Brewster v. Wooster

26 N.Y.S. 912
The Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo·Decided December 29, 1893·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The authorities on which the respondent relies-in support of the motion to dismiss the appeal all rest upon the proposition that a party cannot do any act inconsistent with his-appeal, and yet claim the benefit of the appeal. The case before us does not faff within the reason of this rule. Appellant’s plea in another action of the recovery of the judgment in question is not. [913] used as a weapon, but as a shield. It is based upon the maxim that no man should be twice impleaded for the same cause of action. It is a plea in bar, and not in estoppel. As a plea in bar it is not inconsistent with the prosecution of the appeal. The motion to dismiss the appeal should be denied, with $10 costs.

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

Brewster v. Wooster, 26 N.Y.S. 912 (superctny 1893).

26 N.Y.S. 912 (Brewster v. Wooster) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

First Trust Co. v. Hammond
298 N.W. 144 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1941)
Abbey v. Altheimer
263 S.W. 471 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1924)
Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. Bagley
69 P. 189 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1902)