Haynes v. Ordway

58 N.H. 167
Supreme Court of New Hampshire·Decided August 5, 1877·Published

Opinion

Allen, J.

The former judgment in the suit for malpractice was on the merits, and is conclusive as to all matters then in issue between these parties. King v. Chase, 15 N. H. 9. The question of malpractice having been thus determined in favor of this plaintiff, it is not open to the defendant to try the same question again in this suit, and he is estopped from setting up in defence what was determined against him by the former judgment. Edwards v. Stewart, 15 Barb. 67; Stevens v. Miller, 13 Gray 283; Bigelow on Estoppels 45.

Judgment for the plaintiff.

Stanley and Foster, JJ., did not sit.

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

Haynes v. Ordway, 58 N.H. 167 (N.H. 1877).

58 N.H. 167 (Haynes v. Ordway) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Edwards v. Stewart
15 Barb. 67 (New York Supreme Court, 1853)