Rosse v. Rust
New York Court of Chancery
THE bill, in this causé, which was filed the 19th of April, 1814, was substantially for the same matter for which a bill was filed on the 9th of June, 1810, by Ephraim Snow, •against Amaziah Rust, which cause was set down for a hearing on the bill and answer, the 10th of September, 1812, when no person appearing on the part of the plaintiff, the bill was dismissed with costs; and the decree of dismissal was enrolled.
Read the full summary
THE bill, in this causé, which was filed the 19th of April, 1814, was substantially for the same matter for which a bill was filed on the 9th of June, 1810, by Ephraim Snow, •against Amaziah Rust, which cause was set down for a hearing on the bill and answer, the 10th of September, 1812, when no person appearing on the part of the plaintiff, the bill was dismissed with costs; and the decree of dismissal was enrolled. The defendants now pleaded the former suit,, and decree therein, in bar.
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The present suit is for the same matter, in substance, as that contained in the pleadings in the former action, and the question is, whether the decree dismissing the bill in the former suit at the hearing, (the cause having been set down for hearing by the defendant, upon' leave previously had and obtained on a previous default of the plaintiff,) because no person appeared on the part of the? plaintiff, is a bar to the present suit.
The merits of. the former cause were never discussed, and no opinion of the Court has ever been expressed upon them. *301It is, therefore, not a case…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Badger v. BadgerU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1859
- Kelly v. Town of MilanUnited States Circuit Court · 1884
- Pelton v. D. & S. MottSupreme Court of Vermont · 1839
- Porter v. VaughnSupreme Court of Vermont · 1854
- Dunham v. CarsonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1892
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.