Linton v. Perry Knitting Co.
Cases that cite this one
27 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Wilmer L. Lyle v. Bangor & Aroostook Railroad Company (1st Cir. 1956)
- Weinberg v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (Md. 1984)
- Lyddy v. Ayling (Civil Court of the City of New York 1981)
- Becker v. Levitt (New York Supreme Court 1975)
- Slater v. American Mineral Spirits Co. (N.Y. 1974)
- Varma v. Allstate Ins. Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2026)
- Rosa v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
- Shahid v. Rosado (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
- McBride v. Mariah Boats, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
- 175 East 74th Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. (N.Y. 1980)
- Marine Midland Bank-Western v. Movable Homes, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1978)
- Proskin v. County Court of Albany County (N.Y. 1972)
- Lehman v. Arlen Operating Co. (New York Supreme Court 1967)
- Binkowski v. General Electric Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1966)
- Flynn v. Sinclair Oil Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1964)
- Data-Guide, Inc. v. American R. D. M. Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1963)
- Barrie v. Metropolitan Mirror & Glass Co. (New York Supreme Court 1961)
- People v. Schildhaus (N.Y. 1960)
- Mintzer v. Carl M. Loeb, Rhoades & Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1960)
- Erbe v. Lincoln Rochester Trust Co. (New York Supreme Court 1956)
- Schneider v. Aulisi (N.Y. 1954)
- De Traglia v. Natonal Bank of Hobart (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1953)
- Honor Brand Milling Co. v. Robinson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1951)
- Orlowski v. Metropolitan Life Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1949)
- Campbell v. Nassau County (New York Supreme Court 1948)
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
A motion made before trial by the defendant for dismissal of the complaint was denied at Special Term. The Appellate Division reversed and granted the motion. The complaint in an earlier action between- the same parties had been finally dismissed by a judgment that stood unreversed. In the view of the Appellate Division, that former judgment was a bar to the present action.
The grounds of the defendant’s attack upon the complaint in the earlier action were that (1) the cause of action was barred by the Statute of Limitations and (2) the Workmen’s Compensation Law of the State of New York provided the exclusive remedy of the plaintiff and the exclusive liability of the defendant. The objection that the Workmen’s Compensation Law was the sole remedy did not go to the jurisdiction of the court (as the plaintiff thinks) but went to the sufficiency of the earlier complaint as the statement of a cause of action (see Barrencotto v. Cocker Saw Co., 266 N. Y. 139). Hence no question in respect of the power of a court conclusively to determine its own jurisdiction was here presented.
The former judgment Avas a final determination that for either of two several legal reasons the allegations of the earlier complaint were without more quite ineffectual. Such a determination, whether right or wrong, is a bar to another action for the same cause, unless the defects or omissions adjudged to be present in the one action are corrected or supplied by the pleadings in the other (Joannes Brothers Co. v. Lamborn, 237 N. Y. 207). The complaint now before us is virtually a copy of its predecessor. Hence dismissal of the present action AAras validly directed, even if the judgment in the earlier action was not a judgment on the merits — a point that we do not decide. (Cf. Civ. Prac. Act, § 482; Richard v. American Union Bank, 253 N. Y. 166; Brick v. Cohn-Hall-Marx Co., 283 N. Y. 99, 104; 2 Freeman on Judgments [5th ed.], §§ 745, 746, 747; Restatement, Judgments, §§ 49, 50.)
The judgment should be affirmed, without costs.
Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Thaohee, Dye and Medaule, JJ., concur.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.