Moore v. Davis

New York Supreme Court

Moore v. Davis

11 Johns. 144

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedMay 15, 1814

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 11 Johns. 144 (Moore v. Davis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Moore v. Davis, 11 Johns. 144 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1814).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The former suit by the defendant, in which it was alleged that the plaintiff ought to have set off his demand was an action of trover. It was an action founded on a tort, and, according to the construction given to the act, (sess. 36. c. 53. s. 6. 1 N. R. L. 381.) in the cases of Allen v. Horton, (1 Johns. Rep. 23.) and Dean and Chamberlain v. Allen, (8 Johns. Rep. 390.) no set-off was admissible. The. justice was, therefore, correct in deciding that the former suit and trial was no bar to the present suit. The judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

The former suit by the defendant, in which it was alleged that the plaintiff ought to have set off his demand was an action of trover. It was an action founded on a tort, and, according to the construction given to the act, (sess. 36. c. 53. s. 6. 1 N. R. L. 381.) in the cases of Allen v. Horton, (1 Johns. Rep. 23.) and Dean and Chamberlain v. Allen, (8 Johns. Rep. 390.) no set-off was admissible. The. justice was, therefore, correct in deciding that the former suit and trial was no bar to the present suit. The judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 Johns. 144, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-davis-nysupct-1814.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack