Columbia Law Review Volume 12

Columbia Law Review Volume 12

By (author) 

List price: US$12.26

Currently unavailable

Add to wishlist

AbeBooks may have this title (opens in new window).

Try AbeBooks

Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1912 edition. Excerpt: ...Wagner v. Wagner (1886) 36 Minn. 239, 241, and as res adjudicate, Johnson v. Johnson (1894) 57 Minn. 100, would bar any subsequent suit on the same facts. Fera v. Fera (1867) 98 Mass. 155; Thurston v. Thurston (1868) 99 Mass. 39. Although evidence introduced in the former suit would be clearly admissible to explain the nature of subsequent acts, the plaintiff in the principal case failed to state additional facts sufiicient to constitute a cause of action. Doe v. Doe (N. Y. 1889) 52 Hun 405. Moreover it is well settled that although several actions may be brought on a given state of facts, only one satisfaction will be given. Barth v. Loeffelholtz (1901) 108 Wis. 562; Agnew's Appeal (Pa. 1883) 3 Walk. 320. The plaintifi in the principal case would, therefore, seem entitled to no further relief after having accepted the alimony under the prior decree, instead of appealing therefrom. 2 Bishop, Mar. Div. & Sep., 1587. E'Qurrr--Bn.L TO SET ASIDE FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE--RE'lEW or Pai: vroL's Dscasn.---The plaintiff filed a bill to set aside a fraudulent conveyance and to apply the property in satisfaction of a decree rendered against the defendant prior to the conveyance. The defendant's answer attacked the merits of the prior suit. Held, two judges dissenting, the merits of the prior decree could not be examined except by a bill to review. Huliberg et al. v. Anderson et al. (Ill. 1911) 97 N. E. 216. When a decree itself furnishes no means of satisfaction, and the aid of equity is required to remedy this defect, the weight of authority permits the defendant to question the merits of, the original suit. Hamilton v. I-Ioughlon (1820) 2 Bligh 169; Gay v. Parpart (1882) 106 U. S. 679; contra, Rogers v. Rogers (Ky. 1854) 15 B....show more

Product details

  • Paperback | 366 pages
  • 189 x 246 x 19mm | 653g
  • Rarebooksclub.com
  • United States
  • English
  • black & white illustrations
  • 1236829395
  • 9781236829399