Gutfreund v. Standard Life & Accident Ins.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Gutfreund v. Standard Life & Accident Ins.

98 N.Y.S. 699

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedApril 24, 1906

StatusPublished

This text of 98 N.Y.S. 699 (Gutfreund v. Standard Life & Accident Ins.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gutfreund v. Standard Life & Accident Ins., 98 N.Y.S. 699 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

SCOTT, P. J.

I do not think that the judgment in the action of Basserman v. Gutfreund was res adjudicata upon the question of this plaintiff’s copartnership with his brothers. Certainly that judgment can have no more binding force between Sigmund Gutfreund and the present defendant than it would have between Sigmund Gutfreund and his brothers, who were codefendants in the Basserman action, and it seems to be well settled that the Basserman judgment would not be res adjudicata between the defendants therein on the question of their liability, as between themselves, to pay the judgment. Neither-is it, in my opinion, res adjudicata as between the parties to this action on the question whether or not the horse belonged ’to plaintiff or to him and his brothers as partners. The plaintiff should therefore have been allowed to show that it was his horse that injured Basserman, and that he alone was liable for the judgment, which he alone paid.

The judgment should be reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

All concur.

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

SCOTT, P. J.

I do not think that the judgment in the action of Basserman v. Gutfreund was res adjudicata upon the question of this plaintiff’s copartnership with his brothers. Certainly that judgment can have no more binding force between Sigmund Gutfreund and the present defendant than it would have between Sigmund Gutfreund and his brothers, who were codefendants in the Basserman action, and it seems to be well settled that the Basserman judgment would not be res adjudicata between the defendants therein on the question of their liability, as between themselves, to pay the judgment. Neither-is it, in my opinion, res adjudicata as between the parties to this action on the question whether or not the horse belonged ’to plaintiff or to him and his brothers as partners. The plaintiff should therefore have been allowed to show that it was his horse that injured Basserman, and that he alone was liable for the judgment, which he alone paid.

The judgment should be reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 N.Y.S. 699, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gutfreund-v-standard-life-accident-ins-nyappterm-1906.