TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Irwin v. Knox

Irwin against Knox

Irwin v. Knox, 10 Johns. 365 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1813)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New York Supreme Court · State Trial Courts
Decided
August 15, 1813
Citations
10 Johns. 365
Headnotes
in au actio;? tkc.ihe^jiaffi ^Ts%'orT'T' oas charges* proved That ¿hartes-S-t* hfut-dir- him in a formev Si’nlntoroT"that veno it, for want of sufficient proof. The jury in the second suit having given a verdict, for the whole of his demand, including this charge as well as others, the verdict, and judgment thereon* were held to be erroneous, the former trial and verdict being a bar to so nuseb. t)£ the pb.u^iiE'’; demand.
Summary
IN ERROR, on certiorari from a justice’s court. Irwin sued Knox, before the justice, and demanded damages for the defendant’s carelesly leaving salt in the public highway, by which his steer was killed; for breaking a plough; goods sold, &c. The defendant pleaded that all the charges in the plaintiff’s declaration, except the last, had been Submitted to a former jury, and demanded a nonsuit, which was refused by the justice. The defendant asked for an adjournment of the trial, but offered no security. There was a trial by jury. The defendant set up the former trial in bar. The plaintiff offered to show that fee jury on the former frial did not take the charge of the toss of the steer into their consideration, for want cI proof, and which was proved by one of the former jury; but it appeared that the former jury, after retiring to consider of their verdict, talked some time about the steer. After proof of the other parts of the plaintiff’s demand, the jury, in this case, found a verdict for the plaintiff) for 23 dollars, on which the justice gave judgment.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Per Curiam.

The former judgment, as far as it respected the demand for the steer, was a bal*, to the present suit for the same cause. It appears that the plaintiff had exhibited that demand to a jury in a former suit, and that jury took it into consideration, but gave no damages on account of that demand, for want of sufficient proof, '

As the demand was not abandoned by the plaintiff before or at the trial, but submitted to the jury, the former verdict is a bar. (Brockway v. Kinney, 2 Johns. Rep. 210.) As, then, improper cvidence was given to the jury in this suit, and as we cannot say bow much of the verdict embraced the demand for the steers, tjie judgment, in this view, must be considered erroneous.

Judgment reversed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1849–1850: 11867–1868: 118492026peak 1849 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Hatch v. Benton6 Barb. 28 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1849)
  2. Burwell v. Knight51 Barb. 267 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1868)

Most recent

  1. Burwell v. Knight51 Barb. 267 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1868)
  2. Hatch v. Benton6 Barb. 28 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1849)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list