Case Name: Charles E. Orvis, Respondent, v. William H. Curtis, Appellant
Court: New York Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1895-02
Citations: 11 Misc. 418
Docket Number: 
Parties: Charles E. Orvis, Respondent, v. William H. Curtis, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 11
Pages: 418–419

Head Matter:
Charles E. Orvis, Respondent, v. William H. Curtis, Appellant.
(New York Common Pleas — General Term,
February, 1895.)
The question whether the judgment in a former action between the parties is res judicata, cannot be passed upon by the appellate court unless .such judgment or a copy thereof appears in the record.
.Appeal from judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
H. G. Hemes, for appellant.
Taylor & Parker, for respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This action was brought to recover six months' interest due on a certain promissory note made by ' the defendant to the order of the plaintiff, payable three years after date, with, interest thereon "to be paid semi-annually at the rate of five per cent." The interest sued for.in the present action was for the second six months. A suit having been previously brought in the court below by plaintiff against defendant for the recovery of the first six months' interest on the note, judgment therein was rendered in favor of the plaintiff. The issues in .this action are the same as in the former action. It is claimed that the judgment in the first action is res judicata, but wé are-unable to pass upon the question until the record of the judgment in that action is submitted for our inspection. The justice's, return in regard to the same states: "By Plaintiff's Counsel. I offer in evidence the record of the former action. By Defendant's Counsel. I except to the ruling holding the res adjudicata."
This does not clearly indicate whether such record was admitted, but at page 7 of the return we find that "it is stipulated that copies of the former testimony and exhibits may U submitted for originals," from which we infer that the record of such judgment was read in evidence.
The ré'Arn is barren of either the original record of the judgment or a copy thereof, and it should, therefore, be amended so as to include either of them, as it is claimed that the first judgment has since been reversed on the' ground that the justice had rendered his decision after the time limited by law for his doing so had expired, and, therefore, had no jurisdiction to render it Orvis v. Curtiss, 8 Misc. Rep. 681; 28 N. Y. Supp. 728.
If such decision war rendered as claimed, then the justice proceeded without jurisdiction, the judgment was unauthorized and void, and plaintiff's claim that said judgment is res judicata is unavailing. Dalton v. Loughlin, 4 Abb. N. C. 187, 192; Sire v. Merrick, 15 Daly, 346.
For these reasons a reargument should be ordered, return to be amended meanwhile.
Present: Bookstaver, Bischoff and Giegerich, J J.
Eeargument ordered ; return to be amended.