*1 NEW-YORK.
Dobson Pearce. a.
DOBSON PEARCE. a. Court December Term, Appeals ; Jtogmbms.—Effect of Decebe a Fbaüdulbnt Court
ahotheb State. It to an a upon judgment,—whether is a defence action good brought his original judgment creditor or was assignee,—that fraudulently obtained. a equity to make decree restraining judgment court of creditor upon bringing judgment, from suits that it was fraudulently obtained. dulyA record of such a authenticated rendered in a court of having jurisdiction is a another conclusivedefence against the prosecution of this of a suit the judgment in court referred in the decree. everywhere parties forum, Such every conclusive and in where issue; the same matters are drawn in not indeed as an injunction, but aas judg- ment of court of another State. verdict.
Appeal judgment upon in the nature This of an action of debt on a in the York rendered New Superior Court, April 17,1847, $612.93, favor of one James N. Olney, against Pearce, Abner T. and afterwards assigned Thomas Dobson, present plaintiff.
From answer, judgment sued upon entered up fraudulently by Olney. defendant was a resident Connecticut; being casually New city York in 1846, Olney procured be served copias upon him; that no assurances further should be taken commenced, him suit so induced not to and in appear; non-appearance, consequence was, without his him entered default. knowledge, up against About two afterwards, commenced years an action of debt on this Court of State of Connecticut. While this action was the defendant commenced pending, side of Chancery of Con- that the which he necticut, complaining judgment upon r-- REPORTS. ABBOTTS’ PRACTICE Pearce, a. *2 and him, was law,
sued was fraudulently procured against and that unfounded claim; praying Olney based upon the suit prosecuting perpetually might enjoined from 1850, it. the tenth of attorney having On September, in and suit, for the proofs chancery having- Olney that the facts Pearce it was decreed in, alleged been put the to the fraudulent entry relation judg- Olney against it was based, of the claim and the character ment, and was true; prosecuting Olney enjoined against the He Pearce, action then judgment. pending rendered action, and was withdrew accordingly on the day, the defendant. But Pearce, following to Dobson plaintiff; present original judgment assigned com- stated, with the facts above who acquainted although this action menced of the denied answer.
The allegations reply times tried. was three The cause June frial, Paine, 19, the first Mr. Justice before Upon after the plaintiff proved the defendant offered himself, of it to by Olney,. assignment of the record authenticated proceedings evidence duly and in Connecticut, suit including on the dismissal of the for a complaint, ground moved from, and barred prosecuting estopped Court of Connecticut. the adjudication Superior suit, by that the decree ‘of the court decided The did bar or not constitute such Connecticut estoppel, and defendant’s counsel motion; denied the excepted. then offered the same record defendant’s counsel The as matter of defence to the suit. The evidence, plaintiff’s the evidence the defend excluded; counsel objected, verdict direction was, ant’s counsel" excepting. for the to found defendant moved plaintiff.. which motion aside, verdict was directed be heard at this term. The court at term the motion general general granted and ordered a.new trial.*
See [*] N. Y. also proceedings Leg. Obs. case before general term are reported Duer,
NEW-YORK.
Dobson a. Pearce. (cid:127) before Mr. Justice trial, At the Campbell, second January n 3,1853, after in, evidence was defendant plaintiff’s the record of the offered evidence which was Connecticut, admitted, subject on the moved for a dis- exception part plaintiff, as before;
missal complaint, ' Connecticut estopped plaintiff. plaintiff’s motion, counsel read evidence, opposed record of (cid:127)exception the,proceedings him at law in commenced to recover upon now suit. the suit record, According (cid:127)at withdrawn before the decree equity restraining *3 n made, its was instead of as intimated prosecution afterwards, Plaintiff defendant’s answer. also offered evidence to prove that the of the decree Connecticut Was and without notice to fraudulently procured, Olney -of the The institution suit. couít refused to receive this that evidence, record of the deciding proceedings suit could not be collaterally impeached; dismissed the for complaint, entering the defendant. judgment
The plaintiff this appealed judgment general where it was term; reversed for error the exclusion of the evidence offered and a new trial by plaintiff, ordered. third
This trial was had before Mr. Justice Duer, 5, April evidence offered on the of both part plaintiff .and at the defendant, trial before Justice previous Campbell, in, to like put The court exceptions. instructed The that the Connecticut jury decree was conclusive if the found plaintiff, that jury Olney the chan- n cery suit his authorized by otherwise he was not attorney; bound by
The found for defendant; and jury been judgment having rendered in afterwards term, favor special plaintiff to the term, where was affirmed. appealed general From this to the Court of plaintiff appealed Appeals.
JE. for Terry, appellant.
.A. Childs, for respondent. -—-—
r REPORTS. PRACTICE ABBOTTS’ a. in this cause arise two- questions Johnson, J. first to the the trial. The was taken deci taken at exceptions the record of a decree evidence' equity,, sion admitting the State of Con Court of Judicature made of. between defendant in the- necticut, Olney, and.one now immediate sued plaintiff assignor to the instruction court to the- second was upon. ofN that the record finding, jury, proceedings, aforesaid, evidence the defendant given support in his answer, was, suit, of this con purposes allegations if evidence found that. clusive plaintiff,' jury in that authorized cause Olney appeared attorney. in the same is' would- position plaintiff he he the immediate plaintiff; occupied whom, before the assignee Olney, against assignment, if decree was he had actual ; material, pronounced notice of the' decree when was made to him. assignment to the to the admission of the plaintiff’s objections Giving is, whether the effect, record the broadest first question the answer was available. That defence defence sued substance, .upon frauckdently assurances behalf of the after entered up, that no further should be suit, he notice to him, in the suit without whereby taken *4 defence, a which not to take induced steps interpose have maintained. successfully fact he could of point these facts would such judgment upon Relief against of of a court equity upon been within power (2 Jur., for that Story, Eq. filed a bill purpose. §§ Barb., R., Code C. The S. (§ King, 69) Huggins the distinction between actions at law and abolished having of all and the forms such actions as heretofore suits equity, a civil action is defence to now as avail existing, equitable as a defence. able legal , ? to recover now plaintiff The ought any- question not is that he available to the defend- shows ought which thing of or it was formerly equitable whether ant, legal cognizance. of the decree the- is, whether record of The next question evidence Connecticut was competent upon UEW-YOBK. a. actually
'this issue. Olney attorney heard and was its merits. He suit, was, upon therefore, before it had of if it jurisdiction had person, juris- diction of matter of the suit. The object was to restrain suit suit at law in prosecuting (cid:127)the court in suit upon here, that relief was which sought which grounds here. The as defence to restrain jurisdiction .are set suits n atlaw one of the established of author- firmly being parts of the"courts the suit equity, which ity undertaken to suit having prosecute enjoined of law the State court conceivable only exer- grounds denying equitable jurisdiction cised are either that no case, equity anywhere to restrain a suit at law such power upon upon or that m a court one State has grounds, jurisdic- restrain, tion to such a of a court of upon judgment n ofanother The first of these State. grounds already considered and found unsound. other The either rests upon some States, between comity the force of (cid:127)the constitution and laws of the United States. so far as is founded objection, assumed viola-
tion of the which exists between the comity several States the United does not States, reach to the court.
The rules of be a restraint comity may a court in the exercise of an which it authority actually possesses, s (Bank of elf-imposed. Earle, Augusta Pet., 519).
courts of each State must for themselves judge exclusively how far will be and in will restrained, what cases they exercise their power, where constitution of the except United States and the laws made itof pursuance prescribe a rule; where that is the one of case, ceases question n comity, becomes one of right. then question remains to be considered consti- *5 tution and laws of the United and here the States, decisions of permit doubt. “ Full faith and credit” of a are given ¡State court, when in the court of another it receives ABBOTTS’ PRACTICE REPORTS.
Dobson a. Pearce. credit, to it same md which was entitled in the State faith it where was pronounced. McConnell, (Hampton Wheat., We then a decree Con in cause where necticut, they jurisdiction and it matter and of the duly authenticated and to relevant the issue on trial. Its admissibility evidence fol lows, of course. the record that
By that appears very there, matters issue here were litigated were decided to whom the adversely Olney, represents. deter- mination is him conclusive as to all the necessarily mate- rial facts there determined. litigated affirmed with costs. Judgment rendered a court Allbu, J. by compe tent cannot be for impeached error jurisdiction collaterally reversed, until is conclusive set aside or but irregularity, other court or some having appellate juris by 157; 3 J. Lewis, R., Homer v. diction. (Smith Field, of the court which 488.) Pick., judg- jurisdiction however, always open inquiry,, ment been rendered has or has not exceeded its and if it has jurisdiction, acquired.. service of the due process, parties jurisdiction are coram non judice,. appearance, voluntary has want of always void. an action defence a valid judg- held to be any to when up purpose. answer ment, good ' do- invalidaté judgment, So, imposition fraud and it is not without as extra-judicial; as well acts, all judicial at it has been suggested, of authority semblance seeks to avail party whenever be alleged the fraud may conduct fraudulent own setting- of the result himself C. of his fraud. (See per fruits Thompson, judgment, and cases cited.) R. Johns. Filch, in Borden v. J., it is that a or not, unquestionable be so But whether this relief against judgments to grant court of chancery power it to which clearly proves fact Any fraud. . when obtained by and of which -execute conscience be law, was pre- himself not avail could party injured fault or negli- with unmixed accident vented fraud.or *6 . HEW-YORK. 103
Dobson, a. or an himself will justify interference agent, gence by 1Wood, a court v. Johns. Ch. R. equity. (Reigal 402; Mc R. 139 Neilson, Donald v. Cow. Duncan ; Lyons, Johns. Marine Insurance 351; R. Alexandria Company Ch. Hodg Shottenkirk v. Cranch, 352; Wheeler, son, 7 Johns. Ch. R. Under our present judiciary system functions common law and are united in the courts chancery and the distinctions between actions at law and suits forms of and the all such actions and are suits abolished, equity, forth the defendant set answer as defences and may many have, he whether be such as have been may heretofore or denominated or legal both. (Code equitable, 69, 150). § § The Code also authorizes affirmative relief to to a be given in an' action, defendant The intent judgment, (§274). is clear, that all legislature very controversies respecting matter of the should be determined in litigation are action, effect to provisions that intent. adapted give or Whether, therefore, fraud heretofore, imposition aof could have recovery been alleged against or 1cm, at not, now as an collaterally may equita- defence to defeat a ble recovery Under the head of defences are included all matters which would equitable before authorized have application Chancery which, relief at against legal liability, could not law, bar. The facts pleaded of defence alleged way this action would have been cause for relief good in a court of and chancery, under our present are, therefore, matters of proper defence, and there system for a necessity resort to a propriety separate vacate the judgment. In law and are although administered equity still the distinction between and judges, preserved, justice administered under the heads common law distinct and jurisdiction, by forms of ; hence, as it at appropriate procedure least fraud whether law the would doubtful bar alleged recovery a resort of the" chancery powers if of that not State- proper, necessary. '- ABBOTTS’ BEPOBTS. PBAOTIOE
Dobson a. Pearce. n awas personal right and, followed his aside the fact that right, person, *7 had he resorted to courts of Connecticut to the. enforce his under of claim the the that State, courts judgment, having of due the obtained service of person by jurisdiction pro had full State, cess within that the pronounce power upon in the of the and to parties respect decree rights It follows that the necessarily decree of the concerning Connecticut, a court of as sitting Supreme chancery, fraud, the is conclusive the directly question upon upon and all to that under them persons litigation, claiming parties of a of with notice court adjudication. judgment between the point litigated jurisdiction upon par competent in controversies, all when the ties, conclusive subsequent between the same comes again question parties. same point v. Seld. Coatsworth, ; Embury Conner, (White it is the of Connecticut In State clear the Comst. 522). quite not be an the fraud would between open question of question settled be considered entirely but would parties, ” “ full faith credit and as State, the court of that of of every State; judicial proceedings to be each given by and effect as credit, validity they other -that State, 'had, in which parties in the State would of judgment of this State by concluded the courts are in issue. (Hamp question court in that State, directly upon of of The decree 3 Wheat. ton McConnell, anas operative of the State had and restrained parties, far as so enjoined does not and, as an injunction, no extra-territorial efficiency, of the court State; of this judgment the courts affect every the matters is conclusive upon litigated up>on are matters drawn forum where where and every parties The court jurisdiction acquired question. service process of the action the commencement an authori and his therein, defendant appearance of debt the action zed withdrawal attorney, thus acquired. did not it of jurisdiction deprive with affirmed must be Court costs.
NEW-YORK a. the conclusions to Denio, J., (stated following he arrived).
1. New not- York, fraud, was conclusive alleged- withstanding and in action it, it; defendant allegation w, could be admitted matter of fact, its joa/is, impeach It could be relieved validity. only against motion, the nature of a bill equity. It under the constitution and was, 2. laws of6the United States, conclusive courts of Connecticut as equally this State. But it for the courts or in competent other which had obtained the person *8 the
of di/reot plaintiff, by the proceeding, impeach equit- able of obligation judgment fraud, it, or mistake or for other obtaining matter surprise, any to the of court which, of according principles chancery, and render inequitable would unconscientious the plain- tiff to insist upon recovery. of of courts in this
The jurisdiction is respect well a. Conn. (20 Pearce Olney, where stated 544,) question was examined this judgment Supreme Court of also 2 (See of Connecticut. Cowen, Errors 193, and cases cited). in this such
4. If a court a suit as is referred to head, the last under to the given judgment effect that the Court had been Superior obtained fraud judgment such a manner or mistake, or any respect that it could enforced, such conscientiously not be determination would in an action at a bar law on such have Superior Court have It would been similar to a decree in judgment. contract or aside a which conveyance, cannot
setting be have barred an would action at doubted law on such contract “ or conveyance. or of 5. Court judgment Supreme of Errors Connecticut of (that having jurisdiction the parties) as effectual the same judgment effect equally been. This results would have from the State constitutional referred of to, act before Congress provision PBACTICE BEPOBTS. ABBOTTS5 a,.‘Whipple.
Cudlipp the records declares that judicial States,, “ that- act, as shall have faith such provided by authenticated to them in' court within the United every credit given or courts of the usage as States records are or shall said be taken.” (Laws from whence U. S. by Story, p. of Judicature of Supreme
6. The judgment facts set forth in the defend Connecticut, determining true, forever ant’s petition enjoining prosecution is a York, New validity determination equitable from as well in insisting it, precludes Connecticut are judicial proceedings State where every in the State of credit, as full Connecticut itself. lentitled that matter from once This results' principle, litigated in a court of competent jurisdiction and determined cannot drawn question ever again them. with Guen v. privity (Le Gou legal' others standing Kemble, 1 Cas., 436). Johns. verneur & these follows, positions, It. to the action bar perfect' brought Connecticut Court. from should therefore be affirmed. appealed The judgment *9 CUDLIPP a. WHIPPLE. Chambers, December,
New York Court; Complaints.—Sufficiency of Old Fobms. Fobm' of to, for, money paid, expended laid complaint lent out to recover as request, Codethough general under in its is sufficient as of action allegations particulars the cause the old form of declara- statement, tion in defendant wishes assumpsit. indebitatus If the more detailed remedy copy particulars account or the writing demand the cause of action. to amend Motion to complaint. plaintiffs require of a demand assignees brought plaintiffs the defendant. Whitney which one James