Oglesby v. Attrill
| Decision Date | 05 June 1884 |
| Citation | 20 F. 570 |
| Parties | OGLESBY v. ATTRILL and others. CASSARD v. SAME. GILLESPIE v. SAME. HELLMAN v. SAME. CHISM v. SAME. FEE v. SAME. SEARS v. SAME. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Miller Peckham & Dixon, for complainants.
Roscoe Conkling and S. G. Wheeler, Jr., for defendant.
1. The questions raised by the demurrers to the amended and supplemental bills were considered and decided adversely to the defendants on a former occasion, when the demurrers to the original bills in several of these cases were heard by this court. As the present bills, except in the suits of Oglesby and Cassard, are the same as the former respecting all material matters, and as the additional facts now alleged in the bills of Oglesby and Cassard are only important for the purpose of anticipating and assailing matters of defense to the bills, it would not be profitable, and is deemed unnecessary, to reconsider what was then deliberately determined.
2. The pleas filed in the cases of Oglesby and of Cassard set up a good defense to the bills. One of the issues litigated in the former suit between the parties, which is pleaded as a bar, was whether complainants Oglesby and Cassard had been induced to part with their stock in the Crescent City Gas-light Company by the fraudulent acts of the defendant in inducing the directors of the company to concert and carry out a scheme of wanton and illegal assessments upon the stock, and of other oppressive conduct towards the complainants, to enable him to purchase the stock for a mere nominal price. It appears by the averments of the plea, and more fully by the record which is made a profert, as well as by the record and opinion in the case on writ of error to the supreme court, used by stipulation upon the hearing, that this issue was presented by the pleadings, was submitted specifically to the jury, and was decided adversely to the complainants. It is perfectly clear that the complainants sought to recover damages in that suit for the loss of their stock by reason of the frauds which are the gravamen of the present cause of action. The case made by the bill differs in matters of evidence from that tried and determined in the former action, and the complainants now seek a rescission of the transfer of the stock, and an accounting instead of the damages which they then claimed; but the cause of action is the same. The matter in issue or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- United States v. General Electric Co.
-
State ex Inf. McKittrick v. Mo. Pub. Serv. Corp., 36189.
...T. & T. Co. v. Navigazione Libera Triestina, S.A.: "The appellee, however, cites Russell v. Russell, 134 F. 840 (C.C.A. 3), and Oglesby v. Attrill, 20 F. 570 (WALLACE, J., in U.S. Circuit Court), as holding that an unconditional affirmance of a judgment by an appellate court, though rendere......
-
State on Inf. of McKittrick ex rel. City of Trenton v. Missouri Public Service Corp.
... ... & T. Co. v. Navigazione Libera Triestina, S. A.: ... "The appellee, however, cites Russell v ... Russell, 134 F. 840 (C. C. A. 3), and Oglesby v ... Attrill, 20 F. 570 (Wallace, J., in U.S. Circuit Court), ... as holding that an unconditional affirmance of a judgment by ... an appellate ... ...
-
St. John v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Board
...of this assumption was discussed by the court. "The appellee, however, cites Russell, v. Russell, 3 Cir., 134 F. 840, and Oglesby v. Attrill, 20 F. 570 (Wallace, J., in U. S. Circuit Court), as holding that an unconditional affirmance of a judgment by an appellate court, though rendered on ......