Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantplealeasesustained
plaintiffdefendantverdictpleasustained

Related Cases

Simon v. KPMG LLP, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2006 WL 1541048, 97 A.F.T.R.2d 2006-2806
View Case »
Gertner v. U.S., 76 Ct.Cl. 643, 1933 WL 1781
View Case »
Fausek v. White, 965 F.2d 126, 35 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1225
View Case »
Christeson v. Roper, 574 U.S. 373, 135 S.Ct. 891, 190 L.Ed.2d 763, 83 USLW 4071, 15 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 582, 2015 Daily Journal D.A.R. 753, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 56
View Case »
Zeidwig v. Ward, 548 So.2d 209, 58 USLW 2161, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 392
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Haldeman v. U.S., 91 U.S. 584, 1 Otto 584, 1875 WL 17940, 23 L.Ed. 433

Facts

The case arose from an action of debt against the plaintiffs in error based on a bond conditioned for the performance of official duties by Haldeman, who served as the surveyor of customs and depositary of public moneys in Louisville, Kentucky. The defendants pleaded four pleas of judgment recovered for the same cause of action, which the lower court sustained a demurrer against. The case centers on whether the previous dismissals of the suit constituted a bar to the current action.

They pleaded four pleas of judgment recovered for the same cause of action, to each of which the court below sustained a demurrer.

Issue

The main legal issue is whether the previous judgments dismissing the suit serve as a bar to the United States' current action for recovery.

are the United States barred from a recovery by reason of any thing alleged in the pleas?

Rule

A plea of former recovery is a bar to any new action for the same cause, but there must be at least one decision on a right between the parties for it to terminate the controversy and serve as a bar.

It is a general rule, that a plea of former recovery, whether it be by confession, verdict, or demurrer, is a bar to any new action of the same or the like nature for the same cause.

Analysis

The court analyzed the pleas presented by the defendants and determined that the entries of judgment relied upon did not constitute a bar to the current action. The court noted that the language used in the previous judgments did not imply an agreement to terminate the controversy or merge the cause of action. The court emphasized that a mere nonsuit does not preclude subsequent suits and that the pleas failed to demonstrate that the matter in controversy had been settled or released.

But the plaintiffs in error deny that this is the effect of the order, and insist that the pleas present a case of retraxit, by which the United States for ever lost their action, because they voluntarily announced to the court, that, on the defendants' paying the costs, the suit would be dismissed.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding that the pleas of former recovery were insufficient to bar the United States from pursuing the current action.

Judgment affirmed.

Who won?

The United States prevailed in the case because the court found that the previous dismissals did not bar the current action, as there was no adjudication or release of the matter in controversy.

The United States prevailed in the case because the court found that the previous dismissals did not bar the current action.

You must be