McQuaid v. Michou
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
1Opinion of the CourtAllen, J.
I. In a prior suit between the parties the plaintiff charged the defendant with negligence in his performance of the contract to effect a cure, for breach of which this action is brought, and the defendant prevailed therein. It is claimed for various reasons that this action was thereby barred. None of the reasons appear sufficient.
^It is argued that the promise to cure was an issue determined in the prior suit. While it may have been an issue, it was only a collateral one, not essential as an element of the cause of action. It was not matter to be pleaded (Chesley v. Dunklee, 77 N. H. 263),…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Jacksonville, Mayport, Pablo Railway & Navigation Co. v. HooperSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- Beebe v. JohnsonNew York Supreme Court · 1838
3Cited by13 opinions
- Smith v. CoteSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1986
- Bricker v. CraneSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1978
- Zostautas v. St. Anthony De Padua HospitalIllinois Supreme Court · 1961
- Noel v. ProudSupreme Court of Kansas · 1961
- Rogala v. SilvaAppellate Court of Illinois · 1973
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.