Gregory v. Burrall
New York Court of Chancery
In the beginning of the month of October, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-five, the respective mercantile firms of Keeler and Mather and Keeler and Rogers were transacting business, the former at Albany and the latter in the citv of New-York. There was one general partnership of the persons composing both firms.
Read the full summary
In the beginning of the month of October, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-five, the respective mercantile firms of Keeler and Mather and Keeler and Rogers were transacting business, the former at Albany and the latter in the citv of New-York. There was one general partnership of the persons composing both firms. On the third day of October, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-five, Keeler and Mather, being pressed for money, drew a bill upon Keeler and Rogers at sixty days for fifteen hundred dollars in favor of the complainants David E. Gregory and Peter Bain, who were merchants and…
1Opinion of the Court
The Vice-Chancellor:
The first question is, upon the effect to be given to the judgment either as a plea in bar or as evidence between the parties ? For, if the judgment be conclusive, there is an end of the cause.
*420The rule in relation to the conclusiveness of a judgment, rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon the same matter, which is again brought in controversy between the same parties and litigated for the same purpose, is as binding in this court as it is in a court of law : Orcutt v. Orms, 3 Paige’s C. R. 463. In order to bring a case within the rule, the second suit must be…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Greenup v. CrooksIndiana Supreme Court · 1874
- Steinbach v. . Relief Fire Ins. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1879