Asbestos Products Co. v. Little

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Asbestos Products Co. v. Little

121 N.Y.S. 232

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedFebruary 18, 1910

StatusPublished

This text of 121 N.Y.S. 232 (Asbestos Products Co. v. Little) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Asbestos Products Co. v. Little, 121 N.Y.S. 232 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

SEABURY, J.

The plaintiff sues to recover for labor performed and materials furnished under a contract by the terms of which it was required to furnish certain flooring in the defendant’s house. The contract required that payment should be made upon the certificate of the architect approving the work.

As the case was dismissed at the close of the plaintiff’s case, the plaintiff is entitled to the most favorable inferences which can be drawn from the evidence. While the evidence, which the plaintiff [233]*233offered, cannot be said to be very satisfactory, it was, we think, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, sufficient to establish a prima facie case.

It is urged that the judgment which was offered in evidence was res ad j udicata. This judgment was for the same cause of action, between the same parties, as the present action, and dismissed the complaint. As that dismissal was not upon the merits, but was specifically stated to be “without prejudice,” it follows that it was not a bar to the present action.

The judgment is reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. All concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SEABURY, J.

The plaintiff sues to recover for labor performed and materials furnished under a contract by the terms of which it was required to furnish certain flooring in the defendant’s house. The contract required that payment should be made upon the certificate of the architect approving the work.

As the case was dismissed at the close of the plaintiff’s case, the plaintiff is entitled to the most favorable inferences which can be drawn from the evidence. While the evidence, which the plaintiff [233]*233offered, cannot be said to be very satisfactory, it was, we think, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, sufficient to establish a prima facie case.

It is urged that the judgment which was offered in evidence was res ad j udicata. This judgment was for the same cause of action, between the same parties, as the present action, and dismissed the complaint. As that dismissal was not upon the merits, but was specifically stated to be “without prejudice,” it follows that it was not a bar to the present action.

The judgment is reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 N.Y.S. 232, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/asbestos-products-co-v-little-nyappterm-1910.