Noonan v. Bradley/Dissent Clifford

Court Documents
Case Syllabus
Opinion of the Court
Dissenting Opinion
Clifford

United States Supreme Court

76 U.S. 394

Noonan  v.  Bradley


Mr. Justice CLIFFORD, with whom concurred SWAYNE and DAVIS, JJ., dissenting.

I dissent from the opinion and judgment of the court in this case upon two grounds, which I will proceed to state without entering at all into the argument to support the respective propositions—

1. Because I think that the alleged disability to sue should have been pleaded in abatement and not in bar. Undoubtedly a different rule of pleading prevailed at common law, but there are three reported decisions of this court in which it is held that such a plea in a case like the present must be in abatement, and in view of our complicated system of jurisprudence I am not inclined to overrule those cases. They have been regarded as authorities for many years, and I am of the opinion that the rule which they establish is the better one as a rule of pleading in the Federal courts than the rule which prevailed at common law. [11]

2. I am also of the opinion that the decree in the former suit is conclusive as to the rights of the parties, and that it constitutes a complete answer to the defence in the present suit. [12]

NotesEdit

^11  Childress v. Emory, 8 Wheaton, 642; Kane v. Paul, 14 Peters, 33; Ventress v. Smith, 10 Id. 161.

^12  Noonan v. Lee, 2 Black, 499.

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).