Fowler v. Hait

10 Johns. 111
New York Supreme Court·Decided January 15, 1813·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defendant having omitted to plead, or give notice of the former trial and judgment, was precluded from giving evidence of it, at the trial. It would produce surprise on the part of the plaintiff and injustice, if the defendant were allowed to set up, at the trial, special matter in bar, of which no notice had been previously given to the plaintiff The judgment musíbe affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Footnotes

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

Fowler v. Hait, 10 Johns. 111 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1813).

10 Johns. 111 (Fowler v. Hait) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wythe v. Salem
30 F. Cas. 770 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Oregon, 1876)
Heatherly v. Hadley
2 Or. 269 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1868)
Perkins v. Walker
19 Vt. 144 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1847)
Young v. Rummell
2 Hill & Den. 478 (New York Supreme Court, 1842)
Coles v. Carter
6 Cow. 691 (New York Supreme Court, 1827)