the result of the carelessness and negligence of defendant’s servants when operating one of its trains. Prior to its commencement he had brought suit against defendant, under the provisions of G. S. 1894, § 5164, to recover for the injuries sustained by the minor; the case had been brought to trial; a verdict rendered for defendant, on…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- McNamara v. LoganSupreme Court of Alabama · 1893
- Gardner v. KelloggSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1877
- Wilton v. Middlesex RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1878
- Karr v. ParksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
- Furlong v. BantaNew York Supreme Court · 1894
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Youngblood v. TaylorSupreme Court of Florida · 1956
- Lee v. ArrowoodSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1974
- Hartford National Bank & Trust Co. v. Malcolm-SmithSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1942
- Hardin v. HardinCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1927
- In Re Estate of BushSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1974
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.