Tibbetts v. Shapleigh
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit. Facts found by a referee. The plaintiffs are E. A. Tibbetts, Joshua S. Smith, and forty other residents of New Hampshire and Maine, partners, doing business at Somersworth, N. H., under the firm name of New England Protective Union, Division 175. About November 1, 1875, the defendant, who is a wholesale dealer in groceries doing business in Boston, commenced an action in Massachusetts to recover the balance which he claimed to be due him for goods sold to Division…
Read the full summary
Assumpsit. Facts found by a referee. The plaintiffs are E. A. Tibbetts, Joshua S. Smith, and forty other residents of New Hampshire and Maine, partners, doing business at Somersworth, N. H., under the firm name of New England Protective Union, Division 175. About November 1, 1875, the defendant, who is a wholesale dealer in groceries doing business in Boston, commenced an action in Massachusetts to recover the balance which he claimed to be due him for goods sold to Division 175, against one of the plaintiffs only, Joshua S. Smith, who was described as doing business under the name of New…
1Opinion of the CourtClark, J.
The question is; whether the Massachusetts judgment is a bar to the defendant’s set-off. To constitute a bar, it must operate either as an estoppel, or as a merger of the defendant’s claim in the judgment. A judgment is an estoppel upon parties and privies. The Massachusetts judgment Avas recovered in an action brought by the defendant against one of the plaintiffs, Joshua S. Smith, and the account upon which it was founded embraced substantially the items of the plaintiffs’ specification and the defendant’s set-off, in controversy in the present suit. None of the plaintiffs in the present…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Thurlough v. KendallSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1873