Lawrence v. Houghton
New York Supreme Court
ON certiorari from a justice’s court. The return stated, that a suit was commenced on the 17Úi of October, 1806, and Houghton declared against Lawrence, for a balance of 20 dollars due on the sale of a lot, and one dollar and 56 cents for milk sold and delivered, and 3 dollars for house-rent; that the defendant denied the charges, except for the milk, and • A exhibited a set-off of 25 dollars and 12 cents. '** The plaintiff demanded a trial by jury.
Read the full summary
ON certiorari from a justice’s court. The return stated, that a suit was commenced on the 17Úi of October, 1806, and Houghton declared against Lawrence, for a balance of 20 dollars due on the sale of a lot, and one dollar and 56 cents for milk sold and delivered, and 3 dollars for house-rent; that the defendant denied the charges, except for the milk, and • A exhibited a set-off of 25 dollars and 12 cents. '** The plaintiff demanded a trial by jury. At the trial before the jury, the plaintiff produced articles of agreement, by which he promised to get a durable lease of his shop and lot, and…
1Per curiam
The former trial and judgment were a bar to this suit, if duly proved. The statement of the justice was not competent evidence of itself, but could be made so by consent of the parties; and that consent was to be inferred from the omission of the plaintiff to object to it when it was offered and given. Qui tacet consentiré videtur. The decision of the justice, that it was no bar, because he had excluded the matter as a set-off in the former suit, will not alter the conclusion of law. Every former recovery is equally a bar, so long as it stands in force, and is not reversed. It is to be…
2Cited by5 opinions
- State v. HopeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1889
- Hatch v. BentonNew York Supreme Court · 1849
- People Ex Rel. Niebuhr v. . McAdooNew York Court of Appeals · 1906
- Hadduck v. WilmarthSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1830
- Cogswell v. HoguetAppellate Court of Illinois · 1891