Wagner v. Jacoby
Headnotes
Summary
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.
Richardson, Judge,
delivered the opinion of the court.
This case is in all respects like the preceding case between the same parties, and for like reasons will be reversed and remanded.
The defendant has insisted in his argument that the account for which this action was brought is a part of the demand for the same job of work for which the other suit was *533 brought. That is a question on which we can not now pass; but if the fact be as alleged, the plaintiff can not recover, for a plaintiff having an entire demand growing out of a single transaction can not split it up into separate suits. (Smith v. Jones, 15 John. 229 ; Farrington v. Payne, id. 432; Willard v. Sperry, 16 John. 121 ; Phillips v. Benick, ib. 136.)
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded;
the other judges concurring.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 15 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.