Meylin v. Woodford
Cases that cite this one
13 later published cases cite this decision.
- Debnam v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. (N.C. 1900)
- Boston, Etc., R.R. v. New York, Etc., R.R. (R.I. 1881)
- Boston & Providence Railroad v. New York & New England Railroad (R.I. 1881)
- State Treasurer v. P., W. B. R. R. Co. (Del. 1870)
- Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Commission v. Miller (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1956)
- Muller v. Boston & M. R. R. (District Court, D. New Hampshire 1935)
- Barbour v. Paige Hotel Co. (D.C. 1894)
- Street Railroad Co. v. Morrow (Tenn. 1889)
- Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. Cary (Ohio 1876)
- Rathbone Oil Tract Co. v. Rauch (W. Va. 1871)
- Rogers v. Sebastian County (Ark. 1860)
- Rubottom v. M'Clure (Ind. 1838)
- Arnold v. Mundy (N.J. 1821)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Assumpsit. Pleas, non-assumpsit and payment. Issue on the first plea, and a demurrer to the second. Upon a trial of the issue in law, final judgment was rendered for the plaintiff without any regard to the issue in fact.
Thisjudgmentmust.be reversed. The special plea being bad, the plaintiff had a right to have his demurrer sustained, and was entitled to the costs of the issue in law; yet his success on that issue did not of itself entitle him to a recovery on the merits. There was another issue to be tried, and the rendition of this final judgment, before that issue was disposed of, is erroneous
The judgment is reversed, and the proceedings subsequent to the joinder in demurrer are set aside, with costs* Cause remanded, &c.
Had the judgment on the demurrer been for the defendant below — the plea demurred to being an answer to the whole action — the plaintiff could Slot have had judgment on the issue in fact, though it had been found in his favour. In such a case, the only judgment that can be entered is, nil supiat per breve. 2 Arch, Pr. 11.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.