Rice v. King

7 Johns. 20
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 15, 1810
StatusPublished
Cited by26 cases

This text of 7 Johns. 20 (Rice v. King) 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
Rice v. King, 7 Johns. 20 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1810).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plea of a former verdict and judgment in the same cause was put in too late, had it been objected to,; but no objection was made, and the plaintiff below admitted the fact of the former suit, but denied it to be a good bar, because that was an action of tres- ■ pass, and this was an action upon the case. The justice charged the jury to the same effect. This charge, and the verdict in pursuance of it, were erroneous. What is meant by the same cause of action, is where the same evidence will support both the actions, although they happen to be grounded on different writs. The plaintiff below brought an action of trespass for the taking of these staves, and failed ; and now he waives the tort, and brings assumpsit upon the same proof. It was.-, shown that the former verdict was upon the merits of the claim, and upon the ground that the plaintiff had no - right to the staves. If he had no right of action against the defendant for the taking of those staves, because he had no right of property, he had no right, without further and different proof, to the value of those staves. The case of Kitchen v. Campbell, (3 Wils. 304.) is to this purpose; and the court of C. B. there held, that as the plaintiffs had formerly brought trover for the goods in question, and had a verdict against them on the merits, it was a bar to an action of assumpsit for the same cause of action.

Judgment of reversal.

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

Related

Pimentel v. Castro
52 P.R. 263 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1937)
Pérez Pimentel v. Castro
52 P.R. Dec. 274 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1937)
Encarnación v. Maeso
48 P.R. 468 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1935)
Gulling v. Washoe County Bank
29 Nev. 257 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1907)
Hammer v. Downing
64 P. 651 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1901)
Campbell v. Kauffman Milling Co.
42 Fla. 328 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1900)
Price v. . Holman
32 N.E. 124 (New York Court of Appeals, 1892)
Bowen v. . Mandeville
95 N.Y. 237 (New York Court of Appeals, 1884)
Marsh v. Masterson
18 Jones & S. 187 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1884)
Beckwith v. Thompson
18 W. Va. 103 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1881)
Coville & Garber v. Gilman
13 W. Va. 316 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1878)
Walker v. Fuller
29 Ark. 448 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1874)
Norden v. Jones
33 Wis. 600 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1873)
Cordier v. Cordier
26 How. Pr. 187 (New York Supreme Court, 1863)
Finley v. Hanbest
30 Pa. 190 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1858)
Whitaker v. Bramson
29 F. Cas. 947 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1855)
Schroeppel v. . Corning
6 N.Y. 107 (New York Court of Appeals, 1851)
Coffin v. Knott
2 Greene 582 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1850)
Beach v. . Crain
2 N.Y. 86 (New York Court of Appeals, 1848)
McKnight v. Dunlop
4 Barb. 36 (New York Supreme Court, 1848)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
7 Johns. 20, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rice-v-king-nysupct-1810.