 But when.- the second action between the same parties is upon a different claim or demand, the judgment in the prior action operates as an estoppel only as to those matters in issue, or points controverted, upon the determination of which the finding...  The Southwestern Reporter - 106 페이지1915전체보기 - 도서 정보
 | United States. Court of Claims - 1939 - 836 페이지
...estops, not only as to every ground of recovery or defense actually presented in the action, but also as to every ground which might have been presented,...when applied to the demand or claim in controversy. * * * But, where the second action between the same parties is upon a different claim or demand, the... | |
 | United States. Patent Office - 1964 - 972 페이지
...which might have been offered for that purpose." Cromwell v. County of Sao, 94 US 351, 352. * • * But where the second action between the same parties is upon a different cause or demand, the principle of res judicata is applied much more narrowly. In this situation, the... | |
 | Wyoming. Supreme Court - 1922 - 604 페이지
...necessary to decide, nor was it decided, who succeeded to the title of Mike Elmore, deceased. "When the second action between the same parties is upon a different claim or demand, or cause of action, it is well settled that the judgment in the first suit operates as an estoppel... | |
 | 1919 - 2038 페이지
...the familiar one, elaborately discussed in Cromwell v. Sac County, 94 US 351, 24 L. Ed. 195, that, where the second action between the same parties is upon a different demand, the judgment in the former suit operates as an estoppel only as to those matters which were... | |
 | New York (State). Court of Appeals, George Franklin Comstock, Henry Rogers Selden, Francis Kernan, Erasmus Peshine Smith, Joel Tiffany, Edward Jordan Dimock, Samuel Hand, Hiram Edward Sickels, Louis J. Rezzemini, Edmund Hamilton Smith, Edwin Augustus Bedell, Alvah S. Newcomb, James Newton Fiero - 1884 - 798 페이지
...action and the material facts are stated in the opinion. Eiihu Root & Willard Bartlett for appellant. A demand or claim having passed into judgment cannot...litigation between the parties in proceedings at law. (Oromwett v. County of Sac, 94 US 353 ; The Packet Co. v. SicMs, 5 Wall. 592.) Henry A. Root for respondent.... | |
 | West Virginia. Supreme Court of Appeals, Edgar P. Rucker - 1885 - 940 페이지
...which might have been used for that purpose; such demand or claim having passed into judgment can not again be brought into litigation between the parties in proceedings at law upon any ground whatever. Wandling v. Straw, 692. 2. These principles apply with equal force to the judgments of the Inferior... | |
 | 1922 - 956 페이지
...or defeat the claim or demand, but as to any other admissible matter which might have been offered. But where the second action between the same parties is upon a different claim, the demand in the prior action operates as an estoppel only as to matters in issue or points controverted,... | |
 | 1901 - 860 페이지
...estops not only as to every ground of recovery or defense actually presented in the action, but also as to every ground which might have been presented,...applied to the demand or claim in controversy. Such a demand or claim, having passed into judgment, cannot again be brought into litigation between the... | |
| |
