Dexter v. Clark
New York Supreme Court
HIS action was to recover rent claimed to be due from the defendant to the plaintiff. The answer of the defendant consisted of, first, a general denial, and second, a plea of a former adjudication in the same action in the marine court of the city of New York. The cause was tried on the 27th of October, 1860, before Judge Allen and a jury.
Read the full summary
HIS action was to recover rent claimed to be due from the defendant to the plaintiff. The answer of the defendant consisted of, first, a general denial, and second, a plea of a former adjudication in the same action in the marine court of the city of New York. The cause was tried on the 27th of October, 1860, before Judge Allen and a jury. The court directed the jury that the former action in the marine court was a bar to the present one, and that as a matter of law they should find a verdict for the defendant, which was found accordingly. To this ruling, and to the exclusion of certain…
1Opinion of the CourtClerke, P. J.
In Coit v. Beard, (33 Barb. 357,) the supreme court in this district expressly decided that where a judge orders that a complaint shall be dismissed, either before or after evidence is given, on both sides, a judgment entered on such a decision is no bar to a second action for the same cause. In the case before us we think it appears, both by the record introduced at the trial and by the evidence of Judge Thompson, that his decision in the action in the marine court was a dismissal of the complaint, instead of a positive judgment for the defendants, after deliberation, on the merits.
*272[New York…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Coit v. BeardNew York Supreme Court · 1861
3Cited by4 opinions
- Lockett v. LindsayIdaho Supreme Court · 1870
- Shaw v. McCartyNew York Marine Court · 1880
- O'Donnell v. McIntyre, New York County Courts1885
- Gillilan v. SprattNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1871