Hoffmeier v. Trost
| Decision Date | 04 December 1912 |
| Parties | HOFFMEIER et al. v. TROST. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Appeal from District Court of Jersey City.
Action by Conrad C. Hoffmeier and Eugene Hoffmeier, trading as C. C. Hoffmeier & Son. against Henry Trost. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal. Reversed.
Argued June term, 1912, before TRENCHARD, PARKER, and MINTURN, JJ.
George D. Hendrickson, of Jersey City, for appellants.
J. Emil Walschied, of Town of Union, for appellee.
This suit was brought in the district court to recover $475 claimed to be due the plaintiffs below under a stop notice given pursuant to section 3 of the mechanics' lien act (C. S. p. 3294), and was tried before the judge without a jury. On March 5, 1910, the defendant entered into a written contract with one Waldons for the construction of a building. The contract was filed in the county clerk's office. On March 18, 1910, Waldons entered into a subcontract with the plaintiffs for the plumbing and heating work. There became due the plaintiffs on such subcontract the sum of $1,375. After demand upon Waldons, and his refusal to pay, the plaintiffs on October 10, 1910, served a notice in writing on the defendant, as owner, of the amount due them, and for the retention thereof, under section 3 of the mechanics' lien act (C. S. p. 3294), from any moneys due to Waldons from the defendant. On December 17, 1910, the defendant paid the plaintiffs $900 on account of their claim, leaving a balance of $475 for which this suit is brought. The trial judge gave judgment for the defendant upon the ground that the matter was res adjudicata. We think that action erroneous.
It is true it appeared at the trial that the plaintiffs had previously brought suit in another district court based upon a contract alleged to have been made on July 29, 1910, to pay for the same labor and materials, and that judgment in that suit was rendered for the defendant.
But a matter is not res adjudicata unless there be identity of the thing sued for, of the cause of action, of the persons and parties, the quality of the persons for and against whom the claim is made, and the judgment in the former action be so in point as to control the issue in the pending one. Mershon v. Williams, 63 N. J. Law, 398, 44 Atl. 211.
A proper test in determining whether a prior judgment between the same parties concerning the same matters is a bar to a subsequent action is to ascertain whether...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Templeton v. Scudder
...105 N.J.L. 567, 568, 147 A. 455, 456 (E. & A.1929); Mershon v. Williams, 63 N.J.L. 398, 44 A. 211 (Sup.Ct.1899); Hoffmeier & Son v. Trost, 83 N.J.L. 358, 85 A. 221 (Sup.Ct.1912); Windolph v. Lippincott, 107 N.J.L. 468, 155 A. 23 (E. & Mindful of the foregoing judicial declaration, we bend o......
-
Constant v. Pacific Nat. Ins. Co.
...the persons for or against whom the claim is made. Mershon v. Williams, 63 N.J.L. 398, 44 A. 211 (Sup.Ct.1899); Hoffmeier & Sons v. Trost, 83 N.J.L. 358, 85 A. 221 (Sup.Ct.1912); Smith v. Fischer Baking Co., 105 N.J.L. 567, 147 A. 455 (E. & A. In the instant case there is a concurrence of t......
-
Phillips v. Phillips
...which is necessary to sustain the second action would have been sufficient to authorize a recovery in the first." Hoffmeier v. Trost, 83 N. J. Law, 358, 85 A. 221, 222; Sarson v. Maccia, 90 N. J. Eq. 433, 108 A. 109; Smith v. Fischer Baking Co., 105 N. J. Law, 567, 147 A. 455. It is plain t......
-
Reeves v. Jersey City, 51333
...and the only cases cited are such as bear on that point. Henninger v. Heald, 51 N.J.Eq. 74, 75, 26 A. 449; Hoffmeier v. Trost, 83 N.J.L. 358, 359, 85 A. 221 (Sup.Ct.1912); Water Commissioners v. Cramer, 61 N.J.L. 270, 39 A. 671 (E. & A.1897). It cannot be made too clear that in the present ......