Hinton v. Bogart

5 Citing cases

  1. Moore v. Young

    139 S.E.2d 704 (N.C. 1965)   Cited 5 times

    "(T)he words `without prejudice' have a distinct meaning in law, and . . . they import into any transaction that the parties have agreed that as between themselves the receipt of money by one and its payment by the other shall not, because of the fact of the receipt or payment, have any legal effect upon the rights of the parties in the premises, and that such rights will be as open to settlement by legal controversy as if the money had not been turned over by the one to the other (citations omitted)." Hinton v. Bogart, 79 Misc. 418, 420, 140 N.Y.S. 111, 113 (App. T.). After having agreed that the compromise of his claim should be without prejudice to defendant's counterclaim, and after having taken a voluntary nonsuit as to his cause of action, plaintiff was not entitled to reinstate his complaint for the purpose of going forward with the evidence or of showing that he had first instituted the suit.

  2. Media-69th Street Trust Company's Trust Mortgage Pool Case

    344 Pa. 223 (Pa. 1942)   Cited 8 times
    Stating the "phrase 'without prejudice' ordinarily imports the contemplation of further proceedings and when it appears in an order or decree it shows that the judicial act done is not intended to be res judicata of the merits . . . ."

    The phrase "without prejudice" ordinarily imports the contemplation of further proceedings and when it appears in an order or decree it shows that the judicial act done is not intended to be res judicata of the merits of the controversy. "The words 'without prejudice' import into any transaction that the parties have agreed that as between themselves the receipt of money by one and its payment by the other shall not of themselves have any legal effect on the rights of the parties, but they shall be open to settlement by legal controversy as if the money had not been paid. Hinton v. Bogart, 140 N.Y. S. 111, 113, 79 Misc. 418." Appellee pertinently points out that the rights of the Rhodes Estate rise no higher than those of the Receiver and since the Receiver voluntarily stated his account without reference to any claim for reimbursement or recoupment against any of the estates holding participating certificates by reason of an alleged advancement of interest, both the Receiver and the Rhodes Estate are estopped from making claim to the fund at this time, as the participating certificate holders are preferred claimants to the fund under the rule of law laid down in Klein v. Dunn, supra.

  3. Marshall v. Cozart

    95 S.E.2d 729 (Ga. Ct. App. 1956)   Cited 3 times
    In Marshall v. Cozart, 94 Ga. App. 614 (95 S.E.2d 729) (1956), the only decision cited by the majority, the testator devised her home to her mother "for and during her natural life, with remainder" to her son.

    acts, stipulations, and other written instruments, imports that the parties have agreed that, as between themselves, the doing or failure to do the agreed act, or the receipt of the money by one and the enjoyment by the other, shall not, because of the doing or not of the act, or the facts of the receipt and payment, have any legal effect upon the rights of the parties in the premises; that such rights will be as open to settlement by negotiation or legal controversy as if the agreement had not been made or the money had not been turned over by the one to the other." In 45 Words Phrases 439, 440, the following definition is given: "The words 'without prejudice' import into any transaction that the parties have agreed that as between themselves the receipt of money by one and its payment by the other shall not of themselves have any legal effect on the rights of the parties, but they shall be open to settlement by legal controversy as if the money had not been paid. Hinton v. Bogart, 140 N. Y. S. 111, 113, 70 Misc. 418."

  4. People v. Colon

    2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 51035 (N.Y. Crim. Ct. 2023)   Cited 1 times

    See, People v. Pondexter, 76 Misc.3d 349, 353 (Crim. Ct. NY Co. 2022); People v. Middleton, 79 Misc. 418, 425 (Crim. Ct. NY Co. 2023); People v. Nelson, 75 Misc.3d 1203 (A) (Crim. Ct. NY 2022); People v. Rodriguez, 73 Misc.3d 411, 419, (Crim. Ct. Queens Co. 2021). Therefore, this Court finds that the People's SCOC dated February 6, 2023, was filed in good faith, with due diligence.

  5. Castano v. Gabriel

    60 Misc. 2d 218 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 1969)   Cited 2 times

    When a dispute arises between parties and they desire to preserve their respective rights and positions, then such reservation is readily accomplished by the performance of the acts between such parties, where such is done "without prejudice" to the existing controversy. Thus no determinative legal effect is completed; it is reserved for future determination. ( Svenska Taendsticks Fabrik Aktiebolaget v. Bankers Trust Co., 268 N.Y. 73, 81; Hinton v. Bogart, 79 Misc. 418.) Hence the legend "under protest" is without legal significance since it does not reserve the right of contesting the validity of the claim thereafter, whereas the expression "without prejudice" signifies that all rights are reserved until a binding decision is rendered on the dispute.