Roth v. Gotthold

1 Citing case

  1. O'Hagan v. Kracke

    165 Misc. 4 (N.Y. Misc. 1937)   Cited 9 times

    Concededly, there were only questions of law before the court upon that motion and these were passed upon and disposed of by the denial of plaintiff's application for judgment on the pleadings. ( Van Der Stegen v. Neus, Hesslein Co., Inc., 243 A.D. 122; Endurance Holding Corp. v. Kramer Surgical Stores, Inc., 227 id. 582, and cases therein cited; Roth v. Gotthold, 90 Misc. 363.) I am also of the opinion that the judgment of October 27, 1927, granted in the action brought by the trustees in Supreme Court, Kings county, for an accounting, in which action plaintiff was made a party defendant and the several questions here presented as to the validity of the instrument of November 23, 1921, were before the court and were determined and adjudicated, is res adjudicata as between the parties hereto.