Feeney v. Woods

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Feeney v. Woods

253 A.D. 751, 300 N.Y.S. 1044, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5461

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 24, 1937

StatusPublished

This text of 253 A.D. 751 (Feeney v. Woods) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Feeney v. Woods, 253 A.D. 751, 300 N.Y.S. 1044, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5461 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

In 1936, in an action in which the present plaintiff and defendant were involved, the question of the sale of a certain barge was litigated and judgment rendered, which as to these parties was affirmed. (Woods v. Feeney, 249 App. Div. 628.) In this action the plaintiff sues to satisfy and discharge the judgment earlier obtained by the defendant, and for damages. The defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that the judgment in the former action was res judicata, and the motion was granted. An examination of the record and briefs on the former appeal indicates that the same issue was before the court; and the judgment was adverse to the present plaintiff. The facts there presented were material to the issue. Order and judgment unanimously affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Present — Hagarty, Davis, Adel, Taylor and Close, JJ.

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

In 1936, in an action in which the present plaintiff and defendant were involved, the question of the sale of a certain barge was litigated and judgment rendered, which as to these parties was affirmed. (Woods v. Feeney, 249 App. Div. 628.) In this action the plaintiff sues to satisfy and discharge the judgment earlier obtained by the defendant, and for damages. The defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that the judgment in the former action was res judicata, and the motion was granted. An examination of the record and briefs on the former appeal indicates that the same issue was before the court; and the judgment was adverse to the present plaintiff. The facts there presented were material to the issue. Order and judgment unanimously affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Present — Hagarty, Davis, Adel, Taylor and Close, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 A.D. 751, 300 N.Y.S. 1044, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5461, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/feeney-v-woods-nyappdiv-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack