Horner v. . Dunnagan

41 N.C. 371

Opinion

Nash, J.

Interestreipublicceutfinissitlitium isamaxim, as well of Courts oí equity as of those of law. All the relief sought for by this bill was open to the plaintiff and could have been obtained by him in the former proceedings. It is his fault that he did not. His excuse for not having brought his claim for rent and waste before the master, when the account was taken, that “he understood those matters were to be settled by the parties themselves, by arbitration or some other mode,” is not supported by any evidence whatever, and the defendant expressly denies there was any such agreement. The plaintiff, in fact, does not aver it, but simply states, “he understood it” to be S'o.' He does not even say that the defendant in any man-M»«3"contributed to such belief. The decree in the first case is a final one, and, while it continues in force, puts an end to all litigation between the parties, upon the subject matter in dispute in that case.

Per Curiam.

Bill dismissed with costs. ’>