Jenner v. Shope

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Jenner v. Shope

137 N.Y.S. 901

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 8, 1912

StatusPublished

This text of 137 N.Y.S. 901 (Jenner v. Shope) 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

Jenner v. Shope, 137 N.Y.S. 901 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

SEABURY, J.

The only question presented for determination in this case is whether the judgment recovered in Jenner v. Shope, 205 N. Y. 66, 98 N. E. 325, is res judicata in this'action. Whether it is to be so considered depends upon whether it was determined in that action that Jenner & Co. consisted only of William J. Jenner.

We think that this issue was adjudicated in the former action, and that the prevailing opinion in the Court of Appeals shows that this issue was necessarily involved. It is true that Judge Haight dissented in that case, on the ground that there was no evidence that William J. Jenner, in his lifetime, ever had a partner. The opinion of the majority of the court held that the evidence on this point, while weak, was sufficient. Thus Judge Cullen said:

“In answer to the suggestion that the evidence is insufficient to show that the deceased, Jenner, had no partner, it may be admitted that the evidence of the plaintiff’s attorney, sworn as a witness. on her behalf, is not strong; but it was sufficient to place the onus upon the plaintiff of showing that he had had a partner, if such were the case, for that was a fact presumptively within her knowledge.”

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. All concur.

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

SEABURY, J.

The only question presented for determination in this case is whether the judgment recovered in Jenner v. Shope, 205 N. Y. 66, 98 N. E. 325, is res judicata in this'action. Whether it is to be so considered depends upon whether it was determined in that action that Jenner & Co. consisted only of William J. Jenner.

We think that this issue was adjudicated in the former action, and that the prevailing opinion in the Court of Appeals shows that this issue was necessarily involved. It is true that Judge Haight dissented in that case, on the ground that there was no evidence that William J. Jenner, in his lifetime, ever had a partner. The opinion of the majority of the court held that the evidence on this point, while weak, was sufficient. Thus Judge Cullen said:

“In answer to the suggestion that the evidence is insufficient to show that the deceased, Jenner, had no partner, it may be admitted that the evidence of the plaintiff’s attorney, sworn as a witness. on her behalf, is not strong; but it was sufficient to place the onus upon the plaintiff of showing that he had had a partner, if such were the case, for that was a fact presumptively within her knowledge.”

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 N.Y.S. 901, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jenner-v-shope-nyappterm-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack