Judgments — Res judicata — Partnership — Date of dissolution — Subsequent purchases of property — Waiver of estoppel.
1. In a proceeding in equity, in which it appeared that plaintiff sought a declaration that defendants, A and his wife, B, held certain property as trustees, averring that the properties in question were purchased with money obtained by A from funds of a partnership between plaintiff and A, without accounting to the plaintiff for same; and that in a previous proceeding in equity in which plaintiff had requested a partnership accounting the court had found as a fact that the alleged partnership was dissolved as of a specified date (which was before the several dates on which the properties in question were purchased) it was Held that the doctrine of res judicata was applicable and that the bill in equity was properly dismissed. [520-3]
2. It was Held, against the contention of plaintiff, that even if the activity of defendant in continuing to use the partnership name for insurance and in operating under the certificate of authorization of the Public Utility Commission amounted to a waiver of the estoppel of res Judicata, plaintiff could not assert such waiver because he had participated in the activity by not taking the steps to prevent it. [522-3]
OPINION PER CURIAM, February 13, 1953:
The decree in the Court below is affirmed on the opinion of the Chancellor, Judge ALESSANDRONI. Costs on appellant.