Venetsanos v. Pappas
Court of Chancery of Delaware
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor :
The plea presents the question of whether the complainant is estopped by the decree in the former cause from asserting in this one the existence of the alleged partnership. The parties in the two causes are the same, and the only question is whether the existence of the partnership was in issue and determined in the prior cause within the meaning of the law of estoppel.
In Jones v. Charles Warner Co., 2 Boyce (25 Del.) 566, 83 A. 131, 134, it was said that “the rule is general that a former judgment on the merits, between the same parties, in a court of competent jurisdiction,…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Cromwell v. County of SacSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Pierce v. National Bank of CommerceCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1920
- Stannard v. . HubbellNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
- Miles v. CaldwellSupreme Court of the United States · 1865
- People Ex Rel. Reilly v. JohnsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1868
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Epstein v. Chatham Park, Inc.Superior Court of Delaware · 1959
- Bata v. HillCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1958
- Bata v. HillCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1958
- Downing v. Halle Bros. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1959
- Equity Corp. v. GrovesCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1947
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.