Case Mfg. Co v. Moore

• Decision Date: 07 May 1907
• Citation: 57 S.E. 213,144 N.C. 527
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: CASE MFG. CO. v. MOORE et al.

57 S.E. 213

144 N.C. 527

CASE MFG. CO.

v.MOORE et al.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 7, 1907.

Judgment—Res Judicata.

Where three purchase-money notes are given for the purchase price of machinery, and in an action on the second note defendants plead a counterclaim for defects in the machinery, and recover thereon, this is a bar to their setting up substantially the same counterclaim in an action on the third note.

Appeal from Superior Court, Caldwell County; Bryan, Judge.

Action by the Case Manufacturing Company against George E. Moore and others on a note given for purchase of machinery. Defendants counterclaimed for damages arising from the inferior character of the machinery, and the unskillful and unworkmanlike manner in which plaintiff's agents set it up in defendants' mill. From an adverse judgment, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

W. C. Newland and Lawrence Wakefield, for appellants.

T. M. Hufham, Jones & Whlsnant, and W. H. Bower, for appellee.

BROWN, J. The plaintiff sold certain machinery to defendants and contracted to properly install it in defendants' flourmill. Three notes were given for the unpaid purchase money. The machinery having been duly installed, the note first due was promptly paid. Defendants refused to pay the second note, and plaintiff brought suit on it. The defendants pleaded a counterclaim to the effect that the machinery was deficient, unsuitable, constructed and set up in an unskillful and unworkmanlike manner, and not according to contract, on account of which defendants demanded judgment for $1,000 damages. Upon such counterclaim defendants recovered $350, Which was set off against the note then sued on, and plaintiffs awarded judgment for the balance of $9.14 and costs of the action.

The plaintiff now sues to recover on the last of the three notes, and the defendants for answer plead a counterclaim on account of the inferior quality of the machinery and the unskillful and negligent manner in which it was installed. The court below held that the defendants were estopped to again set up substantially the same counterclaim in the present action, upon which they had recovered in the former, in which ruling we fully concur. An examination of the answers in the two actions discloses that the counterclaim, or the ground for damage alleged by way of defense, is one and the same in both and based upon the same transaction. The matter is therefore res adjudicata, and the defendants cannot be permitted to recover twice upon the...