case directly within rule in New York

1865This brings this case directly within the principle decided by this court in Wilson v. Robertson, 21 N. Y. 587 .

1865This brings this case directly within the principle decided by this court in Wilson v. Robertson (21 N. Y., 587).

1942Motor Express, Inc. ( 284 N. Y. 350, 352 ). “ When issues on the same subject-matter have once been settled by litigation between the same parties or their privies, before a court of competent jurisdiction, and the estoppel of the judgment is mutual, that is to say that the other party would be bound if the original decision had been to the contrary, then in the interest of reasonable finality of litigation, that decision should be conclusive.” The difficulties which the courts have experienced in applying the rule of res judicata in cases where former codefendants become adversaries (Duignan

1942Motor Express, Inc. ( 284 N. Y. 350, 352 ). “ When issues on the same subject-matter have once been settled by litigation between the same parties or their privies, before a court of competent jurisdiction, and the estoppel of the judgment is mutual, that is to say that the other party would be bound if the original decision had been to the contrary, then in the interest of reasonable finality of litigation, that decision should be conclusive.” The difficulties which the courts have experienced in applying the rule of res judicata in cases where former codefendants become adversaries (Duignan

1942Motor Express, Inc. ( 284 N. Y. 350, 352 ). “ When issues on the same subject-matter have once been settled by litigation between the same parties or their privies, before a court of competent jurisdiction, and the estoppel of the judgment is mutual, that is to say that the other party would be bound if the original decision had been to the contrary, then in the interest of reasonable finality of litigation, that decision should be conclusive.” The difficulties which the courts have experienced in applying the rule of res judicata in cases where former codefendants become adversaries (Duignan

1942Motor Express, Inc. ( 284 N. Y. 350, 352 ). “ When issues on the same subject-matter have once been settled by litigation between the same parties or their privies, before a court of competent jurisdiction, and the estoppel of the judgment is mutual, that is to say that the other party would be bound if the original decision had been to the contrary, then in the interest of reasonable finality of litigation, that decision should be conclusive.” The difficulties which the courts have experienced in applying the rule of res judicata in cases where former codefendants become adversaries (Duignan

1922The facts bring the case directly within the principle laid down in Matter ofLittler v. Fuller Co. ( 223 N. Y. 369 ). *416 There, a bricklayer was injured in an accident to an automobile truck which was furnished by his employer to carry him and other workmen from a railroad station to and from a building which they were constructing.

1906The circumstances bring the case directly within the principle of McInerney v. Delaware & Hudson Canal Co. ( 151 N. Y. 411 ), the head note of which is as follows: “ When á railroad company’s engine crew run tlieir engine upon a switch track on the premises of and owned by a private shipper of freight, at the. request of the shipper, to couple and move cars for him on his track, under his orders, they discharge their duty to all his regular employees by notifying the shipper of their readiness to proceed with his work, and while engaged therein they are in law his servants; and when the shippe

1904Such a situation brings the case directly within the rule announced in Pray v. Hegeman ( 98 N. Y. 351 ), as it was matter comprehended within the issue involved and could have been actually litigated therein and determined.

1899It brings the case directly within the rule laid down in Eadie v. Slimmon ( 26 N. Y. 9 ) and the many subsequent cases in which the principle enunciated in that case was reaffirmed.

1899It is clear that the right to repair and to rebuild existed, if that necessity arose, and that the party repairing or rebuilding had the right to enforce contribution from the adjacent owner — bringing the case directly within the principle laid down in O'Neill v. Van Tassel (supra).

1899Notably Wilson v. Lawrence ( 76 N. Y. 585 ) and Brummer v. Cohn (86 id. 11).

1884Where any part of the pleading is of such a character the verification may be properly omitted ( 3 How.

1878(Baldwin v. Brown, 16 N. Y., 359 ; see, also, Townsend v. Hayt, 51 id., 656.) In the case at bar, it is manifest that the courses and distances were entirely correct, and would include the precise quantity of land named in the description, and which we have a right to assume was intended to be conveyed, thus making out a case directly within the exception last stated.

1876This proof brings the case directly within the principle of Moore v. Cross ( 19 N. Y. 227 ), in which the payee and indorsee was allowed to recover against a subsequent indorser, upon proof of facts somewhat similar.