From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McDonald v. Drew

Supreme Court of New Hampshire Hillsborough
Jun 1, 1888
15 A. 148 (N.H. 1888)

Opinion

Decided June, 1888.

A judgment regularly obtained in another state cannot be impeached for fraud in an action to recover the amount of it here.

DEBT, on a New York judgment. Plea, nul tiel record, with a brief statement "that the said judgment . . . was had and obtained by the fraud and covin, and by the false and fraudulent testimony of the plaintiff, and with the intent to defraud the defendant of the amount of the said judgment." The plaintiff moved to reject the brief statement. Motion granted, and the defendant excepted.

D. A. Taggart, for the plaintiff.

Briggs Huse, for the defendant.


The judgment upon which the action is brought, and upon which the plaintiff relies if the court where the judgment was rendered had jurisdiction, is conclusive between the parties, and cannot be reversed, set aside, or impeached, for fraud in obtaining it, in this suit. It can be reversed only by a direct proceeding for that purpose in the court where it was rendered. The defence of fraud in obtaining the judgment cannot in this mode be made, and the brief statement of defence was properly rejected. Metcalf v. Gilmore, 59 N.H. 417.

Exception overruled.

SMITH, J., did not sit: the others concurred.


Summaries of

McDonald v. Drew

Supreme Court of New Hampshire Hillsborough
Jun 1, 1888
15 A. 148 (N.H. 1888)
Case details for

McDonald v. Drew

Case Details

Full title:McDONALD v. DREW

Court:Supreme Court of New Hampshire Hillsborough

Date published: Jun 1, 1888

Citations

15 A. 148 (N.H. 1888)
15 A. 148

Citing Cases

State v. Kennedy

The decree rendered by a court having jurisdiction is not void. It call be impeached only in a direct…

PENDEXTER v. CATE

As the court had jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the case and of the person of the defendant, the…