Neibert v. Reed

Superior Court of Delaware

Neibert v. Reed

118 A. 515, 32 Del. 28, 2 W.W. Harr. 28, 1922 Del. LEXIS 26

CourtSuperior Court of Delaware

DecidedOctober 12, 1922

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 118 A. 515 (Neibert v. Reed) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Neibert v. Reed, 118 A. 515, 32 Del. 28, 2 W.W. Harr. 28, 1922 Del. LEXIS 26 (Del. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Harrington, J.,

delivering the opinion of the Court:

The question is whether evidence of a prior judgment for the defendant for the same cause of action is admissible under the plea of non assumpsit, or whether a special plea is necessary.

In assumpsit almost any fact which shows that the plaintiff had no cause of action when the suit was brought may be given in evidence under the general issue. Reading’s Heirs v. State, 1 Harr. 190; Klair & Hollinsworth v. P. W. & B. R. R. Co., 2 Boyce 274, 292.

It, therefore, naturally follows that evidence of a prior judgment in the same cause of action was properly considered by the referees under the plea of non assumpsit. Chitty’s Pleading, vol.1, p. 513; volume 3, p. 929 (note); Hollis v. Morris, 2 Harr. 128; Vooght v. Wrench, 2 Barn. & Ald. 663; Stafford v. Clarke, 2 Bing. 377; Gardner v. Buckbee, 3 Cow. (N. Y.) 120, 15 Am. Dec. 256; Wood v. Jackson, 8 Wend. (N. Y.) 9, 22 Am. Dec. 603; Church v. Leavenworth, 4 Day (Conn.) 274.

Whether a special plea is necessary in order for a former judgment to operate by way of estoppel, though discussed in most of the cases cited above, was not necessary to the decision ■ of this case, and, therefore, was neither argued before nor passed upon by the Court.

For the reasons above given, the exceptions are dismissed.

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

Harrington, J.,

delivering the opinion of the Court:

The question is whether evidence of a prior judgment for the defendant for the same cause of action is admissible under the plea of non assumpsit, or whether a special plea is necessary.

In assumpsit almost any fact which shows that the plaintiff had no cause of action when the suit was brought may be given in evidence under the general issue. Reading’s Heirs v. State, 1 Harr. 190; Klair & Hollinsworth v. P. W. & B. R. R. Co., 2 Boyce 274, 292.

It, therefore, naturally follows that evidence of a prior judgment in the same cause of action was properly considered by the referees under the plea of non assumpsit. Chitty’s Pleading, vol.1, p. 513; volume 3, p. 929 (note); Hollis v. Morris, 2 Harr. 128; Vooght v. Wrench, 2 Barn. & Ald. 663; Stafford v. Clarke, 2 Bing. 377; Gardner v. Buckbee, 3 Cow. (N. Y.) 120, 15 Am. Dec. 256; Wood v. Jackson, 8 Wend. (N. Y.) 9, 22 Am. Dec. 603; Church v. Leavenworth, 4 Day (Conn.) 274.

Whether a special plea is necessary in order for a former judgment to operate by way of estoppel, though discussed in most of the cases cited above, was not necessary to the decision ■ of this case, and, therefore, was neither argued before nor passed upon by the Court.

For the reasons above given, the exceptions are dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 A. 515, 32 Del. 28, 2 W.W. Harr. 28, 1922 Del. LEXIS 26, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/neibert-v-reed-delsuperct-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack