Guss v. United States

Court of Claims

Guss v. United States

60 Ct. Cl. 380, 1925 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 545, 1925 WL 2672

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedFebruary 16, 1925

DocketNo. D-328

StatusPublished

This text of 60 Ct. Cl. 380 (Guss v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Guss v. United States, 60 Ct. Cl. 380, 1925 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 545, 1925 WL 2672 (cc 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM BT TI-IE COTTRT

This is a motion to dismiss this suit upon the grounds of res adjudicata, it appearing that an identical suit between the same parties was dismissed on December 4, 1922, for want of prosecution, and that the court on October 8, 1923, overruled a motion of the plaintiff to reinstate the case upon the docket. Thereafter, on May 12, 1924, the plaintiff filed the pending suit, which states the same cause of action which is stated in the suit dismissed for want of prosecution.

The dismissal of a petition in this court for want of prosecution is in the nature of a nonsuit. Such a dismissal is not a judgment on the merits of the case. No right has been adjudicated or released in the first suit. The dismissal of the suit was occasioned by the failure of the plaintiff to prosecute his suit. The dismissal was hot on any ground which went to the merits of the action and is not therefore a bar to another suit.

The dismissal of the first suit did not determine the rights of the parties and is therefore not conclusive as an estoppel. Gardner v. Michigan, Central R. R. Co., 150 U. S. 349; Manhattan Life Ins. Co. v. Broughton, 109 U. S. 121; Oscanyan v. Arms Co., 103 U. S. 261; Jacobs v. Marks, 182 U. S. 583; Haldeman v. United States, 91 U. S. 584; Hughes v. United States, 4 Wall. 232; Homer v. Brown, 16 How. 355; Spicer v. United States, 5 C. Cls. 34; Book v. United States, 31 C. Cls. 272.

The motion of the defendant is overruled.

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

MEMORANDUM BT TI-IE COTTRT

This is a motion to dismiss this suit upon the grounds of res adjudicata, it appearing that an identical suit between the same parties was dismissed on December 4, 1922, for want of prosecution, and that the court on October 8, 1923, overruled a motion of the plaintiff to reinstate the case upon the docket. Thereafter, on May 12, 1924, the plaintiff filed the pending suit, which states the same cause of action which is stated in the suit dismissed for want of prosecution.

The dismissal of a petition in this court for want of prosecution is in the nature of a nonsuit. Such a dismissal is not a judgment on the merits of the case. No right has been adjudicated or released in the first suit. The dismissal of the suit was occasioned by the failure of the plaintiff to prosecute his suit. The dismissal was hot on any ground which went to the merits of the action and is not therefore a bar to another suit.

The dismissal of the first suit did not determine the rights of the parties and is therefore not conclusive as an estoppel. Gardner v. Michigan, Central R. R. Co., 150 U. S. 349; Manhattan Life Ins. Co. v. Broughton, 109 U. S. 121; Oscanyan v. Arms Co., 103 U. S. 261; Jacobs v. Marks, 182 U. S. 583; Haldeman v. United States, 91 U. S. 584; Hughes v. United States, 4 Wall. 232; Homer v. Brown, 16 How. 355; Spicer v. United States, 5 C. Cls. 34; Book v. United States, 31 C. Cls. 272.

The motion of the defendant is overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 Ct. Cl. 380, 1925 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 545, 1925 WL 2672, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guss-v-united-states-cc-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack