Holbrook v. Colburn
Court of Appeals of South Carolina
Before Wardlaw, Ch., at Charleston, June, 1853. Wardlaw, Ch. If the plaintiff were formally party or privy to the suit in this Court of Matthews vs. Colburn which resulted in a decree perpetually enjoining the judgment at law-in the case of Colburn vs. Matthews, he would be estopped from fresh clamor on the principle of res judicata ; and if having notice of the suit in this Court he forebore to interpose or give notice of any peculiar equity on his part, and acquiesced in…
Read the full summary
Before Wardlaw, Ch., at Charleston, June, 1853. Wardlaw, Ch. If the plaintiff were formally party or privy to the suit in this Court of Matthews vs. Colburn which resulted in a decree perpetually enjoining the judgment at law-in the case of Colburn vs. Matthews, he would be estopped from fresh clamor on the principle of res judicata ; and if having notice of the suit in this Court he forebore to interpose or give notice of any peculiar equity on his part, and acquiesced in the defence made by Colburn as his trustee or agent, although not formally party or privy, he may be in this Court within…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Wardlaw, Ch.
We concur in the reasoning of the Chancellor on the topics he has discussed, and in his conclusion. ■Usually where a decree can be safely rested upon particular grounds, it is advisable to avoid debate of other questions which may be more disputable; and ■ such was the approved course pursued in this circuit decree. It has been strongly urged in the argument in this Court, that the plaintiff, who is resident in a foreign jurisdiction, forbore to intervene as a party in Matthews vs. Colburn, and to present a defence on his part distinct from…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Petrie v. FeeterNew York Supreme Court · 1839
- Fenn v. BlanchardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1800