Suydam v. Barber
The Superior Court of New York City
This cause was tried before Oakley, Chief-Justice, by the consent of parties, without a jury, on the 22d of February, 1856. When the testimony on both sides was closed, the Judge dismissed the complaint; the plaintiffs’ counsel excepted to the decision, and the Judge directed the exceptions to be beard in the first instance at the General Term, and judgment, in the mean time, to be suspended.
Read the full summary
This cause was tried before Oakley, Chief-Justice, by the consent of parties, without a jury, on the 22d of February, 1856. When the testimony on both sides was closed, the Judge dismissed the complaint; the plaintiffs’ counsel excepted to the decision, and the Judge directed the exceptions to be beard in the first instance at the General Term, and judgment, in the mean time, to be suspended. The following are the material facts, as they appear from the pleadings and the evidence on the trial. The action was brought upon two bills of exchange drawn by the defendants in their partnership name…
1Opinion of the CourtHoffman, J.
The question is, what is the effect of the judgment recovered in Missouri against Barber, one of the parties to the bill of exchange, upon the action here ?
If that judgment had been recovered in any competent tribunal of this state, or of any sister state, without such a particular statute as exists in Missouri being before us, the case would be a simple one. The authorities are decisive, that a judgment recovered upon a note, given by one copartner for the debt of the firm, or a judgment against one upon the original cause of action, is a bar in favor of the rest, to a subsequent suit.…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- McElmoyle Ex Rel. Bailey v. CohenSupreme Court of the United States · 1839
- Harrod v. BarrettoThe Superior Court of New York City · 1828
- Peters v. SanfordCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1845
- Harrod v. BarrettoThe Superior Court of New York City · 1829
- Wilson v. NilesThe Superior Court of New York City · 1829
3Cited by1 opinion
- In re BugbeeDistrict Court, N.D. New York · 1874