RENNER & BUSSARD
v.
MARSHALL
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A defendant cannot plead abatement based on a subsequent suit filed in another state court for the same cause of action, and the Supreme Court affirmed that the circuit court correctly overruled such a plea and entered a peremptory judgment for the plaintiff without requiring a writ of inquiry to assess damages.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Story, J., delivered the opinion of the court. The first question in this case is, whether the commencement of another suit for the same cause of action in the court of another state, since the last continuance, can be pleaded in abatement of the original suit. It is very clear that it cannot. A subsequent suit may be abated by an allegation of the pendency of a -prior suit; but the converse of the proposition is, in personal actions, never true. The decision of the circuit court of the district of Columbia overruling the plea was therefore correct.a The next question is, whether the judgment rendered bn the overruling of the plea ought to have been peremptory, or an award oí respondeos ouster. This point is completely settled by authority. If matter in abatement be pleaded puis darrein continuance, the judgment, if against the defendant, is peremptory as well on demurrer as on trial.b The last question is, whether judgment could be entered up for the plaintiff for the amount of his damages by the court, without a writ of inquiry. This also is-completely settled by authority' in all eases whether the action is brought for a sum certain, or which may be made certain by computation.c Judgment affirmed with costs. a The exception rei judicatie applies only to final or definitive sentences in another state, or in a foreign court, upon the merits of .the case; and the rule has even been applied to the pendency of a cause in an inferior court in the same state. 9 Johns. Rep.
221. Bowe v. Joy, and the authorities there cited. Serf queers, if it were alleged that the inferior, court had jurisdiction? Fitzg., 314. But whether the suit be pending in a foreign or a domestic court, a prior suit cannot be abated by the allegation of the pendency of a suit subsequently brought. b See 1 Chilly on Plead. 636. c See 2 Williams’ Saunders, 107. Holdip v. Otway, note 2. 5 T. R.
87. Maunsell v. Lord Masareene, 8 T. R.
326. Butler v. Street. 8 T. R.
395. Nelson v. Sheridan. 8 T. R.
410. Byron v. Johnson, Dougl.
302. Theluson v. Fletcher. 1 H. Bl.
352. Rasbleigh v. Salmon. 1 H. Bl.
529. Andrews v. Blake. 1 H. Bl.
541. Longman v. Fenn. 3 Dall.
355. Brown v. Van Braam. 1 Dall.
185. Graham v. Bickham. 4 Dall.
149. Graham v. Bickham.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pope v. United States, 323 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1944)…judicial power for a court upon default, by taking evidence when necessary or by computation from facts of record, to fix the amount which the plaintiff is lawfully entitled to recover and to give judgment accordingly. Renner & Bussard. v. Marshall, 1 Wheat. 215; Aurora City v. West, 7 Wall. 82, 104; Clements v. Berry, supra; cf. Mayhew v. Thatcher, 6 Wheat. 129. In all these cases the court determines that the unchallenged facts shown of record establish a legally binding obligation; it adjudicates the pla…
-
Missouri v. United States, 231 U.S. 112 (U.S. 1913)
-
Boyle v. Zacharie, 6 Pet. 635 (U.S. 1832)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence