Skip to main content

Bartholomay Brewing Co. v. Haley

Unknown CourtApril 10, 1897Cited 3 times
Defendant WinHaley

Case Details

Judge(s)
Hardin
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
appeal from trial term dismissal; affirmed on appeal

Outcome

Plaintiff's appeal affirmed. The trial court correctly dismissed the complaint based on the pendency of a prior action between the same parties involving the same issues, as the defendant's prior action was a sufficient bar to the maintenance of this action.

Excerpt

<p>Appeal from trial term, Monroe county.</p> <p>Action by the Bartholomay Brewing Company against Austin Haley. On a trial by the court, a jury having been waived, the complaint was dismissed “on the ground that at the time of the commencement of this action there was pending another action in the supreme court of this state, brought by the defendant against the plaintiff, in which the same issues are involved as in this action.” From the judgment of dismissal, plaintifl appeals. Affirmed.</p> <p>The opinion of Mr. Justice Davy at trial term is as follows:</p> <p>“This action is brought to recover the balance of the purchase price of a quantity of lager beer sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant at various times during the years of 1895 and 1896. The only defense relied upon by the defendant is that at the time of the commencement of this' action there was pending another action in the supreme court of this state, brought by the defendant against the plaintiff, in which the same issues are involved as are involved in this action, and therefore that action is a bar to the maintenance of this. The only important question for consideration, therefore, is whether the pendency of the first action is a bar to this action. The rule of law is that the pendency of the former action does not abate a second, unless both actions be for the same cause. It was held in Stowell v. Ohamberlin, 60 N. Y: 272, that, to make a judgment in a former action a bar, the circumstances must be such that the plaintiff might have recovered in the first action for the same cause alleged in the second. Dawley v. Brown, 79 N. Y. 397; Marsh v. Masterton, 101 N. Y. 408. The complaint in the first suit sets forth two separate causes of action,—one for damages arising from a breach of warranty in the sale of the lager beer; the other to recover damages which the plaintiff in that action has sustained in his business on account of the sale and delivery of impure and worthless beer, which

Similar Rulings

Haley
Del.Jun 2020
Unresolvable
Haley
Md.Jul 2015
Mixed Result
Haley
Md.Jun 2015
Dismissed
Compagnie Financiere de CIC et de L'Union Europeenne v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc.
2nd CircuitNov 2000
Mixed Result
Ketchum
Unknown CourtFeb 1858

<p>Action of assumpsit to recover fare for travel on the plaintiffs’ road.</p> <p>The material facts as found by an auditor, to whom the case was referred, are as follows.</p> <p>From the 25th of August, 1856, to the 5th of February, 1857, Mr. Ketchum, the defendant, and his wife, child and servants, frequently passed over the plaintiffs’ road, between Westport and New York, without paying fare, claiming a right so to do by virtue of a certain resolution of the railroad company hereinafter set forth! For the whole amount of that fare the plaintiffs were entitled to recover in this suit, unless the defendant was exonerated by that resolution from all obligation to pay it. I</p> <p>The railroad company was incorporated in May, 1844, by an act of the General Assembly, which act, (4 Private Acts, 1020,) and the acts in addition thereto, were in evidence in the case. In June, 1844, an unsuccessful effort was made to procure subscriptions to the capital stock. On the 13th of August, 1844, the grantees of the charter adopted certain rules, providing, among other things, that each person who should subscribe for stock should have power, at pleasure, within a certain time, and upon certain conditions, to surrender his stock to the company and thereby relieve himself from liability upon his subscription. It was further provided that each subscriber should advance one dollar per share on one quarter of the number of shares for which he should subscribe. The object of this arrangement was, to obtain the necessary subscriptions, organize the company, and raise funds for preliminary surveys. Under this arrangement 20,400 shares of stock were subscribed for, under date of August 14th, 1844, by a few persons, funds were raised for the surveys, and an executive committee was appointed by the subscribers. The surveys were completed in February, 1845. From that time until the 19th of May, 1846, no material progress was made in organizing the company or procuring the road to be constru

Mixed Result

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.