Dean & Chamberlain v. Allen
8 Johns. 390
Opinion
This action was for a tort, and not on any contract expressed or implied. Deceit was the gist of the action, and it could not have been joined with a count in assumpsit. (1 Johns. Rep. 503.) The former judgment was no bar, because this cause of action could not have been set off in the former suit, and the judgment below must be reversed.
Judgment reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Dean & Chamberlain v. Allen, 8 Johns. 390 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1811).
8 Johns. 390 (Dean & Chamberlain v. Allen) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Sieckman v. Allen
3 E.D. Smith 561 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1854)
City Council of Charleston v. Vestry of St. Philip's Church
16 S.C. Eq. 139 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1841)