CHARLES B. DUFAU, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR
v.
JEAN HENRY COUPREY'S HEIRS, DEFENDANTS IN ERROR
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 jury found a verdict for the defendant on a plea that the plaintiff was not indebted to him, but the record did not show whether the court ever addressed the defendant's alternative plea of res adjudicata (that the matter had been previously decided). The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that since the jury verdict resolved the first issue in the defendant's favor, the second plea became immaterial and the Court could not infer it had been tried or that any error occurred regarding it.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the Court.
There were two pleas by the defendant: 1, That the defendant was not indebted to the plaintiff. 2. That the subject matter of the suit was res adjudicata. The former plea was triable by the jury; the latter by the court., There was a trial by the jury of the issue, and the jury found a verdict for' the defendant. Upon the plea of “res adjudicata” there does not appear to have been any replication or denial, so as to make any issue to the court. There is nothing on the record to show that the question of res adjudicata was even submitted to the jury upon the trial. Their verdict, for aught that appeared on the record, was simply confined to the first and proper issue, triable by the jury. This issue being found for the defendant, the other plea became immaterial to the defendant. The court then cannot infer that it Was ever tried. There is then no error apparent on the record, and the judgment is afiirmed with costs.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fed. Intermediate Credit Bank of Omaha v. L'Herisson (two cases), 33 F.2d 841 (8th Cir. 1929)…ver, that the judgment, though joint in form, was in its essential nature sev [*843] eral; so that an appeal by the Credit Bank of Omaha alone was properly taken. See 34 C. J. § 799, p. 505 ; 3 C. J. § 961, p. 1008; Cox v. United States, 6 Pet. 172, 8 L. Ed. 359; Winters v. United States, 207 U. S. 564, 28 S. Ct. 207, 52 L. Ed. 340; Lamon v. Speer Hardware Co., 198 F. 453 (C. C. A. 8) ; National Surety Co. v. Leflore County (C. C. A.) 262 F. 325, 18 A. L. R. 269. See also Hahn v. Sleepy Eye Milling Co., 21…
-
Frederick v. United States, 386 F.2d 481 (5th Cir. 1967)…to pay.18 These conclusions of the scope of § 2406 are consistent with its purpose of preventing the government from being surprised by claims it has not had time to consider administratively. Cox and Deck v. United States, 6 Pet. 172, 31 U.S. 172, 8 L.Ed. 359 (1832); United States [*490] v. Heard, 32 F.Supp. 39, 41 (W.D.Va., 1940). So long as the same transaction or occurrence is involved surprise is minimized. The counterclaim was improperly dismissed. The records, briefs and oral argument are contrad…
-
Donnelly Garment Co. v. Int'l Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, 99 F.2d 309 (8th Cir. 1938)…oppression or absurdity, Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457, 461, 12 S.Ct. 511, 36 L.Ed. 226; and that the law ought not to be construed so as to require of a party a mere idle ceremony, Cox v. United States, 6 Pet. 172, 202, 8 L.Ed. 359. It is our opinion that Section 108, 29 Ü.S.C., 29 U.S.C.A. § 108, does not disclose an intention on the part of Congress to deny to a complainant a right to injunctive relief against the unlawful acts of a defendant where the facts and circumstanc…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence