Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

14 Johns. 377

Grant v. Button

New York Supreme Court

Decided October 15, 1817

New York Supreme Court · decided 1817-10-15

<p>In an action to recover the ’£d®ah°f„rw°¡¡g {¡5c™theamount °Lo'vefy!immay ^0°r” ^ mdVa1™1?mMatte?whfch Rredra8ieaydemer action and rejected, cannot !>« made the suhject of a new suit-</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1817-10-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently October 1887

8 state decisions

2018171820183018401850186018701880decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1The plaintiff’s right to recover any thing upon the merits, in this case, independently of the question in relation to the former trial, is extremely doubtful; hut he is, at all events, barred by that trial. The same matter was there properly given in evidence, and the justice erred in not allowing a de-

¶2*380duction on that account, if sufficiently proved.(a.) It does not appear, with certainty, whether the former trial was by jury or not; but it is fairly to be intended from the justice’s evidence that it was not. The justice says, that the plaintiff on the trial before him attempted, by some of the same witnesses examined in this cause, to reduce the price of the defendant’s labour, but he considered the plaintiff below bound by a special contract, and he accordingly allowed the defendant below a dollar and a quarter per day, according to the contract. The evidence, it would seem, therefore, was heard by the justice. If it was inadmissible, it should have been rejected, otherwise the parties could-not know on what ground thq justice decided. If he erred in receiving or rejecting the evidence, the party aggrieved would have had a remedy; but as the case now stands, the matter must be deemed to have been once tried, and the judgment must be reversed.(b.)

¶3Judgment reversed.

¶4 Vide Beecker and Beecker v. Vrooman, 13 Johns. Rep. 302. Jones v. Scriven, 8 Johns. Rep. 453

¶5 Vide Jones v. Scriven, 8 Johns. Rep 453. White v. Ward & Aylesworth, 9 Johns Rep. 232 Canfield v. Monger & Adams, 12 Johns. Rep. 347.

/14/johns/377 · .json · Public domain