Heller v. Schwarz

5 Citing cases

  1. Riordan v. Ferguson

    147 F.2d 983 (2d Cir. 1945)   Cited 29 times

    It seems to me reasonably clear that New York is committed to applying the exception along broad lines to accord the defensive protection of estoppel of a former judgment to those whose liability must be founded, if at all, upon just the same issue as has been previously litigated. Cf., e.g., Romeo v. Western Express Co., Sup., 45 N.Y.S.2d 297; Heller v. Schwarz, 179 Misc. 911, 40 N.Y.S.2d 314; and Daly v. Terpening, 261 App. Div. 423, 26 N.Y.S.2d 160, affirmed 287 N.Y. 611, 39 N.E.2d 260. In general, see Patterson, J., in American Surety Co. of New York v. Singer Sewing Mach. Co., D.C.S.D.N.Y., 18 F. Supp. 750; Jones v. Zurich General Accident Liability Ins. Co., 2 Cir., 121 F.2d 761; Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. International Harvester Co., 3 Cir., 120 F.2d 82, 85, 139 A.L.R. 1, affirming on this point, D.C.N.J., 32 F. Supp. 304, 306, where Clark, J., quotes Jeremy Bentham that, if the mutuality rule itself "is a curious one, the reason given for it is still more so: — `Nobody can take benefit by a verdict, who had not been prejudiced by it, had it gone contrary': a maxim which one would suppose to have found its way from the gaming-table to the bench."

  2. Klocksieben v. Orris

    45 N.E.2d 504 (Ill. App. Ct. 1942)   Cited 2 times

    ( Brumsey v. Brumsey, 351 Ill. 414.) Grimmer v. Friederich, 164 Ill. 245; Heller v. Schwarz, 158 Ill. App. 326; and Henderson v. Cadwalader, 202 Ill. App. 351, relied upon by appellant, where there was no express gift over in case of the death of a remainderman, are not in point. The decree of the circuit court was correct and is affirmed.

  3. Roy-Nickles v. St. Mary's Hosp.

    2004 N.Y. Slip Op. 51817 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2004)

    Plaintiff's reliance upon Hellstern v. Hellstern, 279 NY 327 (1938) in asserting that a judgment against a personal representative in one action will not be binding against that person when she pursues her rights as an individual in a second action is misplaced. While a party appearing in one capacity is generally not bound by the doctrine of collateral estoppel in a subsequent action in which the party appears in a different capacity, Juan C. v. Cortines, 89 NY2d 659 (1997); Hellstern, 279 NY 327, supra, there are exceptions to the rule that the estoppel of a judgment must be mutual based upon reason and practical necessity, Heller v. Schwartz, 179 Misc. 911 (NY County 1943). In addition, the Court of Appeals in Hellstern adopted the rule stated by Judge Cardozo in Schuylkill Fuel Corp. v. Neiberg Realty Corp., 250 NY 304, 306, that "a judgement in one action is conclusive in a later one not only as to any matters actually litigated therein, but also as to any that might have been so litigated, when the two causes of action have such a measure of identity that a different judgment in the second would destroy or impair rights or interests established by the first . . . therefore, the factual situation brings the effectiveness of the former judgment as a bar to the bringing of the present action squarely within the rule above quoted."

  4. Matter of Zietz

    207 Misc. 22 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 1954)

    The same court also said (p. 93): "The plaintiff, therefore, having had its day in court and having failed upon that issue against a party who was a necessary link in its claim against the defendant, the judgment in that action should be conclusive upon that issue." (See, also, Silberfeld v. Swiss Bank Corp., 277 A.D. 876; Hochster v. City Bank Farmers Trust Co., 260 A.D. 712, affd. 288 N.Y. 588; Matter of Baker, 189 Misc. 159; Matter of Welch, 61 Misc. 5, and Heller v. Schwarz, 179 Misc. 911.) The movant has had her day in court.

  5. Matter of Zietz

    207 Misc. 22 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 1954)

    The same court also said (p. 93): "The plaintiff, therefore, having had its day in court and having failed upon that issue against a party who was a necessary link in its claim against the defendant, the judgment in that action should be conclusive upon that issue." (See, also, Silberfeld v. Swiss Bank Corp., 277 App. Div. 876; Hochster v. City Bank Farmers Trust Co., 260 App. Div. 712, affd. 288 N.Y. 588; Matter of Baker, 189 Misc. 159; Matter of Welch, 61 Misc. 5, and Heller v. Schwarz, 179 Misc. 911.) The movant has had her day in court.