Larkins v. Lindsay
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 310, Jan. T., 1902, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., June T., 1899, No. 306, on verdict for defendant in case of John Larkins v. Daniel S. Lindsay. Assumpsit for breach of covenant. The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case. The court gave binding instructions for defendant. Verdict and judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appealed. Error assigned was in giving binding instructions for defendant.
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
A decree in equity is not like a judgment at law necessarily conclusive as to every matter which either was or might have been involved in the decision. Regard must be had to the reasons of the chancellor as well as to his decree, for, to take the most obvious illustration, the case may have been disposed of on grounds of adequate remedy at law, or other reasons not involving the merits. But where the merits, or any facts material to the final determination of the controversy, have been considered and passed on, the matter is as much res adjudicata as it would be by a judgment at…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Columbia National Bank v. DunnSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
- MacHen v. Budd Wheel Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
- Havir's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
- Carroll v. HannanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
- Porter v. NossenDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1973
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.