Robinson v. Crowninshield
Superior Court of New Hampshire
ASSUMPSIT for the keeping of a number of sheep belonging to the defendant. One count was upon a special agreement as to the manner and price of feeding and superintending them ; the other was general for the hay, grain, and labor furnished. The cause was tried here at the last term, upon the general issue. The plaintiffs proved the special agreement declared on.
Read the full summary
ASSUMPSIT for the keeping of a number of sheep belonging to the defendant. One count was upon a special agreement as to the manner and price of feeding and superintending them ; the other was general for the hay, grain, and labor furnished. The cause was tried here at the last term, upon the general issue. The plaintiffs proved the special agreement declared on. It was in writing, dated November 14, 1815, and amounted in substance to an obligation by Crowninshield to pay the plaintiffs two dollars fifty cents per head a year for keeping one hundred full blooded Merino sheep, reckoning two…
1Opinion of the CourtWoodbuby, J.
delivered the opinion of the court.*
A former judgment between the same parties on the merits is undoubtedly a bar to any subsequent action between them, where the same point is in issue (1)
But if the gist of the actions be different, though the parties are the same, such judgment is not conclusive(2) .
Nor, when the actions are founded on the same cause or contract, but instituted to enforce distinct and independent provisions of it,.is the former judgment a bar. This results. from the reason before mentioned, that the gist of thé *78actjorjs js different: as much so as if grounded on different…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Plumb v. WhitingMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1808
3Cited by2 opinions
- Ellis v. Candia Trailers & Snow Equipment, Inc.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 2012
- Holden v. CurtisSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1819