Newman v. Shields

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Newman v. Shields

152 A. 184, 107 N.J. Eq. 229, 6 Backes 229, 1930 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 36

DecidedNovember 18, 1930

StatusPublished

This text of 152 A. 184 (Newman v. Shields) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Court of Chancery primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Newman v. Shields, 152 A. 184, 107 N.J. Eq. 229, 6 Backes 229, 1930 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 36 (N.J. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

The bill is for an accounting of the profits of the dissolved co-partnership of Newman-Shields.

In a suit in the Orange district court of Shields v.Newman, the latter, by counter-claim, set up the same cause for action alleged by the bill, and judgment was rendered against him. Later, in a suit in the Essex circuit court by Shields against Newman and one Shallcross, individually and as co-partners, in which Shallcross was not served and the cause was prosecuted against Newman individually, he set up the same cause for action by counter-claim. Upon a reference the referee found for Shields and against Newman on his counter-claim. Upon a trial by jury, judgment was entered against Newman.

The complainant has had his day in court, not once but twice. He cannot be heard again. In partnership accounting, law and equity courts have concurrent jurisdiction. Pom. Eq. Jur. 1416,1420. While the action of account has fallen into disuse at law, and equity jurisdiction over partnership accounting is almost exclusive, yet the complainant *Page 230 having submitted his cause of action for an accounting to the law courts for trial and it having been there adjudged against him, he is barred from again suing in equity. The parties and the cause for action in this and the two law suits are identical and the issues are res adjudicata. Spingarn v. Spingarn, 8 N.J.Mis. R. 423; 150 Atl. Rep. 764.

Bill dismissed.

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

The bill is for an accounting of the profits of the dissolved co-partnership of Newman-Shields.

In a suit in the Orange district court of Shields v.Newman, the latter, by counter-claim, set up the same cause for action alleged by the bill, and judgment was rendered against him. Later, in a suit in the Essex circuit court by Shields against Newman and one Shallcross, individually and as co-partners, in which Shallcross was not served and the cause was prosecuted against Newman individually, he set up the same cause for action by counter-claim. Upon a reference the referee found for Shields and against Newman on his counter-claim. Upon a trial by jury, judgment was entered against Newman.

The complainant has had his day in court, not once but twice. He cannot be heard again. In partnership accounting, law and equity courts have concurrent jurisdiction. Pom. Eq. Jur. 1416,1420. While the action of account has fallen into disuse at law, and equity jurisdiction over partnership accounting is almost exclusive, yet the complainant *Page 230 having submitted his cause of action for an accounting to the law courts for trial and it having been there adjudged against him, he is barred from again suing in equity. The parties and the cause for action in this and the two law suits are identical and the issues are res adjudicata. Spingarn v. Spingarn, 8 N.J.Mis. R. 423; 150 Atl. Rep. 764.

Bill dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

152 A. 184, 107 N.J. Eq. 229, 6 Backes 229, 1930 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 36, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newman-v-shields-njch-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack