Weigley v. Coffman

Citations

• 144 Pa. 489
• 22 A. 919
• 1891 Pa. LEXIS 634

Syllabus

<p>1. The final decree of a court of equity, dismissing a bill upon its merits, without a stipulation against prejudice, is a bar to another bill between the same parties for the same matter; but an order of dismissal will have this effect only when the court has determined that the plaintiff has no title to the relief sought by his bill.</p> <p>2. When a bill has been dismissed upon the ground that the court had no jurisdiction, showing that the merits were not heard, the dismissal is not a bar to a second bill. That such decision may have been erroneous and the court in fact had jurisdiction, is a matter of no consequence, as the determination of the preliminary question of jurisdiction does not . touch the merits.</p> <p>3. A bill in equity, demurred to for want of jurisdiction, was erroneously dismissed on that ground. To a second bill filed in a court of coordinate jurisdiction, the defendant pleaded res judicata, and the plaintiff replied that the former bill was dismissed solely upon the ground aforesaid: it was error to dismiss the second bill, upon a hearing on bill, plea and replication.</p> <p>4. Where one claims that a partnership existed between himself and a decedent, and that on a settlement of partnership accounts the decedent’s estate will be found indebted to him, the jurisdiction to determine the fact of partnership and state an account, is not in the Orphans’ Court but in the Court of Common Pleas, and a bill in equity will lie for that purpose: Miller’s Est., 136 Pa. 349.</p>