Case Name: Emma Maasch, Respondent, v. August G. Grauer, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1908-01-10
Citations: 123 A.D. 669
Docket Number: 
Parties: Emma Maasch, Respondent, v. August G. Grauer, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 123
Pages: 669–672

Head Matter:
Emma Maasch, Respondent, v. August G. Grauer, Appellant.
Second Department,
January 10, 1908.
Judgment setting aside conveyance—res adjudicata — action for accounting barred.
A judgment setting aside a conveyance of lands as made in fraud of creditors • bars a subsequent action against the fraudulent grantee to compel him to account for the rents and profits received,
A cause of action cannot be split up and a separate action brought on each part.
A judgment is ves adjudicata as to all parts of the cause of action whether included in the complaint or omitted, and includes all incidental relief prayed for specifically or by general prayer or which might have been asked and given by the judgment.
Hooker, J., dissented, with opinion.
Appeal by the defendant, August G. Grauer, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 27th day of May, 1907, upon the decision of the court rendered after a trial at the Kings County Special Term.
Charles H. Street [Leander B. Faber with him on the brief], for the appellant.
Guy C. Frisbie [Carl J. Heyser with him on the brief], for the respondent.

Opinion:
Gaynor, J.:
The plaintiff having prevailed in her action as a judgment creditor to set aside a conveyance of real property by the judgment debtor to this defendant in fraud of creditors, brought this action.to make tlie defendant account for the rents and profits thereof received by him as fraudulent grantee. Judgment should have been given for the defendant. A cause of action, cannot be split up, and a separate action brought on each part. Only one action may be maintained for one cause of action in its entirety, and the judgment therein is res adgudioataot all parts of siich cause of action whether included in the complaint or omitted, including all incidental relief prayed for in the complaint specifically or by being embraced in the general prayer, or which might have been prayed for in the complaint and given by the judgment (Bendernagle v. Cocks, 19 Wend. 207; Bracken v. Atlantic Trust Co., 167 N. Y. 510; Hahl v. Sugo, 169 id. 109; Remsen v. N. Y., B. & M. B. R. Co., 111 App. Div. 413; Clemens v. Clemens, 37 N. Y. 59; Bloomer v. Sturges, 58 id. 168; Jordan v. Van Epps, 85 id. 427).
The right of the plaintiff to make, the defendant account for the rents'and profits could have been enforced in her action to set aside the fraudulent conveyance. ' It wa's- .of that cause of action, and included in the relief that could be obtained therein. If it were á separate cause of action it could have been omitted, for the' rule is not that separate causes of action must be united, if possible, in the same complaint, but only that a cause of action shall not be split up.
The judgment should be reversed and judgment given for the defendant.
Woodward, Jehks and Kick, JJ., concurred; Hooker,. J.,. read for reversal and the granting of a new trial.