Case ID: nys_30/html/1129-10.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "EHRLICH, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

BARBER et al. v. RUTHERFORD et al.
    (City Court of New York, General Term.
    October 22, 1894.)
    Action by Marshall Barber and Warren C=. Barber against Charles H. Rutherford and William E. Gray. Frorame Bros., for appellants. Cardoza & Nathan, for respondents.
   EHRLICH, C. J.

The action is upon an undertaking executed by the defendants. The answer denies all the allegations of the complaint, except that the? defendants had executed a certain undertaking of the general description and character referred to in the complaint. The proceedings in the action in which the undertaking was given were all denied, so that: the affirmative of the issue was upon the plaintiffs, and it was properly accorded to them. The defense relied upon a counterclaim; but it appeared by the documentary evidence offered by the plaintiffs that the same matters pleaded had been adjudicated' adversely to the defendants’ assignors in a litigation ter* which they were privies, and they were therefore precluded thereby. Under these circumstances, the trial judge properly directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs; and, as there are no errors requiring a new trial, the judgment must be affirmed, with-costs.