Ripley v. Benedict

New York Supreme Court

Ripley v. Benedict

4 Cow. 19

New York Supreme Court·Decided February 15, 1825·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Curia.

The first action was on the same instrument as the present, which also includes the same cause of action as the first. The addition of another cause of action does not so materially change the ground as to destroy the. identity of the two causes. They are still the same ; and it is no answer to the application, to say that the plaintiff goes here for the same cause and more. The proceedings must stay till the costs of the first action are paid.

Motion granted, with costs.

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

Curia.

The first action was on the same instrument as the present, which also includes the same cause of action as the first. The addition of another cause of action does not so materially change the ground as to destroy the. identity of the two causes. They are still the same ; and it is no answer to the application, to say that the plaintiff goes here for the same cause and more. The proceedings must stay till the costs of the first action are paid.

Motion granted, with costs.

Ripley v. Benedict, 4 Cow. 19 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1825).

Pincite

4 Cow. 19 (Ripley v. Benedict) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Nurad, Incorporated v. William E. Hooper & Sons Company James E. Hooper, Jr. Kenneth B. Mumaw All States Moving & Storage Raymond McMillan Lawrence L. Hooper Universal Laboratory Installations, Incorporated Monumental Millwork, Incorporated, Frank S. Nicoll, Jr. Shareholders of Monumental Enterprises, Incorporated Sudler Moving & Storage, Incorporated v. J. Langrall & Sons Zemco Corporation Chesapeake Envelope & Print Company Les Care Laminates, Third Party Nurad, Incorporated v. William E. Hooper & Sons Company, and James E. Hooper, Jr. Frank S. Nicoll, Jr. Sharholders of Monumental Enterprises, Incorporated Kenneth B. Mumaw All States Moving & Storage. Raymond McMillan Lawrence L. Hooper Universal Laboratory Installations, Incorporated Monumental Millwork, Incorporated Sudler Moving & Storage, Incorporated v. J. Langrall & Sons Zemco Corporation Chesapeake Envelope & Print Company Les Care Laminates, Third Party

966 F.2d 837 (Third Circuit, 1992)

Morgenstern v. Zink

6 Misc. 418 (Superior Court of Buffalo, 1894)

Buckles v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.

47 F. 424 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Missouri, 1891)

Opinion

Related