History
  • No items yet
midpage
Haynes v. Ordway
58 N.H. 167
| N.H. | 1877
|
Check Treatment

The former judgment in the suit for malpractice was on the merits, and is conclusive as to all matters then in issue between these parties. King v. Chase, 15 N.H. 9. The question of malpractice having been thus determined in favor of this plaintiff, it is not open to the defendant to try the same question again in this suit, and he is estopped from setting up in defence what was determined against him by the former judgment. Edwards v. Stewart, 15 Barb. 67; Stevens v. Miller, 13 Gray 283; Bigelow on Estoppels 45.

Judgment for the plaintiff.

STANLEY and FOSTER, JJ., did not sit.

Case Details

Case Name: Haynes v. Ordway
Court Name: Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Date Published: Aug 5, 1877
Citation: 58 N.H. 167
Court Abbreviation: N.H.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.