ill in HI
107 146
CITE BY TITJL-IT A2STD
s § 22
CORPUS JURIS
SECUNDUM
A COMPLETE RESTATEMENT OF THE ENTIRE
AMERICAN LAW
AS DEVELOPED BY
ALL REPORTED CASES
By
The Editorial Staffs
of
THE AMERICAN LAW BOOK CO.
and
WEST PUBLISHING CO.
VOLUME XLIX
Kept to Date by Cumulative Annual Pocket Parts
Brooklyn, N. Y.
The American Law Book Co.
The Amerioa.n Law Boole
EXPLANATION
r I MrlE object in view in preparing Corpus Juris Secundiim has been two-
JL fold : First, to provide a complete encyclopedic treatment of the whole
body of the law, which means that it must be based upon all the reported
cases; Second, to present each title of the law in form and content most suit-
able as a means of practical reference for the Bench and Bar.
Corpus Juris Secundum is therefore a complete restatement of the entire
"body of American Law. The clear-cut and exhaustive propositions compris-
ing the text are supported by all the authorities from the earliest times to date.
The supporting case citations, conspicuously set out in the notes, point to all
decisions handed down since the publication of Corpus Juris. When the
searcher may wish to consult earlier authorities, a specific reference to Corpus
Juris makes available all cases back to 1658.
Each title is preceded by a complete section analysis, greatly simpli-
fied to facilitate research. Where the scope of any section is such as to re-
quire it, a more minute analysis is found thereunder in its appropriate place
within the title (see Abatement and Revival, Section 112). The convenience
of this method — an innovation in encyclopedic writing — must immediately
commend itself.
A concise black-letter summary, indicative of its scope, precedes the
full treatment or statement of the law under each section. These introduc-
tory summaries, concise and free from interlineation of authorities, have
proven of great convenience and value in legal research*
An index is found in the back of each volume covering the titles con-
tained therein, thus providing another convenient means of ready access to the
text and notes*
Corpus Juris Secundum is kept to date by means of annual cumula-
tive pocket parts for each volume. This feature of supplementation which
has proved so successful in modern digests and statutes conveniently, and
with certainty, keeps each title constantly to date through current cases and
new precedents.
Corpus Juris Secundum represents tbie combined product of the high'est
editorial talent and manufacturing skill Its many excellent editorial features
are fittingly accompanied by corresponding innovations and improvements in
mechanical arrangement, typography, and design, which .the publisher believes
will commend 'themselves to the profession as representing a new standard
in legal publications. THE puBLISHERS
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
REPORTS AND TEXTBOOKS
A.
Abb.
Abb.Adm.
Abb.App.Dec.
Abb.Dec.
Abb.N.Oas.
Abb.Pr.
Abb.Pr.N.S.
A'Beck.Res.
Judgm.
[1018JA.O.
Acton
Adams
A
Atlantic Reporter
Abbott (U.S.)
Abbott's Admiralty (U.S.)
Abbott's Appeals Decisions (N.Y.)
Abbott's Decisions (N.Y.)
Abbott's New Cases (N.Y.)
Abbott's Practice (N.Y.)
Abbott's Practice New Series (N.Y.)
A'Beckett's Reserved Judgments
15)17] Appeal Oases (Can.)
LW Reports [1918] Appeal Oases
Add.EcdL
A.&E.
A.&K.Eac.L.
A.&E.Enc.L.&Pr,
Aik*
A.K.Marsh.
Ala.
Ala.App.
Alaska
Alb.LJ.
A.L.O.
A1C.&N.
Alc.Rog.Gas*
Aleyn
Alison Pr,
Allen
Allen (N.B.)
Alta.L.
A.L.R.
Am.ltankr,
Ambl.
A.M.C.
Am.Corp.Cas,
Am.Or.
Am.D.
Am.&E.Corp.Cas.
Am.&E.Corp.Cas.
N»S»
Am.&Eng.Ency.
Law
Am.&E.EqIX
Am.&Eng.Pat
Cas,
Am.&Eng.R.R,
Cas,
Am.Electr.Cas.
Am.&E.K.Cas.
Am &B.R.Cas.N
S.
AmJJntL.
Am.L.J.
AmJJ.J.N.8.
Am.L.Rec.
CJ.S.
Acton (Eng.)
Adams Reports (N.H.)
Addison (Pa.)
Addams' Ecclesiastical (Bng.)
Adolphus & Ellis (Bug.)
American & English Encyclopaedia of
Law
American & English Encyclopedia of
Law & Practice
Aikens (Vt)
A. K. Marshall (Ky.)
Alabama
Alabama Appellate Court
Alaska
Albany Law Journal
American Leading Cases
Alcott & Napier (Eng.)
Alcock's Registry Cases (Bng.)
Aleyn (Eng.)
Alison's Practice (Sc.)
Allen (Mass.)
Allen, New Brunswick
Alberta Law
American Law Reports
American Bankruptcy (U.S.)
Ambler (Eng.)
American Maritime Cases
American Corporation Cases
American Criminal
American Decisions
American & English Corporation
Oases
American & English Corporation
Cases New Series
American and English Encyclopedia of
Law
American & English Decisions in Eq-
uity
American and English Patent Oases
American and English Railroad Oases
American Electrical Cases
American & English Railroad Oases
American & English Railroad Oases
New Series
American Journal of International
American Law Journal (Pa.)
American Law Journal New Series
American Law Record (Ohio)
Am.L.Reg.
Am.L.Reg.N.S.
Am.Law Reg.(O.
S.)
Am.L.Rev.
AmJUT.Bankr.
Am.Law lust
Am.Negl.Cas.
Am.NegLR,
A.M.&0.
Am.Prob.
Am.Prob.N.S.
Am.Pr.
Am.R.
Am.R.&Corp.
Am.R.Rep.
Am.S.R.
Am.St.R.D,
And.
Andr.
Ann.Cas.
Ann.Oas.l912A
Anstr.
Anth.N.P.
App.D.O.
App.Oas.
App.Div.
Anz.
Ark.
ArkJust
Arn.
Arn.&H.
Ashra.
Aspin. '
Atk.
Austr.C.L.R
AustrJur.
Austr.L.T.
Bacon Abr.
BaiLEq.
Bailey.
B.&Ald.
Baldw.
BalfPr.
Ball&B.
Bank.&InsJa.
Bann.
Bann.&A.
Barb.
Barb.Oh.
B.&Arn.
Barn.
Barn.0h.
Barnes
Barnes Notes
Batty
B.£Aust
Baxt
B.O.
American Law Register
American Law Register New Series
American Law Register Old Series
American Law Review
American Law Times Bankruptcy Re-
ports
American Law Institute,
Restatement of the Law
American Negligence Cases
American Negligence Reports
Armstrong, Macartney & Ogle (Ir.)
American Probate
American Probate New Series
American Practice
American Reports
American Railroad & Corporation
American Railway Reports
American State Reports
American Street Railway Decisions
Anderson (Eng.)
Andrews (Eng.)
American & English Annotated Oases
American Annotated Oases 1912A, et
seq.
Anstruther (Eng.)
Authors Nisi Prlug (N.Y.)
Appeal Cases (D.O.)
Law Reports Appeal Cases (Eng.)
Appellate Division (N.Y.)
Arizona
Arkansas
Arkley's Justiciary (Sc.)
Arnold (Eng.)
Arnold & Hodges (Eng.)
Ashmead (Pa.)
Aspinall's Maritime Oases (Eng.)
Atkyn (Eng.)
Commonwealth Law Reports, Aus-
tralia
Australian Jurist
Australian Law Times
B
Bacon's Abridgment (Eng.)
Bailey's Equity (S.O.)
Bailey's Law (S.C.)
Barnewall & Adolphus (Eng.)
Barnewall & Alderson (Eng.)
Baldwin (U.S.) ^ v
Balfour's Practice (Sc.) •
Ball&Beatty (Ir.)
Bankruptcy and Insolvency Reports
(Eng.)
Bannister (Eng.)
Banning & Arden (U.S.)
Barbour (N.Y.)
Barbour's Chancery (N.Y.)
Barron & Arnold (Eng.)
Barnardiston King's Bench (Eng.)
Barnardiston Chancery (Bng.)
Barnes' Practice Cases (Eng.)
Barnes' Notes (Eng.)
Batty (Ir.)
Barron & Austin (Eng.)
Baxter (Tenn.)
Bay (S.O.)
Broderip & Binghaxn (Eng.).
British Columbia
Tin
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
B.&0.
B.&MaoL
B.D.&O.
Beatty
Beav.
Beay.&WaIRy.
Cas.
Boav.R.&C.Cas.
Beaw.Lex.Mer.
Bee
BelL
Bell App.Cas.
Bell Cas.
Bell C.C.
Bell Comra.
Bell Sc.Cas.
Ben.
BenL
BenL&D.
B.&H.O.Cas.
Bibb
Bing.
Bing.N.Cas«
Binn.
Biss.
BittW,&P.
Black
Blackf.
Barnewall & Cresswell (Eng.)
Browne & Macnamara (Eng.)
Blackham, Dundas & Osborne (Ir.)
Beatty (Ir.)
Beavan (Eng.)
Beavan & Walford's Railway and Ca-
ual Cases (Eng.)
English Railway and Canal Cases
Beawes Lex Mercatoria (Eng.)
Bee (U.S.)
Bellewe (Eng.)
Bell's Appeal Cases (Sc.)
Bell's Cases (Sc.)
Bell's Crown Cases (Bng.)
Bell's Commentaries (Eng.)
Bell's Scotch Court of Session Cases
Benedict (U.S.)
Benloe (Eng.)
Benloe & Dallison (Eng.)
Bennett & Heard Leading
Cases (Eng.)
Bibb (Ky.)
Bingbam (Eng.)
Bingbam's New Oases (Eng.)
Biiiney (Pa.)
BisseU (U.S.)
Bittleson, Wise & Parnell (Eng.)
Criminal
Black (U.S.)
Blackford (Ind.)
Blackstone Comm. Blacks tone Commentaries
Bla.H.
Blair Co.
Bland
Bland's Oh.
BJatcbf.
Blatckf.&H.
Blatchf.PrizeCas.
Bligh
Blish N.S.
B.Mon.
Bond
Bouvier*
Bovco
B.&P.
B.&P.N.B.
Bract
Bradf.Surr.
Brayt.
B.R.G.
Brev.
Brewst
Brightly
Brightly El.Cas.
Bro.Ch.
Brock.
Brock.Cas.
Brod.&B.
Brod.&Fr.
Brodix Am.&E.
Pat.Cas.
Bro.Just.
Brook Abr.
Brook N.Cas.
Brooke N.G.
Bro.P.C.
Brown Adm.
Brown, Ch.
Brown Ecc.
Brown N.P.
Brown,Parl.Cas.
Browne
Brown.&I».
BrownL&G.
Bruce
Brunn.0oll.0as.
B.&S.
B.T.A.
Buck
Puller NJP.
Bulstr.
Henry Blackstone's English Common
Pleas (Eng.)
Blair County (Pa.)
Bland (Md.)
Bland Chancery (Md.)
Blatchford (U.S.)
Blatchford & Howland (U.S.)
Blatchford's Prize Cases (U.S.)
Bligh (Eng.)
Bligh New Series (Eng.)
B. Monroe (Ky.)
Bond (U.S.)
Bouvier's Law Dictionary
Boyce (Del.)
Bosanquet & Puller (Eng.)
Bosanquet & Puller's New Reports
(Eng.)
Brae ton de Legibus et Consuetudini-
bus AngliiB
Bradford's Surrogate (N.Y.)
Brayton (Vt.)
British Ruling Cases
Brevard (S.G.)
Brews ter (Pa.)
Brightly (Pa.)
Brightly's Election Gases (Pa.)
Brown's Chancery (Eng.)
Brockoiibrough (U.S.)
Brockenbrough's Virginia Cases
Broderip & Bingham (Eng.)
Broderick & JTremontle's Ecclesiasti-
cal Coses
Brodix's American. & English Patent
Cases
Brouu's Justiciary (Sc.)
Brook's Abridgments (Eng.)
Brook's New Gases (Eng,)
Brooke's New Cases
Brown's Parliament Oases (Eng.)
Brown's Admiralty (U.S.)
Brown's Chancery Cases (fing.)
Brown Ecclesiastical (Eng.)
Brown's Michigan Nisi Prius
Brown Parliamentary Cases (Eng.)
Browne (Pa.)
Browning & Lushinffton (Bng.)
Brownlow & Goldesborough (Eng.)
Bruce (Sc.)
Brunner's Collective Oases (U.S.)
Best & Smith (Eng.)
Board of Tax Appeals (U.S.)
Buck (Eng.)
Buller's Nisi Prius (Eng.)
Bulstrode (Eng.)
Burn.
Burr.
Burr.S.Oas.
Busb.
Busb.Eq.
Bush
B.W.C.O.
Bunbury
Burnett
isT)
Cab.&E.
Cai.
Cai.Cas.
Cal
Cal.(2d)
Cal.App.
Oal.App.(2d)
Cald.
CaU
Calthr.
CaLUnrep.Cas.
Cam.Cas.
Campb.
Canal Zone
Can.App.Cas.
Can.Cr.Cas.
Can.Exch.
Cau.L.J.
Can.LJ.N.S.
Can.L.T.Occ.
Notes
Can.R.Cas.
Can.S.C.
Canc&L.
Car.&K.
Car.&M.
Car.&P.
Car.H.&A.
Carp.P.O.
Carter
Garth.
Cartwr.Cas.
Gary
Cas.
Cas.tHardw.
Cas.t.Holt
Oas.tKing
Gas.tTalb.
O.B.
C.B.N.S.
C.O.A.
O.O.PJL
C«ntr.LJ.
ri891] Ch.
Ghamb.Rcp.
Chandl
Charlt.R.M.
Charlt.T.UJP.
Chase
Ch.0as.
Ch.Chamb.
CLOoLOp.
Ch.D.
GhestOo.
Chev.
Chit.
Ohoyce Cas.Ch,
Oh.Rcp.
Oh.Sent.
Cinc.L.BuL
Cinc.Super.
City Ct.R.
City Hall Rec.
._.,
Burrows (Eng.)
Burrows' Settlement Gas. (Eng.)
Busbee (N.C.)
Busbee Equity (N.O.)
Bush (Ky.)
Butterworth's Workmen's Compensa-
tion Cases (Eng.)
Oababe & Ellis (Eng.)
Games (N.Y.)
Games' Cases (N.Y.)
California
California Reports, Second Series
California Appellate Court
California Appellate Reports, Second
Series
Oaldecott (Eng.)
Call (Va.)
Calthrop (Eng.)
California Uureported Gases
Cameron's Gases (Can.)
Campbell (Eng.)
Canal Zone Supreme Court
Canadian Appeal Canes
Canadian Criminal Coses
Canadian Exchequer
Canada Law Journal
Canada Law Journal New Serios
Canadian Law Times Occasional Notes
Canadian Railway Cases
Canada Supremo Court
Cane & Leigh Crown Cases Reserved
(Eng.)
Carrington & Kirwan (Bng.)
Garrington & Marshman (Eng.)
Carrington & Payne (Eng.)
Carrow, Hamcrton & Allen (Eng.)
Carpmacl Patent Gases (Eng.)
Carter (Eng.)
Oarthew (Eng^)
Oartwritfht's Gases (Can.)
Gary (lOng.)
Casey (Pa.)
Gases temp. Hardwickc (Eng.)
Gases tcrnp. Molt (Eng.)
Cases temp. King (En#.)
Oases temp. Talbot (Eng.)
Common Bench (Manning, Granger &
Scott) (Eng.)
Common Bench New Series (Manning,
Granger & Scott New Series) (Eng.)
Circuit Court of Appeals (U.S.)
Court of Customs and
Central Law Journal
LAW Reports [1801] Chancery (Eng.)
Chamber (Ont.)
Chandler (Wis.)
R. M. Gharlton (Ga.)
T. U. P. Charlton (Ga.)
Chase (U.S.)
Gases in Chancery (Eng.)
Chancery Chambers (U.C.)
Chalmers' Colonial Opinions
Law Reports Chancery Division
(Eng.)
Chester County (Pa.)
Cheves (S.O.)
Chitty (Eng.)
Ghoyce Oases in Ohancery (Eng.)
Chancery Reports (En#.)
Chancery Sentinel (N.Y.)
Weekly Law Bulletin (Oh.)
Cincinnati Superior Court Reporter
(Oh.)
City Court Reports (N.Y.)
City Hall Recorder (N.Y.)
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
Civ.ProoRep*
C.J.
C.J.S.
C.&K.
0.&L.
CLApp<
CLChT
Clark &F.
Clark &Fin,N.S.
Clarke
Clarke &S.Dr.Cas.Clarke &
_(0nt.)
Clarke Ch.
Clayt.
C.L.Chamb.
Glev.L.Rec.
Clev.L.Rep.
C1.&F.
Clif.El.Cas.
Cliff.
C.L.R.
C.&M.
C.M.&R.
Cockf&Rowe.
Code Rep.
Code Rep.N.S.
Coff.Prob.
Co.Inst.
Coke
CoLOas.
CoL&O.Cas.
Ool.C.O.
Coldw.
ColL
CoLLJtep.
GoLLaw Review
Coll.&E.Bank.
Civil Procedure Reports (N.Y.)
Corpus Juris
Corpus Juris Annotations
Corpus Juris Secundum
Carrington & BSrwan (Eng.)
Connor & Lawson (Ir.V
Clark's Appeal Cases (Eng.)
Clarke's Chancery (N.Y.)
Clark & Finnelly (Eng.)
Clark's House of Lords Cases (Eng.)
Clarke's Chancery (N.Y.)
" " ~ Scully's Drainage Cases
Colles
Colo.
Colo.App-
Colq.
Coltm.
Comb.
Com.Cas.
Com.L.
Gomptr.Treas.
Dec.
Comst
Comyns
Comyns Dig1.
Con.&Law.
Conf.
Conn.
Conn.Surr.
Const
Cooke
Cooke
Cooke & A.
Cook Vice-Adm.
Coop.
Coop.Pr.Cas.
Coop.tJBrough.
Coop.tXJott.
Coop.t.EHd.
Co.P.0.
Corb.&D.
Court&MacL
Cow.
GowXJr-Rep.
Cowp.
Cox.Am.T.M.Cas.
Cox C.O.
Cox Oh.
Cox &Atk.
G.&P.
C.P.O.
C.P.D.
Clarke's Chancery (N.Y.)
Clayton's Reports, York'
(Eng.)
Chamber's Common Law (U.C.)
Cleveland Law Record (Oh.)
Cleveland Law Reporter (Oh.)
Clark & Finnelly (Eng.)
Clifford's Southwick Election Cases
Clifford (U.S.)
Common Law Reports (Eng.)
Carrington & Marshman (Eng.)
Crompton, Meeson & Roscoe (Eng.)
Cockburn & Rowe's Election Cases
Code Reporter (N.Y.)
Code Reports New Series (N.Y.)
Coffey's Probate (CaL)
Coke's Institutes
Coke (Eng.)
Coleman's Cases (N.Y.)
Coleman & Caines' Cases (N.Y.)
Collyer's Chancery Cases (Eng.)
Coldwell (Tenn.)
Collyer (Eng.)
Colorado Law Reporter
Columbia Law Review
Collier and Eaton's American Bank-
ruptcy Reports
OoUes* Cases in Parliament (Eng.)
Colorado
Colorado Appeals
Colquit
Coltman (Eng.)
Comberbach (Eng.)
Commercial Cases (Eng.)
Commercial Law (Can.)
Comptroller Treasury Decisions
Comstock (N.Y.)
Comyns (Eng.)
Comyns Digest (Eng.)
Connor & Lawson (Ir.)
Conference Reports (N.C.)
Connecticut
Connolly's Surrogate (N.Y.V
Constitutional Reports (N.C.)
Cooke (Eng.)
Cooke (Tenn.)
Cooke & Alcock (Ir.)
Cook's Vice-Admiralty (L.C.)
Cooper's Chancery (Eng.)
Cooper's Practice Cases (Eng.)
Cooper's Cases temp. Brougham
(Eng.)
Cooper's Cases temp. Cottenham
(Bng.)
Cooper's Cases tempore Eldon (Eng.)
Coke's Reports (Eng.)
Corbett & DanielTs Election
(Eng.)
Courtnay & Maclean (Sc.)
Cowen (N.Y.)
Cowen's Criminal (N.Y.)
Cowper (Eng.)
Cox's American Trade-Mark Cases
Cox's Criminal Cases (Eng.)
Cox's Chancery (Bng,)
Law Reports Common Pleas Division
(Eng.)
Orabbe
Cranch
Cranch C.C.
Cranch PatDec*
Cr^pp.
Crawf.&D.
Crawf.&DAbr*
Cas.
Cripp's Ch.Cas.
Cr.LMag.
Cr.&Ph/
Cro.Car.
Cro.Eliz.
Cro.Jac.
Cromp.&J.
Cromp.&M.
Crosw.Pat.Cas*
Cr.&Ph.
CtOL
Ct.Cust.&Pat
App.
Cunn.
Curt
Curt.EccL
Gush.
Cust^A.
Cyc.
Dak.
DaLQP*
Dall,
DalL
Daly
Dan.
Dana
Dane Abr.
Dans.&L.
D'Anv.Abr.
Dauph.Co,
Dav.&M.
Davys
D.B.&M.
D.C.
D.Chipm.
Deac.
Deac.&O.
Deady
Dears.&B.
Dears.C.C.
Deas & A.
De Gex
De G.F.&J.
De G.J.&S.
De G.&J.
De GJtf.&G.
De a&Sm.
Del.
Del.Cn.
Del.0o.
Dem.Surr.
Den!c.C.
Desans.Bq.
Dev.CtCL
Dev.L.
Dev.&BaL
Dick.
Dill.
DirLDec.
Disn.
Crabbe (U.S.)
Cranch (U.S.)
Cranch's Circuit Court (U.S.)
Cranch's Patent Decisions (U.S.)
Criminal Appeals (Eng.)
Crawford & Dix.Or.)
Crawford & Dix's Abridged Case
Crippfs Church and Clergy Cases
Criminal Law Magazine
Craig & Phillips (Eng.)
Christopher Robinson's Admiralt;
(Eng.)
Croke Charles (Eng.)
Croke Elizabeth (Eng.)
Croke's Reports tempore James (Ja
cobus) (Eng.)
Crompton & Jervis (Eng.)
Crompton & Meesou (Eng.)
Croswell's Collection of Patent Case
(U.S.)
Craig & Phillips (Eng.)
Court of Claims (U.S.)
Court of Customs and Patent Appeal
Cunningham (Eng.)
Curtis (U.S.)
Curteis Ecclesiastical (Eng.)
Gushing (Mass.)
United States Customs Appeals
Cyclopedia of Law & Procedure
Cyclopedia of Law & Procedure As
notations
D
Dakota
Dalison's Common Pleas (Eng.)
Dallaman's Decisions (Tex.)
Dallas (Pa.)
Dallas (U.S.)
Dalrymple's Decisions (Sc.)
Daly (N.Y.)
Daniell (Eng.)
Dana (Ky.)
Dane's Abridgment
Danson & Lloyd (Eng.)
D'Anver's Abridgment (Eng.)
Dauphin County (Pa.)
Davison & Merivale (Eng.)
Davys (Ir.)
Day (Conn.)
Dunlop, Bell & Murray (Sc.)
District of Columbia
D. Chipman (Vt)
Deacon (Eng.)
Deacon & Chitty (Eng.)
Deady (U.S.)
Dearsley & Bell (Eng.)
Dearsley's Crown Cases (Eng.)
Deas & Anderson (Eng.)
De Gex (Eng.)
De Gex, Fisher & Jones (IBng.)
De Gex, Jones & Smith (Eng.)
De Gex & Jones (Eng.)
De Gex. MacNaghten & Gordo
(Eng.)
De Gex & Smale (Eng.)j
Delaware
Delaware Chancery
Delaware County (Pa.)
Demarest's Surrogate (N.Y.)
Denio (N.Y.)
Denison's Crown Cases (Eng.)
Desaussure (S.O.)
Devereux's Court of Claims (U.S.)
Devereux (N.C.)
Devereux & Battle (N.C.)
Dickens (Sc.)
Dillon (U.S.)
Dirleton's Decisions (Sc.)
Disney (Oh.)
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
D.&L,
Dods.
Dom.L.R.
Donnelly
Dorion
DougL
Dougl.
DougLELCas.
Dow
Dow& OL
Dow.&L.
Dow.N.S.
DowL
Dowl.P.0.
DowlJP.C.N.S.
D.&R.
Draper
Drew.
Drinkw.
D.&R.Mag.Cas.
D.&R.N.P.
Dr.&Sm.
Drury
Dr.£WaL
Dr.&War.
D.&SW*
Dud.Eq.
DudL
Duet
Dunl.B.&M.
Dunlop
Dunn,
Durie
Durn.&E.
Duv.
Dyer
East
East.L.R.
East P.O.
East.T.
E.&B.
E.B.&E.
E.B.&S.
E.O.L.
Eden
Edgar
Edm.Sel.Oas.
E. D. Smith
Bdw.
Edw.
Edw.Abr.
Edw.Adm.
E.&E.
Enc.Pl.&Pr.
Ency.Law.
Eng.Ad.
Eng.C.O.
Eng.Ch.
Eng.Ecd.
Eng.Ecc.R.
Eng.Exch.
Eng.L.&Eq.
Eng.Eep.R.
Eng.Ry.&O.Oas.
Eng.&Ir.App.
Eq.Oas.Abr.
Eq.Rep.
E.R.O.
Dowling £ Lowndes (Eng.)
Dodson's Admiralty (Eng.)
Dominion Law Reports (Can.)
Donnelly (Eng.)
Dorion (L.C.)
Douglas (Eng.)
Douglass (Mich.)
Douglas' Election Cases (Eng.)
Dow (Eng.)
Dow £ Clark (Eng.)
Dowling £ Lowndes (Eng.)
Dowling. New Series (Eng.)
Dowlinrs English Bail Court (Prac
tice) Cases
Dowling's Practice Cases (Eng.)
Dowling's Practice Cases New Series
(Eng.)
Dowling £ Ryland (Eng.)
Draper (U.C.)
Drewry (Eng.)
Drinkwater (Eng.)
Dowling £ Ryland's Magistrate Oases
(Eng.)
Dowling & Ryland's Nisi Prius (Eng.)
Drewry £ Smale (Eng.)
Drury (Ir.)
Drury £ Walsh (Ir.)
Drury £ Warren (Ir.)
Deane & Swabey (Eng.)
Dudley (S.O.)
Dudley (Ga.)
Duer's Superior Oourt (N.Y.)
Dunlop, Bell & Murray (Sc.)
Dunlop (Sc.)
Dunning (Eng.)
Durie (Sc.)
Durnford £ East (Eng.)
Duvall (Ky.)
Dyer (Eng.)
E
East (Eng.)
Eastern Law Reporter (Can.)
East's Pleas of the Crown (Eng.)
Eastern Term (Eng.)
Ellis £ Blackburn (Eng.)
Ellis, Blackburn & Ellis (Eng.)
Ellis, Best £ Smith (Eng.)
English Common Law
Eden (Eng.)
Edgar (Sc.)
Edmond's Select Oases (N.Y.)
E. D. Smith (N.Y.)
Edwards (Eng.)
Edwards' Chancery (N.Y.)
Edwards' Abridgment of Prerogative
Court Cases
Edwards' Admiralty (Eng.)
Elk's £ Ellis (Eng.)
Encyclopedia of Pleading & Practice
American and English Encyclopaedia of
Law
English Admiralty
English Crown Cases
English Chancery
English Ecclesiastical Reports
English Ecclesiastical Reports
English Exchequer Reports
English LaV & Equity
English Reports, Full Reprint
English Railway and Canfel Cases
Law Reports, English and Irish Appeal
Euer
Exch. -
Exch.Cas.
Equity Cases Abridged (Eng.)
Equity Reports (Eng.)
English Ruling Cases
Espinasse's Nisi Prius (Eng.)
Euer (Eng.)
Exchequer (Eng.)
Exchequer Oases (Sc.)
Ex.D.
Eyre.
Falc.
Falc.&F.
Far.
F.Cas.No.
F.(CtSess.)
F.
F.f2d)
F.R.D.
F.Supp.
Ferg.Cons.
F.&F.
Fish.Pat.Cas.
Fish.Pat.R.
Fish.PmeCas.
Fitzg.
Fitzh.
Fitzh.N.Br.
Fla,
Flipp.
F1.&K.
Fonb.Eq.
Fonbl.
Fonbl.R.
Forbes
Forr.
Forrester
Fortesc.
Fost
Fost.
Fost&Fin.
FountDec,
Fox
Fox & S.
Freem.
Freem.
Frecm.K.B.
Ga.
Ga.App.
Ga.Dec.
Gale
Gal.
G.Ooop.
G.&D.
GehL&M.
Gibb.Surr.
Giffard
Giff.&H.
Gil.
Gilb.
Gilb.Cas.
Gilb.C.P.
Gilb.Exch.
GUI
Gffl&T.
Gilm.
Gilm.&Falc.
Gilp.
Glasc.
Gljm&J.
Godb.
Godo.
Goeb.
Gosf.
Gouldsb.
Gow
Gow N.P.
Grant
Srant Oh.
Grant Err.&App.
Gratt
Gray
Law Reports Exchequer Division
(Eng.)
Eyre's Reports (Eng.)
F
Falconer's Court of Sessions (Sc.)
Falconer & Fitzherbert (Eng.)
Farresley (Eng.)
Federal Cases (U.S.)
Fraser's Court of Sessions Cases (Sc.)
Federal Reporter (U.S.)
Federal Reporter Second Series
Federal Rules Decisions
Federal Supplement
Ferguson's Consistory (Eng.)
Foster & Finlason (Eng.)
Fisher's Patent Cases (U.S.)
Fisher's Patent Reports (U.S.)
Fisher's Prize Cases (U.S.)
Fitzgfbbon (Eng.)
Fitzherbert's Abridgment (Eng.)
Fitzherberf s Natura Brevium . (Eng.)
Florida
Flippin (U.S.)
Flanagan & Kelly (Ir.)
Fonblanque's Equity (Eng.)
Fonblanque (Eng.)
Fonblanque's English Cases
Forbes (Eng.)
Forrest (Eng.)
Forrester's Cases (Eng.)
Fortescue (Eng.)
Foster (Eng.)
Foster (N.H.)
Foster & Finlason (Eng.)
FountainhalTs Decisions (Sc.)
Fox Reports (Eng.)
Fox & Smith (Ir.)
Freeman's Chancery (Eng.)
Freeman's Chancery (Miss.)
Freeman's King's Bench (Eng.)
G
Georgia
Georgia Appeals
Georgia Decisions
Gale (Eng.)
Gallison (U.S.)
G. Cooper (Eng.)
Gale & Davidson (Eng.)
Geldart & Maddock (Eng ~
Gibbon's Surrogate (N.3
Giffard (Eng.)
Giffard and Hemming (Eng.)
Gilfillan's Edition (Minu.)
Gilbert's (Eng.)
Gilbert's Cases (Eng.)
Gilbert's Common Pleas (Eng.)
Gilbert's Exchequer (Eng.)
Gill (Md.)
GUI & Johnson (Md.)
Gilmer (Va.)
Gilmour & Falconer (Sc.)
Gilpin (U.S.)
Glascock (Ir.)
Glyn & Jameson (Eng,)
Godbolt (Eng.)
Godolphin's Abridgment of Ecclcsias*
Goebel's Probate Court Oases
Gosford (Eng.)
Gouldsborough (Eng.)
Gow (Eng.)'
Gow's English Nisi Prius Cases
Grant's Cases (Pa.)
Grant's Chancery (U.O.)
Grant's Error & Appeal (U.C.)
Grattan (Va.)
Gray (Mass.)
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
Green Or.
Greene
GwilLT.Cas.
Hadd.
Hagg.Adm.
Hagg.Cons.
Hagg.EccL
Hailes Bee.
Hale J
Hale Ecc.
Hale P.C.
Hall
Hall&T.
Halsbury L.Eng.
Handy
Han.(NJB.)
Hard.
Hardres
Hare
Harp.Eq.
Harr.
Harr.fDeL)
Harr. (Mich.),
Harr.&G.
Harr.Oh.
Harr.&H.
Harr.&J.
Harr.&M.
Harr.&B.
Harr.&W.
Hask. .
HaviL
Hawaii
HawaiLFed.
Hawaiian Hep.
Hawk.P.O.
Hay.Exch.
Hayes •
Hayes&J.
Hay&M.
Hayw.-
^
Hayw.&H.
Haz.Beg.
H.B1.
H.&0.
Head
Heisk.
Hem.&M.
Hempst
Hen.&M.
Het.
Het.C.P.
H.&H.
HiU
HiU S.C.
Hill &Den. %
Hill &Den. Supp.
WIT.
H.L.Cas.
H.&N.
Hob.
Hodg.ESL
Hocfees
Uoffm.
H-offm.Land Gas.
Ho*.
Holmes
golt Adm.Oas.
olt Bq.
Holt K.B.
Holt N.P.
Home
Hope Dec.
Hopk.
Hopk.Dec.
Green's Criminal Law (Eng.)
Greene (Iowa)
Gwillim's Tithe Cases (Eng.)
Hac
Haggard's Admiralty (Eng.)
Haggard's Consistory (Eng.)
Haggard's Ecclesiastical (Bng.)
Hailes' Decisions (Sc.)
Hale's Common Law (Eng.)
Hale's Ecclesiastical (Eng.)
Hale's Pleas of the Crown (Eng.)
Hall's Superior Court (N.Y.)
Hall & TweUs (Eng.)
Halsbury's Law of England
Handy (Oh.)
Hannay's Beports, New Brunswick
Hardin (Ky.)
Hardres (Eng.)
Hare (Eng.)
Harper (S.C.)
Harrison's Chancery (Mich.)
Harrington (DeL)
Harrington's Michigan Chancery Be-
ports
Harris & Gill (Md.)
Harrison's Chancery (Eng.)
Harrison & Hodgins (U.C.)
Harris & Johnson (Md.)
Harris & McHenry (Md.)
Harrison & Butherford (Eng.)
Harrison & Wollaston (Eng.)
HaskeU (U.S.)
Haviland (PrJSdwJsL)
Hawaiian
Hawaiian Federal
Hawaii Beports
Hawkins* Pleas of the Crown (Eng.)
Hayes Exchequer (Ir.)
Hayes (Ir.)
Hayes & Jones (Ir.)
Hay & Marriott (Eng.)
Haywood (N.C.)
Haywood & Hazelton (U.S.)
Hazard's Register (Pa.)
Henry Blackstone (Eng.)
Hurlstone & Coltman (Eng.) ,
Head (Tenn.)
HeiskeU (Tenn.)
Hemming & Miller (Eng.)
Hempstead (U.S.)
Henning & Munf ord (Va.)
Hetley (Eng.)
Hetley'e Common Pleas (Eng.) .
Horn & Hurlstone (Eng.)
HiU (N.Y.)
HiU (S.C.)
Hill & Denio (N.Y.)
Lalor's Supplement to HOI & Denio's
(N.Y.)
Hilton (N.Y.)
HUaryTerm (Eng.) f^
House of Lords Cases (Eng.)
Hurlstone & Norman (Eng.)
Hobart (Eng.)
Hodgins' Election (U.C.)
Hodges (Eng.) ,-T_v
Hoffman's Chancery (N.Y.)
Hoffman's Land Cases (U.S.)
Hogan (Ir.)
Holmes (U.S.) . , _.
Holt's English Admiralty Cases
Holt's King's Bench (Eng.)
Holf s Nisi Prius (Eng.)
Home (Sa\ . .
Hope's Decisions (Sc.)
Hopkins' Chancery (N.Y.)
Hopkins' Decisions (Pa.)
Hopw.&C. Hopwood & Coltman (Eng.)
Hopw.&P. Hopwood & Philbrick (Eng.)
Hosea Hosea (Ohio)
Houst. Houston (DeL)
Houst.Cr. Houston's Criminal Cases (DeL)
How. Howard (U.S.)
How. (Miss.) Howard (Miss.)
HowA.Cas. Howard's Appeal Cases (N.Y.)
How.N.P. HoweU's Nisi Prius (Mich.)
How.Pr. Howard's Practice (N.Y.)
How.Pr.N.& . Howard's Practice New Series (N.Y.)
How.St.Tr. HoweU's State Trials (Eng.)
Hud.&B. Hudson & Brooke (Ir.)
Hughes Hughes (Ky.)
Hughes Hughes (U.S.)
Hume Hume's Decisions (Sc.)
Humphr. Humphreys (Tenn.)
Hun Hun (N1Y.)
Hurl.&Gord. Hurlstoue & Gordon (Eng.)
HurL&W. Hurlstone & Walmsley (Eng.)
Hutt. Hutton (Eng.)
Idaho Idaho
Iddings DJU). Iddings Dayton Term Beports
HI. Illinois
IU.App. Illinois Appellate Court
El.Cfr. lUinois Circuit Court
Ind. Indiana
Ind.App. Indiana AppeUate Court
Ind.T. Indian Territory
Jns.L.J. Insurance Law Journal
Int.Com.Commn. Interstate Commerce Commission
Int.ComJElep. Interstate Commerce Beports
Int.Rev.Rec. Internal Revenue Record
Iowa Iowa
[1891] Ir. Law Beports [1891] Irish
Ir.Ch. Irish Chancery
Ir.C.L. Irish Common Law
Ir.EccL Irish Ecclesiastical Beports
Ired. IredeU (N.C.)
Ir.Eq. Irish Equily
Ir.LawBep. Irish Law Reports
IrXaw &Eq. Irish Law and Equity Beports
Ir.B.1894. Irish Law Beports for year 1894
Ir.R.Clx Irish Beports Common Law
Ir.R.Eq. Irish Beports Equity
Irv.Just. Irvine's Justiciary Cases (Eng.)
Jae. Jacob (Eng.)
Jac.&W. Jacob & Walker (Bng.)
J.Bridgm. John Bridgman (Eng.)
J.&G. Jones & Carey (Ir.)
Jebb &B. Jebb & Bourke (Ir.)
Jebb O.C. Jebb's Crown Cases (Ir.)
Jebb&S. Jebb & Symes (Ir.)
Jeff. Jefferson (Va.)
Jenk. Jenkins (Eng.)
J.J.Marsh, J. J. ^rshaU (%•)
J.&L. Jones & La Touche (Eng.)
Johns. Johnson (Eng.)
Johns. Johnson (N.Y.)
Johns.Cas. Johnson's Cases (N.Y.)
Johns.0h. Johnsonfs Chancery (N.Y.) *
Johns.V.C. Johnson's English Vice-ChanceUors
(Eng.)
Johns.&H. Johnson & Hemming (Eng.)
Jones Exch. Jones Exchequer (Ir.)
Jones T. Sir Thomas Jones' English King's
Bench Beports
Jones W. Sir William Jones' English Kong's
Bench Beports
Jones&Spen. Jones & Spencer (N.Y.)
Jcmrn.Jur. Journal of Jurisprudence (Pa.)
JP. Justice of Peace (Eng.)
Jur. Jurist <Eng.) m
Jur.N.S. Jurist New Series (Eng.)
JustLJEL Justices' Law Reporter (Pa.)
XIT
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
K
Leigh &0.
Leon.
Kames Dec.
Kames Eluckt
Kames' Decisions (Sc.)
Kames' Elucidation (Sc.)
Lev.
Lew.C.C.
Kames Rem.Dee.
Kames' Remarkable Decisions (Sc.)
T^?
Kames SeLDec.
Kan.
Kames' Select Decisions (Sc.)
Kansas
Liberian L.
T H-4-
Kan.Appv
Kansas Appeals
JLtltt.
Jjitt.
Kay
Kay&J.
[1917JK.B,
Kay (Eng.)
Kay & Johnson (Eng.)
Law Reports [1917] King's Bench
Litt.Sel.Cas,
L.JAdm.
Keane &Gr.
(Eng.)
Keane & Grant (Eng.)
L.J.Bankr.
Keb.
Keble (Eng.)
L.J.Ch.
Keen
Keen (Eng.)
Keilw.
Kel.C.C.
Keilway (Eng.)
Kelvng's Crown Cases (Eng.)
L.J.Ch.O.S.
Kelly
Kelyng, J.
Kelly (Ga.)
Kelyng's English Crown Cases
LJ.C.P.
Kelynge, W»
Kelynge's Chancery (Eng.)
T TP PO S
Koyes
Keyes (N.Y.)
ij.u . v.Jr.\j«O<
Keyl.
K.&G.
Keilwey (Eng.)
Keane & Grant (Eng.)
L.J.EccL
Kilk.
Kilkerran's Decisions (Sc.)
T, T TfJ'e/»h
Kirby
Kirby (Conn.)
JLf.w .JKAl.ll.
Knapp
Knajjp&O.
Knapp (Eng.)
Knapp & Ombler (Eng.)
L.J.Exch.O.S.
Kn.&Moo.
Knapp & Moore (Eng.)
L.J.K.B.
Knox
Knox (N.S.Wales)
Kiiox&F.
Kiiip
Knox & Fitzhardinge (JXT-S. Wales)
Kulp (Pa.)
L.J.K.B.O.S.
Ky.
Kentucky
L.J.H.O.
Ky.Dea
Kentucky Decisions
Ky.L.
ICy.Op.
Kentucky Law Reporter
Kentucky Opinions
L.J.M.C.O.S.
L.J.P.C.
L
L.J.P.D.&Adnu
L.J.P.&M.
La.
Louisiana
La.App.
La.A. (Orleans)
Louisiana Court of Appeals
Court of Appeal, Parish of Orleans
L.J.Q.B.
T^ Arm.
Louisiana Annual
L.J.Hop.
Lab.
Labatf s District Court (Cal.)
Lack.Jur.
Lackawanna Jurist (Pa.)
iji &(},t.y.
Lack.Leg.N.
Lackawanna Legal News (Pa.)
U.&W.
Lack.Leg.Ree.
Lackawanna Legal Record (Pa.)
L.&M.
Lalor
Lalor's Supplement to Hill & Denio
L.M.iV^P.
(N.Y.)
IJOC.GOV.
Lanc.Bar
Lancaster Bar (Pa.)
I^olTt
Lanc.L.Rev.
Lancaster Law Review (Pa.)
Longf.&T.
Land Dec.
Land Decisions (U.S.)
Low.Cttn.Seignu
Lane
Lans.
Lane (Eng.)
Lansing (N.Y.)
Lowell
L.R.
Lans.Ch.
Lansing's Chancery Decisions (N.Y.)
L.R.A.
Latch
Latch (Eng.)
L.R.A.1915A.
Law Rep.N.8.
Law Reports New Series (N.Y.)
L.R.App.Cas.
L.O.
Lower Canada
L.&C.
Leigh & Cave (Eng.)
L.R.A.&E.
L.C.Jur.
Lower Canada Jurist
L.C.L.J.
Lower Canada Law Journal
L.R.A.N.S.
L.C.Rep.S.QtL
Lower Canada Reports Seignorial
Questions
L.R.C.C.
L.D.
Law Dictionary
L.R.Ch.
Ld.Ken.
Lord Kenyon (Eng.)
Ld.Raym.
Lord Raymond (Eng.)
L.R.C.P.
Lea
Lea (Tenn.)
Leach 0.0.
LJEd.
Leach's Crown Cases (Eng.)
Lawyers' Edition United States
L.R.Eq.
L.R.Exch.
Supreme Court
L.R.H.JU
Lee EccL
Lee's Ecclesiastical (Eng.)
Lee tHardw.
Lef.Dec.
Lee temp. Hardwicke (Eng.)
Lefevre's Parliamentary Decisions
L.R.H.L.SC.
Leg.Chron.
(Eng.)
Legal Chronicle (Pa.)
L.R.Indian App.
L.R.Ir.
Leg.Gaz.
Legal Gazette (Pa.V
L.R.P.O.
Leg.&InsJR.
LegJnt
Leg.Op.
Leg.Rec.
Legal & Insurance Reporter (Pa.)
Legal Intelligencer (Pa.)
Legal Opinions (Pa.)
Legal Record (Pa.)
L.R.P.&D,
L.R.Q.B.
Lehigh CO.LJ.
Lehigh County Law Journal (Pa.)
j.T.
Lehigh VaLLJEL
Lehigh Valley Law Exporter (Pa.)
Leigh (Va.)
iT.ols!
Leigh & Cave's English Crown Cases
Leonard (Eng.)
Levinz (Eng.)
Lewin's Crown Cases (Eng.)
Ley (Eng.)
Law Glossary
Liberian Law
Littell (Ky.)
Littleton (Eng.)
Littell's Select Cases (Ky,)
Law Journal Admiralty New Series
Law Journal Bankruptcy New Series
(Eng.)
Law Journal Chancery New Series
(Eng.)
Law Journal
Old Series
Chancery
(Eng.)
Law Journal Common Pleas New
Series (Eng.)
Law Journal Common Picas Old
Series (Eng.)
Law Journal JEcclesiastical New Series
Law Journal Exchequer New Scries
(Bng.)
Law Journal Exchequer Old Series
(Eng.)
Law Journal King's Bench New Series
(Eng.)
Law Journal King's Bench Old Series
(Eng.)
Law Journal Magistrate Cases New
Series (Eng.)
Law Journal Magistrate Cases Old
Series (Eng.)
Law Journal Privy Council New Series
(Eng.)
Law Journal Probate Divorce & Ad-
miralty New Series (Jdng.)
Law Journal Probate & Matrimonial
New Series (Eng.)
Law Journal Queen's Bench New
Series (Eng.)
Law Journal Reports (Eng.)
Llo3rd & Goold temp. Plunket (Ir.)
Lloyd & Goold temp. Sugden (Ir.)
Lloyd & Welsby (Eng.)
Lowndes & Maxwell (Eng.)
Lowndes, Maxwell & Pollack (Eng.)
Local Government (Eng.)
Loffit (Eng.)
Longfield & Townsend (Ir.)
Lower Canada Seignorial Reports
Lowell (U.S.)
Law Reports (U.S.)
Lawyers' Reports Annotated
Lawyers' Reports Annotated 1015A
English Law Reports, Appeal Cases
Law Reports Admiralty & Ecclesias-
tical (Ens.)
Lawyers' Reports Annotated New
Series
Law Reports Crown Cases (Hng.)
Law Reports Chancery Appeal Cases
(Eng.)
Law Reports Common Pleas Cases
(Eng.)
Law Reports Equity Casos (Eng.)
Law Reports Exchequer Cases "(Hug.)
Law Reports House of Lords (English
& Irish Appeal Cases)
Law Reports House of Lords (Scotch
Appeal Cases)
Law Reports Indian Appeals (Eng.)
Law Reports Irish
Law Reports Privy Council (Eng.)
Law Reports Probate & Divorce
(Eng.)
Law Reports Queen's Bench Oases
(Eng.)
Law Times (Pa.)
Law Times New Series (Pa.)
Law Times, Old Series (Eng.)
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
xni
L.T.Rep.N.S. Law Times Reports New Series
(Bng.)
Lush. Lushington's Admiralty (Eng.)
Lutw. Lutwyche (Bng.)
Lutw.Reg.Oas. Lutwyche's Registration Oases (Eng.)
Luz.Leg.Obs. Luzerne Legal Observer (Pa.)
Luz.Leg.Reg. Luzerne Legal Register (Pa.)
LyndJProv. Lyndwood's Provinciates
M
MacAPatOas. MacArthur's Patent Cases (D.O.)
MacArth. MacArthur's District of Columbia Re-
ports
MacAr.&M. MacArthur & Mackey's District of Co-
lumbia Reports
Maccl. Macclesfield (Bng.)
MacFarL MacFarlane (Sc.)
Mackey Mackey's Reports, District of Colum-
bia
MacL&R. Maclean & Robinson (Bng.)
Macn.&G. Macnaghten & Gordon (Eng.)
Macph. Macpherson (Sc.)
Macph.S.&L, Macpherson, Shirreff & Lee (Sc.)
Macq. Macqueen's Scotch Appeal Cases
Madd. Haddock (Eng.)
Madd.Ch.Pt. Maddock's Chancery Practice (Eng.)
Malloy Malloy (Ir.)
Man. Manitoba Law
Man.El.Cas. Manning's Election Cases (Eng.)
Man.Exch.Pr. Manning's Exchequer Practice (Eng.)
Man.Gr.&S. Manning, Granger, & Scott (Eng.)
ManX.J. Manitoba Law Journal
Man.&Ry. Manning & Ryland (Eng.)
Man.&Ry.Mag. Manning & Ryland's Magistrates' Gas-
Cas. es (Eng.)
Man.&S. Manning & Scott (Bng.)
Mann.Unrep.Oas. Manning's Unreported Cases (La.)
Manson Manson (Bng.)
Man.tWood Manitoba temp. Wood
March March (Bng.)
Mar.Prov. Maritime Province Reports (Can.)
Mars.Adm. Marsden's Admiralty (Bng.)
Marsh. Marshall (Bng.)
MarshJ.J. J. J. Marshall (Ky.)
Mart Martin Old Series (La.)
Mart(N.S.) Martin, New Series (La.)
Mart Martin (N.C.)
Marv. Marvel (Deli
MartN.S. Martin New Series (La.)
Mart&Y. Martin & Yerger (Tenn.)
Mason Mason (U.S.)
Mass. Massachusetts
Maule &S. Maule & Selwyn (Bng.)
Maynard (Eng.)
McAllister (U.S.)
McO, McCahon (Kan.)
McOielL McClelland (Eng.)
McOlelL&Y. McClelland & Younge (Eng.)
McCord, McOord (S.C.)
McCrary McCrary (U.S.)
McG. McGloin(La.)
McLean McLean (U.S.)
McMuL McMullan (S.O.)
Md. Maryland
Md.Cn. Maryland Chancery
Me. Maine
Mees.&Ros. Meeson & Boscpe Wng.)
Mees.&W. Meeson & Welsby (Eng.)
Meg. Megone (Eng.)
Meigs Meigs (Tenn.)
Menzies Cape
Good Hope
Meriv.
Mete.
Mete.
M.&G.
M.&EL
Mich.
Mich.NJP.
Mich.T.
Miles
Mill. Const
Menzies Cape of Good Hope
Merivale (Bng.)
Metcalf (Mass.)
Metcalfe (Ky.)
Manning & Granger (Bng.)
Murphy & Hurlstone (Eng,)
Michigan
Michigan Nisi Prius
Michaelmas Term (Bng.)
Miles (Pa.)
Mill's Constitutional (S.O.)
Mill.Dec. Miller's Decisions (U.S.)
Mffls Mills (N.Y.)
Milw. Milward (Ir.)
Minn. Minnesota
Minor Minor (Ala.)
Misc. Miscellaneous (N.Y.)
Miss. Mississippi
Miss.Dec. Mississippi Decisions
Miss.St.Cas. Mississippi State Cases
M.&M. Moody & Malkin (Bng.)
Mo. Missouri
Mo.App. Missouri Appeals
Moak Moak (Eng.)
Mo.A.R. Missouri Appeals Reporter
Mod. Modern (Bng.)
Mod.CasX.&Eq. Modern Cases at Law and Equity
(Bng.)
Molloy Molloy (Ir.)
Mon. Monaghan (Pa.)
Mont Montana
Mont Montagu (Bng.)
Mont.Bank.Rep. Montagu's English Bankruptcy Re-
ports
Mont.L.R. Montreal Law Reports (Can.)
Mont&A. Montagu & Ayrton (Bng.)
Mont&B. Montagu & Bligh (Bng.)
Mont&O. Montagu & Chitty (Bng.)
Mont.D.&DeG. Montagu, Deacon & De Gex (Bug.)
Montg.Co, Montgomery County Law Reporter
(Pa.)
Mont.&3iL Montagu & McArthur (Bng.)
Montr.Oond.Rep. Montreal Condensed Reports
Montr.Leg.N. Montreal Legal News
Montr.QS. Montreal Law Reports Queen's Bench
Montr.Super. Montreal Law Reports Superior Court
Moody C.C. Moody's Crown Gases (Eng.)
Moore C.P. Moore's Common Pleas (Eng.)
Moore Indian App.Moore's Indian Appeals (Eng.)
Moore's King's Bench (Eng.)
Moore K.B.
Moore P.O.
Moore P.C.N.S. Moore's Privy Council New Series-
Moore's Privy Council Old Series
Moore&S.
Moore&W.
Mor.Min.Rep.
Morr.
Morr.Bankr.Oas.
Morr.StOas.
Mosely
M.&P.
M.&R.
M.&Rob.
M.&S.
Mun.Corp.Cas.
Munf.
Murph.
Murr.
M.&W.
Myl.&O.
Myl.&K.
MyrJProb,
(Bng.)
Moore & Scott (Bng.)
Moore & Walker (Tei.)
Morrison's Mining Reports
Morris (Iowa)
MorrelTs Bankruptcy Cases (Bng.)
Morns' State Cases (Miss.)
Mosely (Bng.)
Moore & Payne (Bng.)
Manning & Ryland (Bng.)
Moody & Robinson (Eng.)
Maule & Selwyn (Bng.)
Municipal Corporation Cases
Munford (VaJ
Murphey (N.C.)
Murray (Sc.)
Meeson & Welsby (Bng.)
Mylne & Craig iBng.)
Nat.Bankr.Reg.
Nat.Corp.Rep.
NatL-Rep.
N.B.
N.BenL
NJBJBo.
N.O.
N.Ohipm.
NGConf
N 0 TJtek
N.B. (2d)
Neb.
Neb.(Uno&)
Nels.
NdLkbr.
Mylne & Keen (Bng.)
Myrick's Probate (CaL)
N
National Bankruptcy Register (U.S.)
National Corporation Reporter
National Law Reporter
New Brunswick
New Benloe (Eng.)
New Brunswick Equity
North Carolina
N. Chipman (Vt)
North Carolina Conference
North Carolina Term Reports
North Dakota
North Eastern Reporter .
North Eastern Reporter Second Series
Nebraska
Nebraska Unofficial
Nelson (Eng.) , ^
Kelson's Abridgment of the Common
Law
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
Nev. , Nevada
NewbAdm. Newberry's Admiralty (U.S.)
NewfoundL Newfoundland
Newf.Sel.Cas. Newfoundland Select Cases
New Eep. New Reports in all Courts (Bng.)
New Sess.Cas. New Session Cases (Eng.)
New ZeaLL. New Zealand Law
N.H. New Hampshire
N.J.Eq. New Jersey Equity
N.J.Law New Jersey Law
N.J.L.J. New Jersey Law Journal
N.J.Misc. New Jersey Miscellaneous
N.M. New Mexico
N.&M. Nevile & Manning (Eng.)
N.&Macn. Neville & Macnamara (Eng.)
Nolan Nolan (Eng.)
North. Northington (Eng.)
North.Go. Northampton County Reporter (Pa.)
Northum. Northumberland County Legal News
(Pa.)
Northumb.Co.Leg. Northumberland County Legal News
N.
Notes of Cas.
Nott & McC.
Noy
N.&P.
N.S.
N.S.Dec.
N.S.Wales
N.S.Wales L.
(Pa.)
Notes of Cases (Eng.
Nott & McCord (S.C.)
Noy (Eng.)
Nevile & Perry (Eng.)
Nova Scotia
Nova Scotia Decisions
New South Wales
.. . New South Wales Law
N.S.Wales L.R.Eq.New South Wales Law Reports Eq-
uity
N.W. North Western Reporter
N.Y. New York
N.Y.Ann.Cas. New York Annotated Cases
N.Y.City Ct. New York City Court
N.Y.Oity Ct.Suppl.New York City Court Supplement
N.Y.Civ.Proc. New York Civil Procedure
N.Y.Civ.Pr.Rep. New York Civil Procedure Reports
N.S.° 6 eP°r S'New York Code Reports, New Series
N.Y.Cr. New York Criminal
N.YXeg.Obs. New York Legal Observer
N.Y.L.Rec. New York Law Record t
N.Y.Month.L.Bul. New York Monthly Law Bulletin
N.Y.S.
N.Y.St.
N.Y.Super.
N.Y.Wkly.Dig.
O.Ben.
O.Bridgm.
Off.Gaz.
Ohio
Ohio App.
Ohio Cir.Ct.
Ohio Cir.Ct.N.S.
Ohio Cir.Dec.
Ohio Dec.
(Reprint)
Ohio FJDec.
Ohio L.J.
OhioN.P.
Ohio N.P.N.S.
Ohio O.
Ohio Prob.
Ohio S.&CJP,
Ohio St
OkL
OkLCr.
Olcott
Oliv.B.&Ii.
0'M.£H.
Ont.
OntA.
OntELCaS.
OntL.
OntLJ.
OntL.J.N.S.
OntPr.
New York Supplement
New York State Reporter
New York Superior Court
New York Weekly Digest
/
o
Old Benloe (Eng.)
Orlando Bridginan (Eng.)
Official Gazette
Ohio
Ohio Court of Appeals
Ohio Circuit Court
Ohio Circuit Court New Series
Ohio Circuit Decisions
Ohio Decisions (Reprint)
Ohio Federal Decisions
Ohio Law Journal
Ohio Nisi Prius
Ohio Nisi Prius New Series
Ohio Opinions
Ohio Probate
Ohio Superior & Common Pleas Deci-
sions
Ohio State
Oklahoma
Oklahoma Criminal
Olcott (U.S.)
Oliver, Beavan & Lefroy (Eng.)
O'Malley & Hardcastle (Ir.)
Ontario
Ontario Appeals
Ontario Election Cases
Ontario Law
Ontario Law Journal
Ontario Law Journal New Series
Ontario Practice
Ont.W.N.
Ontario Weekly Notes
OntW.R.
Ontario Weekly Reporter
Op.Atty.-Gen.
Opinions of Attorneys-General (U.S.)
Op.Sol.Dept
Labor
Opinions of the Solicitor for the De-
partment of Labor dealing with
Workmen's Compensation
Or.
Oregon
Orleans App.
Orleans Appeals (La.)
Overt
Over ton (Tenn.)
Owen
Owen (Eng.)
P
p.
Pacific Reporter
P.(2d)
Pacific Reporter Second Series
[1S91]P.
Law Reports [1891] Probate (Eng.)
Pa.
Pennsylvania State
Pa.Cas.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Cases
(Sadler)
Pa.Co.
Pennsylvania County Court
Pa.C.PL
Common Pleas (Pa.)
Pa.Dist
Pennsylvania District
Pa.Dist&Co.
Paige
Pennsylvania District and County
Paige's Chancery (N.Y.)
Paine
Paine (U.S.)
Pa.L.J.
Pennsylvania Law Journal
Pa.L.Rec.
Pa.L.J.R.
Pennsylvania Law Record
Clark's Pennsylvania Law Journal
Reports
Palm.
Palmer (Eng.)
Park.
Park. Or.
Parker (Eng.)
Parker's Criminal (N.Y.)
Pnrk.Exch,
Parker's Exchequer (Kng.)
Park.Ins.
Parker's Insurance (Eng.)
Pars.Eq.Oas.
Parsons' Equity Cases (Pa.)
Pa.Super.
Paton App.Cas.
Pennsylvania Superior Court
Paton's Appeal Cases (fcte.)
Patrick El.Cas.
Patrick's Election Cases (Can.)
Patt&EL
Patton & Heath (Va.)
P.D.
Law Reports Probate Division (EJng.)
P.&D.
Peake N.P.
Perry & Davison (Eng.)
Peake's Nisi Prius (Eng.)
Pearce C.C.
Pearce's Reports in Dearsly's (Bng.)
Pearson
Pearson (Pa.)
Peck
Peck (Tenn.)
Peck,E1.0as.
Peckwell's Election Cases (Eng.)
Pennew.
Pennewill (Del.)
Ponuyp.
Pennypackcr (Pa.)
Penr.&W.
Penrose & Watts (Pa.)
Perry & BJDU
Perry & Knapp Election Cases (Eng.)
Pet
PetAdm.
Peters (U.S.)
Peters' Admiralty (U.S.)
PetO.C.
Peters1 Circuit Court (U.S.)
Phil.
Phillips (Eng.) .
Phil.
Phillip (N.C.)
Phila.
Philadelphia (Pa.)
Philippine
Phillim.
Philippine
Phillimore Ecclesiastical (Eng.)
Pick.
Pickering (Mass.)
Pig.&R.
Pigott & Rod well (Eng.)
Pig.Rec.
Pigolt's Recoveries (Eng.)
Pinn.
Pinney (Wis.)
Pittsb.
Pittsburgh (Pa.)
Pittsb.Leg.J.
Pittsb.Leg.J.N.S.
Pittsburgh Legal Journal (Pa.)
Pittsburgh Legal Journal New Scries
(Pa.)
P.&K.
Perry & Knapp (Eng.)
Plowd.
Plowden (Eng.)
Pollexf.
Poph,
Pollexfen (Eng.)
Popham (Eng.)
Port
Porter (Ala.)
Posey
Posey's Un reported Cnses (Tex.)
Puerto Rico
Puerto Rico
Puerto Rico Fed.
Puerto Rico Federal
Pow.Surr.
Powers' Surrogate (N.Y.)
P.R.&D.ELCas.
Power, Rodwell & Dew's Election
Cases (Eng.)
Prec.Oh.
Precedents in Chancery (Eng.)
Pr.Edw.IsL
Prince Edward Island
Price
Price (Bng.)
Price Pr.Oas.
Price's Practice Cases (Eng.)
Prid.&0.
Pridcaux & Cole (Eng.)
Prob. [1917]
Law Reports, Probate Division (Eng.)
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
Prob.Rep.
Pr.Rep.
P.Wms.
P.UJR.
Pyke
Q.B.
[1S91]Q.B>
Q.BJX
Queensl.J.P.
Queensl.L.
Q u e ensLLJT*
Que.L.
Que.Pr.
Que.Q.B.
Que.Rev.Jud.
Que.Super.
Quincy
Rand.'
Rap.Jud.Q.C.S.
Rawle
R.C.L.
R.&Can.Cas.
R.&Can.Tr.Cas.
Redf.
Redf.&B.
Redf.R.Cas.
Redf.Surr.
Reeve EngJj.
Reports
Reprint
Rep.kFinch
Rep.t.Hard.
Rep.tHolt
Res.&Eq.Judgm.
Rev.Crit.
Rev.de Jur.
Rev.de Legis.
Rev.Leg.
Rev.Leg.N.S.
Rev.Rep.
R.I.
Rice
Rich.
Rich.OP.
Ridg.
Ridg.Ap.
Ridg.L.&S.
Ridg.P.C.
Ridg.t.Hardw.
Riley
R.&M.
RJMCharlt
Rob.
Rob.
Robb PatCas.
Robert.App.Cas.
Rob.Eccl.
Robin.App.Cas.
Rob.Wm.Adm.
Rolle
Rolle Abr.
Rolls Ct.Rep.
Rom.Cas.
Root
49 C.J.S.— b
Probate Reports (Eng.)
Practice Reports (Eng.)
Peere-Williams (Eng.)
Public Utilities Reports
Pyke (Can.)
Q
Queen's Bench (Adolphus & Ellis New
Series) (Eng.)
Law Reports [1891]
Queen's Bench
Law Reports Queen's Bench Division
(Eng.)
Queensland Justice of the Peace
Queensland Law
Queensland Law Journal
Quebec Law
Quebec Practice
Quebec Official Reports Queen's
Bench
Quebec Revised Judicial
Quebec Official Reports Superior
Court
Quincy (Mass.)
R
Randolph (Va.)
Rapport's Judiciaries de Quebec Cour
Superieure
Rawle (Pa.)
Ruling Case Law
Railway & Canal Cases (Eng.)
Railway & Canal Traffic Cases (Eng.)
Redfield's Surrogate (N.Y.)
Redfield & Bigelow's Leading Cases
(Eng.)
Redfleld's Railway Cases (Eng.)
Redfield's Surrogate (N.Y.)
Reeve's English Law
Reports (Eng.)
English Reprint
Cases temp. Finch (Eng.)
Lee's Reports tempore Hardwicke
(Eng.)
Reports tempore Holt (English Cases
of Settlement)
Reserved & Equity Judgments (N.S.
Wales)
Revue Critique (Can.)
Revue de Jurisprudence (Can.)
Revue de Legislation (Can.)
Revue Legale (Can.) .
Revue Legale New Series (Can.)
Revised Reports (Eng.)
Rhode Island
Rice (S.C.)
Richardson (S.C.)
Richardson's Practice Common Pleas
(Eng.)
Ridgeway's Reports tempore Hard-
wicke (Eng.)
Ridgeway's Appeal (Ir.)
Ridgeway, Lapp & Schoale (Ir.)
Ridgeway's Parliament Cases (Ir.)
Ridgeway temp. Hardwicke (Eng.)
Riley (S.C.)
Ryan & Moody (Eng.)
R. M. Charlton (Ga.)
Robinson (La.)
Robinson (Va.)
Robb's Patent Cases (U.S.)
Robertson's Appeal Cases (Sc.)
Robertson's Ecclesiastical (Eng.)
Robinson's Appeal Cases (Sc.)
William Robinson's Admiralty (Eng.)
Rolle (Eng.)
Rolle's Abridgment (Eng.)
Rolls' Court Reports
Romilly's Notes of Cases (Eng.)
Boot (Conn.)
Rose
Hoss Lead.Cas.
R.&R.
Russ.
Russ.&C.Eq.Cas.
Russ.Eq.Cas.
Russ.&Geld.
Russ.&M.
Ry.&M.
Salk.
Sandf.
Sandf.Ch.
Sask.L.
Saund.
Saund.&C.
Sau.&Sc.
S.AustrJi.
Sav.
Sawy.
Saxt.
[1907] S.C.
Scam.
S.C.Eq.
Seh.&Lef.
[1907]S.C.(J.)
Sc.Jur.
S.C.L.
Sc.L.Rep.
Scot L.T.
Scott
Scott NJR.
ScrJML\
Sc.Sess.Cas.
S.Ct-
S.D.
S.E.
Searle & Sm.
Sel.Cas.ClL
Seld.
Selden
Selw.
Serg.&R.
Sess.Cas.
Shan.
Shaw
Shaw&D.
Shaw Dec.
Shaw, Dunl.&B.
Shaw&M.
Sheld.
Shep.Abr.
Sheph.Sel.Cas.
Show.
Show.P.0.
Sid.
SilvA.
.Silv.Sup.
Sim.
Sim.N.S.
Sim.&St.
Skin.
Smale&G.
Smith
Smith
Smith&B.
Smith K.B.
Smith Lead.Cas.
Smith Reg.
Sm.&M.
Sm.&M.Ch.
Smythe
Sneed
So.
SoLJ.
Sp.
Spinks
Spinks
Rose (Eng.)
Ross' Leading Cases (Eng.)
Russell & Ryan Crown Cases (Eng.)
Russell (Eng.) ^
Russell's & Chesley's Equity Cases
Russell's Equity Cases (N.S.) .
Russell & Geldert, Nova Scotia
Russell & Hylne (Eng.)
Ryan & Moody (Eng.)
Salkeld (Eng.) /WVv
Sandford*s Supenor Court (N.Y.)
Sandford's Chancery (N.Y.)
Saskatchewan Law
Saunders (Eng.)
Saunders & Cole (Eng.)
Sausse & Scully (Ir.)
Soutjt Australia Law
Savile (Eng.)
Sawyer (U.S.)
Saxton (N.J.)
Sayer (Eng.)
South Carolina
Court of Session Cases (Sc.)
Scammon (I1L)
South Carolina Equity
Schoales & Lefroy (Ir.)
Court of Justiciary Cases (Sc.)
Scottish Jurist
South Carolina Law
Scottish Law Reporter
Scot Law Times
Scott (Eng.)
Scott's New Reports (Eng.)
Scranton Law Times (Pa.)
Scotch Court of Session Cases
-Supreme Court Reporter (U.S.)
South Dakota
South Eastern Reporter
Searle & Smith (Eng.)
Select Cases in Chancery (Eng.)
Selden's Notes (N.Y.)
Selden (N.Y.)
Selwyn's Nisi Prius (Eng.)
Sergeant & Rawle (Pa.)
Court of Session Cases (Eng.)
Shannon (Tenn.)
Shaw (Sc.)
Shaw & Dunlop (Sc.)
Shaw's Digest of Decisions (Sc.)
Shaw, Dunlop & Bell (Sc.)
Shaw & MacLean (Sc.)
Sheldon (N.Y.)
Sheppard s Abridgment
Shepherd's Select Cases (Ala.)
Shower (Eng.)
Shower's Parliament Cases (Eng*)
Siderfin (Eng.)
Silvernail's Appeals (N.Y.)
Silvernail's Supreme (N.Y.)
Simons (Eng.) .
Simons New Series (Eng.)
Simons & Stuart (Eug.)
Skinner (Eng.)
Smale & Giffard (Eng.)
Smith (Ind.)
Smith (N.H.)
Smith & Batty (Ir.)
Smith's King's Bench (Eng.)
Smith's Leading Cases (Eng.)
Smith's Registration (Eng.)
Smedes & Marshall (Hiss.)
Smedes & Marshall Chancery (Miss.)
Smythe (Ir.)
Sneed (Tenn.)
Southern Reporter
Solicitor's Journal (Eng.)
Speers (S.C.)
Spinks Admiralty (Bng.)
Spinks' Ecclesiastical and Admiralty
(Eng.)
XVI
Spinks, P.O.
Spottisw.
Spottisw.Bq.
Sprague
Stair
Stark.
Stat. at L.
Stew.
Stew.
Stew.&P.
StocktVice-Adm.
Story
Str.
Strob.
Stuart Vice-Adm.
Stu.M.&P.
Style
Sumn,
Susq.Leg.Chron.
S.W,
S.W.(2d)
Swab.
Swab.&Tr.
Swan
Swanst
TamL
Taney
Tapp.
Taunt
Taylor
T.B.Mon.
Tenn.
Tenn.Appt
Tenn.Gas.
Tenn.Oh.
Tenn.Ch.A.
Tenn.Civ.A.
TerrJU
Tex.
Tex,App.
Tex.A.Giv.Gas.
Tex.Giv.App.
TexXJr.
Tex.Suppl.
Tex.Unrep.Cas.
Thach.Cr.
Thomps.&0.
Thomps.Gas.
Tinw.
T.Jones
TXJEfc.
T.M.R.
T.&M.
Toth.
T.R.
TranscrA.
T.Raym.
Tread.0onst
TreasDec.
Tr.&H.Pr.
Trint.T.
Truem.Bq.Oas.
Tuck.Sel,Oas.
Tuck.Surr,
T,U.P.Charlt
Turn.&R.
Tyler
Tyrw,
Tyrw.&CL
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
Splnks' Prize Cases (Eng.)
Spottiswoode (Sc.)
Spottiswoode's Equity (Sc.)
Sprague (U.S.)
Starkie Nisi Prius (Eng.)
United States Statutes at Large
Stewart (Ala.)
Stewart's Reports (N.S.)
Stewart & Porter (Ala.)
Stockton's Vice-Admiralty (N.B.)
Story (U.S.)
Strange (Eng.)
Strobhart (S.C.)
Stuart's Vice-Admiralty (L.C.)
Stuart, Milne & Peddie (Sc.)
Style (Eng.)
Sumner (U.S.)
Susquehanna Legal (
Ter-
.Cham.
.OJP.
U.C.E.&A.
U.OJKJB.
Sumner .. ^ . , ,~ v
Susquehanna Legal Chronicle (Pa.)
South Western Reporter
South Western Reporter Second
Series
Swabey's Admiralty (Eng.)
Swabey & Tristram (Eng.)
Swan (Tenn.)
Swanston (Eng.)
T
Tamlyn (Eng.)
Taney (U.S.)
Tappan (Oh.)
Taunton (Eng.)
Taylor (N.C.)
T. B. Monroe (Ky.)
Tennessee
Tennessee Appeals
Unreported Tennessee Cases
Tennessee Chancery
Tennessee Chancery Appeals
Tennessee Civil Appeals
Territories Law (Northwest
ritories)
Texas
Texas Court of Appeals
White & Wilson's Civil Cases (Tex.)
Texas Civil Appeals
Texas Criminal
Texas Supplement
Posoy's Unreported Cases (Tex.)
Thachor's Criminal Cases (Mass.)
Thompson & Cook (N.Y.)
Thompson's Cases (Tenn.)
Tinwald (Sc.)
Thomas Jones (Eng.
Times Law Reports ,.
Trade Mark Reports
Temple & Mew (Bng.)
Tothill (Eng.)
Term Reports (Dnrnford & Bast)
(Bng.)
Transcript Appeals (N.Y.)
Thomas Raymond (Bng.)
Treadway Constitutional (S.C.)
Treasury Decisions (U.S.)
Troubat & Haly's Practice (Pa.)
Trinity Term (Bng.)
Trueman's Equity Cases (N.B.) ^
Tucker's Select Cases (Newfoundland)
Tucker's Surrogate (N.Y.)
T. U. P. Charlton (Ga.)
Turner & Russell (Eng.)
Tyler JVt)
Tyrwhitt (Bng.)
Tyrwhitt & Granger (Bng.)
u
Upper Canada
Upper Canada Chancery
Upper Canada Chamber
Upper Canada Common Pleas
Upper Canada Error and Appeal
Upper Canada King's Bench Reports
U.C.Q.B. Upper Canada Queen's Bench
U.C.Q.B.O.S. Upper Canada Queen's Bench
Series
U.S. United States
U.S Aviation Bep. Aviation Reports (U.S.)
U S.CLA. United States Code Annotated
Utah Utah
Va. Virginia
Va.0as. Virginia Cases
Va.Ch.Dec. Chaucory Decisions (Va.)
Va.Dec. Virginia Decisions
Van Ness Prize „ „ ,. . ~ /TT « v
Oas. Van Ness Prize Cases (U.S.)
Vaugh. Vaughan (Eng.)
Vaux, Vaux's Decisions (Pa.)
Vent. Ventris (Bug.)
Vern, Vernon's Cases (EngJ
Vern,Ch, Vernon's Chancery (Eng.)
Vern.&S. Vernon & Scriven (Ir.)
Ves. Vesey Senior (Eng.)
Ves.&B. Vesey & Beames (JBng»)
VesJr. Vesey Junior (Eng.)
Vcs.»1r.SuppL Vcscy Junior Supplement (Eng.)
VoH.SuppL VcKoy Senior Supplement (JWug.)
Viet Victorian
Vict.L. Victorian Law
VictL.T. Victorian T-AW Times
VictRep. Victorian Reports
Vict.St.Tr. Victorian State Trials
Vin.Abr. Viner's Abridgment (Bng.)
Virgin Islands Virgin Islands
Vt, Vermont
Old
Walk.
Walk.
Wall.
Woll.0.0.
WallJr.
Wall.Sr.
Wallis
Ware
Wash.
Wash.
Wash.St
WasTi.C.O.
Wash.T.
Watts
Watts&S.
W.BL
W.C.O.
Wobb,A'B.&WJ.
P.&M.
WebPatCas.
Welsh
Wend.
West
AVestLJ.
West.L.Month.
West.L.R.
WestL.T.
.^
West t.Hardw.
ri917]West.Wkly,
Whart
Wheat.
WhceLCr.
WhiteATJOead.
CasJEq.
Whitm.PatOas.
Wight
Wilcox
Willes
Wilnu
Wils.
w
Walker (Pa.)
Walker's Chancery (Mich.)
Wallace (U.S.)
Wallace (U.S.)
Wallace Junior (U.S.)
Wallace Senior (U.S.)
Wallis (Ir.)
Ware (U.S.)
Washington
Washington (Va.)
Washington State
Washington Circuit Court (U.S.)
Washington Territory
Watts (Pa.)
Watts & Sergeant (Pa.)
William Blackstone (Eng.)
Mintou- Sen house's Workmen's Com-
pensation Cases (HSug.)
Webb, A'Beckett, & Williams' Insol-
vency, Probate, and Matrimonial Re-
ports (Victoria)
Webster's Patent Cases (Bng.)
Welsh Registry Cases (Ir.)
Wendell (N.Y.)
West (Eng.)
Western Law Journal (Oh.)
Western Law Monthly (Oh.)
Western Law Reporter (Can*)
Western Law Times (Can.)
Western Reporter
West temp. Hardwicko (Bng.)
Western Weekly (Can.)
£19171 Western Weekly (Can.)
Wharton (Pa.)
Whoaton (U.S.)
Wheeler's Criminal (N.Y.)
White & Tudor's Leading Cases in Eq-
uity (Eng.)
Whitman's Patent Cases (U.S.)
Wiffhtwicke (Bng.)
Wilcox (Pa.)
Willes (Bng.)
Wilmot's Notes (Bng.)
Wilson (Ind.)
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
XVII
Wils.Cn.
Wils.C.P.
Wils.P.C.
Wils.&S.
Winch
Winst.
Wis.
WJones
W.KeL
Wkly.L.Gaz.
Wkly.N.C.
Wkly.Rep.
Wms.Saund.
W.N.
Wolf.&B.
Wolf.&D.
WolL
Woodb.&M.
Woods
Woodw.
Woolw;
Words & Phrases
Wright
Wilson's Chancery (Bng.)
Wilson's Common Pleas (Eng.)
Wilson's Exchequer (Eng.)
Wilson's Privy Council (Eng.)
Wilson & Shaw (Sc.)
Winch (Eng.)
Winston (N.C.)
Wisconsin
William Jones (Eng.)
William Kelynge (E)ng.)
Weekly Law Gazette (Oh.)
Weekly Notes of Cases (Pa.)
Weekly Reporter (Eng.)
Williams Notes to Saunders' Reports
Weekly Notes (Eng.)
Wolferstan & Bristow's Election Cas-
es (Eng.)
Wolferstan & Dew's Election Cases
(Eng.)
Wollaston (Eng.)
Woodbury & Minot (U.S.)
Woods (U.S.)
Woodward's Decisions (Pa.)
Woolworth (U.S.)
Words & Phrases
Wright (Oh.)
W.Rob.
Wr.Pa.
W.Va.
W.W.Earr.
W.W.&D.
W.W.&H.
Wyo.
Wythe
Wy.&W.
Wy.W.&A'Beck.
Yates SeLCas.
Y.B.
Y.&C.Exch.
Y.&C01L
Yeates
Yelv.
Yerg.
"V 0 T
1.&J.
York Leg.Rec.
Young Adm.
Younge
William Robinson's Admiralty (Eng.)
Wright (Pa.)
West Virginia
W. W* Harrington
Willmore, Wollaston & Davidson
(Eng.)
Willmore, Wollaston & Hodges (Eng.)
Wyoming
Wythe's Chancery (Va.)
Wyatt & Webb (Viet.)
Wyatt, Webb & A'Beckett (Vict>
Yates Select Cases (N.Y.)
Year Book (Eng.)
Younge & Collyer's Exchequer (Eng.)
Younge & Collyer's Chancery (Eng.)
Yeates (Pa.)
Yelverton (Eng.)
Yerger (Tenru)
Younge & Jervis (Eng.)
York Legal Record (Pa.)
Young's Admiralty Decisions (N.S.)
Younge Exchequer (Eng.)
LAW REVIEWS AND LAW JOURNALS
A.B.A.Jour.
Am.J.IntXaw.
Am.Law S.Rev.
B.U.L.Rev.
Brooklyn L.Rev.
Calif.L.Rev.
Camb.L.J.
Chi-Kent Rev.
Cohun.L.Rev.
Oom.L.J.
Cornell L.Q.
Detroit LJRev.
DickJL.Rev.
Fed.BJuJ.
Fla.KJ.
Pordham L.Rev.
Geo.Wash.L.Rey.
GeoX.J.
1-Iarv.L.Rev;
Ia.L.Rev.
Idaho L.J*
IlLL.Rev.
Ind.L.J.
J.Am.Jud.Soc.
J.CompJjeg.
J.N.A.Referees
Bank.
J.Soc.Pub.Teach.
Law
John Marshall L.
Q.
Kan.Gity L.Rev.
L.,7.
L.Lib.J.
Law Ser.Mo.BuIL
I/aw SooJ.
American Bar Association Journal
American Journal of International
Law
American Law School Review
Boston University Law Review
Brooklyn Law Review
California Law Review
Cambridge Law Journal
Chicago-Kent Review
Columbia Law Review
Commercial Law Journal
Cornell Law Quarterly
Detroit Law Review
Dickinson Law Review
Federal Bar Association Journal
Florida Law Journal
Fordham Law Review
George Washington Law Review
Georgetown Law Journal
Harvard Law Review
Iowa Law Review
Idaho Law Journal
Illinois Law Review
Indiana Law Journal
Journal of the American Judicature
Society
Journal of the Society of Comparative
Legislation
Journal of the National Association of
Referees in Bankruptcy
Journal of the Society of Pub. Teach-
ers of Law
The John Marshall Law Quarterly
Kansas City Law Review
Kansas State Law Journal
Kentucky Law Journal
Law Journal
Law Library Journal
University of Missouri Bulletin, Law
Series
Law Society Journal
Lincoln L.Rev.
Marq.L.Rev.
Mass.L.Q.
Mercer, Beasley
L.Rev.
Mich.L.Rev.
Minn.L.Rev.
MissJLJ.
Neb.L.B.
N.J.L.J.
N.J.L.Rev.
N.Y.UJLQJtev.
Lincoln Law Review
Marquette Law Review
Massachusetts Law Quarterly
Mercer, Beasley Law Review
Michigan Law Review
Minnesota Law Review
Mississippi Law Journal
Nebraska Law Bulletin
New Jersey Law Journal
New Jersey Law Review
New York 'University Law Quarterly
Review
Notre Dame Law.Notre Dame Lawyer
N.C.L.Rev. North Carolina Law Review
Okla.S.B.J. Oklahoma State Bar Journal
Oreg.L.Rev. Oregon Law Review
PhiLLbJ. Philippine Law Journal
Rocky Mt.L.Rev. Rocky Mountain Law Review '
St. John's L.Rev. St John's Law Review
St. Louis LJRev. St. Louis Law Review (now Washing-
ton University Law Quarterly)
So.Calif .L.Rev. Southern California Law Review
Temp.L.Q. Temple Law Quarterly
Tenn.L.Rev. Tennessee Law Review
Tex.L.Rev. Texas Law Review
Tul.L.Rev. Tulane Law Review
U.CMX.Rev. University of Chicago Law Review
U.Cin.L.Rev. University of Cincinnati Law Review
U.Detroit L. J* University of Detroit Law Journal
U.Pa.L.Rev. University of Pennsylvania Law He-
view
U. of Pitts.LJElev.University of Pittsburgh Law Review
U.Toronto L.J. University of Toronto Law Journal
Va.L.Rev. Virginia Law Review
Wash.L.Rev. Washington Law Review
Wash.UX.Q, Washington University Law Quarterly
W.Va.L.Q. West Virginia Law Quarterly and The
Bar
WisXJaev« Wisconsin Law Review
Yale LJ. Yale Law Journal
LIST OF TITLES
IN
CORPUS JURIS SECUNDUM
.Abandonment
Abatement and Revival
Abduction
Abortion
Absentees
Abstracts of Title
Accession
Accord and Satisfaction
Account, Action on
Accounting
Account Stated
Acknowledgments
Actions
Adjoining Landowners
Admiralty
Adoption of Children
Adulteration
Adultery
Adverse Possessiofc
Aerial Navigation
Affidavits
Affray
Agency
Agriculture
Aliens
Alteration of Instruments
Ambassadors and Consuls
Amicus Curias
Animals
Annuities
Appeal and Error
Appearances
Apprentices
Arbitration and Award
Architects
Army and Navy
Arrest
Arson
Assault and Battery
Assignments
Assignments for Benefit of
Creditors
Assistance, Writ of
Associations
Assumpsit, Action of
Asylums
Attachment
Attorney and Client
Attorney General
Auctions and Auctioneers
Audita Querela
Bail
Bailments
Bankruptcy
Banks and Banking
Barratry
Bastards
Beneficial Associations
Bigamy
Bills and Notes
Blasphemy
Bonds
Boundaries
Bounties
Breach of Marriage Promise
Breach of the Peace
Bribery
Bridges
Brokers
Building and Loan Associations
Burglary
Business Trusts
Canals
Cancellation of Instruments
Carriers
Case, Action on
Cemeteries
Census
Certiorari
Champerty and Maintenance
Charities
Chattel Mortgages
Citizens
Civil Rights
Clerks of Courts
Clubs
XIX
Colleges and Universities
Collision
Commerce
Common Lands
Common Law
Common Scold
Compositions with Creditors
Compounding Offenses
Compromise and Settlement
Concealment of Birth or Death
Conflict of Laws
Confusion of Goods
Conspiracy
Constitutional Law
Contempt
Continuances
Contracts
Contratos
Contribution
Conversion
Convicts
Copyright and Literary
Property
Coroners
Corporations
Costs
Counterfeiting
Counties
Court Commissioners
Courts
Covenant, Action of
Covenants
Creditors' Suits
Criminal Law
Crops
Culpa
Curtesy
Customs and Usages
Customs Duties
Damages
Dead Bodies
Death
Debt, Action of
LIST OF TITLES
Dedication
Deeds
Dependencies, Colonies, and
British Possessions
Depositaries
Depositions
Deposits in Court
Descent and Distribution
Detectives
Detinue
Discovery
Dismissal and Nonsuit
Disorderly Conduct
Disorderly Houses
District and Prosecuting
Attorneys
District of Columbia
Disturbance of Public Meetings
Divorce
Domicile
Dower
Drains
Druggists
Drunkards
Dueling
Easements
Ejectment
Election of Remedies
Elections
Electricity
Embezzlement
Embracery
Eminent Domain
Entry, Writ of
Equity
Escape
Escheat
Escrows
Estates
Estoppel
Evidence
Exchange of Property
Exchanges
Executions
Executors and Administrators
Exemptions
Explosives
Extortion
Extradition
Factors
False Imprisonment
False Personation
False Pretenses
Federal Courts
Fences
Ferries
Finding Lost Goods
Fines
Fires
Fish
Fixtures
Flags
Food
Forcible Entry and Detainer
Forfeitures
Forgery
Fornication
Franchises
Fraud
Frauds, Statute of
Fraudulent Conveyances
Game
Gaming
Garnishment
Gas
Gifts
Good Will
Grand Juries
Ground Rents
Guaranty
Guardian and Ward
Habeas Corpus
Hawkers and Peddlers
Health
Highways
Holidays
Homesteads
Homicide
Hospitals
Husband and Wife
Improvements
Incest
Indemnity
Indians
Indictments and Informations
Industrial Co-operative
Societies
Infants
Injunctions
Innkeepers
Insane Persons
Insolvency
Inspection
Insurance
Insurrection and Sedition
Interest
Internal Revenue
International Law
Interpleader
Intoxicating Liquors
Joint Adventures
Joint Stock Companies
Joint Tenancy
Judges
Judgments
Judicial Sales
' Juries
Justices of the Peace
Kidnapping
Landlord and Tenant
Larceny
Levees and Flood Control
Lewdness
Libel and Slander
Licenses
Liens
Limitations of Actions
Lis Pcndens
Livery Stable Keepers
Logs and Logging
Lost Instruments
Lotteries
Malicious Mischief
Malicious Prosecution
Mandamus
Manufactures
Maritime Liens
Marriage
Marshaling Assets and
Securities
Master and Servant ^
Masters* and Employers'
Associations
Mayhem
Mechanics' Liens
Mercantile Agencies
Militia
Mills
Mines and Minerals
Miscegenation
Modern Civil Law
Money Lenders
Money Lent
Money Paid
Money Received
Monopolies
Mortgages
Motions and Orders
Motor Vehicles
Municipal Corporations
Names
Navigable Waters
Ne Exeat
Negligence
Neutrality Laws
LIST OF TITLES
XXI
Newspapers
New Trial
Notaries
Notice
Novation
Nuisances
Oaths and Affirmations
Obscenity
Obstructing Justice
Officers
Pardons
Parent and Child
Parliamentary Law
Parties
Partition
Partnership
Party Walls
Patents
Paupers
Pawnbrokers
Payment
Penalties
Pensions
Pent Roads
Peonage
Perjury
Perpetuities
Physicians and Surgeons
Pilots
Piracy
Pleading
Pledges
Poisons
Possessory Warrant
Post Office
Powers
Principal and Surety,
Prisons
Private Roads
Prize Fighting
Process
Profanity
Prohibition
Property
Prostitution
Public Administrative Bodies
and Procedure
Public Lands
Public Utilities
Quieting Title
<Quo Warranto
Railroads
Rape
Real Actions
Receivers
Receiving Stolen Goods
Recognizances
Records
References
Reformation of Instruments
Reformatories
Registers of Deeds
Registration of Land Titles
Release
Religious Societies
Removal of Causes
Replevin
Reports
Rescue
Review
Rewards
Right of Privacy
Riot
Robbery
Sales
Salvage
Schools and School Districts
Scire Facias
Seals
Seamen
Searches and Seizures
Seduction
Sequestration
Set-Off and Counterclaim
Sheriffs and Constables
Shipping
Signatures
Slaves
Social Security and Public
Welfare
Sodomy
Specific Performance
Spendthrifts
States
Statutes
Steam
Stenographers
Stipulations
Street Railroads
Submission of Controversy
Subrogation
Subscriptions
Suicide
Summary; Proceedings
Sunday
Supersedeas
Taxation
Telegraphs and Telephones
Tenancy in Common
Tender
Territories
Theaters and Shows
Threats and Unlawful
Communication
Time
Torts
Towage
Towns
Trade-Marks, Trade-Names,
and Unfair Competition
Trade Unions
Trading Stamps and Coupons
Treason
Treaties
Trespass
Trespass to Try Title
Trial
Trover and Conversion
Trusts
Turnpikes and Toll Roads
Undertakings
United States
United States Commissioners
United States Marshals
Unlawful Assembly
Use and Occupation
Usury
Vagrancy
Vendor and Purchaser
Venue
War
Warehousemen and Safe
Depositaries
Waste
Waters
Weapons
Weights and Measures
Wharves
Wills
Witnesses
Woods and Forests
Work and Labor
Workmen's Compensation
CORPUS JURIS
SEGUNDUM
VOLUME FORTY-NINE
JUDGMENTS
This Title includes judicial determinations of rights of parties to proceedings in courts or jusuc<
in general, interlocutory as well as final; rendition, entry, requisites, and validity of formal judgments
more particularly of judgments in civil actions, and amendment and correction thereof; operation am
effect of judgments in respect of persons and' subject matters concluded, and of property bound by judg
ments, and liens created by entry, docketing, etc., of judgments; conclusiveness of judgments as agains
collateral attack; direct attacks on judgments by motions in arrest or to open, vacate, etc., judgments
writs of error coram nobis, etc., or by actions to set aside or restrain enforcement of judgments or fo;
other relief against them on equitable grounds; assignment of judgments; payment, satisfaction; an<
discharge of judgments; revival of judgments by scire facias, motion, eta; operation and effect o
judgments of courts of foreign states and countries; and enforcement of judgments in general, more par
ticularly actions on judgments.
Matters not in this Title, treated elsewhere in this work, see Descriptive-Word Index
Analysis
I DEFINITION, NATURE/AND KINDS, §§ 1-12
H. ESSENTIALS OP EXISTENCE, VALIDITY, AND REGULARITY OP JUDGMENT, §§ 13-6:
A. IN GENERAL, §§ 13-22
B. PROCESS, NOTICE, oir APPEARANCE, §§ 23-26
C. PARTIES, §§ 27-38
D. PLEADINGS, ISSUES, EVIDENCE, VERDICT, AND FINDINGS TO SUSTAIN JUDGMENT, §§ 39-45
E. CONFORMITY TO PRIOR PROCEEDINGS, §§ 46-61
m. FORM AND CONTENTS OP JUDGMENT, AND RELIEF AWARDED, §§ 62-86
IV. ARREST OF JUDGMENT, §§ 87-99
V. RENDITION, ENTRY, RECORD, AND DOCKETING, §§ 100-133
" See also descriptive word index in the back of this Volume
490.XS.-1 1
JUDGMENTS 49 C.J.S.
VI. JUDGMENT BY CONFESSION, §§ 134-172
A. IN GENERAL, §§ 134-145
B. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY OP CONCESSION GENERALLY, §§ 146-151
C UNDER WARRANT OR POWER off ATTORNEY, §§ 152-157
D. STATEMENT OF INDEBTEDNESS, §§ 15&-159
K PROCEDURE IN OBTAINING OR ENTERING JUDGMENT, §§ 160-167
F. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF JUDGMENT, §§ 168-172
VIL JUDGMENT ON CONSENT, OFFER, OR ADMISSION, §§ 173-186
V3H JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT, §§ 187-218
'A. IN GENERAL, §§ 187-203
B. PROCEDURE IN TAKING DEFAULT AND ENTERING JUDGMENT, §§ 204-218
IX. JUDGMENT ON MOTION OR SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS, §§ 219-227
X. AMENDING, CORRECTING, REVIEWING, OPENING, AND VACATING JUDGMENT, §§
228-340
A. JURISDICTION AND POWER GENERALLY, §§ 228-235
B. AMENDMENT AND CORRECTION, §§ 236-264
C OPENING AND VACATING, §§ 265-310
1. In General, §§ 265-285
2. Proceedings and Relief, §§ 286-310
D. WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS, §§ 311-313
E. ACTION TO REVIEW JUDGMENT, §§ 314-319
R CONFESSED JUDGMENTS, §§ 320-^27
G. JUDGMENTS BY CONSENT, OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE, AND ON MOTION OR SUMMARY PROOKKDINGS,
§§ 328-332
H. JUDGMENTS BY DEFAULT, §§ 333-340
XL EQUITABLE RELIEF AGAINST JUDGMENT, §§ 341-400
A. IN GENERAL, §§ 341-349
B. GROUNDS FOR RELIEF, §§ 350-376
C PROCOBSDURE, §§ 377-400
XH. COLLATERAL ATTACK, §§ 401-435
A. IN GENERAL, §§ 401-415
B. GROUNDS, §§ 416-435
XTTT. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OP JUDGMENT, §§ 436-453
A. CONSTRUCTION, §§ 436-443
B. OPERATION AND EFFECT, §§ 444-453
XIV. LIEN OP JUDGMENT, §§ 454-511
XV. ASSIGNMENT OF JUDGMENTS, §§ 512-530
XVI. SUSPENSION AND REVIVAL OP JUDGMENT, §§ 531-549
A. IN GENERAL, §§ 531-532
B. REVIVAL OF JUDGMENTS, §§ 533-549
XVIL PAYMENT, SATISFACTION, AND DISCHARGE OF JUDGMENT, §§ 550-584
See also descriptive word index in the back of this Volume
2
49 C.J.S. JUDGMENTS
XVIH. ENFORCEMENT OP JUDGMENTS, §§ 585-691
Divisions XIX to End in Volume 5O
XIX. RES JUDIOATA, |§ 592-S48
A. GENERAL PEINCTPLBS, §§ 592-597
B. MERGER AND BAR off CAUSES OF ACTION AND DEFENSES, §§ 598-685
1. General Principles, §§ 598-602
2. Judgments Operative as Bar, §§ 603-625
3. Decision on the Merits, §§ 626-647
4. Causes of Action Merged or Barred, §§ 648-680
5. Defenses and Counterclaims Barred by Former Judgment, §§ 681-685
C. CONOLUSIVENESS OF ADJUDICATION, §§ 686-736
1. General Principles, §§ 686-711
2. Matters Concluded by Judgment, §§ 712-736
D. JUDGMENTS IN PARTICULAR CLASSES OF ACTIONS OB PROCEEDINGS, §§ 737-755
E. PERSONS AFFECTED BY ADJUDICATION, §§ 756-821
1. Who May Take Advantage of Bar, §§ 756-761
2. Persons Concluded by Judgments, §§ 762-821
F. PLEADING AND PROVING JUDGMENTS, §§ 822-848
XX. ACTION ON JUDGMENT, §§ 849-887
A. DOMESTIC JUDGMENTS, §§ 849-S66 ^
B. FOREIGN JUDGMENTS, §§ 867-887 ^
XXL FOREIGN JUDGMENTS, §§ 888-906
A. JUDGMENTS OF COURTS OF SISTEB STATES, §§ 888-898
B. JUDGMENTS OF STATE AND FEDEBAL COUBTS, §§ 899-903
. C. JUDGMENTS OF COUBTS OF FOBEIGN COUNTBEBS, §§ 904-906
XXIT. JUDGMENTS IN REM, §§ 907-911
Sub-Analysis
t DEFINITION, NATURE, AND KINDS— p 25
§ 1. Definitions— p 25
2. General nature— p 26
3. Entirety of judgments-?-? 27
4. Distinguished from decisions and findings — p 28.
5. Distinguished from rules and orders— p 29
6. Judgments as contracts or obligations— p 30
7. Judgments as assignments or conveyances — p 32
8. Classification and kinds— p 32
9. Judgment on issue of law— p 33
10. Judgment on issue of fact — p 34
11. — — Final and interlocutory judgments — p 35
12. Judgments in rem and in personam — p 40
IL ESSENTIALS OP EXISTENCE, VALIDITY, AND REGULARITY OF JUDGMENT— ^ p 40
A. IN GENEBAIr— p 40
§ 13. General statement— p 40
14. Statutory provisions and what law governs— p 41
15. Duly constituted court— p 41
16. Time and place— p 41
17. Judges— p 42 ^
See also descriptive word index in the back of this Volume
JUDGMENTS 49 C.J.S.
EL ESSENTIALS OP EXISTENCE, VALIDITY, AND EECUJLAEITY OP JUDGMENT— Continued
A. IN GENERAL — Continued
§ 18. Formal proceedings — p 44
19. Jurisdiction — p 45
20. Matured cause of action — p 51
21. Definitiveness — p 51
22. Reasons for judgment — p 51
B. PROCESS, NOTICE, OB APPEARANCE— p 52
§ 23. Necessity— p 52
24. Sufficiency— p 54
25. Return and proof of service — p 65
26. Appearance — p 65
C. PARTIES— p 67
§ 27. In general— p 67
28. Judgment for or against one not a party — p 68
29. Death of party— p 71
30. Joint parties — p 74
31. Plaintiffs generally— p 74
. 32. Relief as between coplaintiffs— p 75
33. . Defendants generally— p 75
34. Contract actions — p 81
35. Tort actions— p 83
36. Joint or several judgments — p 84
37. Relief between codefendants— p 94
38. Nominal parties — p 95
D. PLEADINGS, ISSUES, EVIDENCE, VERDICT, AND FINDINGS TO SUSTAIN JUDGMENT— p 95
§ 39. Pleadings— p 95
40. Necessity and sufficiency — p 95
41. Several counts— p 100
42. Issues— p 101
43. Determination of all issues — p 101
44. Evidence— p 103
45. Verdict and findings — p 105
E. CONFORMITY TO PRIOR PROCEEDINGS — p 107
§ 46. Conformity to process — p 107
47. Conformity to pleadings aiid proofs — p 108
48. General rules— p 108
49. Limitation to relief sought by pleadings — p 111
50. Limitation and conformity to issues — p 117
51. Applications of rules in general — p 119
52. Nature and form of action — p 128
53. Grounds of action or defense — p 129
54. Amount of recovery — p 133
55.« Conformity to verdict, decision, and findings in general — j> 138
56. For and against whom — p 143
57. Amount — p 144
58. Interest— p 146
59. Judgment non obstante veredicto— p 147
60. When and for whom granted — p 148
61. «— * Motion for judgment — p 176
See also descriptive word index in the back of this Volume
49 C.7.S. JUDGMENTS
HI. FORM AND CONTENTS OP JUDGMENT, AND BELIEF AWARDED— p 180
§ 62. In general— p 180
63. What law governs — p 183
64. Necessity of writing — p 183
65. One or more judgments in same case— p 184
66. Several causes tried together — p 186
67. Nature and extent of relief— p 186
68. Amount of recovery — p 188
69. Personal judgment in proceedings by attachment or in rem — p 188
70. Affirmative relief to defendant— p 189
71. Recitals— p 189
72. Certainty— p 191
73. Conditional judgments — p 192
74. Alternative judgments — p 193
75. Designation of parties — p 194
76. Designation of amount — p 198
77. Interest— p 199
78. Costs, allowances, and attorney's fees — p 200
79. Medium of payment — p 201
80. Description of property — p 203
81. Date— p 204
82. Provisions for enforcement — p 204
83. Exceptions and saving clauses — p 205
84. Surplusage— p 206
85. Signing by judge or clerk — p 206 *
86. Nonsuit or judgment on merits — p 207
IV. ARRBST OF JUDGMENT— p 209
§ 87. Nature of remedy— p 209
88. Grounds of arrest— p 210
89. Jurisdiction and venue — p 211
90. Process— p 211
91. Parties— p 212
924 Pleadings in general— p 212
93. Variance— p 215
94. Jury— p 215
95. Verdict and findings — p 216
96. Miscellaneous— p 217
97. Motions in arrest — p 218
98. Hearing and determination — p 220
99. Operation and effect of arrest — p 221
V. RENDITION, ENTRY, RECORD, AND DOCKETING— p 222
§ 100. Rendition generally— p 222
101. Authority and duty of court — p 223
102. Mode and sufficiency— p 224
103. Reading in open court — p 225
104. Application and order for judgment — p 225
105. On report of referee— p 227
106. Entry generally— p 229
107. Necessity— p 230
108. Authority and duty— p 232
109. Sufficiency and contents; defects and irregularities— p 234
110. Book or place of entry — p 235
See also descriptive word index in the back of this Volume
5
JUDGMENTS 49 C.J.S.
V. RENDITION, ENTEY, RECORD, AND DOCKETING— Continued
§ 111. Signature of record — p 236
112. — - Notice of entry— p 236
113. Time of rendition and entry — p 237
114. In vacation — p 244
115. Pendency of motion for new trial or in arrest — p 245
116. Stay of proceedings — p 246
117. Nunc pro tune entry — p 246
118. Power to order and grounds therefor in general — p 247
119. Time of entry— p 252
120. Proceedings to obtain— p 253
121. Operation and effect— p 255
122. Judgment roll or record — p 256
123. Time of making and filing — p 257
124. By whom made and filed — p 257
125. Contents and sufficiency — p 258
126. Docketing— p 262
127. Book or place of entry— p 263
128. Index— p 263
129. Filing transcript— p 263
130. Recording— p 266
131. Lost or destroyed records — p 266
132. Verity and conclusiveness of record — p 267
133. Record as notice — p 268
VL JUDGMENT BY CONFESSION— D 268
A. IN GENERAL— p 268
§ 134. Definition, nature, and distinctions — p 268
135. Classes— p 269
136. Confession after action brought — p 269
137. Confession without action — p 271
138. Debts or claims for which judgment may be confessed— p 271
139. Debts not matured — p 272
140. Contingent liabilities — p 272
141. Future advances — p 272
142. For tort— p 272
143. Who may confess judgment — p 272
144. Joint or several debtors or defendants — p 273
145. In whose favor confessed — p 273
B. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY OF CONCESSION GENERALLY — p 273
§ 146. In general— p 273
147. Compliance with statutory provisions generally — p 274
148. Consent or ratification of creditor — p 275
149. Process, appearance, and pleading— p 275
150. Confession after action — p 275
151. Confession without action— p 276
C UNDER WARRANT OB POWER OB« ATTOJ&NEY— p 276
§ 152. In general— p 276
153. Requisites and sufficiency of warrant or power— p 278
154. Construction and operation of warrant or power— p 280
155. Second confession under same power — p 288
See also descriptive word index in the back of this Volume
6
49 C.J.S. JUDGMENTS
VI. JUDGMENT BY CONFESSION— Continued
C. UITDER WARRANT OR POWER OP ATTORNEY — Continued
§ 156. Revocation and defeasance— p 288
157. Confession under void or lost warrant — p 289
D. STATEMENT OF INDEBTEDNESS — p 289
§ 158. Nature and necessity— p 289
159. Requisites and sufficiency — p 290
E. PROCEDURE IN OBTAINING OR ENTERING- JUDGMENT — p 294
§ 160. In general— p 294
161. Jurisdiction and authority — p 295
162. Necessity and sufficiency of proof — p 297
163. Affidavit as to bona fides of confession— p 298
164. Nature, form, and requisites of judgment in general — p 299
165. Entry of judgment — p 300
166. Time of entry— p 301
167. Amount of judgment— p 303
F. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OP JUDGMEMNT — p 304
§ 168. In general— p 304
169. As release or waiver of defects — p 305
170. Presumptions supporting judgment — p 306
171. Effect of invalidity— p 306
172. Estoppel to deny validity— p 307
VET. JUDGMENT ON CONSENT, OFFEB> OR ADMISSION— p 308
§ 173. Consent— p 308
174. Right and authority to consent — p 309
175. Sufficiency of consent or agreement — p 311
176. Entry of judgment— p 312
177. Form and sufficiency of judgment — p 313
178. Construction, operation, and effect — p 314
179. Offer— p 317
180. Authority to offer— p 318
181. Form and sufficiency of offer — p 318
182. Acceptance or rejection, and withdrawal of offer — p 319
183. Entry of judgment— p 320
184. Construction, operation, and effect — p 320
185. Admission in pleading — p 321
186. Submission on agreed statement of facts — p 323
VEX JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT— p 324
A. Isr GENEBAL— p 324
§ 187. What constitutes judgment by default— p 324
188. Constitutional and statutory provisions7-p 326
189. Actions in which authorized — p 326
190. In whose favor default may be taken— p 327
191. Against whom default may be taken — p 328
192. Jurisdiction in general — p 331
193. Pleadings to sustain judgment — p 336
194. Amendment— p 340
195. Grounds for judgment— p 341
See also descriptive word index in the back of this Volume
7
JUDGMENTS 49 C.J.S.
VHI. JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT— Continued
A. IN GENERAL — Continued
§ 196. Default of appearance— p 341
197. Withdrawal of appearance— p 342
198. Absence from trial or other proceeding — p 343 .
199. Default in pleading— p 343
200. Operation and effect of default and judgment — p 355
201. Default as admission — p 357
202. Right to notice of, and participation in, further proceedings — p 360
203. Waiver of default— p 361
B. PBOCEDTTBE IN TAKING DEFAULT AND ENTERING JUDGMENT — p 362
§ 204. Power of court in general— p 362
205. Authority and duty of clerk— p 363
206. Preliminary entry of default — p 365
207. Time for taking default and entering judgment — p 366
208. Application for judgment — p 370
209. Bond or recognizance on taking judgment — p 372
210. Evidence— p 372
211. Proof of jurisdiction*! facts— p 373
212. Proof of default— p 373
213. Proof of cause of action— p 374
214. Hearing, determination, and relief — p 376
215. Form and requisites of judgment — p 380
216. Final or interlocutory — p 381
217. Recitals and record— p 382
218. Office judgments— p 384
IX. JUDCtMENT ON MOTION OR SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS— p 385
§ 219. In general— p 385
220. Cases in which allowed— p 388
221. Against whom judgment may be rendered — p 406
222. Procedure in general — p 407
223. Notice— p 409
224. Motion— p 412
225. Affidavits and other evidence — p 413
226. Hearing and determination; relief awarded — p 429
227. Form, requisites, and entry of judgment — p 432
3L AMENDING, CORRECTING, REVIEWING, OPENING, AND VACATING JUDGMENT— p 433
A. JURISDICTION AND POWER GENERALLY— p 433
§ 228. In general— p 433
229. During term— p 436
230. After expiration of term — p 438
231. Where terms abolished— p 445
232. At chambers or in vacation — p 445
233. Authority of clerk— p 446
234. Judgments subject to amendment or vacation — p 446
235. Jurisdiction of particular courts and judges — p. 447
B. AMENDMENT AND CORRECTION— p 447
§ 236. In general— p 447
237. Clerical and formal changes — p 449
See also descriptive word index in the back of this Volume
8
49 C.J.S. JUDGMENTS
X. AMENDING, CORRECTING, REVIEWING, OPENING, AND VACATING JUDGMENT— Con-
tinued
B. AMENDMENT AND CORRECTION — Continued
§ 238. Judicial and substantial changes — p 451
239. Particular amendments and corrections — p 455
240. Supplying omissions generally — p 455
241. Striking out improper or erroneous entries — p 455
242. Recitals in general — p 455
243. Conforming judgment to verdict or findings — p 456
244. Parties— p 457
245. Process and appearance — p 458
246. Relief awarded in general — p 458
247. Amount of recovery and allowance of interest — p 459
248. Costs and allowances — p 461
249. Other errors or defects— p 462
250. Procedure and reliefr— p 464
251. Jurisdiction — p 466
252. Time for application — p 466
253. Parties— p 467
254. Notice— p 467
255. Contents and sufficiency of application — p 469
256. Evidence; source of amendment or correction — p 470
257. — — Hearing and determination in general — p 472
258. Allowing amendment nunc pro tune — p 473
259. — — Discretion of court— p 475
260. Imposition of terms — p 475
261. Order— p 476
262. Mode of making amendments — p 476
263. Operation and effect in general — p 476
264. Rights of third persons— p 477
C. OPENING AND VACATING — p 478
1. In General— $ 478
§ 265. In general— p 478
266. Right to and grounds for relief — p 479
267. Invalidity of judgment in general — p 480
268. Irregularity of judgment in general — p 484
269. Fraud or collusion — p 486
270. Perjury— p 489
271. Violation of agreement — p 490
272. Defenses to action — p 491
273. Newly discovered evidence — p 493
274. Errors of law— p 493
275. Errors of fact— p 495
276. Defects and objections as to parties— p 496
277. Defects and objections as to pleadings — p 497 ,
278. Unauthorized, inadvertent, improvident, or premature entry— p 499
,279. Disobedience of order of court or other misconduct of party or coun-
sel—p 499
280. Mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, casualty or misfor-
tune— p 500
281. Other grounds— p 510
282. Defenses to relief— p 511
See also descriptive word index in the back of this Volume
40 C.J.S.- 2 9
JUDGMENTS 49 C.J.S.
X. AMENDING, CORRECTING-, REVIEWING, OPENING, AND VACATING- JUDGMENT— Con-
tinued
C OPENING AND VACATING — Continued
1. In General — Continued
§ 283. Other remedies available— p Sll
284. Waiver and estoppel — p 512
285. Assignment of judgment or rights thereunder— p 513
2. Proceedings and Relief — p 513
§ 286. Nature and form of remedy — p 513
287. Vacation on court's own motion — p 521
288. Time for application — p 523
289. Requisites and sufficiency of application — p 533
290. Meritorious cause of action or defense in general— p 53S
291. Proposed answer — p 539
292. Answer and other pleadings — p 539
293. Parties; persons by and against whom proceedings may be brought — p 539
294. Notice or process — p 543
295. Affidavits on application — p 544
296. Counter-affidavits — p 545
297. Evidence— p 545
298. Status of judgment pending application — p. 548
299. Hearing and determination in general — p 548
300. Discretion of court— p 552
301. Relief awarded— p 554
302. Partial vacation— p 555
303. Terms and conditions — p 555
304. Findings— p 556
305. Order— p 557
306. Operation and effect in general — p 557
307. Restitution— p 560
308. Objections and exceptions — p 560
309. Vacation and review of order — p 560
310. Liabilities on bonds given in proceedings to vacate — p 561
D. WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS — p 561
§ 311. In general — p 561
312. When writ lies— p 562
313. Proceedings and relief — p 568
E. ACTION TO REVIEW JUDGMENT — p 572
§ 314. In general— p 572
315. Grounds of action and judgments re viewable — p 574
316. Jurisdiction and procedure generally — p 575
317. Pleading and evidence — p 575
318. Hearing, determination, and relief — p 577
319. Review and costs — p 577
F. CONPBSSBD JUDGMENTS — p 578
§ 320. Amendment— p 578
321. Opening and vacating — p 578
322. Jurisdiction and authority — p 582
323. Grounds— p 583
324. Meritorious defenses — p 586
See also descriptive word index in the back of this Volume
10
49 C.J.S. JUDGMENTS
X. AMENDING, CORRECTING-, REVIEWING, OPENING, AND VACATING JUDGMENT--Con-
tinued
F. CONFESSED JUDGMENTS — Continued
§ 325. Affidavits and other evidence — p 589
326. Hearing, determination, and relief — p 593
327. Operation and effect of opening or vacating— p 597
G. JUDGMENTS BY CONSENT, OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE, AND ON MOTION OR SUMMARY PBQCEED-
INGS — p 598
§ 328. Consent judgments — p 598
329. Amendment— p 598
330. Opening or vacating — p 599
331. Judgments on offer and acceptance — p 604
332. Summary judgments — p 605
H. JUDGMENTS BY DEFAULT — p 605
§ 333. Opening, amending, and vacating generally — p 605
' 334. Right to and grounds for opening or vacating — p 608
335. Judgment on constructive service — p 641
336. Showing meritorious defense — p 642
337. Procedure and relief — p 650
338. Proceedings in cause operating to open default — p 688
339. Proceedings after opening default — p 688
340. Defenses available— p 689
XL EQUITABLE BELIEF AGAINST JUDGMENT— p 690
A. IN GENERAL — p 690
§ 341. Nature of remedy and right to relief in general — p 690
342. Jurisdiction — p 694 .
343. Existence of or resort to other remedy; inadequacy of remedy at law —
p 695
344. Persons entitled to relief— p 700
345. Persons against whom relief available — p 701
346. Judgments against which relief may be granted — p 701
347. By confession or on consent or offer — p 703
348. By default— p 703
349. Meritorious cause of action or defense — p 703
B. GROUNDS K>R RELIEF — p 706
§ 350. In general— p 706
351. Invalidity of judgment — p 709
352. Want of or defects in process or service— p 710
353. False return of service — p 711
354. Unauthorized appearance — p 712
355. Payment or satisfaction of judgment — p 712
356. Errors and irregularities — p 713
357. Defects or objections as to parties or pleadings — p 714
358. Objections to evidence— p 715
359. Error in amount of judgment or relief granted — p 715
360. Irregular rendition or entry — p 716
361. Defenses not interposed in former action — p 716
362. .Equitable defenses— p 720
363. Excuses for not defending— p 720
See also descriptive word index in the back of this Volume
11
JUDGMENTS 49 C.J.S.
XI. EQUITABLE RELIEF AGAINST JUDGMENT— Continued
B. GROUNDS FOR RELIEF — Continued
§ 364. Ignorance of facts or law — p 722
365. Mistake or surprise — p 723
366. Accident or misfortune — p 725
367. Excusable neglect— p 726
368. Negligence or misconduct of counsel — p 727
369. Matters determined in original action — p 729
370. Compelling set-off or reduction of damages — p 730
371. Fraud, perjury, collusion, or other misconduct— p 732
372. Fraud or concealment — p 732
373. Collusion— p 745
374. Perjury and subornation of perjury — p 745
375. Violation of agreement — p 748
376. Newly discovered evidence — p 749
C. PROCEDURE — p 751
§ 377. Form of proceedings — p 751
378. Conditions precedent — p 753
379. Time to sue and limitations — p 754
380. Defenses— p 756
381. Laches— p 757
382. Jurisdiction of particular courts — p 759
383. Venue— p 760
384. Parties— p 761
385. Process and appearance — p 764
386. Release of errors — p 764
387. Preliminary or temporary injunction — p 765
388. Pleading— p 767
389. Bill or complaint — p 767
390. Exhibits— p 776
391. Answer, motion to dismiss, and demurrer — p 776
392. Issues, proof, and variance — p 777
393. Evidence— p 778
394. Pleadings as evidence — p 785
395. Trial or hearing— p 786
396. Dismissal — p 787
397. Judgment or decree, and relief awarded — p 787
398. Review and costs— p 790
399. Operation and effect of injunction — p 790
400. Damages on dissolution of injunction— p 791
XH. COLLATBEAL ATTACK— p 792
A* " IN GENERAL— p 792
§ 401. General rule— p 792
402. To what judgments and courts rule applies— -p 798
403. By confession or on -consent or offer — p 800
404. By default— p 800
405. In criminal cases — p 801
406. Judgments and orders in special proceedings — p 802
407. Judgments of particular courts or tribunals— p 802
408. What constitutes direct or collateral attack— p 805
See also descriptive word index in the back of this Volume
12
49 C: J. S. JUDGMENTS
XTL COLLATERAL ATTACK— Continued
A. IN GENERAL — Continued
§ 409. Proceedings to enforce judgment — p 813
410. Proceedings to prevent enforcement of judgment — p 814
411. Separate action against party or officer — p 816
412. Parties affected by rule against collateral attack — p 817
413. Parties and privies — p 817
414. Third persons in general — p 818
415. Creditors — p 820
B. GROUNDS — p 820
§ 416. Invalidity of judgment generally — p 820
417. Insufficient or illegal cause of action — p 820
418. Legal disability of parties— p 821
419. Death of party before judgment — p 821
420. Disqualification of judge — p 821
421. Jurisdictional defects — p 822
422. Want of or defects in process or service — p 828
423. Defects in return or proof of service — p 830
424. Unauthorized appearance — p 831
425. Presumptions as to jurisdiction — p 831
426. Recitals of Jurisdictional facts — p 843
427. Decision of court as to* its own jurisdiction — p 849
428. Errors and irregularities — p 851
429. Defects and objections as to parties — p 853
430. Defects and objections as to pleadings — p 854
431. Irregularities in procedure — p 855
432. Objections to evidence — p 856
433. — Defects in entry or contents of judgment — p 857
434. Fraud, collusion, or perjury — p 859
435. Defenses available in original action — p 862
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OP JUDGMENT— p 862
A. CONSTRUCTION — p 862
§ 436. In general— p 862
437. Recitals — p 869
438. Pleadings— p 870
439. Verdict or findings — p 871
440. Parties— p 871
441. Issues— p 872
442. Recovery and relief — p 873
443. Conflict in record — p 874
B. OPERATION AND EFFECT — p 875
§ 444. In general— p 875
445. Conflicting judgments — p 876
446. Time of taking effect— p 876
447. Conditions and alternative provisions — p 877
448. Extraterritorial operation — p 878
449. Void and voidable judgments — p 878
450. Partial invalidity— p 881
451. Validating void judgment — p 882
452. Ratification and estoppel — p 883
453. Acceptance by prevailing party of part of judgment — p 884
See also descriptive word index in the back of this Volume
13
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
33V. LDSN OP JUDGMENT— p 884
§ 454. In general— p 884
455. Nature of lien— p 885
456. Control of lien— p 887
457. Amount of lien— p 887
458. What judgments create lien— p 887
459. Decrees in equity— p 888
460. Organization and character of court— p 889
461. Statutory requirements in general — p 889
462. Transcript or abstract— p 889
463. Recording, docketing, and indexing judgment— p 896
464. Indexing— p 898
465. Sufficiency to create lien— p 898
466. Commencement of lien— p 902
467. Lien of transferred judgment— p 904
468. Necessity of issue of execution — p 904
469. Judgment or amendment nunc pro tune — p 905
470. Effect of stay of execution — p 906
471. Property affected by lien — p 906
472. Nature of property — p 906
473. Location of property — p 908
474. Property previously transferred— p 909
475. Property fraudulently conveyed — p 910
476. Lands instantaneously seized — p 910
477. After-acquired property— p 911
478. Estate or interest affected by lien — p 912
479. Equitable interests in general — p 916
480. Interests of parties to executory contract of sale— p 918
481. Trust estates and legal titles— p 920
482. Leaseholds— p 922
483. Priority of liens— p 923
484. Between judgments — p 923
485. Between judgment and conveyances and other liens — p 926
486. Postponement of lien— p 938
487. Proceedings for determination of priority — p 940
488. Transfer of property subject to lien— p 941
489. Duration of lien— p 944
490. As against junior judgments — p 946
491. Death of judgment debtor— p 946
492. Extending lien— p 947
493. Issue and levy of execution — p 947
494. Revival of judgment — p 948
495. Suit to enforce lien or to subject property; action on judgment— p 949
496. Absence of debtor from state — p 949
497. Agreement of parties — p 950
498. Matters preventing enforcement of judgment — p 950
499. Loss, release, or extinguishment of lien — p 951
500. By release— p 953
501. Payment or satisfaction of judgment— p 953
502. Sale under execution — p 954
503. Stay of execution — p 954
504. Injunction against judgment — p 955
505. Receivership— p 955
506. Opening or vacating judgment — p 955
See also descriptive word index in the back of this Volume
14
9 C.J.S. JUDGMENTS
XIV. LIEN OF JUDaMENT— Continued
§ 507. Waiver and estoppel— p 955
508. Destruction, removal, or concealment of property— p 956
509. Appeal or writ of error — p 956
510. Remedies of creditor after termination of lien— p 957
511. Enforcement of lien— p 957
XV. ASSIGNMENT OF JUDGMENTS— p 961
§ 512. Assignability of judgments — p 961
513. Future judgments— p 963
514. Persons who may assign or purchase — p 963
515. Mode and sufficiency of assignment — p 964
516. Equitable assignments— p 967
517. Consideration— p 968
518. Recording— p 969
519. Operation and effect — p 969
520. Partial assignments— p 971
521. Rights and liabilities of parties— p 972
522. As to judgment debtor in general— p 972
523. As affected by notice to debtor— p 975
524. As affected by equities, defenses, and agreements between original par-
ties—p 976
525. As between assignor and assignee— p 977
526. As to third persons— p 978
527. Rights incidental to assignment— p 979
528. Effect of reversal or vacation after assignment— p 981
529. Priority of assignments— p 982
530. Setting aside assignment— p 983
XVI. SUSPENSION AND REVIVAL OF JUDGMENT— p 983
A. IN GENERAL— p 983
§ 531. Suspension or stay of proceedings— p 983
532. Dormant judgments— p 984
B. REVIVAL OF JUDGMENTS— p 989
§ 533. Necessity— p 989 .
534. Death of party— p 989
535. Right to revive— p 991
535. Grounds for revival— p 991
537. Who may revive— p 991
538. Against whom revival may be .had— p 992
539. Judgments which may be revived— p 994
540. Defenses or grounds of opposition— p 995
541. Jurisdiction and venue— p 999
542. Time for revival— p 999
543. Mode of revival— p 1002
544. Action to revive— p 1003
545. Action of debt— p 1004
546. Motion to revive— p 1004
547. Summons to show cause — p 1005
548. • Scire facias— p 1005
549. Operation and effect of revival— p 1019
See also descriptive word index in the back of this Volume
15
JUDGMENTS 49 C.J.S.
XVH. PAYMENT, SATISFACTION, AND DISCHARGE OP JUDGMENT— p 1021
§ 550. Persons to whom payment may be made — p 1021
551. Clerk of court or other officer — p 1022
552. Mode, medium, and sufficiency of payment — p 1022
553. Tender— p 1024
554. Payment by joint party or third person — p 1025
555. Payment by joint debtor — p 1025
556. Payment by suretjr — p 1027
557. Payment by stranger — p 1027
558. Payment by officer— p 1028
559. Evidence of payment — p 1028
560. Payment as question of law or fact — p 1034
561. Merger of judgments — p 1035
562. Assignment as extinguishment — p 1037
563. Release or discharge — p 1037
564. Joint debtors— p 1039
565. Agreement to release or satisfy — p 1040
566. Set-off of judgment against judgment — p 1041
567. Persons entitled to — p 1043
568. Judgments subject to— p 1043
569. Proceedings to obtain — p 1048
570. Operation and effect— p 1050
571. Set-off of judgment against claim — p 1050
572. Set-off of claim against judgment — p 1052
573. Satisfaction by execution or enforcement — p 1054
574. Other means of satisfaction — p 1057
575. Satisfaction of one of several judgments on same cause of action — |p 1057
576. Against different persons — p 1058
577. Operation and effect of satisfaction— p 1058
578. Recovery of payments — p 1059
579. Entry of satisfaction— p 1059
580. Satisfaction piece— p 1060
581. Proceedings to compel — p 1060
582. Actions and penalties for failure to satisfy — p 1065
583. Effect— p 1066
584. Vacation or correction — p 1066
XVULL ENFORCEMENT OP JUDGMENTS— p 1071
§ 585. In general— p 1071
586. Enforcement at law — p 1072
587. Enforcement in equity — p 1074
588. Scire facias to enforce — p 1076
589. Scire facias to obtain new execution — p 1076
590. Proceedings to make parties — p 1076 r-~ --
591. Scire facias on justice's transcript — p 1077
See also descriptive word index in the back of this Volume
§§ 592 to End in Volume 5O
16-24
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
L DEFINITION, NATTJUE, AND KINDS
§1
§ l. Definitions
A judgment may be broadly defined as the decision
or sentence of the law given by a court or other tribunal
as the result of proceedings instituted therein; in this
sense a decision of any court is a judgment, including
courts of equity, and in a criminal case a sentence Is a
Judgment.
In its broadest sense a judgment is the decision or
sentence of the law given by a court of justice or
other competent tribunal as the result of proceed-
ings instituted therein,1 or the final consideration
and determination of a court on matters submitted
to it in an action or proceeding,2 whether or not
execution follows thereon.3 More particularly it
is a judicial determination that, on matters submit-
1. N.J. — Corpus Juris cited in Dor-
man v. Usbe Building & Loan
Ass'n, 180 A. 413, 415, 115 N.J.Law
837.
Pa. — Corpus Juris cited in In re
Kruska's Estate, 7 Pa.Dist & Co.
273, 275, 7 Nor thumb. L.J. 281.
33 C.J. p 1047 note 1.
Particular kinds of judgments see
infra §§ 8-12.
Similar definitions
(1) The affirmance by law of legal
consequences attending a proved or
admitted set of facts. — Berg v. Berg,
132 P.2d 871, 872, 56 Cal.App.2d 495.
(2) The conclusion of law on facts
found, or admitted by the parties, or
upon their default in the course of
the suit.
Ky. — Bell Grocery Co. v. Booth, 61
S.W.2d 879, 880. 250 Ky. 21.
N.J. — Ross v. C. D. Mallory Corpo-
ration, 37 A.2d 766, 768, 132 N.J.
Law 1.
N.C.— Eborn v. Ellis, 35 S.E.2d 238,
240, 225 N.C. 386.
Tex.— Williams v. Tooke, Civ.App.,
116 S.W.2d 1114, 1116, error dis-
missed.
33 C.J. p 1047 note 1 [b] (7).
(3) The Judicial determination or
sentence of a court on a matter
within its jurisdiction.
U.S.— U. S. v. Hark, Mass., 64 S.Ct.
359, 361, 320 U.S. 531, 88 L.Ed.
290.
Md.— Schmeizl v. Schmeizl, 42 A.2d
106, 112.
(4) The final decision or sentence
of the law rendered by a court with
respect to a cause within its juris-
diction and coming legally before
it as the result of proper proceedings
rightly instituted.
Mass. — Morse v. O'Hara, 142 N.E.
40, 41, 247 Mass. 183.
Okl.— Prayer v. Grain, 163 P.2d 966,
968.
(5) The final determination of the
rights of the parties.
Okl.— Protest of Gulf Pipe Line Co.
of Oklahoma, 32 P.2d 42, 43, 168
Okl. 136 — Dresser v. Dresser, 22
P.2d 1012. 1025, 164 Okl. 94.
Utah. — Patterlck v. Carbon Water
Conservancy Dist., 145 P.2d 502,
507.
(6) The final sentence of the law
on matter at issue in the case as
presented by the record. — G. Am-
sinck & Co. v. Springfield Grocer Co.,
C.C.A.MO., 7 P.2d 855, 858.
(7) The pronouncement of a judge
on issues submitted to him. — Bell
Grocery Co. v. Booth, 61 S.W.2d 879,
880, 250 Ky. 21.
(8) What the court pronounces. —
Linton v. Smith, 154 S.W.2d 643, 645,
137 Tex. 479 — De Leon v. Texas Em-
ployers Ins. Ass'n, Tex.Civ.App., 159
S.W.2d 574, 575, error refused — Lew-
is v. Terrell, Tex.Civ.App., 154 S.W.
2d 151, 153, error refused — Jones v.
Sun Oil Co., Civ.App,, 145 S.W.2d
615, 619, reversed on other grounds
153 S.W.2d 571, 137 Tex. 353— Cor-
bett v. Rankin Independent School
Dist., Tex.Oiv.App., 100 S.W.2d 113,
115.
(9) A number of cases have fol-
lowed Blacks tone's definition of a
judgment as the sentence of the law
pronounced by the court upon the
matter contained in the record.
U.S.— Karl Kiefer Mach. Co. v. TJ. S.
Bottlers Machinery Co., 108 F.2d
469, 470.
111. — People ex rel. Toman v. Crane,
23 N.E.2d 337, 3'39, 372 111. 228—
Blakeslee's Storage Warehouses v.
City of Chicago, 17 N.E.2d 1, 3, 369
111. 480, 120 A.L.R. 715.
Tex. — Williams v. Tooke, Civ.App.,
116 S.W.2d 1114, 1120, error dis-
missed.
33 C.J. p 1047 note 1 [a].
(10) Other similar definitions.
U.S. — Allegheny County v. Maryland
Casualty Co., C.C.A.Pa., 132 F.2d
894, 897, certiorari denied 63 S.Ct
981, 318 U.S. 787, 87 L.Ed. 1154.
111. — General Electric Co. v. Gellman
Mfg. Co., 48 N.E.2d 451, 318 111.
App. 644.
Ky. — Bell Grocery Co. v. Booth, 61
S.W.2d .879, 880, 250 Ky. 21.
Miss.— Welch v. Kroger Grocery Co.,
177 So. 41, 42, 180 Miss. 89.
N.C. — Lawrence v. Beck, 116 S.E.
424, 426, 185 N.C. 196.
Ohio.— State ex rel, Curran v.
Brookes, 50 N.E.2d 995, 998, 142
Ohio St 107.
Tex. — Jackson v. Slaughter, Civ.App.,
185 S.W.2d 759, 761, refused for
want of merit — Davis v. Hemphill,
Civ.App., 243 S.W. 691, 693.
Wis. — In re Wisconsin Mut Ins. Co.,
6 N.W.2d 33.0, 331, 241 Wis. 394,
certiorari denied Hinge v. Duel, 63
25
S.Ct. 1157, 319 U.S. 747,' 87 L.Ed.
1703.
33 C.J. p 1047 note 1 [b].
Synonymous terms
(1) The term "judgment" compre-
hends all decrees and final orders,
rendered by a court of competent
jurisdiction, which determine the
rights of parties affected thereby. —
In re Frey's Estate, 40 N.E.2d 145»
148, 139 Ohio St. 354—33 C.J. p 1047
note 1 [c] (5).
(2) Other synonymous terms. —
Samuel Goldwyn, Inc. v. United Ar-
tists Corporation, C.C.A.Del.t 113 F.
2d 703, 706—33 C.J. p 1047 note 1
CcL
Mythical case
An attempt to retain the right to-
pass on the merits of a mythical
case not then in existence, and which
will exist as an independent suit,,
when and if it comes into existence,
is not a "judgment" as that term
is legally defined. — Goldsmith v.
Salkey, 112 S.W.2d 165, 169, 131 Tex.
139.
2. U.S.— Karl Kiefer Mach. Co. v.
U. S. Bottlers Machinery Co.; C.C.
A.I11., 108 F.2d 469, 470.
111. — People ex rel. Toman v. Crane,
23 N.E.2d 337, 339, 372 111. 228—
Blakeslee's Storage Warehouses v.
City of Chicago, 17 N.E.2d 1, 3*
369 111. 480, 120 A.L.R. 715— Peo-
ple ex rel. Klee v. Kelly, 32 N.E.2d
923, 929, 309 111. App. 72— People-
ex rel. Keeler v. Kelly, 32 N.E.2d
922, 309 IlLApp. 133— People ex
rel. Gallachio v. Kelly, 32 N.E.2d
921, 909 IlLApp. 133— People ex
rel. Clennon v. Kelly, 32 N.E.2oT
921, 309 IlLApp. 133— People ex
rel. Salomon v. Kelly, 32 N.E.2d
920, 309 IlLApp. 133.
Tex. — Fort Worth Acid Works v.
City of Fort Worth, Civ.App., 248:
S.W. 822, 824, affirmed City of Fort
Worth v. Fort Worth Acid Works-
Co., Cora.App., 259 S.W. 919.
Similarly expressed
Ohio. — State ex rel. Curran v.
Brookes, 50 N.E.2d 995, 998, 142
Ohio St 107.
Okl.— State v. Walton, 236 P. 629r
632, 30 Okl.Cr. 416. ,
33 C.J. p 1047 note 1 [b3 (4).
3. pa,— Petition of Kariher, 181 X.
265, 270, 284 Pa, 455.
§1
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
ted to a court for decision, a legal duty or liability
does or does not exist,4 or that, with respect to a
claim in suit, no cause of action exists or that no
defense exists.5
In the broad sense here denned, a decision of any,
court is a judgment,6 including courts of equity,7
admiralty,8 and probate.9 The judgment of a court
of equity or admiralty, however, as distinguished
from the judgment of a court of common law, is
generally known as a "decree."10 In a criminal
case a sentence is a judgment.11 In a narrower
sense the term "judgment" is limited to a decision
of a court of law.12
Under codes. Under most codes of procedure,
judgments are defined in substance as the final de-
termination of the rights of the parties in an ac-
tion or proceeding.13 Under codes abolishing the
distinction between actions at law and suits in eq-
uity, a decree is included in the code definition of
a judgment, and the final determination of a cause
is a judgment whether the relief granted is equita-
ble or legal.14 Indeed the terms "judgment" and
"decree" are more or less synonymous and. inter-
changeable in code practice.15
An "adjudication" is a judgment or the entry of
a decree by a court with respect to the parties in a
case.16
§ 2. General Nature
A Judgment is a judicial act which settles the is-
sues, fixes the rights and liabilities of the parties, and
determines the proceeding, and it is regarded as the
sentence of the law pronounced by the court on the ac-
tion or question before it.
A judgment is the judicial act of a court17 by
which it accomplishes the purpose of its creation.18
It is a judicial declaration by which the issues are
settled19 and the rights and liabilities of the parties
are fixed as to the matters submitted for decision.20
In other words, a judgment is the end of the law;21
its rendition is the object for which jurisdiction is
4. Wash.— In re Clark, IffS P.2d 577,
580.
B. Okl.— Frayer v. Grain, 163 P.2d
966, 968.
6. 111.— Patterson v. Scott, 33 111.
App. 348, affirmed 31 N.E. 433, 143
111. 138.
33 C.J. p 1048 note 2.
7. Gal. — Coleman v. Los Angeles
County, 182 P. 440, 180 Cal. 714.
33 C.J. p 1048 note 3.
8. U.S. — IT. S. v. Wonson, C.C.Mass.,
28 F.Cas.No.16,750, 1 Gall. 5.
9. Ohio.— In re Frey's Estate, 40 N.
E.2d 145, 148, 139 Ohio St. 354.
33 C.J. p 1048 note 5.
10. U.S. — Lamson v. Hutchings, 111.,
118 F. 321, 323, 55 C.C.A. 245, cer-
tiorari denied 23 S.Ct. 853, 189 U.
S. 514, mem, 4 L.Ed 924.
33 C.J. p 1049 note 6. .
"Decree" defined see Equity § 580.
11. Wash.— In re Clark, 163 P.2d
577, 581.
33 C.J. p 1049 note 8.
12. Cal. — Coleman v. Los Angeles
County, 182 P. 440, 180 Cal. 714.
33 C.J. p 1049 note 9.
13. U.S. — G. Amsinck & Co. v.
Springfield Grocer Co., C.C.A.Mo.,
7 F.2d 855, 858.
Ark. — Wann v. Reading Co., 108 S.
W.2d 899, 901, 194 Ark. 541.
Idaho.— State v. McNichols, 115 P.
2d 104, 107, 62 Idaho 616.
Iowa.— Whittier v. Whittler, 23 N*.W.
2d 435, 440.
Ky. — Bell Grocery Co. v. Booth, 61
S.W.2d 879, 880, 250 Ky. 21.'
I/a. — Lacour Plantation Co. v. Jewell,
173 So. 761, 763, 186 La. 1055.
Mont. — State ex rel. Meyer v. Dis-
trict Court of Fourth Judicial Dis-
trict in and fof Missoula County,
57 P.2d 778, 780, 102 Mont. 222.
N.Y. — Wood v. City of Salamanca, 45
N.E.2d 443, 445, 289 N.T. 279.
N.D. — Universal Motors v. Coman, 15
N.W.Sd 73, 73 N.D. 337.
33 C.J. p 1049 note 10.
14. Mont. — Raymond v. Blancgrrass,
93 P. 648, 36 Mont. 449, 15 L.R.A.,
tf.S., 976.
33 C.J. p 1050 note 11.
15. Wash.— Smith v. Smith, 115 P.
166, 167, 63 Wash. 288.
33 C.J. p 1050 note 12.
16. U.S. — Samuel Goldwyn, Inc. v.
United Artists Corporation, C.C.A.
Del., 113 F.2d 703, 706.
Hearing
An "adjudication" essentially im-
plies a hearing by a court, after no-
tice, of legal evidence on the factual
issue involved. — Genzer v. Fillip,
Tex.Civ.App.,- 134 S.W.2d 730, 732, er-
ror dismissed, judgment correct.
17. 111. — People ex rel. Toman v.
Crane, 23 N.E.2d 337, 339, 372 111.
228 — Blakeslee's Storage Ware-
houses v. City of Chicago, 17 N.E.
2d 1, 3, 369 111. 480, 120 A.L.R.
715.
N.J. — Dorman v. Usbe Building &
Loan Ass'n, 180 A. 413, 415, 115
N.J.Law 337.
Determination of Judge
Judgments are the solemn deter-
minations of judges on subjects sub-
mitted to them, and a judgment is
not what may be rendered, but what
is considered and delivered by the
court. — Eborn v. Ellis, 35 S.B.2d 238,
225 N.C. 386.
Fiat
'A judgment is a fiat of a court,
settling the rights of the parties,
and, however unjust, erroneous, or
26
illegal the settlement may be, the
parties can claim under it only
that which, by its terms, the judg-
ment awards. — Lacaze v. Hardee, La.
App., 7 So.2d 719, 724.
18. Okl.— Protest of Gulf Pipe Line
Co. of Oklahoma, 32 P.2d 42, 43,
168 Okl. 136.
Purpose
(1) Judgments are judicial acts
with the primary objective in view
of concluding controversies with as
high a degree of exact justice as it
is humanly possible to do. — Jackson
v. Slaughter, Tex.Civ.App., 185 S.W.
2d 759, 761, refused for want of mer-
it.
(2) Purpose of every judgment
should be to limit litigation and
clearly establish rights of parties as
found by courts. — Cameron v. Feath-
er River Forest Homes, 33 P.2d 884,
139 CaLApp. 373.
19. Tex. — Lewis v. Terrell, Civ.App.,
154 S.W.2d 151, 153, error refused.
Imposed in invitum
A judgment is usually imposed in
invitum, although it may be for the
enforcement of an indebtedness pre-
viously contracted. — Cherey v. City
of Long Beach, 26 N.E.2d 945, 282 N.
T. 382, 127 A.L.R. 1210.
Opinion and adjudication
Judgment reciting in substance
that court, considering proof and
pleadings, was of opinion and so
adjudged that defendant was indebt-
ed to plaintiff in certain sum with
interest and costs was "judgment." —
Bell Grocery Co. v. Booth, 61 S.W.2d
879, 250 Ky. 21.
20. Utah. — Adams v. Davies, 156 P.
2d 207, 209.
21. Kan.— Corpus Juris auoted in
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
conferred and exercised,22 and it is the power by
means of which a liability is enforced against the
debtor's property.23 A judicial judgment is not
necessarily a judgment for money or thing enforce-
able by execution or other process; it may be a
final and conclusive determination of a status, or a
right, or a privilege, or the basis of action.2* A
judgment is neither an action nor a special proceed-
ing, but is the determination of an action or pro-
ceeding.26
A judgment is the sentence of the law on the ul-
timate facts admitted by the pleadings or proved by
the evidence.26 It is not a resolve or decree of the
court, but the sentence of the law prpnounced by
the court on the action or question before it.27 It
must be based solely on the legal rights of the liti-
gants and not on the result of the litigation.28
A judgment constitutes the considered opinion of
the court29 and is a solemn record30 and formal .ex-
pression and evidence of the actual decision of a
lawsuit.31 The precedent or draft for judgment
may not be treated as a judgment.32
Vested right of property. A judgment may con-
stitute a vested right of property in the judgment
creditor33 within the protection of constitutional
provisions discussed in Constitutional Law §§ 271-
272.
§ 3. Entirety of Judgments
A judgment is an entirety.
It has generally been held to be the rule that a
judgment must be treated as an entirety.34 The ef-
fect of this rule as requiring that a judgment stand
or fall as a whole, and the circumstances under
which a judgment which is partially invalid may be
enforced as far as it is valid, are discussed infra §
450.
Kansas City Life Ins. Co. v. An-
thony, 52 P.2d 1208, 1211, 142 Kan.
670.
Tex. — Corpus Juris quoted in Wil-
liams v. Tooke, Civ.App., 116 S.W.
2d 1114. 1116, error dismissed.
23 C.J. p 1051 note 19.
A Judgment is the law's last word
in a judicial controversy.
U.S.— Karl Kiefer Mach. Co. v. TJ.
S. Bottlers Machinery Co., C.C.A.
111., 108 F.2d 469, 470.
Ala.— Hudson v. Wright, 51 So. 389,
164 Ala. 298, 137 Am.S.R. 55.
111. — People ex rel. Toman v. Crane,
28 N.B.2d 337, 339, 372 111. 228—
, Blakeslee's Storage Warehouses v.
City of Chicago, 17 N.B.2d 1, 3, 369
111. 480, 120 A.L.R. 715.
N.Y.— Steinberg v. Mealey, 33 N.Y.S.
2d 650, 263 App.Div. 479.
22. Kan. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Kansas City Life Ins. Co. v. An-
thony, 52 P.2d 1208, 1211, 142 Kan.
670.
Tex.— Corpus Juris quoted in Wil-
liams v. Tooke, Civ.App., 116 S.W.
2d 1114, 1116, error dismissed.
33 C.OT. p 1051 note 20.
23. Kan. — Corpus Juris quoted In.
Kansas City Life Ins. Co. v. An-
thony, 52 P.2d 1208, 1211, 142 Kan.
670.
N.J.— Nichols v. Dissler, 81 N.J.Law
461, 473, 86 AmJX 219.
N.T.— Steinberg v. Mealey, 38 N.T.S.
2d 650, 263 App.Div. 479.
Tex.— Corpus Juris quoted in Wil-
liams v. Tooke, Civ.App., 116 S.W.
2d 1114, 1116, error dismissed.
Existence and enforcement of indebt-
edness
Judgment Is credit, chose in ac-
tion, or incorporeal right, which de-
clares existence of indebtedness,
fixes amount due and owing, and pro-
vides means for enforcing payment
thereof, although it does not create,
add to, or detract from debt. — Salter
v. Walsworth, La.App., 167 So. 494.
24. U.S.— In re Frischer & Co., 16
Ct.gust.App. 191.
Affirmation of liattlity
A judgment is merely the affirma-
tion of a liability, and leaves the
parties to pursue remedies provided
by law. — San Luis Power & Water
Co. v. Trujillo, 26 P.2d 537, 540. 98
Colo. 385.
25. Iowa.— Gray v. Iljff, 30 Iowa
195, appeal dismissed 14 S.Ct. 1168,
154 U.S. 589, 38 L.Bd. 1088.
"Action" as including judgment see
Actions § 1 a (1) (c).
"Proceeding" distinguished from
"judgment" see Actions § 1 h (1)
(b).
26. Kan. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Kansas City Life Ins. Co. v. An-
thony, 52 P.2d 1208, 1211, 142 Kan.
670.
N.C.— Lawrence v. Beck, 116 S.E. 424,
185 N.C. 196.
It is a conclusion of law from
facts proved or admitted in suit —
Bell v. State Industrial Accident
Commission, 74 P.2d 65, 157 Or. 653.
27. U.S. — G. Amsinck & Co. v.
Springfield Grocer Co., C.C.A.MO.,
7 P.2d 855.
33 C.J. p 1051 note 24.
It applies the law to past or pres-
ent facts
U.S. — Oklahoma City, Okl., v. Dolese,
C.C.A.Okl., 48 P.2d 734.
Conn. — Eastern Oil Refining Co. v.
Court of Burgesses of Wallingford,
36 A.2d 586, 130 Conn. 606.
27
28. R.I. — Cleveland v. Jencks Mfg.
Co., 171 A. 917, 54 R.I. 218.
Set-off of errors
A correct judgment cannot be pro-
duced by a set-off of errors. — Eber-
hardt v. Bennett, 137 S.E. 64, 163
Ga. 796.
29. Tex. — Jackson v. Slaughter, Civ.
App., 185 S.W.2d 759, 761, refused
jfor want of merit.
30. N.J.— Dorman v. Usbe Building
& Loan Ass'n, 180 A. 413, 415, 115
N.XLaw -337.
31. Cal. — Gossman v. Gossman, 126
P.2d 178, 185, 52 Cal.App.2d 184.
"There are two necessary elements
in any valid judgment or order of
a court; (a) The court's decision or
determination, usually evidenced by
some oral statement or pronounce-
ment of the court, but often by a
written opinion, direction or decree;
and (b) the enrollment or entry by
the clerk of the court's action, or
the essential part of it, upon the
order book or record of the court.
The first element is judicial; the
latter clerical. The former involves
discretion;, the latter obedience." —
Happy Coal Co. v. Brashear, 92 S.W.
2d 23, 28, 263 Ky. 257.
32. Ark. — Wtann v. Beading Co., 108
S.W.2d 899, 194 Ark. 541.
33. N.T. — Livingston v. Livingston,
66 N.E. 123, 173 N.T. 377. 93 Am.
S.R. 600, 61 L.R.A. 800.
33 C.J. p 1059 note 93.
34. 111.— Holer v. Kaplan, 145 N.E.
243, 31$ 111. 448— Corpus Juris cit-
ed in Coyle v. Velie Motors Cor-
poration, 27 N.E.2d 60, 63, 305 111.
App. 135.
Mo. — Neal v. Curtis & Co. Mfg. Co.,
41 S.W.2d 543, 328 Mo. 389.
33 C.J. p 1051 note 25.
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
§ 4. — _ Distinguished from Decisions and
Findings
As a general rule, decisions, opinions, findings, or
verdicts do not constitute a judgment or decree but
merely form the basis on which the Judgment is subse-
quently to be rendered.
As a general rule, the decisions, opinions, or find-
ings of a court,35 referee,36 administrative board,87
or committee58 do not constitute a judgment or de-
cree, but merely form the basis on which the judg-
ment is subsequently to be rendered.39 Under some
statutes, however, the word "decision" is used as the
equivalent of "judgment" and "decree,"40 and is
distinguished from the term "opinion" in that the
latter term refers to a statement of reasons on
which the decision or judgment rests.41
- A verdict is not a judgment, but only the basis
for a judgment, which may, or may not, be entered
on it.42 A finding is not a judgment any more than
is the verdict of a jury.43 Such findings or deci-
sion amount only to an order for judgment44 and
35. U.S.— -Baxter v. City and County
of Dallas Levee Improvement
Dist., C.C.A.TCX., 131 F.2d 434—
G. Amslnck & Co. v. Springfield
Grocer Co., C.C.A.MO., 7 F.2d 855
— McGhee v. Leitner, D.C.Wis., 41
F.Supp. 674.
Ala, — Cooper v. Owen, 161 So. 98, 230
Ala. 316.
Cal.— El Centro Grain Co. v. Bank of
Italy Nat. Trust & Savings Ass'n,
11 P.2d 650, 123 Cal.App. 6G4—
Hume v. Lindholm, 258 P. 1003, 85
Cal.App. 80.
Colo.— First Nat. Bank v. Mulich,
266 P. 1110, 83 Colo. 518.
Idaho. — Blaine County Inv. Co. v.
Mays, 15 P.2d 734, 52 Idaho 381.
Iowa.— Shaw v. Addison, 18 N.W.2d
796 — Creel v. Hammans, 5 N.W.2d
109, 232 Iowa 95 — In re Evans*
Estate, 291 N.W. 460, 228 Iowa 908.
La. — Delahoussaye v. I>. M. Glazer
& Co., App., 182 So. 146, reheard
185 So. 644— Miller v. Morgan's Da.
& T. R. R. & S. S. Co., 1 La.App.
267.
Me. — Jones v. Jones, 8 A.2d 141, 136
Me. 238.
Mich.— Dolenga v. Lipka, 195 N.W.
90, 224 Mich. 276.
Mont. — Corpus Juris Quoted in Con-
way v. Fabian, 89 P.2d 1022, 1028,
108 Mont. 287, certiorari denied
Fabian v. Conway, 60 S.Ct 94,
308 U.S. 578, 84 L.Ed. 484— State
ex rel. King v. District Court of
Third Judicial Dist., 86 P.2d 755,
107 Mont, 476 — Corpus Juris gnot-
ed in Galiger v. McNulty, 260 P.
401, 403, 80 Mont. 339.
Okl. — Corpus Juris cited, in, Davis v.
Baum, 133 (P.2d 889, 891, 192 Okl.
85 — Lee v. Epperson, 32 P.2d 309,
168 Okl. 220.
Tex.— Permian Oil Co. v. Smith, 73
S.W.2d 490, 129 Tex. 413, 111 A.L.
R. 1152, rehearing denied 107 S.W.
2d 564, 129 Tex, 413, 111 A.L.R.
1175— Davis v. Hemphill, Civ.App.,
243 S.W. 691.
33 C.J. p 1052 note 33.
"Decision" and "opinion" of court
generally defined see Courts § 181
a.
The mental conclusion of the judge
presiding at a trial, the oral an-
nouncement of such conclusion, his
written memorandum entered in the
calendar, or the abstract entered in
the judgment docket do not consti-
tute a judgment. — Ranee v. Gaddis,
284 N.W. 468, 478, 226 Iowa 531—
Lotz v. United Food Markets, 283 N.
W. 99, 101, 225 Iowa 1397.
Actual sentence of law
Judgment purports to be actual
and absolute sentence of law, as
distinct from mere finding that one
of parties is entitled to judgment, or
from direction to effect that judg-
ment may be entered. — American
Motorists' Ins. Co. v. Central Garage,
169 A. 121, 86 N.H. 302.
An, orally expressed opinion, or
finding by a judge does not consti-
tute a judgment. — Moffott v. Lewis,
11 P.2d 397, 123 Oal.App. 307—33 C.
J. p 1052 note 33 [c].
Inconsistency
Decree was not void because find-
ings of fact and conclusions of law
were inconsistent with decretal por-
tion since findings do not constitute
the judgment. — Higley v. Kinsman,
Iowa, 216 N.W. 673.
The Judge's minutes cannot be re-
garded as the judgment or decree
rendered by the court, but are mere-
ly a memorandum of the decision
made by trial judge on his docket
for guidance of the clerk in entering
the decree on the journal. — Ex parte
Nikl'aus, 13 N.W.2d 655, 144 Neb. 503.
38. Fla. — Demens v. Poyntz, 6 So.
261, 25 Fla. 654.
33 C.J. p 1053 note 34—53 C.J. p 757
notes 32-34*
37. Md. — Dal Maso v. Board of
Com'rs of Prince George's County,
34 A.2d 464, 182 Md. 200.
38. Conn. — Cothren v. Olms ted, 18
A. 254. 57 Conn. 329.
39. U.S. — G. Amsinck & Co. v.
Springfield Grocer Co., C.C.A.Mo.,
7 F.2d 855, 858— Corpus Juris cited
in Roessler & Hasslacher Chemi-
cal Co. v. U. S., 13 Ct.Cust.App.
451, 455.
D.C. — Lambros v. Young, 145 F.2d
341, 79 U.S.App.D.C. 247. .
Idaho. — Blaine County Inv. Co. v.
Mays, 15 P.2d 734, 52 Idaho 381.
Mont.— Lewis v. Lewis, 94 P.2d 211,
109 Mont. 42 — Corpus Juris quoted
in Conway v. Fabian, 89 P.2d 1022,
1028, 108 Mont. 287, certiorari de-
nied Fabian v. Conway, 60 S.Ct 94,
28
308 U.S. 578, 84 L.Ed. 484— Corpus
Juris Quoted in Galiger v. McNul-
ty, 260 P. 401, 403, 80 Mont. 339.
N.H. — American Motorists' Ins. Co.
v. Central Garage, 169 A. 121, 86
N.H. 362.
Okl. — Moronoy v. Tannehill, 215 P.
938, 90 Okl. 224.
33 C.J. p 1053 note 36.
"Decision" synonymous with "opin-
ion"
"Decision," as used in statute pro-
viding that a decision of a depart-
ment of supreme court shall not be-
come final until thirty days after fil-
ing thereof, is synonymous with-
"opinion." — In re Brown's Guvardlan-
ship, 107 P.2d 1104, 6 Wash.2d 215.
40. U.S.— Rogers v. Hill, N.T., 53:
S.Ct. 731, 734, 289 U.S. 582, 77 L.
Ed. 1385.
41. U.S. — Rogers v. Hill, supra.
Decision based on findings
Decision of court based on findings-
within statute requiring such deci-
sion, when filed, amounts to a rendi-
tion of a judgment, which is a ju-
dicial act. — McKannay v. McKannay,
230 P. 218, 68 CaLApp. 709.
42. Del. — Nelson v. Canadian Indus-
trial Alcohol Co., 189 A. 691, 8 W.
W.Harr. 165, affirmed 197 A. 477,,
9 W.W.Harr. 184.
111. — People ex rel. Wakcfield v.
Montgomery, 6 N.B.2d 868, 365 111..
478— Mitchell v. Bareckson, 250 111.
App, 508.
N.T. — Fuentes v. Mayorga, 7 Daly
103, 104.
Utah. — Ellinwood v. Bennion, 276 P.
159, 73 Utah 563.
43. 111. — Central Republic Bank &
Trust Co. v. Bent, 281 111. App. 365.
Mont. — Corpus Juris quoted in Gali-
ger v. McNulty, 260 P. 401, 403,
80 Mont. 229.
Tex. — Davis v. Hemphill, Civ. App.,.
243 S.W. 691.
33 C.J. p 1053 note 38.
Pact findings
Although fact findings are proper,,
only decretal portion of decree ad-
judicates parties' rights.— Higley v«
Kinsman, Iowa, 216 N.W. 673.
44. Mont—Corpus Juris quoted in.
Galiger v. McNulty, 260 P. 401*
403, 80 Mont. 229.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
are subject to modification or change until embodied
in a definitive written order of the court.45
§ 5. Distinguished from Rules and Or-
ders
Judgments generally are distinguished from rules or
orders in that a judgment is the final determination of
the rights of the parties ending the suit whereas a rule
or order is an interlocutory determination of some sub-
sidiary or collateral matter, not disposing of the merits.
As a general rule, judgments are to be distin-
guished from orders or rules; one does not in-
clude the other.46 However, certain orders have
sometimes been denominated as judgments,47 and
it has been held that the character of an instru-
ment, whether a judgment or an order, is to be de-
termined by its contents and substance, and not by
its title.48 As distinguished from a judgment, an
order is the mandate or determination of the court
on some subsidiary or collateral matter arising in an
action, not disposing of the merits, but adjudicating
a preliminary point or directing some step in the
proceedings;49 and the term is commonly defined
in codes of procedure as every direction of a court
or judge, made or entered in writing, and not in-
cluded in a judgment.50 A judgment, on the other
hand, is the determination of the court on the issue
presented by the pleadings which ascertains and
fixes absolutely and finally the rights of the parties
in the particular suit with relation to the subject
matter in litigation, and puts an end to the suit51
The distinguishing characteristic of a judgment is
that it is final,52 while that of an order, when it re-
lates to proceeding in an action, is that it is inter-
locutory,53 although there are so-called interlocu-
Okl. — Lee v. Epperson, 32 P.2d 309,
168 Okl. 220.
33 C.J. p 1053 note 39.
45. Okl. — Lee v. Epperson, supra.
33 C.J. p 1053 note 40.
Reversal of oral decision
Court may enter formal written
order contrary to prior oral decision.
— State ex rel. Mountain Develop-
ment Co. v. Superior Court for
Pierce County, 67 P.2d 861, 190
Wash. 183.
46. Ala. — Corpus Juris cited in Mt.
Vernon-Woodberry Mills v. Union
Springs Guano Co., 155 So. 716,
717, 229 Ala. 91.
III.— Robinson v. Steward, 252 HI.
App. 203.
Ohio.— McMahon v. Keller, 11 Ohio
App. 410.
Okl.— Foreman v. Riley, 211 P. 495,
88 Okl. 75.
33 C.J. p 1053 note 41.
Administrative regulations pursu-
ant to statutory authority are gen-
erally legislative and do not have at-
tributes of judicial judgment or de-
cree.— Sparkman v. County Budget
Commission, 137 So. 809, 103 Fla. 242.
47. Mont. — State ex rel. Meyer v.
District Court of Fourth Judicial
Dist. in and for Missoula County,
57 P.2d 778, 102 Mont 222.
Ohio.— Continental Automobile Mut.
Ins.. Co. v. Jacksick, 188 N.E. 662,
46 Ohio App. 344.
33 C.J. p 1053 note 42.
"Final order" as defined by stat-
ute is comprehended within term
"judgment."— -Continental Automo-
bile Mut. Ins. Co. v. Jacksick, supra.
Dismissal for failure to prosecute
action
An order dismissing plaintiffs' ac-
tion for failure to bring it to trial
within five years after filing of com-
plaint was a judgment. — Colby v.
Pierce. 62 P.2d 778, 17 Cal.App.2d
Final disposition of cause
First order containing all neces-
sary recitals which, with finality,
disposes of cause, is regarded as
"judgment." — In re Method's Es-
tate, 21 P.2d 1084, 143 Or. 233.
48. Idaho.— State v. McNichols, 115
P.2d 104, 62 Idaho 616.
Mont.— State ex rel. Meyer v. Dis-
trict Court of Fourth Judicial Dis-
trict in and for Missoula County,
57 P.2d 778, 102 Mont. 222.
Or.— In re McLeod's Estate, 21 P.2d
1084, 143 Or. 233.
The word "judgment" need not *be
used in order to constitute the or-
der a judgment. — State ex rel. Head-
ley v. Industrial Commission of Ohio,
Ohio App., 67 N.E.2d 70.
49. Iowa.— Whit tier v. Whittier, 23
N.W.2d 435.
Nev.— Elsman v. Elsman, 2 P.2d 139,
54 Nev. 20, rehearing denied 3 P.
2d 1071, 54 Nev. 20.
33 C.J. p 1053 note 43.
"Order" generally defined see Mo-
tions and Orders § 1, also 42 C.J.
p 464 note 9-p 465 note 13.
Order held a finding
Order for "return of goods irre-
pleviable" was not itself a judgment,
but was a finding that defendant was
entitled to return of automobile. —
Commercial Credit Corporation v.
Flowers, 185 N.E. 30, 282 Mass. 316.
50. Iowa.— Whittier v. Whittier, 23
N,W.2d 435. . M
Okl. — Foreman v. Riley, 211 P. 495,
88 Okl. 75.
S.D.— Western Bldg. Co. v. J. C. Pen-
ney Co., 245 N.W. 909, 60 S.D. 630.
Wis. — Newlander v. Riverview Real-
ty Co., 298 N.W. 603. 610, 238 Wis.
211, 135 A.L.R. 383.
33 C.J. p 1055 note 55.
Order as to title
An order, adjudging that title of
mortgage trustee who purchased
mortgaged property at foreclosure
29
sale was merchantable, and that he
recover, from person with whom
he entered into contract for sale of
premises, damages for refusal to
complete contract, was an "order"
in a "proceeding at the foot of a
judgment", and was not a "judg-
ment" under statutory definition. —
Newlander v. Riverview Realty Co.,
supra.
51. Mo. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Koch v. Meacham, 121 S.W.2d 279,
281, 233 Mo.App. 453.
33 C.J. p 1054 note 44 — 42 CJ. p 466
note 34.
"Judgment" defined generally see
supra § 1.
Order granting naturalization as
judgment see Aliens § 140 c.
52. Nev. — Elsman v. Elsman, 2 P.
2d 139, 54 Nev. 20, rehearing de-
nied 3 P.2d 1071, 54 Nev. 20.
N.Y. — In re Kennedy's Estate, 281
N.T.S. 278, 156 Misc. 166.
Tex. — Vacuum Oil Co. v. Liberty Re-
fining Co., Civ.App., 247 S.W. 597,
reversed on other grounds Key-
stone Pipe & Supply Co. v. Liber-
ty Refining Co., Com. App., 260 S.W.
1018.
33 C.J. p 1054 note 45.
Determination and disposition of
ease
An order which has effect of final-
ly determining rights of parties, and
finally disposing of case is "judg-
ment."— State ex rel. Meyer v. Dis-
trict Court of Fourth Judicial Dist.
in and for Missoula County, 57 P.2d
778, 102 Mont. 222.
Tax eale judgment was held "fiaal
judgment," notwithstanding recital"
therein that judgment "should be
rendered." — Griggs v. Montgomery,
Tex.Civ.App., 22 S.W.2d 688.
53. N.Y. — In re Kennedy's Estate,
281 N.Y.S. 278, 156 Misc. 166.
&3 C.J. p 1054 note 46.
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
tory judgments, as is discussed infra § 11, and final
orders, as is discussed in -the CJ.S. title Motions
and Orders § 2, also 42 CJ. p 468 notes 65-74.
A decision sustaining or overruling a demurrer
ordinarily is an order, not a judgment,54 although
there is also some authority to the contrary.55 An
order or rub ordinarily is not founded on the whole
record in the case, but is granted on a special appli-
cation to the court called a "motion;" the determi-
nation of such motion is an order, not a judgment.56
A special proceeding regularly terminates in a final
order, not a judgment,57 although the final order in
a special proceeding is in effect a judgment and is
sometimes referred to as such.58
Order for judgment. An order merely directing
or authorizing the entry of judgment in the case
does not constitute a judgment; to have this effect
it must be so worded as to express the final sentence
of the court on the matters contained in the record
and to end the case at once, without contemplating
any further judicial action.59 Orders for judgment,
however, have sometimes been deemed sufficient as
judgments.60
Order for an execution. An order of a judge to
the clerk to issue execution for a specific sum with
costs has been held equivalent to a judgment,61 al-
though there is also authority to the contrary.62
§ 6. • Judgments as Contracts or Obli-
gations
Although Judgments are sometimes regarded as con-
tracts or debts of record and as obligations enforceable
by contractual remedies, they are not true contracts or
debts in a strict sense, and are Included within those
terms as used in statutes only where such is. the intent
of the statutes.
Broadly speaking, a judgment is an obligation for
the payment of money.63 Under the classification
of all obligations into two classes, namely, those
arising ex contractu and those arising ex delicto,
and the further division of obligations ex con-
tractu into simple contracts, contracts under seal
or specialties, and contracts of record, it has been
usual to classify judgment obligations as contracts
of record.64 Judgments have been declared to be
contracts,65 and, likewise, judgments have been de-
54. Wyo. — Greenawalt v, Natrona
Impr. Co., 92 P. 1008, 16 Wyo. 226.
33 C.J. p 1054 note 49.
Interlocutory judgments on demur-
rer see infra § 11.
55. N.Y. — Bentley v. Jones, 4 How.
Pr. 336, 3 Code Rep. 37.
33 C.J. p 1054 note 50.
56. Mo. — Pence v. Kansas City
Laundry Service Co., 59 S.W.2d
633, 332 Mo. 930.
Okl.— French v. Boles, 261 P. 196,
128 Okl. 90-— In re Baptiste's
Guardianship, 256 P. 520, 125 Okl.
184.
33 C.J. p 1054 note 51.
57. N.Y.— People v. Moroney, 120 NT.
B. 149, 224 N.Y. 114.
Wls. — In re Wisconsin Mut. Ins. Co.,
6 N.W.2d 330, 241 Wis. 394, cer-
tiorari denied Hinge v. Duel, 63
S.Ct. 1157, 319 U.S. 747, 87 L.Bd.
1703.
33 C.J. p 1054 note 52.
58. N.Y. — In re Kennedy's Estate,
281 N.Y.S. 278, 156 Misc. 166.
33 C.J. p 1055 note 53.
59. U.S. — Corpus Juris quoted in G.
Amsinck & Co. v. Springfield Gro-
cer Co., C.C.A.MO., 7 F.2d 855.
Ariz. — Brewer v. Morgan, 26*3 P. 630,
33 Ariz. 225.
Cal.— Bastajian v. Brown, 120 P.2d 9,
19 Cal.2d 209— Prothero v. Superi-
or Court of Orange County, 238 P.
357, 196 Cal. 439— City of Los An-
geles v. Hannon, 251 P. 247, 79
CaLApp. 669.
Okl.— Lee v. Epperson, 32 P.2d 309,
168 Okl, 220.
Tex. — Corpus Juris quoted in. Loper
v. Hosier, Civ.App., 148 S.W.2d
889, 891, error dismissed, judgment
correct.
33 C.J. p 1055 note 54, p 1104 note
33.
Purport
An order for a judgment is not a
judgment, because it does not pur-
port of itself to determine the
rights of the parties. — Erlcson v.
Steiner, 6 P.2d 298, 119 Cal.App. 305
—33 C.J. p 1104 note 32.
An entry in. the record, ordering
that plaintiff recover judgment from
defendant in the amount therein
stated, was not a judgment, but
merely an order for judgment. — Illi-
nois Trust & Savings Bank v. Town
of Roscoe, 194 N.W, 649, 46 S.D. 477.
Judgment nisi has no more effect
on parties' rights than verdict, be-
ing only order for entry of effective
judgment, absent intervening pro-
ceedings.— Hodgson v. Phippin, 150
A, 118, 159 Md. 97—35 C.J. p 1055
note 54 [a].
60. Ga.— Tift v. Keaton, 2 S.E. 690,
78 Ga. 235.
N.H. — Young v. Dearborn, 27 N.H.
324.
61. Ga. — Klink v. The Cusseta, 30
Ga. 504.
111.— Sears v. Sears, 8 111. 47.
62. Colo. — Hoehne v. Trugillo, 1
Colo. 161, 91 Am.D. 703.
33 C.J. p 1104 note 36.
63. La. — Holland v. Gross, App., 195
So. 828.
N.Y.— Weinstein v. McBlligott, 10 N.
30
Y.S.2d 320, 256 App.Div. 307, re-
versed on other grounds 22 NJB.
2d 171, 281 N.Y. 605.
33 C.J. p 1056 note 63.
New obligation
A judgment is not a contract or
an obligation 'of a contract but ift a
new obligation under which antece-
dent rights are to be enforced. —
Tradesmens Nat. Bank & Trust Co.
v. Floyd, 39 A.2d 728, 731, 156 Pa.
Super. 141.
Recognition of obligation
Judgment is the recognition of tho
preSxistence of a debt or obligation.
—Bailey v. Louisiana & N. W. R.
Co., 105 So. 626, 159 La. 576— Hol-
land v. Gross, La.App., 195 So. 828.
64. Iowa.— Chader v. Wilkins, 284
N.W. 183, 226 Iowa 417.
33 C.J. p 1056 notes 64, 67 [a].
65. La. — Butler v. Bolinger, 133 So.
778, 16 La.App. 397.
33 C.J. p 1056 note 65.
Judgments by confession see infra §
134 et seq.
Whether recovered for tort or on
contract, the judgment becomes a
debt which defendant is under obli-
gation to pay, and tho law implies
a promise or contract on his part
to pay it.
Cal. — Grotheer v. Meyer Rosenberg,
53 P.2d 99C, 11 Cal.App.2d ii«8.
N.Y.— Gutta -Percha & Rubber Mfg.
Co. v. City of Houston, 15 N.B.
402, 108 N.Y. 276, 2 Am.S.R. 412,
14 N.Y.Civ.Proc. 19, 20 Abb.N.Cas.
21$.
Partition Judgment from which
parties did not appeal could be in-
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§6
clared to be debts66 of record,67 or specialties.68 It
is only by a legal fiction, however, and for the pur-
pose of enforcing the obligation by contractual rem-
edies, that judgments can be considered as con-
tracts.69 Thus an action on a judgment is an ac-
tion on a contract,™ irrespective of the nature of
the original transaction on which the judgment was
founded,71 and the same provisional remedies may
be had as in an action on an express contract.72
On the other hand, the essential elements of ev-
ery true contract, such as competent parties and
assent, are often wanting in judgments which usu-
ally are rendered in invitum, and often against in-
fants, lunatics, or married women.78 Accordingly it
has also been declared that judgments are not con-
tracts74 or debts76 in the strict sense of these terms.
Withing meaning of constitutional and statutory
provisions. The fact that a judgment is some-
times regarded as a contract is not conclusive on
the question whether it is a contract within the
meaning of that term as used in particular statutory
or constitutional provisions, and in all such cases
the intent of such provisions is determinative.76
Accordingly, it has been held that a judgment is a
contract within the meaning of statutes confer-
ring77 or limiting78 the jurisdiction of a court in ac-
tions on contracts, prohibiting the assignment of
choses in action not arising out of contract,79 au-
thorizing set-offs and counterclaims,80 making joint
contracts joint and several,81 and prohibiting the
issuance of process against the body in an action on
a contract.82 On the other hand, a judgment is not
a contract or debt within statutes requiring actions
on contracts to be brought in the name of the real
party in interest,88 or making trustees or stockhold-
terpreted as contract between par-
ties.— Frazier v. Hanlon Gasoline
Co., Tex.Civ.App., 29 S.W.2d 461, er-
ror refused.
Contracts of highest character
Va. — Barnes v. American Fertilizer
Co., 130 S.E. 902, 144 Va. 692.
66. Iowa. — Chader v. Wilkins, 284
N.W. 183, 226 Iowa 417.
Mo.— Vitale v. Duerbeck, 92 S.W.2d
691, 338 Mo. 556.
33 C.J. p 1056 note 66.
Judgment for tort
A judgment rendered on a cause
of action for a tort is nevertheless
a debt—State v. City of Mound City,
73 S.W.2d 1017, "325 Mo. 702—33 C.
J. p 1056 note 66 [a], [c].
A judgment is an evidence of debt.
— Oil Tool Exchange v. Schuh, 153
P.2d 976, 67 Cal.App.2d 288—33 C.J.
p 1056 note 66 [e].
67. Mo. — Corpus Juris cited in State
v. City of Mound City, 73 S.W.2d
1017, 1020, 325 Mo. 702.
33 O.J. p 1056 note 67.
68. Conn. — Barber v. International
Co., 51 A. 857, 74 Conn. 652, 92
Am.S.R. 246.
33 C.J. p 1056 note 68.
69. R.I.— Everett v. Cutler Mills,
160 A. 924, 52 R.I. 330.
33 C.J. p 1057 note 69.
70. Cal. — Corpus Juris cited in
Grotheer v. Meyer Rosenberg, 53
P.2d 996, 999, 11 Cal.App.2d 268.
Iowa. — Chader v. Wilkins, 284 N.W.
183, 226 Iowa 417.
33 C.J. p 1057 note 71.
Nature and form of action on judg-
ment generally see infra § 851.
Assuntpsit or debt
Instances of quasi or construc-
tive contracts include judgments on
which an action of assumpsit or debt
may be maintained,' according to the
circumstances, because of a promise
to pay implied by law. — Corpus Ju-
ris quoted in Caldwell v. Missouri
State Life Ins. Co., 230 S.W. 566,
569, 148 Ark. 474—13 C.J. p 245 note
70.
71. Cal. — Corpus Juris cited in
Grotheer v. Meyer Rosenberg, 53
P.2d 996, 999, 11 Cal.App.2d 268.
Iowa.— Chader v. Wilkins, 284 N.W.
183, 226 Iowa 417.
Okl.— Vaughn v. Osborne, 229 P. 467,
103 Okl. 59.
33 C.J. p 1057 note 72.
72. N.Y.— Gutta Percha & Rubber
Mfg. Co. v. City of Houston, 15
N.E. 402, 108 N.T. 276, 20 Abb.N.
Cas. 218, 14 N.T.Civ.Proc. 19.
33 C.J. p 1057 note 73.
7a U.S.— In re Ransford, Mich., 194
F. 658, 115 C.C.A. 560.
33 C.J. p 1057 note 74.
74. RJ.— Everett v. Cutler Mills,
160 A. 924, 52 R.I. 330.
33 C.J, p 1057 note 75.
Consent decree for injunction in-
volving supervision of changing con-
ditions should not be considered con-
tract.— U. S. v. Swift & Co., App.
D.C., 52 S.Ct 460, 286 U.S. 106, 76
L.Ed. 999.
75. La. — Holland v. Gross, App., 195
So. 828.
76. U.S.— Metcalf v. City of Water-
town, Wis., 9 S.Ct. ITS, 128 U.S.
586, 32 L.Ed. 543.
33 C.J. p 1058 note 77.
Judgment as contract or debt with-
in:
Constitutional:
Provisions prohibiting statutes
impairing obligation of con-
tracts see Constitutional Law
§ 350.
Or statutory provisions prohibit-
ing imprisonment for debt see
Arrest § 25 a, Executions §
413 a, i
31
Rules as to joining causes of ac-
tion see Actions § 83.
Statute of limitations see infra §
854.
Statutes regulating rate of inter-
est see Interest § 40.
77. Cal.— Wallace v. JSldredge, 27
Cal. 498— Stuart v. Lander, 16 Cal.
372, 76 Am.D. 538.
Jurisdiction of courts generally see
Courts § 242.
78. N.Y.— Crane v. Crane, 19 N.Y.S.
691.
79. Mo. — Corpus Juris cited in
State v. City of Mound City, 78
S.W.2d 1017, 1020, 325 Mo. 702.
33 C.J. p 1058 note 83.
Assignment of judgments see infra
§ 512.
80. U.S. — Rose v. Northwest Fire &
Marine Ins. Co., C.C.Or., 71 F.
649.
33 C.J. p 1058 note 84.
Contrary view
(1) A contrary rule has been fol-
lowed in Illinois. — Rae v. Hulbert, 17
111. 572.
(2) It has been said, however, that
"the weight of authority is against
the view taken by the supreme court
of Illinois." — Rose v. Northwest Fire
& Marine Ins. Co., C.C.Or., 71 F. 649,
651.
81. U.S.— Belleville Sav. Bank v.
Winslow, C.C.MO., 30 F. 488.
33 C.J. p 1058 note 87.
82. Vt — Stoughton v. Barrett, 20
Vt. 385— Sawyer v. Vilas, 19 Vt.
43.
!. Ala.— Wolffe v. Eberlein, 74 Ala.
99, 49 Am.R. 809.
33 C.J. p 1058 note 82.
Plaintiffs in .action on judgment see
infra § 857.
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
ers of a corporation liable for its debts,84 or within
the meaning of married women's acts,85
§ 7. Judgments as Assignments or Con-
veyances
In the absence of a statute to the contrary, a Judg-
ment is not an assignment and ordinarily Is not effectual
to pass the title to land.
A judgment is not an assignment,86 even when
entered on confession,87 although, by statute, judg-
ments suffered under particular circumstances may
operate as an assignment for the benefit of credi-
tors.88 A judgment is not effectual to pass the title
to land,89 apart from statutory provision to that
effect,90 unless it substantially undertakes to vest
title, as by declaring that it shall operate as a deed
of conveyance, in a case where the court has juris-
diction to affect the title to land by a judgment or
decree operating in rem.91
§ 8. Classification and Kinds
Judgments have been classified with reference to
the state of the pleadings at the time of pronouncement,
and the proper style of the Judgment may also depend
on the form of the action.
Under common-law practice, judgments usually
are classified with reference to the state of the
pleadings at the time judgment is pronounced, un-
der which classification they fall into several basic
groups.92 The proper style of the judgment may al-
so depend on the form of the action, immemorial
custom having prescribed the formula of words to
be employed in the judgments rendered in certain
classes of proceedings.93
The form of judgment granted on determination
of issues of law or fact is discussed infra §§ 9, 10.
Numerous particular kinds of judgments are defined
infra this section, and there may be found elsewhere
in other connections a consideration of judgments
by confession, or judgments by cognovit actionem
and judgments by confession relicta verificatione,
discussed infra §§ 134-137, judgments on consent,
offer, or admission, discussed infra §§ 173-186,
judgments by default or nil dicit, discussed infra
§ 187, judgments of dismissal, discontinuance, non-
suit, or retraxit, discussed in Dismissal and Non-
suit §§ 1-5, judgments non obstantc vcredicto, or
judgments notwithstanding verdict, discussed infra
§§ 59-61, judgments mine pro tune, discussed infra
§§ 117-121, and judgments on the pleadings, dis-
cussed in the C.J.S. title Pleading § 511, also 49 C
J. p 779 note 29-p 780 note 48.
Irregular or erroneous judgment. An irregular
judgment is one entered contrary to the course of
the court, that is, contrary to the method of pro-
cedure and practice allowed by law in some mate-
rial respect.94 An erroneous judgment is one ren-
dered according to the course and practice of the
court, but contrary to law.95
84. U.S.— Chase v. Curtis, N.Y., 5
S.Ct. 554, 113 U.S. 452, 28 L.Ed.
1038.
Cal.— Larrabee v. Baldwin, 35 Cal.
155.
85. N.Y.— White v. Wood, 2 N.Y.S.
673, 49 Hun 381, 15 N.Y.Civ.Proc.
187.
86. Pa.— Breading, v. Boggs, 20 Pa.
• 33 37
33 c'.J. p 1059 note 95.
87. Pa, — Breading v. Boggs, supra,
Judgment by confession see infra
§§ 134-172.
88. Ky.— Laughlin v. Georgetown
First Nat. Bank, 47 S.W. 623, 103
.Ky. 742, 20 Ky.L. 354.
33 C.J. p 1059 note,97.
89. N.C.-^Proctor v. Ferebee, 36 N-
C. 143, 36 Am.D. 34.
33C.J. p 1059 note 98.
90. N.J.— Price v. Sisson, 13 N.J.
,Eq. 168.
KG.— Morris v. White, 2 S.E. 254, 96
N.C. 91.
91. Mich. — Simmons v. Conklin, 88
N.W. 625, 129 Mich. 190.
33 C.J. P 1059 note 1.
92. U.S. — Derby v. Jacques, C.C.
Mass., 7 F.Cas.No.3817, 1 Cliff. 425.
33 C,J. p 1059 note 3.
Judgments fall into four groups
under Blacksione's classification:
First, where the facts are agreed by
the parties, and the law is deter-
mined by the court, as in the case of
judgment on a demurrer; second,
where the law is admitted by the
parties and the facts are in dispute,
as in the case of judgments on ver-
dicts; third, where the facts and law
are admitted by defendant, as in
judgments by confession and de-
fault; fourth, where plaintiff is con-
vinced that the facts, or the law,
or both, are not sufficient to support
his action, as in judgments of non-
suit, retraxit, and discontinuance. —
Derby v. Jacques, C.C.Mass., 7 F.
Cas.No.3,817, 1 Cliff. 425.
Judgment against plaintiff
At common law a judgment
against plaintiff was on a retraxit,
non pros, nonsuit, nolle prosequi,
discontinuance or a judgment on an
issue found by jury in favor of de-
fendant or on demurrer. — Steele v.
Beaty, 2 S.E.2d 854, 215 N.C. 680.
93. 111.— -Jackson v. Haskell, 3 111,
565.
33 -C.J. p 1059 note 4.
Debt
111. — Jackson v. Haskell, supra.
32
94. N.M.— -EAly v. McGahon, 21 P.
2d 84, 87, 37 N.M. 240.
N.C. — Duplin County v. Ksssscll, 27
S.E.2d 448, 450, 223 N.C. 631—
Wynne v. Conrad, 17 S.E.2d 514,
518, 220 N.C. 355— Crowdcr v.
Stiers, 1 S.E.2d 353, 355, 216 N.
C. 123— Dall v. Hawkins, 189 S.E.
774, 211 N.C. 283— Hood ex rel.
Citizens' Bank & Trust Co. v.
Stewart, 184 S.E. 36, 40, 209 N.
C. 424 — Duffer v. Branson, 125 S.E.
619, 620, 188 N.C. 789.
33 C.J. p 814 note 6—34 C.J. p 508
note 3.
Irregular or erroneous judgment as
void or voidable see infra § 19.
Operation and effect of void and
voidable judgments see infra §§
449-452.
95. N.M.— Ealy v. McG'ahen, 21 P*2d
84, 87, 37 N.M. 246,
N.C.— Wynne v. Conrad, 17 S.E.2d
514, 518, 220 N.C. 355— Dail v.
Hawkins, 189 S.E. 774, 211 N.C. 283
— Hood ex rel. Citizens' Bank &
Trust Co. v. Stewart, 184 S.E. 36,
40, 209 N.C. 424— Herbert B. New-
ton & Co. v. Wilson Furniture Mfg.
Co., 174 S.E. 449, 450, 206 N.C. 533
— Wellons v. Lassiter, 157 S.B.
434, 436, 200 N.C. 474— Finger v.
Smith, 133 S.E. 186, 187, 191 N.C.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
A judgment on the merits is one rendered after
argument and investigation and when it is deter-
mined such party has a right, as distinct from a
judgment rendered on some formal or merely tech-
nical fault or by default without trial.**
Judgment nihil capiat per breve or per bittam
is the form of judgment against plaintiff in an ac-
tion either in bar or in abatement; literally, "that
he taka nothing by his writ or declaration."97
Judgment nisi. At common law, a judgment nisi
was one entered on the return of the nisi prius rec-
ord, which, according to the terms of the postea,
was to become absolute unless otherwise ordered by
the court within the first four days of the next suc-
ceeding term.98
Judgment of non pros, or non prosequitur is a
judgment of the court on motion of defendant in
a civil action in case plaintiff do.es not file his decla-
ration or replication in due time.99
i
Judgment quod bitta cassetur is the common-law
form of judgment sustaining a plea in abatement
where the proceeding is by bill, that is, by a capias
instead of by original writ; literally, "that the bill
be quashed."1
Judgment quod eat sine die is the old form of a
judgment for defendant;2 literally "that he go
without day."8
Judgment quod recuperet is a judgment in favor
of plaintiff rendered when he has prevailed on an
issue in fact or an issue in law other than one aris-
ing on a dilatory plea.*
Judgment respondeat ouster is a form of judg-
ment for plaintiff on an issue in law arising on a
dilatory plea.6 The judgment is that defendant
answer over, and, since it is not a final judgment,
the pleading is resumed and the action proceeds.5
A punitive judgment is one the purpose of which
is to inflict a penalty or punishment as distinguish-
ment from one granting a remedy.7
A self-executing judgment is a judgment that ac-
complishes by its mere entry the result sought, and
requires no further exercise of the power of the
court to accomplish its purpose.*
§9-
Judgment on Issue of Law
A judgment on a demurrer to pleadings Is on an
Issue of law and Is the same as It would have been on
an issue of fact between the parties, but a judgment
sustaining or overruling a demurrer to a plea In abate-
ment Is not of a final nature.
When the pleadings terminate in a demurrer on
either side, an issue of law is presented, and a judg-
ment on such demurrer is on an issue of law.9 On
818 — Duffer v. Branson, 125 S.E.
619, 620, 188 N.C. 789.
34 C.J. p 508 note 4—21 C.J. p 822
note 86.
When court lias Jurisdiction of the
subject matter of the action and of
the parties, a judgment giving to
one of the parties more than he
in entitled to receive is an erroneous
judgment. — McLeod v. Hartman, 253
P. 1094, 1095, 123 Kan. 110.
96. Xy. — Bell Grocery Co. v. Booth,
61 S.W.2d 879, 880, 250 Ky. 21.
97. Black L.D.
98. Black L.D.
33 C.J. p 1059 note 4 [b].
It is otherwise defined as "one
that is to be valid unless something
else should be dene within a given
time to defeat it."— U. S. v. Win-
stead, D.C.N.6., 12 F. 50, 51, 4
Hughes 464.
39. N.C.— Steele v. Beaty. 2 S.B.2d
854, 856, 215 N.C. 680.
Pa.— Beverldge v. Teeter, 14 Pa.Dist.
& Co. 498, 45 York Leg.Rec, 16, 26
Luz.Lieg.Reg. 100.
33 C.J. p 1061 note 26.
Nolle prosegnl dijrtingrnished
(1) Judgment of non pros, is not
to be confused with a nol. pros, or
nolle prosequi, by which plaintiff or
the attorney for .the state voluntari-
49 0. J.S.-3
ly declares that he will not further
prosecute a suit or indictment, or a
particular count in either. — Common-
wealth v. Casey, 12 Allen, Mass., 214,
218—33 C.J. p 1061 note 26 [bj.
(2) "Nolle proseaui" defined see
Dismissal and Nonsuit 9 4.
1. Black L.D.
33 C.J. p 1060 note 15 [a].
2. Del.— Silver v. Rhodes, 2 Del.
369, 374.
N*.J. — Hale v, Lawrence, 22 N.JXaw
72, 80.
Form of judgment generally see in-
fra 5 62.
8. Black L.D., sub verbo "Sine."
4. Ky. — Bell Grocery Co. v. Booth,
61 S.W.2d 879, 880, 250 Ky. 21.
As proper judgment on issues of law
or fact see infra 55 9, 10.
5. Black L.D.
33 C.J. p 1060 note 13 M.
6. U.S.— (Philadelphia & R. Coal &
Iron Co. v. Kever, N.T., 260 F. 534,
536, 171 C.C.A. 318, certiorari de-
nied 40 S.Ct 13, 250 U.S. 665, 63
L.Bd. 1197.
7. U.S.— In re Merchants' Stock &
Grain Co., Mo., 32 S.Ct. 339, 223
U.S. 639, 56 L.Ed. 584— In re Chris-
tensen Engineering Co., N.Y., 24 S.
Ct. 729, 194 U.S. 458, 48 L.Ed. 1072.
33
Ga. — Hancock v. Kennedy, 95 S.EL
735, 22 Ga.App. 144.
& Cal.— Feinberg v. Doe, 92 P.2d
640, 642, 14 Cal.2d 24.
Similarly expressed
(1) One where no process is re-
quired in order to fully execute it.
— Jayne v. Drorbaugh, 17 N.W. 433,
436, 63 Iowa 711—57 C.J. p 108 note
87.
(2) One which has an intrinsic ef-
fect.— Dulin v. Pacific Wood & Coal
Co., 33 P. 123, 124, 98 Cal. 304.
(3) One which is injunctions! and
prohibitive or which adjudicates the
title to property or fixes the status
of a party. — Haddlck v. Polk County
Dist Ct., 145 N.W. 943, 944, 164 Iowa
417—57 C.J. p 109 note 91.
(4) Other similar definitions see
57 C.J. p 109 notes 89, 90.
9.- Wis. — Douville v. Merrlck, 25
Wis. 688.
Judgment on:
Demurrer to:
Evidence see the C.J.S. title Tri-
al § 236, also 64 C.J. p 889
note 46-p 390 note 58.
Pleadings see the C.J.S. title
Pleading § 274, also 49 C.J. p
461 note 94-p 465 note 81.
Pleadings see the C.J.S. title
Pleading S 511, also 49 C.J. p
779 note 29-p 780 note 48.
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
demurrer to any of the pleadings which go to the
action, the judgment for either party is the same as
it would have been on an issue of fact joined on
the same pleading, and found in favor of the same
party.10 At common law the judgment for plaintiff
on a demurrer to any of the pleadings in chief is
quod recuperet, that is, that he recover;11 that for
defendant is quod eat sine die, that is, that he go
hence without day.12 As is discussed in the CJ.S.
title Pleading § 274, also 33 C.J. p 1060 notes 10-12,
and 49 C.J. p 461 note 4-p 465 note 81, the judg-
ment is final unless leave to amend or to plead over
is given, but, since the granting of such leave is
almost a matter of course, it is not now usual to
enter final judgment on demurrer unless the party
fails or refuses to amend or to plead over, as the
case may be.
On demurrer to a plea in abatement, if the de-
murrer is sustained, the judgment is not final but
is respondeat ouster, that is, that he answer over;13
final judgment is rendered only on failure to plead
further.1* If the demurrer or other objection is
overruled, and the dilatory plea is held sufficient in
law, the judgment is that the writ or declaration be
quashed,15 but this rule of the common law has
been changed by some statutes permitting plaintiff
after overruling of his demurrer to take issue on
the facts.1*
§ 10. Judgment on Issue of Fact
Final Judgment on an issue of fact, if for the plain-
tiff, is that he recover, but Judgment for the defendant
on a fact Issue raised in a plea In abatement is merely
that the writ or declaration be quashed.
The final judgment on an issue of fact, taken on
the declaration, or a plea in bar, if for plaintiff, is
quod recuperet, that is, that he recover j1* if for
defendant, the judgment is nihil capiat per breve or
per billam, that is, that he take nothing by his decla-
ration or writ.18 Where an issue of fact on a plea
in abatement is found in favor of defendant, the
judgment must be cassetur breve or billa, that is,
that the writ or declaration be quashed, as where a
demurrer to such a 'plea is decided in his favor ; the
judgment cannot be nihil capiat, or on the merits,
because the plea is not in bar of the action.19
NX N.J.— Hale v. Lawrence, 22 N.J.
Law 72.
JT.Y. — Nachod v. Hindley, 103 1T.Y.S.
801, 118 App.Div. 658.
11. Wis.— Douvllle v. Merrlck, 25
Wis. 688.
33 C.J. p 1059 note 8.
"Judgment quod recuperet" defined
see supra 5 8.
12. HI.— People, for Use of O'Far-
rell v. Johnson, 215 IlLApp. 580.
33 C.J. p 1060 note 9.
"Judgment quod eat sine die" defined
see supra § 8.
Judgment for costs
Where the petition failed to state
a cause of action, the court did not
err In sustaining a general demurrer
thereto and in rendering a Judgment
against plaintiff for the cost of the
action. — Franks v. Adolph Kempner
Co., 217 P. 848, 91 Okl. 289.
Question of abatement
Where demurrer, as may some-
times be done, is treated as plea in
abatement on ground that action is
prematurely brought, judgment
should show that decision was based
on Question of abatement, otherwise
it will be presumed to be a decision
on merits.— Smith v. City of Daven-
port, 201 N.W. 47, 198 Iowa 1295.
13. Ala.— Cravens v. Bryant 3 Ala.
278— State v. Allen, 1 Ala. 442.
Ark. — Fulcher v. Lyon, 4 Ark. 445 —
Renner v. Reed, 3 Ark. 339.
Conn. — Nichols v. Seacock, 1 Root
286 — Fitch v. Lothrop, 1 Root 192
DeL — Spencer v. Dutton, 1 Harr. 75,
HL — Branigan v. Rose, 8 111. 123, fol-
lowed In 8 111. 130 — Bradshaw v
Morehouse, 6 111. 395— F. H. Earl
Mfg. Co. v. Summit Lumber Co.,
125 IlLApp. 391.
Ind.— Clarke v. Kite, 5 Blackf. 167—
Atkinson v. State Bank, 5 Blackf.
84— Lambert v. Lagow, 1 Blackf.
388.
Ky.— Hay v. Arberry, 1 J.J.Marsh. 95
—Moore v. Morton, 1 Bibb 234.
Me.— McKeen v. Parker, 51 Me. 389.
Mass.— Parks v. Smith, 28 N.B. 1044,
155 Mass. 26.
Miss.— Drane v. Board of Police of
Madison County, 42 Miss. 264— Lee
v. Dozier, 40 ^iss. 477— Besancon
v. Shirley, 17 'Miss. 457— Lang v.
Fatheree, 15 Miss. 404— Beaty v.
Harkey, 10 Miss. 563.
Mo.— Wilson v. Atwood, 4 Mo. 366.
N.H.— Trow v. Messer, 32 N.H. 361.
N.X — Garr v. Stokes, 16 N.J.Law 403.
N.C.— Casey v. Harrison, 13 N.C. 244.
Pa. — Bauer v. Roth, 4 Rawle 83 —
McCabe v. U. S., 4 Watts 325.
Tenn. — Straus v. Weil, 5 Coldw. 120
— Rainey & Henderson v. Sanders,
4 Humphr. 447— McBee v. State,
Meigs 122.
Tex. — Ritter v. Hamilton, 4 Tex. 325.
Wis. — Anderson v. Rountree, 1 Pinn.
115.
33 C.J. p 1060 note 13.
"Judgment respondeat -ouster" de-
fined see supra § 8.
. There are exceptions to the rule
where the plea contains matter
pleadable only in abatement but
commences or concludes in bar, or
where matter in abatement is plead-
ed puis darrein continuance. In
such cases the judgment is final. —
Turner v. Carter, 1 Head, Tenn., 520.
34
14. Ala.— Massey v. Walker, 8 Ala.
167.
15. Del.— Silver v. Rhodes, 2 Del.
369.
49 C.J. p 244 note 7.
'Judgment quod billa cassetur" de-
fined see supra § 8.
Suit prematurely "brought
Trial court, after sustaining plea
in abatement on 'ground that suit
had been prematurely brought, com-
mitted error in rendering judgments
that plaintiff take nothing by the
suit, since such judgments without
restrictions as to future prejudice
to relitigate the same subject matter
would afford a basis for interposing
a plea of "res judicata" should such
suit be refiled in the future and
proper judgment was one of dismis-
sal which would preclude an adjudi-
cation on the merits. — Reed v. Sta-
ley, Tex.Civ.App., 139 S.W.2d 851.
16. Ala.— Chilton v. Harbin, 6 Ala.
171.
17. U.S.— National Ace. Soc. v. Spi-
ro, Tenn., 78 F..774, 24 C.C.A. 334,
certiorari denied 18 S.Ct 944, 168
U.S. 708, 42 L.Ed. 1211. .
33 C.J. p 1060 note 18.
"Judgment quod recuperet" defined
see supra § 8.
18. Black L.D.
19. Fla. — McLendon v. Lurton-
Hardaker Co., 91 So. 113. 83 Fla.
263.
33 C.J. p 1060 note 20.
Dismissal of cause
When a plea of abatement Is sus-
tained to plaintiff's action, the gen-
eral order is one dismissing the
49 0. J. S.
JUDGMENTS
§11
Where, however, the verdict is against defendant,
the judgment for plaintiff is quod recuperet, or that
he recover, and not respondeat ouster.20
§11. Final and Interlocutory Judg-
ments
a. In general
b. When judgment becomes final
a. In General
A final judgment Is one which disposes of the cause
both as to the subject matter and the parties as far as
the court has power to dispose of It, while an interlocu-
tory Judgment Is one which reserves or leaves some fur-
ther question or direction for future determination; but
whether a Judgment Is flnat depends somewhat on the
purpose for which, and the standpoint from which, It Is
being considered.
Judgments may generally be classified as either
final or interlocutory.21 In determining whether a
judgment is "final," no hard and fast definition or
test applicable to all situations can be given, since
finality depends somewhat on the purpose for
which, and the standpoint from which, the judgment
is being considered, and it may be final for one pur-
pose and not for another.22 Generally, however, a
final judgment is one which disposes of the cause
both as to the subject matter and the parties as far
as the court has power to dispose of it,23 while an
cause and the dismissal order is ef-
fective only as long: as the cause of
abatement continues to exist. — Zar-
sky v. Moss, Teac.Civ.App., 193 S.W.
2d 245.
Necessity of trial on facts
Disposition, on pleas in abatement,
of claims based on negligence with-
out a trial on the facts was error.—
Rose v. Baker, 183 S.W.2d 438, 143
Tex. 438.
ao. 111.— F. H. Earl Mfg. Co. v. Sum-
mit Lumber Co., 125 IlLApp. 391.
Miss. — Coleman v. Bowman, 99 So.
465, 135 Miss. 137— McNeely v.
Tazoo & M. V. R. Co.. 81 So. 641,
119 Miss. 897.
33 C.J. P 1060 note 21—49 C.J. P 244
note 13.
Liability established
The court's decision overruling de-
fendant's plea in abatement on fact
issue establishes defendant's liabil-
ity and deprives it of trial on mer-
its, so as to entitle plaintiff to final
judgment, unless Judge permits de-
fendant to answer over by special
order or action equivalent to such
order. — Krinsky v. Stevens Coal
Sales Co., 36 N.B.2d 411, 309 Mass.
528.
81. Cal.— • Bakewell v. Bakewell, 180
P.2d 975, 21 Cal.2d 224.
Okl.— Consumers' Oil & Refining Co.
v. Bilby, 217 P. 484, 91 Okl. 282.
Tenn. — Vineyard v. Vineyard, 170 S.
W.2d 917, 26 Tenn.App. 232.
Final and interlocutory decrees see
Equity § 582.
Finality of determination as affect-
ing conclusiveness of adjudication
see infra § 699.
22. Cal. — Anderson v. Great Repub-
lic Life Ins. Co., 106 P.2d 75, 41
Cal.App.2d 181 — Howard v. How-
ard, 261 P. 714, 716, 87 CaLApp.
20.
111.— Brauer Machine & Supply Co.,
for Use of Bituminous Casualty
Corporation v. Parkhill Truck Co.,
50 N.B.2d 836, 383 111. 569, 148
A.L..R. 1208.
Different meaningi
Although "final" is frequently used
with "judgment" to distinguish from
interlocutory orders or Judgments
in the same court, "final judgment"
also describes a determination effec-
tive to conclude further proceedings
.n the same cause by appeal or oth-
erwise, especially where time within
which to act is limited to run from
"final judgment".— Northwestern
Wisconsin Blec. Co. v. Public Serv-
ice Commission, 22 N.W.2d 472, 248
Wis. 479.
23. Mich.— Wurzer v. Geraldine, 256
N.W. 439, 441, 268 Mich. 286.
Okl.— Consolidated School Dist No.
15 of Texas County v. Green, 71
P.2d 712, 714, 180 Okl, 567.
Pa.— Frank P. Miller Paper Co. v.
Keystone Coal & Coke Co., 118 A.
565, 566, 275 Pa. 40.
Tenn.— Vineyard v. Vineyard, 170 S.
W.2d 917, 920, 26 TennJVpp. 232.
Tex.— Lubell v. Button, Civ.App., 164
S.W.2d 41, 44, error refused.
Utah.— Hartford Accident & Indem-
nity Co. v. Clegg, 135 P.2d 919, 91
103 Utah 414.
Vt. — Corpus Juris cited in State v.
Green Mountain Power Corpora-
tion, 28 A.2d 698, 699.
33 C.J. p 1061 note 30.
The general test for determining
whether a judgment, is "final" is
that, when no issue is left for future
consideration except fact of compli-
ance or noncompliance with terms of
the first decree, decree is final, but,
where anything further in the nature
of judicial action on the part of the
court is essential to a final deter-
mination o? the rights of the par-
ties, the decree is "interlocutory". —
Bakewell v. Bakewell, 130 P.2d 975,
978, 21 CaUd 224— Lyon v. Goss
123 P.2d 11, 17, 19 Cal.2d 659.
Similar definitions
(1) A "final decree" is one in
which nothing in the case is re-
served by the court for further de-
cision.— Sample v. Romine, 10 So.2d
346, 193 Minn. 706.
(2) A "final judgment" is one that
35
brings suit to a conclusion and bars
recovery in any other litigation be-
.ween the same parties on the same
slaim. — Ranallo v. Hinman Bros.
Const. Co., D.C.Ohio, 49 F.Supp. 920,
924, affirmed, C.C.A., Buckeye Union
Casualty Co. v. Kanallo, 135 F.2d
921, certiorari denied 64 S.Ct. 47,
320 U.S. 745, 88 L.Ed. 442.
(3) A "final judgment" is one
which finally disposes of parties'
rights either on entire controversy
or on some definite and separate
branch thereof. — Brauer Machine &
Supply Co., for Use of Bituminous
Casualty Corporation v. Parkhill
Truck Co., 50 N.B.2d 836, 840, 383 111.
569, 148 A.L.R. 1208— General Elec-
tric Co. v. Gellman Mfg. Co., 48 N.B.
2d 451, 318 Ill.App. 644.
(4) A "final judgment" is one
which determines and disposes of
merits by declaring that plaintiff is
or is not entitled to recover by a
remedy chosen. — Irving Trust Co, v*
Kaplan, Fla., 20 So.2d 351, 354.
(5) A judgment is a "final" OP
'definitive Judgment" when it set-
tles the issues presented in the main
controversy to such an extent that
it will have the force of res judicata
if it is not reversed on appeal. —
Metairie Bank in Liquidation v.
Lecler, La.App., 4 So.2d 573, 575.
(6) "Final judgments" are such
as at once put an end to the action
by declaring that plaintiff has or has
not entitled himself to recover.
Ky. — Faulkner v. Faulkner, 110 S.W.
2d 465, 470, 270 Ky. 693.
Pa.— Frank P. Miller Paper Co. v.
Keystone Coal & Coke Co., 118 A.
565, 275 Pa. 40.
(7) There must be findings of feet
and conclusions of law to constitute
a "final judgment" on the merits. —
Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co,
v. Clegg, 135 P.2d 919, 922, 103 Utah
414.
(8) Other definitions.
U.S. — In re Roney, C.C.A.Ind.t 139
F.2d 175, 177 — Karl Kiefer MacJb.
Co. v. U. S. Bottlers Machinery Co.,
§11
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.&
interlocutory judgment is one which does not so
dispose of the cause, but reserves or leaves some
further question or direction for future determina-
tion.2* Under the definition of a judgment as the
l., 108 F.2d 469. 470— Ross
v. International Life Ins. Co., CO.
A.Tenn., 24 F.2d 345, 346 — G. Am-
sinck & Co. v. Springfield Grocer
Co., C.C.A.MO., 7 F.2d 855. 858—
Charles Needing- Trucking Co. v.
U. S., D.C.N.J., 29 F.Supp. 637, 544.
Ala,— Gandy v. Hauler, 16 So.2d 305,
307, 245 Ala. 167.
Cal. — Swarthout v. Gentry* App., 167
P.2d 501, 503— Vallera v. Vallera,
148 P.2d 694, 696, 64 Cal. App. 2d
266 — Potvin v. Pacific Greyhound
Lines, 20 P.2d 129, WO, 130 Cal.
App. 610.
Kan. — Smith v. Power, 127 P.2d 452,
454, 155 Kan. 612.
Ky. — Bell Grocery Co. v. Booth, 61
S.W.2d 879, 880, 250 Ky. ,21— Cau-
dill Coal Co. v. Charles Rosenheim
& Co., 258 S.W. 315, 316, 201 Ky.
758— Blackburn v. Blackburn, 254
S.W. 915, 917, 200 Ky. 310.
Me.— Sawyer v. White, 132 A. 421,
422, 125 Me. 206.
Mich.— Wurzer v. Geraldine, 256 N.
W. 439, 446, 268 Mich. 286.
Miss. — Johnson v. Mississippi Power
Co., 196 So. 642, 643, 189 Miss.
67.
N.C.— Hanks v. Southern "Public Util-
ities Co., 186 S.E. 252, 257, 210 N.
C. 312— Never Fail Land Co. v.
Cole, 149 S.B. 585, 588, 197 N.C.
452.
Ohio. — State ex rel. Curran v.
Brookes, 50 N.E.2d 995, 998, 142
Ohio St 107— Vida v. Parsley,
App., 47 N.B.2d 663, 665.
Okl.— Methvin v. Methvin, 127 P.2d
186, 188, 191 Okl. 177.
Pa. — Sundheim v. Beaver County
Building £ Loan Ass'n, 14 A.2d
349, 351, 140 Pa.Super. 529.
Tex.— Lanier v. Parnell. Civ.App.,
190 S.W.2d 421, 423— City of Gil-
mer v. Moyer, Civ. App., 181 S.W.
2d 1020, 1022— Garcia v. Jones,
Civ.App., 147 S.W.2d 925, 926, er-
ror dismissed, judgment correct —
Railroad Commission v. Humble
Oil & Refining- Co., Civ.App., 119
S.W.2d 728, error refused — Holmes
v. Klein, Civ.App., 59 S.W.2d 171,
172, error dismissed — Dallas Cof-
fee & Tea Co. v. Williams, Civ.
App., 45 S.W.2d 724, 728, error dis-
missed.
Va.— Williams v. Dean, 9 S.E.2d 327,
329, 175 Va. 435.
25 C.J. p 1130 notes 54-56 — 33 C.J.
p 1061 note 30 [a].
Synonymous with, "final determina-
tion"
"Final Judgment" Is synonymous
with "final determination,*' which.
means the final settling of the rights*
of the parties to the action beyond
all appeal. — Quarture v. Allegheny
County, 14 A-2d 676t 578, 141 Pa,
Super. 356, J
held
(1) Judgment expressly or by nee*
essary implication disposing of all
parties and issues Is final. — Southern
Pac. Co. v. TJlmer, Tex.Com. App., 286
S.W. 193— Duke v. Gilbreath, Tex.
Civ.App., 2 S.W.2d 324, error dis-
missed— Adcock v. Shell, Tex.Civ.
App., 273 S.W. $00.
(2) A judgment may be "final"
whether it is based on a determina-
tion of a question of law or a ques-
tion of fact.— McWilliams v. Black-
ard, COAJVrk., 96 F.2d 43.
(3) Judgment may be final al-
though It fails to award writ of exe-
cution for its enforcement. — Reed v.
Bryant, Tex.Clv.App., 291 S.W. 605.
(4) Judgment requiring defendant
to pay amount into court to await
determination of conflicting claims
in another court was, as between the
parties, final. — Graham Refining Co.
v. Graham Oil Syndicate, tex.Civ.
App., 262 S.W. 142.
(5) A judgment dismissing cause
as to one defendant after giving
peremptory direction to find for such
defendant and rendering judgment
for plaintiff against another defend-
ant on verdict for plaintiff was final
disposition of issues as to former
defendant. — Newdiger v. Kansas
City, 114 S.W.2d 1047, 342 Mo. 252.
(6) Where a plaintiff's alternative
plea was not on trial and was effec-
tually disposed of by award, on her
principal cause of action, judgment
predicated on ultimate issues raised
by both pleading and evidence was a
"final judgment." — Connor v. Buford,
Tex.Civ.App., 142 S.W.2d 592, error
dismissed, judgment correct.
(7) Other judgments.
U.S. — Ashwander v. Tennessee Val-
ley Authority, D.C.Ala., 19 *F.Supp.
190, reversed on other grounds,
C.C.A., Alabama Power Co. v. Ten-
nessee Valley Authority, 92 F.2d
412.
Cal. — Ochoa v. McCush, 2 P.2d 357,
216 Cal. 426— Griffith v. List, 9 P.
2d 529, 122 Cal. App. 125.
111.— Gunn v. Brltt, 39 N.E.2d 76, 78,
313. ULApp. 13.
Ky.— Struve v. Lebus, 136 S.W.2d
554, 281 Ky. 407— Crawford v. Rid-
dle, 45 S.W.2d 463, 241 Ky. 839—
First State Bank v. Thacker*s
Adm'x, 284 S.W. 1020, 215 Ky. 186
—Watts v. Noble, 262 S.W. 1114,
203 Ky. 699.
La. — Castelluccio v. Cloverland Dairy
Products Co., 115 So. 796, 165 La.
606, conformed to 8 1/a.App. 723
— Spence v. Spence, 107 So. 294,
160 La. 430.
Mo.— Chance v. Franke, 153 S.W.2d
378. 348 Mo. 402— State ex reL
36
Maple v. Mulloy, 15 S.W.2d 809,
322 Mo. 281.
N.C.— Nash v. City of Monroe, 158
S.B. 384, 200 N.C. 729.
Okl.— Davis v. Baum. 133 P.2d 889,
192 Okl. 85 — Consolidated School
Dist. No. 15 of Texas County v.
Green, 71 P.2d 712, 714, 180 Okl.
567 — Consumers' Oil & Refining
Co. v. Bilby, 217 P. 484, 91 Okl.
282.
S.D.— Western Bldg. Co. v. J. C. Pen-
ney Co., 245 N.W. 909, 60 S.D. 630.
Tex.— Grayson v. Johnson, Civ.App.,
181 S.W.2d 312— Doornbos v. Loon-
ey, Civ. App., 159 S.W.2d 155, error
refused — Runyon v. Valley Pub.
Co., Civ.App., 147 S.W.2d 521, error
refused — Pfeifer v. Johnson, Civ.
App., 70 S.W.2d 203— Bell v. Rog-
ers, Civ.App., 58 S.W.2d 878—
Stokes Bros. & Co. v. Kramer, Civ.
App., 44 S.W.2d 822— Duke v. Gil-
breath, Civ.App., 2 S.W.2d 324,
error dismissed— Phillips v. Jones,
Civ.App., 283 S.W. 298.
Utah. — Logan City v. Utah Power &
Light Co., 16 P.2d 1097, 86 Utah
340, adhered to 44 P.2d 698. 86
Utah 354.
33 C.J. p 1061 note 30 [el.
34. Cal. — Swarthout.v. Gentry, App.,
167 P.2d 501, 503.
Okl. — Consumers' Oil & Refining Co.
v. Bilby, 217 P. 484, 489, 91 Okl.
282.
Pa.— Frank P. Miller Paper Co. v.
Keystone Coal & Coke 'Co., 118 A.
565, 566, 275 Pa. 40.
Tex. — In re Greer, TexCiv.App., 41
S.W.2d 351.
33 C.J. p 1061 note 30.
Similar definitions '
(1) An "interlocutory decree" is
one that Is rendered in the progress
of a lawsuit, or between the com-
mencement and the end of the suit.
—In re Byrne, 191 So. 729, 730, 193
La. 566.
(2) It is a judgment made for
purpose of ascertaining some matter
of fact or law, preparatory to a
final decree. — Vineyard v. Vineyard,
170 S.W.2d 917, 26 Tenn.App. 232.
(3) An "Interlocutory judgment'*
Is one which determines some pre-
liminary or subordinate point or
plea, or settles some step, question
or default arising in the progress
of the cause, but does not adjudicate
the ultimate rights of the parties. —
Consumers' Oil & Refinkig Co. v. Bll-
by, 217 P. 484, 489, 91 Okl. 282.
(4) A judgment which reserves
for adjudication by the court at a
later date some Issues between the
parties to the action and only .par-
tially or incompletely disposes of
the parties or issues is an "inter-
locutory judgment" — Manley v. Ra-
49 O.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§11
final determination of the rights of the parties, as
discussed supra § 1, there can be no such thing as
an interlocutory judgment in the strictly technical
sense of the term ; such interlocutory judgments are
in fact interlocutory orders.26 The term "inter-
locutory judgment" is, however, a convenient one
to indicate the determination of steps or proceed-
ings in a cause preliminary to final judgment, and
in such sense the term is in constant and general
use even in code states.26 In determining whether
a judgment is interlocutory or final, it should be
zien, Tex.Civ.App., 172 S.W.2d 798,
799 — Lubell v. Sutton, Tex.Civ.App.,
164 S.W.2d 41, 46, error refused.
(5) Judgment is "interlocutory"
where it is one substantially dispos-
ing- of merits, ,but leaving issue of
fact to be decided or some condi-
tion to be performed, in order fully
to determine the rights of the par-
ties.— Security State Bank v. Monona
Golf Club, 252 N.W. 287, 289, 213
Wis. 581.
Judgments held interlocutory
(1) Judgments based on citation
by publication are "Interlocutory"
only until such time as their valid-
ity is actually established by proper
proceeding in court of competent Ju-
risdiction having parties in interest
before it. — Seymour v. Schwartz,
Tex.Civ.App., 172 S.W.2d 138.
(2) A judgment which recited that
the court, on consideration of com-
plaint, service of summons, answer,
and evidence introduced by plaintiffs,
found that defendant was liable to
plaintiffs in amounts "that may be
adjudged later by jury properly em-
paneled to hear the evidence pertain-
ing to the amount of damages", etc.,
was an "interlocutory judgment" in
which defendant's liability was prop-
erly determined and amount of dam-
ages left to be assessed. — Checker
Gab Co. of Hot Springs v. Leeper,
182 S.W.2d 871, 207 Ark. 799.
(3) A decree which in the first in-
stance is to be a "decree nisi" but is
to become absolute on expiration of
stipulated period after entry thereof
Is deemed an "interlocutory decree."
— In re Hanrahan's Will, 194 A. 471,
109 Vt 108.
(4) Other judgments.
Ala.— Indian Head, Mills of Alabama
v* Ashworth, 110 So. 565, 215 Ala.
348 — Blankenship v. Hail, 106 So.
594, 214 Ala. 95— Hill v. Hill, 100
So. 340, 211 Ala. 293.
Nev.— Nevada First Nat Bank of
Tonopah v. Lamb, 271 P. 691, 51
Nev. 162.
Pa.— Markofski v. .Tanks, 146 A. 569,
297 Pa. 74 — Commonwealth v.
Provident Trust Co., 92 Pittsb.Leg.
J. 348, 58 York LegJlec. 101.
Tex. — Fisher v. Wilson, Civ.App.,
185 S.W.2d 186, affirmed Wilson v.
Fisher, Sup., 188 S.W.2d 150— Kline
v. Power, Civ.App., 114 S.W.2d 617
— McCurley v. Texas Indemnity
Ins. Co., Civ.App., 62 S.W.2d 992,
error refused.
Vt.— Morgan v. Gould, 119 A. 517, 96
Vt 275.
Va.— Freezer v. Miller, 176 S.B. 159,
163 Va. 180.
33 C.J. p 1061 note 30 [f].
Process and Jurisdiction
To render interlocutory Judgment,
it is necessary for court to find that
process had been served on defend-
ant and that court had jurisdiction
of his person. — Hart v. Foster, 109
S.W.2d 504, error dismissed.
25. Mo. — Corpus Juris cited in Bar-
low v. gcott 85 S.W.2d 504, 519.
N.D. — Universal Motors v. Coman,
15 N.W.2d 73, 73 N.D. 337.
S.D.— Western Bldg. Co. v. J. C. Pen-
ney Co., 245 N.W. 909, 60 S.D. 630.
33 C.J. p 1062 note 32.
Synonymous terms
Term "interlocutory Judgment" Is
synonymous with term "order." —
Sobieski v. City of Chicago, 241 111.
App. 180, error dismissed 156 N.E.
279, 325 111. 259.
26. Ark.— Checker Cab Co. of Hot
Springs v. Leeper, 182 S.W.2d 871,
207 Ark. 799.
Conn. — Preston v. Preston, 128 A.
292, 102 Conn. 96.
C.J. p 1062 note 33.
Statutory recognition
(1) Interlocutory judgments or de-
crees are expressly recognized un-
der some statutory provisions. — In
re Bailey, 40 N.T.S.2d 746, 749, 265
App.Div. 758, affirmed 50 N.E.2d 653,
291 N.Y. 534—33 C.J. p 1062 note 33
(2) The legislative purpose, in en-
acting statute authorizing interlocu-
tory judgment, was not to authorize
a mere tentative or proposed judg-
ment but. one which would finally
dispose of a portion of a controver-
sy.— Kickapoo Development Corpora-
tion v. Kickapoo Orchard Co., 285
N.W. 354, 231 Wis. 458.
27. Tex. — Thomas v. International
Seamen's Union of America, Civ.
App., 101 S.W.2d 328. 1
37
construed in accordance with the conduct of the
parties and the intention of the court gathered
from the language of the judgment or decree.2?
A judgment may be final although it does not de-
termine the rights of the parties, if it ends the par-
ticular suit,2* such as a judgment of dismissal, non-
suit,^ or discontinuance,30 or a judgment abating
an action.3i Also a judgment may be final although
further directions may be necessary to carry it into
effect,32 although further proceedings remain to be
taken in court to make the judgment effective,** Or
The character of the decree or
Judgment is an important factor to
be considered.— Karl Kiefer Mach.
Co. v. U. S. Bottlers Machinery Co.,
C.C.A.I11., 108 F.2d 469.
28. Cal. — Fisch & Co. v. Superior
Court in and for Los Angeles
County, 43 P.2d 855, 6 Cal.App.2d
21.
Tex.— Witty v. Rose, Civ.App., 148 S.
W.2d 962, error dismissed.
38 C.J. p 1063 note 34.
29. Ariz. — Hartford Accident & In-
demnity Co. v. Sorrellsi 69 P.2d
240, 50 Ariz. 90.
Cal.— Fisch & Co. v. Superior Court
in and for Los Angeles County 43
P.2d 855, 6 Cal.App.2d 21.
Mass. — Sullivan v. Martinelli. 158 N
E. 662, 261 Mass. 261.
Tex.— Renfroe v. Johnson, 177 S.W.
3d 600, 142 Tex. 251— Ley v. Ley.
Civ.App., 62 S.W.2d 503, error dis-
missed.
33 C.J. p 1063 note 35.
Dismissal fop failure to file boad for
costs
Tex— Witty v. Rose, Civ.App., 148
S.W.2d 962, error dismissed.
30. Conn.— Foley v. George A. •
Douglas & Bro., 185 A. 70, 121
Conn. 377.
31. Cal.— Watterson v. Owens River
Canal Co., 210 P. 625, 190 Cal. 88
— San Francisco Breweries v. Su-
perior Court in and for City and
County of San Francisco, 251 P.
935, 80 CaLApp. 433.
32. U.S. — In re Casaudoumecq, D.C.
Cal., 46 F.Supp. 718.
Ind.— Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.,
151 N.E. 610, 198 Ind. 207.
y.— Watts v. Noble, 262 S.W. 1114,
203 Ky. 644.
Mo.— State ex rel. Maple v. Mulloy,
15 S.W.2d 809, 322 Mo. 281.
33 C.J. p 1063 note 36.
33. U.S.— In re Casaudoumecct, D,C.
Cal., 46 F.Supp. 718.
Ky.— Alexander v, Tipton, 291 S.W.
1019, 218 Ky. 666.
Tex.— Lanier v. Parnell, Civ.App.,
190 S.W.2d 421.
Proceedings incidental to execution
(1) Decree may be partly final and
partly interlocutory; final as to de-
termination of all issues, and inter-
§11
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
although the court reserves the right to modify the
judgment.8* The finality of a judgment is not af-
fected by the fact that it constitutes an erroneous
decision as to the law or the facts.36
On the other hand, a judgment is not generally
considered final where further judicial action is nec-
essary in order fully and finally to settle the rights
of the parties,36 as where the judgment settles only
some of several issues of law or fact,37 or does not
dispose of the case as to all the parties ;38 but judg-
ments determining particular matters in controver-
sy, and of such a nature that they could be imme-
diately enforced and by their enforcement deprive
the party against whom they were rendered of any
benefit which he might obtain from an appeal at any
subsequent stage of the proceedings, have been
deemed final.39 A judgment is not final which is to
become effective only on the happening of a future
event or contingency40 or which is made subject to
revision at a future specified date.41
A judgment ordinarily is final when rendered in
pursuance of a general verdict,42 or on submission
locutory as to mode of execution. —
Perry v. West Coast Bond & Mort-
gage Co., 29 P.2d 279, 136 Cal.App.
557.
(2) A Judgment over against prin-
cipal and in favor of surety on fidel-
ity bond was "final", notwithstand-
ing it was made contingent on pay-
ment by surety of primary judg-
ment against it on the bond, since
all litigated rights relating to mat-
ter involved were determined and
further proceedings required in com-
plete satisfaction of decree were
merely incidental to its proper exe-
cution.— American Employers' Ins.
Co. v. Dallas Joint Stock Land Bank,
Tex.Civ.App., 170 S.W.2d 546, error
refused.
34. Tex. — Graham v. Coolidge, 70 S.
W. 231, 30 Tex.Civ.App. 273.
35. Cal. — In re Gardiner's .Estate,
114 P.2d 643, 45 Cal.App. 2 d 559.
Tex. — Snell v. Knowles, Civ.App., 87
S.W.2d 871, error dismissed.
36. Mo. — State ex rel. and to Use
of Abeille Fire Ins. Co. v. Sevier,
73 S.W.2d 361, 335 Mo. 269, cer-
tiorari denied State of Missouri ex
rel. and to Use of Abeille Fire
Ins. Co. of Paris v. Sevier, 55 S.
Ct. 99, 293 U.S. 585, 79 L.Ed. 680.
Va. — Massanutten Bank of Strasburg
v. Glaize, 14 S.B.2d 285, 177 Va,
519.
Reference for Judicial purpose
Generally a decree fixing liability
and rights of the parties and refer-
ring the case to a master or subor-
dinate tribunal for a judicial pur-
pose, such as the statement of an
account, on which a further decree
is to be entered,. Is not a "final de-
cree."— Swarthout v. Gentry, Cal.
App., 167 0?.2d 501.
37. Mo. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Barlow v. Scott, 85 S.W.2d 504,
519.
Okl.— Hurley v. Hurley, 127 P.2d 147,
191 Okl. 194.
Tenn. — Vineyard v. Vineyard, 170
S.W.2d 917, 26 Tenn.App. 232.
Tex. — Wood v. Gulf Production Co.,
Clv.App., 100 S.W.2d 412 — Harris
v. O'Brien, Civ.App., 54 S.W.2d 277 j
—Duke v. Gilbreath, Civ.App., 2
S.W.2d 324, error dismissed.
33 C.J. p 1063 note 38.
"A case is never finally determined
when any controversial matter, a
part thereof, is open and undeter-
mined."— In re Returns From Her-
minle Election Dist. of Sewickley
Tp., Westmoreland County, 192 A.
130, 132, 326 Pa, 321.
Specific disposition unnecessary
It is not essential to the finality of
a Judgment that it in express terms
specifically dispose of each issue,
since the fact that judgment dispos-
es of a particular issue may be in-
ferred from other provisions there-
of, provided such inference follows
as a necessary Implication. — Gamble
v. Banneyer, 151 S.W.2d 586, 137 Tex.
7.
Where several distinct causes of
action ore united in the same suit,
the rule that a judgment to be final
must dispose of the entire case does
not apply. — Shamburger v. Glenn,
Tex.Civ.App., 255 S.W. 815—33 C.J. p
1063 note 38 [d].
38. Mo. — Corpus Juris Quoted In
Barlow v. Scott, 85 S.W.2d 604,
519— Stelger v. City of Ste. Gene-
vieve, 141 S.W.2d 233, 235 Mo.App.
579.
Tex. — Gathings v. Robertson, Com.
App.. 276 S.W. 218— Minnock v.
Garrison, Civ.App:, 144 S:W.2d 328
— Wood v. Gulf Production Co.,
Civ.App., 100 S.W.2d 412— Duke v.
Gilbreath, Civ.App., 2 S.W.2d 324,
error dismissed.
33 C.J. p 1063 note 39.
Real parties
A judgment that fails to dispose
of the real parties to the litigation,
either expressly or by necessary im-
plication, is not final. — Wilson v.
Cone, Tex.Civ.App., 179 S.W.2d 784.
Disposal by implication
A Judgment, to be "final," must
dispose of all parties and issues In
the case, but disposal of parties need
not be by name, necessary implica-
tion being sufficient. — Texas Life Ins.
Co. v. Miller, Tex.Clv.App., 114 S.W.
2d 600.
38
39. Cal. — Perry v. West Coast Bond
& Mortgage Co., 29 P.2d 279, 136
CaLApp. 557.
Ky.— Watts v. Noble, 262 S.W. 1114,
203 Ky. 644.
Ohio.— Speidel v. Schaller, 55 N.E.2d
346, 73 Ohio App. 141.
Tex. — Seby v. Craven Lumber Co.,
Civ. App., 259 S.W. 1093.
33 C.J. p 1063 note 40.
Portion of land
Judgment awarding half of land
in controversy to defendant without
determining ownership of the other
half was final as to half awarded. —
Duval v. Duval, 291 S.W. 488, 816
Mo. 626.
40. Tex. — Echols v. Echols, Civ.
App., 168 S.W.2d 282, error refused
— Dodd v. Daniel, Civ.App., 89 S.
W.2d 494.
Conditional judgments generally see
infra § 73.
Compliance with conditions
A judgment granting plaintiff an
injunction, but which requires him
to comply with certain conditions
imposed within a certain number of
days, and provides that, in the event
of plaintiff's failure so to comply,
the judgment shall be for defend-
ants, is not a final decree. — Consum-
ers' Oil & Refining Co. v. Bilby, 217
P. 484, 91 Okl. 282.
Judgment held not contingent
Agreed provisions in judgment for
suspension and postponement of is-
suance of order of sale under Judg-
ment until judgment debtor's de-
fault in payment of any stipulated
installment of judgment debt to
court clerk did not render judgment
indefinite, or prevent it from being
"final judgment" after its proper en-
try on payment of first installment
as there was no further contingency
on happening of which court might
properly be required to perform any
further judicial function in connec-
tion with case. — Grayson v. Johnson,
Tex.Civ.App., 181 S.W.2d 312.
41. Tex. — Echols v. Echols, Civ.
App., 168 S.W.2d 282, error re-
fused.
42. Mo.— State v. Riley. 118 S.W.
647, 219 Mo. 667.
Pa.— In re Fulton, 51 Pa. 204.
49
JUDGMENTS
§11
of the entire case to the court,4* or on submission
for decision on the pleadings.44 A judgment or de-
cree by consent may constitute a final disposition of
a cause.45 Judgment upon demurrer to any of the
pleadings in chief is generally final unless leave to
amend or to plead over is given,4« in which case
the judgment is interlocutory.47 A judgment or de-
cree for an accounting is interlocutory in charac-
ter.48 The question whether a particular order or
judgment is final or interlocutory most frequently
arises as a question of appealability, and these cas-
es are discussed in Appeal and Error §§ 94-108.
b. When Judgment Becomes Final
A Judgment Is generally considered final and en-
forceable as soon as It is entered, read, and signed in
open court, but for some purposes It may not be final
until a later time.
For most purposes a judgment will be considered
final and enforceable by appropriate writ as soon as
it is entered, read, and signed in open court,49 not-
withstanding a motion for new trial remains undis-
posed of,5<> that the judgment is still subject to
appellate review,51 or that an appeal is actually
pending.52 A judgment is not "final" for some pur-
poses, however, merely because execution may be
issued on it,53 and it has been variously held that
finality attaches to the judgment only at the end
of the term of court at which it was entered,54 or at
the end of a specified period of time after the date
of its rendition,55 or after the time for filing mo-
tions to prevent entry of judgment has expired with-
out such motions being filed, or, if filed, after they
are determined.56 It has also been held that a judg-
ment becomes final only after expiration of the time
allowed by law for appeal therefrom, or, if an ap-
peal is perfected, after the judgment is upheld in
the appellate court,5? but this rule is inapplicable
if the judgment is not subject to review.58
43. 111.— Pease v. Roberts, 9 BLApp.
132.
33 C.J. p 1063 note 42.
44. Wis.— Sanderson v. Herman, 85
N.W. 141, 108 Wis. 662.
33 C.J. p 1063 note 43.
45. Ala. — Payne v. Graham, 102 So.
729, 20 Ala-App. 439.
Colo.— Heil v. Hubbell, 252 P. 343,
80 Colo. 452.
Ga.— Baker v. McCord, 162 S.B. 110,
173 Ga. 819.
46. Ark.— Smart v. Alexander, 158
S.W.2d 924, 203 Ark. 1147.
Del.— Hazzard v. Alexander, 178 A.
873, 6 W.W.Harr. 512.
33 C.J. p 1063 note 44.
Provision permitting fiUaff excep-
tions or statement of facts did not
avoid implication that judgment dis-
posed of case on general demurrer
rather than on the merits. — Wells v.
Stonerock, Teac.Com.App., 12 S.W.2d
961.
The ruling1 of the court on a de-
murrer is not a final order unless
final judgment is entered thereon. —
Cooper v. Knuckles, 279 S.W. 1084,
212 Ky. 608.
47. xj.s.— Morris v. Dunbar, Pa,, 149
F. 406, 79 C.C.A. 226.
33 C.J. p 1063 note 45.
48. Kan.— City of Eureka v. Kansas
Electric Power Co., 3 P.2d 484, 133
Kan. 708.
33 C.J. P 1063 note 46.
49. Ind.— Whinery v. Kozacik, 22 N
E.2d 829, 216 Ind. 136.
Mass. — In re Keenan, 47 N.E.2d 12
313 Mass. 186.
Time of taking effect of Judgmen
see infra § 446.
Signing held necessary
It has been held that a judgmen
is not final until it is signed.— Rive
& Rails Terminals v. Louisiana Ry.
& Nav. Co., 103 So. 331, 157 La. 1085
— Young v. Geter, La.App.. 187 So.
30.
a Ind.— Whinery v. Kozacik, 22 N.
E.2d 829, 216 Ind. 13.6.
Finality of determination as affect-
ed by proceedings for relief
against judgment see infra §§ 622,
623. 700-702.
L Ohio.— Shoup v. Clemans, App.,
31 N.E.2d 103.
52. U.S. — In re Maryanov, D.C.N.Y.,
20 F.2d 939.
tf.Y.— In re Bailey, 40 N.Y.S.2d 746,
265 App.Div. 758, affirmed 50 N.E.
2d 653, 291 N.Y. 534.
53. Okl. — Methvin v. Methvin, 127
P.2d 186, 191 Okl. 177.
54. TT.S.— Reed v. South Atlantic
S. S. Co. of Delaware, D.C.Del.,
2 F.R.D. 475.
Pa,— Salus v. Fogel, 153 A, 547, 302
Pa. 268.
55. Fla. — Mabson v. Christ, 119 So.
131, 96 Fla. 756.
Ky.— Yumg v. Yung, 171 S.W.2d 1017,
294 Ky. 369.
Tex. — Gillette Motor Transport Co,
v Wichita Falls & Southern R-
Co. Civ.App., 170 S.W.2d 629, man-
damus denied Wichita Falls & S
R. Co. v. McDonald, 174 S.W.2d
951, 141 Tex. 555.
Va. — Carney v. Poinderter, 196 S.E
639, 170 Va. 233.
judgment rendered on constructive
service does not become final unti
two years from rendition.— TrujilK
v. Piarote, 53 S.W.2d 466, 122 Tex.
173.
56. U.S. — Moss v. Kansas City Lif
Ins. Co., C.C.A.MO., 96 F.2d 10$
Mo— Lee's Summit Building & Loan
Ass'n v. Cross, 134 S.W.2d 19, 34
39
Mo. 501— Williams v. Pemiscot
County, 133 S.W.2d 417, 345 Mo.
415 — Melenson v. Howell, 130 S.W.
2d 555, 344 Mo. 1137.
BSotton for new trial
(1) Text rule applies with respect
o pendency of motion for new trial.
Fla,— Cole v. Walker Fertilizer Co.,
for Use and Benefit of Walker, 1
So.2d 864, 147 Fla. 1.
Mo.— Cox v. Frank L. Schaab Stove
& Furniture Co., 58 S.W.2d 700,
332 Mo. 492, transferred, see App.,
67 S.W.2d 790.
Tex.— Rabinowitz v. Darnall, Com.
App., 13 S.W.2d 73.
(2) Where motion for «xew trial
was never heard, the motion was au-
tomatically overruled at the end
of the next succeeding term, and the
udgment then became final. — Kinney
v. Toelin Bros. Mercantile Co., 220
P. 998, 74 Colo. 295.
An unauthorized motion will not
suffice to postpone finality of a ju-
dicial decision.— Lindsay v. Evans,
Mo.App., 174 S.W.2d 390.
57. Ga,— Powell v. Powell, 37 S.E.
2d 191— Aud v. Aud, 35 S.E.2d 198,
199 Ga. 714— Twilley v. Twilley, 24
S.E.2d 46, 195 Ga, 297.
Okl.— Methvin v. Methvin, 127 P.2d
186, 191 Old. 177.
judgment is final when defendant
fails to perfect appeal therefrom
within time prescribed by law.
La.— Robinson v. Weiner, 105 So. 35,
158 La. 979 — Albritton v. Nauls,
App., 15 So.2d 126, 128.
Pa. — H. Miller & Sons' Co. v. Mt.
Lebanon Tp., 163 A. 511; 309 Pa.
221.
Tex.— Bound v. Dillard, Civ.App., 140
S.W.2d 520.
58. U.S.— In re Tapp, D.C.Ky., 61
F.Supp. 594.
§ 12
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
§ 12. Judgments in Rem' and in Per-
sonam
A Judgment in rem Is an adjudication pronounced on
the status of some particular subject matter, while a
judgment In personam is In form and substance between
the parties claiming the right in controversy and does
not directly affect the status of the res.
Judgments, for certain purposes, are divided into
three classes designated as "judgments in perso-
nam" or "personal judgments," "judgments in rem/'
and "judgments quasi in rem/'65 A judgment or
decree in rem is an adjudication pronounced on the
status of some particular subject matter by a tri-
bunal having competent authority for that pur-
pose.60 It differs from a judgment or decree in
personam in this, that the latter is in form as well
as in substance between the parties claiming the
right in controversy, and does not directly affect
the status of the res, but only through the action of
the parties.61 Judgments quasi in rem are rendered
in proceedings quasi in rem and affect not only title
to the res, but likewise the right in and to it pos-
sessed by individuals.62
H. ESSENTIALS OP EXISTENCE, VALIDITY, AND REGULARITY OP JUDGMENT
A. IN GENERAL
§ 13. General Statement
It Is essential to the validity of a Judgment that It
be based on, and be in conformity with, recognized prin-
ciples and fundamentals of law.
It is essential to the validity of a judgment that
it be based on, and be in conformity with, recog-
nized principles and fundamentals of law.68 Where
statutory powers are conferred on a court of in-
ferior jurisdiction, and the mode of executing those
powers is prescribed, the course pointed out must
be substantially pursued, or the judgments of the
59. Kan,— Union Central Life Ins. |
Co. v. 'Irrigation Loan & T. Co., 73 ;
P,2d 72, 146 Kan. 550.
Ky. — Combs v. Combs, 60 S.W.2d
368, 249 Ky. 155, 8D A.L.R. 1095.
Actions In rem and in personam see
Actions $52.
60. 111.— McCormick y. Blaine, 178
N.B. 195, 197, 345 111. 461, 77 A.L.
R. 1215— Wilson v. Smart, 155 N.
B. 288, 291, 324 IH. 276— Austin v.
Royal League, 147 N.E. 106, 109,
316 111. 188.
Ky. — Gayle v. Gayle, 192 S.W.2d 821;
822— Booth v. Copley, 140 S.W.2d
662, 666, 283 Ky. 23— Corpus Juris
quoted in Combs v. Combs, 60 S.W.
2d 368, 369, 249 Ky, 156, 89 A.L.R.
1095.
Nev. — Perry v. Edmonds, 84 P.2d 711,
713, 59 Nev. 60.
33 C.J. p 1063 note 48—34 C.J. P 1171
note 89.
Judgments in rem generally see in-
fra §§ 907-911.
A "special" Judgment is a judg-
ment in rem. — Smith v. Colloty, 55
A. 805, 806, 69 N.J.Law 365.
Judgments held not in rem
(1) Generally.
Conn. — Whipple v. Fardig, 146 A.
847, 109 Conn. 460.
Iowa.— Ryke v. Ream, 234 N.W. 196,
212 Iowa 126.
(2) In equity action by assignee
of insured's creditor to have pro-
ceeds of life policies subjected to
creditor's claim, that proceeds of one
policy were on deposit in bank in an-
other state did not make the decree
«ne in rem rather than in personam.
—In re Hazeldine's Estate, 280 N.W.
6C8, 225 Iowa 369.
61. Ky.— Gayle v. Gayle, 192 S.W.2d
821, 822 — Corpus Juris quoted in
Combs v. Combs, 60 S.W.2d "368,
369, 249 Ky. 155, 89 A.L.R. 1095.
33 C.J. p 1064 note 49.
The term "general judgment" has
been used as synonymous with
"judgment in personam." — Smith v.
Colloty, 55 A. 805, 806, 69 N.J.Law
365.
Judgment held in personam
Miss. — Jones v. McCormick, 110 So.
591, 145 Miss. 566.
Judgment held not in personam
U.S.— Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co.
v. Wells, C.C.A.Tex., 285 F. 369,
reversed on other grounds 44 S.
Ct. 469, 265 U.S. 101, 68 L.Ed. 928.
The inclusion of costs in judgment
against a nonresident did not render
it void as a personal judgment,
where the judgment recited that de-
fendant was duly cited. — Reitz v.
Mitchell, Tex.Civ.App., 256 .S.W. 697.
Equity decrees operate in person,
am and at most only collaterally in
rem. — McKixmey v. Mires, 26 P.2d
169, 95 Mont 191.
62. Ky.— Combs v. Combs, 60 S.W.
2d 363, 249 Ky. 155, 89 A.L.R.
1095.
63, IT.S.— Duwamish v. TT. S., 79 Ct.
Cl. 530, certiorari denied 55 S.Ct.
913, 295 U.S. 755, 79 L.Ed. 1698.
Utah.— Stockyards Nat. Bank of
South Omaha v. Bragg, 245 P. 966,
67 Utah 60.
. 40
Bond
Judgment Is not bad because trial
judge refuses to fix amount and con-
ditions of supersedeas bond. — Mc-
Cann v. Proskauer, 112 So. 621, 93
Fla. 383.
Judgment obtained at variance
with practice of court or contrary
to well recognized principles and
fundamentals of law must fall. —
Stockyards Nat. Bank of South Oma-
ha v. Bragg, 245 P. 966, 67 Utah 60.
Legality
The requirement that Judgment to
be valid must be one which tho court
could legally render means only that
judgment must be one which could
have been legally rendered on the
issue shown by the pleadings and
evidence. — Wall v. Superior Court of
Yavapai County, 89 P.2d 024, 63 Ariz.
344.
Judgment rendered on proceeding
improperly commenced is void. — Mu-
tual Life Ins. Co. of New York v.
Prever Lumber Co., 3 N.Y*.S.2d 642,
167 Misc. 662, reversed on other
grounds 6 N.7.S.2d 28, 168 Misc. 358.
Unauthorized practice of law
Fact that judgments were procur-
ed by one engaged in the illegal
practice of law did not render them
void or voidable. — Bump v. Barnett,
Iowa, 16 N.W.2d 579.
Upholding judgment
Sound public policy demands that
judgments be upheld, where it can
be done* without violating any stat-
ute or settled principle of law. — Bet-
sill v. Betsill, 196 S.E. 381, 187 8.CL
50.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§16
court will be void.** A cotirt shoald act render
a decree which is void for constitutional reasons.65
§ 14. Statutory Provisions and What Law
Governs
The validity, force, and effect of a Judgment must
be determined by the laws In force at the time and in
the jurisdiction where It was rendered.
The validity, force, and effect of a judgment must
be determined by the laws in force at the time66
and in the state or country where it was rendered.67
§ 15. Duly Constituted Court
It Is essential to the validity of a judgment that
It be the sentence or adjudication of a duly constituted
court or judicial tribunal.
It is essential to the validity of a judgment that
it be the sentence or adjudication of a duly consti-
tuted court or judicial tribunal.68 Judicial powers
are sometimes conferred on tribunals not techni-
cally courts, and decisions by such tribunals, in the
64. Wis. — Corpus Juris cited in
State ex rel. Lang1 v. Civil Court of
Milwaukee County, 280 N.W. 847,
849, 228 Wis. 411.
Wyo. — State v. District Court of
Eighth Judicial Dist. in and for
Natrona County, 238 P. 545, 83
Wyo. 281.
33 C.J. p 1064 note 58.
Exercise of statutory Jurisdiction
only as statute directs see Courts
5 89.
65. Colo. — In re Special Assess-
ments for Paving Dist. No. 3, In
City of Golden, 95 P.2d 806, 105
Colo. 158.
66. Cal.— Lake v. Bonynge, 118 -P.
535, 161 Cal. 120.
83 C.J. p 1064 note 59.
67. Mont — Swift & Co. v. Weston,
289 P. 1035, 88 Mont 40.
33 C.J. p 1064 note 60.
Foreign judgments see Infra 55 888-
906.
68. Ark, — Chapman & Dewey Lum-
ber Co. v. A-ndrews, 91 S.W.2d
1026, 192 Ark. 291.
Mass. — Carroll v. Berger, 150 N.E.
870, 255 Mass. 132.
33 C.J. p 1064 note 61.
Judgment on motion or summary
proceedings see infra S 219.
Rendition of judgments generally
see infra §§ 100-105.
Nullity of Judgment results from
a want of a legally organized court
or tribunal.
Cal. — Hunter v. Superior Court in
and for Riverside County, 97, P.2d
492, 36 Cal.App.2d 100.
Tex. — San Jacinto Finance Corpora-
exercise of powers thus conferred, are considered
as judgments.69
Judgments of de facto courts. On principles of
public policy and for the security of rights it has
been held that the regular judgments of a de facto
court, whose existence has afterward been pro-
nounced unconstitutional and void, are nevertheless
valid and conclusive.70
§ 16. Time and Place
a. In general
b. At chambers
a. In General
It has been held to be essential to the validity of a
judgment that it be rendered by a court sitting at the
time and also In the place authorized by law.
According to some authorities, it is essential to
the validity of a judgment that it be rendered by a
court sitting at the time71 and also in the place72
authorized by law, the tribunal not being otherwise
a court in any legal sense,7* and the proceedings
v. Perkins, CivJLpp., 94 S.W.
2d 1213.
Judgments hold not void
Mo. — State ex rel. Aquamsi Land Co.
v. Hostetter, 79 S.W.2d 463, 336
Mo. 391.
Tex. — Hudson v. Norwood, Civ.App.,
147 S.W.2d 826, error dismissed,
judgment correct
69. Me.— Longfellow v. Quimby, 29
Me. 196, 48 Axn.D. 525.
33 C.J. p 1065 note 67.
Allowance of claim by assignee for
benefit of creditors as equivalent
to judgment see Assignments for
Benefit of Creditors S 321.
7a Minn. — Burt v, Winona & St P.
R. Co., 18 N.W. 285, 81 Minn. 472.
33 C.J. p 1070 note 2.
De facto courts generally see Courts
§ 144.
71. Ala. — Polytinsky v. Johnston, 99
So. 839, 211 Ala. 99.
Ark. — Magnolia Petroleum Co. v.
Saunders, 94 S.W.2d 703, 192 Ark.
783.
Ga.— Hicks v. Hicks, 27 S.E.2d 10,
69 Ga.Afcp. 870.
HI.— -Wallace Grain & Supply Co. v.
Gary, 24 N.E.2d 907, 308 ULApp.
221, reversed on other grounds 28
N.B.2d 107, 374 111. 57.
Tex—British General Ens. Co. v.
Ripy, 106 S.W.2d 1047, 130 Tex.
101— Glasscock v. Pickens, Civ.
App., 73 S.W.2d 992— Sinclair Re-
fining Co. v. McElree, Civ.App., 52
S.W.2d 679 — Engelman v. Ander-
son, Civ.App., 244 S.W. 650.
33 C.J. p 1065 note 72.
Validity of judgment on holiday see
Holidays S 5 d.
Validity of Judgment on Sunday see
the C.J.S. title Sundays § 53, also
60 C.J. p 1146 note 57-p 1147
note 70.
72. Ala.— Polytiosky v. Johnston, 99
So. 839, 211 Ala. 99.
OkL— City of Clinton ex rel. Rich-
ardson v. Keen, 158 P.2d 104, 192
. Okl. 382— City of Clinton ex rel.
Richardson v. Cornell, 132 P.2d
840, 191 Okl. 600.
Tex.— British General Ins. Co. v.
Ripy. 106 S.W.2d 1047, 130 Tex. 101
— Ferguson v. Ferguson, Civ.App.,
98 S.W.2d 847.
33 C.J. p 1066 note 73.
District
(1) Ordinarily, a judgment cannot
be rendered out of the district.-^
Killiam v. Maiden Chair Co., 161 S.
E. 546, 202 N.C. 23.
(2) This rule has been held inap-
plicable where the parties consent
thereto, although the consent should
be in writing. — Killiam v. Maiden
Chair Co., supra.
Signing judgment in another county
(1) It has been held that a judg-
ment rendered at the close of the
evidence at the place of trial is not
rendered invalid because it was sign-
ed out of the county where trial was
had, under a statute providing that
judgment or decree may be rendered
by. the judge at any place in his dis-
trict— Swanson v. First Nat Bank,
219 P. 784, 74 Colo. 135.
(2) Other cases see 33 C.J. p 1066
note 73* [b].
73. Ariz. — Meade v. Scribaer, 85 P.
729, 10 Ariz. 33.
33 C.J. p 1066 note 74.
§ 16
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
being, therefore, coram aon judioe.74 In some cas-
es, however, it has been held that the fact that a
term of court at which a judgment was rendered
was held at a time other than that prescribed or
authorized by law, while rendering the judgment
erroneous and constituting ground for its reversal,
does not render the judgment void;7* but a con-
trary view has also been taken and a judgment ren-
dered under such circumstances has been held to be
void.™ It has been held that the mere fact that
the court was held at a place other than that di-
rected by law will not of itself render the judg-
ment void,7? as where the court errs with respect
to the location of the county seat78
The proper time for the rendition and entry of
judgment is discussed infra §§ 113-116.
b. At Chambers
Judgments should be rendered In open court and not
in chambers.
Judgments should be rendered in open court and
not in chambers,79 and it has been held that judg-
ments rendered in chambers are void,80 in the ab-
sence of statutory or constitutional provisions au-
thorizing such action at chambers.81
§ 17. Judges
a. In general
b. Disqualified judge
c. De facto judge
d. Special judge
a. In General
Illegal constitution of the court with respect to the
Judge or judges sitting renders the Judgment absolutely
void.
Illegal constitution of the court with respect to
the judge or judges sitting, as distinguished from'
mere disqualification of one or more of such judg-
es, renders the judgment absolutely void.82
b. Disqualified Judge
In the absence of a constitutional or statutory provi-
sion forbidding a disqualified Judge from acting, a Judg-
ment rendered by a disqualified judge is voidable but
not void.
Where a judge is forbidden to act in a case when
he is disqualified,83 as by reason of interest,84 re-
lationship to parties,85 having acted as counsel,86
74. Gau— Hicks v. Hicks, 27 S.E.2d
10, 69 Ga.App. 870.
33 C.J. p 1066 note 75.
76. S.D. — Lockard v. Lockard, 110
N.W. 1C4, 21 S.D. 134.
33 C.J. P 1066 note 76.
Court held under color of law
This view has been adopted where
the court was held under color of
law at a particular time, but at time
other than that actually fixed by law.
there having been a change in the
law which was unknown or overlook-
ed.—Venable v. Curd, 2 Head, Tenn.,
682.
78. Ala. — State v. Thurman, 88 So.
61, 17 Ala.App. 592.
33 C.J. p 1066 note 78.
77. Minn.— In re Ellis, 56 N.W. 1056,
55 Minn. 401, 43 Am.S.R. 514, 23
L.R.A, 287.
33 C.J. p 1066 note 79.
78. 111. — Robinson v. Moore, 25 HI.
185.
79. Tex. — Bridgman v. Moore, 183
S.W.2d 705, 143 Tex. 250.
33 O.J. p 1070 note 96.
Term ttxne *
It has been held that, if the judg-
ment Is entered In term time, it is
immaterial whether court perform-
ed act of rendering Judgment in
private office or courtroom. — Doep-
penschxnidt v. City of New Braun-
fels, Tex.Civ.App., 289 S.W. 425.
Boom of courthouse
Judgment by superior court in
room In courthouse at county site
other than regular courtroom has
been held not void, where no legal
or constitutional right of defendant
was infringed, and no substantial in-
jury to him has been done.— Walton
v. Wilkinson Bolton Co., 123 S.E. 103,
158 Ga. 13.
Signing judgment
Whether judgment was signed at
chambers or in open court was im-
material, since the signing of judg-
ment involves no judicial considera-
tion.—Baldwin v. Anderson, 13 P.2d
650, 52 Idaho 243—33 C.J. p 1070
note 96 [e].
80. Colo.— Scott v. Stutheit, 121 P.
151, 21 Colo.App. 151.
Neb.— Shold v. Van Treeck, 117 N.
W. 113, 82 Neb. 99.
33 C.J. p 1070 note 96—15 C.J. p 815
note 25.
Under statute requiring Judgments
to be read in open court, a judgment
read or signed in chambers without
authorization of counsel or litigants
is a nullity. — Hammond Box Co. v.
Carmello Musso & Co., La.App., 172
So. 790— Green v. Frederick, 136 So.
783, 17 La,App. 605—33 C.J. p 1070
note 96 [g].
81. Wash.— Williams v. Briley, 242
P. 370, 137 Wash. 262.
33 C.J. p 1070 note 97—15 C.J. p
826 note 26.
82. IU.-<!obb v. People, 84 HL 511-
33 C.J. p 1070 note 7.
33. Cal.— Glometti v. Etienne, 28 P.
2d 913, 219 Cal. 687— Cadenasso v.
42
Bank of Italy, 6 P.2d 944, 214 Cal.
562.
Or.— Western Athletic Club v.
Thompson, 129 P.2d 828, 169 Or.
514.
Tex.— Williams v. Sinclair-Prairie
Oil Co., Civ.App., 135 S.W.2d 211,
error dismissed, judgment correct
—Weil v. Lewis, Civ.App., 2 S.W.
2d 566.
33 C.J. p 1071 note 9.
84. Mont. — Gaer v. Bank of Baker,
107 P.2d 877, 111 Mont. 204.
33 C.J. p 1071 note 9.
Judge who is stockholder of plain-
tiff bank is disqualified, and has no
jurisdiction to render judgment
which, if rendered, is void. — Cade-
nasso v. Bank of Italy, 6 P.2d 944,
214 Cal. 562,
85. Tex.— Postal Mut. Indemnity Co.
v. Ellis, 169 S.W.2d 482, 140 Tex,
570— Weil v. Lewis, Civ.App., 2 S.
W.2d 566 — Stephenson v. Kirkham,
Civ.App., 297 S.W. 266.
33 C.J. p 1071 note 9.
Void as to other defendants
Judgment void as to one defendant
because of judge's relationship was
void as to other defendants. — Weil
v. Lewis, Tex.Civ.App., 2 S.W.2d 566.
*. Tex.— Williams v. Sinclair-Prai-
rie Oil Co., Civ.Ap.p., 135 S.W.2d
211, error dismissed, judgment cor-
rect.
33 C.J. p 1071 note 9 [c].
Issistant county attorney
Where a county judge hearing sec-
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 17
or prejudice,87 any judgment by him in disregard
of the prohibition is void. Consent of parties can-
not confer jurisdiction in such cases,88 unless the
statute excepts from its prohibition cases where
the parties consent, in which event consent of par-
ties removes the disqualification to act,89 as would
be the case in the absence of any express prohibi-
tion to act.90
Where there is no absolute prohibition of his act-
ing, the mere fact that the judge is disqualified does
not render the judgment void, although it may ren-
der it voidable or reversible.91 There is authority,
however, holding that such judgments are void even
in the absence of any statutory prohibition.92
While it has been held that, where several judges
constitute the court, and one of them is disquali-
fied, the judgment is void, if such disqualified judge
participated in the hearing and determination,93
there is also authority to the contrary.94 In some
cases it has been held that a disqualified judge may
sit, pro forma, to make a quorum without invali-
dating the judgment, provided he does not otherwise
participate in the proceedings;96 but there is also
authority to the contrary.96 It has been held that
two judges of an appellate court may render a valid
judgment where the third judge has disqualified
himself.97
Entry of formal judgment. A judge who is dis-
qualified in a cause may enter a formal judgment
directed by the appellate court, as in such case he
is not required to exercise any judgment or dis-
cretion.98
c. De Facto Judge
A Judgment rendered by a Judge de facto Is valid.
A judgment rendered by a judge de facto is val-
id.99 On this principle, it has been held that a
judgment rendered by a properly elected judge be-
fore the legal commencement of his term of office,1
or after the expiration of his term,2 is valid
ond liquor prosecution was disquali-
fied because he had been assistant
county attorney at time of first pros-
ecution, judgment rendered on sec-
ond prosecution was void. — Woodland
v. State, 178 S.W.2d 528, 147 Tex.Cr.
84.
87. Ohio.— Wendel v. Hughes, 28 N.
E.2d 686, 64 Ohio App. 310.
Or. — -Western Athletic Club v.
Thompson, 129 P.2d 828, 169 Or.
514.
88. Vt. — Watson v. Payne, 111 A.
462, 94 Vt. 299.
83 C.J. p 1071 note 10,
89. Okl.— Holloway v. Hall, 192 P.
219, 79 Okl..l63.
38 C.J. p 1071 note 12.
Knowledge of facts
Where parties to proceedings to
set aside orders in statutory rehabil-
itation proceeding stipulated to
waiver of disqualification of judge
whose sister owned stock in delin-
quent insurer under statute relating
to disqualification of judges, and
waiver was not specifically limited
to ownership by sister of stock, un-
awareness of plaintiff when signing
stipulation that sister was a mem-
ber of two stockholders' committees,
one of which was a party to proceed-
ings to set aside orders, did not ren-
der judgment void.— Neblett v. Pa-
cific Mut Life Ins. Co. of California,
139 P.2d 934, 22 Cal.2d 393, certiorari
denied 64 S.Ct. 428, 320 U.S. 802,
88 L.Ed. 484.
90. N.H.— Stearns v. Wright, 51 N.
H. 600.
33 C.J. p 1071 note 18.
91. Ala.— Phillips v. State, App., 24
So.2d 226.
Ind. — State ex rel. Krodel v. Gilkison,
198 N.E. 323, 209 Ind. 213.
Ohio.— Tari v. State, 159 N.B. 594, |
117 Ohio St. 481, 67 A.L.R. 284.
Okl.— Mansfield, Sizer & Gardner v.
Smith, 16 P.2d 1066, 160 Okl. 298—
Dancy v. Owens, 258 P. 879, 126
Okl. 37— State v. Davenport, 256 P.
340, 125 Okl. 1.
S.C.— Sandel v. Crum, 125 S.B. 919,
130 S.C. 317.
33 C.J. p 1071 note 14.
At common, law
U.S.— Crites v. Radtke, D.C.N.T., 29
F.Supp. 970— In re Fox West Coast
Theatres, D.C.Cal., 25 F.Supp. 250,
affirmed, C.C.A., 88 F.2d 212, cer-
tiorari denied Tally v. Fox Film
Corporation, 57 S.Ct. 944, 301 U.S.
710, 81 LJEd. 1363, rehearing de-
nied 58 S.Ct 7, 302 U.S. 772, 82
L.Ed. 598.
Ind.— State, ex rel. Krodel v. Gilki-
son, 198 N.E. 323, 209 Ind. 213.
92. Ky.— Hall v. Blackard, 182 S.
W.2d 904, 298 Ky. 354— Common-
wealth v. Murphy, 174 S.W.2d 681,
295 Ky. 466— Coquillard Wagon
Works v. Melton, 125 S.W. 291,
137 Ky. 189.
93. N.T.— Oakley v. Aspinwall, 8 N.
T. 547.
33 C.J. p 1071 note 16.
JtLdge necessary to make quorum
The judgment is void if the dis-
qualified judge is necessary to make
a quorum. — Stockwell v. White Lake,
22 Mich. 341.
94. N.D.— State v. Kositzky, 166 N.
W. 634, «8 N.D. 616.
"The mere presence of, and par-
ticipation by, a member of a judicial
body disqualified to act in a par-
ticular case, does not necessarily in-
validate the proceedings and judg-
ment of that body. Particularly is
this true if his presence is not nee-
43
essary to constitute a quorum, or his
vote does not determine the result"
—State v. Kositzky, 166 N.W. 534,
535, 38 N.D. 616, L.R.A.1918D 237.
95. Utah. — Nephi Irr. Co. v. Jenkins,
32 P. 699, 8 Utah 452.
Wis. — Rogan v. Walker, 1 Wis. 597.
Fro tempore member
A decision of district court of ap-
peal was not void because the judge
who tried the case appealed from
was a member of appellate tribunal
pro tempore and sat on the bench
when case was argued, where such
judge did not participate in decision
and specifically disqualified himself.
— Bracey v. Gray, Cal.App., 162 P.2d
314, motion granted and certiorari
denied Gray v. Bracey, 66 S.Ct. 961.
96. Wis.— Case v. Hoffman, 72 N.W.
390, 100 Wis. 314, 44 L.R.A. 728,
vacated 74 N.W. 220, 100 Wis. 314,
44 L.R.A. 728, reheard 75 N.W.
945, 100 Wis. 314, 44 L.R.A. 728.
97. Tex. — Marshburn v. Stewart,
Civ.App., 295 S.W. 679.
98. U.S. — Clarke v. Chicago, B. '&
Q. R. Co., CC.A.Wyo., 62 F.2d 440,
certiorari denied 54 S.Ct 49, three
cases, 290 U.S. 629, 78 L.Ed. 54$.
33 C.J. p 1072 note 21.
Entry generally see infra § 106.
99. Colo. — Rude v. Sisack, 96 P.
976, 44 Colo. 21.
N.T.— McLear v. Balmat, 223 N.T.S.
76, 129 Misc. 805, reversed on oth-
er grounds 230 N.T.S. 259, 224 App.
Div. 306, modified 231 N.T.S. 581,
224 AppJDiv. 366.
Ohio. — Demereaux v. State, 172 NJ33.
551, 35 Ohio App. 418.
33 C.J. p 1072 note 23.
1. Va,— McCraw v. Williams, 83
Gratt 510, 74 Va. 510.
2. Cal.— Merced Bank v. Bosenthal,
§ 17
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
d. Special Judge
A Judgment rendered by a special or substitute Judge
Is valid where such a Judge has been duly appointed
and Is authorized to act.
A judgment rendered by a special or substitute
judge is valid where such a judge has been duly
appointed and is authorized to act8 A judgment
rendered by a- special judge without proper author-
ity is a nullity,4 as where the appointment of a spe-
cial judge was unauthorized.5
§ 18. Formal Proceedings
It Is essential to the existence and validity of a
Judgment that the decision shall have been rendered In
an action or proceeding before the court, In some form
recognized and sanctioned by law.
It is essential to the existence and validity of a
judgment that the decision shall have been rendered
in an action or proceeding before the court,6 in
some form recognized and sanctioned, by law.? The
established modes of procedure must be followed,8
although mere irregularities in the proceedings will
not necessarily invalidate the judgment.9 Accord-
ingly, a judgment in a court of record must be
based on definite and regular proceedings, which
the record must disclose.10 Likewise, as a general
rule, before a valid judgment may be rendered
against a defendant, he must be accorded an op-
portunity to be heard and present his defense,11 and
for this purpose, as discussed infra § 23, he must
be given notice of the action or proceeding against
him. It has been held that it is not essential to the
validity of a judgment against a defendant in a
civil action that he be present at any of the pro-
si P. 849, 99 Cal. 39, reheard 33 P.
732, 99 Cal. 39.
33 C.J. p 1072 note 25.
3, Ariz, — Payne v. Williams, 56 P.
2d 186, 47 Ariz. 396.
Ark. — Moffett v. Texarkana Forest
Park Pavtog, Sewer, and Water
Dist. No. 2, 26 S.W.2d 589, 181
Ark. 474.
N.D.— Olson v. Donnelly, 294 N.W.
666, 70 N.D. 370.
Tex. — Boone v. Likens-Waddill Mo-
tor Co., Civ.App., 49 S.W.2d 979.
Power of successor judge to render
judgment in proceeding begun be-
fore predecessor see Judges § 56.
Entry on record of agreement of
counsel for appointment of judge ad
litem has been held not essential to
validity of judgment.— TT, S. Fidelity
& Guaranty Co. v. Tucker, 159 So.
787, 118 Fla. 430.
Failure to take oath
The failure of a special Judge to
take oath of office has been held not
to render his judgments void.
Kan, — In re Hewes, 62 P. 673, 62
Kan. 288.
W.Va.— Tower v. Whip, 44 S.E. 179,
53 W.Va, 158, 63 L.R.A, 937.
Judge pro tempore
Where Judge pro tempore was se-
lected by agreement of parties after
disqualification of district Judge by
affidavit of prejudice, Judgment of
judge pro tempore was as valid and
as binding on parties as though it
had been rendered by presiding
Judge of district — Moruzzi v. Fed-
eral Life & Casualty Co., 75 P.2d
320, 42 N.M. 35, 115 A.L.R. 407.
Waiver, of irregularity
It has been held that, where de-
fendants waived an Irregularity in
the appointment of a special judge,
a judgment rendered by sudh judge
is not void. — Winters v. Allen, 62
S.W.2d 51, 166 Tenn. 281.
4. Fla. — Sapp v. McConnon & Co.,
169 So. 622, 124 Fla. 879.
111.— Healy v. Mobile & O. R. Co.,
161 IlLApp. 138.
Ind.— Herbster V; State, 80 I-nd. 484.
Ky.— Ooleman v. Mullins, 288 S.W.
701, 216 Ky. 761.
Mo.— Cook v. Cook, 68 S.W.2d 900,
228 Mo.App. 478.
Tex*— Younger Bros. v. Turner, Civ.
App., 132 S.W.2d 632— Metropolitan
Life Ins. Co. v. Painter, Civ.App.,
64 S.W.2d 828 — Clements v. Fort
Worth & D. S. P. Ry. Co., Civ.App.,
7 S.W.2d 895.
Signing at chambers
Special judge, unless duly commis-
sioned to hold and holding court in
county or courts of Judicial district
when signing judgment at chambers,
was without authority in premises. —
Bohannon v. Virginia Trust Co., 153
S.E. 263, 198 N.C. 702.
5. Ky. — Bark v. Springton Coal Co,,
124 S.Wl2d 760, 276 Ky. 501.
Tex— Bailey v. Triplett Bros;, Civ.
App., 278 S.W. 250.
33 C.J. p 1072 note 28.
& N.Y. — Booth v. Kingsland Ave,
Bldg. Ass'n, 46 N.T.S. 457, 18 App.
Div. 407, 408.
33 C.J. p 1072 note 29.
7. Colo. — O'Brophy v. Bra Gold Mln.
Co., 85 P. 679, 36 Colo. 247.
Mo.— In re Buckles, 53 S.W.2d 1055,
331 Mo. 405.
33 C.J. p 1072 note 30.
8. Me.— Ex parte Davis, 41 Me. 38,
58.
33 C.J. p 1072 note 31*
9. Failure to give notice adjourn-
ing ease was a mere irregularity,
not invalidating judgment. — Intercity
Carnival Co. v. niions, 239 N.T.S.
128, 136 Misc. 56.
10. Okl. — Corpus Juris quoted in,
City of Sapulpa v. Young, 296 P.
418, 429, 147 dkl. 179.
33 C.J. p 1132 note 79.
11. U.S.— Sylvan Beach v. Koch, C
44
C.A.Mo., 140 F.2d 852— In re Noell,
C.C.A.MO., 93 F.2d 5— Smith v.
Stark Trucking, D.C.Ohio. 53 F.
Supp. 826 — Fisher v. Jordan, D.C.
Tex., 32 F.Supp. 608, reversed on
other grounds, C.C.A., 116 F.2d 198,
certiorari denied Jordan v. Fisher,
61 S.Ct. 734, 312 U.S. 697, 85 U
Ed. 1132.
Cal.— Gray v. Hall, 265 P. 246, 203
Cal. 306.
D.C. — IT. S. ex reL Ordmann v. Cum-
mings, 85 F.2d 273. 66 App. B.C.
107.
Ga.— Elliott v. Adams, 160 S.E. 336,
173 Ga. 312— Walton v. Wilkinson
Bolton Co., 123 S.E. 103, 158 Ga,
13.
111.— Alward v. Borah, 44 N.E.2d 865,
381 111. 134— Hauser v. Power, 183
N.E. 580, 351 111. 36— In re Shanks'
Estate, 282 IlLApp. 1.
Ky.— Jasper v. Tartar. 7 S.W.2d 236,
224 Ky. 834.
Mo.— Ex parte Irwin, 6 S.W.2d 597,
320 Mo. 20— State ex reL National
Lead Co. v. Smith, App., 134 S.W.
2d 1061.
N.J. — Redzlna v. Provident Inst. for
Savings in Jersey City, 125 A. 133,
96 N.J.EQ. 346.
N.T. — Rochester Sav. Bank v. Mon-
roe County, 8 N.Y.S.2d 107, 169'
Misc. 526.
N.D.— Baird V. Ellison, 293 N.W.
794, 70 N.D. 261.
Or.— Kerns v. Couch, 17 P.2d 323, 141
Or. 147.
Pa.— In re Galli's Estate, 17 A.2d
899, 340 Pa. 561.
Tex. — Bozeman v. Arlington Heights
Sanitarium, Civ.App., 134 S.W.2d
350, error refused — Moorhe-ad v.
Transportation Bank of Chicago,
111., Civ.App., 62 S.W.2d 184.
Va.— Moore v. Smith, 15 S.E.2d 48,
177 Va. 621.
Wash.— Morley v. Morley, 230 P. 645,
131 Wash. 540.
33 CJ. p 1080 note 96.
49 C.J.S.
.JUDGMENTS
§ 19
ceedings following a proper summons to bring him
before the court.12
§ 19. Jurisdiction
a. In general
b. Jurisdiction of person
c. Jurisdiction of subject matter or cause
of action
d. Jurisdiction of question determined
and relief granted
a. In General
A judgment rendered by a court having no Jurisdic-
tion Is a mere nullity.
A judgment rendered by a court having no ju-
risdiction is a mere nullity, and will be so held and
treated whenever and for whatever purpose it is
sought to be used or relied on as a valid judg-
ment.1^ Where a court is without jurisdiction, it
is generally irregular to make any order in the
12. Ariz. — Potter v. Home Owners'
Loan Corporation, 72 P.2d 429, 50
Ariz. 285.
Necessity of presence of parties at
trial generally see the C.J.S. title
Trial § 40, also 64 C.J. p 69 note
90-p 70 note 3.
13. U.S.— Green v. City of Stuart,
C.C.A.Fla., 101 F.2d 309, certioraii
denied 59 S.Ct 827, 307 U.S. 626,
83 L.Ed. 1510— Albion-Idaho Land
Co. v. Naf Irr. Co., C.OA.Utah,
97 F.2d 439 — In re Lake Champlain
Pulp & Paper Corporation, B.C.
N.Y., 20 F.2d 425.
Cal.— In re Gardiner's Estate, 114
P.2d 643, 45 Cal.App.2d 559.
Colo.— Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co.
v. Board of Com'rs of Fremont
County, 87 P.2d 761, 95 Colo. 435.
D.C. — U. S. ex rel. Tungsten Reef
Mines Co. v. Ickes, 84 F.2d 257, 66
App.D.C. 3.
Fla. — Mai one v. Meres, 109 So. 677,
91 Fla. 709.
Ga.— City of Albany v. Parks, 5 S.
E.2d 680, 61 GeuApp. 55.
Idaho. — East Side Lumber Co. T.
Malmgren, 277 P. 554, 47 Idaho
560 — Williams v, Sherman, 212 P.
971, 36 Idaho 494.
111.— Atkins v. Atkins, 65 N.E.2d 801,
393 111. 202— Martin v. Schillo, 60
N.E.2d 392, 389 111. 607, certiorari
denied 65 S.Ct • 1572, 325 U.S. 880,
89 L.Ed. 1996— Sharp v. Sharp, 164
N.B. 685, 333 111. 267— People v.
Brewer, 160 N.B. 76, 328 111. 472—
Albers v. Bramberg, 32 N.E.2d 362,
308 Ill.App. 463— Jardine v. Jar-
dine, 9 N.E.2d 645, 291 Ill.App. 152
— Webster Grocer Co. v. Gammel, 1
N.E.2d 890, 285 IlLApp. 277— Eddy
v. Dodson, 242 Ill.App. 508 — Gary v.
Senseman, 215 Ill.App. 232.
3towa. — Stier v. Iowa State Travel-
in? Men's Asa'n, 201 N.W. 328,
199 Iowa 118, 59 A.L.R. 1384.
:Ky.— Thacker v. Phillips' Adm'r, 281
S.W. 831, 213 Ky. 687.
;La. — Whitney Central Trust & Sav-
ings Bank v. Norton, 102 So. 306,
157 La, 199— Smith v. Shehee,
App., 143 So. 339, amended 144 So.
750.
iMe.— In re Williams' Estate, 41 A.
2d 825, 141 Me. 219— Appeal of
Kelley, 1 A.2d 183, 136 Me. 7.
:*ld. — Fooks* Ex*rs v. Ghingher, 192
A. 782, 172 Md. 612, certiorari de-
nied Phillips v. Ghingher, 58 S.Ct.
47, 302 U.S. 726, 82 L.Ed. 561.
Mass.— Holt v. Holt, 153 N.B. 397,
257 Mass. 114.
Mich.— Ward v. Hunter Machinery
Co., 248 N.W. 864, 263 Mich. 445.
Mo.— In re Buckles, 53 S.W.2d 1055,
331 Mo. 405— State ex rel. Hogan
v. Meyers, App., 26 S.W.2d 816.
Mont — Oregon Mortg. Co. v. Kun-
neke, 245 P. 539, 76 Mont. 117.
N.J.— Giresi v. Giresi, 44 A.2d 345
— Kaufman v. Smathers, 166 A.
453, 111 N.J.Law 52— Corpus Juris
cited in, Keller v. American Cya-n-
amid Co., 28 A.2d 41, 46, 132 N.J.
Bq. 210. .
N.T. — Oberlander v. Oberlander, 89
N.T.S.2d 139, 179 Misc. 459 — Cor-
pus Juris quoted in Van Buren v.
Harrison, 299 N.Y.S. 485, 486, 164
Misc. 774 — Clarke v. Carlisle Foun-
dry Co., 270 N.T.S. 351, 150 Misc.
710.
N.C.— Ward v. Agrillo, 139 S.B. 451,
194 N.C. 321— Clark v. Carolina
Homes, 128 S.E. 20, 189 N.C. 703.
Ohio. — Sampliner v. Bialosky, 25
Ohio N.P.,N.S., 161.
Okl.— O. C. Whitaker, Inc., v. Dil-
lingham, 152 P.2d 371, 194 Okl. 421
— Corpus Juris cited in Fltzsim-
mons v. Oklahoma City, 135 P.2d
340, 342, 192 Okl. 248— Hinkle v.
Jones, 66 P.2d 1073, 180 Okl. 17—
St Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co.
v. Bayne, 40 P.2d 1104, 170 Okl.
542 — Henson v. Oklahoma State
Bank, 23 P.2d 709, 165 Okl. 1—
Tulsa Terminal, Storage & Trans-
fer Co. v, Thomas, 18 P.2d 891,
162 OkL 5.
Pa. — In re Patterson's Estate, 19 A.
2d 165, 341 Pa. 177— Mamlin v.
Tener, 23 A.2d 90, 146 BauSuper.
593-t-Mintz v. Mlntz, 83 Pa.Super.
85.
S.D. — Hurley v. Coursey, 265 N.W. 4,
64 S.D. 131— In re Schafer's Estate,
209 N.W. 355, 50 S.D. 232, adhered
to In re Schafer's Estate, 216 N.
W. 948, 52 S.D. 182.
Tenn. — Johnson v. White, 106 S.W,
2d 222, 171 Tenn. 536— Ward v.
Lovell, 113 S*W.2d 759, 21 Tenn.
App. 560— Western Automobile
Casualty Co. v. Burnell, 71 S.W.2d
474, 17 Tenn.App. 687.
Tex.— Conn v. Campbell, 24 S.W.2d
813, 119 Tex. 82— Leslie v. Griffin,
45
Com. App., 25 S.W.2d 820 — Renshaw
v. Wise County, Civ.App., 142 S.W.
2d 578 — Green v. Duncan, Civ. App.,
134 S.W.2d 744 — Galley v. Hedrick,
Civ.App., 127 S.W.2d 978— Askew
V. Roundtree, Civ.App., 120 S.W.
2d 117, error dismissed — Fowzer
v. Huey & Philp Hardware Co.,
Civ.App.f 99 S.W.2d 1100, error
dismissed — Westerly Supply Cor-
poration v. State, Civ. App., 89 S.W.
2d 244— Corpus Juris cited in Wil-
kinson v. Owens, Civ.App., 72 S.W.
2d 330, 335— King v. King, Civ.
App.t 291 S.W. 645— Glenn v. Dal-
las County Bois D'Arc Island
Levee Dist, Civ.App., 282 S.W. 339,
reversed on other grounds Dallas
County Bois D'Arc Island Levee
Dist v. Glenn, Com.App., 288 S.W.
165.
Va. — Corpus Juris cited in Bray v.
Landergren, 172 S.B. 252, 257, 161
Va. 699.
Vt— Roddy v. Fitzgerald's Estate,
35 A,2d 668, 113 Vt. 472.
Wash.— Parr v. City of Seattle, 84 P.
2d 375, 197 Wash. 53.
W.Va.—Perkins v. Hall, 17 S.E.2d
795, 123 W.Va. 707— Corpus Jurto
cited i» Pettry v. Shi-nn, 196 S.E.
385, 386, 120 W.Va. 20.
33 C.J. p 1073 note 33.
Jurisdiction generally see Courts 55
15-119.
"A judgment rendered without Ju-
risdiction is a nullity and the party
against whom it is entered may
Ignore it and proceed as though no
attempt had ever been made to ren-
der it" — Moeur v. Ashfork Livestock
Co., 61 P.2d 395, 897, 48 Ariz. 298.
Other statements of rule
(1) Where a court acts without
authority, its judgments are nulli-
ties.
D.C. — TJ. S. ex rel. Ordmann v. Cum-
mings, 85 F.2d 273, 66 App.D.C.
107.
Fla. — Malone v. Meres, 109 So. 677*
91 Fla. 709.
N.M.— State v. Patten, 69 P.2d 931,
41 N.M. 395.
(2) Judgment is void where ju-
risdictional fact on which court's
authority to act depends is absent —
Turk v. Turk, 18 S.W.2d 1003. 230
Ky. 191.
(8) "Without jurisdiction there ia
no validity or vitality to the 'Judg-
§ 19
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
cause except to dismiss the suit** The validity of
a judgment depends on the jurisdiction of the court
before rendition, not on what may occur subse-
quently.16 It has been stated, however, that it
cannot be broadly asserted that a judgment is al-
ways a nullity if jurisdiction of some sort or other
is wanting.1**
Loss of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction which has once
attached may be lost, and thereby the court may
be deprived of the authority to make any further
order or judgment,17 as where the case has been
taken up on appeal or error,1* or duly removed
from a state court to a federal court.19 So juris-
diction may be lost and the authority of the court
terminated by the expiration of the term without
judgment rendered and without a proper continu-
ance.20
Error in exercise of jurisdiction. Want of ju-
risdiction must be distinguished from error in the
exercise of jurisdiction.21 Where jurisdiction has
once attached, mere errors or irregularities in the
proceedings, however grave, although they may ren-
der the judgment erroneous and subject to be set
aside in a proper proceeding for that purpose, will
not render the judgment void,22 and, as discussed
infra § 449, until set aside it is valid and binding
."— Carroll v. Berber, 150 N.B.
870, 872. 255 Mass. 132.
(4) A judgment rendered by a
court without Jurisdiction is not a
final and binding judgment. — In re
Waters' Estate, Mo.App., 153 S.W.
2d 774.
(5) A court cannot render valid
judgment In case of which it has no
potential jurisdiction.—- Kirk v. Head,
152 S.W.2d 726, 187 Tex. 44.
(6) Where court is inherently
without power to hear and deter-
mine, any judgment rendered is a
mere nullity. — United Production
Corporation v. Hughes, 152 S.W.2d
327, 137 Tex. 21.
14. U.S.— New Orleans Mail Co. v.
Flanders, La., 12 Wall. ISO, 20 L.
Ed. 249.
38 C.J. p 1074 note 37.
15. Tex.— Hicks v. Sias, Civ.App.,
102 S.W.2d 460, error refused.
16. U.S.— -Carter v. U. S., C.C.A.Ala.,
135 F.2d 858.
Necessity of record
A judgment is not void in the
legal sense for want of jurisdiction
unless its invalidity and want of
Jurisdiction appear on the record,
but is merely voidable.— ^Tupe v.
Home Owners Loan Corp., Okl., 167
P,2d 46— Edwards v. Smith, 142 P.
302, 42 Okl. 544.
Jurisdictional defects as grounds for
collateral attack on judgments see
infra §§ 421-427.
17. HI.— People ex rel. Waite v,
Bristbw, 62 N.E.2d 545, 391 ffl.
101— Watkins v. Dunbar, 149 N.B
14, 318 I1L 174.
Ky.— Combs v. Beaton, 251 S.W. 638
199 Ky. 477.
Wis.— State ex reL Lang v. Civil
Court of Milwaukee County. 280
N.W. 347, 228 Wis. 411.
33 C.J. p 1074 note 38.
Ancillary matter
Where jurisdiction to render
judgment is ended, no jurisdiction
remains as to matter purely ancil
lary to that object, — Cutrone v. Cut
rone, 29 N.T.S.2d 405, 176 Miac, 988
affirmed 80 N.T.S.2d 813, 262 App.
Div. 992.
18. Mass.— Boynton v. Foster, 7
Mete. 415.
19. Minn. — Roberts v. Chicago, St.
P. M. & O. R. Co., 51 N.W. 478,
48 Minn. 521.
20. Wis.— Witt v. Henze, 16 N.W.
609, 58 Wis. 244.
Rendition of judgment during term
see supra 8 16 b.
21. Mich.— Corpus Juris quoted i»
Jackson City Bank & Trust Co. v.
Frederick, 260 N.W. 908, 910, 271
Mich. 538. '
Wash. — In re Waters of Doan Creek,
299 P. 383. 162 Wash. 695.
22. Ala. — Corpus Juris cited in
James v. State, 181 So. 709, 712,
28 Ala. App. 225.
Ark.— Corpus Juris cited in, Ex parte
O'Neal, 87 S.W.2d 401, 403, 191
Ark. 696.
Fla.— Childs v. Boots, 152 So. 212,
112 Fla. 277— Malone v. Meres, 109
So. 677, 91 Fla. 709.
Ga. — Lester v. Southern Security Co.,
147 S.B. 529, 168 Ga, 307— Corpus
Juris cited in Georgia Power Co. v.
Friar, 171 S.B. 210, 214, 47 Ga.App.
675, affirmed 175 S.B. 807, 179 Ga.
470.
Idaho.— Baldwin v. Anderson, 299 P.
341, 50 Idaho 606, certiorari grant-
ed American Surety Co. of New
York v. Baldwin, 52 S.Ct. 499, 286
U.S. 536, 76 L.Ed. 1275, and certio-
rari dismissed American Surety
Co. v. Baldwin, 53 S.Ct. 98, 287 U.
S. 166, 77 L.Ed. 231, 86 A.L.R.
HI. — Heitman Trust Co. v. Parlee, 40
N.E.2d 732, 314 IlLApp. 83— Corpus
Juris cited in. Hampton v. Grissom,
4 N.B.2d 895, 287 IlLApp. 294—
Seither & Cherry Co. v. Board of
Education of District No. 15, Town
of La Harpe, 283 IlLApp. 892—
Knapik v. Stefek, 274 IlLApp. 19
Ind. — Freimann v. Gallmeier, App.,
63 N.E.2d 150.
Ky.— Stewart v. Sampson, 148 S.W.2d
278, 285 Ky. 447— Henderson v.
Commonwealth, 251 S.W. 988, 199
Ky. 795.
46
Mich.— Corpus Juris quoted In Jack-
son City Bank & Trust Co. v.
Frederick, 260 N.W. 908, 910, 271
Mich. 538.
N.C.— Fowler v. Fowler, 130 S.B. 815,
190 N.C. 536.
Okl. — Protest of St. Louis-San Fran-
cisco Ky. Co., 26 P.2d 212, 166 Okl.
50.
Or. — Lytle v. Payette-Oregon Slope
Irr. Dist, 152 P.2d 934, 156 A.L.R.
894.
Tex.— Corpus Juris cited in, Texas
Employers* Ins. Ass'n v. Bzell,
Com.App., 14 S.W.2d 1018, 1019,
rehearing denied 16 S.W.2d 528
— Waples Platter Co. v. Miller,
Civ.App., 139 S.W.2d 833— Ameri-
can Law Book Co. v. Dykes, Civ.
App., 278 S.W. 247.
Wash. — Corpus Juris quoted in In re
Waters of Doan Creek in Walla
Walla County, 299 P. 883, 162
Wash. 695.
Wyo. — State v. District Court of
Eighth Judicial Dist. within and
for Natrona County, 260 P. 174, 37
Wyo. 169.
33 C.J. P 1079 note 82—34 C.J. p 508
note 7.
Operation and effect of void and
voidable judgments see infra 55
449-452.
Other statements of rule
(1) A Judgment is <not void, even
though it may be erroneous if court
had jurisdiction of person of defend-
ant and of the subject matter of the
suit and had power to render par-
ticular Judgment which it entered,
and such a Judgment is valid until
reversed. — People ex rel. Merrill v.
Hazard, 196 N.E. 827, 361 HI. 60.
(2) Where court of general Juris-
diction has Jurisdiction of subject
matter and parties, «no Judgment it
may render within the issues is void,
however erroneous it may be.— City
of Huntington v. Northern Indiana
Power Co., 5 N.B.2d 889, 211 Ind. 502,
dissenting opinion 6 N.B.2d 335, 211
Ind. 502.
(3) Where a court has Jurisdiction
over the person and the subject
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
19
for all purposes. Error in the determination of
questions of law or fact on which the court's ju-
risdiction in the particular case depends, the court
having general jurisdiction of the cause and the
person, is error in the exercise of jurisdiction.23
1>. Jurisdiction of Person
A judgment in personam Is void unless the court
has jurisdiction of the persons Involved.
A judgment in personam is void unless the court
has jurisdiction of the persons involved.24 The
matter, no error in the exercise of
such jurisdiction can make the judg-
ment void even if there is a funda-
mental error of law appearing on the
face of the record and such judgment
is valid until avoided.— Mahaffa v.
Mahaffa, 298 N.W. 916, 230 Iowa 679.
(4) A judgment is never void for
error, provided the court rendering
it had jurisdiction over the person
of the defendant and the subject
matter of the action. — Sheridan v*
Sheridan, 4 N.W.2d 785, 218 Minn. 24.
Property rights
Where a court in the exercise of
its jurisdiction enters a decree af-
fecting property rights contrary to
statute, the court is guilty of error
of judgment, but such error does not
render the decree void, nor does the
fact that the error may appear on
the face of the decree itself indi-
cate its nullity. — In re Gardiner's
Estate, 114 P.2d 648, 45 Cal.App.2d
659.
23. Ala.— Corpus Juris cited in
James v. State, 181 So. 709, 712,
28 Ala.App. 225.
Ariz. — Wall v. Superior Court of
Tavapai County, 89 P.2d 624, 58
Ariz. 344.
Mich. — Corpus Juris quoted in Jack-
son City Bank & Trust Co. v.
Frederick, 260 N.W. 908, 910, 271
Mich. 588.
Tex. — Corpus Juris quoted in Fergu-
son v. Ferguson, Civ.App., 98 S.W.
2d 847, 850.
33 C.J. p 1079 note 88.
24. U.S.— Buss v. Prudential Ins.
Co. of America, COAJowa, 126
F.2d 960— Mulcahy v. Whitehill,
D.C.Mass., 48 F.Supp. 917— In re
American Fidelity Corporation, D.
C.Cal., 28 F.Supp. 462— Baskin v.
Montedonico, D.CTenn., 26 F.Supp.
894, affirmed, C.C.A., 115 F.2d 837
— U. S. v. U. S. Fidelity & Guar-
anty Co., D.C.Okl., 24 F.Supp. 961,
modified on other grounds, C.C.A.,
106 F.2d 804, reversed on other
grounds 60 S.Ct 653, 309 U.S. 506,
84 L.Bd. 894.
Ala.-— Farrell v. Farrell, 10 So.2d 153,
243 Ala. 389— Ex parte Kelly, 128
So. 443, 221 Ala. 339— Corpus JHxi»
cited in Ex parte Whitehead, 199
So. 876, 878, 29 Ala,App. 583, cer-
tiorari denied 199 So. 879, 240
Ala. 447.
Alaska.— In re Young's Estate, 9
Alaska 158.
Ariz.— Varnes v. White, 12 P.2d 870,
40 Ariz. 427.
Cal. — Hunter v. Superior Court in
and for Riverside County, 97 P.2d
492, 36 Cal.App.2d 100— Northing-
ton v. Industrial Accident Commis-
sion, 72 P.2d 909, 23 Cal.App.2d
255— Ex parte Cohen, 290 P. 512,
107 CaLApp. 288— Jellen v. O'Brien,
264 P. 1115, 89 CaLApp. 505.
Conn. — O'Leary v. Waterbury Title
Co., 166 A. 673, 117 Conn. 39.
D.C. — U. S. ex rel. Ordmann v. Cum-
mings, 85 F.2d 273, 66 App.D.C.
.107.
Fia,— United Brotherhood of Car-
penters and Joiners of America v.
Graves Inv. Co., 15 So.2d 196, 153
Fla. 529 — Skipper v. Schumacker,
169 So. 58, 124 Fla. 384, appeal dis-
missed and certiorarl denied 57
S.Ct 39, 299 U.S. 507, 81 L.Ed.
376— Coslick v. Finney, 140 So. 216,
104 Fla. 394.
Ga.— McKnight v. Wilson, 122 S.E.
702, 158 Ga. 153— W. T. Rawleigh
Co. v. Greenway, 26 S.K2d 458, 69
Ga.App. 590 — Anderson v. Turner,
133 S.E. 306, 35 Ga.App. 428.
HI.— People ex reL Fisher v. Balti-
more & O. R. Co., 61 N.E.2d 382,
390 111. 389— Heitman Trust Co. v.
Parlee, 40 N.E.2d 732, 314 Ill.App.
83 — Sunbeam Heating Co. v. Cham-
bers, 38 N.E.2d 544, 312 Ill.App.
382— Davis v. Oliver, 25 N.E.2d
905, 304 IlLApp. 71— In re Shanks'
Estate, 282 Ill.App. 1.
Ind. — Calumet Teaming & Trucking
Co. v. Young, 33 N.B.2d 109, 218
Ind. 468, rehearing denied 33 N.E.
2d 583, 218 Ind. 468.
Ky.— Hill v. Walker, 180 S.W.2d 93,
297 Ky. 257, 154 A.L.R. 814— Gover
v. Wheeler, 178 S.W.2d 404, 296
Ky. 734 — Max Ams, Inc., v. Barker,
170 S.W.2d 45, 293 Ky. 698— Wag-
ner v. Peoples Building & Loan
Ass'n, 167 S.W.2d 825, 292 Ky. 691
— Lowther v. Moss, 39 S.W.2d 501,
239 Ky, 290— Lorton v. Ashbrook,
295 S.W. 1027, 220 Ky. 830.
Mass. — Carroll v. Berger, 150 N.E.
870, 255 Mass. 132.
Mo. — State ex reL National Lead Co.
v. Smith, App., 134 S.W.2d 1061.
N.Y. — Carbone v. Carbone, 2 N.T.S.
2d 869, 166 Misc. 924— Corpus Jo-
ris quoted, in Universal Credit Co.
v. Blfoxderman, 288 N.T.S. 79, 80,
158 Misc. 917— In re Killough's Es-
tate, 265 N.Y.S. 301, 148 Misc. 73—
Shaul v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of
Maryland, 227 N.Y.S. 163, 131 Misc.
401, affirmed 230 N.Y.S. 910, 224
App.Div. 773.
N.C.— Clark v. Carolina Homes, 128
S.B. 20, 189 NXX 703.
Ohio. — Terry v. Claypool, 65 N.E.2d
47
883, 77 Ohio App. 77— Ruckert v.
Matil Realty, App., 40 N.E.2d 688
— Sampliner v. Bialosky, 25 Ohio
N.P..N.S., 161.
Okl. — Fitzsimmons v. Oklahoma City,
135 -P.2d 340, 192 Okl. 248— Okla-
homa City v. Robinson, 65 P.2d
531, 179 Okl. 309— Moroney v. State
ex reL Southern Surety Co., 31 P.
2d 926, 168 Okl. 69— Henson v. Ok-
lahoma State Bank, 23 P.2d 709,
165 Okl. i — State v. Armstrong, 13
P.2d 198, 158 Okl. 290.
Tex. — Kuteman v. Ratliff, Civ.App.,
154 S.W.2d 684 — Olton State Bank
v. Howell, Civ.App., 105 S.W.2d
287 — San Jacinto Finance Corpo-
ration v. Perkins, Civ.App., 94 S.
W.2d 1213— Simms Oil Co. v.
Butcher, Civ.App., 55 S.W.2d 192,
error dismissed — Reed v. State,
Cr., 187 S.W.2d 660.
Va. — Robertson v. Commonwealth,
25 S.E.2d 352, 181 Va. 520, 146
A.L.R. 966.
33 C.J. p 1074 note 43.
Other statements of ruU
(1) Jurisdiction of the person is
essential to the rendition of a valid
judgment.
Cal.— Jellen v. O'Brien, 264 P. 1115,
89 CaLApp. 505.
Fla. — Arcadia Citrus Growers Ass'n
v. Hollingsworth, 185 So. 431, 135
Fla. 322.
Mich. — Ward v. Hunter Machinery
Co., 248 N.W. 864, 263 Mich. 445.
N.M. — State ex rel. State Tax Com-
mission v. Chavez, 101 P.2d 889,
44 N.M. 260— In re Field's Es-
tate, 60 P.2d 945, 40 N.M. 423.
Tex. — -Commander v. Bryon, Civ.App.,
123 S.W.2d 1008.
Vt.— In re Hanrahan's Will, 194 A.
471, 109 Vt 108.
(2) Jurisdiction of the party, ob-
tained by the court in some way al-
lowed by law, is essential to enable
the court to give a valid judgment
against him. — Powell v. Turpin, 29
S.E.2d 26, 224 N.C. 67— City of Mon-
roe v. Niven, 20 S.E.2d 311, 221 N.
C. 362— Casey v. Barker, 14 S.E.2d
429, 219 N.C. 465.
(3) It is essential to the efficacy
of a judgment that the court have
jurisdiction over the person. — Crab-
tree v. ^Btna Life Ins. Co., Ill S.W.
2d 103, 341 Mo. 1173.
A judgment or portion thereoi
which attempts to settle rights of
parties, over whom the court has no
jurisdiction, is void as to such par-
ties.— Barrett v. Board of Com'rs of
Tulsa County, 90 P.2d 442, 185 Okl.
111.
§ 19
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
court must have jurisdiction of plaintiff or the
person in whose favor it is rendered,26 and also of
defendant or the person against whom it is ren-
dered.26 Accordingly a judgment for or against
one who for any reason is no longer before the
court is wholly void.27 Where a statute requires
that certain actions shall be brought only in the
district or county where defendant resides, it has
been held that no jurisdiction of the person of de-
fendant can be obtained in any district or county
other than the one in which he resides, if defendant
stands on his privilege, and a judgment against Mm
in such other district or county is void for want of
jurisdiction.2*
Consent. Where the court has jurisdiction of the
subject matter or cause of action, jurisdiction of the
parties may be conferred by their consent, and in
such cases the judgment is valid,2& as where de-
fendant waives an exemption from suit and consents
to be sued,80 or waives the privilege of being sued
only in a particular place, county, or district, and
consents to be sued in some other place, county, or
district,31 except where the rights of other persons
would be prejudiced32 or some rule of public pol-
icy requires that defendant shall be sued only in a
designated place.88
c. Jurisdiction of Subject Matter or Cause of
Action
A court cannot render a valid Judgment unless ft
has Jurisdiction over the subject matter of the litiga-
tion or the cause of action.
Even with fuir jurisdiction over the parties, no
court can render a valid judgment unless it also has
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the litiga-
tion or the cause of action.84 A judgment is whol-
ly void in cases where the subject matter is with-.
25. N.Y.— In re Clark's Witt, 8 N.Y.
S.2d 364, 166 Misc. 909— Corpus
Juris quoted in Universal Credit
Co. v. Binderman, 288 N.Y.a 79,
80, 15 Misc. 917.
38 C.J. p 1075 note 44.
28. Iowa,— Allen v. Allen. 298 N.W.
869. 230 Iowa 504, 136 A.L.R. 617.
Miss.— Bank of Richton v. Jones,
121 So. 823, 153 Miss. 796.
Mo.— Noll v. Alexander, App., 282
S.W. 739.
Neb.— Hassett v. Durbin, 271 N.W.
867, 132 Neb. 315.
Teat. — Maury v. Turner, Cora.App.,
244 S.W. 809.
Va. — Drewry v. Doyle, 20 S,E.2d 548,
179 Va. 715.
Wash.— Colby v. Hiraes, 17 P.2d 606,
171 Wash. 83.
33 C.J. p 1075 note 45.
27. N.T. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Universal Credit Co. v. Binderman,
288 N.T.S. 79, 80, 15 Misc. 917.
33 C.J. p 1075 note 48.
28. La.— Alter v. Pickett, 24 La.
Ann. 513.
33 C.J. p 1075 note 51.
29. Md. — C. L T. Corporation v.
Powell, 170 A. 740, 166 Md. 208.
33 C.J. p 1078 note 77.
33. Mass.— Hall v. Young, 8 Pick.
80, 15 Am.D. 180.
33 C.J. p 1078 <note 78.
31. Tex. — Lloyds Casualty Co. of
New York v. Lena, Civ.App., 62 S.
W.2d 497, error dismissed.
33 C.J. p 1078 note 79.
32. Ga. — Raney v. McRae, 14 Ga.
589, 60 Am.D. 660.
33 C.J. p 1078 note 80.
33. Ga. — Central Bank t. Gibson, 11
Ga. 453.
Creditors
Where neither of defendants was
domiciled in the county in which
suit was brought, a judgment in fa-
vor of a creditor has been held void
as to other creditors. — Anthony v.
Bobo, 81 S.E. 128, 141 Ga. 440.
34. U.S. — Kerna/n v. Campbell, C.C.
A.N.Y., 45 F.2d 123— In re Ameri-
can Fidelity Corporation, D.C.Cal.,
28 F.Supp, 462— U. S. v, U. S. Fi-
delity & Guaranty Co., D.C.Okl.,
24 F.Supp. 961, modified on other
grounds, C.C.A., 106 F.2d 804, re-
versed on other grounds 60 S.Ct
654, -309 U.S. 506, 84 L.Ed. 894.
Ala.— Farrell v. Farrell, 10 So.2d
153, 243 Ala. 389— Ex parte Kelly,
128 So. 443, 221 Ala. 339.
Ariz.— Varnes v. White, 12 P.2d 870,
40 Ariz. 427.
Ark. — Axley v. Hammock, 50 S.W.
2d 608, 185 Ark. 939.
Cal. — Northington v. Industrial Acci-
dent Commission, 72 P.2d 909, 23
Cal.App.2d 255 — Ex parte Cohen,
290 P. 512, 107 CaLApp. 288— Jel-
len v. O'Brien, 264 P.2d 1115, 89
Cal.App. 505.
Conn. — O'Leary v* Waterbury Title
Co., 166 A, 673, 117 Conn. 39.
Flo. — United Brotherhood of Carpen-
ters and Joiners of America v.
Graves Inv. Co., 15 So.2d 196, 153
Fla. 529 — Arcadia Citrus Growers
Ass'n v. Hollingsworth, 185 So.
431, 135 Fla. 322 — Skipper v. Schu-
macker, 169 So. 58, 124 Fla. 384,
appeal dismissed and certiorari de-
nied 57 S.Ct. 39, 299 U.S. 507, 81
L.Bd. 376— Coslick v. Finney, 140
So. 216. 104 Fla. 394.
Ga. — Deans v. Deans, 137 S.E. 829,
164 Ga. 162 — McKenzie v. Perdue,
19 S.B.2d 765, 67 Ga.App. 202, re-
versed on other grounds Perdue
v. McKenzie, 21 S.B.2d 705, 194
G*a. 356, vacated McKenzie v. Per-
due, 23 S.E.2d 183, 68 Ga.App.
498 — Robinson v. Attapulgus Clay
Co., 189 S.E. 555, 55 Ga.App. 141—
Corpus Juris cited la Georgia
48
Power Co. v. Friar, 171 S.E. 210,
214, 47 Ga.App. 675.
Hawaii.— Meyer v. Territory, 36 Ha-
waii 75 — Wong Kwai Tong v. Choy
Yin, 31 Hawaii 603.
111.— -People ex rel. Fisher v. Balti-
more & O. R. Co., 61 N.E.2d 382,
390 111. 389— Martin v. Schillo, 60
N.E.2d 392, 389 111. 697, certiorari
denied 65 S.Ct 1572, 325 U.S. 880,
89 L.Ed. 1996 — Herb v. Pitcaim, 61
N.B.2d 277, 384 HI. 237, reversed
on other grounds 65 S.Ct 954, 325
U.S. 77, 89 L.Ed. 1483, rehearing
denied 65 S.Ct 1188, 325 U.S. 8-93,
89 L.Ed. 2005. Opinion supple-
mented 64 N.E.2d 318, 392 HI.
151 — Werner v. Illinois Cent R.
Co., 42 NJS.2d 82, 379 HI. 559—
Heitman Trust Co. v. Parlee, 40
N.B.2d 732, 314 Ill.App. 83— Sun-
beam Heating Co. v. Chambers, 38
N.B.2d 544, 312 IlLApp. 382— Davis
v. Oliver, 25 N.B.2d 905, 304 111.
App. 71, transferred, see 20 N.E.2d
582, 371 111. 287— In re Shanks'
Estate, 282 Ill.App. 1.
Ind. — Calumet Teaming & Trucking
Co. v. Young, 33 N.E.2d 109, 218
Ind. 468, rehearing denied 33 N.E.
2d 583, 210 Ind. 468— Brown v.
State, 37 N.B.2d 73, 219 Ind. 251,
137 A.L.B. 679.
Kan.— Corpus Juris cited in Starke
v. Starke, 125 P.2d 738, 740, 155
Kan. 331— Corpus Juris quoted in
.Board of Commissioners of Craw-
ford County v. Radley, 8 P.2d 386,
387, 134 Kan. 704.
Ky. — -Max Ams, Inc. v. Barker, 170
S.W.2d 45, 293 Ky. 698— Wagner
v. Peoples Building & Loan Ass'n,
167 S.W.2d 825, 292 Ky. 691—
Lowther v. Moss, 89 S.W.2d 501,
239 Ky, 290 — Lorton v. Asbrook,
295 S.W. 102?, 220 Ky. 830.
La. — Jones v. Crescent City Ice Mfg.
Co., -3 La.App. 7 — State ex rel.
FOUXTOUX v. Board of Directors of
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
19
held from the jurisdiction of the particular court, or
is placed within the exclusive jurisdiction of anoth-
er court,85 or where the jurisdiction depends on a
statute which was repealed before suit.86 Where
the jurisdiction of a court depends on the amount
in controversy, a judgment for a sum in excess of
the amount over which the court has jurisdiction is
void.87
Consent of parties. Since the agreement or con-
sent of the parties cannot give the court the right
to adjudicate on any cause of action or subject mat-
ter which the law lias withheld from its cogni-
zance, any judgment rendered in such a case is void
notwithstanding such consent or agreement.88
<L Jurisdiction of Question Determined and Be-
lief Granted
It Is necessary to the validity of a Judgment that
the court should have jurisdiction of the question which
its judgment assumes to decide, and jurisdiction to ren-
der a judgment for the particular remedy or relief which
the judgment undertakes to grant.
In addition to jurisdiction of the parties and the
subject matter, it is necessary to the validity of a
judgment that the court should have jurisdiction of
Public Schools of Jefferson Parish,
3 La,App. 2.
Mass. — Carroll v. Berger, 150 N.B.
870, 255 Mass. 132.
Mich. — Ward v. Hunter Machinery
Co.. 248 N.W. 864, 263 Mich. 445.
Mo. — Crabtree v. .SDtna Life Ins. Co.,
Ill S.W.2d 103, 341 Mo. 1173—
State ex rel. National Lead Co. v.
Smith, App., 134 S.W.2d 1061 —
Noll v. Alexander. App., 282 S.W.
739.
N.J.— Fidelity Union Trust Co, v.
Ackerman, 191 A. 813, 121 N.J.BQ.
497. modified on other grounds
199 A. 379, 123 N.J.Eq.. 556.
N.M. — State ex rel. Slate Tax Com-
mission v. Chavez, 101 P.2d 389,
44 N.M. 260 — In re Field's Estate,
60 P.2d 945, 40 N.M. 423.
N.T. — Anonymous v. Anonymous, 22
N.Y.S.2d 598, 174 Misc. 906— Cor-
pus Juris quoted In Van Buren v.
Harrison. 299 N.Y.S. 485, 486, 164
Misc. 774— Universal Credit Co. v.
Blinderman, 2*8 N.T.S. 79, 158
Misc. 917 — MacAffer v. Boston &
M. R. R., 273 N.Y.S. 679, 242 App.
Div. 140. affirmed 197 N.E. 328, 268
N.Y. 400— Shaul v. Fidelity & De-
posit Co. of Maryland, 227 N.Y.S.
163. 131 Misc. 401, affirmed 230 N.
Y.S. 910, 224 App.Div. 773.
N.C.— Clark v. Caroltea Homes. 128
S.E. 20, 189 N.C. 703.
Ohio.— Ruckert v. Matil Realty Co.,
App.f 40 N.E.2d 688 — Sampliner v.
Bialasky, 25 Ohio N.P.,N.S., 161.
Okl. — Fitzsimmons v. Oklahoma City,
135 P.2d 340, 192 Okl. 248— Okla-
homa City v. Robinson, 65 P.2d
531, 179 Okl. 309— Moroney v. State
ex rel. Southern Surety Co., 31 P.
2d 926, 168 Okl. 69— Henson v.
Oklahoma State Bank, 23 P.2d 709,
165 Okl. 1— State v. Armstrong. 18
P.2d 198, 158 Okl. 290.
8.C.— Betsill v. Betsill, 196 S.E. 381,
187 S.C. 50.
8.D.— Reddin v. Frick, 223 N.W. 50,
54 S.D. 277.
Teun. — Manning v. Feidelson, 186 S.
W.2d 510, 175 Ten*. 676.
Tex. — Campsey v. Brumley, Com,
AppM 55 S.W.2d 810— H, H. Wat-
son Co* v. Cobb Grain Co., Com.
App., 292 S.W. 174— Maury v. Tur-
ner. CbnuApp., 244 S.W. 809 —
49 C.J.S.-4
Kuteman v. Ratlin!, Civ.App., 154
S.W.2d 864 — Commander v. Bryan,
Civ.App., 123 S.W.2d 1008— Olton
State Bank v. Howell, Civ.App., 105
S.W.2d 287— Reed v. State, Cr., 187
S.W.2d 660.
Va. — Robertson v. Commonwealth,
25 S.E.2d 852, 181 Va. 520, 146 A.
L.R. 966 — Drewry v. Doyle, 20 S.E.
2d 548, 179 Va. 715— Barnes v.
American Fertilizer Co., 130 S.E.
902, 144 Va. 692.
Vt. — In re Hanrahan's Will, 194 A.
471, 109 Vt. 108.
Wash.— Colby v. Himes, 17 P.2d 606,
171 Wash. 83.
W.Va. — Corpus Juris cited in Hus-
tead v. Boggess, 12 S.E.2d 514,
515, 122 W.Va. 493.
33 C.J. p 1075 note 61.
Nullity of judgment results from
want of jurisdiction over the sub-
ject matter.
Cal. — Hunter v. Superior Court In
and for Riverside County, 97 P.
2d 492, 36 CaI.App.2d 100.
Tex. — San Jacinto Finance Corpora-
tion v. Perkins, Civ.App., 94 S.W.
2d 1213.
General and special jurisdiction.
The rule that jurisdiction is of
two kinds, jurisdiction of the sub-
ject matter and jurisdiction of the
person and that both must concur
or judgment will be void in any
case in which court has assumed to
act, refers to general jurisdiction
vested in court and applies to spe-
cial jurisdiction only to extent court
exceeds special jurisdiction granted.
—Herb v. Pitcairn, 64 N.E.2d 519,
392 111. 138.
35. U.S. — Woods Bros. Const Co. v.
Yankton County, C.C.A.S.D., 54 F.
2d 304— Corpus Juris cited in U.
S. v. Turner, C.C.A.N.D., 47 F.2d
86, 89.
Kan. — Corpus Juris quoted in Board
of Commissioners of Crawford
County v. Radley, 8 P.2d 386, 887,
134 J£an. 704.
33 C.J. P 1076 note 62.
36. Kan. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Board of Commissioners of Craw-
ford County v. Radley, 8 P.2d S86,
387, 134 Kan. 704.
49
Neb. — Omaha Coal, Coke & Lime Co.
v. Suess, 74 N.W. 620, 54 Neb. 879.
37. Tenn. — Reynolds v. Hamilton, 77
S.W.2d 986, 18 Tenn.App. 380.
Tex. — Davis v. Jordan, Civ.App., 151
S.W.2d 291.
33 C.J. p 1076 note 68.
Separation, of single cause of action
Judgments rendered in a court of
limited jurisdiction in separate ac-
tions brought by landlord for sepa-
rate past-due installments of rent,
the total of which installments ex-
ceeded the jurisdiction of the court,
was void for want of Jurisdiction,
Jn view of attempted separation of
single cause of action. — F. W. Wool-
worth & Co. v. Zimmerman; 17$ A.
474, 13 N.J.Misc. 505.
38. Ala.— Ex parte Phillips, 165 So.
SO, 231 Ala. 364— Crabtree v. Mil-
ler, 155 So. 529, 229 Ala. 103.
Ark. — Hendricks v. Henson, 92 S.W.
2d 867, 192 Ark. 544.
La. — Walker v. Fitzgerald, App., 24
So.2d 263.
Mo.— In re Buckles, 53 S.W.2d 1055,
331 Mo. 405.
N.J.— Fidelity Union Trust Co. v.
Ackerman, 191 A. 813, 121 N.J.
Eq. 497, modified on other grounds
199 A. 379, 123 N.J.B<i. 556.
N.Y.— In re Brerman's Estate, 221 N.
Y.S. 462, 129 Misc. 283.
Ohio.— Bobala v. Bobala, 33 N.E.
2d 845, 68 Ohio App. 63.
Va. — Nolde Bros. v. Chalkley, 35 S.
B.2d 827.
W.Va. — Corpus Juris cited in BXi-
stead v. Boggess, 12 S.E.2d 514,
615, 122 W.Va. 493.
33 C.J. p 1077 note 75.
Estoppel
(1) It has been held that when-
ever there is want of authority to
hear and determine subject matter
of controversy, an adjudication on
merits is null, and does not estop
even assenting party. — Cooper v. Da-
vis, 248 N.Y.S. 227, 231 App.Div. 527.
(2) It has been held, however,
that one who invokes the jurisdic-
tion of the court cannot object to a
judgment on the ground that the
court had n« jurisdiction of defend-
ant.— Fostoria v. Fox, 54 NJE. 370,
60 Ohio St. 340.
19
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
the question which its judgment assumes to de-
cide,39 and jurisdiction to render a judgment for
the particular remedy or relief which the judg-
ment undertakes to grant.40 Where the court does
not have such jurisdiction, the judgment is void.41
39. Idaho.— Corpus Juris guoted in
Banbury v. Brailsford, 158 P.2d
8*26, 886— Corpus Juris quoted in
Baldwin v. Anderson, 8 P.2d 461,
462, 51 Idaho 614— -Maloney v.
Zipf, 287 P. 632, 41 Idaho 30.
Kan. — Corpus Juris gaoted in Board
of Commissioners of Crawford
County v. Radley, 8 P.2d 386, 387,
134 Kan. 704.
Mo.—State ex rel. National Lead Co.
v. Smith, App., 134 S.W.2d 1061—
Corpus Juris cited in, Mesendleck
Grain Co. v. Folz, 50 S.W.2d 159,
161, 227 Mo.App. 24.
Ohio. — Sampliner v. Bialasky, 25
Ohio N.P..N.S., 161.
N.M. — State ex rel. State Tax Com-
mission v. Chavez, 101 P.2d 389,
44 N.M. 260— In re Field's Estate,
60 P.2d 945, 40 N.M. 423.
Okl. — Corpus Juris quoted in Hinkle
V. Jones, 66 P.2d 1073, 1076, 180
Okl. 17— Corpus Juris quoted in
Oklahoma City v. Robinson, 65 P.
2d 531, 533, 179 Okl. 309— Corpus
Juris quoted in Whltehead v.
Bunch, 272 P. 878, 879, 134 Okl.
63.
Va.— Hubbard v. Davis, 25 S.B.2d
256, 181 Va. 549— Drewry v. Doyle,
20 S.B.2d 548, 179 Va, 715.
33 C.J. p 1076 note 70.
Determination of Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction to render judgment in
particular action must be determined
and tested by pleadings and relief
sought. — Borfcng v. Dodd, 217 N.W.
580, 116 Neb. 336.
40. U.S.— U. S. v. U. S. Fidelity &
Guaranty Co., D.C.OkL, 24 F.Supp.
961, modified on other grounds 106
F.2d 804, reversed on other
grounds 60 S.Ct. 653. 309 U.S. 506,
84 L.Ed. 894.
Ariz. — Wall v. Superior Court of
Yavapal County, 89 P.2d 624, 53
Ariz. 344— Hill v. Favour, 84 P.
3d 675, 52 Ariz. 561— Varnes v.
White, 12 P.2d 870, 40 Ariz. 427
— Arizona Land & Stock Co. v.
Markus, 296 P. 251, 37 Ariz. 530
— Western Land & Cattle Co. v.
National Bank of Arizona at Phoe-
nix, 239 P. 299, 29 Ariz. 61.
Cai.— Jellen v. O'Brien, 264 P. 1115,
89 CaLApp. 505.
Colo. — Williams v. Hankins, 225 P.
243, 75 Colo. 136 — People v. Burke.
212 P. 837, 72 Colo. 486, 30 A.L.R.
1085.
Fla, — United Brotherhood of Carpen-
ters and Joiners of America v.
Graves Inv. Co., 15 So.2d 196, 153
Fla. 529 — Arcadia Citrus Growers
Ass'n y. Hollingsworth, 185 So.
431, 135 Fla. 322— Skipper v.
Schumacher, 169 So. 58, 124 Fla.
384, appeal dismissed and certio-
rari denied 57 S.Ct 39, 299 U.S.
507, 81 L.Ed. 376— Chllds v. Boots,
152 So. 212, 112 Fla, 277— Coslick
v. Finney, 140 So. 216, 104 Fla,
394.
Idaho. — Corpus Juris quoted in Ban-
bury v. Brailsford, 158 P.2d 826,
836 — Corpus Juris quoted in Bald-
win v. Anderson, 8 P.2d 461, 462,
51 Idaho 614— Maloney v. Zipf, 237
P. 632, 41 Idaho 30.
111.— Hummel v.'Cardwell, 62 N.B.2d
433, 390 111. 5-26, certiorari denied
66 S.Ct. 819, three oases — Toman
v. Park Castles Apartment Bldg.
Corporation, 31 N.E.2d 299, 375 111.
293 — Mclnness v. Oscar F. Wilson
Printing Co., 258 Ill.App. 161.
Kan. — Corpus Juris quoted in Board
of Commissioners of Crawford
County v. Radley, 8 P.2d 386, 387,
134 Kan. 704.
Ky. — Lowther v. Moss, 39 S.W.2d
501, 239 Ky. 290.
Mass. — New England Home for Deaf
Mutes v. Leader Filling Stations
Corporation, 177 N.E. 97, 276 Mass.
153.
Okl. — Fitzslmmons v. Oklahoma
City, 135 P.2d 340, 192 Okl. 248—
Corpus Juris quoted in Hfeikle v.
Jones, 66 P.2d 1073, 1076, 180
Okl. 17 — Corpus Juris quoted in
Oklahoma City v. Robinson, 65 P.
2d 531, 533, 179 Okl. 309— Henson
v. Oklahoma State Bank, 23 P.2d
709, 165 Okl. 1 — Corpus Juris quot-
ed in Whitehead v. Bunch, 272 P.
878, 879, 134 Okl. 63.
Tex. — Nymon v. Eggert, Civ.App.,
154 S.W.2d 157.
Utah. — Hampshire v. Woolley, 269
P. 135, 72 Utah 106.
Va. — Drewry v. Doyle, 20 S.B.2d 548,
179 Va. 715— Hubbard v. Davis, 25
S.E.2d 256, 181 Va. 549— Corpus
Juris cited in .astna Casualty &
Surety Co. of Hartford, Conn. v.
Board of Supervisors of Warren
Co., 168 S.E. 617, 626, 160 Va.
11.
33 C.J. p 1076 note 71.
Court of general Jurisdiction
Even a court of general jurisdic-
tion has no power to render any
judgment affecting persons or prop-
erty, unless the particular judgment
is brought within court's jurisdic-
tion according to law. — Herb v. Pit-
cairn, 51 N.B.2d 277, 384 111. 237,
reversed on other grounds 65 S.Ct
954, 326 U.S. 77, 89 L.Ed. 1483, re-
hearing denied 66 S.Ct. 1188, 325 U.
S. 893, 89 L.Ed. 2005. Opinion sup-
plemented 64 N.E.2d 318, 392 111.
151.
Jurisdiction or power to render a
particular judgment does not mean
that the judgment rendered must be j
the one that should have been ren- I
dered, since the power or jurisdic- J
50
tion to decide carries with it the
power or jurisdiction to decide
wrong as well as to decide right. —
U. S. v. U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty
Co., D.C.Okl., 24 F.Supp. 961, modi-
fied on other grounds, C.C.A., 106 F.
2d 804, reversed on other grounds 60
S.Ct 653, 309 U.S. 506, 84 L.Ed. 894.
41. Cal. — Hunter v. Superior Court
in and for Riverside County, 97
P.2d 492. 36 Cal.App.2d 100.
Ky. — Lortoh v. Ashbrook, 295 S.W.
1027, 220 Ky. 830.
Mo.—State ex rel. National Lead Co.
v. Smith, App., 134 S.W.2d 1061 —
Mesendieck Grain Co. v. Folz, 50
S.W.2d 159, 161, 227 Mo.App. 24.
N.T. — Lynbrook Gardens v. Ullmann,
36 N.T.S.2d 888, 179 Misc. 132, af-
firmed 37 N.T.S.2d 671, 265 App.
Div. 859, reversed on other
. grounds 53 N.E.2d 353, 291 N.Y.
472, 152 A.L.R. 959, certiorari de-
nied 64 S.Ct. 1144, 322 U.S. 742,
88 L.Ed. 1575.
Okl.— Sabin v. Levorsen, 145 P.2d
402, 193 Okl. 320, certiorari denied
64 S.Ct. 205, 320 U.S. 792, 88 L.Bd.
477, rehearing denied 64 S.Ct. 368,
320 U.S. 815, 88 LJEd. 4*2— Fitz-
simmons v. Oklahoma City, 135 P.
2d 340, 343, 192 Okl. 248— Moroney
v. State ex rel. Southern Surety
Co., 31 P.2d 926, 168 Okl. 69— State
v. Armstrong, 13 P.2d 198, 168
Okl. 290— Blake v. Metz, 276 P.
762, 136 Okl. 146, followed in 276
P. 765, 136 Okl. 150— Askew v. Ter-
rell, 243 P, 495, 113 Okl. 206— Vann
v. Adklns, 234 P. 644, 169 Okl. 12
— Burris v. Straughn, 232 P. 294,
107 Okl. 299— Ex parte Dawes, 239
P. 689, 31 Okl.Cr. 397.
Tex. — San Jacinto Finance Corpora-
tion v. Perkins, Civ.App., 94 S.W.
2d 1213— Reed v. State, Cr., 187 S.
W.2d 660.
Wyo. — State v. District Court of
Eighth Judicial Dist. in and for
Natrona County, 238 P. 545, 33
Wyo. 281.
33 C.J. p 1077 note 72.
A decision, whether correct or
wrong, made by a court in excess of
its jurisdiction and power is void.
—Spencer v. Franks, 195 A. 306, 173
Md. 73, 114 A.L.R. 263.
Manner forbidden by law
A judgment is void when the court
proceeds without authority and in
a manner forbidden by law with re-
spect to matter being adjudicated,
although it may have jurisdiction of
parties and subject matter.— Wagner
v. Peoples Building & Loan Ass'n,
167 S.W.2d 825, 292 Ky. 691— Jones
v. Keen, 160 S.W.2d 164, 289 Ky. 779
— Soper v. Foster, 51 S.W.2d 927. 244
Ky. 658.
49 C.J.S.
§ 20. Matured Cause of Action
It Is essential to the validity and regularity of a
judgment that the demand whereon it is rendered shall
have existed as a matured cause of action at the time
the action was commenced.
It is essential to the validity and regularity of a
judgment that the demand whereon it is rendered
shall have existed as a matured cause of action at
the time the action was commenced,42 it being a
general rule that a party must recover according to
his legal rights at the commencement of the ac-
JUDGMENTS
§ 22
§ 21. Definitiveness
A judgment must be definitive*
A judgment must be definitive.44 By this is
meant that the decision itself must purport to de-
cide finally the rights of the parties on the issue
submitted, by specifically denying or granting the
remedy sought by the action.45 The converse of
this proposition is also true, and every definitive de-
termination of the rights of the parties in a pro-
ceeding before a competent tribunal is a judg-
ment46
§ 22. Reasons for Judgment
OrdlnarHy the reasons assigned by the court for
the Judgment rendered do not constitute a part of the
judgment.
Although it has been said that every court should
state on the record the legal grounds for its judg-
ment,47 the reasons assigned by the court for the
judgment rendered do not constitute a part of the
judgment.48 Also if the judgment given is correct,
it is immaterial whether the reasons adduced for
giving such a judgment are correct.49 Therefore a
judgment or decree of the court controls the writ-
ten opinion, and if they are at variance, the former
prevails and determines the rights of the parties.60
Not a Judgment
When judgment roll on its face
shows that court was without juris-
diction to render the particular judg-
ment, Its pronouncement Is not In
fact a judgment. — Hodson v.
O'Keeffe, 229 P. 722, 71 Mont. 322.
Belief denied "by law
A Judgment granting relief which
the law declares shall not be grant-
ed is void. — Moroney v. State ex rel.
Southern Surety Co., 31 P.2d 926, 168
Okl. 69— State v. Armstrong, 13 P.
2d 198, 158 Okl. 290.
Special statutory powers
Where court is exercising special
statutory powers, Judgment in ex-
cess of statutory authority Is void.
— uEtna Casualty & Surety Co. of
Hartford, Conn., v. Board of Sup'rs
of Warren County, 168 S.E, 617, 160
•Va. 11.
Transcending Jurisdiction,
Where court, after acquiring Ju-
risdiction of a subject matter, tran-
scends the limits of Jurisdiction con-
ferred, its Judgment Is void. — Flake
v. Pretzel, 46 N.B.2d 375, 381 HI.
498.
42. Wash, — Mondiolf v. American
Bldg. Co., 145 P. 577, 83 Wash. 584.
33 C.J. p 1097 note 9.
43. N.Y.— -Fults v. Munro, 95 N.E.
23, 202 N.Y. 34, 87 KILA..N.S., 600,
Ann.Cas.l912D 870.
33 C.J. p 1097 note 10.
Death rendering- decree timely
However, where testatrix devised
realty in trust for benefit of hus-
band during his life, the trust to
terminate at husband's death, and
husband who elected to take against
the will died during pendency of de-
fendants' appeal in husband's parti-
tion suit, realty was to be distribut-
ed by trustee as directed by will
and decree, and order directing sale
of property and that trustee dis-
tribute proceeds, if premature when
entered, was held to be rendered
timely by husband's death. — Flynn
v. Bryan, Mo., 154 S.W.2d 773.
44. Cal.— Kosloff v. Kosloff, 154 P.
2d 431, 67 Cal.App.2d 374— Corpus
Juris quoted in Makzoume v. Mak-
zoume, 123 P.2d 72, 74, 50 CaLApp.
2d 229.
33 C.J. p 1103 note 29.
45. CaL— Kosloff v. Kosloff, 154 P.
2d 431, 67 Cal.App.2d 374— Corpus
Juris quoted in Makzoume v. Mak-
zoume, 123 P.2d 72, 74, 50 CaLApp.
2d 229.
N.Y.— Lowe v. Lowe, 192 N.E. 291,
265 N.Y. 197.
33 C.J. p 1104 note 30.
Judgment determining nothing
and leaving parties where they
started is wholly ineffective. — Per-
mian Oil Co. v. Smith, Civ.App., 47
S.W.2d 500, reversed on other
grounds 73 S.W.2d 490, 129 Tex. 413,
111 AL.R. 1152, rehearing denied
107 S.W.2d 564, 129 Tex. 413, 111 A.
L.R. 1175.
46. Cal.— Kosloff v. Kosloff, 154 P.
2d 431, 67 Cal.App.2d 374— Corpus
Juris quoted in Makzoume v. Mak-
zoume, 123 P.2d 72. 74, 50 Cal.
App.2d 229.
33 C.J. p 1104 note 31.
47. N.Y.— Newman v. Mayer, 65 N.
T.S. 294, 52 App.Div. 209, 7 N.Y.
Ann.Cas. 497.
Va.-— Preston v. Auditor, 1 Call. 471,
5 Va. 471.
Construction of Judgments In gen-
eral see infra § 436.
Constitutional requirement
(1) Where a constitutional provi-
sion requires the court to state its
reasons for the Judgment rendered,
51
and this is not done, the Judgment
must be reversed. — Dorr v. Jouet, 20
La.Ann. 27—33 C.J. p 1105 note 48.
(2) The constitutional mandate
that Judges shall refer to law and
adduce reasons on which definitive
Judgments are founded refers only
to cases wherein real controversies
or claims are decided or adjudicated
and not to rule taken by wife for
issuance of writ of fieri facias on
Judgment for amount of past-due
and exigible alimony payments pre-
viously ordered by Judgment in her
suit for separation from bed and
board. — Erdal v. Brdal, La.App., 26
So.2d 377.
48. Cal. — Corpus Juris cited in
Martin v. Board of Trustees of
ILeland Stanford Jr. University, 99
P.2d 684, 686, 37 Cal.App.2d 481.
Ga.— Bales v. Wright, 200 S.E. 192,
59 Ga.App. 191.
Mo. — Smith v. Travelers' Protective
Ass'n of America, 6 S.W.2d 870,
•319 Mo. 1120.
N.C. — Gettys v. Town of Marion, 10
S.B.2d 799, 218 N.C. 266.
Okl.— McGann v. McGann, 87 P.2d
939, 169 Okl. 515.
Tex. — Davis v. Hemphlll, ClvJLpp.,
243 S.W. 691.
33 C.J. p 1104 note 38.
49. Minn. — Kipp v. Clinger, 106 N*
W. 108, 97 Minn. 135.
33 C.J. p 1105 note 40.
50. Iowa. — In re Evans' Estate, 291
N.W. 460, 228 Iowa 908.
N.Y. — People ex rel. Metropolitan
Trust Co. of City of New York v.
Travis, 176 N.Y.S. 765, 107 Misc.
377, affirmed 180 N.Y.S. 659, 191
App.Dlv. 129,
Wash.— Reagh v. Shalkenbach, 56 P.
2d 673.
33 C.J. p 1104 note 39.
1 23
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
If the judgment is one which the court had power i jurisdiction because it is based or made on an im-
to make on any ground, it is not void for want of | proper ground.51
B. PROCESS, NOTICE, OE APPEARANCE
§ 23. Necessity
A valid judgment may be rendered against a defend-
ant only where he has been given notice; and accord*
tngly a judgment which is rendered without any notice
to, or service of process on the defendant, and without
his voluntarily appearing, is generally void for want of
Jurisdiction.
As a general rule, before a valid judgment may be
rendered against a defendant, he must be accorded
an opportunity to be heard, as discussed supra §
18, and for this purpose he must be given notice
of the action or proceeding against him,52 and this
notice cannot constitutionally be dispensed with.53
Accordingly a judgment which is rendered without
any form of notice to, or service on, defendant is
wholly void for want of jurisdiction,54 unless he
voluntarily appears, as discussed infra § 26, or
Operation and effect of opinions gen-
erally see Courts § 222 b.
''Decision"
In case of a variance between the
"'Judgment" and the "decision," the
"'judgment" controls.— Wo Kee & Co.
v. U. S., 28 C.C.P.A.Customs 272—
U. S. v. Penn. Commercial Corpora-
tion of America, 15 Ct.Cust.App. 206
— Roessler & Hasslacher Chemical
Co. v. U. S., 13 CtCustApp. 451.
51. U.S. — Converse v. Stewart, C.C.
3ST.T., 192 F. 941. affirmed 197 F.
1S2, 118 C.C.A. 212.
52. U.S. — Sylvan Beach v. Koch, C.
C.A.MO., 140 F.2d 852— Smith v.
Stark Trucking, D.C.Ohio, 63 F.
Supp. 826 — Fisher v. Jordan, D.C.
Tex., 32 F.Supp. 608, reversed on
other grounds 116 F.2d 183, cer-
tiorari denied Jordan v. Fisher, 61
S.Ct. 734, 812 U.S. 697, 85 L.Ed.
1132.
Cal.— Gray v. Hall, 265 P. 246, 203
Cal. 306.
Ga.— Elliott v. Adams, 160 S.E. 336,
173 Ga. 312.
N.Y. — Rochester Sav. Bank v. Mon-
roe County, S N.Y.S.2d 107, 169
Misc. 526— Cipperly v. Link, 237
N.Y.S. 106, 135 Misc. 134.
N.D. — Corpus Juris quoted In Baird
v. Ellison, 293 N.W. 794, 801, 70
* N.D. 261.
Okl. — St. Louis-San Francisco By.
Co. v. Bayne, 40 P.2d 1104, 170 Okl
542.
Pa.— In re Galli's Estate, 17 A.2d
893, 340 Pa. 561 — In re Komara's
Estate, 166 A. 677, 311 Pa. 135.
Va.— Moore v. Smith, 15 S.E.2d 48,'
177 Va. 621.
Wash.— Morley v. Morley, 230 P. 645,
131 Wash. 540.
33 C.J. p 1080 BOte 96.
53. Gal.— Baker v. O'Riordan, 4 P.
232, 65 Cal. 368.
Minn. — Bardwell v. Collins, 46 N.W.
315, 44 Minn. 97, 20 Am.S.R. 547,
9 L.R.A. 152.
33 C.J. p 1079 note 93.
Process or notice as essential ele-
ment of due process of law see
Constitutional Law 5 619.
Begardless of statutory provision
with respect to issuance and service
of process, no judgment, order, or
.decree is valid or binding on the
party who has no notice of pro-
ceeding against him, since court
must have jurisdiction of tlie person
as well as of the subject matter and
legislature is without power under
constitution to dispense with notice
either actual or constructive. — Mad-
do* v. Bush, 4 So.2d 302, 191 Miss.
748— Jack v. Thompson, 41 Miss. 49'.
54. U.S. — Pen-Ken Gas & Oil Cor-
poration v. Warfield Natural Gas
Co., C.C.A.Ky., 137 F.2d 871, car-,
tiorari denied 64 S.Ct. 431, 320 U.
S. 800, 88 L.Ed. 483, rehearing de-
nied 64 S.Ct. 634, 321 U.S. 803, 88
L.EdL 1089 — Mason v. Royal In-
demnity Co., D.CGa., 35 F.Supp.
477, affirmed, C.C.A., 123 F.2d 335.
Ala. — Standard Cooperage Co. v.
Grant, 117 So. 31, 217 Ala. 667—
Farmers' Union Warehouse Co. v.
Burnett Bros., 116 So. 810, 22 Ala.
App. 524, certlorari denied 118
So. 286, 218 Ala. 165.
Ariz. — Lore v. Citizens Bank of Win-
slow, 75 R2d 371, 51 Ariz. 191.
Cal. — Balaam v. Perazzo, 295 P. 330,
221 Cal. 375— Gray v. Hall, 265 P.
246, 203 Cal. 306— In re Ivory's
Estate, 98 P.2d 761, 37 Oal.App.2d
22— Jones v. Noble, 39 P.2d 486, 8
Cal.App.2d 316.
D.C.— Wise v. Herzog. 114 F.2d 486,
72 APP.D.C. 335.
Gtau — TOnn v. Armour & Co., 193 S.
R 447, 184 Ga. 769— Henry & Co.
v. Johnson, 173 S.E. 659, 178 Ga.
641— Williams v. Batten, 119 S.E.
709, 156 Ga. 620— Cherry v. Mo-
Cutchen, 23 S.E.2d 587, 68 Ga.
App. 682.
Hawaii. — Kim Poo Kum v. Sugi-
yama, 33 Hawaii 545.
111. — Schuster v. Eisner, 250 IlLApp.
192.
Ind. — Montgomery v. Marks, 46 N.E.
2d 912, 221 Ind. 223—Celiha Mut
Casualty Co. v. Bpldridge, 12 N.E.
2d 258, 213 Ind. 198.
Iowa.— Woodmen Accident Co. v.
District Court in and for Marshall
County, 260 N.TIf. 713, 219 Iowa
1326, 9£ A.L.R. 1431— Bes Mofaes
Coal & Coke Co. v. Marks Inv. Co.,
195 N.W. 597, 197 Iowa 589, opin- ,
52
ion modified on rehearing 197 N.
W. 628, 187 Iowa 589.
Ky.— Gayle v. Gayle, 192 S.W.2d 821
— Parrish v. Ferriell, 186 S.W.2d
625, 299 Ky. 676— Jones v. Fuller,
134 S.W.Sd 240, 280 Ky. 671—
Gardner v. Lincoln Bank & Trust
Co., 64 S.W.2d 497, 251 Ky. 109
—Ely v. U. S. Coal & Coke Co., 49
S.W.2d 1021, 243 Ky. 725— Rex
Red Ash Coal Co. v. Powers, 290
S.W. 1061, 218 Ky. 93— Farmers'
Bank of Salvisa v. Riley, 272 S.W.
9, 209 Ky. 54.
La.— In re Webster's Tutorship, 177
So. 688, 188 La. 623— Lacour Plan-
tation Co, v. Jewell, 173 So. 761,
186 La. 1055— Logwood v. Log-
wood, 168 So. 310, 185 La. 1— No-
. Ian v. Schultze, 126 So. 513, 169
La. 1022— Gahn v. Brown, 107 So.
576, 160 La. 790— Nicol v. Jacoby,
103 So. 33, 157 La. 757— Smith v.
Crescent Chevrolet Co., App., 1 So.
2d 421 — Key v. Jones, App., 181 So.
631— R. P. Ffcrnsworth & Co. v.
Estrade, Cotton & Fricke, App.,
166 So. 676— McClelland v. District
Household of Ruth, App., 151 So.
246 — Richardson v. Trustees' Loan
& Guaranty Co., 132 So. 387, 15 La.
App. 645 — Spillman v. Texas &*P.
Ry. Co., 120 So. 905, 10 LfcuApp.
379.
Md. — Piedmont-Mt Airy Guano Co.
of Baltimore y. Merritt, 140 A. 62,
154 Md. 226.
Mich.— Hafner T. A. J. Stuart Land
Co., 224 N.W. 630, 246 Mich. 465.
Minn. — Beede v. Nldes Finance Cor-
poration, 296 N.W. 413, 209 Minn.
354.'
Miss. — Eastman Gardiner Lumber
Co. v. Carr, 166 So. 401, 175 Miss.
36 — Bank of Richton v. Jones, 121
So. 823, 153 Miss. 796.
Mo. — State eat rel. Keller r. Porter-
field, App., 283 S.W. 59.
Mont— Novack v. Pericich, 300 P.
240, 90 Mont 91-r-Holt v. Sather,
264 P. 108, 81 Mont 442.
K.M. — Bourgeious v. Santa Fe Trail
Stages, 95 P.2d 284, 43 N.M. 453.
N.Y.— Friedman v. Blatt, 27 N.Y.S.2d
102, 176*Misc. 401— Rochester Sav.
Bank v. Monroe County, 8 N.T.S.
2d 107, 169 Misc. 526— Baumaa
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 23
otherwise waives service of process,55 or authorizes
its acceptance;56 and in some states this rule ob-
tains by statutory provision.57 However, the prin-
ciple that a judgment obtained without service of
process or voluntary appearance is void for lack of
the court's jurisdiction does not apply to a deci-
sion on a collateral question, in a case where the
parties are before the court ;58 and a failure to give
notice" to a party who has no concern or interest in
the question decided does not affect the validity of
the judgment.59 A judgment which merely deter-
mines rights may be conclusive without the service
of any process for its enforcement.60
After amended, supplefnental, or cross pleading.
A judgment is void where it is rendered without the
service of process, waiver, or entry of appearance,
on an amended complaint or petition, which changes
the cause of action,61 or on an amended or supple-
mental pleading filed by defendant,62 or on a plea
of intervention.63 Likewise, where a new or ad-
ditional process is required when a cross pleading
is filed, a judgment rendered on such pleading
Rubber Co. v. Karl Light & Sons, •
244 N.T.S. 448, 137 Misc. 258.
N.C.— Powell v. Turpin, 29 S.E.2d
26, 224 N.C. 67— City of Monroe
v. Niven, 20 S.E.2d 311, 221 N.C.
362— Hood v. Holding, 171 S.E.
633. 205 N.C. 451— Crocker v.
Van-n, 135 S.E. 127, 192 N.C. 422
— Clark v. Carolina Homes, 128 S.
E. 20, 189 N.C. 703.
N.D. — Corpus Juris quoted in. Baird
v. Ellison, 293 N.W. 794, 801, 70
N.D. 261— Gallagher v. National
Nonpartisan League, 205 N.W. 674,
53 N.D. 238.
Okl. — American Exchange Corpora-
tion v. Lowry, 63 P.2d 71, 178 Okl.
433 — St. Louis-San Francisco Ry.
Co. v. Bayne, 40 P.2d 1104, 170 Okl.
542— Chicago, R. L & P. Ry. Co.
v. Excise Board of Oklahoma
County, 33 P.2d 1081, 168 Okl. 428
— Protest of Chicago. R. I. & P.
Ry. Co., 2 P.2d 935, 151 Okl. 129
— Noel v. Edwards, 260 P. 58, 127
Okl. 163— Oklahoma City v. Me-
Williams, 236 P. 417, 108 Okl. 268
— Abraham v. Homer, 226 P. 45,
102 Okl. 12.
Pa. — In re Honiara's Estate, 166 A.
577, 311 Pa, 135— In re Gallagher's
Estate, 167 A. 476, 109 Pa. Super.
304.
R.I. — Corpus Juris cited in Sahagian
v. Sahagian, 137 A. 221, 222, 48
R.L 267.
Tex. — Pure Oil Co. v. Reece, 78 S.
W.2d 932, 124 Tex. 476— State
Mortg. Corporation v. Tray lor, 36
S.W.2d 440. 120 Tex 148— Levy v.
Roper, 256 S.W. 251, 113 Tex. 356
— Burrage v. Hunt, Civ.App., 147
S.W.2d 532, error dismissed, judg-
ment correct — Freeman v. B. F.
Goodrich Rubber Co., Civ.App., 127
S.W.2d 476, error dismissed by
agreement— Olton State Bank v.
Howell, Civ.App., 105 S.W.2d 287
— Goodman v. Mayer, Civ.App.,
105 S.W.2d 281, reversed on other
grounds 128 S.W.2d 1156, 133 Tex.
319 — Coker v. Logan, Civ.App., 101
S.W.2d 284 — Corpus Juris cited in
Associated Indemnity Corporation
v. Baker, Civ.App., 76 S.W.2d 153,
158 — Wilkinson v. Owens, Civ.
App.,' 72 S.W.2d 330— Christie v.
Hudspeth County Conservation
and Reclamation Dist. No. 1, Civ.
App., 64 S.W.2d 978— Texas Bank
& Trust Co. v. Bankers' Life Co.,
Civ.App., 43 S.W.2d 631, error re-
fused— Lipscomb v. Japhet, Civ.
App., 18 S.W.2d 786— Belt v. Mc-
Gehee, Civ.App., 9 S.W.Sd 407—
Adamson v. Collins, Civ.App., 286
S.W. 598— Cook v. Liberty Pipe
Line Co., Civ.App., 281 S.W. 221
— Watson Co., Builders, v. Blee-
ker, Civ.App., 269 S.W. 147.
Utah. — Parry v. Bonneville Irr.
Dist., 235 P. 751, 71 Utah 202.
Va. — Preston v. Legard, 168 S.E. 445,
160 Va. 364 — Johnson v. Burson,
129 S.E. 251, 143 Va. 57.
Wash. — State v. Fishing Appliances,
16 P.2d 822, 170 Wash. 426.
W.Va. — Hayhurst v. J. Kenny Trans-
fer Co., 158 S.E. 506, 110 W.Va.
395 — Robertson Grocery Co. v.
Kinser, 116 S.E. 141, 93 W.Va. 172.
33 C.J. p 1079 note 94—34 C.J. p 533
notes 38, 39—15 C.J. p 798 note 64.
Default Judgment without process
see infra § 191.
Judgment by confession without
process see infra § 151.
Service of process as essential to
Jurisdiction see Courts § 83.
Service of process on Joint defend-
ants see infra $ 33.
As otherwise stated, unless a de-
fendant has been brought into court
in some way sanctioned by law, or
has made a voluntary appearance
in person or by attorney, a Judgment
rendered against him is void for
want of Jurisdiction. — Casey v. Bar-
ker, 14 S.E.2* 429, 219 N.C. 465—
Groce v. Groce, 199 S.E. 388, 214
N.C. 398 — Denton v. Vassiliades, 193
S.E. 737, 212 N.C. 513— Downing v.
White, 188 S.E. 815, 211 N.C. 40.
For judicial action to affect vested
rights, it must be based on notice or
process whereby interested parties
are brought within court's Jurisdic-
tion.— Parry v. Bonneville Irr. Dist.,
263 P. 751, 71 Utah 202.
55. Ga.— Henry & Co. v. Johnson,
173 S.E. 659, 178 Ga. 541.
Hawaii.— Kim Poo Kum v. Sugi-
yama, 33 Hawaii 545.
La. — Key v. Jones, App., 181 So. 631.
Okl.— Protest of Chicago, R. I. &
P. Ry. Co., 2 P.2d 935, 151 Okl.
129.
53,
W.Va, — Hayhurst v. J. Kenny Trans-
fer Co., 158 S.E. 606, 110 W.Va.
395 — Robertson Grocery Co. v.
Kinser, 116 S.E. 141, 93 W.Va. 172.
34 C.J. p 5*33 note 40.
56. W.Va. — Hayhurst v. J. Kenny
Transfer Co., 158 S.E. 506, 110 W.
Va. 395.
57. Ark. — Arkansas State Highway
Commission v. Hammock, 148 S.
W.2d 324, 201 Ark. 927.
58- Cal.— Gray v. Hall, 265 P. 246,
20$ Cal. 306.
59. Ohio. — Cunningham v. Bessemer
Trust Co., 178 N.E. 217, 39 Ohio
App. 535.
60. N.H.— Faulkner v. City of
Keene, 155 A. 195. 85 N.H. 147—
Walker v. Walker, 63 N.H. 321,
56 Am.R. 514.
Declaratory Judgments generally see
Actions § 18 d (14) (g).
61. Ohio. — Ohio Electric Ry. Co. v.
U. S. Express Co., 137 N.E. 1, 105
Ohio St. 331.
Tex. — Nuckles v. J. M. Radford Gro-
cery Co., Civ.App... 72 S.W.2d 652.
Rule not applicable where amend-
ed pleading states no new cause of
action.
Okl.— City of Tulsa v. Peacock, 74 P.
2d 359, 181 Okl. 383.
Tex. — Nathan v. Brashear, Civ.App.,
105 S.W.2d 328— Henson v. C. C.
Slaughter Co., Civ.App., 206 S.W.
375.
33 C.J. p 1081 note 97 [d].
62. Tex— Davis v. Wichita State
Bank & Trust Co., Civ.App., 286
S.W. 584.
Flea for affirmative relief
Where defendant files pleading
asking for affirmative relief after
plaintiff has taken nonsuit, citation
is necessary to sustain Judgment
for him.— Davis v. Wichita State
Bank & Trust Co., Tex.Civ.App., 286
S.W. 584.
judgment improper
Entry of Judgment after overrul-
ing plea of privilege, without notice
or hearing of controverting plea, Is
improper. — Galbraith v. Bishop, Tex
Com.App., 287 S.W. 1087.
63. Tex.— State v. Bagby's Estate,
_Civ.App., ,126 S.W.2d 687.
§ 24
against the original plaintiff,64 or a codefendant,65
without the service of process on, or appearance or
waiver by, such plaintiff or defendant, is void, as
where the cross petition is filed after the expiration
of the time for such defendant to plead.66
§ 24. Sufficiency
a. In general
b. Personal service
c. Substituted and constructive service;
publication
d. Extraterritorial service
e. Nonresidents
f . Attachment and garnishment
g. Defective process
h. Defective service
a. In General
Formal process or notice served In the manner au-
thorized or required by law is essential to support a
judgment.
Formal process or notice served in the manner
authorized or required by law is essential to sup-
port a judgment;67 mere informal knowledge of
the pendency of the action is not sufficient68 Thus
a judgment is a mere nullity where service is made
on a third person, who is not authorized to accept
service, instead of on the actual defendant,69 not-
Wbere intervention was filed after
service of citation had been had on
defendants and intervener did not
cause citation to issue on Its cause
of action and defendants made no
appearance, trial court was without
Jurisdiction to enter judgment for
intervener against defendants.—
State v. Bagby's Estate, Tex. Civ.
App., 126 S.W.2d 687.
64. Tex. — Early v. Cornelius, 39 S.
W.2d 6, 120 Tex, 335— Holmes v.
Klein, Civ.App.f 59 S.W.2d 171—
National Stock Tards Nat Bank
v. Valentine, Civ. App., 39 S.W.2d
907 — Southern Equipment Co. v.
Hallman Electric Co., Civ. App., 10
S.W.2d 261 — Scarborough v. Brad-
ley, Civ.App., 256 S.W. 349— Jar-
ratt v. McCarty, Civ.App,, 209 S.
W. 712.
Necessity of process after filing
cross pleading see the C.J.S. title
Process § 4, also 50 C.J. p 448
note 48-p 449 note 60.
65. CaL— Balaam v. Perazzo, 295 P,
330, 221 CaL 375.
Ky. — Carter v. Capshaw, 60 S.W.2d
959, 249 Ky. 483— Lorton v. Ash-
brook, 295 S.W. 1027, 220 Ky. 830.
Tex. — Holmes v. Klein, Civ. App., 59
S.W.2d 171, error dismissed — Flagg
v. Matthews, Civ.App., 287 S.W.
299.
Effect of appearance generally see
infra § 26.
66. Okl.— Blakeney v. Ashford, 81
P.2d 309, 188 Okl. 213— Vinson v.
Oklahoma City, 66 P.2d 933, 179
Okl. 590-^Central Nat. Bank of
Okmulgee v. Sharp, 34 P.2d 241,
168 Okl. 616 — O'Reilly v. Schuer-
meyer, 9 P,2d 923, 156 Okl. 167—
Wood v. Speakman, 5 P.2d. 121, 153
Okl. 180 — Poster v. Comaway, 251
P. 59, 122 Okl. 80.
67. U.S. — Rettig Beverage Co. v, IT.
S.. C.C.A.Pa., 13 F.2d 740.
Ala. — Sovereign .Camp, W. O. W., v.
Partridge, 127 So. 505, 221 Ala.
75.
Ark. — Gainsburg v. Dodge, 101 S.W.
2d 178, 193 Ark. 473. ,
Colo. — Younge v. Button, 61 P.2d
1370, 99 Colo. 254.
Fla.— McAllister v. McAllister, 3 So.
2d 351. 147 Fla, 647.
Ky. — Corpus Taxis cited in Ely v.
XI. S. Coal & Coke Co., 49 S.W.2d
1021, 1025, 243 Ky. 725.
Mo. — In re Waters' Estate, App.,
153 S.W.2d 774.
Neb.— Coffin v. Maitland, 20 N.W.2d
310.
N.J.— Hinners v. Banville, 168 A.
618, 114 N.J.Eq. 348.
N.T.— Universal Credit Co. v. Blind-
erman, 288 N.T.S. 77, 159 Misc.
802.
N.D. — Corpus Juris quoted in Balrd
v. Ellison, 293 N.W, 794, 801, 70
N.D. 261.
Okl.— State v. City of Tulsa, 5 P.2d
744, 153 Okl. 262— Oklahoma City
v. McWilliams, 236 P. 417, 108 Okl.
268.
Pa. — In re Murray's Estate, Super.,
45 A.2d 411 — Johnston v. Ameri-
can Casualty Co., Com.Pl., 23
WestCo. 178.
Tenn. — Hunter v. May, 25 S.W.2d
580, 161 Tenn. 155.
Tex. — Jenness v. First Nat. Bank,
Civ.App., 256 S.W. 634.
33 C.J. p 1081 note 97.
Service of process in general see
the C.J.S. title Process § 25 et sea,
also 50 C.J. p 467 note 86 et sea.
Formal issuance of order to show
cause and appropriate service there-
of on defendant was such reasona-
ble notice of pendency of suit as to
bring it within Jurisdiction of court
and bind defendant to order or de-
cree.— Doan v. OollinB-Doan Co., 194
A. 254, 122 N.J.Eq. 399.
'Corporation, and stockholders
Where court had jurisdiction over
subject matter of suit against cor-
poration, and president of corpo-
ration was served with citation,
stockholders were not "necessary
parties" or "proper parties" to suit,
and hence notice of suit and serv-
ice on them was not reauired for
rendition of valid judgment against
corporation and stockholders. — Cruse
54
v. Mann, Tex.Civ.App., 74 S.W.2d
545, error dismissed.
68. Cal.— Peabody v. Phelps, 9 CaL
213.
N.D. — Corpus Jxtcis quoted la Baird
v. Ellison, 293 N.W. 794, 801, 70
N.D. 261.
Ohio.— Haley v. Hanna, 112 N.E, 149,
93 Ohio St. 49.
33 C.J. p 1081 note 97.
69. Ky. — Missouri-Kansas Pipe
Line Co. v. Hobgood, 51 S.W.2d
920, 244 Ky, 570.
La.— Waddill v. Payne, 23 La,Ann.
773— Jones v. Jones, 23 La.Ann.
304.
N.T. — Building Trades Service Bu-
reau v. S. W. Straus Investing
Corporation, 272 N.T.S. 73, 241
App.Div. 869— Universal Credit
Co. v. Blinderman, 288 N.T.S. 77,
159 Misc. 802.
Wash. — Wheeler v. Moore, 36 P.
1053, 10 Wash. 309.
W.Va,— State v. A, R. Kelly & Co.*
33 S.E.2d 230— Nicholas Land Co.
v. Crowder, 32 S.E.2d 563.
33 C.J. p 1081 note 98.
Class representative
(1) Conditions under which de-
fendants may be bound by judg-
ments in "class suits," and in other
cases in which doctrine of virtual
representation is applied, constitute
exceptions to statutory provisions
making service of process a condi-
tion precedent to rendition of judg-
ment.— Southern Ornamental Iron.
Works v. Morrow, Tcx.Civ.App., 101
S.W.2d 336.
(2) However, the equitable doc-
trine of class representation does
not permit a plaintiff to designate-
certain parties as representatives
of other numerous members of &
voluntary unincorporated association
in order to obtain personal judg-
ments as to members not properly-
served in action on alleged indebted-
ness of the association. — Webb &
Martin v. Anderson-McG-rift Hard-
ware Co., 3 S.E.2d 882, 188 Ga, 291.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 24
withstanding defendant had knowledge of the ac-
tion and the attempted service.70 The service
must be accomplished by a method which gives de-
fendant actual or constructive notice,71 and is rea-
sonably calculated to afford him the constitutional
protection of due process of law.72 It must apprise
defendant of what is required of him and of the
consequences which may follow if he neglects to de-
fend the action.78
b. Personal Service
A personal Judgment which Is rendered without serv-
ice of process on, or legal notice to, defendant Is void In
the absence of a voluntary appearance or waiver.
A personal judgment rendered against a defend-
ant without service of process on him, or other suf-
ficient legal notice to him, is without jurisdiction
and void,74 unless he has appeared voluntarily, as
discussed infra § 26, or otherwise has waived per-
sonal service,75 or has acknowledged service,76 or
has authorized its acceptance in his behalf.77 In a
proceeding in rem, or quasi in rem, a valid per-
sonal judgment cannot be rendered against de-
fendant without personal service of process on him,
in the absence of his voluntary appearance.78
70. Ariz.— National Metal Co. v.
Greene Consol. Copper Co., 89 P.
535, 11 Ariz. 108.
33 C.J. p 1081 note 98.
71. N.Y. — In re Renard's Estate, 39
N.Y.S.2d 968, 179 Misc. 885.
Pa. — In re Komara's Estate, 166 A.
577, 811 Pa. 135.
Constructive service generally see
infra subdivision c of this section.
72. D.C.— Wise v. Herzog, 114 F.2d
486, 72 App.D.C. 335.
N.Y.— -Standish v. Standish, 40 N.Y.
S.2d 538, 179 Misc. 564.
73. Cal.— Peabody v. Phelps, 9 Cal
213.
33 C.J. p 1081 note 1.
Process and service sufficient to
support default Judgment see in-
fra § 191.
74. U.-S. — Griffin v. Griffin, App.D.C.,
66 S.Ct. 556, rehearing denied 66 8.
Ct 975— In re Gayle, C.C.A.Canal
Zone, 136 F.2d 973, petition dis-
missed 64 S.Ct 157, 320 U.S. 806,
88 L.Ed. 487.
.Ala. — Morrison v. Covington, 100 So.
124. 211 Ala. 181— Corpus Juris
cited in Ex parte Whistler, 199 So.
876, 878, 29 Ala.App. 583.
Ariz.— Blair v. Blair, 62 P.2d 1321,
48 Ariz. 501.
Jowa, — Stier v. Iowa State Traveling
Men's Ass'n, 201 N.W. 328, 199
Iowa 118, 59 A.L.R. 1384.
;Kan. — Gibson v. Enright, 9 P.2d 971,
135 Kan. 181.
ZKy.— Hughes v. Hughes, 278 S.W.
121, 211 Ky. 799.
Mo.— Noell v. Missouri Pac. R. Co.,
74 S.W.2d 7, 335 Mo. 687, 94 A.L.R.
684, followed in 74 S.W.2d 14.
:Mont.— Holt v. Sather, 264 P. 108, 81
Mont 442.
;N.J.— Baker v. Josephsota, 44 A.2d
909, 137 N.J.Eq. 377, reversed on
other grounds 46 A.2d 904, 138 N.
J.BQ. 107.
:.N.M. — State ex rel. Truitt v. District
Court of Ninth Judicial Dist, Cur-
ry County, 96 P.2d 710. 44 N.M,
16, 126 A.L.R. 651.
~N.Y. — In re Galvin's Estate, 274 N
Y.S. 846, 153 Misc. 11.
:N.C.— Dunn v. Wilson, 187 &E, 802
210 N.C. 493.
sr.D. — Corpus Juris cited in Ellison
v. Baird, 293 N.W. 793, 794, 70 N.
D. 226— Corpus Juris cited in Dar-
ling & Co. v. Burchard, 284 N.W.
856, 862, 69 N.D. 212.
Ohio.— In re Blue's Estate, 32 N.R2d
499, 67 Ohio App. 37.
Okl.— Skipper v. Baer, 277 P. 930,
136 Okl. 286.
Pa.— Potter v. Potter, Pa., 42 Dist
& Co. 42.
Tenn. — Dickson v. Simpson, 113 S.
W.2d 1190, 172 Tenn, 680, 116 A.L.
R. 380.
Va,— Lockard v. Whitenack, 144 S*E.
606, 151 Va, 143.
W.Va. — Hayhurst v. X Kenny Trans-
fer Co., 158 S.E. 506, 110 W.Va,
395.
Wis.— Saric v. Brlos, 19 N.W.2d 903,
247 Wis. 400.
33 C.J. p 1082 note 4 — 34 C.J. p 533
note 39.
Service within state see infra subdi-
vision d of this section.
What constitutes personal service
see the C.J.S. title Process §§ 25-
42, also 50 C.J. p 468 <note 9-p 490
note 62.
"Jurisdiction, of the person" is ob-
tained, so that a valid judgment may
be rendered, when prescribed notice
has been given to litigant proceed-
ed against to enable him to appear
and make defense. — Wagner v. Peo-
ples Building & Loan Ass'n, 167 S.
W.2d 825, 292 Ky. 691.
It is not within the power of any
tribunal to make a binding adjudica-
tion of the rights in personam of
parties not brought before it by due
process of law. — National Licorice
Co. v. National Labor Relations
Board, 60 S.Ct 569, 309 U.S. 350,
84 L.Ed. 799.
Actions affecting title to property
within court's jurisdiction, but not
seized or otherwise brought under
court's direct control for disposi-
tion, and involved only incidentally
because of effect on its title of de-
cree or judgment entered, are usual-
ly held to be in personam, so as to
require personal service of process
on defendants.— State ex rel. Truitt
v. District Court of Ninth Judicial
'
Dist, Curry County, 96 P.2d 710, 44
. 16, 126 A.L.R. 651.
Personal judgment on cross petition
held void
Ky.— Capper v. Short, 11 S.W.2d 717,
226 Ky. 689.
75. N.T.— In re Galvin's Estate, 274
N.Y.S. 846, 153 Misc. 11. .
W.Va.— Hayhurst v. J. Kenny Trans-
fer Co., 158 S.E. 506, 110 W.Va.
395.
76. N.J.— Fidelity Union Trust Co.
v. Union Cemetery Ass'-n, 40 A.2d
205, 136 N.J.Eq. 15, affirmed 45
A.2d 670, 137 N.J.Ea. 455, and 45
A.2d 698, 137 N.J.EQ. 456.
Acknowledgment of service after
appearance term has been held too
late to preserve suit as pending ac-
tion, and judgment rendered in suc-
ceeding term without other process
was void.— Bolton v. Keys, 144 S.B.
406, 38 Ga.App. 573.
77. W.Va.— Hayhurst v. J. Kenny
Transfer Co., 158 S.E. 506. 110 W.
Va. 395.
78. Ga,— Corpus Juris quoted la
Webb & Martin v. Anderson-Mc-
Griff Hardware Co., 3 S.E.2d 882,
885, 188 Ga, 291.
111. — Barnett v. Cook County, 26
N.E.2d 862, 373 111. 516 — Griffin v.
Cook County, 16 N.E.2d 906, 369
111. 380, 118 A.L.R. 1157.
Kan. — Union Central Life Ins. Co. v.
Irrigation Loan & Trust Co., 78 P.
2d 72! 146 Kan. 550.
Ky. — Kitchen v. New York Trust
Co., 168 «S.W.2d 5, 292 Ky. 706 —
Bond v. Wheeler, 247 S.W. 708, 197
Ky. 437.
N.M.— State ex rel. Truitt v. Dis-
trict Court of Ninth Judicial Dist,
Curry County, 96 P.2d 710, 44 N.M.
16, 126 A.L.R. 651.
N.T.— In re Galvin's Estate, 274 N.
T.S. 846, 153 Misc. 11.
Tenn. — Commerce Union Bank v.
Sharber, 100 S.W.2d 243, 20 Tenn.
App. 451.
33 C.J. p 1084 note 15.
Extent of jurisdiction of court In
absence . of personal service of
process see Courts § 83 b (1).
Judgment in rem see infra I 908;
§ 24
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.&
Substituted and Constructive Service; Pub-
lication
Ordinarily no valid personal Judgment may be ren-
dered against a defendant on whom the service of proc-
ess was merely constructive or by publication and who
did not appear.
It has been held that a state has the right to pre-
scribe the mode of serving the process of its own
courts on its own resident citizens, and that a judg-
ment is valid, at least until set aside in a direct
proceeding for that purpose, when based on such
a form of citation as the law authorizes, although
without actual notice to defendant79 However, a
personal judgment on merely constructive service is
not entitled to full faith and credit in the courts of
another state, under the constitutional provision in
that regard,80 and the weight of authority is to the
effect that no valid personal judgment may be ren-
79. U.S. — Santiago v. Nogueras,
Puerto Rico, 29 S.Ct 608, 214 TJ.S.
260, 58 L.Ed. 989.
Ga. — Benton v. Maddox, 192 S.E. 316,
56 Ga.App. 132.
HI. — Barnett v. Cook County, 26 N.E.
2d 862, 373 III. 516— Griffln v. Cook
County, 16 N.E.2d 906, 869 111. 380,
118 A.L.R. 1167.
Ind.— Pattison v. Grant Trust & Sav-
ings Co., 144 N.B. 26, 195 Ind. 313.
Me.— Jordan v. McKay, 165 A. 902,
132 Me. 55.
Minn.— Murray v. Murray, 198 N.W.
307, 159 Minn. 111.
Mont.— Holt v. gather, 264 P. 108,
81 Mont. 442.
N.Y.— Continental Nat. Bank of Bos-
ton v. Thurber. 26 N.Y.S. 956, 74
Hun 632, affirmed Continental Nat
Bank of Boston v. United States
Book Co., 37 N.E. 828, 143 N.Y.
648 — In re Auto Mut. Indemnity
Co., 14 N.Y.S.2d 601.
33 C.J. p 1083 note 9.
Substituted service see the C.J.S.
title Process §§ 43-53, also 50 C.
J. p 490 note 64-p 496 note 99.
Judgment rendered on substituted
or constructive service is as con-
clusive on residents of state not
residents of county of suit as one
rendered on personal service. — Wer-
ner v. W. H. Shons Co., 173 N.E. 486,
341 HI. 478*
Compliance with statute
Where jurisdiction is obtained by
a prescribed form of constructive
notice, the statutory conditions on
which the service depends must be
strictly construed, and unless stat-
ute has been complied with court
has no jurisdiction to render judg-
ment— Pinon v. Pollard, 158 P.2d
254. 69 Oal.App.2d 129.
Service held insufficient to support
judgment
(1) On tenant of apartment house
. by leaving copy of papers in outer
hall.-<!lover v. Urban, 142 A. 389,
108 Conn. 13.
(2) Leaving- process at apartment
from which defendant had previous-
ly moved to another state. — Rogan
v. Liberty Mut Ins. Co., 25 N.E.2d
188, 305 Mass. 186.
80. Ga. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Webb & Martin v. Anderson-Mc-
Griff Hardware Co., 3 S.E.2d 882,
885, 188 Ga, 291.
33 C.J. p 1083 note 10.
81. U.'S. — Pennoyer v. Neff, Or., 95
U.S. 714, 24 L.Ed. 565— Barter v.
Continental Casualty Co., C.C.A.
Mo., 48 F.2d 467, appeal dismissed
52 S.Ct. 2. 284 U.S. 578, 76 L.Ed,
502.
Cal.— Williams v. Williams, 213 P.
508, 60 Cal.App. 675.
Ga. — Corpus Juris quoted in Webb &
Martin v. Anderson-McGrin? Hard-
ware Co., 3 S.E.2d 882, 885, 188 Ga.
291— B. Miflin Hood Brick Co. v.
Mangham, 131 S.E. 172, 161 Ga.
457 — Sweet v. Awtry, 30 S.B.2d
799, 71 Ga.App. 341.
Iowa. — Security Sav. Bank v. Cimp-
rich, 203 N.W. 24, 199 Iowa 1061.
Ky. — Bond v. Wheeler, 247 S.W. 708,
197 Ky. 437.
La.— Liles v. Barnhart, 93 So. 490,
152 La. 419.
Md. — Ortman v. Coane, 31 A.2d 320,
181 Md. 596, 145 A.L.R. 1388.
N.J.— Reichert v. United Brother-
hood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, 183 A. 728, 14 N.J.Misc.
106.
N.M.-7-State ex rel. Truitt v. Dis-
trict Court of Ntoth Judicial Dist.,
Curry County, 96 P.2d 710, 44
N.M. 16, 126 A.L.R. 651.
N.Y.— Matthews v. Matthews, 219 N.
Y.S. 333, 128 Misc. 309.
Utah.— Ricks v. Wade,. 93 P.2d 479,
97 Utah 402.
Wyo. — Kimbel v. Osborn, 156 (P.2d
279.
33 C.J. p 1083 note 11.
56
dered against a defendant on whom the service of
process was merely constructive and who did not
appear.81
d. Extraterritorial Service
Service of process on a nonresident beyond the ter-
ritorial Jurisdiction of the court from which the process
issued will not support a personal Judgment against the
nonresident. It has also been held that extraterritorial
service on a resident will not support a personal Judg-
ment against him.
It is a fundamental principle that a judgment af-
fecting personal rights must be founded on service
of process, within the territorial jurisdiction of the
court on the party to be affected.82 Accordingly, a
valid personal judgment cannot be rendered against
a nonresident based on process served on him be-
yond the limits of the state from whose courts the
process issued,83 and such a judgment cannot be
As to nonresidents see infra subdi-
vision e of this section.
Under a statute providing- for
service by publication on nonresi-
dents only, a Judgment on such serv-
ice against a resident is void. — Main
v. Kick, 161 N.W. 711, 180 Iowa 50—
Oziah v. Howard, 128 N.W. 864, 140
Iowa 199.
82. U.'S.— Sugg v. Hendrix, C.CLA.
Miss., 142 F.2d 740— De Bouchel v.
Candler, D.C.Ga., 296 F. 482, 485.
Ariz.— Blair v, Blair, 62 P.2d 1321,
48 Ariz. 501.
Ky. — Kitchen v. New York Trust
Co., 1C8 S.W.2d 5. 202 Ky. 706.
Mo. — Noell v. Missouri Pac. R. Co.,
74 S.W.2d 7, 335 Mo. 687, 94 A.L.R.
684, followed in 74 S.W.2d 14.
83. TJ.-S. — Oxley v. Sweetland, CCA*
W.Va., 96 P.2d 53 — Campbell V.
City of Hickman, D.C.Ky., 45 V.
Supp. 517.
Ark.— Miller v. Maryland Casualty
Co., 180 S.W.2d 581, 207 Ark. 812.
Del. — Webb Packing Co. v. Harmon,
196 A. 158, 9 W.W.Harr. 22.
Fla.— Newton v. Bryan, 194 So. 282,
142 Fla. 14.
111.— Wickiser v. Powers, 57 N.E.2d
522, 324 IlLApp. 130.
Iowa. — 'Sloan-Pierce Lumber Co. v.
Gardiner, 8 N.W.2d 531, 281 Iowa
1194— Fisher & Van Gilder v. First
Trust Joint-Stock Land Bank of
Chicago, 231 N.W. 671. 210 Iowa
531, 69 A.L.R. 1340.
La. — Evans v. Evans, 116 So. 831.
166 La. 145.
Md. — Ortman v. Coane, $1 A.2d 320,.
181- Md. 596, 145 A.L.R. 1388.
N.Y. — Bank of New Tork v. Leg-
get, 46 N.Y.S.2d 465, 267 App.
E>iv. 875, appeal denied 50 N.E.2*
173, 268 App.Div. 779, appeal dis-
missed 56 N.B.2d 115, 29* N.Y.
702, appeal dismissed 57 N.&2&
838, 293 N.Y. 759— Maguire v..
Blodgett, 41 N.Y.S.2d 130, 265
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 24
authorized constitutionally even by express stat-
ute.84 However, such service may be sufficient to
support a judgment in rem, or quasi in rem, as dis-
cussed infra §§ 908, 911. Although there is author-
ity to the contrary,85 it has been held that extra-
territorial service on a resident of the state will not
support a personal judgment,86 and that, in the ab-
sence of statute, a personal judgment is void, even
where it is based on the service of process within
the state, but beyond the limits of the county or dis-
trict, which comprise the territorial jurisdiction of
the court.*7
4. Nonresidents
A vatid personal Judgment may be rendered against
a nonresident only where he is brought within the Juris-
diction of the court by the service of process or notice
on him within its territorial Jurisdiction, or by his vol-
untarily appearing and submitting to Its Jurisdiction.
Mere constructive or substituted service Is not sufficient.
A valid persona;! judgment may be rendered against
a nonresident only where he has been brought with-
in the jurisdiction of the court by the service of
process or notice made on him within its territorial
jurisdiction,88 or by such service on some one au-
Div. $70, affirmed 50 N.E.24 800,
290 N.T. 907— Heilbrun v. Kellogg,
1 N.T.S.2d 193, 253 App.Div. 753,
motion denied 16 N,E.2d 104, 278
N.Y. 564, motion granted 18 N.B.2d
312, 279 N.T. 683, affirmed 18 N.
B.2d 861, 279 N.T. 773— Gore v.
Pennsylvania R. Co., 259 N.T.S.
410, 144 Misc. 639, affirmed 260 N.
T.S. 941, 236 App.D*v. 881— Engel
v. Engel, 22 N.T.S.2d 445-— Merkle
v. Sable, 197 N.T.S. 576.
N.C.— Casey v. Barker. 14 S.E.2d 429,
219 N.C. 465.
N.D. — Darling & Co. v. Burchard,
284 N.W. 856, 69 N.D. 212.
Ohio.— Ades v. Ades, 45 N.E.2d 416,
70 Ohio App. 487.
Okl.— Royal Neighbors of America
v. Fletcher, 227 P. 426, 99 Okl.
297.
Or. — Mt. Vernon Nat. Bank v. Morse,
264 P. 439, 128 Or. 64.
Fa.— Vaughn v. Love, 188 A. 299,
324 Pa. 276, 107 A.L.R, 1336—
Potter v. 'Potter, 42 Pa.Dist & Co.
42 — Evans v. Todd, Com.Pl., 35
Luz.Leg. Reg. 102.
Tenn. — Dickson v. Simpson, 113 S.
W.2d 1190, 172 Tennu 680, 116 A.
L.R. 380— -Commerce Union Bank
v. Sharber, 100 S.W.2d 243, 20
Tenn.App. 451.
Tex. — Bradshaw v. Peacock, Civ.
App., 191 S.W.2d 698— Knox v.
Quinn, Civ.App., 164 S.W.2d 580
— Eaton v. Husted, Civ. App., 163
S.W.2d 439, affirmed 172 S.W.2d
493, 141 Tex. 349— Hicks v. Sias,
Civ.App., 102 S.W.2d 460, error re-
fused— Steger v. Shofner, Civ.App.,
54 S.W.2d 1013— Blair v. Carney*
Civ.App.. 44 S.W.2d 1031, error re-
fused— Wilson v. Beck, Civ.App.,
286 S.W. 315.
Utah.— Ricks v. Wade, 93 P.2d 47$,
97 Utah 402.
Wash. — State v. Plummer, 226 P.
273, 130 Wash. 135.
33 C.J. p 1084 note 17.
In equity see Equity fi 175 b.
Extraterritorial service generally see
the C.J.S. title Process § 32, also
50 C.J. p 474 note 76~p 476 note
25.
Personal service out of state in lieu
of publication see the C.J.S. title
Process §§ 73, 74, also 50 C.J. P
542 note 80-p 545 note 54. ,
Courts exercise utmost care and
good faith in dealing with nonresi-
dents against whom personal judg-
ment is sought oh notice served out-
side state.— Fidelity & Casualty Co.
of New York v. Bank of Plymputh,
237 N.W. 234, 213 Iowa 1058.
84. U.S. — Pennoyer v. Nefl, Or., 95
U.S. 714, 24 L.Ed. 565.
Iowa.— Allen v. Allen, 298 N.W. 869,
230 Iowa 504, 136 A.L.R. 617.
33 C.J. p 1085 note 18.
Under "due process" clause see Con-
stitutional Law § 619.
85. Tex. — Becker v. Becker, Civ.
App., 218 S.W. 542— McCaulley v.
Western National Bank, Civ.App.f
173 S.W. 1000.
8& Cal.— Pinon v. Pollard, 158 P.2d
254, 69 Cal.App.2d 129.
111. — Barnett v. Cook County, 26 N.
E.2d 862, 373 111. 516.
33 C.J. p 1085 note 23.
By publication and mail
' Service of summons on a resident
of state absent therefrom by pub-
lication and mailing of copy of sum-
mons and complaint to defendant's
address outside the state did not
give court jurisdiction to enter mon-
ey judgment against defendant in
personal injury action. — Pinon v.
Pollard, 158 P.2d 254, 69 Cal.App.2d
169.
87. Neb.— Braun v. Quinn, 199 N.W.
828, 112 Neb. 485, 39 A.L.R. 411.
33 C.J. p 1085 note 27.
88. U.S.— Wilson v. •Seligman, Mo.,
12 S.Ct 541, 144 U.S. 41, 36 UEd.
338— McQuillen v. National Cash
Register Co.. C.C.A.Md., 112 F.2d
877, certiorari denied 61 S.Ct. 140,
311 U.S. 695, 85 L.Ed. 450, re-
hearing denied 61 S.Ct. 316, -311 U.
S. 729, 85 L.Ed. 474— McQuillen
v. Dillon, C.C.A.N.T., 98 F.2d 726,
certiorari denied 59 S.Ct 251, 305
U.S. 655, 83 L.Ed. 424— Oxley v.
Sweetlaud, C.C.A,W.Va., 94 F.2d
33— Chicago Joint -Stock Land
Bank v. Minnesota Loan & Trust
Co., C.C.A.Minn., 57 P.2d 70—
Beaver Board Cos. v. Imbrie, D.C.
N.T., 47 P.2d 271.
57
Ala.— Campbell v. State, 5 So.2d 466,
242 Ala. 215— Naff T. Fairfleld-
American Nat Bank, 165 So. 224,
231 Ala, 388.
Ark. — Sinclair Refining Co. v.
Bounds, 127 S.W.Sd 629, 198 Ark.
149— Gainsburg v. Dodge, 101 S.W.
2d 178, 193 Ark. 473.
D.C. — Densby v. Acacia Mut. Life
Ass'n, 78 P.2d 203, 64 App.D.C.
319, 101 A.L.R. 863.
Del.— Webb Packing Co. v. Harmon,
196 A. 158, 9 W.W.Harr. 22.
Ga. — Blount v. Metropolitan Life
Ins. Co., 9 S.E.2d 65, 190 Ga. 301
— I^in v. Nix, 7 S.E.2d 733, 189
Ga. 772— Coral Gables Corporation
v. Hamilton, 147 S.E. 494, 168 Ga.
182— Wyse'v. McKinney, 179 S.E.
860, 51 Ga-App. 204.
111. — Dunham v. Kauffman, 52 N.E.
2d 143, 385 lit 79. 154 A.L.R. 90.
Iowa. — McGaffin v. Helmts, 230 N.W.
532, 210 Iowa 108.
Ky.— Kitchen v. New Tork Trust
Co., 168 S.W.2d 5. 292 Ky. 706.
Md. — Employers' Liability Assur.
Corporation v. -Perkins, 181 A. 43$.
169 Md. 269.
Mass. — Harvey v. Fiduciary Trust
Co., 13 N.E.2d 299, 299 Mass. 457
— Durfee v. Durfee, 200 NJ33. 395,
293 Mass. 472— Schmidt v.
Schmidt, 182 N.E. 374, 280 Mass.
2-16— Kling v. McTaraahan. 178 N.
E. 8*1. 277 Mass. 886.
Mich. — -Stewart v. Eaton, 283 N.W.
651, 287 Mich. 466, 120 A.L.R. 1354.
N.M.— State ex rel. Truitt v. District
Court of Ninth Judicial Dist., Cur-
ry County, 96 P.3d 710, 44 N.M.
16, 126 A.L.R. 651.
N.T.— Jackson v. Jackson, 49 N.B.2d
988, 290 N.T. 512, 147 A.L.R. 668
—Geary v. Geary, 6 N.E.2d 67, 272
N.T, 330, 108 A.L.R. 1293— Gar-
fein v. Mdnnls, 162 N.E. 73, 248
N.T. 261— Kittredge v. Grannis,
155 N.E. 93, 244 N.T. 182— Stoltz
v. Stoltz, 238 N.T.S. 207, 1S5 Misc.
713— In re Auto Mut Indemnity
Co., 14 N.T.S.2d 601— Rodier v.
Fay, 7 N.T.S.2d 744.
N.C.—: Adams & Childers v. Parker
& Harrison, 138 S.E. 405, 194 N.
C. 48,
Tex.— Adam v. Saenger, Civ.App./
101 S.W.2d 1046, certiorari granted
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
iorized to accept service in his behalf,** or by his
voluntary appearance or submission to the jurisdic-
tion of the court,90 or by his otherwise waiving
lack of service or jurisdiction.91 A personal judg-
ment rendered without such service of process or
notice on the nonresident, or his voluntary appear-
ance or waiver, is void,92 even though he had
knowledge of the pendency of the action or pro-
58 S.Ct. 28, 302 U.S. 668, 82 L.
Ed. 515, reversed on other grounds
58 S.Ct. 454, 303 U.-S. 59, 82 L.Ed.
649, rehearing denied 58 S.Ct. 640,
303 U.S. 666, 82 L.Ed. 1123, cer-
tlorari denied Saenger v. Adam, 59
<3.Ct 832, 307 U.S. 628, 83 L.Ed.
1511— Steger v. Shofner, Civ.App.,
54 S.W.2d 1013— Flinn v. Krot2,
Civ.App., 293 S.W. 625.
Wyo. — Closson v. Closson, 215 P.
485, 30 Wyo. 1, 29 A.L.R. 1371.
33 C.J. p 1085 note 29, p 1086 note
33, p'l075 note 58.
Extraterritorial service as insuffi-
cient see supra subdivision d of
this section.
Joint defendants see infra S 83.
Jurisdiction of nonresidents gener-
ally see Courts §§ 88-87.
A state has power to provide for
notice of actions against nonresi-
dents found within its borders in
such manner as it may see fit and
to render personal judgments
against them based thereon, pro-
vided method employed gives rea-
sonable notice and affords fair op-
portunity to be heard before Issues
are decided. — Taplin v. Atwater, 8
N.E.2d 786, 297 Mass. 302.
Sufficiency of service
A nonresident defendant who is
served in person in commonwealth
with notice of pendency of action
warning defendant to appear and
show cause why judgment should
not be rendered against him is a
party to action so that a binding
personal judgment may be rendered
against him, since notice itself is
"process" within statute permitting
personal action to be maintained
against nonresident who has been
served with process in common-
wealth,—Taplin v. Atwater, 8
786, 297 Mass. 302.
Service anywhere in state mfflcient
La. — Roper v. Brooks, 9 3o.2d 485,
201 La. 135— Union City Transfer
v. Fields, App., 199 So. 206.
A0 against heirs
Where no personal judgment had
been obtained against nonresident
for lack of personal service within
state, complainants acquired no
greater rights against resident heirs
of nonresident where nonresident
died pending appeal— Commerce Un-
ion Bank v. Sharber, TennApp., 100
S,W.2d 243.
89. Ark.— Sinclair Refining Co. v.
Bounds, 127 S.W.2d 629, 198 Ark.
149.
Del.— Webb Packing Co. v. Harmon,
196 A. 158, 9 W.W.B3arr. 22.
La.— Mitchell v. Ernesto, App., 141
So. 818.
Md.— Employers' Liability Assur.
Corporation v. Perkins, 181 A.
436, 169 Md. 269.
Attorney's acknowledgment of serv-
ice
Ga.— Davis v. Davis, 21 S.E. 1002,
96 Ga. 136.
Notice to attorney, as required toy
statute
Ala. — Timmerman v. Martin, 176 So.
198, 234 Ala. 622.
Service on truck driver insufficient
Ark. — Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of
Southeast Arkansas v. O'Neal, 104
S.W.2d 808, 19-3 Ark. 1143.
9a U.S.— Wilson v. Seligman, Mo.,
12 S.Ct. 541, 144 U.S. 41, 36 L.
Ed. "338— McQuillen v. National
Cash Register Co., C.C.A.Md., 112
F.2d 877, certiorari denied 61 S.
Ct. 140, 311 U.S. 695, 85 L.Ed. 450,
rehearing denied 61 S.Ct 316, 311
U.S. 729, 85 L.Ed. 474— Oxley v.
Sweetland, C.C.A.W.Va., 94 F.2d
33 — Chicago Joint Stock Land
Bank v. Minnesota Loan & Trust
Co., aC.A.Minn., 57 F.2d 70.
Ala.— Naff v. Fairfleld-American Nat.
Bank, 165 So. 224, 231 Ala. 388
— Stoer v. Ocklawaha River Farms
Co., 138 So. 270, 223 Ala. 690.
Ark. — Gainsburg v. Dodge, 101 S.W.
2d 178, 193 Ark, 473.
Cal.— Pinon v. Pollard, App., 158 P.
2d 254.
Ga.— Fain v. Nix, 7 S.E.2d 733, 189
Ga. 772— Peeples v. Mullins, 168 S.
E. 785, 176 Ga. 743— Irons v.
American Nat Bank, 165 S.E. 738,
175 Ga. 552, followed in 165 S.E.
741, 175 Ga. 558— Coral Gables
Corporation v. Hamilton, 147 S.E.
494, 168 Ga. 182— Wyse v. McKin-
ney, 179 S.E. 860, 51 Ga.App. 204
— Rhodes v. Southern Flour &
Grain Co., 163 S.E. 237, 45 GaApp.
13.
Ky.— Kitchen v. New Tork Trust
Co., 168 S.W.2d 5, 292 Ky. 706—
Dean v. Stillwell, 145 S.W.2d 830,
284 Ky. 639.
Md.— Employers' Liability Assur.
Corporation v. Perkins, 181 A, 436,
169 Md. 269.
Mass.— Harvey v. Fiduciary Trust
Co., 13 N.E.2d 299, 299 Mass. 457
—Schmidt v. Schmidt 182 N.E.
374, 280 Mass. 216.
Mich.— Stewart v. Eaton, 283 N.W.
651, 287 Mich. 466, 120 A.L.R. 1354.
Mo.— Publicity Bldg. Realty Corpo-
ration v. Thpmann, 183 S.W.2d 69,
353 Mo. 493— Hoffman v. Mechan-
ics-American Nat. Bank of St
Louis, App., 287 S.W. 874.
N.T.-^Jackson v. Jackson, 49 N.E.2d
988, 290 N.T. 512, 147 A.L.R. 668
—Geary v. Geary, 6 N.E.2d 67,
58
272 N.T. 390, 108 AL.R. 1293—
Kittredge v. Grannis, 155 N.E. 93,
244 N.T. 182— Rodier v. Fay, 7 N.
T.S.2d 744.
N.C.— Southern Mills v. Armstrong,
27 S.E.2d 281, 2£3 N.C. 495, 148 A.
L.R. 1248— Bridger v. Mitchell, 121
S.E. 661, 187 N.C. 374.
Tex. — Adam v. Saenger, Civ.App., 101
S.W.2d 1046, certiorari granted 58
S.Ct. 28, 302 U.-S. 668, 82 L.Ed.
515, reversed on other grounds 58
S.Ct 454, 303 U.S. 59, 82 L.Ed. 649,
rehearing denied 58 S.Ct 640, 303
U.S. 666, 82 L.Bd. 1123, certiorari
denied Saenger v. Adams, 59 S.Ct.
832, 307 U.S. 628, 83 L.Ed. 1511
—Flinn v. Krotz, Civ App., 29«
S.W. 625.
33 C.J. p 1085 note 30, p 1086 note
33, p 1075 note 58.
Where nonresident defendant
represented by curator only and
there was no personal appearance,
no judgment could be rendered
against him. — Robinson v. U. S., D.
C.La,, 33 F.2d 545, reversed on other
grounds, C.C.A., U. S. v. Robinson,
40 F.2d 14.
Special appearance
If defendant appearing specially
was nonresident at time of service
of writ no judgment could be ren-
dered against him. — Bay State
Wholesale Drug Co. v. Whitman, 182
N.E. 361, 280 Mass. 188.
Judgment on cross demand may
be rendered against a nonresident
plaintiff submitting to the juris-
diction of the court by the institu-
tion of the suit.— Andrews v. White-
head, Tex.Civ.App., 60 S.W. 800.
93* U.S.— Wilson v. Seligman, Mo.,
12 S.Ct. 541, 144 U.S. 41, 36 L.
Ed. 338.
Ga.— Blount v. Metropolitan Life
Ins. Co., 9 S.E.2d 65, 190 Ga. 301
— Coral Gables Corporation v.
Hamilton, 147 S.E. 494, 168 Ga.
182.
Md.— Employers' Liability Assur.
Corporation v. Perkins, 181 A. 436,
169 Md. 269.
33 C.JT. p 1086 note 34.
92. U.S.— Commonwealth of Ken-
tucky, for Use and Benefit of Kern
v. Maryland Casualty Co. of Bal-
timore, Md., C.C.A.Ky., 112 F.2d
352 — Beaver Board Cos. v. Imbrie,
D.C.N.T., 47 F.2d 271.
Ala.— Ex parte Luther, 168 So. 59 6,
232 Ala. 518— Ex parte Halsten,
149 So. 213, 227 Ala, 183— Ex parte
Cullinan, 139 So. 255, 224 Ala. 263,
81 A.L.R. 160— Stoer v. Ocklawaha
River Farms Co., 138 So. 270, 223
Ala. 690.
Del.— Hall v. Trans-Lux Daylight
49 C J. S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 24
ceeding.93 It has been held that the fact that de-
fendant is domiciled within the state does not jus-
tify the rendition of a judgment in personam against
him, where the only service of process is by publi-
cation, and he is without the territorial limits of the
state and does not appear.94
Constructive or substituted service alone, will not
support a personal judgment against a nonresi-
dent,95 unless he can be deemed to have assented to
such -mode of service.96, A statute purporting to
authorize a judgment against nonresidents on con-
structive or extraterritorial service has been held
to that extent unconstitutional and void.97 Flow-
ever, it has been held that constructive service, as
by publication, will give the court such jurisdiction
over a nonresident that its judgment, although not
Picture Screen Corporation, 171
A. 226, 20 Del.Ch. 78.
Ga. — Ford v. Southern Ry. Co., 125
S.E. 479, 33 Ga.App. 24.
La. — Krotz Springs Oil & Mineral
Water Co. v. Shirk, 116 So. 488,
165 La. 1005.
Mass. — Commissioner of Banks v.
Cosmopolitan Trust Co., 148 N.B.
609, 253 Mass. 205, 41 A.L.R. 658.
Miss.— Hume v. Inglis, 122 So. 535,
154 Miss. 481.
N.T. — Sweeney v. National Assets
Corporation, 246 N.T.S. 315, 139
Misc. 223.
N.C.— Bizzell v. Mitchell, 142 S.E.
706, 195 N.C. 484— Bridger v.
Mitchell, 121 S.E. 661, 187 N.C.
374.
Tex. — Hicks v. -Sias, Civ.App., 102 S.
W.2d 460, error refused — Steger
v. Shofner, Civ.App., 54 S.W.2d
1013.
"A person residing outside the
state is not required to come within
its borders and submit his contro-
versy to its courts because of notice
of the suit at the place of his resi-
dence, and an ordinary personal
judgment for money, invalid for
want of service amounting to due
process of law, Is as ineffective in
as outside the state." — Common-
wealth of Kentucky, for Use and
Benefit of Kern v. Maryland Casu-
alty Co. of Baltimore, McU, C.C.A.
Ky., 112 P.2d 352, 555.
Judgment on cross petition against
nonresident defendants, where no
process was issued on cross petition,
is void.
Ky. — Carter v, Capshaw, 60 S.W.2d
959, 249 Ky. 483.
Tex. — Adam v. Saenger, Civ.App.,
101 S.W.2d 1046, reversed on oth-
er grounds 58 S.Ct. 454, 303 U.S.
59, 82 L.Ed. 649, rehearing denied
58 S.Ct 640, 303 U.S. 666, 82 L.Ed.
1123, certiorari denied Saenger v.
Adam, 59 'S.Ct. 832, 307 U.S. 628,*
83 L.Ed. 1511.
Unauthorized appearance l>y attor-
ney
Appearance of attorney for non-
resident does not give court juris-
diction over nonresident, and per-
sonal Judgment obtained against
nonresident is void ab initio, if ap-
pearance was unauthorized.
N.T. — Amusement Securities Corpo-
ration v. Academy Pictures Dis-
tributing Corporation, 295 N.Y.S.
436, 251 App.Div. 227, affirmed 294
N.T.S. 305, 250 App.Div. 710 and
294 N.T.S. 306, 250 App.Div. 710,
motions denied 295 N.T.S. 472, 250
App.Div. 749, affirmed 13 N.E.2d
471, 277 N.T. 557, reargument de-
nied 14 N.E.2d 383, 277 N.T. 672.
Okl.— Hatfleld v. Lewis, 236 P. 611,
110 Okl. 98.
93. Mich.— Stewart v. Baton, 283 N.
W. 651, 287 Mich. 466, 120 A.L.R.
1354.
94. Cal. — De La Montanya v. De La
Montanya, 44 P. -345, 112 CaL 101,
53 Am.S.R. 165, 82 L.R.A. 82.
Or. — Laughlin v. Hughes, 89 P.2d
568, 161 Or. 295.
95. U.S. — Warmsprings Irr. Dist v.
May, C.C.A.Or., 117 F.2d 802— Mc-
Quillen v. Dillon, C.C.A.N.T., 98
F.2d 726, certiorari denied 59 S.Ct
251, 305 U.S. 655, 83 L.Ed. 424—
Hamilton Michelsen Groves Co. v.
Penney, C.C.A.Fla., 58 F.2d 761—
Campbell v. City of Hickman, D.
C.Ky., 45 F.Supp. 517.
Cal. — Comfort v. Comfort, 112 P.2d
259, 17 Cal.2d 736— Glaston v.
Glaston, 160 P.2d 45, 69 Cal.App.2d
787, certiorari denied 66 S.Ct 484
— Pinon v. Pollard. 158 P.2d 254,
69 Cal.App.2d 129.
Fla. — Newton v. Bryan, 194 So. 282,
142 Fla. 14— Harris Inv. Co. v.
Hood, 167 So. 25, 123 Fla. 598.
Ga. — Hirsch v. Northwestern Mut.
Life Ins. Co., 13 S.E.2d 165, 191
Ga. 524 — Corpus Juris quoted in
Webb & Martin v. Anderson-Mc-
Griff Hardware Co., 3 S.E.2d 882,
885, 188 Ga. 291— Peoples v. Mul-
lins, 168 S.E. 785, 176 Ga. 743—
Edwards Mfg. Co. v. Hood, 145 S.
B. 87, 167 Ga. 144— Ford v. South-
ern Ry. Co., 125 S.E. 479, 33 Ga.
App. 24.
111. — Bank of Edwardsville v. Raf-
faelle, 45 N.E.2d 651, 381 111. 486,
144 A.L.R. 401— Barnett v. Cook
County, 26 N.E.2d 862, 373 111.
516 — Griffin v. Cook County, 16
N.E.2d 906, 369 HI. 380, 118 A.L.R.
1157— Austin v. Royal League, 147
N.E. 106, 316 111. 188.
Ind. — Pattison v. Grant Trust & Sav-
ings Co., 144 N.E. 26, 195 Ind. 813.
Ky.— Dean v. Stillwell, 145 S.W.2d
830, 284 Ky. 639.
Miss. — Hume v. Inglis, 122 So. 535,
154 Miss. 481.
Mo.— "HoflCuaan v. Mechanics- Am gri-
59
can Nat Bank of St Liouis, App.,
287 S.W. 874.
Nev.— Perry v. Edmonds, 84 P.2d 711,
59 Nev. 60.
N.T.— Kellogg v. Kellogg, 203 N.T.
S. 757, 122 Misc. 734.
N.C.— Southern Mills v. Armstrong,
27 S.E.2d 281, 223 N.C. 495, 143
A.L.R. 1248— Bridger v. Mitchell,
121 S,E. 661, 187 N.C. 374.
Okl.— Royal Neighbors of America v
Fletcher, 227 P. 426, 99 Okl. 297.
Or.— Laughlin v. Hughes, 89 P.2d
568, 161 Or. 295.
Pa.— Atlantic Seaboard Natural Gas
Co. v. Whitten. 173 A. 305, 315 Pa.
529, 93 A.L.R. 615— Hughes V.
Hughes, 158 A. 874, 306 Pa, 75.
Tenn. — Lawson v. American Laundry
Machinery Co.. 54 S.W.2d 712, 165
Tenn. ISO — Commerce Union Bank
v. Sharber, 100 S.W.2d 243, 20
Tenn. App. 451.
Tex. — Steger v. Shofner, Civ.App.f 54
S.W.2d 1013— First Nat. Bank v.
C. H. Meyers & Co., Civ.App., 283
S.W. 265 — People's Guaranty State
Bank v. Hill, Civ.App., 256 S.W.
683.
Wis.— Riley v. State Bank of De
Pere, 269 S.W. 722, 223 Wis. 16.
Wyo. — Fremont Consol. Oil Co. v.
Anderson, 12 P.2d 369, 44 Wyo.
313.
33 C.J. p 1085 note 31.
Service by registered mail insuffi-
cient
Ala.— Campbell v. State, 5 So.2d 466,
242 Ala. 215.
Miss. — Cudahy Packing Co. v. Smith,
2 So.2d 347, 191 Miss. 31.
Contractual rights cannot* be liti-
gated cm constructive notice against
nonresidents. — McKleroy v. Dishxnan,
142 So. 41, 225 Ala. 131.
On cross bill
A cross bill stands as original suit
after dismissal of original bill, so
that judgment thereon against non-
resident on notice only by publicar
tion is void. — Lawson v. American
Laundry Machinery Co., 54 S.W.2d
712, 165 Tenn. 180.
96. . Fla.— Newton v. Bryan, 194 So.
282, 142 Fla. 14.
97. U.S.— Cella Commn. Co. v. Boh-
linger, Ark., 147 F. 419, 78 C.CJL
467, 8 L.R.A.,N.S.,.637.
33 C.J. p 1086 note 35.
Under "due process" clause see Con-
stitutional Law § 619,
§ 24
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
enforceable beyond the state, may be satisfied out
of any property of defendant found within the
state,98 and within the jurisdiction of the court,"
and to that extent he is bound by the judgment,
provided all the precedent proceedings relating to
such service strictly conform to the law.1 Never-
theless, the generally prevailing rule is that a per-
sonal judgment against a nonresident rendered on
constructive service is void for all purposes, even
within the state where it has been rendered,2 un-
less defendant appears,8 or unless specific property
within the state has been attached, and thus sub-
jected to the jurisdiction of the court.4 Where nei-
ther person nor property of a nonresident is found
within the state, a judgment with respect to the
rights or obligations of the nonresident is without
jurisdiction and wholly void.5
f . Attachment and Garnishment
A valid Judgment in person am may be rendered
against a defendant In an action begun by attachment
or garnishment only where he has been personally served
with process within the territorial Jurisdiction of the
court or has voluntarily appeared and submitted to Its
Jurisdiction.
Where jurisdiction of an action is acquired by
attachment or garnishment of defendant's property
or credits, although the property or credits so at-
tached or garnished may be subjected to, and bound
by, a judgment rendered in such action, as a judg-
ment in rem, or quasi in rem, as discussed infra §§
908, 911, a valid general judgment in personam may
be rendered against defendant only where he has
been personally served with process,6 or where he
voluntarily appears in the action and thus subjects
himself to the jurisdiction of the court,7 as where
he files a forthcoming or replevy bond.8 Under
some statutes, if defendant is about to remove the
property from the state with the intent to hinder
or delay creditors, arid all the parties are before
the court, a personal judgment may be rendered
98. Ala.— Turnipseed v. Blan, 148
So. 116, 226 Ala, 649.
Tex. — People's Guaranty State Bank
v. Hill, Civ.App., 256 S.W. 683.
33 O.J. p 1086 note 36.
Ownership of notes and checks
follows domicile of their owner, and
the notes and checks do not con-
stitute "money" or "effects" with
situs independent of owner's domi-
cile.— Steger v. Shofner, TexiCiv.
App., 54 S.W.2d 1013,
99. Ind.— Clark v. Clark, 172 N.E.
* 124, 202 Ind. 104,
Tenn. — Commerce Union Bank v.
Sharber, 100 S.W.2d 243, 20 Tenn.
App. 451.
Tex.— Wilson v. Beck, Civ. App., 286
S.W. 315.
Wyo. — Fremont Consol. Oil Co. v.
Anderson, 12 P.2d 369, 44 Wyo.
313.
1. Miss.— Mercantile Acceptance
Corporation v. Hedgepeth, 112 So.
872, 147 Miss. 717.
33 O.J. p 1088 note 57.
2. N.T.— Geary v. Geary, 6 N.E.2d
67, 272 N.Y. 300, 108 A.L.R. 1293—
Forster v. Forster, 46 N.Y.S.2d
320, 182 Misc. 382.
33 C.J. p 1087 note 37.
& N.Y. — Forster v. Forster, supra.
3* C.J. p 1087 note 38.
4L U.S. — Pexmoyer v. Nefl, Or., 95
S.Ct 714, 24 L..Ed. 565— Heyde-
mann v. Westinghouse Electric
Mfg. Co., C.C.A.N.Y., 80 F.2d 837.
Ariz.— Porter v. Duke, 270 -P. 625,
34 Ariz. 217.
Mass. — Roberts v. Anheuser Busch
Brewing Ass'n, 102 N.E. 8' 16, 215
Mass. 341.
K.Y.— Haase T. Michigan Steel Boat
Co., 132 N.Y.S. 1046, 148 AppJDiv.
298, appeal dismissed 104 NJE.
1131, 210 N.Y. 602— Forster v.
Forster, 46 N.Y.S.2d 320, 182 Misc.
382/
N.C.— Adams & Childers v. Packer &
Harrison, 138 S.E. 405, 194 N.C. 48.
Judgment in action begun by at-
tachment or garnishment general-
ly see infra subdivision f of this
section.
Judgment held void, on service by
publication, after attachment of sup-
posed interest in realty, which did
not in fact exist. — Matthews v, Cur-
tis, 151 N.E. 778, 20 Ohio App. 209.
After dissolution of the attach,
ment, there can be no judgment
against defendant, where the juris-
diction in attachment was obtained
by constructive service only. — Theo.
Ascher Co, v, Dougherty, 114 S.W.
1111, 134 Mo.App. 511.
5. Ariz. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Smith v. Normart, 75 P.2d 38, 41,
51 Ariz. 134.
33 C.J. p 1087 note 41.
a Ala. — Oliver v. Klnney, 56 So.
203, 173 Ala. 593.
Ariz. — Brown v. First Nat. Bank of
Winslow, 129 P.2d 664, 59 Ariz.
392.
Fla. — Johnson v. Clark, 193 So. 842,
145 Fla. 258.
Ga. — Collins v. Southern Finance
Corporation, 180 S.E. 744, 51 Ga.
App. 400.
111.— Bloom v. Kahl, 255 Ill.App. 456.
Xja. — Silvennan v. Grinnell, 115 So.
789, 165 La. 587.
K.Y.— Swedosh v. Belding Hosiery
Mills, 6 N.Y.S.2d 532, 168 Misc.
673.
Okl. — Davies v. Thompson, 160 P. 75,
61 Okl. 21, L.BJL1917B 395.
Tex. — 'Big Four Shoe Stores Co. v.
Ludlaaa, O.V.APP., 63 S.W.2d-8S5.
60
Va. — Maryland Casualty Co. v. Par-
rish, 143 S.E. 7.50, 150 Va. 473.
33 C.J. p 1088 notes 4§, 51 — 6 C.J. p
473 note 43.
Process or:
Appearance in garnishment pro-
ceeding generally see Garnish-
ment § 123.
Notice in main action In general
see Attachment 5§ 482-490.
Judgment for excess
In order to warrant recovery In
attachment proceeding exceeding
value of property impounded by
writ, there must be valid personal
service of summons. — Purnell v.
Morton Live Stock Co., 1 S.W.2*
1013, 156 Tenn. 383.
Statutory notice to, and service
on, defendant In attachment take
place of process and service in com-
mon-law actions, both of which sub-
ject him personally to court's juris-
diction and render him liable to
judgment binding all his property. —
Peacock v. J. L Case Co., 162 S.BL
30G, 44 GaJLpp. 499.
7. Ala. — Oliver v. Kinney, 56 So.
203, 173 Ala, 593.
Ga. — Collins v. Southern Finance
Corporation, 180 S.E. 744, 51 Ga.
App. 400.
Va. — Maryland Casualty Co. v. Par-
rish, 143 S.E. 750, 150 Va. 473.
33 C.J. p 1088 note 5-3— 6 OJ. p 478
notes 12, 13.
8. Ga. — Collins v. -Southern Finance
Corporation, ISO S.E. 744, 61 Ga.
App. 400— Blakely Milling A Trad-
Ing Co. v. Thompson, 128 S.E. 688,
34 Ga.App. 129— HensJey v. Mine-
han, 114 S.E. 647, 29 Ga.App. 251.
33 CJ. p 1088 note 53 [d], [e].
Effect of filing bond on right to pro-
ceed to judgment see Attachment
5 313 b (3).
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
against him without the issuance of new process.9
Nonresidents. The same rules apply where de-
fendant in such an action is a nonresident; a val-
id personal judgment may be rendered against him
only where he has been personally served with
process, within the jurisdiction of the court,10 or
has voluntarily appeared and submitted to the ju-
risdiction of the court,11 or acknowledges service
of the writ and waives the benefit of the statutes
respecting absent defendants ;12 and, in the absence
of such service or appearance, a judgment although
expressed in general terms will be effective only
against the property so attached, as discussed infra
§§ 908, 911. It cannot be made the basis of further
proceedings in personam against defendant.13
g. Defective Process
A Judgment is void if it is based on a process which
is so radlcaliy defective as to be equivalent to no proc-
ess; but may be merely voidable if the defect is a mere-
irregularity which does not prevent the process from
constituting legal notice to defendant.
A judgment is void where it is based on process
which is so radically defective as to be equivalent to
no process,14 and this rule applies with respect to-
such a defect in the issuance of an alias or pluries
writ.15 A defective process, however, may be suf-
ficient to constitute legal notice and support the
judgment,16 and if the process, although imperfect
or irregular in some particulars, is sufficiently com-
plete to constitute a legal notice to defendant, and
to inform him of the essential facts he is entitled to
know, the consequent judgment is not void,17 par-
9. Ark.— Hutchison v. First Nat.
Bank, 24$ S.W. 484, 156 Ark. 142.
10. Ga.— Chastain v. Alford. 20 S.E.
2d 150, 67 Ga.App. 316.
Idaho.— Sunderlln v. Warner, 246 P.
1. 42 Idaho 479.
111.— Hogue v. Corbit, 41 N.E. 219,
156 111. 540, 47 Am.S.R. 232.
Iowa. — Darrah v. Watson, 86 Iowa
116.
La.— -Pelican Well & Tool Supply Co.
v. Johnson, 195 So. 514, 194 La.
987 — Latham v. Glasscock, 108 So.
1"00, 160 La. 1089 — Whitney Central
Trust & Savings Bank v. Norton,
102 So. 306, 157 La. 199.
Miss.— Sellers v. Powell, 152 So. 492,
168 Miss. 682 — Clark v. Louisville
& N. R. Co., 130 So. 302, 158 Miss.
287.
Mo.— State ex reL Ferrocarriles Na-
clonales Be Mexico v. Rutledge, 56
S.W.2d 28, 331 Mo. 1015, 85 A.L.R.
1375, certiorari denied Ferrocar-
riles Nacionales De Mexico v. Rut-
ledge, 53 S.Ct. 689, 289 U.S. 746,
77 L.Bd. 1492.
Tex. — Colby v. McClendon, dv.App.,
116 S.W.2d 505.
83 C.J. p 1089 note 59.
Judgment not "personal"
In action on note and open ac-
count accompanied by on attach-
ment of land of nonresident defend-
ant, Judgment ordering sale of the
attached property and appropriation
of the proceeds to payment of the
debt sued on was not erroneous as
a "personal judgment" against the
nonresident— Hall v. Bradley, 160
S.W.2d 641, 290 Ky. 120.
Where garnishment is filed against
resident garnishee, the court ac-
quires jurisdiction over the gar
nlshee and the nonresident defend-
ant to the extent of the value of the
property in the hands of the garoi-
shee, and the court may then pro
ceed to a trial of the issues, and i
court finds that the gaxnishee is <nof
indebted to defendant, power of th
ourt further to proceed against de-
endant is ended.— Colby v. McClen-
don, Tex.Civ.App., 116 S.W.2d 505.
.„ Del.— Teatman v. Ward, Super.,
36 A.2d (855.
Ga. — Chastain v. Alford, 20 S.E.2d
150, 67 Ga.App. 316.
ni.— Kerr v. Swallow, 33 111. 379.
Miss.— Sellers v. Powell, 152 So. 492,
168 Miss. 682— Clark v. Louisville
& N. R. Co., 130 So. 302, 158 Miss.
287.
Tex.— Minero v. Ross, Civ.App., 138
S.W. 224.
Special appearance
Nonresident defendant's appear-
ance for sole purpose of dissolving
attachment, if sustained, defeats
court's Jurisdiction.— Adams v. Ross
Amusement Co., 161 So. 601, 182 La.
252.
12. Mass. — Richardson v. Smith, 11
Allen 134.
18. U.S.— Salmon Falls Mfg. Co. v.
Midland Tire & Rubber Co., C.C.A.
Ohio, 285 F. 214.
33 C.J. p 1089 note 60.
14. Fla.— Seaboard All-Florida Ry.
v. Leavitt, 141 So, 886, 105 Fla.
600.
Ky.— Richardson v. Webb, 185 S.W.
2d 861, 281 Ky. 201.
La. — Dickey v. Pollock, App., 183 So.
48— 'Longino v. Home Ins. Co. of
New York, 138 So. 687, 18 La.App.
680.
tf.Y.— Greater New York Export
House v. Hurtig, 267 N.Y.S. 173
2139 App.Div. 183, appeal dismissed
Greater New York Export House
v. Peirson, 196 N.E. 290, 265 N.Y
500.
S.D.— Corpus Jtols quoted in Jacobs
v. Queen Ins. Co. of America, 213
N.W. 14, 51 S.D. 249.
Tex.— Wise v. Southern Rock Islanc
Plow Co.. Civ.App., 85 S.W.2d 257
—Cheshire v. Palmer, Civ.App., 44
S.W.2d 438— Ross v. Sechrist, Civ
App., 275 S.W. 287— Lepp v. Ward
61
County Water Improvement Dist.
No. 2, Civ.App., 257 S.W. 916.
3 C.J. p 1090 note 67—34 C.J. p 5S&
notes 45, 46.
Fatal defects
(1) Failure to state the time and
lace for defendant's appearance. —
Venetsianos v. Tamasoff, 197 A. 885,
W.W.Harr., Del., 180—33 C.J. P
090 note 67 [b] (14).
(2) Making return day an impos-
sible date. — Empire Gas & Fuel Co.
'. Albright, 87 $.W.2d 1092, 126 Tex.
485—33 C.J. p 1090 note 67 [b] (1).
(3) Omission or misstatement of
date of filing of petition, as required
by statute. — Wise v. Southern Rock
Island Plow Co., Tex.Civ.App., 85 S.
W.2d 257— State v. Buckholts State
Bank, Tex.Civ.App., 193 S.W. 730.
(4) Requiring appearance on a day
subsequent to the date of the ren-
dition of the Judgment. — Moore v.
Smith, 15 S.B.2d 48, 177 Va. 621.
(5) Other fatal defects see 88 C-
J. p 1090 note 67 [bj.
15. Mich.— Rood v. McDonald, 7 N.
W.2d 95, <303 Mich. 634.
o. — Weaver v. Woodling, 272 S.W* '
373, 220 Mo.App. 970.
16. Tenru — Corpus Juris cited in
Hunter v. May, 25 S.W.2d 580, 581,
161 Tenn. 155.
17- Iowa, — Swan v. McGowan, 231
N.W. 440, 212 Iowa 631.
Minn. — Peterson v. W. Davis & Sons,
11 N.W.2d 800,. 216 Minn. 60.
N.C.— Nail v. McConnell, • 190 S.B.
210, 211 N.C. 258.
Oti. — Texas Title Guaranty Co. Y-
Mardis, 98 P.2d 598, 186 Okl. 433.
Tex. — Rhoads v. Daly General Agen-
cy, Civ.App., 152 S.W.2d 461—
Weaver v. Garrietty, Civ.App., 84
S.W.2d 878.
33 C.J. P 1091 note 68—34 C.J. p 534
note 43.
As not subject to collateral attack
see infra § 422.
§24
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
ticularly where defendant has waived such defects
in the process.** Although there is also authority
to the contrary,1* it has been held that the omission
of a proper seal from the process, or the use of an
improper seal, merely renders the judgment defec-
tive, and not void,20 particularly where service has
teen accepted and defendant has voluntarily ap-
peared.21
Designation of parties. Process which is radical-
ly defective with respect to the designation of the
names of the parties,** either plaintiff** or defend-
ant,24 will not support a judgment. On the other
hand, the validity of the judgment is not affected
by an inaccuracy in the designation of a party in
Opening and vacating Judgment for
defects in process see infra S 267.
•The object of "smnanons" is to
apprise defendant that plaintiff
seeks judgment against defendant,
and, when defendant is apprised of
such fact and summons does not so
far vary from the statutory form
as to deprive defendant of any sub-
stantial right the court acauires ju-
risdiction to render judgment,—
Barth v. Owens, 35 N.T.S.2d 632, 178
Misc. 628.
Errors or defects not fatal
(1) As to return day.
Ark.— United Order of Good Samar-
itans v. Brooks. 270 S.W. 955, 168
Ark. 570.
Okl.— Jones v. Standard Lumber Co.,
249 P. 343, 121 Okl. 186.
33 C.J. p 1091 note 68 [b].
(2) Erroneous direction to wrong
sheriff, who by indorsement on sum-
mons appointed sheriff to whom It
•should have been directed, and was
properly served by latter sheriff.—
Whiteker v. First Nat Bank, 231 P.
691, 32 Wyo. 288.
(3) Misnaming the county seat of
•county in which action was filed. —
Tyler Boat Works v. Schreiner, 153
P.2d 1004, 194 Okl. 601.
(4) Other errors or defects not
fatal see 33 C.J. P 1091 note 68 [a].
•Mutilation of record
Where summons was properly ls-
.sued and served and made returna-
'ble to a term subsequent to the
service, the unauthorized act of some
•one after final judgment in mutilat-
ing the record so as to indicate that
It was returnable to a prior term,
•could not deprive the court of juris-
diction or render the judgment in-
valid.—Henneke v. Strack, Mo.App.,
101 S.W.2d 74*.
13. N.C.— Moseley v. Deans, 24 S.B.
2d 630, 222 N.C. 781.
•General appearance as waiver of de-
fects In process see Appearances S
17.
Time for objections for defects in
process, and waiver or cure there-
the process if the real party intended is not misled
thereby.25 With regard to misnomer, it has been
held that if process is really served on the person
intended to be sued, although a wrong name is given
him in the writ and return, and he suffers a de-
fault, or omits to plead the misnomer in abatement
he is bound by the judgment rendered against him.26
A similar rule applies in the case of a misnomer of
plaintiff.27
h. Defective Service
A judgment bashed on a service of process which
is so defective as to amount to no service at all, has
been held void. If, however, the service, although de-
fective, Is sufficient to give the defendant notice of the
Baker, Bccles & Co., 173 S.W. 109,
162 Ky. 683, L.B.A.1917C 171— War-
rick v. McCormick, 150 S.W. 1027,
150 Ky. 800.
25. Okl. — Glenn v. Prentice, 12 P.2d
170, 158 Okl. 73.
Tex.— Gillette Motor Transport Co.
v. Whitfield, Civ.App., 160 S.W.2d
290 — Belknap Hardware & Mfg.
Co. v. Ughtfoot, Civ.App., 75 S.W.
2d 481 — Beaumont, S. Lu & W. R.
Co. v. Daniel, Civ.App., 186 S.W.
383.
Designating- defendant toy trade,
name rather than real name. —
Belknap Hardware & Mfg. Co. v.
Lightfoot, 75 S.W.2d 481.
of, see the C.J.S. title Process §
113, also 50 C.J. P 595 note 50-
p 599 -note 4.
19. Ark.— Woolford v. Dugan, 2
Ark. 131.
Tex. — Line v. Cranfall, Civ.App., 37
S.W. 184.
33 C.J. p 1090 note 67 [c].
20. Ark. — Oliver v. Routh, 184 S.W.
84'3, 123 Ark. 189— Rudd v. Thomp-
son, 22 Ark. 363.
BTa. — Benedict v. W. T. Hadlow Co.,
42 So. 239, 52 Fla. 188.
Tex.— Rhoads v. Daly General Agen-
cy, Civ.App., 152 S.W.2d 461.
34 C.J. P 534 note 43 [f].
21. N.C.— Moseley v. Deans, 24 S.B.
2d 630, 222 N.C. 731.
22. Tex.— Delaware Western Constr.
Co. v. Farmers' & Merchants' Nat
Bank of Gilmer, 77 S.W. 628, 33
TeX.Civ.App. 658.
33 C.J. p 1090 note 67 [e].
Designation of parties in process
generally see the C.J.S. title Proc-
ess § 15, also 50 C.J. p 458 note 36
-p 459 note 49.
23. Fla. — Western Union Telegraph
Co. v. Hiscock, 96 So. 407, 85 Fla.
480.
N.Y.— Durst v. Ernst, 91 N.T.S. 13,
45 Misc. 627.
SS C.J. P 1090 note 67 [gL
24. Mass.— F. H. Hill & Co. v. Doe,
189 N.B. 583, 286 Mass. 187.
Tex. — Maier v. Davis, Civ.App., 72
S.W.2d 308.
W.Va.— New Eagle Gas Coal Co. v.
Burgess, 111 S.E. 508, 90 W.Va,
541.
33 C.J. P 1090 note 67 [f], [h], [13.
p 1092 note 72 [a].
Warning order
An affidavit for a warning order
in a verified petition, alleging that
defendant was a nonresident and giv-
ing his postoffice address, but not al-
leging a belief that he was then
absent from the state, does not war-
rant the issuance of a warning or-
der, and a judgment rendered there-
on is void.— Leonard v. Williams, 265
S.W. 618, 205 Ky. 218— Baker v.
62
26. Colo. — Van Buren v. Posteraro,
102 P. 1067, 45 Colo. 588, 132 Am.
S.R. 199.
111.— Feld v. Loftis, 88 N.E. 281, 240
111. 105.
Mo. — Kronski v. Missouri Pac. R.
Co., 77 Mo. 362.
Neb. — Jones v. Union Pac. R. Co.,
120 N.W. 946, 84 Neb. 121.
N.Y.— Morison v. Laing, 117 N.T.S.
416, 132 App.Div. 689.
Tex. — Adams v. Consolidated Under-
writers, 124 S.W.2d 840, 133 Tex.
26— Abilene Telephone & Tele- •
graph Co. v. Williams, 229 S.W.
847, 111 Tex, 102— McGhee v. Ro-
matka, 45 S.W. 552, 92 Tex. 38—
Maier v.- Davis, Civ.App., 72 S.W.
2d 308.
33 C.J. p 1092 note 72.
Xa future litigation, defendant may
be connected with the judgment by
proper averments, which, when made
and proved, conclude such person to
the same extent as though he had
been named and served in his true
name.
Neb.— Jones v. Union Pac. R. Co.,
120 NJW. 946, 84 Neb. 121.
x. — Adams v. Consolidated Under-
writers, 124 S.W.2d 840, 133 Tex.
26.
27. Mass.— U, S. National Bank v.
Venner, 52 N.E. 543, 172 Mass. 449.
33 C.J. p 1092 note 73.
49 O.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§2*
action or proceeding, a Judgment bated thereon has been
held merely voidable.
Where the service of process on a defendant is
so defective as to amount to no service at all, a
judgment based thereon has been held to be void,28
notwithstanding he had knowledge of the suit29 A
judgment against defendant is void, in the absence
of appearance, where it is based on the service of
process on another than defendant, the person
named in the process,80 although the person served
bears the same name.31 A judgment has also been
held void where the service of process on a non-
resident, within the jurisdiction of the court, was
obtained by fraud, as where he was induced by
fraud to come within the jurisdiction of the court,
where he was .served with process.82 A judgment
is also void where process directed to the sheriff
of one county was served by the sheriff of another
county.88
A defective service, however, may be sufficient to
constitute legal notice and support a judgment.8*
If the service is merely irregular, but actually gives
defendant notice of the action or proceeding, a
judgment based thereon has been held not void,
but at most merely voidable,85 as where there is a
mere defect or irregularity as to the time of serv-
ice86 or in failing to serve a copy of the com-
plaint;87 and, moreover, the judgment is 'not even
voidable if the defect or irregularity has been
waived.88
Substituted or constructive service. In accord-
ance with the rule requiring the statutory provi-
sions relating to substituted or constructive service-
of process to be strictly applied, unless defendant
has appeared or pleaded in the case89 a judgment
has been held void where it is based on substituted
or constructive service, or service by publication,
which is not mads in strict compliance with the
essential statutory requirements relating thereto,4(>
provided, under some statutes, the failure to com-
28. Fla. — State ex reL Gore v. Chil-
lingworth, 171 So. 649, 126 Fla,
645.
Ga. — Rhodes v. Southern Flour &
Grain Co., 163 S.E. 237, 45 Ga.App.
13.
111. — Sunbeam Heating Co. v. Cham-
bers, 53 N.E.2d 294, 321 Jll.App.
629.
La. — Fullilove v. Central State Bank,
107 So. 590, 160 La. 831— Quinn v.
O'Neil, 121 So. 377, 10 La.App. 121.
Mo. — Coerver v. Crescent Lead &
Zinc Corporation, 286 S.W. 3, 315
Mo. 276.
33 C.J. p 1092 note 76—34 C.J. p 685
note 47.
Opening- or vacating Judgment for
defective service see infra § 267.
Defects of service held fatal
(1) Service by deputy sheriff be-
yond territorial confines of his own
parish.— Adams v. Citizens' Bank,
1*6 So. 107, 17 La.App. 422.
(2) Service on nonresident suitors
and witnesses in attendance on trial
and immune from process. — North-
western Casualty & Surety Co. v.
Conaway, 230 N.W. 548, 210 Iowa
126, 68 A.L.R. 1465.
(3) Other fatal defects and irreg-
ularities of service see 83 C.J. p 1093
note 77.
Judgment merely voidable
It has been held that a judgment
of a court of general jurisdiction
is merely voidable, where service
has not been obtained in the re-
quired manner, or defendant has
been denied day in court by lack of
proper service. — Lynch v. Collins,
233 P. 709, 106 Okl. 133.
29. 111. — Sunbeam Heating Co. v.
. Chambers, 53 NJS3.2d 294, 321 111.
App. 629.
Ohio.— Haley v. Hanna, 112 NJB. 149,
93 Ohio St. 49.
30. U.S.— Elliott v. Holmes, C.C.I11.,
8 F.Cas.No.4,392, 1 McLean 466.
Cal. — Adams & Co. v. Town, 3 Cal.
247.
Tex.— Barnett v. Tayler, 30 Tex. 453
— Booth v. Holmes, 2 TexUnrep.
Gas. 232.
31. Tex. — State Mortgage Corpora-
tion v. Traylor, 36 S.W.2d 440,
120 Tex. 148.
32. U.S. — Wyman v. Newhouse. C.C.
A.N.Y., 93 F.2d 313, 115 A.L.R.
460, certiorari denied 58 S.Ct 831,
303 U.S. 664, 82 LJSd. 1122.
Iowa,— Miller v. Acme Feed, 293 N.
W. 637, 228 Iowa 861.
33. Ga,— W. T. Rawleigh Co. v.
Greenway, 26 S.E.2d 458, 69 Ga.
App. 590 — Strauss v. Owens, 65 S.
E. 161, 6 Ga.App. 415.
Ky.— Foster v. Hill, 138 S.W.2d 495.
282 Ky. -327.
Tex.— Hitt v. Bell, Civ.App., Ill S.
W.2d 1164.
34. Tenn. — Hunter v. May, 25 S.W.
2d 580, 161 Texm. 155.
35. Fla. — State ex rel. Gore v. Chil-
llngworth, 171 So. 649, 126 Fla.
645 — Voorhies v. Barnsley, 156 So.
234, 116 Fla, 191— Walker v. Car-
ver, 112 So. 45, 93 Fla. 337.
Ky. — Ely v. U. S. Coal & Coke Co.,
49 S.W.2d 1021, 243 Ky. 725.
Miss. — Mclntosh v. Munson Road
Machinery Co., 145 So. 731, 167
Miss. 546.
Neb. — Campbell 'Printing Press &
Mfg. Co. v. Marder, Luse & Co.,
69 N.W. 774, 50 Neb. 283, 61 Am.
S.R. 573.
Va.— Wood v. Kane, 129 SJS. 327,
143 Va. 281.
63
Wash.— Atwood v. McGrath, 242 P.
648, 137 Wash. 400.
33 C.J. p 1092 note 76, p 1093 note-
78.
Collateral attack see infra § 422.
36. N.C.— Nail v. McConnell, 190 S.
B. 210. 211 N.C. 258.
Okl.— Goldsmith v. Owens, 68 P.2A
849, 180 Okl. 268.
Tex. — Florence v. Swails, CIvJLpp.,
85 S.W.2d 257.
33 C.J. p 1093 note 78 [a],
37. Wash. — Munch v. McLaren, 38-
P. 205, 9 Wash. 676.
34 C.J. p 534 note 44 [dj.
38. Fla. — Voorhies v. Bamsley, 15£
So. 234, 116 Fla. 191.
General appearance as waiver of de-
fects in service of process see Ap-
pearances § 17.
Waiver of defects in service of proc-
ess generally see the C.J.S. title-
Process § 113, also 50 C.J. p 59$
note 59-p 599 note 11.
39. Fla.— McGee v. McGee, 22 So.2d.
788 — United Brotherhood of Car-
penters and Joiners of America v.
Graves lav. Co., 15 So.2d 196, 153:
Fla. 529.
Kan. — Union Central Life Ins. Co. v.
Irrigation Loan & Trust Co., 42"
P.2d 566, 141 Kan. 675.
40. U.S. — Pen-Ken Gas & Oil Cor-
poration v. Warfield Natural Gas.
Co., <XC.A.Ky., 137 F.2d 871, cer-
tiorari denied 64 S.Ct. 431, 320 U.
S. 800, 88 L.Ed 483, rehearing de-
nied 64 S.Ct. 634, 321 U.S. 803;.
88 L.Ed. 1089.
Fla.— >McGee v. McGee, 22 So.2d 78&
— United Brotherhood of Carpen-
ters and Joiners of America v..
Graves Inv. Co., 15 So.2d 196, 1.5$
Fla. 529— Klinger v. Milton Hold-
ing Co., 186 So. 526, 136 Fla. 50—
24
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
ply with the statute appears on the face of the rec-
ord or judgment roll.41 A judgment based on serv-
ice by publication has been held void where the
requirements of the statute were not complied with,
with respect to the time of publication of the proc-
ess,42 or with respect to the affidavit for the or-
der of publication,48 or with respect to posting or
mailing a copy of the summons, complaint, and or-
der to defendant.44 However, the mere fact that
the affidavit is defective in the method of stating
the facts, or in the degree of proof, has been held
to make a judgment based thereon merely void-
able.45
Stern v. Raymond, 116 So. $. 95
Fla, 410.
111.— Martin V. Schillo, 60 N.E.2d 392,
389 111. 607, certiorarl denied 65
S.Ct 1572, 325 U.S. 880, 89 L.Ed.
1996.
Kan. — Union Central Life Ins. Co. v.
Irrigation Loan & Trust Co., 42 P.
2d 566, 141 Kan. 675.
La.— Richardson v. Trustees' Loan &
Guaranty Co., 132 So. (387, 15 La.
App. 645.
Mo. — Davison v. Arne, 155 S.W.2d
155, 348 Mo. 790— Dent v. Invest-
ors* Sec. Ass'n, 254 S.W. 1080, 300
Mo. 552— Williams v. Luecke, App.,
152 S.W,2d 991— Haake v. Union
Bank & Trust Co., App., 54 S.W.
2d 459.
N.C.— Guerin v. Guerin, 181 S.E. 274,
208 N.C. 457.
Okl.— Locke v. Gilbert, 271 P. 247,
133 Okl. 93— Dow v. Cowley-Frye
Lumber Co., 247 P. 1109, 119 Okl.
60.
Or. — Okanogan State Bank of River-
side, Wash. v. Thompson, 211 P.
933, 106 Or. 447.
Tex.— Smith v. Commercial Credit
Corp., Civ.App., 187 S.W.2d 360,
reversed on other grounds Com-
mercial Credit Corp. v. Smith, 187
S.W.2d 363, 143 Tex. 612— Perez
v. B. P. Lipscomb & Co., Civ.App.
267 S.W. 748.
33 C.J. p 1093 note 80.
Strict compliance with statute as
to substituted service or service
by publication generally see the
C.J.S. title Process §§ 43, 55, also
50 C.J. p 490 note 77-p 491 note
81, p 497 note 17-p 498 note 28.
Tender wcoastita,tional statute
Service of summons on alleged
resident agent of nonresident indi-
vidual would not warrant rendition
of judgment against the individual
as such, where the statute author-
izing service on agent of nonresi-
dent individuals engaged to business
within the state is unconstitutional.
-Clones v. Fuller, 134 S.W.2d 240,
280 Ky. 671.
Defects held fatal
(1) Service by publication when
defendants were residents of state
at date of service and their resi-
dence known to plaintiff. — 'Perez v.
B. P. Lipscomb & Co., Tex.Civ.App.,
267 S.W. 748.
(2) Service by publication tinder
order not based on affidavit for at-
tachment, stating- that defendant
was nonresident* but solely on alle-
gation or finding that she could not
be summoned. — Haake v. Union Bank
& Trust Co., MO.APP., 54 S.W.2d
459.
(3) Leaving: summons at place
which was not defendant's last and
usual place o€ abode.— P. H. Hill
Co. v. Doe, 1-89 N.B. 588, 286 Mass.
187.
(4) Leaving citation at house in
which nonresident defendant had
resided, but which was no longer
his domicile.— Williams & Miller v.
Jones, La.App., 180 So. 140.
(5) Service by mail. — Estok v. Bs-
tok, 157 A. 356, 102 Pa.Super, 604—
Skrynski v. Zeroka, 98 PaJSuper. 469.
(6) Service on one not living at
defendant's domicile. — Richardson v.
Trustees1 Loan & Guaranty Co., 132
So. 387, 15 La.App. 645.
(7) Service on director of corpo-
ration Instead of on person named
in statute. — State v. District Court
of Seventh Judicial Dist, in and for
Mineral County, 273 P. 659, 51 Nev.
206, followed in 273 P. 661, 51 Nev.
214, and rehearing- denied 275 P. 1,
51 Nev. 3SO.
(8) Service on agent or attorney
of a nonresident defendant
Ala. — Woodfln v. Curry, 153 So. 620,
228 Ala. 436.
Ky.— -Jones v. Puller, 184 S.W.2d 240,
280 Ky. 671.
S.C. — Matheson v. McCormac, 195 S.
B. 122, 186 S.C. 93. •
(9) Other defects see 33 C.J. p
1093 note 80 [a].
41. U.S.— Pen-Ken Gas & Oil Cor-
poration v. Warfleld Natural Gas
Co., CXJJLKy., 137 P.2d 871, cer-
tiorari denied 64 'S.Ct 431, 320 U.
S. 800, 88 L.Ed. 483, rehearing de-
nied 64 S.Ot 634, 321 U.S. 803,
88 L.Ed. 1089.
Okl.— Locke v. Gilbert, 271 P. 247.
133 Okl. 93.
42. Ariz.— Fidelity & Deposit Co. of
Maryland v.. Meldrum, 50 P.2d 570,
46 Ariz. 295.
Tex.— Mitchell v. Reitz, Civ.App., 269
S.W. 279.
43. U.S.— Butler v. McKey, C.OA.
CaL, 138 P.2d 373, certiorari de-
nied 64 S.Ct 636. 321 U.S. 780,
88 L.Ed. 1073.
Colo. — Federal Farm Mortg. Corpo-
ration v. Schmidt, 126 P.2d 1086.
109 Colo. 467.
Okl.— Robins y. Lincoln Terrace
Christian Church, 75 *P.2d 874. 181
64
Okl. 615 — Morgan v. Stevens, 22S
P. 365, 101 Okl. 116.
Or. — Laughlin v. Hughes, 89 P.2d
568, 161 Or. 295.
S.C.— Ray v. Pilot Fire Ins. Co.. 121
S.B. 779, 128 S.C. 323.
34 C.J. p 536 note 61.
Validity of Judgment rendered on
citation by publication depends, not
on fact that an affidavit in proper
form was filed, but rather on truth
of grounds set up as basis for Is-
suance and service of citation by
publication. — Smith v. Commercial
Credit Corp., Civ.App., 187 S.W.2d
360, reversed on other grounds Com-
mercial Credit Corp. v. Smith, 187 S.
W.2d 363, 143 Tex. 612.
Affidavits held fatally defective
(1) Affidavit based on hearsay
that defendant cannot be found
within state or conceals himself to
avoid service of summons. — Butler
v. McKey, C.C.A.CaL, 138 F.2d 373,
certiorari denied 64 S.Ct 636. 921
U.'S. 780, 88 L.Bd. 1073.
(2) Other affidavits see 33 OJ. p
1093 note 80 [b].
44. N.Y. — B. Berman, Inc. v. Amer-
ican Fruit Distributing Co., 186
N.T.S. 376, 114 Misc. 345,
33 C.J. p 14)93 note 80 Cc].
45. U.S. — Thompson v. Thompson,
App-D.C., 33 S.Ct 129, 226 U.S. 551.
57 L.Ed. 347.
Neb.— Atkins v. Atkins, 2 N.W. 466,
9 Neb. 191.
N.Y.— Smith v. R. B. t Bldg. Cor-
poration, 215 N.T.S. 1, 126 MlfiKS.
826.
Okl.— Frost v. Bavis, 79 P.2d 800,
182 Okl. 593. .
Utah.— Salt Lake City v. Salt Lake
Inv. Co., 134 P. 603, 43 Utah 181.
33 C.J. P 1091 note 68 [i], p 1093
note 80 [b] (9)— 34 C.J. p 536
notes 53, 59.
Improvidently made
The fact that (affidavit supporting
request for issuance of citation by
publication on ground that defend-
ant's residence was unknown had
been improvidently made, if estab-
lished, would not render Judgment
in the proceedings void. — Commer-
cial Credit Corp. v. Smith, 187 S.W.
2d 863, 143 Tex. &L2.
"WHeseabouts" Instead of "resi-
dence"
The use of the word "where-
abouts" in an affidavit for service J>y
publication which states that th,e
"whereabouts" of defendant U TO-
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 26
§ 25. Return and Proof of Service
A valid judgment ordinarfty may fee rendered only
where due service of process is shown by a return or
other proof.
Although the validity of a judgment rests on the
service of process rather than on the return, which
is simply evidence in respect of the process,46 a
proper return, showing that process has been duly
served, is ordinarily necessary in order that a valid
judgment may be rendered.47 Accordingly a judg-
ment has been held void where the return or other
proof is so faulty or defective as not to show a le-
gal service of process,48 although mere irregulari-
ties in the return or proof will not vitiate the judg-
ment.49 If the nonservice of process appears on
the face of the papers or is discernible from an in-
spection of the record, the judgment may be treated
as a nullity,50 and it has been held that the judgment
is void whether such lack of jurisdiction appears
on the face of the record or is shown aliunde.51
§ 26. Appearance
A judgment bas?d on the voluntary general appear-
ance by or on behalf of the defendant is valid.
A voluntary general appearance in an action is
a. waiver of a want of process, or of any defects
in the process or its service, or return, and gives
the court full jurisdiction over his person, as dis-
cussed in Appearances § 17, and accordingly, al-
though a defendant has not received any notice, or
proper process or service thereof, a judgment in
personam against him is valid and binding if a
general appearance has been entered by him or on
his behalf.52 However, a judgment in personam
known, Instead of the word "resi-
dence," which is used in the statute,
is a mere irregularity which will not
render an attachment judgment void.
— Fisher 'v. Jordan, C.C.A.Tex., 116 F.
2d 183, certiorari denied Jordan v.
Fisher, 61 S.Ct. 734, 312 U.S. 697, 85
L.Bd. 1132.
46. La. — Adler v. Board of Levee
Com'rs of Orleans Levee Dist., 123
So. 605, 168 La, 877— Dickey v.
Pollock, App.. 183 So. 48.
"The citation itself is the im-
portant legal fact upon which the
validity of the judgment rests, while
the return is simply evidence in re-
spect to that fact. The citation in
a case must not be confounded with
the sheriff's return, which recites
his own actions in the matter of the
service thereof. The citation may
be good, though the return for some
reason be irregular; while the re-
turn may be perfect in its recitals,
yet the citation be null." — Adler v.
Board of Levee Com'rs of Orleans
Levee Dist., 123 So. 605, 606, 168 La.
877.
47. Chau— Elliott v. Porch, 200 S.E.
ISO, 59 Ga.App. 181— Benton v.
Maddox, 192 S.E. 316, 56 Ga.App.
132.
Miss. — Ex parte Latham, 136 So. 625,
1C1 Miss. 243.
Tex. — Wagner v. Urban, Civ.App.,
170 S.W.2d 270.
33 C.J. p 1094 note 83.
In absence of return of service,
there is nothing to show, in support
of Judgment, that court had juris-
diction, since court should not pro-
ceed in absence of service. — Benton
v. Maddox, 192 S.E. 316, £6 Ga.App.
132.
Judgment is valid on f ace, where
return of service is made in manner
required by law. — Hanna v. Allen,
279 P. 1098, 153 Wash. 485.
48. Colo. — Gibbs v. Slevin, 212 P.
826. 72 Colo. 690.
Tex. — Remington-Rand Business
Service v. Angelo Printing Co.,
Civ.App., 31 S.W.2d 1098.
Wash. — Title & Trust Co. v. Colum-
bia Basin Land Co., 238 P. 992,
136 Wash. 63.
33 C.J. p 1094 note 84.
As invalidating default judgment
see infra § 192.
A deputy sheriff's individual re-
turn to a writ of summons directed
to his superior, is void, and a judg-
ment predicated thereon is likewise
null and void. — Stuckert v. Thomp-
son, 164 S.W. 692, 181 Mo.App. 518.
Inability to find citation
Proof that attorney was unable
to find original citation in clerk's of-
fice insufficiently supported allega-
tion that judgment was void for
want of legal citation. — Thompson-
Ritchie Grocery Co. v. Gary, 135 So.
707, 17 La.App. 270.
Publication
Nonresident defendants, whose
post office addresses were not shown
by proof of publication of notices
to them, were not in court, which
had no power to render judgment
or apply testimony against them. —
Sellers v. Powell, 152 So. 492, 168
Miss. 682.
Substituted service
A return of process disclosing
substituted service is insufficient to
confer jurisdiction over person of
defendant unless return affirmative-
ly shows, under strict construction
and unaided by reference to statute,
compliance with all essential re-
quirements of statute authorizing
such service. *
Mo.— Crabtree v. ^2tna Life Ins. Co.,
Ill S.W.2d 103, 341 Mo. 1173—
State ex rel. Adler v. Ossing, 79
S.W.2d 255, SS6 Mo. 391.
Va.— Washburn v. Angle Hardware
Co., 132 S.E. 810, 144 Va. 508.
49. Fla. — Walker v. Carver, 112 So.
45, 93 Via. 337.
65
Ky. — Commonwealth ex rel. Love v.
Reynolds, 146 S.W.2d 41, 284 Ky.
809.
La. — Adler v. Board of Levee Com'rs
of Orleans Levee Dist., 123 So. 605,
168 La. 877.
Mo. — McEwen v. Sterling State
Bank, 5 S.W,2d 702, 222 Mo.App.
660.
Ohio. — Paulin v. Sparrow, 110 N.E.
528, 91 Ohio St. 279.
Pa.— Podol v. Shevlin, 130 A. 264,
284 Pa. 32 — Wood v. Kuhn, Com.
PI., 22 Brie Co. 236.
33 C.J. p 1095 note 85.
A ruling- of the court that the
service was valid, even though the
ruling was erroneous, does not show
that the court was without jurisdic-
tion to proceed since it did not ap-
pear that service was not waived. —
Pratt v. Rosa Jarmulowsky Co., 170
S.E. 365, 177 Ga. 522.
Irregularities not affecting- judg-
ment
(1) Failure to file affidavit of
mailing notice to defendant served
by publication, prior to rendition of
Judgment. — Young v. Campbell. 16
P.2d 65, 160 Okl. 265.
(2) Failure to file proof of serv-
ice on defendant outside state until
entry of judgment — Winter v. Win-
ter, 175 N.E. 533. 256 N.T. 113. -
(3) Failure to show competency
of process server. — State v. Fergus
County Tenth Judicial Dist. Ct., 179
P. 831, 55 Mont. 602.
(4) Other irregularities see 33 C.
J. p 1091 note 68 [f].
50. N.C.— Dunn v. Wilson, 187 S.E.
802, 210 N.C. 493— Graves v. Relds-
ville Lodge No. 2128, 109 S.E. 29.
182 N.C. 530.
51. Tex. — Olton State Bank v. How-
ell, Civ.App., 105 S.W.2d 2*7.
52. U.S. — In re Gayle, C.C.A.Canal
Zone, 1*36 F.2d 973, petition dis-
missed 64 S.C. 157, 320 U.S. 806,
88 L-Ed. 4*7.
26
JUDGMENTS
49 O.J.S.
against defendant is not validated by his special ap-
pearance for the purpose of objecting to the juris-
diction of the court by taking advantage of a fail-
ure of notice or defective service,63 or for some
other special purpose.54
By attorney. An appearance for defendant by
his authorized attorney is sufficient to support a
judgment against defendant.65 If, however, the
appearance was in fact unauthorized, a judgment
based thereon has been held voidable,56 and accord-
ing to some decisions the judgment is wholly void57
and subject to collateral attack, as discussed infra
§ 424. It has been held that a judgment rendered
on the appearance of an attorney, who has acted
without authority, is regular and valid,58 the sole
remedy being an action for damages against the
attorney, as discussed in Attorney and Client § 147.
If there was due service of process sufficient to
support the judgment, as discussed supra § 24, the
validity of the judgment is not affected by lack of
authority of the attorney who appeared and made
defense.5**
Appearance by plaintiff. As a rule, if plaintiff
fails or refuses to appear and present his case, the
court may dismiss the action for want of prosecu-
tion, as explained in Dismissal and Nonsuit § 65 a,
Ala. — Morrison v. Covington, 100 So.
124, 211 Ala. 181.
Ariz. — Lore v. Citizens Bank of Win-
slow, 75 P.2d 371, 51 Ariz. 191—
Blair v. Blair, 62 P.2d 1821, 48
Ariz. 501.
Cal.— -Gray v. Hall, 265 P. 246, 203
Cat 306.
Ga.— Cherry v. McCutchen, 23 S.E.2d
587, 68 Ga.App. 682.
Hawaii. — Kim Poo Kum v. Sugi-
yama, 33 Hawaii 545.
Ind. — -Montgomery v. .Marks, 46 N.E.
2d 912, 221 Ind. 223 — Celi-na Mut
Casualty Co. v. Baldridge, 12 N.E.
2d 258, 213 Ind. 198.
Ky.-^Tones v. Fuller, 134 'S.W.2d 240,
280 'Ky. 671 — Black v. Elkhorn
Coal Corporation, 26 iS.W.2d 481.
233 Ky. 588.
La.— Nolan v. Schultze, 126 So. 513,
169 La. 1022— Gferfin v. Brown, 107
So. 576, 160 La. 790.
Md. — Piedmont-Mt. Airy Guano Co.
of Baltimore v. Merritt, 140 A. 62,
154 Md. 226.
Mont. — Novack v. Pericich, 300 P.
240, 90 Mont. 91.
N.Y. — Bauman Rubber Co. v. Karl
Light & Sons, 244 N.Y.S. 448, 137
Misc. 258.
N.C.— Powell v. Turpin, 29 S.E.2d
26, 224 N.C, 67— City of Monroe
v. Niven, 20 S.E.2d '311, 221 N.C.
362— Casey v. Barker, 14 S.E.2d
429, 219 N.C. 465— Dunn v. Wilson,
187 S.E. 802, 210 N.C. 493— Hood
v. Holding, 171 S.E. 633, 205 N.C.
451.
N.D.— Baird v. Ellison, 293 N.W.
794, 70 NJD. 261.
Okl. — Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v.
Excise Board of Oklahoma County,
33 P.2d 1081, 168 Okl. 428— Protest
of Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co.,
2 P.2d 935, 161 Okl. 129— Skipper
v. Baer, 277 -P. 930, 136 Okl. 286.
Or. — (Mt. Vernon Nat. Bank v, Morse,
264 P. 439, 128 Or. 64.
Pa.— In re Komara's Estate, 166 A.
577, 311 Pa. 135 — In re Gallagher's
Estate, 167 A. 476, 109 Pa. Super.
304.
R.I. — Corpus Juris died la 'Sahagian
v. Sahagian, 137 A, 221, 222, 48
R.I. 267. i
Tenn. — Dicfcson v. Simpson, 113 S.W.
2d 1190, 172 Tenn. 680, 116 A.L.R.
'380 — Commerce Union Bank v.
' Sharber, 100 S.W.2d 243, 20 Tenn.
App. 451.
Tex.— Pure Oil Co. v. Reece, 78 S.W.
2d 932, 124 Tex. 476— State Mortg.
Corporation v. Traylor, 36 S.W.2d
440, 120 Tex. 148 — Levy v. Roper,
256 S.W. 251, =113 Tex. 356— Eaton
v. Husted, Civ.App., 163 S.W.2d
439, affirmed 172 S.W.2d 493, 141
Tex. 349— Stone v. Miller, Civ.App.,
134 S.W.2d 862, error dismissed,
judgment correct — Goodman v.
Mayer, Civ.App., 105 'S.W^d 281,
reversed on other grounds 128 S.
W.2d 1156, 1*33 Tex. 319— Coker v.
Logan, Civ.App., 101 S.W.2d 284,
error refused — Glass v. Kottwitz,
Civ.App., 297 S.W. 573.
Va. — Lockard v. Whitenack, 144 S.
E. 606, 151 Va. 143— Beck v. Sem-
ones' Adm'r, 134 S.E. 677, 145 Va.
429.
Wis.— Saric v. Brlos, 19 N.W.2d 903,
247 Wis. 400.
33 C.J. p 1095 note 89—34 C.J. p 533
note 40.
Appearance as validating judgment:
Against nonresident see supra §
24 e.
In action begun by:
Attachment or garnishment see
supra § 24 f.
Substituted or constructive serv-
ice see supra § 24 c.
Appearance after judgment
Where a judgment in rem has been
rendered without the appearance of
defendant, his appearance after
judgment for the purpose of moving
for a new trial does not render the
judgment a personal one. — Mayfleld
v. Bennett, 48 Iowa 194.
53. Md. — Ortman v. Coane, 31 A.2d
320, 181 Md. 596, 145 A.L.R. 1388.
Wash. — State v. Plummer, 226 P.
273, 130 Wash. 135.
33 C.J. p 1095 note 93.
54. Or. — Cram v, Tippery, 155 P.2d
558.
litre physical presence by a party
when a judgment is rendered against
him does not make the judgment
66
binding on him, if he had no notice
or opportunity to be heard. — Elliott
v. Adams, 160 S.E. 3*36, 173 Ga. 312.
55. Mich. — Hempel v. Bay Circuit
Judge, 193 N.W. 281, 222 Mich.
553.
N.C.— Hood v. Holdingf, 171 S.E. 633,
205 N.C. 451.
33 C.J. p 1096 note 94.
Presumption of authority to appear
see Attorney and Client § 73 a.
Where defendants' attorney was
in open court when plaintiff request-
ed leave to amend petition to state
new cause of action, notwithstand-
ing defendants subsequently with-
drew their answer and were not cit-
ed on filing of amended petition,
court had jurisdiction to render
judgment against them thereon. —
Phillips v. The Maccabees, Tex.Civ.
App., 50 S.W.2d 478.
56. N.T.— Wiley v. Moses, 42 N.T.S.
2d 4. 266 App.Div. 801, reargument
and appeal denied In re Less* Es-
tate, 44 N.T.S.2d 686, 266 App.Div.
968.
33 C.J. p 1096 note 95.
Unauthorized appearance as ground
for:
Equitable relief see infra § 354.
Opening and vacating see infra §
267.
57. N.D.— Taylor v. Oulie, 212 N.W.
Wl. 55 N.D. 253.
Okl.— ^Street v. Dexter, 77 P.2d 707,
182 Okl. 360— Hatfield v. Lewis,
236 P. 611, 110 Okl. 98.
Tex.-^Stack v. Ellis, Civ.App., 291
S.W. 919.
33 C.J. p 1096 note 97.
58. Miss.— Shirling v. Scites, 41
Miss. 644.
33 C.J. p 1096 note 2.
59. N.C.— Hatcher v. Faison, 55 S.E.
284, 145 N.C. 364.
33 C.J. p 1096 note 1.
Neither void nor voidable
Appearance by an unemployed at-
torney does not make a judgment
void or -voidable, where the case
would otherwise go to judgment
since such attorney has no power to
waive any rights. — Lockard v.
Whitenack, 144 S.K 606, 151 Va. 143.
49 O.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 27
but it can render, no judgment against plaintiff60
unless defendant has filed a cross action or request,
ed affirmative relief.61 On the other hand, if plain-
tiff appears and answers a cross action, a judgment
may be entered thereon, although defendant did not
serve him with notice of the cross action,62
C. PARTIES
§ 27. In General
Parties whose rights are determined are essential to
a Judgment.
An essential element, implied in all the definitions
of a judgment which have been given, is that there
must be parties whose rights are determined by the
adjudication.6* A valid judgment cannot be ren-
dered where there is a want of necessary parties,64
and a court cannot properly adjudicate matters in-
volved in a suit when necessary and indispensable
parties to the proceedings are not before it65 The
absence of persons necessary to a complete settle-
ment of the entire controversy, however, will not
prevent the rendition of a valid judgment where
their interests are so separable that a judgment may
be rendered between the parties before the court
without affecting the rights of persons who are not
parties.66 A judgment which is a mere negation of
plaintiff's asserted claim is not erroneous for want
of necessary parties.67
In the case of ex parte proceedings there are par-
ties on only one side, as discussed in Ex 32 CJ.S.
p 1145 note 75-p 1146 note 80. In the case of pro-
ceedings in rem, the parties on one side, at least,
consist merely in the personification of a res, but the
determinations in this class of cases are nevertheless
judgments, as considered infra § 907.
To enable a judgment to be rendered the litigants
must have the capacity to stand in judgment68 The
60. Tex.— Parr v. Chittim, Com.
App., 231 S.W. 1079— Dalton T.
Davis, Civ.App., 294 S.W. 1115,
reversed on other grounds, Com.
App, 1 S.W.2d 571— -Scarborough
v. Bradley, Civ.App., 256 S.W. 349.
61* Tex.— Wadell Connally Hard-
ware Co. v. Brooks, Civ.App.t 275
S.W. 168.
62. Tex. — Hall v. Morton, Civ.App.,
39 S.W.2d 903, error refused.
63. Kan.— Corpus Juris quoted in
City of Independence v. Hinde-
nach, 61 P.2d 124, 129, 144 Kan.
414.
M0nt— ^State v. District Court of
Fifteenth. Judicial Dist. in and for
Musselshell County, 300 P. 235, 89
Mont 5-31, 82 A.L.R. 1158.
33 C.J. P 1105 note 45.
Amendment of judgment as to par-
ties see infra § 244.
Conformity to:
Pleadings and proofs as to parties
see infra § 51.
Verdict or findings as to parties
see infra § 56.
Designation of parties see infra 5
75. t .
Parties to judgment by or against
executor or administrator see Ex-
ecutors and Administrators § 793.
Advewary proceedings required
Where real party in interest is
both plaintiff and defendant, no Is-
sue is presented and decree or judg-
ment based on such action is null
and void.— O'Donnell v. U. S., C.C.A,
Cal., 91 F.2d 14, reversed on other
grounds U. S. v. O'Donnell, 58 S.Ct
708, 303 U.S. 501, 82 Ii.Ed. 980.
64. Tex. — Belt v. Texas Co., Civ,
App., 175 S.W.2d 622, error refused
— Beeier r. Loock, Civ-App^ 135
S.W.2d 644, error dismissed— Gen- |
era! Exchange Ins. Corporation v.
Collins, Civ.App., 110 S.W.2d 127.
xreoessary parties
Grantee's heirs are necessary par-
ties to enable court to adjudicate
whether paper, in form a deed, is
an absolute conveyance, or only a
power of attorney.— Wingo v. Par-
ker, 19 S.C. 9.
65. Fla. — Fain v. Adams, 121 So.
562, 97 Fla. 517.
111.— Hansen v. Swartz, 178 N.E. 246,
345 111. 609.
Mass.— Dietz v. New Tork Life Ins.
Co., 191 N.E. 875, 287 Mass. 398.
N.Y.— U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
v. Triborough Bridge Authority,
48 N.T.S.2d 16, affirmed 59 N.Y.S.
2d 291, 269 App.Div. 978, motion
granted 59 N.Y.S.2d 627, 270 App.
Div. 754.
N.D.— Underwood State Bank v.
Weber, 193 N.W. 602, 49 N.D. 814.
W.Va.— McDonald v. Bennett, 152 S.
E. 533, 108 W.Va. 666.
Wis. — Riedel -v. Preston, 246 N.W.
569, 211 Wis. 149.
Proper procedure
The court should require the ab-
sent persons to be made parties to
the proceeding or dismiss it with-
out prejudice.— White v. Walker, 10
S.W.2d 1071, 226 Ky. 326.
Sum held by stranger
The district court erred In includ-
ing in amount of money judgment
sum shown by parties' stipulation to
be held la Judgment debtor's name
by corporation not party to suit
wherein judgment was rendered. —
CyMeara v. Williams, Tex.Civ.App,,
137 S.W.2d 66, error dismissed, Judg-
ment correct.
67
66. Cal. — Bank of California Nat.
Ass'n v. Superior Court in and for
City and County of San Francisco,
106 P.2d 879, 16 Cal.2d 516.
Tex.— State Mortg. Corporation v.
Garden, Civ.App., 11 S.W.2d 212.
Person held not a necessary party
JSTonresidence of party claiming
interest did not impair validity of
decree approving release of rights
in estate, nonresidents not being
necessary parties to decision of
question. — Denny v. Searles, 148 S.E.
484, 150 Va. 701.
67. Proceeding to terminate rights
under deed
A judgment in an administrator's
suit to terminate defendant's rights
under a deed from his Intestate is
not erroneous for want of necessary
parties because intestate's heirs
were not parties to the suit, where
it is a mere negation of plaintiff's
asserted claim. — Jones v. Gibbs, 130
S.W.2d 265, 133 Tex. 627, motion
overruled T31 S.W.2d 957, 133 Tex.
627.
68. La.— Roe v. Caldwell, 70 So.
548, 138 La. 652— Miles v. Recla-
mation Oil Producing Ass'n, 3 La.
App. 746.
nprisonment of defendant pending
civil suit
Where, pending a civil cause, de-
fendant is arrested and confined in
jail by virtue of a warrant issued
for a criminal offense at the in-
stance of a third person not in col-
lusion with, or instigated by, plain-
tiff, plaintiff is entitled to proceed
with his cause to judgment, and
such judgment will not be set aside
as irregular. — Peterson v. C. A. Mar-
§ 28
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
rules governing judgments with respect to persons
under a disability are discussed in Husband and
Wife §§ 447-457, Infants §§ 120-124, and Insane
Persons § 151. Also the rules applicable to judg-
ments relative to persons whose personality is or
has been suspended for juristic purposes are con-
sidered in titles wherein the law relative to such
persons is treated, such as Bankruptcy §§ 489-491,
Convicts § 7, Insolvency § 17 a (2), and Slaves §
7, also 58 CJ. p 758 note 59; and in titles dis-
cussing particular kinds or classes of actions and
proceedings are considered the rules particularly ap-
plicable to parties to judgments or decrees in such
actions or proceedings.
§ 28. Judgment for or against One Not a Par-
ty
A Judgment can be rendered only for or against a
party to the action or proceeding and not for or agafnct
one not a party: the rights and liabilities of persons not
parties cannot be adjudicated.
In general a judgment can be taken only for or
against a party to the action or proceeding.^ It
cannot properly be rendered for or against one who
is not a party thereto,70 or against one who is not
tin Furniture Co., 86 S.B. 1099, 144
Ga. 316.
69. Mont. — Moore v. Capital Gas
Corp., 158 P.2d 302.
Jurisdiction In personam as essen-
tial to validity of judgment see
supra § 19.
Service or process or appearance as
essential to validity of judgment
see supra §§ 23, 26.
70. U.S. — Southwell v. Robertson,
D.CPa,, 27 F.Supp. 944.
Ark.— Bryan v. Akers, 7 S.W.2d 32$,
177 Ark. 681, 58 A.L.R. 1124.
Cal. — Hutchinson v. California Trust
Co., Ill P.2d 401, 43 Cal.App.2d
571— Lloyd v. Los Angeles County,
107 P.2d .622, 41 Cal.App.2d 808—
Overell v. Overell, 64 P.2d 483, 18
Cal.App.2d 499— Nordin v. Eagle
Rock State Bank, App., 49 P.2d
336— McDonald v. Richards, 248 P.
1049, 79 CaLApp. 1.
Colo. — J. I. Case Threshing Mach.
Co. v. Packer, 254 P. 779, 81 Colo.
195.
Ga. — Webb & Martin v. Anderson-
McGriff Hardware Co., 8 S.E.2d
882, 188 Ga. 291.
111.— Schrei v. Van Alyea, 247 HL
App. 440.
Ind.— Kist v. Coughlin, 57 N.E.2d
586, 222 Ind. 639.
Ky.— City of Hazard v. Gay, 113 S.
W.2d 467, 271 Ky. 818— Farmers'
Nat. Bank v. Jones, 28 S.W.2d 787,
234 Ky. 591, 70 A.L.R. 335— Ford
v. Consolidated Grocery Co., 17
S.W.2d 448, 229 Ky. 510.
La. — Succession of Arnold, 152 So.
•322, 178 La. 658— Erskine v. Gard-
iner, 110 So. 97, 162 La, 83.
Mich.— Smith v. Switzer, 287 N.W.
416, 290 Mich. 158.
Neb.— Clark v. Clark, 297 N.W. 661,
139 Neb. 446— Southern Nebraska
Power Co. v. Village of Deshler,
264 N.W. 462, 130 Neb. 133.
N.Y.— Clark v. Seligman, 296 N.T.S.
98, 163 Misc. 533— Quinn v. Er-
showsky, 245 N.T.S. 398, 138 Misc.
15.
Ohio. — Eac parte Eastman, 155 N.E.
578, 23 Ohio App. 2T3.
Or* — Niedermeyer, Inc., v. Fehl, 83
P.2d 960, 148 Or. 16, followed In
Niedermeyer, Inc. v. Pacific Record
Pub. Co., 33 P.2d 966, 147 Or. 528,
and motion denied Niedermeyer,
Inc., v. Fehl, 35 P.2d 477, 148 Or.
16.
Pa. — In re McGuigan's Estate, 37 A.
2d 717, 349 Pa. 581— Chiswell v.
Campbell, 150 A. 90, 300 Pa, 68.
R.I.— Lawton v. Fox, 133 A. 348, 47
R.I. 359.
Tenn. — American Nat. Bank v. Brad-
ford, App., 188 S.W.2d 971.
Tex. — Thomas v. Mullins, Civ.App.,
127 S.W.2d 559, reversed on other
grounds Mullins v. Thomas, 150 S.
W.2d 83, 136 Tex 215— Edwards
v. Hatch, Civ.App., 106 S.W.2d 741
—Baker v. Reed, Civ.Ap&., 54 S.W.
2d 214 — Underwood v. Jefferson
Bank & Trust Co., Civ.App., 35 S.
W.2d 766 — Cunningham v. Koons,
Civ.App., 33 S.W.2d 761 — Jessen v.
Scott, Civ.App., 14 S.W.2d 290—
Cook v. Liberty Pipe Line Co.,
Civ.App., 281 S.W. 221— Moses v.
Chapman, Civ.App., 280 S.W. 911
— Tomerlin v. Krause, Civ.App.,
278 S.W. 501.
W.Va.— Milam v. Settle, 32 S.E.?d
269.
33 C.J. p 1106 note 58.
Injunction:
In federal court as binding on
parties defendant and those rep-
resented by them or subject to
their control or in privity with
them see Federal Courts § 144 d.
Not granted against persons not
parties to suit see Injunctions §
214.
Judgment in:
Favor of partner not party to ac-
tion see the C.J.S. title Partner-
ship § 235, also 47 C.J. p 1011
note 15.
Replevin not proper against one
not party to action see the C.
J.S. title Replevin S 242, also 54
C.J. p 588 note 25.
Necessity that judgment correspond
to pleadings with respect to par-
ties see infra § 51.
Relief against person not party not
granted in mandamus proceeding
see the C.J.S. title Mandamus §
341, also 38 C.J. p 926 note 12.
68
Opportunity to "be heard
(1) Person must have opportunity
of being heard before court can ren-
der judgment against him.
111. — Hansen v. Swartz, 178 N.E.
246, 345 111. 609.
Mont— Mitchell v. Banking Corpo-
ration of Montana, 22 P.2d 155,
94 Mont 183.
(2) Notice and opportunity to be
heard before being concluded by
judgment as essential to due proc-
ess of law see Constitutional Law
§§ 569 c (2), 619, 322.
Unauthorized proceeding
(1) Judgment is void in action in-
stituted in plaintiff's name by a
stranger without authority.
U.S. — Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v. Isa-
bel, CC.A.OkL, 129 F.2d 111.
Okl.— Steen v. Williams, 12 P.2d 888,
158 OkL 147.
(2) Judgment against alleged
ward on cross petition in proceeding
brought by alleged guardian acting
under wholly void court order is
erroneous. — Ruckert v. Moore, 295 S.
W. 794, 317 Mo. 228.
(3) Other cases see 33 C.J. p 1106
note 58 [e],
Judgment for plaintiff as trustee
for one not a 'party to the action is
erroneous. — Rush v. Curtiss-Wright
Export Corporation, 31 N.T.S,2d 550,
263 App.Div. 69, appeal denied 32
N.Y.S.2d 1016, 263 App.Div. 868.
motion denied 41 N.B.2d 173, 287
N.Y. 849.
Xodividual sued in representative
In suit against state superintend-
ent of insurance, to recover a fund
in his possession officially, in which
the superintendent as an individual
defendant was stricken out, the ju**.
risdiction of the court is limited to
the res, and it has no power to
charge defendant with interest be-
yond what he actually received. —
Porter v. Beha, D.C.N.Y., 8 F.2d 65,
affirmed, C.C.A., 12 F.2d 513.
Unknown or wuuuned parties
Law court cannot enter judgment
for unknown and unnamed parties,
nor has it ancillary jurisdiction to
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 28
subject to the jurisdiction of the court.71 A judg-
ment so given is void in so far as it concerns the
person improperly included in it,72 whether or not
such person is sui juris or under disability,78 and,
according to some authorities, is a mere nullity as
to all the parties to it,74 although other cases hold
that it is not void as to those who were actually
parties to the suit.76 A judgment for one not
formally a party has been held proper, however,
where the case was tried and the parties acted on
the understanding that such person was a party.76
It has been held that mere service of process on a
stranger to the proceedings will not support a judg-
ment against him.77
Where he is not a party to the action, judg-
ment cannot properly be rendered for or against an f
assignor,78 an employee in an arbitration proceed-
ing between his employer and labor union,79 an
insurance company in an action against the state
superintendent of insurance in whose hands it has
been placed for liquidation,80 an insurer of defend-
ant, even though insurer's attorney took over the de- {
f ense and participated in the trial as fully as though
insurer had been a party,81 .an officer of a defendant
county,82 an officer, agent, representative, or legal
assign of a defendant corporation,83 a party's attor- ,
ney,8* a witness,86 or a member of a class.86 How-
ever, there is authority which holds that, in a rep-
determine the parties entitled to the
benefit of such a judgment — Mc-
Nary v. Guaranty Trust Co. of New
York, D.C.Ohio. <> F.Supp. 616.
Judgment held not in favor of one
• not? a party
Judgment that, as between plain-
tiff and defendant, plaintiff is liable
for payment of note to bank is not
a judgment against plaintiff in favor
of the bank, which was not a party
to the action. — Nants v. Doherty, 262
S.W. 979. 203 Ky. 596.
71. 111. — Austin v. Royal League,
147 N.B. 106, 316 III. 188.
N.Y.— NtecAffer v. Boston & M. R.
R., 197 N.B. 328, 268 N.T. 400.
Ohio.— Cahill v. Fidelity & Casualty
Co., 175 N.E. 39, "37 Ohio App. 444.
Where plaintiff not in court
Judgment on merits cannot be ren-
dered where action fails because no
plaintiff is in court against whom
judgment can be rendered. — MacAf-
fer v. Boston & M. R. R., 197 N.E.
328, 268 N.T. 400,
72. U.S. — Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v.
Isabel, C.C.A.Okl., 129 F.2d 111
— U. S. v. Lee, D.C.Okl., 48 F.Supp.
63.
Cal. — Pennell v. Superior Court In
and for Los Angeles County, 262
P. 48. 87 Cal.App. 375.
111. — Newberry Library v. Board of
Education of City of Chicago, 55
N.B.2d 147, 387 111. 85.
Ky. — Chapman v. Blackburn, 175
S.W.2d 26, 295 Ky. 606— Rapp
Lumber Co. v. Smith, 48 S.W.2d
17, 243 Ky. 317.
Mont. — Moore v. Capital Gas Corp.,
158 P.2d 302.
N.C.— Powell v. Turpin, 29 S.B.2d
26, 224 N.C. $7— Downing v. White,
188 S.B. 815, 211 N.C. 40.
Tenn.— Charles A. Hill & Co. v. Bel-
mont Heights Baptist Church, 69
<5.W.2d 612, 17 Tean.App. 603.
Tex — Shaw v. Cunningham, Civ.
App., 42 S.W.2d 685, error refused
— Butman v. Jones, Civ.App., 24
aw.2d 796—Lipsitz v. First Nat
Bank, CivJLpp., 288 S.W. 609, af-
firmed, Com.App.. 293 S.W. 563,
modified on other grounds 296 S.
W. 490.
W.Va.— Russell v. Carpenter, 23 S.B.
2d 920, 125 W.Va. 51.
33 C:J. p 1106 note 58.
Validity of judgment or decree for
or against person not party to par-
tition proceeding see the C.J.S, ti-
tle Partition § 112, also 47 C.J. p
435 notes 93, 94.
Bnle in misnomer inapplicable
-The rule that the judgment con-
cludes the person intended - to be
sued where he is actually served
with process, even under a wrong
name, is inapplicable where judg-
ment is rendered against a person
not a party to the suit — Gofl v.
Will County Nat Bldg. Corporation,
35 N.B.2d 718, 811 IlLApp. 207.
73. Ky.— Proctor v. Mitchell, 194 S.
W.2d 177.
74. Colo.— Archuleta v. Archuleta,
123 P. 821, 52 Colo. 601.
33 C.J. p 1107 note 59. -
75. Mo. — Pacific Express . Co. Y.
Bmerson, 74 S.W. 132, 101 Mo.App.
62.
33- C.J. p 1107 note 60.
7ft, Wash.— Bleiler v. Wolff, 161 P.
2d 145, 23 Wash.2d 368.
77. Ga. — Shearouse v. Wolfe, 86 S.
B. 923, 111 Ga. 859.
33 C.J. p 1106 note 58 [b].
78. U.S.— Illinois Surety Co. v. U.
S., C.C., 36 S.Ct 321, 240 U.S. 214,
60 L.Ed. 609.
79. N.T.— Steinberg v. D. L. Horo-
witz, Inc., 25 N.Y.S.2d 630, 261
App.Div. 1380.
80. U.S. — Southwell v. Robertson,
D.C.Pa., 27 F.Supp. 944.
81. Tex.— Rio Grande Valley Tele-
phone Co. v. Hocut, Civ.App., 93
S.W.2d 167, error dismissed.
82. Gal. — Lloyd v. Los Angeles
County, 107 P.2d 622, 41 CaLApp.
2d 808.
83. Tefc. — Toakura Mill & Elevator
Co. v. Byars, Civ. App., 262 5.W.
.226.
84. Cal.— Sullivan v. Gage. 79 P.
69
537, 145 Cal. 770— In re Levinson's ,
Estate, 41 P. 483, 42 P. 479, 108
Cal. 450— Overell v. Overell, 64 P.
2d 483, 18 Cal.App.2d 499— Pennell |
v. -Superior Court in and for Los
Angeles County, 262 P. 48, 87 Cal.
App. 375 — Chavez v. Scully, 216
P. 46, 62 CaLApp. 6. j
Attorney's right to summary reme-
dy in cause for payment of fees
earned therein see Attorney and
Client § 194.
85. Pa.— Bell v. Feeney, Cora.PL, 59
Montg.Co. 279.
86. N.C.— Williams v. Williams, 74
N.C. 1.
33C.J. pl!06 note 58 [f].
Judgment for member
(1) In representative action on
behalf of all similarly situated, only
those named as plaintiffs and who
enter the action before judgment
may share in recovery. — Atkins v. ;
Trowbridge, 148 N.Y.S. 181, 162 App.
Div. 629— Hendry v. Title Guarantee
& Trust Co., 300 N.Y.S. 741, 165
Misc. 349, modified on other grounds
8 N.Y.S.2d 164, 255 App.Div. 497,'
affirmed 21 NJB.2d 515, 280 N.Y. 740.
(2) In class suit under Fair. La-
bor' Standards Act by employee as
representative of class of employees
to which he belongs, no judgment
could be entered in favor of any
employee against employer for any
specific sum of. money unless such
employee was either a party to the
suit, or had expressly designated
some one to represent him. in the
suit, or bad intervened in the suit
— Brooks v. Southern Dairies, D.C.
Fla., 38 F.Supp. 588.
Judgment against member
(1) The equitable doctrine of class
representation does not permit a
plaintiff to designate certain par-
ties as representatives of other nu-
merous members of a voluntary un-
incorporated association in order
to obtain personal -judgments as to
members not named.— Webb & Mar-
tin v. Anderson-McGriff Hardware
Co., 3 S.E.2d 882, 188 Ga. 291. .,
§ 28
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
resentative or class suit, where tihose joined as par-
ties fairly represent those* not joined, and their in-
terests are the same, a judgment entered as in a
class suit will be binding on all members of the
class.*?
In general the rights and liabilities of persons not
parties to the action cannot be adjudicated there-
in,*8 since a court should not adjudicate the rights
or liabilities of a person unless he is actually or
constructively before it89 Title to property of one
not a party may not be determined,90 or a lien es-
tablished and. foreclosed against one not a party,91
or the right to the proceeds of taxes levied to pay
bonds determined in a suit to which bondholders
are not parties,92 or a contract with one not a party
(2) In bondholder's suit to enforce
trust and alleged lien against state
and numerous owners of lands,
where such owners were designated
as a class but not actually made
parties, the court had no jurisdic-
tion to enter decree against them
or their lands. — State v. Woodruff,
150 So. 760, 170 Miss. 744.
87. 111. — Newberry Library v. Board
of Education of City of Chicago,
55 N.E.2d 147, 387 111. 85.
Persons hound by Judgment by
reason of privity or representation,
although not formal parties, may be
subjected to the judgment by rule.
—Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Schmidt,
Ky., 20 S.Ct 620, 177 U.S. 230, 44 L.
Ed. 747.
Administrators acting1 as plaintiffs
. Where in suit by stockholders the
recovery was purely representative,
it was held immaterial that certain
of the plaintiffs held only as admin-
istrators.— 'Stearns Coal & Lumber
Co. v. Van Winkle, C.C.A.Ky., 221
P. 590, 137 C.C.A. 314, certiorari de-
nied -36 SXJt 554, 241 U.S. 670, 60
L.Ed. 1230.
88, U;6. — Dewalt v. State Farm
Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. of
Bloomington, 111., C.C.A.MO., 99 7.
2d 846, certiorari denied State
Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. of
Bloomington, 111. v. Dewalt, 59
S.Ct 583, 306 U.S. 644, 88 L.Ed.
1043.
Ala. — Continental Ins. Co. of New
York v. Rotholz, 133 So. 587. 222
Ala. 574.
CaL— Potter v, Lawton, 5 P.2d 904,
118 CaLApp. 558— Moakley v. Los
Angeles Pac. Ky. Co., 277 P. 883,
99 CaLApp. 74— O'Neil v. Ross, 277
P. 123, 98 CaLApp. 306.
Conn. — Lunde v. Minch, 136 A. 552,
105 Conn. 657.
Fla. — Coral Bealty Co. v. Peacock
Holding Co., 1*38 So. 622, 103 Fla.
916.
Ga. — Ware County v. Cason, 5 S.E.2d
597, 61 Ga.App. 15.
Karf.— Kansas Utilities Co. v. City
of Burlington, 44 P.2d 223, 141
Kan. 926, appeal dismissed 56 S.
Ct. 81, 296 U.S. 658, 80 KEO. 469.
Mass. — Bancroft v. Cook, 162 N.B.
691, 264 Mass. 343.
Mich.— Royal Oak Tp. v. City of
Ferndale, 15 K,W.2d 707, 309 Mich.
458 — Capitol -Savings & Loan Co.
v. Standard Savings & Loan Ass'n
of Detroit, Mich., 250 N.W. 309,
264 Mich. 550— Washburn v.
Waite, 250 N.W. 306, 264 Mich.
557.
Mo. — Jenkins v. John Taylor Dry
Goods Co., 179 S.W.2d 54, 352 Mo.
660 — McClure v. Wilson, App., 185
S.W.2d 878— Hocken v. Allstate
Ins. Co., 147 S.W.2d 182, 235 Mo.
App. 991 — Stevens v. Hurley, 279
S.W. 723, 220 Mo.App. 1050.
N.J. — Trenton Potteries Co. v. Black-
well, 43 A.2d 831, 137 N.J.Eq. 113
— Breitman v. Jaehnal, 132 A. 291,
99 N.J.Eq. 243, affirmed Breitman
v. Jaehnel, 135 A. 915, 100 N.J.Eo;.
559.
N.M.— Scudder v. Hart, 110 P.2d 536,
45 N.M. 76.
N.T.— Sunshine v. Marsh, 38 N.T.S.
2d 562, 265 App.Div. 927, affirmed
50 N.E.2d 105, 290 N.Y. 775— Nor-
man v. General American Transp.
Corporation, 47 N.T.S.2d 390, 181
Misc: 233, affirmed 45 N.Y.S.2d
929, 267 App.Div. 758.
Ohio. — National Surety Co. v. Bohn,
182 N.E. 506, 125 Ohio St 537.
Okl.— Town of Buffalo v. Walker, 257
P. 766, 126 Okl. -6.
Pa.< — 'Pleska v. Farley, Com.Pl., 40
Lack.Jur. 152.
S.C.— Holt v. Calhoun, 179 S.E. 501,
175 S.C. 481.
S.D.— Boots v. Null, 238 N.W. 307,
59 S.D. 109.
Tex — General Exchange Ins. Cor-
poration v. Young, Civ.App., 143
S.W.2d 805— Sparks v. Mince, Civ.
App., 138 S.W.2d 203— Beeler v.
Loock, Civ.App., 135 S.W.2d 644,
error dismissed — Employers' Lia-
bility Assur. Corporation v. Neely,
Civ.App., 60 S.W.2d 836, error dis-
missed—•'Stewart v. Rockdale State
Bank, Civ.App., 52 S.W.2d 915, af-
firmed 79 S.W.2d 116, 124 Tex. 431
—Scaly v. Scott, Civ.App., 11 S.W.
2d 605.
Utah. — Tanner v. Provo Reservoir
Co., 103 P.2d 134, 99 Utah 158.
Wash.— Bayha v. Public Utility Dist.
No. 1 of Grays Harbor County, 97
P.2d 614, 2 Washed 85— Cooney
v. Cooney, 8 P.2d 540, 164 Wash.
553.
Wis. — Madden Bros. v. Jacobs, 235
N.W. 780, 204 Wis. 376.
Adjudication in partition proceeding
of rights of person not party
thereto see the C.J.S. title Parti-
70
'tion § 112, also 47 C.J. p 4*35 note
92.
In proceeding in:
Admiralty see Admiralty § 157.
Equity see Equity § 601.
Judgment as binding only parties
and privies see infra §§ 762-821.
Persons subject to ouster under
judgment of ejectment see Eject-
ment § 122 e.
Rights of persons not parties not
determined in mandamus pro-
ceeding see the C.J.S. title Man-
damus § 334, also 38 C.J. p 923
note 53.
Cannot divest rights
When a person is not made a party
to the suit, the court has no juris-
diction to divest him of a vested
right— Alward v. Borah, 44 N.E.2d
865, 381 111. 134.
Establishment of parish boundary
In hypothecary action involving
land alleged by defendants to be
situated in another parish than that
in which suit, to which neither par-
ish was party, was brought, decree
cannot establish boundary between
parishes. — Commercial Bank v.
Meaux, La.App., 158 So. 688,
Judgment's effect on third person
not party to the action will not be
determined by the court rendering
it— Williams v. Pease, 43 P.2d 22,
181 Wash. 388—33 C.J. p 1106 note
58 [a] (2).
89. D.C. — Ducker v. Butler, 104 P.
2d 236, 70 App.D.C. 103.
La.— Collins v. Cliff Oil & Gas Co.,
App., 177 So. 120.
Wash.— Bayha v. Public Utility Dist.
No. 1 of Grays Harbor County, 97
P.2d 614, 2 Wash.2d 85.
90. Gal. — City of Los Angeles v.
Knapp, 70 P.2d 643, 22 Cal.App.2d
211.
La. — Esparros v. Vicknair, 17 So.2d
924, 205 La. 699.
91. Tex. — Gholson v. Northside
Chevrolet Co., Civ.App., 90 S.W.2d
579.
92. U.S. — Boynton v. Moffat Tunnel
Improvement Dist, C.C.A.Colo., 57
F.2d 772, certiorari denied Moffat
Tunnel Improvement Dist. v.
Boynton, 53 S.Ct. 20, 287 U.S. 620,
77 L.Ed. 638— St Louis-San Fran-
cisco Ry. Co. v. Blake, C.C.A.Okl.,
36 F.2d 652.
Colo. — Denver Land Co. v. Moffat
Tunnel Imp. Dist, 284 P. 339, 87
Colo. 1.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
29
to the action rescinded,93 or a note or note and
mortgage canceled as to a person who is not a
party to the action,94 or a lien claim released as to
members of a class who did not join as plaintiffs in
the proceeding,95 or a deed set aside where all per-
sons interested are not parties to the proceeding,96
or a sale of property of one not a party to the ac-
tion ordered,97 even though the owner is a corpo-
ration owned by another corporation whose shares
are in suit.98 However, the validity of mortgage
bonds owned by cross defendants dismissed from
the action may be adjudicated where the plaintiff in
the action represents cross defendants as a trustee
of such bonds.99 Specific performance will not be
decreed against a person not a party to the pro-
ceeding.1 A judgment against a person attempted
to be made a party by motion after the conclusion
of the trial is erroneous.2
§ 29. Death of Party
a. In general
b. Joint parties
a. In General
Ordinarily a judgment rendered subsequent to a
party's death Is erroneous. If the party died prior to
the commencement of the action the judgment is abso-
lutely void, if he died subsequent to its institution the
judgment is generally held to be voidable, but if he died
after verdict or decision the Judgment is generally held
toH>e valid.
Ordinarily a judgment should not be entered for
or against a party after his death ;3 and if the ac-
tion is continued or revived thereafter the judg-
ment should be for or against his representative.4
A judgment for or against a person who was dead
at the time the action was instituted is at least er-
roneous.5 If the defendant was dead at the time
the action was commenced the judgment will be ab-
solutely void;6 and like rule has been applied where
one named as plaintiff died before commencement of
the action,7 although there is other authority which
holds that a judgment rendered in an action begun
after plaintiff's death is not void but voidable.8
Where the court has acquired jurisdiction of the
subject matter and the person during the lifetime
of a party, the prevailing rule is that a judgment
rendered for or against him after his death, al-
though erroneous and liable to be set aside, is not
void but voidable ;9 but there is substantial author-
ity to the effect that such a judgment is absolutely
93. Term.— Hawkins v. Byrn, 261 S.
W. 980. 150 Term. 1.
94. Ark.— Peebles Garage v. Down-
ey, 111 S.W.2d 454, 195 Ark. 31.
Wis.— In re Peterson's Estate, 8 N.
W.2d 266, 242 Wis. 448.
Want of necessary parties as pre-
cluding: Judgment or decree of can-
cellation see Cancellation of In-
struments § 52.
95. Idaho.— Brown v. Twin Falls
Canal Co., 276 P. 305, 47 Idaho
402.
d& Conn.— Delaney v. Kennaugh,
186 A. 108, 105 Conn. 557.
Mich.— Goldberg v. Goldberg, 295 N.
W. 194, 295 Mich. 380.
Necessary parties in action to quiet
title see the C.J.S. title Quieting
Title § 53, also 51 C.J. p 206 note
18-p 208 note 41.
Validity of Judgment in action to
quiet title where owners of land
not parties see the C.J.S. title
Quieting Title S 103, also 51 C.J.
p 282 note 25.
97. U.S. — Gammon v. Ramsey, C.C.
A.N.J., 13 F.2d 743.
Wyo.— State v. District Court of
Ninth Judicial Dist. in and for
Fremont County, 292 P. 897, 42
Wyo. 214, 71 A.L.R. 993, substitu-
tion of parties denied 1 P.2d 74,
4-3 Wyo. 173.
96. U.S. — Gammon v. Ramsey, C.C.
A.N.J., 18 F.2d 74"3.
99. Tex.— Fidelity Trust Co. of
Houston v. Highland Farms Cor-
poration, Civ.App., 109 S.W.2d
1014, error dismissed.
1. B.C. — Thalis v. Wurdeman, 121
F.2d 70, 73 APP.D.C. 322.
Decree in proceeding for specific per-
formance not operative as to per-
son not party or privy to pro-
ceeding see the C.J.S. title Specific
Performance § 168, also 58 C.J. p
1273 notes 25-26.
2. Tex.— Rio Grande Valley Tele-
phone Co. v. Hocut, Civ.App., 93
S.W.2d 167, error dismissed.
33 C.J. p 1106 note 58 [c].
3. N.T.— In re Van Nostrand's Will,
29 N.Y.S.2d 857, 177 Misc. 1.
Pa. — Bautsch to Use of Schlear v.
Bubbenmoyer, Com.Pl., 32 Berks
Co.L.J. 233.
4. Pa.— Aiken v. Use of Mayberry
v. Mayberry, 198 A. 874, 128 Pa.
Super. 15.
Erroneous determination, as to per-
son in whose name the action should
be revived was held not to render
judgment void. — Griffin v. Proctor,
14 So.2d 116, 244 Ala. 537.
Failure to make substitution error
Where parties to suit died before
entry of decree failure to make sub-
stitution for them was error. — Smith
v. Schmitt, 231 P. 176. 112 Or. 687.
5. N.C. — Hinkle v. Walker, 197 S.E.
129, 213 N.C. 657.
6. CaL — Conlin v. Blanchard, 28 P.
2d 12, 219 CaL 632 — In re Parsell's
Estate, 213 ?. 40, 190 Cal. 454, 25
A.L.R. 1561— Jones v. Walker, 118
71
P.2d 299, 47 Oal.App,2d 566 — Cor-
pus Juris cited in Garrison v.
Blanchard, 16 P.2d 273, 274, 127
CaLApp. 616 — Hogan v. Superior
Court of California in and for
City and County of San Francisco,
241 P. 584, 74 CaLApp. 704.
Conn. — Corpus Juris cited in
O'Leary v. Waterbury Title Co.,
166 A. 673, 676, 117 Conn. 39.
HI. — Corpus Juris cited in State
Bank of Prairie du Hocher v.
Brown, 263 IlLApp. 312, 315.
Mo. — State ex rel. Jacobs v. Trimble,
274 S.W. 1075, 310 Mo. 150— Wicoff
v. Moore, 257 S.W. 474.
Tex. — Bdens v. Grogan Cochran
Lumber Co., Civ.App., 172 S.W.2d
730, error refused — State Mortg.
Corporation v. Affleck, Civ.App., 27
S.W.2d 548, reversed on other
grounds, Com.App., 61 S.W.2d 274.
Va.— Rennolds v. Williams, 136 S.E.
597, 147 Va. 196.
33 C.J. p 1108 note 69— «4 C.J. p
555 note 70.
7. Minn. — Poupore v. Stone-Ordean-
Wells Co., 157 N.W. 648, 132 Minn.
409.
Pa. — Lynch v. Kerns, 10 Phila. 335.
8. W.Va.— McMillan v., Hickman, 14
S.B. 227, 85 W.Va, 705.
33 C.J. p 1109 note 71—34 C.J. p 555
note 69.
9. U.S.— Corpus Juris cited in
Streeter v. Chicago Title & Trust
Co., D.C.ni., 14 F.2d 331.
Cal. — Liuzza v. Bell, 104 P.2d 1095,
40 CaLApP<2d 417— Corpus Juris
29
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
void,10 even though the party died after trial.11 If,
however, plaintiff12 or defendant1* dies after ver-
dict or decision it is. generally held that a proper
and valid judgment may be rendered on the verdict
or decision. Also under statutes expressly so pro-
viding a valid judgment may properly be entered
in cases where a party dies after verdict, decision,
or report, or after an accepted offer to allow judg-
ment to be taken.14 Although such statutes have
been held to be in derogation of the common law,16
they have also been declared to be declaratory of
the common law, which never allows a delay by
the court to change the condition of a suit.1* A
judgment rendered subsequent to the death of a
party after verdict or decision may properly be
entered mine pro tune as of the date of the verdict
or decision, as considered infra § 118; and in ju-
risdictions where a judgment rendered after the
death of a party by a court which has acquired ju-
risdiction of the parties and subject matter is not
void but voidable, a judgment entered as of the
actual date when rendered, at a time subsequent to
plaintiffs death after verdict or decision, is not
void.17 Under a statute authorizing a judgment
subsequent to a party's death after verdict or de-
cision if the court renders its opinion and directs
judgment in plaintiff's favor prior to defendant's
death it may, after defendant's death, order the
findings filed nunc pro tune as of the date of the
opinion, as considered in the CJ.S. title Trial §
645, also 64 C.J. p 1271 note 78, and enter judgment
against decedent on such findings ;18 or, if no find-
ings are required because the case was submitted
on an agreed statement of facts, the court may ren-
oited in Garrison v. Blanchard. 16
P.2d 273, 274, 127 Gal.App. 616—
Hogan v. -Superior Court of Cali-
fornia in and for City and County
of San Francisco, 241 P. 584, 74
CaLApp. 704.
Ky.— Mosely v. Morgan, 252 S.W.
117, 199 Ky. 845.
Okl. — Corpus Juris cited in Adams
v. Carson, 25 P.2d 653, 657, 165
Okl. 161.
Pa.— Klemstine v. Allen, 16 PaJ>ist
& Co. 221.
Tex.— -Garcia v. Jones. Civ.App., 155
S.W.2d 671, error refused.
33 C.J. p 1107 note 68— 34 C.J. p 555
note 67.
Effect of death of party on admiral-
ty proceeding see Admiralty 5 97.
10. Ala. — Griffin v. Proctor, 14 So.
2d 116, 244 Ala. 8* 7— Corpus Jtu
ris cited in Martin v. Cothran, 200
So. 609, 610, 240 Ala. 619— Corpus
Juris cited in McDonald v. Wo-
mack, 107 So. 812, 818, 214 Ala.
309.
La.— West v. Green, 131 So. 595, 15
La. App. 216.
Mo.— De Hatre v. Ruenpohl, 108 S.
.W.2d 357, 341 Mo. 749, transfer-
red, see, App., 123 S.W.2d 243*-
Carter v. Burns, 61 S.W.2d 933, 332
. Mo. 1128 — Cole v. Farkei>Wash-
ington Co., 207 S.W. 749, 276. Mo.
220, -overruling State v. Riley, 118
S.W. 647, 219 Mo. 667, and Coleman
v. McAnulty, 16 Mo. 173, 57 Am.
D. 229.
N.Y. — In re Hirnschall's Estate, 265
N.Y.S, 36, 147 Misc. 897.
33 C.J. P 1107 note 66—34 C.J. p 555
note 68.
Abatement and revival after death
of party see Abatement and Re-
vival §5 114-186.
Effect of dissolution of corporation
on judgment for or against it see
Corporations .§§ 17!35-1786.
afiortrar* foreclosure
N.J.— In re Admiral Sampson Bldg.
& Loan Ass'n of Newark, 41 A.2d
378, 136 N.J.EQ;. 292.
Successor in. interest
Judgment rendered after death of
party should not bind those suc-
ceeding to rights of action or prop-
erty of deceased. — MacAffer v. Bos-
ton & M. R. R., 197 N.E. 328, 268
N.Y. 400.
11. La.— West v. Green, 131 So. 595,
15 La~kpp. 216.
Judgment for costs
Kan. — Jones v. Jones, 167 P.2d 634,
161 Kan. 284.
12. W.Va Lively v. Griffith, 99 S.
E. 512, 84 W.Va, 393.
33 C.J. p 1109 note 72.
13. Or.— Adams v. Perry. Ill P«2d
838, 168 Or. 132.
33 C.J. p 1109 note 74.
14. Cal. — Fox T. Hale & Norcross
Silver Min. Co., 41 P. 328, 108 Cal.
478— Liuzza v. Bell, 104 P.2d 1095,
40 Cal.App.2d 417— Copp T. Rives,
217 P. 813, 62 CaLApp. 776.
Mo. — In re Thomasson, 159 S.W.2d
626 — Homer v. Nicholson, 56 Mo.
220.
N.Y.— In re Taylor's Estate, 33 N.Y.
S.2d 584, 178 Misc. 217.
Va.— Green's Ex'rs v. Smith, 132
S.E. 839, 146 Va. 442, 44 A.L.R.
1175.
33 C.J. p 1109 note 75—34 C.J. p 76
note 67 [a].
Purpose of statute
(1) Its purpose is to permit entry
of judgment where merits of contro-
versy have, in substance, been pass-
ed on before death of party. — Davis
v. Ross, 20 N.Y.S.2d 375, 259 App.
Div. 577, reargument denied 21 N.Y.
S.2d 391, 259 App.Div. 1029— In .re
Taylor's WiU, 33 N.Y.S.2d 584, 178
Misc. 217— Nicholson v. McMullen,
28 N.Y.S.2d 287, 176 Misc. 693.
(2) It was never intended to al-
low a judgment to be entered
against deceased which could not
72
have been entered in his lifetime. —
Nicholson v. McMullen, supra.
Actions to which applicable
(1) The statute applies generally
to all ordinary civil actions, whether
involving equitable or legal rights.
--State v. Stratton, 19 S.W. 803, 110
Mo. 426.
(2) The statute applies only to ac-
tions not abating on death. — Grotsch
v. KGassey, 231 N.Y.S. 469, 133 Misc.
373— J34 C.J. p 76 note 67 [a] (1),
(3).
Accepted offer to allow Judgment
A judgment by default is not an
"accepted offer to allow judgment."
—Nicholson v. McMullen, 28 N.Y.S.
2d 287, 176 Misc. 693.
Verdict, decision, or report held
made i
N.Y.— Davis ,v. Ross, 20 N.Y.S.2d
375, 259 App.Div. 577, reargument
denied 21 N.Y.S.2d 391, 259 App.
Div. 1029— In re Taylor's Will, 33
N.Y.S.2d 584, 178 Misc. 217.
Judgment held act proper
(1) Generally. — Nicholson v. Me-.
Mullen, 28 N.Y.S.2d 287, 176 Misc.
693.
(2) Where facts concerning alleg-
ed settlement were in dispute. — (Mer-
rill v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 282 N.Y.
S. 574, 246 App.Div. 541.
15. N.Y.— -Nicholson v. McMullen,
28 N.Y.S.2d 287, 17$ Misc. 693.
16. Mo. — Homer v. Nicholson, §6
Mo. 220.
S3 C.J. p 1109 note 76.
17. Mass.— Reid v. Holmes, 1*7
Mass. 326.
33 C.J. p 1109 note 78.
18. Cal. — Fox v. Hale & Norcross
Silver Min. Co., 41 P. 328, 108
CaL 478— Copp v. Rives, 217 P.
813, 62 Gal.App. 776.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
29
der judgment .after defendant's death where it was
submitted prior thereto.19
A judgment entered nunc pro tune after the death
of plaintiff and at a time when a substitution of
parties for decedent had not been made has been
held void.20 . In some jurisdictions where defendant
dies before judgment the court is without juris-
diction as to him until the action is revived and his
representatives are brought before the court,21 and
in other jurisdictions service of notice on all per-
sons interested in the estate of the deceased defend-
ant is prerequisite to a valid judgment.22
A judgment erroneous because rendered for or
against a dead person may be reversed on appeal if
that fact appears on the record.2^ If such fact
must be. shown by evidence aliunde, the remedy is
by writ of error coram nobis, or by motion or peti-
tion in the cause.24 The right to impeach in a col-
lateral proceeding a judgment rendered subsequent
to the death of a party is considered infra § 419.
Terminated trust. A judgment cannot bestow on
retiring trustees of a terminated testamentary trust
continuing power to control and manage the real
estate of the trust,25 even though all the benefici-
aries under the will acquiesced in or expressly con-
sented thereto.26
b. Joint Parties
Whether or not a judgment for or against Joint par-
ties, rendered after the death of one of them, Is void or
voidable depends on the rule followed In the particular
jurisdiction as to the effect of the death of a party be-
fore judgment, and on whether or not the judgment Is
an entirety.
Under the rule, considered infra § 33 b, that a
judgment for or against several parties is an en-
tirety and either good or bad as a whole, and where,
as discussed supra subdivision a of this section, the
death of a party before judgment renders the judg- !
ment void, a judgment for or against several parties
jointly after the death of one of them is void as to
all of them;27 but where such death renders the
judgment merely erroneous and voidable, a judg-
ment for or against several parties jointly after the
death of one of them, while not void, is erroneous
and voidable as to all of them.28 On the other
hand, in jurisdictions where a judgment for or
against several parties is not necessarily good or
bad as an entirety, considered infra § 33 b, the
death of one of such parties before judgment will
render the judgment void,29 or merely erroneous
and voidable,30 as to such deceased party, according
to the locally prevailing rule, considered supra sub-
division a of this section; but it will not affect the
validity or regularity of the judgment as to thfc
other parties.81
In jurisdictions where judgment may be taken
for or against one or more of several defendants,
judgment may be taken against the surviving de-
fendant or defendants in an action against several
defendants, one or more of whom dies prior to
judgment.32 The rule that judgment may be ren-
dered against a party who dies after verdict but
19. Cal. — Copp v. Rives, supra.
20. Cal. — Boyd v. Lancaster, 90 P.
2d 317, 32 Cal.App.2d 574— Maacon
v. Avery, 89 P.2d 684, 32 CaLApp.
2d 300— Scoville v. Keglor, 80 P.
2d 162, 27 Cal.App.2d 17.
21. Ky.— "Murphy v. Blackburn, 16
S.W.2d 771, 229 Ky. 109.
22. Me. — Consolidated Rendering
. Co. v. Martin, 145 A. 896, 128 Me.
1 96, 64 A.L.R. 790— Trask v. Trask,
3 A. 37, 78 Me. 103— Bridgham v.
Prince, 33 Me. 174.
23. Cal.— Liuzza v. Bell, 104 P.2d
1095, 40 Cal.App.2d 417— Boyd v.
Lancaster, 90 P.2d 317, 82 CaLApp.
2d 574.
La. — Muller v. Davis-Wood Lumber
Co., 2 La.App. 359.
33 C.J. p 1109 note 77.
Judgment for heir
Judgment against lessee in favor
of lessors individually and as heir
at law of a deceased lessor is error,
where Jt appears of record that les-
sor died after filing of suit and there
was neither pleading nor proof as
to condition of deceased's estate or
that administration was pending, or
that none was necessary. — Levine v.
Finfcelstein, Tex.Civ.App., 80 S.W.
2d 360.
24. HI.— Claflin v. Dunne, 21 N.E.
834, 129 111. 241, 16 Am.S.R. 263.
33 C.J. p 1110 note 78.
Judgment subsequent to party's
death as ground for:
Motion or petition to vacate judg-
ment:
Generally see infra § 276.
By confession see infra 5 323.
Writ of error coram nobis see in-
fra $ 312.
25- N.Y.— In re Miller's Will, 178
N.B. 555, 2&7 N.Y. 349.
26. N.Y.— In re Miller's Will, supra,
27. La. — McCloskey v. Wingfield, 29
La.Ann. 141.
33 C.J. p 1110 note 82.
Judgment after death of principal in
action against principal and sure-
ty see the C.J.S. title Principal
and Surety § 277, also 50 C.J. p
223* notes 5-6.
Judgment by confession -against
several parties jointly, .rendered aft-
er the death of one, of them, is void
as to all. — State Bank of Prairie du
Rocher v. Brown, 263 Ill.App. 312.
28. 111.— Claflin v. Dunne, 21 N.B:
834, 129 111. 241, 16 Am.S;R. 263.
33 C.J. p 1101 note 84.
Bringing- in representatives
In action claiming undivided inter-
est in land, there could.be no proper
judgment as to all defendants after
death of one defendant subsequent
to submission of case without, bring-
ing In deceased's representatives. —
Murphy v. Blackburn, 16 S.W.2d 771,
229 Ky. 109.
29. N.Y.— Hawkes -v. Clatty, 107 3ST.
T.S, 534, 122 App.Div. 546, ;
30. Ohio. — Swasey v.' Antram, ' 24
Ohio St. 87. ' ,
33 C.J. p 1110 note 87."
31* Ga. — Sanders v. , Etcherson, 96
Ga, 404— Hardwick v. Hatfleld, 119
S-B. 430, 30 Ga.App. 7$0.
33 C.J. p 1110 note 89.
Death of costipulator as not. affect-
ing right to judgment against
stipulator in admiralty proceeding
see Admiralty I 161.
32. Cal, — Sham v. Forbes, 23 P.
198, 82 Cal. 577— Howe v. Chand-
ler, 1 Cat 167. " .-,]""..
30
JUDGMENTS
49 O.J.S.
before judgment has been applied where one of two
joint parties die after verdict33 In an action by
several plaintiffs, the death of a plaintiff whose
cause of action dies with him does not abridge the
court's right to enter judgment in favor of the
surviving plaintiffs.34 Plaintiff is not entitled to
judgment against a defendant as to whom the ven-
ue was proper only during the time a codefendant,
who died during the pendency of the action without
its revival against his administrator, was a party
to the action.35
§ 30. Joint Parties
Under the codes and practice acts the Judgment
may determine the ultimate rights of all parties.
Under various codes and practice acts the court,
in rendering judgment, may determine the ultimate
rights of all the parties to the controversy,36 and
may render as many judgments, joint, separate, and
cross, as may be necessary to adjust the rights of
the several parties.87
§ 31. Plaintiffs Generally
At common law where several plaintiffs Join in an
action all must recover or none; but under the various
statutes and practice acts Judgment is authorized in fa-
vor of such plaintiffs, as show themselves entitled to re-
cover, although others fail.
At common law, and in the absence of statute
changing the rule, where several plaintiffs join in a
common-law action, all must recover or none, and
if only some of the plaintiffs have a right of ac-
tion, the suit must fail as to all.38 The rule ap-
plies to actions on obligations alleged to be due
plaintiffs jointly,39 and in some jurisdictions has
been limited to actions in which plaintiffs assert a
joint right or title.40 It has been applied to ac-
tions ex contractu in which a joint obligation or in-
debtedness to all plaintiffs is alleged,4* to actions
for contribution,42 and to actions to recover land
in which a joint title is alleged in the plaintiffs,43
such as actions in ejectment.44 Qn the other hand,
judgment has been permitted in favor of fewer than
all the plaintiffs in actions founded on tort, as an
action for conversion,45 in proceedings to cancel a
chattel mortgage,46 and in ejectment where the
plaintiff entitled to recover is trustee of his co-
plaintiffs47 or where a plaintiffs right to recover
is barred by the statute of limitations.48
Under the various codes and practice acts judg-
ment is authorized in favor of any plaintiff who
shows himself entitled, although the others may
fail,49 as where the claims of the several plaintiffs
are distinct, although sufficiently united by a com-
mon interest to authorize their joinder in a single
suit;50 and, even though the coplaintiffs are enti-
tled to share in the recovery, a judgment awarding
the entire recovery to one plaintiff alone is not
33. N.T.— Long: V. Stafford, 8 N.E.
522, 103 N.Y. 274.
84 C.J. p 76 note 67 [a] (5).
34. Cal.— Liuzza v. Bell, 104 P.2d
1095, 40 Cal.App.2d 417.
35. Ark.— Murrell v. Exchange
Bank, 271 S.W. 21, 168 Ark. 645,
44 A.L.R. 1391.
36. Neb.— Whaley v. Matthews, 287
N.W. 205, 1-86 Neb. 767,
Death of one Joint party see supra
5 29.
37. Miss.— Aven v. -Singleton, 96 So.
165, 132 Miss. 256.
38. Ala.— Sharpe v. McCloud, 199
So. 848, 240 Ala. 499.
Fla. — Sahlberg v. J. A. Teague Fur-
niture Co., 130 So. 432, 100 Fla.
972.
Oa. — Powell v. Porter, 5 S.B.2d 884,
189 Ga. 440. '
HI.— Misek v. Village of La Grange,
239 I11.APP. 360.
Mo.— Tore v. Tore, 144 S.W. 847, 240
Mo. 451.
33 C.J. p 1110 note 92.
Conformity to pleadings with re-
spect to parties see Infra § 51.
38. Mo.— Dietrich v. Mothershead,
App.,'150 S.W.2d 565— McLaran v.
Wilhelm, 50 Mo.App. 658.
40. Ala.— Henderson v. J. B. Brown
Co., 28 So. 79, 125 Ala. 566.
33 C.J. p 1110 note 92 [a].
41. Fla,— Sahlberg v. J. A. Teague
Furniture Co., 130 So. 482, 100 Fla.
972— Edgar v. Bacon, 122 So. 107,
97 Fla. 679.
42. Ala. — Gafford V. Tittle, 141 So.
653, 224 Ala. 605.
Mo.— Tore v. Tore, 144 S.W. 847,
240 Mo. 451.
43. Ga£ — Guess v. Morgan, 26 S.E.
2d 424, 196 Ga. 265— Powell v.
Porter, 5 S.E.2d 884, 189 Ga. 440
— Burton v. Patton, 1*34 S.E. 603,
162 Ga. 610.
44. Ala.— Sharpe v. McCloud, 199
So. 848, 240 Ala. 499— McLeod v.
Adams, 118 So. 636, 218 Ala. 424—
Crow v. Smith, 92 So. 905, 207 Ala.
311— Salter v. Fox, 67 So. 1006, 191
Ala. 34— Whitlow v. Echols, 78
Ala. 206.
Ga. — Guess v. Morgan, 26 S.E.2d 424,
196 Ga. 265.
19 C.J. p 1092 note 2, p 1217 note 50.
45. Mo.— Walker v. Lewis, 124 S.
W. 567, 140 Mo.App. 26.
46. Mo. — Harrety v. Kontos, App.,
184 S.W.2d 195.
47. Ind.— Adler v. Sewell, 29 Ind.
598.
74
48. Ga.— Pendergrast v. Gullatt, 10
Ga. 218.
49. Cal.— Liuzza v. Bell, 104 P.2d
1095, 40 Cal.App.2d 417— Wiseman
v. -Sklar, 285 P. 1081, 104 CaLApp.
369— Curtis v. Nye & Nissen, 261
P. 747, 86 CaLApp. 507.
Ind. — Rohan v. Gehring, 137 N.E.
288, 80 IndApp. 46.
Miss. — Aven v. Singleton, 96 So. 165,
132 Miss. 256.
Neb.— Hoffman v. Geiger, 279 N.W.
350, 1<34 Neb. 643, modified on oth-
er grounds 281 N.W. 625, 135 Neb.
349.
Okl. — Corpus Juris quoted in City of
Sapulpa v. Toung, 296 P. 418, 430,
147 Okl. 179.
Tex — South Dakota^Texas Oil Co.
v. Hackworth, Civ.App., 248 S.W.
813, error dismissed.
33 C.J. p 1110 note 93.
Equitable precedents controlling
The code provisions are in sub-
stance enactments of rules of equi-
ty pleading and practice and equita-
ble precedents control their con-
struction or effect. — Bonde v. Stern,
14 N.W.2d 249, 73 N.D. 273.
50. Okl. — Corpus Juris quoted in
City of Sapulpa v. Toung, 296 P.
418, 430, 147 Okl. 179.
33 C.J. p 1111 note 94.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
void.51 The authorization for such a judgment has
been held to apply in all actions, whether in law or
equity,52 and in actions ex contractu53 and in eject-
ment.54 In equity, the common-law rule has no
application, and a decree may be rendered for one
or more joint plaintiffs and against others, as jus-
tice and equity in the particular case may require,
as discussed in Equity § 601.
A judgment against, coplaintiffs is void as to a
plaintiff over whom the court does not have juris-
diction;55 but in jurisdictions where a judgment is
not regarded as an entirety, which is either good or
bad as to all, the invalidity of a judgment as to one
of two or more coplaintiffs against whom it is ren-
dered will not vitiate it as to the others.56 Where
an action should have been dismissed as to one of
two defendants on plaintiff's motion therefor, it has
been held that a judgment entered on the other de-
fendant's cross bill cannot determine issues between
plaintiff and the defendant as to whom the action
should have been dismissed.57
Joint or several judgment; separate judgments.
A judgment in favor of joint plaintiffs should be
joint if their cause of action is joint;58 but if their
cause of action is several the judgment should be
several.^9 Thus a joint recovery on separate, sev-
eral, and independent causes of action in favor of
separate plaintiffs is improper;60 in such case a
judgment which does not preserve the separate
rights of each in the total recovery is illegal.61
However, the failure to designate the amount
awarded to each of the plaintiffs has been held .not
to be error where only one plaintiffs cause was
actually tried and the judgment is for plaintiff, in
the singular.62 In some jurisdictions a judgment
which does not dispose of the case as to all the
plaintiffs is erroneous;63 but under some statutes
the common-law restriction against the rendition of
more than one judgment in an action has been
changed so as to permit the rendition of as many
separate judgments as are necessary to adjust the
rights of the several plaintiffs.64
§ 32. Relief as between Coplaintiffs
Under various statutes a judgment determining the
ultimate rights of the plaintiffs as between themselves
is authorized.
Under the statutes and practice acts in a num-
ber of jurisdictions the judgment may determine
the ultimate rights of the plaintiffs as between
themselves.65
§ 33. Defendants Generally
a. In general
b. Entirety of judgment
c. Process against joint defendants
a. In General
The common -law rule requiring Judgment fn an ac-
tion against several defendants to be against all or none
has generally been changed by statute so as to permit
judgment against some or all of the defendants.
*^a
At common law, and in the absence of statute
51. Tex.— Chandler v. Stewart, Civ.
AppM 90 S.W,2d 590, error dis-
missed.
52. N.D.— Bonde v. Stern, 14 N.W.2d
249, 73 N.D. 273.
53. Ind.— Rohan v. Gehring, 137 N.
E. 288, 80 Ind.App. 46.
N.Y. — Comerford v. Fahy Market,
198 N.T.S. 3-53, 204 App.Div. 533.
54. Tenn. — Ferguson v. Prince, 190
S.W. 548, 136 Tenn. 543.
19 C.J. p 1092 note 1, p 1217 notes
51 [b], 52.
66. Cal.— Tracy v. Maclntyre, 84 P.
2d 526, 29 Cal.App.2d 145.
Plaintiff not notified
A judgment against coplaintiffs
for attorney fees of an attorney dis-
missed on a motion to substitute at-
torneys is void as to a plaintiff who
was not notified of and did not ap-
pear at the hearing on the motion. —
Tracy v. Maclntyre, supra.
66. CaL — Tracy v. Maclntyre, su-
pra,
57. U.S.— «auter v. First Nat Bank,
C.C.A.I11., 8 F.2d 121.
Effect of dismissal or nonsuit on de-
fendant's right to affirmative re-
lief see Dismissal and Nonsuit §
39 b.
Plaintiff's right to dismiss as to one
or more codefendants see Dismiss-
al and Nonsuit §§ 30-32.
58, Ind. — Wheeler v. Hawkins, 19
N.B. 470, 116 Ind. 515.
33 C.J. p 1126 note 22.
$9. Cal. — Emery v. Pacific Employ-
ers Ins. Co., 67 P.2d 1046, 8 Cal.
2d 663.
33 C.J. p 1126 note 22.
Action under Pair labor Standards
Act
In action by employees on behalf
of themselves and other employees
similarly situated to recover over-
time compensation under Fair Labor
Standards Act, a joint judgment may
not be had. — Smith v. Stark Truck-
Ing, D.C.Ohio, 53 F.Supp. 826.
60. Teac. — First Nat Bank v. Cros-
sett, Civ.App., 268 S.W. 997.
Wyo. — Taylor v. Stockwell, 145 P.
743, 22 Wyo. 492, rehearing denied
147 P. 3-28, 22 Wyo. 492.
33 C.J. p 1111 note 94 [a].
«L N.J.— Musto v. Mitchell, 146 A.
212, 105 NJT.Law 575— Wilson v.
Deschner, 167 A. 670, 11 N.J.Miac,
75
609 — Warner v. Public Service Co-
ordinated Transport, 153 A.. 711, 9
N.J.Misc. 328.
62. N.J.— Melber v. Great Atlantic
& Pacific Tea Co., 167 A. 746, 11
N.J.Misc. 635.
63. Colo.— -Shaw v. Brady, 251 P.
532, 80 Colo. 337.
64. Miss. — Aven v. Singleton, 96 So.
165, 132 Miss. 256.
Rendition of separate judgments
against several defendants see in-
fra § 36 c.
Plaintiff suing ia double capacity
Where same party suing Individ*
ually and as administratrix in one
action recovers both for death ben-
efits payable to her and sick bene-
fits payable to decedent, judgments
for the death benefits should be en-
tered in her own name, and judff^
ment for sick benefits entered sepa*
rately in her representative capaci-
ty.—Wallace v. Patriotic Order Sons
of America, Washington Camp No.
50, 189 A. 712, 125 Pa, Super. 268.
66. Cal.-— Curtis v. Nye & Nissen,
261 P. 747, '86 Cal.App. 507. *
In eaulty see Equity $603.
33
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
changing the rule, if several defendants are joined
in an action recovery ordinarily must be for or
- against all or none,66 at least in an action in which
the liability asserted is joint67 In many states,
however, under the codes and practice acts therein
or authorized rules of court, judgment may be given
for or against one or more of several defendants,
and in an action against several defendants the
court may in its discretion render judgment against
one or more of them, leaving the action to proceed
against the others whenever a several judgment is
proper.68 Such statutes were intended to create a
common procedure for both actions ex contractu
and ex delicto,69 and to apply to all actions founded
on contract the same rule with regard to the right
of recovery against some of the defendants which
prevails at common law in the case of actions found-
ed on torts,70 or, as some authorities say, to adopt
the rule prevailing in equity as to joint defend-
ants.71
Under such statutes the court possesses chancery
powers and may adapt its judgment to the rights of
the parties as found from the facts established from
the evidence.72 If a plaintiff sues two or more de-
fendants on a liability alleged to be joint, or joint -
and several, he is no longer compelled to establish
a joint cause of action against all, but a judgment
may be taken against the party or parties shown to
be liable, when the others are not liable,78 and in
favor of defendant or defendants found not liable.74
Plaintiff is not required to elect before completion
of the trial whether he will ask for a joint judgment
against all the defendants sued or a several judg-
ment against one of them.75
A statute which authorizes judgment against such
defendants as are defaulted or on trial are found
liable has been held not to enable the court, on
sustaining a demurrer as to one defendant, to pro-
ceed to trial and enter judgment against the re-
maining defendants.76 Since an amendment cannot
be made which effects an entire change of parties
defendant, as discussed in the CJ.S. title Parties §§
72, 85, also 47 CJ. p 131 note 28, p 161 note 20-
p 162 note 37, if plaintiff is not entitled to recover
66. Fla. — Harrington v. Bowman,
US So. 651, 106 Fla. 86.
67. Pa. — Bauman v. Blttner, 33 A.
2d 273. 152 Pa.Super. 628.
68. Ala.— Pollard v. Rogers, 173 So.
881, 234 Ala, 92.
Ariz. — Bracker Stores v. Wilson, 103
P.2d 253, 55 Ariz. 403.
Cal.— Trans-Pacific Trading Co. v.
Patsy Frock & Romper Co., 209
i P. 357, 189 Cal. 509— Weisz v. Mc-
1 See, 87 P.2d 379, 31 Cal.App.2d
1 144, rehearing denied 88 P.2d 200,
31 Cal.App.2d 144.
Colo.— Beatty v. Resler, 118 P.2d
1084, 108 Colo. 434.
Conn. — Woodruff v. Perroti, 122 A,
452, 99 Conn. 639.
Ind.— Fidelity & Deposit Co. of
Maryland v. Standard Oil Co., 199
N.E. 169, 101 Ind.App. 301.
Mich. — Rimmele v. Huebner, 157 N.
W. 10, 190 Mich. 247.
Neb.— Whaley v. Matthews, 287 N.
W.^205, 136 Neb. 767.
N.J. — Ordinary of State v. Bastian, 5
AJ2d 463, 17 N.J.Misc. 105.
NT.— Reeve v. Cromwell, 237 N.T.
S. 20, 227 App.Div. 32.
OkL— Corpus Juris quoted in City
of Sapulpa v. .Young, 296 P. 418,
431,. 147 Okl. 179.
Or, — Anderson y. Maloney, 225 P.
318, 111 Or. 84— Fischer v. Bayer,
216 P. 1028, 108 Or. 311.
Tex. — Shaw v. Whitfleld, Civ.App.,
. 3-5 S.W.2d 1115— Collins v. Stiiger,
CivJVjpp., 253 S.W. 572.
S3 C.J. p 1115 note 21.
Additional defendants
The statute applies to additional
defendants brought on the record by
scir-e facias proceeding- where "the
original defendant alleges that they
are Jointly liable with him.— Carroll
v. Kirk, 19 A.2d 584, 144 Pa.Super.
211.
69. Ark. — OBerryman v. Cudahy
Packing Co., 87 S.W.2d 21, 191
Ark. 533.
70. Ind.— Brandt v. Hall, 82 N.E.
929, 40 Ind.App. 651.
33 C.J. p 1117 note 25.
Common-law rule in actions of:
Contract see infra § 34.
Tort see infra § 35.
71. N.D.— Bonde v. Stern, 14 N.W.
2d 249, 73 N.D. 273.
33 C.J. p 1117 note 26.
72. Cal. — Fageol Truck & Coach
Co. v. Pacific Indemnity Co.,. 117 P.
2d 669, 18 Cal.2d 748.
Ind.— Fidelity & Deposit Co. of
Maryland v. Standard Oil Co., 199
N.B. 169, 101 Ind.App. 301.
Differentiation of liability of de-
fendants
In action against principal and
guarantor who did not guarantee en-
tire debt, judgment which allowed
greater recovery against principal
than against guarantor was not
duplicitous. — Baten v. Thornhill, Tex.
Civ.App., 145 S.W.2d 608, srror re-
fused.
Where only one satisfaction . per.
mitted
(1) Decree ordering enforcement
of mortgage debt out of various
properties of different defendants
but providing for only one satisfac-
tion of the debt was not contradic-
tory.— Gray v. First Nat. Bank of
Chicago, 51 N;R2d 797, 320 IlLApp.
76
682, reversed on other grounds 57
N.B.2d 363, 388 111. 124.
(2) Judgment permitting note
holder to recover from maker and
maker's debtor was not objectiona-
ble as allowing double recovery,
where judgment provided for credit-
ing maker with amount collected
from his debtor. — J. C. Whaley Dum-
ber Co. v. Citizens' Nat Bank of
Lubbock, Tex.Civ.App., 57 S.W.2d
637.
73. Ga. — Farley v. Groover, 3 S.E.
2d 135, 60 Ga.App. 169.
Iowa. — Lull v. Anamosa Nat. Bank,
81 N.W. 784, 110 Iowa -537.
La,— Raphiel v. Louisiana Ry. &
Nav. Co., 99 So. 459, 155 La. 590.
Mass. — Mackintosh v. Chambers, 190
N.E. 38, 285 Mass. 594.
Nev. — Ward v. -Scheeline Banking- &
Trust Co., 22 P.2d 358, 54 Nev. 442.
Or. — Fischer v. Bayer, 210 P. 453,
108 Or. 311.
Vt— C. B. Johnson & Co. v. Marsh,
15 A.2d 577, 111 Vt. 266, 131 AJU
R. '502— F. S. Fuller & Co. v. Mor-
rison, 169 A. 9, 106 Vt. 22.
33 C.J. p 1115 note 24.
In actions against partners see the
C.J.S. title Partnership § 235, also
47 C.J. p 1010 note l-s> 1011 note
11.
74. Mo.— Wippler v. Hohn, 110
2d 409, 341 Mo. 780:
33 £.J. p 1127 note 26.
76. Mich. — Rimmele v. Huebner,
157 N.W. 1$, 190 Mich. 247.
76. Mass.— Riley v. Burns, 22 NJEB.
2d 761, 304 Mass. 15.
49 O.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 33
against the original defendant judgment cannot be
had against a new defendant brought into the case,
unless he consents thereto.77
Abatement as to some of defendants. In an ac-
tion against several defendants on a joint obliga-
tion a judgment in abatement in favor of one of
the defendants on his plea of privilege as to venue,
applicable to himself alone, has been held to be er-
toneous.78
b. Entirety of Judgment
In some jurisdictions a judgment against several de-
fendants is an entirety, and if erroneous or void as to
any of them is equally so as to all; but In other Ju-
risdictions the rule I* otherwise.
According to some authorities a judgment against
two or more defendants jointly is regarded as an
entirety,79 whether rendered in a contract or tort
action,80 so that, if it is irregular or erroneous81
or void82 as to any of the defendants, it is equally
so as to all. According to other authorities, how-
ever, a judgment against two or more defendants
is not regarded as an entirety,8^ and a judgment
may be valid and enforceable as to one or some of
defendants, although voidable or void as to oth-
ers,84 at least in actions ex delicto.85 Decisions
even within the same jurisdiction are sometimes in
conflict as to the entirety of judgments.88 In some
of the decisions it has been stated that the com-
mon-law rule that judgments are entireties is ef-
fective only in exceptional cases,87 that the rule
has been relaxed in some cases in the interest of
justice where error is found as to one party only,88
and that the rule is not applicable to judgments in
actions in rem.89
c. Process against Joint Defendants
(1) In general
(2) Resident and nonresident joint de-
fendants
(3) Statutory joint judgment
(4) Statutory separate judgment
(1) In General
In an action against several defendants, only some
of whom were duly served with process, Judgment against
all is void as to the defendants not served; and, un-
less the rule is changed by statute, it Is void as to the
others If the Judgment Is considered as an entirety. If
judgment is rendered against only the defendants served
with process, it is erroneous or voidable where the ac-
tion is on a Joint contract, unless the statutes provide
otherwise.
In general, as discussed supra §§ 19, 23, a judg-
ment against persons over whom the court has not
acquired jurisdiction is void. Accordingly, if there
77. Ala. — Covington v. Robinson, 6
So.2d 421, 242 Ala. 337— McKelvey-
Coats Furniture Co. v. Doe, 198 So.
128, 240 Ala. 135— Roth v. Scruggs,
106 So. 182, 214 Ala. 32.
Situation does not arise until the
evidence is in If the plaintiff con-
tends that both parties are liable.
-— McKelvey-Coats Furniture Co. v.
Doe, 199 So. 128, 240 Ala. 135.
78. Fla, — Universal Credit Co. v.
Beckwith, 172 So. -358, 126 Fla.
865.
Necessity for two or more defend-
ants to plead grounds of abate-
ment separately or jointly seel
Abatement and Revival § 188 c.
79. 111.— State Bank of Prairie du:
Bocher v. Brown, 263 Ill.App. 312
— Sergo v. Bloch, 263 llLApp. 198.
Mo.— Neal v. Curtis & Co. Mfg. Co.,
41 S.W.2d 543, 328 Mo. 389.
33 C.J. p 1130 note 59.
Entirety of judgments generally see
supra § 3.
.80. 111.— State Bank of Prairie du
Rocher v. Brown, 263 Ill.App. 312.
81. 111.— Fredrich v. Wolf, 50 N.E.2d
755, 383 111. 638— Sergo v. Bloch,
263 Ill.App. 198.
Mo.— Neal' v. Curtis & Co. Mfg. Co.,
„ 41 S.W.2d 543, 328 Mo. 389.
33 C.J. p 1130 note 59.
Death of party see supra § 29.
Reversal as to some of the parties
and affirmance as to others on ap-
peal or writ of error see Appeal
and Error §§ 1919-1922.
82. 111.— State Bank of Prairie du
Rocher v. Brown, 263 ULApp. 312
— Berkemeier v. Dormuralt Motor
Sales, 263 ULApp. 211— Singer v.
Cross, 257 IlLApp. 41.
Me. — Consolidated Rendering Co. v.
Martin, 145 A. 896, 128 Me. 96,
64 A.L.R. 790.
33 C.J. p 1119 note 37, p 1130 note
59.
83. . Ky. — Reed v. Runyan, 10 S.W.
2d 824, 226 Ky. 261.
Miss. — Bank of Philadelphia v. Pos-
ey, 92 So. 840, 130 Miss. 530, sug-
gestion of error sustained on oth-
er grounds 95 So. 134, 130 Miss.
825.
33 C.J. p 1130 note 60.
84. Ky. — Reed v. Runyan, 10 S.W.
2d 824, 226 Ky. 261.
Okl.— Bledsoe v. Green, 280 P. 301,
138 Okl. 15.
Pa. — Merchants Banking Trust Co.
v. Klimosky, 9 Pa.Dist. & Co. 143,
23 Sch.Leg.Rec. 78.
Tex.— U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
v. Richey, Civ.App., 18 S.W.2d 231,
error refuser'.
33 C.J. p 1130 note 60.
85. Minn. — Engstrand v. Kleftman,
90 N.W. 1054, 86 Minn. 40-3, 91
Am.S.R. 359.
86. Mo.— Mclntosh v. Wiggins, 191
S.W.2d 637, certiorari denied 66
S.Ct 1015— Neal v. Curtis '& Coil
77
Mfg. Co., 41 S.W.2d 543, 328 Mo.
389.
33 C.J. p 1131 note 61.
In Mississippi'
(1) It has been held that a judg-
ment at law is an entirety and is
valid or invalid as a whole. — Bout-
well v. Grayson, 79 So. 61, 118 Miss.
80— Carrollton Hardware & Imple-
ment Co. v. Marshall, 78 So. 7, 117
Miss. 224 — Comenitz v. Bank of Com-
merce, 38 So. 35, 85 Miss. 662— Weis
v. Aaron, 21 So. 763, 75 Miss. 138,
65 Am.S.R. 594.
(2) These cases, however, have
been overruled. — Bank of Philadel-
phia v. Posey, 92 So. 840, 130 Miss.
530, suggestion of error sustained on
other grounds 95 So. 134, 130 Miss.
825.
(3), The overruled decisions will
control the validity of a judgment
which affects property rights where
it was rendered prior to the time
they were overruled. — Bank of Phil-
adelphia v. Posey, 95 So. 134, 130
Miss. 825.
8(7. Mo. — State v. Blakemore, 205 S.
W. 626, 275 Mo. 695.
88. Mo.— Neal v. Curtis & Co. Mfg.
Co., 41 S.W.2d 543, 328 Mo. 389—
Stotler v, Chicago & A. Ry. Co., 98
S.W. 509, 200 Mo. 107.
89. Mo.— Mclntosh v. 'Wiggins, 191
S.W.2d 537, certiqrarj denied 66
S.Ct. 1015.
33
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
are several defendants, all must be served with
process or appear in the action in order to warrant
a judgment against all;9^ and, where none was
properly served with process or made an appear-
ance in the action, a personal judgment against
such defendants is void,91 A judgment against all
the defendants, some of whom were not served with
process and did not appear in the action, is void as
to the absent defendant or defendants,92 and at com-
mon law and in the absence of statute changing the
rule is at least erroneous and voidable as to all the
defendants.93 In jurisdictions where a judgment is
considered as an entirety and if void as to one
party is void as to all, discussed supra subdivision
b of this section, such a judgment is absolutely void
as to all.94 However, in jurisdictions where judg-
ments are not considered as an entirety, such a
judgment is at most voidable and not void as to the
defendants who were served with process or ap-
peared;95 and in some jurisdictions if the action is
ex delicto the judgment is valid and binding against
the defendants served with process.96 Under the
codes and practice acts in various jurisdictions the
judgment is valid and binding against parties over
whom the court had jurisdiction by proper service
of process or appearance,97 or at least it is an er-
ror or irregularity of which the defendants served
cannot complain.98
f
90. I1L— Werner v. W. H. Shons Co-
173 N.B. 486, 341 111. 478.
At common law and in the absence of statute
changing the rule, a judgment against only the de-
fendants served with process or appearing is er-
roneous and voidable as to them in an action on a
joint contract against several defendants, some of
whom were not subjected to the jurisdiction of the
court by due service of process or appearance,99
it having been the rule under the early common
law that, where several defendants were sued on a
joint contract, plaintiff was not entitled to judg-
ment against any of them, until all were served
with process, or until those not served were prose-
cuted to outlawry.1 Under some statutes the fail-
ure to obtain service of process on some of sev-
eral defendants will not affect the validity of a
judgment against the others in an action on a joint
and several obligation;2 and under others it has
been held that in an action against several defend-
ants on a joint obligation judgment may properly
be taken against one, or fewer than all, where the
other defendants were nonresidents not served with
process.3 A voluntary general appearance for de-
fendants not served will confer jurisdiction and per-
mit a judgment against all.4 Statutes in derogation
of the common law, and authorizing judgment
jointly against all defendants on process served on
only some of them, discussed infra subdivision c
(3) of this section, or a several judgment against
91. Ky.— Viall v. Walker, 58 S.W.
2d 415, 248 Ky. 197.
In discovery proceeding1 after
judgment, however, the court under
some statutes has been held to have
Jurisdiction to render personal judg-
ment on service of summons against
defendants out of county, even
though none resided, or was served,
within county. — Viall v. Walker, su-
pra.
92. Ga. — Hicks v. Bank of Wrights-
ville, 194 S.B. 892, £7 Ga.App. 233.
Ky.— Capper v. Short, 11 S.W.2d 717,
226 Ky. 689.
Miss.— Bank of Philadelphia v. Pos-
ey, 92 So. 840, 130 Miss. 530, sug-
gestion of error sustained on oth-
er grounds, 95 So. 134, 1-30 Miss.
825.
N.C.— Crocker v. Vann, 135 S.E. 127,
192 N.C. 422.
Okl.— Bledsoe v. Green, 280 P. 301,
138 Okl. 15.
Tenn.— Ridgeway v. Bank of Ten-
nessee, 11 Humph. 523 — Galbraith
v. Kirby, 109 S.W.2d 1168, 21 Tena
App. 303.
33 C.J. p 1118 note 34.
Statutory joint judgment see infra
subdivision c (3). of this section.
93. Ky.— Capper v. Short, 11 S.W.2d
717, 226 Ky. 689.
33 C,J. p 1119 note 35.
94. Me. — Buffum v. Ramsdell, 65
Me. 252, 92 Am.D. 589.
33 C.J. p 1119 note 36.
95. Ky. — Capper v. Short, 11 S.W.
2d 717, 226 Ky. 689.
83 C.J. p 1119 note 38.
96. Minn. — Engstrand v. Kleffman,
90 N.W. 1054, 86 Minn. 40.3, 91
Am.S.R. 359.
97. Fla.— Street v. Crosthwait, 183
So. 820, 134 Fla. 158, modified on
other grounds 186 So, 516, 136 Fla.
327.
Miss. — Bank of Philadelphia v. Pos-
ey, 92 So. 840, 130 Miss. 530, sug-
gestion of error sustained on other
grounds 95 So. 134, 130 Miss. 825.
Mo.— Nations v. Beard, 267 S.W.
19, 216 Mo.App. 33.
Okl.— Bledsoe v. Green, 280 P. 301,
138 Okl. 15.
Tex. — Taylor v. Hustead & Tucker,
Civ. App., 248 S.W. 766, reversed on
other grounds, Com. App., 257 S.W.
232.
98. Go.— Hicks v. Bank of Wrights-
ville, 194 S.E. 892, 57 Ga.App. 233.
Mo. — State ex rel. Cunningham v.
Haid, 40 S.W.2d 1048, 828 Mo. 208.
33 C.J. p 1119 note 40.
99.
Fla. — Harrington
78
v. Bowman,
136 So. 229, 102 Fla. 339, modified
on other grounds 143 So. <651, 106
Fla. 86.
33 C.J. p 1118 note 33.
Process or appearance see supra §5
23-26.
1. Fla. — Corpus Juris cited in Har-
rington v. Bowman, 143 So. 661,
653, 106 Fla. 86.
33 C.J. p 1118 note 81.
2. Ga.— Hicks v. Bank of Wrights-
ville, 194 S.E. 892, 57 G*a.App. 233.
3. Mass.— Alfred J. Silberstein,
Inc., v. Nash, 10 N.B.2d 65, 298
Mass. 170 — Lennon v. Cohen, 16-3
N.E. 63, 264 Mass. 414.
4* Ala.— Eaton v. Harris, 42 Ala.
491.
33 C.J. p 1119 note 41.
Collateral attack where appearance
unauthorized see infra § 424.
Unauthorized appearance
Judgment against nonresident de-
fendant on demurrer filed by other
defendants and purporting to include
him was void where he had not been
served with process, had not volun-
tarily appeared or authorized any
attorney to appear for him, and had
not authorized any of codefendants
or other persons to employ counsel
for him. — Street v. Dexter. 77 P.2d
707, 182 Okl. 360.
49
JUDGMENTS
§ 33
only those served, discussed infra subdivision c (4)
of this section, must be strictly construed and fol-
lowed; judgment is authorized only in cases falling
within the statute as thus construed.*
. Construction of judgment. Where process is
served only on some of the defendants, and judg-
ment is taken against "defendants" without naming
them, and without any appearance of those not
served, the judgment will be understood to be only
against those who were duly served.6
(2) Resident and Nonresident Joint Defend-
ants
In the absence of a compliance with statutory re-
quirements, a judgment against Joint defendants, resi-
dents of different counties or districts, Is void as to the
nonresident defendants.
Under statutes authorizing the venue of actions
against several defendants, who are properly joined
as such, although residents of different counties, to
be laid in the county where one of them resides or
is summoned, discussed in the C.J.S. title Venue §§
93-98, also 67 CJ. p 101 note 22-p 118 note 27,
and permitting in such actions the issuance and
service of process on the nonresident defendants,
discussed in the C.J.S. title Process §§ 8, 32, also SO
CJ. p 451 notes 6-12, p 475 note 1-p 476 note 13,
a judgment taken against a nonresident of the coun-
ty of venue contrary to the provisions of the stat-
ute is void as to him;7 but in jurisdictions where
judgments are not considered as an entirety, dis-
cussed supra subdivision b of this section, it is not
thereby made void as* to parties who were properly
served with process.* Thus a judgment against a
defendant who was not summoned in the county of
venue is void as to him where the resident and non-
resident defendants were improperly joined in the
action;9 and it is likewise void, where a statute
prohibits judgment in such case, if the action is
discontinued or dismissed as to,10 or judgment is
not rendered against,11 the defendant or defend-
ants residing or served in the county of venue. If,
however, the nonresident defendant appears and
contests the court's jurisdiction over him, or other-
wise enters his appearance, a judgment against him
is at most erroneous or voidable.12
(3) Statutory Joint Judgment
Under various joint debtor acts a Judgment in form
against all the defendants may be rendered In an action
on a Joint obligation against several defendants, some
of whom were not served with process, which Is good
as a personal Judgment against the defendants served
and enforceable against their separate property and the
Joint property of all, located within the state, but not
against the individual property of those not served.
Under a class of statutes commonly known as
"joint debtor acts,"13 which have been sustained as
essentially constitutional,1* and which were enacted
to supersede the necessity of proceeding to outlawry
against one not found or brought into court,15 it
has been held that, where one or more defendants
are sued on a joint obligation, and process is served
on one or more but not on all defendants, plaintiff
may proceed against those served, unless the court
otherwise directs,1* and, if successful, recover a
judgment in form against all the defendants,17
which is good as a personal judgment against de-
5. Fla.— Davis v. First Nat. Bank
& Trust Co. of Orlando, 150 So.
633, 112 Fla. 485— Harrington v.
Bowman, 143 So. 651, 106 Fla, 86.
33 C.J. p 1119 note 45.
6. Ark.— Neal v. Singleton, 26 Ark.
491.
33 O.J. p 1119 note 46.
7. Ky. — Hays v. Baker, 35 S.W.2d
296, 237 Ky. 265.
8. Ky. — Reed v. Runyon, 10 S.W.2d
824, 226 Ky. 261.
9. Ky. — Ramey v. Weddington, 105
S.W.2d 824, 268 Ky. 675— Willis
v. Tomes, 132 S.W. 1043, 141 Ky.
431.
Collusive Joinder of defendants for
the sole purpose of bringing suit
against a nonresident of the county
of venue will render judgment
against nonresident void. — Wistrom
v. Forsling, 9 N.W.2d 294, 143 Neb.
294, rehearing denied and opinion
modified on other grounds 14 N.W.
2d 217, 144 Neb. 638.
Joint liability not shown
Ky. — Ramey v. Weddington, 105 S.
W.2d 824. 268 Ky. 675.
10. Ark. — Stiewel v. Borman, 37 S.
W. 404, .63 Ark. 30.
Ky.— Ramey v. Weddington, 105 S.
W.2d 824, 268 Ky. 675.
67 C.J. p 110 note 1 [b] (3).
lli Ky. — Ramey v. Weddington, su-
pra.
3d C.J. p 1085 note 26 [a].
12. Ky. — Ramey v. Weddington, su-
pra—Hays v. Baker, 35 S.W.2d
296, 237 Ky. 265.
13. U.S.— Hall v. Lanning, HL, 91
U.S. 160, 168, 23 LJBd. 271.
Okl. — Corpus Juris quoted in. City of
Sapulpa v. Young, 296 P. 418, 431,
147 Okl. 179.
Judgment in action on partnership
obligation where some of partners
not served with process see the
C.J.S. title Partnership S 235, also
47 C.J. p 1011 note 22-p 1013 note
31.
Sufficiency of service of process on
part of several executors or ad-
ministrators see Executors and
Administrators § 753.
79
14. Okl.— Corpus juris quoted in
City of Sapulpa v. Young, 296 P.
418, 431, 147 Okl. 179.
33 C.J. p 1119 note 48.
15. OkL — Corpus Juris quoted in
City of Sapulpa v. Young, 296 P.
418, 431, 147 Okl. 179.
33 CJ. p 1119 note 49.
le. U.S.— Hall v. Lanning, HL, 91
U.S.'l'SO, 2i3 L.Ed. 271.
Okl.— Corpus JurU quoted in City of
Sapulpa v. Young, 296 P. 418, 431,
147 Okl. 179.
Or.— Chagnot v. Labbe, 69 P.2d 949,
157 Or. 280.
33 C.J. p 1120 note 50.
17. U.S.— Hall v. Lanning, 111., 91
U.S. 160, 23 L.Bd. 271.
N.Y.— Kittredge v. Grannis, 165 N.
B. 9S, 244 N.Y. 182— Kirsten v.
Chrystmos, 14 N.Y.S.2d 442.
Okl.— Corpus Juris quoted, in City of
Capulpa v. Young, 296 P. 418, 431,
147 OkL 179.
Or. — Chagnot v. Labbe, 69 P.2d 949,
157 Or. 280.
33 C.J. p 1120 note 51.
33
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
f endants who were served, or who appeared, and is
enforceable against their separate property,18 and
the joint property of them and the absent defend-
ant19 located within the state,20 but not against the
latter's individual property.21
Judgment under the statute is not authorized un-
less the obligation sued on is the joint22 contractu-
al23 obligation of all defendants. A judgment
against only the defendant or defendants served is
erroneous.24 Nonresident joint debtors are within
the operation of the statute, and property within
the state owned jointly by nonresident and resident
defendants may be subject to the judgment,25 but
a judgment under the statute against a citizen of
another state, as an absent joint debtor, is wholly
void in every other state, and will not be enforced
or given any effect.26 Other similar statutes lim-
ited to particular classes of cases, such as actions
on bills or notes, or other designated instruments,
have been enacted from time to time in different
jurisdictions.27
Such a judgment is not good and binding as a
personal judgment against the absent defendant,28
unless made so by the statute, in which event it
may operate as a personal judgment within the state
where rendered,29 subject to the right of the absent
defendant to show that he was not in fact; a joint
debtor, and that therefore the judgment against him
was void for want of jurisdiction, being unauthor-
ized by statute.30 It has been held that such a judg-
ment will not support an action against him on the
judgment in the state where the judgment was ren-'
dered,31 although the rule is otherwise under some
statutes,32 and especially not in the courts of anoth-
er state,33 and is not entitled, under the constitu-
tion, to full faith and credit in other states.34 It
will not stop the running of the statute of limita-
tions in favor of the absent defendant,35 or merge
or bar the original cause of action,36 at least not
in other states,37 although it may so operate in the
state, where rendered if the statute so provides.38
Such judgments have no other force or effect than
such as has been expressly given to them by the
statutes,39 which may, and sometimes do, make the
judgment prima facie evidence against the absent
defendant, reserving to him the right to contest the
merits and show that he ought not to have been
chargfed,40 while under other statutes the judgment
is not even prima facie evidence of indebtedness.41
A joint defendant not served has a right to appear
voluntarily in the action against plaintiffs objec-
tion.42 A statute providing that, when defendants
18. Okl. — Corpus Juris quoted in
City of Sapulpa v. Young, 296 P.
418, 431, 147 Okl. 179.
33 C.J. p 1120 note 52.
19. N.Y.— Kittredge v. Grannis, 155
N.B. 93, 244 N.Y. 182.
Okl. — Corpus Juris quoted in City of
Sapulpa v. Young, 296 P. 418, 431,
147 Okl. 179.
33 C.J. p 1120 note 52.
20. Okl.— Corpus Juris quoted la
•City of Sapulpa v. Young, 296 P.
418, 431, 147 OkT; 179.
33 C.J. p 1120 note €3.
21. Okl. — Corpus Juris quoted to
City of Sapulpa v. Young, 296 P.
418, 4-31, 147 Okl. 179.
33 C.J. p 1120 note 54.
22. N.Y.— Kittredge v. Grannis, 155
N.E. 93, 244 N.Y. 182.
Or. — Chagnot v. Labbe, 69 P.2d 949,
157 Or. 280.
33 C.J. p 1121 note 55.
23. N.Y.— Kittredge v. Grannis, 155
N,E. 93, 244 N.Y. 182.
Claim held not within statute
Claim of record holder of bank
stock against partnership as subse-
quent purchaser, for indemnity on
account of assessment, was held not
claim for joint indebtedness on con-
tract, such as warranted judgment
against both debtors where only one
was served. — Broderick v. Adamson,
265 N.Y.S. 804, 148 Misc. 353, revers-
ed on other grounds 268 N.Y.S. 7*66,
240 App.Div. 229, and modified on
other grounds 269 N.Y.S. 700, 240
App.Div. 202, motion denied 193 N.
B. 287, 265 N.Y. 495, and affirmed
196 N.B. 568, 267 N.Y. 538. Affirmed
277 N.Y.S. 951, 243 App.Div. 692, and
279 N.Y.S. 732, 244 App.Div. 707,
reversed on other grounds 200 N.
B. 811, 270 N.Y. 260. Affirmed 279
N.Y.S. 753, 244 App.Div. 708, affirm-
ed 200 N.B. 797, 270 N.Y. 228. Mod-
ified on other grounds 285 N.Y.S.
294, 246 App.Div. 268. Affirmed in
part 287 N.Y.S. 322, 247 App.Div.
711, reversed on other grounds 5
N.B.2d 838, 272 N.Y. 816.
24. Wis.— Brawley v. Mitchell, 66
N.W. 799, 92 Wis. 671.
33 C.J. p 1121 note 56.
25. N.Y.— -Kittredge v. Grannis, 155
N.E. 93, 244 N.Y. 182.
33 C.J. p 1121 note 57.
26. U.S. — Gojdey .v. Morning News,
N.Y., 15 S.Ct 559, 156 U.S. .518,
39 L.Ed. 517.
33 C.J. p 1121 note 58.
27. 111. — Neal v. Pennington, 6"5 HI.
App. 68.
33 C.J. p 1121 note 61.
28. U.S.— Hall v. Lanning, HL, 91
U.S. 160, 23 L.Bd. 271.
33 C.J. p 1121 note 62.
29. N.J.— Harker v. Brink, 24 N.J.
Law W.
33 C.J. p 1121 note 63.
3a N.J. — Harker v. Brink, supra.
80
31. Cal.— Tay v. Hawley, 39 Cal. 93.
33 C.J. p 1121 note 65.
32. N.Y. — Townsend v. Carman, €
Cow. 695, affirmed Carman v*
Townsend, 6 Wend. 206.
33 C.J. p 1121 note 66.
33. U.S.— Hall v. Lanning, I1L, 91
U.S. 160, 2« L.Bd. 271.
33 C.J. p 1121 note 67.
34. U.S. — Hall v. Lanning, supra.
3-3 C.J. p 1121 note 68.
35. N.Y.— Maples v. Mackey, 89 N.
Y. -146— Lane v. gaiter, 51 N.Y, 1.
36. N.Y.— Oakley v. Aspinwall, 4
N.Y. 513.
37. Mass. — Odoiri v. Denny, 16 Gray
114.
38. U.S. — D'Arcy v. Ketchum, La.,
11 How. 1-65, 13 L.Ed. 648.
39. N.Y.— Oakley v. Aspinwall, 4 N.
Y. 513,
35 C.J. p 1121 note 76.
40. U.S. — D'Arcy v. Ketchum* La.,
17 How. 165, 13 L.Bd. 648.
N.Y. — Townsend v. Carman, 6 Cow.,
695, affirmed Carman v. Townsend,
6 Wend. 206.
41. N.Y.— -Morey v. Tracey, 92 N.Y.
581.
33 C.J. p 1122 note 75.
42. N.Y.— McLoughlin v. Bieber, 51
N.Y.S. 805, 26 Misc. 143.
33 C.J. p 1122 note 74.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 34
are joint and solidary obligors, they may be cited
at the domicile of any one of them does not give
the court jurisdiction to render a judgment in per-
sonam against a nonresident not found within the
state.43
(4) Statutory Separate Judgment
Under various statutes in a Joint action against sev-
era) defendants, some of whom were not served with
process, Judgment may be rendered against those served,
excluding the others, provided the statutory conditions
precedent thereto are shown, which serrate Judgment
binds the Joint property of all the defendants and the
Individual property of those served.
Under statutes so providing if two or more per-
sons are sued in a joint action, plaintiff may pro-
ceed against any one or more of them on service of
process on them, notwithstanding there may be
others not served, and recover a judgment against
those served, excluding the others,44 provided it is
shown that defendants not brought in cannot be
found or that it is impossible to serve process on
them,45 and that there is a joint liability or joint
cause of action against all,46 and notation of the
fact of nonservice on the absent defendant is made
to appear in the judgment,47 where the statute
makes such facts conditions precedent.48 Such sep-
arate judgment binds the joint property of all the
defendants and the individual property of the de-
fendants served.49 A several judgment may be
rendered against only defendants served where the
liability is joint and several,60 or, in some juris-
dictions, even though it is joint51
§ 34.
Contract Actions
At common law and In the absence of a statute
changing the rule, a Judgment in an action ex contractu
against several defendants must be in favor of all de-
fendants or none, unless a defendant pleads matter which
goes to his personal discharge or an unnecessary and
improper party was Joined as defendant. Under various
codes and practice acts, however, Judgment may be
taken against the party or parties found liable and in
favor of those found not liable.
At common law, and in the absence of a statute
changing the rule, if several defendants are joined
in an action ex contractu, and all are brought be-
fore the court by service or appearance plaintiff
must recover against all or none, and it is not com-
petent to enter a judgment in favor of one defend-
ant and against another.52 Under codes and prac-
tice acts authorizing judgments to be rendered for
or against one or more of several defendants, dis-
cussed generally supra § 33 a, which are applica-
ble in actions ex contractu,53 including actions on
quantum meruit,54 judgment in an action against
several defendants on a joint, or joint and several,
obligation may be taken against the party or par-
ties shown to be liable, when the others are not
liable,55 and in favor of defendant or defendants
43. La. — Klotz v. Tru-Fruit Distrib-
utors, App., 173 So. S92.
44. Cal.— Merchants' Nat. Bank of
Los Angeles v. Clark-Parker Co.,
9 P.2d 826, 215 Cal, 296, 81 A.L.R.
778.
Fla. — Davis v. First Nat Bank &
Trust Co. of Orlando, 150 So. 633,
112 Fla. 485 — Harrington v. Bow-
man, 143 So. £51, 106 Fla. 86.
Ohio. — Hoyt v. Geo. W. Stone Co., 27
Ohio N.P.,N.S., 5-33.
33 C.J. p 1122 notes 77, 78.
45. Ind. — Hunt v. Adamson, 4 Ind.
108.
33 C.J. p 1122 note 79.
46. 111. — Cassady v. School Trus-
tees, 105 111. 560.
33 C.J. p 1122 note 80.
47. Fla.— Davis v. First Nat Bank
& Trust Co. of Orlando, 150 So.
633, 112 Fla. 485.
48. Fla,— Davis v. First Nat Bank
& Trust Co. of Orlando, supra.
33 C.J. p 1122 note 81.
49. Ga.— Wright v. Harris, 24 Ga.
415 — Denton v. Hannah, 77 S.B.
672, 12 Ga.App. 494.
50. N.M.— Leusch v. Nickel, 113 P.
595, 16 N.M. 28.
33 aj. p 1122 note 83.
51. Cal.— Merchants' Nat. Bank of
Los Angeles v. Clark-Parker Co.,
49C.J.S.-6
9 «P.2d 826, 215 Cal. 296, 81 A.L.R.
778.
52. Colo. — Corpus Juris cited in
Beatty v. Resler, 118 P.2d 1084,
1085, 108 Colo. 434— Corpus Juris
cited in Townsend v. Heath, 103
P.2d 691, 692, 106 Colo. 273.
Fla.— Davis v. First Nat. Bank &
Trust Co. in Orlando, 150 So. £33,
112 Fla. 485— Jones v. Griffin, 138
•So. 38, 103 Fla. 745— Harrington
v. Bowman, 1-36 So. 229, 102 Fla.
339, modified on other grounds 143
So. 651, 106 Fla. 86— Merchants' &
Mechanics' Bank v. Sample, 124
So. 49, 98 Fla. 759, rehearing de-
nied 125 So. 1, 98 Fla. 759.
Mass. — Riley v. Burns, 22 N.B.2d
761, 304 Mass. 15.
33 C.J. p 1111 note 98.
Conformity to pleadings and proof
see infra §§ 47-64.
Judgment against:
One or more:
Coparties in action:
Before justice of the peace see
the C.J.S. title Justices of
the Peace § 110,. also 35 C.J.
p 674 notes 87-93.
Of debt see Debt, Action of $
16.
Partners see the C.J.S.. title
Partnership § 235, also 47 C.
J. p 1010 note 2-p 1011 note
11.
81
Principal and surety see the C.
J.S. title Principal and Surety
§ 277, also 50 C.J. p 223 notes
96-1.
Defense "by one party
Where one defendant or several
joint defendants maintain defense
which negatives plaintiff's right to
recover against any defendant,
plaintiff is not entitled to judgment
against any defendant, although par-
ticular defendant does not appear
or plead such defense. — Mackintosh
v. Chambers, 190 N.B. 38, 285 Mass.
594.
68. Ariz. — Bracker Stores v. Wilson,
10-3 P.2d 253, 55 Ariz. 403.
Iowa. — Lull v. Anamosa Nat. Bank,
81 N.W. 784, 110 Iowa 537.
33 C.J. p 1115 note 22.
54. Or. — Fischer v. Bayer, 210 P.
452, 108 Or. 311.
55. Ariz. — Bracker Stores v. Wilson,
103 P.2d 253, 55 Ariz. 403— Reid
v. Topper, 259 P. 397, 32 Ariz. 381.
Colo. — Corpus Juris cited in Beatty
v. Resler, 118 P.2d'1084, 1085, 108
Colo. 434.
Conn. — Woodruff v. Perrotti, 122 A.
452, 99 Conn. 639.
Ind.^rFidelity & Deposit Co. of
Maryland v. Standard Oil Co., 199
NJL. 169, 101 Ind.App. 301.
§ 34
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
found not liable.56 However, as discussed infra
§ 36, such statutes do not permit the rendition of a
several judgment on a joint cause of action. If
plaintiff sues on and shows only a joint obligation,
judgment must be against all jointly liable or
none,57 except, under some statutes, where the oth-
er joint obligors are not served with process, as
discussed supra § 33 c; but if the proofs show a
several obligation, or a joint obligation as to two
or more defendants fewer than all, a recovery may
be had against those shown to be liable regardless
of the fact that only a joint obligation was al-
leged.58 In an action on a contract which at com-
mon law would have been joint only, but which by
force of statute is joint and several, as considered
in Contracts § 355 a (2), judgment may be had
against him or those of the obligees sued who are
shown to be liable.59 In an action on a contract
judgment may run against a party who is not a
party to the contract but is liable on an independ-
ent agreement to pay the amount due under the
contract60
Exceptions to common-law rule. Although the
common law rule has been long and well estab-
lished, it is not universal, whenever a defendant
pleads matter which goes to his personal discharge,
or any matter that does not go to the nature of the
writ, or pleads or gives in evidence a matter which
is a bar to the action against himself only, and of
which the others could not take advantage, judg-
ment may be for such defendant and against the
rest.61 In such case judgment in favor of a de-
fendant relying on a defense personal to himself
does not discharge the other joint obligors.62 It is
essential to the operation of this exception that a
defense insisted on by one of several joint debtors
be personal to him, and not one of which the oth-
er defendants could take advantage.63 Personal
defenses within the exception to the rule include
a discharge in bankruptcy64 or insolvency;65 the
defense of the statute of limitations;66 a release
of an obligor, with a reservation of the right to
proceed against the remaining obligor or obligors ;67
personal disability to contract,68 such as infancy,69
' Me.— Arnst v. Estes, 8 A.2d 201, 136
Me. 272.
Mass.— Dindio v. Meshaka, 175 N.E.
170. 275 Mass. 112.
Mich.— Waller v. -Sloan, 196 N.W.
347, 225 Mich. 600.
Mo. — Welch-Sandier Cement Co. v.
Mullins, App., 31 S.W.2d 86.
N.Y.— Reeve v. Cromwell, 287 N.Y.
S. 20, 227 App.Div. 32.
Ohio.— Maus v. Jones, 172 N.E. 157,
122 Ohio St. 459.
Okl. — Corpus Juris quoted in City
of Sapulpa v. Young, 296 'P. 418,
431, 147 Okl. 179.
33 C.J. p 1115 note 24.
In actions on bills and notes see
Bills and Notes § 718 b.
Contribution, 'between, defendants
If defendant against whom judg-
ment is entered is required to pay
more than his proportionate share
of the judgment he may seek contri-
bution from the others. — Smude v.
Amidon, 7 N.W.2d 776, 214 Minn.
266.
56. Mich.— Waller v. Sloan, 196 N.
W. 347, 22;5 Mich. 600.
57. Colo. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Beatty v. Resler, 118 P.2d 1084,
1085, 1086, 108 Colo. 434.
Mass. — Mackintosh v. Chambers, 190
N.E. 38, 285 Mass. 594.
Mich.— Penfold v. filyfield, 68 N.W.
226, 110 Mich. 343.
N.T. — Giventer v. Antonofsky. 205
N.Y.S. 287, 209 App.Div. 679.
Okl.— Corpus Juris quoted in City
of Sapulpa v. Young, 296 P. 418,
431, 147 Okl. 179.
33 C.J. p 1117 note 27.
58. Colo. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Beatty v. Resler, 118 P.2d 1084,
1085, 1086, 108 Colo. 434.
Mass.— Alfred J. Silberstein, Inc. v.
Nash, 10 N.E.2d 65, 298 Mass. 170.
Mo.— Welch-Sandier Cement Co. v.
Mullins, App., 31 6.W.2d 86.
Mont.— McCay v. Butler, 114 P.2d
517, 112 Mont 249.
Okl. — Corpus Juris quoted in City of
Sapulpa v. Young, 296 P. 418, 431,
147 Okl. 179.
Or. — Hamm v. Basche, 80 P. 501, 22
Or. 613.
Pa. — Smith v. Walat & Stutzman, 99
Pa. Super. 147.
33 C.J. p 1117 note 27.
59. Mo. — Thomas v. Schapeler, App.,
92 S.W.2d 982.
Oral contracts have been except-
ed from the rule. — Townsend v.
Heath, 103 P.2d 691, 106 Colo. 273—
Exchange Bank of Denver v. Ford,
3 P. 449, 7 Colo. 314.
60. Conn. — Meyers v. Arm, 13 A.2d
507, 126 Conn. 679.
Liability of third person assuming
indebtedness under contract see
Contracts § 520.
61. Fla. — Davis v. First Nat. Bank
& Trust Co. of Orlando, 150 So.
6-33, 112 Fla. 485 — Harrington v.
Bowman, 143 <So. 651, 106 Fla. 86
— Corpus Juris cited in Jones v.
Griffin, 138 So. 38, 39, 103 Flo. 745.
Mass.—- Riley v. Burns, 22 N.E.2d
761, 304 Mass. 15— Mackintosh v.
Chambers, 190 N.E. 38, 285 Mass.
594.
Pa. — Baldwin v. Ely, 19-3 A. 299, 127
Pa.-Super. 110.
33 C.J. p 1112 note 99.
62. Pa. — Baldwin v. Ely, supra.
82
63. Ark.— State v. Williams, 17 Ark.
•371.
33 C.J. p 1113 note 1.
64. Mass.— Riley v. Burns, 22 N.E.
2d 761, 304 Mass. 15.
33 C.J. p 1113 note 2.
In action against general and spe-
cial partners see the C.J.S. title
Partnership § 486, also 47 C.J. p
1316 note 21.
65. Fla,— Corpus Juris cited in
Jones v. Griffin, 138 So. 38, 39, 105
Fla. 745.
33 C.J. p 1113 note «.
66. Minn. — Town v. Washburn, 14
Minn. 268, 100 Am.D. 219.
33 C.J. p 1113 note 8 [c].
Recovery against defendants where
action against codefendants is
barred by limitations generally
see the C.J.S. title Limitations of
Actions § 212, also 37 C.J. p 1003
notes 73-79.
67. Pa.— Baldwin v. Ely, 193 A. 299,
127 Pa.Super. 110.
68. Fla. — Jones v. Griffin, 138 So.
38, 103 Fla. 745.
69. Fla. — Corpus Juris cited in
Jones v. Griffin, 138 So. 38, 39,
103 Fla. 745.
Mass.— Riley v. Burns, 22 N.E.2d
761, 304 Mass. 15.
P&.— Wharen v. Funk, 31 A.2d 450,
152 Pa. Super. 133.
3-3 C.J. p 1113 note 5.
Invalidity of judgment as to infant
as not rendering it void as to his
adult codefendants see Infants §
122 a.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
35
insanity,70 or coverture;71 and other like mat-
ters.72
The rule has no proper application to an action
against administrators as such on a contract alleged
to have been made with decedent,73 or where some
of defendants are not served with process and do
not appear,74 or where the statement of claim shows
a several liability against one defendant, and the
action is dismissed as to the other joint defendants
before submission to the jury.75 Another exception
to the rule arises when one who is an unnecessary
or improper party is joined as a defendant.76
§ 35. Tort Actions
In tort actions Judgment ordinarily may be rendered
for or against one or more of several defendants.
In actions for tort against several defendants it
has generally been held that judgment may be ren-
dered against one or as many of defendants as the
proof shows were guilty of the wrong, and in favor
of those as against whom the proof fails,77 or
against some of defendants shown to be liable where
plaintiff waives his right to recover against the
others,78 although there formerly was some au-
thority to the effect that, in an action against two
or more for a joint tort, recovery was required to
be against all or none.79 This is also true under
codes and practice acts authorizing judgments to
be rendered for or against one or more of several
defendants, as considered generally supra § 33 a,
which are applicable in actions for tort,80 as are
rules of court to the same effect.81
If it appears during the course of the proceed-
ings that a defendant is not liable, the court may
render judgment in his favor and allow the case to
proceed against the others,82 and the court's dis-
charge of some of defendants in an action charg-
ing concurrent wrongful acts or omissions will not
preclude judgment against the others.83 Even after
verdict, where a joint liability has been found to
exist,84 or where several damages have been given
by the jury,85 judgment may be rendered against
one defendant alone. In jurisdictions where it is
proper to grant a new trial as to part of the par-
70. Fla.— -Corpus Juris cited to
Jones v. Griffin, 138 So. 38, 39, 103
Fla. 745.
111.— Aten v. Brown, 14 IlLApp. 451.
Validity of judgment against insane
person see Insane Persons § 151 b.
71* Fla.— Corpus Juris cited to
Jones v. Griffin, 158 So. 38, 39,
103 Fla. 745.
33 C.J. p 1113 note 7.
72- Fla.— <!orpus Juris cited to
Jones v. Griffin, 138 So. 38, «39, 103
Fla. 745.
33 C.J. p 111* note 8.
73. Ala,— Gray v. White, 5 Ala. 490.
74. Me.— Dennett v. Chick, 2 Me.
191, 11 AmJX 59.
33 C.J. p 1113 note 10.
75. 111.— Wilson v. Johnson, 178
IlLApp. 385.
•to m. — Mayer' v. Brensinger, 54 N.
B. 159, 180 111. 110, 72 Am.S.R.
196.
3$ C.J. P 1113 note 12.
77. Ala.— Alabama Power Co. v.
Talmadge, 93 "So. 548, 207 Ala. 86,
error dismissed 42 S.Ct 463, 259
U.S. 575, 66 L.Ed. 1071.
B.C. — Ewald v. Lane, 104 F.2d 222,
70 App.D.C. 89, certiorari denied
Lane v. Ewald, 60 S.Ct 81, 308 U
S. 568, 84 L.Bd. 477— Gale v. Inde-
pendent Taxi Owners Ass'n, 84 F<
2d 249, 65 App.D.C. $96.
Fla.— Dr. F. Phillips & Sons v. Kil-
gore, 12 So.2d 465, 152 Fla. 578 —
Stanley v. Powers, 166 -So. 843, 123
Fla. 359— Seaboard Air Line By.
Co. v. Ebert 1«* So. 104.
Ga. — Joyce v. City of Dalton, App.,
36 S.K.2d 104.
111.— Minnis v. Friend, 19-6 N.E. 191,
360 111. 328— Rome Soap Mfg. Co.
v. John T. La Forge & Sons, 54
N.B.2d 252, 322 HlJLpp. 281— Koltz
v. Jahaaske, 38 N.B.2d 973, 312
IlLApp. $23— Skala v. Lehon, 258
IlLApp. 252, affirmed 175 N.B. 832,
343 111. 602— Bunyan v. American
Glycerin Co., 230 IlLApp. 351— Hi-
bernian Banking Ass'n v. True,
228 IlLApp. 194.
Ind. — Inter State Motor Freight Sys-
tem v. Henry, 38 N.E.2d 909, 111
Ind. App. 179— Indianapolis Trac-
tion & Terminal Co. v. Holtsclaw,
81 N.B. 1084, 40 Ind.App. 311.
La. — Overstreet v. Ober, 130 So. 648,
14 La.App. 63$.
Mich. — Anderson v. Conterio, 5 N.W.
2d 572, 303 Mich. 75— Walton v.
Hymans, 4 N.W.2d 640, 302 Mich.
256.
Mo.— Raleigh v. Raleigh, App., 5 S.
W.2d 689.
Ohio.— Smith v. Fisher, App., 82 N".
B.2d 561— Ohio Power Co. v. Fit-
tro, 173 N.E. 35, 36 Ohio App. 186.
Okl. — Corpus Juris quoted to City of
Sapulpa v. Young, 296 P. 418, 430,
431, 147 Okl. 179.
Tex. — San Antonio Gas Co. v. Sin-
gleton, 59 S.W. 920, 24 Tex.Civ.
App. $41, error refused.
33 C.J. p 1113 note 13.
79. Tex. — Taylor Water Co. v. Dil-
lard, 29 S.W. 6-62, 9 Tex.Civ.App.
6*7.
79. La.— Loussade v. Hartman, 16
La, 117.
33 C.J. p 1114 note 16 [a].
Prior to statutory change
Pa. — Polls v. Heizmann, 120 A. 269,
276 Pa. 315, 27 A.L.R. 948.
83
80. Ala.— Sloss-Sheffield Steel &
Iron Co. v. Wilkes, 181 So. 276, 236
Ala. 173— Pollard v. Rogers, 173
So. 881, 234 Ala. 92— Sloss- Shef-
field Steel & Iron Co. v. Wilkes,
165 So. 764, 231 Ala. 511, 109 A.L.
R. 385.
Cal. — Rocca v. Steinmetz, 208 P. 964,
189 Cal. 42*6.
Iowa. — Lull v. Anamosa Nat. Bank,
110 Iowa 537, 81 N.W. 784.
Okl. — Corpus Juris quoted in City
of Sapulpa v. Young, 296 P. 418,
431, 147 Okl. 179.
Or. — Anderson v. Maloney, 225 P.
•318, 111 Or. 84.
Pa.— Stone v. City of Philadelphia,
15>3 A. 550, 302 Pa. 840— Gable v.
Yellow Cab Co., 150 A. 162, 300
Pa, 37— Carroll v. Kirk, 19 A.2d
584, 144 Pa.Super. 211— Mullen v.
McGeagh, 88 Pa. Super. 381 — Cairns
v. Spencer, 87 Pa.Super. 126 —
Brown v. George B. Newton Coal
Co., Com.PL, 28 DeLCo. 23.
Wash. — Eyak River Packing Co. v.
Huglen, 255 P. 123, 143 Wash. 229,
reheard 257 P. 638, 143 Wash. 229.
35 C.J. p 1115 note 22.
8L Mich. — Kolehmainen v. B. B.
Mills Trucking Co., S N.W.2d 298,
301 Mich. 340 — Barkman v. Mon-
tague, 298 'N.W. 273, 297 Mich. 638.
82. Cal. — Rocca v. Steinmetz, 208 P.
964, 189 Cal. 426.
Me.— Arnst v. Estes, 8 A.2d 201, 186
Me. 272.
83. Mich. — Barkman v. Montague,
298 N.W. 273, 297 Mich. 538.
84. ni.— Minnis v. Friend, 196 NJB.
191, "360 I1L 328.
35. iu.— Koltz v. Jahaaske, 38 N.B.
2d 973, 312 IlLApp. 628.
§ 35
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
ties, as considered in the CJ.S, title New Trial §
12, also 46 C.J. p 78 note 31-p 80 note 55, the court
may grant a new trial to one or more of several
defendants if satisfied that they were wrongly con-
victed, and render judgment on the verdict as to
the remainder.86
The common-law rule which requires judgment
against all joint defendants or none in actions on
contracts, as considered supra § 34, has no appli-
cation to actions for torts,87 except where the ac-
tion is for a negligent performance of, or a neg-
ligent failure to perform, a duty arising out of a
contract, in which case the rule is the same as in
actions on contract, and, if a joint contract and lia-
bility are alleged, a joint liability must be shown.88
However, where the relation of the parties is such
that an issue found for one defendant necessarily
inures to the benefit of his codefendant,89 as where
a defendant's culpability is the sole predicate for
his codefendant's liability,90 judgment cannot be
entered for the former and against the latter; but
this rule has no application where each defendant
is charged with acts of negligence resulting in the
injury.91
In jurisdictions where there is a statutory right
to contribution between joint tort-feasors who are
codefendants in judgment, as considered in Con-
tribution § 11 b (5), it has been held that, where
plaintiff has consented to a voluntary nonsuit as to
one of two defendant joint tort-feasors, it is er-
roneous to render judgment against the other,92 al-
though, if the jury exculpate one of two joint
tort-feasors sued jointly, judgment may be rendered
against the other.93 In an action for fraud against
defendants jointly and severally liable therefor it is
unnecessary for the judgment to provide that re-
covery be first had as far as possible out of the
defendant primarily liable where he is hopelessly
insolvent.94
It has been held that the judgment should be
against all defendants shown to be jointly liable for
the tort;95 and in some jurisdictions it has been
held that judgment must be against all joint tort-
feasors who are not discharged.96 On the other
hand a joint judgment against joint defendants,
some of whom are not guilty, is erroneous;97 but
there is authority which holds that as to defendant
or defendants actually liable for the tort the judg-
ment is not invalid or improper.98 Under some
statutes, where the original defendants bring addi-
tional defendants into the action, asserting that they
are primarily liable, plaintiff is entitled to judgment
against them the same as though they had been di-
rectly sued by him.99
In an action for ejectment based on a tort, judg-
ment may be rendered against defendants served
who appeared, even though a default could not
properly be entered against defendants who did
not appear because of plaintiff's failure to comply
with a statute requiring him to file an affidavit that
they were not in the military service.1
§ 36. Joint or Several Judgments
a. In general
b. Under codes and practice acts
c. Disposition of case as to all parties;
separate judgments
86, 111.— Pecararo v. Halberg, 92 N.
E. 600, 246 111. 95.
33 C.J. p 1114 note 14.
87, in.— Skala v. Lehon, 258 Ill.App.
252, affirmed 175 N.E. 832, 343
111. 602.
Me.— Arnst v. Estes, 8 A.2d 201, 136
Me. 272.
Okl. — Corpus Juris quoted in City of
Sapulpa v. Young, 296 P. 418, 430,
431, 147 Okl. 179.
88, Ala. — Hackney T. Perry, 44 So.
1029, 152 Ala. 626.
33 C.J. p 1114 note 17.
89, Okl. — Anthony v. Covington, 100
P.2d 461, 187 Okl. 27.
33 C.J. p 1115 note 18.
Contract and tort natality based on
same act
Where liability of one defendant
for negligence and of another for
breach of warranty were both predi-
cated on the same tortious act, a
judgment against defendant sued for
negligence and in favor of defendant
sued for breach of warranty was
inconsistent and -erroneous. — Lang-
san v. Loft's Inc., 25 N.Y.S.2d 318.
90. 111. — Bunyan v. American Gly-
cerin Co., 230 Ill.App. 351.
Okl. — Anthony v. Covington, 100 P.
2d 461, 187 Okl. 27.
Va. — Barnes v. Ashworth, 153 S.E.
711, 154 Va. 218.
33 C.J. p 1115 note 18 [a] (3), (4).
91. 111. — Bunyan v, American Gly-
cerin Co., 230 Ill.App. 351.
92. N.Y.— -Dee v. Spencer, 251 N.Y.
S. 311, 233 App.Div. 217, followed
in 251 N.Y.S. 864, 233 App.Div.
894.
93. N.Y.— -Price v. Byan, 173 N.E.
907, 255 N.Y. 16, followed in 175
N.E. 297, 265 N.Y. 524.
94. N.Y.— Martin v. Gotham Nat
Bank, 221 N.Y.S. 661, 220 App.Div.
541, modified on other grounds 1*62
N.B. 91, 248 N.Y. 313, reargument
denied 164 N.E. 565, 249 N.Y. 513.
84
95. La. — Collins v. Huck, 109 So*
341, 161 La. 641.
6. Mo. — Delay v.
164 S.W.2d 154.
Douglas, App.,
97. Fla. — Joseph v. Maxwell, 104 So.
584, 89 Fla. 396.
98. Mo. — Hatton v. Sidman, App.,
169 S.W.2d 91.
99. Pa. — Sullivan v. City of Pitts-
burgh, 27 A.2d 270, 150 Pa.Super.
252— Ford v. City of Philadelphia,
24 A.2d 746, 148 Pa.Super. 195.
Original defendant's secondary lia-
bility immaterial
The presence or absence of the
original defendant's secondary lia-
bility cannot affect the liability of
the additional defendants to plaintiff
as found by the jury at the trial. —
Sullivan v. City of Pittsburgh, 27
A.2d 270, 150 PaJSuper. 252,
1. Cal.— B. £ B. Sulphur Co. v,
Kelley. 141 -P.2d 908, 61 Cal.App.2d
3,
49 C. J. S.
JUDGMENTS
a. In General
At common law and in the absence of statute chang-
ing the rule a joint judgment is the only proper judg-
ment in an action brought as a joint suit against sev-
eral defendants; but a joint Judgment cannot be ren-
dered against defendants whose liability is several and
not Joint or who are not ail liable.
At common law and in the absence of statute
changing the rule only a joint judgment may be
rendered in an action brought as a joint suit,2 as an
action ex contractu against several defendants.3
On the other hand, a joint judgment may not be
rendered against defendants who are severally and
not jointly liable,4 or where each defendant is not
liable to the full extent of the verdict.5 Also a
joint judgment against two or more defendants, one
of whom is not liable, is erroneous.6
In actions at common law for tort, while judg-
ment may be entered against certain defendants,
and in favor of others, as discussed supra § 35, the
judgment must be a joint judgment for one single
amount against all found liable,7 and cannot exceed
in amount that for which judgment could have been
rendered under a verdict returned against a partic-
ular defendant8
What constitutes. In determining the character
of a judgment as joint, several, or joint and sev-
eral, the circumstances with respect to the case may
be considered,9 and recourse may be had to the
pleadings on which the judgment is base<i10 The
identity of issues as between plaintiff and the vari-
ous defendants does not determine the character of
the judgment11 Ordinarily it is determined by
the nature of the liabilities or interests involved
in the litigation,12 and this is true, although in form
the judgment includes several defendants under the
form of a joint judgment.18 Thus judgments have
been held to be several where the liabilities of de-
fendants were several;14 and as joint and several
where their liabilities were joint and several,15 al-
though there is other authority to the effect that
a judgment against several defendants in an ac-
tion on a joint and several obligation is joint and
not joint and several as to all defendants therein.16
A judgment that plaintiff recover of two or more
named defendants a specified sum of money is in
form a joint judgment,17 and a judgment against
two or more named defendants, and each of them,
constitutes a joint and several judgment18 How-
ever, there is authority, particularly in jurisdictions
where by statute joint contracts have been made
joint and several and authority given to proceed
against one or more of those liable on a joint ob-
ligation, to the effect that, although a judgment is
rendered against two or more parties jointly, the
judgment itgelf is a joint and several obligation.19
b. Under Codes and Practice Acts
In general under the various codes and practice acts
the judgment should be joint, several, or joint and sev-
eral, according as. the liability of the defendants against
whom judgment .Is rendered Is joint, several, or joint and
several.
2. Fla. — Harrington v. Bowman, 148
So. 651, 106 Fla. 8*6.
Conformity to verdict or findings
see infra '§§ 55-58.
Joint or several judgment in action
against:
Executor or administrator and
other party see Executors and
Administrators § 793.
Principal and surety see the C.J.
S. title Principal and Surety §
277, also 50 C.J. p 223 notes 2-
4.
Necessity for judgment to-be either
for or against all plaintiffs see su-
pra § 31.
3. Fla. — Edgar v. Bacon, 122 So.
107, .97 Fla. 679, followed in
Wright v. Tatarian, 131 So. 183,
100 Fla. 1366.
4. Md. — Union Trust Co. of Mary-
land v. Poor & Alexander, Inc.,
177 A. 923, 168 Md. 400.
6. M<L — Union Trust Co. of Mary-
land v. Poor & Alexander, Inc.,
supra.
6. 111.— Sergo v. Bloch, 263 Ill.App.
198.
7. Mass.— Contakis v. Flavio, 108 N.
E. 1045, 221 Mass. 259.
33 C.J. p 1124 note8.
Judgment should be joint and sever-
al in civil action for conspiracy
see Conspiracy § 32.
8. Mass. — Brooks v. Davis, 1 N.E.2d
17, 294 Mass. 236.
9. Neb.— Whaley v. Matthews, 287
N.W. 205, 136 Neb. 767.
N.T.— Schultz v. U. S. Fidelity &
Guaranty Co., 94 N.E. 601, 201
N.T. 230.
Judgment held not joint
Neb.— Whaley v. Matthews, 287 N.
W. 205, 13-6 Neb. 767.
10. Tex.— U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty
Co. ,v. Richey, Civ.App,, 18 S.W-,
2d 231, error refused.
11. N.T. — -St John v. Andrews Inst.
for Girls, 85 N.E. 143, 192 N.T.
882.
12. N.T.— Schultz v. U. S. Fidelity
& Guaranty Co., 94 N.E. 601, 201
N.T. 230.
33 C.J. p 1126 note 18.
13. -Conn. — Gruber v. Friedman, 132
A. 395, 104 Conn. 107.
N.T.— Schultz v. U. S. Fidelity &
Guaranty Co., 94 NJE. 601, 201 N.
T. 230.
14. Conn. — Gruber v. Friedman, 132
A. 395, 104 Conn. 107.
33 C.J. p 1126 note 18 [b].
15. Tex.— U. S. Fidelity & Guaran-
ty Co. v. Kichey, Civ.App., 18 S.W.
2d 231, error refused.
33 C.J. p 1126 note 18 [a3 (2).
16. Mich. — Rohrabacker v. Walsh,
135 N.W. 907, 170 Mich. 59.
17. Neb. — Farney v. Hamilton
County, 75 N.W. 44t 54 :Neb. 797.
33 C.J. p 1126 note 16.
18. OkL— Tucker v. Gautier, 164 P.
2d 613.
Double recovery not indicated
Judgment that plaintiff recover of
defendants, "and each of them,"
did not signify that full amount of
recovery might be twice collected
from defendants, but simply indicat-
ed joint and several character of de-
fendant's liability.— Watson v. Hil-
ton, 166 S.E. 589, 203 N.C. 574,
19. Kan. — Corpus Juris cited in
Sloan v. Sheridan. 168 P.2d 545,
546.
33 C.J. p 1126 note 20.
Judgment as contract within statute
making joint ' contracts joint and
several see supra 5 6.
85
36
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
In general tinder the various codes and practice
acts in an action against several defendants, a joint
judgment is proper against defendants whose lia-
bility is joint or arises out of joint conduct;20 but
it is improper against defendants whose liability
is not joint, although each may be severally lia-
ble,21 or where the liability of defendants and the
measure of recovery are proportional.22
A several judgment is not ordinarily proper
against defendants whose liability is on a joint ob-
ligation or other joint cause of action;23 but such
a judgment is proper in an action against several
defendants who are liable on a joint and several ob-
ligation, or on a cause of action where each de-
fendant is liable only for his own acts, or for his
proportionate share of the total damage, or in a
different* amount from his codefendants*, or in any
case where separate actions might properly have
been maintained.24 The test as to whether a sev-
eral judgment may be had is whether a separate
action could have been maintained.26
A joint and several judgment is proper against
defendants whose liability is joint and several,26
but not against defendants who are individually
and solely liable on different items of the total
amount demanded.27
Where the items of damages are distinct, a joint
judgment cannot be entered unless each defendant
is liable to the full extent of plaintiffs demand or
recovery.28 If defendants are not all liable to the
same extent on the liability sued on, the judgment
may be for different amounts against them;29 and,
where one of the several defendants is not liable
for all the items of damage for which recovery is
allowed, a judgment against all defendants which
does not segregate the damage is erroneous,30 at
least as to the party not liable for the full amount.31
However, in an action ex contractu a joint judg-
ment has been held proper against defendants who
are liable for the same demand;32 and, if the ac-
tion is on a joint contract or obligation against sev-
eral defendants who plead and defend jointly, the
judgment against them must be joint and not sev-
eral.33
Where some defendants are liable individually,
while others are liable only in a representative ca-
20. Mo. — Kunst v. Walker, App.f 43
S.W.2d 886.
Severance of actions as to several
parties defendant see Actions §
119 b (2).
Discovery of assets
In action by administrators to
discover assets, joint judgment was
proper against defendants in joint
possession of the concealed assets.
— Kunst v. Walker, supra.
21. Ohio. — Larson v. Cleveland Ry.
Co., 50 N.E.2d 163, 142 Ohio St
20.
Pa. — First Nat. Bank v. Kendrew,
160 A. 227, 105 Pa.Super. 142.
Wash.— Argo Mfg. Co. v. Parker, 100
P. 188, 52 Wash. 100.
33 C.J. p 1125 notes 11, 12.
Harmless error
(1) Joint judgment against de-
fendants severally and not jointly
liable is harmless error. — Decker v.
Trilling, 24 Wis..610, 615—33 C.J. P
1126 note 13.
(2) In action against two defend-
ants who are each liable on different
causes sued on, one a tort and the
other an agreement of indemnity
against damages from the tort, a
joint judgment against them for
an amount not in excess of what
they would have been liable for if
sued in separate actions is not prej-
udicial to the rights of either so
as to warrant a reversal. — Adams v.
National Automobile Ins. Co., 133 P.
2d 657, 56 Cal.App.2d 905.
22. Mass. — Foote v. Cotting, 80 N.
B. 600, 195 Mass. 55, 15 L.R.A.,N.
3., -693.
23. Colo. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Beatty v. Resler, 118 P.2d 1084,
1085, 1086, 108 Colo. 434.
Okl. — Corpus Juris quoted in City of
Sapulpa v. Young, 296 P. 418, 431,
147 Okl. 179.
33 C.J. p 1117 note 27, P 1124 note
10.
Joint or several judgment in action
against stockholders for corporate
debt see Corporations § 702.
24. Gal. — Bakersfleld Impr. Co. v.
Bakersfield Theater Co., 181 P. 851,
40 Cal.App. 703.
33C.J. p 1125 note 11.
Double recovery
Judgment against treasurer and
surety for treasurer's failure to pay
unsecured deposit in insolvent state
bank and against bank and banking
commissioner for such deposit un-
der guaranty depository law was
held not erroneous as allowing dou-
ble recovery. — Bolton v. City of De
Leon, Tex.Civ.App., 283 S.W. 213.
25. Okl. — Corpus Juris guoted in
City of Sapulpa v. Toung, 296 P.
418, 431, 147 Okl. 179.
33 C.J. p 1118 note 28, p 1125, note
11 [a].
26. Cal. — Gist v. Security Trust &
Savings Bank, 24 P.2d 153, 218
Cal. 581.
Tex. — Murchison v. Ballard, Civ,
App., 178 S.W.2d 554, error re-
fused— Dunning v. Badger, Civ.
App., 74 S.W.2d 151, error dis-
missed— Danciger v. Smith, Civ.
App., 286 S.W. 635, error refused
289 S.W. 679, 116 Tex. 269, affirm-
86
ed 48 S.Ct. 344, 276 U.S. 542, 72
L.Bd. 691.
In action against carriers for in-
Jury to property where there was
evidence of damage while it was
in possession of either one of de-
fendants, and neither offered ex-
planation of how or when damage
occurred, judgment against them
jointly and severally was without
error.— St Louis, S. F. & T. By. Co.
v. J. G. Henderson Cut Stone Co.,
Tex.Civ.App., 275 S.W. 603.
Solidary judgment
In an action against several de-
fendants on an obligation in solido,
a solidary judgment against them
is proper.— E. George Rogers & Co.
v. Black, La.App., 155 So. 403.
27. Tex.— ^Btna Casualty & Surety
Co. v. State for Use and Benefit
of City of Dallas, Civ.App., 8-6
S.W.2d 826, error dismissed.
28. Vt.— Murray v. Mattison, 32 A.
479, 67 Vt. 553.
33 C.J. p 1126 note 14.
29. Or. — Closset v. Portland Amuse-
ment Co., 293 P. 720, 134 Or. 414.
30. Cal.— Bloom v. Coates, 214 P.
260, 190 Oal. 458.
31. N.M.— Niblack v. Seaberg Hotel
Co., 76 P.2d 1156, 42 N.M. 281.
32. Tex. — Weimer v. Prince &
Prince, Civ.App., 246 S.W. 666.
33. Colo.— Beatty v. Resler, 118 P.
2d 1084, 108 Colo. 434.
u— Byrd v. Babin, 200 So. 294, 196
La. 902.
33 C.J. p 1124 note 8.
49 O.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
36
pacity, the judgment against them should be sever-
al34 or joint and several.35 In an action to impose
liability on heirs or devisees of a decedent for a
liability of decedent, the judgment should be sev-
eral against each defendant for the amount received
by him from decedent, not to exceed the sum to
which plaintiff is entitled ;8« and it has been' held
proper to make the judgment collectable in full from
any of several defendants who received that amount
or more from the estate and to limit it as to de-
fendants who received less to the amount each re-
ceived.3?
Under statutes in Louisiana providing therefor,
a joint judgment against several defendants in a
suit on a joint obligation must be against each de-
fendant separately for his proportion of the debt,38
which is determined by the number of obligors;39
and, where only one of several joint obligors is
sued,40 or the court erroneously rejects plaintiffs
demand against all the joint obligors, except one,41
the judgment against him must be for his aliquot
portion of the obligation and not the entire amount
thereof.
Actions ex delictu. In an action of tort against
several defendants, plaintiff is entitled to a joint
judgment if, and only if,4* he shows a joint tort43
or single cause of action against them,44 even
though one of defendants owed plaintiff a higher
degree of care than did the other;45 and, if de-
fendants plead jointly, and a joint verdict is given
against them, the judgment must be joint and not
several.46 It has also been held in some jurisdic-
tions that defendant tort-feasors must be in pari
delicto as to the tortious act and each responsible
for the entire damage for a joint judgment against
them to be proper;47 and, where a primary liabil-
ity for the injury rests on one defendant and a con-
structive or secondary liability on another defend-
ant, and their breaches of duty to plaintiff are not
through concert of action or independent but con-
current action, a joint judgment may not be ren-
dered against them.48
If the liability of defendants is joint and sev-
eral, the judgment should be joint and several ;4d
but a joint and several judgment should not be ren-
dered unless it is established that defendants were
joint tort-feasors,50 and is improper where it ap-
pears that defendants are not liable on the same
torts but are solely and independently liable on dif-
34. Ky.-^Gray v. McDowell, 5 T.B.
Mon. 501.
33 C.J. p 1126 note 15.
3&i Cal. — Gist v. Security Trust &
Savings Bank, 24 P.2d 153, 218
Cal. 581.
36. Ky. — Ransdell v. Threlkeld, 4
Bush 347.
33 C.J. p 112S note 11 [h] (1), (2).
37. Ky. — Clark's Adm'x v. Callahan,
288 S.W. 301, 216 Ky. 674.
38. La. — Loussade v. Hartman, 16
La. 117 — Hagedorn v. Klotz, App.,
185 So. 658— Simon v. Selber, 1*30
So. £45, 14 La.App. 642.
39. La. — Loussade v. Hartman, 16
La. 117.
Obligor's portion.
Each obligor answers for an equal
part of the debt, unless the parties
have expressed a different intention.
— EDagerdorn v. Klotz, La.App., 185
So. 658.
40. La. — Hagedorn v. Klotz, supra.
Plaintiff must show other obligors
where he sues joint obligor sepa-
rately, in order that the judgment
may fix the proportion of the debt
for which each defendant is con-
demned.— Hagerdorn v. Klotz, supra.
41. La. — Simon v. Selber, 190 So.
645, 14 La.App. 642.
42. Fla. — Gulf Refining Co. v. Wil-
kinson, 114 So. 503, 94 Fla. 664.
33 C.J. p 112*6 note 24.
lEssential requirement*
A "joint judgment" against two or
more tort-feasors is proper only
where, because of their relationship,
concert of action, or independent but
concurrent action, each is vicarious-
ly responsible for wrongful act of
the others to extent of entire dam-
age.— Larson v. Cleveland Ry. Co.,
50 N.E.2d 163, 142 Ohio St. 20.
Permissive joinder JinmtHoieut
The permissive joinder of defend-
ants is not enough to warrant a
"joint judgment" against tort-fea-
sors unless they are joint tort-fea-
sors.— Larson v. Cleveland Ry. Co.,
supra.
43. N.J.— Mogab v. Antrim Motor
Co., 143 A. 864, 7 N.XMisc. 15.
Pa.— Moraski v. 'Philadelphia Rapid
Transit Co., 142 A. 276, 293 Pa.
224.
33 C.J. p 1126 note 2-3.
Immaterial injury by individual
Where seepage causing injury
came principally from canal operat-
ed for joint benefit of irrigation dis-
tricts, joint judgment was proper,
although slight damage may have
been caused by seepage from reser-
voir owned by only one district —
Ketcham v. Modesto Irr. Dist., 26 P.
2d 87«, 135 CaLApp. 180.
Concert of action, by tort-feasors
makes joint judgment against them
proper. — Fahrer v. Blumenthal, 190
A. 206, 125 Pa.Super. 568.
Joint employer
In action against two companies
for injuries caused by person who
87
was employee of both, judgment
holding both companies liable in
solido was proper. — Anderson v.
George A. Hormel & Co., 136 So. 906,
18 La.App. 398.
44. Ohio. — Larson v. Cleveland Ry.
-Co., 50 N.E.2d 163, 142 Ohio St
20.
46. Pa.— Moraski v. Philadelphia
Rapid Transit Co., 142 A. 276, 293
Pa. 224.
46. Fla.— Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co.
v. Ebert, 138 So. 4, 102 Fla. 641.
33 C.J. p 1127 note 28.
Judgment held against join* tort-
feasors
Findings showing that defendants
by themselves and agents acted so
negligently that plaintiff had judg-
ment showed judgment against joint
tort-feasors. — Salter v. Lombard!, 8
P.2d 38, 116 CaLApp. 602.
47. Ohio. — Larson v. Cleveland Ry.
Co., 50 N.B.2d 163, 142 Ohio St
20.
48. Ohio. — Larson v. Cleveland Ry.
Co., Supra.
Joint judgment held improper
Ohio. — Larson v. Cleveland Ry. Co.,
supra.
49. Cal. — Phipps v. Superior Court
In and for Alameda County, 89 P.
2d 698, 32 CaLApp. 2 d 371.
La.— Williams v. Pelican Natural
Gas Co., 175 So. 28, 187 La. 462.
60. Tex. — American Mortg. Corpo-
ration v. Dunnam, Civ.App., 59 S.
W.2d 1095, error dismissed.
36
JUDGMENTS
49 O.J.S.
ferent torts alleged.51 A joint judgment has been
held proper against defendants, each of whom is
responsible for the same sum of money,52 or whose
independent tortious acts produced a single injury,
objections to the trial in one proceeding having
been waived.58
Since joint tort-feasors are each individually lia-
ble to the party injured for the full extent of the
damage done, and not only for a proportionate part,
as considered in the CJ.S. title Torts § 34, also 62
CJ. p 1131 notes 52, S3, ordinarily the judgment
cannot segregate or apportion the liability of the
joint tort-feasors;54 but it must be in one amount55
and jointly and severally56 against each and all of
defendants against whom a joint liability is estab-
lished.57 However, any statutory limitation of lia-
bility applicable to any defendant, as distinguished
from the full liability of other defendants, may and
should be incorporated in the judgment entered on
the verdict;58 and, where a joint and several lia-
bility is established as to some of the defendants
and a separate liability for only a portion of the to-
tal against others, the judgment may run against
the various defendants in the amounts and accord-
ing to the liabilities established.59 Where the lia-
bility of defendant tort-feasors is direct and sev-
eral, as well as joint, a judgment for different
amounts against the various defendants has been
held not improper.60
If the jury, without fixing the total amount of
plaintiffs recovery, returns several verdicts or in
one verdict assesses each defendant separately, it
has been held that, if the same Amount was assessed
against each defendant, a joint judgment should be
entered against all defendants for that amount, not
the total,61 or, if different amounts were assessed
against the various defendants, plaintiff may enter
a joint judgment against all defendants for the
largest amount found against any of them.62 There
is other authority, however, which holds that, where
separate verdicts for different amounts are re-
turned against joint tort-feasors, the lesser amount
being against defendant who actively committed the
wrong and on whose culpability the other defend-
ant's liability is predicated, the judgment should be
for such lesser amount63 It has also been held
that, in an action on a joint tort, if the verdict
assesses each defendant separately for different
amounts, judgment cannot be rendered against all
the defendants for the total of the different
amounts.64
51. Wis.— Hall v. Frankel, 197 N.
W. 820, ia3 Wis. 247.
52. Ga.-— Regal Textile Co. v. Fell, 6
•S.E.2d 908, 189 Ga. 581.
Corporation and stockholders
Joint judgment against corpora-
tion and stockholder or officer who
appropriated all of corporation's as-
sets for amount of overpayment
made to corporation is proper.—
Regal Textile Co. y. Fell, supra.
53. Mo.— Stein v. Rainey, 286 S.W.
63, 315 Mo. 535.
54. Cal. — Phipps v. Superior Court
in and for Alameda County, 89 P.
2d 698, 32 Cal.App,2d 371— Curtis
v. San (Pedro Transp. Co., 62 P.2d
528, 10 Cal.App.2d 547,
111.— Koltz y. Jahaaske, 38 N.E.2d
973, 312 IlLApp. 62-3.
Mo. — Polkowski v. fit Louis Public
Service Co., 68 S.W.2d 884, 229
Mo.App. 24.
Tenn. — Donegan v. Beasley, 181 S.W.
2d 379, 27 Tenn.App. 369.
33 C.J. P 1127 note 30.
55. 111.— Koltz v. Jahaaske, <38 N.E.
2d 973, <312 IlLApp. 623.
Mo. — Brown v. Reorganization Inv.
Co., 166 S.W.2d 476, 350 Mo. 407—
Electrolytic Chlorine Co. v. Wal-
lace & Tiernan Co., 41 S.W.2d 1049,
328 Mo. 782, 78 A.L.R. 930— Delay
v. Douglas, App.,' 164 S.W.2d 154
— Polkowski v. St. Louis Public
Service Co., 68 S.W.2d 884, 229 Mo.
App. 24.
Tenn. — Donegan v. Beasley, 181 S.W.
2d 379, 27 Tenn.App. 369.
Tex. — Callihan v. White, Civ.App.,
139 S.W.2d 129.
56. Mass. — Gross-Loge Des Deut-
schen Ordens Der Harugari Des
Staates Massachusetts v. Cusson,
17 N.E.2d 316, 301 Mass. '332.
Tex. — Callihan v. White, Civ.App.,
139 S.W.2d 129.
Double liability not imposed
Decree requiring defendant part-
ner and an attaching creditor to pay
value of partnership assets wrong-
fully attached did not amount to
imposition of double liability. — Boy-
er v. Bowles, 37 N.E.2d 489, 310
Mass. 134.
57. Mass. — Gross-Loge Des Deut-
schen Ordens Der Harugari Des
•Staates Massachusetts v. Cusson,
17 N.B.2d -316, 301 Mass. 332. -
Mo. — Electrolytic Chlorine Co. v.
Wallace & Tiernan Co., 41 S.W.
2d 1049, 328 Mo. 782, 78 A.L.R.
930.
Tenn, — Donegan v. Beasley, 181 S.W.
2d -379. 27 Tenn.App. 369.
Tex. — Burd v. San Antonio Southern
Ry. Co., Com.App., 261 S.W. 1021.
58. Cal. — Sparks v. Berntsen, 121
P.2d 497, 19 Cal.2d 308-^Phipps v.
Superior Court in and for Alameda
County, 89 P..2d 698, 32 Cal.App.
2d <371.
59. Mass. — Gross-Loge * Des Deut-
schen Ordens Der Harugari Des
83
•Staates Massachusetts v. Cusson,
17 N.E.2d 316, 301 Mass. 332.
GO. Cal. — Guberman v. Weiner, 51
P.2d 1141, 10 Cal.App.2d 401.
61. N.T. — Farber v. Demino, 173 N.
E. 223, 254 N.T. 363, followed in G.
A. Baker & Co. v. Polygraphic Co.
of America, 193 N.B. 265, 265 N.T.
447, reargument denied 193 N.E.
294, 265 N.T. 508.
62. Cal. — Curtis v. San Pedro
Transp. Co., 52 P.2d 528, 10 Cal.
App.2d 547.
N.T.— Berber v. Demino, 173 N.E.
k 223, 254 If.T. 363, followed in G. A.
Baker & Co. v. Polygraphic Co. of
America, 193 N.E. 265, 265 N.T.
447, reargument denied 193 N.E.
294, 2-65 N.T. 508— Polsey v. Wal-
dorf-Astoria, 214 N.T.S. 600, 216
App.Div. 86.
33 C.J. p 1127 note 31.
On consolidation for trial of sep-
arate actions against master and
servant for tort, the judgment
against each defendant should be
for the highest of different amounts
assessed against the different de-
fendants by the jury. — Kinsey v.
William Spencer & Son Corporation,
300 N.T.S. 391, 165 Misc. 143, affirm-
ed 8 N.T.S.2d 529, 255 App.Div. 995,
affirmed 22 N.E.2d 168, 281 N.T. 601.
63. Ark.— Wear-tJ-Well Shoe Co. v.
Armstrong, 3 S.W.2d 698, 176 Ark.
592.
64. Miss.— Gillespie v. Olive Branch
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
36
Under some statutes several judgments may be
rendered against joint tort-feasors for separate or
proportionate amounts,65 at least where defendants
have severed in their defense, and separate verdicts
have been found against them.6^
In ejectment it has been held that, if there are
several defendants, there may be a joint judgment
against all,67 although they are severally in exclu-
sive possession of different parts of the premises,
no request for a several judgment being made;68
but there is other authority to the effect that a joint
judgment is not* proper against defendants who oc-
cupy or claim separate and distinct portions of the
realty involved,69 and that, if plaintiff is not re-
quired to elect which of several defendants in sep-
arate possession he will proceed against, judg-
ment may be rendered against each.70 Where de-
fendants plead jointly in trespass for mesne profits
but separate verdicts are found, there may be a
judgment against one and nolle prosequi as to the
other.71 Where, however, one defendant enters
subsequent to another it is error, in a joint action
of ejectment and for mesne profits, to render a
joint judgment against both from the time of the
entry of the latter.72
c. Disposition of Case as to All Parties; Sep-
arate Judgments
At common law and under statutes so providing only
one final Judgment, which must dispose of the case as
to all the parties. Is proper In an action; but, under
permissive statutes, separate judgments, may be ren-
dered at the same time or different times against the
various defendants in actions in which several Judg-
ments are proper.
At common law, and in the absence of statute
changing the rule, and under statutes expressly so
providing, only one final judgment may be entered
in an action, as discussed infra § 65, which must
completely dispose of the whole case as to all the
parties.73 The rule is applicable in tort actions74
Building & Lumber Co., 164 So. 42,
174 Miss. 154.
65. Oa. — Gormley v. Slicer, 172 S.
E. 21, 178 Ga. 85, answer conform-
ed to 172 S.E. 575, 48 Ga.App. 177.
33 C.J. p 1127 note 32.
Widow and heirs of tort»f easor
Judgment against widow and heirs
of deceased tort-feasor should be
against each separately for his pro-
portion of damages, but it may be
against them in solido for costs. — '
Hunter v. Laurent, 104 So. 747, 158
La. 874.
Counterclaim in favor of defendant
Where defendants are all liable
for full amount of damages estab-
lished and one defendant is enti-
tled to judgment on a counterclaim
against plaintiff, Judgment against
all defendants for full amount of
damages established will be award-
ed plaintiff, and also judgment will
be entered against plaintiff in favor
of the defendant entitled to the
counterclaim for the amount there-
of.— Bandych v. Ross, 26 N.Y.S.2d
830.
66. Tex. — Rowan v. Daniel, 49 S.W.
686, 20 Tex.Civ.App. 321.
33 C.J. .p 1127 note 33.
67. Dal. — Ellis v. Jeans, 26 CaL 272.
68. CaL— Ellis v. Jeans, supra,
69. Ind. — Kennedy v. Christian, 2
Ind. 503.
70. Mo.— Norton v. Reed, 161 S.W.
842, 253 Mo. 236.
71. Pa. — Chambers v. Lapsley, 7
Pa. 24.
72. Fla, — Ashmead v. Wilson, 22
Fla, 255.
73. Fla. — Merchants' & Mechanics'
Bank v. Sample, 124 So. 49, 94 Fla,
759, rehearing denied 125 So. 1,
98 Fla. 759.
Mo. — Electrolytic Chlorine Co. v.
Wallace & Tiernan Co., 41 S.W.2d
1049, 328 Mo. 782, 78 A.L.R. 930
— Neal v. Curtis & Co. Mfg. Co.,
41 S.W.2d 543, 328 Mo. 389— State
ex rel. Cunningham v. Haid, 40
S.W.2d 1048, 328 Mo. 208— Ex
parte Fowler, 275 S.W. 529, 310
Mo. 339— Baker v. St. Louis, 88
S.W. 74, 189 Mo. 375— Hatton v.
Sidman, App., 169 S.W.Sd 91—
A. M. Legg Shoe Co. v. Brown
Leather Co., - App., 249 S.W. 147.
Tex. — Southern Pac. Co. v. Ulmer,
Com. App., 28-6 S.W. 193 — Edmond-
son v. Carroll, Civ.App., 134 S.W.
2d 378, error dismissed, judgment
correct— Texas Life Ins. Co. v.
Miller, Civ.App., 114 S.W.2d 600—
Pfeifer v. Johnson, Civ.App., 70
S.W.2d 203.
33 C.J. p 1128 note 86.
Retention of separate character for
purposes of judgment of actions
tried together see the C.J.S. title
Trial § 6, also 64 C.J. p 37 note
81.
Single or separate judgment in con-
solidated action see Actions § 113
a (5).
Defendant is entitled to a judg-
ment that will finally settle the
claims of all plaintiffs and bind all
parties, so that no suit may there-
after be made on the same cause
of action. — Caniano v. Dependable
Amusement Co., 8 A.2d 830, 123 N.J.
Law 419.
Invalidity as to person* not parties
Invalidity of portion of judgment
purporting to determine rights of
persons not parties to the action
would not affect part dealing with
defendants who were before the
court so as to render it interlocu-
tory and not final. — Wood v. Gulf
Production Co., Tex.Civ.App., 100
S.W.2d 412.
Judgment held to dispose of case as
to all parties
(1) Generally.
Mo. — Lochmoeller v. Kiel, App., 137
S.W.2d 625.
Tex, — Pfeifer v. Johnson, Civ.App.,
70 S.W.2d 203 — State v. Harvey,
Civ.App., 15 S.W.2d 82.
(2) A judgment which disposed of
all parties named in amended plead-
ings on which the trial was had was
a final judgment, even though it
failed to dispose of parties named
in supplemental pleadings who were
dismissed from the cause by failure
to name them in the amended plead-
ings subsequently filed. — Brennan v.
Greene, Tex,Civ.App., 154 S.W.2d 528,
error refused.
74. Cal. — Phipps v. Superior Court
in and for Alameda County, 89
P.2d 698, 32 Cal.App.2d 371.
Ind. — Indianapolis Traction & Ter-
minal Co. v. Holtsclaw, 81 N.B.
1084. 40 Ino^App. 311.
Mo. — Brown v. Reorganization Inv.
Co., 166 S.W.2d 476, 350 Mo'. 407
— Electrolytic Chlorine Co. v. Wal-
lace & Tiernan Co., 41 S.W.2d 1049,
328 Mo. 782, 78 A.L.K. 930— Pol-
kowskl v. St. Louis Public Service
Co., 68 S.W.2d 884, 229 Mo.App.
24.
Pa, — MacHolme v. Cochenour, 167
A. 647, 109 Pa.Super. 563.
Tenn. — Donegan v. Beasley, 181 S.W.
2d -879, 27 Tenn.App. 569.
One Judgment record
There can be but one judgment
record which must include both the
judgment in favor of plaintiff
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
against joint tort-feasors,75 and in actions on joint
and several obligations which plaintiff has elected
to enforce as a joint obligation.76 It applies, even
though the rights or liabilities of a particular de-
fendant or defendants appear from the proceedings
or are determined prior to the completion of the
case,77 where the cause of action is joint and sev-
eral and defendants answer jointly,78 and however
independent of each other the respective defenses
of the various defendants may be.79 Each suit
which may be brought on the individual liability
of a number of persons jointly and severally liable
on an obligation constitutes a separate cause within
the rule against more than one final judgment in
an action.8**
Judgment should be entered as to all the defend-
ants.81 If a final judgment does not dispose of the
case as to all the defendants, it is erroneous;82
and in spme instances it has been held that a judg-
ment which does not do so is not a final judg-
ment83 but remains under the control of the court.84
However, it has been held that in tort actions such
a judgment against some only of defendants is at
most a harmless irregularity, even as to defendants
against whom alone it is rendered.85 An addi-
tional judgment entered against other defendants
after final judgment was entered against a default-
ing defendant has been held to be merely errone-
ous and voidable, and not void.86 It is unnecessary
for the judgment specifically to dispose of the rights
of all the parties, but it is sufficient if the rights
of those not specifically disposed of are disposed of
by implication.87
Ordinarily the entry of judgment against one or
more joint defendants in jurisdictions where only
one final judgment in an action is proper operates
as a discontinuance of the case as to all the others,
and merges the cause of action in the judgment,
preventing further prosecution of it against the oth-
ers in the same or subsequent actions.88 Thus, if
against defendants found liable and
that in favor of defendants found
not liable. — Hundhausen v. Bond, 36
Wis. 29.
75. Mo. — Barr v. Nafziger Baking
Co.. 41 :S.W.2d 559, 328 Mo. 423.
78. Pla. — Merchants' & Mechanics'
Bank v. Sample, 124 So. 49, 98 Fla.
759, rehearing denied 125 So. 1, 98
Fla. 759.
77. Cal. — Hanna v. De Garmo, 73 P.
830, 140 Cal. 172.
33 C.J. p 1128 note 36 [a], [d].
78. N.Y.— Reade v. Halpin, 167 N.
Y.S. 482, 180 App.Div. 161.
79. Tex. — Wooters v. Kauffman, 3
S.W. 465, 67 Tex 488— Kline v.
Power, Civ.App., 114 S.W.2d 617—
Texas Cities Gas Co. v. Dickens,
Civ.App.t 133 S.W.2d 810.
80. Tex. — Comer v. Brown, Com.
App., 285 S.W. 807.
81. Cal.— Rubin v. Platt Music Co.,
268 P. 396, 92 Cal.App. 203.
82. Mo.— -Cox v. Frank L. Schaab
Stove & Furniture Co., 58 -S.W.2d
700, -332 Mo. 492, transferred, see,
App., -67 S.W.2d 790— Strawhun v.
Farrar, App., 296 S.W. 191 — Crow
v. Crow, 100 S.W. im, 124 Mo.
App. 120,
33 C.J. p 1128 note 37.
Oodefandant'g plea in issue
Judgment against one in action on
note against defendants jointly, tak-
en while other's plea of payment
was on file, was erroneous. — Mer-
chants' & Mechanics' Bank v. Sam-
ple, 124 So. 49, 98 Fla. 759, rehear-
ing denied 125 So. 1, 98 Fla. 7-69.
83. Mo. — State v. Canterbury, 101
S.W. 678, 124 Mo.App. 241.
Tex. — Martin v. Crow, 28 Tex. 613
— Gathings T. Robertson, Com.
App., 276 S.W. 218— Pfeifer v.
Johnson, Civ.App., 70 S.W.2d 203.
84. Tex. — Martin v. Crow, 28 Tex.
613 — Gathings v. Robertson, Civ.
App., 264 S.W. 173, reversed on
other grounds, Com.App., 276 S.W.
218.
85. Me.— Corpus Juris cited in
Hincks Coal Co. v. Milan, 193 A.
243, 245, 135 Me. 203.
Mo. — Jackson v. City of Maiden,
App., 72 S.W.2d 850.
33 C.J. p 1128 note 39.
Beason for role
There is no contribution between
tort-feasors. — Davis v. Taylor, 41
111. 405—33 C.J. p 1128 note 40.
86. Fla. — Merchants' & Mechanics'
Bank v. Sample, 124 So. 49, 98 Fla.
759, rehearing denied 125 So. 1, 98
Fla. 759.
87. Tex. — Texas Life Ins. Co. v.
Miller, Civ.App., 114 S.W.2d 600—
Traders & General Ins. Co. v. <Pool,
Civ.App., 105 S.W.2d 492, error
dismissed.
&t action "by husband and wife
Judgment for wife alone for per-
sonal injuries to her is final, being
against husband by necessary im-
plication.— Southern Pac. Co. v. Ul-
mer, Tex.Civ.App., 282 S.W. 305, af-
firmed, Com. App., 286 S.W. 193.
Judgment held by implication
(1) Generally. — Miller v. Texas
Life Ins. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 123 S.
W.2d 756, error refused.
(2) There was in effect a judg-
ment for defendant bank, the judg-
ment entry showing that complaint
was amended by striking It out as
defendant, leaving only an individual
defendant, and judgment rendered
being against him alone. — Richard-
90
son v. Stinson, 100 So. 209, 211 Ala.
254.
(3) Where subject matter in con-
troversy is awarded to some of par-
ties, fact that one or more of them
get nothing is tantamount to judg-
ment against each of them. — Roe-
denbeck Farms v. Broussard, 127 S.
W.2d 168, 133 Tex. 12-6, appeal dis-
missed 60 S.Ct. 145, 308 U.S. -514, 84
L.Ed. 4*38, and Christie v. Broussard,
60 -S.Ct. 145, 308 U.S. 514, 84 L.Ed.
438— Whitmire v. Powell, 125 S.W.
889, 103 Tex. 232— Pfeifer v. John-
son, Tex.Civ.App., 70 S.W.2d 203.
(4) Effect of judgment against
only one defendant is to hold others
not liable. — Obermeier v. Mortgage .
Co. Holland-America, 259 P. 1064,
123 Or. 469, modified on other
grounds 260 P. 1099, 123 Or. 469,
costs retaxed 262 P. 261, 123 Or. 469.
88. Miss. — Daves v. Mahorner, 41
Miss. 552.
N.J.— Coles v. McKenna, 76 A. 344,
80 N.XLaw 48— Turk v. Leitner,
194 A. 619, 15 N.J.Misc. '664.
33 C.J. p 1129 note 42.
Continuation of cause to final
judgment, with concurrence of all
parties except those whose pleas of
privilege to be sued in the county of
their residence had been sustained,
amounted to abandonment of cause
of action against them and their
dismissal from suit. — Brown v. Gor-
man Home Refinery, Tex.Civ.App.,
276 S.W. 787, affirmed Comer v.
Brown, Com. App., 285 S.W. 307.
In tort actions
A separate judgment against one
or more of several defendants
amounts to an informal dismissal
of the action as to the other defend-
ants.— Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co, v.
49 O.J1S.
JUDGMENTS
36
final judgment is entered against a defaulting de-
fendant,8^ or against a defendant who admits his
liability on certain items,90 it is improper to proceed
with the trial and render another and additional
judgment against other defendants.
If the rights or liabilities of a. particular defend-
ant or defendants appear from the proceedings or
are determined prior to the completion of the case,
final judgment as to such defendant or defendants
will not be entered in the action at that time, but
it will be held in abeyance until proper disposition
of the entire cause has been determined when final
judgment as to all the parties will be entered.91 If,
in such case, however, plaintiff desires to take judg-
ment against defendants whose liability has been
made to appear, he should obtain a severance of the
action into two actions, enter judgment in one, and
proceed with the other to judgment against the
defendants in that action, as discussed in Actions §
119 b (2) ; and, if judgment is entered against one
of the parties prior to severance, plaintiff must ob-
tain a vacation of the judgment and severance of
the action before he may proceed with the action
and obtain judgment against the other defendant
or defendants*9^
Separate and distinct judgments cannot be ren-
dered against defendants sued jointly,93 even where
the action is on a contract which is both joint and
several.94 Where several defendants are all liable,
but for different amounts, plaintiff must elect or
the court order which of them shall be discharged.95
In such case judgment should not be entered against
some only of the several defendants, unless plaintiff
has previously discontinued against the other de-
fendant or defendants.96
Wlwre statutes authorise separate judgments.
Separate and distinct judgments may be rendered
against the several defendants under statutes which
provide that more than one judgment or separate
judgments may be rendered in the same cause,97
or that, when a several judgment is proper, judg-
ment may be given for or against one or more of
defendants,98 or that judgment may be rendered
against any of defendants, severally, when plaintiff
would be entitled to a judgment against such de-
fendants if the action had been against them sev-
Evert, 138 So. 4, 102 Fla. 641—18 O.
J. p 1166 note 44—33 C.J. p 1129
note 41.
39. Colo. — Exchange Bank of Den-
ver v. Ford, 8 P. 449, 7 Colo. 314.
Fla.— Merchants' & Mechanics' Bank
v. Sample, 124 So. 49, 98 Fla. 759,
rehearing- denied 125 So. 1, 98 Fla.
769.
N.J.—Coles v. McKenna, 76 A. 344,
80 N.J.Law 48 — Turk v. Leitner,
194 A. 619, 15 N.J.Misc. 664.
Right to enter judgment against
thos* defendants only who have
defaulted see infra 5 191.
90. Vt.— F. S. Fuller & Co. v. Mor-
rison, 169 A. 9, 106 Vt 22.
Trustee of codefendant
Judgment is unauthorized against
trustee of codefendant against whom
Judgment on remaining items is un-
authorized.—F. S. Fuller & Co. v.
Morrison, supra.
Subsequent procedure
Oodefendant's motion to dismiss
action as against him should be
granted and judgment entered in
his favor to recover his costs, since
jurisdiction of court over action is
exhausted. — F. S. Fuller & Co. v.
Morrison, supra.
91. N.T. — Bacon v. Comstock, 11
How.Pr. 197, 199.
83 C.J. p 1128 note 86 [a], [dj.
Right to enter interlocutory judg-
ment of default where some only
of defendants default see infra §
191.
92. H.Y.— Kriser v. Bodgers, 18-6 N.
Y.S. 316, 195 App.Div. 894— Circle
Cab Corporation, v. Rizzuto, 295 N.
T.S. 185, 162 Misc. 547— Donner v.
White, 268 N.Y.S. 56, 149 Misc. 709.
Bight of final judgment In each of
separate actions after severance
see Actions S 122.
93. Ind. — Indianapolis Traction &
Terminal Co. v. Holtsclaw, 81 N.
E. 1084, 40 Ind.App. -311.
Md. — Union Trust Co. of Maryland
v. Poor & Alexander, Inc., 177 A.
923, 168 Md. 400.
Pa. — MacHolme y. Cochenour, 167 A.
647, 109 Pa.Super. 563.
Tenn. — Ponegan y. Beasley, 181 S.
W.2d 379, 27 Tenn.App. 369.
Vt. — F. S. Fuller & Co. v. Morrison,
169 A. 9, 106 Vt 22— Metropolitan
Washing Machine Co. v. Morris,
39 Vt 393.
33 C.J. p 1124 note 98.
94. Mass. — New York Trust Co. v.
Brewster, 134 N.E. 616, 241 Mass.
155.
33 C.J. p 1124 note 99.
96. Vt. — F. S. Fuller & Co. y. Mor-
rison, 169 A. 9, 106 Vt. 22— Mc-
Kane y. Gordon & Hoar, 81 A. 637,
85 Vt. 253— Powers v. Thayer, 30
Vt. 361.
Election shown
Verdict for specified total sum and
apportioning specific amount against
each of several defendants does not
authorize separate judgment against
each defendant, and plaintiff by
marking satisfied the verdict as to a
defendant who paid the amount as-.
91
sessed against her elected to have
judgment entered against such de-
fendant and hence judgments as to
the others could not stand. — Mac-
Holme y. Cochenour, 167 A. 647, 109
Pa. Super. 563.
96. Mass. — Brooks y. Davis, 1 NJB3.
2d 17, 294 Mass. 236.
97. HI.— Kulesza y. Alliance Print-
ers & Publishers, 47 N.E.2d 547,
318 IlLApp. 2-31 — Shaw v. Court-
ney, 46 N.E.2d 170, 317 Ill.App.
422, affirmed 53 N.E.2d 432, 385
111. 559.
Miss. — Aven v. Singleton, 96 So. 165,
132 Miss. 256.
Dismissal, discontinuance, nolle
proseaui, or nonsuit as to some of
several codefendants see Dismiss-
al and Nonsuit §§ 30-32, 52, 77 a.
Actions in which statute applicable
Statute authorizing more than one
judgment in action on contract
against several defendants is Inap-
plicable to action against several
defendants based on theory of tort
liability. — Springer Transfer Co. . y.
Board of Com'rs of Bernalillo Coun-
ty, 94 P.2d 977, 43 N.M. 444.
On New trial
Separate judgments may be enter-
ed against several defendants on
new trial after judgment entered
against them as a unit has been set
aside.— Fredrich v. Wolf, 50 N.B.2d
755, -383 I1L 638.
98. Ariz. — Bracker Stores v. Wil-
son, 103 F.2d 253, 55 Ariz. 403.
§ 36
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
erally." Also, where the statutes provide therefor,
the court, in its discretion, may render judgment
against one or more of several defendants, leaving
the action to proceed against the others, whenever
a several judgment may be proper.1 A statute au-
thorizing judgment against fewer than all of sev-
eral defendants sued does not authorize the entry
of separate and distinct judgments against the vari-
ous defendants.2
Under statutes authorizing separate judgments,
where it appears, either from the proceedings or
during the progress of the case, that a several judg-
ment is proper as to one or more defendants, the
court may render a judgment for or against him
or them, in advance of the final trial, leaving the
action to proceed against the other defendants,8
including defendants who were not served with
process at that time,4 and defendants as to whom
an appeal against an improper dismissal is pend-
ing.5 If no sufficient case is stated against one of
several defendants, a final judgment may be en-
tered disposing of the case as to him;6 or separate
judgments may be entered at the conclusion of the
trial against defendants who could have been sued
severally.7 If the action is such that a several
judgment would be proper, as where it is brought
to enforce liability for tort,8 or on a contract which
is both joint and several,** judgment may be ren-
dered against any one or more of defendants sued,
without affecting or barring the remedy, at what-
ever stage of the case their several liability is made
to appear, as where such party suffers a default, as
discussed infra § 191, or submits to judgment by an
offer, infra § 184, or consent, infra § 178, or con-
fesses judgment, infra §§ 144, 164, or where plain-
tiff is entitled to such judgment on the allegations
and admissions in the pleadings, as discussed in the
CJ.S. title Pleading § 433, also 49 CJ. p 676 notes
89, 90. Also, under various statutes, it has been
held proper to render separate judgments against
each defendant where each is liable for only a pro-
portionate amount of the total recovery,10 or where
the liability of each, as expressed in the contract
sued on, is several and differs in extent propor-
tionate to the respective and different interests of
each,11 or where independent acts of tort-feasors
99. Ind.— Hassler v. Hefele, 50 N.
E. 361. 151 Ind. 391.
1. Cal. — Trans-Pacific Trading Co.
v. Patsy Frock & Romper Co., 209
P. 357, 189 Cal. 509— Weisz v. Mc-
Kee, 87 P.2d 379, 31 Cal.App.2d
144, rehearing denied 88 P.2d 200,
31 Cal.App.2d 144 — Huntoon v.
Southern Trust & Commerce Bank,
290 P. 86, 107 CaLApp. 121.
N.J. — Ordinary of State v. Bastian,
5 A.2d 463, 17 N.J.Misc. 105.
Okl. — Howell v. Hart, 69 'P.2d 1043,
180 Okl. 397— Corpus Juris cited in
Corley v. French, 293 P. 177, 178,
146 Okl. 29.
Or. — Fischer v. Bayer, 210 P. 452,
108 Or. 311.
33 C.J. p 1129 note 4-3.
In Iroulsiana
Where two parties are sued, one
for the payment of a note as maker,
and the other for illegally retaining
it, the causes of action being dis-
tinct, judgment may well be had
against one and the case continued
as to the other. — Regillo v. Lorente,
7 La. 140.
2. Pa. — MacHolme v. Cochenour,
167 A. 647, 109 Pa.Super. 563.
Vt. — Metropolitan Washing Machine
Co. v. Morris, 39 Vt 393.
3. Cal. — Trans-Pacific Trading Co.
v. Patsy Frock & Romper Co., 209
OP. 357, 189 Cal. 609 — Huntoon v.
Southern Trust & Commerce Bank,
290 P. 86, 107 CaLApp. 121— Park-
er v. Hardistfr, 202 P. 479, 54 Cal.
App. 628.
Ga.— Bank of Madison v. Bell, 118
S.E. 439, 30 GteuApp. 458.
Minn. — Bank of Commerce v. Smith,
59 N.W. 311, 57 Minn. 374.
N.J. — Ordinary of State v. Bastian,
5 A.2d 463, 17 J^.J.Misc. 105.
Okl. — Howell v. Hart, -69 P.2d 1043,
180 Okl. 397.
33 C.J. p 1129 note 44.
Subsequent judgment under cross
petition
Ky. — Culton v. Couch, 20 S.W.2d 451,
230 Ky. 586.
Specific order for continuance un-
necessary
The court need not specifically re-
serve its Jurisdiction as to other de-
fendants as to whom judgment is
not rendered, but such Jurisdiction
continues automatically. — Howell v.
Hart, 69 P.2d 1045, 180 Okl. 397.
Action on contractor's bond
Under Heard Act which contem-
plates presentation of all claims un-
der a contractor's bond in a single
action, which is to proceed as a sin-
gle case, separate final judgments
may be entered on the claims of
the different claimants where so to
enter them cannot prejudice the oth-
er claimants or the surety, as where
the total of all the claims does
not exceed the penalty of the bond.
— Royal Indemnity Co. v. Woodbury
Granite Co., 101 F.2d 689, 69 App.D.
C. 364, certiorari dismissed 60 S.Ct.
63, 308 U.S. 628, 84 L.Bd. 524.
4. Cal. — Corbin v. Howard, 215 P.
920, 61 CaLApp. 715.
Minn.— First Nat. Bank of Wabasha
v. Burkhardt, 73 N.W. 858, 71
Minn. 185.
Okl.— Howell v. Hart, 69 P.2d 1043,
180 Okl. 397.
5. Ark. — Berryman v. Cudahy Pack-
ing Co., 87 S.W.2d 21, 191 Ark.
533.
Statute held inapplicable
Statute providing that, in actions
other than on contract wherein sum-
mons has been served on some only
of defendants, plaintiff may demand
a trial as to only some of defend-
ants on discontinuing action as to
others does not apply to prevent
judgment against defendant after
reversal on appeal of erroneous or-
der quashing service of process as
to him, where judgment was taken
against his codefendant pending the
appeal. — Berryman v. Cudahy Pack-
ing Co., supra.
6. Cal.— Weisz v. McKee, 87 P.2d
379, rehearing denied 88 P.2d 200,
31 Cal.App.2d 144— Huntoon v.
Southern Trust & Commerce Bank,
290 P. 86, 107 CaLApp. 121.
7. S.D. — Western Twine Co. v.
Wright, 78 N.W. 94$, 11 S.D. 521,
.44 L.R.A. 438.
8. Cal. — McNeely v. Los Angeles
County Super. Ct, 173 P. 102, 36
Cal.App. 602.
9. N.J. — Ordinary of State v. Bas-
tian, 5 A.2d 46-3, 17 N.J.Misc. 105.
33 C.J. p 1129 note 47.
10. Ark.— Fidelity OPheniac Fire Ins.
Co. v. Friedman, 174 S.W. 215, 117
Ark. 71.
11. Colo.— Irwiu v. Wood, 4 P. 783,
7 Colo. 477.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
36
have combined to cause plaintiffs injury and sep-
arate verdicts against each for varying amounts
have been returned.12
On the other hand, if the cause of action sued
on is such that the judgment must be joint and
under the circumstances the case is not a proper
one to go to judgment against one of the defend-
ants liable, the court cannot properly render judg-
ment against any of those defendants whose lia-
bility has been made to appear,1^ although the en-
try of judgment as to some of the defendants prior
to final trial is not error of which the other de-
fendants may complain, where it does not prejudice
any defense, set-off, or counterclaim of theirs.14 It
has also been held that separate judgments are per-
missible only where the substantive law controlling
the case is such as to impose several separable and
different respective liabilities on defendants.15
The entry of a separate judgment against one or
more defendants, under a statute authorizing it,
does not merge the cause of action, as at common
law, and prevent the further pursuit of judgment
against the other defendants.16 It is not binding
on the other defendants ;17 but it operates as a sev-
erance of the cause of action, and after such judg-
ment the issues made by the remaining defendants
are to be heard and determined as if they had been
sued alone.18 On such final trial, a judgment may
be rendered against the remaining defendant for the
whole or such part of the cause of action as may
be proved against him.19 It is no objection that
the various judgments are for different amounts.20
Separate judgments against different defendants
have been converted into one judgment against all
the defendants in solido in order to fix the obliga-
tion inter se.21
On new trial as to some of codefendants. In ju-
risdictions where separate judgments against code-
fendants are authorized, separate judgments may
be recovered where some of the defendants, after a
joint judgment against them, obtain a new trial;22
but, in jurisdictions where only one final judgment
may be entered in an action, it has been held that,
where a new or further trial is found necessary as
to one defendant and the case has been correctly
tried as to another, the case will be held in abey-
ance as to the latter until after the new trial and
then one final judgment entered,23 or it will be re-
tried as to such defendant on the issue of amount
of liability only.24
12. 111.— Martin v. Blackburn, 38 N. ]
B.2d 939, 312 IlLApp. 549.
13. Mich. — Rimmele v. Huebner, 157
N.W. 10, 190 Mich. 247.
33 C.J. p 1129 note 45.
In action on contract which is
joint only, and not joint and several,
a several judgment against some of
defendants cannot be rendered be-
fore final trial, as it cannot be de-
termined until such trial whether
or not a several judgment is proper.
— Hempy v. Hansom, 33 Ohio St.
312— Aucker v. Adams, 23 Ohio St.
543.
14. Ohio. — Hempy v. Ransom, 83
. Ohio St. -312.
33 C.J. p 1128 note 38.
15. Miss.— Gillespie v. Olive Branch
Building & Lumber Co., 164 So. 42,
174 Miss. 154.
16. N.J. — Ordinary of State v. Bas-
tian, 5 A.2d 463, 17 N.J.Misc. 105.
33 C.J. p 1129 note 54.
Stockholders statutory liability
(1) In an action against the reg-
istered owner of stock of an in-
solvent bank to enforce the stock-
holder's statutory liability for the
bank's debts, judgment may be ob-
tained against one discovered to be
the real owner of the stock after
judgment had been rendered against
the registered owner, where the
court had reserved jurisdiction of
the cause. — Reconstruction Finance
Corporation v. Pelts, 0,<VUU., 123
F.2d 503, certiorari denied Pelts v. (
Reconstruction Finance Corporation,
62 S.Ct 796, 315 U.S. 812, 86 L.Ed.
1210 — Ericson v. Slomer, C.C.A.I11.,
94 F.2d 437.
(2) The relationship between the
real owner and the registered own-
er of the stock is that of trustee
and cestui due trust and not that
of undisclosed principal and agent. —
Reconstruction Finance Corporation
v. Pelts, C.C.A.I11., 123 F.2d 503, ceT-
tiorari denied Pelts v. Reconstruc-
tion Finance Corporation, 62 S.Ct.
796, 315 U.S. 812, 86 L.Ed. 1210.
17. Kan.— Davis v. Deal, 222 P. 68,
115 Kan. 12.
18. Ohio.— Hempy v. Ransom, 33
Ohio St. 3JL2.
Character of proof required
Plaintiff must establish the alle-
gations of his petition by proof of
the same character and of the same
degree as though each of defendants
were defending. — Davis v. Deal, 222
P. 68, 115 Kan. 12.
19. Iowa. — Smith v. Coopers, 9 Iowa
376.
Ohio. — Hempy v. Ransom, 33 Ohio
St 312.
20. Cal.— Cole v. Roebling Constr.
Co., 105 P. 255, 156 CaL 443.
21. La.— Rosenberg v. Derbes, 109
•So, 841, 161 La. 1070.
22. Cal.— Knight v. Gosselin, 12 P.
2d 454, 124 CaLApp. #90.
33 C.J. p 1126 note 19.
93
No double obligation
The second judgment does not
create a double obligation. — Knight
v. Gosselin, supra.
23. Mo. — Electrolytic Chlorine Co.
v. Wallace & Tiernan Co., 41 S.W.
2d 1049, 328 Mo. 782, 78 A.L.R.
930— Neal v. Curtis & Co. Mfg.
Co., Mo., 41 S.W.2d 543, 328 Mo.
389.
Tex. — Alexander v. Meredith, Civ.
App., 154 S.W.2d 920, certified
questions dismissed 152 S.W.2d
732, 137 Tex. 37.
Right of appellate court to affirm
as to some defendants and re-
verse as to others see Appeal and
Error §§ 1919-1922.
Retrial on reversal as to some of de-
fendants
Where, on appeal, a case is affirm-
ed as to some of defendants and re-
versed and sent back for retrial as
to others, the judgment on the first
trial, as it was affirmed, and the
judgment on the retrial have been
held to constitute one final judgment
so as not to violate the statute
against more than one final judg-
ment in a case.
Mo.— Snuff v. Kansas City, 282 S.W.
128, 221 Mo.App. 505.
Tex. — Compton v. Jennings Lumber
Co., Civ.App., 295 S.W. 308. -
24. Mo. — Barr v. Nafzlger Baking
Co., 41 S.W.2d 559, 328 Mo. 423 —
Polkowski v. St, Louis Public
§ 36
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
Interested person not a party litigant. The mere
fact that a judgment is not res judicata to an inter-
ested person who is not a party litigant does not
prevent the court from rendering a judgment which
is final and res judicata as to all the parties to the
proceeding.2^
§ 37.
Relief between Codefendants
Judgment determining the ultimate rights of de-
fendants as between themselves Is authorized under va-
rious codes and practice acts, but such a judgment is not
authorized at common law.
At common law, and in the absence of statute
changing the rule, one defendant to a suit cannot
recover a judgment against a codefendant, because
the issue is as to the liability of defendants, or ei-
ther of them, to plaintiff, and not as to the liability
of defendants as between themselves;26 if one de-
fendant is entitled to contribution, indemnity, or
other relief against his codefendant, it must be
obtained in an independent action.2? As between
codefendants, nothing is adjudicated by a joint
judgment against them, as considered infra § 440,
although in equity a decree between codefendants
may be rendered in proper cases, as considered in
Equity § 603.
Under codes and practice acts, affirmative relief
may be granted as between defendants in relation
to the subject matter of the action,28 on proper
pleadings and procedure in accordance with the
statute,29 it being usually provided that a judgment
may determine the ultimate rights of the parties on
the same side as between themselves.30 Such relief
may be granted, even though as between the vari-
ous litigants the issues are contractual as to one and
tortious as to the other.31
Such a statute, however, does not make codefend-
ants adversaries.32 It permits the determination of
questions of primary and secondary liability between
joint tort-feasors,33 but it does not authorize judg-
ment as to matters not connected with the subject
of plaintiffs action.34 The judgment authorized
is only such as is responsive to the issues in plain-
tiffs action and incidental to defendant's defense
therein,36 as a defendant is not authorized to in-
ject into plaintiff's suit an independent suit, either
at law or in equity, against his codefendant, not
necessary or germane to his defense to plaintiffs
suit,36 unless a statute authorizes the determination
of particular issues.37 Under some statutes, where
a defendant is impleaded as being ultimately liable,
the judgment against such defendant should be in
favor of the original defendant and not in favor
of plaintiff, whose judgment should be against the
original defendant.38 Service of process, or notice
of some sort, as by service of a copy of the answer
or cross complaint praying such relief, is essential
to the validity and regularity of a judgment in fa-
vor of one defendant against his codefendant.39
Service Co., 68 S.W.2d 884, 229
Mo.App. 24.
25. La. — Parish of Jefferson v.
Texas Co., 189 -So. 580, 192 La.
934, certiorari denied Texas Co. v.
•Parish of Jefferson, «0 S.Ct. 138,
308 U.S. 601, 84 L.Ed. 503.
26. Tex. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Cauble v. Cauble, Cir.App., 283 S.
W. 914, 919, 920.
33 C.J. p 1131 note 63.
27. Tex. — Corpus Juris Quoted In
Cauble v. Cauble, Civ.App., 28S
S.W. 914, 919, 920.
33 C.J. p 11-31 note 64.
Right to judgment for:
Contribution between defendant
tort-feasors see Contribution §
13 g.
Indemnity see Indemnity § 28.
28. Mo. — Merz v. Tower Grove
Sank & Trust Co., 130 S.W.2d 611,
344 Mo. 1150.
N.Y. — Weiner v. Mager & Throne, 3
N.Y.S.2d 918, 167 Misc. 338— Cohen
v. Dugan Bros., 235 N.T.S. 118, 134
Misc. 155.
Pa.— -Ford v. City of Philadelphia, 24
A.2d 746, 148 Pa.Super. 195.
Tex.— Corpus Juris quoted in Cauble
v. Cauble, Civ.App., 283 S.W. 914,
919, 920.
33 C.J. p 1131 note 67.
29. Mo.— Scheer v. Trust Co. of St.
Louis, 49 S.W.2d 135, 330 Mo. 149.
Tex.— Corpus Juris guoted in Cauble
v. Cauble, Civ.App., 283 S.W. 914,
919, 920.
30. N.C. — Montgomery v. Blades, 9
S.B.2d 397, 217 N.C. 654.
Tex. — Corpus Juris quoted in Cauble
v. Cauble, Civ.App., 283 S.W. 914,
919, 920.
31. N.Y. — Weiner v. Mager &
Throne, 3 N.Y,S.2d 918, 167 Misc.
5'38.
32. Mo.— Merz v. Tower Grove Bank
& Trust Co., 130 S.W.2d 611, 344
Mo. 1150.
33. N.C. — Montgomery v. Blades, 9
S.E.2d 397, 217 N.C. 654.
34. N.C. — Montgomery v.
supra.
Blades,
35. Mo. — Merz v. Tower Grove
Bank & Trust Co., 130 S.W.2d 611,
344 Mo. 1150 — Missouri Dist Tel-
egraph Co. v. Southwestern Bell
Telephone Co., 79 S.W.2d 257, 336
Mo. 453 — Scheer v. Trust Co. of
94
St Louis, 49 S.W.2d 135, 330 Mo.
149.
Relief not authorized
In innocent holder's suit on note,
makers could not obtain relief for
payments made to payees and not
credited on note. — Cohen v. Daily,
Mo.App., 52 S.W.2d 199.
36. Mo. — Merz v. Tower Grove
Bank & Trust Co., 130 S.W.2d 611,
344 Mo. 1150— Missouri Dist Tel-
egraph Co. v. Southwestern Bell
Telephone Co., 79 S.W.2d 257, 3'36
Mo. 453.
Equities not affecting' plaintiff's
tights cannot be adjudicated. — Cohen
v. Daily, Mo.App., 52 S.W.2d 199.
37. Mo. — Early v. Small wood, 256
S.W. 1053, 302 Mo. 92.
38. N.T. — Otis Elevator Co. v. Mil-
ler, 216 N.Y.S. 320, 127 Misc. 421.
39. Tex. — Stokes Bros. & Co. v.
Kramer, Civ.App., 44 S.W.2d 822 —
Corpus Juris quoted in Cauble v.
Cauble, Civ.App., 283 S.W. *14,
919, 920.
33 C.J. p 1152 note 70.
Process, notice, or appearance see
supra §§ 23-26.
49 C.J.S.
§ 38. Nominal Parties
Ordinarily Judgment should be fn the name of a
nominal or formal party, but It Is proper to show there-
in the real party In Interest.
In general judgment must be entered in the name
of plaintiff, although for the use and benefit of an-
other,4^ and, if entered in favor of the beneficiary
alone, it is irregular and erroneous.41 Where the
real parties in interest will be estopped from again
asserting the claim in suit, judgment in the name of
a nominal party is not error.42 However, under
statutes requiring that actions be .prosecuted in the
name of the real party in interest, it has been held
that judgment may not be rendered in favor of a
JUDGMENTS
§ 40
plaintiff who fails to show any remedial interest
in himself, even though defendant has contested
the case on the merits.43 It has been held that a
pro forma plaintiff cannot recover.44 Judgment
may be rendered against a defendant, although he
is only a nominal or formal party,45 but the judg-
ment properly should discriminate between the ac-
tual defendants charged with liability and mere
nominal or unnecessary defendants not under any
liability to plaintiff.46 In an action against a hus-
band in which his wife, without having been served
with a summons, was made a nominal party defend-
ant on plaintiff's motion, a judgment against her is
voidable.4?
D. PLEADINGS, ISSUES, EVIDENCE, VERDICT, AND FINDINGS TO SUSTAIN JUDGMENT
§ 39. Pleadings
The necessity and sufficiency of pleadings
port a judgment are considered infra §§
Examine Pocket Parts for later cases.
§ 40. Necessity and Sufficiency
a. Necessity
b. Sufficiency
to sup-
40, 41.
a. Necessity
Subject to certain exceptions, pleadings have been
held essential to the regularity of a Judgment.
While exceptions may occur in respect of judg-
ments by confession or consent, under principles
discussed infra §§ ISO, 151, 174, as a general rule
pleadings are essential to support the judgment of
a court of record,48 and are as necessary a basis for
a valid judgment as is evidence.4^ In this connec-
40. HI.— McCormick v. Fulton, 19
111. 570.
83 C.J. p 1132 note 72.
41. 111.— -Hobson v. Mc'Cainbridge, 22
N.B. 823, 1-30 111. -367.
42. Okl. — American Surety Co. of
New York v. Marsh, 293 P. 1041,
146 Okl. 261.
Wash. — Weaver v. Heaton, 4 P.2d
521, 164 Wash. 674.
43. Alaska. — In re Nagao, 4 Alaska
678.
Ky.— Lytle v. Lytle, 2 Mete. 127.
44. Tex. — Lucas v. Dallas County,
Civ.App., 138 S.W.2d 179-r Hill v.
Kelsey, Civ.App., 89 S.W.2d 1017
— Avenel v. Iskovitz, Civ.App., 50
S.W.2d 895.
45. Tex. — Harris v. Musgrove, 59
Tex. 401.
46. Ky. — Cincinnati H. & P. B. Co.
v. Spratt, 2 Duv. 4.
La.— Morries v. Zelter, 4 La.A., Or-
leans, 411.
47. .(Pa. — Rawlings v. Lewert, 9 Pa,
Disk & Co. 701, 28 Lack.Jur. 15,
75 Pittsb.Leg.J. 111.
48. Ala. — Brue v. Vaughn, 2 So.2d
396, 241 Ala. 322.
Ky. — Howard v. Howard, 94 S.W.2d
652, 264 Ky. 311.
l£u — Bank of White Castle v. Baker,
139 So. 648, 174 La. 17.
Or.— Haberly v. J>armers' Mut Fire
Relief Ass'n, 294 P. 5$4, 13 Or.
32.
Tex. — City of Fort Worth v. Gause,
101 S.W.2d 221, 129 Tex. 25— Coh-
en v. City of Houston, Civ.App.,
185 S.W.2d 450 — Ston« v. Boone,
Clv.App., 160 S.W.2d 578, error re-
fused—Knox v. Lyarels, Civ.App.,
155 S.W.2d 435, error refused-
Thomas v. Mullins, Civ.App., 127
S.W.2d 559, reversed on other
grounds Mullins v. Thomas, 150 S.
W.2d 83, 136 Tex. 215— Vassiliades
v. Theophiles, Civ.App., 115 S.W.
2d 1220, error dismissed — Texas
& N. O. R. Co. v. Whisenant, Civ.
App., 105 S.W.2d 706— Harris v.
Goodloe, Civ.App., 58 S.W.2d 156,
reversed on other grounds Goodloe
& Meredith v. Harris, 94 S.W.2d
1141, 127 Tex. -583— Bstes v. Hart-
ford Accident & Indemnity Co.,
Civ.App., 46 S.W.2d 413, error re-
fused— Matrimonial Mut Ass'n of
Texas v. Rutherford, Ctv.App., 41
S.W.2d 719, error dismissed — Cisco
& N. E. R. Co. v. Ricks, Civ.App.,
3«3 S.W.2d 878 — Smoot & Smoot v.
Nelson, Civ. App., 11 S.W.2d 578—
Connellee v. Witty, Civ. App., 246
S.W. 715.
Utah. — Upper Blue Bench Irr. Dist.
v. Continental Nat Bank & Trust
Co., 72 P.2d 1048, 93 Utah 325—
Stockyards Nat. Bank of South
Omaha v. Bragg, 245 P. 966, 67
Utah 60.
Va.— Porks v.' Wiltbank, 14 S.E.2d
281, 177 Va. 461.
Wis.— Stellmacher v. •Sampson, 219
N.W. 343, 195 Wis. 635.
33 OT. p 1132 note 80. '-• "
95
"There is no principle better set.
tied than that a judgment or decree
cannot he entered in the absence of
pleadings upon which to found the
same." — Rhodes v. Sewell, 109 So.
179, 180, 21 Ala^App. 441.
Matters occurring* pendent* lite
are not adjudicated by the judgment
unless brought before the court by
supplemental pleading. — Grand Un-
ion Hotel v. Industrial Accident
Commission, 226 P. 948, 67 CaLApp.
123.
Where no pleading's were filed in
"behalf of Interveners, a judgment in
their favor could not be sustained
on direct atta-ck on appeal. — Howe v.
Keystone (Pipe & Supply Co., 274 S.
W. 563, 115 Tex. 158, motion for re-
hearing overruled 278 S.W. 177, 115
Tex. 158.
49. Ky. — Consolidation Coal Co. v.
King, 244 S.W. 303, 196 Ky. 54.
Tenn. — Poster v. Andrews, 189 S.W.
2d 580.
Tex. — Street v. Cunningham, Civ.
App., 156 S.W.2d 541— Lone Star
Gas Co. v. Holifleld, Civ.App., 160
S.W.2d 282— Birdville Independent
School Dist. v. Deen, Civ.App., 141
•S.W.2d 680, affirmed Deen v. Bird-
ville Independent School Dist., 159
S.W.2d 111, 138 Tex. 339— Adams
v. Impey, Civ. App., i31 S.W.2d
288 — Shell Petroleum Corporation
v. Liberty Gravel & Sand Co., Civ.
App., 128 S.W.2d 471— Forman v.
Barron, CivJLpp., 120 S.W.2d 827.
§ 40
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
tion it has been said that courts have no power to
render judgment until their action is called "into
exercise by pleadings,60 that the court lacks juris-
diction of the subject matter or controversy in the
absence of pleadings,51 and that a judgment ren-
dered without pleadings in support thereof is funda-
mentally erroneous,52 a nullity,63 and void64 rather
than voidable.65 Where pleadings are lost, judg-
ment should not be rendered until they have been
restored.66
A declaration, petition, or complaint is essential to
the regularity of a judgment,57 and it has been held
that such a pleading is essential to the court's ju-
risdiction to enter judgment,68 and that its absence
will render the judgment void,59 although objection
to the absence of such a pleading may be waived.60
Aside from judgments by confession, consent, or de-
fault, as discussed infra §§ 150, 151, 174, 199, a
plea or answer may be essential to the regularity of
a judgment.61 Where the initial pleading has been
filed in one division of a court, and the answer is
filed in a different division, the former has been
held to lack jurisdiction to enter judgment.62
b. Sufficiency
The pleadings should be sufficient to support the
error refused — Fidelity & Deposit
Co. of Maryland v. Citizens Nat.
Bank of Lubbock, Civ.App., 120 -S.
W.2d 113, error dismissed — Shack-
elford v, Neilon, Civ.App., 100 S.
W.2d 1037— Shambaugh v. Ander-
son, Civ.App., 92 -S.W.2d 530, error
dismissed — Traders & General Ins.
Co. v. Lincecum, Civ.App., 81 S.W.
2d 549, reversed on other grounds
107 -S.W.2d 585, 130 Tex. 220— Karr
v. Cockerham, Civ.App., 71 S.W.2d
905, error dismissed — Texas Co. v.
Wright, Civ.App., 47 S.W.2d 487 —
Gause-Ware Funeral Home v. Mc-
Ginley, Civ.App., 41 S.W.2d 433,
error refused— Casualty Recipro-
cal Exchange v, Allesandro, Civ.
App., 34 S.W.2d 636— Humble Oil
& Refining Co. v. Southwestern
Bell Telephone Co., Civ.App., 2
S.W.2d 488— Flagg v. Matthews,
Civ.App., 287 S.W. 299.
Va.— Potts v. Mathieson Alkali
Works, 181 S.E. 521, 165 Va. 196.
33 C.J. p 1141 note 54.
Evidence as essential to support
judgment see infra § 44.
A judgment cannot rest on evi-
dence alone unsupported by plead-
ing, unless there has been a waiver
by opposite party. — Howard v. How-
ard, 94 S.W.2d 652, 264 Ky. 311.
Proof cannot supply omissions in
allegations
Ala. — Brue v. Vaughn, 2 So.2d 396,
241 Ala. 322.
A Judgment entered on evidence
without pleadings is as fatally de-
fective as a judgment on pleadings
without supporting evidence. — Stone
v. Boone, Tex.Civ.App., 160 'S.W.2d
578, error refused — -Rudolph v.
Smith, Tex.Civ.App.. 148 -S.W.2d 225.
50. Ala.— Rhodes v. Sewell, 109 So.
179, 21 Ala.App. 441.
Tex. — Dunlap v. Southerlin, 63 Tex.
38— Fidelity & Deposit Co. of
Maryland v. Citizens Nat. Bank of
Lubbock, Ci<v.App., 120 S.W.2d 113,
error refused— Continental South-
land Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Pan-
handle Const. Co,, Civ.App., 77 S.
W.2d 896, error refused — Moore v.
Jones, Civ.App., 278 S.W. 326 — Con-
nellee v. Witty, Civ.App., 246 S.W.
715.
51. Mo. — Owens v. McCleary, App.,
273 S.W. 145.
XJtah.— Cooke v. Cooke, 248 P. 83, 67
trtah 371.
'It is fundamental that a petition
or pleading of some kind is the ju-
ridical means of investing a court
with Jurisdiction of subject-matter
to adjudicate it." — Stockyards Nat.
Bank of South Omaha v. Bragg, 245
P. 966, 973, 67 Utah 60.
52. Tex.— City of Fort Worth v.
Gause, 101 S.W.2d 221, 129 Tex.
25 — Rudolph v. -Smith, Civ.App.,
148 S.W.2d 225— Williams v. Sin-
clair-Prairie Oil Co., Civ. App., 135
S.W.2d 211, error dismissed, judg1-
ment -correct — State v. Howe, Civ.
App., 91 S.W.2d 487— Penrod v.
Von Wolff, Civ.App., 90 S.W.2d
859 — Jones v. Womack-Henning &
Rollins, Civ.App., 53 S.W.2d 635
— Short v. Stephens, Civ.App., 44
S.W,2d 466.
63. Utah.— Cooke v. Cooke, 248 P.
83, 67 Utah 371.
54. Ala.— Rhodes v. Sewell, 109 So.
179, 21 Ala.App. 441.
Colo. — Hough v. Lucas, 230 P. 789,
76 Colo. 94.
Fla.— Lovett v. Lovett, 112 So. 768,
93 Fla. 611.
Mont. — Oregon Mortg. Co. v. Kun-
neke, 245 P. 539, 76 Mont. 117.
Tenn. — Lewis v. Burrow, 127 S.W.2d
795, 23 Tex.App. 145.
Tex. — Jackson v. Slaughter, Civ.App.,
185 S.W.2d 759, refused for want
of merit — Ritch v. Jarvis, Civ.
App., 64 S.W.2d 831, error dis-
missed— Davis v. Sloan Lumber
Co., Civ.App., 37 S.W.2d 225— Mills
v. Moore, Civ.App., 295 S.W. 297
—Hart v. Hunter, 114 S.W. 882,
52 Tex.Civ.App. 75.
Va.— 'Potts v, Mathieson Alkali
Works, 181 S.E. 521, 165 Va. 196.
W.Va. — Kesterson v. "Brown, 119 S.
B. 677, 94 W.Va, 447— Waldron v.
Harvey, 46 S.E. 603, 54 W.Va. 608,
102 Am.S.R. 959.
33 C.J.. p 1132 note 83—34 C.J. p 561
note 7.
96
55. W.Va. — Kesterson v. Brown, 119
S.E. 677, 94 W.Va. 447— Waldron
v. Harvey, 46 S.B. 60-3, -54 W.Va.
608, 102 Am,S.R. 959.
56. Tex. — Watson Co., Builders, v.
Bleeker, Civ.App., 285 S.W. 637.
33 C.J. p 1133 note 94.
57. Tex. — Safety Casualty Co. v.
McGee, Civ.App., 93 S.W.2d 519,
affirmed 127 S.W.2d 176, 133 Tex.
233, 121 A.L.R. 126Q— Kentucky Oil
Corporation v. McCandless, Civ.
App., 300 S.W. 972.
33 C.J. p 1132 notes 85, 87.
58. Utah.— State v. Cragun, 20 P.2d
247, 81 Utah 457.
Wis. — Nehring v. Niemerowicz, 276
N.W. 325, 226 Wis. 285.
59. Iowa. — Jordan v. Brown, 32 N.
W. 450, 71 Iowa 421.
33 C.J. p 1132 note 86.
60. Neb.— Heater v. Penrod, 89 N.
W. 762, 2 Neb.Unoff. 711.
33 C.J. p 1133 note 89.
61. W.Va. — Cline v. Star Coal &
Coke Co., 153 S.B. 148, 109 W.Va.
101— Del-Carbo Coal & Coke Co.
v. Cunninghame, 116 S.B. 719, 9*3
W.Va. 12.
Vnpleaded defense
A judgment based on an unplead-
ed defense that money sought to be
garnished was exempt because con-
stituting proceeds of insurance pol-
icy on household goods held void,
as being unsupported by pleadings.
— Sorenson v. City Nat. Bank, Tex.
Civ.App., 273 S.W. 638.
Declinatory exceptions
Where citations to a defendant are
served on the secretary of state, and
defendant challenges the validity of
the service and the jurisdiction of
the court through declinatory excep-
tions, but at no time files an answer
or suffers judgment to be taken by
default, judgment against defendant
on the merits has been 'held void. —
Rector v. Allied Van Lines, L/a.App.,
198 So. £16.
62. Mo. — Owens v. McCleary,
273 S.W. 145.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
40
Judgment, and a judgment rendered on a complaint fail-
ing to state a cause of action has been held erroneous.
As a general rule, pleadings must be sufficient
to support the judgment;63 they should be of such
a character that a final judgment will be sustained
by findings thereon.64 While mere generality of
the allegations is not of itself fatal to the validity
of a judgment,65 a judgment cannot be sustained
by allegations which are only conclusions of law
rather than averments of fact.66 Pleadings have
been held substantially defective where oral,67 and
facts presented by an unauthorized pleading do not
afford a proper predicate for judgment.68
In determining the sufficiency of the pleadings to
support the judgment it has been said that the- court
will consider the pleadings of both parties,69 and
that facts pleaded by the adverse party are available
to either party in support of the judgment70 In
testing the sufficiency of the complaint as a basis
on which to rest the judgment, averments unsup-
ported by the proof should be eliminated.71 A judg-
ment must be based on material allegations in the
63. Ariz.— Wallace r. Chappelle, 39
P.2d 935. 45 Ariz. $5.
CaL — »Kreling v. Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, 118 P.2d 470,
18 Cal.2d 884 — Stesel v. Santa Ana
River Water Co., 94 P.2d 1052, 85
Cal.App.2d 117.
Ky. — Mclntosh v. Clark, Thurmund
& Richardson, 177 S.W.2d 155, 296
Ky. 858— Bank of Tollesboro v.
W. T. Rawleigh Co., 291 S.W. 1089,
218 Ky. 516— National Surety Co.
v. Daviess County 'Planing Mill
Co., 281 S.W. 791, 213 Ky. 670—
Elkhorn Coal Corporation v. Case,
278 S.W. 570, 212 Ky. 146— Frick
Co. v. Salyers, 258 S.W. 3-10, 201
Ky. 763— Consolidation Coal Ca. v.
King, 244 S.W. 303, 19* Ky. 54.
Neb. — Domann v. Domann, 208 N.W.
669, 114 Neb. 563.
Okl.— Central Nat Oil Co. v. Conti-
nental Supply Co., 249 P. 347, 119
Okl. 190.
Or.— U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty O.
v. Zidell-Steinberg Co., HO P.2d
584, 151 Or. 5*38, modified on other
grounds 51 P.2d 687, 151 Or. 588.
Tenn. — Hunt v. National Linen Serv-
ice Corporation, 157 S.W.2d 608,
178 Tenn. 262.-
Tex. — John B. Quarles Co. v. Lee,
Com.App., 58 &W.2d 77, costs re-
taxed 67 &W.2d 607— Cohen v.
City of Houston, Civ.App., 185 S.
W.2d 450— Wi'ehlta Falls & S. R.
Co. v. Hesson, Civ.App., 151 S.W.2d
270, error dismissed, judgment
correct — Pine v. Pratt, Civ.App.,
150 S.W.2d 80!8— Ray v. Fowler,
Civ.A.pp., 144 S.W.2d 665, error dis-
missed, judgment correct — Lone
Star Finance Corporation v. Schel-
ling, Civ.App., 80 S.W.2d 368— San-
er-Ragley Lumber Co. v. Sp*vey,
CiY.App., 255 S.W. 193, modified
on other grounds Spivey v. Saner-
Ragley Dumber Co., Com.App., 284
S.W. 210.
Pleadings impliedly wiffloieut
The entry of a judgment implies
that the pleadings were sufficient to
sustain the Judgment — Wistrom
Forsling, 14 N.W.2d 217, 144 Neb.
638.
Description of property
In so far as the description of
property in the pleadings is insuf-
49 C.J.S.-7
flcient to describe any property, a
Judgment based thereon is invalid.
Col. — Birkhauser v. Ross, 283 P. 866,
102 CaLApp. 582.
Mo. — Barrie v. Ranson, 46 S.W.2d
186, 226 Mo.App. 554.
Contradictory allegations
A pleading alleging that acts for
results of which the recovery of
damages was sought were malicious
and grossly negligent, and pleading
alleging that acts were malicious,
wrongful, willful, and wanton, were
insufficient to authorize judgment
based on negligence, or willful mis-
conduct because pleadings were con-
tradictory.— Michels v. Boruta, Tex.
C*v.App., 122 S.W.2d 216.
Pleading* held sufficient
(1) Generally.
U.S.— State Bank of New York v.
Henderson County, Ky., C.C.A.Ky.,
•35 F.2d 859, certiorari denied Hen-
derson County, State of Kentucky,
v. State Bank of New York, 50
S.Ct 245, 281 U.S. 728, 74 L.Bd.
1144, 1145.
HI. — Oberman v. Camden Fire Ins.
Ass'n, 145 N.E. 351, 314 111. 264
— Christenson v. Board of Chari-
ties of Illinois Conference of Ev.
Lutheran Augustana Synod, 253
Ill.App. $80.
Ky.— Small v. Minton, 192 S.W.2d
184— Carter v. Templeman, 182 S.
W.2d 241, 298 Ky. 272— United
Mine Workers of America, Local
Union 6659, v. Jones, 162 S.W.2d 17,
290 Ky. 569— Guinn v. Cross, 147
S.W.2d 375, 285 Ky. 571— Feltner
v. Smith, 143 S.W.2d 505, 283 Ky.
783— Carter v. Harlatji Hospital,
128 S.W.2d 174, 278 Ky. 84— Rob-
bins v. Hopkins, 65 S.W.2d 54, 251
Ky. 413— McKinney v. Knapp, 258
S.W. '314, 201 Ky. 768.
Mo.— Women's Christian Ass'n of
Kansas City v. Brown, 190 S.W.2d
900 — Jones v. Campbell, App., 189
S.W.2d 124.
Neb.— Hardt v. Orr, 6 N.W.2d 589,
142 Neb. 460-JProkop v. Mlady,
287 N.W. 55, 186 Neb. 644.
Tex. — Joyce v. Anderson-Bledsoe
Stave Co., Civ. App., 173 S.W.2d
315-^Sparrow v. Tinman, Civ.App.,
283 S.W. 877— Gulf, C. & & F. Ry.
Co. v. Kempner, Civ.App., 275 S.
97
W. 459, reversed on other grounds,
Com.App., 282 S.W. 795.
(2) Allegations as to negligence.
I1L — Belcher v. Citizens Coach Co.,
App., 64 N.B.2d 747.
Ky.— Hurley v. Greif, 115 S.W.2d
284, 272 Ky. 741.
(3) Averments as to contributory
negligence. — Posey v. Board of
Councilmen of City of Frankfort,
184 S.W.2d 970, 299 Ky. 210— Na-
pier v. Hurst-Snyder Hospital Co.,
130 S.W.2d 771, 279 Ky. 378.
(4) Description of property.
Ga. — Cason v. United Realty & Auc-
tion Co., 151 S.B. 161, 161 Ga. 374.
Ky.— Sapp v. Likens, 192 S.W.2d 394
— Souleyette v. McKee, 178 S.W.2d
833, 296 Ky. 868.
64. Nev. — Edmonds v. Perry, 140 P.
2d 566.
65. Conn. — Corden v. Zoning Bd. of
Appeals of City of Waterbury, 41
A.2d 912, 131 Conn. 654.
Ky. — S. K. Jones Const Co. v. Hend-
ley, 5 S.W.2d 482, 224 Ky. 83.
66. Ky.— -Murphy v. Blackburn, 16
S.W.2d 771, 229 Ky. 109— S. K.
Jones Const Co. v. Hendley, 5
S.W.2d 482, 224 Ky. 83.
Tex.— Wichita Falls & Southern R.
Co. v. Anderson, Civ.App., 144 S.
W.2d 441, error dismissed, Judg-
ment correct
67. Tex.— Holloway v. Miller, Civ.
App., 272 S.W. 562.
68. Ky.— Wells v. West, 15 S.W.2d'
531, 228 Ky. 737.
Substitute pleading filed without
proper procedure, as where the orig-
inal petition was lost and a substi-
tute was filed without notice to de-
fendant and hearing as required by
statute, afforded insufficient basis
for judgment and a judgment based
thereon was illegal. — Whorton v.
Nevitt, Tex.Civ.App., 42 S.W.2d 1056.
69. Tex.— HaU v. Collins, Clv.App.,
167 S.W.2d 210, affirmed Collins v.
Hall, 174 S.W.2d 50, 141 Tex. 433.
70. Tex.— Bagby v. Bagby, Civ.App.,
186 S.W.2d 702.
71. Cal.— White v. Covell, 227 P.
196, 66 CaLApp. 732.
40
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
pleadings.72 Under some practice a judgment may
not be entered on a cause of action asserted by re-
ply,73 Error in asserting the amount due in a
counterclaim and cross action should be corrected
by amendment thereof rather than by asserting the
correct amount in reply, and a judgment based on
the reply stating the correct amount cannot stand.74
Defects in form; irregularities. A pleading
which is merely deficient in form has been held not
to render the judgment void,75 but only voidable.76
Thus mere defects and irregularities in the plead-
ings will not invalidate the judgment,77 at least
where no timely objection thereto has been raised,78
and, even though a petition does not perfectly state
a cause of action, a valid judgment may be entered
thereon.™ A petition cannot be said to be so de-
fective that no legal judgment may be entered there-
on where the defect is amendable,80 but a judgment
has been held void where the petition was not
amendable.81 A judgment may be sustained de-
spite defects in the pleadings on which it is based
where the case falls within the purview of statu-
tory provisions designed to protect judgments, such
as statutes requiring a liberal construction of plead-
ings,82 or statutes of jeofails.83
Sufficiency of pleadings as basis of judgment for
defendant. If a petition or similar pleading is in-
sufficient as a basis for judgment in favor of plain-
tiff, it is also insufficient to serve as the basis for
a judgment for defendant.84 Where plaintiff fails
to amend, the proper judgment to enter is one sim-
ply of dismissal,85 and the fact that the pleading
fails to state a cause of action will not prevent ren-
dition of a judgment of dismissal.86 When issues
are framed on a plea in abatement and those issues
are found for defendant, resulting in a judgment
for him, such judgment has been held not void even
though a demurrer to the complaint was sustained,
since in such a case the judgment is not dependent
on a complaint to give it effect, but is dependent
72. HI.— National Can Co. v. Weir-
ton Steel Co., 145 N.E. 389, 314
111. 280.
73. Ky. — Conley v. Coburn, 179 S.W.
2d 668f 297 Ky 292— Connecticut
Fire Ins. of Hartford, Conn., v.
Baker, 153 S.W.2d 9.38, 287 Ky.
395.
Mont. — Armstrong- v. Butte, A. & P.
R. Co., 99 P.2d 223, 110 Mont 133
— Stillwater County v. Kenyon,
297 P. 453, 89 Mont 354.
74L Ky. — Rogers v. Boiling, 1 S.W.
2d 989, 222 Ky. 561.
75. Ala. — Agee v. Agee's Cash Store
No. 2, 10.0 So. 809, 211 Ala. 422.
Utah. — People's Bonded Trustee v.
Wight 272 P. 200, 72 Utah 587.
Jurisdiction of court
Where the nature of the suit in-
vokes the actual jurisdiction of the
court rendering the judgment and
the petition is merely lacking in
allegations as to the fullness of
' facts, it presents a matter for deter-
mination by the trial judge and
any error committed in rendering
the judgment on insufficient facts
does not render the judgment void.
— Rice v. Mercantile Bank & Trust
Co. of Texas, Tex.Civ.App., 86 S.W.
2d .54.
76. Tex. — Jackson v. Slaughter, Civ.
App., 185 S.W.2d 759, refused for
want of merit — Ritch v. Jarvis,
Civ. App., 64 S.W.2d 831, error dis-
missed— Hart v. Hunter, 114 S.W.
882, 52 Tex.Civ.App. 75.
77. U.S.— The Amaranth, C.C.AJNT.
Y., 68 F.2d 893.
Al<au — John 33. Ballenger Const. Co.
v. Joe P. Walters Const Co., 184
So. 275, 236 Ala. 548.
Ariz. — Mosher v. Way land, 158 P.2d
654, appeal dismissed 66 -S.Ct. 58.
Cal.— Russell v. Ramm, 254 P. 532,
200 Cal. 348— Goatman v. Fuller,
216 P. 35, 19i Cal. 245— In re
Dam's Estate, 14 P.2d 162, 126
CaLApp. 70 — Shupe v. Evans, 261
P. 492, 86 CaLApp. 700.
111. — Fleming v. City of Chicago, 260
Ill.App. 496.
Kan. — Goodman v. Cr etcher, 294 P.
868, 132 Kan. 142.
Ky.— Lorton v. Ashbrook, 295 S.W.
1027, 220 Ky. 830.
Mich. — Auditor General v. Oleznic-
zak, 4 N.W.2d 679, 302 Mich. 336.
Mo. — Breit v. Bowland, App., 127 S.
W.2d 71.
Okl. — Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v.
Excise Board of Oklahoma County,
3'3 P.2d 1081, 168 Okl. 428— Kansas
City Southern Ry. Co. v. Excise
Board of Le Flore County, 33 P.
2d 493, 168 Okl. 408.
Utah. — Gray's Harbor Lumber Co. v.
Burton Lumber Co., 236 P. 1102,
65 Utah 333, followed in Califor-
nia Pine Box Distributors v. Bur-
ton Lumber Co., 236 P. 1106, 65
Utah 332.
33 C.J. p 1134 note 1, p 1144 note 73.
ZTanie of plaintiff
Mo. — La Forge Undertaking Co. v.
Bader, App., 15 S.W.2d 945.
33 C.J. p 1134 note 1 [b].
Improper designation of court
While a judgment on petition
which fails properly to designate
court in which it is filed and in
which judgment is asked is void,
nevertheless an error or mistake in
addressing a petition to the wrong
court can be cured by supplemental
or amended petition filed before is-
sue joined and giving the proper
98
name and title of the court and in
such case the petition will support
the Judgment — Kunnes v. Kogos,
123 So. 122, 168 La. 682, 65 A.L.R.
706.
78. Fla. — Harris v. Smith, 7 So.2d
343, 150 Fla. 125.
N.C.— Hinton v. Whitehurst, 4 S.E.2d
507, 216 N.C. 241.
Tex.— Kirkpatrick v. Neal, Civ.App.,
153 S.W.2d 519, error refused.
79. Okl.— Protest of St. Louis-San
Francisco Ry. Co., 38 P.2d 954,
170 Okl. 11.
80. Ga. — S towers v. Harris, '22 S.E.
2d 405, 194 Ga. 636.
Okl.— Wetzel v. Evans, 147 P.2d 133,
194 Okl. 20— Latimer v. Haste,
223 P. 879, 101 Okl. 109.
Tex. — Sovereign Camp, W. O. W. v.
Piper, Civ.App., 222 S.W. 649.
Utah.— State v. Cragun, 20 P.2d 247,
81 Utah 45,— People's Bonded
Trustee v. Wight, 272 P. 200, 72
Utah 587.
81. Ga.— Deck v. Shields, 25 S.E.M
514, 195 Ga. 697.
82. Or. — Siddons v. Lauterman, 109
P.2d 1049, 165 Or. 668.
33 <C.J. p 1134 note 5.
83. Mich— Ferton v. Feller, 33
Mich. 199.
34 C.J. p 510 note 35.
84. Tex.— Stewart v. Collatt, Civ.
App., Ill S.W.2d 1131— JCollins v.
Lowe, Civ.App., 5 S.W.2d 872.
85. Tex. — Collins v. Lowe, supra.
86. Ky.— Wilson v. Louisville & N.
R. Co., 77 S.W.2d 416, 257 Ky.
144, .
49 C.J.8.
JUDGMENTS
§ 40
only on the continued existence Of the cause in
court.87 While defendant's pleadings must be suf-
ficient to support the judgment rendered,88 they
may be sufficient although defective if the defect is
amendable.89 It has been held that affirmative re-
lief cannot be granted a defendant on the basis of
his answer, but that a judgment for affirmative re-
lief must be supported by a counterclaim.90
Defects in petition or complaint. As a general
rule, where plaintiffs declaration or complaint is
defective in substance, to the extent of failing to
make out a cause of action, it cannot support a
judgment in his favor, and such judgment will be
erroneous and reversible91 notwithstanding no de-
murrer was filed,92 or, if filed, was overruled, and
defendant has answered over.93 It has been held
that failure of plaintiff's initial pleading to state a
cause of action is not a jurisdictional defect,94 and
that, except where the complaint shows that the
court has no jurisdiction of the parties and the sub-
ject matter95 or fails to show affirmatively that the
court has such jurisdiction,96 a judgment rendered
87. Ala. — Box v. Metropolitan Life
Ins. Co., 168 So. 216, 232 Ala. 1.
88. Fla.— Smith v, Pattishall, 173
So. 355.
Case not terminated
In action on note, where defend-
ant's pleas failed to set out any
sufficient legal defense, a judgment
rendered for defendant did not con-
stitute a legal termination of the
case. — A. W. Muse Co. v. Collins,
199 S.R 856, 58 Ga.App. 753.
Flea or answer held sufficient
Cal.— Valentine v. G. S. Donaldson
Inv. Co., 260 (P. *05, 86 Cal.App.
142.
Ohio. — Thacker v. Matthews, 43 N.
E.2d 108, 70 Ohio App. 314.
Plea or answer held insufficient
Fla. — Merchants & Bankers Guaran-
ty Co. v. Downs, 175 So. 704, 128
Fla. 767.
89. Tex.— Gilbert v. T. B. Allen &
Co., Civ.App., 16 S.W.2d 377, er-
ror refused.
90. N.J.— Kraft v. Fassitt, 30 A.2d
574, 132 N.J.Ea. 603. reversed on
other grounds 28 A,2d 537, 132 N.
J.Eq. 625.
91. U.S. — Barnes v. Boyd, D.C.W.
Va., 8 F.Supp. 584, affirmed. C.C.
A., 73 F.2d 910, certiorari denied
55 S.Ct. 550, 294 U.S. 72'3, 79 L.Ed.
1254, rehearing denied 55 S.Ct. 647,
295 U.S. 768, 79 L.Ed. 1708.
Ala. — John E. Ballenger Const. Co.
v. Joe F. Walters Const. Co., 184
So. 275, 236 Ala. 548— Rhodes v.
Sewell, 109 So. 179, 21 Ala.App.
441.
Ark.— Wilson v. Overturf, 248 S.W.
898, 157 Ark. 385.
Cal. — Kreling v. Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, 118 P.2d 470,
18 Cal.2d 884 — Birkhauser v. Ross,
283 P. 866, 102 Cal.App. 582.
Fla. — McDougald v. Couey, 200 So.
391, 145 Fla. 689— Oorpus Juris
cited in East Coast Stores v. Cuth-
bert, 133 So. 863, 865, 101 Fla. 25
— Porter v. Sprague, 126 So. 759,
99 Fla. 371.
Idaho.— Stanger v. Hunter, 291 P.
1060, 49 Idaho 723.
Ky.— Hardin Oil Co. v. Spencer, 266
S.W. 654, 205 Ky. 842.
Miss. — Smith v. Peas, 130 So. 105,
158 Miss. Ill— Carrier Lumber &
Mfg. Co. v. Quitman County, 124
So. 437, 156 Miss. 396, 66 A.L.R.
614, suggestion of error overruled
125 So. 416, 156 Miss. 396, 66 A.
L.R. 614, followed in Matthews v.
Quitman County. 127 So. 305.
Mont — Lindsey v. Drs. Keenan, An-
drews & Allred, 165 P.2d 804—
Montana Auto Finance Corpora-
tion v. British & Federal Under-
writers of Norwich Union Fire
Ins. Socy 232 -P. 198, 72 Mont 69,
36 A.L.R. 1495.
Neb.— Sallander v. Prairie Life Ins.
Co., 200 N.W. 844, 112 Neb. 629.
N.M. — Corpus Juris cited in In re
Field's Estate, 60 P.2d 945, 950,
40 N.M. 423.
Pa. — Greenberg v. Goldman Stores
Corporation, 178 A. 528, 117 Pa.
Super. 559.
Tex. — Stovall v. Finney, Civ.App.,
152 S.W.2d 887— -Fort Worth &
Denver City Ry. Co. v. Reid, Civ.
App., 115 S.W.2d 1156— Bell v.
Beckum, Civ.App., 44 S.W.2d 389—
Wichita County v. Allred, Civ.
App., 27 S.W.2d 653— Trail v. Ma-
phis & Day, <3iv.App., 25 S.W.2d
627 — Texas Electric Service Co. v.
Perkins, CivJLpp., 11 S.W.2d 643,
affirmed, Com. App., 23 S.W.2d 320,
followed in Texas Electric Service
Co. v. Bradford, Civ.App., 26 S.W.
2d 339— West Texas Utilities Co.
v. Nunnally, Civ.App., 10 S.W.2d
391— Austin v. Fields, Civ.App.,
300 S.W. 247 — Texas Employers'
Ins. Ass'n v, Wright, Civ. App., 297
S.W. 764, modified on other
grounds, Com.App., 4 S.W.2d 31,
motion denied 7 S.W.2d 72— Hollo-
way v. Miller, Civ.App.f 272 S.W.
562.
38 C.J. p 1183 note 95, p 1144 note
68.
Allegation of liability
(1) A petition or similar pleading
which fails to allege some liability
against a defendant does not state
a cause of action within the rule
requiring written pleadings in sup-
port of a. judgment of a court of
record.— Woodward v. Acme Lumber
Co., Tex.Civ.App., 103 S.W.2d 1054— •
Fisk v. Warren, Tex.Civ.App., 248
S.W. 406.
99
(2) In an action on notes signed
jointly by a husband and wife, a
petition stating only that the for-
mer is the husband of the latter, and
not that he executed and delivered
the notes, is insufficient to sustain a
judgment against him. — Fisk v.
Warren, supra.
Cause of action in alternative
A pleading stating a cause of ac-
tion against two parties in the al-
ternative is insufficient to sustain a
judgment against either. — Hartzell
v. Bank of Murray, 277 S.W. 270, 211
Ky. 26-8.
Jurisdiction
The sufficiency of a petition in a
court of record is not the test of
jurisdiction, since the court may
commit an error in holding it suffi-
cient— In re Warner's Estate, 288 N.
W. 39, 137 Neb. 25.
92. Ala. — St .Clair County v. Smith,
20 So. 584, 112 Ala. 347.
93. Iowa. — Brown v. Cunningham,
48 N.W. 1042, 82 Iowa 512, 12 L.
R.A. 583.
94. Cal.— In re Keel's Estate, 100
P.2d 1045, 15 «Cal.2d 328.
'Okl.— Noel v. Edwards, 260 P. 58,
127 Okl, 163 — Abraham v. Homer,
226 P. 45, 102 Okl. 12.
95. Cal. — Moran v. -Superior Court
in and for Sacramento County, 96
P.2d 193, 36 Cal.App.2d 629.
"The law makes a distinction be-
tween a complaint which does not
state a cause of action by reason
of defects in the allegations therein
contained, where the court has ju-
risdiction of the subject-matter of
the action, and cases where the court
has no jurisdiction of the subject-
matter. If it appears from the com-
plaint that the court had no jurisdic-
tion of the subject-matter, the judg-
ment of course is void, but if the
court has jurisdiction of the subject-
matter, its rulings upon demurrer as
to the sufficiency of the complaint
constitutes only errors in procedure
in the trial." — Behrens v. Superior
Court in and for Tuba County, 23 P.
2d 428, 429, 132 Cal.App. 704.
96. Tex. — Smith v. Pegram, Civ.
App., 80 S.W.2d 354, error refused
— Randals v. Green, Civ.App., 258
S.W. 628.
§41
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
thereon is not void merely because the complaint
fails to state a cause of action,9? as long as it ap-
prises defendant of the nature of plaintiffs de-
mand.98 In this connection it has been said that
jurisdiction of the court to render judgment does
not depend on the sufficiency or fullness of a cause
of action pleaded,99 and that, if a cause is pleaded
belonging to a general class over which the court's
authority extends, jurisdiction attaches, and the
court has power to determine whether the pleading
is good or bad and to decide on its sufficiency as a
statement of a cause of action.* On the other hand,
it has been broadly stated in some decisions that,
where a complaint or similar pleading fails to state
facts constituting a cause of action, the court lacks
jurisdiction to render a judgment thereon,2 and that
a judgment rendered thereon is ordinarily void,3
at least where it rests solely on allegations of a
complaint so deficient -in substance as conclusively
to negative the existence of a cause of action at the
time of its rendition.4 Where the facts stated in
the pleadings do not justify the judgment entered,
the latter is coram non judice,5 and where a plead-
ing is so drawn as 'to show that the court can
have no jurisdiction of the controversy, or is a nul-
lity, any judgment rendered thereon is void.6
§41.
Several Counts
The more modern rule, prevailing under statute, gen*
erally regards a judgment on a general verdict as re*
ferable to good counts in a pleading and valid despite the
existence of bad counts therein.
At common law, and in the absence of statute
changing the rule, where the verdict is general, and
one of the counts is bad, the judgment has been re-
garded as erroneous,7 except where all the counts
relate to the same cause of action, in which case it
has been held that the rule does not apply.8
The modern rule, however, usually applied by vir-
tue of statute, holds a judgment valid under such
circumstances where there is one good count in
the declaration or complaint,9 the judgment being
referable to the good count,10 unless it affirma-
tively appears that the verdict and judgment are
based only on the defective counts.11
It has been said that failure to require a party to
exercise his right of election as between tort and
contract counts in his pleading is at most a mere
jurisdiction to enter a, Judgment
Is dependent on a complaint show-
Ing such jurisdiction. — U. S. Nat.
Bank of Portland v. Humphrey, 288
P. 416, 49 Idaho 8.63.
97. Cal.— Moran v. Superior Court
in and for Sacramento County, 96
P.2d 198, (35 Cal.App.2d 629— Ex
parte Sargren, 27 P.2d 407, 135 Cal.
App. 402 — Behrens v. Superior
Court in and for Tuba County, 28
P.2d 428, 132 CaLApp. 704— Asso-
ciated Oil Co. Y. Mullin, 294 P.'
421, 110 Cal.App. 385.
Mo. — Meierhoffer v. Kennedy, 263 8.
W. 416, 504 Mo. 261.
Neb. — Wistrom v. Porsling, 14 N.W.
2d 217, 144 Neb. 638.
N,M, — Corpus Juris cited in In re
Field's Estate, 60 P.2d 945, 951,
40 N.M. 423.
Okl. — Raymer v. First Nat. Bank, 87
(P.2d 1097, 184 Okl. 392— -Protest
of Stanolind Pipe Line Co., 32 P.
2d 869, 168 Okl. 281— Fowler V.
Margruret Pillsbury General Hos-
pital, 229 P. 442, 102 Okl. 203.
33 C.J. p 1133 note 96.
Absence of affirmative showing-
Judgment of court having Juris-
diction of subject matter and of
parties is not void on ground that
petition failed to state, or defective-
ly stated, cause of action, unless it
affirmatively appears from petition
that no valid cause of aetlon could
be stated.— Schmid v. Farris, 07 P.
2d 596, 169 Okl. 445.
98. Cal. — Trans-Pacific Trading Co.
• v. Patsy Frock & Romper Co., 209
P. 357, 189 Cal. 509— Moran v. Su-
perior Court in and for Sacramen-
to County, 96 P.2d 193, 35 CaLApp.
2d 629— Associated Oil Cd. v. Mul-
lin, 294 P. 421, 110 CaLApp. 385
— Sheehan v. All Persons, etc.,
252 P. 337, 80 CaLApp. 393— Roe-
mer v. Nunes, 238 P. 820, 73 Cal.
App. -368.
Okl. — Bynum v. Strain, 218 'P. 883,
95 Okl. 45.
Or.— Walling: v. I*ebb, 15 P,2d 370,
140 Or. 691.
33 C.J. p 113*3 note 96 [a] (3).
99. Mont.— State ex rel. Cook v.
District Court of Ninth Judicial
Dist in and for Glacier County,
69 P.2d 746, 105 Mont 72— State
ex rel. Delmoe v. District Court of
Fifth Judicial Dist, 46 P.2d 39,
100 Mont 131.
1. Mont — State ex reL Delmoe v.
District Court of Fifth Judicial
Dist, 46 P.2d 39, 100 Mont. 131.
2. Mont. — Hodson v. O'Keeffe, 229
P. 722, 71 Mont 322.
3. U.S. — McLellan v. Automobile
Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn., CJC.A.
Ariz., 80 F.2d 344.
Ala.— Rhodes v. Sewell, 109 So. 179,
21 Ala.App. 441.
Idaho. — Jensen v. Gooch, 211 P. 551,
36 Idaho 457— Howell v. Martin,
211 OP. 528, 36 Idaho 468.
Miss.-— U. <S. Fidelity & Guaranty
Co. v. Plumbing: Wholesale Co., 166
So. 529, 175 Miss. 675.
Tex. — Wright v. Shipman, Civ.App.,
279 S.W. 296.
4. Mont — State ex rel. Delmoe v.
District Court of Fifth Judicial
Dist., 46 P.2d 39, 100 Mont 131.
100
5. Tenn. — State v. Collier, 53 S.W.
2d 982, 164 Tenn. 163.
6* Tex. — -White v. Baker, Civ.App.,
118 S.W.2d -319.
7. N.H.— Glines v. Smith, 48 N.H.
259.
33 C.J. p 1134 note 7.
8. N.H. — Glines v. Smith, supra.
33 C.J. p 1134 note 9.
9. CaL— -Martin v. Pacific South-
west Royalties, 106 P.2d 443, 41
Cal. App. 2d 161— Worthington v.
People's State Bank of Chula Vis-
ta, 288 P. 1086, 106 CaLApp. 238.
111. — Standard Oil Co. v. Town of
(Patterson, 21 N.B.2d 12, 300 111.
App. $85 — Moore v. Jansen &
Schaefer, 265 IlLApp. 459.
Ind. — Carter v. Thomas, 3 Ind. 213.
Iowa. — McCornack v. Pickerell, 294
N.W. 746, 229 Iowa 4-57.
Tex. — Schaff v. Sanders, Civ.App.,
257 S.W. 670, affirmed, Com. App.,
2e9 S.W. 1034.
33 C.J. p 1134 note 10.
Statutory change of common-law
rule discussed
Miss.— Scott v. Peebles, 10 Miss. 546,
561.
10. Ala. — Andalusia Motor Co. v.
Mullins, 18'3 So. 456, 28 Ala.App.
201, certtorari denied 183 So. 460,
236 Ala. 474.
33 C.J. p 1134 note 10 [a].
11. TT.S. — Scull v. Roane, Ark. Super.,
21 F.Cas.No.l2,570c, Hempst 103.
111. — Western Stone Co. v. Whalen,
51 Ill.App. 512, affirmed 38 N.&
241, 151 111, 472, 42 Am.S.R, 244.
33 C.J. p 1134 note 11.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
irregularity which will render the judgment void-
able rather than void.12 If there was a demurrer
to a defective count, which was erroneously over-
ruled, the judgment is invalid where the record
does not show affirmatively that the judgment rests
exclusively on the good counts;18 but all counts
must be bad, however, to establish invalidity where
there was no demurrer.1* Where the verdict is
special, and responsive to a good count, a judg-
ment thereon is, of course, unobjectionable.^
Where all the counts show a good cause of action,
the judgment is not bad because it was general, al-
though, on the evidence, plaintiff was not entitled
to recover on some of the counts.1^
§ 42. Issues
Ordinarily the pleading* In a cause must evolve an
Issue of law or fact before a Judgment can regularly be
rendered.
Subject to exceptions which may occur in the
case of judgments by confession, consent, or de-
fault, as discussed infra §§ 150-151, 174, 193, or
following submission on an agreed rtatement of
facts under principles considered infra § 186, it is
a general rule that the pleadings in a cause must
evolve an issue of law or fact before a judgment
can regularly be rendered.17 A judgment rendered
without issue joined or waived is erroneous,18 some
authorities holding that such a judgment is void19
and others that it is merely voidable.2** When an
issue is tried which is not within the pleadings, no
duty rests on the trial court to render judgment
thereon and its failure or refusal to do so is not
erroneous.21
§43.
Determination of All Issues
Generally a Judgment must dispose of all Issues In
the case, either expressly or by necessary Implication.
The prevailing rule under common law and stat-
utes declaratory thereof requires a judgment to de-
termine all issues22 among all the parties,23 except
such issues as are waived or abandoned on the trial
of the case.24 So the judgment must be as broad
as the issues and must respond to all the issues both
18. Cat.— Bank of America Nat
Trust & Savings Ass'n v. Hill, 71
P.2d 258, 9 CaL2d 495.
13. 111.— Lake Shore & M. S. Ry.
Co. v. Barnes, 76 N.E. 629, 166 Ind.
7, 3 L.R.A.,N.S., 778.
88 O.J. p 1185 note 12.
14. Ind. — Kelsey v. Henry, 48 Ind.
37— Dice v. Morris, 82 Ind. 288.
15. Pa. — McCredy v. James, 6
Whart. 547,
Va.— Binns v. Waddill, 82 Gratt. 588,
73 Va. €88.
16. Ala. — Jones v. Belue, 200 So.
886, 241 Ala. 22.
88 C.J. p 1185 note 15.
17. W.Va, — Kinder v. Boomer Coal
& Coke Co., 95 S.B. 580, 82 W.Va.
82.
83 C.J. p 1155 n«te 21.
Disposition of issues presented
In the interest of certainty, Ju-
dicial Judgments, should be limited
strictly to disposition of issues ac-
tually presented. — Singer Mfg. Co. v.
National Labor Relations Board, C
C.A., 119 F.2d 181, certiorari denied
61 S.Ct. 1119, 818 U.S. 595, 85 1*.
Ed. 1549, rehearing denied 62 S.Ct
55, 314 U.S. 708, 86 L.E3d. 565.
Record held to show Joinder of is-
sue
Ala. — Denhaxn v. Tancey, 95 So. 201,
19 Ala.App. 45, certiorari denied
Ez parte Denhaxn, 95 So. 202, 208
Ala. 637.
18. W.Va.— CUne y. Star Coal &
Coke Co., 153 S.E. 148, 109 W.Va.
101.
83 C.J. p 1135 note 22.
19. La. — Lacour Plantation Co. v.
Jewell, 173 So. 761, 186 La. 1055,
— Rector v. Allied Van Lines, App.,
198 So. 516 — Robinson v. Enloe,
121 So. 320, 10 La.App. 435.
Ohio. — Binns v. Isabel, 12 Ohio Supp.
115, affirmed 51 N.B.2d 501, 72
Ohio App. 222.
33 C.J. p 1135 note 24.
20. Tenn. — Doyle v. Smith, 1 Coldw.
15.
21. Neb.— Bowman v. Cobb, 258 N.
W. 535, 128 Neb. 289.
22. Cal.— Mather v. Mather, 140 P.
2d 808, 22 Cal.2d 713— Nakamura
v. Kondo, 223 P. 425, 65 CaLApp.
211.
Ga, — South View Cemetery Ass'n v.
Hailey, 34 S.E.2d 863, 199 Ga.
478.
Mo.— Ex parte Fowler, 275 S.W. 529—
Gay v. Kansas City Public Service
Co., App., 77 S.W.2d 133— Nokes v.
Nokes, App.. 8 S.W.2d 879— Spring-
field Gas & Electric Co. y. Frater-
nity Bldg. Co., App., 264 S.W. 429.
N.Y.— Water Right & Electrical Co.
v. Rockland Light & Power Co.,
280 N.T.S. 317, 245 App.Div. 739—
Maclvor v. -Schwartzman, 260 N.T.
S. 707, 237 App.Div. 825.
OkL-r Hurley v. Hurley, 127 P.2d
147, 191 Okl. 194— Foreman v. Ri-
ley, 211 P. 495, 88 Okl. 75.
Tex.— Southern Pac. Co. v. Ulmer,
ConuApp., 286 S.W. 193 — Harris v.
O'Brien, Civ.App., 54 S.W.2d 277.
Wyo. — Norris v. United Mineral
Products Co., 158 P.2d 679.
33 C.J. p 1135 note 26.
Disputed items; remission
(1) In action on note and open ac-
count, Judgment cannot be entered
for admitted indebtedness reserving
disputed items for subsequent trial,,
101
as this would result in two Judg-
ments in one action. — Lakin-Allen
Electric Co. v. Lamb, 226 N.W. 229,
247 Mich. 590.
(2) If defendant tenders Judgment
for a confessed amount, however,
plaintiff may take Judgment for such
amount, and thereby remit amount
in dispute. — Grand Dress v. Detroit
Dress Co., 227 N.W. 723, 248 Mich.
447.
Eitner party may complain of and
have reversal of Judgment which
does not have effect of determining
sole • issue as to existence of con-
tract on which plaintiff seeks to re-
cover.— McKeel v. Mercer, 29 P.2d
939, 167 Okl. 413.
23. Mo.— Electrolytic Chlorine Co.
v. Wallace & Tiernan Co.. 41 S.W.
2d 1049, 328 Mo. 782, 78 A.L.R.
930— Neal v. Curtis & Co. Mfg. Co.,
41 S.W.2d 543, 328 Mo. 389.
Tex.— Patton v. Mitchell, CivJlpp.,
13 .S.W.2d 146.
24. D.C. — Anderson v. Mackey, 16
D.C. 335.
Ky.— Hurley v. Hurley. 127 P.2d 147,
191 Okl. 194.
Okl.— Foreman v. Riley, 211 P, 495,
88 Okl. 75— Wells v. Shriver, 197
P. 460, 81 Okl. 108.
33 C.J. p 1136 note 28.
Counterclaim
In absence of showing that de-
fendants pressed counterclaim, de-
fendants will be held to have ac-
quiesced in rendition of Judgment
dismissing petition without dispos-
ing of counterclaim,— <Jity of St
Louis ex reL and to Use of Sears
v. (Clark, Mo.App., $5 S.W.2d 980.
§ 43
JUDGMENTS
49 .C.J.S.
of law and fact,25 and it must dispose of the entire
subject matter of the litigation26 and conclude all
further inquiry into the issues joined by the plead-
ings, leaving nothing further to be done except to
carry the judgment into execution.27 In rendering
judgment the court may, however, properly disre-
gard an immaterial issue.28 A judgment will be
held sufficient if it disposes of material issues by
necessary implication even though it does not do so
in formal terns,29 and as a rule it will be presumed
that the court passed on all questions properly pre-
sented which under its own ruling it was possible
for it to adjudge.30
Ordinarily judgment should not be rendered with-
out disposing of matters raised by defendant's
pleadings,31 such as a counterclaim82 or cross com-
plaint,33 unless the determination of the issue on
which the judgment is based is necessarily decisive
of the whole case34 or the actions have been sepa-
rated under statutes or court rules permitting such
practice.35 An answer filed by one of several de-
fendants, which may be or become common to all,
and which goes to the right of plaintiff to recover,
precludes judgment against a codefendant until the
issues have been disposed of by the court.36 It has
been held improper to render judgment on an inter-
vention without at the same time acting on the prin-
cipal action.37
25. Mo. — Magee v. Mercantile-Com-
merce Bank & Trust Co., 98 S.W.
2d 614, 839 Mo. 559 — Lummi Bay
Packing* Co. v. Kryder, App., 1
S.W. 543.
Pa, — Thompson v. Emerald Oil Co.,
123 A. 810, 279 Pa. 321.
Tex. — Standard Motor Co. v. Witt-
man, Civ.App., 271 S.W. 186— Fort
Worth Acid Works v. City of
Tort Worth, Oiv.App., 248 S.W.
822, affirmed City of Fort Worth
v. Fort Worth Acid Works Co.,
Com.App., 259 S.W. 919.
33 C.J. p 1136 note 27.
26. Tex. — Southern Trading Co. of
Texas v. Feldman, Com. App., 259
S.W. 566— Patton v. Mitchell, Civ.
App., 13 S.W.2d 146 — Lindsey v.
Hart, Civ.App., 260 S.W. 286.
27. Okl. — Foreman v. Riley, 211 P.
495, 88 Okl. 75.
28. Tex. — Miller v. Lemm, Com.
App., 276 S.W. 211.
29. Ga. — Pittman Const. Co. v. City
of Marietta, 172 S.E. 644, 177 Ga.
573.
Tex. — Medearis v. Buratti, Civ.App.,
275 S.W. 617— Panhandle Grain &
Elevator Co. v. Dowlin, Civ.App.,
247 S.W. 873.
Judgment upheld as sufficiently dis-
posing' of all issue*
Mo.— Saxbury v. Coons, 98 S.W.2d
$62.
Tex. — Whisen-ant v. Cole, Civ.App.,
285 S.W. 835— Mathis v. Overland
Automobile Co. of Dallas, Civ.
App., 265 S.W. 1069.
30. Ga. — South View Cemetery
Ass'n v. Hailey, 34 S.E.2d 863,
199 Ga. 478.
Tex. — Cramer v. Cornell, Civ.App.,
108 S.W.2d 1115, reversed on oth-
er grounds 130 S.W.2d 1023, 134
Tex. 17.
Effect of recital
Recital in judgment that issues
were found for defendant means all
essential issues, including those
raised by denial.— Di Blasi v. Di
Blasi, 163 A. 473, 116 Conn. 699. ,
Irrespective of whether or not
pleaded, on the basis of Inescapable
inherency, it may be assumed that
the court passed on a constitutional
question involved in the 'decision
rendered.—- State ex rel. Rose v.
Webb City, 64 S.W.2d 597, 333 Mo.
1127, transferred, see, App., 74 S.W.
2d 45.
31. Ky. — Jones v. Stearns, 260 S.W.
375, 202 Ky. 598.
S.C.— Watson v. Matley, 114 S.E.
412, 121 S.C. 482.
W.Va. — Rosier v. McDaniel, 28 S.E.
2d 908, 126 W.Va. 434.
33 C.J. p 1156 note 29.
Equitable defense
Ky. — Jones v. Stearns, 260 S.W. 373,
202 Ky. 598.
Flea of privilege
Trial court was unauthorized to
render Judgment on merits until it
had finally disposed of plea of priv-
ilege; and a controverting affidavit
to plea of privilege presents real is-
sues which must be tried and dis-
posed of before, or at time of, dis-
position of main cause, unless waiv-
ed.— Smith v. Watson, Tex.Civ.App.,
44 S.W.2d 815.
312. Ky.— Great Atlantic & Pacific
Tea Co. v. Lexington-Hazard Ex-
press Co.'s Receiver, 64 S.W.2d
631, 246 Ky. 102.
Mo. — Liepman v. Rothschild, 262 S.
W. 685, 216 Mo.App. 251.
3a Cal. — Browne v. T. J. Lawrence
Co., 268 P. 631, 204 Cal. 424.
34. Ky. — Haywood v. Gooch, 86 S.
W.2d 665, 260 Ky. 667.
Mo. — City of St. Louis ex rel. and
to Use of Sears v. Clark, App., 35
S.W.2d 986.
Tex. — Threadgill v. Fagan, Civ.App.,
64 S.W.2d 405— Williams v. Walk-
er, Clv.App., 290 S.W. 299— Po-
mona Mut Oil Syndicate v. Wil-
liamsport Wire Rope Co., Civ.App.,
282 S.W. 958.
33 C.J. p 1136 note -30.
Necessary implication
(1) Set-off or counterclaim need
not be expressly mentioned in judg-
102
ment, provided it is disposed of by
necessary implication. — 'Prim v. La-
tham, iTex.Civ.App., 6 S.W.2d 175,
error refused.
(2) Judgment for plaintiff for
amount sued for without mention-
ing cross action by necessary impli-
cation disposes of entire case. — Pan-
handle Compress & Warehouse Co.
v. Best, Tex.Civ.App., 58 S.W.2d 140.
Unliquidated amount
. Where plaintiffs' claim was par-
tially unliquidated and defendants'
counterclaim was also for unliqui-
dated amount, judgment was in
proper form and not for an impos-
sible amount, judgment must be af-
firmed, even though no reference
was made therein to the counter-
claim.— Zappolo v. Lanigan, 285 N.
Y.S. 863, 246 App.Div. 443, affirmed
4 N.E,2d 815, 272 N.Y. 584.
35. Tex. — Latshaw v. Barnes, Civ.
App., 170 S.W.Sd 531.
Segregation under civil procedure
rule
Where court, under civil procedure
rule, segregated cause of action aris-
ing on petition of intervention and
tried that cause separate from orig-
inal cause of action and cross ac-
tions, court was authorized to enter
separate and final Judgment on such
petition without finally disposing of
issues raised by original suit or
cross actions. — Latshaw v. Barnes,
supra.
36. Ky.— Rucker v. Baker, 177 S.W.
2d 878, 296 Ky. 505.
37* La. — T i c k f a w Homegrowers'
Ass'n v. Gallodoro, 132 So. 767, 15
I/a, App. 686.
Garnishment
Judgment awarding plaintiff in
garnishment suit, two interveners
and garnishee amounts totaling less
than sum shown by garnishee's an-
swer to be due third intervener on
judgment, claimed by latter to be ex-
empt from garnishment, held not er-
roneous as failing to dispose of
amount. in controversy, remainder of
funds in g»arnishee's hands being
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 44
A failure to pass on a motion is immaterial, as
the entry of judgment is in effect a final disposition
of motions previously filed.38
Partial judgment under statute or ride. Under
statutes or court rules providing that, where .after
answer part of plaintiff's claim is admitted or tin-
contested, plaintiff may have judgment for so much
of his claim, subject to such terms as may be just,
the intent is to enable the court of first instance
to clear away portions of a claim or defense not
involving disputed questions of fact by entering a
partial judgment thereon.3^ Such a statute should
not be* so construed as to permit a judgment on
. part of a cause of action where the part is an in-
in effect awarded to third interven-
er as exempt without necessity for
rendition of Judgment in his favor
for such amount — Coles v. Pewel,
Teac.Civ.App., 80 S.W.2d 323, error
dismissed.
38. 111.— Washington Park Club v.
Baldwin, 59 111. App. 61.
33 C.J. p 1137 note 85.
39. 'N.J.— Warren Balderston Co. v.
Ivory, 16 A.2d 617, 125 N.J.Law
469.
40. N.Y.— Lowe v. Lowe, 192 N.E.
291, 265 N.T. 197.
41. Cal. — Sheeny v. Roman Catholic
complete fragment of an entire claim which cannot
be thus divided without mutilation.40
§ 44. Evidence
As a general rule a Judgment must be supported by
legally adduced evidence of a substantial and sufficient
character, and a judgment may not rest on mere specu-
lation, surmise, or suspicion.
.While exceptions may occur in respect of judg-
ments by confession or consent, or those entered on
admissions or default, under principles discussed in-
fra §§ 162, 174, 185, 210-213, as a general rule the
evidence must sustain the judgment,41 proof being
as essential to the support of a judgment as plead-
ing.42 The evidence must be of a substantial char-
acter,^ sufficient to support the judgment ren-
dered.44 The judgment must be founded on suffi-
Archbishop of San Francisco, 122
P.2d 60, 49 Cal.App.2d 537.
HI. — Oak Park Trust & Savings
Bank v. Soulias, 3 N.E.2d 159,
284 Ill.App. 646.
Ky.— Producers' Coal Co. of Ken-
tucky v. Barnaby, 275 S.W. 625,
210 Ky. 244— City Bank & Trust
Co. of Hopkinsville v. Dark To-
bacco Growers' Co-op. Ass'n, 272
.S.W. 751, 209 Ky. 830.
Mo. — American Extension School of
Law v. Ragland, 112 S.W.2d 110,
232 Mo.App. 763— Brie City Iron
Works v. Ferer, App.,
1008.
263 S.W.
N.X— Automobile Ins. Co. of Hart-
ford, Conn. v. Conway, 158 A. 480,
109 N.J.EQ. 628— Rich v. Inter-
City Transp. Co., 165 A. 296, 11
N.J.Misc. 243.
N.T. — Sabl v. Laenderbank Wien Ak-
tiengesellschaft, 80 N.T.S.2d 608,
opinion supplemented 33 N.T.S.2d
764.
Or.— U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
v. Zidell-Steinberg Co., 50 P.2d
584, 151 Or. 5<38, modified on other
grounds 51 P.2d 687, 151 Or. 538.
S.B.— Morrison v. Connery, 229 N.W.
392, 56 S.D. 469.
Tex. — Cohen v. City of Houston, Civ.
App., 185 S.W.2d 450— Shackelford
v. Neilon, Civ.App., 100 S.W.2d
, io37 — Motley v. Tom Green Coun-
ty, Civ.App., 93 S.W.2d 768, re-
versed on other grounds Tom
Green County v. Motley, 118 S.W.
2d 306, 132 Tex. 54— Matrimonial
Mut Ass'n of Texas v. Rutherford,
Civ.App., 41 S.W.2d 719, error dis-
missed— Gilmer v. Graham, Civ.
App., 26 S.W.2d 687, reversed on
other grounds, Com.App., 52 S.W.
2d 263— National Life & Accident
Ins. Co. of Tennessee v. Wash-
ington, Civ.App.f 295 S.W. 204 —
Austin Bros. Bridge Co. v. Road
Dist No. -3 of Liberty County,
Civ.App., 247 S.W. 674.
Conformity of judgment to proof
generally see infra §§ 47-54.
Arbitrary declaration, if without evi-
dence
A Judgment, entered without hear-
ing evidence on basic issues of fact,
is only arbitrary declaration of
judge, having no reference to liabili-
ty involved, even though purporting
to be judicial determination of judg-
ment creditors' rights. — Burket v.
Reliance Bank & Trust Co., 11 N.E.
2d 6, 367 111. 196.
42. Ky.— ^Consolidation Coal Co. v.
King, 244 S.W. 303, 196 Ky. 54.
Tenn. — Poster v. Andrews, 189 S.
W.2d 580.
Tex. — Birdville Independent School
Dist v. Deen, Civ.App., 141 S.W.2d
680, affirmed Deen v. Birdville In-
dependent School Dist, 159 S.W.2d
111, 138 Tex, 3-39— Forman v. Bar-
ron, Civ.App., 120 S.W.2d 827, er-
ror refused— Shackelford v. Nei-
lon, Civ.App., 100 S.W.2d 1037 —
Traders & General Ins. Co. v.
Lincecum, Civ.App., 81 S.W.2d 549,
reversed oil other grounds 107 S.
W.2d 585, 130 Tex. 220— Karr v.
Oockerham, Civ.App.f 71 S.W.2d
905, error dismissed — Morten Inv.
Co. v. Trevey, Civ.App., 8 S.W.2d
527, error dismissed— Humble Oil
& Refining Co. v. Southwestern
Bell Telephone Co., Civ.App., 2 S.
W.2d 488.
33 C.J. p 1142 note 59.
103
43, U.S.— U. S. v. Perry, C.C.A.Ark.,
55 F.2d 819.
Miss.— Moore v. Sykes' Estate, 149
So. 789, 167 Miss. 212.
Mont — Ashley v/ Safeway Stores, 47
P.2d 53, 100 Mont. 312.
N.M. — Jones v. Jernigan, 223 P. 100,
29 N.M. 399.
44* Ark. — Brunson v. Teague, 186 S.
W. 78, 123 Ark. 594.
Fla. — Blue Lake Celery Co. v. Pey-
ton-Lofberg Live Stock Co., 94 So.
862, 84 Fla. 675.
Ga. — Georgia Power Co. v. Woodall,
172 S.E. 76, 48 Ga.App. 85.
Idaho.— Muckle v. Hill. 187 P. 943,
32 Idaho 661.
HI. — Hopper v. Hopper, 41 N.E.2d
786, -314 IlLApp. 572.
Ky.— Jordan v. City of Olive Hill,
162 S.W.2d 229, 290 Ky* 828.
Neb. — Macumber v. Thomas, 207 N.
W. 31, 114 Neb. 290.
N.Y.— Samuel Strauss & Co. v. Katz,
206 N.Y.8. 246, 210 App.Div. 405
— Raby v. Greater New York De-
velopment Co., 135 N.Y.S. 813,
151 App.Div. 72, affirmed 104 N.
E. 1139, 210 N.Y. 586— Phelan v.
New York Central & H. R. R. Co.,
115 N.Y.S. 35— Putzel v. Fargo,
103 N.Y.S. 766— Simon v. Danziger,
98 N.Y.S. 674.
OkL— Steiner v. Steiner, 10 (P.2d 641,
156 OkL 255 — Barstow v. Chattee,
239 P. 622, 112 Okl. 81.
Pa. — Pennsylvania Labor Relations
Board v. Kaufmann Department
Stores, 29 A.2d 90, 345 Pa, 398.
Tex. — Ketch v. Weaver Bros., Com.
App., 276 S.W. 676— Cohen v. City
of Houston, Civ. App., 185 S.W.2d
450— Spradlin v. Gibbs, Civ.App.,
159 S.W.Bd 246 — Corona Petroleum
Co. v. Jameson, Civ. App., 146 S.
W.2d 512, error dismissed, judg-
ment correct — Christie v. Hud-
speth County Conservation and
Reclamation Dist. No. 1, Civ.App.,
64 S.W.2d 978^-Carpenter v. Par-
mer County, OV.APP., 61 S.W.2d
§ 44
JUDGMENTS
49 O.J.S.
cient facts legally ascertained,4* and cannot rest on
evidence of an incompetent character,46 or which
was never adduced in court,47 such as matters not
put in evidence of which the court took judicial
notice.48 A judgment may not rest on conjecture
and speculation49 or on mere surmise or suspi-
cion,50 nor may a judgment find support in assump-
tions51 or in possibilities or probabilities falling
short of actual proof.52 While an inference of the
truth of facts essential to a cause of action will sup-
port a judgment rendered in accordance with such
facts,53 the court should not base its judgment on
a state of facts so inadequately developed that it
cannot be determined where inference ended and
conjecture began.54 However, it is not essential to
the validity of a judgment that it rest entirely on
uncontradicted evidence,55 and it is not fatal that a
different conclusion might have been reached on all
Wash. — Johnson v. Goo'denough, 175
OP. 306. 103 Wash. 625.
83 C.J. p 1141 note 57, p 1142 note
58, p 1164 note 96—47 C.J. p 1009
note 88.
Prlma facie ca*«
Even though defendant flies no
answer, plaintiff in civil proceeding,
whether summary or ordinary, must
at least make out prima facie case
before being entitled to Judgment.
— Grosjean v. Wallace Johnson Mo-
tor Co., La.App., 171 So. 184.
Evidence held sufficient to support
(1) Generally.
U.S. — State Bank of New York v.
Henderson County, Ky., C.C.A.Ky.,
35 F.2d 859, certiorari denied Hen-
derson County, State of Kentucky,
v. State Bank of New York, 50 S.
Ct. 245, 281 U.S. 728, 74 L.Ed. 1144,
1145.
Ky.— Small v. Minton, 192 S.W.2d
184.
Tex. — St. Louis -Southwestern Ry.
Co. of Texas v. Neely, Civ.App.,
•296 S.W. 948.
(2) Judgment foreclosing mechan-
ics' liens held not objectionable as
rendered on unverified account to
admissibility of which defendants
excepted, where other facts showed
amount due. — Boozer v. Smith, Tex.
Civ.App., 36 S.W.2d 10S4, error dis-
missed.
(3) A judgment which did not
state whether it <was based on one or
both counts of declaration was
without error if evidence sustained
either count. — Yeats v. Moody, 175
So. 719, 128 Fla. 658.
(4) Judgment solely on evidence
prior to .filing of amended pleadings
bringing in new. parties held not
erroneous where court prior to judg-
ment ordered dismissal of new par-
ties and no new issue was raised .by
amendment. — McCreary v. Falconer,
44 P.2d 303, S Cal.2d 335.
45. Tex. — Motley v. Tom Green
County, Civ,App., 93 S.W.2d 768,
reversed on other grounds Tom
Green County v. Motley, 118 S.W.
2d 306, 132 Tex. 54— Blalock v.
Jones, Civ.App., 1 S.W.2d 400, er-
ror dismissed*
46. Mich* — Refrigerating Equipment
Co. v. Finch, 242 N.W. 217. 257
Mich. 023.
Tex.— -Hood v, Robertson, Civ.App.,
33 S.W.2d £82.
W.Va. — Board of Trustees of Lewis
Pilchard Charity Fund v. Mankin
Inv. Co., 193 S.E. 805, 119 W.Va.
391.
Unlawful search and seizure
A civil judgment, in the procure-
ment of which evidence obtained
through unlawful search and seizure
in violation of the Fourth Amend-
ment to federal Constitution is used,
is invalid.— -Rogers v. U. S., C.C.A.R.
I., 97 F.2d 691.
Evidence as to unpleaded matters
(1) Evidence not based on any
pleadings is incompetent and will
not support a judgment, even though
admitted by court without objection.
— Stone v. Boone, Tex.Civ.App., 160
S.W.2d 578, error refused.
(2) Evidence adduced on an issue
not made by the pleadings will not
support a judgment. — Mullinax v.
Snorgrass, Tex.Civ.App., 83 S.W.2d
1080, error refused.
(3) Necessity of pleadings as
well as evidence to support judg-
ment see supra §40.
Evidence which has been stricken
will not sustain a judgment. — In re
Jolly's Estate, 229 IlLApp. 508.
47. Mo.— State ex rel. National
Lead Co. v; Smith, App., 134 S.W.
2d 1061.
Pa.— Riedrich v. Riedrich, 62 Pa.
Super. 189.
Tex. — Church v. Western Finance
Corporation, Civ.App., 22 S.W.2d
1074.
TTnoffered exhibits
Mo. — Carroll v. Carroll, App., 237 S.
W. 843 — Taylor v. Fuqua, 219 S.W.
971, 203 Mo.App. 581.
48. Mo.— -Hume v. Wright, 274 S.W.
741— State ex rel. National Lead
Co. v. Smith, App., 134 S.W.2d
106-1.
49. U.S. — Deposit Guaranty Bank &
Trust Co. v. U. S., D.aMlss., 48
F.'Supp. 869 — Orrill v. Prudential
Life Ins. Co. of America, D.C.Cal.,
44 FjSupp. 902 — Greenwood Com-
press &, Storage Co. v. Fly, D.C.
Miss., 24 F.Supp. 168, reversed on
other grounds, C.C.A., 102 F.2d
600.
Ky.-r-Central Kentucky Natural Gas
Co. v. Williams, 60 S.W.2d 580,
249 Ky. 242.
104
Mich.— Michigan Aero Club v. Shel-
ley, 278 N.W. 121, 283 Mich. 401.
Miss. — Blizzard v. Fitzsimmons, 10
So.2d 343, 193 Miss. 484— Furr v.
Brookhaven Creamery, 192 So. 838,
188 Miss. 1.
Mo. — Locke v. Warden, App., '179 S.
W.2d 624 — Brinker v. Miller, App..
162 S.W.2d 295— Bauer v. Wood,
154 S.W.2d 356, 2-36 Mo.App. 26«6.
Nev. — Richards v. Vermilyea, 175 P.
188,. 42 Nev. 294, rehearing denied
180 P. 121, 42 Nev. 294.
50. Cal.— -De Hart v. Allen, 111 P.2d
342, 43 Cal.App.2d 479.
Miss.— Blizzard v. Fitzsimmons, 10
So.2d 343, 193 Miss. 484.
Existence of fact
If evidence raises only a surmise
or suspicion of the existence of a
fact sought to be established, a
judgment will not be permitted to
rest on such fact — Shell Oil Co. v.
Howth, 159 S.W.2d 483, 138 Tex.
357.
51. La. — Cali v. Cloverland Dairy
Products Co., App., 21 So.2d 166.
Nev. — Richards v. Vermilyea, 175 P.
188, 42 Nev. 294, rehearing denied
180 P. 121, 42 Nev. 294.
52. La. — Evans v. Campbell, App.,
9 So.2d 91.
Mich.— Michigan Aero Club v. Shel-
ley, 278 N.W. 121, 283 Mich. 401.
Miss. — Furr v. Brookhaven Cream-
ery, 192 So. 838, 188 Miss. 1.
Pa.— Winograd v. Coombs, 20 A,2d
315, 342 Pa. 268.
What might have been
Judgments cannot be rendered on
what might have been,^ but there
must be proof fairly tending to e&-
tablish fact alleged. — Salaban 'v.
East St. Louis & Interurban Water
Co., 1 N.E.2d 731, 284 Ill.App, 358.
53. Cal. — Gish v. Los Angeles Ry.
Corporation, 90 P.2d 792, 13 Cal.
2d 570.
54. Miss.— Moore v. Sykes* Estate,
149 So. 789, 167 Miss. 212.
55. Okl.— -Bradley v. Little, 134 P.2d
126, 192 Okl. 121.
Function of Jury
Trial court is under no duty to de-
termine by its judgment truth or
talsity of evidentiary facts, which
is for jury incidentally as a means
of determining its verdict. — South-
ern Pine Lumber Co. v. Whiteman,
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§45
the evidence adduced;56 but a valid judgment may
not be predicated on evidence that cannot be true.57
The insufficiency of supporting evidence has in
some instances been held to render a judgment
void,5'8 but in others it has been regarded as render-
ing the judgment merely erroneous but not void.59
It has been held that a judgment is not rendered
void by irregularities in the taking of proof,6** or by
perjured testimony.61
§ 45. Verdict and Findings
A valid Judgment must be predicated on the deci-
sion, findings, or verdict of the trial court OP Jury.
The issues raised by the pleadings, whether of
law or fact, must be determined in favor of one
party or the other before judgment can be entered;
there* must be either decision or findings by the
court or referee62 or the verdict of a jury.63 Where
a case is tried to the court and a jury is called to
TexJCiv.App.. 104 S.W.*d 635. error
dismissed.
56. Okl.— Bradley v. Little, 134 P.2d
126, 192 Okl. 121.
57. U.S. — V. W. Woolworth Co. v.
Davis, C.C.A.Okl., 41 F.2d 342,
certiorari denied 51 S.Ct 33, 282
U.S. 859. 75 LJEd. 760.
Total disability
Evidence that an insured was to-
tally disabled within the meaning of
a war risk insurance policy could
not support a judgment on the poli-
cy where such evidence could not
have been true in view of the fact
that it was conclusively shown that
during the period of alleged total
disability insured continuously fol-
lowed a substantially gainful occu-
pation. — U. S. v. Perry, .C.OA.Ark.,
55 F.2d *19.
58. La, — Fields v. McAdams, App.,
15 So.2d 24$.
N.J. — Gimbel Bros v. Corcoran, 192
A. 715, 15 N.J.Misc. 5*8.
Tenn.— -Lewis v. Burrow, 127 S.W.2d
795, 23 Tenn.App. 145.
error
A judgment unsupported by testi-
mony is fundamentally erroneous. —
Norvell-Shapleigh Hardware Co. v.
Lumpkin, Tex.Civ.App., 150 S.W.
1194.
59. Ky.— - Starbird v. Blair, 12 S.W.
2d 693, 227 Ky. 258— Reed v. Bun-
yan, 10 S.W.2d 824, 226 Ky. 261
— Sizemore v. Hunter, 269 S.W.
542. 207 Ky. 453— Spencer v. Mil-
liken, 4 Ky.L. 856.
N.T. — Jordan v. Van Epps, 85 N.T.
427— In re Jenkins, 117 N.T.S. 74,
132 App.Div. 339.
Term. — Globe & Republic Ins. Co. of
America v. Shields, 96 S.W.2d 947,
170 Tenn. 485.
33 C.J. p 1141 note 57 [a]— 34 C.J.
p 563 note S3.
Secondary evidence
Judgment based on secondary evi-
dence is not within itself void. —
Busby v. First Nat. Bank, Tex.
Civ.App., 68 S.W.2d 328, error dis-
missed.
80. Ky.— -Haddix v. Walter, 266 S.
W. 631, 205 Ky. 740.
Failure to take down testimony in
writing and file it was held not to
render decree void. — Malone v.
Meres, 109 So. 677. 91 Fla. 709.
61. Colo. — Hunt v. Hunt, 264 P. 662,
83 Colo. 282, error dismissed 49
S.Ct. 186, 278 U.S. 583, 73 L.Ed.
519.
B.C.— Hodge v. Huff, 140 F.2d 686, 78
U.S.App.D.C. 329, certiorari denied
64 S.Ct 946, 322 U.S. 733, 88 L.
Ed. 1567.
Perjury as ground for:
.Collateral attack see infra S 434.
Equitable relief against judgment
see infra § 374.
Opening and vacating Judgment
see infra § 270.
62. Cal. — Easterly v. Cook, 85 P.2d
164, 140 CaLApp. 115.
Ga. — Corpus Juris cited in Holton
v. Lankford, 6 S.E.2d 304, 310,
189 Ga. 506.
Md. — Carozza v. Brannan, 46 A.2d
198.
N.T.— Fuller v. Galeota, 51 N.T.S.2d
101, 268 App.Div. 949— Donate v.
Granite State Fire Ins. Co., 288
N.T.S. 639, 248 App.Div. 736—
Flagg v. Moses, 225 N.T.S. 508,
222 App.Div. 762, motion denied
226 N.T.S. 392, 222 App.Div. 821,
and affirmed 162 N.E. 504, 248 N.
T. 509— Abell v. Hunter, 207 N.T.
S. 203, 211 App.Div. 467, affirmed
148 N.E. 766, 240 N.T. 702— Shaul
v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Mary-
tend. 227 N.T.S. 16-3, 131 Misc. 401,
affirmed 230 N.T.S. 910, 224 App.
Div. 773.
Pa.— Massachusetts Bonding & In-
surance Co. v. Johnston & Harder,
16 A.2d 444, 840 Pa. 253.
S.D. — Central Loan & Investment
Co. v. Loiseau, 239 N.W. 487, 59
S.D. 255.
Utah. — Beneficial Life Ins. Co. v.
Mason, 160 P.2d 734— Mason v.
Mason, 160 P.2d 730 — Evans v.
Shand, 280 <P. 239, 74 Utah 451.
Vt. — Town of Randolph v. Lyon, 175
A. 1, 106 Vt 495.
33 C.J, p 1137 note 37—64 C.J. p 1223
note 32.
Finding* as equivalent to verdict
.For the purposes of judgment, the
trial court's findings of fact have
the effect of a "verdict"-— Watson
105
v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. Co. of
Texas, Tex.Civ.App., 173 S.W.2d 357.
When finding's unnecessary
Findings" of fact by the court have
been held unnecessary where there
is a verdict. — Dye v. Russell, 40 N.
W. 416, 24 Neb. 829.
Conclusions inconsistent
If findings support judgment, in-
consistencies between conclusions
are immaterial and do not vitiate
judgment. — Klein Norton Co. v. Co-
hen, 290 P. 61*, 107 CoLApp. 325.
63. U.S. — Connally v. Louisville &
N. R. Co., C.C.A.Miss., 297 F. 180.
Ala.— Scott v. Parker, 113 So. 495,
216 Ala. 321.
Cal.— Vitimtn Milling Corporation v.
Superior Court In and for Los An-
geles County, 33 P.2d 1016, 1 CaL
2d 116.
Ga.— Corpus Juris cited in Holton v.
Lankford, 6 S.R2d 304, 310, 189
Ga. 506.
Mo. — Newdiger v. Kansas City, App.,
106 S.W.2d 51, affirmed 114 S.W.2d
1047, 342 Mo. 252.
N.C.— Miller v. Dunn, 124 S.E. 746,
188 N.C. 397.
Tex. — American Nat Ins. Co, T.
Points, Civ.App., 81 S.W.2d 762,
error dismissed — Dallas Coffin Co.
v. Teager, Civ.App., 19 S.W.2d 156,
error dismissed — Cisco Building
& Loan Ass'n v. Mason, Civ.App.,
12 «S.W.2d 1106— TTair v. Wichita
Valley Ry. Co.. Civ.App., 274 S.W.
247— Fort Worth & D. C. Ry. Co.
v. Lowrie, CivJLpp^ 271 S.W. 268.
Va.— Scheckler v. Andersom, 29 an
2d 867, 182 Va, 701.
35 C.J. p U37 note 38.
Indispensable step
Where there was no waiver of ft
trial by jury, its verdict was an in-
dispensable step in the proceedings,
and trial court was without powqr
to enter a final judgment in, absence
thereof.— Heath v. Moers, 199 S.E.
519, 171 Va, 397.
Approval of verdict
The trial court must .approve a
verdict before a judgment can be
based on it — Fraka* v. Travelers
Mut Casualty Co.,. 84 P.24 871, 148
Kan. 637.
§ 45
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
make findings as to certain issues, judgment should
be rendered on the basis of findings of the jury ac-
cepted by the court, plus findings of fact made by
the court on other issues and conclusions of law
based on all such findings.64
A valid judgment must rest on findings, express
or implied, on all material issues.65 The findings
of the court66 or the findings or verdict of the ju-
ry67 must be of a character sufficient to support the
judgment rendered, and ordinarily the latter may
not be aided by intendment or reference to extrinsic
facts.68 Although it has been held that it must ap-
pear that there was a direct and affirmative finding
on every issue of fact essential to recovery,6^ it
has also been held that, where the court fails to
make formal findings, every finding justified by the
record and necessary to support the judgment will
be implied,70 and that a general judgment is deemed
64. Cal. — Alphonzo B. Bell Corp. v
Listle, App., 169 P.2d 462.
Matter Juriidictional
Findings on issues other than
those specifically found by jury in
answer to special interrogatories be-
ing necessary to support Judgment,
matter held jurisdiction^, findings
not having been waived. — Central
Loan & Investment Co. v. Loiseau,
239 -N.W. 487, 59 S.D. 265.
65, Mont. — Blaser v. Clinton Irriga
tion Dist, 53 OP.2d 1141, 100 Mont
459.
N.C.— Bborn v. Ellis, 85 S.B.2d -288
225 N.C. 386.
Tex. — English v. Blackwood, Civ.
App., 128 S.W.2d 895, error dis-
missed Judgment correct
Wis.— Witt v. Wonser, 219 N.W. 844,
195 Wis. 593.
Omnibus Hading that material al-
legations in named paragraphs of
defendant's affirmative defense were
not proved was insufficient to sup-
port Judgment— Gordon v. Beck, 239
P. 309. 196 Cal. 768.
General verdict
(1) Judgment cannot be supported
by jury's determination on isolated
issues in answer to special interrog-
atories without general verdict —
Central Loan & Investment Co. v.
Loiseau, 239 N.W. 487, 59 &D. 255.
(2) In action on disability clause
of group life and health policy, ver-
dict for insured for total amount of
his certificate held "general verdict"
which could serve as proper basis
for judgment — Eauitable Life As-
sur. Soc. of U. S. v. Goble, 72 S,W^2d
35, 254 Ky. 614.
Special verdict
Where special verdict contains no
finding on vital issue of fact con-
cerning which testimony is conflict-
ing, it will not support judgment for
plaintiff.— Hintz v. Jackson, 198 N.
W. 475, 51 N.D. 13.
Verdict requiring entry of Judgment
Although jury need not in all cas-
es answer all issues presented, be-
fore judgment can be entered for
either party, the verdict must be
such as to require the entry of a
judgment. — Bowen Motor Coaches v.
Young, Tex.Civ.App., 138 S.W.2d 145.
When there wag no finding on
certain evidence, judgment could not
be held to have been based thereon.
— Willard v. Glenn-Colusa Irr. Dist N.H. — Holman v. Kingsbury, 4 N.H.
258 P. 959, 201 Cal. 726. 104.
Judgment on merit*
Fact findings are made by court
only on issues raised by pleadings
and evidence produced on trial, and
Judgments- on merits are entera
only on findings so made, rulings on
demurrer when pleading over is not
served, or motion for Judgment on
pleadings, agreed case, or consent of
party against whom it runs.r—An-
gers v. Sabatinelli, 1 N.W.2d 765
239 Wis. S 64 — Luebke v. City of Wi
tertown, 284 N.W. 519, 230 Wis. 512.
66- CaL — Winstanley v. Ackerman,
294 P. 449, 110 CaLApp. 641.
Mo. — Buschow Lumber Co. v. Un-
ion Pac. H. Co., 276 S.W. 409, 220
Mo.App. 743— Kentling & Kentling
v. Magers, App., 256 S.W. 528.
N.J.— Motor Finance Corporation v.
Tar Asphalt Trucking Co., 21 A.2d
350, 127 N.J.Law 60.
N.Y.— Sutphen v. Morey, 212 N.Y.S.
43, 214 App.Div. 164.
Or.— State v. Warren Const Co., 276
P. 260, 129 Or. 58.
83 C.J. p 964 note 60.
Finding- supported by inadmissible
evidence
Judgment based on finding sup-
ported by inadmissible evidence is
erroneous. — Donnell v. Baker, Tex.
Civ. App., 15 S.W.2d 120, error dis-
missed.,
Judgment held sufficiently supported
(1) Generally.
Cal. — Arena v. Bank of Italy, 228 P.
441, 194 Cal. 195.
Vt-^Campbell v. Ryan, 22 A.2d 502,
112 Vt 238—<3ooley v. Hatch, 124
A, 589, 97 Vt 484.
(2) It has been held that a decree,
finding that certain of the parties
to the suit are owners of the real
estate in controversy, fixing the in-
.eres't of each, and decreeing par-
:ition accordingly, is not defective
because without general findings of
''act. — Rackemann v. Tllton, 86 N.E.
68, 236 111. 49.
67. Colo. — -fflStna Casualty & Surety
Co. v. Finance Service Corporation,
2-26 P. 153, 75 Colo. 432.
HL— -War-field v. Patterson, 135 IlL
App. 307, appeal dismissed 84 N.
E. 176, 233 III. 147.
106
Tex. — Houston, E. & W. T. Ry. Co.
v. Browder, Com. App., 283 S.W.
154 — Union Indemnity Co. v. Col-
orado Nat. Bank, Civ.App., 38 S.W.
2d 257— -Ratcliffe v. Ormsby, Civ.
App., 298 S.W. 930, error denied
Ormsby v. Ratcliffe, 1 S.W.2d 1084,
117 Tex. 242— Jaco v. W. A. Nash
Co., Civ.App., 269 S.W. 1089.
Wash. — Bino v. Veenhuizen, 250 P.
450, 141 Wash. 18, 49 A.L.R. 1297.
Advisory verdict
Jury verdict, effect of which is ad-
visory only, will not support Judg-
ment—Central Loan & Investment,
Co. v. Loiseau, 239 N.W. 487, 59
S.D. 255.
Support by evidence •
Unless Jury's finding is supported
by evidence, judgment should not be
entered thereon. — Houston & T. C.
R. Co. v. Pruitt, Tex.Civ.App., 293
S.W. 627.
Judgment sufficiently supported 1)7
Jury findings or verdict
Cal. — Fairbanks v. Macready, 268
P. 947, 92 Cal.App. 156~<Jadwalla-
der v. Martin, 257 P. 638, 83 Cal.
App. 666.
Okl.— Houser v. Ivey, 249 P. 141. 119
Okl. 42.
Tex.— Martin v. Hays, Civ.App., 86
S.W.2d 796, error refused.
68. Ala.— Capital Cab Co. v. Mont-
gomery Fair, 104 So. 891, 20 Ala.
App. 648, certiorari denied Ex
parte Capital Cab Co., 104 So. 892,
213 Ala. 429.
69. Ala.— Capital Cab Co. v. Mont-
gomery Fair, 104 So. 891, 20 Ala.
App. 648, certiorari denied Ex
parte Capital Cab Co., 104 So. 892.
213 Ala. 429.
Conclusion of ultimate fact
A statement in judgment or de*
cree, entered after hearing conflict-
ng evidence, may be regarded as
conclusion of ultimate fact or at
east of mixed law and fact, even
though same allegation in pleading
might be construed as conclusion of
aw. — Label v. Sullivan, 165 S.W.2d
39, 350 Mo. 286.
0. Mont — Blaser v. Clinton Irr.
Dist. 53 P.2d 1141. 100 Mont 459.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§46
to include a special finding on all issues necessary
to sustain k.7* While a valid judgment may not
be based on findings or verdict as to an immaterial
issue,72 where the judgment otherwise finds suffi-
cient support, the fact that some of the findings are
immaterial or without the issues will not invalidate
it.73 The failure to find as to a particular issue of
fact is immaterial where the fact is admitted.74
A judgment rendered without either verdict or
findings is irregular and erroneous,7^ and has been
held premature and void ;76 but the more generally
accepted view is that such a judgment is merely
voidable and is not absolutely void77 and that fail-
ure of verdict and findings to support the judgment
is a defect subject to waiver.78 Since the power
to decide includes the power to decide erroneously,
a judgment is not void because of an erroneous
finding of fact,79 especially where such error was
inadvertent and harmless and not determinative of
the main issue.80
Decision in writing as basis for judgment. Ordi-
narily a judgment should be entered on the basis
of a decision in writing,81 and may not be predicat-
ed merely on the opinion,82 oral direction,83 or
unsigned memorandum84 of the court, or on an en-
try in the minutes of the clerk;85 but absence of
a decision in due form has been held not fatal to a
judgment.86
E. CONFORMITY TO PRIOR PROCEEDINGS
§ 46. Conformity to Process
A Judgment should conform to the process served, as,
for example, with respect to parties and 'the amount of
the recovery.
A judgment should conform to the writ or proc-
ess served.87 Accordingly, where process is di-
rected to, and served on, a party as an individual,
judgment may not be rendered against him in a
representative capacity, and vice versa.88 Likewise,
process addressed to, and served on, an individual
is not sufficient on which to base a judgment against
•a corporation.89
The amount of recovery must conform to, and is
71. Mass. — In re Rothwell's Estate,
186 N.E. 662. 28-3 Mass. 563— An-
derson v. Bean, 172 N.E. 647, 272
Mass. 432, 72 A.L.R. 959.
Okl.— Riddle v. Brann, 131 P.2d 999,
191 Okl. 596— Stan er v. McGrath,
51 P.2d 795, 174 Okl. 454.
Delay in instituting- stilt
A judgment for plaintiff in action
for accounting and to recover her
one-sixth interest in proceeds of
sale of mining property was a find-
ing against her alleged unneces-
sary delay to instituting action. —
Scott v. Symons, 216 P. 604, 191 Cal.
441.
72. Fla.— Merchants & Bankers
Guaranty Co. v. Downs, 175 So.
704, 128 Fla. 7*7.
N.J. — Motor Finance Corporation v.
Tor Asphalt Trucking Co.. 21 A.2d
350, 127 N.J.Law 60.
N.T. — Miller v. Union Indemnity Co.,
204 N.TjS. 7<30, 209 App.Div. 455.
Tex.— Texas & N. 0. R. Co. v. Shaw,
Civ.App., 284 S.W. 600.
73. Mont— Huffine v. Lincoln, 287
P. 629, 87 Mont 267.
74. N.C. — Seawell v. Person, 76 S.
E. 2, 160 N.C. 291.
33 C.J. p 1138 note 42.
75. Cal.— Easterly v. Cook, 35 P.2d
164, 140 Cal.App. 115.
Ga. — Corpus Juris cited In Holton
v. Lankford, 6 S.E.2d 304, 310,
189 Ga. 506.
Tex. — American Rio Grande Land &
Irrigation <Jo. v. Bellman, Civ.
App., 272 S.W. 550.
Vt— Town of Randolph v. Lyon,
175 A. 1, 106 Vt. 495.
33 C.J. p 964 note 57, p 1138 note
39, p 1170 note 37.
76. Cal. — Casner v. Daily News Co.,
106 P.2d 201, 16 Cal.2d 410— Viti-
min Milling Corporation v. Superi-
or Court in and for Los Angeles
County, SiS P.2d 1016, 1 Cal.2d
116— In re Dodds' Estate, 126 P.
2d 150, 52 Cal.App.2d 287— Easter-
ly v. Cook, 35 P.2d 164, 140 Cal.
App. 115.
77. N.C.— Ellis V. Ellis, 130 S.B. 7,
190 N.C. 418.
Okl.— Mid-Continent Pipe Line. Co.
v. Seminole County Excise Board,
146 P.2d 996, 194 Okl. 40.
Or. — Corpus Juris cited in Glickman
v. Solomon, 12 P.2d 1017, 1018, 140
Or. 358, followed 12 P.2d 1018, 140
Or. 364, overruling Frederick &
Nelson v. Bar£, 134 P. 318, 66 Or.
259, and Clackamas Southern Ry.
Co. v. Vick, 144 P. 84, 72 Or. 580.
Wyo. — Garber v. Spray, 164 P. 840,
25 Wyo. 52.
33 C.J. p 1138 note 40, p 1170 note
38.
78. N.Y. — Corn Exchange Bank v.
Blye, 28 N.E. 805, 119 N.T. 414.
79. U.S.— Jack y. Hood, CXLA.OkL.
39 F.2d 594.
Findings contrary to evidence
have been held not to render the
judgment void. — In re Gardiner's Es-
tate, 114 P.2d 645, 45 CaLApp.2d
559.
80- U.S.— Jack v. Hood, COA-Okl.,
39 F.2d 594.
107
81. S.D. — Sinclair Refining Co. v.
Larson, 214 N.W. 842, 51 SJX 443.
82. N.Y. — Reynolds v. -3Btna Life
Ins. Co., 39 N.T.S. 885, 6 App.Div.
254.
Utah. — Wasatch Oil Refining Co. V.
Wade, 63 P.2d 1070, 92 Utah 50.
Wash. — Adams v. Ernst, 95 P.2d 799,
1 Wash.2d 254.
33 C.J. p 1137 note 87 [b], [c],
83. N.T.— Shaul v. Fidelity & De-
posit Co. of Maryland, 227 N.T.S.
163, 131 Misc. 401, affirmed 230 N.
T.S. 910, 224 App.Div. 773.
84. N.T.— Corley v. Spitzer, 255 N.
T.S. 601, 235 AppJMv. 703— Torge
V. Loomis, 21-3 N.T.S. 924; 215 App.
Div. 862— Woolf v. Woolf, 215 N.
T.S. 89, 126 Misc. 868.
85. N.T.— Electric Boat Co. v. How-
ey, 89 N.T.S. 210, 96 App.Div. 410.
33 OX p 1137 note 37 [b].
86. N.T. — Lyon v. Water Com'rs of
City of Binghamton, 232 N.T.S.
26, 224 App.Div. 568.
87. U.S. — Hughes v. Union Ins. Co.,
Md., 8 Wheat. 294, 5 L.Ed 620.
33 C.J. p 1138 note 44.
88. Fla. — Fllmi v. Lisenby, 1-36 So.
599, 102 Fla. 777.
Divestiture of title
Where, in trespass to try title,
defendant was served as individual
only, judgment divested him of title
individually, but not as trustee. —
Blair v. Carney, Tex.Civ.App., 44 S.
W.2d 1031, error refused.
89. La. — Norwich Union Indemnity
Co. v. Judlln & WMtmire, 7 La.
App. 879.
§47
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.&
limited by, the writ9* Accordingly, where the
judgment is by default, the amount of recovery is
limited to the sum specified in the summons or in-
dorsed on the copy served,91 and a judgment for
a greater sum has b^en held absolutely void,92
although such judgment has also been held to be
regular and valid if it is within the sum demanded
in the declaration.93 Where, however, defendant
appears and answers, the judgment is not limited to
the amount indorsed on the summons.94
§ 47. Conformity to Pleadings and Proofs
The rules respecting conformity of judgments to
the pleadings and proofs, and the applications of
such rules, are considered in detail infra §§ 48-54.
Examine Pocket Parts for later cases.
§48.
General Rules
A Judgment should be supported by both the plead-
ings and the proofs, although in this connection substan-
tial accordance is sufficient, and the pleadings are to
be taken as a whole.
A court may not properly put on its record a
judgment which is not a proper sequence to the
pleadings,95 at least without the consent of all per-
sons affected.96 It is a general rule that a recovery
must be had, if at all, on the facts alleged in the
pleadings; the judgment must conform to, and be
supported by, the pleadings in the case.97 It is
likewise a general rule that facts proved but not
Party against whom process may is-
sue In actions against corporations
see Corporations § 1308.
90. Ala,— Carroll y. Milner, 9 So.
221, 93 Ala. 301.
33 C.J. p 1138 note 45.
91. N.J.— Rips v. Levitan, 130 A.
882, 3 N.J.Misc. 1166, motion de-
nied 132 A. 926, 4 N.J.Hisc. 314.
33 C.J. p 1139 note 46.
92. Kan.— -Basset v. Mitchell, 19 P.
671.
33 C.J. p 1139 note 47.
93. 111.— Plato v. Turrill, 18 HI. 273.
33 C.J. p 11-39 note 48.
94. N.Y.— Valencia Realty Co. v.
Seely, 192 A. 717, 15 N.J.Misc. 520.
33 C.J. p 1139 note 49.
95. Ind. — Indianapolis Real Estate
Board v. Willson, 187 N.E. 400, 98
Ind.App. 72.
Mo. — Owens v. McCleary. App., 273
S.W. 145.
Tex. — Automobile Finance Co. v.
Bryan, Civ. App., <3 S.WV2d 835 —
•Smith v. Scott, Civ.App., 261 S.W.
1089.
Va.— Dulaney v. Smith, 149 S.E. 441,
153 Va. 118.
3i3 C.J. p 1139 note 51.
A court of record, in order to act,
must find a basis in the pleading
for its action. — Green v. Duncan,
Tex.Civ.App., 1-34 S.W.2d 744.
96. TJ.-S, — Sylvan Beach v. Koch, C.
C.A.MO., 140 F.2d 852.
S3 C.J. p 11*39 note 51 [a}.
Issues broadened by consent see in-
fra § 50,
The rule cannot be circumvented
by allowing amendments to the
pleadings to change a cause of ac-
tion after judgment, or by giving
notice of the entry of judgment, or
by entertaining motions to vacate
a judgment after it has been enter-
ed.— Sylvan Beach v. Koch, supra.
97. US.— Mutual Life Ins. Co. v.
Bingley, Wash., 100 F. 408, 40 C.
C.A. 459, 49 UR.A. 132, reversed
.on other grounds 22 S.Ct 937, 184
U.S. 695, 46 L.Bd. 763— U. S. v.
E. H. Bailey & Co., 32 C.C.P.A.
Customs 89.
Ala. — Corpus Juris cited In Chand-
ler v. IPrice, 15 So.2d 462, 463, 244
Ala, 667.
Ariz.— White v. Hamilton, 299 P. 124,
38 Ariz. 256.
Cal.— Paulin v. Paulin, 102 P.2d 809,
39 Cal. App. 2 d 180.
Ga.— Westberry v. Reddish, 172 S.B.
10, 178 Ga. 116 — Davis v. Mowers,
114 S.B. 200, 154 Ga. 260.
111.— -Continental 111. Nat Bank &
Trust Co. of "Chicago v. Sever, 65
N.E.2d 385, 393 111. 81.
Ind. — Earl Park -State Bank v. Low-
mon, 161 N.B. 675, 92 Ind.App. 25
— Chicago, T. H. & S. B. Ry. Co.
v. Collins/ 142 N.B. 634, 82 Ind.
App. 41, modified on other grounds
143 N.E. 712, 82 Ind.App. 41.
&y. — Cawood v. Cawood's Adm'x,
147 S.W.2d 88, 285 Ky. 201— City
of Owingsville v. Ulery, 86 S.W.
2d 706, 260 Ky. 792— Ratliff v. Sin-
berg, 79 S.W.2d 717, 258 Ky. 203
— Corpus Jails cited la Barnett
v. Robinson, 79 S.W.2d 699, 700,
258 Ky. 225— McGill v. Dunaway,
71 S.W.2d 4-35, 254 Ky. 234— Wak-
enva Coal Co. v. Johnson, 28 S.W.
2d 737, 234 Ky. 558.
Mass. — Coughlin v. Coughlin, 45 N.
B.2d '388, 312 Mass. 452— Geffien v.
Paletz, 43 N.B.2d 133, 312 Mass.
48.
Miss. — Holmes v. Ford, 176 So. 524,
179 Miss. 673— Newell Contracting
•Co. v. Flynt, 161 So. 298, 172 Miss.
719, motion overruled 161 So. 743,
172 Miss. 719.
Mo. — Grafeman Dairy Co. v. North-
western Bank, 288 'S.W. 359, 315
Mo. 849— McCaskey v. Duffley, 78
S.W.2d 141, 229 MoApp. 289, trans-
ferred; see 73 S.W.2d 188, 1335 Mo.
•38-3 — Texas Empire (Pipe Line Co.
v. Stewart, App., 35 S.W.2d 627,
reversed on other grounds 55 S.
W.2d 283, 331 Mo. 525— Lewis v.
Scholl, Appw 244 S.W. 90.
Mont— Alley v. Peeso, 290 P. ^238,
108
88 Mont 1— Welch v. All Persons,
Etc., 254 P. 179, 78 Mont 370.
Neb. — Fidelity Finance Co. v. West-
fall, 254 N.W. 710, 127 Neb. 56—
Domann v. Domann, 208 N.W. 669,
114 Neb. 563.
0kl.— Corpus Juris cited in. Okla-
homa City v. Robinson, 65 P.2d
531, 533, 179 Okl. 309.
Pa. — Bowman v. Gum, Inc., 184 A.
258, 321 (Pa. 516.
Tenn.— Fidelity-Phenix Fire Iris. Co.
of New York v. Jackson, 181 S.
W.2d 625, 181 Tenn. 453— Phifer v.
Mutual Ben. Health & Accident
AssM, 148 S.W.2d 17, 24 Tenn.App.
600.
Tex. — Wilke v. Finn, Com. App., 39
S.W.2d 836— Nalle v. Harrell, 12
S.W.2d 550, 118 Tex. 149— Queen
Ins. Co. v. Galveston, H. & S. A.
Ry. Co., Com. App., 296 -S.W. 484,
reheard « B.W.2d 419—JPhelps v.
Connellee, Com.App,., 285 S.W. 1047
— Johnson Aircrafts v. Wilborn,
Civ.App., 190 S.W.2d 426-JClty of
Beaumont v. Calder Place Corpo-
ration, 180 S.W.2d 189, reversed on
other grounds 183 S.W.2d 713, 143
Tex. 244 — -Doughty v. DeFee, Civ.
App., 152 S«W.2d 404, error refused
— Rudolph v. Smith, Civ.App., 148
S.W.2d 225— Butler v. Price, Civ.
App., 138 S.W.2d 301— De Walt v.
Universal Film Exchanges, Civ.
App., 132 S.W.2d 421, error dis-
missed, judgment correct — Rob-
bins v. Robtoins, Civ.App., 125 S.W.
2d 666 — Fort Worth & Denver City
Ry. Co. v. Reid, Civ.App., 115 S.W.
2d 1156— City of Floydada vt Gil-
liam, Civ.App., Ill S.W.2d 761 —
Jones-O'Brien, Inc., v. Lloyd, Civ.
App., 106 'S.W.2d 1069, error dis-
missed— Hartford Accident & In-
demnity Co. v. Moore, Civ.App.,
102 S.W.2d 441, error refused —
Houston Gas & Fuel Co. v. Sprad-
lin, Clv.App., 55 S*.W.2d 1086—
American Surety Co. of New Totfc
v. Alamo Iron Works, Civ. App., 29
S.W.2d 493, reversed on other
grounds, Com. App., 36 S.W.2d 714
—House v. Rogers. Civ.App., 23
49 C.J.S,
JUDGMENTS
§ 48
pleaded will not support the judgment,98 and this is
true, even though such facts are found by verdict
or finding.^ An affirmative defense not pleaded is
dence adduced,2 in connection with facts admitted
by the parties in the pleadings or otherwise,8 and
facts pleaded but not proved or admitted on the
unavailable to support the judgment1 *• * •« • < AH - . , .
** ju-ugmcuu ^^ ^ not support a judgment,4 although in this
A judgment must also be sustained by the evi- connection allegations not necessary to the state-
SW.2d 414, affirmed, Com.App.,
Rogers v. House, 39 S.W.2d 1111—
Bray v. Bray, Civ.App., 1 S.W.2d
525 — Bitter v. Bexar pounty, Civ.
App., 266 S.W. 224, reversed on
other grounds. Com.App., 11 S.W.
2d 163 — Stevenson v. Baisrow, Civ.
App., 265 S.W. 602— Metting v.
Metting, Civ.App., 261 S.W. 151.
modified on other grounds 262 S.
W. 188— Scott v. Lott, Civ.App.,
247 S.W. 685— Scott v. State, 102
S.W.2d 434, 132 Tex.Cr. 79.
Utah.— Jeffries v. Third Judicial
Dist. Court of Salt Lake County,
63 P.2d 242, 90 Utah 525— Stevens
& Wallis v. Golden OPorphyry
Mines Co., 18 P.2d 90S, 81 Utah
414 — People's Bonded Trustee v.
Wright, 272 P. 200, 72 Utah 587.
Vt.— Ackerman v. Carpenter, 59 A.2d
922, 113 Vt 77. •
W.Va.— George v. Male, 153 S.E. 507,
109 W.Va. 222.
Wyo. — Corpus Juris cited in Urbach
v. Urbach, 7-3 F.2d 958, 962, 52
Wyo. 207, 113 A.L.R. 889.
13 C.J. p 798 note 65—19 C.J. p
1209 note 20, p 1240 note 19—
24 C.J. p 884 note 44—26 C.J. p
570 note 23—33 C.J. p 144 note 83,
p 1139 note 52, p 1141 note 53,
p 1156 note 58—42 C.J. p 142 note
48—47 C.J. p 430 note 63, p 1009
note 87—51 (XJ. p 360 note 70.
"Unwarranted conclusion of law
A judgment cannot be based on a
pleaded conclusion of law not war-
ranted by the facts pleaded. — Hurst
v. Crawford, Tex.Civ,App., 216 S.W.
284.
Elimination of aspect of bill
After complainant has been forced
by demurrer to eliminate aspect of
bill, he cannot be required to accept
decree under that aspect.— Kelly v.
Carmichael, 129 So. 81, 221 Ala. 371.
When, rule inapplicable
"The rule that Judgment must be
in accordance with the allegations
contained in the pleadings does not
apply when the evidence, though
admitted to prove these allegations,
shows beyond dispute that a party
is responsible for a wrong or has a
right which is not alleged, and
that 'further opportunity to defend
would be futile and a source only
of delay and possible injustice."—
Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U. S.
v. Kevitt, 54 N.YJ3.2d 6413, $50.
Order void on its face,
It has been held that an order
is not void on its face merely be-
cause it is not in accordance with
the petition on which it is based.—
Mueller v. Elba Oil Co., 130 P.2d
961, 21 Cal.2d 188.
9& Conn.— De Lucia v. Valente, 75
A. 150, $3 Conn. 107.
Fla.— Vance v. Bliss Properties, 149
So. 870, 109 Fla. 388.
ia— Walsh v. Walsh, 24 N.B.2d 341,
372 111. 254— Rolinitfs v. Rolinitis,
167 N.B. 68, 335 111. 260.
Mo. — Massey-Harris Harvester Co.
v. Federal Reserve Bank of Kan-
sas City, 48 S.W.2d 158, 226 Mo.
App. 916.
Tenn.— Furst & Furst v. Freels, 9
Tenn.App. 423— HarreU v. Alabama
Great Southern R., 5 Tenn.App.
471.
Tex.— Starr v. Ferguson, 166 S.W.2d
130, 140 Tex 80— Liner v. U. S.
Torpedo Co., Com.App., 12 S.W.2d
552, reheard 18 S.W.2d 519— Dalton
v. Davis, Com.App., 1 S.W.2d 571
—Austin Bros. v. Patton, Com.
App., 294 S.W. 537— Murphy v.
Bain, Civ.App., 142 S.W.2d 598—
Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v.
Jenkins, Civ.App., 63 S.W.2d 563
— American Surety Co. of New
York v. Alamo Iron Works, Civ.
App., 29 &W.2d 493, reversed on
other grounds, Com. App., 36 S.W.
2d 714 — Baptist Missionary and
Educational Convention of State
of Texas v. Knox, Civ.App., 23
S.W.2d 781— Globe Laundry v. Mc-
Lean, Civ.App., 19 «.W.2d 94—
National Rys. of Mexico v. Escon-
trias, Civ.App., 19 S.W.2d 75—
Brewton v. Butler, Civ. App., 12
S.W.2d 228 — San Antonio Machine
& Supply Co. v. Allen, Civ.App.,
268 S.W. 532— Schaff v. Perdue,
Civ.App., 254 S.W. 151— Griffith v.
Gohlman, Lester & Co., Civ.App.,
25-3 S.W. 591— Flemtog-Stitzer
Road Bldg. Co. v. Boyett, Civ.App.,
253 S.W. 561.
W.Va. — Bringardner v. Rollins, 185
S.E. 665, 102 W.Va. 584.
33 C.J. p 1141 note 54.
99. Conn. — Farnham v. Schreiber,
149 A. 393, 111 Conn. 38.
N.C. — Simms v. (Sampson, 20 SJ3.2d
554, 221 N.C. 379.
Tex. — Butler v. Price, Clv^App., 138
S.W.2d 301— National Life & Ac-
cident Ins. Co. v. Casas, Civ.App.,
36 S.W.2d 523— Dickson v. Kilgore
State Bank, CivJVpp., 244 S.W. 892,
reversed on other grounds, Com.
App., 257 S.W. 867.
133 C.J. p 1141 note 55.
Mass. — Nashua River Paper Co.
v. Lindsay, 136 N.E. 358, 242 Mass.
206.
33 C.J. p 1144 note 75.
109
"When reoonventloiL&l demand unnec-
essary
Where a court is authorized to
grant the relief prayed for either
absolutely or on a condition, the
granting of the relief only on con-
dition is a mere refusal to grant
plaintiff the full measure of relief
prayed for, and no reconventional
demand on the part of defendant is
needed to authorize such judgment.
— Francez v. Francez, 94 So. 203,
152 La. 666.
2. Colo. — -Minchew v. West, 241 P.
541, 78 Colo. 254.
111. — Brock v. Pomeroy, 27 NJE.2d
56, 305 ULApp. 127— Pley v. Lav-
ette, 167 IlXApp. 494.
La.— Thompson v. State Assur. Co.,
Limited, of Liverpool, England,
107 So. 489, 160 La. 683.
N.T.— Claris v. Richards, 183 NJBL
904, 260 N.Y. 419— Antonacchio V.
Consolidated Foreign Exchange
Corporation, 197 N.T.-S. 150, 203
App.Div. 621.
S.C.— Blease v. Charleston & W. C.
Ry. Co., 144 S.E. 233, 146 S.C. 496.
Tex.— City of Beaumont v. Calder
Place Corporation. Civ.App., 180
S«W.2d 189, reversed on other
grounds 183 S.W.2d 713, 143 Tex.
244 — Riggle v. Automobile Finance
Co., Civ.App., 276 S.W. 439— Ben-
son v. Adams, Civ.App., 274 S.W.
210, reversed on other grounds,
Cozn.App., 285 S.W. 818— R. B.
George Machinery Co. v. Spear-
man, Civ.App., 273 S.W. 640.
Wyo. — Finance Corporation of Wyo-
ming v. Commercial Credit Co., 283
P. 1100, 41 Wyo. 198.
13 C.J. p 798 note 65—19 C.J. p 1210
note 21, p 1240 note 20—24 C.J. p
885 note 45—26 C.J. p 570 note 24
—33 C.J. p 1141 note 57—47 C.J.
p 430 note 64.
Terms of unambiguous contract
Judgment on an unambiguous
written contract should be rendered
according to its terms, although evi-
dence is admitted to explain, add to,
and vary its meaning. — Cease v. De
Hek, 253 P. 232, 122 Kan. 699.
3. N.T. — J. D. L. Corporation v.
Bruckman, 11 N.T.S.2d 7'41, in
Misc. 3.
Tex.— Baker v. Rose, CivJV.pp., 179
S.W.2d 339, modified on other
grounds 183 &W.2d 438, 143 Tex.
438.
33 C.J. p 1142 note 58. .
4. £y<— Wunderlich v. Ecott, 46 S.
W.2d -753, 242 Ely. 481.
La.— Pitre v. Guidry, Ajpp., 147 So,
767.
§ 48
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
ment of a cause of action and constituting mere
surplusage need not be proved, it being sufficient
that the judgment is supported by proof of the
essential allegations.* In other words, the judg-
ment must conform to, and be supported by, both
the pleadings and the proofs,6 and be in accordance
with the theory of the action on which the plead-
ings are framed and the case was tried.7 This rule
is of universal application, and whether the ac-
tion or suit is at law, in equity, or under the code,
the judgment must be secundum allegata et proba-
ta.8 Where the facts pleaded and proved by plain-
tiff constitute a cause of action, a judgment may be
rendered in his favor,9 notwithstanding some of the
allegations made by him are not found to be true.10
A judgment inconsistent with admitted or con-
clusively established facts is erroneous;11 a valid
NVT. — Klepper v. Seymour House j
Corporation of Ogdensburg, 209 N.
T.S. 67, 212 App.Div. 277.
Tex.— New Amsterdam Casualty Co.
v. Harrington, Com.App., 290 S.
W. 726-r Sproles v. Rosen, Civ.
App., 47 S.W.2d Ml, affirmed 84 S.
W.2d 1001, 126 Tex 51.
33 C.J. p 1142 note 59.
Verified account
In an action based on an itemized
account the correctness of which is
duly verified, and under a statute
providing that to the absence of a
verified denial the account should be
taken as true, it *s not necessary
to the validity of a judgment oa
the account, where the required de-
nial has not been made, that other
evidence be introduced.— Cusack v.
McMasters, 279 P. 329, 137 Okl. 278.
5. Mo.— Campbell v. Missouri Pac.
B. Co., 25 S.W. 936. 121 Mo. 340,
42 Am.S.R. 530, 25 L.R.A. 175.
33 C.J. p 11*44 note 74.
e. U.S.— Webster Bisenlohr, Inc., v.
Kalodner, C.C.A.Pa., 145 P.2d 316,
certiorari denied Kalodner v. Web-
ster Bisenlohr, Inc., 65 S.Ct. 1404,
325 U.-S. 867, 89 L.Ed. 1986— Dry-
brough v Ware, C.C.A,Ky., Ill F.
2d 548.
Cal.— Pacific Mortg. Guaranty Co. v.
Rosoff, 67 P.2d 110, 20 Cal.App.2d
383.
Conn. — Tress v. Pivorotto, 133 A. 85,
104 Conn. -389.
Fla.— Corpus JtuAs quoted in Edgar
v. Bacon, 122 So. 107, 109, 97 Fla.
679, followed in Wright v. Tatari-
an, 181 "So. 133, 100 Fla. 1366.
Ga.— Griffeth v. Haygood, 161 S.B.
831, 174 Ga. 22.
m._Wood v. Wood, 64 N.E.2d 385,
327 111. App. 557 — Kohler v. Kohler,
61 N.B.2d 687, 326 IlLApp. 105—
First Trust Joint Stock Land
Bank of Chicago v. Cutler, 12 N.E.
2d 705, 293 Ill.App. 354.
Iowa.— Bennett v. Oreenwalt, 286 N.
W. 122, 226 Iowa 1113.
Ky.— Wunderlich v. Scott, 46 S.W.2d
753, 242 Ky. 481— Phelps v. Phelps,
24 S.W.2d 584, 232 Ky. 685— Ad-
Idas v. Pikeville Supplying &
Planing Mill Co., 295 S.W. 440, 220
Ky. 476 — Lassiter v. Farris, 259 S,
W. 696, 202 Ky. 330.
3£iss. — Kennington-Saenger Theatres
*. State ex reL Disk Atty., 18 So.
2d 433, 196 Miss. 841. 153 A.L.R.
883.
Mo.— Sinclair Refining Co. v. W]yatt,
149 'S.W.2d -358, 347 Mo. 862— Frie-
del v. Bailey, 44 S.W.2d 9, 829 Mo.
22.
Mont.— tSecurity State Bank of
Havre v. Mariette, 223 P. 114, 69
Mont. 536.
Neb.— Coleman v. Beck, 5 N.W.2d
104, 142 Neb. 13.
N.J. — Gunther v. Morey Larue Laun-
dry Co., 29 A.2d 713, 129 N.J Law
345, affirmed 33 A.2d 893, 130 N.J.
Law 557 — Sivak v. City of New
Brunswick, « A.2d 566, 122 N.J.
Law 197.
N.T.— Lifton v. Title Guarantee &
Trust Co., 31 N.T.S.2d 94, 26-3 App.
Div. 3 — Electric Equipment Cor-
poration v. Delco Appliance Corpo-
ration, 297 N.T.S. 498, 252 App.Div.
1— Dobbins v. Pratt Chuck Co., 206
N.Y.S. 5, 210 App.Div. 278, revers-
ed on other grounds 151 N.E. 1-46,
242 N.T. 106— People v. Roney, 230
N.T.S. 583, 132 Misc. 746.
Pa.— In re Miller, Com.Pl., 32 Del.
Co. 566.
S.C. — Jones v. Blbert, 34 'S.E.2d 796,
206 S.C. 508— Parker Peanut Co.
v. Felder, 34 S.E.2d 488, 207 S.C.
€3 — Corpus Juris quoted in Little
v. Rivers, 185 S.E. 174, 175, 180 S.
C. 149.
Tenn.— Dixie Ohio Exp. Co. v. But-
ler, 166 S.W.2d 614, 179 Tenn. 358.
Tex. — -Page v. Key, Civ.App., 175 S.
W.2d 443, error refused — Street v,
Cunningham, Civ.App., 156 S.W.2d
541-r-Day v. Grayson County -State
Bank, Civ.App., ISS S.W.2d 599—
Barrett v. Commercial Standard
Ins. Co., Civ.App., 145 S.W.2d -315
—Southern Underwriters v. Blair,
Oiv.App., 144 S.W.2d 641— Guthrie
v. Gossett, Civ.App., 142 S.W.2d
410— American Nat Ins. Co. v.
Sutton, Civ.Aipp., 130 S.W.2d 441 —
Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Ow-
ings, Civ.App., 128 S.W.2d 67—
Railroad Commission of Texas v.
Royal Petroleum Corporation, Civ.
App., 93 S.W.2d 761, error dismiss-
ed— Penrod v. Von Wolff, Civ.App.,
90 S.W.2d 859— Barnhart Mercan-
tile Co. v. Bengel, Civ.App., 77
S.W.2d 295— Perkins v. Campbell,
Civ.App., 63 S.W.2d 567— Farm &
Home Savings & Loan Ass'n of
Missouri v. Muhl, Civ.App., 37 S
W.2d 316, error refused — Sibley v,
no
Perkins Bros. Dry Goods Co., Civ.
App., 12 S.W.2d 601— Hall v. Brad-
ley, Civ.App., 282 S.W. 874 — Grif-
fith v. Gohlman, Lester & Co., Civ.
App., 253 <S.W. 591.
Vt.— In re Prouty's Estate, 165 A.
566, 105 Vt 66.
Va. — Richmond Engineering & Mfg.
Corporation v. Loth, 115 S.E. 774,
135 Va. 110. •
1 C.J. p 1009 note 7—33 C.J. t> 1142
note 60 — 42 C.J. p 1287 note 14
—51 C.J. p 269 note 25.
Belief not dependent on arguments
"It is the pleadings and the de-
veloped facts within the pleadings
that courts are obliged to follow and
to which the parties and counsel
must be held; not arguments." —
Mississippi Power & Light Co. v.
Pitts, 179 So. 363, 365, 181 Miss. 344.
7. Fla. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Edgar v. Bacon, 122 So. 107, 109,
97 Fla. 679, followed in Wright v.
Tatarian, 131 So. r33, 100 Fla.
1366.
Iowa. — Bennett v. Green wait, 286 N.
W. 722, 226 Iowa 1113.
S.C. — Corpus Juris quoted in Little
v. Rivers, 185 S.E. 174, 175, 180
S.C. 149.
33 C.J. p 1143 -note 61.
8. Fla. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Edgar v. Bacon, 122 So. 107, 109,
97 Fla. 679, followed in Wright v.
Tatarian, 131 So. 133, 100 Fla.
1366.
33 C.J. p 1143 note 62.
9. Miss. — Southeastern Exp. Co. v.
Namie, 181 So. 515, 182 Miss. 447.
Wash. — Exeter Co. v. Holland Corpo-
ration, 23 P.2d 864, 172 Wash. 323.
33 C.J. p 1143 note 67.
In courts where written pleadings
are not required, plaintiff is entitled
to any appropriate relief on facts
established, unless on the trial he
has adopted and insisted on a con-
trary theory of the case. — Troxler
v. Bevlll, 3 S.E.2d 8, 215 N.C. 640.
10. Cal. — Herman v. Glasscock, 155
P.2d 912, 38 Cal. App. 2 d 98.
11. Cal.— California Stearns Co. v*
Treadwell, 256 P. 594, 83 CaLApp.
69.
Kan.— Wright v. Jenks, 261 «P. 840,
124 Kan. 604.
Ky. — Quaack v. Kentucky Title Trust
Co., 106 S.W.2d 589, 268 Ky. 498.
N.Y.— Weiss v. McKinner, 59 N.Y.S.2d
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
49
judgment, inconsistent with his own allegations and
admissions, cannot be rendered for a party.1* If
defendant admits liability for a particular sum,
judgment should be rendered against him for at
least such sum, and a judgment of nonsuit, dis-
missal, or the like is erroneous.13 A judgment for
a defendant who fails to answer a complaint stat-
ing a cause of action is erroneous, because the de-
fault admits the case alleged.1* A judgment is void
for inconsistency where it grants relief both to
plaintiff and to defendant on inconsistent grounds.15
In determining whether or not the pleadings sup.
port the judgment, they must be taken as a whole,16
and construed so as to support the judgment, if
capable of such a construction.1? Substantial ac-
cordance is sufficient;18 and to upset a judgment
for variance between it and the pleadings in a con-
tested case, it has been held that there must be an
entire abandonment of the very substance of the
dispute to which defendant was summoned, and the
substitution of another which he could not have
anticipated, and which he had no opportunity to
meet19 If defendant merely files an answer and
defaults thereafter, a closer registry between plead-
ing and judgment is exacted than after a contested
trial.20 The presumption is that the relief granted
is authorized by the pleadings, and the burden is on
him who attacks the judgment to show that it was
not.21
§ 49. Limitation to Relief Sought by
Pleadings
a. In general
b. Affirmative relief to defendant
a. In General
As a general rule the relief awarded should conform
to that sought by the pleadings.; but this rule does not
always apply, particularly where there is a prayer for
general relief or where the statutes have broadened the
scope of permissible relief, and In many cases the court
has power to grant any relief within the issues formed
by the pleadings and justified by the evidence, regard-
less of the specific relief demanded.
Ordinarily, and in the absence of a statute to the
contrary, the relief to be awarded by a judgment
should be consistent with, and limited to, that sought
659— Levlne v. Weiss, 16 N.Y.S.2d
1003.
Tex. — Dashiel v. Lott, ConouApp., 243
S.W. 1072, rehearing: denied 246
S.W. xvi — Great Southern Life
Ins. Co. v. Dorough, Civ.App., 100
S.W.2d 772.
33 C.J. p 1143 note 63.
Legal effect of admitted facts
Where all the material foots are
established by admissions in the
pleadings, the Judgment must be In
accordance with the legal effect of
such facts regardless of the testi-
mony on other issues, unless by ac-
tual or implied consent the parties
have tried the case on other sub-
stituted issues.— Reiff v. Mullholland,
62 N.E. 124, 65 Ohio St. 178—83 C.
J. p 1143 note $5.
Indebtedness of plaintiff
(1) In action by borrowers
against lender of money, where un-
controverted proof showed that
plaintiffs were indebted to defend-
ants in excess of their claim, enter-
ing judgment for plaintiff was error.
— Brecht v. Bankers' Sec. Co., 1«33
S.E. 79, 101 W.Va. 533.
(2) In action to have chattel mort-
gage declared void, court properly
gave defendant judgment for amount
of debt which plaintiff admitted.—
Wilson v. Standard Fertilizer Co.,
166 S.E. 76, 203 N.C. 359.
12. Mo. — Drecksbage v. Dreckshage,
176 -S.W.2d 7, 352 Mo. 78.
33 C:J. p 1156 note 59.
13. U.S. — Southern Pac, Co. v. Van
Hoosear, C.OA.Cal., 72 F.2d 908.
Ky.— Olark v. Mason, 95 S.W.2d 292,
264 Ky. 683.
N.C.— Penn v. King, 162 S.B. 376, 202
N.C. 174.
Tex— Illinois Bankers' Life Ass'n
v. Floyd, Com. App., 222 S.W. 967.
33 C.J. p 1143 note 63 [a], [b].
14. Tex.— Miller v. Nichols, Civ.
App., 258 S.W. 855.
3-3 C.J. p 1143 note $4.
15. Mo. — King v. Brockschmidt, 3
Mo.App. 571.
33 C.J. p 1168 note 29.
16. Okl. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co. v.
Busha, 66 P.2d 64, 67, 179 Okl.
505.
•S.C.— Little v. Rivers, 185 SJ3J. 174,
180 S.C. 149.
Tex. — Corpus Juris cited in Cavers
v. Sioux Oil & Refining Co., Com.
App., 49 S.W.2d 862, 868.
Utah.— La Bee v. Smith, 229 P. 88, 64
Utah 242. '
33 CJ. p 1144 note 77.
Pleadings of lota parties
In determining the relief which
may be accorded, it is proper to
take into consideration the plead-
ings of both parties. — Buchanan v.
Davis, Tex.Com.App., 60 S.W.2d 192
— Cavers v. Sioux Oil & Refining Co.,
Tex.Com.App., 49 S.W.2d 862— New
Home Sewing Mach. Co. v. Withrow,
TexCiv.App., 143 S.W.2d 971— Orms-
by v. Ratcliff, Tex.Civ.App., 22 S.W.
2d 504, affirmed Ormsby v. Ratcliffe,
Com.App., 36 S.W.2d 1005—33 C.J, P
1168 note 28 [a] (2).
Ill
Adverse interest* between code,
fendants may be passed on, and a
decree rendered between them
grounded on the pleadings and proof
between plaintiff and defendants and
founded on and connected with the
subject matter in litigation between
plaintiff and one or more of defend-
ants, even though no cross pleadings
be filed, especially where the rights
as between plaintiff and one of the
defendants cannot be adjudicated
without determining rights as be-
tween codefendants, — Gillam v. Co-
line Oil Co., 277 P. 639, 136 OkL
257.
17. Okl. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co. v.
Busha, 66 P.2d 64, 67, 179 OkL
505.
S.C.— Little v. Rivers, 185 S.E. 17-4,
180 S.C. 149.
33 C.J. p 1144 note 78.
18. S.C. — Little v. Rivers, supra.
33 C.J. p 1144 note 79.
19. U.S. — Armand Co. v. Federal
Trade Commission, C.CJL, 84 P.2d
97-3, certiorari denied 56 S.Ct 309,
296 U.-S. 650, 80 L.Ed. 463, certio-
rari denied 57 S.Ct 189, 299 U.S.
597, 81 L.Ed; 440, rehearing denied
57 S.Ct 234, 299 U.S. 623, 81 L.Ed.
459.
20. U.S.— Armand Co. v. Federal
Trade Commission, supra, '
21. Iowa. — American Emigrant Co.
v. Fuller, 50 N.W. 48, 83 Iowa 599.
33 C.J. p 1144 note 80.
49
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
by the pleadings22 or incidental thereto.23 Where
plaintiff has asked only for specific relief, or relief
as to a specific subject matter, usually no more ex-
tensive or different relief may be accorded to him.24
However, particularly under statutes or codes in
effect so providing, the demand or prayer for relief
does not always or necessarily determine or limit
the relief which may be granted,25 and in many cas-
es the rule is stated more broadly to the effect that
any relief fairly within the issues formed by the
pleadings and justified by the evidence may be giv-
en, regardless of the specific relief asked or the
form of the action.26 Accordingly it has been held
that, notwithstanding a pleading asks for the wrong
22, tr.S.— iSylvan Beach v. Koch, C.
C.A.MO., 140 F.2d 852.
Ariz. — Wall v. Superior Court of Ya-
vapai Comity. 89 P.2d 624, 63 Ariz.
344.
Gad.— Lewis V. Kohls, App.. 1-60 P.
2d 199.
Conn. — Shaw T. Sj>elk«, 14T A. 675,
110 Conn. 208.
Fla. — G-ralynn Laundry T. Virginia
Bond & Mortgage Corporation, 163
So. 706, 121 Fla. 812.
Ga.— Burton v. Metropolitan Life
Ins. Co., 172 S.E. 41, 177. Ga. 899,
transferred, see 173 S.E. 922, 48
GauApp. 828.
Idaho.— Mason v. Pelkes, 59 P.2d
1087, 57 Idaho 10, certiorarl denied
Pelkes T. Mason, 67 S.Ct. 319, $99
U.S. 615, 81 LJEd. 4&3— Angel v.
Mellea, 285 P. 461, 48 Idaho 750.
I1L— (Barker T. Gray, 148 N.E. 325,
317 111. 468— Wood v. Wood, 64
N.E.2d -385, 327 IlLApp. «57.
Iowa. — Federal Land Bank of Omaha
v. Jefferson, 295 K.W. 855, 229
Iowa 1054, 1*32 A.L.R. 1282— In re
Collicott's Estate, 283 N.W. 869,
226 Iowa 106.
Ky.— Jones v. York, 185 S.W.2d 40«4,
299 Ky. 30«,
La. — Mente & Co. v. Roane Sugars,
6 So.2d 731, 199 La. 636— Peters v.
Norris, 185 So. 481, 191 La. 436—
Le Blanc v. Cristlna, 140 So. 149,
19 La.App. 397.
Miss. — Kennlngton-Saenger Theatres
v. State ex rel. District Attorney,
18 So.2d 488, 196 Miss. 841r 153 A.
L.R. 883.
Mo.— Brown v. Wilson, 1S5 6.W.24
176, 348 Mo. 658— -Hecker v. Bleish,
3 S.W.2d 1008, 319 Mo. 149.
N.M.— Van Sickle v. Keck, 81 P.2d
707, 42 N.M. 450.
Pa. — Eddy v. Borough of Ashley, 125
A. 308, 281 Pa. 4.
Tex. — Grain v. Adams, dv.App., 120
S.W.2d 290— Hake v. Dilworth,
Civ.App., 96 S:W.2d 121, error dis-
missed—Lokey T. Elliott. Civ.App,,
88 S.W.2d 126— Elgin v. Banks,
Civ.App., 38 S.W.2d 149— Faison T.
Faison, Civ.App., 31 S.W.2d 828,
error dismissed — Community Nat-
ural <3a« C*. T. Northern Texas
Utilities Co., Civ.App., 13 -S.W.2d
194, error dismissed — Smith v.
Miller, Civ.App., 300 fi.W. 95"3—
Creager T. Beamer Syndicate, Civ.
App., 274 S.W. 323.
Utah.— Voyles v. Straka, 292 P. 913,
77 Utah 171.
Wis.—In re Kehl's Estate, 254 N.W.
639, 215 Wis> 353*
Wyo. — Corpus Juris cited in Urbach
v. Urbach, 73 P.2d 953. 963, 62
Wyo. 207, 113 A.L.R. 889.
33 C.J. p 1144 note 82—42 C.J. P
142 note B3— 47 C.J. P 430 note 69
— 51 C.J. p 270 note 33.
Conformity of default Judgment to
pleadings and proof see infra §
214.
Relief m equity as limited by prayer
for relief' see Equity § 607.
"It may be that in some cases a
court is warranted in decreeing to
litigants .rights not specifically ask-
ed for in the prayer, but we know
of no rule which requires a trial
court to render a judgment in favor
of a litigant who does not plainly
set out in some portion of his plead-
ing the relief which he desires and
to which he deems himself entitled
under the law.** — City of Floydada
v. Gilltem, Tex.Civ.App., Ill S.W.2d
761, 763.
23. Ark. — Bentonville v. Browne,
158 S.W. 161, 108 Ark. 306.
33 C.J. p 1145 note 83.
Incidental relief in foreclosure suit
(1) It is within the power of the
court in a foreclosure suit to give
relief as to incidental matters not
specified in the prayer, where the
mortgage stipulates for such relief.
— First Nat. Bank v. Heachem, Tenn.
Ch., 36 S.W. 724—42 C.J. p 143 note 54.
(2) Such relief may also be given
where complainant was excusably
ignorant as to his right thereto. —
Clark v. Mackin, 95 N.Y. 3-46—42 C
J. p 143 note 55.
24. La.— New Orleans Silica Brick
Co. v. John Thatcher & Son, 107
So. 236, 160 La. 392.
Tex, — Railroad Commission of Texas
v. Royal Petroleum Corporation,
Civ.App., 93 S.W,2d 761, error dis-
missed-^Smith v. Jaggers, Civ.
App., 16 S.W.2d 969, error dis-
missed.
33 C.J. p 1148 note 2.
25. Ark. — Morgan v. Scott-Mayer
Commission Co., 48 S.W.2d 838,
185 Ark. 637.
Cal. — Holmes v. Anderson, 265 .0?.
1010, 90 CaLApp. 276.
Colo.— Snell v. Public Utilities Com-
mission, 114 P.2d 563, 108 Colo. 162
— >Speyer v. School Dist. No. 1,
City and County of Denver, 261 P.
859, 82 Colo. 534 — Pomponio v.
Larsen, 251 P. 534, 80 Colo. 318.
Ga. — Anderson v. Fulton County
Home Builders, 92 S.E. 934, 147
Ga, 104,
112
Idaho.— Schlieff v. Bistline, 15 P.2d
726, 52 Idaho 353.
Ill.-^Pure Oil Co. v. -Byrnes, 57 N.E.
2d 356, 388 111. 26— Swofford v.
Swofford, 63 N.B.2d 615, 527 111.
App. 25.
Ind.— Rooker v. Leary, 149 N.B. 358,
84 Ind. App. 77 — Montgomery v.
Montgomery, 140 N.B. 917, 81 Ind.
App. 1.
Mo. — Homa-n v. Employers Reinsur-
ance Corporation, 136 S.W.2d 289,
345 Mo. 650, 127 A.L.R. 163— Ben-
trup v. Johnson, 14 S.W.2d 537, 223
Mo.App. 299.
Mont. — Malvaney v. Yager, 64 P.2d
135, 101 Mont. 331.
N.Y. — In re Feuer Transp., 65 N.B.
2d 178, 295 N.Y. 87, reargument
denied Feuer Transp. v. Local Un-
ion No. 445 of International Broth-
erhood of Teamsters, 66 N.E.2d
590, 295 N.Y. 821, motion denied
66 N.B.2d 593, 295 N.Y. 825—
Brown Packing Co. v. Lewis, 58
N.Y.S.2d 443, 185 Misc. 445.
Okl.— Reynolds v. Wall, 72 P.2d 505,
181 Okl. 110, 113 A.L.R. 417—
Owens v. OPurdy, 217' P. 425, 90
Okl. 256.
Tenn. — Central Bank & Trust Co. v.
Conn. 264 S.W. 641, 150 Tenn. 375.
Utah. — Bolognese v. Anderson, 90
P.2d 275, 97 Utah 136— Jeffries v.
Third Judicial Dist. Court of Salt
Lake County, 63 P.2d 242, 90 Utah
525.
Prayer not determinative of right to
recover
The right to recover depends, not
on the prayer, but on the scope of
the pleadings, and the issues made,
or which might have been made,
under them. — Paulsen v. Western
Electric Co., 171 P. 38. 67 Okl. 809.
General law as to framing of judg-
ment
Where the general law prescribes
the manner of framing a judgment
and carrying it into execution, the
court ' may follow that manner,
whether or not expressly prayed for.
—Ex parte Weiler, 289 P. 645, 106
Cal.App. 485.
20. Ark. — Albersen v. Klanke, 6 6.
W.2d 292, 177 Ark. 288.
Cal. — O'Melia v. A<3kins, App., 166 P.
2d 298— Erskine v. Upham, 132 P.
2d 210, 56 Cal.App.2d 235—80^
nicksen v. So'nnicksen, 113 OP.2d
495, 45 Cal.Appv2d 46 — Zimmer v.
Gorehiik, 109 P.2d 34, 42 Cal.App.
2d 440 — Lorraine v. Lorraine, 48
P.2d 48, 8 Cal.App.2d 687— Masero
t9 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 49
•elief, or for relief which cannot be granted, the
;ourt may grant other and appropriate relief.27
\. party is not deprived of all right to relief merely
>ecause he has sought more than he is entitled to,
ind judgment for less relief than demanded may
>e given when sustained by the pleadings- and
>roof.28
A judgment which grants relief of a character
lot sought is not for that reason void ;29 at most it
s erroneous.30
v. Bessolo, 262 P. 61, 87 CaLApp.
262.
3olo. — Bncll r. Public Utilities Com-
mission, 114 P.2d 563, 108 Colo.
162.
11. — Yakich v. Smietanka, 63 N.E.2d
718, 392 111. 53.
Can. — Eberhardt Lumber Co. v. I*e-
cuyer, 110 P.2d 757, 153 Kan. 386
— Shelley v. Sentinel Life Ins. Co.,
69 iP.2d 737, 146 Kan. 227.
JLo. — Merz v. Tower Grove Bank &
Trust Co,, 130 S;W.2d 611, 344 Mo.
1150 — Jones v. Campbell, App., 189
S.W.2d 124.
tfont. — Malvaney v. Yager, 5'4 P.2d
135, 101 Mont. 331— Outlook Farm-
ers' Elevator Co. v. American
Surety Co. of New York, 223 P.
905. 70 Mont. 8.
*.Y.— Hells tern v. Hellstern, 18 N.
E.2d 296, 279 N.Y. 327— New
Chester Theatre Corporation v.
Bischoff, 205 N.Y.S. 641. 210 App.
Div. 125— Allen v. Mattison, 14 N.
Y.S.2d 711.
*.C.— Lockman v. Lockman, 16 S.E.
2d 670, 220 N.C. 95— Dry v. Board
of Drainage Com'rs of Gabarrus
County, Drainage Dist No. 6, 11
S.E.2d 143, 218 N.C. 356— Troacler
v. Bevill, 3 S.E.2d 8, 215 N.C. 640
—Virginia Trust Co. v. Webb, 173
S.E. 598, 206 NjC. 247.
3kl.WTucker v. Porter, 72 R2d 388,
181 Okl. 30 — Harmon v. Hines, 16
P.2d 94, 160 Okl. 120— Page v. Ok-
lahoma City, 263 OP. 448, 12J9 Okl.
28— Rose v. Firat Nat Bank, 219
P. 715, 93 Okl. 120.
3.C.— Palmetto Compress & Ware-
house Co. v. Citizens & Southern
Nat. Bank, 20 S.E.2d 232, 200 S.C.
20 — Youmans v. Youmans, 121 SJB3.
674, 128 S.C. 31.
Tex. — Honaker v. Guffey Petroleum
Co., 294 S.W. 259.
{3 C.J. p 1149 note 5, p 1150 note 7.
Amendments to prayer
(1) In a proper case the court will
illow amendments to be made to
the prayer in order to justify a
judgment affording appropriate re-
lief.—Burd v. Downing, 213 P. 287,
30 Cal.App. 493.
(2)( It has also been held, how-
ever, that an amendment to the
prayer of the petition is not a pre-
requisite to such relief. — Snehoda v.
49 C.J.S.-8
In contested cases, or cases in which an answer
has been filed the relief which may be granted is
not limited to that demanded in the complaint or
specifically prayed for, particularly under statutes
in effect so providing;31 the court may grant any
relief which is consistent with the case made by the
pleadings and proofs, and embraced within the is-
sues.32 The effect of a statute providing that,
where defendant appears and answers, plaintiff shall
First Nat Bank in Wichita, 224 P.
91*4, 115 Kan. 836.
27. Ariz. — -Keystone Copper Min. Co.
v. Miller, 164 P.2d 603.
Cal. — Bank of America Nat. Trust
& Savings Ass'n v. Gillett, 97 P.2d
875, 36 Cal.App.2d 453— Neblett v.
Neblett, 66 P.2d 969, 13 Cal.App.
2d 304.
Colo.— Pope v. Parker, 271 P. 1118,
84 Colo. 535.
La. — Prejean v. East Baton Rouge
Parish Democratic Executive Com-
mittee, 19 So.2d 376, 206 La. 658.
Mo. — Rains v. Moulder, 90 S.W.2d
81, 338 Mo. 275.
N.T.— Lonsdale v. Spever, 291 N.Y.
$. 495, 249 App.Dlv. 133— Seedman
v. Benenson Realty Co., 60 N.Y.S.
2d 341, 185 Misc. 769— Brown
Packing Co. v. Lewis, 58 N.Y.S.2d
443, 185 Misc. 445.
Erroneous prayer for eq.uita'ble relief
If complaint states facts showing
cause of action at law, court will
disregard prayer for equitable relief
and give plaintiff appropriate reme-
dy in law, — Welsh v. Markham, 210
N.W. 70-6, 191. Wis. 310.
Compliance with statutory require-
ments
Where the allegations of a com-
plaint under statute are sufficient
to satisfy the statutory require-
ments, it is immaterial that the
prayer for relief is inappropriate. —
Hamilton v. Hamilton, 139 N.Y.-S.
1095, 78 Misc. 557.
28. Ind.— State ex rel. Mavity v.
Tyndall, 66 N.R2d 755.
Ky. — Cooper v. McWilliams & Rob-
inson, 298 S.W. 961, 221 Ky. 320.
La. — Martinez v. Orleans Parish
School Board, 98 So. 860, 155 La.
116— Harries v. Courcier, 119 So.
90S, 16 La.App. 22.
N.Y.— Vickers v. Tickers, 282 N.Y.S.
422, 156 Misc. 724.
-Wash.— Washington Pulp & Paper
Corporation v. Robinson, 6 P.2d
e32, 166 Wash. 210.
Wyo.~ Corpus Juris quoted in Ur-
bach v. Urbach, 73 P.2d 953, 962,
52 Wyo. 207, 113 A.L.R. 889.
33 C.J. p 1145 note 84.
interest than entire ownership
Appropriate pleading of entire
ownership in property sued for will
authorize recovery of a less interest,
113
where warranted by the proof. — Gay
v. Jackman, TexjCom.App., 254 S.W.
927—51 C.J. p 270 note 38 [a],
29. Cal. — Luekey v. Superior Court
in and for Los Angeles County,
287 P. 450, 209 Cal. 360.
Ky, — Middleton v. Graves, 17 S.W.24
741, 229 Ky. 640.
33 C.J. p 1148 note 2 [b].
However, it has also been held
that a judgment in an action to de-
termine adverse claims to vacant
and unoccupied lands, awarding re-
lief -beyond the scope of the com-
plaint, is not a mere irregularity,,
but extrajudicial and void. — Hurr v.
Davis, 193 N.W. 94-3, 155 Minn. 456.
rehearing denied 194 N.W. 379, 155
Minn. 456, certiorari denied 44 S.Ct.
36, 263 U.S. 709, 68 L.Ed. 518, and
error dismissed 45 S.Ct. 227, 267 U.S.
572, 69 L.Ed. 794.
Unsupported portion
Where the pleadings do not war-
rant a decree or part of a decree en-
tered, and the decree or such part
of it is clearly and unmistakably
beyond the scope of the pleadings,
then the decree or such part of it is
void and not merely erroneous.—
Simmons v. Yoho, 115 S.E. 851, 92
W.Va. 703.
30. Ky.— (Middleton v. Graves, 17 S,
W.2d 7-41, 229 Ky. 640.
31. Cal. — Estrin v. Superior Court
in and for Sacramento County, 96
iP.2d 340, 14 Cal.Sd 670— Pedro v.
Scares, 64 P.2d 776, 18 Cal.App.23
600.
La.— Clesi v. National Life & Acci-
dent Ins. Co., App., 193 So. 89 7t
affirmed 197 So. 413, 195 La. 736..
Minn. — La Rue Iron Mining Co. v.
Village of Nashwauk, 222 N.W..
527, 176 Minn. 117.
Tex. — Duncan v. Green, Civ.App.t.
113 S.W.2d 656, error dismissed.
33 C.J. p 1146 notes 89, 92^5} C.J.,
p 270 note 35.
32. Cal. — Estrin v. (Superior Court,
in and for Sacramento County, 96;
P.2d 540, 14 Cal.2d 670 — Zumwalt
v. Hargrave, App., 162 P.2d 957 —
Davis v. -Stewart, 127 P.2d 1014,.
53 CaLApp.2d. 439— York v. Beck..
App., 118 P.2d 316— Martin v. Pa-
cific Southwest Royalties, 106 P.
2d 44-3, 41 Cal.App.2d 161 — Allen
v. California Mut. Building &-
§ 49
JUDGMENTS
49 O.J.S
not be confined to the relief demanded is merely to
relieve plaintiff from any technical objection that
he has not prayed for the precise relief to which, on
the trial, he may seem entitled; and the relief to be
granted must still conform to, and be consistent
with, the case made by the pleadings and proof.83
A demurrer has been held not an answer within the
meaning of such a statute;34 but there is also au-
thority to the contrary.35 Defendant's election to
stand on the sufficiency of his answer, after a de-
murrer thereto has been sustained, is not equiva-
lent to withdrawal of the answer, with respect to
whether or not relief may be granted exceeding
that demanded by the complaint**
Prayer for general relief. Where «a prayer for
general relief is added to the demand of specific
relief, the court is not limited to the specific de-
mand, but may grant, particularly under code prac-
tice, such other appropriate relief as may be con-
sistent with the allegations and proofs and neces-
sary to adjust fully the equities of the case,37 at
Loan Ass'n, 104 P.2d 851, 40 Cal.
App.2d 374 — Pedro v. Scares, 64 P.
2d 776, 18 Cal.App.2d 600— Sam-
uels v. Singer, 86 P.2d 1098, 1 Cal.
App.2d 545, amended and rehear-
ing denied 37 P.2d 1050, 1 Cal.App.
2d 545— «intzel v. Wagner, 6 P.2d
29*, 119 CaLApp. 335— Murdock v.
Fisher Finance Corporation, 251 P.
319, 7-9 CaLApp. 787-^Takovich v.
Romer, 240 P. 39, 74 CaLApp. 333.
Idaho.— Schlieff v. BIstline, 15 P.2d
726, 52 Idaho 35*3.
3STev.— Buaas v. Buaas, 147 P.2d 495,
62 Nev. 232 — Keyes v. Nevada Gas
Co., 38 P.2d 661, 55 Nev. 431.
N.C. — Simms v. Sampson, 20 S.B.2d
55*. 221 N.C. «79.
N.D. — Jacobson v. Mutual Ben.
Health & Accident Ass'n, 296 N.W,
545, 70 N.D. 566.
Tex. — Hubb Diggs Co. v. Fort Worth
State Bank, 298 8.W. 419, 117 Tex
107.
33 C.J. p 1146 note 91, p 1150 note 6
—51 C.J. p 270 note 38.
"Issue"
Word "issue," as used in statute
providing that court may grant
plaintiff any relief embraced within
issue, is broader than complaint,
where answer enlarges the same by
introducing new matter. — 'McAllister
v. Union Indemnity Co., 42 P.2d 305,
2 Cal.2d 457.
Granting divorce on complaint ask-
ing separation
Even though husband's complaint
asked only for separation and gen-
eral relief, and no statute permits
him to bring separation action, yet,
where it alleged acts of cruelty en-
titling him to divorce, it was held
sufficient for that purpose, on de-
fendant answering. — Slettebak v.
Slettebak, 201 N.W. 716, 48 S.D. 51.
33. Ky.— Perkins v. Hardwick, 121
S.W.24 20, 275 Ky. 182.
33 C.J. p 1146 note 90.
34. Nev.— Mariner v. Milisch, 200 P.
478, 45 Nev. 193.
33 C.J. p 1148 note 96.
35. N.T.— Pearce v. Knapp, 127 N.Y.
S. 1100, 71 Misc. 324.
Wis.— Tiles v. Green, 64 N.W. 856,
91 Wis. 217.
3$. Wis. — Numbers v. Union Mortg.
Loan Co.. 247 N.W. 442, 211 Wis.
30.
37. Ark.— Realty Inv. Co. v. Hig-
gins, 91 S.W.2d 1030, 192 Ark. 423
— Morgan v. Scott-Mayer Commis-
sion Co., 48 S.W.2d 838, 185 Ark.
637.
Cal. — Martin v. Hall, 26 P.2d 288, 219
Cal. 334— Knox v. Wolfe, App., 167
P.2d 3— Rinker v. McKinley, 149 P.
2d 859, 65 Cal.App.2d 109— Brskine
v. Upham, 132 P.2d 219, 56 Cal.
App.2d 235 — Sonnicksen v. Son-
nicksen, 113 P.2d 495, 45 Cal.App.
2d 46.
Fla. — Semple v. -Semple, 105 So. 134,
90 Fla. 7.
Ga. — Taylor v. Cureton, 25 S.E.2d
815, 196 Ga. 28— Matson v. Crowe,
19 <S.E.2d 288, 195 Ga. 578— Bleck-
ley v. Bleckley, 5 S.R2d 206, 189
Ga. 47 — Bowers v. Dolen, 1 S.E.2d
734, 187 Ga, 653-^Monroe v. Dia-
mond Match Co., 185 S.E. 814, 182
Ga. 438 — Sanders v. Jones, 142 S.
E. 680, 166 Ga. 18-6— Broderick v.
Reid, 1«9 S.B. 18, 164 Ga. 474.
Idaho. — Barker v. McKellar, 296 P.
196, 50 Idaho 226.
111.— Updike v. Smith, 39 N.B.2d 325,
378 111. 600 — Browning v. Brown-
ing, 46 N.E.2d 101, 317 IlLApp.
372, transferred, see 39 N.E.2d
375, 379 HI. 29— Kaifer v. Kaifer,
3 N.E.2d 886, 286 IlLApp. 433.
Iowa. — Wagner v. Northern Securi-
ties Co., 284 N.W. 461, 226 Iowa
568.
Kan.— Katschor v. Ley, 113 P.2d 127,
153 Kan. 569.
Ky.—Bevins v. Ford, 194 «S.W.2d 657,
302 Ky. 346— National Savings &
Building Ass'n v. Hutchinson, 144
S.W.2d 1029, 284 Ky. 408— Dotson
v. Peoples Bank, 27 iS.W.2d 673,
234 Ky. 138.
La. — Abadie v. Gluck's Restaurant
Corporation, 121 So. 757, 168 La.
241 — Lyons Planning Mills v.
Guillot, App., 146 So. 700— Harris
v. Henderson Land, Timber & In-
vestment Co., 119 So. 893, 9 La.
App. 279. — Buckley v. Lindsey Mer-
cantile Co., 5 La. App. 467 — De
Bellevue v. Couvillion, 3 La.App.
568 — Levy v. Ebeyer & Winteler,
3 La.App. 500.
Mass.— J. Abrams & Co. v. Clark, 11 I
N.EL2d 449, 298 Mass. 542— Har-l
114
vey v. Crooker, 166 N.E. 828, 267
Mass. 279.
Mich. — People's Mortg. Corporation
v. Wilton, 208 N.W. 60, 234 Mich.
252.
Mo. — Homan v. Employers Reinsur-
ance Corporation, 136 S.W.Sd 289,
•345 Mo. 650, 127 A.L.R. 163— Rains
v. Moulder, 90 S.W.2d 81, 338 Mo.
275 — State Bank of Willow
Springs v. Lillibridge, 293 S.W.
116, 316 Mo. 968— Breit v. Bow-
land, App., 127 S.W.2d 71 — Cun-
ningham v. Kinnerk, 74 S.W.2d
1107, 2-30 Mo.App. 749— Kreger
Glass Co. v. Kreger, App., 49 S.W.
2d 260.
Mont. — Torelle. v. Templeman, 21 P.
2d 60, 94 Mont. 149.
Neb. — Van Steenberg v. Nelson, 22
N.W.2d 414 — Johnson v. Radio
station W O W, 14 N.W.2d 666,
144 Neb. 406, reversed on other
grounds Radio Station WOW
v. Johnson, 65 SjCt 1475, 326 tT.S.
120, 89 L.Ed. 2092, mandate con-
formed to 19 N.W.2d £53, -motion
denied 66 S.Ct. 11— School Dist.
No. 70, Red Willow County, v.
Wood, 13 N.W.2d 153, 144 Neb. 241
— Copass v. Wilborn, 296 N.W. 565,
1-39 Neb. 124— Hilton v. Clements,
291 N.W. 483, 137 Neb. 791, 138
Neb. 143 — Burnham v. Bennison,
236 N.W. 745, 121 Neb. 291.
OkL— Tucker v. Porter, 72 OP.2d 388,
181 OkL 30— Brown v. Privette,
234 P. 577, 109 Okl. 1— Owens v.
Purdy, 217 P. 425, 90 Okl. 256.
Or.— McCredie v. McCredie, 294 P.
361, 134 Or. 517 — Kerschner v.
Smith, 256 P. 195, 121 Or. 469 —
Wm. H. Taylor Finance Corpora-
tion v. Oregon Logging & Timber
Co., 241 P. 388, 116 Or. 440.
Tex. — Starr v. Ferguson, 166 S.W.2d
1-30, 140 Tex. 80 — George v. Wil-
liamson, Com. App., 23 S.W.2d 675
— 'Morris v. Biggs & Co., Civ.App.,
165 S.W.2d 915, error dismissed — .
Railroad Commission of Texas v.
Royal Petroleum Corporation, Civ.
App., 93 S.W.2d 761, error dismiss-
ed— Great Southern Life Ins. Co.
v. Williams, Civ.App., 77 S.W.2d
900— Blair v. Bird, Civ.App., 20
' S."V^.2d 8"43 — Sabens v. Cochrum,
Civ.App., 292 S.W. 281— Hinn v.
Forbes, Civ.App., 264 S.W. 190—
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 49
least where a defense has been made.88 A general
prayer for relief is not, however, a coverall,3^ and
even under such a prayer the court cannot grant re-
lief inconsistent with, or entirely different from,
that which is specifically prayed for,40 or which is
beyond or inconsistent with the allegations of the
pleadings or the facts proved.41
Materiality of variance. A material variance be-
tween the relief sought and that awarded has been
held fatal to the judgment;42 but it is otherwise
where the variance is immaterial and so slight that
Mima v. Hunken, Civ.App.. 262
S.W. 930, error dismissed Nation-
al Compress Co. v. Hamlin, 269
S.W. 1024, 114 Tex. 375— Coward
v. Booth, Civ.App., 251 S.W. 650,
reversed on other grounds Booth
v. Coward, Com.App.t 265 S.W.
1026.
Utah.— Walker v. Singleton, 225 P.
81, 63 Utah 283.
W.Va. — Bowman v. Hartford Fire
Ins. Co., 169 S.E. 443, 113 W.Va,
784.
33 C.J. p 1148 note 3—42 C.J. p 143
note 57—47 C.J. p 430 note 71—
51 C.J. p 271 notes 42, 43.
Belief allowable in equity under
prayer for general relief see Equi-
ty § 607 b.
Avoidance of circuit? of action
Under prayer for general relief,
court may render such judgment as
would be given in new suit to avoid
circuity of action. — Harsh v. Avegno,
3 La.App. 294.
Judgment for possession in eject-
ment action
There may be a judgment for pos-
session in an ejectment action al-
though there is no specific prayer
therefor, where the complaint con-
tains proper averments, a general
prayer for relief, and there is a
finding for possession. — Evans v.
Schafer, 21 N.E. 448, 119 Ind. 49.
Cancellation of instruments and res-
titution of money paid
In suit by vendee for rescission
of a contract of purchase of land, a
prayer for general relief was held
to justify decree of canceling con-
tract and notes and ordering restitu-
tion of the money paid by purchas-
er on the property. — Loughry v.
Cook, Tex.Civ.App., 2fr3 S.W. 333.
88. Ky. — Perkins v. Hardwick, 121
S.W.2d 20, 275 Ky. 182— Hickman
County Board of Drainage Com'rs
v. Union Stock Land Bank, 8*3 S.
W.2d 511, 259 Ky. 823— Young v.
Barnett, 80 S.W.2d 16, 258 £y. 330
— Lincoln Bank & Trust Co. v. Ar-
nold, 75 S.W.2d 751, 256 Ky. 80-r-
Farley v. Gibson, 30 S.W.2d 876,
235 Ky, 164.
La. — Muse v. Sharp, App., 155 So.
300.
Mo. — Southwest Pump & Machinery
Co. v. Forslund, 29 S.W.2d 165,
225 Mo.App. 262.
39. Ky. — Oawood v. Cawood's
Adm'x, 147 S.W.2d 88, 285 Ky. 201.
40. U.S. — In re Wesley Corporation,
D.C.Ky., 18 FJSupp. 347. , \
Ga.— Brockett v. Maxwell, 35 S.E.2d
906 — Christopher v. Whitmire, 34
S.E.2d 100, 199 Ga. 280— Taylor
v. Cureton, 25 S.R2d 815, 196
Ga. 28.
Iowa.— Davis v. Davis, 229 N.W. 855,
209 Iowa 1186;
Ky.-JCawood v. Cawood's Adm'x,
147 S.W.2d 88, 285 Ky. 201— Jame-
son v. Jameson, 133 S.W.2d 923,
280 Ky. 554.
La, — Stubbs v. Imperial Oil & Gas
Products Co., 114 So. 595, 164 La.
. 689.
Or.— Wm. H. Taylor Finance Corpo-
ration v. Oregon Logging & Tim-
ber Co., 241 OP. 388, 116 Or. 4'40.
Tex. — Jennings v. Texas Farm
Mortg. Co., 80 S.W.2d 9-31, 124 Tex.
593— San Antonio & A. P. Ry. Co.
v. Collins, Com.App., 61 S.W.2d 84
— Ellzey v. Allen, Civ.App., 172
S.W.2d 70*3, error dismissed — Tabb
v. City of Mt. Pleasant, Civ.App..
12 S.W.2d 831— Vanlandingham v.
Terry, Civ. App., 293 S.Wt 252.
Va.— Winston v. Winston, 130 S.B.
784, 144 Va. 848.
33 C.J. p 1149 note 4.
Specific performance in suit for re-
scission
A purchaser of land whose suit
for rescission and recovery of pur-
chase price was barred was not en-
titled to specific performance under
his prayer for general relief, since
right to specific performance was
inconsistent with right to rescind
and might depend on wholly differ-
ent facts.— Wall v. Zynda, 278 N.W.
66, 283 Mich. 260, 114 A.L.H. 1521.
41. U.S. — In re Wesley Corporation,
DJC.Ky., 18 F.Supp. 347.
Cal. — -Morrow v. Morrow, 105 P.2d
129, 40 Cal.App.2d 474— Petition
of Furness, 218 P. 61, 62 CaLApp.
753.
Ga. — Comstock v. Tarbush, 37 S.B.
2d 148, transferred see, APP-. 37
S.E.2d -925— Christopher v. Whit-
mire, 34 S.B.2d 100, 199 Ga. 280—
Taylor v. Cureton, 25 S.B.2d 815,
196 Ga. 28.
Ind. — Denney v. Peters, 10 N.B.2d
754, 104 Ind.App. 504.
Iowa. — Manassa v. Garland, 206 N.
W. 38, 200 Iowa 1129.
Ky.—Cawood v. Cawood's Adm'x, 147
S.W.2d 88, 285 Ky. 201— Jameson
v. Jameson, 133 S.W.2d 923, 280
Ky. 554.
Mass. — Harbour v. Sampson, 165 K.
B. 14, 266 Mass. 180.
Minn. — Briggs v. Kennedy Mayon-
115
naise Products, 297 N.W. 342, 209
Minn. 312.
Miss. — Kennington-Saenger Theatres
v. State ex rel. Dist. Atty., 18 So.
2d 483, 196 Miss. 841, 153 A.L.H.
883.
Mo.— Barlow v. Scott, 85 S.W.2d
504— Fielder v. Fielder, App., 6 S.
W.2d 968.
Nev.— Buaas v. Buaas, 147 P.2d 495,
62 Nev. 232.
Or. — Wm. H. Taylor Finance Corpo-
ration v. Oregon Logging & Tim-
ber Co., 241 P. 388, 116 Or. 440.
Tenn.— Merritt v. Merritt, 10 Tenn.
App. 369.
Tex. — Starr v. Ferguson, 166 S.W.2d
130, 140 Tex. 80— Verschoyle v.
Holifield, 123 S.W.Sd 878, 132 Tex.
516 — Adleson v. B. F. Dittmar Co.,
80 S.W.2d 939, 124 Tex. 564— Jen-
nings v. Texas Farm Mortg. Co.,
80 S.W.2d 9/31, 124 Tex. 593— Ar-
rington v. McDaniel, 14 S.W.2d
1009, questions answered 25 S.W.
2d 295, 119 Tex. 148.
51 C.J. p 271 note 41.
'specific performance in suit to quiet
title
Prayer for general relief in peti-
tion to quiet title containing no al-
legation for affirmative equitable re-
lief does not authorize judgment for
specific performance. — Congregation
B'Nai Abraham v. Arky, 20 S.W.2d
899, 323 Mo. 776.
Personal Judgment in stockholder's
representative action
"General relief" in a representa-
tive action by a stockholder does not
comprehend a personal judgment In
favor of stockholder against corpo-
ration based on debt or other liabil-
ity either as part of his cause of
action against corporation entitling
him to sue as its representative or
the corporation's cause of action
against the wrongdoer. — Briggs v.
Kennedy Mayonnaise Products/ 297
N.W. 342, 209 Minn. 312.
Foreclosure of lien in tort action
Under prayer for general relief in
action based on alleged tort and
wherein relief sought was by way
of damages, plaintiff was held not
entitled to foreclosure of lien, where
there was no alternative prayer for
foreclosure. — McKee v* Mathias, Tex.
Civ.App., 83 S.W.2d 744, error dis-
missed.
42. HL— Condit v. 'Stevenson, 13 111.
App. 417. .
§ 49
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
plaintiff would be permitted to amend at any time
without costs.48
Alternative relief. A judgment for alternative
relief is sometimes proper where demanded,44 but it
is not proper if not asked for in the pleadings.45
Where relief on two counts is sought in the alterna-
tive, it has been held that judgment should not be
rendered on both counts.4*
b. Affirmative Belief to Defendant
In general, an answer which has demanded no af-
firmative relief, such as an answer setting up merely a
defense, will not support a judgment granting affirma-
tive relief to the defendant. On proper pleadings and
proof, however, a defendant may have affirmative re*
lief in accordance with that demanded by him.
It is a general rule that where the answer prays
for no affirmative relief, defendant can have none,
and a judgment granting affirmative relief in such
cases is erroneous because not in conformity with
the issues raised by the pleadings.4* An answer
which sets up merely a defense will not support a
judgment giving defendant affirmative relief ;4$ but
the fact that pleadings are defensive in their nature
does not mean that they may not also be used as a
basis for affirmative relief, where the facts pleaded
are sufficient to entitle the pleader to affirmative re-
lief, and where there is a prayer for such relief.49
An affirmative judgment for defendant is proper
where it is justified by the pleadings and proof,50
particularly under codes and practice acts provid-
43. Mass. — Hargrave v. American
Steel & Wire Co., 106 N.E. 637, 219
Mass. 6.
33 C.J. p 1145 note 87.
44. Okl. — Steiner v. TTrquart, 225
P. 695, 99 Okl. 60.
45. Tex. — Jennings v. Texas Farm
Mortg. Co., 80 S.W.2d 931, 124
Tex, 593.
46. Mo. — Schroll v. Noe, App., 297
S.W. 99*9, Quashal of opinion de-
nied State ex rel. Noe v. Cox, 19
S.W.2d 695, 323 Mo. 520.
Ohio. — Priller v. Auglaize Hotel Co.,
App., 36 N.E.2d 1019. ,
47. Conn. — Switzer v, Turansky, 124
A. 720, 101 Conn. 60.
Ga, — Greenwood v. Greenwood, 160
S.E. 392, 173 Ga. 348.
Iowa. — Liscomb IS tat e Sav. Bank v.
Leise, 207 N.W. 330, 201 Iowa 353.
Kan. — Burgner-Bowman Lumber Co.
v. McCord-Kistler Mercantile Co.,
216 P. 815, 114 Kan. 10, 35 A-L.R.
242.
gy.— Jacobs T, Wells, 111 S.W.2d
5?4, 271 Ky. 82 — Dunn v. Cham-
pion, 99 S.W.2d 813, 266 Ky. 757.
La. — David v. Guilbeau, App., 180 So.
850— Stafford v. Tolmas Realty
Co., App., 146 So. 61, transferred,
see 139 So. 766, 174 La. 83— Hal-
pern v. Cornelison, 133 So. 898,
16 La.App. 344.
Mich.— McCaslin v. Schouten, 292 N.
W. 696, 294 Mich. 180— Reich Y.
Schmidt, 218 N.W. 671, 242 Mich.
130.
Miss. — Hayes v. National Surety Co.,
153 So. 515, 169 Miss. 676.
Mo.— Friedel v. Bailey, 44 S.W.2d
9, '32-9 Mo. '22— «3tate ex rel. Dura-
flor Products Co. v. Pearcy, 29 S.
W.2d 83, 32.5 Mo. 835— Chilton v.
Chilton, App., 297 S.W. 457.
N.T. — Studebaker .Corporation of
America v. Silverberg, 199 N.Y.S.
190.
Okl. — Reinauer v. Davis, 130 P.2d
91, 191 Okl. 366.
Pa. — The Maccabees v. Cappas, 43 A.
2d 538, 157 Pa.Super. 481.
R.I.— Si-ravo v. Whitman, 151 A. 893,
51 R.L 102.
Tex. — Smith v. Blancas, Civ.App.,
87 S.W.2d 781, error refused—
Gaulden v. Antone, Civ.App., 279
iS.W. 560 — Chapman v. Sunshine
Oil Corporation, Civ.App., 256 S.
W. 327— Moulton v. Deloach, Civ.
App., 253 S.W. 303.
33 C.J. p 1150 notes 8, 9.
Abandonment of cross action
Where cross action was set up in
original , and second amended an-
swer, but not mentioned in subse-
quent amended answers, such cross
action was abandoned, and judgment
in favor of cross defendant on his
cross action was erroneous. — Hink-
ley v. Brewer, Tex.CivJV.pp., 274 S.W.
227.
Overpayments
In an action for the balance due
on the purchase price of property, or
on a contract, defendant cannot re-
cover an overpayment which the
evidence shows he made, where he
has not interposed a counterclaim
or asked for such relief.
Ky. — Runyon v. Runyon, 251 S.W.
173, 199 Ky. 878.
Tex.— Branch v. Smith, Civ.App.. 245
S.W. 799.
Pailure of plaintiff to appear at
the trial does not warrant affirma-
tive relief in favor of defendant
where there is no plea or other de-
fense by defendant in the nature of
a cross action against plaintiff. —
Ellard v. Simpson, 142 S.E. 855, 166
Ga. 278.
33 C.J. p 1150 note 8 [a].
Alternative reconveutional demands
Where particular relief in recon-
vention is demanded by defendant
only in .the event that certain other
relief is decreed, and such other re-
lief is not decreed, the reccmventdon-
al demands of defendant, made in
the alternative, necessarily fall and
drop out of the xjase.— Tyson v. Surf
Oil Co., 196 So. 336, 195 La. 2-48.
4& 111.— Whitaker Paper Co. v.,
116
Galesburg Mail Co., 238 Hl.App.
600.
Ind. — Johnson v. Collins, 1 Blackf.
166.
Tex. — Dean v. Maxwell, Civ.App., 173
S.W.2d 246— Scales r. Lindsay,
Civ.App., 43 S.W.2d 286, error dis-
missed.
Wash. — City Bond & Share v. Kle-
ment, 5 P.2d 523, 165 Wash. 408.
Wis.— Marshall v. Marshall, 284 N.
W. 541, 230 Wis. 504.
33 C.J. p 1151 note 16.
49. Tex. — R. R. Stolley Corpora-
tion of Austin, Tex., v. Quebe-
deaux, Civ.App., 70 S.W.2d 266,
error dismissed.
50. Ky. — Wagner v. Swoope, 64 S.
W.2d 395, 246 Ky. 19.
Mo. — Missouri Lumber & Mining Co.
v. Hassell, 298 S.W. 47 — Brown v.
Wilson, App., 131 S.W.2d 848,
quashed on other grounds State
ex rel. Brown v. Hughes, 137 'S.W.
2d 54*4, 345 Mo. 958*.
Mont — Mather v. Musselman, 278
P. 998, 85 Mont. 552.
Okl.— Watts v. Meriwether, 84 P.2d
643, 184 Okl. (32.
S.C.— Little v. Rivers, 185 S.E. 174,
180 S.C. 149.
Tex — Bustamante v. Haynes, Civ.
App., 55 S.W.2d 137, error dis-
missed— Ruby v. Davis, Civ.App.,
277 S.W. 430.
33 C.J. p 1150 note 10.
Accounting-
Defendant may be entitled to an
accounting, notwithstanding the ab-
sence of a demand therefor in his
pleading, where the circumstances
warrant an accounting and defend-
ant has been led to believe through-
out the trial that an accounting
would be had. — Pearson v. Juarez,
248 P. 278, 78 CaLApp. 122.
Damages
(1) In a proper case, damages
may be awarded to defendant al-
though he has not specifically
prayed for such relief.
ArK.— Albersen v. Klanke. 6 S.W.2d
292, 177 Ark. 288.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 50
ing that the judgment may grant to defendant any
affirmative relief to which he may be entitled.51
Ordinarily a judgment granting defendant affirma-
tive relief must be founded on, and be responsive
to, his pleadings, and cannot rest on the pleading
of some other party;52 but a defendant may some-
times have affirmative relief against a codefendant
notwithstanding he has served no pleading enti-
tling him to such relief, where the facts justifying
such relief are set forth in the complaint.53
In general, any affirmative relief to a defendant
should be in conformity with that demanded by
him.54 The prayer for relief, however, does not
necessarily determine the relief to which defendant
is entitled,55 and under some circumstances defend-
ant's failure to ask for affirmative relief will not
preclude final adjudication of the respective rights
of the parties.56
§ 50. Limitation and Conformity to Is-
sues
Judgments ordinarily must be responsive to the Is-
sues presented in the pleadings, and it has frequently
been held that Judgments beyond such issues are void.
The issues may be broadened by consent of the parties,
however, in which case the judgment may embrace the
issues actually litigated.
Judgments must be responsive to the issues pre-
sented in the pleadings or litigated between the par-
ties, and issues not so raised may not be deter-
mined.57 Where there are several good pleas in
Ind. — Yellow Mfg. Acceptance Cor-
poration v. Linsky, 192 N.E. 715,
99 Ind.App. 691.
(2) Defendant's right to recover
damages may be settled in same ac-
tion in which plaintiff asserts right
to damages against defendant, when
both claims Involve determination
of same questions of fact and con-
sideration of same evidence, whether
or not cross action is involved. — Op-
pie v. Bay, 195 N.B. 81, 208 Ind.
450.
Counterclaim as sole defense
Where a counterclaim is the only
defense set up, a judgment for de-
fendant must necessarily allow the
counterclaim. — Wise v. Rosenblatt,
12 N.Y.S. 288, 16 Daly 496.
51. N.Y. — Clegg v. American News-
paper Union, 60 How.Pr. 498, af-
firmed 82 Hun 162, 66 HowJPr. 411.
33 C.J. p 1151 note 15.
52. Tex.— Lee v. British & Ameri-
can- Mortg. Co., 40 S.W. 1041, 16
Tez.Civ.App. 671.
83 C.J. p 1151 note 14.
53. S.C. — Toumans v. Toumans. 121
S.E. 674, 128 S.C. 31.
admission of allegations of com-
plaint
In action by insured on policy con-
taining5 provision that any loss
was payable to mortgagee as his
interest might appear, mortgagee,
who was made party defendant and
filed answer admitting allegations of
complaint, was entitled to propor-
tionate share of insurer's liability
notwithstanding his failure to file
affirmative pleading or prayer for
affirmative relief, since judgment
was bar to any further right mort-
gagee . might assert — Commercial
Union Fire Ins. Co. of New York v.
Wade, 8 N.E.2d 1009, 103 Ind.App.
461.
54. La.— Succession of Markham,
156 So. 225, 180 La. 211.
Tex. — Wilkirson v. Yarbrough, Com.
App.f 257 S.W. 535— Golden West
Oil Co. No. 1 v. Golden Rod Oil
Co. No. 1, Civ.App., 285 S.W. 631,
affirmed Golden Hod Oil Co. No. 1
v. Golden West Oil Co. No. 1, Com.
App., 293 S.W. 167.
Failure to demur to or answer
counterclaim
Plaintiff, although not having filed
any demurrer or answer to counter-
claim, could attack those portions of
final decree granting relief on coun-
terclaim beyond scope of the plead-
ings, since, even if counterclaim
had been taken for confessed, it
would not support a decree beyond
scope of relief sought. — Medlinsky
v. Premium Cut Beef Co., 57 N.B.2d
31, 317 Mass. 25.
Possession granted tinder prayer for
general relief
Defendant's claim of ownership of
house, with prayer for general re-
lief, was held sufficient to sustain
Judgment for its possession. — Olcott
v. Reese, Tex.Civ.App., 291 S.W. 261.
In ejectment, where the court finds
for defendant on all the issues a
decree should be entered as prayed
in the answer. — Chouteau Land &
Lumber Co. v. Chrisman, 72 S.W.
1062, 172 Mo. 610— 19" C.J. P 1210
note 25.
55. Mo. — Eckhardt v. Bock, App.,
159 S.W.2d 395.
T.Y. — Home Life Ins. Co. v. Klein.
25 N.Y.S.2d 215.
56. Wash. — Pratt v. Rhodes, 253 P.
640, 142 Wash. 411, reheard 256
P. 503, 142 Wash. 411.
57. U.S. — Sylvan Beach v. Koch, C.
CJLMo., 140 F.2d 852— Deitrick v.
Standard Surety & Casualty Co.
of New York, C.C.A.Mass., 90 P.
2d 862, affirmed 58 S.Ct. 696, 303
TLS. 471, 82 L.Ed. 962, rehearing
denied 58 S.Ct. 948, 304 U.S. 588,
82 L.Ed, 1548 — Goodrich Transit
Co. v. City of Chicago, C.C.A.I1L,
4 P.2d 636 — Ortlieb v. Baumer, D.
, C.N.Y., 6 F.Supp. 58.
Ala.— Pridgen v. Shadgett, 12 So.2d
395, 244 Ala. 167— Alabama Pow-
117
er Co. v. Owens, 181 So. 283, 236
Ala. 96.
Ariz. — Wall v. Superior Court of
Yavapai County, 89 (P.2d 624, 53
Ariz. 344,
Ark.— Evans v. U. S. Anthracite Coal
Co., 21 !S.W.2d 952, 180 Ark. 578.
CaL — Ayoob v. Ayoob, App., 168
P.2d 462— Hyde v. Hagen, App.,
161 P.2d 242— Berg v. Berg, 132 P.
2d 871. 56 Cal.App.2d 4-95— Wallace
v. Otis, 119 «P.2d 195, 47 Cal.App.2d
814— Dreifus v. Marx, 104 P.2d
10SO, 40 Cal.App.2d 461— Overell v.
Overell. 64 »P.2d 483, 18 Cal.App.2d
•499.
Conn. — Spitz v. Abrams, 20 A.2d 616,
128 Conn. 121 — Hill v. Employers'
Liability Assur. Corporation, 188
A. 277. 122 Conn. 193— O'Hara v.
Hartford Oil Heating Co., 138 A.
458, 106 Conn. 468.
Fla. — Gruber v. Cobey, 12 So.2d 461,
152 Fla. 591— East Coast Stores v.
Cuthbert, 133 So. 863, 101 Pla. 25.
Hawaii. — Corpus Juris cited in Pires
v. Pires,. 29 Hawaii 849, 852.
Idaho.— Nielson v. Garrett, 43 P.2d
380, 55 Idaho 240— Angel v. Mellen,
285 P. 461, 48 Idaho 750.
Ind. — Old First Nat, Bank & Trust
Co. of Fort Wayne v. Snouffier, 192
N.E. 369, 99 Ind.App. 325— Fox v.
Wallace, 151 N.E. 835, 88 Ind.App.
235.
Iowa. — Corpus Juris cited in Ray-
burn v. Maher, 288 N.W. 136, 142,
227 Iowa 274 — Bennett v. Green-
wait, 286 N.W. 722, 226 Iowa 1113
— Wagner v. Northern Securities
Co., 284 N.W. 461, 226 Iowa 568
—Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New
York v. Bank of Plymouth. 237
N.W. 234, 213 Iowa 1058.
Kan.— Penn . Mut. Life Ins. Co. v.
Tittel, 111 P.2d 1116, 153 Kan.
530, rehearing denied 114 P.2d 312,
153 Kan. 7'47 — Leshure v. Zumalt,
100 P.2d 643, 151 Kan. 737— Baird
v. Bureman, 26 P.2d 272, 138 Kan.
381 — Devlin v. City of Pleasanton,
288 P. 595, 130 Kan. 766 — Herring
v. Blue Mound Mining Co., 257 P.
955, 124 Kan. 171.
§ 50
JUDGMENTS
49 O.J.S.
bar to the whole cause of action, plaintiff cannot
recover unless he succeeds on all the issues.58 A
judgment should not limit rights of the parties
which are not involved in the action and which may
arise or be interfered with in the future, especially
when uncertainty or confusion would result;^ and
if, under the pleadings, the court is without juris-
diction to determine particular issues, it is without
jurisdiction to reserve such issues for future deter-
mination.60
A judgment on issues not made by the pleadings
is at least erroneous, and may be set aside or re-
versed in a proper proceeding for that purpose ;W
but many cases go further, and hold that judg-
ments based on issues not made by the pleadings or
litigated by the parties are coram non judice and
void, at least in so far as they go beyond such is-
sues,'62 on the theory that a court has no jurisdic-
tion to pass on questions not submitted to it for
Ky.— Newsom v. Damron, 193 S.W.2d
643.
Mich.— -Ward v. Hunter Machinery
Co., 248 N.W. 864. 26i3 Mich. 445.
Mo.— Brandt v. Fanners Bank of
Chariton County, 182 S.W.2d 281,
353 Mo. 25$ — Brown v. Wilson, 155
$.W.2d 176, 348 Mo. 658— In re
Ermeling's Estate, 119 S.W.2d 755,
transferred, see, App., 131 S.W.2d
912 — Unrig v. Hill-Behan Lumber
Co., 110 SS.W.2d 412, 341 Mo. 851—
Rains v. Moulder, 90 S.W.2d 81,
3.38 Mo. 275 — Davis v. Johnson, 58
S.W.2d 746, 332 Mo. 417. trans-
ferred, see, APP., 47 S.W.2d 121—
Friedel v. Bailey, 44 S.W.2d 9,
329 Mo. 22— Congregation B'Nai
Abraham v. Arky, 20 S.W.2d 899,
323 Mo. 776— Ex parte Fowler, 275
S.W 529, 310 Mo. 339— Smith v.
Smith, App., 192 S.W.2d 691, fol-
lowed in 192 S.W.2d 700— Riney v.
Riney, App.. 117 5S.W.2d 698—
Burns v. Ames Realty Co., App., 31
S.W.2d 274— Fielder v. Fielder.
App., 6 S.W.2d 968.
Mont.— Wallace v. Goldberg, 231 OP.
56, 72 Mont. 234.
Neb. — Bowman v. Cobb, 258 N.W.
535, 128 Neb. 28-9.
NT. — Helfhat v. Whitehouse, 179
N.E. 493, 258 N.T. 274— Interna-
tional Photo Recording Machines
v. Microstat Corp., 56 N.T.S.2d
277, 269 App.Div. 485— In re Goe-
bel's Estate, 33 N.Y.S.2d 549, 263
App.Div. 5'1 6— People v. Ribas, 276
N.T.S. 551, 153 Misc. 703.
Ohio.— Licht v. Woertz, 167 NJ3. 614
32 Ohio App. HI.
Or.— Reed v. Hollister, 212 P. 367, 106
Or 407, error dismissed Hollistei
v. Reed, 44 S.Ct. 333, 264 U.S. 599
68 L.Ed. 869.
Pa.— Bradford Gasoline Co. v. Han
ley Co., 173 A. 401, 815 Pa. 441.
S.C.— Parker Peanut Co. v. Felder
34 S.E.2d 488, 207 S.C. 6-3.
S.D.-^Severson v. Bide, 216 N.W
581, 52 S.D. 20 — Deming v. Nelson
210 N.W. 726, 50 S.D. .484.
Tex. — Price v. Seiger, Com.App., 4
S.W.2d 729— De Walt v. Universa
Film Exchanges, Civ. App., 132 S
W.2d 421, error dismissed, Judg-
ment correct — Lewis v. Gamble
Civ.App., -113 S.W.2d 659— Texas
& N. O. R. Co. v. Harris, Civ.App
101 S.W.2d 640, error dismissed—
Owen v. King, Civ-App., 84 S.W.2
743, reversed on other grounds 111
S.W.2d 695, 130 Tex. 614, 114 A.
L.R. 859— Mutual Life Ins. Ass'n
v. Smelley, Civ.App., 68 S.W.2d
1106— American Rio Grande Land
& Irrigation Co. v. Bellman, Civ.
App., 272 S.W. 550.
Va.— Drewry v. Doyle, 20 S.E.2d 54-8,
179 Va. 715.
Wash.— Beadle v. Barta, 123 P.2d
761, 13 Wash.2d 67.
C.J. p 798 note 65—19 C.J. p 1210
note 21 — 33 C.J. p 1151 notes 17,
19—42 C.J. p 1287 note 14.
"There is no principle better es-
tablished than what is not juridical-
y presented cannot be juridically
lecided." — Cooke v. Cooke, 248 P.
13, 104, 67 Utah 371.
Character of lane
Where pleadings do not raise is-
sue, court should not determine
whether or not lane over which
>laintin?s claim means of access is
jublic or private.— ^Lathrop v. Gary,
232 N.W. $97, 202 Wis. 237.
Failure to demur will not justify
judgment on issue not Within plead-
ing.— Farnham v. Schreiber, 149 A.
393, 111 Conn. 38.
Immaterial or unsupported issues
(1) The court may ignore an im-
material issue in rendering judg-
ment—Walton v. Stinson, Tex.Civ
App., 140 S.W.2d 497, error refused.
(2) In rendering judgment the
court may ignore an issue not sup-
ported by evidence. — Goff v. Jane
way, 99 S.W. -602, 30 Ky.L. 705— -28
C.J. p 1056 note 55.
Irrelevant abstract queries
Judgments may not be founded
on issues outside the pleadings in
answer to solicitation on irrelevan
abstract legal queries propounded bs
the parties and argued in thei
briefs.— Raymond v. State Clvi
Service Commission, 32 P.2d 331, 10 *
Colo. 4'58.
Scope of InjTULctive relief
In suit for injunction, growing ou
of labor dispute, as defined in stat
ute, no acts should be enjoined oth
er than those mentioned in the com
plaint. — Boise Street Car Co. v. Vi
Avery, 103 P.2d 1107, 61 Idaho 502.
58. Ala. — Horan v. Gray & Dudle
118
Hardware Co., 48 So. 1029, 159 Ala.
159.
3 C.J. p 1168 note 31.
9. Cal.— Cameron v. Feather River
Forest Homes, 33 P.2d 884, 189
CaLApp. 373.
60. U.S.— Osage Oil & Refining Co,
v. Continental Oil Co., C.C.A.Okt,
34 F.2d 585.
61. Conn.— Shaw v. Spelke, 147 A.
675, 110 Conn. 20'8.
d. — Fisher v. Rosander, 151 N.E.
12, 84 Ind.App. 694.
owa.— Corpus Juris cited in, Ray-
burn v. Maher, 288 N.W. 136, 142.
•227 Iowa 274.
tfeb. — Green v. Axtell Lumber Co.,
-213 N.W. 401, 116 Neb. 603.
Okl. — Bishop v. Franks, 107 P.2d 358,
188 OkL 196 — Holshouser v. Hol-
shouser, 26 P.2d 189, 16-6 Okl. 45.
Tex.— National Union Fire Ins. Co.
of Pittsburgh v. Richards, Civ.
App., 278 -S.W. 488— Williams v.
Borchers, Civ.App., 244 S.W. 1053.
33 C.J. P 1152 note 21.
62. U.S. — Corpus Juris cited In
Osage Oil & Refining Co. v. Con-
tinental Oil Co., C.'C.A.Okl., 34 F.
2d 585, 588.
Cal.— .Wallace v. Otis, 119 P.2d 195,
47 Cal.App.2d 814.
Kan. — Southern Kansas Stage Lines
Co. v. Webb, 41 P:2d 1025, 141
Kan. 476.
Ky.— Covington Trust Co. of Cov-
ington v. Owens, 129 S.W.2d 18-6,
278 Ky. 695— Corpus Juris cited in
Dotson v. People's Bank, 27 S.W.
2d -673, 674, 234 Ky. 138— Lincoln
County Board of Education v.
Board of Trustees of Stanford
Graded Common School Dist, 7
S.W.2d 499, 225 Ky. 21.
Mich. — Hartley v. A. I. Rodd (Lum-
ber Co., 276 N.W. 712, '2-S2 Mich.
652.
Mo.— Riley v. La Font, 174 S.W.2d
S57— Corpus Juris cited in Weath-
erford v. Spiritual Christian Un-
ion Church, 163 S.W.Sd 916, 918—
Brown v. Wilson, 155 -S.W.2d 176,
348 Mo. -658— State ex rel. Fidelity
& Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Al-
len, 85 S.W.2d 455— State ex reL
Gatewood v. Trimble, 62 S.W.2d
756, 833 Mo. 207 — -Button v. Ander-
son, 31 S.W.2d 1026, 3-2* Mo. 304
— Hecfcer v. Bleish, 3 S.W.2d 1008,
$19 Mo. 149— Brandt v. Farmers
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 51
decision.68 If the excessive part of the judgment
cannot be readily separated from that which is with-
in the jurisdiction of the court by virtue of the
pleadings and proof, the entire judgment has been
held to be void.64
Issues broadened by consent. Parties may, if
they so elect, depart from the issues made by the
pleadings, and try other questions relating to the
merits of the controversy by consent or acquies-
cence, and in such cases the judgment is regular
and binding on them,65 the court treating as hav-
ing been made the amendment which ought to have
been made conforming the pleadings to the proof,66
notwithstanding no formal amendment of the plead-
ings has been filed;67 but a mere agreement that
a pleading shall be amended in a certain particular
does not alter the issues until the amendment is
in fact made.68
When an issue is tried which is not within the
pleadings, no duty rests on the court to render a
judgment thereon, and a refusal or failure to do
so is not error.69 Mere stipulations as to the facts
of a case, or the evidence of facts, cannot make a
case broader than it appears by the allegations of
the pleadings, and do not entitle a party to any re-
lief beyond that to which the averments entitle
him.70 Evidence which, although received without
objection, has no legitimate relation to the issues
which form the basis of the action, or is in abso-
lute conflict with the cause of action which is set
out in the complaint, may not be deemed to sup-
port a judgment at variance with the pleadings.71
§ 51. Applications of Rules in General
a. Parties
b. Property affected
c. Quieting title
d. Other applications
a. Parties
(1) In general
(2) Personal or representative capacity
(1) In General
The judgment must follow the pleadings and proof
with respect to the particular plaintiffs and defendants
for and against whom It Is rendered.
Bank of Chariton County, App.,
177 S.W.2d 667, reversed on other
grounds 182 S.W.2d 281, 353 Mo.
259— Dickey v. Dickey, App., 132
S.W.2d 1026 — Schell v. F. E. Ran-
som Coal & Grain Co., App., 79 S.
W.2d 543 — Texas Empire Pipe
Line Co. v. Stewart, App., 35 S.
W.2d 627, reversed on other
grounds 55 S.W.2d 283, 331 Mo.
'525 — Burns v. Ames Realty Co.,
App., '31 S.W.Sd 274 — Owens v. Mc-
Cleary, App., 273 S.W. 145 — Raney
v. Home Ins. fio., 246 S.W. 57, 213
Mo.App. 1.
!Nev. — Schultz v. Mexican Dam &
Ditch Co., 224 P. 804, 47 Nev. 453.
2O. — Trenton Trust Co. v. Gane, 6
A.2d 112, 125 N.J.Bd. 389, affirmed
8 A.2d 708, 126 N.J.EQ. 273— Hacfc-
ensack Trust Co. v. Kelly, 180 A.
621, 118 N.J.Eq. 587, affirmed 187
A. 195, 120 N.J.Ea. 596.
Okl.— Hinkle v. Jones, -66 P.2d 1073,
ISO Okl. 17 — Fuqua v. Watson, 46
P.2d 486, 172 Okl. 624-Oity of
Seminole v. Fields, 43 P.2d 64, 172
Okl. 167 — Electrical Research
Products Y. Haniotis Bros., 39 P.
2d 42, 170 Okl. 150— Winters v.
Birch, 36 P.2d 907, 169 Okl. 237-^
State ex rel. Shull v. Moore, 27 P.
2d 1048, 167 Okl. 28— Henson v.
Oklahoma State Bank, 23 P.2d 709,
165 Okl. 1— Wright v. Farmers'
Nat Bank of Oklahoma City, 243
P. 512, 116 Okl. 74— Hoffman v.
Webb, -240 P. 104, 113 Okl. 150—
Le Clate v. Calls Him, 233 P. 1087,
166 Oia 247.
Or.— Doan v. Dean, 300 P. 1027, 136
Or £94, 8-6 ULL.R. 79.
Tex — Edinburg Irr. Co. v. Ledbetter,
Civ.App., 247 S.W. 335, modified
on other grounds, Com. App., 286
S.W. 185.
Wis. — Nehring v. Niemerowicz, 276
N.W. 325, 226 Wis. 285.
33 C.J. p 1152 note 22—51 C.J. p 270
note 26.
Question within court's general Ju-
risdiction
A judgment which determines ques-
tions not within the court's juris-
diction, because not in issue, is to
that extent void, although the ques-
tion decided may be within the gen-
eral jurisdiction of the court — Hall-
gren v. Williams, Neb., 20 N.W.2d
499—Patersen v. Dethlefs, 2*3 N.W.
155, 139 Neb. 572.
63. Conn. — Corpus Juris cited in
Spitz v. Abrams, 20 A.2d $16. 6i'7,
128 Conn. 121.
33 C.J. p 1153 note 25.
64. OkL— Central Nat Oil Co. v.
Continental Supply Co., 249 P* 347,
119 Okl. 190.
65. CaL — Drullinger v. Hrskine,
App., 163 P.2d 48.
Conn. — Corpus' Juris cited in Spitz
v. Abrams, 20 A.2d 616, 617, 128
Conn. 121.
Ga. — Southern (Lumber Co. v. Ed-
wards, 117 S.E. 252, 30 Ga.App.
223.
Ky. — Lodge v. Williams, 243 S.W.
1011, 195 Ky. 773.
La.— W. J. & C. Sherrouse v. Phenix,
128 So. 536, 14 La.App. 629.
Mont — Corpus Juris cited in Wal-
lace v. Goldberg, 231 P. 56, 57, 72
Mont 234.
119
Neb. — Corpus Juris quoted in Clark
v. Clark, 297 N.W. 661, $64, 139
Neb. 446.
KM.— Davis v. Savage, 158 P.2d 851.
N.T.— Claris v. Richards, 183 NJBL
904, 260 N.T. 419. '
Tenn. — East Lake Lumber Box Co.
v. Simpson, 5 Tenn. App. 51.
33 C.J. p 1154 note 56.
Injection of issue at own peril
Party who injects into action is-
sues not covered by pleadings does
so at peril of any judgment he may
obtain.— Perez v. Wilson, 260 P. 838,
8-6 C&LApp. 28«.
68; U.S. — Reynolds v. Stockton, 11
S.Ct 773, 140 U.S. 254, 35 LJEd.
464, 27 Abb.N.Cas.,N.Y., 112.
Neb. — Corpus Juris quoted in Clark
v. Clark, 297 N.W. 661, 664, 139
Neb. 446.
N.M.— In re Field's Estate, -60 P.2d
945, 40 N.M. 423.
67. OkL — Berglan v. Kuhlman, T7 P.
2d 47, 182 Okl. 168.
68. N.J. — Jones v. Davenport 17 A.
570, 45 N.J.Eq. 77, reversed on oth-
er grounds 19 A. 22, 46 N.J.Eq.
237.
69. Neb. — Bowman v. Cobb, 253 N.
W. 535, 128 Neb. 289%
70. U.S. — Corpus Juris cited in
Walling v. Paramount-Richards
Theatres, D.C.La., 61 F.Supp. 290,
304.
CaL— Hicks v. Murray, 43 CaL 515.
71. CaL — Gwinn v. Goldman, 134 P. •
2d 915, 54 CaLApp.2d 393.
§ 51
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
The judgment must correspond with the plead-
ings and proof with respect to the parties for and
against whom it is rendered.72 A judgment for
plaintiff alone cannot be sustained where the com-
plaint or proof shows that he is not the sole owner
of the claim or property involved, but that others
are joint owners thereof.73 A judgment against
a defendant concerning whom no allegations are
made in the declaration or complaint, or against
whom no relief or judgment is sought, ordinarily
is unauthorized.74 Where the complaint asks dif-
ferent relief as against the different defendants, or
alleges only a partial liability on the part of each
of them, there cannot be a general judgment against
one or all of them for the entire claim or demand7^
A judgment against a principal may be proper on
allegations and proof of acts of his agent;76 but
such a judgment cannot be rendered in the absence
of any proof of the alleged agent's authority.77
Under appropriate pleadings and prayers, relief
73. Ala.— Milbra v. Sloss-Shefneld
Steel & Iron Qo., 62 So. 176, 182
Ala. 622, 46 L.R.A.,N.S,, 274.
111.— Russell v. Ortseifen, 54 N.E.2d
612, 322 IlLApp. 695 — Thomas v,
Morris, 41 N.E.2d 990, 314 Ill.App.
570.
Iowa, — O. H. Dunlap & Son v. Marek,
209 N.W. 295.
Ky. — Universal Credit Co. v. Hib-
bard, 117 S.W.2d 583, 273 Ky. -507
— Barnett v. Robinson, 79 S.W.2d
699, 2-5S Ky. 2C5.
Mont. — Montana Auto Finance Cor-
poration v. British & Federal Un-
derwriters of Norwich Union Fire
Ins. Soc., 232 P. 198, 72 Mont -69,
36 A.L.R. 1495.
N.J.— Kienle v. MacFulton, Inc., 174
A. 349, 12 N.J.Misc. 697.
N.Y.— Kittredge v. Grannis, 155 N.
B. 93, 244 N.T. 182— Wheeler v.
Standard Oil Co. of New York, 263
N.Y.S. 272, 237 App.Div. 765, re-
versed on other grounds IS 8 N.R
148, 263 N.Y. 34.
Or.— Chagnot v. Labbe, 69 P.2d 949,
157 Or. 2'80.
Tex. — Gillette Motor Transport Co.
v. Whitfteld, Civ.App., 160 S.W.2d
290 — Travelers Ins. Co. v. Key,
Civ.App., 146 S.W.2d £13— Hous-
ton Oxygen Co. v. Davis, Civ.App.,
145 S.W.2d 300. reversed on other
ground* 161 S.W.2d 474, 339 Tex. 1,
140 A.L.R. 868—- Corpus Juris cited
la Eil wards v. Hatch, Civ.App., 106
S.W.2d 741, 742— Superior Fire
• Ins. Co. v. C. S. Lee Grain & Eleva-
tor Co., Civ.App., 261 S.W. 212—
Hardin v. Palm, Civ.App., 253 S.
W. 94S— Mullin v. Nash-El Paso
Motor Co., Civ.App., 2*0 S.W. 472.
Utah. — Garner v. Anderson, 243 P.
-496, 67 Utah 653.
33 C.J. p 1154 note 31, p 1200 note 19.
Impropiioty of Joint Judgment
In an action against a bank,
brought Jointly by two persons for
whom money jhad been deposited in
trust, where a judgment for plain-
tiffs Jointly would not accord with
the proof, the fact that the bank at
the trial made no objection to the
Joint action cannot enable the court
to enter a Judgment which the law
does not warrant. — Ellison v. New
Bedford Five Cents Sav. Bank, 130
Mass. 48.
Failure of oodefendant to file coun-
terclaim
Where only one of two codefend-
ants has filed counterclaim. Judg-
ment for both defendants on coun-
terclaim is error as to defendant
who did not file any counterclaim. —
C. I. T. Corporation v. Watkins, 181
S.E. 270, 208 N.C. 448.
"Hairs'* as Including "descendants"
A pleading seeking to bring In
"heirs" of certain persons as a class
was held sufficient to make decree
binding on descendants. — Swoope T.
Darrow, 188 So. 879, £37 Ala. 602.
Xntervener
In suit to recover on contract
where there was no plea of inter-
vention by an assignee who claimed
a sum to be due him from plaintiffs,
judgment in favor of plaintiffs and
ordering defendants to pay inter-
vener and deduct the amount from
that due plaintiffs is unsupported by
pleading. — Home Ins. Co., New York,
v. Privttt, Tex.Civ.App., 120 S.W.2d
294, error dismissed.
Exemplary damages against princi-
pal or sureties
In an action against the principal
and sureties on a bond, a Judgment
for exemplary damages against the
principal only Is not erroneous be-
cause the prayer asked such damag-
es against principal and sureties,
and the verdict was general, where
such damages could not be had
against the sureties. — Emerson v
Skidmore, 25 S.W. 671, 7 TexXJiv.
App. 641.
Municipal officials
Where owner of land taken by city
brought action for value thereof
against city officials In their official
capacity, without attempting to
state cause of action against them
as individuals, and city entered liti-
gation as plaintiff in consolidated
condemnation proceeding, Judgment
against city and officers was held
valid as against city, but void on
face of Judgment roll in so far as
purported to be against individual
officers. — City of Seminole v. Fields,
43 P.2d 64, 172 OkL 167.
73. CaL — -Woodson v. Torgerson, 291
P. 663, 108 Cal.App. 386.
133 O.J. p 1154 note 33.
120
74. Ohio. Fourth & Central Trust
Co. v. Aker Bros., 177 N.B. 602, S*
Ohio App. 247.
Tex. — O'Brien v. Greene Production
Co., Civ.App., 151 S.W.2d 900—
Earnhardt Development Co. v. Ray,
Civ.App., SI S.W.2d 732.
33 C.J. p 11 ITS note 37.
Judgment for or against one not par*
ty see supra $28.
Judgment against firm
Where individuals of firm onljr
were sued, and cause of action was
not alleged, or relief sought, against
firm. Judgment against the firm and
individuals as partners, as well as
against individuals, was unauthor*
ized. — Lingwiler v. Anderson, Tex*
Civ.App., 270 S.W. 1052.
Husband's Joinder in answer
Where defendant's husband Joined
in answering suit for injuries, it was
held that Judgment might be ren-
dered against him, although no relief
was asked against him by plaintiff.
— Dickey v. Jackson, Tex.Civ,App.,
293 S.W. 5*84, reversed on other
grounds, Com.App., 1 S.W.2d 577. .
75. Neb.— Trester v. Pike, S3 N.W*
•676, 60 Neb. 510.
33 C.J. p 1155 note 34.
Belief soufflkt only la alternative
Where Judgment against a defend-
ant is sought only in the event it is
found that he was not authorized to
represent a codefendant, and it is
found that he had such authority,
judgment on such cause of action
cannot be rendered against both de-
fendants.— Saner-Ragley Lumber Co.
v. Spivey, Tex.Civ.App.. 255 S.W. 193,
judgment modified on other grounds
Com.App., Spivey y. Saner-Ragley
Lumber Co., 284 S.W. 210.
Judgment against single defendant
held proper
A complaint alleging performance
of services for defendant and others
at their request and an agreement
of defendant to .pay therefor, sup-
ports a Judgment against him alone.
— Delafleld v. San 'Francisco <fe S. M.
R. Co., 40 P. 358, 5 Sal.tlnrep, 73L
78. Wash. — Reed v. National Gro-
cery Co., 238 P. 890, 186 Wash. 7.
77. La. — Melde Tile Hoofing Co. v.
Martinez, 139 So, 72, 19 LauApp. 91.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 51
may be granted to one defendant as against a co-
defendant ;7^ but the court should not go beyond
the pleadings to decree relief as between codefend-
-ants.79
The principle of idem sonans may be invoked to
obviate a variance in the names of the parties,80
and, where, on an inspection of the whole record,
the identity of the parties named in the judgment
and the pleading is clear, the apparent variance will
be held to be a clerical misprision and immaterial,
or at least amendable,81 A variance may be
waived.82
Ejectment.. A judgment in ejectment must con-
form to the pleadings and proofs with respect to
the parties involved.83 This applies where the ac-
tion is predicated on a joint demise,84 and whether
the action is the statutory or the common-law ac-
tion of ejectment.85 A judgment for all the plain-
tiffs cannot be given where the proof shows title
in some,86 or title in part of the premises in one ;87
and it has been held that, if the proof does not
show a joint interest in all who join as plaintiffs,
the action must fail as to all,88 although it has al-
so been held that this rule does not apply where an
equitable defense has been filed.89 In some juris-
dictions, however, a failure to prove title as to some
of the plaintiffs will not prevent a recovery by the
others in whom title is shown.** A judgment for
plaintiffs may be predicated on a declaration al-
leging that the lessors jointly and severally de--
mised, and proof of a tenancy in common, there
being nothing impracticable in joint and several de-
mises of the same land.91
A judgment may be rendered for or against one
or more or all codefendants, in so far as the issues,
proof, and record may justify it92
(2) Personal or Representative Capacity
Judgment for or against a party ordinarily must be
In the capacity, personal or representative, In which he
sues or is sued.
Generally the judgment should be for and against
the parties in the capacity in which they sue and
are sued.93 Where an individual cause of action is
alleged, but plaintiff describes himself as suing in
a representative capacity, he may nevertheless re-
cover in his individual right on proof of the indi-
vidual cause of action alleged, the allegations as to
his representative character being rejected as mere
descriptio persons.94 Where, however, plaintiff al-
leges a cause of action accruing to him only in a
representative capacity, and sues in such a capacity,
proof of a cause of action belonging to him as an
individual is a variance, amounting to a failure of
78. S.C. — Youmans v. Yownans, 121
S.E. 674, 128 S.C. 31.
Tex. — McCart v. Scruggs, Civ.App.,
26 S.W.Sd 173, modified on other
grounds, Com.App., '-28 S.W.2d 637.
79. Idaho— Van -Sicklin v. Mayfield
Land & Livestock Co., 241 P. 1022,
41 Idaho 673.
S.D.— Barry v. G. OU Wood .Farm
Mortg. Co., 211 N.W. 688, 50 S.D.
652.
Tex.— Galloway v. Moeser, Civ.App.,
*2 S.W.2d 1067— Douglas Oil Co. v.
State (California Case), Civ.App.,
70 S.W.2d 452— Western Medical
Arts Bldg. Corporation v. Bryan,
Civ.App., 5 S.W:2d 862, error dis-
missed— San Antonio Southern Ry.
Co. v. Burd, Civ.App., 246 S.W.
1060, modified on other grounds,
Com.App., Burd v. San Antonio
Southern R. Co., -261 S.W. 1021.
Absence of claim of adverse title
A decree was held void In so far
as it awarded rights in land to some
defendants as against other defend-
ants, where they had not claimed
any title adverse to each other. —
Deming v. Nelson, 210 N.W. 726, 50
S.D. 484.
80. Iowa. — Mallory v. Riggs, 30 N.
W. S86, 76 Iowa 743.
33 C.J. p 1201 note 20.
81. OkL — Corpus Juris quoted in
Sorter v. Newton State Bank &
Trust Co., OkL, 295 P. 209, 210,
147 Okl. 136.
Tex. — Corpus Juris cited in Greene
v. Elerding, Civ.App., £91 S.W.
271, 272— Robinson v. Watkins,
Civ.App., 271 S.W. 288.
Wash.— Wetzel v. Clise, 26« P. 161,
148 Wash. 75.
33 C.J. p 1201 note 21, p 1168 note 28
Cb] (1).
Entry of Judgment in correct corpo-
rate name
If corporation were known by an-
other name than that set forth in
pleadings, or were mistakenly named
in pleadings, there being no corpo-
ration of the name set forth, Judg-
ment against corporation in its cor-
rect name would be warranted. —
Wichita Falls & Southern Ry. Co. v.
Foreman, Tex.Civ.App., 109 S.W.2d
549.
82. HL— Edwards v. Warner, 111
ULApp. -32.
33 C.J. p 1201 note 2*2.
83. Ga. — Shaddix v. Watson, 61 S.
E. 828, 130 Ga. 764.
19 C.J. p 1209 note 20 [f].
94. U.S.— Garrard v. Reynold, Ky., 4
How. 123, 11 LuEd. 903.
19 C.J. p 1217 note 52%.
85. Ga. — Callaway v. Irvin, 51 S.B.
477, 123 Ga. 344.
19 C.J. p 1217 note 52%.
121
86. Cal. — Tormey v. Pierce, 42 CaL
S3*.
19 C.J. p 1217 notes 62%, «2%.
87. Mich.— Lynch v. Kirby, 36 Mich.
238.
SB. Ga. — McQlamory v. McCormick,
24 S.E. 941, 99 Ga. 14$.
19 C.J. p 1217 note 52#.
89. Ga. — Milner v. Vandivere, 12 S*
E. 879, 86 Ga. 540.
90. 111.— Whitham v. Ellsworth, 102
N.E. 223, 259 lit 243.
13 C.J. p 1217 note 52%.
91. Ky. — Courtney v. Shropshire, 3
Litt. 265.
19 C.J. p 1217 note 52*io.
92. Ala. — Simmons v. Sharpe, 42 <So.
441, 148 Ala. 217.
19 C.J. p 1217 note 55.
93. U.S. — Gonzalez v. Roman Cath-
olic Archbishop of Manila, Phil.
Islands, 50 S.Ct 5, 280 U.S. 1, 74
L.Ed. 131.
Minn. — Briggs v. Kennedy Mayon-
naise Products, 297 N.W. -842, 209
Minn. 312.
Tex. — Rockhold v. Lucky Tiger Oil
Co., Civ.App., 4 S.W.2d 1046, error
dismissed.
33 O.J. p 1155 note 39.
94. U.S. — Newberry v. Robinson, C.
C.N.Y,, 36 F. 841.
33 C.J. p 1155- note 40.
§ 51
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
proof, and it has been held that he cannot recov-
er,95 Similarly, where plaintiff sues in his individu-
1 al capacity and the proof shows a right to recover
only in a representative capacity, it has been held
that there is a fatal variance.96 A defense good
against plaintiff in his individual capacity is not
necessarily a bar to a judgment for plaintiff in his
representative capacity.97
A personal judgment against a defendant who is
sued only in his official or representative capacity,98
or a judgment against one in his representative ca-
pacity when he is sued only in his individual capac-
ity,99 is defective. Where the pleadings are ambig-
uous as to the capacity in which plaintiff sues, or
defendant is sued, the theory on which the case was
tried controls the judgment.1
Executors and administrators. It has been held
that, if an executor or administrator sues as such,
he cannot recover in his individual right;2 but
there are also cases in which an individual recovery
by one who sued as executor or administrator has
been regarded as permissible.8 If a person sues in-
dividually, he cannot recover as executor or admin-
istrator.4 If an action is brought against a person
individually, judgment cannot be rendered against
him as the personal representative of another.5
Similarly, as a general rule, where one is sued as
executor or administrator, no personal judgment
may be rendered against him,6 although there are
cases in which it has been regarded as permissible
to render a personal judgment against one so sued.7
A plaintiff cannot object to a decree because it
was rendered against him in the name and capacity
in which he sued.8 Where a party is sued as per-
sonal representative, any judgment in his favor
should be in his representative, rather than in his
individual, capacity.9
b. Property Affected
A Judgment affecting property should be limited to
that described In the pleadings and proof, and, accord-
ing to some authorities, a Judgment affecting other
property is void.
A judgment affecting property should be limited
to the property described in the pleadings,10 and
judgments affecting other property have been held
96. 111.— Stokes v. Riley, 11 N.E.
877, 121 111. 166.
33 CJ. p 1153 note 41.
96. Mo.-— Vaughan v. St Louis & S.
F. R. -Co., 164 S.W. 144, 177 Mo.
App. 155.
33 C.J. p 1155 note 42.
97. N.Y.— Scranton v. Farmers' &
Mechanics' Bank, 33 Barb. 527, af-
firmed 24 N.T. 424.
98. Cal.— Reed v. Molony, 101 P.2d
175, 38 Cal.App,2d 405.
Mo.— Baird v. National Health Foun-
dation, 144 -S.W.2d «50, 235 Mo.
App. 694.
33 CJ. p 1155 note 44.
99. Conn.— Joseph v. Donovan, 164
A. 498, 116 Conn. 160.
33 C.J. p 1155 note 45.
3^ U.S. — Fortier v. New Orleans
Nat Bank, La., 5 S.Ct. 234, 112 U.
S. 439, 28 L.Ed. 764.
33 C.J. P 1155 note 46.
2. Cal.— Rogers v. Schlotterback,
138 P. 728, 167 Cal. 35.
24 C.J. p 885 note 49.
3. La.-JChildress v. Davis, 15 iLa.
49*2.
24 C.J. P 885 note 50, 33 C.J. P H'55
note 40.
4. Me. — Hayes v. Rich, 64 A. 659,
101 Me. 314, 11'5 Am.S.R. 314.
24 C.J. P #85 note 51.
& Ala.— Singleton v, Gayle, * Port.
270.
24 C.J. p 885 note 52.
€. Neb.— Burton v. Williams, 88 N.
W. 765, 63 Neb. 431.
24 C.J. p 885 note 53.
7. Tenn. — Braden v. Hollingsworth,
$ Humphr. 19.
24 C.J. p 88-6 notes 64, 55.
a Vt.— Sowles v. Sartwell, 56 A.
282, 76 Vt. 70.
9. La. — Succession of Moore, App.,
193 So. 222.
10. U.S.— Baten v. Kirby Lumber
Corporation, C.C.A.Tex., 103 F.2d
272.
Ala.— Alford v. Rodgers, 6 So.2d 409,
242 Ala. 370 — Parker v. Duke, 157
So. 43-6, 229 Ala. 361.
Ariz.- Williams v. Earhart, 278 P.
728, 34 Ariz. -565.
Cal.— Alpha Stores v. Croft, 140 P.
2d 688, 60 Cal.App.2d 349— Judson
v. Herrington, 150 P.2d 802, 55 Cal.
App.2d 476.
Ga.— Tinsley v. Commercial Credit
Co., 164 S.E. 454, 45 Ga.App. 297.
Idaho.— Nielson v. Garrett, 43 P.2d
380, 55 Idaho 240.
Mo.— Pioneer Cooperage Co. v. Dil-
lard, '59 S.W.2d 642, 332 Mo. 798—
Wilkinson v. Lieberman, 37 S.W.
3d 6(33, 327 Mo. 420— Garrison v.
City of Ozark, App., 248 S.W. 975.
Tex.— Martin v. Abbott, Civ.App., 24
S.W.2d 488 — Stevenson v. Barrow,
Civ.App., 285 S.W. 840, reversed on
other grounds, Com. App., 291 S.W.
1101— Holasek v. Jahek, Civ.App,
244 S.W. 285.
W.Va.— George v. Male, 153 S.E. 507,
109 W.Va, 222.
19 C.J. p 1209 note 20 [a], [b]— 33 C.
J. p 1168 note 32 — 47 C.J. p 430
note 65—51 C.J. p 269 note 25 [c],
[d].
122
Judgments held proper
(1) Where there was no question
as to what land was in dispute and
land was fully described in the de-
cree covering land in controversy,
decree was not erroneous because
not in conformity with pleadings. —
Arnd v. Harrington, 2*87 N.W. 292,
227 Iowa 43.
(2) In action to establish title to
strip of land between fence and al-
leged true boundary line inside fence,
a judgment embracing less land than
that claimed in pleadings was prop-
er, where land recovered was locat-
ed precisely as contended for by
plaintiffs' petition, except as respects
width of strip.— Humble Oil & Re-
fining Co. v. Owings, Tex.Civ.App.,
128 S.W.2d 6-7.
(3) A judgment providing for the
return of certain tires was held prop-
er under pleadings dealing with the
"equipment" of a certain gasoline
station. — Haley v. Traeger, 268 P.
459, 92 Cal. App. 360.
(4) Where description of land in
decree vesting title did not follow
that in the bill, but included the
tract in question and land could be
ascertained, there was held to be a
sufficient description. — Gaylor v.
Gaylor, 1 Tenn. App. 645.
(5) Other cases.
Ga.—Cason v. United Realty & Auc-
tion Co., in S.B. 161, 161 Ga, 374.
Tex.— Wells v. Laird, Civ.App., 57
S.W.*2d 3*95, error refused — Steven-
son v. Barrow, Civ. App., 285 S.W.
840, reversed on other grounds,
Com.App., 291 S.W. 1101.
49. C..J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§'51
to be void11 although as to this there is ajso author- !
ity to the contrary.12 It has been held that 'the fact
that a description in a judgment fixing the bounda-
ries of land involved in a litigation differed from
the description in the pleadings was immaterial
where there was evidence to support the descrip-
tion in the judgment.13
A judgment should also be supported by the proof
as to the property involved,14 and hence a judg-
ment following a description in the complaint which
is not supported by the evidence cannot stand.16
c. Quieting Title
Actions to quiet title are governed by the general
rules with respect to conformity of the judgment with
the pleadings and proofs, including the rules as to the
granting of affirmative relief to a defendant.
The rule requiring the relief afforded by the judg-
ment to conform to the case made out by the plead-
ings and proofs has been applied in actions to quiet
title.16 It is error to grant a decree quieting plain-
tiffs title on proof of facts showing merely a right
to specific performance,17 and, where the bill con-
tains only statutory averments, relief cannot be
granted on general principles of equity.18 Under
the broad provisions of some statutes, plaintiff may
so frame his petition as to authorize either legal
or equitable relief.1^
Affirmative relief not authorized by the pleadings
and proof cannot be granted to defendant,20 and
in some jurisdictions it has been held that the
court cannot decree that defendant has the su-
perior title where he files no cross complaint21
and does not pray for such relief;22 but in others it
has been held that defendant's title may be declared
superior if the facts justify it, although he files no
cross complaint or otherwise asks for such relief.23
If defendants set up equities and pray for judg-
ment and for general relief, an award of affirmative
11. Tenn.— Central Sav. Bank v.
Carpenter. 37 S.W. 278, 97 Tenn.
4'37.
33 C.J. p 1168 note S3.
12. Tex.— Williamson V. Wright, 1
Tex.Unrep.Cas. 711.
33 C.J. P 1169 note 34.
13. Cal. — Dreyer v. Cole, 292 P. 123,
210 Cal. 3:39.
14. 111. — Osmonson v. Buck, 162 N.
E. 142, 331 111. 25.
Concession by party
A judgment awarding plaintiff
land to which he concedes he is mak-
ing no claim, and to which defend-
ant appears to have a better title, is
erroneous. — Hecker v. Bleish, 8 S.
W.2d 1008, 319 Mo. 149.
15. Neb.— Cashing v. Conness, 95 N.
W. 855, 4 Neb. (Unoff.) 66-8.
ia Cal.— Baar v. Smith, 255 P. 827,
201 Cal. 87— Bartholomae Oil Cor-
poration v. Delaney, 296 P. 690,
112 CaLAfcp. 314.
Mo. — Congregation B'Nai Abraham v.
Arky, 20 S.W.2d 899, 323 Mo. 776.
N.M. — Otero v. Totl, 273 P. 917, 33
N.M. 613.
N.C. — Johnston v, Johnston, 12 S.
B.2d 248, 218 N.C. 706.
Utah. — Bolognese v. Anderson, 90 P.
2d 275, 97 Utah 136 — Bertolina v.
Frates, 57 P.2d 346, 89 Utah 238.
51 C.J. p 2*9 note 25 [a]-[g].
Jurisdiction*! facts
Although defendant's occupancy of
the land was not alleged in the
pleadings, it was nevertheless juris-
dictional, and the court having found
as a fact that defendant was in acitu-
al possession when the suit was
commenced, the bill was properly
dismissed.— Dolph v. Norton, 123 N.
W. 13, 158 Mich. 417.
Taxes, penalties, and costs
In action for possession of, and to
Quiet title to, realty, portion of Judg-
ment allowing personal recovery
against defendant for accumulated
taxes, penalties, and costs, an£ de-
creeing lien against property, was
held void where Issue as to such
part of judgment was not raised by
pleadings or evidence. — Fuqua v.
Watson, 46 P.2d 486. 172 Okl. 624.
Cancellation of deed as cloud on ti-
tle
Where the clear purpose of a bill
is to relieve plaintiff's land from the
incubus of a mortgage foreclosure
sale, allegations which show the in-
validity of the sale as against plain-
tiff, coupled with a prayer for gen-
eral relief, are sufficient to war-
rant cancellation of the deed as a
cloud on title, although the special
prayer was for redemption and re-
conveyance to the mortgagor. — Dixie
Grain Co. v. Quinn, 61 So. 886, 181
Ala. 208.
TTnder statute authorizing- determin-
ation. of adverse claims
Where the complaint embraces ev-
ery averment necessary to sustain
an action to Quiet title under the
general provisions of the -statute re-
lating to such actions, a judgment
quieting title is proper, although the
action was brought under another
statute authorizing an action to de-
termine adverse claims by one in ad-
verse possession of the property who
has paid taxes thereon during a des-
J4ro*±*d period^—Bmst v. Tiel, 197
P. «U9, «1 CaLApp, 747.
Judgments Held
issues
Cal. — District Bond Co. v. Pollack,
121 P.2d 7, 19 CaL2d 304*
123
o.— Ebbs v. Neff, 30 S.W.2d 616,
325 Mo. 1182.
Mont — Thomson v. Nygaard, 41 P.2d
1, 98 Mont 529.
Okl. — -'Simmons v. Howard, 27-6 P.
71*8, 136 OkL 118,
17. Mo. — Congregation B'Nai Abra-
ham v. Arky, 20 S.W.2d 899, 823
Mo. 776.
Utah. — Hennefer v. Hays, 47 P. 90,
14 Utah 324.
18. Ala. — First Ave. Coal & -Lum-
ber Co. v. King, 69 So. 549, 193
'Ala. 438 — Fowler v. Alabama Iron
& Steel Co., 45 So. 635, 154 Ala.
497.
19. Mo. — Murphy v. Barren, 205 &
W. 49, 275 Mo. 282.
51 C.J. p 270 note 29.
20. N.D. — Brown v. "Comonow, 114
N.W. 728, 17 N.D. 84.
51 C.J. p 276 note 30.
21. CaL — Hungarian Hill Gravel
Min. Co. v. Moses, 58 Cal. 168.
Ky.— Spradlin v. Patrick, 64 S.W.
•840, 23 Ky,L. 1156.
22. Tex.— State v. Black, 297 S.W.
213, 118 Tex. 615, 53 A.L.R. 1181.
51 C.J. P 276 note 32.
23. Mich.— Miller v. Steele, 109 N.
W. 37, 14* Mich. 123.
51 C.J. p 276 note 33.
Belief "based on plaintiff's pleading
Where the statute authorizes the
court to determine the title and in-
terests of all the parties, and plain-
tiff's prayer asks that this be done,
it is proper for the court, if title is
found to be in defendant, so to de-
tervtine, without any prayer on the
tetter's part. — Himmelberger-Harri-
son Lumber Co. v. Jones, 119 S.W.
366, 220 Mo. 190—51 C.J. p 276 not*
34.
51
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
relief is proper, without a prayer for "affirmative
relief in those terms.24
d. Other Applications
The rules governing conformity of Judgments with
the pleadings, Issues, and proofs have been applied In a
great variety of cases, the propriety of the particular
relief granted depending on all the facts and circum-
stances.
The rules with respect to the necessity that judg-
ments conform to, and be sustained by, the plead-
ings and proofs, the relief sought, and the issues,
have been applied in numerous cases in addition to
those already considered; and, following such rules,
the relief granted under the circumstances has been
held proper in actions or judgments for or relating
to accounts or accounting,26 annulment of mar-
riage,26 antenuptial agreements,27 attorney's fees,23
bonds,29 breach of marriage promise,30 building
contracts,31 cancellation of instruments,32 commis-
sions,33 deeds,34 dower,35 easements,3* ejectment,3*
establishment or priority of liens,38 executors and
administrators,39 foreclosure,^ improvements,41 in-
24. Tex.— McCullough v. Rucker,
115 S.W. 323, 53 Tex.Civ.A-pp. 89.
25. Cal. — Nelson v. Abraham, App.,
162 P.2d 333— Sly' v. Abbott, 264
P. 507, 89 CaLApp. 209— Miller v.
Superior Court of California in and
for ILos Angeles County, 210 P.
832, :59 CaLApp. 340.
Ga.— Grant v. Hart, 80 S.E.2d 271,
197 Ga. 6-62.
Mo.— Welch-Sandier Cement Co. v.
Mullins, App., 31 S.W.2d 86— Loge-
man Mfg. Co. y. Logernan, App.,
298 S.W. 1040.
Xex. — Zimmerman v. Millan, Civ.
App., 141 'S.W.2d 3-94— Samuels v.
Finkelstein, Qiv.App., 25 S.W.2d
•923, error dismissed.
26. CaL-JFigoni v. Figoni, 295 P.
•339, 211 Cal. 354.
27. 111.— Parker v. Gray, 148 N.B.
323, 317 111. 468.
Kan.— Baldwin v. Baldwin, 98 P.2d
614, 150 Kan. 507.
28. Cal. — Martin v. Pacific South
west Royalties, 106 P.2d 443, 41
Cal.App.2d 161.
La, — -Wild v. Standard General Real
ty Co., App., 145 So. 58, affirmed
149 'So. 114, 177 La. 664.
Tex.— Rychener v. McGuire, Civ
App., 66 'S.W.'2d 418.
29. Tex. — I>e Zavala r. Scanlan
Com.App., 65 S.W.2d 489.
30. Tenn. — Poster v. Andrews, 18
S.W;2d 580.
31. Cal.— Karlik v. Peters, 288 P
•»63, 106 CaLApp. 126.
9 C.J. p 892 note 51.
32. Cal. — Empire Lease & Royalt
Co. v. Jones, 8 P.2d 512, 121 Cal
APp. 23.
Ga.— Cason v. United Realty & Auc
tton Co., 131 S.B. 161, 161 Ga. 374
Mich.— Drinski v. Drinski, 15 N.W
•2d 714, 309 Mich. 479.
Okl.— Exchange Bank of Perry v
Nichols, 164 P.2d 867.
Tex.— Sabens v. fiochruxn, dv.App
292 S.^. 281. - '
Fraud as "actual" or "constructive"
Where petition for cancellation of
ease recited facts and prayed for a
ecree declaring the lease to be il-
egal and void because of fraud, and
rdering cancellation thereof and
or such other, further, and differ-
nt relief as equity and justice
might require, a holding that con-
tructive fraud existed was within
petition, although neither "actual"
ior "constructive" was used in con-
aection with charge of fraud. — John-
son v. Radio Station W O W, 14 N.
W.2d '$66, 144 Neb. 406, reversed on
other grounds 65 <S.Ct. 147-5, 32* IT.
S. 120, 8'9 L.B?d. 2092, motion denied
66 S.Ct 11.
Inability to surrender stock
Where a petition for the cancella-
tion of stock contained a prayer for
general relief, it authorized a judg-
ment for the value of the stock
which a stockholder was ordered to
surrender for cancellation, but which
le was unable to surrender because
tie had transferred it to a brokerage
. — McCombs Producing & Refin-
ing Co. V. Ogle, 254 S.W. 4'25, 200 Ky.
208.
33, Ark.— Core v. Henley, 16 S.W.2d
579, 179 Ark. 488.
Conn. — Nocera v. La Mattina, 145 A.
271, 109 Conn. 5*89.
Tex.— Murchison v. Ballard, Civ.
App., 17* S.W.2d 554, error re-
fused— Jones v. Bledsoe, Civ.App.,
293 S.W. 204.
. Adams, 117 S.B.
335, 30 Ga.App. 197.
HI. — Burroughs v. Mefforfl, 5-6 N.B.
2d 845, 387 111. 461— Hayes v. Min-
iter, 139 N.m 74, 308 111. 22.
Mo.— Presbyterian Orphanage of
Missouri v. Fitterling, 114 S.W.2d
1004, 342 Mo. 299— Mayberry v.
Clark, 297 S.W. 39, 317 Mo. 442.
rpex. — Green v. Duncan, CivJV.pp., 134
S.W.2d 744.
35(i Ark.— Less v. Less, 249 S.W.
583, 158 Ark. 25-5.
36. 111. — Stowell v. Prentiss, 154 N.
El 120, 323 111. 309, 50 A.L.R. 584.
Ky.— Wilson v. Trent, 38 S.W.2d 429,
23* Ky. 551.
124
37. Ariz.— Keystone Copper Min. Co.
v. Miller, 164 P.2d 603.
Ky.— Parkey v. Arthur, $3 S.W.2d
921, 245 Ky. 525.
j£0. — Marsden v. Nipp, 30 S.W.23 77,
525 Mo. 822.
Application of rules with respect to
parties in action of ejectment see
supra subdivision a (1) of this
section.
5. Idaho.— Gillette v. Oberholtzer,
264 P. 229, 45 Idaho 571.
Iowa.— Holden v. VoeHcer, 293 N.W.
32, 228 Iowa 589.
Ky.— Smith v. Sellers, 284 S.W. 1*34,
215 Ky. 181.
39. Cal.— Tarien v. Katz, 1*5 P.2d
493, 216 Cal. 5-54, 85 AL.R. 334.
Ga. — Sangster v. Toledo Mfg. Co., 1>
S.B.2d 723, 193 Ga. 685.
Mo.'— Reed v. Tedford, App., 72 S.
W.2d 207.
2-4 C.J. p 884 notes 44 [a]-[e3.
Personal or representative capacity
see supra subdivision a (2) of
this section.
40. Ga.— Ten-Fifty Ponce de Leon
Co. v. Citizens' & Southern Nat.
Bank, 153 S.B. 751, 170 Ga. 642.
Tex — Stoutz v. Amarillo Bank &
Trust Co., Civ.App., 81 S.W.2d 778,
error dismissed
Utah. — Meissner v. Ogden, L. & 1.
Ry. Co., 233 IP. 569, 65 Utah 1.
Wash.— Beadle v. Barta, 123 P.2d
761, 13 Wash.2d 67.
42 C.J. p 142 note 53 [fj» P 143 note
57 [a], [b].
Bights of purchaser at foreclosure
Where there was an actual con-
troversy before the court as to the
rights of purchaser in property pur-
chased at foreclosure sale, judgment
declaring purchaser at foreclosure
sale to be the owner of the property
subject only to right of redemption,
and that his title thereto subject
to such right be Quieted against any
and all claims of perseas claiming
property by adverse possession, was
proper.-HSnyder v. Pine Grove Lum-
ber Co., 105 P.2d 369, 40 Cal.App.2d
660.
1. Mo. — Sutton v. Anderson, 31 S.
W.2d 10*26, (326 Mo. 804.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 51
junctive relief,42 insurance,4^ leases or rents,44
notes,4* oil or gas leases or royalties,46 partner-
ships,47 partition,4* patents,49 personal injuries,50
quo warranto,51 rescission,5^ services rendered,53
specific performance,54 trespass,55 trusts,56 and oth-
er matters.57
42. Cal.— Knox v. Wolfe, App., 167
P.2d 3— Sharp v. Big Jim Mines,
103 P.2d 430, 39 Cal.App.2d 435.
Mo. — Meder v. Wilson, App., 192 S.
W.2d 606.
TTse of private way
Decree enjoining use of a private
way over defendants' land connect-
ing plaintiffs' tracts was not beyond
pleading of injunction suit where
decree only determined plaintiffs' ti-
tle to an easement and not title to
a fee.— Fassold v. Schamfcurg. 166
S.W.2d 571, i350 Mo. 464.
43. Kan. — Dobrauc v. Concordia
Fire Ins. Co., 10 P.2d 875, 135
Kan. 297.
La. — Richmond v. New York Life
Ins. Co., App., 25 So.2d 94.
Mo. — Homan v. Employers Reinsur-
ance Corporation, 136 S.W.Sd 289,
845 Mo. 650, 127 A.L.R. 163— Nick
v. Travelers Ins. Co., App., 185
• S.W.2d 326— De Mott v. Great
American Ins. Co. of New York,
181 S.W.2d 64, 234 Mo.App. 31.
N.Y. — Borszewski v. Bukowski, 260
N.Y.S. 643, 145 Misc. 680.
Tex. — Georgia Home Ins. Co. v.
Trice, Civ.App., 70 «S.W.2d 356, er-
ror dismissed — Northern Assur.
Co. v. Herd, Civ.App.. 27* S.W. 884.
33 C.J. p 144 note 83 [a].
Change of beneficiary
Allegation that change of benefi-
ciary of life policy was inequitable,
unjust, voidable, and ought to be set
aside was held sufficient to support
decree for first beneficiary as against
contention that decree did not con-
form to pleadings because no fraud
was found. — Travelers' Ins. Co. v.
Gebo, 170 A. 917, 106 Vt 155.
44. La. — Chambers v. Vega, 137 So.
879, 18 La.App. 756.
N.Y. — Longo v. Sparano, 196 N.Y.&.
344, 119 Misc. 402.
S.C. — Stackhouse v. (Pure Oil Co., 180
S.E. 188, 176 6.C. 318.
45. Iowa. — Iowa State Sav. Bank of
Malvern v. Young, 244 N.W. 271,
214 Iowa 1287, 84 A.L.R. 1400,
rehearing denied 245 N.W. 864, 84
A.L.R. 1400.
Kan. — Illinois Life Ins. Co. v*
Young, 235 P. 104, 118 Kan. 308,
certiorari denied Young v. Still-
well, 46 «S.Ct 21, 269 U.S. 560, 70
L.Ed. 412.
Ky. — Board of Education of Pulaski
County v. Nelson, 88 S.W.ifd 17,
261 Ky. 466.
Or. — Boyce v. Toke Point Oyster Co.,
Consol., 25 P.2d 930, 145 Or. 114.
Tex. — Dashiel v. LOtt, Com.App., 243
S.W. 1072.
Alternative prayer for balance on
open account
In action on notes, where evidence
showed payment of notes but exist-
ence of undisputed balance due
payee on open account, payee was
entitled to judgment for balance on
open account under amended com-
plaint praying for such relief in al-
ternative.— Federal Rubber Co. v. M.
M. 5Stewart Co., 41 P.2d 158, 180
Wash. 625.
mdividtifll obligation of codef endant
Where petition in action against
defendants, as partners, on a note
executed by codef endant and payable
to plaintiff, copied the note in hsec
verba and contained prayer for gen-
eral relief, and petition showed on
its face that note as drawn was an
individual obligation of codefendant,
petition was sufficient to support a
judgment against codefendant. —
Poynor v. Adams, Tex.Civ.App., 135
S.W.2d 722.
46. Kan.— Flitch v. Boyle, 89 (P.2d
909, 0.49 Kan. 884— McDermed v.
Ackley, 44 P.2d 27-4, 141 Kan. 818.
Tex.— Caldwell-Guadalupe. Pick-Up
Stations v. Gregg, Civ.App., 276 <3,
W. 3-42, modified on other grounds
Gregg v. Caldwell-Guadalupe Pick-
Up Stations, Com. App., 286 S.W.
1083.
47. La. — Blanchard v. Patterson,
119 So. 902, 9 La.App. 706.
48. Ky. — Howard v. Carmichael, 55
S.W.2d 852, 237 Ky. 462.
Mo.— Virgin v. Kennedy, 32 S.W.2d
91, 326 Mo. 400.
Tex. — Bowles v. Bryan, Civ. App., 277
S.W. 760.
49. U.S. — General Motors Corpora-
tion v. Leer Auto Supply Co., C.
C.A.N.Y., 60 F.2d 902.
50. Ala. — City of Birmingham v.
Smith, 163 So. 611, 231 Ala. 95.
Ky. — Harmon v. Rose, 32 -S.W.2d 67,
235 Ky. 701.
Tex. — Caddo Warehouse & Transfer
Co. v. Riley, Civ.App., 7 S.W.2d
137, error dismissed.
51. Fla.— City of Auburndale v.
State ex reL Landls, 184 So. 787,
135 Fla. 172.
52. La. — Houston-Long Co. v. Fair-
cloth, 137 So. 594, 18 La.App. 423,
Judgment fiadag damages to ven-
dor for failure of consideration may
be entered under complaint for re-
scission and evidence showing value
of property and consideration. — Mas-
ero v. Bessolo, 262 P. 61, 87 Cal.
App. 262.
53. Cal.— Maxwell v. Jimeno, 265 P.
885, 89 CaLApp. 612 — Rosener v.
Hanlon Dry Bock & Shipbuilding
Co., 236 (P. 183, 71 CaLApp. 767.
La. — McCook v. Comegys, 125 So.
134, 169 La, 312.
Tex. — Reymershotter v. Ray, Civ.
125
App., 85 S.W.2d 1102, error re-
fused.
54. Cal. — Roark v. Southern Trust
& Commerce Bank, 288 (P. 110, 105
CaLApp. 521.
Wis.— In re Shinoe's Estate. 250 N.
W. 505, 212 Wis. 481.
Option to purchase
A Judgment decreeing specific per-
formance of tan option to purchase
contained in a lease was not void
merely because complaint failed spe-
cifically to allege that option speci-
fied adequate consideration or that
the contract was fair, where issue
of adequacy was conceded by the
conduct of defendants at the trial
and findings of adequacy and fair-
ness were supported by evidence. —
Drullinger v. Erskine, CaLApp., 16&
P.2d 48.
55. Ky.— Siler v. Cannon, 130 S.W.
2d 742, 279 Ky. 328— Chapman v.
Majestic Collieries Co., 288 S.W.
299, 216 Ky. 652.
56. Cal.— Webb v. Vercoe, 258 P.
1099, 201 Cal. 754, 54 A.L.R. 1200.
57. TLS. — Municipal Excavator Co.
v. Siedhoff, C.OA.Kan., 15 F.2d
10.
Ariz.— Betts v. Lightning Delivery
Co., 22 P.2d 827, 42 Ariz. 105.
Cal. — Estrin v. Superior Court in and
for Sacramento County, 96 F.2d
340, 14 Cal.2d 670— (Peak v. Repub-
lic Truck Sales Corporation, 230 P.
948, 194 Cal. -782— Wiley v.
Wright, 79 P.2d 196, 26 CaLApp*
2d 305— Burd v. Downing, 213 P.
287, 60 CaLApp. 493.
Conn. — Heneault v. Papas, 121 A. 273,
99 Conn. 164.
Ga.— Phillips v. Whelchel, 170 S.E.
480, 177 Ga. 489— Stover v. Atlan-
tic Ice & Coal Corporation, 125 S.E.
837, 159 Gku 357— Powell v. Black-
stock, 13 S.E.2d 503, 6'4 Ga.App.
442.
Idaho.^-Angel v. Mellen, 285 (P. 461,
48 Idaho 750.
HL — Johnson v. Watson, 33 N.E.2S
130, .309 IlLApp. 440— Martin J.
Hecht, Inc., v. Steigerwald, 24 N.
E.2d 394, 302 IlLApp. 556.
Ind. — Hosanna v. Odishoo, 193 NJ3L
599, 208 Ind. 132, rehearing denied
195 N.E. 72, 208 Ind. 132— Wag-
goner v. Honey, 169 N.BL 349, 91
Ind.App. $1.
Ky. — Ben Humplch ISand Co. v»
Moore, 69 S.W.2d 396, 253 Ky.
667 — Consolidation Coal Co. v.
Riddle, 248 S.W. 530, 198 Ky. 256.
La. — Sanders De Hart v. Continental
Land & Pur Co., 17 So.2d 827, 205
La. 569.
Mass.— Gallup v. Barton, 47 N.E.2d
921, 313 Mass. -379.
Mich. — Wesorick v. Winans, 269 N.
W. 609, 277 Mich. 589— Hogan v.
I 51
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
On the other hand, following the rules with re-
spect to conformity of judgments with the plead-
ings, proofs, and issues, particular relief has been
held improper in actions or judgments for or re-
lating to accounting,58 adverse possession,59 attor-
neys' fees,60 cancellation of instruments,61 checks,62
commissions,6^ condemnation of property,6* conver-
sion,65 deeds and conveyances,66 ejectment,67 exec-
Whltcomb, 206 N.W. 328, 233 Mich.
403.
Minn. — Child v. "Washed Sand &
Gravel Co., 233 N.W. 586, 181
Minn. 559.
Mo. — Timmonds v. Wilbur, 260 S.W.
1004— Fielder v. Fielder, App., 6
S.W.2d 968 — Sanders v. "Sheets,
App., 287 S.W. 1069 — Menefee v.
Scally, App., 247 S.W. 259.
•Okl.— Cusa'ck v. McMasters, 279 P.
329, tt<37 Okl. 278.
S.C.— In re Sugg's Estate. 51 S.B.
263, 71 S.C. 439.
Utah.— Jeffries v. Third Judicial
Dist. Court of Salt Lake County,
63 P.2d 242, 90 Utah 525.
Wash.— Robinson v. Puget Electric
Welding Co., 299 P. 405, 162 Wash.
626.
33 C.J. p 1168 note 28 [a] (1), [b].
•Reformation
•It has been held that reformation
need not have been asked for spe-
cifically in the pleading to permit
the court to enforce a contract as
.•actually made, although not in a,c-
•cordance with a copy attacked as
fraudulent. — Hornick v. Union Pac.
R. Co., 118 P. 60, 85 Kan. 568, 38
X,.R.A.,N.S., 826, Ann.Cas.l913A 208.
S8. Conn. — "Steinmetz v. Steinmetz,
7 A.2d 915, 125 Conn. 663.
«Fla.— Garden 'Suburbs Golf & Coun-
try Club v. iPruitt, 24 So.Sd 898,
Mo.-^Palnier v. -Marshall, App., 24
S.W.2d 229.
N.Y.— Hauenstein v. Fisher, 34 N.Y.
S.2d 902, 264 App.Div. 825— Clark-
son v. Lusher, 5 N.Y.S.2d 631, 255
App.Div. 705, resettled In re Lush-
ex's Will, 7 N.Y.S.2d 1012, 255
App.Div. 860.
Okl. — Bishop v. Franks, 107 P.2d 358,
188 oki. iae.
Profit from resale
Where, at the time a suit against
.a company and some of its stock-
holders for accounting was Institut-
ed, erne defendant had not yet ac-
quired a deed of trust to the cor-
poration's property, and no supple-
mental bill was filed, it could not
Tiave been contemplated by the
pleadings that the holder of the
trust deed should be reauired to ac-
count for any profit from resale
.after foreclosure, and a Judgmen^
requiring him to so account was
without the scope of the pleadings
and void. — Lewis v. School, Mo.App.
244 .S.W. 90.
[Personal Judgment against corporate
director
Where complaint by stockholders
^alleged that director flailed to ac
•count for proceeds of stock and ap-
propriated other money of corpora-
tion and prayed an accounting, per-
sonal judgment against director ex-
ceeded relief prayed for. — Angel v.
Mellen, 285 P. 461, 48 Idaho 750.
Claim not referred to in complaint
In action for accounting by land-
owner on contract for building hous-
es, judgment in-eluding amount bas-
ed on claim not referred to in com-
plaint could not be sustained. — Aus-
tin v. Harry E. Jones, Inc., 44 P.
2d 667, 6 Cal.App.2d 493.
59. Tex. — Stevenson v. Barrow, Civ.
App., 265 S.W. 602.
60. Cal.— Swanson v. Hempstead,
149 P.2d 404, 64 Cal.App.2d 681.
Tex. — Thompson v. Kleinman, Civ.
App., 259 S.W. 593.
61. Ala.— «mith v. Smith, 114 So.
192, 216 Ala. 570.
Ga, — Land Development Corporation
v Union Trust Co. of Maryland,
180 S.E. 836, 180 Ga. 785— De
Loach v. (Purcell, 145 S.E. 424,
166 Ga, 562.
.— Denney v. Peters, 10 N.E.2d
754, 104 Ind.App. 504.
y. — In-ez Deposit Bank v. Pinson,
122 S.W.2d 1031, 276 Ky. 84.
La. — Switzer v. Driscoll, App., 183
So. 57.
Mo.— McKay v. «Snider, 190 S.W.2d
886.
Tex.— Dallas Joint Stock Land Bank
v. King, Civ.App., 167 S.W.2d 245,
error refused — Home Ben. Ass'n
v. Allee, Civ.App., 128 S.W.2d 417
— -Armstrong v. Murray Tool &
Supply Co., Civ.App., 31 S.W.2d
1101.
Bar of future action
A recital In a Judgment denying
plaintiff's claim for forfeiture and
cancellation of lease that it should
not be a bar to any future action
for damages or specific performance,
being an adjudication of a matter
not presented by the pleadings, is
erroneous. — Masterson v. Amarillo
Oil Co., Tex.Civ.App., 253 S.W. 908
Money damages held improper
Where wife, prior to divorce, con-
tracted with husband and executed
deed of community property to him
and after divorce Instituted action
to annul contract and deed for fraud
a judgment awarding plaintiff mon-
ey damages and directing defendan1
to pay plaintiff support money for
child was void, as without the Is-
sues.— Stanley v. McKenzie, 240 P
103)3, 29 Ariz. 288.
Cancellation not sought
Where both parties to suit sough
construction and specific perform-
ance of contract, and neither at
tacked its validity nor sought its
cancellation, court erred In cancel
126
ng It.— Kentucky &. West Virginia
>ower Co. v. Gilllam, 276 S.W. 983,
210 Ky. 820.
Establishment and foreclosure o*
In suit to cancel purported deed
on ground it was In fact a mort-
gage, that part of judgment which
fixed a tax lien and foreclosed it
and foreclosed a vendor's Item, was
erroneous, where neither party
sought the fixing of tax lien or fore-
closure of tax lien and vendor's lien.
— Duncan v. Green, Tex.Civ.App.,
113 S.Wj2d 656, error dismissed,
62. Mo. — Massey-Harris Harvester
Co. v. Federal Reserve Bank of
Kansas City, 48 S.W.2d 158, 226
Mo.App. 916.
Tex. — Street v. Cunningham, Civ.
App., 156 S.W.2d 541.
notice of dishonor
Judgment based on holding that
failure to give notice of dishonor of
checks was fatal to recovery was
properly reversed, where no plea
raised question of discharge by flail-
ure to give notice of dishonor. —
Comer v. Brown, Tex.Com.App., 283
S.W. 307.
63. Tex.— McClory v. Schneider,
Civ.App., 51 S.W.2d 738, error dis-
missed— Smyth v. Conner, Civ.
App., 280 S.W. 600— John Christ-
ensen & Co. v. McNeil, Civ.App.,
251 S.W. 351.
64. Ky.— City of Owingsville v. TJ1-
ery, 86 S.W.2d 706, 260 Ky. 792.
65. Tex. — Lewis v. Gamble, Civ.
App., 113 S.W.2d 659— Meador v.
Wagner, Civ.App., 70 S.W.2d 794,
error dismissed.
66. R.L— Nelson v. Streeter, 13 A.
2d 256, 65 R.'I. 1*3.
Tex.— Long v. McCoy, Civ.App., 294
S.W. 6-33, affirmed McCoy v. Long,
Com.App., 15 -S.W.2d 234, rehear-
ing denied 17 S.W.2d 783.
Absence of interest in land
Where only issues before court
were existence of alleged indebted-
ness and whether quitclaim deed
was intended as mortgage, portion
of judgment adjudging that plaintiff
had no Interest whatever in land
was held void.— State ex rel. Shull
v. Moore, 27 P.2d 1048, 167 Okl. 28.
67. Mo. — Riley v. La 'Font, 174 S.W.
2d 857 — Brown v. Wilson, 155 S.W.
2d 176, 348 Mo. 658.
19 C.J. P 1209 note 20 Dc]-[e], p 1240
note 19 [a].
Improvements
Adjudication that, defendant to
ejectment is entitled to nothing for
improvements is erroneous, where
no such issue is made by pleadings.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 51
utors and administrators,68 fixtures,69 foreclosure,70
foreign judgments,71 forfeiture,™ gifts,™ guaran-
ties,74 injunctive relief,75 insurance,76 interplead-
er,77 leases or rents,78 notes,™ partition,80 partner-
ships,81 personal injuries,82 quo warrantors receiv-
— Lester v. Tyler, Mo., 69 S.W.2d
633.
68. Ky. — Stlmson's Ex'x v. Tharp,
144 S.W.2d 1031, 284 Ky. 389.
24 C.J. p 884 note 44 [a].
Personal or representative capacity
see supra subdivision a (2) of
this section.
69. Ky.— Tabor v. Tabor, 280 S.W.
1S4, 213 Ky. 312.
70. N.Y.— Brockport Nat. Bank v.
Webaco Oil Co., 12 N.T.S.2d 65-2,
257 App.Div. 68, reargument de-
nied 14 N.Y.S.2d 495, 257 App.Div.
1043.
N.C.-- Richardson v. Satterwhite, 150
$.E. 116, 197 N.C. 609.
Ohio.— Lebanon Production Credit
Ass'n v. Feldhaus, App., 34 N.E.2d
463.
Tex. — Smith v. Jaggers, Civ.App.. 16
S.W.2d 9ff9, error dismissed.
Vt — Freedley v. Edwin Shuttleworth
Co., 130 A. 691, 99 Vt. 25.
33 C.J. p 1139 note 52 [b] (1), [e]
— 42 C.J. p 142 notes 48, 53 [c],
[e].
Extent of interest foreclosed
In action to foreclose vendor's
lien where only evidence of defend-
ant's interest was in deed from
plaintiff to defendant, Judgment
foreclosing an interest less than de-
scribed in deed was error. — Smith v.
Totton, Civ.App., 98 S.W.2d 1019. af-
firmed Totton v. -Smith, 113 S.W.2d
517, 131 Tex. 219. •
TL Oal.— Morrow v. Morrow, 105 P.
2d 129, 40 Cal.App.2d 474.
7S. 111.— Penkala v. Tomczyk, 148
N.E. 64, 317 111. 356.
7a Mo.— Riney v. Riney, App., 117
S.W.2d 698. .
74. La.— Exchange Nat Bank of
Shreveport v. Holomon Bros., 123
So. 603, 168 La. 870.
75. Cal.— Sharp v. Big Jim Mines,
103 P.2d 430, 39 Cal.App.2d 435.
Idaho.— Boise Street Car Co. v. Van
Avery, 103 P.2d 1107, 61 Idaho 502.
Mich.— Ottney v. Taylor, 13 N.W.2d
280, 308 Mich. 252.
Mo— Finley v. -Smith, 178 S.W.2d
326, 552 Mo. 465— Fugel v. Becker,
2 S.W.2d 743.
Neb.— Hallgren v. Williams, 20 N.
W.2d 499.
Pa.— Ebur v. Alloy Metal Wire Co.,
155 A. 280, 304 Pa. 177.
Vacation of Judgment
In suit, to enjoin enforcement of
Judgment, court's attempt to vacate
Judgment was held nugatory, since
it was unauthorized by pleadings.—
Baria v. Taylor, 57 IS.W.2d 858.
Personal Judgment; order of »ale
In suit to restrain sale under trust
deed, judgment against mortgagor
personally and ordering sale was
held not warranted under pleadings.
— Farm *& Home Savings & Loan
Ass'n of Missouri v. Muhl, Tex.Civ.
App., 37 S.W.2d 516, error refused.
76. Ky. — London & Provincial Ma-
rine & Fire Ins. Co. of London,
England, v. Mullins. 95 «S.W.2d 588,
264 Ky. 780— Fidelity Mut. Life
Ins. Co. v. Hembree, 41 S.W.2d 649,
240 Ky. 97.
Mo.— Smith v. Smith, App., 192 S.
W.2d 691, followed in 192 S.W.2d
700.
N.J.~^Magliano v. Metropolitan Life
Ins. Co., 34 A.2d 296, 21 N.J.Misc.
394.
Tex. — Drane v. Jefferson Standard
Life Ins. Co., 161 S.W.2d 1057,
139 Tex 101— Home Ins. Co. v.
Scott, Civ-App., 152 S.W.2d 413,
error dismissed — Snyder N Local
Mut Life Ass'n, Group One, v. Le-
mond, Civ.App., 116 S.W.2d 829,
error refused— National Aid Life
Ass'n v. Bailey, Civ.App., 54 S.W.
2d 206— Fidelity Union Fire Ins.
Co. v. Barnes, Civ.App., 293 S.W.
279.
Wis.— Schmidt v. La Salle Fire Ins.
Co. of New Orleans, 245 N.W. 702,
209 Wis. 576.
33 C.J. P 1139 note 52 [b] (3), P
1168 note 28 [c]— 57 C.J. P 656
note 13.
Disability
Where an accident policy provides
indemnity for partial and total dis-
ability, if insured sues for the in-
demnity payable for a total disabil-
ity he cannot, in the same action,
recover indemnity for a partial disa-
bility which succeeded his total dis-
ability.— Rayburn v. Pennsylvania
Casualty Co., 54 S.E. 283, 1-41 N.C.
425.
Pa.— Normile v. Martell, 96 Pa.Super.
139.
Tex. — Wafford v. Branch, Com.App.»
267 S.W. 260 — Gulf Refining Co. T.
Smith, Civ.App., 81 S.W.2d 155.
Fraud
Where issue of fraud was irrele-
vant because not pleaded, finding
thereon for insurer sued for pre-
miums would not support Judgment
for insurer. — American Nat Ins. Co.
v. Villegas, Tex.Civ.App., 32 S.W.2d
1109.
77, Cal.— Van Orden v. Golden West
Credit & Adjustment Co., 9 P.2d
572, 122 CaLApp. 132.
78. Ky.— Key v. Hays, 166 S.W.2d
850, 292 Ky. 423.
La.— Harper v. Sid iSimmons Drill-
ing Co., 114 So. 647, 164 La. 767.
H-e.— Bemis v. Bradley, 133 A. 593,
126 Me. 462, 69 A.L.R. 1399.
Mo.— Dreckshfcge v. Dreckshage, 176
S.W.2d 7, 352 Mo. 78— McCaskey
v. Duffley, 78 S.W.2d 141, 229 Mo.
App. 289.
N'T.— Kilmer Park Const Co. v.
Lehrer, 270 N.Y.S. 156, 150 Misc.
673.
127
In action against lessor and les-
see for damages to nearby property,
lessor was not entitled to Judgment
over against lessee on ground that
lease contained an indemnification
clause in its favor, where the plead-
ings raised no such issue. — Boyle v.
Pennsylvania R. Co., 31 A.2d 89. 34*
Pa. 602.
79. Ky. — Beaver Petroleum Corpo-
ration v. ,Whitney, 278 S.W. 565,
212 Ky. 222.
La.— W. J. & C. Sherrouse v. Phe-
nix, 128 So. 536, 14 La.App. 629.
Tex. — Chastain v. Gilbert, Civ.App.,
145 iS.W.2d 938 — Butler v. Price,
Civ.App., 138 S.W.2d 301— Metropo-
lis Co. v. Texas Publication House,
Civ.App., 44 S.W.2d 403— Stack v.
Ellis, Civ.App., 2-91 S.W. 919—
Standard Motor Co. v. Wittman,
Civ.App., 271 S.W. 186— Blanken-
beckler v. Kuykendall, Civ.App.,
256 S.W. 323.
Material alteration
Where notes were rendered voia
by material alteration by payee,
Judgment in amount of notes was
held erroneous, since there was no-
pleading or claim based on original
obligation evidenced by the notes. —
Jones v. Jones, 71 S.W.2d 999, 25-4
Ky. 475.
&, Qa. — Hatton v. Johnson, 121 S»
E. 404, 157 Ga. 313.
Tex.— Johnson v. Bussey. Civ.App...
95 S.W.2d 990, error refused — Se-
curity Realty & Development Co-
v. Jenkins, Civ.App., 80 S.W.2d 999-
— Vanlandingham v. Terry, Clw
.App., 293 S.W. 252.
47 C.J. p 430 note 69.
31. Mo.— McCrosky V. Burnhamr
App., 282 S.W. 158.
Personal Judgment against man-
ager of partnership was unauthor-
ized, where complaint did not allege
that he was a partner or that he had
any interest in business and asked,
for no relief against him except
that any interest he might have-
should be foreclosed. — State ex rel-
Yeatch v. Franklin, 98'CP.2d 724. 163
Or. 500.
82. Tex.— St. Louis, B. & M. Ry-
Co. v. (Price. Civ.App., 244 S.W-
642, affirmed, ConLApp., 269 -S.W-
422. .
83. Corporate nature of body
A Judgment in QUO warranto can-
not be sustained where it is againat
respondents as officers of an unin-
§51
JUDGMENTS.
crs,84 recovery of purchase price of property,85 re-
plevin,86 rescission,87 services rendered,88 specific
performance,89 statutory penalties,90 taxes or as-
sessments,91 trespass,92 trusts,98 wages and penal-
ties,94 workmen's compensation,96 and other mat-
ters.9«
§ 52.
49 C.J.S,
Nature and Form of Action
In general the Judgment is limited by the nature of
the action; but In code states, where the common- 1 aw
forms of pleading have been abolished, the form or
name of the action does not control the relief which may
be granted.
In general the scope of the judgment is limited
by the nature or character of the action.9? At
corporated body and the issue
raised by the pleadings is whether
the relators are entitled to the offl
ces in an incorporated body which
are claimed and held by respondents
— Commonwealth v. Grim, 9*9 A. 166
255 Pa. 40.
84. Tex. — Commercial Standard Ins
Co. v. Moeller. Civ.App., 78 S.W
2d 2 83.
85. Cal.— -Young v. !Lial, 17 P.2d
170, 128 Cal.App. 246.
Ga:— Whitten v. McMillan, 128 S.B
211, 34 €tauApp. 33.
La. — Stafford v. Tolmas Realty Co.
App., 1-46 So. 61 — Jackson v. Har-
ris, 1S6 So. 166, 18 La.App. 484,
reinstated 137 60. 655, 18 La.App,
484.
Tex. — Bancroft v. Brown, Civ.App,
285 fl.W. 206— Holloway v. Miller,
Civ.App., 272 S.W. 562.
Return of property
In an action for the balance due
on the purchase price of property in
which defendant asks only for dam-
ages, or for a return of payments
made, and in which the only issue
is whether there should be a money
Judgment in favor of one party
against the other, a money Judgment
for defendant coupled with an ad-
judication that the property be re-
turned to plaintiff is improper.-
Cresci v. Gandy, 124 A, 68, 99 N.J.
Law 417 — Union Garage Co. v. Wil-
ner, 120 A. 4, 98 N.J.Law 441.
Balance due seller
In seller's action for purchase
price, verdict for buyer on his coun-
terclaim for fraud was unwarranted,
where, if utmost amount shown as
damages were subtracted from price
remaining unpaid, there would still
be a remainder in seller's favor. —
Gross v. Reiners, 124 A. 811, 100
Conti. 732.
86. Tenn.— Sartain v. Dixie Coal &
Iron Co., 266 S.W. 313, 150 Tenn.
633.
33 C.J. p 1139 note 52 [b] (2), (4).
87. Tex. — Bailey v. Mann, Civ.App.,
248 S.W. 469.
88. Tex.— Burnell v. -Schmidt, Civ.
App., 104 S.W.2d 551— Barnhart
Mercantile Co. v. Bengal, Civ. App.,
77 S.W.2d 295.
89. La. — Derbes v. Rogers, 110 So.
84, 162 La. 49.
90. Tex. — Jennings Y« Texas Farm
Mortgage Co., 80 S.W.2d 931, 124
Tex. 593— Gibson T. Hicks, Civ.
A.pp., 47 S.W.2d 691, error refused
— National Casualty Co. v. Ma-
honey, Civ.App., 296 S.W. 335.
91. TLS3. — Degener v. Anderson, C.C.
A.N.Y., 77 F.2d 85-9.
La. — State ex rel. Porterie v. Gulf,
Mobile & Northern R. Co., -184 So.
711, 191 La. 163.
Mo. — State ex rel. Kansas City v.
School Dist. of Kansas City, 62
•S.W.2d 813, £3(3 Mo. 288.
Tex — Ostrom v. State, Civ.App., 88
S.W.2d 1084.
92. La. — Bruning v. City of New
Orleans, 115 So. 733, 165 La. 511.
Tex. — Dalton v. Davis, Com.App., 1
S.W.2d -571 — Martin v. Grogan-
Cochran Lumber Co., Civ. App., 176
S.W.2d 780— First State Bank in
Caldwell v. Stubbs, Civ.App., 48 S.
W.2d 446.
93. Cal. — Juranek v. Juranek, 84 P.
2d 195, 29 Cal.App.2d 276.
Conn. — Waterbury Trust Co. v. Por-
ter, 38 A.2d 598, 131 Conn. 206—
Zitkov v. Gorsky, 137 A. 751, 106
Conn. 287.
S.D. — Colteaux v. First Trust & Sav-
ings Bank, 218 N.W. 151, 52 S.D.
443.
Tex. — Norris y. •Stoneham, Civ.App.,
46 S.W.2d S63.
94« Kan. — Southern Kansas Stage
Lines Co. v. Webb, 41 P.2d 1025,
141 Kan. '476.
95. La. — Prudhome'v. Cedar Grove
Refining Co., App., 157 So. 158.
98. Ariz.— Price v. Sunfleld, 112 P.
2d 210, 57 Ariz. 142.
Ark, — Hunt v. Road Improvement
Dist. No. 12 of Woodruff County,
270 S.W. 961, 168 Ark. 266.
Colo. — Buchhalter v. Myers, 276 (P.
972, 85 Colo. 419.
Ga.— Ramey v. McCoy. 179 <3.E. 730,
DL80 Ga. 521.
111.— Kohler v. Kohler, 61 N.E.2d
687, 326 001. 105— Baxter v. Conti-
nental Illinois Nat. Bank & Trust
Co. of Chicago, 26 N.E.2d 179, 304
IlLApp. 117.
Kan. — Old (Peoples Home of Illinois
Conference of Methodist Episcopal
Church, Quincy, 111., v. Miltner, 89
P.2d 874, 149 Kan. 847.
Ky.— Braun v. ©naith, 178 S.W.2d
940, 297 Ky. 162— Key v. Hays,
166 e.W.2d 8*0, 292 Ky. 423—
Jameson v. Jameson, 133 S.W.2d
923, 280 Ky. 654— Berry v. Riess,
121 S.W.2d 942, 276 Ky. 114-<!hes-
apeake & O. Ry. Co. v. City of
Olive ECiU, 21 S.W.2d 127, 231 Ky. I
128
65— Rex Red Ash Coal Co. T.
Powers, 290 S.W. HO 61, 218 Ky. 93.
Mo. — Verdon v. Silvara, 274 S.W. 79,
308 Mo. 607,
N.T.— Claris v. Richards, 183 N.R
904, 260 N.T. 419.
Or. — City of (Portland v. Hurst, 28
P.2d 217, ,145 Or. 415— Robinson
v. Oregon City Sand & Gravel Co.,
20 OE>2d 1073, 143 Or. 177.
S.C.— Griggs v. Griggs, 19 S.B.2d
477, 199 S.C. 295.
S.D.— Hunt v. Dolphin, 223 N.W. 84,
54 3.D. 261.
Tex. — Neyland v. Brown, 170 S.W.Sd
207, 141 Tex. 253, modified on oth-
er grounds 172 S.W.2d 89, 141 Tex.
253 — Saner- Whit eman Lumber Co.
v. Texas & N. O. Ry. Co., Com.
App., 288 S.W. (127, rehearing de-
nied 288 S.W. 1068— Spradlin v.
Gibbs, Civ.App., 159 S.W.2d 246 —
International Order of Twelve
Knights and Daughters of Tabor
v. Fridia, Civ.App., 91 S.W.2d 404
— W. L. Moody Cotton Co. v. IPol-
ley, Civ.App., 66 S.W.2d 807— Card-
er v. Knippa Mercantile Co., Civ.
App., 1 S.W.2d 462, error dismiss-
ed—San Antonio Southern Ry. Co.
v. Burd, Civ.App., 246 -S.W. 1060,
modified on other grounds Burd
v. San Antonio Southern R. Co.,
Com.App., 261 S.W. 1021.
33 C.J. p 1139 note 52 [b], p 1151
note 17 [b], [c], 19 [a], p 1152
note 21 [a], [c].
97. Ky. — Commonwealth v. Kentuc-
ky Jockey Club, 58 S.W.Sd 987,
238 Ky. 7-39.
Tex.— Forman v. Barroti, Civ.App.,
120 S.W.2d 827, error refused.
Tort or contract see infra $ 5-3.
In rein or in. personam
An action in rem will not sup-
port a judgment in personam.
N.T.— Sturcke v. Link, 26 N.T.S.2d
7-48, 176 Misc. 93.
S.C. — Parker Peanut Co. v. Felder,
34 S.E.2d 488, 207 S.C. 63.
Aflsnmpsit; moneys had and received
Where an action in assumpsit
would not lie, judgment for plaintiff
could not be supported by count for
moneys had and received.-— Schweit-
zer v. Bank of America N. T. & S, A.,
109 P.2d 441, 42 Cal.App.2d 636.
Goods sold and delivered* indebita-
tos assunpsit
The fact that the declaration
sought to recover for goods sold and
delivered did not prevent recovery
in indebitatus assumpsit, where it
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 53
common law a judgment must be warranted by the
form of the action.98 Thus it has been held that a
judgment in debt is erroneous where the declara-
tion is in assumpsit" or in case,1 or in replevin;2
and similarly that, where the declaration is in debt,
a judgment in assumpsit8 or in damages4 is er-
roneous; but, by the practice of the majority of
states, a judgment in damages on a declaration in
debt will be good, the objection being merely techni-
cal,5 and, vice versa, a judgment entered in debt
instead of in damages is good.6 On a declaration in
trespass, a recovery in case has been permitted.7
In code states, the common-law forms of plead-
ing having been abolished, it is the duty of the
courts to give such judgment as the pleadings and
evidence warrant, without regard to the form or
name of the action.8
§ 53. Grounds of Action or Defense
As a general rule, a Judgment for a plaintiff must
be based on the cause of action which he has alleged,
and not on some theory Inconsistent with, or totally dif-
ferent from, that suggested in his pleading. Similarly,
a defendant ordinarily must prevail according to the case
made by his answer.
Relief to, or a recovery by, plaintiff must be
based on, and justified by, facts alleged in his plead-
ing.9 Unless defendant, by his silence or conduct,
has acquiesced in the trial of the new and different
cause of action on which the judgment proceeded,
as discussed supra § 50, a plaintiff ordinarily must
recover, if at all, on the cause of action which he
has alleged, and a judgment in his favor must be
based on the theory or ground of liability on which
in his pleadings he has placed his right to recover.10
also alleged that plaintiff paid out
money at defendant's request, which
was supported by the evidence intro-
duced.—Campbell v. Willis, 290 F.
271, 53 AppJXC. 296.
98. Minn.-— GervaJs v. Powers. 1
Minn. 45.
33 C.J. p 1155 note 48.
99. Ark.— Jones v. Robinson, 8 Ark.
484.
33 C.J. p 1155 note 49.
1. Ky. — Lynch v. Freeland, Ky.
Dec. 269.
2. R.I.— Warren v. Letter, 52 A. 76.
24 R.I. {36.
33 'C.J. p 1155 note 51.
3. Colo. — Anderson v. Sloan, 1 Colo.
484.
33 C.J. p 1155 note 52.
4. 111.— Ross v. Taylor, 68 111. 215.
33 C.J. p 1155 note 53.
5. Vt.— Carver v. Adams, 40 Vt. 552.
33 C.J. p 1156 note 54.
6. Ala.— iPerdue v. Burnett, Minor p
138.
Ky.— Jenkins v. Teates, 2 J.J.Marsh.
48.
7. Pa.— Miller v. Lehigh County. 5
Pa.Dist. 588.
33 C.J. p 1156 note 56.
8. U.S. — Lumbermen's Trust Co. v.
Town of Ryegate, C.OA.Mont., 61
F.2d 14.
Conn.— Makusevich v. Gotta, 13-9 A.
780, 107 Conn. 207.
Or.— Weith v. Klein, 2SS P. 902, 136
Or. 201.
Tex. — Dittmar v. Alamo Nat Co., 118
S.W.2d 298, 132 Tex. 44.
33 C.J. p 1156 note 57.
9. Ariz.— White v. Hamilton, 299 P.
124, 38 Ariz. 256— City of Yuma v.
English, 226 P. 531, 26 Ariz. 438.
Cal. — Bridge v. New Amsterdahi
Casualty Co., 19 'P.2d 76, 129
Cal.App, 35-5— Westervelt v. Mc-
Cullough, 228 P. 734, 68 CaLApp.
198— Imperial Water Co. No. 4 v
49 C. XS.-9
Meserve, 217 IP. 553, 62 CaI.App. j
603.
Conn.— Masterton v. Lenox Realty
Co., 15 A.2d 11, 127 Conn. 25—
Frosch v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.,
199 A* 646, 124 Conn. 300— <Maz-
ziottl v. Di Martino, 130 A. 844,
103 Conn. 491.
Ga. — Mendel v. Converse & Co., 118
S.E. 586, 30 Ga,App. 5*49.
Ind.— Indianapolis Real Estate
Board v. Willson, 187 N.E. 400, $8
Ind. App. 72.
Minn.— Hurr v. Davis, 198 N.W. 943,
155 Minn. 456, rehearing denied
194 N.W. 379, 155 Minn. 456, cer-
tiorari denied 44 S.Ct 36, 263 U.S.
709, 68 L.Ed.. 518, and error dis-
missed 45 S.Ct 227, 267 U.S. 572,
69 L.Ed. 794.
Mo. — Bragg v. Specialty Shoe (Ma-
chinery Co., 84 <S.W.2d 184, 225
Mo.App. 902.
Mont.— Kramlich v. Tullock, 277 P.
411, 84 Mont. 601.
N.Y.— Garflnkel & Steinberg Corpo-
ration v. Bandlers Sutphin, Inc.,
299 N.Y.-S. 536, 252 App.Div. 858
— Blackwell v. Glidden Co., 203
N.Y.S. 380, 208 App.Div. 317, af-
firmed 147 NJB. 188, 239 N.T. 5'45
— MacLeold v. Miller, 201 N.Y.S.
108.
N.C.— Barron v. Cain, 4 S.E.2d 618,
216 N.C. 282.
Tenn. — Polk v. Chattanooga Wagon
& Body Co., 2 Tenn.App. 415.
Tex.— Jackson v. Cloer, Civ. App., 9$
S.W.2d 353 — Smoot & Smoot v.
Nelson, Civ.App., 11 S.W.2d 578—
Hall v. First Nat Bank, Civ.App.,
252 S.W. 328, modified on other
grounds 254 S.W. 522.
Utah. — Stevens & Wallis v. Golden
Porphyry Mines Co., 18 P.24 303,
81 Utah 414.
33 O.J. P 1156 note 60, p 1157 note
61.
Cause or theory asserted in reply
(1) Ordinarily a judgment may
129
not be rendered on a cause of action
asserted in a reply.
Ky. — Hacker v. Clay County, 165 S.
W.2d 172, 291 Ky. 614.
Mo.— Regal Realty & Investment Co.
v. Gallagher, 188 S.W. 151.
33 C.J. p 1156 note 60 [d].
(2) Where plaintiff in his com- •
plaint sought recovery of land on
the theory that a deed to him was an
absolute .conveyance, and defendant
In his answer claimed that the deed
was in fact a mortgage, and, where
plaintiff in his reply sought foreclo-
sure' if the deed were found to be a
mortgage, it was held that a judg-
ment directing foreclosure was Jus-,
tified where the court found that the
deed was a mortgage. — Church v.
Brown, 272 P. 511, 150 Wash. 173.
New complaint
If court permits filing of new com-
plaint to conform to- proof, judgment
should relate to new pleading. — Bak-
ersfield Sandstone Brick Co. v. Cas-
cade Oil Co., 23 P.2d 423, 132 CaL
App. 633.
liability as indorser
Defendants could not be held as
indorsers on note where pleading
showed that action was not brought
on note. — Kern v. Henry, 31 P.2d 454,
138 CaLApp. 46.
10. U.S.— State Street Trust Co. v.
U. S., D.C.Mass., 37 F.Supp. 846.
affirmed, C.C.A., U. S. v. State
Street Trust Co., 124 !F.2d 948.
Ala. — Chandler v. Price, 15 So.M 462,
244 Ala. 667.
Ariz. — Jones v. Stanley, 233 P. 698,
27 Ariz. 381.
HI. — Wood v. Wood, App., -64 N.E.2d
385-^First Trust Joint Stock Land
Bank of Chicago v. Cutler, 12 N.E.
' 2d 705, 293 IlLApp. 354 — Streeter
y. .Humrichouse, 261 IlLApp. 556.
Ind. — City of Muncie v. Horlacher,
53 N.B.3d 631, 222 Ind.. 302.
La.— Hope v. Madison, 183 So. 711,
192 (La. 59$,
§ 53
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
Plaintiff cannot set up one cause of action in his
complaint and recover on proof of another and a
different cause of action; nor can he recover on
some theory not suggested in his declaration or com-
plaint.11 It is particularly true that recovery on
Me. — Morrison v. Union Park Ass'n,
149 A. 804, 129 Me. S8.
Minn. — Consumers' Grain Qo. v. Wm.
Lindeke Roller Mills, 190 N.W. 65,
153 Minn. 231.
Mo.— Pinet v. Pinet, App., 191 S.W.Sd
362 — Palmer v. Marshall, App., 2-4
S.W.2d 229.
N.Y. — Jno. Dunlop's "Sons v. Alpren,
212 N.Y.S. 307, 214 App.Div. 339—
Varda v. Lynch, 19-6 N.Y.S. 641,
203 App.Div. 53*9 — -Carroll v. Dryo-
lin Corporation, 45 N.Y.S.2d 77, 182
Misc. 260 — Rochester Poster Adv.
Co. T. Sm'lthers, 224 N.Y.'S. 711,
130 Misc. 676, reversed on other
grounds 231 N.Y.S. 315, 2'24 App.
Div. 435— Siegler v. Bischof, 53 N.
Y.S.2d 657— Kirkpatrick Home for
Childless Women v. Kenyon, 196
N.Y.S. 475, affirmed 199 N.Y.S. '851,
206 App.Div. 728.
N.C.— Balentine v. Gill, 11 S.E.2d 456,
218 N.C. 496— Wallace v. Wallace,
188 S.B. 96. 210 N.C. 656.
Ohio. — Thompson v. Thompson, 181
N.E. 272, 42 Ohio App. 164.
Pa.— In re Miller, Com.Pl., 32 Del.
'Co. 'Se*.
Tex. — Nu-Enamel Paint Co. of Texas
v. Culmore, Civ.App., T2 S.W.2d
390 — Tinsley v. Metzler, Civ. App.,
44 S.W.2d 820, error dismissed —
Gibbs v. Corbett, Civ.App., 292 S.
W. 260 — Superior Fire Ins. Co. v.
C. S. Lee Grain & Elevator Co.,
Civ.App., 261 S.W. 212— Trott v.
Flato, Civ.App., 244 S.W. 1085.
33 C.J. p 1157 note 62, p 1158 note
66, p 1159 note 67.
«
Estoppel
Where a complaint failed to allege
facts constituting1 an estoppel, a
Judgment on that ground cannot "be
upheld, whether a cause of action
could or could not have been main-
tained, had it been pleaded. — Gibral-
tar Realty Co. v. Security Trust Co.,
1.36 NiE. 636, 192 Ind. 502.
Pailnre of consideration,
In action by purchaser for rescis-
sion of contract, relief could not be
granted for failure of consideration
where such failure was not pleaded.
— Clancy v. Becker-Arbuckle-Wright
Corporation, 29 P.2d 868, 137 Cal.
App. 43.
Interest in land
Petition alleging an agreement to
purchase land and divide profits on
resale, but not alleging that plain-
tiff was to have any interest in the
land, would not support a judgment
for a portion of the land still un-
sold.— Carothers v. Creighton, Tex.
Civ.App., 101 S.W.Sd 631.
11. U.S. — Storm Waterproofing Cor-
poration v. Li. Sonneborn Sons, D.
CDel., 28 F.2d 115— Durabilt Steel
iLocker Co. v. Berger Mfg. Co., D.
O.0hio, 21 F.2d 139.
Colo. — Rio Grande Fuel Co. v. Col-
orado Central Power Co., 63 P.
2d 470, 99 Colo. 395.
Conn. — Conzelman v. City of Bristol,
188 A. -659, 122 Conn. 218.
Fla. — Gruber v. Cobey, 12 So.2d 461,
152 Fla. 591— Foye Tie & Timber
Co. v. Jackson, 97 So. 517, '86 Fla.
97.
Ga. — Southern Lumber Co. v. Ed-
wards, 117 S.E. 252, 30 Ga.App.
223.
111. — Jacksonville Hotel Bldg. Corpo-
ration v. Dunlap Hotel Co., 264 111,
App. 279, modified on other
grounds 183 N.E. 397, 550 111. 451.
Ind. — Gibraltar Realty Co. v. Se-
curity Trust Co., 136 N.E. 636, 192
Ind. '502 — Denney v. Peters, 10 N.
E.2d 7-54, 104 Ind.App. 504— Nes-
bitt v. Miller, 188 N.E. 702, 98 Ind.
App. 195.
Kan. — Harveyville State Bank v. Lee,
234 P. 982, 118 Kan. 269.
Ky.— Smith v. Collins, '251 S.W. 979,
199 Ky. T70.
Me. — Page v. Bourgon, 22 A.2d 577,
138 Me. 113.
Mo.— Smith v. Thompson, 161 'S.W.
2d 232, 349 Mo. 396— State ex rel.
Kennedy v. Remmers, 101 S.W.2d
70, 540 Mo. 126 — Zamora v. Wood-
men of the World Life Ins. Soc.,
App., 157 S.W.2d 601 — Wasson v.
Dow/ App., 251 S.W. 69.
Mont. — Outlook Farmers' Elevator
Co. v. American 'Surety Co. of New
York, 223 P. 905, 70 Mont. «.
N.Y. — Kew Gardens Corporation v.
Ciro's Plaza, 26 N.Y.S.2d 553, 2-61
App.Div. 5*76 — Douglass v. Wolcott
Storage & Ice Co., 295 N.Y.S. 675,
251 App.Div. 79 — Berger v. Eichler,
207 N.Y.S. 147, 211 App.Div. 479—
Security Bank of New York v.
Finkelstein, 145 N.Y.S. 5, 160 App.
Div. 315, affirmed 112 N.B. 1076,
217 N.Y. 707— Bernstein v. East
167th Street Corporation, 293 N.
Y.S. 109, 161 Misc. 836?— Rosen-
blum v. Pas Holding Corporation,
28 N.Y.S.2d '589.
Or. — McCann v. Oregon Scenic Trips
Co., 209 P. 483, 105 Or. 213, fol-
lowed in 'Smith v. Oregon Scenic
Trips Co., 209 P. 486, 10'5 Or, 222.
S.D. — Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v.
Frick, 245 N.W. 921, -61 S.D. 9.
Tex. — Johnson Aircrafts v. Wilborn,
Civ.App., 190 S.W.2d 426— City of
Temple v. Mitchell, Civ.App., 180
S.W.2d 959— City State Bank in
Wellington v. Wellington Inde-
pendent School Diet, Civ.App., 173
S.W.2d 738, affirmed 178 S.W.2d
114, 142 Tex. 344— Chamblin v.
Webb, Civ.App., 155 S.W.2d 676—
Strack v. Strong, Ctv.App., 114 S.
130
W.2d 313, error dismissed — Stuard
v. Vick, Civ.App., 9 S.W.2d 494,
error dismissed — Rockhold v.
Lucky Tiger Oil Co., Civ.App., 4
S.W.2d 1046, error dismissed —
American Law Book Co. v. Dykes,
Civ.App., 4 S.W.2d 630— First State
Bank of Wortham v. Bland, Civ.
App., 291 S.W. 650— C. A. Bryant
Co. v. Hamlin Independent School
Dist., Civ.App., 274 S.W. 266.
Wis. — Lee v. Pauly Motor Truck Co.,
190 N.W. '819, 179 Wis. 139.
33 C.J. p 1157 note 62, p 1159 note 67.
Public or private way
In a suit brought on the theory of
the existence of a private way, judg-
ment cannot be based on the theory
that the road or way was a public
one.
Cal.— Hare v. Craig, 276 P. 336, 206
Cal. 753.
Utah. — Thornley Land & Livestock
Co. v. Morgan Bros. Land & Live-
stock Cd, 17 P.2d '826, 81 Utah 817.
Contract as oral or written
(1) Judgment on wholly written
contract has no support in pleadings
declaring on partly written contract.
— C. A. Bryant Co. v. Hamlin Inde-
pendent School Dist., Civ.App., IS S.
W.2d 750, certified questions an-
swered 14 S.W.2d 53, 118 Tex. 255.
(2) In suit to recover for inter-
ference with contract, where plain-
tiff alleged a contract in writing,
plaintiff was not entitled to relief
for interference with an oral con-
tract collateral to written contract. —
Tompkins v. Sullivan, 48 N.E.2d 15,
313 Mass. 459.
Negligence; trespass
(1) Where the allegations and
trial are based exclusively on the
theory of negligence, recovery on a
ground other than negligence is not
permissible.
Conn. — Epstein v. City of New Ha-
ven, 132 A. 467, 104 Conn. 283.
N.Y. — Rock v. Radice Electric Co.,
223 N.Y.S. 659, 131 Misc. 51.
33 C.J. p 1158 note 66 [a] (1), (5),
C7), p 1159 note 67 [a] (2).
(2) A judgment based on negli-
gence is not supported by allega-
tions solely of trespass.
Mo.— Mawson v. Vess Beverage Co.,
App., 173 S.W.-2d 606.
Tex. — Michels v. Crouch, Civ.App.,
122 S.W.2d '211.
53 C.J. p 1159 note 67 [a] (10), (11).
ISTature of tenancy
Where plaintiffs alleged and trial
proceeded on theory that defendants
were hold-over tenants for one year,
it was error to grant judgment for
plaintiffs on ground that tenancy
was from month to month and that
proper notice of intention to quit
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
53
an inconsistent theory will not be permitted.12 In
some jurisdictions, however, a party is entitled to
any relief appropriate to the facts alleged and
proved, irrespective of the theory on which they
may be alleged j1* and the fact that a party has
pleaded an erroneous theory does not bar him from
recovering if the facts he has pleaded support a
proper theory of recovery.**
Proof of a different cause of action from that al-
leged in the declaration or 'complaint amounts to a
failure of proof, and is not a mere variance;15
but, where the substantial facts creating the liabili-
ty are alleged and proved, a recovery may be had,
although they are alleged inaccurately in detail, be-
cause this does not amount to a change of theory
or a recovery on grounds not alleged.16 Where re-
covery is sought on several grounds, a judgment
supported by one of the grounds is proper notwith-
standing the failure to establish the other grounds
of liability;17 but in such case the judgment must
be supported by all the elements of at least one of
the different grounds of recovery.18
Ordinarily defendant must prevail, if at all, ac-
cording to the case made by his answer ;19 but this
had not been given. — McAuley v.
Cresci, 19 N.Y.S.2d 221.
Recovery wider different statutory
provision,
(1) Plaintiff cannot sue on one
statute and sustain verdict Justifi-
able only on different statute. — Bat-
terton v. Pima County, 271 P. 720,
34 Ariz. 347.
(2) However, although facts
proved did not make out breach of
warranty under subdivision of stat-
ute on which plaintiff relied, but
made out breach of warranty under
another subdivision, plaintiff was
held entitled to judgment — Ryan v.
Progressive-Grocery Stores, 175 N.E.
105. 255 N.T. 3'88, 74 A.L.R. 339.
Retention of property
Buyer's complaint to recover price
of property after rescission for
breach .of warranty and offer to re-
turn did not authorize judgment
based on breach of warranty per-
mitting buyer to keep the property.
— Schmelzer v. Winegar, 216 N.Y.S.
507, 217 App.Div. 194.
12. Ark. — H. V. Beasley Music Co.
v. Cash, 262 S.W. 656, 164 Ark.
572.
Colo. — Cattell v. Denver State Bank,
225 P. 271, 75 Colo. 150.
N.Y.— Lunger v. New York Life Ins.
Co., 225 N.Y.S. 730, 131 Misc. 42.
33 C.J. p 1160 note 68.
Affirmance of contract
Where purchaser elected to affirm
contract and sued for damages for
breach, the court was without au-
thority to render judgment for can-
cellation of deed and a return of the
purchase price. — Freeman v. Ander-
son, Tex.Civ.App., 119 S.W.2d 1081.
Rescission; fraud
Decree for rescission of sale of
stock was unauthorized where pur-
chaser sued for damages for fraud.
— Bondurant v. Raven CJoal Co., Mo.
App., 25 S.W.2d 566.
Property as community or separate
Judgment for plaintiff on finding
that property awarded her was sep-
arate property required reversal,
where her pleadings alleged that it
was community property. — Bray v.
Bray, Tex.Civ.App., 1 S.W.2d 625.
13L CaL — Estrin v. Superior Court
in and for Sacramento County, 96
P.2d 340, 14 Cal.2d 670— Lucas v.
Assodacao Protectora Uniao Mad-
eirense Do Estado Da California,
143 P.2d 53, 61 Cal.App.2d 344—
Bank of America Nat Trust &
Savings Ass'n v. Casady, 59 P.2d
444, 15 Cal.App.2d 163— Lacey v.
McConnell, 48 P.2d 161, 9 Cal.App.
2d 6.
Accounting1
If plaintiff has a cause of action
of which court has jurisdiction, and
accounting is necessary to determine
his rights, accounting will be or-
dered " regardless of erroneous legal
theory on which the action is based.
— Nelson v. Abraham, CaLApp., 162
P.2d 833.
14. Cal.— Mannon v. Pesula, 139 P.
2d 336, 59 Cal.App.2d 597.
15» Wash. — McLachlan v. Gordon,
150 P. 441, 86 Wash. 282.
33 C.J. P 1158 note 64.
10. Va. — Lawson v. Conoway, 1-6 S.
E. 564, 37 W.Va, 159/18 L.R.A. G27,
35 Am.S.R. 17.
33 C.J. p 1160 note 69.
Actions on notes
(1) Judgment for plaintiff was
not erroneous on ground that plain-
tiff declared on promissory note £.nd
proved defendant Indebted on bills
of exchange. — ^tna Inv. Corporation
v. Barnes, Mo.App., 52 S.W.2d 221.
(2) Where complaint was based
on note given for money loaned, con-
tention that judgment was entered
for money loaned, and hence was im-
proper, was without merit. — Casset-
ta v. Bairaa, 288 P. 330, 106 CaLApp.
196.
17. Ala. — Robinson v. Solomon Bros.
Co., 155 So. 553, 229 Ala. 137.
Ind. — American Carloading Corpora-
tion v. Gary Trust & Savings
Bank, 25 N.E.2d 777, 216 Ind. 649.
y.— Peck v. Trail, 65 S.W.2d 83, 2-51
Ky. 377.
Wis. — Krier Preserving Co. v. West
Bend Heating & Lighting Co., 225
N.W. 200, 198 Wis. 595.
18. Tex.— West Texas Utilities Co.
131
v. Dunlap, Civ.App., 175 S.W.2d
749.
19. U.S. — El Dorado Terminal Co. v.
General American Tank Car Cor-
poration, C.C.A.Cal., 104 P.2d 903,
reversed on other grounds 60 S.Ct
325, 308 U.S. 422, 84 L.Ed. 361, re-
hearing denied 60 S.Ct 4-65, 309
U.S. 694, 84 L.Ed. 1035.
CaL— -Brown v. Sweet, 272 P. 614, 95
CaLApp. 117.
Ga. — Alliance Ins. Co. v. Williamson,
137 S.E. 277, 36 Ga.App. 497—
Stewart v. Hardin, 101 S.E. 716, 24
Ga.App. 611.
111. — Rosenthal v. Board of Educa-
tion of City of Chicago, 110 N.E.
579, 270 111. 380— Thulin v. Ander-
son, 154 Ill.App. 41.
Iowa. — Hornish v. Overton, 221 N.W.
483, 206 Iowa 780.
La. — Homes v. James Buckley & Co.,
116 So. 218, 165 La. 874.
Mass. — Shattuck v. Wood Memorial
Home, 66 .N.E.2d 568— Pollard v.
Ketterer, 108 N.B. 1086, 221 Mass.
317.
Mo.— Lebrecht v. New State Bank,
Woodward, OkL, 205 S.W. 273, 199
Mo.App. -642— White v. United
Brothers and Sisters of Mysteri-
ous Ten, App., 180 S.W. 406.
N.Y.— Marshall v. Sackett & Wil-
helms Co., 151 N.Y.S. 1045, 166
App.Div. 141— Continental Bank &
Trust Co. of New York v. Good-
ner, 49 N.Y.S.2d 747 — Junco v. La
Cabana, Inc., 20 N.Y.S.2S 781, af-
firmed 25 N.Y.S.2d 779, 261 App.
Div. 803.
Or.— Wolf v. Hougham, 12*5 P. 801,
62 Or. 264.
Pa. — Gliwa v. U. S. Steel Corpora-
tion, 185 A. $84, 322 Pa. 225, cer-
tiorari denied 57 S.Ct 117, 299
U.S. 593, 81 L.Ed. 437— McCormick
v. Harris, 196 A. 885, 130 Pa.Super.
175.
Tex. — Dashiel v. Lott, Com.App., 243
S.W. 1072— Ohastain v. Gilbert,
Civ.App., 145 S.W.Sd 938— Wardy
v. Casner, Civ.App., 108 S.W.2d 772,~
error dismissed— Sproles v. Rosen,
Civ.App., 47 S.W.2d 331, affirmed 84
S.W.2d 1001, 126 Tex. 51— Bennett
V. Giles, Civ.App.f 12 S.W.2d 843—
§ 53
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
is not unqualifiedly true,20 and, where the burden of
proof is on plaintiff, defendant is entitled to take
advantage of a failure of proof, regardless of the
pleadings.21
Tort or contract. A pleading sounding in tort
will not support a judgment based on a contract,22
and conversely, under a pleading on a caiise of ac-
tion sounding in contract, a recovery as for a tort
is erroneous.2* it has been held that these rules
have not been changed by code provisions;24 but
it has also been held that, under statutes abolish-
ing forms of action and requiring that merits only
shall be considered, recovery may be had in con-
. tract, if the allegations and proof support such a
right, although the declaration sounds in tort.25
Where a pleading sets forth two causes of action,
one in contract and the other in tort, and defendant
has not requested a separation of the causes, plain-
Oscar v. Sackville, Civ.App., 253
'S.W. 651.
33 C.J. p 1161 note 75.
Failure of consideration; fraud
Where defense pleaded in an ac-
tion on contract was failure of con-
sideration, but case was submitted
to jury on theory of fraudulent rep-
resentations whereby defendant was
fraudulently induced to execute con-
tract sued on, judgment for defend-
ant could not stand.— Chamblin^v.
Webb, Tex.Civ.App., 155 S.W.2d 676.
Bight of way
In action to Quiet title to land en-
cumbered with right of way, judg-
ment for designated defendants
could not be sustained on ground
that suit established way of neces-
sity, where such right was not al-
leged or adjudicated.— Bertolina v.
Frates, 57 P.2d 346, 89 Utah 238.
Deduction of premium
Insurer, defending on single the-
ory that policy was void, was not en-
titled to deduction for unpaid premi-
um—Masson v. New England Mut.
Life Ins. Co., 260 P. 367, 85 CaLApp.
633.
go, K.Y.— Whiting v. Glass, 111
IB. 1082, 217 N.Y. 335.
33 'C.J. p H61 note 76.
Inability to plead laches
Where the theory that plaintiff's
case was based on fraud was flrsi
disclosed by his reply and was noi
indicated by the complaint so that
defendant could not plead laches, al-
though he was entitled to do so, de-
fendant was nevertheless entitled to
insist on such defense if there was
evidence to support it.— -Crosby v
Bobbins, 182 P. 12-2, 66 Mont. 179.
21. Wash.— Easter v. Hall, 40 P
728, 12 Wash. 160.
33 C.J. P H61 n°te 77.
tiff may recover on either one which he may
prove,2* although he may not recover on both.27
General and special assumpsit. Plaintiffs who
sue on a special or express contract ordinarily can-
not recover on an implied contract, such as a quan-
tum meruit, and vice versa,28 although in some cas-
es such recovery has been permitted.29 Where the
declaration or complaint contains counts or allega-
tions seeking recovery on an implied contract apart
from the special contract, a recovery thereon may
be had.80 Under the common counts no recovery
may be had for breach of a special contract.31
Legal or equitable. Under codes and practice acts
it has frequently been made the duty of the court
to grant such relief as the complaint and the proof
thereunder show plaintiff entitled to receive, with-
out any distinction between law and equity.32 The
relief granted, however, must nevertheless be con-
sistent with the case made by the complaint.33 If
Recovery Held proper
A contract to act as defendant's
business agent, although not con-
templating lawsuits, necessarily in-
cluded services in connection there-
with if necessary, as in procuring
witnesses, and hence recovery for
such services was on the express
contract pleaded aJid not on an im-
plied contract — Crawford's Adm'r v.
Ross, 186 S.W.2d 797, -299 Ky. 664.
22. U.S.-^Tohnston v. Venturing C.
€.A.Pa., -294 P. S3 6.
Tex.— Joe B. Winslett, Inc. v. City
of Hamlin, Civ.App., "56 S.W.2d
237— McFaddin v. Sims, 97 S.W.
335, 45 Tex.Civ.App. 598.
33 C.J. p 1161 note 73.
Fraud
Judgment cannot be rendered as
on contract or in assumpsit where
the complaint is in fraud. .
Mich. — Barber v. Kolowich, 277 N.
W. 189, 283 Mich. 97.
N.Y.— Smith v. Cohen, 175 N.E. 361,
'256 N.Y. 33.
33 C.J. p 1161 note 78 [b].
Conversion
Plaintiff electing to sue In con
version could not recover in as-
sumpsit for money had and received.
— Maxol Syndicate v. N. T. Hege-
man Co., 245 N.Y.S. 99, 158 Misc.
179.
23. Tex._joe B. Winslett, Inc. v.
City of Hamlin, Civ.App., 56 S.W.
2d 237.
33 C.J. p 1161 note 79.
24. N.Y.— Degraw v. Elmore, 50 N
Y. 1.
33 C.J. P H62 note 80.
25. Miss.^Southeastern Exp. Co. v
Namie, 181 So. 515, 182 Miss. 447
23. Colo.— Erisman v. McCarty, 236
P. ?77, 77 Colo. 289.
27. Colo. — Erisman v. McCarty, su-
pra.
281 Ind. — Indianapolis Real Estat
Board v. Willson, 187 N.E. 400, 9
Ind.App. 72.
Me. — Dufour v. Stebbins, 145 A. 893
128 Me. 133.
N.Y.-^Sears v. Hetfield, 221 N.Y.S
494, 220 App.Div. 725.
33 C.J. p 1160 note 70.
29. CaL— Warder v. Hutchison, 231
P. 563, 69 CaLApp. 291,
33 C.J. P 1161 note 71.
30. S.C.— Cleveland v. Butler, 78 S.
E. SI, 94 S.C. 406.
! -C.J. p 1161 note T2.
31. Mich.— £5ook v. Bade, 158 N.W.
175, 191 Mich. 561.
53 C.J. p 11-61 note 73.
32. Cal.— Waters v. Woods, 42 P.2d
1072, 5 Cal.App.2d 483— Arbucklo
v. Clifford F. Reid, Inc., 4 P.2d 978,
118 CaLApp. 272.
Okl. — Fernow v. Gubser, 162 P.2d
529 — Owens v. Purdy, 217 P. 425,
90 Okl. 2'56.
33 C.J. p 1162 note 83.
Enforcement of legal right* accord.
Ing to rules of law
Where, although plaintiff asks
equitable relief, he alleges and
proves only such facts as entitle him
to strict legal rights, court will en-
force his legal rights, but only ac-
cording to strict rules of law. —
Grant v. Hart, 14 S.B.2d 860, 192 Ga.
153.
33. MO.— Congregation B'Nai Abra-
ham v. Arky, 20 S.W.2d 1899, 323
Mo. '776— Bragg v. Specialty Shoe
Machinery Co., 54 S.W.2d 1*4, 225
Mo.App. 90*2.
33 C.J. p 1162 note 84.
132
49 G.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
|54
the complaint is framed solely for equitable relief,
even under the code, where the same court admin-
isters both systems of law and equity, the party
must maintain his equitable action on equitable
grounds or fail, even though he may prove a good
cause of action at law on the trial84 Averment
of an equitable cause of action and proof of only
a legal cause of action has been held to be a vari-
ance amounting to a failure of proof;85 but, where
an equitable cause of action is established, the judg-
ment may award legal relief, as for example, by
way of damages, in lieu of equitable relief which
in the particular case is impracticable or inequita-
ble.86 Where the facts alleged will support either
legal or equitable relief, or both,8? or where, by ac-
quiescence and failure to object, the issues have
been broadened so as to include the legal cause of
action,88 a judgment on the legal cause of action
is proper, although the equity fails. Where the
complaint alleges only a cause of action at law,
and the proof fails to establish the cause of ac-
tion alleged, equitable relief ordinarily will not be
awarded, although it appears that plaintiff would
be entitled thereto on a properly framed com-
plaint;89 but equitable relief may be granted, al-
though only legal relief is prayed, where both the
allegations and the proofs show that plaintiff is en-
titled to equitable relief.40
§ 54. Amount of Recovery
a. In general
b. Interest
a. In General
The judgment must conform to the pleadings and
proof with respect to the amount of the recovery, al-
though a recovery for more than the sum demanded may
be proper where permitted by statute, or where by con-
sent of the parties the pleadings have been enlarged by
the evidence. An excessive judgment, although erro-
neous and subject to correction, Is not on that account
void.
In amount, as in other respects, a judgment must
conform to, and be supported by, the pleadings41
and the proof.42 A judgment for more than the
34. Or. — McCann v. Oregon Scenic
Trips Co., 209 P. 483, 105 Or. 213,
followed in Smith v. Oregon Scenic
Trips Co., 209 P. 486, 105 Or. 222.
33 C.J. p 1162 note 85.
35. N.Y.-- Jackson v. Strong 118 N.
E. 512, 222 N.T. 149.
33 C.J. p 1163 note 86.
36. 111.— Stella v. Mosele, 27 N.B.
2d 559, 305 111. App. 577,
33 C.J. p 1163 note 87.
Retention of jurisdiction by equity
to afford legal relief see Equity §
69.
37. U.S. — Hagar v. Townsend, C.C.
N.T., $7 •P. 433, affirmed 72 Fed.
949, 19 C.C.A. 256.
33 C.J. p 1163 note 89.
38. N.Y. — Fairchild v. -Lynch, 42 N.
Y Super. 265.
33 C.J. p 1163 note 90.
Issues broadened by consent see su-
pra $50.
39. N.C.— McParland v. Cornwell, 66
S.E/454, 1-51 N.C. 42'8.
33 C.J. p 1163 note 92.
40. N.Y.— Hale T. Omaha Nat. Bank,
49 N.Y. 626.
33 C.J. p 1163 note 93.
41. Ky. — Asher v. Pioneer Coal Co.,
283 S.W. 954, 214 Ky. 505.
La. — Ethrldge-Atkins Corporation v.
Abraham, App., 160 So. 817— Unity
Plan Finance Co., v. Green, App.,
148 So. 297, annulled on other
grounds 151 So. 85, reversed on
other grounds 155 So. 900, 179
La. 1070 — Bird v. Johnson, 133 So.
516, 16 La.Ajpp. 155.
N.Y. — Universal Steel Export Co. v.
N. & G. Taylor Co., 203 N.Y.& 331,
'208 App.Div. 308, affirmed 147 N.E.
209, 239 N.Y. '594.
N.C. — Corpus Juris quoted in Slmms
v. Sampson, 20 S.E.2d 554, 559,
221 N.C. 379.
Pa. — Zuber v. Rinko, Com.Pl., 10 Sch.
Reg. 159. • .
Tex.— New York Life Ins. Co. v. Eng-
lish, 72 S.W. 58, 9-6 Tex. 268—
Kaufman Oil Mill v. Republic Nat.
Bank & Trust Co., Civ. App., 43 S.
W.2d 269.
33 C.J. p 1163 note 95.
Absence of issue limiting- plaintiffs'
interest
Where defendant had withdrawn
an answer alleging- as a pro tanto
defense that the two plaintiffs were
not the only heirs of the ancestor
under whom they claimed, without re-
iterating- that allegation in the
amended answer, the court, on find-
ing for plaintiffs, properly adjudged
them to be the owners of the entire
interest in the property involved,
since there was no Issue limiting
their interest— Asher v. Gibson, 248
S.W. 862, 198 Ky. 285.
m partition
(1) As a general rule plaintiff
should not be awarded a greater
share of the property than he claims.
— Carr v. Langford, Civ. App., 144 "S.
W.2d 612, affirmed Langford v. Carr,
159 S.W.2d 10*7, 138 Tex. 330 — 47 C.
J. p 430 note 66.
(2) However, the fact that com-
plainant alleges himself to be enti-
tled to a smaller interest in the lands
than that to which he is really enti-
tled under the facts alleged by him
has been held to be no bar to a de-
cree vesting in him his proper share.
133
Ky. — King v. Middlesborough Town-
lands Co., 50 S.W. 37, 106 Ky. 73,
20 Ky.L. 1859, rehearing denied
and opinion extended 106 Ky. 73,
50 S.W. 1108, 20 Ky.L. 1859.
N.Y.— Lamb v. Lamb, 14 N.Y.S. 206,
affirmed -30 N.E. 133, 131 N.Y. 227.
Reservation, of issue for further de-
termination
Where determination of lessors'
liability for sublessee's trespass was
reserved for further adjudication,
amount of lessors' liability was not
limited by amount sought in origi-
nal and amended petition. — Davis v.
Kentland Coal & Coke Co., 57 S.W.
2d 542, 247 Ky. 642.
Judgments held proper
Conn. — Winsor v. Hawkins, 37 A.2d
222, 130 Conn. 669.
Tex. — Shropshire v. Jones, Civ.App.,
129 S.W.2d 4SO— Hill v. Willett
Civ.App., 281 S.W. 1110 — Decatur
[Land, Loan & Abstract Co. v. Rut-
land, Civ.App.f 185 S.W. 1064.
42. N.C. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Simms v. Sampson, 20 S.E.2d 554,
559, 221 N.C. 379.
Tex. — Zaunbrecher v. Trim, Civ.
App., 31 S.W.2d *839 — Fidelity Un-
ion Fire Ins. Co. v. Barnes, Civ.
App., 293 S.W. 279.
W.Va, — De Stubner v. United Carbon
Co., 28 S.B.2d 59-3, 126 W.Va, 3«63.
33 C.J. p 1164 note 96.
Erroneous basis of value
Judgment In amount based on
price contended for by neither par-
ty to action for balance due on mer-
chandise sold at price to be fixed on
future date was erroneous, legal
rights of parties and interest of pub-
lic at large demanding finding on
i 54
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
.mount admitted or established to be due cannot
tand.43 Ordinarily a judgment cannot properly be
•endered for a greater sum, whether by way of debt
>r damages, than is claimed or demanded by plain-
tiff in his declaration or complaint,44 plus, as dis-
cussed infra subdivision b of this section, interest
in proper cases, and costs,45 notwithstanding the ev-
idence may prove a greater debt or a greater
)asls of value in keeping- with con-
;ention of one side or other. — Max-
yell Planting Co. v. A. P. Loveman
& Co., 102 So. 45. 212 Ala. 228.
Rents or damages
(1) A judgment awarding rents
3r substantial damages in an action
Df ejectment should be based on
testimony as to their value. — Hahn v.
Cotton, 37 S.W. 919, 136 Mo. 216—
19 C.J. p 1240 note IB.
(2) However, in some jurisdic-
tions, it seems, no further proof is
required, where an allegation of, and
claim for, damages in a verified com-
plaint is not controverted. — Patter-
son v. Ely, 19 Cal. 28.
43. Cal. — King v. San Jose Keystone
Mining Co., 127 P.2d 286, 53 Cal.
App.2d 40 — Robinson v. Arthur R.
Lindburg, Inc., 3'5 P.2d 1057, 140
Cal. App. 669.
Ga. — Fred Didschuneit &. Son v.
Enochs -Lumber & Mfg. Co., 156 S.
B. 720, 42 Ga.App. 527.
Ky.— Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of
U. S. v. Austin, 72 S.W.2d 716, 255
Ky. 23.
Mo. — Hecker v. Bleish, 3 S.W.2d 1008,
319 Mo. 149— Vogt v. United Rys.
'•Co. of St. Louis, App.f 251 S.W.
416.
N.Y. — Nassau Suffolk Lumber & Sup-
ply Corporation v. Bruce, '3'8 N.Y.
S.2d 75, 265 App.Div. 879, appeal
denied 39 N.Y.S.2d 618, 2-65 App.
Div. 1002.
N.C. — Corpus Juris quoted in Simms
v. Sampson, 20 S.E.2d 554, 559,
221 N.C. 379.
Or. — Olds v. Von der Hellen. 270 P.
497, 127 Or. 276.
Tex. — Leftwich v. Summers, Civ.
App., 89 S.W.2d 1091— Southwest-
ern Bell Telephone Co. v. Burris,
Civ.App., 68 S.W.2d 542.
Wash.— Babare v. Rodman, 226 P.
1015, 130 Wash. 317.
33 C.J. p 1164 note 97—19 C.J. p 1240
note 16.
Agreed valuation
Where the agreed valuation of loss
of goods sustained by a shipper was
a certain amount, it was error to en-
ter judgment for a larger amount. —
Lancaster v. Houghton, Tex.Civ.App.,
249 S.W. 1103, error dismissed 45
S.Ct. 194, 266 U.S. 590, 69 L.Ed. 456.
Mortgage as security for future
debts
In absence of proof of agreement
to 'make the mortgage security for
debts subsequently contracted, in
awarding decree for amount of the
mortgage only there was no error. —
Hoy v. Biladeau, 223 P. 241, 110 Or.
591.
Judgments held not excessive
Cal. — Estrin v. Fromsky, 12'7 P.2d
603, '0*3 Cal.App.2d 253— Du Pont v.
Allen, 294 P. 409, 110 CaLApp. -541.
111. — Simpson v. Heberlein, 259 111.
App. -579.
Tenn.— Gore v. McDaid, 178 S.W.2d
221, 27 Tenn.App. 111.
Tex.— Dallas Coffin Co. v. Roach, Civ.
App., 93 S.W.2d 548, error dis-
missed— Stephens v. Reik, Civ.
App., 247 S.W. 627.
44. U.S. — Williamson v. Chicago
Mill & Lumber Corporation, C.C.A.
Ark., 59 F.2d 918— Brown v. Minn-
gas Co., D.C.Minn., 51 F.Supp. 363.
Ala. — Wyatt v. Drennen Motor Co.,
125 So. -649, 220 Ala. 413— Gowan
v. Wisconsin- Alabama Lumber Co.,
110 So. 31, 215 Ala. 231.
Cal. — Merced Irr. Dist. v. San Joa-
quin Light & Power Corporation,
29 P.2d 843, 220 Cal. 196— Corpus
Juris quoted in Meisner v. Mcln-
tosh, 269 P. 612, 205 Cal. 11— Frost
v. Mighetto, 71 P.2d 932, 22 CaL
App.2d 612 — Monterey Park Com-
mercial & 'Savings Bank v. Bank of
Hollywood, 13 P.2d 976, 125 'Cal.
App. 402 — Adjustment Corporation
v. Marco, 279 P. 1006, 100 CaLApp.
•338 — Capitol Woolen Co. v. Berger,
262 P. 351, 87 CaLApp. 500.
111.— Klatz v. Pfeffer, 164 N.E. 224,
333 I1L 90— Shealy v. Schwerin, 46
N.E.2d 184, 317 111. App. 375— Burns
v. Kaylor, 264 IlLApp. 469.
Ky.— Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New
York v. Breathitt County, 123 S.
W.2d 250, 276 Ky. 173.
La,— Reimers v. Hebert, 111 So. 91,
162 La. 772— Cuba v. iLykes Broth-
ers-Ripley S. S. Co., App., 193 So.
411 — Huff v. Fitzsimmons, 132 So.
257, 15 La.App. 441.
Miss.— Watkins v. Blass, 145 So. 348,
1-64 Miss. 325.
Mont. — Clifton, Applegate & Toole v.
Big Lake Drain Dist. No. 1, Still-
water County, 267 P. 207, '82 Mont.
312— Harbolt v. Hensen, 253 P. 257,
•78 Mont. 228.
Nev. — Donohue v. Pioche Mines Co.,
277 P. 980, Si Nev. 403, rehearing
denied 279 P. 759, 51 Nev. 402.
N,J. — Goldberger v. City of Perth
Amboy, 197 A. 267, 16 N.J.Misc. 84
— Bozza v. Leonardis, 131 A. 27,
3 N.J.Misc. 1186.
N.Y. — Cavagnaro v. Bowman, 34 N.
Y.S.2d 637, 264 App.Div. 118, ap-
peal denied 36 N.Y.S.2d 187, 264
App.Div. 853 — Smith v. Dairymen's
League "Co-op. Ass'n, 58 N.Y.S.2d
376.
Or. — Leonard v. Bennett, 106 P.2d
542, 165 Or. 157— Haberly v. Farm-
ers' Mut Fire Relief Ass'n, 293 P.
134
590, 135 Or. 32, rehearing denied
294 P. 594, 135 Or. 32.
Pa. — Porter v. Zeuger Milk Co., 7 A.
2d 77, 136 Pa.Super. 48.
Tenn. — Mullins v. Greenwood, 6
Tenn.App. 327.
Tex. — Denman v. Stuart, 17-6 S.W.2d
730, 142 Tex. 129— Savage Oil Co.*
v. Johnson, Civ.App., 141 S.W.2d
994, error dismissed, judgment cor-
rect— Federal Underwriters Ex-
change v. Popnoe, Civ.App., 140 S.
W.2d 484, error dismissed — Dallas
Ry. & Terminal Co. v. Wells, Civ.
App., 60 S.W.2d 485, error refused
— Bell v. Beckum, Qiv.App., 44 S.
W.2d 389 — Dalton v. Realty Trust
Co., Civ.App., 13 S.W.2d 398 — Os-
ceola Oil Co. v. Stewart Drilling
Co., ' Civ.App., 246 S.W. 698, re-
versed on other grounds, Com.App.,
258 S.W. 806.
Wis.— In re Kehl's Estate, 254 N.W.
639, 21'5 Wis. 353.
19 C.J. p 1240 note 1€— 33 C.J. p 1164
note 1—42 'C.J. p 1300 note 83.
Double indemnity
Where an insurance policy pro-
vides for the payment of a double in-
demnity for injuries sustained under
specified conditions, the double In-
demnity cannot be recovered unless
specially claimed in the complaint. —
Crowder v. Continental Casualty Co.,
91 'S.W. 1016, 115 Mo.App. -535.
•Cumulative recovery
(1) In a suit on a contract for
cutting and loading timber, where
plaintiffs alleged that they were to
pay the expense out of their profits,
a recovery of both profits and ex-
penses was erroneous as cumulative.
— Branson v. Hamilton Ridge Lum-
ber Corporation, 115 S.B. 624, 122 S.
C. 436.
(2) In proceeding under writ of
seizure, where judgment is taken for
amount sued for with interest, and
property seized was valued in judg-
ment at such amount, rendering fur-
ther judgment for damages for de-
preciation of property was error. —
Willsford v. Meyer-Kiser Corpora-
tion, 104 So. 29'3, 139 Miss. 387.
45. Tex. — Christian v. Parmer
County, Civ.App., 293 S.W. 234.
33 C.J. p 1166 note 3.
Absence of specific claim for costs
(1) The costs that are properly
recovered as such in the judgment
as an incident to the main adjudica-
tion are ordinarily not required to
be specifically claimed in the plead-
ings.— State v. Barrs, 99 So. 668, -87
Fla. 1-68.
(2) A statutory allowance as
costs may be included in the judg-
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 54
amount of damage than was alleged by plaintiff.46
A judgment for more than the amount originally
claimed or demanded, however, may be proper
where by consent or without objection of the par-
ties the pleadings are enlarged by the evidence and
are deemed amended so as to conform to the testi-
mony;47 and, where the averment of the amount of
damages is deemed immaterial or surplusage, the
judgment may exceed the damages claimed.48 Fur-
ther, under some statutory provisions, where de-
fendant has appeared and answered, the amount of
the judgment may be greater than the sum demand-
ed, should the case justify it.49 A judgment which
includes an item of damages not within the issues
raised by the pleadings50 or established by the evi-
dence51 is erroneous. Where a bill of particulars
is filed, a recovery is in general limited by the
amount therein specified.52
The validity of a judgment usually is not affected
by the mere fact that recovery is for a sum less
than the claim originally asserted.5^ Thus single
damages are recoverable, although the declaration
ment, although not claimed in the
declaration. — Paddock v. Missouri
Pac. R. Co., 60 Mo.App. 328.
Costs held improper
(1) Plaintiff, in action to fore-
close land contract, who prayed for
possession and foreclosure of de-
fendant's rights and for "such other
and equitable relief as may be just
and equitable/' was held under stat-
ute not entitled to recover costs of
defendant who put in appearance but
made no defense. — Doolittle v. High-
lands Sheep Co., 200 N.W. 381, 184
Wis. 625.
(2) In suit to set aside deed,
court erred in taxing costs against
defendant, although plaintiff recov-
ered a money judgment, where such
judgment was proved solely by con-
cessions of defendant as a witness,
no costs were incurred therein, no
claim had been made for it in peti-
tion, and no dispute had existed be-
tween parties over it— Dunning v.
Benson, 204 N.W. 260, 200 Iowa 121.
46. Cal.— Brown v. Ball, 12 P.2d 28,
123 Cal.ApD. 758;
La, — Vincent *v. Cooper, App., 24 So.
2d 503— Nona Mills Co. v. W. W.
Gary Lumber Co., App., 127 So.
425, annulled 132 So. 257, 15 La.
App. 560.
S.C. — Carolina Veneer & Lumber Co.
v.- American Mut Liability Ins.
Co., 24 S.E.2d 153, 202 S.C. 103.
Tex. — Hartford Accident & Indemni-
ty Co. v. MQpre, Civ.App., 102 S.
W.2d. 441, error refused — Traders
& General Ins. Co. v. Lincecum,
Civ.App., 81 S.W.2d 549, reversed
on other grounds 107 S.W.2d 585,
130 Tex. 220.
33 C.J. p 1166 note 5.
47. CaL— Yule v. Miller, 252 P. 733,
80 CaLApp. 609.
La.— Ethridge-Atkins Corporation v.
Abraham, App., 160 So. 817.
Tex. — Foxworth-Galbraith Lumber
Co. v. Southwestern Contracting!
Corporation, Civ.App., 165 S.W.2d
221, error refused.
Issues broadened by consent see su-
pra § 50.
43. Mont — Loeb v. Kamak, 1 Mont*
152.
33 C.J. p 1166 note 4.
49. Idaho. — Berg v. Aumock, 59 P.
2d 726, 56 Idaho 798.
Mo. — Bieser v. Woods, 150 S.W.2d
524, 236 Mo. App. 126, transferred,
see 147 S.W.2d 656, 347 Mo. 437.
Wis.^-City of Wauwatosa v. Union
Free High School Dist. of Town
and City of Wauwatosa, 2-52 N.W.
351, 214 Wis. 35.
33 C.J. p 1166 note 10.
Limitation of default judgment to
amount demanded see infra § 214.
Amendment increasing amount
Where, in an action on a policy,
plaintiff filed an amended petition
increasing the original amount sued
for, it was held not error to permit
recovery in the increased amount,
defendant having admitted that
plaintiff's claim amounted to such
sum. — Investors' Mortg. Co. v. Ma-
rine & Motor Ins. Co. of America,
99 So. 486, 155 La. 627.
Statutory double damages
In an action brought under a stat-
ute allowing double damages, where
plaintiff alleges that he has been
damaged in a certain amount for
which he asks judgment and for all
other and proper relief according to
the statute, the court may render
judgment for double the actual dam-
ages assessed by the jury, although
there was no formal prayer in the
complaint for double damages. — Car-
penter v. Chicago & A. R. Co., 95 S.
W. 985, 119 Mo.App. 204.
In California
(1) The supreme court has held
that recovery in excess of the
amount demanded in the complaint
is unauthorized, although an answer
has been filed. — Meisner v. Mcln-
tosh, 269 -P. 612, 205 Cal. 11.
(2) However, there is some lower
court authority holding that a judg-
ment in excess of the amount de-
manded is not erroneous where an
answer has been filed. — McKesson v.
Itepp, 217 P. 802, 62 CaLApp. 619 —
Kimball v. Swenson, 196 P. 781, 51
CaLApp. 361.
(3) Amount erroneously demanded
in cross complaint was held immate-
rial, where relief granted was con
s .s tent with law and embraced with* I
135
in issues. — Du Pont v. Allen, 294 OP.
409, 110 CaLApp. 541.
50. Idaho. — Independent School
Dist. No. 22 of Washington Coun-
ty v. Weiser Nat. Bank, 263 P.
997, 45 Idaho 554.
Ky, — Johnson v. Bngle, 67 S.W.2d
938, 252 Ky. 634.
Mo. — Zweifel v. Lee-Schermen Real-
ty Co., App., 173 S.W.2d 690.
Okl. — Electrical Research Products
v. Haniotis Bros., <39 P.2d 42, 170
Okl. 150.
Tex. — Albaugh-Wright Lumber Co.
v. Henderson, Civ.App., 33 S.W.2d
228.
Particular items held not allowable
(1) Loss of rent. — Love v. Nash-
ville Agr. & Normal Inst, 6 Tenn.
App. 104.
(2) Uncollected premiums. — Fidel-
ity-Phenix Fire Ins. Co. of New
York v. Jackson, 181 S.W.2d 625, 181
Tenn. 453.
(3) Market value of accessories. —
Brooks -Supply Co. v. First State
Bank of Blectra, Tex.Civ.App., 292
S.W. 631.
51. Mo. — Zweifel v. Lee-Schermen
Realty Co., App., 173 -S.W.2d 690.
52. Fla.— Florida East Coast Ry.
Co. v. Acheson, 140 So. 467, 102
Fla, 15, certiorari denied 52 S.Ct.
407, 285 U.S. 551, 76 L.Ed. 941.
111.— McNeff v. White Eagle Brewing
Co., 13 N.E.2d 493, 294 Ill.App.
37.
33 C.J. p 1166 note 8.
53. Ala. — Jones v. Belue, 200 So.
886, 241 Ala. 22.
Cal. — Marsh v. Arch Rib Truss Co.,
133 P.2d 412, 56 Cal. App. 2 d 811.
111. — Yellow Cab Co. v. Newberry
Library, 252 IlLApp. 5 84.
Recovery for partial loss
Recovery may be had for a par-
tial insurance loss, although the dec-
laration claims for a total loss and
there is no proof of an abandonment.
—Watson v. Insurance Co. of North
America, 4 Dall., Pa,, 283, 1 L.Ed.
835.
Recovery pro tanto
Where part of charge set forth
in the declaration and proved shows
•ight of fiction, plaintiff is entitled
_o recover pro tanto. — Pickett v.
§ 54
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
or complaint improperly claims treble damages tin-
der a statute.54 A judgment for less than the prcv>f
requires, however, is erroneous,55 and, where plain-
tiff is entitled to the entire amount sued for or
else to nothing at all, a judgment for a part only
is erroneous.56
Ad damnum clause. According to some authori-
ties, the amount of recovery is limited by the ad
damnum clause of the pleading.57 According to
others, a judgment for the amount shown due by the
declaration or petition may be given, although it is
greater than the damages laid in the ad damnum
clause proper.5* Where the judgment is greater
than the amount shown due by the pleading, it is
erroneous, although within the amount laid in the
ad damnum clause.59
Attorney's fees. An allowance of attorney's fees
must be supported by the pleadings60 and proof.61
Even where an allowance for attorney's fees is
proper, the allowance should not be in excess of
the amount demanded or prayed,62 and in any event,
where attorney's fees are not involved in the action
or embraced by the pleadings, the judgment should
not award as such fees more than the amount re-
quired to be taxed as costs.63
Installment payments. In a suit on an obligation
payable in installments, a judgment awarding re-
covery for installments falling due between the
filing of the suit and the date of the judgment must
be supported by the pleadings ;64 but, under appro-
priate pleadings, the inclusion of such installments
in the judgment has been held proper.65
Set-off or counterclaim. In the absence of an
agreement by the parties,66 the court should not
allow set-offs, credits, or deductions because of
matters not pleaded or litigated.67 The amount of
a set-off or counterclaim asserted by defendant can-
not exceed that set forth or claimed in his plead-
Kuchan, 1A8 N.E. 667, 323 111. 138,
49 A.L.R. 499.
54. Colo. — Cramer v. Oppenstein, 27
P. 713, 16 Colo. 495.
33 C.J. p 1166 note 12.
55. Mo.— Cable v. Metropolitan Life
Ins. Co., 128 S.W.2d 1123, 233 Mo.
App. 1093.
N.C.— Corpus Juris quoted in Simms
v. Sampson, 20 S.E.2d 554, 559,
221 N.C. -379.
35 C.J. p 1164 note 98.
56. N.Y. — Community Oil Co. v.
Guido, 62 N.Y.S.2d 465.
33 C.J. p 1164 note 99.
57. Fla.—Woods-Hoskins- Young Co.
v. Stone & Baker Const Co., 114
So. 366, 94 Fla. 586.
Mass. — Sullivan v. Jordan, 86 N.E.2d
387, 310 Mass. 12.
Mich. — Detroit Trust Co. v. Lange,
255 N.W. 320, 267 Mich. 69—
Daines v. Tarabusi, 229 N.W. 422,
250 Mich. 217.
58. Ky. — Gilbert v. Berryman, 255
S.W. 839, 200 Ky. 824.
Tex. — Cretien v. Kincaid, Civ.App.,
84 "S.W.2d 109"4, affirmed Kincaid v.
Cretien, 111 -S.W.2d 1098, 130
Tex. 513— Goodrich v. First Nat.
Bank, Civ.App., 70 -S.W.2d 609, er-
ror refused.
33 C.J. p 1166 notes 4 [a] (2), 6.
59. U.S. — H. H.' Hornfeck & Sons
v. Anderson, C.C.A.N.Y., 60 F.2d
38.
Mich. — Walz v. Peninsular Fire Ins.
Co. of America, 191 N.W. 230, 221
Mich. 326, reheard 194 N.W. 124,
22# Mich. 417.
33 C.J. p 1166 note 7*
60. Cal.— Atkins v. Hughes, 282 P.
787, 208 Cal. 508— McCain T.
Burch, 267 OE>. 748, 92 CaLApp. 141.
HI.: — 'Peterson v. 'Evans, 6 N.E.2d
520, 288 ULApp. 623.
La.— Huff v. Fitzsimmons, 132 So.
257, 15 La.App. 441.
Mo. — Burns v. Ames Realty Co.,
App., 31 S.W.2d 274.
.Tex.— Himes v. Himes, Civ.App., 55
S.W.2d .181.
Utah.— Skeen v. Smith, 286 P. 633, 75
Utah 464.
33 C.J. p 1164 note 1 [d].
Attorney's fees held proper
Idaho.-nColorado Nat. Bank of Den-
ver v. Meadow Creek Live Stock
Co., 211 P. 1076, 36 Idaho 509.
Tex.— East Texas Title Co. v. Parch-
man, Civ.App., 116 S.W.2d 497, er-
ror dismissed.
33 C.J. p 1166 note 13 [a].
61. Fla. — Jackson v. Walker, 126
So. 7(46.
Mo. — Globe American Corporation v.
Miller, 131 S.W.2d 340, 2:34 Mo.
App. 25;3.
33 C.J. p 1164 note 1 [d] (4).
62. Cal.— Hartke v. Abbott, 6 P.2d
•578, 119 CaLApp. 439.
Kan.— Wellington v. Mid-West Ins.
Co., 212 P. 892, 112 Kan. 687.
63. Ky. — Logan County Fiscal Court
v. Childress, 243 S.W. 1038, 196 Ky.
1.
64. Tenn.— OPhifer v. .Mutual Ben.
Health & Accident Ass'n, 148 S.W.
2d 17, 24 Tenn.App. 600.
65. Wis. — Numbers v. Union Mortg.
Loan Co., 247 N.W. 442, 211 Wis.
30.
Payment of annuity until satisfac-
tion of judgment
Where insured prayed for monthly
annuity accruing until Judgment and
for general relief, court could prop-
erly direct that insurer pay until
satisfaction of judgment— Manuel v.
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., LeuApp.,
13*9 So. 548.
136
66. Minn.— Oolby v. Street, 195 N.
W. 34, 155 Minn. 157.
Offer by plaintiff to make deduc-
tion
Although defendant, sued for
wrongful detention of an automobile
repaired by him, did not counter-
claim for the amount due for re-
pairs, but plaintiff offered to deduct
such amount from the damages al-
lowed, the amount due for repairs
should be deducted from the judg-
ment.—Ledwell v. Entire Service
Corporation, 2-31 N.Y.S. 565, 224 App.
Div. 43i3, affirmed 170 N.E. 188, 252
N.Y. 548.
67. Oal.— Hesse v. Commercial
Credit Co., 275 P. 970, 97 Cal.App.
600.
Minn.— Colby v. Street, 19-3 N.W.
.34, 155 IMinn. 157.
Miss.— S. M. Weld & Co. v. Austin,
65 So. 247, 107 Miss. 279.
N.J.— Automobile Ins. Co. of Hart-
ford, Conn. v. Conway, ,158 A. 480,
109 N.J.Eq. 628.
Teac. — Moss v. Thompson, Civ.App.,
72 S.W.2d •'875-^American Grocery
Co. v. Union Sugar Co., Civ.App.,
246 S.W. 418.
Credit for payment by codefendant
In conversion, where a third par-
ty's lien on converted chattel is
paid by codefendant of* converter,
such payment cannot be credited to
converter, where pleadings authorize
no such relief.— Brooks Supply Co.
v. Gallinger, Tex.Civ,App., 279 S.
W. 524.
Damage not shown
Judgment authorizing defendants
to set off against notes for pastur-
age shortage in acreage must be re-
versed, in absence of evidence of
damage by shortage.— Hutchison v.
Hamilton, Tex.ConouApp., 14 S.W.2d
823.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
ings,68 notwithstanding the proof shows that he is
entitled to more.69
Effect of excessiveness; correction. A judgment
which is merely excessive under the pleadings and
proofs, although erroneous and liable to be re-
versed, is not on that account void,70 and, where
the excess is very small, the maxim de minimis non
curat lex applies.71 An excessive judgment may
generally be corrected by modification either in the
trial court or on appeal,72 and usually the party re-
covering an excessive judgment is permitted to re-
mit the excess and take a judgment for the proper
amount.7**
b. Interest
An allowance of Interest should be supported by the
pleadings and proof; but In some Instances Interest has
been held allowable, although the complaint contained
no prayer therefor and the judgment was thereby brought
above the ad damnum clause.'
In order that a party may be entitled to interest,
he should make such a case by his pleadings and
proof as calls for its allowance.74 Where such a
case is made out, however, an allowance of interest
is proper ;?5 and it has been held that, where in-
terest is allowable, judgment therefor may be ren-
dered, although interest is not demanded or prayed
for in the complaint,76 thereby bringing the judg-
ment above the ad damnum clause.77 A judgment
allowing interest must be in conformity with the
pleadings and proof with respect to the rate of in-
terest78 and the date from which it is to be comput-
ed.™
68- Ala. — Bradford v. Lawrence, 94
So. 103, 208 Ala, 248.
N.J. — Metropolitan Lumber Co. v.
Mullor, 129 A. 148.
A reconventional demand cannot
be allowed in an amount exceeding
that claimed. — Continental Supply
Co. v. Hoell, 129 So. 522, 170 La,
898 — Homes v. James Buckley &
Co., 116 So. 218, 165 La. 874— Lady
Ester Lingerie Corp. v. Goldstein,
La.App.v 21 So.2d 398.
Judgment held proper
N.C. — Casper v. Walker, 188 S.E.
99, 210 N.C. 838.
69. Ky. — Pictorial Review Co. v.
Smith, 300 S.W. 871, 222 Ky. 323.
70. U.S.— Huddleston v. Dwyer, C.C.
A.OkL, 145 F.2d ail.
Ga. — Lang v. South Georgia Inv. Co.,
U44 S.E. 149, 38 Ga.App. 430.
Mass.— Sullivan v. Jordan, 36 N.B.2d
387, 310 Mass. 12.
Mich. — Corpus Juris cited in Baran-
cik v. Schreiber, 224 N.W. 848,
349, 246 Mich. 361.
Mont. — Thompson v. Chicago, B. &
Q. R. Co., 25i3 P. 813, 78 Mont
170.
Mo. — Drake v. Kansas City Public
Service Co., 41 S.W.2d 1066, 226
Mo.App. 365, rehearing denied 54
S.W.2d 427.
Vt. — Santerre v. Sylvester, 189 A.
159, 108 Vt 435.
33 C.J. p 1167 note 14.
Hot jurisdictional
Error in granting judgment In ex-
cess of amount alleged in ad dam-
num clause of declaration is not ju-
risdfetional. — Detroit Trust Co. v.
Lange, 255 N.W. 320, 267 Mich. 69.
71. Mich. — Bowen v. Rutland School
Dist No. 9, 36 Mich. 149.
33 C.J. p 1167 note 16.
72. Ala.— 'Lister v. Vowell, 25 So.
564, 122 Ala. 264.
33 C.J. p 1167 note 18.
73. Mass. — Sullivan v. Jordan, 36
N.E.2d 387, 810 Mass. 12.
Tex. — Hartford Accident & Indem-
nity Co. v. Moore, Civ.App., 102 S.
W.2d 441, error refused.
33 C.J. p 1167 note 20.
74. La.— Crowe v. Equitable Life
Assur. 8ot>. of U. S., 154 So. 52,
179 La. 444 — Roussel v. Railways
Realty Co., 115 So. 742, 165 La.
556 — Merchants' & Farmers' Bank
& Trust Co. v. Hammond Motors
Co., 113 So. 763, 164 La, 57.
Mo. — Kansas City v. Haivorson, 177
S.W.2d 495, 352 Mo. 280— Motor
Acceptance v. Clayton, App., 119
S.W.2d 996.
Nev.^Gray v. Coykendall, 6 P.2d
442, 53 Nev. 466.
Okl.-^Central Nat Oil Co. v. Conti-
nental Supply Co., 249 P. 347, 119
Okl. 1-90.
Tex.— West Lumber Co. v. Hender-
son, Com.App., 252 S.W. 1044 —
Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. Llde, Civ.
App., U44 S.W.2d 685, error dis-
missed—Lone Star Finance Corpo-
ration v. Schelling, CivJLpp., 80 S.
W.2d 358 — Berryman v. Norfleet,
Civ.App., 41 S.W.2d 722, error dis-
missed—Humble Oil & Refining
Co. v. Kishi, Civ.App., 299 S.W. 687
— Brooks Supply Co. v. First State
Bank of Electra, Civ.App., 292 S.
W. 631 — Sparrow v. Tillman, Civ..
App., 283 S.W. 877— Kuehn v.
Kuehn, Civ.App., 259 S.W. 290.
33 C.J. p 1168 note 26.
failure to attach note or pray for
interest thereon
Judgment should not include in-
terest where note sued on was not
attached to petition, it was not al-
leged that note bore interest, and
no interest was prayed for. — Sentney
v. Sinclair, 286 P. 269, 130 Kan. 360.
75. U.S.— Anglo California Nat
Bank of San Francisco v. Dazard,
C.C.A.Cal., 106 F.2d 693, certiorari
denied 60 S.Ct. 379, 308 U.*S. 624,
84 L.Ed. 521—Brown Paper Mill
Co. v. Frazier, C.C.A.La., 76 F.2d |
65 — Alabama Chemical Co. y. In- 1
137
ternational Agr. Corporation, C.C.
A.Ala., 35 F.2d 907, certiorari de-
nied 50 S.Ct 240, 281 U.S. 727, 74
L.Ed. 1144.
Ga. — Lang v. South Georgia Inv. Co.,
144 S.B. 149, 38 Ga.App. 430.
Tex.— Leath v. Prince, Civ.App., 278
S.W. 865.
33 C.J. p 1166 note 2.
76. Cal. — Deaux v. Trinidad Bean &
Elevator Co., 47 P.2d 535, 8 Cal.
App.2d 149.
Mich. — Hollingsworth v. Liberty
Life Ins. CO. of Illinois, 127 N.W.
908, 241 Mich. 675.
Where an answer has been filed,
the court may allow interest al-
though it was not prayed for In the
complaint, if it is consistent with
the case made by the complaint and
embraced within the issues.— Per-
ry v. Magneson, 279 P. 650, 207 Cal.
617.
77. Mich. — Thomson Spot Welder
Co. v. Oldberg Mfg. Co., 2^0 N.W.
93, 256 Mich. 447— Hollingsworth
v. Liberty Life Ins. Co. of Illinois,
217 N.W. 908, 241 Mich. 675.
78. Mo. — Krause v. Spurgeon, App.,
256 S.W. 1072.
Tex. — Douglas v. Smith, Civ.App.,
2-97 S.W. 767.
33 C.J. p 1168 note 26 tb].
79. Ky. — Furnace Gap Coal Co. v.
White, 74 S.W.2d 4, 255 Ky. 351.
Mo. — Von Schleinitz v. North Hotel
Co., 23 S.W.2d 64, i323 Mo. 1110.
S.C. — Molony & Carter Co. v. Pennell
& Harley, 169 S.E. 283; 169 S.C.
462.
C.J. p 1'168 note 26 CbL
Due date
Where petition alleged sale of
stock of goods on specified date, and
that balance due was to be paid a
certain number of days thereafter,
judgment allowing interest from the
date payment was to be made was
in accord with pleadings.— rKavune-
das v. Long, 265 S.W. 790, 205 Ky.
321.
555
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
§ 55. Conformity to Verdict, Decision, and
Findings in General
a. In general
b. Special verdict, decision, or findings
a. In General
A Judgment must be supported by, and conform to,
the verdict, decision, or findings In all substantial par,
tlculars.
It is a well-established principle of law, applica-
ble to both cases tried by the courtso and cases tried
by a jury,81 that the judgment must be supported
by,82 and conform to,8* the verdict, decision, or
findings in all substantial particulars. In accord-
so, N.Y.— Troughton v. Digmore
Holding Co., 173 N.T.S. 659, 105
Misc. 638.
Tex.— El Continental Pub. Co. v.
Blumenthal, Civ.App., 63 S.W.2d
1056.
81. Constitutional guaranty of Jury
trial is violated if the judgment
does not conform to the verdict. —
North v. Atlas Brick Co., Tex.Com.
App., 15 S.W.2d 59, motion granted
in part 16 S.W.2d 519.
82. U.S. — HI Dorado Terminal Co. v.
General American Tank Oar Cor-
poration, C.OA.CaL, 104 P.2d 903,
reversed on other grounds 60 S.Ct.
325, 308 U.S. 422, 84 L.Ed. 361, re-
hearing denied 60 S.Ct. 465, 309 U.
S. 694, 84 L.Ed. 1035.
Cal.— Berg v. Berg, 132 P.2d 871,
56 Cal.App.2d 495— Alphonzo B.
Bell Corporation v. Listle, 130 P.
2d 251, 55 Cal.App.2d 300— Mar-
desich v. C. J. Hendry Co., 125 P.
2d 595. 51 Cal.App.2d 567— Kittle
Mfg. Co. v. Davis, 47 P.2d 1089,
8 Cal.App.2d 504 — Magarian v.
Moser, 42 P.2d 385, 5 Cal.App.2d
208— Mitchell v. Rasey, $3 P.2d
1056, 13-9 CaLApp. 350— Cameron
v. Feather River Forest Homes,
33 P.2d 884, 159 Cal.App. 373—
Nestor v. Burr, 12 P.2d 479, 124
CaLApp. 369— McCain v. Burch,
267 P. 748, 92 CaLApp. 141.
Conn. — Gulf Oil Corporation of Penn-
sylvania v. Newton, 31 A.2d 462
130 Conn. 37.
Fla. — Hoyt v. Evans, 109 Bo. 311, 91
Fla, 1053.
Idaho. — Hand v. Twin Falls County
236 P. 536, 40 Idaho 638.
Ind.— Gibraltar Realty Co. v. Secur-
ity Trust Co., 136 N.E. 636, 192
Ind. 502— Indianapolis Real Estate
Board v. Willson, 187 N.E. 400, 98
Ind.App. 72.
Mass.-rPerkins v. Becker's Conserv-
atories, 61 N.B.2d 833.
N.T. — J. C. Whritenour Co. v. Co
lonial Homes Co., 205 N.T.S. 299
209 App.Div. 676.
NX.— Glenn v. Gate City Life Ins
Co., 18 S.E.2d 113, 220 N.C. 672.
UP. — Corpus Juris quoted in. Miel
carek v. Riske, 21 N.W.2d 218, 221
Okl.— Winters v. Birch, 36 P.2d 907
169 Okl. 237.
Or. — Maeder Steel Products Co. v
Zanello, 220 P. 155, 109 Or. 56
Tex. — City of Temple v. ^itchel
Civ.App., 180 S.W.2d 959— Brad
dock v. Brockman, Civ. App., 29 S
W.2d 811— Weathered" v. Meek, Civ.
App., 268 S.W. 516.
3 C.J. P 1170 note 37.
The pleadings may "be considered
n connection with the verdict, and
acts admitted therein may be con-
idered in aid of the verdict in or-
der to support the judgment.— Law
v. Coleman, 159 S.E. 679, 173 Ga, 68
C.J. p 1174 notes 66, 67.
Judgments held supported *y verdict
or findings
Cal. — Mirich v. Underwriters at
Lloyd's London, 149 P.2d 19, 64
Cal.App.2d 522— Smoll v. Webb,
130 P.2d 77-3, 55 CaLApp.2d 456—
Honsberger v. Durfee, 130 P.2d
189, 55 Cal.App.2d 68— Murray v.
Babb, 86 P.2d 146, 30 Cal.App.2d
301— Easterly v. Cook, 35 P.2d
164, 140 CaLApp. 115— McCon-
ville v. Superior Court within and
for Los Angeles County, 248 P.
553, 78 CaLApp. 203— Rosener v.
Hanlon Dry Dock & Shipbuilding
Co., 236 P. 183, 71 CaLApp. 767
— Munford v. Humphreys, 229 P.
860, 68 CaLApp. 530.
Conn.— Butler v. Solomon, 18 A.2d
685, 127 Conn. 613.
Ga._- Odom v. Attaway, 162 IS.E. 279,
173 Ga. 883— Cason v. United Real-
ty & Auction Co., 0.31 S.E. 161, 161
Ga. 374.
Ind.— Peru Heating Co. v. Lenhart,
95 N.E. 680, 48 Ind.App. "319.
Ky.— Asher v. Gibson, 250 S.W. 860,
199 Ky. 175.
N.C— In re Escoffery, 3 S.B.2d 425,
216 N.C. 19.
Tex. — Starr v. Schoellkopf Co., 113
S.W.2d 1227, 131 Tex. 263.
83. U.S. — Mutual Ben. Health & Ac-
cident Ass'n v. Thomas, C.C.A.
Ark., 123 F.2d 353--Manjon v. Le
bron, C.C.A.Puerto Rico, 23 F.2d
266.
Alaska. — Corpus Juris cited in
Mitchell v. Beaver Dredging Co.
8 Alaska 566, 582.
Ariz. — Rodriauez v. Childress, 27
P. 921, «4 Ariz. 489.
Ark. — Missouri Pacific Transp. Co
v. Sharp, 108 S.W.2d 579, 194 Ark.
405— ^Powers v. Wood Parts Corpo
ration, 44 S.W.2d 324, 184 Ark.
1032.
Cal. — Prothero v. Superior Court o
Orange County, 238 P. 357, 19
Cal. 43'9— Cappelmann v. Toung
App., 165 P.2d 950— Berg v. Berg
132 iP.2d 871, 56 Cal.App.2d 495—
Gossman v. Gossman, 126 P.2
178. 52 Cal.App.2d 184— Phipps v
138
Superior Court in and for Alameda
County, 89 P.2d 698— Leeper v.
Ginsberg, 85 P.2d 548, 29 CaLApp.
2d 722— Magarian v. Moser, 42 P.
2d -385, 5 Cal.App.2d 208— Nestor
V. Burr, 12 P.2d 479, 124 Cal.App.
369— Holland v. Bank of Italy Nat.
Trust & (Savings Ass'n, 1 'P.2d
10-31, 115 CaLApp. 472— Slater v.
Mayzie, 230 «P. 453, 69 CaLApp. 87.
Colo. — Mooney v. Carter, 160 P.2d
390— Meyer v. Milliken, 76 P.2d
420, 101 Colo. 564, certiorari de-
nied Milliken v. Meyer, 59 S.Ct 63,
305 U.S. 598, 83 L.Ed. 379, reversed
on other grounds 61 S.Ct. 339, 311
U.S. 457, 84 L.Ed. 278, 132 A.L.R.
1395, rehearing denied 61 S.Ct.
548, 312 U.S. 712, 85 L.Ed. 1143,
mandate conformed to HI P-2d
2>32, 107 Colo. 295.
(ja. — Gray v. Junction City Mfg. Co.,
22 S.E.2d 847, 195 Ga. -33— Law v.
Coleman, 159 S.E. 679, 173 Ga. 68
— Dinsmore v. Holcomb, 144 S.E.
780. 167 Ga. 20 — Belts v. Mathews,
34 S.E.2d 729, 72 Ga.App. 678—
Frank E. Wood Co. v. Colson, 158
S.E. 533, 43 Ga.App. 265— Georgia
Motor Bales v. Wade, 138 S.B.
797, 37 Ga.App. 24.
Idaho. — Radermacher v. Eckert, 123
P.2d 426, 63 Idaho 531.
HL— De Leuw, Cather & Co. v. City
of Joliet, App., 64 N.E.2d 779.
Ind.— Scheiring v. Baker, 177 N.E.
866, 202 Ind. 678 — Elliott v. Gard-
ner, 46 N.E.2d 702, -113 -Ind.App.
47 — Feuerstein v. Baumeister, 8
N.E.2d 412, 108 Ind.App. 4"32—
Fisher v. Rosander, 151 N.E. 12, 8*4
Ind.App. 694— Mansfield v. Hinckle,
139 N.B. 700, 81 Ind.App. 6.
y.— Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of
U. S. v. Goble, 72 S.W.2d 35, 254
Ky. 614— Meraman v. Caldwell, 8
B.Mon. 32, 46 Am.D. 537.
Mont— Corpus Juris quoted in
Morse v. Morse, 154 P.2d 982, 984.
Neb.— Crete Mills v. Stevens, 253 N.
W. 453, 120 Neb. 794.
N.T.— In re Braasch's Ex'rs, 202 N.
T.S. 844, 208 App.Div. 745— Brown
v. Shyne, 206 N.Y.S. 310, 123 Misc.
851— Basile v. Basile, 197 N.T.S.
668, 120 Misc. 63 — Troughton v.
Digmore Holding Co., 173 N.T.S.
65*9, 105 Misc. 638.
.C.-— White v. Dixie Fire Ins. Co.,
Greensboro, 36 S.E.2d 923 — Tan-
cey v. North Carolina State High-
way and (Public Works Commis-
sion, 19 6.E.2d 489, 221 N.C. 185—
(Page Supply Co. v. Horton, 17 S.
E.2d <«*. 220 N.C. STS— Sitterson
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 55
ance with this principle it has been held that, where
the verdict grants alternative forms of relief, the
judgment must make like provision.84 So, where
the verdict is joint, the judgment must be joint85
unless plaintiff remits the damages as to one of de-
fendants86 or dismisses the action as to him,8? or
the court grants him a new trial ;88 and, where the
verdict is several, the judgment must be several.89
As a qualification of the rule it may be stated
that the judgment should conform to the real and
substantial finding rather than to the literal form
of expression of the verdict90 Where the finding
reported could not possibly be arrived at without al-
so finding another fact not expressed but necessarily
included in the verdict, judgment can be rendered
as though that fact had been positively found.91
Superfluous matter in a verdict may be disregard-
ed ;92 and, where the verdict or finding is on an
v. Sitterson, 131 S.B. 641, 191 N.
C. 319, 51 A.L.R. 760— -Durham v.
Davis, 88 S.E. 435, 171 N.C. 308.
N.D. — Corpus Juris quoted in, Miel-
<sarek v. Riske, 21 N.W.2d 218, 221.
Okl.— Winters v. Birch, 36 P.2d 907,
169 Okl. 237— Kuhl Motor Co. v.
Wade, 1 P.2d 704, 151 Okl. 83.
Or. — Maeder Steel Products Co. v.
Zanello, 220 P. 155, 109 Or. 562.
Tenn.— 'Allen v. Melton, 99 S.W.2d
219, 20 Tenn.App. 387.
Tex. — Totton v. Smith, 113 S.W.2d
517, 131 Tex. 219— North v. At-
las Brick Co., Com.App., 13 S.W.
2d 59, motion granted in part 16
S.W.2d 519— Deal v. Craven, Com.
App., 277 -S.W, 1046— St. Louis
Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas
v. Seale & Jones, Com.App., 267 S.
W. 676 — Johnson Aircrafts v. Wil-
borh, Civ.App., 190 S.W.2d 426 —
Hamill & Smith v. Ogden, Civ.App.,
163 S.W.2d 725— Day v. Grayson
County State Bank, Civ. App., 153
S.W.2d 599 — Southern Underwrit-
ers v. Blair, Civ.App.f 144 S.W.2d
641 — Taylor v. Jones, Civ.App., 135
S.W.2d 767, error dismissed, judg-
ment correct— JStrack v. Strong,
Civ.App., 135 S.W.2d 754, error dis-
missed, judgment correct — Chaffin
v. Drane, Civ.App., 131 S.W.2d 672
— Friske v. Graham, Civ.App., 128
S.W.2d 139— Humble Oil & Refin-
ing Co. v. Owings, Civ. App., 128 S.
W.2d 67— Ostrom v. Jackson, Civ.
App., 127 S.W.2d 987 — Jones-
O'Brien, Inc., v. Loyd, Civ.App.,
106 S.W.2d 1069, error dismissed
— Southern Underwriters v. Garie-
py, Civ.App., 105 S.W.2d 760. er-
ror dismissed — Southern- Pine
Lumber Co. v. Whiteman, Civ.
App., 104 S.W.2d 635, error dis-
missed— Boyle v. Fisher, Civ.App.,
10-3 S.W.2d 866, error dismissed—
Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. Harris,
Civ.App., 101 S.W.2d 640, error
dismissed — Farmers & Merchants
Nat. Bank v. Arrington, Civ.App.,
98 «S.W.2d 378— Amarillo Transfer
& Storage Co. v. De Shong, Civ.
App., 82 S.W.2d -381— ^Parks v.
Hines, Civ.App., 68 S.W.2d 364, af-
firmed Hines v. (Parks, 96 S.W.2d
970, 128 Tex. 289— Smith v. El
Paso & N. E. R. Co., Civ.A#p., 67
S.W.2d 362, error dismissed— Citi-
zens' Nat Bank v. E. V. Graham
& Co., Civ.App., 25 S.W.2d 636 —
Sociedad Union Mexicans, La Con-
structora v. De Orona, Civ.App.,
288 S.W. 1111— Rogers v. City of
Port Worth, Civ. App., 275 S.W.
214— Standard Motor Co. v. Witt-
man, Civ.App., 271 S.W. 186—
Sctoaff v. Wilson, Civ.App., 269 S.
W. 140 — Brown v. Knox, Civ.App.,
261 S.W. 791, affirmed Knox v.
Brown, Com. App., 277 S.W. 91 —
Metting v. Metting, Civ.App., 261
S.W. 151, reheard 262 S.W. 188—
Weathered v. (Meek, Civ.App., 258
S.W. 516.
Vt. — Ackerman v. Carpenter, 29 A.2d
922, 113 Vt. 77— <Scampini v. Rizzi,
172 A. 619, 106 Vt 281.
13 C.J. p 798 note 66—19 C.J. p 1210
notes 26, 27, 30, p 1240 note 21 —
24 C.J. p 885 note 47—26 C.J. P
570 note 25—28 C.J. p 1036 note
54—33 C.J. p 144 note 84, p 1169
note 36—38 C.J. p 1190 note 6—
42 C.J. p 142 note 51, p 1287 note
15 — 47 C.J. p 430 notes 74, 76, 77,
p 1009 note 87.
When intention of Jury is clear
from language of verdict considered
in connection with pleadings and
evidence the court must make the
judgment conform thereto. — Yeoman
r. Sherry, 52 P.2d 555, 10 CaLApp.
2d 567 — Curtis v. San Pedro Transp.
Co., 52 P.2d 528, 10 Cal.App.2d 547.
Tlie form of the verdict as re-
corded, rather than the verdict
which the Jury actually returned in-
to court, governs in determining
whether or not the judgment con-
forms to the verdict. — Grammer v.
Wiggins-Meyer S. S. Co., 270 P. 759,
126 Or. 694.
Judgment* held in conformity to
verdict or findings
(1) Generally.
Ala. — Lawler v. Hyde, 161 So. 523,
230 Ala. 467.
Ariz.— Golden Eagle-Bobtail Mines
v. Valley Nat Bank, 138 iP.2d 289,
60 Ariz. 400 — Holcomb v. Clark,
234 'P. 1075, 27 Ariz. 573.
Cal. — Gray v. Magee, 292 P. 157,
108 Cal.App. 570— Fink & Behind-
ler Co. T. Gavros, 257 P. 156, 83
Cal.App. 582.
Ga.— Brown v. O'Neal, 1 S.E.2d 601,
59 Ga.App. 560.
Mass. — Birnbaum v. Pamoukis, 17
N.B.2d 885, 301 Mass. 559.
Tex. — Tipton v. Tipton, Civ. App., 140
S.W.2d 865, error dismissed, Judg-
ment correct
139
Wash. — Deming v. Jones, 24 P.2d 85,
173 Wash. 644— Rich v. Kruger,
22S P. 1012, 130 Wash. 656.
33 C.J. p 1169 note 36 [c],
(2) Where jury found two sepa-
rate verdicts, one for plaintiff on its
complaint and the other for defend-
ant on her counterclaim, court's ac-
tion in subtracting judgment based
on verdict rendered for defendant on
counterclaim from judgment in fa-
vor of plaintiff and rendering cor-
rected judgment for the difference
held proper as against contention
that the judgment was unwarranted
because not based upon a verdict of
the jury. — Creek v. Lebo Inv. Co., 48
P.2d 792, 97 Colo. 250.
84. Cal. — Benson v. Olender, 246 P.
345, 77 Cal.App. 287.
85. Ark. — Spears v. McKinnon, 270
S.W. 524, 168 Ark. 357.
Tex. — Citizens' Railway & Light Co.
v. Case, Civ.App., 138 S.W. 621.
33 C.J. p 1171 note 40.
86. Ala.— Golding v. Hall, 9 Port.
169.
87. 111.— Siltz v. Springer, 85 N.B.
748, 236 111. 276.
88. Iowa. — Terpenning v. Gallup, 8
Iowa 74.
33 C.J. p 1171 note 43.
89. Colo. — Bartlett v. Hammond,
230 P. 10-9, 76 Colo. 171.
Pa. — Wise v. Frey, Com.Pl., 22 West
CO.L.J. 176.
19 C.J. p 1210 note 29—33 C.J. p 1171
note 44.
90. Tex. — F. H. Vahlsing; Inc., v.
Hartford Fire Ins. Co., Civ.App.,
108 S.W.2d 947, error dismissed.
33 C.J. p 1174 note 62.
A trifling variance will not vitiate
the judgment. — Camden v. Haskill, -8
Rand. 462, 24 Va. 462.
Fact that ultimate fact was con-
tained in "conclusions of law," rath-
er than "findings of fact," held im-
material.— Bogan v. Hynes, C.C.A.
Cal., 65 F.2d 52)4, certiorari denied
54 S.Ct. 126, 290 U.S. 690, 78 LJEd.
594.
91. Ga. — Gray v. Junction City
Mfg. Co., 22 S.E.2d 847, 195 Ga.
33.
33 C.J. p 1174 note 63.
92. Cal.— Slayden v. O'Dea, 218 P.
395, 191 Cal. 785.
§ 55
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
immaterial issue93 or an issue of law,84 judgment
need not, and should not, be rendered thereon. On
the other hand, the validity of a judgment will not
be affected by incorporating immaterial matters
therein.95
One real exception to the rule that judgments
must conform to the verdict or findings consists of
cases where a judgment is rendered non obstante
veredicto, discussed infra §§ 59-61. Another ex-
ception exists in cases where trial by jury is not
a matter of right and the verdict or findings of a
jury are merely advisory,9^ as in equity cases.97
Failure of the judgment to conform to the ver-
dict has been held not to render the judgment void
or inoperative,88 and the proper remedy in such
case is by a motion to modify the judgment," or
according to some authority,1 but not other,2 by ap-
peal or writ of error.
After direction of a verdict, it has been held that
the court may render the judgment demanded by
the undisputed evidence, even though the directed
verdict is insufficient to support the judgment.8
Conformity to conclusions of law. While it has
been held that the trial court's conclusions of law
must be predicated on, and find support in, the
court's fact findings, and the judgment must follow
the conclusions of law,4 it has also been held that
the judgment need not conform to findings or con-
clusions of law,5 except where it is entered by the
clerk on a decision without further judicial action
by the court6
Conformity to report of referee. If the report
of a referee or master is accepted by the court, or
sustained against exceptions, or judgment is en-
tered thereon pursuant to statute, the judgment
must conform to its findings and conclusions; to
Ind.— Mullet v. Blaine, 16 N.B.2d
981, 105 Ind.App. 666.
Ohio. — Seal v. Gobel, SI Ohio Cir.Ct.
286.
33 C.J. p 1174 note 64.
Attempted apportionment of dam-
ages, following lump-sum verdict
against defendants jointly liable,
treated as surplusage.
111. — Fitzgerald v. Davis, 237 Ill.App.
488.
Mont. — Bowman v. Lewis, 102 GP.2d
1, 110 (Mont. 435.
»ecital that third party was en-
titled to part of recovery held not
required to be included in judgment.
— Gosnell v. Camden Fire Ins. Ass'n
of Camden, N, J., Mo.App., 109 S.W.
2d 59.
Matter not properly disregarded
Where judgment ordered that the
verdict on specified issues should be
set aside and that verdict on all re-
maining Issues should be undisturb-
ed and allowed to stand, If the court
intended merely to strike out an-
swers to the specified issues and to
hold as matter of law that they
were surplusage, it failed to do so. —
Page Supply Co. v. Horton, 17 S.E.
3d 493, 220 N.C. (373.
93. Tex. — St. Paul Fire & Marine
Ins. Co. v. Huff, Civ.App., 172 S.
W. 755.
33 C.OT. p 1174 note 69.
Immaterial findings do not affect
Judgment
Mont. — Rutherford v. J. B. Long &
Co., 240 P. 821, 74 Mont. 4-20.
94. Tex. — Sovereign Camp W. O. W.
V. Wagnon, Civ.App., 164 S.W.
1082.
95. Mich.— Burkle v. Ingham Cir.
Judge, 4 N.W. 192, 42 Mich. 513—
Taylor v. Gladwin, 40 Mich. 232.
The mere addition of descriptive
matter not found in the verdict is
surplusage and immaterial?. — Oliver's
Garage v. Lowe, 103 So. 586, 212 Ala.
602—33 C.J. p 1174 note 65.
96. N.Y.— McClave v. Gibb, 52 N.
B. 186, 157 N.T. 413 — People ex
rel. Flannery v. Worthing, 31 N.
Y.S.-2d 79, 177 Misc. 545.
97. Wyo. — Jones v. Chicago, B. & Q.
R. Co., 147 P. 508, 23 Wyo. 148.
33 C.J. p 1174 note 60.
Effect of jury verdict in equity see
Equity § 510.
9a Ala.— Herren v. Shelnutt, 110
So. 697, -21 Ala.App. 589, certiorari
denied 110 So. 699, 215 Ala. 355.
N.'M.— In re Field's Estate, 60 P.2d
945,' 40 N.M. 423.
N.T. — Corn Exch. Bank v. Blye, 23
N.E. 805, 119 N.T. 414.
The defect may be waived
N.T. — Corn Exch. Bank v. Blye, su-
pra.
Pailure to conform to verdict and
complaint held to affect validity of
judgment so as to preclude appeal
thereon. — Spears v. Wise, 65 60. 786,
187 Ala. 346—19 C.J. p 1210 note
31.
99. Ind. — Elliott v. Gardner, 46 N.E.
2d 7012, 119 'Ind.App. 47— S. J. flPea-
body Lumber Co. v. Northam, 184
N.E. 794, 96 Ind.App. 197— Tri
Lake Const. Co. v. Northam, 184
N.E. 792, 96 Ind.App. 18*3.
N.M.— In re Field's Estate, 60 (P.2d
945, 40 N.M. 423.
N.T.— Kenney v. Apgar, 93 3ST.T. 539.
19 C.J. p 1211 note 37—33 C.J. p
1170 note 37 CdL p 1171 note 45.
Amendment of judgment to conform
to verdict or findings see infra §
243.
l. Ky. — Lykins v. Hamrick, 137 S.
W. 8-52, 144 Ky. 80.
N.M. — In re Field's Estate, 60 P.2d
945, 40 N.M. >42i3.
140
2. N.T.— Kenney v. Apgar, 93 N.T.
'539— People v. Goff, 52 N.T. 434.
3. Tex. — Zachary v. City of Uvalde,
ConuApp., 42 S.W.2d 417 — Zachary
v. Home Owners 'Loan Corporation,
Civ.App., 117 S.W.2d 15-3, error dis-
missed.
4. Utah. — Mason v. Mason, 160 P.
2d 730 — Beneficial Life Ins. Co. v.
Mason, 160 P.2d 734 — Parrott Bros.
Co. v. Ogden City, 167 P. -807, -50
Utah 512.
3'3 C.J. p 1173 note 53 [c].
5. Cal.— Mason v. Del Valle, 1 P.
2d 419, 213 Cal. 30— Liuzza v.
Bririkerhoff, $3 P.2d 976. 29 Cal.
App.2d 1 — Delmuto v. Superior
Court in and for San Joaquin
County, -6 P.2d 1007, 119 CaLApp.
590.
33 C.J. p 1173 note S3.
Findings of fact will prevail over
conclusions of law. — Mount v. Dillon,
138 S.W.2d 59, 200 Ark. 153.
Erroneous conclusions of law
A judgment supported by the facts
found will not be reversed because
not in conformity with erroneous
conclusions of law. — Freeman v.
Robinson, 1'31 N.E. 75, 238 Mass. 449
—33 C.J. p 1173 note 55.
Finding on mixed question of law
and fact
(1) The jury's finding on a mixed
question of law and fact has been
held to be binding on the court in
rendering judgment. — Lemm v. Mil-
ler, Tex.Civ.App., 245 S.W. 90, re-
versed on other grounds Miller v.
Lemm, ConxApp., 276 S.W. 211.
(2) However, the contrary has
also been held. — Hubert v. Collard,
Tex.Civ.App., 141 B.W^d 677, error
dismissed, judgment correct.
8. Cal. — Broder v. Conklin, 83 P.
211, 98 Cal. 360.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
55
depart from it in any essential matter will be re-
versible error.7
b. Special Verdict, Decision, or Findings
Whenever the Judgment Is based on a special ver-
dict, decision, or findings, they must be sufficiently com-
prehenslve, certain, and consistent to sustain the judg-
ment and justify It as a matter of law.
Whenever the judgment is based on a special ver-
dict, decision, or findings, they must be sufficiently
comprehensive, certain, and consistent to sustain the
judgment and justify it as a matter of law.8 As
a general rule special findings cannot be aided by
the evidence,9 and the court cannot render a judg-
ment on an issue submitted to the jury but not de-
termined by their verdict,10 no matter how clear
and undi§puted the evidence may be;11 where the
issues submitted to the jury are not determinative
7. Ga. — Owen v. S. P. Richards Pa-
per Co., 3 S.E.2d 660, 188 Ga, 258.
Mass. — Battlsta v. F. W. Woolworth
Co., 57 N.E.2d 552, 317 Mass. 179.
Tex.— Farley v. Ward, 1 Tex. 646.
24 O.J. p 88'5 note 48—33 C.J. p 117*
note 58 — 34 C.J. p 237 note 8.
Judgment held 9 properly rendered
in accordance with findings. — Levoy-
sky v. Horvitz, 30 N.B.2d 411, 307
Mass. 475.
S. U.S.— United Gas Public Service
Co. v. Pardue, C.'C.A.La,, 78 F.2d
929.
Kan. — Hajny v. Robinson Milling
Co., 134 P.2d 398, 156 Kan. 506.
.N.C. — Morris v. Y. & B. Corporation,
153 S.B. 3'35, 198 N.C. 719— Mer-
chants' Nat. Bank v. Carolina
Broom Co., 125 S.B. 12, IBS N.C.
508.
Tex.— International-Great Northern
R. Co. v. Casey, Com.App., 46 S.W.
2d 669 — Rodriguez v. Higginboth-
am-Bailey-Logan Co., Civ.App.,
144 S.W.2d 993, reversed on other
grounds 160 S.W.2d 234, 138 Tex.
476 — Kimbrow v. Fort Worth &
D. C. R. Co., Civ.App., 86 S.W.2d
78, affirmed Fort Worth & D. C.
Ry. Co. v. Kimbrow, 112 S.W.2d
712. 131 Tex. 117— Parks v. Hines,
Civ.App., 68 S.W.2d 364, affirmed
Hines v. Parks, 96 -S.W^d 970, 12*
Tex. 289— Tips v. Barneburg, Civ.
App., 276 -S.W. 932.
33 C.J. p 1171 note 47.
Finding's should be liberally con-
strued to support the judgment, if
possible. — Clavey v. Loney, 251 P.
2-32, 80 CaLApp. 20—33 C.J. p 1172
note 50 [b].
Where the findings are ambigu-
ous, the court is authorized to ex-
amine not only the charge, but the
pleadings and evidence, and if, by
-an examination of the record, the in-
tention of the verdict can be ascer-
tained such verdict, so construed,
constitutes the proper basis for
Judgment. — Vincent v. Bell, Tex.Civ.
App., 22 S.W.2d 753, error dismissed.
^Inconsistent findings
(1) It has been held that a judg-
ment cannot be based on inconsist-
ent findings.
Oal. — Los Angeles & Arizona Land
Co. v. Marr, 200 P. 1051, 187 Cal.
127.
Tex. — Maryland Casualty Co. v.
Howie, Civ.App., 94 S.W.2d 220,
error dismissed — Schaff v. Wilson,
Civ.App., 269 S.W. 140— First Nat.
Bank v. Chapman, Civ.App., 255 S.
W. 807.
(2) However, in cases of equita-
ble cognizance it has been held that
the decree rendered will be upheld,
even though findings are inconsist-
ent, if one or more supports the de-
cree.—State ex rel. Corbett v. Su-
perior Court for King County, De-
partment No. 10 thereof, 48 P.2d 617,
183 Wash. 373— Ingle v. Ingle, 48 P.
2d 576, 183 Wash. 234— Silverstone v.
Hanley, 104 P. 767, 55 Wash. 458—
Howey v. Bingham, 44 P. 886, 14
Wash. 450.
(3) Separate findings should be
considered together as being the ag-
gregate finding of facts, where such
consideration will tend to eliminate
apparent inconsistency between the
findings.— Pryor v. Pryor, Okl., 168
P.2d 375.
Verdict or findings held sufficient
Cal. — Matmor Olive Co. v. Du Bois,
150 P.2d 816, $5 Cal.App.2d 467—
Mirlch v. Underwriters at Lloyd's
London, 149 P.2d 19, 64 Cal. App. 2d
522— Klutts v. Rupley, 137 P.2d
496, 58 Cal.App.2d 560 — Gordon v.
Santa Cruz Portland Cement Co.,
App., 130 P.2d 232— Winchester v.
General Cab Co., 57 P.2d 206, 1-3
Cal.Aj>p.2d 551— Metcalf v. Metro-
politan Life Ins. Co., 37 P.2d 115,
1 Cal. App. 2d 481, rehearing denied
38 P.2d 401, 1 Cal.Apfe.2d 481—
Kohner v. National Surety Co., 287
P. 510, 105 CaLApp. 430— Merkle
v. Merkle, 258 P. 969, 85 CaLApp.
87.
Ga. — Songster v. Toledo Mfg. Co.* 19
<S.K2d 723, 193 Ga. 685.
Ind. — Menser v. Marshall Farmers'
Home Fire Ins. Co., 121 N.E. 831,
70 Ind.App.« 211.
Mo. — Spallo v. Royal Ins. Co., (Lim-
ited, of Liverpool, App., 125 S.W.
'2d 967 — Cantley v. American Sure-
ty Co. of New York, 38 S.W.2d 739,
225 Mo.App. 1146.
Tex. — American Nat. Ins. Co. v.
Hammond, Civ.App., 91 S.W.2d 432,
error dismissed — Hartford Acci-
dent & Indemnity Co. v. -Shaw. Civ.
App.r 8 S.W.2d 196, error dis-
missed.
Wis.— State ex rel. Litzen v. Dillett,
7 N.W.2d 599, 242 Wis. 1CT7, re-
hearing denied 9 N.W.2d 50, 242
141
Wis. 107— Delap v. Liebenson, 208
N.W. 937, 190 Wis. T3.
Verdict or findings held insufficient
(1) Generally.
CaL— Rossini v. St. Paul Fire & Ma-
rine Ins. Co. of St Paul, Minn.,
188 P. 564, 182 Cal. 4115— Smith v.
Young, 122 P.2d 624, 50 CaLApp.2d
152.
Tex. — Neyland v. Brown, 170 S.W.Sd
207, 141 Tex. 253, modified on other
grounds 172 S.W.2d 39, 141 Tex.
*253 — Robertson v. Connecticut
General Life Ins. Co., Civ.App., 140
S.W.2d 936 — Federal Underwriters
Exchange v. Dorman, Civ.App.,
137 S.W.2d 100, error dismissed,
judgment correct — American Nat.
Ins. Co. v. Briggs, Civ.App., 90 S.
W.2d 602, error dismissed — Wag-
staff v. North British & Mercantile
Ins. Co., Civ.App., 88 S.W.2d 550,
error dismissed— "Connecticut Gen-
• eral Life Ins. Co. v. Lockwood,
Civ. App., 34 S.W.2d 245, error dis-
missed—Huey v. American Nat.
Ins. Co., Civ.App., 45 S.W.2d 340,
reversed on other grounds Ameri-
can Nat. Ins. Co. v. Huey, Com.
App., 66 S.W.2d 690— Harris v.
Western Union Telegraph Co., Civ.
App., 281 S.W. 877 — Compton v.
Jennings Lumber Co., Civ.A'pp., 266
S.W. 569 — Kansas City Life Ins.
Co. v. Jinkens, Civ.App., 20*2 S.W.
772.
(2) In view of inadequate in-
struction.— Humbird Cheese Co. v.
Fristad, 242 N.W. 158, 208 Wis. 283
Statement in Judgment that no
satisfactory evidence was offered
why attorney's lien should be can-
celed was held conclusion not over-
coming finding that attorney par-
ticipated in satisfaction of judgment,
destroying lien. — Holbrook v. McKee,
266 P. 187, 147 Wash, 388.
9. Tex. — Southern Pine Lumber Co.
v. Whiteman, Civ~App., 104 S.W.2d
635, error dismissed — Tips v.
Barneburg, Civ. App., 276 S.W. 932.
•33 C.J. p 1171 note 48.
ia Tex. — Magnolia Petroleum Co. v.
Connellee, Com.App., 14 S.W.2d
10*20.
33 C.J. p 1171 note 49.
Theory of case not passed on. by
Jury held not to afford basis for ren-
dering judgment. — Baker v. Reed,
Tex.Civ.App., 54 S.W.2d 214.
11. CaL — Corpus Juris cited in
§ 55
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
of the controversy, a judgment rendered thereon is
erroneous.12
If the special verdict, decision, or findings are
sufficient, the judgment must follow and accord
with them,18 and, as a general rule, cannot go be-
yond them in awarding relief or settling the 'rights
of the parties.14 This rule has been held to apply
even though the special verdict, decision, or findings
Slater v. Mayzle, 230 P. 4-53, 455,
69 CaLApp. 87.
33 C.J. p 1171 note 49.
12. N.C. — Brown v. Daniel, 13 S.E.
2d 623, 219 N.C. 349.
13. U.S. — Texas Compensation Ins.
Co. v. Heard, C.C.A.Tex., 9*3 P.2d
54 g — Great Lakes Boat Building
Corporation v. Jasperson, C.C.A.
111., 71 F.2d 415.
Cai. — Cappelmann v. Young, App.,
165 P.2d 950— People v. Robin, 133
P.2d 436, 56 Cal.App.2d S'SS— Hall
v. Citizens Nat. Trust & Savings
Bank of Los Angeles, 128 P.2d
545, 53 Cal.App.2d 625— Hogberg v.
Landfield, 278 P. 907, 99 CaLApp.
360. -
C010. — Meyer v. Milliken, 76 P.2d 420,
101 Colo. 564, certiorari denied
Milliken v. Meyer, 59 S.Ct. 63, 305
U.S. 598, S3 L.Ed. 379, reversed on
other grounds 61 S.Ct. 3-39, 311 U.
S. 457, 84 L.Ed. 278, 132 A.L.R.
1395, rehearing denied 61 S.Ct. 548,
312 TJ.-S. 712, 8*5 L.Ed. 1143, man-
date conformed to 111 P.2d 232, 107
Colo. '295.
Ga. — Fleming v. Collins, 9 S.E.2d T57,
190 Ga. 210 — Law v. Coleman, 159
S.E. 679, 173 Ga, 68— Hill v. Farm-
ers' Bank of Forsyth, 121 S.E. 682,
1-57 Ga, 457.
Idaho. — Boise Street Car Co. v. Van
Avery, 103 P.2d 1107, 61 Idaho 502.
Ind.— City of Muncie v. Horlacher,
53 N.E.2d 631, 222 Ind. -302.
Kan. — Lawson v. Lawrence Oil &
Gas Co., 12 P.2d 711, 135 Kan. 740
— Black v. Black, 256 P. 995, 123
Kan. 608 — Custer v. Royse, 204 P.
995, 110 Kan. 397.
Miss. — McCraven v. Doe, 23 Miss
100:
Mo. — Bondurant v. Raven Qoal Co.
App., 25 S.W.2d 566. !
N.C. — Twitty v. Cochran, 199 S.E. 29
214 N.C. 265.
Okl.— Pryor v. Pryor, 168 P.2d 875
—Davis v. Mose, 239 P. 447, 112
Okl. 38.
Tex.— Edmiston v. Texas & N. O. R.
Co., 138 S.W.2d 526, 135 Tex. 67—
North v. Atlas Brick Co., Com.
App., 1*3 S.W.2d 59, motion grant
ed in part 16 S.W,2d 519— Prideaux
v. Roark, Com.App., 291 S.W. 868
—Hart v. Wilson, Com.App., 288
S.W. 133 — Deal v. Craven, Com
App., 277 S.W. 1046— Knox v
Brown, Com.App., 277 -S.W. 91, mo-
tion overruled 277 S.W. 619— Mas-
sie v. Hutcheson, Com. App., 270 S
•yy. 544 — Barton v. Wood, Civ.App.
162 S.W.*2d 147, error refused-
Texas Employers Ins. Ass'n v
Schaffer, Civ.App., 161 S.W.2d 328
error refused— Weston v. Duggan
CivJlpp., 160 S.W.2d 1010— Rodri-
guez v. Higginbotham-Bailey-Lo-
gan qo., Civ.APp., 144 S.W.2d 993,
reversed on other grounds 160 S.
W.2d 234, 138 Tex. 476— Pearl-
stone-Ash Grocery Co, v. Rembert
Nat. Bank of Longview, Civ.App.,
135 S.W.2d 559, error refused-
Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Wheel-
er, Civ.App.t 132 S.W.2d 456, error
dismissed, Judgment correct —
American Nat. Ins. Co. v. Sutton,
Civ.App., 130 S.W.2d 441— McCray
Refrigerator 'Sales Corporation v.
Johnson, Civ.App., 121 S.W.'2d 410,
error dismissed— Traders & Gen-
eral Ins. Co. v. Milliken, Civ.App.,
110 S.W.2d 108 — Hartford Accident
& Indemnity Co. v. Moore, Civ.
App., 102 S.W.2d 441, error refused
—Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. Harris,
Civ.App., 101 S.W.2d 640, -error
dismissed — Southern Old Line Life
Ins. Co. v. Mims, Civ.App., 101 S.
W.2d 396, error dismissed — Garcia
v. Garcia, Civ.App., 94 S.W.2d 864
— Johnson v. Washington Nat Ins.
Co., Civ.App., 78 S.W.2d 696— Barn-
hart Mercantile Co. v. Bengel, Civ.
App., '77 S.W.2d 295— Means v.
Floyd West & Co., Civ.App., 74 S.
W.2d 518— Parks v. Hines, Civ.
App., 68 S.W.2d 364, affirmed Hines
v. Parks, 96 S.W.2d 970, 128 Tex.
289 — Texas Interurban Ry.
Hughes, Civ.App., 34 S.W.2d 1103,
affirmed Texas Interurban Ry. Co.
v. Hughes, Com.App., 53 S.W.2d
448— J. R. Milam Co. v. First Nat.
Bank, Civ.App., 29 S.W.2d 480, er-
ror dismissed — Vincent v. Bell,
Civ.App., 22 S.W.2d 753, error dis-
missed—Maledon v. Texas Em-
ployers' Ins. Ass'n, Civ.App., 11
S.W.2d 627, reversed on other
grounds Texas Employers' Ins.
Ass'n v. Maledon, Com.Ap,p., 27 S.
W.2d 151 — Perez v. Houston & T.
C. R. Co., Civ.App., 5 S.W.2d 782—
Sociedad Union Mexicana La Con-
structora v. De Orona, Civ.App.
288 S.W. 1111— Rumbo v. Rumbo
Civ.App., 2*6 S.W. 957— S. T. Mat-
thews & Son v. Manning, Civ.App.
284 S.W. 314 — JefEers v. Dent, Civ
App., 280 S.W. 347— Fulwiler v
Daniel, Civ.App., 279 S.W. 603—
Connellee v. Magnolia Petroleum
Co., Civ.App., 279 S.W. 597, re-
versed on other grounds Magnolia
Petroleum Co. v. Connellee, Com
App., 11 S.W.2d 158, followed in
Magnolia Petroleum Qo. v. Akin
11 S.W.2d 1113, and rehearing de-
nied 14 S.W.2d 1020 and 20 S
W.2d 758 — Rogers v. City of Fort
Worth, Civ.App., 275 S.W. 21
Liverpool & London & Globe Ins.
142
•Co. v. Cabler. Civ.App., 271 S.W.
441— Dowd v. Klock, Civ.App., 268
S.W. 234, reversed on other
grounds Klock v. Dowd, Com.App.,
280 S.W. 194— Davis v. Morris, Civ.
App., 2t5'7 S.W. 328, corrected on
motion to recall mandate 259 S.
W. !592, and reversed on other
grounds, Com.App.. 272 S.W. HOS
— St Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
v. Huff, Civ.App., 172 S.W. 755.
Utah.— Beneficial Life Ins. Co. v.
Mason, 160 P.2d 734 — Mason v. Ma-
son, 160 P.2d 730.
Wis. — State ex rel. Litzen v. Dillett,
9 N.W.2d 80, 242 Wis. 107 — State
ex rel. Litzen v. Dillett 7 N.W.2d
599, 242 Wis. 107, rehearing de-
nied 9 N.W.2d 80, 242 Wis. 107.
33 C.J. p 1172 note 50.
Informal statements of court
(1) A Judgment need not conform
to informal statements of the court
if it conforms to its formal findings.
—O'Brien v. Quirk, 204 IlLApp. 448.
(2) Court's informal statement
held not necessarily at variance with
finding in decree. — Manney v. Mc-
Clure, 233 P. 158, 76 Qolo. 539.
Judgments held to conform to find-
ing's, etc.
Ark.— Sinclair Refining Co. v. Hen-
derson, 122 S.W.2d 580, 197 Ark.
319.
l. — Matmor Olive Co. v. Du Bois,
150 P.2d 816, 65 Cal.App.2d 467—
Honsberger v. Durfee, 130 P.2d
189, 55 Cal.App.2d 68— Clavey v.
Loney, 251 P. 232, 80 CaLApp. 20.
G-a. — Sangster v. Toledo Mfg. Co., 19
S.B.2d 723, 193 Ga. 685 — Bank of
Louisville, Ga., v. Wheeler, 134
S.E. 753, 162 Ga. 635.
OkL— <3hurchill v. Roberts, 22>5 P.
535, 98 Okl. 295.
Or.— Myers v. Olds, 252 P. 342, 121
Or. 249.
Tex.— Sfcroles v. Rosen, 84 S.W.2d
1001, 126 Tex. 51 — Alexander v.
Stock Yards Nat. Bank of Fort
Worth, Civ.App., 154 S.W.2d 997,
error refused — Jackson v. Wolff &
Marx Co., Civ.App., 11-6 S.W.2d
467— Merritt v. King, Civ.App., 65
S.W.2d 464, error refused — First
State Bank of Three Rivers v.
Petrucha, Civ.App., 38 S.W.2d 138,
error dismissed — 'Seale v. Schultz,
Civ.App., 3 S.W.2d 563, error dis-
missed—Jones v. Bledsoe, Civ.
App., 293 S.W. 204— Casey v. State,
Civ.App., 289 S.W. 42'8.
Wash. — Shockley v. Travelers Ins.
Co., 137 P.2d 117, 17 Wash.2d 7'36.
34. (ja. — Fleming v. Collins, 9 S.B.
2d 157, 190 Ga. 210.
Idaho. — Boise Street Car Co. v. Van
i9 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
56
were against the undisputed proof or without evi-
dence to support them.15 The rule does not, how-
ever, require that judgment be rendered in accord-
ance with immaterial findings, or findings on facts
not within the issues raised by the pleadings;16
nor does it require that no judgment be rendered
unless the verdict contains-a finding of all the facts
on which it may be based.17 On the contrary, the
judgment may be based on the verdict rendered by
the jury on the special issues submitted to it, to-
gether with the facts admitted in the pleadings, or
established by the undisputed evidence,18 and such
facts as are incident to the issues on which the jury
made findings which have support in the evidence.19
Where tJiere is loth a general and a special ver-
dict, judgment should be rendered on the general
verdict20 unless the special findings are inconsistent
therewith.21
§ 56. For and Against Whom
With respect to the parties fop and against whom
It Is given, a judgment must follow and conform to the
verdict, decision, or findings.
With respect to the parties for and against whom
it is given, as in other particulars, a judgment must
follow and conform to the verdict, decision, or
findings,22 according to the decisions on die ques-
Avery, 103 P.2d 1107, 61 Idaho
502.
N.C.— Sparks v. Sparks, 140 S.E. 300,
194 N.C. 809.
Ohio. — Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Vitti,
146 N.E. 94, 111 Ohio St 670.
Tex. — Magnolia Petroleum Co. v.
Connellee, Com.App., 14 S.W.2d
1020 — McCuistion v. James, Civ.
AP&., 46 S.W.2d 717.
33 C.J. P 1172 note 51.
Court cannot render judgment on
different theory from that submit-
ted to Jury. — Great American Ins.
Co. v. Marbury, Tex.Civ.App., -297 S.
W. 584.
15. Tex.— Edmlston v. Texas & N.
O. R. Co., 138 S.W.2d 526, 135 Tex.
57 — Massle v. Hutcheson, Com.
App., 2*70 S.W. 544 — Texas Em-
ployers Ins. Ass'n v. Schaffer, Civ.
App., 161 S.W.2d 328, error refused
— -Weston v. Duggan, Civ. App., 1-60
S.W.2d 1010— Traders & General
Ins. Co. v. Milliken, Civ.App., 110
S.W.2d. 108— Liverpool & -London
& Globe Ins. Co. v. Cabler, Civ.
App., 271 S.W. 441— TT. S. Fidelity
& Guaranty Co. v. Dowdle, Civ.
App., 269 S.W. 119.
33 C.J. p 1172 note 50 [d].
If the verdict is also without sup-
port in the pleadings of the party in
whose favor it is rendered, as well
as without support in the evidence,
then the court may disregard it and
enter a Judgment contrary thereto. —
Johnson v. Breckenridge-Stephens
Title Co., Tex.Com.App., 257 S.W.
22-3— Rogers v. City of Fort Worth,
Tex.Civ.App., 2?5 S.W. 214.
18. CaL — Berg v. Berg, 132 P.2d 871,
56 Cal.App.2d 495.
Tex.— Sproles v. Rosen, 84 S.W.2d
1001, 126 Tex. 51— Magnolia Pe-
troleum Co. v. Connellee, Com.
App., 11 S.W.2d 158— Miller v.
Lemm, Com. App., 276 S.W. 211 —
Allied Underwriters v. Harrell,
Civ.AjM>.. 143 S.W.2d 621, error dis-
missed, judgment correct — Kim-
brow v. Fort Worth & D. C. R. Co.,
Civ.App., 86 S.W.2d 78, affirmed
Fort Worth & 3>. C, Ry. Co. v.
Kimbrow, 112 S.W.2d 712, 131 Tex.
117— Barnhart Mercantile Co. v.
Bengel, Civ.Aj>p., 77 S.W.2d 295—
Atlas Brick Co. v. North, Civ.App.,
2 S.W.2d 980, reversed on other
grounds, North v. Atlas Brick Co.,
Com.App., 13 S.W.2d 59, motion
granted in part 16 S.W.2d 519—
Casey v. State, Civ.App., 2-89 S.W.
428— Battle v. Wolfe, Civ.App., 283
S.W. 1073 — Liverpool & London &
Globe Ins. Co. v. Cabler, Civ.App.,
271 S.W. 441— Crowley v. Chap-
man, Civ.App., 260 S.W. 231—
Smith & Lawson v. Taylor, Civ.
App., 249 S.W. 519— Baker v. Cole-
man Abstract Co., Civ.App., 248 S.
W. 412 — Ferguson v. Kuehn, Civ.
App., 246 S.W. 674— Dickson v. Kil-
gore State Bank, Civ.App., 244 S.
W. 392, reversed on other grounds,
Com.App., 257 S.W. 867— Stark v.
George, Civ.App., 237 S.W. 948, re-
versed on other grounds, Com.
App., 252 S.W. 1053.
•33 C.J. p 1172 note 52.
Finding* held not immaterial
Tex. — Hart v. Wilson, Com.App., 288
S.W. 133.
Findings without support in evi-
dence and outside issues held not to
afford basis for valid judgment. —
Devlin v. City of Pleasanton, 288 P.
595, 130 Kan. 76*6.
17. Ga.— Allen v. Allen, 31 S.B.2d
483, 198 Ga. 269— Law v. Coleman,
159 S.B. 679, 173 Ga. 68.
18. Ga.— Allen v. Allen, 31 S.E.2d
483, 198 Ga. 269— Law v. Coleman,
159 S.B. 679, 173 Ga, 68.
Tex.— Southern Pine Lumber Co. v.
Whiteman, Civ.App., 104 S.W.2d
635, error dismissed — Richardson
v. Kent, Civ.App., 47 S.W.2d 420—
Great American Ins. Co.' v. Mar-
bury, Civ.App., 297 S.W. 684.
Judgment based on issue not sub-
mitted to jury and not controverted
held not erroneous. — Graham Hotel
Co. v. Garrett, Tex.Civ.App., 'SS S.W.
Sd 522, error dismissed.
19. Tex. — Richardson v. Kent, Civ.
App., 47 S.W.2d 420.
143
An implied •"•**H™g on an issue sub-
mitted to, and not determined by,
the jury cannot be made the basis of
judgment.— J. R. Milam Co. v. First
Nat Bank, Tex.Civ.App., 29 S.W.2d
480, error dismissed.
20. Idaho. — Geddes v. Davis, 210 P.
584, 36 Idaho 201.
33 C.J. p 1173 note 56.
21. Ind.— Earl Park State Bank v.
Lowmon, 161 N.E. 675, 92 Ind.App.
25— Scottish Union & National Ins.
Co. v. B. R Linkenhelt & Co., 121
N.E. 373, 70 Ind.App. 324.
, — Behymer v. Milgram Food
Stores, 101 P.2d 912, 151 Kan. 921
— Hogan v. Santa Fe Trail Transp.
Co., 85 P.2d 28, 148 TCan. 720, 120
A.L.R. 521.
33 C.J. p 1173 note 56.
Court looks to pleadings, general
verdict, and jury's answers to inter-
rogatories in determining what is
proper judgment. — Earl Park State
Bank v. Lowmon, 161 N.E. 675, 92
Ind. App. 25.
Facts found held not inconsistent
with general verdict.
Ind.— L. S. Ayres & Co. v. Hicks, 40
N.E.M '334, 220 Ind. 86, rehearing
denied 41 N.E.2d 195, 356, 220 Ind.
86.
Kan. — Preston v. Kansas Central In-
demnity Co., 243 P. 300, 120 Kan.
297.
22. Cal. — Header v. Parsons, 19 Cal.
294 — Tarpey v. Curran, 228 P. 62,
67 CaLApp. 575.
Conn. — Endut v. Borodenko, 145 A.
27, 109 Conn. 677.
Ind. — Feuerstein v. Baumelster, 8 N.
E.2d 412, 103 Ind.App. 432.
Mo. — White v. Meiderhoff, App., 281
S.W. 98.
Ohio. — State ex rel. Fulton v. Ach, £4
N.E.2d 462, 62 Ohio App. 439 —
Spieker v. Board of Rapid Transit
Com'rs of City of Cincinnati, 174
N.E. 15, 37 Ohio App. 102.
Tex. — Peveto v. Smith, 133 S.W.2d
572, 134 Tex. 308 — Fleming Oil Co.
v. Watts, Civ.App., 193 S.W.2d 979
-—Corpus Juris cited in Walker v.
Taylor, Civ.App.f 56 S.W.2d 251,
§ 56
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
tion, as reasonably construed23 in the light of
the pleadings and evidence and settled principles of
law.24 The judgment must be rendered in favor of
the party indicated by the verdict provided his
pleadings are sufficient to sustain it.25 A judgment
must be for plaintiff on a finding in his favor,26
and for defendant on a finding in his favor.27
Where the finding is against all defendants, the
judgment must be entered against all,28 except those
properly dismissed from the action after verdict,29
and, where it is in favor of all defendants, the
judgment likewise must be entered in favor of them
aIL«°
Although there is also contrary authority,81 it has
been held that a verdict against one or more of
several defendants authorizes the entry of a judg-
ment in favor of defendants not mentioned in it,32
and a verdict in favor of a defendant charged as
primarily liable has been held to authorize a judg-
ment in favor of defendants, secondarily liable.38
When the verdict is for plaintiff on one count only,
a judgment for defendant on the other counts has
been held proper.84 In designating the parties the
use of the singular for the plural or vice versa will
not amount to a variance between the verdict and
judgment, where it is evidently a mistake and does
not cast obscurity on the decision,35 but the use of
the plural to designate all the parties on one side
requires the entry of a judgment in favor of all
such parties, and a judgment in favor of only one
of them is erroneous.86 An obvious misnomer in
the verdict may be corrected in the judgment with-
out constituting a variance.87 So a party described
in the pleadings as a corporation may be so de-
scribed in the judgment, although the verdict fails
to do so.88
§ 57.
Amount
Generally a Judgment must be rendered for the
amount indicated by the verdict or findings.
A judgment must be rendered for the amount in-
dicated by the verdict or findings,89 in the absence
252— First Nat Bank v. Harris
Bros. Grain Co., Civ.App., 254 S.
W. 119 — Branch v. Smith, Civ.App.,
245 S.W. 799.
Wash. — Shew v. Hartnett, 208 P. 60,
121 Wash. 1.
33 C.J. p 1174 note 71.
Judgment heia not inconsistent
with verdict, decision, or findings.
Cal.— Taylor v. Odell, 122 P.2d 919,
50 Cal.App.2d 115.
Tex. — Burd v. San Antonio Southern
Ry. C.o.» Com.App., 281 $.W. 1021.
Dismissal as to one plaintiff
Under verdict for plaintiffs, except
named plaintiff, defendant was enti-
tled to dismissal of complaint, as
against such named plaintiff. —
'Eclipse Lumber Co. v. Davis, 207 N.
W. 238, 201 Iowa 1283, opinion cor-
rected on other grounds 209 N.W.
307.
23. Ohio. — Spieker v. Board of Rap-
id Transit Com'rs of City of Cin-
cinnati, 174 N.BL 15, 37 Ohio App.
102.
Wash.— Shew v. Hartnett, 208 P. 60,
121 Wash. 1.
Verdict against one defendant
acting as agent of co defendant held
to authorize judgment against both
in view of instructions. — Mixon v.
Southern Ry. Co., 138 S.E. 45, 1'39
S.C. 343.
24. Cal. — Curtis Y. San Pedro
Tranap. Co., 52 P.2d 528, 10 Cal.
App.2d 547.
25. Cal. — Metropolis Trust & -Sav-
ings Bank v. Monnier, 147 P. 265,
1C 9 Cal. 592.
33 C.J. p 1174 note "72.
T7here plaintiff's attorney admit-
ted failure to make out case against
certain defendants, and as to them
consented to dismissal, judgment
against such defendants on general
verdict for plaintiff was erroneous. —
Hanson- Jacobs- Co. v. Schlesinger,
206 N.Y.8. 277, 210 App.Div. 434.
29. 111.— -Rose v. Meyer, 25 N.B.2d
413, 303 IH.App. 365.
33 C.J. p 1175 note 73.
27. HI.— Leon v. Mutual Ben.
Health & Accident Ass'n, 55 N.B.2d
557, 323 IlLApp. 203.
33 C.J. p 11*75 note 74.
If only conclusion deduoible from
foots found calls for judgment for
defendant, Judgment for plaintiff is
erroneous as a matter of law. — En-
dut v. Borodenko, 145 A. £7, 109
Conn. -577J
23. Ala.— Harris v. White, 101 So.
751, 212 Ala. 54.
Ind. — Feuerstein v. Baumeister, 8 N.
E.2d 41*2, 103 Ind.App. 432.
33 C.J. p 1175 note 75.
Judgment held not objectionable
as not being in accordance with ver-
dict against all defendants. — Tomer-
lin v. Krause. Tex.Civ.App., 278 S.
W. 501.
Defect held not to void judgment
In an action against defendants
jointly and severally liable, a judg-
ment on a verdict for plaintiffs mis-
takenly entere4 against only one of
the defendants has been held not
void. — Power v. Crown Stage Co.,
256 P. 457, 82 Cal.App. 660. *
29. Tex. — Johnson v. Moss, Civ.
App., 108 S.W.2d 1110, error dis-
missed.
30. Cal. — Butler v. Estrella 'Raisin
Vineyard Co., 56 P. 1040, 134 Cal.
239. I
144
31- Cal.— Keller v. Smith, 19 P.2d
541, 130 CaLApp. 128.
38. Pa.— Carroll v. Kirk, 19 A.2d
•584, 144 Pa.Super. <211.
33 C.J. p 1175 note 77.
33. B.C. — Hoagland v. Chestnut
Farms Dairy, 72 F.2d 729, 63 App.
D.C. 357.
34. Mo.— Buckman y. Missouri, K. &
T. R. Co., T3 S.W. 270, 100 Mo.App.
30.
35. Ark. — Missouri Pacific Transp.
Co. v. 'Sharp, 108 S.W.2d 579, 194
Ark. 405.
Pla. — Davis v. Ivey, 112 So. .264, cer-
tiorari denied MeUon v. Ivey, 48
S.-Ct. 17. 275 U.S. 526, 72 L.Ed. 407.
Mo.— Mehlstaub v. Michael, 287 S.W.
1079, 221 Mo.App. 807.
33 C.J. p 1175 note 79.
36. Fla. — Baker & Holmes Co. v. In-
dian River State Bank, 55 So. 836,
61 Fla. 106.
37. Ky.— Pittsburg, C. C. & St. I*
R. Co, v. Darlington, 111 S.W. 3-60,
129 Ky. 266, 33 Ky.L. 818.
38. Ala. — Oliver's Garage v. Lowe*
103 So. 586, 212 Ala. 602.
39. Cal. — San Francisco Credit
Clearing House v. MacGowan, -24 6
P. 347, 77 CaLApp. 308.
N.Y.— Costello v. New York qent. &
H. R. R. Co., 144 N.H. 514, 238 N.Y.
240.
N.C. — Johnson v. Metropolitan 'Life»
Ins. Co., 14 S.B.2d 405, 219 N.C.
445.
Tex. — Prideaux v. Roark, Com.App.,
291 S,W. 868.
33 C.J. p 1175 note 83.
Judgments held in conformity
with, or supported by, verdict or
findings*
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
57
of a statute permitting the court to disregard the
verdict or findings,40 and a judgment for either a
greater41 or a smaller42 amount than indicated by
the verdict or findings, without the consent of the
party adversely affected,43 is erroneous unless there
is a mere error in computation of the amount, and
sufficient data is given from which the court may
compute the correct amount,44 or the pleadings and
evidence are insufficient to support the verdict or
findings,45 or, according to some cases, where the
jury have mistakenly failed to follow the instruc-
tions given them,46 although as to this there is also
authority to the contrary.4? A small variance in
amount between the verdict and the judgment may,
however, be disregarded as immaterial.4* Ordi-
narily a judgment for a specified amount cannot reg-
ularly be entered on a verdict which does not as-
sess the amount;49 but where the amount can be
ascertained by mere computation, or is undisputed,
it is not reversible error for the court to make the
computation and to enter judgment on the verdict
for the amount thus ascertained.50
Excessive verdict. Where the verdict is support-
ed in some amount, it has been held that the court
must enter judgment on the verdict, even though it
considers the amount unjust or excessive.51 It has
also been held, however, that if the verdict is ex-
cessive and the excess is remitted, judgment for the
residue may be entered on the verdict.52
Attorney's fees. Where the obligation sued on
provides for the payment of a definite sum as at-
Cal. — Llano Inv. Co. v. Minton, 214
P. 855, 190 CaL T52— Churchill v.
Peters, 134 P.2d 841, 57 Cal.App.2d
521 — State Compensation Ins.
Fund v. Rothwell, 284 P, 943, 103
Cal.App. 607.
Or. — Grammer v. Wiggins-Meyer S.
S. Co., 270 P. 759, 126 Or. 694.
40. Only on motion and notice can
the court disregard the jury's find-
ing under a statute so providing.—
St t-ouis, B. & M. Ry. Qo. v. Sim-
monds, Civ.App., 50 S.W.2d 343, mod-
ified on other grounds Simmonds v.
St. Louis B. & M. Ry. Co., 91 S.W.2d
332, 127 Tex. 23.
41- U.S.— Mutual Ben. Health & Ac-
cident Ass'n v. Thomas, C.C.A.
Ark.. 1'23 F.2d 353— Detroit City
Gas Co. v. Syme, C.C.A.Mieh., 109
F.2d 366.
Ark. — Powers v. Wood Parts Corpo-
ration, 44 S.W.2d 324, 184 Ark.
1032.
Colo.— Greenwald v. Molloy, 166 P.
2d 983.
Ga. — Mercer v. Nowell, 175 S.B. 12,
179 Ga. 37.
111.— Koltz v.. Jahaaske, 38 N.E.2d
973, 312 IlLApp. -623.
Ind.— Wisconsin Nat. Life Ins. Co.
v. Meixel, 51 N.B.2d 78, 221 Ind.
650.
Mich.— Dirkes v. Lenzen, 214 N.W.
81, 239 Mich. 270.
Miss.— Tonkel v. Moore, 137 So. 189,
162 Miss. 83.
N.Y.— -Stern v. Rona, 61 N.T.S.2d 563
—La Valley v. Stanford, 56 N.Y.
S.2d 359.
Tex. — Bridwell v. Bernard, Civ.App.,
159 S.W.2d 981, error refused—
Rountree Motor Co. v. Smith Mo-
tor Co., Civ.App., 109 S.W.2d 296,
error dismissed — Barnhart Mer-
cantile Co. v. feengel, Civ.App., 77
S.W.2d 295-— Magnolia Petroleum
Co. v. Dodd, Civ.App., 52 S.W.2d
670, set aside on other grounds 81
S.W.'2d 653, 125 Tex. 125— Si
Louis, B. & M. Ry. Co. v. Sim-
monds, Civ.App., 50 S.W.2d 343
49 C.J.S.-10
modified on other grounds Sim-
monds v. St. Louis B. & M. Ry.
Co., 91 S.W.2d 332, 127 Tex. 23—
Southwest Nat. Bank of Dallas v.
Hill, Civ.App., 297 S.W. 1096.
33"C.J. p 1175 note 84.
Judgment for future payments au-
thorized
In action on disability clause of
insurance policy, judgment award-
ing plaintiff amount found -by Jury to
be then due and directing future
payments as long as disability con-
tinued, the case being retained on
the docket for further proceedings,
held authorized as against conten-
tion that judgment was not In con-
formity with verdict. — Mutual Life
Ins. Co. of New Tork v. McBlrath,
87 S.W.2d 619, 261 Ky. 321— Eauita-
ble Life Assur. Soc. of U. S. v. aoble,
72 S.W.2d -35, 254 Ky. 614.
Costs held improperly incorporat-
ed in judgment. — Jay-Em Service
Stations v. Watts, 8 N.T.S.Sd 489,
255 App.Div. 995.
42. Cal. — Corpus (Taxis cited in
Cappelmann v. Young, App., 165 P.
2d 950, 954— Harlow v. Motor
Coach Co., 17 P.2d 748, 128 CaL
App. 487.
111. — Koltz v. Jahaaske, 88 N.E.2d
973, 312 IlLApp. -623.
Minn.— Rieke v. St Albans Land Co.,
231 N.W. 222, 180 Minn. 540.
Ohio.— Weinberg v. Schaller, 171 N.
B. 346, 34 Ohio App. 464.
. — Hawkeye Securities Ins. Co. v.
Cashion, Civ.App., 278 S.W. 298—
Owenwood Oil Corporation v.
Sweet, Civ.App., 263 S.W. 641.
33 C.J. p 1176 note 85.
Defendant held, not entitled to
complain of such Judgment. — Schaff
v. Lynn, Tex.'Civ.App., 253 S.W. 590
43. in.— Koltz v. Jahaaske, 38 N.E
2d 973, 312 IlLApp. 623.
33 C.J. p 1176 note 86.
44. Ind.— Dawson v. Shirk, 1 N.E.
392, 102 Ind. 184.
33 C.J. p 1176 note 87.
145
45. Tex.— Twichell v. Klinke, Civ.
App., 272 S.W. 283.
Where the verdict is greater than
the amount alleged, it has been held
that Judgment should be entered for
the latter sum. — Dorsett v. Crew, 1
Colo. 18—33 C.J. p 1176 note 90. '
46. Wis.— Schweitzer v. Connor, 14
N.W. 92*2, 57 Wis. 177.
33 C.J. p 1176 note 8*8.
47. Ky. — Dunn v. Blue Grass Realty
Qo., 173 S.W. 1122, 163 Ky. 384.
33 C.J. p 1176 note 89.
48. Tex.— Brown v. Montgomery,
Civ.App., 31 S.W. 1079.
33 C.J. p 1176 note 91.
49. Ohio.— Worst v. Colonial Sav.
Bank & Trust Co., 11 Ohio App.
308.
Pa.— Allen v. Slock, 2 Penr. & W.
159.
33 C.J. p 1176 note 92.
50. Ga.— Mercer v. Nowell, 175 S.
B. 12, 179 Ga, 37— Rich v. Belcher,
158 S.E. 643, 43 Ga.App. 377.
Kan.— Gartner v. Hays, 222 P. 72,
115 Kan. 88.
Wis.— Feelyater v. Chicago, M. & St.
P. Ry. Co., 190 N.W. 193, 178 Wis.
362.
33 C.J. P 1176 note 93.
Judgment for amount shown by
uncontradicted evidence should be
rendered by court where jury falls
to bring verdict in such amount. —
Bllerson Floral Co. v. Chesapeake &
O. Ry. Co., 141 S.EL 834, 149 Va. 809.
In an action on a liquidated <je-
mond a general verdict for plaintiff
supports a Judgment for the full
amount sued for. — Rogers v. Bryan,
Tex. Civ. App., 270 S.W. 1066.
51. Minn.— Rieke v. St. Albans Land
Co., 231 N.W. 222, ISO Minn. 540.
52. Kan.— Traders State Bank of
Glen Elder v. Wooster, 154 P.2d
1017, 159 Kan. 337.
Wash. — Young v. Rummens, 210 P.
198. 121 Wash. 63$.
33 C.J. p 1176 note 95.
§ 58
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
torney's fees, on a verdict in favor of plaintiff for
the principal and interest it has been held that it
is not error for the court in rendering judgment to
add the attorney's fees provided for in such obli-
gation.53
§ 58.
Interest
As a general rule the Judgment must be supported
by, and conform to, the verdict, decision, or findings,
with respect to the allowance of interest and the amount
thereof.
As a general rule the judgment must be support-
ed by, and conform to, the verdict, decision, or find-
ings with respect to the allowance of interest and
the amount thereof,54 and if the jury do not allow
interest in their verdict the court cannot allow it.55
Also, where the date from which interest runs is
a matter for the jury to determine, if the jury,
while allowing interest, fail to fix the date from
which it is to run the court cannot do so.56 Inter-
est may be allowed, however, on the verdict from
the time of its return,57 and, where statutory au-
thority therefor exists, on the judgment, even
though the verdict is silent thereon.58
The rule barring the inclusion of interest in the
judgment where the verdict fails to allow it has
been held to apply even where the issue of interest
is not submitted to the jury.5^ It has been held,
however, that where, no issue as to interest is sub-
mitted to the jury and the right thereto exists as a
matter of law, and there is no dispute as to the
amount thereof, the court may allow interest in its
judgment even though the verdict is silent.60
Where there is no issue as to the date from which
interest is to run, it has been held that the court in
its judgment may fix such time in accordance with
the rules of substantive law.61
Interest may be included in the judgment where
the verdict or finding with regard to it is sufficient-
ly certain and definite as to amount,62 or if, with-
out specifying the amount of the interest allowed,
it contains data . from which it can be calculated
with certainty and precision;63 but where the
amount is not definite and certain,64 and cannot be
made certain,65 the court is not authorized to render
53. Okl. — Hope v. Gordon, 50 P.2d
669, 174 Okl. 368.
54. Ga. — Ivester v. Brown, 121 S.B.
241, 157 Ga, 376.
Mo. — Meffert v. Lawson, 28*7 S.W.
610, 315 Mo. 1091.
33 C.J. p 1177 note 99.
Date from which interest runs
Where . verdict allowed "interest
from date," judgment should allow
Interest only from date of verdict. —
Miller v. Farmers' Mut. Fire Ins.
Ass'n of North Carolina, 155 S.E.
2-54, 199 N.C. 594.
55. Ala. — Corpus Juris quoted in W.
T. Raleigh Co. v. Harmon, 22 So.2d
603, 605.
Fla.— Shoup v. Waits, 107 So. 769, 91
Fla. 378.
Ky. — Parsley v. Parsley, 6 S.W.'2d
234, 224 Ky. 254— Wright v. Har-
lan Fuel Co.,'283 S.W. 944, 214 Ky.
602.
Mo. — Meffert r. Lawson. #87 S.W.
610, 315 Mo. 1091.
N.C.— Davis v. Doggett, 194 S.B. 288,
212 N.C. 589.
Tex. — Bain Peanut Co. of Texas v.
Pinson, Com. App., 29*2 S.W. 203,
set aside on other grounds 294 S.
W. 536 — St. Louis Southwestern
Ry. Co. of Texas v. -Seale & Jones,
Com~Aupp., 267 S.W. 676 — Lone Star
Finance Corporation v. Schelling,
Civ.App., 80 S.W.2d 35'8 — Buelin v.
Smith, Civ.A-pp., 294 S.W. 317, re-
versed on other grounds Bulin v.
Smith, Com. App., 1 S.W.2d 591 —
Brooks Supply C|o. v. First State
Bank of ElectraV Civ.App., 292 S.
W. 6$1— Williams v. Walker, Civ.
App., 290 S.W. 299 — Lancaster v.
Norris, Civ.App., 271 S.W. 401, re-
versed on other grounds Norris v.
Lancaster, Com.App., 280 S.W. 574
— Gamer Paper Co. v. Tuscany,
Civ.App., 264 S.W. 132 — Joseph v.
Bostick, Civ. App., 264 S.W. 129, re-
versed on other grounds, Com.
App., 276 S.W. 6'72— Mack Interna-
tional Motor Truck Corporation v.
Coonrod, Civ.App., 264 S.W. 129.
33 C.J. p 1177 note 1.
Rule held applicable to special issue
verdicts
Tex.— ^Atkinson v. Jackson Bros., Civ.
App., 2-59 S.W. 280, modified on
other grounds, Com. App., 270 S.W.
348.
Interest is presumed to be includ-
ed in a general verdict for a gross
sum where the question of interest
was not reserved by the court and
there is nothing in the record to in-
dicate that the jury omitted inter-
est, and the court cannot in such
case add it. — Enterprise Seed Co. v.
Leonard Seed Co., 220 P. 633, 96 Okl.
12"2.
58. N.C. — Acme Mfg. Co. v. Mc-
Queen, 127 S.E. 246, 189 N.C. 311.
57. Ky.— Wright v. Harlan Fuel
Co., 283 S.W. 944, 214 Ky. 602.
33 C.J. p 1177 note 2.
58. Ga. — Lang v. . South Georgia
Inv. Co., 144 S.E. 149, 38 Ga.App.
4*30.
59. Tex.— Davis v. Morris, "Com.
App., 272 S.W. 1103 — Thompson v.
Van Natta, Civ.App., 277 S.W. 711
— Fort Worth & D. C. Ry. Co. v.
Ryan, Civ.App., 271 S.W. '397.
146
60. Ga.— Allen v. Allen, 81 S.E.2d
483, 198 Ga. 269.
Miss.— Collins v. Carter, 125 So. 89,
15*5 Miss. 600.
Tex. — Ewing v. Foley, Inc., 280 S.
W. 499, 115 Tex. 222, 44 A.L.R. 62-7
—Shield Co. v. Carter, qiv.App., 5'8
S.W.2d 1068 — Acme Brick Co. v.
Turjpin. Civ.App., 22 S.W.2d 322,
error dismissed— Automobile Un-
derwriters of America v. Radford,
Civ.App., 293 S.W. 869, affirmed,
Com.App., 299 S.W. 852— Miller v.
Miller, Civ.App., 292 S.W. 917.
Wis. — In re Draper's Estate, 203 N.
W. 360, 187 Wis. 347.
61. Ky.— Hack v. Lashley, -245 S.W.
851, 197 Ky. 117.
62. Mich. — Bell v. ArcUs, 38 Mich.
609.
63. Iowa. — Grimes Sav. Bank v. Mc-
Harg, 236 N.W. 418, 213 Iowa 969,
certiorari denied McHarg v.
Grime.9 Sav. Bank, 53 S.Ct. 5, 287
U.S. 599, 77 L.Ed. 522.
Okl. — Corpus Juris cited in Fletcher
v. Allen, 157 P.-2d 452, 453, 195 Okl.
307.
33 C.J. p 1177 note 3.
A general verdict, such as, "We
the jury find for plaintiff," has been
held sufficient to support a Judgment
for interest in an action on a con-
tract.— Darden v. Matthews, 22 Tex.
320— West v. L. W. Sweet, Inc., Tex.
Civ.App., 292 S.W. 251.
64. Mich. — Bell v. Ardis, 38 Mich.
609.
65. Okl. — Fletcher v. Allen, 157 P.
2d 4>52, 195 Okl. 307.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
59
a judgment for interest If the specification of
interest is insufficient, a judgment for the principal
amount found, without interest, is supported by the
verdict.66 Error in calculation of interest may
generally be corrected by amendment or modifica-
tion of the judgment in the trial court or on ap-
peal.6?
§ 59. Judgment Non Obstante Veredicto
A judgment non obstante veredicto Is a Judgment
given for one party notwithstanding the finding of a
verdict in favor of the other party, and a motion for
judgment non obstante veredicto means a motion for
judgment notwithstanding the entire verdict, the pur-
pose being to avoid a new trial and to secure a final
judgment in favor of the movant.
In its broadest sense a judgment non obstante
veredicto is a judgment given for one party not-
withstanding the finding of a verdict in favor of
the other party.6* A motion for judgment non ob-
stante veredicto means a motion for judgment not-
withstanding the entire verdict.6^ The purpose of
the motion is to avoid a new trial and to secure a
final judgment in favor of the movant.70 The mo-
tion is wholly separate and distinct from a motion
for a new trial,71 and it has been distinguished from
a motion in arrest of judgment.72 Moreover it is
not construable as a motion to amend the verdict.73
Although, as discussed infra §§ 60-61, the prac-
tice with respect to granting judgment non ob-
stante veredicto is general and well settled, in a
few jurisdictions it is narrowly limited in applica-
tion.74
63. Neb. — Wiseman v. Ziegler, $0
N.W. 320, 41 Neb. 886.
67. Ala. — Spence v. Rutledge, 11
Ala. 590.
33 C.J. p 1177 note 7.
68. Ind. — Inter State Motor Freight
System v. Henry, 38 N.E.2d 909,
111 Ind.App. 179.
33 C.J. p 1178 note 9.
Judgment on special findings against
general verdict distinguished see
infra § 60 e.
Particular Judgment construed as
not a judgment non obstante ver-
odicto authorized by statute, where
judgment and motion showed that
judgment was rendered on verdict
notwithstanding jury's failure to an*
swer issue. — Davis v. Bond, 158 S.
W.2d 297, 138 Tex. 206.
69. Tex. — Myers v. Crenshaw, 137
S.W.2d 7, 1-34 Tex. 500.
7Q. Iowa. — Miller v. Southern Sure-
ty Co., 229 N.W. 909, 209 Iowa
1221.
71. Iowa. — Miller v. Southern Sure-
ty Co., supra — Cownie v. Kopf,
202 N.W. 517, 199 Iowa 737.
Alternative motion for new trial
see infra § 61 a.
Motion for new trial generally see
the C.J.S. title New Trial §§ 139-
146 also 46 C.J. p 314 note 58 et
sea.
72. Mo. — King v. Kaw-Mo Whole-
sale Grocer Co., 175 S.W. 77, 188
Mo.App. 235, 839.
33 C.J. p 1178 note 9 [b].
Arrest of judgment generally see in-
fra §§ 87-99.
Distinction.
."It is true that in some respects
the two motions are similar. For
example, both are directed only to
material defects in the record.
However, there are also Important
distinctions. The party filing a mo-
tion for judgment notwithstanding
the verdict asks the court to do
something more than merely to ar-
rest the judgment. Such a motion
requests the court to go farther and
render judgment in plaintiffs favor
notwithstanding the verdict which
has been found against him. A par-
ty filing a motion in arrest of judg-
ment does not ask the court for a
judgment in his favor, but only
asks that the judgment be arrested,
and alleges that the party In whose
favor the verdict was rendered is
not entitled to the judgment of the
court because of some insufficiency
in the record proper." — First Nat.
Bank v. Dunbar, 72 S.W.2d '821, 824,
230 Mo.App. 687.
73, Mo.— Meffert v. Lawson, 287 S.
W. 610, 315 Mo. 1091.
74. Puerto Rico. — Erwin v. Nater, 6
Puerto Rico Fed. 690.
33 C.J. p 1178 note 11.
Judgment non obstante veredicto in
federal courts see Federal Courts
§ 144 f.
XXL action under Federal Employ-
ers' Liability Act state court may
render judgment notwithstanding
verdict.
Minn. — Robertson v. Chicago, B. I.
& P. Ry. Co., 2*30 N.W. 585, 180
Minn. 578, certiorari denied 51 S.
Ct 31, 282 U.S. 854, 75 L.Bd. 756
—Marshall v. Chicago, R. I. & P.
R. Co., 157 N.W. 6-38, 133 Minn.
460.
Pa. — Casseday v. Baltimore & O. R.
Co., 22 AJ2d -663, 343 Pa, 342.
Xa. Missouri
Motion for judgment notwith-
standing verdict, despite code, is not
obsolete, nor is it regulated by stat-
ute regarding motions for new trial
and in arrest of judgment, but rath-
er by rules of common law. — Meffert
v. Lawson, 287 S.W. 610, 315 Mo.
1091— #3 C.J. p 1178 note 11 [b].
la Texas.
(1> Under the former practice
the judgment was required to fol-
low the verdict, and the court was!
147
without "power to render judgment
notwithstanding the verdict "on a ma-
terial issue. — Vogel v. Allen, 13 S.
W.2d 340, 118 Tex. 196 — Fitch v.
Lomax, Com.App., 16 S.W.2d -530, 66
A.L.R. 758— North v. Atlas Brick
Co., Com.App., 13 S.W.2d 59, motion
granted in part 16 S.W.2d 519— Mag-
nolia Petroleum Co. v. Connellee,
Com.App., 11 S.W.2d 15*8, followed in
Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Akin, 11
S.W.2d 1113, and rehearing denied
Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Connel-
lee, 14 S.W.2d 1020, and 20 S.W.Sd
758— Morris v. Jackson, Com.App.,
296 S.W. 486 — Deal v. Craven, Com.
App., 277 S.W. 1046— Nalle v. Walen-
ta, Civ. App., 102 S.W.24 1070— Mag-
nolia Petroleum Co. v. Beck, Civ.
App., 41 S.W.2d 488, error dismissed
— Bertrand v. Mutual Motor Co., Civ.
App., 38 S.W.2d 417, error refused —
Westex Theaters v. Williams, Civ.
App., 35 S.W.2d 253 — Jones v. Prine,
Civ.App., 29 S.W.2d 446— Carter v.
Portwood, Civ.App., 26 S.W.2d 422,
error dismissed — Peeler v. Smith,
Civ.App., 18 S.W.2d 938, affirmed
Smith v. Peeler, Com. App., 29 S.W.
3d 975 — Murray Tool Co. v. Root &
Fehl, Civ.App.. 16 S.W.2d 316, re-
versed on other grounds Root & Fehl
v. Murray Tool Co,, Com.App., 2-6
S.W.2d 189, 75 A.L.R. 902— South-
west 'Nat. Bank of Dallas v. Hill,
Civ.App., '297 S.W. 1096— Garrison
Tie & Timber Co. v. Parrott, Civ.
App., 293 S.W. 701— Sorenson v. City
Nat Bank, Civ.App., "293 S.W. 638—
Potomac Ins. Co. v. Easley, Civ.
App., 293 S.W. 346, reformed and af-
firmed, Com.App., 1 S.W.2d 263 —
Reese v. Reese, Civ.App., 289 S.W.
1023 — Lyon v. Gray, Civ.App., 288 S.
W. 54-5— Rogers v. City of Fort
Worth, Civ.App., 275 S.W. 214—
Dowd v. Klock, Civ.App., 268 S.W.
234, reversed on other grounds Klock
v. Dowd, Com.App., «280 S.W. 194 —
Bateman v. Cleghorn, Civ.App., 266
S.W, 422— Branch r. Watford, Civ.
App., 254 'S.W. 389, affirmed Wafford
§ 60
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
§ 60. When and for Whom Granted
a. In general; pleading as basis for
judgment
b. Evidence as basis for judgment
c. On motion to disregard special issue
jury finding
d. On point reserved
e. On special findings against general
verdict
f. In particular proceedings
g. Amount of verdict
h." Party entitled
i. Waiver and estoppel
a. In General; Pleading as Basis for Judg-
ment
At common law, and in the absence of statute pro-
viding otherwise, a Judgment notwithstanding the ver-
dict may be rendered when, and only when, the plead-
Ings entitle the party against whom the verdict is ren-
dered to a Judgment and where the party against whom
such Judgment Is rendered is precluded from recovery
by some matter not subject to amendment, or which
could not be supplied on a new trial.
Originally, at common law, a judgment non ob-
stante veredicto could be entered only when the
plea confessed the cause of action and set up mat-
ters in avoidance which were insufficient, although
found true, to constitute either a defense or a bar
to the action.75 In such a case plaintiff was enti-
tled to a judgment in his favor notwithstanding a
verdict for defendant.78 Thus a judgment non ob-
stante veredicto at common law was merely one
species of a judgment on the pleadings.77 Some
statutes expressly provide for the rendering of
v. Branch, Com:App., 267 S.W. 26
—Thornton v. Athens Nat. Bank
Civ.App., 252 S.W. 278 — Compton
Skeeters, Civ.App., 250 S.W. 201—
3-3 C.J. p 1178 note 11 [fj.
(2) Court could, however, ignor
jury's findings where under no view
of pleadings and evidence was plain
tiff entitled to recover. — Vogel y
Allen, 13 S.W.Ed "340, 11'8 Tex. 196—
Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Connel
lee, Com.App., 11 S.W.2d 158, fol
lowed In Magnolia Petroleum Co. v
Akin, 11 S.W.2d 1113. and rehearing
denied Magnolia Petroleum Co. v
Connellee, 14 S.W.2d 1020, and 2
&W.2d 758— ®pence v. National Life
& Accident Ins. Co., Civ.App.f 59 S
W.2d 212— -Ellis County v. McKay
Civ.App.§ '56 S.W.'2d -310— Sproles v
ftosen, Civ.App., 47 S.W.2d 331, af-
firmed '84 -S,W.2d 1001, T26 Tex 51 —
Bertrand v. Mutual Motor Co., Civ
Apjp., 38 S.W.2d 417, error refused.
(3) Disregard of findings on im-
material issues was not violation of
mle prohibiting rendition of Judg-
tnent non obstante veredicto. — Klock
v. Dowd, Com.App., 280 S.W. 194—
Chaison v. Stark, Civ.App., 20 S.W.
2d 500, reversed on other grounds
Stark v. Chaison, Com.Ap'p., 50 S.W.
2d 776— Atlas v. Byers, Civ.App., 21
S.W.2d 1080— <Long v. McCoy,' Civ.
App., 294 S.W. -eSS, affirmed McCoy
v. Long, Com.App., 15 S.W.2d 234,
rehearing denied 17 -S.W.2d 783—
Tardley v. Houston Oil Co. of Texas,
CJr.App., 1288 S.W. 861— Sheek v. Tex-
as Co., Civ.App., 286 -S.W. -336— Mc-
Oee v. Cage, Civ.App,, 283 S.W. 283.
(4) 'Furthermore, rule prohibiting
Judgments non obstante veredicto
was not violated by giving of sum-
mary instructions or withdrawing
case from jury.— Adams v. Houston
Nat Bank, Com.App., 1 S.W.2d 878
—Noble v. Empire Gas & -Fuel Co.,
Cir.App., 20 S.W.2d 849, affirmed Em-
pire Gas & Fuel Co. v. Noble, Qom
App., 36 B.W.2d 451.
(5) However, the Texas practic
has been modified by statute, as dis
cussed infra § 60, and Judgment not
withstanding the verdict is author
ized in certain cases.
xu trtafc
A motion for Judgment notwith
standing, the verdict Is not recog
nized as proper. — Morrison v. Perry
140 P.2d 772, 104 Utah 151— Kirk v
Salt (Lake City, 89 P, 45'8, 32 Utah
143, 12 L.R.A.,N.S., 1021.
78. Ariz.— Corpus Juris quote* in
Eads v. Commercial Nat. Bank o
Phoenix, 1266 P. 14, 15, 33 Ariz. 499
62 A.L.R. 183.
Fhu — Corpus Juris cited In Dudte*
v. Harrison, McCready & Co., 173
So. 820, «2'3, 127 Fla. 687, rehear-
ing denied 174 So. 729, 128 Fla.
•358— Corpus Juris cited in Atlantic
Coast -Line R. Co. v. Canady, 165
So. 629, 6aO, 122 Fla. 447— Corpus
Jurl* cited in Pillet v. Ershick,
126 -So. 784, 788, 99 Fla. 433.
Idaho. — Prairie Flour Mill Co. v.
Farmers' Elevator Co., 2-61 P. 673,
45 Idaho 2*29.
111. — Illinois Tuberculosis Ass'n v.
Springfield Marine Bank, 2S2 111.
lApp. 14— Capelle v. CJhicago & N.
W. R. Co., 280 IlLApp. 471 — Mod-
era Woodmen of America v. Blair,
263 IU.App. 387— Manufacturers',
.Finance Trust v. Stone, 251 111.
App. 414.
Minn. — Anderson v. Newsome, 258 N.
W. 157, 193 Minn. 157— Funkley v.
Ridgway, 197 N.W. 280, 158 Minn.
265.
Mo. — Meffert v. Lawson, ^87 S.W.
610, 3,15 Mo. 1091.
ST.C.— Corpus Juris cited in Johnson
v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 14
S.B,2d 405, 406, 219 N.C. 445—
Corpus Juris cited in Jernlgan v.
148
Neighbors, 141 S.B. 586, 195 N.C
231.
Okl.— Rohland v. International Har-
vester Co. of America, 76 P.2cl
1078, 182 Okl. 200.
Or.— Snyder v. Portland Ry., Light &
Power Co., 215 P. '887, 107 Or. 673.
Pa.— Corpus Juris cited in Common-
wealth v. Heller, 24 A.-2d 460, 462,
147 Pa.Super. 68.
Tex.— Corpus Juris sited in Traders
& General Ins. Co. v. MHliken, Civ
App., 110 S.W.2d 108-^Corpus Ju-
ris cited in Stallings v. Federal
Underwriters Exchange, Civ. App.,
108 S.W.2d 449, 451— Spence v. Na-
tional Life & Accident Ins. Co.,
Civ.App., 59 S.W.Bd 212.
33 C.J. p 1178 note 12.
76. Ariz.— Corpus Juris quoted in
Bads v. Commercial Nat Bank of
Phoenix, 266 P. 14, 15, 33 Ariz.
499, 62 A.L.R. 183.
Minn.— Anderson v. Newsome, 258
N.W. 157, 193 Minn. 157— Funk-
ley v. Ridgway, 197 N.W. 280, 158
Minn. 265.
Pa,— Corpus Juris cited in Common-
wealth v. Heller. 24 A.2d 460, 462,
147 Pa.Super. 68.
33 C.J. p 1178 note tt, p 1179 note 13.
77. Colo. — Corpus Juris cited in
Board of Com'rs of Costilla Coun-
ty v. Wood, 250 P. 860, 861, '80
Colo. 279.
Del. — Burton v. Delaware Poultry
Co., 1'5 AJ2d 440, 2 Terry 68.
Fla.— Corpus Juris cited in Dudley
v. Harrison, McCready & Co., 173
So. 820, 823, 127 -Fla. 687, rehear-
ing denied 174 So. 729, 12*8 Fla.
338.
Ga. — Corpus Juris cited in Snyder v.
Elkan, 1*99 S.B. 891, 894, 187 Ga.
164.
11.— Malewski v. Mackiewich, 282
111. App. 1593 — Illinois Tuberculosis
Ass'n v. Springfield Marine Bank,
282 IlLApp. 14— Capelle v. Chicago
& N. W. R. Co.. 280 IlLtApp. 47L
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
60
judgment on the pleadings 'irrespective of the ver-
dict,78 and in some jurisdictions the right to file a
motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is
purely statutory™ and judgment may be rendered
only after full compliance with the statute.80
In the absence of a statute providing otherwise,
such a judgment may be rendered only when the
pleadings entitle the party against whom the verdict
is rendered to a judgment,81 and only where the
Ky.— Roe T. Gentry's Ex'x, 162 S.
W.2d BO'S, 290 Ky. 598.
Minn.— Anderson v. Newsome, 258 N.
W. 157, 193 Minn. 157— Funkley v.
Ridgway. 197 N.W. 280, 158 Minn.
265.
N.J. — Corpus Juris cited in Respond
v. Decker, 162 A. 725, 726, 109 N.
J.Law 458.
N.C. — Page Supply Co. v. Horton, 17
S.E.2d 493, 220 N.C. 373-^Johnson
v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 14
S.B.2d 40-5, 219 N.C. 445— MacMil-
lan Buick Co. v. Rhodes, *2 8.E.2d
699, 215 N.C. 595— Little v. Mar-
tin Furniture Co., 158 S.E. 490, 200
•N.C. 731 — Art Bronze & Iron
Works v. Beaman, 155 S.E. 166, 199
N.C. 537.
Ohio.— J. & P. Harig Co. v. City of
Cincinnati, 22 N.E.2d 540, 61 Ohio
App. "314 — Lehman v. Harvey, 187
N.B. 28, 45 Ohio App. 215, petition
dismissed 187 N.B. 201, 127 Ohio
St. 159— Schmidt v. Austin, 159
N.B. -850, 26 Ohio App. 240.
Or. — -Snyder v. Portland Ry., 'Light
& Power Co., 215 P. '887, 107 Or.
673.
Tenn. — Citizens' Trust Co. v. Service
Motor Car Co., »297 S.W. 735, 154
Tenn. 507 — Jamison v. Metropoli-
tan Life Ins. Co., 145 S.W.2d 553.
24 Tenn.App. 398— National Life £
Accident Ins. Co. v. American
Trust Co., 68 S.W.2d 971, 17 Tenn.
App. 516.
Vt.— Nadeau r. St Albans Aerie No.
1205 Fraternal Order of Eagles, 26
A.2d 93, 112 Vt 397— Johnson v.
Hardware Mut Casualty Co., 1 A.
2d 817, 109 Vt 481.
3-3 C.J. p 1179 note 16.
Judgment on pleadings see the C.J.
S. title Pleading §§ 424-449, also
49 C.J. p 666 note 81 et seq.
Tested by pleadings
Judgment notwithstanding verdict
is to 'be tested by pleadings. — De
Boer v. Olmsted, 260 P. 108, 82 Colo.
369.
78. I1L — McNeill v. Harrison &
Sons, 2 N.E.(2d 959, 286 Ill.App.
.120.
Iowa.— Parriott v. Levis, 195 .N.W.
STS, 196 Iowa 875.
Or. — iSnyder v. Portland Ry., Light
'& Power Co., 215 P. 887, 107 Or.
6-73.
33 C.J. p 1179 note 18.
Cause of action arising' prior to stat-
ute
The amended statute providing
that when, on statements in the
pleadings, or on the evidence re-
ceived on the trial, one party is en-
titled,by law -to Judgment in his fa-^
vor, judgment shall be so rendered
by the court, although a verdict has
been found against him, determined
the procedural rights of parties in
an action filed after the statute's ef-
fective date, even though the cause
of action arose prior to the effective
date.— Miller v. Star Co., 15 N.E.2d
151, 57 Ohio App. 485.
Common-law practice held adopted
by statute
Neb. — Hamaker v. Patrick. 244 N.W.
420, 123 Neb. 809.
Plaintiff's objection to legal
oiency of denial in answer by mo-
tion for Judgment notwithstanding
the verdict came too late, and the
overruling of such motion by the
trial court did not constitute error
under statute authorizing judgment
notwithstanding the verdict where,
on statements in pleading, a party
is entitled by law to judgment in his
favor. — Shoemaker v. Standard Oil
Co., 20 N.E.2d 520, 135 Ohio St. 262.
Statutes held mandatory
Ky.— Ernst v. Pike, «24 S.W.2d 553,
232 Ky. 680.
Ohio. — Central Community Chautau-
qua System v. Rentschler, 166 N.
E. 698, 31 Ohio App. 525.
in Plorida
(1) It has been held that grant-
ing of motions for judgments non
obstante veredicto is governed by.
common-law principles and statute
providing that appellate court re-
versing order granting new trial
should direct final judgment to be
entered for party who had obtained
Verdict, unless motion for judgment
non obstante veredicto should be
made and prevail, did not change
grounds or scope of motions for
judgments non obstante veredicto as
they existed at time statute was
adopted. — Dudley v. Harrison, Mc-
Cready & Co., 173 So. 820, 127 Fla.
687, rehearing denied 174 So. 729,
128 Fla. 338.
(2) Where, however, action for
injuries to child at railroad crossing
was predicated on alleged negligence
of railroad's employees and evidence
showed that employees were not neg-
ligent, refusal to sustain defendant
railroad's motion for Judgment not-
withstanding verdict for child was
held reversible error. — Atlantic Coast
Line R. Co. v. Canady, 165 So. 629,
122 Fla. 447.
79. Iowa. — In re Larimer's Estate,
283 N.W. 430, 235 Iowa 1067.
Inapplicable statutes
The act of 1805 providing for the
payment of a jury fee, and the en-
149
try of judgment on a verdict, has no
reference to a judgment non ob-
stante veredicto entered directly by
the court under the Act of 1905. —
McClelland v. West Penn Appliance
Co., 1 A.2d 491, 132 Pa.Super. 471.
8Q. Tex. — Nalle v. Walenta, Civ.
App., 102 S.W.2d 1070.
81. Ark. — Powers v. Wood Parts
Corporation, 44 iS.W.Sd 324, 184
Ark. 1032— Corpus Juris cited in
Oil Fields Corporation v. Cubage,
24 S.W.2d 328, 329, ISO Ark. 1018.
Colo. — Corpus Juris oitsd in Board
of Com'rs of Costilla County v.
Wood, 250 P. 860, 861, SO Colo.
279.
Conn. — Gesualdi v. Connecticut Co.,
41 A.2d 771, 131 Conn. 622.
DeL — Burton v. Delaware Poultry
Co., 15 A.2d 440, 2 Terry 68.
Ga. — Corpus Juris citad in Snyder v.
Elkan, 199 -S.E. 891, S94, 187 Ga.
164.
Iowa.— K. O. Lee & Son Co. v. Sund-
berg, 291 N.W. 146, 227 Iowa 137'5.
Ky.— Roe v. Gentry's Ex'x, 162 S.W.
2d 208, '290 Ky. 598— World Fire &
Marine Ins. Co. v. Tapp, 151 S.W.
2d 42S, 286 Ky. 650— Stone v.
Smith, 151 S.W.2d 71, 286 Ky. 46S
— Wheeldor. v. Regenhardt Const.
Co., 145 S.W.2d 527, 284 Ky. 603
— Slusher v. Hubble, 72 S.W.2d 59,
•254 Ky. 595— Auto Livery Co. v.
Stone, 36 S.W.2d 349, 237 Ky. 686
—Sachs v. Hensley, 294 S.W. 1073,
220 Ky. 226— Insurance Co. of
North America v. Gore, 284 S.W.
1107, 215 Ky. 4'S7.
Minn. — Timmins v. Pfeifer, 230 'X.
W. 260, ISO Minn. 1.
Mo.— Thomas v. Land, 30 S.W.2d
1035, "225 Mo.App. 216. -
Neb.— Wolfinger v. Shaw, 287 N.W.
63, 1*36 Neb. 604— Winterson v.
Pantel Realty Co., 282 N.W. 393,
135 Neb. 472— Le Bron Electrical
Works, Inc. v. Pizinger, 270 N.W.
683, 132 Neb. 164.
N.C. — Little v. Martin Furniture Co.,
158 S.E. 490, 200 N.C. 731— Art
Bronze & Iron Works v. Beaman,
155 S.B. 166, 199 N.C. 537— Cor-
pus Juris cited in Jernigan v.
Neighbors, 141 S.E. 586, 195 N.C.
231.
Ohio. — Matcoski v. City of Canton,
6 N.E.2d 795, 54 Ohio App. 234—
Lehman v. Harvey, 187 K.E. 28,
45 Ohio App. 215, error dismissed
187 N.E. 201, 127 Ohio St 159.
Or.— Clarkson v. Wong, 42 P.2d 763,
150 Or. 406, motion denied 45 P.
2d 914, 150 Or. 406— Bernstein v.
Berg, 262 P. 247, 123 Or. 343.
§ 60
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
party against whom such judgment is rendered is
precluded from recovery by some matter not sub-
ject to amendment, or which could not be supplied
on a new trial,82 and where the defect in the plead-
ing was not cured by the verdict;83 but under
such circumstances it is proper to enter judgment
for the party entitled notwithstanding the verdict
against him.84 A proceeding for a motion non ob-
stante veredicto must be founded on substantial in-
sufficiency of the pleading on which the verdict
surely rested,86 and the defect must be such that
no cause of action or defense is stated in the plead-
ing.86
When rendered for plaintiff. A judgment non ob-
stante veredicto may be rendered for plaintiff where
the issue determined for defendant is immaterial,87
provided the case is not one calling for a repleader,
within the rules discussed hereinafter in this sub-
section, and where the plea or answer sets up facts
insufficient in law to constitute a defense,88 or
Tenn. — Stevens v. Moore, 139 S.W.2d
"^ 710, 24 Tenn.App. 61.
W.Va. — Clise v. Prunty, 163 S.E. 864,
112 W.Va. 181— Gray v. Norfolk
& W. Ry. Co., 130 S.E. 1'39, 99 W.
Va. 575— Zogg v. Kern Oil & Gas
Co., 117 S.E. 620, 94 W.Va. 17—
Dunbar Tire & Rubber Co. v. Cris-
sey, 114 S.E. 804, 92 W.Va. 419.
33 C.J. p H80 note BO.
Verdict responsive to pleadings
In ejectment action, where de-
fendant entered plea of not guilty
and special plea of adverse posses-
sion of part of premises, verdict
for plaintiff as to part described in
the special plea was responsive to
the plea of general issue as limited
by the second plea, and hence would
not furnish basis for judgment non
obstante veredicto on ground that
verdict was on special plea only and
that special plea was bad.— Wicker
v. Williams, 189 So. 30, 137 Fla. 752.
Defects cored "by adverse pleading"
Judgment on pleading, notwith-
standing verdict not stating facts
warranting recovery, is unauthorized
unless defects are cured by ad-
verse party's pleading.— Ernst v.
Pike, -24 S.W.2d 553, 2-32 Ky. 680.
In Oklahoma
The trial court is without jurisdic-
tion to -enter judgment non obstante
veredicto unless the party in whose
favor such judgment is rendered
would be entitled- to judgment on
the pleadings or the jury has return-
ed special findings of fact contrary
to the general verdict — Garrett v.
Kennedy, 145 P.2d 407, 193 Okl. 605
—National Mut Casualty Co. v. Har-
mon, 113 P.2d 597, 189 Okl. 53—
Mason v. McNeal, 100 P.2d 451, 187
Okl. 31— Martin v. National Bank
of Claremore, 77 P.2d 40, 182 Okl.
217— Rohland v. International Har-
vester Co. of America, 76 P.2d 1078,
18-2 Okl. 200 — Dunham v. Chemical
Bank & Trust Co., 71 P.2d 468, 180
Okl. 537— Myrick v. City of Tulsa,
54 P.2d 330, 175 Okl. 647— Queen Ins.
Co. of America v. Baker, 50 P.2d
371, 174 Okl. 273— Diamond v. Enid
Milling Co., 299 P. 440, 149 Okl. 61
— Beesley v. Wm. A. Nicholson Co.,
298 P. 607, 148 Okl. 270-^City of
Ardmore v. Hill, 293 P. 554, 146 Okl.
200— State v. Hinkle, 287 P. 7«22,
143 Okl. =33 — St Louis-San Francisco
Ry. Co. v. Eakins, 284 P. 866, H41
Okl. 256 — Spruce v. Chicago, R. I.
& P. Ry. Co., 281 P. 586, 159 Okl.
123— Eldridge v. Vance, 280 P. 5.70,
138 Okl. 201— Beard v. W. T. Raw-
leigh Co., 277 (P. 657, 136 Okl. 165
— Thompson v. Florence, 274 P. 671,
135 Okl. 116— St. Louis-San Fran-
cisco Ry. Co. v. Bell, 273 P. 243,
134 Okl. 2151— Bartels v. Suter, 266
P. 753, 1-30 Okl. 7— First Nat. Bank
v. Russell, 262 P. 205, 1!28 Okl. 222
—Garble Sav. Bank v. First State
Bank of Vanoss, 261 P. 913, 128 Okl.
165 — Maryland Casualty Co. v. Bal-
lard, 259 P. 528, 126 Okl. 270— Odom
v. Cedar Rapids Sav. Bank, 244 IP.
758, 114 Okl. 126— Stapleton Motor
Sales Co. v. Oates, 255 P. 513, 109
Okl. 173— Schaap v. Williams, 2-25
P. 910, 99 Okl. 21— Montie Oil Co.
v. Nichols, 224 P. 542, 98 Okl. 75
—Dill v. Johnston, 222 P. 507, 94
Okl. 264— McAlester v. Bank of Mc-
Alester, 218 P. 839, 95 Okl. 193—
Hanna v. Gregg, 217 P. 434, 92 Okl.
3»4 — Hyatt v. Vinita Brass Works,
214 (P. 706, 89 Okl. in— First Nat.
Bank v. Ball, -209 P. 322, 87 Okl.
162—33 C.J. p 1180 note 20.
82. Ariz. — Bads v. Commercial Nat
Bank of (Phoenix, 266 P. 14, 33
Ariz. 499, 62 A.L.R. 183.
Cal.— Gallagher v. California Pacific
Title & Trust Co., 57 P.2d 195,
13 Cal.App.2d 482.
Conn. — Gesualdi v. Connecticut Co.,
41 A.2d 771, 131 Conn. 622.
Fla. — Johnston v. Campbell, 129
So. 765, 100 Fla. 393.
Minn. — Anderson v. Newsome, 258
N.W. 157, 193 Minn. 157— Dreelan
v. Karon, 254 N.W. 4i33, 191 Minn.
3:30 — Nadeau v. Maryland Casualty
Co., 21*2 N.W. 595, 170 Minn. 326.
N.T. — Soper v. Soper, 5 Wend. 112.
Pa. — Hawck v. Scranton Real Estate
Co., 44 Pa.Co. $21, 17 Lack.Jur.
90.
33 C.J. p 1180 note 21.
83. Ariz. — Eads v. Commercial Nat
Bank of Phcenix, 266 P. 14, 33
Ariz. 4*99, 62 A.L.R. 183.
Ky. — Forsythe v. Rexroat, 27 S.W.
2d 69(5, 234 Ky. 173.
33 C.J. p 1180 note 22.
84. Conn. — Gesualdi v. Connecticut
Co., 41 A.2d 771, 131 Conn. 622.
Ky. — Brannon v. Scott, 156 S.W.2d
164, 288 Ky. 3#4— Franklin County
150
v. Bailey, 63 S.W.2d 622, 250 Ky.
528.
Ohio. — Workman v. Thompson, 47 N.
E.2d 996, 141 Ohio St 287— Frank
v. Cincinnati Traction Co., 7 Ohio
N.P.,N.S., 1143.
Okl,— Hiebert v. Koenig, 138 P.2d
534, 192 Okl. 376— Montie Oil Co.
v. Nichols, 224 P. 542, 98 Okl.
75— Dill v. Johnston, 222 P. 507,
94 Okl. 264— Hyatt v. Vinita
Brass Works, 214 P. 706, 89 OkL
171.
>Tenn. — Wood v. Imperial Motor Co.,
5 Tenn.App. 246 — Elbinger Shoe
Co. v. Thomas, 1 Tenn.App. 161-
33 C.J. p 1180 note 23.
Motion held properly denied where
sufficiency of affidavit of merits, at-
tacked by motion for judgment not-
withstanding verdict, following va-
cation of judgment by confession,
was not before court when motion
was heard. — Renfrew v. Kramer, 173",
N.E. 390, 341 111. 398.
85. Ala. — City of Birmingham v.
Andrews, 132 So. 877, 222 Ala. 862.
86. Iowa. — Millard v. Herges, 236
N.W. 89, 21i3 Iowa 279, modified on
other grounds 238 N.W. 604.
Petition held to state cause of ac-
tion as against motion for judgment
notwithstanding verdict. — Jensen v.
Incorporated Town of Magnolia, 25 T
N.W. 584, 219 Iowa 209.
Answer held sufficient on motion
for judgment notwithstanding ver-
dict.— Persia 6av. Bank v. Wilson..
24-3 N.W. 581, 214 Iowa 993.
87. U.S. — Newton v.. Glenn, C.C.A..
Miss., 14*9 F.2d 879.'
Ala. — Corpus Juris cited in City or
Birmingham v. Andrews, 132 So*
877, 878, 222 Ala. 362.
Fla.— Bond v. Hewitt, 149 So. 6Q6,.
Ill Fla. 180.
33 C.J. p 1181 note 26.
Right of a plaintiff to a judgment
notwithstanding the verdict see*
infra subdivision h of this section..
88. Fla. — Norwich Union Indemni-
ty Co. v. Willis, 168 So. 418, 1'24
Fla. 137, 127 Fla. 288— Berger v.
Mabry, 151 So. 302, 113 Fla. 31*.
Minn. — Funkley v. Ridgway, 197 N.
W. 280, 1-58 Minn. 265.
19 C.J. p 1210 note 26 £e] (1)— 3£
C.J. p 1181 note 28.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
60
where on the whole record it appears that the right
of the case is with plaintiff.89 Where there is a
good plea or answer filed, plaintiff is not, under
common-law principles, entitled to a judgment non
obstante veredicto.90
When rendered for defendant. A judgment non
obstante veredicto may be rendered for defendant
where plaintiff's pleadings are insufficient to sup-
port a judgment in his favor, as where the decla-
ration states no cause of action,91 and the defect
is not cured by the answer,92 or where plaintiff fails
to reply to a good plea of new matter,93 or where
the verdict for plaintiff was surely on a count which
did not state a substantial cause of action ;9* but
it has been held that defendant is not entitled to
judgment non obstante veredicto where a demurrer
to the petition should have been sustained but was
overruled9* Under the rule that a motion for
judgment notwithstanding the verdict must be based
on the pleadings, defendant is not entitled to such
judgment where plaintiffs pleadings show a good
cause of action in him, and avoid the defense plead-
ed.**
Repleader. A party is not entitled to a judgment
non obstante veredicto in every case where the is-
sue determined against him by the verdict is im-
material. Thus a plaintiff is entitled to judgment
non obstante veredicto where the issue is immaterial
or the plea bad only where a repleader is unneces-
sary to do justice between the parties.97 A judg-
ment non obstante veredicto is always on the mer-
its, and therefore is never rendered except where
it is clear that the defense is without merits in
whatever form pleaded.98 Such a judgment will
motion held equivalent to demurrer
to answer
Ohio. — Commercial Credit Co. v.
Bishop, 170 N.E. 658. 34 Ohio App.
. 217.
89. U.S.— Newton v. Glenn. C.C.A.
Miss.. 149 F.2d 879.
33 C.J. p 1181 note 29.
90. Minn.— Funkley v. Ridgway, 197
N.W. 280, 158 Minn. 265.
Mo.— Wilcox v. Erwin, App., 49 6.
W.2d 677.
Ohio. — Commercial Credit Co. v.
Bishop, 170 N.B. 658, 34 Ohio App.
217.
Okl. — Dunham v. Chemical Bank &
Trust Co., 71 P.2d 468, 180 Okl.
537— First Nat Bank v. Savere,
270 P. 33, 132 Okl. 191— Maryland
Casualty Co. v. Ballard, 25*9 P. 5-28,
126 Okl. 270 — Odom v. Cedar Kap-
ids Sav. Bank, -244 P. 758, 114 Okl.
126.
Or. — Snyder v. Portland Ry., Light
& Power Co., 2H5 iP. 887, 107 Or.
67-3.
Tex. — Continental Southland Savings
& Loan Ass'n v. Panhandle Const.
Co., Civ.App.f 77 S.W.2d 896, error
refused.
•33 C.J. p 1181 note i30.
Evidence as basis for Judgment not-
withstanding the verdict see infra
subdivision b of this section.
•91. Cal. — Galiano v. Pacific Gas &
Electric Co., 67 P.2d <388, 20 Cal.
App.2d 534.
Ky.— Slusher v. Hubble, 72 S.W.2d
39, 254 Ky. 595.
Pa. — Casseday v. Baltimore & O. R.
Co., 22 A.2d 663, 343 Pa. 342.
•33 C.J. p 1181 note 31.
•Right of a defendant to a judgment
notwithstanding the verdict see
infra subdivision h of this section.
Subject to general demurrer
The statute authorizing trial court
to render Judgment notwithstanding
vthe verdict was not intended to en-
able a defendant to have a Judg-
ment on the merits of a cause mere-
ly because plaintiff's pleading might
be subject to general demurrer. —
Citizens State Bank of Houston v.
Giles, Tex.Civ.App., -145 S.W.2d 899,
error dismissed.
In Oregon
(1) There is authority supporting
the text rule.— Benicia Agricultural
Works v. Creighton, -28 P. 775, 30 IP.
676, 21 Or. «495.
(2) But, where question whether
complaint stated facts sufficient to
constitute cause of action was raised
by objection to introduction of tes-
timony, by motion for nonsuit, and
by motion for directed verdict, court,
as matter of practice, should have
refused to entertain motion on same
ground for Judgment notwithstand-
ing verdict — Borg v. Utah Const.
Co., 242 P. 600, 117 Or. 22— Scibor
v. Oregon-Washington R. & Naviga-
tion Co., 140 P. 629, 70 Or. 116.
92. Ky.— Slusher v. Hubble, 72 S.W.
2d 39, 254 Ky. 695.
93. Ky.— Hack v. Lashley, 245 S.W.
851, 197 Ky. 117.
33 C.J. p 1182 note 32.
In Florida
The rule of the text, while recog-
nized generally as the prevailing
frule, was not held to be applicable
in that Jurisdiction.— Corpus Juris
Quoted In Dudley v. Harrison, Mc-
Cready & Co., 173 So. 820, 822, 127
Fla. 687, rehearing denied 174 So.
729, 128 Fla. 338— Corpus Juris cited
in Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v.
Canady, 165 So. 629, 630. 122 Fla.
447 — Corpus Juris cited in Fillet v.
Ershick, 126 So. 784, 785, 788, -99
Fla. 483.
94. Ala. — City of Birmingham v.
Andrews, 132 So. 877, 222 Ala. 362.
95. Ky. — S. K. Jones Const. Co. v.
151
Hendley, 5 S.W.2d 482, 484, 224
Ky. 83.
Reason for rale
"It is readily apparent that the
trial court should not mislead the
appellee [plaintiff] by overruling the
demurrer to the petition as amended,
thus holding it to be sufficient, and
then sustain the motion for a ver-
dict on the pleadings, thus holding
it to be defective. This court is
committed to the doctrine that in
this situation the first error of the
trial court will be corrected upon
the appeal. Hence the Judgment
must be reversed,, with direction
that the demurrer to the petition as
amended be sustained." — S. K. Jones
Const. Co. v. Hendley, supra.
96. Iowa. — Crouch v. National Live
Stock Remedy Co., 217 N.W. 657,
205 Iowa 51.
N.C. — Johnson v. Metropolitan Life
Ins. Co., ft ,S.B.2d 405, 219 N.C.
445.
OIsL— Myricfc v. City of Tulsa, 54
P.2d 330, 175 Okl. 647.
Tenn. — Corpus Juris quoted in Citi-
zens' Trust Co. v. Service Motor
Car Co., 297 'S.W. 7'35, 736, 154
Tenn. 507.
33 C.J. p 1182 note 33.
Evidence as basis for Judgment not-
withstanding the verdict see infra
subdivision b of this section.
97. Mo.— Shreve v. Whittlesey, 7
Mo. 473.
Va. — Green v. Bailey, 5 Munf. 246,
19 Va. 246.
33 C.J. p 1182 note 35.
Rapleader and Judgment non ob-
stante veredicto distinguished
N.Y. — Otis v. Hitchcock, 6 Wend.
433, 434.
33 C.J. p '1182 note 34 [a3-
9& Or.— Snyder v. Portland Ky.,
Light & Power Co., 215 0?. 887, 107
Or. 673.
33 C.J. p 1182 note 86.
§ 60
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
not be rendered where there is substantially a ma-
terial issue or a good defense, although the plead-
ing is technically defective." If the finding is de-
cisive of the merits, it cures the issue.1 Where the
pleading contains matters which, if well pleaded,
might form a good bar or justification, the court
will not give judgment non obstante veredicto, but
will award a repleader.2
Basing motion on records of case. At common
law and, in the absence of statutes providing oth-
erwise, a judgment non obstante veredicto must be
based solely on matters appearing on the record,8
and has nothing to do with alleged procedural er-
rors.4 It cannot be granted on affidavit5 but only
on the face of the pleadings,6 and, as shown infra
subdivision b (1) of this section, the court may not
look to the evidence in determining the motion.
Discretion of court. The granting of a judgment
notwithstanding the verdict rests very much in the
discretion of the court.7
Form and requisites of judgment. The judg-
ment rendered in granting the motion should re-
cite the filing of a proper motion, the giving of
reasonable notice, that hearing was had, that the
parties appeared in person or by attorney, the ac-
tion of the court on the motion, and entry of judg-
ment after its disposition.8
b. Evidence as Basis for Judgment
(1) In general
(2) Particular matters affecting right to
remedy
(3) Scope of inquiry in general
(4) Consideration of evidence in passing
on motion
(5) Discretion of court
(1) In General
In the absence of statutes providing otherwise, a
judgment notwithstanding the verdict must be granted
on the record, and the court may not look to the evi-
dence In determining a motion for such Judgment; ac-
cordingly such a Judgment cannot be rendered merely
because the verdict Is against the weight of the evidence.
In some Jurisdictions, however, such a Judgment may
99. Ala.-^Corptw Juris cited in City
of Birmingham v. Andrews, 132
So. 877, 878, 222 Ala. 362.
Conn. — Gesualdi v. Connecticut Co.,
41 A.2d 771, 131 Conn. 622.
Fla. — Johnston v. Campbell, 129 So.
766, 100 Fla. 39*3.
Ill, — -Modern Woodmen of America
v. Blair, 263 Ill.App. "387.
Neb.— Hamaker v. Patrick. 24«4 N.
W. 420, 123 Neb. 809.
Or. — Clarkson v. Wong, 42 P.2d 763',
150 Or. 406, motion denied 45 P.
2d 914, 150 Or. 406.
Tex. — Williams v. Texas Employers
Ins. Ass'n, Civ.App., 135 S.W.2d
262, error refused.
33 C.J. p 1182 note 37. .
1. 111.-— Rothschild v. Bruscke, 23
N.E. 4519, 131 HI. 265.
2. Ala. — Corpus Juris cited in City
of Birmingham v. Andrews, 132
So. 877, 878, 222 Ala, 362.
Conn. — Gesualdi v. Connecticut Co.,
41 A.2d 771, 131 Conn. 622.
Fla.— Bond v. Hewitt, 149 So. 606,
111 Fla. 180 — Johnston v. Camp-
bell, 129 So. 765, 100 Pla, 393.
33 C.J. p 1182 note 39.
Repleader generally see the C.J.S.
title Pleading § 338, also 49 CJ.
p 580 note 73 et seq.
3. Fla.— Tolliver v. Loftin, 21 So.
2d 359. ' -
111.— Modern Woodmen of America v.
Blair, 263 IlLApp. 387.
Kan. — Corpus Juris Quoted in Hoy
v. Griffin, 22 P.2d 449, 453, 137
Kan. 872.
Ky.— Wheeldon v. Regenhardt Const
Co., 1145 S.W.2d 527, 284 Ky. 603.
Ho.— Meffert v. Lawson, 287 S.W.
610, 315 (Mo. 1091— First Nat Bank
v. Dunbar, 72 S.W.2d 821, 230 Mo*
App. 687.
Neb.— Hamaker v. (Patrick, 244 N.W.
420, 123 Neb. 809.
Ohio. — Board of Education of Ad-
dyston Village School Dist v.
Nolte Tillar Bros. Const Co., 49
N.B.2d 99, 71 Ohio App. 469.
Pa, — Hershberger v. Hershberger, 29
A.2d 95, 345 Pa. 439— Murphy v.
Wolverine Express, 38 A.2d 511,
155 Pa.Super. 125^Columbia Fur
Co. v. Needro, $7 Pa. Super. "389 —
Maher V. Washington Nat Ins.
Co., Com.Pl., 29 Del.Co. 267— Maize
v. United Ben. Life Ins. Co., Com.
PI., 94 tPittsb.Leg.J. 44.
Tenn. — Stevens v. Moore, 139 S.W.2d
710, 24 Tenn.App. 61.
33 C.J. p 1183 note 42.
Entire record may be considered.
— Paul v. Prudential Ins. Co. of
America, Ohio App., 64 N.E.2d 124,
4. Mo.— First Nat. Bank v. Dunbar,
72 S.W.2d 821, 230 Mo.App. 687.
Pa. — Hershberger v. Hershberger, 29
A.2d 95, 345 Pa. 439— Murphy v.
Wolverine Express, 58 A.2d 511,
155 Pa.Super. 0.25.
33 C.J. p 143 note 80 [b] (2), p 1182
note 36 [a].
5. Kan.— Corpus Juris quotefl. in
Hoy v. Griffin, 22 «P.2d 449, 455, 137
Kan. 872.
! C.J. p 11 83 note 43.
Refusal to consider affidavits ten-
dered by defendant or to permit
them to be filed after continuance
was refused was not error where
much of contents of affidavits ap-
peared to be amplification of affiants'
testimony given at trial. — Holler-
Vandenboom Lumber Co. y. Bou-
152
dreau, 85 S.W.2d 141, 231 Mo.App.
1127.
6. Fla. — Okeechobee Co., for Use
and Benefit of Hamrick, v. Nor-
ton, 6 So.2d 632, 149 Fla. 651.
111. — McNeill v. Harrison & Sons.
2 N.E.2d 959, 286 lil.App. 120—
Modern Woodmen of America v.
Blair, 263 IlLApp. 387.
Kan. — Corpus Juris quoted in Hoy v.
Griffin, 22 P.2d 449, 453, 157 Kan.
872.
Neb.— Hamaker v. Patrick, 244 N.W.
420, 123 Neb. 809.
Ohio, — Thompson v. Rutledge, 168 N.
E. 547, 32 Ohio App. 5«3T.
Or. — Bernstein v. Berg, 262 P. 247,
12'3 Or. 34$ — Borg v. Utah Const.
Co., 242 P. 600, (117 Or. 22.
W.Va.— Clise v. Prunty, 163 S.E. 864,
112 W.Va. 181— Gray v. Norfolk &
W. Ry. Co., 130 S.E. 139, 99 W.Va.
575 — Zogg v. Kern Oil & Gas Co.,
117 S.E. 620, $4 W.Va. 17— Dunbar
Tire & Rubber Co., v. Crissey, 114
S.E. 804, 92 W.Va. 419.
33 C.J. p 1183 note 45.
7. Conn. — Gesualdi v. Connecticut
Co., 41 A.2d 771, 131 Conn. 622.
35 C.J. p 1H80 note 24, p 1181 note
25.
Discretion of court as to judgment
based on evidence see infra sub-
division b (5) of this section.
a. Tex. — Hines v. Parks, 96 S.W.26*
970, 128 Tex. 289— Gentry v. Cen-
tral Motor Co., Civ.App., 100 S.W..
2d 215.
Judgment held proper in form
Tex. — Walters v. Southern S. S. Co.,
Civ.App., 115 S.W.2d 320. error dis-
missed.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 60
be entered on undisputed evidence or where the verdict
Is not sustained by any evidence; and the common-law
remedy has been modified and extended by statutes in
some jurisdictions.
At common law and in the absence of statutes
providing otherwise, a judgment non obstante vere-
dicto must be granted, if at all, on the record, and
the court may not look to the evidence "in deter-
mining a motion for such judgment9 The proper
remedy for a wrong or mistaken verdict on the
facts is by motion for a new trial, not by motion
for a judgment non obstante veredicto.10 Accord-
ingly such a judgment cannot be rendered merely
because the verdict is against Jhejvdght of the evi-
dence,11 although there are intimations that such
a judgment notwithstanding the verdict may be en-
9. Fla, — Tolliver v. Loftin, 21 So.
2d 359 — Heuacker v. Farrelly, 176
So. 98, 129 Fla. 2«9— Dudley v.
Harrison, McCready & Co., 173 So.
820, 127 Fla. 687, rehearing denied
174 So. 729, 128 Fla, 838.
HI.— Malewski v. Mackiewich, 282
IIl.App. 593 — Modern Woodmen of
America v. Blair, 26*3 IIl.App. 387.
Infl-JInter State Motor Freight
System v. Henry, $8 N.E.2d 909,
111 Ind.App. 179.
Kan. — Corpus Juris quoted in Hoy
v. Griffin, 22 P.2d 449, 453, 187
Kan. 872.
Ky.— World Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
v. Tapp, 151 S.W.2d 428, 286 Ky.
650 — Wheeldon v. Regenhardt
Const. Co., 145 S.W.2d 527. 284
Ky. 603.
NeD. — LeBron Electrical Works v.
Pizinger, 270 N.W. 683, 132 Neb.
164— Hamaker v. Patrick, 244 N.
W. 420, 123 Neb. 809— Bielfeldt v.
Grand Island Transit Co., 243 N.W.
76, 123 Neb. 368.
Ohio. — Lehman v. Harvey, 187 N.B.
28. 45 Ohio App. 215, petition dii
missed 187 N.B. 201, 127 Ohio St
159.
Okl.— National Mut. Casualty Co. v,
Harmon, 11«3 *P.2d 597, 189 Okl.
53 — Martin v. National Bank of
Claremore, 77 P.2d 40, 182 Okl.
217— Hanna v. Gregg, 21-7 P. 434,
92 Okl. 34.
Term. — Corpus Juris quoted in Citi-
zens' Trust Co. v. Service Motor
Car Co., 297 S.W. 7«35, T36,
Tenn. 507 — Stevens v. Moore, !39
S.W.2d 710, 24'Tenn.App. 6f— Dunn
v. Moore, 123 S.W.2d 1095, 22 Tenn.
App. 412.
W.Va, — Clise v. Prunty, 163 S.E. 864,
112 W.Va; 181— Gray v. Norfolk
& W. Ry. Co., 130 S.E. 159, 99 W.
Va. 575— -Zogg v. Kern Oil & Gas
Co., 117 S.E. 620, 94 W.Va, 17—
Dunbar Tire & Rubber Co, v, Cris-
sey, 114 -S.E. 804, 92 W.Va. 419
overruling Weeks v. Chesapeake
& O. Ry. Co., 69 S.E. 805, 68 W.Va,
284, McMillan v. Middle States Coal
& Coke Co., 57 S.E. -129, 61 W.Va
531, 11 L.R.A..N.S., 840, Ruffner
Bros. v. Dutchess Ins. Co., 53 S.E
943, 59 W.Va. 432, 115 Am.S.R
924, 8 Ann.Cas. 866, Anderson v
Tug River Coal & Coke Co., 53
S.E. 713, 59 W.Va. -801, and Mau
pin v. Scottish Union & National
Ins. Co., 45 S.E. 1003, 53 W.Va,
5'57.
33 C.J. p 1183 note 47.
Reserving questions of fact see in-
fra subdivision d of this section.
rinding of fact
A Judgment notwithstanding the
•erdict may not be based on the
-rial court's finding of fact. — Rice
'. Builders Material Co., 2 S.E.2d
27, 120 W.Va. 585— Sponduris v.
Rameih, 199 S.E. 457, 120 W.Va.
36.
10. CaL— Silva v. Market St Ry.
Co., 128 P.2d 904, 50 Cal.App.2d
796— Takahashi v. White Truck &
Transfer Co., 59 P.2d 161, 15 CaL
App.2d 107.
Fla,— Okeechobee Co., for tTse and
Benefit of Hamrick, v. Norton, 6
So.2d 632, 149 Fla, 651— Dudley v.
Harrison, McCready & Co., 173 So.
820, 127 Fla, 687, rehearing denied
174 So. 729, 128 Fla, 338.
111. — Schwickrath v. Lowden, 46 N.E.
2d 162, 317 Ill-App. 431— Pohl v.
Fazzi, 22 N.E.2d 402, 301 IlLApp.
622.
Kan.— Underbill v. Motes, 165 P.2d
218 — Corpus Juris quoted In Hoy
v. Griffin, 22 P.2d 449, 453, 1*7
Kan. 872.
Minn. — Manning- v. Chicago Great
Western R. Co., 229 N.W. 566, 179
Minn. 411.
Neb.— Bielfeldt v. Grand Island
Transit Co.. 245 N.W. 76, 123 Neb.
368.
Ohio. — Holmes v. Employers' Liabil-
ity Assur. Corporation, Limited,
of London, England, 4<3 N.E.2d 746,
70 Ohio App. 2-39— Kelley v. Co-
lumbus Ry., Power & Light Co.,
24 N.E.2d 290, 62 Ohio App. 897.
Pa.— Kindt v. Reading Co., 4* A.2&
14'6, 3«2 »Pa. 419— MacDonald v,
Pennsylvania R. Co., 36 A.2d 492,
348 Pa, 558— 'Kotllkoff v. Master,
27 A.2d 85, 345 Pa, 258— lacovino
v. Caterino. 2 A.2d 828, 832 Pa,
555 — Osche v. New York Life Ins.
Co., 187 A. 396, «24 Pa. 1— Hartig
v. American Ice Co., 187 A. 867,
290 <Pa, 21 — Thomas v. Pennsyl-
vania R. Co., 119 A. 717, 276 Pa.
579 — Murphy v. Wolverine Ex-
press, 38 A.2d 511, 155 Pa,Super
125 — Jann v. Linton's Lunch, 29
A.2d 219, 160 OPaJSuper. 663— Szidor
v. Greek Catholic Union of Rus-
sian Brotherhoods of U. S., 21 A
2d 104, 145 Pa.Super. 251— Pfordi
v. Educators Beneficial Ass'n, 14
A.2d 170, 140 Pa,Super. 170—
Adams v. Metropolitan Life Ins
153
Co., 7 A.2d 544, 136 Pa.Super. 454
— -Moore v. W. J. Gilmore Drug
Co., 200 A. 250, 131 Pa.Super. 349
— McCommon vk Johnson, 187 A.
445, 123 PaSuper. 581— Evans v.
Stewart, 157 A. 515, 103 Pa.Super.
549 — Carroll v. Reuben H. Don-
nelly Corp., 53 Pa,Dist & Co. 142—
Piacine v. National Life Ins. Co.,
14 Pa.Dist & Co. 21— States v.
Pappas, 9 Pa,Dist. & Co. 460r 18
DeLCo. 106— Condel v. Savo, Com.
PI., 46 Lack.Jur. 89— In re Dugh-
laski's Estate, Orph.. 29 North.Co.
174.
Tenn. — Corpus Juris quoted in Citi-
zens' Trust Co. v. Service Motor "
Car Co., 297 S.W. 735, 756, 154
Tenn. 507.
Tex. — Casey v. Jones, Civ. App., 189
S.W.2d 515— Ward v. Strickland
Civ.App., 177 S.W.2d 79, error re-
fused—Wilson v. Hagins, Clv.App..
25 S.W.2d 916, affirmed, Com.App.,
50 S.W.2d 797— Atchison, T. & S.
F. Ry. Co. v. Hiac, Civ.App., 291 S.
W. 281.
Utah.— Buhler v. Maddison, 140 P.2d
933, 105 Utah 39.
Wash.— Moore v. Keesey, 163 P.2d
164— Hayden v. Colville Valley
Nat. Bank, 89 P.2d 376, 180 Wash.
220, rehearing denied 43 P.2d 32.
W.Va, — Clise v. Prunty, 163 S.E. 864,
112 W.Va, 181— Gray v. Norfolk &
W. Ry. Co., 130 S.B. 139. 99 W.Va.
575 — Zogg v. Kern Oil & Gas Co.,
117 S.B. 620, 94 W.Va. 17— Bun-
bar Tire & Rubber Co. v. Crissey,
114 S.E. 804, 92 W.Va, 419.
Wyo.— Caldwell v. Roach. 12 P.2d
376, 44 Wyo. 319.
S3 C.J. p 1184 notes 49 [a], 50.
Verdict contrary to, or not sustained
by, evidence as ground for new
trial generally see the C.J.S. title
New Trial §§ 69-77, also 46 C.J. p
170 note 41 et secu
ll« Ariz. — Durham v. Firestone
Tire & Rubber Co., 55 P.2d 648, 47
Ariz. 580— Welch v. United Mut
Ben. Ass'n, 36 P.2d 256. 44 Ariz.
198.
Cal.— Silva v. Market St Ry. Co., 123
P.2d 90«4. 50 Cal.App.2d 796— Taka-
hashi v. White Truck & Transfer
Co., 59 P.2d 161, 15 Cal.App.2d 107.
Fla. — Tolliver. v. Loftin, 2tt So.2d 359
— Talley v. McCain, 174 &>. 841,
128 Fla, 418 — Dudley v. Harrison,
McCready & Co., 173 So. 820, 127
Fla. 687, rehearing denied 174 So.
§ 60 JUDGMENTS 49 C.J.S.
tered on undisputed evidence or where the verdict | is not sustained by any evidence whatever.5 2
729, 128 Fla, 338— Corptw Juris
cited in -Fillet v. Ershick, 126 So.
784, 788, 99 Fla. 483.
111.— Neering v. Illinois Cent. R. Co.,
50 N.E.2d 497, 383 111. 366, man-
date conformed to 53 N.B.2d 271,
321 IlLApp. 625— -Hunt v. Vermil-
ion County Children's Home, 44 N.
B.2d 609, 381 111. 29— Hedden v.
Farmers Mut Re-Ins. Co. of Chi-
cago, 111., 60 N.E.2d 110, 325 111.
App. -335 — Schwickrath v. Lowden,
46 N.E.2d 162, 317 IlLApp. 431—
Gant v. McDowell, 38 N.E.2d 530,
312 IlLApp. 378 — Gnat v. Richard-
son, 35 N.B.2d 409, 311 IlLApp.
242, affirmed 39 N.E.2d 337, 378
111. 626 — Modern Woodmen of
America, v. Blair, 263 IlLApp. 387.
Kan.— Underbill v. Moes. 165 P.2d
218— Corpus Juris quoted in Hoy
v. Griffin, 22' P.2d 449, 45'3, 137
Kan. 872.
Xy.— Roe v. Gentry's Ex'x, 162 S.W.
2d 208, 290 Ky. -598.
N.H.— Bryson v. Carroll, 41 A.2d 240,
93 N.H. 287— Exeter Banking Co.
v. Taylor, 160 A. 733, 85 N.H. 458.
K.C. — Jernigan v. Neighbors, 141 S.
B. 586, 195 N.C. 231.
Ohio. — Wilkeson v. Brskine & Son,
61 N.E.2d 201, 145 Ohio St. 218
— Maryland Casualty Co. v. Fred-
erick Co., 53 N.B.2d 795, 142 Ohio
St. 605 — Workman v. Thompson,
47 N.E.2d 996, 141 Ohio St. 287—
Beck ,v. Wuerdeman, App., 62 N.
E.2d 516 — Kelley v. Columbus Ry.,
Power & Light Co., 24 N.E.2d 290,
62 Ohio App. 397.
Okl.— National Mut Casualty Co. v.
Harmon, 1113 P.2d 597, 189 Okl. 53
— Martin v. National Bank of
Claremore, 77 P.2d 40, 182 Okl.
217.
Or. — Kelley v. Stout Lumber Co., 263
P. 881, 123 Or. 647.
Pa. — Campdon v. Continental Assur.
Co., 157 A. 464, 305 Pa, 253— Mur-
phy v. Wolverine Express, 38 A.
2d 511, 155 Pa,Super. 125— Blair
to Use of Davis v. Adam chick, 21
A.2d 107, 145 Pa.Super, 125— Rad-
ziewicz v. Philadelphia & Reading
Ry. Co., 94 Pa,Super. 827.
Tenn.— Corpus Juris quoted in Citi-
^ zens' Trust Co. v. Service Motor
Car Co., 297 S.W. 7«35, 736, 154
Tenn. 507 — Jamison v. Metropoli-
tan Life Ins. Co., 145 S.W.2d 653.
24 Tenn. App. 398 — Dunn v. Moore,
123 S.W.2d 1095, 22 TemuApp. 412
— National Life & Accident Ins.
Co. v. American Trust Co., 68 S.W.
2d 971, 17 Tenn.App. 516. .
Tex. — Deal v. Craven, Com. App., 277
S.W. 1046— Johnson .v. Moody, Civ.
App., 104 S.W.2d 583, error dis-
missed— Spence v. National Life &
Accident Ins. Co., Civ. App., 59 S.
. W.2d 212.
Wash. — Hayden v. Colville Valley
Nat Bank, 39 P.2d 376, 180 Wash.
220, rehearing denied 43 (P.2d 32—
Lydon v. Exchange Nat. Bank,
235 P. 27, 134 Wash. 188.
W.Va.— Clise v. Prunty, 163 S.E.
864, 112 W.Va. 181— Gray v. Nor-
folk & W. Ry. Co., 130 S.B. 189,
99 W.Va. 575— Zogg v. Korn Oil &
Gas Co., 117 S.E. 620, 94 W.Va. 17
— Dunbar Tire & Rubber Co. v.
Crissey, 114 S.E. 804, 92 W.Va,
419.
Wis.— Volland v. McGee, 294 N.W.
497, 236 Wis. 358, rehearing denied
295 N.W. 635, 236 Wis. 358—
Viereg v. Southwestern Wisconsin
Gas Co., 248 N.W. 775, 212 Wis.
394.
33 C.J. p 1183 note 48.
Trial liy Judge
Judge, having as trier of fact
found for plaintiff, could not, al-
though he subsequently changed his
mind respecting weight of evidence,
enter judgment for defendant, unless
plaintiff was contributory negligent
as matter of law. — Evans v. Stew-
art, 157 A. 515, 103 Pa,Super. 549.
Correct practice
After receiving verdict, entering
judgment notwithstanding the ver-
dict, when the real ground of the
judgment is that it is not supported
by the evidence, is not strictly cor-
rect, since a motion for judgment
notwithstanding the verdict admits
the finding of the verdict to be true
and the court on such motion grants
judgment on grounds other than
those decided by the jury. In such
a situation the strictly proper prac-
tice is to move to set aside verdict
because not supported by the evi-
dence, and grant judgment on ground
that motion for a directed verdict
should have been granted, or, if no
such motion was made,, on ground
that the evidence failed to support a
cause of action. — Shumway v. Mil-
waukee Athletic Club, 20 N.W.2d 123,
247 Wis. 393.
12. Gal.— In re Stone's Estate, 138
P.2d 710, 59 CaLApp.2d 263— -Mag-
gini v. West Coast Life Ins. Co.,
29 P.2d 263, 136 Cal.App. 472—
Perkins v. (Pacific Fruit Exchange,
22 P.2d 035, 132 Cal.App. 278—
'Peters v. California Building-Loan
Ass'n, .2 P.2d 439, 116 Cal.App. 143.
Colo. — Bashor v. Bashor, 85 -P.2d
732, 103 Colo. 232, 120 A.L.R. 1507.
Fla.— -Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v.
Canady, 165 So. 629, 122 Fla, 447.
111. — Schneidennan v. Interstate
Transit Lines, 60 N.E.2d 908, 326
IlLApp. 1— Gant v. McDowell, 38
N.E.2d 530, 312 IlLApp. 378— Jen-
kins v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc.
of U. S., 27 N.E.«2d 877, 304 111.
App. 633 — Root v. Wentworth, 27
NJE.2d 651, 305 IlLApp. 493.
Ban. — Corpus juris quoted in Hoy
154
v. Griffin, 22 P.2d 4'49, 453, 137
Kan. 872.
Me. — 'Pierson v. Pierson, 178 A. 617,
133 Me. 367.
Mass. — Rose v. Silveira, 63 N.E.2d
895.
Mich. — First Nat. Bank & Trust Co.
of Ann lArbor v. Wuerth, 247 N.W.
784, 262 Mich. 691— Peckinpaugh v.
H. W. Noble & Co., 227 N.W. 540,
248 Mich. 6-68— Wehling v. Linder,
'226 N.W. 880, 248 Mich. 241— In re
Schulte's Estate, 211 N.W. 56, 237
Mich. 147.
Minn.— Powell v. Turnlund, 221 N.W.
241, 175 Minn. 361— Neal'is v. Chi-
cago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 218 N.
W. 125, 173 Minn. 587.
Miss. — Boyle Gin Co. v. W. F. Moo-
dy & Co., 193 So. 917, 18'8 Miss. 44.
N.H.— Tufts v. White, 26 A.2d 679,
92 N.H. 158.
N.Y. — Dlckerson v. Long Island R.
Co., 42 N.T.S.'2d 335, '266 App.Div.
852, appeal denied 44 N.T.S.2d 344,
266 App.Div. 921-^Clark v. Har-
nischfeger Sales Corporation, 264
N.T.S. 873, 23"8 App.Div. 49-3.
N.D. — Ua Bree v. Dakota Tractor &
Equipment Co., 288 N.W. 476, $9
N.D. 5-61 — Snyder v. Northern Pac.
Ry. Co., 285 N.W. 450, 69 N.D.
266 — Kron v. Boomer, 249 N.W.
7T2, 63 N.D. 686 — Johnson v. Mau,
236 N.W. 4'72, 60 N.D. 757— Odou
& Arnold v. Benson, 228 N.W. '812,
59 N.D. 101— Mercantile Protec-
tive Bureau v. Specht, 2'25 N.W.
794, '58 N.D. 239— Dahl v. Minne-
apolis, St P. & S. S. M. Ry. Co.,
223 N.W. 37, 57 N.D. 538— National
•Cash Register Co. v. Midway City
Creamery Co., 22-2 N.W. 36, 57 N.D.
356— Volk v. Hirning, 220 N.W.
446, 56 N.D. 337— Northern Trust
Co. v. Havelock Equity Exch. 199
N.W. 763, 51 N.D. 34-6.
Ohio. — Workman v. Thompson, 47 N.
E.2d 996, 141 Ohio St. 287— Spann
v. W. U. Tel. Co., App., 62 N.B.2d
676— Wilms v. Klein, Ap«p., 49 N.
E.2d 76 — Brazis v. National Tele-
phone Supply Co., App., 48 N.E,2d
8T3.
Pa.— -Cutler v. Peck Lumber Mfg.
Co., 37 A.2d 739, 350 Pa, 8— Gour-
ley v. -Boyle, 29 lA.'2d 523, 346 Pa,
113— Master v. Goldstein's Fruit &
Produce, 23 A.2d 443, 344 Pa. 1— .
Casseday v. Baltimore & O. R. Co.,
22 A.2d 663, 343 Pa, 34'2— Borits v.
Tarapchak, 12 A.2d 910, 3*38 Pa,
289 — Kennedy v. Southern Penn-
sylvania Traction Co., 3 A.2d 395,
333 Pa, 406 — Golder v. Bogash, 198
A. 149, 329 Pa, '350— Richardson v.
Frick Co., 197 A. 151, V29 Pa, 148
— James v. Columbia County Agri-
cultural, Horticultural & Mechani-
cal Ass'n, 1'84 A. 447, 321 Pa, 465
— Dangelo v. Pennsylvania R. Co.,
152 A, 743, 301 Pa. 579^-Manning
v. Baltimore & 0. R, Co., 146 1A.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
60
Moreover the common-law remedy has been mod- j ified and extended in some jurisdictions by stat-
30, 296 Pa. 380 — Gray v. Pennsyl-
vania R. Co., 141 A. 621, 293 Pa.
28— Muia v. Herskovltz, 128 A.
828, 283 Pa. 163— Nolder v. Penn-
sylvania R. Co., 12-3 A. 507, 27'8 Pa.
495 — Garland v. Craven, 41 A.2d
140, 156 Pa.Super. 351 — Guyton v.
City of Pittsburgh, 38 AJ2d 383,
155 Pa. Super. 76— Roslik v. City of
Pittsburgh, 38 A.2d 36-3, 155 Pa.
•Super. T50 — Dick v. West Penn
Rys. Co., 33 A.2d 792, 153 Pa.Su-
per. 281 — Pischke v. Borough of
Dormont, 33 A.2d 480, 153 Pa.Su-
per. 205 — Mayer v. Pennsylvania R.
R., 33 A.2d 474, 153 Pa. Super. 186
—Williams v. Overly Mfg. Co., 34
A.2d 52, 153 Pa.Super. -347— Bell v.
Anderson, 17 A.2d 647, 143 Pa.Su-
per. 56 — Foell Packing Co. v. Har-
ris, 193 A. 152, 127 Pa.Super. 494
— Hahn v. Anderson, 187 A. 450,
1'23 Pa.Super. 442, modified on oth-
er grounds 192 A. 489, 326 Pa. 463
— RJittle v. Zeller, 100 Pa.Super.
516— Sklaroff v. Philadelphia Rap-
id Transit Co., 100 Pa.Super. 237 —
Feinstein v. Philadelphia Rapid
Transit Co., 100 Pa. Super. 182—
Costolo v. School Disk of -Spring-
hill Tp., 99 Pa.Super. 259— Hatch
v. Robinson. 99 Pa.Su'per. 141 —
Gottlieb v. Scranton Ry. Co./ 99
Pa.Super. 7 — Coleman v. City of
Scranton, 99 Pa.Super. 3 — Klein v.
City of Pittsburgh, 97 Pa.Super.
56 — Pittsburgh Transportation Co.
v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 96 Pa.
Super. 302 — Brody v. Pittsburgh
Rys. Co., 96 Pa.Super. 265— Siglin
v. Haiges, 9*5 Pa.Supe,r. 588— Walk-
er v. Reading Transit & -Light
Co., 95 Pa.*Super. 461 — Kalter y.
Philadelphia Rap'id Transit Co., 95
Pa. Super. 11-6 — Gimbel v. ^E3tna
Life Ins. Co., 9'5 Pa.Super. 1 —
Radzlewicz v. Philadelphia & Read-
ing Ry. Co., 94 Pa.Super. 327 —
Chachkin v. Accommodation Ice &
Coal Co., $2 Pa.Super. 416 —
Thompson v. Hedrick, 91 Pa. Super.
41 — Fraser v. Freedman, 87 Pa.Su-
per. 454— Highland v. Russell Car
& Snow Plow Co., 87 Pa. Super.
235, affirmed 135 A. 759, 28'8 Pa.
230, affirmed 49 S.Ct 314, '279 U.S.
253, 73 'L.Ed. 688— Wagner v. Lon-
don Guaranty & Accident Co., Lim-
ited, 86 Pa.Super. 542 — Stone v.
Stone, 85 Pa.Super. 346 — Zieger v.
Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co., *4
Pa. Super. 541 — Barshay v. Ameri-
can Ice Co., 84 Pa.Super. 5*38 —
Sussman Bros. v. Meier, 80 Pa.Su-
per. 78 — Meyercord Co. v. P, H.
Butler Co.. 79 Pa.Super. 473— Mc-
Bntee v. New York "Life Ins. Co.,
79 Pa.Super. 457— Wetzel v. Pitts-
burg Rys. C|o., 55 Pa.Super. 2'2—
Cherry v. Mitosky, 53 Pa.Dist &
Co. 135 — Johnson v. Pittsburgh
Rys. Co., 34 Pa.Dist & Co. 209, 86
P.L.J. 585 — Schmuck v. Heilman, 14
Pa.Dist & Co. 449, 44 York Leg.
Rec. 181, affirmed 161 A, 420, 106
Pa. Super. 12 — MJiller v. Devine,
Com.PL, 54 Dauph.Co. 418 — Myers
v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., Com.
PL, 52 Dauph.Co. 318, affirmed 33
A.2d 253, 152 Pa.Super. 507— Tay-
lor v. Reading Co., Com.Pl., 51
2>auph.Co. 69, affirmed '27 A.2d 901,
149 Pa,Super. 171— Gates v. Finkel-
stein, Com.PL, 50 Dauph.Co. 361 —
Buffington v. Snyder, Com.Pl., 48
Dauph.Co. -30— Porter v. Philadel-
phia -Suburban Transp. Co., Com.
PL, 28 DeLCo. 581— Lundy v. Dev-
itt Com.PL, 28 Del. 210— Theiss v.
Moreland, Com.PL, 22 Brie Co. 154
— DiLorens v. Pittsburgh & L. B.
R. Co., Coxn.Pl., 8 Fay.L.J. 166—
Keating v. Wagner, Com.PL, 42
Lack.Jur. 84 — Schenker v. Indem-
nity Ins. Co. of North America,
Com.Pl., 2 Monroe L.R. 141, 10
Som.Leg.J. 180, affirmed 16 A.2d
304, -340 Pa. 81— Leedom v. Phil-
adelphia Transp. Co., Com.PL, 58
Montg.Co. 392 — Deiffenderfer v.
Weidner, C.om.Pl.f 14 Northunib.
Leg.J. 176-<!lark v. Pennsylvania
Power & (Light Co., Com.PL, 14
Northumb.Leg.J. 29, affirmed -6 A.
2d 892, 336 Pa, 75— Colella v. Bar-
toletti. Com.PL. 94 Pittsb.Leg.J.
14'2 — Berger v. Roberts, Com.PL, 93
Pittsb.Leg.J. 473— Weldon v. Pitts-
burgh Rys. Co., Com.Pl., 93 Pittsb.
Leg.J. 88 — Paradine v. Wynett,
Com.Pl.f 93 Pittsb.Leg.J. 75— Rid-
ley v. Pucci, Com.PL, 89 Pittsb.
Leg.J. 292 — Doerr v. Rands, Com.
PL, 8'S Pittsb.Leg.J. 579, affirmed
16 A.2d 377, -340 Pa. 183— Metz v.
Pittsburgh Rys. Co., Com.PL, 87
PittsbXieg.J. 484, affirmed 7 A.2d
505, 135 Pa.Super. '534— Dyer v.
Peoples Natural Gas Co., Com.PL,
87 Pittsb.Leg.J. 115— Qoral Gables
v. Farrell, Com.PL, 86 Pittarb.Leg.
J. 623 — Carey v. Berwager, Com.
PL, 53 York Leg.Rec. 203.
S.D. — Christensen v. Krueger, 278 N.
W. 171, 66 S.D. 66-^Larsen v.
Johnson, 197 N.W. 230, 47 S.D. 202.
Vt — Nadeau v. St Albans Aerie No.
1205 Fraternal Order of Eagles, 26
AJ2d 93, 112 Vt 397— Farrell v.
Greene, 2 A.2d 194, 110 Yt 37—
Johnson v. Hardware Mut Casual-
ty Co., 1 A.2d 817, 109 Vt 481—
City of Rutland v. Town of Wal-
lingford, 194 A. 360, 109 Vt. 186.
Ya. — -Wade v. Chesapeake & O. Ry.
Co., 193 S.B. 491, 169 Va, 448.
Wis. — Patterson v. Chicago, St. P.
M. & O. Ry. Co., 294 N.W. 63, 23-6
Wis. 205 — McKee v. Oconto Nat.
Bank, 248 N.W. 404, 212 Wis. 351
— Depner v. IT. S. Nat Bank, 2
•N.W. 851, '20!2 Wis. 405 — First Wis-
consin Nat Bank of Milwaukee v.
Town of Catawba, 197 N.W. 1013,
183 Wis., 220 — Twist v. Minneapo-
155
Us, St P. & S. S. M. Ry. Co., 190
N.W. 449, 178 Wis. 513.
33 CJ. P 1184 note 49—12 C.J. p 369
note 92.
Trial court's finding, notwithstand-
ing verdict, held justified under
evidence
La.— Lehon v. New Orleans Public
Service, 123 So. 172, 10 iLa.App.
715.
After special verdict
<1) A judge may enter judgment
notwithstanding the verdict after a
special verdict, since such motion
must be considered on the testimo-
ny prior to submission of the cause
to jury. — Dzikowski v. Michigan
Cent R. R., 276 N.W. 470, 2>82 Mich.
337— In re Cotcher's Estate, 264 N.
W. 325, 274 Mich. 154 — Jacob v.
Gratiot Central Market 255 N.W.
331, 237 Mich. 262.
(2) So, where defendant moved
for directed verdict, and, at plain-
tiff's request, case was submitted to
jury with leave to defendant to move
for judgment if verdict should be
otherwise than as would have been
directed, and general verdict was
returned for plaintiff and special
findings were made favorable to
plaintiff, defendant's motion for
judgment notwithstanding the ver-
dict was not improperly granted, on
ground that the special findings were
binding on defendant because the
motion was directed only against the
general verdict. — Jasper v. Wells,
144 P.2d 50'o, 173 Or. 114.
(3) The rule that motion for
judgment notwithstanding verdict is
usually a concession that special
findings are supported by evidence,
although applicable where motion
is on ground that verdict was con-
trary to special answers, would not
be applicable to contentions that ev-
idence failed to establish defense
and that judgment should be for
plaintiff under the law, the evidence
and the admitted facts. — Lewis v.
Dodson, 100 P.2d 640. 151 Kan. 6'32.
Where evidence presented ques-
tions of fact, dismissal of complaint
after rendition of verdict for plain-
tiff was error. — Sullivan v. Central
Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 63 N.
B.2d 76, 294 N.Y. 497.
In Arkansas
(1) After verdict has been en-
tered, but before entry of judgment
if court finds that no testimony has
been offered to sustain the verdict,
and that no cause of action has been
shown to exist the court has juris-
diction so to declare and direct judg-
ment which shall be entered. — Stan-
ton v. Arkansas Democrat Co., 106
S.W.2d 584, 194 Ark, 135—33 C.J. p
1184 note 49.
C2) But plaintiff was held not en-
60
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
tites13 which govern the entry of judgment notwith-
standing the verdict,14 and under some of which a
judgment may be entered, notwithstanding the ver-
dict, in favor of the party who was entitled to
have a verdict directed in his favor j1^ but under
such statutes judgment notwithstanding the verdict
titled to judgment xxon obstante vere-
dicto, although there was no testi-
mony to sustain verdict for defend-
ant, where verdict was not special,
and case was not reserved by court
for future judgment or considera-
tion, and there was no statement in
pleadings to justify court in enter-
ing judgment in favor of plaintiff,
Crawford & M. Dig. §§ 62*71, 6273,
being inapplicable. — Jackson v. Car-
ter, 278 S.W. 32, 169 Ark. 1154.
In ETobraska
Applying the rule that the trial
court has the right and power to va-
cate, set aside, amend, or correct
any judgments or orders made by It
at the same term, it has been held
that where court overruled plain-
tiff's motion for directed verdict and
submitted case to jury which re-
turned verdict for defendant, and
plaintiff filed motion for judgment
notwithstanding verdict, court had
jurisdiction at same term to sustain
plaintiff's motion in part and enter
judgment for plaintiff for a portion
of amount claimed. — 'Leon v. Kitchen
Bros. Hotel Co., 277 N.W. 823, 134
Neb. 137, 115 A.L.R. 1078.
In Oklahoma
(1) The court Is not authorized to
render a judgment notwithstanding
the verdict because there is an en-
tire lack of evidence to justify the
verdict in favor of the prevailing
party. — St Louis-San -Francisco Ry.
Co. v. Eakins, 284 P. 866, 141 Okl.
256 — Thompson v. Florence, .274 P.
671, 135 Okl. 116— St. Louis-San
Francisco Ry. Co. v. Bell, 273 P. 243,
134 Okl. 251 — Odom v. Cedar Rapids
Sav. Bank, -244 P. 758, 114 Okl. 126—
McAlester v. Bank of Me Al ester, 218
P. 839, 9'5 Okl. 193— -Barnes v. Uni-
versal Tire Protector Co., 165 P. 176,
63 Okl. 292.
(2) There is also, however, some
authority to the contrary. — Schafer
v. Midland Hotel Co., 171 P. 337, 69
Okl. 201.
In Washington
(1) The trial court may enter
judgment notwithstanding the ver-
dict in favor of either party where
it is warranted by the undisputed
evidence. — Morris v. Chicago, M.f St
P. & P. R. Co., 97 P.2d 119, 1 Wash.
2d 587, opinion adhered to 100 P.2d
19, 1 Wash.2d 587— Bobst v. Hardis-
ty, 91 P.2d 567, 199 Wash. 304.
(2) A motion for judgment not-
withstanding the verdict is properly
granted where as a matter of law
there is neither evidence nor reason-
able inference from the evidence sus-
taining the verdict — Rlchey & Gil-
bert Co. v. Northwestern Natural
Gaa Corporation, 134 P.2d 444, IS
Washed $31 — Belcher v. Lenta Hard-
ware Co., 125 P.2d 648, 13 Wash.2d
523— Van Nostern v. RJichey & Gil-
bert Co., $9 P.2d 608, 2 Washed 663
— Femling v. Star Pub. Co., 84 P.2d
1008, 19*5 Wash. 395— Turnquist v.
Rosaia Bros., 83 P.2d 353, 196 Wash.
434— Steen v. Polyclmic. '81 P.2d 846,
195 Wash. 666 — Stevich v. Depart-
ment of Labor and Industries, 47 P.
2d 32, 18'2 Wash. 401— Christiansen
v. Anderson, 37 P.2d 889, 179 Wash.
368-^Clark v. King, 34 P.2d 1105, 178
Wash. 421 — Hanson v. Washington
Water Power Co., 5 P.2d 10'25, 165
Wash. 497— Wade v. North Coast
Transp. Co., 5 P.2d 985, 165 Wash.
418— Dailey v. Phoenix Inv. Co., 28'5
P. 657, 155 Wash. 597— Birk v. City
of Bremerton, '241 P. 678, 1'37 Wash.
119 — Reynolds v. Morgan, 235 P. 800,
134 Wash. 358— Maddux v. Gray, 2*22
P. 470, 128 Wash. 149— Fortier v.
Robillard, 212 P. 1083, 12-3 Wash.
599 — Rieper v. General Cigar Co.,
209 P, 849, 121 Wash. 427—33 C.J. P
1180 note 24 [a].
(3) A mere scintilla will not sup-
port verdict against such motion. —
Kelly v. Drumheller. -272 P. 731, !50
Wash. 185.
(4) -So, where there Is no sub-
stantial evidence in support of the
verdict, it is within the power of
the court, notwithstanding the ver-
dict to direct a judgment in favor
of any or all of the parties against
whom the evidence fails. — Eyak Riv-
er Packing Co. v. Huglen, 2*55 P. 1'SS,
143 Wash. 229, affirmed 257 P. 638,
143 Wash. 229.
(5) A trial court, convinced aft-
er submission of supposed fact is-
sues to jury and return of verdict,
that there was no disputed fact
question for jury, may not only
grant (motion for judgment notwith-
standing verdict, but make findings
in support of money judgment for
moving party, if such judgment is
proper under undisputed evidence.—
W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. Graham, 103
P.2d 1076, 4 Wash.2d 407, 1'27 A.L.R.
596.
13. Minn. — Wilcox v. Schloner, 23
N.W.2d 19.
33 C.J. p im note 47 [d], p 1184
note 51.
. Idaho
Judgment notwithstanding verdict
was not permissible prior to statute
authorizing practice. — Helgeson v.
Powell, 34 P.*2d 957, 54. Idaho 667—
Prairie Flour Mill Co. v. Farmers*
Elevator Co., '261 P. 673. 45 Idaho
229.
Xn. Virginia
(1) Under the statute empower-
ing the court to enter such final
156
judgment as to it shall seem right
and proper when the verdict of a
jury in a civil action is set aside
as contrary to the evidence, or with-
out evidence to support it, if there is
sufficient evidence before the court
to decide the case on its merits,
the trial court, in determining-
whether the jury's verdict should be
set aside, need not consider evidence
as on demurrer thereto. — 'Flannagan-
v. Northwestern Mut Life Ins. Co.,
146 S.E. 358, 152 Va, 38.
(2) Evidence and reasonable and
proper inferences favorable to pre-
vailing party, however, will be ac-
cepted as true. — Parsons v. Parker,.
170 S.B. 1, 160 Va. 810— Bivens v.
Manhattan for Hire Car Corporation*
159 S.E. 395, 156 Va. 483.
(-3) Where there is nothing inher-
ently incredible in testimony of wit-
nesses which is sufficient to take-
case to jury, trial court will not sub-
stitute its view of case for jury and
render a judgment notwithstanding-
the verdict. — Hoover v. J. P. Neff &
Son, 31 S.B.'2d 26-5, 183 Va. 56— Par-
sons r. Parker, 170 S.B3. 1, 1-60 Va.
810.
(4) Power to enter judgment not-
withstanding verdict depends on*
there being certain and sufficient ev-
idence in case to decide it on its
merits. — Dexter-Portland Cement Co.
r. Acme Supply Co., 133 S.B3. 788, 147
Va. 758.
(5) Evidence was held to warrant
trial court in setting aside * verdict
as plainly contrary to evidence and
entering judgment notwithstanding
the verdict — Noland v. Fowler, IS
S.B.2d 251, 179 Va. 19— Vandenbergh
& Hitch y. Buckingham Apartment
Corporation, 128 S.BL 561, 142 Va.
«97.
14. S.D.— Kerr v. Staufer, -238 N.W.
156, 59 S.D. 83.
Tex— Happ v. Happ, CiV-App., 160 S.
W.2d 227, error refused.
15. Ariz. — McCauley v. Steward, 164
P.2d 465.
Cal. — In re Leahy's Estate, 54 P.2d
704, 5 Cal.2d 301— Hunton r. Cali-
fornia 'Portland Cement Co., 122
P.*2d 947, 50 CaLApp.23 684— Van
Rennes v. Southern Counties Gas*
Co. of California, 113 P.2d '238, 44
CaloApp.2d 880 — Scott v. George A.
Fuller Co., 107 P.'2d 55, 41 Cal.
App.2d 501 — Goldenzwig v. Shad-
dock, <88 P.2d 933, 31 Cal.App.2d
719 — Hubbert v. Aztec Brewing
Co., 80 P.2d 185, 26 Cal. A pp. 2 d 664,
followed in Cerezo v. Aztec Brew-
ing Co., 80 P.2d 198, 26 Cal.App.Sd
754, rehearing denied Hubbert v.
Aztec Brewing Co., *0 P.'2d 1016,
26 CaLApp.2d W4— -Galiano v. Pa-
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 60
ciflc Gas & Electric Co., 67 P.*2d
388, 20 CaLApp.2d 534-JCollins v.
Nelson, 61 P.2d 479, 16 Cal.App.2d
535— In re Smethurst's Estate, 59
P.2d 830, 15 CaLApp.2d 322—
Tracey v. L. A. Paving- Co., 41 P.
2d 94*2, 4 Cal.App.2d 700— Kerby v.
Elk Grove Union High School
Dist., 36 P.2d 431, 1 Cal.App.Sd 246
— Crone v. City of Bl Cajon, 24 P.
2d 846, 133 Cal.App. 624— <3Hy and
County of San Francisco v. Su-
perior Court in and for City and
County of San Francisco, 271 P.
1-21, 94 CaLApp. 318— Waylanfl v.
•Latham, 264 P. 766, 89 CaLApp. 55.
Colo. — First Nat. Bank of Denver v.
Kenning, 150 P.2d 790, 112 Colo.
5*23 — Fincher v. Edwin M. Bos-
worth & Co., 2<38 P. 88, 77 Colo.
496.
Idaho. — Petersen v. Bannock County,
102 P.2d £47, 61 Idaho 419— Hen-
drix v. City of Twin Falls, 29 P.2d
352, -54 Idaho 130.
111.— -Carrell v. New York Cent R.
Co., 52 N.-E.2d 201, 348 111. 599—
Lathrop v. Goodyear Tire & Rub-
ber Co., 60 N.E.24 41, 325 IlLApp.
2S1 — Christensen v* Frankland, 58
N.E.2d 289. '3-24 IlLApp. 391— JEbert
v. City of Chicago, 58 N.E.2d 198,
324 IlLApp. 31-5— Best v. Mid-West
Const. Corporation, 60 N.E.2d 867,
320 IlLApp. 341 — Casper v. City of
Chicago, 50 NA^d 858, 320 IlLiApp.
269 — Douglas v. Athens Market
Corporation, 49 N.E.2d -834, 320
IlLApp. 40— Haynes v. Holman, 49
N.E.2d 324, 319 IlLApp. 396—
Sturgeon v. Quarton, 44 N.'E.2d
766, 316 IlLApp. 308— Bituminous
Casualty Corporation v. City of
Virginia, 41 N.E.'2d 342, 314 I1L
App. 238 — Mader v. Handel Bros.
Dep't Store, 41 N.E.2d 327, 314 I1L
Ap.p. 263 — Kanne v. Metropolitan
Life Ins. Co., 34 N.H2d 732, 310
IlLApp. 524 — Trust Co. of Chicago
v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 31
N.E.2d -3-28, "308 IlLApp. 328— Mar-
ley v. Henzler, 24 N.E.2d 587, 303
IlLApp. 73 — Feinberg v. Chicago,
B. & Q. R. Co., -21 N.E.2d 26, 300
IlLApp. 278— "F&rrner v. Alton
Building & Loan Ass'n, 13 N.E.2d
652, 294 IlLApp. 206— Malewski v.
Mackiewich, 28-2 IlLApp. 593— Il-
linois Tuberculosis Ass'n v.
Springfield Marine Bank, 232 HL
App. 14.
Md. — Hajewski v. Baltimore County
Com'rs, 40 A.2d 316 — Clautice v.
Murphy, 26 A.2d 403, 180 Md. 558.
Mich. — Blundy v. .SQtna Life Ins. Co.
of Hartford, Conn., 11 N.W.Sfl 908,
307 Mich. 332 — Ruby v. Buxton, 8
N.W.2d 913, 305 Mich. 64— Merritt
.v. Huron Motor Sales, 276 N.W.
464, 2'82 Mich. 3*22— In re Lane's
Estate, 274 N.W. 714, 281 Mich. 70
— Kriishew v. Meitz, 268 N.W. 736,
276 Mich. 553 — In re Cotcher's Es-
tate, 264 N.W. 825, 274 Mich. 154
— Richards v. F. C. Matthews &
Co., 239 N.W. 381, 256 Mich. 159
—King v. Bird, *22 N.W. 183, 245
Mich. 93 — West v. Detroit Termi-
nal R, R., 201 N.W. *55, 229 Mich.
$90.
Minn.— Reiter v. Porter, 13 N.W.2d
372, "216 Minn. 479 — Krause v. Chi-
cago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 290
N.W. 294, 207 Minn. 175— Brulla v.
Cassady, 289 N.W. 404, 206 Minn.
398— 'Selover v. Selover, -277 N.W.
205, 201 Minn. '562— Slawson v.
Northern States Power Qo., 276 N.
W. 275, 201 Minn, 313— Plotnik Y.
Lewis, 2-61 N.W. 867, 195 Minn.
130— Paulson v. Fisk, 261 N.W.
182, 194 Minn. 507— First Nat.
Bank v. Fox, 254 N.W. «, 191 Minn.
318— ^Flower v. King, 250 N.W. 43,
189 Minn. 461 — D'iddams v. Empire
Milking Mach. Co., 240 N.W. 895,
185 M*nn.. '270 — Meisenhelder v.
Byram, 227 N.W. 426, 178 Minn.
417— Street v. Rosebrock, 217 N.
W. 939, 173 Minn. 522— Opperud v.
Byram, 217 N.W. 3T9, 175 Minn.
378 — Hawley Lumber Co. v. Nord-
ling, 209 N.W. 484, I« Minn. 70—
Funkley v. Ridgway, 197 N.W. 2*80,
158 Minn. 265 — Capretz v. Chicago
Great Western R. Co., 195 N.W.
Ml. 157 Minn. 29— Clough v. Chi-
cago, M. & St P. Ry. Co.. 191 N.W.
923, 1-54 Minn. 515.
N.D. — Cunningham v. Great North-
ern Ry. Co., 14 N.W.;2d T53, 73 N.
D. 315 — Nelson v. Scherling, 300
N.W. 803, 71 N.D. 337. .
Ohio. — Magyar v. Prudential Ins.
Co. of America, 15 N.E.2d 144, 1'33
Ohio St. 563 — Spann v. W. U. Tel.
Co., App., 62 N.E.2d 576— Brooks
v. Sentle, 58 N.E.2d 234, 74 Ohio
App. 231 — Massachusetts Mut.
Life Ins. Co. v. Hauk, 61 N.E.2d
80, 72 Ohio App. 131— Garber v.
Chrysler Corporation, App., "50 N.
E.2d 416-— Arthurs v. Citizens' Coal
Co., App., 47 N.E.2d 654— Kelley v.
Columbus Ry., Power & Light Co.,
24 N.E.2d 290, 62 Ohio App. 397.
Pa,— Rodia v. Metropolitan Life Ins.
Co., 47 A.2d 162— Garrett v. Moore-
McCormack Co., 23 A.2d 503, 844
Pa. 69, reversed on other grounds
63 S.Ct 246, 317 U.S. 239, 87 L.
Ed. 239— White v. Consumer's Fi-
nance Service, 15 A.2d 142, 339
Pa. 417— In re Olshefskl's Estate,
11 A.2d 487, 337 Pa. 420— Summit
Hotel Co. v. National Broadcast-
tog Co., 8 A.2d 302, 336 Pa. 182,
124 A.L.R. 968— McDonough Y.
Borough of Munhall, 200 A. 638,
8311 Pa. '468— Smith v. Penn Tp.
Mut Fire Ass'n of Lancaster
County, 186 A. ISO, 323 Pa. 93—
James v. Columbia County Agri-
cultural, Horticultural & Mechani-
cal Ass'n, 184 A. 447, 321 Pa. 465—
Shapiro v. City of Philadelphia, 159
A. 29, 306 Pa. 216 — Gray v. Penn-
sylvania R. Co., 141 A. 621. 293
Pa. 28— West v. Manatawny Mut.
Fire & Storm Ins. Co., 120 A. 763,
277 »Pa. 102— Stierheim v. Bechtold,
43 A.2d 916, 158 Pa.Super. 107 —
157
Schroeder Bros. v. Sabeli, 40 A.2d
170, 156 Pa.Super. 267— Hoefner v.
Franklin Twist Co., 24 A.2d 457,
147 Pa.Super. 4(W— Albright v.
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 17 A.
2d 709, 143 Pa.Super. 158 — Roeper
v. Monarch Life Ins. Co., 11 A.2d
184, 138 Pa.Super. 283— Mitchell
v. EUmaker, 4 A.2d 592, 134 flPa.
Super. 583 — Arndt v. Brockhausen,
191 A. 362, 126 Pa.Super. 269—
Ellsworth v. Husband, 181 A. 90.
119 Pa.'Super. 245 — Milano v. BVty-
ette Title & Trust Co., 96 Pa.Su-
per. 310— Riddel v. Philadelphia
Rapid Transit Co., 94 Pa.Super.
371 — Granato v. Wise, 94 Pa,Super.
346 — Aaron v. Smith, 90 Pa.Super.
565 — Hawk v. Hawk, 88 Pa, Super.
581 — Camp v. Commonwealth Ti-
tle Insurance & Trust Co., 87 Pa.
Super. 507 — Humbert v. Meyers, 83
Pa.Super. 496 — Teller v. Hood, 81
Pa.Super. 443— Tyrrell v. Philadel-
phia Rapid Transit Co., 79 Pa.Su-
per. 346 — Landy v. 'Philadelphia
Life Ins. Co., 78 Pa.Super. «47—
Wille v. London Guarantee & Ac-
cident Co., 49 Pa.Dist. & Co. 93,
32 DeLCo. 18— Piacine v. National
Life Ins. Co., 14 PaJDist & Co. 21
— Wanamaker v. Beamesderfer, 5
Pa.Dist & Co. 699, 26 Dauph.Co.
120 — Kaylor v. Central Trust Co.
of Harrlsburg, 54 Dauph.Co. 366,.
affirmed 36 A.2d 825, 154 Pa. Super.
633 — Harper v. Trainer Borough.
Com.iPL, 33 DeLCo. 229 — Jacobs v.
Reading Co., Com.PL, 31 DeLCo.
449 — Hoover v. Montgomery, Com.
PL, 29 DeLCo. 466-^Soder v. Hay-
ward, Com.PL, 21 Erie Co. 99, 5?
York Leg.Rec. 49 — Keating v.
Wagner, Com.PL, 42 Lack.Jur. 8^
— Farrante v. Orrico, Com.PL, 2f'
Leh.L.J. 239, affirmed 35 A.2d 575.
154 Pa.Super. 165 — McCormack v.
Jermyn, ComjPL, 37 Luz.Leg.Reg.
295— Stein v. Taylor, Com.PL, 5ff
Montg.Co. 199 — Eyster v. Lehigh
Valley R. Co., Com.PL, 14 North-
umb.Leg.J. 153 — Pischke v. Bor-
ough of Dormont, Com.Pl., 91
Pittsb.Leg.J. 559, affirmed 33 A.2d
480, 153 Pa.Super. 205— Seibert v.
City of 'Pittsburgh, Com.PL, 90
Pittsb.Leg.J. 599. 34 Mun.L.R. S&
— Schupp v. Yagle, Com.PL, 90
Pittsb.Leg.J. S89, affirmed 27 A.2cl
589, H49 Pa.Super. 464— White v.
Oswald Werner & Sons Co., Com.
PL, 88 Pittsb.Leg.J. 199 — Gaskins
v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., Com.
PL, 7 Sch.Reg. 13 — Mammorella v.
Peca, Com.Pl., 4 Sch.Reg. 445, 52
York Leg.Rec. 8 — Rugens v. Jones,
Com.PL, 54 York Leg.Rec. 8.
S.C. — Bohumir Xryl Symphony Band
v. Allen University, 12 S.E.2d 712,
196 S.C. 173.
S.D. — Deutscher v. Broadhurst, 12 N.
W.2d 807 — Gordinier v. Continen-
tal Assur. Co., 7 N.W.2d 298—
Strain v. Shields, 25$ N.W. 268,
63 S.D. 60— Kerr v. Staufer, 238
N.W. 156, 59 S.D. 83:
§ 60
Tex.— Yarbrough v. Booher, 174 S.
W.-2d 47, 141 Tex. 420, 150 A.L.R.
1369— Neyland v. Brown, 170 S.W.
2d 207, 141 Tex. 253, modified on
other grounds 172 S.W.2d 89, 141
Tex. 253— Super-Cold Southwest
Co. v. Elkins. 166 S.W.2d 97, 140
Tex. 48— Rodriguez v. Higginboth-
am-Bailey-Logan Co., 160 S.W.2d
234, 138 Tex. 476 — Sovereign Camp,
W. O. W. v. Shuford, 124 S/W.2d
344, 132 Tex. 376 — Green v. Ligon,
Civ.App., • 190 S.W.2d 742, error
refused, no reversible error — Mc-
Kemie v. Waldrop, Civ.App., 190
S.W.2d -384 — Talley v. Bass- Jones
Lumber Co., Civ.App., 173 S.W.2d
276, error refused — Huie v. Lay,
Civ.App., 170 S.W.2d 823— D-Bar
Pwanch v. Maxwell, Civ.App., 170
S.W.2d 303, error refused — Smith
v. Safeway Stores, Civ.App., 167 S.
W.2d 1044— Gatlin v. Southwestern
Settlement & Development Corpo-
ration, Civ.App.f 166 S.W.2d 150,
error refused— Manley v. Holt, Civ.
App., 161 S.W,2d 857, error refused
— Boatman v. C. S. Hamilton Mo-
tor Co., Civ.App., 152 S.W.2d 390
— Carrell v. Dallas Railway &
Terminal Co,, Civ.App., 151 S.W.2d
S69, error dismissed, Judgment
correct— Skelly Oil Co. v. John-
ston, Civ.App., 151 S.W.-2d 863,
error refused — Barrett v. Com-
mercial Standard Ins. Co., Civ.
App., 145 S.W.2d 315— Heath v
Blliston, Civ.App., 145 S.W.2d 243
error dismissed, judgment correct
—-Dallas Ry. & Terminal Co. v
Glenn, Civ.App., 144 S.W.2d 961
error dismissed, Judgment correct
— Le Master v. Fort Worth Trans-
it Co., Civ.App., 142 S.W.2d 908
reversed on other grounds, Sup.
160 S.W.2d 224, 138 Tex. 512—
Klmmell v. Tipton, Civ.App., 142
S,W.2d 421— McAfee v. Travis Gas
•Corporation, Civ.App., 131 S.W.-2d
139, reversed on other grounds 153
S.W.2d 442, 187 Tex. 314— Moran
v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co., Civ
App., 127 S.W.2d 1012, error dis-
missed, Judgment correct — Gumm
-v. Chalmers, Civ.App., 127 S.W.2d
942, modified on other grounds
Chalmers v. Gumra, 154 S.W.2c
640, :137 Tex. 467— Collins v. Grif
flth, Civ.App., 125 S.W.2d 419, er-
ror refused — Whiteman v. Harris
Civ.App., 123 S.W.2d 699, error re
fused— Hamilton v. Travelers Ins
Co., av.App., 116 S.W,2d 414, er-
ror refused— Walters v. Southern
S. S. Co., Civ.App., 113 S.W.2d 320
error dismissed — Sheppard v. City
•and County of Dallas Levee Im
provement Dist.. Civ.App., 112 S
W.2d 253 — Panhandle Const. Co
v. Continental Southland -Saving
& Loan Ass'n, Civ.App., 110 S.W
2d 632, error dismissed — Johnso
v. Moody, Civ.App., 104 S.W.2
583, error dismissed — James
Texas Employers Ins. Ass'n, Ci
App., 98 S.W.2d 425, reversed o
JUDGMENTS
other grounds Texas Employers'!
Ins. Ass'n v. James, 118 S.W.2d
293, 131 Tex. 605 — Jackson v.
Schoenmann, Civ.App., 94 S.W.2d
225— Cain v. Dickson, Civ.App., 78
S.W.2d 1095 — Bade v. Pickens,
Civ.App., 78 S.W.2d 260, affirmed
Pickens v. Backle, 104 S.W.2d 482,
129 Tex. 610, rehearing denied 105
S.W.2d 212, 129 Tex. 610— Acker-
son v. Iferm & Home Savings &
Loan Ass'n of Missouri, Civ.App.,
77 -S.W.2d 559, error refused-
Freeman v. Schwenker, Civ.App.,
73 S.W.2d 609 — Waitz v. XJvalde
Rock Asphalt Co., Civ.App., 58
S.W.2d 884— Southern Travelers'
Ass'n v. Wright, Civ.App., 20 S.
W.2d 1093, reversed on other
grounds, Com. App., '34 S.W.2d 823.
Wyo.— O'Mally v. Eagan, 2 P.2d
1063, 43 Wyo. 233, 77 A.L.R. 582,
rehearing denied O'Malley v. Ea-
gan, 5 P.2d 276, 43 • Wyo. 350.
33 C.J. p 1185 note 52.
Purpose of rule
The rule permitting Judgment not-
withstanding verdict when motion
tor directed verdict should have
been sustained has for its purpose
the giving of an opportunity to the
;rial court to correct its error in
Tailing to sustain a motion for a di-
rected verdict. — Friedman v. Colonial
Oil Co., Iowa, 18 N.W.2d 196.
Incontrovertible physical facts rule
(1) Where physical facts are such
that it is impossible for accident to
kiave happened in manner claimed,
Judge may set aside verdict for
plaintiff and order one for defend-
ant.
Mich. — Brenner v. Dykstra, 286 N.
W. 623, 289 Mich. 301— Nelson v.
Linderman, 284 N.W. 693, 288
Mich. 186 — Dzikowski v. Michigan
Cent. R. R., 276 N.W. 470, A0°
Mich. 337.
Minn. — Karras v. Great Northern
Ry. Co., 208 N.W. 655, 167 Minn.
140.
Pa. — Weiner v. Philadelphia Rapid
Transit Co., 165 A. 252, 310 Pa.
415 — Hawk v. Pennsylvania R
Co., 160 A. 862, 307 Pa. 214—
Adams v. Gardiner, 160 A. 589
SO 6 Pa. 576 — Folger v. Pittsburgh
Rys. Co., 139 A. 858, 291 Pa. 205
—Brett v. Philadelphia Transp
Co., 36 A.2d 230, 154 Pa.Super. 429
(2) The rule applies only in clear-
est of cases and never wherfc there
are variable and doubtful estimates
and where testimony of witnesses
is needed in order to apply evi
dence to the issue. — Mautino v. Pier-
cedale Supply Co., 13 A.2d 51, 33?
Pa. 435.
(3) Testimony of plaintiff in au
tomoblle accident case as to respec
tive location of vehicles before col
lision was held not to warrant Judg
ment notwithstanding verdict, on
ground of opposition to incontro
vertible physical fiacts, in view o
158
49 O.J.S.
different testimony given by plain-
iff's witnesses.— Hoff v. Tavani, 170
, -384, 111 Pa.Super. 567.
Test of right to Judgment notwith-
tanding verdict is whether, at close
>f trial, trial court should have giv-
jn binding instructions. — Pfeiffer v.
Kraske, 11 A.2d 555, 139 Pa.Super.
2 — McDonough v. Borough of Mun-
hall, 193 A. 326, 127 Pa.Super. 226,
•eversed x>n other grounds 200 A.
138, 331 Pa, 468 — Hahn v. Anderson,
_87 A. 450, 123 GPa.Super. 4142, modi-
fied on other grounds 192 A. 489,
126 Pa. 463 — Lessy v. Great Atlan-
Jc & Pacific Tea Co., 183 A. 657, 121
Pa.Super. 440— Ellsworth v. Hus-
band, 181 A, 90, 119 Pa.Super. 245.
Failure to object to immaterial tes-
timony
The fact that there was no ob-
ection made to certain immaterial
testimony at the time it was given
would not preclude the trial court
Trom sustaining motion for Judg-
ment non obstante veredicto. — In r«»
Rentfro's Estate, 79 P.2d 1042, 103
!olo. 400.
Procedure held regular
There was nothing irregular in
trial court's procedure in receiving
jury's attempt to answer three spe-
cial issues of fact, in discharging
Jury, which had answered one of
the inquiries with a report that the
others could not be agreed on, and
in then granting Judgment non ob-
sta-nte veredicto in plaintiff's favor
on ground that plaintiff's prior mo-
tion for peremptory instruction
made at close of all evidence had
been well taken and should have
been granted instead of overruled,
and Judgment was not subject to ob-
jection that there had been a fur-
ther trial of cause in the sense that
additional evidence and argument
had been heard by court subsequent
to discharge of Jury and that court
had entered Judgment on the verdict.
— Hutchison v. East Texas Oil Co.,
Tex.Civ.App., 167 S.W.2d 205, error
refused.
Power similar to that of appellate
court
Power of trial court to render
judgment non obstante veredicto is
the same power exercised by appel-
late court when it reverses and ren-
ders a case, where trial court errone-
ously refuses a peremptory instruc-
tion.— Johnson v. Moody, Tex.Civ.
App., 104 S.W.2d 583, error dis-
missed.
Xn Oklahoma
The court is not authorized to ren-
der a Judgment notwithstanding the
verdict because the evidence shows
as a matter of law that the court
should have directed a verdict in fa-
vor, of the losing party.- St. Louis-
San Francisco Ry. Co. v. Eakins,
284 P. 866, 141 Okl. 256— Thomp-
son v. Florence, 27»4 P. 671, 135 Okl.
lie — St. Louis-San Francisco Ry.
49 O.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
60
is not warranted merely because the trial cotirt, in
its discretion, ought to have granted a new trial.1^
(2) Particular Matters Affecting Right to
Remedy
(a) Motion for directed verdict as pre-
requisite to relief
(b) Sufficiency of evidence to raise jury
question
(c) Other matters
(a) Motion for Directed Verdict as Pre-
requisite to Relief
Under some statutes it Is prerequisite to a Judgment
notwithstanding the verdict that the moving party has
moved to direct a verdict In his favor at the close of the
testimony.
It is a prerequisite to a judgment notwithstand-
ing the verdict, under some statutes, that the mov-
ing party has moved to direct a verdict in his favor
at the close of the testimony,17 but it has been held
that the motion for a directed verdict need not be
in correct technical form,1* although a mere state-
ment by counsel that he intended to ask for an in-
structed verdict1^ or that he thought a motion for
Co. v. Bell, 273 -P. 243., 134 Okl. 25
— Odom v. Cedar Rapids Sav. Bank
244 P. 758, 114 Okl. 126— McAleste
v. Bank of McAlester, 218 P. 839
95 Okl. 193.
18. Minn. — Building Ass'n of Du
luth Odd Fellows v. Van Nispen
20 N.W.2d 90— Mardorf v. Duluth
Superior Transit Co., 261 N.W. 177
194 Minn. 537.
33 C.J. p 1186 note 58.
17. Cal.— In re Caldwell's Estate
16 P.2d 139, 216 Cal. 694— In re
Yale's Estate, 4 P.2d 153, '214 Cal
115 — Cushman v. Cliff House, 250
P. 575, 79 CaLApp. 572—- Machado
v. Weston, 14 P.2d 907, 126 Cal
App. 661 — In re Easton's Estate, 5
P.2d 635, 118 Cal.App. 659.
Idaho.— Helgeson v. Powell, 34 P.2d
957, 54 Idaho 667.
Md.— Hajewski v. Baltimore County
Com'rs, 40 A.2d 316.
Mich. — Forman v. Prudential Ins.
Co. of America, 16 N.W.2d 696,
310 Mich. 145.
Minn. — Wilcox v. Schloner, 25 N.W.
2d 19 — Johnson v. Whitney, 14 N.
W.2d 765, 217 Minn. 468— Raspler
v. Sen*, 11 N.W.-2d 440, 215 Minn.
596 — Callahan v. City of Duluth,
267 N.W. 361, 197 Minn. 403—
Gendler v. S. S. Kresge Co., 263
N.W. 925, 195 Minn. 578— Olson v.
Heise, 260 N.W. 227, 194 Minn. 280,
rehearing denied 261 N.W. 476, 194
Minn. 280 — Anderson v. Newsome,
258 N.W. 157, 193 Minn. 157— Don-
nelly v. Stepka, 257 N.W. 605,
193 Minn. 11 — Romann v. Bender,
252 N.W. 80, 190 Minn. 419— Kro-
cak v. Krocak, 249 N.W. 671, 189
Mi-nn. 346 — Timmins v. Pfeifer,
230 N.W. 260, 180 Minn. I—John-
son v. Hegland, 222 N.W. 272, 175
Minn. 592— Wilcox v. Wiggins, 207
N.W. 23, 166 Minn. 124— Tencho v.
Kruly, 197 N.W. 752, 158 Minn. 408
— Friedland v. Hacking, 197 N.W.
751, 158 Minn. 389— Funkley v.
Ridgway, 197 N.W. 280, 158 Minn.
265— Young v. Yeates, 190 N.W.
791, 153 Minn. 366.
N.D.— Baird v. Stephens, 228 N.W.
212, 58 N.D. 812— Gross v. MIlleT,
200 N.W. 1012. 51 NJD. 755— Car- j
son State Bank v. Grant Grain Co
197 N.W. 146, 50 N.p. 558— Enni
v. Retail Merchants' Ass'n Mut
Fire Ins. Co., 156 N.W. 234, 3
N.D. 20.
33 C.J. p 1186 note 59.
Counterclaim
Plaintiffs' motion for a Judgmen
notwithstanding verdict was prop-
erly granted despite plaintiffs' fail-
ure to move for a directed verdict
on defendant's counterclaim since
plaintiffs' motion for a directed ver-
dict on his complaint automatical
Iy included the counterclaim pleaded
by defendant as a defense in his
answer, and there is no requirement
that it be especially mentioned in a
motion for a directed verdict made
by plaintiff on his complaint.— Doyle
v. McPherson; 97 P.2d 2J49, 36 Cal
App.2d 81.
Motion held sufficient
Cal. — In re Ross' Estate, 22 P.2d
l. 131 CaLApp. 635.
Proposition not raised
Where plaintiff's motion for Judg-
ment notwithstanding
pursuant to rule was
the verdict
based on a
proposition not raised in plaintiff's
motion for a directed verdict, situa-
tion was the same as though plain-
tiff had made no motion for a direct-
ed verdict and plaintiff had no right
to the remedy. — Friedman v. Colo-
nial Oil Co., Iowa, 18 N.W.2d 196.
Judgment held erroneous where
record disclosed that no request for
peremptory instruction was made.—
Hall v. Barrett, Tex.Civ.App., 126
S.W.2d 1045.
In. Pennsylvania
(1) Party presenting no written
point for binding instructions was
n no position to move for judgment
non obstante veredicto. — Roberts v.
Washington Trust Co., 170 A. 291,
13 Pa, 584, certiorari denied 54 S.Ct.
78, 292 U.S. 608, 78 L.Ed. 1469,
and rehearing denied 54 S.Ct. 857,
92 U.S. 613, 78 L.Ed. 1472— Trad-
es' Securities Co. v. Kalil, 162 A.
99, 107 Pa.Super. 215 — Common-
wealth v. Keller, 162 A. 474, 106 Pa.
Super. 458— Pennsylvania R. Co. v.
Osborn, 161 A. 756, 106 Pa.Super.
159
45— Carl v. Grand Union Co., 161 A.
429, 105 Pa.Super. 371— Smith v.
Graham, 101 Pa.Super. 604 — Good
Fellowship Building & Loan Ass'n,
v. Crown Building & Loan Ass'n,
101 Pa.Super. 393— Loder v. Hamil-
ton Tp., 100 Pa.Super. 103— Petro-
leum Fuel Engineering Co. v. Hemp-
hill, 94 Pa.Super. 362 — Thomas F.
Leonard Co. v. Scranton Coca-Cola
Bottling Co., 90 Pa.Super. 360 — Pe-
terson v. Coles, 81 Pa.Super. 277—
Ransberry v. Fuliner, 80 Pa. Super.
512 — Standard Brewing Co. v. Knapp
Co., 79 Pa.Super. 252 — Waugaman
v. Henry, 75 Pa.Super. 94 — Tomko
v. Union Township, 44 Pa.Co. 631,
12 Sch.Leg.Reg. 341 — Roney v.
Thompson, Com.PL, 27 Del.Co. 589
— Diehl v. Central Printing Co., Com.
PL, 33 Luz.Leg.Reg. 430— Mammorel-
la v. Peca, Com.Pl.. 4 Sch.Reg. 445,
52 York Leg.Rec. S — Acks v. Axe,
Com.Pl., 52 York Leg.Rec. 41.
(2) Defect in that points of law
on which motion for judgment non
obstante veredicto was based were
presented by oral request is not
cured by order correcting record
nunc pro tune. — Thomas F. Leonard
Co. v. Scranton Coca-Cola Bottling
Co., 90 Pa.Super. 360.
(3) Motion for judgment for de-
fendant, made after plaintiff rested,
and followed by presentation of de-
fendant's case, is not according to
statute.— Updegrave v. Alex, 94 Pa.
Super. 29,
(4) Procedure prescribed by stat-
ute respecting entry of judgment on
whole record was not intended as
substitute for nonsuit. — Updegrave
v. Alex supra.
(5) Record was held to disclose
hat, as basis for judgment notwith-
itanding verdict, defendant had sub-
mitted written points for binding
nstructions.— Weigand v. Standard
Motor Co., 167 A. 493, 109 Pa,Super.
56.
8. Md.— Atlantic Refining Co. v.
Forrester, 25 A.2d 667, 180 Md.
517.
9. Cal.— In re Caldwell's Estate,
16 P.2d 139, 216 Cal. 694.
§ 60
JUDGMENTS
a directed verdict would be in order20 is not suffi-
cient There is no sufficient compliance with the
statute where the motion for directed verdict was
made, over objection of opposing counsel, after the
jury had returned its verdict;21 and the deficiency
cannot be corrected by a nunc pro tune order.22
A requested instruction for a verdict and the re-
fusal thereof are not equivalent to a motion for a
directed verdict and an order denying the motion
which, by statute, are made prerequisite to a judg-
ment notwithstanding the verdict.28
49 C.J.S.
(b) Sufficiency of Evidence to Raise Jury
Question
A judgment notwithstanding the verdict will not be
entered where the evidence raises an issue for the Jury,
as where there is evidence reasonably tending to sup-
port the verdict or where there Is a substantial conflict
in the evidence.
A judgment notwithstanding the verdict will not
be entered where the evidence raises an issue for
the jury,24 as where there is evidence reasonably
tending to support the verdict ;25 and a like rule ap-
20. Cal.— Hallinan v. Prindle, 29 P.
2d 202, 220 Oal. 46.
21. Minn.— Wilcox v. Schloner, 23
N.W.2d 19.
22. Minn. — Wilcox v. Schloner, su-
pra,
23. Cal.— Hallinan v. Prindle, 29 P.
2d 202, 220 Cal. 46— In re Cald-
well's Estate. 16 P.2d 139, 2-16
Cal. 694— Machado v. Weston, 14
P.2d 907, 126 CaLApp. 661— In re
Easton's Estate, 5 P.2d 685, 118
CaLApp. 659.
24. U.S. — Shane v. Commercial Cas-
ualty Ins. Co., D.C.Pa., 48 F.Supp.
151, affirmed, C.C.A., -Shane v.
Barger, 132 P.2d 644.
Colo. — De Boer v. Olmsted, 260 P.
108, 82 Colo. 36-9.
111. — Belcher v. Citizens Coach Co.,
57 N.B.2d 659, 324 IlLApp. 226—
Vieceli v. Cummings, 54 N.E.2d
717, 322 IlLApp. 559— Janelunas v.
John Hancock Mut Life Ins. Co.,
9 N.E.2d 257, 291 IlLApp. 604 —
Hicks v. Swift & Co., 1 N.E.2d 918,
285 IlLApp. 1.
Mich.— Thelen v. Mutual Benefit
Health & Accident Ass'n, 7 N.W.
2d 128, «0!4 Mich. 17 — Freedman
v. Burton, 274 N.W. 766, 281 Mich.
208 — Davis v. Belmont Creamery-
Co., 274 N.W. 749, 281 Mich. 165—
In re Lane's Estate, 274 N.W. 714,
281 Mich. 70.
Minn.— Solberg v. Minneapolis St.
Ry. Co., 7 N.W.2d 926/ 214 Minn.
274— Weber v, St Anthony Falls
Water Power Co., 7 N.W.2d 339,
214 Minn. 1.
N.D. — La Bree v. Dakota Tractor &
Equipment Co., 288 N.W. 476, 69
N.D. 561 — Olstad v. Stockgrowers
Credit Corporation, 266 N.W. 109,
66 N.D. 416.
Ohio. — Flynn v. Sharon Steel Corpo-
ration, -50 N.E.2d 519, 142 Ohio St
145 — Chenoweth v. Gary, App.,
31 N.E.2& 716, appeal dismissed
23 N.E.2d 949, 136 Ohio St. 123.
Or.— Parker v. Pettit, 138 P.2d 592,
171 Or. 481.
Pa. — Dempsey v. First Nat. Bank of
Scranton, 46 A.2d 160, 353 Ba. 473
—Reiser v. Smith, 195 A. 56, 328
Pa. 29-2 — Naugle v. Reading Co.,
21 A.2d 109, 145 Pa.-Super. 341—
Kissinger v. Pittsburgh Rys. Co..
180 A. 137, 119 Pa.Super. 110—
Letvin v. Phoenix Ins. Co,, 87 Pa.
Super. 402— Groskin v. Knight, 8
PaJDist. & Co. 413, affirmed 138 A.
843, 290 Pa. 274— Bayer v. Cron-
auer, Com.PL, 37 Luz.Leg.Reg.
261.
S.D.— Mills v. Armstrong, 13 N.W.2d
726.
Tex.— Casey v. Jones. Civ.App., 189
S.W.2d 51'5— Maryland Casualty
Co. v. Stewart, Civ.App., 164 S.W.
2d 800, error refused — Johnson v.
Stickney, Civ.App., 152 S.W.2d 921
—Citizens State Bank of Houston
v. Giles, Civ.App., 145^S.W.2d 899,
error dismissed — Barrett v. Com-
mercial Standard Ins. Co., Civ.
App., 145 S.W.2d 315— Gumm v.
Chalmers, Civ.App., 127 S.W.2d
942, modified on other grounds
Chalmers v. Gumm, 154 S.W.2d
640, 137 Tex. 467 — Johnson v.
Moody, Civ.App., 104 S.W.2d 583,
error dismissed — Christopher v.
City of El Paso, Civ.App., 98 S.W.
2d 394, error dismissed — Spence
v. National Life & Accident Ins.
Co., Civ.App., 59 S.W.2d 212.
33 C.J. p 1184 note 51 [c] (2), p
1185 note 56.
25. Fla. — Norwich Union Indemnity
Co. v. Willis, 168 So. 418, 124 Fla.
137, 127 Fla. 238.
Idaho. — In re Randall's Estate, 70
P.2d 389, 58 Idaho 1'43.
111. — Berg v. New York Cent. R. Co.,
62 N.R2d 676, 391 111. 52— Todd
v. S. S. Kresge Co., 52 N.E.2d 206.
384 111. 524— Neering v. Illinois
Cent. R. Co., 50 N.E.2d 497, 383
111. 366, mandate conformed to 53
N.E.2d 271, 321 IlLApp. 625— Gnat
v. Richardson, 39 N.E.2d 837. 378
111. 626— Walaite v. Chicago, R. I.
& P. Ry. Co., 33 N.E.2d 119, 376
111. 59 — Anderson v. Krancic, 66 N.
E.2d 316, 328 IlLApp. 364— Dickin-
son v. Rockford Van Orman Hotel
Co., 63 N.E.2d 257, 326 IlLApp.
686 — Hedden v. Farmers Mut. Re-
Ins. Co. of Chicago, I1L, 60 N.E;2d
110, 325 IlLApp. 335— Molitor v.
Chicago Title & Trust Co., 59 N.E.
695, '325 IlLApp. 124— Hauck v.
First Nat Bank of Highland Park,
55 N.R2d 56'5, 323 IlLApp. 300—
Bone v. Publix Great States Thea-
tres, 54 N.E.2d 98, 322 IlLApp. 178
160
— Leif v. Fleming, 52 N.E.2d 606,
321 IlLApp. 297— Schwickrath v.
Lowden, 46 N.E:2d 162, 317 111.
App. 431— Gleason v. Cunningham,
44 N.E.2d 940, 316 IlLApp. 286—
Lomax v. Brooks, 43 N.E.2d 421,
315 IlLApp. 567— Gant v. McDow-
ell, 38 N.E.2d 530, 312 IlLApp. 378
— Ramming v. Belt Ry. Co. of Chi-
cago, 36 N.E.2d 275, 311 Hl.App.
367— Taylor v. Municipal Em-
ployes Ins. Ass'n of Chicago. 34
N.E.2d 126, 310 IlLApp. *8S—
Delling v. Lake View Hospital
Ass'n and Training School for
Nurses, 33 N.E.2d 915, 310 IlLApp,
155 — Boyda Dairy Co. v. Continen-
tal Casualty Co., 20 N.E.2d 339,
299 IlLApp. 469— Delyda v. Metro
politan Life Ins. Co., 18 N.E.Scl
562, 298 IlLApp. 623— Gardiner v.
Richardson, 11 N.E.2d 824, 293 111.
App. 40— McNeill v. Harrison f-
Sons, 2 N.E.2d 959, 286 IlLApp.
120.
Kan.— Underbill v. Motes, 165 P.2d
218, 160 Kan. 679 — Groom v.
Bertoglio, £4 P.2d 992, 143 Kan.
296.
Mich. — Richards v. F. C. Matthews
& Co., 239 N.W. 381, 2'56 Mich. 159
— Lewis v. Beaverton Power Co.,
204 N.W. 768, 231 Mich. 585— In
re Knox's Estate, 190 N.W. 23S,
220 Mich. 469.
Minn.— Building Ass'n of Duluth Odd
Fellows v. Van Nispen, 20 N.W.2d
90, 220 Minn. 504— Kundiger v.
Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 17
N.W.2d 49, 219 Minn. 25— Kundi-
ger v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.,
15 N.W.2d 487, 218 Minn. 273—
Eklund v. Kapetas, 11 N.W.2d 805,
216 'Minn. 79— Solberg v. Minneap-
olis St Ry. Co., 7 N.W.2d 926,,
214 Minn. 274— Goldfine v. John-'
son, 294 N.W. 459, 208 Minn. 449
— Peterson v. Minnesota Power &
Light Co., 288 N.W. 588, 206 Minn.
268 — Armstrong v. Brown Bros.,
Kootz & Co., 277 N.W. 348, 202
Minn. 26 — Mardorf v. Duluth-Su-
perior Transit Co., 261 N.W. 177,
194 Minn. 537— Olson v. Heise, 260
N.W. 227, 194 Minn. 280, rehearing
denied 261 N.W. 476, 194 Minn.
280— Kingsley v. Alden, 269 N,W.
7, 193 Minn. 503— Stebbins v.
Friend. Crosby & Go* 958 N.W.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§60
824. 193 Minn. 44 6— Donnelly v.
Stepka, 257 N.W. 505, 193 Minn. 11
—First Nat. Bank v. Fox, 254 N,
W. 8, 191 Minn. 318— Thorn v.
Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 252 N.W.
660, 190 Minn. 622— Stritzke v.
Chicago Great Western Ry. Co.,
251 N.W. 532, 190 Minn. 323—
Trovatten v. Hanson, 213 N.W.
536, 171 Minn. 130 — Jepson v. Cen-
tral Business Men's Ass'n, 209. N.
W. 487, 168 Minn. 19— Nelson V.
Johnson, 209 N.W. 320, 167 Minn.
430 — Farmers' & Merchants' State
Bank of New York Mills v. Na-
tional Surety Co., 203 N.W. 969,
163 Minn. 257 — Automotive Co. v.
National Fire Ins. Co. of Hart-
ford, 202 N.W. 32, 162-Mlnn. 34—
Dairy Region Land Co. v. Paul-
son, 199 N.W. 398, 160 Minn. 42—
Thomas Keating Co. v. Inland
Steel Co., 195 N.W. 1016, 157 Minn.
243 — Stoneman v. Smyth, 190 N.
W. 605, 15-3 Minn. 331.
Mo. — American Employers Ins. Co.
of Boston, Mass., v. Manufactur-
ers & Mechanics Bank of Kansas
City, 85 S.W.2d 174, 229 Mo.App.
994.
N.D. — Maloney v. City of Grand
Forks, 1'5 N.W.2d 769, 73 N.D. 445
— Equity Elevator & Trading Co.
v. Farmers' & Merchants' Bank,
250 N.W. 529, 64 N.D. 95— Hughes
v. Wachter, 238 N.W. 776, 61 N.D.
513— McDonnell v. Monteith, 231
N.W. 854, 59 N.D. 750— Vallely v.
Devaney, 19»4 N.W. 903, 49 N.D.
1107.
Ohio. — Wilkeson v. Erskin & Son, 61
N.E.2d 301, 145 Ohio St 213— Paul
v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America,
App.f 64 N.E.2d 124— Morgan v.
Hunsicker, App., 60 N.E.2d 509—»
Reitenour v. McClain, App., 57 N.
E.2d 78 — Wilms v. Klein, App.,
49 N.E.2d 76 — Holmes v. Em-
ployers' Liability Assur. Corpora-
tion, Limited, of London, England,
43 N.E.2d 746, 70 Ohio App. 239—
Lehrer v. Cleveland Ry. Co., 20
Ohio N.P.,N:S.. 481.
Okl.— Stanfield v. Lincoln, 1 P.2d
387, 150 Okl. 289— Reid v. Reid,
241 P. 797, 115 Okl. 58— Oklahoma
Products Co. v. Cotton Products
Co., 239 P. 656, 111 Okl. 2-57.
Or. — French v. State Industrial Ac-
cident Commission, 68 P.2d 466,
156 Or. 443.
Pa. — Kummerlen v. Pustilnik, 45 A.
2d 27— Cherry v. Mitosky, 45 A.2d
23— Kindt v. Reading Co., 43 A.
2d 1145, 352 Pa. 419— Garden v.
Philadelphia Transp. Co., 41 A.2d
667, 351 Pa. 407 — Young v. Brad-
ford County Telephone Co., 38 A.
2d 47, 356 Pa. 62— MacDonald v.
Pennsylvania R. Co., -36 A.2d 492,
348 Pa. 558— Ashworth v. Hannum,
32 A.2d 407, 347 Pa. 893— Frew v.
Barto, 26 A.2d 905, 345 Pa. 217
— Brown v. George, 25 A.2d 691,
344 Pa. , 39-9 — Wascavage v. Sus-
queharma Collieries Co., 23 A.2d
49 C. J.S.-11
509, 343 Pa. 529— Srednick v. Sy-
lak, 23 A.2d 333, 34.3 Pa. 486— Mor-
ton v. Borough of Dormont, 22 A.
2d 738, 343 Pa. 432— Welch v.
Sultez, 13 A.2d 399, 338 Pa. '583—
Pearlman v. Metropolitan Life
Ins. Co., 9 A.2d 432, 336 Pa, 444—
'Powell v. Ligon, 5 A.2d 373, 33'4
Pa. 250 — Kennedy v. Southern
Pennsylvania Traction Co., 3 A.2d
395, 333 Pa. 406 — lacovino v. Ca-
terino, 2 A.2d 828, 332 Pa. 556—
Voltz v. General Motors Accept-
ance Corporation, 2 A.2d 697, 332
Pa. 141 — Hahn v. Anderson, 192 A.
489, 326 Pa." 465— Murray v. City
of Clairton, 191 A. 618, 326 Pa.
180 — Smith v. Penn Tp. Mut Fire
Ass'n of Lancaster County, 186
A. 130, 323 Pa. 93— Majewski v.
Lempka, 183 A. 777, 321 Pa. 369
— Walters v. Western & Southern
Life Ins. Co., 178 A. 499, 318 Pa.
882 — Strong v. Jarka Corporation
of Philadelphia, 176 A. 732, 817
Pa. 317— Bi^yski v. Schreiber, 171
A. 614, 314 -Pa. 35:3— Keck v. Phil-
adelphia Rapid Transit Co., 171 A.
478, 3T4 Pa. 389— Ferguson v.
Charts, 170 A. 131, 313 Pa. 164—
Vlasich v. Baltimore & O. R. Co.,
161 A. 70, 307 Pa. 255— Guilinger
v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 155 A. 293,
304 Pa. 140— Kellogg v. Pennsyl-
vania R. Co., 155 A. 296, 304 Pa,
149 — Darlington v. Bucks County
Public Service Co., 15'4 A. 501, 303
Pa. 288 — Freedom Oil Works Co. v.
Williams, 152 A. 741, 302 Pa. 51
— Kuhns v. -New York Life Ins.
Co., 147 A. 76, 297 Pa. 418— ^Statler
v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 145 A. 861,
296 Pa. 222— Kent v. General
Chemical Co., 131 A. 588, 285 Pa.
34 — Dunn v. Hatch Motors Co., 126
A. 349, 281 Pa. 224— Maisel v.
Patrick Corr & Sons, 121 A. 61, 277
Pa. 331 — Davis v. Carroll-Porter
Boiler & Tank Co., 119 A, T42, 276
Pa, 71— Moyer v. Pittsburgh, M.
& B. Ry. Co., 119 A. 469, 275 Pa.
363 — Ondo v. Greek Catholic Un-
ion of Russian Brotherhoods of
U. S. A., 38 A.2d 370, 155 Pa.Su-
per. 492— Hindes v. City of Pitts-
burgh, 38 A.2d 420, 155 Pa.Super.
314— Holland v. Kohn, 38 A,2d 500,
155 Pa.Super. 95— Dick v. West
Penn Rys. Co., 83 A.2d 792, 153 Pa.
Super. 281 — Shugats v. Metropoli-
tan Life Ins. Co., 33 A.2d 650, 153
Pa.Super. 51— Trostel v. Reading
Steel Products Corporation, 31 A.2d
909, 152 Pa.Super. 273— Gerber v.
Jones, 30 A.2d 534, 151 Pa.Super.
489— Smith v. Coca Cola Bottling
Co., 33 A.2d 488, 152 PaJSuper. 445
— Smolinsky v. Metropolitan Life
Ins. Co., 26 A,2d 131. 149 Pa.Super.
72 — Moyer v. Reading Co., 24 A.2d
48, 147 Pa.Super. 178— Watson v.
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 21 A.2d
503, 145 Pa.Super. 86S— Blair, to
Use of Davis, v. Adamchick, 21 A.
2d 107, 145 Pa.Super. 125— Szidor v.
Greek Catholic Union of Russian
161
Brotherhoods of U. S., 21 A.2d 104,
145 Pa.Super. 251 — Steingart v.
Kaney, 19 A.2d 499, 144 Fa.Super.
534 — Hanrahan v. John Hancock
Mut Life Ins. Co., 18 A.2d 512,
T43 Pa.Super. 557— Willetts v. But-
ler Tp., 15 A.2d 392, 141 Pa.Super.
394— Mitchell v. First Nat. Bank,
7 A.2d 513, 136 Pa.Super. 467—
Johnson v. Staples, 5 A.2d 433, 135
Pa.Super. 274 — Qu inter v. Bloch,
197 A. 539, 130 Pa.Super. 348 —
Kovacs v. Ajhar, 196 A. 876, 130
Pa.Super. 149 — Tomko v. Feldman,
19«4 A. 338, 128 Pa.Super. 429—
Lessy v. Great Atlantic & Pacific
Tea Co., 183 A. 657, 121 Pa.Super.
440— Young v. Yellow Cab Co., 180
A. 63, 118 Pa.Super. 495 — Rzasa v.
Gorniak, 174 A. 659, 115 Pa.Super.
47— Klein v. Weissberg, 174 A.
636, 114 Pa.Super. 569— Williams
v. Southern Mut Ins. Co. of -Lan-
caster County, 164 A. 128, 108 Pa.
Super. 148, affirmed 166 A. 582,
312 Pa. 114— Turner v. Philadel-
phia Rapid Transit Co., 100 Pa,
Super. 291 — Loder v. Hamilton Tp.,
100 Pa.Super. 103-^Smith v. Walat
& Stutznmn, 99 Pa. Super. 147 —
Columbia Fur Co. v. Needro, 97
Pa.Super. 389 — Robert M. Green &
Sons Co. v. Hazlett & Johnston, 96
Pa.Super. 460 — Tompkins v. Head-
ley, 96 Pa.Super. 133 — Wright v.
Borough of Belief onte, 95 Pa.Su-
per. 196 — Kaufman v. Lehman, 94
Pa.Super. 306 — Curry v. Wolsten-
croft, 93 Pa.Super. 13 — Boley £
Boley v. Borough of Glassport, 91
Pa.Super. 247— Philadelphia In-
quirer Co. v. Sabia, 90 Pa.Super.
266 — Donovan v. People's Natural
Gas Co., 84 Pa.Super. 51 — Jones
v. East Fayette Coal Co., 83 Pa.
Super. 341 — Voltz v. Erie County,
81 Pa,Super. 467 — Harris & Konick
v. Gottlieb, 81 Pa.Super. 186—
Molinaro v. Davis, 80 Pa.Super.
597— Robert J. Ward & Co. v. Mil-
ler, 80 Pa.Super. 259 — Flood v.
Connor, 80 Pa.Super. 54 — Hawkins
v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.,
79 Pa. Super. 453 — Weaver v. Col-
lins* Adm'x, 79 Pa.Super. 289—
Harter v. Altoona & Logan Valley
Electric Ry. Co., 79 Pa.Super. 25
— Swartz v. Stein & Levy, 78 Pa,
'Super. 515— Fissell v. Hines, 78
Pa,Super. 179— Cloud v. Philadel-
phia & West Chester Traction Co.,
78 Pa.Super. 85, followed in 78
Pa.Super. 92f — Clark v. Neshan-
nock Stone Co., 41 Pa-Super. 34
— Barnhart v. Herring, 54 Pa.Dist
& Co. 526 — DeCheck v. Clancy, 53
Pa.Dist & Co. 618, 93 Pittsb.Leg.
J. 305, 59 York Leg.Rec, 87— Ros-
enberger v. Butz, 37 PaJDist. &
Co. 406, 18 Leh.L.J. 3S5 — Hones-
dale Nat Bank v. Klein, 37 Fa.
Diet & Co. 370, 41 Lack.Jur. 191
— Wade v. Cleavenger, 34 FaJDist
& Co. 297, 86 Pittsb.Leg.J. 627
— Dommes v. Zuroski, Com.PL, 85
Berks Co. 429, affirmed 98 A,2d 73,
§60
JUDGMENTS
49 0. J. S.
350 Pa, 206— Parsons v. Motor
Freight Express, Com.Pl., 35 Berks
Co. 245 — Bekelja v. James E.
Strates Shows, Inc., Com.Pl., 55
Dauph.Co. 317 — Sanders V: Brown,
Com.PL, 54 Dauph.Co. 272 — Ans-
tine v. Pennsylvania R. Co., Com.
PI., 62 Dauph.Co. 372— West V,
Morgan, Com.Pl., 52 Dauph.Co. 361,
affirmed 27 A.2d 46, 345 Pa. 61—
MoKenzie Co. v. Fidelity & Deposit
Co. of Maryland, Com.PL, 52
Dauph.Co. 210— Frew v. Barto,
Com.Pl., 52 Dauph.Co. 147, affirmed
26 A.2d 905, 345 Pa. 217— Greiner
v. Turby, Com.Pl., 52 Dauph. Co.
131 — McGarvey v. Mages, Com.Pl.,
50 Dauph.Co. 128 — Pote v. Dauphin
Deposit Trust Co., Com.Pl., 49
Dauph.Co. 307 — Eckenrode v. Pro-
duce Trucking Co., Com.Pl., 49
Dauph.Co. 271 — Weiser v. Michlo-
vitz, Com.Pl., 48 Dauph. 106— Pen-
nell v. Bainbridge, Com.PL, 47
Dauph.Co. 224 — Webb v. Hess,
Com.Pl., 46 Dauph.Co. 84— Stuart
v. Ashenfelter, Com.Pl., 46 Dauph.
Co. 31 — McLaughlin v. Southern
Pennsylvania Traction Co., Com.
PL, 32 DeLCo. 252 — Freeman v.
MacDonald, Com.Pl., 31 Del.Co. 165
—Fidelity-Philadelphia Trust Co.
v. Dreslin, Com.PL, 30 DeLCo. 351
— Bair v. Newgeon, Com.PL, 29
DeLCo. 544 — Hoover v. Montgom-
ery, Com.PL, 29 DeLCo. 466— Maher
v. Washington Nat. Ins. Co., Com.
PL, 29 Del.Co. 267 — Struchen v.
Thomas, Com.PL, 23 Brie Co. 253
— Trebucza v. Nelson, Com.Pl., 22
Erie Co. «4 — Palmer v. City of Brie,
Com.PL, 20 Erie Co. 400, affirmed
9 A.2d -378, 337 Pa. 5— Morrison
v. Gordon, Com.PL, 20 Erie Co.
350— "Madigan v. H. B. Sproul
Constr. Co., Com.PL, 44 Lack.Jur.
73, 4 Monroe L.R. 123 — Grabin v.
Caffrey, Com.PL, 42 Lack.Jur. 194
— Keating v. Wagner, Com.PL, 42
Lack.Jur. 84— «nyder v. Passen,
Com.PL. 42 Lack.Jur. 39 — Crystal
& Son v. Gerson, Com.PL, 41 Lack.
Jur. 185 — Glidden Co. v. Sullum,
Com.PL, 40 Lack.Jur. 191— Fegley
v. Vogel-Ritt, Inc., Com.PL, 21
Leh.L.J. 306 — Hamm v. Teyka,
Com.PL, 18 Leh.L.J. 218— Palas-
chak v. Borro, Com.PL, 36 Luz.Leg.
Reg. 361 — Fierro v. Friel, Com.
PL, 35 Luz.Leg.Reg. 186— Wildon-
er v. Sutton, Com.PL, 34 Luz.Leg.
Reg. 118 — Szusta v. Krawiec, Com.
PL, 34 Luz.Leg.Re'g. 61, affirmed
19 A.2d 495, W4 Pa,Super. 530—
Watson v. Metropolitan Life Ins.
Co., Com.PL, 33 Luz.Leg.Reg. 463
— Morris v. White, Com.Pl., 33
Luz.Leg.Reg. 4-37 — Wereszinski v.
Prudential Ins. Co. of America,
Com.PL, 32 Luz.Leg.Reg. 412 —
Harr v. G-aydos, ConxPL, 82 Luz.
Leg.Reg. 169 — Schenker v. Indem-
nity Ins. Co. of North America,
Com.PL, 2 Monroe L.R. 141, 10
Som.Leg.J. 180, affirmed 16 A.2d
304, 340 Pa. 81 — Bruno v. Buffalo
Amusement Co., Com.PL, £6 Montg.
Co. 51 — Wissahickon Building &
Loan Ass'n v. Du Bois, Com.PL,
54 Montg.Co. 404 — Silvaoao v. Met-
ropolitan Life Ins. Co., Com.PL,
14 Northumb.L.J. 321, reversed on
other grounds 5 A.2d 423, 135 Pa.
Super. 260 — Diggan v. York-Buf-
falo Motor Express, Com.PL, 13
Northumb.Leg'.J. 381— Ciaffoni v,
Middlebrook, Com.PL, 94 Pittsb.
Leg.J. 16 — Humenick v. Carfagna,
Com.PL, 94 Pittsb.Leg.J. 6, 59
York Leg.Rec. 163 — Urben v.
Pittsburgh Rys. Co., Com.PL, 93
Pittsb.Leg.J. 439— Kuhn v. Massa-
chusetts Mut. Life Ins., Com.PL,
89 Pittsb.Leg.J. 544— ^mith v.
Prudential Ins. Co., Com. PL, 87
PittsbXeg.J. 367— VaUino v. Klein,
Com.PL, 87 Pittsb.Leg.J. 227—
Wargovich v. Metropolitan Life
Ins. Co., Com.PL, 86 Pittsb.Leg.J.
459, affirmed 7 A.2d 568, 136 Pa-
Super. 421 — ©pern v. Globe & Re-
public Ins. Co., Com.PL, 85 Pittsb.
Leg.J. 774 — Hoy v. Wolfgang,
Com.PL, 7 Sch.Reg. 77— Schulkind
v. Dropkin, Com.PL, 7 Sch.Reg. 17
— Gaidos v. McCans, Com.PL, 22
Wash.Co. 140 — Mellon v. Singer
Sewing Mach. Co., Com.PL, 22
Wash.Co. 75, affirmed 25 A.2d 807,
•344 Pa. 3'90— Mesko v. Prudential
Ins. Co., Com.PL, 20 Wash.Co. 133
— Sutherland v^ Bellairt, Com.PL,
20 Wash.Co. 103 — Stage v. Dailey,
Com.PL, 20 Wash.Co. 51 — Kirr v.
Suwak, 20 Wash.Co. 1, affirmed 9
A.2d 735, 336 Pa. 561— Dinch v.
Pennsylvania R. Co., Com.PL, 19
Wash.Co. 174 — Snee v. Dunn, Com.
PL, 19 Wash.Co. 94— Carnegie v.
Townsend, Com.PL, 18 Wash.Co.
190 — White v. Davies, Com.PL, 18
Wash.Co. 179— McElfresh v.
O'Brien, Com.PL, 18 Wash.Co. 114
— Dunmire v. Fitzgerald, Com.PL,
27 West.Co. 223 — Zuliskey v. Pru-
dential Ins. Co. of America, Com.
PL, 27 West.Co. 173— Bittner v.
Greensboro Gfcas Co., Com.PL, 27
West. Co. 129 — Shaffer v. Johnston,
Com.PL, 23 West.Co. 67 — Richey v.
York County Nat. Bank, Com.PL,
53 York Leg.Rec. 145, affirmed 15
A.2d 737, 1«42 Pa.Super. 236.
S.C. — Cooper & Griffin v. Bridwell,
181 -S.E. 56, 177 S.C. 219.
Tex. — Neyland v. Brown, 170 S.W.2d
207, 141 Tex. 253, modified on oth-
er grounds 172 S.W.2d 89, 141 Tex.
253 — Dallas County v. Miller, 166
S.W.2d 922, 140 Tex. 242— Rodri-
guez v. ' Higginbotham-Bailey-Lo-
gan Co., 160 S.W.2d 234, 138 Tex.
476 — Le Master v. Fort Worth
Transit Co., 160 S.W.2d 224, 138
Tex. 512 — Dickson v. Kilgore State
Bank, Com.App., 257 S.W. 867—
Barrick v. Gillette, Civ.App., 187
S.W.2d 683 — Texas Prudential Ins.
Co. v. Kaighten, Civ.App., 186 S.
W.2d 843— Ward v. Strickland, Civ.
App., 177 S.W.2d 79, error refused
— Shield Co. v. Cartwright, Civ,
162
App., 172 S.W.2d 108, affirmed 177
S.W.2d 954, 142 Tex. 324— Warren
v. Schawe, Civ.App., 163 S.W.2d
415, error refused — Happ v. Happ,
Civ.App., 160 S.W.2d 227, error re-
fused— Curington v. Parks, Civ.
App., 158 S.W.2d 839— Elkins v,
Super-Cold 'Southwest Co., Civ.
App., 157 S.W.2d 946, reversed on
other grounds Super-Cold South-
west Co. v. Elkins, 166 S.W.2d 97,
140 Tex. 48— Carrell v. Dallas
Railway & Terminal Co., Civ.App.,
151 S.W.2d 869, error dismissed,
judgment correct — Walker v. Tex-
as & N. O. R. Co., Civ.App., 150
S.W.2d 853, error dismissed, judg-
ment correct — Citizens State Bank
of Houston v. Giles, Civ.App., 145
S.W.2d 899, error dismissed —
Marlett v. Brownfleld, Civ.App.,
145 S.W.2d 636— Heath v. Elliston,
Civ.App., 145 S.W.2d 243, error
dismissed, judgment correct — Jus-
tiss v. Naqiuin, Civ.App., 137 S.W.
2d 72, error dismissed, judgment
correct — Dutton v. Kinsey, Civ.
App., 124 S.W.2d 446— Whiteman
v. Harris, Civ.App., 123 S.W.2d
699, error refused — McCray Re-
frigerator Sales Corporation v.
Johnson, Civ.App., 121 S.W.2d 410,
error dismissed — Thompson v.
Jones, Civ.App., 116 S.W.2d 778
— Arnim v. Rauch, Civ.App., 113
S.W.2d 699, reversed by agreement
— Clark v. Price, Civ.App., 112 S.
W.2d 256, error dismissed — Draper
v. Presley, Civ.App., Ill S.W.2d
1124, error dismissed — Robinson v.
Fort Worth Hospitals Holding
Corporation, Civ.App., 109 S.W.2d
1077, error dismissed — Johnson v.
Moody, Civ.App., 104 S.W.2d 583,
error dismissed — McClendon v.
Southwestern Life Ins. Co., Civ.
App., 98 S.W.2d 866 — Mitchell v.
Heard, Civ.App., 98 S.W.2d 832 —
Duvall v. Kansas City Life Ins.
Co., Civ.App., 96 S.W.2d 793, modi-
fied on other grounds and rehear-
ing denied 104 S.W.2d 10, affirmed
Kansas City Life Ins. Co. v. Duv-
all, 104 S.W.2d 11, 129 Tex. 287 —
J. S. Curtiss & Co. v. White, Civ.
App., 90 S.W.2d 1095. Error dis-
missed by agreement — Joiner v.
Joiner, Civ.App., 87 S.W.2d 903, re-
versed on other grounds 112 S.W.
2d 1019, 131 Tex. 27— Amarillo
Transfer & Storage Co. v. De
Shong, Civ.App., 82 S.W.2d 381-
St. Louis, B. & M. Ry. Co. v. Lit-
tle, Civ.App., 81 S.W.2d 122— New-
ton v. McCarrick, Civ.App., 75 S.
W.2d 472, error dismissed— Free-
man v. Schwenker, Civ.App., 73 S.
W.2d 609 — Guinn v. Coates, Civ.
App., 67 S.W.2d 621— White Sew-
ing Mach. Co. v. Armstrong, Civ.
App., 30 S.W.2d 362, error dis-
missed— Schwabe v. Kemp & Cold-
well, Civ.App., 20 S.W.2d 273, error
refused — Jopling v. Caldwell-De-
genhardt, Civ.App., 292 S.W. 958,
reversed on other grounds Benton
49 C. J. S. JUDGMENTS § 60
plies where there is a conflict in the evidence,26 j even though the conflict is such that the trial court
Land Co. v. Jopling, Com.App., 300
S.W. 28 — Lee v. Lewis, Civ.App.,
287 S.W. 115, affirmed, Com.App.,
298 S.W. 408.
Vt.— Collins v. Fogg, 8 A.2d 684, 110
Vt 465— Northeastern Nash Auto-
mobile Co. v. Bartlett, 136 A. 697,
100 Vt. 246.
Va. — -standard Dredging Co. v. Bar-
nalla, 163 S.E. 367, 158 Va. 367.
Wash.— Carlson v, Wolski, 147 P.2d
291, 20 Wash.2d 323— Ballard v.
Yellow Cab Co., 14-5 P.2d 1019, 20
Wash.2d 67— Flyzik v. Travelers
Ins. Co., 145 P.2d 539, 20 Wash.2d
35 — Codd v. Westchester Fire Ins.
Co., 128 P.2d 968, 14 Wash.2d 600,
151 A.L.R. 316— Briggs v. United
Fruit & Produce, 119 P.2d 687, 11
Wash.2d 466 — Griffin v. Cascade
Theatres Corporation, 117 P.2d 651,
10 Wash.2d 574— Moen v. Chest-
nut, 113 P.2d 1030, 9 Wash.2d 93
— Corbaley v. Pierce County, 74 P.
2d 993, 192 Wash. 688— De Nune
v. Tibbitts, 73 P.2d 521, 192 Wash.
279— Caylor v. B. C. Motor
Transp., 71 P.2d 162, 191 Wash.
365— Young v. Smith, 7 P.2d 1,
166 Wash. 411— Beglinger v.
Shields, 2 P.2d 681, 164 Wash. 147
— Fleming v. Buerkli, 293 P. 462,
159 Wash. 460— Collins v. Barmon,
260 P. 245, 145 Wash. .383— Ton-
Icon v. Small, 255 P. 1033, 143
Wash. 665— Wimmer v. Parsons,
251 P. 868, 141 Wash. 422— Lian
v. Huglen, 251 P. 585, 141 Wash.
369— Stickney v. Congdon, 250 P.
32, 140 Wash. 670— Blouen v.
Quimpere Canning Co., 247 P. 940,
139 Wash. 436— Bridgeport State
Bank v. Union Warehouse & Mill-
ing Co., 242 P. 13, 137 Wash. 190—
Hudson v. Pacific Northwest Trac-
tion Co., 238 P. 982, 136 Wash. 4—
Heaton v. Smith, 235 P. 958, 134
Wash. 450, reheard 240 P. 362, 136
Wash. 695 — Lydon v. Exchange
Nat. Bank, 235 P. 27, 134 Wash.
188— Hansen v. Sandvik, 222 P. 205,
128 Wash. 60— Metropolitan Club v.
Massachusetts Bonding & Insur-
ance Co., 220 P. 818, 127 Wash.
320 — Rieper v. General Cigar Co.,
209 P. 849, 121 Wash. 427.
Wis.— Wisconsin Tel. Co. v. Russell,
7 N.W.2d 825, 242 Wis. 247— Per-
kie v. Carolina Ins. Co., 6 N.W.2d
195, 241 Wis. 378— Cranston v.
Railway Express Agency, 297 N.
W. 418, 237 Wis. 479— Koscuik v.
Sherf, 272 N.W. 8, 224 Wis. 217—
. Scory v. La Fave, 254 N.W. 643,
215 Wis. 21— Twist v. Minneapolis,
St. P. & S. S. M. Ry. Co., 190 N.
W. 449, 178 Wis. 613.
33 C.J. p 1184 note 49 M. P 1185
note 56.
Test
Respecting sufficiency of evidence,
test whether evidence supports ver-
dict or requires granting judgment
non obstante veredicto does not dif-
fer perceptibly. — Maylink v. Minne-
haha Co-op. Oil Co., 291 N.W. 572,
67 S.D. 187— Wolff v. Stenger, 2-39 N.
W. 181, 59 S.D. 231.
Verdict representing- sum admitted-
ly due
Refusal to enter judgment not-
withstanding verdict for plaintiff
was not error where part of amount
of judgment for plaintiff was admit-
ted by defendant to represent sum
admittedly due. — Commonwealth
Trust Co. of Pittsburgh v. Hachmei-
ster Lind Co., 181 A. 787, 320 Pa,
233.
In, negligence action which was
tried by judge without a jury, where
testimony in the record might have
supported a finding of negligence of
defendant or a finding that plaintiff
was contributorily negligent, court
in bane was without authority to en-
ter judgment non obstante veredic-
to in favor of plaintiff. — Moore v. W.
J. Gilmore Drug Co., 200 A. 250, 131
Pa. Super. 349.
In California
(1) The right of the trial court to
render a judgment notwithstanding
the verdict is the same as its right
to grant a nonsuit. — In re Green's
Estate, 154 P.2d 692, 25 Cal.2d 535
— Neel v. Mannings, Inc., 122 P.2d
576, 19 CaUd 647— In re Arnold's
Estate, 107 P.2d 25, 16 Cal.2d 573
-^In re Finkler*s Estate, 46 P.2d 149,
3 Cal.2d 584— Ferran v. South-
ern Pac. Co., 44 P.2d 533, 8 Cal.2d
350— Card v. Boms, 291 P. 190, 210
CaL 200— McKellar v. Pendergast,
156 P.2d 950, 68 CaLApp.2d 485—
Megee v. Fasulis, 134 P.2d 815, 57
Cal.App.2d 275 — In re Hettermann's
Estate, 119 P.2d 788, 48 Cal.App.2d
363 — Van Rennes v. Southern Coun-
ties Gtes Co. of California, 113 P.2d
238, 44 Cal.App.2d 880— Funari v.
Gravem-Inglis Baking Co., 104 P.2d
44, 40 Cal.App.2d 25— Hubbert v. Az-
tec Brewing Co., 80 P.2d 185, 26 Cal.
App.2d 664, followed in Cerezo v.
Aztec Brewing Co., 80 P.2d 198, 26
CaLApp.2d 754, and rehearing denied
Hubbert v. Aztec Brewing Co., 80 P.
2d 1016, 26 Cal.App.2d 664— Myers v.
Southern Pac. Co., 58 P.2d 387, 14
Cal.App.2d 287, hearing denied, Sup.,
59 P.2d 1001— Boysen v. Porter, 52
P.2d 582, 10 Cal.App.2d 431— Tracey
v. L. A. Paving Co., 41 P.2d 942,
4 Cal.App.2d 700— Kerby v. Elk
Grove Union High School Dist., 36
P.2d 431, 1 Cal.App.'2d 246— Tomlin-
son v. Kiramidjian, 24 P.2d 559,
13-3 Cal.App. 418.
(2) It may not render such judg-
ment if there is any substantial evi-
dence in support of the verdict.—
Brandenburg v. Pacific Gas & Blec.
Co., 165 P.2d 41, 169 P.2d 909 — Rice
v. California Lutheran Hospital, 163
163
P.2d 860 — In re Green's Estate, 154
P.2d 692, 25 Cal.2d 535— Gray v.
Southern Pac. Co.. 135 P.2d 593, 145
P.'2d 561, 23 Cal.2d 632— Neel v. Man-
nings, Inc., 122 P.2d 576, 19 Cal.2d
647 — In re Arnold's Estate, 107 P.
2d 25, 16 Cal.2d 573 — Anderson v.
I. M. Jameson Corporation, 59 P.2d
962, 7 Cal.2d 60 — Ferran v. South-
ern Pac. Co., 44 P.2d 533, 8 Cal.2d
350— Card v. Boms, 291 P. 190, 210
Cal. 200 — McKellar v. Pendergast,
156 P.2d 950, 68 Cal.App.2d 485—
Lenning v. Chiolo, 1«47 P.2d 410, 63
CaLApp.2d oil— Sunseri v. Dime
Taxi Corporation, 135 P.2d 654, 57
Cal.App.2d 926 — Megee v. Fasulis,
134 P.2d 815, 57 Cal.App.2d 275—
Shannon v. Thomas, 134 P.2d 522,
57 Cal.App.2d 187 — Gardner v. Mar-
shall, 132 P.2d 833, 56 Cal.App.'2d
62— Pease v. San Diego Unified
School Dist., 128 P.2d 621, 54 Cal.
App.2d 20— Matherne v. Los Feliz
Theatre, 128 P.2d 59, 53 Cal.App.2d
660 — Turner v. Lischner, 126 P.'2d
156, 52 Cal.App.2d 273— Silva v. Mar-
ket St. Ry. Co., 123 P.2d 904, 50
Cal.App.2d 796— In re Shields' Es-
tate, 121 P.2d 795, 49 Cal.App.2d 293
—In re Bucher's Estate, 120 P.2d 44,
48 Cal.App.2d 465 — In re Hetter-
mann's Estate, 119 P.2d 788, 48 Cal.
App.2d 263 — Van Rennes v. South-
ern Counties Gas Co. of California,
113 P.2d 238, 44 Cal.App.2d 880—
Funari v. Gravem-Inglis Baking Co.,
104 P.2d 44, 40 Cal.App.'2d 25— Page
v. Cudahy Packing Co., 87 P.2d 913,
31 Cal.App.-2d 282 — Francesconi v.
Belluomini, 83 P.2d 298, 28 CaLApp.
2d 701— Collins v. Nelson, 61 P.2d
479, 16 Cal.App.2d 535— In re Bar-
ton's Estate, 60 P.2d 471, 16 CaLApp.
2d 246, motion denied 67 P.2d 695,
20 Cal.App.2d 648— Myers v. South-
ern Pac. Co., 58 P.2d 387, 14 Cal.
App.2d -287, hearing denied, Sup., 59
P.2d 1001 — Lam Ong v. Pacific Mo-
tor Trucking Co., 51 P.2d 1112, 10
Cal.App.2d 3*29— Tracey v. L. A. Pav-
ing Co., 41 P.2d 942, 4 Cal.App.2d
700— Kerby v. Elk Grove Union High
School Dist, 36 P.2d 431, 1 CaLApp.
2d 246— Crone v. City of El Cajon, 24
P.2d 846, 133 CaLApp. 624— Tomlin-
son v. Kiramidjian, 2:4 P.2d 559, 133
CaLApp. 418 — Landers v. Crescent
Creamery Co., 5 P/2d 934, 118 Cal.
App. 707— Callahan v. Harm, 277 P.
5«29, 98 CaLApp. 568—33 C.J. p 143
note 80 '[b] (3).
26. U.'S. — Shane v. Commercial Cas-
ualty Ins. Co., D.C.Pa., 48 F.Supp.
151, affirmed, C.C.A., Shane v. Bar-
ger, 152 F.2d 544— Boult v. Mary-
land Casualty Co., aC.A.Miss., Ill
F.2d 257, certiorari denied Mary-
land Casualty Co. v. Boult, 61 S.
Ct 35, 311 U.S. 672, 85 L.Ed. 432.
Cal. — Hunt v. United Bank & Trust
Co., 291 P. 184, 210 Cal. 108—
Leplat v. Raley Wiles Auto Sales,
I 60
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
vould be justified in granting a new trial notwith-
tending it27 It has been held, however, that to
leprive the court of the right to exercise the power
:o grant a motion for judgment notwithstanding
:he verdict there need not be an absence of con-
flict, but there must be a substantial conflict in the
evidence,28 and that the motion may be granted
where the evidence is such that it is clearly insuffi-
cient to support the verdict.29
(c) Other Matters
A Judgment notwithstanding the verdict will not be
entered where a motion for a directed verdict was prop-
erly denied, or for a variance or failure of proof which
may be remedied If a new trial is granted, or where it
is not clear that the moving party Is entitled to judg-
ment as a matter of law on the merits, or because the
verdict is tainted with prejudice or caprice.
A judgment notwithstanding the verdict will not
ordinarily be entered where a motion for a directed
verdict was properly denied,80 although such a
judgment may be granted where a directed verdict
was properly denied because the grounds therefor
were not sufficiently stated.31 Furthermore, it has
also been held that a motion for such a judgment
may not be granted after the trial court erroneously
denied a motion for a peremptory instruction,32 al-
though this rule does not apply where the court of
its own motion entered a peremptory instruction and
did not overrule a motion for a peremptory instruc-
tion.3^ A judgment notwithstanding the verdict
will not be granted for a variance unless it appears
that an amendment of the complaint cannot prop-
erly be made,34 or for a failure of proof, where it
reasonably appears that the defect in proof can be
remedied if a new trial is granted,35 or where it is
not clear on the whole record that the moving-
party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, on
145 P.2d 3!50, S2 Cal.App.2d 6-28—
Van Rennes v. Southern Counties
Gas Co. of California, 113 P.2d
238, 44 Cal.App.2d 880— In re Bar-
ton's Estate, 60 P.2d 471, 16 CaL
App.2d 2»46, motion denied 67 P.2d
695, 20 GaLApp.2d 648.
Colo. — De Boer v. Olmsted, 260 P.
108, 82 Colo. 369.
D.C.— McWilliams v. Shepard, 127 F.
2d 18, 75 U.S.APP.D.C. 334.
111. — Hirning v. Contracting & Mate-
rial Co., 38 N.E.2d 793, 312 Ill.ApP.
655.
Mich. — Malone v. Newhouse, 227 N.
W. 750, 248 Mich. 516 — Freeman v.
Millen, 205 N.W. 122, 23-2 Mich.
271,
Minn.— Wright v. Post, 208 N.W.
538, 167 Minn. 130.
N.D. — Froemke T. Otter Tail Power
Co., 276 N.W. 146, 68 N.D. 7.
Ohio.— Magyar v. Prudential Ins.
Co. of America, 15 N.E.2d 144, 133
Ohio St. 563— Lent v. New York,
C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 44 N.E.2d 295,
69 Ohio App. 514— Nobles v. Tole-
do Edison Co., 36 N.E.2d 995, 67
Ohio App. 414.
Pa_jSefton v. Valley Dairy Co., 28
A.'2d 313, 34'5 Pa. 324— Hostetler
v. Kniseley, 185 A. 300, 322 Pa. 248
— Johnson v. Staples, 5 A.2d 433,
135 Pa.'Super. 274— Swartz v. Stein
& Levy, 78 Pa.Super.Ct 515 — Pres-
ton v. Schroeder, Com.Pl., 27 Del.
Co. "350 — Landis v. Conestoga
. Trartsp. Co., Com.Pl., 48 Lanc.Rev.
481, 11 Som. 302, affirmed 36 A.2d
465, 349 Pa. 97 — Kuhn v. Cones-
toga Transp. Co., Com.Pl., 48 Lane.
Rev. 491, affirmed Landis v. Cones-
toga Transp. Co., 36 A.2d 465, 3*49
Pa. 97 — Freas v. Campbell, Com.
PL, 48 Lanc.Rev. 464— Hershko-
witz v. Atlantic Refining Co., Com.
PL, 32 Luz.Leg.Reg. 367 — John v.
Pittsburgh Rys. Co., Com.PL, 92
Pittsb.Leg.J. 585, affirmed 36 A.
2d 818, 349 Pa. 159— Smolinsky v.
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 7
Schuyl.Leg.Reg. 276, reversed on
other grounds 26 A.2d 131, 149 Pa.
Super. 72.
Wash.— Wilcox v. Hubbard, 282 P.
218, 15<4 Wash. 344— Duggins v.
International Motor Transit Co.,
280 P. 50, 153 Wash. 549— Crary v.
Coffin, 268 P. 881, 148 Wash. 287
— Ticknor v. Seattle-Renton Stage
Line, 247 P. 1, 139 Wash. 354, 47
A.L.R. 252.
27. CaL— Hunt v. United Bank &
Trust Co., 291 P. 184, 210 Cal. 108
— Van Rennes v. Southern Coun-
ties Gas Co. of California, 113 P.
2d 238, 44 Cal.App.'2d 880— In re
Barton's Estate, 60 P.2d 471, 16
Cal.App.2d 246, motion denied 67
P.2d 695, 20 Cal.App.2d 648.
111. — Pope v. Illinois Terminal R.
Co., 67 N.E.2d 284, 329 HLApp. 62.
28. <Jal. — In re Smethurst's Estate,
59 P.2d 830, 15 Cal. App. 2 d 322.
29. CaL — In re Smethurst's Estate,
supra,
30. CaL— Locke v. Meline, 48 P.2d
176, 8 Cal.App.2d 482— Tracey v.
L. A. Paving Co., 41 P.2d 942, 4
Cal.App.2d 700.
Md.— Alexander v. Tingle, 30 A.2d
737, 181 Md. 464.
Minn. — Farm Mortgage & Loan Co.
v. Pederson, 205 N.W. 286, 164
Minn. 425 — O'Halloran v. Chicago,
B. & Q. R. Co'., 195 N.W. 144, 156
Minn. 471.
N.D.— Ennis v. Retail Merchants'
Ass'n Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 156 N.
W. 234, 33 N.D. 20.
S.C. — Bohumir Kryl Symphony Band
v. Allen University, 12 S.E.2d 712,
196 S.C, 175.
Tex. — Barrett v. Commercial Stand-
ard Ins, Co., Civ.App., 145 S.W.2d
815.
164
31. CaL — In re Fleming's Estate.
2*51 P. 637, 199 Cal. 750.
32. Ky. — Roe v. Gentry's Ex's, 162
S.W.2d 208, 290 Ky. 598— Franklin
Fire Ins. Co. of Philadelphia v.
Cook's Adm'r, 287 S.W. 553, 21C
Ky. 15— Baskett v. Coombs' Adm'r,
247 S.W. 1118, 198 Ky. 17.
33 C.J. p 1184 note 50 [a] (4).
33. Ky.— Weikel v. Alt, 27 S.W.2<I
684, 234 Ky. 91.
34. Ky.— Old 76 Distillery Co. v.
Morris, 28 $.W.2d 474, 234 Ky. 389.
Pa. — American Products Co. of
Pennsylvania v. Franklin Quality
Refining Co., 119 A, 414. 275 Pa.
33'2.
33 C.J. p 1185 note 54.
Manner of raising question
Fact that defendant made a mo-
tion for nonsuit and later a motion
for binding instructions, where nei-
ther contained any reference to va-
riance, did not entitle defendant to
raise question of variance for first
time on motion for judgment non
obstante veredicto, since such ques-
tion must be specifically raised, ei-
ther when evidence is offered, when
motion for nonsuit is made, or point
for binding instruction submitted. —
Sipior v. U. S. .Glass Co., 200 A- 93S,
132 Pa.'Super. 208.
Variance held not fatal
Ky.— Old 76 Distillery Co. v. Mor-
ris, 28 S.W.2d 474, 234 Ky. 389.
36. Minn. — Kundiger v. Prudential
Ins. Co. of America, 17 N.W.2d 49,
219 Minn. 25 — Anderson v. New-
some, 258 N.W. 157, 193 Minn. 157
— Knight Soda Fountain Co. v.
Dirnberger, 256 N.W. 657, 192
Minn. 387 — Dreelan v. Karon, 254
N.W. 433, 191 Minn. 330— First
Nat Bank v. Fox, «254 N.W. 8, 191
Minn. 318 — Drake v. Connolly, 235
N.W. 614, 183 Minn. 89— Manning
y. Chicago Great Western R. Co.,
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
60
the merits,86 or where any other reason exists pre-
cluding a binding direction.37 The moving party
is not required to offer evidence in order to com-
plain, by motion for judgment non obstante vere-
dicto, of the sufficiency of the evidence to support
the verdict.38 The fact that a verdict is tainted
with prejudice or caprice does not authorize a trial
court to substitute its fact findings for the tainted
jury verdict and render judgment accordingly.89
(3) Scope of Inquiry in General
On a motion based on the evidence for judgment
notwithstanding the verdict, the only question presented
Is whether or not the evidence is sufficient to Justify
the verdict on any theory, and the scope of Inquiry does
not reach other matters.
Where the trial court in passing on a motion for
judgment notwithstanding the verdict may consider
the evidence, the scope of inquiry on such a motion
does not reach a defect in the pleadings,40 or the
court's rulings on the admission and rejection of
evidence,41 or the manner and form in which issues
229 N.W. 566, 179 Minn. 411— Gar-
bisch v. American By. Express Co.,
225 N.W. 432. 177 Minn. 494—
Nadeau v. Maryland Casualty Co.,
212 N.W. 595, 170 Minn. 326—
Schendel v. Chicago, M. & St. P.
Ry. Co., 210 N.W. 70, 168 Minn.
15«2 — Herman v. Wabash Ry. Co.,
189 N.W. 934, 153 Minn. 195.
JJ.D. — Nelson v. Scherling, 300 N.W.
803. 71 N^D. 337— Olstad v. Stock-
growers Credit Corporation, 266 N.
W. 109, 66 N.D. 416— Donahue v.
Boynton, 242 N.W. 530, 62 N.D.
182.
S.D. — Froke v. Watertown Gas Co.,
1 N.W.2d 590, 68 S.D. 266.
Wyo.— Caldwell v. Roach, 12 P.2d
376. 44 Wyo. 319.
33 C.J. P 1185 note 55.
Rule recognized and held inapplica-
ble to particular case
Minn.— Clough v. Chicago, M. & St
P. Ry. Co., 191 N.W. 923, 154
Minn. 515.
36. Cal.— Tracey v. L. A. Paving
Co.. 41 P.2d 942, 4 Cal.App.2d 700.
Ky.— Pope v. Upton, 186 S.W.*2d 900,
299 Ky. 690.
Minn. — Manning v. Chicago Great
Western R. Co., 229 N.W. 566,
179 Minn. 411 — Neumann v. Inter-
state Power Co., 228 N.W. 342, 179
Minn. 46— Arcadia Park Ass'n v.
Anderson, 225 N.W. 441, 177 Minn.
487— Nadeau v. Maryland Casualty
Co.,- 212 N.W. 595, 170 Minn. 326.
N.D.— Sax Motor Co. v. Mann, 10 N.
W.2d 242, 72 N.D. 595— Armstrong
v. McDonald, 4 N.W.2d 191, 72 N.
D. 28— Sax Motor Co. v. Mann,
299 N.W. 691, 71 N.D. 221— Olstad
v. Stockgrowers Credit Corpora-
tion. 266 N.W. 109, 66 N.D. 416—
Donahue v. Boynton, 242 N.W. 530,
62 N.D. 182— First Sec. Bank v.
Bagley Elevator Co., 2-37 N.W. 648,
212 N.D. 227— Sheffield v. Stone-
Ordean-Wells Co., 190 N.W. 315,
49 N.D. 142.
Or.— Bach v. Chezem, 124 P.2d 710,
168 Or. 535.
Pa. — Devling Bros. v. Horn, 188 A.
347, 324 Pa. 481— Roberts v. Wash-
ington Trust Co., 170 A. 291, 313
Pa. 584, certiorari denied 54 S.
Ct. 778, 292 U.S. 608, 78 LJSd.
1469, and rehearing denied 54 S.Ct.
857, '292 U.S. 613, 78 L.Ed. 14T2—
Mitchell v. City of New Castle,
119 A. 485, 2T5 Pa, 426— Meehan
v. Shreveport-Eldorado Pipe Line
Co., 164 A. 364, 107 Pa.Super. 580
—McDonald v. Eiler, 81 Pa.Super.
172 — Del Vecchio v. Greco, 80 Pa.
Super. 423 — iShatz v. American Ry.
Express Co., 80 Pa.'Super. 335 —
Kline v. Moyer. Com.Pl., 32 Berks
Co. 100— Webb v. Hess, Com.Pl.,
46 Dauph.0o. 84— Bowhall v. Wool-
eyhan Transport Co., Com.Pl., 29
DeLCo. 314 — Arnold v. Tokheim,
Com.Pl., 21 Erie Co. 146— Palmer
v. City of Erie, Com.Pl., 20 Erie
Co. 400, affirmed 9 A.2d 378, 337
Pa. 5 — Supervisors of Manheim
Tp. v. Workman, Com.Pl., 48 Lane.
Rev. 362, affirmed Supervisors of
Manheim Tp., Lancaster County v.
Workman, 35 A.2d 283, 154 Pa.
Super. 146 — Peoples Sav. & Trust
Co. v. Nescopeck M. F. I. Co., Com.
PL, 38 Luz.Leg.Reg. 139— Edwards
v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., Com.
PI., 3'7 Luz.Leg.Reg. 257— Miners
Sav. Bank, Pittston v. Pace, Com.
PI., 37 Luz.Leg.Reg. 241— Scranton
Electric Co. v. School Dist of
Avoca, Com.Pl., 37 Luz.Leg.Reg.
179, affirmed 37 A.2d 725, 155 Pa.
Super. 270 — Rinkievich v. Sover-
eign Camp, W. O. W., Com.PL, 84
Luz.Leg.Reg. 387— Diehl v. Central
Printing Co., Com.Pl., 33 Luz.Leg.
Reg. 430 — Sell v. Pahs, Com.PL,
58 Montg.Co. 372— Zurawski v. Tp.
of Upper Merlon, Com.Pl., 54
Montg.Co. 396 — Seier v. Brunner,
Com.PL, 28 NorthXJo. 81— Skinner
v. Koehler, Com.Pl.f 9-3 Pittsb.Leg.
J. 347 — Lane v. Samuels, Com.Pl.,
92 Pittsb.Leg.J. 494, affirmed 39
A.2d 626, 350 Pa. 446— Sells v. City
of Pittsburgh, Com.PL, 91 Pittsb.
Leg.J. 479— Perrus v. Cudahy
Packing Co., Com^PL, 90 Pittsb.
Leg.J. 59*5 — Samber v. Hahn, Com.
PL, 90 Pittsb.Leg.J. 465 — Arrow
Press Corporation v. Allegheny
County, Com.Pl., 90 Pittsb.Leg.J.
37 — Cashok v. Metropolitan Life
Ins. Co., 89 Pittsb.Leg.J. 579—
Rebel v. Standard Sanitary Mfg.
Co., Com.Pl., 89 Pittsb.Leg.J. 17,
affirmed 16 A,2d 534, 340 Pa. 313 —
McBride v. Ault, Com.Pl., 88
165
Pittsb.Leg.J. 439 — Barna v. United
Russian Orthodox Brotherhood,
Co., 88 Pittsb.Leg.J. 245— Automo-
bile Finance Co. v. Anderson, Com.
PL, 27 WestCo. 227— Shaw v. Ma-
lone, Com.PL, 55 York Leg.Rec.
150 — Zinn v. Bentz, Com.Pl., 55
Tork Leg.Rec. 149 — Wlldwood
Strand Realty Co. v. Skipper, Com.
PL, '54 York Leg.Rec. 131.
S.D.— Mills v. Armstrong, 13 N.W.
2d 726.
Tex. — Graves v. Hartford Accident &
Indemnity Co., Iffl S.W.2d 464, 138
Tex. 589— Ward v. Strickland, Civ.
App., 177 S.W.2d 79, error refused
— Happ v. Happ, Civ.App., 160 S.
W.2d 227, error refused — Corona
Petroleum Co. v. Jameson, Civ.
App., 146 S.W.2d 512, error dis-
missed, Judgment correct — Kaiser
v. Newsom, Civ.App., 108 S.W.2d
755, error dismissed — Amarillo
Transfer & Storage Co. v. De
Shong, Civ.App., 82 S.W.2d 381.
33 C.J. p 1180 note 57.
37. pa.— Hostetler v. Knlseley, 185
A. 500, 322 Pa. 248— Johnson v.
Staples, 5 A.2d 433, 135 Pa.Super.
274.
38. Tex.— Universal Life & Acci-
dent Ins. Co. v. Beaty, Civ.App.,
177 S.W.2d 244.
39. Tex. — Happ v. Happ, Civ.App.,
160 S.W.2d 227, error refused.
40. Idaho. — Helgeson v. Powell, 34
P.2d 957, 54 Idaho 667.
111. — Farmer v. Alton Building &
Loan Ass'n, 13 N.E.2d 652. 294 111.
App. 206.
Tex.— Shaw v. Porter, Civ.App., 190
'S.W.2d 396.
41. 111.— Farmer v. Alton Building
& Loan Ass'n, 18 N.E.2d 652, 394
IlLApp. 206.
Mich. — Finch v. W. R. Roach Co.,
295 N.W. 324, 295 Mich. 589.
Pa.— Magaro v. Metropolitan Edison
Co., 197 A. 550. 130 Pa.Super. 323
— Ozanich v. Metropolitan Life
Ins. Co., 180 A. 67, 119 Pa.Super.
52, reargument refused and sup-
plemented 180 A. 576, 119 Pa.Su-
per. 5-2— Koller v. Benecassa, 14
Po.Dist & Co. 474, 22 Berks Co.
299— Stepanavage v. Gibbs, Com.
PL, 36 Berks Co. 233, 58 York Leg.
60
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
rere submitted,42 or the question whether plain-
iffs were persons authorized to bring the suit,43
T questions not raised at the trial,44 the only ques-
ion presented being whether or not the evidence
s sufficient to justify the verdict on any theory.45
V. motion for judgment notwithstanding the ver-
lict has been held, in effect, to review the court's
Tiling in denying a motion for a directed verdict.46
Jnder some statutes it has been held that the mo-
ion must be based on pleadings and evidence,47
ind not on arguments made by counsel to the jury.48
The court does not determine questions of -fact
based on disputed evidence;49 it merely reviews
the whole case on the record and does subsequently
what it would have been proper to do under a re-
quest for a binding direction.50
(4) Consideration of Evidence in Passing on
Motion
Where, In passing on a motion for Judgment not-
withstanding the verdict, the trial court may consider
the evidence, it may not weigh ail the evidence of both
sides or judge of the credibility of the witnesses, but
must give to the successful party at the trial the bene-
fit of every favorable fact and inference fairly deducible
from the testimony, and accept the evidence tending to
support the verdict as true.
Where, in passing on a motion for judgment not-
withstanding the verdict, the court may consider
the evidence, it is required to be governed by the
rules which govern it in passing on a motion for a
directed verdict;51 such motions have the same ef-
fect,52 and the power of the court is the same in
both cases.53 These motions present only a ques-
tion of law as to whether or not, when all of the
evidence is considered, together with all reasonable
inferences from it in its aspect most favorable to
the party against whom the motion is directed, there
is a total failure or lack of evidence to prove any
necessary element of his case ;54 and all reasonable
Rec. 95 — Smyth v. Bluestone, Co.,
88 Pittsb.Leg.J. 597.
Tex. — Shaw v. Porter, Civ.App., 190
S.W.2d -396.
33 C.J. p 1183 note 47 [b]. •
Error in permitting- plaintiff to re-
fresh his memory from records made
by his employees before testifying
was held not ground for judgment
for defendant notwithstanding ver-
dict for plaintiff. — Gordon v. Bliz-
ard, 163 A. 43, 106 Pa.Super. 112.
42. Tex. — Griffay v. Bobbins, Civ.
App., 91 S.W.2d 1160, error dis-
missed.
43. Tex. — Chalmers v. Gumm, 154
S.W.2d 640, 137 Tex. 467.
44. Pa. — Bowhall v. Wooleyhan
Transport Co., Com.Pl.t 29 Del.Co.
-314 — Renfro v. Smith, 52 York 45,
affirmed 7 A.2d 7, 135 Pa.Super.
S78.
Defense of laches and waiver
could not be raised for first time in
defendants' motion for Judgment
non obstante veredicto. — Mesh v.
Citrin, 300 N.W. 870, 299 Mich. 527.
Ultra vires contract
Claim made for first time on mo-
tion for judgment notwithstanding
the verdict that alleged contract was
ultra vires was held not entitled to
be considered. — Yakiraa. Fruit Grow-
ers' Ass'n v. Hall, 40 P.2d 123, 180
Wash. 365.
45. Minn. — Fink v. Northern Pac.
Ry. Co., 203 N.W. 47, 162 Minn.
365.
Particular questions raised
<1) Where seller's action against
corporation for purchase price of
goods allegedly bought by corpora-
tion's agent without authority was
submitted to the jury solely on Ques-
tion of ratification, corporation's mo-
tion for judgment notwithstanding!
verdict for seller raised the ques-
tions both of ratification and of es-
toppel.— Cudahy Bros. Co. v. West
Michigan Dock & Market Corpora-
tion, 280 N.W. 93, 285 Mich. 18.
(2) Where violation of statute
respecting automobile lights was in-
volved, but no calendars were of-
fered in evidence, court, on motion
for judgment non obstante vere-
dicto, could, in Its discretion, permit
question whether or not accident oc-
curred within hour after sunset to
be raised.-^-Kovalchik v. Demo, 94
Pa/Super. 167.
46. N.D. — Bormann v. Beckman, 19
N.W.2d 455, 73 N.D. 720— Olson v.
Ottertail Power Co., 256 N.W. 246,
65 N.D. 46, 95 A.L.R. 418— Ennis v.
Retail Merchants' Ass'n Mut Fire
Ins. Co., 156 N.W. 234, 33 N.D. 20.
47. Pa. — Brown v. George, 25 A.2d
691, 344 Pa. 399.
48. Pa. — Brown v. George, supra.
49. Pa. — Hostetler v. Kniseley, 185
A. 300, 322 Pa. 248.
BO. Pa. — Hostetler v. Kniseley, su-
pra.
51. OIL— Neering v. Illinois Cent. R.
Co., 50 N.E.2d 497, 383 111. 366,
mandate conformed to 53 N.B.2d
271, 321 IlLApp. 625— Merlo v.
Public Service Co. of Northern Il-
linois, 45 N.B.2d 66-5, 381 111. 300,
followed in 45 N.E.2d 677, 381 111.
336— In re Klockowski's Estate, 58
N.E.2d 250, 324 IlLApp. 523— Berg
v. New York Cent. R. Co., 55 N.
E.2d -394, 323 IlLApp. 221, affirmed
62 N.E.2d 676, 391 111. 52— Kre-
ger v. George W. Diener Mfg. Co.,
53 N.E.2d 26, 321 IlLApp. 302—
Periolet v. City Nat. Bank & Trust
Co. of Chicago, 53 N.E.2d 22, 321
IlLApp. 303— Carrell v. New York
Cent. R. Co., 47 N.E.2d 130, 317 j
166
IlLApp. 481, affirmed 52 N.E.2d
201, 384 111.. 599— Sturgeon v.
Quarton, 44 N.E.2d 766, 316 111.
App. 308 — Kaznowski v. City of
La Salle, 43 N.E.2d 852, 316 111.
App. 115 — Baker v. Granite City,
37 N.E.2d -372, 311 IlLApp. 586—
Geiselman v. •Strubhar, 23 N.E.2d
383. 302 IlLApp. 23— Scherb v.
Randolph Wells Auto Park, 22 N.
E.2d 796, 301 IlLApp. 298— Le
Menager v. Northwestern Steel &
Wire Co., 22 N.E.2d 710, 301 111.
App. 260 — Oliver v. Kelley, 21 N.E.
2d 649, 300 IlLApp. 487— Boyda
Dairy Co. v. Continental Casualty
Co., 20 N.E.2d 339, 299 IlLApp. 469
—Wells v. Wise, 18 N.E.2d 750,
298 IlLApp. 252— Emge v. Illinois
Cent. R. Co., 17 N.E.2d 612, 297
IlLApp. 344 — Farmer v. Alton
Building & Loan Ass'n, 13 N.E.2d
652, 294 IlLApp. 206— Gardiner v.
Richardson, 11 N.E.2d m, 293
IlLApp. 40— Illinois Tuberculosis
Ass'n v. Springfield Marine Bank,
282 IlLApp. 14.
52. 111.— Tidholm v. Tidholm, 62 N.
E.2d 473, 391 111. 19— Weinstein v.
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 60 N.
E.2d 207, 389 111. 571— Hunt v.
Vermilion County Children's
Home, 44 N.B.2d 609, 381 111. 29 —
Christensen v. Frankland, 58 N.E.
2d 289, 32»4 IlLApp. 391— Larimore
v. Larimore, '20 N.E.2d 902, 299 111.
App. 547.
Ohio. — J. & F. Harig Co. v. City of
Cincinnati, 22 N.E.2d 540, 61 Ohio
App. 314.
53. 111.— Merlo v. Public Service Co.
of Northern Illinois, 45 N.E.2d 66'5,
381 111. 300, followed in 45 N.E.
2d 677, 381 111. 336.
54. 111.— Berg v. New York Cent. R.
Co., 62 N.E.2d 676, 391 111. 52 —
Weinstein v. Metropolitan Life
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
60
doubts must be resolved in favor of the verdict.55
Thus, in passing on the motion, the trial court may
not weigh all the evidence of both sides or judge
,of the credibility of the witnesses, as it may do on
a motion for a new trial, but must give to the suc-
cessful party at the trial the benefit of every fa-
vorable fact and inference fairly deducible from
the testimony, and accept the evidence tending to
support the verdict as true,56 unless on the face of
Ins. Co., 60 N.E.2d 207, 389 111. i
571— Millikin Nat Bank of Deca-
tur v. Shellatoarger Grain Prod-
ucts Co., 58 N.B.2d 892, -389 111.
196, conformed to 61 N.B.2d 589,
326 IlLApp. 72 — Todd v. S. S.
Kresge Co., 52 N.B.2d 206, 384
111. 524 — Neeringf v. Illinois Cent.
R. Co., 50 N.B.2d 497, -383 111. 366,
mandate conformed to 53 N.B.2d
271, 321 IlLApp. 625— Knudson v.
Knudson, 46 N.E.2d 1011, 382 111.
492 — Merlo v. Public Service Co.
of Northern Illinois, 45 N.E.2d 665,
381 111. 300, followed in 4'5 N.E.2d
C77, 381 111. 336— Walaite v. Chica-
go, R. & P. Ry. Co., 33 N.B.2d 119,
376 111. 59 — Froehler v. North
American Life Ins. Co. of Chicago,
27 N.E.2d 833, 374 111. 17— Car-
rell v. New York Cent. R. Co., 52
N.E,2d 201, 3-48 111. 599— Anderson
v. Krancic, 66 N.E.2d 316, 328 111.
App. 364 — Yordy v. Farmers Auto.
Ins. Ass'n, 65 N.E.2d 619, 328 111.
App. 312 — De Leuw, Gather & Co.
v. City of Joliet, 64 N.E.2d 779,
327 IlLApp. 4'53 — Huffman v.
Gould, 64 N.B.'2d 773, 327 IlLApp.
428 — Dickinson v. Rockford Van
Orman Hotel Co., 63 N.E.2d 257,
326 IlLApp. 686— Hedden v. Farm-
ers Mut. Re-Ins. Co. of Chicago,
111., 60 N.E.2d 110, 325 IlLApp. 335
— Wilkerson v. Cummings, 58 N.
E.2d 280, 324 IlLApp. -331— In re
Klockowski's Estate, 58 N.B.2d
250, 324 IlLApp. 523— Ebert v. City
of Chicago, 58 NJE.Sd 198, 324 X1L
App. 815— Belcher v. Citizens
Coach Co., 57 N.E.2d 659, 32'4 I1L
App. 226 — Van Hoorebecke v. Iowa
Illinois Gas & Electric Co., 57 N.
E.2d 652, 324 IlLApp. 88— Hauck v,
First Nat. Bank of Highland Park,
55 N.E.2d 565, 323 IlLApp. 300—
Paolinelli v. Dainty Foods Manu-
facturers, 54 N.E.2d 759, 322 I1L
App. 586— Fitch v. Thomson, 54 N.
E.2d 6'23, 322 IlLApp. 703— Bone v,
Publix Great States Theatres, 54
N.E.2d 98, 322 IlLApp. 178— GUI v.
Lewin, 53 N.E.2d -336, 321 IlLApp.
633 — Gomez v. Rosenblatt, 53 N.
E.2d 279, 321 IlLApp. 631— Leif v.
Fleming, 52 N.E.2d 606, 321 I1L
App. 297 — Collins v. City of Chica-
go, 6'2 N.E.2d 473, 321 IlLApp. 73—
Kouba v. City of Chicago, 51 N.E.
2d 617, 320 IlLApp. 435— Best v,
Mid-West Const Corporation, 50
N.E.2d 867, 320 IlLApp. 341—
Campbell v. Goldblatt Bros., 49 N.
% E.2d 817, 820 IlLApp. 138— Hansen
v. Henrici's Inc., 49 N.E.2d 737, 319
IlLApp. 458 — Egner v. Fruit Belt
Service Co., 47 N.E.2d 486, 318 111.
App. 87— Schwickrath v. Lowden,
46 N.E.2d 162, 317 IlLApp. 431—
Zwierzycki v. Metropolitan Life
Ins. Co., 4'5 N.E.2d 76, 316 IlLApp.
345— Gordon v. Peters, 39 N.E.2d
680, 313 IlLApp. 261 — Crump v.
Montgomery Ward & Co., 39 X.E.
2d 411, 313 IlLApp. 151— Morris v.
Silver, 38 N.E.2d 840, 312 IlLApp.
472— Baker v. Granite City, 37 N.
E.2d 372, 311 IlLApp. 5S6— Reed v.
Lyford, 36 N.E.2d 610, 311 IlLApp.
486 — Brumit v. Wasson, 33 N.E.2d
740, 310 IlLApp. 264— Herb v. Pit-
cairn, 29 N.E.2d 543, 306 IlLApp.
583, reversed on other grounds 36
N.E.2d 555, 377 111. 405— Russell v.
Richardson, 24 N.E.2d 185, 302 111.
App. 589— Scherb v. Randolph
Wells Auto Park, 22 N.E.2d 796,
801 IlLApp. 298— Larimore v. Lar-
imore, 20 N.E.2d 902, 299 IlLApp.
547— Wells v. Wise, 18 N.E.2d 750,
298 IlLApp. 252— Malewski v.
Mackiewich, 282 IlLApp. 593.
55. Minn.— Solberg v. Minneapolis
St. Ry. Co., 7 N.W.2d 926, 214
Minn. 274.
56. U.S. — Palmer v. Moren, D.C.Pa.,
44 F.Supp. 704.
CaL— Brandenburg v. Pacific Gas &
Elec. Co., 169 P.2d 909— In re
Green's Estate, 154 P.2d 692, 25
Cal.2d .535— Neel v. Mannings, Inc.,
122 P.2d 576, 19 Cal.2d 647— Fer-
ran v. Southern Pac. Co., 44 P.2d
533, 3 Cal.2d 350— McKellar v.
Pendergast, 156 P.2d 950, 68 CaL
App.2d 485— Shannon v. Thomas,
13>4 P.2d 522, -57 Cal.App.2d 187—
Gardner v. Marshall, 132 P.2d 833,
56 Cal.App.2d 62— Pease v. San
Diego Unified School Dist., 128 P.
2d 621, 54 Cal.App.2d 20— Math-
erne v. Los Feliz Theatre, 128 P.2d
59, 53 Cal.App.2d 660 — Turner
Lischner, 126 P.2d 156, 52 CaLApp.
2d 273 — In re Bucher's Estate,' 120
P.2d 44, 48 CaLApp.2d 465— In re
Hettermann's Estate, 119 P.2d 788,
48 CaLApp.2d 263 — Van Rennes v.
Southern Counties Gas Co. of Cal-
ifornia, 113 P.2d 238, 44 CaLApp.
2d 880 — Bage v. Cudahy Packing
Co., 87 P.2d 913, 31 CaLApp.2d 282
—In re Barton's Estate, 60 P.2d
4T1, 16 Cal.App.2d 246, motion de-
nied 67 P.2d 695, 20 Cal.App.2d 648
— In re Smethurst's Estate, 59 P.
2d 830, 15 CaLApP.2d 322— Myers
v. -Southern Pac. Co., 58 P.2d 387,
14 Cal.App.2d 287, hearing denied
Sup., 59 P.2d 1001— Lam Ong v
Pacific Motor Trucking Co., 51 P
2d '1112, 10 Cal.App.2d 329— Smyth
.v. Harris & Devine, 38 P.2d 862, 3
CaLApp.2d 194— Kerby v. Elk
167
Grove Union High School Dist.r S6
P.2d 431, 1 CaLApp.2d 2*46.
Idaho.— Carson v. Talbot, 129 P.2d
901, 64 Idaho 198— Stearns v.
Graves. Ill P.2d 882, 62 Idaho 312
— Hobbs v. Union Pac. R. Co., 108
P.2d 841, 62 Idaho 58 — Manion v.
Waybright, 86 P.2d 181, 59 Idaho
643— Hendrix v. City of Twin
Falls, 29 P.2d 352, 54 Idaho 130.
HI.— Osborn v. Leuffgen, 45 N.E.2d
622, 381 111. 295 — Pope v. Illinois
Terminal R. Co., 67 N.E.2d 284,
329 IlLApp. 62— Berg v. New York
Cent. R. Co., 55 N.E.2d 394, 323
IlLApp. 221, affirmed 62 N.E.2d
676, 391 111. 52— Collins v. City of
Chicago, 52 N.E.2d 473, 321 HI.
App. 73— Gill v. Lewin, 53 N.E.2d
336, 321 IlLApp. 633 — Guess v.
New York Cent. R. Co., 49 N.E.2d
652, 319 IlLApp. 522— Jacobsen v.
Cummings, 48 N.E.2d 603, 318 111.
App. 464 — Freeman v. Leader Mer-
cantile Co., 40 NJE.2d 5148, 313 111.
App. 652— Baker v. Granite City,
37 N.E.2d 372, 311 IlLApp. 586—
Gnat v. Richardson, 35 N.E.2d 409.
311 IlLApp. 242, affirmed 39 N.E.2d
337, 378 111. 626— Partridge v. En-
terprise Transfer Co., 30 N.E.2d
947, 307 IlLApp. 386— Goodrich v.
Sprague, 26 N.E.2d 884, 304 111.
App. 556, reversed on other
grounds Sprague v. Goodrich, 32
N.E.2d 897, 376 111. 80 — Cooper v.
Safeway Lines, 26 N.E.2d 632, 304
IlLApp. 302 — Geiselman v. Strub-
har, 23 N.E.2d 383, 302 IlLApp. 23
— Le Menager v. Northwestern
Steel & Wire Co., 22 N.E.2d 710,
301 IlLApp. 260— Ruzgis v. Rich-
ardson, 14 N.E.2d 968, 295 IlLApp.
376— Gardiner v. Richardson, 11 N.
E.2d 824, 293 IlLApp. 40— Mc-
Carthy v. Rorrison, 283 IlLApp.
129.
Mich.— Jacob v. Gratiot Central
Market .Co., 255 N.W. 331, 267
Mich. 262— West v. Detroit Ter-
minal R. R., 201 N.W. 955, 229
Mich. 590— Butzin v. Bonk, 6 N.
W.2d 765, 303 Mich. 522— Neesley .
v. Lord, 297 N.W. 226, 297 Mich.
163— Dzikowski v. Michigan Cent
R. R., 276 N.W. 470, 282 Mich. 337.
Minn. — Johnson v. Evanski, 22 N.W.
2d 213— Kundiger v. Metropolitan
Life Ins. Co., 15 N.W.2d 487, 218
Minn. 273— Solberg v. Minneapolis
St. Ry. Co., 7 N.W.2d 926, 214
Minn. 274 — Goldfine v. Johnson,
2914 N.W. 459, 208 Minn. 449—
Fredrickson v. Arrowhead Co-op.
Creamery Ass'n, 277 N.W. 345, 202
Minn. 12 — Mardorf v. Duluth-Su-
perior Transit Co., 261 N.W. 177,
194 Minn. 637 — Thorn v. Northern
§60
Pac. Ry. Co., 252 N.W. 660, 190
Minn. 622.
N" .D.— Nelson v. 'Scherling, 300 N.W.
803, 71 N.D. 337— La Bree v. Dako-
ta Tractor & Equipment Co., 288
N.W. 476, 69 N.D. 561 — Olstad v.
Stockgrowers Credit Corporation,
266 N.W. 109, 66 N.D. 416.
Pa. — In re Stewart's Estate, 47 A.
2d 204 — Chidester v. City of Pitts-
burgh, '47 A.2d 130— Heenan v.
Kelly, 46 A.2d 229, 359 Pa. 549—
Luckenbaugh v. Haughawout, 46
A.2d 163, 353 Pa. 528— Holstein v.
Kroger Grocery & Baking Co., 34
A.2d 491, 348 Pa. 183— Ashworth
v. Hannum, 32 A.2d 407, 3'47 Pa.
393— Earll v. Wichser, 30 A.2d 803,
346 Pa. 357— Rea v. Pittsburgh
Rys. Co., 25 A.2d 730, 344 Pa. 421
— Wascavage v. Susauehanna Col-
lieries Co., 23 A.2d 509, 343 Pa.
529— Wuerfel v. Metropolitan Life
Ins. Co., 22 A.2d 747, 3*43 Pa, 291
— Snyderwine v. McGrath, 22 A.2d
644, 343 Pa. 245— Mamie v. Pitts-
burgh & W. V. Ry. Co., 19 A.23
404, 3*41 Pa. 4S6— Sorrentino v.
Graziano, 17 A.2d 373, 341 Pa. 113
—Usher v. Pittsburgh & L. E. R.
Co., 16 A.2d 387, 340 Pa. 234—
Hardiman v. Pittsburgh Rys. Co.,
14 A.2d 72, 339 Pa. 79— Welch v.
Sultez, 13 A.2d 399. 338 Pa. 583—
lacovino v. Caterino, 2 A.2d 828,
332 Pa. 556 — Lanciano v. Brown, 1
.4.2d 246, 331 Pa. 497 — Derr v.
Rich, 200 A. 599, 331 Pa. 502—
Shoemaker v. Williams, 200 A. 255,
131 Pa.Super. 546— Carter v. Pitts-
burgh Rys. Co., 194 A. 900, 327 Pa,
586— Kline v. Moyer, 191 A. 43,
325 Pa. 357, 111 A.L.R. 406— Delair
v. McAdoo, 1SS A. 181, 324 Pa. 3
— Vetter v. Great Atlantic & Pa-
cific Tea Co., 185 A. 613, 322 Pa.
4-49 — O'Farrell v. Mawson, 182 A.
538, 320 Pa. 31 C— Texas Co.
Bituminous Service Co., 177 A.
763, 318 Pa. 34— Haverkamp v.
Sussman, 176 A. 206, 317 Pa. 187—
Bowman v. Press Pub. Co., 175 A.
483, 316 Pa. 631— Graff v. Scott
Bros., 172 A. 659, 315 Pa. 262—
Christ v. Hill Metal & Roofing Co.,
171 A. 607, 514 Pa. 375— Kulka v.
Nemirovsky, 170 A. 261, 314 Pa,
134 — Ferguson v. Charis, 170 A.
131, 313 Pa. 164— Conley v. Sim-
mons, 167 A. 575, 312 Pa. 249 —
McCracken v. Curwensville Bor-
ough, 163 A. 217, 309 Pa. 98, 86
A.L.R. 1379— Vlasich v. Baltimore
& O, R. Co., 161 A. 70, 307 Pa. 255
— Hawk v. Pennsylvania R. Co.,
160 A. 862, 307 Pa. 214— Adams v.
Gardiner, 160 A. 589, 306 Pa. 576—
Lasater v. Conestoga Traction
Co., 160 A. 447, 306 Pa. 500— Si-
mon v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit
Co., 160 A. Ill, 306 Pa. 466— Rod-
gers v. Saxton, 158 A. 166, 305 Pa.
479, 80 A.L.R. 280— Unterreiner v.
Borough of Turtle Creek, 157 A.
682, 305 Pa. 341— Galliano v. East
Penn Electric Co., l&i A. 805, 803
JUDGMENTS
Pa. 498— Sollenberger Y. Pennsyl-
vania R. Co., 139 A. 127, 290 Pa.
415— Roberts v. Freihofer Baking
Co., 129 A. 574, 283 Pa. '573— Mar-
do v. Valley Smokeless Coal Co.,
123 A. 779, 279 Pa. 209 — Kuneck v.
Conti, 121 A. 324, 277 Pa. 455—
Kreuer v. Union Nat. Bank of Mc-
Keesport, 119 A. 921, 276 Pa. 201—
Davis v. Carroll-Porter Boiler &
Tank Co., 119 A. 742, 276 Pa. 71—
Vunak v. Walters, 43 A.2d 536, 157
Pa.Super. 660 — Hindes v. City of
Pittsburgh, 38 A.2d 420, 155 Pa.
Super. 314— Weismiller v. Farrell,
34 A.2d 45, 153 Pa.Super. 366—
Blair, to Use of Davis, v. Adam-
chick, 21 A.2d 107, 145 Pa.Super.
125— Steingart v. 'Kaney, 19 A.2d
499, 14'4 Pa.Super. 534— Adams v.
Armour & Co., 16 A.2d 142, 142 Pa.
"Super. 280 — Roncace v. Welsh, 14
A.2d 616, 141 Pa.Super. 170— Mc-
Candless v. Krut, 14 A.2d 181, 140
Pa.Super. 183 — Frumkin v. Mayer,
11 A.2d 767, 139 Pa.'Super. 139—
Pfeiffer v. Kraske, 11 A.2d 555, 139
Pa.Super. 92— Acton v. Pennsyl-
vania-Reading Seashore Lines,
11 A.2d 203, 138 Pa.Super. 605 —
Korenkiewicz v. Tork Motor Ex-
press Co., 10 A.2d 864, 138 Pa.Su-
per. 210 — Bollver v. City of Phila-
delphia, 9 A.2d 193, 137 Pa.Super.
437 — Adams v. Metropolitan Life
Ins. Co., 7 A.2d 544, 136 Pa.Super.
454— Mitchell v. First Nat. Bank,
7 A.2d 513, 136 Pa.Super. 467—
Moore v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 7
A.2d 162, 136 Pa.Super. 182— John-
son v. Staples, 5 A.2d 433, 135 Pa.
"Super. 274 — Bateman v. Zorocoff,
2 A.2d 574, 133 Pa.Super. 245—
Pellegrini v. Coll, 2 A.2d 491, 133
pa.Super. 294 — Marron v. Elm-
quist, 200 A. 207, 132 PaJSuper. 12
— Ross v. Pennsylvania Under-
writers Co., 187 A. 62, 123 Pa.Su-
per. 484 — Kovacs v. AJhar, 196 A.
876, 130 Pa.Super. 149 — laquinto v.
Notarfrancesco, 195 A. 169, 129 Pa.
Super. 121 — O'Brien v. Borough of
Jeannette, 194 A. 314, 128 Pa.Su-
per. 443 — Peters v. Colonial Life
Ins. Co. of America, 193 A, 460,
128 Pa.Super. 21— Kreiu v. Stei-
gerwald, 193 A. 390, 128 Pa.Super.
51 — Fox v. Shoemaker, 193 A. 353,
127 Pa.Super. 264 — McDonough v.
Borough of Munhall, 193 A. 326,
127 Pa.Super. 226, reversed on oth-
er grounds 200 A. 638, 331 Pa. 468
—Bradley v. Rhodes, 188 A. 564,
124 Pa,Super. 161— Hahn v. Ander-
son, 187 A. 4'50, 123 Pa.Super. 442,
modified on other grounds 192 A.
489, 326 Pa, 463— Lessy v. Great
Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 183 A.
657, 121 Pa.'Super. 440— Morris v.
Kauffman, 182 A. 758, 120 Pa.Su-
per. 515 — Hummel v. Quaker City
Cabs, 182 A. 658, 120 Pa.Super. 527
— Kaminski v. Bradley, 182 A. 150,
120 Pa.Super. 297 — Ford v. Rein-
oehl, 182 A. 120, 120 Pa.Super. 285
— Lawrence v. Winterbottom, 181
168
49 C.J.S.
A. 852, 120 Pa.Super. 292 — Ander-
son v. Supplee Wills Jones Milk
Co., 181 A. 368, 119 Pa.Super. 386—
Martinez v. Pinkasiewicz, 180 A.
153, 118 PaJSuper. 200— Kissinger
v. Pittsburgh Rys. Co.. 180 A. 137,
119 Pa.Super. 110— Young v. Yel-
low Cab Co., 180 A. 63, 118 Pa.
Super. 495— Zoeller v. Smallstig,
179 A. 755, 118 Pa.Super. 265—
Woodsum v. City of McKeesport,
179 A. 891, 118 Pa.Super. 205—
Dunn v. Dunn, 179 A. 795, 118 Pa.
Super. 533 — James v. Columbia
County Agricultural, Horticultural
& Mechanical Ass'n, 178 A. 326, 117
Pa.Super. 2*77, reversed on other
grounds 184 A. 447, 321 Pa. 465—
McDougall v. Schaab, 178 A. 168,
117 Pa.Super. 285— Magri v. Mc-
Curdy, 177 A. 349, 117 Pa.Super.
32— Haas v. Fitzpatrick, 177 A.
326, 117 Pa.Super. 21— Smallberger
v. Carroll, 176 A. 867, 116 Pa.Su-
per. 429— Beresin v. Pennsylvania
R. Co., 176 A, 774, 116 PajSuper.
291 — Lewin v. Freihofer Baking
Co., 176 A. 58, 115 PaJSuper. 558—
Glou v. Security Ben. Ass'n, 173
A. 883, 114 Pa.Super. 139— Kelso
v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.,
170 A. 436, 112 Pa.Super. 124—
Scull v. Moross, 170 A. 366, 111
Pa.Super. 581— Brown v. Bahl, 170
A. 346, 111 Pa.Super. 598— Taylor
v. Philadelphia Rural Transit Co., -
170 A. 327, 111 Pa.Super. 575 —
Luft v. Da Costa, 164 A. 137, 107
Pa.Super. 553 — Hohman v. Bor-
ough of North Braddock, 156 A.
705, 102 Pa.Super. 330— Smart v.
Bell Telephone Co. of Pennsylva-
nia, 83 Pa/Super. 419— Creavy v.
Ritter, 52 Pa.Dist. & Co. 666, 46
Lack.Jur. 109— Clime v. Prudential
Ins. Co. of America, 50 Pa.Dist.
& Co. 43'3 — Wool v. Johannes Kel-
ler Bldg. & Loan Ass'n, 16 Pa.
Dist. & Co. 519, affirmed 163 A.
38, 106 PajSuper. 492— Kobylis v.
Philadelphia & R. R. Co., 27 Pa.
Dist 3, affirmed 10-4 A. 595, 261
Pa. 3'50 — Marko v. Henry, Com.Pl.,
35 Berks Co. 75 — Walborn v. Ep-
ley, Com.Pl., 38 Berks Co. 117, af-
firmed 24 A.2d 668, 148 Pa.'Super.
417 — Municipal Band of Harris-
burg v. Aurand, Com.Pl., 54 Dauph.
Co. 428 — Kaylor v. Central Trust
Co. of Harrisburg, Com.Pl., 54
Dauph.Co. 366, affirmed 36 A.2d
825, 154 Pa.Super. 633— Taylor v.
Reading Co., Com.Pl., "51 Dauph.Co.
69, affirmed 27 A.2d 901, 149 Pa.
Super. 171 — Eckenrode v. Produce
Trucking Co., Com,Pl., 49 Dauph.
Co. 271— Ensinger v. Hetrick, Com.
PL, 49 DauphuCo. 135— Webb v.
Hess, Com.Pl., 46 Dauph.Co. 84—
Harper v. Trainer Borough, Com.
PI., 33 DeLCo. 229— Hartley v. Na-
vickis, Com.PL, 33 DeLCo. 161—
Guarente v. Long, Com.PL, 33 Del.
Co. 124 — Reese v. Jonas, Com.PL,
32 DeLCo. 582, 12 Som. 157— Yar-
nail v. Railway Express Agency,
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
60
Com.PL, 32 DeLCo. 585— Pritchard
v. Philadelphia. Suburban Transp.
Co., Com.Pl., 32 DeLCo. 383— Kelly
v. Carpenter, Com.Pl., 32 Del.Co.
277 — Rymer v. Devon, Com.Pl., 32
Del.Co. 271— Wright v. Moyer,
Com.Pl., 32 Del.Co. 79— -Preas B.
Snyder & Co. v. Media-69th St.
Mortgage Pool, Com. PI., 32 Del.Co.
36 — Jacobs v. Reading Co., Com.PL,
31 Del.Co. '449— Daly v. Yeadon
Borough, Com.Pl., 31 Del.Co. 380 —
Murray v. Finnigan, Com.Pl., 31
*>el.Co. 186 — Freeman v. MacDon-
ald, Com.Pl.f 31 Del.Co. 165— Brad-
ley v. Yeadon Borough, Com.Pl.t
SI Del. Co. 142 — White v. Southern
Pennsylvania Bus Co., Com.Pl., 31
Del.Co. 67— Hill v. Terrizzi, Com.
PI., 30 Del.Co. 503 — Barbano v.
Barbano, Com.PL, 30 Del.Co. 195,
affirmed 16 A/2d 649, 142 Pa. Super.
371 — Bair v. Newgeon, Com.PL, 29
Del.Co. *54t4 — Hoover v. Montgom-
ery, Com.PL, 29 Del.Co. 466 — Saba-
telli v. Scull, Com.Pl., 29 Del.Co.
456 — Bradley v. Harrison, Com.Pl.,
29 Del.Co. 275— Koch v. Shillady,
Com.Pl., 29 Del.Co. 238— Johns v.
Foley, Com.Pl., 29 Del.Co. 38— Por-
.ter v. Philadelphia Suburban
Transp. Co., Com.PL, 28 DeLCo.
581 — Phillips v. Aronimink Transp.
Co., Com.PL, 28 DeLCo. 467— York-
shire Worsted Mills v. National
Transit Co., Com.PL, 28 DeLCo.
402 — Laycott v. McCready, Com.
PL, 28 DeLCo. 333— Berberian v.
Allsman, Com.PL, 28 DeLCo. 374 —
Turkington v. Jones, Com.Pl., 28
DeLCo. 256 — Lundy v. Devitt,
Com.PL, 28 DeLCo. 210 — Roney v.
Thompson, Com.PL, 27 DeLCo. 589
— Penn Dairies v. Central » Drug,
Com.PL, 27 Del.Co. 371 — Preston
v. Schroeder, Com.PL, 27 DeLCo.
350 — Randolph v. Freystown Mut.
Fire Ins. Co., Com.PL, 27 DeLCo.
285— Keller v. Mazzie, Com.PL, 26
Erie Co. 318— Snyder v. Coleman,
Com.PL, 26 Brie Co. 234— Glover
v. Stoeltzlen, Com.PL, 26 Erie Co.
178— Willman v. Peck, Com.PL, 26
Erie Co. 156 — Cotterman v.
Hughes, Com.PL, 23 Erie Co. 341
— Theiss v. Moreland, Com.PL, 22
Erie Co. 154 — Graham v. Lee, Com.
•PL, 22 Erie Co. 66— Fuller v. Hel-
ler, Com.PL, 21 Erie Co. 270— Shol-
lenberger v. Werren, Com.PL, 20
Erie Co. 33 — Murphy v. Wellbrock,
Com.PL, 46 Lack.Jur. 277— Mc-
Veigh v. Scranton-Spring Brook
Water Service Co., Com.PL, 46
Lack.Jur. 177 — Condel v. Savo,
Com.PL, 46 Lack.Jur. 89— Walker
v. Hornbeck, Com.PL, 45 Lack.Jur.
257 — Cutler v. Peck Lumber Mfg.
Co., Com.PL, 45 Lack.Jur. 25, re-
versed on other grounds 37 A.2d
739, 350 Pa. 8 — Weaver v. Scranton
Bus Co.', Com.PL, 44 Lack.Jur. 233
— Dickson v. Bliss, Com.PL, 42
Lack.Jur. 25 — Todd v. Pickel, Com.
PL, 49 Lanc.L.Rev. 139— Fegley v.
Vogel-Ritt, Inc., Com.PLf 21 Leh.
L.J. 306 — Bauer v. Finger, Com.PL,
19 Leh.L.J. 222— Piershalski v.
Croop, Com.PL, 34 Luz.Leg.Reg.
353— Hasker v. Mease, Com.PL,
59 Montg.Co. 364— Stein v. Taylor,
Com.PL, 56 Montg.Co. 199— Valen-
tine v. Fisher, Com.PL, 55 Montg.
Co. 192 — Stewart v. Crawford,
Com.PL, 55 Montg.Co. 164— Has-
serick v. Walker, Com.PL, 55
Montg.Co. 60— National Chair Co.
v. Barrall, Com.PL, 15 Northumb.
L.J. 26, affirmed 21 A.2d 36, 342
Pa. 389 — Samber v. Hahn, Com.PL,
90 Pittsb.Leg.J. 465— Waldron v.
•Equitable Life Assur. -Soc., Com.
PL, 90 Pittsb.Leg.J. 335— 'Smolin-
sky v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.,
Com.PL, 7 Sch.Leg.Reg. 276, re-
versed on other grounds 26 A.
2d 131, 1'49 Pa.Super. 72— Howells
v. Reading Co., Com.PL, 10 Sch.
Reg. 179 — Murphy v. Fetter, Com.
PL, 7 Sch.Reg. 54— Mahmde v.
Reading Co., Com.Pl., 7 Sch.Reg.
33 — Huey v. Blue Ridge Transp.
Co., Com.PL, 24 Wash.Co. 147—
Jones v. Davis, Com.PL, 24 Wash.
Co. 63r- Hall v. Spriggs, Com.PL,
22 Wash.Co. 166— Klosky v. Gow-
ern, Com.PL, 21 Wash.Co. 92 —
Romonoski v. Harris, Com.PL, 20
Wash.Co. 8?— Kelly v. Ray, Com.
PL, 20 Wash.Co. 82 — Cullen v.
Keystone Transfer Co., Com.PL,
19 Wash.Co. 192— Snee v. Dunn,
Com.PL, 19 Wash.Co. 94— McEl-
fresh v. O'Brien, Com.PL, 18 Wash.
Co. 114 — Slezycki v. Waitas, Com.
PL, 26 West.Co. 92— Wise v. Frey,
Com.PL, 22 WestCo. 176— Cun-
ningham v. Pennsylvania R. Co.,
Com.PL, 58 York Leg.Rec. 49— Mil-
ler v. Stump, Com.PL, 58 York
Leg.Rec. 1 — !Shaw v. Malone, Com.
PL, 55 York Leg.Rec. 150 — Zinn v.
Bentz, Com.PL, 5*5 York Leg.Rec.
149— Arnold v. Frey, Com.PL, 52
York.Leg.Rec. 163.
S.C.— Drag v. Ellis, 36 <S.E.2d 73.
S.D.— Strain v. Shields, 256 N.W.
268, 63 S.D. 60.
Tex. — Traders & General Ins. Co. v.
Bass, Civ.App., 193 S.W.2d 848,
refused no reversible error — Shield
Co. v. Cartwright, Civ.App., 172 S.
W.2d 108, affirmed 177 S.W.2d 954,
142 Tex. 324 — Warren v. Schawe,
Civ.App., 163 S.W.2d 415, error re-
fused.
Wash.— Geri v. Bender, 168 P.2d 1'44
— Ziniewiez v. Department of La-
bor and Industries, 161 P.2d 315,
23 Wash,2d 436— Ruff v. Fruit De-
livery Co., 157 P.2d 730, 22 Wash.
2d 708— Mathers v. Stephens, 156
P.2d 227. 22 Wash.2d 364— Omeitt
v. Department of Labor and Indus-
tries, 152 P,2d 973, 21 Wash.2d 684
— Carroll v. Union Pac. R. Co., 146
P.2d 813, 20 Wash.2d 191— White
v. Fenner, 133 P.2d 270, 16 Wash.
2d 226 — Billingsley v. Rovig-Tem-
ple Co., 133 P.2d 265, 16 Washed
202 — Griffin v. Cascade Theatres
Corporation, 117 P.2d 651, 10
169
Wash.2d 574— Peterson v. May-
ham, 116 P.2d 259, 10 Washed 111
— Fosdick v. Middendorf, 115 P.
2d 670, 9 Wash,2d 616— Morris v.
Chicago, M., St P. & P. R. Co.,
97 P.2d 119, 1 Wash.2d 587, opin-
ion adhered to 100 P.2d 19, 1
Wash.2d 587— Steen v. Polyclinic,
81 P*2d 846, 195 Wash. 666— Ham-
ilton v. Cadwell, 81 P.2d 815, 195
Wash. 683 — Corbaley v. Pierce
County, 74 P.2d 993, 192 Wash. 688
• — Caylor v. B. C. Motor Transp.r
71 P.2d 162, 191 Wash. 365— Chess
v. Reynolds, 66 P.2d 297, 189
Wash. 547— Boyd v. Cole, 68 P.2d
931, 189 Wash. 81— Mitchell v.
Cadwell, 62 P.2d 41, 188 Wash.
257 — Larpenteur v. Eldridge Mo-
tors, 55 P.2d 1064, 185 "Wash, 530
— Shumaker v. Charada Inv. Co.,
49 P.2d 44, 183 Wash. 521— Mitch-
ell v. Rice, 48 P.2d 9'49, 183 Wash.
402— Hayden v. ColviUe Valley
Nat. Bank, 39 P.2d 376, 180 Wash.
220, rehearing denied 43 P.2d 32
— Gaskill v. Amadon, 38 P.2d 229,
179 Wash. 375 — Green v. Langnes,
32 P.2d 565, 177 Wash. 536— Mu-
tual Life Ins. Co. of New York
v. Campbell, 16 P.2d 836, 170
Wash. 485 — Hansen v. Continental
Casualty Co., 287 P. 894, 156 Wash,
691 — Marsten v. Bill Warner, Inc.,
254 P. 850, 148 Wash. 58— Metro-
politan Club v. Massachusetts
Bonding & Insurance Co., 220 P.
818, 127 Wash. 320. N
Impeachment of witness
(1) In passing on motion for
judgment notwithstanding verdict
for plaintiff, court had no right to
pass on credibility of" witnesses, to
consider any purported impeach-
ments, weight thereof, or weight of
testimony. — Vieceli v. Cummings, 54
N.E.2d 717, 322 IlLApp. 559.
(2) A court is not justified in
ignoring a verdict merely because
witnesses for plaintiff may have
made contradictory statements as to
the cause of results established, or
because experts testified that death
could not have been caused as con-
tended by plaintiff. — Kundiger v.
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 16 N.W.2d
487, 218 Minn. 273.
(3) However, the rule that explan-
atory, conflicting, or contradictory
evidence must be excluded from con-
sideration in passing on motion for
judgment notwithstanding verdict
does not mean that, where a witness
contradicts himself on a material
point, court must consider only that
part of his testimony on that point
which favors party for whom he
testifies. — Fitch v. Thomson, 54 N.E.
2d 623, 322 IlLApp. 703.
Uncorroborated testimony .
In passing on motion for judg-
ment non obstante veredicto, trial
judge could not disregard witness'
testimony merely because it was
not corroborated. — Szidor v. Greek
60
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
ich evidence it should be inherently incredible;57
nd evidence not in conflict with such evidence, and
rhich is not inherently incredible, will also be ac-
epted as true.58 The successful party at the trial
> not entitled to favorable inferences from a lack
f testimony,59 or from broad general statements
rtiich are opposed by definite evidence from his
wn witnesses.60
If there is in the record evidence which, stand-
ig alone, tends to prove the material allegations
of the pleadings of the party opposed to the mo-
tion, it should be denied, even though on the entire
record the evidence may preponderate against the
party in opposition to such motion, so that a ver-
dict in his favor could not stand when tested by a
motion for a new trial ;61 and no contradictory evi-
dence of any kind will justify a judgment notwith-
standing the verdict for plaintiff except uncontra-
dicted evidence of facts consistent with every fact
which his evidence tends to prove, but showing af-
Jatholic TJnion of Russian Brother-
loods of U. S., 21 A.2d 104, 145 Pa.
Super. 251— Jeske v. City of Pitts-
>urgh, 168 A. '323, 110 Pa.Super. 274.
Pacts found "by jury admitted
A motion for judgment notwith-
standing verdict admits for purpose
)f motion the existence of facts
'ound by jury and asserts that, tak-
ng verdict at its face, judgment
should go the other way. — -Wisconsin
TeL Co. v. Russell, 7 N.W.2d 825,
242 Wis. 2<47— Volland v. McGee, 294
NT.W. 497, 236 Wis. 3-58, rehearing
lenied 295 N.W. 635, 236 Wis. 358.
Evidence admitted for special pur-
pose
Where insurer denied liability on
life policy on ground of insured's
misrepresentation in application that
he had -not been attended by a physi-
cian during previous three years,
denial of motion for Judgment not-
withstanding verdict for beneficiary
on ground that proofs of death fur-
nished by beneficiary proved falsity
of representation was held not error,
where proofs were offered and ad-
mitted specially and not as truth
of matters therein asserted. — Fickes
v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America,
184 A. 754, 321 Pa, 474.
Testimony of moving party's wit-
ness cannot be used as basis of
judgment notwithstanding verdict. —
Smith v. Penn Tp. Mut. Pire Ass'n
of Lancaster County, 186 A. 130, 323
Pa. 93.
Evidence adduced by movamt favor*
able to contestant
The party contesting a motion for
judgment notwithstanding the ver-
dict is entitled to the benefit of any
favorable evidence introduced by
the moving party.
CaL— -Card v. Boms, 291 P, 190, 210
Cal. 200.
111. — Relaco Rosin Products v. Na-
tional Casein Co., 64 N.E.2d 243,
327 IlLApp. 334— Fricke v. St. Lou-
is Bridge Co., 32 N.B.2d 1016, 309
IlLApp. 279— Scherb v. Randolph
Wells Auto Park, 22 N.E.2d 796,
301 IlLApp. 298.
Pa. — Cherry v. Mitosky, 45 A.2d 23,
353 Pa.. 401— Holland v. Kohn, 38
A.2d 500, 155 PttuSuper. 95— Berry
v. Eastman, 40 A.2d 102, 156 Pa. |
Super. 349 — Herchelroth v. Jaffe,
35 A.2d 594, 15'4 Pa.Super. 54
Dixon v. Metropolitan Life Ins.
Co., 7 A.2d 549, 136 PaJSuper. 573
— HofC v. Tavani, 170 A, 384, 111
Pa. Super. 567.
Wash.~-Hurst v. Peterson, 64 P.2d
788, 189 Wash. 169.
Evidence of contestant unfavorable
to him
On motion for judgment notwith-
standing the verdict, even though
contestant's evidence is in some re-
spects unfavorable to him, he is not
bound by unfavorable part thereof,
but is entitled to have his case con-
sidered on basis of evidence which is
most favorable to his position. —
Moen v. Chestnut, 113 P.2d 1030, 9
Wash.2d 93.
57. Cal. — In re Hettermann's Es-
tate, 119 P.2d 788, 48 Cal.App.2d
263.
Evidence that has no probative
force may not be considered in pass-
ing on motion. — Knudson v. Knud-
son, 46 N.E.2d 1011, 382 111. 492.
Parts of evidence unbelievable
Where trial court finds that* parts
of plaintiff's testimony are wholly
unbelievable, the court should grant
new trial after verdict for plaintiff
instead of judgment non obstante
veredicto. — Szidor y, Greek Catholic
Union of Russian Brotherhoods of
U. S., 21 A.2d 104, 145 Pa.Super. 251.
58. Va. — Bivens v. Manhattan for
Hire Car Corporation, 159 S.E. 395,
156 Va. 483.
59. Mich.— West v. Detroit Termi-
nal R. R., 201 N.W. 955, 229 Mich.
590.
60. Mich.— West v. Detroit Termi-
nal R. R., supra.
61* 111. — Berg v. New Tork Cent R.
Co., 62 N.E.2d 676, 391 HI. 52—
Tidholm v. Tidholm, 62 N.B.2d
473, 391 111. 19— Weinstein v. Met-
ropolitan Life Ins. Co., 60 N.E.2d
207, 389 111. 571— Knudson v.
Knudson, 46 N.B.2d 1011, 382 HI.
492 — Merlo v. Public Service Co.
of Northern Illinois, 45 N.B.2d 665,
381 111. 300, followed in '45 N.B.2d
677, 381 111. 336— Hunt v. Vermil-
ion County Children's Home, 44 N.
E.2d 609, 381 111. 29— Walaite v. ;
170
Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 33 N.B.
2d 119, 376 111. 59— De Leuw, Gath-
er & Co. v. City of Jolief, 64 N.E.
2d 779, 327 IlLApp. 4-53— Anderson
v. Krancic, 66 N.B.2d 316, 328 111.
App. 364 — Dickinson v. Rockford
Van Orman Hotel iCo., 63 N.B.2d
257, 326 IlLApp. 686— Hauck v.
First Nat. Bank of Highland Park,
55 N.E.2d 565, 323 IlLApp. 300—
Van Hoorebecke v. Iowa Illinois
Gas & Electric Co., 57 N.E.2d 6'52,
324 IlLApp. 88— Gill v. Lewin, 53
N.E.2d 336, 321 IlLApp. 633— Han-
son v. Blatt, 53 N.E,2d 143, 321
IlLApp. 364 — Guess v. New Tork
Cent R, Co., 49 N.E.2d 652, 319
HI. App. 522 — Egner v. Fruit Belt
Service Co., 47 N.E.2d 486, 318 HI.
App. 37— Hohimer v. Fricke, 46 N.
B.2d 169, 317 IlLApp. 372— Zwier-
zycki v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.,
45 N.E.2d 76, 516 IlLApp. 345—
Adams v. Chicago & E. R. Co., '41
N.E.2d 991, 314 IlLApp. 404— Free-
man v. Leader Mercantile Co., 40
N.B.2d 548, 313 IlLApp. 652— Bry-
ant v. Taylor, 40 N.E.2d '545, 313
IlLApp. 650 — Osborn v. Leuffgen,
38 N.E.2d 370, 312 IlLApp. 251, af-
firmed 45 N.B.2d 622, 381 111. 29'5
— Baker v. Granite City, 37 N.E.
2d 372, 311 IlLApp. 586 — Gnat v.
Richardson, 35 N.E.2d 409, 311 111.
App. 242, affirmed 39 N.E.2d 337,
378 I1L 626— Kanne v. Metropoli-
tan Life Ins. Co., 34 N.E.2d 732,
310 IlLApp. 524— Bru'mit v. Was-
son, 33 N.E.2d 740, 310 IlLApp.
264 — Cooper v. Safeway Lines, 26
N.E.2d 632, 304 IlLApp. 302—
Fricke v. St. Louis Bridge Co., 32
N.E.2d 1016, 309 IlLApp. 279—
Roussin v. Kirkbride, 31 N.E.2d
833, 308 IlLApp. 366— Rose v. Mey-
er, 25 N.E.2d 413, 303 IlLApp. 365
— Valant v. Metropolitan Life Ins.
Co., 23 N.E.2d 922, 302 IlLApp. 196
. — Geiselman v. Strubhar, 23 N.B.
2d 383, 302 IlLApp. 23— Le Men-
ager v. Northwestern Steel & Wire
Co., 22 N.E.2d 710, 301 IlLApp. 260
— Larimore v. Larimore, 20 N.E.
2d 902, 299 IlLApp. 547— Wells v.
Wise, 18 N.B.2d 750, 298 IlLApp.
252 — Gregory v. Merriam, 14 N.E.
2d 268, 294 IlLApp. 483— Schiff v;
Peck, 6 N.B.2d 509, 288 IlLApp.
625 — McCarthy v. Rorrison, 283 111.
App. 129 — Capelle v. Chicago & N.
W. R. Co., 280 IlLApp. 471.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
60
firmatively a complete defense.62 This requires
consideration of the evidence, but precludes any
examination of the weight of the evidence in order
to determine its preponderance.63 It is wholly im-
material on which side the weight of the evidence
preponderates.64
In entering judgment non obstante veredicto, it
has been held that the judgment must be entered
on the evidence in the record as it existed at the
close of the trial.65 Under this rule the trial court
may not on motion for judgment notwithstanding
the verdict eliminate evidence on the ground that
it was improperly received at the trial and then dis-
pose of the case on the basis of the diminished rec-
ord;66 neither may it insert offers of evidence
which should have been admitted but were exclud-
ed,67 or receive evidence on the hearing of the
motion which was not offered at the trial.68
(5) Discretion of Court
Although there is also authority to the contrary, it
has been held that the granting of a judgment notwith-
standing the verdict rests very much in the discretion of
the trial court.
Although there is authority holding that a mo-
tion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict in-
volves no element of judicial discretion,69 and may
not be granted unless the court can say, as a matter
of law, that there is neither evidence nor reasonable
inference from the evidence to sustain the ver-
dict,70 it has also been held that the granting of
62. I1L — Berg v. New York Cent. R.
Co., 62 N.E.2d 676, 391 111. 52—
Tidholm v. Tidholra, 62 N.B.2d 473,
391 111. 19— Weinstein v. Metro-
politan Life Ins. Co., 60 N.B.2d
207, 389 111. 571— Merlo v. Public
Service Co. of Northern Illinois,
45 N.E.2d 66-5, 381 111. 300, followed
in 45 N.B.2d 677, 381 111. 336—
Hunt v. Vermilion County Chil-
dren's Home, 44 N.E.2d 609, 381
111. 29 — De Leuw, Gather & Co. v.
City of Joilet. 64 N.E.2d 779, 327
IlLApp. 453 — Dickinson v. Rockford
Van Orman Hotel Co., 63 N.B.2d
257, 326 IlLApp. 686.
C3. 111. — Knudson v. Knudson, 46 N.
B.2d 1011, 382 111. 492— Van Hoore-
becke v. Iowa Illinois Gas & Elec-
tric Co., 57 N.B.2d 652, 324 111.
App. 88— Gill v. Lewin, 53 N.B.2d
336, 321 IlLApp. 633— Egner v.
Fruit Belt 'Service Co., 47 N.B.2d
486, 318 IlLApp. 37— Walaite v.
Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 28 N.
B.2d 149, 306 IlLApp. 5, reversed
on other grounds 33 N.B.2d 119,
376 111. 59 — Russell v. Richardson,
24. N.B.2d 185, 302 IlLApp. 589—
Valant v. Metropolitan Life Ins.
Co., 23 N.E.2d 922, 302 IlLApp. 196
— Geiselman v. Strubhar, 23 N.B.
2d 383, 302 IlLApp. 23— Scherb v.
Randolph Wells Auto Park, 22 N.
B.2d 796, 301 IlLApp. 298— Le Men-
ager v. Northwestern Steel & Wire
Co., 22 N.E.2d 710, 301 IlLApp. 260
—Oliver v. Kelley, 21 N.B.2d 649,
300 IlLApp. 487— Painter v. Kee-
shin Motor Express Co., 18 N.E.2d
65, 297 IlLApp. 557— Emge v. Illi-
nois Cent R. Co., 17 N.E.2d 612,
297 IlLApp. 344 — Farmer v. Alton
Building & Loan Ass'n, 13 N.B.2d
652, 294 IlLApp. 206— Gardiner v.
Richardson, 11 N.B.2d 824. 293 I1L
App. 40 — Schiff v. Peck, 6 N.B.2d
509, 288 IlLApp. 625— McNeill v.
Harrison & Sons, 2 N.B.2d 959, 286
IlLApp. 120 — Illinois Tuberculosis
Ass'n v. Springfield Marine Bank,
282 IlLApp. 14— Capelle v. Chicago
& N. W. R. Co., 280 IlLApp. 471.
64. 111.— Merlo v. Public Service Co.
of Northern Illinois, 45 N.E.2d 665,
381 111. 300, followed in 45 N.E.2d
677, 381 111. 336.
65. Pa. — Henry Shenk Co. v. City
of Erie, 43 A.2d 99, 352 Pa. 481—
Kotlikoff v. Master, 27 A.2d 35,
345 Pa._ 258 — Heffron v. Prudential
Ins. Co. of America, 8 A.2d 491,
137 Pa.Super. 69 — Toungwood
Building & Loan Ass'n v. Henry,
8 A.2d 427, 137 Pa.Super. 124— Dix-
on v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.,
7 A.2d 549, 136 Pa.Super. 573—
Huffman v. Simmons, 200 A. 274,
131 Pa.Super. 370 — Moore v. W. J.
Gilmore Drug Co., 200 A. 250, 131
Pa,Super. 849 — Kuhn v. Conestoga,
Transp. Co., Com.PL, 48 Lanc.Rev.
491, affirmed Landis v. Conestoga
Transp. Co., 36 A.2d 465, 349 Pa.
97 — Landis v. Conestoga Transp.
Co., Com.PL, 48 Lanc.Rev. 481, 11
Som. 302, affirmed 36 A.2d 465, 349
Pa, 97 — In re Dughlaski's Estate,
Orph., 29 North.Co. 174.
66. Pa. — Cherry v. Mitosky, 45 A.2d
23, 353 Pa. 401— Henry Shenk Co.
v. City of Erie, 43 A.2d 99, 352 Pa.
481 — Hershberger v. Hershberger,
29 A.2d 95, 345 Pa. 439— Kotl^koff
v. Master, 27 A.2d 35, 345 Pa. 258
— Stevenson v. Titus, 2 A.2d 853,
332 Pa. 100 — Murphy v. Wolverine
Express, 38 A.2d 511, 155 Pa, Super.
125— Schock v. Penn Tp. Mut. Fire
Ins. Ass'n of Lancaster County, 24
A.2d 738, 148 Pa.Super. 81— Heff-
ron v- Prudential Ins. Co. of
America, 8 A.2d '491, 137 Pa,Super.
69 — Toungwood Building & Loan
Ass'n v. Henry, 8 A.2d 427, 137
Pa.Super. 124 — Dixon v. Metropoli-
tan Life Ins. Co., 7 A.2d 549, 136
Pa. Super. 573 — Huffman v. Sim-
mons, 200 A. 274, 131 PajSuper.
370 — Sauire v. Merchants' Ware-
house Co., 196 A. 915, 130 Pa.Su-
per. g — Ozanich v. Metropolitan
Life Ins. Co., 180 A. 67, 119 Pa.Su-
.per. 52, reargument refused and
supplemented 180 A. 576, 119 Pa.
171
Super. 52 — In re Dughlaski's Es-
tate, Orph., 29 North.Co. 174.
67. Pa.— Henry Shenk Co. v. City
of Erie, 43 A.2d 99, 352 Pa. 481—
Kotlikoff v. Master, 27 A.2d 35, 345
Pa. 25 S — Youngwood Building &
Loan Ass'n v. Henry, 8 A.2d 427,
137 Pa.Super. 124— Dixon v. Metro-
politan Life Ins. Co., 7 A.2d 549,
136 Pa.Super. 573 — Huffman v.
Simmons, 200 A. 274, 131 PauSuper.
370 — In re Dughlaski's Estate.
Orph., 29 North.Co. 174.
68. Mich. — McGuire v. Armstrong,
255 N.W. 7'45, 268 Mich. 152.
69. Wash.— Richey & Gilbert Co. v.
Northwestern Natural Gas Corpo-
ration, 134 P.2d 444, 16 Washed
631 — Wiggins v. North Coast
Transp. Co., 98 P.2d 675, 2 Wash.
2d 446 — Knight v. Trogdon Truck
Co., 71 P.2d 1003, 191 Wash. 646
— Chess v. Reynolds, 66 P.2d 297,
189 Wash. 547 — Lydon v. Exchange
Nat. Bank, 235 P. 27, 134 Wash.
188.
33 C.J. p 1180 note 24 [a].
70. Wash. — Moore v. Keesey, 163 P.
2d 164 — Ziniewicz v. Department
of Labor and Industries, 161 P.2d
315, 23 *Wash.2d 436 — Mathers v.
Stephens, .156 P.2d 227, 22 Wash.
2d 364 — Omeitt v. Department of
Labor and Industries, 152 P.2d
. 973, 21 Wash. 2 d 684 — Simmons v.
Cowlitz County, 120 P.2d '479, 12
Wash.2d 84 — Griffin v. Cascade
Theatres Corporation, 117 P.2d
651, 10 Wash.2d 574 — Peterson v.
Mayham, 116 P.2d 259, 10 Wash.
2d 111— Moen v. Chestnut, 113 P.
2d 1030, 9 Wash.2d 93— Letres v.
Washington Co-op. Chick Ass'n,
111 P.2d 594, 8 Wash.2d 64— An-
derson v. Harrison, 103 P.2d 320, 4
Wash.2d 265 — Wiggins v. North
Coast Transp. Co., 98 P.2d 675, 2
Wash.2d 446— Pyle v. WUbert, 98
P.2d 664, 2 Wash.2d 429— Gibson v.
Spokane United Rys., 84 P.2d 349,
197 Wash. 58— Steen v. PolycUnlc,
81 P.2d 846, 195 Wash. 666— Lew-
60
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
such a judgment rests very much in the discretion
of the court;71 and accordingly the court is not
bound to enter such judgment in every case in which
it is later convinced it should have given binding
instructions at the trial.72 Although the court is
under a duty to grant judgment notwithstanding the
verdict when the right to such a judgment is clear,73
judgment notwithstanding the verdict is to be
granted cautiously,74 and only when it clearly ap-
pears from the record that the party obtaining the
verdict was not entitled thereto.75 Where justice
will be promoted thereby, a motion for such judg-
ment may be denied, and the party remitted to his
remedy by motion for a new trial.76
c. On Motion to Disregard Special Issue Jury
Finding
Under some statutes the court is authorized to dis-
regard any special Issue Jury finding that has. no sup-
port In the evidence and thus enter Judgment notwith-
standing a part of the verdict; but the right may be
exercised only in the manner and under the circum-
stances prescribed by the statutes.
Under some statutes the court is authorized on
proper motion to disregard any special issue jury
finding that has no support in the evidence,77 but
this right may be exercised only in the manner and
under the circumstances prescribed by the stat-
utes.78 A motion to disregard one or more of the
(s v. Coleman, 79 P.2d 633, 194
•Wash. 674 — Corbaley v. Pierce
County, 7»4 P.2d 993, 192 Wash.
688 — Kedziora v. Washington Wa-
ter Power Co., 74 P.2d 898, 193
Wash. 51— Knight v, Trogdon
Truck Co., 71 P.2d 1003, 191 Wash.
646— Gross v. Parttow, 68 P.2d
1034, 190 Wash. 489-<5hess v.
Reynolds, 66 P.2d 297, 189 Wash.
54T — Mootz v. Spokane Racing &
Pair Ass'n, 64 P.2d 516, 189 Wash.
.225— Boyd v. Cole, 63 P.2d 931,
189 Wash. 81 — Larpenteur v. El-
dridge Motors, 55 P.2d 1064, 1S5
Wash. 530 — Shumaker v. Charada
-Inv. Co., 49 P.2d 44, 183 Wash.
521 — Engdal v. Owl Drug Co., 48
P.2d 232, 183 Wash. 100 — Stevich
v. Department of Labor end In-
dustries, 47 P.2d 32, 183 Wash. 401
— Tjosevig v. Butler, 38 P.2d 1022,
180 Wash*. 151 — Green v. Langnes,
32 P.2d 565, 177 Wash. 536— -Reeve
r. Arnoldo, 30 P.2d 943, 176 Wash.
679— Hart v. Hogan, 2* P.2d 99,
178 Wash. '598— Carroll v. 'Western
Union Telegraph Co., 17 P.2d 49,
170 Wash. 600 — Sears v. Lydon, 13
P.2d 475, 169 Wash, 92— Haydon
v. Bay City Fuel Co., 3 P.2d 98,
167 Wash. 2l£— Nelson v. Booth
Fisheries Co., 6 P.2d 388, 165
Wash. 521 — Phelan v. Jones, 4 P.
2d 616, 164 Wash. 640— Hopkins
v. Lotus Cafe, 297 P. 178, 161
Wash. 493— Haan v. Heath, 296 P.
816, 161 Wash. 128— Fleming v.
Buerkli, 293 P. 462, 159 'Wash. 460
— Dailey v. Phoenix Inv. Co., 285
P. 657, 155 Wash. 597— Wieber v.
City of Everett, 283 P. 1085, 165
Wash. 167 — Lee v. Gorman Pack-
Ing Corporation, 282 P. 205, 154
Wash. 376 — Kelly v. Drumheller,
272 P. 731, 150 Wash. 185— Crary
v. Coffin, 268 P. 881, 148 Wash. 287
— Fisher v. Tacoma Ry. & Power
Co., 468 P. 180, 148 Wash. 122—
Cushman v. Standard Oil 'Co. of
California, 260 P. 996, 145 Wash.
481 — Chalenor-v. Mutual Life Ins.
Co. of New York, 259 P. 383, 145
Wash. 189 — Eyak River Packing
Co. y. Huglen, 255 P. 123, 1'43
Wash. 229, reheard 257 P. 638, 143
Wash. 229— White v. Rigg, 254 P.
459, 143 Wash. 46— Stickney v,
Congdon, 250 P. 32, 140 Wash.
670— Karr v. Mahaffay, 248 P. 801,
140 Wash, 236— Allingham v.
Long-Bell Lumber Co., 241 P. 298,
136 Wash. 681 — Reynolds v. Mor-
gan, 235 P. 800, 134 Wash. 358—
Crooks v. Rust, 226 P. 262, 130
Wash. 88— Fortier v. Robillard, 212
P. 1083, 123 Wash. 599.
38 C.J. p 1180 note 24 [a].
71* Conn. — Gesualdi \c. Connecticut
Co., 41 A.2d 771, 131 Conn. 622.
Pa. — Klein v. F. W. Woolworth Co.,
163 A. 532, 309 Pa. 320— Standard
Oil Co. of N. J. v. Graham Oil
Transport Corp., 41 A.2d 414,
157 Pa. Super. 41 — Schroeder Bros.
v. Sabeli, 40 A.2d 170, 156 Pa.Su-
per.. 267 — Bunn v. Furstein, 34 A.
2d 924, 153 Pa.Super. 637--Schmidt
v. Pittsburgh Rys. Co., 193 A. 67,
127 Pa.Super. 161.
Tex. — Spence v. National Life & Ac-
cident Ins. Co., Civ.App.f 59 S.W.
2d 212.
; C.J. p 1180 note 24.
72. Pa.— Standard Oil Co. of N. J.
v. Graham Oil Transport Corp., 41
A.2d 414, 157 Pa.Super. 41-^Schroe-
der Bros. v. Sabelli, '40 A.2d 170,
156 Pa.Super. 267 — Bunn v. Fur-
stein, 34 A.2d 924, 153 Pa.Super.
637.
73. Minn.— First Nat. Bank v. Fox,
254 N.W. 8, 191 Minn. 318.
Pa.— Schroeder Bros. v. Sabelli, 40
A.2d 170, 156 Pa.Super. 267.
74. Minn.— First Nat. Bank v. Fox,
254 N.W. 8, 191 Minn. 318.
76. Minn.— First Nat. Bank v. Fox,
supra.
Pa. — Kissinger v. Pittsburgh Rys.
Co., 180 A. 137, 119 PaJSuper. 110.
76. Pa. — Athas v. Fort Pitt Brewing
Co., 157 A. 677, 305 Pa. 350— Prin-
gle v. Smith, 133 A. 33, 286 Pa. 152
—March v. Philadelphia & West
Chester Traction Co., 132 A. 355,
285 Pa. 413 — Schroeder Bros. v.
Sabeli, 40 A.2d 170, 156 Pa.Super.
267 — Bunn v. Furstein, 34 A.2d
924, 153 Psu'Super. 637— Szidor v.j
172
Greek Catholic Union of Russian
Brotherhoods of U. S., 21 A.2d
104, 145 Pa.Super. 251— Ellsworth
v. Husband, 181 A. 90, 119 Pa.
Super, 245 — Blassottl v. Greens-
boro Gas Co., 96 Pa.Super. 162 —
Cameron v. Doyno, 10 Pa,Dist. &
Co. 593 — Rich v. Boguszinski, 10
Pa.Dist. & Co. 217, 24 Luz.Leg.Reg.
333 — Reick v. Maple Hill Cemetery
Ass'n, Com.PL, 31 Luz.Leg.Reg.
213.
33 C.J. p 1181 note 25.
77. Tex. — Myers v. Crenshaw, 137
S.W.2d 7, 13'4 Tex 600— Hearn v.
Hanlon-Buchanan, Inc., Civ.App.,
179 SJW.2d 364, error refused-
Smith v. Safeway Stores, Civ.App.,
167 S.W.2d 1044— Heath v. Ellis-
ton, Civ.App., 145 S.W.2d 243, error
dismissed, judgment correct — >
Ronsley v. City of Fort Worth,
Civ.App., 140 S.W,2d 257, error
dismissed, judgment correct —
Pearlstone-Ash Grocery Co. v.
Rembert Nat. Bank of Longview,
Civ.App., 135 S.W.2d 559, error re-
fused—Jones v. Liberty Mut. Ins.
Co., Civ.App., 131 S.W.2d 776, er-
ror dismissed, judgment correct —
Foster v. National Bondholders
Corporation, Civ.App., 123 S.W.2d
506, error dismissed — James v.
Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n, Civ.
App., 98 S.W.2d 425, reversed on
other grounds Texas Employers'
Ins. Ass'n v. James, 118 S.W.2d
293, 131 Tex 605— Beckner v. Bar-
rett, Civ.App., 81 B.W.2d 719, error
dismissed — Smith Y. El Paso & N.
E. R. Co., Civ.App., 67 S.W.2d 362,
error dismissed — SprolesV. Rosen,
Civ.App., 47 S.W.2d 331, affirmed
84 S.W.2d 1001, 126 Tex 51.
Prior to statute trial court was
without authority to set aside jury's
finding to an issue raised by plead-
ings, even though such finding was
against undisputed proof or was not
supported by evidence. — Edmiston v.
Texas & N. O. R. Co., 138 S.W.2d
526, 135 Tex 67.
78. Tex. — Edmiston v. Texas & N.
O. R. Co., supra— Hines v. Parks,
96 S.W.2d 970, 128 Tex 289— Lath-
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§60
special issue jury findings is of a character sim-
ilar to that of a motion for judgment notwithstand-
ing the entire verdict ;?9 it is a motion for judg-
ment notwithstanding a part of the verdict,80 and
often is referred to as a motion for a judgment non
obstante veredicto.81
d. On Point Reserved
Under the practice In some jurisdictions judgment
notwithstanding the verdict may be entered according
to the court's decision on a reserved point of law.
The practice prevails in some jurisdictions of tak-
ing a verdict subject to the decision of a reserved
point of law by the court; the judgment is then en-
tered for one party or the other according to the
decision of the reserved point82 Where the ver-
dict of the jury and the decision by the court of
the point reserved are both in favor of plaintiff,
the judgment should be entered for plaintiff on the
verdict, and not on the point reserved83 Where
the verdict is for plaintiff, and the reserved point
is determined for defendant, the judgment is en-
tered for defendant non obstante veredicto.8*
Where the verdict is for defendant, a judgment can-
not be rendered for plaintiff, although the point re-
served is determined in his favor, as in such case
there is nothing to support the judgment,85 and a
fortiori defendant is entitled to judgment on the
verdict where the point reserved is also determined
in his favor.86 Where it is uncertain whether the
jury found their verdict on the facts relating to
which the question of law was reserved or on other
facts also submitted to them, a judgment non ob-
stante veredicto may not be rendered.87 A statute
providing that, where a party requests a directed
verdict, the court may reserve its decision and sub-
mit the case to the jury and then enter a judgment
non obstante veredicto if the verdict is against the
party making the request has no application where
the verdict is for the party making the request, and
an order granting a motion for judgment non ob-
stante veredicto in such case is a nullity.88
Nature of questions reserved. The point re-
served must be solely a question of law, and a
question of fact or a mixed question of law and
fact may not be reserved.89 The question whether
there is any evidence in the case to support a re-
covery is a question of law and may be reserved,
but the question whether there is sufficient evidence
to support a recovery where the evidence is con-
flicting may not be reserved.90 The reservation
may not be as to whether on the whole case plain-
tiff is entitled to recover.91
Sufficiency of reservation. The reservation of
controlling legal questions should always be made
am v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., Civ.
App., 175 S.W.2d 426— Dedear v.
James, Civ.App., 172 S.W.2d 535,
error refused — Gatlin v. South-
western . Settlement & Develop-
ment Corporation, Civ. App., 166 S.
"W.2d 150, error refused — Walker
v. Scott, Civ.App., 164 S.W.2d 586,
reversed on other grounds Scott
v. Walker, 170 S.W.2d 718, 141 Tex.
181— Bailey v. Walker, Civ.App.,
163 S.W.2d 864, error refused —
Perry v. Citizens Life Ins. Co.,
Civ.App.. 163 S.W.2d 743— Happ v.
Happ, Civ.App., 160 S.W.2d 227,
error refused — Rudolph v. Smith,
Civ.App., 1'48 S.W.2d 225— Jenni-
•son v. Darnielle, Civ. App., 146 S.
TV.2d 788, error dismissed — Corona
Petroleum Co. v. Jameson, Civ.
App., 146 S.W.2d €12, error dis-
missed, judgment correct — Amer-
ican Nat. Ins. Co. v. Sutton, Civ.
App., 130 S.W.2d 441— Phlying v.
•Security Ben. Ass'n, Civ.App., 129
S.W.2d 358, error dismissed, judg-
ment correct — Friske v. Graham,
•Civ.App., 128 S.W.2d 139— Lewis v.
Martin, Civ.App., 120 S.W.2d 910,
error refused — Traders & General
Ins. Co. v. Milliken, Civ.App., 110
;S.W.2d 108 — Howard v. Howard,
•Civ.App., 102 S.W.2d 473, error re-
fused— Jordan v. City of Lub-
•bock, Civ.App., 88 S.W.2d 560, er-
ror dismissed — Bell v. Henson, Civ.
App., 74 S.W.2d 455, error dis-
missed—Smith v. El Paso & N. B.
B. Co., Civ.App., 67 S.W.2d 362,
error dismissed — Coleman v. Hollo,
Civ.App., 50 S.W.2d 391, error dis-
missed.
79. Tex. — Myers v. Crenshaw, 137
S.W.2d 7, 134 Tex. 500.
80. Tex. — Myers v. Crenshaw, su-
pra.
81. Tex. — Myers v. Crenshaw, su-
pra.
82. Mich. — Forman v. Prudential
Ins. Co. of America, 16 N.W.2d
696, 310 Mich. 145— Cullen v. Voor-
hies, 205 N.W. 177, 232 Mich, 420.
N.T.— Schaffer v. Schaffer, 269 N.*.
S. 288, 241 App.Div. 687.
Pa. — Bckenrode v. Produce Trucking
Co., Com.Pl.t 49 Dauph.Co. 271 —
Wanamaker v. Beamesderf er, 3 Feu
Dist & Co. 6-99, 26 Dauph.Co. 120.
33 C.J. p 1186 note 60.
Effect of finding1
Jury's finding had no effect on
motion for judgment notwithstand-
ing verdict where motion lor direct-
ed verdict, reserved under statute,
was made before submission to jury.
—King v. Bird, 222 N.W. 183, 245
Mich. 93.
Statute authorizing practice held, not
repealed
Mich.— Vandenberg v. Kaat, 233 N*
W. 220, 252 Mich, 187.
173
83. Pa. — Ringle v. Pennsylvania R.
Co., 30 A. 492, 16»4 Pa. 529, 44
Am.S.R. 628.
83 C.J. p 1186 note 61.
84. U.S.— Goehrig v. Stryker, C.C.
Pa., 174 P. 897.
Pa.— Hays v. Oil City, 11 A. 63, 8 Pa.
Cas. 185.
85. Pa. — Ringle v. Pennsylvania It
Co., 30 A. 492, 164 Pa. 529, 44 Am.
S.R. 628.
33 C.J. p 1186 note 63.
86. U.S.— Bohem v. Atlantic City R.
Co., aC.Pa., 174 F. 302.
87. Pa,— Keifer v. Bldred Tp., 20 A,
'592, 110 Pa, 1.
88. Mich.— Jonescu v. Orlich, 189 N.
W. 919, 220 Mich. 89.
89. U.S. — Casey v. Pennsylvania
Asphalt Pav. Co., 'C.CJ.Pa., 109 F.
744, affirmed 144 F. 189, 52 C.C.A.
145.
Fla. — Corpus Juris cited, la Talley v.
McCain, 174 So. 8*41, 842, 128 Fla.
418.
33 C.J. p 1186 note 66.
90. Pa.— Butts v. Armor, 30 A. 357,
164 Pa. 73, 26 LJLA. 213.
38 C.J. p 1187 note 67.
91. Pa.— Keifer v. Bldred Tp.t 20
A. 592, 110 Pa. 1— Clark v. Wilder,
25 Pa. 314.
33 OJ. p 1187 note 6*.
60
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
a matter of record at the time, and the record must
show the question of law distinctly stated and
properly reserved.^ The facts, as well as the
questions of law arising thereon which are reserved,
must be stated in the record.93
e. On Special Findings against General Ver-
dict
A judgment on the special findings of a jury, but
against their genera! verdict, is not really a judgment
non obstante veredlcto, although often inaccurately so
called.
A judgment on the special findings of a jury, but
against their general verdict, is not really a judg-
ment non obstante veredicto, although often inac-
curately so called. A motion for judgment non ob-
stante veredicto is a motion for judgment on the
pleadings without regard to the verdict ; but a mo-
tion for a judgment on the special finding of the
facts, notwithstanding the general verdict, has no
reference whatever to the pleadings in the cause,
and proceeds on the theory that the special finding
of facts by the jury is so inconsistent with their
general verdict that the former should control the
latter and the court should give judgment accord-
ingly.94 The practice in respect of special findings
is considered in the CJ.S. title Trial §§ 563, 564,
also 64 CJ. p 1177 note 94 et seq.
f. In Particular Proceedings
The rules regulating the granting of motions for
judgment notwithstanding the verdict apply generally to
proceedings in which issues were submitted to, and .de-
termined by, a jury.
The rules regulating the granting of motions for
judgment notwithstanding the verdict have been
held to be applicable to probate proceedings tried
before a jury95 and to condemnation proceedings
where a jury was demanded and not waived,96 but
they have been held not to apply to a case tried
by the court without a jury97 or in an equity suit
with respect to a jury's verdict which is merely
advisory,98 although it has also been held that
judgment in an equitable action submitted on the
pleadings should go for the party entitled thereto
by the pleadings notwithstanding the verdict against
him,99 and that the trial court has power to enter
judgment notwithstanding the verdict in a law ac-
tion where defendant invoked the equity powers of
the court so that the jury's verdict was merely ad-
visory.1 Also the rule has been held inapplicable
to issues submitted to, but not found by, the ju-
ry,2 or where there was no verdict,3 as where the
court rendered judgment after the jury disagreed as
to issues submitted to them and were discharged.4
Where, in accordance with the rules stated supra
subdivision a of this section, the motion is based
wholly on defective pleadings, a motion for judg-
ment notwithstanding the verdict is inappropriate
in a proceeding where no formal pleadings are re-
quired or had,5 and a denial of the motion has been
held not to be error in a case in which a general
denial to allegations of a claim is interposed by op-
eration of
g. Amount of Verdict
A motion for Judgment In a larger amount than the
verdict Is a motion non obstante veredicto and may be
granted in some Jurisdictions where under the pleadings
and proof the plaintiff i& entitled to the larger amount
if entitled to recover at all; but the fact that the amount
of the verdict is inadequate or excessive does not war-
rant judgment for the opposite party notwithstanding
the verdict.
A motion for judgment in a larger amount than
the verdict is a motion non obstante veredicto al-
though not so designated.7 At common law and
92. Pa. — Buckley v. Duff, 8 A. 823,
111 Pa. 223.
33 C.J. p 1187 note 69. ,
93. Pa, — Buckley v. Duff, supra.
33 C.J. p 1187 note 70.
94. Conn. — Gesualdi v. Connecticut
Co., 41 A.2d 771, 131 Conn. 622.
Kan. — Packer v. Fairmont Creamery
Co., 146 P.2d 401, 158 Kan. 191.
Okl. — Corpus Juris quoted in. Okla-
homa Gas & Electric Co. v. Busha,
66 P.2d 64, 67, 179 Okl. 505.
33 C.J. p 1187 note 71.
95. Cal. — In re Hettermann's Es-
tate, 119 P.2d 788, 48 Cal.App.2d
263.
The word "Judgment" in rule re-
lating- to judgment notwithstanding
verdict has no narrow, technical
meaning, and it includes a decision
or determination on issues from
orphans' court or in any other pro-
ceeding at law, corresponding to a
judgment in ordinary action at law.
— Schmeizl v. Schmeizl, Md., 42 A.2d
1,06.
90. Cal. — City and County of San
Francisco v. Superior Court in
and for City and County of San
Francisco, 271 P. 121, 94 Cal.App.
818.
97. 111. — Heardon v. Abraham Lin-
coln Life Ins. Co., 7 N.E.2d 388,
288 Ill.App. 633.
98; 111. — 'Shipman v. Moseley, 49 N.
E.2d 662, 319 IlLApp. 4*43.
Okl.— Luke v. Patterson, 139 P.2d
175, 192 Okl. 631, 48 A.L.R. 679.
S.D. — South Dakota Wheat Growers'
Ass'n v. Sieler, 230 N.W. 80$, 57 S.
D. 101.
99. • Ky. — First Nat Bank of Jack-
son v. Strong, 15 S.W.2d 477, 228
Ky. 604. *
174
1. Neb. — Oft v. Dornacker, 269 N.
W. 418, 131 Neb. 644.
Wash. — Benedict v. Hendrickson, 143
P.2d 326, 1-9 Wash.2d 452.
2. Tex. — Miller v. Fenner, Beane &
Ungerleider, Civ.App., 89 S.W.2d
506, error dismissed — Handy v. Ol-
ney Oil & Refining Co., Civ.App.,
68 'S.W.2d 313, error refused.
3. Tex. — Fitts v. Carpenter, Civ.
App., 124 S.W.2d 420.
4. Tex. — Slay v. Burnett Trust, 187
S.W.2d 377, 143 Tex, 621— Fitts
v. Carpenter, Civ.App., 124 S.W.2d
420.
5. Mo. — Meffert v. Lawson, 287 S.
W. 610, 315 Mo. 1091.
6. Iowa. — In re Larimer's Estate,
283 N.W. 430, 225 Iowa 1067.
7. Colo.— De Boer v.. Olmsted, 260
P. 108, 82 Colo. 369.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
60
under some statutes plaintiff who has recovered a
verdict cannot have judgment non obstante vere-
dicto for a greater amount.8 Such a judgment has
been held proper, however, where under, the plead-
ings and proof plaintiff is entitled to the larger
amount if he is entitled to recover at all,9 but the
court cannot render such judgment where plaintiff
is not entitled under the pleadings and proof to re-
cover the larger amount,10 it being held that such
judgment may be entered only where the evidence
supporting it is un contradicted and unimpeached
so that a verdict could have been entered in the ex-
act amount of the judgment11 Failure of the court
to grant a new trial has been held to furnish no
ground for entry of judgment for the amount of
damages claimed notwithstanding a verdict for a
smaller amount.12
The fact that a verdict is rendered for an amount
much smaller than that to which the party is enti-
tled, if entitled to recover at all, has been held not
to be sufficient to entitle the opposite party to a
judgment notwithstanding the verdict unless such
party is entitled to a judgment on the pleadings
without regard to such verdict.18 The fact that
the verdict is excessive does not warrant judg-
ment for defendant notwithstanding the verdict14
h. Party Entitled
At common law only the plaintiff could move for a
judgment notwithstanding the verdict, but under the
prevailing modern practice either the plaintiff or the
defendant may have such a judgment in a proper case.
At common law a judgment non obstante veredic-
to could be entered only on the application of plain-
tiff for judgment in his favor, and never in favor of
defendant.15 Where plaintiffs pleadings would not
support a judgment on a verdict in his favor, de-
fendant's sole remedy was by motion in arrest of
judgment.16 By virtue either of statute or relaxa-
tion of the early common-law rule, however, the
generally prevailing rule now is that either plaintiff
or defendant may have a judgment non obstante
veredicto in a proper case.17
8, Or. — Snyder v. Portland Ry.,
Light & Power Co., 215 P. 887, 107
Or, 673.
Interest
(1) In the absence of any provi-
sion therefor in the statutes em-
powering the court to enter judg-
ment notwithstanding the verdict,
the court is without power to en-
ter judgment including interest
where the jury's verdict allowed re-
covery without interest. — Daly v.
Savage, 160 N.E. 881, 27 Ohio App.
133.
(2) Allowance of interest general-
ly see supra § 58.
9, Ariz. — Fornara v. Wolpe, 226 P.
203, 26 Ariz. 383.
111.— Paschall v. Reed, 51 N.E.2d
842, 320 IlLApp. 390.
N.D. — Fargo Loan Agency v. Lar-
son, 207 N.W. 1003, 53 N.D. 621.
Pa.— Stierheim v. Bechtold, 43 A.2d
916, 168 Pa.Super. 107.
10, Ark. — Moore v. Rogers Whole-
sale Grocery Co., 8 S.W.2d 457,
177 Ark. 993— Fulbright v. Phipps,
3 S.W.2d 49, 176 Ark. 356.
Kan. — Manhardt v. 'Sheridan's Es-
tate, 92 P.2d 76, 150 Kan. 264.
Wash. — Richey & Gilbert Co. v.
Northwestern Natural Gas Corpo-
ration, 134 P.2d 444, 16 Wash.2d
631.
Conflicting1 evidence
Judgment notwithstanding verdict
for amount larger than awarded
plaintiff, is unauthorized under con-
flicting evidence sufficient to support
verdict for either party. — McGuire &
Cavender v. Robertson, 32 S.W.2d
624, 182 Ark. 759.
J.L Colo. — Peterson v, Rawalt, 86
P.2d 465, 95 Colo. 368.
12. 'Ark. — Powers v. Wood Parts
Corporation, 44 S.W.2d 324, 184
Ark. 1032.
13. Okl.— Dill v. Johnston, 222 P.
507, 94 Okl. 264— Hyatt v. Vinita
Brass Works, 214 P. 706, 89 Okl.
171.
.14, Pa.— Darlington v. Bucks Coun-
ty Public Service Co., 154 A. 501,
303 Pa. 288— Long v. Great At-
lantic & Pacific Tea Co., Com.Pl.,
29 Del.Co. 512.
33 C.J. p 1184 note 50 [a] (1).
15. U.S. — Newton v. Glenn, C.C.A.
Miss., 149 F.2d 879.
Ala. — Corpus Juris cited in City of
Birmingham v. Andrews, 132 So.
877, 222 Ala. 362.
Colo.— David v. Gilbert, 274 P. 821,
85 Colo. 184.
Fla.— Tolliver v. Loftin, 21 So.2d
359 — Peavy-Wilson Lumber Co. v.
Baker, 4 So.2d 333, 148 Fla. 296—
Corpus Juris cited in Dudley v.
Harrison, McCready & Co., 173 So.
820, 823, 127 Fla. 687, rehearing
denied 174 So. 729, 128 Fla. 338
— Corpus Juris cited in Atlantic
Coast Line R. Co. v. Canady, 165
So. 629, 630, 122 Fla. 447.
111.— McNeill v. Harrison & Sons, 2
, N.B.2d 959, .286 IlLApp. 120— Illi-
nois Tuberculosis Ass'n v. Spring-
field Marine Bank, 282 Ill.App. 14
— Capelle v. Chicago & N. W. R.
Co., 280 IlLApp. 471— Royal Mfg.
Co. v. Garfield Sanitary Felt Co.,
238 IlLApp. 425.
Ind.— Inter State Motor Freight Sys-
tem v. Henry, 38 N.E.2d 909, 111
Ind.App. 179.
Mo.— Meffert v. Lawson, 287 S.W.
610, 315 Mo. 1091— Blodgett v.
Koenig, 284 S.W. 505, 314 Mo. 262
175
—First Nat. Bank v. Dunbar, 72
S.W.2d 821, 230 Mo.App. 687.
N.J. — Corpus Juris cited in Respond
v. Decker, 162 A. 72S, 726, 109 N.J.
Law 458.
N.C. — Corpus Juris cited in Johnson
v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 14
S.E.2d 405, 406, 219 N.C. 445—
Corpus Juris cited in, Jernigan v.
• Neighbors, 141 S.B. 586, 195 N.C.
231.
Or. — Snyder v. Portland Ry., Light
& Power Co., 215 P. 887, 107 Or.
673.
Vt.— Nadeau v. St Albans Aerie No.
1205, Fraternal Order of Eagles,
26 A.2d 93, 113 Vt. 397— Johnson
v. Hardware Mut. Casualty Co., 1
A.2d 817, 109 Vt 481.
33 C.J. p 1179 note 14.
18. U.S. — Newton v. Glenn, C.C.A.
Miss., 1'49 F.2d 879.
Fla. — Corpus Juris cited in, Weis-
Patterson Lumber Co. v. King,
177 So. 313, 321, 131 Fla. 342—
Corpus Juris cited in Dudley v.
Harrison, McCready & Co., 173 So.
820, 823, 127 Fla. 687, rehearing
denied 174 So. 729, 128 Fla. 338.
Ind. — Inter State Motor Freight Sys-
tem v. Henry, 38 N.B.2d 909, 111
Ind.App. 179.
Mo.— Blodgett v. Koenig, 284 «S.W.
505, 314 Mo. 262— First Nat Bank
• v. Dunbar, 72 S.W.2d 821, 230
Mo. App. 687.
N.J. — Corpus Juris cited in Respond
v. Decker, 162 A. 725, 726, 109
N.J.Law 458.
33 C.J. p 1179 note 15.
Arrest of judgment see infra §§ 87-
99.
17. Ala. — Corpus Juris quoted in
City of Birmingham v. Andrews,
. 132 So. 877, 222 Ala, 362.
§60
JUDGMENTS
49 O.J.S.
Joint defendants. Where there is a verdict
against two or more joint defendants, it has been
held that the court may enter a judgment notwith-
standing the verdict in favor of one of them and
refuse such judgment as to the others.18
i. Waiver and Estoppel
The right to move for a Judgment notwithstanding
the verdict may be waived.
The right to move for a judgment non obstante
veredicto may be waived,19 as by failing to assert
it,20 and it is waived where a material issue found
by the verdict was litigated by acquiescence or con-
sent, although not pleaded;21 but it is not waived
by failing to demur to an insufficient pleading,22
by asking for a peremptory instruction,2^ by asking
for a stay of proceedings after verdict,24 or by the
filing of a motion for a new trial.2** Parties re-
questing submission of special issues are not es-
topped to urge judgment non obstante veredicto.26
Ark. — Corpus Juris cited in Oil
Fields Corporation v. Cubage, 24
S.W.2d 328, 329, 180 Ark. 1018.
Conn. — Gesualdi v. Connecticut Co.,
41 A.2d 771, 131 Conn. 622.
111.— Farmer v. Alton Building &
Loan Ass'n, 13 N.E.2d 652, 294 111.
App. 206— Illinois Tuberculosis
Ass'n v. Springfield Marine Bank,
283 IlLApp. 14— Capelle v. Chi-
cago & N. W. R. Co., 280 IlLApp.
471,
Ind.— Inter State Motor Freight
System v. Henry. 38 N.E.2d 909,
111 Ind.App. 179.
Minn.— Bolstad v. Paul Bunyan Oil
Co., 9 N.W.2d 346, 21'5 Minn. 166—
Brossard v. Koop, 274 N.W. 241,
200 Minn. 410.
N.C. — Corpus Juris cited in Johnson
v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 1'4
S.E.2d 405, 406, 219 N.O. 445—
Corpus Juris cited in Jernigan v.
Neighbors, 141 S.B. 586, 195 N.C.
231.
Ohio.— Miller v. Star Co., 15 N.E.2d
151, 57 Ohio App. 485— Thompson
v. Rutledge, 168 N.3D. 547, 32 Ohio
App. 537.
Vt— Nadeau v. St. Albans Aerie No.
1205, Fraternal Order of Eagles,
26 A.2d 93, 112 Vt. 397— Johnson
v. Hardware Mut. Casualty Co., 1
A.2d 817, 109 Vt. 481.
33 C.J. p 1179 note 17-p 1180 note 19.
Circumstances under which plaintiff
or defendant may have judgment
notwithstanding the verdict gen-
erally see supra subdivision a of
this section.
§ 61. Motion for Judgment
a. In general
b. Time for motion
c. Notice of motion and hearing thereon
d. Form and requisites
c. Hearing and determination of motion
a. In General
A motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict
must be made In the trial court by the party entitled
thereto, and the motion may request, In the alternative,
a new trial.
A motion for judgment notwithstanding the ver-
dict must be made in the trial court,27 by the party
entitled thereto,28 and be served on the adverse
party in accordance with statutory requirements.29
It is not the duty of the court so to reward a liti-
gant on its own motion,30 although it has been held
that the trial court may act on its own motion.31
18. Pa. — Lang v. Hanlon, 157 A.
7S8, 305 Pa. 378, followed in 157
A. 790, two cases, 305 Pa. 385, and
157 A. 791, 305 Pa. 385— Wright v.
City of Scranton, 194 A. 10, 128 Pa,
Super. 185 — Brown v. George B.
Newton Coal Co., Com.PL, 28 Del.
Co. 23.
19. Ky.— Hack v. Lashley, 245 S.W.
851, 197 Ky. 117.
OkL— Montie Oil Co. v. Nichols, 224
P. 542, 98 OkL 75.
33 C.J. p 1183 note 40.
20. Ky.— Hack v. Lashley, 245 S.W.
851, 197 Ky. 117.
21. Iowa. — Birmingham Sav. Bank
of Birmingham v. Keller, 215 N.W.
649, 205 Iowa 271, opinion correct-
ed on other grounds on rehearing
217 N.W. 874, 206 Iowa 271,
Kan. — Thogmartin v. Koppel, 65 P.
2d 571, 145 Kan. 347.
Neo. — Lebron Electrical Works v.
Pizinger, 270 N.W. 683, 132 Neb.
164.
Pa.— Ogden v. Belfield, 82 Pa.Super.
534.
33 C.J. p 1183 note 41.
22. Iowa. — Persia Sav. Bank v. Wil-
son, 243 N.W. 581, 214 Iowa 993.
23. Ky.— Roe v. Gentry's Ex'x, 162
S.W.2d 208, 290 Ky. 598.
24. Mich. — Powers v. Vaughan, 20
N.W.2d 196, 312 Mich. 297.
25. Iowa. — Cownie v. Kopf, 202 N.
W. 517, 199 Iowa 737.
Ohio.— Massachusetts Mut Life Ins.
Co. v. Hauk, 51 N.E.2d 30, 72
Ohio App. 131.
26. Tex. — HIghtower v. Pruitt, Civ.
App., 77 S.W.Sd 754, error dis-
missed.
27. N.D.— Coughlin v. -SEtna Life
Ins. Co., 194 N.W. 661, 49 N.D.
948.
Pa. — West v. Manatawny Mut. Fire
& Storm Ins. Co., 120 A. 763, 277
Pa. 102.
Tex. — Edmiston v. Texas & N. O. R.
Co., 138 S.W.2d 526, 135 Tex. 67—
Southland Life Ins. Co. v. Barrett,
176
Civ.App., 172 S.W.2d 997, error re-
fused— D-Bar Ranch v. Maxwell,
Civ.App., 170 S.W.2d 303, error
refused — Rudolph v. Smith, Civ.
App., 148 S.W.2d 225— McCaskill v.
Davis, Civ.App., 134 S.W.2d 738 —
Phlying- v. Security Ben. Ass'n,
Civ.App., 129 S.W.2d 358, error dis-
missed, judgment correct — Texas
Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. Bauer.
Civ.App., 128 S.W.2d 840, error dis-
missed, judgment correct — Valley
Dredging -Co. v. Sour Lake State
Bank, Civ.App., 120 S.W^d 875,
error dismissed — Buford v. Con-
nor, Civ.App., 118 S.W.2d 451—
James v. Texas Employers Ins.
Ass'n, Clv.App., -96 S.W.2d 425,
reversed on other grounds Texas
Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. James,
118 S.W.2d 29-3, 131 Tex. 60S—
Jordan v. City of Lubbock, Civ.
App., 88 S.W.2d 560, error dismiss-
ed— Amarillo Transfer & Storage
Co. v. De Shong, Civ.App., 82 S.W.
2d 381 — Coleman v. Hollo, Civ.
App., 50 S.W.2d 391, error dis-
missed.
33 C.J. p 1187 note 73.
28- Ky. — Hack v. Lashley, 245 Sj.
W. 851, 197 Ky. 117.
Party entitled see supra § 60 h.
29. Tex. — Seastrunk v. Walker, Civ.
App., 156 S.W.2d 996, error refused
—Citizens State Bank of Houston
V. Giles, Civ.App., 145 'S.W.2d 899,
error dismissed.
30. Ky.— Hack v. Lashley, 245 S.W.
851, 197 Ky. 117.
31. Cat — Goldenzwig v. Shaddock,.
88 P.2d 933, 31 Cal.App.2d 719.
Ohio. — Brooks v. Sentle, 68. NJB.2d
234, 74 Ohio App. 231.
33 C.J. p 1187 note 75.
In Texas
(1) The court is not authorized to
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
Alternative motion for new trial The motion
for judgment notwithstanding the verdict does not
take the place of a motion for a new trial,32 al-
though a party may make his motion in the al-
ternative, for judgment notwithstanding the verdict
or, in case that is denied, for a new trial.8* A mo-
tion asking for a judgment non obstante veredicto
and for a new trial cannot be granted in the same
case and between the same parties, since they are
mutually exclusive,8* such a motion will be treated
as though filed in the alternative.8^ The movant Is
entitled only to alternative relief,^ and the action
of the trial court in sustaining a motion for judg-
ment notwithstanding the verdict after granting a
new trial is erroneous,3? for, where the trial court
grants a new trial, the verdict ceases to exist and
a motion for judgment non obstante veredicto can-
§ 61
render a judgment notwithstanding
the verdict unless its Jurisdiction so
to do is invoked by motion. — Hen-
derson v. Soash, Civ.App., 157 "S.W
2d 161 — Great American Indemnity
Co. v. Dabney, Civ.App./ 128 S.W.2d
496, error dismissed, Judgment cor-
rect—Valley Dredging Co. v. Sour
Lake State Bank, Civ.App., 120 S
W.2d 875, error dismissed — Copeland
v. Brannan, Civ.App., 70 S.W.2d 660
(2) However, Judgment for plain-
tiff notwithstanding verdict for de-
fendants was held authorized, even in
absence of proper motion and no-
tice thereof, where defendants had
notice of motion, plaintiff sought
to exclude evidence of parol agree-
ment as contradicting defendants'
written guaranty contract, and Jury
found no fraud in execution and de-
livery of such contract — Frank L.
Smith Tire Store v. Firestone Tire
& Rubber Co., Civ.App., 68 $,W.2d
577, error refused.
82. Ala. — City of Birmingham v.
Andrews, 132 So. 877, 222 Ala.
862.
Motion for new trial following mo-
tion for Judgment non obstante
veredicto generally see the C.J.S.
title New Trial § 5, also 46 C.J.
P 66 notes 16-18.
83. Minn.— McManus v. Duluth, 179
N.W. 906, 147 Minn. 200.
33 C.J. p 1188 note 79.
34. Pa. — Manone v. Gulp, 39 A.2d
1, SSO Pa. 319 — Boushelle v. Bal-
timore & Ohio R. Co., Com.Pl.,
28 Del.Co. 160.
35. Pa,— Manone v. Culp, 39 A.2d
1, 350 Pa. 319.
33, Okl, — Spruce v. Chicago, R. I. &
P. Hy. Co., 281 P. 586, 139 Okl.
123.
37. Okl.-JSpruce v. Chicago, R. I. &
P. Ry. Co., supra.
38. Pa.— Cimino v. Laub, 43 A,2d
446, 157 Pa.Super. 371 — German v.
49 O. J.S.— 12
not be granted,85 Also, if there is no abuse of dis-
cretion in granting a new trial, it is not error to
refuse judgment non obstante veredicto.39 It has
been held, however, that where, following judgment
for plaintiff, defendants file a motion for judgment
notwithstanding the verdict, and also a motion for
a new trial, the trial court should pass on both mo-
tions.40
b. Time for Motion
A motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict
must be made within the time limited by statute, and
should generaiiy be made before entry of judgment on
the verdict.
A motion for judgment notwithstanding the ver-
dict must be made within the time specified by stat-
ute;41 if the motion is not filed within such time,
the verdict of the jury must stand.42 The motion
Riddell, 27 A.2d 680, 149 Pa,Super.
647*
39. Pa.— Athas v. Fort Pitt Brewing
Co., 157 A. 677, 305 Pa, 350— March
v. Philadelphia & West Chester
Traction Co., 132 A. 355, 285 Pa.
413 — Blassotti v. Greensboro Gas
Co., 96 iPa.Super. 162.
40. 111.— Dahlberg v. Chicago City
Bank & Trust Co., 33 N.B.2d 747,
310 IlLApp. 231— Bruro't v. Was-
son, 3-3 N.B.2d 740, 310 IlLApp.
264.
Pa.— Wolon v. Welsh, No. 2, 19 Pa,
Dist. & Co. 322.
41. 111.— Kauders v. Equitable Life
Assur. Soc. of U. S., 19 N.E.2d 630,
299 IlLApp. 152.
Iowa.— In re Larimer's Estate, 283
N.W. 430, 225 Iowa 1067— Miller
v. Southern Surety Co., 229 N.W.
909, 209 Iowa 1221.
*.— ' Pyle v. Finnessy, 118 A. 568,
275 Pa. 54.
Wash. — Hinz v. Crown Willamette
Paper Co., 27 iP.2d 576. 175 Wash.
J15.
Finality of judgment
(1) Under some statutes an action
is terminated when the time for an
appeal from the Judgment has ex-
pired, and the trial court has no au-
thority thereafter to entertain a
motion for judgment notwithstand-
ing the verdict over the objection
of the adverse party, unless the final
character has been suspended by
proceedings commenced within the
:ime allowed by law for appeal from
the judgment. — Bratberg v. Advance-
Rumely Thresher Co., 238 N.W. 552,
61 N.D. 452, 78 A.L.R. 1338— Cough-
in v. ^Btna Life Ins. Co., 194 N.W.
661, 49 N.IX 948.
(2) The. final character of a Judg-
ment is not suspended because a
motion for a directed verdict Is
made on the trial of the cause. —
Coughlin v. ^Btna Life Ins. Co.,
mpra.
177
Motion held timely as filed and
served within two days after verdict
within statutory requirement, where
alternative motion for judgment not-
withstanding, verdict or new trial
was filed the day following return of
verdict and on the same day a copy
of motion was mailed to opposing
counsel who had returned to his
home in another town, although op-
posing counsel did not accept serv-
ice of motion until third day after
verdict. — 'Mathers v. Stephens, 156
P.2d 227, 22 Washed 364.
Subsequent term
(1) In action for personal Inju-
ries in which actual and punitive
damages were sought, and Jury re-
turned verdict for punitive damages
only and motion for new trial was
marked "heard" by consent, court
was without jurisdiction to grant
motion for Judgment notwithstand-
ing verdict at subsequent term at
J which motion was made for first
time.— Burns v. Babb, 3 S.E.2d 247,
190 SvC. 508.
(2) Date of rendition of Judgment
being that of entry at term succeed-
ing trial term, motion for judgment
notwithstanding verdict was held
properly made at succeeding term. —
State v. Scott, 247 P. 699, 35 Wyo.
108.
Time for setting aside verdict
Where plaintiff's motion for Judg-
ment notwithstanding 'verdict which
found plaintiff guilty of negligence,
was urged on ground that as a mat-
ter of law plaintiff was not guilty
of negligence under evidence, the
motion was, in effect, one to set
aside verdict for insufficiency of
evidence and, therefore, under stat-
ute, it could not be granted by trial
court after expiration of statutory
time for setting aside verdict. — Vol-
land v. McGee, 294 N.W. 497, 236
Wis. 858, rehearing denied 295 N.
W. 635. 236 Wis. 358.
42. Wash. — Corbaley v. Pierce
$61
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
aay, of course, be made after verdict,43 and must
>e made before entry of judgment on the verdict,44
mless motion after entry of judgment on the ver-
lict is authorized by statute45 or a valid order of
:he trial court.46 The right to be heard on the mo-
ion is not barred, however, by reason of a judg-
nent having been inadvertently and prematurely
entered,47 the trial court being authorized to set
aside such judgment for the purpose of considering
the motion;48 and it may be assumed where the
motion was granted after judgment on the verdict
that the former judgment was vacated.49 The mo-
tion should be made before a motion for a new
trial.50 After the verdict has been set aside, a mo-
tion for judgment non obstante veredicto is too
late.«
c. Notice of Motion and Hearing Thereon
Unless; waived, reasonable and timely notice of the
motion and hearing thereon must be given the adverse
party, and the time for hearing must be set.
When required by mandatory statute, the adverse
party must be given reasonable52 and timely58 no-
tice of the motion and hearing thereon, and the
time for hearing must be set ;54 but such notice may
be waived by the parties by express agreement or
conduct expressing waiver or acquiescence.55 Fail-
ure to file a duly served notice of motion with the
clerk until after the hearing of the motion does not
affect the jurisdiction of the court to hear the mo-
County, 74 P.2d 993, 192 Wash.
688.
43. Ark.— Corpus Juris cited la Oil
Fields Corporation v. Cubage, 24
S.W.2d 328, 329, 180 Ark. 1018.
Mo.— Meffert v. Lawson, 287 S.W.
610, 315 Mo. 1091.
33 C.J. p 1187 note 76.
44. Ark.— Corpus Juris cited la Oil
Fields Corporation v. Cubage, 24
S.W.2d 328, 329, 180 Ark. 1018 —
Chaney v. Missouri Pac. R. Co.,
267 S.W. 564, 167 Ark. 172.
Cal. — Machado v. Weston, 14 P.2d
907, 126 CaLApp. 661 — Corpus Ju-
ris cited la Cushman v. Cliff
House, 250 P. 675, 576, 79 Cal.App.
572.
Fla. — Tolliver y. Loftin, 21 So.2d
359— Corpus Juris cited la Talley
v. McCain, 174 So. 841, 843, 128
Fla. 418 — Corpus Juris cited la Ed-
gar v. Bacon, 122 So. 107, 109, 97
Fla. 679, followed In Wright v.
Tatarian, 131 So. 13-3, 100 Fla.
1366.
Iowa. — Cownie v. Kopf, 202 N.W. 517,
199 Iowa 737.
Mo.— Meffert v. Lawson, 287 S.W.
610, 315 Mo. 1091— Brown & Bige-
low v. J. F. Laughestd & Co., App.,
118 S.W.2d 74.
N.D.— Lemke v. (Merchants Nat.
Bank & Trust Co., 262 N.W. 246,
66 N.D. 48— Corpus Juris cited la
Olson v. Ottertail Power Co., 256
N.W. 246, 247, 65 N.D. 4«, 95 A.
Li.R. 418.
Okl. — Peoples Electric Co-op, v.
Broughton, 127 P.2d 850, 191 Okl.
229.
S.D. — First Nat. Bank v. Thompson,
227 N.W. 81, 55 'S.D. 629.
Tex. — Corpus Juris cited la Rowan
v. Allen, Civ.App., 113 S.W.2d 322,
323, reversed on other grounds
. 134 S.W.2d 1022, 1*34 Tex 215—
Robbins v. Robbins, Civ.App., 125
S.W.2d 666.
S3 C.J. p 1187 note 77.
45. Cal.— Sales v. Stewart, 26 P.2d
44, 134 Cal.App. 661.
111.— Denny v. Goldblatt Bros., 18 N.
E.2d 555, 298 Ill.App. 325.
N.D. — Lemke v. Merchants Nat.
Bank & Trust Co., 262 N.W. 246,
66 N.D. 48.
48. Iowa. — Pomerantz v. Pennsyl-
vania-Dixie Cement Corporation,
237 N.W. 443, 212 Iowa 1007.
47. Ark. — Stanton v. Arkansas
Democrat Co., 106 S.W.2d 584, 194
Ark. 135.
Mich. — Powers v. Vaughan, 20 N.W.
2d 196, 312 Mich. 297— Forman
v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America,
16 N.W.2d 696, 310 Mich. 145.
48. Mich. — Powers v. Vaughan, 20
N.W.2d 196, 312 Mich. 297— For-
man v. (Prudential Ins. Co. of
America, 16 N.W.2d 696, 310 Mich.
145 — Strausser v. Sovereign Camp,
W. O. W., 278 N.W. 101, 283 Mich.
370 — Freedman v. Burton, 274 N.
W. 766, 281 Mich. 208.
Prior Judgment nullified
Where clerk entered judgment for
plaintiff on verdict and thereafter
the court, which had reserved de-
cision on motion for a directed ver-
dict, had a judgment entered for de-
fendant non obstante veredicto, the
judgment for defendant was a nul-
lification of that entered for plain-
tiff.— Stanaback v. McFadden, 196 N.
W. 5*26, 225 Mich, 452.
49. Ariz.— Watson v. Southern Pac.
Co., 1-52 P.2d 665.
5Q, 111.— Blair v. Modern Woodmen
of America, 271 Hl.App. 121.
3-3 C.J. p 1188 note 78.
51. Minn.— Hemstad v. Hall*, 66 N.
W. 366, 64 Minn. 136.
52. N.D. — Bratberg v. Advance-
Rumely Thresher Co., 238 N.W.
552, 61 N.D. 452, 78 A.L.R. 1338.
Tex.— Wheeler v. Wallace, Civ.App.,
167 S.W.2d 1043— Bright v. Wie-
land, Civ.App., 127 S.W.2d 372, er-
ror refused 128 S.W.2d 1137, 133
Tex. 323 — Copeland v. Lampton,
Civ.App., 125 'S.W.2d 1110— Kaiser
178
v. Newsom, Civ.App., 108 S.W.2d
755, error dismissed — Gentry v.
Central Motor Co., Civ.App., 100 S.
W.2d 215— Amarillo Transfer &
Storage Co. v. De Shong, Civ.App.,
82 S.W.2d 381.
What constitutes reasonable notice
Reasonatle notice of filing of mo-
tion for judgment non obstante vere-
dicto, required by statute, is not re-
stricted to service of notice by sher-
iff, constable, or other person com-
petent to testify, as provided else-
where in statute, although service
by such persons would be reasonable
as a matter of law; and, where copy
of motion for judgment non obstante
veredicto was transmitted by mail,
accepted by opposing parties who
agreed to the date for hearing, ap-
peared, and at no time questioned
the sufficiency of notice prior to
judgment, or that they should have
been served in writing by the sher-
iff, as provided by statute, and who
were fully prepared in time for the
hearing and did not claim to have
been injured, notice was reasonable
within contemplation of statute. —
Johnson v. Moody, Tex.Civ.App., 104
S.W.2d 583, error dismissed.
53. N.D. — Bratberg v. Advance-
Rumely Thresher Co., 238 N.W.
552, 61 N.D. 452, 78 A.L.R. 1338.
Tex.— D-Bar Ranch v. Maxwell, Civ.
App., 170 S.W.2d 303, error re-
fused.
Where motioa Is filed aad preseat-
ed oa same date without waiver of
notice by the adverse party, a mo-
tion for judgment notwithstanding
verdict should be overruled. — Rowan
v. Allen, Civ.App., 113 S.W.2d 322,
reversed on other grounds 134 S.W.
2d 1022, 134 Tex. 215.
54. Tex. — Kaiser v. Newsom, Civ.
App., 108 'S.W.2d 755, error dis-
missed.
55. Tex; — Johnson v. Moody, Civ.
App., 104 S.W.2d 583, error dis-
missed.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 61
tion where both parties were present by their coun-
sel and took part in the hearing without objec-
tion.56
d. Form and Requisites
A motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict
must sufficiently disclose Its nature and apprise the court
and the adverse party of the grounds therefor and state
the reason why it should be granted.
Although no special form of motion or notice is
required,57 the motion should be in writing58 and
must sufficiently disclose its nature59 and apprise
the court and the adverse party of the grounds
therefor and state the reason why the motion should
be granted.60 A motion to disregard special issue
jury findings should designate the findings which
the court is called on to disregard.61 A motion
which is too broad,62 or which fails to point out
clearly the alleged defect in the pleading, as re-
quired by statute,63 may properly be denied. A
motion filed by all defendants may be read in con-
nection with, and aided by, a motion filed by one
defendant where defendants are making a common
defense and both motions are presented to the court
at the same time.64 The motion may be amended
when authorized by the trial court in the exercise
of its discretion.65
e. Hearing and Determination of Motion
The court should rule on a motion for Judgment not-
withstanding the verdict with reasonable promptness,
and may, in its discretion, refuse to permit a continu-
ance thereof. Statutory requirements as to procedure
should be observed.
The court should rule on a motion for judgment
notwithstanding the verdict with reasonable prompt-
ness66 and before the expiration of the time for
appeal ;67 but it has been held that the trial court
does not lose jurisdiction to enter a judgment non
obstante veredicto by its failure to make a decision
on the motion until after the time limited by court
rule.68 The motion should be disposed of before
a motion for a new trial.69 It has been held that
the motion may not be heard in vacation, in the
absence of an agreement of the parties to that ef-
fect.70 Refusal to permit a continuance of the mo-
tion is within the discretion of the trial judge.71
When required by statute, the trial court should
have all the evidence taken on the trial duly certi-
fied and enter such judgment as should have been
entered on that evidence,72 but irregularity in fail-
ing to have such evidence certified before entry of
judgment has been held to be cured by subsequent
certification, reargument, reconsideration, and court
order affirming the original judgment.73 On plain-
56. Minn.— Wenell v. Shapiro, 260
N.W. 503, 194 Minn. 368.
57. Tex.— JSheppard v. City and
County of Dallas Levee Improve-
ment Dist., Civ.App., 112 S.W.2d
253— Parks v. Hines, Civ.App., 68
S.W.2d 364, affirmed Hines v.
Parks, 96 S.W.2d 970, 128 Tex.
289.
58- Tex. — Hines v. Parks, 96 S.W.2d
970, 128 Tex. 289 — Amarillo Trans-
fer & Storage Co. v. De 8hong,
Civ.App.f 82 «S.W.2d 381.
59. Tex.— Amarillo Transfer &
Storage Co. v. De Shong, Civ.App.,
82 «.W.2d 381.
60. Tex. — Aman v. Cox, Civ.App.»
164 S.W.2d 744— Amarillo Transfer
& Storage Co. v. De Bhong, Civ.
App., 82 S.W.2d 381— Parks v.
Hines, Civ.App., 68 S.W.2d 364, af-
firmed Hines v. Parks, 96 S.W.2d
970, 128 Tex. 289.
Motion held sufficient
IU.—Bicek v. Royall, 30 N.B.2d 747,
307 IlLApp. 504.
Tex. — Myers v. Crenshaw, 137 S.W.
2d 7, 134 Tex. 500 — Becker v. Lind-
sley, Civ.App., 154 S.W.2d 892, er-
ror refused— Walker T. Texas &
N. O. K. Co., Civ.App., 150 *S.W.2d
853, error dismissed, Judgment cor-
rect—Landers v. Overaker, Civ.
App., 141 S.W.2d 451, error dis-
missed, Judgment correct— Waiters
v. Southern,©. S. Co., Civ.App., 113
S.W.2d 320, error dismissed— Cosey
v. Supreme Camp of American
Woodmen, Civ.App., 103 S.W.2d
.1076, error dismissed.
Motion, held insufficient
Iowa. — Dailey v. Standard Oil Co.,
235 N.W. 756, 213 Iowa 244.
* Tex.— Hines v. Parks, 96 S.W.2d
970, 128 Tex. 289.
62. Minn.— Glencoe Bank v. Cain,
95 N.W. 308, 89 Minn. 473.
33 C.J. p 1188 note 84.
63. Iowa.— In re Larimer's Estate,
283 N.W. 430, "225 Iowa 1067 —
Cownie v. Kopf, 202 N.W. 517, 199
Iowa 737.
64. Tex.— Myers v. Crenshaw, 137
S.W.2d 7, 134 Tex 500.
65. Tex.— Johnson v. Moody, Civ.
App., 104 S.W.2d 583, error dis-
missed.
66. Iowa.— Nelson v. Conroy Sav.
Bank, 194 N.W. 204, 196 Iowa 391.
67. Iowa.— Nelson v. Conroy Sav.
Bank, supra.
68. Mich.— Hart v. Grand Trunk
Western R. Co., 270 N.W. 704, 278
Mich. 343.
Rule construed to accomplish pur-
pose of encouraging speedy ending
of litigation, instead of requiring re-
trial of long case, because of non-
compliance therewith, when result
must be same.— Culjen v. Voorhies,
205 N.W. 177, 23'2 Mich. 420.
Failure to make decision on mo-
tion. to direct verdict until after re-
179
quired time does not divest circuit
court of jurisdiction to order Judg-
ment non obstante. — Sliwinski v.
Gootstein, 208 N.W. 47, 234 Mich. 74.
Alternative motion held timely
Wash. — Lasher v. Wheeler, 87 P.2d
982, 198 Wash. 205.
69. 111.— Stein v. Chicago & G. T.
H. Co., 41 IlLApp. 38.
Ky.— Marshall v. Davis, 91 S.W. 714,
122 Ky. 413, 28 Ky.L. 1327.
33 C.J. p 1188 note 78.
70L Iowa. — Scribner v. Rutherford,
22 N.W. 670, 65 Iowa 551.
Effect of agreement
Where counsel for both parties, in
accordance with county court rule,
filed praecipes directing case to be
placed on argument list on particu-
lar date in vacation, and single
judge presiding at motion court
while other judges were on vacation
heard arguments on the rules for
Judgment non obstante veredicto
without objection by either counsel
defendant could not object that mo-
tion was not heard by court in bane.
— O'Hara v. City of Scranton, 19 A.
2d 114, 342 Pa, 137.
71. Mo. — Moller-Vandenboom Lum-
ber Co. v. Boudreau, 85 S.W.2d 141,
231 Mo.App. 1127.
72. Pa.— Balch v. Shick, 24 A.2d
548, 147 Pa.Super. 273.
73. pa.— Ellsworth v. Husband, 181
A. 90, 119 Pa.Super. 245.
§ 62
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
iffs motion for judgment non obstante veredicto,
t has been held that the court will not consider the
evidence and charges to the jury further than to
iscertain whether it appears clearly from the entire
:ase that the verdict was surely on an immaterial
plea.74 No motion to set aside the verdict is re-
quired before entry of judgment notwithstanding the
verdict ;75 and particularly it is not necessary to set
the verdict aside before rendering judgment contrary
thereto when the case is submitted on special is-
sues, since in such case the jury finds the facts
only, and does not find a verdict for either party.76
At common law the procedure was to enter the ver-
dict on the record, and then to enter the judgment
non obstante veredicto;77 but a motion for judg-
ment non obstante, although not specifically passed
on, is disposed of by entry of judgment on the ver-
dict78 or by granting a new trial.79 It has been
held that the trial court has jurisdiction to pre-
scribe conditions with reference to the granting or
refusal to grant the motion for judgment notwith-
standing the verdict.80 In an action based on neg-
ligence and breach of implied warranty, it has been
held that the court is not authorized to sustain de-
fendant's motion as to all negligence counts and
overrule it on the question of implied warranty.81
ILL POEM AND CONTENTS OP JUDGMENT, AND BELIEF AWARDED
§ 62. In General
a. Form and contents generally
b. Self-sufficiency
c. Language of judgment
a. Form and Contents Generally
Strict formality ordinarily Is not essential to the
validity of a judgment, and substantial compliance with
statutory requirements is sufficient.
The form of a judgment ordinarily is regulated
by the practice of the court in which the judgment
is rendered,82 and under the procedure of some
courts a duty rests on the successful litigant to see
that the judgment is i sufficient in form and sub-
stance.83
To constitute a judgment there must be an ex-
press adjudication to that effect,84 but, subject to
the requirements of statute or court rule or prac-
tice, no particular form is required in a court pro-
ceeding to render its order a judgment,8^ provided
the rights of the parties may be ascertained there-
from.86
Generally the sufficiency of a judgment rests in
its substance rather than in its form,87 and, al-
though an informal judgment may be open to criti-
cism,88 strict formality ordinarily is not essential to
the validity of a judgment, and, if the record entry
is sufficient in substance, mere irregularity or want
of technical form will not render it invalid.89 Even
74. Ala. — City of Birmingham v.
Andrews, 132 So. 877, 222 Ala.
362.
75. Tex. — James v. Texas Employ-
ers Ins, Ass'n, Civ.Afcp., 98 S.W.2d
425, reversed on other grounds
Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v.
James, 118 $.W.2d 293, 131 Tex.
605.
76. Tex. — Smith & Larson v. Tay-
lor, Civ.App., 249 S.W. S19.
77. U.'S. — -Newton v. Glenn, C.C.A.
Miss., 149 F.2d 879.
78. Mich.— Fidelity & Deposit Co. of
Maryland v. Verheyden, 220 N.W.
750, 243 Mich. 544.
Ohio.— Hard v. Harris, 24 Ohio Cir.
Ct. 714.
79. Ohio. — J. & P. Harig Co. v. City
of Cincinnati, 22 BT.E.2d 5*40. 61
Ohio App. 314.
BO- Wash. — Lasher v. Wheeler, 87
P.2d 982, .198 Wash. 205.
S:L 111.— Haut v. Kleene. 50 N.E.2d
855, 320 Ill.App. 273.
82. Ga. — Sullivan v. Douglas Gib-
bons, Inc., 2 <S.E.2d 89, 187 Ga. 764.
Form and contents of judgments in
federal courts see Federal Courts
S 144 a.
Form and sufficiency of judgment on
consent, offer or admission see in-
fra § 177.
Court has power to control the
form of judgments. — Kau v. Manko,
17 A.2d 4'22, -341 Ffc. 17.
"Irregular Judgment" is one ren-
dered contrary to the course and
practice of the court.— Mitchell v.
Mitchell, 190 S.E. 487, 211 N.C. 308.
83. Mo.— Davis v. Cook, 85 S.W.2d
17, 337 Mo. 33 — Commission Row
Club v. Lambert. App., 161 S.W.2d
732.
Application relating to contents of
judgment should be made on settle-
ment of judgment, and not on mo-
tion for separate order. — Brown v.
O'Neil, 209 N.Y.S. 221, 124 Misc. 486.
84. Tex. — Bartlett v. Buckner, Civ.
App., 295 S.W. 214.
85. 111.— Gould v. Klabunde, 68 N.
E.2d 258, 326 Ill.App. 643.
Ind.— 43hafer v. «Shafer, 37 N.B.2d 69,
219 Ind. 97. '
Utah. — Ellinwood v. Bennion, 276 P.
159, 73 Utah 663.
Date of judgment see infra § 81.
Description of property see infra
S 80.
180
Designation of amount of recovery
see infra §§ 76-79.
Designation of parties see infra §
75.
Signature see infra § 95.
Judgment should be simple sen-
tence of law on material ultimate
facts admitted by pleadings or found
by court. — Scott v. Superior Court
within and for Los Angeles County,
256 P. 603, 83 Cal.App. 25.
88. Cal.— Pista v. Resetar, 270 P.
453, 205 Cal. 197.
87. Cal.— Pista v. Resetar, 270 IP.
45-3, 205 CaL 197— Avakian v. Dus-
enberry, 58 P.2d 1306, 15 CaLApp,
2d 55.
Ind.— Chafer v. Shafer, 37 N.B.2d 69,
21 Ind. 97.
lowau— Whittier v, Whittier, 23 N.
W.2d 435.
88. 111.— People v. Miller, 144 I1L
App. 630.
89. U.'S.— U. S. Fidelity & Guaran-
ty Co. V. Sanitary Dist. of Rock-
ford, for Use of Rockford Lum-
ber & Fuel Co., C.OA.111., 63 F.2d
827.
Cal.— Pista v. Resetar. 270 P, 453,
205 Cal. 197.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 62
where the form of a judgment is prescribed by stat-
ute, a departure from it is not necessarily fatal to
the adjudication,^ a substantial compliance with
statutory provisions with respect to form being
sufficient.91
A record is sufficient as a judgment provided it
appears therefrom that it was intended as such,92
and corresponds with the statutory definition of a
judgment,93 and provided it appears therefrom that
it is a judicial determination or act94 of a designat-
ed court95 of a specified term,96 and if the time,
place, parties, matter in dispute, and the result are
clearly stated, or may be certainly ascertained there-
from.97 An entry lacking these essentials is a mere
nullity.9*
Adjudication of issues. To be sufficient as a
judgment, the entry must show that the issues be-
tween the parties have been adjudicated,99 and show
with certainty the matters determined.1
Determining provisions in advance. Before an
action is ready for judgment it is not proper to
bind the court by an order granted on special mo-
tion requiring it to enter particular provisions in
the judgment.2 By virtue of statute or rule of
<3a. — House v. Tennessee Chemical
Co., 125 S.E. 446, 159 Ga. 306.
33 C.J. p 1188 note 87, p 1191 note
7.
Caption,
The absence of, or any defect in,
the caption of a judgment does not
invalidate it.
Ala. — Taunton v. Dobbs, 199 So. 9,
240 Ala, 287.
Tenn. — Phillips v. Cottage Grove
Bank & Trust Co., 8 TeniuApp. 98.
Tex. — Whisenant v. Thompson Bros.
Hardware Co., Civ.App., 120 S.W.
2d 316.
Indorsement on back of Judgment
is not an essential part of the pro-
ceedings.— Whisenant v. Thompson
Bros. Hardware Co., supra.
Mistake in official designation of
Judgre rendering decree was an ir-
regularity not affecting its validity.
— House v. Tennessee Chemical Co.,
125 S.E. 446, 1-59 Ga. 300.
Clear meaning-
Mere clerical errors and omissions
in judgment are not fatal if, by ref-
erence to other parts of record,
meaning is clear.— -Smith v. Commis-
sioner of Internal Revenue, C.C.A.,
67 F.2d 167.
Motion
Mere irregularity in form may be
taken advantage of only by motion.
— Bennett v. Couchman, 48 Barb.,
N.T., 73.
30. Ga.— Lester v. Brown, 57 Ga.
79.
HI.— Olson v. WhifCen, 175 IlLApp.
182.
91. Ala.— State v. Hasty, 63 So. 559,
184 Ala. 121, 50 L.R.A.,N.S., 553,
Ann.Gas.l916B 703.
S.D.— In re Mulligan's Estate, 243 N.
W. 102, 60 S.D. 74.
33 C.J. p 1189 note 89.
32, Ind.— <Shafer v. Shafer, 37 NJE.
2d 6-9, 219 Ind. 97.
Iowa.— Whittier. v. Whittier, 23 N.
W.2d 435.
33 C.J. p 118-9 note 91.
Sufficiency and contents of entry of
judgment see infra $ 109.
98. Ind. — Shafer v. Shafer, 37 N.B.
2d 69, 219 Ind. 97.
Iowa.— Whittier v. Whittier, 23 N.
W.2d 435.
94. Ala.— Gandy v. Hagler, 16 So.2d
305, 245 Ala. 167.
Ind.-^Shafer v. Shafer, 37 N.R2d
69, 219 Ind. 97.
Ky. — Bell Grocery Co. v. Booth, 61
S.W.2d 879, 250 Ky. 21.
33 C.J. p 1189 note 92.
Necessity for rendition of judgment
see infra § 100.
Necessity for rendition by duly con-
stituted court see supra § 15.
Determination of rights of parties
Iowa.— Whittier v. Whittier, 23 N.
W.2d 435.
95. Ky. — Bell Grocery Co. v. Booth,
61 S.W.2d 879, 250 Ky. 21.
Wyo.— McDonald v. Mulkey, 210 iP.
940, 29 Wyo. 99.
33 C.J. p 1189 note 93.
96. Wyo.— McDonald v. Mulkey, su-
pra.
97. Ala.— Taunton v. Dobbs, 199 So.
9, 240 Ala, 287.
Ky.-— Bell Grocery Co. v. Booth, 61
S.W.2d 879, 250 Ky. 21.
33 C.J. P 1189 note 94.
Certainty in. judgments see infra §
72.
Deftnitiveness in judgments see su-
pra § 21.
Summary judicial statements of role
(1) If a writing claimed to be a
judgment corresponds with the stat-
utory definition of a judgment, if it
appears to have been intended by
some competent tribunal as the de-
termination of the rights of the par-
ties to an action, and if it shows in
intelligent language the relief grant-
ed, its claim to confidence will not
be lessened by want of technical
form, or by the absence of language
commonly deemed especially appro-
priate to formal judicial records,
Ind. — "Shafer v. Shafer, 37 NJB.2d 69,
21fr Ind. 97.
Iowa.— Whittier v. Whittier, 23 N.W.
2d 435.
(2) Other statements see 33 C.J.
p 1189 note 94.
Presumption as to place
A judgment which showed on its
face that it was rendered in a des-
181
ignated court and that it was ren-
dered, read, and signed in open
court was not void because it did
not state the place where court was
held or where judgment was signed,
since it would be presumed that the
court was held at the place fixed
therefor by law. — Smith v. Crescent
Chevrolet Co., La.App., 1 So.2d 421.
Excerpts from minutes need not
be inserted in judgment. — Gettys v.
Town of Marion, 10 S.E.2d 799, 218
N.C. 266.
Sufficiency for review purposes
Decree should be framed so as to
enable aggrieved party to prosecute,
without hindrance, review of ad-
verse provisions. — Ochoa v. McCush,
2 P,2d 357, 216 Cal. 426.
98. 111. — Fray v. National Fire Ins.
Co. of Hartford, 255 I11.APP. 209,
affirmed 173 N.E. 479, 341 111.
431.
TTyo.— State v. Scott, 2'47 P. 699, 35
Wyo. 108.
33 C.J. p 1190 note 95, p 1191 note 6.
Insufficient entries
(1) A notation on municipal court
record of case, "Motion for new trial
overruled. Judgment rendered as
per finding of" certain date, did not
constitute "judgment" of such court '
— Mesloh v. Home Furnace Co., Ohio
App., 44 N.B.2d 379.
(2) Judge's act in signing journal
entry without final determination of
parties' rights does not constitute
"judgment." — Abernathy v. Huston,
26 P.2d 939, 166'Okl. 184.
(3) Recital in clerk's minutes that
court rendered judgment for defend-
ants as per journal entry to be filed
and transcribed into record does not
constitute judgment. — News Dis-
patch Printing & Audit Co. v. Board
of Com'rs of Carter County, 270 P. 2,
132 Okl. 216.
99. Ark.— Melton v. St. Louis, 1 M.
& <S. R. Co., 139 S.W. 289, 99 Ark.
433.
33 C.J. p 1190 note 1.
1. Or. — Dray v. Crich, 3 Or. 298.
33 C.J. p 1191 note 2.
2. N.Y.— Bast River Sav. Inst v.
Bucki, 28 N.Y.S. 325, 77 Hun 329.
§ 62
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
court, however, an interlocutory judgment may
state the substance of the final judgment to which
the party will be entitled,3 the court not being con-
fined to the interlocutory judgment, or foreclosed
thereby, in directing final judgment.4
Inferior court judgments. A much smaller de-
gree of technicality and formality is required in
judgments of inferior courts than is exacted with
respect to the judgments of courts of record,5 and
judgments of such courts are scrutinized with less
severity.6
Order or memoranda for judgment. It must ap-
pear that that which is offered as the record of a
judgment is really such, and not an order for a
judgment or mere memoranda from which the
judgment is to be drawn.? The question whether
remarks made by the court at the conclusion of a
trial or hearing constitute a decision on the matter
before it, or a mere announcement or memorandum
of the decision which the court contemplates mak-
ing, depends on the intention of the court.8 Aft
oral statement of the court merely intended to ac-
quaint the parties of views intended to be embodied
in the judgment is not the pronouncement of a
judgment,9 and cannot affect the correctness or
validity of the judgment as rendered.10
b. Self-Sufficiency
A judgment should be complete in itself.
A judgment should be complete in itself11 and
contain within its four corners the mandate of the
court,12 without extraneous references,13 and leav-
ing open no matters of description or designation
out of which contention may arise as to the mean-
ing.14 It should not leave open any judicial ques-
tion to be determined by others,15 and must con-
tain sufficient facts to enable the clerk to issue an ex-
ecution thereon, by an inspection of its entry, with-
out reference to other entries.16 To be complete,
3. N.Y.— Hebblethwaite v. Flint, 82
N.YJS. 471, 8-8 App.Div. 163.
33 C.J. p 1193 note 34.
4. N.Y.— Hebblethwaite v. Flint, su-
pra.
5. 111.— Johnson v. Gillett, 52 HI.
358.
33 C.J. p 1190 note 96.
6. Idaho. — Cornell v. Mason, 26$
tP. 8, 46 Idaho 112.
7. Utah. — Ellinwood v. Bennion, 276
P. 159, 73 Utah 563.
33 C.J. p 1190 note 97.
Formal decree contemplated
Clerk's entry, "The court, being
fully advised, finds for plaintiff,"
was held not to be a final decree, in
view of subsequent proceedings
showing parties contemplated for-
mal decree. — Shaw v. Morrison, 260
P. 666, 145 Wash. 420.
8. Cal. — Wutchumna Water Co. v.
Superior Court in and for Tulare
County, 12 P.2d 1033, 215 Cal. 734.
R5snm6 of findings
Where court, after taking case
under advisement sent counsel a
statement containing a resume* of
court's findings informing counsel
what the findings and Judgment
would be, such statement was not
a copy of a judgment. — Sloan v.
Dunlap, Mo., 194 S.W.2d 32.
9. Mo.— Marsden v. Nipp, 30 &W.2d
77, 325 Mo. 822.
Direction to reporter
(1) Court's remark, in action to
remove county commissioner, order-
ing removal of defendant, and di-
recting reporter to let record so
show, together with statement that
verdict would include costs, was
held not to constitute Judgment of
removal on verdict, where verdict
had not been returned, but was
merely an indication of what it
would be.— State v.. Scott, 247 P. 699,
35 Wyo. 108.
(2) This is particularly true be-
cause it is not the reporter's duty
to record Judgments, and he has
neither custody nor control of offi-
cial court records in which Judg-
ments are recorded. — State v. Scott,
supra.
ID. Cal. — Gates v. Green, 90 P. 189,
151 Cal. 65.
Memorandum opinion which was
voluntary, not requested by either
party, and not made in pursuance of
statute, is no part of Judgment and
cannot be used to impeach its suffi-
ciency.— City of St. Louis v. Senter
Commission Co., 73 S.W.2d 389, 335
Mo. 489.
11. Ala.— Gandy v. Hagler, 16 So.2d
305, 2*45 Ala. 167— Jasper Land Co.
v. Biddlesperger, 140 So. 624, 25
Ala.App. 45.
Miss.— Berryhill v. Berryhill, 23 So.
2d 889— Todd v. Todd, Miss., 20
So.2d 827, 197 Miss. 819.
Wash.— Andreas v. Bates, 128 P.2d
300, 14 Wash.2d 322.
33 C.J. p 1190 note 98.
Any instructions court feels Jus-
tified in giving under the law and
facts should be set forth in the
Judgment — Andreas v. Bates, supra.
Validity of Judgment
(1) A Judgment depends for va-
lidity on its own terms and extrane-
ous documents may not be written
into it by inference or reference. —
Edwards v. Edwards, 157 P.2d 616,
113 Colo. 390.
(2) Imperfections of one Judg-
ment may not be corrected by ref-
erence to another. — Hopkins v. Dug-
182
gar, 87 So. 103, 204 Ala. 626—33 C.J.
p 1190 note 98.
12. Mass. — Carroll v. Hinchley, 56
N.E.2d 608, 316 Mass. 724.
13. Miss.— Berryhill v. Berryhill, 23
So.2d 889— Todd v. Todd, 20 So.2d
827, 197 Miss. 819.
Description of written instrument
Failure to describe written in-
strument referred to in Judgment,
renders Judgment nonenforceable
with respect to such instrument. —
In re Kauff man's Estate, 147 P.2d
11, 63 Cal.App.2d 655.
Memorandum decision
It is not good practice to attempt
by reference to incorporate into the
Judgment parts of a memorandum,
decision. — Andreas v. Bates, 128 P.
2d 300, 14 Wash.2d 322.
Reference to master's report
A decree enjoining defendant from
interfering with rights of plaintiffs-,
as lot owners to use plot on lake
as park, in so far as it purported,
to incorporate by reference a lengthy
master's report, was improper. — Car-
roll v. Hinchley, 56 N.E.2d 608, 316
Mass. 724.
14. Mass. — Carroll v. Hinchley, su-
pra.
Miss.— Berryhill v. Berryhill, 23 So.
2d 889— Todd v. Todd, 20 "So.2dl
827, 197 Miss. 819.
15. Miss.— Berryhill v. Berryhill, 23
So.'2d 889— Todd v. Todd, 20 So.2ff
827, 197 Miss. 819.
16. Tenn. — The Mollie Hamilton v.
Paschal, 9 Heisk. 203— Boyken v.
" State, 3 Yerg. 426.
33 C.J. p 1190 note 99.
Determination of rights
A Judgment should determine the*
respective rights of the parlies, so»
that the ministerial offlc*n can with.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 64
however, it has been held that the judgment need
only identify the parties and set forth the relief
granted,17 provided it also appears therefrom to
have been made by the court in whose records its
entry is written.18 It has also been held that ev-
ery judgment of a court of justice must either be
perfect in itself or capable of being made perfect
by reference to the pleadings or to the papers on file
in the case, or else to other pertinent entries on the
court docket.19
c. Language of Judgment
Apart from statute, no particular form of words is
necessary to constitute a Judgment, although the Eng-
lish language ordinarily Is required to be used.
Although it has been held that, as a matter of
practice, established precedents with respect to the
language of a judgment should be followed,20 apart
from statute no particular form of words is nec-
essary to constitute a judgment,21 provided the
words used are such as to indicate a final determi-
nation of the rights of the parties and the relief
granted or denied22 The word "recover" is not
essential to the existence of a judgment,28 but it is
the appropriate and approved w.ord to use.24 A
judgment for defendant may be sufficient although
it fails to provide that defendant go without day.25
The use of words in the past instead of the pres-
ent tense in entering a judgment is wholly imma-
terial.2?
By virtue of constitutional or statutory provi-
sions, judgments ordinarily are required to be ex-
pressed in the English language.27
In the Philippine Islands, judgments were re-
quired to be in Spanish.28
§ 63. What Law Governs
The form of a judgment is governed by the law of
the state in which It Is rendered.
The language and form of the record of a judg-
ment are regulated by the law of the state and the
practice of the court in which it is rendered.29
Hence a record which is good in the court where
rendered is sufficient in another court, although it
would have been insufficient had it been rendered
in the latter court.30 The operation and effect of
foreign judgments is discussed infra §§ 88&-906.
§ 64. Necessity of Writing
As a general rule a judgment must be reduced to
writing.
Although, as discussed infra § 102, a judgment is
rendered and exists as such when it is orally an-
nounced from the bench, and before it has been
reduced to writing and entered by the clerk, as a
general rule a judgment must be reduced to writ-
ing,31 and cannot exist merely in the memory of
the officers of the court.32 A statutory provision33
•certainty execute the judgment with-
out the necessity of determining
facts not stated therein.— Hendryx v.
W. L. Moody Cotton Co., Teac.Civ.
App., 257 S.W. 305.
17. Miss.— JSimpson v. Phillips, 141
So. 897, 164 Miss. 256.
18. Miss.— Simpson v. Phillips, su-
pra.
.19. Ala.— Burgin v. Sugg, 97 So.
216, 210 Ala. 142.
33 C.J. p 1190 note 98 [a] (2)-(5).
.20. Cal.— Hentig v. Johnson, 96 P.
390, 8 Cal.App. 221.
33 C.J. p 1192 note 19.
*Foxm of Judgment
(1) Judgment for plaintiffs. —
Pierce v. Wilson, 48 Ind. 298—33 C.
J. p 1192 note 17.
(2) Judgment for defendants. —
.Jones v. Hoppie, 9 Mo. 173 — 33 C.J. P
1192 note 18.
(3) Judgment for defendant on
demurrer. — Jasper Mercantile Co. v.
O'Rear, 20. So. 583, 112 Ala. 247—
33 C.J. p 1192 note 18 [c].
.21. Colo. — Scott v. Woodhams, 246
P. 1027, 79 Colo. 528, followed in
246 P. 1029, 70 Colo. 532.
:Ind.— City of La Porte v. Organ, 32
N.E. 342, 5- Ind. App. 369.
Howa.— Whittier v. Whittier, 23
2d 435.
Utah.— Ellinwood v. Bennion, 276 P.
159, 73 Utah 563.
33 C.J. p 1192 notes 20, 22.
Judgment on motion for dismissal
or nonsuit see Dismissal and Non-
suit § 72.
22. Cal. — Starr Piano Co. v. Hartin,
7 P.2d 383, 119 CaLApp. 642.
Utah. — Ellinwood v. Bennion, 276 (P.
159, 73 Utah 563.
"Ordered, adjudged and decreed"
(1) Use of the words "ordered, ad-
judged and decreed" will be suffi-
cient.— Hentig v. Johnson, 96 P. 390,
8 Cal.App. 221—33 C.J. p 1192 note 21.
(2) "Adjudged, ordered and de-
creed" must precede final action of
court in order to constitute judg-
ment by decree. — Sussman v. Suss-
man, 163 S.E. 69, 158 Va, 382.
23. Wis.— Potter v. Eaton, 26 Wis.
382.
33 C.J. P 1192 note 23.
24. Ind.— Needham v. Gillaspy, 49
Ind. 245— La Porte v. Organ, 32
N.E. 342, 5 Ind.App. 369.
25. Minn.— ^Btna Ins. Co. v. Swift,
12 Minn. 437.
33 C.J. p 1193 note 25.
26. Ala. — Tankersley v. Silburn, Mi-
nor p 185.
27. I/a.— Maxent v. Maxent, 1 La.
438.
183
Mo.-^State v. Cockrell, 217 S.W. 524,
2SO Mo. 269.
33 C.J. p 1193 note 30.
28. Philippine. — Gaspar v. Molina, 5
Philippine 197.
33 C.J. p 1193 note 31.
29. U.S. — Woodbridge & Turner En-
gineering Co. v. Ritter, C.C.Pa., 70
F. 677.
33 C.J. p 1191 note 9.
30. U.S. — Woodbridge & Turner En-
gineering Co. v. Ritter, supra.
111. — Schertz v. Chester First Nat.
Bank, 47 IlLApp. 124.
31. Ga. — Hutcheson v. Hutcheson,
30 S.B.2d 107, 197 Ga. 603— McRae
v. Smith, 137 S.E. 390, 164 Ga.
23.
Ohio. — Krasny v. Metropolitan Life
Ins. Co., 54 N.E.2d 952, 143 Ohio
St. 284.
Tenn. — Corpus Juris cited la Broad-
way Motor Co. v. CPublic Fire Ins.
Co., 12 Tenn.App. 278, 280.
33 C.J. p 1191 note 13.
Necessity of entry see infra § 107.
32. Iowa.— Balm v. Nunn, 19 N.W.
810, 63 Iowa 641.
33 C.J. p 1191 note 14.
33. Mo. — Young v. Young, 65 S.W.
1016, 165 Mo. 624, 88 Am.S.R. 440.
33 C.J. p 1192 note 16.
§ 65
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
or court rule84 that judgments must be in writing is
imperative, and a decision of the court, not reduced
to writing or entered on the minutes, is not effec-
tive as a judgment.
§ 65. One or More Judgments in Same Case
Except as otherwise permitted by statute or rule of
court, there can be only one final Judgment In any one
action.
In the absence of a statute to the contrary it is
a general rule that there can be only one final judg-
ment in any action35 at law,36 and that is the one
which, in effect, ends the suit and finally determines
the rights of the parties with relation to the matter
in controversy.37 The rule is followed no matter
how many counts the complaint contains,38 and
even though there be separate hearings on different
34. Ariz. — American Surety Co. of
New York v. Mosher, 64 P.2d 1025,
48 Ariz. 652— Chiricahua Ranches
Co. v. State, 39 P.2d 640, 44 Ariz.
559.
Jury and nonjnry cases
Ariz. — Chiricahua Ranches Co. v.
State, supra.
Sufficiency
Where written judgment was sign-
ed by trial judge and filed with clerk
on same day that judgment was ren-
dered by the court, rendition of
judgment end filing of formal writ-
ten judgment were "simultaneously"
performed within requirement of
court rule. — American Surety Co. of
New Tork v. Mosher, 64 P.2d 1025,
48 Ariz. 552.
35. Cal.— Nicholson v. Henderson,
153 P.2d 945, 25 Cal.2d 375 — Bake-
well v. Bakewell, 130 P.2d 975, 21
Cal.2d 224— Bank of America Nat
Trust & Savings Ass'n v. Superior
Court of Los Angeles County, 128
P.2d 357, 20 Cal.2d 697— De Tally
v. Kendall De Vally Operalogue
Co., 32 tP.2d.638, 220 Cal. 742— Mid-
dleton v. Finney, 6 P.2d 938, 214
Cal. 523, 78 A.L.R. 1104— Nolan
v. Smith, 70 P. 166, 187 Cal. 360 —
Stockton Combined Harvester &
Agricultural Works v. Glens Falls
Ins. Co., 33 P. 633, 98 Cal. 577—
Vallera v. Vallera, 148 P.2d 694, 64
Cal.App.2d 266— Potvin v. Pacific
Greyhound Lines, 20 P.2d 129, 180
Cal.App. 510.
Mass. — Beauvais v. Springfield Insti-
tute for Savings, 20 N.E.2d 957,
303 Mass. 136, 124 A.L.R. 611.
Mo. — Electrolytic Chlorine Co. v.
Wallace & Tieraan Co., 41 S.W.2d
1049, 328 Mo. 782, 78 A.L.R. 930 —
Barr v. Nafziger Baking Co., 41
S-W.2d 559, 328 Mo. 423— Neal v.
Curtis & Co. Mfg. Co., 41 S.W.2d
543, 328 Mo. 389 — State ex reL Cun-
ningham v. Hald, 40 S.W.2d 1048,
328 Mo. 20 8-— Hatton v. Sidman,
App., 169 £:W.2d 91— Ray v. Mis-
souri Christian College, App., 93
S.W.2d 1030 — Gay v. Kansas City
Public -Service Co., App., 77 S.W.2d
13.3— First Nat. Bank v. Dunbar,
72 S.W.2d 821, 230 Mo.App. 687
—City of St. Louis ex rel. and
to Use of Sears v. Clark, App., 35
S.W.2d 986— Springfield Gas &
Electric Co. v. Fraternity Bldg.
Co., App., 264 S.W. 420— A. M.
Legg Shoe Co. v. Brown Leather
Co., App., 249 S.W. 147.
Nev.— Nevada First Nat. Bank of
Tonopah v. Lamb, 271 P. 691, 51
Nev. 162.
N.T. — Donner v. White, 268 N.T.S.
56, 149 Misc. 709.
Okl.— Davis v. Baum, 133 P.2d 889,
192 Okl. 85— Methvin v. Methvin,
127 P.2d 186, 191 Okl. 177.
Or. — Durkheimer Inv. Co. v. Zell, 90
P.2d 213, 161 Or. 434.
Tex. — Comer v. Brown, Com.App.,
2S5 'S.W. "307 — Stolpher v. Bowen
Motor Coaches, Civ.App., 190 S.W.
2d 37-6 — Lubell v. Sutton, Civ. App.,
164 S.W.2d 41, error refused —
Stout v. Oliveira, Civ. App., 153 S.
W.2d 59 0, error refused — Alexander
v. Meredith, Civ.App., 154 S.W.2d
920, certified questions dismissed
152 S.W.2d 732, 137 Tex. 37— Booth
v. Amicable Life Ins. Co., Civ.
App., 143 S.W.2d 836, error dis-
missed, judgment correct — Kline
v. Power, Civ.App., 114 SJW.2d 617
— Leavens v. Smith, Civ.App., 104
S.W.2d 534— Dallas Coffee & Tea
Co. v. Williams, Civ.App., 45 S.W.
2d 724, error dismissed — Colburn
v. Ward, Civ.App., 40 S.W.2d 878,
error dismissed.
33 C.J. p 1127 note 35, p 1193 note 37.
Joint or several judgment see supra
• $ 36.
to Judgment
Where judgment disposed of plain-
tiff merely as individual, amendment
disposing of him both personally
and as trustee constituted part of
first judgment, and did not create
two separate judgments against
plaintiff. — Rachford v. Builders'
Lumber Co., Tex.Civ.App., 278 S.W.
225.
Piecemeal determination improper
(1) It is not presumed court will
dispose of case piecemeal, by succes-
sive final judgments. — Los Angeles
Auto Tractor Co.. v. Superior Court
within and for Los Angeles County,
271 P. 3ff3, 94 CaLApp. 433.
(2) To attempt to adjudicate the
•rights of one party by a single judg-
ment and those of the other by a
separate judgment, when the con-
troversy is between only two parties,
and concerns only a single piece of
property, is simply an attempt to
dispose of the case piecemeal, which
is not permissible. — Nicholson v.
184
Henderson, 153 P.2d 945, 25 Cal.2d
375.
Merger of prior orders
In proceeding to cancel naturali-
zation certificate, all prior orders
were merged into final decree which
superseded any inconsistent order
or provision thereof. — Sourino v. U.
S., C.C.A.Ga., 86 F.2d 309, certio-
rari denied 57 iS.Ct. 491, 300 U.S.
661, 81 L.Ed. 869.
Judgment held one Judgment
Cal. — Martin v. Board of Trustees of
Leland Stanford Jr. University, 99
P.2d 684, 37 Cal.App.2d 481.
B6sum6 of findings informing-
counsel what findings and judgment
would be is not a judgment which)
can be relied on in connection with
judgment subsequently pronounced
as violating the rule. — Sloan v. Dun-
lap, Mo., 194 S.W.2d 32.
36, Mass. — Noyes v. Bankers In-
demnity Ins. Co., 30 N.E.2d 867,.
307 Mass. 5-67.
N.T. — Chippewa Credit Corporation,
v. Strozewski, 19 N.T.S.2d 457,.
259 App.Div. 187— Kriser v. Rodg-
ers, 186 N.T.S. 316, 195 App.Div.
394.
37. Cal.— De Vally v. Kendall D*
Vally Operalogue Co., &2 P.2d 638,
220 Cal. 742— Nolan v. Smith, 70
P. 166, 137 Cal. 360— Stockton Com-
bined Harvester and Agricultural
Works v. Glens Falls Ins. Co., 8*
P. 633, 98 Cal. 577.
After judgment of nonsuit
Order granting defendant's mo-
tion for final judgment for plaintiffs-
failure to amend declaration within
time, entered before case wherein
plaintiff had been granted nonsuit
was reinstated, was held invalid as
Judgment on merits when case was.
not before court. — Keith v. Tazoo &-
M. V. R. Co., 145 So. 227, 164 Miss.
566.
Disposition by implication
Rule requiring only one "final
judgment" to be rendered in any
cause is met If parties and issues
are disposed of by necessary impli-
cation.— Pfeifer v. Johnson, Tex.
Civ.App., 70 S.W.2d 205.
Order noting notice of appeal was.
not a final judgment within rule. —
Morris v. Hall, Teac.Civ.App., 248 S.
W. 1100.
3& Cal.— Bank of America Nat.
Trust & Savings Ass'n v. Superior
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
65
issues89 or one trial and separate findings on the
different issues.40 The rule is particularly true
where one judgment is all that is necessary to dis-
pose of the entire controversy.41 It follows as a
necessary consequence of the general rule that,
when a final judgment has once been entered, no
second or different judgment may be rendered be-
tween the same parties and in the same suit, until
the first shall have been vacated and set aside or
reversed on appeal or error.** where for any rea-
son recovery of some amount is had by both par-
ties, it has been held that the different amounts
should be set off against each other and but one
judgment rendered for the balance.43 It has been
held, however, to be the better practice, where the
court has sustained a motion for a nonsuit and a
motion for a directed verdict on a counterclaim, to
Court of Los Angeles County, 128
P.2d 357, 20 Cal.2d 697.
39. Mo. — McCreary v. Bates, App.,
176 S.W.2d 298 — Springfield Gas &
Electric Co. v. Fraternity Bldg.
Co., App., 2-64 S.W. 429.
Judgment on first and second tri-
als together was held to constitute
final judgment — Compton v. Jen-
nings Lumber Co., Tex.Civ.App., 295
S.W. 308.
40. Mo.— Springfield Gtes & Electric
Co. v. Fraternity Bldg. Co., App.,
264 'S.W. 429.
41. Cal.— Nicholson v. Henderson,
153 P.2d 945, 25 Cal.2d 375.
Disposition of case as to all parties
by same or different judgments
see supra § 36.
42. Ala.— Boshell v. Boshell, 118 So.
553, 218 Ala. 350.
Oa.— Loughridge v. City of Dalton,
14'3 S.B. 393, 166 Ga. 323.
Idaho. — Home v. Beaton, 269 P. 89,
46 Idaho 541.
Ind. — Southern Colonization Co. v,
Sanford, 149 N.E. 655, S3 Ind.App.
626.
Kan.— Lervold v. Republic Mut. Fire
Ins. Co., 45 P.2d 839, 142 Kan. 43,
106 A.L.R. 673.
Uy. — Hammonds v. Luster's Adm'r,
82 -S.W.2d 500, 259 Ky. 383.
La.— Sentell v. Texas & !P. By. Co.,
App., 146 So. 353.
Mass. — Noyes v. Bankers (Indemnity
Ins. Co., 30 N.E.2d 8-67, 307 Mass
567.
Ho.— Irwin v. Burgan, 28 S.W.2d
1017, 325 Mo. 309— Mitchell v
Dabney, App., 71 S.W.2d 165
transferred, see 58 S.W.2d 731, 33'
Mo. 410.
N.M.— Shortle v. McCloskey, 46 P.2d
50, 39 N.-M. 273.
N.Y. — Empire Produce Co. v. Ring
232 N.Y.S. 82, 225 App.Div. 6-
Kriser v. Rodgers, 186 N.T.'S. 316
195 App.Div. 394.
N-.C.— Nash v. City of Monroe, 15
S.E. 384, 200 N.C. 759.
Or. — Oxman v. Baker County, 28
P. 799, 115 Or. 436.
Tex.— Bernstein v. Hibbs, Civ.App
20 S.W.2d 838, error dismissed.
33 C.J. p 1193 note 37.
Operation and effect of confiictin
judgments see infra § 445.
Reservation of power
(1) Reservation of power to enter
uture judgments was held error,
Lnce action must be concluded by
ingle judgment. — Schwasnick v.
landin, C.C.A.Vt., 65 F.2d 354.
(2) However, on equity principles,
where trustees in 1911 sought ju-
icial interpretation of will and an
uthorization to retain preferred
tock belonging to trust estate and
ourt granted such authority and
etained Jurisdiction of matter, sup-
lemental judgment in 1915 author-
zing exchange of preferred stock
or common stock of another corn-
any was held binding on answering
lefendants. — In re Ferguson's Will,
58 N.W. 295, 193 Minn. 235.
First judgment void
(1) The entry of a void judgment
has been held not to limit the ju-
risdiction of court to treat it as a
nullity and proceed to enter a sec-
ond judgment.— Parrish v. Ferriell,
186 S.W.2d 625, 299 Ky. 676— -33 C.
'. p 1193 note 37 [b].
(2) Before the second Judgment
can be considered valid it must ap-
pear that the first judgment was
void.— Mullins v. Thomas, 150 S.W.
2d 83, 136 Tex. 215.
(3) Delay in filing the first Judg-
ment until date on which second
judgment was filed was held not to
prevent the second Judgment from
being a nullity. — Mullins v. Thomas,
supra.
Additional judgment for costs can-
not be entered after original Judg-
ment dismissing complaint without
adjudication of costs. — Empire Pro-
duce Co. v. Ring, 232 N.T.S. 82, 225
App.Div. 6.
Legal and equitable relief
(1) Where Administratrix brought
action based on fraud which had
allegedly induced deceased stock-
holder to assign stock and a money
judgment was entered on an addi-
tional count for equitable relief lim-
ited to a single recovery, such pro-
cedure was improper since, under
the blended system of law and egui-
ty only one money Judgment was
necessary.— Denefield v. Blockdel
Realty Co., C.C.A.N.Y., 128 F.*d 85.
(2) Other cases involving legal
and equitable relief see 33 C.J. P
1193 note 37 [d].
Single adjudication of separate
and distinct sums does not create
185
separate and distinct Judgment as
to each sum.— C. T. C. Investment
Co. v. Daniel Boone Coal Corpora-
tion. D.C.Ky., 58 F.2d 305.
Provision for enforcement
(1) In proceeding supplemental to
execution, after entry of original de-
cree, court was authorized to enter
supplemental decree containing addi-
tional provisions for enforcing it —
Pappas v. Taylor, 244 P. 393, 138
Wash. 31.
(2) Provision for enforcement of
judgment generally see infra 8 82.
43. Tex. — General Motors Accept-
ance Corporation v. Bodenheim,
Civ.App., 37 S.W.2d 312.
33 C.J. p 1194 note 38.
Counterclaim
(1) Under some statutes a single
judgment should be rendered where
plaintiff prevails on case and defend-
ant on counterclaim. — State ex rel.
Duraflor Products Co. v. Pearcy, 29
S.W.2d 83, 325 Mo. 835.
(2) Under provisions of statutes
providing that, where a counterclaim
is established by "defendant" which
is less than plaintiff's demand, plain-
tiff must have judgment for residue
only, the word "defendant" means a
single defendant— Bandych v. Ross,
26 N.Y.S.2d 850.
Effect of cross action
(1) Cross action has been held not
an ancillary proceeding but an in-
dependent suit in which a final judg-
ment could be rendered without
awaiting a decision in the original
suit— Adam v. Saenger, Tex.Civ.
App., 101 «S.W.2d 1046, reversed on
other grounds 58 S.Ct 454, 303 U.
S. 59, 82 L.Ed. 649, rehearing denied
58 S.Ct 640, 303 U.S. 666, 82 L.Ed.
1113, mandate conformed to Tex.
Civ.App., 119 S.W.2d 687. certiorari
denied Saenger v. Adam, 59 B.Ct
!2, 307 U.S. 628, 83 L.Bd. 1511.
(2) It has also been held, howev-
er, that but one judgment should be
entered in an original and a cross
suit.
IOTOL— Union Mercantile Co. v.
Chandler, 57 N.W. 695, 90 Iowa
650.
N-.T.— Simpson v. McKay, 3 Thomps.
& C. 65.
33 C.J. p '1194 note SS [bj.
§ 65
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
enter the orders separately and not as a part of
the judgment for defendant.44
The general rule has been held to have applica-
tion only to parties to an action whose interests are
identical,45 and not to prevent the court from
granting judgment to plaintiff in an action and
postponing determination of claims between de-
fendants which do not affect the rights of plain-
tiff.46 The entry of an interlocutory decree fol-
lowed by the entry of a decree rendering the for-
mer final does not violate the rule.47
Statutes or rules of court in a number of juris-
dictions permit departure from the general rule,48
as, for example, statutes, discussed supra § 36, which
permit separate judgments to be entered as to dif-
ferent defendants. Under other statutes, where
only part of a claim is controverted, or where de-
fendant admits, or offers to allow judgment as to,
part of the claim, judgment may be entered for
such part, and subsequently another judgment may
be entered for the amount found due, if any, on fur-
ther litigation.4^ Where separate judgments are
properly rendered in the same action, the fact that
they are written on the same paper does not affect
their validity.50
§ 66. Several Causes Tried Together
Where several causes are tried as one action, sep-
arate Judgments in each may and should be entered.
Where several causes are tried and submitted to-
gether, it is not proper to render a general judg-
ment, but separate judgments should be entered in
the separate cases.51 In a penal action to recover on
several distinct offenses, judgment must be ren-
dered separately on each specific offense.52
§ 67. Nature and Extent of Relief
At common law equitable relief cannot be award-
ed in an action at law. It is otherwise in jurisdictions
in which law and equity are administered by the same
courts, such courts having a broad discretion in the
manner of granting relief and forming their decrees.
A court can render only such judgment in a case
as does not transcend the extent and character of
judgments which are applicable to the class of cas-
es to which the case under consideration belongs.58
However, the fact that relief of a particular sort
has not been given previously is not conclusive that
it should not be granted, although ordinarily it is
highly persuasive to such effect.54 The court can-
not by its judgment give one of the parties a right
which he did not otherwise have.55
As a general rule, specific or equitable relief can-
not be recovered in an action at law under the com-
mon law or where law and equity are administered
as separate systems of jurisprudence.56 The sole
remedy the court is competent to give is a judgment
for money damages as a recompense for the injury
suffered.57 On the other hand, in jurisdictions in
which the formal distinction between courts of law
and equity has been abolished by code or practice,
44. Colo. — Charles v. Sprott, 224 OP.
222, 75 Colo. 90.
45. Cal. — Howe v. Key System
Transit Co., 24-6 P. 39, 198 Cal. 525.
46. Cal.— Rowley v. Davis. 147 P.
958, 169 Cal. $78.
Relief between codefendants see su-
pra § 37.
47. Tex— Lubeli v. Sutton, Civ.
App., 164 S.W.2d 41, error refused.
48. HI. — Zimmerman v. Bankers
Life & Cas. Co., 58 N.E.2d 267,
324 Ill-App. 370— Kuleza v. Alli-
ance Printers & Publishers, 47 N.
E.2d 547, 318 IlLApp. 231-^Shaw
v. Courtney, 46 N.E.2d 170, 317
IlLApp. 422, affirmed 53 N.E.2d
432, 385 111. 559— National Builders
Bank of Chicago v. Simons, 31 N.
E.2d 269, 307 Ill.App. 552.
Legislature has power to author-
ize the rendition and entry of sepa-
rate judgments. — Beauvals v. Spring-
field Institute for Savings, 20 N.E.
2d 957, 303 Mass. 136, 124 A.L.R.
611.
49. 111. — Zimmerman v. Bankers
Life & Casualty Co., 58 N.B.2d 267,
324 Ill.App. 370.
Ky.— Weikel v. Alt, 27 S.W.2d 684,
234 Ky. 91 — O'Connor v. Hender-
son Bridge Co., 27 IS,W. 251, 985,
95 Ky. ess—Maxwell v. Dudley, 13
Bush 403.
33 C.J. p 1194 note 39.
Judgment on:
Admission in pleadings see infra
§ 185.
Offer see infra §§ 179-184.
50. La.— Lay v. Pugh, 119 So. 456,
9 La.App. 183.
51. Pa.— Fisher v. Biehl, 40 A.2d
912, 156 iPa.Super. 476.
33 C.J. p 1194 note 40.
Single or separate judgments on con-
solidation of actions see Actions
§ 113 a (5).
Joinder of causes under statute
The authority conferred by stat-
ute to Join several causes of action
in one action, as discussed in Ac-
tions §§ 77-98, has been held to
carry with it the authority to en-
ter separate judgments in such an
action.— Lewis v..Bricker, 209 N.W.
832, 235 Mich. 656.
Judgment on. general verdict
Entry of judgment on general
verdict in action based on several
causes of action and counterclaims
thereto is not error, although Jury
might, if proper instructions were
186
asked and allowed, have returned
separate verdicts.— McGrew Mach.
Co. v. One Spring Alarm Clock Co.,
245 N.W. '263, 124 Neb. 93.
52. N.J. — Bloodgood v. -Vandeveer.
3 N.J.Law 928.
53. Ariz.— Bell v. Bell, 39 P.2d 629,
44 Ariz. 520.
Neb. — Boring v. Dodd, 2-17 N.W. 580,
116 Neb. 366.
54. D.C. — Thomas v. Peyser, 118 F.
2d 369, 73 App.D.C. 155.
55. Pa. — Koenig v. Curran's Res-
taurant & Baking Co., 159 A. 553,
306 Pa. 345.
Action on contract
Rights of litigants in suit on con-
tract cannot be enlarged by court's
judgment order, or decree, which can
only adjudicate relations establish-
ed by parties as between themselves.
— Koenig v. Curran's Restaurant &
Baking Co., 159 A. 553, 306 Pa. 345.
56. N.J. — Knight v. Electric House-
hold Utilities Corporation, 30 A.2d
585, 133 N.J.Ea. 87, affirmed 36 A.
2d 201, 134 N.XEq. 542.
33 C.J. p 1055 note 57.
57. Va. — Orange & A. R. Co. v. Ful-
vey, 17 Gratt. 366, 58 Va. 366.
C.J. p 1056 note 57.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 67
and in which the same court administers law and
equity, a judgment may award such legal and eq-
uitable and specific relief as the case warrants.58
In such jurisdictions the court possesses a broad dis-
cretion in the manner of granting relief and form-
ing its decrees59 in order to adapt the relief tq the
circumstances of the particular case.60 It will ad-
minister such relief as the exigencies of the case
demand61 as of the close of the trial62 or entry of
the decree,63 provided a sufficient foundation for
the suit existed at the time when it was com-
menced.64 The court will endeavor to dispose
finally of the litigation so as to preclude further lit-
igation between the parties on the same subject mat-
ter.65
While plaintiff may be entitled to several or dif-
ferent' reliefs in one cause of action,66 double or
excessive relief may not be awarded.67 Ordina-
rily the court will not hand over property which is
58. Ky. — Black Motor Co. v. Hens-
ley, 98 S.W.2d 281, 1266 Ky. 110.
Okl.— Wetzel v. Evans, 147 P.2d 133,
194 Okl. 20 — Clark v. Armstrong &
Murphy, 72 flP.2d 362, 180 Okl. 514.
Joinder of legal and equitable caus-
es under code practice see Ac-
tions § 94.
59. 111. — Quitman v. Dowd, 23 N.E.
2d 207, 301 IlLApp. 403.
Ind. — Newman v. Newman, 48 N.E.2d
455, 221 Ind. 433.
Wash.— Hanley y. Most, 115 P.2d
933, 9 Washed 429.
Alternative relief ,
Where a contractor was entitled
to relief sought in its complaint
praying for a refund of taxes paid
on gasoline used in trucks not ca-
pable of being operated upon a pub-
lic highway, and prayer for relief
was in the alternative, it was for
the trial court to determine in what
form it should be accorded. — Mason-
Walsh-Atkinson-Kier Co. v. Case, 97
P.2d 165, 2 Wash.2d 33.
Decree pro forma
In granting or refusing pro forma
decree, court may grant or dismiss
petition as seems best— In re Henry
County Mut. Burial Ass'n, 77 S.W.
2d 124, 229 Mo.App. 300.
Declaration of rights
Where plaintiff sought, among oth-
er things, to have rights of parties
declared, and declaration of rights
appeared in findings, judgment was
not deficient for failure to disclose
such declaration of rights on its
face, since findings may be read in
connection with judgment— Am-
puero .v. Luce, 157 P.2d 899, 68 Cal.
AppJ2d 811.
$0. Pla. — Nichols v. Bodenheim, 146
So. 86, 659, 107 Fla. 25.
Ind. — Newman v. Newman, 48 N.B.
2d 455, 221 Ind. 432.
Minn.— Beliveau v. Beliveau, 14 N.
W.2d 360, 217 Minn. 235.
N.Y. — 'Shanik v. Empire Power Corp.,
58 N.Y.S.2d 17-6, affirmed 62 N.Y.S.
2d 760, 270 App.Div. 9-25.
Preservation of rights
Court may render decree saving
rights of parties not before it-
Charles A. Hill & Co. v. Belmont
Heights Baptist Church, 69 S.W.2d
61'2, 17 Tenn.App. 603.
61. Kan.— Prey v. Willey, 166 P.2d
659, 161 Kan. 196.
La. — 'Mayer Godchaux Co. v. Regan,
137 So. 547, 18 La.App. 579.
N.Y. — Bloomquist v. Farson, 118 2*.
B. 855, 222 KY. 375— Turner v.
Hygiene Waterproofing Co., 5 N.
Y.S.2d 689, 255 App.Div. 716, af-
firmed 23 N.E.2d 548, 281 N.Y.
731— In re Beall's Will, 54 N.Y.'S.
•2d 869, 184 Misc. 881— Chase Nat.
Bank of City of New York v. Ma-
nila Electric Co., 40 N.Y.S.Sd 385,
180 Misc. 483— Chemical Bank &
Trust Co. v. Adam Schumann As-
sociates, 268 N.Y.S: 674, 150 Misc.
2121.
Ohio.— State ex rel. Ohio Nat. Bank
of Columbus v. City of Parma, 6
N.E.2d 756, 132 Ohio St 220, 257.
Okl.— Doss Oil Royalty Co. v. Texas
Co., 137 P.2d 934, 192 Okl. 359.
Disposition of rights of parties
Decree or judgment disposes of
rights of parties as they presently
exist, and as they appear from evi-
dence in case. — (Ward v. Prospect
Manor Corporation, 206 N.W. 856, 188
Wis. 534, 46 A.L.R. 364.
Sanities must be balanced by the
court in determining whether equi-
table relief will be granted.— Folts
v. Globe Life Ins. Co., 223 N.W. 797,
117 Neb. 72S.
Interlocutory judgment
Judgment in action to establish ti-
tle to realty should have been in-
terlocutory, where issue tried was
whether defendant was liable to
account and evidence relating to
many items to determine amount of
recovery was lacking. — -Waters v.
Hall, 218 N.Y.S. 31, 218 App.Div.
149.
Relief must be granted or denied
according to the facts and equitable
considerations presented at the trial.
— Devon Knitwear Co. v. Levinson,
19 N.Y.'S.2d 102, 173 Misc. 779.
Money Judgment
A court exercising equitable pow-
ers has power to render a money
judgment when conditions forbid
the enforcement of the more direct
remedies Invoked in the equitable
process.— In re Rubin's Estate, 5 N.
Y.S.2d 129, 168 Misc. 81.
Court is not bound by narrow lim-
itations, but may afford relief jus-
187
tified by facts. — Dolin v. Sussman,
255 N.Y.S. 618, 143 Misc. 323.
62. X.Y.— Smith v. Bouton, 225 N.Y.
S. 164, -221 App.Div. 317 — City of
Glens Falls v. Standard Oil Co. of
New York, 215 N.Y.S. 354, 127
Misc. 104.
63. Mass. — Fashioncraft, Inc., v.
Halpern, 48 N.E.2d 1, 313 Mass.
385.
64. N.Y.— City of Glens Falls v.
Standard Oil Co. of New York,
215 N.Y.S. 354, 127 Misc. 104.
Time to which relief in equity re-
lates generally see Equity § 600.
65. Cal. — Sonnicksen v. Sonnicksen,
113 P.2d 495, 45 Cal.App.2d 46.
N.Y. — Shanik v. Empire Power Corp.,
58 N.Y.'S.2d 176, affirmed 62 N.Y.
S.2d 760, 270 App.Div. 925.
Wash.— Hanley v. Most, 115 P.2d
933, 9 Washed 429.
Adjudication in one judgment
All controversies of parties aris-
ing out of a particular transaction
may be adjudicated in one judgment.
— Mergenthaler v. Mergenthaler, 160
P.2d 121, 69 Cal.App.2d 525— Dobbins
v. Horsfall, 136 :P.2d 35, 58 CaLApp.
2d 23.
Decree determining case
Court properly rendered decree
determining case, tried as suit in
equity after defendants set up that
plaintiffs' deed to land, for posses-
sion of which action was originally
commenced, was in effect a mort-
gage, as there was nothing further
to try in law Action. — Colahan v.
Smyth, 81 P.2d 112, 159 Or. 569.
66. Utah. — Peay v. Gasav of Provo,
Inc., 39 P.2d 1041, 88 Utah 85.
67. Tex. — Jones v. Rainey, Civ.App.,
168 S.W.2d 507, error refused —
Wichita Falls Electric Co. v. Huey,
Civ.App., 246 S.W. 69i2.
Double relief iUTurtrated
In an action for damages for
breach of contract to furnish electric
lighting facilities and for manda-
mus to compel performance of such
contract, an award of damages bas-
ed on 'a continuing and indefinite
failure to perform and grant of
mandamus without taking it into
consideration in assessing damages,
was erroneous as giving double re-
lief.—Wichita Falls Electric Co. v.
Huey, supra.
§ 67
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
the subject of a suit to one of the parties to col-
lect and distribute among the interested parties.68
Unenforceable judgments. A court will not ren-
der a judgment which cannot be enforced by any
process known to law.69
Specification in judgment. The entry of a judg-
ment must show the nature of the relief granted70
or denied,71 its extent,72 and, as discussed infra §
75, the parties for and against whom it is rendered.
A general judgment for defendant is not objection-
able where there is no doubt that the judgment de-
nies the relief sought73 It is improper, however,
for the judgment to purport to grant relief as
prayed for in the petition where damages were also
prayed for but not granted.74
Prospective damages. A judgment in an action
for damages reciting that plaintiff had been dam-
aged in a specified amount is not objectionable as
providing for prospective damages.75
§ 68. — Amount of Recovery
The recovery of double damages Is not favored.
The recovery of double damages is not favored.76
The adding of interest to the amount of a verdict
for plaintiff has been held not to be error where
the court has reserved for itself the computation of
interest.77
Designation of the amount of the recovery is con-
sidered infra §§ 76-79.
§ 69. .. Personal Judgment in Proceedings
by Attachment or in Rem
A personal or general judgment cannot ad a gen-
oral rule be effectively rendered in a proceeding in remr
as by attachment, unless Jurisdiction of the person has
also been obtained by personal service or by an appear-
ance.
Although some statutes contemplate the rendi-
tion of a judgment, personal in form, even where
no jurisdiction has been obtained over defendant's
person,78 as a general rule, in a proceeding in rem
in which the court's jurisdiction is founded solely on
the presence of the particular thing involved in the
suit, as by attachment, no personal judgment can be
rendered against the owner or defendant beyond the
property involved.79 • It has been held, however,
that a personal or general judgment in such a case
is not absolutely void,80 but that it can have no ef-
fect further than to bind the property attached.81
Where jurisdiction acquired over person. Where
the court has acquired jurisdiction over defendant's
person by personal service or his voluntary appear-
ance it is usually proper to render a personal judg-
ment against him,82 even though the writ of at-
tachment issued in the case is bad.83 If the par-
ties are before the court, a decree in personam
68. Mass. — National Radiator Cor-
poration v. Parad, 8 N.E.-2d 794,
297 Mass. 314.
69, Cal. — Johnson v. Malloy, 16 P.
228, 74 Cal. 430.
Mont.— Allen v. Montana Refining
Co., 227 iP. 582, 71 Mont. 105.
704 Tex. — Fair v. Miller, Civ.App.,
69 'S.~W.2d 558, error dismissed.
Utah. — Ellinwood v. Bennion, 276 P.
159, 73 "Utah 563.
33 C.J. p 1191 note 8.
71. Utah. — Ellinwood
supra.
Bennion,
72. U.'S.— Smith v. Smith, Colo., 247
F. 461, 159 C.C.A. 515. .
33 C.J. p. 1191 note 4.
73. Mo. — Jones v. Reeves, App., 41
S.W.2d 605.
74. Tex.— Fair v. Miller, Civ.App.,
69 S.WJ2d 558, error dismissed.
75. Ohio. — Licht v. Woertz. 167 N.B.
614, 32 Ohio Afcp. 111.
76. Mass.— Lawrence v. O'Neill, 58
N.E.-2d 140, 317 Mass. 893.
Assessment of multiple' damages see
Damages § 195.
Statutory provisions for multiple
damages see Damages $ 128.
77. Colo.— Wood v. Hazelet, 237 P.
151, 77 Colo. 442.
78- Mich.— Hitchcock v. Hahn, 27 N.
W. 600, 60 Mich. 459.
6 C.J. p 484 note 89.
79. U.'S.— The Chickie, C.C.A.Pa.,
141 F.2d 80 — Gershowitz v. Lane
Cotton Mills, D.C.Tex.f 21 F.Supp.
579.
Ga.— Wilby v, McRae, 191 6.E. 662,
56 Ga.App. 140.
La. — Nottingham v. Hoss, 141 So.
391, 19 La.App. 643.
Okl. — Consolidated Flour Mills Co.
of Kansas v. Sayre Wholesale Gro-
cer Co., 56 P.2d 78-1, 176 Okl. 482.
Attachment or garnishment as basis
for judgment generally see supra
5 24.
Jurisdiction of the person as prereq-
uisite to Judgment in personam
generally see supra § 19.
Costs
Text rule applies to judgment for
costs.— The Chickie, CjC.A.'Pa., 141 F.
2d 80 — Gershowitz v. Lane Cotton
Mills, D.C.Tex, 121 F.'Supp. 579.
80. Me.-JParker v. Prescott, 29 A.
1007, 86 Me. 841.
6 C.J. p 484 note 90.
81. N.J.— Skratt v. Camera, ITS A,
366, 12 N.J.Misc. 826.
OkL — Consolidated Flour Mills Co.
188
of Kansas v. Sayre Wholesale Gro-
cer Co., 56 P.2d 781, 176 Okl. 482.
6 C.J. p 485 note 91.
Effect of judgment in main action of
attachment proceeding see Attach-
ment § 497 g.
"A judgment, though in the form
of a personal one, against the de-
fendant, has no effect beyond the
property attached. No suit can be
maintained on the judgment in any
court; nor can it be used as evi-
dence in any other proceeding not
affecting the property; nor can the
costs ... be collected out of
any other property." — Gershowitz v.
Lane Cotton Mills, D.C.Tex., 21 F.
Supp. 579, 580.
82. Miss. — Travellers' Ins. Co. v.
Inman, 128 So. 877, 157 Miss. 810
— Branham v. Drew Grocery Co.,
Ill So. 155, 145 Miss. 627.
6 C.J. p 485 note 92.
Process, notice, or appearance as
essential to valid judgment see
supra §§ 23-<26.
ITotice of attachment under stat-
ute confers jurisdiction to grant a
personal judgment. — Whitten v. Mc-
Millan, U28 S.E. 211, 34 Ga.App. 33—
Johnson v. Walter J. Wood Stove
Co., 64 S.R.287, 6 Ga.App. 65.
83. Pa.— Linahan v. Lawson, 43 Pa.
Co. 533.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 71
may be rendered and obedience thereto enforced
even though the res involved in the suit is beyond
the court's jurisdiction.84
§ 70. Affirmative Relief to Defendant
As discussed supra § 49, affirmative relief cannot
be awarded defendant in an action unless he has
filed an appropriate pleading seeking such relief.
Examine Pocket Parts for later cases.
§ 71. Recitals
a. In general
b. Jurisdictional recitals
c. Verdict and facts or findings
a. In General
A judgment does not reside tn Its recitals., and ordi-
narily need not recite on Its face matters which appear
from other parts of the Judgment roll.
Mere recitals are not indispensable parts of judg-
ments.85 The judgment or decree does not reside
in its recitals, but in the mandatory or decretal por-
tion thereof,86 which adjudicates and determines
the issues in the case and defines and settles the
rights and interests of the parties as far as they re-
late to the subject matter of the controversy.87
Matters which appear from other parts of the
judgment roll need not be recited in the judgment
itself.88 Hence, while as discussed supra §§ 47-
58, a judgment or decree must conform to the plead-
ings and findings in the case, if it does so conform
a statement to that effect in the decree itself is not
necessary,8^ nor need the judgment of a court of
record recite on its face that it was rendered after
due proof.90 The validity of the judgment is not
affected by recitals which precede the judgment.91
If reasons and rulings are required to be incor-
porated in the decree in the interest of clarity, they
should be concisely set out.92
b. Jurisdictional Recitals
Except as statute or court rule may otherwise pro-
vide, the Judgment of a court of general jurisdiction
need not, as a general rule, contain a recital of the
Jurisdictional facts.
Except as statute or court rule may otherwise
provide,98 the judgment of a court of general ju-
risdiction is not, as a general rule, required to con-
tain a recital of the Jurisdictional facts,9* and
failure of such a judgment in an ordinary action
at law to contain a recital of such facts does not
vitiate the judgment,95 nor does error in the recital
84. U.S.— Wallace v. Motor -Prod-
ucts Corporation, C.C.A.Mich., 25
F.2d 655, certiorari granted 49 -S.
Ct 21, 278 TJ.S. 589, 73 L.Ed. 522,
certiorari dismissed 49 S.Ct 417,
279 U:S. 859, 73 L.Ed. 999.
Decree does not operate on res
U.S.— Wallace v. Motor Products
Corporation, supra.
85. Cal. — Jacobs v. Norwich Union
^Fire Ins. Soc., 40 «P.2d 89-9, 4 Cal.
App.2d 1.
Mich. — Ombrello v. Duluth, 6. S. &
A. Ry. Co., 233 N.W. 357, 252
Mich. 396.
86. U.S. — McGhee v. Leitner, B.C.
Wis., 41 F.Supp. 674 — Eckerson v.
Tanney, D.C.N.Y., 235 F. 415, af-
firmed '243 F. 1007, 156 C.C.A. 663.
Iowa. — Creel v. Hammans, 5 N.W.2d
169, 232 Iowa 95.
Mich.— Corpus Juris quoted in. Om-
brello v. Duluth, S. S, & A. Ry.
Co., 233 N.W. 357, 359, 252 Mich,
396.
Mont.— Corpus Juris quoted to Con-
way v. Fabian, 89 P.2d 1022, 1028,
108 Mont. 287, certiorari denied
Fabian v. Conway, 60 S.Ct 94, 308
U.S. 578, 84 LuEd. 484— Blaser v.
Clinton Irr. Dist., 53 P.2d 1141,
100 Mont. 459 — Corpus Juris quot-
ed in Galiger v. McNulty, 260 P.
401, 80 Mont. 339.
Wis.— -In re Corse's Will, '217 N.W.
726, 195 Wis. 88.
Construction of judgment with re-
spect to recitals see infra 8 437.
87.. Iowa. — Creel v. Hammans, 5 N.
W.2d 169, 232 Iowa 95.
88. Idaho.— Corpus Juris cited in
Karlson v. National Park Lumber
Co., 269 P. 591, 46 Idaho 595.
33 C.J. p 1194 note 42.
Compliance with statute
A law or decretal judgment, based
on evidences of indebtedness speci-
fied in statute requiring person
bringing suit thereon to allege or
prove that such instruments have
been assessed for taxation, is nei-
ther void nor voidable merely be-
cause it does not recite that statute
has been complied with. — Crickmer
v. Thomas, 200 S.E. 353, 120 W.Va.
769— Newhart v. Pennybacker, 200
S.E. 350, 120 W.Va. 774, concurring
opinion 200 S.E. 754, 120 W.Va. 774.
Theory of damages
A statement in a judgment spec-
ifying what the damages awarded
thereby were for is improper. —
Brown v. Shyne, '206 N.T.S. 310, 1'23
Misc. 851.
89. Vt. — Ackerman v. Carpenter, 29
A.2d 922, 113 Vt. 77.
90- Ga.— Wade v. Hurst, 84 S.E. 65,
143 Ga. 26.
Miss.— Simpson v. (Phillips, 141 So.
897, 164 Miss. 256.
91. CaL— Potasz v. Potasz, 155 P.2d
895, 68 CaLApp.2d 20.
189
92. Mich. — Rhines v. Consumers'*
Power Co., 242 N.W. 898, '259 Mich.
236.
JVfaTrtTig opinion part of decree was
held improper. — Rhines v. Consum-
ers' Power Co., supra.
Errors in recitals held immaterial
Ga.— Barber v. Smith, 26 «S.E.2d 478.
69 Ga.App. 624.
Mont. — Blaser v. Clinton Irr. Dist.,
53 P.2d 1141, 100 Mont. 459.
N.C. — Richert v. James Supply Co.*
138 S.B. 345, 194 N.C. 11.
93. Ala. — De Jarnette v. Dreyfuss,.
51 So. 932, 166 Ala. 138.
33 C.J. p 1195 note 47.
94. • Ind. — Grantham Realty Corpo-
ration v. Bowers, 22 N.B.2d 832,
215 Ind. 672.
95. Wash. — 'In re Dingman, 188 P~
755, 110 Wash. 513.
33 C.J. p 1195 note 46.
Besort to record
(1) Where court had jurisdiction
of subject matter and potential ju-
risdiction of parties, and judgment
did not recite service of process,
entire record could be looked to, to
ascertain if actual jurisdiction had;
been acquired. — Johnson v. Cole,
Tex.Civ.App., 138 -S.W.2d 910, error
refused.
(2) On question of validity of the
judgment, recourse may be had to*
affidavits in judgment roll to deter-
mine whether showing made for or-
§ 71
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
of such facts have such effect.96 It has been held
that, where service of process on defendant was
constructive only, the judgment should recite facts
sufficient to show compliance with the statute.97
The necessity for a record showing of jurisdic-
tional facts in courts of inferior or limited juris-
diction is discussed in Courts § 105.
c. Verdict and Facts or Findings
As a general rule a judgment need not Incorporate
in its recitals the verdict or findings of fact on which
it is founded.
While a judgment ordinarily should refer to, and
state the result of, the verdict, decision, or report
which authorizes it,98 in accordance with any stat-
ute or rule of court," generally it is not necessary
to go further and incorporate in the recitals of the
judgment the verdict,1 or the findings,2 or the evi-
dentiary facts.3 It is sufficient if the facts essen-
tial to sustain the judgment are stated in the plead-
ings4 and ascertained by the judgment.5
Mere findings or conclusions of law have been
held to have .no place in a judgment ;6 and, even
where a statute requires findings and conclusions
to be made, the better practice is to include them
in a separate instrument7 A judgment and the
findings, however, may be incorporated in the same
instrument without affecting the validity of the
judgment8 where no separate findings or conclu-
sions are requested or filed.9
While under code practice a recital of the facts
in an equitable decree is usual and proper,10 only
the decretal part of the decree determines the rights
der of publication of summons was
sufficient to confer Jurisdiction on
court. — Bell v. McDermoth, 246 P.
805, 198 Cal. 594.
96. Mont. — Blaser v. Clinton Irr.
Dist., 53 P.2d 1141, 100 Mont. 459.
Tex. — Anderson v. Zorn, 131 ' S.W.
835, 62 Tex.Civ.App. 547.
97. 111.— Trevor v. Colgate, 54 N.E.
909, 181 111. 129.
33 C.J. p 1195 note 53.
38. Tex. — Corpus Juris cited in
Walker v. Taylor, Civ.App., 56 S.
W.2d 251, 252.
33 C.J. p 1195 note 55.
99. Tex. — Doornbos v. Looney, Civ.
App.f 159 S.W.2d 155, error re-
fused.
33 C.J. p 1195 note 54.
Sufficiency of compliance
(1) Substantial compliance with
the rules of civil procedure requir-
ing the judgment to recite carefully
the findings on which it is based
Tias been held sufficient. — Doornbos
v. Looney, supra.
(-2) It has also been held that the
fact that a judgment did not recite
the findings on which it was based
did not render judgment defective
where the matter was not called to
trial court's attention and trial court
was not requested to file findings of
fact or conclusions of law. — J. R.
Phillips Inv. Co. v. Road Dist. No. 1$
of Limestone County, Tex.Civ.App.,
172 S.W.2d 707, error refused.
1. Tex. — Christner v. Mayer, Civ.
App., 123 !S.W.2d 715, error dis-
missed, judgment correct.
33 C.J. p 1195 note 56.
It is not improper to copy a ver-
dict in the judgment. — Christner v.
Mayer, supra.
.12. Fla. — J. Schnarr & Co. v. Vir-
ginia-Carolina Chemical Corpora-
tion, 159 So. 39, 118 Fla. 258—
Bowery v. Babbit, 128 So. 801, 99
Fla. 1151.
111.— Pease v. Kendall, 63 N.B.2d 2,
391 111. 193 — Ritholz v. Andert, 33
N.E.2d 632, 309 Ill.App. 576.
Wyo. — State v. District Court of
Eighth Judicial Dist. within and
far Natrona County, 260 P. 174,
37 Wyo. 169.
33 C.J. p 1195 note 57.
However, it has also been held
that a judgment should specially re-
cite the facts on which it is predi-
cated.—De Santo v. De Nicola, 12-2
A. 708, 99 Conn. 717.
Judgment should contain, nothing
but a statement that the court has
made its findings of fact and con-
clusions of law and then decree the
relief to which the plaintiff is enti-
tled.— City Bank Farmers' Trust Co.
v. Cannon, 38 N.Y.S.2d 245, 1265 App.
Div. 86-3, affirmed 51 N.E.2d 674, 291
N.Y. 125, 157 AX.R. 1424, motion
denied 59 N.E.2d 445, 293 N.T. 858.
Where Jury trial waived
Fla. — J. -Schnarr & Co. v. Virginia-
Carolina Chemical Corporation, 159
So. 39, 118 Fla, 258.
3. in. — Chicago Title & Trust Co.
v. Ward, 163 N.B. 319, 832 111. 126.
Certificate of evidence
It is not necessary that there be
a certificate of evidence to support
decree. — Pease v. Kendall, 63 N.E.
2d 2, 391 111. 193.
4. Tex. — Cook v. Hancock, 20 Tex.
2.
33 C.J. p 1195 note 58.
5. 111. — Gromer v. Molby, 52 N.E.2d
772, 385 111. 283— Chicago Title &
Trust Co. v. Ward, 163 N.E. 319,
332 111. 126.
33 C.J. p 1195 note 58.
6. 111.— Lazarus v. Allied Finishing
Specialties Co., 45 N.E.2d 516, 316
IlLApp. 667.
Iowa. — Corpus Juris cited in Van
Alstine v. Hartnett, 231 N.W. 448,
449, 210 Iowa 999.
N.Y.— Bianchi v. Leon, 112 N.E. 724,
•218 N.Y. 647— Lehlgh Valley R.
190
Co. v. Canal Board, 97 N.E. 964,
204 N.T. 471, Ann.Cas.l913C 1228 —
City Bank Farmers Trust Co. v.
Cannon, 38 N.Y.S.2d 245, 265 App.
Div. 863, affirmed 51 N.E.2d '674,
291 N.Y. 125, 157 A.L..R. 1424, mo-
tion denied 59 N.E.2d 445, 293 N.
Y. 858 — CPeople v. Reinforced Pa-
per Bottle Corporation, 27 N.Y.S.
2d 14, 176 Misc. 268.
Findings which are not conclusive
between the parties should not be
contained in the judgment. — Minne-
apolis-Honeywell Regulator Co. v.
Thermoco, Inc., C.C.A.N.Y., 116 F.
2d 845.
Improper form
Judgment incorporating findings of
fact preceded by words, "it is order-
ed and decreed," was not in proper
form.— 'Seaside Home for Crippled
Children v. Atlantic Beach Associ-
ates, 150 N.E. 650, 341 N.Y. 550.
7. S.D. — in re Mulligan's Estate,
243 N.W. 102, 60 S.D. 74.
8. Iowa. — Corpus Juris cited in
Van Alstine v. Hartnett, 231 N.W.
448, 449, 210 Iowa 999.
33 C.J. p 1195 note 60.
Error with respect to recital of
facts does not vitiate judgment.
Iowa. — Woods v. Allen, 98 N.W. 499,
122 Iowa 695.
Mont.— Blaser v. Clinton Irr. Dist.,
53 P.2d 1141, 100 Mont. 459.
Not an adjudication
Finding of fact, although followed
by judgment, is not binding adju-
dication of court — In re Cohen's Es-
tate, 246 N.W. 780, 216 Iowa 649.
9. Tex. — Gillette v. Davis, Civ.App.,
15 S.W.2d 1085— Cunningham v.
Buel, Civ.App., 287 S.W. 683.
Error in finding
Tex.— Gillette v. Davis, Civ.App., 15
S.W.-2d 1085.
10. U.S. — McGhee v. Leitner, D.C
Wis., 41 F.Supp. 674.
49 C. J. S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 72
of the parties and constitutes the final judgment in
the case.11
§ 72. Certainty
A judgment must be definite and certain.
A judgment must be definite and certain12 in it-
self,13 or capable of being made so by proper con-
struction.14 It must fix clearly the rights and lia-
bilities of the respective parties to the cause,15 and
be such as defendant may readily understand and be
capable of performing,16 and such as to admit of
enforcement,17 to constitute an estoppel between
the parties,18 to enable the clerk to issue execution
11. U:S. — McGhee v. Leitner, supra.
Construction and operation of re-
citals in judgment see infra § 437.
12. U.S. — Wulfsohn v. Russo-Asia-
tic Bank, C.C.A.China, 11 F.2d 715.
Ark. — Brotherhood of Locomotive
Firemen and Enginemen v. Sim-
mons, 79 S.W.2d 419, 190 Ark.
480.
Idaho. — Vollmer v. Vollmer, <273 P. 1,
47 Idaho 135— Hand v. Twin Palls
County, 236 P. 536, 40 Idaho 638.
Ky. — Alexander v. Hendricks, 258 S.
W. 81, 201 Ky. 677.
La.— -Simon v. Hulse, 124 So. 845,
12 La.App. 450.
Miss. — Nicholas Bus & Trailer Co.
v. Fuller, 22 So.2d 243.
N.C.— Barham v. Perry, 171 S.B. 614,
205 N.C. 428.
Okl. — Moroney v. Tannehill, 215 P.
938, 90 Okl. 224.
Tex. — Thomas v. Mullins, Civ.App.,
127 S.W.2d 559, reversed on other
grounds Mullins v. Thomas, 150 S.
W.2d 83, 136 Tex. 215.
W.Va. — Barnhard v. Barnhard, 164
S.E. 874, 109 W.Ya. 375.
33 C.J. p 1195 note 62.
Certainty:
In description of property see in-
fra § SO.
In designation of:
Amount see infra §§ 76-79.
Parties see infra § 75.
Of decrees see Equity § 598.
Deflnitivenesa see supra § 21.
"At least reasonable legal cer-
tainty" is required. — Emery v. Suc-
cession of Martel, La.App., 10 So.2d
267, 269.
Judgments held invalid for uncer-
tainty
Ala. — Jasper Land Co. v. Biddlesper-
ger, 140 So. 624, 25 AUuApp. 45.
Tex. — City of Beaumont v. Calder
Place Corporation, Civ.Afcp., 180 S.
W.2d 189, reversed on other
grounds 183 8*W.2d 713, 143 Tex.
244 — Snowden v. Glaspy, Civ.App.,
127 S.W.2d 508.
33 C.J. p 1195 note 62 [c].
Judgments held not invalid for un-
certainty
(1) Generally.
U.S.— Mueller v. Mueller, C.C.A-Ark.,
124 F.2d 544, certiorari dismissed
62 S.Ct. 1288, 316 U.S. 649, 86 L.
Ed. 1732.
Ariz. — Peterson v. Overson, 79 P.2d
958, 52 Ariz. 203.
Cal.— Niles v. Louis H. Kapoport &
Sons, 128 P.2d 50. 53 Cal.App.2d
644— Scott v. Allen, 41 P.2d 371,
4 Cal.App.2d 621 — Straus v. Straus,
41 P.2d 218, 4 Cal.App.-2d 461, mod-
ified on other grounds and rehear-
ing denied 42 OP.2d 378, 4 CaLApp. -
2d 461— Williams v. Blue Bird
Laundry Co., 259 P. 484, 85 CaL
App. 388.
Colo. — Sherman v. Handle, 245 P.
717, 79 Colo. 243.
HI.— Little v. Chicago Nat. Life Ins.
Co., 7 N.E.2d 326, 289 Ill.App. 433.
Iowa. — Hansen v. Bowers, 223 X.W.
891, -208 Iowa 545.
Ky. — Trivette v. Consolidation Coal
Co., 177 S.W.2d 868, 296 Ky. 529
—Kirk v. Cassady, 288 'S.W. 1045,
217 Ky. 87.
Tex. — Grayson v. Johnson, Civ.App.,
181 S.W.2d 312— Reese v. Carey
Bros., Civ.App., 286 S.W. 307.
33 C.J. p 1195 note 62 [b].
(2) A judgment was not unintel-
ligible because it provided in sub-
stance that it should inure to heirs
and assigns of party obtaining it.
— Wilson v. Cone, Tex.Civ.App., 179
S.W.2d 784.
(3) Judgment directing escrow
holder to deliver on payment of bal-
ance due under contract was held
not inconsistent or subject to charge
of favoring both parties. — Reid v.
Van Winkle, 252 P. 189, 31 Ariz. 267.
ia Ala.— Gandy v. Hagler, 16 So.2d
305, 245 Ala. 167— Jasper Land Co.
v. Riddlesperger, 140 So. 624, 25
Ala.App. 45.
Ga. — Hutcheson v. Hutcheson, 30 S.
E.2d 107, 197 Ga. 603.
Tex. — Burrage v. Hunt Production
Co., Civ.App., 114 S.Ttf.2d 1228, er-
ror dismissed.
33 C.J. p 1195 note 62 [a] (1).
14, Ga.— Hutcheson v. Hutcheson,
supra.
33 C.J. p 1195 note 62.
15. Mass. — Johnson's Case, 136 N.E.
563, 242 Mass. 489.
Okl. — Moroney v. Tannehill, 215 P.
938, 90 Okl. 224.
Pa.— In re Rockett's Estate, 35 A.2d
303, 348 (Pa. 445.
Tex.— Steed v. State, 183 S.W.Sd
458, 143 Tex. 82.
33 C.J. p 1195 note 62.
Discretion of parties
The enforcement of a judgment
should never be left to the discre-
tion of the parties to whom it is
addressed, or of the law officer
charged with its execution.
Idaho. — People v. Cothern, 210 P-
1000, 36 Idaho 340.
191
La. — Emery v. Succession of lUGartel,.
App., 10 So.2d 267.
Judgment held sufficiently certain,
Cal. — Bacigalupi v. Western Machin-
ery Co., 26 P/2d 701, 135 CaLApp.
242.
Public interest requires that ad-
judications of the courts shall so
completely and precisely compose
the controversy at hand as to dispel
and allay misunderstanding, discour-
age litigation, and invite repose. —
Cundy v. Weber, 300 N.W. 17, 68 S.
D. 214.
Toe rights of parties under man-
datory judgment, whereby they may
be subjected to punishment as con-
temnors for violation of its provi-
sions, should not rest on Implica-
tion or conjecture, but language de-
claring such rights or imposing bur-
dens should be clear, and unequivo-
cal.— Plummer v. Superior Court of
City and County of San Francisco,
124 P.2d 5, 20 Cai.2d 158.
Mo.— Stith v. J. J. Newberry
Co., 79 S.W.2d 447, 336 Mo. 467.
Tex. — Wilson v. Cone, Civ. App., 179-
S.W.2d 784.
33 C.J. p 1195 note 62.
17. Cal.— Morris v. George, 135 P-
2d 195, 57 Cal.App.2d 665 — In re-
McDonald's Estate, 99 P.-2d 1115,
37 CaLApp.2d 521.
y. — Alexander v. Hendricks, 258 S..
W. 81, 201 Ky. 677.
Mass. — Johnson's Case, 136 N.E. 563,
242 Mass. 489.
Mo. — Bishop v. Bishop, App., 151 <S.
W.2d 553.
N.C.— State v. Wilson, 4 S.E.2d 440,
216 N.B. 130 — Barham v. Perry,
171 S.E. 614, 205 N.C. 428.
Tex. — City of Beaumont v. Calder
Place Corporation, Civ.App., 180
S.W.2d 189, reversed on other-
grounds 183 S.W.2d 713, 143 Tex.
244 — Johnson v. Stickney, Civ. App.,
152 S.W.2d 921 — Thomas v. Mul-
lins, Civ.App., 127 S.W.2d 559, re-
versed on other grounds Mullins.
v. Thomas, 150 S.W.2d 83, 136 Tex.
215 — Burrage v. Hunt Production
Co., Civ.App., 114 S.W:2d 1228, er-
ror dismissed — Guerra v. Contrer--
as, Civ.App., 52 S.W.Sd 295.
Utah. — Garrison v. Davis, 54 P.2d.
439, 88 Utah 358— Ellinwood v.
Bennion, 276 P. 159, 73 Utah 563*.
33 C.J. P 1195 note 62 [a] <2).
18. CaL — In re McDonald's Estate,.
99 P.2d 1115, 37 Cal.App.2d 52k.
33 C.J. p 1195 note 62 [a] <S).
§ 73
JUDGMENTS
49 C. J. S.
thereon,19 and to enable a law officer to levy ex-
ecution.20 Where the record entry is wholly un-
certain, repugnant, or contradictory, the judgment
is at least erroneous, and it may be void.21 An ob-
scure judgment entry may, however, be construed
with reference to the pleadings and record, and,
where on the whole record its sense can be clearly
ascertained, the judgment will be upheld.22
§ 73. Conditional Judgments
. As a general rule, a Judgment must not be condi-
tioned on any contingency; but, in a number of in-
stances, as where equitable relief Is awarded, condi-
tional Judgments have been sustained.
A conditional judgment is one whose enforceabil-
ity, or force, depends on the performance or non-
performance of certain acts to be done in the fu-
ture by one of the parties,23 as where a judgment
is given for plaintiff, to be stricken out if defend-
ant pays the amount named, or files a bond, within
a certain time.24
It is a general rule that judgment must not be
conditioned on any contingency,25 and it has been
19. Mo. — Bishop v. Bishop. App.,
151 S.W.2d 553.
S3 C.J. p 1195 note 62 [a] (4).
20. Moss. — Johnson's Case. 136 N.
B. 563, 242 Mass. 489.
Mo.— Bishop v. Bishop, App., 151 S.
W.2d 553.
Tex.— steed v. State, 183 S.W.2d 458,
143 Tex. 82 — McCoznbs v. Red, Civ.
App., 86 -S.W.2d 648, error dis-
missed.
41. Cal. — Young v. Enfleld, 20 P.2d
701, 217 Cal. 662 — Morris v.
George, 185 P.2d 195, 57 Cal.App.
2d 665.
Idaho.— Hand v. Twin Falls Coun-
ty, -2-36 P. 536, 40 Idaho 638.
Ky.— -Alexander v. Hendricks, 258 S.
W. 81, 201 Ky. 677.
Xev. — State ex rel. Smith v. Sixth
Judicial Dist. Court, Humboldt
County, 167 P.2d 648.
N.C. — Barham v. Perry, 171 S.E. 614,
205 N.C. 428.
Pa. — In re Rockett's Estate, 35 A.
2d 303, 348 Pa, 445.
Tex. — Hatton v. Burgess, Civ.App.,
167 S.W.2d 260, error refused —
Burrage v. Hunt Production Co.,
Civ.App., 114 S.iW.2d 1228, error
dismissed — McCorabs v. Red, Civ.
App., 86 $.W.2d 648, error dis-
missed.
Utah.— Garrison v. Davis, 54 P.2d
439, 88 Utah 358,
33 C.J. p 1196 note 63.
22. Ala. — Floyd v. Jackson, 164 So.
121, 26 Ala. App. 575 — Peppers v.
Agee Mercantile Co., 149 So. 876,
25 Ala. App. 548.
Cal. — Vasiljevich v. Radanovich, 31
P.2d 802, 138 Cal.App. 97.
Ky. — Oglesby v. Prudential Ins. Co.
of America, 82 jS.W.2d 824, 259
Ky. 620 — Nunnelley v. Nunnelley,
54 S.W.2d 931, 246 Ky. 250 — Dod-
son v- Powell, 215 S.W. 82, 185 Ky.
387.
Tenn. — Corpus Juris quoted In. Flem-
ing v. Kemp, 178 S.W.fld 397, 399,
27 Tenn. App. 150.
Tex. — Banister v. Hades, Civ.App.,
282 S.W. 351— (Prince v. Frost-
Johnson Lumber Co., Civ.App.f 250
S.W. 785,
33 C.J. P 1196 note 64.
Construction of judgment with ref-
erence to pleadings see infra 5 438
Date of Judgment may be made
certain by recitation in order over-
ruling motion to set aside judgment.
— Eggleston v. Primrose Petroleum
Co., Tex.Civ.App., 47 S.W.2d 359, er-
ror dismissed.
Orders or papers considered
Only orders or papers in cause
that may be consulted to supply
omissions in final judgment to ren-
der it sufficiently certain are such
parts of record as were in existence
and formed part of it at time judg-
ment was rendered. — Decker v. Ty-
ree, 264 S.W. 726, 204 Ky. 302.
23. N.C.— Hagedorn v. Hagedom,
185 S.E. 768, 210 N.C. 164— Killian
v. Maiden Chair Co., 161 S.E. 546,
20*2 N.C. 23.
12 C.J. p 406 note 90.
Conditional decrees see Equity S 584.
Conditional judgment:
Against garnishee see Garnish-
ment S 255.
As affecting application of doc-
trine of res judicata see infra
§ 621.
In criminal cases see Criminal
Law § 1581.
Deftnltiveness see supra § 21.
Judgment nisi see supra §§ 5, 8.
Elimination, of condition
Where a judgment contains a con-
dition sure to. happen, or alterna-
tives, one or the other of which a
party is bound to elect, the happen-
ing or election making the Judg-
ment absolutely certain and definite
eliminates the condition. — Parish v.
McConkie, 35 P.2d 1001, 84 Utah
396.
Perfection or acquisition of title
Where enforceability or validity
of judgment is conditioned on plain-
tiff's perfecting or acquiring title to
property, judgment is conditional. —
Zintsmaster v. Werner, G.CLA.P&., 41
F.2d 634.
Judgments held not conditional
(1) Permitting company to with-
draw petition on understanding that
it would abandon claim to money in
hands of receiver was not erroneous
as conditional judgment. — Killian v.
Maiden Choir Co., 161 S.E. 546, 202
NVC. 23.
(2) Intimation of judge, in actioi.
192
for damages for diverting and pol-
iuting water, that he would reduce
or set aside verdict, if defendant
would agree to install sewerage dis-
posal plant, did not constitute judg-
ment, signed after announcement
that defendant could not accept
court's offer, conditional. — Cook v.
Town of Mebane, 131 S.E. 407, 191'
N.C. 1.
(3) Other Judgments. — Grayson v.
Johnson, Tex.Civ.App., 181 S.W.2d
31-2-H33 C.J. p 1196 note 65 [aj.
24. N.C. — Hagedorn v. Hagedorn,
185 S.E. 768, 210 N.C. 164— Kil-
lain v. Maiden Chair Co., 161 S.E.
546, 202 N.C. 23.
21 C.J. p 406 note 90 [a].
25. U.S. — Corpus Juris cited in
United States v. Bauman, D.C.
Or., 56 F.Supp. 109, 117.
Ariz. — Corpus Juris cited in Peter-
son v. Overson, 79 P.2d 958, 959,
52 Ariz. 203.
Ark. — Brotherhood, etc., v. Simmons,
79 S.W.2d 419, 190 Ark. 480.
Or. — Corpus Juris quoted in Bell v.
State Industrial Accident Commis-
. sion, 74 P.2d 65. 57, 157 Or. 653.
Tex. — Corpus Juris cited in Dodd v.
Daniel, Civ.App., 89 S.W.2d 494,
495.
33 C.J. p 1196 note 65—12 C.J. P 406
note 90 [a].
Pacts as of time of rendition con-
trolling
(1) Judgments take their validity
and binding force from court's ac-
tion, based on facts existing at time
of their rendition, not from what
may happen in the future. — Brother-
hood of Locomotive Firemen & En-
ginemen v. Simmons, 79 S."WY2d 419,
190 Ark. 480.
(2) It would be an anomaly for
the court to mould a Judgment so
as to make it- binding only to the
extent that some later judgment
or verdict might determine. — Jarec-
ky v. Arnold, 182 S.E. 66, 51 CteuApp.
954.
Interlocutory requirement of pay-
nxent
Judgments containing interlocu-
tory provisions, requiring payment
of money and maturing before main
decree can be reviewed, are not fa-
49 C. J. S.
JUDGMENTS
§74
held that a conditional judgment is wholly void.26
It has been said, however, that modern practice has
relaxed this rule,27 and in a number of cases con-
ditional judgments have been rendered and sus-
tained,28 especially when there is an equitable phase
of the action,29 or where equitable relief is award-
ed,30 or where it is necessary to protect the inter-
ests of defendant;31 and a court has been held em-
powered to direct an entry of a judgment "secured
by appeal" on such terms as it may deem fit.82
§ 74. Alternative Judgments
As a general rule a Judgment should not be In the
alternative, although under some circumstances, such as
in actions for the specific recovery of property, an al-
ternative Judgment may be proper.
An alternative judgment is a judgment, for one
thing or another, which does not specifically and in
a definitive manner determine the rights of the
parties,33 as where it requires one of the parties to
perform one or more alternative propositions.34 As
a general rule judgments cannot be in the alterna-
tive,35 and it has been held that an alternative judg-
ment is wholly void,36 especially where further ac- .
tion of the court is necessary.3? It has also been
said, however, that modern practice has relaxed
this rule,38 and it has been held that, if the judg-
vored, since they place the losing
party at -a great disadvantage. — Al-
amitos Land Co. v. Shell Oil Co., 17
P.2d 998, 217 Cal. 213— Ochoa v. Mc-
Cush, 2 P.2d 357, 216 Cal. 426.
26. Ariz. — Corpus Juris cited In Pe-
terson v. Overson, 79 P.2d 958, 959,
52 Ariz. 203.
N.C.— Hagedorn v. Hagedorn, 185 6.
B. 768, 210 N.C. 164— Killain v.
Maiden Chair Co., 161 S.B. 546, 202
N.C. 2i3.
Or. — Corpus Juris quoted in Bell v.
State Industrial Accident Commis-
sion, 74 P.2d 55, 57, 157 Or. 653.
Utah.— Parish v. McConkie, 35 P.2d
1001, 84 Utah 396.
33 C.J. p 1196 note 66.
Failure to object to a conditional
judgment must be taken as an ac-
quiescence to its form. — Walters v.
.Munore, 17 Md. 501—33 C.J. p 1197
note 69.
27. Ariz. — Peterson v. Overson, 79
P.2d 958, 52 Ariz. 203.
Statutory requirement as to form
Under a statute providing that
the judgment shall conform to the
pleadings, the nature of the case
proved, and * the verdict, and be so
framed as to give the party all the
relief to which he may be entitled
in law or equity, a judgment, al-
though conditional in form, is suf-
ficient, if it is of such a nature that
it may be determined therefrom de*l
nitely what rights and obligations
pertain to the respective parties. —
Peterson v. Overson, supra.
28. Cal.— Fageol Truck & Coach Co.
v. Pacific Indemnity Co., 117 P.2d
669, 18 Cal.2d 748 — Seegar v. Odell,
115 P.2d 977, 18 CaLSd 409, 136
A.L..R. 1291.
Mo.— Culver v. Smith, 82 Mo.App.
390.
Tex.— Rutt v. Cravens, Dargan &
•Co., Civ.App., 72 S,W.2d 312.
33 C.J. p 1197 note 70:,
Compliance with terms and condi-
tions see infra § 447.
Subjection to rights of third pen on
Judgment for defendant, subject
to rights of third person, not party
to action, who has attached funds in
49C.JJ5.— 13
plaintiffs hands, was not erroneous,
since plaintiff need not pay judgment
until such person's rights ere ad-
judicated.—Ward v. Blair, 21 S.W.
2d 123, 231 Ky. 96.
29. OkL— Powell v. C. L T. Corpo-
ration, 142 P.-2d 976, 19<3 Okl. 292.
Imposition of conditions in framing
decree see Equity § 602.
Inherent power
A court has been held to have in-
herent power to make proper orders
which are necessary to protect its
decrees, and under this power a
conditional judgment may be proper.
Mo. — Benton v. Alcazar Hotel Co-
194 S.W.2d 20.
N.J.— Luparelli v. U. S. Fire Ins.
Co., 188 A. 451, 117 N.J.Law 342,
affirmed 194 A. 185, 118 N.J.Law
565.
Protection against lost instrument
"Such is the character of the trial
court's action when an action of le-
gal cognizance is based upon a lost
instrument and the instrument lost
is of such a character as to require
indemnity to protect against it if
it should be found by, or otherwise
fall into the hands of, third parties."
— Powell v. C. I. T. Corporation, 142
P.2d 976, 977, 193 Okl. 292.
30. Cal.— Seegar v. Odell, 115 0?.2d
977, 18 Cal.2d 409, 136 A.L.R. 1291.
Pa—Clements v. Stoudt, Com.Pl., 26
North.Co. 315.
31. Cal.— Seeger v. Odell, 115 iP.-2d
977, 18 Cal.2d 409, 156 A.L.R 1291.
Double payment
Defendant may be protected
against danger of double payment by
proper conditions in judgment —
Dunlevy Packing Co. v. Juderman,
1 La.App. 476.
32. N.Y.— Bergen v. Stewart, 28
How.Pr. 6.
Compliance with terms and condi-
tions see infra § 447.
33. N.C*— Corpus Juris quoted In
State v. Wilson, 4 SJB.2d 440, 442,
216 N.C. 130.
33 C.J. P 1'197 note 71.
Alternative judgment:
In actions for exchange of prop-
193
erty see Exchange of Property
8 16 e.
In garnishment proceedings see
Garnishment § 246.
Definitiveness see supra § 21.
Imposition of alternative sentence
see Criminal Law § 1581.
Finding of court
Where the finding of the court is
alternative, the judgment necessari-
.y partakes of the same character. —
Battel v. Lowery, 46 Iowa 49.
34. N.C.— State v. Wilson, 4 SJL2d
440, -216 N.C. 130.
35. Ariz.— Corpus J"ari» cited in
Peterson v. Overson, 79 P.2d 958,
959, 52 Ariz. 203.
K.T.— Bandych v. Ross, 26 N.Y.S.2d
830.
N.C.— State v. Wilson, 4 S.B. 440, 216
N.C. 130.
Or. — Bell v. State Industrial Acci-
dent Commission, 74 P.2d 55, 157
Or. 653.
Utah. — Corpus Juris cited in Parish
v. McConkie, 35 P.2d 1001, 1003.
84 Utah 396.
33 C.J. p 1103 note 29 [b] (2), p
1197 note 71.
36. Or.— Corpus Juris quoted in
Bell v. State Industrial Accident
Commission, 74 P.2d 55, 57, 157 Or.
653.
33 C.J. p 11013 note 29 [b] (2), P
1196 note 66, p 1197 note 71 [a]
C2>.
37. Iowa.— Battel v. Iiowry, 46 Iowa
49.
Function of court
Where the selection of alternative
propositions involves a function
which may only be performed by the
court, it is incapable of enforce-
ment—«tate v. Wilson, 4 S.B.-2d 440,
216 N.C. 130.
38. Ariz. — Peterson v. Overson* 79
P.2d 958, 52 Ariz. 203.
Effect of statute
"Under a statute providing that
the judgment shall conform to the
pleadings, the nature of the case
proved, and the verdict, and be so
framed as to give the party all the
relief to which he may be entitled
75
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
ment is definite and certain, it may be in the al-
ternative,89 especially in actions for the specific re-
covery of property where the judgment may be for
the property or its value,4 0 such as in actions in
detinue, discussed in Detinue § 22 b (1), or in re-
plevin, as discussed in the C J.S. title Replevin §
251, also 54 CJ. p 596 note 66.
§ 75. Designation of Parties
a. In general
b. Plaintiffs
c. Defendants
d. Names and misnomers
a. In General
A Judgment must designate the parties for and
against whom it Is rendered; but it may be saved from
uncertainty in this respect by reference to the caption,
record, pleadings, or process.
A judgment must designate the parties for and
against whom it is rendered, or it will be void for
uncertainty;41 and it has been said that the name
of the person intended must appear by appellation
or cognomen on the face of the judgment.42 The
designation of the parties should be made with suf-
ficient certainty to enable the clerk to issue execu-
tion;43 this may be done either by naming them
correctly or by describing them in such terms as
will identify them with certainty.44
The parties need not be designated by name in the
judgment where the entry of judgment in connec-
tion with the record of the cause leaves no doubt as
to the parties for or against whom it was ren-
dered,45 or if from the entire judgment roll it can
be determined with sufficient certainty against
whose property execution should issue.46 Thus, as
discussed in subdivisions b and c of this section,
a judgment expressed to be merely for or against
"plaintiff" or "defendant" will be sufficient if the
names of the parties thus designated can be ascer-
tained without ambiguity from the record. Ref-
erence may be made to the caption, record, plead-
ings, and process, in aid of the judgment, so as to
eliminate uncertainty.47
The fact that a descriptive word or phrase is add-
ed to a party's name in a judgment neither affects
the validity of the judgment nor changes the legal
rights and relations which it engenders.48
in law or equity, a Judgment, al-
though alternative in form, is suffi-
cient, where rights and obligations
may be definitely determined there-
from.— Peterson v. Overson, supra.
39. Miss.— Nichols Bus & Trailer
Co. v. Fuller, 22 So.2d 243.
Tex. — Glenn Nichols Land Co. v.
Prince, Civ.App., 262 S.W. 633.
Choice of alternatives
(1) A judgment in the alternative
may give the right of option to
Judgment debtor to do e specified
act or suffer Judgment for a des-
ignated sum.
Utah.— OParish v. McConkie, 35 P.2d
1001, 84 Utah 396.
Wash.— «tate v. Smith, 167 P. 91, 98
Wash. 100, reheard 169 P. 468, 98
Wash. 100.
(2) Effect of election see infra $
447.
Necessity of election
Court may require defendant to
elect one of the alternatives if he
has not made his election within the
prescribed time. — Parish v. McCon-
kie, 35 P.2d 1001, 84 Utah 396.
Time of election
(1) Failure of judgment debtor to
exercise his option, within time fixed
in judgment, constitutes an election
to keep property and to submit to
judgment for its value. — State v.
Smith, 167 P. 91. 98 Wash. 100, re-
heard 169 P. 468, 98 Wash. 100.
(-2) Where the findings order a
judgment giving one party an al-
ternative, such party need not indi-
cate his choice of alternatives un-
til the judgment is entered.— Nation-
al Council K. L. S. v. Silver, 164 N.
W. 1015, 138 Minn. 330.
4<X Miss.— Corpus Juris cited i*
Nicholas Bus & Trailer Co. v. Ful-
ler, 22 So.2d 243, 244.
Wash.— -State v. Smith, 167 P. 91,
98 Wash. 100, reheard 169 P. 468,
98 Wash. 100.
83 C.J. p 1197 note 73.
41. Ariz.— tAckel v. Ackel, 110 P.
2d 238, 57 Ariz. 14, 133 A.L.R. 549,
rehearing denied 111 P.2d 628, 57
Ariz. 118, 13'3 A.L.R. 556— Brown
v. Brown, 300 iP. 1007, 38 Ariz.
459.
111. — City of Chicago v. Simon, 41
N.B.2d 556, 314 Ill.App. 404— Fray
v. National Fire Ins. Co. of Hart-
ford, 255 IlLApp; 209, affirmed 173
N.E. 479, 341 111. 4(31.
Pa.— Clineffi v. Rubash, 190 A. 543,
126 Pa.Super. 8-2.
33 C.J. p 1197 note 76.
Certainty generally see supra § 72.
Construction of judgment with re-
spect to parties see infra § 440.
Parties to judgments generally see
supra §5 27-38.
42. Cal. — Seaboard Surety Cdrpora-
tion of America v. Superior Court
in and for Los Angeles County,
296 P. 633, 112 CaLApp. 248.
Surety
Judgment in claim and delivery
against "the sureties on" undertak-
ing, without naming surety, was
not a "judgment" against surety. —
Seaboard Surety Corporation of
194
America v. Superior Court in and for
Los Angeles -County, supra.
43. Ala. — Turner v. Dupree, 19 Ala.
198.
3-3 C.J. p 1197 note 77.
44. La. — Frey v. Fitzpatrick-Crom-
well Co., 32 So. 437, 108 La. 125.
33 C.J. p 1197 note 78.
Clerical error in the title of a
case will not, however, render the
judgment invalid. — Ewing v. Hat-
field, 17 Ind. 513.
45. Tex. — Rosser v. Hale, Civ.App.,
255 S.W. 968.
33 C.J. p 1198 note 79.
46. Tex. — Bendy v. W. T. Carter &
Bro., Civ.App., 5 S.W.2d 579, af-
firmed, Com.App., 14 S.W.2d 813.
47. Fla. — Brandt v. Brandt, 189 So.
275, 138 Fla. -243.
111. — Goodman v. Tri-State Mut. Life
Ass'n, 48 N.B.'2d 214, 318 Ill.App.
388.
Ely. — Reed v. Runyan, 10 S.W.2d 824,
226 Ky. 261.
Tex. — Corpus Juris cited in Wood v.
Gulf Production Co., Civ.App., 100
S.W.2d 412, 416—Smith v. Switzer,
Civ.App., 270 S.W. 879.
3-3 C.J. p 1198 note 81.
43. Pa.— Wilson v. Vincent, 150 A.
642, 300 Pa. 321.
Wash. — German-American Mercan-
tile Bank v. Ripley, -214 P. 160,
124 Wash. 322.
33 C.J. p 1199 note 93.
Incorrect designation as officer
However, judgment in actior
against named person designated as
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§75
b. PlaSntiffs
Plaintiff must be designated in the Judgment with
sufficient certainty to permit identification. A judgment
for or against "plaintiff," when there are several plain-
tiffs, or reciting "plaintiffs" when there Is only one, is
not void if the persons Intended can otherwise be identi-
fied.
Plaintiff must be designated in the judgment
with sufficient certainty to permit of his identifica-
tion, or the judgment will be void.49 A judgment
expressed to be merely for or against "plaintiff' or
"plaintiffs" is sufficient if the names of the parties
thus designated can be ascertained without am-
biguity from the record.50 A judgment for or
against "plaintiff," when there are several plain-
tiffs in the case, or one which describes the parties
as "plaintiffs" when there is only one, will not be
void if the record shows clearly, and without doubt,
for and against whom the judgment was intended
to run.51 A judgment against "plaintiffs" is good
against all the plaintiffs against whom it could have
been properly rendered;52 but, where there are
two or more plaintiffs in the action, a judgment in-
tended to apply to fewer than all must specify
which one is, or which ones are, meant.53
A judgment in favor of the individual members
of a firm as plaintiffs is not voided by the fact
that the name of the firm is misstated therein.54
Likewise, a judgment for plaintiffs in an action by
a partnership is not void for failure to name the
partners, their names not being in the petition;55
nor does failure of a judgment on a claim bond to
designate whether claimant is a partnership or a
corporation render the judgment invalid.56
Representative capacity. Where the judgment is
for or against a plaintiff in a representative capac-
ity, that fact must be sufficiently indicated,57 and
judgment may properly be entered for or against
him in his representative capacity.58 If words add-
ed to plaintiffs name are merely descriptio per-
sonae, judgment may be entered for or against him
individually.59 In a suit by one plaintiff for the
use of another, a judgment for defendant is a judg-
ment against plaintiff of record only, and not
against the use-plaintiff;60 and a judgment in favor
of a nominal plaintiff for the use of the estate of a
named deceased will not be set aside on the ground
that it does not show for whom it was rendered.61
Judgment in the name of a public official, acting
for the use of the public, has been held not to be
void merely because he ceased to hold office prior
to the date on which judgment was rendered.62
Conformity of the judgment to the pleadings and
proof with respect to the personal or representative
capacity of the parties is discussed supra § 51.
c. Defendants
Mistakes or inaccuracies In designating the defend-
ants will generally be treated as mere irregularities,
not Invalidating the Judgment, where the persons In-
tended can be dearly ascertained from the record.
director general of railroads, and
who was neither director general
nor agent of president, was held
void.— U. S. ex rel. Rauch v. Davis,
8 F.2d 907, 56 App.3XC. 46, certio-
rari denied 46 S.Ct. 852, 270 U.S.
653, 70 L.Ed. 782.
49. Ala.— Patterson v. Mobile Cir.
Ct., 11 Ala. 740.
33 C.J. p 1197 note 76.
Ascertainment from record see su-
pra subdivision a of this section.
Error in entry of Judgment
The insertion of the names of
the parties in the entry of the final
judgment is unnecessary if there is
enough in it to connect it with the
other parts of the record in which
the names are entered, so as to make
the judgment a part of the record,
and hence, if the clerk in making
the entry errs in the name of plain-
tiff, it will be immaterial, and the
judgment will be good.— Grimball
v. Mississippi & A. R. Co., 11 Miss.
38.
Designation a* heirs, descendants, or
legatees
A judgment which describes the
parties plaintiff as the heirs, de-
scendants, or legatees of a person
named is not void for uncertainty,
although they are not named indi-
vidually, if the record in the case
shows who are meant; but other-
wise such a judgment is void for
uncertainty. — (Parsons v. Spencer, 85
Ky. 1305— 3-3 C.J. p 1199 notes 89, 90.
50. Tex.— Corpus Juris cited In
Wood v. Gulf Production Co., Civ.
App., 100 S.W.2d 412, 416.
33 C.J. p 1198 note 80.
51. HI.— Lurie. v. Brewer, 248 HL
App. 525.
Or. — Johnson v. Shasta View Lum-
ber & Box Co., 265 P. 438, 130 Or.
519.
Tex.— Still v. Barton, Civ.App., 76
8.W.2d 783, error dismissed.
33 C.J. p 1198 note 82.
52. CaL— Goland v. Peter Nolan &
Co., 60 P.2d 183, 15 CaLApp.2d
696.
53. ni.— Aultman v. Wirth, 45 Ht
App. 614.
54. Tex. — Bailey v. Crittenden, Civ.
App., 44 SJW. 404.
56. Tex. — Corder v. Steiner, Civ.
App., 54 S.W. 277.
56. Ala.— Keller v. Ray Motor Co.,
114 So. 422, 22 Ala.App. 252.
195
57. Wis.— Prichard v. Bixby. 37 N.
W. 228, 71 Wis. 422.
33 C.J. p 1199 note 91.
Several capacities
Where the evidence shows that
plaintiff is suing in several capaci-
ties, judgment in his favor, without
designating in which capacity he
recovered, is irregular but not void.
— Realty Trust Co. v. Koger, Tex.
Civ. App., 70 S.WJ2d 448, error re-
fused.
58. Conn.— Lamas & Nettleton Co.
v. Isacs, 127 A. 6, 101 Conn. 614.
Tex. — Miller v. Dunagan, Civ.App..
99 S.W.2d 494.
59. m.— Wells v. George W. Durst
Chevrolet Co., 173 MT.BL 92, 341
111. 108.
Tenn. — Lawhorn v. Wellford. 168 S.
W.2d 790. 179 Tenn. 625.
60. Ky.-r Herdon v, Bartlett, 7 T.B.
Mon. 449.
Md.— Boor v. Wilson, 48 Md. 305.
61. Tex.— Dowell v. Mills, 32 Tex.
440.
Nominal parties generally see supra
I 38.
62. CaL — Weadon v. Shahen, 123 P..
2d 88, 50 Cal.App.2d 254.
§ 75
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
It has been held not to be mandatory that a
judgment specifically name defendants,63 and fail-
tire to state their names has been held an irregular-
ity that may be removed by proof.64 Also, a judg-
ment expressed to be merely for or against "de-
fendant" or "defendants" is sufficient if the names
of the parties thus designated can be ascertained
without ambiguity from the record.65 The errone-
ous entering up of a judgment against one of sev-
eral defendants has been held a mere clerical mis-
prision,66 and a judgment for or against "defend-
ant," where there are several, or one reciting "de-
fendants," where there is only one, has been held
not to be void, if the record as a whole shows clear-
ly, and without doubt, for and against whom the
judgment is intended to be rendered;67 but in
other cases a judgment against "the defendant,"
where there are several, has been held to be bad as
to all for uncertainty.68 Where there are two or
more defendants, a judgment intended to apply to
fewer than all must specify which one is, or which
ones are, meant, and failure to do so will invali-
date it,69 except where the record shows which one
of the several is meant.70
A judgment against "defendants" will be pre-
sumed to be against all the defendants against whom
it could have been properly rendered,71 that is, it
will be limited to those defendants who have been
served with process,72 or who have appeared,78
63. La. — Glen Palls Indemnity Co.
v. Manning, App., 168 So. 787.
Adjudication against defendant not
mentioned
Where a judgment does not men-
tion one of several defendants, but
adjudges the subject matter of the
controversy to others, and such de-
fendant g?ets nothing, it is in effect
a judgment against him. — Whitmire
v. Powell, 125 S.W. 889, 103 Tex.
232.
Omitting' name of cesttii gue trust
Judgment for principal defendant
in suit to set aside deeds was not
invalid for omitting name of minor
defendant, for whom principal de-
fendant was trustee. — Bushman v.
Barlow, 15 SJWV2d 329, -321 Mo. 1052.
64. Tex.— Smith v. Switzer, Civ.
App., 270 S.W. 879.
65. Tex. — Corpus Juris cited in
Wood v. Gulf Production Co., Civ.
App., 100 S.W.2d 412, 416.
33 C.J. p 1198 note 80.
Designation as heir»f descendants, or
legatees
A judgment which describes de-
fendants as the heirs, descendants,
or legatees of a person Is not void
.for uncertainty, although they are
not named individually, if the rec-
ord in the case shows who are
meant but otherwise such a Judg-
ment is void for uncertainty.— Ste-
venson v. Flournoy, 13 S.W. 210,
89 Ky. 561, 11 Ky.L. 745— 38 C.J. P
1199 notes 89, 90.
66. Ala.— Russell v. Erwin, 41 Ala.
292.
33 C.J. p 1198 note 79 [a].
67. Mo. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Mehlstaub v. Michael, 287 8.W.
1079, 1083, 221 Mo.Ap'p. 807.
33 C.J. p 1198 note 82.
Beoital as to citation
Where judgment recited that "de-
fendant" was duly cited, but after-
ward plural was used in judgment,
recitation was sufficient to show that
both defendants were duly cited. —
Smith v. Switzer, Tex.Civ.App., 270
S.W. 879.
68. Idaho.— Holt v. Gridley, 63 P.
188, 7 Idaho 416.
33 C.J. p 1198 note 83.
69. Idaho. — Holt v. Gridley, supra.
111. — (People v. Jamison, 157 111. App.
546.
7<K N.J. — Nbrdstrom v. Payne, 91 A.
592, 86 N.J.L-aw 661.
33 C.J. p 1199 note 88.
71* Cal. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Minehan V. Silverla, 21 P.2d 617,
618, 131 Cal.App. 317,
33 C.J. p 1198 note 84.
196
or against whom the verdict was found.74 A judg-
ment entered against a named defendant "et al.,"
and based on a decision directing judgment against
the "defendant" without specifying which defend-
ant was intended, is fatally defective.75
A statement that judgment was rendered in favor
of plaintiff sufficiently shows that it was rendered
against the lone defendant,76 and, where there are
more than one defendant, such a judgment will be
presumed to be against all the defendants.77
Representative capacity. Where the judgment is
for or against a defendant in a representative ca-
pacity, that fact must be sufficiently indicated,78
Conformity of the judgment to the pleadings and
proof with respect to the personal or representa-
tive capacity of the parties is discussed supra § 51.
d. Names and Misnomers
A* a general rule each party to a Judgment should
be designated therein by his full Christian name and
surname. A Judgment may be vitiated by a misnomer
of the parties therein, which renders It uncertain.
As a general rule, each party to a judgment
should be designated therein by both his true
Christian name and surname in full.79 A misnomer
of the Christian name of a party may render the
judgment erroneous,80 but the use of an erroneous
Christian name may not be fatal where there is no
uncertainty as to the person intended.81 Likewise,
72. Old. — Hale v. Independent Pow-
der Co., 148 P. 715, 46 Okl. 1-35.
3$ C.J. p 1199 note 85.
73. Ky. — Rosenberg v. Dahl, 172 <S.
W. 118. 162 Ky. 92, Ann.Cas.l916€
1110.
33 C.J. p 1199 note 85.
74. Miss. — Lamar v. Williams, 39
Miss. 342.
33 C.J. p 1198 note 84, p 1199 note
86.
75. N.Y.— Mare v. Pinkard, 2-30 N.Y.
S. 765, 133 Misc. 83.
7& Mich.— Aldrich v. Maitland, 4
Mich. 205.
77. Tex. — International & Q. N. R.
Co. v. Dawson, Civ. App., 195 S.W.
1145.
78. Ga.— Wadley v. Oertel, 78 S.E.
' 91*2, 140 Gfcu >326.
Tex. — Clapp v. Walters, 2 Tex. 130.
33 C.J. p 1199 note 91.
79. Mo. — State v. Johnson, 239 S.
W. 844, 293 Mo. 302.
33 C.J. p 1200 note 99.
Misnomer of corporation see Corpo-
rations S 1341 a.
80. Ala. — Mosaic Templars of
America v. Flanagan, 115 So. 860,
22 Ala,App. S77.
81. HI.— Lewis v. West Side Trust
& Savings Bank of Chicago, 30 N.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§75
the omission of the Christian name of one of the
parties may render the judgment erroneous,82 but
such an omission is not necessarily fatal where no
uncertainty results therefrom.83
A judgment may be vitiated by a misnomer of
the parties therein,84 at least where the misnomer
renders it uncertain,86 unless the defect is waived,86
or cured by other parts of the record.87 A defend-
ant who is sued by a wrong name, but with due
service of process on him, who fails to plead the
misnomer, and who suffers a judgment to be taken
against him in such name, may be connected with
the judgment by proper ^averments and will be
bound by it.88
Assumed, fictitious, or' trade names. Since, as
discussed in the CJ.S. title Names § 9, also 45 CJ.
p 376 note 4, in the absence of a statute to the con-
trary a person has a. right to be known by any name
he chooses, a judgment for or against a person in
an assumed or trade name is valid.39 Where de-
fendant is equally well-known by two names, a
judgment against him in either name is valid.90
Since, as considered in the CJ.S, title Parties § 98,
also 47 CJ. p 175 note 93, a party may usually be
sued in a fictitious name if the correct name is un-
known, and if the complaint is amended by insert-
ing his true name when discovered, the judgment
following it will be valid.91
Judgments against married women describing
them by their husbands' initials or Christian names,
preceded by the designation Mrs., have been sus-
tained.92
Use of initials. Initials only in connection with
the surname may be insufficient ;98 but the use of
initials in lieu of the Christian name has been held
to render the judgment merely irregular, and not
void,94 and such designation may be sufficient where
the party, by habitually signing his name in that
E.2d 767, 307 IlLApp. 473, trans-
ferred, see 25 N.E.24 818. 873 HI.
245, and reversed on other grounds
36 N.E,2d 573, 377 111. 384.
Tex.— Whittinghill v. Oliver, Civ.
App., 38 S.W.2d 896, error dis-
missed.
33 C.J. p 1200 note 2.
Suing- defendant %y wrong name
or omitting his full name does not
render a subsequent Judgment void,
if defendant was served with proc-
ess, the mistake or omission being
matter of abatement only.-^State v.
Collier, 23 S.W.2d 897, 160 Tenn. 403.
82. >pa.-lGeorge v. McCutcheon, 8
Pa.Dist. 591.
83. Ind. — Meyer v. Wilson, 76 N.B.
748, 166 Ind. 651.
S3 C.J. p 1200 note 1.
34. N.Y.— Wilber v. Widner, 1
Wend. 55.
The misspelling of plaintiff's name
in a judgment by the clerk is not
fatal.— I. Droege & Sons Foundry Co.
v. Robert Fields Sales Agency, 104
S.W. 1007, 31 Ky.L. 1247.
VTonsuatole entity
Where a judgment is recovered in
the name of and only against a so-
called defendant, which is .a nonsu-
able entity, the judgment does not
only not operate against its general
manager, but is void.— May v. Clan-
ton, 95 So. 30, 208 Ala. 588.
85. Miss.— Delta Cotton Oil Co. v.
Planters' Oil Mill, 107 So. 764,
142 Miss. 591.
86. ill.— Edwards v. Warner, 111
IlLApp. 32.
87. Tex.— Jones v. S. G. Davis Mo-
tor Car Co., CivJ^pp^ 224 S.W. 701.
33 C.J. p 1200 note 17.
88. Ala,— Corptt* JurU tnoted J»
Naftel Dry Goods Co. v. Mitchell,
101 So. 653, 654, 212 Ala. 32.
Tex. — Corpus Juris cited in Mattocks
v. Iiloyd Oil Corporation of Texas,
Civ.App., 45 S.W.2d 440, error re-
fused—Wieser v. Thompson Gro-
cery Co., Civ.App., 8 S.W.2d 1100.
33 O.J. p 1200 note 18.
89. Ga.— Becker v. Truitt, 154 831.
262, 170 Ga. 757— Bslinger v.
Heradon, 124 S.E. 169. 158 Ga. 823,
dissenting opinion 124 S.E. 900,
158 Gte, 823— Executive Committee
of Baptist Convention v. Smith,
161 S.E. 143, 44 Ga.App. 184, af-
firmed 165 -S.E. 573. 175 Ga. 543.
Iowa. — Thompson v. Brownlee, 1 N.
W.2d 239, 2-31 Iowa 406.
Tex.— Hicks v. Glenn. Civ.App.f 155
S.W.2d 828.
33 C.J. p 1200 note 11.
Doing business in name of another
Suit in which petition denominat-
ed defendant as "J. H. Taylor, Bro-
ker, a business owned and operated
by B. E. Stinson," and in which cita-
tion was served on R. E. Stinson,
against whom Judgment was enter-
ed, was not a nullity, and R. E>
Stinson could not escape binding ef-
fect of Judgment because of such
appellation:— Stinson r. King, Tex.
CivJ^pp., &8 S.W.2d 898, error dis-
missed.
True owner
In order to secure a valid Judg-
ment against the true owner, when
trading under an assumed name, it
has been held that the pleadings
should aver the name of the true
owner, the proof should sustain the
allegation, and judgment should be
entered against defendant in his or
Its true name.— Leckie v. Seal, 170 S.
E. 844, 161 Va. 215.
90. Mich.— Field v. Plummer, .42 N.
W. 849, 75 Mich. 437.
197
N.Y.— Isaacs v. Mintz, 11
423.
91. Cal.— City and County of San
Francisco v. Burr, 36 P, 771, 4
CaLUnrep. 634.
33 C.J. p 1200 note 14.
Effect of appearance
A judgment was held valid, al-
though defendant was designated in
the summons 'by a fictitious first
name, his true first name being un-
known, where he was the person in-
tended and served, and he appeared
and answered. — In re Dehnert, D.C.
N.Y., 295 F. 763.
92. Pa.— Althouse v. Hunsberger, 6
PfiuSuper. 160.
33 C.J. p 1200 note 99 [a].
Designation as "et tut"
The designation of one of the de-
fendants, who is the wife of the
other defendant, as "et ux" in in-
dorsements on the back of the
judgment, and in the caption of
the judgment, does not render the
judgment invalid. — Whisenant v.
Thompson Bros. Hardware Co., Tex.
Civ.App.f 120 S.W.2d '-316.
"Variance
Since petition alleged plaintiffs
name as Mrs. G. C. B., wife of G.
C. B., deceased, contention that judg-
ment should not be entered for her
for the reason that the evidence
showed her name to be Ole Mae B.,
will be overruled. — Texas (Power &
Light Co. v. Bristow, Tex.Civ.App.,
213 S.W. 702, error refused.
93. Del.— Dickerson v. Kelley, 50 A.
512, 19 Bel. 69.
Mo.— Vincent v. Means, 82 S.W. 06,
184 Mo. 327.
33 C.J. p 1200 note 4.
94. Tex.— Wilson v. HaTnnrnn, Civ.
App., 49 S.W.2d 991.
S3 CUT. p 1200 note 8.
§ 75
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
style, has made it his business name,'5 or if the de-
fect is supplied by other parts of the record,96 or if
it appears that there is no other person of the
same name and initials.97
Since, as discussed in the CJ.S. title Names § 4,
also 45 CJ. p 369 note 35, the law recognizes only
one Christian name, as a general rule the omis-
sion of a party's middle name or initial, or a mis-
take with regard thereto, is immaterial,98 at least
if the identity of the party intended is satisfactorily
established and it is shown that he received proper
notice of the action."
§ 76. Designation of Amount
The amount of a judgment must be specified with
certainty and should be expressed In words rather than
in figures.
A judgment for money must specify with definite-
ness and certainty the amount for which it is ren-
dered,1 and should be so worded as to avoid the
possibility of a double recovery;2 there can be no
judgment payable by installments.^ It has been
said that a judgment includes all amounts for which
execution may properly issue.4 A judgment for an
amount left blank,5 or otherwise wholly uncertain,6
is at least erroneous, and according to a number of
decisions such a judgment is void;7 but according
to other authority failure sufficiently to designate
the amount renders the judgment merely irregular
and erroneous, and not void.8
Form and sufficiency of designation generally. A
judgment should state the precise amount for which
it is rendered, and not leave it to be ascertained by
calculation; but if such data are given that the
amount may be ascertained with certainty the judg-
ment will be upheld.9 A judgment for a sum to be
thereafter ascertained by a ministerial officer is er-
roneous10 except where the reference is merely to
calculate and state an amount already definitely
fixed by the data given in the judgment.11 It is
sufficient if the sum recovered can be definitely as-
95. Neb.— Oakley v. Pegler, 46 N.
W. 920, SO Neb. 628.
33 C.J. p 1200 note S.
96. Ala, — Lampkin v. Louisville
N. R. Co., 17 So. 448, 106 Ala. 287.
Neb.— Fisk v. Gulliford, 95 N.W.
494, 1 Neb., Unoff., 494.
97. Neb.— Oakley v. Pegler, 46 N.
W. 920, 30 Neb. 628.
98. Ira. — Jaubert Bros. v. Landry,
App., 15 So.2d 158.
Minn. — Ueland v. Johnson, 80 N.W.
700, 77 Minn. 543, 77 Am.S.R. 698.
Tex. — Jeffus v. Mullins, Civ.App., 78
S,W.2d 1023.
33 C.J. p 1200 note 10.
99. Oal.— Langley v. Zurich General
Accident & Liability Ins. Co., 275
P. 963, 97 Cal. App. 4-34.
Tenn.— Finley v. First State Bank,
13 Tenn.App. 128.
1. U.-S. — Wulfsohn v. Russo-Aslatic
Bank, C.C.A.China, 11 F.2d 715—
Corpus Juris cited in U. S. v. Bau-
man, D.COr., 56 F.Supp. 109, 117.
Cal.— Wallace v. Wallace, 295 P.
1061, 111 CaLApp. 500— D'Arcy v.
D'Arcy. 264 P. 497, 89 CaLApp.
86.
Ga. — Hutcheson v. Hutcheson, 30 S.
B,2d 107, 197 Ga. 603.
Idaho. — Corpus Juris cited in Hand
v. Twin Falls County, 236 (P. 536,
5$8, 40 Idaho 638.
Ind.— Kist v. Coughlin, 57 N.B.2d
199, 222 Ind. 639, modified on oth-
er grounds 57 N.E.2d 586, 222 Ind.
639.
Or. — Bell v. State Industrial Acci-
dent Commission, 74 P.2d 55, 157
Or. 653 — Ex parte Teeters, 280 P.
660, 130 Or. 631.
33 C.J. p 1201 note 2«.
Judgments held sufficiently certain
(1) A judgment holding that de-
fendant was liable to plaintiffs for
amount of premiums paid on insur-
ance policies and referring cases to
clerk to determine the amount of
premiums, was not void for uncer-
tainty of amount — Battle v. Nation-
al Life & Accident Ins. Co., 157 S.W.
2d 817, 178 Tenn. 285.
(2) Other Judgments.
Cal.— Niles v. Louis H. Rapoport &
'Sons, 128 (P.2d 50, 53 Cal.App.2d
644.
La. — Paul v. Tabony, 5 La.App. 44.
Tex. — Grayson v. Johnson, Civ.App.,
181 S.W.Sd 312.
33 C.J. p 1201 note 23 [b].
Judgments held uncertain.
(1) Portion of judgment ordering
that defendant reimburse codefend-
ant for all sums expended for tax
deed described in complaint and sub-
sequent taxes thereon, if any, with-
out fixing amount, in absence of any
allegation, proof, or finding thereof,
will be stricken on appeal as too
indefinite and uncertain.— Hand v.
Twin Falls County, 236 P. £36, 40
Idaho 638.
(2) Other judgments. — Guerra v.
Contreras, Tex.Civ.App., 52 S.W.2d
295—33 C.J. p 1501 note 23 [c].
2. Tex. — National Reserve Ins. Co.
v. McCrory, Civ. App., 160 S.W.2d
972,
Double judgment held not shown
Cal. — Dodson v. Greuner, 82 GP.2d
741, 28 iCal.App.2d 418.
3. U.S. — U. S. v. Bauman, D.COr.,
56 F.Supp. 109.
4. Del. — Nelson v. Canadian Indus-
trial Alcohol Co., 197 A. 477, 9 W.
W.Harr. 184. , I
198
5. Or. — School Dist. No. 1 v. As-
toria Constr. Co., 190 P. 969, 97
Or. 2-38.
33 C.J. p 1202 note 24.
6. La.— Russo v. Fidelity & Deposit
Co., 56 So. 506, 129 La. 554.
35 C.J. p L202 note 25.
7. Miss. — Corpus Juris cited in
Harris v. Worsham, 143 So. 851,
852, 164 Miss. 74.
Tex. — McCombs v. Red, Civ. App., 86
S.W.2d 648, error dismissed.
33 C.J. p 1202 note 26.
8. Iowa.— Lind v. Adams, 10 Iowa
398, 77 Am.D. 123.
33 C.J. p 1202 note 27.
9. U.S. — Wulfsohn v. Russo-Asiatic
Bank, C.C.A.China, 11 F.2d 715,
Ga. — Hutcheson v. Hutcheson, 30 S.
B.2d 107, 197 Ga. 603— Moody v.
Muscogee Mfg. Co., 68 S.E. 604,
134 Ga. 721, 20 Ann.Cas. 301.
Ky.— Caudill Coal Co. v. Charles
Rosenheim & Co., .258 S.W. 315,
201 Ky. 758.
Tex. — Beam v. Southwestern Bell
Tel. Co., Civ.App., 164 S.W.2d 412,
error refused— Corpus Juris cited
in, fioanlan v. Gulf Bitulithic Co.,
Civ.App., 27 S.W.2d 877, 880, re-
versed on other grounds, Com.
App., 44 S.W.2d 967, 80 A.L.R. 852.
J C.J. p 1202 note 28.
Construction as to amount see infra
§ 442.
10. Tex.— Hendryx v. W. L. Moody
Cotton Co., Ciy.App., 257 S.W. 305.
: C.J. p 120,2 note 29.
11. Tex. — Hendryx v. W. L. Moody *
Cotton Co., supra.
C.J. p 1202 note 29, p 1203 note 80.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 77
certained by an inspection of the record,12 but mat-
ter dehors the record cannot be considered.13 The
amount for which a judgment is rendered may be
fixed by reference to the pleadings in the case14 or
to the verdict.15
A judgment may be for several sums separately,
or in one gross sum aggregating all the items,18
and a mere error in aggregating items may be dis-
regarded as surplusage.17 A judgment for one
amount to be discharged by the payment of a larg-
er amount is erroneous,18 as is also, except in the
case of penal bonds, a judgment for one amount to
be discharged by a smaller amount.15 Where judg-
ment is recovered for compensatory and punitive
damages, the court is not required to specify how
much is for the one and how much for the other
in the absence of a statute so requiring.20
Specifying denomination. In specifying the
amount of recovery, a judgment should contain
some word or character indicating the denomina-
tion of money intended.21 Judgments for a numeri-
cal anwunt without any word or sign indicating
what units of value are intended have been held
erroneous22 or void,23 particularly in the case of
judgments for taxes;24 but in some states such
judgments are upheld where 'it appears clearly from
the record what was intended.25
Words and figures. The amount of a judgment
should be expressed in words rather than figures,26
as being less liable to alteration or mistake,27 and
it has been held insufficient and erroneous to enter
the amount in figures ;2* but a judgment for a
sum of money expressed only in figures has been
held not void,29 and according to some decisions
not even erroneous.30
§ 77.
Interest
Where Interest Is a separate part of the Judgment,
It should be stated with certainty; but if sufficient data
are given for definite calculation, the Judgment will be
upheld.
Ordinarily interest due on the demand on which
the action is brought should be calculated and the
judgment rendered for the aggregate amount of
the demand and interest,31 and, sometimes by virtue
of statutory provisions, the fact that this results
in allowing compound interest has been held no ob-
jection;32 but where the recovery of interest is by
way of damages it has been held that the amounts
of the debt and the interest shall be kept separate
and apart and not be given in a lump sum in the
judgment.33 Where interest enters into a judg-
ment as a separate part thereof, it must be stated
!2. U.S.— Pope v. IT. S., CtCL, 65
S.Ct 16, 323 U.S. 1, 89 L.Ed. 3.
33 C.J. p IBOS note *1.
13- Miss.— Harris v. Worsham, 143
So. 851, 164 Miss. 74.
33 C.J. P 1203 note 32.
14. Miss.— Ladnier v. ILadnier, l.So.
492, 64 Miss. 368.
33 C.J. p 1203 note 3*3.
Where action, was on an adjudk
oated liability, the clerk properly en-
tered judgment as on a suit for a
"liquidated sum."— Whipple v. Mah-
ler, 10 N.W.2d 771, 215 Minn. 578.
15- Al«u — Ellis v. Dunn, 3 Ala. 63<2.
33 C.J. P 1205 note «4.
16. Cal.— Harvey v. De Garmo, 18
P.2d 971, 129 Cal.App. 487.
33 C.J. P 1203 note 35.
17. Cal.— Weadon v. Shahen, 12* P.
2d 88, 50 Cal.App.2d 254.
33 C.J. p 1203 note 36.
18. Ky. — Fowler v. Cowper, Ky.Dec.
58.
19- (Mo. — Steinback v. Lisa, 1 Mo.
228.
Va.— Ross v. Gill, 1 Wash. 87, 1 Va.
87.
Judgment on penal bonds see Bonds
§§ 126-127.
20. Puerto Rico.— Aviles v. Rafael
Toro Sons, Ltd., 27 Puerto Rico
616.
R.I.— Hambly v. Hayden, 40 A. 417,
20 R.I. 558.
21. Miss.— Carr v. Anderson, 24
Miss. 188.
33 C.J. p 1203 note 41.
22. HI.— Avery v. Babcock, 35 HI.
175.
23. 111.— Carpenter v. Sherf y, 71 HL
427.
33 C.J. p 1203 note 43.
24. U.S.— Woods v. Freeman, HI., 1
WalL 398, 17 L.Ed. 543.
33 C.J. p 1203 note 44.
25. Iowa,— Therme v. Berthenoid,
77 N.W. 497, 106 Iowa 697.
3-3 C.J. p 1203 note 45.
26. HI. — Linder v. Monroe, 35 HI-
388.
27. Ala. — Tankersley v. Silburn,
Minor p 185.
26. N.JV— ^Smith v. Miller, 8 N.J.L.
175, 14 Am.D. 418.
33 C.J. p 1204 note 48.
29. Ala.— Davis v. McCary. 13 So.
665, 100 Ala, 545.
33 C.J. P 1204 note 49.
30. Iowa,— Therme v. Berthenoid,
77 N.W. 497, 106 Iowa 697.
33 C.J. P 1204 notes 49, 50.
31> U.S.— Women's Catholic Order
of Foresters v. Special School Dist.
of North Little Rock, Pulaski
County, C.C.A.Ark., 105 F.2d 716
— Laurent v. Anderson, C.C.A.Ky.,
199
70 F.2d 819— Wulfsohn v. Russo-
Asiatic Bank, C.C.A.China, 11 F.
2d 715.
Mass. — Brennan v. Bonnoyer, 66 N.
E.2d 17— Landry v. Gomes, 173 N.
E. 428, 273 Mass. 225.
Mo. — Fine Art Pictures Corporation
v. Karzin, App., 29 S.W.2d 170.
Okl.— Whale v. Rice, 49 P.2d 7-37, ITS
Okl. 530.
Tex. — St Louis Southwestern Ry.
Co. of Texas v. Davy Burnt Clay
Ballast Co., Civ.App., 288 S.W.
855.
I C.J. p 1204 note 52.
Judgment held sufficiently certain
Tex. — Senterfltt v. Bradley, Civ.App^
60 S.W.2d 815.
32. Ga.— Grant v. Hart, 30 S.E.2d
271, 197 Ga, 662.
Ind. — Stanton v. Woodcock, 19 Ind.
273.
Successive decree*
Carrying prior decree into final de-
cree with interest thereon to date of
latter, resulting in compound inter-
est, held improper. — Wollenberger v.
Hoover, 179 N.E. 42, 346 IlL 611.
33. HI.— (People ex rel. Klee v. Kel-
ly, 32 N.E.2d 923, 309 IlLApp. 72—
People ex rel. Keeler v. Kelly, 32
N.E.2d 922, 309 IlLApp. 133— Peo-
ple ex rel. Gallachio v. Kelly, 32
' N.E.2d 921, 309 DLApp. 133— Peo-
ple ex reL Clennon v. Kelly, 82 N*
§ 77
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
with definiteness and certainty,84 and while it has
been held that the exact amount should be stated
in the judgment in dollars and cents,85 it has also
been held that, if sufficient data are given for its
calculation with certainty, the judgment will be
upheld.8* Thus it has been held sufficient if the
amount of interest in the judgment can be definitely
and certainly fixed by an inspection of the plead-
ings87 or the record.88
Although it has been held that the rate of in-
terest89 and the time from which interest begins
to run40 must be expressly recited in the judgment,
it has also been held, sometimes by virtue of statu-
tory provisions, that a provision in the judgment
for interest is not required,41 and, therefore, ordina-
rily it is not necessary to state the rate of inter-
est,42 and, of course, provisions for interest in
contravention of statute are erroneous.48
Where the judgment is to bear the same rate of
interest as the debt on which it is founded, it is
erroneous to fix any other rate of interest;44 and
usually it is necessary for the rate to be expressed
in the judgment,45 although the judgment may be
aided by the record in this respect.46
§ 78. Costs, Allowances, and Attorney's
Fees
Usually Judgment Is given for a sum certain, with
costs to be taxed, and the clerk subsequently taxes the
costs and Inserts them in the Judgment.
Costs, when authorized, are a part of the judg-
ment,47 and judgment usually is given for a sum
certain, with costs to be taxed, and the clerk sub-
sequently taxes the costs and inserts them in the
judgment, in a blank left for that purpose, or in-
dorses them on the execution.48 Failure to fill the
E.5d 921, 309 IlLApp. 133— ^People |
ex reL Salomon v. Kelly, 32 N.E.2d
920, 309 IlLApp. 13'3 — Spooner v.
Warner, 2 IlLApp. 240.
3.3 C.J. p 1204 notes 54-56.
3*. 'Fla.— Skinner Mfg. Co. v. Dou-
ville, 54 So. 810, 61 Fla. 429.
33 C.J. p 1205 note 63.
Judgment held certain
U:S.— Wulfsohn v. Russo-Asiatlc
Bank, C.C.A.China, 11 F.2d 715.
85. Mas*.— Boyer v. Bowles, 54 N.E.
2d 925, 316 Mass. 90.
Se. U.S.— Wulfsohn v, Russo-Asi-
atic Bank, C.C.A.China, 11 F.2d
715.
Del. — Nelson v. Canadian Industrial
Alcohol CO., 197 A. 477, 9 W.W.
Harr. 184.
33 C. J. P 1205 notes «64, 67.
37. Tex.— Hill v. Lyles, Civ.App.,
81 S.W. 559.
38. Ala. — Dinsmore v. Austlll, Mi-
nor p 89.
N.H.— Wilbur v. Abbot, 58 N.H. 272.
3d. Kan.— Priest v. Kansas City
Life Ins. Co., 230 P. 529. 117
Kan. 1, modified on other grounds
237 P. 938, 119 Kan. 23, 41 A.L.R.
1100.
33 C.J. p 1205 note 65.
40. Kan. — Priest v. Kansas City
, Life Ins. Co., supra.
33 C.J. p 1205 note 66.
Judgment held not void.
Ky. — McKim v. Smith, 172 S.W.2d
634, 294 Ky. 835.
4L cal.— Glenn v. Rice, 162 P. 1020,
174 Cal. 269.
Ohio.— Smith v. Miller, 22 N.E.2d
846, 61 Ohio App. 514.
33 C.J. p 1205 note 58.
Insertion by ol«rk
(1) Jury not having been direct-
ed by court to add interest to dam-
ages found, and jury not having
added interest from date of writ
clerk was unauthorized to add Inter-
est from date of writ.— Landry v.
Gomes, 173 N.E. 428, 273 Mass. 225.
(2) interest on recovery for
breach of contract prior to decision
must be added to judgment by trier
of facts, not by clerk.— Klausner v.
Queens Fur Dressing Co., 224 N.T.S.
33.3, 130 Misc. 579.
03) Addition by clerk of court of
interest on judgment for time from
commencement of action until en-
try of judgment, without court order
or adjudication, held error, since
only interest which can be added to
costs, -without court order, is that
for period from time of verdict or
report until judgment Is finally en-
tered.—Malllet v. Super Products
Co., 259 N.W. 106, 218 Wis. 145.
42. Elan. — Simmons v. Garrett, McC.
p 82.
33 C.J. P 1205 note 59.
43. Kan. — Simmons v. Garrett, s
pra.
3-3 C.J. p 1205 note 60.
44. Tex.— Southland Life Ins. Co.
v. Stone, Civ.App., 112 S.W.2d 336.
45. Ind. — Smith v. Tatman, 71 Ind.
171.
C.J. P 1205 note 61.
46. Mo. — Catron v. Lafayette Coun-
ty, 28 S.W. 331, 125 Mo. 67.
33 OJ. P 1205 note 62.
47. N.T. — Steinberg v. Mealey, SS N,
Y.S.2d 650, 263 App.Div. 479.
Nature of costs generally see Costs
8 1.
Costs are tout an incident to the
judgment and do not add to its force
or effect.
U.S.— Silverman v. Central Amuse-
ment Co., D.C.D.C., 49 F.Supp. 364
Cal. — Slater v. Superior Court of
Contra Costa County, 115 P-2d 32
200
45 Cal.App.2d 757, rehearing denied
Slater v. Superior Court in and for
Contra Costa County, 115 P.2d 865,
45 Cal.App.2d 757.
N.Y.— Steinberg v. Mealey. ,»3 N.T.S.
2d 650, 26-3 AppJDiv. 479.
Two trials
Where, after a finding for plaintiff
in an action in assumpsit, a new
trial is .granted by an appellate
court and the case Is again tried in
the lower court within a year after
the remittitur is filed, resulting in
a verdict for defendant, it is not
proper for defendant to enter judg-
ment twice, once for costs on the
ground that the judgment for plain-
tiff had been reversed, and the other
time generally on the basis of the
second trial, the latter judgment
being sufficient to carry with it any
and all costs allowed by the vari-
ous statutes in favor of defendant. —
Cockcroft v. Metropolitan Life Ins.
Co., 31 PsuDist & Co. 159.
Trial and appellate courts
The statute providing for inclu-
sion of costs in judgment has refer-
ence to judgments of both the trial
and appellate courts.— Da Rouch v.
District Court of Third Judicial
Dist in and for Salt Lake County,
79 P.2d 1006, 95 Utah 227, 116 A.L.
R. 1147.
48. OkL— Bierschenk v. Klein, S3 P.
2d .371, 183 OkL 494.
33 C.J. P 1206 notes 75, 76.
Judgment held sufficient
Judgment that defendant recover
amount of detinue bond from plain-
tiff and his sureties, to be applied on
costs, and all costs exceeding such
amount from plaintiff, will support
execution as to latter, even though
costs are divided in amount. — Clif-
ton v. Gay, 109 So. 1-68, 21 Ala.App.
412, certiorari denied 109 So. 170, 215
Ala. 22.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 79
blank for costs does not affect the regularity of the
judgment in other respects,49 or, at least, it is only
an irregularity, and does not render the judgment
void or inoperative.^ A judgment is unaffected by
the taxation of costs until the actual entry of the
costs therein.61 In some jurisdictions the amount
of the costs must be specified in the judgment,52
and, where the space for the amount of costs is
left blank, no judgment for costs is rendered.63 It
has been held correct to enter judgment for a speci-
fied amount, including costs,64 or from which the
other party's costs have been deducted.65
Where the right to costs is waived or lost,66
or there is no court order or direction with re-
gard thereto,6? the clerk has been held to have no
authority to insert them in the judgment Judg-
ment rendered for costs only has been held not a
proper judgment,6* especially where the space for
the amount thereof is left blank.69 Allowances
granted by the judgment must be certain in
amount60
Allowances for fees of referees and stenogra-
phers requiring judicial action by the court become
component parts of the judgment and must be em-
braced therein.61
Attorney's fees. It has been held that attorney's
fees or commissions should be entered as a separate
item and not included in the judgment for the prin-
cipal obligation.62 However, an attorney's fee or
commission, stipulated for in the contract or ob-
ligation in suit is part of the principal debt, and
may be incorporated in the judgment as a part of
the recovery,63
§ 79. Medium of Payment
a. Domestic or foreign money
b. Coin or currency
a. Domestic or Foreign Money
A Judgment should be rendered for domestic dollars
and cents, and not for foreign money.
A judgment should be rendered for domestic
dollars and cents, and not for foreign money.^*
Foreign currency is regarded merely as a commod-
ity, and in an action on a demand due in foreign
currency the judgment should be entered for its
value in domestic money.66
t. Coin or Currency
(1) In general
(2) Effect of contract
(3) Conformity to pleadings, issues, and
verdict
(1) In General
In the absence of a contract stipulating for payment
In coin, it is usually held that the judgment should be
entered generally, and that a Judgment for coined dol-
lars or gold Is erroneous.
In the absence of a contract stipulating for pay-
ment in coin, it is usually held that the judgment
should be entered generally, and that a judgment
49. Mass. — East Tennessee Land
Co. v. Leeson, 69 N.E. S51. 185
Mass. 4.
33 C.J. p 1206 note 78.
50. Ind. — Oauthorn v. Bierhaus, 88
N.E. 314, 44 IncLApp. 262.
83 C.J. p 1206 note 79.
51. Minn.— Iieyde v. Martin, 16
Minn. <38.
52. Neb.— Kissinger v. Staley, 63
N.W. $5, 44 Neb. 78*.
33 C.J. p 1206 note 73.
Piling memorandum
If principal debt and fees are com-
bined in judgment entered on note,
memorandum should be filed show-
ing on what terms and conditions
Judgment is entered. — Webster v.
People's Loan, Savings & Deposit
Bank of Cambridge, 152 A. 815, 160
Md. 57.
53. Kan. — Cotftello v. Wilhelm, 18
Kan. 229.
Or.— In re Toung, 116 P. 95, 59 Or.
348, Ann.Cas.l913B 1310, rehearing
denied 116 P. 1060, 59 Or. 348.
64. N.J.— Hay v. Imley, * N.J.Law
401.
33 C.J. p 1205 note 71. j
Costs merged in Judgment
U.S. — Massachusetts Bonding ft In-
surance Co. v. Clymer Mfg. Co.,
C.C.A.Colo., 48 F.2d 51*.
Inclusion presumed
N.Y. — Great American Indemnity
Co. y. Audlane Realty Corporation.
296 N.Y.3. 455, 163 Misc. 501.
55. N.T.— Coatsworth v. Ray, 52 IT.
T.S. 498, 28 N.Y.CivjProc. 6.
33 C.J. p 1206 note 72.
56. Idaho.— Cantwell v. McPherson,
29 P. 102, 3 Idaho, Hasb., 221.
57. Wis. — Luebke v. City of Water-
town, 284 N.W. 519, 230 Wis. 512.
68. HI. — Duncan v. National Bank
of Decatur, 1 N.E.2d 902, 285 III.
App. 1305.
53. Wyo. — Mosher v. Vinta County,
2 Wyo. 462.
33 C.J. p 1206 note 82.
60. Mo. — Garner Y. Hays, 5 Mo. 436.
Tex. — Watson v. Williamson, Civ.
App., 76 S.W. 793.
61. Mo. — Niedringhaus v. Wm. F.
Niedringhaus Inv. Co., App., 64
S.W^d 79, transferred, see Nied-
ringhaus v. Niedringhaus, 52 S.W."
2d .395, 330 Mo. 1089, and certio-
201
rari Quashed State ex rel. Williams
v. Daues, 66 S.W.2d 187, '334 Mo.
91.
62. Md. — Webster v. People's Loan,
Savings & Deposit Bank of Cam-
bridge, 152 A. 815, 160 Md. 57.
"Together •with" as used in Judg-
ment awarding to plaintiff principal
sum together with attorney's fees
in designated sum, together with
plaintiff's costs and disbursements,
was equivalent of "in addition to"
and judgment awarded plaintiff at-
torney's fees and costs over and
above the principal sum. — Gray v.
Tarbox, 127 P.2d 669, 14 Washed
237.
63. Ga. — Patterson v. Alapaha
Bank, 99 S.B. 141, 23 GaJ^pp. 622.
313 C.J. p 1206 note 84.
64. Pa. — Pennsylvania R. Co. v.
Cameron, .124 A. 638, 280 Pa. 468,
33 A.L.R. 1281.
Puerto Rico.— Cayol y. Balseiro, 1
Puerto Rico 258.
3-3 C.J. p 1206 note 86.
65. U.S.— Thornton v. National City
Bank of New York, C.CJLN.Y,, 45
F.2d 127.
33 C.J. p 1206 note 87.
79
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
for coined dollars or gold is erroneous.66 Thus it
has been held that, in actions for torts, judgments
for damages cannot be for gold coin,6? unless au-
thorized by statute.68 Where gold coin is lost or
converted, it has been held in some cases that the
judgment should be entered for gold dollars,69 while
in other cases it has been said that the judgment
should be for the face or value of the gold coin
in currency.70
Void or voidable. A judgment for gold or sil-
ver coin in a case where such a judgment is not
authorized is irregular and erroneous, but it is not
in any event void.71
Costs and interest. It has been held in several
cases not involving express contracts, that, although
judgment for the principal sum is properly ren-
dered payable in gold, the judgment for costs must
be rendered payable in currency;72 but there is
authority for. the rule that, where a contract is
made payable ,in a specific kind of money, the
judgment enforcing it may enforce the payment
of costs and interest in the kind of money men-
tioned in the contract, for the reason that costs
and interest become a component part of the judg-
ment.73
(2) Effect of Contract
Generally Judgments In suits on contracts payable
in coin should be entered for coined dollars.
In a number of early decisions the provision in
a contract for payment in coin or a particular kind
of coin was held to be of no effect, and contracts
containing such provisions were held to amount to
nothing more than contracts to pay the nominal val-
ue in any money which was a legal tender, and
consequently the judgments to be entered thereon
were required to be for money generally, without
specifying the kind.74 In other cases it was held
that the judgment on a contract calling for gold or
silver should be for the value of the coin in curren-
cy,75 while in still other cases it was held that the
judgment should be in the alternative, for the coin
or its value in currency.76
Subsequently the validity of express contracts to
pay coined dollars of a kind specified was sustained
in the federal courts as not being within the legal
tender acts, and the doctrine was established that
such contracts can be satisfied only by the tender or
payment of coined dollars of the kind specified, and
that judgments in suits brought on such contracts
should be entered for coined dollars and parts of
dollars.77 These decisions of the United States su-
preme court are controlling on the state courts, and
in effect overrule all previous inconsistent deci-
sions.78 They have been followed in practically
every state decision since rendered, and the rule is
now well established.79 The rule established by the
foregoing cases, however, does not prevent the ren-
dition of a judgment for the value of the coin in
currency where the creditor consents to -or seeks
such recovery.80
Early statutes. Before the present established
doctrine became settled by the decisions, it was spe-
cifically incorporated in die statutes of some of the
states and decisions construing and applying such
statutes are considered in 33 C.J. p 1208 note 4.
Coin or equivalent. It has been held that the
judgment on a contract payable in coin or its equiv-
alent in currency should be in the alternative, for
coin or currency.81 In other cases it has been
held that the judgment should not be rendered in
the alternative for coin or currency, but should be
in currency for an amount equal to the face value
plus the premium of the coin,82 while in still other
In Philippine islands
(1) Judgments rendered in the
Philippine Islands should be in
Philippine money.— Behn v. Rosat-
zin, 5 Philippine 660 — Gaspar v. Mo-
lina, 6 Philippine 197.
(2) If rendered in Mexican cur-
rency it may be changed on appeal
to Philippine money. — Causin v. Ric-
amora, 5 (Philippine 31, 4 OftGaz.
218.
88. 111.— Belford v. Woodward, 41
N.E. 1097, 158 111. 122, 29 L.R.A.
593.
33 C.J. p 1207 note 89.
67. Cal.— Livingston v. Morgan, 58
Cal. 23.
S3 C.J. p 1207 note 90.
08. Nev. — Treadway v. Sharon, 7
N*v. 37.
33 C.J. p 1207 note 91.
G9, Mass. — Independent Ins. Co. v.
Thomas, 104 Mass. 192.
33 C.J. p 1207 note 92.
70. Ind. — State Bank v. Burton, 27
Ind. 426.
33 C.J. p 1207 note 93.
71. Tex. — Flournoy v. Healy, 31
Tex. 590.
33 C.J. p 1-209 note 19.
7fc CaL— More v. Del Valle, 28 Cal.
170.
33 C.J. p 1209 note 17.
73. Cal. — Carpentier v. Atherton, 25
Cal. 664.
74. Ala.— Glover v. Bobbins, 49 Ala.
219, .20 Axn.R. 272.
313 C.J. p 1208 note 9-6.
75. Pa. — Dutton v. Pailaret, 52 Pa.
109, 91 Am.D. 135, affirmed 14 S.
Ct 1200, 154 U.S. 563, 19 L.Ed. 165.
33 C.J. p 1208 note 97.
202
76. Ky. — Glass v. Pullen, 6 Bush
346.
3d O.J. p 1208 note 98.
77. U.S.— Trebilcock v. Wilson,
Iowa, 12 Wall. 687, 20 L.Ed. 460.
.33 C.J. p 1208 note 99.
78. U.S. — Trebilcock v. Wilson, su-
pra.
3-3 C.J. p 1208 note 1.
79. U.S. — Gregory v. Morris, Wyo.,
96 U.S. 619, 24 L.Ed. 740.
33 C.J. p 1208 note 2.
80. U.S. — Gregory v. Morris, supra.
3i3 C.J. p 1208 note 3.
81. Ga. — Atkinson v. Lanier, 69 Ga.
460.
3-3 C.J. p 1209 note 6.
82. N.C. — Dunn y. Barnes, 73 N.C.
273.
33 C.J. p 1209 note 7.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 80
cases it has been held that the judgment should be
for gold alone,83 or simply for the amount of money
found due without specifying the kind of money in
which payment should be made.8*
(3) Conformity to Pleadings, Issues, and
Verdict
Judgments for a. specific kind of coin must conform
to the pleadings, verdict, and findings.
Judgments for a* specific kind of coin must be
supported by the case made by the pleadings.85
Where the pleadings or process do not specify
gold, a judgment by default or nil dicit for gold is
erroneous,86 but is regular and proper where sup-
ported .by the declaration or complaint87 A coin
judgment must likewise be sustained by the verdict
or findings,88 and, equally so, a general judgment89
Where the verdict is for gold or legal tender in the
alternative, a judgment for legal tender only is not
in accordance with the verdict.90
§ 80. Description of Property
A Judgment affecting the title to property must de-
scribe it with sufficient certainty to identify ft; the Judg-
ment may be aided by in tend men ts and additional data
drawn from the record.
Where a judgment affects the title to property,
real or personal, the property must be described
specifically and with certainty91 to enable execu-
tion of the court's mandate;92 an impossible,93
wrong,94 or uncertain95 description, or the absence
of a description,96 renders the judgment errone-
ous or void. Ordinarily the judgment should follow
the complaint in its description of the property in-
volved,97 but variances which do not affect the
identity of the property are immaterial.98 The de-
scription is sufficient where the property which is
the subject of the judgment is described with suffi-
cient certainty to identify it99
The judgment may be aided by intendments and
additional data drawn from the pleadings and oth-
83. Cal. — Burnett v. Stearns, $3
Cal. 4*68.
33 CJ. p 1209 note 8.
84. Cal. — Reese v. Stearns, 29 CaL
2T3.
85. 111.— Belford v. Woodward, 41
N.E. 1097, 158 111. 122, 29 L.R.A.
593.
3.3 C.J. p 1209 notes 10, 11.
86. Cal. — Wallace v. Eldredge, 27
Cal. 495— Lamping v. Hyatt, 27
Cal. 99.
111. — Belford v. Woodward, 41 N.E.
1097, 158 111. 122, 29 L.R.A. 593.
87. Cal. — Harding' v. Cowing, 28
Cal. 212— Wallace v. Eldredge, 27
Cal. 498.
88. Cal.— McDonald v. Mission View
Homestead Assoc., 51 Cal. 210.
3,3 C.J. P 1209 note 14.
89. Cal. — Carpenitier v. Small, 35
Cal. 346.
33 C.J. p 1209 note 15.
90. Mont — Knox v. Gerhauser, $
Mont. 267.
91- Cal. — Corpus JTnxi« cited In
Newport v. Hatton, 231 P. 987,
996, 195 Cal. 132.
Ga.— Winslow v. O'Pry, 56 Ga. 138—
Clinch v. Ferril, 48 Ga. 365.
Ky. — Shaw v. McKnight-Keaton Gro-
cery Co.. 21 S.W.2d 269, 2S1 Ky.
223.
Mo. — Tillman v. Hutcherson, 154 S.
W.2d 104, 1348 Mo. 473— Williams
v. Pemiscot County, 133 S.W.2d
417, =845 Mo. 415. .
33 C.J. p 1209 note 20.
Certainty of description of property
in:
Decree see EQiiity S 598.
Judgment in:
Detinue see Detinue S 22 b (1),
Ejectment see Ejectment 8 112
c.
Forcible entry and detainer see
Forcible Entry and Detainer §
69.
Quieting title see the C.J.S. title
Quieting Title § 103, also 51
C.J. p 2&2 notes 31-35.
Replevin see the C.J.S. title Re-
plevin $ 241, also 54 C.J. p 587
note 16-p 588 note 24.
Trespass to try title see the C.
J.S. title Trespass to Try Title
$ 65, also 63 C.J. p 1203 notes
32-46.
Clarity as in deed
A judgment adjudicating title to
realty must be as clear and explicit
as a deed which purports to convey
real property. — People v. Rio Nido
Co., 85 P.2d 461, 29 Cal.App.2d 486.
92. HI.— Gerlach v. Walsh, 41 IlL
App. 88.
Tex. — Humble Oil & Refining Co. v.
Manziel, Civ.App.t 187 S.W.2d 149,
refused for want of merit.
93. Cal.— Corpus Juris cited in
Newport v. Hatton, 251 P. 987, 996,
195 Cal. 1*2.
HI.— Gerlach v. Walsh, 41 IlLApp.
8>3.
94. CaL — Corpus Juris cited in
Newport v. Hatton, 231 P. 987,
996, 195 Cal. 132.
33 C.J. p 1210 note 22.
95. Cal.— Oorptu Juris cited in
Newport v. Hatton, 231 P. 987,
996, 195 CaL 132.
3d CJ. p 1210 notes 23, 24.
Judgment good unless reversed
"While a judgment which does not
fully describe the land may be re-
versed as erroneous on appeal, such
a judgment, if the land is so de-
scribed that it may be identified, is
good until reversed." — Grooms v.
203
National Bank of Kentucky, 292 S.
W. 513, 515, 218 Ky. 846.
96. Cal. — Corpus Juris cited in
Newport v. Hatton, 231 P. 987,
996, 195 Cal. 152.
Ky.— Alexander v. Hendricks, 258 S.
W. 81. 201 Ky. 677.
33 CJ. p 1210 note 23.
97. Tex. — Humble Oil & Refining
Co. v. Manziel, Civ.App., 187 S.W.
2d 149, refused for want of merit.
•33 CJ. p 1210 note 32.
98. Cal.— McLean v. Ladewig, 37 P.
2d 502, 2 Cal.App.2d 21.
33 CJ. p 1210 note 33.
99. Cal.— People v. Rio Nido Co., 85
P.2d 461, 29 'Cal.App.2d 486.
Ky. — Shaw v. McKnight-Keaton Gro-
cery Co., 21 S.W.2d 269, 231 Ky.
223.
Tex. — Moore v. Unknown Heirs of
Gilchrist, Civ.App., 273 S.W. 308.
*3 CJ. p 1210 note 25.
The office of description in a judg-
ment is to furnish means of identi-
fication of the land. — Greer v. Greer,
Tex., 191 S.W.2d 848— Trout v.
Grubbs, Tex.Civ.App., 1 S.W.2d 850,
951.
Test of uncertainty
'<We do not see how a judgment
can be pronounced a nullity for un-
certainty of description unless the
court can see that nothing is de--
scribed. Those claiming under it
must rely on the description, it is
true, but whether or not the de-
scription is defective must be test-
ed by rules of evidence ordinarily
applied to the subject" — Newport v.
Hatton, 231 P. 987, 996, 195 CaL 132
—McLean v. Ladewlg, 37 P.2d 502,
504, 2 CaLApp.2d 21.
§8X
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.&
er parts of the record,1 or even, in some cases, by
extrinsic documentary evidence.2 Words of mis-
description may be rejected as surplusage, if the
property is otherwise sufficiently identified.8 A de-
scription of property in the judgment by a refer-
ence to the pleadings is sufficient4 unless the ref-
erence introduces a new element of uncertainty5 or
the description referred to is itself insufficient.6
Such a reference is to the amended complaint, if
there is one.7 A reference to the report of a com-
missioner for a description may be sufficient8 In
some cases a description by reference has been held
insufficient9
§ 81. Date
A judgment should show with certainty the time of
Its rendition, but the omission of a date does not render
it void.
A judgment should show with certainty the time
of its rendition,1^ but need not specify the particu-
lar hour.11 The omission of the date, however, is
a mere irregularity, and will not render the judg-
ment void.12 A clerical error may be shown so as
to support the judgment18 As appears infra §
113, the date may be fixed by reference to the rec-
ord of proceedings in the case.
§ 82. Provisions for Enforcement
Ordinarily a Judgment need not contain provisions
for its enforcement, although their inclusion does not
necessarily invalidate a judgment.
The office of a judgment is fully performed when
it declares and adjudicates the existence or nonex-
istence of the liability sought to be established;
it is not concerned with the means of enforcing the
liability declared,14 which are discussed infra §§
585-591. Ordinarily a judgment need not order
execution or other process provided by law for its
enforcement,16 although to do so does not neces-
sarily render an otherwise valid judgment void16
or erroneous ;17 and in some cases the clause with
regard to enforcement may be disregarded as mere
surplusage.18
A money judgment should be simply that one
party or the other recover the amount awarded,
Description of land held sufficient-
ly certain
(1) Generally.
Ga.— Cason v. United Realty & Auc-
tion Co., 131 S.E. 161, 161 Ga, 674.
Ky. — Grooms v. National Bank of
Kentucky, 292 S.W. 513. 218 Ky.
•846.
Tex. — Bearing v. City of "Port Nech-
es, Civ.App., 65 S.W.2d 1105, er-
ror refused.
33 C.J. p 1210 note 25 [a].
(2) Fact that Judgment incorpo-
rated two descriptions of land in-
volved in suit h«ld not reversible
error where descriptions in judg-
ment merely followed alternative de-
scriptions contained in plaintiffs pe-
tition.— -Wells v. Thompson, Tex.Civ.
App., 84 S.W.2d -312, error dismissed.
03) Reference to mining property
by its popular name, "Good Luck
Mine," was held a sufficient descrip-
tion.—'McLean v. Ladewig, 37 P.2d
502, 2 Cal.App.2d 21.
Description of land held insufficient
Cal.— People v. Rio Nido Co., 85 P.
2d 461, 29 Col.App.2d 486.
Mo. — Tillman v. Hutcherson, 154 6.
W.2d 104, 348 Mo. 473.
33 C.J. p 1210 note 25 [b]. .
Description of personalty held in-
sufficient
N.C.— Barham v. Perry, 171 S.B. 614,
205 N.C. 428.
33 C.J. p 1210 note 25 \f\.
1. Ala.— tfloyd v. Jackson, 164 So.
121, 26 Ala.APP. 575.
CaL — Corpus Juris cited In Newport
v. Hatton, 2*1 P. 987, 996, 195 Cal.
132— Guthbert Burrell Co. v. Shir-
ley, 148 P.2d 85, 64 Cal. App. 2 d 52
—McLean v. Ladewig, 37 P.2d 502,
2 Oal.App.2d 21.
Ga. — Jones v. Empire Furniture Co.,
150 S.E. 563, 40 Ga.App. 556.
Tex.— City Nat. Bank of San Saba
v. Penn, Civ.App., 92 $.W.2d 532
— -Moore v. Unknown Heirs of Gil-
christ, CivJLpp., 273 S.W. 308.
33 C.J. p 1210 note 29.
Description held insufficient
Cal.— People v. Rio Nldo Co., 85 P.2d
461, 29 Cal.App.2d 486.
2. Cal.— Corpus Juris cited in,
Newport v. Hatton, 251 P. 987, 996,
195 Cal. 132.
33 C.J. p 1210 note 30.
a N.T.— Laverty v. Moore, 38 N.Y.
658.
313 C.J. p 1210 note 22 [b].
4. Iowa. — Foster v. Bowman, 7 N.
W. 61-3, 55 Iowa 237.
33 C.J. p 1210 note 34.
5. Ky. — Lawless v. Barger, 9 Bush
. 665.
3.3 C.J. p 1210 note 35.
6. La.— -Williams v. Kelso, 7 La.
406. -
7. Cal.— Kelly v. McKIbben, 54 Cal.
192.
a Ky.— Four Mile Land & Coal Co.
v. Slusher, €5 S.W. 555, 107 Ky;
664, 21 Ky.L. 1427— QPosey v.
Green, 78 Ky. 162.
9« Ky. — Neff v. Covington Stone &
Sand Co., 55 S.W. 697, 108 Ky. 457,
21 Ky.L. 1454, 56 S.W. 723t 22 Ky.
L. 139.
35 C.J. p 1211 note 39.
10, Ind. — Bevington v. Buck, 18
Ind. 414.
3i3 C.J. p 1211 note 41.
204
Presumption as to date of entry see
infra § U3.
11. Del. — Wilson Y. Greenwood, 10
Bel. 619.
12. Neb. — Corpus Juris cited in
Martin v. Sanford, 261 N.W. 136,
140, 129 Neb. 212.
3(3 C.J. p 1211 note 43.
13. Neb. — Corpus Juris cited in
Martin v. Sanford, 261 N.W. 136,
140, 129 Neb. 212.
Tex. — Sloan v. Thompson, 2*3 S.W.
615, 4 Tex.Civ.App. 419.
14. Cal. — Corpus Juris cited in
Jordan v. Williams Trr, Disk, 57
P.2d 566, 569, 13 Cal.App.2d 465.
Ind.— 'Walters v. Cantner, 60 N.B.2d
138.
3*3 C.J. p 1211 note 48.
15. Colo. — Corpus Juris cited in
Scott v. Woodhams, 246 P. 1027,
1028, 79 Colo. 528, followed in 246
P. 1029, 79 Colo. 5«32.
N.T.— Brown v. Father Divine, 18 N.
Y.S.2d 544, 1713 Misc. 1029, af-
firmed 213 N.T.S.2d 116, 260 App.
Div. 443, reargument denied 24
N.T.S.2d 991, 260 App.Div. 1006.
Tex. — Darlington v. Allison, Civ.
App., 12 SjW.2d 839, error dis-
missed.
33 C.J. p 1211 note 49.
16. 111.— McBane v. People, -50 111.
503.
17. Minn. — Belknap v. Van Riper, 79
N.W. 103, 76 Minn. 268.
ia Wis.— Sharpe v. First Nat.
Bank, 264 N.W. 245, 220 Wis. 506.
^3 C.J. p 1211 note 51.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
83
without any direction as to How the money should
be paid by the debtor or made by the officer;19
after judgment the law, and not the court, directs
what proceedings shall be had for the purpose of
satisfying the amount adjudged to be due.20 How-
ever, a judgment may be adapted to the propor-
tionate liabilities of the several defendants in the
action,21 or may direct the order in which levy
should be made on the properties of several parties
defendant,22 or, in the case of a debt payable by
installments, the judgment may be so framed as to
provide for its payment at successive periods, as
the installments fall due,23 or may order the pay-
ment of the amount presently due, with leave to
plaintiff to take out executions for the succeeding
installments.24 Under some statutes, in cases where
defendant is subject to arrest on execution, plaintiff
is entitled to have the judgment state that fact as
the basis for the issuance of a body execution,25
which, as discussed in Executions § 417 b, may not
otherwise lawfully issue; but even so it has been
held improper to insert in the judgment a provi-
sion for the issuance of an execution against the
person.26
Limitation to particular property. A general
judgment should not limit its collection to particular
property or funds27 unless the contract of the par-
ties contemplates such limitation.28 Where, howev-
er, a judgment in rem or quasi in rem is involved,
enforcement should be limited to the particular
property in question;29 where property is in cus-
tody of the court by attachment or garnishment, the
judgment may provide for enforcement out of such
property.80
Stay of execution. A judgment may provide that
execution shall be stayed in a proper case.81 A
stay, furthermore, may be written into a judgment
by operation of law.32 However, where not within
the power of the court to make, that part of a judg-
ment staying execution has been held void.88
Waiver of statutory benefits. If the action is on
a written obligation which waives the benefit of
valuation or appraisement laws, the judgment may
contain provisions giving effect to the waiver;84
where, however, there was no statutory authoriza-
tion of judgments prohibiting the stay of execu-
tion, a waiver of the stay laws has been disregarded
by the court35
Under codes and practice acts it may be proper
to insert provisions or directions as to perform-
ance or enforcement of the judgment.36
§ 83. Exceptions and Saving Clauses
A judgment on the merits cannot be rendered with-
out prejudice to the parties' rights to bring another ac-
tion on the same grounds.
A judgment on the merits cannot, and should not,
purport to be rendered without prejudice to the
rights of the parties to bring another action on the
Id. Del. — Sch wander v. Feeney's, 29
A.2d -369.
33 C.J. p 1211 note 52.
20, Tex.— Darlington v. Allison,
Civ.App., 12 S.W.2d 859.
33 C.J. p 1211 note 58.
Xien of Judgment
(1) The lien of a Judgment need
not be declared in terms, as it ex-
ists by law Independently of any
provision therefor In the Judgment.
— Nygren v. Nygren, 60 N.W. 885,
42 Neb. 408—33 C.J. p 1212 note 68.
(2) Lien of judgment generally
see infra 5§ 454-511.
21. Ind. — Douglass v. Howland, 11
Ind. 654.
Tex. — Eastland v. Puller, dv.App.,
261 S.-W. 386.
32. Tex.-^City Nat. Bank of San
Saba v. Penn, Civ.App., 92 S.Wt
2d 5i32.
23. Ind.— Wolfe v. Wilsey, 28 N.B.
1004, 2 Ind.App. 549.
24. N.Y.— Ltt>by v. Rosekrans, W
Barb. 202.
33 C.J. p 1211 note 56.
35- N.Y.— Rion Co. v. Zuckerman,
. 17 N.Y.S.2d 40, 175 Misc. 3— Wil-
son & Co., Inc., v. Hershkowitz,
298 N.Y.S. 14, 163 Misc. 721—
Pacific Finance Corporation, v.
Trombino, 24 N.Y.S.2d 297.
33 C.J. p 1211 note 59.
Judgment held vnAoient
I1L— Brandtjen & Kluge v. Forgue,
20 N.E.2d 616, 299 ULApp. 585.
26. N.Y.— Curtiss v. Jebb, 96 N.E.
120, 205 N.Y. 6138.
27. N.J.— Corpus Jnxis cited In
Justice v. Justice, 12 A.2d 893,
894, 127 N.J.Eq. 874.
3t3 C.J. p 1212 note 62.
28. N.Y.—- Pellas v. Motley, 58 N.E.
100, 14"3 N.Y. 657.
33 C.J. p 1211 note 54, p 1212 note
64.
Transaction held not to contem-
plate limitation of collection to par-
ticular property. — Justice v. Jus-
tice, 12 A.2d 895, 127 N.J.EQ. 574.
29. Mo.— State v. Vogel, 14 Mo.App.
187.
30. Tex. — Studebaker Harness Co. v.
Gerlach Mercantile Go., Civ.App.,
192 S.W. 545.
33 C.J. P 1212 note 65.
3L Ala,— Corpus Jtttis cited in
Bailey Realty & Loan Co. v.
205
Bunting, 19 So.2d 609, 610, 246 Ala.
152.
N.H.— Judkins v. Union Mutual Fire
Ins. Co., 59 N.H. 172.
32. Ala.— Bailey Realty & Loan Co.
v. Bunting, 19 So.2d 609, 246 Ala.
152.
33. Ark.— International Shoe Co. v.
Waggoner, 64 S.W.2d 82, 188 Ark.
•59— Taylor r. O'Kane. 49 S.W.2d
4'00, 186 Ark. 782.
34. Ind.— Shaw v. Tatham, 15 Ind.
377.
33 C.J. p 1212 note 68.
Waiver of appraisement laws:
By debtor see Executions § 106 b
(2)
In mortgage foreclosures see the
Q.J.S. title Mortgages § 722, also
42 C.J. p 188 notes 14-17.
35. Ind.— McLane v. Elmer, 4 Ind.
289— Develin v. Wood, 2 Ind. 102.
36. Iowa.— King v. Nelson, 94 N.W.
1095, 120 Iowa 606.
33 C.J. p 1212 note 70.
Provision, held unauthorized
CaL— Niles v. Louis H. Rapoport &
Sons, 128 P.2d 50, 513 Cal.App.2d
644.
§ 83
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
same grounds.87 It is not common practice to in-
clude words indicating that a judgment in an action
at law is without prejudice, even though it is en-
tered on a nonsuit or for some other reason is not
conclusive of the merits of the case.88
The reservation of control over equity decrees for
the purpose of enforcement is discussed in Equity §
616.
§ 84. Surplusage
Surplusage In a Judgment does not necessarily ren-
der It Invalid.
Surplusage in a judgment, whether it consists of
merely superfluous provisions or directions,39 or
of matters which follow as the legal consequences
of the judgment, whether or not they are incor-
porated in it,40 or of unauthorized provisions,41
does not necessarily invalidate the judgment.
§ 85. Signing by Judge or Clerk
Except where statute or rule of court provides oth-
erwise, ordinarily neither the judge nor the clerk of the
court need sign a judgment.
While it has been held that a judgment need not
be signed by the judge of the court rendering the
judgment,42 and that his failure to sign the judg-
ment will not invalidate it,48 it has also been held,
sometimes by virtue of statutory provisions, that
judgments must be signed by the judge,44 provided
the judgments are final judgments.45 Although it
has been held that the failure of the judge to sign
a judgment will render the judgment invalid or of
no effect,46 some cases have held that statutes re-
37. Ind. — Evans v. Schafer, 86 Ind.
135.
3i3 C.J. p 1212 note 71.
Bight to sue for attorney's fees
In action for rent of lost battery,
recovery being rent and value of
battery, court erred in not granting
plaintiff's prayer for reservation of
right to sue for attorney's fees. —
Chambers v. Ve^a, 137 So. 879, 18
La.App. 786.
38. Mass. — Amory v. Kelley, £4 N.
E.2d 507, 309 Mass. 162.
39. Miss. — Sternberg Dredging Co.
v. Screws, 166 So. 754, 175 Miss.
383— Jackson v. Redding, 139 So.
317, 162 Miss. £213, overruling sug?-
gestion of error 138 So. 295, 162
Miss. 52(3.
Pa. — Corpus Juris quoted in Altoona
Trust Co. v. Fockler, 165 A. 740,
* 742, ,311 QPa. 426.
33 C.J. p 1212 note 74.
Harmless error in judgments as sur-
plusage see Appeal and Error §
1794 a.
Statements treated as surplusage
Wyo. — Holly Sugar Corporation v.
Fritzler, 296 P. 206, 42 Wyo. 446.
40. Pa. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Altoona Trust Co. v. Fodder, 165
A. 740, 742, «11 £Pa, 426.
33 C.J. p 1212 note 74.
41. Cal. — In re San Joaqutn Light &
Power Corporation, 127 P.2d 29,
52 Cal.App.2d 814.
111. — Schaefer v. People, 20 IlLApp.
606.
Ky.— JParrish v. Ferriell, 186 &W.2d
625, 299 Ky. 676.
Pa. — Corpus Juris quoted in Altoona
Trust Co. v. Fockler, 165 A. 740,
742, )311 Fa, 426.
35 C.J. p 1212 note 74.
Reference to party as "trustee"
Where pleadings and issues did
not permit of reference to plaintiff
as fiduciary, word "trustee" appear-
ing after plaintiff's name was deem-
ed mere surplusage. — Greenwood
Lumber Co. v. Roberts, 44 N.B.2d
1002, 112 Ind.App. 877.
42. Ga, — Corpus Juris quoted in
Sullivan v. Douglas Gibbons, Inc.,
2 S.E.2d 89, 90, 187 Ga, 764.
33 C.J. p 121-3 note 75.
Signing of decree in equity see Equi-
ty § 591.
Approval of court
Statute requiring full entries of
orders and proceedings of courts of
record to be read in open court con-
templates that judgments entered do
not become pronouncements of court
until approved by court — Stanton v.
Arkansas Democrat Co., 106 S.W.2d
584, 194 Ark. Il35.
43. U.S. — Hyman v. McLendon, C.C.
A.S.C., 140 F.2d 76, certiorari de-
nied 64 S.Ct 1055, 322 U.S. 759,
88 L.Ed, 1572.
Cal. — Brown v. Superior Court erf
California in and for Los Angeles
County, 234 flE> 409, 70 CaLApp.
732.
Ga. — Corpus Juris quoted in Sulli-
van v. Douglas Gibbons, Inc., 2
S.E.2d 89, 90, 187 Ga. 764.
Ind.— Cadwell v. Teany, 157 N.E. 51,
199 Ind. 634, certiorari denied Cad-
well v. Teaney, 48 S.Ct 601, 277
U.S. 605, 72 LJEd. 1011.
Neb.— Ex parte Niklaus, 18 N.W.2d
655, 144 Neb. *503.
3-3 C.J. p 1213 note 75.
44. Idaho. — Faris v. Burroughs
Adding Mach. Co., 282 P. 72, 48
Idaho 310.
Ky.— Clark v. Mason, 95 S,W.2d 292,
264 Ky. 683.
La,— Isom v. Stevens, App., 148 So.
270.
S3 C.J. p 1213 note 76.
Time of signing
(1) The failure of party, in whose
favor court decides, to file formal
written Judgment wtthjn five days
after decision, as required by court
rule, does not deprive court of Ju-
206
risdiction to sign judgment after
such period, but merely requires
such party to go back and comply
with rule. — Cahn v. Schmitz, 108 P.
2d 1006, 56 Ariz. 469. '
(2) -Statute providing for signing
of Judgments within three days from
date of rendition held to contemplate
that Judgments should not become
effective until the three days had
expired, or until application for new
trial filed within the three days
had been denied. — Haas v. Buck, 162
So. 181, 182 La. 566.
(-3) While a motion for new trial
is pending, Judge is without right
.to sign the Judgment, and, if he
does so, his action is without legal
effect. — Maison Blanche Co. v. Mef-
sut, La.App., 177 So. 824.
Sufficiency of signature
(1) A Judge ought to sign his
name, and not write his Initials, to
indicate a Judgment of court— Volpe
v. Sensatini, 144 N.B. 104, 249 Mass.
132.
(2) Capital letter "S" held not
sufficient signature of Judge to Judg-
ment— Automobile Sec. Corporation
v. Vecino, 120 So. 427, 10 La.App. 10.
(3) Other illustrations see 33 C.
J. p 1213 note 76 [a],
Place of signature
Tex.— Bridgman v. Moore, 183 S.W.
2d 705, 14'3 Tex 250.
45. La,— Viator v. Hetotz, 10 So.2d
690, -201 La. 884— River & Rails
Terminals v. Louisiana Ry. & Nav.
Co., 105 So. .331, 167 La, 1085—
State v. Johnson, 12 La. 547— Mos-
sier Acceptance Co. v. Moliere,
App., 181 So. 228— Hotard v. 2>u-
pont, 1 La* App, 646.
33 C.J. p 121i3 note 76 [c].
46- 111.— Miller v. Miller, 85 N.E.2d
"I, 376 I1L 628.
Ky.— Clark v. Mason, 95 S.W.2d 292,
264 Ky. 68«— Shuey v. Hoffman, 81
S.W.2d 727, 2S5 Ky. 490.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
86
quiring a judge's signature are directory merely,
and not mandatory, and that a failure to comply
therewith will not render the judgment void.47
The absence of a signature may be cured by the
signing of the judgment at a later date,48 and, as
between the parties, subsequent proceedings on such
judgment are valid.49
Clerk's signature. In absence of specific provi-
sion therefor, by statute or rule of court, the sig-
nature of the clerk is not required.50 It is required
in some jurisdictions, however, that judgments shall
be signed or attested by the clerk;51 but the omis-
sion of the clerk to sign the judgment is a mere ir-
regularity which may be corrected at any time, and
does not render the judgment void.52
§ 86. Nonsuit or Judgment on Merits
Whether a Judgment should be one of nonsuit or a
judgment of dismissal without prejudice or whether the
Judgments should be one on the merits depends In gen-
eral on whether the case has been tried and submitted
on the merits.
The phrase "judgment of nonsuit" is frequently
applied to the disposition of a case by nonsuit53
In general such a judgment decides nothing with
respect to the merits of the claim on which action is
brought,54 whether or not the judgment contains
a reservation of the right again to sue on the same
cause of action,55 and merely leaves the situation
with respect to the cause of action involved as
though no suit in that regard had ever been
brought.56 Accordingly, in general it is not prop-
er, on the grant of a nonsuit, to enter a judgment
on the merits.57 So, where plaintiff fails to prove
his case, or, in other words, where the court de-
cides that he has given no evidence which would
warrant a verdict or finding in his favor, in general
the proper judgment to be entered is one of non-
suit,58 and a judgment on the merits is improper
La. — Succession of Meyers, 138 So.
897, 16 La.App. 675.
33 C.J. p 1214 note 77.
Judgment confirming1 order
Judgment, not appealed from, de-
ciding that Question whether order
should be set aside was res judi-
cata under previous Judgments, had
effect of confirming order, even
though judgments were not signed.
— Succession of Harrison, 123 So.
120, 168 La. 675.
47. Ind.— Bailer v. Dowd, 40 N.E.2d
325, 219 Ind. 634.
33 C.J. p 1214 note 78.
48. Cal.— De Arman, v. Connelly, 25
P.2d 24, 134 CaLApp. 173.
Ky. — Cunningham v. Grey, 111 S.W.
2d 579, 271 Ky. 84— Shuey v. Hoff-
man, «31 S.W.2d 727, 235 Ky. 490—
Union Gas & Oil Co. v. Indian-
Tex. Petroleum Co., 263 S.W. 1,
203 Ky. 521.
Presumption
It would be assumed that record
was signed by Judge either at same
term or the next succeeding one as
contemplated by statute.— Concan-
non v. Blackman, 6 N.W.2d 116, 232
Iowa 722.
Signing by successor
Action of succeeding Judge in
signing unsigned judgment of dis-
missal, written by predecessor in of-
fice, who presided at case, was au-
thorized.-—Lee v. Lee, 11 S.W.2d 956,
226 Ky. 776.
49. Ky. — Cunningham v. Grey, 111
S.W.2d 579, 271 Ky. 84— Shuey v.
Hoffman, 51 S.W.2d 727, 235 Ky.
490.
50. Cal.-nClink v. Thurston, 47 CaL
21.
33 C.J. p 1214 note 81.
N.T.
51. N.T. — Knapp v. Roche,
366.
33 C.J. p 1214 note 79.
Effect of clerk's signature
The signature of the clerk to the
judgment is merely his certificate
that it was entered by the court.
Ga. — Sullivan v. Douglas Gibbons,
Inc., 2 S.B.2d 89, 187 Ga. 764.
Wis.— Egaard v. Dahlke, 85 N.W.
369, 109 Wis. 366.
52. '-S.C.— Harclin v. Melton, 4 S.E.
805, 28 S.C. 38, rehearing denied
9 S.E. 423, 28 S.C. 38.
33 C.J. p 1214 note 80.
58. Mass.— Gill v. Stretton. 10 N.E.
2d 185, 298 Mass. 342.
Form and contents of judgment
(1) Where a nonsuit is allowed
as a basis for a writ of error, a
proper form of entry of Judgment is
"that the plaintiff being solemnly
called came not, whereupon the
plaintiff suffered a nonsuit; and it
is therefore considered by the Court
that the plaintiff take nothing by
his writ and that the defendant go
hence without day and recover of
the plaintiff his costs." — Spiker v.
Hester, 135 So. 502, 101 Fla. 288.
(2) Order reciting in court's min-
utes style and number of ease fol-
lowed with term "nonsuit" has been
regarded as a valid judgment of
nonsuit — Keith v. Yazoo & M. V. R.
Co., 145 So. 227, 164 Miss. 566.
(3) Judgment of nonsuit need not
adjudge costs, in view of statute
providing that, in case of nonsuit,
defendant shall -recover costs. — Keith
v. Yazoo & M. V. R. Co., supra.
54. La. — McCook v. Comegys, 125
So. 134, 169 La. 312.
Mont. — Roecher v. Commercial Nat.
Bank, 289 IP. 388, 87 Mont 570—
207
McKeon v. Kilduff, 281 P. 345, 85
Mont 562.
55. La. — McCook v. Comegys, 125
So. 134, 169 La. 312.
Judgment with reservation proper
Judgment of nonsuit in an ac-
tion for contract price of certain
article, with reservation of right to
sue on Quantum meruit, was not
error. — McCook v. Comegys, supra.
56. La. — McCook v. Comegys, supra.
57. Mont. — Roecher v. Commercial
Nat Bank, 289 P. 388, 87 Mont
570— McKeon v. Kilduff, 281 P. 346,
85 Mont. 562.
Accord and satisfaction
Where complaint alleged an oral
contract and plaintiff testified that
a settlement was arrived at, by
terms of which plaintiff was to re-
ceive a certain sum, which was
shortly thereafter paid, and plain-
tiff's attorney testified to an agree-
ment which amounted to an accord
and satisfaction, a nonsuit was
granted on the merits rather than
without prejudice.— Will v. Will &
Baumer Candle Co., 46 N.Y.S,2d 532.
58. La. — Anchor Post Fence Co. v.
Watson, 154 So. 50, 179 La. 439—
Bank of Bienville v. Fidelity &
Deposit Co. of Maryland, 1'35 So.
26, 172 La, 687— Maddox v. Rob-
bert, 115 So. 905, 165 La, 694—
Bayard v. Baldwin Lumber Co.,
103 So. 290, 157 La. 994— State v.
Bell, 96 So. 669, 153 La. 823—
Young v. Thompson, App., 189 So.
487 — Andrews v. Foster, App., 169
So. 103, amended on other grounds
170 So. 563— Elmwood Land Devel-
opment Co. v. Verret Lands, App.,
159 So. 606— Brooks-Mays & Co.
v. Alfred, 140 So. 166, 19 La.
App. 549— Kruebbe Co. v. Kidd-
Russ Realty Co., 133 So. 462, 16
86
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
where there has been no real consideration and de-
termination, on the merits, of the issues involved.69
However, a judgment of .nonsuit is not the proper
judgment and there should be a final judgment for
defendant when defendant successfully controverts
plaintiffs evidence, or proves that no such facts
exist as are alleged by plaintiff,60 or where plain-
tiffs evidence establishes that he has no right of
action against defendant.61
In code practice, a judgment for defendant fre-
quently takes the form of a dismissal of the action.62
While the view has been taken that a judgment is
contradictory in terms where it purports to deter-
mine the merits and also to dismiss the cause,68
a judgment of dismissal expressly providing that
the dismissal is on the merits usually is treated as a
judgment on the merits, where the case was actu-
ally submitted and tried on the merits.64 In gen-
eral, a judgment of dismissal without prejudice is
improper where the cause has been tried and sub-
mitted on the merits.66 A dismissal based on find-
ings of fact, made contrary to plaintiff's allegations,
is a judgment on the merits.66 So a judgment for
defendant on a directed verdict may properly be
a judgment on the merits.67 Under various other
circumstances, the propriety of a judgment of dis-
missal with prejudice has been recognized.68
Where there is a dismissal which is not based
La.App. 121— Sarrett v. Globe In-
demnity Co., 8 La.App. 824— Lou-
isiana Ry. & Nav. Co. v. Lawrence,
1 La.App. 440.
N.T. — Jules Maes & Co. v. W. R.
Grace & Co., 147 N.E. 177, 239 N.
T. 519 — Watkins v. Pacific Finance
Corporation, 20 N.Y.S. 599. 259
App.Div. 685— Wagner Trading Co.
V. Radillo, 198 N.Y.S. 13, 205 APP-
Div. 833— Leach v. Sibley, Lindsay
& Curr Co., 15 N.Y-S.2d 287.
33 C.J. p 1214 note 82.
Directed verdict improper
Judgment of nonsuit, instead of
directed verdict for defendant,
should be entered, where plaintiff
fails to make out prima facie case.
— Ross v. Durrence, 160 S.E. •370,
IT'S Ga. 457— McCaskey Cash Regis-
ter Co. v. Bank of Villa Rica, 199 S.
E. 828, 58 Ga.App. 676.
59. Tex. — Spann Bros. Anto Supply
Co. v. Miles, Civ.App., 135 S.W.2d
1016.
60. La. — Robinson v. Washington
Fidelity Nat. Life Ins. Co., 134
So. 115, 16 La.App. 280.
Mo.-^St Louis Law Printing Co. v.
Aufderheide, 45 S.W.2d 54*, 226
MO.APP. 680.
Or.— Wolke v. Schmidt, 228 IP. 921,
112 Or. 99.
Wash.— Williams v. Pease, 4* P.2d
22, 181 Wash. 388.
33 C.J. p 1215 note 83.
Failure to amend pleading"
Judgment rejecting plaintiffs de-
mands was proper, where court
found that accident to plaintiff could
not have occurred as alleged and
plaintiff had failed to change her
position when opportunity was given
to amend.— Phillips v. Shreveport
Rys. Co., La.App., 163 So. 845.
Reconventional demand
(1) Where the issue with respect
to a reconventional demand by de-
fendant was fully litigated at the
trial and evidence was adduced
thereon by both parties, trial court
should have made a definite decision
disposing of the reconventional de-
mand, instead of rendering judgment
of nonsuit. — Cardino v. Scroggins,
La-App., 185 So. 109.
(2) A judgment of dismissal of
plaintiffs action making no mention
of reconventional demand of defend-
ant for damage to truck was equiv-
alent to dismissal of such demand. —
Henderson v. Marmande, La.App.,
177 So. 827.
61. La. — Lewis v. Young Friends of
Hope Benev. Ass'n, App., 151 So.
109.
N.Y.— Scheuer v. Martin, 298 N.Y.S.
558, 250 App.Div. 46— Tanner v.
Tennenbaum, 256 N.Y.S. 562, 2i35
App.Div. 173— Hulse v. West, 203
N.Y.S. 799, 122 Misc. 719, affirmed
207 N.Y.S. 854, 211 App.Div. 853—
iLeach v. Sibley, Lindsay & Curr
Co.. 15 N.Y.S.2d 287.
After election
Where plaintiff, on being required
at trial to elect between inconsistent
causes of actions and remedies, was
free to elect either to rescind con-
tract or to sue for breach and elect-
ed to sue for rescission, judgment
correctly dismissing complaint im-
properly contained provision that
judgment was without prejudice to
right to commence action for breach
of contract, where plaintiff at time
of election had knowledge of all
facts with respect to defendants'
conduct. — Scheuer v. Martin, 29i3 N.
Y.S. 558, 250 App.Div. 46.
62. Ind. — Casto v. Eigeman, 70 N.B.
807, 162 Ind. 606.
33 C.J. p 1215 notes 84, 85.
Necessity for order of nonsuit or
dismissal
Judgment of dismissal can be en-
tered only on order of nonsuit or
dismissal. — State v. District Court
of Fifteenth Judicial Disk in and
for Musselshell County, 300 P. 235,
89 Mont. 531, 82 A.L.R. 1158.
63. Tex. — City of Abilene v. Fryar,
Civ.App., 143 S.W.2d 654.
64. Idaho.— Bentley v. gasiska* 288
P. 897, 49 Idaho 416.
208
Dismissal "with prejudice"
Or. — Roles v. Roles Shingle Co., 81
P.2d«180, 147 Or. 365.
Recital improperly stricken
Where the cause was actually de-
cided on the merits, it was improp-
er to strike from a judgment re-
citing that the action "is hereby
dismissed on the merits" the words
"on the merits." — McElroy v. Board
of Education of City of Minneapo-
lis, S3 8 N.W. 681, 184 Minn. $57.
65. Cal.— Milo v. IPrior, 292 P. 647,
210 CaL 569^SIack v. Metropoli-
tan Trust Co. of California, 48 P.
2d 755, 9 Cal.App.2d 87.
W.Va.— Parsons v. Riley, 10 S.B.
806, S«3 W.Va. 464.
Effect of phrase "without prejudice"
"Without prejudice" provision in
judgment in action tried and sub-
mitted on merits was not severa-ble
from entire judgment and qualified
every part thereof. — Milo v. Prior,
292 P. 647, 210 CaL 569.
66. N.Y.— Oakes Mfg. Co. v. New
York, 99 N.B. 540, 206 N.Y. 226.
33 C.J. p 1215 note 85.
67. Ga. — Morris v. Georgia Power
Co., 15 S.E.2d 750, 65 Ga.App. 180.
93 C.J. p 1215 note 86.
6& Plea of res judicata
(1) Where defendant's plea of res
judicata lies, a judgment of dismis-
sal with prejudice is proper. — Sco-
fleld v. Ssofield, 3 OP.2d 794, 89 Colo.
409.
(2) The view has been taken that
where plaintiff sought recovery on
two contracts, one written and the
other oral, and a plea of res judicata
was properly sustained as to the
written contract only, and it appear-
ed that, with respect to the oral
contract, the amount claimed was
below the jurisdiction of the trial
court, the judgment should have
been a judgment of dismissal for
want of jurisdictions, but that a
Judgment that plaintiff take nothing ^
by his suit had the same effect. — *
Baronian v. -Sealy Oil Mill & Mfg.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§87
on the merits, a judgment on the merits is not prop-
er,^ as, for example, where there is a dismissal
without any evidence having been offered and with-
out the submission of any issues for determina-
tion.™ Where a judgment of dismissal is granted
merely for failure of plaintiffs evidence, in gen-
eral it is not a judgment on the merits.?* It has
been held, however, that a judgment of dismissal
with prejudice, instead of a judgment of nonsuit,
may be proper where plaintiff has introduced all
evidence that it is possible for him to offer,™ and
that it is permissible to render a judgment for de-
fendant, on deciding the cause on the merits, not-
withstanding defendant's motion for nonsuit made
at the close of plaintiffs evidence has been denied
and defendant has offered no evidence.73 On dis-
missal of the action for failure of plaintiffs plead-
ing to state a cause of action, it ordinarily is not
proper to grant an affirmative judgment on the
merits in favor of defendant7*
IV. ABBEST OF JUDGMENT
§ 87. Nature of Remedy
Arrest of Judgment is the staying of, or refusal to
render, a Judgment after verdict, for an Intrinsic mat-
ter appearing on the face of the record, which would
render the Judgment, if given, erroneous or reversible.
Arrest of judgment is the act of staying a judg-
ment, or refusing to render judgment, in actions
at law after verdict, for some matter intrinsic, ap-
pearing on the face of the record, which would ren-
der the judgment, if given, erroneous or reversi-
ble.75 Usually the purpose of a motion in arrest of
judgment is to prevent the entry of judgment on
the verdict because of some defect in the record
proper.?6 The power to arrest judgment is inherent
Co., Tex.Civ.App., 9 S,W.2d 292, er-
ror dismissed.
Failure to remedy defective pleading
Judgment of dismissal with prej-
udice was proper, where pleadings i«n
second action contained same de-
fects which, in prior action, supreme
court had pointed out but which
plaintiff did not remedy. — Burson v.
Adamson, 25 P.2d 723, 93 Colo. 801.
69. N.Y. — Gaffey v. Newfield, 148 N.
Y.S. 772, 163 App.Div. 66— Kilmer
Park Const. Co. v. Lehrer, 270 N.
Y.S. 156, 150 Misc. 673.
33 C.J. p 1215 note 87 [a].
Dismissal for failure to prosecute
suit
Tex.— Zachary v. Overton, Civ.App.,
157 S.W.2d 405, error refused—
Burton-Lingo Co. v. Lay, Civ.App.,
142 S.W.2d 448.
70. Cat— Campanella v. Campanella,
269 P. 4i3i3, 204 Cal. 515.
N.Y.— Freedman v. Sirota, 96 N.Y.S.
812, 109 App.Div. 874— Kruger v.
Persons, 64 N.Y.S. 841, 52 App.Div.
50.
Counterclaim
N.Y.— Roach v. Lorence, 150 N.Y.S.
151, 164 App.Div. 733.
33 C.J. p 1215 note 87 [a] (2).
71. N.D.— Williams v. City of
go, 247 N.W. 46, $3 N.D. 182.
Tex. — Reeves v. Bomar,
157 S.W. 275.
33 C.J. p 1215 notes 87, 88.
Dismissal with prejudice improper
Wash.— OLlnton v. State, 52 P.2d
1237, 185 Wash. 97.
In equity
(1) If a bill in equity is not dis-
missed on the merits, the decree of
dismissal should contain the words
"without prejudice,** in order to
reserve to complainant the privilege 1
49 C. J.S.-14
to assert his right In a subsequent
suit.
U.S.— Franz v. Buder, C.C.A.MO., 11
P.2d 854, certiorari denied Buder
v. Franz, 47 S.Ct 459, 275 U.S. 756,
71 L.Ed. 876.
Fla.— Bishpam v. Mayo, 151 So. 45,
112 Fla. 115.
Md,— Bailey v. Bailey, 30 A.2d 249,
181 Md. '385.
Tex.— Texas Employers' Ass'n v.
Cashion, Civ.App., 130 S.W.2d 1112,
error refused.
83 C.J. p 1215 note 87 [b3.
(2) If the cause has not been
heard on the merits and the bill
is dismissed under a rule for further
proceedings, it is not necessary to
state expressly in the decree that
it is without prejudice to the rights
of complainant.— Bailey v. Bailey, 30
A.2d 249, 181 Md. «85.
72. Wash.— Caldwell v. Williams,
60 -P.2d 28, 187 Wash. 501,
Dismissal without requiring- proof
"by defendant
Court, having determined that
plaintiff failed to make case, proper-
ly entered judgment of dismissal
instead of putting defendant to
proof.—'White-Dulany Co. v. Craig-
mont State Bank, 279 P. 621, 48
Idaho 100.
73. Bea«on for vole
In upholding judgment for defend-
ant where plaintiff made the claim
that he was entitled to judgment in
view of defendant's failure to offer
evidence after the motion for mon-
suit was overruled, the court pointed
out that, in ruling on a motion for
nonsuit, all testimony introduced by
plaintiff must be taken as true,
whereas in deciding the case on the j
merits, -no such rule prevails, — Price '
209
v. Mason-«McDuffle Co., 122 P.2d 971,
50 Cal.App.2d 320.
74. Mont. — Teters v, Montana East-
ern Pipe Line Co., 159 P.2d 515.
33 C.J. p 1144 note 72.
Where contract construed
Where complaint set out contract
relied on by plaintiff in h«c verba,
court was obliged to construe it in
measuring sufficiency of complaint
and having found that complaint
stated no cause of action because
contract was not open to construc-
tion contended for by plaintiff, prop-
erly entered judgment for defend-
ants on merits, instead of order dis-
missing action. — Teters v. Montana
Eastern Pipe Line Co., supra.
75. Ind. — Smith v. Dodds, 35 Ind.
452.
Tenn. — Corpus Juris quoted in Speer
v. -Pierce, 77 S.W.2d 77, 78, 18
Tenn.App. 351.
34 C.J. p 31 note 2.
Other definitions
Ind. — Smith v. Dodds, 35 Ind. 452*
459.
Xn nature of general demurrer
"At common law, a motion in ar-
rest of judgment was In the nature
of a belated general demurrer based
upon unamendable defects appear-
ing upon the face of the pleadings.'*
— Grogan v. Deraney, 143 S.E. 912*
918, 38 Ga.App. 287.
*. Ga. — Underwood v. D. C. Heath
& Co., 12 S.R2d 464, &4 Ga,App.
180 — Turner v. fihackleford, 158
•S.E, 439, 43 Ga.App. 271 — Grogan
v. Deraney, 143 S.B. 912, 38 Ga*
App. 287.
Md. — Phoebus v. Sterling1, 198 A. 71 T*
174 Md. 394.
Mo.— Stephens v. D. M. Oberman-
Mfg. Co., 70 S.W.2d 899, 334 Mo,
1078 — Porter v. Chicago, B. & Q.
1 87
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
in courts of general common-law jurisdiction,77 but
in some jurisdictions the remedy by arrest of judg-
ment no longer prevails in civil cases,78 and the
use of this remedy is sometimes regulated or re-
stricted by statute or rules of court™
Other motions or remedies compared and distin-
guished. A motion for a new trial differs from a
motion in arrest of judgment in that the motion for
a new trial is based on the facts and the rulings of
the court, while the motion in arrest is based on the
record,80 and such motions are also distinguishable
with respect to the purpose of each.81 A motion
for a venire de novo has been compared with, and
distinguished from, a motion in arrest of judg-
ment,82 from a motion to set aside a judgment,83
and also from an independent proceeding to annul a
judgment for fraud.84 A motion in arrest does not
have the effect of a demurrer to the evidence.85
A motion for judgment non obstante veredicto has
been distinguished from a motion in arrest, as dis-
cussed supra § 59.
§ 88. Grounds of Arrest
In general, a judgment may be arrested only for er-
rors and defects which are apparent on the face of the
record and which are of a substantial nature.
As a general rule, judgment can be arrested only
for errors or defects which are apparent on the face
of the record86 or because of some matter which
properly should appear of record but does not.87
R. Co., 28 S.W.2d 10i35, '325 Mo. '381
— Stevens v. D. M. Oberman Mfg.
Co., 79 S.W.2d 516, 229 Mo.App
627.
77. Ind.— Pillsbury Flour Mills Co
v. Walsh, 110 N.E. 96, 60 todjApp,
76.
54 O.J. p <31 note $.
78. Ark. — Collier v. Newport Water,
Light & Power Co., 139 S.W. 635,
100 Ark. 47, Ann.Cas.l913D 458.
34 C.J. p 31 note 4.
79. Ga. — Grogan v. Deraney, 1-43
S.E. 912, .38 Ga.App. 287.
Determination as to character of
motion
Where the statute which provides
for motion in arrest does not define
its function, the common law must
be looked to for the purpose of
.determining the character of the
motion. — City of St. Louis v. Senter
Commission Go., 102 S.W.2d 103, 840
Mo. 633.
80. Ga. — Underwood v. D. C. Heath
& Co., 12 -S.E.2d 464, 64 Ga.App.
180 — Turner v. Schatskleford, 158
S.E. 439, 4*3 Ga.App. 271— Maddoac
Coffee Co. v. McHan, 95 S.E. 736,
22 Ga.App. 198 — Garfleld Oil Mills
Co. v. Stephens, 85 S.E. 983, 16 Ga,
App. 655.
111.— Wallace v. Curtice, 36 HI. 156.
34 C.J. p 51 note 2 [a] — 46 C.J. p
65 note 5.
81. Ga. — Underwood v. D. C. Heath
& Co., 12 S.E.2d 464, 64 Ga.App.
180 — Turner v. Schackleford, 158
S.E. 439, 4J3 GajVpp. 271.
82. Ind. — Phillips v. Gammon, 124
N.E. 699, 188 Ind, 497.
64 C.J. p 1102 note 71.
Venire de novo in general see the
C.J.S. title Trial § 519, also 64 C.J.
p 1103 notes 64-88.
83. Mo,— Gilstrap v. Felts, 50 Mo.
428.
34 C.J. p 31 note 2 [a].
Motion treated as one in arrest
Mo. — Sutton v. Anderson, 31 S.W.2d
1026, '326 Mo. 304.
N.J. — Morris Plan Industrial Bank
of New York v. Kemeny, 8 A.2d
769, 12-3 N.J.Law 889.
Time for motion
(1) Under the terms of some stat-
utes, a motion in arrest of Judgment
is distinguishable from a statutory
motion to set aside a judgment in
that the motion in arrest must be
made during the term at which the
judgment is obtained, while a motion
to set aside may be made at any
term within the statute . of limita-
tions.— Artope v. Barker, 74 Ga,
462 — J. S. -Schoffleld's Sons Co. v.
Vaughan, 150 S.E. 569, 40 Ga.App.
568 — Grogan v. Deraney, 143 S.E.
912, 58 Ga.App. 287— Garfleld Oil
Mills v. Stephens, 85 S.E. 98*3, 16 Ga.
App. 655-^Maddox Coffee Co. v. Mc-
Han, 95 S.E. 756, 22 Ga.App. 198.
(2) It has been stated that a peti-
tion to set aside a verdict and
judgment based on alleged defects
appearing on the face of the rec-
ord was in the mature of a motion
in arrest of judgment.— Oliver v.
Fireman's Ins. Co., 155 S.E. 227, 42
Ga.App. 99.
84. Ga.— Simpson v. Bradley, 5 S.
E.2d 89)3, 189 Ga. '316, mandate
conformed to 6 S.E.2d 424, 61
Ga.App. 495, certiorari denied 60 S.
Ct. 1105, 310 U.S. 648, 84 L.Ed.
1410, rehearing denied 61 S.Ct 56,
511 U.S. 725, 85 LJSd. 472.
85. Mo. — Span v. Jackson, Walker
Coal & Mining Co., 16 S.W.2d 190,
322 Mo. 158.
86. B.C.— Walls V, Guy, 4 F.2d 444,
55 APP.D.C. 251.
Fla. — 'Peavy-Wilson Lumber Co. ' v.
Baker, 4 So.2d 333, 148 Fla. 296
—Adams v. Elliott, 174 So. '731,
128 Fla. 79— Hull v. Lame, 173
So. 701, 127 Pla. 433 — Harrington
v. Bowman. 136 So. 229, 102 Fla.
339, modified on other grounds 143
So. 651, 106 Fla, 86.
111.— Smithers v. Henriquez, 15 N.E.
2d 499, «68 111. 58$— Welch v. City i
210
of Chicago, 154 N.E. 226, 323 HI.
498.
Mass. — Vallavanti v. Armour & Co.,
162 N.E. 689, 264 Mass. 337—
Pizer v. Hunt, 148 N.E. 801, 253
Mass. 321,
Mo. — Span v. Jackson, Walker Coal
& Mining Co., 16 S.W.2d 190, 322
Mo. 158— Meffert v. Lawson, 287
S.W. 610, 315 Mo. 1091— Burman v.
Vezeau, 85 S.W.2d 217, 2i31 Mo.
App. 1109.
N.J. — Van Denmrk v. Sartorius, 7 A.
2d 168, 122 N.J.Law 503— Paradise
v. Great Eastern Stages, 176 A.
711, 114 N.J.Law 365.
Tenn. — Scott v. National Life & Ac-
cident Ins. Co., 64 S.W.2d 53, 16
Tenn. App. SI — Earheart v. Hazle-
wood Bros., 15 Tenn.App. 454 —
Highland Coal & Lumber Co. v.
Cravens, 8 Tenn.App. 419 — South-
ern Ry. Co. v. Bruback, 6 Tenn.
App. 493 — Corpus Juris cited in
Mosley v. Robert Orr & Co., 6
Tenn.App. 24'3, 245 — Wood v. Im-
perial Motor Co., 5 Tenn.App. 246
— Elbinger Shoe Co. v. Thomas, 1
Tenn.App. 161.
Vt.— Raithel v. Hall, 124 A. 586, 97
Vt. 469.
34 C.J. p 31 note 7.
Motion in arrest is a proper meth-
od for attacking errors appearing on
the face of the record proper. — La
Rue v. Bloch, 255 S.W. 321, 215 Mo.
App. 501.
Xa Connecticut
(1) Strictly speaking, motions in
arrest of judgment are for matters
appearing on the record. — Pickens v.
Miller, 177 A. 573, 119 Conn. 553—
Greco v. Keenan, 161 A. 100, 115 Conn.
704—34 C.J. p 31 note 7 [c] (1).
(2) It has been stated that a mo-
tion, called a motion in arrest, lies
to set aside the verdict for matters
dehors the record. — Hamilton v.
Pease, 38 Conn. 115—34 C.J. p 31
note 7 [c].
87. 111. — Cella v. Chicago & W. I.
R. Co., 75 N.B. 373, 217 111. 326.
34 C.J. p 31 note 8.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
90
A judgment after verdict can be arrested only for
substantial faults^ and, where substantial justice
has been done,, and the reasons urged are purely
technical, a motion in arrest will not be granted.89
It is a general rule that judgment will not be ar-
rested for mere matters of form,90 clerical errors,91
or defects which are cured by the verdict or by the
finding of the court92 or by the admissions of the
adverse party,93 or which have been waived by go-
ing to trial.94 It has been stated broadly 'that, as
a general rule, judgment cannot be arrested if it
appears on the whole record for which party judg-
. ment should be given.95
In some jurisdictions the grounds for arrest of
judgment are to a greater or less extent covered by
statute and local rules.96
§ 89. Jurisdiction and Venue
Want of Jurisdiction of the subject matter Is ground
for arrest of Judgment.
A judgment may be arrested where the court had
no jurisdiction,97 provided the want of jurisdic-
tion is apparent on the record.98 In general, an
objection based on alleged want of jurisdiction over
the person of defendant is not available on a mo-
tion in arrest, where there has been a general ap-
pearance and pleading to the merits by him.99 A
wrong venue merely has been held not ground for
arresting the judgment,1 but, in an action against
several defendants, only one of whom is a resident
of the county in which the action is brought, where
a verdict is returned against the nonresident de-
fendants only, judgment against such defendants
may and must be arrested.2
§ 90.
Process
A fatal defect In the writ or process may be ground
for arrest of Judgment, but a mere irregularity, a clerical
mistake, or a defect which is waived or cured by subse-
quent action, has been held not ground for arrest of
Judgment.
A fatal defect in the writ or process by which
the suit is begun may be taken advantage of by
motion in arrest,3 but not a mere irregularity or
clerical mistake in the process,* or such a defect as
may be waived by appearance and submitting to
trial5 or such as is cured by the verdict6 or judg-
ment.7 Failure duly to serve defendant with proc-
88. 111.— Pittsburg, C. C. & St L.
R. .Co. v. City of Chicago, 144 HI.
App. 29-3, affirmed 89 N.B. 1022, 242
111. 178, 134 lAjn.S.R. 316, 44 L.R.A.,
K'.S^ 858.
34 C.J. p 32 note 1«.
89. Tenn. — 'Waterhouse v. fiterchi, 7
Tenn.Civ.A. 483.
90. Mo.— Stid v. Missouri OPac. R.
Co., 109 S.W. 663, 211 Mo. 411.
34 C.J. p 32 note 9.
91« 111.— Shipherd v. Field, 70 X1L
438.
34 C.J. p 52 note 10.
92. Ind.— Powell v. Bennett, 80 N.B.
518, 131 Ind. 465.
34 C.J. p '32 note 11.
93. Ga.— Mobley v. Hansen, 106 S.E.
'582, 26 Ga.App. 522.
94. Mo. — Howell v. Sherwood, 147 3.
W. 810, 242 Mo. 513.
34 C.J. p 32 note Ii3.
95. R.L — Cranstoln Prob. Ct Y.
•Sprague, 3 R.L 205.
34 C.J. p 32 note 14.
96. Fla. — Harrington v. Bowman,
136 So. 229, 102 Fla. 3<39, modified
on other grounds 143 So. 651, 106
Fla. 86.
Ga. — Stowers v. Harris, 22 S.E.2d 405,
194 Ga. 636— Wofford v. Vandiver,
54 S.E.2d 579, 72 Ga.App. 62S—
•Smith v. Franklin Printing Co.,
187 S.E. 904, 54 Ga.App. 904.
34 C.J. p 32 note 17.
Defects "before verdict
(1) Under the terms of some stat-
utes a judgment may not 'be arrested
for any defect in the record that is
aided by the verdict or amendable as
a matter of form.
Ga.— Auld v. Schmelz, 34 S.B.2d 860,
199 Ga. 633— Wrenn v. Allen, 180
S.E. 104, 180 Ga. 61<3— Smith v.
Franklin Printing Co., 187 S.E. 904,
54 Ga.App. 904.
Md. — Hajewski v. Baltimore County
Com'rs, 40 A.2d 316.
(2) A statutory provision that a
judgment shall not be arrested for
a cause existing before the verdict
or finding, unless such cause affects
the jurisdiction of the court does not
prevent relief of surety on poor
debtor's recognizance with respect to
amount for which execution should
issue on a judgment entered on debt-
or's default after his discharge in
bankruptcy. — Di Ruscio v. Popoli, 169
N.E. 548, 269 Mass. 482.
97. I-nd.— McClure v. White, 9 Ind.
208.
1 C.J. p «6 note 2*3—15 C.J. p 826
note 7 — 34 C.J. p 32 note 19.
Bight to arrest not shown
In an action to establish and con-
strue a will and to enjoin defendants
from further contesting such will,
which was an action of equitable ju-
risdiction and, in effect, an action to
quiet title of plaintiffs as devisees
and legatees, as well as an action to
construe the will, it was held that,
where it was necessary to determine
heirship of certain parties in order
to determine such parties' relation to
the action, and their rights under
the will, defendants and contestants
were not entitled to have the judg-
211
ment arrested because of the alleged
want of jurisdiction of the court
to determine heirship, especially
where defendants were not harmed
by such determination. — Sager v.
Moltz, 139 N.E. 687, 80 Ind.App. 122.
98. Mass.— Roberts v. Fogg, 138 N.
E. 3*33, 244 Mass. 310.
99. Ga.— Olshine v. Bryant, 189 S.E.
572, 55 Ga.App. 90.
34 C.J. p 33 note 21.
Effect of general appearance with
respect to:
Jurisdiction of the person in gen-
eral see Appearances § 17.
Validity of judgment see supra §
26.
1. Mass.— Gilbert v. Nantucket
Bank, 5 Mass. 97.
34 C.J. p 33 note 22.
2. Ga.— Warren v. Rushing, 87 S.E,
775, 144 Ga. 612— Pickron v. Gar-
rett, App., 35 S.E.2d 540— Turner
v. Shackelford, 145 S.E. 913, 39 Ga.
App. 49— CJhristian v. Terry, 138
S.E. 244, 36 Ga.App. 815.
3. Ga.— Neal v. Gordon, *0 Ga. 112
— Hartridge v. McDaniel, 20 Ga
398.
4. Mass. — 'Prescott v. Tufts, 7 Mass.
209.
34 C. J. p 33 note 24.
& Mass. — Foot v. Knowles, 4 Mete.
386.
34 C.J. p $3 note 25.
8. N.C. — Dudley r, Carmolt, 5 NXJ.
$39.
7. Ga.— Love v. National Liberty
Ins. Co., 121 S.E. 648, 157 Ga. 259.
91
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
ess may furnish ground for a motion of this kind8
unless service of process is waived.9
§91.
Parties
Motions in arrest of judgment based on misnomer,
misjolnder, or nonjoinder of parties ordinarily will be
denied.
Motions in arrest of judgment based on a de-
fect,10 such as a misjoinder,11 misnomer,12 or non-
joinder13 of parties, ordinarily will be denied.
Where misjoinder of parties, however, is apparent
on the face of the record, it may be ground for
arresting the judgment,14 and a like rule applies
where there is a nonjoinder of a necessary party.15
As a general rule judgment may be arrested where
the record shows that a joint owner or joint ob-
ligee or obligor has not been joined,16 but, under
some statutes, this may be a defect curable by ver-
dict so as to warrant overruling a motion in ar-
rest.1?
Death of party. The death of one of several
plaintiffs or defendants before judgment, being mat-
ter dehors the record, is not properly matter to be
moved in arrest of judgment18
§ 92. — Pleadings in General
a. General considerations
b. Misjoinder of causes of action
c. Joinder of good and bad counts
a. General Considerations
Failure of plaintiff's pleading to allege facts essen-
tial to his cause of action may be ground for arrest of
Judgment.
Except where such defects are amendable, cured,
or waived, as discussed infra this section, if a decla-
ration or complaint entirely omits the allegation of
facts essential to plaintiffs right of recovery, or
plaintiffs title or cause of action appears from the
declaration itself to be defective and bad in law,
so that his pleadings could not support a judg-
ment in his favor,. the judgment may be arrested on
motion of defendant,19 even though the objection is
3. Mo. — State v. Fisher, 130 S.W. 35,
230 Mo. -325, Ann.Cas.1912A.970.
34 C.J. p 33 note 27.
Tailure to serve one of several joint
defendants
Fla. — Harrington v. Bowman, 143 So.
651, 106 Fla. 86.
9. Ga. — Hendrix v. Cawthorn, 71 Ga.
742.
Matters not constituting waiver
It has been held that failure to
serve one of several joint defendants
is not waived by the other defend-
ants merely by Joining- issue or fail-
ing to object before filing motion in
arrest. — Harrington v. Bowman, 14'3
So. 651, 106 Fla. 86.
10. Tenn. — Southern Ry. Co. v. Bru-
beck, 6 Tenn.App. 495.
33 C.J. p S3 note 29,
11. D.C.— tF. H. Smith Co. V. Low,
18 F.2d 817, 57 App.D.C. 167.
Ga. — Love v. National Liberty Ins.
Co., 121 So. 648, 157 Ga. 259.
Iowa,— Miller v. Keokuk & D. M. R.
Co., 16 N.W. 567, 63 Iowa 680.
34 C.J. p 33 note SO.
Parties and causes of action
It has been held that, where there
Is -a misjoinder both of causes of ac-
tion and of parties, the defect may
be taken advantage of by motion in
arrest, if facts appear in the peti-
tion.— McPherson v. Commercial
Building & Securities Co., 218 N.W.
306, 206 Iowa 562.
12. Me.— State v. Knowlton, 70 Me.
200.
Tex. — Wieser v. Thompson Grocery
Co., Civ.\App., 8 S,W.2d 1100.
34 C.J. p 3(3 note 81.
13. Tex. — De Perez v. Everett, 11 S.
W. 388, 73 Tex, 451.
1 C.J. p 127 note 90, p 129 note 8,
p 130 note 12 — 30 C.J. p 1046 note
92—34 C.J. p 83 notes 32, 33 [a].
14. Ala.— Poole v. Griffith, ll2 So.
447, 216 Ala. 120.
Mass. — Clough v. Cromwell, 149 N.E.
68G, 254 Mass. 132.
30 C.J. p 1046 aote 91—34 C.J. p
note '34.
15. Mo. — Fenske v. Epperly, 282 S.
W. 81, 222 Mo.App. 38.
1 C.J. p 125 note 80, p 127 note 91,
p 129 -note 9 — -34 C.J. p 34 note 35.
13. Fla. — Langford v. King Lumber
& Manufacturing Co., 181 So. 395,
152 Fla, 143.
N. J. — Ordinary of State v. Bastlan, 5
A.2d 463, 17 N.J.Misc. 105.
1 OJ. p 129 note 10—9 C.J. p 89 note
1, p 92 note 56—44 C.J. p (33 note
•33.
17. Ga. — Henderson v. Ellarbee, 131
S.E. 524, (35 Ga.App. 5.
18. Ark.— Crow v. State, 23 Ark. 684.
34 C.J. p 34 note 3«.
19. Ala. — Alabama Power Co. v.
Curry, 153 So. 634, 228 (Ala. 444.
Fla. — Dudley v. Harrison, McCready
& Co., 173 So. 820, 127 Flu. 687, re-
hearing denied 174 So. 729, 128 Fla.
338.
Ga.— Auld v. Schmelz, 84 S.B.2d 860,
199 Ga. 6-3-3 — Stowers v. Harris, 22
S.E.2d 40'5, 194 Ga. 636— Wrenn v.
Allen, 180 S.E. 104, 180 Ga. 613—
Smith v. Franklin Printing Co.,
187 S.E. 904, 54 Ga.App. 385.
111. — Scott v. Freeport Motor Cas.
Co. of Freeport, 58 N.E.2d 618, 324
Ill.App. 529, reversed on other
grounds 64 N.E.2d 542, 392 111.
212
332 — Waxenberg v. J. J. Newberry
Co., 23 N.E.2d 574, «02 Ill.App. 128
— Randall Dairy Co. v. Pevely
Dairy Co., 274 IlLApp. 474— Laugh-
lin v. North America Benefit Cor-
poration, 244 I11.APP. 391— Misek
v. Village of La Grange, 239 111.
App. 360 — Harris v. Piggly Wig-
gly Stores, 2«36 IlLApp. 892.
Ind.— Sager v. Moltz, 1-39 N.E. 687,
80 Ind.App. 122— City of Lafayette
v. West, 87 N.E. 550, 413 Ind.App.
325.
Iowa.— Millard v. Herges, 236 N.W.
89, 213 Iowa 279, modified on other
grounds 2i38 N.W. 604.
Me.— Milo v. Milo Water Co., 152 A.
616, 129 Me. 46-3.
Mo.— Span v. Jackson, Walker Coal
& Mining Co., 16 S.W.2d 190, 322
Mo. 158 — Gannaway v. Pitcairn,
App., 109 S.W.2d 78.
Tenn.— Curtis v. Kyte, 106 S.W.2d
234, 21 Tenn.App. 115.
34 C.J. p 34 note 38—19 C.J. p 1212
note 73 [a].
Sufficiency of defenses as ground for
motion see infra § 96.
Joint liability
In suit on note against defendants
jointly, where pleadings do not show
joint liability on face, motion in ar-
rest of judgment on joint verdict
should -be sustained. — Prosser v. Or-
lando Bank & Trust Co., Ill So. 516,
93 Fla. 177.
Action against married woman
Where the liability of a married
woman is not shown in the plead-
ings, the defect hiay be taken advan-
tage of by motion to arrest Judg-
ment.— Sheppard v. Kindle, 3
Humphr., Tenn., 80—30 C.J. p 1046.
note 89.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 92
made for the first time by the motion in arrest,20
and, under some statutes, motions in arrest are
predicated solely on defects in the pleading.21
Judgment will not be arrested for any defect in the
pleadings which would not have been fatal on gen-
eral demurrer,22 but not every defect available
on demurrer will warrant arresting the judgment;
greater strictness is shown on a motion of this
kind than on a demurrer,23 the motion being denied
if the issue joined is such that the court can pre-
sume that the defects or omissions were supplied by
proof at the trial.24 The judgment cannot be ar-
rested because the complaint fails to anticipate and
negative defenses.26 The question of the propriety
of allowing an amendment to be made in the plead-
ings cannot be raised on motion in arrest26 Du-
plicity in the pleadings is not ground for arrest,27
and mere error or irregularity with respect to fil-
ing or serving pleadings is not ground for arrest-
ing the judgment.28 Taking issue on an immaterial
allegation is not ground for arrest of judgment.29
Necessity and effect of demurrer. In some ju-
risdictions the fact that defendant does not demur
to plaintiffs pleading does not necessarily preclude
a motion in arrest based on defects in such plead-
ing,30 but in other jurisdictions, sometimes by vir-
tue of statutory provision, judgment will not be
arrested for any defect that should have been ob-
jected to by demurrer.51 particularly if enough ap-
pears to show for whom the judgment should be
rendered.32 According to some cases, a motion in
arrest of judgment will not be entertained after the
overruling of a demurrer to the declaration,33 at
least where the motion is based on any exceptions
which might have been considered on the demur-
rer,34 and a fortiori matter which was objected to
by demurrer and decided on cannot afterward be
urged in arrest of judgment.35 It has been held
or recognized, however, that a motion in arrest
may lie, even though the objection relied on was
raised and decided on a prior demurrer,36 or, at
least, that the motion may lie where the defect on
20. Mo.— Mehlstaub v. Michael, 287
S.W. 1079, 221 MO.APP. 807.
21. Iowa.— Millard v. Herges, 236 N.
W. 89, 213 Iowa 279, modified on
other grounds 238 N.W. 604.
22. Mo. — Span v. Jackson, Walker
Coal & Mining Co., 16 S.W.2d 190,
322 Mo. 158— Woods v. State, 10
Mo. 43(3.
yt. — Johnson v. Hardware Mut. Cas-
ualty Co., 1 A.2d 817, 109 Vt. 481
— Raithel v. Hall, 124 A. 586, $7
Vt. 469.
34 C.J. p 35 note 42.
23. U.S.— Louisville & N. R. Co. v.
Word, 111., 61 -P. 927, 10 C.C.A. 166.
Oa.— Rollins v. Personal Finance Co.,
175 S.B. 609, 49 Ga.App. 365.
m.— Randall Dairy Co. v. -Pevely
Dairy Co., 274 IlLApp. 474.
Ind.— City of Lafayette v. West, 87
N.E. 650, 45 Ind.App. 325.
34 C.J. p 34 note 41, p 35 notes 4-3,
44, 45 [a].
Liberal construction of pleadings see
infra 5 98.
Reason for rule
Because of the doctrine of aider,
waiver, and amendments, declaration
which might be bad as against de-
murrer is not necessarily considered
bad on motion in arrest of Judgment.
—Fillet v. Brshick, 126 So. 784, 99
Fla. 483.
24. N.H.— Smith v. Eastern R. Co..
35 N.H. 356.
46 C.J. p 35 note 44.
25. Tenn. — Allen v. Word, 6
Humphr. 284.
84 C.J. p 36 note 51.
.26. Md.— Le Strange v. State, 58
Md. 26.
27. Mo.— Pickering v. Mississippi
Valley Nat. Tel. Co., 47 Mo. 457.
34 C.J. p 36 note 54.
28. Fla.— Ball v. Holland, 79 So. 635,
76 Fla. 268.
34 C.J. p 36 note 55.
29. Conn.— Robbins v. Wolcott, 19
Conn. 356.
34 C.J. p 36 note 56.
30. Ga.— • Harbin v. Hunt, 105 S.E.
842, 151 Ga. 60 — Rubenstein v. Lee,
192 S.E. 85, 56 GfiuApp. 49.
34 C.J. p 36 note 59 [b].
31. Ind.— Wright v. J. R. Watkins
Co., 159 N.E. 761, 86 Ind.App. 695—
Ernsting v. Stegman, 156 N.E. 520,
86 Ind.App. 213— Sager v. Moltz,
139 N.E. 687, 80 Ind.App. 122—
Malone v. Kitchen, 137 N.E. 562,
79 Ind.App. 119.
34 C. J. p 35 note 45.
Departure
Where replication and bill of par-
ticulars set forth facts which were
in accordance with subsequent proof,
but which were at variance with
facts stated in the complaint, and
there was no demurrer, the judg-
ment was not subject to arrest. —
Belisomo v. Ceresa, 251 P. 531, 80
Colo. 325.
32. Ohio. — Jordan v. James, 5 Ohio
88.
35 CXJ. P 55 note 45.
83. Colo. — Freas v. Engelbreeht, 3
Colo. 877.
34 C.J. p 36 note 57.
34. Vt — White v. Central Vermont
R. Co., 89 'A. 618, 87 Vt 330, af-
firmed Central Vermont R. Co. v.
213
White, 35 S.Ct 865, 238 U.S. 507,
59 L.Ed. 1433, Ann.Cas.l916B 252.
34 C.J. p 36 note 57.
In Illinois
(1) The rule stated in the text has
been recognized. — Langan v. Enos
Fire Escape Co., 84 N.E. 267, 233 111.
308— Reed v. Zellers, 273 Ill.App. 18
— 34 C.J. p 36 note 57, p 38 note 70
[b].
(2) According to some cases, how-
ever, the objection that the declara-
tion is so totally defective that it
does not support the Judgment or
that the declaration does not state a
cause of action may be availed of
by a motion in arrest, even after a
demurrer has been overruled and
defendant has pleaded over. — Grim-
mer v. Friederich, 45 N.E. 49S, 164
111. 245— Steams v. Cope, 109 111. 340
— Randall Dairy Co. v. Pevely Dairy
Co., 274 Ill.App. 474.
In T^fll'V"*1-
(1) The rule has been recognized
in view of a statutory provision. —
Hedekin Land & Improvement Co.
v. Campbell, 112 N.E. 97, 184 Ind. 643
—34 C.J. p 135 note 45.
(2) In some earlier cases, however,
the view was taken that a motion in
arrest would lie even though a prior
demurrer had been overruled. — Stew-
art v. Terre Haute & L R. Co., 2 N.E.
208, 103 Ind. 44— Newman v. Perrill,
73 Ind. 153.
35. Md.— Davis v. Carroll, 18 A. 96S,
71 Md. 568.
34 C.J. p 36 note 58.
36. Iowa. — Decatur v. Simpson, 88
N.W. 839, 115 Iowa 348.
34 CJ. p 36 note 59.
92
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
which it is based was not raised by the prior de-
murrer.37
Defects amendable, waived, or cured. If the de-
fect in the pleadings is merely formal and there-
fore amendable, or such as may be waived by going
to triaj without objection, or consists only in a
faulty or inartificial manner of setting out a title
or cause of action or defense which appears to be
good in law, it cannot be reached by motion in ar-
rest.38 A motion in arrest of judgment will not be
granted because of any failure or defect in the
pleadings which could have been amended, the
amendments being considered as made for the pur-
poses of the motion,8 9 or for any defect or omission
which may be considered as having been waived by
defendant,40 or cured by the plea or answer41 or by
the verdict or finding,42 the general rule with re-
gard to omissions being that although the petition
may be defective, if it appears that the verdict could
not have been given or judgment rendered without
proof of the matter omitted to be stated, the defect
will be cured or waived and the judgment will not
be arrested.43 According to some cases, however,
if a fact essential to plaintiffs right of action is nei-
ther expressly stated nor necessarily implied from
the facts which are stated, a verdict will not cure
the defect, and judgment will be arrested,44
37. Tenn. — Hydes Ferry Turnpike
Co. v. Tates, 67 S.W. 69, 108 Tenn.
428.
34 C.J. p 36 note 59.
38. Iowa. — Kirchner v. Dorsey &
Dorsey, 284 N.W. 171, 226 Iowa 283
— Corpus Juris cited in Pomerantz
v. "Pennsylvania-Dixie Cement Cor-
poration, 2-37 'N.W. 443, 444, 212
Iowa 1007 — Eilers v. Frieling, 234
N.W. 275, 211 Iowa 841— Nelson
v. Higgins, 218 N.W. 509, 206 Iowa
672.
Mo.— Mehlstaub v. Michael, 287 S.
W. 1079, 221 Mo.App. 807.
34 C.J. p 34 note 41.
Negligence
(1) A petition containing- a gen-
eral averment of negligence is good
as against a motion In arrest.
Ind.— City of Lafayette v. West 87
N.E. 550, 43 Ind-App. ,325.
Iowa. — Kirchner v. Dorsey & Dorsey,
284 N.W. 171, 226 Iowa 28>3.
(2) A general averment of neg-
ligence In doing or omitting a par-
ticular act, unless it is too general
to give defendants reasonable notice
of negligence charged, is good as
against a motion in arrest of Judg-
ment, since under those allegations
facts constituting negligence may
be shown. — Bates v. City of McComb,
179 So. 737, 181 Miss. 336.
(3) In an action for personal inju-
ries based on alleged negligence of
defendant a declaration which states
facts fairly raising a question for
decision by a Jury on the existence
of a duty, violation of that duty,
injury to plaintiff because of that
violation, and due care by plaintiff
is a sufficient declaration as against
a motion In arrest of Judgment. —
Paris v. Bast St Louis Ry. Co., 275
IlbApp. 241.
Action of ejectment
Motion in arrest of Judgment be-
cause the ejectment against the cas-
ual ejector was wrongfully entitled
was overruled where the declaration
to which the real defendant pleaded
was properly entitled. — Huidekoper I
v. Burrus, Pa., 12 F.Cas.No.6,849, 1
Wash.C,C. 257.
Declaration, petition, or complaint
sufficient as against motion in ar-
rest
Ala. — Drummonds v. Donahoo, 114
So. 277, 22 Ala.App. 215.
Del.— Terry v. Pennsylvania R. Co.,
156 A. 787, 5 W.W.Harr. 1.
Fla.— Pillet v. Ershick, 126 So.
784, 99 Fla. 483.
Ga. — Stowers v. Harris, 22 S.E.2d
405, 194 Ga. 6£6— Rubenstein v.
Lee, 192 S.EL 85, 56 Ga.App. 49.
111.— Connett v. Winget, 30 N.R2d
1, 374 111. 531, mandate conformed
to 34 N.B.2d 878, 310 Ill.App. 533
— Powell v. 'Myers Sherman Co.,
32 N.B.2d 663, 309 IlLApp. 12—
Cohen v. Fineman, 13 N.E.2d 848,
294 IlLApp. 606— Paris v. East St.
Louis Ry. Co., 275 IlLApp. 241.
Ind. — Wright v: J. R. Watkins Co.,
159 N.E. 761, 86 Ind.App. 695.
Ky.— Phillips v. Phillips, 7 B.Mon.
268.
Mo.— Mehlstaub v. Michael, 287 S.W.
1079, 221 Mo.App. 807.
Vt.— Ralthel y. Hall, 124 A, 586, 97
Vt. 469.
39, Ga.— Auld v. Schmelz, 34 S.E.
2d 860, 199 Ga. 633 — Stowers v.
Harris, 22 S.E.2d 405, 194 Ga. 636
' — Wrenn v. Allen, 180 S.E. 104,
180 Ga. 6113 — Pattillo v. Mangum,
177 S.E. 604, 179 Ga. 784— Smith v.
Franklin -Printing Co., 187 S.E. 904,
54 Ga.App. 385 — Oliver v. Fire-
man's Ins. Co., 155 S.E. 227, 42
Ga.App. 99.
Iowa. — Baehr-Shive Realty Co. v.
Stoner-McCray System, 268 N.W.
53, 221 Iowa 1186.
34 C.J. p 3'8 note $9— -30 C.J. p 1046
note 89 [b].
Informal iv*^ y* fl**n ^nt
U.S.— U. S. v. Trollinger, C.C.A.Va.,
81 F.2d 167, certiorari dismissed
Trollinger v. U. S., 57 S.Ct. 757,
299 U.S. 617, 81 L.Ed. 455.
Ga. — Guthrie v. Spence, 191 S.E.
188, 55 Ga.App. 669 — Oliver v.
Fireman's Ins. Co., 155 S.E. 227,
42 Ga.App. 99 — Henderson v. Ellar-
bee, 131 S.E. 524, <35 Ga.App. 5.
214
Damages
Where a general cause of action
is set out and not demurred to, the
Judgment will not be arrested, al-
though the elements of damages are
insufficiently alleged, since the de-
fect was amendable. — Stowers v.
Harris, 22 S.E.2d 405, 194 Ga. 636—
Moss v. Fortson, 27 S.E. 745, 99 Ga.
496.
40. Ind.— Wright v. J. R. Watkins
Co., 159 N.E. 761, 86 Ind.App. 695.
Iowa. — Nelson v. Higgins, 218 N.W.
509, 206 dowa 672.
Mo. — Gannaway v. Pitcairn, App., 109
S.W.2d 78.
Tenn. — Life & Casualty Ins. Co. of
Tennessee v. City of Nashville,
137 S.W.2d 287, 175 Tenn. 688.
34 C.J. p 38 note 70.
41. Ohio. — McFeely v. Vantyle, 2
Ohio 197.
34 C.J. p 34 notes 38, 59.
42. U.S.— New York Underwriters'
Ins. Co. v. Portwood, C.C.A.MO.,
50 F.2d 897.
Ga. — Auld v. iSchmelz, 34 S.E.2d 860,
199 Ga. 633 — Stowers v. Harris, 22
S.E.2d 405, 194 Ga. 636— Wrenn
v. Allen, 180 S.E. 104, 1-80 Ga. 613
— OPattillo v. * Mangum, 177 S.E.
604, 179 Ga. 784— Rubens tein v.
Lee, 192 S.E. 85, 56 Ga.App. 49—
Smith v. Franklin Printing Co.,
187 S.E. 904, 54 Ga.App. 385—
Rollins v. Personal Finance Co.,
•175 S.E. -609, 49 Ga^App. 365—
McBride v. Sconyers, 167 SJB3. 809,
46 Ga.App. 235.
Me. — Inhabitants of Town of Milo v.
MIlo Water Co., 152 A. 616, 129
Me. 46.3.
Tenn.— ^Curtis v. Kyte, 106 S.W.2d
234, 21 Tenn.App. 115.
24 C.J. p 830 note 74—34 C.J. p 38
note 71.
43* Mo. — Gannaway v. Pitcairn,
App., 109 «.W.2d 78.
34 C.J. p 59 note 72.
44. Tenn.— Curtis v. Kyte, 106 S.W.
2d 234, 21 Tenn.App. 115.
34 C.J. p 39 note 73.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 94
b. Misjoinder of Causes of Action
Subject to various qualifications and limitations, a
misjoinder of causes of action may be ground for arrest
of judgment.
Subject to statutory provisions changing or qual-
ifying the rule,45 a misjoinder of counts or causes
of action, with damages assessed entire, is ground
for arresting the judgment,4^ but it is otherwise
where one of the counts or causes so joined is
stricken out or withdrawn from the jury,47 or where
the damages have been separately assessed on the
several counts.48 Where the verdict rests wholly
on one count, the judgment will not be arrested
for misjoinder of counts.49 Under some statutes,
where there are several causes of action stated in
one count, the objection must be taken by demurrer
or motion to strike, or it will be considered waived
or cured by verdict and cannot be raised by motion
in arrest of judgment.50
c. Joinder of Good and Bad Counts
Where a general verdict for the plaintiff Is taken
on several counts, judgment will not be arrested if there
is a good count to which the verdict can be applied.
At common law, especially in various earlier
cases, it has been held or recognized that, if a
general verdict for plaintiff is taken on several
counts in plaintiffs pleading, and one of the counts
is fatally defective, the judgment will be arrested
on motion, although other counts not subject to ob-
jection were covered by the verdict.51 Under the
rule now quite generally prevailing, however, ei-
ther by virtue of statute or judicial decision, the
judgment will not be arrested if there is one good
count to which the verdict can be applied, that is, a
motion in arrest will not prevail unless all the
counts are so defective as not to have been cured
by the verdict;52 and a like rule applies where the
case is tried before the court.53
§ 93. Variance
As a general rule a motion In arrest of Judgment
may not be based on the ground of an alleged variance.
As a general rule a motion in arrest of judgment
may not be based on the ground of an alleged vari-
ance,54 either where the variance is between the
writ or prsecipe and the declaration or complaint,55
or between the declaration or complaint and the
proof.56 There apparently is authority for the view
that the objection that a judgment does not con-
form to the verdict should be raised by a motion in
arrest.57
§ 94.
Jury
A judgment may be arrested on the ground that the
jury was illegally constituted, but not, as a general rule,
for objections with respect to qualification or competency
of jurors.
A judgment may be arrested where the jury was
illegally constituted,58 but not, as a general rule,
45. 111. — Randall Dairy Co. v. Pev-
ely Dairy Co., 274 Ill.App. 474.
34 C.J. P 36 note 60.
43. Del.— Knight v. Industrial Trust
Co.. 193 A. 72*3, 8 W.W.Harr. 480.
Pa. — Pettit v. Sanger, 2 Pearson 84.
34 C.J. p 36 note 61, p 87 note 67
[a] (2).
Misjoinder both of causes of action
and of parties
It has been stated that misjoinder
both of causes of action and par-
ties may be taken advantage of by
.-motion in arrest if facts appear in
petition. — McPherson v. Commercial
•Building & Securities Co., 218 N.W.
306, 206 Iowa 562.
-47. Mass. — Richmond v. Whittlesey,
2 Allen 280.
34 C.J. p 137 note 62.
.48. Ky.— Louisville & (Portland Ca-
nal Co. v. Rowan, 4 Dana 606.
-Vt— Haskell v. Bowen, 44 Vt. 579.
Cure of defect
On a motion in arrest of judgment
the court, if holding that the counts
-were -not properly joined, might cure
the defect by permitting plaintiff to
-remit damages on one of the counts,
where special verdict rendered the
. damages separable. — Wilson Bros.
Garage v. Larrow, 98 A. 902, 90 Vt
413.
*9. Conn.— Sellick v. Hall. 47 Conn.
260.
Pa.— Wenburg v. Homer, 6 Binn.
307.
50. Mo.— Sebek v. Wells, App., 18
S.W.2d 518.
34 CJ. p 37 -note 65.
Duplicity as ground for motion see
supra subdivision a of this sec-
tion.
51. 111. — St Louis Cons. Coal Co.
v. Scheiber, 47 N.E. 1052, 167 HI.
539.
34 C.J. p 37 note 67.
Husband and wife as Joint parties
Md.— Hemming v. Elliott, 7 A. 110,
66 Md. 197.
30 C.J. p 1046 note 90.
52. 111.— Randall Dairy Co. v. Pev-
ely Dairy Co., 274 Ill.App. 474—
Fickerle v. Herman Seekamp, Inc.,
274 IlLApp. 310.
Tenn.— Tallent v. Fox, 141 S.W.2d
485, 24 Tenn.App. 96.
34 C.J. p 87 note 68.
Ho request for separate verdict
111. — Smithers v. Henriquez, 4 N.B.
2d 793, 287 ULApp. 95, affirmed 15
N.E.2d 499, 368 111. 588.
215
In an action of ejectment after
issue joined on the title only and
a verdict for plaintiff for the land
on one of the counts in the declara-
tion mentioned, it was no ground for
arrest of Judgment that the two
counts laid demises of the same land
to different persons. — Throckmorton
v. Cooper, 3 Munf. 9i3, 17 Va, 93.
53. Ind.— Lester v. Hinkle, 153 N.B.
179, 90 Ind.App. 193.
54. 111. — Donley v. Dougherty, 97
IlLApp. 544.
34 C.J. p 39 note 81.
55. "W.Va. — Swindell v. Harper, 41
S.B. 117, 51 W.Va. 381.
34 C.J. p 59 note 82.
56. Md. — Montgomery Bus Lines v.
Diehl, 148 A. 453, 158 Md. 233.
Tenn. — Corpus Juris cited In Mosley
v. Robert Orr & Co., 6 Tenn.App.
243, 245.
34 C.J. p 39 note 8(3.
57. Mo.— Lee v. Wilkins, 79 Mo.App.
159.
Ground for arrest not shown
Ga. — Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v.
Morgan, 8 S.E.2d 393, 190 Ga. 98.
53, Mo. — Cox v. Moss, 53 Mo. 432.
34 C.J. p 39 note 85.
§ 94
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
for objections to the qualification or competency of
jurors59 or because of the misconduct of a juror.60
Where an issue of fact is tried by the court which
regularly should have been tried by a jury, the judg-
ment will be arrested unless the record shows that
a jury was waived.61
In Connecticut, where so-called motions in ar-
rest may be grounded on matters dehors the rec-
ord, as discussed supra § 88, judgment may be ar-
rested for the misconduct, disqualification, or in-
competency of a juror,62 provided the objecting
party was ignorant of the matter relied on until
after verdict, and therefore did not waive it by
going on with the trial without objection*63
§ 95.
Verdict and Findings
A motion In arrest of Judgment Is a proper method
of raising objections based on defects in a verdict ap-
pearing on the face of the record; but such a motion
does not reach defects or irregularities in the verdict
which are merely formal or inconsequential.
In general a motion in arrest of judgment is a
proper method of raising objections based on de-
fects in a verdict appearing on the face of the rec-
ord.64 Such a motion does not, however, reach a
merely formal or inconsequential defect or irregu-
larity in the verdict;65 but it will reach a verdict
which appears from the record to be materially de-
fective.66 A motion in arrest may be based on the
ground that the verdict is not responsive to the is-
sues, or that it differs in a material respect from
the pleadings and the issues formed thereon,67 ex-
cept where the part of the issue not found is im-
material or bad.68 A motion in arrest of judgment
lies where the verdict is rendered on an immaterial
issue, not decisive of the merits of the cause,69 or
Number of Jurors
(.1) If the case Is tried in a court
of record -before a smaller number of
jurors than the party is entitled to,
and his consent does not expressly
appear of record, he may take ad-
vantage of the objection by motion
in arrest. — Ray v. Collins, Mo.App.,
274 S.W. 1098—84 C.J. p 39 note 85
[a] (1).
(2) It was held, however, that a
recital in the record showed that
there was a waiver of a full Jury.
— Ray v. Collins, supra.
59. Vt.— Atkinson v. Allen, 12 VL
619, (36 Am.D. 861.
84 C.J. p 40 note 87.
Motion properly denied
Fla.— Adams v. Elliott, 174 So. 731,
128 Pla, 79.
60. Pa. — Hoar v. Flegal, 1 Pennyp.
208.
34 C.J. p ,40 note 88.
61. Mo'.— Dilly v. Omaha ft 8t I*
R. Co., 55 Mo.App. 1213,
34 C.J. p 40 note 92.
62. Conn. — GaJligan y. City of Wa-
terbury, 122 A. 119, 99 Conn. 164.
34 C.J. p 40 note 90.
Matters held insufficient basis of
motion,
(1) Motion in arrest was properly
overruled, where finding: showed no
misconduct of Juror and claimed
misconduct was too trivial for con-
sideration, was not occasioned by
prevailing- party, and did not preju-
dice appellant. — Wood v. Kenney, 182
A. 451, 104 Conn. 738.
(2) Other matters regarded as
insufficient— 'Nichols v. Bronson, 2
Day, Conn., -211 — Apthorp y. Backus,
Kirby, Conn.. 407, 1 AmJX 26—34
C.J. p 40 note 90 [a],
63. Conn. — Bailey y, Truznbull, 81
Conn. 681.
84 C.J. p 40 note 91.
64. Fla. — Frost v. Durschlag, 157
So. T88, 117 Fla, 100— Fayter y.
Shore, 153 So. 511, 114 Fla. 115.
Mo. — Midwest Nat. Bank & Trust
Co. v. (Parker Corn Co., 245 S.W.
217. 211 iMo.App. 418.
65. Ga. — Bishop y. iPendley Lumber
Co., 82 S.B. 287, 141 Ga. 826.
34 C.J. p 40 note 94.
Defendant not specifically named in
verdict
The trial court's giving of per-
emptory direction to find for one of
two defendants and jury's verdict for
plaintiff disposed of all issues and
parties, although such direction was
not submitted to jury and verdict
did not specifically name other de-
fendant, where Jury was instructed
that verdict should be against latter
defendant, if certain facts were
found, so that court did not err in
overruling such defendant's motion
in arrest of judgment — Newdiger
v. Kansas City, IK S.W.2d 1047,
342 Mo. 252.
66. Md.— -Cohen y. Karp, 122 A. 524,
143 Md. 208.
Mo. — Caruthersville Plumbing & Au-
to Co, v. Uoyd, Appn 279 &W.
2(30.
34 C.J. p 40 note 95.
Defect not appearing of record
•In a case in which the rule stated
in the text was recognized, it was
held that a motion for an order set-
ting aside and vacating verdict on
ground that verdict was nullity, in
that jury had not unanimously
agreed thereon, if accorded status
of motion in arrest of judgment,
was properly denied, where alleged
fault on which it was based did not
appear on face of record. — Van De-
mark y. Sartorius, 7 A.2d 168, 122
N.J.L.aw 50i8.
67. Fla,-— Hull v. Laine, 17* So. 701,
127 Fla. 433.
216
Mo. — Boudreau y. Myers, App., 54
S.W.2d 998^Caruthersville Plumb-
ing & Auto Co. v. Lloyd, App., 279
S.W. 2'30.
34 C.J. p 40 note 96, p 41 note 99.
Issues raised by counterclaim
Motion in arrest of judgment on
verrlict finding issues for defendant,
without disposing of Issues raised
by counterclaim, was properly grant-
ed.— Greco v. Keenan, 161 A. 100,
115 Conn. 704.
Several defendants
(1) Motion in arrest of Judgment
should have been granted where a
verdict was for both defendants for
the excess of one defendant's sep-
arate set-off against plaintiffs joint
and several demand. — Cohen y. Karp,
122 A, 524, 1413 Md. 208.
(2) Other cases see "34 C.J. p 40
note 96 [c].
Case not within, role
The chancellor did not err in over-
ruling complainants' motion in ar-
rest of judgment on the ground that
verdict and judgment on issue sub-
mitted to jury were not responsive
to the pleadings, where the ques-
tion thus submitted was raised in
complainants' bill .and denied by
the answer. — Adams v. 'Winnett, 156
S.W.2d 35)8, 25 Tenn^App. 276.
68. Mo.— Moffett y. Turner, 23 Mo.
App. 194.
«4 C.J. p 41 note 97.
69. Conn. — Palmer v. Seymour, Kir*-
by 139.
34 C.J. p 41 note 99.
roability to determine for whom
Judgment to be given
If an issue is so immaterial that
the court cannot determine ftoxn the
finding on it for which vasty Judg-
ment should be given, the judgment
should be arrestedl — Scott v. Free-
port Motor Cas. Co. of Freeport, 58
N.E.2d 618, 324 IlLApp. 529, revers
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
96
where the verdict is insufficient to sustain a judg-
ment,70 According to some cases, a general verdict
on several counts or pleas properly joined, although
erroneous in not specifying on which plea it is
based, or in not stating that it is based on all the
pleas, is not, in the absence of instructions to make
separate findings, ground for arresting judgment.71
Failure to make findings where findings are neces-
sary is ground for arresting the judgment,72 but in
some jurisdictions failure of the jury to find for
defendant on common counts notwithstanding the
court's direction so to find is not ground for arrest
of judgment for plaintiff on another count.78
§ 95. Miscellaneous
Generally speaking, an error of law based on the In-
terpretation of the record proper Is ground for arrest
of judgment, but ordinarily a matter of defense which
might have been pleaded is not a basis for arrest.
Broadly speaking, any error of law based on in-
terpretation of the record proper may be reached by
motion in arrest.74 The omission of steps proper or
necessary to be taken before the trial, but which do
not affect the jurisdiction of the court, in general
afford no ground for a motion in arrest,75 nor does
the denial of a motion for a continuance, to which
no exception was taken.™ Constitutionality of the
statute fixing the time for holding a term of court
cannot be questioned by motion in arrest after ver-
dict,77 and a like rule has been applied with respect
to the constitutionality of a statute creating the
court where the question was first raised by the mo-
tion in arrest78 In some jurisdictions a discontinu-
ance which is evidenced by the verdict may be
reached by a motion in arrest79
Defenses. Generally speaking, a judgment will
not be arrested because of any matter which de-
fendant might have pleaded and relied on as a de-
fense to the action, whether by plea in bar80 or in
abatement,81 except such as go to the jurisdiction,
discussed supra § 89. In general, on a motion in
arrest, defendant may not urge matters of defense
which have been put in issue and have been passed
on by the court and jury82 or which do not appear
on the face of the record.83 Although, where the
verdict is against plaintiff, a motion in arrest based
on the alleged insufficiency of defendant's plea has
been held not available to plaintiff,84 under some
statutes it has been held that a motion in arrest is
available to plaintiff to test the sufficiency of a de-
fense pleaded as affirmative matter.85
The premature commencement of the action86 or
the fact that the cause of action declared on ac-
crued subsequent to the date of the writ87 has been
regarded as ground for a motion in arrest of judg-
ment unless there is nothing in the record to show
prematurity.88 .
«d on other grounds 64 N.E.2d 542,
392 111. 332.
70. Mo. — Wright v. Hannan & Ever-
itt, Inc., 81 S.W.2d 303, 336 Mo.
732.
34 C.J. p 41 note 1.
71. Ga.— Ball v. Powers, 62 Ga.
757.
Mass. — Richmond v. Whittlesey, 2
Allen 230.
Tex. — Byrne v. Lynn, 44 S.W. 311,
544, 18 Tex.Civ.App. 252.
gin fling on all issues intended
Motion in arrest of judgment was
properly overruled where, by the
verdict, a finding on all the issues
evidently was intended. — Hayes v.
Virginia Mut Protective Ass'n, 76
Va. 225.
72. Mo.— Winkelman *v. Maddox, 95
S.W. 308, 119 Mo.App. 658 — Grimes
v. Sprague, 86 iMo.<App. 245.
34 C.J. p 41 note 2.
78. Md.— Rosenthal v. Heft, 150 A.
850, 159 Md. 302.
74. Mo.— Reed v. Nicholson, 93 Mo.
App. 29.
34 C.J. p 41 note 11.
Attorney's fees
Where a judgment includes at-
torney's fees which are not recov-
erable in the action, it Is not error
to arrest the judgment in so far as
It provides for the recovery of such
fees.— Love v. National Liberty Ins.
Co., 121 S.E. 648, 157 Ga. 259.
Ground for arrest of judgment not
Shown
Ga.— Felker v. Johnson, 7 S.E.2d 668,
189 Ga. 797.
N.H.— (Lavigne v. Lavigne, 119 A.
869, 80 N.H. 559.
75* Mo.— Gilstrap v. Felts, 50 Mo.
428.
84 C.J. p 41 note 12.
76. Md. — Phoebus v. Sterling, 198
A. 717, 174 Md. 894.
77. Mo. — Browning v. Powers, 44
S.W. 2*24, 142 Mo. 322.
78. Mo.— Howell v. Sherwood, 147
S.W. 810, 242 Mo. 513.
79. Fla. — Harrington v. Bowman,
143 So. 651, 106 Fla. 86.
SO. Tenn. — Corpus Juris onoted in
Hammett v. Vogue, Inc., 165 S.W.
2d 577, 579, 580, 179 Tenn. 224.
34 C.J. P 41 note 4.
Defense of statute of limitations
see the C.J.S. title Limitations of
Actions § 451, also 37 C.J. p 1211
note 26.
Coverture cannot be set up after
judgment in arrest thereof. — Smith
v. Pegram, Tex.Civ.App., 80 S.W.2d
354, error refused.
81* Tenn. — Corpus Juris qu°*«d in
217
Hammett v. Vogue, Inc., 165 S.W.
2d 577, 579, 580, 179 Tenn. 284.
34 C.J. p 41 note 5.
82. Ga. — Olshine v. Bryant, 189 S.E.
572, 55 Ga.App. 90.
83. D.C.— Walls v. Guy, 4 F.2d 444,
55 APP.D.C. 251.
84. Tenn. — Wood v. Imperial Motor
Co., 5 TeniuApp. 246— Blbinger
Shoe Co. v. Thomas, 1 Tenn.App.
161.
85. 111. — Scott v. Freeport Motor
Cas. Co. of Freeport, 64 N.B.2d 542,
392 ni. 632.
86. Iowa.— Reeves v. Lamm, 94 N.
W. 839, 120 Iowa 283.
34 C.J. P 41 note 7.
Action on insurance policy
Iowa. — .woodcock v. Hawkeye Ins.
Co., 66 N.W. 764, 97 Iowa 562.
26 C.J. p 571 notes S4, 35.
Bight not waived
Mere silence, when making other
objections, did not operate as a
waiver of the right to present a mo-
tion in arrest.— Woodcock v. Hawk-
eye Ins. Co., 66 N.W. 764, 97 Iowa
562.
87. Ohio.— Chapline v. Tope, Tapp. p
282.
34 C.J. P 41 note 8.
88. Mo. — Burman v. Vezeau, 85 S.W.
2d 217, 231 Mo.App. 1109.
§ 96
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
Evidence. For the purpose of a motion in arrest,
the record does not include the evidence taken at
the trial, as discussed infra § 98, and it is no ground
for arresting a judgment that there was error in
the admission of evidence at the trial,8^ or that the
evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict or
findings.90 The fact that a verdict was obtained by
perjury is not ground for arrest of judgment, where
such fact does not appear on the face of the rec-
ord.**
Trial A motion in arrest of judgment ordinarily
cannot be based on any matters which took place at
the trial of the cause, or on irregularities or failure
to follow the rules of procedure in the conduct of
such
§ 97. Motions in Arrest
a. General considerations
b. Time for moving and for deciding mo-
tion
a. General Considerations
Usually a motion In arrest of Judgment It made by
defendant. The motion ordinarily should set forth the
specific grounds on which It Is based.
While some statutes authorize either party to
make a motion in arrest of judgment,93 it is usu-
ally made by defendant.94 The motion need not
be made in writing95 unless a statute or court rule
so requires.96 The motion should point out the
specific grounds on which it is based,97 although,
according to some cases, this is not indispensable.98
The motion is subject to amendment.99 No plead-
ing or written answer is required in opposition to
the motion.1
The mere fact that the moving party denominates
his motion a motion in arrest does not make it such
a motion.2 On the other hand, the fact that a mo-
tion is denominated a motion in arrest may be suf-
ficient in connection with other supporting facts to
show that the motion is one in arrest.3 According
to some cases, a motion by defendant in the form of
a motion non obstante veredicto may be treated as
a motion in arrest if it assigns grounds sufficient
to arrest the judgment.4 A verdict is subject to
review by the trial court pending a ruling on a mo-
tion in arrest.5
89. TJ.S.— Clary v. Hardeeville Brick
Co.. C.CJS.C., 100 F. 015.
34 C.J. p 39 note 77.
90. Conn.-- Pickens v. Miller, 177 A.
5T3, 119 Conn. 553.
111. — Smlthers v. Henriques, 15 N.B.
2d 499, 3'6'8 HI. 588.
Iowa.— Kirk v. Litterst, 32 N.W.
106, 71 Iowa 71.
Md. — Montgomery Bus Lines V.
IDfehl, 148 A. 455, 158 Md. 2=33.
N.H.— Lowell v. Sabin, 15 N.H. 29.
84 C.J. p 39 -notes 78, 79.
91. Ga. — Grogan v. Deraney, 148 8.
E. 912, 38 Ga.App. 287.
92. Vt — Boville v. Dalton Paper
Mills, 85 A. 6213, 86 Vt 305.
34 C.J. p 39 note 75.
Defect of record
In view of a statutory provision
that either party may move in ar-
rest of judgment for any defect not
amendable which appears on the
face of the record or pleadings, the
overruling- of a motion in arrest of
judgment was not error where the
motion complained of alleged errors
committed on the trial, but not of
any defect of record in the verdict
and decree, — Anderson v. G-armon,
21 S.E.2d 61, 194 Ga. 128.
Charge to jury
Tenn. — Earheart v. Hazlewood Bros.,
15 Tenn.App. 454.
93. 111. — Scott v. Fneeport Motor
Cas. Co. of Freeport, 68 NJD.2d
618, 324 IlLApp. 529, reversed on
other grounds 64 N.E.2d 542, 392
111. 382.
94. Ga. — J. S. Schofteld's Sons Co. v. j
Vaughn, 150 S.E. 569, 40 Ga.App.
568.
34 C.J. p 41 note 17.
Except in oases of set-off and
counterclaim, a motion in arrest
should be made by defendant. — Wood
v. Imperial Motor Co., 5 Tienn.App.
246— Elbinger Shoe Co. v. Thomas,
1 Tenn.App. 161.
Effect of statute
At common law, and by the prac-
tice which prevailed prior to the en-
actment of the Civil Practice Act,
it was generally considered that a
motion in arrest was available only
to defendant. — Scott v. Freeport Mo-
tor Casualty Co. of Freeport, 64 N.
E.2d 942, 392 111. 832.
95. Ind.— Fall v. Hazelrigg, 45 Ind.
576, 15 Am.R. 278— Chicago & S.
B. R. Co. v. Wheeler, 42 N.B. 489,
14 Ind.App. 6*2.
96. Ind.— Nichols v. State, 68 N.E.
785, 28 Ind.App. 674.
34 C.J. p 42 note 20.
97. 111. — Edward HInes Lumber Co.
v. Manta, 18 N.E.2d 761, 298 111.
App. 624.
Mo.— City of St. Louis v. Senter
Commission Co., 10-2 S.W.2d 103,
J840 Mo. 6i33 — Tiefenbrunn v. Dick-
erson, App., 161 S.W.2d 428.
Pa. — Puritan Rubber Co. v. Brie
Foundry Co., ComJPl., 24 Brie Co.
86, 56 York Leg.Rec. 89.
34 C.J. p 42 note 21.
Incorporation by reference
Cl) It seems that the motion may
be sufficiently definite where, by ref-
erence, it incorporates statements i
218
contained in another motion present-
ed to the court, which constitute a
sufficient basis of a motion in arrest.
— Mosley v. Robert Orr & Co., 6
Tenn. App. 243.
(2) Under such a motion, however,
judgment will not be arrested where
the other motion does not set forth
sufficient grounds for arrest. — Scott
v. National Life & Accident Ins. Co.,
64 S.W.2d 5«, 16 Tenn.App. <31 — Ear-
heart v. Hazlewood Bros., 15 Tenn.
App. 454.
98. Ind. — Fall v. Hazelrigg, 45 Ind.
576, 15 Am.R. 278.
34 C.J. p 42 note 22.
99. Fla,— Sedgwick v. Dawkins, 16
Fla. 198.
Ga. — Union Compress Co. v. Leffier,
50 S.E. 48<3, 12'2 Ga. 640.
34 C.J. p 42 note 23.
1. Conn. — Raymond v. Bell, 18 Conn.
81.
34 C.J. p 42 notes 19 [a], 24.
Objection improper
111.— Reid v. Chicago Rys, Co., 231
IlLApp. 58.
2. Md. — Phoebus v. Sterling, 198 A.
717, 174 Md. 394.
3. Mo. — Sutton v. Anderson, 31 S.
W.2d 1026, 326 Mo. 1304.
N.J. — Morris Plan Industrial Bank
of New York v. Kemeny, 8 A.fcd
769, 12i3 N.J.Law 389.
Vt. — Trow v. Thomas, 41 A. 652,
70 Vt. 580,
34 C.J. p 42 note 21 [b].
5. Iowa.— -Johnston v. Calvin, 5 N.
W.2d 840, 2i32 Iowa 5'31.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§97
There can be only one motion in arrest of judg-
ment as of right,6 unless possibly one motion has
been sustained, and thereafter further proceedings
on the merits are had,7 although the court may con-
sider a secon<i motion if it chooses to do so;8 but
such successive motions are not favored9
b. Time for Moving and for Deciding Motion
A motion In arrest of judgment should be made after
verdict and before Judgment or within the time fixed by
statute or rule of court.
The proper time for moving in arrest of judg-
ment is after verdict or finding and before judgment
thereon,10 and at the same term of court,11 or with-
in the time fixed by statute or rule of court.12 As
a general rule the motion cannot be made after the
end of the term of court at which the verdict was
returned13 or, under some statutes, at which the
judgment was rendered.14 Laches may bar the mo-
tion.15 In some jurisdictions a motion in arrest
may be sustained only after the verdict has been
approved or after the time for making objections to
the verdict has elapsed.15 The trial court should
rule on the motion with reasonable promptness and
before the expiration of the time to appeal.17
It has been held or recognized that a timely mo-
tion in arrest of judgment may be made after a mo-
tion for a new trial and may be determined after
the disposition of the motion for a new trial.18
Since, however, an order for a new trial vacates
the verdict, as shown in the CJ.S. title New Trial
§ 210, also 46 CJ. p 436 note 75, thereafter a mo-
tion in arrest is ineffective,19 and there should not
be a ruling on such motion.20 According to some
cases it is not the regular or correct practice to
make a motion in arrest of judgment and a motion
for a new trial at the same time,21 but it has also
been held that making two motions at the same time
is not necessarily improper practice,22 and, where
the two motions are made at the same time, it is
proper to determine them at the same time,23 so
that the order in which they may be considered by
the court becomes immaterial,24 although it is ap-
6. Mass. — Boston Bar Ass'n v. Cas-
ey, 116 N.E. 541, 227 Mass. 46.
7. Mass. — Boston Bar Ass'n v. Cas-
ey, supra.
8. Mass. — Boston Bar Ass'n v* Oas-
ey, supra.
34 C.J. p 4'2 note 27.
9. Mass. — Boston Bar Ass'n v. Cas-
ey, supra.
10. Fla.— Hull v. Laine, 175 So. 701,
127 Fla. 4-3S — Harrington v. Bow-
man, 136 So. 229, 102 Fte, 889,
modified on other grounds 143 So.
6$1, 106 Fla. 86.
Ind.— Phillips v. Gammon, 124 N.E.
699, 188 Ind. 497-^McDaniels v.
McDaniels, App., 62 N.E:2d 876 —
Oeyer v. Spencer, 192 N.E. 769,
99 Ind.App. 418.
tf.j. — corpus Jtuls cited in Morris
Plan Industrial Bank of Nsw York
v. Kemeny, 8 A.2d 769, 771, 128
N.J.Law 389.
314 CJ. P 42 note 82.
Motion made at dose of plaintiff's
. evidence
Failure to renew, at the close of
all the evidence, a motion which
'was made at the close of plaintiff's
evidence and which was called a mo-
tion in arrest of judgment waived
objections based on the ruling- on
the motion made at the close of
plaintiffs evidence.— Iiayne-Bowler
Chicago Co. v. City of Glenwood,
C.A.Iowa, 134 F.2d 889.
It, Fla.— Hull v. Laine, ITS So. 701,
127 Fla. 4'3S.
Oa.— J. S. Schofield's Sons Co. v.
Vaujhn, 150 S.E. 669, 40 Ga.App.
5 68 — Grogan v. Deraney, 1413 S.E.
912, 38 Ga.App. 287.
34 CJ. p 42 note 32, p 4.3 note 34.
12. Iowa. — Andrew v. Commercial
State Bank, 221 N.W. 809, 206 Iowa
1070— Nelson v. Higgins, 218 N.W.
509, 206 Iowa 672.
Md. — Lichtenberg v. Joyce, 39 A.2d
789, 183 Md. 689— Washington &
R. Ry. Co. v. Sullivan, 110 A, 478,
1136 Md. "202.
Mo. — Button v. Anderson, SI S.W.2d
1026, 826 Mo. 304— State ex rel.
Conant v. Trimble, 277 S.W. 916,
311 Mo. 128.
Pa.— Fiscle v. Kissinger, 53 Pa.Su-
per. 453— (Puritan Rubber Mfg.
Co. v. Erie Foundry Co., Com.Pl.,
24 Erie Co. 86, 56 York Leg.Rec.
89.
Tenn. — Feldman v. Clark, 284 S.W.
3513, 158 Tenn. 375.
34 C.J. p 42 note 83.
Motion held ttmely
Mo. — Toung v. Sangster, 16 S.W.2d
92, 322 Mo. 802.
Motion held not timely
Mo. — Schwettman v. Sander, App., 7
S.W.2d 801.
13. Fla.— Hull v. Laine, 173 So. 701,
127 Fla. 4138.
34 C.J. p 43 note 34.
After term in which Judgment en-
tered
111. — Osineski v. Consolidated Coal
Co. of St. Louis, 227 IlLApp. 68.
14. Ga. — J. S. Schoffleld's Sons Co.
v. Vaughan, 150 S.E. 569, 40 Ga.
App. 568— Grogan v. Deraney. 143
S.E. 912, 88 iGteuApp. 287.
34 C.J. P 43 note 84.
15. Ga.— Raney v. McKae, 14 Ga.
589, 40 Am.D. 660.
34 C.J. P W note 35.
219
16. Mo. — Porter v. Chicago, B. &
Q. R. Co., 28 S.WJ2d 10135, 325 Mo.
381.
17. Iowa. — Nelson v. Conroy Sav.
Bank, 194 N.W. 204, 196 Iowa 391.
18. Mo. — Porter v. Chicago, B. &
Q. R. Co., 28 S.W.2d 10i35, 325 Mo.
381.
Tenn. — Feldman v. Clark, 284 S.W.
353, 158 Tenn. 873.
34 C.J. p 43 note 37 — 46 C.J. p 65
note 7 [a].
Whether moving in arrest of Judg-
ment waives right to move for new
trial see C.J.S. title New Trial I
5, also 46 C.J. p 65 notes 6-10.
19. Mo. — Games v. Thompson, 48 S.
W.2d 903 — Porter v. Chicago, B. &
Q. R. Co., 28 S.W.2d 1035, 325 Mo.
381.
No basis for Judgment
If a new trial has been granted,
there is no verdict on which to base
a judgment to which a motion in
arrest might apply.
Ga. — Habersham v. Wetter, 59 Ga.
11.
Mo. — 'Porter v. Chicago, B. & Q. R.
Co., 28 S.W.2d 1035, 325 Mo. 381.
20. Mo. — Games v. Thompson, 48 S.
W.2d 903.
21. HI.— Wallace v. Curtiss, 36 HI.
156.
46 C.J. p 65 note 14.
22. W.Va. — Gerling v. Agricultural
Ins. Co., 20 S.E. 691, 89 W.Va. 689.
46 C.J. p 65 note 11.
23. W.Va, — Gerling v. Agricultural
Ins. Co., supra — Sweeney v. Baker,
13 W.Va. 158, 31 Am.R. 757.
24. W.Va. — Gerling v. Agricultural
Ins. Co., 20 S.E. 691, 89 W.Va, 689.
§ 97
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
patently the practice of some courts in such case
to hear the motion in arrest first.26 In some ju-
risdictions, where a motion in arrest and a motion
for new trial are filed, neither has precedence over
the other in any respect, so that they may both be
overruled or granted, as the case may be, at one
and the same time.2^
Extending time for filing. A motion to extend
the time for making a motion in arrest of judg-
ment is a special motion which is subject to a rule
of court providing that orders may not be made
on special motions without notice.27 An order,
made while a motion for judgment was held in
abeyance, extending the time in which a motion in
arrest of judgment might be made has been regard-
ed as a nullity on the ground that, when such order
was made, there was no entry in the court journal
to which the order could apply.28
§ 98.
Hearing and Determination
A motion In arrest of Judgment must be determined
on the record proper, and extraneous, matters will not
be considered; every reasonable Intendment and impli-
cation will obtain in favor of the pleadings.
A motion in arrest of judgment serves in some
measure the office of a demurrer and ordinarily
should be governed by the principles relating to a
demurrer,29 even when made after default; the
default admits nothing except what is properly
pleaded.30 The motion must be determined on the
record proper81 and cannot be aided by extraneous
matters; affidavits, evidence, or the judge's recol-
lection of the course of the trial cannot be consid-
ered.32
Motions in arrest are not favored,85 and the dec-
laration, petition, or complaint is to be given the
benefit of a liberal construction84 to cure any am-
biguity or looseness of description,85 and every
doubt is to be resolved in its favor.86 Pleadings
are given the benefit of every reasonable intendment
and implication,87 and the courts will go a long way
in sustaining plaintiffs pleading as against a mo-
tion in arrest.88 Also the verdict is to be given the
benefit of every favorable intendment89 As a gen-
25. tJ.S. — Turner v. Foxall, D.C., 2<4
P.Cas. No. 14, 255, 2 Cranch C.C.
324.
26. Tex. — Goodman v. Republic Inv.
Co., Civ.App., 215 S.W. 468.
27. Mich. — McConnell v. Merriam,
2013 N.W. 661, 231 Mich. 184.
28. Mich.— McConnell v. Merriam,
supra.
29. Md. — Washington & Baltimore
Turnpike Road v. State, 19 Md.
259, affirmed 3 Wall. 210, 18 L.Ed.
180— State v. Green-well, 4 Gill &
J. 407.
30. 111. — Bragg v. Chicago, 73 HL
152.
34 C.J. p 4<3 note 40.
31. HI. — Smithers v. Henriques, 15
N.E.2d 499, 368 111. 588— Welch v.
City of Chicago, 154 N.E. 226, 323
HI. 498.
Mo.— McGannon v. Millers* Nat. Ins.
Co., 71 S.W. 160, 171 Mo. 14'3, 94
Am.S.R. 778 — Tiefenbrunn v. Dick-
erson, App., 161 S.W.2d 428.
Tenn. — Speer v. Pierce, 77 S.W.2d
77, 18 Tenn.App. 351 — Earheart v.
Hazlewood Bros., 15 Tenn.App.
454.
34 C.J. p 43 note 41.
Matters included in record
CD Record contains process and
all pleadings, postea, and Judgment,
but does not include court's charge,
bills of exceptions, and bills of par-
ticulars.— Paradise v. Great Eastern
Stages, 176 A. 711, 114 N.J.Law 365.
(2) For the purpose of a motion in
airest, the record does not include
the evidence taken at the trial.
HI. — Scott v. Freeport Motor Casual-
ty Co. of Freeport, 64 N.E.2d 542, j
892 111. 382— Smithers v. Henrl-
duez, 15 N.E.2d 499, 368 HI. 588—
Welch v. City of Chicago, 154 N.E.
226. ,323 111. .498.
Md. — Montgomery Bus Lines v.
Diehl, 148 A. 45(3, 158 Md. 23-3.
N.J. — Paradise v. Great Eastern
Stages, 176 A- 711, 114 N.J.Law
365.
Tenn. — Scott v. National Life & Ac-
cident Ins. Co., 64 S.W.2d 5«, 16
Tenn.App. 81 — Earheart v. Hazle-
wood Bros., 15 Tenn.«App. 454 —
Highland Coal & Lumber Co. v.
Cravens, 8 Tenn.App. 419 — Corpus
Juris cited In Moseley v. Robert
Orr & Co., 6 Tenn.App. 243, 245.
34 C.J. p 39 note 79, p 43. note 41.
C3) In some jurisdictions the ver-
dict in a common-law action is <a
part of the record proper for pur-
poses of a motion in arrest — Har-
rington v. Bowman, 143 So. 651, 106
Fla. 86.
32. Conn. — Lentine v. McAvoy, 136
A. 76, 105 Conn. 528.
D.C.— -Walls v. Guy, 4 F.2d 444, 55
App.D.C. 251.
Mo. — Tiefenbrunn v. Dickerson, App.,
161 S.W.2d 428— Ray v. Collins,
App., -2714 S.W. 1098.
N.J. — Paradise v. Great Eastern
Stages, 176 A. 711, 114 N.J.Law
'•365.
34 C.J. p 43 note 41, p 31 note 7 fa].
Affidavits amplifying- testimony at
trial
Whether certain affidavits should
be considered was regarded as a
matter within the sound discretion
of the trial Judge, and refusing to
consider such affidavits was not er-
ror where much of contents of affi-
220
davits appeared to be amplification
of affiants' testimony given at trial.
— Moller-Vandenboom Lumber Co. v.
Boudreau, 85 S.W.2d 141, 231 Mo.
App. 1127.
33. Fla. — Harrington v. Bowman,
1*36 So. 229, 10*2 Fla, 339, modified
on other grounds 1413 So. 651, 106
Fla. 86.
Mass.— Piser v. Hunt. 148 N.E. 801,
25,3 Mass. 1321.
34 C.J. p 4*3 note 42.
.34. Ga. — Stowers v. Harris, 22 S.B.
2d 405, 194 Gfeu 6*36.
111.— Randall Dairy Co. v. Pevely
Dairy Co., 274 IlLApp. 474.
Mo.— Mfihlstaub v. Michael, 287 8.W.
1079, 221 <Mo.A*>p. 807.
SB. Md.— State v. Greenwell, 4 Gill
& J. 407.
34 C.J. p ,36 note 47.
36. D.C. — Washington Railway &
Electric Co. v. Perry, 47 App.D.C.
90,
37. Fla.— Pillett v. Ershick, 126 So.
784, 99 Fla. 483.
111. — Paris v. East St. Louis Ry. Co.,
'275 IlLApp. 241— Randall Dairy Co.
v. Pevely Dairy Co., 274 IlLApp.
474.
Mo.— -Mehlstaub v. Michael, 287 S.W.
1079, 221 Mo.App. 807.
34 C.J. p 36 note 48, p '43 note 4$.
38. Mo.— Mace y. Vendig, 23 Mo.
App. 2513.
S.C.— Jordan v. Boone, 39 S.C.L. 528.
34 C.J. p -35 note 46.
39. U.S.— JCalvey v. U. S., D.CPa.,
27 F.Supp. 359.
Ga.— Rutxenstein v. Lee, 1*2 S.E. 85,
5-6 Ga.App. 49 — David v. Marbut-
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 99
eral rule it will be presumed after verdict that every
material fact alleged in the declaration, or fairly in-
ferable from what is alleged, was proved on the
trial,40 that the proof was confined to that part of
the declaration which supported a recovery,41 and
that the verdict was for such damages as were re-
coverable under the declaration ;42 but it cannot be
presumed that a cause of action was proved where
none was stated, and where a material fact is omit-
ted, which cannot be implied in, or inferred from,
the finding of those which are stated, the verdict
will not cover the defect48
Granting or denying a motion for the continuance
of the hearing of a motion in arrest is within the
sound discretion of the trial judge.44 The ruling
of the court should be decisive, and responsive to
the motion.*3 If several defendants join in the mo-
tion, in general it must be sustained or overruled as
to all.46 Where the judgment is not an entirety, it
may be arrested in part.47
According to some cases, entry of judgment oper-
ates as an overruling of the motion, as discussed
infra § 115.
§ 99. Operation and Effect of Arrest
An amendment, new trial, venire de novo, or re-
pleader may be permitted after the grant of a motion
In arrest of Judgment.
The granting of a motion in arrest of judgment at
common law has been held to prevent the entry of
a final judgment in the cause, unless it is made
conditional on an amendment or such other action
as will remove the cause of arrest,4* and to operate
as a discontinuance and dismissal of defendant.49
However, it has also been held that the granting of
the motion does not terminate the case,50 and that
an amendment, new trial, venire de novo, or replead-
er may be granted,51 notwithstanding the order in
arrest is unconditional.52 Furthermore it has been
held or recognized that, where judgment has been
arrested, and plaintiff feels himself aggrieved and
wishes to test the decision of the court thereon, he
may move for a judgment against himself which
will be ordered as a matter of course, on which he
may bring his writ of error.53
It has been held that, whether or not the judg-
ment was properly arrested, the arrest stands as the
Williams Lumber Co., 12? S.B. 906,
82 Ga.App. 157.
40. Ga. — Stowers v. Harris, 22 S.W.
2d 405, 194 Ga. 686— Rollins v.
Personal Finance Co., 175 S.B. 609,
49 Ga.'App. «65.
34 C.J. p 43 note 44.
Defective statement of cause of ac-
tion
If averments in declaration con-
tain reasonable certainty of meaning
and show a substantial, although de-
fectively stated, cause of action, and
defendant does not demur but goes
to trial under general issue, defects
in averments will be presumed to
have been supplied by the proof. —
Curtis v. Kyte, 106 S.W.2d 2*4, 21
Tenn.App. 115.
41. Ind. — Hamm v. Romine, 98 Ind.
77.
84 C.J. p 4@ note 45 [a] (2).
42. Vt.— Packard v. Slack, 32 Vt 9.
34 C.J. p 43 note 43 [a] (1).
43. N.H.— Bedell v. Stevens, 28 N.
H. 118.
34 C.J. p 4i3 note 45.
44. Discretion not abased
Mo. — Moller-Vandenboom Lumber
Co. v. Boudreau, 85 S.W.Sd 141, 2131
Mo.App. 1127.
45. Conn.— Bird v. Bird, 2 Root 411
— Worthington v. Dewlt, 1 Root
182.
34 C.J. p 43 note 46.
46. Ind. — Van Gundy v. Carrfgan, SO 1 51. Conn. — Betts v. Hoyt, 113 Conn.
N.E. 983, 4 In<LApp. $33.
34 C.J. p 43 note 47.
47- Ga.— Lester v. -Piedmont & Ar-
lington Life Ins. Co., 55 Ga. 475.
34 C.J. p 413 note 48.
48. Mo.— 'State v. Fisher, ISO S.W.
35, 230 Mo. 325, Ann.Oas.l912A
970.
3'4 C.J. p 44 note 52.
49. Ala.— Corpus Jttri« cited to
City of Birmingham v. Andrews,
1*2 So. 877, 222 Ala. 862.
Colo. — Corpus Juris cited in Foote v.
Larimer County Bank & Trust Co.,
259 P. 1081, 1032, 82 Colo. 323.
Mo. — Corpus Juris cited in Stephens
v. D. M. Oberman Mfg. Co., 70
aWV2d 899, 901, 3134 Mo. 1078.
34 C.J. p 44 note 54.
Failure to appeal
(1) Where motion for new trial
was overruled, and defendant's mo-
tion in arrest of judgment was sus-
tained, plaintiff's failure to appeal
from latter order would end case. —
Stephens v. D. M. Oberman Mfg. Co.,
70 S.W.2d 899, 384 Mo. 1078— Porter
v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 28 S.W.2d
10)35, 325 Mo. 381. '
(2) In such case, under some stat-
utes plaintiff might commence a
new action within one year. — Ste-
phens v. D. M. Oberman Mfg. Co., su-
pra.
50. Conn.— Greco v. Keenan, 161 A.
100, 115 Conn. 704.
221
469.
Fla,— Hull v. Laine, 173 So. 701, 127
Fhu 433.
HI. — Scott v. Freeport Motor Cas-
ualty Co. of Freeport, 64 K.E.2d
542, 392 HI. 332. -
Ind. — Bucklen v. Cushxnan, 44 NJ2.
6, 145 Ind. 61.
Mo. — O'Toole v. Loewenstein, 160 S.
W. 1016. 177 Mo.App. 662.
34 C.J. p 44 note 53.
Same Judgment entered
Under some statutes after arrest
of Judgment on motion of defendant,
plaintiff may amend his pleading and
have the same* judgment entered,
where a cause of action was stated
inaptly or imperfectly and the same-
amendment might have been made
before trial.— -Stephens v. D. M. Ober-
man Mfg. Co., 70 S.W.2d 899, 354
Mo. 1078.
Defective verdict, constituting bar-
sis of motion in arrest of judgment*
should be set aside. — Greco v. Keen-
an, 161 A. 100, 115 Conn. 704.
52. Mo.— Stephens v. D. M. Ober-
man Mfg. Co.. 70 S.W.2d 899, 384
Mo. 1078.
53. Ala.— -Corpus Juris cited in
City of Birmingham v. Andrews,
132 So. 877, 222 Ala. 862.
Mo. — Corpus Juri* cited in Stephens
v. D. M. Oberman Mfg, Co., TO S*
W.2d 899, 901, '334 Mo. 1078.
34 C.J. p 44 note 56.
§ 100
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
order of court until modified or set aside.54 It
has also been held, however, that an order sustain-
ing a motion in arrest after the verdict has been
set aside is ineffectual for any purpose.55
V. RENDITION, BNTEY, RECORD, AND DOCKETING
§ 100. Rendition Generally
The rendition of a Judgment Is the Judicial act of
tfr* court In pronouncing the sentence of the law on the
facts In controversy as ascertained by the pleadings and
verdict or findings, as distinguished from the ministerial
act of entering the Judgment.
The rendition of a judgment is the judicial act
of the court56 in pronouncing the sentence of the
law on the facts in controversy as ascertained by
the pleadings and verdict or findings,57 as distin-
guished from the entry of the judgment,58 which, as
34. Pa,— Myers v. Filley, 12 Pa.
Dist. 562.
34 C.J. p 44 note 55.
£5» Mo.— Porter v. Chicago, B. &
Q. R. Co., 28 S.W.2d 1035, 325 Mo.
381.
56. Ark.— Corpus Juris quoted la
McConnel v. Bourland, 299 S.W. *44,
48, 175 Ark. 253.
Del. — Corpus Juris cited in Hazzard
v. Alexander, 178 A. 8713, 875, 6 W.
W.Harr. 512.
HI.— Wallace Grain & Supply Co. v.
Gary, 24 N.E.2d 907, 80« IlLApp.
221, reversed on other grounds 28
N.E.2d 107, <374 111. 57.
N.C.— Ebom v. Ellis, 35 S.E.2d 238,
225 N.C. -386.
Okl.— Peoples Electric Co-op, v.
Broughton, 127 P.2d 850, 191 Old.
•229.
Or. — In re Gerhardus' Estate, 23 9 P.
829, 831, 116 Or. 118.
Tex.— Hudgins v. T. B. Meeks Co.,
Civ.App., 1 S.W.2d €81.
33 C.J. p 1064 note 62—34 C.J. p 44
note 57, p 1181 note 80 [b].
.57. U.S.— rContinental Oil Co. v. Mu-
lich, C.C.A.Kan., 70 P.2d 521— Cor-
pus Juris cited in In re Hurley
Mercantile Co., C.C.A.Tex., 56 F.2d
102>3, 1024, certiorari denied Atas-
cosa County State Bank of Jour-
danton, Texas, v. Coppard, 52 S.Ct
580, 286 U.S. 655, 76 L.Ed. 1290,
Ala.— Du flPree v. Hart, 8 So.2d 183,
'242 Ala. 690— «Mt Vernon-Woodber-
ry Mills v. Union -Springs Guano
Co., 155 So. 710, 26 Ala.App. 136,
certiorari denied 155 So. 716, 229
Ala. 91.
Ariz. — American Surety Co. of Nsw
York v. Mosher, 64 P.2d 1025, 48
Aria. 552.
Ark. — Corpus Juris auoted in McCon-
nell v. Bourland, 299 S.W. 44, 48,
175 Ark. 2513.
Colo.— Sarchet v. Phillips, 78 P.2d
1096, 102 Colo. 818.
TDel. — Corpus Juris cited in Hazzard
v. Alexander, 178 A. 878, 875, 6
W.W.Harr. 512.
.Ga.— Deck v. Deck, 20 S.B.2d 1, 193
Ga. 739.
111.— WIc&ser v. (Powers, 57 N.E.2d
522, 3214 I11JV.PP. 130.
Tnd. — State ex reL Bernard v. Oeck-
ler, 189 N.E. 842, 98 Ind.App. 4-36.
Miss.-— Corpus Juris cited in Welch
v. Kroger Grocery Co., 177 So. 41,
42, 180 Miss. 89.
Neb.— Luikart v. Bredthauer, 271 N.
W. 165, 1132 Neb. 62.
N.H.— Tuttle v. Tuttle, 196 A. 624,
89 N.H. 219.
N.M.— Corpus Juris cited in State v.
Capital City Bank, 246 P. 899, 900,
31 N.M. 430.
N.T.— Vogel v. Edwards, 27 N.E.2d
806, 28*3 N.T. 118— Application of
Gleit, 33 N.Y.S.2d 629, 631, 178
Misc. 198 — Humnicki v. Pitkowa,
277 -N.Y.S. 417, 154 Misc. 407—
Langrick v. Howe, 212 N.T.S. 240,
126 Misc. 256— Darvick v. Darvick,
36 N.T.S.2d 58.
Okl. — Corpus Juris cited in Taliafer-
ro v. Batis, 252 OP. 845, 846, 1213
Okl. 59.
Or. — Jones v. Thompson, 164 P.2d
718 — Corpus Juris quoted in Hab-
erly v. Farmers' (Mut Fire Relief
lAss'n, -287 P. 222, 223, 135 Or. 32.
Tenn. — Jackson v. Jarratt, 52 S.W.2d
137, 138, 165 Tenn. 76.
Tex.— Iiinton v. Smith, 164 S.W.2d
643, 137 Tex. 479— De Leon v. Tex-
as Employers Ins. Ass'n, Civ.App.,
159 S/W.2d 574, /error refused —
Lewis v. Terrell, Civ.App,, 154 S.
W.2d 151, error refused — Jones v.
Sun Oil Co., Civ.App., 145 S.W.2d
615, reversed on other grounds 15'3
S.W.2d 571, 157 Tex. »5I3— Sloan
v. Richey, Civ.App., 143 S.W.2d
119, error dismissed, Judgment cor-
rect— Perry v. iPerry, Civ.App., 122
S.W.2d 726— Cleburne Nat Bank v.
Bowers, Civ.App., 1H3 S.W.2d 578—
Corbett v. Rankin Independent
School Dist., Civ.App., 100 S.W.Sd
Ili3— Hudgins v. T. B. Meeks Co.,
Civ.App., 1 S.W.2d 681— Kittrell v.
Fuller, CivoApp., -281 S.W. 575.
Wash. — Beetchenow v. Bartholet, 298
P. 3£5, 162 Wash. 119.
Wis. — Netherton v. Frank Holton &
Co., 205 N.W. 388, 189 Wis. 461,
order denying motion to dismiss
appeal vacated on other grounds
206 N.W. 919, 189 Wis. 461, man-
date vacated 207 N.W. 953, 189
Wis. 461.
34 C.J. p 44 note 57. •
Decision or findings by court gen-
erally see the C.J.S. title Trial §§
602-606, 609-612, also 64 C:J. P
122 note 28-p 12-27 note 98, p 1227
note 12-p 1231 note 69.
Verdict or findings by jury generally
222
see the C.J.S. title Trial § 485,
also 64 C.J. p 10513, note 53-p 1056
note 20.
58. U.S. — Corpus Juris cited in U.
S. v. Rayburn, C.C.AJowa, 91 F.2d
162, 164.
Ala.— Du Pree v. Hart, 8 6o.2d 18-3,
242 Ala. 690.
Ariz. — American Surety Co. of New
York v. Mosher, 64 GP.Sd 1025, 48
Ariz. 552.
Ark. — Corpus Juris auoted in McCon-
nell v. Bourland, 299 S.W. 44, 48,
175 Ark. 253.
Del. — Corpus Juris cited in Hazzard
v. Alexander, 178 lA. 873, 875, 6 W.
W.Harr. 512.
Ga,— Deck v. Deck, 20 S.E.2d 1, 193
Ga. 739.
N.T.— Application of Gleit, 313 N.T.S.
2d 629, 178 Misc. 198.
Or. — Corpus Juris quoted in Haberly
v. Farmers' Mut. Fire Relief Ass'n,
287 P. 222, 223, 135 Or. 32— In re
Gerhardus' Estate, 239 P. 829, 11-6
Or. 113.
Tenn. — Jackson v. Jarratt, 52 S.W.2d
1'37, 165 Tenn. 76.
Tex.— Sloan v. Richey, Civ.App., 143
S.W.2d 119, error dismissed, Judg-
ment correct
Wash. — Beetchenow v. Bartholet, 298
P. 335, 162 Wash. 119.
34 C.J. p 45 note 58.
Entry not included in rendition
To render judgment is to return or
give judgment; and it cannot be said
that the phrase, in any of its forms,
includes the idea of making a writ-
ten entry or record of a judgment.
— State ex rel. Bernard v. Geckler,
189 N.E. 842, 98 Ind.App. 436.
Exercise of discretion
Rendition of judgment involves ex-
ercise of discretion as to its terms,
while entry of judgment is ministe-
rial function. — Lasby v. Burgess, 18
P.-2d 1104, 93 Mont 3«49. '
Rendition of Judgment is an in-
dependent fact, distinct in point of
time from entry of judgment in
minutes of court, and from order of
court on motion for new trial. — Kit-
trell v. Fuller, Tex.Civ.App., 281 S.
W. 575.
Separate acts
• Rendition and entry of a judgment
are separate acts and different in
their nature. — Wallace Grain & Sup-
ply Co. v. Cary, 24 N.E.2d 907, 80®
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 101
discussed infra § 106, is the ministerial act of
spreading it at large upon the record. On its ren-
cliticr, and without entry, a judgment is final, valid,
and enforceable, as between the parties,69 in the ab-
sence of any statute to the contrary,6^ although for
many purposes, as is discussed infra § 107, entry of
the judgment is also essential.
§ 101. Authority and Duty of Court
Where the cause has been heard and determined and
the case is ripe for judgment, it Is the duty of the court
to render judgment.
Where the cause has been heard and determined
and the case is ripe for judgment, it is the duty of
the court to render judgment,61 and performance of
this duty may be compelled by mandamus, as dis-
cussed in the C.J.S. title Mandamus § 97, also 38
CJ. p 634 note 43-p 636 note 68. It has also been
held that a court has no discretion to refuse to give
judgment declaring a right properly pleaded and
well established by the evidence,62 since, where
good grounds exist for granting relief, judgment
is given to the party entitled thereto as a matter of
right and not of grace.63 Where a case is submit-
ted to the jury on special issues, judgment must usu-
ally be rendered on the verdict returned,64 although
the court in the exercise of its discretion may set
aside a verdict without first rendering judgment.65
Where the court" tries the case without a jury and
finds facts entitling one of the parties to a judg-
ment, he has the right to have such a judgment ren-
dered and it is error to refuse it.66 Similarly it is
error for a judge to refuse to enter judgment in
accordance with his decision on a question of law,
unless the entry thereof is discretionary for some
recognized reason.67 The authority and duty of the
court to render judgment may also arise by reason
of the confession, default, consent, offer, or admis-
sion of the parties, discussed infra §§ 134-218, or
the report of a referee before whom the cause was
tried, discussed infra § 105.
The court may not render judgment in violation
of a prescribed mode of procedure, as against prop-
er and timely objection ;68 and statutory procedure,
made a condition precedent to the exercise of ju-
dicial power, is mandatory, governing the court's
power to render a judgment.6^ Statutes providing
Ill.App. 221, reversed on other,
grounds 28 N.B.2d 107. 374 111. 57.
59. U.S. — Corpus Juris cited in TJ.
S. v. Ray burn, C.C.A.Iowa, 91 F.
2d 162, 164— Continental Oil Co. v.
Mulich, C.C.A.Kan., 70 F.2d 521.
Ala. — Corpus Juris cited in Du Free
v. Hart, 8 So.2d 18<3, 186, 242 Ala.
690.
Ark. — Corpus Juris quoted in. McCon-
nell v. Bourland, 299 S.W. 44, 48,
175 Ark. 255.
Del. — Corpus Juris cited in Hazzard
v. Alexander, 178 A. 873, 875, 6 W.
W.Harr. 512.
HI. — Wickiser v. 'Powers, 57 N.B.2d
522. i324 IlLApp. 130.
Miss.— Corpus Juris cited in Welch
v. Kroger Grocery Co., 177 So. 41,
42, 180 Miss. 89.
Neb. — ipontiac Improvement Co. v.
Leisy, >14 N.W.2d 884, 144 Neb.
705.
Or.— Corpus Juris auoted in Haber-
ly v. Farmers' Mut. Fire Relief
Ass'n, 287 P. 222, 223, 1135 Or. 82.
34 C.J. p 45 note 60.
Execution before entry see Execu-
tions § 9.
60. Ark.— Corpus Juris guoted in
McConnell v. Bourland, 299 S.W.
44, 48, 175 Ark. 253.
Del. — Corpus Juris cited in Hazzard
v. Alexander, 178 A. 873, 875, 6 W.
W.Harr. 512.
Or. — Corpus Juris quoted in Haber-
ly v. Farmers' Mut. Fire Relief
Ass'n, 287 P. 222, 225, 185 Or. «2.
61. Miss.— Mohundro v. Board of
Sup'rs of Tippah County, 165 So.
124, 174 Miss. 512.
N.C.— Rutherford Hospital v. Flor-
ence Mills, 120 S.E. 212, IS 6 N.C.
554— Lawrence v. Beck, 116 S.E.
424, 185 N.C. 196.
Tex. — Brannon v. Wilson, Civ,App.,
260 S.W. 201.
33 C.J. p 46 note 6I3.
Ex parte entry
Trial court was without author-
ity to authorize an ex parte entry
of judgment against defendant on
failure to fulfill the oral terms of
settlement entered into at pretrial
conference, where the oral terms
did not include stipulation for entry
of Judgment without notice in event
of such failure. — Sonn v. Campbell,
56 N.T.S.2d 286.
Motions toy strangers
The trial court's power to render
judgment between parties properly
before it is not affected by motions
filed in the cause by strangers there-
to.—-Pennington Grocery Co. v. Ort-
weinf 88 P.2d 331, 184 Okl. 501.
62. Gal.— Majors v. Majors, App.,
161 P.2d 494.
Failure to comply with order
Plaintiff, although no longer enti-
tled to costs because of failure time-
ly to comply with order to prepare
and cause to be entered a judgment
in his favor, was nevertheless still
entitled to the Judgment on the mer-
its originally awarded by the court,
and court erred in ordering plaintiff's
complaint dismissed on the merits. —
Brunner v. Cauley, 22 N.W.Sd 481,
248 Wis. 330.
63, Cal.— Majors v. Majors, App.,
161 P.2d 494.
64. Kan.— Mitchell v. Derby Oil Co.,
2132 P. 224, 117 Kan. 520.
Tex. — Simmonds v. St. Louis, B. &
M. Ry. Co., Com.App., 29 S.W.2d
989— Ellzey v. Allen, Civ.App., 172
S.W.2d 703, error dismissed — Em-
ployers Casualty Co. v. Hicks Rub-
ber Co., Civ.App., 160 S.W.Sd 96,
error granted — -Le Master v. Fort
Worth Transit Co., Civ.App., 142
S.W.2d 908, reversed on other
grounds 160 S.W.2d 224, 138 Tex.
512 — Freeman v. Schwenker, Civ.
App., ' 73 S.W.2d 609— Smith v. El
Paso & N. E. R. Co., Civ.App.f 67
S.W.2d 862, error dismissed —
Dowd v. Klock, Civ.App., 268 S.W.
234, reversed on other grounds
Klock v. Dowd, Com. App., 280 S.W.
194.
Arbitrary refusal improper
Trial judge may not arbitrarily re-
fuse to render judgment on verdict
on special issues covering all facts
necessary for judgment — Cortimeg-
lia v. Davis, 292 S.W. 875, 116 Tex.
412.
65. Tex.— Smith v. El 'Paso & N*. E.
R. Co., Civ.App., 67 S.W.2d 862,
error dismissed.
66. N.T. — Outwater v. Moore, 26 N.
E. -329, 124 N.Y. 66.
Utah.— Parrott Bros. Co. v. Ogden
City, 167 P. 807, 50 Utah 512.
67. Ohio. — Sanda v. Coverson, 171
KB. 89, 122 Ohio <St 258.
68. Fla. — Beverette v. Graham, 185>
So. 8*47, 101 Fla. 566.
69. Okl.— Rock Island Implement
Co. v. Pearsey, 270 (P. 346, liSS OkL
1.
223
§ 101
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
that the clerk shall enter each day's proceedings in
the order-book of the court and that the judge shall
sign them have been held not to limit the jurisdic-
tion of the court to render a judgment but merely to
prescribe the manner in which it shall be recorded.70
Who may render judgment. Since the rendition
of a judgment is a judicial act of the court, as dis-
cussed supra § 100, as a general rule it must be
performed as such by the judge or magistrate who
holds or presides in such court, and not by a min-
isterial officer of the court.71 Thus, in the absence
of statutory provision to the contrary, the decision
must be rendered by the judge and not by the clerk
of the court, in order to constitute it a judgment.72
In some jurisdictions, however, as discussed in
Clerks of Courts § 36, the clerks of certain courts
possess statutory authority to exercise designated
judicial powers, and under such statutes judgments
rendered by clerks have all the force and effect of
judgments rendered by the judge ;73 but this au-
thority does not deprive the court of jurisdiction to
render judgments in such cases since the authority
of the derk is concurrent with, and additional to,
that of the judge.74
§ 102. — - Mode and Sufficiency
In the absence of a statute to the contrary, a judg-
ment Is rendered when it IB orally announced by the
court, or where a general verdict is returned and re-
corded, or where a special verdict or findings are re-
turned, by the announcement of the decision and its en-
try In the minutes.
Statutory provisions with respect to the mode
and sufficiency of rendering judgment are control-
ling.75 Generally, a judgment is rendered and ex-
ists as such when it is orally announced from the
bench, and before it has been reduced to writing
and entered by the clerk.™ The custom, however,
of drawing a formal judgment and having the judge
sign it is usually observed,77 particularly where it
contains special provisions requiring settlement by
the court unless agreed on by the parties ;75 but, un-
less required by statute or rule of court,70 a for-
mal writing is unnecessary.80 Settlement on no-
70. Ind. — Bailer v. Dowd, 40 N.E,2d
325, 219 Ind. 624.
71. N.C. — Eborn v. Bills, 95 S.13.2d
238, 225 N.C. 386.
3(3 C.J. p 1064 note 63.
72. Pa. — School Dist of Haverford
Tp., to Use of Tedesco v. Herzog,
171 A. 456, *14 Psu 161— Rhinehart
v. Jordan, 169 A. 151, ai* -Pa. 197.
3(3 C.J. p 1065 note 64.
73. N.C.— < Williams v. Williams. 130
S.B. 113, 190 N.C. 478— Caldwell v.
Caldwell, 128 S.B. 529, 189 N.C.
805.
74. N.C.— Caldwell v. CaldweU, su-
pra.
75. Wis.— Stahl Y. Gotzeaberger, 45
Wis. 121.
34 C.J. p 46 note 75, p 48 note 86.
76. Ariz.— Griffith v. State MuL
Building: & Loan Ass'n, 51 P.2d
246, <46 'Ariz. 359— Kinnison v. Su-
perior Court of Pima County, 46
P.2d 1087, 46 Ariz. 188— Maricopa
County Municipal Water Conserva-
tion Dist. No. 1 T. Roosevelt Irr.
Disk, 6 P.2d 898, 39 Ariz. 357.
Ind.— Bailer v. Dowd, 40 N.B.2d 8'25,
219 Ind. 6134.
lowsu— Street v. Stewart, 285 N.W.
204, 226 Iowa 960.
Kan.— Gates v. Gates, 16-3 P.2d 895,
160 Kan. 428.
Wis.— Zbikowski v. Straz, 294 N.W.
541, 2!36 -Wis. 161— State ex rel.
Wingenter v, 'Circuit Court for
Walwortli County, 248 N.W. 41-8,
211 "Wis. 661— Karshian v. Milwau-
kee Electric Ry. & Light Co., 212
N.W. 6*3, 192 Wis. 269.
33 C.J. p 1191 note 15.
Necessity of writing generally see
supra § 64.
Completely announced
"A Judgment is not rendered un-
til it has been completely an-
nounced."— Corder v. Corder, Tex.
Civ.App., 189 S.W.2d 100, 102, error
refused.
77. Ark.— Corpus Juris quoted in.
McConnell v. Bourland, 299 S.W.
44, 48, 175 Ark. 253.
34 C.J. p 46 note 73.
Perusal "by Judge or counsel
To prevent error, a trial Judge
should either peruse a decree drawn
by counsel or have It done by oppos-
ing counsel, and then direct its en-
try by a notation thereon signed by
him. — Vanderpool v. Stewart, 279
S.W. 645, 212 Ky. «7B.
Duty of counsel
(1) The duty of preparing orders
and decrees in conformity with ju-
dicial determinations rests on coun-
sel.—«Parmly v. Parmly, 1 A.2d 646,
18 N.JJMisc. 447, affirmed 5 A.2d
789, 125 N.J.EO. 545.
C2) Entry on docket by trial court
was held not to constitute "rendition
of judgment" precluding tried court
from entering Judgment at «, subse-
quent term, where at time of making
entry Question arose as to what
judgment should be and court direct-
ed counsel to prepare decree but in-
structed clerk not to enter it In or-
der book until further directed. —
Doty v. Dowd, tL5!3 N.E. 431, 85 Ind.
App. 182.
78, Ark.— Corpus Juris quoted in
224
McConnell v. Bourland, 299 S.W.
44, 4*. 175 Ark. 253.
34 C.J. p -46 note 74.
Settlement of decrees in equity see
Equity § 590.
Settlement of orders see the C.J.S.
title Motions and Orders $ '58, also
42 C.J. p 5132 note 82-p 533 note
89.
79. Ark. — Corpus Juris quoted in
McConnell v. Bourland, 299 S.W.
44, 48, 175 Ark. 258.
34 C.J. p 46 note 75.
Failure to file Judgment
The failure of party, in whose fa-
vor court decides, to file formal writ-
ten judgment within five days after
decision, as required by court rule,
does not deprive court of Jurisdiction
to render or sign judgment after
such period, but merely requires
such party to go back and comply
with rule. — Cahn v. Schmitz, 108 P.
2d 1006, 56' Ariz. 469.
SO. Ark. — Corpus JUtis quoted in.
McConnell v. Bourland, 299 S.W.
44, 48, 175 Ark. 258.
34 C.J. p 46 note 76.
Signature by judge see supra 8 85.
An entry in minute book ordering
that cause be dismissed is real judg-
ment of dismissal, and subsequent
formal Judgment is mere memorial
or record thereof, irrespective of
judge's signature thereto. — E. Clem-
ens Horst Co. v. Federal Mut. Liabil-
ity Ins. Co., 71 P.2d 599, 22 CaLApp.
2d 548.
Entry on back of petition was held
to evidence final disposition of cause.
— O'Connell v. Remington, 128 A.
710, 102 Conn. 401.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 104
tice is not required unless specially directed.8! The
return and recording of a general verdict under the
direction of the court are generally a sufficient ren-
dition of judgment; no further action on the part
of the court is necessary,82 and, as discussed infra
§ 108, it is the ministerial duty of the clerk to en-
ter the proper judgment on the verdict Where a
special verdict or special findings are returned, the
announcement of the decision in open court and its
entry in the minutes constitute the rendition of the
judgment.83
Notice of rendition of judgment is unnecessary84
except where required by statute.8^ The purpose
of notice required by a statute before rendition of
judgment, in a case wherein judgment is not ren-
dered at the hearing, but taken under advisement,
is to give an opportunity to attorneys to make ob-
jections and exceptions to the decision.88 The no-
tice must be given by the court,8? which has au-
thority to direct the manner of service not incon-
sistent with existing rules made by paramount rule
making authority.88 Where this power has not
been exercised, it has been held that the statute re-
garding service of a notice of a hearing of any kind
rather than the statute relating to the service of
pleadings and papers is applicable.89
§ 103. Reading in Open Court
In some Jurisdictions it Is required that all Judg-
ments be read and signed In open court, but failure to
comply with this requirement does net invalidate the
Judgment.
In some jurisdictions it is required that all en-
tries of judgment shall be read in open court be-
fore being signed by the judge.90 It is not neces-
sary for the judgment to recite that it was read in
open court,*1 but that fact must appear affirmative-
ly somewhere on the record,92 although it has been
held that, in the absence of anything appearing to
the contrary, it will be presumed in support of the
judgment that this requirement has been observed93
Failure to comply with this requirement, however,
does not invalidate the judgment,94 but merely holds
it in abeyance until it is read and signed and made
executory;95 and a judgment not read and signed
may be made final and definitive by its voluntary
execution by the parties.96
§ 104. — — Application and Order for Judg-
ment
Unless required by statute no special. application and
order for Judgment are necessary, but such a motion Is
not improper and may be necessary where the Judgment
is not a matter of course, and in the absence of stat-
ute no notice of such a motion is required. The order
for Judgment should direct the clerk to enter a Judgment
in the form and terms specified.
At common law, it was necessary to enter a rule
nisi for judgment on the verdict, so as to afford an
81. Colo. — Graybill v. Cornelius, 246
P. 1029, 79 Colo. 498.
$4 C.J. p 47 note 77.
Notice of entry see infra 8 112.
Submission of Journal entry
(1) Defeated litigant is not enti-
tled to submission of formal judg-
ment entry to him. — Hanson v. S.
& L. Drug Co., 212 N.W. 7<31, 208
Iowa 384.
(2) The journal entry of a judg-
ment is not reauired to be submit-
ted so that an attorney interested in
the litigation shall thereby be in-
formed of what has transpired in
the lawsuit, since it is attorney's
duty to keep advised of the trial as
it proceeds and to participate in it to
extent of interests of his client. —
Wiseman v. Richardson, 118 P.2d
605, 154 Kan. 245.
82. Or. — Corpms Juris quoted la
Haberly v. Farmers' Mut Fire Be-
lief Ass'n, 287 P. 222, 223, 135 Or.
•32.
Tex.— Bridgman v. Moore, 183 S.W.M
705, 143 Tex. 250.
Wyo. — Corpus Juris quoted in. State
v. Scott, 247 (P. -699, 706, 95 Wye.
108.
34 C.J. p 47 note 78.
S3. Cal. — Benway v. Benway, 159 P.
2d 682, €9 Cal.App.2d S74— Goss-
. 49 C. J.S.-15
man v. Gossman, 12 S P.2d 178, 52
Cal.App.2d 184— Lind v. Baker, 119
P.2d 806, 48 Cal.ABP.2d 234— Maga-
rian v. Moser, 42 P.2d 385, 5 Cat
App.2d 208.
34 C.J. p 43 note 83.
Necessity of findings
Orally ordered judgment entered
in minutes was not rendition of
judgment in the absence of the find-
ings required by statute, and court
could change it— Tilden Lumber &
Mill Co. v. Bacon Land Co., « P.2d
350, 116 CaLApp. 689.
84. Mo.— Mc'Cormick v. Stephens,
124 S.W. 1076, 141 Mo.App. 236.
34 C.J. p 47 note 77 [a], p 611 note
27*
85. N.M.— R. V. Smith -Supply Co. v.
Black, 88 P.2d 269, 413 N.M. 177.
i34 C.J. p '61 note 26.
86. N.M.— R. V. Smith Supply €••
y. Black, supra.
87. N.M.— R. V. Smith Supply Co.
Y. Black, supra.
88. N.M.— R. V. Smith Supply, Co.
v. Black, supra.
89. N.M.— R. V. Smith Supply Co.
v. Black, supra.
90. In*.— Brant v. Lincoln Nat. Life
Ins. Co. of Fort Wayne, 198 NJE.
785, 209 Ind. 268.
225
La. — Jackson v. Swift & Co., App.,
151 So. 316.
34 C.J. p 48 note 87.
Rendition in open court see supra §
16.
91« La.— Woodlief v. Logan. 28 So.
716, 50 LaAnn. 4'38.
34 C.J. p 49 note 88.
Jurisdictional recitals see supra S
7L
92. La. — Richardson v. Turner, 28
So. 158, 52 La.Ann. 1613.
34 C.J. p 49 note 89.
93- Ind.— Indiana, B. & W. R. Co. v.
Bird, 18 NJBL 837, 116 Ind. 217, 9
Am.S.E, 842.
N.T.— Clapp v. Hawley, 97 N.Y. 610.
Presumptions as to jurisdiction on
collateral attack see infra § 425.
94. Ind.— Cadwell V. Teany, 157 N.
B. 5tt, 199 Ind. 634, certiorari de-
nied Cadwell v. Teaney, 48 S.Ct
601, 277 U.S. 605, 72 L.Ed. 1011,
La. — Jfeckson v. Swift & Co., App.,
151 So. 816.
Statute held directory
Ind. — Brant v. Lincoln Nat Life Ins.
Co. of Fort Wayne, 19* N.E. 785,
209 'Ind. 268.
96. La,— Jackson v. Swift & Co.,
App., 151 So. 816.
96. La, — Jackson T. Swift & Co., su-
pra.
§
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
opportunity to move for a new trial or in arrest87
Usually no special application and order for judg-
ment are now necessary,98 unless required by stat-
ute," the judgment being rendered and entered as
a matter of course on the verdict or decision.1 It
is the duty of the court to give judgment on the
verdict or decision without a motion for that pur-
pose,2 even in the case of a special verdict or spe-
cial findings.8 A formal motion for judgment, how-
ever, even if not necessary, is not improper,4 par-
ticularly where it is to be entered on a special ver-
dict or special findings,5 and, where the judgment
is not a matter of course, an application or motion
therefor may be necessary.6 Both parties may pre-
sent motions for judgment on the findings in a
case submitted on special issues.7 The party de-
siring to show cause why judgment should not be
entered should do so on the hearing of the motion
for judgment.8
Notice of application or motion. Unless required
by statute, no notice of application for judgment is
necessary,9 and it is not error for the court to sign
a judgment or decree without notice to the par-
ties.10 An application for judgment is not a mo-
tion within statutes prescribing the notice to be
given on a motion.11 Where, however, a motion
for judgment is necessary, notice thereof is usually
required to be given to the opposite party,12 al-
though failure or insufficiency of the notice will
not vitiate a judgment otherwise regular, to which
the moving party was clearly entitled,13 and, of
course, notice may be waived by the party entitled
thereto.1*
Determination of application or motion. Error
prior to verdict is sufficient ground for denial of a
motion for judgment on the verdict;16 and, where
the record does not show a rendition of a verdict, a
judge, not in office at the time of the supposed pro-
ceedings, may properly deny a motion for judgment
on the verdict.1^ The refusal of the court to or-
der judgment on special jury findings which are
in irreconcilable conflict, in effect, sets the verdict
aside.17 A motion for judgment on special findings
and a motion for a new trial differ both as to con-
tent and relief sought18 A motion for a new trial
does not waive a pending motion for judgment on
the verdict,19 or concede the right of the opposite
party to a judgment on the verdict, unless a new
trial is granted.20 Under some statutes a trial court
has no power to render judgment on a jury's special
verdict until a pending motion for a new trial has
been passed on and overruled.21
97. Md.— Heiskell v. Rollins, 32 A.
249, 81 Md. -397.
34 C.J. p 49 note 91.
On report of referee see infra § 105.
98. 111.-— Woodward v. Ruel, 188 N.
B. 911. 355 111. 16,3.
S.C. — Joiner v. Bevier, 152 S.B. 652,
155 S.C. '340.
Tex. — White v. Haynes» Civ.App., 60
*S.W.2d 275, error dismissed.
34 C.J. p 49 note 92.
99. N.P.— Gould v. Duluth & D. El.
Co., 54 N.W. 1316, 8'N.D. 96.
3*4 C. J. p 49 note 93.
1. S.C. — Joiner v. Bevier, 152 S.B.
652, 155 S.C. 340.
34 C.J. p 49 note 94.
Entry by clerk see infra § 106.
Single conclusion
Where verdict was interpretative
of but single conclusion, motion for
judgment was not essential to au-
thorize court to render necessary or-
der carrying1 verdict into effect. —
White v. Haynes, Tex.Civ.App., 60
S.W.2d 275, error dismissed.
2- Ind. — Masterson v. Southern R.
Co., App., 81 N.B. 730.
34 C.J. p 49 note 95.
3. Ind. — Carthage Tump. Co. v. Ov-
erman, 48 N.B. '874, 875, 19 (End.
App. )309.
34 C.J. p 49 note 96.
4. Mich. — Knack v, Wayne Cir.
Judge, 111 N.W, 161, 147 Mich.
485.
34 C.J. p 49 note 17.
5. Iowa.— Jolly v. Doolittle, 149 N.
W. 890, 1-69 Iowa 658.
34 C.J. p 49 note 98.
6. N.Y.— Maicas v. Leony, 2 N.Y.S.
831, 50 Hun 178, 22 AbbJN.Cas. 1,
modified on other grounds 20 N.B.
586, UlS N.Y. 619, 2 S11V.A. 153.
22 Abb.N.Cas. 465.
34 C.J. p 49 note 99.
Motion for Judgment non obstante
v.eredicto see supra § 61.
7. Tex. — Cortimeglia v. Herron, Civ.
App., 281 S.W. 305.
8. Mich. — McConnell v. Merrlam,
203 N.W. 661, 231 Mich. 184.
9. 111.— Woodward v. Ruel, 188 N.B.
911, -355 111. 163.
84C.J. p 50 note 2.
ia '111. — Woodward v. Ruel, supra.
34 C.J. p 50 note 3.
Agreement to give notice
Fact that counsel breached alleged
promise to notify opposing counsel
with respect to motion for Judgment
did not impair court's Jurisdiction to
grant motion. — Albright v. Moeckley,
Iowa, 237 N.W. 309.
11. N.Y.— Parker v. Linden, 13 N.Y.
& 95, 59 Hun 359.
84 C.J. p 50 note 4.
Necessity for notice of motion gen-
erally see the C.J.S. title Motions
and Orders, also 42 C.J. p 480
notes 73-77.
12. Wis.— Massing v. Ames, 36 Wis.
409.
54 C.J. p 50 note 5.
226
Notice held sufficient
Notice that contractor would move
for mandatory injunction for pay-
ment of Judgment was sufficient .to
notify that city contractor would ask
for Judgment for balance due under
contract.— City of Owensboro v. No-
lan, 46 -S.W.2d 490, 242 Ky. <342.
13. Wis.— Pormann v. Frede, 59 N.
W. 385, 72 Wis. 226.
14. Ky.— Millett v. Millett, 6 Ky.
Op. 431.
N.Y.— Bartlett v. Lundin, 169 N.T.S.
$91, 182 AppJDiv. 117.
15. N.C.— Powers v. Wilmington, 99
8.B. 102, 177 N.C. -361.
16. W.Va.— Charleston Trust Co. v.
Todd, H31 S.B. 638, HOI W.Va. 81.
17. Tex.— First Nat. Bank v. Chap-
man, Civ.App., 255 S.W. 807.
18. Tax. — Cortimeglia v. Herron,
Civ.App., 281 S.W. 805.
19. Ind.— Leslie v. Merrick, 99 Ind.
180— Voris v. Star City Bldg. &
Loan Ass'n, 50 N.B. 779, 20 Ind.
App. 6'30.
SO, Ind.— Cincinnati, L, St. L. & C.
R. Co. v. Grames, 34 N.B. 613, 8
Ind. A pp. 112, motion for leave to
withdraw petition granted 37 N.B.
421, 8 Ind.App. 112.
21. Ohio. — Boedker v. Warren B.
Richards Co., 176 N.B. 660, 124
Ohio St. 12 — Globe Indem. Co. v.
Schmitt, 6(3 NJS3.2d 169, 76 Ohio
App. 85.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
Order for judgment. The application for judg-
ment, if successful, should be followed by an or-
der of court directing the clerk to enter a judgment
in the form and terms specified,^ taking in every
phase of the case that is ripe for judgment^ and a
mere expression of the court's opinion that a des-
ignated party is entitled to recover, is not suffi-
cient^ It has been held that the order for judg-
ment does not become final until signed by the
judge,2^ but according to other authority the sig-
nature of the judge to the order is unnecessary.2*
§ 105
§ 105.
On Report of Referee
Under some statutes the report of the referee direct-
Ing Judgment constitutes the decision and Judgment of
the court, and It la the ministerial duty of the clerk to
enter Judgment precisely in accordance with the direc-
tions of the report; but, In the absence of statute or in
cases not within the scope of the statutory authority,
application to the court for Judgment on the report must
be made.
A reference is a mode of trial authorized in
some cases, and a judgment rendered on a report
of a referee is equally valid as when founded on a
verdict or a decision of the court,27 although it has
also been held that, in the absence of statutory au-
thority, a judgment must be rendered on the deci-
sion of the court or the verdict of a jury, and can-
not be based on the report of a referee,2* and that
in any case a judgment cannot be rendered on the
report of a referee where the referee is not given
authority to hear and determine the issues but is
simply required to take proof of all the material
facts and to report them to the court with his opin-
ion thereon.29
Under some statutes, where a reference of the
whole case to a referee to hear and determine is
authorized, the report of the referee directing judg-
ment for one party or the other constitutes the de-
cision and judgment of the court,8<> and it is the
22. Mass.— -Treblas v. New York
Life Ins. Co., 196 NJB. 908. 291
Mass. IB 8.
34 C.J. p 50 note 11.
Grant of stay
An oral direction by the Judge,
granting "ten days' stay," when di-
recting entry of Judgment Is gen-
erally to be regarded as meaning
merely a stay of execution. — Gers-
man v. Levy, 108 N.Y.a 1107, 57
Misc. 156.
Judge's findings as order
Where, after an order of Judgment
for defendant was reversed, case was
heard on same "statement of agreed
facts/' Judge's finding for plaintiff
and assessing damages of one dol-
lar would be regarded as an order
for Judgment — King Features Syndi-
cate v. Cape Cod Broadcasting Co.,
Mass., 64 N.E.2d 925.
Statute held inapplicable
Statute prohibiting1 actual entry
of Judgment until pending excep-
tions are disposed of is inapplicable
to order for Judgment pending excep-
tions to refusal to recommit audi-
tor's reports. — Treblas v. New York
Life 'Ins. Co., 196 NM. 908, 291 Mass.
138.
Order notwithstanding1 exceptions
An order for the entry of Judg-
ment on finding notwithstanding ex-
ceptions seasonably filed, but not
acted on by Judge, is proper. — Bath
Iron Works v. Savage, 159 NJQ. 445,
262 Mass. 1213.
23. Pa. — Federal Land Bank of Bal-
timore v. King, 1419 A. 500, 294 (Pa.
86.
24. N.Y.— Hall v. Beaton, 41$ N.Y.S.
304, 1<3 App.Div. 116.
34 C.J. p 50 note 12.
25. Ky. — Wolff v. Niagara Fire Ins.
Co., *2 S.W.2d 548, 236 Ky. 1.
36. Or. — Oxman v. Baker County,
2134 P. 799, 115 Or. 436.
Pa. — Secretary of Banking v. Miller,
Com.PL, 40 Lack.Jur. 17.
27. CaL— Sandoval v. Salazar, 207 P.
9i37, 57 CaLApp. 756.
Ga.— McCoy v. Johnson, 1*31 S.E. 475,
161 Ga. 688.
N.Y.— *n re National Surety Co., 26
N.T.S.2d 370, 17-6 Misc. 53— Feeter
v. Heath, 11 Wend. 477.
Wash.— State ex rel. Bloom v. Su-
perior Court in and for King Coun-
ty, 18 P.2d 510, 171 Wash. 586.
34 C.J. p 50 note 14.
Operation and effect of report of
referee generally see the C.J.S.
title References 5 140, also 58 C.J.
p 757 note 30-p 758 note 43.
Judgments on awards see Arbitration
and Award §5 ,124, 129.
Time of entry of Judgment on re-
port see infra $ 11£.
Special verdict
(1) Findings of referee have .effect
of special verdicts if they are sus-
tained by trial court, and, if so sus-
tained, they are binding if there is
any substantial evidence to support
them.— City of St. Louis v. Parker-
Washington Co., 196 S.W. 767, 271
Mo. 229, certiorari denied 38 S.Ct.
11, 245 U.S. 651, 62 I*Ed. 581— Rei-
necke v. Jod, 56 Mo. 986.
(2) Statute providing that on con-
firmation of the report Judgment
may be entered thereon as on a spe-
cial verdict does not apply where the
court does not confirm the report,
but sustains exceptions thereto and
makes Independent findings.— -State
ex rel. KimbreU v. People's Ice Stor-
age & Fuel Co., 151 S.W. 101, 246
Mo. 168.
If the report is lost, Judgment may
be rendered on a copy of it — Little
227
v. Gardner, 5 N.H. 415, 22 AxnJD.
468.
Form of action immaterial
Where a cause is tried by a ref-
eree, Judgment must be rendered ac-
cording to the facts reported, regard-
less of the form of action, if the
court can allow an amendment to the
declaration which will adapt it to
the facts.— Camp v. Barber, 88 A.
812, 87 Vt 235, Ann.Cas.l917A 451.
Entry of Judgment on report held
proper
(1) Generally.— Bank of Marlinton
v. >Pocahontas Development Co., 106
S.B. 881, 88 W.Va. 414.
(2) In actions not referrable under
statute, if the parties refer the cause
to referees by stipulation, and if
the submission provides that a Judg-
ment may be entered on the report
or award, and Judgment is entered
accordingly, the parties are conclud-
ed by their agreement, and cannot
be heard to allege that the reference
and Judgment were not warranted by
law.— Green v. (Patchin, N.T., 1-3
Wend. 298, 295— Tates v. Russell. N.
T., d7 Johns. 461 — Monroe Bank v.
Widner, N.Y., 11 Paige 529, 413 Am.
D. 7«68.
88. Ohio.— Bldridge v. Woolsey, 4
Ohio Dec., Reprint, 45, Clev.L,.Rec.
59.
29- N.T. — Sullivan v. Sullivan, 41
N.Y.Super. 519, 52 How.Pr. 458.
30. N.T. — Ward v. Branson, 110 N.
T.S. $35, 126 App.Dlv. 508.
34 C.J. p 50 note 17.
General reference
Where a reference is general, find-
ings in report of referees form suf-
ficient basis to support the Judgment
of the court. — Blalock v. Dunger, 272
P. 1048, 205 Cal. 782— Board of Edu-
cation of San Pranclsco United
§ 105
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
ministerial duty of the clerk to enter the appropri-
ate judgihent thereon without confirmation or fur-
ther directions by the court,31 and without notice,32
unless notice is required by law,33 precisely as in
the case of a general verdict by a jury, or the de-
cision of the court in a case tried without a jury,
as discussed supra § 102. In form, the judgment
is to be entered as though pronounced by the court34
. and must be precisely in accordance with the direc-
tions of the report, as discussed supra § 55.
If the report does not sufficiently direct the par-
ticular form and terms of the judgment to be en-
tered, the court has power to supply the deficien-
cy,86 provided the referee has made findings ade-
quate for final judgment,86 and application must be
made to the court to frame or settle the judgment
to be entered,37 because the clerk cannot act judi-
cially,38 and, as discussed supra § 101, the rendi-
tion of a judgment is a judicial act which usually
must be performed by a judicial officer of the court
In such, cases a judgment entered by the clerk on
the report without direction of the court is wholly
void, and not merely irregular.3*
The practice of entering judgment as of course
by the clerk on the report of a referee is limited to
the cases in which it is authorized by statute, and
is subject to all statutory exceptions, qualifications,
and provisions.40 In the absence of statute author-
izing the entry of judgment by the clerk on the re-
port of a referee, or in cases not within the scope
of the statutory authority, the proper practice is
to make application to the court for judgment on
the report, on such notice as may be required, after
exceptions and objections to the report have been
passed on, and the report has been confirmed.41
Thereupon the court properly pronounces judgment
on the report42 In the absence of statutory au-
thority therefor the referee has no power to ren-
der judgment4* After confirmation, errors of the
referee cannot be considered in opposition to a mo-
tion for judgment on the report, the only remedy
for such errors being an application to set aside the
report and for a new trial.44 The judgment framed
or settled by the court must be the one directed in
the report of the referee; the court has no power
or authority to give directions which require the
entry of a judgment substantially different from
School Dist. v. Mulcahy, 12$ P.2d
114, 50 Cal.App.2d 518.
31. Cal. — Lewis v. Grunberg, 270 P.
181, 205 CaL 158.
N.Y. — Corr v. Hoffman, 176 N.E. 3&S,
256 N.Y. 254.
34 C.J. p 50 note 17.
Entry by clerk see Infra 9 106.
32. Colo. — Terpening T. Holton, 12
P. 189, 9 Colo. (806.
34 C.J. P 51 note 18.
33. N.D. — Gould T. Duluth & 3D.
El. Co., 54 N.W. 816, 3 N.D. 96.
34 C.J. p 51 note 19.
34. N.Y.— Hancock v. Hancock, 22
N.Y. 568.
35. N.T. — In re Thompson, 288 N.
Y.S. 897, 247 App.Div. 605.
34 C.J. p 51 note 24.
Sufficiency of direction of Judgment
in report of referee see the C.J.S.
title References § 139, also 53 C.J.
p 754 note 97.
36. N.Y. — Hinds v. Kellogg, 13 N.Y
S. 922, affirmed 30 N.E. 1143, 133
N.Y. 5136.
S.C.— • Brown v. Rogers, 61 S.E. 440,
80 S.C. 289.
37. N.Y.— Matter of Baldwin, 34 N,
Y.S. 435, 87 Hun 1372.
34 C.J. p 51 note 2"6.
38. N.Y.— Matter of Baldwin, 34 N
Y.S. 4-35, 87 Hun <372, 25 N.Y.Civ
Proc. 6, 2 N.Y.Ann.Cas. 187— Mai-
cas v. Leony, 2 N.Y.S. 831, 50 Hun
178, 22 Abb.N.Cas. lf modified on
other grounds 20 N.B. 586, 113 N
Y. 619, 2 SUV.A. 153, 22 AbTxN.Cas
465.
>. N.Y.— Matter of Baldwin, 4 N.Y.
•S. 372, 87 Hun 372, 25 N.Y.Civ.
Proc. 6, 2 N.Y.Ann.Caa. 187.
14 C.J. p 51 note 29.
40. N.Y.— Matter of Potter, 8 N.Y.S.
261, 44 Hun 197.
34 C.J. P 52 note 81.
41. N.J.— Clayton v. Levy, 9 X 755,
49 N.J.Law 577.
34 C.J. p 52 note 32.
Objections and exceptions to, and
confirmation of, referee's report
see the C.J.S. title References §§
150, 164, 195, also 5-3 C.J. p 768
note 43-p 769 note 63, p 772 note
7-p 77!3 note 17, p 786 note 20-p
787 note 44.
42. Conn. — Di Francesco v. Moom-
jian, 14!3 A. 900, 108 Conn. 515.
Mo.— O'Reilly v. Cleary, 8 Mo.App.
186.
N.Y.— Saal v. South Brooklyn R. Co.,
106 N.Y.S. 996, 122 App.Div. 864
Order for judgment
(1) Orders held proper. — Chehames
v. Lafayette Square Restaurant, 85
N.B.2d 482, 306 Mass. 618— Walsh v.
Cornwell, 172 NJB. 855, 272 Mass.
555.
(2) Where cases were referred to
an auditor who filed a report anc
it was stipulated that his findings of
fact should be final, auditor's re
port was in effect a "case stated'
and action of judge allowing motion
for judgment on the auditor's report
was an order for judgment in each
case.— -Union Old Lowell Nat Bank
v. Paine, Mass., 61 N.B.2d 666.
228
Payment of claim*
Where an audit is confirmed, the
approved practice is also to pass an
order to pay the claims wnich were
hereby allowed; but the judgment
of the court is effectually pronounced
on a claim by confirming the audi-
tor's report, if no steps are taken to
revoke or overrule it. — Lee v. Botel-
er, 12 Oill & J., Md., 2213.
Supplemental report
In action for damages, where case
was referred to an auditor whose
findings of fact were to be final, and
auditor's ultimate finding for defend-
ant in supplemental report was not
vitiated by any error of law appear-
ing on face of supplemental report
or on as much of original report as
was not superseded by supplemental
report, the ultimate finding "was con-
clusive that plaintiff did not prove
that it had a cause of action, and
hence ordering judgment for defend-
ant was proper, although auditor's
original report found that plaintiff
could recover.— Old Mill DPoint Club
v. Paine, 33 N.B.2d 257, 808 Mass.
505.
Th* party in whose favor the ref-
eree finds is entitled to have judg-
ment entered on the report. — Holt v.
Kirby, 39 Me. 16<4.
43. Cal. — Sandoval v. Salazar, 207
OP. 9,37, 57 CaLApp. 756.
5i3 C.J. p 742 note 69.
44. N.J. — Clayton v. Levy, 9 A. 755,
49 N.J.I*aw 577,
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
106
that prescribed in the referee's report45 without set-
ting aside the referee's findings and making a find-
ing of fact to sustain the court's judgment.4^
§ 106. Entry Generally
a. General statement
b. What constitutes entry
a. General Statement
Entry of Judgment Is the ministerial or clerical act
of spreading the Judgment at large on the record as dis-
tinguished from the Judicial act of giving or pronounc-
ing Judgment.
Although it has been said that courts act judi-
cially in entering their judgments,47 the great
weight of authority is that the entry of judgment is
a ministerial or clerical act,48 required to be done
by the clerk of the court, as discussed infra § 108,
and consists of placing a judgment previously ren-
dered on the record,49 by which enduring evidence
of the judicial act is afforded.50 While the term
"entry of judgment" is sometimes used in a general
sense so as to include rendition of judgment,51 it is
most often used in a more limited and precise sense
as meaning the ministerial act of spreading the
judgment at large on the record as distinguished
from the judicial act of giving or pronouncing judg-
ment.52 There must be a compliance with statutes
45. N.Y. — In re Thompson, 288 N.
T.S. 897, 247 App.Div. 605.
34 C.J. p 51 note 80. /
46. N.C. — Greer v. Board of Oom'rs
of Watauga County, U85 S.E. 862,
192 N.C. 714— Davis v. Davis. 113
S.E. 61'3, 194 N.C. 108.
Trial or another reference
After setting aside a referee's re-
port, it has been held that the court
cannot enter a judgment without a
further trial or another reference.
Iowa. — Lyons v. Harris, 34 N.W. 864,
73 Iowa 292.
Mich.— Rice v. Benedict, 18 Mich. 75.
Okl. — Kingfisher Imp. Co. y. Board of
Coxn'rs of Jefferson County, 168 Pi
824, 825, 66 Okl. 220.
47. Miss. — Mohundro v. Board of
Sup'rs of Tippah County, 165 So*
124, 174 Miss. 512.
48. u.S. — Corpus Juris cited in U.
S. v. Rayburn, C.C.A.Iowa, 91 F.2d
162, 164.
Ala.— Mt. Vernon-Woodberry Mills
v. Union Springs Guano Co., 155
So. 710, 26 Ala. App. 136, certiorari
denied 155 So. 716, 229 Ala. 91.
Cal. — Brown v. Superior Court of
California in. and for Los Angeles
County, 2134 P. 409, 70 CaLApp. 782.
Fla.— St Lucie Estates v. Palm
Beach Plumbing Supply Co., 133
So. 841, 101 Fla. 205.
Ga.— Deck v. Deck, 20 S.B.2d 1, 193
Ga. 7139.
111. — 'People ex rel. Waite v. Bristow,
62 N.E.2d 545, 391 HI. 101— Wal-
lace Grain & Supply Co. v. Cary,
24 N.E.2d 907, <303 IlLApp. 221, re-
versed on other grounds 28 N.E.2d
107, 374 111. 57.
Mich.— Motyka v. Detroit, G. H. &
M. Ry. Co., 244 N.W. 897, 260 Mich.
396.
Miss. — Corpus Juris cited in Welch
v. Kroger Grocery Co., 177 So. 41,
42, 180 Miss. 89.
N.H.— Tuttle v. Tuttle, 196 A. $2<4,
89 N.H. 219.
N.T.— Application of Gleit S3 N.T.S.
2d 629, 178 Misc. 198— In re Par-
dee's Estate, 16 N.Y.S.2d 10, affirm-
ed 18 N.T.S.2d 4118, 259 App.Div.
101.
Okl. — Peoples Electric Co-op, v.
Broughton, 127 P.2d 850, 191 Okl.
229 — Abernathy v. Huston, 26 P.2d
939, 166 OkL 184.
Or. — Jones v. Thompson, 164 P.2d
718.
Term'. — Jackson v. Jarratt, 52 S.W.
2d 137, 165 Tenn. 76.
Tex.— Linton v. Smith, 154 S.W.2d
645, 3J37 Tex. 479— Lewis v% Ter-
rell, CivJLpp., 154 S.W.2d 151, er-
ror refused — Jones v. Sun Oil Co.,
Civ.App., 145 S.W.2d 61-5, reversed
on other grounds 153 S.W.2d 571,
137 Tex. 353— Sloan v. Bichey, Civ.
App., 143 S.W.2d 119, error dis-
missed, Judgment correct — Perry
v. 'Perry, Civ.App.f 122 S.W.2d 726
— Cleburne Nat. Bank v. Bowers,
Civ.App., 1U3 S.W.2d 578, conform-
ing to answer to certified question
112 S.W.2d 717, 130 Tex. 687—
Corbett v. Rankin Independent
School Dist, Civ.App., 100 S.W.2d
US— Hudgins v. T. B. Meeks Co.,
div.App., 1 S.W.2d 681— Kittrell
v. Fuller, Civ.App.f 281 S.W. 575
—Ex parte McGraw, 277 S.W. 699,
700, 102 Tex.Cr. 105.
Wash.— Beetchenow v. Bartholet, 298
P. 335, 162 Wash. 119.
Wis.— Netherton v. Frank Holton &
Co., 205 N.W. 388, 189 Wis. 461, or-
der vacated denying motion to dis-
miss appeal 206 N.W. 919, 189 Wis.
461, mandate vacated 207 N.W. 953,
189 Wis. 461.
34 C.J. p 55 note 60.
Entry and enrollment of decrees see
Equity % 592.
Entry of judgments in federal courts
see Federal Courts 3 14'4 a.
49. U.S. — Corpus Juris cited in
United States v. Bayburn, C.C.A.
Iowa, 91 F.2d 162, 164.
Ariz. — American Surety Co. of New
York v. Mosher. 64 P.2d 1025, 48
Ariz. 552.
ni.— Wallace Grain & Supply Co. v.
Cary, 24 N.E.2d 907, -303 IlLApp.
221, reversed on other grounds 28
N.B.2d 107, 874 111. 57,
Mich,— Motyka v. Detroit, G. H. &
229
M. Ry. Co., 244 N.W. 897, 260 Mich.
396.
N.H.— Tuttle v. Tuttle, 196 A. 624, 89
N.H. 219.
Tex. — Ex parte McGraw, 277 S.W.
699, 102 Tex.Cr. 105,
34 C.J. p 55 note 62.
Eatry as to invalidity
A court entering a judgment which
is void for want of Jurisdiction has
the jurisdiction to journalize the in-
validity of the judgment by appro-
priate entry without being moved
to do so by anyone. — State ex rel.
Ehmann v. Schneider, Ohio App., 67
N.E.2d 117.
50. Ala. — Mt Vernon-Woodberry
Mills v. Union Springs Guano Co.,
155 So. 710, 26 Ala. App. 136, cer-
tiorari denied 155 So. 716, 229 Ala.
91.
D.C. — Conrad v. Medina, MutuApp.,
47 A.2d 562.
N.H.— Tuttle v. Tuttle. 196 A. 62*.
625, 89 tt.EL 219.
N.Y.— Application of Gleit, 33 N.Y.S.
2d 629, 178 Misc. 198.
Tex.— Linton v. Smith, 154 S.W.2d
$43, Ii37 Tex. 479— Lewis v. Terrell,
Civ.App., 154 S.W.2d 151, error re-
fused—Jones v. Sun Oil Co., Civ.
App., 145 S.W.2d 615, reversed on
other grounds 15*3 S.W.2d 571, 137
Tex. 353— Sloan v. Richey, Civ.
App., 143 S.W.2d 119, error dis-
missed, judgment correct-— Perry
v. Perry, Civ.App., 122 S.W.2d 726
—Cleburne Nat Bank v. Bowers,
Civ,App., 113 S.W.2d 578, conform-
ing to answer of certified question
112 S.W.2d 717, 1'30 Texi 6>37 — Cor-
bett v. Rankin Independent School
Dist., Civ.App., 100 S.W.2d 113—
Hudgins v. T. B. Meeks Co., Civ.
App., 1 S.W.2d 681— Kittrell v.
Fuller, Civ.App., 281 S.W. 575.
51. Ohio. — Sanda v. Coverson, 171
N.E. 89, 122 Ohio St 238.
Tex. — Smith v. El Paso & N. BL R.
Co., Civ.App., 67 S.W.2* 362, er-
. ror dismissed.
52. Ark. — Corpus Jnria quoted in
McConnell v. Bourland, 299 S.W.
44, 48, ITS Ark. 253.
106
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
or rules of court regulating the entry of judg-
ments.58
t. What Constitutes Entry
A Judgment Is entered when It IB spread at large on
the record, and under some statutes not until then, but
under other statutes it has been held entered when a
properly formulated entry is delivered to the clerk to be
entered, although it Is not actually transcribed on the
record.
A judgment is entered when it is spread at large
on the record,54 and under some statutes not until
then.55 Until judgment forms signed by the judge
and filed with the clerk are recorded, they are noth-
ing more than directions to the clerk to enter judg-
ment in the form specified; until such direction is
obeyed, the judgment is not entered.58 A fortiori,
the filing of a mere memorandum, or the making of
a skeleton entry in the minutes, giving the terms of
the judgment directed, does not constitute entry of
the judgment.57 Under some statutes, however, a
judgment is entered when a signed copy of it is de-
livered to the clerk and filed by him, although not
actually transcribed on the record,58 or when the
judgment is duly signed and filed by the clerk.59
So it has been held that a judgment is in law en-
tered, at least for some purposes, at the time a prop-
er entry thereof is formulated and given to the clerk
to be entered of record.60
§ 107.
Necessity
Although as between the parties a duly rendered
Judgment may be valid and effective without entry, and
Its enforcement does not always depend on its entry,
the statutes generally require Judgments to be entered
and for many purposes they are not complete, perfect,
and effective until this Is done.
As a general rule, the decisions of all courts must
be preserved in writing in some record provided for
that purpose.61 Where a statute so requires, judg-
ments should be entered,62 and for many purposes
a judgment is not complete, perfect, and effective
Del. — Corpus Juris cited in Hazzard
v. Alexander, 178 A. 873, 875, 6
W.W.Harr. 512.
IncL — State ex reL Bernard v. Geck-
ler, 189 N.E. 842, 98 Ind.App. 456.
N.Y.— Langrlck v. Rowe, 212 N.Y.
S. 240, 126 Misc. 256.
Or. — Corpus Juris quoted in Haberly
v. Farmers' Mut. Fire Relief Ass'n,
287 P. 222, 22S, 1«5 Or. 82— In re
Gerhardus' Estate, 23 9 P. 829, 116
Or. 113,
Tex.— Kittrell v. Fuller, Civ.ApP.,
281 -S.W, 575.
34 C.J. p 45 note 59, p 52 note 39.
53. Ariz. — Southwestern Freight
Lines v. Shafer, 111 P.2d 625, 57
Ariz. 111.
54. Iowa. — Lotz v. United Food
Markets, 288 N.W. 99, 225 Iowa
1*397,
34 C.J. p 55 note 63.
Form and contents of judgment see
supra 55 62-86.
Mere refusal of motion for judg-
ment non obstante veredicto was not
equivalent to entry of judgment for
prevailing party, since judgment on
verdict must be entered by court or
by its officer, at court's express direc-
tion.— Lamberton Nat. Bank of
Franklin v. Shakespeare, 184 A. 669,
321 Pa. 449.
55. Iowa.— Street v. Stewart 285 N.
W. 204, 226 Iowa, 960— Lotz v.
United Food Markets, 28* N.W.
99, 225 Iowa 1397.
34 C.J. p 55 note 64.
Book or place of entry see infra S
110.
56. Utah. — Ellinwood v. Bennion,
27.6 P. 159, 7® Utah 563.
34 C.J. p 55 note 65.
Judge's signature to blank forms
of decree was at most order that
decree be entered when blanks were
filled by clerical staff of registry and
before such filling order for decree
was not entered. — Ambrozewicz v.
Lane, 186 N.E. 51, 283 Mass. 141.
57. U.S. — Corpus Juris cited in
Hargis v. Swope, D.C.Ky., 25 F.
Supp. 166, 169.
Oal. — Jackson v. Thompson, 110 P.
2d 470, 43 Cal.App.2d 150.
Iowa. — Street v. Stewart, 285 N.W.
204, 226 Iowa 960.
Wyo.— State v. Scott, 247 P. 699, 35
Wyo. 108.
34 C.J. p 55 note 66.
Order or memoranda for judgment
see supra § 62.
58. N.Y.— Edelstein v. Oxman, 13 N.
T.S.2d 95, 171 Misc. 552.
'Wash. — Cinebar Coal & Coke Co. v.
Robinson, 97 P.2d 128, 1 Washed
620— Mathison v. Anderson, 182 P.
622, 107 Wash. 617.
34 C.J. p 56 note 68.
59. N.T. — Waterbury v. Nassor, 224
N.T.S. 179, 180, 130 Misc. 200.
Wis. — Netherton v. Frank Holton &
Co., 206 N.W. 919, 921, 189 Wis.
461.
60. Ohio. — Hower Corp. v. Vance, 59
N.E.2d 377, 144 Ohio St 443—
Amazon Rubber Co. v. Morewood
Realty Holding Co., 142 N.E. 363,
109 Ohio St 291.
34 C.J. p 56 note 69.
riling of Journal entry, approved
by judge and counsel for interested
litigants, is an entry of judgment,
even though date of actually spread-
ing entry on journal may have been
some time thereafter. — Columber v.
City of Kenton, 145 N.E. 12, 13, 111
Ohio St. 21L
Whenever any relief other than
for money only or costs or that there
230
be no recovery is granted, a form
of judgment must be first settled
and approved in writing by trial
court, and such judgment becomes
effective on its filing with the clerk
for recording in the civil order book.
— Southwestern Freight Lines v.
Shafer, 111 P.2d 625, 57 Ariz. 111.
61. Ala. — Mt Vernon-Woodberry
Mills v. Union Springs Guano Co.,
155 So. 710, 26 Ala.Apt. 1#6, cer-
tiorari denied 155 So. 716, 229 Ala,
91.
Fla. — Magnant v. Peacock, 24 So.2d
(314.
Ky.— National Life & Accident Ins.
Co. v. Hedges, 27 S,W.2d '422, 233
Ky. 840.
Miss.— Evans v. State, 108 So. T25,
144 Miss. 1.
N.J.— Lyczak v. Marguilies, 151 A.
64, 8 N.J.Misc. 549, affirmed 162
A. 590, 109 N.J.Law 852.
34 C.J. p 52 note 42.
Necessity for entry of judgments by
confession see infra § 165.
Necessity for writing see supra §
64.
Judgment appearing in minutes
signed by judge is that of which
clerk is required to keep record. — De
Zavala v. Scanlan, Tex.Com.App., 65
S.W.2d 489.
62. N.M. — Animas Consol. Mines
Co. v. Frazier, 69 P.2d 9'27, 41 N.
M. 389.
N.T. — Cole^v. Vincent, 242 N.Y.fl. 644,
229 App.Div. 520.
34 C.J. p 53 note 47.
One of the purposes of statute
relating to recordation of judgments
is to preserve by putting in an en-
during form that which has been
done.— Street v. Stewart, 285 N.W.
204, 226 Iowa 960.
49 O.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 107
until it has been duly entered.63 Thus it has been
broadly held that judgments take effect only from
the date of entry,64 and that there is no judgment
until it is entered of record.65
Entry of a judgment is generally required for the
purpose of initiating the right to take an appeal, or
to sue out a writ of error to review such judg-
ment, and of limiting the time within which such
right may be exercised, as discussed in Appeal and
Error § 445, or within which the judgment may be
enforced, as considered infra §§ 854, 871, or for
the creation of a judgment lien, as discussed infra
§ 466. A judgment is not final, in the sense that
it cannot be withdrawn or changed by the court, un-
til it has been entered;66 on entry, it passes beyond
control of the court, except to vacate or modify it
in accordance with the usual rules.67 After a judg-
ment has been duly rendered, a direction to the clerk
to withhold the journal entry from record does not
vacate, open, or modify it.68 In order that a judg-
ment may be admitted as evidence in another ac-
tion, it is necessary that it should first have been
entered of record.69 Entry of the judgment is also
necessary to authorize the clerk to make up the
judgment roll, and to docket the judgment, as dis-
cussed infra §§ 123, 126.
As between the parties, a judgment duly rendered
may be valid and effective, although not entered,
that is, the neglect or failure of the clerk to make a
proper entry of the judgment, or his defective or
Statute held mandatory .
Ohio. — Brown v. L. A. Wells Const.
Co., 56 N.E.2d 451, 143 Ohio St.
580.
Statute held directory
OkL— Ashinger v. White, 232 P. 850,
106 Okl. 19.
63. U.S. — Corpus Juris cited in
United States v. Rayburn, C.C.A.
Iowa, 91 F.2d 162, 16*4.
Ala. — Corpus Juris cited in Du Free
v. Hart, 8 So.2d 183, 186, 242 Ala.
690— Lewis v. Martin, 98 So. 635,
210 Ala. 401.
Ark. — Corpus Juris quoted in. McCon-
nell v. Bourland, 299 S.W. 44, 48,
175 Ark. 253.
Cal.— Lind v. Baker, 119 «P-2d 806,
48 Cal.App.2d 234.
Del. — Corpus Juris cited in Hazaard
v. Alexander, 1T8 A. 8713, 875, 6
W.W.Harr. 512.
Ga. — Hutcheson v. Hutcheson, 80 S.
E.2d 107, 197 Ga. 603— Corpus Ju-
ris cited in Tanner v. Wilson, 192
S.E. 425, ¥28, 184 Ga. 628.
Iowa,— Street v. Street, 285 N.W.
204, 226 Iowa 960.
Neb.— Luikart v. Bredthauer, 271 N.
W. 165, 132 Neb. 62.
Ohio. — Amazon Rubber Co. v. More-
wood Realty Holding Co., 142 N.E.
363, 109 Ohio St. 291— State ex
rel. Egbert v. Leiser, 36 N.E.2d
874, 67 Ohio App. 350.
Or. — In re Gerhardus* Estate, 289 P.
829, 116 Or. 1113.
3*3 C.J. p 964 note 61—34 C.J. p 54
note 48.
Attacking void Judgment
A void judgment may not be at-
tacked until it has been entered,
since a court may * speak ' only
through its records, and it is neces-
sary to enter a judgment to give it
vitality.— Prasse v. Prasse, 115 S.W.
2d 807, 342 Ho. 388.
64. Ariz. — Southwestern Freight
Lines v. Shafer, 111 P.2d 625, 57
Ariz. 111.
Cal.—Lind v. Baker, 119 P.2d 806,
48 Cal.App.2d 234— Marsh Bros. &
Gardenler v. U. S. Fidelity & Guar-
anty Co., 275 P. 886, 97 Cal.App.
474.
N.M. — Corpus Juris cited in State v.
Capital City Bank, 2*46 P. 899, 900,
81 N.M. 4530.
34 C.J. p 55 note 57.
Bate of judgment see infra $ 113.
65. U.S. — In re Ackermann, C.C.A.
Ohio, 32 F.2d 971.
Cal.— Lane v. Pellissier, 283 P. 810,
208 Cal. 590.
Fla. — Magnant v. Peacock, 24 So.2d
•314 — Foster v. Cooper, 194 So. 331,
1*42 Fla. 148— Corpus Juris cited in
Dupree v. Elleman, 191 So. 65, 68,
139 Fla. 809.
N.M.— Quintana v. Vigil, 125 P.2d
711, 46 N.M. 200— Animas Con-
sol. Mines Co. v. Frazier, 69 P.2d
927, 41 N.M. 389— Corpus Juris cit-
ed in State v. Capital City Bank,
246 P. 899, 900, 81 N.M. 430.
N.D.— Groth v. Ness, 260 N.W. 700,
65 N.D. 580.
Ohio. — Hower Corp. T. Vance, 59 N.
E.2d 377, 144 Ohio St. 4'43— Krasny
v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 54
N.E.2d 952, 143 Ohio St. 284— Ama-
zon Rubber Co. T. Morewood Real-
ty Holding Co., 142 N.E. 36S, 109
Ohio St. 291— Cox v. Cox, 141 N.
E. 220, 108 Ohio St 478— State ex
reL Merion v. Van Sickle, App., 59
N.E.2d 383— Corpus Juris cited in
Vance v. Hower Corporation, 57
N.E.2d 812, 815, 7«4 Ohio App. 99—
State ex ret Egbert v. Leiser, 36
N.E.2d 874, 67 Ohio App. 350— In
re Lowry's Estate, 35 N.E.M 154,
66 Ohio App. 487.
Tex. — Sigler v. Realty Bond & Mort-
gage Co., 1'38 S.W.2d 537, 135 Tex.
76— Ex parte Rains, 257 &W. 217,
118 Tex. 42-8.
34 C.J. p 55 note 58.
A vacation decree does not become
effective until it has been signed and
entered of record.— Jelks v. Jelks,
181 S.W.2d 235, 207 Ark. 475.
Entry at county seat
Judgment and findings of circuit
judge which were signed in cham-
bers in city which was not county
231
seat were not effective until filed
in office of clerk of circuit court in
county seat and recorded in court's
minutes. — State ex reL Landis T.
City of Auburndale, 163 So. 698, 121
Fla. 336.
Neither docket entries nor affidavits
are effective
Tex.— Hamilton v. Empire Gas &
Fuel Co., 110 S.W2d 561, 134 Tex
377.
68. Ariz. — Corpus Juris Quoted in
Brewer v. Morgan, 263 P. 630,
632, 3>3 Ariz. 225.
Cal.— Lind v. Baker, 119 P.2d 806,
48 Cal.App.2d 234— Magarian v.
Moser, 42 P.2d 385, 5 Cal.App.2d
208.
Ga. — Blakely Hardwood Lumber Co.
v. Reynolds Bros. Lumber Co., 160
S.R 775, IT'S Ga, 602.
Mass. — Ambrozewlcz v. Lane, 186 N.
E. 51, 288 Mass. 141.
N.M.— Quintana v. Vigil, 125 P.2d
711, 46 N.M, 200.
Tenn. — Broadway Motor Co. v. Pub-
lic Fire Ins. Co., 12 Tenn.App. 278.
34 C.J. p 54 note 52.
Announcement not of record
Court could enter decree without
formal order setting aside previous
conclusion announced from bench,
but not included in record of case. —
Rogers v. Shell Petroleum Corpora-
tion, Tex.Civ.App., 45 S.W.2d 743,
error dismissed*
67. Tenn. — Broadway Motor Co. v.
Public Fire Ins. Co., 12 Tenn.App.
278.
34 C.J. p 54 note 53.
68. OkL— Taliaferro v. Batis, 252 (P.
845, 12i3 Okl. 59.
69. Ala.— Corpus Juris cited in Mt
Vernon-Woodberry Mills v. Union
Springs Guano Co., 155 So. 716, 717,
229 Ala. 91.
Neb.— Luikart v. Bredthauer, 271 N.
W. 165, -133 Neb. 62.
3f4 C.J. p 54 note 54.
Pleading and proving judgment see
infra S§ 822-848.
§ 108
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
inaccurate entry of it, at least in the absence of stat-
ute to the contrary, will not deprive it of the force
of a judicial decision.™ The enforcement of a
judgment does not depend on its entry,71 or dock-
eting, as discussed infra § 126; and, as discussed in
Executions § 9 if the judgment has been duly ren-
dered, a valid execution generally may be issued
and levied, without either entry or docketing of the
judgment, unless specially required by statute.
§ 108. Authority and Duty
a. Of clerk
b. Of parties
a. Of Clerk
In entering Judgments the clerk acts merely as an
agent to write out and place on the record those Judg-
ments which he I* authorized and required by law to en-
ter, and, except where statutes provide otherwise, he
may not enter Judgment without formal Judicial rendi-
tion or specific direction of the court.
In entering judgments, the clerk acts In a purely
ministerial capacity, and exercises no judicial func-
tions ;?2 he acts merely as an agent to write out and
place on the record judgments which he is author-
ized and directed by law to enter.™ Provided the
cause is ripe for entry of judgment, and there is no
stay or order to the contrary, the clerk is author-
ized, and it is his ministerial duty, to enter on the
record all judgments rendered by the court,™ and
certain judgments authorized by statute in specified
70. U.S. — to re Ackermann, C.C.A.
Ohio, 82 F.2d 971— Continental OH
Co. v. Mulich, C.OA-Kan., 70 F.
2d 521.
Ark.— American Inv. Co. v. HiU, 292
S.W. 675, 173 Ark. 468.
Oal.— Brown v. Superior Court 01
California In and for Los Angeles
County, 2.34 P. 409, 70 Cal.App. 782.
Conn.— D'Andrea v. Rende, 195 A.
741, 123 Conn. 377.
D.C.— Conrad v. Medina, Mun.App.,
47 A.2d 562.
Qa.— Deck v. Deck, 20 S.E.2d 1, 19*
' Ga. 739.
HI..— people ex rel. Waite v. Bristow,
62 N.E.2d 54*5, 891 111. 101— Prange
v. City of Marion, 48 N.E.2d 980,
319 I11.APP. 1«6.
Iowa.— Hobson V- Dempsey Const.
Co., 7 N.W.2d 896, 232 Iowa 1226,
stating Ohio law.
Miss.— Corpus Juris cited in Welch
v. Kroger Grocery Co., 177 So. 41,
42, 180 Miss. 89.
Mfc. — Marsden . v. Nipp, 30 S. w.2d
77, -325 Mo. 822.
Neb. — Luikart v. Bredthauer, 271 N.
W. 165, 132 Neb. 62— Crete Mills v.
Stevens, 285 NJW. 4513, 120 Neb,
794.
N.M.— Corpus Juris cited in State v.
Capital City Bank, 246 P. 899, 900,
31 N.M. 4«30.
N.Y.— Langrick v. Rowe. 212 N.T.S
240, 126 Misc. 256.
Ohio.— Hower Corp v. Vance, 59 NJ32
2d 377, 144 Ohio St. 443— Amazon
Rubber Co. v. Morewood Realty
Holding Co., 142 N.E. 363, 109 Ohio
St 291.
Tex. — Sloan v. Richey, Civ.App., 14
S.W.2d 119, error dismissed, judg-
ment correct— Perry v. Perry, Civ
App., 122 S.W.2d 726— Corpus Ju-
ris cited in Turley V. Tobin, Civ
App., 7 S.W.2d 949, 952, error re
fused— Hudgins v. T. B. Meeks
Co., Civ.App., 1 S.W.2d 681.
Wash. — Corpus Juris cited in Cine-
bar Coal & Coke Co. v. Robinson
97 P.2d 128, 131, 1 Washed 629.
-flT.va.— Corpus Juris cited in Bea-
com v. Board of Canvassers of Ca-
bell County, 10 S.K2d 793. 795,
122 W.Va. 468.
4 C.J. p 52 note 43.
Interest on Judgment
Plaintiff in whose favor a verdict
« returned cannot be deprived of in-
erest on his Judgment by the failure
of the clerk to enter the Judgment
as the law directs.— Koontz v.
Weide, 208 P. 651, 111 Kan. 709.
71. Conn.— D'Andrea v. Rende, 195
A. 741, 123 Conn. 877.
Kan.— Gates v. Gates, 168 P.2d 895,
160 Kan. 428.
34 C.J. p 53 note 4'4.
Judgment is complete when signed
by court and passed to clerk for fil-
ing or to some other person to be
presented to clerk.— Beetchenow v.
Bartholet, 29-8 P. 335, 162 Wash. 119.
72. U.S.— In re Staples, D.COkL, 1
F.Supp. 620.
CaL— Phipps v. Superior Court in
and for Alameda County, 89 P.2d
698, 32 Cal.App.2d 371.
Mont— Lasby v. Burgess, 18 P.2d
1104, 93 Mont. 849.
OM. — Moroney v. Tannehill, 215 P
9-38, 90 OkL 224.
Or. — Corpus Juris cited in State v,
Tolls, 85 P.2d 366, 373, 160 Or
1317, 119 A.L.R. 1370.
Tex.— Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v.
Canty, 285 S.W. 296, 115 Tex. 6»37.
34 C.J. P 59 note 97.
Authority to render. Judgment in cer-
tain cases see supra S 101.
Entry in vacation see infra § 114.
Several Judgment
Under a statute providing that,
when a several Judgment is proper,
the court in its discretion may ren-
der Judgment against one or more
defendants, leaving the action to
proceed against the others, the dis-
cretion is a Judicial one, to be exer-
cised by the court and not by the
clerk. — Trans-Pacific Trading Co. v.
232
Patsy Frock & Romper Co., 209 P.
357, 189 CaL 509.
73. U.S.^In re Staples, D.C.Okl., 1
F.Supp. 620.
Okl. — Moroney v. Tannehill, 215 P.
938, 90 Okl. 224.
34 C.J. p 59 note 98.
Strict conformity to statute
(1) Clerk in entering final Judg-
ments must proceed in strict con-
formity to statute,
Fla.— St. Lucie Estates v. Palm
Beach Plumbing Supply Co., 133
So. 841, 101 Ftau 205— Kroier v.
Kroier, 116 So. 750, 95 Fla. 865.
Utah. — First Nat. Bank v. Boley,
61 P.2d 621, 90 Utah 341, followed
in Boley v. District Court of Sec-
ond Judicial Dist. in and for Mor-
gan County. 61 P.2d 624, 90 Utah
347.
Wyo.— Kimbel *. Osborn, 156 P.2d
279.
(2) TKftiere record failed to dis-
close that clerk notified parties of
court's determination to reserve de-
cision in accordance with the stat-
utory mandate, Judgment and subse-
auent Judgment vacating prior Judg-
ment were invalid, and hence ag-
grieved party might apply to court
for entry of Judgment as of such
date subsequent to application as
court might determine.— Steinhauser
v. Friedman, 170 A. 630, 12 N.J.Misc.
167.
Surrender of obligation
(1) The purpose of a statute pro-
hibiting the entry of Judgment on a
written obligation unless the obli-
gation is surrendered to the clerk
is to retire the instrument from cir-
culation.—Jensen v. Martinsen, 291
N.W. 422, 228 Iowa 307.
(2) Clerk was authorized to enter
Judgment where there was substan-
tial compliance with such a statute.
— Selby v. McDonald, 259 N.W. 485,
219 Iowa 823.
74. CaL — Phipps v. Superior Court
in and for Alameda County, 89 P.
49 O.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§108
cases where judicial action is not necessary, such as
judgments by confession, default, consent, offer, or
admission, as discussed infra §§ 161, 176, 183, 185,
205. Such authority extends only to the entering
of the judgment exactly as it was rendered by the
court, without addition, diminution or change of
any kind;75 and a judgment entered by a clerk
who had no authority to enter it at all, or to enter
it in the form in which it was enfered, is void.76
Where an application and order for judgment are
necessary, as considered supra § 104, the clerk has
no authority to enter judgment until an order for
judgment has been made, whereupon it becomes his
duty to enter judgment in accordance with such or-
der.77 In some states statutes prescribing the pro-
cedure on the coming in of a verdict in a trial by
jury expressly make it the duty of the clerk to en-
ter a judgment in conformity with the verdict, un-
less a different direction is given by the court, or it
is otherwise specially prescribed by law.7* Such
entry is theoretically in accordance with the direc-
tion of the court,79 although in actual practice the
entry is usually made by the clerk without any spe-
cific direction of the court to that effect.80 Such
statutes have been held to apply only to legal ac-
tions, -where the verdict, if accepted by the court,
disposes of the whole case, and the appropriate
judgment follows as a matter of course ; the statute
has no application to equitable actions, where the
court must specifically declare the nature of the
judgment to be entered.81 Also, where a special
verdict or special findings are returned, the clerk
has no authority to enter a judgment thereon ; the
court must first render the proper judgment on the
facts found, as a judicial act.82
In cases tried by the court, a decision accompa-
nied by directions for entry of the proper judgment
is sufficient to authorize entry by the clerk of the
judgment directed;83 but a general decision or find-
ing not embodying such specific directions is not a
rendition of judgment and the clerk is not author-
ized to enter judgment thereon until the court has
• 2d 698, 32 Cal.App.2d 871— Brown
v. Superior Court of California in
and for Los Angeles County, 234
P. 409, 70 CaLApp. 7,32.
Miss. — Corpus Juris cited la Welch
v. Kroger Grocery Co., 177 So. 41,
42, 180 Miss. 89.
Tenn. — Wind Bock Coal & Coke Co.
v. Robbins, 1 Tenn.App. 734.
84 C.J. p 55 note 61, p 59 note 1.
Bench, note on verdict impliedly
directed clerk to enter judgment on
minutes unless otherwise ordered by
court, — Mt Vernon-fWoodberry Mills
v. Union Springs Guano Co., 155 So.
716, 229 Ala. 91.
JToncomplianct with order
Where plaintiff failed to comply
with order to prepare and cause to
be entered a judgment in his favor,
circuit court clerk could prepare
and* enter judgment in accordance
with order but without costs to ei-
ther party and circuit court could
direct clerk to do so. — Brunner v.
Cauley. 22 N.W.2d 481, 248 Wis.
,530.
75. Cal. — Phipps v. Superior Court
in and for Alameda County, 89 P.
2d 698, 32 Cal.App.2d 871.
N.Y. — Merchants' Transfer & Stor-
age Co. v. Lippman, 238 N.Y.S.
•310, 135 Misc. 724— Marc v. Pink-
ard, 230 N.Y.S. 765, 133 Misc. 83.
Okl.— ^Moroney v. Tannehill, 215 P.
9-38, 90 Okl. 224.
3»4 C.J. p 59 note 6.
Amendment to cure clerical errors
see infra § 237.
76. Ga.— Deck v. Deck, 20 S.E.2d
1, 19* Ga. 759.
Idaho. — Stewart Wholesale Co. v.
Ninth Judicial District in and for
Bonneville County, 240 P. 597, 41
Idaho 572.
N.C.— Moore v. Moore, 31 S.E.2d 690,
224 N.C. 552.
Okl. — Moroney v. Tannehill, 215 P.
938, 90 Okl. 224.
Pa. — Lamberton Nat. Bank of Frank-
lin v. Shakespeare, 184 A. 669. 321
Pa. 449— School Dist. of Haver-
ford Tp., to Use of Tedesco v. Her-
, zog, 171 A, 455, 814 Pa. 1*1—
Bhinehart v. Jordan, 169 A. 151,
313 Pa. 197.
34 C.J. p 60 note 7.
Previous judicial i
A purported judgment entered by
court clerk without previous judicial
action of court is void. — City of
.Clinton ex reL Richardson v. Cor-
nell, 132 P.2d 340, 191 Okl. 600 —
Abernathy v. Bonaparte, 26 P.2d 947,
166 OkL 192— Abernathy v. Huston,
26 P.2d 939, 166 OkL 184.
77. Pa.— Watkins v* Neff, US 4 A. 625,
287 Pa. 202— Oedrich v. Yaroscz,
1!56 A. 575, 102 Pa.Super. 127— Gar-
man v. Cambria Title, Savings &
Trust Co., 88 Pa.Super. 525.
$4 C.J. p 60 note 9.
Whether Judgment shall be entered
After verdict has been returned,
but before entry of judgment there-
on, the court has Jurisdiction to de-
termine whether or not judgment
shall be entered and if so what judg-
ment—Stanton v. Arkansas Demo-
crat Co.. 106 S.W.2d 584, 19*4 Ark.
155.
78. Iowa.— Pease v. Citizens' State
Bank of Earlham, 228 N.W. 83,
210 Iowa 1331.
Kan,— Degnan v. Young Bros. Cattle
Ox, 103 P.2d 918, 152 Enn. 250.
233
Neb.— Crete Mills v. Stevens, 235 N.
W. 453, 120 Neb. 794.
Ohio. — State ex rel. Van Stone v.
Carey, 65 NJB.2d 166. 7* Ohio App.
478.
Okl. — Peoples Electric Co-op, v.
Broughton, 127 P.2d 850, 191 OkL
229.
Tex.— Bridgman v. Moore, 183 S.W.
2d 705, 143 Tex. 250.
34 C.J. p 60 note 1JL
79. Or. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Haberly v. Farmers' Mut Fire Re-
lief Ass'n, 287 P. 222, 223, 135 Or.
32,
Wyo.— Corpus Juris quoted tax State
v. Scott, 247 P. 699, 706, 35 Wyo.
108.
54 C.J. p 47 note 80.
80. Or. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Haberly v. Farmers' Mut. Fire Re-
lief Ass'n, 287 P. 222, 223, 1S6 Or.
82.
Wyo.— Corpus Juris quoted in State
v. Scott, 247 P. 699, 706, 35 Wy*
108,
34 C.J. p 47 note 81.
81- Idaho.— Stewart Wholesale Co.
v. District Court of Ninth Judicial
Dist., in and for 'Bonneville Coun-
ty, 240 P. 597, '41 Idaho 572.
34 C.J. p 60 note 12.
88. Ter.— Bridgman v. Moore. 183
S.W.2d 705, 143 Tex 250— Conti-
nental Casualty Co. v. Simpson,
Ctv.App., 6 S.W.2d 387.
Wyo.— -Corpus Jurig cited la state
V. Scott, 247 P. «99, 70«, «5 W*o.
103.
34 C.J. p 47 note 82.
83. CaL— Beirway v. Benway, 159 P.
2d 682, 69 Cal.App.2d 574.
34 C.J. j> 48 note £4.
§ 108
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
judicially declared what judgment shall be en-
tered.84 Some statutes provide that the clerk shall
enter all judgments under the direction of the
. judge.85
Entry of judgment on noncompliance with condi-
tional order. Under the practice of some courts
the clerk has power to enter a judgment under a
conditional order of the court, on proof of a non-
compliance with the condition.8^ However, an or-
der of the court declaring that judgment will be en-
tered unless one party complies with certain con-
ditions within a specified time has been held not to
authorize judgment by the clerk.87
b. Of Parties
Ordinarily It Is the right and duty of the successful
party to cause judgment to be entered, and, should he
neglect this duty, the unsuccessful party may obtain an
order directing him to do so.
No one is entitled to have a judgment entered
until it .has been rendered.88 The party in whose
favor a verdict is found will ordinarily be entitled
to the entry of a judgment on it, after the time al-
lowed to move in arrest or for a new trial, unless
exceptions or points of law have been reserved for
the decision of the court.89 Ordinarily it is the
duty of the successful party to cause the judgment
to be entered,90 and to see that it is entered cor-
rectly.91 Where the successful party fails to enter
judgment, the unsuccessful party may obtain an or-
der directing him to do so,92 or the court may, in
its discretion, direct that, unless judgment is so en-
tered within a time specified, the defeated party may
enter it.93 The exercise of such discretion is not
reviewable on appeal.94
§ log. Sufficiency and Contents; De-
fects and Irregularities
The Journal entry of judgment should show the court,
the term, and the date of entry, and the judgment as
entered should conform to, and be supported by, the
Judgment actually rendered, although a clerical error,
misdescrlption, irregularity, omission, or other defect not
going to the Jurisdiction of the court ordinarily will not
vitiate the Judgment.
As a general rule, the journal entry of judg-
ment should show the court, the term, and the date
of entry,95 and the judgment as entered should
conform to, and be supported by, the judgment ac-
tually rendered.96 In the entry or record of a judg-
ment, a clerical error, misdescription, irregularity,
omission, or other defect not going to the juris-
diction of the court will not vitiate the judgment or
give it an effect which it would not have had if
correctly entered,97 provided there is enough in
84. CaL — Wheeler v. Superior Court
in and for City and County of San
Francisco, 255 P. 275, 82 CaLApp.
202.
34 C.J. p 48 note 85.
85. Tex.— Bridgman v. Moore, 1'83
S.W.Sd 705, 183 Tex. 250.
34 C.J. p 60 note 13.
Direction for entry
Where Judgment was one for the
recovery of money only, any formal
written Judgment settled and signed
by the trial judge was mere "sur-
plusage," and, where' record clearly
showed the intention of trial judge to
render judgment on verdict, court's
attempt to follow rule no longer in
'force should be construed as direc-
tion to enter judgment for money
only.— Southwestern Freight Lines
v. Shafer, 111 P.2d 625, 57 Ariz. 111.
Limitation, on authority of clerk
Such a statute does not deprive the
court itself of power to enter its own
judgment, but limits the authority of
the clerk to .enter a judgment. —
Dauphin v. Landrigan, 205 N.W. 557,
187 Wis. 631
86. N.Y.— Hecla Cons. Gold Min. Co.
V. O'Neill, 22 N.Y.S. 130, 23 N.Y.
Civ.Proc. 14-3, affirmed 42 N.B. 723,
148 N.Y. 724— Hanna T. Dexter, 1<5
Abb.Pr. 136.
87. Pa. — Gedrich v. Yaroscz, 156 A.
575, 102 Pa.Super. 127.
88. Cal. — San Jose Ranch Co. v.
San Jose Land & Water Co., 58 P.
824, 126 Cal. 322.
R.I.— Girard v. Sawyer, 9 A.2d 854,
64 R.I. 48.
89. Iowa. — Hanson v. 6. & L. Drug
Co., 212 N.W. 731, 203 Iowa 384.
N.C.— ••Lawrence v. Beck, 116 S.B.
424, 185 N.C. 196.
Tex.— Gulf, C. & S. F. By. Co. v.
Canty, 285 S.W. 296. 115 Tex. 537.
34 C.J. p 46 note 65.
Judgment non obstante veredicto on
point reserved see supra § -60 d.
Pendency of motion for new trial, or
in arrest of judgment see infra §
115.
90. Mo.— Peterson v. City of St
Joseph, 156 .S.W.2d 691. «348 Mo.
954.
34 C.J. p 60 note 16.
91. Pa. — Wood v. Reynolds, 7 Watts
& «. 406.
34 C.J. p 61 note 17.
92. Ark. — Herrod v. Larkins, '36 S.
W.2d 667, 1'83 Ark. 509.
N.Y. — Herschcovitz v. Kleinman, 233
N.Y.S. 285, 133 Misc. 685.
34 C.J. p 61 note 18.
93. N.Y.— Wilson v. Simpson, 84 N.
Y. 674.
Pa. — Bekelja v. James -E. Strates
Shows, Com.Pl., $4 Daujph.Co. 170.
34 C.J. p 61 note 19.
94. N.Y.— Wilson v. Simpson, 84 N.
Y. -674.
234
95. Wyo.— McDonald v. Mulkey, 210
P. 940, 29 Wyo. 99.
9ft Cal. — Platnauer v. Sacramento
Super. Ct., 163 P. 237, -32 CaLApp.
463.
Ga.— • Deck v. Deck, 20 S.E.'2d 1, 193
Ga. 739.
Sufficiency of judgment entries with
respect to form and contents see
supra §§ 62-85.
Amendment and correction of:
Judgment see infra §§ 236-264.
Record see Courts §§ 231-236.
The entry should evidence with
clarity the action taken by the court.
— General Exchange Ins. Corporation
v. Appling, Tex.Civ.App., 144 S.W.2d
699.
Entry held in conformity with judg-
ment
Cal. — Martin v. Board of Trustees of
Leland Stanford Jr. University, 99
P.2d 6S4, 37 Cal.App.2d 481.
Entry held not in conformity with
judgment
Where order for judgment set
forth amount of damages each plain-
tiff was to recover, judgment lump-
ing the sums together was errone-
ous.— "Schwandt v. Milwaukee Elec-
tric Railway & Transport Co., 12 N.
W.2d 18, 244 Wis. 251.
97. Ariz. — Intermountain Building
& Loan Ass'n v. Allison 'Steel Mfg.
Co., "22 P.2d 413, 42 Ariz. 51.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§110
the entry or record to constitute a judgment98
Such irregularities may be waived by the adverse
party." A judgment entry showing alterations, in-
terlineations, or erasures is not necessarily void,
particularly in the absence of suspicious circum-
stances or where such alterations, interlineations, or
erasures are explained by other parts of the rec-
ord.1 It is sometimes provided by statute that in-
formality in entering a judgment, or in making up
the record, shall not in any way impair or affect
the judgment2
A judgment should be entered as of the date, or
as part of the proceedings, of the day on which it
was rendered,8 notwithstanding the entry is not ac-
tually made until after that date ;4 but the time at
which the record is actually made should appear.6
§ no.
Book or Place of Entry
Entry must be made In the book of record desig-
nated by statute, but failure to do so will not Impair the
validity and operation of the Judgment as between the
parties.
As a general rule, entry of a judgment must be
made in the judgment book, journal, or other des-
ignated book of record,6 in accordance with the
statutory provisions in that respect7 Where the
clerk is directed by law to keep certain books for
the entry of judgments, or to record judgments in
a book specially designated by statute for that pur-
pose, or to enter different kinds of judgments or
decrees in different books, and deviates from the
course prescribed, the validity and operation of the
judgment are not impaired thereby as between the
parties,8 although it may be otherwise as to third
persons who are misled, or who fail to receive the
notice which a proper entry would have afforded
them,8 and as discussed infra § 465, entry in the
wrong book may prevent the judgment from be-
coming a lien*
Statutes providing separate books for different
classes of entries have been held to be directory
only, and a judgment entered in any of the books
of record of the court is valid.10 Under a statutory
Pa._ Coral Gables v. Kerl, 6 lA.2d
275, -334 Pa. 441, 122 A.L.R. 903—
Casey Heat Service Co. v. Klein,
Com.Pl., 46 'Lack.Jur. 257.
Tex.— Panhandle Const Co. v. Lind-
sey, 72 S.W.2d 1068, 123 Tex. 613
—Sloan v. Richey, Civ.App., 143
S.W.2d 119, error dismissed, judg-
ment correct — Corbett v. Rankin
Independent School Dist., Clv.App.,
100 S.W.2d 113— City of Panhandle
v. Bickle, Civ.App., 31 S.W.2d 843,
error dismissed.
Wyo.— McDonald v. Mulkey, 210 P.
940, 29 Wyo. 99.
34 C.J. p 5-6 note 73.
.Entry In .wrong record book see In-
fra § 110.
Failure to comply with court roles
prescribing procedure to be followed
in preparation and approval of jour-
nal entries and recording thereof
does not nullify valid Judgment once
it has become effective. — Gates v.
Gates, 163 P.2d 39-5, 160 Kan. 428.
Description in Judgment in former
Where rights of respective parties
to action for recovery of land de-
pended on what was actually de-
creed in a former case instituted in
the same court, and there was a ma-
terial difference in the description of
property as set forth in original pa-
pers and as revealed in minutes, the
original decree and not what ap-
peared on minutes would be taken as
evidencing what actually constituted
the pronouncement of the court. —
Deck V. Deck, 20 S.E.2d 1, 19-3 Ga,
739.
98. Miss.— 'Davis v. Hoopes, 88 Miss.
173.
Sufficiency of entry to show judg-
ment see supra § 62.
99. N.Y.— White v. Bogart, 73 N.Y.
256.
1. Ky.— Parrish v. Ferriel, 186 S.
W.2d 625, 299 Ky. 676.
34 C.J. p 57 note 76.
2. N.Y.— New York City Baptist
Mission Soc. v. Tabernacle Bap-
tist Church, 41 N.Y.S. 976, 10 App.
Div. 288.
34 C.J. p 57 note 77.
3. Iowa. — Puckett v. Gunther, 114
N.W. 34, 137 Iowa 647.
34 C.J. p 57 note 78.
4. Kan.— Miller v. Phillips, 141 P.
297, 9*2 Kan. 662.
Wyo. — Hahn v. Citizens* State Bank,
171 P. '889, 25 Wyo. 4-67, petition
denied 172 -P. 705, 25 Wyo. 467.
& Iowa.— Hoffman-Bruner Granite
Co. v. Stark, 108 N.W. 329, 132
Iowa 100.
34 C.J. p 67 note 80.
e. U.S. — Corpus Juris cited in U. S.
v. Rayburn, C.C.A.Iowa, fll F.2d
162, 164.
Iowa. — Lotz v. United Food Mar-
kets, 283 N.W. 99, 225 Iowa 1397.
Ky.— Second Nat Bank of Paints-
ville v. Blair, 186 ®.W.2d 796, 299
Ky. 650— Gorman v. Lusk, 134 S.
W.2d 598, 280 Ky. 692— National
Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Hedges,
27 S.W.2d 422, 233 Ky. 840— Bwell
r. Jackson, 110 S.W. «60, 129 Ky,
•214, 83 Ky-L. 67*3.
N.Y.— -Cole v. Vincent, 242 N.Y.S.
644, 229 App.Div. 520.
OkL— Wilson & Co. Y. Shaw, 10 P.2d
448, 157 OkL 34.
84 C.J. P «T note 82.
235
Zkegal evidence of Judgment
Under statute requiring that all
udgments and orders be entered in
record book, entry made by clerk in
record book is legal evidence of judg-
ment or order. — Street v. Stewart,
285 N.W. 204, 226 Iowa 960.
7. CaL— Lane v. Pellissier, 283 P.
810, '208 Cal. 590.
Ind. — Brant v. Lincoln Nat. Life Ins.
Co. of Fort Wayne, 198 N.«K 78-5,
209 Ind. 268.
lowa. — street T. Stewart 2>85 N.W.
204, 226 Iowa 960.
34 C.J. p 55 note 64 [a], J> 57 note
83.
Decisions of probate court
In statute governing recitals in,
and entry and filing of, "orders end
decrees" of probate court, the quot-
ed phrase was intended to cover all
decisions of the probate court in pro-
bate proceedings whether technically
referred to as "orders," "decrees,"
or "Judgments."— Oarroll v. Carroll,
108 P.2d 420, 16 CaL2d 761, certiorari
denied 62 S.Ct 74, 314 U.S. 611, 51
L.Ed. 491.
& Fla. — Foster v. Cooper, 194 So.
3*31, 142 Fla. 148-JCorpus Juri* ott-
ed in Dupree v. Blleman, 191 80.
65, *8, 139 Fla. 809.
Kan. — Gates v. Gates, 163 P.2d 395,
160 Kan. 428.
Wis.— -Netherton v. 'Frank Holton &
Co., 206 N.W. 919, 189 Wis. 461, va-
cated on other grounds 207 N.W.
953, 189 Wis. ±61.
34 CJ. p 57 note 84.
9. Utah.— Robinson r. Salt t«ke
City, 109 P. 817, 37 Utah «20.
34 C.J. p 58 note 85.
la U.S.— Sprigg v.. Stump. C.C.QT.,
8 F. 207, 7 Sawy. 280.
§ 111
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
requirement that judgments shall be entered in a
"judgment book," separate books are not required
for the entry of judgments in legal and equitable
actions.11 Separate unbound sheets of paper may
constitute a judgment book within the meaning of
the statute;12 but an entry in books which are not
books of record is insufficient18 The judgment
"docket," as discussed infra § 127, is not the judg-
ment book in which judgments are required to be
entered.14 The calendar of the judge or trial dock-
et is not a record of the court, and an entry therein
does not constitute an entry of judgment1*
§ 111.
Signature of Record
The failure of the Judge to sign the record as di-
rected by statute has been held not to make the Judg-
ment a nullity, although there Is also authority to the
contrary.
Whifc the minutes or records of courts are gen-
erally required to be authenticated by the signature
of the judge, as discussed in Courts § 226, it has
generally been held that the failure of the judge to
sign the record as directed by statute does not
make the judgment a nullity, and that it is at most
irregular and erroneous, but not void,1* although
it has also been held that no judgment has any force
in the absence of an official signing of the order
book by the judge.1*
§ 112. Notice of Entry
Notice of rendition or entry of Judgment Is not es-
sential to Its validity or regularity unless made so by
statute or rule of court.
As a general rule, notice of the entry of a judg-
ment is not essential to its validity and regularity,18
Or.— State v. MacElrath, 89 P. -803,
49 Or. 294.
11. N.Y. — Whitney y. Townsend, 67
N.Y. 40.
34 O.J. p 58 note 88.
12. CaLARp. — Corpus Juris quoted
in In re Hullen, 12 P.2d 487, 488,
124 CaLApp. 271.
'34 C.J. T> 58 note 39.
13. Ark. — Holloway v. Berenzen, 188
S.W.2d 298, 208 Ark. *49.
84 C.J. p 58 note 90.
14. Iowa.— State v. Wieland, 251 N.
W. 757, 217 Iowa 887.
34 C.J. p 5*8 note 92.
16. Ark.— Holloway v. Berenzen, 188
S.W.2d 298, 208 Ark. S49.
Iowa. — Lotz v. United 'Food Markets,
283 N.W. 99, 225 Iowa 1397.
34 O.J. p 58 note 93.
Memorandum "book
Under statute providing that Judg-
ments and orders must be entered
on record of court, judge's calendar
is in nature of memorandum book
designed to promote convenience of
judge and clerk and is not place for
final repose of judgments and orders.
—Street v. Stewart, 285 N.W. 204,
226 Iowa 960.
Notation in judge's trial docket
reading, "Jury verdict on special is-
sues, for plaintiff/' without indication
of court's approval, is not tanta-
mount to entry of judgment.— Nevitt
v. Wilson, 285 S.W. 1079, 116 Tex 29,
48 AX..R. 355.
ia OkL— Smith v. First Nat Bank,
36 P.2d 27, 169 Okl. 90.
Tex. — Corpus Juris quoted ia Orum
v. Fillers, 6 Tenn.At>p. 547, 558.
34 C.J. p 5*8 note 96.
Signing of judgment by judge or
clerk see supra § 85.
Time of signing
(1) 'Special judge may at any time
after entering judgment sign rec-
ord, and, if he refuses to do so, may
toe mandated. — Cadwell y. Teany, 157
N.E. 51, 199 Ind. 634, certiorart de-
nied Cadwell y. Teaney, 48 SXJt 601,
277 U.S. 605, 72 KBd. 1011.
(2) Fact that judgment file was
not signed until judge who tried case
had ceased to hold office was imma-
terial. — Goldberg y. Krayeske, 128
A. 27, 102 Conn. 137.
17. Ky. — Hazelip y. Doyel, 85 S.W.
2d 685, 230 Ky. -313— National -Life
& Accident Ins. Co. y. Hedges, <27
S.W.2d 4'22, 233 Ky. '840— Sublett v.
Gardner, 137 S.W. 864, 144 Ky. 190
— -Swell v. Jackson, 110 S.W. 860,
129 Ky. 214, -33 Ky.L. 673.
Presiding judge or his successor
It is essential to the validity of a
judgment that it shall be entered on
the order book provided for the pur-
pose and signed by the presiding
judge or his successor. — Gorman v.
Lusk, 134 S.W.2d '593, 280 Ky. 692.
flfll place of signing
(1) A special judge who directed
the entry of a judgment and signed
the order -book in a county outside
the district in which the cause was
pending has the authority to direct
entry of judgment "nunc pro tune,"
or to ratify the unauthorized entry
by the clerk and sign the order book
in the county in which the cause
was pending, or elsewhere in the
district. — Gross* Adm'x v. Couch, 166
S.W.2d 879, 292 Ky. '304.
C2) Where Quarterly court's rec-
ord showed that judgment had been
rendered, but judge failed to sign
it, and present judge signed judg-
ment nunc pro tune, it became valid
judgment effective from date it was
rendered, and all steps taken in effort
to enforce it were validated. — Hoff-
man v. Shuey, 2 «S.W.2d 1049, 223 Ky,
70, £8 A.L.R. 842.
(3) The fact that judge signed all
orders entered at subsequent term of
circuit court, relative to a case, did
236
not validate unsigned judgment en-
tered on order book at preceding
term. — Second Nat. Bank of Pa'ints-
ville T. Blair, 184 S.W.2d 796, 299 Ky.
650.
(4) On the other hand, it has also
been held that, where presiding judge
did not sign minutes either during
or on last day of regular term and
minutes were not signed until last
day of second extension of term, final
judgment shown on minute book to
have been rendered during regular
term was invalid and case remained
on docket as a pending and untried
case.— Jackson v. Gordon, 11 S*.2d
901, 194 Miss. 268.
IS. U.S. — In re Anton, DXIMinn.,
11 F.Supp. 345.
Idaho.— Fite v. French, 30 P.2d 360,
54 Idaho 104.
Minn.— WUcox v. Hedwall, 243 N.W.
709, 186 Minn. 504.
Mo. — Nordquist v. Armourdale State
Bank, 19 S.W.2d 553, 225 Mo.App.
18-6.
Okl. — Moroney v. Tannehlll, 215 P.
938, 90 Okl. 224.
S.D. — Lasell v. Yankton County, 7 N.
W.2d 880.
34 C.J. j> 61 note 27.
Notice of rendition see supra § 102.
Settlement of judgment on notice
see supra 5 102.
In absence of law or agreement
requiring it proceeding to judgment
without notice is not fraud. — Davis
V. qox, Tex.Civ.App., 4 S.W.2d 1008,
error dismissed.
Court role held inapplicable
A court rule requiring all "papers
filed in a cause" to be served on at-
torney for adverse party or party
himself did not use quoted words as
embracing the judgment pronounced
by court, and hence did not require
service of copy of judgment on any-
one.— Jones T. Thompson, Or* 1-64
P.2d 718.
49 dJ.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 113
unless made so by statute19 or rule of court,20 al-
though notice may be required for certain purposes,
such as to limit the time for appeal or writ of er-
ror, as considered in Appeal and Error § 447. Since
parties are not charged with notice of entry of
judgment prior to the term to which the cause has
been definitely continued,21 the entry of judgment
without notice prior to that term is premature.22
Where notice is required, it must be sufficient to
comply with the statute,28 and it has been held
that it may be served by mail;2* but the notice has
been held to be ineffectual where it is filed before
the entry of judgment25 The parties may waive
their right to notice.26
§ 113. Time of Rendition and Entry
a. In general
b. Prematurity
c. Delay
4 Judgment on report of referee
e. Date of judgment
a. In General
In some jurisdictions, Judgment may and should be
entered immediately on the filing of the decision or the
return of the verdict.
As a general rule, a judgment should be rendered
at the time appointed therefor.2? The time of en-
tering judgment is a matter of practice within the
discretion of the court28 The entry of judgment
immediately or forthwith on the filing of a decision
or the return of a verdict is contemplated by the
statutes or practice in some jurisdictions ;29 and in
19. Ky.— Parrisli v. Ferriell, 136 S.
W.2d 625, 299 Kv. 676— Estea v.
Woodford, 55 S.W.2d $96, 246 Ky.
485.
34 C.J. p 61 note 26.
Entry ia appearance docket
A judgment to be valid must first
be entered in the appearance docket
so as to provide notice to other -par-
ty.—McClelland v. West Penn Ap-
pliance Co., 1 A.2d 491, 182 Pa.Su-
per. 471.
Order for Judgment "by nonresident
judge
Clerk receiving order fop Judgment
in case tried by nonresident Judge
was under duty to notify parties end
attorneys and enter Judgment ac-
cordingly.— Brewer v. Morgan, 263 P.
630, 33 Ariz. 225.
30. Ariz.— Davis v. Chilson, 62 P.
2d 127, 48 Ariz. 366— Harrington v.
White, -61 P.2d 39'2, 48 Ariz. 291—
Ross v. White, 50 P.2d 12, 46 Ariz.
304.
judgments to which applicable
Rule requiring notice applies only
to Judgments for money only or
costs or that there he no recovery. —
Southwestern -Freight Lines v. Shaf-
«r, ill P.2d 625, 57 Ariz. 111.
21. Mo. — Nordqulst Y. Armourdale
State Bank, 19 S.W.2d 5-53, 225 Mo.
App. 186.
22. >Mo. — Nordduist v. Armourdale
State Bank, supra.
33. K.T.— Murphy v. Hitchcock, 274
N.Y.S. 386, 242 App.Div. 773.
XTottce held sufficient
(1) Notice Indorsed on copy of
Judgment informing defendants that
such Judgment was entered by with-
in named court was sufficient.-—
Murphy v. Hitchcock, sufera.
(2) Notice that plaintiff would at
specified time and J>lace move named
Judge of circuit court to enter in
designated case a Judgment, a copy
of which was attached to notice,
which notice was served on counsel
of record for defendant two days be-
fore date specified for entry of judg-
ment satisfied statutory require-
ments as to notice of entry of judg-
ment at term time or in vacation at
any place within district— Parrish
v. Ferriell, 186 S.W.2d 625. 299 Ky.
676.
(3) Where record showed only that
service of notice of entry of judg-
ment took place on the day on which
judgment was entered and did not
disclose the hour at which either
event took place, notice of entry of
Judgment was shown not to have
been served prematurely, where the
substantial rights of the parties
were not affected.— Kahn v. Smith,
142 P.2d 13, 23 CaLSd 12.
24. CaL — Department of Social
Welfare v. Gandy, 1«32 P.2d 241, 56
Cal.App.2d 209— *Labarthe v. Mc-
Rae, 97 P.2d 251, 85 CaLAp!p.2d
734.
36. CaL — Jameson v. Warren, 267 P.
372, 91 OaLApp. 590.
26. CaL — Prothero v. Superior Court
of Orange County, 238 P. 357, 196
Cal. 439.
y.— Lawrence v. First State Bank
of Dry Bidge, 132 S.W.2d -60. 279
Ky. 775.
27. N.C.— Killian v. Maiden Choir
do., 161 S.E. 546, 202 N.C. 23—
State v. Humphrey, 120 S.E. 85,
186 NJC. 533.
Tex. — Bridgman v. Moore, 183 S.W.
•2d 705, 1«3 Tex, 250— Rouff v.
Boyd. Civ.App., 1* S.W.2d 408.
Duly constituted court as essential
to validity or regularity of Judg-
ment see supra §§ 15-17.
28. Mich.— Harvey v. McAdams, 82
Mich. 472.
29. Pa.— Bekelja v. James B.
Strates Shows, ConuPL, $4 Dauph.
Co. 170.
237
Wis. — Davison v. Brown, 67 N.W. 42,
93 Wls. 85.
34 C.J. p 62 note «2 [a], p 64 note
61 [e] (1).
Statute of limited application.
A statute providing that, when
trial by jury has been had. Judg-
ment shall be entered by the clerk
immediately in conformity with the
verdict does not apply where the
court withdraws the case from the
jury.— Barth v. Harris, 16«3 P. 401, 95
Wash. 166.
Construction, of "forthwith"
(1) The word "forthwith," as
used in such statutes, has been con-
strued to mean "instanter." — Hull
v. Mallory, 14 N.W. 3T4, 56 Wis. *R.
(2) According to the weight of au-
thority, however, the word, as used
in such statutes, means "in a rea-
sonable time." — Sluga v. Walker, 81
N.W. 282, 9 N.D. 108—26 C.J. p 1000
note 80 M— 34 C.J. p 64 note 61
[a] (1).
03) Under the latter construction,
where a verdict was returned be-
tween noon and one o'clock P. M. on
Saturday, while the justice was
hearing another case, a rendition
of judgment thereon on the Monday
morning following was in due time.
— Sorenson v. Swenson, 56 N.W. 650,
55 Minn. 58, 43 Am.S.R. 472.
Immediate rendition and subsequent
entxy
In some Jurisdictions, in cases
tried before a Jury, when the Jury
returns its verdict, the rendition of
judgment on the vesdict, consisting
of 'an entry by the trial Judge on
the trial docket of a memorandum
of the verdict and Judgment, fol-
lows as a matter of course; but
the minutes of the court evidencing
the Judgment may be, and usually
are, written at a future time and
dated as of date of rendition of
judgment — Mt. Teraon-Woodberry
§ H3
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
such jurisdictions the court has authority,80 or the
clerk has a duty,81 to enter the judgment, and the
successful party is entitled to have the judgment
entered32 at such time, provided the verdict or de-
cision disposes of the case,88 and there is no stay
of proceedings,84 or direction to the contrary by the
court.85 Even in such jurisdictions, however, a
judgment entered at a later date is not necessarily
invalid, as discussed infra subdivision c (1) of this
section. Some statutes contemplate the entry of
judgment immediately following the denial of a
motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.85
A statute, supplementary to 'other statutes,87 and
intended to speed up the disposition of cases,88
which authorizes a judge of a court, not of con-
tinuous session, to enter, on reasonable notice to
the parties, a judgment in any proceeding wherein a
trial by jury is not. required, is of limited effect.89
A rule of civil procedure, adopted under statutory
authority, and providing for entry of judgment by
the clerk forthwith on receipt by him of the court's
direction to enter judgment for money only, or that
there be no recovery, is accorded effect when ap-
plicable.40
Validity of judgment rendered on legal holiday
see Holidays § 5 d. Validity of judgment entered
on Sunday see the CJ.S. title Sundays § S3, also 60
GJ. p 1146 note 57-p 1147 note 70.
b. Prematurity
A Judgment Is premature when ft Is rendered or en-
tered before the case Is ripe for final Judgment. A Judg-
ment so rendered or entered has been held Improper and
erroneous, but not void.
It is improper and erroneous to render or enter
judgment prematurely,41 this being true where judg-
ment is rendered or entered before the case is ripe
for final judgment, because of proceedings remain-
ing to be taken or matters remaining to be deter-
mined before the judgment can be put in its final
shape,42 or where there is a violation of a statute
prohibiting the entry of judgment until a certain
time after the commencement of the action, or the
reception of the verdict, or the filing of the deci-
sion, or until the lapse of a term or terms.48 How-
Mills v. Union Springs Guano Co.,
155 So. 710, 26 Ala.App. 136, certio-
rari denied 155 So. 716, 229 Ala. 91.
"Wlthia the day" means -within
twenty-four BOUT*
Or.— Fuller v. Blanc, 77 P.2d 440,
160 Or. 50.
34 C.J. p 64 note 61 [e] (2).
Judgment notwithstanding verdict
Ohio. — J. & F. Harig Co. v. City of
Cincinnati, 22 N.E.2d 540, 61 Ohio
App. 314.
30. 111.— -Evaniski v. Mt Olive &
Staunton Coal Co., 223 IlLApp. 33.
31. Iowa, — Cox v. Southern Surety
Co., 226 N.W. 114, 208 Iowa 1252.
Kan,—- Koontz v. Weide, 208 P. 851.
Ill Kan. 709.
Tenn. — McAlester v. Monteverde, 115
S.W.2d 257, 22 Tenn.App. 14.
34 C.JT. p 62 note 32 [a].
32. Conn.— Ireland v. Connecticut
Co., 152 A. 61-4, 112 Conn. 462.
3-4 C.J. p 62 note 313.
33. CaL-Xforpus Jurla cited in
Rosslow v. Janssen, 29 P.2d 287,
288, 136 CaLApp. 467, followed in
Rosslow v. Mulcrevy, 29 P.2d 289,
1-36 CaLApp. 787.
34 C.J. p 62 note 134.
Where all issue* of fact have Tbeeu
determined by the findings of the
jury, the court at special term may
grant motion for Judgment after Jury
verdict at trial term on framed
issues submitted by special term jus-
tice.— Burrows v. Oscar Scherer A
Bros., 235 N.Y.S. 24. 134 Misc. 147.
X**ue* not affecting plaintiff
Plaintiff was entitled to Judgment
on jury's verdict for him without
awaiting determination of issues be-
tween defendants and tenant im-
pleaded by answers. — Schroeder v.
City and County Sav. Bank of Al-
bany, 46 N.T.S.2d 46, 267 App.Div.
206, modified on other grounds 57 N.
E.2d 57, 293 N.Y. 370, motion denied
57 N.E.2d 842, 29«3 N.Y. 764.
34. Wis.— Wheeler v. Russell, 67 N.
W. 4S, 9*3 Wis. 1<35.
34 C.J. p 62 note 35.
Stay of proceedings see infra § 116.
35. Wis. — Davidson v. Brown, 67 N.
W. 42, 93 Wis. 85.
34 C.J. p 62 note 37.
Reservation of case for future ar-
gument or consideration
TTan. — Koontz v. Weide, 208 P. 651,
111 Kan. 709.
36. Cal.— Woods v. Walker, 136 P.
2d 72, 57 Cal.App.2d 968.
37. Ky. — Jackson v. Jackson, 179 S.
W.2d 197, 297 Ky. 8*5.
38. Ky. — Jackson v. Jackson, supra.
39. Ky.— Wright v. Owens, 122 S.
W.2d 498, 275 Ky. 692.
40. Ariz. — Fagerberg v. Denny, 112
P.2d 58-1, 57 Ariz. 188— Southwest-
ern. Freight Lines v. Shafer, 111 P.
2d 625, 57 Ariz. 111.
41. Ark. — Stantou v. Arkansas Dem-
ocrat Co., 106 SJW.2d 584, 194 Ark.
1-35.
Ky.— Blinn v. Blakeman, 71 S.W.2d
961, 254 Ky. 416.
Or. — Herrick v. Wallace, 286 P, 471,
114 Or. 520.
Reversal of judgment prematurely
rendered see Appeal and Error S
1892.
238
Setting aside judgment prematurely
entered see infra § 278.
48. U.S. — Donnelly Garment Co. v.
National Labor Relations Board,
C.C.A., 123 F.2d 215— Chidester v.
City of Newark, C.C.A.N.J., 117 F.
2d 981.
Ky.— Kim v. Smith, 172 S.W.2d 6-34,
294 Ky. 835 — Horton v. Horton, 92
S.W.2d 37«, 26-3 Ky. 413.
Mass. — Barton v. City of Cambridge,
61 N.E.2d 8130.
Miss.— Schilling v. IT. S. Fidelity &
Guaranty Co.. 152 So. 887, 169
Miss. 275.
N.Y.—- Fuenteg v. Kosower, 25 N.Y.S.
2d 586, 2.61 App.Div. (378, motion
granted 27 N.Y.S.2d 46*3, 261 App.
Div. 1057— O'Brien v. Lehigh Val-
ley R. Co., 27 N.Y.S.2d 6«40, 176
Misc. 404.
Pa. — Dunlap Printing Co. v. Ryan,
119 A. 714, 275 Pa. 556.
Wash. — Patterson v. Zuger, 60 P.2d
69, 187 Wash. 285— Pelly v. Behne-
man, 12 P.2d 422, 168 Wash. 465^
34 C.J. p 63 notes 44-48.
tTnexpired continuance or adjourn-
ment
Mo. — Nordquist v. Armourdale State
Bank, 19 S.W.2d 55-3, 225 MoJLpp.
186.
34 C.J. p 6<3 notes 44 [f], 47.
Verdict taken subject to opinion of
court
N.Y. — Jackson v. Fitzsimmons, 8
IWend. 5*46.
43. Ky. — Stockholders First Nat.
Bank v. First Nat Bank's Receiv-
er, 174 S.W. 473, 16-3 Ky. 790.
34 C.J. p 62 note 43.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 113
ever, the mere premature entry of a judgment is
not a jurisdictional defect,44 and, therefore, does
not avoid the judgment,45 but at most makes it ir-
regular and voidable,46 and the prematurity may be
waived.47 According to some authorities, a judg-
ment rendered before the appearance term is a
mere nullity;48 but it has also been held that a judg-
ment entered before the succeeding term at which
the case is triable is merely erroneous.49
There are cases in which judgments are claimed
to be premature, but are held not to be so.50 A judg-
ment on a verdict disposes, ipso facto, of a motion
to set aside the verdict51
Prior to last day of term. In states wherein, as
discussed infra subdivision e of this section, a judg-
ment ordinarily is regarded as rendered on the last
day of the term, the court or presiding justice may,
notwithstanding the general rule, enter, or order
the entry of, judgment at any time after the deci-
sion and during the term.52
Prior to determination of costs. There is author-
ity both for the view that judgment should not be
entered until all costs are taxed and properly adjust-
ed53 and for the view that, costs being merely inci-
dent to judgment, a controversy over disbursements
should not delay entry of judgment54
c. Delay
(1) In general
(2) Expiration of trial term
(3) Expiration of judge's term of office
(1) In General
Statutes limiting the time for entering Judgment
are directory only, and a failure to comply therewith
does not invalidate a Judgment subsequently entered.
Except In a few states, a like conclusjon Is reached as
to constitutional or statutory provisions limiting the time
for rendering Judgment.
Where the constitution or a statute requires ren-
dition of the judgment within a limited time, it has
been held that the court loses authority over the
case at the expiration of that time, so that a judg-
ment thereafter rendered is void for want of juris-
diction,55 as in the case of a failure of the judge to
comply with a statutory direction to render his deci-
sion within a certain number of days after the case
is submitted to him.5^ However, it has also been
held that compliance with provisions of this kind is
not jurisdictional,57 that such a provision is merely
44. Mont, — State v. District Court
of Fourth Judicial Dist. in and for
Missoula County Department No.
2, 282 P. 1042, 88 Mont. 193.
Kev.— Corpus Jnrls Vioted la State
ex rel. Newitt v. Fourth Judicial
Dist. Court in and for Blko Coun-
ty, 121 P.2d 442, 444, 61 Nev. 164.
3'4 C.J. p 63 note 50.
Immunity from collateral attack see
infra 8 4133.
45. Ky.— McKim v. Smith, 172 S.W.
2d 634, ,294 Ky. 835— Spencer v.
Martin Mining Co., 83 S.W.2d 39,
259 Ky. 697.
Nev.— Corpus Juris quoted In State
ex reL Newitt v. Fourth Judicial
Dist Court in and for Blko Coun-
ty, 121 P.2d 442, 444, 61 Nev. 164.
K.M.— Field v. Otero, 290 P. 1015,
35 N.M. 68— Dallam County Bank
v. Burnside, 249 P. 109, 31 N.M.
587.
Okl.— Corpus Juris cited In Orr v.
Johnson, 149 P.2d 983, 994, 194
Okl. 287.
34 C.J. p .63 note 50.
Where court has jurisdiction, pre-
mature entry of judgment is not
void. — «Flinn v. Blakeman, 71 S.W.2d
961, 25*4 Ky. 416.
Subsequent judgment
Judgment which was prematurely
-entered before proof had been tak-
en on issue made by pleadings would
not affect validity of Judgment sub-
sequently entered after proof had
been taken on issue. — Horton v. Hor-
ton, 92 &W.2d 378, 263 Ky. 4X3,
46. Mich.— Wark-Gilbert Co. v.
Lamb, 227 N.W. 723, 248 Mich. 581.
Mont.— State v. District Court of
Fourth Judicial Dist. in and for
Missoula County Department No.
2, 282 P. 1042, 86 Mont. 193.
Nev. — Corpus Juris quoted in State
ex rel. Newitt v. Fourth Judicial
Dist Court in and for Blko Coun-
ty, 121 P.2d 442, 444, 61 Nev. 164.
N.M.— Field v. Otero. 290 P. 1015, 35
N.M. 63— Dallam County Bank v.
Burnside, 249 P. 109, 31 N.M. 537.
Okl.— Corpus Juris cited in Orr v.
Johnson, 149 P.2d 993, 994, 194 Okl.
287.
C.J. p 63 note 50.
47. Ky.-^Spencer v. Martin Mining
Co., 8<3 S.W.2d 39, 259 Ky. 697.
34 C.J. P 63 notes 4i3 [i] (3), 44 [c3.
48. Ga,— Napier v. Varner, 101 S.E.
579, 149 Ga. 585.
34 C. J. p 63 note 51.
Third party claimants
Where proceeding to foreclose
mortgage and to renew dormant
judgment was filed during October
term, return term for case was next
term; hence, Judgment rendered in
October term was void for want of
jurisdiction as to third party claim-
ants to mortgaged land, notwith-
standing defendant made waiver
with reference to judgment at first
term and process. — Penn Mut. Life
Ins. Co. v. Troup, 170 S.B. 359, 177
Ga, 456.
49. Miss.— Willsford v. Meyer-Kiser
239
Corporation, 104 So. 2913, 139 Miss.
*87.
50L Ariz. — Aldous v. Intermountain
Building- & Loan Ass'n of Arizona,
284 P. 353, 36 Ariz. 225.
Cal.— Lind v. Baker, 119 P.2d 806,
48 Cal.App.2d 234.
R.I. — Rhode Island Rug Works v.
General Baking Co., 128 A. 676.
S.D. — Ryan v. Sioux Gun Club, 2 N.
W.2d 681, 68 S.D. 345.
Tex. — Smith v. Smith, Civ.App., 186
S.W.2d 287, refused for want of
merit — Jones v. Bledsoe, Civ.App.,
293 S.W. 204.
34 C.J. p 62 note >38 [a]; p 6$ note
44 [e], [g], p 64 note 61 [e] (5).
51. 111. — Home Flax Co. v. Beebe,
48 111. 138.
52. N.H.— Tuttle v. Tuttle, 196 A.
624, 89 N.H. 219.
Vt— Downer v. Battles, 152 A. 805,
103 Vt 201.
53. S.C.— Black v. B. B. Kirkland
Seed Co., 161 S.E. 489, 163 S.C.
222.
54< Or. — Lyon v. Mazeris, 132 P.2d
982, 170 Or. 222.
55. Iowa. — Tomlinson v. Litze, 47
N.W. 1015, 82 Iowa i32, -31 Am.S.R,
458,
34 C.J. p 64 note 53.
56. Idaho.— McGary v. Steele, 119 P.
'448, 20 Idaho 753.
34 C.J. p 64 note 54.
57. Ariz. — Johnson v. Johnson, 52 P.
2d 1162, 46 Ariz. 535 — Williams v.
Williams, 243 P. 402, 29 Ariz. 5*8.
§ 113
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
directory,58 and that disregard thereof renders the
judgment at most irregular and erroneous, but not
void,59 and that, being for the benefit of the parties,
it may be waived by them.60 In the absence of such
constitutional or statutory directions the court has
authority to take a case under advisement for a rea-
sonable length of time before rendering its deci-
sion,61 and, while it is under a duty to decide a case
within a reasonable time after submission,62 it has
jurisdiction to render a decision at whatever time
it reaches a conclusion.68
Entry of a judgment, considered as a ministerial
act, may be made after the time fixed by statute for
rendition of a judgment64 Statutes relating to the
time of entry have been considered as directory,65
so that the validity of a judgment subsequently en-
tered is not affected by failure to comply with the
statute.66 Judgment may be entered on a verdict
or decision at any time thereafter,67 and it is the
right of a party to have a judgment so entered un-
less the lapse of time is unreasonably great,6* or
unless some independent right has intervened,69 or
the adverse party has suffered damage or lost a
right by reason of the delay,76 so long as the court
has not lost jurisdiction of the case.71 Mere de-
lay does not work a loss of jurisdiction to render
or enter a judgment73 The presumption of pay-
Cal. — Farmers & Merchants
Bank of Los Angeles v. Peterson, !
55 F.2d 867. 5 Cal.2d 601.
N.D.— Bruegger v. Cartler, 126 N.W.
491, 20 N.D. 72.
Wash. — Bickford v. Eschbach, 9 P«
2d (376, 167 Wash. 857.
34 C.J. P -64 note 55.
58. CaL — Farmers & Merchants Nat.
Bank of Los Angeles v. Peterson,
55 P.2d 867, 5 Cal.2d 601— Sannes
v. McEwan, 10 P.2d 8-1, 122 CaL
App. 265— City of Los Angeles v.
Hannon, 251 P. 247, 79 CaLApp.
669.
Pa. — Huron v. Schomaker, 1 A-2d 537,
Ii32 Pa.Super. 462.
59. Cal. — Farmers & Merchants Nat.
Bank of Los Angeles v. Peterson,
5*5 P.2d 867, 5 Cal.2d 60-1.
Conn.— Spelke v. Shaw, 169 A. 787,
117 Conn. 6S9 — Borden v. Town of
Westport, 151 A. 512, 112 Conn.
1€2.
La.— Matthews v. Spears, App., 24
So.2d 195.
Nev.— Batliff Y. Sadlier, 299 P. 674,
53 Nev. 292.
N.D. — Bruegger v. Cartler, 126 N.W.
•491, 20 N.D. 72.
Or.— Kellogg v. Kellogg, 2,6"3 P. 885,
123 Or. 639.
3'4 C.J. p 64 note 56.
00, N.Y.— Keating v. Serrell, 5 Daly
278.
34 C.J. p 64 note 57.
Consent assumed
Where no timely advantage Is
taken of the delay, parties will be
assumed to have consented thereto.
—Borden v. Town of Westport, 151
A. 512, 112 Conn. 152.
'"Waiver not shown
Failure of defendant to object to
further consideration of case after
expiration of session, or to claim
lack of Jurisdiction until adverse
Judgment was rendered was held
not waiver of error in rendering
Judgment during session next follow-
ing that at which trial was com-
menced.—Spelke v. Shaw, 169 A, 787,
137 Conn. 639,
6L Mich.— Krebs v. Sent*, 9« N.W.
875, 1>32 Mich. 346.
34 C.J. p 64 note 58.
62. 111.— Friend v. Borrenpohl, 161
N.E. 110, 329 VOL 528.
63. U.S.— Ewert v. Thompson, C.C.
A.OkL, 281 F. 44S.
Okl.— Moroney v. Tannehill, 215 P.
9(38, 90 Okl. 224.
64. Utah.— Kolb v. Peterson, 168
P. 97, 50 Utah 450.
34 C.J. p 64 note 60.
35. caj, — Hume v. Lindholm, 258 P.
1003, 85 CaLApp. 80.
Colo. — General Accident Fire & Life
Assur. Corporation, Limited, of
Perth, -Scotland r* Cohen, 216 P.
522, 7(3 Colo. 459.
Idaho. — Glennon v. Fisher, 10 P.2d
294, 51 Idaho 732.
Mont. — Coover v. Davis, 121 P.2d
985, 112 Mont 605.
Or.— Fuller Y. Blanc, 77 P.2d 440,
160 Or. 50.
34 C.J. p 65 note 62.
66. Colo.— General Accident
& Life Assur. Corporation, Limit-
ed, of Perth, Scotland, v. Cohen,
216 P. «22, 7=3 Colo. 459.
Iowa.— Selby v. McDonald, 259 N.W.
485, 219 Iowa 823.
Mont— JCoover v. Davis, 121 P.2d 985,
112 Mont 605.
Or.— Fuller v. Blanc, 77 P.2d 440,
160 Or. 50.
34 C.J. p 64 note 61 [a] (2), [c]
(3), (4), £e] 04), p 65 note 62.
Judgment voidable
A Judgment entered after time re-
Quired by law has been held void-
able. — Tanner v. Wilson, 192 SJS. 425,
184 Ga. 628.
67. Minn. — Corpus Juris quoted la
Industrial Loan & Thrift Corpora-
tion v. Benson, 21 N.W.2d 99, 101.
Ohio.— Baylor v, Killinger, 186 N.B.
512, 44 Ohio App. 523.
OkL— Sloan v. Kohler, 88 P.2d «44,
184 Okl. 511.
34 C.J. p 66 note 63.
During1 valid extension of term
Ely. — Ha-ppy Coal Co. v. Brashear,
92 S.W.2d 2,3, 263 Ky. 257.
240
68. Ariz.— Cahn v. Schmitz, 108 P.
2d 1006, 56 Ariz. 469.
Minn. — Corpus Juris quoted in In-
dustrial Loan & Thrift Corpora-
tion v. Benson, 21 N.W.Sd 99, 101.
OkL— Dusbabek v. Bowers, 43 P.2d
97, 17i3 Okl. 53, rehearing denied
47 P.2d 141, 173 Okl. 5«.
34 C.J. p 65 note 6*4.
Pressure of other lra.siii.ewat ot eat.
onse for further delay
TT.S,— In re Maxwell, C.OA.Tex., 100
F.2d 749.
69. Minn. — Corpus Juris Quoted to.
Industrial Loan & Thrift Corpora-
tion v. Benson, 21 N.W.2d 99, 101.
Okl.— Dusbabek v. Bowers, 43 P.2d
97, 173 OkL 53, rehearing: denied 47
P.2d 141, 17S Okl. 53.
Wash. — State v. French, 17% P. 527,
100 Wash. 552.
70. I1L — Wallace Grain & Supply
Co. v. Gary, 28 NJE.2d 107, 874 111.
57.
71. Ariz.— Cahn v. Schmitz, 108 P.
2d 1006, 3.6 Ariz. 469.
Minn. — Corpus Juris quoted in In-
dustrial Loan & Thrift Corpora-
tion v. Benson, 21 N.W.2d 99, 101.
34 C.J. p 65 note 66.
72. Ariz.— Cahn v. Schmitz, 108 P.
2d 1006, 56 Ariz. 469.
HI. — Corpus Juris cited in Wallace
Grain & Supply Co. v. Cary, 28 N.
B.2d 107, 108, 374 'HI. 57 — Siegle
v. Mitchell, 249 IlLApp. V116.
Okl. — Corpus Juris quoted in Dusba-
bek v. Bowers, 4-3 P.2d 97, 173
OkL 5*3, rehearing: denied 47 P.
2d 141, 178 Okl. 5t3.
Tex. — Public, Service Employees
Credit Union v. Procter, Civ.App.,
1*55 S.W.2d 9413, error dismissed.
34 CJ. p 65 note 67.
Entry of judgment previously or-
dered
Entry in December of judgment
then filed may be deemed entry of
the judgment ordered in preceding
January to be entered, and so not
beyond jurisdiction of court. — Wix-
om v. Davis. 246 P. 1041, 198 Cal.
641.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ US
ment arising under the statute of limitations from
expiration of the statutory period relates only to
the remedy by action, and does not prevent entry of
judgment on a decision or verdict after expiration
of the statutory time.78
Duly constituted court as essential to the validity
and regularity of a judgment is discussed supra
§§ 15-17.
A rule of court requiring a judgment to be filed
or formally written out at, or within, a prescribed
time, or forbidding the rendition of judgment, over
objection, within a designated number of days of
the close of the term, has been held to have the
force of law,74 and should be complied with,75 pro-
vided it is in effect at the time,™ is applicable,77
and has not been waived,78 but disregard thereof
has been held not to make the judgment void.79
After adjournment. The entry of an order ad-
journing court sine die does not prevent the entry
of judgment on a subsequent day in the period dur-
ing which the court, by virtue of statute, remains
open for the transaction of business.80 Under a
statute expressly so providing, judgment on a ver-
dict may be entered within a prescribed number of
days after adjournment of court81
After death of party. If the court renders a
judgment during the lifetime of a party, the clerk
may perform the ministerial act of entering it and
recording it after his death.82
Death of a party as affecting the validity of a
judgment generally is discussed supra § 29.
(2) Expiration of Trial Term
A Judgment may not be Invalid because It It not
rendered or entered until after the expiration of the trial
term.
Where regular terms are provided by law, judg-
ments may properly be rendered only during such
terms.88 While there is authority holding that a
judgment rendered after the expiration of the term
is void,84 it has also been indicated that such a
judgment is not wholly void, but only irregular or
erroneous.85 It has been held that, where the par-
ties expressly86 or impliedly87 consent, a judgment
may be rendered after expiration of the term; but,
Absence of prior legal Judgment
Where parties by stipulation re-
moved the record of a cause from
one district to another, and after
decision at trial the record was re-
turned by the clerk without author-
ity to the first county, and on mem-
orandum thereon judgment was en-
tered, and on certiorari it was de-
termined that it was entered with-
out authority, on recovery of the
record by the trial district, the court
did not lose jurisdiction to enter
judgment on its decision nine months
thereafter. — Morley v. McDonald, 118
A. 582, $8 N.J.Law 275.
73. Minn.— Corpus Juris quoted ia
Industrial Loan & Thrift Corpo-
ration v. Benson, 21 3ST.W.2d 99,
101.
N.Y.— Puls v. New York L. & W.
R. Co., 104 N.Y.S. -374, 54 Misc.
303.
74. Tex. — Rowe v. Gohlman, 98 S.W.
1077, 44 Tex.Civ.App. 315.
75. Conn. — Appeal of Bulkeley, B.7
A. 112, 76 Conn. 454.
34 C.J. p 64 note 61 [d], p 65 note
70 [a] (.3).
Bule held sufficiently complied with
Ariz.— Griffith v. State Mut. Building
& Loan Ass'n, 51 P.2d 246, 46 Ariz.
359.
76. Ariz.— Mosher v. Dye, 39 P.2d
639, 44 Ariz. 555.
77. Tex. — -Richards v. Howard, Civ.
App., 218 $.W. 95.
84 C.J. p 65 note 70 [a] (2), (4), (6),
(7).
78. Tex. — Rowe v. Gohlman, 98 S.W.
1077, 44 Tex.Civ.App. 815.
49 0. J.S.-16
79. Tex.— Meredith v. Flanagan, Civ.
App., 202 S.W. 787.
BQ. Ala, — Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v.
Street, 176 So. 350, 234 Ala. 537.
81. Ga.— Sullivan v. Douglas Gib-
bons, Inc., 2 S.E.2d 89, 187 Ga.
764.
82. Cal.— 'In re Cook's Estate, 19 P.
431, 77 Cal. 220, 11 Am.S.R* 2-67, 1
L.R.A. 667— Franklin v. Meridfca, 50
CaL 289*
83. Conn.— Whitaker v. Cannon
Mills Co., 45 A.2d 120— Gruskay v.
Simenauskas, 140 A. 724, 107 Conn.
380.
33 C.J. p 1067 note 81.
Term divided into sessions
Where a term of court is divided
into sessions, the Judgment must be
rendered according to statute at the
same session im which case is tried
or the next succeeding one.— Whita-
ker v. Cannon Mills Co., Conn., 45 A.
2d 120.
Entry
It has been held that, if a judg-
ment is ordered and its terms pre-
scribed by the court during «. term,
it is a judgment rendered in term
time, although the entry thereof is
not in fact prepared and transcribed
on the Journal until after the close
of the term. — Hilt v. Arnott, 3 P.
525, SI Kfm. 672— «3,C.J. p 1067 note
86.
84. Tex.— Glasscoek v. Pickens, Civ.
App., 73 S.W.2d 992— Texas Mut.
Life Ins. Ass*n v. Laster, Civ App.,
69 S.W.2d 496— Rouff v. Boyd, Civ.
241
App., 16 S.W.2d 403 — Engelman v.
Anderson, Civ.App., 244 S.W. 650*
3*3 C.J. p 1067 note 82.
After «cpiratioa of term in which
case in tried, court ordinarily lacks
jurisdiction to proceed further with
case, and any judgment it renders is
void. — Foley v. George A. Douglas &
Bro., 185 A, 70, 121 Conn. 377.
Absence of order extending term
A judgment, rendered on jury's
verdict at second term after that at
which trial began and verdict was
returned, was unauthorized, in ab-
sence of order extending term. —
British General Ins. Co. v. Ripy, 106
S.W.2d 1047, ISO Tex. 101.
85. Conn. — Lawrence v. Cannavan,
56 A. 55-6, 76 Conn. -303.
3* C.J. p 1067 note 83.
A constitutional provision requir-
ing that superior courts shall be at
all times open for the transaction of
business, except for trial of issues
of fact requiring a jury, has been
held not to invalidate a Judgment
signed and entered after the expira-
tion ef the term. — Shackelford v.
Miller, 91 N.C. 181.
86. Conn, — Whitaker v. Cannon
Mills Co., 45 A.2d 120.
N.C.— KillfeLn v. Maiden Chair Co.,
161 S.B. 546, 202 N.C. 23.
33 C.J. p 1067 note 84.
Form,
Consent to entry of judgment out
of term should be in writing. — Kil-
lian v. Maiden Chair Co,, 161 S.B.
546, 202 N,C. 23.
87. Conn. — Whitaker T. Cannon
Co., 45 A.2d 120.
§ 113
JUDGMENTS
49 O.J.S.
where such judgments 'are deemed absolutely void,
consent cannot confer jurisdiction.88 It has been
held that a valid judgment may be rendered at a
subsequent term under some circumstances,89 as
where the court takes a case under advisement to
the next succeeding term.80
Entry. Although, in some states, or under some
statutes, -a judgment is a nullity unless entered on
the records of the court during the term at which
it was rendered,91 it has been held that a judg-
ment may not be invalid because it is entered after
the trial term,92 as where it is entered at a succeed-
ing term93 and no final judgment has been previ-
ously rendered94 or entered*95 Also, where the
clerk failed to perform his ministerial duty of en-
tering on the record the judgment on a verdict or
decision, the judgment may be entered at a sub-
sequent term,96 it being permissible for the court
at such term to direct entry of the judgment,97 or
the duty may be performed by the clerk at his own
instance at any time,98 except in some jurisdictions
wherein the clerk has no authority to enter a judg-
ment after the term without the consent or order of
the court,99 or without the consent or agreement of
the adverse party and without statutory notice.1
Where a judgment has been continued by curia
advisare vult, and is not given until the term suc-
ceeding that at which the verdict was rendered, the
judgment must not only be signed, but must be en-
tered, as of such succeeding term.2 Under a court
rule, a judgment awarded after the expiration of
a term at which it was ripe for judgment must be
entered as of the last day of that term.8
N.C. — Molyneux v, Huey, 81 N.C.
106.
Waiver
<1) Lack of Jurisdiction of court
to render judgment after expiration
of term next succeeding term at
which trial was commenced does not
pertain to subject matter but to the
parties, and hence may be waived. —
Whitaker v. Cannon Mills Co., Conn.,
45 A.2d 120.
(2) Defendant who filed pleadings
and participated in further hearing
after expiration of time allowed by
statute for rendering judgment
waived statutory requirement, and
hence could not claim that judgment
was invalid for lack of jurisdiction.
— Whitaker v. Cannon Mills Co., su-
pra.
88. Kan. — Packard v. Packard, 7 P.
628, (34 Kan. 53.
89. Tex. — Shellhammer v. Caruthers,
Civ.App.. 99 S.W.2d 1054, error dis-
missed— White v. Haynes, Civ.
'App., 60 «S.W.2d 275, error dismiss-
ed— Spencer v. Citizens1 State Bank
of Woodville, Civ.App., 28 S.W.2d
•1104, error dismissed— Brannon v.
Wilson, CivJV.pp., 260 S.W. 201.
33 C.J. p 10,67 note 87.
Retention of Jurisdiction
A judgment rendered at a .subse-
quent term, when the district court
has retained jurisdiction to dispose
of issues not determined by a for-
mer judgment, is valid. — Hoffman v.
Hoffman, KS5 P.2d 887, 15.6 Kan; 647.
90. Iowa. — Bookhart v. New Am-
sterdam Casualty Co., 286 N.W.
417, 226 Iowa 1186.
Kan. — Hoffman v. Hoffman, 1*5 JP.2d
887, 156 Kan. 647.
Tex,— Miller & Babbs v. Hall, Civ.
App., 62 S.W.2d 165, error dismiss-
ed.
33 C.J. p 1067 note 87.
91. Ala.— McBeod v. Home Pattern
Co., 102 So. 597, 20 Ala.App. 430.
34 C.J. p 66 note 78.
Time for rendition of judgment gen-
erally see supra § 16.
92. U.S. — Sourino v. U. S., C.C.A.
Ga,, 86 F.2d 309, certiorari denied
57 S.Ct. 4frl. 800 U.S. 661, 81 KEd.
869 — Wesrtchester Fire Ins. Co. v.
Bringle, C.C.iA.Tenn., 86 F.2d 262.
Colo. — Denver -Nat. Bank v. Grimes,
47 P.2d 862, 97 Colo. 158, 100 A.
I*R. 994.
Fla. — Fawcett v. Weaver, -16-3 So. 561,
121 Fla. 245.
Tex. — J. G. -Smith Grain Co. v. Payne,
Civ.App., 290 S.W. 841.
Motion to enter judgment on ver-
dict could be entertained by court
after term at which verdict was ren-
dered, particularly where such mo-
tion was a renewal of motion made
at term at which verdict was ren-
dered.— Hart v. National Casket Co.,
29«3 N.T.S. 155, 161 Misc. 728.
93. Ky. — Union Gas & Oil Co. v. In-
dian-Tex Petroleum Co., 263 S.W.
1, 203 Ky. 521,
Tex. — Scott v. Gardner, Civ. App., 159
S.W.2d 121, error refused — Parnell
v. Barren, Civ.App., 261 S.W. 529.
Case taken under advisement
U.S. — Fleischmann Const. Co. v. U.
S., to Use of Forsberg, Va., 4,6 S.
Ct. 284, 270 U.S. i349, 70 L.Ed. 624.
Al«u — Edmonds v. Standard Brands,
171 So. 751, 2*313 Ala. 615.
Part of issues undecided
Where jury answered one issue
during term, but court had not, at
end of term, decided Issues with-
drawn, court could enter judgment
at following term. — Atlas v. Byers,
Tex.Civ.App., 21 S.W.2d 1080.
94. Ala. — Edmonds v. Standard
Brands, 171 So. 751, 2S3 Ala. 315—
Ex parte French, 147 So. Ml, 226
297.
242
Order sustaining" demurrer
Where an order of trial court
which sustained defendant's demur-
rer to petition was not final, such
court had power to enter final order
or judgment at the same or in sub-
sequent terms.— Miracle v. Marshall,
111 S,W.2d 399, 271 Ky. 18.
95. Tex.— Manley v. Razlen, Civ.
Afcp., 172 S.W.2d 798.
Where court cannot enter final
Judgment without additional parties
and, therefore, retains jurisdiction,
court may at subsequent term enter
proper judgment. — Marshall v. Mc-
Neill, S P.2d 859, 13-4 Kan. 197.
96. Tenn. — McAlester v. Montever-
de, 115 S.W.2d 257, 22 Tenn.App.
14.
97. Tex. — Carwile v. Cameron, 114
S.W. 100, 102 Tex. 171.
84 C.J. p 66 note 75.
98. 111.— Wickiser v. Powers, 57 N.
B.2d 522, '324 Ill.App. 130.
34 C.J. p 66 note 76, p 65 note 71
Ca3.
Directing* Judgment not to be en-
tered
The court is without jurisdiction
at a subsequent term to direct that
the judgment shall not be written
up by the clerk.— People v. Petit,
107 N.B. 8«30, 266 111. -628— Wickiser
v. Powers, 57 N.B.2d 522, 324 '111.
App. ISO.
99. Ky.-— Shepherd v. Shepherd, 107
S.W. 27)3, 128 Ky. «87, 132 Ky.L. 942.
34 C.J. p 6,6 note 77.
Notice
Ky.— Parrish v. Ferriell, 186 SJW.2d
625, 299 Ky. 676.
1. Ky. — Green v. Blankenship, 91
S.W.2fd 996, 26<3 Ky. 29— Lamereaux
v. Dixie Motor Co., 91 S.W.2d 993,
2613 Ky. 67.
2. N.J.— Thorpe v. Corwin, 20 N.J.
Law (311.
3. U.S. — U. S. Shipping Board Bmer-
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 113
(3) Expiration of Judge's Term of Office
A Judgment entered after the expiration of the term
of office of the Judge who rendered It may be valid where
there was a valid rendition thereof prior to the expira-
tion of the Judge's term of office.
Where a judgment was actually rendered before
the expiration of the term of office of the judge try-
ing the case, it is immaterial that it was not entered
of record until afterward, the judicial act being the
rendition of the judgment, and its entry being mere-
ly ministerial.4 However, a valid decision cannot
be entered after the expiration of the judge's term,5
and the invalidity of the decision is not affected by
the fact that it is ordered filed by his successor and
is filed,6 and a judgment rendered in vacation can-
not be made binding by entry after death of the
judge, by direction of his successor.7 Under a stat-
ute prohibiting the rendition or entry of judgment
until the filing of a decision, a judgment is invalid
where the decision and judgment pursuant thereto,
although signed before, were not filed until after,
the expiration of the judge's term of office.8
d. Judgment on Beport of Referee
The time for rendition or entry of, or making a mo-
tion for, judgment on the report of a referee varies un-
der the statutes or practice of particular states.
Statutes limiting the time within which a motion
for judgment on a referee's report may be made
have been held to be mandatory, and the court can-
not extend the time.9 In some states, the successful
party is entitled to judgment at once on the report
of a referee,10 but, under the practice of a particu-
lar state, judgment on the report of referees is, in
the absence of exception filed to the report, entered
as a matter of course at the term succeeding their
appointment;11 and, under a statute providing that
judgment shall not be entered on the report until
a certain number of days have elapsed, a judgment
entered within that time is irregular,12 although not
void.13 A judgment not rendered until nine days
after a motion to modify findings of the referee has
been held not premature.1*
e. Bate of Judgment
As a general rule a Judgment takes effect from the
day It is actually rendered or entered.
By the common law, followed in some of the
states, sometimes by virtue of statutory provisions,
all judgments rendered at a given term of court are
presumed to have been rendered on the first day of
that term,15 and at the earliest possible hour of that
day when, according to the course of the court, it
might have been rendered;16 but this rule is inap-
plicable in a case where judgment could not have
been rendered on the first day of the term.1* In
other states a judgment is regarded as rendered on
the last day of the term unless the contrary is
shown.18 In still another state, under statutes and
gency Fleet Corporation v. Atlan-
tic Corporation, C.C.A.M2ass., '16 F.
2d 27.
Judgment of prior term
A Judgment In a case heard in
January, signed Feb. 11, 194-1, out
of term and out of county by con-
sent of the parties, and which was
docketed Febr. 14, 1941, when dock-
eted, became a Judgment as of the
January term, 1941.— Crow v. Mc-
Cullen, 17 S.E.2d 107, 220 N.C. 306.
4. Fla. — State ex rel. Watts v. Sand-
ier, 1-99 So. «56, 145 Fla, «425.
BT.Y.— Anstendig v. dDinnerson, 264 w.
T.S. 680, 147 iMisc. 827.
34 C.J. p 67 note 96.
After death of Judge
Ministerial act of entering Judg-
ment on record may be performed
after death of judge signing Judg^-
ment— Beetchenow v. Bartholet, 298
P. «3|85, 162 Wash. 119.
5. CaL— Connolly v. Ashworth, 83
P. 60, 98 Cat 205.
& Cal^Connolly T. Ashworth, su-
pra.
7. Miss.— Wilson v. Rodewald, 61
Miss. 228.
8. S.D.— Blundt v. Hemenway. 244
N.W. 377, 60 SJ>. 248.
9. wis.— Miami County Nat Bank
105 N.W. 816, 126
v. Goldberg,
Wis. 432.
34 C.J. p 69 note 22.
10. N.C.— Reed v. Farmer, 69 N.C.
539.
34 C.J. p 70 note 28.
11. Del.— Georgetown Trust Co. v.
Marvel, 162 A. 859, 5 W.W.Harr.
210.
12. S.D.— Wood v. Saginaw Gold
Min. & MUL Co.. 105 N.W. 101, 20
S.D. 161.
34 C.J. p 70 notes 24 [b], 25.
13* N.T.— HiU v. Watson, 2 How.Pr.
153.
34 C.J. P 70 note 25.
14. Or. — Trummer v. Konrad, 51 P.
447, 8'2 Or. 54.
15. N.C.— Norwood v. Thorp, 64 N.
C. 682.
34 CJ. p 70 note 27.
16. Miss. — Clark v. Duke, 59 Miss.
•575.
34 OJ. p 70 note S8.
; Va.— Withers r. Carter, 4 Gratt.
407, 4'5 Va, 407, 50 Am.D. 78.
34 C.J. p 70 note 27 [a], CD].
Judgment mine pro tone
Such a statute does not apply to
a judgment signed out of term and a
judgment mine pro tune, although
243
by agreement, is not allowed to take
effect by* relation to the prejudice of
third parties. — Con-Es-Tee Chemical
Co. v. Long, 114 S.E. 465, 184 N.C.
898.
18. Vt.— Downer v. Battles, 152 A.
805, 103 Vt. 201.
84 C.J. p 70 note 29, p 58=3 note 63.
Vaorlable practice
The practice of having only one
judgment day for the term, is not
invariable.— Tuttle v. Tuttle, 196 A.
624, 89 N.H. 219.
Bule of court
(1) Under a rule of court, where
a cause was ripe for judgment at a
certain term, but no judgment was
entered at any time during the term,
a judgment entered after the term
is to be regarded as entered as of
the last day of the term. — TJ. S.
Shipping Board Emergency Fleet
Corporation v. Atlantic Corporation,
C.C.A.Mass., Ii6 F.2d 27.
(2) IA rule of court, providing that
"where judgment shall be omitted
to be entered upon a verdict it shall
be considered as entered on the last
day of the term," can have no appli-
cation to verdicts incapable of sup-
porting judgments. — Pressed Steel
Car Co. v. Steel Car Forge Co., Pa.,
14*9 F. 182, 79 C.OA. 130.
§ 113
JUDGMENTS
49 O.J.S.
rules of court directing the clerk to enter, on a cer-
tain day in each week, judgments in civil actions
and proceedings ripe for judgment, a case goes to
judgment automatically on tiie first judgment day
after it becomes ripe for judgment,1* and, in view
of the law, the judgment is rendered when it ought
to be entered,20 even though the clerk fails to enter
the judgment on that date.21
In a majority of states, however, the date of a
judgment is the day on which it is actually ren-
dered22, or entered;23 and may be fixed by refer-
ence to the record of the proceedings in the case,24
or extrinsic evidence may be given of the day on
which the judgment was rendered.25 Under, and
in accordance with, the majority rule, a judgment is
deemed to be rendered on the date when it is or-
dered26 or pronounced27 by the court, or when the
trial judge in open court declares his decision of
law on the matters in issue,28 or when a formal or-
der granting a motion for judgment on the verdict
is signed,2* or, in the absence of contrary indication,,
when the clerk certifies that he has received the
judgment for record30 It may be dated back to
the time when the court directed judgment to be
entered,51 but is not valid if postdated, at least, not
until the arrival of the day named.32 A judgment
filed out of office hours with the clerk is considered
as legally and properly filed in "his office at the hour
legally fixed for the opening of his office on the
following business day.33
Time of rendition or entry as fixing tune lor ap-
peal is discussed in Appeal and Error § 44-5*
§ 114. In Vacation
Unless authorized by statute, a Judgment rendered
during vacation }» void. A Judgment properly rendered
generally may be entered by the clerk In vacation.
Unless authorized by statute,3* a judgment ren-
dered during vacation is void for want of jurisdic-
tion.85 Some statutes conferring judicial powers
19. Mass.— Petition of McGonigle,
•57 N.E.2d 926, 317 Mass. 262—
Home Finance Trust v. Hantoul
Garage Co., & N.E.2d 153, 300
Mass. 86.
Conversely, lack of ripeness for
judgment prevents the case from
groins to judgment automatically. —
Barton v. City of Cambridge, Mass.,
61 !N.R2d 830— Krlnsky v. Stevens
Coal Sales Co., 186 N.E.2d 411, 309
Mass. 528 — Lynn .Gas & Electric Co.
v. Creditors' Nat. Clearing House,
1*30 N.E. 1-11, 2137 Mass. 505— Hosmer
v. Hoitt, 36 N.E. S35, 161 Mass. 176
— Norcross v. Crabtree, 86 N.E. 678,
161 Mass. 55.
Bipenesg lor judgment
(1) A case is ripe for judgment
within contemplation of such provi-
sions when, under last entry, case
seems to have been brought to final
determination and everything seems
to have been done that ought to be
done before the entry of a final ad-
judication on the rights of the par-
ties.— Home Finance Trust v. Ran-
toul Garage Co., 14 N.E.2d 153, 300
Mass. 86-HAmerican Woodworking
Machinery Co. v. Forbush, 79 N.E.
770, 193 Mass. 455.
(2) A case is normally ripe for
judgment when all a'ppears to have
been done with regard to the action
that should have been done. — Ahern
v. Towle, <39 N.E.2d 561, 310 Mass.
695.
(3) A case may be ripe for judg-
ment even though there are undis-
posed of motions on the files of the
court. — Dalton-Ingersoll Co. v. Fiske,
55 N.E. 46-8, 175 Mass. 1*5.
50. Mass.— Sullivan v. Jordan, 36
N.E.2d 387, '310 Mass. 12.
51. Mass. — Hacking v. Co-ordinator
of Emergency Relief Dept. of New
Bedford, 48 N,E.2d 41, 313 Mass.
413 — Krinsky v. Stevens Coal Sales
Co., 46 N.E.2d 411, 309 Mass. (52'8
— Sullivan v. Jordan, 36 N.E.2d
•387, 310 Mass. 12 — Home Finance
Trust v. Rantoul Garage Co., 14
N.E.2d 153, '300 Mass. 86.
22. Fla.— State ex rel. Watts v.
Sandier, 199 go. 356, 145 'Fla, 425.
Miss. — Corpus Juris cited in John-
son v. Mississippi Power Co., 196
So. 642, 643, 189 Miss. 67.
34 C.J. p 70 note 30.
Time when judgment takes effect see
infra $ 446.
33. Iowa. — State v. Beaton, 178 N.
W. 1, 190 Iowa 216, rehearing de-
nied 180 N.W. 166, 190 Iowa 216.
34 C.J. p 55 note 57, p 70 note 30.
As between the parties, a judg-
ment is secured when the entry
thereof is made in the appearance
docket of the court— Lynch v. Bish-
op, 21 Pa,Dist & Co. 31«3.
24. Miss. — Johnson v. Mississippi
Power Co., 196 So. 642, 18-9 Miss.
67.
Neb. — Corpus Juris quoted in Mar-
tin v. Sanford, 261 N.W. 136, 140,
129 Neb. 212.
U C.J. p 70 note 31.
26. Neb. — Corpus Jari* quoted in
Martin v. Sanford, 261 N.W. 1*36,
140, 129 Neb. 212.
34 C.J. p 70 note 82.
26. Tenn. — (Southern Mortg. Guar-
anty Corporation v. King, 77 S.W.
•2d 810, 168 Tenn. 309.
Bate of filing of memorandum di-
recting' judgment
Conn. — Mazulis v. Zeldner, 164 A.
713, 116 Conn. 314.
When the order book is signed, the
judgment dates back to the time of
244
entry. — Lawrence y. First State Bank
of Dry Ridge, 1*2 S.W.2d 60, 279
Ky. 775.
87. I1L — Cosgrove v. Highway Com-
missioner of Town of Rockville,
281 Ill.App. 406.
Miss. — Johnson v. Mississippi Power
Co., 196 So. 642, 189 Miss. 67.
Tenn. — Southern Mortg; Guaranty
' Corporation v. King, T7 6.W.2d
$10, 168 Tenn. 309.
2& Tex.— Universal 'Life Ins. Co. v.
Cook, Civ.App., 188 S.W.2d 791.
29. Wis. — Osmundson v. Lang, 290
N.W. 125, -233 Wis. 591.
30. Tex.— City of Wichita -B^lls v.
Brown, CIV.Apfr., 119 S.W.2d 407,
error dismissed.
SL N.Y.— Clark v. Clark, 34 N.B.
513, 138 N.T. 053.
VL— Starbird v. Moore, 21 Vt. -529,
32. N.T.-^Sanith v.'Coe, '30 N.T. 477.
83. N.T.— Hathaway Y. Howell, 54
N.T. 97.
34 C.J. p 62 note 41.
34, Vt — Leonard v. Willcox, 142 A.
762, 101 Vt 195.
33 C.J. p 1068 note 89, p 1069 note 90
—15 C.J. j> S16 note 26.
Za Georgia
The judges of the superior court
cannot exercise any power out of
term time, unless the authority to do
so is expressly granted by law, or
an order has been taken in 'term con-
ferring authority to render a judg-
ment in vacation. — Sammons v. Na-
bers, 197 S.E. 284, 1*6 Ga. 1-61—
33 C.J. <p 1068 note 89 [d].
35. Ga. — Rogers v. Toccoa Power
Co., 141 S.E. 517, 161 Ga. 5^, 44
A.L.R. «534— Walton v. Wilkinson
Bolton Co., 123 S.E. 103, 158 Ga.
13 — Wright Y. Cannon, 198 S.E.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 115
on judges in vacation have been held unconstitu-
tional.*6
In some jurisdictions where the rendition of judg-
ments in vacation is not authorized, judgments ren-
dered at such a time have been held void, although
the parties had expressly consented to such rendi-
tion.37 Under some statutes, however, where the
parties to the action consent, a judgment may be
rendered during vacation.88 Where this is the case,
a judgment so rendered by consent is not only bind-
ing on the parties, but is valid even as to third per-
sons in the absence of proof of fraud or collusion.39
Entry. A judgment entered in vacation by a
court or judge has been held a nullity40 unless its
' entry at sueh time by the court or judge is author-
ized by statute,41 the power, if any, of a court or
judge to enter judgment in vacation being purely
statutory.42 A contention that the court was with-
out jurisdiction to enter judgment in vacation is
•without merit where the record does not disclose
that the judgment was entered in vacation.43
In a majority of jurisdictions, a judgment prop-
erly rendered may be entered by the clerk in vaca-
tion,44 provided the clerk does not act merely from
his own recollection, but is guided by some memo-
randa, such as the minutes and docket entries of the
court's proceeding.45 However, a judgment neither
rendered by the court nor pronounced by law at-
tempted to be entered by the clerk in vacation is
void46 as being an attempted exercise of judicial
powers by a ministerial officer.47 In some jurisdic-
tions, the clerk has no power or authority to enter
a judgment in vacation,48 although duly pronounced
by the court in term time,49 even at the express di-
rection of the judge,50 or even in cases where there
is a docket memorandum sufficient to authorize a
judgment nunc pro tune at a subsequent term.51
§ 115, Pendency of Motion for New
Trial or in Arrest
After verdict, It Is regular In some Jurisdictions, and
Irregular In others, to enter judgment before expiration
of the time for applying for a new trial or pending dis-
position of a timely motion for a new trial. A motion
in arrest of Judgment should be disposed of before ren-
dition of Judgment.
At common law,52 and under the statutes or prac-
tice of some jurisdictions,53 a judgment after ver-
dict should not be entered before expiration of the
301, 58 Ga.App. 268— Kelley v. Paf-
ford, 121 S.B. 866, 31 Ga.A-pp. 697.
III. — Gary v. Senseman, 215 Ill.App.
232.
Miss. — Union Motor Car Co. v. Farm-
er, 11$ So. 425, 151 Miss. 734.
Tex. — Sinclair Refining Co. Y. Mc-
Elree, Civ.App., 52 S.W.2d 679.
$3 C.J. p 1067 note 88— 15 C.J. p 815
note 25.
A vacation hearing is coram non
Jndioe and a judgment rendered
thereat in void, in absence of any
waiver or estoppel or an order
passed in, term time expressly grant'
ing authority to render a Judgment
in vacation or the giving of written
notice of the vacation hearing. —
Sammons v. Nabers, 197 S.E. 284, 186
Ga. 161.
.Judgment* or decree* held not void
(1) Judgment has been held not
invalid because rendered in vacation
where judgment was not filed or en-
tered until court reconvened, which
«ntry amounted to confirmation of
findings of fact and law in vacation
And to rendition of judgment in open
•court. — Morrow v. Scroggins, 70 S.
W.2d 5*51, 188 Ark. 1088.
(2) Where district court kept reg-
ular term open by specific order un-
til adjournment sine die, recess be-
tween meetings during' term was not
"vacation"; hence, decree was not
void as rendered in vacation. — Wal-
lace v. Clements, 248 N.W. 58, 124
Neb. 691.
36. Mo.— State v. Woodson, -61 S.W.
252, 161 Mo. 444.
33 C.J. p'1069 note 91.
37. Okl.— Dunn v. Qarrier, 135 P-
337, 40 Okl. 214.
33 C.J. p 1069 note 92.
38. Tex.— Doeppenschmidt v. City of
New Braunfels, Civ.App., 289 S.W.
425.
33 C.J. p 1069 notes 93, 94.
39. La. — New Orleans v. Gauth-
reaux, 32 La. Ann. 1126.
33 C.J. p 1070 note 95.
40. Ind.— Isaacs v. Fletcher Ameri-
can Nat. Bank, 185 N.EL 154, 98
Ind.App. 111.
Vt— Saund v. Saund, 13-8 A, 867, 100
Vt 387.
Judgment rendered and entered in
vacation
Ky.— Beliles v. Whittaker, 251 S.W.
190, 199 Ky. 431.
41. 111. — 'Friend v. Borrenpohl, 161
N.B. 110, 329 111. 528.
Vt.— Morgan v. Gould, 119 A. 517, 96
Vt 275.
W.Va.— McGibson v. Roane County
Court, 121 S.K 99, 95 W.Va. 3'38.
KTotice to parties
Ky.— Lawrence v. First State Bank
of Dry Ridge, 132 S.W.2d 60, 279
Ky. 775 — City of Owenpb^ro v. No-
lan, 46 S.W.2d 490, 242 Ky. 342.
42. Vt. — Saund v. Saund, 138 A. 867,
100 Vt -387.
43. I1L— Chicago Title & Trust Co.
v. Cohen, 1 N.B.2d 717, 2S4 IlLApp.
181.
245
44. Colo.— Wilson v. Collin, 102 P.
21, 45 Colo. 412.
34 C.J. p &6 note 82.
Judgment:
By confession see infra § 166.
By default see infra § 207.
45. Md. — Montgomery v. Murphy, 19
Md. 576, 81 Am.D. &52.
34 C.J. p 66 note 83.
46. Colo.— Sieber v. Frink, 2 P. 901,
7 Colo. 148.
34 C.J. p 67 note 88.
47. CaL— 'Stearns v. Aguirre, 7 CaL
44*.
Colo.— Sieber v. Frinfc, 2 P. 901, 7
Colo. 148.
48. Ala. — Campbell v. Beyers, 66 So.
651, 189 Ala. 307.
34 C.J. p 67 note 90.
49. Ind.— Mitchell v. St. John, 9Z
Ind. 598.
34 C.J. p -67 note 91.
50. Ind. — Passwater v. Edwards, 44
Ind. 343.
34 C.J. p 67 note 92.
51. Ala. — Wynn v. McCraney, 46 So.
854, 156 Ala. 630.
52. Ga. — City of Macon v. Herring-
ton, 32 S.£.2d 517, 198 Ga. 576.
34 C.J. p 62 note 30.
53. Ohio.— Dellenbarger v. Hunger,
24 Ohio Cir.Ct 722.
34 C.J. p 68 note 6.
Statute applies only to trial by
jury or by the court where a jury
is waived. — Noonan v. Noonan, Ohio
APP., 42 N.E.2d 671.
§ 115
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
time within which a motion for a new trial may be
made, and, if it is signed or entered before the ex-
piration of such time,54 or pending disposition of a
timely motion for a new trial,55 it is irregular, but
not void.58 In other jurisdictions, a judgment en-
tered pending a motion for a new trial, or before
expiration of the time within which such a motion
may be made, is in all respects regular, valid, and in
accordance with the customary practice.57 Neces-
sarily, a judgment before disposition of a timely mo-
tion for a new trial is at most a mere judgment
nisi and is not final until the motion is overruled.58
Where a motion for a new trial has been entered
on the docket and a time fixed for filing a report
of the evidence, on failure to file the report of evi-
dence, the case may be stricken from the law dock-
et, and judgment entered on the verdict,5^ Also,
where judgment has been withheld pending a mo-
tion for a new trial, judgment may be entered up
immediately on overruling of the motion;60 but the
court, having granted a new trial, cannot rescind
the order and render judgment on the verdict at a
subsequent term.61 When an order is entered dis-
pensing with the necessity of a motion for a new
trial, the defeated party may not postpone the final
determination of the cause by filing such motion.62
A motion in arrest of judgment should be dis-
posed of before rendition of judgment,63 but failure
to do so is harmless error where the motion is ill-
founded,6* and entry of judgment has been held
to be, ipso facto, a disposition of the motion.65
§ 116. Stay of Proceedings
A motion to stay the entry of Judgment may and
should be denied where the stay Is not authorized or
warranted.
Where, apart from a motion for a stay of pro-
ceedings, the case is ripe for judgment, such mo-
tion is in effect a motion to stay the entry of judg-
ment.66 Unauthorized opposition to a motion to
stay the entry of judgment is not a sufficient ground
for granting the motion ;67 and under some statutes
a stay of entry of judgment on a verdict until de-
termination of an appeal from an order denying a
motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict
is not authorized68 where the case is not reserved
for further argument or consideration and the ver-
dict is not defective.69 It is irregular to render a
judgment while an order staying proceedings in the
case remains unrevoked and unexpired, but the
judgment is not for that reason void.70
§ 117. Nunc pro Tune Entry
The object and .office of a nunc pro tune entry of
a judgment are to exhibit correctly on the record a Judg-
ment previously rendered and not carried Into the rec-
ord or not properly and adequately recorded.
In connection with judgments, the object or pur-
pose, and office, function, or province, of a nunc pro
tune entry are to make the record speak the truth71
by recording or correctly evidencing an act done72
54. Md.— Heiskell v. Rollins, 32 A.
249, 31 Md. 397.
34 C.J. ip 63 notes 4, 7.
55. Mo.— Stith v. J. J. Newberry
Co., 79 JS.W.2d 447, 336 Mo. 467.
34 CJ. p 68 note 8.
Judgment cannot be entered until
court overrule* motion
Ohio. — State ex rel. Van Stone v.
Carey, -65 N.B.2d 166, 76 Ohio App.
478.
56. Ohio. — M. J. Hose Co. v. Boss,
154 N.E. 346, 23 Ohio App. 23.
34 C.J. .p 68 note 9.
57. Fla. — Winn & Lorett Grocery
Co. v. Luke, 24 So.2d 810.
Ga.— National Bank of Wilkes v.
Maryland Casualty Co., 146 S.«E.
739, 167 Ga. 737.
N.Y.— O'Brien v. Lehigh Valley It
Co., 27 N.Y.'S.2d 540, 176 Misc. 404.
34 C.J. p 68 note 11.
58. (Fla.— Talley v. McCain, 174 Bo.
841, 128 Fla, 418.
Ind.— Kensinger v. Schaal, 161 N.B.
262, 200 Ind. 275.
Idu — Auto-(Lee Stores v. Ouachita
Valley Camp No. 10. W. O. W., 171
So. 62, 185 La. 876.
34 C.J. p 6*8 note 11, p 69 note 12.
59. Me.— Goodwin v. Small, 43 A.
507, 92 Me. 588.
60. OkL — Thompson v. Nickle, 259
P. 649, 113 Okl. 44.
34 C.J. p 69 note 1*5.
Denial of new trial on counterclaim
Where order denying new trial on
counterclaim was not and could not
be appealed from, verdict for plain-
tiff on counterclaim was held in
abeyance awaiting final disposition
in trial court of whole case after
which it would be trial court's duty
to enter proper Judgment. — First
Nat Bank v. Dunbar, 72 S.W.2d 821,
230 Mo.App. 687.
61. Ark. — Brooks v. Hanauer, 22
Ark. 174.
Tex.— Wells v. Melville, 25 Tex. 337.
62. Colo. — Dickson v. Horn, 1 P. 23
•98, 39 Colo. 2'34 — Swanson v. First
Nat Bank, 219 P. 784, 74 Colo.
135.
Motion properly disregarded.
Colo. — Swanson v. First Nat Bank,
supra.
63. Ili. — Stevenson T. Sherwood, 22
111. 238, 74 Am.D. 140.
64L Mo. — Warren v. Chicago, B. &,
246
Q. R Co., 99 S.W. 16, 122 Mo.App.
254.
Ohio.— Young v. State, 6 Ohio 435.
65. Ill— Mclntyre v. People, 38 111.
•514.
34 C.J. p 69 note 19.
66. Mass.— Henry L. Sawyer Co. v.
Boyajian, 52 N.E.2d 851, 315 Mass.
757.
67. Mass. — Henry L. Sawyer Co. v.
Boyajian, supra.
68. Cal.— Woods v. Walker, 136 P.2d
72, 57 Cal.App.2d 968— -Woods v.
Rechenmacher, 127 P.2d 614, 53
Cal.App.2d '294.
69. CaL — Woods T. Rechenmacher,.
supra.
70. Wis.— Davison v. Brown, 6*7 N.
W. 42, 95 Wis. 85.
34 C.J. p 69 note 20.
73- Ariz. — American Surety Co. of
New York v. Mosher, 64 P.2d 10*25,
48 Ariz. 552.
Ohio. — Herman v. Ohio -Finance Co.,
32 N.E.2d 28, 66 Ohio App. 164.
Minn.— Wilcox v. Schloner, 23 N.W.
2d 19.
Okl.— Hawks v. McCorraack, 71 P.2d
724, 180 OkL 5-69.
72. Ga.— Chandler v. Haxnxnett,
19 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 118
:>r judgment rendered78 by the court at a former
time and not carried into the record, or not properly
Dr adequately recorded.74 It is not the object, of-
fice, or province of such an entry to alter a judg-
ment actually rendered,75 or to correct an erroneous
decision or judgment;76 and, generally speaking,
the object or office of the entry is only to supply
matters of evidence or to correct clerical mispri-
sions,77 and not to supply omitted judicial action;78
but, as discussed infra § 118, there are some situa-
tions in which a judgment may be rendered, as well
as entered, nunc pro tune.
Mere delay in the entry of a judgment as of the
day of its rendition does not make the entry nunc
pro tune where it does not purport to be a nunc pro
tune entry and it is made before the dose of the
term.79 Indeed, it has been held that, where a stat-
ute contemplates that judgments will not be writ-
ten by the clerk during the term of court at which
they are rendered, a judgment rendered on a cer-
tain date, and properly entered in the minutes of
the court on that date, is in no sense a nunc pro
tune judgment because it is not formally written in
the record by the clerk until several months there-
after.80 However, it has also been held that, where
the prevailing party was entitled to have the judg-
ment entered when a motion for new trial was de-
nied, the judgment entered at a subsequent term be-
comes by operation of law a judgment nunc pro
tune as of the date of the denying of the motion for
new trial, if the order denying the motion was en-
tered in term time.81
§ 118. Power to Order and Grounds
Therefor in General
a. General considerations
b. State of proceedings
a Death of party or dissolution of cor-
poration
a. General Considerations
A!! courts of record possess inherent power to di-
rect the entry of Judgment nunc pro tune fn proper
cases; and, subject to certain considerations, the exer-
cise of this power rests largely In the sound discretion
of the court,
There is an inherent common-law power in the
courts, independent of any statute, to cause the en-
App., 36 S.m2d 184— Dunn v.
Southern Bell Telephone & Tele-
graph Co., 175 S.B. 261, 49 GkuApp.
264.
Ky. — Benton v. King, 250 S.W. 1002,
199 Ky. 307.
Va. — Gandy v. Elizabeth City Coun-
ty, 19 -S.E.2d 97, 179 Va, 340.
Wash.— State v. Melhorn, 82 P.2d
15'8, 195 Wash. 690.
34 C.J. p 71 note 38 [a] (1).
73. Ga. — Chandler v. Hammett,
App., 36 S.E.2d 184.
Tex. — Universal 'Life Ins. Co. v. Cook,
: Civ. App., 188 S.W.2d 791— Huggins
v. Johnston, Civ.App., $ S.W.2d
937, affirmed 35 S.W/2d 638, 120
Tex. 21.
34 C.J. p 71 note 3*8 [a] (6).
Proper record exhibition of judg-
ment
Object of nunc pro tune entry is to
have judgment properly exhibited of
record in order to constitute legal
•evidence thereof. — Harmon v. Hen-
•son, Tex.Civ.App., 7 S.W.2d 613, af-
firmed, Com.App., 15 S.W.2d 579.
Putting finding ox adjudication on
record
Office and function of nunc pro
tune judgment are to put on record
and to render effective finding or ad-
judication of court actually or infer-
entlally made, but by oversight or
evident mistake not made of record.
— Chariton & Lucas County Nat.
Bank v. Taylor, 240 N.W. 740, 213
Iowa 1206.
74. Kan. — State ex reL Hedrick v.
Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.
of Hartford, Conn., 114 P.2d 812,
154 Kan. 79.
75. Kan.— Bush v. Bush, 150 P.2d
168, 1<58 Kan. 760.
Bate of opinion.
Appellate court -will require decree
enjoining sale of medical product to
be construed as of date of opinion,
where alleged changes in formula
making product substantially differ-
ent from 'that alleged to be infringed
were made between filing of opinion
and entry of final decree. — Belmont
Laboratories v. Heist, 154 A. 19, 303
Pa, 7.
Amendments nunc pro tune see in-
fra § 258.
70. Ga. — Chandler v. Hammett,
APP., 36 S.'E.2d 184— Dunn v.
Southern Bell Telephone & Tele-
graph Co., 175 S.E. 251, 49 Ga.App.
264.
Ohio. — Herman v. Ohio Finance Co.,
32 N,B.2d 28, 66 Ohio App. 164.
Judgment correcting erroneous judg-
ment distinguished
A Judgment nunc pro tune entered
for the purpose of correcting the
court's records so as to accord with
the judgment of the court as actu-
ally rendered, or to supply a rec-
ord of proceedings actually had but
omitted from the records, is distin-
guishable from a judgment entered
to correct an erroneous judgment. —
Jones v. Sun Oil Co., Civ, App., 145
S.W.2d 615, reversed on other
grounds 15'3 S.W.2d 571, 137 Tex.
3*53.
77. CaL— Albori v. Sykes, 65 P.2d
247
84, 18 Cal.A-pp.2d 619 — Schroeder
v. Superior Court of California in
and for Alameda County, 239 P.
65, 73 CalJVPP- 687.
Purpose in merely to correct record
of judgment
Kan.— Bush v. Bush, 160 P.2d 168,
15$ Kan. 760.
Minn. — Hampshire Arms Hotel Co. v.
Wells. 298 N.W. 452, 210 Minn.
286.
Office in to supply something omit-
ted from record
Wyo. — Barrett v. Whitmore, '228 P.
452, 31 Wyo. 301, rehearing denied
22* P. 502, 32 Wyo. 1.
7a Ga.— Chandler v. Hammett,
App., &6 S.R2d 184,
Minn. — Wilcox v. Schloner, 23 N.W.
2d 19 — Hampshire Arms Hotel Co.
v. Wells, 29*8 N.W. 452, 210 Minn.
286.
34 C.J. p 71 note -36 [a] C2).
79. Mo. — Harrison v. Slaton, 49 S.
W.2d 31.
xniao pro tune by consent
Where judgment was tendered by
defendant at February term, but
court reserved judgment and coun-
sel agreed that judgment might be
signed at later date, judgment signed
at May term was judgment nunc
pro tune by consent and related
back to February term. — Sutton v.
Davis, 171 S.E. 738, 205 N.C. 464.
80. I1L — People ex rel. Waite v.
Bristow, 62 N.E,2d '545, 391 111. 101.
81. Fla. — Fawcett v. Weaver, 163 So.
561, 121 Fla. 245.
§ 118
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
try of judgments nunc pro tune82 in proper cases88
and in furtherance of justice.84 This power be-
longs to all courts of record,85 and includes appel-
late courts as discussed in Appeal and Error § 1956,
as well as trial courts.86 However, such power
must be exercised by the court;87 it does not apper-
tain to the clerk of a court, who has no authority
to enter a judgment nunc pro tune without an order
of court to that effect88
Where the court is without jurisdiction to amend
the minutes on the judge's docket nunc pro tune,
it is likewise without jurisdiction to order a judg-
ment nunc pro tune in conformity with an amended
minute entry.8* The court may not, by a nunc pro-
tune judgment, grant relief neither sought nor given
in the original suit,90 nor may it, in entering such
judgment, alter the record so as to show, contrary
to the truth, that certain facts existed on a particu-
lar date.^1 A purported nunc pro tune entry of
judgment is erroneous where it fails to disclose the
ground on which the court acts or what the entry
is intended to correct92
80. U.S.— Miami County Nat Bank
of Paola, Kan. v. Bancroft, C.C.A.
Kan., 121 F.2d 921.
Cal.— Norton v. City of Pomona, S3
P.2d 952, 5 Cal.2d 54.
Colo. — Corpus Juris cited in Perdew
V. Perdew, 64 P.2d 602, 604, 99
•Colo. S44.
I1L — Chicago Wood Piling- Co. v. An-
derson, 39 N.E.2d 702, 313 Ill.App.
242.
Iowa. — Hobson y. Dempsey Const.
Co., 7 N.W.2d 896, 232 Iowa 12'26—
Tost v. Gadd, 288 N.W. 667, 227
Iowa 621 — Arnd v. Poston, 20*3 N.
W. 260, 199 Iowa 931.
Kan,— Bush v. Bush, 150 P.2d 168,
158 Kan. 760— Elliott v. Elliott 114
P.2d 838, 154 Kan. 145— Victory
(Life Ins. Co. y. Freeman, 65 P.2d
559, 145 Kan. 296.
Ky. — Benton v. King, 250 J3.W. 1002,
199 Ky. 307.
Ohio.— -National Life Ins. Co. v.
Kohn, 11 N.'B.2d 1020, 133 Ohio St.
Ill— Ruby v. Wolf, 1T7 NJB. 240,
•39 Ohio App. 144.
Or.— In re Potter's Estate, 59 P.2d
253, 154 Or. 167.
Tex. — Corpus Juris quoted in Gulf,
C, & S. IF. Ry. Co. v. Canty, 2"85
S.W. 296, 301, 115 Tex. 587— Dow-
die v. U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty
Co., Com.App., 255 S.W. "388 —
Jones v. Sun Oil Co., Civ.App., 145
S.W.2d 615, reversed on other
grounds 153 S.W.2d 571, 137 Tex.
353— White v. Haynes, Civ.App.,
60 S.W. 2 d 275, error dismissed.
Wash.— Garrett v. Byerly, 284 P. 343,
155 Wash. 351, 68 A.-L.R. 254.
W.Va. — Chaney y. State Compensa-
tion Com'r, 33 -S.El.2d 2*84.
34 C.J. p 71 note 89.
83. CaL-^Corbett v. Corbett, 298 P.
819, 113 CaLApp. 595.
111.— Chicago Wood Piling Co. v. An-
derson, 39 N.E.2d 702, 313 Ill.App.
•242.
Ky. — Brannion v. Scott, 1*56 S.W.2d
164, '288 Ky. 334.
Ohio.— r National Life Ins. Co. v.
Kohn, 11 N.E.2d 1020, 133 Ohio St
111— State ex rel. Marzluf y.
Beightler, App., '57 N.®.2d 180—
Herman v. Ohio Finance Co., -32
N.E.2d 28, 66 Ohio App. 164.
Olil.— Corpus Juris cited in, Hawks
v. McCormack, 71 P.2d 724, 725,
180 Okl. 569.
Tenn. — Jackson v. Jarratt, 52 S.W.2d
137, 16-5 Tenn. 76.
Tex. — Corpus Juris quoted in Gulf,
C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Canty, 285
S.W. 296, 301, 115 Tex. 537— Kve-
ton v. Farmers Royalty Co., Civ.
App., 161 S.W.2d 583— Matthews v.
Looney, Civ.App., 100 S.W.2d 1061,
reversed on other grounds 123 S.
W.2d '871, 132 Tex. 313.
34 C.J. p 71 note 39.
84. Cal.— Corpus Juxis quoted in
' Corbett v. Corbett, 298 P. 819, 821,
11-3 Cal. App. 595.
Colo. — Corpus Juris cited in Perdew
v. Perdew, 64 P.2d 602, 604, 99
Colo. 544.
111.— Chicago Wood Piling Co. v. An-
derson, 39 N.E.2d 702, 313 IlLApp.
24*2.
Minn. — Wilcox v. Schloner, 2$ N.W.
2d 19 — Hampshire Arms Hotel Co.
v. Wells, 298 N.W. 452,' 210 Minn.
286.
N.Y.— Karpuk v. Karpuk, 81 N.T.S.2d
769, 177 Misc. 729.
Ohio. — Brown v. L. A. Wells Const.
Co., 56 N.*E.2d 451, 143 Ohio fit
580.
Tex. — Corpus Juris quoted in Gulf, C.
& S. F. Ry. Co. v. Canty, 28-5 S.
W. 29-6, 301, 115 Tex 537.
34 C.J. p 71 note 39, p 7* note 53.
85. U.S.— Miami County Nat Bank
of Paola, Kan., y. Bancroft, C.C.
A-Kan., 121 F.2d 921.
Cal.— Corbett v. Corbett, 298 P. 819,
113 CaLApp. 595.
Kan.— Elliott v. Elliott, 114 P.2d 823,
154 Kan. 145— Victory Life Ins. Co.
v. Freeman, 65 P.2d 559, 145 Kan.
296.
Ky. — Vansant v. Watson, 19 S.W.2d
994, 230 Ky. 316.
Ohio. — Heacock Y. Byers, 169 N.E.
295, 120 Ohio St. ttl.
Okl. — Corpus Juris cited in Hawks
v. McCormack, 71 P.2d 724, 725,
180 Okl. 569.
Tex.— Corpus Juris quoted in Gulf,
C. & !S. F. Ry. Co. v. Canty, 285
S.W. 296, -301, 115 Tex. 537.
34 C.J. p 71 note 40.
In criminal prosecution see Crim-
inal (Law § 1597.
In divorce case see Divorce § 163 d.
Probate court see Courts $ '309.
248
8ft, Cal.— Scoville v. Keglor, 80 P.
2d 162, 27 Cal.App.2d 17, motion
denied 34 P.2d 212, 29 Cal.App.-2d
66.
Tex. — Corpus Juris quoted in Gulf.
C. & S. F. Ry. Co. y. Canty, 285
S.W. 296, 301, 115 Tex. 537.
34 C.J. p 71 note 40.
87. Ky.— Vansant v. Watson, 19 R.
W.2d 994, 230 Ky. 31-6.
Tex. — Corpus Juris quoted in Gulf.
C, & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Canty, 285 S.
W. 296, 301, US Tex. 537.
34 C.J. p 71 note 41.
Court in which judgment rendered
Tex — Trotti v, Kinnear, Civ.App., 14*
S.W. 326.
Court in which entry is to be made
Ind.— Willard v. Loucks, 175 N.E.
256, 97 IndApp. 131.
Special judge or successor
(1) A special judge, who directed
the entry of a judgment and signed
the order book in a county outside
the district in which the cause was
pending, has the authority to direct
entry of judgment "nunc pro tune'*"
or to ratify the unauthorized entry
by 'the clerk and sign the order book,
in the county in which the cause was
pending, or elsewhere in the district.
—Gross* Adm'x v. Couch, 166 S.W.'2d
879, 292 Ky. -304.
(2) The successor of a special,
judge who rendered a judgment but
failed to sign the order book could
validate the judgment by entry of a.
signed nunc pro tune order. — Gorman
V. Lusk, 134 S.W.2d 598, 2*0 Ky. 692.
88. Tex. — Corpus Juris quoted in.
Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Canty,
285 iS.W. 296, 301, 115 Tex 537.
34 C.J. p 71 note 41.
89. Mo. — Haycraft y. HaycrafU
App., 141 S.W.2d 170.
90. Tex.— Huggins v. Johnston, Civ.
App., 3 S.W.2d 937, affirmed 35 S.
W.2d 688, 120 Tex. -21.
91. Iowa.— Chariton & Li^cas Coun-
ty Nat. Bank v. Taylor, 240 N.W..
740, 213 Iowa 1*206.
Minn.— Wilcox v. Schloner, 23 N.W.
2d 19.
92. Ohio. — Herman v. Ohio Finance
Co., 32 N.B.2d 28, 66 Ohio App. 164.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 118
The power of the court to enter judgment nunc
•pro tune should be used sparingly98 and only when
the right of the moving party to ask it is dear;*4
Telief by entry nunc pro tune will not be granted
•where the failure to enter the judgment at the prop-
er time was due to the party's own carelessness or
negligence.95 Since the object of allowing entries
nunc pro tune is the furtherance of justice, a judg-
ment ordinarily will not be directed to be entered
nunc pro tune unless it is shown that some injury
or injustice will result from a refusal to do so,96
and particularly not to enable one party to gain an
advantage over the other party to which he would
not have been entitled at the proper time for enter-
ing the judgment.9?
So too such an entry will not be allowed where it
will prejudice the rights of third persons who are
without notice of the original rendition of the judg-
ment;98 and, as a general rule, the entry of a judg-
ment nunc pro tune will be made only on such con-
ditions, express or implied, as will preserve the
rights of third persons who have no notice.99 How-
ever, it does not lie in the mouth of a party to ob-
ject on the ground that third persons will be af-
fected;1 and, an entry nunc pro tune, within the
power of the court to direct, is not erroneous where
a party to the action is not prejudiced or deprived
of any legal right2 and intervening rights are not
disturbed thereby.8 A void judgment should not be
entered nunc pro tune.4 Subject to the foregoing
considerations, a motion for entry of judgment nunc
pro tune ordinarily is addressed very largely to the
sound discretion of the court,5 and should be grant-
ed or refused as justice may require in view of the
circumstances of the particular case.8
b. State of Proceedings
A Judgment can be entered nunc pro tune only In a
case which was ripe for judgment at the date to which
the judgment Is to relate back. A Judgment trtay, If
Justice so requires, be both rendered and entered nunc
pro tune.
The power to enter a judgment nunc pro tune can
Order for entry upheld
Order, directing judgment to be
entered nunc pro tune, which was
made for the purpose of cleaning up
an obvious contradiction and equivo-
cation in the court'* minutes and
which stated that earlier minute or-
der was inadvertently made, was not
required to state that minute order
failed to speak truth, where it was
obvious from inspection that minute
order failed to speak truth and to
express court's intention. — Berkowitz
v. Wolfberg, 48 P.2d 7*3, 8 Cal.A|pp.
2d 70S.
98. N.T.— Karpuk v. Karpuk, 81 N.
Y.S.2d 769, 177 Misc. 729.
94. N.Y. — Karpuk v. Karpuk, supra.
95. Cal.— Corbett v. Corbett 298 P.
819, 113 CaLApp. «9'5.
Colo.— Corpus Juris cited in. Perdew
v. Perdew, 64 P.2d 602, 604, 99
Colo. 544.
Tex. — Corpus Juris quoted in Gulf,
C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Canty, 2-85 S.
W. 296, 301, 115 Tex. 537.
34 C.J. p 73 note 52.
96. Tex.— Corpus Juris tfuoted
Gulf, C. $ a P. Ry. Co. v. Canty,
285 S:W. 296, 301, 11* Tex. 537.
34 C.J. p 71 note 4-2.
Basis of entry
(1) Basis of entry of Judgment
nunc pro tune is to prevent an in-
justice.—Gulf, C. ft S. F. Ry. Qo. v,
Canty, 285 S.W. 296, 115 Tex. 537.
(2) There was no basis for a nunc
pro tune entry of Judgment where
the antedating was not for the pres-
ervation of the fruits of the litiga-
tion which would otherwise be lost
to the prevailing party, or for the
correction of a deficiency in recorda-
tion of a previous decision. — Mather
v. Mather, 140 P.2d 808, 22 Cal.Sd
713.
97. Ohio.— Johnson v. Harlan, 15
Ohio App. 247.
Tenn.— Corpus Juris quoted la Jack-
son v. Jarratt 52 S.W.2d 137, 139,
165 Tenn. 76.
Tex. — Corpus Juris quoted in Gulf,
<X & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Canty, 285
S.W. 296, 301, 115 Tex. £37.
34 C.J. p 72 note 43.
93. CaL— Corpus Juris quoted in
Corbett v. Corbett 298 P. 819, 821,
113 CaLApp. 59o.
Tex. — Carpus Juris quoted in Gulf,
C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Canty. 286 S.
W. 296, 301, 115 Tex. 537.
•34 C.J. p 73 note 54.
Tested lights of innocent persons
Ky.— Benton v. King, 250 S.W. 1002,
199 Ky. 307.
99. Tex.— Corpus Juris quoted in
Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Canty,
285 S.W. 296, 301, 115 Tex. 537.
34 C.J. P 73 note 55.
1. Neb.— Hyde v. Michelson, 72 N.
W. 1035, 52 Neb. 680, 66 Am.S.R.
533.
Tex.— Corpus Juris quoted in Gulf,
C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Canty, 285
S.W. 296, 301, 115 Tex. 537.
2. N.D.— Stoddard v. Atchison, 210
N.W. *, 54 NJX 519,
a, Okl.— Tiger T. Coker, 68 P.2d 509,
180 OkL 175.
Judgment actually rendered by court
but not entered by clerk see infra
subdivision b of this section.
4. Tex.— Corpus Juris quoted .in
Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Canty,
285 3.W. 296, 301, 115 Tex. 537—
Lepp v. Ward Qounty Water Im-
249
provement Dist No. 2, Civ.App.,
257 S.W. 916.
34 C.J. p 72 note 44.
5. Colo. — Corpus Juris cited in
Perdew v. Perdew, 64 P.2d 602,
604, 99 Colo. 544.
Mo. — Corpus Juris quoted in In re
Kellam's Estate, 53 S.W.2d 401.
404, 227 Mo.App. 291.
Tenn. — Corpus Juris quoted in Jack-
son v. Jarratt 52 S.W.2d 137, 139,
165 Tenn. 76.
Tex. — Corpus Juris quoted in Gulf,
C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Canty, 285 S.
W. 296, 301, 115 Tex. 537.
34 C.J. p 72 note 46.
Making1 or refusing of order for
entry of nunc pro tune Judgment
rests In the sound discretion of
court— Mitchell v. Federal 'Land
Bank of St Louis, 174 S.W.2d $71,
206 Ark. 253.
0. Cal— Norton v. City of Pomona,
-53 P.2d 952, 5 Cal.2d '54.
Mo.— Corpus Juris quoted in In re
Kellam's Estate, 53 S.W.2d 401,
404, 227 Mo.App. 291.
Tenn. — Corpus Juris quoted in Jack-
son v. Jarratt 62 S.W.2d 137, 139,
165 Tenn. 7-6.
Tex. — Corpus Juris quoted in Gulf,
C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. «Canty, 385
S.W. 296, 301, 115 Tex. 537*
34 C.J. p 72 note 47.
Entry of Judgment nunc pro tune
held proper
CaL — Horton v. Horton, 116 P.2d 605,
18 CaL2d 579.
Colo.— Wright v. Muehlberg, 242 P.
634, 78 Colo. 461.
Tex. — Southern Surety Co. v. Texas
Oil Clearing House, Civ.App., 183
S.W. 220.
§ 118
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
be exercised only in a case where the cause was
ripe for judgment at the date to which the judg-
ment is to relate back, that is, where the case was
in such a condition at that date that a final judg-
ment could have been then entered immediately.7
Prior rendition of judgment. In the exercise of
its continuing power over its records, and its un-
questioned authority to make them speak the truth,8
a court may order the entry nunc pro tune of a
judgment which has been actually rendered, but has
not been entered on the record, in consequence of
any accident or mistake, or the neglect or omission
of the clerk,9 where the fact of rendition is satis-
factorily established,10 the position of the parties
has not changed,11 and no intervening rights will
be prejudiced.12 In certain classes of cases18 a
judgment nunc pro tune presupposes a judgment
actually rendered at the proper time, but not en-
tered,14 and it is a general rule that a judgment
nunc pro tune cannot regularly be entered unless
such judgment has been in fact previously ren-
dered.1*
Discretion held not abused
OkL— Davis v. Ball, 96 P.2d 34, 136
OkL 39.
7. Cal. — Corpus Juris cited in
Leavitt v. Gibson, 43 P.2d 1091,
1098, 109'8, 3 Cal.2fc 1091— Corbett
v. Corbett, 298 P. 819, 113 CaL
App. 595.
Colo. — Corpus Juris cited in Feuquay
v. Industrial Commission, 111 P.2d
901, 902, 107 Colo. 336.
I1L — Corpus Juris quoted in, .Citizens'
Securities & Inv. Co. v. Dennis,
236 IlLApp. 307, 309.
Tex. — Corpus Juris quoted in Gulf,
C. & S. -P. Ky. Co. v. Canty, 285 S.
W. 296, 301, 115 Tex. 537— Corpus
Juris guoted in Hannon v. Henson,
Civ.App., 7 S.W.2d 61-3, -619, Af-
firmed, Com. App., 15 S.W.2d 579.
Wash. — Qarrett v. Byerly, 284 P.
343, 1'5'5 Wash. 351, 68 A-l^B. "254.
34 C.J. p 72 note 61.
Nothing- remaining- to be done toy
court
It may be said that a case is ripe
for judgment, within the rule, when
nothing remains to be done by the
court that rendered the judgment to
authorize the clerk to record it in
the minutes. — Hannon v. Henson,
Tex.Civ.App., 7 S.W.Sd 613, affirmed,
Com.App., 15 S.W.2d 579.
8. OkL— Bowling v. Merry, "217 P.
404, 91 OkL 176.
Tex.— Dowdle v. U. S. Fidelity &
Guaranty Co., Com.App.t 255 S.W.
388.
34 C.J. p 74 note 60.
9. U.S.— Wolfe v. Murphy, C.C.A.
Iowa, 113 F.2d 775, certiorari de-
nied 61 act 138, 311 U.S. 200, 85
L.'Ed. 454.
Cal.— Corbett v. Corbett, 298 P. 819,
113 CaLApp. 595.
Ky. — Brannon v. Scott, 156 S.W.2d
144, 2188 Ky. 334.
Minn.— Wilcox v. Schloner, 23 N.W.
2d 19.
Mo.— Campbell v. Spotts, 5-5 S.W.!2d
986, 331 Mo. 974.
OkL — Woodmansee v. Woodmansee,
278 P. 278, 137 OkL 112— Bowling
v. Merry, 317 P. 404, 91 OkL 176.
Tenn.— Gillespie v. Martin, 109 S.W.
2d 93, 172 Tenn. ^8— Hedges-
Walsh- Weidner Co. v. Haley, 55 S.
W.2d 775, 165 Tenn. 486— Jackson
v. Jarratt, 52 S.W.2d 137, 165 Tenn.
7-6.
Tex.— Dowdle v. U. S. Fidelity &
Guaranty CJo., Com. App., 255 S.W.
338 — Turley v. Tobin, Civ. App., 7
S.W.2d 949, error refused.
Va. — Dickenson County v. West Dan-
te Supply Co., 134 S,m 552, 14*5 Va.
513.
W.Va. — Chaney v. State Compensa-
tion Com'r, 33 -S.E.2d 284.
34 aJ. p 74 note 61.
Prevailing1 party lias right to have
judgment entered nunc pro tune as
of the day of its rendition, where it
has been rendered, but not recorded.
tnd.— In re Saric, 149 N.B. 434, 197
Ind. 1.
Tex.— Bowie Sewerage Co, v. Wat-
son, Civ.App., 274 S.W. 179.
Id Ky. — Gorman v. tLusk, 134 S.W.
•2d 598, 280 Ky. 692— Happy Coal
Co. v. Brashear, 92 S.W.2& 23, 263
Ky. 257 — Hazelip v. Doyel, 85 S.
W.2d 685, '260 Ky. 313.
Tex. — Hannon v. Henson, Com.App.,
15 S.W.2d 579.
34 O.J. p 74 note 61.
Sufficiency of evidence of basis for
nunc pro tune entry see infra §
120.
11. Tex.— Hudgins v. T. B. Meeks
Co., Civ.App., 1 S.W.2d 681.
12. Ky. — Hazelrp v. Doyel, 85 "S.W.
2d 685, 260 Ky. 313.
Ohio. — Brown v. L. A.. Wells Const
Co., 56 N.E.2d 451, 14*3 Ohio St 580.
Tex. — Hannon y, Henson, Com.Ap-p.,
15 S.W.2d 579— Hudgins v. T. B.
. Meeks Co., Civ.App., 1 8.W.2d 681.
34 C.J. p 74 note 61.
13. Tex. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Canty,
2-85 S.W. 296, 301, 11* Tex. 537.
34 C.J. p 71 note 38.
14. U.S. — The Princess Sophia, D.
C.Wash., 3* F.2d 591.
Iowa. — Chariton & Lucas County
Nat Bank v. Taylor, 240 N.W.
740, 213 Iowa 1206.
Ohio.— HeHe v. Public Utilities Com-
mission of Ohio, 161 N.B. 282, 118
Ohio St 434.
OkL— Corpus Juris cited in McQuls-
. ton v. Tyler, 97 P.Sd 552, 554, 186
OkL 315.
Tex. — Corpus Juris quoted in Gulf,
C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Canty, 285
250
S.W. 296, 301, 115 Tex. 537— Han-
non v. Henson, Com.App., 15 S.W.
2d 579 — Corpus Juris cited in Uni-
versal Life Ins. Co. v. Cook, Civ.
App., 188 S.W.2d 791, 792— King v.
Cash, Civ.App., 174 -S.W.!2d -SOS-
Stewart v. Gibson, Civ.App., 154
'S.W.2d 1002 — Corpus Juris cited in
Davis v. Moore, Civ.App., 131 S.
W.2d 798, 801— Texas & P. Ry. Co.
v. Bussing, Civ.App., 1«30 S.W.2d
416.
34 C.J. p 71 note 38, p 72 note 48.
15. U.S.— Rardin v. Messlck, C.C.A.
111., 78 F.2d 643.
Ariz. — Corpus Juris cited in Stephens
v. White, 31 P.2d 921, 925, 46 Ariz.
426.
Colo.— Perdew v. Perdew, 64 P.2d 602,
99 Colo. 544.
Minn. — Hampshire Arms Hotel Co. v.
Wells, '298 N.W. 452, 210 Minn.
286.
Mo. — Cross v. Greenaway, 152 S.W.2d
43, 347 Mo. 1103.
Okl. — Corpus Juris cited in McQuis-
ton v. Tyler, 97 P.2d 552, 554, 186
Okl. 315.
Tex. — Corpus Juris guoted in Gulf,
C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Canty, 285
S.W. 296, 301, 115 Tex. 537— Cor.
pus Juris cited in Universal Life
Ins. Co. v. Cook, Civ.App., 18'S S.
W.2d 791, 792— Stewart v. Gibson,
Civ.App., 154 S.W.2d 1002— Corpus
Juris cited in Davis v. Moore, Civ.
App., 131 S.W.2d 798, 801.
Wash.— State v. Mehlhorn, 82 P.2d
153, 195 Wash. 690. .
34 C.J. p 72 note 48, p 77 note 73.
Restriction to Judicial action, actual-
ly taken
The power of a court to enter a
Judgment nunc *pro tune is restrict-
ed to placing in the record evidence
of judicial action which has been
actually taken.
Ky.— Benton v. King, 250 S.W. 1002,
199 Ky. 307.
Ohio. — Herman v. Ohio Finance Co.,
32 N.E.2d 28, 66 Ohio App. 164.
ZTnno pro tune entry at subsequent
term
(1) The entry of a judgment nunc
pro tune at a subsequent term is not
authorized unless, in fact, the judg-
ment waa rendered at a previous
term.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 118
There are other cases, however, in which a judg-
ment may be both rendered and entered nunc pro
tune,16 an exception to the general rule, equally
well established, being that a judgment may be both
rendered and entered nunc pro tune where the de-
lay was caused solely by the court itself, or by the
process of the law,1? and not by the fault of the
prevailing party.18 Stated more fully, the rule re-
specting delay caused by the court is that, whenever
delay in entering a judgment is caused by the action
of the court, as in holding the case under advise-
ment, judgment nunc pro tune will be allowed as of
the time when the party would otherwise have been
entitled to it, if justice requires it« The occasion
for the application of this rule arises most frequent-
ly where a party dies pending the delay, discussed
infra subdivision c of this section, but other cir-
cumstances may justify and require rendition and
entry nunc pro tune.20 Judgment on a general ver-
dict may be rendered21 or entered22 nunc pro tune.
The subsequent amendment or correction, in re-
spect of either clerical or judicial errors, of a judg-
ment which has been both rendered and entered is
discussed infra §§ 236-264.
c. Death of Party or Dissolution of Corpora-
tion
A Judgment may be entered nunc pro tune as of *
date anterior to the death of a party or the dissolution
of a corporation which was a party where the case had
been tried and was ripe for judgment at the time of
such death or dissolution.
If judgment on a verdict is delayed by a motion
in arrest of judgment, or for a new trial, or other,
proceeding, or if a case tried by the court is held
under advisement, or delayed by exceptions, and
meanwhile one of the parties dies, the court may
enter judgment nunc pro tune as of a time when
the party was still alive,2* such as of the date of
111.— Wallace Grain & Supply Co. v.
Cary, 24 N.E.2d 907, -303 IlLApp.
221 reversed on other grounds 2$
NE.2d 107, -374 I1L 57— Brown Y.
Hamsmith, 247 Ill.A»pp. 358.
Mo.— Campbell v. Spotts, S'5 S.W.2d
986, 331 Mo. 974^-State ex rel.
Holtkamp v. Hartmann, 51 S.W.
2d 22, 330 Mo. 586.
Tex.— Universal !Life Ins. Co. v.
Cook, Civ.App., 188 S.W.2d 791—
Texas & P. Ry* Co. v. Bussing, Civ.
App., 130 S.W.2d 416.
(2) This is true of a judgment on
a special issue verdict— Universal
Life Ins. Co. v. Cook, Tex.Civ.App.,
188 S.W.2d *791— Waggoner v. Davis,
Tex.Civ.App., 261 S.W. 482.
(3) The refusal of a trial judge
to enter a written judgment nunc pro
tune, conformably to an oral an-
nouncement rendered at a previous
term, will not be reversed, since such
oral announcement does not consti-
tute a judgment.— Foy v. McCrary,
121 S.E. 804, 157 Ga, 461.
Brror
It was erroneous for -the court, en-
tering judgment on day ^er find-
ings were signed, to order judgment
entered nunc pro tune as of date
case was submitted.— Sherwood v
Thomas, 12 P.2d 676. 124 CaLApp.
450.
Rendition of additional judgment
for an item which could have been
included in the judgment originally
rendered is not authorized as a nunc
pro tune entry after the original
final judgment has been afflrmed and
remanded for execution.--State v.
Industrial Commission of Ohio, 155
N.B. 798, 116 Ohio St. 261.
16. Colo.— Corpus Juris cited in
Perdew v. Perdew, 64 P.2d 602, 604,
99 Colo. 544.
Tenn.— Jackson v. Jarratt, 52 S.W.2d
137, 165 Tenn. 76.
Tex.-0orpus Juris auoted in Gulf,
C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Canty, 285
S.W. 296, -301, 115 Tex. &37.
W.Va.— Chaney v. State Compensa-
tion Com'r, £3 S.R2d 284.
17. Okl.— Corpus Juris cited in
McQuiston v. Tyler, 97 P*2d 552,
554, 186 Okl. 315.
Tex.-<*>rpus juris quoted in Gult
C & S F. Ry. Co. v. Canty, 285
s!w. 296, 301, 118 Tex. 537— Stew-
art v. Gibson, Civ. App., -154 S.W.
•3d 1002.
18. Cal.— Corbett v. Corbett, 298 P.
819, US CaLApp. 595.
Okl.— Corpus Juris cited in McQu s-
ton v. Tyler, 97 P.2d 552, 554, 186
Juris quoted in Gulf,
C & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Canty, 28o
s!w. 296, 301, 115 Tex '537— Stew-
art v. Gibson, Civ.App., 154 S.W.
2d -1002.
34 C.J. p "72 note 50.
19. CaL— Norton v. City of Pomona,
53 P.2d 952, '5 Cal.2d 54.
Minn.— Hampshire Arms Hotel Co. v.
Wells, 298 N.W. 452, 210 Minn. 286.
OkL-Oorpu. Juris cited in McQuis-
ton V. Tyler, 97 P.2d 552, 554, 186
Juris q.uotea
C & S. F. By. Co. v. Canty, 285 S.
W. 296, 301, 115 Tex. 537.
34 C.J. P 7*3 note 57.
result of mutual understand*.
in?
Colo.— Corpus Juris cited in Perdew
v Perdew, 64 P.2d 60*2, 604, 99
Colo. «44.
34 C.J. p 74 note 59 [c].
Claim of exceptions
Where case had not gone to Judg-
ment because defendant had filed
claim of exceptions which was pend-
ing, judgment could be entered nunc
pro tune when time for filing bill of
exceptions expired, as of time when
exceptions ceased to have vitality.—
Patrick v. Dunbar, 200 N.EL 896, 294
Mass. 101.
21. N.C.— La Barbe v. Ingle, 161 S.E.
486, 201 N.C. 814.
22. N.J. — Epps v. Bowen, 191 A.
110, 11* N.J.Law 50.
Tenn.— Wind Rock Coal & Coke Co.
v. Robbins, 1 Tenn.App. 734.
34 C.J. p 73 note 48 [c].
aa, CaL— Norton v. City of Pomona,
5-3 P.2d 952, 5 CaL2d 54— In re
Pillsbury's Estate, 166 P. 11, 175
Cal. 454, 3 A.L.R. 1396.
Mass.— Noyes v. Bankers Indemnity
Ins. Qo., 30 N^E.'2d '867, 307 Mass.
567— Rosenblum v. Ginis, 9 N.E.
2d 525, 297 Mass. 493— Fenelon v.
Fenelon, 138 N.B. S34, 244 Mass.
Minn.— Hampshire Arms Hotel Co. v.
Wells, 298 N.W. 452, 210 Minn.
20. Tex.— Corpus Juris ftuoted in
Gulf, C. & S. F. By. Co. v .C*nty,
285 S.W. 296, 301. 115 Tex. '537.
34 C.J. P 74 note 59, p 76 note 67
Cb3.
Repeal of statute alter verdict
S2L.-Flnnegan v. Checker Taxi
Co., 14 N.E.2d -127, 300 Mass. 62.
34 C.J. P 74 note 59 [al*
251
Or.— In re Potter's Estate, -59 P.2d
253, 154 Or. 167.
Tex.— Corpus Juris quotsd in Gulf,
C & S F. Ry. Co. v. Canty, 285
s!w. 29* 301, 115 Tex. «7.
Wash.— Garrett v. Byerly, 284 P. 343,
155 Wash. 351, *8 A.OUR. 254.
i c.J. p 1109 note 72-^34 <XJ. p 75
note 62*
§ 118
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
submission,24 the date of the finding,^ Or the
date of the order for judgment;26 but it is essen-
tial to the entry of judgment nunc pro tune as of a
date anterior to the death of a party that the cause
shall have been ripe for judgment at the time of
death of the party,27 that the delay shall not have
been due to the fault of the prevailing party,28 that
innocent third persons acquiring rights since the
death of the party will not be injured,25 and that
the personal representative of decedent shall have
been substituted as a party.80 While it has been
held that this practice does not extend to cases of
tort which do not survive,31 the better opinion is
that it is immaterial whether or not the cause of
action would survive; in either case the judgment
may be rendered nunc pro tune.8*
Dissolution of corporation. Where a corporation
is a party, and it is dissolved, or its charter expires,
after the action has been tried and the case taken
under advisement by the court, the judgment may
be entered, nunc pro tune, as of a time prior to such
dissolution.58
§ 119.
Time of Entry
Lapse of time ordinarily does not affect the exercise-
by the court of its power to direct the entry of a judg-
ment nunc pro tune.
In the absence of statutory limitations34 the right,
authority, power, or jurisdiction of the court to di-
rect entry of a judgment nunc pro tune is not lost
or barred by lapse of time, but may be exercised
at any time,86 unless intervening rights are affect-
Svidence received
Trial court had right to file deci-
sion for plaintiffs in action for fraud
nunc pro tune as of date before
death, of one defendant, although,
cause was not actually submitted be-
fore such date, where all evidence
had been received and plaintiffs'
brief and defendants' reply served
and delivered to judge an$ time al-
lowed for plaintiffs' reply had ex-
pired and no extension of time was
granted. — Leavitt v. Gibson, 43 P.
2d 1091, 3 CaL2d 90.
Judgment after death of party gen-
erally see supra $ 29.
Abatement on death of party after
verdict, decision, or interlocutory
Judgment and before final judg-
ment see Abatement and Revival §
126.
24. Iowa. — Chariton & Lucas Coun-
ty Nat Bank v. Taylor, 240 N.W.
740, >243 Iowa 1206.
25. Mass. — Beacon Trust Co. v.
Wright, 192 N.B. 70, 288 Mass. 3L
26L ICal. — Norton v. City of Pomona,
5-3 P.2d 952, 5 Cal.2d 54.
27. Cal. — Norton v. CSity of Pomona,
supra — In re Pillsbury's Estate,
166 P. 11, 17-5 Cal. 464, 3 AJL.R.
1396.
111. — Citizens' Securities & Inv. Co.
v. Dennis, 236 IlLApp. 307.
Or.— In re Potter's Estate, 69 P.2d
25*3, 154 Or. 167.
Wash. — Garrett v. Byerly, 234 P.
343, 155 Wash. -351, 63 A.L.B. 454.
Modification of role
It has been stated that modern
practice has resulted in some modi-
fication of the rule, but this state-
ment was made in a case where the
cause was in a condition for judg-
ment at the time of the death of the
party.--Leavitt v. Gibson, 43 P.2d
1091, 3 Cal.2d 90.
Ripeness for judgment as necessary
to nunc pro tune entry generally
see supra subdivision b of this
section.
28. Wash. — Barrett v. Byerly, 284 P.
•343, 155 Wash. 351, ff8 A.L..B. 254.
2& Wash. — Garrett r. Byerly, su-
pra,
30. Cal.— Boyd v. Lancaster, 90 P.2d
317, -32 Cal.A'pp^d -574— Maxon v.
Avery, 89 P.2d 684, 32 Cal.Ajpp.2d
300 — Scovtlle v. Keglor, «0 P.2d
1-62, 27 CaLApp.2d 17, motion de-
nied 84 P.'2d 212, 29 Cal.A-pp.2d 66.
Contra Saddler v. California Bank,
242 P. 1035, 75 CaLApp. 488.
31. I1L — Wilcox v. International
Harvester Co., 116 N.'B. 150, 273
111. 465.
32. CaL— In re Pillsbury's Estate,
166 P. 11, 175 Qal. 454, 3 A.L.B.
1396.
Mass.— De Marco v. Pease, 149 N.B.
•208, 253 Mass. 499.
34 C.J. P 76 note 66.
ages *
Entry of judgment nunc pro tune
after death of one of defendants was
not erroneous, although judgment in-
cluded exemplary damages, where, at
time of death, cause was in such
condition that .judgment could have
been entered against defendants both
for compensatory and exemplary
damages. — Leavitt v. Gibson, 43 P.
2d 1091, 3 CaL2d 90.
33. Wis. — Shakman v. IT. S. Credit
System Co., 66 N.W. €28, 92 iWis.
366, 53 Am.S.R. 920, 32 L.B.A. £8*3.
34 C.J. p 76 note 68.
34. Mo.~ Pepple v. Stacy, Afcp., 282
S.W. 451.
Tex.— Corpus Juris quoted in Gulf,
C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Canty, 285
S.W. 296, SOI, 115 Tex. 5*7.
34 C.J. p 78 note 80.
Entry in vacation.
In at least one state, by reason of
statute, a judgment cannot be en-
tered after adjournment of the court,
252
nunc pro tune, except on an order
of the court, and this order can
be made only at a subsequent term
of the court. In other words, a
judge has no authority to enter
judgment nunc pro tune during va-
cation.— Stanolind Oil & Gas Co. v.
McKenzie, TexjCiv.App., 115 S.W.2d
1204, error dismissed— 34 C.J. p 78
note 80 [c].
35- Ind. — Corpus Juris cited in
Miller v. Muir, 53 N.B.2d 496, 504,
115 OndJApp. 435.
Iowa. — Hobson v. Dempsey Const.
Co., 7 N.rW.2d 896, 232 Iowa 1226
—Tost V. Gadd, 288 N.W. 667, 227
Iowa 621 — Arnd v. Poston, 203 N.
W. 260, 199 Iowa 981.
Neb. — Brandeen v. -Lau, 201 N.W.
•565, 113 Neb. 84.
N.C.— Ipock v. North Carolina Joint
Stock Land Bank of Durham, 175
S.E. 127, 206 NJC. 791.
Okl. — 'Woodmansee v. Woodmansee,
278 P. 278, 137 Okl. 112— Bowling
v. Merry, 217 P. 404, 91 Okl. 176.
Term. — Wind Bock Coal & Coke Co.
v. Bobbins, 1 Tenn.App. 7)34.
Tex. — Murphy v. Boyt, 168 S.W.2d
631, 140 Tex. «82— Sigler v. Realty
Bond & Mortgage Co., 1)38 S.W.2d
537, U35 Tex. 78— Corpus Juris
quoted in -Gulf, C. & 6. F. Ry. Co.
v. Canty, 285 S.W. 29$, 401, 115
Tex 537 — Kveton v. Farmers Boy-
alty Holding Co., Civ.App., 161
S.W.2d 6^3— Corpus Juris cited in
Nalle Y. Walenta, Civ.App., 102
S.W.2d 107$, 1072— -Matthews v.
Looney, dvJApp., 100 -S.W.2d 1061,
reversed on other grounds 123 S.
W.2d 871. 132 Tex. 513.
34 C.J. p 77 note 78.
Entry pending appeal
Mich.— Curth v. New York Life Ins.
Co., 265 N.W. 749, 274 Mich. 5X3.
34 C.J. p 77 note 78 [a].
Case is regarded as pending until
judgment rendered is correctly re-
corded.— Dunn v. Cravens, Detrgan &
Ce., Tex.Civ.App,, 97 S.W.2d*242,
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 120
Thus judgment may be entered mine pro tune
even after the term37 in which the judgment was
rendered,88 or at a subsequent term,8^ without any
showing of diligence40 or excuse for delay,41 al-
though long unexplained delay in moving may be
ground for denial of the application for entry nunc
pro tune.42 The limitation applicable to proceed-
ings to vacate, correct, or modify judgments have
no application to a motion for entry of a judgment
nunc pro tune.43
§ 120. Proceedings to Obtain
a. In general
b. Notice of application
c. Evidence
a. In General
An order for the entry of Judgment nunc pro tune
may be made by the court on its own motion or on a
motion or other proper request or application by a party
or Interested person.
The entry of a judgment nunc pro tune may be
ordered by the court on its own motion44 or on a
proper request or application,45 such as a motion,4*
made by a party47 or any interested person,48 in
the court of original jurisdiction.49 Persons who
are not parties to the judgment are not necessary
parties to the proceeding,60 and they will not be
permitted to intervene for the purpose of ques-
tioning the correctness of the judgment61 Formal
pleadings are unnecessary and inappropriate.52 The
sufficiency of the motion cannot be tested by demui^
rer or motion to strike out;53 but a demurrer to
an answer to the motion is properly sustained where
the answer is defective and subject to demurrer.54
The motion should be determined in a summary
manner.65 The case, according to the decisions
33. Ind.— In re Saric, 149 N.BJ. 484,
. 197 Ind. 1.
OkL — Woodmansee v. Woodmansee,
278 P. 278, 1S7 Okl. 112— Bowling
v. Merry, 217 P. 404, 91 Okl. 176.
Tex. — Kveton v. Farmers Royalty
Holding Co., Civ.App., 181 S.W.2d
588-^Matthews v. Looney, Civ.App.,
100 S.W.2d 10.61, reversed on oth-
er grounds 1218 S.W.2d 871, 182
Tex I31«.
87. j£0. — In re Kellam's Estate, 54
S.W.2d 401, 227 Mo.App. 291— La-
kin v. Blum, App., 48 S.W.2d 858.
In vacation
Nunc pro tune order by special
judge correcting Judgment was not
required to be entered in regular
term time or at a time when there
was a called special session.— O'Mara
v. Town of Mt Vernon, 185 S.W.2d
675,%299 Ky. 401.
38. % Kan.— Bush v. Bush, 150 P.2d
168, 158 Kan. 760— Schneider v.
Schneider, 78 P.2d 16, 147 Kan.
621.
39. Ind. — Corpus Juris cited in
Miller v. Muir, 56 N.B.2d <496, 504,
11*5 Ind.App. 3<35.
Neb.— Wescott v. 'Mathers, 268 N.
W. 2(31. 129 Neb. 846.
Tex. — Corpus Juris quoted in Gulf,
C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Canty, 285
S.W. 296, 301, 115 Tex 537— Jones
v. Sun Oil Co., Civ.App., 145 S.
W.2d 615, reversed on other
grounds 158 S.W.2d 571, 137 Tex.
3&3.
34 C.J. p 78 note 79.
40. Iowa.— Risser v. Martin, 53 N.
W. 270, 8*6 Iowa 892.
Tex. — Corpus Juris quoted in Gulf,
C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Canty, 285
SjW. 296, 301, 115 Tex. 537.
41. Iowa.— Tost v. Gadd, 288 N.W.
667, 227 Iowa 621.
42. Tex. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Canty,
285 S.W. "296, 30-1, 115 Tex. 5137.
34 C.J. p 78 note 83.
43. Tex.— Corpus Juris quoted in
Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Canty,
285 S.W. 2*6, SOI, 115 Tex. 537.
34 C.J. p 7*8 note 85.
44- Iowa.— Hobson v. Dempsey
Const Co., 7 N.W.2d 896, 282 Iowa
1226.
Tex.— Dowdle v. U. S. Fidelity &
Guaranty Co., Com. App., 255 S.W.
388— Kveton v. Farmers Royalty
Holding Co., Civ.App., 161 S.W.2d
5813— Jones v. Sun Oil Co.. Civ.
App., 145 S.W.2d 615, reversed on
other grounds 15iS S.W.2d 571t 1-37
Tex -3&3— Corpus Juris cited in
Nalle v. Walenta, Clv.App.} 102 S.
W.2d 1070, 1072— Matthews v.
Looney, Clv.App., 100 S.W.2d 1061,
reversed on other grounds 128 S.
W.2d 871, -U32 Tex 318— Martin
v. Abbott, Clv.App., 34 S.W.2d
488.
34 C.J. p 78 note 86.
45. Tex.— Kveton v. Farmers Roy-
alty Holding Co., Civ.App., 16-1 S.
W.2d 588— Matthews v. Looney,
CivjApp., 100 S.W.2d 1061, reversed
on other grounds 128 S.W.2d 871,
132 Tex. 313.
34 C.J. p 78 note 87.
46. U.S.— Wolfe v. Murphy, C.C.A.
Iowa, -1113 F.2d 775, certiorari de-
nied 61 S.Ct 1»8, 311 U.S. 200, 85
L.Ed. 454.
Ind.— Miller v. Muir, 5S N.B.2d 496,
115 Ind.App. $35.
S.C.— -Brown v. Coward, 21 S.C.L. 4.
34 C.J. p 78 note 87.
47. U.S.— Wolfe v. Murphy, CLOA.
Iowa, 118 F.2d 775, certiorari de-
nied *1 S.Ct 138, 811 U.S. 700, 85
L.Ed. 454.
Tex.— Corpus Juris cited in Nalle v.
Walenta, dv-App., 102 S.W.2d
253
1070, 1072— Martin v. Abbott, Civ.
App., 24 S.W.2d 488.
34 C.J. p 78 note 88 [d].
48. Ind.— Freestone v. State, 176 N.
B. 877, 98 Ind.Apb. 523.
34 C.J. p 78 note 88.
Person holding1 under purchaser of
property involved
Ga.— Ogletree v. Bray, 68 S.E. 7S9,
1135 Ga. 34.
49. La. — Riecobono v. Kearney, 114
So. 707, 164 La. 844.
50. Ind. — Urbanski v. Manns, 87
Ind. 585.
51. Ala.— Hillens v. Brinsfteld, 21
So. 208, 113 Ala. 804.
52* Ind. — Urbanski T. Manns, 87
Ind. 585.
34 C.J. P 78 note 91.
Complaint will be treated as motion.
Ind.— Miller v. Muir, 56 N.E.2d 496,
115 Ind.App. 335.
34 C.J. p 77 note 78 [a],
53. Ind.— Latta v. Griffith, 57 Ind.
•329.
34 C.J. p 79 note 92.
54. Ga. — Tanner v. Wilson, 198 S.E.
77, 58 Ga-App. 229.
55. ^Ind.- Urbanski v. Manns, 87
Ind. 585.
Searing
(1) The hearing of the motion
may be had in chambers and in a
county different from that In which
the verdict was obtained. — Chapman
v. Chatooga Oil Mill (Co., 96 S.B. 579,
22 Ga.App. 44*6.
(2) In a case where a hearing was
held, it was said that the court has
power to enter a judgment nunc pro
tune without a hearing, if no records
are changed and no different judg-
ment is entered. — Jones v. Sun Oil
Co., dv.App., 145 S.W.2d 615, re-
versed on other grounds 153 S.W.2&
571, 1*7 Tex. i
120
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
on the question, is not to be retried,56 and no
inquiry will be permitted into the merits of the orig-
inal action or the facts already established by the
judgment.57 In so far as the judgment is con-
cerned, the court may properly inquire only as to
whether any judgment was pronounced or ren-
dered,5fc and, if it was, what judgment was, rather
than what judgment might or ought to have been,
rendered,69 and whether it was omitted from the
record.60 The court is not called on to construe
the judgment, but only to enter of record such judg-
ment as was formerly rendered and not entered of
record as rendered.61 Furthermore, the court is
without authority to set aside the judgment or pre-
vent its enforcement, even though it is erroneous as
a matter of law.62
b. Notice of Application
The practice varies In different jurisdictions as to
requiring the giving of notice of an application for en-
try of a Judgment nunc pro tune.
In some jurisdictions a judgment may be en-
tered nunc pro tune without notice68 where the mo-
tion is based on matters of record, which cannot be
disputed by the opposite party,64 or where no dif-
ferent judgment is entered.65 However, where it
becomes necessary to look beyond the record, and
hear other evidence, notice must be given to the
adverse party,66 and the customary practice in a
number of jurisdictions is to require the giving of
notice of all applications for entry of judgment nunc
pro tune.67 It has been held that a judgment nunc
pro tune directed without notice to anyone is not
void;68 but it has also been held that such a judg-
ment entered at a subsequent term is invalid.69
c. Evidence
An order for entry of a judgment nunc pro tune may
be authorized or justified by record evidence; and, ac-
cording to the generally accepted rule, It must be based
on some entry, note, or memorandum in the records or
quasi records of the court.
In order that a judgment may be entered nunc
pro tune, it is necessary that there be evidence that
a judgment was actually rendered,70 except, of
course, cases where the judgment may be both ren-
dered and entered nunc pro tune.71 Record evi-
(S) In another case, however, one
of the grounds on which the entry
nunc pro tune of a judgment was
held erroneous was the absence of
an order, setting" the motion for
hearing at a future date. — Merrick
v. Merrick, 71 S.W.2d 4, 254 Ky. 145.
Submission to jury
(1) Court generally determines
whether judgment sought to be en-
tered nunc pro tune was actually
made; but it has discretion to sub-
mit the question to a jury. — Lum-
mus v. Alma State Bank, Tex.Civ.
App., 4 S.W.2d 195.
(2) Defendant who, in contesting
plaintiffs motion for nunc pro tune
Judgment, failed to request submis-
sion of defensive issue, raised by
answer waived submission. — Martin
v. Abfoott, Tex.Civ.App., 24 S.W.2d
488.
56. Tex. — Coast v. Coast, Civ-App.,
135 S.W.2d 790.
57. N.C.— Creed v. Marshall, 76 S.B.
270. 160 'N.C. .394.
34 C.X p 79 note 94.
£8. Tex. — Matthews v. Looney, Civ.
App., 100 S.W.2d 1061, reversed on
other grounds 12|3 S.W.2d 871, 1132
Tex. 3H3.
•59. Tex. — Coleman v. Zapp, 151 -S.W.
1040, 105 Tex. 49-1— Coast v. Coast,
Civ.App., 185 S.W.2d 790 — Dunn v.
Cravens, Dargan & Co., Civ.App.,
97 S.'W.2d 242.
«0. Tex. — Hannon v. Henson, Civ.
App., 7 S.W.2d 6118, affirmed, Com.
App., 15 S.'W.2d 579.
41. Ark. — Lourance v. Lankford, 153
S.W. 592, 106 Ark. 470. Ann.Cas.
1915A 520.
62. Tex. — Hannon v. Henson, Civ.
App., .7 S.W.2d 6H3, affirmed, Com.
App., 15 S.W.2d 579.
63. Okl. — Mayer v. Keener, 168 P.
2d 991, 195 Okl. 6*58.
64. Ala. — Morrison v. Covington, 100
So. 124, 211 Ala, 181.
Okl.— Mayer v. Keener, 168 P.2d 991,
195 Okl. ,658.
34 C.J. p 79 note 98.
65. Iowa. — Hobson v. Dempsey
Const. Co., 7 N.W.Sd 896, 332 Iowa
1226.
Tex. — Jones v. Sun Oil Co., Civ.App.,
145 S.W.2d 615, reversed on other
grounds 15i3 S.W.2d 571, 137 Tex.
858.
66. W.Va. — McClain v. Davis, 16 S.
E. '629, <37 W.Va. 350, 18 L.R.A.
6i34.
34 C.J. p 79 note 97.
67. Ind.— Miller v. Muir, 56 N.E.2d
496, 115 Ind.App. <3»35.
U C.J. p 79 note 98.
In vacation
Ky.— Merrick v. Merrick, 71 S.W.2d
4, 254 Ky. 145.
tfottoe held insufficient
Cal.— Mather v. Mather, 140 P.2d 808,
22 Cal.2d 7113.
Summons treated as notice
Ind.— Miller v. Muir, U N.E.2d 496,
115 Ind.App. (335.
lack of notice 1* waived by ap-
pearance.—Arnd v. Poston, 203 N.W.
260, 199 Iowa 931—34 OJ. p 79 note
98 [cj.
68. Mo.— Smith v. Kiene, 132 S.W.
1052, 231 Mo. 215. j
94 C.J. p 79 note 99. 1
254
69. Tex. — Henneman Grain & Seed
Co. v. Hill, Civ.App., .68 S.W.2d
525 — Stevenson v. Ftek, Civ.App.,
65 S.W.2d 507.
70. Okl. — Corpus Jails quoted in
McQuiston v. Tyler, 97 P.2d 552,
554, 186 Okl. 315.
34 C.J. p 79 note 1.
Clear and convincing proof that
the judgment which it is sought to
have entered is the one pronounced
in the cause is necessary. — Wind
Rock Coal & Coke Co. v. Bobbins, 1
Tenn.App. 734.
Evidence held sufficient
Kan.— Elliott v. Elliott, 114 P.2d 82'3,
154 Kan. 14*5.
Tex.— Dunn v. Cravens, Dargan' &
Co., Civ.App.f 97 S.W.2d 242.
34 C.J. p 79 note 1 [b].
Supplying formality
Where a judgment for plaintiffs
entered by prothonotary at plain-
tiffs' request was vulnerable to at-
tack because trial court, in overrul-
ing defendant's motion for judgment
non obstante veredicto, failed to cer-
tify the evidence and direct that
judgment be entered for plaintiffs,
and thereafter plaintiffs applied for
a rule to show cause why judgment
should not be stricken and a valid
one entered nunc pro tune, trial
court, in passing on plaintiffs' ap-
plication, was not reviewing the
original order but was supplying a
required formality and it was not re-
quired to consider the evidence or
rehear the merits.— Balch <v. Snick,
24 A.2d 548, 147 Pa.-Super. 273.
71, Okl.— Corpus Juris quoted in
McQuiston v. Tyler, 97 P.2d 552,
554, 18*6 Okl. 315.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 121
dence may be sufficient to authorize or justify the
entry of judgment nunc pro tune;72 and, according
to the generally accepted rule, the evidence to jus-
tify the entry of a judgment nunc pro tune must be
record evidence, that is, some entry, note, or mem-
orandum from the records or quasi records of the
court, which shows in itself, without the aid of
parol evidence, that the alleged judgment was ren-
dered.73 However, according to some authorities,
an entry nunc pro tune may be ordered on any evi-
dence that is sufficient and satisfactory, whether it
is parol or otherwise.74 Other authorities have held
that, when the fact that a judgment was formerly
rendered is established by record evidence, it is
proper to admit parol proof for the purpose of
showing its date, character, and terms, and the re-
lief granted.75
Great caution will be exercised in basing a nunc
pro tune entry on parol evidence.76 Parol evidence
is admissible to establish extrinsic facts sufficient to
defeat the application.77 Both parties are bound by
a decision of the trier of facts resolving a conflict
in the testimony as to matters alleged in opposition
to the entry.7*
An order for nunc pro tune entry of a judgment
need not set out the evidence on which it is based.7&
The presumption is that such an order made at a
subsequent term was based on competent evidence.80"
§ 121. Operation and Effect
Except as to the rights of third persons, a valid Judg-
ment which is properly entered nunc pro tune Is ret-
rospective and has the same force and effect as though
It had been entered at the time when the Judgment was
originally rendered.
Except as to the rights of third persons, a judg-
ment nunc pro tune is retrospective, and has the
same force and effect, to all intents and purposes,
as though it had been entered at the time when the
judgment was originally rendered.81 It aids and
72. Ky. — Gorman v. Lusk, 134 S.W.
2d 598, 280 Ky. 692.
Mo.— In re Kellam's Estate, 53 S.W.
2d 401, 227 Mo.App. 291— Pepple v.
Stacy, App., 282 S.W. «451.
Tenn. — Wind Rock Coal & Coke Co.
v. Bobbins, 1 Tenn.App. 754.
34 C.J. p 79 note 8 [a]-[c], [e], [f].
Anything- in record
Right to enter a nunc pro tune
judgment exists when. there is any-
thing in record which shows that a
Judgment was announced by court
— Arnd v. Poston, 203 N.W. 260, 199
Iowa 9l31.
Entries on docket, or memoranda on,
minutes of Judge
Ala.— Mt. Vernon-Woodberry Mills
v. Union Springs Guano Co., 155
So. 710, 26 Ala.App. 136, certiorari
denied 155 So. 716, 229 Ala. 91.
Tex.— Bradford v. Powell, Civ.App.,
163 S.W.2d 684, reversed in part on
other grounds 166 S.W.2d 346, 1419
Tex. 63 8— Community Natural Gas
Co. v. Henley, Civ.App., 11 S.W.2d
207, reversed on other grounds,
Com.App., 24 S.W.2d 10.
34 C.J. p 79 note .3 [c].
Written opinion
Ky.— Lee v. Lee, 11 S.W.2d 956, 226
Ky. 776.
34 C.J. p 79 note « [f].
Official reporter's shorthand notes
•wbicfc are part of record
Iowa. — Arnd v. Poston, 203 N.W.
260, 199 Iowa 951.
73. Ala.— Du Pree v. Hart, 8 So.2d
183, 242 Ala. 690.
m.— Wallace Grain & Supply Co. v,
Gary, 24 N.B.2d 907, 303 H1.APP
221, reversed on other grounds 28
N.E.2d 107, 574 111. 57— Wiggins v.
Union Trust Co. of Bast St. Louis,
266 IlLApp. 560— Brown v. Ham-
smith, 247 'ULApp. 358.
Ind.— Corpus Juris cited In Indian-
apolis Life Ins. Co. v. LundQuist,
53 N.B.2d <338, 340, 222 Ind. 359.
Ky.— Brannon v. Scott, 156 S.W.2d
164, 288 Ky. 3»34— Bowling v. Ev-
ans, 98 S.W.2d 916, 266 Ky. 242
— Corpus Juris auoted in Hoffman
v. Shuey, 2 S.W.2d 1049, 1053, 22i3
Ky. 70, 58 A.L.R. 842.
Mo.— Campbell v. Spotts, 55 S.W.2d
936, &31 -Mo. 974.
Tenn. — Gillespie v. Martin, 109 S.W.
2d 9&, 172 Tenn. 28.
34 C.J. p 79 note 3.
Oral announcement of the court's
decision or Judgment is not a suffi-
cient basis for the entry of a Judg-
ment nunc pro tune. — Du Pree v.
Hart, 8 So.2d 183, 242 Ala. 690—34
C.J. p 79 note 3 [i].
judge's recollection
An entry of judgment nunc pro
tune cannot be made simply on the
Judge's recollection of having ren-
dered such a Judgment, or of its
terms or amount.
Ky.— Brannon v. Scott, 156 S.W.2d
164, 288 Ky. 334.
Mo.--Campbell v. Spotts, 55 S.W.2d
98S. 0*1 Mo. 974.
34 ,C.J. P 79 note 3 [J].
74. Ark.— Brooks v. Baker, 187 S.W.
2d 169, 208 Ark. 654— Mitchell v.
Federal Land Bank of St Louis,
174 S.W. 671, 20:6 Ark. 253.
Okl.— Corpus Juris quoted in Mc-
Quiston v. Tyler, 97 P.2d 552, 554,
186 Okl. 315— Bowling v. Merry
217 P. 404, 91 Okl. 176.
Tex. — Jones v. Sun Oil Co., Civ.App.
145 S.W.2d 615, reversed on other
grounds 15S S,W.2d 571, 137 Tex
•353.
34 C.J. P 81 note 4.
255
Agreed Judgment
Tex.— Kluck v. Spitzer, Civ.App., 54
S.W.2d 1063.
75. N.H.— Frink V. Frink, 43 N.H.
508, 80 Am.D. 189, 82 Am.D. 172..
34 C.J. p 81 note 5.
76. Ark.— Brooks v. Baker, 187 S.W..
2d 169, 208 Ark. 654— Mitchell v.
Federal Land Bank of St. Louis,.
174 S.W.2d 671, 20$ Ark. 253.
Okl.— Corpus juris quoted in Me-
Quiston v. Tyler, 97 P.2d 552, £54,
186 Okl. 315.
34 C.J. p 81 note 6.
Character of parol evidence
The parol evidence should be dear,
decisive, unequivocal, and of suffi-
cient character and weight to over-
come the written memorial. — Brooks
v. Baker, 187 S.W.2d 1«9, 208 Ark.
654— Mitchell v. Federal Land Bank:
of St Louis, 174 S.W.2d 671, 206 Ark.
25,3— Midyett v. Kerby, 1«5 S.W. 674,
129 Ark. 301.
77. Okl. — Corpus Juris quoted in»
McQuiston v. Tyler, 97 P.2d 552,
554, 186 Okl. 315.
3»4 C.J. p 81 note 7,
Want of Jurisdiction
It may be shown that Judgment,
was void for lack of Jurisdiction. —
Coast v. Coast, Tex.Civ.App., 135 S.
W.2d 790,
78. Tex.— <Joast v. Coast, supra.
79. Mo.— Pepple v. Stacy, App., 28fr
S,W. 451.
80. Okl.— Corpus Juris auoted in.
McQuiston v. Tyler, 97 P.2d 552,
554, 1*6 Okl. 315— Bowling v. Mer-
ry, 217 P. 404, 91 Okl. 176.
34 C.J. P 81 note 8.
81. U.S.— Wolfe v. Murphy, C.C.A~
Iowa, 113 F.2d 775, certiorari de-
§ 121
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
cures prpceedings which otherwise would be defec-
tive and irregular for want of a proper entry of
judgment to sustain them.82 A nunc pro tune en-
try of record is competent evidence of the facts
which it recites,83 it is conclusive on any other
court in which the record is offered in evidence,84
and it. cannot be impeached collaterally, as discussed
infra § 402.
The effects of an entry nunc pro tune, however,
will be confined to the rights and interests of the
original parties, and it will not be allowed to preju-
dice the intervening rights of third persons without
notice.85 Also, where a judgment is void, it is not
validated by a nunc pro tune entry,86 and the court's
approval of such entry is of no effect.87 The court
may not, by a declaration of retrbactive effect, make
a judgment take effect as of a date when the case
was not ready for judgment;88 a judgment which,
by the order for its entry, is shown to have been
rendered on the date stated therein, cannot, by a
subsequent provision of the order, be made to take
effect as of an earlier date;89 and a direction of
• a judgment nunc pro tune becomes of no effect when
the court, in rendering the judgment, dates the
judgment as of the day it is filed.90 A final judg-
ment which has been entered is not affected by a
subsequent attempt to enter a different judgment
nunc pro tune.*1 It has been held that a judgment
is not effective as of the date to which it expressly
relates back if such effectiveness would deny to any
proper party the right of review by a higher court92
§ 122. Judgment Roll or Record
The filing of a Judgment roll or record consisting
of a more or less formal account of the proceedings is.
generally required by the statutes in the various juris-
dictions.
The ancient common-law method of perpetuating
judgments was by engrossing the proceedings on
parchment, which was called the judgment roll, and
constituted the record and the only evidence of the
judgment98 This practice has been largely, if not
entirely, discontinued and other methods have been
adopted in the various jurisdictions.94 Under some
statutes a formal judgment roll is required to be
made up by attaching together, and filing with the
clerk, the necessary papers.95 Under others a judg-
ment record, which is substantially equivalent to a
judgment roll, is required to be made up by copying
. nied 61 S.Ct Ii38, «11 U.S. 700, 85
L.Ed. 454.
Ala.— Poole v. Griffith, 112 So. 447,
216 Ala, 120.'
Cal.— Corbett v. Corbett, 298 P. 819,
11*3 CaLApp. 595.
Colo. — Corpus Juris cited in Dickson
v. Horn, 1 P.2d 96, 97, -89 Colo. 2<34.
Ind.— Miller v. Muir, 56 N.E.2d 496,
115 Ind.App. 335.
Iowa. — Arnd v. Poston, 205 NVW. 2'60,
199 Iowa 931 — Brooks v. Owen, 202
ST.W. 505, 200 Iowa 1151, modified
on other grounds 20-6 N.W. 149.
Ky. — Gorman v. Lusk, 1-34 S.W.2d
598, 280 Ky. 692— Corptis Juris
quoted in Hoffman v. Shuey, 2 S.
W.2d 1049, 1052, 223 Ky. 70, 58
AJi.Xfc. #42.
Okl. — In re Cannon's Guardianship,
77 P.2d 64, 182 Okl. 171.
Term,— Corpus juris quoted in. Crum
v. Fillers, 6 Tenn.App. 547, 558.
34 C.J. p 81 note 9.
82. Ky. — Gorman v. Iiusk, U34 S.W.
2d 598, 280 Ky, 692— Corpus Juris
auoted in, Hoffman v. Shuey, % S.
W.2d 1049, 1052, 22-3 Ky. 70, 58
A.L..R. 842.
Tenn. — Corpus Juris quoted in Crum
v. Fillers, .6 Tenn.App. 547/558. .
34 C.J. p 82 note 10 [a].
Validation of execution see Execu-
tions \ 9»
83* Ind.— Cogswell v. State, 65 Ind.
1.
Okl. — Corpus Juris quoted in In re
Cannon's Guardianship, 77 P.2d 64,
.66, 182 Okl. 171— Bowling: v. 'Mer-
ry, 217 P. 404, 91 OkL 176.
84. OkL — Corpus Juris quoted in
In re Cannon's Guardianship, 77
P.2d 64, 66, 182 OkL 171.
34 C.J. p 82 note 13.
85. U.S. — In re Ackerznann, CCA.
Ohio, 82 F.2d 971.
Ky. — Corpus Juris quoted in Hoff-
man v. Shuey, 2 SJW.2d 1049, 10(2,
233 Ky. 70, 58 A.L.R. 842.
N.C. — Con-Bs-Tee Chemical Co. v.
Long, 114 S.B. 465, 184 N.C. -398.
Tenn.— Corpus Juris quoted in Crum
v. Fillers, 6 TennJlpp. 547, 558.
Purchaser or encumbrancer in good
faith
(1) In general — Hobson v. t>emp-
sey Const Co., 7 N.W.2d 896, 2«2
Iowa 1226.
(2) Person perfecting Hen based
on preexisting debt between time of
original judgment and nunc pro tune
entry is not bona fide purchaser. —
In re Ackermann, CC.A.Ohio, 82 F.
2d 971.
Prejudice to intervening rights of
third persons as preventing entry
nunc pro tune entirely or other-
wise than on conditions preserving
such rights see supra $ 118.
86. Ohio. — Ludlow v. Johnston, 3
Ohio 55>3, 17 Am.D. 609.
34 C.J. p 82 note 10 [b].
87. Pa. — Gedrich v. Yaroscz, 156 A,
575, 102 Ra.Super. 127.
88. Va,— Gandy T. Elizabeth City
County, 19 S.E.Sd 97, 179 Va. 340.
Ripeness of case for judgment at
date to which judgment is to re-
late back as essential to nunc
pro tune entry see supra S 118 b.
256
89. W.Va.— Baker v. Gaskins, 24 S.
B.2d 277, 125 W.Ve. 326.
90. Cal.— Mather v. Mather, 140 P.
2d 808, 22 Cal.2d 713.
01. Tex. — Brennan v. Greene, Civ.
App., 154 S,W.2d 5213, error re-
fused.
Stated otherwise, and more broad-
ly, a nunc pro tune order is inef-
fective to alter as of a prior date
the action then taken. — State ex rel.
Hedrick v. Hartford Accident & In-
demnity Co. of Hartford, Conn., 114
P.2d $12, 154 Kan. 79.
92. Ohio.— Porter v. Iierch, 198 KJH.
7.66, 129 Ohio St 47.
Harmless error in entry nunc pro
tune see Appeal and Error § 1795.
Nunc pro tune entry as affecting
commencement of limitation for
appeal see Appeal and Error §445.
93. Ind. — Corpus Juris cited in
. Town of Flora v. Indiana Service
Corporation, 58 N.R2d 161, 168,
222 Ind. 25!3.
N.T. — Croswell v. Byrnes, 9 Johns.
287.
Okl. — Dime Savings & Trust Co. v.
Able, 94 P.2d 834, 185 Okl. 461.
54 C.J. p 82 note 1«7.
Court records generally see Courts
55 225-237.
94. Cal.— Hahn v. Kelly, <34 CaL 391,
424, 94 Am.D. 742.
95. Idaho.— Witt v. Beals, 169 P.
182, '31 Idaho 84.
34 C.J. p 82 note 19.
Contents of judgment roll see in-
fra § 125.
49 G.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 124
the proceedings with more or less detail into books
kept for that purpose.96 In some jurisdictions nei-
ther a judgment roll nor a formal judgment record
is required, and the record of the judgment con-
sists of the filed papers supplemented by the entries
made by the clerk.97 Even very informal memo-
randa by the clerks have in some instances been
deemed sufficient as the record of a judgment;98
and, for some purposes at least, the clerk's files and
minutes have been held to constitute the record un-
til such time as the record is fully extended or the
judgment roll made up."
The validity of a judgment does not depend on
making up the formal judgment roll or judgment
record,1 although this may be necessary for certain
purposes, such as to enable the judgment to be reg-
ularly docketed, as discussed infra § 126, so as to
become a lien, as discussed infra § 463, or to sup-
port an execution, as discussed in Executions § 9,
or to limit the time for an appeal or writ of error,
as considered in Appeal and Error § 445. The term
"judgment roll" is strictly applicable only to civil
cases,2 although the term has been applied to the
.record in a criminal prosecution.8 In probate pro-
ceedings there is, strictly speaking, no judgment
roll,4 but whenever proceedings are so akin to a
civil action as to necessitate the papers which are
declared by a statute to constitute the judgment roll
in a civil action, they may be held to constitute the
judgment roll for the purpose of appeal.5
§ 123. Time of Making and Filing
Generally the clerk Is required to make up the judg-
ment roll Immediately after entry of the Judgment.
Under most statutes the clerk is required to make
up the judgment roll immediately after the entry of
the judgment6 Until the judgment is entered in ac-
cordance with the rules discussed supra §§ 106-112,
there is no authority to make and file a judgment
roll.?
§ 124. By Whom Made and Filed
The duty of making and filing the Judgment roll
usually rests on the clerk, but the attorney for the suc-
cessful party may, and under some statutes must, pre-
pare the Judgment roll for the clerk to file.
Although the making, and filing of the judgment
roll is usually made the duty of the 'clerk,8 in actual
practice it is generally made up by the attorney of
the- successful party.9 Under some statutes it is
the duty of such attorney to prepare and furnish
the judgment roll to the clerk,10 except that the
clerk must attach thereto necessary original papers
on file;11 but the clerk may, at his option, make up
the entire judgment roll.12 In the absence of stat-
ute so requiring, the successful party cannot be
compelled to furnish a judgment roll.13 In any
event, when properly made up, the judgment roll
must be filed by the clerk.14
96. 'Neb.— Colonial & W. S. Mortg.
Co. v. Foutch, 47 N.W. 929, 31
Neb. 282. ,
3*4 C.J. p 82 note 20.
"Record" defined
"A judicial record is a precise his-
tory of a suit from its commence-
ment to its termination, including
the conclusion of law thereon drawn
by the proper officer for the purpose
of perpetuating the exact state of
facts."
Neb.— Surge v, Gandy, 59 N,W. 359,
41 Neb. 149.
Old.— Dime Savings & Trust Co. v.
Able, 94 P.2d 884, *35, 185 Okl.
461.
97. 111.— -Stevison T. Earnest, 80 HI.
51.3.
$4 C.J. p 82 note 51.
98. U.S.— Cromwell v. Bank of
Pittsburgh, C.C.Pa,, 6 F.Cas.NoJ3,-
409, 2 WalLJr. 569.
34 C.J. p 83 note 22.
99. Ala.— Ansley v. Carlos, 9 Ala.
97i3.
34 C.J. p 83 note 23.
1. S.C.— Connor v. McCoy, 65 S.B.
257, 83 S.C. 165.
34 C.J. p 83 note 25.
49 C.J.S.-17
Necessity of entry of judgment see
supra S 107.
Effect of delay
Where a memorandum of decision
constitutes a judgment of the court,
the subsequent clerical action in
writing out the judgment file relates
back to the time the memorandum
was filed, so that, no matter how
long such action is postponed, it
cannot be regarded as the rendering
of a different and later judgment. —
Goldberg v. Krayeske, 128 A, 27, 102
Conn. 137.
2. Wis. — Green Lake County v.
Waupaca County, 89 N.W. W9.
113 Wis. 425.
3. U.S.— Ball v. U. S.f Alaska, 147 F.
32, 78 C.C.A. 126.
4. Utah.— In re Kelsey, 4(3 P. 106,
12 Utah 393.
5. Utah.— In re Xelsey, supra.
34 C.J. p 83 note 35.
6. Minn.— Rockwood v. Davenport,
55 N.W. 377, 37 Minn. PSS, 5 Am.
S.R. 872.
34 C.J. p 83 note 36.
•Undated record of judgment .is
not void,— McDonald v. Mulkey, 210
P. 940, 29 Wyo. 99.
257
7. Utah.— Robinson v. Salt I^ake
City, 109 P. 817, 37 Utah 520.
34 C.J. p 8>3 note $8.
8. Minn. — Rockwood v. Davenport,
35 NJW. 377, £7 Minn. 5-33, 5 Am.
S.R. 872.
34 C.J. p 83 note 39.
9. N.T.— Dailey v. Northern New
York Utilities, 221 N.T.S. 52, 129
Misc. 18:3.
34 C.J. p 83 note 40.
10. N.T.— Dailey v. Northern New
York Utilities, supra— McWilliams,
Inc. v. ^Btna Insurance Co., 198
N.Y.S. 681, 120 Misc. 117.
34 C.J. p 8.3 note 41.
11. N.Y.— Knapp v. Roche, 82 N.Y.
.366— Heinemann v. Waterbury, 18
N.Y.Super. 686.
12. N.Y. — Knapp v. Roche, 82 N.Y.
366 — Dailey v. Northern New York
Utilities, 221 N.Y.S. 52, 129 Misc.
1813.
13. N.Y.— Heinemann v. Waterbury,
18 N.Y.Super. 686.
14. N.Y. — Dailey v. Northern New
York Utilities, 221 N.Y.S. 52, 129
Misc. -183.
W C.J. p 83 note 24,
§ 125
§ 125.
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
— — Contents and Sufficiency
a. In general
b. Particular matters
c. Amendment of the roll
d. Signature
a. In General
In general the Judgment roll or record properly In-
cludes all papers necessary to support the judgment or
specified by statute, and any matters Involving the mer-
its of the action and necessarily affecting the Judgment.
The record proper, or technical record, corre-
sponds with the common-law judgment roll,15 and
a judgment roll should contain only such papers as
constitute a part of that record.16 Unless a par-
ticular matter is in its nature a proper matter of
record in the case, it cannot be made such by being
inserted in, and attested as part of, the record, or
judgment roll, by the clerk.1? In a general sense,
all the files and minutes of the court are often
spoken of, in modern times, as records of courts,
and this use of the term tends to lead to a confu-
sion of ideas.18 The record is said to be a memori-
al or history of the proceedings in a cause,19 but
this is not to be taken to mean that such record
necessarily or usually embraces all the proceedings,
for there are many proceedings during the progress
of a case of which no minute or record is made.20
Generally speaking, it may be said that the judg-
ment roll or record properly comprises all the pro-
ceedings on which the judgment is founded and to
which, as matter of record, it necessarily refers.21
It includes all papers necessary to support the judg-
ment22 or specified by the statute,23 and generally
any matters involving the merits of the action and
necessarily affecting the judgment,24 but not inter-
locutory rulings or the proceedings on collateral or
incidental issues in the case25 unless made part of
the record by bill of exceptions which, as appears
infra subdivision b of this section, constitutes a
part of the judgment roll or record, or by order of
court26 Where the statute specifies the contents
of the judgment roll, matters not specified form no
part of it, and need not,27 and should not,28 be in-
cluded. On the other hand, failure to include all
the necessary or proper papers does not- affect the
validity of the judgment.29
Substantial compliance with the requirements of
the statute as to the manner of making up and filing
15. Idaho.— Evans v. District Court
of Fifth Judicial Dist, 29$ P. 323,
50 Idaho 60.
Okl. — Dime Savings & Trust Co. v.
Able, 94 P.2d S34f 185 Okl. 461.
34 C.J. p 8i3 note 46.
16. Mont— Featherman v. Granite
County, 72 P. 972, 28 Mont. 462.
17. Cal.— Colton Land & Water Co.
v. Swartz, 38 P. 878, 99 Cal. 278,
34 C.J. p 84 note 60.
18. Cal.— Hahn v. Kelly, 134 Cal 891,
94 Am.D. 742.
34 C.J. p 84 note 52.
13. Okl.— -Dime Savings & Trust Co.
v. Able, 94 P.2d 834, 185 Okl. 461.
3«4 C.J. p 84 note 68.
20. Conn.— Nichols T. Bridgeport
27 Conn. 459.
N.Y. — Hoe v. Sanborn, 24 How.Pr. 26,
affirmed 36 N.T. 95.
34 C.J. p 84 note 54.
81. Fla.— St Lucie Estates v. Palm
Beach Plumbing Supply Co., 1-35
So. 841, 101 Fla. 205.
Okl.— Sabin v. Levorsen, 145 P.2d
402, 19i3 Okl. 520, -certiorari denied
64 S.Ct 205, 320 U.S. 792, 88 L.Ed.
477, rehearing denied 64 S-Ct 368,
1320 U.S. 815, 88 L.Ed. 4*92— Dime
Savings & Trust Co. v. Able, 94 P.
2d 8)34, 185 Okl. 461— Leonard Y.
s Tulsa Building & Loan Ass'n, 88
P.2d 875, 184 Okl. 558— Shaw v.
Grumbine, 278 P. 911, 1137 Okl. 95
— State Bank of Dakoma v. Wea-
ber, 256 P. 50, 125 OkL 186— Le
. Clair v. Calls Him, 233 P. 1087, 106
P.
Okl. 247— Mitchell v. White,
74,6, 106 Okl. 218.
34 C.J. p 84 note 57.
Record held sufficient
Where county court's record show-
ed on its -face a petition stating a
cause of action, a waiver of sum-
mons, and a voluntary appearance by
defendant recital that evidence was
heard, and a judgment against de-
fendant, record was sufficient to
show jurisdictional facts.— Wallace
v. Peterson, 284 NJW. 866, 136 Neb.
39.
A placita for the term at which
judgment was entered is sufficient to
show the legal organization of the
court.— Calbreath v. Beckwith, 260
IU.APP. 7— Leafgreen v. Leafgreen,
127 IlLApp. 184.
Errors of law committed by court
o$ general jurisdiction in exercising
jurisdiction over subject matter sub-
mitted to court by constitution or
statutes are not reflected in judg-
ment roll. — Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry*
Co. v. Co-operative Pub. Co., 247 P.
974, 119 Okl. 76— Chicago, R. I. &
P. Ry. Co. v. Oklahoma State Bank
of Atoka, 247 P. 31, 118 Okl. 129.
22. N.Y. — Gerity v. Seeger & Guern-
sey Co., 57 N.E. 290, 163 N.Y. 119.
34 C.J. p 84 note 58.
23. OkL— Sabin v. Levorsen, 145 P.
2d 402, 193 Okl. i320, certiorari de-
nied 64 S.Ct 205, (320 U.S. 792, 88
L.Ed. 477, rehearing denied 64 S.
Ct (368,. 820 U.S. 815, 88 L.Ed 492
— Dime Savings & Trust Co. v.
Able, 94 P.2d 834, 185 OkL 461—
258
Leonard v. Tulsa, 88 P.2d 875, 184
. Okl. 558 — Shaw v. Grumbine, 278
P. 311, 137 Okl. 95— State Bank of
Dacoma v. Weaber, 256 IP. 50, 125
Okl. 186— Le Clair v. Calls Him,
2-3.3 P. 1087, 106 OkL 247— Mitchell
v. White, 233 P. 746, 106 Okl. 218.
34 C.J. p 84 note 59.
24. S.D.— Rapids City First N<at,
Bank v. McGuire, 80 N.W. 1074,
12 S.D. 226, 76 Am.S.R. 598, 47 L.R.
A. 41*.
34 C.J. p 85 note 60.
25, Idaho.— Biasing v. Biasing, 115
P. 827, 19 Idaho 777.
34 C.J. p 85 note 61.
26- N.Y. — Dr. David Kennedy Corp.
v. Kennedy, 59 N.E. 183, 165 N.Y.
1353.
34 C.J. p 85 note 63.
27. CaL— Brown v. Caldwell, 108 P.
874, 13 CaLApp. 29.
34 C.J. p 85 note 64.
28. N.Y. — Schrader v. Pranckel, 99
N.Y.S. 137, 113 App.Div. 395.
34 C.J. p 85 note 65.
Motion to strike
The unsuccessful party may move
to strike out irrelevant papers, but
he should specify the papers claimed
to be unnecessarily included in the
judgment roll and point out where-
in they were improperly included.
—Peters v. Berkeley, 219 N.Y.S. 709,
219 App.Div. 261.
29. N.Y.— -Decker v. Dutcher, 28-1 N.
Y.S. 897, 15,6 Misc. 488, reversed on
other grounds 289 N.Y.S. 55(3, 247
App.Div. 689.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 125
a judgment roll is sufficient,8** but necessary31.
Provisions regulating the mode of making up and
filing a judgment roll have been deemed merely di-
rectory.32 A defective judgment roll is not a nul-
lity,33 nor does it invalidate the judgment, which
continues to be supported by the usual presump-
tions.34 A variance between an order as entered
in his minutes by the clerk and such order as drawn
up and inserted in the judgment roll is, it has been
held, a matter of mere irregularity.3^ Failure to
fasten the proper papers together, as required by
statute, does not prevent such papers from consti-
tuting the judgment roll.36 Ordinarily copies may
be used in lieu of original papers in making up
judgment rolls.37
b. Particular Matters
Whether or not a particular matter It a proper or
necessary part of the Judgment roH or record depends
on statutory requirements and whether or not It Is nec-
essary to support the Judgment.
Whether or not a particular matter is a proper
or necessary part of the judgment roll or record
depends on statutory provisions and on whether or
not such matter is necessary to support the judg-
ment.38
Process, proof of service, and appearance. The
writ, summons, or original process,39 together 'with
the necessary indorsement thereon,40 and proof of
service,41 are proper and necessary parts of the
judgment roll or record, at least where there is a
default for want of an appearance or answer.42
Proof of service of process, however, need not ap-
pear in the roll or record where defendant entered
a general appearance in the action, or pleaded to
the declaration or complaint,43 or, it has been held,
where the judgment contains a recital of due serv-
ice.44 Where the service is by publication, neither
the affidavit nor the order for publication is a part
of the judgment roll or record,45 and their absence,
therefore, does not show invalidity of the judgment
30. N.Y.— Sean T. Bumham, 17 N.
Y. 445.
34 C.J. p 85 note 66.
31. N.Y.— Townshend v. Wesson, 11
N.Y.Super. 842.
Wis.— Douvllle v. Merrlck, 25 Wis.
688,
32. N.Y. — Stimson v. Hugging, 16
Barb. 658, 9 HowJPr. 86.
N.C.— Brown v. Harding, 89 S.B. 222,
in N.C. 686.
33. N.Y.— Miller T. White, 54 Barb.
4S4, 10 Abb.Pr.,N.S., 385, reversed
on other grounds 50 N.Y. 137.
34. Minn.— Herrick v. Butler, 14 N.
W. 794, 30 Minn. 156.
34 OJ. p 85 note 72.
35. N.Y.— Martin V. Lett, 4 Abb.Pr.
565.
36. S.C.— Melchers T. Moore, 40 S.E.
773, 62 S.C. 386.
34 C.J. p 85 note 69.
37. Minn.— State v. Sargent, 177 N.
W. 4313. 145 Minn. 448.
38« CaL— <k>pp v. Hives, 217 P. 8113,
62 CaLApp. 776.
34 C.J. p 89 note 86.
Matters held properly included
(1) Return by proper officer, In
cases involving validity of judg-
ments.— Eidson v. McDaniel, 114 So.
204, 2T6 Ala. 610.
(2) Award of arbitrators and
agreement of parties owning adjoin-
ing lands respecting construction of
dam, filed in court. — druse's Bx'r v.
Haggard, 44 SJW.2d 290, 241 Ky. 442.
03) Motion for a new trial, — Qreen
v. Stevens, 1 Ky.Op. 36.
(4) Other matters.— McDonald v.
Mulkey, 210 P. 940, 29 Wyo. 99—
34 C.J. p 89 note #6 [a].
Matters held not properly included
(1) Motion for substitution of par-
ties.— Savoy Oil Co. T. Emery, 277
P. 1029, Ii37 OkL 67.
(2) Motion for revivor.— Dime Sav-
ings & Trust Co. v. Able, 94 P.2d 834,
185 Okl. 461— Adams v. Carson, 25 (P.
2d 6513, 165 OkL 161— Savoy Oil Co.
v. Emery, supra.
03) Motion to set aside default and
affidavits in support thereof. — Mad-
sen v. Hodson, 256 P. 792, 69 Utah
527— Cornelius v. Mohave Oil Co.,
2*39 P. 475, 66 Utah 22.
(4) Notice of motion to dismiss
declaratory Judgment action. — Sie-
vers v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.,
134 P.2d 850, 57 CaLApp.2d 455<
(5) Notation on back of record.—
Grasso v. Frattolillo, 149 A. 838,
111 Conn. 20*9.
(6) Mortgage canceled and merged
into judgment. — Bledsoe v. Green,
280 P. 301, 1*8 Okl. 15.
(7) Matter of beginning and end-
ing of terms of court. — Salt Lake
City v. Industrial Commission, 22 P.
2d 1046, 812 Utah 179.
(8) Minutes made by trial judge
on his trial docket — Gates v. Gates,
163 <P.2d 395, 160 Kan. 428.
(9) Other matters. — Malaauias v.
Novo, 1)38 P.2d 729, 59 CaLApp.2d
225—94 C.J. p 89 note $6 [b].
Notice of controverting affidavit
Failure of record to contain copy
of service on defendant of notice of
affidavit controverting his plea of
privilege was not fatal to judgment
overruling plea of privilege where
judgment disclosed that trial court
ffcund that attorney appeared for
defendant at hearing on plea of priv-
ilege.—Thomas v. Driver, Tex.Civ.
App., 55 S.W.2d 187, error dismissed.
of Commerce and Commercial Bul-
letin, 259 IU.App. 453.
Ohio. — Terry v. Claypool, .65 NJS.2d
88i3, 77 Ohio App. 77.
Tex. — Litton v. Waters, Civ.App., 161
S.W.2d 1095, error refused.
34 C.J. p 85 note 77.
40. Va. — Nadenbush v. Lane. 4
Rand. 4113, 25 Va. 41*.
41. Ohio. — Terry v. Claypool, 65 N.
E.(2d 883. 77 Ohio App. 77.
34 C.J. p 85 note 79.
42. N.Y.— -Issem v. Slater, 27 N.T.S.
2d 871, 262 App.Div. 59, reargu-
ment denied 29 N.Y.S.2d 505, 262
App.Div. 8<34, appeal dismissed 37
N.R2d 144, 286 N.T. 70S.
34 C.J. p 85 note 80.
Amended complaint
Judgment roll must disclose that
amended complaint was served or
service thereof was waived, where
judgment was by default — Griffith v.
Montana Wheat Growers' Ass'n,.24'4
P. 277, 75 Mont. 466,
43. N.Y,— Issem v. Slater, 37 N.Y.
S.2d 871, 2*62 App.Div. 59, reargu-
ment denied 29 N.Y.S.2d 505, 262
App.Div. 834, appeal dismissed 87
N.E.2d 144, 286 N.Y. 708.
<34 C.J. p 85 note 82.
Acceptance of service
Where defendant's acceptance of
service is relied on, record must
show that court ascertained by proof
that defendant had accepted service
of summons and when. — Williams v.
Chase Nat. Bank of New York, 174
So. 788. 234 Ala. 238— Kent v. Kent,
139 So. 240, 224 Ala. 183.
44. OkL — Weimer v. Augustana
Pension and Aid (Fund, 67 P.2d
436, 179 Okl. 572.
39. HL— Sherman & Ellis v. Journal 45. Utah. — Intermlll v. Nash, 75 P.
259
§ 125
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
on the face of the judgment roll;46 and even if
inserted, they could not be considered.47 Where
the judgment recites that service was proper, proof
of mailing copies of the petition and notice of pub-
lication to defendant is not a necessary part of the
roll or record.48 The affidavit of publication of the
writ or summons is a necessary part of the roll or
record,49 and some cases hold that the affidavit and
order for publication must also be included as con-
stituting part of the proof of service of process.50
A formal appearance filed in the action is a part of
the record;51 but, when not included in the statu-
tory enumerations of matters forming part of the
judgment roll, a notice of appearance has been held
to be not a part of such roll.52
Pleadings. Both under express statutory provi-
sion and in the absence thereof, the pleadings in
the case, or copies .thereof, are a proper and. nec-
essary part of the judgment roll or record.53 Thus
the declaration, petition, or complaint,54 and the
plea or answer,55 or demurrer,56 and a replication
or reply,57 are parts of the record proper and should
be included in the judgment roll. It has been held,
however, that the omission of a pleading, while an
irregularity, will not vitiate the judgment or exe-
cution.58 Where defendant does not answer or oth-
erwise plead to the declaration but makes def auh,
that fact must appear.59 Pleadings which have been
withdrawn60 or superseded by amended pleadings61
need not be included in the roll or record, and if
improperly incorporated therein may be stricken out
on motion.62 It is not necessary to include in the
judgment roll the answer of a defendant as to whom
the action was discontinued.68
Bitt of particulars. It is only where a bill of
particulars involves the merits, or of necessity af-
fects the judgment, that it should be made part of
the judgment roll.64
Evidence. In common-law cases, the evidence,,
including papers acted on only as a matter of evi-
dence, unless made so by bill of exceptions or some
substitute therefor, forms no part of the record.65
Orders. Unless they involve the merits of the ac-
tion and necessarily affect the judgment, or are
expressly provided for by statute, orders entered in
the cause are not properly a part of the judgment
roll or record,66 although they may be made part
of the record by direction of the court67
2d 157, 94 Utah 271— Hoagland y.
Hoagland, '57 P. 20, 19 Utah 103.
Si C.J. p 86 note 84.
46. Utah.— Intermill Y. Nash, 75 P.
2d 157, 94 Utah 271.
34 C.J. p 86 note 85.
47. Gal. — People v. Temple, -87 P.
414, 103 Cal. 447.
48. Okl. — Washburn v. Culbertson,
75 P.2d 190, 181 Okl. 476— -Weimer
v. Augustana Pension and Aid
Fund, 67 P.2d 436, ,179 Okl. 572.
49. U.S. — Neffi v. Pennoyer, C.C.Or.,
17 F.Cas.No.10,083, <3 Sawy. -274,
affirmed 9'5 U.S. 714, 24 (L.Bd. 565.
34 C.J. p 86 note 87.
50. CaL— - People v. Herod, 295 P.
38.3, 111 CaLApp. 246.
34 C.J. p 86 notes $8, 89 [a].
51. 111.— Baldwin v. McClelland, 58
N.B. 143, 152 111. 42.
52. Cal. — Lyons v. Roach, 23 P.
1026, 84 Cal. 27.
34 C.J. p 86 note 91.
53. Cal. — Sievers v. Pacific Gas &
Electric Co., 134 P.2d 850, 57 CaL
Ap>p.2d 4'55.
Tex. — Hatch v. Kubena, Civ.App., 190
S.W.2d 175, reversed on other
grounds Kubena v. Hatch, Sup.,
193 S.W.2d 175.
34 C.J. p 86 note 92.
A, frivolous pleading- on which
judgment is ordered is not stricken
out, but remains on the record and
becomes a part of the judgment roll.
—Commercial Bank v. Spencer, 76 N.
Y. 155.
54. Okl. — Excise Board of Carter
County T. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry.
Co., -3 P.2d 1037, 152 Okl. 120.
34 C.J. j> 86 note 94.
55. N.Y. — Hatcher v. Rocheleau, 18
N.T. 8-6.
34 C.J. p 86 note 95.
58. N.Y.— Thornton r. St Paul &
Chicago R. Co., 6 Daly 511.
34 C.J. p 86 note 96.
57. N.Y.— Graham y. Schmidt 3 N.
YJSuper. 74.
34 C.J.'«p 86 note 97.
68. N.Y.— Renouil v. Harris, 4 N.Y.
Super. 641, 3 Code Rep. 71.
'34 C.J. p 86 note 99.
59. Idaho. — Harpold v. Doyle, 102
P. 158, 16 Idaho 671.
34 C.J. p 86 note 2.
60. N.Y.— Hatcher v. Rocheleau, 18
N.Y. 86.
34 C.J. p 8-6 note 3.
61. N.Y.— -Brown v. Saratoga R. Co.,
18 N.Y. 495.
34 C.J. p 87 note 4.
62. N.Y.— Dexter v. Dustin, 24 N.Y.
$. 129, 70 Hun 51*.
63. N.Y. — BohnhofC v. Fischer, IS 2
N.Y.S. 603, 147 Ajyp.Div. 672.
64. N.Y. — Arrow S. S. Co. v. Ben-
nett, 26 N.Y.S. 948, 23 N.YXJiv.
Proc. 234.
34 O.J. P 87 note 7.
65. Me.— Kirby v. Wood, 16 Me. 81.
W.Va. — Anderson v. Doolittle, 18 S.
B. 724, -38 W.Va. 629.
260
66. Cal.— Hogan v. Superior Court
of California in and for City and
County of San Francisco, 241 P.
•584, 74 CaLApp. 704.
34 C.J. p 87 note 13.
Orders part of Judgment roll or rec-
ord
(1) Order amending a pleading.
— Borden v. Lynch, 87 P. -609, -34
Mont. 503.
(2) Other orders.— Powell v. May,
74 P. SO, 29 Mont. 71—34 C.J. p 87
note 16 [a].
Orders not part of Judgment roll or
record
(1) Court's order confirming or
modifying findings of referee to as-
certain fact ^necessary to enable
court to determine action. — Nation-
al Brass Works v. Weeks, 268 P.
412, 92 Cal.App. 318.
(2) Minute order dismissing fore-
closure action as to -plaintiff's ven-
dor.—Wendt v. Gates, 283 P. 313,
.102 CaLApp. 342, followed in Wendt
v. -Stump, 283 P. 313, 102 Cal.App.
794.
(3) Other orders.
Cal.— Woods v. Hyde, 222 P. 16'8, 64
CaLApp. 43-3.
Utah. — Madsen v. Hodson, 256 P.
792, 69 Utah 527.
34 C.J. p 87 note 16 [b],
67. N.Y. — Dr. David Kennedy Corpv
v. Kennedy, 59 N.B. 133, 165 N.Y.
353.
34 C.J. p 87 note 15.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§125
The verdict, decision, findings, or report on which
the judgment is founded, is a proper and necessary
part of the judgment roll or record,68 but in a num-
ber of instances exceptions have been made to this
rule.69 Where defendant in an action has appeared
and issue has been joined, it must appear from the
judgment roll how that issue has been disposed of
so as to authorize the court to proceed to judg-
ment.70
A bill of exceptions constitutes a part of the
judgment roll or record in most jurisdictions;71
but it is otherwise under some statutes.72 Where
the statute so provides, if judgment is taken after
a trial the judgment roll must contain "the excep-
tions or case then on file/'73
Judgment. The judgment roll or record must
contain, of course, a copy of the final judgment,74
and also a copy of any interlocutory judgment ren-
dered in the cause,76 unless, by amendment of
pleadings or otherwise, the interlocutory judgment
has been superseded or become functus officio.76
Costs. Papers used on taxation of costs do not
constitute any part of the judgment roll or record.77
Appeal papers and subsequent proceedings. Un-
der a statute so providing, if a judgment of affirm-
ance is rendered on appeal to a designated appellate
court, the judgment roll consists of a copy of the
judgment annexed to the papers on which the ap-
peal was heard.78
c. Amendment of the Boll
The judgment roll may be corrected 'by amendment
or by the addition of proper papers.
All papers incorporated into the judgment roll
and required to form part of it may be detached by
the clerk, and any amendments made which are nec-
essary to make it conform with accuracy to the pro-
ceedings that have been had.79 If necessary or
proper papers are omitted in the judgment roll, such
papers may be added80
d. Signature
Failure of the clerk to sign the Judgment as re-
quired Is at most an Irregularity which does not af-
fect the validity of the judgment and Is subject to cor-
rection.
Although the clerk of the court should attest the
judgment roll or entry by his signature, his failure
to do so is at most an irregularity, and does not
affect the validity of the judgment81 It is a cleri-
cal error82 which the court may and should allow
to be corrected at any time nunc pro tune.83 Un-.
03. Nev.— McGill v. 'iLewis, 118 P.
2d 702, 61 Nev. 40.
8* C.J. p 1195 note 62 [c]— 84 C.J. P
87 note 17.
69. Findings of fact
(1) The incorporation of court's
findings of facts into Judgment was
unnecessary. — Wann v. Reading Co.,
108 S.W.2d 899, 194 Ark. 541.
(2) Findings form no part of the
Judgment roll In a case of default. —
Cook's Estate, 17 P. 928, 77 Cal. 220,
11 Am,S.R 267, 1 L.R.A. 567, reheard
19 P. 431, 77 Cal. 220 — Sheehan v.
All Persons, etc., 252 P. "337, 80 Cat
App. 393.
Conclusions of law form no part of
the Judgment roll
Ark.— Wann v. Beading Co., 108 S.
W.2d 899, 194 Ark. 541.
Cal.— Sheehan v. All Persons, etc.,
202 P. 337, 80 CaLApp. 39«3.
Opinion
(1) Opinion of circuit court in di-
vorce proceedings was not part of
the Judgment roll and was not an
"order" or part of the record.— Good-
man v. Goodman, 105 P.Sd 1091, 165
Or. 141.
(2) Other' holdings.— Werner v.
Babcock, .116 P. 357, 24 Nev. 42—34
C.J. p 87 note 17 [d].
Verdict
(1) A Judgment is not void merely
because the roll does not contain a
copy of the verdict— Hoe v. Sanborn,
24 How.Pr. 26, affirmed 86 N.T. 93—
34 C. J. p 88 note 18.
(2) A verdict need not be copied
in the Judgment, but may be so
copied, and in such case is evidence
that it was recognized and approved
by the court. — Weathered v. Meek,
Tex.Civ.App., 258 S.W. 516.
(3) Other holdings. — Empire Coal
Co. v. Goodhue, 76 So. 31, 200 Ala.
265, 266— 64 CJ. p '87 note 17 [h].
70. Ky.— Mead v. Nevill, 2 Duv. 280.
N.T. — Thomas v. Tanner, 14 How.Pr.
426.
7L Or.— Tatum v. Massie, 44 P. 494,
29 Or. 140.
34 C.J. p 88 note 20.
Bill filefl too late
A bill of exceptions, filed after
time granted for preparation and fil-
ing thereof, is not part of record,
where no extension of time was
prayed for or granted. — Yuknavich
v/Tuknavich, 58 N.E.2d 447, 115 Ind.
Ap.p. 530.
72. Idaho.— Haas v. Teters, 113 P.
96, 19 Idaho 182.
34 C. J. p '88 note 21.
73. N.Y.— Wilcox v. Hawley, 81 N.
T. 648.
-34 C.J. p 88 note 22.
7*4, -Nev.— First Nat Bank v. Abel,
41 P.2d 1061, 5-6 Nev. 6.
34 C.J. P 88 note 23.
In replevin action
Judgment for damages for deten-
261
tion and costs only need be entered
on court rolls, plaintiff having re-
covered replevined goods. — Crowe v.
Peaslee-Gaulbert Co., 37 F.2d 216.
75. CaL— In re Broome, 147 P. 270,
169 CaL 604.
34 C.J. p 88 note 24.
7& N.T. — Kedman v. Hendricks, 3
N.T.Super. 32.
34 C.J. p 88 note 25 [a].
77. N.T.— Cook v. Dickerson, 8 N.T.
Super. 679.
34 C.J. j? 88 note 26.
78. N.T.— Haydorn v. Carroll, 121
N.B. 463, 225 N.Y. 84.
34 CJ. p 8S note 27.
79. Conn. — Brown v. Woodward, 53
A. 112, 75 Conn. 254.
34 C.J. p 83 note 30.
Amending Judgment see infra §§
236-264.
80. N.T. — -Decker v. Dutcher, 2 SI N.
Y.S. 897, 156 Misc. 488, reversed on
other grounds 289 N.T.S. 5'53, 247
App.Dlv. 689.
34 C.J. D 88 note 31.
83- N.T.— kythgoe v. Lythgoe, 41,
N.E. 89, 145 N.T. 641.
34 C.J. p «88 note 32.
82. N.T.— Van Alstyne v. .Qook, 25
N.T. 489 — Lythgoe v. -Lythgoe, 27
N.T.S. 1063, 75 Hun 147, affirmed
41 N.E. 89, 145 N.T. 641.
88. N.T. — Van Alstyne v. Cook, S5
N.T. 489.
§ 126
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
der some statutes, signing of the roll by the clerk
is not required84
§ 126. Docketing
In most Jurisdictions the clerk Is required to docket
the judgment by making the proper entries In a book
alphabetically arranged, so that interested third per-
sons may have official notice of the Judgment.
The docket of a judgment is a brief writing or
statement of the judgment made from the record
or roll, kept by the clerk in a book alphabetically
arranged, pursuant to statutory requirements.85 As
in case of entry of a judgment, discussed supra §
106, the docketing of a judgment is a ministerial act
to be performed by the clerk,86 and necessarily im-
plies the preexistence of a judgment to be docket-
It is the duty of the clerk or prothonotary of the
court to docket the judgment by entering it in the
proper book.88 It is, however, the duty of the plain-
tiff or judgment creditor to see that his judgment
is properly docketed.89 The docket is no part of
the record of the court,90 and hence does not im-
port verity,91 as in the case of the judgment roll or
record proper, discussed infra § 132; a docket no-
tation may not be used to supply a deficiency in the
record of the court.92
Purpose and necessity. The judgment docket is
intended to afford to interested persons official no-
tice of the existence of judgments;93 As discussed
infra § 463, in some states judgments are required
to be docketed in order that they may attach as
liens, and, in some jurisdictions, as discussed in
Executions § 9, docketing is a prerequisite to the
issuance of an execution. The failure to docket
the judgment, however, does not destroy it, or de-
prive it of the usual consequences of a judgment,94
and erroneous or false entries made by the clerk do
not conclude the parties, or impair the validity of
the judgment.95 An undocketed judgment is valid
and conclusive as between the parties96 and may
be relied on as an estoppel.97
Time of docketing. The test of the right to dock-
et a judgment is the right to issue execution on it
immediately,98 but it is not necessary that a judg-
ment should be presently payable in order to per-
mit of being docketed.99 As a general rule, a judg-
ment cannot regularly be docketed until it has been
entered and the judgment roll filed.1 The docket-
ing without a preceding entry in the judgment book
is of no avail, even though a judgment roll has been
filed with what purports to be a copy of a judgment
in it.2 For some purposes a judgment may be dock-
eted nunc pro tune,8 although, of course, not so as
to prejudice the rights of innocent third persons.4
Since docketing is a ministerial, as distinguished
84. N.Y.-— Goelet v. Spofford, 55 N.Y.
647.
85. N.Y.— Cole v. Vincent, 242 N.Y.
& 644, 229 App.Div. 520.
34 CJ. p 89 note 38.
Docketing Justices' judgments see
the C.J.S. title Justices of the
Peace § 125, also 35 C.J. p 709
note 5-p 717 note 15.
Filing transcript in another county
see infra § 129 a.
88. N.Y.—Vogel v." Edwards, 27 N.
E.2d 806, 283 N.Y. 118 — Humnicki
v. Pitkowa, 277 N.Y.S. 417, 154
Misc. 407— Darvick v. Darvick, <36
N.Y.S.2d 58.
$4 C.J. p 89 note 41.
8% U.S. — In re Boyd, CXJ.Or., $ F.
iCas.No.1,746, 4 Sawy. 262.
Cal.— Ridgley v. Abbott Quicksilver
Min. Co. of Illinois, 79 P. 333, 7
Cal.Unrep.Cas. 200.
Docketing of decree
' The determination of the rights of
the parties to a special proceeding
in a surrogate's court is" a decree
which, when docketed, has the effect
'of a judgment — In re Murray's 'Es-
tate, 2-88 N.Y.S. 346, 248 Aap.Div. 167,
reversed on other grounds 5 N.E.2d
717, 272 W.Y. 22-8.
88. N.Y.— Cole v. Vincent, 242 N.Y.
S. 644, 229 App.-Div. 520.
34 C.J. p 90 note 64.
>. Pa. — Wood v. Reynolds, 7 Watts
& 8. 406.
34 CLJ. P 90 note -65.
Delivery of transcript
Where a money judgment is to be
entered in judgment docket of clerk
of court rendering judgment, it is
unnecessary for judgment plaintiff
to procure from clerk a certified copy
or transcript of judgment and then
deliver it back to clerk for entry in
judgment docket. — Watson v. Strohl,
46 N.E.2d 204, 220 Ind. 672.
90. Ark. — Holloway v. Berenzen, 188
S.W.2d 298.
Ind.— Pittsburgh, C., C. & St L. Ry.
Co. v. Johnson, 93 N.E. 683, 49
IrulA-pp. 126, rehearing denied 95
N.E. 610, 49 Ind.App. 126.
34 C.J. p 89 note 4>3.
91. N.Y.— Booth v. Farmers' & Me-
chanics' National Bank, 4 Lans.
301, reversed on other grounds 50
N.Y. 396.
92. Ark. — Holloway v. Berenzen, 188
S.W.2d 298.
93. N.C.— Henry v. Sanders, 193 S.
SL 15, 212 N.C. 239.
34 C.J. p 89 note 46.
94. N.Y. — Warren v. Garlifck, $13 N.
Y.S. 476, 126 Misc. 103, reversed on
other grounds 216 N.Y.S. 466, 217
App.Div. 55.
262
N.C. — Henry v. Sanders, 193 S.-E. 15,
212 N.C. 239.
34 C.J. P 89 note 49.
95. Pa. — In re Celenza's Estate, 17
Pa.Dist & Co. 4, 4-6 York Leg.Rec.
141.
34 C.J. p 90 note 50.
96. Cal. — Hastings y. Cunningham,
•39 CaL 157.
34 C.J. p 90 note 51.
97. N.Y.--Sheridan v. Andrews, 49
N.Y. 478.
93. N.Y.— De Agreda v. Mantel, 1
Abb.Pr. 130.
34 C.J. p 90 note 53.
99. N.Y.— Harris v. Elliott, 57 N.E.
406, 163 N.Y. 2-69.
•34 C.J. p 90 note 54.
3L. CaL— Ridgley v. Abbott Quick-
silver Min. Co. of Illinois, 79 P.
8»33, 7 Cal.Unrep.Cas. 200.
34 C.J. p 90 note 55.
2. Minn. — Rockwood v. Davenport,
35 N.W. 377, >37 Minn. 53*3, 5 Am.
S.R. «72.
34 C.J. p 90 note 56.
3. Wis. — Drake v. Harrison, 33 N.
W. 81, 69 Wis. 99, 2 Am.S.R. 717.
34 C.J. p 90 note 57.
4. Pa. — Hickman's Estate, 40 Pa.
. Super. 244.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 129
from a judicial, act, a judgment may be docketed on
a nonjuridical day.5
Sufficiency of entry. In determining the sufficien-
cy of a docket entry, the whole entry must be con-
sidered, and if from the whole, the amount and date
of the judgment, the parties to it, and the court in
which it was rendered, appear, the entry will be
held sufficient6 Substantial compliance with the
statute is sufficient7
§ 127. Book or Place of Entry
A judgment Is docketed In a Judgment docket or
"docket book," which Is separate and distinct from the
"Judgment book" in which Judgments are "entered."
A judgment, in order to be docketed, must be en-
tered in the book kept for that purpose, and usu-
ally known as the judgment docket or "docket
book/'8 which is a separate and distinct book irom
that known as the "judgment book,"9 in which, as
appears supra § 110, judgments are required to be
entered.
§ 128.
Index
In addition to docketing, an index of Judgments
generally required.
It is usually required that, in addition to the dock-
et of judgments, there shall be an index thereof,10
and, as discussed infra § 464, substantial compliance
with such requirement is generally held necessary
to constitute the judgment a lien as against third
persons.
§ 129. Filing Transcript
a. In another county or district
b. In superior court
a. In Another County or District
A transcript of a Judgment rendered tn one county
may be filed In another county, but the court to which
the Judgment Is thus transferred has no power over It
except to enforce It.
For certain limited purposes, such as lien, execu-
tion, and revival, judgments rendered in one county
may be in effect transferred to another county or
counties by the filing of a transcript of the record
of such judgment in such counties, in accordance
with statutory provisions.11 A transcript thus en-
tered in another county does not become a judg-
ment of the Qourt to which it is transferred, but
only a quasi judgment for certain limited purposes,
such as lien, execution, and revival.12 The merits
5. U.S. — In .re Worthington, C.C.
Wis.f 30 F.Cas.No.18,051, 7 Bias.
455.
6. Wis. — Hesse v. Mann* 40 Wis.
560.
7. KM.— Corpus Taxis cited la
Breece v. Gregg, 13 F.2d 421, 422,
36 KM. 246.
34 C.J. p 90 note 66.
"Name at lenfftb"
A statute requiring clerk in dock-
eting Judgment to enter "name at
length of the Judgment debtor/'
merely required clerk to enter name
in docket book as he finds it in Judg-
ment, without abbreviations. — H. B.
& C. Co. v. Smith, 20* N.Y.S. 396,
212 Afcp.Div. ITS. affirmed 151 N.EL
448. 242 N.Y. 2-67, 45 A.L.R 554.
8. N.Y.— Cole v. Vincent, 242 N.Y.
S. 644, 229 App.Div. 520.
33 C.J. tp '1040 note 19—84 CUT. j> 90
note 61.
"Judgment docket" defined
A list of the Judgments entered
in a given court, methodically kept
by the clerk or other proper officer,
open to public inspection and intend-
ed to afford official notice to interest-
ed parties of the existence or lien
of Judgments. — Black !LJ>.
"Docket book" defined
A docket book is a public record
prescribed by statute for the express
purpose, among other things, of re-
ceiving the entry of Judgments. —
Beuerlein v. Hodges, 10 N.Y.S. 506,
50$.
"Docket entry*' distinguished
The term "docket entry" as used
in statute has been held to refer to
the entries in the minute book or
docket <that the clerk is required, by
statute, to keep, and not the entries
in a judgment docket book which the
clerk was not required to keep, but
which anight properly be kept, if the
Judge so ordered, as a convenient in-
dex of the Judgment debtors. — Funk
v. Lamb, 92 N.W. 8, 87 Minn. 348,
#52.
9. N.Y.— Cole v. Vincent, 242 N.Y.S.
644, 229 App.Div. 520.
34 C.J. p 90 note 62.
10. N.C.— Henry v. Sanders, 193 S.
£L 15, 212 N.C. 239.
34 C.T. p 91 note 68.
2Canner of indexing
(1) "It is the county clerk's duty
to provide books, ruled in columns,
convenient for making the entries
under the initial letter of the sur-
name, only, of the Judgment debtor.
. . . It is the practice, however,
to provide books with columns ap-
propriate to the entry of Judgments
in accordance with the initial letter
of the given names as well as the
surnames of Judgment debtors.
While this is not required by law, if
the county clerk undertakes to do
it, he must use reasonable care to
index such given name in its proper
column so that no one may be mis-
led -thereby. Nevertheless a Judg-
ment entered in accordance with the
requirements of the statute is a suffi-
263
cient and legal Judgment though the
given name of the Judgment debtor
may not appear in the proper col-
umn."—<Jole v. Vincent, 242 N.Y.S.
644, 647, 229 App.Div. 520.
(2) Designation of parties as plain-
tiff and defendant in ad sectam in-
dex should coincide with order for
Judgment not entered in appearance
docket. — Trestrail v. Johnson, 146 A.
150, 297 Pa. 49.
IL TT.S.— Oil Well Supply Co. T.
Wickwire, DJC.I1L, 52 F.Supp. 921.
Pa. — First Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of
Bethlehem v. Laubach, 5 A.2d 139,
333 Pa, 344— Schmitt v. Wyoming
Valley Public Service Co., 37 Pa.
Dist & Co. 1*35, £3 Liuz.L,eg.Jleg.
302 — Price v. Adamkiewicz, Com.
PL, 34 Luz.Iieg.Beg. 464.
Wash.— Cugini v. Apex Mercury Mm.
Co., 165 P.2d 82.
34 C. J. p 91 note 74.
Transcript as basis of:
Execution see Executions | 64.
iLien see infra § 462.
Xiaud in. several counties
Partition of lands in several coun-
ties must be recorded in each county.
— McCauley v. Brooks, 147 A. 898,
84 N.H. 207.
12. OkL — Chandler v. Cummins, 81
P.2d £51. 183 Okl. 5-^McAusland v.
Williams, 54 P.2d 622, 177 CikL 25.
Pa.— First Nat Bank & Trust Co. of
Bethlehem v. iLaubach, 5 A.2d 139,
<3£S Pa. 344— Frew v. Heinbach,
Com.PL, 9 Sch.Re«. 91.
134 <OJ. p 91 note 7*.
§ 129
JUDGMENTS
49 O.J.S.
or validity of a judgment thus transferred cannot
be inquired into by the court to which it is taken ;
it is there only for purposes of enforcement and
satisfaction.13 If it is desired to enter the judg-
ment in a third county, it must be done by transcript
from the original judgment, not from the transcript
entered in the second county.14 Generally a judg-
ment must have been docketed or recorded in the
county where rendered, in order to be entitled to
be filed or docketed in another county.15
It is the duty of the clerk of the county where
the judgment was rendered, on request and payment
of fees, to furnish a transcript containing all the
facts necessary to make a perfect docket of the
judgment,16 and the clerk of the county in which
such transcript is presented must file it and docket
the judgment.17 The transcript will not be vitiated
by mere clerical errors,18 but there must be com-
pliance with statutory requirements,19 and the tran-
script must be sufficiently full to give reasonably
certain and definite information to subsequent pur-
chasers or lienors.20
b. In Superior Court
(1) In general
(2) Operation and effect
(1) In General
In many Jurisdictions, subject to statutory require-
ments and limitations as to the mode and time of doing
so, a transcript of a Judgment rendered by a Justice of
the peace or other 'inferior court may be filed and
docketed in a superior court.
By statute in many jurisdictions, and subject td
the statutory requirements and limitations, a tran-
script of a judgment rendered by a justice of the
peace or other inferior court may be filed and dock-
eted in the office of the clerk of a superior court.21
If the statute contemplates the filing of a complete
transcript of the justice's record, it is not satisfied
by a mere abstract of the judgment;^2 but other-
Parent Judgment controls
Where judgment is entered by fil-
ing of exemplified copy of judgment
on record in another county, defend-
ant need concern himself only with
validity of parent judgment — Al-
toona Trust Co. v. Fodder, 165 A.
740, 311 Pa. 426.
Salt to restrain execution
The circuit court of the county in
which the transcript of a judgment
of the circuit court of another coun-
ty was filed, and in which the cir-
cuit clerk issued execution, had ju-
risdiction in action by Judgment
debtor to restrain execution, as
against contention that circuit court
of such county had no jurisdiction to
enjoin or stay proceedings on judg-
ment of circuit court of another
county, since, when transcript of
judgment was filed with cl'erk of cir-
cuit court of county in which action
was brought, it became, at least for
purposes of execution, a judgment in
such county. — Brick v. Sovereign
Grand Lodge of Accepted Free Ma-
sons of Arkansas, 117 S.W.2d 1060,
196 Ark. -872.
13. Okl. — Chandler v. Cummins, 81
P.2d $51, 183 Okl. -S—McAusland v.
Williams, '54 P.2d 622, 177 OkL 25.
Pa.— First Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of
Bethlehem y. Laubach, 5 A*2d 139,
SSS Pa. 344 — Taylor v. Tudor &
Free, '81 PaJSuper. i306— Hfcllinger
v. Breigner, 9 PaJMst & Co. 660,
40 LanclL.Rev. 47, 139 York (Leg.
Bee. 176 — Price v. Adamkiewicz,
Com.PL, 34 Luz.Leg.Reg. 464—
Frew v. Heinbach, Com.Pl., $ Sch.
Reg. 91.
34 C.J. p 91 note 77.
14. Md. — Brunsman v. Crook-Kries
Co., 101 A. 1019, 130 Md. 661.
34 C.J. j> 91 note 7S-
15. N.C.— McAden v. Banister, 63 N.
C. 478.
le. N.Y.— Sears v. Burnham, 17 N.Y.
445.
17. N.Y. — Sears v. Burnham, supra
— People v. Keenan, 31 Hun 625.
What constitutes filing
Where certified transcript of judg-
ment was mailed to circuit court
clerk of another county for filing,
but clerk did not file or return tran-
script but wrote plaintiff's attorney
that filing fee was five dollars, and
requested attorney to take care of
fee as soon as possible, and attor-
ney immediately, mailed clerk five
dollars, which was received by clerk
two days after first letter from plain-
tiff's attorney and clerk then in-
dorsed transcript as "filed," tran-
script was not filed until so indorsed;
hence during the intervening two
days transcript was not "construc-
tive notice" to assignees of oil and
gas leases from judgment debtor. —
Oil Well Supply Co. v. Wickwire, D.
C.I11., 52 F.Supp. 921.
18. U.S. — Lamprey v. Pike, C.C.
Minn., 28 F. 30.
Pa. — Frew v. Heinbach, Com.PL, 9
Sch.Reg. 91.
34 C.J. p 92 note 82.
Identical language
Transcript of justice's judgment
was not fatally defective because not
in identical language of justice's
docket— Filbert v. Dean, 200 N.W.
326, 199 Iowa -321.
19. Pa. — Hollinger v. Breigner, 0
Pa.DIst. & Co. 660, 40 Lanc.L.Rev.
47, 39 York.Leg.Rec. 176.
34 C-J. p 92 note 83.
264
20i Tex.— Gullett Gin Co. v. Oliver,
14 S.W. 451, 78 Tex. 182.
34 C.J. p 92 note 84.
Transcript held sufficient
Where a judgment foreclosing a
mechanic's lien is entered in a coun-
ty other than the one in which the
property is located, and such judg-
ment docketed in the county where
the property is, it is immaterial that
no mention of the lien was made in
the docket where the judgment and
the decree in full were filed in the
clerk's office.— Sugg v. Pollard, 115
S.-E. 1W, 184 N.C. 494.
Interest rate
Where transcript of judgment of
justice of peace was so vague and
ambiguous as to leave doubt wheth-
er judgment bore interest at six or
eight per cent, it should be treated
as containing no recital with respect
to interest, and subject to legal stat-
utory rate. — Filbert v. Dean, 200 N.
W. 326, 199 Iowa 321.
21. Ark. — Davis v. Bank of Atkins,
167 S.W.2d 876, 205 Ark. 144.
Mich. — De Guzman v. Shepherd, 196
N.W. 52(3, 225 Mich. -606.
N.J. — United Stores Realty Corpora-
tion v. Asea, 142 A. 38, 102 N.J.EQ.
600.
N.C.— Essex Inv. Co. v. Pickelsimer,
187 S.E. 813, 310 N.C. 541.
Pa. — Sadrovitz v. Say lor, Com.Pl., 20
ireh.L.J. 37 — Berlin v. Denci, Com..
PI., 25 West. 117.
Wash. — State ex rel. Adjustment De-
partment of Olympia Credit Bu-
reau v. Ayer, 114 P.2d 168, 9 Wash.
2d 188.
34 C.J. p 92 note -85.
22. Or. — White v. Espey, 28 P. 71,
21 Or. 328.
34 C.J. p 92 note 89.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§129
wise the transcript is sufficient if it shows all the
essential elements of a judgment,2* and, particular-
ly the jurisdiction of the inferior court!2* the date
of the judgment,2* the names of the parties,26 and
the amount of the recovery.27 It has been held that
several judgments may be embraced in one tran-
script, and that it is not necessary to certify each
judgment separately.2* Only the judgment debtor
may complain of inefficiency or irregularity in the
filing of the transcript; a stranger to the action
has no right to do so.29
Certificate and authentication. It is necessary
that the transcript should be certified as correct by
the justice or other court from which it is taken,
and authenticated in accordance with the directions
of the statute.8^
Time for filing. Subject to any statutory restric-
tion of the time within which the transcript of the
judgment of an inferior court may 'be filed in a
superior court,3i it may be done at any time dur-
ing the effective life of the judgment.82 As a gen-
eral rule it is necessary that there should be a judg-
ment actually rendered and still in force,88 which
has not become dormant84 or barred by the statute
of limitations,85 and is not so old as to be invali-
dated by the presumption of payment after twenty
years.86 It has been held that the transcript may
be filed before the time to appeal from the judg-
ment has expired,87 or after an appeal is pending,88
except in some jurisdictions, where the transcript
may not be filed after an appeal has been taken.89
Affidavit of creditor. The effect of some stat-
utes is to require the judgment creditor, on filing a
transcript from a justice or other inferior court, to
make and file an affidavit of the amount remaining
due and unpaid on the judgment, or that the judg-
ment is due and unpaid, and that it cannot be sat-
isfied from the goods and chattels of the debtor;
this requirement is jurisdictional and the affidavit is
indispensable.40
(2) Operation and Effect
* Transferring a Judgment by transcript from an In-
ferior to a superior court makes it the judgment of the
latter for purposes of enforcement and with respect to
remedies by direct attack; but the power of the supe-
rior court extends only to the transcribed Judgment and
the lower court retains some control over its own Judg-
ment.
In a strict sense, the transfer of a judgment from
an inferior court to a superior court by the filing
of a transcript or abstract does not actually make
the judgment "a judgment of the higher court.41 It
is generally held, however, that a transferred judg-
ment becomes to all intents and purposes a judg-
ment of the superior court,42 at least for the pur-
23. Ind. — Chicago & A. R. Co. v.
Summers, 14 N.E. 783, 113 Ind. 10,
•3 Am.S.R. 616.
34 £.J. p 92 note 00.
24. Mich.—- Wedel v. Green, 38 N.W.
638, 70 Mich. 642.
34 C.J. p 92 note 91.
25. Minn.~Fu.nk v. Lamb, 92 N.W.
8, 87 Minn. 348.
34 C.J. p 92 note 92.
28. Minn. — Funk v. Lamb, supra,
34 C.J. p 92 note 93.
27. Minn. — Funk v. Lamb, supra,
34 C.J. p 92 note 94.
28. Mo.— Jeffries v, Wright, 51 Mo.
215.
Pa.— Williams v. McCandless, 14 Pa.
185.
29. Colo. — Second Industrial Bank v.
Marshall, 289 P. 598, 87 Colo. 541.
30. Colo. — Ferrier v. Morris, 122 P.
2d 880, 109 Colo. 154.
$4 C.J. p 9*3 note 96.
31. Statutes construed
The statute requiring any clerk of
city court of Buffalo to Issue, on de-
mand, a transcript of a judgment at
any time within twenty years after
its rendition, and requiring clerk of
Erie County to docket transcript
thus issued; prevails over section of
justice court act which limits, time
for issuing and filing a transcript of
a justice court judgment to six years
after Its rendition. — Shackman y. Os-
borne, 13 N.T.S.2d 854, 257 AppJDiv.
1037.
32. N.Y. — Stanley Funding Corpora-
tion v. Kotcher, 41 N.Y.S.Sd 877.
34 C.J. p 93 note 98.
33. N.Y. — Stephens v. Santee, 51
Barb. 582.
34 C.J. p 913 note 99.
34. Neb. — Farmers' State Bank v.
Bales, 90 N.W. 945, 64 Neb. 870.
34 C.J. *> 93 note 1.
35. 'N.Y.— Matter of Murphy, 135 N.
Y.S. 23, 150 App.Div. 460.
34 C.J. p 93 note 2.
36. Pa.— Light v. Steckbeck, 19 Pa.
Co. 654.
37. 111. — Dawson v. Cunning, 50 111.
Aj>p. 28-6.
Hiss. — Minshew y. Davidson, 38 So.
315, 8-6 Miss. 354.
38. Wis. — Steckmesser T. Graham,
10 Wis. 37.
39. Pa.— Vockroth Y. Thomas, 11 Pa.
Disk 487.
34 C.J. p 93 note 6.
40. Mich. — Shepard v. Schrutt, 128
N.JV. 772, 163 Mich. 485.
34 C.J. p 98 note 8.
41. Ark.— Miller v. Brown, 281 S.W.
904, 170 Ark.* 949.
N.T.— Wixom v. Randazo, 27S N.T.
S. 783, 152 Misc. 171.
34 C.J. p 93 note 10.
265
statntovy
The filing of a transcript in the
county clerk's office does not make a
judgment of the justice's court or
any inferior court a judgment ren-
dered by the county court, but only
a statutory judgment of such court;
such judgment continues to be not a
judgment of a court of record. — -Dief-
fenbach v. Roch, 20 N.E. 560, 112
N.Y. 621, 2 L.R.A. 829— Quackenbush
v. Johnston, 293 N.Y.S. 123, 249 App.
Dlv. 452— Agro v. Herman, 37 N.Y.
S.2d 225, 179 Misc. 530— Tiffany v.
Mitchell, 26 N.Y.S.2d 551, 176 Misc.
64.
42. U.S. — Paley y. Solomon, D.C.3X
C., 59 F.Supp. 887.
Ark.— Davis v. Bank of Atkins, 167
S.W.2d 8T6, 205 Ark. 144.
Mich. — Be Guzman y. Shepherd, 196
X.W. 523, 225 Mich. 606.
Mo. — Mahen v. Tavern Rock, 37 S.
W.2d 562, 327 Mo. 391.
N.Y.— Tiffany v. Mitchell, 2$ N.Y.S.
2d 551, 176 Misc. 64— Lowry v.
Himmler, 239 N.Y.S. 347, 136 Misc,
215.
N.C.— Brooks v. Brooks, 16 S.EL2d
403, 220 NXX 16— Essex Inv. JCo. y.
Pickelsimer, 187 S.E, 813, 210 N.C.
541.
Pa. — Caverly v. Helfrich, Com.PL, 38
Luz.Leg.Reg. 121.
Wash.— Corpus Juris quoted in State
ex rel. Adjustment Department of
§ 130
JUDGMENTS
C.J.S.
pose of enforcement,48 and with respect to remedies
by direct attack;44 and the higher court may there-
after issue process on it,45 modify it, or grant other
relief against it,46 vacate it, or strike it off the
docket for cause shown.4? Such power is limited
to the transcript judgment and record in the su-
perior court ; the superior court cannot open or va-
cate the judgment of the inferior court,48 and,
while it has been held that the filing of the tran-
script divests the lower court of all jurisdiction
over the case and the judgment,49 so that no fur-
ther proceedings for the enforcement of the judg-
ment may be taken therein,6** nevertheless the in-
ferior court does retain some control of its judg-
ment,61 including the power to modify62 or vacate63
it, notwithstanding the prior filing of a transcript
of it in a superior court A void or invalid judg-
ment of an inferior court cannot be validated by the
filing of a transcript thereof in a superior court.64
§ 130. Recording
Under some statutes Judgments, or certain kinds of
judgments, are required to be recorded.
Under some statutes judgments, or certain kinds
of judgments, are required to be recorded in the
office of the register of deeds, or other like officer.66
§ 131. Lost or Destroyed Records
Lost or destroyed court records may be restored,
and this rule applies to voidable, but not to void, Judg-
ments.
Where any record of a court has been lost .or de-
stroyed, such court has jurisdiction and power to re-
establish or restore it in proper proceedings for that
purpose.66 While a voidable judgment may be
Olympia Credit Bureau T. Ayer,
114 P.2d 168, 170, 9 Wash.2d 1*8.
34 O.J. p 93 note 11.
43. Ark.— Miller v. Brown, iftl S.W.
904, 170 Ark. 949.
Mich.— De Guzman v. Shepherd, 196
N.W. 523, 225 Mich. 606.
Minn.— Keys v. Schultz, % N.W.Sd
549, 212 Minn. 109.
N.T.— Gilmore v. De Witt, 10 N.T.
S.2d 90*3, 2-56 AppjDiv. 1046 —
Quackenbush v. Johnston, 293 N.Y.
S. 123, 249 App.Div. 452— Tiffany v.
Mitchell, 26 N.Y.S.2d -551, 176 Misc.
54 — Dunn v. Seidenschwarz, 18 N.
Y.S.2d 264, 173 Misc. 495— Wixom
v. Randazo, 273 N.T.S. 783, 152
Misc 171 — Ellias v. Thomas Fur-
niture Works, 212 N.T.S. 127, 125
Misc. 683.
Wash.— (Corpus Juris quoted in State
ex rel. Adjustment Department of
Olympia Credit Bureau v. Ayer,
114 P.2d 168, 170, 9 Wash.2d 188.
34 C.J. p 94 note 12.
44. Mich. — De Guzman v. Shepherd,
•196 N.W. 523, 225 Mich. 606.
45. Minn. — Keys v. Schultz, 2 N.W.
2d 549, 212 Minn. 109.
B£0. — Mahen v. Tavern Bock, 87 S.
W.2d 56*2, -327 Mo. 391.
34 C.J. P 94 note 13.
46. N.T. — Wixora v. Randazo, 273 N.
Y.S. 783, 152 Misc. 171.
Wash.— Corpus Juris quoted in State
ex rel. Adjustment Department of
Olympia Credit Bureau v. Ayer,
114 P.2d 168, 170, 9 Washed 188.
34 C.J. P 94 note 14.
47. Del.— McCoy v. Hickman, 15 A.
2d 427, 1 Terry 587— Commercial
Realty Incorporation v. Jackson
166 A. «657, « W.W.Harr. 395—
Weintraub v. Rudnick, 143 A. 456
4 W.W.Harr. 111.
U.T. — Quackenbush v. Johnston, 293
N.T.S. 12«3, 249 App.Div. 452— Agro
v. Herman, 37 N.T.S.2d 225, 179
Misc. $30— Lowry v. Himmler, 239
N.T.S. 347, 13-6 Misc. 215.
a.— Webber v. Dolan, 17 Pa.Dist &
Co. 93.
Wash.— Corpus Juris quoted in. State
ex rel. Adjustment Department of
Olympia Credit Bureau v. Ayer, 114
P.2d 168, 170, 9 Wash.2d 1W.
34 C.J. P 94 note 15.
N.T.— Norell Holding Corp. v.
Putter, 64 N.T.S.2d 474, 269 App.
Div. 754 — Gilmore v. De Witt, 10
N.T.S.2d 903, 256 App.Div. 1046—
Quackenbush v. Johnston, 293 N.
T.S. 123, 249 -App.Div. 452— Agro
v. Herman, 87 N.T.S.2d 225, 179
Misc. 5'30.
Pa. — Taylor v. Tudor & Free, 81 Pa.
Super. 506 — Sasso's, Inc. v. Angelo,
Com.Pl., 88 Luz.iLefir.Reg. 142.
34 «C.J. p 94 note 17.
49. Ark.— Davis v. Bank of Atkins,
167 S/WV2d 876, 205 Ark. 144.
N,C — Essex Inv. Co. v. Pickelsimer,
187 S.B. 813, 210 N.C. 541.
Wash.— Corptis Juris quoted in State
ex rel. Adjustment Department of
Olympia Credit Bureau v. Ayer,
114 P.2d 168, 170, 9 Wash.2d 188.
34 C.J. p 93 note 9.
50. Del.— McCoy v. Hickman, 15 A.
2d 427, 1 Terry 587— Weintraub v.
Rudnick, 143 A. 456, 4 W.W.Harr.
111.
61. U.S.— Paley v. Solomon, D.C.D
1C., 59 F.Supp. 887.
N.J.— Westfield Trust Co. v. Court of
Common Pleas of Morris County
183 A. 165, 116 N.J.Law 191—
Westfield Trust Co. v. Cherry, 183
A. 165, 116 N.J.Law 190.
52. Pa.— In re Ashman, -67 A, 842
lift Pa, 512.
53. Minn.— Keys v. Schultz, 1 N.W
2d 549, 212 Minn. 109.
84 C.J. p 95 note 19.
54. Del. — McCpy v. Hickman, 15 A.
2d 427, 1 Terry 587— Weintraub v
266
Rudnick, 143 A. 456, 4 W.W.Harr.
111.
Mont— Novack v. Pericich, 300 P.
240, 90 Mont. 91.
N.T. — Lowry v. Himmler, 239 N.T.
S. 347, .136 Misc. 215.
55. U.S.— Clinchfield Coal Corp. v.
Steinman, Va., 213 F. 557, 130 C.C.
A. 137.
34 C.J. P 9*5 note 20.
Lien as dependent on recording see
infra S 463.
Two sets of records
Single clerk when required to
serve as district and county clerk
must keep two sets of records, and
record of judgment in minutes of
district court would not be substan-
tial compliance with statute reauir-
ing it to be recorded in office of
county clerk. — Permian Oil Co. v.
Smith, 73 S.W.2d 490, 129 Tex. 413,
111 A.L.R. 1152, rehearing denied
107 S.W.2d 564, 129 Tex. 413, 111 A.
L.R. 1152.
58. Ky. — Carter v. Capshaw, '60 S.
W.2d 959, 249 Ky. 483.
Supplying lost or destroyed records
generally see the C.J.S. title Rec-
ords §§ 42-52, also 53 C.J. j> 634
note 59-p 642 note 39.
Alleging substance of lost record
A motion alleging the names of
the parties to a Judgment, the court
in which and the date when it was
rendered, the amount thereof, that
it was rendered on a described bond,
and that the record of the Judgment
was destroyed by fire sufllciently al-
leges the substance of the destroyed
record. — Spears v. Work, 29 IniL 502.
Notice
Lost or destroyed judgments may
be restored or proved at common law,
but in every such case the opposite
party should be notified, in order
that he may appear for his own pro-
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§132
restored,57 there is authority that a void judgment
should not be restored ;5$ and it has been held that
in a proceeding to restore a destroyed judgment it
may be shown that there was a good defense to the
original action and that defendant was deprived of
the opportunity of asserting it without fault of his
own and by reason of plaintiffs fraud.5* Under
some statutes in such a proceeding the judgment
debtor may set forth any new matters arising sub-
sequent to the judgment which operate in whole or
in part to extinguish or set it aside.60 An appli-
cation to supply a lost record cannot be made the
means of getting on the record a judgment or de-
cree which never was entered there, or of complet-
ing a record imperfectly entered.61 To establish a
destroyed judgment, the burden of proof is on the
party claiming under it,62 and the evidence must
be clear and convincing.68
§ 132. Verity and'Conclusiveness of Record
The judgment roll or record proper Imports absolute
verity and is conclusive evidence of Its contents, but
such records are not evidence, except as between the
parties and .their privies, of the facts recited therein.
Although the judgment record is occasionally said
to be presumptively true,64 the authorities are al-
most universally agreed that the judgment roll, or
record proper, is of such uncontrollable credit and
verity as to admit of no averment, plea, or proof
to the contrary; it is conclusive evidence of the
facts which it recites and cannot be contradicted65
in a collateral proceeding.66 Under the doctrine of
res judicata, discussed infra § 592 et seq., only
parties and privies are bound by a judgment as an
adjudication, but no one, whether or not a party
or a privy, may impeach the record of a judgment
considered simply as a record.67 Thus the actual
rendition and existence of a judgment are conclu-
sively shown by the record as against the whole
world.68 Beyond this, records are not evidence of
the facts recited, except as between the parties or
their privies.69 A question as to a matter of record
must be tried by the record itself if in existence.70
If the record is of the same court, the trial is on
inspection by the court,71 and it is error to sub-
mit the question to a jury.72 The rule that record
imports absolute verity is subject to the qualifica-
tions that one portion of a record may be limited,
explained, or qualified by another portion thereof,73
tection. — George v. Middough, 62 Mo.
549.
Restoration of whole record
It is not sufficient to restore a
part only of the lost record, such as
the final judgment, but the restora-
tion must be of the whole record, in-
cluding the summons, pleadings, etc.,
as the court can determine the legal
effect of a judgment only from an
inspection of the whole record.— Vail
v. Iglehart, 69 I1L 332.
Bight to apply
Allegations that petitioner is de-
scribed in a judgment, sought to be
restored on record, as the person in
whose favor it was rendered, suffi-
ciently show his interest and right
to maintain the proceeding to restore
the record, and express allegations
that failure to restore the record
will result in damage to the petition-
er is not necessary.-— Russell v. lifll-
ja, 90 I1L 327.
57. I1L— Vail v, Iglehart, supra.
58. I1L— Vail v. Iglehart, supra,
53 C.J. p 641 note 17.
59. Ark. — Guess v. Amis, 14 S.W.
900, 54 Ark. 1.
53 C.J. p 642 note 18.
60. Kan.— Davidson v. Beers, £5 P.
8*59, 45 Kan. 365.
O. Ala,— -Box v. Delk, 47 Ala, 729.
62. Ky.— Carter v. Capshaw, -60 S.
W.2d 959. 249 Ky. 483.
63. Ky.— Carter v. Capshaw, supra,
64. Mo.—- Petet T. MoClanahan, 249
S.W. 917, 297 Mo. 677— galnane v.
Calnane, 17 S.W.2d 566, 567, 223
Mo.App. 381.
"The judgment entered in the rec-
ord Is presumed to be the one actu-
ally rendered by the court, and this
presumption obtains no matter how
erroneous the judgment so entered
may be, unless such presumption be
overcome by evidence" in the record.
— Calnane v. Calnane, subra.
65. Ala.— Hopkins T. Poellnitz, 170
So. 774, 233 Ala. 172— Ex parte
McDermott 141 So. 659, 224 Ala.
684.
Conn. — Varanelli v. Luddy, 32 A.2d
81, 130 Conn. 74— Holtz v. Riddell,
12-6 A. <833, 101 Conn. 416.
Fla.— Malone v. Meres, 109 So. 677,
91 Fla, 709.
Iowa.— Engelbercht v. Davison, 213
N.W. 225, 204 Iowa 1394— Hanson
v. S. & L. Drug Con 212 N.W. 731,
203 Iowa 384.
KJ.— In re Schlemm's Estate, 22 A.
2d 364, 130 N.J.Ea. 295.
N.T.— Franz v. Nigri, 249 N.T.S. 218,
232 App.Div. 150.
Tenn. — Page v. Turcott, 167 S.W.2d
350, 179 Tenn. 491.
Tex.— Gulf , C. & S. F. Ry. Co. y. Can-
ty, 285 S.W. 2?6, 115 Tex. 537—
Cohen v. City of Houston, Civ.
App., 185 S.W.2d 450.
34 C.J. p 95 note 22.
Judge's notes cannot be used to
impeach, journal entry of judgment
—Sparks v. Nech, 26 P.2d 586, 198
Kan. 343.
68. Puerto Rico.— Col6n v. Registrar
of CJaguas, 27 Puerto Rico 519.
267
VL — Cootey v. Remington, 189 A* 151,
108 Vt 441.
34 C.J. p 95 note 23.
Collateral attack:
On records of courts generally see
Courts § 237.
Or judgment see infra §§ 401-435.
67. Ala, — Simmons v. Shelton, 21
So. 309, 112 Ala, 284, 57 Am.S.H.
39.
34 C.J. p 9*6 note 25.
68. Vt-^Spencer v. Dearth, 4<3 Vt.
98, 105.
34 C.J. p 96 note 26.
69. Ky.— Sublett T. Gardner, 137 B.
W. 864, 144 Ky. 190.
34 C.J. p 96 note 27.
"The mere clerical act of enter-
ing the judgment upon the minutes
gives it no additional immunity from
an attack made in the proper man-
ner and at the proper time." — Han-
non v. Henson, Tex.Civ.A'pp., 7 S.
W.*2d 613, 619, affirmed, Com.App., 15
S.W.2d 579.
70. Me. — Ames T. Young, 75 A. 66,
105 Me. 543.
Pa.— Adams v. Beta, 1 Watts 425, 28
AmJ>. 79.
71. Pa,— Adams v. Betz, supra.
72. Pa.— Adams v. Betz, supra,
34 C.J. p 96 note 30.
73. Mo. — Halstead v. Mustion, 08 8.
W. 25*8, 166 Mo. 48«.
34 CJ. ip 96 note 31.
Conflict in record generally see in-
fra } 448.
§ 133
JUDGMENTS
49 O.J.S.
and that extraneous evidence is admissible to point
out and correct a clerical mistake in the record74
§ 133. Record as Notice
As a general rule the record of a Judgment prop-
erly entered and docketed is notice of that which it
contains or recites, as well as of facts fairly inferable
from its recitals.
Although there is authority to the contrary,75 the
general rule is that the record of a judgment prop-
erly entered and docketed is notice of that which
it contains or recites,76 as well as of such facts as
may be fairly inferred from its recitals,77 to the
parties,7* their privies,79 and to third persons.80
The notice is prospective and not retrospective.81
Unless there is compliance with the statutory re-
quirements as to the record or docketing, it will be
ineffectual as notice,82 but substantial compliance
is sufficient, and mere irregularities do not affect its
operation as notice.85
VI JUDGMENT BY CONFESSION
A. IN GENERAL
§ 134. Definition, Nature, and Distinctions
Judgment by confession Is a method of securing
the entry of Judgment on the debtor's or obligor's con-
fession and acknowledgment of his liability, without the
formalities of an ordinary proceeding.
The phrase "judgment by confession" or "con-
fession of judgment" has a popular as well as a
technical signification.84 As popularly understood,
it signifies an acknowledgment of indebtedness, on
which it is contemplated that a judgment may and
will be rendered;85 the entry of a judgment on the
admission or confession of a debtor or obligor with-
out the formality, time, or expense involved in an
ordinary proceeding.8^ It is riot a plea,87 but is an
affirmative act, consented to by defendant in per-
son, or by his attorney, with the leave of the
'court,88 and is essentially a voluntary act;8$ it is
a voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the
court, giving by consent and without the service of
process what could otherwise be obtained by sum-
mons and complaint, and other formal proceed-
ings,90 and hence an admission in answer in inter-
74. Tex.— Groom v. Winston, 43 S.
W. 1072, IS Tex.Civ.App. 1.
34 C.J. p 96 note 32.
Amending clerical errors see infra §
237.
75. Wis.— R. F. Gehrke Sheet Metal
Works v. Mahl, 297 N.W. 373, 237
Wis. 414— Bartz v. Paff, 69 N.W.
297, 95 Wis. 95, 37 L..R.A., 848.
76. 111.— Mitchell v. Mitchell, 159 N.
R 274, 328 111. 136.
34 C.J. p 96 note S3.
77. Ind. — Johnson v. Hess, 25 N.E.
44'5, 126 Ind. 298, 9 L.R.A. 471.
Mo.— Inter-River Drainage Dist. of
Missouri v. Henson, App., 99 S.W.
2d 865.
Pa. — corpus Juris quoted in (First
Nat. Bank v. Walker, 145 A. 804,
806, 296 Pa. 192— Corpus Juris
quoted in liambert v. K-Y Transp.
•Co., 172 A. 180, 182, 113 Pa.Super.
82.
78. 111.— Mitchell y. Mitchell, 159 N.
B. 274, 328 111. 136.
34 C.J. «p 96 note 35.
79. Idaho. — Smith v. Kessler, 127 P.
172, 22 Idaho 589.
80. CaL — McGee v. Hoffman, 189 P.
298, 46 Cal.App. 508.
Va .—Citizens' Nat. Bank v. Manoni,
76 Va. 802.
81. N.T. — Ackerman, v. Hunsicker,
85 N.T. 43, 39 Am.R. 621.
34 C.J.-p 96 note 38.
82. Tex. — Myers v. Crenshaw, Civ.
App., 116 S.W.2d 1125, affirmed 137
•S.W.2d 7, 134 Tex. 500.
34 C.J. p 96 note 39.
K. S.D.— Muller v. Flavin, S3 N.W.
•687, 13 S.D. 595.
34 C.J. p 96 note 40.
34. Mich. — Kinyon v. Fowler, 10
Mich. 16.
Amendment, opening, and vacating
confessed Judgments see infra §§
320-327.
i. Va. — Bank of Chatham v. Aren-
dall, 16 S.B.2d 352, 178 Va. 183.
•34 C.J. p 97 note 43.
Confession distinguished from Judg-
ment
The expression "confession of
Judgment" as used in the statute has
reference to the act of defendant
whereby he admits or confesses the
right of plaintiff to take Judgment
against him, and not to the entering
up, or rendition of, the Judgment it-
self which is rendered on defendant's
confession. — Thomas v. Bloodworth,
160 S.EL 709, 44 Ga.App. 44.
86. - Iowa. — Cuykendall v. ODoe, 105
N.W. $98, 129 Iowa 453, 113 AmS.
B. 472, 3 L.R.A..N.S., 449.
12 C.J. p 413 note 38.
Confession of Judgment distin-
guished from assignment for ben-
efit of creditors see Assignments
For Benefit of Creditors § 4.
87. Que. — Fearing Whiton Mfg. Co.
v. Melzer, 15 Que.Pr. 414.
88. Md. — Montgomery v. Murphy, 19
Md. 576, 81 Am.D. 6*52.
Consent or ratification of' creditor
see infra § 148. '
>. Miss.— Grand Lodge Colored K.
P. v. Barlow, 67 So. 152, 108 Miss.
663.
34 C.J. p 97 note 47.
90. Kan. — Brooks v. National Bank
of Topeka, 113 P.2d 1069, 153 Kan.
831.
34 C.J. p 97 note 43.
"A confessed Judgment is predi-
cated upon the assent of the parties.
It is created by private agreement
without the intervention of the nor-
mal processes of litigation." — Amer-
ican Cities Co. v. Stevenson, 60 N.
Y.S.2d 685, 688.
Judgment based on testimony
A Judgment disclosing on its face
that it is based on oral testimony of
witnesses sworn and examined in
open court is not a Judgment by con-
fession, despite defendant's acknowl-
edgment of service and offer to con-
fess in a stated sum indorsed on the
summons. — Smith Perry Electric Co.
v. Beavers, 269 P. 320, 132 Okl. 44.
Method of being sued
The confession of a Judgment is
but one of the ways and processes by
which a person may be sued. — Com-
monwealth ex rel. Bradford County
v. Lynch, 23 A.2d 77, 146 Pa.Su'per.
469— O'Hara v. Manley, 12 A.2d 820,
140 Pa.Super. 39— Aid -Soc. of Congre-
gation of Shomo Habrith v. Fogel-
man, Pa.Com.PL, 35 Berks Co.L.J.
178.
268
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 136
rogatories is not a confession of judgment since
such an admission is not a voluntary act.91 A
judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of de-
fense is not a judgment by confession.92
Judgment by consent distinguished. A judgment
"by consent is distinguished from a judgment by
confession, in that its special characteristic is the
settlement between the parties of the terms, amount,
or conditions of the judgment to be rendered ;93 the
first presupposes an agreement of the parties as a
basis for it, and the latter an act of defendant
alone.94 They also differ in that the court exer-
cises a certain amount of supervision over the en-
try of judgments by confession, and equitable ju-
risdiction over their subsequent status.95
Judgment by default distinguished. The terms
"judgment by default" and "judgment by confes-
sion" are not synonymous.96 A judgment by con-
fession is one in which defendant confesses his lia-
bility, whereas a judgment by default is one which
results from the fact that defendant either has no
defense to make, or does not appear to make it.97
In effect, however, a judgment by default is equiv-
alent to a judgment on confession,98 and plaintiff
may waive a judgment by default and substitute a
judgment by confession.99
§ 135. Classes
Judgments by confession are valid at common law.
Judgments by confession are recognized at com-
mon law,1 and such judgments have been held to
be constitutional.2
Confession of judgment after action is brought
and confession without action are discussed in the
sections immediately following.
§ 136. Confession after Action Brought
a. In general
b. By cognovit actionem
c. By confession relicta verificatione
a. In General
Judgments by confession after action brought fall
into two classes, Judgments by cognovit actionem and
Judgments by confession relicta verificatione.
Judgments by confession after action brought are
divided into two classes, the one a judgment by
cognovit actionem and the other a judgment by
confession 'relicta verificatione.3 In either of these
cases the judgment must be tested by rules and prin-
ciples known to the common law, and is not gov-
erned by the statutes authorizing the confession of
judgments without action, so that if good at com-
mon law it is not impeachable for the lack of an
affidavit, statement of the origin of the indebtedness,
or other supports required by those statutes.4
b. By Cognovit Actionem
(1) In general
(2) Requisites and sufficiency of cogno-
vit
(1) In General
At common law and under statutes declaratory of
the common law, a Judgment by cognovit actionem is a
Judgment entered on the defendant's acknowledgment
and confession of the Justness of plaintiff's cause of ac-
tion, such confession being made after service of process
and before entry of a plea.
At common law, and under statutes declaratory
of the common law, in the case of a judgment by
cognovit actionem, defendant after sen-ice of proc-
ess, instead of entering a plea, acknowledges and
confesses that plaintiff's cause of action is just and
91. La.— Hanna v. His Creditors, 12
• Mart. 32.
92. Pa.— Abeles v. Powell, * Pa.Su-
per. 123.
93. Ark. — Houpt v. Bohl, 75 S.W.
470, 71 Ark. 330.
•34 C.J. p 97 note 54.
Judgment by consent generally see
infra §5 173-188.
A stipulation for the entry of Judg-
ment was not a "confession of Judg-
ment."—Ray v. Ridpath, 291 P. 546,
145 Okl. 69.
Judgment held not invalid
In suit to cancel Judgment pro-
cured by Small Loan Act licensee for
violation of provision prohibiting li-
censee from taking any confession of
judgment, recital in Judgment that
it was rendered on borrower's con-
sent and motion did not show that
Judgment was based on confession of
judgment— Nolan v. Southland Ix>an
& Investment Co., 169 S.B. 3f70, 177
Oa. 59.
94. N.C.— Oorpns Juris cited in
Farmers' Bank of -Clayton v. Mc-
Oullers, 160 S.E. 494, 496, 201 N.C.
440.
34 C.J. p 97 note 55.
95. 3ST.C.— Farmers' Bank of Clayton
v. McCullers, 160 S.E. 494, 201 N.
C. 440.
96L Ky.— Corpus Juris cited in
Board of Supervisors, CJity of Som-
erset, v. Pinnell, 166 -S.W.2d 882,
S83, 292 Ky. 364.
Pa.— Crider v. Cassell, Com.PL, 59
York Leg.Rec. 182.
Tenn. — Marshall v. Johnson Hard-
ware Co., 5 Tenn.App. '369.
34 C.J. p 97 note 56.
97. Mo.— Wade v. Swope, 81 S.W.
471, 107 Mo.App. 375.
34 C.J. p 97 note 56.
269
Judgments by default generally see
infra §5 187-218.
98. 'N.Y.— Kieley v. Reinhardt, 108
N-.Y.S. 1012.
34 C.J. p 130 note 79.
99. Md.— Clammer v. State, 9 Gill
279.
1. IlL— Lock v. Leslie, 248 IlLApp.
. 438.
2. U.S. — Bower v. Casanave. DJC.N.
T.. 44 P.Supp. 501.
3. Qa. — Information Buying Co. v.
MUler, 161 S..B. 617, 173 Ga. 786
—Thomas v. Bloodworth, 1-60 S.EL
709, 44 Ga.App. 44.
34 C.J. p 97 note 59.
4. La. — Goodwill v. Elkens,. 25 So.
317, 51 La.Ann. 521.
34 C.J. p 97 note 60.
§ 136
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
rightful;5 and such a judgment may be entered by
cognovit under a warrant of attorney to confess
judgment,6 the warrant in such case being the
means by which the power to confess judgment is
given the attorney, and the cognovit the instrument
by which the confession is made.7 In modern code
practice, the only method of obtaining a judgment
by confession is the one authorized by statute,8
and a judgment by cognovit entered solely by au-
thority of a warrant of attorney to confess judg-
ment has been held to be void.5 As discussed in the
CJ.S. title Pleading § 433, also 49 CJ. p 676 notes
84-90, an answer admitting or confessing the cause
of action pleaded in the complaint is authorized,
and will support a judgment on the pleadings ; but
such judgment on the pleadings is not a "judgment
by confession," except in a loose sense of the
term.10 A cognovit may be good as an admission in
pais.11 Under some statutes a cognovit provision
incorporated in a bond, note, or other instrument
evidencing the debt or obligation is valid and en-
forceable.12
Conditional cognovit. Entry of a valid judgment
may be made dependent on the compliance with cer-
tain conditions mentioned in the cognovit,18 such as
that judgment shall not be entered until a later
term,14 although it has been held that in such a case
judgment may be entered at the present term with
a stay of execution until the prescribed time has
elapsed,"
(2) Requisites and Sufficiency of Cognovit
The cognovit must sufficiently show confession of
the Justice of the claim and consent to the entry of
Judgment, must be certain as to the amount, and must
be properly signed.
The cognovit must contain sufficient to show a
confession of the justice of plaintiffs claim and that
defendant, either expressly or impliedly, consents
to the entry of judgment thereof,16 must be cer-
tain and specific as to the amount confessed,17 and
must be signed by, or in the name of, the attorney.18
A judgment by confession is not affected by the
fact that the cognovit was prepared before the
5. Ga. — Corpus Juris cited in In-
formation Buying Co. v. Miller,
161 S.B. 617, 819, 173 Ga. 786—
Thomas v. Bloodworth, 160 SJBL
709, 44 Ga.A'pp. 44.
N.J. — Fortune Building & Loan Ass'n
v. Codomo, 7 A.2d 880, 122 N.J.
Law 565.
Pa.— Commonwealth v. Central R.
Co. of N. X, Com.PL, 57 Dauph.Co.
255.
Wis.— Park Hotel Co. v. Eckstein-
Miller Auto Co., 193 N.W. 998, 181
Wis. 72.
34 C.J. p 97 note 51, p 98 note 62—
11 CJ.J. p 949 notes 62, 63.
"Warr and cognovit"
(1) The "nan- and cognovit law"
authorizes judgment on notes by at-
torney's confession that amount
thereof, together with interest and
costs, constitutes legal and just
claim; "narr" is an abbreviation of
the Latin word, "narratio," which
means the complaint or petition, and
"cognovit" is also Latin, meaning
that defendant has confessed judg-
-ment and the justice of the claim.—
Dyer v. Johnson, Tex.Civ.App., 19 -S.
W.2d 421, stating Illinois law, error
dismissed.
(2) The only difference between
"Judgment on narr and cognovit" and
one in suit brought by summons is
that in former, summons is unneces-
sary because maker of note authoriz-
es appearance and waives summons.
— Schwartz v. Schwartz, 8 N.R'2d
6ff8, 36-6 HL 247, 112 A.L.R. 325.
A "statement of confession," or
"cognovit," oftentimes referred to as
«. "power of attorney," or simply as a
".power," is the written authority of
the debtor and his Direction to the
clerk of the district court, or Jus-
tice of the peace, to enter judgment
against debtor as stated therein. —
Blott v. Blott, 290 N.W. 74, 227 Iowa
1103.
a HL— Sukowitz v. Hinko, 40 N.E.
2d 345, 314 Ill.App. 195.
N.C. — Bonnett-Brown Corporation v.
Coble, 142 S.E. 772, 195 N.C. 491.
34 C.J. p 98?note 63.
Warrant or power, of attorney to
confess judgment see Infra §§152-
1«7.
Distinction stated
"We think it clear that in this
state the distinction between a judg-
ment on cognovit actionem and what
is colloquially called a 'confessed
judgment' is that in the former case
an action has been begun in invitum
by the issue of process at the very
least . . . and in the latter
case, L e., 'confession of judgment/
and subject to the statute in that
regard, judgment is entered on bond
and warrant without process."—
Fortune Building & Loan Ass'n v.
Codomo, 7 A.2d 880, 881, 122 N.JjL.
565.
Amicable actions may be entered
in ejectment and judgment entered
thereon under power of attorney on
defendant's confession. — Equipment
Corporation of America v. Primos
Vanadium Co., 182 A. 360, 285 Pa.
432.
7. I1L— Campbell v. Goddard, 7 N.-B.
640, 117 111. 251.
34 C.J. p 98 note 70.
8. Utah.— Utah Nat Bank v. Sears,
44 P. 332, 18 Utah 172.
Wis. — Park Hotel Co. v. Eckstein-
270
Miller Auto Co., 193 N.W. 995, T81
Wis. 72.
9. Utah.— Utah Nat Bank v. Sears,
44 -P. *S2, 13 Utah 172.
10. Mo.— Aull v. Day, 34 S.W. 578,
13-3 Mo. 337— Adler v. Anderson,
42 Mo.App. 189.
11. Cal.— Hirschfleld v. Franklin, '6
Cal. 607.
12. Mo.— State ex rel. Bobb v.
Shain, 149 S.W.M 812, 347 Mo. 92*8.
Bffect
The cognovit feature inserted in
note is not a condition affecting
payment; it merely applies to the
means of collection. — Union Proper-
ties v. McHenry, App., 44 N.H,2d 744,
affirmed 50 N.E.2d 315, 142 Ohio St.
186.
13. S.«C.— Keep v. Leckie, 42 SXXL.
164.
34 C.J. «p 98 notes 73, 74.
14. N.T.— Hecox v. Ellis, 19 Wend.
. 157.
34 C. J. p 9'8 note 75.
15. Iowa. — McClish v. Manning, 8
Greene 223.
16. Ill— Keith r. Kellogg, 97 111.
147.
34 C.J. p 98 note 78.
Requisites and sufficiency of confes-
sion generally see infra §§ 146-151.
17. (N.Y.— Nichols v. Hewit, 4 Johns.
423.
34 C.J. p 98 note 79.
18. 111.— Hall v. Jones, *32 111. 38.
Pa.— Philadelphia v. Toll, 2 Wkly.N.
C. 226.
34 C.J. p 98 note 80.
49 O.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 138
cause of action accrued, where the judgment is not
entered until after accrual.1^
The caption of a cognovit is not an essential part,
and if defective may be treated as surplusage,20
c. By Confession Eelicta Verificatione
A confession rellcta veriflcatlone occurs where a de-
fendant withdraws or abandons a plea which has al-
ready been made In the action, and confesses the just-
ness of the plaintiff's cause of action.
In the case of a confession relicta verificatione,
defendant, after pleading and before trial, both con-
fesses plaintiffs cause of action and withdraws or
abandons his plea or other allegation, whereupon
judgment is entered against him without proceed-
ing to trial.21 Where such a confession is properly
made, it is the duty of the court to render judg-
ment on it.22 Where the parties appear and de-
fendant withdraws his plea, and plaintiff proves
his cause of action and a judgment is thereupon
rendered in his favor, it is a judgment on proof
of the cause of action made to the court and not a
judgment on confession.23
Retraction of confession. Where such confes-
sion is made by defendant through a mistake of
fact as to the contents of the pleadings he may, on
discovery of his error, retract his confession at any
time before it has been recorded.24
§ 137. Confession without Action
Under appropriate statutory provisions, a Judgment
by confession may be entered without any action or
suit having been instituted against the confessor; but
such practice Is unknown at common law.
Under some statutes provision is made for the
entry of a judgment by confession without the in-
stitution of an action or suit against the one so
confessing.25 These statutes have no application to
judgments by confession made after action has been
brought and process has been regularly served.26
In the absence of such a statute, a confession of
judgment cannot be entered before the commence-
ment of an action,27 confession of judgment with-
out an action being unknown at common law.2*
§ 138. Debts or Claims for Which Judgment
. May Be Confessed
In order to be valid, a confession of Judgment must
be for a debt which is Justly due or to become due.
A judgment by confession cannot be entered in
any case where a statute prescribes a different and
exclusive form of proceeding ;2& and, where a stat-
ute prescribes the debts or claims on which a judg-
ment by confession may be entered, in order to be
valid the judgment must be based on an obligation
falling within the purview of the statute.30 The
confession must be for a debt which is justly due
or to become due;81 but although the debt should
be a legal one, this does not mean that the demand
must be one against which the debtor could set up
no defenses in an action at law brought to recover
such demand.82 Thus it is no objection to a con-
fessed judgment that the claim for which it is given
is barred by the debtor's discharge in bankruptcy,83
and even though a part of the claim on which the
judgment is confessed is founded only on a moral
obligation, such as an oral assumption of indebted-
ness, which under the statute of frauds would not
be enforceable at law, the judgment is nevertheless
good.84
Claim barred by limitation. If the claim is an
honest one, it is no objection to a confessed judg-
ment that the claim for which it is given would be
barred by the statute of limitations,35 since, as dis-
cussed in the C.J.S. title Limitations of Actions §
19. HL— Blake v. Freeport State
Bank, 52 N.E. 957, 178 I1L 182.
34 C.J. p 99 note 81.
20. 111.— Oassen v. Brown, 74 BL
App. 346— Browne v. Cassem, 74
IlLApp. 305.
ala Ga. — information Buying Co. v.
Miller, 161 -S.-E. W 173 Ga. 786
—Thomas r. Bloodworth, 160 S.E.
709, 44 Ga.App. 44.
34 C.J. p 99 note «3.
22. Okl. — Towery v. Buck, IS 6 P.
693, 81 Okl. -38.
3. W.Va.-
Va. 2T6.
-Holliday v. Myers, 11 W.
24. Ga. — Smith v. Simms, 9 Ga. 418.
25. pa.— Shure y. Goodinate Co., 14
Pa.Dist. & Co. 209, 79 PittsbJLeg.
J. 16, affirmed Shure v. Goodimate
Co., 15-3 A. 757, 302 Pa, 457.
Tex. — Johnson v. Cole, Civ.App., IS 8
S,W.2d 910, error refused.
26. 111.— Little v. Dyer, 27 N.B. 905,
1138 111. 272, 82 Am.S.R» 140.
34 C.J. p 99 note 89.
27. Ga.— Whitley v. Southern
Wholesale Corporation, (1.64 S.K
9013, <45 Ga.App. 445 — Information
Buying Co. v. Miller, 161 S.B. 617,
17« Ga. 786.
Pa.— Commonwealth v. Central R. Co.
of N. J., Com.PL, 57 Dauph.Co.
255.
28. Ga.— Information Buying Co. v.
Miller, 161 S.E. 617, 173 Ga. 786.
29. m.— Wilier v. French, VI HL
App. 76, affirmed 0.8 N.E. 811, 12«
HI. 611, 9 Am.S.B. 651, 2 L.TkA»
717.
34 C.J. P 99 note 91.
i.— Park Hotel Co. v. Eck-
271
stein-Miller Auto Co., 193 NVW.
998, 18.1 Wis. 72.
31. OkL— Western Paint & Chemical
Co. v. Board of Com'rs of Garfield
County, 18 -P.2d 888, 161 OkL 800.
34 C.J. p 99 note 0*2.
Under warrant or power of .attorney
see infra S§ 152-157.
32. La. — Kiernan v. Jackson, 35 So.
798, 111 La. 645.
34 C.J. p 99 note 93.
83. N.Y.— Dewey v. Moyer, 72 tf.Y.
70, affirmed 1018 U.S. (301, 26 KEd.
894.
34. Pa.— Keen v. Kleckner, 42 Pa.
529.
35. U.S.— Wright v. Wrigfht, CC.
Pa., CLOiS P. 580.
84 aX P 99 note 96.
Exercise of power of attorney after
claim la barred see infra S
139
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
24, also 37 C.J. p 721 note 15-p 722 note 38, de-
fendant is not obliged to interpose the statute, but
l\as the right to waive such defense,
§ 139. Debts Not Matured
Whether Judgment may be confessed for a debt not
yet matured depends on the language of the statute or
constitutional provision under which such Judgment Is
sought*
Where a statute provides that a confession of
judgment may be for a debt due or to become due,
judgment may be confessed on a debt or obligation
which is existing but is not yet payable or not yet
matured.86 Where, however, the statutes provide
that a judgment may be confessed for a debt justly
due and owing, the debt must be one which is actu-
ally existing and due at the time the confession of
judgment is made.37 The same is true where a con-
stitutional provision prohibits the confession of
judgment by any document under private signature
executed before the maturity of the obligation sued
on.38
§ 140.
Contingent Liabilities
Judgment may be confessed to secure against eon.
tingent liabilities only In Jurisdictions In which Judg-
ment may be confessed for debts not yet matured.
Where judgment may be confessed for debts due
or to become due, as discussed supra § 139, a judg-
ment may be confessed for the purpose of securing
plaintiff against a future contingent liability;^ and
some statutes have made express provision for such
judgments.40 Where, however, a confession can be
only for an existing debt, judgment cannot be con-
fessed to secure against contingent liabilities.41
§ 141. Future Advances
A Judgment by confession to secure, future advances
is valid In Jurisdictions In which Judgment may be con-
fessed for an obligation not yet due.
In those jurisdictions where judgment may be
confessed for an obligation not yet due, discussed
supra § 139, a judgment by confession may be made
to secure future advances and liabilities agreed to
be made to the debtor to the extent of the amount
or the judgment,42 where this arrangement forms a
part of the original agreement between the par-
ties.48 Such a judgment cannot, as against third
persons, cover new and distinct engagements subse-
quently entered into by the parties, and not includ-
ed within the original agreement ;44 and it has been
held that it will not cover advances made or re-
sponsibilities incurred, after a 'subsequent judgment
has intervened.45 Where the creditor gives out a
statement of the amount then due, to enable the
debtor to borrow from another, he is estopped to
claim beyond that amount46
§ 142.
For Tort
At common law a Judgment on a tort claim may be
entered by cognovit after action brought; it cannot be
entered without action under statute, unless expressly
permitted by the statute.
A judgment by confession for a daim arising out
of a tort, at common law, could be entered by cog-
novit after action was commenced,47 but could not
be entered on a bond and warrant of attorney, with-
out process.48 Unless included in the provisions of
the statute, it cannot be entered under a statute
which provides for confessions of judgment with-
out action.49
§ 143. Who May Confess Judgment
A confession of Judgment may be made only by the
defendant himself or some person duly authorized to
act for him In that behalf.
A confession of judgment may be made only by
defendant himself,50 or by some person duly au-
3ft, Wis.— Port Huron Engine &
Thresher Co. v. Clements, 39 N.W.
160, 118 Wis. 249.
34 C.J. p 99 note 1.
Time for exercising warrant or pow-
er of attorney see infra I 154 e.
37. N.J.— Modern Security Co. of
Philadelphia v. Fleming, 142 A.
649, 6 N.J.Misc. 7130.
34 C.J. p 100 note 13.
38. La.— Phillips v. Bryan, 1&4 So.
88, 172 La. 2*69— Taylor v. Shreve-
port Fertilizer Works, App., 197 So.
164.
39. (Pa. — Commonwealth ex rel.
Bradford County v. Lynch, 23 A.2d
77, 146 Pa.Super. 469.
34 C.J. p 100 note 5.
4fc W.Y.— Marks v. Keynolds, 1*
Abb.Pr. 402.
34 C.J. p 100 note 6.
41. N.X— Sterling v. Fleming, 24 A.
1001, 53 N.J.Law 852.
34 C.J. p 100 note 7.
42* Md.— First . Mortg. Bond Home-
stead Assoc. v. (Mehlhorn, 105 A.
526, 188 Md. 439, S A.L.B. 844.
94 C.J. p 100 note 9.
43. N.Y.-JTruscott v. King, 6 Barb.
346, reversed on other grounds 6
N.Y. 147.
34 C.J. p 100 note 10.
44. N.Y.— Averill v. Loucks, 6 Barb.
19.
45. N.Y.— Br'inkerhott v. Martin, 5
Johns.Cn. 1820.
272
46. Pa,— Ter-Hoven v. Kerns, 2 Pa.
96.
47* N.Y. — Burkham.v. Van Saun, 14
Abb.«Pr.,N.S., 110.
48. HL— Wilier v. French, 27 HI.
App. 76, affirmed 18 N.E. 811, 126
HI. -611, 9 Am.S.E. 651, 2 L.R.A.
717.
34 C.J. p 100 note 15.
Construction and operation of war-
rant or power generally see infra
§ 154.
49. N.Y.— Burkham v. Van Saun, 1'4
Abb.Pr.,N.S., 163.
34 C.J. p 100 note 16.
50. Pa.— Melnick y. Hamilton, 87
Pa.Super. 575.
•34 C.J. p 100 note 18.
Any debtor has a right to confess
judgment in favor of his creditor. —
49 O.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 146
thorized to act for him in that behalf,51 as by a
warrant or power of attorney, as discussed infra §
152 et seq. Defendant will not be bound by an
unauthorized confession of judgment made by an-
other on his behalf,52 unless he ratifies it.53 It is
immaterial to the validity of the judgment that
defendant confessing it is an officer of the court in
which it is entered; a judgment against himself
may be confessed by the clerk54 or by the judge of
the court.55
The authority of particular representatives to
confess judgment for another is treated in appropri-
ate places in this work; thus for a discussion of
confession of judgment by an agent generally see
Agency § 117, by an attorney see Attorney and Cli-
ent § 86, by a corporation see Corporations § 1341
b, by an executor or administrator see Executors
and Administrators §§ 149, 794, by a guardian see
Guardian and Ward § 182, by a married woman see
Husband and Wife §§ 448, 552, by an officer or
agent of a corporation see Corporations § 1067, and
by a partner see the C.J.S. title Partnership § 165,
also 47 C J. p 880 note 70-p 881 note 95.
§ 144. Joint or Several Debtors or De-
fendants
One of several joint debtors may confess, judgment
for himself alone; but, if he attempts without author-
Ity to confess for himself and others, the confession of
Judgment is void as to the others although valid as to
him.
A judgment by confession against joint debtors
or joint defendants must be joined in or authorized
by all of the debtors or defendants, and one joint
debtor or joint defendant cannot confess judgment,
so as to make it binding on a codebtor or codefend-
ant who does not properly authorize or join in the
confession.56 One joint debtor or joint defendant,
however, may confess judgment for himself alone,67
provided he is not induced to do so by any improp-
er motive, or by any intent to injure or embarrass
his codef endants ;58 but his confessed judgment will
remain interlocutory until the trial and determina-
tion of the issues as to the other defendants.59 Al-
though a confession of judgment by one only, for
himself and others, is void as to the ones who do
not join therein, and a joint judgment cannot be en-
tered on it,60 it has been held valid and enforceable
as to the one making the confession.61
Several liability. Where two or more persons are
severally liable for the same. debt, they may make
several confessions of judgment,62 but, as discussed
infra § 164, a joint judgment cannot be entered
against them on their separate confessions.
§ 145. In Whose Favor Confessed
A Judgment may be confessed in favor of any person
who Is the iegal owner of the debt or claim in question.
A judgment may be confessed in favor of any
person who is the legal owner of the debt or claim
in question,63 such as an assignee or trustee for
the benefit of various creditors;6* and may be con-
fessed in favor of the state as creditor as well as
an individual.65
B. REQUISITES AITD VALIDITY 01 CONFESSION QENEEALLT
146. In General
In the absence of a statute providing otherwise, any
admission of the plaintiff's claim that leaves no Issue-
to be tried is sufficient to constitute a confession of
Judgment. .
Knight v. Peoples Nat Bank of
Lynchburg, 29 S.B.2d 364.* 182 Va.
380.
51. Pa, — Melnick v. Hamilton, 87
Pa.Super. 575 — Commonwealth v.
Central R. Co. of N. J.. Com.PL, 57
DauphjCo. 255— Yellow Mfg. Credit
Corporation v. Rooney, Cora.PL, 9
ScluReg. 119.
«4 C.J. p 100 note 19.
52. Neb.-HCuster County v. Chicago,
B. & Q. R. Co., «7 N.W. 1341, 62
Neb. 657.
54 C.J. p 101 note 21.
53. Puerto Rico. — Bias v. Colon, 8
Puerto Rico 76.
54. Va.— -Smith v. Mayo, 5 S.E, 276,
S3 Va. 910.
55. * Ga. — Thornton v. Lane, 11 Ga.
45'9.
56. Pa,— Koenig v. Curran's Rsstau-
49O.J.S.— 18
rant & Baking Co., 169 A. 553, 306
Pa. 1345.
34 C.J. p 101 note 26.
57. pa.— Koenig Y. Curran's Restau-
rant & Baking Co., supra.
34 C.J. p 101 note 27.
58. Va.— Virginia & T. Coal & Iron
Co. v. Pields, 26 S.B. 426, 94- Va.
•102.
59. W.Va.-— Hoffman v. Bircher, 22
W.Va, 5«7.
34 C.J. p 101 note 29.
60. CaL— Chapin v. Thompson, 20
Cal. -681.
34 C.J. p 101 note $0.
61. Pa.— Koenig v. Curran's Restau-
rant & Baking Co., 159 A. 55)3, 306
Fa. #45.
34 C.J. p 101 note 31.
62. N.Y.— Kirby v. Fitzgerald, 81 N.
•Y, 417.
34 C.J. p 101 note 32.
273
63« HI— Shepherd v. Wood, 713 111..
App. 486.
Confession of judgment by husband:
In favor of wife see Husband and.
Wife § 160.
For whom Judgment may be confess-
ed under warrant or power of at-,
torney see Infra § 154.
Accommodation, signers who paid
note by giving payee a new note and
took assignment of old note could
not take Judgment by confession,
against one of principals, since suit
may not be maintained on note by-
one comaker who has paid note or-
to whom it has been assigned,
against another comaker. — Gillham-.
v. Troeckler, 26 N.B.2d 4113, 1304 HI.
App. 59*6.
64, Pa.— Breading v. Boggs, 20 'Pav
33.
34 C.J. p 101 note 36.
65. N.C.— State v. Love, 23 N.C. 264-.,
§ 146
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
Unless required by statute, no particular form is
necessary to a confession of judgment; any admis-
sion of the claim that leaves no issue to be tried is
sufficient66 In order to authorize an immediate
judgment thereon the confession must be absolute
and unconditional;67 but it may be made condition-
al, and in that case it can be enforced only on com-
pliance with the conditions or in accordance there-
with.68 It is no objection that several different
debts to the same creditor are included in the one
confession69 or that it is given to one person as
trustee for numerous small creditors, all the debts
being justly due.70 It has been held to be essential
that defendant confess, or authorize his attorney
to confess for him, such judgment as plaintiff would
be entitled to recover in the event of a successful
termination of similar adverse proceedings.71
Good faith. A confession of judgment must be
made in good faith;72 if it is fictitious and fraud-
ulent, and does not affect the relation of the par-
ties, it cannot have the effect of a confession of
judgment78
§ 147. Compliance with Statutory Provisions
Generally
Statutes providing for the confession of Judgments
otherwise than at common law are to be strictly con-
strued and there must be a strict compliance with such
statutes.
The subject of confession of judgments is now to
a great extent regulated by statute, and where these
statutes provide for the confession of judgments
without action, or make regulations otherwise than
according to the course of the common law, they
are to be strictly construed, and a strict compli-
ance with their provisions must be shown in order
to sustain the judgment,74 but, where there has been
strict compliance with the statute, nothing further
is necessary to support the judgment.75 Thus there
must be a strict compliance with a statutory pro-
vision that the confession of judgment must be
signed by the party making it and by witnesses76 or
that the debtor shall appear in person and confess
the judgment77 Where, however, the statutory
provision is merely declaratory of the common law,
only a substantial compliance therewith is re-
quired;78 and where the statute provides for a pro-
ceeding in a court having general common-law ju-
risdiction, but does not give the details and particu-
lars of the proceeding, these may be pursued ac-
cording to the principles of the common law.79 It
has also been held that, where a trial court has ju-
risdiction and authority to give the relief granted,
and where without the filing of an answer the par-
ties appear in court and agree as to what the judg-
ment should be, the judgment is not void even
though there has not been a full compliance with all
68. Ark.— -Firestone Tire & Rubber
Co. v. Webb, i!82 S.W.2d 941, 207
Ark. &20.
Pa.— R. S. Noonan, Inc., v. Hott, 188
. A.2d 58, 650 Ba. 295.
34 C.J. p 101 note 40.
Nature, necessity, requisites, and
sufficiency of statement of indebt-
edness see infra §§ 158, 159.
Confession need not "be in writing:,
where summons has been properly
issued and served; Judgment render-
ed on defendant's oral statement to
go ahead and take judgment con-
stituted Judgment by confession. —
^ESolian Co. of Missouri v. Smith-
Medcalf & Co., Mo.App., 7 S.W.2d
447.
67. Ark. — Shepard v. Dudley, 201 S.
W. 111% 132 Ark. 605.
La. — State v. Judge Fourth Dist. Ct.,
1 McG. 11.
6a N.G.— Wood v. Bagley, 34 N.C.
as.
34 C.J. p iai note 42.
69. U.S.— Odell v. Reynolds, Ohio,
70 F. 656, 17 C.C.A. «17.
34. CJ. p 101 note 4«.
70. Pa. — Breading v. Boggs, 20 Pa.
&3.
7L» DPa. — Grakelow v. Kidder, 95 Pa.
Super." 250 — Pittsburgh Terminal
Coal Corporation v. Potts, 92 Pa.
.Super. 1, followed in Pittsburgh
Terminal Coal Corporation T. Me-
Clements, 92 Pa. Super. 29, and
Hlllman Gas Coal Co. v. Bozice-
vich, 92 (Pa.Super. 39.
72. N.J.— - Jones v. Naughright, 10
N.J.EQ. 298.
73. Wash.T. — Connoly v. Cunning-
ham, 5 P. -47)3, 2 Wash.T. 242.
84 C.J. p 102 note 4*6.
74. Bel. — Farrell v. Maryland Cred-
it Finance Corporation of Mary-
land, Thomas Hughes, Inc., 127 A.
879, 2 W.W.Harr. 569.
Md. — Webster v. People's Loan, Sav-
ings & Deposit Bank of Cambridge,
152 A. 815, 160 Md. 57.
N.J. — Corpus Juris cited in Rollen-
hagen v. Stevenson, 4t3 A.2d 173,
174— Modern Security Co. of Phil-
adelphia v. Fleming, 142 A. 649, 6
KJ.Misc. 750.
N.Y.— Williams v. Mittlemann, 20 N.
T.S.2d 690, 259 App.Div. 697, ap-
peal denied 22 N.T.S.2d 822, 260
App.Div. 8H1 — American Cities Co.
v. Stevenson, 60 N.Y.S.'2d 685.
Pa. — Kirk Johnson & Co. v. Wilson,
18 PaJDist. & Co. 672.
Wis.— Chippewa Vattey Securities Co.
v. Herbst, 278 N,W. 872, 227 Wis.
422.
84 C.J. p 102 notes 60, 55.
Repeal by implication
The statute authorizing recovery
274
of deficiency after mortgage fore-
closure sale and authorizing obligor
on bond to file answer in suit on
the bond disputing amount of de-
ficiency did not repeal statute au-
thorizing Judgments by confession. —
Chambers v. Boldt. 8 A.2d 713, 123 N.
J.Law 111.
Process
Statute regulating procedure where
Judgment is entered without the
service of process has no application
to a Judgment by confession en-
tered in a proceeding instituted by
the service of process. — Johnson v.
Cole, TexXJiv.App., 1138 S.W.2d 910,
error refused.
75. Del.— Money v. Hart, 159 A. 4*37,
5 WjW.Harr, 115.
34 C.J. p 10*2 note 51.
76. La.— Erwin v. Walton, 4 Rob.
1328.
Mich.— Beach v. Botsford, 1 Dougl.
199, 40 Am.D. 145.
77. Ohio. — Rosebrough v. lAnsley, 85
Ohio St. 107.
78. Va. — Saunders v. Lipscomb, 19
S.E. 450, 90 .Va. €47.
Statute held declaratory of common
law
•111. — May v. Chas. O. Larson Co., 36
N.B.2d 139, (304 IlLApp. Ii37.
79. N.J.— Stewart v. Walters, 38 N.
J.Law 274.
49 C.J.S,
JUDGMENTS
§150
the statutory requirements as to the confession of
judgments.*** Under some statutes judgments in
amicable actions are not statutory,81 and the stat-
utes relating to judgments entered by the prothono-
tary, discussed infra § 154 f, are inapplicable to
judgments confessed in amicable actions in which
plaintiff and defendant appear by counsel.82
§ 148. Consent or Ratification of Creditor
A confession of Judgment Is not binding on the plain-
tiff unless he consents to It or ratifies It.
In order that a confession of judgment may be
binding on the plaintiff, it is essential that he, ei-
ther expressly or impliedly, assent thereto;83 if it
is made without his request, knowledge, or consent,
and entered at the instance of the debtor alone, it
will have no validity unless the creditor ratifies or
accepts it84 The validity of the judgment dates
only from such acceptance, and therefore it will not
affect the priority of other creditors who came in
between the entry of the judgment and its accept-
ance.*5 Where plaintiff would, under no circum-
stances, be entitled to any judgment different from
that which defendant offers to confess, which offer
he rejects, it has been held that the action may be
dismissed.8^
Manner of consent or acceptance. The creditor's
consent to, or acceptance of, the judgment, if not
express, may be implied from the circumstances of
his dealing with it,87 as from the fact that he at-
tempts to enforce it.88 In the absence of anything
appearing to the contrary, the creditor's consent
may be presumed from the record89 or from the fact
that the judgment confessed operates to his bene-
fit,^ but the creditor's mere silence or failure to
object on being informed of the judgment does not
amount to an acceptance of it, although it is ad-
missible as evidence tending to prove his accept-
ance.91 The knowledge and consent of the credi-
tor's attorney, hi whose hands he has placed the
matter, is sufficient to make it binding on the credi-
tor.9*
§ 149. Process, Appearance, and Pleading
The requirements as to process, appearance, and
pleading in the case of a confession after action is
instituted are discussed infra § ISO, and in the case
of a confession without action infra § 151.
Examine Pocket Parts for later cases.
§ 150. Confession after Action
A Judgment of confession after action is instituted
must be based on the service of process on, or an ap-
pearance by, the defendant.
It is essential to the validity of a confession of
judgment after action brought that process should
have been regularly served on defendant, ou service
accepted by him, or that an appearance should have
been entered by him in person or by a duly author-
ized attorney for him,93 and that there should be
80. Kan.— Brooks v. National Bank
of Topeka, 110 <P.2d 1069. 15-3 Kan.
8*0.
81. Pa,— Peerless Soda- Fountain
Service Co. v. Lipsohutz, 101 Pa,
Super. 568 — Vesta Coal Co. v. Stid-
dard, 92 Pa.Super. 87— Vesta Coal
Co. v. Jones, 92 PaJSuper. "30, fol-
lowed in Chartiers Creek Coal Co.
v. Bielski, 92 Pa.Super. 38-n Pitts-
burgh Terminal Coal Corporation
v. Potts, 92 (Pa, Super. 1, followed
in Pittsburgh Terminal Coal Cor-
poration v. Mcdements, 92 Pa-Su-
per. 29, and Hillman Gas Coal Co.
v. Bozicevich, 92 FttuSuper. 89.
Agreement that addon be amicable
Defendant in amicable action must
have agreed that it should be amicar
ble as distinguished from adverse
proceeding. — Grakelow v. Kidder, 95
Pa.Super. 250 — Pittsburgh Terminal
Coal Corporation v. Potts, 92 Pa.Su-
per. 1, followed in Pittsburgh Termi-
nal Coal Corporation v. McClements,
92 Pa,Super. 29, and Hillman Gas
Coal Co. v. Bozicevich, 92 Pa.Super.
39.
82. Pa,— Finance & Guaranty Co. v.
Mittleman, "913 Pa,Super. 277— Ves-
ta Coal Co. v. Stiddard, 92 Pa.
Super. 37— Vesta Coal Co. v. Jones,
92 Pa,Super. 80, followed in* Char-
tiers Creek Coal Co. v. Bielski, 92
PaJSuper. 88— Hillman Coal & Coke
Co. v. Metcalfe, 92 Pa,Super. 14—
Pittsburgh Terminal Coal Corpora-
tion v. Potts, 92 iPa.Super. 1, fol-
lowed in Pittsburgh Terminal Coal
Corporation v. McClements, 92 Pa-
Super. 29, and Hillman Gas Coal
Co. v. Bozicevich, 95 Pa,Super. 89.
Actions are not statutory
Actions resulting in confessed
Judgments are not statutory.— Hill-
man Coal & Coke Co. v. Metcalfe. 92
Pa. Super. 14.
83. Old.— Universal Supply & Ma-
chinery Co. v. Construction Ma-
chinery Co., 16 P.2d 865, 160 OkL
209.
34 C.J. p CL02 note 58.
84. Vt— Mason v. Ward, 67 A. 820,
80 Vt. 290, 130 Am.S.B. 987.
34 C.J. p 102 note 59.
85. Ark. — Lowenstein v. Caruth, 28
S.W. 421, 59 Ark. 588.
34 C.J. p 102 note 60.
86. Colo.— Denver First Nat. Bank
v. Hotchkiss, 114 (P. filO, 40 Colo.
59)3.
84 C.J. P 10& notes 67-69.
275
87. Md.— Barker v. Ayres, 5 Md.
202.
34 C.J. p il02 note 61.
88. S.D.— Corpus Juris cited in
Banton v. Dakota Lodge No. 1,
L O. O. F., Inc., 202 N.W. 874. «7
S.D. 13133.
34 CJT. p 102 note <62.
89. Ind. — Kennard v. Carter, 64 Ind.
31.
90. Pa,— Olawson v. Elchbaum, 2
Grant 130— MoCalmont v. Peters,
13 Serg. & B. 196.
91. Ind. — Haggerty v. Juday, 58
Ind. 154.
34 C.J. p 102 note 65.
92. Ind. — Chapin v. McLaren, 5 N.
E. 688, 105 Ind. 563.
93. Gsu — Information Buying Co. v.
Miller, 161 S.E. 617, 178 Ga. 78S.
N.J.— Fortune Building & Loan Ass'n
v. Codomo, 7 A.2d 880, 122 N.J.Law
565.
84 C.J. p 103 note 71.
SnbsecLuettfe pxooess
Where plaintiff failed within stat-
utory time to file bill pursuant to
process executed on defendant, but
later filed bill and matured suit on
new process subsequently issued, and
returned, executed on same defend-
§151
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
an appearance by plaintiff, or at least his consent
to the entry of judgment;94 and although a decla-
ration or some statement of plaintiffs claim should
generally be filed, before or at the same time as the
confession,95 in some jurisdictions, where a writ
is properly issued, the confession may be founded
thereon and a formal declaration is not necessary.96
It has also been held that, where defendant has
agreed to the commencement of an amicable action
and the confession of judgment therein, the method
in which the action is commenced is immaterial.97
§ 151. Confession without Action
Process, appearance, or pleading Is generally not re-
quired where a confession of Judgment Is made without
action.
In case of a confession without action, it is not
necessary that any process should be issued or
served on defendant, or any appearance entered by
or for him other than the appearance for the pur-
pose of confessing the judgment,98 but, where the
statute requires defendant to appear personally in
court and confess judgment, a valid judgment can-
not be confessed without such appearance.99
As a general rule it is not essential to such a con-
fession that a declaration or complaint should be
filed,1 and, if a declaration is filed, it is immaterial
whether or not it will stand the test of technical
principles.2 On the other hand, under some stat-
utes if the confession is made under a warrant of
attorney without defendant personally appearing,
a declaration,8 which under some statutes should be
duly verified,4 must be filed.
UNDEE WARRANT OR POWER OF ATTORNEY
§ 152. In General
Subject to statutory exceptions, a judgment by con-
fession may generally be entered on a warrant or power
of attorney*
In most jurisdictions a judgment by confession
may be entered on a written authority, called a
warrant or power of attorney, by which the debtor
empowers an attorney to enter an appearance for
him, waive process, and confess judgment against
him for a designated amount,6 and such practice
is not regarded as being against public policy,6 ex-
cept in a few jurisdictions.7 The power to confess
ant, decree pro confesso taken
against defendant on his failure to
appear, decree will not be disturbed
on bill of review for manner in
which suit was instituted and pros-
ecuted.—Watkins v. Watkins, 129 S.
B. 3&o, 99 W.Va. 495.
94. 111.— Thayer v. Finley, «6 m.
262.
35. 111.— Desaoyers Shoe Co. v.
Litchfield First Nat Bank, 58 N.E.
994, 188 HI. StlS.
34 C.J. p 1013 note 7|3.
Pleadings held sufficient
Pleadings containing allegations
that defendant had made fraudulent
representation regarding financial
"backing of corporation, thereby in-
ducing creditors to extend credit to
corporation, were sufficient to sup-
port confession of Judgment against
defendant — Deeds v. Gilmer, 174 S.E.
37, 162 Va. 157.
96. U.S.— McNeil v. Cannon, C.C.B.
€., 16 FvCas.No.8,91i8, 1 Cranch.C.
C. 127.
34 O.J. p 10)3 note 74.
97. Pa.— Vesta Coal Co. v. Stiddard,
92 Pa.Super. 37 — Vesta Coal Co. v.
Jones, 92 Pa.Super. 30, followed in
Chartlers Creek Coal Co. v. Bielski,
92 Pa.Super. <38 — Hillman Coal &
Coke Co. v. Metcalfe, 92 Pa.Super.
14 — Pittsburgh Terminal Coal Cor-
poration v. Potts, 92 Pa, Super. 1,
followed in Pittsburgh Terminal
Coal Corporation v. McClements, 92
Pa.Super. 29, and Hillman Gas Coal
Co. v. Bozicevich, <92 Pa.Super. 39.
98. U.S. — Corpus Juris cited in Fed-
eral Deposit Ins. Corporation v.
Steinman, DjC.Pa., 5*3 F.Supp. 644,
651 — Bower v. Casanave, D.C.N.Y.,
44 F.Supp. 501. }
111. — Corpus Juris cited in Lock v.
Leslie, '248 Ill.App. 438, <443.
La. — Jeffcoat v. Haramons, App., 160
So. 182.
Mass. — Corpus Juris cited in Ferran-
ti v. Lewis, 171 N.E. 232, 234, 271
Mass. 186.
N.C. — Bonnett-Brown Corporation v.
Coble, 142 S.B. 772, 195 N.C. 491.
Pa. — Union Acceptance Co. v. Grant
Motor Sales Co., 5 PaJDist & Co.
407, 23 Luz.Leg.Heg. 89, 2 Som.Co.
Leg.J. 260, 39 York Leg.Rec. 141
— Colonial Trust Co. v. Crailsheim-
er, Com.Pl., 87 Pittsb.Le^J. 207.
34 C.J. p 10(3 note 75.
99. Ohio. — Rosebrough v. Ansley, 35
Ohio St 107.
34 C.J. p 103 note 76.
1. Ind.— Agard v. Hawks, 24 Ind.
276.
Pa. — Melavage v. Akelaites, 8 Pa.
Dist. & Co. Ill, 22 Sch.L.R. 201,
40 Tork Leg.Rec. 115 — Union Ac-
ceptance Co. v. Grant Motor Sales
Co., 5 PaX>ist & Co. 407, 23 Luz.
Leg. Reg. 89, 2 Som.Co.Leg.J. 260,
39 Tork Leg.Rec. 141.
34 C.J. p 103 note 77.
2. -Ark.— Cheat v. Bennett, 11 Ark.
276
313 — Thompson v. Foster, 6 Ark.
208.
3. 111. — Shumway v. Shumway, 192
N.B. 578, 1357 111. "477.
Declaration held sufficient
111.— First Nat Bank v. Royer, 278
ULApp. 158.
4. Ohio.— Sidney First (Nat Bank
v. Reid, 31 Ohio St. 435.
34 C.J. p 104 note 80.
5. U.B.— Withers v. Starace, DJC.N.
T.t 22 F.Supp. 77i3.
Del.— Rhoads v. Mitchell, Super., 47
A.2d 174.
Md.— John B. Colt Co. v. Wright, 159
A. 7413.
Pa.— Commonwealth v. Central R. Co. ,
of N. J., Cora.Pl., 57 Dauph.Co. 255
— Nash Sales & Service v. Broody,
33 Luz.Leg.Heg. 158, 9 Som.Co.Leg.
J. 132-6. •
34 C.J. p 104 note 82—67 C.J. p 603
note 29.
Validity of warrant executed by an
infant see infants S 23.
Statute held valid
N.J.— Levin v. Wenof, 14'6 A. 789, 7
N.JJMisc. 60(3.
6. Pa. — Rochester & Pittsburgh
Coal & Iron Co., 7 Pa.Dist & Co.
312.
34 C.J. p 104 note 83.
7. W.Va. — Farquhar v. Be Haven, 75
.S.B. 65, 70 W.Va. 738, Ann.Cas.
1914A 640, 40 L.R.A.,N.S., 956.
34 C.J. p 104 note 84.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 152
judgment by warrant of attorney comes from the
common law,8 and is governed thereby except in
so far as the old rules of the common law have
been modified by statute and the decisions of the
courts of last resort.9
The legislature has the power to determine what
judgments may be entered on warrants or powers
of attorney.10 Thus, under some statutes, a judg-
ment by confession may not be entered on a power
of attorney in the case of certain obligations,11
whereas under others only in the case of certain
specified obligations may a judgment by confession
be entered on the authority of a power of attor-
ney.12
Nature of power. In its infancy such a warrant
of attorney was purely a question of practice,13
which prevailed in many, if not most, of the older
states from an early day,14 but in later times it has
assumed the role of security for debt.15
What law governs. As a general rule the valid-
ity and effect of a power of attorney to confess
judgment are governed by the law of the place
where the power is given16 although defendant is a
resident of another state at the time the power is
executed.17 On the other hand, it has been held
that the validity and effect of such a power are gov-
erned by the law of the place of performance18 or
the law of the jurisdiction where the judgment is
8. Del. — Rhoads v. Mitchell, Super.,
47 A.2d 174.
111.-— Lock v. Leslie, 248 Hl.App. 4!3S,
442.
N.J. — Gotham Credit Corporation v.
Powell, 38 A.2d 700, "22 N.J.Misc.
301.
Pa. — Automobile Finance -Co. v. Var-
ner, 90 Pittsb.Leg.J. 169.
34 C.J. p 104 note 85.
Instruments under seal
Power to confess judgment under
warrant directed to attorney is con-
fined to instrument under seal evi-
dencing- debt for which judgment is
confessed. — General Contract Pur-
chase Corporation v. Max Keil Heal
Estate Co., 170 A. 797, 5 W.-W.Harr.
531.
9. Del. — General Contract Purchase
Corporation v. Max Keil Real Es-
tate Co., 170 A. 797, 5 W.W.Harr.
5.31.
Fla. — Corpus Juris cited in Carroll
v. Gore, 148 So. 6&3, '686, 106 Pla.
582, 89 A.L.R. 1495.
Ill.~Book v. Ewbank, (35 N.E.2d 961,
1311 'Ill.App. 312— Corpus Juris cit-
ed in Lock v. Leslie, 2*48 Ill.App.
438, 442.
Wis.— Corpus Juris cited in Chippe-
wa Valley Securities Co. v. Herbst,
278 N.W. 872, 874, 227 Wis. 422.
34 C.J. p 104 note 86.
10. Wis. — Chippewa Valley Securi-
ties Co. v. Herbst 278 N.W. 872,
227 Wis. 422.
11. Ind. — American Furniture Mart
Bldg. Corporation v. IW. C. Red-
mon, Sons & Co., 1 <N.E;2d 606, 210
Ind. 112.
34 C.J. p 104 note 88.
.Ascertainment of sum due
• The statutes pertaining: to cognovit
provisions of negotiable instruments
•disclose a legislative intent only to
void provisions giving power of at-
torney with authority to confess
judgment on such instruments for a
sum of money to be ascertained in
a manner other tftfr" by action of
court on a hearing after proper serv-
ice of process. — Ritchey v. Gerard
152 P.2dl394, 48N.M. 452.
Validity of obligation
The cognovit feature of a mort-
gage note does not preclude recovery
on mortgage, where mortgagee does
not rely on note or cognovit feature
thereof. — Peoples Nat. Bank & Trust
Co. v. flPora, 9 N.E.2d 85, 212 Ind.
468, 111 A.L.R. 1402.
12. Wis. — Shawano Finance Corpo-
ration v. Julius, 254 N.W. 355, 214
Wis. 6137.
Statute held valid
A statute authorizing a Judgment
on a warrant of attorney only on a
bond or note did not deprive a seller,
entering Into conditional sale con-
tract after enactment and construc-
tion of statute, of its property with-
out due process of law or unreasqn-
ably deprive seller of the right to
contract — Chippewa Valley Securi-
ties Co. v. Herbst, 278 N.W. 872,
227 Wis. 422.
Conditional sale contract
(1) A judgment on warrant of at-
torney contained in conditional sale
contract was entered without au-
thority and was void, in view of
statute authorizing a judgment on a
warrant of attorney only on a bond
or note. — Chippewa Valley Securities
Co. v. Herbst, 278 N.W. 872, 227
Wis. 422 — Wisconsin Sales Corpora-
tion v. McDougal, 271 N.W. 25, 223
Wis. 485— United Finance Corpora-
tion v. Peterson, 241 N.W. $37, 208
Wis. 104, 8-9 A.L.R. 1104.
(2) Whether attachment of note to
conditional sales contract takes it
out of the definition of a note and
the statutes providing for judgment
by cognovit depends on parties' in-
tention as manifested by entire writ-
ten agreement; note providing for
judgment by cognovit and separated
from conditional sales contract by
perforated line was held subject to
judgment by cognovit where parties
contemplated the note's negotiation,
discount, renewal, or extension inde-
pendently of conditional sales con-
277
*ract. — Shawano Finance Corporation
v. Julius, 254 N.W. «355, 214 Wis. 6-37.
13. Mo.— Kansas City First Nat.
Bank v. White, 120 S.W. 36, 220
Mo. 717, 1!32 Am.S.R. 612, 16 Ann.
Cas. 889.
14. Iowa. — Cuykendall v. Doe, 105
N.TT. 698, 129 Iowa 453, 113 Am.S.
R. 472, 3 L.R.A..N.S., 449.
15. Pa.— Mellon v. Rltz, 2 A.2d 699,
3^32 Pa. 97.
34 C.J. p 104 note 92.
Future obligations
A bond or other obligation may
be given and judgment entered by
confession on warrant of attorney,
to cover future obligations. — Rhoads
v. Mitchell, Del.Super., 47 «A.2d 174.
16. U.S.— Corpus Juris cited in
Monarch Refrigerating Co. v.
Farmers' Peanut Co., C.C.A.N.C.,
74 F.2d 790, 793, certiorari denied
Farmers Peanut Co. v. Monarch
Refrigerating Co., 55 S.Ct. 6413,
295 U.S. 732, 79 L.Ed. 1680.
Fla, — Corpus Juris cited in Carroll
v. Gore, 143 So. 633, 637, 106 Fla.
582, 89 A.L.R. 1495.
Iowa. — Acme Feeds v. Berg, 4 N.W.
2d 430, 231 Iowa 1271.
34 C.J. p 107 note 37.
Renewal nota
Where original note containing
power of attorney to confess judg-
ment was executed in Ohio, and
makers subsequently moved to Mich-
igan, renewal note, which contained
same power and was mailed to mak-
ers in Michigan and was signed and
returned by mail to payee, an Ohio
bank, was an "Ohio contract'*, and
power of attorney conferred author-
ity to confess judgment. — State of
Ohio ex rel. Squire v. Eubank, 294
N.W. 166, 295 Mich. 2(30.
17. -Iowa. — Cuykendall v. Doe, 105
N.W. 698, 129 Iowa 4&S, 118 Am.
S.R. 473, 3 L.R.A.,N.a; 449.
34 C.J. p 107 note 38.
18. Ind. — Bgley v. T. B. Bennett &
Co., 145 N.B. 8130, 196 Ind. 50, 40 A.
436.
§ 152
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
entered.19 If the power is valid where given, gen-
erally it will be recognized in another state,20 al-
though it is invalid under the laws of the latter
state ;21 but if it is invalid where given it is invalid
in another state.22 Where the warrant is made in
one state for use in andther, the law of the latter
state has been held to govern as far as the use and
effect of the warrant therein are concerned,23 ex-
cept that such law cannot enlarge the authority con-
ferred by the warrant so as to bind the grantor of
the power, in his own state, to terms not contained
in the warrant to which he did not consent and
with knowledge of which he was not charged.24
A warrant of attorney must be executed accord-
ing to the requirements of the law in force when
the judgment is taken, and not when the power
was given.25
§ 153. Requisites and Sufficiency of Warrant
or Power
A warrant or power of attorney to confess judgment
should contain a clear grant of authority and should
specify the amount for which Judgment is to be cdn-
fessed.
A warrant of attorney to confess judgment should
conform to the requirements of the statute, if any,
in force at the time;26 but, in the "absence of spe-
cific statutory directions, no particular form of
words is necessary, if it contains the essentials of
a good power and clearly states its purpose.27 In
any event it should contain a grant of the author-
ity, in clear and intelligible terms ;28 and, unless it
is accompanied by a declaration or sworn statement
or other evidence of the indebtedness, it should
clearly and definitely set out or describe the na-
ture of the liability for which the judgment is to
be rendered,29 and should either clearly state the
amount for which judgment is to be confessed or
state facts and figures from which the amount can
be definitely ascertained,30 and it is invalid if it
authorizes a judgment for an indefinite or unliqui-
19- Ind.— <Paulausky v. Polish Ro-
man Catholic Union of America,
•39 N.E.2d 440, 219 Ind. 441.
20. Fla.— Carroll v. Gore, tt« So.
638, 106 Fla. 582, 89 AJL..R. 1495.
Ind. — American Furniture Mart Bldg.
Corporation v. W. C. Redmon, Sons
& Co., 1 N.E.2d '606, 210 <Ind. 112.
34 C.J. p 107 note 39.
ML Fla. — Carroll v. Gore. 148 So.
6313, 106 Fla. 682, 89 A.L.R. 1495.
Ind. — American Furniture Mart Bldg.
Corporation v. W. C. Redmon, Sons
& Co., 1 N.E.2d 606, -210 Ind. 112.
Iowa. — Cuykendall v. Doe, 105 N.W.
698, 129 Iowa 45>3, 11* Am.S.R. 472,
13 L.R.A..N.S., 449.
Cognovit features not relied on
Recovery may be had on contract
containing1 cog-no vit features, if it Is
valid where made and such features
are not relied on in action to recover
thereon. — Phro miner v. Albers, 21 N.
E.2d 72, 106 'In<LApp. 548.
22. Ala. — Monarch Refrigerating Co.
v. Faulk. 155 So. 74, 228 Ala. 554.
34 C.J. p 107 note 41.
23. N.J. — Gotham Credit Corpora-
tion v. Powell, $8 A.2d 700, 22 N.J.
'Misc. 801.
34 C.J. p 107 note <42.
24. U.S. — Grover & Baker Sewing
Mach. Co. v. Radcliffe, Md., 11 SXJt.
92, 137 U.S. 287, 34 L.Ed. 670.
34 C.J. p 108 note 413.
25- Ind. — McPheeters v. Campbell,
5 Ind. 107.
26. Cal. — General Motors Accept*
ance Corporation v. Codies* 21S P.
«8»3, 62 CaLApp. 117, followed in
General Motors Acceptance Cor-
poration v. Parker, 216 P. 684, 62
CaLApp. 797.
Minn. — Keyes v. Peterson, 260 N.W.
518, 194 Minn. 1361.
Ohio. — Corpus Juris quoted in Hill
v. Buchanan, 6 Ohio Supp. 230,
2&3.
Pa. — Commonwealth v! tPrzekop, 25
A.2d 776, 148 Pa.«uper. 385— Ber-
gunder v. Cerc«o. Com.PL, 91
PiJttsb.Leg.J-. 576.
34 C.J. p 104 note 93.
Necessity of indebtedness
Director who executed note to bank
to create reserve to make good
bank's losses, which note contained
a warrant for confession of judg-
ment, was 'Indebted to another0
within statute providing that any
person being indebted to another per-
son may confess judgment by virtue
of warrant made part of note au-
thorizing confession of judgment. —
Spady v. Farmers & Merchants
Trust Bank, 190 S.E. 178, 168 Va.
1413.
27. Ohio. — Corpus JTuris quoted in
Hill v. Buchanan, 6 Ohio Supp.
2.30, 2i38.
34 C.J. p 104 note 94.
Authority to "enter" instead of to
"confess"
HI. — Long v. Coffman, 2>30 Hl.App.
527.
3<4 OJ. p 104 note 94 [a],
28. IlL — Webster Grocer Co. v.
. Gammel, 1 N.H.2d 890, 285 Ill.App.
277 — Sharpe v. Second Baptist
Church of Maywood, 274 IlLApp.
374 — Hughes v. First Acceptance
Corporation, 260 IlLApp. 176.
Ohio.— COrpng Juris anotefl in Hill v.
Buchanan, 6 Ohio Supp. 2.30, 233.
Pa. — Landow v. Bailinger, 1'69 A. 780,
813 Pa. 18815 — Hogsett v. Lutrario, 't
278
13 A.2d 902, 140 iPa.Super. 419—
Koruzo v. Ritenauer, 101 Pa. Super.
558 — General Realty Co. v. Gold, 9
Pa.Dist. & Co. 682, affirmed 142 A,
279, 29-3 Pa. 260— Soklove v. Lali-
tas, Cora.Pl., SO Del.Co. 370— Jar-
zenbowski v. Dombrosky, Com.Pl.,
"36 Luz.iLeg.Reg. .65 — Graver v.
Hand, ComjPl., 58 York Leg.Rec.
180.
34 C.J. p 105 note 95.
29. Md. — Corpus Juris cited in C.
X. T. Corporation v. Powell, 170
A. 740, 742, 166 Md. 208— Vane v.
Stanley Heating Co., 152 A. Ml/
160 Md. 24.
34 C.J. p 105 note 97.
Two species of Judgments
"There are at least two species of
judgments that can be obtained by
confession upon warrants of at-
torney, One is the ordinary judg-
ment, where the obligation is to
pay a specific sum determinate from
the instrument, and judgment is en-
tered for the amount so determined.
Another species is a judgment for a
condition other than the payment of
money, or where judgment is en-
tered for a penalty." — Rhoads v.
Mitchell, DeLSuper., 47 A.2d 174, 179.
30. DeL— Rhoada T. Mitchell, su-
pra.
Pa. — Dime Bank & Trust Co. of
Pittston v. O'Boyle, 6 A,2d 106, 5134
Pa. 500 — Finance & Guaranty Co.
v. Mittleman, 93 Pa.Super. 277 —
Wyoming Valley Trust Co. v.
Tisch, 18 Pa.Dist. & Co. 581, 27
Luz.Leg.Reg. 277.
Wash.— -Rubin v. Dale, 288 P. 228,
156 Wash. 676.
34 C.J. p 105 note 98.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
153
dated amount81 or if the amount due cannot be as-
certained from the face of the instrument.82
Execution. A warrant or power of attorney to
confess judgment should be in writing,88 and must
be signed by all the persons against whom the judg-
ment is to be entered;84 and, where it is annexed to
the obligation to be confessed, both the obligation
and the warrant of attorney must be signed by the
same person.85 Under some statutes it must also
be attested by witnesses.8^ In the absence of a
statute to the contrary,8? the warrant need not be
under seal.85
Time of execution. It is not necessary that the
warrant of attorney should be given at the same
time with the note, bond, or other evidence of
debt.89 At common law, a warrant of attorney to
confess judgment may be executed before the bring-
ing of the action in which the judgment is to be
confessed,40 but under some statutes a power of at-
torney to confess judgment, made before action
brought, is void;41 but such a statute does not
invalidate a warrant of attorney given after the
suit has commenced.42
Executing power as part of obligation. Under
some statutes the warrant or power of attorney to
confess judgment must be conferred by some prop-
er instrument distinct from that containing the ev-
idence of the debt or obligation for which the judg-
ment is confessed.48 In the absence of such a statu-
tory restriction the warrant or power of attorney
may be attached to, or incorporated in, the note,
bond, or other obligation,44 and for purposes of
construction they are to be regarded as one in-
strument45 A power of attorney to confess judg-
ment may be incorporated in, or attached to, a prom-
issory note, the condition being the nonpayment of
31. HI.— Brown v. Atwood, 22* HI.
App. 77.
34 O.J. p 105 note 99.
Where amount is fixed "by law or
parties' agreement, claim is liqui-
dated.— Monarch Refrigerating: Co. v.
Farmers' Peanut Co., C.C.A.N.C., 74
F.2d 790, certiorari denied Farmers
Peanut Co. v. Monarch Refrigerating:
Co., 55 <SXX '643, 295 T7.S. 752, 79 L.
Ed. 1680.
Pact that payments may be made
before maturity does not avoid con-
fession.— Monarch Refrigerating Co.
v. Fanners' Peanut Co., C.C.A.N.C.,
74 F.2d 790, certiorari denied Farm-
ers Peanut Co. v. Monarch Refrig-
erating Co., 55 S.Ct 643, 295 U.S.
732, 79 L.Ed. 1680.
32. DeL — Roman Auto Co. v. Miller,
95 A. 654, 28 DeL 586.
Pa. — Automobile Banking Corpora-
tion v. Duffy-Mullen Motor Co., 85
PfuSuper. 296 — Ixmgacre v.
Breisch, 2-2 <Pa,Dist & Co. 271, 84
SctuL.R. 149, 2 Sch.Reg. 64.
33. Cal. — Siskiyou County Bank v.
Hoyt, 64 P. 118, 1132 CaL 81.
(34 C.J. p 105 note 2.
34. N.T. — Shenson v. OL Shalnin &
Co., 276 N.Y.S. 881, 243 App.Div.
6<38, affirmed 198 N.E. 407, 268 N.Y.
567.
Pa. — National F. 0. B. Auction Co. v.
United Produce Co., 7 Pa,Dist &
Co. .334, 73 Pittsb.Leg.J. 927, 89
York Leg.Rec. Ii39.
34 C.J. p 105 note 8.
35. Pa.— Liberty Grotto No. 1 S. &
D. A. A. v. Meade, 11 (Pa.Co. 840.
38. La.— Bass v. Barthelemy, 64 So.
126, 134 La. (319.
34 O.J. p 105 note 6.
37. Del.— Rhoads v. Mitchell, Su-
per,, 47 A.2d 174— Slaughter v.
JProvident Savings Bank of Pres-
ton, Md., 80 A 243, 2 Boyce 33*.
38* Va, — Bank of Chatham v. Aren-
dall, 16 S.E.2d 352, 172 Va. 18t3—
Corpus Juris cited in Johnson v.
Alvis, 165 S.E. 489, 159 Va, 229.
<34 OJ. p 105 note 7.
3d. Mich. — Trombly r. Parsons, 10
Mich, 272.
N.J. — Burroughs v. Condit, 6 N.J.
Law '300.
40. Fla, — Corpus Juris cited i»
Carroll v. Gore, 143 So. 6133, 636,
106 Fla. 582, 89 A.L.R. 1495.
Va, — Virginia Ins, ,Co. v. Barley. 16
Gratt 863, 57 Va, -363.
41. Fla.— Carroll v. Gore, 1<IB So.
633, 106 Fla, 582, 89 A.L.R. 1495.
34 C.J. p 106 note 18.
42. Ky.— Ward v. Curcier, 1 I.itt
202.
43. Ind.— Paulausky y. Polish Ro-
man Catholic Union of America, 39
N.R2d 440, 219 Ind. 441— Egley v.
T. B. Bennett & Co., 145 N.E. $30,
196 Ind. 50, 40 A.L.R. 4,36.
34 C.J. p 105 note 10.
Purpose
A statute invalidating contract
giving power of attorney with au-
thority to confess judgment on in-
strument is intended to prevent
judgment from being taken without
service of process and by virtue of
power of attorney executed in ad-
vance, but is not intended to enable
person to escape payment of honest
debt— Peoples Nat Bank & Trust
Co. v. IPora, 9 N.B.'2d 88, 212 Ind.
468, 111 A.L.R. 1402.
Statute is penal and must be con-
strued strictly. — Simpson v. Fuller,
51 N.B.2d 870, 11«4 InoLApp. 583.
279
Statute prospective
N.M— Hot Springs Nat Bank v. Ken-
ney, 48 P.2d 1029, (3§ IN.M. 428.
Negotiability not affected
Statute requiring instrument au- .
thorizing attorney to confess Judg-
ment to be distinct from instrument
evidencing demand was not repealed
by enactment of negotiable instru-
ments law declaring that provision
authorizing confession of judgment
should not render instrument nonne-
gotiable, since such statutory pro-
visions were not conflicting. — Keyes
v. Peterson, 260 N.W. 018, 134 Minn.
361.
Confession incomplete without ref-
erence to note
Where instrument authorizing con-
fession of judgment made note a part
thereof by referring to "the forego-
ing note" and "said note" without
which note the authorization had no
meaning, because it did not state
amount for which attorney was au-
thorized to confess judgment, judg-
ment entered by confession thereun-
der was void, since the authorization
of confession was not "distinct in-
strument" as required by statute. —
Keyes v. Peterson, 260 N.W. 518,
194 Minn. 361.
44. Fla.— Corpus Juris cited in.
Carroll v. Gore, 143 So. 6133, $37,
106 Fla, 582, 89 A.L.R. 149*5.
HI. — Ross v. Wrightwood-Hampden
Bldg. Corporation, 271 Ill~A.pp. 22.
Mass.— Ferranti v. Lewis, 171 NJB.
232, 271 Mass. 186.
34 C.J. p 105 note 11.
45. Fla, — Corpus Juris cited In
Carroll v. Gore, 14i3 So. '653, 637,
106 Fla, 582, 89 A.L.R. 1495.
111.— Sharp v. Barr, 234 HLApp. 214.
, 34 C.J. p 105 note 12.
§ 153
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
the note at maturity, the instrument being then com-
monly called a "judgment note/'46
Omission or insertion of words; blanks. Where
the meaning of the power can be ascertained from
a consideration of the entire writing, the omission
of words meant to be inserted, or the insertion of
words evidently not intended, will not be permit-
ted to defeat the intention of the parties.47 In
accordance with this principle, blanks in a warrant
or power of attorney do not destroy its validity if
enough remains to make it effective as a power,
and if they do not render the instrument so ambig-
uous that its meaning cannot be determined.48
Filing. It is generally required, as essential to
the jurisdiction of the court to enter the judgment,
that the warrant of attorney shall be filed as a part
of the record in the office of the clerk of the court
in which the judgment is entered,4** and no valid
judgment can be entered until it is so filed.50 It is
not necessary that the original warrant be filed ; the
filing of a copy thereof is sufficient,51 but a mere
statement that the power was proved is not suffi-
,cient.52 If the warrant is filed in the proper of-
fice before the perfecting of the judgment, the va-
lidity of the judgment is not affected by the fact
that it is not properly placed on the file53 or that
the clerk neglects to indorse the filing on the war-
rant54
§ 154. Construction and Operation of War-
rant or Power
a. In general
b. For whom judgment may be entered
c. Against whom judgment may be en-
tered
d. Place of exercising power
e. Time and conditions for exercising'
power
f. Who may exercise power
g. Debt or claim for which judgment
may be confessed
a. In General
A warrant or power of attorney to confess Judgment
must be strictly construed and the authority conferred
must be strictly pursued.
As a general rule a warrant or power of attor-
ney to confess judgment is to be construed accord-
ing to the rules which apply to other written con*
tracts.55 Such a warrant should be strictly con-
46. HI.— Packer v. Roberts, 29 N.E.
668, 140 111. 9.
33 C.J. p 1041 note 82—84 C.J. p 106
note 13.
47. 111. — Harris Trust & Savings
Bank v. Neighbors, 222 Ill.App.
201.
34 C.J. p 106 note 20.
ITote void if Wanks filled
Promissory note containing1 blanks
at time of delivery which, if filled,
would make it cognovit note, cannot,
in absence of evidence that parties
when note was signed gave authority
for filling blanks, be construed as
cognovit note and hence invalid. —
Podor v. Popp. 178 N.B. 695, 9i3 Ind.
App. 429.
48. I1L — Harris Trust & Savings
Bank v. Neighbors, 22*2 Ill.App.
201.
Pa.— William B. Rambo Building &
Loan Ass'n v. Dragone, 1K6 A. -311,
505 Pa. 24 — Park Trading Corp. v.
Kline, Com.Pl., 2il Leh.L.J. SO*.
34 C.J. p 106 note 21.
Authority to fill Wants
(1) Where a power of attorney to
confess judgment contains a blank,
the execution of the instrument and
delivery thereof in such condition is
authority to the holder to fill in the
blank.— White v. Alward, «5 ULApp.
195.
(2) In warrant of attorney to con-
fess judgment, blank may be filled in
by court, where it is clear what un-
intentionally omitted words were
supposed to be.— William B. Rambo
Building & Loan Ass'n v. Dragone,
156 A. £111, 305 Pa. 24.
C3) Delivery of an Instrument
with a space for the amount left
blank is grant of authority to plain-
tin! to fill the blank with the amount
due at the time when he desires to
enter judgment. — International Ad-
vertising Syndicate v. Quaker Silk
Mills, 8 Pa.Dist. & Co. 23, 18 Berks
CO.L.J. 65.
49. N.M. — Corpus Juris quoted la
Lockhart v. Rousault, 14 P.2d 268,
270, '3-6 N.M. S10.
Okl. — St. Louis-San Francisco Ry.
Co. v. Boyne, 40 OP.2d 1104, 170 OkL
64'2.
34 C.J. p 106 note 23.
50. Pa. — Peerless Soda Fountain
Service Co. v. Hummer, 19 Pa.Dist.
& Co. 302, 46 York Leg.Rec. 201.
34 C.J. p 106 note 24.
51. N.M.— Corpus Juris cited i»
Hot Springs Nat. Bank v. Kenney,
48 P.2d 1029, (10*30, ,39 N.M. 428.
Pa. — Altoona Trust Co. v. Fockler,
165 A. 740, 511 Pa. 426— Harr v.
Kelly, ComJPL, 43 Lack.Jur. 221,
56 York teg.Rec. 151— H. C. Frick
Coke Co., for Use of v. Orzehowski,
CoxruPl., 24 West.Co.L.J. 191.
34 C.J. pfc!06 note 25.
Production of original
While there might be some ques-
tion as to the validity of a judg-
ment if it were confessed on a copy
of warrant of attorney, and on de- j
280
mand of defendant or the court the-
original instrument were not pro-
duced, there can be no Question as
to the validity of the judgment after
the original has been filed with the
court — Commonwealth v. Dibble, 41
Pa.Dlst. & Co. 20,6, 50 Dauph.Co. «HO.
52. I1L— Durham v. Brown, 2"4 111.
9-3.
53. N.Y. — Manufacturers' & Me-
chanics' Bank of the Northern Lib-
erties in the Co. of Philadelphia
v. St. John, 5 Hill 497.
54. Ark. — Thompson v. Foster, 6
Ark. 208.
55. 111. — Farmers' Exchange Bank
of Blvaston v. Sollars, 187 N.E.
289, 13513 111. 224— People v. Cody
Trust Co., 2*3 N.B.2d.l70, SOI 111.
App. '580 — Webster Grocery Co. v.
Gammel, 1 N.E.2d 890, 285 IlLApp.
277.
N.J. — American Auto Finance Co. v.
Miller, 7 A.2d 828, 123 N.J.Law *.
Pa.— William B. Rambo Building &
Loan Ass'n v. Dragone, 156 A. 411,
305 flPa. 24 — Stucker v. Shumaker,
139 A. 114, -290 Pa. 348— Automo-
bile Finance Co. v. Varner, Com.
PL, 96 Pittsto.Leg.J. 169.
34 C.J. p 10.6 note 29.
Conflict between written and printed
portions
Where a printed blank is used,
written portions therein .will have
greater weight in interpreting the
instrument than the printed, if the
two portions are not harmonious. —
49 O.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
strued66 against the party in whose favor it is giv-
•en,57 and the authority thereby conferred must be
strictly pursued, and cannot be extended by impli-
cation or inference beyond the limits expressed in
the instrument5* A substantial departure from the
authority conferred will render the confession
void,59 but this rule has its reasonable limitations,
and must not be applied with such strictness as to
defeat the obvious intention of the parties and make
the power inoperative.6^
American Express Co. v. Pinckney,
39 111. 392—434 C.J. p (107 note 35.
As waiver or release. As a general rule a war-
rant or power of attorney by its own terms either
includes, or operates as, a waiver of process,61 and
authorizes a judgment to be confessed in accord-
ance with the power without notice to the gran-
tor.62 Where the warrant of attorney expressly
waives or releases all errors which intervene in the
entering of a judgment, it operates to waive or re-
lease all errors in the warrant and in the proceed-
ings thereunder,6^ except such as go to the lack
Where wording1 of warrant is clear,
resort may not be had to any other
part of note for purpose of constru-
ing the warrant; but w^ere warrant
is subject to construction the whole
instrument will be looked to in order
to glean its meaning. — Irwin v. Raw-
. ling, MojApp., 141 S.W.2d 228.
Perforated document
Where conditional sales contract
and bond and warrant were printed
on the same sheet of paper with a
line of perforations between them to
facilitate physical separation, the
two instruments were separate con-
tracts and any obligation under the
•contract of conditional sale to resell
in order to lay the foundation of a
suit for deficiency thereunder was
irrelevant to the definite and uncon-
ditional obligation to pay according
to the terms of the bond.— Fidelity
Acceptance Corporation v. Alloway,
23 A.2d 294, 127 N.J.Law 450.
modification agreement
Original written lease and sepa-
rate instrument reducing monthly
rental but providing that all other
terms, etc., of lease should remain in
full effect must be considered togeth-
er and fact that they were separate
instruments did not preclude entry
•of judgment by confession under
power of attorney contained in origf-
Inal lease for rent computed under
modification agreement — Davidson v.
R. G. Lydy (Parking Co., 57 N.E.2d
419, 324 Ill.App. 84.
56. U.S.— Nardi v. 'Poinsatte, D.C.
Ind., 46 F.2d $47— Bower v. Casa-
nave, D.C.N.Y., 44 F.Supp. 501 —
National Coal & Coke Co. v. Mc-
Elvain, D.C.Tex., 21 F.Supp. 838.
Bel.— Rhoads v. Mitchell, Super., 47
A.2d 174.
111. — Hughes v. First Acceptance
Corporation, 260 IlLApp. 176.
Md. — John B. Colt Co. v. Wright, 159
A. 743, 162 Md. <88-7.
Mich.— Gordon v. Heller, 260 N.W.
156, 271 Mich. 240, certiorari de-
nied 56 S.Ct 140, 296 U.S. 613, 80
L.Ed. 440.
Mo. — Irwin v. Rawling, App., 141 S.
W.2d 223 — George Edw. Day Sons
v. Robb, 139 S.W.2d 5*33, 235 Mo.
App. 834, certiorari .quashed State .
ex rel. Robb v. Shain, 149 S.W.2d
812, 347 Mo. 928.
N.M. — Corpus Juris cited in Lock-
hart v. Rouault 14 P.«2d 268, 270.
136 NJM. 310.
Ohio. — Saulpaugh v. Born, 154 N.E.
16-6, 22 Ohio App. 275— Kinsman
Nat. Bank v. Jerko, 25 Ohio N.P.,
N.S., 445.
Pa. — Baldwin v. American Motor
Sales Co., 168 A. 507, 309 Pa. 275—
William B. Bambo Building &
Loan Ass'n v. Dragone, 156 A. 311,
<305 Pa. 24— Deibert v. Rhodes, 140
A. 515, 291 Pa, 550— Hogsett v.
Lutrarto, 18 A.2d 902, 140 Pa.Su-
per. 419 — Hooper to Use of v. Ock-
er, 50 Pa.Dist & Co. 390— Maricic
v. Slesser, 44 PaJMst & Co. 695,
52 Dauph.Co. 185 — Jasuta v. Za-
remba, ConuFL, 47 Lack.Jur. 157
— Burgunder v. Cerceo, Com.Pl., 91
Pittsb.Leg.J. 576.
Va. — Bank of Chatham v. Arendall,
16 S.E.2d 352. 178 Va. 1813.
34 C.J. p 107 note (30— 6 C.J. p 646
note 189.
57« Colo. — Stewart v. Public Indus-
trial Bank, 277 P. 782, 85 Colo.
546.
111. — Preisler v. Gulezynski, 264 HL
App. 12.
Ohio. — Kinsman Nat. Bank v. Jerko,
25 Ohio N.P.,N.S.,-4!45.
Pa. — Baldwin v. American Motor
Sales Co., 103 A. 507, -309 Pa. 275
—William B. Rambo Building &
Loan Ass'n v. Dragone, 156 A, 311,
505 Pa. 24.
34 C.J. p 107 note 31.
68. U.S.— Narda v. -Poinsatte, D.C.
Ind., 46 F.2d s347.
111.— Holmes v. Partridge, 81 N.E.2d
948, 375 HI. 5-21— Wells v. George
W. Durst Chevrolet Co., ITS N.E.
93, 541 111. 108— McFadden v. Lew-
is, 27i3 IlLApp. 343— Berlin v. Udell
iPrinting Co., 271 IlLApp. 464—
Hymen v. Anschicks, 270 IlLApp.
202— Doss v. Evans, 270 IlLApp.
55.
Ohio. — Kinsman Nat. Bank v. Jerko,
25 Ohio N.P..N.S., 445.
Pa. — Beers v. Fallen Timber Coal
Co., t!61 A. 409, 307 Pa, 261— Wil-
liam B. Bambo Building & Loan
Ass'n v. Dragone, 166 A. 4U.1, "305
•Pa. 24— Boggs v. Levin, 1<46 A. 533,
297 Pa. 1131— Dime Bank & Trust
Co. of Pittston v. ManganieUo. 31
A.2d 504, 152 Pa.Super. 270— Jor-,
281
dan v. Kirschner, 94 Pa,Super.
252 — Hooper to Use of v. Ocker, 50
Pa.Dist & Co. 1390 — Jasuta v. Za-
remba, Com.PL, 47 Lack.Jur. 157
— Yellow Mfg. Credit Corporation
v. Rooney, ComJPL, 9 Sch.Reg. 119
— Lawton v. Garrett, ComJPL, 22
Wash. Co. 19S.
W.Va,— Perkins v. Hall, 17 S.R2d
795, 123 W.Va. 707.
34 C.J. p 107 note 32.
rent
Lease provision authorizing les-
sor to confess judgment for damag-
es for breach of covenants did not
authorize confession of judgment for
rent for balance of term payable in
advance. — General Realty Co. v.
Gold, 142 A. 279, 29«3 Pa. 260.
Holdover
(1) Confession of judgment in
lease does not authorize judgment
for rent after expiration of term
where the tenant holds over. — Weiss
v. Danilezik, 262 ULApp. 5-51.
(2) This rule applies only where
the term definitely expires. — Thomp-.
son v. Cams, 93 Pa, Super. 575 —
Moorehead v. King, Com.Pl., 23 Erie
Co. 366 — Newswander v. Fox, Com.
PL, 86 Pittsb.Leg.J. 342.
59. N.M.— Corpus Juris cited in
Lockhart v. Rouault, 14 P.2d 2*68,
270, 36 N.M. 810.
Ohio. — Kinsman Nat. Bank v, Jerko,
25 Ohio N.P.,N.S., 445.
Pa. — Beers v. Fallen Timber Coal
Co., 161 A. 409, 307 Pa. 261— Es-
srig v. Greenburg, 5 Pa.Dist & Co.
189.
34 <C.J. p 107 note 33.
60, 111.— First Nat Bank v. Gal-
braith, 2ffl IlLApp. 240.
N.J. — Gotham Credit Corporation
v. iPowell, 138 A.2d 700, 22 N.J,Misc.
<301.
34 C.J. p 107 note i3»4.
6X, Ala. — Bag-gelt v. Alabama Chem-
ical Co., 47 So. 102, 156 Ala. 637.
Fla. — Carroll v. Gore, MS So. 6313,
106 Fla. 582, 89 A.L.R. 1495.
N.J. — Gotham Credit Corporation v.
Powell, 38 A.2d 700, 22 N.J.Misc,
301.
34 C.J. p 108 note 46.
62, Ala. — Hutchinson v. Balmer, 40
So. 339, 147 Ala, 517.
33. 111.— First Nat Bank v. Royer,
273 IlLApp. 15S.
§154
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
of jurisdiction in the court to enter the judgment64
or lack of power under the warrant to confess the
judgment;65 and it has been held that such a stip-
ulation in a power of attorney is not abrogated by
the opening of the judgment for the purpose of al-
lowing defendant to present a defense.66
b. For Whom Judgment May Be Entered
Judgment may be confessed only In favor of the per-
son specified in the warrant, who may be the holder or
assignee of the obligation the warrant was given to se-
cure.
The warrant of attorney should name or describe
with reasonable certainty the person in whose favor
the judgment is to be entered,67 and judgment can
be confessed in favor only of the person named or
who, from a construction of the whole instrument,
it is evident it was the intention that judgment
should be confessed.68
Where a warrant of attorney attached to a bond
or note authorizes a confession of judgment in fa-
vor of the assignee or holder thereof, the warrant
is regarded as security and authorizes a confession
of judgment in favor of one to whom the bond or
note has been transferred, and who is the holder
thereof at the time judgment is confessed,69 al-
though the note is not negotiable;70 and a judgment
confessed in favor of one who at the time is not
the holder of the note is void.71 Where the war-
rant does not specify the person in whose favor
judgment may be confessed, it has been held that it
authorizes the confession of a judgment in favor
of the assignee or other legal holder of the bond,
Pa.— Kait v. Hose, 41 A.2d 750, 1851
Pa. 5'60 — Peerless Soda Fountain
Service Co. v. Llpschutz, 101 Pa-
Super. 568.
34 C.J. p 108 note 48.
64i 111.— Krickow v. (Pennsylvania
Tar Mfg. Co., 87 IttApp. 65«.
Pa,— Peerless Soda Fountain Service
Co. v. Lipschutz, 101 Pa.Super.
5 6 8 — Advance-Rumely Thresher
Co. v. Frederick, 98 Pa,Super. &60.
65. (Pa, — Boggs v. Levin, 146 iA. 5S3B,
29T Pa. 1J31 — Advance-Rumely
Thresher Co. v. Frederick, 98 Pa,
Super, 560— MSarQuette v. McFar-
land, Com.Pl., 133 Del.Co. 531—
Benesch & Sons Co. v. Dunlap,
Com.Pl., 41 Sch.L.R. 139— Noonan
v. Hoff, Com.Pl., 57 York Leg.Rec.
1113, affirmed R. S. Noonan, Inc.,
v. Hoff, i38 A.2d 5(3, SSO Pa, 295.
3*4 C.J. p 108 note 50.
6& 111. — Freeman r. Counsel!, 206
Hl.App. &3&
Certificate of no defense in nonne-
gotiable judgment note given for
price of furnace was held not to es-
top makers setting up defense
against assignee that payee failed to
perform contract — Standard Furnace
Co. v. Both, 156 A. '600, 102 PaiSu-
per. 341.
07* Ohio. — Drake v. Simpson, 11
Ohio Dec., Reprint, #54, 30 Cinc.L.
Bui. 2(36.
3<4 CJ, y 108 note 5*.
Alternative payees
A warrant of attorney, authoriz-
ing confession of judgment In favor
of the legal holder of a note, author-
ized the entry of judgment In favor
of one of the joint payees of the
note.— (Paluszewski v. Tomczak, 273
IlLApp. 245.
68. HI.— Barkhausen v. Naugher,
App., -64 NvE.2d' 561— Mutual Real-
ty v. Gagidis, 0* N.E.2d 248, 298
ULApp. 419.
Pa.— Ulick v. Vibration Specialty Co.,
S5 JL24 332, *48 Pa, 241—£ogg» T.
Levin, 146 A. $33, 297 Pa, 131—
Hooper to TTse of v. Ocker, 50 Pa.
Dist & Co. 390— Keystone Trust
Co. v. Aaronson, Com.Pl., 55 Dauph.
Co. 144 — Soklove v. Lalitas, Com.
PI., 30 DeLCo. 370— Merchants Nat
Bank v. Smulovitz, Com.Pl., 28 Brie
Co. 29»3— Brown v. Mondeau, Com.
PI., 39 Luz.Lreg.Reg. 3— Commercial
Alliance v. Kelly, Com.Pl., 38 Luz.
Leg.Reg. 174— Burgunder v. Cer-
ceo, Com.Pl,, 91 Pittsb.Leg.J. 576
— 'Benesch & Sons Co. v. Dunlap,
<2om.Pl., 41 Sch.L.R. 139.
W.Va.— Perkins v. Hall, 17 fi.E.2d
795, 123 W.Va. 707.
34 C.J. p 108 note $3.
Agent
(1) Lease entered into by agent as
lessor authorizing confession of
judgment against lessee permits
judgment in name of agent to use of
owner of premises. — Boggs v. Levin,
146 A. 533, 297 Pa, 131.
(2) Where lease described lessor
as agent and provided further that
term "lessor" should include owner,
and authorized owner to proceed in
its own name to confess judgment,
corporation not named in lease, but
averring that it was true owner,
was entitled to enter confession of
judgment in its name.— Metropolitan
Life Ins. Co. v. Associated Auc-
tioneers, 177 A. 48*. 117 Pa-Super.
242.
Heirs '
Where there was nothing in lease
authorizing warrant of attorney to
confess judgment for rent, except
in favor of the lessor, lessor's heirs
could not, in the name of the lessor's
administrators, exercise the warrant
of attorney to confess judgment,
since a warrant to confess a money
judgment is not a "covenant that
runs with the land," because it does
not directly concern or touch the
land.— Hogsett v. Lutrario, 13 A.2d
902, 140 PaJSuper. 419.
Judgment cannot be entered in fa-
vor of a stranger to the contract—
282
Ulick v. Vibration Specialty Co., 35
A.2d 332, .348 Pa. 241— Boggs v.
Levin, 146 A. 5'33, 297 Pa, 131—
Hogsett v. ILutrario, 13 A.2d 902, 140
Pa.Super. 419— (DeBolt v. Fullem,
Com.Pl., 8 B^y.L.J. ITS.
Use-plaintiff
Where -proper partiefe to agreement
were joined as parties plaintiff, it
was immaterial that use-plaintiffs
were added.— Wilson v. Vincent, 150
A. 642, 300 Pa, 321.
83. Pa.— Oberlin v. Parry, 134 A.
460, -287 Pa, 224— Philadelphia
Saving »Fund Society v. Orloff, 37
Pa,Dist & Co. '88— Marquette v.
McFarland, Com.Pl., 53 Del.Co. 531
—DeBolt v. Fullem, Com.PL, '8
Ifiay.L.J. 17*5 — Freeman v. Berger,
Com.Pl., 45 Lack.Jur. 269 — Bell v.
Lawler, Com.Pl., 45 Lack.Jur. 181
— South Side Bank & Trust Co. v.
Scheuer, Com.PL, 43 Lack.Jur. 95.
34 C.J. p 108 note &4.
Assignee does not stand in bettor
position than original obligee; his
exercise of power to confess judg-
ment is subject to same conditions
as though power were still in origi-
nal obligee.— E. Z. Heating Co. v.
Rubin, m A. 3-35, 107 Pa.Suj>er. 105.
Assignment for benefit of creditors
Where note authorizing confession
of judgment was transferred by
•payee to trustee pursuant to a deed
of trust for benefit of payee's credi-
tors, trustee stood in place of payee,
and legal situation of parties with
regard to note was same as though
payee had entered judgment by con-
fession on note against makers. —
Foland v. Hoffman, Md., 47 A.2d 62.
Guarantor of note
111. — Cohn v. Kraus, 255 IlLApp. 391.
70. Mass. — Richards v. Barlow, 6 N.
EL 6*8, 140 Mass. 218.
71. Pa. — Dime Bank & Trust Co. of
Pittston v: Manganiello, -31 A.2d
564,. 152 Pa.Super. 270.
34 C.J. p 108 note 5*.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
154
note, or obligation, at the time of confession ;**
but it has also been held that such a power of at-
torney is not negotiable, and that, when the bond
or note is transferred, the power becomes invalid
and inoperative.73
A warrant of attorney to confess judgment au-
thorizes a confession in favor of the executor or
administrator of the beneficiary of the power,74 or
of his legal representative, such as his trustee.75
c. Against Whom Judgment May Be Entered
Judgment may be confessed under a warrant of at-
torney against such persons only as the terms of the
warrant authorize.
Judgment may be confessed, tinder a warrant of
attorney, against such persons only as the terms of
the warrant authorize76 and who join in the execu-
tion of the warrant.77 A power of attorney to con-
fess judgment is not available against one who
signs it, or the - obligation secured, not as maker,
but only in the character of a surety75 or guaran-
tor,™ unless the terms of the warrant so provide.80
In case of joint debtors, who jointly execute the
power of attorney, a judgment may be confessed
thereon only against all the makers,81 and not
72. lit — Sharp v. Barr, 284 HL'App.
214.
Pa.— Gluck v. PolakoflC, 17 PaJMfct. &
Co. 640 — Bautsch, to Use of
Schlear v. Bubbenmoyer, CorauPL,
32 Berks CO.L.J. *33— DeBolt v.
Pullera, Com.Pl., 3 Fay.L.J. 175.
34 C.J. p 109 note 57.
73. Ohio.— «pence v. Umerine, 21 N.
2L 366, 46 Ohio St 439, 15 Axn.8.
R. 634.
34 C.J. p 109 note 58.
74. Ohio.— Drake y. Simpson, 11
Ohio Dec., Reprint, 854, 80 Cinc.&.
BuL 236.
34 C.J. p 109 note 59.
75. Ohio.— Martin T. Belment Bank,
13 Ohio 250.
Proof of authority
Power to confess Judgment for
voluntary association or assignees
did not authorize recovery of Judge-
ment by individuals describing them-
selves as "trustees" of voluntary as-
sociation, but not establishing right
to exercise power.— Wells v. Georgre
W. Durst Chevrolet Co., 173 N.B.
92, -341 I1L 108.
76. Pa. — Dime Bank & Trust Co. of
Pittston v. O'Boyle, 6 A-2d 10*6,
«334 Pa. 500 — Southern Lime &
Stone Co. v. Baker, 127 A, 221, 281
Pa. 587, amended 127 A. 7W, 282
Pa, 204.
34 JC.J. !P 109 note 61.
Xassee's successor or
(1) Assignee's agreement to per-
form lease was held not to authorize
lessor to enter Judgment by confes-
sion against assignee under warrant
in original lease.— Ansley v. George
Coal Mining Company, -88 Pa.Super.
40.
(2) Original lessee was a proper
party against whom Judgment by
confession should have been entered
in amicable action of ejectment pur-
suant to warrant of attorney con-
tained in written lease even though
lessee's assignee, who was not a par
ty to lease and had signed no war-
rant of attorney, was in actual phys
teal possession of the premises, re
gardless of whether such assignee]
if lease be considered an assignee or j
subtenant— Kait v. Rose, 41 A.2d
50, 351 Pa. 560.
77. Pa.— McFadden v. Gohrs, 93 Pa-
Super. 134 — Indiana 'Land and Im-
provement Co. v. Ferrier Bun Coal
Co., 6 FSLDist & Co. 33, 39 York
Leg.Rec. -61.
34 a J. p 109 note 62.
Execution, through agent
Under statute, the prothonotary of
a court of record may look beyond
the instrument in which judgment is
confessed and enter Judgment
against the person or persons who
executed the instrument, and that
does not mean that he may enter
Judgment only against persons who
signed the instrument, bat partners
and principals whose agents have
signed for them are included.—
Jamestown Banking .Qo. v. Conneaut
Lake 'Dock & Dredge Co., 14 A.2d 325,
3-39 Pa. 26.
Hxecntion by corporation official
(1) A warrant of attorney in
note signed by corporation and by
its president in his official capacity
only, which authorized confession of
Judgment on ntote "against the under-
signed," did not apply to president
so as to make h*m individually liable,
although his name appeared on back
of note. — Dover Motors Corporation
v. North & South Motor (Lines. 19$
A. 592, 3 W.W.Harr., DeL, 467.
(2) A Judgment by confession on
corporate note which was signed on
face thereof by corporation's presi-
dent and was indorsed by the presi-
dent personally, was not void be-
cause power of attorney did not au-
thorize a confession of Judgmeni
against president under his contrad
of guaranty, where note contained
warrant of attorney expressly au-
thorizing entry of Judgment against
"makers, endorsers and guarantors,'
and by special contract, of indorse
ment president not only became "a
•party to" but also adopted, agreed to
accept, guaranteed, and assumed al
terms, conditions and waivers "con
tained in the note on the reverse
283
ide hereof."— ^National Builders
Bank of Chicago v. Simons, 31 N.E.
>d 269, 307 IlLApp. 552.
78. HI.— Doss v. Evans, 270 IlLApp.
55.
34 C.J. p 109 note 70.
Point maker 07 indorse*
A warrant of attorney, for confes-
sion of Judgment contained in non-
negotiable note was binding on per-
son whose name was signed on the
back In blank, since status of such
person was that of a Joint maker
notwithstanding position of signa-
ture.— Iglehart v. Farmers Nat. Bank
of Aana-polis, Md., 197 A. 133, 117 A.
L.R. 667, affirmed 200 A. 833, 117 A.
L.H. 672.
79b Colo.— Sidwell v. First Nat.
Bank, 233 P. 153, T6 Colo. 519, 41
A.L.R. 1255.
HL — Sharpe v. Second Baptist
Church of Maywood, 274 IlLApp.
<374»
80. Md.— Johnson v. Phillips, 122 A.
7, 143 Md. 16.
Where indorse? assented to all
terms and conditions of note, provi-
sion in note for confession of Judg-
ment was applicable to both maker
and indorser. — Rhoads v. National
Bank of CockeysviUe, 190 A. -750, 172
Md. 123.
81, HL — Duggan v. Kupitz, 22 N.E.
2d 392, 301 IlLApp. 230— Dulsky v.
Lerner, 223 IlLApp. 228.
34 C.J. p 109 note 63.
judgment on a partnership note
signed in the firm name may prop-
erly be confessed against the firm
and also against the members of the
firm individually. — Brumbaugh v.
Brumbaugh, 16 P«uDist. & Co. 281.
Waiver
Parties executing note, authorizing
entry of Judgment thereon after de-
fault, in consideration of loan to
corporation by payee, who Joined in
execution thereof, waived objection
to being sued Jointly with payee,
who was also plaintiff.— Koenig v.
Curran's Kestaurant & Baking Co.,
, 159 A* 553, 306 Pa. "345.
§ 154
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
against one alone;82 and in case of the death of one
of them judgment cannot be confessed against the
survivors.83 Where the obligation and warrant of
attorney are joint and several, a joint judgment may
be confessed against all the makers84 or the sur-
vivors of them,85 or a several judgment may be
confessed against each maker.86 A joint judgment
cannot -be confessed or entered on separate war-
rants.87
d. Place of Exercising Power
Unless restricted by the terms of the warrant, the
authority to confess Judgment may be exercised In a
county or state other than that In which It Is executed.
The power granted in a power of attorney to con-
fess judgment may be exercised in a county or state
other than that in which it is executed, where it is
not restricted in this respect,88 especially where it
authorizes judgment thereon "in any court of rec-
ord ;"89 but, where it is apparent from the face of
the warrant that it is to be used only in a certain
state, it cannot be used in another stated0
e. Time and Conditions for Exercising Power
A warrant or power of attorney to confess judgment
can be exercised only at the time and on the occurrence
of the conditions specified.
A judgment by confession under a warrant of
attorney can be taken or entered only at such time
as is authorized by the terms of the warrant,91 and
on the occurrence of the conditions specified in
the warrant, such as defendant's default on the obli-
gation the warrant was given to secure.92 Where
the warrant is without limit of time it has been
82. I1L— Holmes v. Partridge, 31 N.
E.2d 948, 3T5 111. 521— First Nat.
Bank of Cullom v. Chandler, 35 N.
E.2d 799, 311 TlLApp. 254— Duggan
v. Kupitz, 22 N.E.2d 392, 501 111.
App. 230 — Dulsky v. lierner, 223
IlLApp. 228.
34 C.J. p 109 note «4.
83. 111. — Genden Y. Bailen, 275 111.
A-pp. >382.
Ohio.— -Saulpaugh v. Born, 154 N.E.
1-66, 22 Ohio App. 275.
34 C.J. >p 109 note 65.
Death as revocation of power to
confess Judgment see Infra $ 156.
84. Md.— Ig-lehart v. Farmers Nat.
•Bank of Annapolis, 197 A. 133, 117
A.L.R. 667, affirmed 200 A, 833, 117
A-L.R. 672.
Pa. — Quandel v. Orff, Com.PL, 4 Sen.
Beg. 322.
34 C.J. p 109 note 6$.
85. 111. — Farmers' Exchange Bank
of Blvaston v. Sollars, 187 N.B.
289, "S'S'S 111. 224— Nash v. Clark,
34 N.E.2d 876, 310 IlLApp. 437—
People T. Cody Trust Co., 23 N.E.
2d 170, 301 IlLApp. 580.
Mo. — Irwin v. Rawling, App., 141 S.
W.2d 223.
Ohio. — !Frey v. Cleveland Trust Co.,
55 N.E.2d 416, 143 Ohio St. 319.
Pa.— Williams v. Smith, 3=8 Pa.IMst.
& Co. 28-3, 7 Sch.Reg. 74, 10 Som.
Co.Leg.J. 38— South Side Bank &
Trust Co. v. Scheuer, Com.Pl., 43
•Lack.Jur. 95.
•34 C.J. p 109 note 67.
88. U.S. — George B. Heater Bank v.
•Straus, C.C.Pa., 170 F. 4'89.
111.— Holmes v. Partridge, 31 N.B.2d
948, 375 111. 521— Smith v. Roberts,
24 NJBL2d 720, 30.3 IlLApp. 89—
People v. Cody Trust .Qo., 23 N.B.
2d 170, 301 IlLApp, S-80— Reitinger
v. Carlson, 272 IU.App. 104—Rich-
man v. Menrath, 246 IlLApp. 1.
Ohio. — Saulpaugh v. Born, 154 N.flBL
1-66, 22 Ohio App. 275.
87. Pa.— First Nat. Bank v. Ken-
drew, 160 A. 227, 105 Pa.Super.
142 — Pasco Rural Lighting Co. v.
Roland. 88 Pa. Super. 245.
34 C.J. p 109 note 69.
88. Md.-^John B. Colt Co. T. Wright
159 A. 74*, 162 Md. 3S7.
34 C. J. p 109 note 72.
89. Pa. — William J, Ryan, Inc., to
Use T. Bodek, 10 Pa.Dist. & Co.
520.
54 C.J. p 109 note 73.
90. Ohio. — -Kinsman Nat. Bank T.
Jerko, 25 Ohio N.P.,N.S., 445
34 C.J. p 109 note 74.
91. 111. — Bankers Bldg. v. Bishop, 61
N.E.2d 2T-6, 326 IlLApp. 256, cer-
tiorari denied Bishop v. Bankers
Bldg., 66 S.Ct 1352.
Pa. — Seltzer v. Novor & Israel, 12
Pa.Dist. & Co. -551 — Jasuta v. Zar-
emba, (Com.PL, 47 Lack.Jur. 157.
34 C.J. p 109 note 76.
92. IlL — Kaspar American State
Bank v. Oul Homestead Ass'n,
N.B.2d 785, 301 IlLApp. 326— Siben-
aller v. Smock, 283 IlLApp. 452 —
Berlin v. Udell Printing Co., 271
IlLApp. -464— Baering .v. Bfpp, 247
IlLApp. 51.
Md.— <2ooke v. Real Estate Trust Co.,
22 A.2d 5'54, 180 Md. 1<33.
N.J.— Levin v. Wenof, 146 A. 789,
7 N.J.Misc. -603.
Pa.— Mellon v. Ritz, 2 A.2d 699, S32
Pa. 97— 'Wilson v. Vincent, 150 A.
642, .300 Pa. 3 2 I—Mark of ski v.
Yanks, 146 A, 569, 297 Pa. 74—
L J. Allen Building & Loan Ass'n
v. Barg, 183 A. 57, 120 Pa. Super.
487 — Rome Sales & Service 'Sta-
tion v. Finch, 183 A. 54, 120 Pa.
Super. 402— Commonwealth v.
Eclipse Literary and -Social Club,
178 A. 341, 117 Pa.Super. 339—
Grant Const Co., for Use of Home
Credit Co., v. Stokes, 167 A. 64«3,
169 Pa.Super. 421 — Arata v.
Wright, 101 Pa.Super. 576— Romm
v. ILobosco, 95 Pa.Super. 373 —
Qoodis y. Stehle, 87 Pa.Super. £3.6
284
— Baldwin v. American Motor
Sales Co., 19 Pa.Dist. & Co. 850—
Orner v. Hurwitch, 12 Pa.Dist. &
Co. 403, affirmed 97 Pa.Super. 263
— Qinter v. Bloser, 47 Pa.GDist. &
Co* 660 — Commonwealth v. Dib-
ble, 41 FaJMst & Co. 206, 50
Dauph.Co. 310— Siddall v. Burke,
Com.PL, 29 DeLCo. 530— Kuhns v.
Chaffee, Com.Pl., 24 Erie Co. -6 —
Automobile Finance Co. v. Varner.
90 Pittsb.Leg.J. 169.
34 C.J. p 110 notes 77, 8-6—8 CJ. p
424 note 99.
Acceleration clause
(1) 'Entering judgment by confes-
sion on due date accelerated by non-
payment, according to provision
therein, was proper.
Colo. — Axelson T. Dailey Co-op. Co.,
298 P. 957, 88 Colo. 555.
Pa. — 'Baldwin v. American Motor
Sales Co., 163 A. 507, 309 Pa, 275
— Grant Const. Co., for Use of
Home Credit Co., v. Stokes, 167 A.
643, 109 Pa.Super. 421.
34 C.J. «p 110 note 86 [a].
(2) Where lease drawn by land-
lords contained provision for accel-
erating entire rent on certain con-
tingencies, presumption exists that
acceleration was not intended, with
respect to provision authorizing con-
fession of judgment on tenant's fail-,
ure to pay installments of rent due
and silent on acceleration. — Baldwin
v. American Motor Sales Co., supra.
(-3) Bailor retaking property under
bailment lease authorizing confes-
sion of judgment in case of default
can recover judgment only for in-
stallments of rental unpaid at time
property is retaken.— Rome Sales &
Service Station v. !Pinch, 1&3 A. 54,
120 Pa.Super. 402.
After banking1 hours
Where the power is to confess
judgment Immediately on default, on
a note payable at a certain bank on
a certain day, judgment may be en-
tered after banking hours on the
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 154
held that there is no necessity to await the maturity
of the obligation before the entry of judgment,93
although execution cannot issue until there has been
a default in payment,94 especially where the power
contains a provision to that effect ;*5 but it has also
been -held that judgment cannot be confessed under
such a power before the maturity of the obliga-
tion.96 If the warrant authorizes a confession "at
any term" of court, judgment may be entered at
the present term.9? It has been held that power
to confess judgment on a debt or claim not yet due
must be given in clear and precise terms,98 but there
is also authority holding that judgment may be en-
tered on a judgment note prior to maturity unless
there is a restrictive provision.99
In many jurisdictions it has been held that a judg-
ment cannot be confessed on a warrant of attorney
executed more than a specified time before, unless
an affidavit is filed showing that the maker is alive
and that some portion of the debt is still due, and
a rule of court, or order of a judge in vacation, is
obtained granting leave to enter judgment;1 and
in some jurisdictions, after twenty years without
judgment being entered, it will be presumed that
the warrant of attorney has been revoked ;2 but it
has been held that this rule does not apply where
the power is coupled with an interest and supported
by a consideration, and is necessary to effectuate
the security to which it is attached.3 Moreover,
the rule referred to does not go to the question of
the power but to the regularity of the execution of
it;4 it is a rule of presumption which, like other
presumptions, may be rebutted.5
day named. — Osborn v. Rogers, 20 N.
B. 365, 112 N.Y. 573.
Place for demand
A lease provision authorizing1 the
confession of a judgment In eject-
ment for default in payment of rent
is available, where the lease does
not provide a place at which the rent
is payable, only if the landlord
makes demand for the precise rent
due, on the very day on which it be-
comes due, and on the most notorious
place in the land. — Shapiro v. Malar-
key, 122 A. 341, 278 Pa. 78, 29 A.L.R.
1358.
Failure of purchasers of land to
pay taxes was held not to authorize
confession of judgment, as default
in payment of principal or interest —
Hurley v. Henton, 142 A, 271, 293 Pa.
289.
Demand note
Demand note containing warrant
of attorney to confess judgment
stipulating that judgment should
not be entered except in default of
payment authorized entry of judg-
ment only after demand followed by
default in payment and on averment
of such demand and default, but de-
mand note which did not require that
Judgment be entered only after de-
fault in payment of note could be
entered in judgment before default,
since entry of judgment is demand. —
P. Mfrmig Co. v. Carter, 173 A. 726,
11-3 Pa.Super. 231.
Default by lessee
Where lessees, under a lease pro-
viding that in case the property be-
came subject to levy the whole rent
should be payable, delivered automo-
bile to lessor for repairs, and while
in lessor's possession it was seized
in replevin by third persons claim-
Ing right to possession paramount to
the lessor, and assignee of the lease
obtained possession of the automo-
bile and entered judgment against
defendants by confession, alleging
the seizure in replevin as default un-
der the lease, the assignee's right to
enter judgment must be founded on
a default by lessee, and not on acts
or default by lessor, and, the lessee
not being in default assignee can-
not confess judgment against him. —
Ferris Motors Corporation v. Lebe-
gern, 120 A. 394, 27$ Pa. 395.
Separate contracts
Where it appeared that conditional
sales contract covering automobile
was assigned to obligee of bond and
warrant although the automobile
was repossessed by the assignee, ap-
parently at the instance of the buyer,
and there was nothing to show that
the automobile had been resold, the
assignee could confess judgment on
the bond and warrant in view of the
fact that the two instruments were
separate contracts. — Fidelity Accept-
ance Corporation v. AUoway, 23 A.2d
294, 127 N.J.Law 450— Ryba v. At-
las Automobile Finance Corporation,
3 A.2d 447, 121 -N.J.Law 4T8.
93. Del.— Rhoads v. Mitchell, Super.,
47 A.2d 174.
HL— 'First Nat Bank v. Galbraith,
271 IU.APP. 240— Handley v. Mo-
burg. 266 ULApp. 356 — Great West-
ern Hat Works v. Pride Hat Co.,
224 ULApp. 249.
Md.— Hart v. Hart, 166 A. 414, 165
Md. 77 — Johnson v. Phillips, 122
A. 7, 143 Md. 16.
Pa. — Dukas v. Cohen, ConxPL, 33
Luz.Leg.Reg. 163.
•34 C.J. p 110 note '82.
Right to confess judgments on debts
which are not matured see supra
§ 159.
Immediately on execution
If the warrant authorizes a con-
fession "at any time hereafter,"
judgment may be entered immediate-
ly on the execution of the power. —
St Clair v. Goldie, 244 ULApp. 357
— ^34 C.J. tp 110 note 79.
94. Pa.— Integrity Title Insurance,
285
Trust Safe-Deposit Co. v. Rau,
26 A. 220, 153 Pa. 488— Miners
Sav. Bank of Pittston v. Falzone,
Com.PL, 35 Luz.Leg.Reg. 315.
34 C.J. p 110 note 83.
95. Iowa. — Cuykendall v. Doe, 105
2C.W. 698, 129 Iowa 453. 113 Am.
S.R. 472, '3 L.R.A.,N.S., 449.
Pa. — Pacific Lumber Co. of Illinois
v. Rodd, 135 A. 122, 28-7 Pa. 454—
Shapiro V. Malarkey, 122 A. 341,
278 Pa. 78, 29 A.L.R. 1358.
96. Wis.— Reid v. Southworth. 36 N.
W. 866, 71 Wis. 288 — Sloane v. An-
derson, 13 N.W. 684, IS N.W. 21,
57 Wis. 123.
97. Pa.— Montellus v. Montelius,
Brightly 79.
98. I1L — Webster Grocery Co. v.
Gammel, 1 N.-E.2d 890, 285 ULApp.
277— Harris v. Bernfeld, 250 111.
App. 446.
34 C.J. p 110 note 81.
99. Pa.— Mellon v. Ritz, 2 A.2d 699,
3 £2 Pa, 97— Pacific Lumber Co. of
Illinois v. Rodd, 135 A. 122, 2S7
Pa. 454— Chubb v. Kelly, 'SO Pa.
Super. 487 — Commonwealth v. Dib-
ble, Pa.Com.PL, 41 Pa.Dist. & Co.
206. 50 Dauph.Co. «310— Lillis v.
Reed, Com.Pl., 21 Erie Co. 8— Com.
ex reL Argyle v. Jones, Com.PL, SO
North.Co. 95.
1. Pa. — Grammes v. Haltzel, Com.
PL, 19 iLeh.L.J. 275.
Wis.— Halfhill v. Halick, 129 N.W.
1086, 145 Wis. 200.
34 C.J. p 110 note 87.
Claim barred by limitations see in-
fra § 156.
2. -Del. — Parsons T. Cannon, 88 A.
470, 27 DeL 298.
3. Wis.— Halfhill v. Malick, 129 N.
W. 1086, 145 Wis. 200.
4. Wis.— Halfhill v. Malick, supra.
5. HI.— Mitchell v. Comstock, 27 N.
E.M 620, 305 ULApp. 360.
Wis.— Halfhill v. Mallei?, 129 N.W.
1086, 145 Wis. 200.
§154
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
In vacation. A warr* it for the confession of
judgment "as of any term," does not authorize
judgment to be entered up in vacation;6 and it has
been held that a warrant to confess judgment in
any court of record does not authorize a confes-
sion of judgment before a clerk in vacation,7 but
if the warrant is indefinite as to the time, or does
not refer to the terms of the court, the judgment
may be confessed in vacation as well as in term
time**
f. Who May Exercise Power
A warrant or power of attorney to confess Judgment
can generally be exercised only by the person author-
ized In the warrant.
The authority of a person confessing a judgment
for another must appear on the record;9 and a
warrant of attorney to confess judgment should
regularly designate, either by name or description,
the person who is authorized to make the confes-
sion of judgment,10 and only the person so desig-
nated or described can do so.11 Under a statute so
providing, however, a prothonotary may enter a
judgment by confession on the instrument con-
taining the warrant without the necessity of an at-
torney appearing for defendant,12 but such a statute
does not prevent a judgment being confessed in the
usual way by the person empowered under the war-
rant.18 'The person designated as attorney in the
power of attorney need not be the person to whom
the claim or obligation confessed runs,14 nor is it
necessary that he should be an attorney at law,15
nor is it necessary that a particular attorney be
named or described; the warrant may run to "any
attorney" of a particular court or to "any attorney
of any court of record,"16 or to any attorney select-
ed by the creditor17 or to any prothonotary or
clerk;18 and it has been held that in such a case
defendant has no standing to be first heard before
entry of judgment19 Where the power runs to
any attorney, it may be exercised by two persons,
acting jointly or as partners, both being attorneys
•6. Va.— Bank of Marion v. Spence,
154 S.E. 488, 155 Va. 51.
34 -C.J. p 111 note 93.
7. Tnd.— Wieler v. Diver, 134 N.B.
495, 78 Ind.App. 26.
34 C.J. p 111 note 94. *
8. Ill — Long- v. Coffman, 230 111.
Aipp. 527.
Iowa.-— Ouykendall v. Doe, 10S N.W.
•698, 129 Iowa 45-3, 113 Am.S.R 472,
3 L.R.A..N.S., 449.
.34 C.J. p 111 note 95.
9. N.J.— <Jade v. Young, 3 N.J.Law
369-4Campbell v. Cooper, 6 N.J.
, Law 142.
1Q. Pa. — Vogt Farm Meat Products
Co. v. Egfan, 8 Pa.Dlst. & Co. 550,
22 Sch.L.R. 220, 74 Pittsb.Leg.J.
504.
34 C.J. p 111 note 97.
11. Tex, — Grubbs v. Blum, 62 Tex.
426.
la. Pa,— R. S. Noonan, Inc., T. Hott,
38 A.2d 53, 350 Pa. 295— Common-
wealth v. J. & A. Moeschlin, Inc.,
170 A. 119, 314 Pa. 34— Deibert v.
Rhodes, 140 A. 51<5, 291 Pa. 550—
Hefer v. Hefner, 95 Pa.Super. 551
—Miller y. Desher, 12 PsuDist ft
Co. 315, 41 Lanc.L.Rev. «35— Wil-
liam J. Ryan, Inc., to Use v. Bod-
ek, 10 PaJDist. & Co. 520— Union
Acceptance Co. v. Grant Motor
Sales Co., 5 Pa.Dist & Co. 407, 23
Luz.iLeg.Reg. $9, 2 Som.Co.Leg.J.
260, 39 York Leg.Rec. 141— Steel-
ton Finance Co. v. Kireta, Com.
PL. 46 Dauph.Oo. 426— Morris v.
Chevalier, Com.PL, 20 Leh.L.J. 133
—^Citizens Bank of Wind Gap v.
Sparrow, Com.Pl., 27 North.Co. 213
— Mutual Loan Co. v. Steiger, Com.
PL, 48 Lanc.li.Rey. -60, 56 York
Leg.Rec. 13.
34 C.J. p 120 note 74.
Authority of nonjudicial officers to
enter judgment by confession see
infra 5 161 b.
Prothonotary may enter Judgment
but has not power to confess judg-
ment
Pa.— Melnick v. Hamilton, 87 Pa.Su-
per. 575.
Strict compliance with statute
(1) The mode of procedure desig-
nated in the statute for entering
judgment on a note by prothonotary
is mandatory. — Oberlin v. Parry, 134
A. 460, 287 Pa. 224.
(2) The statute must be strictly
construed. — 'Dime Bank & Trust Co.
of Pittston y. O'Boyle, 6 A.2d 106,
334 Pa, 500 — Oberlin v. Parry, supra.
(•3) The instrument, to authorize
entry of judgment by the prothono-
tary, must expressly or by clearest
implication contain provisions bring-
ing it within the statute. — Romberg-
er y. Romberger, 139 A, 159, 290 Pa.
454 — Oberlin v. Parry, supra.
13. Pa. — R. S. Noonan, Inc., Y. Hoff,
3*8 A.2d 53, 3*50 Pa. 295.
14. 3T.J.— Burroughs y. gondit, * N.
J.Law 300.
15. Pa.— Melnick v. Hamilton, 87 Pa.
Super. 575 — Jones & Sons v. Piont-
kowski, 37 Pa.Dist. & Co. 504, 3-3
Luz-'Leg.Reg. 329.
Va. — Virginia Valley Ins. Co. y. Bar-
ley, 16 Gratt <363, 57 Va. 363.
16. CaL— Carlton v. Miller, 299 P.
738, 114 CaLApp. 272.
!Fla. — Corpus Juris cited in, Carroll
v. Gore, 143 So. 6&3, 637, 106 Ela.
582, 89 A.L.R. 1495.
Ohio. — Dayton Morris Plan Bank v.
Graham, 191 NVB. 817, 47 Ohio
App. 310.
Pa.— Shure v. Goodimate Co., 153 A.
286
757, 302 Pa. 457— Hebrew Loan So-
ciety of Wyoming Valley v. Margo-
lis, CorauPL, 33 iLuz.Leg.Reg. 101.
54 C.J. p 111 note 2.
Attorney-client relationship
The relationship existing between
one who authorizes an entry of judg- '
ment by confession "by warrant of
attorney an4 the attorney confessing
judgment is not the confidential one
existing between attorney and client,
and it is not even necessary that the
one so authorizing shall know the
attorney. — Withers v. Starace, B.C.
N.Y., 22 F.Supp. 773.
Person exercising the power must
be an attorney or an attorney of a
court of record where the warrant
authorizes only such person to exer-
cise the power, — Kirk Johnson & Co.
y. Wilson, 18 Pa.Dist & Co. 672.
17. Pa. — Shure v. Goodinate Co., 14
PaJDist & Co. 209, 79 PittslxLeg.
J. 1*6, affirmed Shure y. Goodimate
Ck>., 153 A. 757, 302 Pa. 457.
Tex. — Mikeska y. Blum, 63 Tex. 44.
Plaintiff's attorney
A warrant of attorney authorizing
confession of judgment by any New
Jersey attorney authorized confes-
sion of judgment by a New Jersey
attorney representing the plaintiff. —
Withers v. Starace, D.C.N.T., 22 F.
Supip. 773.
Power of attorney to any attorney
or officer of creditor corporation was
not too general or indefinite.' — Clay
v. People's Finance & Thrift Co., 25
S.W.2d 578, 160 Tenn. 390.
18. Pa. — Auto Transit Co. T. Koch,
71 Pa.Super. 171.
19. Pa. — Mulhearn y. Roach, 24 Pa.
Super. 483.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 154
of the court,2<> or by the payee of the note, being
an attorney, in favor of the holder to whom he has
transferred it21
g. Debt or Claim for Which Judgment May Be
Confessed
Judgment may be confessed only for the debt, Ha-
bility, or claim authorized by the warrant or power of
attorney.
The judgment may be confessed only for the
debt, liability, or claim set forth or described in
the warrant or accompanying obligation;22 and for
such amount only, and not for any greater or small-
er amount than that specified in the warrant or in
the note or other obligation which it secures ;23 but,
where a judgment entered under a power of at-
torney is erroneously confessed for an excessive
amount, it is void only as to the excess, and not
in toto,24 unless such excess is the result of fraud.25
A judgment entered on a bond and warrant of at-
torney is not void, but voidable only, where the
warrant authorizes a confession of judgment for
the sum mentioned in the condition of the bond and
the judgment is entered for the amount of the pen-
alty,26 or where the warrant is general, and judg-
ment is entered for a specified sum, without refer-
ring to the bond,27 or where the warrant author-
izes judgment for the amount of the penalty, and
judgment is entered for the amount of the real
debt;28 and if in such case the record shows on
its face the amount of the penalty, and the amount
owing is not denied, and there is no other defense,
the court will permit the record to be amended so
as to conform to the proper practice.29
Where the warrant authorizes the confession of
judgment for "such amount as may be found due"
on the obligation secured, judgment may be en-
tered for the amount actually due ;80 but the power
of the attorney is not complete until the amount due
has been adjusted.31 Where the provisions of the
power are severable, and judgment only for an as-
certained amount is confessed, such judgment is
not invalid for the reason that the power of attor-
ney provides also for the confession of judgment
for an unliquidated amount32
Interest and costs. Where the warrant author-
izes it, the judgment may include interest33 and
costs.34
Attorney's fees. 'It is generally held that a war-
rant of attorney to confess judgment may contain
a stipulation for the payment of attorney's fees,36
and a judgment entered on such warrant not only
may, but should, include proper attorney's fees,36
except where the fees have not been earned.37 A
20. 111. — Kuehne v. Goit 54 Ill.App.
596.
Ind.— Patton v. Stewart, 19 Ind. 233.
21. Tex.— Parker v. Poole, 12 Tex.
86.
22. 111.— McFadden v. Lewis, 273
Ill.Atfp. 543— Stead v. Craine, 25'6
IlLApp. 445.
Ohio.— Swisher v. Orrison Cigar Co.,
171 NVE. 92, 122 Ohio St 195.
Pa. — (Finance & Guaranty Co. v. Mit-
tleman, 95 Pa.Super. 277 — Seltzer
v. Novor & Israel, 12 Pa.Dist. & Co.
551 — international Advertising
Syndicate v. Quaker Silk Mills, 8
Pa.Dist & Co. 23, 18 Berks Co.!*
j, 65— Pestcoe v. Brlick, 7 Pa.Dist
& Co. 589— Hunter v. Wertz, Com.
PL, 91 Pittsb.Leg. J. 84'8, 57 York
{Leg.Rec. Ill — Noonan v. Hoff,
Com.Pl., 57 York Leg.Rec. 113, af-
. firmed R. S. Noonan, Inc., v. Hoff,
38 A.2d 53, 350 Pa. 295.
34 C.J. p HI note 10.
Warrant to confess judgment in
ejectment
Pa. — Shappell v. Himelstein, 183 A.
644, 121 Pa.Super. 418— Koruzo v.
Ritenauer, 101 Pa.Super. 558— An-
derson v. Dobkin, 81 Pa.Super. 416
—Nash Sales & Service v. Broody,
Qom.Pl., 33 Luz.Legr.Res. 158, $
Som.Co.L.J. 1326— Klein v. 'Lasko,
. Com.Pl., $-6 Pittsb.Leg.J. 457—
News wander -v. Fox, Com.PLt 86
Pittsb.Leg.J. -342— Graven v. Hand, ,
Com.PL, 9 Sch.Reg. 154.
L Pa.— International Advertising
Syndicate v. Quaker Silk Mills, 8
Pa.Dist & Co. 23, 18 Berks Co.L.
J. 65 — Empire Furniture Co. v.
Masaitis, Com.PL, 38 LuzjLeg.Reg.
409.
Va.— (Deeds v. Gilmer, 174 <S.m 37, 162
Va. 157.
34 C.J. p 111 note 11.
24. HI. — Larson v. Lybyer. 88 N.B.
2d 177, 312 IlLApp. 188.
Pa. — Jasuta v. Zaremba, Com.PL, 47
<Lack.Jur. 157.
34 C.J. p 111 note 12.
25. Ark. — Bryan-Brown Shoe Co. v.
Block, 12 S.W. 1073, 52 Ark. 458.
<34 C.J. p 112 note 13.
26L W.J.— <Den v. Zellers, 7 N.J.Law
153.
27. N.J. — Den v. Zellers, supra.
28. Pa.— Keech Co. T. O'Herron, 41
Pa.Super. 108.
29. Pa.^-Keech Co. v. O'Herron, su-
pra.
30. IU.-^cott v. Mantonya, 45 N.EL
377, 164 lit 473.
Pa.— Cassalia v. Dushney, 84 Pa.
Dist & Co. 503.
34 C. J. p 112 note 18.
Acceleration clause
Piling note with prothonotary ev-
idenced holder's election under accel-
287
eration clause and authorized confes-
sion of Judgment for entire amount
following default in payment of in-
stallment— Drey St Motor -Co. v.
Nevling, 161 A. 880, 106 Pa.Super. 42.
83L Pa. — B. P. Wilbur Trust Co.,
now to Use of Federal Deposit
Ins. Corporation, v. Eberts, 10 A.
2d 397, 337 Pa. 161.
Wis.— Dilley v. Van Wie, 6 Wis. 209.
32. 111. — Fortune v. Bartolomei, 45
N.B. 274, 164 111. 51.
34 C.J. p 112 note 20.
83. Md.— Forwood v. Magness, 121
A. 855, 142 Md. 1.
34 C.J. p 112 note 21.
34. I1L— Scott v. Mantonya, 45 N.
•B. 977, 164 111. 473.
34 C.J. p 112 note 22.
35. Md.— Johnson v. Phillips, 122
A. 7, 143 Md. 16.
34 C.J. p 112 note 2«.
36. Pa. — OPirst Mortgage Guarantee
Co. of Philadelphia v. Powell, 98
Pa.Super. 99 — First Mtg. Guaran-
tee Co. of Philadelphia v. Powell,
12 PaJMst & CO. 242, 77 Pittslx
tLeg.J. 533, 43 York Leg.Rec. 147,
affirmed 98 Pa. Super. 99.
34 <XJ. p 112 note 24.
37. McL— Johnson T. Phillips, 122 A.
7, 143 Md. 16.
34 OJ. p 112 note 25.
§ 155
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
stipulation in the warrant for such a fee rests on
a valid consideration and is not fraudulent as to
other creditors, and the amount specified should be
allowed,88 unless it is clearly excessive or unrea-
sonable, in which case the judgment is voidable as
against other creditors, at least to the extent of
such fee.39 If the amount is not fixed, but the stip-
ulation is for a "reasonable attorney's fee/* it is for
the court to determine what is a reasonable fee un-
der the circumstances ;40 and hence if the attorney
fixes the amount of his fee and confesses judg-
ment for the whole amount, without the interven-
tion of the court, the judgment is void.41 It has
been held that the court will allow only a reasonable
fee, even though there is a stipulation for a greater
amount.42
§ 155. Second Confession under Same Power
A warrant or power of attorney to confess Judgment
Is generally exhausted by Its exercise, and a second
judgment cannot be entered by virtue of the same pow-
er.
As a general rule a power of attorney to confess
judgment is exhausted by one valid confession, and
a second judgment cannot be entered by virtue of
the same power.43 Where a judgment by confes-
sion is open or vacated in order to permit defend-
ant to defend the claim on the merits, it has been
held that plaintiff cannot proceed under the warrant
of attorney to confess judgment.44 Where the first
judgment is vacated or reversed for error, it has
been held that the attorney may, under the same
power, confess a correct judgment, his power not
being exhausted by the first act;45 but there is also
authority to the contrary,46 it being held that, for
errors in the entry of the first judgment or for the
correction of clerical mistakes, application should
be made to the court to correct such judgment so as
to make it conform to the facts, and not to enter
a new judgment.47 It has also been held that,
where a judgment by confession is entered in one
county, a second judgment on the same warrant in
another county is not absolutely void, but the per-
son entering the second judgment will be answer-
able for the consequences.48
§ 156. Revocation and Defeasance
A warrant of attorney to confess Judgment (8 revoca-
ble at the will of the grantor, except where it Is support-
ed by a valuable consideration or Is coupled with an
Interest In the subject matter. Such a warrant may be
revoked by the death of the grantor, and it is generally
held that It cannot be exercised after the debt Is barred
by limitations.
A power of attorney to confess judgment,
like other powers of attorney, is revocable at the
will of the grantor,49 except where it is supported
by a valuable consideration,50 or is coupled with
an interest in the subject matter,51 or is given as
a security or to render a security effectual.52 Such
a warrant, however, is terminated by the payment
or extinguishment of the debt intended to be se-
cured.53
38. Md. — Johnson v. Phillips, supra,
•34 C.J. p 112 note 26.
39. 111.— Hulse v. Mershon, 17 N.EJ.
50, 125 111. 52 — Homewood v. Stein,
211 I11.A/PP. 359.
40. Md. — Johnson T. Phillips, 122 A.
•7, 143 Md. 16.
Pa,— Pittston Chevrolet Sales Co. v.
Felax, 9 PajDist. & Co. 604, 24
LiUZ.Lieg.Reg. 292.
34 C.J. p 113 note 23.
Where space for insertion of
amount of attorney's fees was left
blank and no line was drawn through
the provision to indicate an intention
that no attorney's fees were to tie
paid, the allowance by the court of
attorney's fees in a reasonable
amount on entry of Judgment by
confession was not error. — -Spindler
v. McKay, 13 N.<E.2d 8-64, 294 IlLApp.
610.
41. IlL-^Campbell v. Goddard, 7 N.
B. 640, 117 111. 251, followed to 14
KB. 261, 123 I1L 220.
42. Pa.-^alsburg v. Mack, ai Pa.
Co. 408.
43. Pa. — Harr v. IFurman, 29 A.2d
527, 346 Pa. 138, 144 A.-L.R. 828—
Union Bank of Nanty-Glo v.
Schnabel, 1-39 A* *62, 291 Pa. 228
" — -S. Jacobs & Son v. Busedu, 95
Pa.Super. 1-32 — Commercial Alli-
ance v. Plckett 50 PfiLDist & Co.
556, 37 Luz.Leg.Reg. 185— Maricic
v. Slesser, 44 Pa.Dist. & Co. 693,
52 'Dauph.Co. 185 — Schwartz v.
Stein, 12 Pa.Dist & Co. 638, 43
York Leg.Rec. 155 — Schwartz v.
Stein, 12 Pa.Dist & Co. 229— Key-
stone Trust Co. v. Aaronson, Com.
PI., 55 Dauph.Co. 144— Heller v.
Bloom, Coxn.Pl,, 52 DauphXJo. 307
— Mook v. Neuner, £k>m.PL, 23
Brie Co. 340.
34 C.J. p 113 note OL
Different powers
Subsequent judgment against
guarantors of. note, pursuant to war-
ranty, was valid, where first Judg-
ment was under warrant on face of
note. — Union Bank of Nanty-Glo v.
Schnabel, 1139 A. 862, 391 'Pa, 228.
44. 111.— "Western Cold -Storage Co.
v. Keeshin, 252 IlLApp. 1-6-5.
45. 111.— Vandersall T. Goldsmith,
231 IlLApp. 165.
34 C.J. p 113 note 32.
4& Pa.— -Hogsett v. -Lutrarlo, 13 A.
2d 902, 140 Pa.Super. 419— S. Ja-
cobs & Son v. Busedu, 95 Pa.<Super.
132— Maricic v. Slesser, 44 Pa.
Dist. & Co. 693, 52 DauphXJo. 185
288
—Heller v. Bloom, Coim.Pl., 52
DauphXJo. «307 — Reid v. Pechersky,
Com.PL, 87 PittsboLeg.J. 575.
34 .C.J. p 113 note 33.
47. Pa. — Hair v. Furman, 29 A.2d
527, 346 Pa. 138, 144 A.L.R. 828—
Pacific Lumber Co. of Illinois v.
Bodd, 135 A. 122, 287 Pa. 454—
Mars Nat. Bank v. Hughes, 89 A.
1130, 243 Pa. 223. •
4a Pa.— NefiC v. Barr, 14 Serg. & R,
166.
•34 C. J. # 113 note 35.
49. Ala. — Evans v. Fearne, 16 Ala.
689, 50 Am.D. 197.
N.Y. — Gale v. Chase, 3 Johns. 1-47.
50u Ark.-rRapley v. Price, 11 Ark.
713.
34 C.J. p 113 note 39.
51. Ohio. — Swisher v. Orrison tJigar
Co., 171 N.B. 92, 122 Ohio St *195.
34 C.J. p 113 note 40.
52. Tenn. — Hermitage Loan Co. v.
Daykin, 6'6 S.W.2d 164, 165 Tenn.
503 — Clay v. People's Finance &
Thrift Co., 25 S.W.2d 578, 160
Tenn. 'i3 90.
34 C.J. p 11*3 note 41.
53. Iowa.— Cohn v. Bromberg. 170
•N.W. 478, 185 Iowa 298.
34 C. J. p 113 note 42.
49 O.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 158
Claim barred by limitations. Although, as dis-
cussed supra § 138, defendant himself may confess
judgment on a claim which has been barred by the
statute of limitations, it has generally been held
that a power of attorney to confess judgment can-
not be exercised after the debt or claim is thus
barred;54 but there is also authority to the con-
trary.55
Effect of alteration. Where a power of attorney
is materially altered while in the hands of the
payee, without any explanation thereof, the altera-
tion will be presumed to have been made with the
consent of the holder, and will render the power
void;56 but the mere filling of blanks which ap-
parently were intended to be filled is not such an
alteration as will invalidate the warrant57
Death of parties. As a general rule, a judgment
by confession cannot be entered on a warrant of
attorney, after the death of the grantor.58 This
rule, however, does not apply where the judgment
entered on such warrant can be made good by rela-
tion,59 as where the grantor dies during a vaca-
tion; at common law a judgment may be entered
against him during the same vacation as of the pre-
ceding term,80 or, if he dies during the term, it
may be entered as of the term in which he dies.61
Insanity or incompetency of the grantor does not
revoke a warrant or power to confess judgment.62
§ 157. Confession under Void or Lost War-
rant
A Judgment entered on a void warrant or power of
attorney to confess judgment is void.
A judgment by confession must be authorized by
the warrant on which it is based68 A judgment is
a nullity which is confessed under a power of at-
torney which is void or does not conform to manda-
tory statutory requirements,64 as where the judg-
ment is confessed on a note and warrant of attor-
ney which have been forged65 or fraudulently ob-
tained.66 However, it has also been held that the
judgment is not void although the letter of attor-
ney is void67
Confession on lost warrant. A judgment may be
entered on a note and warrant of attorney duly ex-
ecuted, but which has been lost or stolen.68
D. STATEMENT OF INDEBTEDNESS
§ 158. Nature and Necessity
Under statutes so providing, a person confessing
judgment, without action, Is required to file a written
statement designating the amount for which the Judg-
ment Is to be entered, and stating concisely the facts
out of which the indebtedness arose, and authorizing
entry of judgment therefor.
64. Mich. — Gordon v. Heller, 260 N.
W. 156, 271 Mich. 240, certiorari
denied 56 S.Ct 140, 296 U.S. 619,
SO Ij.Ed. 440.
jq-.Y. — Arnold v. Bussmann, 29 N.Y.
S.2d 155, affirmed 34 N.T.S.2d 829,
264 App.Div. 713.
Ohio.— Roberts v. Davis, 35 NJE.2d
609, 66 Ohio App. 527— State ex reL
Squire v. Winch, 32 N.E.2d 569, 66
Ohio App. 221.
Tenn. — 'Williams v. Wilborne, 95 S.
W.2d 41, 170 Tenn. 2f89.
34 C.J. p 11-3 note 44.
Effect of lapse of time on exercise
of power generally see supra §
154 e.
55. Ark. — Wassell v. Reardpn, 11
Ark. 705, 44 Am.D. 245.
56. 111.— Burwell r. Orr, 84 HL 465.
57. Wis.— Vliet v. Camp, 1« Wis.
198.
sa 111.— Merrion v. O*Donnell, 279
IlLApp. 435.
Ohio.— Schuck v. McDonald, 16 N.E.
2d 419, 58 Ohio App. 394.
Pa. — Stucker v. Shumaker, 139 A.
114, 290 Pa. 348— "First Nat Bank
v. Crawford, 8 Pa.Dist & Co. 423.
34 C.J. p 113 note 49, p 125 note 67.
Judgment held Irregular
A Judgment entered after the
48 C.J.S.— 19
death of the promisor and without
an action brought in the lifetime of
such party is irregrular and will -he
vacated on application of the legal
representatives or heirs of the dece-
dent—Kummerle v. Cain, 32 Pa.Su-
per. 528.
Wife re-signing ***•* htuftaod's
death
Where a married woman who had
signed a note as security for her
husband signed it a second time aft-
er his death, Judgment may be en-
tered against her although the note
under her first signature was void as
to her.— "First Nat Bank v. CJraw-
ford, 3 Pa.Dist & Co. 423.
59. N.T.— 'Nichols v. Chapman, 9
' Wend. 452.
60. N.T.— Nichols v. Chapman, su-
pra.
OU N.T.— Nichols v. Chapman, su-
pra.
Pa.— Felty v. Felty, 11 Pa.Dist &
Co. 186.
02. 111.— Grimes v. Rodgers, 263 111.
App. 429.
Md.— Acker v. Cecil .Nat. Bank of
Port Deposit 157 A. 897, 162 Md.
1, followed in Acker v. National
Bank of Perryville, 157 A. 899,
162 Md. 4.
289
Ohio. — Swisher v. Orrison Cigar Co.,
171 N.E. 92, 122 Ohio St. 195.
Wis. — In re Kohl's Guardianship, 266
N.W. 800, 221 Wis. 385.
t. I1L — Genden v. Bailen, 275 111.
App. 382— Hughes v. First Accept-
ance Corporation, 2*80 IlLApp. 176.
N.T.— Shenson v. X. Shainin & Co.,
198 N.B. -407, 2*8 N.Y. $67.
Pa.— Mahoney v. Collman, 143 A. 186,
293 Pa. 478.
04. ^a.— United Mercantile Agen-
cies v. Bissonnette, 19 So.2d 466,
155 A.&.R. 916.
34 C.J. p 114 note 53.
85. Del. — City Loan System of Dela-
ware v. Nordauist, 165 A. 341, 5 W.
W.Harr. 371.
111. — Bullen v. Dawson, 2S N.E. 1038,
139 HI. 6$3.
Ky. — Anderson v. Reconstruction
^Finance Corporation, 136 S.W.2d
741, 281 Ky. 531.
Ohio.^Commercial Qredit Corp. v.
Wasson, 63 N.E.2d 560, 76 Ohio
App. 181.
66. Tex.— Johnston v. ILoo-p, £ Tex,
3*1*
6ff. Mo.— Wood v. Ellis, 10 Mo. 383.
as. Pa.— Mahoney v. Collman, 143 A.
186, 29<3 Pa. 478.
34 CUT. p 114 note 58.
§ 158
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
Under statutes so providing, a person confessing
a judgment, without action, is required to file a
written statement69 signed and verified, as discussed
infra § 159, designating the amount for which the
judgment is to be entered, and stating concisely
the facts out of which the indebtedness arose,70 and
authorizing the entry of judgment therefor.71 Such
statutes have been held to apply, however, only in
case of a confession of judgment without action;
and they are not applicable where a suit has been
begun, process served or waived and a declaration
filed, and defendant then confesses judgment72
§ 159* Requisites and Sufficiency
a. In general
b. Degree of certainty in general
c. Allegation of amount of debt
d Allegation that debt is "justly due"
e. Signature
f. Verification
g. Amendment of defective statement
h. Particular applications of rules
a. In General
The statement of -Indebtedness required to accompa-
ny a confession of Judgment is sufficient if it fairly and
substantially complies with the statutory requirements
therefor.
Generally speaking, the statement of indebtedness
required by statute in many jurisdictions to accom-
pany a confession of judgment, as discussed supra §
158, is sufficient if it fairly and substantially com-
plies with the statutory requirements therefor.73
Technical accuracy in the description of the liability
or cause of action is not required.74 A statement
is sufficient if it sets out the facts out of which the
debt for which judgment is confessed arose ;75 and,
if it is otherwise sufficiently regular and specific, it
is not invalid merely because the time when the
debt arose is not definitely stated,76 or is omitted en-
tirely.77 A statement, however, which does not
allege the fact of indebtedness, either directly or by
necessary implication, will not support a judgment
by confession.7^
Referring to schedule. The statement may refer
for particulars to a schedule annexed, but in that
case the schedule must contain all the necessary
facts.79 A failure to annex the schedule referred
to does not invalidate the judgment where the state-
ment is sufficient without the schedule.80
Partial insufficiency. A statement will not be
held insufficient in toto merely because a severable
part of it is insufficient.81
b. Degree of Certainty in General
The statement of indebtedness, required to support a
confession of judgment should be so precise, in stating
the debt or the facts out of which the debt arose, as to
apprise all persons interested of the nature and consid-
eration of the debt and enable them to Inquire into the
transaction, but it need not be as precise as a bill of
particulars.
The statement of indebtedness required to support
a confession of judgment should be so precise and
particular, in stating the debt or the facts out of
which the debt arose, as to apprise all persons in-
terested of the nature and consideration of the
debt,82 and give assurance that the consideration is
fair and honest,88 the degree of particularity re-
09. N.Y.— American Cities Co. v.
Stevenson, 60 N.Y.S.2d 685.
N.-C. — Gibbs v. G. H. Weston & Co.,
18 S,E.2d 698, 221 N.C. 7— Farm-
ers' Bank of Clayton v. McCullers,
160 S.E. 494, 201 N.C. 440.
34 C.J. p 114 note 64.
Consent or ratification of creditor to
entry of judgment by confession
see supra § 148.
70. N.Y.— Keller v. Greenstone, 2 N.
Y.S.2d 977, 253 App.Div. 573— P.
A. Starck Piano Co. v. O'Keefe, 208
N.Y.S. 360, 211 App.-Dlv. 700—
Johnston v. A. L. Erlanger Realty
Corporation, 29*6 N.Y.S. 89, 162
Misc. 881.
N.C.— Gibbs v. G. H. Weston & Co.,
18 S.E.2d 698, 221 N.C. 7— Farm-
ers' Bank of Clayton v. McCullers,
160 'S.E. 494, 201 N.C. 440.
Okl. — Universal Supply & Machinery
Co. V. Construction Machinery Co.,
16 P.2d 365, 160 Okl. 209.
34 C.J. p 114 note 61.
Effect of failure to comply with stat-
ute see infra S 171.
71. N.C. — Farmers' Bank of Clayton
v. McCullers, 160 S.E. 494, 201 N.
C. 440.
72. Mo. — Aeolian Co. of Missouri v.
Smith-Medcalf & Co., App., 7 S.
W.2d 447.
34 C.J. p 114 note ftft.
Requirement that confession, lie in
writing1 held not to apply to confes-
sion after action. — Aeolian Qo. of
Missouri v. Smith-Medcalf & Co., su-
pra— Wade v. Swope, 81 S.W. 471,
107 Mo.A<pp. 375.
73. N.Y.— Clements v. Gerow, 1 Abb.
Dec. «70, 1 Keyes 297.
34 C.J. p 114 note 65.
Captions spirit
In determining- whether or not the
statement is sufficient, it is not to
be interpreted in a captious spirit —
Clements v. Gerow, supra — Acker v.
Acker, 1 Abb.Dec.,N.Y., 1, 1 Keyea
291.
7* Ark.— Ex parte Hays, 6 Ark. 419.
34 CJ. p 114 note 37.
Y. 417— Brosstedt v. Breslin, 42
Hun 6-56, 5 N.Y.St. 67, affirmed 13
N.E. 931, 105 N.Y. 682.
Statement held sufficient
N.C.— {Farmers' Bank of Clayton v,
McCuUers, 1-60 S.iB. 497, 201 N.C.
412.
76. N.Y.— Harrison y. Gibbons, 71 N.
Y. 58.
77. N.Y.— Keller v. Greenstone, 2 N.
Y.S,2d 977, 253 App.Div. 573.
78L N.Y.— Citizens' Nat Bank v. Al-
lison, 57 Hun 135.
79. N.Y.— Hamann v. Keinhart, 11
Abb.Pr. 132.
80. N.Y. — Clements v. Gerow, 1 Abb.
Dec. «370, 1 Keyes 297 — Acker v.
Acker, 1 Abb.Dec. 1, 1 Keyes 291.
81. N.Y.— Frost v. Koon, 30 N.Y.
423.
34 C.J. p 115 note 70 [a],
82. Iowa. — Briggs v. Yetzer, 72 N.
W. 647, 103 Iowa 342.
34 C.J. p 115 note 79.
18. K.T.— Kirty v. Ittzgerald, 81 N. 83. N.C.— Farmers' Bank of qiayton
290
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
159
quired depending, to a large extent, on the circum-
stances of each particular case.84 It is not re-
quired that the statement should set forth sufficient
of the transaction out of which the indebtedness
arose to enable other creditors to form an opinion
from the facts stated as to the integrity of the debt-
or in confessing the judgment ;85 but it is sufficient
if it states enough of the facts to identify the trans-
action and enable creditors and others interested to
inquire into the transaction and investigate the bona
fides of the judgment.86 It has been variously stat-
ed that the statement is sufficient if it states the
transaction creating the indebtedness concisely, and
in terms which will make known to the ordinary un-
derstanding the manner in which the indebtedness
arose;87 or if it indicates the facts out of which
the indebtedness arose, with reasonable certainty,88
or with certainty to a common intent;89 or if it
complies, with the requirement of a statement of
facts in a complaint,90 or so fixes the consideration
of the judgment as • to prevent the parties from
shifting it;91 and that a statement as general as
the common counts in a declaration is not suffi-
cient ;92 but that a statement as precise as a bill of
particulars is not required.93 It has been said that
the statement of facts should be so definite that af-
fiant would be exposed to punishment for perjury
in case of any misstatement.94
c. Allegation of Amount of Debt
The statement must set forth explicitly the amount
of the debt for which judgment is confessed, Indicating
how much, If any, is due for Interest.
The statement must set forth explicitly the
amount of the debt for which the judgment is con-
fessed,95 indicating how much, if any, is due for
interest.96 It has been held, however, that it need
not set out in precise terms that the indebtedness
was for the precise Sum for which the judgment is
confessed, where such fact is made to appear by
the statement;97 and a mere discrepancy in an
item, which is the result of a clerical error, does
not render the statement invalid.98
d. Allegation That Debt Is "Justly Due"
Under statutes so providing, the statement must
show that the sum confessed Is Justly due, or to become
due.
Under some statutes, the statement, in addition to
setting forth the facts on which the indebtedness
arose, must also show that the sum confessed is
justly due, or to become due.99 It has been held,
however, that this does not require the confession
to state in terms that the sum for which the judg-
ment is confessed is justly due or to become due,
if such fact appears from the other facts set forth;1
and, where the statement sets forth facts showing
a just debt and the amount thereof, it need not in
terms negative that it has been paid or otherwise
discharged.2 It has been held that no statement
need be made that the controversy is real and the
proceedings are in good faith.8
v. McCullers, 160 S.B. 494, 201 N.
C. 440.
84. Mo.— Mechanics' Bank v. Mayer,
6 -S.W. 237, 93 Mo. 417.
85. Minn,— Atwater y. Manchester
Sav. Bank, 48 N.W. 187, 45 Minn.
341, 12 L.R.A. 741.
N.Y.— McBowell v. Daniels, 38 Barb.
143.
88. Minn.— Atwater v. Manchester
Sav. Bank, 48 N.W. 1*87, 45 Minn.
341, 12 L.R.A. 741.
27 C.J. p 45'8 note 15—84 C.J. p 115
note 83.
87. Mo.— St. Louis Fourth Nat
Bank T. Mayer, 19 Mo.App. 517.
34 C. J. p 115 note 82.
88. N.T.— Union Bank v. Bush, 36
N.T. 6*31, 3 Transcr.A. 235— Read
v. French, 28 N.Y. 285— Brown v.
Marrigold, SO How.Pr. 248.
89. N.T.— Harrison v. Gibbons, 71
N.Y. 58.
90. N.Y.— Matter of Gray, 156 N.Y.
S. 877, 172 App.Div. 884— Mather
v. Mather, 55 N.Y.S. 973, 38 App.
Div. «32.
91. Mo. — J. H. Teasdale -Commix Co.
v. Van Hardenberg, 63 Mo.App.
326.
92. N.Y.— Lawless T. Hackett, 1*6
Johns. 149.
34 C.J. p 116 note 8-8.
93. Iowa.— Vanfleet v. Fhttlips, 11
Iowa 558.
27 C.J. p 458 note 14—34 C.J, p 116
note 89.
94. N.Y.— Wood v. Mitchell, 22 N.
•E. 1125, 117 N.Y. 439— Johnston v.
A. Li. Erlanger Realty Coloration,
296 N.Y.S. 39, 162 Misc. 881.
95. N.Y.— Johnston v. A. I* Ertan-
ger Realty Corporation, 296 'N.Y.
. 3. 89, 162 Misc. 881.
N.C.— ^Farmers' Bank of "Clay ton v.
McCullers, 160 S.B. 494, 201 N.C.
440.
34 C.J. p 116 note 91.
Necessity of stating amount general-
ly see supra § 158.
96. N.Y.— Wood v. Mitchell, 22 N.E.
1125, 117* N.Y. 4'39 — Johnston v. A.
tL, Erlanger Realty Corporation,
296 N.Y.S. 89, 162 Misc. 881.
34 C J. p 116 note 92.
97. N.Y.— Clements v. Gerow, 1
Abb.Dec. 370, 1 Keyes 297— Acker
v. Acker, 1 Abb.Dec. 1, 1 Keyes
291.
291
98L Mo. — Hard v. Foster, 11 S.W.
760, 98 Mo. 297.
99. N.Y. — Johnston v. A L*. Erlan-
ger Realty Corporation, 296 N.Y.
S. 89. 162 Misc. 881.
N.C. — Farmers' Bank of Clayton v.
McSCullers, 160 S.-E. 494, 201 N.C.
440.
OkL — Universal Supply & Machinery
Co. v. Construction Machinery Co..
1-6 P.2d 865, 160 Okl. 209.
54 C.J. p 116 note 97.
Necessity and sufficiency of affidavit
of bona fides see infra § 163.
A confession of Judgment doe* not
alone import consideration
N.C. — Farmers' Bank of Clayton v.
McCullere,*160 S.B. 494, 201 N.C.
440.
1. N.C.— Merchants' Nat. Bank of
Richmond v. Newton Cotton Mills,
20 S.-E. 765, 115 N.C. 507.
34 C.J. p 116 note 98.
2. N.Y. — Lanning v. Carpenter, 20
N.Y. 447— Gandall v. -Finn, 2 Abb.
Dec. 232, 1 Keyes 217, 33 How.Pr.
444.
3. N.C, — Martin v. Briscoe, 55 S.EL
782, 143 N.a '353.
159
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
e. Signature
Generally, the statement on which a Judgment by
confession is entered must be signed by the debtor in
person.
It is generally required that the statement on
which a judgment by confession is entered must be
signed by the debtor or defendant in person,4 and a
signature by his attorney is not sufficient.5 Sign-
ing the affidavit verifying the statement is, however,
a sufficient signing of the statement itself, espe-
cially if they are on the same page or sheet6
Where the confession of judgment is against two
or more persons, the statement must be signed by
each of the persons against whom it authorizes the
entry of judgment7
f . Verification
Generally, the person making the statement of In*
debtedness must swear positively to the truth of the
facts stated as far as they are within his own knowledge.
It is usually required by statute that the. state-
ment of indebtedness be sworn to by the party mak-
ing it,8 and such requirement has been held to be
jurisdictional and mandatory.9 He must swear, not
merely that he believes the statement to be true, but
positively to the truth of the facts as far as they
are within his own knowledge.10 This affidavit may
be made before any duly qualified officer,11 such as
a notary public;12 and may be made in a county
other than that in which the judgment is rendered
on the confession.1^ The jurat of the officer tak-
ing the affidavit should be in due form,14 but a for-
mal defect therein will not so far invalidate the
judgment as to lay it open to collateral attack.15
As between the parties, a confession of judgment
is not avoided by the want of a seal to the notary's
certificate to the affidavit.16 Such a verification
cannot be made by plaintiff* s attorney under a pow-
er of attorney to confess judgment1?
Amendment. An unverified statement for judg-
ment by confession or a defective verification of
such statement is amendable.18
g. Amendment of Defective Statement
The court may, In its discretion, allow a defective
statement of Indebtedness to be amended on such terms
as appear just.
The court may, in its discretion, allow a defec-
tive statement of indebtedness to be amended on
such terms as appear just,19 but, as a general rule,
such amendment will not be allowed where it will
affect the rights of subsequent judgment creditors
which may have attached in the meantime,20 espe-
cially where they have begun proceedings to avoid
the judgment by confession.21 It has been held,
however, that such amendment may be allowed as
against subsequent judgment creditors who have not
sought to vacate the judgment22
h. Particular Applications of Rules
The general rules governing the requisites and suf-
ficiency of the statement of Indebtedness required to ac-
company a confession of judgment have been applied
to various types of Indebtedness.
4. N.Y.— P. A. Starck Piano Co. v.
O'Keefe, 20'8 N.Y.S. 550, 211 App.
I>iv. 700.
N.C. — (Farmers* Bank of Clayton v.
McCuUers, 160 S.BL 494, 201 N.C.
440.
•34 CJ. p 118 note 29.
6. Oal. — Reynolds v. Lincoln, 9 P.
176, 12 P. 449, 71 CaL 1*3.
34 CJ. p 118 note 30.
Statement signed by creditor's at-
torney, acting ostensibly for debtor
under authorization to confess judg-
ment, was held not to support judg-
ment.— P. -A. Starck Piano Co. v.
O'Keefe, '208 N.Y.S. 350, 211 App.
Div. 700.
6. N.Y.— Mosher v. Heydrick, 45
Barb. 549, 30 How.Pr. T61, 1 Abb.
. Pr.,N.S., 26*8.
34 CJ. p 118 note 31.
7. U.S. — ITrench v. Edwards, C.C.
Cal., 9 F.Cas.No.6,098, 5 Sawy. 266.
•34 «C.X p 118 note 32.
8. N.Y.— "Shenson v. Z. Shalnin & Co.,
276 (N.YJ3. 881, 243 App.Div. 638,
affirmed 19*8 N.B. 407, 26*8 N.Y.
567— P. A. Starck Piano Co. v.
O'Keefe, 208 N.Y.S. 350, 211 App.
Div. 700.
N.C. — Gibbs v. Q. H. Weston & Co.,
18 S.E.2d 698, 221 N.C. 7— Farm-
ers' Bank of Clayton v. McCuUers,
160 S.E. 494, 201 N.C. 440.
9. N.C.— Gibbs v. G. H. Weston &
Co., 18 S.'B.2d -698, 221 N.C. 7.
34 C.J. p ll'S note 35.
Before Judgment may be entered,
an affidavit of defendant stating con-
cisely the facts on which the indebt-
edness arose must be filed. — Univer-
sal Supply & Machinery Co. v. Con-
struction Machinery Co., 16 <P.2d 865,
160 OkL 209.
10. N.Y.— Ingrain r. Bobbins, 33 N.
Y. 409, 8* Am.D. 393.
34 C. J. «p 118 note «36.
11. N.Y.— Mosher v. Heydrick, 45
Barb. 549, 1 Abb.Pr.,N.S., 258, (30
How.Pr. ItL
12. Iowa.— Vanfleet
Iowa 558.
.34 £.X. p 118 note 38.
13. Iowa, — 'Frisbee
Iowa 95.
y. Phillips, 11
Seaman, 49
14. Iowa.— Brings v. Yetzer, 7% N.
W. 647, 103 Iowa 342—Grattan v.
Matteson, 6 N.W. 298, 54 Iowa 229.
292
15. Iowa. — Grattan Y. Matteson, su-
pra.
34 C. J. p 118 note 41.
16. Iowa. — Thorp v. Platt, 34 Iowa
314— Chase v. Street, 10 Iowa 59*3.
17. N.Y.— P. A. Starck Piano Co. v.
O'Keefe, 20'8 N.Y.S. 350, 211 App.
Div. 700— United States 'Fidelity &
Guaranty Co. v. Shickler, 191 N.Y.
S. 194, 199 Apsp.D*y. 74.
18. N.Y. — Shenson y. L S ha in in &
Co., 2-76 N.Y.S. 881, -2413 App.Div.
638, affirmed 1'98 N.B. 407, 268 N.
Y. 567.
34 C. J. p 119 note 45.
19. N.Y. — Symson y. Selheimer, 12
N.«B. 31, 105 N.Y. 6^0— Johnston v.
A. Ij. Brlanger Realty Corporation,
296 N.Y.S. 89, 162 Misc. 881,
34 C. J. p 119 note 47.
Amendment of defective verification
see supra § 159 f.
20. -Mo.— Bryan v. Miller, 28 Mo.
32, 75 AmJX 107.
34 C.J. p 119 note 48.
21. Minn.— "Wells v. Gieseke, 8 N.
W. 380, 27 Minn. 478.
•34 C.J. !p 119 note 50.
22. N.Y.— Bradley v. GlasB, 46 N.Y.
S. 790, '20 App.Div. 200..
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§159
The general rules governing the requisites and
sufficiency of the statement of indebtedness required
to accompany a confession of judgment, discussed
supra subdivisions a-g of this section, have been
applied to various types of. indebtedness.28
For loans and advances. A statement which sets
forth facts showing that the indebtedness accrued
for "borrowed money," or for "money loaned'5 or
"advanced" to the debtor, sufficiently states the
facts out of which the indebtedness arose,24 provid-
ed there is no uncertainty as to the amount due.25
It has generally been held sufficient to allege that
the money was loaned or advanced to defendant
within a certain year or years, or at divers times
after a specified day,26 or from time to time,27 or
on or about a day named.28 A statement has been
held insufficient which does not state the aggre-
gate amount of the loans, the date or how much of
the amount is for interest, and how much is for
principal, and does not give any data from which
the amounts of the principal and interest may be
ascertained.29
For goods sold and delivered. In some jurisdic-
tions a statement for a confession of judgment on
an account of goods sold need not contain a minute
description of the articles sold, but is sufficient if it
is declared to be for goods, wares, and merchan-
dise sold and delivered.8* In other jurisdictions,
however, the statement is required to describe the
kind, quantity, and price of the goods sold and de-
livered.81 It is not necessary that the statement
shall allege, in terms, that the goods were pur-
chased by defendant from plaintiff; it is sufficient
if the words used plainly import that fact.82 The
statement need not describe the exact time of the
sale or sales; it is sufficient if it contains merely an
approximate description of the period at or within
which the sales took place,38 such as during a cer-
tain month,34 or since a certain day,35 or during a
certain year,86 or within a certain number of
years.87
On bills and notes. A statement in a confession
of judgment which sets forth as the basis of the
judgment merely the execution of a bill or note by
defendant to plaintiff is not sufficient;88 it should
describe the consideration for the bill or note or
should set forth the facts out of which the indebt-
edness arose for which it was given.88 Thus the
statement should set out the amount for which the
note was given,40 and, where it was given for
"goods sold and delivered/' or for "goods, wares,
and merchandise," it should set out details as to
the date, amount, and subject of the sale or sales.41
It is not sufficient to state that the note was given
23. Balance of account
(1) Where there have been numer-
ous dealings between the parties, the
statement will be sufficient if it sets
forth an adjustment of accounts,
with exact particulars of the bal-
ance found due and defendant's
agreement or liability to pay it —
Critten v. Vredenburgh, 45 N.E. 952,
151 N.Y. 536-^34 C.J. p 115 note 76.
(2) It has been held, however, that
the statement should allege any pay-
ments made and how such balance
was ascertained.
Mo.— Bryan v. Miller, 28 Mo. 32, 75
Am.D. 107.
N.Y. — Miller v. Barle, 24 N.T. 110.
(3) Statements held insufficient
' N.Y.— Hubbell v. Hardy, 357 N.Y.S.
497, 93 Misc. 672, modified on other
grounds and affirmed 159 N.Y.S.
1102, 174 App.Div. 857.
N.C.— Farmers' Bank of Clayton v.
McCullers, 160 8.BL 494, 201 NXX
440.
Contingent liability
(1) Where the confession is to se-
cure a contingent liability, the state-
ment must set out concisely the
facts constituting the liability.—
Farmers' Bank of Clayton v. Mc-
Cullers, supra— 34 C. J. p 115 note "74.
(2) It must also show that the
sum confessed does not exceed the
liability. — Farmers' Bank of Clayton
v. McCullers, supra— 34 C.J. p 115
note 75.
24. Iowa.— Kendigr v. Marble, 12 N.
W. 5S4, 58 Iowa 529.
34 CJ. P 117 note 23.
25. N.Y.— Flour City Nat Bank v.
Doty, 41 Hun 76, 11 N.Y.Civ.Proc.
141.
84 C. J. p 11(8 note 24.
26. N.Y.— Lyon v. Sherman, 14 Abb.
Pr. 393.
34 C.J. p 118 note 26.
27. N.Y.— Mather v. Mather, 55 N.
Y.S. 973, 38 App.Div. 82.
U 'N.Y.— Johnston v. McAusland, 9
Abb.Pr. 214.
29. N.Y.— Wood v. Mitchell, 22 N.B.
1125, 117 N.Y. 439.
30. Iowa.— Daniels v. Claflin, 15
Iowa 152.
S.C.— Ex parte Graham, 82 S.K <
54 SJC. 163.
3X. Wis.— Nichols v. Kribs, 10 Wis.
76, 78 Am.D. 294.
•34 C.J. p 116 note 3.
32. tt.Y.— Read v. French, 28 N.Y.
285.
33. N.Y.— Gandall v. Finn. 2 Abb
Dec. 232, 1 Keyes 217, 33 How-Pr
444.
34 C.J. p 116 note 5.
34. N.Y.— Delaware v. Bnsign, 21
Barb. 8S.
35. N.Y.— Gandall v. Finn, 2 Abb.
Dec. 232, 1 Keyes 217, «33 How.Pr.
444.
38. N.Y.— Read v. French, 23 N.Y.
285.
37. N.Y. — Clements <v. Gerow, 1
Abb.Dec. 370, 1 Keyes 297.
38. N.Y. — Keller v. Greenstone, 2 N.
Y.S.2d 977, 253 App.Div. 573.
34 C.J. P 117 note 10.
39. N.Y. — Keller v. Greenstone, su-
pra.
34 C.J. p 117 note 11.
Statements held sufficient
(1) Generally. — Keller v. Green-
stone, 2 N.Y.S.2d 977, 253 App.Div.
573.
(2) A statement is sufficient which
sets forth that the Judgment is con-
fessed to secure plaintiff for a debt
due or to become due on his indorse-
ment, as the surety of defendant and
for his benefit, of a certain note or
notes fully described in all essen-
tial particulars. — Dow v. Platner, 16
N.Y. 562—34 C.J. p 117 note 17.
40. N.Y, — Norris v. Denton, 30 Barb.
117.
34 C.J. p 117 note 12.
41. Cal.— Cordier v. Schloss, 18 CaL
34 C. J. p 117 note 13.
293
§ 159
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
for a balance due on a settlement of accounts,42
unless the nature of the dealing out of which the
account arose is described.48 It is not necessary,
however, that the statement should give all the cir-
cumstances relating to the debt or should exclude
all possible circumstances which may affect the in-
tegrity of the debt.44
It is sufficient to state that the note was given
for "money loaned" to defendant, or "money bor-
rowed" by him, if the amount and time of the loan
are given, and the sum is alleged to be justly due;45
the terms of the loan are not required to be stat-
ed.46 Indeed, it has been held that failure to state
the time of the loan does not impair the suffi-
ciency of the statement.47 It is presumed that the
loan was made to one person only, and it is not
necessary for the statement to negative the making
of the loan to more than one person.48 It is also
presumed that only one sum was loaned, and that
it is due.49
E. PROCEDURE DT OBTAINING OR ENTERING JUDGMENT
§ 160. In General
Generally speaking, a Judgment by confession may
be entered only in conformity with the terms of the cog-
novit, and with valid statutes and rules of practice gov-
erning the manner, method, and conditions of entry.
Generally speaking, a judgment by confession
may be entered only in conformity with the terms
of the cognovit,50 and with valid statutes51 and
rules of practice52 governing the manner, method,
and conditions of entry. In the absence of a statute
providing otherwise, such judgment may be entered
without the intervention of a jury,53 or the direct
adjudication of the court or order of a judge.54
It may be entered without a declaration,55 or prae-
cipe,56 or on the pracipe of plaintiffs attorney.57
Indeed, it may be entered on the mere oral request
of plaintiff or of anyone acting for him.58 Under
statutes so providing, judgment cannot be entered
without a certificate signed by the judgment credi-
tor, or his duly authorized attorney or agent, set-
ting forth the precise address of the creditor ;5d
or without filing in the county clerk's office a writ-
42. Iowa, — Bernard v. Douglass, 10
Iowa 370.
N.Y. — Dunham v. Waterman, 17 -N.Y.
9, 72 Am.D. 406, 6 Abb.Pr. 365.
43. N.Y.— Acker v. Acker, 1 Abb.
Dec. 1, 1 Keyes 291.
44. N.Y. — Acker v. Acker, supra.
45. N.Y. — Keller v. Greenstone, 2 N.
Y.S.2d 977, 253 App.Dlv. 57-3.
34 C.J. p 117 note 18.
4ft, N.Y.— Acker v. Acker, 1 Abb.
Dec. 1, 1 Keyes 291.
47. N.Y.— Keller v. Greenstone, 2 N.
Y.S.2d 977, 253 App.Div. 573.
4& N.Y.— Acker v. Acker, 1 Abb.
(Dec. 1, 1 Keyes 291.
49. N.Y. — Acker v. Acker, supra.
50. U.S.— Nardi v. Poinsatte, D.C.
Ind., 46 F.2d 347.
Del.— Money v. Hart, 159 A. 437, 5
W.W.Harr.. 11'5.
Pa. — Pittsburgh Terminal Coal Cor-
poration v. Potts, 92 Pa.Super. 1,
followed in Hillman Gas Coal Co.
v. Bozicevich, 92 Pa^Super. 39 —
Pittsburgh Terminal Coal Corpora-
tion v. Mc'Clements, 92 Pa. Super.
29 — Medvidovich v. -Sterner, 50 Pa.
Dist & Co. $90, 92 Pittsb.Leg.J.
223 — Hettinger v. American Veter-
ans of World War H, Amvets,
Reading Post No. 1, Com.PL, 38
Berks Co. 109 — Donaghue v. Haupt,
' Com.Pl.. 4 Sch.Reg. '367.
Form of judgment as following
terms of cognovit see infra $ 164.
Manner of confession held immateri-
al
Pa. — Walters v. Dooley, Com.Pl., 5
Sch.Reg. 174.
51. 111.— Bush v. Hanson, 70 111. 480.
N.C.— Gibbs v. G. H. Weston & Co.,
18 S.ES.2d .698, 221 N.C. 7— Farm-
ers' Bank of Clayton «v. MoCullers,
160 S.B. 494, 201 N.C. 440.
52. Pa. — Fox v. Boorse, '81 Pa. Super.
211— Hunter v. Wertz, 91 Pittsb.
Leg.J. «348, 57 York Leg.Rec. 111.
53. Ga.— Estes v. Estes, 14 SJEL2d
681, 192 Ga. 94.
Where confession, is unconditional
and amount certain, a jury is unnec-
essary.— Allen v. White, Minor, Ala.,
365.
Where issues arise which must be
determined by Jury, a rule to enter a
judgment on a warrant of attorney
should be discharged. — Handrick v.
Billings, 24 PaJCo. '64—34 C.J. p 119
note 58.
54. Pa. — Equipment Corporation of
America v. Primes Vanadium Co.,
132 A. 360, 285 Pa. 432.
34 C.J. p 119 note 53.
Authority of nonjudiclal officers see
infra § 161.
Rendition of Judgment in distinct
office of court not to be confused
with the ministerial acts of filing
and docketing. — Gibbs v. G. H. Wes-
ton & Co., 18 S.-E.2d 69'8, 221 N.C. 7.
55. Pa. — Union Acceptance Co. v.
Grant Motor Sales Co., 5 Pa.Dist
& Co. 407, 23 Luz.Leg.Reg. 89, 2
Som.Leg.J. 260, '39 York Leg.Rec.
294
141 — Morris v. Chevalier, Com.PL,
20 Lehigh Co.L.J. 1-33.
Necessity of process and pleading
generally see supra §§ 149-151.
Where confession of judgment is
express and unconditional, a state-
ment of cause of action has been
held unnecessary. — International Ad-
vertising -Syndicate v. Quaker Silk
Mills, -8 Pa.Dist. & Co. 23, 18 Berks
65.
Duly verified petition held Hied as
against contention that statute
barred judgment except on filing of
verified petition. — Athens First Nat.
Bank v. Garland, 67 N.W. 5'59, 109
Mich. 515, 63 Am.S.R. 597, 33 L.R.A.
as.
561 Pa. — Hefer v. Hefner, 95 Pa.Su-
per. 551— Industrial -Fibre Products
Co. of -Caldwell, N. J. v. Arters,
49 Pa.Dist. & Co. 304, 2* Erie Co.
202 — Reinsmith v. McCready, Com.
PI., 21 Lehigh Co.L.J. Ill, 58 York
Leg.Rec. 187.
57. Pa. — Victor v. Johnson, 24 A.
173, 148 Pa. 583 — Racunas v.
Vaughan, 29 Pa.Dist. 1058.
sa Pa. — Racunas v. Vaughan, su-
pra.
59. Pa.— Weisbrod & Hess Brewing
Co. v. Braverman, 149 A. 198, 299
Pa. "173— Weinstein v. Geller, 10
Pa.Dist & Co. -132.
The purpose of the statute is to
furnish information to the taxing- au-
thorities.—'Deibert v. Rhodes, 140 A.
515, 291 Pa. 5'50— New Amsterdam
Building & Loan Ass'n v. Moyerman,
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 161
ten notice of the proposed entry on a bond where
a mortgage has been given for the same debt60
The formal filing or recording of judgments by
confession is discussed infra § 165.
Correction of defects in proceedings. The court
may, in its discretion, allow defects in the pro-
ceedings for entry of judgment by confession to be
corrected on. such terms as appear just.61
§ 161. Jurisdiction and Authority
a. In general
b. Authority of nonjudicial officers
a. In General
It Is essential to the validity of a Judgment by con-
fession that the court have jurisdiction of the subject
matter and of the parties, the court which has Jurisdic-
tion In a particular case being dependent on local prac-
tice or statutes.
. Although, as discussed supra § 160, judgment by
confession may be entered without the direct ad-
judication of the court or the order of a judge,
the judgment when entered is the judicial act of
the court, as discussed infra § 168, and it is essential
to the validity of such judgment that the court have
jurisdiction of the subject matter62 and of the par-
ties,63 and a judgment entered in a court which
does not have jurisdiction of the subject matter,64
or of the parties,65 is void. A valid confession of
judgment,66 or warrant of attorney authorizing an
appearance for the purpose of confessing judgment
and an appearance thereunder,67 is sufficient, how-
ever, to give the court jurisdiction of the person
of defendant.
The court which has jurisdiction in a particular
case depends on the local practice or statutes.68
In the absence of a statute providing otherwise, the
entry of a judgment by confession has been held
to be within the jurisdiction of courts of general
jurisdiction.69 Under some statutes, a judgment by
confession may be rendered only in a court which
has jurisdiction in the county or district where de-
fendant resides,70 or where the obligation was exe-
cuted,71 and, under a statute so providing, a judg-
ment entered by any court in any other county or
district has no force or validity.72 It has been held,
95 Pa. Super. 47 — Beltonen T. Gruca
& Cozel, 94 Pa.Super. -32.
Mandatory or directory
Placing on record with Judgment
address of creditor is mandatory*
while manner of its appearance is
directory. — Defbert v. Rhodes, 140 A.
515, 517, 291 Pa. 550— Silverstein v.
Qohen, 12 Pa.Dist & Co. 21'8, 21
North.Co. 377— C. Trevor Dunham,
Inc. v. Miller, 10 PaJDist & Co. 113,
23 Sch.Leg.Rec. 167.
The prothonotary or his deputy
may t>e the agent of the judgment
creditor for the purpose of certifying
the latter'c address, and it will be
assumed that he signed the certifi-
cate as the creditor's agent — Weis-
brod & Hess Brewing Co. v. Braver-
man, 149 A. 198, 299 Pa. 173.
Sufficiency of address
(1) Information sufficiently def-
inite to enable taxing authorities to
locate taxable person is substantial
compliance with such statute. — New
Amsterdam Building & Loan Ass'n v.
Moyerman, 95 Pa.Super. 47.
(2) It is not necessary to give the
street address.— Weisbrod & Hess
Brewing Co. v. Braverman, 149 A.
198, 299 Pa. 173— New Amsterdam
Building & Loan Ass'n v. Moyerman,
supra — Beltonen v. Gruca & Cozel,
94 Pa. Super. 32.
(3) The designation of ward meets
requirements of statute.— Beltonen
v. Gruca & Cozel, supra.
(4) Where the creditor is a non-
resident of the state, it is sufficient
if he names the state in which he re-
sides.— Pennsylvania Buggies Truck
Sales v. Bocastow, 12 Pa,Dist. & Co.
328.
Xiease signed, by creditor, setting
forth his address, was held to meet
statutory requirements. — General
Finance Co. v. Wasilowski, 5 Pa.
Dist & Co. 274, 20 Sch.Leg.Rec. 219.
N.J.— Gerstley v. Best, 151 A.
•395, 8 N.XMisc. 661, affirmed 156
A. 377, 108 N.J.Law 189.
ITotice held sufficient
N.J. — Gerstley v. Best, supra.
81. Pa.— Fox v. Boorse, 81 Pa.Su-
per. 211— Parsons v. Kuhn, Com.
PL, 45 Pa.Dist. & Co. 356.
Amendment or correction of Judg-
ment by confession see infra § 320.
62. 111.— Stead v. Craine, 256 111.
Ap-p. 44'5.
Pa.— Oberlin v. Parry, 134 A. 460,
287 Pa, 224.
.— Rubin v. Dale. 288 P. 223,
156 Wash. -676.
34 C.J. p 119 note -62.
03. 111.— Duggan v. Kupitz, 22 N.E.
2d 892, 301 IlLApp. 230— Stead v.
Craine, 256 IlLAjpp. 445.
Without a confession by defend-
ant or his attorney the court has no
power to enter Judgment by confes-
sion.—Bernstein v. Qurran, 99 HI.
App. 179— 34 C.J. p 121 note 92.
64. Tnd.— Marsh v. Sherman, 12 Ind.
358.
•34 C.J. p 119 note 63.
85. I1L— Duggan v. Kupitz, 22 N.E.
2d 392, 301 I1LAPP. 230.
68. Kan.— Ritter v. Hoffman, 10 P.
576, 35 Kan. 215.
295
67. U.S. — Withers v. Starace, 3>.C.N.
T., 22 F.Supp. 773.
111.— Lock v. Leslie, 248 IlLApp. 438.
Place of residence of signer of the
warrant does not affect the validity
of his consent to jurisdiction. — -With-
ers v. Starace, (D.C.N.Y., 22 F.Supp.
773—34 C.J. p 120 note 66.
68. N.J. — Vanderveere v. Gaston, 24
N.J.Law 818.
34 C.J. p 120 note 94.
69. I1L — Schwartz v. Schwartz, « N.
R2d 66'8, 366 111. 247— Bush v.
Hanson, 70 111. 480 — Moore v. Mon-
arch Distributing Co., t32 N.E.2d
1019, 309 IlLApp. 339— Stead v.
Craine. 256 IlLApp. 445.
70. 111. — May v. Chas. O. Larson Co.,
26 N.E 3d 139, 304 IlLAjpp. 137.
34 C.J. p 120 note 65.
The intention of defendant is not
the determining factor with respect
to the required residence. — Zipper-
man v. Wiltse, 47 N.B.2d S&5, 317
IlLApp. 654. *
Wife, legally separated: from her
husband, was held a resident of
county where she resided and had
her place of business. — Zipperman v.
Wiltse, supra.
71. 111. — May v. Chas. O. -Larson Co.,
26 KB.2d 139. i304 IlLApp. 137.
Place of preparation and delivery
held place of execution, although ob-
ligation was signed in another coun-
ty.—Taylorville Savings, Loan &
Building Ass'n v. McBride, 22 N.B.2d
772. 301 IlLApp. 632, transferred, see,
17 N.EL2d 221, 369 111. 544.
72. 111. — Rixmann v. Witwer, App.,
§ 161
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
however, that such statutes,*1 and similar statutes
not in terms limited to judgments by confession,74
do not limit the jurisdiction of courts of general ju-
risdiction over the subject matter of judgments by
confession, but merely provide the method by which
the court may obtain jurisdiction over the person
and specify the venue in which a defendant may
be sued, and objections founded thereon may be
waived,75 if not raised at the earliest possible mo-
ment.76 Where the judgment is confessed in a
court of limited or inferior jurisdiction, its ju-
risdiction must appear on the face of the proceed-
ings, and the record must show that there has
been a compliance with all statutory requirements.77
The consent of parties cannot confer jurisdiction
over the subject matter,78 but, where the subject
matter is within the jurisdiction of the court, a
judgment entered on confession without excepting
to the jurisdiction of the person has been held to
be valid.™
b. Authority of Nonjudicial Officers
Under some statutes, the prothonotary, register, or
clerk of the court may enter judgment by confession,
on the filing in his office of the necessary papers, with-
out any action by the judge, but in so doing he acts
merely in a ministerial capacity and must follow closely
the forms provided by law for the exercise of the power
conferred on him.
Under some statutes, the prothonotary, register,
or clerk of the court may enter a judgment by con-
fession, on the filing in his office of the necessary
papers, without any action by the judge,80 and, as
discussed supra § 154 f, without the agency of an
attorney. The clerk's act in entering the judgment
is not judicial, but merely ministerial,81 and, when
he is presented with what purport to be the neces-
sary papers, it has been held that he cannot ques-
tion their validity or sufficiency,82 but must enter
judgment thereon.88 He must follow closely the
forms provided by law for the exercise of the pow-
er conferred on him;8* and any directions of the
statute as to the conditions on which he may enter
the judgment must be strictly observed85 His pow-
er may be exercised only where the confession is
complete and unconditional.86 In entering judg-
ment he -must follow the papers filed,87 and cannot
insert any stipulation in the judgment which is not
authorized by the warrant or confession.88
For or against himself. Where a clerk of court
is empowered to take and enter confessed judg-
ments, he may, in the absence of fraud, enter such
a judgment in his own favor8^ or against himself,
as discussed supra § 143.
County clerk. The word "may*1 in a statute pro-
viding that a statement of confession may be filed
with the county clerk of the county of which de-
es N.E.2d -607— Houston v. Ingels,
48 NVE.2d 19$, 318 IlLApp. 383.
73. 111.— May v. Chas. O. Larson Co.,
2-6 10J.2d.189, 804 IlLApp. 137.
74. Md. — John B. Qolt Co. v. Wright,
159 A. 743, 162 Mi 387.
75. 111. — May v. Chas. O. Larson Co.,
26 N.E.2d 139, 304 IlLApp. 137.
Md.— John B. Colt -Co. v. Wright,
159 A. 74'3, 162 Md. ,OT.
76. 111.— May v. Chas. O. Larson Co.,
26 N.B.2d 139, 304 IlLApp. 137.
General appearance under which
defendant submitted to Jurisdiction
of court to contest plaintiff's claim
on the merits, praying for leave to
file a counterclaim, was held waiver
of objection.— May v. Chas. 0. Lar-
son Co., supra.
Objection, held not waived
111. — Rixmann v. Witwer, App., 63 N.
B.2d 607.
77. Neb.— Howell v. Gilt Edge Mfg.
Co., 49 N.W. 704, 32 Neb. 627.
34 C.J. p 120 note 67.
T& CaL— Feillett v. Bngler, 8 Cal.
7-6.
N.C. — Slocumb v. Cape 'Fear Shingle
Co., 14 S.B. -622, 110. N.C. 24.
-79. La.— Kelly v. Lyons, 4 So. 480,
40 La.Ann. 498.
S.C.— Martin v. Bowie, 21 S.CLaw
22*5.
80. 111.— Wilson y. Josephson, 244
HLAfpp. 366.
Pa.— Deibert v. Rhodes, 140 A. 515,
291 Pa. 550— Oberlin v. Parry, 134
A. 460, 287 Pa. 224— Hefer v. Hef-
ner, 95 Pa.Super. 551— Miller v.
Desher, 12 Pa.Dist & Co. 315, 41
Lanc.L.Rev. 935 — Morris v. Cheva-
lier, Com.PL,.20 iLehigh L.J. 133.
34 C.J. p 120 note 73.
Authority of clerk to enter in vaca-
tion see infra 5 166.
Authority of clerk to liquidate
amount of judgment see infra §
167.
In pending suit or action
Va. — Deeds v. Gilxner, 174 S.R 87,
162 Va. .157.
In absence of trial Judge on a rule
day under a statute so providing,
the register may enter a decree pro
confesso. — 'Ex parte Anderson, 4 So.
2d 420, 242 Ala. 81.
Only a clerk of a court which has
Jurisdiction of the cause may enter
Judgment— Kirkbride v. Burden, Pa.,
1 BalLJT.S., 288, 1 L.BId. 141.
The court cannot make such judg-
ment its Judgment by action taken
at a subsequent term, so as to alter
the time when the lien of the Judg-
ment will commence. — Russell v.
Geyer, 4 Mo. -384.
81. 111. — Houston v. Ingels, 48 N.EL
296
2d 196, $1*8 IlLApp. 38^— Long v.
Coffman, 230 IlLApp. 527.
N.C.— G. H. Weston & Ox, 18 S.B.2d
69'8, 221 N.C. 7.
84 C.J. p 120 note 77.
82. I1L — Houston <v. Ingels, 48 N.B.
2d 196, «3I8 IlLApp. 38S— <Long v.
Coffman, 230 IlLApp. 527.
83. 111. — Houston v. Ingels, 48 N.E.
2d 196, 318 HLApp. 383— Long v.
Coffman, 230 HLApp. 527.
Iowa.— Blott Y, Blott, 290 N.W. 74,
227 Iowa 1108.
84. <3aL— - Old Settlers' Inv. CJo. v.
White, 110 P. 922, 158 CaL'i36.
Pa. — People's Supply Co. v. Goff, 25
Pa.Co. -651.
85. Pa, — Orner v. Hurwitch, 97 Pa.
Super. 2-63 — Meyers & Joly v. Vei-
ling, '31 PaJSuper. 116.
34 C.J. p 120 note 8*5.
8& Pa.— Richards v. Richards, 19 A.
10*77, 135 Pa. 2-89 — Commonwealth
V. Brod, 22 PaJDist 501, 41 Pa.Co.
194.
87. 111.— Tucker v. Gill, $1 111. 234.
Necessity of Judgment following
cognovit or confession generally
see infra § 164.
88. Pa. — Rohrer Y. Rohrer, 14 Pa.Co.
332.
89. S.C. — Moore v. Trimmier, 11 -S.JB.
548, 552, 32 S.C. 511— Trimmier v.
Winsmith, 23 S.C. 44*.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 162
f endant was a resident at the time of making such
statement has been held to mean "must,"90 and, as
so construed, the requirement has been held to be
jurisdictional.91
§ 162. Necessity and Sufficiency of Proof
a. In general
b. Proof of authority
a. In General
As a general rule, a confession of Judgment dispenses
with the necessity of proving the plaintiff's cause of ac-
tion, except to the extent that by statute he is required
to furnish proof of certain facts or to the extent that the
right to enter Judgment depends, on a condition or con-
tingency, the occurrence of which Is not disclosed by
the papers.
As a general rule, a confession of judgment dis-
penses with the necessity of proving plaintiffs cause
of action,92 except to the extent that the right to
enter judgment depends on a condition or contin-
gency, the occurrence of which is not disclosed by
the papers, in which case the occurrence of such
condition or contingency must be averred and
shown by affidavit or other legal proof, before
the judgment may be entered.98 An affidavit, un-
less specially required by statute, is not necessary if
other legal proof is produced9* Where required
by statute, however, a judgment by confession must
be supported by an affidavit containing all facts re-
quired by the statute to be embodied therein.95
Thus, under a statute so providing, a judgment by
confession must be supported by an affidavit stat-
ing the amount due or to become due,96 or the true
consideration of the bond or other obligation on
which the judgment is confessed,97 or a sufficient
cause of action which may be the subject of a
judgment by confession.98
b. Proof of Authority
Under some statutes and rules of practice, where a
confession of Judgment Is made under a power of at-
torney, proof of due execution of the power is necessary
before entry of Judgment, and proof thereof by affidavit
is generally sufficient.
Under some statutes and rules of practice, where
the confession is made under a power of attorney,
it is necessary that proof shall be made of the due
execution of the warrant or power before the judg-
ment by confession is entered,99 at least where the
judgment is entered in vacation by the clerk of the
court1 As a general rule, an affidavit showing the
execution of a warrant of attorney to confess judg-
90. N.T.— Williams v. Mittlemann,
20 N.Y.S.2d 690, 259 App.Div. 697,
appeal denied 22 N.Y.S.2d 822, 260
App.Div. 811.
91. N.Y.— Williams T. Mittleman,
supra.
92. Iowa. — Edwards v. Pit2er, 12
Iowa 607.
N.J.— Baldwin v. Brown, 3 N.JJLaw
533.
83. Pa.— Kolf v. Lieberman, 128 A.
122, 282 Pa.1 479— Hogsett v. Lut-
rario, 13 A.2d 902, 140 Pa.Super.
419— Advance-Rumely . Thresher
Co. v. Frederick, 98 PeuSuper, 560
— Soklove v. Lalitas, Com.PL, 30
DeLCo. 370— Medvidovich v. Stern-
er, Coxn.Pl., 50 Pa-Dist & £o. 690,
92 Pittsb.Leg-.jr. 223— Miller v. Mil-
ler, Com.Pl., 10 Sch.Reg. 10*9— Wal-
ters v. Dooley, Com.PL, 5 "Sch.Reg.
174 — Home Protective Savings &
Loan Ass'n v. Kefalas, 48 Pa~Dist
& Co. 346, 6 Fay.L.J. 151, 91 Pittsb.
Leg.J. -326.
34 C.J. p 121 note 89.
Effect of failure to file proper affi-
davit of default see infra § 171.
Right to enter Judgment before ma-
turity of debt see infra § 166.
If right -to enter Judgment is not
dependent on occurrence of a specific
default, an averment of default is
not necessary. — Harwood v. Bruhn,
170 A. 144, 313 Pa. 337— Common-
wealth v. McLaughlin Contracting
Co. of Pittsburgh, 142 A. 274, 29* Pa.
313— Pacific Lumber Co. of Illinois
v. Rodd, 135 A. 122, 287 Pa. 454— New
Amsterdam Building & <Loan Ass'n
v. Moyerman, 95 Pa.Super. 47 — In-
ternational Advertising Syndicate v.
Quaker Silk Mills, 8 Pa.Dist. & Co.
23, 18 Berks Co.L.J. 65— General
Finance Co. v. Wasilowski, 5 PaJDist
& Co. 274, 24 Sch.Leg.Rec. 219— Bu-
kas v. Cohen, Pa.Com.Pl., '33 Luz.
Leg.Reg. 1'63 — Commonwealth ex reL
Argyle v. Jones, Pa.Com.Pl., 30
North.Co. 915— Donaghue v. Haupt,
Pa.Com.Pl., 4 Sch.Reg. 367— Interna-
tional finance Co. v. Barnes, Pa.
Com.PL, 86 Pittsb.(Leg.J. 44.
Affidavit of default held insuffi-
cient to sustain Judgment. — Com-
monwealth v. Przekop, 25 A.2d 776,
148 PauSuper. 385— Home Protective
Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Kefalas, 48
Pa,Dist. & Co. -346, 6 Fay.L. J. 151, 91
Pittsb.Leg.J. 326.
Affidavit of default held sufficient
to sustain Judgment. — Common-
wealth v. J. & A. Moeschlin, Inc., 170
A. 119, 314 Pa. 34— Marshall v. Jack-
son, 145 A. 584, 296 Pa. 1*~ Grant
Const Co., for Use of Home Credit
Co., v. Stokes, 167 A. $43, 109 Pa.
Super. 421— Home Credit Co. v. Pres-
ton, 99 PtuSuper. 457— International
Finance Co. v. Barnes, Pa.Com.PL,
86 Pittsb.'Leg.J. 44.
94. Pa.— Sweeney v. McPonnell, 25
PajSuper. 69 — Continental Mining
& Smelting Corp. v. Duncan, Com.
PL, 9 Fay.L.J. 95.
34 C.J. p 121 note 91.
297
95. K.J. — Harrison v. Dobkln, Cir.
Ct, 168 A. 8-37, 11 H.J.Misc. 892.
96. Wis.— Reeves v. Kroll, 113 N.
W. 440, 133 Wis. 196.
34 C.J. p 121 note 93.
97. N.J.— Knoettner v. Integrity
Corporation of New Jersey, 160 A,
527, 109 <N.J.Law 186.
34 C.J. p 123 note 19.
Affidavits held sufficient
N.J.— Haddonfield Nat. Bank v. Hip-
pie, 164 A. 575, 110 N.J.Law 271
— Knoettner v. Integrity Corpora-
tion of New Jersey, 160 A. 527, 109
N.J.Law 186— Huck-Gerhardt Co.
v. Parreca, 154 A. 870, 9 N.J.MJsc.
563,
34 CJ. P 125 note 19 [aj.
Incorporation of contract in affida-
vit held unnecessary. — Huck-Ger-
hardt Co. v. Parreca, supra.
98. N.J.— Brandt v. Tartar, 145 A.
225, 7 N.J.3kIisc. 229.
99. Okl. — St Louis-San Francisco
Ry. Co. v. Bayne, 40 P.2d 1104, 170
Okl. 542 — Scanlon v. Klopfenstein,
3 P.-2d 869, 152 Okl. 162.
34 C.J. p 121 note 97.
Filing of warrant or power of at-
torney see supra § 153. '
1. HI.— Shumway v. Shumway, 192
NJB3. 678, £57 OIL 477— Hutson v.
Wood, 105 N.K 34*, 2613 HL 37ft.
34 CJ. p 121 notes 98, 1.
§ 162
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
ment, filed with the warrant, is sufficient proof of its
execution.2 It has been held that, where the record
recites that the execution of the power was duly
proved, this will be sufficient on error brought, al-
though no affidavit was filed.8
Record. It has been held that the fact that the
execution of the power was properly proved before
the confession of the judgment must appear on the
record,4 at least when it is confessed in vacation
before the clerk,5 and evidence aliunde the record
is inadmissible to prove a valid affidavit.6 Other
authorities, however, have held that the judgment
is sufficient if it recites the power, without reciting
its contents or that it was proved.7
§ 163. Affidavit as to Bona Fides of
Confession
Under statutes so providing, the warrant of attor-
ney or statement of Indebtedness must be accompanied
by an affidavit that the debt Is "Justly due and owing"
or "Justly due or to become due" and that the Judgment
Is not confessed for the purpose of defrauding the debt-
or's creditors, but it Is not necessary that the affidavit
be In the precise form used In the statute, substantial
compliance being sufficient:
To evidence the good faith of the transaction and
prevent fraud, it is commonly required by statute
that the warrant of attorney or statement of indebt-
edness shall be accompanied by an affidavit that the
debt is "justly due and owing" or "justly due or to
become due," and that the judgment is not con-
fessed for the purpose of defrauding the debtor's
creditors.* Under some of these statutes, plaintiff,
that is, the party taking the judgment by confes-
sion,* or his attorney or agent,10 must make such
affidavit. Under other statutes, defendant or debt-
or, that is, the party confessing, must make the
affidavit11 It has been held, however, that such
an affidavit, by plaintiff, is not necessary where de-
fendant appears under process and files an answer
admitting the debt and consenting to the judg-
ment12
Sufficiency It is not essential that the required
affidavit of bona fides, whether made by plaintiff
or by defendant, should be in the precise form of
words used in the statute; it is sufficient if it sub-
stantially complies with the statutory requirement13
Where a complaint is filed fully describing the cause
of action, it is not necessary that the affidavit
should describe it ;14 nor is it necessary to state the
2. 111.— Hutson v. Wood, supra,
34 C.J. p 121 notes 99, 1.
3. 111.— Iglehart v. Morris, 34 HI.
501.
4. Ark.— Rapley v. Price. 9 Ark.
428.
34 C.J. P 121 note 5.
5. in —Alton Banking & Trust Co.
v. Gray, 179 N.E. 469, 847 I1L
99.
34 C.J. p 121 note '8.
Where Judgment Is confessed in
term, time, it has been held that it
will be presumed that a sufficient
warrant of attorney was produced
and proved to the court— Alton
Banking & Trust Co. v. Gray, supra
—34 C.J. p 122 note 7.
6. 111. — Hutson v. Wood, 105 N.E.
343, 263 111. 376, Ann.Cas.l915C
587.
7. Tex.— Rankin v. Filburn, 1
A-Civ.Cas. { 797.
34 C.J. P 122 note 9.
8. N.J.— Fortune Building & Loan
Ass'n v. Codomo, 7 A.2d 880, 122
N.J.Law 565— Haddonfleld Nat.
Bank v. Hippie, 164 A. 575, 110 N.
J.Law 271 — Knoettner v. Integrity
Corporation of New Jersey, 160 A.
527, 109 N.J.Law 186 — Modern Se-
curity Co. of Philadelphia v. Flem-
ing, 142 A. 649, 6 N.J.Misc. 780.
Allegation that debt is justly due in
statement of indebtedness see su-
pra § 159 d.
Effect of failure to file proper affida-
vit see infra § 171.
'Justly due and owing"
(1) It has been held that a debt
is "justly due and owing" within the
meaning of such statute only after
the date of payment has been reach-
ed.—American Auto Finance Co. v.
Miller, 7 A.2d 828, 12-3 N.J.Law 1—
Modern Security Company v. Flem-
ing, 1'42 A. 649, 7 N.J.Misc. 730.
(2) However, it has also been
held that the words "due" and "just-
ly due and owing" in such statute
may be applied to an indebtedness
without reference to the time of pay-
ment—Gaskill & Sons v. Buckman,
116 A. 692, 95 N.J.Daw 14— Hoyt v.
Hoyt, H'6 N.J.Law 138.
Piling wth court
Under a statute so providing, such
affidavit should be filed with the
court. — MdPheeters v. Campbell, 5
Ind. 107-^4 C.J. p 123 note 33.
9. N.J.— Knoettner v. Integrity Cor-
poration of New Jersey, 160 A.
•527, 109 N.J.Law 186.
34 C.J. p 122 note 11.
Plaintiff in parson, and not his
attorney 'in fact or agent in the con-
fessed judgment, must make the af-
fidavit.
Mo.— Bryant v. Harding, 29 Mo. 347.
Tex. — Montgomery v. Barnett, 8 Tex.
10. N.J.— Knoettner v. Integrity
Corporation of New Jersey, 160 A.
527, 109 N.J.Law 186.
Sources of information and reason
for making
It has been held that an affidavit
made by an attorney must disclose
298
the sources of the attorney's infor-
mation and give a reason why it
was not made by plaintiff himself.
—Rogers v. Cherrier, 4,3 N.W. 828,
75 Wis. 54— Jewett v. Fink, 2 N.W.
1124, 47 Wis. 446.
11. Ind.— Bible v. Voris, 40 N.B. 670,
i!41 Ind. 569.
34 C.J. p 122 note 1«4.
12. Tex. — Lanier v. Blount, Civ.
App., 45 S.W. 202.
3m C.J. |p 122 note 15.
13. N.J.— Haddonfield Nat. Bank v.
Hippie, 164 A. 575, 110 N.J.Law 271
—Corpus Juris cited in Harrison
v. Dobkin, 168 A. 837, 838, 11 N.J.
Misc. 892.
34 C.J. p 122 note 18.
Mortgage deficiency
Affidavit for Judgment by confes-
sion on bond secured by mortgage
need not state that mortgage was
foreclosed, premises sold, and notice
of intention to enter judgment for
deficiency filed. — Harrison v. Dobkin,
168 A. 8-37, 11 NJT.Miss. 892— Levin
v. Wenof, 146 A. 789, 7 N.J.Misc.
603.
Affidavit held sufficient
N.J. — Haddonfleld Nat. Bank v. Hip-
pie, 164 A. 575, HO N.J.Law 271
—Knoettner v. Integrity Corpora-
tion of New Jersey, 160 A. 5-27,
109 N.J.Law 186.
Affidavit held insufficient
N.J. — Harrison v. Dobkin, Cir.Ct,
168 A. $37, 11 N.J.Misc. 892.
14. Ind. — Clouser v. March, 15 Ind/
82.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 164
amount due, in the affidavit, where the complaint
states such amount and affiant swears that the facts
alleged in the complaint are true to his knowledge.15
The affidavit need not deny in specific terms that the
debt has been paid, released, barred, or discharged.16
§ 164. Nature, Form, and Requisites of Judg-
ment in General
A judgment rendered on the confession of a debtor,
except In so far as Its form and requisites are governed
by special statutory requirements, need not be In any
special form, but it should follow closely the cognovit or
confession.
A judgment rendered on the confession of a debt-
or or defendant, except in so far as its form and
requisites are governed by special statutory require-
ments,17 need not.be in any special form, as its
sufficiency must be tested by its substance rather
than by its form.18 It should, however, follow
closely the cognovit or confession,1^ should express
the particular debt or obligation for which it is giv-
en,2(> and should include any special conditions or
stipulations contained therein,21 except such as con-
stitute no part of the judgment22 The mere filing
or recording of a statement or confession of judg-
ment in the clerk's office is not a "judgment,"2* es-
pecially where the filing is done at a time when by
law such office is not open for the transaction of
business.24
Surplusage. The presence in the judgment of
merely superfluous provisions or directions, or of
matters which follow as the legal consequence of the
judgment whether or not they are incorporated in
it, may generally be disregarded as surplusage.25
Parties. A judgment by confession must desig-
nate the parties for and against whom it is rendered
with reasonable certainty, or it will be void for un-
certainty.26 The judgment must follow the confes-
sion in describing the parties in favor of whom,27
or against whom,28 it is confessed. Where several
defendants confess judgment severally, a separate
judgment should be entered against each,29 and a
joint judgment may not be entered against them.30
On the other hand, in case of joint debtors or joint
defendants, it has been held that a joint judgment
must be entered against them all,81 and that, if in
15. Wis. — Rogers v. Cherrier, 48 N.
W. 828, 75 Wis. 64.
16. N.Y. — Lanning v. Carpenter, 20
N.Y. 447.
17. Judgment held to comply with
statute requiring judgment to be
substantially in form set forth. —
Bank of Chatham v. Arendall, 16 S.
B.2d 352, 178 Va. 188.
18. Va. — Bank of Chatham v. Aren-
dall, supra.
34 C.J. p 1213 note 27.
Entry within six months of fore-
closure sale was held not required
by statute to be recited. — Gerstley v.
Best, 151 A. *9S, 8 N.JJ£isc. 661, af-
firmed 156 A. 377, 108 N«J.Law 189.
19. Del. — "Dover Motors Corporation
v. -North & South Motor Lines, 19«3
A. 592, 8 W.W-Harr. 467.
111.— Sharpe v. Second Baptist
Church of Maywood, 274 Ill.App.
374.
Pa.— Grakelow v. Kidder, 95 Pa.Su-
per. 250 — Seltzer v. Novor & Israel,
12 PaJDist. & Co. 551.
34 C.J. p 1213 note 28.
20. Ooxm.— Wight v. Mott, EM>y
152.
21. Va.— Strode v. Head, 2 Wash.
149, 2 Va. 149.
22. Pa.— Hope v, Everhart, 70 Pa.
231.
34 C. J. p 123 note $1.
23. Iowa.— Blott v. Blott, 290 N.W.
74, 227 Iowa 1108.
34 C.J. p 12>3 note 32.
Record entry as constituting judg-
ment see infra § 165.
Statement, recorded on the Judg-
ment docket and cross-indexed as
Judgments are, is not effective as a
"Judgment" — Gibbs v. G. H. Weston
& Co., 18 S.B.2d 698, 221 N.C. 7 —
Farmers' Bank of Clayton v. McCul-
lers. 160 SJB. 494, 20ft N.C. 440.
24. N.Y.— Hathaway T. Howell, 54
N.Y. 97.
25. iPa. — Altoona Trust Co. v. Fock-
ler, 1'65 A. 740, «11 IPa. 426.
Surplusage in Judgments generally
see supra § 84.
What action was denominated In
Judgment was held immaterial. — Ru-
bin v. Dale, 288 P. 223, 156 Wash.
676.
8& HL— Sproule v. Taffe, 13 N.R2d
827, 294 Jll.'App. 374.
27. Del.— Dickerson v. Kelley, 50 A.
512, 17 Del. 69.
Initials and fall name
Where the payee of a note is des-
ignated merely by the use of ini-
tials, Judgment may be entered
thereon in favor of the payee by the
use of his full name. — Money v.
Hart, 159 A. «4J37, 5 W.W.Harr., Del.,
115.
Judgment held in conformity with
declaration and cognovit
I1L — Richman T. Menrath, 266 HI.
App. 1.
28. Pa. — Freedman for TJse of Roth-
bard v> Freedman-Smotkin, Com.
PL, 52 York Leg.Rec. 17.
34 C.J. p 12/3 note 35.
299
Judgment held in conformity with
declaration and cognovit
HI.— Richman v. Menrath, 266 111.
App. 1.
29. Va. — Richardson v. Jones, 12
Gratt. 53, 53 Va. 53.
34 C.J. p 123 note 36.
30. (Pa. — Felger v. Jersey Cereal
Food Co., 141 A. 475, 292 Pa. 518—
Romberger v. Romberger, 139 A.
159, 290 Pa. 454— Peoples Nat.
Bank of Reynoldsville, to TJse of
Mottern, v. D. & >M. Coal Co., 1ST
A. 452, 124 !Pa.Super. 21— First
Nat Bank v. Kendrew, 160 A. 227,
105 Pa.Super. 142.
34 C.J. p 123 note 37.
As between makers and indorsers
of Judgment notes, liability was sev-
eral, not Joint — First Nat. Bank v.
Kendrew, supra.
Judgment made regular
Where Joint Judgment against
maker and indorser of note was orig •
inally entered on two separate con-,
fesslons, but by agreement Judgment
as to indorser was stricken off, judg-
ment against maker should not be
disturbed. — Farmers' & Miners' Nat
Bank of Forest City, {Pa., v. Taylor,
173 A. 278, «15 Pa. 4,18.
31. W.Va. — Snyder v. Snyder, fr W.
Va, 415.
34 C.J. p 123 note 58.
Where wife did not authorize the
signing of her name on confession.
Judgment may be entered only
against husband* notwithstanding
confession purported to be Joint, and
not several. — Browning v. Spurrier,
245 IlLApp. 276.
§ 164
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
such case plaintiff accepts the confession of one of
the defendants and takes judgment against him sep-
arately, the action is thereby discontinued as to the
other defendants.32
After assignment. A statute requiring actions to
be prosecuted in the name of the real party in in-
terest has been held to require, after the underlying
obligation has been assigned, that the judgment be
confessed in the name of the assignee.88
• Entry of one judgment on several powers of at-
torney. Where several powers of attorney are giv-
en to confess judgment on several debts in favor of
and against the same parties, it is both competent
and proper for the court to consolidate them and
enter a single judgment84
Election. Generally, where the terms of the con-
fession authorize the entry of two distinct forms of
judgment embracing different forms of relief for
the redress of a given wrong or the enforcement of
a given right, and these forms of judgment or re-
lief are based on inconsistent theories, the creditor's
election to enter the one form of judgment pre-
cludes entry of the other.35
Signature. Under a statute so providing, the
judgment must be signed by a judge or court com-
missioner,86 unless the statute is merely directory.8?
Alterations. After the judgment has been en-
tered and completed, no alterations changing its
character in any way, whether by addition or oth-
erwise, may be made without leave of the court38
Nature of judgment. A judgment entered on the
confession of defendant is in general final and not
interlocutory,8* and, if the right to enter the judg-
ment or to issue execution on it depends on the hap-
pening of a contingency, the court should determine
the matter by a final judgment4*
§ 165. Entry of Judgment
a. In general
b. Form and contents of record
a. In General
Generally, a confession of Judgment does not have
the effect of a Judgment, at least as against other credi-
tors, until It Is entered by the clerk in the proper book
or record of the court.
As a general rule, in order that a confession of
judgment may have the validity and effect of a
judgment, at least as against other creditors, it
must be entered by the clerk in the proper book or
record of the court,41 as it is the record entry, and
not the confession, that constitutes the judgment,42
although there are decisions to the effect that the
clerk's failure to enter the judgment of record as
directed by statute does not invalidate the judg-
ment.43 The clerk may be constrained to perform
his duty in this respect by a rule or motion,44 and
mere irregularities in entering or in failing to enter
the judgment may be corrected by an entry, made
nunc pro tune,46 unless the defects are jurisdiction-
al, in which case the judgment cannot be sustained,
even though it should appear that the amount of
the judgment was justly due,4* Under some stat-
utes, where judgment is confessed on a statement
of indebtedness, the clerk of the court must indorse
the judgment on the statement filed with him, and
enter it in the judgment book.47 It has been held,
32. Ky.— Blledgre v. Bowman, 5 XX
Marsh. 593.
33. DPa,— Market St. Trust Co, now
for Use of Swails v. Grove, 4'6 (Pa.
Dist. & Co. 605, 58 DauphjCo. GL14
— Reinsmith v. McCready, Com.Pl.,
n Lehigh Co.L.J. Ill, 5-8 York Leg.
Bee. 187.
34. N.J.—Levin v. Wenof, 146 A.
789, 7 N.J.Mlsc. 60j3.
34 C.J. p 123 note 41.
35. Recovery of premises and fa-
tore rent
Where the requisite power exists,
a lessor may enter judgment by con-
fession for future rent accruing un-
der an acceleration clause, or for
recovery of the premises, but not
fou both. — Markeim-Chalmers-Lud-
Ington, Inc., v. Mead, 14 A.2d 152, 1«40
Pa.Super. 490-— Matovich v. Gradich,
187 A. 65, 12i3 Pa,Super. .SSS— Grake-
low v. Kidder, 95 Pa. Super. 2$0.
36. Wis.— Wadsworth v. Willard, 22
Wis. 258 — Remington v. Cum-
xnlngs, 5 Wis. 138.
37. Iowa.— -Dullard v. Phelan, 50
N.W. 204, 83 Iowa 471.
38. Bel. — Plach y. Temple, 45 A.
5*39, 18 Del. I'M.
39. ill. — Johnson v. Estabrook, 84
111. 75.
Md.~Huston v. Ditto, 20 Md. 305.
40. Ky.— -Bonta v. Clay, 0. Litt. 27.
Va.— Taylor v. Beck, 8 Band, 816,
24 Va, I3U6.
4KU Ga.— Whitley v. Southern
Wholesale Corporation, 164 S.B3.
90(3, 45 Ga,App. 445.
NXJ. — Farmers' Bank of Clayton v.
MoCullers, 160 S.B. 49*4, 201 N.C.
440.
84 C.J, p 124 note 46.
42. Ga.— Whitley v. Southern
Wholesale Corporation, 1*04 S.E.
90S, 45 Ga,App. 445.
34 C J. P 124 note 47.
Filed statement or confession as not
constituting judgment see supra §
1&4.
Certificate furnished by prothono-
tary to one entering Judgment by
300
confession is mere memorandum, and
not evidence of a subsisting obliga-
tion.—In re Huberts Estate, 98 (Pa.
Super. '5'e3.
43. Ya, — American Bank & Trust
Co. T. National Bank of Suffolk,
196SJ3. 6913, 170 Va, 1£9.
34 C.X p 124 note 48.
The failure of clerk to sign cer-
tificate, stating that judgment was
confessed before him and entered of
record, did not invalidate judgment,
as clerk's duties in connection with
entry and recordation of confessed
judgment ore "directory" only, not
"mandatory/* — Bank of .Chatham v.
Arendall, 0.6 SJE.2d <3'52, 178 Va. 183.
44. S.C.— Hall v. Moreman, 14 S.C.
Law «477.
45. Pa. — Gutekunst v. Huber, -31 Pa.
Dist. & Co. 513, 44 Dauph.Oo. 300.
34 C.J. p 124 note 50.
46. Wis.— Sloane v. Anderson, 15 N.
W. *1, 57 Wis. 123.
47. N.C.— Glbbs v. G. H. Weston &
Co.," 18 S-B^d 698. 221 N.C. 7—
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
166
however, that the clerk's failure to make such in-
dorsement does not affect the validity of a judg-
ment which the entry on the judgment docket shows
was rendered by the court48
Restoration of record. Where the record of a
judgment by confession has been lost or destroyed,
it may be restored on proper application stating in
substance the contents of the missing record.49
b. Form aad Contents of Record
The record of a Judgment by confession should show
all the facts necessary to support the Judgment, but it
need not include matters of evidence or other details
which do not affect the Jurisdiction of the court.
The record of a judgment by confession should
show all the facts necessary to support the judg-
ment.60 The warrant or power of attorney author-
izing a confession of judgment should be filed as
a part of the record, as discussed supra § 153, and
the record should show that the execution of the
warrant or power of attorney was duly proved, as
discussed supra § 162 b, but it has been held that it
need not appear on the record that the bond and
warrant were produced at the time of entering the
judgment;51 nor need the record include matters
of evidence or other details which do not affect the
jurisdiction of the court.52 In the absence of a
statute providing otherwise, it has-been held that
the note, bond, or other evidence of the debt need
not be filed with the confession.53 Where the judg-
ment is entered as collateral security for an ex-
isting indebtedness, or as security for future ad-
vances, the substance of the agreement, or at least
a reference thereto, should be inserted by the clerk
in his memorandum.54
§ 166. Time of Entry
a. In general
b. In vacation
a. la General
Generally speaking, a Judgment by confession may
be entered at such time, and only such time, as is au-
thorized by law and by the terms of the confession.
Generally speaking, a judgment by confession
may be entered at such time, and only such time, as
is authorized by the terms of the confession,55 and
by the statutes and local rules of practice.56 In the
absence of statute providing otherwise, the judg-
ment need not be entered at any particular time
after the confession and statement are made.57
Where a statement is presented to the clerk with
a request to enter and docket a judgment by con-
fession thereon, it is his duty to comply promptly
with the request58
Cline v. Cline. 18$ SJB. 904, 209 N.
C. 931 — Farmers' Bank of Clayton
v. McCullers, 160 S.E. 494, 201 N.
C. 440.
34 C.J: V 124 note 52.
48. NX?.— Cline v. Cline, 18« SJL
904, 209 N.C. 531.
Where no Judgment was rendered
lay the court and the clerk failed to
make such indorsement, the judg-
ment has been held to be fatally de-
fective as against subsequent judg-
ment creditors. — Gibbs v. G. H, Wes-
ton & Co., 18 S.B.2d 6-98, 221 N.C. 7.
49. 111.— Russell T. Liltf*. 90 111.
327.
£3 C.J. p 038 note 87 [c].
50. Pa. — Dime Bank & Trust Co.
of Pittston v. Manganiello, 61 A.2d
564, 152 Fa.Su<per. 270— Indiana
Land and Improvement Co. v. Fer-
rier Bun Coal Co., 6 <Fa.Dist &
Co. 83, 39 Tork Leg.Rec. 60.— South
Union Tp. School Dist v. Mover,
20 !Pa.Dist. 941.
Contents of record where judgment
entered:
By clerk In vacation see infra § 166
b.
In court of limited jurisdiction see
supra S 161 a,
81. N.J.— Burroughs v. Condit, 6 K.
J.Law «00.
52. Md.— Harris v. Alcock, 10 Gill
& J. 226, (32 Axn.D. 158.
34 C.J. p 126 note 92.
53. N.C.— Merchants' Nat Bank v.
Newton Cotton Mills, .20 &E. 765,
115 N.C. 507.
34 C.J. p 126 notes 9(3-95.
Votes held part of record
HL-rrShinnway v. Shumway, 192 N.
EL 578, 557 HI. 477.
54. Md.— First Mortgage Bond
Homestead Ass'n v. "Mehlhorn, 105
A. 526, 11313 Md. 439, 3 A.L.R. 844.
55. Md.— Hart v. Hart, 166 A. 414,
165 Md. 77.
Time fdr entering judgment under
warrant or power of attorney see
supra 8 154 e.
56- Minn.— Berg v.
Lumber Co., 2W
Burkholder
9*28, *64
N.T.— American Cities Co. T. Steven-
son, SO N.T.S.2d 685.
Pa.— Hunter v. Wertz, 91 FittsbX^g.
J. 348, 57 Tork Le^Rec. 110.
34 C.J. p 124 notes 54, 55.
Bight to enter judgment under war-
rant or power of attorney on claim
barred by statute of limitations
see supra § 156.
Until "regularly goed out and. dock-
•ted,"
(1) Under a statute so providing,
a judgment by confession cannot be
entered up unless and until the cause
has been regularly sued out and
docketed as in other cases. — Thomas
301
v. Bloodworth, 160 S.B. 709, 44 Ga.
App. 44.
(2) Judgment is not "entered up"
within the meaning of such statute
until filed in court. — Thomas v.
Bloodworth, supra. -
(8) Although judgment may be
made and entered on the petition
before the petition is filed, and may
be filed with the petition, it has been
held that it is thereby entered up
simultaneously with the filing of the
petition and not after the case has
been regularly sued out and docket-
ed.— Thomas v. Bloodworth, supra.
Forthwith or without delay
(1) A statutory requirement that
judgments by confession shall be en-
tered on the docket forthwith has
been held to mean that such entry
shall be made within a reasonable
time.— Burchett v. Casady, 18 Iowa
342—84 C.J. p 125 note 64.
(2) A statutory provision that the
judgment be entered without delay
has been held to be merely directory.
— MoDowell County Bank v. Wood,
55 SJB. 758, «0 W.Va, 617.
57. Pa. — Oransky v. Stepanavich,
155 A. 290, S04 Fa. 84, 77 A.L.R.
988..
84 C. J. p 125 note 62,
58. Minn. — Whelan v. Reynolds, 112
N.W. 223, 101 Minn. 290.
166
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
A judgment by confession in an action already
pending cannot properly be entered before the fil-
ing of the agreement to confess judgment, where
there is such an agreement,59 or according to some
authorities,60 but not others,61 before the return
term of the writ, or before the court has disposed
of the issues raised by an answer challenging plain-
tiff's right to recover.62
Death of parties. Although, as discussed supra
§ 156, as a general rule a judgment by confession
cannot be entered on a warrant of attorney after
the death of the grantor, where the judgment con-
fessed is not to be entered until the happening of a
contingency, it has been held that the death of de-
fendant after the happening of such contingency
does not prevent the mere formal entry of the judg-
ment.63 In the absence of statute, a confession of
judgment in a pending suit, after the death of plain-
tiff and before substitution of his representative, has
been held void, both as regards the representatives
of plaintiff and any third person who may be col-
laterally interested in the payment of the same.64
Under a statute so providing, however, judgment
may be entered on a cognovit at any time within
two terms, notwithstanding the death of plaintiff,
or of one of several plaintiffs, in the meantime.66
Relation back. The rule, as discussed supra §
113, that judgments of a court of record relate back
to the term in which they are rendered applies to
judgments by confession.66 It has been held that a
judgment on -a warrant received by the clerk at his
residence after office hours may be docketed the
next day as of the day when received.67
b. In Vacation
Under a number of statutes authorizing a confes-
sion of Judgment, judgment may be entered either In
term time or In vacation, and may be entered in vacation
by the clerk of the court without an order or other di-
rection of the judge.
Under a number of statutes authorizing a confes-
sion of judgment, the judgment confessed may be
entered either in term time or in vacation,68 and
may be entered in vacation by the clerk of the court
without an order or other direction from the court
or judge;69 and under some statutes, during va-
cation, the judgment must be entered by the clerk
and cannot be entered by the judge.70 The act of
the clerk in such a case is the "entering" rather
than the "rendering" of a judgment;71 but the
judgment when entered becomes the judgment of
the court and not the judgment of the clerk.72 As
such an entry of judgment is a statutory proceed-
ing in derogation of the common law, it is not valid
unless there is a strict compliance with the require-
ments of the law authorizing it;78 and such com-
pliance must appear on the face of the record.74
Where such requirements have been complied with,
the clerk's authority to enter the confession is de-
rived solely from the statute, and specific authori-
ty directed to him as clerk to make the entry is* not
required.75
Wliat vacation includes. A vacation within the
meaning of this rule includes the morning of the
first day of the term of court, before the hour for
the opening of court,76 and also includes the period
of an adjournment of court for several days or
weeks during the term;77 but not the period be-
tween adjournment on one day and the convening
59- Md. — Snowden v. Preston, 20 A.
910, 73 Md. 261.
60. U.S.— Haden v. OPerry, D.C., 11
F.Cas.No.5,89-3. 1 Cranch C.C. 285
—Askew v. Smith, D.O., 2 P.Cas.
No. 588, 1 Cranch «C.C. 159.
61. Mo.~ Hoppenbrook v. Dial, 119
S.W. '496, 1137 Mo.App. 75.
34 C.J. P 125 note 60.
62. Answer 'benefiting1 all defendants
Where it 1$ sought to enter judg-
ment against two or more defend-
ants, an answer filed by one which
may be or become common to all,
and which goes to the right of plain-
tiff to recover, precludes the entry of
judgment against such other defend-
ants until the issues raised by such
answer have been disposed of by
the court. — Rucker v. Baker, 177 S.
W.2d 878, 296 Ky. 505.
63. S.C.— Keep v. Leckie, 42 S.C.Law
164.
64. Pa. — Finney v. Ferguson, 3
Watts & S. 4U3 — Wentz v. Bealor,
14 Pa.Co. SI37.
65. N.Y.— Gilbert v. Corbin, 18
Wend. 600.
34 C.J. p 125 note 71.
66. N.C.-— Farley v. Lea, 20 N.C. 807,
32 Am.D. 680.
67. QPa. — Polhemus' Appeal, £2 Pa.
328.
68. 111. — Wilson v. Josephson, 244
Ill.App. i36«6 — Long v. Coffman, 2«30.
IU.APP. i.
N.C. — Farmers' Bank of Clayton v.
McCullers, 160 S.B. 494, 201 N.C.
440.
.Pa. — Wanner v. Thompson, Com.Pl.,
27 Del.Co. 455.
34 C.J. p 125 note 74.
Entry in vacation under power or
warrant of attorney see supra 9
H-54.
69. NXX — -Farmers' Bank of Clayton
v. HcCullers, 160 S.B. 494, 200.
NXX 440.
34 C.J. p 125 note 75. •
302
70. 111. — Wilson v. Josephson, 244
IlLApp. 366.
34 Or. p 125 note 7«.
71. Colo. — Abbott v. Tuma County,
30 «P. 1031, 18 Colo. 6— Schuster
v. Rader, 22 P. 505, US Colo. 329.
72. Iowa.— Kendig v. Marble, 12 N.
W. 584, 58 Iowa 529.
34 C.J. p 125 note 78.
73« 111. — Rixman v. Witwer, App.,
63 N.B.2d 607.
34 C.J. p 125 note 79.
74, 111. — Riacmann v. Witwer, supra.
75, Md. — Tyrrell v. Hilton, 48 A.
55, 92 Md. 176.
3*4 C.J: p 126 note 80.
76. Va. — Brown v. Hume, 16 Gratt.
456, 67 Va. 456.
34 C.J. p 126 note 81.
77. HI.— Ottawa First Nat Bank v.
Daly, 134 IlLApp. 1713 — Jasper v.
Schleslnger, 22 IlLApp. OT7, affirm-
ed 17 NJB. 718, 125 I1L 2130.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 167
of court on the next,7* or the period pending a stay
of proceedings.79
Confirmation or approval. Where the statute re-
quires an office confession of judgment to be con-
firmed by the court, its incidents as a judgment
have been held not to attach until the date of such
confirmation.80 It has been held, however, that a
requirement that a judgment entered by the clerk
in vacation shall be approved at the next term is
merely directory, and that a failure to make such
approval will not avoid the judgment.81
Relation back. It has been held that a judgment
confessed in vacation and then entered up by con-
sent as of the preceding term is void, and cannot
be validated by any subsequent act of defendant;82
but there is also authority to the contrary.83
§ 167. Amount of Judgment
A Judgment by confession should be entered for the
amount confessed, and only for such amount, and, where
the confession does not determine the extent of the re-
covery, and It is not ascertalnable by mere calculation,
it must be liquidated by the court, and not by the clerk.
A judgment by confession should be entered for
the amount confessed, and only for such amount,84
and, as discussed supra § 154, where it is entered
under a warrant of attorney, it must be for such
an amount only as is authorized by the warrant.
It has been held, however, that on confession of
judgment in a pending action, if plaintiffs demand
is in the nature of a debt, the amount of which
may be ascertained by calculation, it is sufficient to
enter judgment generally, which, in contemplation
of law, is for the amount laid in the declaration.85
A general acknowledgment of indebtedness will not
authorize the entry of judgment for a specific
sum.86 If the judgment entered is for a greater
sum than that actually confessed or due, unless the
excess was fraudulently included,87 the judgment
is void only as to the excess and not in toto;88 and
the irregularity may be cured by plaintiff remitting
the excess.89 It has been held, however, that a
false statement as to the amount due contained in
the confession of judgment renders the ^ judgment
void, even though such statement is not intentional
and is made without intent to defraud.90
Certainty of amount. Judgment may not be en-
tered for an indefinite or unliquidated claim or
amount.9*
Interest. The judgment may include interest on
plaintiffs demand, if, and only if, that is warranted
by the terms of the confession.92 The fact that
judgment is confessed for a greater rate of interest
than is allowed by the debt or claim on which the
confession is made will not, in the absence of fraud,
vitiate the judgment,98 but it may be corrected so
as to allow the proper rate.94
78. HI.— Wilson v. Josephson. 244
IlLApp. 866.
79. N.Y.— Sacket's Harbor Bank T.
Martin, 2 How.Pr. HI.
80. Miss.— Bass v. Estill, 50 Miss.
'300.
8l« Iowa.— Vanfieet v. Phillips, 11
Iowa 558.
34 O.J. P 1'26 note 8>5.
32. N.C. — Slocumb v. Anderson, 4
3ST.C. 77.
33. N.Y.— King1 v. Shaw, 13 Johns.
142.
34 C.J. p 126 note 87.
S4. Iowa.— Fenley v. Phoenix Ins.
Co. of Hartford, Conn., 247 NWV.
665, 215 "Iowa 1369.
Md.— Webster v. People's Loan, Sav-
ings & Deposit Bank of Cambridge,
152 'A. 815, 160 Md. 57.
jq-.Y. — Keller v. Greenstone, 2
2d 977, 253 App.Div. S73.
Pa.— Scholnick v. Canelos, 100
Super. 6— Philadelphia Sav. Fund
Soc. v. Stern, 41 Pa.Dist. & Co. 461,
affirmed 213 A.2d «4H3, 3413 Pa, 5,34—
Commonwealth v. Joyce, 18 Pa.
Co H9i3, affirmed 18 Pa-Super. 609
and « Pa.Super. 616— Thomas v
Brady, Com.Pl., 26 Brie Co. 168
—Morris v. Chevalier, Com.Pl., 20
Lehigh Co.L,J. 133— Dime Bank &
Trust Co. v. O'Boyle, S3 Luz.Leg
Reg. 185, reversed on other
grounds Dime Bank & Trust Co. of
Pittston v. O'Boyle, 6 A.2d 106,
334 Pa. 500 — Commonwealth ex rel.
Argyle v. Jones, Com.Pl., 30 North.
Co. 95.
34 C.J. p 126 note 98.
Where Judgment is confessed for
a penalty, at common law and in
the absence of a statute providing
otherwise, judgment should be en-
tered for the penalty subject to the
interference of a court of eauity if
more than the damages actually sus-
tained is sought to be exacted. —
Rhoads v. Mitchell, Del., 47 A.2d 1
judgment may be for a larger
amount than that indorsed on the
process
N.J.— Hunt v. Shivers, 4 N.J.Law 89.
85. jpa. — Commonwealth v. Baldwin,
1 Watts 54, 26 Am.D. 33.
34 C.J. p 126 note 1.
86. N.J.— Vanderveer v. Ingleton, 7
N.J.Law 140.
87. La.— McElrath v. Dupuy, 2 La,
Ann. 520.
Pa.— Jasuta v. Zaremba, Com.Pl., 47
Lack.Jur. 157.
88. 111.— Larson v. Lybyer, 38 NJB
2d 177, 312 IlLApp. 188
303
N.J.— Huck-Gerhardt Co. v. Parreca,
154 A. 870, 9 N.JjMisc. 568.
N".Y. — Keller v. Greenstone, 2 N.T.S.
2d 977, 253 App.Div. 573.
34 C.J. p 126 note 5.
89. Ga.— Raney v. McRae, 14 Ga.
589, 60 Am.D. 660.
90. N.Y.— Illinois Watch Co. v.
Payne, 57 N.Y.S. 308. 39 App.Div.
521— Rutherford v. Schottman, 1
N.Y.S. 741.
91. -111.— Hymen v. Anschicks, 270
I11.APP. 202.
34 C.J. p 126 note 8.
•ornpuljlished award
Conn. — Curtice v. Scovel, 0. Root, 327.
3*4 C.J. p 1:27 note 9.
92. Iowa. — Fenley v. Phoenix Ins.
Co. of Hartford, Conn., 247 N.W.
635, 215 Iowa IS 6 9.
X.Y. — Keller v. Greenstone, 2 N.Y.
S.2d 977, 253 App.Div. 573.
Pa.— Philadelphia Sav. Fund Soc. v.
Stern. 41 Pa.Dist. & Co. 461, af-
firmed 23 A.2d 413, 343 Pa. 534.
34 C.J. P 127 note 10.
93. N.C. — Merchants' Nat. Bank v.
Newton Cotton Mills, 20 S.B. 765,
115 N.C. 507.
04. N.a— Merchants' Nat Bank v.
Newton Cotton Mills, supra,
§167
JUDGMENTS
C.J.S.
Costs and attorneys fees. A judgment by con-
fession may ordinarily include an allowance for
plaintiffs costs,96 except such as are incurred un-
necessarily.98 The judgment may also include a
reasonable allowance for plaintiffs attorney's fees,
if that is authorized by the terms of the warrant, as
discussed supra § 154, or confession,97 and is not
contrary to statute.98 Where defendant confesses
judgment in a sum below the jurisdiction of the
court, and judgment is rendered on the confession,
it has been held that he is not entitled to recover
costs."
Liquidation by court or clerk. Where the con-
fession of judgment does not determine the extent
of the recovery, and it is not ascertainable by mere
calculation, it must be liquidated by the court,1 on a
writ of inquiry,2 and not by the clerk or prothono-
tary,* who may, it has been held, enter judgment
only for the amount which appears to be due from
the face of the instrument.4 If, however, the
amount of recovery is simply a matter of calcula-
tion, this may be done by the clerk;5 and it has
been held that this is a duty which he must per-
form without unnecessary delay.6
F. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF JUDGMENT
§ 168. In General
A Judgment by confession Is the act of the- court,
and until it Is reversed or set aside, It has all the qual-
ities, Incidents, and attributes of a Judgment on a ver-
dict.
Although a judgment by confession may be en-
tered without a direct adjudication of the court or
order of a judge, as discussed supra § 160, such
judgment whether entered on a warrant of attor-
ney, or on a cognovit, is the act of the court, and
until it is 'reversed or set aside, it has all the quali-
ties, incidents, and attributes of a judgment on
a verdict7 It is conclusive, as between the parties
98. Iowa,— Penley v. Ph«nix Ins.
Co. of Hartford, Conn., 247 N.W.
6135, 2f5 Iowa 1369.
N.C.— -Farmers' Bank of Clayton T.
McCullera, 1*60 SJBJ. 494, 201 N.C,
440.
34 CJ. p 1*2? notes 18, 22, 28.
96. Pa.— Moore's Appeal, 1 A. 59$,
110 Pa. 41313.
34 C.J. p 127 note 19.
97. Md.— Legum v. Farmers Nat
Bank of Annapolis, 24 A.2d 281,
180 Md. 35*— Webster v. People's
Loan, Savings & Deposit Bank of
Cambridge, 152 A. 815, 160 Md. 57.
Pa. — First Mortgage Guarantee Co.
of Philadelphia v. "Powell, 9« Pa.
Super.' 99 — Bury & Holman v. Pe-
zalla, Com.Pl,, 27 Del.Co. 40"5.
34 C.J. p 127 note 21.
Where space for amount is left
blank, it is implied that fee should
be reasonable, but, where line is
drawn through space for amount of
attorney's fee, it is implied that
there should be no attorney's fee.-—
Beard v. Baxter, 258 HLApp. &40.
Pee is not gratuity to which attor-
ney is entitled by plaintiff's appear-
ance, but is payable for services ren-
dered, and, if plaintiff pays less for
services of attorney than amount al-
lowed in entering judgment, he must
remit difference* while, if he pays
more, he must stand expense. — Web-
ster v. People's Loan, Savings & De-
posit Bank of Cambridge, 152 A. 815,
160 Md. 57.
Allowances held excessive
(1) Two hundred dollars on two
thousand five hundred dollar debt —
Schmoldt v. Chicago Stone Setting
Co., 3-3 N.H2d 182, 809 IlLApp. 377.
C2) One hundred fifty dollars on
nine hundred fifty dollar debt.— Se-
curity Discount Corporation v. Jack-
son, 51 K.E.2d 618, 1320 IlLiApp. 440.
C3) Fifteen per cent.— Walton v.
Abbott tPa.Com.Pl., 67 Montg.Co. 1.
98. N.J.— Huck-Gerhardt Co. v.
Farreca, 154 A. 870, 9 N.J.Mlsc.
5.6-3.
Docket fee
Statutory provision that defendant
need not pay costs or fee to plain-
tiff's attorney, where judgment is
entered by confession by prothono-
tary, was held to relieve defendant
from paying the so-called docket fee
otherwise payable to plaintiff's at-
torney, but not to bar fee stipulated
for in warrant. — First Mortgage
Guarantee Co. of Philadelphia v.
Powell, -98 Pa.Super. 99.
99. Mo.— Lee v. Stern. 22 -Mo. 575.
1. Ky.— Bontft v. Clay, 1 Litt 27.
Pa,— Church v. Given, 15 Phila. 188.
2. Ya.— Dunbar v. Lindenberger, 8
Munf. 169, 17 Va. 1'69.
Pa. — R. S. Noonan, Inc. v. Hoff,
58 A.2d 53, 850 Pa. 295— Lans-
downe Bank & Trust Co. v. Robin-
son, 154 A, 17, 305 Pa, 58—
Schwartz v. Sher, 149 A. 731, 299
Pa. 423 — Orner v. Hurwitch, 97
Pa.Super. 2 66— Meyers & Jolly v.
Freiling, 81 Pa.Super. 116— Morel
v. Morel, 81 Pa.Super. 84— Bell v.
Lawler, Com.Pl., 45 Lack.Jur. 181
— lacovazzi v. Brauner, Com.Pl., 4"4
Lack.Jur. 273, $7 York Leg.Rec.
165.
34 C.J. p 127 note 15.
4. Md.— Webster v. People's Loan
& Savings & Deposit Bank of Cam-
bridge, 15'2 A. 815,. 160 Md. 57.
Pa. — Dime Bank & Trust Co. of
tPlttston v. O'Boyle, $ A.2d 106,
304
384 Pa. 500 — Commonwealth v. J.
& A. Moeschlin, 170 A. 119, <314 Pa.
94 — Lansdowne Bank & Trust Co.
v. Robinson, 154 lA. 17, -3013 Pa.
58— Schwartz v. 6her, 149 A. 731,
299 IPa. 428— Drey St Motor Co. v.
Nevling, 161 A. 880, 106 Pa.Super.
42— Orner v. Hurwitch, 97 Pa.Su-
per. 263 — Meyers & Joly v. 'Frei-
ling, 81 OPa-Super. 116— Morel v.
Morel, 81 Pa.Super. -84— William
J. Ryan, toe., to Use v. Bodek, 10
Pa.Dist & Co. 520— Union Accept-
ance Co. v. Grant Motor Sales Co.,
5 Pa.Dist & Co. 407, 213 Luz.Leg.
Beg. 89, 2 Som.Leg.J. 260, 39 York
Leg.Rec. 14il — Heller v. Bloom,
ComJPl., 51 Da-uph. Co. 3'60 — laco-
vazzi v. Brauner, Com.Pl., 4<4 Lack.
Jur. 273, 57 York Leg.Rec. 165—
Little v. Gardner-Denver Co., Com.
•PI., 4il Lack.Jur. 9— Morris v.
Chevalier, Com.5Pl., 20 Lehigh Co.L.
J. 1313 — Frederick v. Smeltzer,
Com.Pl., 19 Lehigh Co.L.J. 378, 56
York Leg.Rec. 30 — Grammes v.
Haltzel, Com.Pl., 19 Lehigh Co.L.
J. 275 — Nash Sales & Service v.
Broody, Com.!Pl., 88 Luz.Leg.Reg.
158, 9 Som.Leg.J. 326.
34 C.J. p 120 notes 79, 82.
5. Pa. — B. "S. Noonan, Inc., v. Holt,
•38 A.2d 5-3, 350 Pa. 295— Frederick
Y. Smeltzer, 19 Lehigh Co.L.J. 378,
56 York Leg.Rec. 30.
34 C.J. p 127 note 16.
Credits appearing on the instru-
ment may be deducted from the
amount of the original debt. — Morel
v. Morel, 81 Pa.Super. 84.
6. Del. — Cook v. Cooper, 4 Del. 189.
34 C.J. p 127 note 17.
7. U.S. — Pennsylvania Co. for Insur-
ances on Lives and Granting An-
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
169
and their privies, of the points involved in, and
determined by, it;8 but a stranger thereto is not
concluded by it.9 Like other judgments, it supports
an execution, as considered in Executions § 7 d;
it is capable of being abstracted and sent to coun-
ties other than that where in it was obtained;10
it may be renewed;11 and it is subject to the gen-
eral principles of construction, as discussed infra
§§ 436-443, in determining its operation and ef-
fect.12 If it is made in a court without jurisdic-
tion of the case, it has been held to have the force
and effect of an account stated and acknowledged.18
Effect on other remedies. A judgment by con-
fession has been held not to preclude the creditor
from pursuing other remedies for the collection of
the same debt or claim,1* or of such portion there-
of as is not satisfied by an execution on the judg-
ment15
§ 169. As Release or Waiver of Defects
A Judgment by confession operates as a release or
waiver of formal errors or defects In the proceedings,
but neither the judgment Itself, nor an express release
of errors, will operate to release errors of substance.
A judgment by confession operates as a release
or waiver of formal errors or defects in the pro-
ceedings,16 such as of defects or omissions in the
declaration ;17 and the debtor may by clear and ap-
propriate language contained in the cognovit or
warrant of attorney expressly release all procedural
errors,18 and in such a case the confession of the
judgment is of itself an operative release, and no
formal plea of release is necessary.1* On the oth-
nuities v. Watt. C.C.A.Fla., 151 F.
2d 697— Kieda v. Krull, C.C.AJPa.,
Iftl F.2d 917.
111. — McKenna v. Forman, 283 HL
App. 60-6.
Md. — Foland v. Hoffman, 47 A.2d 62
— -Pioneer Oil Heat v. Brown, 16 A.
2d 880, 179 Md. i!55.
N.Y.— -Pierce v. Bristol, 223 N.Y.S.
. 678, 1'30 Misc. 188.
Ohio. — Risman v. Krupar, 18'6 N.B.
830, 45 Ohio App. 29.
Pa.— O'Hara v. Manley, 12 A.2d 820,
140 Pa.Super. -39.
Wis.— Grady v. Meyer, 2"36 N.W. 569,
205 Wis. 147— Wessling v. Hieb,
192 N.W. 458, 180 Wis. 160.
34 C.J. p 127 note 26.
Judgment confessed in favor of
attachment plaintiffs had same ef-
fect as if court had entered judg-
ment on evidence in the attachment
proceeding. — Deeds v. Gilmer, 174 S.
E. .37, 162 Va. 157.
A judgment entered by the pro*
thonotary under a power contained
in the instrument has the same force
and effect as a judgment confessed
by an attorney or one given in open
court. — St. Bartholomew's Church v.
Wood, 61 Pa. 96— Miller v. Desher, 12
Pa.Dist. & Co. -SIS, «4d. Lanc.LJRev.
335.
Subsequent matters
(1) Judgment for deficiency was
not invalidated by anything appear-
ing in subsequent report of receiver
as to receipt of rents by plaintiff. —
Levin v. Wenof, 14«6 A. 789, 7 N.J.
Misc. 603.
(2) Issuance of execution on judg-
ment and service thereof on defend-
ant did not render judgment either
void or valid. — Kolmar, Inc., v.
Moore, 55 N.E.2d 524, 82t3 IlLApp.
32i3.
8. Pa.—- First Nat. Bank & Trust Co.
of Bethlehem v. Laubach, 5 A.2d
039, 33'3 Pa. 3*4— -Usnick v. Pitts-
burgh Terminal Coal Corporation,
49 C.J.S.—20
157 A. 787, 305 Pa. 855— Greiner
v. Brubaker, 16 A.2d 689, 142 Pa,
Super. 538.
Tenn. — Marshall v. Johnson Hard-
ware Co., 5 TemuApp. $69.
34 C.J. -p 127 note 27.
Confessed judgment as res Judicata
see infra I 629.
Estoppel to deny validity see infra
§ 172.
If valid M to debtor, it is equally
so as to creditor, unless it can be
impeached on some ground of fraud
or collusion. — .American Bank &
Trust Co. T. National Bank of Suf-
folk, 196 SJB. 693, 170 Va. 169—
Shadrack's Adxn'r v. Woolfolk, 82
Gratt 707, 7-3 Va. 707.
Judgment on bond and on warrant
accompanying1 mortgage is complete
and final adjudication of all mat-
ters which might have been pleaded
in an action on the bond. — Kieda v.
Krull, aOAJPa., 101 P.2d 917.
Validity of underlying obligation
held admitted by confession. —
Church v. (Polar Ice Cream Co, 3 P.
2d (301, 89 Colo. 890.
9. Colo.— Schuster v. Rader, 22 P.
505, 13 Colo. -329.
Judgment on bond accompanying
mortgage, with respect to personal
property covered by mortgage, is
against defendant only, and gives
plaintiff no right to levy on, seize, or
attach credits of alienee of mort-
gaged land.— Fisher for Use of Buck
v. McParland, 167 A. 877, 110 Pa.
Super, a 84.
Sureties or indorsers who are not
parties to it are not discharged
thereby. — Washington iPirst Nat.
Bank v. Eureka Lumber Co., £1 SJ3.
348, 12S N.C. 24.
10. S.C.— Ex parte Ware Furniture
£0., 27 S.E. 9, 49 S.C. 20.
13* Pa.— Bchreiner v. Dorwarth,
Com.Pl., 19 Lehigh Co.L.J. *47.
- 305
S.C. — Ex parte Ware Furniture Co.,
27 SJE. 9, 49 S.C. 20.
12. -Ind. — Davenport Mills Co. v.
Chambers, 44 N.E. 1109, 146 Ind.
156.
34 C.J. p 127 notes 33, 34.
It must be interpreted in light of
power of attorney in pursuance of
which it was made. — Deeds r. Oil-
mer, I'M S.E. 37, 162 Va. 157.
13. La. — Payne v. Furlow, 29 La.
Ann. 160.
14. (Pa. — Clawson v. Elchbaum, 2
Grant 130 — Reid v. Pechersky,
Com.'PL, 87 Pittsb.Leg.J. 575.
94 C.J. p 128 note (37.
15. N.Y.— Lynch v. Welch, Seld. 15.
54 C.J. p 128 note 38.
16. ni. — Sukowicz v. Hinko, 40 NJS.
2d 845, 514 IlLApp. 195— Long v.
Coffman, 2-30 IlLApp. 527— Harris
Trust & Savings Bank v. Neigh-
bors, 222 IlLApp. 201.
Tenn.— Brier Hill Collieries V. File,
9 Tenn. App. 16.
: CoJ. p 128 note 40.
17. W.Va.— Corpus Juris cited in
Hanner v. Tracey, 1*76 S.E. 238,
239, 115 W.Va. »349.
I C.J. p 128 note 41.
18- HL— First Nat Bank v. Royer,
2713 IlLApp. 158.
Pa.— Kait v. Rose, 41 A.2d 750, $51
•Pa. 560 — Altoona Trust Co. T.
Fockler, O^B A. 740, -311 OPa. 426—
Markeim-Chalmers-Ludington Inc.,
v. Mead, 14 A.2d 152, d40 Pa. Super.
490— 'Pittsburgh Terminal Coal
Corporation v. Robert <Potts, 92 Pa.
Super. 1— 'Parsons v. Kuhn, 45 Pa.
Dist. & Co. 356.
34 C.J. p 128 note 42.
failure to have summons issued is
only procedural error. — Consumers'
Mining Co. v. Chatak, 92 TsuSuper.
17.
ISu UL— Hall. v. Jones, 32 HL $8.
§ 170
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
er hand, neither the judgment itself nor such ex-
press release operates to release or waive errors of
substance,20 such as a want of jurisdiction,21 or
lack of authority to confess the judgment.22
§ 170. Presumptions Supporting Judgment
A Judgment on confession entered in a court having
jurisdiction, Is supported by the same presumptions, with
respect to matters essential to Its validity, as a Judg-
ment in a contested action, at least where it is entered
in term time.
A judgment on confession, entered in a court hav-
ing jurisdiction, is supported by the same presump-
tions with respect to the regularity of the proceed-
ings, the sufficiency of the pleadings and evidence,
and other matters essential to its validity, as' a judg-
ment in a contested action,28 at least where the
judgment is entered in term time.24 It has been
held, however, that such presumptions do not ap-
ply to judgments entered in vacation.25 Where the
right to enter the judgment depended on the con-
tingency that defendant violated his contract, the
law will not presume that he has done so.2ft
§ 171. Validity
According to some decisions, a Judgment by confes-
sion is absolutely void If the proceedings in confessing
or entering the Judgment do not conform .to statutory
requirements, but, according to other decisions, such a
Judgment Is merely voidable.
According to some decisions a judgment by con-
fession is absolutely void, if the proceedings in
confessing or entering the judgment do not conform
to statutory requirements.27 According to other de-
cisions, however, the judgment is not absolutely
void, but is voidable only.2* Thus failure to file
a proper affidavit of default according to some de-
cisions renders the judgment void,29 while, accord-
ing to other authority, it is merely voidable.30 In
any case, under a statute so providing, failure on
the part of the clerk to perform any of the duties
imposed on him by statute does not impair the va-
lidity of the judgment or the lien thereof.81 If the
confession of judgment is void, it is not sufficient
consideration to support a mortgage made to secure
its payment.32
Defective statement. Compliance with a statute
requiring a statement of the -facts out of which the
indebtedness arose to be filed with a confession of
judgment, as discussed supra § 158, has been held
to be essential to confer jurisdiction on the court
and to insure validity of the judgment,33 and fail-
ure to comply therewith has been held to render the
judgment void.34 However, according to other au-
thority, the fact that the statement is defective or
20. Pa, — Markeim-Chalmers-Luding-
ton, -Inc., v. Mead, 14 A.2d 152, 140
Pa. Super. 490 — Grakelow v. Kid-
der, 95 Pa.Super. 250.
34 C.J. p 128 note 44.
21. 111.— First Nat. Bank v. Boyer,
27-3 I11.APP. 158.
34 C.J. p 128 note 45.
22. 111.— First Nat. Bank v. Royer,
27,3 I11.APP. 158.
Pa.— 'Pittsburgh Terminal Coal Cor-
poration v. Robert (Potts, 92 'Pa,
Super. 1.
23. U.S.— Corpus Juris cited in
Monarch Refrigerating- Co. v.
Farmers' Peanut Co., C.C.A., Cir.,
74 F.*2d 790, 792.
Md.— Pioneer Oil Heat v. Brown, 16
A.2d 880, 179 'Md. 155.
Pa. — Hebrew -Loan Society of Wy-
oming Valley v. Margolis, Com.Pl.,
$3 Luz.Legr.Reg. 10&.
34 C.J. p 1128 note 47.
Judgment held valid in absence of
showing of invalidity
111. — Chicago Title & Trust Co. v.
Astrahan, 20 N.E.2d 308, 299 111.
lApp. 623.
24* 111. — Alton Banking & Trust Co.
v. Gray, 179 N.B. 469, 347 111. 99—
Book v. Ewbank, 35 N.OB. 2 d 961,
311 IlLAfrp. 312 — Bowman v. -Pow-
ell, 127 JlLApp. 114.
22 C.J. p 128 mote 8*3 [d].
25- 111. — Alton Banking & Trust Co.
v. Gray, 179 'NJB. 469, £47 111. 99
— Farwell v. Huston, 37 NJB. 8-64,
151 111. 239— Book v. Ewbank, -35
N.E.2d 961, «311 IlLApp. 312.
3<4 C.J. p 128 note 49.
26- OPa.— Patterson v. "Pyle, 17 A.. 6.
27. Utah.— Utah Nat. Bank v. Sears,
44 'P. 852, U3 Utah 172.
34 C.J. p '128 note 51.
Judgment without jurisdiction of
subject matter or parties as void
see supra § 161 a.
Uncertainty in designation of par-
ties as voiding judgment see su-
pra § 164.
False statement as to amount due as
rendering judgment void see supra
§ 1'67.
Xf clerk enters Judgment for an
amount not authorized by the con-
fession, the judgment is void. — Illi-
nois Valley Bank v. Harshman, 201
IlLApp. 107.
Judgment entered, without proof
of execution of warrant or power of
attorney held void.
111. — Oppenheimer v. Giershofer, 54
HLApp. 38.
Okl. — St. Louis-San Francisco Ry.
Co. v. Bayne, 40 P.2d 1104, 170
Okl. 542.
34 C.J. p 121 note 2.
28. N.Y. — -Shenson v. L Shainin &
Co., 2-76 N.Y.S. 881. 243 AppJDiv.
638, affirmed 198 N.E. 407, 26'8 'N.
Y. 567.
34 C.J. P 128 note 52.
306
Entry of Judgment before maturity
of obligation authorizing entry there-
of after maturity is irregularity ren-
dering judgment voidable only. — Pas-
co Rural Lighting Co. v. Roland, 88
Pa.Super. 245.
29. Pa.— Hogsett v. (Lutrario, 13 A.
2d 902, 140 Pa.Super. -419— Home
Protective Savings & Loan Ass'n
v. Kefalas, 48 Pa.Dist. & Co. 546, '6
Fay.L.J. 151, 91 Pittsb.Leg.J. '326.
30. Pa.— Valentour v. Gregory, 11
Pa.Dist. & Co. 240, 8 Wash.Co. 111.
31. Failure to require a certificate of
defendants residence
Pa. — Holland Furnace Co. v. Davis,
31 Pa.JDist. & Co. 469, 5 Sch.Reg.
157.
32. Mich.— Austin v. Grant, 1 Mich.
490.
33. N.C.— Gibbs v. G. H. Weston &
Co., 18 S.OE.2d 698, 221 N.C. 7—
Cline v. Cline, 183 S.B. 904, 209 -N.C.
5"31 — Farmers' Bank of Clayton v.
McCullers, 160 S.B. 494, 201 N.C.
440.
34. N.C.— Smith v. Smith, 23 S.E.
270, 117 N.C. i34'8.
Judgment entered on statement
signed by only some of debtors held
void as to all. — French v. Edwards,
C.C.Cal., 9 F.Cas.No.5,098> 5 Sawy.
266—34 C.J. «p 118 note 33.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 172
insufficient, while not a mere irregularity,35 will
not render the judgment absolutely void.36 It is
valid as between the parties,37 and void, or voidable,
only as to interested third persons.38 According to
some authorities, as discussed infra § 433, such
judgment cannot be collaterally attacked, but must
be called in question in a direct proceeding for
that purpose ;39 and plaintiff may sustain his judg-
ment by proving that it is fair, and not fraudulent
or collusive, and warranted by the facts actually
existing, although such facts were not included in
the statement.40
Failure to fie affidavit of bona fides. A failure
to file the required affidavit as to the bona fides of
the confession, as discussed supra § 163, or the fil-
ing of one which is not in substantial compliance
with the requirements of the statute, renders the
judgment by confession, not absolutely void, but
voidable only as to other creditors;41 it is valid as
between the parties thereto.42
Fraud. A judgment by confession entered by the
creditor without the knowledge or consent of the
debtor after the debt had been paid fully has been
held fraudulent and void.43 If the judgment is
confessed for the purpose of defrauding creditors
or other third persons, it is invalid as to them;44
but it cannot be attacked by creditors or other in-
terested persons merely because it is fraudulent as
35. Insufficiency is not imperfect
pleading, or due to negligence of
party or his attorney by which ad-
verse party has not been prejudiced,
within statute providing that judg-
ment cannot be affected by such im-
perfections.— Johnston v. A. L. Br-
langer Realty Corporation, 296 N.T.
a '89, 162 Misc. 881.
30. N.T. — Shenson v. L Shainin &
Co., 276 N.T.S. 8-81, 243 App.Div.
•638, affirmed 198 N.R 407, 2-68 N.T.
5'6'7.
34 C.J. P 128 note 56.
Statute held to Tie merely directory
and hence failure to comply there-
with does not invalidate judgment —
Hughes v. Helms, TennJCh., 52 S.W.
460.
Defect not jurisdicttonal
The failure of an attorney confess-
ing judgment by warrant of attorney
to set down with officer entering the
judgment the real debt is not Juris-
dictional.— Rhoads v. Mitchell, DeL,
47 A.2d 174.
37. Minn. — Whelan v. Reynolds, 112
N.W. 223, 101 Minn. 290.
34 C.J. p 128 note 57.
against the debtor, if it is not fraudulent as to
them;45 and, although it is fraudulent as against
creditors, if no fraud or deception is practiced on
the debtor, it is binding as between the original
parties.46
Forgery. A judgment by confession based on a
forgery has been held to be a nullity.47
§ 172. Estoppel to Deny Validity
A defendant confessing Judgment Is estopped, In the
absence of fraud, to question the validity of the confes-
sion on account of irregularities to which he did not
object, and if, after the entry of Judgment, he ratifies
or acquiesces In it, he Is estopped to deny the author-
ity on which It was confessed or otherwise to impeach
its validity.
A defendant confessing judgment is estopped, in
the absence of fraud, to question the validity of the
confession on account of irregularities to which
he did not object,48 or to dispute any facts set forth
in the confession49 or accompanying statement,50 or
to set tip any claims or defenses which might have
been presented in opposition to plaintiffs action,51
and if, after the entry of the judgment, defendant
ratifies or accepts it, or acquiesces in it, he is es-
topped to deny the authority on which it was con-
fessed or otherwise to impeach its validity.52 Es-
toppel cannot, however, be invoked so as to pre-
clude attack on a judgment obtained in violation
of a prohibitory law.53
47. 111.— Stoner Y. MilHkln, 85 111.
218— Kolmar, Inc., v. Moore, 55 N.
B.2d 524, 323 IlLApp. 323.
43. va. — Corpus Juris cited i»
Johnson v. Alvis, 165 S.E. 489,
490, 159 Va. 229.
84 O.J. p 129 note 67.
49. SXX— Martin v. Bowie, 21 S.C,
Law 225.
Ya.— ^Corpus Juris cited in Johnson
V. Alvis. 165 S.'E. 489, 490, 159 Va.
38. S.C.— Woods v. Bryan, 19 S.B.
218, 41 S.C. 74, 44 Am.S.R. 6S8.
34 C.J. p 129 note 59.
i. CaL— Lee v. tftes, 37 Cal. 328,
99 Am.D. 271.
N.Y.— Bradley v. Glass, 46 -N.T.S.
790, 20 App.Div. 200.
40. CaL— Cordier v. Schloss, 18 Cal.
576.
34 C.J. P 129 note 62.
41. Ind.— Bible v. Voris, 40 N.B.
670, 141 Ind. 569.
•34 C.J. p 122 note 16.
42. Ind.— Irose v. Balla, 104 N.E.
851, 181 Ind. 4-91.
34 C.J. p 122 note 17.
43. 111.— Rea v. Forrest, 88 111. 275.
44. Wash. — Compton v. Schwabach-
er, 46 P. 538, 15 Wash. 306.
34 C.J. P 129 note -64.
Validity of judgment by confession
as to creditors generally see
Fraudulent Conveyances § 44 b.
45. Pa,— Gould v. Randal, 81 A.
809, 232 Pa. -612.
34 C.J. p 129 note 65.
46. Pa.— Dillen v. Dillen, 70 A. $06,
221 Pa. 435.
34 C.J. IP 129 note 66.
50. N.C.— Martin v. Briscoe, 55 S.B.
782, 14-3 N.C. 353.
34 C.J. p 129 note 69.
51. Iowa. — Troxel v. Clark, 9 Iowa
201.
34 C.J. p 12 9 note 70.
52. Ohio.— Kisman v. Krupar. 186 N.
B. 830, 45 Ohio App. 29.
Pa.— Fullerton's Appeal, 46 Pa.Sk 144
— ^Farmers Nat. Bank of Bphrata v.
Kyper, Com.PL, 48 I«anc-I*.Rev. 211.
Va.— Corpus Juris cited in Johnson
v. Alvis, 165 fiJBL 4'8$, 490, 159 Va.
229.
34 C.J. P 129 note 71.
53. La.— Cilluffa Y. Monreale Realty
Co., 24 <So.2d 60&
307
§ 173
§ 173. Consent
JUDGMENTS
'TIL JUDGMENT ON CONSENT, OFFEB, OE ADMISSION
C.J.S.
A judgment by consent Is In substance a contract of
record made by the parties and approved by the court,
and is to be distinguished from a Judgment by confes-
sion or on default.
A judgment by consent of the parties is a judg-
ment the provisions and' terms of which are settled
and agreed to by the parties to the action in which
it is entered, and which is entered of record by the
consent and sanction of the court;54 it may be
more briefly defined as a contract of the parties ac-
knowledged in open court and ordered to be re-.
corded,55 an agreement of the parties entered of
record with the approval of a court of competent
jurisdiction,56 or a solemn contract or judgment of
the parties put on file with the sanction and permis-
sion of the court.57 A consent judgment is not a
judicial determination of any litigated right,5* and
it is not the judgment of the court, except in the
sense that the court allows it to go upon the record
and have the force and effect of a judgment ;5^ it
is merely the act of the parties consented to by the
court60
Consent to entry of judgment implies that the
terms and conditions have been agreed on and con-
sent thereto given in open court or by stipulation,61
and the court has no power to supply terms, provi-
sions, or essential details not previously agreed to
by the parties.62 It has been held, however, that
the fact that a judgment is entered by consent of
the parties does not deprive it of its judicial char-
acter or efficacy.68
54. Ky.~ Kames v. Black, 215 fi.W.
191, 185 Ky. 410.
Neb. — Corpus Juris quoted In In re
Director of Insurance, -3 N.W.2d
922, 92'6, 141 Neb. 488.
R.I. — Corpus Juris quoted in An-
drews v. Indemnity Ins. Co. of
'North America, 181 A. 403, 405, 55
R.I. 341.
Tex. — Matthews v. Looney, 123 S.W.
2d 871, 132 Tex. «313— De Garza v.
Magnolia Petroleum Co., Civ.App
'S3 S,W.2d 453.
34 C.J. p 130 note 73—12 C.J. p 520
note 90.
The essence of a "consent decree"
Is that the parties thereto have en-
tered voluntarily into a contract set-
ting the dispute at rest, on which
contract the court has entered judg-
ment conforming to terms of the
agreement, without putting parties
to necessity of proof. — Harter v.
King County, 119 P.2d 919, 11 Wash.
2d 58-3.
55. N.C. — Keen v. Parker, 8 S.B.2d
209, 217 N.C. 378— Cason v. Shute,
189 fi.E. 494, 211 N.C. 195— !First
Nat. Bank v. Mitchell, 131 S.B.
656, 191 N.C. 190— ^Joburn v. Board
of Com'rs of Swain County, 131 S.
B. i372, 191 N.C. 63— Southern Dis-
tributing Co. v. Carraway, 127 S.'B.
427, 189 N.C. 420— Union Bank v.
Commissioners of Town of Oxford,
25 S,B. 966, 119 N.C. 214, 84 QLR.A.
4'87.
Tex.— Prince v. Frost-Johnson Lum-
ber Co., Civ.App., 250 6.W. 785.
In many respects a judgment by
consent is treated as a contract be-
tween the parties. — Rodriguez v.
Rodriguez, 29 S.E.2d 9P1, 224 N.C,
275.
56. 0.S.— Watson V. U. S., D.C.N.C.,
. 34 F.Supp. 777.
Neb. — Corpus Juris quoted in In re
Director of Insurance, 3 N.W.2d
922, 926, 141 Neb. 488— Me Arthur
v. Thompson, 299 N.W. $19, 140
Neb. 408, 139 A.L.R. 413.
N.C.— King v. King, 95 S.B.2d
Jones v. Griggs, 25 S.E.2d «8^2, 223
N.C. 279 — Edmundson v. EJdmund-
son, 22 S.E.2d 57-6, 222 N.C. 131—
Keen v. Parker, 8 S.E.2d 209, 217
NXX 378— Webster v. Webster, 195
S.<E. «62, 213 N.C. 1-35— Cason v.
Shute, 189 S.E. 494, 211 N.C. 195—
Weaver v. Hampton, 167 S.E. 484,
204 NXJ. 42 — Weaver v. Hampton,
1*1 <S.E. 4'80, 201 N.C. 79-8— Bunn
v. Braswell, 51 S.B. 927, 139 N.C.
135, 138.
R.I. — Corpus Juris quoted in An-
drews v. Indemnity Ins. </o. of
North America, 181 A. 403, :4(K5,
R.I. 941.
34 C.J. |p ISO note 75.
57. N.C. — Town of Cary T. Temple-
ton, 152 S.E. 797, 198 N.C. 604 —
Bunn v. Braswell, 51 S.E. 927, 139
N.C. 195.
a Mass.— New York Cent & H. R.
R. Co. v. T. Stuart & iSon Co., 157
N.E. 540, 260 Mass. 242.
59. Ky.— -Kentucky Utilities Co. v.
Steenman, 141 S.W.2d 265, 293 Ky.
<3I7-rHarrel v. Yonts, 113 S.W.2d
426, 271 Ky. 783— Corpus Juris cit-
ed, in Myers v. Myers, 100 S.W.2d
693, 694, 266 Ky, 831— Boone v.
Ohio Valley Fire & Marine Ins.
«Co.'s Receiver, 55 S.W.2d 974, 24«
Ky. 489.
Neb. — Corpus Juxi* quoted in In re
Director of Insurance, 3 N.W,2d
922, 926, 141 Neb. 488.
R.I. — Corpus Juris quoted in An-
drews v. Indemnity Ins. Co. of
North America, 1*81 A. 403, 405, 55
R.I. 341.
34 C.J. v 130 note 74.
60.- 111.— Heymann v. O*Connell, 1*
N.E.2d 100, 29* .U1.APP. 634— Co n-
saer v. Wisniewski, 13 N.E.2d 93,
299 IlLApp. 529.
308
Mich. — Corpus Juris cited in In re
Meredith's Estate, 2-66 N.W. 881,
354, 275 Mich. 278.
Neft. — Corpus Juris quoted in In re
Director of Insurance, 8 N.W.2d
922, 92*6, 141 Neb. 488.
N.Y. — Corpus Juris quoted In People
ex rel. Norwich, Pharmacal Co. v.
Porter, 539 N.Y.S. 28, 80, 31, 22*8
App.Div. 54.
N.C.— Ellis v. Ellis, 156 S.B. «$0, 193
N.C. 216.
R.I. — Corpus Juris quoted in An-
drews v. Indemnity Ins. Co. of
North America, in A. 403, 405, 5.'
R.'X 941.
W.Va.— Stannard Supply Co. v. Del-
mar Coal Co., in S.BL 907, 110 W.
Va. 560.
34 C.J. p 130 note 70.
01. N.Y.— Jacobs y. Steinbrink, «73
N.Y.S. 498, 243 Ajpp.DiT. 197.
62. OkL — Insurance Service Co. v.
iFinegran, 1£5 P.2d -620.
Tex.— -Matthews >v. Xiooney, 123 a
W.2d 871, 132 Tex 313— Wyss v.
Bookman, Qom.App., 2*35 3.W. 567,
63. Va.— Culpeper Nat Bank of Cul-
peper v. Morris, 191 S.E. 764, 168
Va. 379.
Judicial act
While a consent judgment is based
on agreement of the parties rather
than a finding: of facts by the court,
it is something more than a mere
authentication or recording- of the
agreement; it is a Judicial act in-
volving a determination by the court
that it is equitable and in the pub-
lic interest— IT. S. v. Radio Corpora-
tion of America, D.O.*Del., 46 tP.Sirpp.
654, appeal dismissed 6$ S.Ct 851,
31-8 UJS. 796, 87 L.Bd. 1161.
Judgment of court
N.C.— T Keen v. Parker, 8 S.(E.2d 209,
217 N.C. 378— Weaver v. Hampton,
167 S.EL 484, -20'4 N.C. 42.
49 O.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 174
Distinctions. A judgment by consent is to be dis-
tinguished from one rendered on an adjudication
actually made by the court after due consideration
and investigation, as following verdict or findings
in an adverse proceeding,6* and such a judgment
will not become a judgment by consent even though
the parties may have superadded their consent to
the adjudication of the court65 It is similar to a
judgment after trial on the merits in that it is bind-
ing on the parties, but differs therefrom in that
it is not appealable and can be vacated only in
certain circumstances for fraud or want of con-
sent.66 A judgment by consent is to be distin-
guished from a judgment by default, its special
characteristic being the settlement between the par-
ties of the terms, amount, or conditions of the judg-
ment to be rendered,67 and is also to be distin-
guished from a judgment by confession discussed
supra § 134. Termination of an action by entry of
agreement for judgment for "neither party" con-
stitutes a final disposition of the action, but no judg-
ment may be rendered thereon by the court68
§ 174. Right and Authority to Consent
a. In general
b. Who may and must consent
a. In General
Within limitations Imposed by positive requirements
of law, the parties may agree to any disposition of a
pending action and the court may and should render
Judgment accordingly.
Within limitations imposed by positive require-
ments of law,6^ any disposition of a pending action,
not illegal, may be fairly agreed to by the parties,
and when so agreed, it is the duty of the court to
permit such disposition and to enter judgment ac-
cordingly, which judgment will be given effect be-
tween the parties and their privies.70 The court
64. Pa. — Cesare v. Cagrato, 100 Pa.
Super. 188.
34 C.J. p 130 note 77.
Consent judgment sufficiently
shown by plaintiff's acceptance of de-
fendant's offer in open court — Gar-
rett v. Davis, 112 So/ 342, 216 Ala.
74.
Consent judgment not shown
(1) By recital in order that there
had been an agreement on figures. —
060 Park Ave. Co. v. Anderson, D.C.
N".Y., 22 F.Supp. 188.
(2) Where suit to set aside oil and
gas lease covering allotted acreage
of full-blood restricted Creek Indian
was consolidated with suit by de-
fendants therein to Quiet title to
lease, and thereafter parties made
written compromise agreement, and
court, after examination of issues,
rendered judgment approving such
agreement and quieting defendant's
, title, the judgment was not a "con-
sent decree" but a valid "final de-
cree," barring subsequent action by
deceased Indian's administrator to
set aside the lease and for an ac-
counting because of Indian's incom-
petency. — Spencer v. Gypsy Oil Co.,
C.CA.OW., 142 F.2d 935, certiorari
denied 66 S.Ct. 4-39, 323 U.S. 798, 89
UEd. 636.
Decree resting on evidence
Where trial court's recitation in
decree entered, in quiet title action
against county purported to rest de-
cree on evidence, and not on con-
sent of parties, the decree would not
be construed as a "consent decree,"
especially where there was no show-
ing of fraud or collusion between
prosecuting attorney representing
county and the plaintiff in procur-
ing the decree.— Harter v. King
County, 119 P.2d 919, 11 Washed
533.
Failure of a party to plead farther
after his demurrer is overruled does
not make a subsequent judgment one
by consent. — State v. Glover, S P.2d
1014, 165 Wash. 567.
65. Pa.— Cesare v. Caputo, 100 Pa.
Super. 188.
34 C.J. p 130 note 77.
Agreement to survey
Where parties to ejectment action
agreed to survey, and verdict based
on results of survey was returned,
judgment thereon was judgment on
verdict in adverse proceeding and
not by consent— Cesare v. Caputo,
supra.
66. Ky.— Myers v. Myers, 100 S.W.
2d 693, 266 Ky. 831.
67. Ark.— Corpus Juris &uoted in
Vaughan v. Brown, 40 S.W.2d 996,
997, 184 Ark. 185.
34 C.J. p 130 note 78.
Judgment held by default and not by j
consent
Where an order form for judgment
by default is prepared by counsel for
plaintiff, presented to attorney for
defendant, the abbreviation *'O. K."
indorsed on the back thereof, fol-
lowed by the signatures of the at-
torneys for both parties and entered
without any notation of consent on
the face of the record, and there is
no appearance of defendant noted,
the judgment is a judgment by de-
fault, and not a consent judgment. —
Bank of Gauley v. Osenton, 114 6.
B. 435, 92 W.Va. 1.
63. Mass.— Whalen v. Worcester
Electric Light Co., 29 -N.E.2d 763,
307 Mass. 169— White v. Beverly
Bldg. Ass'n, 108 N.EL 921, 221
Mass. 15.
Dismissal on consent of parties see
Dismissal and Nonsuit i 9.
69. Ohio. — Rosebrough Y. Ansley, »35
Ohio St. 107.
Tex. — Lauderdale v. R. & -T. A. Ennis
Stationery Co., Civ.App., 24 S.W.
8-34.
34 C. J. !p 132 note 95.
TO. TT.g.— Corpus juris cited in
Hot Springs Coal Co. v. Miller, C.
C.A.Wyo., 107 !F.2d 677, 6S1.
Cal. — Krug v. John E. Toakum Co,,
SO P.2d 492, 27 Cal.App.2d 91.
Ga. — Corpus Juris cited in Estes v.
Estes, 14 S.E.2d 6S1, £83, 192 Ga.
94.
111. — Bergman v. Rhodes, 165 N.K.
59S, -334 111. 137, 65 A.L.R. 344—
Consaer v. Wisniewski, 13 X.E.2d
93, 29>3 HLApp. 529.
Iowa. — Cooper v. Stekelenburg, -300
X.W. 293, 230 Iowa 1066.
Kan. — Corpus Juris oited in Bald-
win v. Baldwin, 96 P.2d 614, 617,
150 Kan. 807.
I£y. — Corpus Juris cited, in Myers v.
Myers, 100 S.W.2d 693, 694, 266
Ky. S31.
2?eb. — Corpus Juris cited in In re
Kiersyead's Estate, 259 N.W. 740,
743, 128 Neb. 654.
N.H.— Perley v. Bailey, 199 A. 570.
89 N.H. 359.
N.Y.— Gass v. Arons, 227 N.T.S. 282,
1-31 Misc. 502.
Ttf.C. — Coburn v. Board of Com'rs of
Swain County, 131 S.E. '372, 191 N.
C. 68.
Utah. — Corpus Juris anoted in Tra-
cey v. Blood, 3 P.2d 263, 265, 78
Utah 385.
34 CJ. P 130 note-80.
Validity of consent judgment gen-
erally see infra 5 178.
Implied power of oonrt
Where court has «power to render
final judgment on merits, power to
render judgment on compromise
agreement is necessarily implied.—
Union Cent I*if e Ins. Co. v. Boggs,
66 S,W.2d 1077, 188 Ark. 604.
309
§ 174
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
does not inquire into the merits or equities of the
case ; the only questions to be determined by it are
whether the parties are capable of binding them-
selves by consent and whether they have actually
done so.71 The judgment agreed on must be one
within the general jurisdiction of the court to ren-
der,?2 and such as is warranted by law,™ for if
the court is without authority the parties cannot
confer it74
Pleadings, proof, etc. Since consent to a judg-
ment has been held to cure all errors not going to
the jurisdiction of the court,75 where the court has
acquired jurisdiction of the subject matter and of
the parties, a judgment by consent without the serv-
ice or filing of a declaration or complaint has been
held valid.76 There is authority for the view that
a judgment by consent may be entered and given
effect as to any matters of which the court has gen-
eral jurisdiction, without regard to the pleadings,77
and even though the pleadings do not support it.7*
Thus it has been held that the rule that a judg-
ment on matters outside the issues raised by the
pleadings is a nullity does not apply to judgments
entered by consent,79 and that a consent judgment
going beyond the pleadings is erroneous but not
void.80 On the other hand, it has been held that
consent will not support a judgment on a declara-
tion or complaint which fails to state a cause of
action,81 or a judgment on matters entirely without
the scope of the pleadings,82 such as a judgment on
a cause of action other than that stated in the plead-
ings83 or a judgment for an amount in excess of
the amount alleged to be due,84 and that a judg-
ment rendered outside the issues made by the plead-
ings is void although entered by consent.*5 In any
Set-off
Stipulation, on which case was re-
ported, that, if verdict for defendant
was sustained, Judgment for defend-
ant should be entered for amount
'claimed in set-off, was binding on
parties and became law of the case.
—Adams v. Grundy & Co., 152 N.E.
379, 256 Mass. 246.
After default
It has been held that a party may
in good faith sign a written consent
that a money judgment be entered
against him even after his default
has been entered in the case.— Tra-
cey v. Blood, * P.2d 263, 78 Utah 385.
71. Colo.— Garf v. Weitzman, 209
P. 809, 72 Colo. 1«36.
Neb— In re Director of Insurance, 3
«N.W.2d 922, 141 Neb. 4-88— Mc-
Arthur v. Thompson, 299 N.W. 519,
140 Neb. 408, 139 A.L.R. 413.
Reasons for Judgment
It has been said that the will of
the parties stands as sufficient rea-
son for the Judgment so that the
law will not inquire into the reasons
therefor.— Board of Education of
Sampson County v. Board of Com'rs
of Sampson County, 134 S.'E. 852, 19°
N.C. 274.
72. Miss.— Corpus Juris cited in,
Roberts v. International Harvester
Co., ISO So. 747, 748, 181 Miss. 440
Neb.— Corpus Juris cited In In re
Mattingly's Estate, 270 N.W. 4'87
492, 131 Neb. 891.
Utah.— Corpus Juris quoted in Tra
cey v. Blood, 3 P.2d 283, 265, 7
Utah «385.
34 C.J. p 131 note 81.
jurisdiction, shown
HI.— -Davis v. Oliver, 25 N^El2d 905
.304 IlLApp. 71.
73. Utah. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Tracey v. Blood, 8 P.2d 263, 265
78 Utah 385.
34 C.J. P 131 note 82.
74. Miss. — Corpus Juris cited in
Roberts v. International Harvester
Co., 180 So. 747, 748, 181 Miss. 440.
Utah. — Corpus Juris quoted in Tra-
cey v. Blood, 3 P.2d 2*3, 265, 78
Utah 3*85.
4 C. J. p 1*31 note S3.
75* Ga.— ^Corpus Juris quoted in
Estes v. Estes, 14 S.E.2d 681, tfS-3,
192 Ga. 94.
Tex. — Brennan v. Greene, Civ.Ajpp.,
154 S.W.2d 623, error refused—
HuUbard v. Trinity State Bank,
Civ.App., 48 S.W.2d 379, error dis-
missed.
34 C.J. p 134 note 5-3.
Consent Judgment as waiver of er-
rors or irregularities see infra §
178.
Scope of Jurisdiction invoiced by
pleadings
Tex. — Williams v. Sinclair-Prairie
Oil Co., Civ.App.f 135 S.W.2d 211,
error dismissed, judgment correct.
76. Tex. — Mullins v. Thomas, 150 S.
W.2d S3, 136 Tex. 215— Corpus Ju-
ris cited in Pope v. Powers, Civ
App., 91 S.W.2d 87-3, 875.
34 C.J. p 131 note 84.
Consent or ratification
A judgment is not void because
rendered without the filing of a com
plaint, as the parties may by con
sent or subsequent ratification vali
date such a judgment— Stanclll v
Gay, 92 N.C. 455.
77. Ind.— Eletcher v. Holmes, 25 Ind
458.
Ky.— Kentucky futilities Co. v. Steen
man, 141 S.W.2d 265, 283 Ky. 317
N.C. — Edmundson v. Edmundson, 2
S.E.2d 576, 222 NX3. 181.
34 C.J. p 1«31 note 89.
78. Mont— Wallace v. Goldberg, £3
P. 56, 72 Mont. 234.
Xex. — Pope v. Powers, 120 S.W.2
432, 132 Tex. 80.
310
Different from contested Judgment
For an agreed judgment arrived
t through compromise of the par-
ies to be valid, the pleadings need
not be such as would be required to
upport a contested judgment— Pope
v. Powers, 120 S.W.2d 432, 132 Tex.
to.
79. Ind.— Burrell v. Jean, 146 N.E.
754, 196 Ind. 187.
y. — Eddington's Adm'x v. Edding-
ton, 175 S.W.2d 12, 29S Ky. 548—
Boone v. Ohio Valley Fire & Ma-
rine Ins. Co.'s Receiver, 55 S.W.2d
374, 246 Ky. 489— '.Lincoln County
Board of Education v. Board of
Trustees of Stanford Graded Com-
mon School Dist, 7 S.W.2d 499,
225 Ky. 21.
N.C. — Edmundson v. -Edmundson, 22
S.E.2d 576, 222 N.Q. 181— Keen v.
Parker, 8 S.E.2d 209, 217 N.C. 378.
Reason for rule is that parties may
agree as to subject matter of litiga-
tion, and thereby waive the exception
that the issue was not embraced by
the pleadings.— Lodge v. Williams,
243 S.W. 1011, 195 Ky. 77*.
8Q. Qa. — Holcombe v. Jones, 30 S.B.
2d 903, 197 Ga. 825.
81. Ohio. — Rosebrough v. Ansley, 35
Ohio St. 107.
Puerto Rico. — Questel v. Conde, 18
Puerto Rico 727.
34 C.J. p 131 note 85.
82. Ohio.— Rosebrough v. Ansley, 35
Ohio -St 107.
34 C.J. p 131 note &6.
83. Ohio. — Rosebrough v. Ansloy,
supra.
54 C.J. p 181 note 87.
84. Ohio. — Rosebrough Y. Ansley,
supra.
34 C.J. p 131 note 88.
85. Okl. — Oklahoma City v. Robin-
son, 65 P.2d 531, 179 Okl. 309.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 175
event, before a judgment additional or foreign to
the subject matter of the suit can be upheld as a
judgment by consent, it must very plainly appear
that the parties intended such an effect, and their
agreement should never be enlarged beyond the
clear import of the terms they have used.86 The
agreement of the parties has also been held to ob-
viate the necessity for a hearing except for the pur-
puse of determining the fact or validity of the
agreement and ordering judgment accordingly.8?
So it has been held not required that there be
proof88 or a verdict or findings.89
b. Who May and Most Consent
Judgment by consent may be rendered only on con-
sent of all parties interested and to be bound, or their
duly authorized agents.
The power of the court to render a judgment by
consent is dependent on the existence of the consent
of the parties at the time the agreement receives
the sanction of the court or is rendered and pro-
mulgated as a judgment90 The consent to the judg-
ment must be given by all the parties thereto,91 and
the judgment is not binding as to a nonconsenting
party,92 as in the case of a party for whom con-
sent was given by one lacking authority to act for
him.93 Consent may be given by the parties per-
sonally,94 or by their legal representatives,95 or by
other duly authorized agents.96
§ 175. Sufficiency of Consent or Agree-
ment
Consent to Judgment may be made in writing, or it
may be made orally if in open court, and It should be
clear, specific, and complete. Withdrawal of consent
prior to judgment may sometimes be permitted.
Consent to judgment must be made by or on be-
half of the parties in open court or by documentary
evidence of legal sufficiency.97 If the agreement or
consent is made in open court, it may be made
orally;98 otherwise it should be in writing,99 and
should be filed.1 It has, however, been held that
a judgment may be entered on an oral agreement
made out of court when necessary to prevent in-
justice to one party.2 The consent should be so
clear and specific in terms that no mistake can arise
88. N.C. — Holloway v. Durham, 97
S.E. 486, 176 N.C. 550.
«7. Ga. — Bates v. Bates, 14 S.B.2d
681, 192 Ga. 94,
JB8. U.S.— Swift & Co. v. U. S., APP.
D.C., 48 'S.Ct. 811, 276 U.S. 811, 72
L.Ed. 587.
.Qa. — Corpus Juris quoted in Bstes v.
Estes, 14 S.E.2d 681, 683, 192 Ga.
94.
Mich.— Fortunate v. Di 'Flippo, 239 N.
W. 868, 256 Mich. 545.
N.J. — City of Bayonne v. Hill, 135
A. 545, 100 N'.J.Bq. 479, affirmed
City of Bayonne v. Doherty, 138 A.
927, 101 N.J/Ecu 7'37.
Tex. — Duke v. Gilbreath, Civ.App., 10
S.W.2d 412, error refused.
£4 C.J. (P 132 note 92.
After issue* have been Joined, tri-
jal court can enter judgment based
.on agreement of parties without
hearing evidence. — Allen v. !Fewel,
87 S.W.2d 142, 337 Mo. 955.
.89. Ga. — Corpus Joels quoted la.
Bstes v. Bstes, 14 S.B.2d 681, 683,
194 Ga. 94.
34 C.J. p 1*32 note 93.
00. N.C.— Williamson v. Williamson,
31 <3.B.2d 367, 224 N.C. 474— Rod-
riguez v. Rodriguez, 29 S.B.2d 901,
224 N.C. 275.
Withdrawal of consent see infra §
175.
.Judgment void without consent
The power of the court to sign a
consent Judgment depends on the un-
qualified consent of the parties there-
to, and Judgment is void if such con-
sent »does not exist at the time the
court sanctions or approves the
.agreement and promulgates it as a
Judgment—King v. King, <35 S.R2d
893, 225 N.C. £39.
91. N.C.— Lynch v. Loftin, «9 S.B.
143, 153 N.C. 270.
Philippine. — -Be Tavera v. Holy Ro-
man Catholic Apostolic Church, 10
Philippine 871.
92. Ky.— Hays v. Cyrus, 67 S.W.2d
503, 252 Ky. 4-35.
Mont — State ex rel. Delmoe v. Dis-
trict Court of Fifth Judicial Dist,
46 P.2d 39, 100 Mont 131.
93* Miss. — Stevens v. Barbour, 8 So.
2d 242, 19'3 Miss. 109.
94. Tenn.— Corpus Juris cited in
Coley v. Family Loan Co., 80 S.
W.2d 87, 88, 168 Tenn. Ml.
34 C.J. p 132 note 9.
96. N.C.— Union Bank v. Oxford, 25
S.E. 966, 119 N.C. 214, 34 L.R.A.
487.
Tenn. — Corpus Juris cited In Coley
v. -Family Loan Co., 80 S.W.2d 87,
88, 168 Tenn. 681.
Ultra Tires deed
Where trustee's claim for services
was based on ultra vires trust deed
of corporation, alleged consent de-
cree based on deed was no more val-
id than the deed.— Hanrahan v. An-
dersen, 90 P.2d 494, 108 Mont. 218.
96. Tenn. — Corpus Juris cited la
Coley v. Family Loan Co., SO S.W.
3d 87, 88, 168 Tenn. &3L
34 C.J. jp 132 note 12.
Consent by attorneys see Attorney
and Client § 86.
A village may not legally consent
to a judgment of assessment against
an assessment district — Wood v.
311
Village of Rockwood, 18 N.W.2d 864.
311 Mich. 381.
Consent of an officer of an. incor-
porated association has been held not
binding against Individual members
so as to authorize entry of personal
Judgments against them. — People v.
Brisket Buyers Ass'n of Greater New
York, 8 N.Y.S.2d 511, 255 App.Div.
60*3.
97. tJ.S.— -U. 8. v. Sobey, I>.C.Mont,
56 -F.2d 664.
N.Y.— Gass v. Arons, 227 N.Y.S. 282,
1-31 Misc. 502.
Stipulation, held sufficient
N.M. — American Nat. Bank of Tuc-
umcari v. Tarpley, 250 P. 18, 31 N.
M. 667.
96. N.H.— Perley v. Bailey, 199 A.
570, 89 N.H. 359.
N.Y.— Gass v. Arons, 227 N.Y.S. 282,
131 Misc. 502.
OkL — Corpus Juris quoted In Insur-
ance Service Co. v. CFinegan, 165
P.2d 620, 621.
Or. — Schoren v. Schoren, 222 P. 1096,
110 Or. 272.
34 C.J. p 132 note 96.
99. Okl.— Corpus Juris quoted in
Insurance Service Co. v. <Finegan,
165 P.2d 620, 621.
34 C.J. p 132 note 97.
1. Okl. — Corpus Juris quoted In.
Insurance Service Co. «v. Finegan,
165 P.2d 620, 621.
34 C.J. p 132 note 98.
2. N.Y.— Lee v. Rudd, 198 N.Y.S.
628, 120 Misc. 407.
Okl. — Corpus Juris quoted in Insur-
ance Service Co. v. Finegaa, 165
P.2d 620, 621.
§ 175
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
respecting the concurrence of tlie parties,* and it
should be complete4 and unqualified.5
It is within the jurisdiction of the court to deter-
mine the fact and the sufficiency of such consent.6
A party's consent to a judgment is shown by the
fact that he causes the judgment to be entered up ;7
but consent cannot be shown by oral statements to
the judge out of court8 or by a mere statement of
counsel that he has no objection to the entry of the
judgment.9 A stipulation for judgment is a consent
to the entry of judgment,10 but a stipulation which
is merely a consent that the pleadings may be
amended, and is not an admission of the correctness
of the allegations, is not a proper basis for a judg-
ment.11
WitJidrawal or expiration of consent. It has been
held that the consent may be withdrawn at any
time prior to entry of judgment,12 and that it is
within the discretion of the court, on motion of one
of the parties, to withhold the agreed judgment and
grant a further trial.18 However, a consent given
prior to the adjustment of the issues in the contro-
versy may be assumed to continue by the failure to
withdraw or to protest14 Generally, consent to
the entry of judgment expires after the creditor's
remedy becomes barred by limitations.16
§ 176. Entry of Judgment
An order for entry of a consent judgment Is a Judi-
cial act- In the sense that It requires the court to ex-
amine the record to determine its authority, but is min-
isterial In the sense that It Is predicated on the agree-
ment of the parties. A consent judgment should be en-
tered In the proper book or record and may be entered
at any time stipulated by the parties and permitted by
statute.
While an order for entry of a consent judgment
is a judicial act* in the sense that it requires the
court to examine the record to determine its au-
thority,18 the court also acts ministerially in the
sense that its power to enter judgment depends on
the agreement or consent of the parties.17 So,
where the parties have lawfully agreed, the actual
entry of judgment is a mere ministerial act,18 un-
3. Mass. — Roberts v. Anheuser-
Busch Brewing Ass'n, 9*8 N.E. 95,
211 Mass. 449.
Okl. — Corpus Juris quoted In Insur-
ance Service Co. v. (Finegan, 165
P.2d 620, 621.
34 C.J. p 132 note L
Consent held not shown
Cal. — Stow v. Superior Court of Cal-
ifornia in and for Alameda Coun-
ty, 172 P. 598, 178 Cal. 140.
111.— 'Friend v. Borrenpohl, 161 N.E.
110, 329 111. 528.
Iowa. — Independent School Disk of
Manning, Carroll County, v. Miller,
178 N.W. 323, 189 "lowa 123.
Md.— Baltimore High Grade Brick
Co. v. Amos, 62 -A. 582, 95«Md. 571,
rehearing denied 5*3 A. 148, 95 Md.
571.
4. N.Y. — Post Institute v. -Lander
Co., 295 N.Y.6. 740, 251 App.flDir.
23.
Tex. — Wyss v. Bookman, ConouApp.,
235 S.W. 567.
Omission of details
In stockholder's action for appoint-
ment of a receiver and other relief,
trial court was not authorized to en-
ter judgment by consent on stipula-
tion providing that settlement had
been reached in general terms where-
by stockholder should deliver all his
stock and receive six thousand dol-
lars, but that details of settlement
had not been agreed on and would be
worked out later. — Insurance Service
Co. v. Finegan, OkL. 165 P.2d 620.
Stipulated facts held insufficient to
support Judgment
SJ>.— Fergen v. Lonie, 2fI3 N.W. 720,
51 S.D. 515.
5. N.C. — -"Williamson v. Williamson,
31 SJSL2d <3'67,. 224 N.C. 4-74.
XTonperfoxmaaioe of condition
Where it was undisputed that no
compliance was ever made with con-
ditions precedent to signing of con-
sent judgment in action for foreclo
sure of a tax lien, superior court
clerk properly refused to sign the
purported consent Judgment — Wil-
liamson T. Williamson, supra.
0. Cal.— Merrill v. Bachelder, 5ft P.
61'8, 123 Cal. 674.
R.I.-T Everett v. Cutler Mills, 160 A.
924, 52 R.X 330.
Determination from record
Whether decree was entered by
consent is determined from face of
record. — Shinn v. Shinn, 142 S.B. 63,
105 W.Va. 246.
Particular stipulations construed
Mo. — State ex rel. Mason v. Schmoll,
App., «7 S.W.2d 972.
Vt— <St Pierre v. Beauregard, 152 A.
914, 103 Vt 2S8.
7. N. J. — Young T. Young, 17 N.J.Eq.
1*1.
a Iowa. — Thorn v. Hambleton, 128
N.W. 39-3, 149 Iowa 214.
C.J. p 1&2 note 5.
9. Conn. — Goodri-ch v. Alfred, 43 A.
1041, 72 Conn. 257.
Consent shown
Wash.-iSeely v. Gilbert, 134 P.2d
710, 16 Wash.2d 611.
10. CaL — Jackson nr. Brown, 23 P.
142, 82 QaL 275— Morrow v.
Learned, 245 P. 442, 76 Cal.App.
538.
11* N.Y.— Phelan v. New York Cent.
& H. R. R. Co., 113 N.Y.S. 35,
12. N.Y. — Jacobs v. Steinbrink, 273
N.Y.S. 49-8, 242 App.Div. 197. ]
312
Withdrawal after judgment see in-
fra § 178.
Refusal to sign Judgment
Superior court clerk properly re-
fused to sign purported consent
judgment in action for foreclosure
of tax lien, where defendant's con-
sent thereto had been withdrawn at
time clerk was called on to sign the
purported consent Judgment.— Wil-
liamson v. Williamson, 31 S.'B.2d U7,
224 N,C. 474.
13. Iowa. — Garretson v. Altomari,
181 N.W. 400, 190 Iowa 1194.
14- N.Y. — Jacobs v. Steinfcrink, 27&
N.Y.S. 498, 242 App.Div. 197.
15. Cal.— Charles <F. Harper Co. v.
De Witt Mortgage & Realty Co.,.
75 P.2d 65. 10 Cal.2d 4'67.
16. R.I.— Everett v. Cutler Mills,.
160 A. 924, 52 R.I. 330.
It is a Judicial function and an ex-
ercise of judicial power to render a
judgment on consent — Pope v. U. S.,
65 S.CX 16, 323 U.S. 1, «9 L.Bd. «.
Stipulation as evidence
'Stipulation of parties for judgment
was merely evidence to be considered'
by court in making its decision
whether it has authority to order-
entry of judgment. — -Everett v. Cut-
ler Mills, 160 A. 924, 52 R.L 330.
17. Tex, — .State v. Reagan County-
Purchasing Co., CI'V.App., 186 «S..
W.2d 128, error refused.
ia Tenn. — Edwards v. Turner, Qh..
A., 47 S.W. 144.
In cause pending before referee •
Under statute it has been held that,
superior court clerk may enter con-
sent Judgment in cause pending be-
fore referee. — 'Weaver v. Hampton*.
167 S.E. 4*84, 204 IH.C. 42.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§177
less the case is one in which defendant has the
right to be heard as to the nature or terms of the
judgment to be entered.19 In the absence of knowl-
edge of an assignment affecting the rights of third
persons, the court has the right to journalize a set-
tlement entry,20 and sureties on an undertaking on
appeal are not entitled to notice of entry of a judg-
ment against them to which they have in legal con*
templation consented.21 On the other hand, sureties
• on a replevin bond of plaintiff, seizing certain prop-
erty, have been held not bound by a judgment fof
debt entered in defendant's favor on stipulation of
the parties without notice to the sureties.22
Place and time of entry. A judgment by consent
must be entered in the proper book or record,28 and
within the time, if any, specified by statute,24 but
not before commencement of the term at which the
cause is returnable.25 Where the entry of judg-
ment by agreement depends on the rendition of a
final judgment in another action, it cannot be en-
tered pending a motion for a new trial in such oth-
er action.26 Within such limitations it may be stat-
ed generally that a judgment by consent may be
entered at the time specified in the stipulation or
agreement,2? and at any stage of the proceedings,
as before the expiration of defendant's time for
pleading;28 and, with defendant's consent, judg-
ment may be entered at the term in which he en-
ters his appearance.29 If the agreement so pro-
vides, the judgment may be entered immediately on
the happening of a contingency.80 While a judg-
ment by consent may in a proper case be entered
nunc pro tune,81 it may not be so entered where no
authority existed to enter it in the first instance.32
§ 177. Form and Sufficiency of Judg-
ment
Ordinarily a judgment by consent should show the
consent on its face, and should conform to the terms
agreed on by the parties.; but such judgment will not
be regarded as void on its face unless It shows lack of
jurisdiction of the court to render It.
In addition to the general features common to
all judgments,38 a consent judgment „ ordinarily
should recite or show on its face that it is entered
by the agreement or consent of the parties;34 but
such a showing is not indispensable and the agree-
19. Mo. — Schaeffer v. Slegel, 7 Mo.
A-pp. 542. !
34 C.J. plS* note 17.
20. Ohio. — Dickinson v. Hot Mixed
Bituminous Industry of Ohio,
App., 58 N.E.2d 78.
21. Mont— Waldrop v. Maser, 30 P.
2d S3, 9*6 Mont. 242.
22. Miss. — Home v. Moorehead, 152
So. 49*5, 169 Miss. 362, suggestion
of error overruled 193 So. 66*8, 1'69
Miss. 362.
23. CaL— Old Settlers' Inv. Co. v.
White, 110 P. 922, 158 CaL 236.
34 C.J. p 1«32 note 14.
24. Ga. — Wright v. Broom, 158 S.B.
443, 43 Ga.App. 269.
Bntry in vacation
•Consent decree entered in vacation
without order in term authorizing
decree and without entry at time and
place fixed by statute held inopera-
tive as judgment. — Wright v. Broom,
supra.
Any time
Under express statutory authoriza-
tion the cleric may enter a 'judgment
by consent at any time. — Keen v.
Parker, 8 S.E.2d 209, 217 N.C. "378.
Entry on Monday not necessary
Consent judgment need not be en-
tered on Monday, as in case of oth-
er judgments entered by clerk of
superior court. — Hood ex rel. Peo-
ple's Bank of Burnsville v. Wilson,
170 S.E. 425, 208 N.C. 120.
2Sl Ga. — Bedenbaugh v. Burgin, 28
S.E.2d 652, 197 Ga. 175.
26. CaL— Gillmore v. American
Cent. Ins. Co., 2 P. 382, 65 CaL 63.
87. N.Y.— Osborn v. Rogers, 20 N.R
365, 112 N.T. 573.
Xa vacation
(1) Parties have right to agree on
and have court enter judgment in
vacation.— Hurst v. Gulf States Cre-
osoting Co., 141 So. 346, 1*3 Miss.
512.
(2) Where attorneys of parties ap-
peared in vacation before judge and
agreed to judgment judgment signed
by Judge, approved by attorneys, and
properly entered, held binding, in ab-
sence of fraud. — Hurst v. Gulf States
Creosoting Co., supra. .
2& N.J.— Beebe v. George H. Beet>e
Co., 46 A. 168, '64 N.J.Law 497—
Hoguet v. Wallace, 23 N.J.!Law
523.
29. I1L— Moore v. Gilmer, 187 NJBL
466, 353 m. 420.
30. N.Y.-JOsborn v. Rogers, 20 N.B.
365, 112 N.T. 573.
SU Tex.— ^Commercial Credit Co. v.
Ramsey, Civ.App., 138 S.W.2d 191,
error dismissed, judgment correct.
Failure to enter on rendition.
Where trial court rendered Judg-
ment, in accordance with an agree-
ment made by counsel representing
parties to litigation, but judgment
was never entered, it was duty of
trial court to enter Judgment in ac-
cordance with agreement nunc pro
tune. — Commercial Credit Co. v.
Ramsey, supra.
32. N.C.— Williamson v. Williamson,
•31 SJS3.2d 367, 224 N.C. 474.
33. Description of property
A consent decree involving title to
313
realty was not void for want of de-
scription or for want of any words
to furnish a key to any description
of land where pleadings on which
consent decree was based gave a
complete description of the proper-
ty.—Bentley v. Still, 32 S.E.2d 814,
198 Ga. 743.
34. I1L— Bergman v. Rhodes, 165 N.
R 598, 334 I1L 137, 65 A.L..R. 344
— Consaer v. Wisniewski, 13 N.-E.
2d 93, 293 IlLApp. 529.
Term. — East Lake Lumber Box Co.
v. Simpson, 5 TenruApp. 51.
34 C.J. p 13'3 note 24.
Indorsement by attorney
(1) Indorsement by counsel for
losing party of approval of proposed
decree did not make decree a con-
sent decree, but, under circumstanc-
es, was only recognition that pro-
posed decree was legally formulated,
and that it contained in substance
decision as orally announced by
court.
Mich.— 4S3rn V. loor, 253 N.W. 318,
266 Mich. 335.
Tex. — State v. Reagan CJounty Pur-
chasing Co., Civ. App., 186 S.W.2d
128, error refused.
Wash.— Harter v. King County, 119
P.2d 919, 11 Washed 583.
W.Va. — Bank of Gauley v. Osenton,
114 S.B. 435, 92 W.Va. 1.
(2) Where resolution of county
board of education selecting school
site authorized judgment in pending
litigation with county commissioners
on approval of resolution by latter,
such judgment, by operation of law,
became consent judgment without
§ 178
JUDGMENTS
-49 C.J.S.
ment may be shown by any other evidence consist-
ent with the record,35 and a consent judgment has
been held not void on its face unless it shows a
want of jurisdiction.36 A recital that evidence was
heard is unnecessary since the consent obviates the
necessity of hearing any evidence,37 as is discussed
supra § 174. The judgment entered must conform
to the terms agreed on by the parties,38 and the
court has no power to add conditions or provisions
on which the parties have not agreed.39 Thus the
amount of the judgment must be that fixed by the
agreement of the parties;40 if it is entered for
more, it may be set aside as to the excess.41 If
there are several defendants and all consent, judg-
ment must be entered against all of them.42 The
mere fact that a document is signed by defendant,
consenting to entry of judgment against him, is not
of itself a judgment.43
§ 178.
Construction, Operation, and Ef-
fect
A judgment by consent ordinarily has the force and
effect of a contract and Is so construed, although it also
partakes of the nature of a Judgment and will be up-
held and enforced as such. Consent to the Judgment
waives all nonjurisdictional defects.
Since a judgment by consent is regarded as a
contract between the parties,44 it must be construed
the same as any other contract45 Its operation and
signatures of counsel. — Board of Ed-
ucation of Sampson County v. Board
of Com'rs of Sampson County, 134
S.E. 852, 192 N.C. 274.
03) Other indorsements see 34 C.
J. p 133 note 24 [b].
35. 111. — Bergman v. Rhodes, 165 IN".
B. 598, 334 111. 137, 65 A.L.R. 344—
Armstrong v. Cooper, 11 111. 540 —
Sundberg v. Matteson, 29 N.E.2d
853, -307 IlLApp. 239 — Consaer v.
Wisniewski, 1-3 N.E.2d 93, 293 111.
A-pp. 529.
Sureties' consent
(1) By agreement in replevin suit
absolute money judgment may be
rendered against defendant and sure-
ties on bond, and sureties' consent to
judgment need not affirmatively afe-
pear from the judgment — Pederal
Credit Co. v. Rogers, 148 So. '353,
166 Miss. 559.
(2) Judgment in replevin rendered
"by consent of plaintiff and defend-
ants in this case," providing for re-
covery by plaintiff from "defendants
and" named persons, "sureties upon
the replevin bond," held not void on
its face, as against contention that
sureties' consent to judgment is not
shown. — Starling v. Sorrell, 100 So.
10, 134 Miss. 782.
36. Miss. — Starling v. Sorrell, supra.
Waiver of alternative provision, in
replevin Judgment
Miss. — Starling v. Sorrell, supra.
37. Tex. — Day v. Johnson, 72 S.W.
426, 32 Tex.Civ.App. 107.
38. Cal. — Southern Pac. Co. v. City
of (Santa Cruz, 14-5 P. 73-6, 26 Cal.
App. 26.
Iowa, — Corpus Juris cited in Van
Alstine v. Hartnett, 222 N.W. 363,
(364, 207 Iowa 236.
Mo. — Early v. Smallwood, 256 S.W.
105*3, 302 Mo. 92.
Okl. — Corpus Juris quoted in Posey
v. Abraham, 25 P.2d 287, 289, 165
. OkL 140.
Or.— Holmboe v. Morgan, 13'8 P.
1084, <69 Or. 395.
Tex— Edwards v. Gilford, 155 S.W.2d
786, 137 Tex. 559.
34 C.J. p 1S3 note 26.
39. Cal. — People's Ditch Co. v. Fres-
no Canal & Irrigation Co., 92 P.
77, 152 Cal. 87.
N.Y. — Larscy v. T. Hogan & Sons,
146 KB. 430, 239 N.T. 298, reargu-
ment denied 148 N.E. 713, 240 N.
T. 580.
Okl. — Corpus Juris quoted in Posey
v. Abraham, 25 P.2d 2«87, 2'89, 165
Okl. 140.
34 C.J. p 133 note 26.
40. Ark. — Planters' Fire Ins. Co. v.
Crockett 170 S.W. 1012, 115 Ark.
606 — Home Fire Ins. Co. v. Stan-
cell, 127 -S.W. 966, 94 Ark. 578.
Ky. — Continental Realty Co. v. Mow-
bray & Robinson Co., 218 S.W. 726,
187 Ky. 98.
N.Y,— Westcott Chuck Co. v. Oneida
Nat. Chuck Co., 92 N.E. 639, 199
5NT.T. 247, 1;39 Am.StR. 907, 20 Ann.
Cas. 853.
Or. — Riner v. Southwestern Surety
Ins. Co., 16-6 P. 952, 85 Or. 293.
•34 C.J. p 133 note 27.
Interest
In suit on contract where parties
agreed to judgment for certain
amount, without mention of interest,
the court properly refused to add in-
terest to the judgment. — Vaughan v.
Brown, 40 <S.W.2d 996, 184 Ark. 185.
Basic of computation
A stipulation in an action on a
guaranty was held to furnish the ba-
sis by mere computation of deter-
mining the amount of the judgment
— Avery v. Moore, 124 P. 173, 87 Kan.
337.
Judgment on rever*al
Where, on the trial of an action
for an accounting, a stipulation was
I entered fixing the amount of recov-
ery to which the plaintiffs would be
entitled in the event of a recovery
but did not clearly confer power on
the court of appeal to grant
judgment it could not enter such
judgment on a reversal. — Barney v.
Hoyt, 135 N.T.S. 126, 150 App.Div.
314
991, affirmed 103 N.E. 1120, 210 N.T.
542.
41. Ark.— Wood v. Stewart, 98 S.W.
711, 81 Ark. 41.
42. Mont. — Helena Second Nat.
Bank v. Kleinschmidt, 14 P. 667r
7 Mont. 146.
43. Cal.-— Old Settlers' Inv. Co. v.
White, 110 P. 922, 158 Cal. 236.
44. U.S.— Butler v. Denton, D.C.
Okl., 57 'F.Supp. -656, affirmed, C.C.
A., 150 P.2d 68*7.
Cal. — Corpus Juris cited in Ex iparte
Perrigno, 71 P.2d -329, 3'30, 22 Cal.
App.2d 472.
111. — City of Kankakee v. -Lang, 54
N.B.2d 605, 323 IlLApp. 14.
N.C. — Coburn v. Board of Com'rs of
Swain County, 131 S.E. 372, 191 N.
C. 68.
Okl.— Corpus Juris quoted in, Insur-
ance Service Co. v. Pinegan, 165
P.2d 620, 621, 622— Corpus Juris
cited in Grayson v. Pure Oil Co.,
118 P.2d '644, 64'8, 1'89 Okl. 550—
Corpus Juris Quoted in Ward v.
Coleman, 39 P.2d 113, 116, 170 Okl.
201.
Tex.— Corpus Juriji cited in Reagan
County Purchasing Co. v. State,
Civ.App., 65 S.W.2d -353, «356— Dial
v. Martin, Civ.App., 37 S.W.2d 1&6,
reversed on other grounds, Com.
App., '57 S.W.2d 75, 89 A.L..R. 571—
Scaling v. Williams, Civ.App., 28-4
S.W. '310.
Definition and nature of consent
judgment generally see supra S
173.
Same effect as contract
Tex. — Pendery v. Panhandle Refining
Co., Civ.Auip., 169 S.W.2d 766, er-
ror refused.
Contract of highest character
Va. — Barnes v. American (Fertilizer
Co., 130 S.OBJ. 902, 144 Va. $92.
45. Cal. — Corpus Juris cited in Ex
parte 'Perrigno, 71 P.2d 529, 330,
22 Cal.App.2d 472.
N.C. — Carpenter v. Carpenter, 195 -S.
B. 5, 213 N.C. «36— Cox v. Albe-
marle -Drainage Dist., 141 S.'E. 885,
195 N.C. 264— J. S. Schofield's Sons
49 O.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 178
effect must be gathered from the terms used in the
agreement,46 and it should not be extended beyond
the clear import of such terms ;47 nor can it be sup-
plemented by agreements which are not a part of
it48 unless attacked for fraud or mistake.49
As a jndgtnent. As a consent judgment has the
sanction of the court, and is entered as its determi-
nation of the controversy, it generally has the same
force and effect as any other judgment,50 although
in some respects it may be given greater force than
Co. v. Bacon, 131 S.E. 659, 191 N. j
c. 253 — First Nat. Bank v. -Mitch-
ell, 131 S.E. 656, 191 N.C. 190—
Southern Distributing Co. v. Car-
raway, 127 S.B. 427, 189 N.C. 420.
Okl. — Corpus Juris quoted in Insur-
ance Service -Co. v. Finegan, 165
P.2d 620, 622— Corpus Juris cited
in Grayson v. Pure Oil Co., 118 P.
2d 644, 648, 189 Okl. 550— Corpus
Juris quoted in Ward v. Coleman,
39 P.2d 113, 116, 170 Okl. 201.
Tex. — Edwards v. Gifford, 155 S.W.
2d 786, 137 Tex. 559— Turman v.
Turman, 64 S.W.2d 137, 123 Tex. 1
— Tyner v. City of Port Arthur,
280 S.W. 523, 115 Tex. i310— Beh-
rens v. Behrens, Civ.App., 1&6 S.
W.2d 697 — Mauldin v. American
Liberty Pipe Line Co., Civ.App.,
1S'5 S.W.2d 158, refused for want
of merit. — Aaron v. Aaron, Civ.
App., 173 S.W.2d -310, error refused
— Pendery v. Panhandle Refining
Co., Civ.App., 169 S.W.2d 766, er-
ror refused — Beam v. Southwest-
ern Bell tel. Co., Civ.Aipp., 164 S.
W.2d 412, error refused — Richey
v. Shell Petroleum Corporation,
Ci-v.App., 128 S.W.2d 898, error
dismissed, judgment correct — At-
lantic Refining Co. v. Buckley, Civ.
App., '123 S.W.2d 413. error dis-
missed— Korn v. Johnson, Civ.
App., 117 -S.W.2d "844, error refused
— Empire Gas & Fuel CJo. v. Rail-
road Commission of Texas, Civ.
App., 94 S.W.2d 1240, error refused
—Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Tex-
as v. State, Civ.App., 275 S.W. 673,
certforari granted 46 S.Ct 483
271 U.S. 653, 70 L.-Ed. 1134, cer-
tiorari vacated Missouri-Kansas-
Texas R. Co. v. State of Texas, 48
S.Ct 82, 275 U.S. 494, 72 L.Ed. 391
— Prince v. gprost-Johnson Odumlber
Co., Civ.App., 250 S.W. 785.
54 C.J. p 133 note 32.
Construction, as a whole
Xj.-s. — Swift & Co. v. U. S., APP.D.C.
48 S.Ct 311, 276 'U.S. 311, 72 L.Ed.
5'8-7.
Particular judgments construed
Cal. — Cordes v. Harding, 169 P. 256
35 Cal.App. 41.
D.C.— Bliss V. Bliss, 70 -F.2d 924, 63
APP.D.C. 197.
Iowa._Van Alstine v. Hartnett,
N.W. 363, 207 Iowa 236.
Ky.— Banco-Kentucky Co.'s Receive
v. National Bank of Kentucky'
Receiver, 137 S.W.2d 357, 281 Ky
784— Louisville & N. R. Co. v
King, 288 S.W;. 73>3, 216 Ky. 736.
j^a. — Jackson v. Jackson, App., 16
So. 175.
Mo.— Fellhauer v. Norris, 58 S.W.2
287, 332 Mo. 322— Zeitinger v. Har-
gadine-McKittrick Dry Goods Co..
250 S.W. 913, 29S Mo. 461.
S".C.— Miller v. Teer, 18 S.E.2d 173
220 N.C. 605— Webster v. Wehster,
195 S.E. 362, 213 N.C. 135— Homer
v. -Southern Ry. Co., 114 S.E. 296,
1-84 N.C. 270.
.D. — Warner v. Intlehouse, 2-35 N.
W. 638, 60 N.D. 542.
Ohio.— Whitmore v. Stern, T58 N.E.
203, 25 Ohio App. 344.
Tenn.— Barretsvllle Bank & Trust
Co. v. Bolton, 187 S.W.2d 306, 182
Tenn. -364.
Tex.— -Magnolia Petroleum Co. v.
Caswell, Com.App., 1 S.W.2d 597,
rehearing denied 7 <S.W.2d '867, cer-
tiorari denied Caswell v. Magnolia
Petroleum Co., 49 S.Ct. 34, 278 U.
S. 640, 73 L.Ed. 555— State v. Rea-
gan County Purchasing Co., Civ.
App., 186 S.W.2d 128, error refused
— Pendery v. Panhandle Refining
Co., Civ.App., 169 S.W.2d 766, er-
ror refused — Korn v. Johnson, Civ.
Aptp., 141 -S.W.2d 1015, error dis-
missed, judgment correct — Prince
Y. Frost-Johnson Lumber Co., Civ.
App., 250 S.W. 785.
Wash.-^Connor v. City of Seattle, 144
P. 52, 82 Wash. 296.
J. US.— Butler v. Denton, D.COkl.,
57 F.Supp. 656, affirmed, C.C.A., ISO
«F.2d 687.
Ga. — corpus Juris cited in Estes v
Estes, 14 S.R2d 681, 6*83, 192 Ga.
94.
Mo.— Fellhauer v. Norris, 58 S.W.2d
2*7, 3*32 Mo. 322.
Okl. — Corpus Juris quoted in Insur-
ance Service Co. v. (Finegan, 161
P.2d 620, 622— Corpus Juris quoted
In Ward v. Coleman, '39 P.2d 113
116, 170 Okl. 201.
84 C.J. P 13-3 note 88.
Merger of prior negotiation*
y._Louisville & N. R. Co. T. King
288 S.W. 733, 216 Ky. 7-36.
47. U.S.— Butler v. <Denton, D.C.
Okl., 57 F.Supp. 656, affirmed, C.C
A., 150 F.2d 687.
CaL— Palace Hotel Qo. v. Crist 4
P.2d 415, 6 CaLApp.2d 690.
Miss.— <£toner v. Union Ins. Co. o
Indiana, 111 So. 584, 146 Miss. 600
N.C.— First Nat Bank v. Mitchel
181 S.-B. 656, 191 N.C. 190.
Okl.— Corpus Juris Quoted in Insur
ance Service Co. v. (Finegan, 165 P
2d 620, 622 — Grayson v. Pure O'
Co., 118 P.2d 644, 189 Okl. 550.
Tex.— Edwards v. Gifford, 155 S.W.2
786, 137 Tex. 559 — Kom v. John
son, Civ,App., 117 S.W.2d S44r er
ror refused.
315
Vt — Ex parte Thompson, 9 A.2d 107,
111 Vt. 7.
Wash. — Gregg v. Beezer, 252 P. 692,
142 Wash. 142.
4 C.J. ip 133 note 34.
Ky.— Cord v. Hendrick, 6 Ky.L.
365.
>kL — Corpus Juris quoted in Insur-
ance Service Co. v. Finegan, 165 P.
2d 620, 622.
Tex. — Corpus Juris dt«d in Peter-
man v. Peterman, Civ. App., 55 S.
W.2d 1108, 1110.
49. Ky.— Cord v. Hendrick, 6 Ky.L.
365.
Okl. — Corpus Juris quoted in. Insur-
ance Service Co. v. Finegan, 165
P.2d 620, 622.
50. U.S. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Woods Bros. Const Co. v. Tank-
ton County, C.C.AJS.D., 54 !F.2d -304,
308, 81 A.L.R. 300— Utah Power &
Light Co. v. U. S., CtCl., 42 F.2d
304— 'Fidelity & Columbia Trust Co.
v. Glenn, D.C.Ky., 39 F.Supp. 822.
iz.— Wall v. Superior Court of
Tavapai County, 89 P.2d 624, 53
Ariz. 344.
Cal. — Guaranty Liquidating Corpora-
tion v. Board of Sup'rs of Los An-
geles County, 71 P.2d 931, 22 Cal.
App.2d 684 — Rogers v. Springfield
Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 238 P. 679,
92 CaLApp. 537.
Ga.— Burch v. Dodge County, 20 S.E.
2d 428, 193 Ga. 890.
y.— Kentucky Utilities Co. v. Steen-
man, 141 S.W.2d 265, 28*3 Ky. -317.
La, — Corpus Juris q.uotea in Sonnier
v. Sonnier, App., 140 So. 49, 50.
Mont — Thrasher v. Mannix & Wil-
son, 26 P.2d 370, 95 Mont 273.
N.T. — People ex pel. Norwich Phann-
acal Co. v. Porter, 239 N.Y.S. 28,
228 App.Biv. 54— Evans v. 'Stein,
59 N.T.S.2d 544, second case, af-
firmed, 59 N.T.S.2d 625, second
case, 269 App.Biv. 1052, appeal de-
nied 60 N.Y:S.2d 288, 270 App.Div.
810.
.C. — Edmundson v. Edmundson, 22
S.E.2d 576, 222 N.C. 181 — Cason v.
Shute, 189 S.E. 494, 211 N.C. 195—
Walker v. Walker, 117 -S.H. 167,
185 N.C. 3*0.
Okl. — Corpus Juris qpoted in- Ward
v. Coleman, '39 P.2d 118, 116, 170
Okl. 201.
Tex. — Beam v. Southwestern Bell
Tel. Co., Civ.App., 164 S.W.2d 412,
error refused— Corpus Juris quot-
ed in Peterman v. Peterman, Civ.
App., 55 S.W.2d 1108, 1110.
34 C.J, p 133 note «37.
Decretal aspects
An agreed judgment in so far as
purely decretal aspects are con-
§ 178
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
an ordinary judgment,81 and in other respects it
may be accorded less force.52 Although the judg-
ment is in the nature of a contract between the par-
ties, the court retains power to see that its provi-
sions are duly carried out58 In the absence of
fraud or mistake a consent judgment is valid and
binding, as such, as between the parties thereto and
their privies.54 The judgment is not invalidated
by a subsequent failure to perform a condition on
which the consent was based,55 or by the fact that
it obligates the parties to do that which they could
not make a valid contract to do;56 and unless it is
vacated or set aside in the manner provided for by
law57 it stands as a final disposition of the rights
of the parties thereto.58
In the absence of fraud, after the agreement has
been made and a judgment entered thereon, the con-
sent of one of the parties cannot be withdrawn,59
and he is not entitled to a jury trial to fix the
amount of damages.^ A consent judgment may
be inquired into and held void for fraud practiced
on one of the parties61 or against other creditors of
defendant;62 and is not valid unless entered in a
court which might lawfully have rendered the same
judgment in a contested case.6* Where several de-
fendants are brought into court, a judgment by
cerned, has the same effect as though
rendered by court after trial .of is-
sues, "decretal" meaning granting or
denying of remedy sought. — State v.
Reagan County Purchasing Co., Tex.
Civ.App., 186 S.W.2d 128, error re-
fused.
51. Neb.— McArthur v. Thompson,
299 N.W. <519, 140 Nefb. 408, 139
A.L.R. 41*.
Pa,— Commonwealth v. Highland,
Mun., 28 West.Co.L.J. 45.
Consent Judgment as not ajppealable
see Appeal and Error § 213.
52. Pa.— Platt v. Wagner, 81 A.2d
499, 347 Pa. 27.
Reciprocity not established
Reciprocity did not exist between
two states on ground that entry of
judgment of the supreme court in
certain case constituted a decision
that reciprocity had been established,
where judgment in that case was
merely a consent judgment— ^Platt v.
Wagner, 31 A.2d 499, '347 Pa. 27.
53< &C.— Porter v. J. H. Hydrick
Realty Co., 131 S.B. 768, 134 S.C
34.
Failure to Issue writ of possession
Where by a consent decree the ti-
tle to the timber was severed from
the estate in land, the case not be-
ing such as required an execution of
writ of possession under the stat
utes, the failure to cause a writ p:
possession to be issued within on.
year did not render the judgmen
dormant, and hence not .effective to
convey title to the timber.— Prince r
Frost-Johnson Lumber Cjo.» TexXJiv
App., 250 -S.W. 785.
54. U.S.— Hot -Springs Coal Co. v
Miller, C.C.A.Wyo., Iff7 !F.2d -677—
* Commissioner of Internal Reve
nue v. Blair, C.C.A., 83 F.2d -65S
reversed on other grounds Blair v
Commissioner of Internal Reve-
nue, 57 S.Ct 33, 57 -S.Ct. 330, -300 U
S. 5, 81 ;L.Ed. 465— Corpus Juris
quoted in Woods Bros. Const Co
v. Yankton County, C.C.A.SJD., 5
F.2d 304, 18 08— Utah Power & Ligh
Co. v. tT. S- Ct.CL, 42 QB\2d 30'
IT. S. v. Radio Corporation of|
America, D.C.DeL, 46 F.Supp. 654,
appeal dismissed 63 'S.Ct. 851, 318
U.S. 796, 87 L.Ed. 1161— Steingrub-
er v. Johnson, D.C.Tenn., 35 E\
Suptp. 662.
Dl.— Riggs v. Barrett, «2 N.B.2d 382,
308 IlLApp. 549— Riggs v. Barrett,
32 {NVE.2d 392, SOS IlLApp. 671.
La. — Corpus Juris quoted in Sonnier
v. Sonnier, App., 140 So. 49, 50.
Magg.-— .Byron v. Concord Nat Bank,
13 N.B.2d 13, 299 Mass. 43$.
Mich.— -Green v. Township Board of
Leoni Tp., 194 N.W. -972, 224 Mich.
498.
N.C.— Law v. Cleveland, 195 S.E. 809,
213 N.C. *89.
Okl. — Corpus Juris Quoted in Ward
v. Coleman, 39 P.2d 113, 116, 170
Okl. '201.
Tex. — Beam v. Southwestern Bell
Tel. Co., Civ.App., 164 S.W.2d 412,
error refused— Corpus Juris cited
in Reagan County Purchasing Co.
v. State, Civ.App., 65 S.W.2d 358,
85S— <Corpus Juris quoted in Peter-
man v. Peterman, Civ.App., 55 S.
W.2d 1108, 1110.
Va.— Corpus Juris cited In Barnes v,
American Fertilizer Co., ISO SJB.
902, 911, 144 Va. £92.
34 C.J. p 133 note 3*8.
55. U.S.— Corpus Juris quoted in
Woods Bros. Const Co. v. Yank
ton County, <?.C.A.S.D., 54 F.2d 304
308.
OkL— Corpus Juris quoted in War<
v. Coleman, 39 P.2d H'3, 11*, 17
Okl. 201.
Tex.— nCorpus Juris quoted in Peter
man v. Peterman, Civ.App., 55 <S
W.2d 1108, 1110.
34 C.J. ip 1-34 note 39.
56. fa.S.^-Corpus Juris quoted In
Woods Bros. Const Co. v. Tank
ton County, C.CJLS.D., 54 iF.2
304, 308.
Okl.— Corpus Juris quoted In Wan
v. Coleman, 39 P.2d 113, 116, 17
OkL 201.
34 C.J. P 134 note 40.
Invalidity of the contract on whic
a consent judgment is based mas
316
ender the judgment erroneous, but
oes not make it void.
Ky.— Lodge v. Williams, 24-3 S.W.
1011, 195 Ky. 773.
kl.— Ward v. Qoleman. 39 P.2d 113,
170 OkL 201.""
57. U.S.— Corpus Juris quoted in .
Woods Bros. Const Co. v. Yank-
ton County, C.C.A.S.D., 54 F.2d 304,
308.
La. — Corpus Juris quoted in Sonnier
v. Sonnier, App., 140 So. 49, 50.
OkL— Corpus Juris quoted in Ward
v. Coleman, 39 P.2d 113, 116, 170
Okl. 201.
Tex.— Corpus Juris quoted in Peter-
man v. Peterman, Civ.App., 55 S.
W.2d 1108, 1110.
58. U.S. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Woods Bros. Const Co. v. Tankton
County, Q.C.A.S.D., 54 !F.2d 304,
308— Utah* Power & Light Co. v.
U. S., Cta., 42 F.2d 304.
Cal. — Rogers v. Springfield Fire &
Marine Ins. Co., 268 P. 679, 92 Cal.
App. 5*7.
OkL — Corpus Juris quoted in Ward
v. Coleman, 39 P.2d 11*, 116, 170
Okl. 201.
Tex. — Beam v. Southwestern Bell
TeL Co., Civ.App., 164 S.W.2d 412,
error refused— Corpus Juris quoted
in 'Peterman v. Peterman, Civ. App.,
55 S.W.2d 1108, 1110.
34 C. J. p 134 note 42.
59. Tex.— Corpus Juris quoted in
Peterman v. Peterraan, giv.App., 55
S.W.2d 1108, 1110.
34 C.J. p 134 note 43.
Withdrawal of consent prior to judg-
ment see supra S 175.
60. Vt.— Manley v. Johnson, 81 A.
919, 85 Vt 262.
el. Okl. — Cobb v. Killingsworth, IS 7
P. 477, 77 OkL 1'86.
84 C.J. p 134 note 47.
(Fraud as ground for opening or va-
cating see infra § 3*30.
62. Okl. — Cotrt> v. Killingsworth, su-
pra.
63. Ind. — De Lange v. Cones, 19 N.
850, 215 Ind. 355*
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§179
agreement as to one only is a dismissal as to the
others,64 and separate judgments against defend-
ants who are jointly and severally liable limit plain-
tiffs daim against one defendant to the amount of
the judgment against such defendant85
A second judgment cannot be entered on an
agreement or consent of the parties without vacat-
ing a prior judgment which has been entered there-
on.66
As waiver of defects or irregularities. A judg-
ment by consent or agreement operates as a waiver
of all defects or irregularities in the process, plead-
ings, or other proceedings previous to the rendition
of the judgment,67 except such as involve the ju-
risdiction of the court.68 It is a sufficient waiver
of trial by
§ 179. Offer
A Judgment entered on offer and acceptance may
be a judgment by consent, or a Judgment on the plead-
ings if the offer Is contained In a pleading.
Apart from proceedings under statutes specifical-
ly authorizing the entry of judgment on an offer of
judgment made by defendant, a judgment entered
pursuant to a properly manifested offer and accept-
ance is a judgment by consent, such as has been
considered supra §§ 173-178, or, if the offer is con-
tained in a pleading, there -may be a judgment on
the pleadings.70 Such an offer must be accepted
on the terms and conditions on which it is made,71
and before the offer is properly withdrawn or the
time for accepting it has expired.72 Entry^of a
judgment of confession in a pending action, without
consent of the adverse party, and against the re-
fusal of the court to sanction it, is a nullity.73
Under statutory provisions. Offer of judgment is
a method provided by statute in some states, where-
by a defendant may offer to allow plaintiff to take
judgment against him for a specified amount, or to
a specified effect, with costs up to that time, and
thus exonerate himself from liability for future
costs in case plaintiff persists in his action and fails
to recover a judgment more favorable to him than
that offered.74 It is a modern substitute for the
common-law cognovit,75 and is a species of judg-
ment by confession 76 Statutes of this class are re-
64. Mo. — Henry v. Gibson, 55 Mo.
570.
65. Conn. — Huntington v. Newport
News & M. V. Co., 61 A. 59, 78
Conn. 35.
68. Wis.— Duras v. Keller, 186 N.W.
149, 176 Wis. 88.
67. U.S.— Swift & Co. v. U. S., Ajpp.
D.C., 48 S.Ct. 311, 276 U.S. 811. 72
L.Ed. 587 — Fleming v. Warshaw-
sky & Co., CC.A.I1L, 123 <F.2d 622
— Corpus Juris quoted in Woods
Bros. Const Co. v. Yankton Coun-
ty, C.C.A.SJX, 54 F.2d 304, 308.
Ariz.— Wall v. Superior Court of
Yavapni County, 89 P.2d 624, 53
Ariz. 344.
Ark. — Vaughn v. Brown, 40 S.W.23
996, 184 Ark. 185.
Cal.— Dietrichson v. Western Ix>an &
Building Co., 11 P.2d.64, 12-3 Cal.
App.-358.
Ga.— Estes v. Estes, 14 S.E.2d 681,
192 Ga. 94.
Ky. — Corpus juris cited in Kentucky
Utilities Co. v. Steenman, 141 S.
W.2d 26-5, 269, 283 Ky. 317.
Or.— Schmidt v. Oregon Gold Mining
Co., 40 P. 406, 28 Or. 9, 52 Am.S.B.
750.
Tex. — Logan v. Mauk, Civ.App., 126
S.W.2d 513, error dismissed — ^Dick-
son v. McLaughlan, Civ.App., 51 S.
W.2d 628, error refused— Posey v.
Plains Pipe Line Co., Civ.A-pp., 39
S.W.2d 1100, error dismissed—
Corpus Juris quoted in Duke v
Gilbreath, Qiv.App., 10 S.W.3d 412
414, error refused.
34 C.J. p 134 note 52.
__l errors going to the merit* and
remedial on appeal are waived by
consent to a decree.— Walling v. Mil-
ler C.C.A.Minn., 13$ F.2d 629, certio-
rari denied 64 S.Ct 781, 321 U.S. 784,
88 -L.EO. 1076.
Waiver of practice requirement
A practice requirement that affida-
vit or other pleading be filed by one
of parties to action before entry of
ludgment by parties* agreement is
for other party's benefit and may be
waived, and judgment so entered is
valid between parties. — De Lange v.
Cones, 19 N.E.2d 850, 215 Ind. 355.
porm of action
N.Y.— Curran v. Hosey, 1*8 N.Y.S.
910, 153 AppJDiv. 557.
68. U.S.— Corpus Jtui» quoted to
Woods Bros. Const Co. v. Yankton
County, C.CJU3.D., 54 F.2d 304,
•308. ,__
Ky. — Corpus Juris cited in Kentucky
Utilities Co. v. Steenman, 141 S.
W.2d 265, 269, 283 Ky. 317.
Tex.— Corpus Jnils looted in Duke
v. Gilbreath, Civ.App., 10 S.W.Sd
412, 414.
34 C.J. p 134 note 53.
69. U.S.— Harniska v. Dolph, Alas-
ka, 133 -F. 158, 66 C.C.A. 224.
Ga— Corpus Juris quoted in -Estes v
Estes, 14 S.B.2d 681, 68*3, 192 Ga.
94.
Waiver of trial by Jury generally see
Juries §§ 84-113.
70. Kan.— Feight v. Thisler 114 P
249, 84 Kan. 185.
Judgment on admissions in pleadings
see infra § 186.
71. 111.— Cteines v. Heaton, 100 in
317
Aipp. 26, affirmed 64 N.E. 10S1, 195
111. 479.
Pa.— Laughner v. Jennings, 1 Pa.
Dist. 669.
72. Kan.— Feight V. Thisler. 114 P.
249, 84 Kan. 185.
Pa.— JCox v. Henry, 36 Pa. 445.
34 C.J. P 1'35 note 59.
Acceptance or rejection of offer gen-
erally see infra 8 182.
73. Ga.— Barefield v. Bryan, « Ga.
463.
N.Y. — Connecticut Blower Co. v.
Thatcher. 176 N.Y.S. 422, 106 Misc.
623.
34 C.J. p 135 note 60.
74. Ky.— Maxwell v. Dudley, 15
Bush 403.
34 C.J. p 135 note 61.
Admissions, tender, or offer of judg-
ment as affecting costs see Costs,
§§ 76-9-3.
Proceedings to enforce mechanic's
liens
Statutes relating to offers of judg-
ment and the effect thereof are ap-
plicable to proceedings for the en-
forcement of mechanics' liens. — Ken-
nedy v. McKone, 41 N.T.S. 782, 10
App.Div. 88 — 40 C.J. p 500 note 4.
75. N.Y.— Beards v. Wheeler, 11
Hun 639, appeal dismissed 7S N.
Y. 213.
34 C.J. p 135 note -62.
76. N.Y.— Kantrowitz v. Kulla, Ifc
H.Y.Civ.Proc- 74t 20 Abb.N.Ca45U
321.
34 C.J. P 135 note 63.
Judgments by confession generally
see supra §§ 134-173.
§ 180
JUDGMENTS
medial ana should be liberally construed, so as to
support the judgment," but a judgment entered on
an offer of judgment can be supported only in cas-
es falling within, and on compliance with, the terms
of the statute.78 Such statutes do not prevent de-
fendant from denying liability in whole or in part
on instruments made the basis of a suit against him,
or prevent his tendering into court the amount he
owes plaintiff, or impose on him the duty of bring-
ing plaintiff into court to accept or refuse his ten-
der.™ Where defendant in his answer admitted an
amount due but claimed a set-off, with an offer to
confess judgment for the balance, judgment for the
amount confessed instead of the full amount is er-
ror in the absence of any proof of the set-off.80
§ 180. Authority to Offer
The offer on which a valid Judgment Is entered must
have been made by the defendant or by his authority.
In order to support a judgment, the offer on
which it was entered must have been made by de-
fendant or by his authority.81 In the absence of
statutory authority one joint debtor or partner has
no power to make an offer in behalf of his joint
debtor or copartner.82 Under joint debtor acts it
has been broadly held that there is no statutory au-
thority allowing one joint debtor or partner to make
an offer in behalf of his joint debtor or copartner,88
although there is also authority to the effect that
one defendant, a joint debtor, served with process,
may, by an offer of judgment bind his codefendant
not served, as to joint property.84
49 C.J.S.
§ 181, Form and Sufficiency of Offer
An offer of Judgment must conform to statutory re-
qulrements and ordinarily must be formally made In
open court.
In order to support a judgment, the offer must
conform to statutory requirements.^ Under some
statutes an offer of judgment is required to be made
in court,8* and it has been held that the offer must
be made by serving or filing a formal written of-
fer>87 signed by the party or his attorney.88 The
offer must be such that plaintiff may immediately
enter judgment on it;*» it must be unconditional*0
and leave no fact to be determined in order to au-
thorize the judgment.91' Under some statutes judg-
ment can be entered pursuant thereto only when
the offer was made after action brought and while
it is pending;92 and it has been suggested that ob-
taining judgment on offer should not be permitted
to be used as a means of avoiding or evading com-
pliance with the statutory safeguards thrown around
judgments by confession.93 Another view, however,
is that courts cannot enforce a preference between
different statutory ways of obtaining judgments,
and that a judgment which is free from fraud and
regular under the statute pursuant to which it was
entered must be supported, although it would be ir-
regular or unauthorized if dependent on the provi-
sions of some other statute.94
The offer may be for the full amount claimed;
it need not be for a smaller amount offered in com-
promise of the claim.95 An offer contained in an
answer has been deemed a good and sufficient stat-
utory offer.96 Other courts, however, hold that sub-
77. Ohio. — Adams v. Phifer, 25 Ohio
•St. SOI.
73. N.Y.— MdParren v. St John, 14
Hun 387.
34 C.J. p 135 note 65.
Time for filing1
Nonresident defendant's offer of
Judgment in partition proceedings
need not be filed ten days prior to
grant of order of reference as they
do not come within the (provisions of
civil practice act section so requir-
ing.—Cahill v. Cahlll, 326 N.Y.S. 199,
131 Misc. 99.
79. Ark. — Magnolia Grocer Co. v.
Farrar, 115 S.W.2d 1094, 195 Ark.
1069.
80. Ark.— Barnett v. Wright, 182 S.
W. 511, 129 Ark. 170.
81. N.Y.— Bush v. O'Brien, 68 N.E.
106, 164 N.Y. 205.
34 C.J. P 138 note 86.
.-82. N.Y.— Garrison v. Garrison, ff7
How.Pr. 271.
S3. N.T.— Garrison v. Garrison, su-
pra.
84. N.Y. — Emery v. Emery. 9 How.
Pr. 130.
34 C.J. p 1-38 note 91.
85. CaL— Sacramento County v.
Central Pac. R. Co., 61 CaL 250.
Me.— Hunt v. Elliott, 20 Me. 312.
34 C.J. p 135 note 68.
Consent in admission of service
that Judgment be entered against
defendant for the relief demanded in
the complaint has been held equiva-
lent to an offer of Judgment. — Cahill
v. Cahill, 226 N.Y.S. 199, 131 Misc.
99.
86. Mass.— Madden v. Brown, 97
Mass. 148.
34 C.J. p 136 note 69.
g7. N.Y.— Bridenbecker v. Mason, 16
How.Pr. 205.
88. N.T.— Bridenbecker Y. Mason,
supra.
34 C.J. P 136 note 71.
89. N.T. — Griffiths v. De iForest, 16
Abb.Pr. 292, 25 How.Pr. 3-36.
34 C.J. p 136 note 72.
318
90. N.Y.— Pinckney v. Childs, 20 N.
Y.Super. 660.
91. N.Y.— Pinckney v. Childs, su-
pra.
92. iCal. — Crane v. Hirshfelder, 17
CaL 582.
34 C.J. p 136 note 75.
93. Cal. — Crane v. Hirshfelder, su-
pra.
34 C.J. p 136 note 76.
Judgments by confession generally
see supra §§ 134-171
94. Mo.— Boyd v. J. M. Ward Furni-
ture, Stove & Carpet Co., 38 Mo.
App. 210.
•34C.J. p.136 note 77.
95. N.Y.— Ross v. Bridge, 15 Abb.
Pr. 150, 24 How.Pr. 163.
34 C.J. p 137 note 78.
98. Or. — Hammond v. Northern Pa-
cific R. Co., 31 P. 299, 2T3 Or. 157.
34 C.J. p 137 note 79.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
182
stantially similar statutes contemplate a separate
independent offer of judgment, and that it cannot
properly be embodied in the answer or other plead-
ing.97 Judgments on admissions or confessions
made in the answer are governed by different stat-
utes and considerations.98 The court can in no
event direct a verdict for defendant where, in his
answer, he offered to permit judgment in plaintiff's
favor in an amount specified." An insufficient of-
fer, not made in conformity with the statute, will
not put plaintiff to his election to accept or reject
it,1 and, if plaintiff does accept and enter judgment
thereon, such judgment is unauthorized and irregu-
lar, and should be vacated.2 In a proper case the
court may allow defendant to amend his offer.8
§ 182. Acceptance or Rejection, and
Withdrawal of Offer
An offer of Judgment must be accepted within the
period and In the manner prescribed by statute.
Defendant is not bound by an offer to allow judg-
ment for the sum or relief specified unless the offer
is accepted within the time limited by statute4 or
fixed by the court.5 If not accepted within the time
prescribed, the offer is deemed withdrawn,6 and can-
not be considered by the court or jury? or allowed
in any way to affect the judgment,8 except as to
costs, as is discussed in Costs §§ 76-87. An offer
not accepted in time will not support a judgment,9
and after expiration of the statutory period plaintiff
is not entitled to accept the offer and to have judg-
ment entered thereon,10 particularly not after
trial.11 A statutory offer of judgment is not a ten-
der which must be kept good and may be accepted
at any time,1* and differs from an offer set up in
the answer, which may operate as an admission or
confession of judgment.18
The offer as made and authorized by statute must
be unconditionally accepted, without reservation,14
in the manner prescribed by the statute, as by filing-
or serving a written notice of acceptance,15 or by an
oral acceptance in open court in the presence of de-
fendant.16 Entry of judgment on an offer without
a formal acceptance, however, has been held to be
merely an irregularity not affecting the validity of
the judgment,17 and, where there was no written
acceptance of the offer, entry of judgment has been
deemed the equivalent of a due acceptance.18
An express rejection is unnecessary; no affirma-
tive action on the part of plaintiff is required un-
less he elects to accept the offer.« While it has-
been broadly stated that a statutory offer of judg-
ment may be withdrawn prior to acceptance,20 and
it seems that the court has power to allow a de-
fendant to withdraw an offer made under a mis-
take,21 it has been held that plaintiff is entitled to
the whole of the time limited within which to ac-
cept the offer, and defendant cannot deprive him of
this right by withdrawing the offer before plain-
tiffs right to act on it has expired.22 Until the
offer has been rejected, or the time for accepting-
it has expired, defendant can take no step in the
action adverse to plaintiff which is inconsistent with
giving effect to the offer, if plaintiff shall accept
it.2*
97. Wis. — Bourda v. Jones, 85 N.W.
•671, 110 Wis. 52.
34 C.J. p 137 note 80.
98. Iowa. — City of Davenport v.
(Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., «38 Iowa
633.
Judgment on admissions In pleading's
see infra § 185.
99. Or. — Easton v. Quackenbush, 168
P. 631,- 86 Or. 374.
1. Ky. — Maxwell v. Dudley, 13 Bush
403.
34 C.J..p 138 note 83.
2. N.Y.— Pinckney v. Childs, 20 N.
T. Super. 660.
3. N.Y.— Stark v. Stark, 2 How.Pr.
<360.
34 C.J. P 1.38 note 85.
4. Colo.— Hagerman v. Mutual Life
Ins. Co., 103 P. 276, 45 Colo. 459.
Kan. — Johnson v. Wamego Tip., 105
P. 530, 81 Kan. 259.
34 C.J. p 138 note 95.
a Me. — Gilman v. Pearson, 47 Me.
352.
34 C.J. p 138 note 94. i
& N.C. — Doggett Lumber Co. v. Per-
ry, 196 S.B. 831, 218 N.C. 5-33.
34 C.J. p 138 note 96.
7. "Wis. — Tullgren v. Karger, 181 N.'
W. 232, 173 Wis. 288.
34 C.J. p 189 note 97.
a N.T.— Marble v. Lewis, 53 Barb.
432, -36 How.Pr. «337.
34 C.J. p 139 note 9*8.
9. Kan. — Johnson v. Waxnego Tp.,
105 P. 530, 81 Kan. 259.
34 C.J. p 139 note 2.
10. Wis.-^Smith v. Thewalt, 105 N.
W. 662, 126 Wis. 176.
34 C.J. p 189 note 3.
11. Mo.— Maize v. Big Creek Coal
Co., Ap|pM 20-3 S.W. 6*33.
34 C.J. p 139 note 4.
12. Iowa. — Benson v. Chicago & N.
W. R. Co., 84 N.W. 1028, 113 Iowa
179.
Mo.— -Maize v. Big Creek Coal Co.,
App., 203 S.W. 633.
13. Mo.— -Maize v. Big Creek Coal
Co., supra.
34 C.J. p 139 note 6.
14. N.T. — Freudenheim v. Raduzin-
er, *1 N.Y.S. 194, 10 Misc. 500.
319
Lumbering-
11
Wis. — Sellers v. Union
Co., 36 Wis. 398.
34 C.J. p 141 note 24.
15. Ind. — Homer v. Pilklngton,
Ind. 440.
Neb.— Becker v. Breen, 94 N.W. 614,
68 Neb. 379.
16L Ind. — Homer v. Pilkington, 11
Ind. 440.
17. N.Y.— White v. Bogart, 78 N.Y..
256.
34 CJ. p 141 note 23.
1SL N.Y.— Cahill v. Cahill, 226 N..
Y.S. 199, 131 Misc. 99.
19. CaL — Scammon T, Dento, 14 P-
98, 72 CaL 393.
34 C.J. p 140 note 8.
20. Mo.— Haffner T. Tainter, 204 a.
W. 966, 200 Mo.App. 1.
34 C.J. p 140 note 10.
21. KY.— McVicar v. Keating, 46 N~
Y.S. 298, 19 App.Div. 581.
22. N.Y. — McVicar v. Keating, su-
pra.
34 C.X p 140 note 9.
23. N.Y.— U. S. Mortgage & Trust
§ 182
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S;
Once plaintiff has made his election either to ac-
cept or to reject the offer, his election is binding,24
and, after expressly refusing the offer, plaintiff can-
not thereafter withdraw the refusal and accept the
offer, over defendant's objection, although the time
limit has not expired.25 Where the case goes to
trial before expiration of the time for acceptance,
and before any action on the offer by plaintiff, it has
been held under different statutes that the offer be-
comes ineffectual for any purpose,26 that the offer
cannot be accepted,27 and that plaintiff in effect
elects not to accept;28 but it has also been held that
the offer may be accepted during the progress of
the trial.29 Where plaintiff rejects both a pre-
action tender of a stated amount in settlement of
his claim, and also an offer of judgment in the
same amount, but on the trial plaintiff introduces
no evidence to show that more is due, judgment is
properly rendered for only the amount tendered and
offered^
Where, after the making of an offer of judg-
ment, plaintiff amends his complaint by omitting
some of the causes of action and reducing the re-
covery sought, the offer ceases to be binding or
conclusive on either party, and becomes for all pur-
poses nugatory.31 Where, however, an amendment
to a complaint is one of form only, and the cause
of action and the recovery sought remain the same,
an offer of judgment theretofore made in the ac-
tion remains binding on the parties, notwithstand-
ing such amendment.32
§ 183. Entry of Judgment
Ordinarily on due acceptance of the offer and com-
pliance with statutory requirements the plaintiff Is enti-
tled to have judgment entered without trial. The Judg-
ment must conform to the terms, of the tender or offer.
On proper acceptance of an offer of judgment,
and on compliance with all statutory requirements,
plaintiff is entitled to have judgment entered, in
accordance with the offer, without a trial.33 Gen-
erally such entry may be made without application
to the court, by the clerk acting ministerially,3* un-
less the offer and acceptance are made in a case of
the class where application to the court is required
to be made.86 If plaintiff neglects to enter judg-
ment after accepting the offer, judgment may be
entered on application of defendant36 Where for
any reason an application to the court is necessary
when an offer to allow judgment has been made, the
party receiving the offer may go to the court and
ask and obtain on the offer such final directions as
are necessary to give effect to the offer and perfect
a judgment thereon.37 As the clerk acts minis-
terially, he must follow closely the directions of the
statute or the judgment will be unauthorized and
void.38 Judgment may be entered before the re-
turn term of the writ89 Proof of service of the
summons need not be filed.40 The judgment as en-
tered must conform to the offer accepted.41
§ 184.
Construction, Operation, and Ef-
fect
An offer of Judgment and Its acceptance are to be
construed as a contract, and the Judgment entered there-
on Is to be given effect In fixing the rights of the par-
ties as of the date on which the offer was made; entry
of Judgment disposes of the issues tendered by the plead-
ings and operates to terminate the action.
An offer of judgment and its acceptance consti-
tute a contract,42 and together with the judgment
entered thereon are to be construed and given effect
according to the state of the .pleadings at the time
the offer was made.43 The rights of the parties are
Co. v. Hodgson, «8 N.Y.S. 1132, 28
Misc. 447.
34 C.J. p 140 note 12.
24. Iowa, — Benson v. Chicago & N.
W. R. Co., 84 N.W. 1028, 113 Iowa
179.
25. Iowa. — Benson v. Chicago & N.
W. R. Co., supra.
34 C.J. p 140 note 13.
26. Minn.— Mansfield v. Fleck, 23
Minn. 61.
34 C.J. ip 141 note 14.
37. Wis.— Smith v. Thewalt, 105 N.
W. 662, 126 Wis. 176.
34 C.J. p 141 note 17.
28. N.Y.— Corning v. Radley, 54 N.
Y.S. 565, 25 Misc. 318.
34 C.J. ip 141 note 16.
29. Mo. — Haffner v. Tainter, 204 S.
W. 966, 200 Mo.App. L
34 C.J. p 141 nate 15.
30. U.S.— Phillips Petroleum Co. v.
Rau Const. Co., C.O.A.Mo., 130 F.2d
499, certiorari denied Bau Const.
Co. v. Phillips -Petroleum Qo., -63
S.Ct. 260, 317 U.S. 6*85, 87 -L.Ed. 549,
rehearing denied 63 S.Ct 434, 317
U.S. 71-3, 87 JCtBdL 567.
31. N.T. — Woelfle v. Schmenger, 12
N..Y.Civ.Proc. 1312.
32: N.Y. — Woelfle v. 8chmengerf| su-
pra,
33. N.Y.— -Van Allen v. Glass, 16 N.
Y.S. 261, 60 Hun 546, 21 N.Y.Civ.
Proc. 12*7.
34 CJ. p 141 note 29.
34. Cal. — Old Settlers' Inv. Co. v.
White, 110 P. 922, 158 Cal. 236.
34 C.J. p 141 note 30.
35. N.Y.— Bathgate v. Haskin, 63 N.
Y. 261— Pflster v. Stumm, 27 N.Y.
S. 1000, 7 Misc. 526.
Application and order for Judgment
generally see supra { 104.
36. N.Y.— Abel v. Bischott, 90 N.Y.
S. 990, 99 App.Dlv. 248.
320
37. N.Y.— Bathgate v, Haskin, 63 N.
Y. 261.
38. Cal.— Old Settlers' Inv. Co. v.
White, 110 P. 922, 158 Cal. 2&6—
Crane v. Hirshfelder, 17 Cat 582.
39. Mo. — Boyd v. J. M. Ward (Fur-
niture, Stove & Carpet Co., 38 Mo.
App. 210.
40. N.Y.— Lindsley v. Van Cort-
landt, 22 N.Y.S. 222, 67 Hun 146,
affirmed 37 N.E. 825, 142 N.Y. 682.
41. N.Y.— Abel v. Bischoff, 90 N.Y.
S. 990, 99 App.Div. 248.
Judgment must "be responsive to ten-
der
Wls. — Emerson v. Pier, SO N.W. 1100,
105 Wis. 161.
42. N'.Y.-JStillweU v. StillweU, 80
N.Y.S. 961, 81 Hun 392, 24 N.Y.
Civ.Proc. 124, 1 N.Y.Ann.Cas. 41.
34 C.J. p 142 note 40.
43. N.Y.— Tompkins v. Ives, 86 N.Y.
75.
34 CJ. p 142 note 41.
49 C-J-S.
JUDGMENTS
185
fixed as of that date,44 and no. further inquiry as
to the relation of the parties is permissible.45 A
counterclaim thereafter filed or served cannot be
considered or given effect,4^ and, on the other hand,
the cause of action set up in such counterclaim is
not barred by the judgment, but may be recovered
in a subsequent action,4? although acceptance of the
offer was made after the counterclaim was plead-
ed.48
The action is terminated by entry of the judg-
ment49 and the court has no power to permit plain-
tiff to enter judgment on the offer and to continue
the action for the recovery of the balance of his
claim.50 An acceptance of an offer .of judgment
disposes of the issues tendered by the pleadings,51
and a judgment on a general offer concludes plain-
tiff from bringing a new action for any part of the
claim embraced in the complaint, and which might
have been litigated in the former action.52 Under
joint debtor acts a judgment may br: entered on an
offer of judgment made by one of several joint
debtors without affecting or barring the remedy
against the other debtors.58
§ 185. Admission in Pleading
a. In general
44. N.Y.— XJ.S. Mortgage & Trust Co.
v. Hodgson, 58 N.T.S. 1132, 28
Misc. 447, affirmed U. S. Trust Co.
v. Hodgson, 61 N.Y.S. 868, 30 Misc.
84.
34 C.J. p 142 note 42.
45. N.Y.— Abel v. Bischoff, 90 N.
Y.S. 990, 99 App.Div. 24'8.
48. N.T.— -U. S. Mortgage & Trust
Co. v. Hodgson, 58 N.Y.«S. 1132, 28
Misc. 447, affirmed U. S. Trust Co.
v. Hodgson, 61 N.Y.S. 868, 30 Misc.
84.
34 C.J. p 142 note 44.
47. N.Y.— Tompkins v. Ives, -36 N.
Y. 75, -3 Abb.Pr.,N.S., 267, 1
Transcr.A. 266 — Kautz v. Vanden-
burgh, 28 N.Y.S. 1046, 77 Hun 591
— Fteldings v. Mills, 15 N.Y.Super.
489.
48. N.Y.— -Tompklns v. Ives, 36 N.Y.
75, 3 Abb.Pr.,N.S., 267, 1 Transcr.
A. 266 — Kautz v. Vandenburgh, 28
N.Y.S. 1046, 77 Hun 591.
49. N.Y.— U. .S. Trust Co. v. Hodg-
son, 61 N.Y.S. 868, 30 Misc. 84—
Freudenheim v. Raduziner, 31 N.
Y.S. 194, 10 Misc. 500.
50. N.Y.— Walsh v. Empire Brick &
Supply Co., 85 N.Y.S. 528, 90 App.
Div. 498 — 'Freudenheim v. Raduzin-
er, 31 N.Y.-S. 194. 10 Misc. 500.
51. N.Y.^Collins v. Harris, $ N.Y.
St 162.
34 C.J. p 142 note 49.
40 C.J.S.-21
52. N.Y.— Robinson
Hun 325.
34 C.J. p 142 note 50.
53. N.Y.— Kantrowitz v. Kulla, 13
N.Y.Civ.Proc. 74, 20 Abb.N.Cas.
<321.
34 C.J. (p 1*42, note 52.
54. U.S. — Wark v. Brvin Press Cor-
poration, O.C.A.I1L, 48 F.2d 152.
Mich.— Corpus Juris quoted in De-
troit Trust Co. v. Smith, 240 N.W.
12, 13, 256 Mich. 376.
34 C.J. p 143 note 54.
55. Idaho. — Corpus Juris cited in
Linch v. Perrine, 4 P.2d 353, 355,
51 Idaho 152.
Mich. — Corpus Juris quoted in De-
troit Trust Co. v. Smith, 240 N.W.
12, 13, 256 Mich. 376.
Pa.— Cain v. Redlich, 164 A. 794, 310
Pa. *8.
Utah. — Corpus Juris cited in Gatrell
v. Salt 'Lake County, 149 P.2d 827,
831, 106 Utah 409.
34 C.J. p 143 note 55.
56. Mich.— Corpus Juris quoted in
Detroit Trust Co. v. Smith, 240 N.
W. 12, 13, 256 Mich. 376.
Utah. — Corpus Juris cited in Gatrell
v. Salt Lake County, 149 P.2d 827,
831, 106 Utah 409.
34 C.J. p 143 note 56.
57. Mich.— Corpus Juris quoted in
Detroit Trust Co. v. Smith, 240
S.W. 12, 13, 256 Mich. 376.
84 C.J. -p 143 note 57. *
b. Admission of part of demand
c. Set-off or counterclaim
a. In General
Judgment may be entered for either the plaintiff or
the defendant on a clear and unequivocal admission of
liability in the pleadings of the opposing party. In a
proper case, under some practice, Judgment may be en-
tered by the clerk of court or prothonotary.
Where defendant in his pleadings admits liability
on the cause of action set up against him, plaintiff
is entitled to have judgment entered in accordance
with such admission,54 provided the admission is
distinct, unequivocal, and unconditional,55 and it is
clear that no issue of fact is to be tried56 and no
serious question of law is to be argued.57 Such
judgment may be entered on motion,58 without a
trial on the merits,59 without evidence in support
of the admission,60 and without regard to which
party makes the motion;61 and defendant cannot
introduce evidence which contradicts the admissions
in his answer.62 It is the duty of the court to ren-
der judgment for plaintiff in accordance with such
admission, regardless of an adverse verdict ;63 and
Marks,
19
58. La.— Trank
Ann. 184.
v. Hardee, 22 La.
llich. — Corpus Juris quoted in De-
troit Trust Co. v. Smith, 240 N.W.
12, 13, 256 Mtch. 278,
Motion denied under facts. — Pfei-
fer v. Pfeifer, 5 Pa.Dist. & Co. 310,
20 Sch.Les.Rec. 212*
59. Mich. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Detroit Trust Co. v. Smith, 240 N.
W. 12, 13, 256 Mich. 376.
34 C.J. p 143 note 59.
60. Ind.— New Albany & V. Plank
Road Co. v. Stallcup, 62 Ind. 345.
Mich.— Corpus Juris quoted in De-
troit Trust Co. v. Smith, 240 N.W.
12, 13, 256 Mich. 376.
Where answer was composed sole-
ly of negatives pregnant, Judgment
may be awarded without evidence to
support it, since evidence is unneces-
sary unless allegations of petition
are put in issue -by answer. — White
v. City of Williamsburg, 280 S.W.
486, 213 Ky. 90.
61. N.T.— U. S. Trust Co. of New
York v, Wenzell, 19 N.Y.S.2d 448,
17*3 Misc. 998, affirmed 18 N.Y.S.
2d 1001, 258 App.Div. 1046, appeal
denied 19 N.Y.S.2d 770, 259 App.
Div. 713, affirmed U. S. Trust Co.
v. Wenzell, 30 N.E.2d 727, 284 N.Y.
693.
62. Ind.— New Albany & V. Plank
Road Co. v. Stallcup. 62 Ind. 345.
Mich. — Corpus Juris guoted in De-
troit Trust Co. v. Smith, 240 N.W.
12, 13. 256 Mich. 276.
63. Ind.— New Albany & V. Plan*
Road Co. v. Stallcup, 62 Ind. 345.
321
§ 185
JUDGMENTS
. 49 (J.J.S-
it is error to enter judgment for defendant.64 Such
an admission, however, admits only the traversable
allegations of the declaration, and the amount of the
debt or damages confessed,65 and no greater sum
can be recovered without further proof,66
•
Admission by plaintiff. Where plaintiff in his
pleading admits liability to defendant, and offers to
pay it, judgment may be entered thereon in favor of
defendant,67 or at least credit, to the amount of
such admission, should be given defendant in en-
tering judgment for plaintiff.68
Entry of judgment by clerk or prothonotary. Un-
der statutes authorizing plaintiff to take judgment
for the amount admitted to be due by the affidavit
of defense, it has been held that in a proper case
the judgment may be entered by the prothonotary,69
and the prothonotary's authority may extend to en-
try of judgment on an admission of part of the de-
mand.70 Under statutory provisions authorizing
the clerk of court to enter judgment on default, the
clerk may not enter judgment where the defendant
admits the allegations of the complaint but there'
is no default,71 nor may judgment on the basis of
admissions in the answer be entered before expira-
tion of the time to amend.72
b. Admission of Part of Demand
Where the defendant's pleadings admit part of the
plaintiff's claim to be due, the plaintiff may have judg-
ment for the amount so admitted; at common law he
may not then sue for the balance, but under some stat-
utes he may have a Judgment or order for the amount
admitted and then proceed to trial for the balance.
Generally, if defendant's answer admits the jus-
tice of a portion of plaintiff's demand, the latter
is entitled to judgment for at least the amount so
admitted to be due, and a judgment for less, or a
judgment for defendant is erroneous.73 At com-
mon law and in the absence of statute or court rule
to the contrary, plaintiff has no right to enter judg-
ment for the part admitted, and then to proceed to
trial for the balance of his claim ;74 but by statute
in many jurisdictions judgment may be entered be-
fore trial for the part admitted and a trial had for
the part disputed.75 Under this class of statutes
two judgments may be rendered in the same case,
both for plaintiff, or one for plaintiff and one for
defendant, according to the result of the trial of
the controverted portion of plaintiffs claim.76
Where defendant has admitted a part of the claim
to be due, and then proceeds under different statu-
tory provisions to offer to confess judgment on
condition that the judgment be in full of the de-
mands against him, such offer does not affect the
right of plaintiff to have judgment entered for the
part admitted in accordance with the first men-
tioned statutory provisions;77 but the offer, if re-
fused by plaintiff, does not defeat the defendant's
right to contest the entire claim.7*
Under other statutes an "order," as distinguished
from a "judgment," may be entered requiring de-
fendant to satisfy the part of plaintiff's claim which
he has admitted,79 or an order may be entered re-
esT "N.Tt.— Schenck v. Fischer, 1-37 N.
Y.S. 857.
34 C.J. p 14-3 note S3.
65. N.H.— -Kelley v. Dover, 18 N.H.
56$.
63. N.H. — Kelley v. Dover, supra.
67. Iowa. — Farwell v. Des Moines
Brick Mfg. Co., 66 N.W. 176, 97
Iowa 286, 35 L.R.A. 63.
68. Ky.— Allen v. Hodge, 106 6.W.
255, 32 Ky.L. 509.
N.Y.-JFish v. Hahn, 108 N.T.S. T82,
124 App.-Div. 173.
34 C.J. p 143 note 68.
69. Pa.— Cain v. Redlich, 164 A. 794,
310 Pa. 68.
70. Pa.— Cain v. Redlich, supra.
71. N.Y.— Valentine & Co. v. Tara-
bocchia, 14 N.T.S.2d '331, 171 Misc.
1056.
72. N.Y.— Valentine & Co. v. Tara-
bocchia, supra.
73. Ky.— Smith v. Burchell, 181 S.
W.2d 48, 297 Ky. 707— Louisville
Clothing Co. v. Earned, 80 6/W.2d
549, 258 Ky. 442— Martin v. Provi-
dent Life & Accident Ins. Co., 47
S.W.2d 524, 242 Ky. 667.
La.— Villere & Co. v. Latter, 171 So.
705, 186 La. 91.
N.C. — Corpus Juris cited in Mead-
ows Fertilizer Co. v. {Farmers'
Trading Co., 165 S.B. 694, 203 N.C.
261.
34 C.J. (p 143 note 70.
74. Ala. — Henderson v. Henry, 6
Ala. 361.
Pa^-Dodds v. Blackstock, 1 Pittsb.
46.
34 C.J. p 144 note 74.
75. 111.— Central Trust Co. of Illi-
nois v. Hagen, 171 N.E. 631, 339
111. 384— U. S. Fidelity & Guaran-
ty Co. v. Martin Auto Parts Co.,
15 N.E.2d 913, 296 IlLApp. 6>39.
Ky.— Martin v. Provident Life & Ac-
cident Ins. Co., 47 S.W.2d 524, 242
Ky. 667.
N.C.— Meadows Fertilizer Co. v.
•Farmers' Trading Co., 165 S.3B. 694,
203 N.C. 261.
Wash.— Corpus Juris quoted in Simp-
son v. C. P. iCox Corporation, 8 P.
2d 424, 425, 426, 167 Wash. 34.
34 C.J. p 144 note 77.
76. Pa.— <Jity of 'Philadelphia v. Sec-
ond & Third Sts. Pass. B. Co., 2
Pa.Dist. 705, 13 Pa.Co. 580.
Wash.— Corpus Juris quoted in Simp-
322
son v. C. P. Cox Corporation, 8 P.
2d 424, 426, 167 Wash. 34.
77. Ky.— Martin v. Provident Life &
Accident Ins. Co., 47 S.W.2d 524,
242 Ky. 667.
The offer does not affect the state
of the pleadings, and admissions
there made remain an appropriate
basis for rendition of judgment for
plaintiff as to the part admitted un-
der the statutes relating to Judg-
ments on admissions in the plead-
ing's.— Martin v. Provident Life &
Accident Ins. Co., supra.
78, Ky.— Martin v. Provident Life &
Accident Ins. Co.,
79. S.C. — Malloy v. Douglass, 101 S.
<E. 825, 113 S.C. 384.
34 C.J. p 145 notes 79, 80.
Erroneous motion for Judgment
Where the proper motion is one
for an "order" directing payment of
the portion of the claim admitted,
the fact that plaintiff falls .into a
technical error by moving for "Judg-
ment" for such part will not preclude
the court from granting an "order"
binding on defendant to pay the por-
tion admitted to be due. — Phenix
49 C-J-S.
JUDGMENTS
186
quiring the defendant to pay the amount into
court,80 without prejudice to a continuation of the
action as to the remaining issues, which order may
be enforced by the court as it enforces a judgment
or provisional remedy.81 In its discretion, under
some statutes, the court may refuse to enter judg-
ment for the part admitted in advance of the final
judgment on the whole case,82 and an order may be
entered which merely declares that plaintiffs claim
shall be deemed established as to the part admitted,
the action allowed to proceed as to the remainder of
the claim, and, on termination of such action, the
judgment then entered including, in addition to any
matters determined in the action, the amount of
plaintiffs claim that was admitted.88
To entitle plaintiff to such a preliminary judg-
ment or order under the statutes, the admission
must be unconditional,84 and amount to a plain,
explicit, and unequivocal admission that a definite
sum or portion of the relief sought is due to plain-
tiff,85 although it is not necessary to specify the
particular items of plaintiffs claim or account which
are admitted;86 and, where defendant in his answer
unequivocally admits that he owes a portion of the
claim, it has been held that he may not by offer-
ing to pay such portion only on condition that it
be accepted as full payment of the entire claim de-
feat plaintiffs right to have an order directing de-
fendant to pay the part unequivocally admitted to be
due.87 The remedy is stringent and should be ap-
plied with proper caution.88 The judgment must
be strictly confined to the amount clearly and fairly
admitted to be due.89 Failure to deny is a sufficient
admission under some statutes.90 In a case where
the cause of action is on an entire demand, and the
whole claim is disputed, the statute does not apply,
and if, as a result of error, or for other reason, a
judgment is entered for a smaller amount than
plaintiff claims, this, while the judgment remains in
force, is a full settlement of the whole claim of
plaintiff on such cause of action.91
c. Set-Off or Counterclaim
The plaintiff or the defendant may be entitled to
judgment as to that portion of a claim admitted by the
other wh$re the defendant has filed a counterclaim or
Its. equivalent.
Where defendant pleads a set-off or counterclaim,
but no other answer or defense, it is an admission
of his liability for so much of plaintiffs demand as
is in excess of the alleged set-off or counterclaim,
and for that excess plaintiff may be entitled, some-
times by virtue of statutory provisions, to take judg-
ment,92 and the action may be continued for trial
of the counterclaim.98 However, where the coun-
terclaim pleaded is sufficient, if sustained, to ex-
tinguish the whole of plaintiffs claim, an admis-
sion of part of it, as of one or more of several
causes of action joined in the complaint, does not
entitle plaintiff to judgment for the part admitted
in advance of the trial and final judgment94 De-
fendant is entitled to judgment on his counterclaim
to the extent of items admitted by plaintiff.95
§ 186. Submission on Agreed Statement of
Facts
Under some statutes, the court may render Judg-
ment In a case submitted on agreed facts, but the Judg-
ment must be In accordance with the facts agreed on.
Under statutes so providing, where the parties
agree as to the facts and submit the case to the
court for determination on such facts, the court may
enter judgment on the case so submitted.96 So,
Furniture Co. v. Daggett, 143 S.B.
220, 145 S.C. -357.
80. N.Y. — Dusenberry v. Woodward,
1 Abb.Pr. 443.
81. Wls. — Sellers v. Union Lumber-
ing Co., 86 Wis. 398.
34 C.J. p 145 note 82.
82. N.Y.— Cronin v. Tebo, 17 N.T.S.
•650, 63 Hun 190.
83. Cal.-L.ee v. De Forest 71 P.2d
285, 22 Cal.App.2d 351.
84. N.Y.— Foster v. Devlin. $ N.Y.
S. 605, S7 N.Y.Super. 120.
85. N:Y.— Dolan v. Petty, 6 -N.Y.Su-
•per. 678.
34 C.J. p 145 note 85.
86. Pa. — Roberts v. Sharp, 28 A.
1023, 161 Pa. 185.
34 C.J. p 145 note 86.
87. S.C.— Phenix Furniture .Qo. v.
Daggett, 14>3 S.E. 220, 145 S.C. 357.
88. N.Y.— Dolan Y. Petty, 6 N.Y.Su-
per. 673.
34 C.J. IP 146 note 87.
89. Pa.— United Oil Cloth Co. v.
Dash, 32 Pa.Super. 155.
34 C.J. p 146 note 88.
90. N.Y. — Tracy v. Humphrey, S
How.Pr. 155, 8 Code Rep. 190.
91. Ohio.— White v. Herndon, 15
Ohio Cir.Ct. 290—Snell v. W. A.
Banks Co., 16 Ohio Cir.Ct,N.S., 32,
affirmed 94 N.E. 1115, 83 Ohio St
464.
92. Pa.-^Chartiers Trust Co. v. Lin-
coln Gas Coal £0., 89 PittsbJLeg.
J. 77.
S.C.— Bomar v. Gantt, 16S S.B. 90,.
167 S.C. 139.
•34 C.J. p 146 note 92.
93. 0.C.-HFidelity Mut. Life Ins. Co.
V. Brown, 45 App.D.C. §79.
34 C.J. p 146 notes 94, $5.
323
94. Gff.Y.— Cronin v, Tebo, 17 N.Y.S.
650, 63 Hun 190.
34 C.J. p 146 note 95.
96. Iowa. — Hueston v. Pointer
Brewing Co., 269 N.W. 754, 222
Iowa 630.
Sum deposited in court
Where, in a suit by -plaintiff broker
against trustees and defendant bro-
ker for commissions, the trustees de-
posit a certain sum in court, conced-
ing their liability for that much and
relinquishing all rights thereto, and
where plaintiffs pleadings claim only
a portion of such sum, on defendant
broker's cross motion for partial
Judgment on the pleadings order
should be entered awarding him the
difference between the total sum de-
posited and the amount claimed by
plaintiff.— Traub v. Weinstein, 19 N.
Y.S.2d 243, 259 Aa?p.Div. 338.
96. Wls. — 'Luebke v. City of Water-
town, 284 N.W. 513, 230 Wis. 512.
§ 187
JUDGMENTS
49 C-J-S-
where a case is called for trial and certain matters
are admitted in court so as to settle controverted
questions well pleaded, it is not erroneous for the
court to render judgment on such admissions.97
Where the case is submitted on an agreed statement
of facts, the court should enter judgment in ac-
cordance with the facts agreed on,98 and the judg-
ment must be based on such agreed facts.9*
VDl JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT
GENERAL
§ 187. What Constitutes Judgment by De-
fault
In a strict sense a default Judgment is one taken
against a defendant who, having been duly summoned
in an action, fails to enter an appearance in time; but
the term is now usually applied where default occurs
after appearance as well as before, although such Judg-
ments are also designated "nil dicit."
Broadly speaking, a judgment goes by default
whenever, between the commencement of the suit
and its anticipated decision in court, either of the
parties omits to pursue, in the regular method, the
ordinary measures of prosecution or defense.1
However, as will be seen, this doctrine is most often
applied to defaults on the part of defendant; and,
strictly speaking, a "judgment by default" is one
taken against a defendant when, having been duly
summoned or cited in an action, he fails to enter an
appearance at the proper time.2 In this strict sense
the term is not properly applied to a judgment ren-
dered where a defendant, after appearance and plea,
withdraws his plea and abandons his defense,3 un-
less he stipulates that a judgment by default may be
entered;4 nor is it properly applied where defendant
fails to plead within the time limited after the over-
ruling of his demurrer.5 Nevertheless, the term
"judgment by default" is now generally applied to a
default made after an appearance as well as before,*
and may be entered where defendant fails to answer
or plead within the time allowed him for that pur-
pose, as discussed infra § 199, or fails to appear on
Conclusiveness and effect of stipu-
lated facts generally see C.J.S. ti-
tle Stipulations § 18, also 60 C.J.
p 83 note 66-p 84 note 77.
Judgment or decision in controver-
sies submitted to court without
action see Q.J.S. title Submission
of Controversies S 15, also 60 C.J.
p 687 notes 77-89.
Judicial act
In giving judgment on a legal ob-
ligation which the court finds to be
established by stipulated facts, the
court (performs a judicial act. — Pope
. v. U. S., CtCL, 65 S.Ct. 16, -323 U.S.
1, 89 L.E<L 8.
Facts in complaint and affidavits
Where the parties in legal effect
agree to submit the case on the facts
appearing from the complaint and
affidavits submitted on the return to
an order to show cause, the court
may enter judgment as on an agreed
case under the statute. — Luebke v.
City of Watertown, 284 N.W. 519,
230 Wis. 512.
Defendant not party to agreement
In action to remove a cloud on the
title to land, a judgment by default
against defendants for failure to an-
swer was error, where judgment was
rendered on an agreed statement of
facts to which defendants were not
parties, and the defendants did not
consent to signing judgment out of
term and out of the district. — Mer-
ritt v. Inscoe, 193 S.H. 714, 212 N.C.
526.
Exceptions properly overruled
Where parties agreed as to the
facts and that the decision of the su-
perior court should be final, an ex-
ception -by defendant to findings for
plaintiff must be overruled.— -Belk-
nap County v. City of Laconia, 116 A.
434, 80 N.H. 251.
97. Okl.— Oelco Light Frigidaire
Co. v. Bab-b, 32 P.2d 894, 168 Okl.
207.
Particular judgment upheld
Where plaintiff, suing on replevin
redelivery bond, admitted when case
was called for trial that tender of
property had been made shortly aft-
er rendition of judgment requiring
surrender of property, and there was
no contention that property, while
retained, depreciated in value, judg-
ment for plaintiff for amount of
costs remaining due, but not for val-
ue of property, held proper. — Delco
Light Frigidaire Co. v. Babb, supra.
9& Idaho. — Andrews v. Moore, 94 P.
579, 14 Idaho 465.
Pa.— Walters v. Dooley, Com.Pl., 5
Sch.Beg. 174.
60 C.J. -p 84 note 73.
99. Pa. — Frailey v. Supreme Coun-
cil of American I*egion of Honor,
20 A. 634, 132 Pa. -578.
60 C.J. p 687 note 83.
1. Mont.— Mihelich v. Butte Electric
Ry. Co., 281 P. 540, 85 Mont 604.
•34 CJ. p 147 note 99.
Default Judgment in federal courts
see (Federal Courts § 144 c.
"A 'default' occurs when there is
no trial of issues." — Kelm y. Kelm,
235 N.W. 787, 788, 204 Wis. 301.
2. Idaho.— In re Smith, 225 P. 495,
38 Idaho 746.
324
2T.J. — New Jersey Cash Credit Cor-
poration v. Zaccaria, 19 A.2d 44 S,
126 N.J.Law 334.
N.Y.— Hedfield v. Critchely, 14 N.-E.
2d 377, 277 N.Y. 336, reargument
denied 15 N.B.2d 73, 278 N.Y. 483.
N.C. — Beard v. Sovereign Lodge, W.
O. W., Ilt3 S.B. 661, 184 NJC. 154.
Pa. — Simpson Motor Truck Co. v.
Piccolomini, Com.Pl., 87 Pittsb.
Leg.J. 37, 1 'Fay.L.J. 149.
Philippine.— Garcia v. Ruiz, 1 Philip-
pine 634, 1 Off.Gaz. 59.
Va.— Brame v. Nolen, 124 S.B. 290,
1-39 Va. 413.
34 C.J. p 147 note 2.
3. Idaho.— In re Smith, f225 P. 495,
38 Idaho 746.
34 C.J. ip 147 note 3.
4. 111.— Foster v. Filley, 2 HI. 256.
5. Conn.— Falken r. Housatonic R.
Co., 27 A. 1117, 63 Qonn. 258.
N.Y.— Smith v. Barnum, % N.Y.S.
476.
6. Pa.— Simpson Motor Truck Co.
v. Piccolomini, Com.Pl., 37 Pittsb.
Leg.J. 87, 1 <Fay.L.J. 149.
Tex. — Corpus Juris cited in Conti-
nental Oil & Gas Production Co. v.
Austin, Civ.App., 17 S.W.2d 1114,
1115.
34 C. J. P 147 note 4.
Object of default judgment is to
reach case where defendant offers no
defense or frivolous defense. — Al-
bert M. Travis Co. v. Atlantic Coast
Line R. Co., 139 So. 141, 102 -Fla.
1117.
49 C-J-S-
JUDGMENTS
§ 187
the trial, as discussed infra § 198, or otherwise fails
to take some step required by some role of prac-
tice or some rule of court?
Where issues of fact have been joined, a judg-
ment thereon, although defendant does not appear
at the trial, is not a judgment by default;8 but,
where there has been a proper default, the taking
of ex parte proof on which to base a judgment does
not make the judgment other than one by default.9
A judgment is not by default where defendant ap-
pears, files a demurrer, is present at the final hear-
ing, and joins in submitting the cause to the court,10
or where, after defendant's request for an adjourn-
ment is denied, he remains in court and takes part
in the trial by interposing objections to questions
and cross-examining witnesses.11
Judgment nil dicit. Nil dicit is generally the
technical form of judgment to be rendered where
defendant has entered a general appearance, but
has failed to plead,12 or where, having pleaded, his
plea has been stricken out13 or is withdrawn or
abandoned and no further defense is made,14 or
where he elects to stand on a plea to which a de-
murrer has been sustained,15 or where a plea in
the nature of a motion, such as a plea of privilege,
is sustained, and on transfer defendant thereafter
files no other pleadings.16 However, although some
distinctions have been noted,17 there is no material
distinction, either at common law or under the stat-
utes, between a judgment by nil dicit and a judg-
ment by default in effect, operation, and the princi-
ples applicable thereto; and the term "judgment by
default" is now usually applied to cases which, tech-
nically speaking, are judgments by nil dicit18 Even
though the rendition of a judgment by default aft-
er the appearance of defendant when a judgment by
nil dicit should have been entered, or of a judgment
by nil dicit when it should have been by default, is
technically erroneous, it is regarded as a mere in-
formality or irregularity, and not a reversible er-
7- Mont.— Mlhellch v. Butte Electric
Ry. Co., 281 P. 540, 85 Mont. 604.
N.H.— Hutchinson v. Manchester St
R. Co., 60 A. 1011, 73 N.H. 271.
Tex. — Corpus Juris cited in Williams
v. Jameson, Civ.App., 44 S.W.2d
498, 499, error dismissed Jameson
v. Williams, Com.A3>p., 67 S.W.2d
228 — Corpus Jnria cited in Conti-
nental Oil & Gas Production -Co. v.
Austin, Civ.App., 17 S.W.26: 1114,
1115.
Purpose
(1) The purpose of the entry of a
"default" is to speed the cause by
preventing a dilatory defendant from
impeding plaintiff in the establish-
ment of his claim, but it is not in-
tended to furnish an advantage to
plaintiff so that a defense may be de-
feated or a Judgment reached with-
out the difficulty that arises from a
contest by defendant. — Coggln v.
Barfield, 8 So.2d 9, 150 Fla. 551.
(2) The purpose of law regarding
judgments by default is not to co-
erce defendants into answering suits,
but only to provide method by which
plaintiffs may obtain relief to- which
they are actually entitled when de-
fendants do not answer. — Russo .v.
Aucoin, La.App., 7 So.2d 744.
8. Ind. — Indiana State Board of
Medical Registration and Examina-
tion v. Pickard, 177 N.B. 870, 9-3
IncLApp. 171.
Mo. — Brooks v. McCray, Aipp., 145 S.
W.2d 985 — Meyerhardt v. Predman,
App., 131 S.W.2d 916— National
City Bank of St Louis v. Pattiz,
App., 26 S.W.2d 815 — Schopp v.
Continental Underwriters* Co.,
App., 284 S.W. 808.
84 C.J. p 147 note 10.
3. Ind.— Debs v. Dalton, 34 N.E.
236, 7 Ind.App. 84.
Wash. — Van Buren v. Peterson, 185
P. 572, 108 Wash. 697.
10. Okl. — Chivers v. Johnston Coun-
ty, 161 P. 822, 62 Okl. 2, L.R.A.
1917B 1296.
11. X.Y.— <Scheckter Y. Reiter, 113
N.Y.S. 729.
12. Fla. — Corpus Juris cited in
Clouts v. Spurway, 139 So. 896, 897,
104 Fla. 340.
Tex. — Spivey v. Saner-Ragley Lum-
ber Co., Com.App., 284 S.W. 210 —
Corpus Juris quoted: in Grand
Lodge Brotherhood of Railroad
Trainmen v. Ware, Civ.Apsp., 73 S.
W.2d 1076, 1077, error dismissed.
34 C.J. p 148 note 17.
Waiver of objections
A "judgment nihil dicit" imports
waiver of all objections to service
and return of process and of mere
irregularities of form in stating
cause of action and incidental facts,
and admits cause of action stated in
petition, and submission to such
judgment is an abandonment of ev-
ery defense known or which ordi-
nary diligence could have disclosed.
— O'Quinn v. Tate, Tex.Civ.App., 187
S.W.2d 241.
13. 111. — Cooper v. Buckingham, 4
I1L 546 — Ferry v. National Motor
Underwriters, 244 BiApp. 241.
Tex. — Spivey v. Saner-Ragley Lum-
ber Co., Com. App., 284 S.W. 210—
Corpus Juris quoted, in Grand
Lodge Brotherhood of Railroad
Trainmen v. Ware, Civ.App., 73 S.
W.2d 1076, 1077, error dismissed.
14. Tex. — Spivey v. Saner-Ragley
•Lumber Co., Com.App., 284 S.W.
210 — Corpus Juris guoted in Grand
325
Lodge Brotherhood of Railroad
Trainmen v. Ware, Civ.App.. 73 S.
W.2d 1076, 1077, error dismissed—
Corpus Juris cited in Williams v.
Jameson, Civ.App., 44 S.W.2d 498,
499, error dismissed Jameson v.
Williams, Qom.App.f 67 S.W.2d 228
— Howe v. -Central State Bank of
Coleman, Civ.App., 297 S.W. 692.
34 C.J. p 148 note 19.
IS* 111. — Ferry v. National Motor
Underwriters, 244 IlLApp. 241—
Chicago, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Bo-
zarth, 91 IlLApp. 68.
18. Tex. — O'Quinn v. Tate, Civ.App.,
187 S.W.2d 241.
Failure to plead after decision on
plea or demurrer generally see in-
fra § 199 f.
17. Tex. — Spivey v. Saner-Ragley
Lumber Co., Com. App., 284 S.W.
210 — Grand Lodge Brotherhood of
Railroad Trainmen v. Ware, Civ.
App., 73 S.W.2d 1076, error dis-
missed.
34 C.J. p 148 note 22 [a].
Deemed confession of action
"Judgment nihil dicit" amounts to
confession of cause of action and
carries with it more strongly than
judgment by default, admission of
justice thereof. — Evans v. McNeill,
Tex.Civ.App., 41 S.W.2d 268, error
dismissed — Howe y. Central State
Bank of Coleman, Tex. Civ.App., 297
S.W. 692.
18. Fla. — Corpus .Juris cited in
, -Clouts v. Spurway, 139 So. 896,
897, 104 Fla. S40.
34 C.J. p 148 note 22.
19. IlL—Mann v. Brown, 105 N.E.
328, 263 111. 394.
34 C.J. p 148 note 24.
§ 187
JUDGMENTS
49 C-J-S.
Where defendant puts in his plea and issue is
joined, and he then fails to appear at the trial, nil
dicit is not the proper form of judgment to be en-
tered, for he is not in default for want of an an-
swer.20 At common law there is also a form called
judgment by "non sum informatus," which is ren-
dered where, instead of pleading, defendant's attor-
ney declares that he "is not informed" of any an-
swer or defense to be made.21
Non prosequitur. Where plaintiff refuses or fails,
without a sufficient excuse therefor, to take in due
time any of those steps in the proceedings that he
is required to take, in some jurisdictions a judg-
ment of non prosequitur or non pros, may be taken
against him,22 although, as appears in Dismissal
and Nonsuit § 65, such circumstances generally war.
rant a judgment of dismissal for want of prosecu-
tion. The judgment of non pros, is said to be in
effect a judgment by default for laches.22
Not favored. Since the policy of the law is to
have every litigated case tried on its merits, judg-
ments by default are not favored,24 and, as such a
judgment deprives defendant of substantial rights,
it is lawful only when duly authorized.25
§ 188. Constitutional and Statutory Provi-
sions
Statutes governing default Judgments are to be
strictly construed.
In accordance with the principle stated supra §
187, that judgments by default are not favored in
law, statutes governing default judgments are to
be strictly construed.26
§ 189. Actions in Which Authorized
The actions In which default Judgments are author-
Ized depend on the provisions of the statutes, and may
include or be restricted to actions of contract for the
recovery of money or damages, or to actions on instru-
ments in writing for the payment of money.
A "judgment by default" is technically and strict-
ly applicable only to actions arising under the com-
mon law,27 but the term is generally applied to like
judgments taken in statutory or special proceed-
ings,28 such as on a motion.29 Under some statutes
the right to take judgment by default, or for want
of an affidavit of defense, is restricted to actions of
contract, or arising ex contractu,30 for the recov-
ery of money or damages,31 and does not include
20. Colo. — Taylor r. McLaughlin, 2
Colo. 375.
Absence at trial as ground oi de-
fault see infra § 198.
XL Ark.— Pagre v. Button, 29 Ark.
304.
34 C.J. p 148 note 26.
22. Md. — Henderson v. Maryland
Home Fire Ins. Co., 44 A. 1020, 90
Md. 47.
34 C.J. p 148 note 28.
23. Pa. — Derrickson v. Colonial
Trust Co., 17 PaoDist. 80, 35 Pa.
Co. 522 — Walton v. Lefever, 17
Lanc.L.Rev. 203.
24. U.S.— Corpus Juris cited ia,
State of Missouri v. Fidelity &
Casualty Co., D.Q.Mo., 107 F.2d 343,
346.
Iowa. — Jackson v. Jones, 300 N.W.
668, 231 Iowa 106.
Mont — 'Lindsey v. Drs. Keenan, An-
drews & Allred, 165 P.2d 804—
•First Nat Corporation v. Perrine,
43 R2d 1073, 99 Mont. 454— Koson-
en v. Waara, 285 P. 668, 87 Mont
24.
N.M. — Bourgeious v. Santa Fe Trail
Stages, 95 P.2d 204, 44 N.M. 453.
Okl.— Warr v. Norton, m P.2d 583,
190 Okl. 114— State ex rel. Higgs
v. Muskogee Iron Works. 103 P.2d
101, 187 Okl. 419— State Life Ins.
Co. v. Liddell, 61 P.2d i!075, 178
Okl. 114— Lane v. O'Brien, 49 P.2d
171, 173 Okl. 475— Standard v.
Fisher, 35 fP.2d 878, 169 Okl. 18—
Morrell v. Morrell, 299 P. 866, 149
Okl. 187.
34 C.J. p 1'47 note 14.
25. Fla. — Holder Turpentine Co. v.
M. C. Kiser Co., 67 So. 85, 68 Fla.
312.
Pa. — Globe & Republic Ins. Co. v.
Davis, 190 A. 175, 125 Pa.Super.
91.
"The default of a party to an ac-
tion is always a harsh measure, and
no party should ever be defaulted,
unless the grounds upon which such
default is authorized are clearly and
authoritatively established and are
in such clear and certain terms that
the party to be defaulted can know,
without Question, that he is subject
to default if he does not act in a
certain manner." — State of Missouri
v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., D.C.Mo.,
107 F.2d -3413, 345— Janoske v. Porter,
C.C.A.I11., «64 F.2d 958, 960.
26. Tex. — 'Middleton v. Moore, Civ.
App., 4 S/W.2d 988, reversed on
other grounds Moore v. Middleton,
Com.App., 12 S-W.Sd 9-95.
"Notwithstanding the value of the
Statute as preventing unnecessary
delay in litigation, the Courts of this
State have never been inclined to
unduly extend the language of the
Statute and uniformly have refused
judgment when a reasonable doubt
existed as to/ the right of the plain-
tiff to what has been termed a 'snap
judgment/" — Selly v. Fleming Coal
Co., 180 A, 826, 827, -7 W.W.Harr.,
Del., -34.
Particular statutes construed
Md.— .Carey v. Howard, 16 A.2d '289,
178 Md. 512.
326
N.C.— McNair v. Yarboro, 1118 S.B.
913, 186 N.C, 111.
Pa. — Borteck v. Goldenburg, 87 (Pa,.
Super. '602 — Deemer & Co. v. Kline
Tp. School Dist, 137 Pa.Dist. & Co.
698, 6 Sch.Reg. 378.
27. Va. — Davis v. Commonwealth,
16 Qratt 134, 57 Va. U34.
28. Ind. — Gwinner v. Gary Connect-
ing R. Co., 103 N.B. 794, 182 Ind.
553.
34 C.J. p 149 note 33.
29. Va. — Davis v. Commonwealth,
16 Gratt. 134, 57 Va. 134.
34 C.J. p 1-49 note 84.
30. Wash. — Garrett v. Nespelem
Consol. Mines, US 9 iP.2d 273, -18
Washed 340.
34 C.J. p 149 note 36.
31. U.S. — In re Kimbrough, D.C.N.
T., 8 F.Supp. 848.
N.C.— Baker v. Corey, 141 S.B. 892,
195 N.C. 299 — Beard v. Sovereign
Lodge, W. O. W., 113 S.E. 661,
184 N.C. 1&4-
Wash. — Garrett v. Nespelem Consol.
Mines, 139 P.2d 2713, 18 Wash.2d
340.
34 C.J p 149 note 37.
Actions within, role
(1) An action in assumpsit for
damages for breach of contract to
deliver lumber is an action on a
contract for the payment of money
within the meaning of the statute
authorizing entry of judgment as in
case of default in certain actions. —
Stevens- Jarvis Lumber Co. v. Quix-
ley Lumber Co., 229 ULApp. 419.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
190
actions for damages founded on a tort;82 but in
other jurisdictions default judgments in actions for
damages founded on tort have been allowed.33 Also
under some statutes the right to take a default judg-
ment does not include an action in which the re-
lief to be afforded on default is to be ascertained
by a jury or by the judge.3* Still other statutory
provisions restrict the remedy to actions on instru-
ments in writing for the payment of money,35 and
require that such instrument, a copy of which must
be attached to the affidavit, show a definite amount
due.36 Under a statute permitting an action to be
maintained for a debt or liability not yet due, as
where defendant is about to depart from the state
or conceal his assets, a default judgment to become
effective on maturity of the debt is authorized.37
An objection that a default judgment may not be
taken in a suit in equity is of no avail where dis-
tinctions between actions at law and suits in equity
have been abolished.38 In an action for a declara-
tory judgment, judgment by default will not be al-
lowed, and formal proof must be presented.39
Where the action is commenced by capias, there
cannot at common law be a judgment for default of
appearance.40
Action on life insurance policy. It has been held
that the amount claimed on a life insurance policy is
a liquidated amount, which may be verified by affi-
davit and on which a judgment by default may be
rendered,41 and that, where the payment of the
premium is alleged, and there is judgment by de-
(2) As an action for damages for
a buyer's refusal to accept goods is
one on a contract for the payment
of money, it is within the statute
providing for default judgment in
suit on contract, express or implied,
for the payment of money. — Orsinger
v. Consolidated Flour Mills Co., C.C.
A.I11., 284 F. 224, certiorari denied
43 <S,Ct 248, 2-60 U.S. 746, 67 L.Ed.
49-3.
03) Other actions. — Thompson v.
Dillingham, 11*2 S.B. 521, 133 N.C.
566— <34 C.J. P 149 note 37 [a].
Actions not within rule
N.Y. — Abramson v. Held, 32 N.Y.S.
2d 274, 2613 App.Div. 871.
3«4 C.J. p 149 note 137 [b].
fault, it is not necessary to prove such payment;42
but it has also been held that a life insurance pol-
icy is not such an instrument in writing for the pay-
ment of money as will permit a judgment by default
for want of an affidavit of defense to be taken
thereon, since the happening or performance of the
contingencies on which the policy is to become due,
such as the death of the insured, furnishing proofs
of death, etc., do not appear from the face of the
policy.43
Action on fire insurance policy. It has been held,
under statutes relating to judgment by default, that
an action on a fire insurance policy is for the re-
covery of money only, although the damages de-
manded are unliquidated,44 but that it is not an ac-
tion founded on an instrument ascertaining plain-
tiffs demand.45 Some courts have held that a fire
insurance policy is an instrument for the payment
of money;46 but other courts have held the con-
trary where the policy contains a provision for pro-
rating liability in case of concurrent insurance.47
§ 190. In Whose Favor Default May Be Tak-
en
A judgment by default can be rendered only In favor
of a party to the action.
In accordance with the general rule, stated supra
§ 28, that no valid judgment can be rendered for or
against one who is not a party to the action, a judg-
ment by default can be rendered only in favor of a
person who is a party to the action,48 and not in
32. Pa.— Prentzel v. Snyder, 5 Pa,
DIst. & Co. 178, 38 York Leg.Rec.
25.
34 C.J. p 1149 note 38.
33. U.S.— Lanham v. Cline, DJCJda-
ho, 44 F.Supp. 897.
Tex. — Metzger v. Gambill, Civ.App.»
#7 S.W.2d 1077, error refused.
34. s.C.— Marion v. Charleston, &2
S.B. 4-18, 72 S.C. 576.
34 C.J. p 149 note 40.
35, Del.— Selly v. Fleming Coal Co.,
180 A, 326, 7 W.W.Harr. 34.
Del.— Selly v. Fleming Coal Co.,
supra.
37. Ky.— Cornett v. Brashear, 9 S.
W.2d 802, 225 Ky. 529.
38. Neb.— Weir v. -Woodruff, 186 N.
W. 988, 107 Neb. 585.
Suit to set aside fraudulent transfer
Statutory provision relating to en-
try of judgment after proof, on fail-
ure of defendant to answer, applies
In cases within exceptions to statute
providing that material allegations
of petition not controverted by an-
swer shall be taken as true, and
does not affect right of plaintiff to
default judgment in action on for-
eign judgments and to set aside
fraudulent transfer of stock in cor-
poration.— Danbom v. Danbom, 273
N.W. 502, 132 Neb. 858.
39. N.Y.— Griscti v. Mortgage Com-
mission, 291 N.T.S. 257, 249 App.
Div. 632— Wilson v. Wilson, 43 N.
T.S.2d 526, 181 Misc. 941.
40. Pa,— Barbe v. Davis, 1 Miles
118.
41. Md. — Knickerbocker Life Ins.
Co. v. Hoeske, 32 Md. 317.
327
42. Tex.— Union Cent. Life Ins. Co.
v. Lipscomb, Civ. App., 27 S.W.
307.
43. pa. — Kiley v. Mutual Ben. As-
soc., 2 ChestCo. i305 — Morton v.
New York Mut. Life Ins. Co., 12
Phila. 246.
44. Wis.— Schobacher v. " German-
town Farmers' Mut. Ins. Co., 17
N.W. 969, 59 Wis. 86.
2-6 C.J. p 570 note 27.
45. Ala.— North Alabama Home
Protection v. Caldwell, 5 So. -338,
85 Ala, 607— Manhattan Fire Ins.
Co. v. Fowler, 76 Ala. 872.
46. Pa. — Lycoming Fire Ins. Co. v.
Dickinson, 4 Wkly.N.C. 271.
26 C.J. p 570 note 80.
47. Ya. — Commercial Union Assur.
Co. v. Eberhart, 14 S.B. 836, 88 Ya.
952.
48. Minn. — Bradley v. Sandilands,
68 N.W. S2fl, 66 (Minn. 40, 61 Am.
S.R -386.
Plaintiff not entitled to sue
A foreign administratrix who was
not entitled under Kentucky statute
to maintain action for conversion in
Kentucky federal district court was
not entitled to a judgment by default
§ 190
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
favor of one who is not such a party*** unless he is
made a party by an order of the court.60
Deceased plaintiff. A judgment rendered by de-
fault in a suit instituted in the name of a dead per-
son is not void, but merely erroneous, where de-
fendant is duly served but fails to appear and de-
Codefendant becoming plaintiff. One who is orig-
inally a defendant, but afterward, by leave of court,
becomes a plaintiff and files a cross bill, is not enti-
tled to a default judgment against his codefendants,
if they had no notice of his cross bill or that he had
changed his status in the case.62
§ 191. Against Whom Default May Be Tak-
en
a. In general
b. Codefendants
a. In General
Ordinarily a default Judgment may be taken only
against persons who are properly named or described as
parties, in the complaint.
As a general rule a judgment by default may be
taken against such persons only as are properly
named or described as parties in the complaint53
and who have appeared or been properly served
with process,54 and not against persons who are
not so named or described55 although they have
been served with process,56 nor against persons who
are not otherwise made parties to the action.57
Nome. A judgment by default should be taken
against defendant in his real name,58 and a judg-
ment taken against a person sued and served by a
fictitious name is irregular5^ unless the declaration
or complaint is amended by the insertion of his true
name. 60
Persons in military or naval service. Under vari-
ous federal and state statutes enacted during the
war to extend protection to the civil rights of per-
sons in the military and naval service, before en-
tering a judgment by default plaintiff is required
in certain cases to file an affidavit showing that de-
fendant is not in such service,61 or, in the absence
of such affidavit, to secure an order of court direct-
ing such entry.62 Such a judgment without such an
affidavit, however, has been held not absolutely void,
but voidable only.63 Under the provision that a
judgment rendered against a person in the military
service, who was prejudiced in his defense by rea-
son of such service, may be opened to permit such
person to put in his defense, the judgment so ren-
dered is not void but voidable,64 and may be chal-
lenged only by the person against whom it was ren-
dered.65 The statute does not prevent the rendi-
against defendant which had failed]
to answer petition. — Ballard v. UnK- j
ed Distillers Co., D.C.Ky., 28 F.Supp.
6*3.
49. La.— Seib v. Cooper, 127 S-j. 380,
170 La. 105.
Okl. — Rebold v. National Supply Co.,
271 P. 852, 13'3 O'.il. 140.
3-4 C.J. p 149 note 44.
Intervene*
A voluntary intervenes in an ac-
tion in claim and delivery for pos-
session of an automobile, cannot
complain that plaintiff, by obtaining
possession under o statute and t"ien
dismissing 'his complaint, subjected
himself to judgment without p)ead-
ings for the return of the property
to defendant, since such intervener
is -not affected by proceedings be-
tween the original parties, both ad-
verse to him. — Sanders v. Milford
Auto Co., 218 P. 126, 62 Utah 110.
50. Miss. — Ettringham v. Handy, 60
Miss. '334.
51. W.Va.— McMillan v. Hickman,
14 S.E, 227, -35 W.Va, 705,
34 C.J. p U49 note 46.
52. Tex. — Cole v. Grigsby, Civ.App.(
35 S.W. 680.
53. CaL — Burns v. Downs, 108 P.2d
9&3, 42 Cal.App.2d 322.
Ga. — Federal Land Bank of Colum-
bia v. Shingler, T57 S.E. 911, 4'3
"Ga.App. 92, reversed on other
grounds 162 S.B. '815, 174 Ga. 352-,
conformed to 164 S.E. 213, 45 Ga.
App. 199.
Okl. — Green Const. Co. v. Oklahoma
County, 50 «P.2d 625, 174 Okl. 290.
Tex. — Postal Savings & Loan Ass'n
v. Powell, Civ.App., 47 S.W.2d 343,
error refused.
34 C.J. p 149 note 48.
Ratification
Even though original action -in re-
plevin was filed without knowledge
or consent of named plaintiff, such
plaintiff would be bound by default
judgment therein if it ratified the
action, and ratification could be in-
ferred if plaintiff remained silent
when, according to ordinary experi-
ence, It should have spoken if it
did not consent. — Hanover Fire Ins.
Co. v.
111.
Isabel, C.C.A.Okl., 129 F.Sd
54. Kan. — Farmers' Loan & Trust
Co. v. Essex, 71 P. 268, 66 Kan.
100.
34 C.J. p Jj49 note 49.
A party who purports to represent
himself, assumes the responsibility
of watching calendars and trial
dates.— Latham v. Salisbury, 61 N.E.
2d 306, 32-6 XlLApp. 253.
Jurisdiction of person generally see
infra 8 192.
55. Cal.— Ford v. Doyle, 37 Cal. -346.
34 C.J. p 149 note 60.
328
5& Cal.— Lamping v. Hyatt, 27 Cal.
99.
111. — Lewis v. West Side Trust &
Savings Bank, 36 N.E.2d 57-3, 877
111. 584.
57. Tex.— Buetell v. Courand, 29 S.
W. 114'6, 9 Tex.Civ.App. 564.
34 C.J. p 149 note '52.
58. Cal.— Curtis v. Herricfc, 14 Cal.
117, 7.3 Am.D. 6»32.
59. N.Y.— Fischer v. Hetherington,
32 N.Y.S. 795, 11 Misc. 575.
34 C.J. p 150 note 54.
60. Cal. — San Francisco v. Burr, 36
•P. 771, 4 CaLUnrep.Cas. 634.
N.Y.— Upham v. Conn, 14 N.Y.Civ.
iProc. '27.
61. Da. — Eureka Homestead Soc. v.
Clark, 83 So. 190, 145 La. 917.
Suspension of liabilities of persons in
military or naval service generally
see Army and Navy § 37 f.
62. La. — Eureka Homestead Soc. v.
Clark, supra.
63. La. — Eureka Homestead Soc. v.
Clark, supra.
64. Tex. — J. C. Penney Co. v. Ober-
priller, CivJlpp., 16-3 S.W.2d 1067,
reversed on other grounds 170 S.
W.2d 607, 141 Tex. 128.
65. Tex. — J. C. Penney Co. v. Ober-
priller, supra.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 191
tion of a judgment against a person in the military
service who was in default before his enlistment.66
Deceased defendant. Where defendant dies aft-
er default and before the execution of a writ of
inquiry or other proceedings for final judgment, a
final judgment cannot be entered thereon67 unless
the action is revived against his personal repre-
sentative.68
b. Codefendants
(1) In general
(2) Where some only default
(3) Want of service on some defend-
ants
(4) Successful defense by some defend-
ants
(1) In General
Where all defendants jointly sued and served default,
a default Judgment cannot, be entered against some with-
out discontinuing as to the others.
Where all of several defendants who are jointly
sued and served with process are equally in default,
a judgment by default cannot be entered against
some of them only69 without discontinuing as to the
others.™
(2) Where Some Only Default
At common law, If some defendants default, a sep-
arate final judgment cannot be entered against them
alone; and while under statutes such a judgment Is
proper in some cases It is not permitted where the de-
fendants are jointly liable.
As is discussed supra § 34, nt common law, and
in the absence of statute otherwise, where several
defendants are joined in an action ex contractu,
and all are brought before the court by service or
appearance, plaintiff must recover against all or
none. In accordance with this rule, if some de-
fendants default, a final judgment in favor of plain-
tiff can be entered only against all defendants,71
and a several judgment cannot be entered against
those only who have defaulted72 or against that de-
fendant alone who has answered78 In such a case
there may be entered an interlocutory judgment of
default against the defaulting defendant,74 but a
final judgment cannot be entered on the default un-
til the issue as to the other defendants is success-
fully disposed of.75
Under statutes. As discussed supra § 33, in some
jurisdictions it is provided by statute that in ac-
tions regularly commenced against several joint de-
fendants the court may, whenever a se\*eral judg-
ment would be proper, render judgment against one
or' more of them, leaving the action to proceed
against the others. Under these statutes, where the
rights or liabilities of a portion of the codefend-
ants who are in default is several, or joint and sev-
eral, plaintiff may take a separate judgment by de-
fault against them and proceed to a determination
of the issues as against defendants who appear and
answer,76 and, as appears infra subdivision b (4)
of this section this rule applies although defendant
who sets up a separate defense establishes it, and
judgment is rendered in his favor, and although sep-
arate interlocutory judgments by default are en-
tered against the defaulting defendants severally at
different periods and on separate service of proc-
ess.77 However, even under such statute, if the.
claim is on a joint liability, no final judgment by de-
66. Tex. — J. C. Penney Co. v. Ober-
priller, supra,
67. N.Y.— In re Laughlin's Estate, 8
N.Y.S.2d 842, 255 App.Div. 927.
34 C.J. p 76 note 67 [a] (-6), p 152
note 98.
68. <Fa. — Nuss v. -Kemmerer, Com.
PI., 17 Leh.L.J. 879, 52 York Leg.
Rec. 15.
Tenn. — Carter v. Carrier, 8 Yerg.
4.11, 24 Am.D. 585.
69. 111.— Wisner v. Catherwood, 225
IlLApp. 471.
34 C.J. p 150 note 63.
70. Wis. — Stewart v. -Glenn, 5 Wis.
14.
71. N.Y.— Chippewa Credit Corpora-
tion v. Strozewski, 19 N.Y.S.2d 457,
259 App.Div. 187.
34 C.J. p 150 note 68.
72. N.J.— Coles v. McKenna, 78 A.
344, 80 N.J.Law 48.
34 C.J. p 150 note 07.
73. 111.— Wells v. Reynolds, 4 111.
191.
34 C.J. p 150 note €8.
74. N.J.— Corpns Juris cited i»
Kople v. Zalon, 2 A.2d 56, 57f 121
N.JXaw 270, appeal dismissed 5
A.2d 750, 122 N.J.Law 422.
Tex.— Slndorf v. Cen-Tex Supply Co.,
Civ.App., 172 S.W.2d 775.
34 C.J. -p 150 note 69.
75. 111. — Townsend v. Postal Benefit
Ass'n of Illinois. 2-62 Ill.App. 483.
Tex. — Sindorf v. Cen-Tex Supply Co.,
Civ.App., 172 S.W.2d 775.
Wash.— Marinovich v. Lindh, 220 IP.
807, 127 Wash. 349.
34 C.J. p 150 note 70.
76. Ind.— Moll v. Goedeke, 25 N.B.
2d 258, 107 -Ind.iA.pp. 446.
La.— Campti Motor Co. v. Jolley, 120
So. 684, 10 La.App. 286.
Mich.— Kunsky-Trendle Broadcasting
Corporation v. Kent Circuit Judge.
275 N.W. 175, 281 Mich. 567.
N.C.— Brooks v. White, 122 S.B. 561,
187 N.C. 6S6.
329
Tex.— Buttrill v. Occidental Life Ins.
Co., Civ.App., 45 S.W.2d 636.
314 C.J. p 151 note 72.
Convenience as controlling1
Where there are several defend-
ants, the trial court may, as conven-
ience dictates, render judgment by
default against nonappearing parties
before final hearing, or await the
trial and render appropriate judg-
ment as to all parties at that time.
—Ex parte Mason, 104 So. 52*, 213
Ala. 279.
Zn condemnation proceedings the
highway commission's failure to en-
ter default of one or more nonap-
pearing defendants did not render
judgment void as to defendant who
appeared and contested case, since
the only effect of entering the de-
fault would be to bar the defaulted
parties from participating in further
proceedings. — State v. Whitcomb, 22
P.2d 82-3, 94 Mont, 415.
77. Md.— Loney v. Bailey, 48 Md.
10.
§ 191
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
fault can be entered xmtil the issues raised against
the other defendants are finally disposed of;78 nor
can a judgment by default be entered against a de-
fendant who is only secondarily liable, until a suc-
cessful termination of the suit against defendant
primarily liable.79 A judgment by default cannot
be entered against persons who, being necessary
parties by virtue of having the same interests as
plaintiff, are brought into the action as defend-
ants.80
Discontinuance as to some. Where one or more
of several joint defendants who are jointly liable
default, plaintiff cannot discontinue or dismiss his
action as to one defendant and take judgment by
default against the others,81 or discontinue the ac-
tion as to the ones who have defaulted and proceed
to judgment against the others,82 unless the one as
to whom the discontinuance is had has pleaded a
matter going to his personal discharge,83 or unless
the cause of action is joint and several.84
(3) Want of Service on Some Defendants
Where some of several joint defendants are not
served, a default Judgment cannot, In the absence of
statute, be rendered against any of them; but some
statutes permit judgment in such case to be entered
against the defendants who were served provided the
liability is several.
Since, as discussed infra § 192, a legal judgment
by default cannot be rendered against a defendant
who has neither appeared nor been duly served with
notice of the suit, where one or more of several
joint defendants has not been properly served with
process or appeared, a judgment by default, in the
absence of statute, cannot be rendered against any
of them.86 Under appropriate statutes, however,
if the codefendants are severally liable, judgment
by default may be entered against defendants who
have been served with process, and have defaulted,
without regard to the other defendants.86 It has
been held that a joint judgment against all, where
some have been served irregularly or not at all,
is not entirely void;87 it is erroneous merely, and
accordingly valid as to the person served, at least
on collateral attack,88 although it may be reversed
on appeal or error89 or, if it comes within the rules
considered infra § 334, set aside on a proper appli-
cation in the court below; Under some joint debt-
or acts, judgment by default may be taken against
all joint defendants, although only some are served,
and the judgment will be good as against the joint
property of all, and the separate property of those
served.90 A judgment in favor of one defendant
against another cannot be entered on the default of
the latter, unless he had notice and opportunity to
defend as against his codefendant.91
(4) Successful Defense by Some Defendants
A successful defense by one defendant on a ground
not personal to himself Inures to the benefit of his de-
faulting codefendant so as to bar a Judgment against
him; but the rule may be otherwise where the cause
of action is joint and several.
Where one defendant suffers a default, while the
other pleads and goes to trial and defends suc-
cessfully on a ground not personal to himself, his
success will inure to the benefit of the defaulting
defendant, and judgment must be rendered for
both,92 and in such a case it is erroneous to render
a judgment for defendants who have successfully
defended the action and against those who have de-
faulted.93 Under some statutes, where the cause
of action is joint and several, judgment may be
taken against defendant who defaults, although it
78. N.Y.— Nathan v. Zierler, 228 N.
T.-S. 170, 22i3 App.Div. 355 — Gross-
man Steel Stair Corp. v. Steinberg,
54 N.Y.S.2d 275.
34 C.J. P 151 note 75.
79. Cal.— Corpus Juris cited i»
Plott v. York, 91 P.2d 924, 926,
33 Cal.App.2d 460.
Colo. — 'Pratt v. South Canon Supply
Co., 107 P. 1-105, 47 Colo. 478.
80. Cal.— Watkins v. Nutting, 110 P.
2d 384, 17 Oal.2d 490.
81. 111. — Tolraan v. Spaulding, 4 111.
13.
34 C.J. p 151 note 78.
88. Ind. — Britton v. Wheeler, 8
Black*. 31.
314 C.J. p 151 note 79.
83. 111.— Tolman v. Spaulding, 4 111.
13.
Ind. — Britton v. Wheeler, 8 Blackf.
•31.
84. U.S.— Conner v. Cocker!!!, C.C.
DXJ., <6 F.Cas.NoJ3,112, 4 Cranch C.
C. 3.
34 C.J. p 151 note 81.
65. Miss.— kartin v. Williams. 42
Miss. 210, 97 Am.D. 4tf6.
34 C.J. p 151 note 8i3.
88, Cal. — Edwards v. Hellings, 37
P. 218, 1013 Cal. 204.
"34 C.J. p 151 note 85.
87. Tex. — Ross v. Drouilhet, 80 S.W.
241, 34 Tex.€iv.App. 327.
34 C.J. p 152 note 86.
88. Mo.— Boyd V. Ellis, 18 S.W. 29,
107 Mo. 394.
34 C.J. p 152 note 87.
89. Minn.— Dillon v. Porter, -31 N.
W. 56, 36 Minn. Ml.
•34 C.J. p 152 note 88.
90. N.Y.— Lahey v. Kingron, K3 Abb.
Pr. 192, 22 How-Pr. 209.
91. N.Y.— <New Netherland Bank of
New York v. Boucheron Co., 20<3
N.Y.& 76*6, 122 Misc. 690.
330
92. Ga. — Rhodes v. Southern Flour
& Grain Co., 168 S.E. 237, 45 Ga.
App. 13.
Ind. — Corpus Juris quoted in Second
Niat. Bank v. Scudder, 6 N.E.2d
955, 959, 212 Ind. 283.
Mo.— Corpus Juris quoted in. Electro-
lytic Chlorine Co. v. Wallace &
Tiernan Co., 41 S.W.2d 1049, -105)3,
•328 Mo. 782.
N.J.— Corpus Juris cited in Kople v.
'Zalon, 2 A.2d 56, 58, 121 K.J.Law
270, appeal dismissed 5 A.2d 750,
122 -N.J.Law 422.
34 C.J. p 152 note 92.
93. Ind. — Corpus Juris quoted IB
Second Nat. Bank v. Scudder, 6 N.
E.2d 955, 959, 212 Ind. 283.
Mo. — Corpus Juris quoted in Electro-
lytic Chlorine Co. v. Wallace &
Tiernan Co., 41 &W.2d 1049, 10513,
•328 Mo. 782.
34 C.J. p 152 note 93. '
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 192
is given in favor of the answering defendant,^ es-
pecially .where the defense pleaded by the latter was
a personal one.95
§ 192. Jurisdiction in General
a. In general
b. Obtaining jurisdiction of defendant
a. In General
Jurisdiction of the defendant and of the subject mat-
ter is essential to the validity of a default Judgment.
As in the case of judgments generally, it is es-
sential to the validity of a judgment by default that
the court rendering the judgment have jurisdiction
of defendant9^ and of the subject matter;97 and,
as is discussed infra subdivision b of this section,
in order to have such jurisdiction there must have
been either due service of process on defendant or
a valid appearance by him or on his behalf. If
the court has jurisdiction of the defendant and of
the subject matter, and there are no fatal defects
in the proceedings, the court has jurisdiction to
enter judgment by default.98 Jurisdiction of the
court to enter a default judgment is not affected
by the fact that the judgment is excessive, where
the excessiveness is due to defendant's default99
b. Obtaining Jurisdiction of Defendant
(1) In general
(2) Process
(3) Service
(4) Appearance
(1) In General
In order to support a default Judgment, the defend-
ant must be properly served with due process or volun-
tarily appear.
In order for the court to obtain the jurisdiction
of the defendant essential to support a judgment by
default, defendant must be properly served with
due process or notice, or must voluntarily appear
in person or by attorney.1 Mere knowledge of the
pendency of the suit,2 and even the attendance on
court,3 will not support a default judgment. If the
court's jurisdiction of defendant lias been obtained
by due process, a default judgment ordinarily is not
void for failure to give defendant notice of subse-
quent proceedings in the cause,4 but there is also
94. La. — Oampti Motor Co. v. Jolley,
120 So. 684, 10 La.App. 287.
34 C.J. p 152 note 95.
95. Tex. — Southland Life Ins. Co. v.
Stewart, Civ.App.. 211 S.!W. 460.
93. Del. — Teatman v. Ward, Super.,
36 A.2d (355.
Ky. — Mergenthaler Linotype Co. v.
Griffin, 10 S.W.2d 63J3, 226 Ky.
159.
2STeb. — Brann v. Quinn, 199 N.W. 828,
1112 Neb. 485, 39 A.L.R. 411.
N.J.— Weiner v. Wittman, 27 A.2d
86*6, 129 N.J.Law 35.
N.T. — Minnesota Laundry Service v.
•Mellon, 291 N.T.S. 378, 249 App.
Div. 648—6 East 97th St. Co. v.
Grant, 278 N.T.S. 884, 155 Misc.
581— Leavitt v. Matzkin, 114 N.T.
S. 687.
N.C.— Harrell v. Welstead, 175 S.B.
2813, 206 NXJ. 817.
Tex. — Broun v. Hayslip, Civ.App.,
2813 S.W. 177.
Necessity of Jurisdiction for render-
ing- of judgment generally see su-
pra $ 19.
97. Me. — Tremblay v. -3Btna Life
Ins. Co., 55 A. 509, 97 Me. 547, 94
Am.S.R. 521.
34 C.J. p 152 note 8.
98. U.S.— Helms v. Holmes, C.C.A.
NX)., 129 F.2d 263, 141 A.L.R. 1&67.
Cal.— ^People v. Herod, 295 P. 383,
111 GaLApp. 246.
Tex. — Bray v. First Nat. Bank, Civ.
App., 10 S.W.2d 2S5, error dis-
missed.
A reference by rule of court did
not effect a loss of Jurisdiction of
pending cause and deprive superior
court of right of revoking the refer-
ence and ordering a default judg-
ment.—Lebel v. Cyr, 34 A.2d 201, 140
Me. 98.
99. Ark. — Toung v. Toung, 147 S.W.
2d 7136, 201 Ark. 984.
JU CaL— Glidden v. Packard, 28 Cal.
6119.
N.T. — 6 Bast 97th St. Co. v. Grant,
278 N.T.S. 884, 155 Misc. 581.
N.C.— Harrell v. Welstead, 175 SJS.
283, 206 N.C. 817— Fowler v. Fowl-
er, 130 S.B. 315, 190 N.C. 5i36 —
Clark v. Carolina, Homes, 128 S.E.
20, 189 NJC, 703— Moore v. Pack-
er, 94 S.B. 449, 174 N.C. 665—
Condry v. Cheshire, 88 N-C. 375 —
Doyle v. Brown, 72 N.C. 39<3.
Okl.— Street v. Dexter, 77 P,2d 707,
182 Okl. 360.
Or.— Mutzig v. Hope, 158 3P.2d 110 —
Okanogan State Bank of Riverside,
Wash., v. Thompson, 211 P. 933,
106 Or. 447.
Pa. — Modern Home Heating Co. v.
Diehl, 92 Pa. Super. 571.
Tex.— Hitt v. Bell, Civ.App., Ill S.
W.2d 1164— City of Corpus Christi
v. Scruggs, Civ.Apfo., 89 S.W.2d 458
— Brecheen v. State, Civ.App., 89
$.W.2d 259— ^Christie v. Hudspeth
County Conservation and Reclama-
tion Dist No. 1, Civ.App., 64 S.W.
2d 978^Tarrell v. XT. S. Realty Co.,
'Civ.App., 270 S.W. 1079.
33 C.J. p 1080 note 96 [a], [d].
OIL cross action
(1) A default judgment in favor
of one defendant against his code-
fendants on his cross action is abso-
lutely void, where such codefendonts
331
did not have required -statutory no-
tice.— Ruby v. Davis, Tex. Civ. App.,
277 S.W. 4*30.
(2) A default judgment against
plaintiff -on defendant's cross action
is void where plaintiff has not been
served with citation based on the
cross action. — Dilbeek v. Norwood,
Tex.Civ.App., 139 S.W.2d 121'— Na-
tional Stock Tards Nat. Bank v. Val-
entine, Tex.Civ.App., 39 S.W.2d 907.
On amended, petition.
When plaintiff by amended petition
changes cause of action and defend-
ant has not filed answer, it is neces-
sary, in order to support default
judgment, to cite defendant on
amended cause of action. — Nuckles v.
J. M. Radford Grocery Co., Tex.Civ.
App., 72 S.W.2d 652.
On filing a second declaration aft-
er discontinuance of first action, de-
fendant must again be served with
process to support default judgment.
—Morse v. Bragg, 107 F.2d $48, 71
App.D.C. 1, certiorari denied 60 S.
Ct 1073, S10 U.S. 6i30, 84 L.EcL 1400.
2. Ark. — Stewart v. California Grape
Juice Corporation, 29 S.W.2d 1077,
181 Ark. 11HO.
Cal. — Hunstock v. Estate Develop-
ment Corporation, 1«38 P.2d 1. 22
Ca!.2d 205, 148 A.L.R. 968.
3. Tex— Jameson v. Farmers' State
Bank of Burkbumett, Civ.App., 299
S.W. 458, affirmed Farmers' State
Bank of Burkburnett v. Jameson,
Com.App., 11 S.W.2d 29'9, rehear-
ing denied 1*6 S.W.2d 526.
4. U.S. — Rosborough v. Chelan
§ 192
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
authority to the contrary, at least as respects notice
of particular proceedings.5
(2) Process
A dsfault Judgment 1s void if the process does not
conform to essential statutory requirements.
A judgment by default is void where the process
does not substantially conform to essential statu-
tory requirements.6 Thus a default judgment is
void where the notice, although bearing the proper
caption, is not properly addressed to defendant,7
or where the notice, writ, or summons is not prop-
erly subscribed.8 So too a default judgment \t. void
where it is based on a citation which does no': suf-
ficiently conform to the statutory requirements,9
as where it fails to name all the parties,10 or fails
properly to state the nature of plaintiffs demand11
or the date when plaintiffs petition was filed,12 or
where it summons defendant to appear on an im-
possible date13 or at a time or term not designated
by law14 or at a place other than the one designated
by law,15 or where it is erroneously or insufficiently
directed to the officer for service,16 or where it
directs the officer to summon someone other than
County, Wash., COA/Wash., 53 F.
2d 198.
Ark.— Hill v. Teague, 108 S.W.2d 889,
194 Ark. 552.
Va. — Fuller v. Edwards, 22 S.E.2d 26,
180 Va. 191.
Hlght to notice of proceedings after
judgment by default see infra §
202.
5. R.I. — Sahagian v. Salragian, 137
A. 221, 48 R.I. 267.
6. Cal. — Wilson v. Superior Court
in and for Los Angeles County, 54
»P.2d 559, 11 Cal.App.2d 643.
Fla. — Frostproof State Bank v. Mal-
lett, 1'31 So. .322, 100 Fla. 1464.
Iowa. — Swan v. McGowan, 231 N.W.
440, 212 Iowa 631.
La. — Spillman v. Texas & P. Ry. Co.,
120 So. 905, 10 La,App. 379.
Mich.— Rood v. McDonald, 7 N.W.2d
9'5, 303 Mich. 6Q-4.
Okl.— State v. City of Tulsa, 5 P.2d
744, 153 Okl. 262.
33 C.J. p 1081 note 1 [b], EC].
The process must contain all that
the statute requires.— Duke v. Spil-
ler, 111 S.W. 787, 51 Tex.Civ.App.
237—34 C.J. p 152 note 6.
Process held sufficient
U.S. — Tenner v. Murray, C.C.A.Fla.,
•32 F.2d 625.
7. Iowa. — Columbian Hog & Cattle
•Powder €o. v. Studer, 8 N.W.2d
592.
8. Iowa, — Swan y. McGowan, 231 N.
W. 440, 212 Iowa 631.
WJVa.— Nicholas Land Co. v. Crow-
der, 32 S.B.2d 5613.
9. La. — Robinson v. Enloe, 121 So.
320, 10 La.App. 435.
Tex. — Massie Drilling Co. v. Nees,
266 S,W. 504— Fort Worth Lloyds
v. Johnson, Civ.App%., 129 S.W.2d
1157— City of Corpus Christ! v.
Scruggs, Civ.App., 89 S.W.2d 458
— Brecheen v. Wink Independent
School Dist, Civ.App., 89 S.W.2d
29-3 — Leach v. City of Orange, Civ.
iApp., 46 S.W.2d 1047— Beck v. Nel-
son, Civ.App., 17 S.W.2d 144— Lips-
comb v. McCart, Civ.App., 295 S.W,
245 — Atkinson v. Leonard, Civ.
App., 287 S.W. 52*5 — Jenness v.
First Nat Bank, Civ.App., 256 S.
W. ff34.
Statute i» mandatory
The courts have uniformly held
that the requirements of the stat-
ute as to what shall be stated in a
citation are mandatory and that,
in the absence of such essential com-
pliance, a judgment by default will
not be sustained. — Nueces Hardware
& Implement Co. v. Jecker, Tex.Civ.
App., 56 S.W.2d 47»4— Wyman v.
American Mortg. Corporation, Tex.
Civ.App., 45 S.W.2d 629— Tyner v.
Glass, Tex.Civ.App., 27 S.W.2d 916—
Martinez v. Watson, Tex.Civ.App.,
21 S.W.2d 54— Boydstun v. Nugent,
Tex.Civ.App., 285 S.W. 695— Jarrell
v. U. S. Realty Co., Tex.Civ.Appt,
270 S.W. lO-79^Tenness v. First Nat
Bank, Tex.Civ.App., 256 S.W, 6!34,
635,
Citations held sufficient
(1) Citation containing palpable
error in date of issuance as appear-
ing above county clerk's signature.
— -Wagnon v. Elam, Tex. Civ. App., 65
S.W.2d 407.
(2) Default judgment may be tak-
en against foreign corporation, where
citation gives name of agent served,
without proof of agency. — Holcomfo
& Hoke Mfg. Co. v. Amason, Tex.Civ.
App., 2 S.W.2d 360.
1O. Tex. — Fort Worth Lloyds v.
Johnson, Civ.App., 129 S.W.2d 1157
— Lipscomb v. MtfCart, Civ.App.,
295 S.W. 245— Jenness v. First
Nat. Bank, Civ.App., 256 S.W. -634.
3i3 C.J. p 1090 note '67 [gj.
"And -wife"
A citation commanding an officer
to summon a named defendant "and
wife" was insufficient to support
judgment by default against either
of defendants, since it was not in
compliance with statutes requiring
names of all parties to be stated. —
Brecheen v. Wink Independent School
Dis£, Tex.Civ.App., 89 S.W.2d 293—
Brecheen v. State, Tex.Civ.App., 89
S.W.2d 259.
<*Bt ux»
Citation designating certain per-
son <4et ux," as plaintiffs, without
naming plaintiff's wife, held insuffi-
cient to sustain default judgment
against defendant. — Temple Lumber
• 332
Co. v. McDaniel, Tex.Civ.App., 24 S.
W.2d 518.
Miastatement of name
Default judgment based on cita-
tion which misstates defendant's
name on face thereof is erroneous. —
Nueces Hardware & Implement Co.
v. Jecker, Tex.Civ.App., 56 S.W.2d
474.
11. Tex. — Woodward v. Acme Lum-
ber Co., Civ.App., 108 S.W.2d 1054
-STackson v. Birk, Civ.App., 84 S.
W.2d 3132 — Bass v. Brown, Civ.
App., 262 S.W. 894— Carlton v.
Mayner, 10,3 S.W. 411, 47 Tex.Civ.
App. 47.
31*3 C.J. p 1081 -note 1 [a].
12. Tex. — Wise v. Southern Rock Is-
land -Plow Co., Civ.App., 85 S.W.
2d 257.
13. Mies.— Loving v. First Nat.
Bank, 158 So. 908, 172 Miss. 15, 97
A.QUR. 745 — Jenne v. Davis, 119
So.. 911, 152 Miss. 4.
Tex. — Heard v. J. & C. Drilling Co.,
CtoApp., 124 S,W.2d 866 — Tyner
V. Glass, Civ.App., 27 S.W.2d 916
— Martinez v. Watson, Civ.App.,
21 S.W.2d 54 — Baker v. Crenshaw
& Brewster, Civ.App., 270 S.W.
917.
14. Tex. — Wyman v. American
Mortg. Corporation, Civ.App., 45 S.
W.2d 629 — Baker v. Crenshaw &
Brewster, Civ.App., 270 S.W. 917.
"Special term"
Where process was void because it
directed defendant to appear at un-
authorized and nonexistent "special
term" of county court to be held in
December, fact that case was tried
at following regular term of court
would not avail as ground for not
setting aside judgment by default. —
Mosaic Templars of .America v.
Gaines, Tex.Civ.App., 2615 SjW. 721.
15. Tex. — Boydstun v. ITugent, Civ.
App., 285 S.W. '696.
16. Tex. — Green v. White, Cir^pip.,
32 S.W.2d 488.
Nonexistent county
Service of citation direfctefc to
sheriff or constable of nonexistent
county held ineffective, rendering de-
fault judgment void for lack of ju-
risdiction of defendant. — Boulevard
49 O.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 192
defendant.1? However, mere irregularities in the
form of process, provided they do not violate essen-
tial requirements of the statute, have been held not
to render a default judgment absolutely void.18
(3) Service
Proper service of process on the defendant Is essen-
tial to the validity of a default Judgment, and there must
be a substantial compliance with statutory provisions as
to return and proof of service.
To authorize a default judgment, process must be
properly served on defendant in the manner pre-
scribed by statute.19 If defendant is not served, a
default judgment taken against him is void;2<> and
the same is true where service on defendant is rad-
ically defective.21 Thus a default judgment is void
where it is based on service of process by one with-
out authority,22 or where service is made on a third
person instead of on the actual defendant23 or on
one not a proper agent to receive sen-ice of proc-
ess.24 However, mere irregularities in the man-
ner of service, provided they do not violate the es-
sential requirements of the statute, do not render a
default judgment void.25
Undertaking Co. v. Breaker, Tex.Civ.
App., 42 S.W.2d 451.
Alias citation
Where citations issued by county
clerk of county in which plaintiffs'
pleadings alleged parties to be serv-
ed resided were returned with nota-
tion that president who was sued
with corporation cbuld not be found,
but that he was living in county seat
of another county, alias citations
issued tfy same county clerk to sher-
iff or constable of other county
formed sufficient basis for default
judgment. — Artex Refining Co. v.
Pollard & Lawrence, Tex.Civ. App.,
124 S.W.2d 946.
17. Tex. — Port Worth Lloyds v.
Johnson, Civ.App., 129 S.W.2d 1157.
Officer of corporation
Citation commanding officer to
summon secretary and treasurer of
defendant corporation to answer and
appear, instead of commanding him
to summon the corporation Itself,
will not sustain default judgment
against corporation. — Temple Lum-
ber Co. v. McDaniel, Tex.Civ.App.,
24 S.W.2d 518.
18. Minn. — 'Peterson v. W. Davis &
Sons, 11 N.W.2d 800, 216 Minn. SO.
Ohio, — Norris v. Frowine, 19 Ohio
App. 127— Gillett v. Miller, 12 Ohio
Cir.Ct. 209, 5 Ohio Cir.Dec. 588.
33 C.J. p 1091 note 68 [cL [dj, [hj.
Irregularities Held not fatal
Default judgment, entered by
court having Jurisdiction, was not
void • because caption of complaint
served with summons, named wrong
court. — Sievert v. Selvig, 222 N.W.
281, 175 Minn. 597.
19. Ky. — Fugate v. Pugate, 81 S.W.
2d 889, 259 Ky. 18.
Minn. — Pugsley v. Magerfleisch, 201
N.W. 323, «161 Minn. 246.
Mo. — Hankins v. Smarr, IS 7 S.W.2d
409, 345 Mo. 978.
N.Y.— Leavitt v. Matzkin, 114 N.T.S.
687.
Or.— Mutzig v. Hope, 158 P.2d 110.
Tex. — Plynt v. City of Kingsville,
82 JSI.W.2d 934. 125 Tex. 510— Whit-
aker Chevrolet Co. v. Blacksher,
Civ.App., 132 S.W.2d 425— First
Nat. Bank v. C. H. Meyers & Co.,
Civ.App., 2SJ S.W. 265— Household
Furniture Co. v. Alvarado, Civ.
App., 246 S.W. 1111.
Service held sufficient
(1) In general.
Fla, — Arcadia Citrus Growers Ass'n
v. Hollingsworth, 185 So. 4U1, 135
Fla. 322.
Okl.— Hall v. Jensen, 249 P. 310, 119
Okl. 175.
Tex. — Stephens v. Austin, Civ.App.,
298 S.W. 9S2— Grayce Oil Co. v.
Varner, Civ.App., 260 S.W. 8 S3.
(2) The court had jurisdiction to
enter default on cross complaint,
served by mailing of copy by defend-
ants' attorneys to plaintiffs attorney
having office in same city at place
where there was mail delivery serv-.
ice.— Marsden v. Collins, 72 P.2d 247,
213 Cal.App.2d 148.
2<X N.D.— Gallagher v. National
Nonpartisan League, 205 N.W. 674,
53 N.D. 2*8.
Or. — CPeterson v. Hutton, 284 P. 279,
132 Or. 252.
Tex. — Camden Fire Ins. Co. v. Hill,
Com.App., 276 S.W. 887 — Whitaker
Chevrolet Co. v. Blacksher, Civ.
App., 132 S.W.2d 425— Cauble v.
Cauble, Civ.App., 283 S.W. 914—
Carson v. Taylor, Civ. App., 26H S.
W. 824.
Utah, — State Tax Commission v.
Darsen, 110 'P.2d 558, 100 Utah
103.
23, U.S.— Todd v. S. A. Healy Co.,
D.OKy., 49 F.Supp. 58l4.
Ala,— Kent v. Kent, 139 So. 240, 224
Ala. 1&3,
CaL — Wilson v. Superior Court in
and for Los Angeles County, 54
P.2d 5$9, 11 Cal.App.2d 64=3.
Ky.— Fugate v. Creech, 111 S.W.2d
402, 271 Ky. 3. 4
Md.— Harvey v. Slacum, 29 A.2d
376, 181 Md. 206.
Mass.— Commonwealth v. Aronson,
44 N.E.2d 679, 312 Mass. 347.
Neb.— Wistrom v. Forsling, 9 N.W.
2d 294, 1413 Neb. 294, rehearing de-
nied and opinion modified on other
grounds 14 N.W.2d 217, 144 Neb.
6*8.
N.T.— Leavitt v. Matzkin, 114 N.T.S.
687.
Pa. — Rogers v. Metropolitan Life Ins.
Co., 99 Pa.Super. 505.
333
Service too late
In special proceeding for sale of
land to pay debts of decedent's, es-
tate, service of summons on defend-
ants over thirty days after its is-
suance was insufficient to bind them
by default judgment, in absence of
waiver of service within statutory
period of ten days after issuance' of
summons or voluntary appearance. —
Green v. Chrismon, 28 S.EL2d 215,
223 N.C. 724.
Writ of capias
Court had no jurisdiction to en-
ter judgment by default against de-
fendant, against whom writ of ca-
pias was issued, where defendant -
escaped from custody of sheriff im-
mediately o-n his arrest, since service
Tinder writ of capias is incomplete
without production of defendant in
court to answer or his release on
bail.— Oliver v. Kallock, 178 A. 843,
133 Me. 403, followed in 178 A. 846.
183 Me. 408.
22. Tex. — Turner v. Ephraim, Civ.
Apr>.. 28 S.W.?d fiftS.
Sheriff of wrong* county
Where a process is directed to a
sheriff of one county and service is
made by a sheriff of another county,
a default judgment against the one
so served is void. — Strauss v. Owens,
65 S.E. 161, 6 Ga.App. 415.
23. Cal.— Steuri v. Junkin, 82 P.2d
34, 27 Cal.App.2d 758.
N.T.— Ooldberg v. Fowler, 60 N.T.S.
475, 29 Misc. 328.
Tex.— Whitaker Chevrolet Co. v.
Blacksher, Civ.App., 132 S.W.2d
425.
24. Tex. — Camden Fire Ins. Co. v.
Hill, Com.App.f 276 S.W. 887—
Sharp & Dohme v. Waybotfrne, Civ.
App.. 74 S.W.2d 413.
Pormer officer of corporation.
HI. — McCoy v. HY-G Corporation, 47
N.E.2d 384, 318 Ill.App, 229.
Wrong1 state official
Service of process on secretary of
state when statute requires service
on commissioner of insurance does
not support a default Judgment. —
Order of Calanthe v. Armstrong, 62
So. 269, 7 Ala.App. 37&
25. Ariz. — Noonan v. Montgomery.
192
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
Personal service. In the absence of any statutory
provision authorizing substituted or constructive
service, process must be personally served in order
to support a judgment by default26
Constructive or substituted service. A valid per-
sonal judgment by default cannot be predicated on
substituted or constructive or extraterritorial serv-
ice on a nonresident.27 In the absence of personal
service within the state or a voluntary appearance
by defendant, a default judgment against a non-
resident is void unless property or credits belonging
to him within the state have been brought within
the jurisdiction of the court by provisional proc-
ess,28 such as attachment and levy29 or garnishment
proceedings,30 or unless the action involves title to
real property within the court's territorial jurisdic-
tion.3i Where such property of a nonresident de-
fendant is or has been so brought within the juris-
diction of the court, a default judgment may be
taken against him on the basis of constructive or
extraterritorial service;82 but such a judgment is
void if the method of attempted notice to defendant
is insufficient to constitute due process38 or does
not comply substantially with the statutory require-
ments as to notice.84 Even where there have been
proper constructive service and attachment and
levy, a default judgment cannot be enforced against
a nonresident personally; the judgment is effective
only against the property attached.35 Mere irreg-
ularities in the manner of service by publication,
not going to the substance of the statutory require-
ments concerning notice, will not render the judg-
ment void.36
Return and proof. In the absence of a general
appearance by defendant, the fact of due and prop-
er service of the process must appear on the rec-
ord,37 as by the officer's return or proof of serv-
ice.38 It has been held that a valid judgment by
default cannot be taken when there is no return by
the officer serving the writ,3^ or when the return
or other proof is radically faulty or defective,40
as where it does not conform to essential statutory
209 P. 302, 24 Ariz. 811, 25 A.L.R.
1251.
N.T. — Valz v. Sheepshead Bay Bun-
galow Corporation, 16-3 N.E. 124,
249 N.T. 122, certlorari denied 49
S.CX 82, 278 U.S. 647, 73 L.Ed.
560.
Ohio. — Norris v. Frowine, 19 Ohio
App. 0.27.
28. Oal. — Hu-nstock v. Estate De-
velopment Corporation, 138 P.2d 1,
22 Cal.2d >205, 148 A.L.R. 968.
27. Miss. — Delta Insurance & Real-
ty Agency v. Fourth Nat. Bank,
102 So. 846, 137 Miss. 855.
Nev. — (Perry v. Edmonds, 84 P.2d
711, 59 Nev. 60.
Or. — Laughlin v. Hughes, 89 P.2d
568, i61 Or. 295.
S.D. — Stevens v. Jas. A. Smith Lum-
ber Co., 222 N.W. 665, 54 S.D. 170.
Tex* — (American Soda Fountain Co. v.
Hairs ton Drug Co., Civ.App., 52
S.W.2d 764.
Wyo. — Kimbel v. Osborn, 15-6 P.2d
279.
28* Iowa. — Bates v. Chicago & N.
W. R. Co., 19 Iowa 260.
29. N.T. — Dimmerling v. Andrews,
139 N.EL 774, 286 N.T. 48— Merkle
- v. Sable, 197 N.T.S. 576.
30. Kan. — Herd v. Chambers, 122 P.
2d 784, .155 Kan. 55.
Status of proceeding1
(1) Under some statutes where
garnishment proceedings are invoked
as a basis for substituted service,
a default judgment may be rendered
against the principal defendant when
the default occurs, even though the
substituted service and default must
both fail if it subsequently develops
that the garni shee actually holds no
property of defendant— Herd v.
Chambers, supra.
(2) Under other statutes it has
been held that, where defendant is
served only by publication, and no
property seized, it is improper to
render Judgment by default against
him before finding that garnishee
possesses property belonging to de-
fendant, since the court will have no
Jurisdiction over defendant unless
garnishee possesses such property. —
Riley Pennsylvania Oil Co. v. Syxn-
moods, WO S.W 1088, 195 Mo.Apj>.
1U.
31. Mo. — Garrtoon v. Schmicke, 193
S.W.2d «14.
32. Cal. — City of Saiiaas v. Luke
Kow Lee, 18 P.2d 8«5, 217 Cal. 2S2.
Mo.— Garrison v. Schmicke, 1913 S.W.
2d 614.
N.T.— -Le Baron v. Bartoli, 10 N.B.2d
519, 274 N.T. 499— Valz v. Sheeps-
head Bay Bungalow Corporation,
1613 N.B. 124, 249 N.T. 122, certio-
rari denied 49 S.Ct 82, 278 U.S.
647, 73 L.Ed. 5«0.
Old. — IB. R. Thomas Motor Car Co.
v. Robb, 208 P. 785, 86 Ofcl. 26-6.
Or. — »Pierce v. Pierce, 56 P.»2d 3&6,
1513 Or. 24<8.
33. if.T.— Standish v. Standish, 40
N.T.S.2d 538, 179 Misc. 564.
34* Ala. — Guy v. Pridgen & Holman,
118 So. 229, 22' Ala.App. 595.
Fla.— Catlett v. Chestnut, 1«46 So.
241, 107 Fla. 498, 91 A.L.R. 212.
Or. — Okanogan State Bank of River-
side, Wash., v. Thompson, 211 P.
983, 106 Or. 447.
3*3 C.J. p 109(3 note 80.
Affidavit for service by publica-
tion, must comply with statutory
requirements. — Frybarger v. McMil- |
334
len, 25 P. 7113, 15 Colo. 349—33 C.J.
p 1093 note 80 [b].
35. Del. — Teatinan v. Ward, Super.,
36 A.2d 355.
36. Ariz. — Noonan v. Montgomery,
209 P. 302, 24 Ariz. 311, 25 A.L.R.
1251.
37. U.S.^Williams v. James, D.C.
La., 54 F.Sufep. 61.
Mich.— Dades v. Central Mut Auto-
Ins. Co., 248 N.W. 616, 263 Mich.
260.
Miss. — Continental Casualty Co. v»
Gilmer, 111 So. 74.1, 146 Miss. 22 —
Globe Rutgers Fire Ins. Co. v.
Sayle, 65 So. 125, 107 Miss. 169.
Tex. — Head v. Texas State Bank,
Civ,App., 16 S.W.2d 298— Fitzpat-
rick v. Dorris Bros., Civ.App., 284
S.W. 303 — Broun v. Hayslip, Civ.
App., 283 S.W. 177.
34 C.J. p 152 note 8.
Proof of Jurisdictional facts see in-
fra S 211.
38. Tex. — Fitzpatrick v. Dorris
Bros., Civ.App., 284 S.W. 30,3.
34 C.J. p 152 note 9.
Piling with clerk
Since there was no statute abso-
lutely requiring the sheriffs return
to be filed with the clerk, failure of
the sheriff so to file it did not pre-
vent default Judgment, in view of
the presumption that the return was
exhibited to the court before Judg-
ment.—Rhyne v. Missouri State Life
Ins. Co., Tex.Com.App., 291 S.W. 8«45.
39- Mich.— Stanczuk v. Pfent, 204 N.
W. 706, 231 Mich. 689.
33 CU. p 1094 note 813.
40. La,— Robinson v. Bnloe. 120. So,
•320, 10 La»Atfp. 435.
Mich. — Whirl v. Reiner, *Gt N.W.
977. 229 Mich. 114.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 192
requirements41 or fails to show a legal service of
the writ;42 but there is authority for the view that
a faulty or defective return or proof of service,43
or even complete absence of return or proof of
service,44 does not of itself render a default judg-
ment void if due service actually was had, since
it is the fact of service, and not the return or proof
thereof that gives the court jurisdiction.45 It is
generally agreed however, that minor irregularities
or ambiguities in the return will not vitiate the
judgment.46
(4) Appearance
A voluntary general appearance Is a waiver of want
or defect of process or service and will support a Judg-
ment by default.
If a defendant enters a voluntary general appear-
ance in any action, it is a waiver of a want of
process, or of any defects in the process or its serv-
ice or return, and a default judgment in personam
thereafter entered against him is valid and bind-
ing ;4? but it is otherwise where the appearance is
special and is entered for the purpose of taking ad-
vantage of a failure of notice or defective serv-
ice.4*
Pa, — Rogers v. Metropolitan Life
Ins. Co., 99 Pa.Super. 505.
Tex.— Home Ben. Ass'n v. Sims,
Civ.App., 48 S.W.2d 708.
41. Mich.— Standard Oil Co. v.
Brukwinski, 217 N.W. 922, 242
Mich, 49 — Whirl v. Reiner, 200 N.
W. 977, 229 Mich, 114.
Tex. — Fitzpatrick v. Dorris Bros.,
Civ.App., 284 S.W. 303.
42. Colo.— Gibbs v. Slevin, 212 P.
826, 72 Colo. 590.
La. — Robinson v, Enloe, 121 So. 320,
10 LaApp. 4fi5.
Tex.— Remington-Rand Business
Service v. Angelo Printing Co.,
Civ.App., 31 S.W.'2d 1098.
33 C.J. p 1094 note 84.
Becitals in Judgment that defend-
ants were legally served ,do not val-
idate a default Judgment based on
faulty or defective return or proof
of service.— Household Furniture Co.
v. Alvarado, Tex.Civ.App., 246 S.W.
1111— Miller v. First State Bank &
Trust Co. of Santa Anna, Tex.Civ.
App., 184 S..W. 6»14.
Agency of person served
(1) To sustain default Judgment
against corporation on direct attack
by appeal, officer's return must show
that person served was agent on
whom service was authorized.— Cain,
Wolcott & Rankin v. Firemen's Fund
Ins. Co., 141 So. «86, 225 Ala. 44.
(2) If the officer's return states
that the person to whom process was
delivered is defendant corporation's
agent, such return becomes prima fa-
cie evidence sufficient to sustain a
default Judgment.— Green v. Nu-
Grape Co., 100 So. 84, 19 Ala,App.
OS) It has also been held that a
default Judgment against a foreign
corporation will be set aside, where
petition fails to show whether agent
served was local or traveling agent
or traveling salesman. — Holcomb &
Hoke Mfg. Co. v. Amason, Tex.Civ.
App., 2 S.W.2d 360.
*etnrtt held Insoffiolent
(1) In general.— Midwest Piping &
Supply Co. v. Page, Tex.Civ.App., 128
S.W.2d 459, error refused— Home
Ben. Ass'n v. Sims, Tex.Civ.App., 48
S.W.2d 708.
(2) Return not stating what offi-
cer delivered to defendants held in-
sufficient to support Judgment by
default— Price v. Black Bros., Tex.
Civ.App., 19 S.W.2d 847.
C3) Sheriff's return of service of
citation, stating that it was executed
on May 16, by delivering to D and
C on May 27, "the within named de-
fendant" true copy of writ held in-
sufficient to support default Judg-
ment— Fitzpatrick v. Dorris Bros.
284 S.W. 303.
Return or profef held sufficient
Ohio.— Hendershot v. Ferkel, 56 N.E.
( 205, 144 Ohio St. 112.
43, Ariz. — Noonan v. Montgomeryr
209 P. 302, 24 Ariz. 311,, 25 A.L.R.
1251.
CaL— Alpha Stores v. You Bet Min-
ing Co., 63 P.2d 1137, 18 CaLApp.
2d 249, followed in 63 P.2d «1138,
18 Cal.App.2d 767— Wheat v. Mc-
Neill, 295 P. 102, 111 CaLApp. 72.
Idaho.— Mason v. Pelkes, 59 P.2d
1087, 57 Idaho 10, certiorari denied
Pelkes v. Mason. 57 S.Ct. 319, 299
U.S. 615, 81 L.Eo! 453.
Iowa.— Mintle v. Sylvester, 197 N.W.
305, 197 Iowa 424.
Minn. — Leland v. Heiberg, 194 N.W.
9*3, 156 Minn. 30.
Neb.— State Furniture Co. v. Abrams,
19 N.W.2d 627.
44. Ariz.— 'Noonan v. Montgomery,
209 P. 302, 24 Ariz. 311, 25 A.L.R.
1251. w
Minn.— Leland v. Heiberg, 194 N.W.
93, 156 Minn. 30.
45. Ariz.— Noonan v. Montgomery,
209 P. 302, 24 Ariz. 311, 25 A.L.R.
1251.
Iowa.— Mintle v. Sylvester, 197 N.W.
305, 197 Iowa 424.
Minn.— Leland v. Heiberg, 194 N.W.
93, 156 Minn. 30.
. — State Furniture Co. v. Abrams,
19 N.W.2d 627.
46. Cal.— Wheat v. McNeill, 295 P.
102, 111 CaLApp. 72.
Wash.— Atwood v. McGrath, 242 P.
648, 137 Wash. 400.
313 C.J. p 1095 note 85.
47. Tex.— Harvey v. Wiley, Civ.
App., 88 S.W.2d 569.
A* substitute for process
The effect of an entry of appear-
ance as a substitute for service of
process is identical therewith; ac-
cordingly, where -no Judgment by de-
fault could be taken against defend-
ant for failure to plead at the term
of service, none can be taken on ap-
pearance entered at that term. —
Baldwin v. McClelland. 38 N.B. 14-3,
152 111. 42.
What constitutes sufficient appear-
ance
(1) In general. — Flowers v. Jack-
son, 51 S.W. 462, 66 Ark. 458-^33 C.
J. p 1095 note 89 [b] CD, [c].
(2) Execution of bond, not ap-
Cal.— Alpha Stores v. You Bet Min-
ing Co., 63 P.2d 1137, 18 CaLApp.2d
249, followed in 63 P,2d 1138, 18
Cal.App.2d 767— Wheat v. McNeill,
295 P. 102, 111 CaLApp. 72.
Idaho.— Mason v. Pelkes, 59 P.2d
108i7, 57 Idaho 10, certiorari denied
(Pelkes v. Mason, 57 S.Ct 319, 299
U.S. 615, 81 L.Ed. 453.
335
proved by clerk, to discharge attach-
ment, was not appearance authoriz-
ing default Judgment against surety.
— Brenton v. Lewiston, 216 N.W. 6,
204 Iowa 892.
(3) Notation on declaration where-
by defendant's attorney waived proc-
ess and entered appearance during
term, without attestation by clerk
of court, held not to authorize de-
fault Judgment — Industrial Inv. Co.
v. Standard Life Ins. Co., 149 So. 88*3,
170 Miss: 1-38.
•Unauthorized appearance
Where attorney's appearance on
behalf of a party was wholly unau-
thorized and was entered by mistake
or inadvertence, a default Judgment,
without proper service of process, is
void.— Street v. Bexter,- 77 P.2d 707,
182 Okl. 860.
48. N.T.— 6 Bast 97th St Co, v.
Orant, 278 N.Y.S. 884. 155 Misc.
581*
§ 193
§ 193.
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
Pleadings to Sustain Judgment
a. In general
b. Filing
c. Service
d. Verification and signature
a. In General
In order to sustain a Judgment by default, the plain-
tiff's pleading must state a cause of action; otherwise
the judgment will be void or at least voidable. Accord-
Ing to some authorities, but not others, the pleading must
be sufficient to withstand a general demurrer.
Since, as discussed infra § 201, a default admits
only what is well pleaded, it follows that, in order
to sustain a judgment by default, plaintiffs declara-
tion, complaint, petition, or statement of claim, must
allege with clearness and certainty sufficient facts to
constitute a good cause of action or show a right
to recover.49 It should sufficiently name or de-
scribe the plaintiff,50 and the defendant,51 and
their places of residence, where this is required by
4*. U.S.— Fisher v. Jordan, D.C.Tex.,
32 F.Supp. 608, reversed on other
grounds, C.C.A., 116 F.2d 183, cer-
tiorari denied Jordan v. Fisher, 61
S.Ct 734, 312 U.S. 697, 85 L.Ed.
1132.
Ala,— National Surety Co. v. First
Nat. Bank, 142 So. 414, 225 Ala,
108.
Ariz.— Sturges v. Sturges, 50 F.2d
886, 46 Ariz. 331.
Ark.— Home Indemnity Co. of New
York v. Bobo, 55 S.W.2d 81, 186
Ark. 53 6— Barnes v. Balz, 292 S.
W. 391, 17-3 Ark. 417— -Wilson v.
Overturf, 248 S.W. 898, 157 Ark.
385.
CaL— Burns v. Downs, 108 P.fld 953,
42 Oal.App.2d 322 — Hammons v.
Crozier, 297 P. 567, 112 CaLApp.
715_Williams v. FOBS, 281 P. 7&6,
«9 CaLApp. 705.
Del.— American University v. Todd,
1 A.2d 595, 9 W.W.Harr. 449.
Fla.— St. Lucie Estates v. Palm
Beach Plumbing: Supply Co., 1"33
So. 841, 101 Fla. 205.
Ill._Roe v. Cook County, 198 N.E.
472, 358 111. 568— Baxter v. Atchi-
son, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., -85 N.B.2d
565, 510 IHaApp. 616— Whalen v.
Twin City Barge & Gravel Co.,
280 IlLApp. 596, certiorari denied
Twin City Barge & Gravel Co. v.
Whalen, 66 S.Ct 590. 297 U.S. 714,
80 L.Ed. 1000.
Ky. — St. Matthews Bank & Trust Co.
v. Fairleigh, 92 S.W.2d 326, 259
Ky. 209— Corbin Bldg. Supply Co.
v. Martin, 39 S,W.2d 480, 239 Ky.
272— 'Prater v. Dingus, 18 S.W.2d
883, 230 Ky. 82 — Blackburn v. Bev-
ins, 3 S.W.2d 762, 223 Ky. 389— All-
good v. Atkinson, 2148 S.W. 5(25, 198
Ky. 229— Bond v. Wheeler, 247 S
W. 708, 197 Ky. 437.
La. — Corpus Juris quoted in Perez v,
Meraux, 9 So.2d 662, 676, 201 La.
498 — Corpus Juris quoted in Simon
v. Duet, 148 So. 250, 2-51, 177 La.
&37.
Mich. — Smak v. Gwozdik, 29-1 N.W
270, 293 Mich. 185.
Minn.— Roe v. Widme, 254 N.W. 274
191 Minn. 251.
Miss. — Stevens v. Barbour, 8 So. 2
242, 19»3 Miss. 109 — W. T. Rawleigh
Co. v. Scott, 120 So. 834, 152 Miss
704.
Mo.— McCrosky T. Burnham, App., j
282 S.W. 158.
Mont — Lindsey v. Drs. Keenan, An-
drews & Allred, 1165 P.2d 804— State
ex rel. Delmoe v. District Court of
Fifth Judicial Dist, 46 P.2d 39,
100 Mont. 131.
Neb.— Dfcnbom v. Danbom, 2-78 N.W.
502, 19>2 Neb. 858.
N.Y. — Corpus Juris cited in Leroy
Arnold, Inc., v. Mackey, 222 N.T.S.
225, 129 Misc. 643.
N.C.— Baker v. Corey, 141 S.B. 892,
195 N.C. 299— Beard v. Sovereign
Lodge, W. O. W., 115 S.E. 661, 184
N.C. 1514.
OkL — Corpus Juris cited in Nordman
v. School Dist. No. 4«3 of Choctaw
County, 121 P.2-d 290, 291, 190 Okl.
155 — Maryland Casualty Co. v. Ap-
ple, 267 P. 239, 130 Okl. 270— West-
ern Union Telegraph Co. v. Beach,
211 P. 1034, 88 Okl. 73.
Pa. — Richey v. Gibboney, 34 A.2d
913, 15-4 Pa.Super. 1— Rosser v. Cu-
sani, 97 Pa.Super. 2S5— Duquesne
Brewing Co. v. Mazza, 30 Pa.Dist.
& Co., 389, 18 Wash.Co. 5— Dinten-
fass v. Wirfcman, 14 Pa.Dist & Co.
798.
Tex.— mna Ins. Co. of Hartford,
Conn., v. Long, 72 S.W.2d 588, 123
Tex. 500 — Rhyne v. Missouri State
Life Ins. Co., Com.App., 291 S.W.
845— .Waples Platter Co. v. Miller,
Civ.App., 139 S.W.2d 83-3— Tolivar
v. Lombardo, Civ.App., 88 S.W.2d
733 — State v. McKinney, Civ.App.,
76 S.W.2d 556— Corpus jTnrls cited
in Williamson v. City of Bastland,
Civ.App., 65 S.W.2d 774, 775—
Ritch v. Jarvis, Civ.App., 64 S.W.
2d &3-1, error dismissed— Williams
v. Jameson, CiVJL\pp., 44 S.W.2d
498, error dismissed Jameson v,
Williams, Com.App., 67 S.W.2d 228
— Anderson v. Dreyfuss & Son, Civ
App., 32 S.W.2d 527— Morgan v
Davis, Civ.App., 293 S.W. 610—
Nichols v. Murray, Civ.App., 284 S
W. 301-r-Wright v. Shipman, Civ
App., 279 S.W. 296— Watson Co.
Builders, v. Sleeker, Civ.App., 26 J
S.W. 147 — Carney v. Williams, Civ
App., 266 S.W. 1115— Head v. Citt
of Gainesville, Civ.App., 254 S.W
323.
Wash. — Sandgren v. West, 115 P.2<
724, 9 Wash.2d 494— Roche v. Me
Donald, 239 P. 1015, 136 Wash.
336
822, 44 A.L.R. 444. reversed on
other grounds 4-8 S.Ct 142, 275 U.
S. 449, 72 L.Ed. 363, 53 A.L.R. 1141,
4 C.J. p 153 note 16.
Pleadings to sustain judgment in
general see supra §§ 39-41.
facts not alleged, although prov-
ed, cannot form the basis of a judg-
ment by default. — State ex rel.
om'rs of Land Office of Okl. v.
Prock, 158 P.2d 716, 195 OkL 387—
Le Clair v. Calls Him, 233 P. 1087,
106 OkL 247.
Jurisdiotional facts must be stated
n order to sustain default judgment.
N.Y.— ^Contractors' Trading Co. v.
Henney Contracting Corporation,
248 N.Y.S. 643, 2S'2 App.Div. 829.
Pa. — Frankel v. Donehoo, 158 A.
570, 306 Pa. 52, followed in Mar-
vin v. Donehoo, 158 A. 573, 306 Pa.
5*8.
Tex. — Shambeck v. Johnson, Civ.
App., 281 S.W. 349.
Stating conclusions
A complaint which merely alleges
a conclusion is insufficient to sus-
tain a. default Judgment.
Ark.— (Arkansas Bond Co. v. Harton,
87 S.W.2d 52, 191 Ark. 665.
Mass.— Moriarty v. King, .57 N.E.2d
633, 317 Mass. 210.
Mo.— Walrath v. Crary, App., 222 S.
W. 895.
Ohio. — De Weese v. Security Sav.
Ass'n of Dayton, 186 N.E. 4, 12«
Ohio St. 480.
Immaterial discrepancy between
wording of declaration filed and that
of copy served on one defendant was
held not to invalidate judgment.^-
Karasek v. Peoples' State Trust &
Savings Bank of Pontiac, 247 N.W.
765, 262 Mich. 636.
50. Ala. — Cole v. Gay & Bruce, 104
So. 774, 20 Ala_A.pp. 643.
51. Ala.— Crook v. Rainer Hardware
Co., 97 So. 635, 210 Ala. 178.
Cal. — Roseborough v. Campbell, 115
P.2d 8139, 46 Cal.App.2d 257— Burn
v. Downs, -108 P.2d 953, 42 Cal.App.
2d 322— Wilson v. Superior Court
in and for Los Angeles County, 54
P.2d 539, 11 Cal.App.2d 643.
Tex.— Artex Refining Co. v. Pollard
& Lawrence, Civ.App., 124 S.W.2d
946.
34 C.J. P 154 note 14.
49 C-J-S-
JUDGMENTS
§ 193
statute,52 and designate, with substantial accuracy,
the court in which the action is to be tried.53 It
should also demand relief against defendant.54 If
the judgment is based on constructive service of
process, plaintiffs declaration must allege the facts
which justify such service, if the statute so re-
quires.55
Where a cross petition alleging a sufficient cause
of action has been properly filed, a judgment by de-
fault may be taken by a defendant against a co-
defendant56 or against a third person,5? but there
must be a sufficient pleading to support a default
judgment on such a cross action.5*
Determination of sufficiency. According to some
decisions, the declaration or complaint must be suf-
ficient to withstand a general demurrer,5^ but other
authorities have held that, although the complaint is
so defective that it would be open to general de-
murrer, the judgment is not void, or even necessa-
rily voidable, if the complaint contains allegations
of facts sufficient to support the judgment,60 or suf-
ficient to apprise defendant of tie nature of plain-
tiffs demand,61 and that if it is good in substance
it is sufficient to uphold the judgment, although
there may be formal defects.62 Conversely, if a
pleading is sufficient to withstand a general demur-
rer, it is sufficient to support a judgment by de-
fault,63 even though such pleading might be sub-
ject to special demurrer.64 Indeed, it has been held
that, after judgment by default, the complaint will
be most liberally construed as stating a cause of
action which warrants the granting of the relief
prayed for.65 In determining the sufficiency of the
allegations of a cross action to support a default
judgment against a third party, evidence on the trial
of the action against defendant cannot aid the
pleadings in the cross action.66 Reference is made
in the notes to cases in which the petition, declara-
tion, or complaint has been held sufficient67 or in-
52. La. — Perez v. Meraux, 9 So.2d
662, 201 La. 498.
Tex. — Sha-mbeck v. Johnson, Civ.App.,
281 S.W. 349— -Tyler v. Blanton, 78
S.W. 5164, 34 Tex.Civ.App. 39'3.
53. Tex.— Miller v. Trice, Civ.App.,
219' S.W. 229.
34 C.J. p 154 note 16.
54. Idaho. — Backman v. Douglas,
270 P. 618, 46 Idaho 671.
Miss.— W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. Scott,
120 So. 8*34, T52 Miss. 704.
34 C.J. p 154 note 17.
55. Miss. — 'Mays Food Products v.
Gloster Lumber Co., 102 So. 735,
1<37 Miss. 691, followed in Mays
Food Products v. Anderson, 108
So. 165.
56. Ohio. — Southward v. Jamison,
64 N.E. 135, 66 Ohio 290.
34 C.J. p 155 note 31.
57. Tex. — Reserve Loan Life Ins.
Co. v. Benson, CivJV.pp.f 167 S.W.
2i66.
58. Tex. — Celeste State Bank v. Se-
curity Nat Bank, Civ.App., 254
S.W. 658.
59. Ark.— Barnes v. Balz, 292 S.W.
3-91, 173 Ark. 417.
Tex. — JBtna Ins. Co. of Hartford,
Conn,, v. Long, 72 S.W.2d 588, 12<3
Tex. 500 — Cross v. Wilson, Civ.
App., .3'3 S.W.2d 575— Missouri
State Life Ins. Co. v. Rhyne, Civ.
App., 276 S.W. 757, reversed in
part on other grounds and af-
firmed in part Rhyne v. Missouri
State Life Ins. Co., Com.App., 291
S.W. 845.
H C.J. p 154 note 19.
Oft Ariz. — Yuma County v. Hanne-
man, 28 P.2d 622, 42 Ariz. 561.
111. — Whalen v. Twin City Barge &
Gravel Co., 2&0 111. App. 596, cer-
tiorari denied Twin City Barge &
49C.J.S.— 22
Gravel Co. v. Whalen, 56 S.Ct 590,
297 U.S. 714, 80 L.Ed. 1000.
Pa. — Frankel v. Donehoo, 158 A. 570,
306 Pa. 52, followed in Marvin v.
Donehoo, 158 A. 573, 306 Pa. 58.
34 C.J. p 154 note 20.
61. Ala, — Contorno v. Ensley Lum-
ber Co., 100 So. 127, 2-11 Ala. 211.
Cal. — Moran v. Superior Court in and
for Sacramento County, 96 P.2d
193, 35'Cal.App.2d 629.
Idaho.— Nielson v. Garrett, 43 P.Sd
380, 55 Idaho 240.
111.— Whalen v. Twin City Barge &
Gravel Co., 280 111. App. 596, cer-
tiorari denied Twin City Barge &
Gravel Co. v. Whalen, 56 S.Ct.
590, 297 U.S. 714, 80 L.Ed. 1000.
Kan. — Skaer v. Capsey, 275 P. 464,
127 Kan. 383.
34 OJ. p 154 note 21.
62. Okl.— McNeal v. Moberly, 1 P.
2d 707, 150 Okl. 253.
Pa. — Frankel v. Donehoo, 158 A. 570,
«306 Pa. 52, followed in Marvin v.
Donehoo, 158 A. 573, 306 Pa. 58.
34 C.J. p 154 note 22.
63. Cal. — Kennard v. Binney, 217
P. 808, -02 CaLApp. 732.
Tex. — Odom v. Pinkston, Clv.App.,
193 S.W.2d 888, error refused, no
reversible error.
64k Tex. — Odom v. iPinkston, supra.
65. Ala. — Contorno v. Ensley Lum-
ber Co., 100 So. 127, 211 Afeu 211.
Ariz. — Tuma County v. Hanneman,
28 P.2d 622, 42 Ariz. 561.
Mont— Lindsey v. Drs. Keenan, An-
drews & Allred, 165 P.2d 804.
Tex.— Odom v. Pinkston, 193 S.W.2d
. 888, error refused, no reversible
error.
Wash. — Aid v. Bowerman, 232 P. 297,
132 Wash. 319.
68. Tex. — Reserve Loan. Life In*.
337
Co. v. Benson, Civ-App., 167 S.W,
268.
67. Ala. — National Surety Co. v.
First Nat. Bank, 142 So. 414, 223
Ala. 10*8 — Ewart v. Cunningham,
122 So. 359, 219 Ala. 399.
Ark. — Home Indemnity Co. of New
York v. Bobo, 55 S.W.2d 81, 18ft
Ark. 636.
Oal.— Kennard v. Binney, 217 P. 808,
62 CaLApp. T32.
Ga.— Royal v. Byrd, 180 S.B. 520.
6-1 Ga.App. 397 — Brooke v. Pouts.
140 SJ3. 902, 37 Ga.App. 56<3,
La. — Baxsdale v. Highway Commis-
sion, App., 1 So.2d 342 — Quillet v,
Wilhelm Moss Co., 5 Leu App. 74 9*
Neb. — Scheumann v. Prudential Ins,
Co. of America, 19 N.W.2d 48.
Tex. — Rhyne v. Missouri State Life
Ins. Co., Com. App., 291 S.W. 945 —
Odom v. Pinkston, 193 S.W.2d 88S.
error refused, no reversible error
— Southern S. S. Co. v. Schumach-
er Co., Civ.App., 154. S,W.2d 2'8fc
error refused — Artex Refining Co,
v. Pollard & Lawrence, CiY.App«
124 S.W.2d 946 — Cyrus W, Scott
Mfg. Co. v. Haynie, Oiv.App., 64
SjW.2d 1090, error dismissed—
Griffin v. Burma, Civ.App., 24 S.W^
2d 805, affirmed, Com.App., 24 S*
»W.2d 810 — King- Lumber Co. v*
Blue Ridge Mill Co., Civ.App., 28ft
S.W. 621.
Particular actions
(1) Action to foreclose lien.— Mor-»
gan v. Stag Lumber Co,, $14 P. 15.
124 Wash. 223.
(2) Slander and libel actions.
Okl.— Johnson v. Inglis, 123 P.2d 2T3,
190 Okl. 31$, followed in 123 P,
2d 275, 190 Oki. 319.
S.C. — Rutledge v. Junior Order of
United American Mechanics, 193
SJBX 434, 185 S.C. 142.
§ 193
JUDGMENTS
49 C-J-S*
sufficient68 to support or sustain a judgment by de-
fault
Effect of insufficient pleading. The failure of the
declaration, complaint, or petition to state a good
cause of action has been held to render void a judg-
ment by default based thereon,6^ at least where the
petition wholly fails to state a cause of action70 or
where the facts alleged affirmatively show that plain-
tiff has no cause of action;71 but it has generally
been held that a judgment in such a case is merely
erroneous and reversible on appeal72 or subject to
vacation by the trial court on motion.73 It has also
been held that, where the court has jurisdiction of
the person of defendant and of the subject matter, a
judgment on default is not void if the petition con-
tains allegations sufficient to challenge the attention
of the court and invoke its judicial action to deter-
mine the sufficiency thereof.74 Where the declara-
tion contains several counts, one of which is good,
a default judgment will be sustained, although the
other counts are not sufficient,76 unless the damages
Particular allegation*
(1) Petition alleging indorsement
and delivery of note held sufficient to
sustain default judgment against in-
dorser.—Skaer v. Capsey, 273 P. 464,
127 Kan. 383.
(2) A petition alleging that de-
fendant made and executed a note
to payee therein sufficiently averred
delivery by maker to payee so as to
support a Judgment by default for
holder of note.— Morgan v. Baum,
Tex.Civ.App., 116 S,W,2d 11SO, error
dismissed.
03) Petition seeking damages be-
cause of automobile collision, alleg-
ing that car was negligently and
carelessly drive'n, was sufficient on
which to base default judgment. —
Metzger v. Gambill, Tex.Civ.App., 37
S.W.2d 107*7, error refused.
68. Ala. — Coffee v. Keeton, 26 So/2d
80,
Ariz.— Sturges v. Sturges, 50 P.2d
886, 46 Ariz. 331.
Ga. — Summerour v. Medlin, 172 S.E.
836, 48 Ga.iA.pp. 403.
• Miss. — Stevens v. Harbour, 8 So.2d
242, 19i3 Miss. 109.
Mont. — Lindsey v. Drs. Keenan, An-
drews & Allred, 165 P.2d 804.
Okl.— Maryland Casualty Co. v. Ap-
ple, 267 P. 239, 1'30 Okl. 270.
Pa. — Richey v. Gibboney, 34 A. 2d 913,
154 Pa.Super. 1— Kennedy v. tJp-
per Darby Building & Loan Ass'n,
Coim.Pl., 29 DeLCo. 247.
Tex.— Bhyne v. Missouri State Life
Ins. Co., Com.App., 291 S.W. 845—
Beard v. Smith. Civ.lA.pp., 136 S.W.
2d 8"86, error dismissed, judgment
correct— Hicks v. Rapides Grocery
Co., CivJLpp., 101 S.W.2d 1042—
Tolivar v. Lombardo, Civ.App. 88
S.W.2d 7133 — Watson Co., Builders,
v. Sleeker, Civ.App.f 269 S.W. 147.
Wash.— Sandgren v. West, 115 P.2d
724, 9 Washed 494.
34 C.J. P 153 note 13 Dal.
Particular actions
(1) Actions on notes.
Ky.— Stegemiller v. Crowe, 17«
W.2d 91317, 297 Ky. 52.
Tex. — Anderson v. Dreyfuss & Son,
CivJApp., 32 S.W.2d 5-27— Morgan
v. Davis, Civ.'App., 292 S.W. 610.
(2) Action on fire insurance poli-
cy.— JBtna Ins. Co. of Hartford,
Conn., v. Long, 72 S.W.2d 588, 123
Tex. 500.
(J3) Action to enforce lien. —
Thompson v. Hickman, 262 S.W. 20,
164 Ark. 469.
Particular allegations
(1) Complaints which fail to al-
lege breaches of express or implied
contracts for sums certain or com-
putable do not authorize Judgments
by default final under the statute. —
Byerly v. General Motors Acceptance
Corporation, 145 S.E. 236, 196 N.C.
256 — Baker v. Corey, 141 S.B. 892,
195 N.C. 299.
(2) Petition on note, not alleging
notice of dishonor to indorser, or
that such notice was waived, dis-
pensed with, excused, or not re-
quired, will not support default judg-
ment against indorser.— Levy Plumb-
ing Co. v. Heating & Plumbing Fi-
nance Corporation, Tex.Civ.App., 66
S.W.2d 456.
(3) Mere allegation that plaintiff
is temporary administrator of estate
held insufficient to show authority to
bring suit, precluding default judg-
ment against defendant on petition
containing such allegation. — Feni-
more v. Youngs, 26 S.W.2d 195, 119
Tex. 159,
69. Ark.— Arkansas Bond Co. v.
Harton, 87 S.W.2d 52, 191 Ark.
665.
Tex. — Wright v. Shipman, Civ.App.,
279 S.W. 296.
34 C.J. p 154 note 28.
Excessive relief
Where court enters a judgment
or awards relief clearly beyond the
prayer of the complaint or the scope
of its allegations, the excessive re-
lief is, at least in default cases,
void. — State v. District Court of
Eighth Judicial Dist in and for Na-
trona County, 238 P. 545, 33 Wyo.
281.
TO. Okl. — Maryland Casualty Co. v,
Apple, 267 P. 239, 130 Okl. 270.
71, Mont. — State ex rel. Delmoe v.
District Court of Fifth Judicial
Dist., 46 P.2d 89, 100 Mont 131.
Tex.— Bitch v. Jarvis, Civ.App., 64
S.'WJ2d 831, error dismissed.
Wash.T-Koche v. McDonald, 239 P.
1015, 136 Wash. 322, 44 A.L.R.
444, reversed on other grounds 4*8
338
S.Ct, 142, 275 U.S. 449, 72 L.Bd.
365, 53 A.L.R. 1141.
72. Ark. — Home Indemnity Co. of
New York v. Bobo, 55 S.W.2d 81,
186 Ark. 636— Wilson v. Overturf,
248 S.W. 898, 157 Ark. 3'85.
Cal.— Williams v. Foss. 231 P. 766,
69 CaLApp. 705.
111.— Roe v. Cook County, 1913 N.E.
472, 358 111. 568— Baxter v. Atchi-
son, T. <& S. F. Ry. Co., 35 N.B.-2d
563, 310 Ill.lApp. 616.
Okl. — Western Union Telegraph Co.
v. Beach, 211 P. 1034, 88 Okl. 73.
Tex.— Missouri State Life Ins. Co.
v. Rhyne, Civ.App., 276 S.W. 757,
reversed on other grounds in part
and affirmed in part Rhyne v. Mis-
souri State Life Ins. Co., Com.App.,
291 S.W. 845.
34 C.J. p 154 note 24.
7& Ariz. — Sturges v. Sturges, 50 P.
2d 886, 46 Ariz. 331.
Del. — American University v. Todd,
1 A.2d 595, 9 W.W.Harr. 449.
Minn.— Roe v. Widme, 254 N.W. 274,
191 Minn. 251.
3*4 C.J. P 154 note 25.
Determination, of proper remedy
Default judgment on defective
statement of good cause of action is
erroneous and must be appealed from
in order to have it set aside, but de-
fault judgment on statement which
is insufficient to make out cause of
action is irregular and can be set
aside in reasonable time where merit
is shown and there is no laches. —
Hood ex rel. Citizens Bank & Trust
Co. v. Stewart, 184 S.B. 36, 209 N.C.
424.
74. Kan. — Skaer v. Capsey, 273 P.
464, 1*27 Kan. 383.
NX!.— Finger v. Smith, 1*8 S.B. 186,
191 N.C. 818.
Okl.— Ogilvie v. First Nat. Bank, 64
P.2d 875, 179 Okl. I'll— McNeal v.
Moberly, 1 P.2d 707, 150 Okl. 253
— Great American Ins. Co. v. Kes-
water, 268 P. 258, 131 Okl. 19-6.
Tex.— Wa«ples Platter Co. v. Miller,
Civ.App., 139 S.W.2d 833— Ritch
v. Jarvis, Civ.App., 64 S.W.2d 831,
error dismissed.
34 C.J. p 154 note 26.
75. N.C.— J. T. Bostick & Bro. v.
Laurinburg & S. R. Co.* 102 S.E.
882, 1-79 N.C. 485.
34 CJT. p 155 note 27.
49 C-J-S-
JUDGMENTS
§ 193
are assessed on all the counts.76 Thus a judgment
by default may be sustained on the common counts
although a special count is objectionable;77 or such
judgment may be entered on the special count, with-
out a discontinuance on the money counts.78
b. Piling
In most Jurisdiction*, before a valid default Judg-
ment oan be entered the plaintiff's pleading must have
been filed within the time required by law.
In most jurisdictions it is essential to the validity
of the judgment that the declaration, petition, or
complaint be filed at or within the time required
by law79 before judgment,80 or within the time lim-
ited by order of court,81 unless defendant waives
the requirement as to the filing82 or is estopped to
raise the objection.83 In the absence of waiver or
estoppel, such a judgment is premature and errone-
ous if it is entered before the declaration or com-
plaint has been on file the number of days required
by statute or rule,84 or before the declaration or
complaint has been filed at all;85 and it is not vali-
dated by a subsequent filing.86 In some jurisdic-
tions, however, the fact that the declaration or
complaint is not filed within the required time does
not affect a judgment by default,87 especially where
defendant might have moved for a dismissal because
of the delay in filing, but failed to avail himself of
that remedy.88
Filing instrument. Under some statutes it is also
essential that a written instrument on which the
action is brought, or a copy thereof, be filed with
the declaration, in order to sustain a judgment by
default,89 unless such instrument constitutes a part
of the records of the court,90 but under other stat-
utes the filing of such instruments or copies is not
required.91
Where pleading lost. Where plaintiffs declara-
tion, complaint, or petition has been lost, together
with the writ of summons, plaintift'cannot file a new
petition and take a judgment by default without
first supplying the lost record by a proper proceed-
ing taken on noticS to defendant.92
c. Service
Where the statutes so provide, a copy of the plain-
tiff's pleading or a notice of rule to plead must be served
on the defendant In order to sustain a default Judgment.
Under some statutes it is essential that a copy of
the declaration, complaint, or petition be served on
defendant at or within a specified time,93 or that he
be served with notice of rule to plead,9* unless such
service is waived.95 However, where defendant is
allowed to come in and plead after a default is tak-
en, he is bound to plead, and, if he does not do so,
judgment by default may be taken against him,
although he is not served with a copy of the decla-
ration.96
76. Mass.— Dryden v. Dryden, '9
Pick. 546— Hemmenway v. Htckes,
4 Pick. 497.
77. 111.— Rowell v. Chandler, 88 HI.
288.
Wis.— - Ford v. Balrd, 2 Finn., Wls.,
242.
78. Miss.— Sorla v. Planters' Bank.
<4 (Miss. 46.
34 C.J. p 155 note 30.
79. Fla.— Daniell v. Campbell! 101
So. 35, 8*8 Fla, 63.
HI.— (Andrews v. Lawrence, 9 NJBL2d
584, 288 IlLApp. 627.
Before return -day
It has been held that merely filing
the statement of claim before judg-
ment is not sufficient; the statement
must also be filed before the return
day of the writ — Witman v. Schle-
gel, 21 Pa.Dist & Co. 113, 26 Berks
CO.L.J. 15.
SO. Pa. — Smith v. Bergdollr 159 A.
•462, 104 Pa.Super. 49— Moran v.
Quirk, Com.Pl., 8 Sch.Reg. 223.
34 C.J. p 155 note <35.
81. Iowa. — Carver v. Seevers, 102 N.
W. 518, 126 Iowa 669.
82, Ga,— McDonald v. Tutty, 27 S.E.
157, 99 Ga. 184.
34 C.J. p 155 note 37.
83. HI.— Schultz v. Meiselbar, 32 N.
E. 550, 144 HI. 26.
34 C.J. P 155 note 38.
84. Cal.— Billings v. Palmer, 88 P.
1077, 2 CaLApp. 432.
34 C.J. p 155 note 39.
85. Ala.— Haygood v. Tait, 27 So.
842, 126 Ala. 264.
34 iC.J. p 155 note 40.
Judgment held not void but merely
irregular and subject to reversal. —
Terry v. Dickinson, 75 Va. 475*
86- Ala,— Rankin v. Crowill, Minor
125. '
Colo. — Gallup v. Wilder, 1 Colo. 264.
87. N.C. — Leach v. Western North
Carolina R. Co., 65 N.C. 486.
54 C.J. p 155 note 42.
88. N.C.— Roberts v. Allman, 11 S.B.
•424, 106 N.C. 891.
89. Pa.— McCoy v. Royal Indemnity
Co., -164 A. 77, 107 Pa.Super. 486.
34 C.J. p 156 note 45.
90. Pa.— Salter v. Griffith, 89 Pa.
200.
91.' TJ.S.— Fidelity & Deposit Co. of
Maryland v. TJ. S., App.D.C., 23 S.
Ct 120, 187 U.S. 315, 47 L.Ed. 194.
34 C.J. p 156 note 48.
92. Mo.— Brown v. King, 39 Mo. 380.
339
93. Mich.— Marshall v. Calkins, 72
N.W. 992, 114 Mich. 697.
34 C.J. p 156 note 52.
Amended pleading*
Where an original complaint had
dropped out of existence as such
when a second default was entered
against a defendant, and an amended
complaint had not yet been served
on defendant, the second default
stood as a nullity. — Sheehy v. Roman
Catholic Archbishop of San Francis-
co, 122 P.2d 60, 49 CaLApp.2d 537.
In Pennsylvania
<1) A certified copy of plaintiff's
statement of his claim must be serv-
ed on defendant. — Newbold v. Pen-
nock, 26 A. 606, 154 Pa. 591—34 C.J.
p 156 note 52 [d].
(2) However, where the default is
based on want of appearance, serv-
ice of the statement of claim is not
required, it being sufficient that the
statement is on file before judgment
is entered.— Smith v. Bergdoll, 159
A. 462, 104 Pa.Super. 49.
94. Mich.— Campbell v. Donovan. 69
N.W. 514, 111 Mich. 247.
3*4 C.J. p 156 note 53.
95. Ga. — Brown v. Tomberlin, 73 S.
E. 947, 137 Ga. 596.
96. N.Y.— Hitchcock
Wend, 628.
T. Barlow,
§ 193
JUDGMENTS
49 C-J-S-
d. Verification and Signature
Under some statutes the complaint must be prop-
erly verified or signed In order to sustain a default judg-
ment.
Under some statutes it is necessary, in order to
sustain a judgment by default, that the complaint
should be properly verified,*? or be accompanied by
plaintiffs affidavit showing the nature of his de-
mand and the amount due,98 but it has been held
that the want of a proper verification is a mere ir-
regularity which will not avoid the judgment"
Although under some statutes it is necessary that
the petition or complaint be signed by plaintiff or
his attorney in order to support a default judg-
ment,1 it has been held that the fact that it was
not so signed, if not objected to on this ground,
does not render a default judgment thereon either
void or voidable.2
§ 194. Amendment
Where the complaint Is amended In a matter of sub-
stance after default, a valid default Judgment cannot be
entered on the amended pleading unless the defendant
2s duly notified of the amendment and given oppor-
tunity to plead.
Where the declaration or complaint is amended
in a matter of substance after defendant has de-
faulted, the amendment opens the case in default,
as discussed infra § 338, and a valid default judg-
ment cannot thereafter be entered on the amended
pleading3 unless the defaulting defendant is prop-
erly notified of or served with the amended plead-
ing and given an opportunity to plead, and then
fails to do so within the proper time.4 Where,
however, the amendment is not as to a matter of
substance, but only as to an immaterial or formal
matter, notice or service of the amendment is not
necessary before entering judgment by default;5
neither is such notice or service required as to an
amendment which is not a voluntary one, but is
made by order of court on the motion of defend-
ant,6 or as to parties who are brought into the case
at the instance of defendant and against whom
plaintiff does not seek to recover.? It has also been
held that, in the absence of statute or rule so re-
quiring, a defendant who has been summoned but
has not yet been put in default need not be resum-
moned or notified of a subsequent amendment to the
37. N.C.— McNair v. Yarboro, 118 S.
E. 91»3, 186 NJC. 111.
34 C.J. p 1B6 note 68.
•Verification repairing verified answer
Where verification of the complaint
•calls for a verified answer, verifica-
tion by a corporate plaintiff's attor-
ney who resided in a county other
than that of plaintiff, was held not
sufficient to authorize judgment by
•default for failure to interpose a
verified answer. — Geo. H. Storm &
•Co. v. G. Migliore & Sons, 234 N.T.S.
571, 130 Misc. 654.
•Verification "by attorney
A statement of claim is insufficient
•where the affidavit thereto is taken
1>y plaintiff's attorney without any
averment that he has knowledge of
the facts.— Gather v. Hess, 10 Pa.
Dist & Co. 89, 76 Pittsb.Leg.J. 102.
S8. 11L— Giles v. Grady & Neary Ink
Co., 5 N.E.£d 106, 287 IlLApp. 624.
34 C.J. p 1517 note 59.
An ns^erified statement of claim
is insufficient.— <VJw» T. Grady &
Neary Ink Co., supra.
99. N.C.— -Miller v. Curl, 77 fcE. 952,
162 N.G. 1.
34 C.J. p 157 note 60.
. Tex.— Morris v. Soble,
6»1 SJW.2d 139.
. Tex. — Shipp v. (Anderson, Civ.
'App., 17* S.W. 398.
. Ariz.— Gna Valley Electric, Gas
& Water Co. v. Arizona Trust &
Savings Bank. 215 P, lb$. 25 Aria.
177.
Cal. — Sheehy v. Roman Catholic
Archbishop of San Francisco, 122
P.2d 60, 49 Cal.App.2d 537— Gutle-
ben v. Crossley, 56 (P.2d 954, 13
CaLApp.2d 2<49.
111. — l.usk v. Bluhm, 68 N.E.2d 135,
321 CIlLApjk 1349.
Kan.— Taylor v. Focks Drilling &
Manufacturing Corporation, 62 P.
2d 90-3, 144 Kan. 626.
,34 C.J. p 157 note 65.
Duty of court
Before entering default judgment
after amendment of pleadings, trial
court should examine the pleadings
and ascertain whether amendments
were so substantial as to constitute
waiver of default. — Bley v. Dessin, 87
P/2d 889, 31 Cal.App.2d 338.
Against codefendaat
Failure to serve on adverse parties
amended answers whereunder for
first time affirmative relief, based on
adverse claims, is sought against co-
defendant who has previously de-
faulted, precludes acquisition of
binding additional adverse rights
therei vider. — Gutleben v. Crossley, 56
!V2d 95*4, 1«3 Cal.App.2d 249.
4* Ariz.— Gila Valley Electric, Gas
& Water Co. v. Arizona Trust &
Savings Bank, 215 P. 159, 25 Ariz.
177.
Ark. — Corpus Juris quoted in Shep-
herd v. Grayson Motor Co., 13-9' S.
W.2d 54, 56, 200 Ark. 199..
Cal.— Thompson v. Cook, 127 P.2d
909, 20 Cal.2d 564— Stack v. Weld-
er, 43 P.2d 270, 3 Cal.Sd 71— In re
Wiechers* Estate, 250 'P. 397, 199
Cal. 623, certiorari denied Wiech-
340
ers v. Wiechers, 47 S.Ct. 476, 273
U.S. 762, 71 LJEd. 379— Sheehy v.
Roman Catholic Archbishop of San
Francisco, 122 P.2d 60, 49 Cal. App.
2d 537 — Strosnider v. Superior
Court in and for El Dorado Coun-
ty, 62 P.2d 1394, 17 Cal.App.2d 047
— Gutleben v. ICrossley, 56 «P:2d 954,
13 Oal.App.2d 249.
111.— Lusk v. Bluhm, 513 N.E.2d 135,
321 IlLApp. 349— Dahlin v. May-
tag Co., 238 'IlLApp. 85 — Gilbert v.
American Trust & Savings Bank,
118 IlLApp. 678.
Tex. — Stewart v. Davenport, Civ.
App., 120 SJW.2d 496, error dis-
missed—Phillips v. The Maccabees,
Civ.App., 50 S.W.2d 478— Liquid
Carbonic Co. v. Head, Civ. App., «48
S.W.2d 464, error dismissed — Jen-
ness v. First Nat. Bank, Civ.App.,
256 S.W. 634. .
3«4 C.J. (P 157 note 66.
6. Cal.— Thompson v. Cook, 127 P.2d
90$, 20 CaLSd 564— Sheehy v. Ro-
man Catholic Archbishop of "San
Francisco, 122 P.2d 60, 49 Cal.App.
2d 5*37— Bley v. Dessin, 8-7 (P.2d
889, 31 £al.App.2d 338.
Okl. — Stephens v. Ellison, 63 P.2d
80, 178 Okl. 390.
Tex. — McConnell v. Foscue, Civ.App.,
24 S.W. 96*4.
34 C.J. R 157 -note 68.
6. Kan. — Cross v. Stevens, 25 P.
880, 45 Kan. 443.
7. Tex.— Perryman v. Smith, Civ.
App., 32 S.W. 349.
49 C-J-S-
WDGMEXTS
196
•complaint, if the amendment is such as supports the
original cause of action.8
Bringing in new party. If, pending the action, a
new party is brought in as defendant, he cannot be
defaulted unless the complaint is amended, or a new
•complaint filed against him,9 and he has been given
an opportunity to appear and plead.10 The sum-
mons 'cannot be changed after defendant's default
"by bringing in a new plaintiff and giving him a
judgment.11
Judgment before amendment. Where judgment
"by default is entered, before an amendment is made,
"based on the original complaint, it is unnecessary to
•serve the amended complaint on defendant as to
such default;12 but, where plaintiff is required to
amend his pleading, he cannot enter a default judg-
ment before the amendment is made.1*
Against plaintiff. The fact that a cause of action
alleged in the original complaint is omitted in the
amended one is no ground for entering default
against plaintiff as to the omitted cause of action.14
§ 195. Grounds for Judgment
The defendant should not be considered In default
except on some definite and sufficient ground.
Since, as stated supra § 187, judgments by de-
fault are not favored, defendant should not be con-
sidered in default except on some definite and suf-
ficient ground;15 he must have violated or disre-
garded some statute,16 order,1? rule of court,18 or
stipulation of the parties,19 and even then he should
not be considered in default if a good excuse for
such violation is shown.20 It is not usually ground
for a judgment by default that defendant has failed
to obey an order which the court has no power to
make.21 It is also erroneous to enter a judgment
by default where a judgment of nonsuit appears on
the record as still subsisting.22 Where defendant
pleads in abatement, and no replication is filed, his
failure to move for a judgment of non pros, does
not authorize the entry of a judgment against him.2n
§ 196. Default of Appearance
Judgment by default may be taken against a de-
fendant who falls to enter an appearance within the
proper time after being duly served with process.
Where defendant has been duly served with proc-
ess, and fails to enter his appearance within the
proper time, plaintiff may take judgment by de-
fault.24 Such a judgment, however, cannot be ren-
S, III.— Niehoff v. -People, to Use of
Began, 49 N.B. 21«4, 171 111. 2*3—
James "W. Rice Co. v. Agnew, 147
Ill.App. 468, modified on other
grounds 91 N.E. 448, 244 HI. 264
— Gilbert v. American Trust &
Savings Bank, 118 Ill.App. 678.
3. Ky.— Davie v. Louisville, 166 S.
W. 969, 159 Ky. 252.
K.C. — Vass v. Peoples' Building &
Loan Ass'n, 91 N.C. 55.
10. Cal. — Weldon v. Lawrence, 245
P. 451, 76 Cal.A'pp. 530.
34 OJ. p 158 note 72.
Mere entry of appearance by new
•defendant does not authorize de-
fault judgment against him until the
expiration of the time to file answer.
Aufderheide v. Aufderheide, Mo.App.,
18 S.W.2d 119.
11. N.Y. — Korman v. Grand Lodge I.
O. F. S. I., 90 N.Y.S. 120, 44 Misc.
564.
12. Cal.— Cole v. Roebling Constr.
Co., 105 IP. 255, 156 Cal. 443.
34 C.J. p 158 note 74.
13. Mich.— Rosenfeld v. Wayne Cir.
Judge, 177 N.W. 946, 210 Mich. 689.
14. Cal. — Concannon v. Smith, 66 P.
40, -134 Cal. 14.
15. Wyo.— McGinnis v. Beatty, 204
P. 1840, 28 Wyo. 828.
34 aj. p 158 note 80.
16. Wyo.— McGinnis v. Beatty, su-
pra.
34 C.J. p 158 note 81.
17. Wyo.— McGinnis v. Beatty, su-
pra.
18. Wyo.— McGinnis v. Beatty, su-
pra.
19. Wyo. — McGinnis v. Beatty, su-
pra.
34 C.J. p 158 note 84.
20. Ga.— Sutherlin v. Underwriters'
Agency, 53 Ga. 442.
34 C,J. p 158 note 85.
21. Md.— Baltimore & O. R. Co. v.
Ritchie, 31 <Md. 191.
22. Mo.— Kelley v. Hogan, 1-6 Mo.
215.
'34 C.J. p 158 note 8T.
23. Ala. — Gaston v. (Parsons, 8 Port
469.
2* TT.S.— Lanham v. Cline, D.CJda-
ho, 44 F.Supp. 897.
Ala. — Green v. NuGrape Co., 100 So.
84, 19 Ala.App. 663.
Conn.— Gaul v. Baker, 148 A. W, 10=8
Conn. 173.
m.-^Tones v. Harris Trust & Savings
Bank, 282 IlLApp. 131.
Ind. — Carson v. Perkins, 29 N,E.2d
7.72, 217 Ind. 543.
La. — Franek v. Turner, 114 So. 14'8,
164 La. 532— City of Monroe v.
Glasscock, Morrison, Conner Const
Co., App., 178 So. 684— Union Mo-
tor Co. v. Williams, 8 La.App. *391.
Mass.— MacEachern y. S. S. White
Dental Mfg. Co., 23 N.E.2d 1020,
<30>4 Mass. 419.
Mich.— Kunsky-Trendle Broadcasting
341
Corporation v. Kent Circuit Judge,
27o N.W. 175, 281 Mich. 367.
Mo. — Gerber v. Kansas City, 277 S.
W. 562, 311 Mo. 49.
Mont. — Taylor v. South wick, 253 P.
889, 78 Mont. 329.
N.J. — Edelstein v. Hub Loan Co., 33
A.2d 829, ISO N.J.Law 511.
N.Y.— Redfleld v. Critchley, 14 N.E.2d
377, 277 N.Y. 3'36, 278 N.Y. 483—
Conrad v. Harbaugh, 287 X.Y.S.
1012, 248 App.Div. 655— Kinzler v.
Schoeler, 47 N.Y.S.2d 508, 181 Misc.
368.
OkL— New v. Elliott, 211 P. 1025, 88
OkL 126.
Pa. — Deemer & Co. v. Kline Tp.
School Dist., 37 Pa.Dist. & Co. 698,
6 Sch.Reg. 378— Rhoades v. Decker,
34 Pa.Dist & Co. 409— Williams &
Co. v. Orlando, 6 FaJMst. & Co.
153, 19 North Co. 295— Auberle v.
Ciliberto, Com.Pl., 81 Del.Co. 32—
Smith v. Morris, Com.Pl., 41 Lack.
Jur. 18 — Simpson Motor Truck Co.
v. Piccolomini, Com.Pl., 87 Pittsb.
Leg.J. 87, 1 I>ay.L.J. 87— Moran v.
Quirk, ComvPl., 8 ScKReg. 223.
Philippine.— Wolf son v. Chinchilla, 8
Philippine 467, 5 Off-Gaz. 560—
Behn v. Arnalot Hernranos. 7 Phil-
ippine 742, 5 Off-Gaz. 2?51.
S.C.— Bissonette v. Joseph, 170 S.E.
467, 178 BX3. 407.
Tex. — Panhandle Compress & Ware-
house Co. v. Best, Civ.App., 58 S.W.
2d 140.
Va,— Brame v. Nolen, 124 SJR 299,
139 Va, *13.
§ 196
JUDGMENTS
49 C-J-S
dered if defendant has made a formal entry of ap-
pearance25 or its equivalent,26 or has taken any step
in the proceedings which unequivocally shows that
he submits himself generally to the jurisdiction of
the court.27 Where plaintiffs failure to proceed
justifies the conclusion that he has abandoned the
suit, a judgment by default cannot be grounded on
defendant's failure to appear.28
A special appearance^ entered for the purpose
of objecting to the jurisdiction of the court,30 or
to make a motion to dissolve an attachment,31 or
for a continuance,32 is generally held not to be such
an appearance as will prevent a judgment by de-
fault, but there is also authority to the contrary;33
and it has been held that, on a special appearance
for the purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction of
the court, it is 'error to enter a default judgment
without a hearing and ruling on the objection.34
Appearance by attorney. If defendant's appear-
ance is entered by an attorney, in order that it may
be such as will prevent a judgment by default for
want of appearanc*, it must be made by formal no-
tice of his retainer and appearance35 or by the fil-
ing of a pleading.36 If defendant has not been
properly served with process, judgment by default
cannot be entered against him on an unauthorized
appearance by an attorney;37 but, where defendant
has been properly served with process, an unauthor-
ized appearance for him by an attorney does not
prevent such a judgment from being entered against
him.33
§ 197. Withdrawal of Appearance
Where the defendant's appearance Is withdrawn,
Judgment by default may be taken against him as on
nonappearance.
As discussed in Appearances § 30, the withdrawal
of defendant's appearance, after pleading, works a
withdrawal of his plea or answer, and a judgment
by default may thereafter be entered on his default
as on nonappearance.39 If the attorney who has en-
tered an appearance for defendant withdraws his
appearance, before further proceedings are had,
judgment by default for want of an appearance may
then be taken.40 And the absence of an order per-
mitting the withdrawal cannot be complained of by
defendant, as the subsequent entry of judgment is
a ratification by the court of the withdrawal.41
However, the withdrawal of the attorney's appear-
ance after the filing of a plea does not withdraw the
plea so as to justify a judgment by default;42 and,
where an attorney abandons his client's cause with-
out notice, the client should be given a reasonable
time to secure other counsel before judgment is
taken against him by default.43 Under some stat-
utes, where an attorney is permitted to withdraw the
answer and his appearance for defendant who fails
Wash.— State v. McCoy, 209 P. 1112,
122 Wash. 94.
34 C.J. p 158 note 91.
25. Mich. — Buchanan v. Weiden, 237
N.W. 370, 255 Mich. 82.
Mont. — Taylor v. Southwick, 255 (P.
889, 78 Mont. '329— Edenfteld v. G.
V. Seal Co., 241 P. 227, 74 Mont
509.
34 C.J. p 159 note 92.
26. U.S. — Sheepshanks v. Boyer, C.
C.Pa., 21 F.Cas.No.12,741, Baldw.
462.
34 C.J. p 159 note 93.
27. N.T.— Jennings v. Doyle, 33 N.
T.S.2d 695, 268 App.Dlv. 488, mo-
tion denied in part and dismissed
in part 50 N.B.2d 242, 290 N.T.
855, affirmed 50 N.E.2d 645, 291
N.Y. 505.
34 C.J. p 159 note 94.
Representation at trial
Party brought into municipal court
as third party defendant, who filed
no appearance or plea of any kind,
was in default, although its attor-
ney was present during the trial and
took part in the defense. — Jones v.
Harris Trust & Sayings Bank, 282
IlLApp. 131.
Pleading1 designated special appear,
ance
Where, in a garnishment proceed-
ing, a person ordered interpleaded
as party defendant served a verified
pleading denominated a special ap-
pearance, but which in fact amount-
ed to an answer or plea in abate-
ment, default judgment as for non-
appearance could not be rendered*
— Dakota Nat. Bank y. Johnson, 204
N.W. 840, 52 N.D. 845.
228. Tex. — Brooks Supply Co. v. BDar-
dee, Civ.App., 32 S.W.2d 384, er-
ror refused.
29. N.Y.— Powell v. Home Seekers'
Realty Co., -228 N.T.S. 131, 131
Misc. 590.
30. Conn.— Gaul v. Baker, 145 A. 61.
108 Conn. 173.
84 C.J. p 159 note 96.
31. Cal.— Glidden v. Packard, 28 Cal.
649.
34 C.J. p 159 note 97.
312. Ark. — Flowers v. Jackson, 51 S.
W. 462, 66 Ark. 458.
Colo.— Hoyt v. Macon, 2 Colo. 113.
33. Mont — Taylor v. Southwick, 253
P. 889, 78 Mont. 329.
34. Wash. — Rauch v. Zander, 234 P.
1089, 134 Wash. 40.
35. N.T. — Couch v." Mulhane, €3
HowJPr. 79.
34 C.J. p 169 note 99.
36. N.Y.— Couch v. Mulhane, supra.
342
37, Nev. — Stanton-Thompson Co. v.
Crane, 51 P. 116, 24 Nev. 171.
34 OJ. p 159 note &
33. Cal. — Hunter v. Bryant, 33 P.
55, 98 CaL 252.
W C.J. p 159 note 4.
39. N.T.— Kline v. Snyder, 231 N.Y.
S. 275, 133 Misc. 128.
3'4 C.J. p 159 note 7.
Attempted withdrawal
Where defendants appeared before
trial justice and made several mo-
tions, including application for trial
by jury, a subsequent attempted
withdrawal on their part was not
sufficient to render judgment there-
after entered one taken by default. —
Jay-Washington Realty Corporation
v. Koondel, 49 N.Y.S.2d 306, 268 App.
Div. 116.
40. Tex. — Cheshire v. Palmer, Civ.
App., 44 S.W.2d 438.
34 C.J. p 159 note 8.
41. N.M. — Rio Grande Irrigation &
Colonization Co. v. Gildersleeve, 48
P. 309, 9 N.M. 12, affirmed 19 S.Ct
761, 174 U.S. 603, 4J3 L.Ed. 1103.
42. Tex. — Muenster v. Tremont Nat.
Bank, 49 S.W. 362, 92 Tex. 422.
$4 C.J. p 159 note 10.
43. Mo.-^Parks v. Coyne, 137 S.W.
<335, 156 Mo.App. 379.
49 C-J-S-
JUDGMENTS
§ 199
to appear further, and no attempt is made by plain-
tiff to substitute counsel, or to notify defendant to
do so, judgment cannot be taken against defend-
ant."
§ 198. Absence from Trial or Other
Proceeding
As a general rule a default judgment may be taken
on defendant's failure to appear for the trial after is-
sues have been joined, but plaintiff has been required
to establish his cause of action before such default judg-
ment is entered.
As a general rule, judgment by default may be
entered on defendant's failure to appear, after is-
sue has been joined, when the case is called for
trial.45 However, in some jurisdictions defendant's
mere failure, after issue has been joined, to attend
when the case is called for trial is not by itself
sufficient grounds for taking judgment by default,46
at least where defendant had not been given notice
of trial47 or has some other good excuse for his
absence.48 Before plaintiff is entitled to judgment
in such a case, he must establish his cause of ac-
tion,4^ unless the facts admitted by the answer50 or
other pleas51 make out a prima facie case in his fa-
vor; and the proper course, in some jurisdictions,
is to call defendant and, on his failure to appear,
to proceed to trial, on which plaintiff must present
evidence in support of his demands;52 or plaintiff
may be allowed to proceed to take an inquest and
enter judgment thereon.53 Conversely, if plaintiff
fails to appear or proceed, under some statutes de-
fendant may proceed with the case and judgment
may be rendered on the merits;54 but under others
defendant cannot recover judgment on plaintiff's
cause of action where plaintiff fails to appear at
trial55 and defendant has pleaded only defensive
matters.56 If defendant files a set-off or counter-
claim and plaintiff fails to appear, defendant may
proceed with the trial of the set-off or counter-
claim.57
Pending imprisonment. Where after issue is
joined one party is sentenced to prison, the other
party may proceed in the action and take judgment
by default.58
§ 199. Default in Pleading
a. In general
b. Answering amended pleadings
c. Answer to part of cause
A Filing and serving plea or answer
44. Idaho. — Bogue Supply Co. v. Da-
vis, 210 P. 5-77, 86 Idaho 249, fol-
lowed in Lundin v. Davis, 210 P.
579, 36 Idaho 258.
45. U.S.— Corpus Juris quoted la
U. S. v. Hoblitzell, D.C.Va,, 2 P.
Supp. 832, 834.
Ala, — Sovereign Camp, W. O. W., v.
Gay, 104 So. 895, 20 Ala,App. 650,
reversed on other grounds 104 So.
898, 213 Ala. 5.
Conn. — Barton v. Barton, 196 A. 141,
123 Conn. 487.
•Ga.— Golightly v. Line, 121 SJ3. 878,
31 Ga.App. 550.
Iowa.— Vaux v. Hensal, 277 N.W. 718,
224 Iowa 1055.
Sy.— Strader v. Miller, «3 S.W.2d
668, 236 Ky. 637.
Pa.— Simpson Motor Truck Co. v.
Piccolomini, Com.Pl., 87 Pittsb.
Leg.J. 87, 1 Fay.iI/.J. 149.
Philippine. — Flores v. Flores, 7 Phil-
ippine 323, 5 OfLGaz. 165.
•R.I.— Dimond v. Marwell, 190 A. 683,
57 R.I. 477— Sahagian v. Superior
Court, 129 A. 813, 47 ILL 85. '
Tex. — Stevenson v. Thomas, Civ.App.,
56 S.W.2d 109'5, error dismissed—
Continental Oil & Gas Production
• Co. v. Austin, Civ.App., 17 S.W.2d
• 1114.
34 C.J. p 160 note 14.
46. U.S.— Corpus Juris quoted in
U. S. v. Hoblitzell, D.C.Va., 2 F.
Supp. 832, 834.
Wyo.— McDaniel v. Hoblit, 24$ P.
295, 34 Wyo. 509.
34 C.J. p 160 note 15*
47. Miss.— International Shoe Co. v.
Garfinkle, 112 So. 168, 146 Miss.
799.
34 C.J. p 160 note 16.
48. N.Y.— Concord Oil Corporation
v. York Heat Service, Inc., 27 N.
Y.S.2d 7*38, 262 App.Div. 758— Mur-
ling v. State, 1 Hilt. 116, 3 Abb.Pr.
109 — Sussman v. Silverman, 199
N.T.S. 419.
49. Ark.— Hurst v. Davies, 291 S.W.
799, 173 Ark. 36.
HI.— Du Breuil v. Klein, 25-3 IlLApp.
91.
Ky.— Kraft v. Ballback, 3 S.W.2d
1068, 223 Ky. 441.
Mo.— Eubanks v. Missouri Nat Life
Ins. Co., 24 S.W.2d 715, 223 Mo.
App. 1095.
N.Y.— Frucci v. Winters, 286 N.T.S.
781, 2<47 App.Div. 866.
SJX— Forman v. Hall, 212 N.W. 866,
51 S.D. 144.
Tex.— Paggi v. Rose Mfg. Co., Civ.
App., 259 S.W. 962.
34 C.J. p HO note 18.
50. Neb.— Sutton First Nat. Bank v.
Sutton Mercantile Co., 110 N.W.
306, 77 Neb. 596.
S.D.— Forman v. Hall, 212 N.W. 866,
51 S.D. 144.
51. Ala.— Lokey v. Ward, 154 So.
802, 228 Ala. 559 — Sovereign Camp,
W. O. W., v. Gay, 104 So. 895, 20
Ala. App. 650, reversed on other
grounds 104 So. 898, 213 Ala. 5.
Tex.— Dickson v. Navarro County
Levee Improvement Dist. No. 3,
343
Civ.App., 124 S.W.2d 94»3, followed
in Dickson v. Ellis County Levee
Improvement Dist. No. 10, 124 S.
W.2d 946, reversed on other
grounds 1<39 S.W.2d 260, 135 Tex.
102, set aside Dickson v. Navarro
County Levee Imp. Dist. No. S, 139
S.W.2d 257, 135 Tex. 95.
52. Cal.— Warden v. Lamb, 277 P.
867, 98 CaLApp. 738.
Iowa.— Vaux v. Hensal, 277 N.W. 718,
224 Iowa 1055.
Pa.— Anderson v. Gertler, Com.Pl..
92 Pittsb.Leg.J. 56.
34 C.J. p 160 note 20.
53. N.Y.— Rycroft v. Pierce, 135 N.
T.S. 447, 150 App.Div. 52-1, reset-
tled 135 N.T.S. 1140, 150 App.Div.
931.
34 C.J. P 160 note 21.
34. Cal. — Clune v. Quitzow. 57 P.
SS6, 125 Cal. 213.
34 C.J. p 160 note 23.
55. Tex. — Burger v. Toung, 15 S.W.,
107, 78 Tex. 656— Cornelius v.
Early, Civ.App., 24 S,W.2d 757, af-
firmed Early v. Cornelius, 39 S.W.
2d 6, 120 Tex. 335.
56b Ga. — Beasley Motor Co. v. Cow-
art, 154 S.E. 458, 41 Ga.App. 684.
57. Iowa. — Stewart v. Gorham, 98 N.
W. 512, 122 Iowa 669.
34 OJ. p 160 note 24.
58. Ga.— Peterson v. C. A. Martin
Furniture Co., 86 S.E. 1099, 144 Ga.
316.
N.T. — Bonnell v. Rome, W. & O. R-
Co., 12 Hun 218.
§ 199
JUDGMENTS
49 C-J-S-
e. Affidavit of defense or merits
f. After decision on motion or demurrer
g. Failure to reply or rejoin
h. Striking or withdrawal of pleading
i. Pending disposition of pleading
a. In General
(1) Genera! rules
(2) Rule or notice to plead
(3) Time for pleading
(1) General Rules
A default judgment may be entered against a de-
fendant who, having been duly served with process, fails
to demur, plead, or answer properly.
Where process has been duly served on defend-
ant, and plaintiff has filed a good declaration or
complaint, judgment as by default may be entered
against defendant if he fails to demur, plead, or
answer properly59 within the required time, as dis-
cussed infra subdivision a (3) of this section. The
rule applies notwithstanding defendant has entered
an appearance in the action,60 or has demanded a
trial by jury;81 but defendant's failure to answer
will not support a judgment by default where the
undisputed evidence shows that he is not liable to
plaintiff.62
Sufficiency of pleading to prevent default. To
prevent a judgment by default on this ground it is
generally held that defendant's plea or answer must
be in writing,63 and be properly signed64 and veri-
fied, where verification is required by statute,65 al-
though, under some statutes, it has been held that,
unless plaintiff takes steps to have an unverified
answer removed or stricken, judgment by default is
59. U.S.— Orsinger v. Consolidated
Flour Mills Co., C.CJLI11., 284 P.
224, certiorari denied 43 S.Ct. 248,
260 U.S. 746. 67 L.Ed. 493— Inter-
state Commerce Commission v. Da-
ley, IXCMass., 26 F.Supp. 421.
Ala, — Ex parte Central Alabama Dry
Goods Co., 189 So. 56, 238 Ala. 20.
Ariz.— Collins v. Streitz, 54 P.2d 264,
47 Ariz. 146, appeal dismissed 56
SXJt. 835, 298 U.S. 040, 80 L.Ed.
1-373— Martin v. Sears, 44 P.2d 526,
45 Ariz. 414.
Ark.— Dunbar v. Howell, 52 SJW.2d
618, 186 Ark. 1— Alger v. Beasley,
20 S.W.2d 317, 180 Ark. 46.
CaL— Union Oil Co. of California v.
Conejo OU Co., 267 P. 320, 91 CaL
App. 652 — Butler v. Robinson, 244
P. 162, 76 CaLApp. 223.
111. — Gardner v. Shekleton, 253 m.
App. 333.
La. — Fowler Commission Co. v. E. J.
Deas & Co., 127 So. 456, 13 La.
App. 141.
Miss.— Strain v. Gayden, 20 So.2d
697, 197 Miss. 353.
Mo. — O'Connell v. Dockery, App., 102
S.W.2d 748.
Mont.— Mihelich v. Butte Electric
Ry. Co., 281 P. 540, 85 Mont 604.
N.T.— Kinzler v. Schoeler, 47 N.Y.S.
2d 508, 181 Misc. 368.
N.C.— King: v. Rudd, 37 S.B.2d 116,
226 N.C. Ii6— Duplin County v. Ez-
zell, 27 S.E.2d 448, 223 N.C. 531—
Battle v. Mercer, 122 S.E. 4, 187
N.C. 4>37, rehearing denied 123 S.E.
258, 188 N.C. 116.
Ohio.— McCabe v. Tom, 171 N.E. 868,
35 Ohio App. 73.
OkL— New -v. Elliott, 211 P. 1025,
88 Okl. 126.
R.I.— Dimond v. Marwell, 190 A. 683,
57 R.I. 477.
Tex. — Postal Savings & Loan Ass'n
v. Powell, Civ.App., 47 S.W.2d 343,
error refused — Shaw v. Whitfield,
Civ.App., 35 S.W.2d 1115— Fort
Worth. Mut. Benev. Ass'n of Texas
v. Golden, CivJlpp., 287 S.W. 291 —
Dnval County Ranch Co. v.
Drought Civ.App., 260 S.W. 298 —
Smith v. Citizens' Nat. Bank of
Lubbock, Civ.App., 246 S.W. 407
— Gerlach v. North Texas & S. F.
Ry. Co., Civ.App., 244 S.W. 662.
Wash. — Garrett v. Nespelem Consol.
Mines, 139 (P.2d 273, 18 Wash.2d
340— Riddell v, David, 23 P.2d 22,
IT'S Wash, 370 — Lawrence v. Raw-
son, 217 P. 1019, 126 Wash. 158.
34 C.J. p 161 note 27.
Complaint in intervention properly
served on the original parties must
be answered as though it were an
original complaint; otherwise a
judgment by default may be taken. —
State Bank of New Salem v.
Schultze, 209 P. 599, 63 Mont. 410.
Consolidation of cross suit
Plaintiffs were held not entitled to
judgment by reason of defendant's
failure to file answer, where action
had been treated by all parties as
consolidated with cross suit.— Rowe
v. Arnett, 45 S.W.2d 12, 241 Ky. 768.
Answer of oodefendaut
(1) Ordinarily, the answer of a co-
defendant will not prevent the tak-
ing of a default judgment against
defendant who does not answer. —
Kunsky-Trendle Broadcasting Corpo-
ration v. Kent Circuit Judge, 275 N.
W. 175, 281 Mich. 867.
(2) However, where the answer of
a codefendant was treated by de-
fendants and the court as having
been filled on behalf of both defend-
ants, the entry of a default judg-
ment against the nonanswering de-
fendant was properly refused. —
Thomas v. Williams, 49 P.2d 557, 173
Okl. 601.
Constructive service N
Where service of process on each
of defendants was constructive only,
refusal of district court to quash |
344
that service imposed no duty on part
of defendants personally to answer
in the cause in order to avoid per-
sonal judgments by default — Kimbel
v. Osborn, Wyo., 156 P.2d 279.
60. CaL — Judson T. Superior Court
of Los Angeles County, 129 P.2d
861. 21 Cal.2d 11.
Ind. — Carson v. Perkins, 29 N.E.2d
772, 217 Ind. 543.
Mo. — State ex rel. Compagnie G6n4r-
ale Transatlantique v. Falkenhain-
er. 274 S.W. 758, '309 Mo. 224.
34 C.J. p 161 note 29.
Season for role
The entry of an appearance pre-
vents the taking of a judgment for
want of an appearance, but not ft
judgment for want of a plea. — Russ
v. Gilbert, 19 Fla. 54.
mi dicit
Tex. — Spivey v. Saner-Ragley Lum-
ber Co., ConuApp., 284 S.W. 210.
61. .Ala, — Ex parte Central Alabama
Dry Goods Co., 189 So. 56, 238 Ala,
20— Petree v. Olim, 89 So. 602, 203
Ala, 333.
62. Ark.— Wildrick v. Raney, 282 S.
W. 17, 170 Ark. 1194.
63. Tex. — State v. Patterson, Civ.
App., 40 S.W. 224.
34 C.J. <p 161 note 32.
64. Ky. — Simon v. Webster, 211 SL
W. 866, 184 Ky. 262.
34 C.J. p 161 note 33.
65. Ala, — Schwarz v. Oppenheimer,
8 So. 36, 90 Ala. 462.
ISr.C.— Griffin v. Asheville Light &
Power Col, 16 S.E. 423, 111 N.C.
434— Alford v. McCormac, 90 N.C.
151.
Tenn. — Trabue v. Higden, 4 Coldw.
620.
34 C.X p 161 note 34.
49 C-J-S-
JUDGMENTS
199
improper.66 It must also be filed in the particular
action,67 and must be responsive to, and join issue
on, the pleadings which defendant is bound to an-
swer.68
Failure to a-nsiver interrogatories. Under some
•statutes a party may take a judgment by default on
the opposing party's failure to answer interroga-
tories fileci.69 However, the fact that the answers
are deemed insufficient or evasive does not authorize
the court to enter a default without further pro-
ceedings;70 it should fix a time within which fur-
ther answers may be filed, in order that the time of
default, if they are not filed, may be definitely
loiown.71 After an answer to the merits, plaintiff
may not take judgment by default because defend-
ant neglects to answer interrogatories which are
taken for confessed, but may avail himself only of
the confession as proved on the trial.72
(2) Rule or Notice to Plead
Where defendant Is not required to plead until ruled
-to do so, he ordinarily may be put in default when, and
only when, *he has been duly served with rule to plead
and has failed to comply.
Where defendant fails to enter an appearance,
plaintiff is entitled to judgment by default without
serving or posting any rule to plead on him,73 but,
where defendant has appeared and the practice or
circumstances of the case are such that he is not
obliged to plead unless he is ruled to do so, he can-
not be put in default and judgment entered against
him, unless a rule to plead is taken out and prop-
erly served on him, requiring him to plead,74 Or
unless he waives his right to have plaintiff take out
such a rule,75 as where he agrees to go to trial with-
out requiring the issues to be completed.76 If, aft-
er the proper service or notice of such rule, defend-
ant fails to plead or answer within the appointed
time, judgment may be taken against him as for
want of a plea,77 although it has been held that a
plea filed after the day fixed by the rule will not be
too late, where it is filed before a default is asked
for and ordered,78 or where no delay is occasioned
by his failure to plead within the prescribed time.79
The sufficiency of the plea or answer on a rule to
plead must be determined by the court,80 and not
by plaintiff.81 Apart from the question of the pro-
priety or necessity of a rule to plead to put defend-
ant in default, it has been held in at least one ju-
risdiction that the -court cannot make and enforce
an order requiring defendant to plead, answer, or
demur, since defendant has an absolute right to
stand iii default.82
When rule not required. A rule requiring de-
fendant to plead, before the entry of a default, is
not required where the time to plead is limited by
statute or rule of court,83 or where a rule for judg-
ment for want of sufficient pleading has been ar-
gued and leave granted to file a supplemental plead-
ing;84 nor may such a rule be given and judgment
entered on it for want of a plea, after a plea has
been entered and the cause remanded to the rules.85
66. Iowa.— Mallory v. Sailing:, 48
Iowa 699— Wolff v. Hagensick, 10
•Iowa 590.
67. Tex.— Dowell v. Winters, 20 Tex.
793.
84 C.J. p 161 note 36.
68. Minn. — Hasse v. Victoria Co-op.
Creamery Ass'n, 294 N.W. 475, 208
Minn. 457.
34 C.J. p 161 note 37.
Motion, to dismiss
Defendant's motion to dismiss pe-
tition for want of security for costs
was not a "pleading" preventing a
default Judgment for want of an an-
swer or demurrer. — Morrison v. Bak-
er, Ohio App., 58 N.GE.2d 708.
Motion for 1)111 of particulars
Motion to require plaintiff to set
forth particulars of claim for serv-
ices is not a demurrer, but is with-
in statute as to bill of particulars*
and judgment by default is proper
after removal of motion from cal-
ender for want of appearance. — But-
ler v. Robinson, 244 P. 162, 76 Cal.
App. 223-73*4 C.J. p 161 note 37.
69. Ohio. — Simpson v. Jackson, 163
KB. -307, 29 Ohio App. 530.
34 C.J. p 161 note 39.
7<X Mass. — Fels v. Raymond, 28 N.
E. 691, 139 Mass. 98.
71. Mass. — Hooton v. Redmond, 130
N.E. 107, 237 Mass. 508.
Wash. — Lawson v. Black Diamond
Coal Min. Co., 86 P. 1120, 44 Wash.
72. La.— Behan v. Hite, 14 La. 67.
73. U.S.— King v. Davis, C.C.Va., 137
F. 198, affirmed 157 F. 676, 85 C.
C.A. 348.
34 C.J. p 162 note 43.
74. Mich.— Griffin v. McGavin, 75 N.
W. 1061, 117 Mich. 372, 72 Am.S.R.
564.
34 C.J. p 162 note 45.
Rule to plead generally see the C.
J.S. title Pleading § 116, also 49
C.J. p 207 notes 91-1.
Directing1 tender of issues
Under a statute providing for
Judgment by default where defendr
ant neglects or refuses to join issue
under the direction of the court, a
defiault judgment is unauthorized
where the court did not direct the
tender of issues. — Continental Oil &
Gas Production Co. v. Austin, Tex.
Civ.App., 17 S.W.2d 1114.
345
75. Ind.— Kruse v. State, 103 N.E.
663, 55 Ind.App. 20$.
76. Ind. — Kruse v. State, supra.
77. 111. — Penman v. Village of Philo,
•32 N.E.2d 640, 309 IlLApp. 49.
Ind.— Carson v. Perkins, 29 N.E.2d
772, 217 Ind. 5'43.
Me.— Lebel v. Cyr, 34 A.2d 201, 140
Me. 98.
«34 C.J. p 162 note 48.
73. 111.— Castle v. Judson, 17 111.
381.
3"4 C.J. p 162 note 49.
79. Iowa. — Redfield v. Miller, 13 N.
W. 334, 59 Iowa 393.
80. Pa.— Goldstein v. Fritzius, 41
Pa. Super. 219.
81. Pa. — Goldstein v. Fritzius, su-
pra.
82. Mo.— State ex rel. Tighe v.
Brown, 23 S.W.2d 1092, 224 Mo.
App. 844.
83. Colo. — King v. Gardner, 55 P.
727, 25 Colo. 395.
111.— Michael v. Mace, 27 N.E. 694,
137 111. 485.
84. Pa.— Close v. Hancock, 3 Pa.Su-
per. 207, £9 Wkly.N.C. 460.
85* Ky. — Clark y. Davis, Hard. 410.
§ 199
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S-
Loss of pleading. Where, after the cause is at'
issue, the records and files of the court are de-
stroyed and plaintiff files a new declaration under
his affidavit that he has substantial copies of the
papers which had been filed, judgment by default
may not be entered against defendant because of
his failure to comply with a rule of the court to
plead;86 in such a case the court can do no more
than allow plaintiff to supply the plea.87
»
(3) Time for Pleading
Judgment by default cannot properly be taken un-
til the time for pleading has expired and defendant has
failed to plead within that time.
Defendant cannot be put in default for failure to
plead or answer before the expiration of the time
allowed to him for filing his plea or answer,88 and,
as discussed infra § 207, a judgment by default en-
tered against him before the expiration of that time
is irregular and voidable at his instance. However
judgment by default may be entered, if defendant
fails to plead or make up issues as the law requires,
within the time limited by statute or rule of court,89
or within the time limited by an order extending the
time to plead,90 unless such order is revoked, in
which case judgment may be taken for a failure to
plead within the time originally required.91 De-
fendant cannot escape the consequences of his de-
fault by filing an answer or plea after the expira-
tion of the time allowed,92 unless it is filed by con-
sent of plaintiff93 or leave of court,94 or unless, in
some jurisdictions, it is filed before the entry of the
default.9*
Excuse for delay. The filing of a plea or answer
after the time allowed therefor may be sufficient to
prevent a judgment by default, where there is a le-
gal and sufficient excuse for the delay,96 as where
86. HI.— Daniels v. Chicago Fifth
Nat Bank, 65 111. 409.
87. HI.— Daniels v. Chicago Fifth
Nat. Bank, supra.
88. Ala. — National Surety Co. v.
First Nat. Bank, 142 So. 414, 225
Ala, 108.
Cal.— Baird v. Smith, 14 P.2d 749, 216
Cal. 408.
La. — Ponchatoula Farm Bureau Ass'n
v. Tangipahoa Bank & Trust Co.,
160 So. 803, 181 La. 1039— Spillman
v. Texas & P. Ky. Co., 120 So. 905,
10 La.App. 379.
Mo.— Aufderheide v. Aufderheide,
App., 18 S.W.2d 119.
Mont. — Griffith v. Montana Wheat
Growers' Ass'n, 244 P. 277, 75
Mont. 466.
N.Y.— Earth v. Owens, 35 N.T.S.2d
632, 178 Misc. 628— Levin v. Levin,
284 N.T.S. 89-7, 157 Misc. 372.
Pa.— Deibert v. Kulp, 45 Pa.Dist. &
Co. 41*.
tfenn.— Fidelity-Phenix Fire Ins. Co.
v. Oliver, 152 S.W.2d 254, 25 Tenn.
App. 114— Marshall v. Johnson
Hardware Co., 5 Tenn. App. 369.
34 C.J. p 162 note 59.
Two "last" days
Where two modes of service of
process have been made under which
two different periods in which to an-
swer are provided for, one greater
than the other, defendant has right
of choice and no default can occur
until last day of the longer period to
answer has expired. — Olson v. Jor-
dan, 43 N.T.S.2d 348, 181 Misc. 942.
Sundays and holidays
In computing the time, intervening
Sundays and holidays are counted. —
Bailey v. Edmundson, 46 N.053. 10-64,
168 Mass. 297.
89. Ala. — Ex parte Central Alabama
Dry Goods Co., 1<89 So. 56, 288 Ala.
20.
Ariz.— Collins v. Streitz, &4 P.2d 264,
'47 Ariz. 146, appeal dismissed 56
S.Ct 835, 298 U.S. 640, 80 L.Ed.
137>3— Martin v. Sears, 44 P.2d 526,
145 Ariz. 414.
Ark.— Dunbar v. Howell, 52 S.W.2d
618, 1&6 Ark. 1 — Alger v. Beasley,
20 S.W.2d 317, 180 Ark. 46.
Cal.— Union Oil Co. of Calif ornia . v.
Conejo Oil Co., 267 P. 320, 91 Cal.
App. 652.
111. — Penman v. Village of Philo, 32
N.E.2d 640, 309 Ill.App. 49.
Mo. — O'Connell v. Dockery, App., 102
S.W.2d 7«48.
Mont.— Mihelich v. Butte Electric
Ry. Co., 281 P. 540, 85 Mont. 604.
N.C.— King v. Rudd, 37 S.E.2d 116,
226 N.C. 1'56 — Battle v. Mercer,
122 S.E. 4, 187 N.C. 457, rehearing
denied 123 S.E. 258, 188 N.C. 116.
Tex. — Continental Oil & Gas Produc-
tion Co. v. Austin, Civ.Ap,p., 17 S.
W.2d 111'4— Fort Worth Mut
Benev. Ass'n of Texas v. Golden,
Civ.App., 287 S.W. 291— Duval
County Ranch Co. v. Drought, Civ.
App., 260 S.W. 298.
Wash. — Garrett v. Nespelem Consol.'
Mines, 159 ?.2d 27'3, 18 Wash.2d
340.
34 C.J. p 165 note 61.
90. Cal.— Union Oil Co. of Califor-
nia v. Conejo Oil Co., 267 P. 320,
91 Cal.App. 652.
34 C.J. p 163 note 62.
91. N.Y.— Brown v. St John, 19
Wend. 617.
34 C.J. p 163 note 63.
92. Ariz. — Martin v. Sears, 44 P.2d
526, 45 Ariz. 414.
Cal.— Jones v. Moers, 266 P. 821, 91
CaljApp. 65.
Idaho. — Kingsbury v. Brown, 92 P.2d
1053, 60 Idaho 464, 124 A.L.R. 149.
111. — Straus v. Biesen, 242 111. App.
570.
346
N.C.— Elramy v. Abeyounis, 126 S.E.
T43, 189 N.C. 278.
Philippine.— Noel v. Lasala, 5 Phil-
ippine 260.
34 C.J. p 16i3 note -64.
93. 'Ind. — Rooker v. Bruce, 85 N.E.
351, 171 Ind. 86, 96.
Iowa. — Jones v. Jones, 13 Iowa 276.
Waiver of default see infra § 203.
94. -111.— Straus v. Biesen, 242 111.
App. 1370.
: C.J. p 163 note 66.
95. Cal.— Jones v. Moers. 266 P. 821,
91 CaLApp. 65.
Fla. — Johnson v. City of Sebring, 140
So. 672, 104 Fla. 584.
Ga. — Butters worth v. Swint, 186 S.E.
770, 53 Ga.App. 602— Bridges v
Wilmington Sav. Bank, 13-6 S.B.
281, 36 Ga.App. 239.
Mont. — Edenfield v. G. V. Seal Co.,
241 P. 227, 74 Mont. 509.
N.M. — Animas Consol. Mines Co. v.
Frazier, 69 P.2d 927, 41 N.M. 389.
Tex. — World Co. v. Dow, 287 S.W.
241, 110 Tex. 1146— Aubrey v. Dun-
nahoo, CivaApp., 90 S.W.2d 611.
Utah. — Sanders v. Milford Auto Co.,
218 P. 126, 62 Utah 110.
34 C.J. p 163 note 67.
96* D.C. — Home v. Ostmann, Mun.
App., 35 A.2d 1T4.
N.T. — Lord v. Vandenburgh, Ii3 N.T.
Super. 703.
N.C.— Blalock v. Whisnant, 199 S.E.
292, 214 N.C. 834.
34 C.J. p 16*4 note 68.
Attorney's inadvertence
Even though it does not constitute
a legally sufficient excuse, the court
should not summarily deny defend-
ant a hearing where he is caught un-
awares through attorney's Inadvert-
ence and no harm can result from
trial on merits. — Tonkel v. Williams,
112 So. 368, 146 Miss. 842.
49 C-J-S-
JUDGMENTS
§ 199
the delay is due to the action of the court,9? or is
attributable to plaintiffs own fault or irregular ac-
tion in the case,98 or the grant of further time in
which to plead,99 or a delay in the mails,1 unless
such delay is due to defendant's own fault.2
Whole of last day. Defendant has the whole of
the last day of the time limited in which to plead,
and cannot be put in default until that day has
fully expired,3 and, if the last day falls on a Sunday
or holiday, he is entitled to the whole of the next
succeeding day.4
Pleading and judgment on same day. Where de-
fendant's pleading is filed on the same day on which
judgment by default is entered, the court may con-
sider fractions of the day for the purpose of de-
termining whether or not the plea or answer was
actually filed before the judgment was rendered.5
In some jurisdictions it will be presumed, in the
absence of evidence to the contrary, that the plead-
ing was first in point of time, and the judgment,
therefore, erroneous.6 In other jurisdictions, how-
ever, the presumption is that the judgment was
first in point of time ;7 and, if the default is taken
in good faith, and without knowledge of the plead-
ing, it will be upheld as regular,8 although it was
in fact taken after the plea or answer was served,9
especially where the plea or answer was held back
for the purpose of delay.10
b. Answering Amended Pleadings
Where plaintiff substantially amends his. pleading,
default judgment usually may be taken against defend-
ant If he falls to file a new or amended plea within the
required time, provided he Is properly served with, or
notified of, the amended pleading.
Where plaintiff amends his declaration or com-
plaint so as to change the cause of action, or add
a new one and thereby abandons the original is-
sues, judgment by default may be taken against de-
fendant if he fails to file a new or amended answer
or plea within the time allowed therefor,11 notwith-
standing the original answer or pica is still on file,12
unless defendant is not properly served with, or
notified of, the amended pleading,1^ or ordered to
plead thereto,14 for after an amendment, without
notice, defendant may be defaulted only as to mat-
ters alleged in the original complaint and not as to
matters alleged in the amended complaint.15 This
rule, however, does not apply where the amendment
is merely to formal or immaterial matters, and does
not change the cause of action,16 unless the original
plea or answer has been withdrawn ;17 nor does it
apply where the original plea or answer set forth a
sufficient* defense to the declaration or complaint as
97. N.C.— White v. Lokey, 42 S.E.
44'5, 131 N.C. 72.
84 C.J. (P 164 note 69.
98. Mont. — Corpus Juris quoted in.
Keynolds v. Gladys Belle Oil Co.,
243 P. 576, 581, 75 Mont 332.
34 C.J. p 164 note 70.
99. D.C.— Home v. Ostoann, Mun.
App., 35 A.2d 174.
34 C.J. p 164 note 71.
Construction, of extension.
An indefinite agreement between
parties' attorneys for extension of
time to file answer should not be
construed by counsel technically or
strictly in taking of default judg-
ment, so as to deprive defendant un-
justly of his rights, but should be
construed in spirit of professional
courtesy and mutual helpfulness. —
Cahaley v. Cahaley, 12 N.W.2d 182,
216 Minn. 175, 157 A.L.R. 1.
1. N.T.— Tates v. Guthrie, 23 N.B.
741, 119 N.T. 420.
34 C.J. p 164 note 72.
2. N.T.— Kuh v. Goldman, 104 N.T.
S. 255, 119 AppJMv. 14'8.
34 C.J. p 164 note 73.
3- HI.— Mercer v. Mercer, 271 111.
App. 307.
Pa.— Deibert v. Kulp, 4'5 FteuDist &
Co. 4-13.
34 C.J. p 164 note T4.
4, N.T. — Rothchild v. Mannesovitch,
51 N.T.S. 253, 29 App.Div. 580.
34 CX p 164 note 75. .
5. pa. — Bordentown Banking Co. v.
Restein, 6!3 A. 451, 214 Pa. 30.
6. 111.— Lyon v. Barney, 2 111. 387.
Pa.— Rank v. Hauer, 2 Pa.Co. 385.
7. Tex.— Wooldridge v. Brown, 1
Tex. 478.
8. N.T.— Brainard v. Hanford, 6
Hill 368.
9. N.T. — Brainard v. Hanford, su-
pra.
10. N.T.— Rogers v. Beach, 18 Wend.
533.
11. Cal.^Corpu* Juris cited in
Gray v. Hall, 265 P. 246, 250, 203
Cal. 306— Corpus Juris cited in
Steinbauer v. Bondesen, 14 P.2d
106, 109, 125 CaLApp. 504— Jones v.
Moers, 266 P. '821, 91 CaLApp. 65.
Fla.— Avon Mfg. Co. v. Herrin, 114
So.' 425, 93 Fla. 1128.
Mo.— Leis v. Massachusetts Bonding
& Insurance Co., App., 125 S.W.2d
906.
Mont. — Griffith v. Montana Wheat
Growers' Ass'n, 244 P. 277, 75
Mont. 466.
N.C. — Brown v. Town of Hillsboro,
117 SJB. 41, 185 N.C. 3-68.
(34 C.J. p 164 note 85.
Amendment' as superseding original
pleadings see the C.J.S. title Plead-
ings $ 321, also 49 C.J. p 058 note
37-p 560 note 6*8.
12. Cal.— Corpus Juris cited la,
Gray v. Hall, 265 P. 246, 250, 203
Cal. i30 6— Corpus Juris cited in.
347
Steinbauer v. Bondesen, 14 P.2d
106, 109, 125 CaLApp. 419.
34 C.J. p 165 note 86.
13. Mont.— Griffith v. Montana
Wheat Growers' Ass'n, 244 P. 277,
75 Mont. 466.
Okl. — Joplin Furniture Co. v. Bank
of Picher, 3 P.2d 173, 151 Okl. 158.
34 C.J. p 165 note 87.
Refusal to accept
Plaintiff is entitled to Judgment
by default, where defendant returns
the amended complaint, refuses to
accept it, and fails to answer. — Wal-
ton Foundry Co. v. A. D. Granger
Co., 19-6 N.T.S. 719, 203 App.Div. 226.
14- Okl. — Joplin Furniture Co. v.
Bank of Picher, 3 P.2d 173, 151
Okl. 158.
15. Iowa.— Bennett v. Carey, 34 N.
W. 291, 72 Iowa 476.
16. Cal.— Gray v. Hall, 266 P. 246,
203 Cal. 306— Steinbauer v. Bonde-
sen, 14 P.2d 106, 125 CaLApp. 419.
34 C.J. p 165 note 89.
Identical declaration
A second declaration identical with
the original is not an "amended dec-
laration," so that its filing requires
defendant to answer over to avoid
default. — Musher v. Perera, 15'8 A.
14, 162 Md. 44.
17. Mo.— State v. Taylor, 206 S.W.
247, 200 Mo.App. 333.
199
JUDGMENTS
49 C-J.&.
amended,18 or where no time for filing the new
answer is fixed either by statute or rule or order of
court.19
c. Answer to Part of Cause
If the answer or plea sets up a defense to only a
severable part of plaintiff's cause of action, plaintiff may
ordinarily take judgment by default or nil elicit for the
unanswered part.
If defendant's plea or answer sets up a denial or
defense to only a part of plaintiff's cause of ac-
tion, severable from the rest, plaintiff may take
judgment by default, or more properly by nil dicit,
for the part that is unanswered,20 and proceed to
trial for the rest,21 or he may concede the validity
of the defense, as to that portion of his demand
which is answered, and have judgment by default
for the remainder, without trial.22 If in such a
case plaintiff at first replies or demurs, he may
thereafter take judgment nil dicit at any time before
final judgment on the payment of costs.23 If, how-
ever, the plea professes to answer the whole decla-
ration, but in fact answers a part only, it has been
held that plaintiff cannot waive the objection and
take judgment for the part unanswered;24 and this
rule applies where some of the pleas do and others,
do not answer the whole declaration.25
d. Piling and Serving Plea or Answer
In order to prevent a default it is generally required
that defendant's plea or answer b2 actually and duty
filed in the clerk's office.
In order to prevent a default defendant's plea or
answer must ordinarily be actually and duly filed
in the clerk's office26 within the required time,27 not-
withstanding there has been an affidavit of mer-
its,28 and notwithstanding it has been served orr
plaintiffs counsel,29 although as to this latter rule
there is authority to the contrary.3** In some juris-
dictions, in addition to filing, the plea or answer
must be called to the attention of the court,31 espe-
cially where it is filed after the time for filing has
expired.32 If a pica filed to a declaration is applica-
ble to the declaration as amended, it need not be
filed again.33
Service. Failure to serve a copy of defendant's
pleading on plaintiff or his counsel ordinarily does
not warrant a 'judgment by default, if it has been
properly filed.34
18. Cal.— Gray v. Hall, 265 P. 246,
20-3 Cal. -306 — Steinbauer v. Bonde-
sen, 14 P.2d 10-6, 125 CaLApp. 419.
Minn.— Kelly v. Anderson, ' 194 N.W.
102, 156 Minn/71.
34 C.J. p 165 note 91.
Demurrer
(1) Under a statute providing
that, in the absence of a new plea
or answer to an amended pleading1,
the original plea or answer shall
stand and be considered as pleaded
in answer to the amended pleading,
a demurrer to the original declara-
tion should be considered as made
to the amended declaration. — Grand
Court Order of Calanthe of North
America, South America, Europe,
Asia, Africa, and Australia, Jurisdic-
tion of Florida, v. Johnson, 160 So.
SS4, 119 Pla. 440.
(2) If such demurrer is responsive
to amended declaration, court should
not enter default without notice for
failure to demur or plead to amend-
ed declaration. — Johnson v. City of
Sebring, 140 So. 672, 104 Pla. 584.
19. Iowa.— Wright v. Ho well, 24
Iowa 150.
N.Y.— Elmore v. Valletta, 16 Abb.Pr.
249.
Reasonable opportunity to plead
to an amended declaration must be
given defendant; hence, a default
judgment entered on day on which
plaintiff filed an amended declaration
should be reversed. — Boone v. Miller,
133 So. *121, 160 Miss. 287.
20. Fla,— CorpTU Juris olted in
Clonts v. Spurway, 139 So. 896,
897, 104 Fla. 340.
34 C.J. p 165 note 94.
Cross complaint
Where plaintiff flies a cross com-
plaint against interveners and serves
such cross complaint on defendant,
defendant's failure to answer such
cross complaint does not entitle
plaintiff to default Judgment thereon,
where defendant answered the orig-
inal complaint which involved the
same issues, and where .court found
for defendant on such issues. — Shuff
v. Blazer, 152 P.2d 216, 66 CaLApp.
2d 348.
21. Fa.— McKinney v. Mitchell, 4
Watts & S. 25— Bradford v. Brad-
ford, 2 Pa.L.J. 406.
Judgment on admission in pleadings
see supra § 185.
22. 111. — Henry v. Meriam & Morgan
GParaffine Co., 83 111. 461.
23. 111.— Safford v. Vail, 22 111. 326
— Warren v. Nexsen, 4 111. 38.
24. Ark.— Jones v. Cecil, 10 Ark.
592.
25. Ala.— -Tubb v. Madding, Minor
129.
26. Idaho. — Pendrey v. Brennan, 169
P. 174, 51 Idaho -54.
34 C.J. p 165 note 4.
Clerical error
Where district court clerk received
answer and marked it filed, although
he failed to note filing on fee book,
and did not place pleading with re-
mainder of court papers in Jacket
provided therefor, defendant was
348
not in default. — Gause v. Cities Serv-
ice Oil Co.. Civ.App., 70 S.W.2d 2*4,.
affirmed City of Fort Worth v.
Gause, 101 S.W.2d 221, 129 Tex. 25.
27. 111.— -Scammon v. McKey, 21 111.
554.
28. III. — Scammon v. McKey, supra.
29. Mont. — State v. Blaine County
Twelfth Judicial Dist. Ct., 145 P.
724, 50 Mont. 119.
30. N.Y.— Smith v. Wells, 6 Johns.
286.
64 C.J, p 166 note 8.
31. Tex. — Glllaspie v. Hunts ville,.
Civ.App., 151 S.W. 1114 — Bartlett
v, S. M. Jones Co., Civ.App., 103
S.W. 705.
mi dioit
' Failure of defendant to call an-
swer to attention of court will not
authorize Judgment nil dicit because
answer not shown to have been
abandoned raises rebutting presump-
tion against that of implied confes-
sion of Judgment. — Spivey v. Saner-
Ragley Lumber Co., Tex.Com.App.,
284 S.W. 210— Grand Lodge Brother-
hood of Railroad Trainmen v. Ware,.
Tex.Civ.App., 73 S.W.2d 1076, error
refused.
32. Ga. — Camp v. Wallace, 61 Ga.
497.
34 C.J. p 166 note 10.
33. Miss. — 'Northrop v. Flaig, 5fr
Miss. 754.
34. N.M.— Ortega v. Vigil, 158 P.
487, 22 N.M. 18.
34 C.J. p 1-66 note IS.
49 C-J-S-
JUDGMENTS
§ 19?
e. Affidavit of Defense or Merits
Under various statutes, judgment by default or nil
dJcit may be taken unless defendant duly flies an affi-
davit of merits or an affidavit of defense in cases where
they are required.
Under some statutes or rules of court, judgment
by default or nil dicit may be taken against defend-
ant unless he duly files an affidavit of merits, show-
ing that he has a meritorious defense to the ac-
tion,35 unless, in some jurisdictions, the answer is
verified.36 Under other statutes, a judgment by de-
fault may be entered against defendant unless he
files, within the required time, an affidavit of de-
fense setting forth the facts on which he means to
rely as a defense where the action is on an instru-
ment or contract for the payment of money,37 in-
cluding an action on a contract of guaranty or sure-
tyship,38 a bond or recognizance,3 9 a note or
draft,40 a judgment,41 or a book account.42 How-
ever, this requirement has no application to claims
arising out of torts,43 or where defendant is sued
in a representative capacity,44 or where, owing to
the lapse of time, a presumption of payment has
arisen,45 or where there has been an award of ar-
bitrators finding that plaintiff has no cause of ac-
tion.46
If the defense alleged in the affidavit is good as
to a part of the claim, but insufficient as to the
balance, the court may direct judgment for the part
insufficiently denied, and allow plaintiff to try the
case as to the remainder,47 unless the affidavit pur-
ports to apply to the whole of plaintiff's claim.48
Under some statutes, such judgment may also be
rendered for want of an affidavit of defense in an
action of scire facias on a mortgage49 or. mechan-
ic's lien.50
t. After Decision on Motion or Demurrer
Judgment by default or nil dicit may be taken against
defendant where his motion or demurrer is overruled
and, although he is given leave and the requisite oppor-
tunity to do so, he fails to plead over.
Judgment as by default or nil dicit may be ren-
dered against defendant where he fails or refuses
to plead over within the required time after a plea
or motion is overruled or denied.51 Thus a default
judgment may be entered where defendant fails to
plead over after a plea to the jurisdiction52 or a
plea in abatement53 is found against him,, or after
his motion to quash the summons54 or to dismiss
35. U.S. — Orsinger v. Consolidated
Flour Mills Co., C.C.A.I11., 284 F.
224, certiorari denied 43 S.Ct. 248,
260 U.S. 746, 67 L.Ed. 493.
III. — James J. Brown Plastering Co.
v. Gottschalk, 261 Ill.App. 147—
Bannat v. Zulley, 243 Ill.App. 497
. — Stevens-Jarvis Lumber Co. v.
Quixley Lumber Co., 229 Ill.App.
419— McWhinney v. Gill, 167 111.
App. 582 — Perry v. Krausz, 166
IlLApp. 1— Koch v. Dickinson, 152
Ill.App. 413.
34 C.J. p 166 note 17.
Effect of striking affidavit from files
see infra subdivision h of this sec-
tion.
Affidavit held STLfflcient
N.J. — Fitzsimmons v. Board of Edu-
cation of Borough of Carteret, in
Middlesex County, 13 A.2d 305, 125
N.J.Law 15.
36. N.Y.— Goldberg v. Wood, 98 N.Y.
S. 200, 50 Misc. 618.
34 C.J. p It56 note 18,
37. Del. — Selly v. Fleming Coal Co.,
180 A. 326, 7 W.W.Harr. 34.
Pa.— First Nat. Bank v. Baird, 150
A. 165, 300 Pa. 92— Coryell v. Ku-
ser, 28 Pa.Dist. & Co. 446 — Com-
mercial Credit Co. v. Shepherd,
Com.Pl., 37 DeLCo. 335, 51 York
Leg.Rec. 202— Landis v. Lancaster
• County Nat. Bank, Com.Pl.t 48
Lanc.L.Rev. 297.
34 C.J, p 166 note 21.
Not "default" Judgment
Judgment for want of sufficient
affidavit of defense is not "Judgment
by default."— Brader v. Alinikoff, 85
Pa.Super. 285.
Who must file
(1) An affidavit of defense cannot
be flled by one not a party to the
proceeding so as to prevent the tak-
ing of Judgment against a party. —
Rhoades v. Decker, 34 Pa.Dist & Co.
409.
(2) There is no rule requiring a
terre tenant to file an affidavit of
defense. — Clippinger Estate, Now to
Use of Ward v. Saltzgiver, 38 Pa.
Dist, & Co. 27, 48 Dauph.Co. 320—
Sal berg v. Duffee, 21 Pa.Dist. & Co.
144.
Clerical error
Where the affidavit has been duly
filed, Judgment for want of affidavit
of defense is improperly entered, al-
though the prothonotary failed to
note the fact of filing on the appear-
ance docket. — Moore v. Monarch Ac-
cident Ins. Co., 17 Pa.Dist. & Co. 553,
80 Sch.Leg.Rec. 272.
38. Pa. — Jones v. Patterson, 8 A.
62, 5 Pa.Cas. 19.
34 C.J. p 167 note 22.
39. Pa. — Byrne v. Hay den, 16 A.
750, 124 Pa. 170.
•34 C.J. p 167 note 23.
40. Pa.— First Nat. Bank v. Baird,
150 A. 165, 300 Pa. 92.
34 C.J. p 167 note 24.
41. Pa.— Mink v. Staffer, 1$ A. 805,
124 Pa, 280.
34 C.X p 167 note 25.
349
42. Pa. — Fenn v. Early, 6 A. 58, 113
Pa. 264.
34 C.J. p 26 note 167. .
43. Pa. — Osborn v. Athens First
Nat. Bank, 26 A. 289, 154 Pa. 134—
Auberle v. Ciiiberto, Com.PU 31
DeLCo. 32.
34 C.J. p 167 note 27.
44. Pa. — McSorley v. Mamauac, 28
Pa.Dist. 1010 — Lewis v. Quigney, 1
Lehigh VaLL.R. 188.
45. Pa. — Hitchcock v. Washbum, 9
Pa.Dist. 272.
46. Pa. — Gregg v. Meeker, 4 Binn.
428.
47. Pa.— Law v. Waldron, 79 A. 647,
230 Pa. 458, Ann.Cas.l912A 467.
34 C.J. p 167 note 31.
48. Pa.— Reilly v. Daly, 28 A. 493.
159 Pa. 605 — Myers v. Cochran, 3
Pa.Dist. 135;
49. Pa.— Marsh v. Smith, 2 Pa.L.J.
R. 217, 3 Pa.L.J. 489.
50. Pa. — Bradbury v. "Wagenhorst,
54 Pa. 180.
34 C.J. p 167 note 36.
51. N.Y.— Bellinger v. Gallo, 22.4 N.
Y.S. 162, 221 App.Div. 482.
52. Ga. — Jordan v. Carter, 60 Ga.
443.
53. Me. — Bstabrook v. Ford Motor
Co., 10 A.2d 715, 136 Me. 367, fol-
lowed in 10 A.2d 719, 136 Me. 375
—Jordan v. McKay, 165 4. 902,
132 Me. 55.
54. Neb. — McPherson v. Beatrice
199
JUDGMENTS
49 C-J-S-
the action55 is overruled, or after his demurrer to
plaintiff's declaration or complaint is overruled,56
provided, in some jurisdictions, there has been a
rule or order granting him leave to plead over.57
However, until the expiration of the statutory peri-
od within which to answer, defendant cannot be
put in default after the overruling of his demur-
rer58 or plea59 or denial of his motion;60 and,
where the statutes give defendant a number of
days after notice of the decision in which to an-
swer, he cannot be put in default in the absence of
such notice,61 unless he has waived it.62
Failure to answer an amended petition after the
overruling of a demurrer thereto authorizes a judg-
ment by default, although the answer to the original
petition is on file ;63 but, where the demurrer is filed
after a plea, default cannot be entered after over-
ruling the demurrer, as the demurrer does not waive
the plea.64 Where defendant's plea of privilege is
sustained and the cause is transferred and defend-
ant files no further pleading, judgment nil dicit is
authorized.65 Where defendant's motion to strike
out parts of the complaint is sustained and defend-
ant pleads no further, plaintiff may take judgment
by default if sufficient matter is left in the com-
plaint to warrant the relief granted.66
Where demurrer by plaintiff sustained. Judg-
ment by default may also be taken against defend-
ant where plaintiff demurs to the plea or answer,
and the demurrer is sustained, and defendant fails
to avail himself of leave given to amend or to
file a new plea or answer,67 or fails to ask leave to
amend or plead over;68 but default judgment can-
not properly be entered against defendant where
plaintiffs demurrer is sustained only as to part of
the answer.69
First Nat Bank, 10 N.W. 707, 12
Neb. 202.
55. Iowa. — State ex rel. Adams v.
Murray, 2B7 N.W. 553, 219 Iowa
108.
Submission of order
Failure to submit order, as re-
quired in decision denying motion to
dismiss complaint, rendered subse-
quent default judgments against de-
fendants Irregular. — Voperian v. In-
dustrial Rediscount Corporation, 231
N.T.S. 676, 133 Misc. 512.
56. Cal.— Seale v. Mclaughlin, 28
Cal. 668.
111. — Ferry v. National Motor Under-
writers, 244 IlLApp. 241— Sheehan
v. Reardon, 223 Ill.App. 365.
Xan.— State v. Swift & Co., 275 P.
17-6, 127 Kan. 817, 65 A.L.R. 696.
Mo.«- Daugherty v. Lanning-Harris
Coal & Grain Co., 265 S.W. 866, 2-18
Mo.App. 187.
Neb. — Hoesly v. Department of
Roads and Irrigation, 9 N.W.2d
523, 14-3 Neb. 387.
34 C.J. p 167 note 40.
Erroneous decision on demurrer
Where trial court had erroneously
•overruled demurrer to complaint
wherein four causes of action were
improperly united, and defendant
stood on its demurrer and did not
•answer complaint within time allow-
ed or make any appearance there-
after, a default judgment could not
properly be entered without afford-
ing defendant opportunity to answer
complaint after correction thereof to
include only causes of action prop-
erly unitable. — Hartford Min. Co. v.
Home Lumber & Coal Co., 114 P.2d
1091, 61 Nev. 1.
The interposition of a defective
answer to* which a demurrer was
sustained is a failure to plead over
•within the meaning of the statute
{providing that the judgment on over-
ruling a demurrer shall be that the
•party plead over and, if he fails so
to do, Judgment shall be rendered
against him as on a default. — Mc-
Kinney v. State, 101 Ind. 35?.
57. Okl. — Thwing v. Doye, 44 P.
381, 2 Okl. 608.
Utah.— Provo City v. Claudin, 63 P.
2d 570, 91 Utah 60.
34 C.J. p 168 note 41.
58. .Cal. — Harris v. Minnesota Inv.
Co., 265 P. -306, 89 CaUApp. 396.
N.C. — Rayburn v. Rayburn, 11 S.B.2d
4-63, 218 N.C. 51'4.
Utah. — Provo City v. Claudin, 63 P.
2d 570, 91 Utah 60.
59. R.I.— Dukehart v. Fales, 143 A.
615, 49 R.I. 407.
60. N.Y.— Levin v. Levin, 284 N.T.S.
897, 157 Misc. 572.
61. Cal. — Chamberlin v. Del Norte
County, 19 P. 271, 77 Cal. 150—
Harris v. Minnesota Inv. Co., 265
P. 306, 89 CaLApp, 396.
Presence in courtroom
Default judgment for failure to
amend pleading within period grant-
ed by court on sustaining demurrer
thereto would not be reversed for
lack of notice where, counsel was in
courtroom at time leave to amend
was given, since court, which had
power to refuse plea to amend, had
lesser power to permit amendment
without notice under circumstances.
—Provo City v. Claudin, 63 P.2d 570,
91 Utah 60.
62. Cal. — Harris v. Minnesota Inv.
Co., 265 (P. 306, 89 Cal.App. 396.
$4 C.J. p 168 note 43.
63. Cal.— Gray v. Hall, 265 P. 246,
203 Cal. 306.
Iowa. — Brenner v. Gundershiemer, 14
Iowa 82.
Mo.— Leis v. Massachusetts Bonding
350 . .
& Insurance Co., App., 125 S.W.2d
906.
64. 111.— Marshall v. Duke, 4 111. 67.
65. Tex. — Spivey v. Saner-Ragley
Lumber Co., Com. App., 284 S.W.
210— O'Quinn v. Tate, Civ.App., 187
S.W.2d 2141.
66* Utah. — Taylor v. Guaranty
Mortg. Co., 220 P. 1067, 62 Utah
520.
67. Cal. — Gossman v. Gossman,
App., 168 P.2d 495.
Fla.— Silva v. Robinson, 156 So. 280,
115 Fla. S30.
111. — Ferry v. National Motor Under-
writers, 244 IlLApp. 241.
Or.— Wiggins Co. v. Fleming, 263 P.
390, 123 Or. 6*44.
Tex.— O'Quinn v. Tate, Civ.App., 187
S.W.2d 241.
Utah.— Provo City v. Claudin, 63 P.
2d 570, 91 Utah 60— First Sav.
Bank of Ogden v. Brown, 54 P.2d
237, 88 Utah 294.
34 C.J. p 168 note 46.
Where no leave to plead over is
requested or given after a demurrer
to defendant's plea Is sustained, final
judgment on the demurrer, rather
than default judgment for want of
a plea, should be entered. — Hays v.
Weeks, 48 So. 997, 57 Fla. 73-^Porter
v. Barslow, 21 So. 574, 39 Fla. 50—
Pettys v. Marsh, 3 So. 577, 24 Fla.
44— L'Engle v. L'Bngle, 19 Fla. 714
— Wade v. Doyle, 17 Fla. 522 — Gar-
lington v. Priest, 13 Fla. 559.
68: Ohio. — Gockel v. Averment, 7
Ohio Dec., Reprint, 554, 3 Cinc.L.
Bui. 894.
Tex.— Hamilton v. Black, Dall. 586.
69. CaL — Herrmann v. Riesenberg,
34 P.2d 1-63, 139 Cal.App. 249.
Mont. — Taylor v. Southwick, 253 P.
889, 78 Mont 329.
49 C-J-S-
JUDGMENTS
199
Against plaintiff. Judgment as by default may be
taken against plaintiff where he fails or refuses to
plead over after the overruling of his demurrer to
the answer, which contains a sufficient defense,70 or
a plea of set-off or recoupment,71 or after a de-
murrer to the complaint is sustained.72
g. Failure to Reply or Rejoin
Where defendant's answer Is such as to require
plaintiff to reply, his failure to do so within the re-
quired time, or to demur, will ordinarily warrant a Judg-
ment by default against him.
Judgment by default may be entered against
plaintiff where, on it becoming his duty to make
replication to defendant's plea or answer, Jie fails
to do so within the time required by law,73 or fails
to demur thereto,74 as where, in some jurisdictions,
he fails to reply to an answer of set-off or counter-
claim,75 or fails to answer defendant's cross com-
plaint.76 However, this rule does not apply to a
failure to reply to a pleading by defendant which
is in effect nothing more than an affirmative trav-
erse or denial of the allegations of the petition;77
nor does the rule apply to a failure to reply to a
cross complaint which is a repetition of the answer
and presents no new issues.78
Default judgment cannot be taken against plain-
tiff for failure to reply to a counterclaim where the
allegations of the complaint controvert the countei-
claim,79 or where, as under some statutes, a coun-
terclaim is deemed controverted in the absence of
a reply.80 In any event, defendant has been held
not entitled to judgment until plaintiff has had a
reasonable opportunity to reply,81 or until an issue
raised by the complaint and as much of the answer
as constitutes a defense thereto have been disposed
of,82 or, in some jurisdictions, until he has first
asked for a rule against plaintiff.83 Clearly, where
plaintiff fails to reply to a verified answer setting
forth facts sufficient to defeat the right of action,
a valid default judgment cannot be rendered in
favor of plaintiff.84
Failure to rejoin. Where defendant fails to re-
join to a replication when it is his duty to do so, a
judgment by default may be taken against him.85
70. Ala. — Sternberg v. Bonfeld, 99
So. 659, 19 Ala.App. 594.
34 C.J. p 168 note 48.
71. Ala.— Sternbergr v. Bonfeld. 99
So. 6'59, 19 Ala.App. 594.
72. Ind. — Glendenning v. Cowan, 109
N.E. 844, 59 Ind.App. 529.
73. Ala. — Sternberg v. Bonfeld, 99
So. 659, 19 Ala.App. 594.
Miss. — Norwood v. Gulf & S. L R.
Co., 1'55 So. 348, 170 Miss. 543.
Mont. — Mihelich v. Butte Electric
Ry. Co., 281 P. 540, 85 Mont. 60"4 —
Middle States Oil Corporation v.
Tanner- Jones Drilling Co., 235 P.
770, T3 Mont. 180.
Okl. — Le Roi Co. v. Grimes, 14'4 P.2d
975, 193 Okl. 430.
Pa. — Quigley v. Western & Southern
Life Ins. Co., 86 Pittsb.Leg.J. 400,
affirmed 7 A.2d 70, 1«36 Pa.Super.
27 — Nerz v. Equitable Life As-
sur. Soc., Com.PL, 4 Sch.Reg. 424.
34 C.J. p 16'8 note 51.
On a cross petition, although no
summons may be required to be
served on plaintiff, he is entitled to
the same time to plead to "the cross
petition as though defendant filing
the cross petition was plaintiff and
plaintiff was sole defendant, and in
such case a default and judgment
on the cross petition, before the
time to plead has expired, are errone-
ous.—Farmers' Mut Ins. Co. of Ne-
braska v. Gunmer, 192 N.W. 941, 109
Neb. 832.
Von pros
(1) If plaintiff fails to reply at
common law, rule will issue compel-
ling him to reply or suffer judgment
non pros. — State ex rel. Shartel v.
Skinker, 25 S.W.2d 472, 524 Mo. 955.
(2) It has been held that, where
plaintiff fails to reply to a defense
set up in the answer, final judgment
by default as on the merits cannot
be taken against him, defendant be-
ing entitled only to judgment non
pros or judgment of nonsuit. — Ross
v. C. D. Mallory Corporation, "37 A.2d
766, 132 N.J.Law 1.
74. Mont.— Mihelich v. Butte Elec-
tric Ry. Co., 281 P. 540, 85 Mont.
60«4— Middle States Oil Corporation
v. Tanner-Jones Drilling Co., 235
P. 770, 78 Mont 180.
34 C.J. p 168 note 52.
75. Mo.— Dezino v. William S. Droz-
da Realty Co., App., 13 S.W.2d -659.
Mont.— Middle States Oil Corporation
v. Tanner-Jones Drilling Co., 235
P. 770, 73 Mont. 180.
34 OJ. p 168 note "53.
"A plaintiff occupies the same
relation to a plea of set-off or re-
coupment as a defendant does to the
complaint. The plaintiff as to these
pleas is the defendant and when he
appears or is in court, and fails to
plead, is subject to the same judg-
ments."— Sternberg v. Bonfeld, 99 So.
659, 660, 19 Ala.App. 5'94.
TO, Cal. — Antonsen v. San Francisco
Container Co., 66 P.2d 716, 20 Cal.
App.2d 21'4— Ratliff v. Ratliff, 2 P.
2d 222, 116 CaLApp. 39.
Wash. — Graham v. Yakima Stock
Brokers, 72 P.2d 1041, 192 Wash.
121.
77. Ky. — Coombs Land Co. v. Lani-
er, 300 S.W. 328, 222 Ky. 1«39—
351
Higdon v. Wayne County, 157 S.
W. 708, 154 Ky. S37.
isufflciency of complaint
If complaint did not state cause
of action, judgment for defendant for
failure to reply must be affirmed,
although reply was unnecessary. —
Mihelich v. Butte Electric Ry. Co.,
281 P. 540, 85 Mont -604.
8. Cal. — Crofton v. Young, 119 P-
2d 1003, 48 Cal.App.2d 452— Brooks-
v. White, 136 P. 500, 22 CaLApp.
719.
79. N.C. — Simon v. Masters, 135 S.E.
861, 192 N.C. ' 731— Tillinghast
Styles Co. v. Providence Cotton
Mills, 55 S.E. 121, 143 N.C. 268.
80. U.S.— Liebling v. Barbara Build-
ing & Development Corporation, D.
C.Fla., 52 P.2d 183.
Cal.— 'Pickwick Stages, Northern Di-
vision, v. Board of Trustees of
City of El Paso de Robles, 208 P.
961, 189 Cal. 417.
34 C.J. >p 168 note 56.
81. Mont. — State r. Silver Bow
County Second Judicial Dist. Ct.,
113 P. 472, 42 Mont. 496, Ann.Cas.
1912B 246.
34 C.J. p 168 note 57.
82. N.Y.— Crompton T. Seaich, 128-
N.Y.S. 586, 143 App.Div. 284.
83. Ind. — Buchanan v. Berkshire-
Life Ins. Co., 96 Ind. 510.
Mo. — State ex rel. Shartel v. Skinker,,
25 S.W.2d 472, 324 Mo. 955.
84. okl. — Bankston v. Automobile-
Sales Co., 251 P. 3,3, 122 Okl. 67.
85. Mo.— Dempsey v. Harrison, *
Mo. 267.
34 C.J. p 169 note til.
§ 199
JUDGMENTS
49 C-J-S-
L Striking or Withdrawal of Pleading
Judgment by default or nil diclt ordinarily may be
entered where defendant withdraws his pleading or does
not offer or obtain leave to plead further after his plead-
ing is stricken for good cause.
Judgment as by default or nil dicit may be en-
tered where defendant withdraws his plea or an-
swer,86 or where he is granted permission to with-
draw a plea on the express or implied condition that
he will replead forthwith and he fails to do so.87
So, too, judgment by default may be taken against
defendant where he does not offer or obtain leave
to plead further on his plea, answer, or affidavit be-
ing properly stricken out for good cause,88 or where,
having obtained such leave, he fails to file an
amended pleading.89 However, this rule does not
apply where issue has been joined on the plea or
answer,90 especially after a trial is had and witness-
es are sworn and examined;91 or where the plea or
answer is sufficient and no good reason for striking
it out appears;92 or where part of the answer is
stricken out, but enough remains to constitute a
substantial defense,93 Where defendant's pleading
is valid on its face and not wholly frivolous or
without merit, it is error to dispose of it summarily
by considering it ex parte and striking it from the
files, and then to adjudge defendant in default.94
Waiver. Defendant's conduct may be such that
he will be deemed to have waived, abandoned, or
withdrawn his pleas,95 and in such case he will be
held impliedly to have authorized the entry of a
judgment by default, notwithstanding the pleading
on file.9*
i. Pending Disposition of Pleading
(1) In general
(2) Pending decision on demurrer
(3) Pending decision on motion
(1) In General
A default Judgment cannot be entered against de-
fendant while there remains undisposed of an answer
or other pleading raising an issue of law or fact.
86. 111. — Sheehan v. Reardon, 223
Ill.App. 365.
Mo. — Fawkes v. National Refining
Co., 108 S.W.2d 7, '341 Mo. 6*30.
Tex. — Grand Lodge Brotherhood of
Railroad Trainmen v. Ware, Civ.
App., 73 S.W.2d 1076— Williams v.
Jameson. Civ. App., 44 S.W.2d 498,
error dismissed .Jameson v. Wil-
liams, Com. App., 67 S.W.2d 228.
On cross action by defendant,
judgment nil dicit may be taken
against plaintiff who withdraws his
answer to the cross action. — Howe v.
Central State Bank of Coleman, Tex.
Clv.App., 297 S.W. 692.
Withdrawal of counsel does not re-
sult in the withdrawal of defend-
ant's answer so as to put defendant
in default.
111.— Harris v. Juenger, 11 N.B.2d
376, 367 111. «478. «
La.— Washington v. Comeau, Mc-
Gloin 234.
87. Ind.T.— Campbell v. Scott, 58 S.
W. 719, 3 Ind.T. 46-2.
34 C.J. p 169 note 63.
Unauthorized withdrawal of an-
swer by attorney who no longer rep-
resents defendant in the case does
not warrant default judgment
against defendant. — Emerson-Brant-
ingham Implement Co. v. Olson, 227
N.W. 567, 5-6 S.D. 132.
88. Fla. — Grand Lodge, K. P. of
North America, South America,
Europe, Asia, Africa, and Austra-
lia, Jurisdiction of Florida v.
Stroud, 144 So. 324, 107 Fla, 152.
Ga. — Hayes v. International Harves-
ter Co. of America, 185 S.E. 197,
52 Ga.App. 328 — Jones v. North
American Life Ins. Co. of Chicago,
168 S.E. 923, 46 Ga,App. 647— Wa-
ters v. American Machinery Co.,
163 S.E. -304, 4'5 Ga.App. 64— Pape
v. Woolford Realty Co., 134 S.E.
174, -35 Ga.App. 284.
Minn.— Neefus v. Neefus, 296 N.W.
579, 209 Minn. <495.
Or.— Mack v. Hendricks, 270 -P. 476,
126 Or. 400.
Tex. — Aviation Credit Corporation of
New York v. University Aerial
Service Corporation, Civ. App., 59
S.W.2d 870, error dismissed— Ken-
tucky Oil Corporation v. David,
Civ. App., 276 S.W. 351, affirmed,
Com. App., 285 S.W. 290 — Luse v.
Curry, Civ. App., 261 S.W. 195.
34 C.J. p 169 -note 64.
After striking- affidavit of merits
(1) Where an affidavit of merits is
stricken for insufficiency, plaintiff is
entitled to Judgment as by default,
it being unnecessary, although not
improper, to strike the plea as well.
— Firestone Tire, etc., Co. v. Gins-
burg, 120 N.E. 5'44, 285 -111. 132— Res-
nick v. Varouxakis, 48 N.E.2d 555,
319 111. App. 51 — James J. Brown
Plastering Co. v. Gottschalk, 261 111.
App. 147— Bannat v. Zulley, 243 111.
App. 497.
(2) However, it has been held that
the striking of an affidavit of merits
does not carry with it the plea, and
the filing thereafter of an additional
affidavit under leave of court will
prevent plaintiff from taking Judg-
ment by default. — Hunter v. Troup,
226 IlLApp. -343.
<3) After striking out the plea for
failure to file an affidavit of merits,
judgment by default may be enterod
without any rule on defendant to file
an affidavit and without notice to
him of the striking of the plea. —
352
Stevens-Jarvis Lumber Co. v. Quix-
ley Lumber Co., 229 Ill.App. 419.
89. Ala. — Green v. Nu Grape Co.,
100 So. 84, 19 Ala.App. 663.
Minn.— Silberman v. Niles. 214 N.W.
261, 171 Minn. 40'5.
34 C.J. p 169 note 65.
SO. III. — Cooper v. Buckingham, 4
111. 546.
91. Cal.— Abbott v. Douglass, 28
Cal. 295.
92. Or.— Klein v. Turner, 133 P.
625, 66 Or. 369.
34 C.J. p 169 note 68.
93. Mo. — Taylor v. Pearson, 1 Mo.
App. -39.
94. Fla. — Suwanee River Cypress
Co. v. Arbuthnot, '167 So. 412, 123
Fla, 497.
95. Ala. — Wooten v. Traders' Secur-
ities Co., 113 So. 492, second case,
216 Ala. 149.
La. — Electrical Supply Co. v. Moses,
3 La. App. 286.
96- Tex. — London Assur. Corp. v.
Lee, 18 S.W. 508, 66 Tex. 247.
34 C.J. p 169 note 70.
Nil dicit
Defendant, who withdrew from
case when it was regularly called
for trial after its motion to with-
draw its answer and appearance was
overruled and remained in courtroom
during trial without objecting to
proceedings or to judgment rendered
against it, waived issues raised by
answer as though instrument had
been withdrawn from record, so that
judgment rendered was judgment nil
dicit. — Grand Lodge Brotherhood of
Railroad Trainmen v. Ware, Tex.Civ%
App., 73 S.W.2d 1076, error dis-
missed.
49 C-J-S-
JUDGMENTS
§ 199
A judgment by default or nil dicit cannot be en-
tered against defendant while an answer or other
pleading by him, raising an issue of law or fact,
is properly on file in the case and not disposed of ;97
before a default judgment may be properly entered,
the answer or other plea must be disposed of by
motion, demurrer, or in some other manner.98 This
rule applies, even though defendant's pleading is
filed out of time," or is defective in form or in sub-
stance,1 unless it is such that it may be treated as
a mere nullity,2 and even though defendant does
not answer on being called.3 The foregoing rule
is applicable where there is on file and undisposed
of a plea in abatement;4 or where the parties have
agreed to consider a plea as filed and an issue
joined.5
Distinction between negative and affirmative pleas.
A distinction has been drawn between negative and
affirmative pleas, and, while.the general rule is held
applicable to a negative plea filed by defendant and
issue joined thereon,6 if defendant pleads affirma-
tively, so that he bears the burden of proof and
afterward fails to appear and defend his plea, judg-
ment by default may be rendered, although the plea
has not first been disposed of,7 except where defend-
ant files a plea under oath denying the execution
of the instrument on which the suit is based.*
97. lAriz. — Corpus Juris quoted &.
Turbeville v. McCarrell, 80 P.2d
496, 498, 43 Ariz. 236.
Ark. — Caine v. Lunon, 190 S.W.2d 521
—North Arkansas Highway Im-
provement Dist. No. 2 v. Home
Telephone Co., 3 S.W.2d 307, 176
Ark. 553.
Cal.— Potts v. Whitson, 125 P.*2d 9'47,
52 Cal.App.2d 199.
Fla.— Atlanta (Life Ins. Co. v. Hopps,
183 So. 1'5, 183 Fla. 300.
Ga. — Prudential Ins. Co. of America
v. Hattaway, 174 S.B. 736, 49 Ga.
App. 211.
Idaho.— In re Smith, 225 P. 495, 3*8
Idaho 746.
111.— Harris v. Juenger, 11 N.B.2d
929, 367 111. 478.
Ind.— Indiana State Board of Medical
Registration and Examination v.
Pickard, 177 N.E. 870, 93 Ind.App.
171.
Iowa. — Cutino Co. v. Weeks, 213 N.
W. 413, 203 Iowa 681.
La. — Ponchatoula Farm Bureau
Ass'n v. Tangipahoa Bank & Trust
Co., 160 So. 803, 181 La. 1039.
Miss. — Randall v. Gunter, 179 So.
362, 181 Miss. 332— Corpus Juris
cited in Dalton -v. Rhodes Motor
Co., 1'20 So. 821, 822, 1&3 Miss. 51.
Mo.— Keltner v. Threlkel, 291 S.W.
462, 316 Mo. 609— Meyerhardt v.
Fredman, App., 131 S.W.2d $16.
Mont. — Corpus Juris cited in Aronow
v. Bishop, 120 P.2d 42<3f 424, 112
Mont. 611.
jqev. — Price Y. Brimacombe, 72 P.2d
1107, 58 Nev. 156, rehearing denied
75 P.2d 734, 58 Nev. 156.
N.M.— Animas Consol. Mines Co. v.
Frazier, -69 P.2d *27, 41 N.M. 389.
Ohio. — Corpus Juris cited In McCabe
v. Tom, 171 NJE. 868, 869, 35 Ohio
App. 73.
Okl. — Corpus Juris quoted in Rice v.
Bontjes, 250 P. 89, 121 Okl. 292.
Pa. — Moore v. Monarch Accident Ins.
Co., 17 Pa.Dist. & Co. 553, 30 Sen.
Leg.Rec. 272.
R.I. — Woodworth v. Baker, 13*5 A.
606, 48 R.I. 99.
S.a— Nettles v. MacMillau Petro-
leum Corp., 37 S.E.2d 134.
49 0 .J.S.-23
Tex. — Buhrman-Pharr Hardware Co. |
v. Medford Bros., Civ.App., 118 S. |
W.2d 34*5, error refused — Sun Lum-
ber Co. v. Huttig Sr-h & Door Co.,
Civ.App., 36 S.W.2d 561— Ball v.
Nelms, Civ.App., 293 S.W. 3.36.
34 C.J. p 169 note 71.
Judgment not void, although er-
roneous.— Mclntosh v. Munson Road
Machinery Co., 145 So. 781, 167 Miss.
546.
Codefendanf s answer
Defenses in answer filed by one
defendant which would preclude re-
covery by plaintiff inured to benefit
of codefendant filing no answer, and
no judgment could be filed against
either defendant until issues raised
had been disposed of. — Beddow's
Adm'r v. Barbourville Water, Ice &
Light Co., 66 S.W.2d ftl, 252 Ky.
267.
98. Ariz. — Corpus Juris guoted in
Turbeville v. McCarrell, i30 P.2d
496, 498, 43 Ariz. 236.
111. — Harris v. Juenger, 11 N.B.2d
929, 367 111. 4-78.
Iowa. — Cutino Co. v. Weeks, 213 N.
W. 413, 203 Iowa S81.
Miss.— Randall v. Gunter, 179 So.
362, 181 Miss. '332.
Ohio.— MoCabe v. Tom. 171 N.B. 868,
35 Ohio App. 73.
Tex.— Sun Lumber Co. v. Huttig
Sash & Door Co., Civ.App., 36 S.
W.2d 561.
3'4 C.J. p 170 note 72.
Where defendant stands on his an-
swer after a demurrer thereto has
been erroneously sustained, it is er-
ror to enter default Judgment
against him. — Gossman r. Gossman,
CaLApp., in P.'2d 495.
99. Ariz.— ^Corpus Juris quoted in
Turbeville v. McCarrell, 30 P.2d
<496, 498, 43 Ariz. 236.
Miss. — Corpus Juris cited in Dalton
v. Rhodes Motor Co., 120 So. 821,
822, 158 Miss. 51.
Ohio.— Corpus Juris cited in McCabe
v. Tom, 171 NJB. 868, 869. 35 Ohio
App. 78.
353
Okl. — Corpus Juris quoted in Rice v.
Bontjes, 250 P. 89, 121 Okl. 292.
34 C.J. p 170 note 73.
1. Iowa. — Cutino Co. v. Weeks, 213
N.W. 413, 203 Iowa 581.
Miss. — Corpus Juris cited in Dalton
v. Rhodes Motor Co., 120 So. 821,
822, 153 Miss. 51.
34 C.J. p 170 note 74.
better written by garnishee de-
fendant to clerk of court defying
indebtedness commanded notice by
plaintiff at least to extent of moving
that it be stricken from files before
entry of default judgment. — Wiener
v. Valley Steel Co., 236 N.W. 90$.
254 (Mich. 681.
2. Miss. — Corpus Juris cited in Dal-
ton v. Rhodes Motor Co., 120 So.
82-1, 822, 153 Miss. 51.
Okl. — Corpus Juris quoted in Rice v.
Bontjes, 250 P. 89, 121 Okl. 292.
i34 C.J. p 170 note 75.
3. Mont. — Aronow v. Bishop, 120 P.
2d 423, 112 Mont 611.
34 C.J. p 170 note 76.
4. 111. — Charles H. Thompson Co. v.
Burns, 199 Ill.«App. 418.
34 C.J. p 170 note 79.
Flea ostensibly overruled
Plea in abatement, treated as still
pending, and argued and taken under
advisement after it had been ostens-
ibly overruled, prevented default un-
til ruled on by court. — Burbage v.
Jedlicka, 23I4 P. 32, 27 Ariz. 426.
5* Miss.— McEwin v. State, 11 Miss.
120.
e. Ala.— Lokey v. Ward, 154 So. 802,
228 Ala. 559— Wildsmith v. Graves,
96 So. 230, 209 Ala. 294.
Ky.— Milner v. Miller, 4 Bibb 3*41.
7. Ala.— Lokey v. Ward, 154 So. 80*2,
228 Ala. 559.
34 C. J. p 170 note -82.
8. Ala.— McCoy v. Harrell, 40 Ala.
232— Crow Y. Decatur Bank, 5 Ala.
249.
199
'JUDGMENTS
49 C-J-S-
Where defendant properly demands oyer, default
cannot be entered by plaintiff for failure of defend-
ant to file a plea until the oyer has been furnished,9
-but defendant must have his prayer entered of rec-
ord and invoke the judgment of the court as to
whether or not he shall plead further until the oyer
is granted; otherwise plaintiff may disregard his
demand and take a judgment by default.10 If, on
a demand of oyer, the oyer given is different from
that set out in the complaint, plaintiff cannot sign
judgment by default without a rule or notice after
service of a true oyer.11
(2) Pending Decision on Demurrer
Judgment by default should not ordinarily be ren-
dered against a party whose demurrer to his adversary's
pleading is still pending.
Judgment by default should not be rendered
against defendant who has filed a demurrer to the
declaration or complaint, where such demurrer re-
mains undetermined and not disposed of in any
way,12 unless defendant has waived or withdrawn
his demurrer,13 or plaintiff has filed an amended or
substituted complaint,14 and the demurrer is not
renewed or a new demurrer filed.15 This rule ap-
plies, even though the demurrer was filed out of
time without leave or consent,16 or would not be
sustainable,1? unless it is merely frivolous,18 or
even though it is taken to one only of several counts
of the declaration.^ On the same principle judg-
ment by default cannot be entered against plaintiff
for failure to plead, where his demurrer to defend-
ant's plea or answer is not disposed of,20 or where
a demurrer to his pleading is not disposed of.21
(3) Pending Decision on Motion
As a general rule, Judgment by default cannot be
entered while a motion made by defendant remains pend-
ing.
Although under some statutes a motion is not
such a pleading as to prevent the taking of a de-
fault judgment during its pendency,22 generally, and
under most statutes, it has been held that a judg-
ment by default cannot be entered while a motion
made by defendant remains pending and not dis-
posed of,23 unless the motion appears on its face
to be frivolous and without merit,24 or such that it
may be treated as a nullity,25 or is of such a nature
9. N.T.— Varlck v. Bodine, 3 Hill
444.
10. Tenn. — Mabry v. Cowan, 6
Heisk, 29'5 — Anderson v. Allison, 2
Head 122.
11. N.Y.— Clinton v. Porter, 2 Cai.
176, Col. & C.Cas. 388.
12. Ark,— Caine v. Lunon, 190 S.W.
3d 521.
HI. — Greenys v. Jonalis, 244 111. App.
78.
Or. — McCann v. Oregon Scenic Trips
Co., 209 P. 483, 105 Or. 213, fol-
lowed in Smith v. Oregon Scenic
Trfps Co., 209 P. 486, 105 Or. 222.
Philippine. — Simon v. Castro, 6 (Phil-
ippine 33'5.
34 C.J. p 171 note 90.
13. Cal.— Davidson v. Graham, 141
P. 834, 24 CaLApp. 692.
111.— Steelman v. Watson, 10 111. 249.
Demurrer filed through error
If the court's Jurisdiction to en-
ter a default is obtained through the
service- of process, such jurisdiction
is not divested by the fact that
through error a demurrer has been
filed in the name of defendant and
is afterward withdrawn by leave of
court. — Deutsch Roemisch Katho-
lischer Cent. Verein v. Lart2, 94 111.
App. 255, affirmed 6-1 N.E. 487, 192
I1L 485.
14. Iowa. — Ronayne v. Hawkeye
Commercial Men's Ass'n, 144 N.W.
319, 1S2 Iowa 615.
34 C.J. p 171 note 92.
15. Ga. — General Accident Fire &
Life Assur. Corp. v. Way, 92 S.E.
650, 20 Ga,App. 106.
16. Cal.— Cuddahy v. Gragg, 189 P,
721, 45 CaLApp. 578.
Wyo.— Bertagnolli v. Bertagnolli, 148
P. 374, 23 Wyo. 228.
17. Or.— McCann v. Oregon Scenic
Trips Co., 209 P. 483, 105 Or. 213,
followed in Smith v. Oregon Scenic
Trips Co., 209 P. 486, 10'5 Or. 22"2.
34 C.J, p 171 note 9'5.
18. N.C.— Clayton v. Jones, 68 N.C.
497.
19. 111.— Bradshaw v. McKinney, 5
I1L 54.
20. Ala.— White v. Whatley, 30 So.
738, 128 Ala. 524.
Mo.— Louthan v. Caldwell, 52 Mo.
121.
21. Ala.— Louisville & N. R. Co. v.
Walker, -30 So. 738, 128 Ala. 368.
34 C.J. p 171 note 99.
22. Nev. — "Price v. Brimacombe, 7*2
P.2d 1107, 58 Nev. 156, rehearing
denied 75 P.2d 734, 58 Nev. 156.
23. Ark. — Caine v. -Lunon, 190 S.W.
2d 521.
Fla. — Corpus Juris cited in Johnson
v. City of Sebring, 140 So. 672, 674,
104 Fla. 694.
La. — Tatum v. Toledo Scale Co., App.,
187 So. 835.
Mont.— Paramount Publix Corpora-
tion v. Boucher, 19 P.2d 223, 93
Mont. ,340— Mihelich v. Butte Elec-
tric Ry. Co., 281 P. 540, 85 Mont.
604.
N.C. — Heffner v. Jefferson Standard
Life Ins. Co., 199 SJE. 293, 214
N.C. 359.
OkL— - Massey-Harris Co. v. Booth, 57
J?.2d 826, 177 Okl. 84.
354
Utah.— Hurd v. Ford, 276 P. 908,
74 Utah 46 — Taylor v. Guaranty
Mortg. Co., 220 P. 1067, 62 Utah
520— Sanders v. Milford Auto Co.,
218 P. 126, 62 Utah 110.
34 C.J. p 171 note 1.
A motion not wholly frivolous and
without merit cannot be treated as
a nullity by the court, and judgment
by default entered against the mov-
ing party. — State v. Tedder, 166 So.
590, 123 Flo.. 188.
Motion challenging" Jurisdiction
The statute authorizing a default
judgment if defendant fails to an-
swer complaint or to make a motion
challenging "jurisdiction" of court
in prescribed manner uses quoted
word as meaning the power to hear
and determine the particular case,
which power is called into activity
by commencement of action to en-
force a claim against defendant or
to redress or prevent a wrong. —
Mitchell v. McDonald, 136 P.2d 536,
114 Mont. 292.
24. Ark.— Caine v. Lunon, 190 S.W.
2d 521.
Fla.— State v. Tedder, 166 So. 590,
123 Fla. 188— Corpus Juris cited in
Johnson v. City of Sebring, 140 So.
672, 674, KM Fla. 584.
Kan. — Corpus Juris cited in Rohr v.
Jelfery, 278 P. 725, 726, 128 Kan.
541.
Okl. — Corpus Juris cited in Rice v.
Bontjes, 250 P. 89, 121 Okl. 292.
34 C.J. p 171 note 2.
25. Fla.— Eli Witt Cigar & Tobacco
Co. v. Somers, 127 So. £33, 99 Fla.
592,
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
200
that a determination of it will not affect plaintiffs
right to proceed with the cause.26 However, the
rule does not apply if the motion is not filed within
the time to plead,27 except in jurisdictions where
defendant may prevent default by pleading at any
time before default is entered;28 and it clearly
does not apply if the motion is filed after the mo-
tion for default is served and filed,29 or if the mo-
tion has been abandoned by defendant30 or the rem-
edy sought by the motion waived.31
In applying the rule to particular cases, it has
been held that a judgment by default cannot be en-
tered while there remains undisposed of a motion to
make the complaint more definite and certain,32 or
to require plaintiff to state his causes of action sep-
arately,83 or for compulsory amendment of the dec-
laration,34 or for a bill of particulars,35 or to strike
out a pleading36 or certain allegations thereof,37 or
to quash the summons or the service or return
thereof,38 or to dismiss the cause or complaint,39
or for a change of venue,40 for security for costs,41
for a continuance,42 or for the removal of the cause
to a federal court48 On the other hand, it has been
held that such a judgment is not prevented by the
pendency of a motion to quash the writ,44 to dis-
miss the action,45 to set aside an amended com-
plaint,46 or for security for costs.47
Where the proceedings are stayed until the hear-
ing and determination of a motion, plaintiff may,
on decision on the motion, proceed at once to enter
judgment by default, without serving notice of the
order,48 unless the order provides for notice.49
§ 200. Operation and Effect of Default and
Judgment
A judgment by default has, In general, the same
force and effect as a judgment rendered after a. trial
on the merits.
26. La. — Motor Finance Co. v. Lynn,
App., 142 So. 310.
Mont.— Mihelich v. Butte Electric
Ry. Co., 281 P. 540, -85 Mont. 604.
Okl. — Bice y. Bonties, 250 P. 89, 121
Okl. 292.
34 C.J. P 171 note 3.
27. Fla. — Register v. Pringle, 50 So.
•584, 58 Fla. 355.
Mass. — Dunbar v. Baker, 104 Mass.
211.
28. 'Fla. — Johnson v. City of Se-
bring, 140- So. 672, 104 Fla, 584.
Utah. — Sanders v. Milford Auto Co.,
218 P. 126, 62 Utah 110.
29. Colo.— McMillen v. Hayman, 221
P. 893, 74 Colo. 300.
Wash.— General Lithographing &
Printing Co. v. American Trust
Co., 104 P. 608, 55 Wash. 401.
30. N.J. — Koenigsberger v. Mial, 101
A. 184, 90 N.J.Law 695.
N.T. — Strong v. Smith, 266 N.Y.S.
745, 149 Misc. 80.
31. Okl. — Massey-Harris Co. v.
Booth, 57 P.2d 826, 177 Okl. 84.
32. Okl.— St. Louis R. Co. v. Toung,
130 P. 911, 35 Okl. 521.
34 C.J. p 172 note 7.
33. Utah.— Felt City Townsite Co. v.
Felt Inv. Co., 167 P. 835, 50 Utah
•364.
34. Fla.-^Johnson y. City of Se-
bring, 140 So. 672, 10'4 Fla, 584.
36. N.Y.— Payne v. Smith, 19 Wend.
122.
34 C.J. p 172 note 8.
After bill famished
Motion for bill of particulars on
last day to plead did not prevent
default Judgment on failure to sub-
mit answer or request extension oa
time when bill was received.— Kurd
v. Ford, 276 P. 908, 74 Utah 46.
36. Mont— Paramount Publix Cor-
poration v. Boucher, 19 P.2d 223,
9)3 Mont. #40.
34 C.J. p 172 note 10.
37. N.C.— Heffner v. Jefferson
Standard Life Ins. Co., 199 S.B.
293, 214 N.C. 359.
Utah, — Sanders v. Milford Auto Co.,
218 P. 126, 62 Utah 110.
38. U.S. — Phillips v. Manufacturers
Trust Co., C.C.A.Idaho, 101 F.2d
723.
Kan.— Corpus Juris cited in Rohr
v. Jeffery, 278 P. 725, 726, 128
Kan. -541.
34 C.J. P 172 note 12.
39. Fla. — Brauer v. Paddock, 139 So.
146, 103 Fla, 1175— Eli Witt Cigar
& Tobacco Co. v. Somers, 127 So.
333, 99 Fla. '592.
Error in filing
Judgment by default should not be
entered against defendant who with-
in apt time filed motion to dismiss
complaint and served notice of its
filing on plaintiff, notwithstanding
motion to dismiss complaint was
filed in office of clerk of court in-
stead of being presented to court. —
People, for Use of Heidinger, v. U.
S. 'Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 7 N.B.2d
472, 239 IlLAprp. 498.
40. Mo. — Cannon v. Nikles, 151 S.
W.2d 472, 235 Mo.App. 1094— Car-
penter v. Alton R. Co., A»pp., 148
S.W.2d 68.
34 C.J. p 172 note 11.
41. Mo.— Anspach v. Jansen, 78 S
W.2d 137, 229 Mo.App. 321.
•34 C. J. p 172 note 1-3.
After security deposited
Where nonresident plaintiff depos-
ited security for costs in response to
defendant's motion, but did not give
defendant notice as required by stat-
ute that costs had been furnished
entering default judgment againsf
355
defendant for failure to serve affida-
vit of merits was error. — Automo-
bile Banking Corporation v. -Birk-
head, 36 A.2d 608, 22 N.J.Misc. 135.
Motion in nature of plea
Where defendant filed motion for
costs and for injunction against
plaintiff's "prosecuting- suits without
>aying costs in original matter, the
motion was in the nature of a plea in
abatement, and the court properly re-
fused to enter default judgment —
Griffin v. Arney, Mo.App., 12 S.W.'2d
95.
42. Mass. — Hosmer v. Hoitt, 36 N.E.
835, 161 Mass. 173.
34 C.J. p 172 note 14.
43. I1L— Mattoon v. Hinkley, 53 111.
208.
Kan. — Cooper v. Condon, 15 Kan.
572.
44. N.M.— Elida -First Nat Bank v.
George, 189 P. 240, 26 N.M. 46.
4£. Cal.— McDonald v. Swett, 18 P.
•324, 76 Cal. 257.
Fla.— Dudley v. White, 81 -So. $30,
44 Fla. 264.
46. Utah. — Greenfield v* Wallace, 1
Utah 188.
47. Ohio. — Morrison v. Baker. App.,
58 N.E.2d 708.
34 C J. !P 172 note 13.
Signing of order
A default judgment for plaintiff
was not erroneous because of motion
pending at time of Its entry to re-
quire plaintiff to furnish bond for
costs, where defendant failed to have
judge sign order fixing amount of
bond.— Wilson v. Lagasse, 179 So.
472, 14 La.Aprp. 463.
48. N.Y.— Tuska v. Jarvis, 113 N.T.
S. 767, 61 Misc. 224.
49. N.Y.— Tuska v. Jarvis. supra,
200
JUDGMENTS
49 C. J. S.
The mere entry of a default is not the equivalent
of a judgment,50 nor is it a final disposition ;51 in
legal effect it has been said to be the equivalent of
a demurrer.52 A default does not affect the status,
rights, or liability of a codefendant53 or intervening
claimant,54 or of defendant himself except as to the
matters necessarily admitted by the default.55
A judgment by default has the same force and ef-
fect as a judgment rendered after a trial on the
merits,56 except in so -far as it is governed by stat-
utory provisions,57 and it is not to be discredited
because of the manner in which it is taken.58 It
determines plaintiffs right to recover, and defend-
ant's liability,59 although the amount of recovery re-
mains in some cases to be ascertained60 A final
judgment cannot be rendered in defendant's favor
without first setting aside a default judgment that
has been entered against him.61
As waiving or curing defects. A judgment by
default or nil dicit operates as a waiver or release
of any mere formal errors or irregularities in the
previous proceedings,62 such as in plaintiffs plead-
ing;63 but it does not cure a totally defective dec-
laration or complaint64 or the entire absence of an
allegation of a material fact,65 nor does it cure or
waive radical defects or errors which go to the au-
thority of the court to enter the judgment66 or to
the foundation of plaintiffs cause of action.67
50. Ala. — Corpus Juris cited in
Ex tferte Anderson, 4 So.2d 420,
421, 242 Ala. 31.
Cal.— Paduveris v. Paris, 1 P.2d 986,
213 Cal. 169.
Vt— "Sheldon v. Sheldon, «7 Vt. 152.
34 C.J. p 172 note 22.
Preliminary entry of default general-
ly see infra § 206.
Intermediate step
An entry of default is a Judg-
ment only in the sense that it ad-
judges the case in default, and is
only an intermediate step authorizing
plaintiff to enter verdict and judg-
ment subject to statutory exceptions.
— Ryles v. Moore. 1« S.E.2d 672, 191
Ga. 661.
Status as "party"
A defendant who has been merely
defaulted is still a "party" to the
suit— Webb v. Willett Co., 3-3 N.E.2d
636, 309 Ill.App. 504.
Effect of laches
Where default had been entered
several months prior to defendant's
application to intervene, or to plead
to court's jurisdiction, or to traverse
allegations of complaint, denial of
application was held proper exercise
of court's discretion. — Sauve v. Ham-
ilton, 271 P. 630, S4 Colo. 498.
»
Tacit Joinder of issue
Effect of entry of preliminary de-
fault is to form tacit joinder of issue
on basis of general denial, and, it
merely serves to put plaintiff on
proof of relevant facts alleged.—
Whalen v. Davis, 9 So.2d 424, 200
Da. 1066 — Russo v. Aucoin, La.App.,
7 So.2d 744.
51. Conn. — Felton v. QPelton, 196 A.
791, 123 Conn. 564.
Mass. — Doodlesacfc v. Superfine Coal
& Ice Corporation, 19S NJDL 773,
292 Mass. 424, 101 A.1..R. 1247—
Hooton v. Redmond, 130 NJED. 107,
•237 Mass.
52. N.Y.— Redfield v. Critchley, 14
N.B.2d 377, 277 N.T. -3«36, reargu-
ment denied 15 N.E.2d 73, 278 N.Y.
483.
53. U.S. — Kuhn v. Chesapeake & O.
Ry. Co., C.C.A.W.Va., 118 F.2d 400.
Fla. — Merchants' & Mechanics' B^nk
v. Sample. 125 So. 1, 98 Fla. 759.
111.— Ohamblin v. Chamblin, 1 N.E.
2d 73, 362 111, 588, 104 A.-L..R. 1183,
certiorari denied 57 S.Ct. 24, 299
TT.S. 541, SI L:Ed. 398.
Mo. — Fawkes v. National Refining
Co., 108 S.W.2d 7, 341 Mo. 630.
S.C.— J. R. Watkins Co. v. Jaillette,
25 S.E.2d 478, 202 S.C. 429.
Tenn. — Brown v. Wilson, 13 Tenn.
App. 255.
Tex.— Buttrill v. Occidental Life Ins.
Co., Qiv.App., 45 S.W.2d 636.
34 C.J. p 173 note 35.
54. TTtah. — Cunnington v. Scott, 11
P. 578, 4 Utah 446.
55. U.S.— Kuhn v. Chesapeake & O.
Ry. Co., C.C.A.W.Va., 118 F.2d 400.
S.C. — Gadsden v. Home Fertilizer &
Chemical Co., 7b S.E. 15, 89 S.C.
433.
58. Del. — Teatman v. Ward, Super.,
36 A.2d 355.
Kan. — Concordia Building & Loan
Ass'n v. -Dundas, 42 P.2d 563, 141
Kan. 59*8.
N.C.— Strickland v. Shearon, 1-37 S.
B. 803, 19-3 OST.C: 599.
Tex. — Ritch v. Jarvis, Civ.App., 64
S.W.2d 831, error dismissed.
Wash.— Puett v. Bernhard, 71 P.2d
406, 191 Wash. 557.
34 C.J. p 172 notes 2'3, 24.
Bond validation, proceeding
Judgment by default permitted "by
taxpayers in bond validation pro-
ceeding has same effect as any other
judgment by default rendered by
court of competent jurisdiction. —
Love v. Tazoo City, 138 So. '600, 162
Mass. 65.
Effect as nonsuit or dismissal
Where court, on failure of plain-
tiff to appear at time set for trial,
heard evidence and submitted issues,
judgment for defendant was essen-
tially a judgment of nonsuit or dis-
missal, and the irregular (proceeding
did not affect its essential nature as
such. — Craver v. Spaugh, 38 S.E.2d
525, 226 N.C. 450.
356
57. Iowa. — Stanbrpugh v. Cook, 49-
N.W. 1010, 83 Iowa 705.
34 C.J. p 172 note 26.
58. Ind.— Hitt v. Carr, 130 N.E. 1.
77 Ind. App. 488.
59. Or. — Winters v. Falls Lumber
Co., -31 P.2d 177, 146 Or. 592.
Tex. — Simmons Co. v. -Sprulll, Civ.
App., 131 S.W.2d 1026.
34 C.J. p 172 note 29.
60. Tex. — Simmons Co. v. Spruill,.
supra.
34 C.J. p 173 note 31.
61. Tex. — Bateman v. Pool, 19 S.W.
552, 84 Tex. 405.
62. Ala. — Eaton v. Harris, 42 Ala.
491.
34 C.J. p 173 note 38.
63. Ala. — Crawford v. Camfield, 6"
Ala. 1'53 — Swo-pe v. "Sherman, 601
So. 474, 7 Ala.Aipp. 210.
Tex.— Busby v. Busby, Civ.App., 64
S.W.2d -392.
34 C.J. <p 173 note 39.
Intention shown by record
A party permitting judgment nihil
dicit impliedly confesses judgment
and waives all errors in pleading-
or proof not fundamental or jurisdic-
tional in character, except those
which record shows were not in-
tended to be waived. — O'Quinn v.
Tate, Tex.Civ.App., 187 S.W.2d 241—
Grand Lodge Brotherhood of Rail-
road Trainmen v. Ware, Tex.Civ.App.,
73 S.W.2d 1076, error dismissed.
64. Mass. — Hemmenway v. Hickes, 4
Pick. 497.
34 C.J. ip 173 note 40.
65. Tenn. — Tumley v. Clarksville &
M. R. Co., 2 Coldw. 327— Harlan v.
Dew, 3 Head 505.
34 C.J. p 173 note 41.
66. Md.— McDonald y. King, 93 A.
979, 125 Md. 589.
34 C. J. p 173 note 42.
67. Ky. — International Harvester
Co. of America v. Commonwealth,
185 S.W. 10'2, 170 Ky. 41. L.R.A.
1918D 1004.
34 C.J. p 173 note 43.
49 O.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
201
As confession of judgment. A judgment by de-
fault has been held to operate as a judgment by con-
fession,68 especially where it is rendered on the
withdrawal of a plea or answer,69 which, in its ef-
fect, is not precisely coextensive with a judgment
by express confession.70
§ 201. Default as Admission
a. In general
b. Allegations in pleadings
c. Amount of claim or damages
d Other matters
a. In General
A default operates as an 'admission by tho defendant
of the truth of the cause of action as set forth In the
plaintiff's pleading, but not as an admission that the
facts alleged are in law sufficient to constitute a cause
of action.
A default or nil dicit operates as an admission by
defendant of the truth of the cause of action as set
up in the declaration or complaint,71 or admits lia-
bility on the part of defendant,72 or amounts to an
admission of plaintifFs right to recover.78 However,
it has also been held that a default does not admit
that the facts alleged are in law sufficient to consti-
tute a good cause of action or to entitle plaintiff to
the relief prayed.74
Constructive service; nonresidents. Where the
service of process on defendant is constructive only,
as by publication, his default is not a sufficient ad-
mission of the allegations of the complaint to au-
thorize a judgment in accordance therewith;75 and,
as shown infra §§ 211, 213, in order for plaintiff to
obtain judgment it is necessary for him to show the
proper issuance and service of process on defend-
ant, as well as the facts which entitle him to re-
cover. A default in pleading has been held not an
admission of the court's jurisdiction over a nonresi-
dent of the county.76 * *
b. Allegations in Pleadings
A defendant's default has been herd to -admit all
matters properly pleaded and material to the Issues.
It has been broadly held that default by defend-
ant operates as an admission of all matters alleged
in plaintifFs pleading ;77 , more particularly, a de-
68. Puerto Rico. — Cajigas v. Prats, 5
Puerto Rico 142.
34 C.J. |p 173 note 45.
Judgment by confession distin-
guished from default judgment
see supra § 134.
69. Tex. — O'Quinn v. Tate, Civ.App.,
187 S.W.2d 241.
34 C.J. p 173 note 46.
Judgment nil dicit generally see su-
pra § 187.
70. Tex. — Grand <Lodge Brotherhood
of Railroad Trainmen v. Ware,
Civ.App., 7-3 S.W.2d 1076— Spivey
v. Saner-Ragley 'Lumber -Co., Civ.
App., 284 S.W. 210.
84 C.J. p 173 note 47.
71. Cal. — Heintzsch v. LaFrance, 44
P 3d 35*8, 3 Cal.2d 180.
111.— Wisner v. Catherwood, 225 111.
App. 471.
Mo. — Electrolytic Chlorine Co. v.
Wallace & Tiernan Co., 41 S.W.2d
1049, -328 Mo. 78-2, 78 A.L.R. 930.
Mont. — Lindsey v. Drs. Keenan, An-
drews & Allred, 1*65 P.2d 804.
N.C.— Corpus Juris cited in, De Hoff
v. Black, 175 -S.E. 179, 180, 206 N.C.
687 — Strickland v. Shearon, 137 S.
EJ. 803, 193 .N.C. 599— Mitchell v.
Town of Ahoskle, 129 S.E. 626, 190
N.C. f235— Hill v. Hufflnes Hotel
Co., 125 S.E. 266, 188 NX!. 686—
Parker v. House, 66 N.C. -374.
Tenn. — Grace v. Curley, 3 Tenn.Apip.
1.
Tex — Saner-Ragley Lumber Co. v.
Spttey, Civ.App., 255 S.W. 193,
modified on other grounds ' Spivey
v. Saner-Ragley Lumber Co., Com.
App., 284 S.W. 210.
34 C.J. p 173 note 49.
Breach of penal bond
Under some statutes,' where judg-
ment on a penal bond is obtained by
default, the court must make an or-
der that the truth of the breaches
shall be inquired into at the same or
next succeeding 'term. — Taylor v.
Auditor, 4 Ark. 574.
Failure to attach itemized statement
Defendant after default could not
complain that petition for enforce-
ment of mechanic's lien had no item-
ized statement attached. — Dierks &
Sons (Lumber Co. v. Taylor, Mo.
App., 296 S.W. 176.
72. Md.— Smith v. Dolan, 185 A. 453,
170 Md. 654.
Mo. — Fawkes v. National Refining
Co., 108 S.W.2d 7, -341 Mo. 630.
R.L — Fudim v. Kane, 136 A. 306, 48
R.L 155.
Tex. — Spivey v. Saner-Ragley Lum-
ber Co., Com.App., 284 S.W. 210.
34 C.J. p 17-3 note 49, p 174 note 60.
73. Ark. — Shelton v. Landers, 270 S.
W. 522, 167 Ark. 63*.
Ind. — Carson v. Perkins, 29 N.E.2d
772, 217 Ind. 543.
Mich. — Hanover Fire Ins. Co. of New
York v. Furkas, 255 N.W. 381, 267
Mich. 14.
Mo.— 'Fawkes v. National Refining
Co., 108 S.W.Sd 7, 341 Mo. 630.
34 C.J. a? 173 note 49.
74. Conn. — Corpus Juris cited in
Felton v. Felton, 196 A. 791, 793,
12*3 Conn. 5'64.
111. — Templeman v. People for Use
of Usher, 11 N.E.2d 974, 292 111.
App. 647 — Whalen v. Twin City
Barge & Gravel Co., 280 Hl.App.
596, certiorari denied -Twin -City
357
Barge & Gravel Co. v. Whalen, 56
S.Ct. 590, 297 U.S. 714, 80 L.Bd.
. 1000.
Pa.— tCorpus Juris ' cited in Frankel
v. Donehoo, 168 A. S70, 572, 306 Pa.
. 52, followed in Marvin v. I>onehoo,
153 A, 573, 306 Pa. 58.
Tex. — Gamel v. City Nat. Bank of
Colorado, Tex., Com. App., 258 S.
W. 1043.
34 C.J. p 174 note 53.
75. Ind. — Rochester Security Trust
Co. v. Myhan, 114 N.E. 410, 186 Ind.
391, 394.
34 C.J. p 175 note 75.
76. Ga. — Davis-Washington Co. v.
Vickers, 155 <S.E. 92, -41 Ga.App.
818. ' >
77. U.S.— In re Kimmel, D.C.N.Y.,
28 F.Supp. 942.
Ala. — Corpus Juris cited la Corpren
v. Tallapoosa County, 3 So.'2d 53,
241 Ala. 492.
Cal.— Davis v. Davis, 224 P. 478, *65
CaLAjpp. 499.
Conn. — 'Felton v. Felton, 196 A. 791,
123 Conn. 564.
111.— People v. Rust, 292 111. - 412—
Templeman v. People for Use of
Usher, 11 N.'ELSd 974, 292 IlLApp. .
647 — Whalen v. Twin City Barge &
Gravel Co., 280 IlLApp. 596, cer-
tiorari denied Twin City Barge &
Gravel Co, v. Whalen, '56 S.Ct. $90*
297 U.S. 714, $0 -L.Ed. 1000.
Ind. — Second Nat. Bank v. Scudder,
6 N.E.2d 955, 212 Ind. 283.
Mich.— «mak v. Gwozdik, -291 £NT.W.
270, 293 Mich. 185.
Mo. — Fawkes v. National Refining
Co., 10'8 S.W.2d 7, 3*1 Mo. 630—
Electrolytic ghlorine Co. v. Wai-
§ 201
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
fault has been held to constitute an admission of
traversable78 allegations' that are well and properly
pleaded and are material to the issues79 or only such
allegations as are necessary to obtain the particular
relief sought.80 .
The rules as to admissions resulting from default
have been said to obtain even though the allega-
tions are untrue.81
c. Amount of Claim or Damages
A default in an action for an unliquidated claim ad-
mits the plaintiff's right. to recover something, but not
the amount; where the amount to which the plaintiff
Is entitled is fixed or liquidated, or ascertainable by mere
calculation, a default admits his right to the sum de-
manded.
Where the action is in tort or for an unliquidat-
ed claim or amount, a default admits plaintiffs right
to recover something,82 at least nominal damages,83
but does not admit the amount to which he is enti-
lace & Tiernan Co., 41 S.W.2d 1049,
.•828 Mo, 782, 78 AL.R. 930.
Neb. — Danborn v. Danborn, 273 N.W.
502, 132 Neb. 858.
N.D.— Corn Exchange Sav. Bank,
Sioux Falls, S. D., v. Northwest
Const. Co., 260 N.W. 580, 65 N.D.
577.
Ohio. — Carter Wood Specialty Co. v.
Drug & Store Fixtures, App., 50 N.
B.2d 188.
Pa. — Irwin Building- & Loan Ass'n v.
Krizanowski, Com.PL, 22 WestCo.
L.J. 99.
Tenn. — Grace v. Curley, «3 Tenn.App.
1.
Tex. — Gamel v. City Nat Bank of
Colorado, Tex. Com. App., 258 S.W.
1043 — Milford , v. Culpepper, Civ.
Aipp., 40 ,S.W.2d 163, error refused
— Citizens' Bank v. Brandau, Civ.
App., 1 S.W.2d 466, error refused.
34 C. J. tp 173 note 43.
Allegations not controverted by
answer are deemed true, although
plaintiff proceeded with evidence as
though issue were joined where de-
fendant was in default and not pres-
ent—Stein v. Rainey, 286 S.W. 53,
315 Mo. 535.
Default in. prior cause carries with
it the admission of all facts alleged
in that action and that admission
may be applied against defendant in
a new suit. — Thorne v. McKinley
Bros., 56 P.2d 204, 5 *Cal.2d 704:
Admissions of oodefendaat
(1) The default of one defendant
although an admission by him of al-
legations of petition, does not oper-
ate as an admission of such allega-
tions as against contesting codefend-
ant— Fawkes v. National Refining
Co., 108 «S.W.2d 7, -341 Mo. 630.
(2) Where one defendant is liable
for the negligence of his codefenoV-
ant default by the latter has been
held an admission of the negligence
charged and is imputable over to,
and binding on, the other. — Holland
v. Kodimer, 77 P.2d 84-3, 11 Cal.2d 40.
78. Mont — ILindsey v. Drs. Keenan,
Andrews & Allred, 16»5 P.'2d 804.
N.Y. — McClelland v. Climax Hosiery
Mills, 169 N.BJ. 60'5, 252 N.Y. «347,
remittitur amended 171 NJL 770,
2£3 N.Y. 633, reargument denied
171 N.B. 781, 253 N.Y. 558— Tremb-J
lay v. <Lyon, 29 N.Y.S.2d 336, 176
Misc. 906.
Okl.— Le Clair v. Calls Him, 233 P.
10S7, 106 OkL 247.
34 C.J. p 17-3 note 49.
79. Ariz. — Corpus Jurii cited in
Postal Ben. Ine. Co. v. Johnson,
165 P.2d 17-3, 178— Collister v. In-
ter-State Fidelity Building & Loan
Ass'n of Utah, 38 P.2d 626, 44
Ariz. 427, 98 A.L.R. 1020.
Ark. — Shelton v. Landers, 270 S.W.
522, 167 Ark. 638.
Cal.— Strong v. Shatto, 258 P. 71, 201
Cat 555 — In re Wiechers' Estate,
250 P. 397, 199 CJal. 523, certiorari
denied Wiechers" v. Wiechers, 47 S.
Ct 47'6, 273 U.S. 762, 71 KBd. 879
— Milstein v. Sartain, 133 P.2d 836,
56 Cal.App.2d 924.
Conn.— Went v. Schmidt 167 A. 721,
117 Conn. 257.
Ga. — Corpus Jtiri« quoted in Sum-
merour v. Medlin, 172 S.E. 8'36, 838,
43 Ga.App. 403.
Ind. — Carson v. Perkins, 29 N.E.2d
S43, 217 Ind. 543— Morris v. Pier-
son & Bro., 168 'N.E. 873, 91 Ind.
App. 288.
La. — Corpus Juris cited in, Simon
v. Duet, 148 So. 2SO, 251, 177 La.
337.
Mich.— Smak v. Gwozdik, 291 N.W.
270, '293 Mich. 185.
Mo.— Corpus Juris Quoted in Dierks
& Sons Lumber Co. v. Taylor,
Aiflp., 296 S.W. 176, 180.
Neb. — Scheumann v. Prudential Ins.
Co. of America, 1-9 N.W.2d -48.
N.M.— Baly v. McGahen, 21 P.2d 84,
37 N.M. 246.
Or.— Kerschner v. Smith, 256 P. 195,
121 Or. 469.
Pa. — New York Life Ins. Co. v. Seku-
la, Com.Pl., 9 -Sch.Reg. 156.
S.C. — Gadsden v. Home Fertilizer &
Chemical Co., 72 S.B. 15, 89 S.C.
483.
Tex. — Employer's Reinsurance Cor-
poration v. Brock, Civ.App., 74 S.
W.2d 435, error dismissed— Wil-
liamson v. City of Bastland, Civ.
App., 65 S.W.2d 774— Aviation
Credit Corporation of New York v.
University Aerial Service Corpo-
ration, Civ.App., 59 S.W.2d 870,
error dismissed — Buttrill v. Occi-
dental Life Ins. Co., Civ.App., 4f
S.W.2d 63'6— Missouri State Life
Ins. Co. v. Rhyne, Civ.App., 276 S.-
358
W. 757, reversed on other grounds
in part and affirmed in <part, Rhyne
v. Missouri State Life Ins. Co.,
Com.App., 291 -S.W. 845.
•34 C.J. p 173 note 49, p 175 note 73.
All matters except amount of dam.
ages
Tex. — Security Ben. Ass'n v. Tucker,
Civ.App., Ill S.W.2d 333, error
dismissed.
80. Ky.— Wilson's Adm'r v. Wilson,
156 S.W.Sd 832, 288 Ky. 522— Pin-
son v. Murphy, 295 S.W. 442, 22G
Ky. 464.
81. U.S.— Firestone Tire & Rubber
Co. v. Marlboro Cotton Mills, D.C.
S.C., 278 F. 816, modified on other
grounds 282 >F. 811, certiorari de-
nied 43 S.Ct 248, 260 U.S. 749, 67
L.Ed. 494.
Mo. — Evans v. Dockins, App., 40 S.
W.2d 1508— Corpus Juris quoted in
Dierks & Sons Lumber Co. v. Tay-
lor, App., 296 S.W. 176, 180.
82. U.S. — Thorpe v. National City
Bank of Tampa, CC.A'Fla., 274 F.
200.
Conn.— New York, N. H. & H. R. Co.
v. Hungerford, 52 A 487, 75 Conn,
76.
Md.— Betz v. P. Welty & £0., 81 A
382, 116 Md. 190.
Utah. — Corpus Juris quoted in Hurd
v. Ford, 276 P. 908, 911, 74 Utah
46.
Wash. — Corpus Juris cited in Skid-
more v. Pacific Creditors, 138 P.2d
•664, 667, 18 Washed 157.
34 C.J. p 174 note 53 [a], «p 176 note
80—17 C.J. p 1048 notes 55, 56.
Zn a negligence suit defendant, by
default is deemed to admit some in-
jury to plaintiff; but the amount or
extent of damage must be estab-
lished by evidence. — Smith v. Dolan,
185 A. 453, 170 Md. 654.
83- Conn.— Went v. Schmidt, 167 A
721, 117 Conn. 257.
N.C.— ODe Hoff v. Black, 175 S.B. 179,
206 N.C. 687, followed in Akins v.
Black, 175 S.E. 181, 206 N.C. 691
—Mitchell v. Town of Ahoskie, 129
S.E. 626, 190 N.C. 235— Acme Mfg.
Co. v. McQueen, 127 S.E. 246, 189
N.C. 311— Hill v. Huffines Hotel
Co., 125 S.E. 266, 188 N.C. 5'86.
x7 C.J. p 1048 note 56.
49 G.J.S.
JUDGMENT'S
201
tied,84 and there is no final judgment until the
amount is ascertained, as discussed infra § 216.
Fixed or liquidated amount. Where the cause of
action is such that plaintiff, if entitled to recover at
all, is entitled to recover a fixed or liquidated
amount,85 or where the amount of his damages is
ascertainable by mere calculation,^ defendant's de-
fault admits plaintiff's right to recover the sum de-
manded in the declaration or complaint, and judg-
ment may be entered therefor, without further
proof, and without an assessment of damages.
d. Other Matters
The defendant, by defaulting, admits the capacity In
which the plaintiff *ues, the status or relationship of
the defendant as. alleged, and the jurisdiction of the
court, in additipn to other matters.
A default has been held to-, admit the capacity in
which plaintiff sues,87 that defendant is the .person
named in the writ and intended tp be sued,88 that
he occupies the position or status or fills the rela-
tion to others which is alleged in the declaration,85
and that the court has acquired jurisdiction of his
person and of the cause of action.90 It also admits
the due execution and validity of the instrument
sued on,91 that plaintiff's claim or demand is just92
and legal,93 and that defendant has no defense to
the action.94
A default constitutes an admission of the fair
inferences and conclusions of fact to be drawn
from plaintiff's allegations ;95 but it does not admit
84. U.S.— Thorpe v. 'National City
Bank of Tampa, C.C.A.Fla., 274 F.
200.
Conn. — New York, N. H. & H. R. Co.
v. Hungerford, "52 A. 487, 75 Conn.
76.
Ind. — Second Nat Bank v. Scudder,
6 N.E.2d 955, 212 Ind. 283.
Mich.— Hanover Fire Ins. Co. of New
York v. 'Furkas, 255 N.W. 381, 267
Mich. 14.
Mo. — Fawkes v. National Refining
Co., 108 S.W.2d 7, 341 Mo. 630.
Mont — -Lindsey v. Drs. Keenan, An-
drews & Allred, 165 P.2d 804.
N.Y. — McClelland v. Climax Hosiery
Mills, 169 N.B. 605, 252 N.Y. 347.
N.C.— Elarle v. Earle, 151 S.B. 884,
198 N.C. 411 — Mitchell v. Town of
Ahoskle, 129 S.E. 626, 190 N.C.
235.
R.I. — Fudim v. Kane, 136 A. 806, 48
R.I. 155.
Tex. — Spivey v. ganer-Ragley Lum-
ber Co., Com. App., 284 S.W. 210—
Security Ben. Ass'n v. Tucker, Civ.
App., .111 S.W.2d -333, error, dis-
missed.
Utah. — Corpus Juris quoted in Hurd
v. Ford, 276 P. 308, 911, 74 Utah
46.
Wash. — Corpus Juris cited in •Skid-
more v. Pacific Creditors, 138 P.2d
664, 667, 18 Wash.2d 157.
34 C.J. p-176 note 81—17 C.J. p 1048
notes 55, 56.
Proof required "by statute
A default does not admit the
amount of damages to which -plain-
tiff is entitled, if the case is one in
which the statutes require proof as
to damage. — Odom v. Pinkston, Tex.
Civ.App., 193 S,W.2d 888, error re-
fused, no reversible error.
Punitive damages alleged in dec-
laration are not considered as ad-
mitted upon default — Florida East
Coast Ry. Co. v. McRoberts, 149 So.
631, 111 <Fla. 278, 94 A.L.R. 376.
85. Conn. — New York, N. H. & H.
R. Co. v. Hungerford, 152 A. 487, 78
Conn. 76.
Utah.— Corpus Juris quoted in Hurd
v. Ford, 276 P. 90S, 911, 74 Utah
46.
Wash. — Corpus Juris cited in Skid-
more v. Pacific Creditors, 138 P.
2d 664, 667, 18 Washed 157.
34 C. J. jp 176 note 85.
Amount of life insurance policy
Action to recover amount of life
insurance policy held action for
liquidated sum. — Metropolitan Life
Ins. Co. v. Scarboro, 156 S.E. 726, 42
Ga.App. 42-3.
8a Utah. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Hurd v. -Ford, 276 P. 908, 911, 74
Utah 46.
Wash. — Corpus Juris cited in Skid-
more v. Pacific Creditors, 138 P.
2d 664, 667, 18 Wash.2d 157.
34 .C.J. <p 176 note 86.
87. Conn. — Fresenius v. Levy, 108
A. 540, 94 Conn. 244.
•34 C.J. p 175 note 61.
83. Utah.— Utah Credit Men's Assoc.
v. Bowman, 113 P. 63, 38 Utah 326,
Ann.Cas.l913B 334.
34 C.J. p 175 note 62.
89. Minn. — Ueland v. Johnson, 80 N.
W. 700, 77 Minn. 543, 77 Am.S.R.
698.
34 C.J. p 175 note 63.
Partners
The existence of a. partnership be-
tween two or more defendants sued
as such is admitted by a default. —
Colorado River Syndicate Subscrib-
ers v. Alexander, Tex.Civ.App., 288
S.W. 586—34 C.J. p 175 note 63 [c].
90. Md.— Beta v. Welty, 81 A. 382,
116 Md. 190.
34 C.J. p 175 note 64.
91. Conn.— Fresenius v. 'Levy, 108
A, 540, 94 Conn. 244.
34 C.J. p 175 note 65.
Assumption of mortgage debt and
agreement to pay the amount there-
of is admitted on entry of default
where the allegations clearly set
forth those facts.— Citizens" -Nat
Trust & Savings Bank of Ix>a An-
359
geles v. Holton, 290 P. 447, 210 Cal.
44.
92. 111.— Roe v. Cook County, 193 N.
E. 472, 358 111. S'68— Buck v. Citi-
zens' Coal Min. Co., 98 N.B. 228,
254 111. 198.
La. — Segal v. Hells, App., 168 So.
364, amended on other grounds
170 So. 276, modified on other
grounds Siegel v. Hells, 172 So.
768, 186 La. 506— Victory Oil Co. v.
Von Schlemmer, 7 LaJVpp. 289.
93. U.S. — Cromwell v. Sac County,
Iowa, 94 -U.S. -351, 24 -L.Ed. 195—
In re "Van Buren, D.C.N.Y., 2 (BV
643.
Ownership of title
In action in nature of ejectment,
wherein default judgment was en-
tered for plaintiff, plaintiff was not
required to exhibit chain of title
from some grantor in possession or
the United States government since
under statute the default judgment
was an admission of title in plain-
tiff, and proof thereof was unneces-
sary.— Coffee v. Xeeton, Ala., 26 So.
2d 80.
94. Ill— Roe v. Cook Bounty, 193 N.
R 472, 358 HL 568.
34 C.J. p 175 note 68.
Breach of contract on the -part of
plaintiff cannot be shown by a de-
fendant who has defaulted, as the
default forecloses his rights in this
respect. — Gary v. Central of Georgia
Ry. Co., 160 S.E. 716, 44 Ga.App.
120.
95. Cal.— Davis v. Davis, 224 P.
478, 65 CaLApp. 499.
Mo. — Corpus Juris quoted in Dlerks
& Sons Lumber Co. v. Taylor, App.,
29'6 -S.W. 176, 180.
Tenn.— Gace v. Curley, * Tenn.App.
1.
34 C.J. P 174 note 52.
In foreclosure or kindred proceed-
ing, default by defendant who is
called on to disclose supposed, but
unknown interest in the subject of
action admits that such interest to
201
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
forced infer ences^ or matters or conclusions of
law,8? nor does it admit allegations of facts ex-
trinsic to plaintiffs cause of action98 or unneces-
sary to its establishment," facts alleged by a code-
fendant,1 or statements in portions of the record
not constituting part of plaintiffs pleadings.2
Amendment. A default admits the facts of an
amendable statement of facts as far as it can be
amended,8 but not of an amendment setting up new
facts.*
Value. It has been held that a default operates
as an admission of value as alleged by plaintiff;5
but there is also authority to the contrary. 6
Plaintiff's failure to reply to a plea covering only
part of the issues does not preclude him from try-
ing issues not met.by the 'plea,?
| 202. Right to Notice of, and Partici-
pation in, Further Proceedings
Except as otherwise provided by statute or rules of
practice, the defendant, after entry of default, ordinarily
Is not entitled to notice of, or to participate in, further
proceedings in the case.
A defendant against whom a default is entered
is out of court,8 and except as otherwise provided
by statute or rule of practice,9 or in the absence of
a request for, or an order requiring, notice10 is not
entitled to notice of further proceedings in the
case,11 including notice of an application for entry
of the default judgment, as discussed infra § 208,
or of assessment of damages against him, as dis-
cussed in Damages § 170.
Unless there is a statutory provision or a rule of
court permitting him to do so, or unless the default
subordinate to plaintiff's. — Scheu-
mann v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Amer-
ica, Neb., 19 N.W.2d 48— Lincoln
Nat. Bank v. Virgin, 55 N.W. 218,
Neb. 735, -38 Am.S.R. 747—34 C.J. P
174 note 52 [a].
96. Ga. — Summerour v. Medlin, 172
S.'E. 836, 48 Ga.App. 403.
34 C.J. p 174 note 59.
97. Ala. — Corprew v. Tallapoosa
County, 3 So.2d 53, 241 Ala. 492.
Ga. — Summerour v. Medlin, 172 'S.B.
836, 48 GsuApp. 403.
Mich.— Bonnici v. Kindsvater, 266 N.
W. 360, 275 Mich. 304.
34 C.J. p 175 note 58.
Allegation, of wanton and willful
recklessness
Mich.— Cogswell v. Kells, 292 N.W.
483, 293 Mich. 541.
98. Mich. — Corpus Juris cited .in
Uonnici v. Kindsvater, 266 N.W.
•J60, 3-61, 275 Mich. 304.
34 C.J. p 174 note 55.
99. Me.— Dunlap v. Glldden, 34 Me.
517.
Mich. — Corpus Juris cited in Bon-
nici v. Kindsvater, 2*66 N.W. 360,
361, 275 Mich. 304.
X- Or. — Dempsey v. Ball, 167 P. 508,
85 Or. 560.
34 C.J, p 174 note 57.
2. Tex. — Whisenant v. Thompson
Bros. Hardware Co., Civ.App., 120
S.W.2d 316.
Statements in caption of judgment
Tex. — Whisenant v. Thompson Bros.
Hardware Co., supra.
3. Puerto Rico. — Fuentes v. Maldon-
ado, 7 Puerto Rico (Fed. 52.
4. Ga. — Gary v. 'Central of Georgia
. By. Co., 160 S.B. 71-6, 44 Ga.A#p.
120.
34 C.J. p 175 note 70.
5. . Tex. — Martin v. Lee County State
Bank. Civ.App., 26'5 S.W. 1057.
& Ind.— Second Nat Bank v. Scud-
der, 6 N.E.23 955, 212 Ind. 283,
34 C.J. p 176 note 81 [a],
7. Mich. — Snyder v. Quarton, 10 N.
W. 204, 47 Mich. 211.
8. Cal.— Jones v. Moers, 26I6 P. 821,
91 CalApp. 65.
Idaho. — Kingsbury v. Brown, "92 P.2d
1053, 60 Idaho 464, 124 AJL.R. 149.
111.— People ex rel. Wilmette State
Bank v. Village of Wilmette, 13 N.
E.2d 990, 294 IlLApp. 362.
Minn. — Corpus Juris cited in Ander-
son v. Graue, 236 N.W. 483, 434,
183 Minn. 336, followed in Lima v.
Graue, 23-6 N.W. 484, 18-3 Minn. 338.
34 C.J. p 176 note 90.
9. Where rights not affected
The statute providing that, where
defendant has not appeared, service
of notice of papers need not -be made
on him means that notice of papers
need not be served on a defaulting
party if his rights are not thereby
affected. — Thompson v. Cook, 127 P.
2d 909, 20 Cal.2d 564 — Strong v.
Shatto, 258 P. 71, 201 CaL 555.
1<X Fla. — Grand Lodge, K. P. of
North America, South America,
Europe, Asia, Africa, and Austra-
lia, Jurisdiction of Florida, v.
Stroud, 144 So. 324, 107 'Fla. 152.
1L, Ariz.— Faltis v. Colachis, 274 P.
776, -35 Ariz. 78.
Cal. — Citizens' Nat Trust & Savings
Bank of Los Angeles v. Holton,
290 P. 447, 210 Cal. 44.
Fla. — Grand Lodge, K. P. of North
America, South America, Europe,
Asia, Africa, and Australia, Juris-
diction of Florida, v. Stroud, 144
So. 324, 107 Fla. 152.
111. — People v. Village of Wilmette,
13 N.E.2d 990, 294. Ill.App. 362—
Strauss v. Zuker, 7 N.E.2d 504, 289
IlLApp. 619 — Bird-Sykes Co, v. Mc-
Namara, 252 IlLApp, 2<62 — Hick-
man v. Ritchey Coal Co., 252 111.
Apj>. 660-^-Precision products Co.
v. Cady, 233 liLApp, 72,
360
Minn. — Corpus Juris cited in Ander-
son v. Graue, 236 N.W. 4S-3, 484,
183 Minn. 336, followed in Lima v.
Graue, 2-36 N.W. 484, 183 Minn.
338.
Miss. — Strain v. Gayden, 20 So.2d
697.
N.Y. — Kirschenbaum v. Rubin, '218
N.Y.S. 373, 128 Misc. 149.
Wash. — -Skidmore v. Pacific Credi-
tors, 138 P.2d 664, 18 Wash.2d 157.
Wis.— Velte v. Zeh, 206 N.W. 197, 188
Wis. 401.
34 C.J. ip 176 note 91.
Effect of amended pleading without
notice to defendant see supra §
194.
Notice of:
Application for judgment see infra
§ 208.
•Further proceedings in equity see
Equity § 671.
Charged with notice
Defendant, who has been .sum-
moned, is charged with notice that
plaintiff may make amendment —
Bird-Sykes Co. v. McNamara, 252
IlLApp. 262,
Cross petition
(1) A defaulting defendant has
been held not entitled to notice of
the filing of a cross petition by a
codefendant; where both had been
served with the original summons. —
Rice v. Bontjes, 250 P. 89, 121 Okl.
292— Littlefleld v. Brown, 172 P. 643,
68 Okl. 144.
(2) A cross petition by defendant
seeking additional affirmative relief
against a codefendant on whom serv-
ice of summons had been had at
plaintiffs request, but who was in
default and whose time for answer-
ing had expired before filing of
cross (petition, could not be prose-
cuted to judgment without further
notice to defaulting defendant —
Roberts v. Paschall, 138 P.2d 834,
192 Okl. -673 — Wood v. Speakman, 5
!p.2d 121, 153 Okl. 180.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 203
has been properly set aside,12 defendant cannot, aft-
er the entry of default, file pleadings contesting
plaintiffs allegations,13 move for a new trial,14 or
take, or participate in, any further proceedings in
the cause affecting plaintiff's right of action,1^ ex-
cept to make an application to open or set aside the
default16 or to dismiss the case for noncompliance
with some statutory provision17 or for failure of
plaintiff's pleading to set forth a cause of action,18
or to appear and contest the taxation of costs,19
interpose proper objections to judgment,20 or to
show facts in mitigation of unliquidated damages,21
although in contesting the amount of damages
claimed he cannot deny or dispute any of the mate-
rial facts adjudicated against him by the default.22
§ 203. Waiver of Default
The entry of default Is a privilege which i« waived
by proceeding with the cause without taking advantage
of the default.
The entry of a default against defendant is mere-
ly a privilege which may or may not be exercised
by plaintiff,23 and which is waived by his proceed-
ing with the cause without taking advantage of
the default in the proper time and manner,24 un-
12. Minn. — Anderson v. Graue, 238
N.W. 483, 183 Minn. 336, followed
in OUma v. Graue, 236 N.W. 484,
133 Minn. 338.
Proceedings after opening- default
see infra §§ 339, 340.
13. Cal. — Jones v. Moers, 266 P. 821,
91 CaLApp. 65.
Colo.— Myers v. Myers, 135 P.2d 235,
110 Colo. 412.
Idaho. — Kingsbury v. Brown, 92 P.2d
1053, 60 Idaho 464, 124 A.L.R. 149.
La. — Segal v. Hells, Ap-p., 168 So. 364,
amended on other grounds 170 So.
276, modified on other grounds Sie-
gel v. Helis, 172 So. 768, 186 La.
506.
Minn. — Anderson v. Graue, 236 N.W.
483, 183 Minn. 336, followed in
Lima v. Graue, 236 N.W. 484, 18-3
Minn. 338.
Okl.— Roskoten v. Odom, 87 P.2d 338,
184 Okl. 368.
Or. — J. W. Copeland Yards v. Sheri-
dan, 296 P. 838, 136 Or. 37, rehear-
ing denied 297 P. 837, 1-3-6 Or. 37.
Tex.— Buttrill v. Occidental Life Ins.
Co., Civ.App., 45 S.W.2d 636.
34 C.J. p 177 note -96.
Time for pleading generally see su-
pra 5 199.
14. Cal. — Title Ins. & Trust Co. v.
King Land & Improvement Co., 120
P. 1066, 162 Cal. 44.
34 C.JT. p 177 note 97.
However, it has been stated that
one who has defaulted may move for
a new trial.— Carson v. Perkins, 29
N.B.2d 772, 217 and. 543. ^
Defendant not in default
Where district court clerk received
answer and marked it filed, although
he failed to note filing on fee book,
and did not place pleading with re-
mainder of court papers in Jacket
provided therefor, defendant was
held not in default, entitling him to
new trial where default judgment
was entered without notice. — Gause
v. Cities Service Oil Co., Civ.App., 70
S.W.2d 224, affirmed City of Fort
Worth v. Gause, 101 S.W.2d 221, 129
Tex 25.
15. Ariz.— Martin v. Sears, 44 P.2d
526, 45 Ariz. 414.
HI.— -People ex rel. Wilmette State
Bank v. Village of Wilmette, 13
N.R2d 990, 294 IlLApp. 362— Gard-
ner v. Shekleton, 253 IlLApp. -333.
La. — Harrisonburg-Catahoula State
Bank v. Meyers, App., 185 So. 96.
Mont.— State v. Whitcomb, 22 P.2d
823, 94 Mont. 415.
34 C.J. p 177 note 98.
Right to appeal see Appeal and Er-
ror § 155.
Injecting- issue
In jactitation action wherein de-
fault judgment was entered against
defendants, merits or validity of ti-
tle or lack of such was not in issue,
and Issue with respect thereto could
not be created by enlargement of
pleadings by introduction of evidence
not primarily admissible under alle-
gations of petition. — Segal v. Helis,
App., 168 So. 364, amended 170 So.
276, modified on other grounds Sie-
gel v. Helis, 172 So. 768, 18* !La. 506.
Introduction of evidence
Ga.— Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v.
Scarboro, 156 S.E. 726, 42 Ga.App.
423.
Idaho.— Silk v. Kelly, 214 P. 524, 87
Idaho 11.
Argument of case to Jury
Ga.— Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v.
Scarboro, 156 S.B. 726, 42 Ga.App.
423.
Interlocutory judgment by default
only prevents defendant from com-
ing in and making a defense after
expiration of time given him to
plead.— Stein v. Rainey, 286 S.W. 53,
315 Mo. 535.
16. Ariz.— Martin v. Sears, 44 P.2d
526, 45 Ariz. 414.
CaL— Jones v. Moer, 266 P. 821, 91
CaLApp. 65.
Minn.— Anderson v. Graue, 2-36 N-W.
483, 183 Minn. 336, followed in
Lima v. Graue, 236 N.W. 484, 183
Minn. 338.
84 C.J. p 177 note 39.
17. Puerto Rico. — Chavier y, Giral-
dez, 15 Puerto Rico 145.
18. Ga.— O'Connor v. Brucker, 45 S.
B. 7*1. 117 Ga, 451— Kelly v.
Strouse & Bros., 43 S.B. 280, 116
Ga. $72— (R. 'E. Jarman & Sons v.
Drew, 21 S.R3d 444, 67 Ga.App.
361
$50 — Thigpen v. Bituminous Cas-
ualty Corporation, 20 -S.EJ.2d 213,
67 Ga.App. 367— Hobbs v. Citizen's
Bank of Wrens, 124 SJE. 72, 32 Ga.
App. 522.
19. Mo. — Laclede Land & Improve-
ment Co. v. Creason, 175 S.W. 65.
264 Mo. 452.
N.T. — Fenton v. Garlick, 6 Johns.
287.
20. Wis. — Graham v. Zellers, 238 N.
W. 387, 205 Wis. 547.
21. Fla,— Grand Lodge, K. (P. of
North America, South America,
Europe, Asia, Africa, and Austra-
lia, Jurisdiction of Florida, v.
Stroud, 144 So. 324, 107 OBla, 152.
Ga. — Metropolitan -Life Ins. Co. v.
Scarboro, 156 S.E. 726, 42 Ga,App.
423.
I1L — Tleraey v. Szumny, 257 IlLApp.
•457— Gardner v. Shekleton, 253 HL
App. (333.
Ind. — Carson v. Perkins, 29 N.E,2d
772, 217 Ind. 543.
Mo. — Electrolytic Chlorine Co. v.
Wallace & Tiernan Co., 41 S.W.2d
1049, 328 Mo. 782, 78 A.L.R. 930.
Mont. — Lindsey v. Drs. Keenan, An-
drews & Allred, 165 P.2d 804.
Tex. — Brill v. Guaranty State (Bank
of Goose Creek, (Com. App., 280 S.
W. 537.
34C.J. p 177 note 3.
22. Ga.— Whittier Mills Co. v. Jenk-
ins, 98 S.E. 236, 23 Ga.App. 328.
Recovery of liquidated sum
In action on life policy against in-
surer in default, court «properly re-
fused to allow insurer to introduce
evidence to show recovery was not
for liquidated sum. — Metropolitan
Life Ins. Co. v. Scarboro, 156 S.E.
726, 42 Ga,Apfc. 42-3.
23. U.S. — TJpton-»Lang Co. T. Met-
ropolitan Casualty Ins. Co. of New
York, C.CJLPa., 57 F.2d 133.
Idaho.— Kingsbury v. Brown, 92 P.2d
1053, £0 Idaho 464, 124 A.L.R. 149.
34 aj. <p 177 note 5.
24. CaL — Oil Tool * Exchange v.
Schuh, 153 P.2d 976, 67 CaJ.AOT.2d
288.
34 C J. f> 177 note 6.
203
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
less he was. ignorant of .the default at the time.25
Plaintiff will be held to have waived defendant's
default where he voluntarily extends the time for
defendant to plead26 or appear,27 accepts a plead-
ing filed out of time,28 files a replication to a plead-
ing so filed,29 or goes to trial without objection.30
A default on the part of plaintiff may likewise be
waived by defendant's failure to take advantage
of it,31 as where, after the default, he abandons his
defense and does not appear at the trial.32
B. PROCEDURE IN TAKQTG DEFAULT AND ENTERING JUDGMENT
§ 204, Power of Court in General
A preliminary default may be entered, and a final
Judgment by1 default .may be rendered only by a court
of competent Jurisdiction, unless such power Is vested
In the clerk of court or In a court commissioner.
Since the giving of judgment on a legal obliga-
tion, when defendant is in default, is a judicial
act,83 judgment may be rendered by a court pos-
sessing jurisdiction;34 and the fact that the clerk
has power to enter such a judgment does not affect
the court's power to render the judgment.35 Ex-
cept in so far as power to enter a judgment by de-
Wha* constitutes waiver
(1) Some act disclosing an implied
OP express Intent to waive the de-
fault is required to constitute a
waiver thereof. — Kings-bury v.
Brown, 92 P.2d 1053, 60 Idaho 464, ;
124'A.L.R. 149.
(2) A mere appearance generally
after entry of default does not con-
stitute a waiver of the default—
Kingsbury v. Brown, supra.
(3). Plaintiff's motion to strike an
unauthorized and void answer does
not affect the collusiveness of the
default or Judgment. — Kingsrbury v.
Brown, supra.
(4) Particular acts see 34 C.J. p
177 note 6 [a].
General appearance, made before
default is actually entered, is in
time.— Edenfteld v. G. V. Seal Co., 241
P. 227, 74 Mont. 509.
Waiver not shown
(1) Plaintiff's right to Judgment
for want of affidavit of defense held
'not waived by voluntarily placing
case at issue in reliance on agree-
ment of defendant's attorney to file
pleading. — Upton-Lang Co. v. Metro-
politan Casualty Ins. Co: of NeW
York, C.C.A.Pa., 57 'F.3d 1-33.
(2) Other facts not constituting
waiver see 34 C.J. p 177 note 6 C'b].
In Texas
(1) It has been held that participa-
tion in the trial by a codefendant
who defaulted did not waive the fil-
ing of a formal denial of the allega-
tions of plaintiff's petition and that
such codefendant could not complain
•because no proof of admftted facts
was made by plaintiff. — -Brill v.
'• Guaranty State Bank of Goose Creek,
Cpm.A'pp., 280 S.W. 537.
(2) And it has been hel>d /that
plaintiff ;was entitled to Judgment
against defendants who did .not ap-
pear and answer, notwithstanding he
did not insist on Judgment, by de-
fault.— Foust v. Jones, Civ.App., 90
;S.W.2d <665. . . '
r (3) However, the rule in the text
has been followed. — Corpus Juris
oited in Shaw v. Whitneld, Civ.App.,
35 S.W.2d 1115.— Corpus Juris oited
in Brasher v. Carnation Co. of Texas,
!iv.App., 92 S.W.2d 573, 574.
85. N.T.-^-Giles v. Gaines, 3 Cai.
•Cas. 107, Col. & C.Cas. 463.
34 C.J. p 177 npte 7.
26. Idaho.— Corpus Juris guoted In
Kingsbury v. Brown, 32 P.2d 1053,
1055, 60 Idaho 464, 124 AJL.R. 149.
34 C.J. p 177 note 8.
Acquiescence in delay
Iowa.— City of Des Moines v. Barnes,
20 N.W.2d 895.
Effect of extension on time of trial
A waiver of default and grant of
right to answer, with the under-
standing that answer will be filed
within a few days and that defend-
ant will be ready to try the case
during the following term implies
that no steps will be taken by him
to delay the trial, and so he waives
Jiis right to move for a. stay .previous
to the trial, even though he alleges
facts which are -claimed to render the
arbitration law a bar to Judgment by
plaintiff witho.ut first -resorting to
arbitration. — Clyde Renco Mill. Co.
v. Globe Elevator , Co.^ 215 N.Y.S.
829, 216 App.Div. 780.
27. Cal.— Baird v. Smith, 14 K2d
749, 216 Cal. 408.
Mont.— Mitchell v. Banking Corpora-
tion of Montana, 264 P. 127, 81
Mont 459. .
23. Cal. — Oil Tool Exchange " v.
'Schuh, 153'P.2d 976, 67 Cal.App.2d
288. • " '
Idaho.— "Corpus Juris quoted in
Kingsbury v. Brown, 92 P.2d'l053,
1055, 60 'Idaho 464, 124 A.'Ii.R. 149.
S.D. — Tristate Fair Ass'n v. Lasell,
2ltf N.W. &92, 51' SJD. 527.
34 C.J. p 177 note 9.
29. Idaho.— Corpus Juris guoted in
* KingsDury v. Brown, 92 P.2d 1053,
1055, 60 Idaho 4*64, 124 A.1L.R. 149.
•34 C.J, P 177 note 10.
30f Idaho.— Corpus Juris quoted in
Kingsbury v.' Brown, 92 P.2d 1053,
1065, 60 Idaho 4$4,'124 A.L.R 149.
" 362
Pa.— Dunn v. Calpin, Com.Pl., 61
DauptuCo. 192.
34 C.J. p 177 note IL
31. Mont— Mihellch v. Butte Elec-
tric Ry. Co., 281 P. 540, 85 Mont.
604.
34 C.J. p 177 note 12.
32. Ind. — Aston v. Wallace, 4-3 Ind.
468.
33. xj.s.— Pope v. U. S., Ct.CL, 65 S.
Ct 16, 323 U.S. 1, 89 L.Ed. 3.
34. Cal.— Phillips v. Trusheim, 156
P.2d 25, 25 Cal.2d 913— Merver
•Lumber Co. v. Silvey, 84 P.2d 1062,
29 Cal.App.2d 426.
Jurisdiction in respect of default
judgments generally see supra §
192.
Judge of another court
County Judge is without jurisdic-
tion to grant default judgment in ac-
tion pending in supreme court. —
Kline v. Snyder, 231 N.Y.S. 275, 133
Misc. 128.
Place of action "by judge
(1) Judge is authorized to give
default judgment outside court .in
which suit was brought. — Gray v.
Bank of Moundville, 107 So. 804, 214
Ala. 260.
(2) Under statutes and rules of
court, when a party is entitled to a
Judgment by default and fcas com-
plied with the rules adopted by the
court for the purpose of obtaining
it, and the court is open, the judge
of the court may, anywhere in the
county, circuit, or state, sign an or-
der in writing to the clerk to enter
in the minutes a Judgment by default
for the amount named therein, or
write, sign, and forward to the clerk,
a judgment by default to be filed in
the cause. — Carothers v. Callahan, 93
So. 569, 207 Ala. 611.
35. Colo.— Grifflng v. Smith,' 142 P.
202, 2-6 Colo.App. 220.
N.C.— Hill v. Huffines Hotel Co., 125-
. S.B. 266, 188 'N.C. 586.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
205
fault is vested in the clerk of the court, as dis-
cussed infra § 205, or a court commissioner,36 a
judgment by default may be rendered only by a
court.87 So, too, in cases where the clerk of court
is not authorized to make it, a preliminary entry of
default should be made only by the court;38 or the
judge39 authorized to preside over the tribunal and
empowered to hear and determine the issues be-
tween the parties.40 In the absence of an appear-
ance, strict compliance with the proceedings neces-
sary to the rendition of judgment will be exacted.41
§ 205. Authority and Duty of Clerk
The authority of a clerk of court to make a prelimi-
nary entry of default, or to enter a final judgment by de-
fault without authority from the court, is purely stat-
utory.
In making a preliminary entry of default, or en-
tering a judgment of default, a clerk of court ex-
ercises a purely ' ministerial, and not a judicial,
function.-42 Where a preliminary entry or interloc-
utory judgment of default is necessary or proper,
as discussed infra § 206, the clerk of the court is
authorized, under some statutes, to make such entry
on defendant's failure to appear or answer.43
The statutory provisions giving him such authority
must be strictly construed,44 and, such power or
authority, being purely statutory,45 "may be exer-
cised by him only in cases which clearly come with-
in the terms of the statute46 and only tp the ex-
tent authorized;47 but, the entry when authorized
may be made by him notwithstanding the court is in
session,4^ and notwithstanding the -judge is dis-
qualified to try the case.49
Entry of .judgment. As in the case of judgments
generally, as discussed supra § 108, where a default
judgment is rendered by the court, it should be reg-
3B. Wash. — Peterson v. Dillon, 67 P.
397, 27 Wash. 78.
34<C.J. p 178 note 15 [a].
37. Pa. — School Dist. of Haverford
Tp., to Use of Tedesco v. Herzog,
171 A. 455, 314 Pa. 161— Gallagher
v. Dwyer, Com.Pl., 34 iLuz.Leg.
Reg:. 366 — Kaikaman v. Greek
Catholic Church, Com.Pl., 20 Wash.
Co. 88.
34 C.J. p 178 note 17.
38. Cal.— Crofton v. Young, 119 P.2d
1003, 48 Cal.App.2d 452.
39. Fla.— Albert M. Travis Co. v.
Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 139 So.
141, 102 Fla. 1117.
Ga.— Burson v. Lunsford, 186 S.E.
.213, 5.3 Ga.App. 411.
34 C.J. 5) 179 note «6.
40. <La.— Jones v. Cunningham, 102
So. 309, 157 La. 208.
drudge who had recused himself
because of personal interest could
not grant preliminary default. —
Jones v. Cunningham, 102 So. 309,
157 La, 208.
41. U.S. — Exchange Nat. Bank of
(Shreveport, La. v. Joseph Reifc Gas
Engine Co., C.C.AJLa,, 237 'F. 870.
42. Cal.— Baird v. Smith, 14 P.2d
749, 216 Cal. 408.
IFla. — Coslick v. Finney, 140 So. 216,
104 «Fla. -394— Daniell v. Campbell,
101 So.- 35, $8 Fla. «63.
Mont— Coxpna Jw*» «**•* *» Com-
mercial Bank & Trust Co. v. Jor-
dan, 278 P. 832, 8*34, 85 Mont -3715,
65 A.L.B. 968.
Nev. — Price v. Brlxnacombe, 72 Pr2d
1107, 58 Nev. 156, rehearing de-
nied 75 P.2d 7«34, 58 Nev. 156.
Wyo.— Winnicke v. Lieth, 157 P.2d
274— Kimfcel v. OsbornP 15-6 P.2d
279 — James v. Lederer-Strauss &
Co., 23$ P; 137, $2 Wyo. -377.
84 C.J. *p 178 notea 41, 48.
Act of clerk regarded as Judgment
of court
Iowa. — Fred Miller Brewing Co. v.
Capital Ins. Co., 82 N.W. 1023, 111
Iowa 590, 82 Am.S.R. 529. •
8-4 C.J. p 178 note 44.
43. Ala. — -Ex parte Anderson, 4 So.2d
420, 242 Ala, 31.
Cal. — Trans-Pacific Trading Co. v.
Patsy Frock & Romper Co., 209
P. 357, 189 Cal. 509— -Hinds v. Su-
perior Court of Los Angeles Coun-
ty, 223 P. 422, 65 CaLApp. 223."
Fla,— Albert M. Travis Co. v. Atlan-
tic Coast -Line R. Co., 139 So. 141,
102 'Fla. 1117.
Mont: — Commercial Bank & Trust
Co. v. Jordan, 278 P. 832, 85 Mont.
375, 65 A.L.-R. 968.
34 C.J. p 178 note 23.
Entry by clerk of office judgment see
infra § 218.
Entry by clerk under Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure see 'Federal
Courts § 144 c.
Duty of clerk
(1) There should be strict compli-
ance with statutes expressly reauir-
ing the -clerk to enter defaults. — Se-
curity Finance Co. v. Gentry, 109 So.
220, 91 Fla, lOl'o, followed in 109
So. 222, 91 iFla. 1024.
(2) Under a statutory provision
contemplating, in certain cases, both
entry of default and entry of Judg-
ment by the clerk, it is the duty of
the clerk, in a case within such pro-
vision, and on application by plain-
tiff, to enter the default. — Commer-
cial Bank & Trust Co. v. Jordan, 278
P. &32, 85 Mont. «375, 65 AJLR. 968 —
34 C.J. p 178 note 23 [a].
(8) However, another statutory
provision that in other cases, if no
answer, -demurrer, or motion has
been filed with clerk of court within
time specified in summons, clerk
must enter default, and thereafter
363
plaintiff may apply for relief de-
manded in complaint is directory
rather -than mandatory.— Mitchell v.
Banking Corporation of Montana,
264 'P. 127, 81 Mont. 459— Edenfield v.
G. V. Seal Co., 241 P. 227, 74 Mont
509.
44. Fla. — -Arcadia Citrus Growers
Ass'n v. Hollingsworth, 185 So.
; 431, 135 Fla. 322 — Cosmopolitan
Fire Ins. Co. v. Boatwright, 51 So.
540, 59 Fla. 232.
45. Ariz.-»Turbeville v. McCarrell,
30 P.2d 496, 43 Ariz. 236.
flPla. — Arcadia Citrus Growers Ass'n
v. Hollingsworth, 185 So. 4*31, 135
Fla, 322.
48. Ariz.— Turbeville v. McCarrell,
30 P.2d 496, 43 Ariz. '236.
Cal. — Crofton v. Toung, 119 P.2d
1003, 48 Cal.App.2d 452.'
Mont— Edenfield v. G. V. Seal Co.,
241 P. 227, 74 Mont 509.
34 C.J. p 178 note 25.
47. W.Va. — Bradley v. Long, i50 S.E.
746, 57 W.Va, 539.
'34 CJ. p 178 note 26.
Where summons and complaint are
served personally, clerk entering de-
fault must enter it for amount de-
manded, unless plaintiff ejects small-
er sum* — McClelland v. Climax Ho-
siery Mills, 169 NJBL 605, '252 N.Y.
347, 226 AppJDiv. 664, 739, remlttitur
amended 171 N.B. 770, 253 N.T. 633,
reargument. denied 171 jNTJE. 781, 253
:NT.Y. 558.
48. Ariz. — Agua Fria Copper Co. v.
Bashford-Burmister Co., 35 P. 983,
4 Ariz. 203.
49. Cal. — People v. Be Carrillo,: £5
Cal. -87.
Fla. — Dudley v. White, 31 So. $30,
44 Fla. 264.
§ 205
JUDGMENTS
49 ang-
entered by the clerk in his minutes,60 but the
derk may not enter a final judgment by default
without authority from the court,51 except where
he is authorized by statute to do so,52 and then only
in. cases authorized by the. statute,58 and in strict54
conformity with the provisions of the statute.55
The clerk must determine from the allegations of
the complaint alone whether the action is one in
which he is authorized to enter judgment;56 but
otherwise he may exercise no discretion;57 and he
is not authorized to enter judgment where the tak-
ing of extrinsic evidence is necessary to ascertain
and determine the amount of the recovery.58 He
may be disqualified from entering default judgment
in a particular case,59 as by reason of his pecuniary
interest in the subject matter.60
Authority of the clerk of court to compute and
50. N.Y.— Tyler v. Jahn, 178 N.T.'S.
689, 109 Misc. 425.
Tenn. — Memphis & Ohio R. R. Co. v.
Dowd, 9 Heisk. 179.
51. Ala.— Ex parte Anderson, 4 So.
2d 420, 242 Ala. 51.
34 C.J. p 178 note 29.
52. -Fla. — Coslick v. Finney, 140 So.
216, 104 Fla. -394 — Green v. Proc-
ter & Gamble Distributing1 Co., 109
So. 471, 92 Fla. 396.
Minn. — Marthaler Machine & Engi-
neering- Co. v. Meyers, 218 N.W.
127, 173 Minn. «606— Thomas-Hal-
vorson Lumber Co. v. McRell, 206
N.W. 951, 165 Minn. 460.
Mont— Commercial 'Bank & Trust
Co. v. Jordan, 278 P. 832, 85 Mont.
375, 65 A.L.R. 9-68.
N.C.— Clegs v. Canady, 195 S.B. 770,
513 N.C. 258— Crye v. Stoltz, 138 S.
E. 167, 193 NjC. 802.
Wyo. — Lederer-Strauss & Co., 235 P.
1*87, -32 Wyo. 377.
34 C.J. p 178 note 31, p 185 notes 67,
68.
Statutes authorizing entry -by clerk
without prior application to court
see Infra § 208 a.
53. Cal. — Trans-Pacific Trading- Co.
v. Patsy Frock & Rom'per Co., 209
P. «357, 189 Cal. 509— McOmie v.
Board of Directors of Veterans*
Home of California, 263 P. 25=3, 88
QaLApp. 16.
Idaho. — Gustin v. Byam, 240 P. 600,
41 Idaho 538.
Minn. — High v. Supreme Lodge of'
the World, Loyal Order of Moose,
290 N.W. 425, 207 Minn. 228.
Pa. — School Dist. of Haverford Tp,,
to <Use of Tedesco, v. Herzog, 171
A. 455, 314 Pa. 161.
34 C.J. IP 179 note 47.
Strict construction of statute
Statutory authority of clerks of
circuit courts as to entering default
Judgments in certain cases must be
strictly construed. — Krpier v. Kroier,
116 So. 753, 95 Fla. 8*65.
Default Judgment for reasonable
attorney's fees is beyond th'e author-
ity of the clerk to enter.
Idaho.—- Tripp v. Dotson, 4 P,2d 349,
51 Idaho 200.
Wyo.—Wunnicke v. (Leith, '1S7 P.2d
274. .
54* Cal.— Baird v. Smith. 14 P.2d
749, 216 Cat 408.
Wyo.— Wunnicke v. Leith, 157 P.2d
274.
34 C.J. p 179 note 48.
55. La. — Stetson v. Webber, 187 So.
S3, 192 La. 148.
N.Y.^In re Laughlin's Estate, 8 N.
Y.S.2d 842, 255 A-pp.Div. 927.
34 C.J. p 179 note 48.
56. Mont — Soliri v. «Fasso, 185 P.
•322, 56 Mont 400.
Necessity of complaint and. timely
filing thereof
<1) Default Judgment cannot be
entered by clerk without application
to court, unless there is complaint. —
Leroy Arnold, Inc., v. Mackey, 2'22
N.Y.S. 225, 129 Misc. ««8.
(.2) Complaint must be filed as
part of Judgment roll to authorize
clerk of court to enter Judgment on
default. — Juskowitz v. Stern, 283 N.
T.S. 955, 158 Misc. 28.
(3) Where plaintiff in law action
does not file declaration on or be-
fore rule day to which process is
made returnable or on or before next
succeeding rule day, entry by clerk,
not in term time, of final judgment
for plaintiff on rule day thereafter
on filing his declaration, unless fur-
ther time has been duly allowed by
the court, is unauthorized. — Daniell
v. Campbell, 101 So. 35, 88 Fla. 63.
Cause of action, within statute
Question whether clerk was au-
thorized to enter a default Judgment
against one of defendants was not
dependent on whether complaint
stated a cause 'of action, but on
whether the complaint stated a
cause of action within statute au-
thorizing the clerk to enter default
judgment in an action arising on
contract for the recovery of money
or damages, only.— Lynch v. Bencini,
110 P.2d 662, 7 Cal,2d $21.
Ascertainment of amount from com-
plaint
(1) Clerk has right to enter de-
fault judgment only where the prop-
er amount appears from terms of
contract as alleged in complaint or
follows therefrom by mere mathe-
matical computation. — Lynch v. Ben-
cini, supra.
(2) The word "amount," in statute
authorizing clerk of district court to
enter judgment after default, indi-
cates that clerk is empowered to en-
ter Judgment only in instances on an
364
account or written instrument or
other contract, express or implied,
for payment of money only where
plaintiffs verified original petition is
such that mere inspection thereof or
computation from data supplied by
pleading enables clerk to enter a
judgment for a fixed sum with costs.
— Kimbel v. Osborn, Wyo., 156 P.2d
279.
(3) In determining whether an ac-
tion is one arising on contract for
the recovery of money or damages
only so as to authorize the clerk to
enter default judgment, allegations
of complaint and the terms of the
contract are to be considered not-
withstanding the prayer is for the
certain amount — 'Lynch v. Bencini,
110 P.2d 662, 17 Cal.2d 521.
57- Fla. — Coslick v. Finney, 140 So.
216, 104 Fla. 394.
34 C.J. p 179 note 46.
Where exercise of discretion and
talcing of evidence are necessary to
determine amount of damages, clerk
has no power to enter default judg-
ment— Lynch v. Bencini, 110 P.2d
662, 17 Cal.2d 521.
Sufficiency of defendant's pleading
(1) The clerk is without author-
ity to decide that a -plea is not good
and then enter default judgment for
want of any plea. — Albert M. Travis
Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.,
139 So. 141, 102 "Fla, 1117.
(2) It has been held, however,
that default judgment entered by
clerk for failure to reply to answer
in nature of counterclaim is not ir-
regular, even if it is erroneous as to
the nature and sufficiency of defend-
ant's pleading as a counterclaim. —
Finger v. Smith, 133 S.E. 186, 191
NXX 818. ' •
58. Cal^Lynch v. Bencini, 110 P.2d
662, 7 CaUd 521.
Fla. — Douglass v. Oemler, 124 So. 19,
98 Fla. 497 — Security Finance Co.
v. Gentry, 109 So. 220, 91 'Fla. 1015,
followed in 10'9 So. 222, 91 'Fla.
1024.
N.C. — Johnston County v. 'Ellis, 38 S.
E.2d 81, 2-26 NjC. 268.
59. NVC. — Thompson v. IMllingham,
112 S.E. 421, 183. N.C. 566.
60. N.C. — Thompson y«. Dillingham,
supra.
49 C-J-S-
JUDGMENTS
206
allow interest in entering default judgment is dis-
cussed infra § 214 c.
A judgment entered by the clerk without author-
ity to do so is void.61 If, however, a mistake or
irregularity, not going to the jurisdiction, is com-
mitted by the clerk in entering the judgment, the
judgment is not void, but erroneous.62 Even where
the clerk is disqualified to enter default judgment
in a particular case, the judgment entered by him
ib not void, but only voidable,63 unless it is in viola-
tion of some statute.64 If plaintiff has done all
that is required to entitle him to a default judg-
ment, he cannot be prejudiced by the clerk's fail-
ure to enter it** properly.66 Where a default judg-
ment rendered by the court is noted on the docket
of the trial judge, the clerk's failure to enteHt does
not affect its validity,67 and the omission may, in
a proper case, be supplied nunc pro tune.68
§ 206. Preliminary Entry of Default
A preliminary entry of default Is proper; but there
Is a divergence in the rules obtaining under different
statutes in respect of its necessity as a condition pre-
cedent to final Judgment by default.
An entry of default is a proper procedural step.69
Under some statutes, a final judgment on default
may not be rendered until there has been a pre-
liminary entry of the default, or of an interlocu-
tory judgment of default,70 unless the requirement
is waived.71 Under other statutes, such an entry
is not necessary.72 Under still other statutes, while
it is the practice to call defendant and make an en-
try of the default, an omission to do so is at most a
mere irregularity which does not render the judg-
ment void,73 although it may constitute grounds for
reversing it;74 the default may be entered in the
trial court at any time while the proceedings are
in fieri.75 Under the practice in some jurisdictions,
entry of default should not be made until after serv-
ice of notice.76
An entry of the words "in default," or their
equivalent, on the appearance docket is necessary77
and sufficient78 to comply with a statute so pro-
viding. A statute requiring all defaults to be en-
tered in full in a default docket is not complied
with by entry of a default in a book designated as
a rules judgment docket.79 An examination of
the files is required before entering a default80
61. Idaho. — Tripp v. Dotson, 4 P.2d
349, 51 Idaho 200 — (Justin v. Byam,
240 P. 600, ,41 Idaho 538.
Pa. — Kaikaman v. Greek Catholic
Church, Com.Pl., 20 Wash.Co. 88.
Wyo. — Wunnicke v. Leith, 157 P.2d
274.
34 C.J. p 178 note 29 [a], p 179 note
53.
62. "Fla. — Weaver y. Hale, 89 So.
363, 8*2 Fla. 88.
34 CJ. p 179 note 49.
63. N.C. — Thompson v. iDillinghani,
112 S.E. 321, 183 N.C. 566.
34 C.J. p 178 note 38.
Disqualification, may "be waived
N.C. — Thompson v. Dillingham, su-
pra.
64. N.C. — Thompson y. Dillinghaav
supra.
«6. CaL— -W. H. Marston Co. v.
Kochritz, 251 P. 959, 80 Cal.App.
352.
68. Va. — Southern Express Co. v.
Jacobs, S3 S.B. 17, 109 Va. 27.
67. Tenn. — Memphis & Ohio R. B.
Co. v. Dowd, 9 Heisk. 179.
68. 111. — Paulin y. American Surety
Co., 204 I11.APP. 218.
34 C.J. .p 178 note <35.
Nunc -pro tune entries generally see
supra §§ 117-121.
69. Mont.— Mihelich y. Butte Elec-
tric Ry. Co., 281 P. 540, 85 'Mont.
604.
34 C.J. p 179 note 61.
70. La. — Jones y. Cunningham, 102
So. 309, 157 La. 208— Milliken &
Farwell v. Taft Mercantile Co.,
7 -La.App. 150 — Jackson v. Young,
6 'LfLApp. S54.
34 C.J. p 179 note 56.
Mandatory statute
(1) The making of an entry of de-
fault on the docket is mandatory
under some statutes. — Burson y.
Lunsford, 186 S.E. 213, 53 Ga.App.
411,
C2) However, it has been held that
case not marked in default or con-
taining no plea to merits before
Judgment is considered in default en-
titling plaintiff to Judgment — J. S.
SchofleloVs Sons Co. v. Vaughn, 150
S.E. 5-69, 40 Ga.App. 568.
(3) A statute relating to an inter-
locutory Judgment by default is
mandatory in the sense that plain-
tiff has a right to, and the court
may, not deny him, an interlocutory
Judgment at or after the time of the
default; but the failure of .plaintiff
to take an interlocutory Judgment
does not render it improper or ir-
regular for him to await the coming
on -of the case for trial and then
prove his damages and take a final
Judgment by default where defend-
ant remains in default — Cornoyer v.
Oppermann Drug Qo., Mo.App., 56 S.
W.2d *12.
71. Mo. — pornoyer
'Drug Cd.,t supra.
34 CJ. P It9 note 57.
365
Oppermann
72. CaL— Crouch v. Miller, 146 P.
880, 169 Cal. 341.
34 C.J. j> 179 note 59.
73. Tenn. — State v. Thompson, 102
S.W. 349, 118 Tenn. 571, 20 L.R.
A.,N.S., 1.
34 C.J. -p 179 note 61.
74. Wis.— »Fisher v. Chase, 2 Chandl.
3.
75. Ind. — Torr y. Torr, 20 InO. 118.
34 C.J. p 179 note 63.
Time of taking default generally see
infra § 207.
76. 111.— Swiercz y. Nalepka, 259 111.
App. 262.
Wash. — Hofto v. National Casualty
Co., 237 P. T26, 135 Wash. 313.
77. Ga. — Gregg y. OFitzpatrlck, 187
S.'E. 730, 54 Ga.App. 503.
78. Ga. — (Fraser v. Neese, 187 S.E.
550, 163 Ga. 843.
*34 C.J. p 179 note 66 [a].
Erasure and reentry
The original default entry made
by the Judge is not affected by an
unauthorized erasure by the clerk,
and an ex parte order of Judge to re-
enter default and reentry by clerk
pursuant thereto. — Praser y. Neese,
supra.
79u Fla. — Security Finance Co. v.
Gentry, 109 So. 220, 91 'Fla, 1015,
followed In 109 So. 222, 91 Fla.
1024.
80. Mich.— Wiener y. Valley Steel
Co, 136 N.W. 90S, 25*4 Mich. 481.
§ 207
JUDGMENTS
49 C-J-S-
§ 207. Time for Taking Default and Entering
Judgment
a. In general
b. Expiration of time allowed for ap-
pearance or pleading
c. After entry of default
d. Term of court
e. Day and hour
f . In vacation or at chambers
a. In General
There is a conflict of authority on the question wheth-
er a premature default Judgment is void or only void-
able, as well as on the question whether a delay of sev-
eral years precludes the taking of a default Judgment.
A statutory provision for entry of judgment in
defaulted cases at any time after default has been
construed to be restricted to unanswered defaulted
cases and not to apply where the default consists
of failure to appear for trial.81 A judgment by de-
fault, of course, may not be entered against defend-
ant until he is in default, and, therefore, neither
a simple default nor a judgment by default may reg-
ularly be taken and entered against defendant until
the .expiration of the period prescribed by statute
or rule of practice for taking the step or proceed-
ing, on the failure, to take which the default is
based,82 or until the expiration of the time stipulat-
ed or agreed on by the parties.83
According to some authorities, a premature judg-
ment by default is not void, but is merely irregular
and voidable.84 Under this view a default judg-
ment rendered or entered prematurely will be upheld
unless it is attacked at the time and in the manner
provided by law;85 and it is effective until re-
versed86 or set aside.87 Defendant may waive the
irregularity and so ratify the judgment,88 and, if he
takes no steps to vacate or reverse the judgment,
or otherwise to correct the error, he may be held
to have waived it89 According to a number of
other authorities, a premature judgment by default
is void;90 and under this view a default judgment
prematurely entered is not validated by its subse-
.quent confirmation91 or by the fact that it is not
made final until the expiration of the usual time,92
or by the fact that defendant has suffered no iii-
jury.93
81. R.I. — Gregson v. Superior Court,
128 A. 221, 46 R.I. 36'2.
82. Ark.— Murrell v. Rawlings, 279
S.W. 382, 170 Ark. 212.
Colo. — Netland v. Baughman, 162 P.
2d 601.
34 C.J. P 180 note 71.
Xa QUO warranto proceeding-, the
cause was held not ripe for judg-
ment in view of the statutes relat-
ing to judgments by default against
corporations in -personal actions be-
ing inapplicable to quo warranto pro-
ceedings to oust a corporation from
the exercise of its franchise.— Atty.-
Gen. v. Delaware & Bound Brook R.
Co., 38 N.J.Law 282.
83. !N.Y. — Osborn v. Rogers, 20 N.E.
•865, 112 N.T. 573.
34 C.J. rp 180 note 72.
84. Ohio. — Hughes v. Cramer, 34 N.
B.2d 772, 138 Ohio St. 267.
OkL — Orr v. Johnson, 149 P.2fl 993,
194 Okl. 287.
Or.— Pedro v. Vey, 46 P.2d 582, 150
Or. 415.
Pa.— -McTee & Co. v. Clark, Com.PL,
13 Northumb.Leg.J. 297.
34 C.J. p 180 note 82, p 181 note 98
[b].
Signature of Judge
(1) The text rule obtains where
the premature judgment is recorded
and signed by the judge.— Hoey v.
Aspell, 40 A. 77.6, 62 N.J.-Law 200.
(2) On the other hand, a prema-
ture judgment is void where it is
entered by plaintiffs attorney with-
out the signature of the judge. —
Westfield Trust Co. v. Court of Com-
mon Pleas of Morris County, 178 A.
546, 115 N.J.Law 86, affirmed 183 A.
165, 11-6 N.J.Law 190.
Xn Montana
(1) The rule stated in the text
has been followed. — "Paramount Pub-
lix Corporation v. Boucher, 19 P.2d
223, 93 Mont 340— BatchoflC v. Butte
Pac. Qopper Co., 198 P. 132, 60 Mont
179.
(2) In some cases, however, it
has been declared that a default
judgment prematurely entered is a
nullity. — Taylor v. Southwick, 253
P. 889, 78 Mont 329— Palmer v. Mc-
Master, 19 P. 585, 8 Mont 18$.
85. Okl. — Orr v. Johnson, 149 P.2d
993, 194 Okl. 287.
86. N.J.— Hoey v. Aspell, 40 A. 776,
62 N.J.Law 200.
34 C.J. p 180 notes 82, 83.
87. N.J.— Hoey v. Aspell, supra.
34 C. J. p 180 note 84.
88. N.Y.— Rothchild v. Manneso-
vitch, 51 N.Y.S. 253, 29 Afrfc.Div.
'580 — Havemeyer v. Brooklyn Sugar
Refining Co., 12 N.Y.S. 873, 26 Abb.
N.Cas. 157, affirmed 15 N.Y.S. 157,
59 Hun 619.
89. Kan.— Mitchell v. Aten, 14 P.
497,- «7 Kan. 33, 1 Am.S.R. 231.
34 C.J. p 180 note 86.
90. Cal.— Pinon v. Pollard. 158 P.2d
254, 69 Cal.App.2d 129.
Fla. — Brauer v. Paddock, 1-89 So.
146, 10-3 'Fla. 1175.
La. — Evans v. Hamner, 24 So.2d 814
— Cottonport Bank v. Thomas,
App., 12 3o.2d 618.
366
Mich.— Smak v. Gwozdik, 291 N.W.
270, 293 Mich. 185.
Miss. — Copiah Hardware Co. v. Mete-
or Motor Car Co., 101 So. 375, 136
Miss. 274, suggestion of error over-
ruled Copiah Hardware Co. v.
Meteor Motor Oar, 101 So. 579, 136
Miss. 274— J. B. Colt Co. v. Ward,
99 So. 676, 135 Miss. 202.
Nev. — Price v. Brimacombe, 72 P.2d
1107, 58 Nev. 156, rehearing denied
75 P.2d 734, 58 Nev. 15'6.
Tex. — Sneed v. Box, Civ. App., 166 S.
W.2d 951.
34 C.J. p 180 note 87.
Preliminary Judgment by default
•La,— Kelly v. Kelleher, 171 So. 569,
186 La. 51.
Judgment entered before expiration
of time allowed to answer after
service by publication.
Colo. — Brown v. Tucker, 1 P. 221,
7 Colo. 30.
lack of vacation
Court did not err in basing its
judgment on a subsequent default
notwithstanding prior default had
not been vacated when the second de-
fault was entered, where the prior
default was a nullity because prema-
turely entered. — Price v. Brima-
combe, 72 P.2d 1107, 58 Nev. 156, re-
hearing denied 75 P.2d 734, 58 Nev.
156. '
91. La. — Hart v. Nixon, 2'5 La.Ann.
136 — Washington v. Comeau, McG.
234.
92. La. — Hart v. Nixon, 2*5 LaJLnn.
136.
93. La. — Hart v. Nixon, supra.
49 C-J-S
JUDGMENTS
§ 207
Delay. It has been held that, in the absence of
statutory limitation, the lapse of several years
after the bringing of suit does 'not prevent the en-
try of a default judgment,94 and that, even where a
statute provides that an action must be dismissed
where no answer has been filed and plaintiff has
failed to have judgment entered within a stated
number of years after service of summons, a default
judgment entered after the expiration of the stat-
utory period is not void,95 as the court has juris-
diction to render it,96 even though it is erroneous
and subject to direct attack on appeal.9? However;
it has also been held that plaintiff's inaction in the
case, including his omission to have a default judg-
ment entered for several years, constitutes a waiv-
er of his right98 or constitutes an abandonment of
the suit, so that a default judgment taken after such
long delay is null and void,99 and defendant is not
charged with notice of the taking of the default
judgment.1
b. Expiration of Time Allowed for Appearance
or Pleading
A judgment by default Is premature where it is en-
tered before the expiration of the time allowed for ap-
pearance, if it is taken for want of appearance, or where
it is entered before the -expiration of the time allowed
for filing a plea or answer, if it Is taken for want of a
plea or answer.
A judgment by default is premature if it is" en-
tered before the expiration of the time allowed- by
law for defendant to enter his appearance, if taken
for want of appearance,2 or if it is entered before'
the expiration of the time allowed for the filing of
a plea or answer, if taken for want of a plea or
answer.3 Thus a judgment by default is premature
where the required length of time has not elapsed
between the service of the summons or writ 'and
the return day;4 or where it is entered before the
expiration of the time allowed in the summons or
writ,6 although it is in excess of the time allowed
by law;6 or where it is entered before the expira-
tion of the time allowed to appear,, plead, or an-
swer, after constructive service by publication,7 or
before the expiration of the time limited in an or-
der extending the time to plead,8 unless such ex-
tension was fraudulently obtained or collusively
granted.9 Where both substituted and personal
service is made, judgment by default may be entered
on the expiration of the time to answer limited by
personal service, although that limited by substitut-
ed service is not exhausted.10
In case of joint defendants all must have the full
time allowed for answering; and a judgment by de-
fault may not be entered before the expiration of
such time.11
94. Md. — Carey v. Howard, 16 A.2d
289, 178 Md. 512.
95. Gal. — Merner Lumber Co. v. Sil-
vey, 84 P.2d 1062, 29 Cal.App.2d
426.
96. Cal.— Phillips v. Trusheiin, 156
P.2d 25, 25 Cal.2d 913— Merner
Lumber Co. v. Silvey, 84 P.2d 1062,
29 Cal.App.2d 426.
97. Cal.— Phillips v. Trusheim, 156
P.2d 2(5, 2-5 Oal.2d 913.
98. N.J.— Kaplan v. Tomka, 37 A.2d
665, 131 N.J.Law 572.
Waiver of default by taking other
proceedings in cause see supra §
203.
99. La. — Evans v. Hamner, App., 24
So.2d 164, affirmed 24 So.2d 814,
209 La. 442.
1. Tex.— Sloan v. Bartlett, Civ.App.,
139 S.W.2d 216.
2. Tex. — Sneed v. Box, Civ.App., 166
S.W.2d 951.
34 C.X p ISO note 93.
Entry held not premature
La. — City of Monroe v. Glasscock,
. Morris ton, Conner Const. Co., App.,
178 So. 684.
3. Ala.— Crook v. Rainer Hardware
Co., 97 So. 635, 210 Ala. 178.
Nev. — Price v. Brimacombe, 72 P.'2d
1107, 58 Nev. 156, rehearing denied
• 75 P.2d .734, 58 Nev. 156.
N.J.— Westfleld Trust Co, v. Court
of Common Pleas of Morris Coun-
ty, 178 A. 546, 115 N.J.Law 86, af-
firmed 183 A. 165, 116 N.J.Law
191.
Okl.— Orr v. Johnson, 149 P.2d 993,
194 Okl. 287.
Or.— Pedro v. Vey, 46 P.2d 582, 150
Or. 4115.
34 C.J. p 181 note 94.
Entry held not premature
Ark.— Fidelity Mortg. Co. v. Evans,
270 S.W. 624, 168 Ark. 459.
Ind.— Julien v. Lane, 157 N.E. 114,
second case, 95 Ind. App. 139.
Pa.— First Nat. Bank v. Baird, 150 A,
165, 300 Pa. 92.
Tex.— Cook v. Waco Auto Loan Co.,
Civ.App., 299 S.W. 51<4.
34 C.J. p 181 note 94 [bj.
4. Tex. — Andrus v. Andrus, Civ.
App., 168 S.W.2d 891.
34 C.J. p 181 note 95.
5. Colo. — Tentzer v. Thayer, 14 P.
53, 10 Colo. 63, 3 Am.S.R. 563.
34 C.J. P 181 note 96.
6. <N.Y.— BGatfield v. Atwood, 15 N.Y.
Civ.Proc. 330.
34 C.J. p 181 note 97.
7; Cal.— Pinon v. Pollard, 158 P.2d
2*514, 69 Cal.App.2d 129.
Colo.— Netland v. Baughman, 162 P.
2d '601.
34 C.J. jp 1.81 note 98.
In attachment suit see attachment
5 497 d.
367
8. 'N.Y.— Littauer v. Stern, 69 N.E.
538, 177 N,Y. 233.
34 C.J. p 181 note 99.
After overruling- of motion to dis-
miss
(1) Default judgment on amended
complaint was erroneously entered
against defendant who appeared and
moved for dismissal, which motion
was, argued and overruled an'd de-
fendant allowed ten days after notice
in which to answer, where no notice
was served on defendant. — Bolognese
v. Anderson, 44 P.2d 706, 87 Utah
'4*50, modified on other grounds and
rehearing denied 49 P.2d 1034, 87
Utah 455.
(2) Likewise, where a motion to
dismiss the complaint was overruled
and the court entered a rule against
defendant to plead to the complaint
within thirty days, a default entered
before rule to plead had expired was
improper. — L'usk v. Bluhm, 53 N.E,2d
135, 321 IlLApp. 349.
9. N.T. — Havemeyer v. Brooklyn
Sugar Refining Co., IB N.7.S. 157,
59 Hun 619.
10. N.T.— United Verde Copper Co.
. v. Tritle, 20 Abb.N.Cas. 57.
11. N. J.— Stehr v. OUbermann, 10 A.
54*7, 49 N.J.Law 633.
34 C.J. p 181 note *.
207
JUDGMENTS
49 C-J-S-
c. After Entry of Default
Where there are no controlling statutory provisions
and no compelling reason for delay, final judgment may
be rendered immediately after preliminary entry of de-
fault or at any time thereafter.
Where a preliminary entry of default has been
made, the final judgment is usually deferred, as
discussed infra § 216, until the assessment of dam-
ages, where these are uncertain or unliquidated;
but, where there is no such reason for delay and
in the absence of statutory limitations, final judg-
ment may be rendered as of the day of the default,12
or at any time thereafter,1^ and may be taken as
of the term when the default was entered.14 A
statutory provision requiring the judgment to be
entered immediately after the entry of default is
merely directory,15 and for the benefit of the party
obtaining the judgment,1^ and hence the adverse
party may not complain of a delay in entering the
judgment.17 Under some statutes, a default may
not be made final until a succeeding day18 or until
the elapse of a certain number of days, after the
entry of default.1^
d. Term of Court
In the absence of a statute providing otherwise, a
default judgment ordinarily may be rendered during any
term of court after the default.
In the absence of a statute providing otherwise,
a default judgment may be rendered at any time
during any term of court after the default,20 except
that, as indicated infra subdivision e of this sec-
tion, when the case is placed on the trial docket,
judgment should be rendered on or after the day
on which the case is set for trial. In some juris-
dictions this matter is governed by statute and the
terms of the statute, together with the circumstanc-
es in regard to service of process, appearance, and
pleading, which control in determining the term of
court at which such a judgment may or should be
entered in a particular case ;21 and such a statutory
regulation may not be rendered nugatory or materi-
ally modified by a conflicting rule of court.22 Under
some statutes and conditions, a default judgment
may be entered at the first or return term of the
court,23 as where a given number of days have
elapsed since service of process.24 Under other
statutes and conditions, it may not properly be en-
tered as final at the return term or appearance
term,25 unless defendant consents,26 but only at the
next term thereafter,27 as where defendant was out
of the state at the time of service of process.28
A default judgment may be rendered or entered
at a special,29 but not at an illegal,30 term of court.
12. Mo. — Reed v. Nicholson, 59 S.W.
977, 158 Mo. 624.
34 C.J. p 182 note 8.
13. Iowa, — Honayne v. Hawkeye
Commercial Men's Ass'n, 144 N.W.
319, 162 'Iowa 615.
34 C.J. p 182 note 9.
14. Tex.— Miller v. Trice, Civ.App.,
219 S.W. 229.
34 C.J. p 182 note 10.
16. Cal.— Hitter v. Braash, 104 P.
592, 11 CaLApp. 258.
34 C.J. p 182 note 9 [a].
16. Cal. — Hitter v. Braash, supra.
ILack of prejudice
On entry of default in action on
contract for recovery of money or
damages only, it becomes duty of
clerk to enter judgment forthwith;
but the failure of the clerk to per-
form his ministerial duty in this re-
spect may not prejudice plaintiff. —
Jones v. Moers, 266 P. 821, 91 Cal.
App. 65.
17. Cal.— Hitter v. Braash, 104 P.
£92, 11 Cal.Afcp. 258.
15. Neb.— Oakdale Heat & Light Co.
v. Seymour, 110 N.W. 541, 78 Neb.
47.
19. La. — Evans v. Hamner, #4 So.2d
814.
34 C.J. p 182 note 13.
Confirmation, of default held timely
La. — Blchinger v. Lacroix, 189 So.
572, 192 La. 908 — Many Iron Works
v. Kay, App., 151 So. 253 — Union
"Motor Co. v. Williams, 8 La.App.
391.
After preliminary entry of decision.
Under a particular statute, judg-
ment may not be rendered in a de-
faulted answered case until the sev-
enth day after the preliminary en-
try of a decision, which may be
properly entered after default in
neglecting to appear at the time
fixed for trial. — Sahagian v. Superior
Court, 129 A. 813, 47 R.I. 85 — Greg-
son v. Superior Court, 128 A. 221, 46
H.I. 362.
20. Okl.— Boles v. MacLaren, 4 P.2d
106, 152 Okl. 265— Western Coal
& Mining Co. v. Green, 166 P. 154,
6*4 Okl. 53.
Wyo. — James v. Lederer-Strauss &
Co., 233 P. 137, 32 Wyo. 377.
34 C.J. p 182 note 15.
21. Ga. — Mutual Ben. Health & Ac-
cident Ass'n v. White, 172 S.B. 92,
48 Ga.App. 146.
N«J. — Rogers-Ebert Co. v. Century
Const Co., 18 A.2d 8, 126 N.J.Law
68.
Ohio. — Strain v. Isaacs, 18 N.B.2d
816, 59 Ohio App. 495.
34 C.J. p 182 note 18.
22. Ohio. — Van Ingen v. Berger, -92
.N.E. 433, 82 Ohio St. 255, 19 Ann.
. Cas. 799.
34 C.J. p 182 note 19 [a].
23. Tenn.— Ross v. Meek, 28 S.W.
20, 93 Tenn. 666.
34 C.J. p 182 note 21.
368
24. Mo.— Montz v. Moran, 172 S.W.
613, 263 Mo. 252.
34 C.J. p 182 note 22.
25. Del. — Southern Maryland Trust
Co. v. Henry, 155 A, 699, 4 W.W.
Harr. 496.
Miss. — Copiah Hardware Co. v. Me-
teor Motor Car Co., 101 So. 375,
1)36 Miss. 274, suggestion of error
overruled Copiah Hardware Co. v.
Meteor Motor Car, 101 So. 579,
136 Miss. 274— J. B. Colt Co. v.
Ward, 99 So. 676, 135 Miss. 202.
34 C.J. p 182 note 24.
Cross action
Court was without authority to
enter judgment against codefendant
on cross action, filed during term at
which main case was tried, where
such codefendant filed no answer
thereto and entered no appearance
thereon. — Kirk v. City of Gorman,
Tex.Civ.App., 283 S.W. 188.
26. Ala.— O'Neal v. Garrett, 3 Ala.
276.
27. Iowa.— Walters v. Blake, 69 N.
W. 879, 100 Iowa 521.
34 C.J. p 182 note 26.
28. Mass. — Thayer v. Tyler, 10 Gray
164.
34 C.J. p 183 note 27.
29. Tex.— Ruby v. Martin. CivJLpp.,
44 S.W.2d 824, error refused.
30. Ga.— Martin v. Scott, 44 S.E.
974, 118 Ga. 149.
34 C.J. p 183 note 28.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 207
Where the summons and declaration are filed at a
. term which is not held by reason of the absence of
the judge, a judgment by default may nevertheless
be entered at the next succeeding term.3i It has
been held that the entry of a default judgment dur-
ing a term at which the court has ordered the trial
of criminal cases only is unauthorized;32 but it has
also been held that a statute providing for division
of a term between civil and criminal business is for
convenience in administration of the business of
the court, and does not limit the jurisdiction of the
court to enter a default judgment during the por-
tion of the term allotted by statute to criminal busi-
ness.33 It is improper to enter a default judg-
ment, under notice of trial for a certain term, when
the case is reached under a note of issue for a
prior term.34
e. Day and Hour
The terms of the statutes control In determining the
day of the term on which a default judgment may reg-
ularly be rendered.
The terms of the statutes control in determining
the day of the term on which a judgment by de-
fault may be regularly rendered.35 As a general rule
judgment may not be entered against defendant un-
til a day after his default ;3« if he is summoned to
appear and plead on the first day of the term, he
may not be held in default and judgment entered
against him until the next or a subsequent day;37
but if the summons, although served the required
number of days prior to the first day of the term,
is made returnable at a subsequent day, judgment
may be entered on the return day.38 Where it is
the custom to enter judgments as of the last day
of the term, a judgment by default may be so en-
tered, although the record shows that the default
occurred on a previous day.39
Day of trial. In some jurisdictions where de-
fendant is actually in default, judgment may be
entered before the day on which the cause is set
for trial,40 or before the time at which the cause
may regularly stand for trial,41 or judgment may
be entered notwithstanding the case has not been
set for trial or placed on the trial docket.42 In
other jurisdictions judgment by default may not be
entered before the day set for trial,43 or before the
case stands44 or is set45 for trial, but plaintiff is
not deprived of his right to claim a default because
he does not demand it until the time of trial.46
Hour of day. Where a party is cited to appear
at a certain hour on a day named, judgment may not
be taken against him at an earlier hour on the same
day,47 or at a later hour, if defendant appears at
the hour set and the judge is not present;48 and it
is not mandatory on the court, on a party's failure
to arrive at the exact hour set for trial, to proceed
and render judgment by default;49 but, under ex-
press statutory provision, judgment by default may
31. Tenn. — Brient v. Waterfield, 5
Sneed 537.
32. Ky. — Thacker v. Thacker, 75 S.
W.2d 3, 255 Ky. 523.
33. Miss. — Strain v. Gayden, 20 So.
2d 697, 197 Miss. 353.
-?*. N.Y.— Mills v. Nedza, 227 N.Y.S.
156, 222 App.Div. 615.
35. Pa. — Cadwallader v. Firestone,
Com.Pl., 7 Fay.UJ. 259.
Tex.— Metzger v. Gambill, Civ.App.,
37 S.W.2d 1077, error refused-
Bradford Supply Co. v. D. F. Con-
nelly Agency, Civ.App., 272 S.W.
519.
34 C.J. p 183 note 31.
Case going to Judgment automatical-
ly on certain, day
Default judgments are within stat-
utes and court rules under which
cases which are ripe for Judgment
generally go to Judgment automat-
ically on a. certain day, even though
the clerk of court may fail to record
the Judgments. — Mann v. Rudnick, 2
NjE.2d 189, 294 .Mass. 853.
Monday
Under a statute so providing, the
clerk of court lacks Jurisdiction to
enter a default Judgment except on
a Monday. — Clegg v. Canady, 19'5 S.
B. 77*0, 213 N.C. 258.
48 C. J.S.-24
Day when waiver of citation filed
A contention that entry of default
Judgment on day when waiver of ci-
tation was Hied was void because of
fundamental error was overruled
without discussion. — Harvey v. Wi-
ley, Tex.Civ.App., 88 S.W.2d 569.
38. Pa. — Cadwallader v. Firestone,
Com.Pl., 9 Fay.L.J. 62— McTee &
Co. v. Clark, Com.Pl., 13 Northumb.
Leg.J. 297.
34 C.J. p 183 note 32.
37. Ala.— Hollis v. Herzberg, 29 So.
582, 128 Ala. 474.
34 C.J. p 183 note 33.
38. Ind. — Citizens Loan & Trust Co.
v. Boyles, 1 N.E.2d 292, 102 Ind.
App. 157.
3'4 C.J. p 183 note 34.
39. Mass. — Herring v. Polley, 8
Mass. 113.
34 C.J. p 183 note 35.
40. Ind. — Martin v. Berry, 37 S.W.
835, 1 Ind.T. 399.
Iowa. — Brenner v. Gundershiemer, 14
Iowa 82.
Failure to comply with role or order
(1) If defendant fails to plead un-
der order of the court, Judgment may
be entered by default before the day
on which the case is .docketed for
triaL— Blair v. Manson, 9 Ind. £57.
369
(2) Where the cause is at Issue, a
party may not be defaulted until the
day for trial except for failure to
discharge some rule or order entered
in the meantime. — Norris y. Dodge,
23 Ind. 190.
41. Ohio. — State ex rel. Hughes v.
Cramer, 34 N.B.2d 772. 138 Ohio St.
267.
42. Ind. — Indianapolis Power &
Light Co. v. Waltz, 12 N.R2d 404,
104 Ind.App. 526.
Okl.— Boles v. MacLaren, 4 P.2d 106,
152 Okl. 265.
34 C.J. p 183 note 37.
43. Kan. — Race v. Malony, 21 Kan,
31.
34 C.J. p 183 note 38.
44. Ky.— Bishop v. Bishop, 281 S.W-
824, 213 Ky. 703.
45. Ariz.— Burbage v. Jedlicka, 234
P. 32, 27 Ariz. 426.
48. Colo.— Manville v. Parks, 2 P.
212, 7 Colo. 128.
47. CaL — Parker v. Shephard, 1 Gal.
131.
48. Pa.— Smith v. Fetherston, 10*
Phila. (306.
49. Okl.— St Louis I. M. & S. R,
Co. v. Hardwick. 115 P. 471. 28.
OkL 577.
§207
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
be rendered at the hour specified in the citation for
appearance and answer where defendant does not
appear and answer at or before such time.50
f . In Vacation or at Chambers
A default Judgment may be rendered or entered in
vacation in pursuance of statutory authority, but not
otherwise except in the case of an entry evidencing judi-
cial action taken in term time.
" Where the rendition of a judgment by default is
to be performed as a judicial act by the court, or
involves an application to the court, the judgment
ordinarily must be rendered in term time and not in
vacation;51 and, where the time for defendant to
plead expires in vacation, plaintiff must await the
convening of the court at term.52 However, when
authorized to do so by statute, a judge may render
a default judgment in vacation.53 Also, a judgment
by default may be entered after term time54 by the
judge where he has acted judicially and ordered the
entry before adjournment.55 Under some statutes,
a 'judgment by default, under prescribed circum-
stances, may be entered by the clerk in vacation,56
but as such a proceeding is in derogation of the
common law, the statutory requirements must be
strictly pursued.57
At chambers. In some jurisdictions a judgment
. by default may be rendered by the jud^e at cham-
bers,58 during a regular tenn;5^ but in other ju-
risdictions this practice is not allowed.60
§ 208. Application for Judgment
. a. In general
b. Time and place of application
c. Notice of application
a. In General
An application to the court or cierk for a preliminary
entry of default, or to the court for a final default judg-
ment, is necessary when required by statute or rule of
court or, in tha case of final Judgment, when Judicial
determination of a matter dependent on extrinsic proof,
such as the amount of unliquidated damages, Is neces-
sary before rendition of Judgment.
As a general rule, where extrinsic proof of any
fact is required involving judicial determination to
enable the court to assess the damages or take an
account, or generally to render the judgment by de-
fault, or to carry it into effect, an application must
first be made to the trial court, and such facts ju-
dicially ascertained before the judgment by default
may be entered,61 as where the claim or demand
is for unliquidated damages,62 or, generally, where
the action is in tort,63 unless the damages are liqui-
dated;64 and, although the action is in form ex
contractu, if facts are alleged which constitute a
tort, application must generally be made to the court
before judgment by default may be entered.65
If in such a case judgment is entered by the clerk
without a prior application to the court, the judg-
ment, 'although irregular,66 is sometimes held not
void, but voidable merely,67 although there is au-
thority to the effect that it is absolutely void.68 It
is irregular for the court to render a judgment on
a default, in the absence of both parties, and with-
out application by plaintiff, at a time when it is reg-
ularly reached for trial,69 notwithstanding plaintiff
would be entitled to such a judgment, on applica-
tion therefor.70
In many jurisdictions there are statutory provi-
sions to the effect that a judgment by default may
be entered by the clerk without a prior application
to the court where, in an action on a contract ex-
50. Tex.— Metzger v. Gambill, Civ.
App., 37 S.W.2d 1077, error refused.
51. NX?.— Branch v. Walker, 92 N.C.
87.
34 C.J. P 183 note 46.
52. 111.— Cook v. Forest, 18 111. 581.
53. Fla.— Malone v. Meres, 107 So.
625, 91 Fla. 490.
54. Pa.— Wanner v. Thompson, Com.
PL, 27 DeLCo. 45'5.
55. Tex. — Griffln v. Burrus, Civ.
App., 24 S.W.2d 805, affirmed, Com.
App., 24 S.W.2d 810.
56. CaL— In re Cook's Estate, 17 P.
. 923, 19 P. 4'31, 77 Oal. 220, 11 Am.
S.R. 267, 1 L.R.A. 567.
34 C.J. p 183 note 49.
57. Ark. — Files v. Robinson, 30 Ark.
487.
58. Idaho.— i Neustel v. Spokane In-
ternational R. Co., 149 P. 462, 27
•Idaho 367.
34 C.J. p 184 note 52.
59. Ga.— Fouch6 v. Cherokee Nat
Bank, 90 S.E. 102, 18 Ga.App. 569.
60. Colo.— Hotchkiss v. Denver First
Nat Bank, 85 P. 1007, $7 Colo.
228.
34 <XJ. p 184 note 54.
61. N.Y. — Hotel Syracuse v. Brain-
ard, 10 N.Y.S.2d 892, 256 App.Div.
10:55.
3*4 C.J. p 184 note 56.
Where clerk may not enter default
for amount demanded, plaintiff must
apply to court or judge for judg-
ment.— McClelland v. Climax Hosiery
Mills, 169 N.E. 605, 252 N.T. 347,
remittitur amended, 171 N.E. 770, 253
N.Y. 553, reargument denied 171 N.
E. 781, 253 N.Y. 5*8.
62. Okl.— Guthrie v. T. W. Harvey
Lumber Co., 50 P. 84, 5 Okl. 77«4.
34 OJ. P 184 note 57.
370
So.
62
63. Fla. — Saucer v. Vincent 89
802, 82 Fla. 296.
34 CJ. P 184 note 58.
64. N.T.— Reeder v. Lockwood,
N.Y.S. 713, 30 Misc. 531.
.34 C.J. p 184 note 59.
65. N.Y.— Field v. Morse, 7 How.
Pr. 12 — Flynn v. Hudson River R.
Co., 6 How.Pr. 308, 10 N.Y.Leg.
'Obs. 158.
66. N.Y.— Bissell v. New York Cent.,
Hudson River R. Co., 67 Barb. 385.
67. N.Y. — Roeber v. Dawson, 3 N.Y.
S. 122, 22 Abb.N.Cas. 73, 15 N.Y.
Civ.Proc. 417.
!34 C.J. p 184 note 62.
68. Cal.— Bond v. Pacheco, 30 CaL
530. .
34 C.J. p 184 note 63.
69. Neb.— Pitman v. Heumeier, 115
N.W. 1088, 81 Neb. 338.
!70. Ne^.— Pitman v, Heumeier, au-
pwu
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
208
press or implied, the nature of the action and of
plaintiff's demand is such that there is no necessity
for judicial action in determining the relief to be
granted or the amount of the recovery, a common
provision being that the clerk may enter such judg-
ment in an action ex contractu for the recovery of
money or of a certain or liquidated amount. Wheth-
er, under such a statute, the clerk may or may not
enter a default judgment without a prior application
to the court depends, of course, on whether the stat-
ute is or is not applicable to the particular case.71
Under some statutes, it is the duty of the clerk, in
one class of actions, to enter defendant's default on
application by plaintiff and, in other actions, to en-
ter such default without praecipe or application
therefor.72 A rule of court providing that, in all
causes in which adverse counsel have appeared of
record, no default judgment shall be rendered ex-
cept on motion does not apply to a judgment which
is not a default judgment.73
Judgment against self or codefendant. It has
been held that defendant may not make a motion
for a default judgment against himself74 and that
one defendant may not pray it against codefend-
ants.75
Oral or written motion. Under a statute so pro-
viding, it is necessary for plaintiff or his counsel
to appear in open court and ask for a preliminary
default;76 but the motion may be made either or-
ally or in writing,77 and it is sufficient if a written
request for entry of default is filed with the clerk
of court and read by him in open court.75
b. Time and Place of Application ,
An application for Judgment by default, when one Is
necessary should be made at the proper time therefor.
The application should be made In the court where the
action is pending at the time of default.
Where, as indicated supra subdivision a of this
section, an application for judgment by default is
required, the local statute or practice govern as
to the time when the application should be made.79
A motion based on the claim that affidavits to
the pleas do not comply with a statute is too
late where plaintiff has waived any and all rights
he may have had at any time to judgment
by default.80 However, where the complaint is
duly verified, but the answer is not, as required
by statute, delay in moving for default judgment on
the complaint for want of an answer is not, as a
matter of law, a waiver of plaintiff's rights.81 Also,
failure of plaintiff to move promptly for judgment
because of defendant's default in filing an answer in
time does not work a discontinuance of the action.82
The application should be made in the court
where the action is pending at the time of default ;83
if there has been a change of venue, before default,
it should be made, not in the court where the ac-
tion was commenced, but in the court to which the
venue has been changed,84 unless the change of
venue was merely granted but never perfected,85
or was made by stipulation between plaintiff and
interveners only, and was not effective as to de-
fendant.8*
c. Notice of Application
Notice of an application for a default Judgment is
necessary only when required by statute or rule of
court.
Under some statutory or practice rules, notice of
the application for, or entry of, a judgment by de-
fault must be given to defendant;87 but, unless so
71. N.Y.— Hotel Syracuse v. Brain-
ard, 10 N.Y,S.2d 892, 256 AppJMv.
10S5— -Sohel v. Sobel, 4 N.Y.S.2d
194, 254 App.Div. 203, reargument
denied 6 N.Y.'S. 328, 254 App.Div.
836 — Bump v. Carnavale, 244 N.
Y.S. 206, 137 Misc. 707.
34 C.J. JP 18'5 notes 67, 68.
Authority of clerk to enter prelimi-
nary default or default Judgment
generally see supra § 205.
72. Idaho. — Savage v. Stokes, 28 P.
2d 900, 54 Idaho 109.
73. Kan. — Hamilton v. Bernstein,
299 P. 581, 133 Kan. 229.
74. Iowa. — Greenbugh v. Shelden, 9
Iowa *50'3.
34 C.J. p 185 note 70.
75. Mass.— Vinal v. Burrill, 18 Pick.
29..
76. Da.— Aycock v. Miller, App., 18
'So.2d 835. * , . .
77. La.— Aycock v. Miller, supra.
78. La.— Aycock v. Miller, supra.
79. Tex.— Merrill v. Dunn, Civ.App.,
140 S.W.2d 320, error dismissed,
judgment correct.
34 O.J. p 185 note 75.
80. Md.— Buehner v. Sehlhorst, 132
A. 70, 149 Md. 474.
Waiver of default generally see su-
pra § 203.
81. N.C.— Homey v. Mills, 128 S.B.
S24, 189 -NT.C. 724.
2. N.C.— King v. Rudd, 87 S.E.2d
116, 226 N.C. 1S6.
3. Iowa. — Wormley v. Carroll Dist.
Tp., 45 Iowa 666.
84. Iowa.— Wormley v. Carroll Dist,
Tp., supra.
34 C.J. p 185 note 77.
86. Ind.— Snyder v. Bunnell, 64 Ind.
403.
34 C.J. p 185 note 78.
86. Colo,— TaJpey v. Doane, * Colo.
22.
87. 111.— Marland Refining Co. v.
Lewis, 264 IlLApp. 163.
La.— Strange v. Albrecht, App., 176
So. 700.
Pa.— Welzel v. Link-Belt Co., 35 A.2d
596, 194 Pa.Super. 66.
Wis.— Federal Land Bank of St. Paul
v. Olson, 1 N.W.2d 752, 239 Wis.
448.
34 C.J. p 18*5 note 82.
Defendant who has appeared
111.— Swlercz v. Nalepka, 259 ULAfcp.
262— Risedorf v. Fyfe, 250 IlLApp.
122.
N.D. — Dakota Nat. Bank v. Johnson,
204 N.W. 840, 52 N.D. 845.
S.D.— Heitman v. Gross, 19 N.W.2d
508— Peterson v. McMillan. 14 N.
W.2d 97.
34 C.J. p 186 note 82 [d] (1).
Purpose of court role providing
that any attorney intending to make
a motion for a default order shall
first serve on adverse party, if one
371
§ 208
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
required, a defendant who is once in court whether
by legal process or by appearance is not entitled to
such notice,88 especially where the judgment is one
which will be entered as a matter of course, as in
an action for the payment of money only.89 Such
notice may be waived by defendant ;90 and the want
of it, even when required, does not render the judg-
ment void, but merely irregular.91 A judgment by
default without notice against a plaintiff at a term
after the term at which he was dismissed from the
case is void.92
Service of a motion for judgment on a clerk of
an attorney for defendant is sufficient notice to de-
fendant.93 Certain procedure permitted by a lo-
cal court rule has been held to be constructive no-
tice to a defendant before the court that a motion
for judgment by default will be entertained on fail-
ure of defendant to plead;94 and, irrespective of
such rule, plaintiff may give actual notice that on
a day specified he will move for judgment unless
an answer is filed on or before that time.95
§ 209. Bond or Recognizance on Taking
Judgment
The execution of a bond, conditioned to save de-
fendant harmless If he procures a vacation or modifica-
tion of the Judgment, is necessary, under a few stat-
utes, before rendition of a Judgment against a defend-
ant who was constructively summoned and has not ap-
peared.
Under some statutes, before the rendering of a
judgment against an absent defendant who was con-
structively summoned, and did not appear, a bond
or recognizance should be executed conditioned to
save him harmless if he procures a vacation or mod-
ification of the judgment;96 and a judgment ren-
dered without such security is erroneous,97 but not
invalid.98 Such a bond is not required, where an
absent defendant was personally served with proc-
ess,99 or a defendant has appeared and no judgment
is rendered against him,1 or the interest of a de-
fendant is identical with that of another defendant
who appeared and asserted defenses.2
§ 210. Evidence
In order to Justify the rendition of a default Judg-
ment for plaintiff, it is sometimes necessary to show
that plaintiff appeared.
One of the matters to be shown, in order to jus-
tify the court in rendering judgment by default for
plaintiff, under statutes relating to the proceeding
has appeared or is known In the court and had announced ready for
case, a copy of form of order he
proposes to ask for, is to prevent
entering of default orders through
inadvertence, mistake, surprise* or
excusable neglect of a party who has
appeared in the case either person-
ally or by an attorney, or of an at-
torney, who is known to represent
litigants but who has not appeared,
and rule should not be construed as
making it a condition precedent to
the entry of a default order that
plaintiffs serve defendants with a
copy of order when attorneys repre-
senting defendants have withdrawn
and defendants have had ample time
in which to substitute other attor-
neys, but have failed to do so, and
have failed to inform plaintiffs of
defendants' address. — Merryman v.
Colonial Realty Co., 120 P.2d 230,
168 Or. 12.
Requirement not applicable
(1) A rule of court that in all
causes in which adverse counsel
have appeared of record, no default
judgment shall be rendered except on
the giving of at least three days'
notice to such adverse party of the
hearing of the motion for the judg-
ment does not apply to a judgment
which is not a default judgment. —
Hamilton v. Bernstein, 299 P. 581,
133 Kan. 229.
(2) Where plaintiffs waived de-
fendant's failure to answer by pro-
ceeding to introduce their evidence
as though defendant were present in
trial, statute requiring a three-day
notice prior to hearing of applica-
tion for default judgment was inap-
plicable.—Yeast v. Fleck, 121 P.2d
426, 58 Ariz. 469.
88. La.— Barbetta v. Blythe Co., 129
So. 167, 14 La.App. 288.
N.D. — Corn ESxchange Sav. Bank,
Sioux Falls, S. D., v. Northwest
Const. Co., 260 N.W. 580, 65 N.D.
•577.
Tex. — Employer's Reinsurance Corpo-
ration v. Brock, Civ.App., 74 S.W.
2d 43*5, error dismissed.
Wis.— Velte v. Zen, 206 N.W. 197, 188
Wis. 401.
34 C.J. p 1S6 note S3.
later appearance
After granting of motion for de-
fault for defendant's failure to ap-
pear and answer in time, defendant
is not entitled, by reason of later ap-
pearance, to notice of application for
judgment under statute entitling him
to five days' notice of subsequent
proceedings if he gives notice of ap-
pearance before time for answering
expires. — Skidmore v. Pacific Credi-
tors, 138 P.2d 664, 18 Wash.2d 157.
89. Minn.— Heinrich v. England, 26
N.W. 122, 3«4 Minn. 395.
34 C.J. p 186 note 8*5.
(Former code provision requiring
notice was inapplicable in such case.
— Heitman v. Gross, S.D., 19 N.W.24
508— Henderson v. Egan, 179 N.W.
31, 43 S.I>. 366 — Searles v. Lawrence,
65 N.W. 84, 8 S.D. 11.
372
90. N.T.— Selinger v. G. C. Inc., 142
N.Y.S. 194, 81 Misc. 34-3.
91. Cal.— Gray v. Hall, 265 P. 246,
203 Cal. 306.
— Federal Land Bank of St. Paul
v. Olson, 1 N.W.2d T52, 239 Wis.
448.
34 C.J. p 186 note 87.
92. Ark.— Liddell v. Landau, 112 S.
W. 1085, 87 Ark. 438.
93. Alaska. — Rubenstein v. Imlach,
9 Alaska 62.
94. u.S. — Marking v. New St. Louis
& Calhoun Packet Co., D.C.Ky., 48
F.Supp. 680.
95- U.S.— Marking v. New St. Louis
& Calhoun Packet Co., supra.
96. Ark. — Hoof man v. Manor, 176 S.
W.2d 911, 206 Ark. 615.
Ky. — Carter v. Capshaw, 60 S.W.2d
959, 249 Ky. 483.
34 C.J. p 186 note 90.
97. Ky. — Morrison v. Beckham, 27 S.
W. 868, 96 Ky. 72, 16 Ky.L. 294.
34 C.J. p 186 note 91.
98. Ky. — Ballman v. Ballman, 67 S.
W.2d 39, 252 Ky. 332.
34 C.J. P 186 note 92.
99. Ky.— Hall v. Bradley, 160 S.W.
2d 641, 290 Ky. 120.
34 C.J. p 186 note 93.
1. Ky. — Miller v. Title Insurance
& Trust Co., 129 S.W.2d 163, 278
Ky. 598.
2, Ky.— Akers v. Kentucky Title
Trust Co.. 132 S.W.2d 83, 179 Ky.
727.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§212
for the trial of right of property, is that plaintiff
appeared.3
Proof of jurisdictional facts is discussed infra §
211, proof of default, infra § 212, and proof of the
cause of action and amount recoverable, infra § 213.
§ 211.
Proof of Jurisdictional Facts
Acquisition of Jurisdiction over the person of de-
fendant by service of process or voluntary appearance
must be shown before the rendition or entry of judg-
ment by default.
In order to sustain a judgment by default plaintiff
must show that the court acquired jurisdiction over
the person of defendant.4 Except where there has
been a voluntary appearance by defendant,5 there
must be proof of a proper service of process on de-
fendant.6 Ordinarily this proof is furnished by the
officer's return7 or by an affidavit of the person
serving the writ, which must be made in due form
in order to support the judgment.8 An admission
of service of the summons and complaint is not
sufficient,9 unless it states the manner in which the
service was made;10 and a written acknowledg-
ment of service of process, indorsed on the writ,
and purporting to be signed by defendant, will not
be sufficient to support a judgment by default, »\dth-
out proof of the authenticity of the indorsement
and signature.11
In case of service by publication on an absent or
nonresident defendant, plaintiff must show a full
compliance with all the requirements of the statute
with regard to the mode of issuing and serving the
process,12 and also prove the facts which give the
court jurisdiction over the property attached, or the
res on which alone its judgment may operate,13
unless the necessity for such proof is obviated by
filing a statutory affidavit.14
A judgment rendered without sufficient proof of
service of process has been held erroneous15 and,
according to some decisions, void.16
§ 212.
Proof of Default
In many jurisdictions an affidavit or other extrinsic
proof of a failure to plead within the time allowed by
law is essential to a judgment by default.
In some jurisdictions, under the rule that the
court will take judicial notice from its records as to
whether an appearance has been entered or a plea
filed,17 an affidavit or other extrinsic proof of the
default is not necessary before entering a default
judgment for failure to appear and plead,18 as
8. Tex. — Merrill v. Dunn, Civ.App.,
140 S.W.2d 820, error dismissed,
judgment correct.
4. Mich.— Denison v. Smith, 33
Mich. ISS.
Puerto Rico. — Aparicio v. Christian-
son, 25 Puerto Rico 457.
5. N.T.— Christal v. Kelly, 88 N.T.
285.
€. 111.— -Huosaker v. Watts, 257 111.
App. 351.
S.D.— Illinois Trust & Savings Bank
v. Town of Roscoe, 194 'N.W. £49,
46 S.D. 477.
34 C.J. p 186 note 97.
Necessity and sufficiency of service
of process or notice see supra §
192.
7. Tex — Employer's Reinsurance
. Corporation v. Brock, Civ.App., 74
S.W.2d 43*5, error dismissed.
34 C.J. p 187 note 98.
Examination 1>y court of return
Court, on request for default Judg-
ment, is under duty to examine proc-
ess and returns thereon, and deter-
mine whether process and manner of
service was such as to give defend-
ant notice required by law. — Brother-
hood of Railroad Trainmen v. Agnew,
•155 So. 205, 170 Miss. 604.
Formal offer in evidence
There is no law requiring that, in
confirming a default, the citation and
return of the sheriff thereon be for-
mally offered in evidence. — Stout v.
Henderson, 102 So. 198, 157 La. 169—
Electrical Supply Co. v. Moses, 3
La. App. 286 — Dupuy v. Knickerbock-
er Leather & Novelty Co., 11 La.App.,
Orleans, 272.
Ketura filed after adjournment of
term
Filing summons in clerk's office
with return showing service after
adjournment of term at which de-
fault judgment was rendered is not
proof of service or part of proceed-
ings of court for rendition of Judg-
ment.— Hunsaker v. Watts, 257 111.
App. 351.
Necessity of other evidence
(1) Where amended return of
sheriff showed legal service on for-
eign corporation through local agent,
default judgment was warranted
without further showing or proof of
agency, and burden of disproving
agency was on defendant seeking to
overthrow service. — Employer's Re-
insurance Corporation v. Brock, Tex.
Civ.App., 74 S.W.2d 43*5, error dis-
missed.
(2) However, where return of
service of process, together with
other parts of 'record, leaves any
question of doubt or is not sufficient-
ly explicit, court, before entering de-
fault judgment has duty to hear,
and to require to .be produced, evi-
dence showing that defendant was
given notice required by law. —
Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen
v. Agnew, 155 So. 205, 170 Miss. 604.
8. Mich.— People's Mut Ben. Soc. v.
373
Wayne Cir. Judge, 56 N.W. 944, 97
Mich. 627.
34 C.J. p 187 note 99.
9. N.T.— Read v. French, 28 N.T.
285.
10. N.T. — Andrews v. Townshend, 1
N.T.S. 421, 56 N.T.SuDer. 140.
34 C.J. p 187 note 5.
11. Mich. — Johnson v. Delbridge, 35
Mich. 436.
34 C.J. p 187 note 6
12. Ind. — Rochester Security Trust
Co. v. Myhan, 114 N.E. 410, 186
Ind. 391.
34 GJ. p 187 note 1.
13. Ky. — Jackson v. ' McElroy, 2
Bush 132 — Harris v. Adams, 2 Duv.
141.
14. Ky. — Harris v. Adams, supra.
15. Iowa. — McCraney v. Childs, 11
Iowa 54.
Pa.— Camp v. Welles, 11 Pa. 206.
16. Wis. — McConkey v. McCraney,
37 N.W. 822, 71 Wis. 5T6.
34 C.J. p 187 note 8.
17. Mich.— Edson v. La Londe, 50 N.
W. 112, 88 Mich, 162.
34 C.J. p 187 note 9.
18. Mich. — Edson v. La Londe, su- •
pra.
3'4 C.J. p 187 note 10.
Becord only neceisary proof
Where plaintiff made motion for
preliminary default, the only proof
necessary to show that defendant
had made no appearance was record
§ 212
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
where the default consists of the failure to obey a
rule to plead,15 although, where judgment is taken
for want of a plea, the record must show that there
was no plea filed,20 and proof of service of the dec- '
laration may be necessary in order to ascertain
whether the time within which defendant might
plead has expired at the time of the entry of the
default"
In other jurisdictions in the ordinary case of de-
fendant's omission to plead or answer within the
time limited by law, plaintiff is required to make
and file an affidavit22 or submit other sufficient
proof23 that no plea or answer has been received
or filed within the time allowed; and the sufficien-
cy of such affidavit or proof,24 and of the filing or
service thereof,25 depends on the requirements of
the particular statute.
In order to justify the court in rendering judg-
ment by default for plaintiff, under the statutes re-
lating to the trial of right of property, it must be
made to appear that defendant failed to appear or
neglected or refused to join issue when directed26
§ 213. Proof of Cause of Action
a. Necessity
b. Admissibility, weight, and sufficiency
a. Necessity
It Is a general rule that, In order to be entitled to a
judgment by default, plaintiff need not prove his cause
of action or the allegations of his petition, declaration,
or complaint, except as to damages where they are un-
liquidated.
In a few jurisdictions plaintiff is required to
prove his cause of action in every case of default27
However, in most jurisdictions, since defendant's
default in failing to plead or answer admits the
material and traversable allegations of the decla-
ration or complaint, as discussed supra § 201, if
such declaration or complaint alleges a good cause
of action and, when so required by statute, is duly
verified, plaintiff, as a general rule, is not required,
in order to be entitled to a judgment by default, to
establish his cause of action by further proof,28
except as to the amount of damages where they are
unliquidated, as discussed in Damages § 163; but
the nature of the action, or the circumstances of
the particular case may, under some statutes, take
it out of the general rule and require plaintiff to
prove the facts essential to his recovery,29 as where
defendant was only constructively served with proc-
of court which was before court. —
Aycock v. Miller, La.App., 18 So.2d
335.
19. Mich.— Bdson v. La Londe, 5 a N.
W. 112, 88 Mich. 162— Elliott v.
Farwell, 6 N.W. 234, 44 Mich. 186.
20. Miss.— Irving v. Montgomery, 4
Miss. 191.
21. Mich. — Rosen v. Brennan, 221 N.
W. 276, 244 Mich. 397.
22. S.D.— Burton v. Cooley, 118 N.
W. 1028, 22 S.D. 51B.
34 C.J. p 187 note 14.
23. Fla. — Gamble v. Jacksonville,
Pensacola & Mobile R. R. Co., 14
Fla. 226.
34 C.J. p 187 note 15.
Requirement inapplicable
An amdavit or other proof of fail-
ure to answer is not necessary where
plaintiff is entitled to Judgment, not
because of a failure to answer, but
on an issue of law found in his fa-
vor, such as the frivolousness of a
demurrer.— Cahoon v. Wisconsin
Cent R. Co., 10 Wis. 290.
24. Wis.— Reed v. Catlin, 6 N.W.
326, 4& Wis. 686.
34 C.J. P 187 note 17.
S5. S.D. — Whitcher v. Cooley, 123 N.
W. ll^S, 2*4 S.D. 190.
34 C.J. p 188 note 18.
26. Tex.— Merrill v. Dunn, Civ.App.,
140 S.W.2d 820, error dismissed,
judgment correct.
27. U.-S.— Bradshaw v. General Mo-
tors Acceptance Corporation, D.C.
Pa., 19 F.Supp. 993.
La. — Dreher v. Guaranty Bond & Fi-
nance Co., 165 So. 711, '184 La.
197 — Saenger Amusement Co. v.
Masur, 104 So. 701, 158 La. 745.
Pa.— Leglar v. Pittsburgh, C., C. &
St. L. R. Co., 131 A, 863, 284 Pa.
•521 — Johnston v. American Casual-
ty Co., Com.PL, 23 WestCo.L-J.
178.
Philippine. — Camps v. Patemo, 9
Philippine 229.
34 C.J. p 188 notes 21, 25 [d].
Judgment must be on proof
N.J. — Gimbel Bros. v. Corcoran, 192
A. 715, 15 N.J.Misc. 538.
28. Ariz.— Corpus Juris quoted in
Postal Ben. Ins. Co. v. Johnson,
165 P.2d 173, 178.
G«L. — Waters v. American Machinery
Co.. 163 S.B. 304, 45 Ga.App. 64.
Mo. — Shannon v. Del-Home Light
Co., App., 4-3 S.W.2d 872.
Neb. — Danbom v. Danbom, 273 N.W.
502, 132 Neb. 85$.
N.C.— De Hoff v. Black, 175 S.B. 179,
206 N.C. 687, followed in Akins v.
Black, 175 S.E. 181, 206 N.C. 691
— Gillam v. Cherry, 134 S.B. 423,
192 N.C. 19*5.
Tex. — Southern S. S. Co. v. Schu-
macker Co., Civ.App., 15'4 S.W.2d
28>3, error refused — Simmons Co. v.
- Spruill, Civ.App., 131 S.W.2d 1026
—Aviation Credit Corporation of
374
New York v. University Aerial
Service Corporation, Civ.App., 59
S.W.2d 870, error dismissed — Mar-
tin v. Bell-Woods, Civ.App., 57 S.
W. 271— Milford v. Culpepper, Civ.
App., 40 S.W.2d 163, error refused
— Citizens' Bank v. Brandan, Civ.
App., 1 S.W.2d 466, error refused.
Va. — Corpus Juris cited in Bova v.
Roanoke Oil Co., 23 S.R2d 347,
3*51, 180 Va. 332.
34 C.J. p 188 note 25.
Taking- verdict
In a case within a statute so pro-
viding, plaintiff is entitled, on de-
fendant's default, to take a verdict
as though each allegation had been
proved. — Hayes v. International Har-
vester Co. of America, 183 S.E. 197,
52 Ga.App. 328 — Pape v. Woolford
Realty Co., 13-4 S.E. 174, 35 Ga.App.
284 — Cochran v. Carter, 132 S.E. 921,
85 Ga.App. 286—34 C.J. p 188 note
25 [c] (1).
Court may require, or not require,
proof
111. — Whalen v. Twin City Barge &
Gravel Co., 280 IlLApp. 59'6, cer-
tiorari denied Twin City Barge &
Gravel Co. v. Whalen, 56 S.Ct 590,.
297 U.S. 714, 80 L.Ed. 1000.
On assessment of damages see Dam-
ages § 172 b.
29. Idaho.— Portland Cattle Loan
Co. v. Gemmell, 242 P. 798, 41 Ida-
ho 756.
111. — Downers Grove Sanitary Dist*
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 213
ess,30 as by publication,81 or where the complaint
was not served with the summons.32 A failure to
produce such proof, where required, does not ren-
der the judgment void, but merely erroneous.33 An
attempt to prove the allegations of the complaint
unnecessarily does not affect plaintiffs right to the
judgment,84 or compel him to make a complete
case;35 nor does it affect statutory provisions re-
garding the effect of defendant's default.36
Quo warranto proceeding. In some jurisdictions,
the state is entitled, without making proof of the
facts set out in the petition or information, to a
judgment of ouster against defendant in a quo war-
ranto proceeding where he defaults by failing to
appear or answer ;37 but in other jurisdictions proof
must be made to sustain a judgment in case of de-
fault.8*
Joint defendants. Where one of two joint de-
fendants answers, controverting the material alle-
gations of the declaration, the fact that the other
defendant suffers default does not dispense with the
necessity of proof as to the answering defend-
ant;89 and proof against those in default may be
taken at the same time and on the trial of the is-
sues against those defending and a judgment may .
be rendered on the whole case.40
Where there are several adverse claimants to the
demand and one of them appears and prosecutes his
claim, and the other fails to do so, and defendant
interposes no defense, the party prosecuting may
not take judgment by default, unless he shows by
legal proof a right of recovery prima facie in him-
self.4!
b. Admissibility, Weight, and Sufficiency
In so far as they are not varied by statute, general
rules as to the admissibillty and weight, and the suffi-
ciency, of evidence are applicable where, on an applica-
tion for a default judgment, proof of plaintiff's cause of
action is required.
Where proof of the cause of action or of the
amount of plaintiffs claim or demand is necessary,
the general rules of evidence, in so far as they are
not varied by statute, apply in a proceeding on an
application for a default judgment with regard to
the admissibility42 and the weight and sufficiency48
of the evidence. Plaintiff's proof must conform to
v. Downers Grove Inv. Co., 178
N.E. 42, (3'45 111. 3'59.
Mo.— Jones v. Cook, 193 S.W.2d 494.
Okl.— Henshaw v. Pringle, 300 P.
666, 150 Okl. 64,
Tex.— First Nat. Bank v. Kobert, Civ.
App., 10 S.W.2d 1010— Love v.
Allard, Civ.App., 286 S.W. 581.
34 C.J. p 188 notes 28, 32.
Under speedy judgment act
Md. — Carey v. Howard, 16 A.2d 289,
178 Md. 512.
Necessity of proof in action to auiet
title see the C.J.S. title Quieting
Title § 104, also 51 C.J. P 282 notes
• 38-41.
Whether proof necessary when de-
fendant absent from trial see su-
pra § 198.
30. Ga. — Jones v. Adams, 46 Ga.
605.
31. Tex.— Pellum v. Fleming, Civ.
App., 283 S.W. 531, error refused
Fleming v. Pellum, 287 S.W. 492,
116 Tex. 130— Lopez v. Mexico-
Texas Petroline & Asphalt Co., Civ.
App., 281 S.W. 326.
34 C.J. p 188 note 30.
32. N.T. — Whitman & Barnes Mfg.
, Co. v. Hamilton, 57 N.T.S. 760, 27
Misc. 198.
34 C.J. p 188 note 31.
33. Kan.— Garner v. State, 28 Kan.
790.
34 C.J. p 189 note 33.
Waiver
In suit by heir against other heirs
for sale of land because of indi-
visibility, any error in rendering
Judgment against nonresident de-
fendants without supporting evi-
dence was waived where, after judg-
ment, the nonresident defendants
filed an answer in which they ad-
mitted the allegations of the peti-
tion and asked that the sale be con-
firmed.— Adams v. Gardner, 277 S.W.
284, 211 Ky. 2'46.
34. Wis. — Phillips v. Portage Trans-
it Co., 118 N.W. 539, 137 Wis. 189.
34 C.J. p 189 note 34.
35. wis. — Phillips v. Portage Trans-
it Co., supra.
36. Tex. — Southern S. S. Co. v.
Schumacher Co., Civ.App., 154 S.
W.2d 283, error refused — Simmons
Co. v. Spruill, Civ.App., 131 S.W.2d
1026.
37. R.L— State v. Kearn, 22 A. 322,
17 R.I. 391.
51 C.J. p 360 note 63.
38. Gal.— Searcy v. Grow, 15 Cal.
117.
'51 C.J. p 360 note 64.
39. 111. — Chamblin v. Chamblin, 1
N.E.2d 73, 362 111. 588, 104 A.L.R.
1183, certiorari denied 57 S.Ct. 24,
299 U.S. 541, 81 L.Ed. 398.
34 C.J. p 1S9 note 37.
Default at direction of another de-
fendant
A defendant's default at direction
or for benefit of codefendant by
whom defendant was employed did
not relieve plaintiff from proving
her case against codefendant, as
any defendant at any time may with-
draw his defense. — Fawkes v. Na-
tional Refining Co., 108 S.W.2d 7,
341 Mo. 630.
375
40. N.Y.— Lyon v. Yates, 61 N.T.
661 — Erie Basin Impr. Co. v.
Smith, 120 N.Y.S. 323; 135 App.Div.
365.
41. U.S.— Bright v. U. S., 8 CtCl.
i326.
42. Va. — Frazier v. Frazier, 2 Leigh
642, 29 Va. 642.
34 C.J. p 190 note 54.
Admissibility of evidence of dam-
ages see Damages § 172 b.
43. Tex. — Engineers' Petroleum Co.
v. Gourley, Civ.App., 243 S.W. 595.
34 C.J. p 190 note 55.
Prima facie case sufficient
La.— Strange v. Albrecht, 183 So. 209.
190 La. 897.
Tex. — Olsan Bros. v. Miller, Civ.
App., 108 S.W.2d 856.
Incompetent evidence admitted with-
out objection
Whether the judgment is by de-
fault or otherwise, it is not support-
ed by evidence which is wholly in-
competent and therefore without
probative force, even though It was
admitted without objection. — Paggi
v. Rose Mfg. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 259
S.W. 962.
Statement of account, indorsed by
defendant as true and correct, is a
liquidated demand and sufficient
proof to support default— Colorado
River Syndicate Subscribers v. Al-
exander, Tex.Civ.'App., 288 S.W. 586.
Evidence held sufficient to sustain
default judgment.
Ariz. — Tuma County v. Banneman,
28 P.2d 622, <42 Ariz. 561.
§ 213
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
his allegations,44 and must be sufficient to make
out his case with legal certainty.45 In the absence
of statute prescribing the nature of the evidence,
the judgment may be founded on any legal evidence
which is sufficient to satisfy the court.46 Under
some statutes an affidavit in respect of plaintiff's
claim or demand, if regularly and properly made,
may be sufficient by itself to support the judg-
ment;47 but it is within the discretion of the court
to require other or further proof.48
Evidence for defendant. As defendant by his
default has admitted all the traversable facts which
were properly pleaded in the declaration or com-
plaint, as discussed supra § 201, he usually is not
permitted on the hearing of an application for a
default judgment to introduce any evidence con-
troverting plaintiffs cause of action and his liability
thereon ;4& but, as indicated in Damages § 172 b,
he may, in a proceeding for the assessment of dam-
ages, offer evidence in mitigation or reduction of
the damages claimed by plaintiff.
§ 214,
Hearing, Determination, and Relief
a. In general
b. Conformity to pleadings and proof
c. Amount
d. Attorney's fees
a. In General
The court may render judgment by default or deny
the application therefor, continue the cause, and grant
further time to plead. Where it renders Judgment for
plaintiff by default, the court may award such recovery
or relief as is permissible and appropriate under the law
and the facts.
A default judgment may properly be rendered
without the aid of a jury50 where a writ of inquiry
is unnecessary;61 and, under some statutes relat-
ing to particular classes of actions, a hearing is not
a prerequisite to a default judgment;52 but where
the cause of action must be proved, as considered
supra § 213, and the preliminary default must be
confirmed, as discussed infra § 216, a confirmation
of, or attempt to confirm, a preliminary -default in-
volves a trial of the case on the merits and on the
issue joined by the preliminary default.53 The suf-
ficiency of the cause of action stated in the decla-
ration or complaint is open for consideration;54
and, where no cause of action is stated, it is proper
for the court to dismiss the complaint.55 The court.
F.2d 732,
Kan. — Royse v. Grage,
138 Kan. 779.
Evidence held insufficient to support
default Judgment
(1) Generally.— Dreher v. Guaran-
ty Bond & Finance Co., 16*5 So. 711,
184 La. 197— W. T. Rawleigh Co. v.
Copeland, La.App.. 169 So. 251— Pfei-
fer v. Bacharach, 121 So. 196, 10 La.
App. -30 — 34 C.J. p 190 note 55 [a].
(2) As to amonnt. — San Antonio
Paper Co. v. Morgan, Tex.Clv.App.,
53 S.W.2d 6*51, error dismissed.
44* La.— Wilson & Gandy v. Cum-
mlngs, App., -1'50 So. 436.
Tex. — Pellum v. Fleming, Clv.App.,
283 S.W. 5*31, writ of error refused
Fleming v. Pellum, 287 S.W. <492,
116 Tex. 130.
34 C.J. p 190 note 56.
45. La.— Noullet v. Schulz, 2 La.
App., Orleans, 416.
48b S.D. — Gordon v. Gordon, 105 N.
W. 244, 20 S.D. 275.
34 C.J. p 190 note 58.
47. La.— Victory Oil Co. v. Von
Schlemmer, 7 La. App. 289.
N.J.— Becker v. Welliver, 34 AJ2d
893, 131 N.J.Law 64.
N.D. — Corn Exchange Sav. Bank,
Sioux Falls, S. D., v. Northwest
Const Co., 260 N.W. 680, 65 N.D.
'577.
34 C.J. p 190 note 60.
Action "by executor
An executor who brought action
on note was not an agent within
meaning of statutory provision that,
if all plaintiffs are absent from the
state at time of bringing of suit, or
if plaintiff is a corporation, affidavit
or affirmation may be made by an
agent of plaintiffs who will make
further oath or affirmation that he
has personal knowledge of the mat-
ters therein stated, and hence execu-
tor was not required to make oath or
affirmation that he had personal
knowledge of matters stated in affi-
davit— Carey v. Howard, 16 A.2d
289, 178 Md. '512.
Basis of affidavit
Under a particular statute, affida-
vit of demand for judgment must be
based on unconditional promise to
pay an ascertained sum of money
only. — Selly v. Fleming Coal Co., 180
A. 326, 7 W.W.Harr., Del., 34.
Doubt a* to sufficiency of affidavit
is resolved in favor of defendant —
Holland v. Universal Life Co., 180
A. 328, 7 W.W.Harr., Del., 39.
Affidavit held insufficient to sup-
port judgment
Fla.— St Lucie Estates v. Palm
Beach Plumbing Supply Co., 133
So. 8(41, 101 Fla. 205.
Tex. — Gause v, Roden, Civ. App., 66
S.W.2d 400.
34 OJ. p 190 note «0 [a].
48* U.S. — Orsinger v. Consolidated
Flour Mills Co., C.C.ULI1L, 284 F.
224. .
N.T. — Didier v. Warner, 1 Code Rep.
42, '2 Edm.Sel.Cas. 41.
49. Ala. — Werten v. Koosa, 5<3 So.
98, 169 Ala. 258.
34 C.J. p 189 note 42.
376
50. Ala.— King v. Holtam, 122 So.
405, 219 Ala. 410.
Direction of verdict
Where there has been a default on
a trial, parties may have a direction
of a verdict with the same force
and effect as though a Jury were
physically present — Davis v. Ross,
20 N.T.S.2d 375, 259 App.Div. 577,
reargument denied 21 N.T.S.2d 391.
259 App.Div. 10*29.
51. Ala.— Lokey v. Ward, 154 So.
802, 228 Ala. 5*59.
52. Ohio. — State ex reL Hughes v.
Cramer, 8'4 N.E.2d 772, 138 Ohio-
St 267.
53. La. — Russo
So.2d 744.
v. Aucoin, App., T
54. 111. — Marabia v. Mary Thompson-.
Hospital of Chicago for Women
and Children, 140 N.E. 836, 809 111.
147.
Pleading stating cause of action as
necessary to sustain judgment see-
supra § 193.
Correctness of conclusion from facts
Whether pleader stated correct or
incorrect conclusion from facts al-
leged was question for court's de-
termination when judgment was en-
tered.— Wright v. Shipman, TexXJiv.
App., 27'9 S.W. 29'6.
Unless clearly "bad, complaint
should be held sufficient. — Mihelich-
v. , Butte Electric Ry. Co., 281 F.
540, 86 Mont 604.
55. Mont — Lindsey v. Drs. Keenan»
Andrews & 'Alfred, 165 P.2d 80>4.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 214
•may disregard objections which are not jurisdic-
tional, but amount to no more than mere irregulari-
ties.56
According to the facts, the court may either ren-
der a judgment by default, or confirm the entry
thereof, and assess plaintiffs damages,57 or it may
set aside a preliminary entry of the default, as dis-
cussed infra § 333, or deny the application, and
.grant defendant further time to answer or other-
wise plead.58 Whether a default judgment shall
"be rendered in a proper case or some other permis-
sible action taken rests largely in the court's dis-
cretion,59 which is to be exercised in conformity
with the spirit of the law, and in a manner to sub-
serve the ends of substantial justice.6** However,
where by statute plaintiff is entitled to a default, the
court may refuse it and continue the cause.61 The
refusal of the court to enter a default at one time
does not estop it from granting a default at a sub-
sequent time.62
Relief generally. In rendering judgment for
plaintiff by default, the court may award any re-
covery or relief which is appropriate63 and to
which plaintiff is entitled under the facts alleged
and relief demanded in his declaration or com-
plaint,64 but not relief which is not authorized by
law.65
Judgment for defendant. If plaintiff's pleading
states a good cause of action, and defendant fails
to answer, it is error to give judgment for defend-
ant;66 at least affirmative relief may aot be given
in his favor as long as the default stands.67 Even
where plaintiff fails to appear, where defendant has
pleaded only matter going to defeat plaintiff's cause
of action, the remedy of defendant is to move for
dismissal for want of prosecution,68 and not to
prove his defense and take a verdict and judgment
in his favor.69 A judgment in favor of defendant
has, however, been sustained where required proof
of the cause of action was not introduced and con-
sequently a judgment against him would have been
improper.70
Where defendant served by publication. Where
a nonresident defendant is served by publication
only, the proper judgment against him on his default
is, not one in personam, but a judgment quasi in
rem.71 A judgment in personam in such a case is
void.72 If plaintiff fails to prove his cause of ac-
tion, the only proper judgment is one dismissing
the complaint.73 It is not error not to appoint an
attorney to represent one of two defendants who
56. W.Va.— Anderson v. Doolittle, 18
S.B. 724, 38 W.Va. 629.
34 C.J. p 191 note 72.
57. Wis.— -Wausau First Nat. Bank
v. Kromer, 105 N.W. 823, 126 Wis.
436.
34 C.J. p 190 note 64.
Assessment of damages on default or
interlocutory judgment see Dam-
ages §§ 163-172.
58. Mass. — Hooton v. Redmond, 130
N.E. 107, 237 Mass; 508.
3»4 C.J. p 190 note 66.
Restriction of time
If the court grants defendant
leave to plead, it may restrict the
time within which he may do so. —
Lichtenberger v. Worm, 60 N.W. 93,
41 Neb. 856.
59. Ala. — Ex parte Central Alabama
Dry Goods Co., 189 So. 56, 238 Ala.
20.
La. — Levee Const Co. v. Ectuitable
Casualty & Surety Co. of New
York, 1-38 So. 431, 173 La. 648.
N.C. — Brown v. Town of Hillsboro,
117 SJSB. 41, 185 N.C. 368.
Wash. — Garrett v. Nespelem Consol.
Mines, 139 P.2d 273, 18 Wash.2d
340 — Graham v. Yakima Stock
Brokers, 72 P.2d 1041, 192 Wash.
121.
In federal court see Federal Courts
5 144 c.
60. Wash. — Graham v. Yakima
Stock Brokers, T2 P.2d 1141, 1*2
Wash. in.
Discretion held abused
Ala. — Ex parte Central Alabama Dry
Goods Co., 189 So. 56, 238 Ala. 20.
61. La.— -State v. Posey, 17 La.Ann.
352, 87 Am.D. 525.
62. Iowa. — Schofield v. Peterson, 3"3
Iowa 597.
63. Ky. — Mclntosh v. Clark, Thur-
mund & Richardson, 177 S.W.2d
155, 296 Ky. 358.
N.Y.— Karp v. Karp, 283 N.Y.S. 65'6,
246 App.Div. 730.
64. Cal.— Faucett v. Riveroll, 264 P.
1098, 20*3 Cal. 438— Kennard v. Bln-
ney, 217 P. 808, 62 CaLApp. 732.
Fla. — St. Lucie Estates v. Palm
Beach (Plumbing Supply Co., 13«3
So. 8*41, 101 Fla. 205.
Minn.— Union Central Life Ins. Co. v.
Page, 251 N.W. 911, 190 Minn. 360.
Okl.— Hewitt Oil & Gas Co. v. Ram-
sey, 261 P. 206, 128 Okl. 87.
*4 C.J. p 191 note 68.
Where relief prayed for is not
definite and certain, and the case
is not one in which plaintiff may,
without application to the court, en-
ter judgment on default, on such ap-
plication for Judgment it is the duty
of the court to determine the precise
relief to which plaintiff is entitled.
—Smith v. Rathbun, 88 N.Y. 660.
66. N.Y.— Bank of America Nat.
Ass'n v. Dames, 289 N.Y.S. 5*58.
195 Misc. 391.
377
66. Neb. — Bouscaren v. Brown, 59
N.W. m, 40 Neb. 722.
33 C.J. p 1143 note 64—34 C.J. p
191 note 73.
67. Mo. — Leclede Land & Improve-
ment Co. v. Creason, 1T5 S.W. 55,
264 Mo. 4*52.
Dismissal of counterclaim
When defendant did not appear on
the trial day, the court when ren-
dering Judgment for plaintiff on its
cause of action should have dis-
missed the counterclaim for failure
to prosecute. — Springfield Gas &
Electric Co. v. Fraternity Bldg. Co.,
Mo.App., 264 S.W. 429.
68. Ga. — Woodall v. Exposition Cot-
ton Mills, 120 S.E. 423, 31 Ga.App.
269.
69. Ga. — Woodall v. Exposition Cot-
ton Mills, supra.
7a Tex. — Elrst Nat. Bank v. Rob-
ert, Civ.App., 10 S.W.2d 1010.
71. Vt— French v. White, 62 A. *5,
78 Vt. 89, 2 L.R.A.,N.S., 804, 6
Ann.Cas. 479.
•3*4 C.J. p 191 note 78.
72. -Iowa.— Smith v. Griffin, 18 N.W.
423, 59 Iowa 409.
34 C.J. p 191 note 79.
73. N.Y.— Berger v. Horsfield, 176
N.Y.S. 854, 183 APP.D1V. 649.
Necessity of proof of cause of ac-
tion where defendant served by
publication see supra 8 213.
§ 214
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
was served by publication and who filed no answer
and made no appearance, where he testifies as a wit-
ness at the trial.74
b. Conformity to Pleadings and Proof
(1) In general
(2) As to relief
(1) In General
A default Judgment must strictly conform to, and
be supported by, the allegations of the petition or com-
plaint.
A judgment for plaintiff by default must strictly75
conform to, and be supported by, the allegations of
the petition or complaint,76 a closer correspondence
between pleading and judgment being necessary
than after a contested trial.77 Defendant's default
does not enlarge or broaden plaintiff's claim and
rights under the allegations of the petition ;78 nor
may the allegations of the petition be enlarged by
any evidence offered or introduced on confirmation
74. Tex. — Sharpe v. National Bank 81. Ark. — Corpus
of Commerce, Civ.App.f 272 S.W.
321.
75- N.C.— Federal Land Bank of
Columbia v. Davis, 1 S,E.2d 350,
21'5 N.C. 100.
of the default judgment.79 Where plaintiff proceeds
under a statute requiring proof, and his own evi-
dence shows that he has no cause of action, it is
proper to render judgment in favor of defend-
76. Cal.— Flores v. Smith, «117 P.2d
T12, 47 Oal.App.2d 253— Gregg v.
Stark, 17 P.2d 766, 128 Cal.App.
434.
Idaho.— Angel v. Mellen, 235 P. 461,
48 Idaho 750.
Tex. — Bass v. Brown, Civ.App., 262
S.W. 894.
•Wash. — Bates v. Glaser, 227 P. 15.
130 Wash. 328.
. — Armand Co. v. Federal
77.
Trade Commission, C.C.A., 84 F.2d
973, certiorari denied 56 S.Ct 309,
296 U.S. 650, 80 L.Ed. '463, certio-
rari denied 57 S.Ct 189, 299 U.S.
$97, 81 LJEd. 440, rehearing denied
57 S.Ct 234, 299 U.S. 62«3, 81 L.Ed.
4*59.
78. Iowa.— Kayburn v. Maher, 288
N. W. 136, 227 Iowa 2T4.
judgment foreign to pleadings
Defendant's failure to appear and
defend an action on a note did not
entitle plaintiffs to findings or judg-
ment foreign to the pleadings in the
case. — Petersen v. Dethlefs, 298 N.W.
155, 139 Neb. 572.
79. La.— Atkins v. Smith, App., 21
So.2d 8*5, reversed in part on other
grounds 1*5 So.2d 855, 204 La. 468.
Testimony not admissible under
pleading
La.— W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. Cbpeland,
App., 169 So. 251.
80. Hfcwaii.— Hirokawa v.
Hawaii 228.
Abe, 29
Johnson v. Swanson,
803, 805.
Ind. — Christ v. Jovanoff, 151 N.B. 26,
84 Ind. App. ;676, rehearing denied
152 N.B. 2, 8<4 Ind.App. 676.
Iowa.— Manassa v. Garland, 206 N.
W. 33, 200 Iowa 1129.
Mont.— Steinbrenner *v. Love, 129 P.
2d 101, 113 Mont 466— Stillwater
County v. Kenyon, 297 P. 453, 89
Mont. m— State v. District Court
of Eighth Judicial Dist, 284 P.
128, 86 Mont 387.
N.C.— Lane v. Becton, 35 S.E.2d 33'4,
225 N.C. 457.
34 C.J. p 191 note 82.
2. Iowa.— Oviatt v. Oviatt, 156 N.
W. 687, 174 Iowa 512.
3'4 C.J. p 191 note S3.
83. Cal. — Balaam v. Perazzo, 295 P.
330, 221 Cal. 375— Peck v. Peck,
127 P.2d 34, 52 Cal.App.2d 792—
Barton v. Maal, 55 P.2d 529, 12 Cal.
App.2d 353— In re Thurnell's Es-
tate, App., 19 P.2d 14— McOmie v.
Board of Directors of Veterans'
Home of California, 263 P. 253, 88
Cal. App. 16.
Colo.— Barslund v. Anderson, 103 P.
2d 23, 10'6 Colo. 238.
Idaho.— ^STielson v. Garrett, 43 P.2d
380, 55 Idaho 240— -Angel v. Mel-
len, 285 P. «461, 48 Idaho 750.
I1L— Kryl v. Zelezny, 8 N.E.2d 223,
290 IlLApp. -599.
Ind. — Christ v. Jovanoff, 151 N.E.
26, 84 Ind.App. 676, rehearing de-
nied 162 NJB. 2, 84 Tnd.App. 676.
Minn. — Union Central Life Ins. Co.
v. Page, 251 N.W. 911, 190 Minn.
360.
Miss. — Grissom v. General Contract
Purchase Corporation, 4 So.2d 3
191 Miss. 742.
Mont— Steinbrenner v. Love, 129 P.
378
(2) As to Relief
The relief granted plaintiff in a judgment by default
must conform to, and be supported by, the allegations
in the complaint, as well as by the proof in support of
the allegations where such proof is required.
The relief granted plaintiff on a judgment by de-
fault must conform to, and be supported by, the al-
legations of the declaration or complaint,81 and the
proofs in support thereof,82 where such proof is
required, as discussed supra § 213 ; and it may not
be any different from, or greater than, that which
plaintiff has demanded in his complaint.88 Plain-
tiffs relief in a judgment by default is strictly lim-
ited in nature and degree to that specifically de-
manded in the complaint,84 even though the allega-
2d 101, 113 Mont 466— Stillwater
County v. Kenyon, 297 P. 453, 89
Mont. 354 — State v. District Court
of Eighth Judicial Dist., 284 P.
128, 86 Mont. 387— State V. District
Court of Nineteenth Judicial Dist.
in and for Toole County, 245 P.
529, 76 Mont. 143.
Nev. — Keyes v. Nevada Ghas Co., 38
cited in
189 S.W.2d
P.2d
5'5 Nev. 431.
N.Y.— Slote v. Cascade Holding Cor-
poration, 11 N.E.2d 894. 276 N.Y.
239— Schiekler v. Gordon, 219 N.Y.
S. 909, 219 App.Div. 747.
N.C. — Corpus Juris cited in Simms v.
Sampson, 20 S.E.2d 55-4, 559, 221
N.C. 379.
Wash. — Corpus Juris cited in Ermey
v. Ermey, 139 P.2d 1016— Aid v.
Bowerman, 232 P. 297, 132 Wash.
S19.
Wis. — Parish v. Awschu Properties,
10 N.W.2d 166, 243 Wis. 269— Good
v. Schiltz, 218 N.W. 727, 195 Wis.
481.
33 C.J. p 1146 note 89 [a], [c]f [d], p
1T47 note 93—34 C.J. p 154 note 18,
p 191 note 85, p 192 note 88.
84. Cal. — Estrin v. Superior Court
in and for Sacramento County, 96
P.2d 340, 14 Cal.2d 670— American
Securities Co. v. Van Lofcen Sels,
56 P.2d 1247, 13 Cal.App.2d 265.
Minn.— Pilney v. Funk, 3 N.W.2d 792,
212 Minn. 398— Keys v. Schultz, 2
N.W.2d 549, 21'2 Minn. 109.
33 C.J. p 1147 note 93 [f].
Piling of demurrer is not the mak-
ing of a "defense" within the mean-
ing of the statute providing that,
if no "defense" is made, plaintiff
may not have judgment for any re-
lief not specifically demanded. — Un-
ion Light, Heat & Power Co. v. City
of Bellevue, 1414 S.W.2d 104'6, 284 Ky.
40*5.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 214
fions85 or the proofs,86 or both,87 would justify
other, ' additional, or greater relief, as under a
prayer for general relief.88
According to some authorities a default judgment
for relief different from," or greater than, that de-
manded is void;89 but according to others it is
merely erroneous or voidable.90 If the complaint
states a cause of action sufficient to sustain the
relief actually given, the judgment will not be held
invalid because the complaint also states facts au-
thorizing other relief;91 and it has been held, on
the theory, that the allegations and not the prayer
in a petition should control such a judgment,92 that
the judgment is not void because the relief afforded
was not specifically prayed for.93
Where the complaint is amended, and defendant
does not answer either the original or the amended
complaint, he may not object that the relief granted
under the amended complaint is greater than that
demanded in the original complaint,94 unless the
amendment is made without notice to him.95
Award of damages to defendant. It is error to
award damages to defendant where, although plain-
tiff defaults by failing to appear at the time set for
trial, no issue as to damages to defendant has been
raised in the pleadings.96
c. Amount
A default judgment may be rendered for the amount
claimed in the complaint, but not for a greater amount.
It should not include interest unless interest is de-
manded in the complaint.
A judgment by default may be. rendered for the
amount claimed in the complaint,97 less amounts
received in payment in the meantime,98 unless the
case has been compromised for a smaller sum,99
or unless evidence is required and a prima facie
case made for the full amount claimed is destroyed
in whole or in part by other evidence.1 Judgment
should not be rendered for an amount greater than
that prayed for in the declaration or complaint,2
or justified by the facts alleged,8 although the evi-
dence shows a larger amount4 The fact that a
part of the claim is barred by the statute of limi-
tations does not render a default judgment for the
whole illegal.5
Interest. Except to the extent that interest is
demanded in the complaint,6 interest should not be
included in the judgment;7 and, even where interest
is allowed, it should not be allowed for more than
the legal rate.8 Under some statutes, the clerk of
the court, in entering a default judgment, is author-
ized to compute and allow interest if the complaint
asks for a certain sum with interest;9 but this does
not invalidate a judgment, the interest on which is
computed by the court.10
d. Attorney's Fees
A statutory or contractual provision therefor Is es-
85. Cal. — American Securities Co. v.
Van Loben Sels, 56 P.2d 1247, 13
Cal.App.2d 26*5.
86. Minn.— Pilney v. Funk, 3 N.W.2d
792, 212 Minn. 398.
facts not alleged, although proved,
may not form the basis of the judg-
ment.— International Harvester Co.
v. Cameron, 105 P. 189, 25 Okl. 256.
87. Minn.— Keys v. Schultz, 2 N.W.
2d 549, 212 Minn. 109.
88. Cal.— Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
v. Welch, 260 P. 5'4'5, 202 Cal. 312
— American Securities Co. v. Van
Loben Sels, 56 P.2d 1247, 13 Cal.
App.2d 265.
Idaho.— Angel v. Mellen, 285 P. 461,
'48 Idaho 750.
33 C.J. p 1147 note 33 Eg].
99. Cal. — Balaam v. Perazzo, 295 P.
330, 221 Cal. 375.
Mont — State v. District Court of
Eighth Judicial Dist., 284 P. 128,
86 Mont. 387.
N.M.— Corpus Juris cited in Walls
v. Erupcion Min. Co., 6 P.2d 1021,
1025, 36 N.M. 15.
"33 C.J. p 1148 note 9S— 34 C.J. p 192
note 91, p 564 note 35 [a].
SO. Ind. — Christ v. Jovanoff, 151 N.
B. 2*6, $4 Ind.App. 676, rehearing
denied 152 N.E. 2, 84 Ind.App. 676.
N.C. — Corpus Juris cited in Simms
v. Sampson, 20 S.E.2d 554, 559, 221
N.C. 379.
33 C.J. p 1147 note 94— 3'4 C.J. P 192
note 92.
91. Cal. — Zucco v. Farullo. 174 P.
929, 37 CaLApp. 562.
92. Ky. — Mansfield v. Mansfield, 2
Ky.Op. 182.
93. Ky. — Burton v. Louisville, 85 S.
W. 727, 27 Ky.L. '514,
94. N.T.— Carr v. Sterling, 22 N.E.
37, 114 N.T. $B8.
Wash. — Bobbins v. Wyman, 135 P.
6-56, 75 Wash. 617.
95. Iowa.— Chandler Mill. & Mfg.
Co. v. Sinaiko, 208 N.W. 323, 201
Iowa 791.
33 C.J. p 1147 note 93 [d]— 34 C.J. p
192 note 98.
96. Cal.— Evans v. Baxter, 260 P-
832, 86 CaLApp. 412.
97. 111.— Kryl v. Zelezny, 8 N.E.2d
223, 290 Ill.App. 599.
34 C.J. p 192 note tt.
98. 111.— Beckers v. -Kankakee, 213
I11.APP. 5S8. '
Va. — Rees v. Conococheague Bank, 5
Band. 326, 26 Va, 326, 16 Am.D.
755.
99. Ark. — Ozark Ins. Co. v. Leather-
wood, 96 S.W. 37<4, 79 Ark. 252.
379
!• La. — Russo v. Aucoin, App., 7 So.
2d 744.
& Cal.— Floras v. Smith, 117 P.2d
712, 47 Cal.App.2d 253.
111.— Kryl v. Zelezny, 8 N.E.2d 223,
290 Ill.App. 599.
S.D. — Jones v. Johnson, 222 N.W.
688, 54 S.D. 149.
33 C.J. p 1166 note 11—34 C.J. p 192
note 4.
3. Miss. — Board of Sup'rs of Nesho-
ba County v. City of Philadelphia,
160 So. 730, 172 Miss. 326.
•34 C.J. p 192 note 5.
4. La. — Craver v. Gillespie, 86 So.
730, 148 La. 182.
5. Pa.— Wilson v. Hayes, 18 Pa. 354.
6. Cal. — Flores v. Smith, 1'17 P.2d
712, 47 Cal.App.2d 253.
111.— Kryl v. Zelezny, 8 N.E.2d 22«3,
290 Ill.App. 599.
34 C.J. p 193 note 12.
7. CaL— Flores v. Smith, 117 P.2<J
712, 47 Cal.App.2d 253.
34 C.J. p 193 note IB.
8. Ky. — Dysart v. Logan, 2 J.J.
Marsh. 428.
9. -Ala.— RadclifiC v. Erwin, Minor 88.
N.T.— Bullard v. Sherwood, 85 N.Y.
253.
10. Ala.— Radclitt v. Erwin, Minor
88.
§ 214
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
sential to the allowance of attorney's fees to plaintiff
on the rendition of a default judgment In his favor.
A default judgment for plaintiff may include at-
torney's fees where the petition brings the case
within a statute imposing liability for such fees on
defendant;11 but, as a general rule, plaintiff will
not, in the absence of statute, be entitled to an al-
lowance for attorney's fees,12 except where the suit
is on a written instrument containing a stipulation
for .the payment of an attorney's fee, in which case
the judgment rendered on defendant's default may
include the amount of such fee as well as the prin-
cipal sum of plaintiff's demand,13 and even in such
case the allowance of the fee is subject to the dis-
cretion of the court,14 and the fee may be disal-
lowed in a proper case.15
Costs generally where judgment is by default are
discussed in Costs § 70.
•
§ 215. Form and Requisites of Judgment
A default Judgment must comply with general re-
quirements as to the form and contents of judgments,
except in so far as the statutes and rules of practice
govern the rendition and entry of such Judgments.
The essentials to the existence, validity, and reg-
ularity of judgments generally, as discussed supra
§§ 13-61, and ,the general requirements as to the
form and contents of judgments, as considered su-
pra §§ 62-86, apply to judgments by default,1* ex-
cept in so far as special statutes and rules of prac-
tice govern the rendition and entry of such judg-
ments,17 and, even in such a case, although it is
preferable that the entry be made in the language
of the statute,18 it is not essential that any set form
be followed, a substantial compliance with the stat-
utory requirements being sufficient.19 The judg-
ment rendered must pronounce the true sentence
of the law,20 and must be definite and certain as
to its terms,21 and as to the amount of the recov-
ery;22 and must be more than a mere order that
judgment be entered.23 Where the judgment is
given against a defendant absent from the state,
it should direct plaintiff to comply with the statu-
tory provisions which in such a case are necessary
to entitle him to execution.24 The judgment should
be properly docketed or filed;25 but, if it is duly
rendered, the fact that it is not entered on the rec-
ord does not affect its validity as against defend-
ant, if it is so entered before any action is taken
by him.2*
Designation of parties. The judgment must des-
ignate the parties for and against whom it is ren-
dered;27 and the names of the parties appearing
in the judgment must correspond with those in the
11. Tex.— Rhyne v. Missouri State
Life Ins. Co., Com.App., 291 S.W.
8-45.
12- Fla.— Florida Dev. Co. v. Polk
County Nat. Bank, 80 So. 560, 76
Fla. 629.
Ga, — Farmers' & Merchants' Bank v.
Alford, 94 S.B. 818, 21 Ga.App.
546.
Contract conditional as to fees
Where note providing for princi-
pal, interest, and attorney's fees is
conditional as to attorney's fees and
not unconditional contract, judgment,
although by default, cannot be ren-
dered thereon by the court without
jury< — Fowler v. Bank of Commerce,
143 S.E. 512, 38 Ga.App. 226.
13- Fla. — Streety v. John Deere
Plow Co., 109 So. 632.
34 C.J. P 193 note 20.
14. Pa. — Philadelphia Trust & Safe
Deposit Co. v. McDaniel, 2 Pa.Co.
102.
15. Pa.— Philadelphia Trust & Safe
Deposit Co. v. McDaniel, supra.
34 C.J. P 193 note 22.
16. Colo.— Hoehne v. Trugillo, 1
Colo. 161, 91 Am.D. 70«.
34 C.J. P 193 note 25.
Judgment held one toy default
Ala.— Coffee y. Keeton, 26 So.2d SO.
Default judgments held sufficient
Ark.— Shelton v. Landers, 270 S.W.
522, 167 Ark. 638.
34 C.J. p 193 note 25 [a].
Default judgments held regular or
not void on face thereof
CaL— Associated Oil Co. v. Mullin,
294 P. 421, 110 CaLApp. &85.
Tex. — Arenstein v. Jencks, Civ.App.,
179 S.W.2d 831, error dismissed —
Citizens Mut. Life & Accident
Ass'n of Texas v. Gillespie, Civ.
App., 93 S.W.Sd 200.
17. Mont.— Palmer v. McMaster, 19-
P. 585, 8 Mont 186.
34 C.J. p 193 note 27.
18. Ga.— Jenkins v. Whittier Mills
Co., 93 S.E. 530, 20 Ga.App. 828.
19. Ga. — American Cent. Ins. Co. v.
Albright, 89 S.B. 487, 14'5 Ga. 515.
34 C.J. p 193 note 29.
iStrict compliance
It has been declared that there
must be strict compliance with the
statutory provisions relative to the
entry of default judgments. — Smak
V. Gwozdik, 291 NVW. 270, 293 Mich.
185.
20. Conn. — New York N. H. & H. R.
R. Co. v. Hungerford, 52 A. '487,
75 Conn. 76.
21. N.T.— U. S. Life Ins. Co. v. Jor-
dan, 4'6 Hun 202, 21 Abb.N.Caa. 330.
380
22* Miss. — Claughton v. Black, 24
Miss. 185.
34 C.J. p 193 note 32.
Proportion of debt for which one of
several defendants liable
Where a creditor sued two named
defendants and heirs of another per-
son jointly, judgment by default
against defendants and heirs was
invalid as to defendant who appeal-
ed, where it failed to comply with a
statute by fixing proportion of debt
for which he was liable and propor-
tion could not be ascertained by ref-
erence to pleadings. — Hagerdorn v.
Klotz, La.App., 18'5 So. 653.
23. 111.— Loughlin v. Q. Heileman
Brewing Co., 189 IlLApp. 176.
34 C.J. p 19'4 note 33.
Entry evidently intended as guide
to clerk in making up his record at
some subsequent time is not a judg-
ment.— Townsend v. Postal Benefit
Ass'n of Illinois, 262 Ill.App. 483.
24. Conn. — Strong T. Meacham, 1
Root 391.
25. Wash. — Warner v. Miner, 82 P.
10-33, 41 Wash. 98,
34 C.J. p 194 note 35.
26. Iowa.— Romayne v. Hawkeye
Commercial Men's Ass'n, 135 N.W.
73'5.
27. Fla.— Stringfellow T. <AJax-Grieb
49 0. J. S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 216
pleadings and process,28 the ordinary rules as to
variance in this respect being applicable.29
Separate judgments or findings. Where distinct
suits are brought, separate judgments by default
must be rendered therein, although the suits arise
out of the same subject matter and the parties are
identical in all,30 unless they are consolidated.31
The rule which requires the court sitting as a jury
to find separately facts and conclusions of law, as
discussed in the C.J.S. title Trial § 624, also 64 C.J.
p 1244 note 72, does not apply in rendering a judg-
ment by default against one of several defendants.32
It has been held that there was only one judgment
and one final determination of the rights and lia-
bilities of all the parties, although that part of the
final determination relating to defaulting defend-
ants was reached on a certain day and another part
relating to the remaining defendant was reached
on a later day.33
§ 2'16.
Final or Interlocutory
Subject to statutory variation, a default Judgment
against the defendant in an action against him ordi-
narily may be, and is, Interlocutory or final according-
ly as some act does or does not remain to be done.
A judgment by default is either interlocutory or
final;34 and where it is not shown that it was in-
tended to be final the tendency is to hold it to be
interlocutory.36 Under the statutes of some juris-
dictions, as considered supra § 206, a final judg-
ment cannot be entered immediately on a default;
there must first be a preliminary entry of the de-
fault. The judgment is final where the record is
such that no such inquiry or act is necessary,36 but
a judgment by default against one of several de-
fendants ordinarily is interlocutory37 and not final3*
until the conclusion of the case against the other de-
fendants,39 although it may be final where defend-
ants are sued jointly and severally, and, prior to the
judgment, the action was discontinued as to the
other defendants.40
The judgment is interlocutory where a writ of in-
quiry must be issued thereon, or some -other act done
involving a future inquiry to determine the amount
of recovery.41 Generally a final judgment need not
and cannot be entered where the damages are un-
liquidated or the amount of plaintiffs claim is un-
certain or indeterminate ;42 there may or must first
Rubber Co., 64 So. 947, 67 Fla.
$17.
34 C.J. p 19'4 note 38.
28. Pa,— Noetling v. Wallace, 46 Pa.
Dist. & Co. 169, 16 Northumb.Leg.
J. 128.
Tex. — Nueces Hardware & Implement
Co. v. Jecker, Civ.App., 56 S.W.2d
474 — Fairbanks v. Hayes-Sammons
Hardware Co., Civ.App., 55 S.W.2d
591.
34 C.J. p 194 note 39.
29. Tex. — Nelson v. Detroit & Secur-
ity Trust Co., Com.App.f 56 S.W.2d
860.
34 C.J. p 194 note 39.
Variance not fatal
Fact that petition and citation des-
ignated plaintiff as administrator
with will annexed did not invalidate
default judgment for plaintiff as ex-
ecutor; and, where probate court's
order probating foreign will showed
that foreign corporation, suing on
note, was legal representative, de-
fault judgment is not void because
in favor of corporation under new
name. — Nelson v. Detroit & Securi-
ty Trust Co., Tex.Com.App., 56 S.W.
2d 860.
80. Miss.— Louisville N. R. B. Co. v.
McCollister, 5 So. 695, 66 Miss.
10*.
81. Miss.— Louisville N. R. B. Co. v.
McCollister, supra.
82. Cal. — Brown v. Brown, 8 GaL
111.
S3. Kan.— Korber v. Willis, 274 P.
239, 127 Kan. 587.
34, Conn. — Falken v. Housatonic B.
Co., 27 A. 1117, 63 Conn. 258.
S.C. — Smith v. Vanderhorst, 12 S.C.
L. 328, 10 AmJX 674.
Final and interlocutory judgments
generally see supra S 11.
Terminology
01) The interlocutory judgment re-
ferred to in practice act provision re-
letting to assessment of damages on
entry of interlocutory judgment by
default is the equivalent of a judg-
ment by default under the ancient
practice, and is ordinarily considered
a judgment notwithstanding it may
fall short of an actual judgment in
the strictly technical sense. — Bdel-
stein v. Hub Loan Co., 33 A.2d 829,
130 N*.J.Law '511.
(2) A simple or naked default is
not a substantial right, nor a final
determination of cause of action, but
simply a finding by the court that
plaintiff is entitled to default on rec-
ord.— Weinhart v. Meyer, 2<47 N.W.
811, 215 Iowa 1317.
(3) Under some statutes the pre-
liminary entry made by an an-
swering defendant who defaults by
flailing to appear at the trial is, and
should be, termed a decision rather
than a judgment. — Hathaway v. Wil-
son, 161 A. 234, 52 ILL 447 — Gregson
v. Superior Court, 1'28 A. 221, 46 RJ.
362.
"Judgment by default final" is dis-
tinguished from "judgment by de-
fault and inauiry," in that former
establishes allegations of complaint
381
and concludes by way of estoppel,
while latter establishes right of ac-
tion in plaintiff of kind stated in
complaint, precise character and ex-
tent of which remain to be deter-
mined by hearing in damages and
final judgment thereon. — De Hoff v.
Black, 175 S.E. 179, 206 N.C. 687,
followed in Akins v. Black, 175 S.B,
181, 20*6 N.C. 691.
35. Pa. — Commonwealth v. McClea-
ry, 92 Pa, 188.
34 C.J. p 194 note 45.
Marking case "no appearance" im-
presses it with an interlocutory judg-
ment.— Becker v. Welliver, 34 A.2d
893, 131 N.J.Law 64— Edelstein v
Hub Loan Co., 33 A.2d 829, 130 N.J.
Law 511.
36. Ind. — Carson v. Perkins, 29 N.E.
2d 772, 217 Ind. 545.
34 C.J. p 194 note 48.
37. Ala. — Ex parts Mason, 10*4 So,
•523, 213 Ala. 279.
38. Mo. — Fleming v. McCall, App.,
35 S.W.2d 60 — Conrath v. Houchin,
34 S.W.2d 190, 226 Mo.App. 261.
39. Tex.— Buttrill v. Occidental Life
Ins. Co., CivJApp., 45 S.W.2d 636.
40. Tex.— Ridley v. McCallum, 163
S.W.2d 833, 139 Tex. 540.
41. Ala.— Ex parte Haisten, 149 So.
213, 227 Ala. ISS—Ewart v. Cun-
ningham, 122 So. 359, 219 Ala. 399.
Ind.— Carson v. Perkins, 29 N.E.2d
772. 217 Ind. 543.
34 C.J. p 194 note 47.
42. Colo.— Melville v. Weybrew, 120
P.2d 189, 108 Colo. 620, certiorari
§ 216
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
be an interlocutory judgment by default,43 and the
final judgment is entered after the damages have
been assessed on a writ of inquiry or otherwise de-
termined according to law.44 On the other hand,
where plaintiffs claim is liquidated or certain in
amount, so that he is entitled to recover that
amount, if anything at all, final judgment may be
at once entered on default.45 If a part of the decla-
ration or complaint is unanswered, plaintiff may
have an interlocutory judgment as to such part, but
final judgment cannot be entered until the issues are
tried and determined.46
Confirmation. In some jurisdictions a prelimi-
nary or interlocutory judgment . entered on a de-
fault must be confirmed by the court, before it can
have the effect of a final judgment;47 but in other
jurisdictions, when a judgment by default is prop-
erly entered by the clerk or a commissioner, in final
form, it is regarded as the judgment of the court,
as discussed supra § 205, and confirmation by the
court is not necessary.48
Directing judgment. In some jurisdictions it is
proper for the court, on entering an interlocutory
judgment, to direct what final judgment shall be
entered,49 or to direct that the final judgment shall
be settled by the court or a referee,50 or that the
damages be assessed by a jury.51
Lapse of time as making final. Under some stat-
utes, a default judgment becomes final after the ex-
piration of a prescribed period of time,52 unless de-
fendant pleads53 or a motion for a new trial is
filed54 in the meantime, or unless the case is con-
tinued at plaintiffs instance.55
| 217. Recitals and Record
Where there is a Judgment by default, the judgment
should contain appropriate recitals of the facts on which
it is based, and the Judgment roil or record should con-
tain whatever Is required by statute to be included there-
in.
A judgment by default should contain appropri-
ate recitals of the facts on which the judgment
is based;56 and in states wherein the statutes pro-
denied 62 S.Ct 795, 315 U.S. 811, 86
L.'Ed. 1210, rehearing denied 62 S.
Ct 913, 315 U.S. 830, 86 L.Ed. 1224.
N.C. — Chozen -Confections v. John-
son, 11 S.E.2d 472, 218 N.C. 500—
Baker v. Corey, 141 -S.E. 892, 195
N.O. 299— Brooks v. White, 122 S.
E. 561, 187 N.C. 656— Pyles v.
Pyles, 122 S.B. 12, 187 NX!. 486.
Or. — McAuliffe v. McAuliffe, 298 P.
239, 136 Or. 168.
Tex.— Morgan v. Davis, Civ.App., 292
S.W. 610.
34 C.J. p 194 note 50.
43. 'N.C. — Chozen Confections v.
Johnson, 11 S.E.2d 472, 218 N.C.
500 — Standard Supply Co. v. Vance
Plumbing & Electric Co., 143 S.B.
248, 195 N.C. 629— Brooks v. White,
122 S.OL 561, 187 N.C. 65'6— Pyles v.
Pyles, 122 S.B. 12, 187 N.C. 486.
Tex.— Ridley v. McCallum, 163 S.W.
2d 833, 139 Tex. 540 — Southern S.
S. Co. v. Schumacher Co., Civ.
Aow>., 154 S.W.2d 28'3, error refused.
34 C.J. p 194 note 51.
Interlocutory Judgment in not nec-
essary in some states.-^Fawkes v.
National Refining Co., 108 S.W.2d 7,
'341 Mo. 630 — Cornoyer v. Oppermann
Drug Co., Mo.App., 56 S.W.2d 612.
44. Colo.— Melville v. Weybrew, 120
P.2d 189, 108 Colo. 520, certiorari
denied 62 S..Ct. 795, 315 U.S. 811,
'816 iLJSJd. 1210, rehearing denied €2
S.Ct. 913, 815 U.S. 830, 86 L.Bd.
1224.
Tex.— Ridley v. McCallum, 163 S.W.
2d 833, 1*39 Tex. 540 — Southern S.
S. Co. v. Schumacher Co., Civ.App.,
154 S.W.2d 283, error refused.
i34 C.J. p 194 note 51.
45. N.C. — Standard Supply Co. v.
Vance Plumbing & Electric Co- 149
S.E. 248, 195 N.C. 629— Baker v.
Corey, 141 S.B. 892, 195 N.C. 299—
Gillam v. Cherry, 134 S.B. 423, 192
N.C. 195.
34 C.J. p 195 note 53.
48. 111. — Lucas v. Farrington, 21 I1L
31.
'34 C. J. p 195 note 64.
Better course
Although judgment nil dicit may
be proper, better course is to re-
serve entry of final judgment on un-
contested issues until contested is-
sues are adjudicated. — Clonts v.
Spurway, 139 So. 896, 104 Fla. 340.
47. La.— Ballard v. Lee, 14 La. 211.
34 C.J. p 195 note 55.
After disposition of motion to set
aside preliminary default, way was
open under court's rules for con-
firmation of default — Motor (Finance
Co. v. 'Lynn, La.App., 142 So. -310.
Confirmation, hold sufficient
La.— W. T. Raleigh Co. v. Freeland,
App., 16 So.2d 489.
Confirmation after filing- of answer
is void.— McClelland v. District
Household of Ruth, La.App., 151 So.
246—34 C.J. p 195 note 55 [b].
43. -U.S.— Patons v. Lee, B.C., 18 'F.
Cas.No.10,800, 5 Cranch C.C. 646.
Wash.— Peterson v. Dillon, 67 P. 397,
27 Wash. 78.
49. N.T.— U. S. Life ins. Co. v. Jor-
dan, 46 Hun 201, 21 AbbJST.Cas. 330.
50. N.Y.— Kerr v. Dildine, 14 N.T.
Civ.Proc. 176.
51. N.Y.— Shiffner v. Beck, 145 N.
Y.S. 27, 159 App.Div. 821.
Assessment of damages by Jury aft-
er Interlocutory Judgment see
(Damages § 168.
382
52. Idaho. — Brainard v. Cceur
d'Alene Antimony Min. Co., 208 P.
855, 35 Idaho 742.
34 C.J. p 195 note -62.
Time prescribed for appeal where
no appeal taken
Cal. — People v. Bames City, 288 P.
442, 10S CaLApp. 618.
In Maryland
A default judgment becomes en-
rolled on the expiration of the term
of court at which it is entered or,
where the action is in one of the
courts of Baltimore, at the end of
thirty days after the entry of the
judgment. — Harvey v. Slacum, 29 A.
2d 276, 181 Md. 206— Dixon v. Balti-
more American Ins. Co. of New York,
188 A, 215, 171 Md. 695— Wagner v.
Scurlock, 170 A. 5*39, 166 Md. 284—
Murray v. Hurst, 163 A. 183, 163 Md.
481, 85 A.L.R. 442.
53. Va. — Gring v. Lake Drummond
Canal & Water Co., 67 S.E. -360, 110
Va. 754.
54. Tex.— RJdley v. McCallum, 163
S.W.2d 833, 139 Tex. 540.
55. W.Va. — Pennsboro First Nat
Bank v. Barker, 83 S.B. 898, 75 W.
Va. 244.
50. Colo.— Hille v. Evans. 187 P>
'315, -68 Colo. 98.
34 C.J. p 195 note 67.
Defendant's liability for debt or
claim
It has been held that the judg-
ment should recite facts which show
defendant's liability for the debt or
claim sought to be recovered. — Gra-
ham v. Reynolds, 45 Ala. 578 — Smith
y. Mobile Branch Bank, 5 Ala. 26.
49 C-J-S-
JUDGMENTS
§ 217
vide what the judgment roll or record in case of
judgments by default shall contain there should be
a compliance therewith.57 The record of the judg-
ment imports verity of the facts recited;58 but a
recital in the judgment of a fact is not proof there-
of, where the contrary appears from the records of
the court.59
Jurisdictional facts. The judgment or record
must disclose facts which show that the court had
jurisdiction in the case,60 such as that process or
notice had been duly and properly issued and served
on defendant,61 and that all facts necessary to give
the court jurisdiction had been proved,62 or that
defendant had acknowledged or waived service and
voluntarily appeared.63 However, a failure to re-
cite such facts in the judgment does not invalidate
it, if they sufficiently appear in the record;64 and
a mere showing that proof of service of summons
is absent from the judgment roll several years after
the entry of judgment is insufficient to defeat the
judgment,65 especially where filing of due proof
of service is recited in the judgment itself and in
the records of the court, and is stated in an affida-
vit of the attorney at whose instance the judg-
ment was entered.66 The judgment need not recite
that defendant had been called.67 Where the serv-
ice of process was constructive only, as by publi-
cation, the judgment itself or the record should af-
firmatively show a full compliance with the statute
authorizing such service,68 and if the record shows
service of an insufficient notice it will not be pre-
sumed that another sufficient notice was served.69
Default. The judgment should recite facts suf-
ficient to show affirmatively that defendant was in
default, and for what reason, whether for want of
an appearance, for want of a plea, or otherwise,70
and not merely that plaintiff claimed the default or
moved for the entry;71 and if the record shows a
judgment without a lawful default the judgment is
void on the face of the record.72
Proof of cause of action. Where plaintiff is re-
quired to produce or file proof of his cause of ac-
tion before the judgment can be entered, discussed
supra § 213, the record or the recitals of the judg-
ment should show a compliance with this require-
ment;73 and under some statutes, where service is
Sufficient recital of trial of issues
Where a statute provides that par-
ties to an issue of fact shall be
deemed to have waived a jury trial
by failing to appear at the trial,
judgment reciting: that defendant, al-
though filing answer, failed to ap-
pear when case was called for trial,
and that thereupon plaintiff waived
jury and submitted his case to court
on .pleadings and proof adduced, is
not void on its face as not showing
a trial of the issues raised by the
pleadings. — Goffstein v. Coleman, Mo.
App., S2 S.W.2d 1043.
57. Idaho.— Hissing .v. Bissing, 115
P. 827, 19 Idaho 777.
34 C.J. p 196 note 72 [a], [b].
58. Mass.— Gardner v. Butler, 78 N.
E. 885, 193 Mass. 96.
53. La.— Deblanc v. 'Lefclanc, 15 La.
Ann. 224.
Miss. — Globe Rutgers Life Ins. Co.
v. Sayle, 65 So. 125, 107 Miss. 169.
GO. Tex.— Head v. Texas State Bank,
Civ.App., 16 S.W.2d 298— Brown v.
Hayslip, Civ.App., 283 S.W. 177.
34 C.J. p 196 note 86.
gOL. Ala. — Spurlin Mercantile Co. v.
Lauchheimer, 48 So. 812, 159 Ala.
512.
34 C.J. p 196 note 87.
62. Cal.— Doyle v. Hampton, 116 P.
39, 159 Cal. 729.
34 C.J. P 197 note 88.
Minute entry showing that peti-
tion, citation, and sheriffs return,
with record, were introduced is suf-
ficient.—Cohn Flour & (Feed Co. v.
Mitchell, 13-6 So. 782, 18 La.Aj?p. 534.
A mere recital of service is not]
sufficient; the process and return or
proof thereof must be set out. — Head
v. Texas -State Bank, Tex.Civ.App.,
16 S.W.2d 298 — Broun v. Hayslip,
Tex.Civ.A-pp., 283 S.W. 177— Daugh-
erty v. Powell, Tex.CJiv.App., 139 S.
W. 625— Glasscock v. Barnard, 125
S.W. 615, 58 Tex.Civ.App. 569—34 C.
J. p 197 note 88 [a].
L Ala. — De Jarnette v. Dreyfus, 51
So. 932, 166 Ala, 158.
34 C.J. p 197 note 89.
64. Tex.— Pipkin v. Kaufman, 62
Tex. -545.
65. N.Y.— Bgan v. Giragosian, 245 N.
T.S. 69, 137 Misc. 8'30.
. N.T.— Egan v. Giragosian, su-
pra.
67. N.M. — Rio Grande' Irrigation &
Colonization Co. v. Gildersleeve, 48
P. 309, 9 N.M. 12, affirmed 19 S.Ct
•761, 174 U.S. 603, 43 L.Ed. 1103.
68. Iowa.— Schaller v. Marker. 114
N.W. 4'3, 136 Iowa 575.
34 CJ. p 197 note 92.
69. Iowa.— Schaller v. Marker, 114
N.W. 43, 136 Iowa 575.
70. Ark.— Papan v. Nahay, 152 S.W.
107, 106 Ark. 230.
34 C.J. p 19'5 note 69.
Judgment reciting- appearance of
parties and trial does not show de-
fault.— St Francis Levee Dist v.
Dorroh, 289 S.W; 925, 316 Mo. -398.
Irregularity
•Fact that default Judgment recited
that it was entered for want of ap-
pearance instead of for failure to file
383
pleading is a mere irregularity. —
Precision Products Co. v. Cady, 233
IlLApp. 72.
Pact of default sufficient
It has been held sufficient to state
the fact of default generally with-
out stating in what respect defend-
ant is in default— Lyons Planning
Mills v. Guillot, XA.APP., 146 So.
700— 84 C.J. p 195 note 69 [b].
71. Ala. — Goodwater Warehouse Co.
v. Street, 34 So. 903, 137 Ala. 621
— Woosley v. Memphis & CJ. R. Co.,
2« Ala. 536.
72. Mich.— Goodspeed v. Smith, 136
N.W. 975, 161 Mich. 688.
N.J. — Corpus Juris cited la Westfield
Trust Co. v. Court of Common
Pleas of Morris County, 178 A.
546, 549, 115 N.J.Law 86, affirmed
18-3 A. 165, 116 N.J.Law 191.
73. Pa. — Johnston v. American Cas-
ualty Co., Com.Pl., 23 WestXJo. 178.
34 C.J. p 196 note 77.
Racitals or notations held sufficient
Ark.— Shelton v. Landers, 270 S.W.
522, 167 Ark. 638.
La.— w. T. Rawleigh Co. v. (B'reeland,
App., 16 So.2d 489 — -Brown v.
Brown, App., 196 So. 661— Wilson
v. Lagasse, 179 So. 472, 14 La.App.
4-63 — Martin v. District Grand
(Lodge No. 21, G. U. O. O. F. of
Louisiana, App., 146 So. 79!3— Conn
Flour & 'Feed Co. v. Mitchell, 136
Bo. 782, 18 La.App. S'34.
54 CJ. p 196 note 77 [a] (1).
Presumption from recital
Where recitals in judgment are
that plaintiff has made due proof of
§ 217
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
by publication, and no answer is filed, a statement
of the evidence must be filed as a part of the rec-
ord;74 but in the absence of statute the evidence
need not be reduced to writing and preserved with
the record.75
Assesstnent of damages. If an assessment of
damages is necessary, the judgment should recite
the fact that the assessment had been made,™ but
it need not state explicitly that the assessment was
made by the court;77 and the record need not show
that the interest was computed by the clerk.78 The
judgment will be held erroneous where the record
shows that the judge acted on a certificate of the
clerk in lieu of a writ of inquiry and does not show
a compliance with statutory conditions to a default
judgment without a writ of inquiry.79
Findings. Unnecessary findings form no part of
the judgment roll in case of a default judgment,80
and their incompleteness does not vitiate the judg-
ment81
§ 218. Office Judgments
Under the statutes of a few states, the clerk of
court, on defendant's default, enters a conditional Judg-
ment, known as an office judgment, which is confirmed
at a subsequent date and becomes final at a still later
date.
Under some statutes, if defendant defaults at the
rules, to which a writ or summons issued against
him is returnable,82 and plaintiff has duly filed his
declaration,8^ a conditional judgment, known as an
office judgment, may be entered against him by the
clerk of the court, by what is known as a common
order,84 which may be confirmed at the next suc-
ceeding rules.85 If the "common order" and "com-
mon order confirmed" were regularly taken, the
cause is properly on the office judgment docket at
the next term of the court,86 and if the case is one
in which an order for an inquiry of damages is not
necessary or made, unless defendant appears in the
meantime and demurs, pleads, or otherwise makes
defense to the action,87 the office judgment becomes
final, so as to bar a defense, on such day of the
next succeeding term of court as is fixed by stat-
ute,88 except where the statutory number of days
has not elapsed after the service of process,89 in
which case it becomes final at the term next suc-
ceeding the expiration of such time.90 However,
where the case is one in which an inquiry of dam-
ages is proper, an order therefor should be made
and the office judgment does not become final so as
to bar a defense thereafter, without the interven-
tion of the court or a jury,91 and defendant may
his claim, .presumption exists that
legal and sufficient evidence was be-
fore court — Aycock v. Miller, La.
A'tfp., 18 So.2d 3*35 — Goldman v.
Thomson, $ La.App. 469.
74. Tex.— McLane v. Kirby, 116 $.
W. 118, 54 Tex.Civ.App. 113.
34 C.J. p 19'6 note 79.
75. Ariz;.— Postal Ben. Ins. Co. v.
Johnson, 165 P/2d 173.
S.C. — Duncan v. Duncan, 76 S.B. 1099,
93 8.C. 487.
Defendant personally served
Ariz. — Postal Ben. Ins. Co. v. John-
son, 165 P.2d 17-3.
Tex.— (Dalton v. Davis, Civ.App., 294
S.W. 1115, reversed on other
grounds, Com.App., 1 S.W.24 571.
Defendant voluntarily appearing- and
filing1 answer
Ariz.— Kinealy v. O'Reilly, 236 P.
716, 28 Ariz. 246.
761 Ky.— Daniel v. Judy, 14 B.Mon.
393.
77. Mass. — Jarvis v. Blanchard, -6
Mass. 4.
Mich. — Howard v. Tomlinson, 27
Mich.. 168.
Recital of waiver of Jury
The recital in default judgment, in
action based on fraud, that a jury
and a decision were waived and that
a verdict was directed established
prima facie what occurred on the
inquest as to whether there should
be a jury trial or a decision.— Davis
v. Ross, 20 N.T.S.2d 37'5, 259 App.
Div. 577, reargument denied 21 N.Y.
S.2d 391, 259 App.Div. 1029.
78. Ala.— Hadcliff v. Brwin, Minor
88.
79. Ala, — iFrazier v. Dlsmuke, 118
So. 227, 22 Ala.Atfp. 594.
80u Cal.— In re Cook's Estate, 19 P.
431, 77 Cal. 220, 11 Am.S.R. 267, 1
L.R.A. 567.
N.T.— Tyler v. Jahn, 178 N.Y.S. 689,
109 Misc. 425.
Lack of necessity for findings where
judgment rendered by default see
the C.J.S. title Trial § 612, also
34 C.J. p 196 note 73 and 64 C.J. p
1229 note 39.
81. N.D. — O'Sullivan v. Vadnais, 234
HT.W. 522, 60 NJD. <359.
82. Va. — Crews v. Garland, 2 Munf.
491, 16 Va. 491.
34 C.J. -p 197 note 95.
83. Va.-— Waugh v. Qarter, 2 Munf,
'33=3, 16 Va. 333.
34 C.J. p 197 note 96.
84. Va.— Dillard . v. Thornton, 25
Gratt 392, 70 Va. '392.
34 C.J. p 197 note 97,
"Common, order" IB defined as the
usual order; or the "conditional
judgment," so called because it
threatens defendant with a judgment
unless he appear and plead accord-
ing to its terms. — Mahoney v. New
South Building & Ix>an Ass'n, C.C.
Va., 70 F. $1«— 12 C.J, p 205 note 96.
384
Thornton, 29
85. Va.— Dillard v.
Gratt 392, 70 Va.
86. Va.— Wall v. AtweW, 21 Gratt.
401, 62 Va. 401— Powell v. Watson,
3 Leigh. 4, -30 Va. 4.
34 C.J. p 197 note 99.
87. W.Va. — Snider v. Cochran, 92 S.
R 547, 80 W.Va, 252.
34 C.J. p 197 note 1.
88. Va. — Carney v. Poindexter, 196
S.E. 639, 170 Va. 2>33.
34 C.J. p 182 note 26 [c], .p 183 note
35 [a], p 195 note 62 [a] (2), p
197 note 4 [a]-[d].
Proceedings after Judgment becomes
All proceedings in action at law
after office judgment becomes final
are nullity or should be set aside, so
as to give plaintiff benefit of judg-
ment, if proceedings are regular and
plaintiff's rights have not been
waived. — Carney v. Poindexter, su-
pra— Gring v. Lake Drummond Canal
& Water Co., 67 SJBL 360. 110 Va.
754.
89. Va. — Dillard v. Thornton, 29
Gratt 392, 70 Va. 392— Turnbull v.
Thompson, 27 Gratt. 306, 68 Va.
(306.
34 C.J. p 198 note &
90. Va. — Dillard v. Thornton, 29
Gratt •392, 70 Va. 392.
91. 'U.S.— fiiccarello v. Jos. Schlitz
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
219
plead to issue at any time before the order for in-
quiry of damages is executed.92
Wa:ver. Plaintiff may waive the benefit of such
statute so as to prevent the office judgment from
becoming final by operation of the statute,93 and it
cannot thereafter become final until it is entered up
as the judgment of the court.94
Affidavits or proof. Under some statutes final
judgment cannot be entered up for plaintiff, in an
action for the recovery of money arising out of
contract until he, his agent, or his attorney has
filed an affidavit stating the amount he believes to
be due him, or proved his case in open court,95
Such affidavit may be filed at any time before judg-
ment is entered,96 except that if plaintiff desires to
prevent defendant from filing a plea without affi-
davit he must file his affidavit before the plea is
filed.97 If plaintiff has filed such an affidavit, no
plea can be filed by defendant unless he files there-
with, as required by statute, an affidavit denying
that any sum is due from him to plaintiff, or stat-
ing that the amount due is less than that stated by
plaintiff,98 or unless plaintiff waives the benefit of
such requirement.99
IX. JUDGMENT ON MOTION OE SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS
§ 219. In General
Judgment on motion or In a summary proceeding
is permissible in some instances at common law and
In oases covered by statutes providing therefor.
The common law admits of a judgment on mo-
tion or a summary proceeding for judgment in a
few instances,1 such as in case of contempt of court,
as is discussed in Contempt § 62, or in a case to
compel an attorney to pay money over to his cli-
ent, as is discussed in Attorney and Client § 159;
and, where funds in the custody of a court are lent
out by order of the court, the borrowers obedience
to an order requiring the return of the money may
be enforced by a judgment entered against him on
a 'mere motion.2 In most instances, however, such
a remedy is regarded as being in derogation of the
common law, and exists only under the authority
of statutory enactments,3 which in some jurisdic-
tions provide in certain cases for a special summary
proceeding for judgment on notice and motion,4
and in other jurisdictions provide that, after issue
is joined by the pleadings in certain kinds of ac-
tions, summary judgment for either party may be
had on motion where the moving party substanti-
ates his claim or defense by affidavit and the other
party fails to show the existence of triable issues
of fact warranting a trial.5
Brewing: Co., D.C.W.Va,, 1 F.R.D.
491.
34 C.J. p 198 note 7.
92. U.S. — Ciccarello v. Jos. Schlitz
Brewing Co., supra.
34 C.J. p 195 note 62 [a] (1), p 198
note 8.
9& Va,— Pollard v. American Stone
Co., «8 S.E. 2fr6, 111 Va, 147.
34 O.J. P 198 note 9.
94. W.Va,— James v. Gott, 47 S.E.
649, S5 W.Va. 223.
95. W.Va.— Bell v. Tormey, 67 S.E.
1086, 67 W.Va, 1.
34 C.J. p 198 note 13.
Specific Items
An affidavit Is not defective as a
whole 'because in addition to stating
a sum certain It contains specific
divisible items not recoverable as a
matter of law. — Pineville -First Nat.
Bank v. Sanders, »8 S.B. 187, 77 W.
Va, 716.
Record
It is not necessary to make the
facts proved, or the -evidence, a part
of the record, in case of a Judgment
by default; and if any part of the
evidence is referred to in the Judg-
ment, this of itself is insufficient to
preclude the fact that other evidence
might have been heard by the court,
49 0. J.S.— 25
unless it affirmatively appears from
the record that this was all the evi-
dence heard by the court. — Anderson
v. Doolittle, 18 S.E. 724, 88 W.Va,
629.
96. W.Va.— Marstiller v. Ward, 43 S.
E. 178, 52 W.Va, 74— Quesenberry
v. People's Building; -Loan & Sav-
ings Ass'n, -30 S.EL 7*3, 44 W.Va,
512.
97. W.Va, — Phoenix Assur. Co. v.
Fristoe, 44 S.B. 253, 5$ W.Va. 361.
34 C.J. p 198 note 15.
98. Va,— Price v/ Marks, 48 &B.
499, 103 Va, 18.
34 C.J. p 198 note 16.
99. W.Va.— Williamson, v. Nigh, 53
S.-E. 124, 58 W.Va, 629.
<34 C.J. p 198 note 17.
1. Tenn. — Ex parte Craighea4, 12
Heisk. 640.
2. Tenn. — Vaughn v. Tealey, CStuA.,
39 S.W. S6S.
34 C.J. p 198 note 2*3.
3. Ark. — Cook v. Cramer Cotton Co.,
244 S.W. 7^0, 1*5 'Ark. 549.
34 C.J. p 198 note 24.
4. Va, — Shearin v. Virginia Electric
385
& Power Co., 29 S.B.2d 841, 1*2
Va, 57-3.
33 C.J. p 1065 note 70 — 34 C.J. p 193
note 26.
Procedure generally see infra 9 2*22.
5. Cal.— Cowan Oil & Refining Co.
v. Miley Petroleum Corporation,
295 P. 504, 112 Cal.App.Supp. 778.
N.T.— Aronstam v. Scientific Utilities
Co., 196 N.Y.S. 306, affirmed 199
K.Y.S. 908, 206 App.Div. 657.
R.L — Berick v. Curran, 179 A. 708,
55 R.I. 193.
Wis.— Witzko v. Koenig, 272 N.W.
864, 224 Wis. 674.
History
"In a general way, our summary
judgment statute traces its origin
to the English Summary Procedure
on Bills of Exchange Act, 18 & 19
Viet c. 67, passed in IS 55. . . .
In the United States provisions sim-
ilar to the English rules have been
adopted in a number of states, either
by statute or by rule of court.
Whenever variations are found, they
are traceable to local conditions or
Judicial structure. An examination
of the so-called summary Judgment
laws both In England and In this
country shows that the purpose of
such laws was to regulate -procedure,
and not to create & new right in fa-
219
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
Statutes providing for judgment on motion in
certain cases have generally been held valid,6 and
it has been held that, although they should not be
extended by construction,? they should be liberally
construed to effectuate their purpose.8 The power
given to grant a summary judgment must be exer-
cised with care, and not be extended beyond its just
limits,9 and before a party is entitled to the benefit
of such a statutory remedy he should bring himself
squarely within the spirit and letter of the stat-
ute,10 and everything pertaining to the entry of
such a judgment must be done strictly according to
the provision which authorizes it.11 The remedy
is to be administered in the furtherance of justice.12
vor of a party plaintiff. They were
adopted to grant relief against proce
dural tactics interposed for delay
and not to substitute a new method
of trial where an issue of fact ex-
ists."-~JFisher v. Sun Underwriters
Ins. Co. of New York, 179 A. 702
704, 705, 55 R.I. 175, 103 A.L.R. 1097
"At common law, although false
and sham pleas could be stricken
out, the general issue could not be
inquired Into and eliminated. A de-
fendant had the right to plead the
general issue and thereby put the
plaintiff to his proof, irrespective of
whether or not he actually had a de-
fense to the claim made against
him."— 'Fisher v. Sun Underwriters
Ins. Co. of New York, supra.
Actions commenced prior to enact,
ment
Such a statutory provision, being
remedial, applies to actions com-
menced prior to the date of its en-
actment.— General Inv. Co. v. Inter-
barough Rapid Transit Co., 193 N.Y.
5. 903, 200 App.-Div. 794, affirmed 139
N.E. 216, 235 N.Y. 13*3— Peninsular
Transp. Co. v. Greater Britain Ins.
Co., Ltd., 193 N.Y.S. 885, reversed on
other grounds 198 N.Y.S. 886, 200
AppJMv. 695.
6. Cal. — Cowan Oil & Refining Co.
v. Miley Petroleum Corporation,
29'5 P. 504, 112 Cal.App.Supp. 773.
N.J.-HNolte v. Nannino, 154 A. 8-31,
107 N.J.Law 4-62.
N.Y.— Diamond v. Davis, 38 N.Y.S.2d
103, affirmed 39 N.Y.S.2d 412, first
case, 265 App.Div. 919, appeal de-
nied 41 N.Y,S.2d 191, first case,
265 App.Div. 1052, and affirmed 54
N.OB3.2d 683, first case, 292 N.Y.
552.
Alleged defects in summary judg-
ment law preventing subpoenaing of
adverse parties by defendant and not
requiring plaintiff's and defendant's
affidavits to be of same particularity
could not be urged by party not In-
jured thereby. — People's Wayne
County Bank v. Wolverine Box Co.,
230 N.W. 170, 250 Mich. 273, 69 A.
L.R. 1024.
Claims under veterans' legislation
However, It has been held that a
state statute providing for summary
judgment based on complaint and
affidavits in support of motion for
judgment without examination of
facts is repugnant to Tucker Act,
which manifests congressional intent
that claims under World War veter-
ans' legislation should not be treat* I
ed in a summary manner. — U. S. v.
Lindholm, C.C.A.Cal., 79 F.2d 784.
103 A.L.R. 213, followed in U. S. v.
Stevenson, 79 F.2d 788.
Consistency with other provisions
Rules of Civil Practice, rule 1113,
providing that an answer in certain
actions may be struck out, and judg-
ment entered thereon, on motion, and
the affidavit of plaintiff, or any other
person having knowledge of the
facts, justifying the cause of action,
and stating the amount claimed, and
his belief that there is no defense
to the action, unless defendant shall
show facts sufficient to entitle him
to defend, is not inconsistent with
Civ.Prac. Act § 422, providing that
an issue of fact arises on an alle-
gation, contained in an answer, that
defendant has no sufficient knowl-
edge or information to form a belief
with respect to a material allegation
of the complaint, § 423, providing
that an "issue of fact must be tried
as prescribed in this article" (§§ 421-
471), and § 425, providing that, in an
action in which a complaint demands
a judgment for a sum of money only,
an issue of fact must be tried by a
jury, unless a jury trial is waived. —
Hanna v. Mitchell, 196 N.Y.S. 4'3, 202
App^Div. 504, affirmed 139 N.E. 724,
235 N.Y. 534.
7. Ala.-L.ewis v. Head, 189 So. 886,
2*38 Ala. 151 — Union Indemnity Co.
v. Freeman, 133 So. 48, 222 Ala,
479.
Strict construction required
Ala.— Harris v. Barber, 186 So. "160,
237 Ala. 1'38.
Qa.— Breen v. Phillips, 149 S.E. 565,
169 Ga. 1>3.
& N.Y. — Reddy v. Zurich General
Accident & Liability Ins. Co., 11
N.Y.S.2d 88, 171 Misc. 69.
Va. — Pereira v. Davis Financial
Agency, 135 S.B. 82-3, 146 Va. 215.
Dismissal of complaint
Rule of civil practice authorizing
dismissal of complaint on motion
'here answer sets forth a defense
which is sufficient as a matter of law
and is founded on facts established
prima facie by documentary evi-
dence or official record, should be lib-
erally construed to promote the ben-
eficial results intended. — Levine v.
Behn, 8 N.Y.S.2d 58, 169 Misc. «601,
affirmed 12 N.Y.S.2d 190, 257 App.
Div. 156, reversed on other grounds
25 N.B.2d 871, 282 N.Y. 1'20— Dia-
mond v. Davis, -38 N.Y.S.2d 103. af-
386
firmed 39 N.Y:S.2d 412, first case,
265 App.Div. 919, appeal denied 41
N.Y.S.2d 191, first case, 265 App.
Div. 1052, and affirmed 54 N.E.2d
68-3, first case, 292 N.Y. 552.
9. Cal.— Gibson v. De La Salle In-
stitute, 152 P.'2d 774, 66 Cal.App.2d
609.
Colo. — Hat field v. Barnes, 168 P.2d
552.
N.Y. — General Inv. Co. v. Interbor-
ough Rapid Transit Co., 139 N.E.
216, 2-35 N.T. 133— Norwich Pharm-
acal Co. v. Barrett, 200 N.Y.S. 298,
205 App.Div. 749 — Stone v. ^Btna
Life Ins. Co., -31 N.Y.S.2d 615, 178
Misc. 2*3 — Rodger v. Bliss, 223 N.
Y.S. 401, 130 Misc. 168— "First
Trust Co. of Albany v. Dumary, 23
N.Y.S.2d 532— Nester v. Nester, 19
N.Y.S.2d 426, reversed on other
grounds 22 N.Y.S.2d 119, 259 App.
Div. 10-65.
34 C.J. p 199 note 27.
"The procedure is drastic and
should be used with caution in or-
der -that it may not become a sub-
stitute for existing methods In the
determination of issues of fact." —
Eagle Oil & Refining Co. v. Prentice,
122 P.2d 264, 265, 19 Cal.2d 553.
10. Ala.— Union Indemnity Co. v.
Freeman, 13-3 So. 48, 222 Ala. 479.
111. — Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea
Co. v. Town of Bremen, €4 N.B.2d
220, 327 Ill.A'pp. '393.
Md.— Katski v. Triplett, 30 A.2d 764,
181 Md. 545— Power v. Allied As-
phalt Products Corporation, 159 A.
2-51, 162 Md. 175.
N.Y.— Conyne v. McGibbon, 37 N.Y.
S.2d 590, 179 Misc. 54, transferred,
see 39 N.Y.S.2d 609, 265 App.Div.
976, and affirmed 41 N.Y.S:2d 189,
266 App.Div. 711— Macomber v.
Wilkinson, 6 N.Y.S.2d 608.
Pa.— iLassiter v. Style Shop, Com.
PL, 28 Del.Co. 418.
R.I.— Fisher v. Sun Underwriters
Ins. Co. of New York, 179 A. 702,
55 R.I. 175, 103 A.L.R. 1097.
34 C.J. p 199 note 28.
11. N.Y.— Universal Credit Co. v.
Uggla, 290 N.Y.S. 365, 248 App.Div.
8*48, motion denied 290 N.Y.S. 997,
248 Ap-pjDiv. 529, amended on other
i grounds 298 N.Y.S. 158, 251 App.
Div. 78-6.
[34 C.J. p 199 note 29.
12. N.Y.— Curry v. Mackenzie, 146
375, 239 N.Y. 267.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 219
Nature and purpose of statutes. . Statutes in some
jurisdictions permitting the filing of a notice of mo-
tion for judgment in lieu of filing a declaration in
an action at law are intended to give plaintiff a
simpler, cheaper, and more expeditious mode of
procedure than is provided by a regular common-
law action.13 Other statutes providing for sum-
mary judgment in actions instituted in the normal
manner where no triable issue of fact is disclosed
after consideration of affidavits of the parties are
intended to further the prompt administration of
justice,14 and expedite litigation16 by avoiding need-
less trials;16 and they enable a party speedily to
obtain a judgment by preventing the interposition
of unmeritorious defenses "for purposes of delay.17
The object of the proceedings provided by such
statutes is to determine whether a defense genu-
inely exists18 and whether there is an issue of fact
warranting submission of the case to the jury.19
On the other hand, such statutes were not intended
to furnish 'an easy medium to plaintiff by which he
might avoid the inconvenience and uncertainty of
a trial ; they do not provide a new method for the
consideration and determination by the court of
questions of law in advance of a trial on the facts
contrary to established practice20 or provide a sub-
stitute for existing methods in the determination of
issues of fact.21 Moreover, the statutory procedure
for judgment on motion was not intended as a
test for the sufficiency of pleadings22 or to supplant
a demurrer or motion to make pleadings more defi-
nite and certain.23
13. Va.— Shearin v. Virginia Elec-
tric & Power Co., 29 S.E.2d 841,
' 182 Va. 5 T3 — Pereira v. Davis
Financial Agency, 135 S.E. 823, 146
Va. 215.
34 C.J. p 199 note 30.
14. N.Y. — First Trust Co. of Albany
v. Dumary, 2& N.Y.-S.2d 532.
H.I. — (Fisher v. Sun Underwriters
Ins. Co. of New York, 179 A. 702,
705, 55 R.I. 175, 10'3 A.L.R. 1097.
Other statements of purpose
(1) The purpose is to simplify
court practice and eliminate tech-
nicalities and formalism serving no
useful purpose. — Simson v. Bugman,
45 N.Y.S.2d 140.
(2) The object of statute is to
regulate procedure and to aid the
court in promoting Justice by elim-
inating so far as possible fictitious
defenses. — Minuto v. Metropolitan
Life Ins. Co., 179 A. 713, 55 R.I. 201.
(3) The object is to provide for
speedy collection of debts by requir-
ing from -plaintiff and defendant a
definite sworn statement of the claim
and the defense, if any, so that par-
ties may know exactly wherein they
differ and shape their action accord-
ingly.—Katski v. Triplett, <30 A.2d
764, 181 Md. 545.
15. U.S. — Prudential Ins, Co. of
America v. Goldstein, D.C.N.Y., 43
P. Sup p. 767.
N.Y.— -Glove City Amusement Co. v.
Smalley Chain Theatres, 4 .N.Y.S.
2d «397, 167 Misc. 603— Halpern v.
Lavine, 60 N.Y.S.2d 121.
Wis.— Binsfeld v. Home Mut Ins.
Co., 19 N.W.2d 240, 247 Wis. 273.
le. 111.— Puckett v. American -Life
of Illinois, 1:3 N.EL2d 828, 294 I1L
App. 605.
N.Y. — Chance v. Guaranty Trust Co.
of New York, 20 N.Y.S.2d 635, 173
Misc. 754, affirmed 13 N.Y.S.2d 785,
257 Ajpp.Div. 1006, affirmed 26 N.B.
2d 802, 282 N.Y. 656— -Dr. A. Pos-
ner Shoes v. Vogel, 198 N.Y.S.
m.
Wis.— Potts v. Farmers' Mut Auto-
mobile Ins. Co., 289 N.W. 606, 2'33
Wis. 313.
17. Cal. — Bank of America Nat.
Trust & Savings Ass'n v. Oil Well
Supply Co. of California, 55 P.2d
885, 12 Cal.App.2d 265.
Mass.— Norwood Morris Plan Co. T.
(McCarthy, 4 N.'E.2d 450, 295 Mass.
597, 107 A.L.R. 1215.
N.Y.— McAnsh v. Blauner, 226 N.Y.S.
379, 222 App.I>iv. 381, affirmed, 162
N.B. 515, 248 N.Y. 537— Hurwitz v.
Corn Exchange Bank Trust Co.,
25'3 N.Y.S. 851, 142 Misc. -398—
Western Felt Works v. Modern
Carpet Cleaning & Storage Corpo-
ration, 252 N.Y.S. 69-6, 141 Misc.
495.
Wis.— Costello v. Polenska, 7 N.W.2d
59*3, 242 Wis. 204, modified on oth-
er grounds 8 N.W.2d <307, 242 Wis.
204— Atlas Inv. Co. v. Christ 2 N.
W.2d 714, 240 Wis. 114— Prime
Mfg. Co. v. A. F. Gallun & Sons
Corporation, 281 N.W. 697, 229 Wis.
348.
•34 C.J. -p 199 note 4L
Separation of matter in denial
Object of motion for summary
Judgment is to separate what is
formal or pretended in denial from
what is genuine and substantial. —
Richard v. Qredit Suisse, 152 N.E.
110, 242 N.Y.' 346, 45 AJL.R. 1041.
18. I1L— Security Discount Corpora-
tions. Jackson, 51 N.E.2d 618, 320
IlLApp. 440— Harris v. Oxford
Metal Spinning Co., 43 N.B.2d 186,
315 Ill.A'pp. 490— Shirley v. Ellis
Drier Co., 89 N.E.2d 329, 379 111.
105 — Diversey Liquidating Corpo-
ration v. Neunkirchen, 19 N.B.2d
(3-63, -370 I1L 523.
19. I1L — Macks v. Macks, -67 N.-E.2d
505, 329 HLApp. 144— Barkhausen
V. Naugher, 64 N.E.2d 561, 327 I1L
A#p. 555— IPblasi v. Western &
Southern Life Ins. Co., 64 N.E.2d
387
233, 327 IlLApp. 412 — Great Atlan-
tic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Town of
Bremen, 64 N,E.2d 220, $27 HI.
App. 39*3— (Fellheimer v. Wess, 45
N.E.2d 89, 316 HLApp. 449— Soelke
v. Chicago Business Men's Racing
Ass'xv 41 N.E.2d 232, '314 IlLApp.
3136 — GUwa v. Washington Polish
Loan & Building Ass'n, 34 N.E.2d
73'6, 310 IlLApp. 465— Mee v.
Marks, 26 N.B.2d 516, 304 IlLApp.
'370.
Mich. — People's Wayne County Bank
v. Wolverine Box Co., 230 N.W. 170,
2-50 Mich. 275, 69 A.L.R. 1024.
N.Y.— Ecker v. Muzysh, 19 N.Y.S.2d
250, 259 App.Div. 206 — First Nat.
Bank of Dolgeville, N. Y., v. Mang,
41 N.Y.S.2d 92— (Macomber v. Wil-
kinson, « N.Y.S.2d 608.
20. R.L — Minuto v. Metropolitan
Life Ins. Co., 179 A. 716, 55 R.L
201— 'Fisher v. Sun Underwriters
Ins. Co. of New York, 179 A. 702,
55 R.L 175, 103 A.L.R. 1097.
Trial by affidavit
It is not purpose of summary
Judgment statute to substitute a tri-
al by affidavit for a trial according
to law.
R.I. — Goucher v. Herr, 14 A.2d 651,
65 R.I. 246.
Wis.— McLaughlin v. Malnar, 297 N.
W. 370, 237 Wis. 492.
2L CaL— Walsh v. Walsh, 116 P.2d
62, 18 CaL2d 439 — Gibson v. De tLa
Salle Institute, 152 P.2d 774, 66
CaLA'pp.Sd 609.
UL — Soelke v. Chicago Business
Men's Racing Ass'n, 41 N.'E.2d 232,
314 IlLApp. 3136.
R.L— Berick v. fiurran, 173 A. 708,
55 R.X 193.
22. CaL— Eagle Oil & Refining Co. v.
Prentice. 122 P.2d 264. 19 Cal.2d
553.
23. Wis.— McLoughlin v. Malnar,
297 N.W. 370, 237 Wis, 492.
§220
§ 220.
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
Cases in Which Allowed
a. In general
b. Particular actions
c. As determined by issues
a. In General
As a general rule, summary Judgment on motion wM
be granted only In cases or under circumstances clearly
covered by the statute or court rule, and, where It Is
so provided, the remedy Is available to both the plain-
tiff and the defendant, on original causes of action OP
counterclaims, and judgment may be obtained for part
cf a claim.
Except in so far as such remedy is permitted by
the common law, a summary judgment on motion
will be granted only in cases, or under circum-
stances, covered by the terms of the statute or court-
rule.24 The statutes generally limit summary pro-
cedure to simple cases,25 where the moving party's
right to judgment is clear and free from doubt.2&
24. Ala,— Lewis v. Head, 189 So.
886, 238 Ala, 151— Union Indem-
nity Co. v. Freeman, 133 So. 48, 222
Ala, 479.
Del.— Edsall v. Rockland Paper Co.,
194 A. 115, 8 W.W.Harr. 495.
Idaho. — Union Central Life Ins. Co.
v. Albrethsen, 294 P. 842, 50 Idaho
196.
HI. — Ward v. Sampson, 6$ N.E.2d
751, 391 111. 585.
N.Y.— Newurk Fire Ins. Co. v. Brill,
29-6 N.Y.S. 707, 251 App.Div. 399—
Bethlehem Knitting Mills v.. fl.
Karpen & Bros., 292 N.Y.S. 754,
249 App.Div. 855— *Fiscella v. Frid-
man, 7 N.Y.S.2d 544, 169 Misc. 327
— Ben Bimberg & Co. v. Unity Coat
& Apron Co., 270 N.Y.S. 579, 151
Misc. 442 — Rodger v. Bliss, 223 N.
'Y.S. 401, 1'30 Misc. 168 — Lawrence
Textile Corporation v. American
Ry. Express Co., 211 N.T.S. 699,
125 Misc. 858 — George F. Hinrichs,
Inc., v. City of New York, 201 N.
Y.S. 377, 121 Misc. 592, affirmed
207 N.Y.S. 852, 212 App.Div. 816
and affirmed 209 N.Y.S. 836, 213
App.Div. 863— Tenny v. Tenny, 36
' N.Y.S.2d 704— Borenstein v. Buffalo
Hat Co., -33 N.Y.S.2d 60.
Pa. — Bellevue Park Ass'n v. Lipp-
man, Com.Pl., 54 Dauph.Co. 163—
(McVeigh v. Scranton-Spring Brook
Water Service Co., Com.Pl., 44
Lack.Jur. 20-5.
S.C.— Anderson v. Gage, 23 S.C.L.
319.
Tex.— -Grubstake Inv. Ass'n v. Wor-
ley, Civ.App., 116 S.W.2d 47'2, er-
ror dismissed.
Wis. — Prey v. Allard, 300 N.W. 13,
289 Wis. 151 — McLoughlin v. Mal-
nar, 297 N.W. 370, 237 Wis. 492.
34 C. J. p 199 notes 34-86.
In action to vacate an order on
ground that it is unlawful or unrea-
sonable, as on appeal from revoca-
tion of architect's license, no motion
for summary Judgment is necessary
and there is no occasion to supple-
ment the record by affidavits filed by
both parties io support motions for
summary Judgment. — Kuehnel v
Wisconsin Registration Board of
Architects and Professional Engi-
neers, 9 N.W.2d 630, 243 Wis. 188.
Corts
Th,e provision of municipal court
code that, within limits of Jurisdic-
tion defined in the code, the court
shall have power to render any Judg- |
ment that is consistent with a case |
made by the pleadings and embraced
within the issues, does not author-
ize the granting of summary Judg-
ment against a party who has failed
to pay costs assessed against him
in a prior action.— Ebel v. Ast, 21 N.
Y.S.2d 7-68, afcpeal granted 23 N.Y.
S.2d 47-6, 260 App.Div. 870.
Validity of cause of action
The validity or invalidity of the
cause of action on which the motion
for summary Judgment was made
depends on the facts existing at the
time the action was commenced, or,
at least, at the time the motion was
made.— Poritzky v. Wachtel, 27 N.Y.
S.2d 316, 176 Misc. 633.
25. 111. — Ward v. Sampson, 63 N.B.
2d 7-51, 391 111. 585— Soelke v. Chi-
cago Business Men's Racing Ass'n,
41 N.B.2d 2!32, 314 IlLApp. 336—
Gliwa v. Washington Polish Loan
& Building Ass'n, 34 N.E.2d 736,
•310 IlLApp. 465.
Pa. — Malter v. Whitehall, Com.Pl.,
2 DeLCo. 442.
Actions in special assnmpsit
. Generally, remedy by summary
Judgment is applicable to commer-
cial cases and to simple actions in
assuntpsit, but actions in special as-
sumpsit involving complicated facts
difficult to establish by means of
affidavits are outside scope of stat-
ute.—Fisher v. Sun Underwriters
Ins. Co. of New York, 179 A. 702, 55
ILL 175, 103 A.L.R. 1097.
26. Ariz.— Cress v. Switzer, 150 P.
2d 86, 61 Ariz. 405.
111.— Scharf v. Waters, 66 N.E.2d 499,
•328 IlLApp. 525 — Bertlee Co. v. Il-
linois Publishing & Printing Co.,
52 N.E.2d 47, 320 IlLApp. . 490—
Security Discount Corporation v,
Jackson, 51 N.E.2d 618, 320 111,
App. 440 — Fellheimer v. Wess, 45
N.E.2d 89, 316 IlLApp. 449— Gliwa
v. Washington Polish Loan &
Building Ass'n, 34 N.E.2d 7=36, 310
IlLApp. 465.
N.Y.— Sorensen vw East River Sav
Inst., 196 N.Y.S. 361, 119 Misc. 297
Pa. — Ockman v. Jones Mach. Too!
Works, 4-5 A.2d 47— Ockman v
Jones Mach. Tool Works, $7 A.2d
" 5<38, 349 Pa. $27— Bacher v. C.ity
Nat Bank of Philadelphia, 31 A
2d T25, 347 Pa. 80— Koehring Co
v. Ventresca, 6 A.2d 297, $34 Pa.
388
566— Miller v. Adonlzio, 6 A.2d 77,
334 Pa. 286— Aultman v. City of
Pittsburgh, 192 A. 112, 326 Pa. 213
— Drummond v. Parrlsh, 182 A.
•3S3, 320 Pa. 307— Moran v. Balr.
156 A. 81, 304 Pa. 471— -Vierling v.
Baxter, 141 A. 728, 293 Pa. 52—
Smith v. Miller, 137 A. 254, 289 Pa.
184— Holladay v. Fidler, 4'3 A.2d
919, 158 Pa.Super. 100 — Jordan v.
Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 1&
A.2d 485, 144 Pa.Super. 3 — Blieden
v. Toll, 12 A.2d 487, 139 Pa.Super.
436 — Societe Anonyme Des Estab-
lissements J. Peraro v. Loewe, 157
A. 509, 103 Pa.Super. 526 — Gregory
v. Russo, 87 Pa.'Su»per. 5*37 — Mehr-
kam v. Schlegel & Williamson, Inc.,
5 Pa.Dist. & Co. -668, 10 Lehigh Co.
L.R. 368, 39 York Leg.Rec. 28—
Farmers-Kissinger Market House
Co. v. Garman, Com.PL, 36 Berks
Q0t 149 — Hess v. McMahon, Com.
PL, 32 DeLCo. 5-28— Allen v. Berg-
doll, Com.PL, 32 DeLCo. -343, 12
Som.Leg.J. 38— Kennedy v. Upper
Darby ' Building & Loan Ass'n,
Com.PL, 29 DeLCo. 247— (Lindholm
v. Wiley Const Co., Oom.Pl., 49
Lanc.L.Rev. 126— Macheska v. Pas-
ternak, Com.PL, 46 Lack.Jur. 30—
Kies v. Town Hall Co., Com.PL, 44
'Lack.Jur. 241 — Regan v. City of
Scranton, Com.PL, 44 Lack.Jur.
210, 35 Mun.L.R. 59— New York
Credit Men's Ass'n v. Boyan, 37
Luz.Leg.Reg. 214— Warlong Glove
Mfg. Co. v. Sam til Co., Oom.PL, 35
•Luz.Leg.Reg. 240— 'First Nat. Bank
in Greensburg, v. Serro, Com.PL,
26 WestCo. 69— Gisburne v. Pe-
troleum Transport Co., Com.PL, 65
York Leg.Rec. 165.
Wis.— Marco v. Whiting, 12 N.W.2d
92-6, 244 Wis. 621— Prime Mfg. Co.
v. A. F. Gallun & Sons Corporation,
281 N.W. 697, 229 Wis. 348.
Doubt should be resolved against
right to summary Judgment
Cal. — Gibson v. De La Salle Institute,
152 P.2d 774, 66 Cal.App.2d 609.
Colo. — Hatfleld v. Barnes, 168 P.2d
552.
Pa.-^Ottman v. Nixon-Nirdlinger, 151
A. 879, 301 Pa. 234— Armstrong v.
Connelly, 149 A. 87, 299 Pa, Si-
Davis v. Investment .Land Co., 146
A. 119, 296 Pa. 449.
R.'L— Goucher r. Heir, 14 A.2d 651,
65 ILL 246.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 220
Whether a case is of such a nature as to permit
application of the statutory procedure rests largely
in the trial judge's discretion.27 The statutory rem-
edy of summary judgment where no triable issue is
shown to exist is available to defendant as well as
to plaintiff,28 but defendant's remedy is generally
limited to the kinds of actions in which plaintiff
could have secured such judgment,29 except to the
extent that the statute permits defendant to move
for summary judgment in other actions.30
Counterclaims. As a general rule, summary judg-
ment procedure is applicable to defendant's coun-
terclaims as well as to original actions, so that ei-
ther party may move with respect to the same as
though the counterclaim were an independent ac-
tion.81 Where the statute authorizes summary
judgment only in certain kinds of actions, as is
discussed infra subdivision b of this section, the
counterclaim must be based on a cause of the kind
specified,82 but, if it is of such a kind, summary
judgment may be obtained even though the main
action is not of the kind in which summary judg-
ment could be granted.33
Partial judgment. Under some statutes or court
rules, if it appears that defendant's defense applies
only to a part of plaintiffs claim, or admits a part
of it, plaintiff may have judgment on motion for
so much of his claim as such defense does not apply
to34 or as is admitted without qualification;35 and
such recovery may be had where the amount is ad-
27. 111. — Gliwa v. Washington Po-
lish Loan & Building Ass'n, 34 N.
B.2d 736, 310 IlLApp. 465.
N.Y.— New York Cent. R. Co. v. Gil-
lespie, 16 N.Y.S.2d 618, 172 Misc.
112.
28. U.S. — MacNamara & Wadbrook
Trading Co. v. Royal Ins. Co., D.C.
N.Y., 288 F. 985.
N.Y.— Chester v. Chester, 13 N.Y.S.
2d 502, 171 Misc. 608— Rainville
v. Keil, 26-6 N.Y.S. $67, 148 Misc.
795.
Wis. — Binsfeld v. Home Mut Ins.
Co., 19 N.W.2d 240, 247 Wis. 273.
Defendant's right to judgment as de-
termined by issues see infra sub-
division c (2) of this section.
Judgment agfainrt interpleaded par.
ties
Defendant may contest plaintiffs
motion for summary judgment
against it and at the same time move
for summary judgment against in-
terpleaded parties in the event that
summary judgment is awarded
against it.— William J. Conners Oar
Co. v. Manufacturers' & Traders'
Nat Bank of Buffalo, 209 N.Y.'S. 406,
124 Misc. 584, affirmed 210 N.Y.S.
939, 114 App.Div. 811.
29. N.Y. — Dumont v. Raymond, 49
NiY.S.2d 865, affirmed 56 N.Y.S.
592,. 269 App.Div. 592.
30. N.Y.— Levine v. Behn, 25 N.'B.2d
871, 282 N.Y. 120— Simson v. Bug-
man, 45 N.Y.S.2d 140.
Defense founded on documentary ev-
idence
Where case does not fall within
any of the eight classes specifically
enumerated in first paragraph of rule
of civil practice governing summary
judgment, defendants' authority to
move- for summary judgment may be
found in the paragraph governing
summary judgment where defense
founded on facts established prima
facie by documentary evidence or
official record. — Levine v. Behn, 25
N.B.2d 871, 382 N.Y. 120— (Lederer v.
Wise Shoe Co., 12 K.B.2d 544, 276 N.
Y. 459, 852, disapproving Felberose
Holding Corporation v. New York
Rapid Transit Corporation, 279 N.
Y.S. 645, 244 App.Div:. 427— Waiters
v. Watters, 19 N.Y.S.2d 995, 259 App.
Div. 611— White v. Merchants Des-
patch Transp. Co., 10 N.Y.S.2d 962,
25 App.Div. 1044 — Pross v. -Founda-
tion Properties, 285 N.Y.S. 79'6, 158
Misc. 304.
31. N.Y.— Stein v. W. T. Grant Co.,
56 N.Y.'S.2d 582. 269 App.Div. 909
— Dell'0ss6 v. Everett, 197 N.Y.S.
423, 119 Misc. 502, modified on oth-
er grounds 200 N.Y.S. 840, 206 App.
Div. 718, appeal dismissed 144 N.
B. 887, 238 N.Y. 551— Zaveloff v.
Zaveloff, 37 N.Y.S.M 46.
Effect of counterclaim on plaintiff's
motion for summary judgment on
his cause of action see infra sub-
division c (1) of this section.
Conditions under which Judgment
granted
Court rule fixing conditions under
which summary judgment may be
granted applies to counterclaims as
well as to defenses. — Salt Springs
Nat Bank of Syracuse v. Hitchcock,
259 N.Y.S. 24, 144 Misc. 547, reversed
on other grounds 263 N.Y.S. 55, 238
App.Div. 150.
32. N.Y. — Macomber v. Wilkinson, 6
N.Y.S.2d 608.
33. N.Y. — Macomber v. Wilkinson,
supra.
In summary proceeding1 by land-
lord wherein tenant filed counter-
claim for injuries caused by deleteri-
ous gas escaping from an electrical
refrigerator on the premises, fact
that a summary judgment awarding
the premises to landlord could not
be granted did not preclude testing
the sufficiency of the counterclaim
under rule of civil practice provid-
ing for summary judgment in speci-
fied cases.— Macom'ber v. Wilkinson,
supra.
34. U.S.— Tractor & Equipment Cor-
poration v. Chain Belt Co., D.G.N.
Y., 50 F.Supp. 1001.
389
N.Y.— Mayfair Detectives v. Karp
Metal Products Co., 35 N.Y.«S.2d
544, 264 App.Div. 410— Amalgamat-
ed Bank of New York v. Lancto, 28
N.Y.S.2d 944, 176 Misc. 754— Cou-
denhove-Kalergl v. Dieterle, 36 N.
Y.S.2d 313.
34 C.J. p 200 note 52.
Actions to which applicable
Provisions of rule limiting sum-
mary Judgment to certain actions ap-
ply to partial judgment — Berson
Sydeman Co. v. Waumbeck Mfg. Co.,
208 N.Y.S. 716, 21'2 App.Div. 422—
Hilbring v. Mooney, 223 N.Y.S. 303,
1'30 Misc. 273— 34 C.J. p 200 note 50
Ca].
Severing1 cause of action
The severing of first cause of ac-
tion and granting summary judg-
ment on second cause of action was
improper, where amount of damages
under second cause of action might
affect defendant's liability under first
cause of action, and the whole claim
should be considered at one time. —
Cavagnaro v. Bowman, 34 N.Y.S.2d
637, 2'64 App.Div. 118, appeal denied
36 N.Y.S.2d 187, 264 AppaDiv. 853.
35. N.Y.— Fleder T. Itkin, 60 N.B.2d
753, 294 N.Y. 77— Mayfair Detec-
tives v. Karp Metal Products Co.,
35 N.Y.S.-2d 544, 364 App.Div. 410—
Sheehan v. Andrew Cone General
Advertising Agency, 29 N.Y.S.2d
•317, 176 Misc. 882— Friedman v.
Equitable Life Assur. «Soc. of U. S.,
274 N.Y.S. 851, 133 Misc. 349—
Barber v. Warland, 247 N.Y.S. 455,
139 Misc. 398— Finkel v. Affom
Holding Corporation, 46 N.Y.S,2d
378— Kaminsky v. Rich, 10 N.Y.S.
2d 503.
Pa. — 'Mesharrer v. Lewis, Com.Pl., 88
Luz.Leg.Reg. 530.
'34 C.J. p 200 note 51.
Judgment on admission in pleadings
generally see supra $ 185.
Defense enabling1 delay in recovery
A plaintiff may recover judgment
forthwith where defendant admits
that he has no defense on merits to
§ 220
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
mitted to be due on the same transaction which
forms the basis of plaintiff's claim, notwithstanding
the admission of liability is predicated on a cause
of action different from that alleged in the com-
plaint, or on different terms concerning the same
type of action.36 However, a motion for partial
judgment must be denied where the amount due is
disputed37 or where the amount tendered by de-
fendant was not accepted.38 If defendant's motion
for summary judgment applies only to one or more
of several causes of action or to one or more of
several parties plaintiff, and his contentions are
sufficient to dispose of the claims of the complaint
in such part, defendant may have final judgment
forthwith dismissing the complaint to the extent
warranted, and the action may be severed;39 but
defendant is not entitled to partial summary judg-
ment for certain alleged items of damage set forth
in the complaint where only a single cause of ac-
tion is alleged and other items of damage remain
for determination.40
b. Particular Actions
(1) In general
(2) Liquidated or unliquidated claims
(1) In General
The remedy of summary Judgment Is available only
In the kinds of actions provided for by the statute or
court rule, and, within limitations, such provisions
usually extend to actions at law or equity, and to causes,
based on contract.
Generally the remedy of summary judgment is
available only in such actions as are within the
terms of the statute or court rule.41 If the statute
so provides, summary judgment may be granted in
actions at law42 or in equity,43 but the action must
be otherwise one permitted by the statute, as where
the remedy is further restricted to liquidated de-
mands, as is discussed infra subdivision b (2) of
this section, and under some statutes the remedy is
not available in equitable actions other than those
particularly specified.44 The statutes usually apply
part of plaintiff's claim, although he
may have a defense which might en-
able him to defeat recovery on the
cause of action stated and to delay
recovery even for the part of the
claim which defendant is admittedly
bound to pay immediately. — OHeder
V. Itkin, 60 N.E.2d 753, 294 N.T. 77.
36. N.T. — Sheehan v. Andrew Cone
General Advertising Agency, 29 N.
T.S.2d 317, 176 Misc. 882.
37. N.T.— Hilbring v. Mooney, 223
N.T.S. 303, 130 Misc. 273.
Accord and satisfaction
One suing for purchase price of
goods sold and delivered was not en-
titled to a partial summary judg-
ment on ground that buyer had ad-
mitted liability for a specific amount
for whicn it had sent its check be-
fore commencement of action, where
allegations of defense of buyer, if
proven upon trial, would establish
accord and satisfaction. — Capitol
Coal Corporation v. Juneglory Realty
Corporation, 281 N.T.S. 947, 156 Misc.
631.
38. N.T. — Hilbring v. Mooney, 223
N.T.S. 'SOS, 180 Misc. 2T3.
3d. N.T. — Boyan v. General Time
Instruments Corporation, 47 N.T.S.
2d 29, 267 App.Div. 908— Goldman
v. Nu-Boro Park Cleaners, 41 N.T.
S.2d 59'2, 266 App.Div. 780, appeal
denied 43 N.T.6.'2d 635, two cases,
266 App.Div. 85-6 — Winkler v. Com-
pania Sud Americana De Vapores,
41 N.TjS.2d 67, 180 Misc. 181—
Druckerman v. Harbord, 29 N.T.
S.24 370.
40. N.T.— 'Luotto v. (Field, 63 N.E.
2d 53, 294 N.T. 460— Dumont v.
Raymond, 49 N.T.S.2d 865, affirmed
56 N.T.S.2d 592, 269 App.Div. 592.
41. Ark.— Craig v. Collier, 244 S.W.
717, 15'5 Ark. 538.
111. — Gliwa v. Washington Polish
Loan & Building Ass'n, 34 N.E.2d
736, 310 IlLApp. 465. .
Mich. — Detroit Trust Co. v. City of
Detroit, 227 N.W. 71-5, 248 Mich.
612.
N.T.— Tracy v. Danzinger, 291 N.T.S.
113, 249 Apfr.Div. 4'6— 108 Park
Ave. Co. v. Exchange Buffet Cor-
poration, 197 N.T.S. 42'2, 203 App.
Dlv. 739 — Resource Holding Corpo-
ration v. Nitke, 239 N.T.S. 26, 13-6
Misc. 139.
W.Va. — Mountain State Water Co. v.
Town of Kingwood, 1 S.E.2d 395,
121 W.Va. 66.
Wis.— Winter v. Trepte, 290 N.W.
599, 234 Wis. 193.
'34 C.J. p 200 note 54.
Particular actions in which sum-
mary judgment allowed:
Against:
Collectors of taxes and revenues
see the C.J.'S. title Taxation §5
670, 682, also 61 C.J. p 1026
notes 1(3-18, p 1036 notes 25-
43.
(Defaulting:
Attorney charged with collec-
tion of money for his client
see Attorney and Client §
159.
Officers and their sureties see
the C.J.S. title Officers §§
12-3, 167, also 46 Q.J. p 1042
notes 75-35, p 1075 note 20-p
1076 note 33.
Sheriffs and constables see the
C.J.S. title Sheriffs and Con-
stables §§ 168-172, 192, also 57
C.J. p 980 note 3-p 997 note
56, p 1046 note 8-p 10*57 note
35.
Stipulators see Admiralty § 2,85.
390
Particular actions in which sum-
mary Judgment allowed — Cont'd
Against— Cont'd
Sureties see the C.J.S. title Prin-
cipal and Surety § 277, also 50
C.J. p 224 notes 30-32.
For costs see Costs § 181.
In favor of surety against his
principal whose debts surety has
had to pay see the C.J.S. title
Principal and Surety § 337, also
'50 C.J. p 263 note 82-p 2*64 note
8.
On appeal bond see Appeal and
Error §§ 2087-2094.
To recover on bill or note see
Bills and Notes § 527.
Collection of excise tax
While ordinarily as between pri-
vate litigants a notice of motion
can be employed only to recover
money due on contract, under stat-
ute relating to collection of claims
due the state, state could proceed
by notice of motion for collection of
gasoline excise tax and penalties. —
State v. Penn Oak 6il & Gas, W.Va.,
36 S.E.2d 595.
42. Mich. — Robertson v. New Tork
Life Ins. Co., 19 N.E.2d 498, 312
Mich. 92, certiorari denied 66 S.Ct.
470, 326 U.S. 786, 90 L.Ed. .
rehearing denied 66 S.Ct. 896.
Va.— Plckeral v. Federal Land Bank
of Baltimore, 15 SJB.2d 82, 177 Va.
743.
43. 111.— Fisher v. Hargrave, 48 N.E.
2d 966, 318 IlLApp. €10.
44. N.T. — Tracy v. Danzinger, 291
N.T.S. 113, 249 App.Div. 46—103
Park Ave. Co. v. Exchange Buffet
Corporation, 197. N.T.S. 422, 203
App.Div. 739— People v. AUender
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
220
to actions on contracts express or implied in fact
or in law,45 and are sometimes restricted in ap-
plication to actions of such a nature.46 In some
states,47 but not in others,48 summary procedure
may be used in tort actions.
The remedy of summary judgment has been held
available in various particular actions such as for
an accounting49 arising on a written contract,50 for
ejectment,51 to recover possession of a specific chat-
tel,52 for forcible entry and detainer,53 for specific
performance of a contract for the sale and pur-
chase of specific property,54 to enforce or foreclose
a lien or mortgage,55 and In an action on a statute
Co., 43 N.Y.S.Sd 685, 181 Misc. 307
— Fiscella v. Fridman, 7 N.Y.S.2d
544, 169 Misc. 327.
34 C.J. p 200 note 54 [b] (1).
Reformation of instrument is
function of court of equity and not
of court of law on motion for sum-
mary judgment. — Comas Holding
Corporation v. Handel, 265 N.T.S.
873, 14.8 Misc. 439.
46. TIL — Eagle Indemnity Co. v.
Haaker, 33 N.E.2d 154, 309 Ill.App.
-•406.
N.Y.— Pribyl v. Van Loan & Co., 26
N.T.S.2d 1, 261 App.Div. 503, re-
argument denied 27 N.Y.S.2d 992,
2ff2 App.Div. 711, affirmed 40 N.E.
2d 36, 287 N.Y. 749— Title Guaran-
tee & Trust Co. v. Smith, 213 N.Y.
S. 730, 21'5 App.Div. 448— Hughes
v. Frank M. Murphy, Inc., 6 N.Y.
S.2d $33, 169 Misc. 239.
W.Va. — Mountain State Water Co.
v. Town of Kingwood, 1 S.B.2d 395,
121 W.Va. 66 — Lambert v. Morton,
160 S.E. 223, 111 W.Va. 25.
Wis. — Jefferson Gardens v. Terzan,
257 N.W. 154, 21'6 Wis. 230.
Actions held within statute or rule
(1) Action to recover tax paid un-
der protest— National Bond & Share
Corporation v. Hoey, D.C.N.Y., 14 F.
Supp. 787.
(2) Action to recover amount due
because of bank stockholders double
liability.— Schafer v. Bellin Memorial
Hospital of Wisconsin Conference of
Methodist Episcopal Church, 264 N.
W. 177, 219 Wis. 495.
(3) A suit for accounting on the-
ory that by agreement defendants or
their predecessors in interest as-
sumed liabilities of dissolved bro-
kerage firm with which plaintiff had
dealt.— Fisher v. Hargrave, 48 N.B.2d
966, 318 Ill.App. 510.
Waiver of tort
Rule authorizing summary Judg-
ment is applicable to proceeding aris-
ing out of wrongful taking, where
plaintiff waived tort and proceeded
on implied contract. — Bishop v.
Spector, 269 N.Y.S. • 76, 1'50 Misc. 860.
Third-party beneficiary
Plaintiff seeking to enforce a con-
tract as third-party beneficiary is
asserting a contract right within
statute authorizing summary judg-
ments.— Rifkln v. Safenovitz, 40 A.
2d 188, 131 Conn. 411.
All cases not within statute
Under some statutes proceedings
for summary judgment are not ap-
plicable in all cases founded on con-
tract.— Goucher v. Herr, 14 A.2d 651,
65 R.I. 246.
46. W.Va.— City of Beckley v. Craig-
head, 24 S.B.2d 908, 125 W.Va. 484.
A municipal special assessment for
the cost of street paving did not
create a "contractual obligation" as
against the owners of abutting lots.
-rCity of Moundsville v. Brown, 25
S.E.2d 900, 125 W.Va. 779.
Damages
Notice of motion for judgment on
Justice's official bond is not proper
procedure to enforce claim sounding
in damages.— White v. Conley, 152 S.
E. 527, 108 W.Va. 658.
47. Mich.— Robertson v. New York
Life Ins. Co., 19 N.W.2d 49,8, 312
Mich. 92, certiorari denied 66 S.Ct,
470, 326 U.S. 786, 90 L.Ed. , re-
hearing denied 66 S.Ct 896.
48. N.Y.— Allegro for Children T.
Weisbrod, 18 N.Y.S.2d 369.
Summary judgment held unavailable
(1) In action for conversion. —
Formel v. National City Bank of
New York, 273 N.Y.S. 817, 152 Misc.
275 — Rothman v. Charles D. Strang,
Inc., 273 N.Y.S. 816, 152 Misc. 606
— Allegro for Children v. Weisbrod,
18 N.Y.S.2d 369.
, (2) In action for negligence re-
sulting in damage to personal prop-
erty.— Ottone v. American London
Shrinkers Corp., 55 N.Y.S.2d 243.
49. 111.— Fisher v. Hargrave, 48 NJ3.
2d 96-6, 318 Hl.App. 510.
50. N.Y.— City Bank Fanners' Trust
Co. v. Charity Organization Soc.
of City of New York, 265 N.Y.S.
267, 238 App.Div. 720, affirmed 191
NJD. 504, 204 N.Y. 441.
Accounting not under contract
Summary judgment cannot be
granted plaintiffs in action for ac-
counting, where they do not rely on
written contract — Ben Bimberg- &
Co. v. Unity Coat & Apron Co., 270
N.Y.S. 579, 151 Misc. 442.
51. N.J.— Milberg v. Keuthe, 121 A.
713, 98 N.J.Law 779.
Alternative procedural remedy
The code section, extending right
to proceed by motion for judgment
in ail cases where action at law of
any kind would lie, includes alterna-
tive procedural remedy to common-
law action of ejectment, that is, pe-
tition to establish boundary lines,
which partakes of legal nature of
391
such action and Is governed much
by like legal principles and rules. —
Pickeral v. Federal Land Bank of
Baltimore, 15 S.E.2d 82, 177 Va, 743.
52. N.Y.— Le Fevre v. Reliable Paint
Supply Co., 275 N.Y.S. 903, 152
Misc. 594.
Action in conversion for damages
for unlawful repossession of auto-
mobile is not one to recover posses-
sion of specific chattel so as to war-
rant granting of motion for sum-
mary judgment— Gilbert v. Gotham
Credit Corporation, 273 N.Y.S. 81'5,
152 Misc. 59,8.
Prior to change in statute, sum-
mary judgment could not be obtained
in a replevin action. — New York Yel-
low Cab Co. Sales Agency v. Wein-
berg, 222 N.Y.S. 862, 220 App.Div.
761.
5a HI. — Killian v. Welfare Engi-
neering Co., 66 NJB.2d 305, 328 HI.
App. 375— Wainscott v. Penikoff, 4
N.E.2d 511, 287 IlLApp. 78.
54. N.Y.— Bennett v. Ritchie, 55 N.
Y.S.2d 820, 269 App.Div. 851.
A contrary role prevailed prior to
amendment of rule of civij practice
specifically permitting summary
judgment in such actions. — Morris
v. Dorfmann, 233 N.Y.S. 460, 226 App.
Div. 695.
Action not within rule
(1) An action for specific perform-
ance of a contract, under which de-
fendant allegedly agreed that on
plaintiff's return from the armed
forces defendant would return to
plaintiff the taxi business which had
been transferred to defendant, was
not an action for specific perform-
ance of a contract for the sale and
purchase of specific property or to
recover possession of a specific chat-
tel which could be disposed of on
motion for summary judgment —
Bennett v. Ritchie, 65 N.Y.S.2d 820,
9 App.Dlv. 851.
(2) The statutes do not compre-
hend actions to compel specific per-
formance of an alleged agreement of
an insurer to reinstate a policy ter-
minated by failure of plaintiff to pay
premiums. — Lias v. Continental Cas-
ualty Co., 284 N.Y.S. 304, 245 App.
Div. 670.
55. N.Y.— City of New Rochelle v.
Echo Bay Waterfront Corp., *49 N.
Y.S.2d 673, 268. App.Div. 182, cer-
tiorari denied Echo Bay Water-
front Corp. v. City of New Ro-
chelle, 66 S.Ct. 24, 826 U.S. 720, 00
§ 220
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
where the sum sought to be recovered is a sum of
money other than a penalty.56
On the other hand, summary judgment procedure
has been held inapplicable to special proceedings,57
such as mandamus,58 an action against a state in
the court of claims,59 or summary proceedings by
a landlord to recover possession of premises,60 or
in actions or proceedings for a declaratory judg-
ment,61 to partition realty,62 to quiet title,63 to es-
tablish a claim against a decedent's estate,64 to have
a trustee's compensation determined,65 to recover
attorney's fees,66 or to levy on the earnings or in-
come, of a judgment debtor.67 Summary judgment
under ~a state statute is not authorized in suits in
the federal courts on claims under veterans' legis-
lation.68
(2) Liquidated or Unliquidated Claims
The statutes or court rules authorizing summary
Judgment usually apply to actions to recover a debt or
liquidated demand arising on a contract or judgment
and are sometimes restricted to such actions, but some
provisions also authorize the remedy In suits to recover
on an unliquidated claim.
The statutes or court rules authorizing the entry
of judgment on motion where no triable issue is
raised in response to the affidavits of the moving
party usually apply to actions to recover a debt
or liquidated demand arising on a contract express
or implied in fact or in law,69 or arising on a judg-
L.Ed. . Affirmed 60 N.B.2d 838,
294 N.Y. 67S— Reddy v. Zurich
General Accident & Liability Ins.
Co., 11 N.Y.S.2d 88, 171 Misc. 69.
Summary Judgment is not avail-
able in such an action under statutes
in some jurisdictions. — Slama v.
Dehmel, 257 N.W. 163, 216 Wis. 224.
Prior to change in rule, summary
judgment could not be obtained in
such an action. — Toner v. Ehrgott,
285 N.Y.S. 17, 226 App.Div. 244—
Reed v. Neu-Pro Const. Corporation,
234 N.T.S. 400, 22*6 App.Div. 70— Se-
curities Acceptance Corporation v.
E. M. Kane Co., 196 N.Y.S. -519, 119
Misc. 354, affirmed 201 N.T.S. 945,
207 App.Div. 840 — Savad v. Schwartz,
241 N.Y.S. 729^34 C.J. p 200 note 54
£b] (2).^
Suits 'under mechanic's lien act
are within court rule authorizing
summary judgment. — Nolte v. Nan-
nino, 154 A. 831, 107 N.J.Law 462.
56. N.Y.— Ehlers v. Blood, 22 N.Y.S.
2d 999.
Failure to honor execution
Action against judgment debtor's
employer for failure to honor execu-
tion against employee's earnings is
one founded on statute within text
rule. — Rosenberg v. Parlay Hats, 258
N.Y.S. 949, 144 Misc. 519.
Action not within rule
Rule did not apply to an action
brought under the general corpora-
tion law to compel individual to ac-
count to corporation for management
and disposition of assets of corpora-
tion.— Fiscella v. Fridman, 7 N.Y.S.
2d 544, 169 Misc. 827.
Action held one to recover penalty
N.Y.— Wachtel v. Schelberg, 59 N.Y.
S.2d 846, 186 Misc. 406.
57. CaL — Loveland v. City of Oak-
land, 159 P.2d 70, 69 Cal.App.2d
399.
58. Cal.— Loveland v. City of Oak-
land, supra.
60. N.Y.— Muccino v. State, 300 N.
Y.S. 247, 164 Misc. 918.
60. N.Y.— In re Wendel's Estate, 266
N.Y.S. 694, 148 Misc. 912—905
West End Ave. Corp. v. Peers, 195
N.Y.S. 86, 118 Misc. 754— Gardella
v. Hagoplan, 28 N.Y.S.2d 250, re-
versed on other grounds 31 N.Y.S.
2d 450, 263 App.Div. 816— Macomb-
er v. Wilkinson, 6 N.Y.S.2d 608 —
Alexander v. O'Brien, 6 N.Y.S.2d
61'4.
61. N.Y.— Tiernan Realty Co. v. Ti-
tle Guarantee & Trust Co., 28 N.
Y.S.2d 920, 176 Misc. 1071— Spauld-
ing v. Hotchkiss, 62 N.Y.S.2d 151.
62. N.Y.— Lowe v. Plalnfield Trust
Co. of Plainfield, N. J., 215 N.Y.S.
50, 216 App.Div. 72— Zaveloff v.
Zaveloff, 37 N.Y.S.2d 4-6.
63. 111. — Ward v. Sampson, 63 N.E.
2d 751, 391 111. 585.
Wis.— Loehr v. Stenz, 263 N.W. 373,
219 Wis. 361.
64. Mich. — Caswell v. Stearns, 241
N.W. 165, 257 Mich. 461.
65. Mich.— In re Stott's Estate, 239
N.W. i336, 256 Mich. 281.
66. Mich. — BIsbee v. Wetmore, 241
N.W. 162, 257 Mich. 178.
67. N.Y. — Royco Realty Corporation
v. Farber, 22*5 N.Y.S. 688, 131 Misc.
46.
68. U.S.— U. S. v. Lindholm, C.C.A.
Cal., 79 F.2d 784, 103. A.L..R. 213,
followed in U. S. v. Stevenson, 79
F.2d 788.
69. Cal. — Haupt v. Charlie's Kosher
Market,- 112 P.2d 627, 17 Cal^d 843.
N.Y. — United Products Corporation
of America v. Standard Textile
Products Co., 231 N.Y.S. 115, 224
App.Div. 371 — Hurwitz v. Corn Ex-
change Bank Trust Co., 253 N.Y.S.
851, 142 Misc. 39,8— Haiss v.
Schmukler, 201 N.Y.S. 332, 121
Misc. 574— Garlick v. Garlick, 63
N.Y.S.2d m— David S. .Stern Cor-
poration v. Richard Nathan Cor-
poration, 42 N.Y.S.2d 249— Zaveloff
v. Zaveloff, 87 N.Y.S.2d 46.
34 C.J. p 199 note 48.
Particular claims within statute or
court rule
Cl) Action for rent due. — American
392
Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago
v. National Mineral Co., 63 N.E.2d
142, 326 IlLApp. 597.
(2) Action to recover initial pay-
ment on realty. — Perloff v. Island
Development Co., 133 A. 178, 4 N.J.
Misc. 473.
(3) Action to recover deposit and
fees for s-earching title. — Grossman
v. Brick, 139 A. 490, 5 N.J.Misc. 1016.
(4) Action for services on quan-
tum meruit. — Jacobs v. Korpus, 218
N.Y.S. 314, 128 Misc. 445.
(5) Action on provision in obliga-
tion for payment of reasonable at-
torney's fees.
N.Y. — Waxman v. Williamson, 175
N.E. 534, 256 N.Y. 117, amendment
of remittitur denied 177 N.E. 151,
'256 N.Y. 687.
R.I. — Morris Pfetn Co. of Rhode Is-
land v. Whitman, 150 A. 610, 51
R.I. 24,
(6) Other actions.
Conn. — Rifkin v. Safenovitz, 40 A.
' 2d 188, 131 Conn. 411.
N.Y.— Weisberg v. Art Work Shop,
235 N.Y.S. 8, 22.6 App.Div. 532, af-
firmed 170 N.E. 147, 252 N.Y. 572.
Wis.— Unmack v. McGovern, 296 N.
W. 66, 236 Wis. 639.
Actions held not within statute or
court rule
(1) An action by a tenant of stalls
in a public market to recover in-
creased rent paid under protest, un-
der threat to revoke license. — George
F. Hinrichs, Inc., v. City of New
York, 201 N.Y.S. 377, 121 Misc. 592,
affirmed 207 N.Y.'S. 8152, 212 App.
Div. 816 and affirmed 203 N.Y.S. 836,
213 App.Div. 863, affirmed 152 N.E.
413, 242 N.Y. 527.
(2) Action for damages against
landlord for breach pf covenant of
quiet enjoyment. — Paul v. Mantell,
•247 N.Y.S. 452, 139 Misc. 395.
(3) Other actions* — Joseph Mogul,
Inc., v. C. Lewis Lavine, Inc., 159 N.
E. 70S, 247 N.Y. 20, 57 A.KR. 934—
Nagle v. Rubin, 247 N.Y.S. 786, 231
App.Div. 462 — Schwed v. E. N. Ken-
nedy, Inc., 221 N.Y.S. 179, 220 App.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 220
ment for a stated sum.70 The words "debt" or
"liquidated demand" as used in the statutes are not
to be given a constricted interpretation, although
they should not be stretched to include a cause of
action outside the main purpose of the enactment.71
The suit ordinarily must be one founded on express
or implied contract to pay a sum which is certain
or readily reducible to certainty,72 and, while it has
been held that proceedings for summary judgment
are applicable in any action in which recovery is
sought under the indebitatus counts,78 they are not
applicable in every action in assumpsit7* Some
statutes do not extend the summary judgment pro-
cedure to an action for unliquidated damages!75
even though no defense is disclosed by the an-
swer ;76 but other statutes or court rules make the
remedy available in an action to recover an unliqui-
dated debt or demand for a sum of money arising
on express or implied contract77
c. As Determined By Issues
(1) In general
(2) On motion by defendant
(3) Particular causes and issues
(1) In General
Under statutes and court rules authorizing summary
Judgment where affidavits are tendered in support of
the claim and the opposing party fails to present facts
establishing a triable issue, the court will grant the
motion if no such issue i* disclosed, even though the
answer presents a counterclaim; but it will deny the
motion If a triable issue of fact is raised as to a valid
defense even though such defense Is not properly
pleaded.
Under various statutes and court rules authoriz-
ing summary judgment where the moving party
files an affidavit in support of his claim or defense
and the opposing party fails to present any facts
giving rise to any triable issue or defense, the right
to judgment depends on the nonexistence of a gen-
uine issue warranting a trial,78 and not merely on
Div. 189— Buffalo Gaiety Theatre Co.
v. Indemnity Ins. Co. of North Amer-
ica, 219 N.T.S. 212, 218 App.Div. 6*9
— Apfel v. Auditore, 216 N.T.S. 795,
217 App.Div. 724, appeal dismissed
155 N.B. 875, 244 N.T. BO 7— Nor-
wich Pharmacal Co. v. Barrett, 200
N.T.S. 298, 205 App.Div. 749— Law-
rence Textile Corporation v. Amer-
ican Ry. Express Co., 211 N.T.S. 699,
125 Misc. 858— State Realty Co. v.
Post, 206 N.T.S. 718, 128 Misc. 92«
— Haiss v. Schmukler, 201 N.T.S.
882, 121 Misc. 574.
Demand for ram of money
(1) Motions for judgment will be
entertained only for the recovery
of money based on contract — Moun-
tain State Water Co. v. Town of
Kingwood. 1 S.E.2d $96, 121 W.Va.
66.
(2) A mandate proceeding to com-
pel payment of pension to fireman's
widow, when pension trustees had
refused to recognize widow's right,
was not a "demand for a sum of
money only" within statute govern-
ing summary judgment. — Loveland
v. City of Oakland, 169 P.2d 70, 69
CaLApp.2d 899.
70. N.T.— Tenny v. Tenny, 36 N.T.
S.2d 704.
An action for arrears of Alimony
under a foreign decree is not cov-
ered by statute authorizing summary
judgment in "actions to recover a
debt or liquidated demand arising on
a judgment for a stated sum."—
Southard v. Southard, 232 N.T.S. 891,
138 Misc. 2-59— Tenny v. Tenny, 36
N.T.S:2d 704.
71. Mass. — Norwood Morris Plan
Co.-v. McCarthy, 4 N.-E.2d 450, 295
Mass. 597, 107 A.L.R. 1215.
Debt
(1) Notes containing unconditional
promise to pay sum certain in money
with unconditional promise to pay
plaintiff reasonable attorney's fee
was a "debt" — Norwood Morris Plan
Co. v. McCarthy, supra.
C2) Action held not one on debt. —
Schaffer Stores Co. v. Sweet, 228 N.
T.S. 599, 132 Misc. 38.
72. N.T.— Paul v. Mantell, 247 N.T.
S. 452, 139 Misc. 39*5.
latical calculations
Amount claimed to be due is a
"liquidated demand" within statute
authorizing summary judgments if It
is susceptible of being made certain
in amount by mathematical calcula-
tions, from factors which are or
ought to be in possession or knowl-
edge of party to be charged. — Rifkin
v. Safenovitz, 40 A.2d 188, 131 Conn.
411.
73. N.T.— Waxman v. Williamson,
175 NJS. 534, 2B6 N.T. 117, amend-
ment of remittitur denied 177- N.E.
151, 256 N.T. 5*7.
ILL— Fisher v. Sun Underwriters
Ins. Co. of New Tork, 179 A. 702,
5*5 ILL 175, 103 A.L.R. 1097— Henry
W. Cooke Co. v. Sheldon, 164 A,
327, 53 ILL 101.
34 C.J. p 201 note 5*5.
74, ILL— Beriok v. Curran, 179 A.
' 708, 55 R.I. 193— Fisher T. Sun
Underwriters Ins. Co. of New
Tork, 179 A. 702, 5-5 ILL 175, 103
A.L.R. 1097,
Basis of recovery
Generally the basis for "assump-
sit" is not recovery under a contract,
but recovery of damages for a con-
tract's breach, while a "notice of mo-
tion for judgment" is for recovery of
money due under and by virtue of a
393.
contract — City of Moundsville v.
Brown, 25 S.K2d 900, 125 W.Va. 779.
75. Mass. — Norwood Morris Plan Co.
v. McCarthy, 4 N.B.2d 450, 295
Mass. 597, 107 A.L.R. 1215.
Mich. — Hecfcer Products Corporation
v. Transamerican Freight Lines,
296 N.W. 297, 296 Mich. 381.
R.I.— Goucher v. Herr, 14 A.2d 651,
65 R.X 246 — Fisher v. Sun Under-
writers Ins. Co. of N£W Tork, 179
A. 702. 65 R.L 175. 108 A.L.R. 1W7.
34 C.J. p 201 note 56.
78. Idaho.--Welch v. Bigger, 18* P.
381, 24 Idaho 169.
77. Cal. — Bank of America Nat
Trust & Savings Ass'n v. Oil Well
Supply Co. of California, 55 P.2d
885, 12 Cal.App.2d 265.
In New Tori
(1) The text rule now prevails. —
Aiken Mills v. Boss Mfg. Co., 265 N.
T.S. 555, 238 App.Div. 60S.
(2) Prior to the amendment of
the court rules in 1932, summary
judgment could hot be obtained in
an action to recover unliquidated
damages. — Interstate Pulp & Paper
Co. v. New Tork Tribune, 202 N.T.S.
232, 207 App.Div. 453— Norwich
Pharmacal Co. v. Barrett 200 N.T.S.
298, 205 App.Div. 749 — Golden State
Fruit Distributors v. Shambro, 232
N.T.S. 338. 183 Misc. 561.
Ta, Cal.— Walsh v. Walsh, 116 P.2d
62, 18 CaL2d 439.
N.T.— Piedmont Hotel Co. v. A. E.
Nettleton Co., 188 N.B. 14$, 068
N.T. 25— Curry v. Mackenzie, 1'4'6
N;B. 375, 239 N.T. 267— Miorin V.
Miorin, 13 N.T.S.2d 705, 257 App.
Div. 556, reargument denied 14 N.
T.S.2d H>03, 257 AppJDiv. 1034—
Moir v. Johnson, 207 N.T.S. 850,
211 App.Dlv. 427— -Rit* Carlton
220
JUDGMENTS
49 O.J.S.
whether the pleadings join issue.79 In passing on
such a motion, the court is not authorized to try
an issue of fact between the parties,80 but is to
determine whether or not there is an issue to be
tried;8! and whether under the facts defendant is
entitled to defend.*2 If it is apparent from the op-
posing affidavits or other pleadings and proof that
there is a substantial issue between the parties, a
Restaurant & Hotel Co. v. Ditmars,
197 N.T.S. 40*5, 203 App.Div. 748—
American Surety Co. of New York
v. Empire Trust Co., 217 N.T.S.
673, 128 Misc. 116— Peabody v. In-
terborough Rapid Transit Co., 209
N.T.S. 376, 124 Misc. 801, affirmed
- 209 N.T.S. 893, 213 App.Div. 857,
affirmed 148 N.E. 768, 240 N.T.
708— First Trust Co. of Albany v.
Dumary, 23 N.T.S.2d 552.
79. 111. — Roberts v. Sauerman Bros.,
•20 N.E.2d 849, 300 IlLApp. 213.
Joinder presupposed
Ordinarily a motion for summary
judgment presupposes that the
pleadings properly join issue.— Rob-
erts v. Sauerman Bros., supra.
Tlu mere service of an, amended
answer after plaintiff moves for
summary Judgment will not of it-
self defeat the motion, but the case
may be considered on the amended
pleadings and the affidavits in sup-
port thereof. — Standard Factors
Corp. v. Kreisler, 53 N.T.S.2d 871.
Affirmed 56 N.T.S.2d 414, 269 App.
Div. 830.
80. • U.S.— Schrara v. Clair, D.C.N.T,
28 F.Supp. 422.
Gal.— Arnold v. Hibernia Savings &
Loan Soc., 146 P.2d 684, 23 Cal.2d
741— Eagle Oil & Refining Co. v.
Pretxtice, 122 P.2d 2«4, 19 CaUd
553— Walsh v. Walsh, 116 P.2d 62,
18 Cal.2d 439 — Slocum v. Nelson
App., 163 P.2d 888.
111. — Molner v. Schaefle, 58 K.B.2d
744, 324 IlLApp. 589.
N.T. — Irving Trust Co. v. Anahma
Realty Corporation, 85 N.B.2d 21,
•2*5 N.T. 416— Brooklyn Fire Brick
Works v. Brooklyn Contractors
Machinery Exchange, 47 N.T.S.2d
229, 181 Misc. 662— Tokohama Spe-
cie Bank, Limited, New Tork
Agency, v. Milljert Importing Co.,
44 N.T.S.2d 71, 182 Misc. 281— Hav-
ens v. Rochester Ropes, Inc., 89 N.
T.S.2d 4'44, 179 Misc. 889, affirmed
41 N.T.S.2d 180, 266 App.Div. 672
appeal denied 41 N.T.S.JJd 907, 266
'tApp.Div. 692 — Neptune Meter Co
v Long Island Water Meter Re-
pair Co., 39 N.T.S.2d 325, 179 Misc.
445 — Community Volunteer Fire
Co. of NImmonsburg v. City Nat
Bank of Binghamton, 14 N.T.S.2d
306, 171 Misc. 1027— Falk v. Em
pire State Degree of Honor o:
Stockton, 246 N.T.S. -649, 138 Misc.
697— New Tork Post Corp. v. Kel
ley, 61 N.T.S.2d 264, affirmed
Hearst Consolidated Publications
v. Kelley, 61 N.T.S.2d 762, 27
App.Div. 916, appeal granted 6
N.T.S.'2d W.4, 270 App.Div, 928
New Tork Sun v. Kelley, 62 N.T.
S.2d 614, 270 App.Div. 924, New
Tork World Telegram Corp. v.
Kelley, 62 N.T.S.2d 614, 270 App.
Div. 924, and New Tork Post Corp.
v. Kelley. 62 N.T.S.2d 615, 270
App.Div. 923 — Robinov v. Homier
Progressive Soc., 52 N.T.S.2d 39,
affirmed -56 N.T.$.2d 413, 269 App.
Div. 832— Gardella v. Hagopian, 28
N.T.S.2d 250, reversed on other
grounds 31 N.T.S.2d 450, 263 App.
Div. 816— Spiegel vt U. S. Lines
Co., 27 N.T.S.2d 631— Biloz v. Tioga
County Patrons' Fire Relief Ass'n,
21 N.T.S.2d 643, affirmed 23 N.T.S.
2d 460, 260 App.Div. 976— Dr. A.
Posner, Shoes, v. Vogel, 198 N.T.S.
233.
R.I.— Berick v. Curran, 179 A. 708, 55
R.I. 193.
Wis.— Parish v. Awschu Properties,
19 N.W.2d 276, 247 Wis. 166.
34 CJT. p 201 note 60.
OL U.S.— U. S. v. Stephanidis, D.C.
N.T., 41 F.2d 958.
Cal.— Arnold v. Hibernia Savings &
Loan Soc., 146 P.2d 684, 25 Cal.2d
741— Eagle Oil & Refining Co. v.
Prentice, 12T2 P.2d 264, 19 CaL2d
553— Walsh v. Walsh, 116 P.2d 62,
18 Cal.2d 439— Slocum v. Nelson,
App., 163 P.2d 888— Loveland v.
City of. Oakland, 159 P.2d 70, 69
Cal.App.2d 399— Security-First Nat
Bank of Los Angeles v. Cryer, 104
P.2d 66, 39 Cal.App.2d 757— Kelly
v. Liddicoat, 96 P.2d 186, $5 CaL
App.2d 559— Shea v. Leonis, 84 P.
2d 277, 29 Cal.App.2d 1S4.
111.— Scharf v. Waters, 66 N.E.2d 499,
328 IlLApp. 525— Bertlee Co. v, Il-
linois Publishing & Printing Co.,
52 N.B.2d 47, 320 IlLApp. 490.
Mass. — Norwood Morris Plan Co. v,
McCarthy, 4 N.E.2d 450, 295 Mass.
597, 107 A.L.R. 1215.
Mich.— Bed v. Fallon, 12 N.W.2d 396
307 Mich. 466 — People's Wayne
County Bank of Dearborn v. Har-
vey, 255 N.W. 436, 268 Mich. 47—
Baxter v. Szucs, 227 N.W. -666, 248
Mich. 672.
N.T.— Miorin v. Miorin, 13 N.T.S.2d
705, 257 App.Div. 556, reargument
denied 14 N.T.S.2d 100*3, 267 App
Div. 1084— Camp-Of-The-Pines v
New Tork Times Co., 53 N.T.S.2d
475, 18'4 Misc. 389— First Trust Co
of Albany v. Arnold, 39 N.T.S>2
1T5, 179 Misc. 349— Edward F
Dibble Seedgrower v. Jones, 223 N
T.S. 785, 130 Misc. 359— Rodger
v. Bliss, 223 N.T.S. 40-1, 130 Misc.
168 — Tchlenoff v. Jacobs, 4'4 N.T
S.2d 38, affirmed 46 N.T.S.2d 875
267 App.Div. 908, appeal denied 4
N.T.S.2.d 451. 267 AppJMv. . 98
affirmed 60 N.E.2d 32, 293 N.T. 904
394
— First Nat. Bank of Dolgeville,
N. T.. v. Mang, 41 N.T.S.2d 92—
Biloz v. Tioga County Patrons'
Fire Relief Ass'n, 21 N.T.S.2d 643,
affirmed 23 N.T.S.2d 460, 260 App.
Div. 976 — Krauss v. Central Ins.
Co. of Baltimore, 40 N.T.S.2d 736—
Erie County Sav. Bank v. Garson,
33 N.T.S.2d 142— Nester v. Nester,
19 N.T.S.2d 426, reversed on other
grounds 22 N.T.S.2d 119, 2-59 App.
Div. 1065 — Ludmerer v. New Tork
Life Ins. Co., 19 N.T.S.2d 272.
R.I.— Minuto v. Metropolitan Life
Ins. Co., 179 A. 713, €5 R.I. 201—
Berick v. Curran, 179 A. 708, 5'5 R.
I. 193— Fisher v. Sun Underwrit-
ers Ins. Co. of New Tork, 179 A.
702, 55 R.L 175, 103 A.L.R. 1097,
Wis. — Potts v. Farmers' Mut Auto-
mobile Ins. Co., 289 N.W. 606, 233
Wis. 313— Prime Mfg. Co. v. A. F.
Gallun & Sons Corporation, 281
N.W. 697, 229 Wis. 3<48.
34 C.J. p 201 note 61.
Court determines Whether there is
real defense
N.T. — Connor v. Commercial Travel-
ers Mut. Accident Ass'n of Ameri-
ca, 287 N.T.S. 416, 247 App.Div.
352 — Cleg-horn v. Ocean Accident &
Guarantee Corporation, Limited, of
London, 21*5 N.T.S. 127, 216 App.
Div. 342, modified on other grounds
155 N.B. 87, 244 N.T. 166— Securi-
ty Finance Co. v. Stuart, 224 N.
T.S. 257, 130 Misc. 538.
82. N.T.— Hamilton Fire Ins. Co. v.
Greger, 218 N.T.S. 534, 218 App.
Div. 556, reversed on other grounds
158 N.E.- 60, 246 N.T. 162, S5 A.L.R.
921— Rogan v. Consolidated Cop-,
permines Co., 193 N.T.S. 163, 117,
Misc. 718.
The test of a motion for summary
judgment is whether the pleadings,
affidavits, and exhibits in support of
the motion are sufficient to overcome
the opposing papers and to justify
a finding as a matter of law that
there is no defense to the action. —
Nester v. Nester, 19 N.T.S.2d 436,
reversed on other grounds 22 N.T.S.
2d 119, 259 App.Div. 1065.
Protection of defendant
In proceedings for summary judg-
ment, defendant's right to present
his defense at a trial should be care-
fully protected. — Berick v. Curran,
179 A. 708, 55 R.I. 193.
Disclosure of defense
On plaintiff's motion for summary
judgment, defendant is not required
to disclose his entire defense, but
only so much as to show .that there
is an issue to be decided by the jury.
—La Pointe v. Wilson. 61 N.T.S.2d
64.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 220
judgment can be entered only after the trial of the
issue in regular course.83 In such a case defend-
ant should be given leave to defend84 and a mo-
ss. U.S.— Prudential Ins. Co. of
America v. Zorger, C.C.A.I11., 86
F.2d 4«46, 108 A.L.R. 498— Mary-
land Casualty Co. v. Sparks. C.C.
A.Mich., 76 P.2d 929 — Chase Nat
Bank of City of New Tork v. Burg,
D.C.Minn., 82 P.Supp. 230— Schen-
ley Distributors v. Wisconsin. Wine
& Spirit Import Corporation, D.C.
Wis., 28 F.Supp. 635.
Ariz. — Cress v. Switzer, 1'50 P.2d 86,
61 Ariz. 405— Hughes v. Union Oil
Co. of Arizona, 132 P.2d 640, 60
Ariz. 130.
Cal.— Walsh v. Walsh, 116 P.2d 62, 18
Cal.2d 439 — Gibson v. De La Salle
Institute, 152 P.2d 774, 66 CaLApP.
2d 609— Grady v. Easley, 114 P.2d
635, 45 Cal.App.2d 632.
111.— Bertlee Co. v. Illinois Publish-
ing & Printing Co., 52 N.B.2d 47,
320 IlLApp. 490.
N.T. — Gravenhorst v. Zimmerman,
139 N.B. 766, 236 N.T. 22, 27 A.L.
R. 1465— Greca v. De Luxe Dain-
ties, 61 N.T.S.2d 413, 270 App.Div.
907, appeal denied 62 N.T.S.2d 847,
270 App.Div. 9"44 — Sound Realty
Co. v. Nicholson, 27 N.T.S.2d 929,
262 App.Div. 81, reargument denied
29 N.T.S.2d 712, two cases, 262
App.Div. 848— Mills v. City of New
Tork, 27 N.T.S.2d 929, 262 App.
Div. 81, reargument denied 29 N.
Y.S.2d 712, 262 App.Div. 848— Far-
ber v. De Bruin, 2 N.T.S.2d 244,
253 App.Div. 909— Childs Co. v.
Stone, 240 N.T.S. 682, 228 App
Div. 546— Weinberg v. Goldstein,
235 N.T.S. 529, 226 App.Div. 479
—Leidy v. Procter, 235 N.T.S. 101,
226 App.Div. 322— H. C. King Mo-
tor Sales Corporation v. Allen, 204
N.T.S. SSS, 209 App.Div. 281—
Moers v. American Exch. Nat.
Bank, 203 N.T.S. 727, 208 App.Div.
473 — Brooklyn Clothing Corpora-
tion v. Fidelity-Phenix Fire Ins.
Co., 200 N.T.S. 208, 205 App.Div.
743 — mtz Carlton Restaurant &
Hotel Co. v. Ditmars, 197 N.T.S.
405, 203 AppJMv. 748— New Tork
Cent. R. Co. v. Gillespie, 16 N.T.S.
2d 618, 172 Misc. 112— National
City Bank of New Tork v. Bon
Ray Dance Frocks, 275 N.T.S. 510,
153 Misc. 549— Wm. H. Frear &
Co. v. Bailey, 214 N.T.S. 675, 127
Misc. 79— Macomber v, Wilkinson,
6 N.T.S.2d 608.
tion for a summary judgment should not be grant-
ed,85 especially where it would not dispose of an
. — Parish v. Awschu Properties
19 N.W.2d 276, 247 Wis. 166— At-
las Inv. Co. v. Christ, 2 N.W.2d
714, 240 Wis. 114.
34 C.J. P 201 note 63.
Adjudication a» to tame of fact
Where appellate court had held is-
sue .of fact raised by reply, issue re-
mained an issue of fact after filing,
of rejoinder traversing reply an<"
precluded entry of summary Judg-
ment— Harvester Building & Loan
Ass'n v. Hana & Simon Blbaum, 3
.2d 4'50, 1-21 N.J.Law 515.
L N.J.— - Louis S. Kaplan, Architect
v. Catlett 1 A.2d 884, 121 N.J.Law
201.
'4 C.J. p 201 note 64.
fatter of right
Where defendant flies an answer
presenting a good defense, and rea-
sonably supports the essential fac-
ual assertions of his answer by affi-
davit or other proofs, he is entitled
as a matter of right, and not of dis-
cretion or on terms, to have his an-
swer sustained as against a motion
for summary judgment. — Louis S.
Kaplan, Architect v. Catlett, supra.
85. U.S.— Schenley Distributors v.
Wisconsin Wine & Spirit Import
Corporation, D.CWis., 28 P.Supp.
63*5— Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New
York v. Patterson, D.C.N.T., 17
F.Supp. 416— Aufderheide v. Mine
Safety Appliance Co., D.C.Pa., 9
F.Supp. 918— U. S. v. Turner Milk
Co., D.C.I11., 1 F.R.D. 643.
Ariz.— Cress v. Switzer, 1*50 P.2d 86,
61 Ariz. 405.
Cal.— Walsh v. Walsh. 116 P.2d 62,
18 Cal.2d 459— Ross v. McDougal,
87 P.2d 709, 81 Cal.iApp.2d li4.
I1L— Shirley v. Ellis Drier Co., 39
N.E.2d 329, 379 111. 105— Diversey
Liquidating Corporation v. Neun-
kirchen, 19 N.E.2d 363, 370 111.
523, 120 A.L.R. 1395— C. L T. Cor-
poration v. Smith, 48 N.E.2d 735,
318 IlLApp. 642 — Shaw v. National
Life Co., 42 N.E.2d 885, 315 I1L
App. 210.
Mich.— Bullard Gage Co. v. Saflady,
11 N.W.2d 895, 807 Mich. 296—
Terre Haute Brewing Co. v. Gold-
berg, 289 N.W. 192, 291 Mich. 401
—McDonald v. Staples, 261 N.W
86, 271 Mich. 690.
N.T.— Werfel v. Zivnostenska Banka,
38 NJB.2d 382, 287 N.T. 91— Mc-
Carthy v. Pieret, 24 N.E.2d 102
2,81 N.T. 407, reargument denied
27 N.E.2d 207, 282 N.T. S'OO— Owen
T. Blumenthal, 19 N.B.2d 977, 280
N.T. 96— Muth v. Telenga, 191 N.B.
623, 264 N.T. 477— Vandeweghe v
City of New Tork, 189 N.E. 751,
263 N.T. 672— Brawer v. Mendelson
Bros. Factors, 186 N.E. 200, 202
N.T. 58, amended 188 N.E. 65
262 N.T. ff62— People's Nat Bank
& Trust Co. of White Plains v
Westchester County, 185 N.E. 405
161 N.T. 342, followed in Gramatan
Nat Bank A Trust Co. of Bronx-
villa v. Westchester County, 185 N
E. 773, 261 N.T. 640— Dam v. Dam,
61 N.T.S.2d 902. 268 App.Div. 601—
Gutterson v. Gutterson, 38 N.T.S
2d 9, 265 App.Div. 902— Goodman
v. W. W. Const Co., 82 N.T.S.2d
198, 263 App.Div. 879— Oleck v.
Blustein Wine & Liquor Store, 2S
N.T.S.2d 325, 262 App.Div. 870—
Jos. Riedel Glass Works v. Indem-
nity Ins. Co. of North America, 25
N.T.S.2d 46, 261 App.Div. 886, mo-
tion denied 27 N.T.S.2d 185, 261
App.Div. 956, motion denied 27
N.T.S.2d 189, 261 App.Div. 956,
appeal denied 27 N.T.S.2d 1013,
261 App.Div. 956 — Weinstein v.
Berg, 18 N.T.S.2d 496, 259 App.
Div. 741— Zabelle v. Gladstone, 8
N.T.S.2d 238, 25*5 App.Div. 953—
Lawrence, Blake & Jewell v. Rock-
hurst Realty Corporation, 8 N.T.
S.2d 202, 255 App.Div. 491— Elsman
v. Elsman, 28-4 N.T.S. 406, 245 APP.
Div. 699— Chase Nat Bank of City
of New Tork v. Wessell, 281 N.T.S.
146, 245 App.Div. 8-15 — Brooklyn
Nat. Bank of New Tork v. City
of Long Beach, 274 N.T.S. 799, 242
App.Div. 790 — Gellens v. Continen-
tal Bank & Trust Co. of New Tork,
272 N.T.S. 900, 2*41 App.Div. S91,
followed in Wiand v. Continental
Bank & Trust Co. of New Tork,
272 N.T.S. 903, 241 App.Div. 593,
and Twomey v. Continental Bank
& Trust Co. of New Tork, 272 N.
T.S. 904, 241 App.Div. 594— Gold
v. Smith, 272 N.T.S. 139, 242 App.
Div. 643, amended on other
grounds 275 N.T.S. 542, 242 App.
Div. 777— Nusbaum v. Rialto Sec.
Corporation, 264 N.T.S. 518, 238
App.Div. 257— Salt Springs Nat
Bank of Syracuse v. Hitchcock,
263 N.T.S. 5-5, 235 App.Div. 150—
Friedman v. Universal Mercerizing
Co., 262 N.T.S. 674, 238 App.Div.
805 — Krausman v. John Hancock
Mut Life Ins. Co., 260 N.T.S. 819,
236 App.Div. 582, reargument de-
nied -260 N.T.S. 981, 237 App.Div.
810— Standard Oil Co. of New Tork
v. Boyle, 246 N.T.S. 142, 231 App.
Div. 101— Exhibitors' Supply Cor-
poration v. North Veroon Lumber
Mills, 241 N.T.S. 192, 229 App.Div.
702— Leidy v. Procter, 235 N.T.S.
101, 226 App.DIv. 322— Hemingray
Glass Co. v. Wilkenfeld Bros., 23*4
N.T.S. 829, 226 App.Div. 7T1— Raw-
lin v. New Jersey Fidelity & Plate
Glass Ins. Co., 223 N.T.S. 85, 221
App.Div. 399— Domestic Electric
Co. v. MelisM, 21=2 N.T.S. 799, 215
App.Div. 669 — Ritz Carlton Res-
taurant & Hotel Co. v. Ditmars,
197 N.T.S. 405, 204 App.Div. 748
—New Tork Consol. R. Co. v. City
of New Tork, 197 N.T.S. 887, 2W
App.Div. 171— Nemours-Stevens,
Limited, T. Nemours Trading Cor-
poration, 197 N.T.S. 341, 204 App.
Div. 38— Sachs Quality Furniture
v. Nadborae, 51 N.T.S.2d 505, 183
Misc. 778, affirmed 54 N.Y.S.2d 585,
395
220
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
essential part of the case.8*
The rule that a motion for summary judgment
should not be granted where a triable issue is pre-
sented has been -held to apply where there is any
doubt as to the defense,87 or where defendant al-
leges facts which, if proved, will constitute a good
defense to the action,88 or where an authorized
form of general denial has been interposed by a
183 Misc. 781— Jones v. Moffatt, 50
N.Y.S.2d 233, 183 Misc. 129, affirm-
ed 51 N.Y.S.2d 767, 268 App.Div.
967 — Havens v. Rochester Ropes,
Inc., 89 N.Y.S:2d 44*4, 179 Misc. 889.
affirmed 41 N.T.S.2d 180, 266 App.
Div. 672, appeal denied 41 N.Y.S.
2d 907, 266 App.Div. 692— White v.
Nemecek, 9 2ST.Y.S.2d 882, 170 Misc.
$$9 — Sternlieb v. Normandie Nat.
Securities Corporation, 273 N.Y.S.
229, 152 Misc. 303— Gantz v. Inves-
tors' Syndicate, -265 N.Y.S. 749, 148
Misc. 27*4— Pyrke v. Standard Ac-
cident Ins. Co., 2*52 N.Y.S. 635,
141 Misc. 186, reversed in part on
other grounds and affirmed in part
254 N.Y.S. 520, 23«4 App.Div. 133
—Bauer v. Phelps, 235 N.Y.S. 47,
134 Misc. 44'7 — Hilbring v. Moon-
ey, 223 N.Y.S. 303, 130 Misc. 273
— Wm. H. Frear & Co. v. Bailey,
214 N.Y.S. 675, 127 Misc. 79— Kel-
log v. Berkshire Bldg. Corporation,
fill N.Y.S. 623, 125 Misc. 818— Is-
erman v. J. E. Long Coal Co., 204
N.Y.S. 98, 122 Misc. 822, affirmed
20'5 N.Y.S. 929, 209 App.Div. 8.82
— Chappell v. Chappell, 60 N.Y.S.
2d 447— Franz v. 48 West Forty-
Eighth Realization Corp., 60 N.Y.S.
2d 160 — Zipser v. Hardy, 57 N.Y.S.
2d 482 — Ottone v. American London
Shrinkers Corp., 55 N.Y.S.2d 243
— National Sur. Corp. v. Laurentz,
53 N.Y.S.2d 889— Coudenhove-Kal-
ergi v. Dieterle, 36 N.Y.S.2d 313—
Reisfeld v. Casino & Co,, 198 N.
Y.S. 778— Christo v. Bayufcas, 196
N.Y.S. 600.
Pa.— Ockman v. Jones Mach. Tool
Works, 45 A.2d 47, 3-53 Pa. 308—
Roberts v. Washington Trust Co.,
170 A. 291, 813 Pa. 584, certiorari
denied 54 SX5L 778, 292 U.S. 608.
78 L.Ed. 1469, rehearing denied 54
S.Ct 857, 292 U.S. 613, 7« L.Ed.
1472— Berman v. Hartford Accfr-
dent & Indemnity Co., Com.Pl., 34
Del.Co. 85 — Commonwealth v. Iv-
annucci, Coxn.PL, 33 Del.Co. 674
— In re Chester County Trust Co.,
Com.PL, 29 DeLCo. 178— Bellevue
Park Ass'n v. Lippman, Com.PL,
54 DauphJCo. 163 — Department of
Public Assistance v. Jones, Com,
PL, 44 Lack.Jur. 148— Pieklo v.
Pieklo, Com.Pl., 38 Luz.Leg.Reg.
3 g-g— -North River Ins. Co. v. Yo-
cum, Com.Pl., 16* Northumb.L.J. 1
— Porter v. Nldo, Com.Pl., 86
Pittsb.Leg.J. 2"5.
Wis.— -City of Milwaukee v. Heyer, 4
N.W.2d 126, 241 Wis. 56— Mc-
Jjoughlin v. Malnar, 297 N.W. 370,
237 Wis. 492— Prime Mfg. Co. v.
A, F. Gallun & Sons Corporation,
281 N.W. 697, 229 Wis. 348— Sul-
livan v. State, 251 N.W. 251, 213
Wis. 186, 91 A.L.R. 877.
34 C.J. p 201 note 6$.
Other statements of role
(1) Summary judgment should not
be entered where the trial judge
would have to decide controverted
questions of fact— Security Discount
Corporation v. Jackson, 51 N.E.2d
618, 320 Ill.App. 4'40.
(2) Summary judgment may not
be granted where the conclusion de-
pends on varying inferences to be
drawn from the flacts.— Krauss v.
Central Ins. Co. of Baltimore, 40 N.
Y.S.2d 736.
(3) To warrant a summary judg-
ment, there must be a failure on
the part of defendant to satisfy the
court that there is any basis for his
denial or any truth in his defense,
and unless the defendant fails so to
do, the case should proceed to trial.
— Grady v. Easley, 114 P.2d 635, 45
CaLApp.2d 632.
(4) Judgment may be rendered
against defendant only as result of
conclusion of law from facts found
or not disputed.— Persky v. Bank of
America Nat. Ass'n, 185 N.E. 77, 261
N.Y. 212.
Several defenses
Where defendant shows that under
any one of several defenses genuine
and substantial issue is created, he
is entitled to trial, and summary
judgment is improper. — American
Surety Co. of New York v. Empire
Trust Co., 217 N.Y.S. 673, 128 Misc.
116.
Denial of damages
Denial in answer of plaintiff's alle-
gation of damages raised no issue
requiring trial. — Gise v. Brooklyn
Soc. for Prevention of Cruelty to
Children, 260 N.Y.S. 787, 236 App.
Div. ,852, appeal dismissed 186 N.E.
412, 262 N.Y. 114, reargument denied
188 N.E. 111, 262 N.Y. '664.
86. Ind. — New Hampshire Fire Ins.
Co. v. Wall, 75 N.E. 668, 36 Ind.
App. 238.
Absent party
In action by one of depositors hav-
ing joint savings account to recover
amount thereof as sole owner with-
out bank book in absence of other
depositor, plaintiff was not entitled
to summary judgment, since deposi-
tor could serve other depositor by
publication and obtain judgment cut-
ting off her rights, if his contentions
were true. — Caruso v. Dry Dock Sav.
Inst, 11 N.Y.S.2d 41ft. 170 Misc. 867.
87. Del. — Lam-son v. Habbart, 43 A.
2d 249.
396
111.— Bertlee Co. v. Illinois Publish-
ing & Printing Co., 52 N.E.2d 47,
320 IlLApp. 490.
34 C.J. p 201 note 67.
If a defense is arguable, apparent,
or made in good faith, it should be
submitted to a jury, and plaintiff's
motion for summary judgment
should not be granted.
111. — C. L T. Corporation v. Smith,
48 N.E.2d 735, 318 IlLApp. 642—
Fellheimer v. Wess, 46 NJE.2d 89,
316 IlL'App. 449— Shaw v. National
Life Co., 42 N.E.2d 885, 315 111.
App. 210 — Soelke v. Chicago Busi-
ness Men's Racing Ass'n, 41 N.E.
2d 232, 314 IlLApp. 336 — Gliwa v.
Washington Polish Loan & Build-
ing Ass'n, 84 N.E.2d 736, 810 HL
App. 465.
N.Y. — Neivel Realty Corporation v.
Prudence Bonds Corporation, 271
N.Y.8. 209, 151 Misc. 737— Federal
Deposit Ins. Corporation v.- Appel-
baum, 39 N.Y.S.2d 300.
Defense held not sham
XJ.s. — Goess v. A. D. H. Holding Cor-
poration, C.C.A.N.Y., 85 F.2d 72.
Finding- as matter of law
To warrant summary judgment,
pleadings, affidavits, and exhibits
supporting motion therefor must
overcome opposing papers and justi-
fy finding as matter of -law that
there is no defense.— People's Wayne
County Bank v. Power City Trust
Co., 263 N.Y.S. 477, 147 Misc. 168.
8a 111.— «Fellheimer v. Wess, 45 N.
B.2d 89, 316 IlLApp. 449— Barrett
v. Shanks, 20 N.E.2d 799, 300 111.
App. 119, followed in Barrett v.
Heichman, 20 N.E.'2d 802, «00 111.
App. 605 — Barrett v. Volkman, 20
N.B.2d 802, 300 IlLApp. 605— Bar-
rett v. Gardner, 20 N.E. 803, 300
IlLApp. 605 — Barrett v. Wallace,
20 N.R2d 804, 300 IlLApp. 606—
Puckett v. American Life of Illi-
nois, 13 N.E.2d 828, 294 IlLApp.
60'5.
K.Y. — General Inv. Co. v. Interbor-
ough Rapid Transit Co., 139 N.E.
•216, 235 N.Y. 1-33— Progressive
Finance & Realty Co. v. Miller &
•Sherry Enterprises, 28*3 N.Y.S. 478,
246 App.Div. 6139 — Rawlin v. New
Jersey Fidelity & Plate Glass Ins.
Co., 223 N.Y.S. 85, 221 APP-Div.
399- — Abrams v. Abrams, 270 N.Y.
S. 841, 150 Misc. 660— Wm. H.
Frear & Co. v. Bailey, 214 N.Y.S.
675, 127 Misc. 79— Iserman v. J.
E. Long Coal Co., 204 N.Y.«S. 98,
122 Misc. 822, alarmed 205 N.Y.S.
$29, 209 App.Div. 882— «Sellingsloh
V. Sellingsloh, 59 N.Y.S.2d 38.
84 C.J. p 202 note 68.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 220
defendant having no interest other than that of
self-protection,8'9 or where the allegations and proof
adduced by plaintiff are insufficient as a matter of
law to warrant recovery.^ Likewise plaintiffs mo-
tion for summary judgment will be denied where
the interests of justice require that the controversy
be disposed of on a trial rather than on the mo-
tion,91 as where there is a real question as to a
matter of law which. could not be determined with-
out a full and authoritative determination of the
facts by a trial.92 If the facts on -which the ap-
plication for summary judgment is based are ex-
clusively within the knowledge of the moving party,
or clearly not within the knowledge of the op-
ponent, the relief requested will be denied;93 but
it must appear that the lack of knowledge is genu-
ine, and if the facts are matters of public record
or are otherwise fully available to the opposing
party, his plea of lack of knowledge will be with-
out force.94
On the other hand, a motion for a summary judg-
ment may be allowed where plaintiff has sufficiently
shown or verified his claim or demand and it satis-
factorily appears that there is no real issue of fact
to be determined between the parties,96 or that there •
89. N.Y. — Sorenson v. Bast River
Sav. last, 196 N.T.S. 361, 119 Misc.
297.
34 C.J. p 202 note 69.
90. N.Y. — Town of Putnam Valley
v. Slutzky, 28 N.E.-2d 860, 283 N.
Y. 334, rearmament denied 29 N.E.
2d 665, 284 N.Y. 590— St. Joseph's
Maternity Hospital v. Hawthorne,
•34 N.T.S.2d 427, 264 App.Div. 749
—•Swift & Co. v. Cohen, 10 N.Y.S.
2d 484, 256 App.Div. 996, reargu-
ment denied 12 N.Y.S.2d 353, 256
App.Div. 1082 — Charitis v. Savran-
sky, 225 N.Y.S. 803, 222 App.Div.
697 — Bercholz v. Guaranty Trust
Co. of New York, 44 N.Y.S.2d 148,
180 Misc. 1043— Wecht v. Korn-
blum, 264 N.Y.S. 333, 147 Misc. 653
— Romine v. Barnaby Agency, 227
N.Y.S. 235, 1»31 Misc. 696— Clark
v. Herkimer County, 8 N.Y.S. 2d
676.
91. N.Y.— Scalia v. Goldfarb, 5* N.
Y.S.2d 950.
92. ILL— Minuto v. Metropolitan
•Life Ins. Co., 179 A. 713T, 55 R.I.
201.
34 C.J. p 202 note 70.
Complicated case
An answered case that presents
actually disputed and complicated
facts subject to different interpreta-
tion, or abstruse Questions of law,
should proceed to an orderly and au-
thoritative determination of the
facts by trial and should not be
summarily determined on motion for
summary judgment, even though
what appears to be question of fact
may ultimately resolve itself into a
question of law. — Minuto v. Metro-
politan Life Ins. Co., supra.
93. N.Y. — Suslensky v. Metropolitan
Life Ins. Co., 43 N.Y.S.24 144, 180
Misc. 6*24, affirmed 46 N.Y.S.2d
888, 267 App.Div. 812, appeal de-
nied 60 N.Y.S.Sd 294, 270 App.Div.
819.
Indorsees denial of knowledge or
information sufficient to form a be-
lief as to holder's allegations of due
presentment, .protest, and notice, cou-
pled with denial of receipt of notice,
was sufficient to warrant denial of
motion for summary Judgment and
to require holder to prove its cause
of action, where indorser was not
shown and could not be expected to
have any actual knowledge of pro-
test.—Asbury Park & Ocean Grove
Bank r. Simensky, 290 N.Y.S. 992,
160 Misc. 92L
94b N.Y. — Suslensky v. Metropolitan
Life Ins. Co., 4*3 N.Y.S.2d 144, 180
Misc. 624, affirmed 46 N.Y.S.2d
888, 267 App.Div. 812, appeal de-
nied 60 N.Y.S.2d 294, 270 App.Div.
819.
95. Ariz. — Suburban Pump & Wa-
ter Qo. v. Linville, 135 P.2d 210, 60
Ariz. 274.
D.C. — Sedgwick v. National Savings
& Trust Co., 130 F.2d 440, 76 U.S.
App.D.C. 177.
111. — People ex rel. Barclay v. West
Chicago Park Com'rs, 32 N.-B.2d
'323, 308 Ill.A'pp. 622.
N.Y. — Sannasardo v. Hartford Acci-
dent & Indemnity Co., 8 N.Y.S.2d
974, 256 Afcp.Div. 825— Evans v.
Rome Trust Co., 282 N.Y^S. 785, 246
App.Div. 569— City Bank Farmers'
Trust Co. v. Charity Organization
Soc. of City of New York, 265 N.
Y.S. 267, 238 App.Div. 720, affirmed
191 N.B. 504, 264 N.Y. 441— Nath-
• an H. Gordon Corporation v. Cos-
man, 249 N.Y.S. 544, 2(32 App.Div.
280 — Lion Brewery of New York
City v. Loughran, 229 N.Y.S. 216,
223 App.Div. 623— O'Neil v. Mc-
Kinley Music Co.. 212 N.Y.S. 7, 214
App.Div. 181— Appleton v. National
Park Bank of New York, 208 N.Y.
S. 228, 211 App.Div. 708, affirmed
150 N.E. 555, 241 N.Y. 561— Hong-
kong & Shanghai Banking Corpora-
tion v. Lazard-Godchaux Co. of
America, 201 N.Y.S. 771, 207 App.
(Div. 174, affirmed 147 N.B. 216,
2-39 N.Y. 610— Lee v. Graubard,
199 N.Y.S. '563, 205 App.Div. 344—
Second Nat Bank v. Breitung, 197
N.YJS. 375, 203 App.Div. 636— Os-
borne v. Banco Aleman-Antiooue-
no, 29 N.Y.S.2d 236, 17-6 Misc. 664
• — Glove City Amusement Co. v.
Smalley Chain Theatres, 4 N.Y.S.
2d 397, 167 Misc. 608-^Sedwitz Y.
Arnold, 199 N.Y.S. g«, 164 Misc.
397
892— Haight v. Brown, 288 N.Y.S.
65, 159 Misc. 652— Kaufman v. In-
vestors' Syndicate, 266 N.Y.S. 38'6,
148 Misc. 624, affirmed 271 N.Y.S.
1058, 242 App.Div. 609— Garfunkel
v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 266 N.Y.S.
35, 147 Misc. 810— Lewis Histori-
cal Pub. Co. v. Bowe, 255 N.Y.S.
•59, 142 Misc. 862— Western Felt
Works v. Modern Carpet Cleaning
& Storage Corporation, 252 N.Y.
S. 696. 141 Misc. 495— CJogswell v.
Cogswell, 224 N.Y.S. 59, 130 Misc.
541 — Guardino v. Guardino, 62 N.
Y.S.2d 531 — MacKenzie v. Muncie,
54 N.Y.S.'2d 52 — Green v. Foreman,
53 N.Y.S.2d 863— Marte v. Marte,
45 N.Y.S.2d 174— Glazman v. City
of New York, 29 N.Y.S.2d 804.
Pa.— John J. Strassel & Son v. Ross-
man- Weaver Co., Com.Pl., 48
Dauph.Co. 172 — Holt Lumber Co.
v. Lauzar, Com PL, 42 <Lack.Jur.
147— Nathan B. Salsbery v. Fan-
ning Motor Co., Com.Pl., 40. Lack.
Jur. 199 — Tierney v. Llfland, Com.
PL, 30 North.Co. 149.
R.L— Mackenzie v. Desautels, 3 A.2d
' 660, 62 R.I. 1135— Bond & Goodwin
V. Weiner, 172 A, 395, 54 R.I. 244—
Henry W. Cooke Co. v. Sheldon,
164 A. 327, 53 R.I. 101.
Wis. — H. Hohensee Const Co. v. City
of Oshkosh, 291 N.W. 309, 234 Wis.
274-nSchlesinger v. Schroeder, 245
N.W. 666, 210 Wis. 403.
34 C.J. p 202 note 72.
The test of whether triable Issues
of fact appear from the pleadings,
within rule that summary judgment
is not permitted where triable Issues
of fact appear from the pleadings, is
in the facts alleged, in defendant's
affidavit of merits and plaintiff's
sworn reply. — Smith "v. Karasek, 40
N.B.2d 594, S13 IlLApp. 6S4.
Statement of conclusion of law or
fact is insufficient to raise issue of
fact on application for summary
judgment. — Galusha Stove Co. v.
PJtvnlck Const CO., 230 N.Y.S. 720,
H32 Misc. 875.
Cause OIL jury calendar
Judgment may be entered when no
issue of fact is raised, although the
cause i« on a Jury calendar, — Resnick
220
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
clearly is no substantial defense to the action,96 or
that the defense alleged is clearly a sham or friv-
olous,97 even though it is necessary to decide an
important question of law.98 So it has been held
that, where the question raised is wholly one of
law, the determination of such question on a mo-
tion for summary judgment is proper.99
Effect of counterclaim. It has been held that the
remedy of summary judgment may be available to
plaintiff on his cause of action even where the an-
swer sets up a counterclaim,1 and that, if the coun-
terclaim is plausible, judgment may be granted for
plaintiff with a stay of execution until trial of the
counterclaim;2 but it has been held improper to
grant summary judgment where valid counterclaims
are pleaded for sums exceeding the damages de-
T. Varouxakis, 48 N.E.2d 555, 8-19
m.App. 51.
Tacts, if iMsnffiolent to sustain
verdict under practice act, are not
sufficient to .entitle party to defend
in motion for summary judgment —
Edward «F. Dibble Seedgrower v.
Jones, 223 N.Y.S. 785, 180 Misc. 859.
Bright to plead anew
If affidavit of party whose plead-
ing is attacked by motion for sum-
mary Judgment does not show facts
sufficient to constitute defense, no
leave to plead anew should be grant-
ed.— Perlman v. Perlman, 257 N.T.S.
48, 235 App.Div. 313.
96. Ariz. — Suburban Pump & Wa-
ter Co. v. Linville, 135 P.2d 210. 60
Ariz. 274.
Mich. — Jackson Reinforced Concrete
Pipe Co. v. Central Contracting &
Engineering Co., 234 N.W. Ill, 25:3
Mich. 157.
N.Y.— 'Ford v. Hahn, '55 N.T.S.2d 854,
269 App.Div. 4!36 — Gellens v. 11
West 42nd -Street, 19 N.T.S.2d 525,
259 App.Div. 435, appeal denied 20
N.Y.<S.2d 985, 259 App.Div. 1002—
Guaranty Trust Co. of New York
v. Compton Mines Corporation, 5
N.Y.S.2d 46, 254 App.Div. 876—
Consolidated Film Industries v.
Talking Picture Epics, 260 N.Y.S.
1, 236 App.Div. 422 — 'Lion Brewery
of New York City v. Loughran, 229
N.Y.S. 216, 223 App.Div. 623—
Isaacs v. Schmuck, 218 N.Y.S. 568,
218 App.Div. 516, reversed 156 N.E.
621, 245 N.Y. 77, 51 A.L.R. 1454—
Pinney v. Geraghty, 205 N.Y.S. 645,
209 App.Div. 630— Wilbur-Dolson
Silk Co. v. William Wallach Co.,
201 N.Y.S. 465, 206 App.Div. 470—
lago Realty Corp. v. Marmin Ga-
rage Corp., 59 N.Y.S.2d 740, 186
Misc. 478— Utilities Engineering
Institute v. Kofod, 68 N.Y.S.2d 743,
185 Misc. 1035 — Hyman v. Fischer,
52 N.Y.S.2d 553, 184 Misc. 90— Ellis
v. City of New York, 46 N.Y.S.2d
363, 180 Misc. 968, affirmed 47 N.Y.
S.2d 96, 267 App.Div. 810 — Sackman
v. losue, 36 N.Y.S.2d 625, 178 Misc.
759 — Osborne v. Banco Aleman-
AntloQueno, 29 N.Y.S.2d 236, 176
Misc. 664-HLann v. United Steel
Works Corporation, 1 N.Y.S.2d 951,
166 Misc. 465— Haight v. Brown,
288 N.Y.S. 65, 159 Misc. 652— First
Trust & Deposit Co. v. Potter, 278
N.Y.S. 847, 155 Misc. 106— Paul v.
Mantell, 247 N.T.S. 452, 139 Misc.
395 — Security 'Finance Co. v. (Stu-
art, 224 N.Y.S. 2o7, 130 Misc. 538—
Cogswell v. Cogswell, 224 N.Y.S.
59, 130 Misc. 541— Edward F. Dib-
ble Seedgrower v. Jones, 223 N.Y.S.
78-5, 130 Misc. 359— Conoley v. Dis-
tileria Serralles, Inc., 48 N.Y.S.2d
11 — Bankers Trust Co. v. Fuller, 37
N.Y.S.2d 5>36— Henderson v. Hild-
reth Varnish Co., 276 N.Y.'S. 414.
Pa.— Commonwealth to Use of Un-
employment Compensation Fund,
v. Lentz, 44 A.2d 291, 353 Pa. 98.
Wis. — Donovan v. Theo. Otjen Co.,
298 N.W. 168, 238 Wis. 47— First
Wisconsin Nat Bank of Milwaukee
v. Pierce, 278 N.W. 451, 227 Wis.
58-1.
34 C.J. p 202 note 73.
Additional facts
Where defendant filed answer al-
leging state of facts substantially as
those alleged in complaint, but show-
ing additional facts claimed to con-
stitute defense, summary judgment
could be entered if affirmative mat-
ters alleged as defense did not as
matter of law constitute a defense,
although if additional facts alleged
did constitute defense summary
Judgment could not be entered. — Peo-
ple ex rel. Ames v. Marx, 18 N.E.2d
915, 370 I1L 264.
Alimony
Motion for summary judgment for
arrears of alimony under foreign de-
cree will not be denied because of
court's power to modify decree as to
alimony. — Curran v. Curran, 240 N.Y.
S. 364, 136 Misc. 598.
Sff. U.S. — Irving Trust Co. v. Amer-
ican Silk Mills, Inc., Q.C.A.N.Y., 72
!F.2d 288, certiorari denied Ameri-
can Silk Mills, Inc., v. Irving Trust
Co., 55 «S.Ct. 239, 293 U.S. $24, 79
L.Ed. 711.
Cai. — Bank of America Nat Trust &
Siavings Ass'n v. Oil Well Supply
Co. of California, 55 P.2d 885, 12
CaLApp.2d 265.
N.Y. — Alexander Hamilton Institute
v. Huston, 4 N.Y.S.2d 776, 254 App.
iDiv. 729 — Heer v. Forward, 3 N.Y.
S.2d 3, 2!54 App.Div. 628— Nathan
H. Gordon Corporation v. Cosman,
249 N.Y.S. 544, 232 Afcp.Div. 280—
Cleghorn v. Ocean Accident &
Guarantee Corporation, Limited, of
London, 215 N.Y.S. 127, 21* App.
Div. 342, modified on other grounds
155 N.B. 87, 244 N.Y. 166— Slrsl
Trust Co. of Albany v. Arnold, 3ti
398
N.Y.S.2d 175, 179 Misc. 349— Man-
hattan Paper Oo. v. Bayer, 263 N.
Y.S. 720, 147 Misc. 227 — Rodger v.
Bliss, 223 N.Y.S. 401, 130 Misc.
168— Donlin v. Carlow, 200 N.Y.S.
'339, 120 Misc. 698— First Trust Co.
of Albany v. Dumary, 23 N.Y.S.2d
532.
34 C.J. p 202 note 74.
93. N.Y. — Kennilwood Owners' Ass'n
v. Wall, 264 N.YjS. 135, 148 Misc.
67.
34 Q.J. p 202 note 75.
99. U.S.— Maryland Casualty Co. v.
Sparks, CC.AMich., 76 F.2d 929.
D.C. — Maghan v. Board of Com'rs of
District of Columbia, 141 (F.2d 274,
78 U.S.APP.D.C. 370.
111. — Reconstruction -Finance Corpo-
ration v. Lucius, 49 N.E.2d 852,
320 IlLApp. 57.
N.Y.— Fisher v. Lohse, 42 N.Y.S.23
121, 181 Misc. 149.
Conflicting- motions
Where plaintiff made a motion for
summary judgment on ground that
there was no defense to the action,
and defendant in opposition did not
Indicate existence of triable issues of
fact and made a motion that sum-
mary judgment should be granted
dismissing complaint, sole issue to
be determined by the court was one
of law. — Schifter v. Commercial
Travelers Mut. Accident Ass'n of
America, 50 N.Y.S.2d 376, 183 Misc.
74, affirmed 54 N.Y.S.2d 408, 2-69 App.
Div. 706.
1. N.Y.— Smith v. Cranleigh, Inc.,
231 N.Y.S. 201, 224 Apfc.Div. 376 —
Hinman v. Hinman, 263 N.Y.S. 800,
146 Misc. 7 S'6— Little Falls Dairy
Co. v. Berghorn, 224 N.Y.S. 34, 130
Misc. 454— Evalenko v. Catts, 210-
N.Y.S. 35, 125 Misc. 726, affirmed
213 N.Y.S. 796, 215 App.Div. 805r
and 216 N.Y.S. 827, 217 App.Div.
728, affirmed 154 N.E. 627, 243 N.
Y. 613, reargument denied 155 N.
B. 873, 244 N.Y. -504.
34 C.J. p 201 note 58.
However, it has been held that ft
counterclaim predicating good and
substantial cause Justifying trial
constitutes insuperable objection to-
summary judgment for plaintiff. —
Bank of U. S. v. Slifka, 264 N.Y.S.
204, 148 Misc. 60— Wilkinson v. Hal-
liwell Electric Qo., 204 N.Y.S. 854,
12*3 Misc. 250.
2. N.Y. — Dell'Osso r. Everett, 197
N.Y.S. 423. 119 Misc. 502.
49 C. J. S.
JUDGMENTS
220
manded by plaintiff.8 Plaintiff may be entitled to
summary judgment with respect to the counterclaim
itself if no triable issue is raised in response to his
defense tbtfreto,4 but his motion will be denied
if issues are raised requiring determination at a
trial.*
Sufficiency of pleadings. On a motion for sum-
mary judgment on a claim or defense on the ground
that no triable issue of fact is raised, the decisive
issue is not the sufficiency of the opposing party's
pleadings,6 for, if defective pleadings disclose a
triable issue, they may be amended at or before the
trial, and the motion for summary judgment should
be denied ;7 but an amended pleading merely restat-
ing in different form sham allegations set forth in
an earlier pleading will not defeat the motion.8
(2) On Motion by Defendant
Where the defendant's affidavits show that his de-
nials or defenses are sufficient to defeat the plaintiff,
or that his cause of action on a counterclaim warrants
recovery, summary judgment for* the defendant may be
entered with respect to the plaintiff's cause of action or
the defendant's counterclaim, if the plaintiff by affidavit
fails to establish triable issues of fact.
As is discussed supra subdivision a of this sec-
tion, the statutes and court rules .permit defendant
to move for summary judgment with respect to
plaintiffs cause of action or with respect to his own
counterclaims. Accordingly, where defendant's af-
fidavits establish his contentions and show that his
denials or defenses are sufficient to defeat plaintiff,
and plaintiff by affidavit fails to establish triable is-
sues of fact, the complaint may be dismissed and
judgment entered for defendant.8 However, the
3. N.Y. — Nussbaum v. Sobel, 54 N.
Y.>S.2d 228, 269 App.Div. 105, rear-
gument denied 55 N.Y.S.2d 117, 269
App.'Div. 767— Plaut v. Plaut, 7 N.
Y.S.2d 583, 255 App.Div. 375— Dietz
v. Glynne, 223 N.YjS. 221, 221 App.
Div. 329 — Gregor v. Bird Aircraft
Corporation, 260 N.Y.S. 164, 145
Misc. 755.
Effect of proviso
Defendant's counterclaim for
amount greater than that sued for
by plaintiff prevented entry of sum-
mary judgment for plaintiff, notwith-
standing proviso that amount col-
lected thereunder should be held sub-
ject to Judgment obtained by defend-
ant on counterclaim. — £Dtna Life Ins.
Co. of Hartford, Conn., v. National
Dry Dock & Repair Co., 245 N.Y.S.
3'65, 230 App.Div. 486.
4. Cal. — Cowan Oil & Refining Co. v.
Miley Petroleum Corporation; 295
•P. 50,4, 112 Cal.App.Supp. 773.
N.Y.— Zaveloff v. Zaveloff, 37 N.Y.S.
2d 46 — Macomber v. Wilkinson, 6
N.Y.S.2d 608.
Right generally see supra subdivi-
sion a of this section.
Defendant's right to summary Judg-
ment as determined by issues see
infra subdivision c (2) of this
(Section.
fi. N.Y.— Wise v. Powell, 215 N.Y.S.
693, 2-16 App.Div. 618— Miller v.
Bastqn, 213 N.Y.S. 418, 126 Misc.
330 — Macomber v. Wilkinson, 6 N.
Y.S.2d 608.
Pa.— Barnett v. Dickerman, Com.PL,
'25 Brie Co. 321.
6. N.Y. — Werfel v. Zivnostenska
Banka, 38 N.E.2d 382, 287 N.Y. 91
— Miorin v. Miorin, 13 N.Y.«S.2d
^705, 257 App.Div. 556, reargument
denied 14 N.Y.S.2d .1003, 257 Ap>p.
Div. 1084 — Woodmere Academy v.
Moskowitz, 208 N.YJS. 578, 212
A&p.Div. 457— Marks v. Folio, 29
N.Y.S.2d 1019, 177 Misc. 108— Lyon
V. Holton, 14 N.Y.S^d 4*36, 172
Misc. 31, affirmed 20 N,Y.S.2d 101$,
259 App.Div. 877, appeal denied 21
N.Y.S.2d 612, 259 App.'Div. 10713,
modified on other grounds 3*6 N.E.
2d 201, 286 N.Y. 270— Nix v. Low,
1 tf.Y.S.2d 21, 165 Misc. 484.
Technical defects in answer are
not available on application for sum-
;mary judgment.— -Curry v. Macken-
zie, 146 N.B. 375, 239 N.Y. 267— Don-
nelly v. Bauder, 216 N.Y.S. 437, 217
App.Div. 59—JLe Fevre v. Reliable
Paint Supply Co., 273 N.Y.S. 903, 152
Misc. 594— Hilbring v. Mooney, 223
N.Y.'S. 30-3, 130 Misc. 2713— 4Ford v.
Reilley, 216 N.Y.S. 273, 127 Misc. 373.
Superfluous matter
Fact that statement of claim does
not state facts in concise and sum-
mary form, and contains superfluous
matter, does not warrant entering
summary Judgment for defendant —
Davis v. Investment -Land Co., 146 A.
119, 296 Pa. 449.
Denial of motion to dismiss
Affirmance of an order denying mo-
tion to dismiss cause of action for
insufficiency did not entitle plaintiff
to summary judgment, since such
order merely determined that the
cause of action was sufficient from
standpoint of pleading to state a
good prima facie case. — Brandt v.
Davidson, 48 N.Y.«S.2d 917.
Which of two causes of action.
plaintiff intended to state is imma-
terial on motion for summary Judg-
ment, if allegations of complaint
show any cause of action. — Sullivan
v. State, 251 N.W. 251, 213 Wis. 185,
91 A.L.R. 877.
7. N.Y.— Curry v. Mackenzie, 14-6 N.
E. 375,- 239 N.Y. 267— Bast River
Sav. Bank v. Lash Realty Co., 5*3
N.Y.S.2d 229, 269 App.Div. 658—
Perlman v. Perlman, 257 N.Y.S.
48/335 App.Div. 'SI'S— Marks v.
Folio, 29 N.Y.S.2d 1019, 177 Misc.
108 — Tompkins Haulage" Corpora-
tion v. Roberts, 249 N.Y.S. 22, 140
Misc. SO— Krauss v. Central Ins.
399
Co. of Baltimore, 40 N.Y.S.2d 736
— Biloz v. Tioga County Patrons'
Fire Relief Ass'n, 21 N.Y.'S.2d 643,
, affirmed 23 N.Y.S.2d 460, 260 APP-
Div. 976.
If the facts develop a defense,
summary judgment is not justified
even though the pleadings require
amendment to allow the defense. —
Erie Commercial Corporation v.
Then, 18 N.Y.S.2d 5*9, 259 App.Div.
786— Nix v. <Low, 1 N.Y.6.2d 21, 165
Misc. 484 — Royal Diamond Co. v. Os-
trin, 232 N.Y.S. 223, 133 Misc. 555—
Agress Const. Co. of Brooklyn v.
;Jurgens, 217 N.Y.S. 204, 128 Misc. 12.
for amendment
If either party on hearing of mo-
tion for summary judgment finds
"that his pleading is inadequate, ei-
ther by way of allegation or denial,
court may and should permit party
to amend, but in absence of request
for amendment, there is no occasion
:to inquire about possible issues not
raised by pleadings. — Gardenswartz
'v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U. S.,
63 P.2d 322, 2'3 CaLApp.Sd Supp. 745.
8. N.Y1 — Nathan H. Gordon Corpo-
ration v. Cosman, 249 N.Y.S. 544,
232 App.Div. 280.
9. U.S. — Banco de Espana v. (Federal
Reserve Bank of New York, D.C.
N.Y., 28 -F.Supp. 958, affirmed, a
C.A., 114 F.2d 4«38— Larson v. Todd
Shipyards (Corporation, D.C.N.Y., 16
F.Supp. 9-67. •
Colo. — Klancher v. Anderson, 158 P.
2d 923, 113 Colo. 478.
N.Y. — Independent Electric Lighting
Corp. v. Armin Development Corp.,
61 N.Y.S.-2d 69, 270 App.Div. 878—
Melioris v. Morgenstein, 58 N.Y.«S.
2d 885, 269 AppJDiv. 1028— Myers
v. 139 East 79th Street, Inc., 53 N.
Y.S.2d 650, 269 Ajxp.t>iv. 68— Noll
V. Ruprecht, 9 N.Y.S.2d 651, 256
App-Div. 926, affirmed 25 N.'E.2d
886, 2*2 N.Y. «98— Feeney v.
Woods, 300 N.Y.S. 1044, 2 S3 App.
§ 220-
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
complaint will not be dismissed if proof at the trial
is necessary to the determination of the legal ques-
tion raised, or if substantial justice requires a trial
and a full disclosure of the facts,*0 or if defend-
ant^ denials or defenses are insufficient to defeat
plaintiffs claim,** or where although the cause must
go against plaintiff, the question of the right of de-
fendants as among themselves remains to be set-
tled." While a plaintiff should not be permitted to
defeat defendant's motion for judgment by the mere
device of serving an amended complaint,1* such mo-
tion will not be granted it a cause of action added
by amendment possesses, merit.1* Defendant may
be entitled to summary judgment on his counter-
Div. 751 — Bauersfeld v. Valentine,
43 N.Y.S.2d S6, 180 Misc. 705—
Stone v. .^tna Life Ins. Co., 31
N.Y.S.2d 615, 178 Misc. 23— Chester
v. Chester, 1*3 N.Y.S.2d 502, 171
Misc, 608— Helmick v. Probst, 9 N.
YjS.2d 97-5, 170 Misc. 284— Goebbel
v. Gross, 275 N.Y.S. 308, 153 Misc.
637 — Justry v. Northern Ins. Co. of
New York, 273 N.Y.S. 64, 151 Misc.
757— iShlivek v. Castle & Overton,
39 N.Y.S.2d 685.
Pa.— Shockley v. Travelers Ins. Co.,
Com.PL, 38 DeLCo. 526— Stahl v.
Wildwood Development Co., Com.
PL, 89 Pittsb.L.J. 284, 50 York
Leg.Rec. 60.
Wls.— Binsfeld v. Home Mut Ins.
Co., 19 N.W.2d 240, 247 Wis. 273—
Marco v. Whiting, 12 N.W.2d 92-6,
244 Wis. 621.
Direction, of verdict
When it appears from thorough
consideration of uncontroverted facts
that they would impel direction of
verdict by court, no issue exists and
summary Judgment is properly en-
tered.—Marco v. Whiting, supra.
Inadmissible parol testimony
In action for breach of an alleged
contract to convey property, where
proof of existence of such contract
would have depended on inadmissible
parol testimony, summary judgment
for defendants was proper.— Ajax
Holding Co. v.-Heinsbergen, 149 P.2d
189, 64 CaLApp.2d 665.
Retention as nominal party
Where, in stockholders' action to
obtain relief against both the direc-
tors and the corporation itself, stock-
holders were not entitled to relief
against the corporation or certain
defendants who moved for summary
judgment dismissing complaint, but
the action continued as to the non-
moving defendants, stockholders
were entitled to have the corporation
retained as a nominal party defend-
ant, in so far as relief was sought
against nonmoving . individual de-
fendants in favor of the corporation.
— Lyon v. Holton, 36 N.E.2d 201, 286
N.Y. 270.
10. Cal. — Hardy v. Hardy, 143 P.2d
701, 28 CaL2d 244— -Loveland v.
City of Oakland, 159 P.2d 70, 69
Cal.App.2d 399 — Gibson v. De La
Salle Institute, 152 P.2d 774, 6-6
CaLApp.2d 609.
N.Y.— Stulsaft v. Mercer Tube &
Mfg. Co., 43 N.-E.2d 31, 288 N.Y.
255 — *Werfel v. Zivnostenska Ban-
ka, 38 N.B.2d $82, 287 N.Y. 91-
Woods v. Bard, 82 N.B.2d 772, 285
N.Y. 11— Hogan v. Williams, 59 N.
Y.S.2d 331, ' 270 AjrpJDiv. 789—
Schottke v. Jeacock, '55 N.Y.S.2d
186, 269 Aipp.Div. 242, affirmed,
Schottke v. Jeacock, 66 N.B.2d 586,
295 N.Y. 812— Solotoff v. Solotoff,
63 N.YjS.2d 510, 269 App.DIv. 677,
reargument denied 55 N.Y.S.-2d 567,
269 Aj>p.Div. 777— Giorno v. Banco
Di Napoli Trust Co. of N. Y., 52
N.Y.S.2d 659, 2I68 App.Div. 1036—
Drapkin v. Ryan Contracting Cor-
poration, 42 tt.Y.S.2d 307, 2*6 App.
Div. 857, appeal and reargument
denied 44 N.Y.S.2d 343, 266 App.
Div. 922— Citizen's Bank of White
Plains v. Oglesby, 39 N.Y.S.2d 500,
265 Ap-p.Div. 1062, appeal denied
41 N.Y.S.2d 219, 266 Afep.Div. 682—
Schelberger v. Schelberg, 35 N.Y.S.
2d 516, 264 App.Div. 870— Berkeley
V. Efostein, 22 N.Y.S:2d 921, 260
App.Div. 877— Miorin v. Miorin, 13
N.Y.S.2d 705, 257 App.Div. 55'6, re-
argument denied 14 N.YjS.2d 1003,
257 App.Div. 1084—431 Fifth Ave.
•Corp. v. City of New York, 55 N.
Y.S.2d 203, 184 Misc. 1001, modi-
fied on other grounds 59 N.Y.S.2d
25, 270 App.Div. 241, appeal grant-
ed 60 N.Y.S.2d 272, 270 App.Div.
804 — Jones v. Moffatt, 50 N.Y.S.2d
233, 183 Misc. 129, affirmed 51 N.
Y.S.2d 767, 2-68 App.Div. 967—
Daniel J. Rice, Inc., v. City of New
York, 42 N.Y.S.2d 532, 180 Misc.
860— Havens v, Rochester Ropes,
Inc., 39 N.Y.'S.2d 444, 179 Misc.
889, affirmed 41 N.Y.S.2d 180, 26
Afop.DIv. 672, appeal denied 4«1 N
Y.S^d 907, 266 App.Div. 692—
•Freuna v. Zephyr Laundry Ma
chinery Co., 39 N.Y.S.2d 250, 180
Misc. 249, affirmed 41 N.Y.S.2d 909
266 App.Div. 734, appeal discon-
tinued 43 N.YjS.2d 857, 2'66 App
Div. 853 — Walfrice v. Buffalo Pot-
tery Co., 27 N.Y.S.2d 487, 176 Misc.
472, affirmed 32 N.Y.S.2d 121, 2-63
AppjDiv. 787, reargument denied
33 N.Y.S.2d 541, 263 App.Div. 93'5
—Cohen v. Ideberman, 289 N.Y.S.
797, 160 Misc. 810— Regan v. Bank
of Athens Trust Co., 286 N.Y.S.
726, 159 Misc. 361— Franz v. 48
West Forty-Eighth Realization
Corp., 60 N.Y.S.2d 160— Loomis v.
Loomis, 5-1 N.Y.*S.2d 417, affirmed
«51 N.Y.S.2d 94, 268 Al>p.Div. 883—
Mortenson v. New York Telephone
Co., 32 N.Y.S.2d 488, modified 38
N.Y.S.2d 949, 179 Misc. 289— Schos-
tal v. Compagnie Generate Trans-
atlantiQue, 27 N.YjS.2d 688— Per-
sonal Finance Corporation of Wa-
terbury v. Robinson, 27 N.Y.S.2d
'6— O'Brien v. O'Brien, 16 N.Y.S 2d
799.
Pa.— Miller v. Adonizio, 6 A.2d 77
334 Pa. 286— Ottman v. Nixon-'
Nirdlinger, 151 A. 879, 301 Pa. 234
— Leedy v. Cimino, Com.Pl., 49
Dauph.Co. 54— Kies v. Town Hall
Co., Com.PL, 44 Lack.Jur. 241—
Regan v. City of Scranton, Coin.
<_™ - ' -..
59— McVeigh v. Scranton-Spring
Brook Water Service Co., Com.Pl
44 Lack.Jur. 205— Kern v. Union
Mut Life Ins. Qo., Com.Pl., 44
LacfcJur. 14«3— Geo. T. Sellers*
Sons v. Bshleman, Com.Pl 48
Lanc.Rev. 79.
Wis.— Parish v. Awschu Properties,
19 N.W.Sd 27-6, 247 Wis. 166—
Holzschuh v, Webster, 17 N.W.2d
553, 246 Wis. 423-HFirst Wisconsin
Nat Bank of Milwaukee v. Bryn-
wood .Land Co., 15 N.W.2d 840, 245
Wis. 610— ^Employers Mut Liabil-
ity Ins; Co. v. Starkweather, 12 N
W.2d 904, 244 Wis. 531.
Question fop determination
In determining whether summary
judgment should be entered for de-
fendant, question is whether state-
ment of claim shows that law will
not permit recovery by plaintiff.—
Davis v. Investment Land Co., 146
A. 119, 296 Pa. 449.
Technical defects in pleading iu»e
not available to defendant on a mo-
tion to dismiss a complaint under
the rule relating to summary judg-
ment—Benjamin v. Arundel Corp.,
59 N.Y.S.2d 437, 270 App.Div. 766
Moot action
•Fact that an action has become
moot is not a defense, and dismissal
on that ground does not entitle de-
fendant to summary Judgment _
Duel v. State Farm Mut Automobile
Co., 9 N.W.2d 593, 243 Wis. 172.
11. U.'S.— Warner v. Marsh & Mc-
Lennan, D.C.N.Y., 26 F.Supp. 814.
N.Y.— Gans v. Hearst, 50 N.Y.S.2d
47-5— McDonald v. Cluff & Picker-
luff, 35 N.Y.S.2d 380.
vT Ins. Co. of
New York v. Patterson, D.C.N.Y
17 F.Supp. 416.
13. N.Y.— Chester v. Chester, 1'3 K
Y.S.2d 502, 171 Misc. 608.
400
14. N.Y.— (Jhester v. Chester, supra.
49 C. J, S.
JUDGMENTS
220
claim if no triable issue is raised in response to his
affidavits,16 but his motion will be denied if such
an issue appears.16
Facts established by documentary evidence or of-
ficial record. Under some statutes or court rules,
where an answer states a defense sufficient as a
matter of law and if founded on facts established
prima facie by documentary evidence or official rec-
ord, defendant may obtain judgment dismissing the
complaint unless plaintiff shows facts sufficient to
raise an issue respecting the verity and conclusive-
ness of such evidence or record;17 "defense" is
used in such provisions in its broadest sense and
includes everything which would defeat plaintiffs
claim, including a general denial.18 However, the
complaint will not be dismissed if the defense is in-
sufficient in law,19 or if facts are shown sufficient
to raise an issue with respect to the verity and con-
clusiveness of the documentary evidence.20
(3) Particular Causes and Issues
Summary judgment has been granted or has been
denied in numerous particular actions, and with re*
spect to numerous particular Issues, depending .on
whether triable issues of fact were raised in opposition
to the affidavits of the moving party.
The rule that summary judgment will be granted
only where the moving party substantiates his claim
or defense by affidavit and no triable issue of fact
is raised in response thereto, discussed supra sub-
divisions c (1) and c (2) of this section, has been
applied in numerous cases which have adjudicated
the existence or nonexistence of triable issues in
causes of action on express or implied contracts
generally,21 to recover the price of goods or mer-
15. N.T.— -Stein v. W. T. Grant Co.,
5*6 N.Y.S.2d 582, 269 App.Div. 909
— Bissell v. Finley Realty Cp.» 298
N.Y.S. 47, 249 App.Div. 855— Lip-
scomb v. Lipscomb, 40 N.Y.S.2d
720, 17D Misc. 1025— Conoley v.
Distileria Serralles, Inc., 48 N.T.
S.2d 1<1— Ringler v. Metropolitan
Life Ins. Co., 29 N.Y.S.2d 281.
16. N.Y. — Commercial Credit Corpo-
ration v. Podhorzer, 224 N.Y.S.
505, 221 App.Div. 644— National
Electrotype Co. v. Pennie, 282 N.
Y.S. 787, 157 Misc. 2$, affirmed 278
N.Y.S. 529, 243 App.Div. 764.
17. N.Y.— -Walters v. Watters, 19 N.
Y.S.2d 995, 259 App.Div. 611— Hub
Oil Co. v. Jodomar, Inc., 27 N.Y.S.
2d 370, 176 Misc. 320— Chance v.
Guaranty Trust Co. of New York,
20 N.Y:S.2d 635, 173 Misc. 754, af-
firmed 13 N.Y.S.2d 785, 257 App.
Div. 1006, affirmed 26 N.-E.2d 802,
282 N.Y. 656— Diamond v. Davis,
38 N.Y.S.2d 93, affirmed 39 N.Y.S.2d
412, second case, 265 App.Div. 919*
affirmed 54 N.E.2d 68<3, second case,
292 N.Y. 6-54.
Remedy as available in actions other
than those in which plaintiff may
move for judgment see supra sub-
division a of this section.
Statute of frauds
Where agreement on which action
was brought was unenforceable un-
der statute of frauds, plaintiff could
not defeat defendant's motion for
summary judgment because plaintiff
might have had a cause of action
different from one set forth in com-
plaint.—Elsf elder v. Cournand, 59 N.
Y.:S.2d 34, 270 App.Div. 1'62, followed
in 59 N.Y.S.2d 377, 269 AppJDiv. 1034.
Books of corporate defendant are
"documentary evidence" within
meaning of text rule. — White v. Mer-
chants Despatch Transp. Co., 10 N.
Y.S.2d 962, 256 App.Div. 1044.
49 C.J.S.-26
Admissions as documentary proof
In action for carrier's failure to
deliver merchandise, plaintiff's ad-
missions or concessions that there
was no conversion were to be given
weight of documentary proof on
which defendants might move for a
summary judgment. — Winkler v,
Compania Sud Americana De Va-
por es, 41 N.Y.S.2d 67, 180 Misc. 181.
18. N.Y.— 4Levine v. Behn, 25 N.E.2d
871, 282 N.Y. 120— Dumont v. Ray-
mond, 49 N.Y.S.2d 865, affirmed 56
N.Y.S.2d 592, 269 App.Div. 592—
•Sirason v. Huffman, 45 N.Y.S.2d 140.
19. N.Y.— Maxwell v. Maxwell, 7 N.
Y.S.2d 991, 169 Misc. 431, affirmed
9 N.Y.S.2d 572, 256 Apfc.Div. 809.
Uncertainty of damages
The complaint will not be dis-
missed if a cause of action exists
and only the amount of damage aris-
ing from a breach of contract is un-
certain.—Bogardus v. U. S. Fidelity
& Guaranty Co., 58 N.Y.S.2d 217, 269
App.Div. 615, appeal denied 60 N.Y.
S.2d 270, 270 App.Div. 801.
20. N.Y.— Levine v. Behn, 25 N.E.2d
871, 282 N.Y. 120— -Duraont v. Kay-
mond, 56 N.Y.S.2d 592, 269 App.Div.
'592 — Goldstein v. Massachusetts
Accident Co., 284 N.Y.S. 704, 246
App.'Div. 823 — Lyon v. Holton, 14
N.Y.S.2d 436, 172 Misc. 31, af-
firmed 20 N.Y.S.2d 1015, 259 App.
Div. 877, modified on other grounds
36 N.B.2d 201, 286 N.Y. 270— New
York Post Corp. v. Kelley, 61 N.
Y.S.2d 264, affirmed Hearst Con-
solidated Publications v. Kelley, 61
N.Y.S.2d 762, 270 App.Div. 916, ap-
peal granted 62 N.Y.'S.2d 614, 270
App.Div. 923, New York Sun v.
Kelley, 62 N.Y.S.2d 614, 270 App.
Div. 924 and New York World Tel-
egram Corp. v. KeHey, ff2 N.Y.S.2d
614, 270 App.Div. 924, and New
York Post Corp. v. Kelley, 62 N.
YjS.2d 615, 270 App.Div. 923—
401
Steinbugler v. Steinbugler, .9 N.Y.
S.2d 939.
21. U.S.— U. S. v. Stephanidis, D.C.
N.Y., 41 P.2d 958.
CaL— Walsh v. Walsh, 108 P.2d 760,
42 Cal.App.2d 282.
Mich.— Barsky v. Katz, 216 N.W. 382,
241 Mich. 63.
N.J. — Perloff v. Island Development
Co., 133 A. 178, 4 N.J.Misc. 473.
N.Y. — National Brokerage Corp. v.
Travelers Ins. Co., 65 N.B.2d 183,
295 N.Y. 97— Rotberg v. M. S. & J.
A. Workman, 200 N.B. 314, 270
N.Y. 553 — Keystone Hardware
•Corporation v. Tague, 158 N.B. 27,
246 N.Y. 79, 53 A.L.R. 610— Me-
Cabe v. Interstate Iron & Steel
Co., 27 N.Y.S.2d 862, 262 Aj>p.Div.
777 — Birch v. Cameron Mach. Co.,
1 N.Y.S.2d 550, 253 App.Div. 8-30,
modified on other grounds 2 N.Y.
S.2d 66, 253 App.Div. 900— Wald v.
Manufacturers Trust Co., 290 N.Y.
<S. 632, 2*48 App.Div. 911, affirmed 6
N.Y.S.2d 142, 254 App.Div. T-69, re-
argument denied 6 N.Y.S.'2d 350,
254 App.Div. 885 — Sanborn v. Am-
ron, 234 N.Y.S. 129, 225 App.Div.
616 — Lion Brewery of New York
City v. Loughran, 229 N.Y.S. 216,
223 AppJDiv. 623— Rawlin v. New
Jersey Fidelity & Plate Glass Ins.
Co., 2tt N.Y.S. 85, 221 App.Div.
399 — Schulman v. Cornman, 223 N.
Y.'S. 19, 221 App.Div. 170— Aviation
Training Corp. v. Gargiulo, 03 N.
Y.S.2d 141. 184 Misc. 198— Kahn v.
Bosenstiel, 212 N.Y.S. 441, 125
Misc. 569— Bein v. Slater, 51 N.Y.
•S.2d 89-6, affirmed 55 N.T.S.2d 118,
269 App.Div. 764, appeal denied 56
N.Y.S.2d 203, 269 AppJDiv. 818—
Borrelli v. J. H. Taylor Const Co.,
37 N.Y.S.2d 150— Federal Schools
v. Goldstein, 29 N.Y,S.2d 256.
Pa. — Simpson v. Stabler, Com.PL, 53
Dauph.Co. 350 — Kosko v. Wenner,
35 Luz.Leg.Reg. 151.
Wis.— Prime Mfg. Co. v. A. £B\ Gallun
I 220 JUDGMENTS 49 0. J. S.
chandise sold22 or for services rendered,28 causes i of action on bills, notes, and bonds,24 on insur-
& Sons Corporation, 281 N.W. 697,
229 Wis. 348.
Employment contract*
N.Y. — Montefalcone v. Banco Di Na-
poll Trust Co. of N. Y., 52 N.Y.S.2d
655, 2'68 App.Div. 63*6, reargument
denied 53 N.Y.S.2d 955, 269 App.
Div. 685 — Catherwood v. Ithaca
College, 33 N.Y.S.2d 537, 263 App.
Div. 1027— Sundland v. Korfund
Co.. 20 N.Y.S.2d 819, 260 App.Div.
80.
Summary Judgment granted
111. — Gateway Securities Co. v,
Sckultz, 52 N.E.2d 825, 321 IlLApp.
312.
N.Y. — Jamaica Water Supply Co. v.
City of New York, 18 N.E.2d 523,
279 N.Y. 342 — Lueders v. Lueders,
'55 ,N.Y.S.2d 7-17, 269 Afcp.Div. 869
— "Sargant v. Monroe, 49 N.Y.S.2d
546, 268 App.Div. 123— Long Island
Daily Press Pub. Co. v. Uneeda
Credit Clothing Stores, 38 N.Y.S.2d
712, 2-65 App.Div. 958— Staniloff v.
•Ferguson, 283 N.YjS. 244, 246 App.
Div. 630 — United Products Corpo-
ration of America v. Standard Tex-
tile Products Co., 2)31 N.Y.S. 115,
224 App.Div. 371— O'Neil v. Mc-
Kinley Music Co., 212 N.Y.S. 7, 214
AppJDiv. 181 — Kennedy v. Herter,
'38 N.Y.S.2d 863.
22. N.Y.— Ellison v. Republic Mfg.
Corporation, 29'6 N.Y.S. 38, 251
App.Div. 746 — Bank of Taiwan v.
Schild, 358 N.Y.S. 331, 236 App.Div.
128— Klein v. Halbreich, 227 N.Y.
•S. 83'4, 22'3 Ajyp.Div. 732— J. R.
Melcher, Inc., v. Graziano, 209 N.
Y.S. 42$, 212 At>p.Div. 589.
Summary Judgment granted
N.Y. — Edward P. Dibble Seedgrower
v. Jones, 226 N.Y.«S. 785, 130 Misc.
359.
23. N.Y. — Geweye v. Half en, 10 N.
Y.S.2d 743, 256 App.Div. 1035— Mc-
Culloch v. Morton 'Lodge, No. 63,
F. & A. M., 267 N.Y.S. 5, 240 App.
Div. 848— Strom v. Prince, 279 N.
Y.S. 589, 154 Misc. 888— Bergman
v. Royal Typewriter Co., 29 N.Y.
S.2d 827, modified on other grounds
32 N.Y.S.2d 132, 26-3 App.Div. 812.
Wis.— Sullivan v. -State, 251 N.W.
251, 213 Wis. 185, 91 A.L.R. 877..
Actions for commissions
N.Y. — North Sea Developments v.
Burnett, 173 N.B. 228, 254 N.Y. Q74
— Kenny v. New York Life Ins.
Co., 46 N.Y.S.2d 4, 267 App.Div.
SS7. appeal denied 47 N.Y.6.2d "315,
267 ApfrDiv. 879— Axelrath v.
Spencer Kellogg & Sons, 38 N.Y.S.
2d 39, 265 App.Div. 874, affirmed 50
N.E.2d 103, 290 N.Y. 767, certiorari
denied 64 S.Ct 71, two cases, 320
U.S. 761, 8-8 L.Ed. 4'54— Tuohey v.
Carviu Bottle Cap Corporation, 12
N.Y.S.2d 51'6, 257 App.Div. 856—
Romlne v. Barnaby Agency, 227 N.
Y.'S. 235, 131 Misc. 696— Windsor
Investing Corporation v. T. J. Mc-
iLaughlin's Sons, 225 N.Y.S. 7, 130
Misc. 730, affirmed 229 N.Y.S. 926
224 App.Div. 715 — Murray v. Plym-
outh Oil Co., 46 N.Y.S.2d 113—
Handel v. Dumbra, 23 N.Y.«S.2d 347.
Attorneys' fees
111. — Soelke v. Chicago Business
Men's Racing Ass'n, 41 N.B.2d 232,
314 IlLApp. 336— Woods v. Village
of La Grange Park, 19 N.-B.2d 396,
298 IlLApp. 595.
N.Y.— Breitbart.v. Weill, 7 N.Y.S.2d
266, 255 App.Div. 801 — Zipser v.
Hardy, 57 N.Y.S.2d 482 — Goldwater
v. Hal-Ro Textile Corp., 63 N.Y.S.
2d 73.
Summary judgment granted
N.Y. — McDonald v. Amsterdam Bldg.
Co., 251 N.Y.S. 494, 232 App.Div.
1382, affirmed 1S2 N.E. 169, 2-59 N.
Y. 533— Geraci v. Fabbozi, 291 N.
Y.'S. 86, 161 Misc. 450— Goldsmith
v. T. & G. Assets Realization Cor-
poration, 37 N.Y.S.2d 37, affirmed
39 N.Y.S.2d 413, 265 App.Div. 917,
affirmed 50 N.B.2d 107, 290 N.Y.
784.
Value of services
The value of professional services
rendered and the amount thereof re-
maining unpaid should be determined
by assessment before a jury, and the
granting of a summary judgment
for a certain amount was improper,
where allegation in complaint that
services were reasonably worth the
'sum of one hundred dollars was de-
nied in defendant's answer and de-
nial found support in the affidavits. —
Averbach v. Stone, 12 N.Y.S.2d 114,
257 App.Div. 922.
24. UVS. — (Federal Reserve Bank of
New York v. Palm, 79 F.2d 53'9.
CaL — Slocum v. Nelson, App., 163 P.
2d 888.
Colo.— Hatfield v. Barnes, 1*68 P.2d
552.
Mich. — Hart & Crouse Co. v. Palavin,
241. N.W. 806, 257 Mich. 637— Tom-
linson v. Imperial Hotel Corpora-
tion, 222 N.W. 104, 245 Mich. 52.
N.J.— Maurer v. Hahn, 140 A. 273,
104 N.J.Law 254, affirmed 145 A.
«31'6, 105 N.J.Law 494.
N.Y.— Niles v. Seeler, 148 N.B. 743,
240 N.Y. «50— Segal v. National
City Bank of N. Y., 58 N.Y.S.2d
261, 269 App.Div. 986— Empire
Trust Co. v. Bartley & Co., 16
N.Y.S,2d 248, 258 App.Div. 249
— C. I. T. Corporation v. Revoir
Motors, 13 N.Y.S.2d 221, 257 App.
Div. 385 — 'Sweeney v. National City
Bank of Troy, 10 N.Y.S.2d 796, 256
App.Div. 102'2— Sherry v. Marsh, 9
N.Y.S.2d 4-94, 256 App.Div. 219—
Lawrence, Blake & Jewell v. Rock-
hurst Realty Qorporation, 8 N.Y.
S.2d 202, 255 App.Div. 491— C. I. T.
Corporation v. McKinney, 3 N.Y.©.
2d 92, 254 App.Div. 629— National
402
City Bank of New York v. Piluso,
290 N.Y.S. 968, 249 App.Div. 626—
Totoris v. Welikes, 286 N.Y.S. 924,
247 App.Div. 923 — Danneman v.
White, 283 N.Y.S. 868, 246 Apfc.Div.
727 — Salt Springs Nat. Bank of
Syracuse v. Hitchcock, 2*63 N.Y.'S.
55, 238 App.Div. 150— First Trust
& Deposit Co. v. Le Messurier, 257
N.Y.S. 394, 235 App.Div. 347, mo-
tion granted and question certified
258 N.Y.S. 1075, 236 App.Div. 775—
Ulster Finance Corporation v.
Schroeder, 243 N.Y.S. 682, 230 App.
Div. 14'6 — Weinberg v. Goldstein,
235 N.Y.S. 529, 226 App.Div. 479—
Bernstein v. Kritzer, 231 N.Y.S. 97,
224 App.Div. 387 — Karpas v. Band-
ler, 218 N.Y.S. 500, 218 App.DJv.
418 — Hauswald v. Katz, 214 N.Y.
S. 705, 216 App.Div. 92— Herson
Sydeman Co. v. Waumbeck Mfg.
Co., 208 N.Y.S. 716, 212 App.Div.
'422 — Hongkong & Shanghai Bank-
ing Corporation v. Lazard-God-
chaux Co. of America, 201 N.Y.S.
771, 207 App.Div. 174, affirmed 147
N.B. 216, 239 N.Y. 610— Ritz Carl-
ton Restaurant & Hotel Co. v. Dit-
mars, 197 N.Y.S. 405, 203 App.Div.
748— Allick v. Columbian Protec-
tive Ass'n, 53 N.Y.S.2d- 507, 184
Misc. -525, reversed on other
grounds 55 N.Y.S.2d 438, 269 App.
Div. 281, affirmed 64 N.B. 350,
295 N.Y. '603— Duval v. Skouras,
44 N.Y.S.2d 107, 181 Misc. 651, af-
firmed 46 N.Y.S.2d 888, 2'67 App.
Div. 811, and affirmed, 61 N.Y.S.Sd
379, 270 App.Div. 841— Yokohama
•Specie Bank, Limited, New York
Agency, v. Mllbert Importing Co.,
44 N.Y.S.2d 71, 182 Misc. 281—
Neptune Meter Co. v. Long Island
Water Meter Repair Co., 39 N:Y.
S.2d 325, 179 Misc. 445— Oester-
reichisches Qredit-Institut v.
Gross, 9 N.Y.'S.2d 84, 169 Misc.
951— Zurich General Accident &
Liability Ins. Co. v. Lackawanna
Steel Co., 299 N.Y.S. 862, 164 Misc.
498 — Anglo-Continentale Treuhand,
A. G., v. Southern Pac. Co., 299 N.
Y.S. 859, 165 Misc. 562, affirmed
298 N.Y.S. 181r 251 App.Div. 803—
Asbury .Park & Ocean Grove Bank
v. Simensky, 290 N.Y.S. 9*92, 160
Misc. 921— Bank of U. S. v. Slifka,
264 N.Y.S. 20-4, 148 Misc. 60— Hur-
witz v. Corn Exchange Bank Trust
Co., 253 N.Y.S. 851, 142 Misc. 398—
American Surety Co. of New York
V. Empire Trust Co., 217 N.Y.S.
«673, 128 Misc. 11'6— Gramercy .
'Finance Corporation v. Greenberg,
217 N.Y.S. 224, 127 Misc. 897—
•Ford v, Reilley, 216 N.Y.S. 27«3,
127 Misc. 373— Cohen v. Public
Nat. Bank of New .York, 204 N.Y.
S. 332, 123 Misc. MS— i Asbestos
Trading & -Finance Co. v. Hazen,
20'3 N.Y.S. 565, .122 Misc. 269—
Buler v. Sutherland, 55 N.Y.iS.2d
49 O.J:S.
JUDGMENTS
220
ance policies,25 causes of action pertaining to, in- I volving or based on contracts of guaranty or sure-
758— -First Nat. Bank of Dolge-
ville, N. T., v. Man*, 41 N.Y.S.2d
92— Haskell v. Lason, 31 N.Y.S.2d
729 — Goldstein v. Korff, 203 N.Y.S.
119 — Chris to v. Bayukas, 196 N.
Y.S. 500.
. — Atlas Inv. Co. v. Christ, 2 N.
*W.2d 714. 240 Wis. 114.
Summary judgment grouted
(1) To plaintiff.
U.S. — Maryland Casualty Co. v.
Sparks, C.C!.A.Mich., 76 F.2d 929.
I1L — Smith v. Karasek, 40 N.E.2d
59-4, 31«3 IlLApp. 654.
Mich, — Mcl>onald v. Staples, 261 N.
W. 86, 271 Mich. 5*90.
N.Y. — Waxman v. Williamson, 175 N.
E. 534, 256 N.Y. 117, amendment of
remittitur denied 177 N.E. 151, 256
N.Y. 587— -Nester v. Nester, 22 N.Y.
S.2d 119, 259 App.Div. 1065 — Ken-
nah v. Hurley, 14 N.Y.S.2d 799. 258
App.Div. 771 — Modernization Con-
tracts Corporation v. Sadonls, 9 N.
Y.S.2d 247, 256 App.Div. 877— In-
ternational & Industrial Securities
Corporation v. Jamaica Jewish
Center, 263 N.Y.S. 840, 237 App.Div.
738— National City Bank of New
Rochelle v. Holzworth, 248 N.Y.S.
584, 231 App.Div. 688— Smith v.
Cranleigh. Inc., 231 N.Y.S. 201, 224
App.Div. 376 — New York Trust Co.
v. American Realty Co., 210 N.Y.S.
64, 213 App.Div. 272— Caledonian
Ins. Co. of Edinburgh, Scotland v.
National City Bank of New York,
203 N.Y.S. 32, 208 App.Div. $3—
Second Nat. Bank v. Breitung, 197
N.Y.S. 375, 203 App.Div. 636— First
Trust Co. of Albany v. Arnold, 39
N.Y.S.2d 175, 179 Misc. 349— Lann
v. United Steel Works Corporation,
1 N.Y.S.2d 951, 166 Misc. 465— First
Trust & Deposit Co. v. Potter, 278
N.Y.S. 847, 155 Misc. 106— Union
Trust Co. of Rochester v. Lauman,
248 N.Y.S. 233, 139 Misc. 308—
Ralph Klonick Corporation v.
Haas, 240 N.Y.-S. 643, 1<36 Misc. 286
— Palmer 'Lumber Co. v. Whitney,
240 N.Y.S. 640, 13-6 Misc. 284—
Security 'Finance Co. v. Stuart, 224
N.Y.S. 257, 130 Misc. 538— Rodger
v. Bliss, 2'23 N.Y.S. 401, 130 Misc.
1)68 — Sarachan & Rosenthal v. J.
R. Bull & Co., 217 N.Y.S. 5'88, 127
Misc. 760— Mark Spiegel Realty
'Corporation v. Gotham Nat Bank
of New York, 201 N.Y.S. 599, 12<1
Misc. 547, affirmed 204 N.Y.S. 927,
208 App.Div. 843 — Brown v. C.
Rosenstein Co., 200 N.Y.S. 491, 120
Misc. 787, affirmed 20*3 N.Y.S. 922,
' 208 App.Div. 799— Blanchard Press
v. Aerosphere, Inc., 51 N.Y.S.2d
715, affirmed 56 N.Y.S.2d 415, 269
App.Div. 826 — Ullman v. Edgebert
43 N.Y.S.2d 666— Lalor v. Bour, 3fl
N.Y.S.2d 850— Douglass v. John
Aquino Sons, 16 N.YjS.2d 196—
Integrity Trust Co. T. Posch, 13
N.Y.S.2d 973.
(2) To defendant— Swift & Co. v.
Bankers Trust Co., 3 N.Y.S.2d 923,
254 Apfc.Div. 6*66, affirmed 19 N.E.2d
992, 280 N.Y. 135.
Judgment for defendant denied
Wis. — Schultz v. Rayome, 19 N.W.
2d 280, 247 Wis. 178.
Defense sufficient in law
To justify denial of plaintiffs' mo-
tion for summary judgment in action
on note, it is not enough that there
be a factual dispute, but it must
appear that the maker has a defense
which is sufficient in point of law. —
President and Directors of Manhat-
tan Co. v. Cocheo, 10 N.Y.S.2d 770,
25«6 App.Div. '560.
Acquisition from holder in due
course
Whether plaintiff acquired note
from holder in due course was ques-
tion of fact and hence motion for a
summary judgment was properly de-
nied.—Zabelle v. Gladstone, 8 N.Y.S.
2d 238, 255 App.Div. 953— Korn v.
Garfinkel, 9 N.Y.S.2d 20.
25. U.S. — Hoff v. St Paul-Mercury
Indemnity Co. of St Paul, C.C.A.,
74 F.2d 689 — Consolidated Indemni-
ty & Insurance Co. v'. Alliance Cas-
ualty Co., CJC.A.N.Y., 68 F.2d 21—
General Accident Fire & Life As-
sur. Corporation, Limited, of Perth,
•Scotland, v. Morgan, D.C.N.Y.. 30
'F.Supp. 753 — Maslin v. Columbian
Nat. Life Ins. Co., D.C.N.Y., 3 'F.
Supfp. 368.
111.— Ublasi v. Western & Southern
Life Ins. Co., 64 N.E.2d 233, 327
IlLApfc. 412.
N.Y.— Butler v. New York Life Ins.
Co., 38 N.Y.S.2d 451, 265 App.Div.
289, appeal denied 39 N.Y.S.2d 98>8,
2&5 App.Div. 991— Udisky v. Met-
ropolitan Life Ins. Co., 35 N.Y.S.
2d 1021, 264 App.Div. 890 — Wino-
kur v. Commercial Casualty Ins.
Co., 30 N.Y.«S.2d 22-5, 262 App.Div.
972 — Eifert v. U. S. Fidelity &
Guaranty Co., 16 N.Y.S.2d 783, 258
AppJDiv. 921— Imperial Auction
Galleries v. Massachusetts Fire &,
Marine Ins. Co., Boston, Mass., 9
N.Y.S.2d 424, 256 App.Div. 242—
Duke v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.,
8 N.Y.S.2d 723, 255 App.Div. 923—
Kaufman v. Metropolitan Life Ins.
Co., 287 N.Y.-S. 1014, 248 App.Div.
'613, motion denied 4 N.E.2d 421,
272 N.Y. 508— Klein v. Metropoli-
tan Life Ins. Co., 282 N.Y.S. 794,
246 App.Div. 564— Lo Gal-bo v. Co-
lumbia Casualty Co., 255 N.Y.S.
50'2, 234 App.Div. 510— Tully v.
New York Life Ins. Co., 240 N.Y.
S. 118, 228 App.Div. 449— Brooklyn
Clothing Corporation v. Fidelity-
Phenix Fire Ins. Co., 200 N.Y.S.
208, 205 App.Div. 743 — 'Fertig v.
General Accident Fire & Life As-
sur. Corporation, Limited, of Perth,
Scotland, 1<3 N.Y.S.2d 872, 171 Misc.
403
921 — -Hoffman v. Fireman's Fund
Indemnity Co., 290 N.Y.-S. 876, 160
Misc. 823, affirmed in part 290 N.
Y.S. 8T8, 248 App.Div. 866 — Pol-
lack v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc.
of U. S., 277 N.Y.S. 328, 15*4 Misc.
443 — Garrow v. Lincoln -Fire Ins.
Co. of New York, 273 N.Y.S. 492,
152 Misc. 423— Falk v. Empire
State Degree of Honor of Stockton,
246 N.Y.S. 649. 138 Misc. 697—
Carr v. Prudential Life Ins. Co.
of America, 27 N.Y.S.Sd 349— Pal-
ermo v. Northwestern Nat Ins. Co.
of Milwaukee, 201 N.Y.S. 10*6.
"Summary Judgment is rarely
granted in actions on policies of in-
surance. Almost always in such cas-
es the facts are not within the
knowledge of the defendant who is
therefore entitled to have the plain-
tiff's claim submitted to the test of
cross-examination. The better prac-
tice, even in such cases, is for the
defendant to submit in proper form
what knowledge he has on the sub-
ject or to set forth his lack of
knowledge. But the nature of the
case may be such that the very facts
set forth in the moving affidavit it-
self demonstrate that a trial rather
than a summary judgment is appro-
priate."— Suslensky v. Metropolitan
Life Ins. Co., 43 N.Y.S.2d 144, 146,
180 Misc. 624, affirmed 46 N.Y.S.Sd
888, 2'67 App.Div. 812, appeal denied
60 N.Y.S.2d 294, 270 App.Div. 819.
Summary Judgment granted
(1) To plaintiff.
U.'S. — Empire Carting Co. v. Employ-
ers' Reinsurance Corporation, C.C.
A.N.Y., 64 F.2d 36— Goldberger v.
McPeak, D.C.Pa., «60 F.Susxp. 498.
111. — Kovae v. Modern Mut Ins. Co.,
30 N.E.2d 109, 307 IlLApp. 247.
N.Y. — Cleghorn v. Ocean Accident &
Guarantee Corporation, Limited, of
'London, 215 N.Y.S. 127, 216 App.
Div. 342, modified on other grounds
155 N.B. 87, 24'4- N.Y. 186— Bal-
sam v. National Retailers Mut.
Ins. Co., 48 N.Y.S.2d 828, 182 Misc.
16— Youknot v. U. S. Fidelity &
Guaranty Co., 283 N.Y.S. 902, 15£
Misc. 33, affirmed 281 N.Y.S. 968,
245 App.DIv. 705— Killeen v. Gener-
al Ace., Fire & Life Assur. Corpo-
ration, 227 N.Y.S. 220, 131 Misc.
'691, affirmed 229 N.Y.S. 875, 224
App-Div. 719 — Independence In-
demnity Co. v. Albert A, .Volk Co.,
226 N.Y.S. 457, 131 Misc. 61— Kras-
ilovsky Bros. Trucking Corp. v.
Maryland Gas. Co., 54 N.Y.S.2d 60.
<2) To defendant
N.Y.— Feldstein v. New York Life
Ins. Co., 23 N.Y.S.2d 108, 2'60 App.
Div. 476, affirmed 35 N.E.2d 924,
286 N.Y. 572— Kalna v. Newark
Fire Ins. Co., 22 N.Y.«S.2d 407. 260
App.Div. 829, appeal dismissed 40
N.E.2d 42, 287 N.Y. 756— Rifkin
v. Manhattan Life Ins. Co. of New
§220 JUDGMENTS 49 CLJ.S.
tyship,2* on judgments,27 and causes of action in- J volving foreclosure of liens or mortgages,28 specific
York, 288 N.Y.'S. 6S5, 248 App.Div.
732— Webster v. Mutual Life Ins.
Co. of New York, 20 N.Y.S.2d 608,
174 Misc. 262, appeal denied 22 N.
Y.S.2d 824, 260 App.Div. 811— Bar-
enblatt v. Massachusetts Acci-
dent Co., 280 N.Y.S. 414, 155 Misc.
594, affirmed 288 N.Y.S. 889, 247
App.Div. 882— Mizrahi v. National
Ben Franklin Fire Ins. Co., 37 N.
Y.S.2d '698 — Cullinane v. Travelers
Ins. Co., 26 N.Y.-S. 2d 933 — Arroyo
v. John Hancock Mut Xiife Ins.
Co., 2«4 N.Y.S.2d 188— Moore v.
Metropolitan Life Ins. .Qo., 16 N.
Y.S.23 195.
Wis.— (Fehr v. General Accident -Fire
& Life Assur. Corp., 16 N.W.2d 787,
24'6 Wis. 228— Binsfeld v. Home
Mut. Ins. Co., 15 N.W.2d '828, 245
Wis. 552 — Potts v. Farmers' Mut.
Automobile Ins. Co., 289 N.W. 606,
233 Wis. 313— Witzko v. Koenig,
272 N.W. 8-64, 224 Wis. 674.
(3) Where plaintiff fails to com-
ply with the necessary requirements
before he can enforce his cause of
action, such as making proper proof
of loss prior to an action against an
insurer, no issue for trial exists, and
a summary judgment is proper. —
Binsfeld v. Home Mut. Ins. Co., 19
N.W.2d 240, 247 Wis. 273.
Defendant's motion for Judgment de-
nied
Mich. — R. E. Townsend Corporation
v. Gleaner Life Ins. Soc., 298 N.
W. 386, 298 Mich. 10.
N.Y. — Duke v. Metropolitan Life Ins.
Co., 298 N.Y.S. 608, 163 Misc. 629,
affirmed * N.Y.S.2d 723, 255 A"pp.
(Div. 923 — Halpern v. JLavine, 60
N.Y.S.-2d 121— -O'Neal v. Travelers
Fire Ins. Co., 48 N.Y.S.2d 99—
Esquilin v. Prudential Ins. Co. of
America, 38 N.Y.S.2d 6— Biloz v.
Tioga County Patrons' Fire Relief
Ass'n, 21 N.Y.S.2d 643, affirmed 23
N.Y.S.2d 460, 260 App.Div. 976.
26. US.— Real Estate-Land Title &
Trust Co. v. Commonwealth Bond
Corporation, C.C.A.N.Y., 63 'F.2d
237— u. S. v. Stephanidis, D.C.N.Y.,
41 !F.2d 958 — Massee & Felton
Lumber Qo. v. Benenson, D.C.N.Y.,
23 F.2d 107 — Chase Nat. Bank of
City of New York v. Burg, D.C.
Minn., 32 F.Supp. 230.
N.Y.— Read v. Lehigh Valley R. Co.,
•31 N.B.2d 891, 284 N.Y. 435— An-
derson v. Title Guarantee & Trust
Co., -10 N.B.2d 644, 274 N.Y. 546—
Morris v. Albany Hotel Corpora-
tion, 27*6 N.Y.S. -685, 243 App.Div.
645, affirmed 198 N.B. #35, 26"8 N.
Y. 641— «Seglin Const. Co. v. Co-
lumbia Casualty Co., *264 N.Y.'S.
144, 239 App.Div. 803 — -Koran v.
Van IDyk, 260 N.Y.S. 12, 2'3I6 App.
•Div. 463 — Souhami v. Prudence-
Bonds Corporation, 270 N.Y.S, 359,
150 Misc. U02 — Biel v. Crosse &
Blackwell, 264 N.Y.S. 318, 147
Misc. 718 — People's Wayne Coun-
ty Bank v. Power City Trust Co.,
2'63 N.Y.S. 477, 147 Misc. 168—
Pyrke v. -Standard Accident Ins.
Co., 252 N.Y.S. 635, 141 Misc. 186,
reversed in part on other grounds
and affirmed in part 254 N.Y.S. '520,
234 A&p.Div. la's— Standard Fac-
tors Corp. v. Kreisler, '53 N.Y.S.2C
871, affirmed 5*6 N.Y.'S.2d '414, 269
App.Div. 830, motion denied '62
NVE. 247, 294 N.Y. 1.
Wis. — Frank v. Schroeder, 300 N.W.
2-54, 239 Wis. 159.
Smmnary judgment
N.J. — Electric Service Supplies Co.
v. Consolidated Indemnity & In-
surance Co., 16'8 A. 412, 111 N.J.
(Law 288.
<Srimmfury Judgment; denied
(1) To plaintiff.— Morris v. Al-
bany Hotel Corporation, 198 N.B. 53'5,
268 N.Y. '641— Kramer v. Relgov
Realty Co., 198 N.B. 420, 268 N.Y.
592 — Brawer v. Mendelson Bros.
Factors, 186 N.B. 200, 262 N.Y. 53,
amended on other grounds 188 N.E.
65, 2-62 N.Y. 5*62— Moran v. Van Dyk,
279 N.Y.S. '638, 244 App.Div. 810.
(2) To defendant.
Mich. — American Employers' Ins. Co.
v. H. G. Christman & Bros. Co.,
278 N.W. 750, 284 Mich. 36.
N.Y.— Read v. Lehigh Valley R. Co.,
131 N.E.2d 891, 284 N.Y. 435.
27. N.Y.— Sargant v. Monroe, 49 N.
Y.S.2d -546, 268 App.Div. 123—
Barber v. Warland, 247 N.Y.S. 455,
139 Misc. 398— Bissell v. Bngle,
N.Y.S.2d 747.
Wis. — Ehrllch v. Frank Holton &
Co., 280 N.W. 297, 228 Wis. 676, re-
hearing denied and mandate va-
cated 281 N.W. 696, 228 Wis. 676.
Summary judgment granted
N.Y.— Preston v. Preston, 33 N.Y.iS.
2d 24, 178 Misc. 81 — Curran v. Cur-
ran, 240 N.Y.S. 364, 13*6 Misc. 598.
Wis.— Bhrlich v. Frank Holton & Co,
281 N.W. -696. 228 Wis. 676.
28. <N.Y. — Spruce Hill Homes v.
Brieant, 43 N.E.2d 5-6, 288 N.Y.
309, motion denied 47 N.E.2d 445,
289 N.Y. 849— Bast River Sav.
Bank v. 671 Prospect Ave. Holding
Corporation, 20 N.E.2d 780, 280 N.
Y. '342, reargument denied 21 N.
B.2d 699, 2'80 N.Y. 814, motion de-
nied 22 N.B.2d 871, 281 N.Y. 676—
City of New Rochelle v. Echo Bay
Waterfront Corporation, 49 N.Y.S.
2d 673, 268 App.Div. 182, certiorari
denied (6'6 S.Ct 24, 326 U.S. 720, 90
L.Bd. - . Affirmed 60 N.E.2d 8^8,
294 N.Y. ^78— Town of Harrison v.
Valentine, 34 N.Y.S.2d 54, 264 Ajpp.
Div. 729 — Box v. Linnemann, 1*2 N.
Y.S.2d '527, 237 App.Diy. '849—
•Clinton Trust Co. v. Church Ex-
tension Committee of Presbytery
of New: York, 5 N.Y.S.2d 290, 255
App.Div. -167 — Farber v. De Bruin,
404
2 N.Y.S.2d 244, 253 App.Div. 909—
Bowery iSav. Bank v. Sonona Hold-
ing Corporation, 296 N.Y.S. 7=9, 251
App..Div. 7416— 'Flushing Nat. Bank
in New York v. Thorpe, 295 N.Y.
S. 172, 251 App.Div. 721— (Floral
Park Lawns v. O'Connell, *294 N.Y.
S. 991, -250 App.Div. 464— Phc&nix
Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Tuddington
Holding Corporation, 291 N.Y.S.
1012, '249 AppZ>iv. 76^6— Pruden-
tial Ins. Co. of America v. K L.
F. Realty Co., 287 N.Y.S. 124, 247
App.Div. 89'8 — Exchange Bank v.
Ludlum, 285 N.Y.'S. 862, 246 App.
Div. 892— Safety Building-Loan &
Savings Ass'n of City of Albany v.
Felts, 279 N.Y.S. 846, '244 App.Div.
867 — Brescia Const Co. v. Walart
Const Co., 2'64 N.Y.S. 8'62, -238 App.
Div. 360 — Reed v. Neu-Pro Const.
Corporation, 2*34 N.Y.'S. 400, 226
App.Div. 70— 6udarsky v. Woodmar
Realty Co., 223 N.Y.S. 576, 224 App.
Div. 38— Levy v. Cohen, 267 N.Y.S.
4>6, 148 Misc. 908— Kaufman v.
Hitesman, 61 N.Y.S.2d 734.
Wis. — Seymour Holding Corp. v.
Wendt, 21 N.W.2d 267. 248 Wis.
1<30.
Summary judgment granted
I1L — Qhepard v. Wheaton, 60 N.-E.2d
47, 325 IlLApp. '269.
N.Y.— Astor v. Hotel St. Regis, 195
KB. 227, 266 N.Y. 617— Mills ILand
Corporation v. Rapoport, "51 N.Y.
S.2d 17, 26:8 Apfc.DJv. 911— ^Frank-
liri Soc. for Home-Building & Sav-
ings v. Flavin, 40 N.Y.-S.'2d 582, 2'65
App.Div. 720, affirmed *50 N.B.2d
653, 291 N.Y, S30, certiorari denied
•Flavin v. Franklin «Soc. for Home
Building & Savings, '64 S.Ct 158,
320 U.S. 786, 88 L.Ed. 472^-Smyth
v. McDonogh, 22 N.Y.S.2d -631, 2>60
AppJDiv. 889, reargument denied 23
N.Y.-S.2d 83'3. 260 App.Div. 897, ap-
peal denied 30 N.B.2d 731, 248 N.
Y. 8'22 — New York State Teachers'
Retirement System v. Coyne, 1'3 N.
Y.S.2d 660, 257 App.Div. 1010, cer-
tified questions answered and af-
firmed 28 N.B.2d 28, 28'3 N.Y. 615,
motion granted 29 N.B.2d 669, 284
N.Y. 594— New York Life Ins. Co.
v. West Eighteenth & Nineteenth
Streets Realty Corporation, 2 N.
Y.S.2d 806, 25'3 App.Div. 5'2 3— Mal-
colm Realty Co. v. 21 Bast 21st
•St. Corporation, 280 N.Y.S. 146,
245 App.Div. 731— Pellino v. 3232
Hull Ave. Realty Corporation, 2!64
N.Y.S. 214, 2-37 A«pp.Div. 759— Hy-
man v. Fischer, "52 N.Y.S.2d 553,
184 Misc. 90 — Home Owners' Loan
Corporation v. Wood, 9 N.Y.S.2d
83-4, 170 Misc. 74— Clark v. Selig-
man, 2-96 N.Y.'S. 98, 1'63 Misc. 5>33—
Kennilwood Owners' Ass'n v. Wall,
264 N.Y.S. 135, 148 Misc. «67— Vil-
lage of 'Fleischmanns v. Silberman,
15 N.Y.S.2d 904.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
220
performance,29 to recover chattels,30 or to recover a
deposit of money,31 and causes or proceedings in-
volving the rights and liabilities of corporations,
corporate officers, or stockholders,32 and landlord
and tenant.33
So also summary judgment has been granted or
has been denied depending on whether issues of
fact were raised with respect' to such matters as
the existence, validity, and conditions of a con-
tract,34 the right of set-off or recoupment against
plaintiffs claim,35 negligence,36 statute of frauds,37
limitations,38 and whether issues of fact were raised
Defendant's motion denied
N.Y.— Katz v. Welnschelblatt, 205 N.
Y.S. 76, 209 App.Div. 606.
29. Cal. — Gibson v. De iLa Salle In-
stitute, 152 P.2d 774, «6 Cal.App.
2d 609.
N.Y.— Bartels v. Bennett, 8 N.Y.S.2d
335, 255 App.Div. 1001— Mondrus v.
•Salt Haven Corp., 62 N.Y.S.2d 477,
modified on other grounds 63 N.Y.
S.2d 205 — MacLaeon v. Lipchitz, 56
N.Y.S.2d $09, affirmed #8 N.Y.S.2d
337, 269 App.Div. 953.
Defendant's motion denied
N.Y.— 'Singer v. First Nat Bank, 287
N.Y.S. 634, 248 App.Div. $09- New
York Produce Exch. Safe Deposit
& Storage Co. v. New York Produce
Exch., 20-3 N.Y.S. 648, 208 AppJDiv.
421, affirmed 144 N.B. 901, '2i38 N.
Y. 582— MacLaeon v. Lipchitz, '56
N.Y.S.2d 609, affirmed 58 N.Y.S.2d
337, 269 App.Div. 953.
30- N.Y.— Sullivan County Oil Co:
v. 'Sommers, 45 N.Y.S.2d 547, 267
App.Div. 799 — Hampton Bottlers v.
Distributors Consol. Corporation,
38 N.Y.S.2d 236.
Pa. — Koehring Co. v. Ventresca, 6 A.
2d 297, 3'34 Pa. 566— Household
Outfitting Co. v. Goldman, Com.Pl.,
43 OL.ack.Jur. 10'6— Pieklo v. Pieklo,
Com.Pl., $8 •'Luz.Leg.Reg. «3'69 — Au-
tomobile Banking Corporation v.
Drahus, 33 (Luz.Leg.Reg. 481, ap-
peal quashed 13 A.2d 874, 140 Pa.
Super. 469.
81. N.Y.— Ditkoff v. Prudential 'Sav.
Bank, 280 N.Y.S. 437, 245 App.Div.
748 — Larkin v. Greenwich Sav.
Bank, 271 N.Y.S. 288, 241 App.Div.
874 — Allison v. Brooklyn Trust Co.,
2-60 N.Y.S. 31, 145 Misc. 658— Chil-
vers v. Baldwin's Bank of Penn
Tan, 23*3 N.Y.S. !520, 193 Misc. 787
— Sperling v. Sperling, 56 N.Y.S.2d
88 — Lourie v. Chase Nat. Bank, 42
N.Y.S.2d 205 — Hampton Bottlers v.
Distributors Consol. Corporation,
•38 N.Y.S.2d 236— Stoever v. 'Small,
35 N.Y.S.2d 375— Kirshenblatt v.
Public Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of
New York, 9 N.Y.S.2d 262.
Summary judgment granted ,
Cl) To plaintiff. — Van Der Veen v.
Amsterdamsche Bank, '35 N.Y.S.M
945, 178 Misc. 668— Community Vol-
unteer Fire Co. of NimmonsbuKg v.
City Nat Bank of Btnghamton, 14 N.
Y.S.2d 306, 171 Misc. 1027.
(2) To defendant — Bromberg v.
Bank of America Nat Trust & Sav-
ings Ass'n, 135 P.2d 689, -58 Cal.App.
2d 1.
32. N.Y.— Binder v. Doelid, 2*8'5 N.Y
•S. 56, 246 App.Div. 800-nSchnitzler
v. Tartell, 224 .N.Y.S. 339, 130 Misc
565— (Federal Deposit Ins. Corpo-
ration v. Appelbaum, 39 N.Y.S.2d
•300— Kirby v. Schenck, 25 N.Y.S.2d
431.
33. N.Y.— Piedmont Hotel Co. v. A.
B. Nettleton Co., 188 N.B. 145, 263
N.Y. 25 — Land Associates Corpora-
tion v. Grand Union Stores, 299 N.
Y.S. 882, 253 App.Div. 90S— Berry
v. Stuyvesant 283 N.Y.S. 191, 245
App.Div. 51'6 — Maxrice Realty Cor-
poration v. B/G Sandwich Shops,
267 N.Y;S. 86>3, 239 App.Div. 472—
60 "West 53rd St Corporation v.
Haskell, 246 N.Y.S. 360, 231 Ajpp.
Div. 62 — Canrock Realty Corpora-
tion v. Vim Electric Co., '37 N.Y.S.
2d 139, 179 Misc. 39-1— Comas Hold-
ing Corporation v. Handel, 265 N.
Y.S. '873, 148 Misc. 439— Stein v.
'Feinberg, 245 N.Y.S. 551, 138 Misc.
295 — Printerion Realty Corp. v.
Mancini, 61 N.Y.S.2d 200— Direct
Realty Co. v. Birnbaum, 46 N.Y.S.
2d '435-^Tefferson Estates v. Wil-
son, 139 N.Y.S.2d '502— Sheridan
Ave. Corporation v. Sift, 29 N.Y.®.
2d -333.
Summary judgment granted
(1) To plaintiff.
T3VS. — Irving Trust Co. v. American
Silk Mills, Inc., C.C.A.N.Y., 72 (P.
2d 288, certiorari denied American
Silk Mills. Inc., v. Irving Trust
Co., 55 S.Ct. 239, S93 U.S. '624, 79
L.Bd. 711.
N.Y.— Rabitzek Investing Co. v. Co-
lonial Beacon Oil Co., 40 N.Y.S.2d
819, 2*65 App.Div. 749, appeal de-
nied 42 N.Y.S.2d 922, 266 App.Div.
775— Silleck v. McDonald, 2*60 N.
Y.S. 802, 237 App.Div. 121— lago
Realty Corp. v. Marmin Garage
Corp., 59'N.YjS.2d 740, 186 Misc.
478.
(2) To defendant — Abrams v. Al-
len, 42 N.Y.S.2d 641, 26« App.Div.
S3 5, reargument and appeal denied
44 N.Y.S.2d 337, 266 Ajpp.Div. 948.
Motion by defendant denied
U.ig. — Weisser v. Mursam Shoe Cor-
poration, C.C.A., 127 <F.2d 344, 145
A.L.R. 467.
N.Y.— Schulte Real Estate . Co. v.
Pedexnode, Inc., 195 N.E. 195, 266
N.Y. 5-50.
34. jvf.Y. — Liebman v. Rosen thai, 59
N.Y.S.2d 148, 2?69 A«pp.Div. 10!62 —
Sherry v. Marsh, 9 N.Y.S.2d 494,
256 App.Div. 219— Hano Paper Cor-
poration v. F..W. Woolworth Co.,
293 N.Y.S. 804, 250 App.Div. 49—
405
Lowe v. Plainneld Trust Co. of
Plainsfield, N. J., 215 N.Y.S. 50, 216
App.Div. 72 — Perera v. Longone,
213 N.Y.S. 418, 215 App.Div. 79-6—
Gantz v. Investors' (Syndicate, 265
N.Y.S. 749, 148 Misc. 274.
35. N.Y.— Gaimari v. Horch, -2 93 N.
Y.S. 479, 249 App.Div. 537— Union
Trust Co. of Rochester v. Vetro-
mile, 268 N.Y.S. 26, '239 App.Div.
562— A. B. Aldus Realty Co. v.
Breslof, 231 N.Y.S. 640, 133 Misc.
149.
36. Ariz.— Manor v. Barry, 154 P.2d
<374.
N.Y.— Troy v. New York Trust Co.,
16 N.Y.S.2d 589, 258 App.Div. 959,
reargument denied In re Wolff's
Will, 18 N.Y.S.2d 742, 258 App.Div.
1055 — Nusbaum v. Rial to Sec. Cor-
poration, 264 N.Y.S. 513, 238 App.
Div. 257 — Pyramid Musical Corpo-
ration v. -Floral Park Bank, 42 N.
Y.S.2d 24, 179 Misc. 73'3 — Siegal v.
Public Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of
New York, 7 N.Y.S.2d 771.
37. N.Y.— Gold v. 'Smith, 272 N.Y.S.
139, 242 App.Div. 643, amended on
other grounds 275 N.Y.S. 342, 242
App.Div. 777 — Pohlers v. Exeter
Mfg. Co., 52 N.Y.S.2d 31*6— De
Jahn v. Crichton, 16 N.Y.'S.2d 888.
On defendant's motion
Whether oral contract in suit is
void and unenforceable under stat-
ute of frauds should be determined
on trial of issues, rather than on
defendant's motion for summary
Judgment — Jacobson v. Jacobson, 49
N.Y.S.2d 166, 2S8 App.Div. 770.
38. U.S.— Aachen & Munich Fire
Ins. Co. v. Guaranty Trust Co. of
New York, D.C.N.Y., 24 -F.2d 463.
N.Y.— <Di Nufrio v. Ajello, 207 N.Y.S.
229, 211 App.Div. 487— Fogarty v.
Ross, 41 N.Y.S.2d 109, 180 Misc.
606— Monhof v. Happy, 258 N.Y.S.
498, 144 Misc. 208— Arnold v. Buss-
mann, 29 N.Y.S.2d 155, affirmed 34
N.Y.S.2d 829, 264 App.Div. 713.
Motion for defendant granted on
defense of limitations.
U.iS. — Downey v. Palmer, D.C.N.Y.,
32 F.'Supp. 344, reversed on other
grounds, C.C.A., 114 «F.2d 116.
IlL — Richey v. Northwestern Univer-
sity, '55 N.E.2d 406, "323 Ill.App.
293.
N.Y.— Haxnill v. Title Guarantee &
Trust Co., 23 N.Y.S.2d 244, 260
App.Div. 873, appeal denied 24 N.
YJS.2d 127, 260 App.X)iv. 932, ap-
peal denied 31 N.E. 2 a 5*17, 255 N.
Y. 85*6— CJhance v. Guaranty Trust
220
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
with respect to false representations or fraud,39
waiver,40 duress,41 and usury.42
Issue as. to foreign law. A question raised as to
foreign law ordinarily presents a triable issue so as
to preclude the granting of summary judgment,43
but that is not the case where no interpretive deci-
sions of foreign courts are referred to by either
side, and statutes alone are presented for construc-
tion.44
Damages. Where the statute ior court rule per-
mits recovery of summary judgment on an unliqui-
dated claim where no triable- issue exists, and pro-
vides for an assessment of damages to determine
the amount of the judgment, an issue of fact with
respect to damages will not bar judgment.45
Claims against decedents' estates. In actions
prosecuting claims against a decedent's estate based
on a transaction with the decedent, plaintiffs mo-
tion for summary judgment ordinarily will be de-
nied notwithstanding insufficiency of opposing affi-
davits since the facts on which the claim is based
usually are within plaintiffs exclusive knowledge
and the claim should be properly proved on a trial.46
§ 221. Against Whom Judgment May Be
Rendered
In a proper case summary Judgment may be rendered
against all persons permitted by statute to be Joined
in the action and who are parties thereto.
In a proceeding for summary judgment by mo-
tion, plaintiff may proceed against all persons per-
mitted by statute to be joined in the action.47
However, a summary judgment may be entered only
against a party to the action,48 and not against a
third person who is not such a party.49 Where the
Co. of New York, 13 N.Y.S.2d 785,
257 AppJMv. 1006, affirmed £6 N.
E.2d 802, 282 N.Y. '65«— Lyon v.
Holton, 14 N.Y,S.2d 436, 172 Misc.
31, affirmed 20 N.Y.S.2d 1015, 259
App.DIv. 877, modified on other
grounds -86 N.E.2d 201, 286 N.Y.
270.
Motion for defendant denied
U.S.— Hadlock v. Eric, D.C.N.Y., "23
F.Supp. 692.
N.Y.— Schmoll Pils Associated v. Ex-
port S. S. Corporation, 21 N.Y.-S.2d
194.
39. N.T. — Bank of Lucedale v. Unit-
ed Naval Stores Co., 211 N.Y.S. 32,
214 App.Div. . 81— Tidewater Oil
Sales Corporation v. Pierce, 210
N.Y.S. 769, 213 App.Div. 796— Ca-
pone v; Simantob Realty Corpora-
tion, 260 N.Y.S. 486, 1'46 Misc. 2—
Asbestos Trading & Finance Co. v.
Hazen, 203 N.Y.S. 5*65, m Misc.
269 — Utilities Engineering Insti-
tute v. Hagerty, 56 N.Y.S.2d 377—
First Nat Bank of Dolgeville, N.
Y., v. Mang, 41 N.Y.S.2d 92— Util-
ities Engineering Institute v. Yan-
ick, 29 N.Y.S.2d 258.
Summary judgment granted to de-
fendant
K.Y.— Marshall v. U. 'S. Review Cor-
poration, 15 N.Y.S.2d 21, 258 App.
Div. 722, appeal dismissed 25 NJC.
2d 147, 2'82 N.Y. 5S4.
Summary Judgment for defendant
denied
N.Y.— Goldsmith v. National Con-
tainer Corporation, 40 N.E.2d 242,
287 N.Y. 4(38.
4a N.Y.— 'Federal Terra Cotta Co.
v. Margolies, 2ttl N.Y.S. 8756, 215
App.Div. 651— Hurwite v. Slater,
•53 N.Y.S.2d 905.
Pa. — Klupot v. Prudential Ins. Co.
of America, Com.Pl., 36 QUizXeg.
Reg. 165.
41. N.Y. — Ritz Carlton Restaurant
& Hotel Co. T. Ditmars, 197 N.Y.S.
405, 20*3 Aj?p.Div. 748— Merchants'
"Ladies Garment Ass'n v. Coat
House of William M. Schwartz,
Inc., 273 N.Y.-S. '317, 1-52 Misc. 130.
42. Mich.— Straus v. Elless Co., 222
N.W. 752, 245 Mich. 558.
N.Y.— Baker v. Smythe, 59 N.Y.S.2d
709, 270 App.Div. 811, reargument
denied 61 N.Y.*S.2d 388, two cases,
270 App.Div. 342— S. C. Beckwith
Special Agency v. Orange County
Herald Pub. Co., 212 N.Y.S. 108,
214 App.Div. 212— Royal Diamond
•Co. v. Ostrin, 232 N.Y.S. 223, 133
Misc. S'5'5— Hinman v. Brundage, 13
N.Y.S.2d '36-3.
43. N.Y. — Bercholz v.' Guaranty
Trust Co. of New York, 40 N.Y.S.
2d 41, 179 Miac. 778— Paterno v.
Eagar, 51 N.Y.S.2d 938— Old World
Art v. Quistgaard, 41 N.Y.'S.2d 586,
affirmed '44 N.Y.S.2d 341, 266 App.
IDlv. "951, appeal denied 44 N.Y.S.
2d 687, 2'6>6 App.Div. 964— Dum-
badze v. Agency of Canadian Car
& Foundry Co., 38 N.Y.S.2d 991,
affirmed Gurge v. Agency of Cana-
dian Car & .Foundry 'Co., 45 N.Y.S.
2d 955, 2*67 App.Div. 782, appeal de-
nied In re Dumbadze's Estate, 47
N.Y.'S.2d 315, 2-67 App.Div. 8T8.
44. N.Y. — Dumbadze v. Agency of
Canadian Car & Foundry Co., Q8
N.Y.S.2d 991, affirmed Gurge v.
Agency of Canadian Car & Foun-
dry Co., 45 N.Y.S.2d. 955, 267 A#p.
Div. 782, appeal denied In re Dum-
•badze's Estate, 47 N.Y.S.Sd 315, 267
App.Div. 878.
46. N.Y.-JC. J. G. Corporation v.
Knickerbocker Ins. Co. of New
York, 273 N.Y.S. 42, 242 App.Div.
• 685 — (Fuller v. American Surety
Co., 275 N.Y.S. 113, IS* Misc. 432.
46. N.Y. — Browne v. Browne, 40 N.
Y.«S.2d 253, 2-66 App.Div. 664— Rob-
insohn v. Herman, 234 N.Y.S. 693,
184 Misc. 24*6 — Sorensen v. East
River Sav. Inst, 196 N.Y.S. 361,
406
119 Misc. 297— Quigley v. Fitts, S7
N.Y.S.2d 1<6.
In action on unpaid checks against
maker's administrator, wherein ad-
ministrator denied knowledge of
transaction in which checks were
given, plaintiff was not entitled to
summary Judgment, since formal
proof would be required even though
plaintiff was likely to succeed at tri-
al.—'Friedman v. Friedman, 29$ N.Y.
S. 7-14, 251 App.Div. 865.
47. W.Va.— State ex rel. Connells-
ville By-Product Coal Co. v. Con-
tinental Coal Co., 186 S.E. 119, 117
W.Va. 447, 106 A.L.R. 83.
Persons liable on instrument.
Statute providing "that holder of
instrument in any proceeding by no-
tice for judgment on motion there-
on may join all or any intermediate
number of persons liable although
promise of makers or obligations of
persons otherwise liable may be joint
or several or joint and several, be-
ing remedial, should not be given a
technical or unlimited construction.
— State ex rel. Connellsville By-
Product Coal Co. v. Continental Coal
Co., supra..
Sureties on different bonds
Where two supersedeas bonds were
filed In the same suit and conditioned
the same, although made at differ-
ent times, in different penalties and
signed by different sureties, the
sureties could not be joined as par-
ties defendant in a notice of motion
for judgment for recovery on the
bonds.— -State ex rel. Shenandoah
Valley Nat Bank v. Hiett, 17 S.B.2d
878, 123 W.Va. 739, 137 A.L.R. 1041.
48. N.Y.— (Field v. Maghee, * Paige
539.
49. N.Y.— flWeld v. Maghee, supra.
Tenn. — Ex parte Qraighead, 12 Heisk.
640.
34 C.J. p 202 note 77.
49 0. J. S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 222
action is against two or more defendants, it has
been held that a summary judgment may not be
entered against one of them alone,50 unless it ap-
pears that he has no defense to the action and that
the others have good defenses and should be per-
mitted to defend.51 • A motion and judgment against
heirs only, where they are liable only jointly with
the personal representative, has been held to be er-
roneous but not void, where the court had juris-
diction of the subject matter.52 Where the mo-
tion is under a special statute which is applicable
only to certain persons, judgment may be had
against those only against whom the remedy is giv-
en.^
§ 222. Procedure in General
The procedure prescribed by statute or court rule
for obtaining summary judgment on motion or in spe-
cial proceedings generally must be followed, and a fail-
ure to comply therewith will preclude the granting of
the motion.
A party moving for summary judgment must gen-
erally comply with the statute or court rule relat-
ing thereto, and a failure to "follow the procedure
prescribed will preclude the granting of a motion
for summary judgment or the substantiation of a
claim of defense.54 Under statutes providing for
summary judgment on motion in actions instituted
in the ordinary way where no triable issue of fact
is disclosed in answer to affidavits of the moving
party, such a motion is the procedural equivalent of
a trial,55 and all necessary parties must be before
the court, or their status must be submitted by prop-
er proof.56 The motion searches the record,57 and,
where made by plaintiff, it admits every material
averment in the answer or affidavit of defense58
and reopens the question of the sufficiency of the
complaint;59 but defendant's motion for judgment
50. N.Y. — Alwais v. Employers* Lia-
bility Assur. Corporation, (Limited,
of London, Eng., 208 N.Y.S. 137,
211 App.Div. 734.
34 C.J. p 202 note 79.
51. N.Y.— Meeker v. Saskill, 298 N.
T.'S. 754, 164 Misc. 718.
34 C.J. p 202 note 78.
52. Ky. — Bustard v. Gates, 4 Dana
429.
53. Cal. — Hansen v. Martin, 63 Cal.
282.
34 C.J. p 202 note -82.
54. Md.— Katski v. Triplett, 30 A.2d
764, 181 Md. 545— Mueller v. Mich-
aels, 60 A. 485, 101 Md. 188.
Mich. — Terre Haute Brewing Co. v.
, Goldberg, 289 N.W. m 291 Mich.
401— Gloeser v. Moore, 278, N.W.
781, 284 Mich. 106.
N.Y.— Silvestro v. City of New York,
49 N.Y.S.2d 217, affirmed 55 N.Y.S.
. 2d 583, 269 AppJDiv. 783.
Verification and statement of amount
To entitle plaintiff to a summary
Judgment, under Rules of Civil Prac-
tice, rule 113, the cause of action
must be verified by plaintiff, or by
a iperson having knowledge of the
facts, .and the amount claimed must
be stated. — State Bank v. Mackstein,
205 N.Y.S. 290, 123 Misc. 41'6.
TTnprecedented motion
.•Fact that defendant's motion to re-
quire plaintiff to accept as a suffi-
cient response to plaintiff's motion to
strike out the answer and for sum-
mary judgment an annexed affidavit
and on the strength of such affida-
vit to have motion for judgment de-
nied was unprecedented was no rea-
son of itself for denying the motion.
— Stone, v. ^Etna Life Ins. Co., 31 N.
Y.S.2d 61'5, ITS Misc. 23.
65. N.Y. — Irvin Agency v. Hess, 26
N.Y.S.2d 819, 17-6 Misc. 6% .af-
firmed 26 N.Y.S<2d 858, 2fcL App.
Div. 935.
Admission of defense
The rule that a defense in defend-
ant's answer stands admitted where
plaintiff does not file a reply applies
as well on a motion for summary
judgment as on a trial. — Gliwa v.
Washington Polish Loan & Building
Ass'n, 34 N.B.2d 7'36, 310 IlLApp.
465.
58. N.Y.— Grossman 'Steel Stair
Corp. v. -Steinberg, 54 N.Y.S.2d 275.
Partners
In action against two partners,
.where only one of them files answer
and papers submitted on plaintiff's
motion for summary judgment do
not show whether codefendant was
served with process and appeared or
answered motion will be held in
abeyance and plaintiff will be permit-
ted to submit proof by affidavit as to
whether such codefendant was
served with process, appeared and
answered, and also whether he is
entitled to benefits of Soldiers' and
Sailors' Civil Relief Act. — Grossman
Steel Stair Corp. v. Steinberg, supra.
Defendant held within Jurisdiction
of court
I1L— National Builders Bank of Chi-
cago v. Simons, 31 N.E.2d 269, 307
IlLApp. 552.
57. Wis. — Unmack v. McGovern,
296 N.W. 66, 236 Wis. 639— Fuller
v. General Accident Fire & Life
Assur. Corporation, Limited, of
Perth, "Scotland, 272 N.W. 839, 224
Wis. '603.
First defective pleading
Record on motion for summary
judgment will be searched to ascer-,
tain first fault in pleading and con-
demnation visited on first pleading
found defective.
Trust Co. v. Anthony Ric-
407.
ci Realty Co., 241 N.Y.S. 481, 137
Misc. 128.
Wis.— Sullivan v. State, 251 N.W.
251, 213 Wis. 185, 91 A.L.R. 877.
Demurrer to motion for judgment
admitted truth of matters alleged in
motion. — Arkansas State Highway
Commission v. Partain, 103 -S.W.2d
53, 193 Ark. 803.
58. U.S.— Mara v. XT. S., D.C.N.Y., 64
F.2d 397.
Cal.— Grady v. Basley, 114 P.2d '635,
45 Cal.App.2d 632.
59. 111. — Gliwa v. Washington Po-
lish Loan & Building Ass'n, 34 N.
B.2d 736, 310 IlLApp. 465.
Affidavits
Search of record on plaintiff's mo-
tion for summary judgment should
include affidavits supporting com-
plaint, which should be dismissed,
where such affidavits disclose no
cause of action, although demurrer
would otherwise have to be over-
ruled.—-Sullivan v. State, 251 N.W.
251, 213 Wis. 185, 91 A.L.R. 877.
Typographical error
On motion for summary judgment,
a typographical error in complaint
may be corrected, and complaint will
be deemed corrected for purpose of
motion. — Schroeder v. Columbia Cas-
ualty Co., 21'3 N.Y.-S. 649, 126 Misc.
205.
Unlike judgment on pleadings
While a motion for suinmary judg-
ment, when properly supported by
required affidavits, searches the rec-
ord and permits the court to exam-
ins the complaint to determine
whether it states a cause of action,
such motion is not the same as a
motion for judgment on the plead-
ings.— Fuller v. General Accident
.Fire & Life Assur. Corporation, "Lim-
ited, of Perth, Scotland, 272 N.W.
; 839, 224 Wis. 603.
222
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
dismissing the complaint on the ground that there
was an existing final judgment determining the
same cause of action does not challenge the suffi-
ciency of the facts alleged in the complaint to con-
stitute a cause of action or the truth of such alle-
gations.60
The filing of a motion for summary judgment
does not constitute the filing of a motion for de-
fault which would preclude defendant from filing
answer thereafter,61 but a cross motion to amend
the answer will not lie on a motion for summary
judgment.62 The refusal to permit interrogatories
to obtain certain evidence in defense of a motion
for summary judgment is not error where such
evidence would not constitute a defense to the ac-
tion.63 Plaintiffs motion for partial summary
judgment is not an acceptance of defendant's ten-
der of part of the amount claimed but is subject
to the implied reservation of the right to proceed
with the prosecution of the cause of action for the
remainder of his claim.64
Proceedings by notice of motion. Under some
statutes, in lieu of an ordinary action at law, one
may proceed in certain cases by way of notice ot
motion for judgment,65 and under such procedure
the notice constitutes the writ and declaration in
the case informing defendant of the demand on
which summary judgment will be sought on a fu-
ture day, as is discussed infra § 223 b.
The proceedings for a summary judgment by
motion on notice are of an informal nature,66 not
in all respects governed by the common-law rules
of practice and procedure,67 and are to be construed
with liberality.68 Formal pleadings usually are not
required;69 but there must be both allegation and
proof to entitle plaintiff to judgment,70 and the
allegation must precede the proof,71 and what is
lacking in the allegations cannot be supplied by
evidence.72 An answer or other pleading to the
motion is not required,73 except in cases where
pleadings are required by statute.74 Defendant
may either demur to the sufficiency of the notice,75
in which case the demurrer admits the truth of all
the facts properly pleaded in the notice,76 or he
60. N.Y.— Pagano v. Arnstein, 55 N.
E.2d 181, 292 N.Y. 826.
61. Iowa. — City of Des Moines v.
Barnes, 20 N.W.2d 895.
62. N.Y.— \E3rie Commercial Corpo-
ration v. Then, 18 N.Y.'S.2d 569,
259 APp.Div. 786.
63. Mich.— Dart Nat. Bank v. Bur-
ton, 241 N.W. '85'S, 258 Mich. 283.
64. N.T.— -Fleder v. Itkin, «60 N.E.2d
753, 294 N.T. 77.
65. Va.— Schreck v. Virginia Hot
Springs Co., 125 «S.B. 316, 140 Va.
429.
W.Va.— Oeorge A. Kelley Qo. v. Phil-
lips, 184 S.E. 469, 102 W.Va. 85.
66. Va. — Schreck v. Virginia Hot
Springs Co., 125 S.E. 316, 140 Va.
429— Bardach Iron & Steel Co. v.
Tenenbaum, 118 S.E. 502, 136 Va.
ro.
W.Va. — Elkhorn (Sand & Supply Co.
v. Algonquin Coal Co., '136 "S.E. 783,
10i3 W.Va. 110— George A. Kelley
Co. v. Phillips, 134 S.E. 469, 102
W.Va. 85.
34 C.J. p 202 note '83.
67. W.Va. — «Lawhead v. Nelson, 168
S.E. 659, 113 W.Va. 453— Elkhorn
Sand & Supply Co. v. Algonquin
Coal Co., 1*36 S.E. 783, 103 W.Va.
1-10.
68. Va.— Warren v. Shackelford, 169
S.E. 737, 160 Va. 671.
34 C.J. p 202 note 84.
69. W.Va.— Citizens' Nat. Bank v.
Dixon, 117 S.E. 685, 94 W.Va. 21.
<34 C.J. p 202 note 85.
A motion for summary judgment
serves office of icomplaint. — Harris v.
Barber, 186 So. 160, 237 Ala. 138.
70. Va.— -Kennedy v. Mullins, 154 S.
E. 568, 155 Va. 166— Mankin v.
Aldridge, 105 S.E. 459, 127 Va, 761.
Common counts
The bare allegation of the com-
mon counts in assum-psit in a no-
tice of motion for judgment was not
sufficient to warrant recovery on the
basis of fraud, since fraud must be
clearly alleged and proved.— Inter-
Ocean Casualty Co. v. Leccony
Smokeless 'Fuel Co., 17 S.E.2d 51, 123
W.Va. 541, 137 A.L.R. 488.
Note not due
Where, on trial of motion for Judg-
ment, one of two notes sued on was
not due when notice was filed in
clerk's office and suit thereby begun,
reception in evidence, over objection,
of such immature demand consti-
tutes error. — Charlton v. Pancake,
127 -S.E. 70, 9'8 W.Va. 8«S.
Writ of inquiry
In notice of motion for judgment
on bond with collateral conditions,
writ of inquiry is necessary in case
of default by defendant — State v.
Picklesimer, 138 S.E. '313, 103 W.
Va. '561.
71. Va.— Mankin v. Aldridge, 105 S.
E. 459, 127 Va. 761.
72. Va. — Mankin v. Aldridge, supra.
W.Va. — Anderson v. Prince, 55 S.E.
656, 60 W.Va. 557.
73. Kan. — Berry v. Dewey, 170 P.
1000, 102 Kan. 392.
74. Va. — Saunders v. Mecklenburg
Bank, 71 S.E. 714, 112 Va. 44'3. Ann.
Cas.l913B 982— Liskey v. Paul, 42
S.E. 875, 100 Va. 764.
84 C.J. 20*3 note 90.
Counter-affidavit
(1) Where plaintiff has served and
filed a proper affidavit, defendant
must first file a counter-affidavit and
plead before he is entitled to cross-
examine witnesses and offer evi-
dence.— Bluefield Supply Co. v.
Waugh, 145 «S.B. 584, 106 W.Va. '67.
(2) Statute providing for notice
of motion for judgment changed
common-law rule permitting evi-
dence on writ of inquiry to reduce
plaintiff's claim. — Bluefleld Supply
Co. v. (Waugh, supra.
75. Va. — Crosswhite v. "Shelby Oper-
ating Corporation, 30 S.E.2d 673,
182 Va. 713, 153 A.IL.R. $73.
'34 C.J. p 203 note 91.
Demurrer rather than a motion to
strike is proper to attack sufficiency
of motion. — Harris v. Barber, 1^6 So,
160, 237 Ala. 138.
Motion to qnash notice of motion
is equivalent of demurrer with re-
spect to attacking defects in notice.
— Kitson v. Messenger, 27 S.E.2d 265,
126 W.Va. -60.
Matters considered
On demurrer to notice of motion
for judgment, bill of particulars and
exhibits filed therewith and subse-
quent stipulation and exhibits are
not to be considered. — City of Beck-
ley v. Craighead, 24 $.E.2d 908, 125
W.Va, 484.
76. U.S. — Artinano v. W. R. Grace
& Co., D.C.Va., 286 P. 702.
408
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
223
may tender an issue by plea;77 or, in the absence
of a statute providing otherwise, he may file an in-
formal statement in writing of his grounds of de-
fense.78 Where the grounds of defense are set
up in writing without a formal pleading, the par-
ties are generally deemed to be at issue on the
grounds so stated without the necessity for a rep-
lication or other pleading.79
Under the doctrine that defendant may plead as
many several matters of law or fact as he thinks
necessary and is not required to file all his pleas in
bar at the same time, the filing of a special plea is
not a waiver of other grounds of defense.80 Where
defendant has appeared, he cannot demur to the no-
tice on the ground that it does not appear therefrom
at what time the court is to be held, but his objec-
tion, if available, must be taken by plea in abate-
ment.81 There is, strictly speaking, no such plead-
ing as a general issue to a notice,82 but the court
may accept it as a general denial of plaintiffs claim
set up in the notice, and, like other general issues,
it may be pleaded orally.83
Supreme court commissioners. Under some stat-
utes supreme court commissioners designated to
hear and determine motions preliminary to trial
have no power to make an order for summary judg-
ment.84
§ 223. Notice
a. In general
b. Nature and sufficiency of notice as a
pleading
a. In General
A party against whom summary Judgment is sought
must be served with timely, proper, and sufficient no-
tice of the motion, and there must be a compliance with
statutory requirements as to the service, return, and
docketing of the notice.
As a general rule, it is essential to the validity of
a judgment on motion that defendant be served with
proper and sufficient notice of the motion, as re-
quired by the statute or court rule,85 within the
time specified therein,86 and, even where the statute
authorizing such a proceeding is silent as to notice,
defendant is entitled to a reasonable notice;87 but
the requirement of notice may be waived by the
party against whom judgment or order is sought88
The giving of notice will not be inferred from a
77. Ala,— Griffin v. State Bank, 6
Ala. 908.
Va. — Wh'itley v. Booker Brick Co.,
74 S.B. 160, 113 Va, 434.
78. W.Va.— Collins v. White Oak
Fuel Co., 71 S,E. 277, «9 W.Va. 292.
34 C.J. p 203 note 94.
Affidavit of defense
Trial court erred in rendering: a
judgment for plaintiff in a proceed-
ing- on a notice of motion for judg-
ment on a note after hearing on the
merits but without passing on affi-
davit of defense, filed by defendants.
—Bacon v. Dettor, 3*3 <S.E.2d 648, 183
Va, 835.
79. Va. — Duncan v. Carson, 10»3 S.
E. 665, 127 Va. 306, rehearing de-
nied -105 8.E. 62, 127 Va. 306.
80. Va. — Duncan v. Carson, supra.
34 C.J. p 20*3 note 97.
81. Ala,— Griffin v. State Bank, 6
Ala. 90s.
82. Va. — -Duncan v. Carson, 103 S.
B. -66-5, 127 Va, 30'6, rehearing de-
nied 105 S.B. 62, 127 Va. 306.
83. Va. — Duncan v. Carson, supra.
84. N.J.— Milberg v. Keuthe, 121 A.
713, 98 N.J.Law 779— Okin v. Rail-
way Bxp. Agency, Sup., 44 A.2d
896 — Rollenhagen r. Stevenson, 43
A.2d 173, 23 N.J.Misc. 219— State
v. Owen, 41 A.2d 809, 23 N.J.Mise.
123 — Township of Neptune v.
Sweet, 160 A. 209, 10 N.J.Misc. 615
— Bgan v. Hemingway, 159 A. 703,
10 NU.Misc. 466.
86. N.T. — Aronstam v. Scientific
Utilities Co., 198 N.T.S. 306, af-
firmed 1-99 N.TJ3. 908, 20'6 App.Div.
657.
34 C.J. p 203 note 8.
UTo'tico hflM. sufficient
Notice of motion, requesting judg-
ment on pleadings, and for such oth-
er relief as court may deem just,
brought plaintiff within statute pro-
viding for partial summary judgment
on motion.— Little 'Falls Dairy Co.,
v. Berghorn, 224 N.T.S. 34, 130 Misc.
454.
Who issues notice
Notice in motion proceedings for
judgment emanates from plaintiff
and does not come within control of
court until return to clerk of court
— Pereira v. Davis Financial Agency,
1<35 -S.B. 823, 14'6 Va. 215.
88. N.T.— Wise v. Powell, 215 N.T.
•S. "69-3, 216 App.Div. 618.
After time for reply
Notice of motion to strike answer
and for summary judgment was not
ineffective because given after ex-
piration of time for reply. — Charles
S. Schultz & Son v. Klipper, 145 A,
634, 7 N.J.Misc. 391, followed in
Newell v. Klipper, 145 A, 635, 7 N.
J.Misc. 398.
Defect held nonprejudlcial
Motion for summary judgment
would not be denied for failure to
give notice within prescribed time
where motion was argued on merits
and defendants were not prejudiced,
having submitted complete set of
affidavits in objection to motion.—
409
Le 'Fevre v. Reliable Paint Supply
Co., 273 N.T.S. 903, 152 Misc. 594.
Particular requfrcmieatg
Any person entitled to recover
money by action on contract may ob-
tain judgment by motion in a court
having jurisdiction, after having
given his debtor notice in writing
of such motion for at least twenty
days of the time and court in which
the motion will be made, which no-
tice shall be returned to the clerk's
office of such court at least fifteen
days before the time such motion is
heard. — Citizens' Nat Bank v. Dixon,
117 S.-E. 685, 94 W.Va. 21.
87. Ala. — Brown v. "Wheeler, 3 Ala.
287.
Tenn. — -Williamson v. Burge, 7 Heisk.
117.
88. Ark. — Brickell v. Guaranty Loan
& Trust Co., 93 S.W.2d 656, 192
Ark. 6*52.
JTo prejudice
The entering of plaintiff's motion
for summary judgment was not er-
ror, notwithstanding notice of plain-
tiffs motion did not cover a motion
for summary judgment, where de-
fendants were in court in response
to the notice and had been permit-
ted to and did file an original and
amended affidavit of defense, and
there was no prejudice to defend-
ants, and the trial court had before
it the several sworn pleadings of the
parties and .the parties themselves.—
Smith v. Karasek, 40 2SMB.2d -594, -31<3
IlLApp. '654.
§223
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
statement on the record that the parties came by
their attorneys.89
As to place and time of motion. The notice must
allege the place where,90 and the time when,91 the
motion will be made. It has been held to be suffi-
cient if it states that a judgment will be moved for
at a specified term of the court;92 and it need not
designate the day on which the motion will be
made93 unless the statute requires that it must sum-
mon the party on whom it is served to a fixed and
certain day.94 The notice need not be dated,95 un-
less the date is made material by a reference to it
as indicating the time when the motion will be
made, or unless it is material for the purpose of
showing the time when the court is to be held, such
time not otherwise appearing.96
Service, return, and docketing. There must be a
compliance with statutory requirements as to the
service,97 return,9* and docketing99 of the notice.
It must be served on defendant the prescribed peri-
od before the day on which the motion is to be
made,1 although an error in this respect may be
waived by defendant's appearing and consenting to
the trial without objection.2 If the notice is served
prematurely, it is subject to a plea in abatement.3
b. Nature and Sufficiency of Notice as a Plead-
ing
In special proceedings for judgment instituted by
notice of motion, the notice serves the purpose of a
writ and declaration and must state with reasonable
certainty sufficient facts to show a good caus.e of action
against the defendant, and if the notice is uncertain
the plaintiff may be required to file a bill of particulars.
The statutes of some states, as discussed supra §
222, authorize special proceedings for judgment in-
stituted by notice of the proposed motion. In such
proceedings, notice of the motion serves the pur-
pose both of a writ and a declaration.4 It there-
fore must allege facts which are necessary to show
jurisdiction ;5 and, although it need not set out, in
89. Ala. — Brown v. Wheeler, "3 Ala,
287.
90. Tenn. — Curry v. Munford, 5
Heisk. 61.
91* Tenn. — Curry v. Munford, supra,
Special term
Notice of motion for judgment
may be made returnable to, and
heard at, special term, if properly
matured. — Monongahela Bank of
Fairmont v. Watson, 150 S.E. 731, 108
W.Va. 250.
92. Tenn. — State v. Allison, 8 Heisk.
1.
34 C.J. p 204 note 26.
93. Tenn. — State v. Allison, supra.
94. Va.— Tench v. Gray, 4'6 S.E. 287
102 Va. 215.
96. Ala.— Griffin v. State Bank, 6
Ala. 903.
96. Ala. — Griffin v. State Bank, su-
pra.
97. Ark.— -Milor v. Farrelly, 25 Ark.
363.
Va.— Kain v. Ashworth, «89 S.B. 857,
119 Va. 605.
Amended notice
Service of an amended notice of
motion for judgment, not Involving
new parties, is not required, when
the amendment is made in term,
and "by leave of court — Morrison v.
Judy, 13 S.EL2d 751, 123 W.Va. 200.
Service "by marshal
On notice of motion for judgment,
under practice in some jurisdictions,
it is not necessary that writ or oth-
er process be served by marshal to
"bring defendants into court — Chis-
holm v. Gilxfaer, C.C.A.Va., 81 'P.2d
120, affirmed 57 S.Ct «65, 2-99 -XT-fl. 99,
81 L.Bd. 63, rehearing denied 57 S.
Ct 229, 29*9 U.S. 6213, 81 L.Ed, 458.
98* Va.— Brame v. Nolen, 124 S.E.
299, 139 Va. 41*3.
34 C.J. p 204 note -34.
Clerk's certificate, indorsed on no-
tice of motion for judgment as to
when notice was returned and filed,
is an official record which imports
verity. — Brame v. Nolen, supra.
In computing' time in which no-
tice of motion for judgment must be
returned to clerk's office, the day of
service but not the date of return
is to be counted. — Brame v. Nolen,
supra.
Notice returnable after adjournment
Under statute, fact that notice of
motion for judgment was made re-
turnable after final adjournment of
term did not justify dismissal and
refusal to reinstate cause of action.
— Warren v. Shackelford, 169 S.E.
737, 160 Va, 671.
99. Va. — Brame v. Nolen, 124 S.E.
299, 139 Va. 413.
W.Va.— Citizens' Nat. Bank v. Dixon,
117 S.E. 685, 94 W.Va. 21.
34 C.J. p 204 note 35.
Time of filing
The notice of motion for judgment,
with the return of service thereon,
necessary in a procedure to recover
money due on contract by motion,
may be filed in the clerk's office at
any time before the commencement
of the term at which the motion is
to be heard, sufficient to enable the
clerk to docket for trial. — Citizens'
Nat Bank v. Dixon, supra.
L, Va.— Tench v. Gray, '4'6 S.B. 287,
102 Va. 215.
34 C.J. p 204 note 36.
2. Ky.— Millett v. Millett, 3 Ky.Op.
431.
410
3. U.S.— Schofield v. Palmer, C.C.Va.,
134 F. 753.
34 C.J. p 204 note 38.
4. W.Va. — Myers v. Myers, 35 S.E.
2d 847 — Kitson v. Messenger, 27 S.
B.2d 265, 126 W.Va. 60— Citizens'
Nat Bank v. Dixon, 117 S.E. 6*85,
•94 W.Va. 21.
34 C.J. P 203 note 6.
Notice performs functions of a sum-
mons
Ark. — Brickell v. Guaranty Loan &
Trust Co., 93 S.W.2d 656, 192 Ark.
652.
Liberal construction
Notices of motions for judgment
must be viewed as pleadings with
great liberality, and the same strict-
ness as in formal pleadings is not
required.
Va. — Bardach Iron & Steel Co. v.
Charleston Port Terminals, 129 S.
B. 687, 143 Va. 6-56— Shreck v.
Virginia Hot Springs Co., 125 S.E.
316, 140 Va. 429.
W.Va. — Mountain State Water Co.
v. Town of Kingwood, 1 S.B.2d
395, 121 W.Va. 66.
5. U.S. — West Fork Glass Co. v.
Innes-Weld Glass Co., W.Va., 175
P. 20'5, 101 C.C.'A. 525.
Va. — City of Richmond v. Best 23
S.B.2d 224, 180 Va. 429.
Cause THwed on contract
Recovery on notice of motion for
judgment is confined to recovery
based on contract, and it is neces-
sary that essential elements show-
ing money due on contract as dis-
tinguished from damages for breach
be alleged notwithstanding no for-
mality of pleading is exacted. — City
of Beckley v. Craighead, 24 S.E.2d
908, 125 W.Va. 484.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
223
haec verba, the contract or instrument relied on,6
it must state with reasonable certainty7 sufficient
facts to show a good cause of action against de-
fendant,8 and fairly apprise him of the nature of
the demand made on him,9 and to enable the court
to say that, if the facts stated are proved, plaintiff
is entitled to recover;10 and it must indicate with
reasonable certainty that the obligation which it is
proposed to reduce to judgment is that of defend-
ant.11 It is not necessary to have separate counts
in the notice,12 and the case may be stated in a
composite form;18 and, while the notice is insuffi-
cient if it states too little,14 any excess therein may
as a general rule be treated as surplusage.1^
Bitt of particulars. Under some statutes, if the
notice is uncertain as to the facts constituting the
cause of action, the court, on demand of defend-
ant, should require plaintiff to file a bill of partic-
ulars.16 If the bill of particulars is insufficient, de-
fendant may move to reject any evidence offered by
plaintiff touching any matters not described in the
notice or other pleading so plainly as to give notice
of its character.17 Bills of particulars filed by
plaintiff following his original notices are no part
of the original or amended notices and are not to
be considered in determining their sufficiency.18
Amendment. The court may permit the notice to
be amended during the proceedings, where defend-
ant is not thereby taken by surprise.1*
6. va, — Foltz v. Conrad Realty Co.,
109 SJB. 463, 131 Va, 496.
Filing- of policy sued on
Where plaintiff in action on fire
policy proceeded by notice of mo-
tion, it was proper to file with notice
the original policy sued on. — Skid-
more v. Star Ins. Co. of America, 27
S.E.2d 845, 126 W.Va, 307.
7. W.Va. — Tuggle v. Belcher, 139 S.
E. 653, 104 W.Va. 178— Hall T.
Harrisville Southern R. Co., 137
S.B. 226, 103 W.Va. 287— Pelley v.
Hibner, 118 S.E. 923, 93 W.Va. 169
—Citizens' Nat. Bank v. Dixon, 117
S.B. 685, 94 W.Va. 21.
34 CjJ. p 203 note 9.
8. W.Va.— Mountain State Water
Co. v. Town of Kingwood, 1 S.EL2d
39"5, 121 W.Va. 66— -Citizens' Nat.
Bank v. Dixon, 117 S.B. 685, 94 W.
Va, 21.
34 C.J. p 203 note 10.
ZTottoes held sufficient
(1) Notjce is sufficient if it is such
that defendant cannot reasonably
mistake the cause of action stated
therein.— Walton v. Light, 26 S.E.2d
29, 181 Va. 609.
(2) Notice is sufficient if it clearly
informs defendant of nature and
object of plaintiff's claim.— Lawhead
v. Nelson, 168 S.E. 659, 113 W.Va.
4'53— Blkhorn Sand & Supply Co. v.
Algonquin Coal Co., 136 S.E. 783,
103 W.Va. 110 — George A. Kelley
Co. v. Phillips, 134 S.E. 469, 102 W.
Va, 85.
(3) Notice indicating -obligation,
demand, or account on which it Is
based with reasonable certainty, and
that it is owing plaintiff by defend-
ant, is sufficient.— Tuggle v. Belcher,
139 S.E. 653, 104 W.Va. 178. '
(4) Where notice of motion for
Judgment is accompanied by state-
ment of account made part thereof
items designated "To Mdse." are suf-
ficient, without naming each particu-
lar article making up items listed.—
George A. Kelley Co. v. Phillips, 134
S.E. 469, 102 W.Va. 85.
(5)* Notice setting out note in full,
accompanied by account and affidavit
showing exact amount due at time
thereof, satisfies statute, although
exact amount for which judgment
will be asked is not specified.— Fink
Scott. 14-3 S.E. 305, 10-5 W.Va. 523.
(6) If nonpayment of note is aver-
red in affidavit, failure to allege non-
payment in notice of motion for
udgment is not material. — People's
State Bank of Crown Point, Ind..
v. Jeffries, 129 S.E. 462, 99 W.Va.
399.
(7) Allegations in notice that
plaintiff was the duly appointed re-
ceiver of a named bank which had
acquired note sued on in due course
and that the note was an asset of
the said bank were sufficient allega-
tions as to ownership of the note. —
Odland v. Hamrick, W.Va., .32 S.E.
2d 629.
(8) Other cases.
Va, — Walton v. Light, 26 S.E.2d 29,
181 Va. 609— Aistrop v. Blue Dia-
mond Coal Co., 24 S.E.2d 546, 181
Va, 287 — Kaylor v. Quality Bread
& Cake Co., 15'4 S.E. 572, 155 Va,
156— Kennedy v. Mullins, 154 S.E.
568, 155 Va, 166— Bardach Iron &
Steel Co. v. Charleston Port Ter-
minals, 129 8.B. -687, 143 Va, 656—
Shreck v. Virginia Hot Springs C<>~,
125 S.E. 316, 140 Va, 429— Wessel
v. Bargamin, 120 SJE. 287, 137 Va,
701.
TTV.Va,— Lawhead v. Garlow, 171 S.E.
250, 114 W.Va, 175— Hall v. Harrls-
ville Southern R. Co., 137 S.E. 226,
103 W.Va, 287 — Elkhorn Sand &
Supply Co. v. Algonquin Coal Co.,
136 S.E. 783, 103 W.Va. 110—
Charleston v. Pancake, T27 S.E
70, a8 W.Va, 363.
34 CJ. p 203 note 10 [a].
Notices held insufficient
Va. — Alpaugh v. Wolverton, 36 S.E
2d 906, 184 Va. 943 — Costello v
Larsen, 29 S.E.2d 856, 182 Va. 557
W.Va, — City of Beckley v. Craighead,
24 S.E.2d 908, 125 W.Va, '484—
Mountain State Water Co.
411
Town of Kingwood, 1 S.E.2d 395,
121 W.Va, 6-6— Bringardner v. Rol-
lins, 135 S.E. 665, 102 W.Va. 584.
i4 C.J. p 203 note 10 [b].
>. Va,— Kennedy v. Mullins, 154 S.
E. 568, 1V5 Va, 166— Wessel v.
Bargamin, 120 S.E. 287, 137 Va,
701— Bardach Iron & Steel Co. v.
Tenenbaum, 118 SJB. 502, 136 Va.
163.
W.Va.— Pelley v. Hibner, 118 S.E.
923, 93 W.Va, 169 — Citizens' Nat.
Bank v. Dixon, 117 S.E. 685, 94 W.
Va. 21.
34 C.J. p 203 note 11.
10. Va.— Mankin v. Aldridge, 105 S.
E. 459, 127 Va, 761.
11. W.Va, — Citizens' Nat. Bank v.
Dixon, 117 S.E. 685. 94 W.Va, 21—
Anderson v. Prince, 55 S.E. «56,
60 W.Va, 5'57.
Parties to note
In notice of motion for judgment
on note, it is not necessary to allege
affirmatively parties thereto, when
these facts appear with reasonable
certainty from entire notice. — Peo-
ple's State Bank of Crown Point,
Ind., v. Jeffries, 129 S.E. 462, 99 W.
Va, 399.
12. Va,— Hines v. Beard, 107 S.E.
717, 130 Va, 286.
13. Va;— Hines v. Beard, supra,
14. Va.— Hines v. Beard, supra,
15. W.Va, — Anderson v. Prince, 55
S.E. ff56, 60 W.Va, 557.
34 C.J. p 204 note 17.
16. Va, — Piccolo v. Woodford, 35 S.
B.2d 393, 184 Va, 432— Schreck v.
Virginia Hot Springs Co., 125 S.
E. 316, 140 V a. 429 — Wessel v. Bar-
gamin, 120 S.E. 287, 137 Va. 701.
34 C.J. p 204 note 20.
17. Va,— Lehigh Portland Cement
Co. v. Virginia SS. Co., Ill S.E.
104, 132 Va, 257.
18. va.— Rinehart v. Pirkey, 101 S.
E. 353, 126 Va, 346.
19. Va.— Ropp v. Stevens, 154 SJE
553, 1S5 Va, 304.
( W.Va.— Elkhorn Sand & Supply Co.
§ 224
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
§ 224. Motion
A motion for summary Judgment must be made by
proper application to the court and should be proceeded
with within the proper time.
Under the practice prevailing in some states, a
motion for summary judgment generally must be
made by application to the court for such relief,20
but formal requirements have been dispensed with
in some cases,21 and motions not expressly seeking
summary judgment or referring to the court rule
providing .therefor have sometimes been treated as
motions for summary judgment where it otherwise
appeared that such was the intent of the moving
party.22 Under some statutes or court rules, on a
motion for summary judgment by one party, the
court may award judgment to the other party if he
is entitled thereto notwithstanding such other party
has not made a cross motion therefor.2^ A mo-
tion to strike the motion for summary judgment has
been held proper procedure to test its sufficiency.24
As a general rule, a motion for judgment must be
made and proceeded with within the proper time,25
and under some statutes or court rules such a mo-
tion may be entertained only after answer is filed2*
and issue is joined,27 although it may be pursued
at any subsequent stage of the litigation.2^ In pro-
ceedings instituted by notice of motion for judg-
ment, if the motion is not proceeded with at the
term to which the notice is returnable,29 or on the
day specified in the notice,30 it operates as a dis-
continuance, and the case cannot be taken up subse-
quently, and judgment entered, on the same motion,
unless defendant waives the objection by appearing
personally and failing to object at the proper time,81
or by himself calling up the motion.32 However,
discontinuance of the proceeding by reason of fail-
v. Algonquin Coal Co., 136 S.E.
783, 103 W.Va. 110.
34 C.J. p 204 note 23.
20. N.Y. — Sheepshead Bay Bunga-
low Corporation v. Mandel & Co.
279 N.Y.S. 556, 244 App.Div. 811—
Glove City lAmusement Co. v.
Smalley Chain Theatres, 4 N.Y.S.
2d 3'97, 167 Misc. 603.
A motion to dismiss ease as moot
could not be treated as a motion for
summary Judgment as the latter in-
volves a determination of existence
of a cause of action and virtue of
claimed defenses, and practice of
dismissing actions when questions
have become moot does not arise out
of statute relating to summary judg-
ment.— Duel v. State Farm Mut Au-
tomobile Ins. Co., 9 N.W.2d 593,
243 Wis. 172.
Use of affidavits is not permitted
under rules providing for judgment
on the pleadings, for striking out of
a pleading as sham, or for dismissal
of counterclaim or striking out of
defense consisting of new matter in
certain cases an.d a motion based
thereon and on other rules concern-
ing summary judgments permitting
affidavits will be treated as motion
under such other rules. — Henderson
v. Hildreth Varnish Co., 276 N.Y.S.
414.
21. N.T. — Simson v. Bugman, 45 N.
Y.S.2d 140.
Oral application was sufficient as
"motion for judgment," filing of for-
mal motion being unnecessary. —
Baldwin v, Anderson, 13 P.2d 650,
'52 Idaho 243.
22. U.S. — Larson v. Todd Shipyards
Corporation, D.C.N.Y., 16 F.Supp.
967.
Motion for Judgment on pleadings
(1) Motion ostensibly for judg-
ment on pleadings would be treated
as motion for summary judgment
where letter was annexed to motion
papers and additional agreed facts
were stated in argument — Mara v.
U. S., D.C.N.Y., '54 F.2d 897.
02) Fact that affidavits were used
on motion for judgment was held to
show that it was for summary judg-
ment, and not for judgment on plead-
ings.—Donelly v. Bauder, 216 N.Y.S.
437, 217 App.Div. 59.
Motion for dismissal
Where plaintiff moved for sum-
mary judgment, defendant's moving
affidavit asking for dismissal of com-
plaint was properly treated as cross
motion for summary judgment —
Goldarbelter v. Cunard White Star
Limited, 27 N.Y.S.2d 920.
23. N.Y.— • Board of Education of
Union Free School Dist. No. 8,
Town of Huntington, Suffolk Coun-
ty, to Use and Benefit of Stickley
Mfg. Co. v. American Bonding Co.
of Baltimore, 30 N.Y.S.2d 428, 177
Misc. 341, affirmed 29 N.Y.S.2d 492,
177 Misc. 343.
24. 111.— -Wainscott v. Penikoff, 4
N.E.2d 511, -287 IlLApp. 78.
Forcible detainer action
Affidavit for summary judgment in
forcible detainer action to which was
attached plaintiffs lease to prem-
ises would not be struck for failure
to state that attached lease was
sworn or certified copy of lease on
which plaintiff relied; motion to
strike admitted that plaintiff was
.essee of premises for term covering
time when plaintiff demanded posses-
sion of premises. — Wainscott v; Peni-
koff, supra.
85. N.Y. — Sheepshead Bay Bungalow
Corporation v. Mandel & Co., 279
N.Y.S, 556, 244 iApp.Div. 811.
14 C.J. p 204 notes 40, 41.
412
Intervention
A motion for summary Judgment
by one prior to granting of his peti-
tion of intervention in the case is
premature, but the court will con-
sider the motion where it intends to
permit the intervention.— Stern v.
Newton, 39 N.Y.S.2d "593, 180 Misc.
241.
28, Cal.— Loveland v. City of Oak-
land, 159 P.2d 70, 69 CaLApp.2d
.399.
. — Bobrose Developments v. Ja-
cobson, 2-96 N.Y.S. $20, 251 App.
Div. 8-25.
27. N.Y. — Sheepshead Bay Bunga-
low Corporation v. Mandel & Co.,
279 N.Y.S. 556, 244 App.Div. 811.
Papers not yet in case
Defendant's motion for summary
judgment on papers including plea
not yet in case was premature. — Ap-
person Realty Corporation v. Wolos-
ky, 279 N.Y.S. 688, 156 IMisc. 29.
28. N.Y.— Ecker v. Muzysh, 19 N.Y.
S.2d 2-50, 2*59 App.Div. 20'6.
Fact that plaintiff proceeded to-
trial did not preclude him from
thereafter moving for summary
judgment — Ecker v. Muzysh, supra.
29. Ark. — Webb v. Brown, 3 Ark.
488.
34 C.J. p 204 note '42.
30. Ala. — Barclay v. Barclay, 42
Ala. 345.
34 C.J. p 204 note 43.
31* Ala. — Evans v. 'State Bank, 13
Ala, 787.
Miss.— Phillips v. Chaney, 8 Miss.
250.
32. Ala.— Gary v. State Bank, 11
Ala. 771,
C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 225
ure to obtain an order of continuance may be pre-
vented by the provisions of statute.83
§ 225. Affidavits and Other Evidence
a. In general
b. In support of motion
c. In opposition to motion
d. Applications of rules
a. In General
The function of affidavits on a motion for summary
judgment Is to show whether the issues are genuine and
require a trial. They should contain evidentiary facts,
not conclusions or mere general averments; and they
must be made by affiants having personal knowledge of
the facts and competent to testify thereto.
The affidavits on a motion for summary judg-
ment do not constitute a second set of pleadings in
the action,34 the purpose of the affidavits being only
to show whether or not the issues apparently made
by the formal pleadings are genuine and require a
trial, and whether or not each party has competent
evidence to offer which tends to support his side of
the issue.35 Summary judgment statutes are not
intended to authorize the trial of contested issues on
affidavits,36 and hence summary judgment cannot
be granted, on motion of either plaintiff or defend-
ant, where the affidavits or other proofs submitted
set forth facts showing that there is a triable issue
of fact.37 Where court rules relating to the affi-
davits in support of, or in opposition to, a motion
33. W.Va.— Odland v. Hamrick, 32
S.B.2d 629.
34. Cal.— Loveland v. City of Oak-
land, 159 P.2d 70, 69 Cal.App.2d
399— Gardenswartz v. Equitable
Life Assur. Soc. of U. S.f 68 P.2d
322, 23 Cal.App.2d Supp. 745.
35. Cal.— Loveland v. City of Oak-
land, 1'59 P:2d 70, 69 Cal.App.2d
399— Gardenswartz v. Equitable
Life Assur. Soc. of U. S., 68 P.2d
322, 23 Cal.App.2d Supp. 745:
111— Otis Elevator Co. v. American
Surety Co. of New York, 4'1 N.E.2d
987, 314 Ill.App. 479.
"Th.e function of affidavits upon
a motion for summary judgment is
to show quickly and summarily what
the parties can prove at a long tri-
al."— Rosenblum v. Dingfelder, C.C.
A.N.Y., 111 F.2d '406, 408.
36. Colo.— Hatfleld v. Barnes, 168 P.
2d 552.
B.C.— Morse v. U. S., to Use of Hine,
29 App.D.C. 433.
Mass. — Norwood Morris Plan Co. v.
McCarthy, 4 N.E.2d 450, 295 Mass.
597, 107 A.L.R. 1215.
N.Y. — Berson Sydeman Co. v. Waum-
beck Mfg. Co,, '208 N.Y.S. 716, 212
App.Div. 422.
•Wis. — Parish v. Awschu Properties
19 N.W.2d 276, 247 Wis. 166— At-
las Inv. Co. v. Christ, 2 N.W.2d
714, 240 Wis, 114— Prime Mfg. Co
v. A. F. Gallun & Sons Corpora-
tion, 281 N.W. 697, 229 Wis. 348
"Conflicts of testimony which are
not patently a sham cannot be dis
posed of summarily."— Hoff v. St
Paul-Mercury Indemnity Co. of St
Paul, C.C.A.N.Y., 74 F.2d 689, 690
The credibility of affiants will no
be determined on a motion for sum
mary judgment.
Mass.— Norwood Morris Plan Co.
McCarthy, 4 N.E.2d 450, ^S Mass
597, 107 IA.L.R. 1215.
N.Y.— Roxy Athletic Club v. Sim
mons, 44 N.Y.S.2d 47— First Nat
Bank of Dolgeville, N. X, v. Mang
41 N.Y.S.2d 92.
Analogy to questions for jury
CD A summary judgment may not
e entered where, if evidence con-
ained in affidavits was orally sub-
mitted to the court, there would be
omething left to go to the jury;
ut summary judgment should be en-
ered if what is contained in the af-
davits would have constituted all
vidence before the court, and, on
uch evidence, there would be noth-
ng left to go to the jury.— Shirley v.
Ellis Drier Co., 39 N.E.2d 329, 379
11. 105.
(2) "If the pleadings taking them
«,d they stand make a case for trial
by a jury, a summary judgment will
be denied unless it appears from the
affidavits that different conclusions
of essential ultimate fact can not
reasonably be drawn." — Hanson v.
Halvorson, 19 N.W.2d 582, 883, 247
Wis. 434.
37. Cal.— Hardy v. Hardy, 143 P.2d
701,' 23 Cal.2d 2-44— Eagle Oil &
Refining Co. v. Prentice, 122 P.2d
264, 19 CaUd 553— Gibson v. De La
Salle Institute, 152 P.2d 774, 66
Cal.App.2d 609— Grady v. Easley,
114 P.2d 635, 45 Cal.App.2d 632.
111. — Roberts v. Sauerman Bros., 20
N.E.2d 849, 300 IlLApp. 213.
Mich.— Maser v. Gibbons, 274 N.W.
352, 280 Mich. 621— Lippman v
Hunt, 227 N.W. 668, 249 Mich. 86
N.Y.— Ross Industries Corporation v
Bentley, 51 N.Y.S.2d 183, 268
App.Div. 897— Grunder v. Schwab
46 N.Y.S.2d 715, 267 App.Div. 887
appeal denied 48 N.Y.S.2d 330, 267
App.Div. 946— Kelly v. Rathburn
38 N.Y.S.2d 391, 265 App.Div. .88
— Malone v. Kahnert, 37 N.Y.S.2
•50»5, 265 App-Div. 832— Merlau v
Dermetlcs Co., 35 N.Y.S.2d 76
264 App.Div. 829— Strauss v. G. H.
Mumra Champagne & Associates
30 N.Y.S.2d 117, 262 App.Div. 97
—Gross v. Continental Caoutchouc
Export Aktien-Gesellschaft, Con
tinental Rubber Export Corpora
tion, 28 N.Y.S.2d 434, 262 App.Div
866 — Biloz v. Tioga County Pa
trons* Fire Relief Ass'n, 23 N.Y.S.
2d 460, 260 AppJDiv. 976— Lloyd v.
Sloan, «19 N.Y.S.2d 842, 259 App.
Div. 615— Airflow Taxi Corporation
v. C. I. T. Corporation, 1'5 N.Y.S.2d
9CT5, 258 App.Div. 857, reargument
denied 17 N.Y.S.2d 1002, 258 App.
Div. 1030— Newman v. Newman, 11
N.Y.S.2d 153, -256 App.Div. 605, re-
argument denied 12 N.Y.S.2d 352,
2*56 App.Div. 1067 — Adams v. Jud-
son, 277 N.Y.S. 304, 243 App.Div.
404— Silberman v. Feinstein, 214
N.Y.S. 920, 216 App.Div. 727— Katz
v. Film Metal Box Corporation, 47
N.Y.S.2d 4-54, 181 Misc. 812— La-
mere v. Franklin, 267 N.Y.S. 310,
149 Misc. 371— Sark Co. v. Display
Finishing Co., 61 N.Y.S.2d 786 —
La Pointe v. Wilson, 61 N.Y.S.2d
64— Gorman v. Baltimore Drive It
Yourself Co., 46 N.Y.S.2d 530—
La Salle Extension University v.
Glickman, 29 N.Y.S.2d 32.
Pa. — Drummond v. Parrish, 182 A.
3,83, 320 ' Pa. 307 — Britex Waste
Co. v. Nathan Schwab & Sons, 12
A.2d 473, 139 Pa.Super. 474— Brown
v. Brown, Com.Pl., 41 Lack.Jur.
155.
R.I. — Berick v. Curran, 179 A. 708,
5*5 R.I. 193.
Wis.— Dubin v. Mohr, 19 N.W.2d 880,
247 Wis. 520 — Potts v. Farmers'
Mut Automobile Ins. Co., 289 N.W.
606, 233 Wis. 313.
Possibility of amending pleadings
Facts in affidavits and record con-
trol and if pleadings can be amend-
ed to include such facts or defenses
they must be considered. — Benjamin
v. Arundel Corp., 59 N.Y.S.2d 437.
On issues of good faith, intent, and
purpose, the bald declaration of a
party by affidavit is insufficient in
the face of a pleaded denial to re-
solve the issue.— Hatfleld v. Barnes,
'Colo., 168 P.2d '552.
Special meaning' of word*
Whether the term "existing viola-
tions" had by custom or usage ac-
quired a special meaning presented
a question of fact which could not
413
§ 225
JUDGMENTS
49 C. J. S.
for summary judgment are mandatory, failure of
either party to comply therewith will preclude the
granting of the motion or the substantiation of a
claim of defense.38
The statements made, whether adduced in sup-
port of,. or in opposition to, the motion for summary
judgment, must be statements of fact,39 and not
mere conclusions, opinions, or beliefs.40 The affi-
davits must be made by affiants who have personal
knowledge of the facts stated,41 and must state only
facts to which affiant could testify, if called as a
witness on the trial.42 The affidavits should set
be disposed of on affidavits on mo-
tion for summary judgment. — Horby
Realty Corp. v. Yarmouth Land
Corp., 62 N.T.S.2d 173.
38. Mich.— Gloeser v. Moore, 278 N.
W. 781, -284 Mich. 106.
39. Cal.— Bank of (America Nat
Trust & Savings Ass'n v. Oil Well
Supply Co. of California, 55 P.2d
885, 12 Cal.App.2d 265.
III.— Gliwa v. Washington Polish
Loan & Building Ass'n, 34 N.E.2d
736, 310 IlLApp. 46*5.
N.Y. — Maurice O'Meara Co. v. Na-
tional Park Bank of New York,
146 N.E. 636, 239 N.Y. 386, 39 A.
L.R. 747, reargument denied 148
N.B. 72-5, 240 N.Y. 607— Smith v.
McCullaagh, 255 N.Y.S. 497, 234
App.Div. 490 — Stone v. ^Etna Life
Ins. Co., 31 N.Y.S.2d 615, 178 Misc.
23.
R.I.— Berick v. Curran, 179 A. 708, 55
R.I. 193.
Trivolons proof; innuendo
Frivolous, sham, and transparent-
ly insufficient proof, or mere denials
or statements of innuendo or sus-
picion, will not suffice. — Diamond v.
Davis, 38 N.Y.S.2d 103, affirmed 89
K.Y.S.2d 412, first case, 265 lApp.Div.
919, appeal denied 41 N.Y.S.2d 191,
first case, 265 App.Div. 1052, and af-
firmed '54 N.R2d 683, first case, 292
N.Y. 552.
40. Cal. — Gardenswartz v. Equitable
Life Assur. Soc. of U. S., 68 P.2d
322, 23 Cal.App.2d Supp. 745— Cow-
an Oil & Refining Co. v. Miley Pe-
troleum Corporation, -295 P. 504.
112 Cal.App.Supp. 773.
111.— Willadsen v. City of Bast Pe-
oria, 47 N.B.2d 136, 317 IlLApp.
541 — Soelke v. Chicago Business
Men's Racing Ass'n, 41 N.E.2d 232,
314 IlLApp. 336— Roberts v. Sauer-
raan Bros., 20 N.E.2d 849, 300 111.
App. 213.
Mich.— Terre Haute Brewing Co. v.
Goldberg, 289 N.W. 192, 291 Mich.
401— Gloeser v. Moore, 278 N.W.
781, 284 Mich. 106 — Gloeser v.
Moore, -278 N.W. 72, 283 Mich. 42-5
— People's Wayne County Bank v.
Wolverine Box Co., 230 N.W. 170,
250 Mich. 273, 69 A.L.R. 1024 —
Warren Webster & Co. v. Pelavin,
216 N.W. 430, 241 Mich. 19.
N.Y.— Irving Trust Co. v. Orvis, 248
N.Y.S. 771, 139 Misc. '670— Ralph
Klonick Corporation v. Haas, 240
N.Y.S. 643, 136 Misc. 286.
^Failure of oonjdderattoii
A mere statement in affidavit that
there was a "failure of considera-
tion" is not sufficient to create a
triable issue of fact— Bentley, Set-
tle & Co. v. Brinkman, 42 N.Y.S.2d
194.
Hospital as charitable institution
Statement in affidavit of attorney
that hospital was not a charitable in-
stitution was a conclusion of law,
and was insufficient under statute re-
quiring statement of evidentiary
facts. — Schau v. Morgan, 6 N.W.2d
212, 241 Wis. 334.
Indebtedness
In action on common counts for
amount owing plaintiff by defendant,
statement in affidavit supporting
plaintiff's motion for summary judg-
ment that indebtedness was on ac-
count of purchase of merchandise
and products mentioned in affidavit
and agreements attached as exhibits
was statement of fact not conclu-
sion.— Terre Haute Brewing Co. v.
Goldberg, 289 N.W. 192, 291 Mich.
401.
41. U.S.— IT. S. v. Stephanidis, D.C.
N.Y., 41 F.2d 958.
Cal. — Gardenswartz v. Equitable Life
Assur. Soc. of U. S., 68 P.2d 322, 23
Cal.App.2d Supp. 745.
N.Y.— Curry v. Mackenzie, 146 N.B.
375, 239 N.Y. 267— Gnozzo v. Ma-
rine Trust Co. of Buffalo, 17 N.Y.S.
2d 168, 258 App.Div. 298, reargu-
ment denied Gnozzo v. Marine
Trust Co., 18 N.Y.S.2d 752, 259
App.Div. 788, affirmed Gnozzo v.
Marine Trust Co. of Buffalo, 29
N.B.2d 933, 284 N.Y. 617— City Sav.
Bank of Brooklyn v. Torro, 300 N.
Y.S. 1009, 253 App.Div. 748— Lon-
sky v. Bank of U. S., 221 N.Y.S.
177, 220 App.Div. 194— Krause v.
Lehigh Valley Coal Co., 14 N.Y.S.2d
206, 172 Mich. 2— Hurwitz v. Corn
Exchange Bank Trust Co., 253 N.Y.
S. 851, 142 Misc. 398— Abercromble
& Fitch Co. v. Colford, 204 N.Y.
S. 209, 123 Misc. 138— Hodson v.
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 34 N.Y.
S.2d 922.
R.I.— Minuto v. Metropolitan Life
Ins. Co., 179 A. 713, 55 R.I. 201.
Information derived from others
Affidavits by attorney and a book-
keeper, based solely on information
and belief derived from discussions
with agent and employee of plaintiff,
were not made by persons having
knowledge of the facts. — Miller v.
Wightman, 43 N.Y.S.2d 6,81.
414
Affiants held to have personal knowl-
edge
111.— National Builders Bank of Chi-
cago v. Simons, 31 N.E.2d 274, 307
IlLApp. -562.
N.Y. — Royal Indemnity Co. v. Gins-
berg, -284 N.Y.S. 5-51, 157 Misc. 507.
Admission of elements of cause of
action
Motion for summary judgment
would be granted where defendant
admitted all elements of plaintiff's
cause of action, notwithstanding
moving affidavit was made by at-
torney and not by plaintiff or some
person having knowledge of facts. —
Johnson v. Briggs, Inc., 12 N.Y.S.2d
60.
42. Cal. — Gardenswartz v. Equitable
Life Assur. Soc. of U. S., 68 P.2d
322, 23 CaLApp.2d Supp. T45.
111. — Soelke v. Chicago Business
Men's Racing Ass'n, 41 N.E.2d 232,
314 IlLApp. 336 — Gliwa v. Wash-
ington Polish Loan & Building
Ass'n, 34 N.E.2d 736, 310 IlLApp.
465.
Mich.— Gloeser v. Moore, 278 N.W.
781, 284 Mich. 106— Gloeser v.
Moore, 278 N.W. 72, 283 Mich. 42-5
— Birgbauer v. -SJtna Casualty &
Surety Co. of Hartford, Conn., 232
N.W. 403, 251 Mich. 614 — La Prise
v. Smith, 208 N.W. 449, 234 Mich.
371.
R.I. — Henry W. Cooke Co. v. Sheldon,
164 A, 327, 63 R.I. 101— Rosenthal
v. HJalsband, 152 A. 320, 51 R.L
119.
Wis.— JTuergens v. Ritter, 279 N.W.
51, 227 Wis. 480.
Affidavit of felon
In a jurisdiction in which a felon
is a competent witness on a trial,
a motion for summary judgment
may be predicated on the affidavit of
a felon, and the test to be applied to
such affidavit is the test to be ap-
plied to the affidavit of any witness.
— William J. Cdnners Car Co. v.
Manufacturers' & Traders' Nat Bank
of Buffalo, 209 N.Y.S. 406, 124 Misc.
584, affirmed 210 N.Y.S. 939, 214 App.
Div. 811.
Conjectural allegations
111.— Fisher v. Hargrave, 48 N.E.2d
966, 318 IlLApp. 510.
Hearsay
Cal.— Shea v. Leonis, 84 P.2d 277, 29
'Oal.App.2d 184 — Gardenswartz v.
Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U. S.,
68 P.2d 322, 23 Cal. App. 2 d Supp.
74«5.
R.L— Rosenthal v. Halsband, 152 A.
320. 81 R.I. 119.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
225
forth evidentiary43 and not ultimate44 facts, and
should set forth the facts with particularity,45 mere
general averments being insufficient46 However,
the affidavit need not be composed wholly of strict-
ly evidentiary facts,47 and an affiant is not required
to aver as a fact that which is not a fact, but an
opinion.48
Burden of proof. Provisions authorizing sum-
mary judgment do not shift the burden of proof.49
Where the motion for summary judgment is made
by plaintiff, he is required to sustain the burden of
submitting convincing proof, by affidavit or other-
wise, that the answer is sham, and that there is no
real defense or real issue to be determined.50 On
a motion by defendant for summary judgment the
burden is on defendant to establish his defense by
proof of the facts pleaded.51
Documentary evidence; attachment of papers*
Under some court rules, where a sufficient defense
is founded on facts established prima facie by doc-
umentary or official record, defendant may have
summary judgment in his favor unless plaintiff
shows facts sufficient to raise an issue with respect
to the verity and conclusiveness of such documen-
tary evidence or official record;62 and the defense
Violation of parol evidence role
(1) Defendant's affidavit raising
defense obnoxious to parol evidence
rule was insufficient. — Power v. Al-
lied Asphalt Products Corporation,
1-59 A. 251, 162 Md. 175.
(2) An affidavit stating the con-
tents of certain writings by giving
their purport but not their words is
not sufficient, since <as a witness the
affiant could not competently give
such testimony, over proper objec-
tion, there being no showing of loss
of the writings or other circumstanc-
es which would excuse production of
the originals. — Gardenswartz v. Equi-
table Life Assur. Soc. of the U. S.,
68 P.2d 822, 23 Cal.App.2d Supp. 745.
(3) Introduction contained in affi-
davits in support of motion for sum-
mary judgment, which stated facts
leading up to preparation of original
order, did not render affidavits inad-
missible as an attempt to vary terms
of written contract between parties,
but introduction could be treated as
mere surplusage. — Lowenstern Bros,
v. Marks Credit Clothing, 48 N.B.2d
729, 319 IlLApp. 71.
43. Cal.— Kelly v. Liddicoat, 96 P.
2d 186, 3'5 Cal.App.2d 559 — Garden-
swartz. v. Equitable Life Assur.
Soc. of U. S., 68 P.2d 322, 23 Cal.
App.2d Supp. 745.
Mass. — Norwood Morris Plan Co. v.
McCarthy, 4 N.E.2d 450, 295 Mass.
597, 107 A.L.R. 1215.
N.Y.— Hopfan v. Knauth, 282 N.T.S.
219, 156 Misc. 545— Diamond v.
Davis, 38 N.T.S.2d 103, affirmed
39 N.Y.S.2d 412, first case, 265
App.Div. 919, appeal denied 41 N.Y.
S.2d 191, first case, 265 App,Div.
10*52, and affirmed 54 N.E.2d 683,
first case, 292 N.Y. 552.
Wis. — Schau v. Morgan, 6 N.W.2d
2fl2, 241 Wis. 334.
Kaked assertions, unsupported by
evidentiary facts, and unaccompa-
nied by available documentary proof,
are insufficient. — Hopfan v. Knauth,
282 N.Y.S. 219, 156 Misc. 545.
44. Cal.— Kelly v. Liddicoat 96 P.
2d 186, 35 Cal.App.2d 559 — Garden-
swartz v. Equitable Life Assur.
Soc. of U. S., 68 P.2d 322, 23 Cal.
App.2d Supp. 745.
45. Cal.— Shea v. Leonis, 84 P.2d
277, 29 Cal.App.2d 184 — Garden-
swartz v. Equitable Life Assur.
Soc. of U. S., 68 P.2d 322, 23 Cal.
App.2d Supp. 74'5 — Cowan Oil &
Refining Co. v. Miley Petroleum
Corporation, -295 P. 504, 112 Cal.
App.Supp. 773.
46. Mass. — Norwood Morris Plan
Co. v. McCarthy, 4 N.E.2d 450, 92-5
Mass. 597, 107 A.L.R. 1215.
N.Y. — Dodwell & Co. v. Silverman,
254 N.Y.S. 746, 234 App.Div. 362
— Blanchard Press v. Aerosphere,
* Inc., '51 N.Y.S.2d 71'5, affirmed 56
N.Y.S.2d 415, 269 App.Div. 826.
47. Cal. — Eagle Oil & Refining Co.
v. Prentice, 122 P.2d 264, 19 Cal.
2d 553 — Gibson v. De La Salle In-
stitute, 152 P. 2 d 774, 66 Cal.App.
2d 609.
Conclusions
Where affiant was competent to
testify to all the contents of his
affidavit, conclusions contained in
affidavit would not vitiate the par-
ticularities or nullify their force. —
McComsey v. Leaf, 97 P.2d 242, 36
Cal.App.2d 132.
48. Mich.— Baxter v. Szucs, 227 N.
W. 666, 248 Mich. 672.
Value of services
Attorney was held not entitled to
summary Judgment for services,
where defendant filed affidavit de-
nying that services were worth more
than amount paid. — Baxter v. Szucs,
227 N.W. 666, 248 Mich. 672.
49. N.Y.— Lonsky v. Bank of U. S.,
221 N.Y.S. 177, 220 App.Div. 194
— Hurwitz v. Corn Exchange Bank
Trust Co., 2I53 N.Y.S. 851, 142 Misc.
398.
50. N.Y.— Stuyvesant Credit Union
v. Manufacturers' Trust Co., 267
N.Y.S. 302, 239 App.Div. 187— Tide-
water Oil Sales Corporation v.
Pierce, 210 N.Y.S. 759, 213 App.
Div. 796— Win. H. Frear & Co. v.
Bailey, 214 N.Y.S. 675, 127 Misc.
79— Nester v. Nester, 19 N.Y.S.2d
' 426, reversed on other grounds 22
415
N.Y.S.2d 119, 259 App.Div. 1065.
"The burden of proof is upon the
plaintiff to prove the cause of ac-
tion, and to show that the defense
is interposed solely for the pur-
pose of delay." — State Bank v. Mack*
stein. 205 N.Y.S. 290, 291, 123 Misc.
•416.
51. N.Y. — Dumbadze v. Agency of
Canadian Car & Foundry Co., $&•
N.Y.S.2d 991, affirmed Gurge v.
Agency of Canadian Car & Foun-
dry 'Co., 45 N.Y.S.2d 955, 267 App.
Div. 782, appeal denied In re Dum-
badze's Estate, 47 N.Y.S.24 315^
267 iApp.Div. 878.
52. N.Y. — Gnozzo v. Marine Trust
Co. of Buffalo, 17 N.Y,S.2d 168, 25*
App.Div. 298, re-argument denied
Gnozzo v. Marine Trust Co., 18
N.Y.S.2d 752, 2«59 App.Div. 788*
affirmed Gnozzo v. Marine Trust
Co. of Buffalo, 29 N.E.2d 933, 284
N.Y. 617— White v. Merchants Des-
patch Transp. Co., 10 N.Y.S.2d 962,
256 App.Div. 1044 — Wels v. Rubin,
S N.Y.S.2d 350, 254 App.Div. 484,
reversed on other grounds 20 N.E.
2d 737, 280 N.Y. 233— Algiere v.
Cosmopolitan Shipping Co., 56 N.
Y.S.2d 361, 185 Misc. 271— Hyde v.
Clark, 39 N.Y.S.2d 229, 179 Misc.
414— Beisheim 'v. People, 39 N.Y.
S.2d 333 — Diamond v. Davis, 38 N.
Y.S.2d 103, affirmed 39 N.Y.S. 2 (I
412, first case, 266 App.Div. 919,
appeal denied 41 N.Y.S.2d 191, first
case, 265 App.Div. 1052, and affirm-
ed 54 NJB.2d 683, first case, 292 N.
Y. .552— DittLmond v. Davis, 38 N.
Y.S.2d 93, affirmed 39 N.Y.S.2d 412,.
second case, 265 iApp.Div. 919, ap-
peal denied 41 N.Y.S.2d 191, sea-
ond case, 265 App.Div. 1052, and:
affirmed 54 N.E.2d 683, second case,
292 N.Y. 554.
When documentary evidence required
Under some rules, where case is
one of those enumerated in specified
subdivisions, affidavits may be used
on motion for summary judgment
but otherwise the defense must be-
established by documentary evi-
dence.— Dumont v. Raymond, 49
§ 225
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
relied on need not be an affirmative defense.53 Un-
der some rules of this nature there is nothing which
specifies or limits the form or character of the doc-
umentary evidence or official record on which the
motion for summary judgment by a defendant is to
be based;54 the documentary proof required under
these provisions is not limited to that which prima
facie, completely, and conclusively establishes the
defense, without resort to extrinsic or fragmentary
connecting links of proof supplied by affidavit or
scattered entries or memoranda.55 Defendant need
not present all the official record, and if he submits
merely part of the record it is within the province
of plaintiff to submit the remainder if in his judg-
ment he can thereby show facts sufficient to raise
an issue as to the official record.56 Under provi-
sions of this nature the defense must be established
prima facie by documentary evidence or official rec-
ord,57 and summary judgment will be denied where
plaintiffs showing of the facts is sufficient to raise
an issue with respect to the verity and conclusive-
ness of the documentary evidence or official records
adduced by defendant.58
Some court rules require the attachment of copies
of all papers on which a party relies on a motion
for summary judgment,59 but the failure to attach
all such papers has been held not to be fatal to a
granting of the motion where copies of the exhib-
its were either attached to the complaint, or were
contained in the files in the clerk's office, or were
available to defendant at any time.60
Production of witnesses for oral examination.
Under some statutes and rules the court may, in its
S.2d ,865, affirmed 5$ N.T.S.2d 592,
269 App.Div. 592.
53. N.Y.— Diamond v. Davis. 38 N.
T.S.2d 93, affirmed 39 N.Y.S.2d 412,
second case, 265 App.Div. 919, ap-
peal denied 41 N.Y.S.2d 191, sec-
ond case, 26'5 App.Div. 1052, and
affirmed 54 N.E.2d 683, second case,
292 N.T. 554.
54. N.T.— Levine v. Behn, 8 N.T.S.2d
58, 169 Misc. 601, affirmed 12 N.
T.S.2d 190, 257 AppJMv. 156, re-
versed on other grounds 25 N.E.2d
871, 282 N.Y. 120 — Diamond v. Da-
vis,' 38 N.Y.S.2d 103, affirmed 39
N.Y.S.2d '412, first case, 265 App.
Div. 919, appeal denied 41 N.Y.S.
2d 191, first case, 2ff5 App.Div.
1052, and affirmed 54 N.E.2d 683,
first case, 292 N.Y. 552.
What constitutes docionentary evi-
dence or official records
(1) In stockholders' derivative ac-
tion against corporate officers and
directors invoices and petty cash
slips, and excerpts from, and photo-
static copies of, corporate books and
records constituted "documentary
evidence" which could be considered
on defendants' motion for summary
judgment — Dumont v. Raymond, 49
N.Y.S.2d 86*5, affirmed 56 N.Y.S.2d
592, 269 AppJDiv. 592.
<2) In such an action, however,
affidavits vouching for purity of de-
fendants' motives and seeking to
justify acts criticized by plaintiffs,
do not constitute "documentary evi-
dence" within the rule. — Dumont v.
Raymond, supra.
(3) In action for injuries sustain-
ed as result of defendant's alleged
negligent construction of machine,
affidavits of defendant's vice presi-
dent and of defendant's buyer and
copy of purchasing agreement indi-
cating that machine was purchased
from a third person and not manu-
factured by defendant were not
"documentary evidence" or "official
records" as contemplated by rule. —
Dewar v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 49 N.
Y.S.2d 404.
Competency or admissibUity
Where affidavits and certificates
were supplied to plaintiff by defend-
ant at plaintiff's request, plaintiff
could not object to them on ground
of competency or admissibility. —
Diamond v. Davis, 38 N.Y.S.2d 93,
affirmed 39 N.Y.S. 2d 412, second case,
26'5 App.Div. 9*19, appeal denied 41
N.Y.S. 2d 191, second case, 265 App.
Div. 1052, and affirmed 54 N.B.2d
683, second case, 292 N.Y. 554.
55. N.Y. — Chance v. Guaranty Trust
Co. of New York, 20 N.Y.S.2d 635,
173 Misc. 754, affirmed 13 N.Y.S.2d
785, 257 App.Div. 1006, affirmed 26
N.B.2d 802, 282 N.Y, 056.
56. N.Y.— -Wels v. Rubin, 5 N.Y.S.2d
3'50, 254 App.Div. 484, reversed on
other grounds 20 N.E.2d 737, 280
N.Y. 233.
57. N.Y.— Diamond v. Davis, 38 N.Y.
S.2d 93, affirmed 39 N.Y.S.2d 412,
second case, 265 App.Div. 919, ap-
peal denied 41 N.Y.S.2d 191, sec-
ond case, 265 App.Div. 1052, and
affirmed 54 N.E.2d 683, second case,
292 N.Y. 55'4.
58. N.Y. — Davignon v. Raquette
River Paper Co., 56 N.Y.S.2d 249,
269 App.Div. 889, appeal denied 57
N.Y.S.2d 6'53, 269 App.Div. 913, ap-
peal dismissed 64 N.E.2d 279, 295
N.Y. 569— Grunder v. Schwab, 43
N.Y.S.2d 931, 181 Misc. 488, modi-
fied on other grounds 46 N.Y.S.2d
715, 267 App.Div. 887, appeal de-
nied '48 N.Y.S.2d 330, 267 App.Div.
946— Hyde v. Clark, 39 N.Y.S.2d
229, 179 Misc. 414— Conyne v. Mc-
Gibbon, 37 N.Y.S.2d -590, 179 Misc.
54, transferred, see 39 N.Y.S,2d
609, 265 App.Div. 976, affirmed 41
416
N.Y.S.2d 189, 266 App.Div. 711—
Dewar v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 49
N.Y.S.2d 404 — Dumbadze 'v. Agen-
cy of Canadian Car & Foundry Co.,
38 N.Y.S.2d 991, affirmed Gurge v.
Agency of Canadian Oar & Foun-
dry Co., 45 N.Y.S.2d 955, 267 App.
Div. 782, appeal denied In re Dum-
badze's Estate, 47 N.Y.S.2d 315, 267
App.Div. 878.
59. 111. — Otis Elevator Co. y. Amer-
ican Surety Co. of New York, 41 N.
E.2d 987, 314 Ill.App. 479.
Original or copy
In the absence of circumstances
showing loss of a writing or other
circumstances which would excuse
production of the original, an affida-
vit, to be sufficient as to a writing,
must have attached to it the original
of such writing or, possibly, a veri-
fied or certified copy. — Gardenswartz
v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U.
S., 68 P.2d 322, 23 CaLApp.2d Supp.
745.
Settlement agreement
If settlement agreement alleged
as defense to action on note, was in
writing, such writing should have
been produced in evidence to defeat
motion for summary judgment — Dl
Roma v. Chambers Drug Store, 28 N.
Y.S.2d 170, 262 App.Div. 856.
60. HI. — Otis Elevator Co. v. Amer-
ican Surety Co. of New York, 41
N.E.2d 987, 314 IlLApp. '479.
Vouchers
In action under Speedy Judgment
!Act, it is necessary that plaintiff
file any vouchers of his claim at time
he institutes his suit and vouchers
must show on their face a prima
facie case of defendant's indebted-
ness to plaintiff for certain amount
or an amount which they furnish
the means of making certain. — Kat-
ski v. Triplett 30 A.2d 764, 181 Md.
54'5.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 225
discretion, require production of witnesses for oral
examination in open court.61
b. In Support of Motion
In order to Justify the granting of a motion for sum-
mary judgment In favor of the plaintiff, the affidavits
or other proof adduced in support of the motion must
verify the cause of action and negative the exis*ence of
a defense, or, where the motion is made by the defend-
ant, must establish the sufficiency of his defense. They
must, in addition, contain any formal statements re-
quired by statute, such as a statement of an affiant's
belief that there is no defense to the action, or, where
the motion Is by the defendant, that there is no merit
to the action.
The affidavits of the moving party must contain
facts sufficient to entitle him to judgment in his fa-
vor,^ anci are to fce strictly construed6* They
must comply with the statutory requirements and
the rules of court64 as to the matters required to be
stated65 and as to service on the adverse party.66
Ordinarily, in order that plaintiff may be entitled
to summary judgment on motion, he must file, in
support thereof, an affidavit or other proof which
fully and clearly verifies or states the facts which
constitute his cause of action against defendant,
and negatives the existence of a defense;67 and,
if plaintiffs affidavits are insufficient to support his
cause of action, the motion should be denied.6^ It
61. Mich. — Schempf v. New Era
Life Ass'n, 234 N.W. 177, 253 Mich.
152.
Befusal to take testimony
Under particular circumstances it
was held that the court abused its
discretion in refusing to take the
testimony of witnesses offered for
the purpose of supplying the insuffi-
ciencies of affidavits. — Schempf v.
New Era Life Ass'n, supra.
62. Cal. — Hardy v. Hardy, 143 P.2d
701, 23 Cal.2d 244— Gibson v. Be
La Salle Institute, 152 P.2d 774,
66 Cal.App.2d 609.
Proof rather than, mere presump-
tion, is necessary to warrant the
granting of summary Judgment. —
Romine v. Barnaby Agency, 227 N.Y.
S. 235, 131 Misc. 696.
Method of testing sufficiency
Under some statutes a motion to
strike an affidavit for summary judg- !
ment from the flies is a proper meth-
od of testing the sufficiency of the
affidavit.— People, for Use of Dyer,
v. Sawyer, 2 N.E.2d 345, 284 Ill.App.
463.
63. Cal.— Eagle Oil & Refining Co.
v. Prentice, '122 P.2d 264, 19 Cat.
2d 553 — Gibson v. De La Salle In-
stitute, 152 P.2d 774, 66 Cal.App,2d
009 — Grady v. Easley, 11'4 P.2d
635, 45 Cal.App.2d 632.
D.C.— Wyatt v. Madden, 32 F.2d m,
59 App.D.C. 38— Gleason v. Hoeke,
5 App.D.C. 1.
111.— Molner v. Schaefle, 58 N,E.2d
744, 324 Ill.App. 589— Security Dis-
count Corporation v. Jackson, 51
N.E.2d 618, 320 IlLApp. 440— C. L
T. Corporation v. Smith, 48 N.E.2d
735, 318 IlLApp. 642— Fellheimer
v. Wess, 45 N.E.2d 89, 316 Ill.App.
449— Shaw v. National Life Co., 42
N.E.2d 885, 315 Ill.App. 210— Soel-
ke v. Chicago Business Men's Rac-
ing Ass'n, 41 N.B.2d 232, 31'4 111.
App. 336— Gliwa v. Washington
Polish Loan & Building Ass'n, 34
N.E.2d 736, 310 IlLApp. 465.
64. Md.— Mueller v. Michaels, 60 A.
485, 101 Md. 188.
N.Y.— William J, Cdnners Car Co.
v. Manufacturers' & Traders' Nat
40 C. J.S.-27
Bank of Buffalo, 209 N.T.S. 406
124 Misc. 5.84, affirmed 210 N.Y.S
939, 214 App.Div. 811.
65. N.T.— Macomber v. Wilkinson, 6
N.Y.S.2d 608.
34 C.J. p 205 note 53.
Knowledge of affiant
Plaintiff's affidavit that he could
swear to the facts of his own knowl-
edge, but without doing so, is in-
sufficient to support his motion for
summary judgment. — Minuto v. Met-
ropolitan Life Ins. Co., 179 A. 713, 55
R.I. 201.
Statement as constituting- "account"
Where plaintiffs intending to bring
suit under the Speedy Judgment Act
filed with their declaration a state-
ment under affidavit claiming that
defendants were indebted to them in
a specified sum, but statement did
not mention any items of merchan-
dise alleged to have been sold to
the defendants, or a copy of agree-
ments subsequently relied on where-
in defendants promised to be liable
for merchandise purchased, the state-
ment did not constitute an "account"
within meaning of the statute.— Kat-
ski v. Trlplett, 30 A.2d 764, 181 Md.
545.
Capacity to institute action
In action under Speedy Judgment
Act, affidavit of merit need not con-
tain positive allegation of plaintiffs
capacity to institute action. — Power
v. Allied Asphalt Products Corpora-
tion, 159 A. 251, 162 Md. 175.
66. N.Y.— Neff v. Palmer, 227 N.Y.
S. 612, 131 Misc. 671.
C.J. p 205 note 5'5.
67. 111. — People, for Use of Dyer, v.
Sawyer, 2 N.E.2d 343, 284 IlLApp.
463.
Mich. — Gloeser v. Moore, 278 N.W.
781, 284 Mich, 106.
N.Y.— Barrett v. Jacobs, 175 N.E. 2*75,
255 N.Y. 520 — Curry v. Mackenzie,
146 N.E. 3T5, 239 N.Y. 267— Max-
rice Realty 'Corporation v. B/G
Sandwich Shops, 267 N.Y.S. 863,
239 App.Div. 472 — Hallgarten v.
Wolkenstein, 198 N.Y.S. 485, 204
App.Div. 487 — Union Trust Co. of
Rochester v. "Mayer. 270 N.Y.S.
417
355, 150 Misc. 375, affirmed in part
and reversed in part on other
grounds 273 N.Y.S. 438, 242 App.
E>iv. 671, affirmed 285 N.Y.S. 1046.
246 App.Div. 68'5— First Trust Co.
of Albany v. Dumary, 23 N.Y.S.2d
532.
Pa.— Pennsylvania Co. for Insurance
on Lives and Granting Annuities
v. Stern, 14 Pa.Dist. & Co. 188.
R.I. — Berick v. Curran, 179 A. 708,
55 R.I. 193,
34 C.J. p 205 note 39.
Execution of contract
Plaintiff seeking summary judg-
ment for amounts due under assign-
ed land contract must first prove
that such contract was entered into
by defendants.— MacClure v. Noble,
244 N.W. 174, -259 Mich. 601.
Effect of tender
Plaintiff's application for partial
judgment must be supported by
proof that part of plaintiff's claim
is admitted, and defendant's tender
and payment into court of part of
amount claimed does not itself fur-
nish such proof. — Pleder v. Itkin, 60
N.B.2d 753, 294 N.Y. 77.
Computation of amount claimed
Where declaration is based on
common counts, plaintiff's affidavit,
alleging defendant's indebtedness to
jlaintiff in certain amount, need not
state manner in which such amount
was computed. — Terre Haute Brew-
ng Co. v. Goldberg, 289 N.W. 192,
291 Mich,- 401.
88. Del. — Lamson v. Habbart, 43 A.
2d 249.
34 C.J. p 205 note '57.
Bad count
Under statutes whereby the de-
scription of plaintiff's cause of <ac-
ion in his affidavit becomes a part
f each count in his declaration; the
'act that one of the counts is bad in
aw does not vitiate the statement
f the cause of action contained in
the affidavit which is documented,
lear, distinct, and precise; and a
defendant who has failed to demur
r object to a count cannot reach
he defect through an objection to
he affidavit— Power v. Allied As-
225
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
has been held, however, that summary judgment
will not be denied because of the insufficiency of
plaintiffs affidavit where the complaint is sufficient
and its essential facts are admitted.^ Plaintiffs
affidavits must do more than merely set forth those
allegations which would be required by a pleading to
constitute a cause of action;70 they should set
forth the evidentiary facts, from the existence of
which the conclusion of law must follow that plain.-
tifPs claim is valid and enforceable.71 Although
plaintiff cannot convert his affidavit into a plead-
ing,72 and, by anticipating therein a defense, re-
quire defendant to negative or defend against such
new matter,73 it has been held that if his complaint
is merely defective it may be deemed amended for
the purpose of the motion where the affidavits filed
in support of the motion contain facts which cure
the defects.74
On a motion by defendant for summary judgment
dismissing the complaint, his affidavits must set
forth evidentiary facts showing the sufficiency of
his defense.75 He must make out a clear case on
undisputed material facts presented on the record.76
However, where the affidavits or other proofs do es-
tablish that the action has no merit and that there
is no triable issue, a motion by defendant for sum-
mary judgment in his favor is properly granted.77
Belief as to merit of action or defense. It is fre-
quently required by the statutes or rules of court
that, on a motion by plaintiff for summary judg-
ment, the affidavits submitted in support of the mo-
tion state the belief of one having knowledge of
the facts that there is no defense to the action.78
The fact, however, that none of the affidavits pre-
sented by plaintiff contains the averment that there
is no defense to the action is not fatal to the legal
efficacy of the affidavits, where affiants have used
language which is equivalent in sense and meaning
to the words employed by the statute.79
Affidavits of a defendant submitted in support' of
a motion for summary judgment dismissing the
complaint are required by some provisions to state
his belief that the action has no merit.80
phalt Products Corporation, 159 A.
251, 162 Md. 175.
69. ill.— People ex rel. Ames v.
Marx, 18 N.B.2d 915, 370 111. 264.
70. N.T.— Sher v. Rodkin, 198 N.T.
S. 597.
Verification of cause of action
The statutory requirement of an
affidavit "verifying the cause of ac-
tion" means an affidavit which will
enable the judge to determine wheth-
er plaintiff has in fact a cause of ac-
tion which cannot be controverted on
a trial. — Sher v. Bodkin, supra.
71. 111.— Wainscott v. Penikoff, 4 N.
E.2d €11, 287 IlLApp. 78.
N.T.— Schaffer Stores Co. v. Sweet,
228 N.T.S. 599, 132 Misc. 38.
^Foundation of proceeding-
Plaintiff's affidavit in aid of mo-
tion for summary judgment is the
foundation and not a mere incident
of such proceedings, and facts with-
in personal knowledge of affiant must
be set out sufficiently to apprise the
court with reasonable certainty of
the truth of plaintiff's claim. — Minu-
to v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 179
A. 713, 55 R.I. 201.
Originals or copies of instruments
Involved
(1) Papers on which plaintiff's mo-
tion for summary judgment was
granted were held defective where
they did not contain a copy of al-
leged contract and note sued on. — La.
Salle Extension University v. -Man-
del, 27 N.T.S.2d 625.
(2) Insured's affidavit in support
of motion for summary judgment in
action on disability policies, which
affidavit stated provisions of policies
by their legal effect only without
any showing to excuse production of
originals, was insufficient if any
showing of provisions of policies
was required; but in the particular
case insured's affidavit was held not
insufficient where affidavits set forth
provisions of policies by their legal
effect and insurer's answer set forth
exact language of policies and de-
nied execution thereof in any other
terms, and there was no issue in
pleading as to issuance of policies
or their terms. — Gardenswartz v.
Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U. S.,
68 P.2d 322, 23 Cal.App.2d Supp. 745.
72. B.C.— Booth v. Arnold, 27 App.
D.C. 287.
73. D.C. — Booth v. Arnold, supra.
74. U.S. — Seaboard Terminals Cor-
poration v. Standard Oil Co. of
New Jersey, C.C.A.N.T., 104 F.2d
659.
N.T.— McAnsh v. Blauner, 226 N.T.S.
379, 222 App.Div. 3,81, affirmed 162
N.E. 515, 248 N.T. 537— Florida
Land Holding Corporation v.
Burke, 238 N.T.S. 1, 135 Misc. 341,
affirmed 243 N.T.S. 799, 229 Ap'p.
Div. 855.
76. N.T.— Krause v. Lehigh Valley
Coal Co., 14 N.T.S.2d 206, 172
Misc. 2.
Wis. — Fuller v. General Accident
Fire & Life Assur. Corporation,
Limited, of Perth, Scotland, 272
N.W. 839, 224 Wis. 603.
78. 'N.T. — Gorman v. Baltimore
Drive It Tourself Co., 46 N.T.S.2d
530.
77. N.T.— Luotto v. Field, 50 N.T.S.
2d 849, 268 App.Div. 227, reversed
on other grounds 63 N.E.2d '58,
418
294 N.T. 460— Pribyl v. Van Loan
& Co., 26 N.T.S.2d 1, 261 App.Div.
503, reargument denied 27 N.T.S.
2d 992, 262 App.Div. 711, affirmed
40 N.E.2d 36, 287 N.T. 749 — Colwell
v. Adelphi College, 25 N.T.S.2d 429,
261 App.Div. 933, affirmed 42 N.E.
2d 599, 288 N.T. 585— Camp-Of-
The-Pines v. New Tork Times Co,,
53 N.T.S.2d '475, 184 Misc. a89—
Eichler v. Furness, Withy & Co.. 6
N.T.S.2d 893, 169 Misc. 22.
Wis. — Blnsfeld v. Home Mut. Ins.
Co., IS N.W.2d 828, 245 Wis. 552—
Potts v. Farmers' Mut. Automobile
Ins. Co., 289 N.W. 606, 233 Wis.
313.
78. N.J.— Katz v. Inglis, 160 A. 314,
109 N.J.Law 54.
N.T. — Freund v. James McCullagh,
Inc., 50 N.T.S.2d 740, 268 App.Div.
875— Universal Credit Co. v. Ug-
gla, 290 N.T.S. 365, 248 App.Div.
848, motion denied 290 N.T.S. 997,
248 App.Div. 529, amended on oth-
er grounds 298 N.T.S. 15,8, 251 App.
Div. 786— Krause v. Lehigh Valley
Coal Co., 14 N.T.S.2d 206, 172 Misc.
2 — Baronberg v. Humphreys, 1'N.
T.S.2d 415, 166 Misc. 100— Bevelyn
Realty Corporation v. Brooklyn
Const. Co., 249 N.T.S. 41, 140 Misc.
74 — Tompkins Haulage Corporation
v. Roberts, 2'49 N.T.S. 22, 140 Misc.
80— La Pointe v. Wilson, 61 N.T.S.
2d 64.
R.I.— Berick v. Curran, 179 A. 708, 55
R.I. 193.
79. N.J.— Fidelity Union Trust Co.
v. Decker Bldg. Material Co., 148
A. 717, 106 N.J.Law 132.
80. N.T.— Krause v. Lehigh Valley
49 0. J. S.
JUDGMENTS
225
By whom made. Plaintiff's affidavit may be made
either by plaintiff himself81 or. by his agent;82 and
if it is made by an agent it is not necessary that it
should show why plaintiff did not execute it88 nor
need it expressly appear whether the agent's knowl-
edge is personal or is merely based on information
and belief.8*
Amendment of affidavit. Whether or not plaintiff
should be permitted to amend his affidavit of merit
is a matter within the sound discretion of the
court.85
Special proceedings for judgment by notice of
motion. Under statutes providing for special pro-
ceedings for judgment by notice of motion, dis-
cussed generally supra § 222, an affidavit may be
used to supplement the notice of motion.86 Such
affidavit should refer to the notice and the demand
or demands therein stated,87 and must comply with
statutory requirements as to the time of making88
and as to its service on defendant.89 The use of
exhibits in a notice of motion for judgment pro-
ceeding has been held improper.90
c. In Opposition to Motion
After the plaintiff makes out a prlma facie case for
summary Judgment by his proofs, the defendant by
affidavits or other proof must show a bona fide defense,
although In this he is aided by a liberal construction
of his affidavits, and the acceptance as true of the state-
ments therein.
Defendant is entitled to an opportunity to inter-
pose an affidavit in response to plaintiff's proof,
and to have the affidavit weighed as against such
proof.91 Indeed, where plaintiff has shown suf-
ficient facts to make out his case, if defendant con-
tests the granting of the motion and wishes to be
entitled to defend, he must establish by affidavit or
other proof such facts as show that he has a bona
fide defense to the action,92 and the mere filing of
an answer containing denials or raising an issue of
fact is not sufficient.93 Where defendant does not
deny the allegations of the affidavit presented by
Coal Co., 14 N.T.S.2d 206, 172
Misc. 2.
Wis. — Fuller v. General Accident
Fire & Life Assur. Corporation,
Limited, of Perth, Scotland, 272
N.W. 839, 224 Wis. 603.
Basis of belief
A provision in summary Judgrment
statute requiring party moving f°r
summary judgment to make a veri-
fied statement that he believes that
the action has no merit does not re-
quire the moving party to state the
basis for his belief, or that he had
been so advised by an attorney, and
does not require an affidavit by an
attorney to that effect. — Tregloan v.
Hayden, 282 N.W. 698, 229 Wis. 500.
81. D.C. — Newman v. Goddard, 12
APP.D.C. 404.
34 C.J. p 205 note 63*
82. D.C. — Newman v. Goddard, su-
pra,
34 C.J. p 205 note 64.
Failure to allege agency
Affidavit of merit was not defective
for affiant's failure to allege his
agency for plaintiff. — Power v. Al-
lied Asphalt Products Corporation,
1'59 A. 251, 162 Md. 175.
Where plaintiff was corporation,
the affidavit on which its motion for
summary judgment was based was
not improperly -received because
made by plaintiff's attorneys instead
of by plaintiff. — Monroe County Fi-
nance Co. v. Thomas, 11 N.W.2d 190,
243 Wis. 568.
83. B.C. — Newman v. Goddard, 12
App.D.C. 404.
84. D.C. — Newman v. Goddard, su-
pra.
85. D.C. — McReynolds v. Mortgage
& Acceptance Corporation, 18 F.2d
313, 56 App-D.C. 342.
86. W.Va. — Mountain State Water
Co. v. Town of Kingwood, 1 S.B.2d
395, 121 W.Va. 66— People's State
Bank of Crown Point, Ind., v. Jef-
fries, 129 S.E. 462, 99 W.Va, 399.
Cause of action
Under some statutes, the affidavit
filed with a notice of motion for
judgment need not set out a cause of
action stated in the notice, but is
sufficient if It states that there is,
as affiant verily believes, due and
unpaid, from defendant to plaintiff,
on demand or demands stated in the
notice, including principal and inter-
est, after deducting all payments,
credits, and set-offs made by defend-
ant, or of which, he is entitled, a
sum certain, named. — Citizens' Nat.
Bank v. Dixon, 117 S.B. 685, 94 W.
Va. 21.
87. W.Va,— Rogers v. Wolf, 1$9 S.E.
702, 104 W.Va, 206.
34 C.J. p 205 note 51.
88. W.Va, — Landsman-Hirscheimer
Co. v. Radwan, 111 S.E. 507, 90 W.
Va, 590.
89. W.Va, — Landsman-Hirscheimer
.Co. v. Radwan, supra,
34 C.J. p 205 note 55 [a].
90- W.Va,— City of Beckley v.
Craighead, 24 S.E.2d 908, 125 W.
Va. 484, overruling Mountain State
Water Co. v. Town of Kingwood,
1 S.B.2d 39*5, 121 W.Va. 66.
91. U.S. — Massee & Felton Lumber
Co. v. Benenson, D.C.N.Y., 23 F.2d
107.
N.Y. — Federal Deposit Ins. Corpora-
tion v. Fisher, 16 N.T.S.2d 221, 258
App.Div. 900.
419
Claim of surprise
Plaintiff has been held not enti-
tled to claim surprise because of a
statement made in the answering af-
fidavit where a similar statement
was contained in the opposing affida-
vit submitted on a, prior motion for
summary judgment. — Doniger v. Las-
off, 211 N.Y.S. 486, 12!5 Misc. 838.
92. Cal.— Kelly v. Liddicoat, 96 P.2d
'186, 35 CaLApp.2d 559— Shea v.
Leonis, 84 P.2d 277, 29 Cal.App.
2d 184.
111.— Killian v. Welfare Engineering
Co., 66 N.B.2d 305, 328 IlLApp. 375
— Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
v. Town of Bremen, 64 N.B.2d 220,
327 IlLApp. 393.
Mich. — Gloeser v. Moore, 278 N.W.
781, 284 Mich. 106 — Gloeser v.
Moore, 278 N.W. 72, 283 Mich. 425.
NJ. — Pusatere v. New Amsterdam
Casualty Co., 184 A. 513, 116 N.J.
Law 359.
N.T. — Security Finance Co. v. Stuart,
224 N.Y.S. 257, 130 Misc. 638—
Henderson v. Hildreth Varnish
Co., 276 N.T.S. 414.
34 C.J. p 206 note 75.
Statements by defendants' attorney
on information and belief, without
stating basis of belief, are insuffi-
cient to defeat motion for summary
judgment. — Seventh Nat. Bank of
New York v. Cromwell, 226 N.Y.S.
721, 131 Misc. 276.
98. Ark.— Holland v. Wait, 86 S.W.
2d 415, 191 Ark. 405.
Ill, — Killian v. Welfare Engineering
Co., 66 N.E.2d 30-5, 328 IlLApp.
375.
N.Y.— Saunders v. Delario, 238 N.Y.S.
337, 135 Misc. 455— Rodger v.
Bliss, 223 N.Y.S. 401, 180 Misc. 168
— William JT. Conners Car Co. v.
§ 225
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
plaintiff in support of his motion, the allegations of
that affidavit are taken as true.94
Defendant, however, is under no duty to chal-
lenge the claim of plaintiff or to submit affidavits
or proof showing a meritorious defense, unless the
affidavits or other proof in support of the motion
show in the first instance a good cause of action in
plaintiff and that the defense is without merit.95
If plaintiffs complaint96 or affidavits or proof97 are
insufficient to justify summary judgment the mo-
tion must be denied although defendant fails to file
on opposing affidavit or to show any facts sufficient
to entitle him to defend Defendant is under no
burden to show that affirmative allegations in the
defense are not sham when the attack on such alle-
gations is made solely on the ground that they are
insufficient in law.98
Where the motion for summary judgment is made
by defendant, the allegations of the complaint do
not constitute proof on behalf of plaintiff of the
facts therein alleged so as to defeat the motion.9*
The general requirements of an affidavit filed in
opposition to a motion for summary judgment are
no different from those necessary in support of a
summary judgment.1 The averment of facts which
create only an issue of law, rather than an issue of
fact, will not defeat the motion.2 To avert sum-
mary judgment in favor of plaintiff, the affidavits
or other proof adduced by defendant must disclose
a good defense or set out facts and circumstances
sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact and to en-
title defendant to defend.3 Affidavits of defendant
opposing a motion for summary judgment which
Manufacturers' & Traders' Nat.
Bank of Buffalo, 209 N.Y.S. 406,
124 Misc. 584, affirmed 210 N.T.S.
939, 214 App.Div. 811— Devlin v.
New York Mut Casualty Taxicab
Ins. Co., 206 N.Y.S. 365, 123 Misc.
784, modified on other grounds 210
N.Y.S. 57, 213 App.Div. 152— Bent-
ley. Settle & Co. v. Brinkman, 42
N.Y.S.2d 194 — Allen Commercial
Corporation v. Loucks, 41 N.Y.S.2d
106.
34 C.J. p 206 note 77.
The pleadings are not controlling,
and if it appears from facts stated
in affidavits or documents that the
answer pleaded is sham, false, or
frivolous, the answer will be disre-
garded.— Fellheimer v. Wess, 45 N.B.
2d 89, 316 IlLApp. 449— Gliwa v.
Washington Polish Loan & Building
Ass'n, 34 N.E.2d 736, 310 IlLApp. 465.
94. in.— Killian- v. Welfare Engi-
neering Co., 66 N.E.2d 305, 328 111.
App. 375.
N.Y:— Title Guarantee & Trust Co. v.
Smith, 213 N.Y.S. 730, 21'5 App.Div.
448.
Wis. — Jefferson Gardens v. Terzan,
2*7 N.W. 154, 216 Wis. 230.
Presumption of inability to sustain
defense
Absence of affidavit supporting
answer raises presumption that de-
fense cannot be sustained. — U. S. v.
Fiedler, D.C.N.Y., 37 F.2d 578.
95. N.Y. — Cohen v. Metropolitan
Casualty Ins. Co. of New York, 252
N.Y.S. 8'41, 233 App.Div. 340— Ja-
cobs v. Korpus, 218 N.Y.S. 314, 128
Misc. 445— State Bank v. Mack-
stein, 205 N.Y.S. 290, 123 Misc. 416.
Admission of triable issue
Defendant's failure to submit affi-
davit showing facts entitling him
to trial did not require court to
grant plaintiff's motion for summary
Judgment where the moving affidavit
admitted that the answer raised a
triable issue.— Bergman v. Santa-
maria, 279 N.Y.S. 876, 244 App.Div.
819.
96. N.Y.— Gubin v. City of New
York, 276 N.Y.S. 515, 154 Misc. 547.
97. Cal.— Gardenswartz, v. Equita-
ble Life Assur. Soc. of U. S., 68 P.
2d 322, 23 Cal.App.2d Supp. 745.
111.— Fellheimer v. Wess, 45 N.E.2d
89, 316 IlLApp. 449— Gliwa v.
Washington Polish Loan & Build-
ing Ass'n, 34 N.E.2d 736, 310 111.
App. 465.
N.Y.— Hurwitz v. Corn Exchange
Bank Trust Co., 253 N.Y.S. 851,
142 Misc. 398 — Homine v. Barnaby
Agency, 227 N.Y.S. 235. 131 Misc.
696.
34 C.J. p 205 notes 58, 59.
Disclosure of issues in plaintiff's
showing
Insufficiencies in affidavit of mer-
its, filed by defendants in proceed-
ing for summary judgment, are un-
important, where plaintiff's own
showing discloses fact issues. — Gas-
well v. Stearns, 241 N.W. 165, 257
Mich. 461.
Duty to deny statement of ultimate
fact
Defendant need not submit an op-
posing affidavit to an allegation
which is at best a statement of an
ultimate fact, rather than a state-
ment of evidentiary facts which
proves plaintiff's cause of action. —
Kellog v. Berkshire Bldg. Corpora-
tion, 211 N.Y.S. 623, 125 Misc. 818.
Effect of admissions and documen-
tary evidence
Summary judgment has been held
proper, notwithstanding the insuffi-
ciency of plaintiff's affidavits stand-
ing alone, where such affidavits to-
gether with defendant's admissions
in his pleadings and with other doc-
umentary evidence presented a case
to which no valid defense was offer-
ed.—Pratt v. Miedema, 18 N.W.2d
420
279, 311 Mich. 64, certiorari denied
66 S.Ct. 49.
98. N.Y.— Hessian Hills Country
Club v. Home Ins. Co., 186 N.E.
439, 262 N.Y. 189 — Hessian Hills
Country Club v. Hartford Fire Ins.
Co., 186 N.E. 439, 262 N.Y. 189.
99. N.Y. — Pribyl v. Van Loan & Co-.,
26 N.Y.S.2d 1, 261 App.Div. 503,
reargument denied 27 N.Y.S.2d 992,
262 App.Div. 711, affirmed 40 N.E.
2d 36, 287 N.Y. 749 — Gnozzo v. Ma-
rine Trust Co. of Buffalo, 17 N.Y.S.
2d 168, 258 APP-Div. 298, reargu-
ment denied Gnozzo v. Marine
Trust Co., 18 N.Y.S.2d 752, 259
App.Div. 788, affirmed Gnozzo v.
Marine Trust Co. of Buffalo, 29 N.
E.2d 933, 284 N.Y. 617 — Camp-Of-
The-Pines v. New York Times Co.,
53 N.Y.S.2d 475, 184 Misc. 389 —
Midland Union Groupe v. McMul-
len, 5 N.Y.S.2d 975, 167 Misc. SOC.
1. 111.— Fisher v. Hargrave, 48 N.E.
2d 966, 318 IlLApp. 510.
2. Cal. — Grady v. Easley, 1-14 P.2d
635, 45 Cal.App,2'd 632— Bank of
America Nat Trust & Savings
Ass'n v. Casady, 59 P.2d 444, 15
Cal.App.2d 163.
Pa. — Allen v. York Buffalo Motor Ex-
press, Com.PL, 56 York Leg.Rec.
145.
Construction of contract
Court may enter summary judg-
ment, where only issue Involved is
true construction of written con-
tract, and opposing affidavits suggest
no facts which might be proved to
aid in interpretation.
U.S. — Sterling Homes Co. v. Stam-
ford Water Co., C.C.A.N.Y., 79 F.2d
607.
IH._Spry v, Chicago Ry. Equipment
Co., 19 N.E.2d 122, 298 IlLApp. 471.
R.I.— Sutter v. Harrington, 154 A.
657, 51 R.I. 32-5.
3. U.S.— U. S. Gypsum Co, T. Insur-
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§225
merely repeat the various denials contained in the
answer,4 or which merely deny in general terms
plaintiff's right of action,5 are insufficient. His af-
fidavits must set forth evidentiary facts sufficient
to show that he has a defense to plaintiff's claim
or to some part thereof.6 The facts must be set
forth with such particularity that the court can de-
termine whether there is a good and substantial de-
fense,7 general denials or expressions of defend-
ant's belief, or conclusions and inferences of law,
and the like, being insufficient.8
The affidavits of the party opposing the motion
are to be liberally construed9 and must be accepted
as true for the purposes of the motion.1^ Plain-
tiffs motion for summary judgment will not be
ance Co. of North America, D.C. |
N.T.. 19 P.Supp. 767. |
111. — Killian v. Welfare Engineering
Co., 66 N.B.2d 305, 328 Ill.App. 375 |
— Clark v. Lithuanian Roman
Catholic Alliance of America, 64
N.B.2d 209, 327 Ill.App. 336 — Em-
ployers' Liability Assur. Corpora-
tion v. A. A. Electric Co., 27 N.E.2d
321, 305 Ill.App. 209— Spry v. Chi-
cago Ry. Equipment Co., 19 N.E.2d
122. 298 Ill.App. 471.
Mich.— Schneider v. Levy, 239 N.W.
326, 256 Mich. 184.
N.J. — National Sur. Corp. v. Clement,
42 A.2d 387— Birkenfeld v. Gins-
burg. 146 A. 170, 106 N.J.Law 377.
N.Y.— Di Roma v. Chambers Drug
Store, 28 N.Y.S.2d 170, 262 App.
Div. 856— Butler v. Mercantile Ar-
cade Realty Corporation, 276 N.Y.
S. 190, 2*43 App.Div, 60 — Strasbur-
ger v. Rosenheim, 255 N.Y.S. 316,
234 App.Div. 544 — Dodwell & Co.
v. Silverman, 25'4 N.Y.S. 746, 234
App.Div. 362 — Lapkin v. Equitable
Life Assur. Soc. of U. S., 42 N.Y.
S.2d 642, 181 Misc. 856, modified
on other grounds 48 N.Y.S.2d 463,
267 App.Div. 950— First Nat. Bank
& Trust Co. of Elmira v. Conzo, 7
N.Y.S.2d 334, 169 Misc. 268— Han-
feld v. A. Broido, Inc., 3 N.Y.S.2d
463, 167 Misc. 85— Union Trust Co.
of Rochester v. Mayer, 270 N.Y.S.
355. 150 Misc. 375, affirmed in part
and reversed in part on other
grounds 273 N.Y.S. 438, 242 App.
Div. 671, affirmed 285 N.Y.S. 1046,
246 App.Div. 685 — Sobel-Mirken
Holding Corporation v. Rubman,
259 N.Y.S. 476, 144 Misc. 731—
Goodman & Suss v. Rosenthal, 244
N.Y.S. 242, 137 Misc. 704— Hanrog
Distributing, Corp. v. Hanioti, 54
N.Y.S.2d 500 — Blanchard Press v.
Aerosphere, Inc., 51 N.Y.S.2d 715,
affirmed 56 N.Y.S.2d 415, 269 App.
Div. 826— First Nat. Bank of Dol-
geville, N. Y., v. Mang, 41 N.Y.
S.2d 92 — Air Conditioning- Train-
ing Corporation v. Strassberg, 18
N.Y.S.2d 310— Samuel Goldberg &
Son v. Siegel, 8 N.Y.S.2d 897—
Hoof v. John Hunter Corp., 193
N.Y.S. 91.
R.I. — Minuto v. Metropolitan Life
Ins. Co., 179 A. 713, 55 R.I. 201—
Merchants' & Manufacturers' Fi-
nance Co. v. Jeschke, -165 A. 441.
34 C.J. p 206 note 80.
4. U.S. — Prick Co. v. Rubel Corpo-
ration, C.C.A.N.Y., 62 F.2d 768.
N.Y.— Maurice O'Meara Co. v. Na- !
tional Park Bank of New York, 146
N.E. 636, 239 N.Y. 386, 39 A.L.R.
747, reargument denied 148 N.E.
725, 240 N.Y. 607 — Dodwell & Co.
v. Silverman, 25-4 N.Y.S. 746, 234
App.Div. 362— Cleghorn v. Ocean
Accident & Guarantee Corporation,
Limited, of London, 215 N.Y.S. 127,
216 App.Div. 342, modified on oth-
er grounds 155 N.E. 87, 244 N.Y.
166— Phillips v. Investors' Syndi-
cate, 259 N.Y.S. 462, 1'45 Misc. 361
—La Pointe v. Wilson, 61 N.Y.S.2d
64 — Krauss v. Central Ins. Co. of
Baltimore, 40 N.Y.S.2d 736.
Denial of infancy
In an action by an infant to disaf-
firm a contract, defendant's denial of
knowledge or information sufficient
to form a belief as to plaintiffs in-
fancy is insufficient to defeat plain-
tiff's motion for summary judgment,
in the absence of a showing con-
trary to the proof advanced by plain-
tiff by affidavit and his birth certifi-
cate.— Bower v. M. Samuels & Co.,
234 N.Y.S. 379, 226 App.Div. 769, af-
firmed 170 N.E. 138, 252 N.Y. 549.
Mere refusal to concede statements
A statement in an affidavit that de-
fendant does not concede certain
statements made in plaintiff's affi-
davit is unavailing as counter proof
on a motion for a summary Judg-
ment.—Honkkong & Shanghai Bank-
ing Corporation v. Lazard-Godchauac
Co. of America, 201 N.Y.S. 771, 207
App.Div. 174, appeal denied 143 N.E.
761, 237 N.Y. 604, and affirmed 147
N.E. 216, 239 N.Y. 610.
5. 111.— Wainscott v. Penikoff, 4 N.
E.2d 511. 287 IlLApp. 78.
R.I.— Sutter v. Harrington, 154 A,
657, 51 R.I. 325— Rosenthal v.
Halsband, 1*52 A. 320, 51 R.I. 119.
6. Cal. — Security-First Nat. Bank of
Los Angeles v. Cryer, 104 P.2d
66, 39 Cal.App.2d 757— Shea v. Le~
onis, 84 P.2d 277? 29 Cal.App:2d
18-4.
111.— Killian v. Welfare Engineering
Co., 66 N.E.2d 305, 328 Ill.App. 375.
N.Y. — Anderson v. City of New York,
17 N.Y.S.2d 326, 258 App.Div. 588.
R.I.— -Merchants' & Manufacturers'
Finance Co. v. Jeschke, 165 A. 441.
7. Mich.— Andrews v. Pfent, 273 N.
W. 585, 280 Mich. 324.
8. 111. — Killian v. Welfare Engineer-
ing Co., 66 N.B.2d 305, 328 IlLApp.
375.
421
R.I.— Minuto v. Metropolitan Life
Ins. Co., 179 A. 713, 55 R.I. 201.
Discretion of court
Trial court was vested with sound
judicial discretion to deny motion
for summary judgment against de-
fendant on ground that defendant's
answers to interrogatories were mod-
ified expressions and not positive
declarations. — Aycock v. Bottoms,
144 S.W.2d 43, 201 Ark. 104.
9. Cal.— Eagle Oil & Refining Co. v.
Prentice, 122 P.2d 264, 19 Cal.2d
553 — Gibson v. De La Salle In-
stitute, 152 P.2d 774, 66 Cal.App.2d
609— Grady v. Easley, 114 P.2d 635,
45 Cal. App. 2d S3 2 — McComsey v.
Leaf, 97 P.2d 242, 36 Cal.App.2d
132.
D.C.— Wyatt v. Madden, 32 F.2d 838.
59 App.D.C. 38 — Gleason v. Hoeke,
5 App.D.C. 1.
111.— .Fellheimer v. Wess, 45 N.E.2d
89, 316 IlLApp. 449— Soelke v. Chi-
cago Business Men's Racing Ass'n.
41 N.E.2d 232, 314 Ill.App. 336—
Gliwa v. Washington Polish Loan
6 Building Ass'n, 34 N.E.2d 736,
310 IlLApp. 465.
N.Y.— Diamond v. Davis, 38 N.Y.S.
2d 103, affirmed 59 N.Y.S.2d 412,
first case, 265 App.Div. 919; appeal
denied 41 N.Y.S.2d 191, first case,
265 App.Div. 1052, and affirmed '54
N.E.2d 683, first case, 292 N.Y.
552.
Presumption of exercise of ordinary
oare
In action for death of motorist at
crossing, in determining whether de-
fendant was entitled to summary
Judgment, presumption that motor-
ist exercised ordinary care was to
be considered. — Holzschuh v. Web-
ster, 17 N.W.2d 553, 246 Wis. 423.
10. CaL — Eagle Oil & Refining Co.
v. Prentice, 122 P.2d 264, 19 Cal.
2d 553 — Slocum v. Nelson, App.,
163 P.2d 888— Gibson v. De La
Satte Institute, 152 P.2d 774, 66
Cal.App.2d 609— Grady v. Easley,
114 P.2d 635, 45 Cal.App.2d 632—
Anchors v. Anchors, App., ' 107 P.
2d 973— Kelly v. Liddicoat, 96 P.
2d 186, 35 CaL App. 2d 559 — Shea v.
Leonis, 84 P.2d 277, 29 Cal.App.2d .
184— Bank of America Nat. Trust
& Savings Ass'n v. Casady, 59 P.
2d 444, 15 Cal.App.2d 16S— Krle-
ger v. Dennie, 10 P.2d 820, 123 CaL
App.Supp. 777 — Cowan Oil & Refin-
ing Co. v. Miley Petroleum Corpo-
225
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
granted where the affidavits submitted in opposition
state facts which, if true, would constitute a de-
fense,11 or, as the rule is sometimes expressed, in
order to warrant summary judgment against de-
fendant, there must be a failure on the part of de-
fendant to satisfy the court by affidavit or other
proof that there is any basis for his denial or any
truth in his defense.12 The fact that the statements
made in the opposing affidavit are made on infor-
mation and belief does not of itself render the affi-
davit insufficient to defeat the motion.1^ In the
exercise of its sound discretion, the court may grant
defendant the right to amend an affidavit of de-
fense which, although suggesting a triable issue,
may be incomplete or technically deficient.14
Difficulty of making proper -showing. Failure of
defendant to dispute the facts presented in plain-
tiffs affidavit is not excused on the ground that the
necessary proof would be difficult to obtain.15 Un-
der some circumstances, however, the court in the
exercise of its discretion may deny a motion for
summary judgment even though defendant is unable
to make a showing such as the statute requires, as
ration, 295 P. 504, 112 CaLApp.
Supp. 773.
D.C.— Wyatt v. Madden, 32 F.2d 838,
59 App.D.C. 38.
111.— Fellheimer v. Wess, 45 N.E.2d
89, 316 IlLApp. 449— Gliwa v.
. Washington Polish Loan & Build-
ing Ass'n, 3«4 N.E.2d 736, 310 HL
App. 465.
Mich. — Dempsey v. Langton, 253 N.
W. 210, 266 Mich. 47.
N.Y. — Chance v. Guaranty Trust Co.
of New York, 21 N.Y.S.2d 356, 260
App.Div. 216 — German v. Snedeker,
13 N.T.S.2d 237, 257 App.Div. 596,
reargument denied 14 N.Y>S.2d
1012, 2'58 App.Div. 708, affirmed 24
N.E.2d 492, 281 N.Y. 832— Tully v.
New York Life Ins. Co., 240 N.Y.S.
118, 228 App.Div. 449— Marcus v.
Knitzer, 4 N.Y.S.2d 308, 168 Misc.
9— Voros v. Baroa, 285 N.Y.S. 926,
158 Misc. 500 — Greenberg v. Rud-
nick, 2-58 N.Y.S. 679, 143 Misc. 793
— Magner v. Mills, 242 N.Y.S. 705,
137 Misc. 535— Harris v. Equitable
Surety Co., 226 N.Y.S. 263, 131
Misc. 85— De Mott v. Palmer, 59
N.Y.S.2d 163— Biloz v. Tioga Coun-
ty Patrons' Fire Relief Ass'n, 21
N.Y.S.2d 6'43, affirmed 23 N.Y.S.2d
460, 260 App.Div. 976.
R.I.— Berick v. Curran, 179 A, 708,
55 R.I. 193.
Conclnsiveness . of testimony "before
trial
Testimony of a witness before tri-
al is not conclusive and does not on
motion for summary judgment pre-
clude consideration of his supple-
mental statement contained in affida-
vit.— Strauss v. G. H. Mumm Cham-
pagne & Associates, 30 N.Y.S.2d 117,
262 App.Div. 971.
Incredibility
Claims of defendant's witnesses
relative to issue of fact raised by
answer should not be disposed of
on affidavits, on plaintiff's motion for
summary judgment, on ground that
testimony is incredible as matter of
law. — Danneman v. White, 283 N.Y.S.
868, 246 App.Div. 727.
Only the facts well pleaded must
be taken as admitted, and not a
party's conclusions therefrom. —
Shepard v. Wheaton, 60 N.E.2d 47,
325 IlLApp. 269.
11. N.Y.— Cook v. Bauman, 217 N.Y.
S. 187, 128 Misc. 23.
Consideration, of entire affidavit
Fact that a certain part of defend-
ant's affidavit opposing plaintiff's
motion for summary judgment does
not in itself constitute a defense is
not a valid ground for disregarding
entire affidavit. — Scharf v. Waters,
IlLApp., 66 N.E.2d 499.
12. Cal.— McComsey v. Leaf, $7 P.
2d 242, 36 Cal. App. 2 d 132.
N.Y.— Curry v. Mackenzie, 146 N.E.
375, 239 N.Y. 267— Salt Springs
Nat Bank of Syracuse v. Hitch-
cock, 259 N.Y.S. 24, 14'4 Misc. 547,
reversed on other grounds 263
N.Y.S. 55, 238 App.Div. 150— Robin-'
sohn v. Herman, 234 N.Y.S. 693, 134
Misc. 246.
Weight and credibility of defense
Where affidavit in opposition to
plaintiff's motion for summary judg-
ment indicates that there may be a
422
where the facts of the defense are not within de-
fendant's knowledge and other persons who know or
claim to know them refuse to make affidavits to be
used in opposition to the motion;16 but before de-
fendant may have the benefit of this rule he should
at least present an affidavit by some one who states
of his own knowledge that such other persons do
know or claim to know the facts and have refused
to make affidavits,17 and such affidavit ought to
name the other persons and set forth what each
one knows or claims to know, in a manner similar
to an affidavit for continuance on the ground of ab-
sence of witnesses.18
Preponderance of proof unnecessary. Where the
motion for summary judgment is made by plaintiff,
the affidavits of defendant are not required to es-
tablish his defense by a preponderance of proof.19
Similarly, on a motion by defendant for summary
judgment, plaintiff is not required to establish his
defense to the motion by a preponderance of the
proof.20
Executors and administrators. Since the repre-
sentative of a deceased person may be in ignorance
defense to the action, the weight and
credibility of such defense is for
the jury, and court cannot discount
it entirely.— La Pointe v. Wilson, 61
N.Y.S,2d 64.
13. N.Y. — Dolge v. Commercial Cas-
ualty Ins. Co., 207 N.Y.S. 42, 211
App.Div. 112, affirmed 148 N.E. 746,
240 N.Y. 656.
M C.J. p 206 note 75 [a].
Effect of failure to deny
An allegation made in an answer-
ing affidavit on information was held
the equivalent of a statement of fact
where it was not denied. — Doniger
v. Lasoff, 211 N.Y.S. 486, 125 Misc.
838.
14. Pa. — Yezek v. Pennsylvania
Turnpike Commission, Com.PL, 22
West.Co.L.J. 262.
R.I.— -Berick v. Curran, 179 A. 708, 55
R.I. 193.
15. N.Y.— William J. Conners Car
Co. v. Manufacturers' & Traders'
Nat. Bank of Buffalo, 209 N.Y.S.
406, 124 Misc. 58'4, affirmed 210
N.Y.S. 939, 214 App.Div. 811.
16. Cal. — Gardenswartz v. Equitable
Life Assur. Soc. of U. S., 68 P.2d
322, 23 Cal.App.2d Supp. 745.
17. Cal. — Gardenswartz v. Equitable
Life Assur. Soc. of U. S., supra.
la Cal. — Gardenswartz v. Equitable
Life Assur. Soc. of U. S., supra.
19. N.Y. — Connor v. Commercial
Travelers Mut. Accident Ass'n of
America, 287 N.Y.S. 416, 247 App.
Div. 352.
20. N.Y.— First Trust & Deposit Co.
v. Dent, 34 N.Y.S.2d 282, 263 App.
"Div. 1058.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 225
of the facts, a denial by such representative of
knowledge or information sufficient to form a be-
lief is sometimes sufficient to defeat plaintiffs mo-
tion for summary judgment where it does not ap-
pear that the representative has such factual knowl-
edge of the circumstances as to make his denial
worthless.21 A mere statement in the representa-
tive's affidavit of want of knowledge of the facts
does not, however, prevent summary judgment,22
such a want of knowledge being sufficient to pre-
vent summary judgment only when it appears that
a thorough investigation has been made and that
ignorance persists after genuine efforts to ascertain
the facts.23
Objections to affidavits; motion to strike. The
better practice is for defendant to include in his
affidavit all his objections to plaintiffs affidavit24
It has also been held, however, that the failure of
defendant to object to plaintiffs affidavit is not a
waiver of errors therein, since unless plaintiff does
those things which the statutes prescribe as essen-
tial to jurisdiction he can claim none of its bene-
fits.^
Under the practice in some jurisdictions, a plain-
tiff who contends that the affidavit or affidavits sub-
mitted by defendant do not present a defense, or
are otherwise objectionable, should move to strike
all of the affidavit or the objectionable parts ;26 and
a defendant who desires to test the sufficiency of
plaintiffs motion and affidavit for summary judg-
ment should file a written motion to strike, specify-
ing his objections.27 On a motion to strike an affi-
davit or portions thereof, the material facts well
pleaded or stated in the affidavit are deemed admit-
ted.** .
Service of affidavits. The court may permit an-
swering affidavits in a proper case, although they
are not served within the time limited by the mov-
ing party.29 Under the practice in some jurisdic-
tions, a party moving for summary judgment who
gives sufficient notice of his motion may require
that the adverse party serve his affidavits in opposi-
tion a specified time before the hearing; and where
without good cause the opposing party has failed
to comply with such a demand the court may re-
fuse to receive his affidavits.30
Counterclaims or set-offs. Summary judgment in
favor of defendant on a counterclaim asserted by
him is proper where there is no substantial evi-
dence in the affidavits to sustain any of the de-
fenses alleged in plaintiffs reply;31 but the sub-
mission of affidavits by plaintiff which raise a tria-
ble issue as to the counterclaim precludes summary
judgment thereon.32
It has been held that, under a plea of non as-
sudpsit to a motion on an open account, defendant
may prove set-offs.33
d. Applications of Eules
The principles governing the necessity and suffi-
ciency of affidavits or other proofs in support of, or in
opposition to, a motion for summary judgment have been
applied In a great variety of cases, and summary judg-
ments have been granted or denied, on motion of either
the plaintiff or the defendant, according to the circum-
stances of particular cases.
In accordance with the principles discussed in the
foregoing subdivisions of this section, the affida-
vits or other proofs submitted by plaintiff on a mo-
tion for summary judgment in his favor, coupled
with the failure of defendant sufficiently to contro-
21. N.T.— Emley v. Gray, 32 N.Y.S.
2d "537, 263 App.Div. 894— Wood-
mere Academy v. Moskowitz, 208
N.Y.S. 578, 2«12 App.Div. 457.
22. Mass.— Norwood Morris Plan
Co. v. McCarthy, 4 N.B.2d 450, 295
Mass. £97, 107 A.L.R. 1215.
23. Mass. — Norwood Morris Plan
Co. v. McCarthy, supra. .
24. Mich. — Hecker Products Corpo-
ration v. Transamerican Freight
Lines, 296 N.W. 297, 296 Mich. 381.
25. Md.— Power v. Allied Asphalt
Products Corporation, 159 A. 251,
162 Md. 175.
Failure of defendants' attorney to
contest motion for summary judg-
ment is not waiver of plaintiff's com-
pliance with statute and court rule.
— MacClure v. Noble, 24'4 N.W. 174,
259 Mich. 601.
Defective affidavit
Defendant in action under Speedy
Judgment Act can be put in no worse
position by filing defective affidavit
of defense than if he filed none. —
Power v. Allied Asphalt Products
Corporation, 159 A. 251, 162 Md. 175.
26. 111.-— Scharf v. Waters, App., 66
N.E.2d 499.
27. 111. — Scharf v. Waters, supra.
28. 111. — Ublasi v. Western & South-
ern Life Ins. Co., 64 N.E.2d 233, 327
111. App. 412 — Lowenstern Bros. v.
Marks Credit Clothing, 4$ N.E.2d
729, 319 IlLApp. 71— National
Builders Bank of Chicago v. Si-
mons, 31 N.E.2d 274, 307 IlLApp.
562.
29. N.Y.— McMasters v. Allcut, 136
N.Y.S. 144, 151 App.Div. 559.
Refusal to consider filed affidavits
Where affidavits opposing a motion
for summary judgment were filed,
the court's refusal to consider them,
on the ground that copies had not
423
been served on plaintiff's attorney
as directed, and that plaintiff had not
had an opportunity to reply there-
to, was held error. — Cook v. Bau-
man, 217 N.Y.S. 187, 128 Misc. 23.
30. N.Y. — Gnozzo v. Marine Trust
Co. of Buffalo, 17 N.Y.S.2d 168, 258
App.Div. 298, reargument denied
Gnozzo v. Marine Trust Co., 18
N.Y.S.2d 752, 259 App.Div. 788, af-
firmed Gnozzo y. Marine Trust Co.
of Buffalo, 29 N.E.2d 933, 284 N.
Y. 617.
31. N.Y. — Brooks v. Slawson, 10 N.
Y.S.2d S7§, 256 AppJMv. 1052, af-
firmed 24 N.R2d 21, 281 N.Y. 762.
32. N.Y. — Gottesman v. Goldberg,
266 N.Y.S. 676, 149 Misc. 50.
Wis.— Prime Mfg. Co. v. A. P. Gal-
lun & Sons Corporation, 281 N.W.
697, 229 Wis. 348.
33. Va. — Whitley v. Booker Brick
Co., 74 S.E. 160, 113 Vat 434.
§ 225
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
vert such proof, have been held to justify summary
judgment, as to either all or a part of the claim as-
serted, in a great variety of actions,34 including ac-
tions for or involving accounts stated,35 alimony,36
assessments against stockholders37 or policyhold-
ers,38 bonds,39 building or construction contracts,40
checks,41 drafts,42 extension agreements,43 fees and
charges,44 forcible detainer,45 foreclosure of mort-
gages, deeds of trust, or liens,46 guaranties,47 in-
surance,48 loans,49 notes,50 rents,51 including ac-
34. 111.— Great Atlantic & Pacific
Tea Co. v. Town of Bremen, 64 N.
E.2d 220, 327 Ill.App. 393— Gliwa v.
Washington Polish Loan & Build-
ing Ass'n, 34 N.E.2d 736, 310 111.
App. 46-5.
N.T.— Isaacs v. Schmuck, 156 N.E.
621, 245 N.T. 77, 51 A.L.R, 1454—
Buffalo Sav. Bank v. O'Gorman, 25
N.T.S.2d 8, 260 App.Div. 993— Ton-
kers Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v.
Roth, 285 N.T.S. 264, 2'47 App.Div.
730— Schlesinger v. Kofsky-Moos,
Inc., 276 N.T.S. 980, 154 Misc. 242.
Wis.— Barneveld State Bank of
Barneveld v. Rongve, 280 N.W. 295,
228 Wis. 293.
.35. N.T.— Tobey v. Nelson, 270 N.T.
S. 201, 150 Misc. 346 — Manhattan
Paper Co. v. Bayer, 263 N.T.S. 720,
147 Misc. 227.
36. N.T.— Sutin v. Sutin, 38 N.T.S.
2d 162, 180 Misc. 197.
37. N.T.— Broderick v. Alexander,
275 N.T.S. 278, 153 Misc. 825.
38. Wis.— Duel v. Ramar Baking
. Co., 18 N.W.2d 345, 246 Wis. 604.
39. 111. — People ex rel. Ames v.
Marx, 18 N.E.2d 915, 370 111. 264.
N.J. — Electric Service Supplies Co.
v. Consolidated Indemnity & In-
surance Co., 168 A. 412, 111 N.J.
Law 288.
N.T. — Perry v. Norddeutscher Lloyd,
268 N.T.S. 525, 150 Misc. 73—
Union Trust Co. of Rochester v.
Toal, 28 N.T.S.2d 956.
43. 111.— Willadsen v. City of East
Peoria, 47 N.E.2d 136, 317 Ill.App.
•541.
Md.— Power v. Allied Asphalt Prod-
ucts Corporation, 159 A. 251, 162
Md. 175.
N.J. — Nolte v. Nannino, 15'4 A. 831,
107 N.J.Law 462.
N.T. — J. R. Const. Corporation v,
Berkeley Apartments, 26 N.T.S. 2d
958, 261 App.Div. 1085, appeal de-
nied 28 N.T.S.2d 715, 262 App.Div,
757, appeal denied 35 N.E.2d 941
286 N.T. 604, reargument denied 30
N.T.S.2d 49'4, 268 App.Div. 965.
41. N.T. — Frankfurter v. Silverman
208 N.T.S. 405, 124 Misc. 751— Wil-
liam J. Conners Car Co. v. Manu-
facturers' & Traders' Nat. Bank
of Buffalo, 209 N.T.S. 406, 124
Misc. 584, affirmed 210 N.T.S. 939
214 App.Div. 811.
42. N.T.— Buffalo Porcelain Enam
eling Corporation y. Paramoun1
Service Corporation, 202 N.T.S. 301
43. N.T.— East River Sav. Bank v
Realty Ventures, 60 N.T.S.2d 581
44. N.T.— Title Guarantee & Trus
Co. v. Smith, 213 N.T.S. 730. 215
App.Div. 4'48.
45. 111.— Wainscott v. Penikoff, 4 N.
E.2d Ml. 287 Ill.App. 78.
46. Cal.— Ware v. Heller, 148 P.2d
410, -63 Cal.App.2d 817— Security-
First Nat. Bank of Los Angeles v.
Cryer, 104 P.2d 66, 39 Cal.App.2d
757.
N.T. — City of New Rochelle v. Echo
Bay Waterfront Corporation, 49 N.
T.S.2d 673, 268 App.Div. 182, cer-
tiorari denied Echo Bay Water-
front Corp. v. City of New Ro-
chelle, 66 S.Ct. 24. Affirmed 60 N.
E.2d 838, 294 N.T. 678— Federation
Ba<& & Trust Co. v. Andrew Jack-
son Apartments, 7 N.T.S.2d 983,
255 App.Div. 878, reargument de-
nied 8 N.T.S.2d 1005, 255 App.Div.
986— Proudman v. Shaw Service
Stations, 7 N.T.S.2d 526, 255 App.
Div. 857 — Federation Bank & Trust
Co. v. Andrew Jackson Apartments,
5 N.T.S.2d 928, 168 Misc. 328, af-
firmed 7 N.T.S.2d 983, 25'5 App.Div.
878, reargument denied 8 N.T.S.2d
1005, 255 App.Div. 986— Meurer v.
Keimel, 267 N.T.S. 799, 150 Misu,
113.
47. N.T.— Doehler Die Casting Co.
v. Holmes, 52 N.T.S.2d 321— Kir-
sten v. Chrystmos, 14 N.T.S.2d 4'42.
48. 111.— Clark v. Lithuanian Roman
Catholic Alliance of America, 64
N.E.2d 209, 327 Ill.App. 336— Bil-
ton v. Pure Protection Ins. Ass'n,
49 N.E.2d 834, ,319 IlLApp. 644—
Employers' Liability Assur. Corpo-
ration v. A. A. Electric Co., 27 N.E.
2d 321, 305 IlLApp. 209.
N.T.— Killian v. Metropolitan Life
Ins. Co., 232 N.T.S. 280, 225 App.
Div. 781, affirmed 166 N.E. 798, 251
N.T. 44, 64 A.L.R. 956— Killeen v.
General Ace., Fire & Life Assur,
Corporation, 227 N.T.S. 220, 131
Misc. 691, affirmed 229 N.T.S. 875
224 App.Div. 719 — Krauss v. Cen-
tral Ins. Co. of Baltimore, 40 N.T.
S.2d 736.
49. N.T.— Perlman v. Perlman, 257
N.T.S. 48, 235 App.Div. 313— Rodg-
er V. Bliss, 223 N.T.S. 401, 130
Misc. 168.
50- Cal.— Kelly v. Liddicoat, 96 P
2d 186, 3'5 Cal.App.2d 559— Himes
v. Club Rustico De La Playa, S. A.
44 P.2d 395, 6 Cal.App.2d 356.
HI. — National Builders Bank of Chi-
cago v. Simons, 31 N.B.2d 274, 30
IlLApp. 562.
Mass.— Norwood Morris Plan Co. v
McCarthy, 4 N.E.2d 450, 295 Mass
597, 107 A.L.R. 1215.
— Dart Nat. Bank v. Burton, 241
424
N.W. 858, 258 Mich. 283— Warren
Webster & Co. v. Pelavin, 216 N.W.
430, 241 Mich. 19— Slebodnick v.
La Buda, 213 N.W. 698, 238 Mich.
550.
NT.J.— Irvington Trust Co. v. Maurer,
151 A. 72, 8 N.J.Misc. 565, affirmed
156 A. 428, 108 NJT.Law 40*4.
tf.T. — General Inv. Co. v. Interbor-
ough Rapid Transit Co., 139 N.E.
216, 235 N.T. 133— Italiano v. Ros-
enbaum, 28-4 N.T.S. 177, 246 App.
Div. 687, affirmed 3 N.E.2d 196, 271
N.T. 583— Walmor Inc., v. Globe
Industrial Corporation, 276 N.T.S.
1000, 243 App.Div. 619 — Hayes Nat.
Bank v. Chynoweth, 257 N.T.S. 561,
235 App.Div. 890 — McAnsh v. Blau-
ner, 226 N.T.S. 379, 222 App.Div.
381, affirmed 162 N.E. 515, 248 N.T;
'537 — Commonwealth Fuel Co. v.
Powpit Co., 209 N.T.S. 603, 212
App.Div. 553— Hanna'v. Mitchell.
196 N.T.S. 43, 202 App.Div. 504.
affirmed 139 N.E. 724, 235 N.T.
534— First Nat Bank & Trust Co.
of Elmlra v. Conzo, 7 N.T.S.2d 334,
169 Misc. 268— Irving Trust Co. v.
Orsris, 248 N.T.S. 771, 139 Misc. 670
— Garcin v. Granville Iron Corpora-
tion, 244 N.T.S. 145, 137 Misc. 648
— Palmer Lumber Co. v. Whitney,
240 N.T.S. 6'40, 136 Misc. 284—
Ullman v. Edgebert, 43 N.T.S.2d
666— Bentley, Settle & Co. v.
Brinkman, 42 N.T.S.2d 194.
R.I. — Bond & Goodwin v. Weiner, 167
A. 189, 53 R.I. 407— Rosenthal v.
Halsband, 152 A. 320, 51 R.I. 119.
Genninenes* of testator's signature
In action against executor on note
wherein plaintiff filed motion for
summary judgment, counter-affidavit
of defendant denying signature of
testator on note and demanding
proof of genuineness of signature
was held ineffectual as showing of
facts entitling executor to defend. —
Norwood Morris Plan Co. v. Mc-
Carthy, 4 N.E.2d 450, 295 Mass.
597, 107 A.L.R. 1215.
Agreement respecting1 payment of
different note
In action on demand note, written
agreement respecting payment of
earlier note not held by plaintiff was
held inapplicable to note in suit and
could not prevent summary Judgment
for plaintiff, where execution and de-
livery of note in suit were admitted.
— White v. Douglas, 270 N.T.S. 661,
240 App.Div. 530.
51. 111.— Board of Education of City
of Chicago v. Crilly, 37 N.E.2d
873, 312 IlLApp. 177.
N.T.— Louis K. Liggett Co. v. Broad-
way-John Street Corporation, 221
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 225
tions for replevin,62 repurchase agreements,68 sales
of personal property,64 services rendered,65 specific
performance,66 sureties,67 wages or salaries,68 and
wrongful discharge.69
In other cases the affidavits or proofs submitted
by plaintiff, when considered with the opposing af-
fidavits or proofs submitted by defendant, have
been held insufficient to justify summary judgment,
at least for the full amount claimed,60 as, for ex-
ample, in actions for or involving accounts,61 as-
sessment of stockholders,62 bonds,63 building or
construction contracts,64 checks,65 commissions,66
N.Y.S. 189, 220 App.Dlv. 195— Han-
feld v. A. Broido, Inc., 3 N.Y.S.2d
463, 167 Misc. 85— City & State
Supervision Co. v. Hogran, 246 N.Y.
S. 557, 1*40 Misc. 404.
In action for rent wherein main
defense was abandonment of lease,
an affidavit resisting the motion
which failed to show that lessors
knew of lessee's intention to aban-
don or the abandonment by the les-'
see was insufficient to resist the mo-
tion for summary judgment. — Shea
v. Leonis, 8'4 P.2d 277, 29 Cal.App.2d
184.
52. N.Y.— Roxy Athletic Club v.
Simmons, 44 N.Y.S.2d 47.
63. N.Y. — Strasburger v. Hosenheim,
255 N.Y.S. 316, 234 App.Div. 544.
64. 111. — Lowenstern Bros. v. Marks
Credit Clothing, 48 N.E.2d 729, 319
IlLApp. 71— Mee v. Marks, 26 N.
B.2d 5-16, 304 IlLApp. 370.
Mich. — Terre Haute Brewing Co. v.
Goldberg, 289 N.W. 192, 291 Mich.
401.
N.Y. — Edward F. Dibble Seedgrower
v. Jones, 223 N.Y.S. 785, 130 Misc.
359 — Methuen Heel Co. v. Tupper,
41 N.Y.S.2d 357— Stern v. S. S.
Steiner, Inc., 12 N.Y.S.2d 4'4.
Pa. — Gray Co. v. D. G. Nicholas Co.,
Com.Pl., 41 Lack.Jur. 157.
65. N.Y.— Geraci v. Ffcbbozi, 291 N.
Y.S. 86, 161 Misc. 450.
Wis. — Juergens v. Hitter, 279 N.W.
51, 227 Wis. 480.
Hospital services
N.Y. — Buffalo General Hospital v.
Suppa, 13 N.Y.S.2d 680, 257 App.
Div. 1030.
66. N.Y.— Friedman v. Platzik, 57 N.
Y.S.2d 215.
67. N.J. — Electric Service Supplies
Co. v. Consolidated Indemnity &
Insurance Co., 168 A. 412, 111 N.
J.Law 288.
68. 111. — Case v. Green Oil Soap Co.,
13 N.E.2d 866, 294 Ill.App. 610.
N.Y. — Bergman v. Royal Typewriter
Co., 29 N.Y.S.2d 827, modified on
other grounds 32 N.Y.S.2d 132, 263
App.Div. 812 — Henderson v. Hil-
dreth Varnish Co., 276 N.Y.S. 414.
59. N.Y.— Wilkinson v. Halliwell
Electric Co., 204 N.Y.S. 854, 123
Misc. 250.
60. Cal. — McComsey v. Leaf, 97 P.
2d 242, 36 Cal.App.2d 132. I
111.— Scharf v. Waters, App., 66 N.E,
2d 499.
Mich.— Caswell v. Stearns, 241 N.W.
165, 257 Mich. 461.
N.Y. — Diamond D. Bus Lines v. Hud-
son Transit Corporation, 1'4 N.Y.S.
2d 811, 258 App.Div. 770— County
Trust Co. v. Moore, 300 N.Y.S. 128,
252 App.Div. 351 — Braus v. Blon-
del's Shops, 286 N.Y.S. 777, 247
App.Div. 209 — Klein v. Horowitz,
270 N.Y.S. 834, 240 App.Div. 495—
Consolidated Indemnity & Insur-
ance Co. v. Epstein, 255 N.Y.S. 408,
23-5 App.Div. 661— Standard Oil
Co. of New York v. Boyle, 246 N.
Y.S. 142, 231 App.Div. 101— Miner
v. Reinhardt, 233 N.Y.S. 592, 225
App.Div. 530 — Erzinger v. Lieber-
man, 219 N.Y.S. 28, 218 App.Div.
847— Idoni v. Down, 8 N.Y.S.2d
719, 170 Misc. 303— Broderick v.
Cox, 297 N.Y.S. 875, 163 Misc. 283
— Schaffer Stores Co. v. Sweet, 228
N.Y.S. 599, 132 Misc. 38— McKin-
ney v. Donahue, 59 N.Y.S.2d 726—
Bloom v. Hershowitz, 202 N.Y.S.
298.
Pa. — Armstrong v. Connelly, 149 A.
87, 299 Pa. 51 — Forest City Foun-
dry v. Lamb, Com.Pl., 2'4 Erie Co.
118.
Recovery of property from police
department property clerk
N.Y.— Costello v. Simmons, 55 N.Y.S.
2d 735, 269 App.Div. 823. affirmed
66 N.E.2d 581, 295 N.Y. 801— Klei-
ger v. Simmons, 47 N.Y.S.2d 269,
18-1 Misc. 17-5, appeal granted 55 N.
Y.S.2d 665, 269 App.Div. 784.
61. 'Cal.— Eagle Oil & Refining Co.
v. Prentice, 122 P.2d 264, 19.Cal.2d
553.
Mich. — Grand Dress v. Detroit Dress
Co., 227 N.W. 723, 248 Mich. 447.
N.Y.— Curry v. Mackenzie, 146 N.
E. 375, 239 N.Y. 267— Roberts v.
McDonald, 280 N.Y.S. 817, 245 App.
Div. 80— Marvin v. Goldhurst, 234
N.Y;S. SO, 226 App.Div. 758.
62. U.S.— Goess v. A. D. H. Holding
Corporation, C.C.A.N.Y., 85 F.2d 72.
63. N.Y.— Read v. Lehigh Valley R.
Co., 31 N.E.2d 801, 284 N.Y. 435
— Gellens v. Continental Bank &
Trust Co. of New York, 272 N.Y.S.
900, 241 App.Div. 591, followed in
Wiand v. Continental Bank &
Trust Co. of New York, 272 N.Y.S.
903, 241 App.Div. 593, and Twomey
v. Continental Bank & Trust Co.
Of New York, 272 N.Y.S. 904, 241 j
425
App.Div. 594— Marks v. Folio, 29
N.Y.S.2d 1019, 177 Misc. 108— Mil-
anese v. Azzarone, 294 N.Y.S. 479,
162 Misc. 329.
Usury
Where right of individual obligors
on bond to raise defense of usury de-
pended on whether or not they were
principals or merely sureties or guar-
antors of corporation's debts, and
contradictory affidavits had been
submitted on that issue, rendition of
summary judgment against individ-
ual defendants was improper. — Pink
v. L. Kaplan, Inc., 300 N.Y.S. 45, 252
App,Diy. 490.
64. Mich.— Douglas v. Milbrand, 4
N.W.2d 528, 302 Mich. 227.
N.Y. — Charles C. Kellogg & Sons Co.
v. De Lia, 28 N.Y.S.2d 4, 262 App.
Div. 803.
65. N.Y.— Stuyvesant Credit Union
v. Manufacturers' Trust Co.. 267
N.Y.S. 302, 239 App.Div. 187— Moe
v. Bank of U. S., 207 N.Y.S. 347,
211 App.Div. 5'19 — Cardo Drug Co.
v. Chatham & Phenix Nat. Bank,
204 N.Y.S. 13, 209 App.Div. 167—
Hurwitz v. Corn Exchange Bank
Trust Co., 253 N.Y.S. 851, 1'42 Misc.
398.
Check for gambling debt
In action on check against maker
and payee, plaintiff was not entitled
to summary judgment under affida-
vits which showed that check was
indorsed to plaintiff in payment of
unenforceable gambling' debt and
which raised triable issue of fact. —
Singer v. Union Table & Spring Co.,
271 N.Y.S. 349, 151 Misc. 909.
66. N.Y.— Barrett v. Jacobs, 175 N.
E. 275, 255 N.Y. 520— Windsor In-
vesting Corporation v. T. J. Mc-
Laughlin's Sons, 225 N.Y.S. 7, 130
Misc. 730, affirmed 229 N.Y.S. 926,
224 App.Div. 715 — La Polnte v.
*Wilson, 61 N.Y.S.2d 64.
Authority to promise payment
Where plaintiff made affidavit that
corporate officers had authority to
sign written promise to pay real
estate commissions to plaintiff, and
authority was denied by defendants,
fact issue was raised for trial. —
Archbold v. Industrial Land Co., 240
N.W. 858, 264 Mich. 289.
Employment "by competitor
Where defendant's affidavit in op-
position to plaintiffs* motion for
summary judgment in action for
commissions alleged that plaintiffs
had an associate who was repre-
225
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
drafts,67 escrow agreements,68 foreclosure of mort-
gages or liens,69 foreign judgments,70 guaranties,71
insurance,72 labor and materials,73 money had and
received,74 necessaries,75 notes,76 partnerships,77
property settlement agreements between spouses,78
rents or leases,79 replevin,80 sales of personal81 or
senting a competitor of defendant
and it was admitted in plaintiffs' af-
fidavit and in letters that such in-
dividual did do certain work for
plaintiffs, and also work on his own
account connected with competitors
of defendant, trial court erred in
granting summary judgment. — Shir-
ley v. Ellis Drier Co., 39 N.E.2d 329
379 111. 105.
67. N.Y.— Siegal v. Public Nat Bank
& Trust Co. of New York, 7 N.Y.
S.2d 771.
68. 'Conn. — Rifkin v. Safenovitz, 4(
A.2d 188, 131 Conn. 411.
69. N.Y.— Weber v. Richter, 58 N.T.
S.2d 147, 269 App.Div. 961, motion
denied 59 N.T.S.2d 276, 269 App.
Div. 1037— Title Guarantee & Trust
Co. v. Queens Freeholds, 45 N.Y.S.
2d 5T5, 267 App.Div. 787— Dime
Sav. Bank of Brooklyn v. Feeney,
284 N.Y.S. 94, 246 App.Div. 769—
Citizens Nat. Bank of Freeport v.
Mintz, 280 N.Y.S. 902, 245 App.
Div. 759^Brescia Const. Co. v.
Walart Const. Co., 26'4 N.Y.S. 862,
238 App.Div. 360 — Harry Kresner,
Inc., v. Fuchs, 262 N.Y.S. 669, 238
App.Div. 844.
TTnconscionaTble conduct
In foreclosure action, where facts
set forth in affidavit opposing plain-
tiff's motion for summary judgment
show oppressive or unconscionable
conduct on part of mortgagee in de-
claring entire principal due because
of mortgagor's short delay in paying
interest installment, plaintiff's mo-
tion for summary Judgment was de-
nied.— Domus Realty Corporation v.
3440 Realty Co., 40 N.Y.S.2d 69, 179
Misc. 74'9, affirmed 41 N.Y.S.21 940,
266 App.±>iv. 725.
70. N.Y.— Croker v. Croker, 168 N.E.
450, 252 N.Y. 24, remittitur amend-
ed 169 N.E. 408, 252 N.Y. 345—
Scanlon v. Kuehn, 232 N.Y.S. 592,
225 App.Div. 256.
71. U.S.— Real Estate-Land Title &
Trust Co. v. Commonwealth Bond
Corporation, C.C.A.N.Y., 63 F.2d
237.
72. Cal. — Gar dens war tz v. Equitable
Life Assur. Soc. of U. S., 68 P.2d
322, 23 Cal.App.2d Supp. 745.
111.— Shaw v. National Life Co., -42
N.E.2d 885, 3'15 IlLApp. 210.
N.Y. — Panettieri v. John Hancock
Mut. Life Ins. Co. of Boston,
Mass., 42 N.Y.S.2d 317, 266 App.
Div. 872, appeal denied 44 N.Y.S.
2d 471, 266 App.Div. 924 — Svensen
v. Zurich General Accident & Lia-
bility Ins. Co., Limited, of Zurich,
Switzerland, 16 N.Y.S.2d 751, 258
App.Div. 964 — Kaplan v. Girard
Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 266 N.Y
S. 226, 238 App.Div. "577— Kraus
man v. John Hancock Mut Life
Ins. Co., 260 N.Y.S. 319, 236 App
Div. 582, reargument denied 260
N.Y.S. 981, 237 App.Div. 810 —
Suslensky v. Metropolitan Life Ins
Co., 43 N.Y.S.2d 144, 180 Misc. 624
affirmed 46 N.Y.S.2d 888, 267 App.
Div. 812, appeal denied 60 N.Y.S.2d
294, 270 App.Div. 819— Wecht v
Kornblum, 264 N.Y.S. 333, 147 Misc.
653.
R.I. — Minuto v. Metropolitan Life
Ins. Co., 179 A. 713, 55 R.I. 201.
Identity of vehicle; failure to co-
operate
N.Y. — Cohen v. Metropolitan Casual-
ty Ins. Co. of New York, 252 N.Y.S.
841, 233 App.Div. 3(40.
Intoxication of insured
N.Y. — Connor v. Commercial Travel-
ers Mut. Accident Ass'n of Ameri-
ca, 287 N.Y.S. 416, 247 App.Div. 352.
73. N.Y. — Curry v. Mackenzie, 146
N.E. 375, 239 N.Y. 267.
74. Mich.— Dempsey v. Langton, 253
N.W. 2flOf 266 Mich. 47.
75. N.Y.— Moll v. Greer, 269 N.Y.S.
660, 150 Misc. 10.
76. Cal. — Slocum v. Nelson, App,
163 P.2d 888.
Del. — Lamson v. Habbart, 43 A.2d
249.
111. — Security Discount Corporation
v. Jackson, 51 N.E.2d 618, 320 111.
App. 440 — C. I. T. Corporation v.
Smith, 48 N.E.2d 735, 318 IlLApp.
642.
Mich. — Scripsema v. De Korne, 268
N.W. 762, 276 Mich. 634— Lammie
v. Klug, 249 N.W. 866, 264 Mich.
323 — Cass v. Washington Finance
Co., 248 N.W. 863, 263 Mich. 440.
N.J. — Berger v. Respond, 158 A. 472,
108 N.J.Law 268.
N.Y. — C. I. T. Corporation v. Revoir
Motors, 13 N.Y.S.2d 221, 257 App.
Div. 38'5 — Greenblatt v. Miller, 5 N.
Y.S.2d 388, 255 App.Div. 18— Union
Trust Co. of Rochester v. Mayer,
273 N.Y.S. 438, 242 App.Div, 671,
affirmed 285 N.Y.S. 1046, 246 App.
Div. 685 — Brulatour, Inc., v. Gars-
son, 242 N.Y.S. 583, 229 App.Div.
466 — Scanlon v. Kuehn, 232 N.Y.S.
592, 225 App.Div. 256— Moir v.
Johnson, 207 N.Y.S. 380, 211 App.
Div. 427 — Sherwin v. Jonas, 269
N.Y.S. 121, 1*50 Misc. 342— Berman-
Steinberg <v. Standard Cotton
Stores, 262 N.Y.S. 495, 146 Misc.'
586 — Franco v. Swartz, 225 N.Y.S.
739, 1»1 Misc. 74— C. I. T. Corpora-
tion v. Spence, 224 N.Y.S. 297,
130 Misc. 6'59-rSecurity Finance
426
Co. v. Stuart, 224 N.Y.S. 257, 130
Misc. 538 — Weartex Rubber Co. v.
Goldman, 204 N.Y.S. 205, 123 Misc.
228— Sher v. Rodkin, 198 N.Y.S.
597.
R.I. — Beauvais v. Kishfy, 175 A. 826,
54 R.I. 494.
Wis.— Atlas Inv. Co. v. Christ, 2 N.
W.2d 714, 240 Wis. 114.
Material misrepresentations
Affidavit of defense alleging that
defendant was induced to execute
notes by material misrepresentations
was held sufficient to withstand mo-
tion for summary Judgment. — Wyatt
v. Madden, 32 F.2d 838, 59 App.D.C.
38.
Lack of consideration
In payee's action on note, which
had allegedly been given in payment
of account originally owed by de-
fendant to payee's husband and as-
signed to payee, defendant's affidavit
disputing items of account and
pleading lack of consideration for
note was held proper defense as be-
tween original parties and sufficient
to defeat payee's motion for sum-
mary judgment — Feinberg v. Mullin.
291 N.Y.S. 302, 249 App.Div. 670.
77. N.Y. — Scanlon v. Kuehn, 232 N.
Y.S. 592, 225 App.Div. 256— Schul-
man v. Cornman, 223 N.Y.S. 19, 221
App.Div. 170.
78. N.Y.— Jaeckel v. Jaeckel, 40 N.
Y.S.2d 491, 179 Misc. 994.
79. Cal. — Krieger v. Dennie, 10 P.2d
820, 123 CaLApp., Supp., 777.
N.Y.— Foster v. Barbeau, 5 N.Y.S.2d
168, 254 App.Div. 823 — Walgreen
Co. v. Diamond, 292 N.Y.S. 513,
249 App.Div. 387— Port Chester
Central Corporation v. Leibert, 39
N.Y.S.2d 41, 179 Misc. 839.
80. N.Y. — Hofferman v. Simmons, 49
N.E.2d 523, 290 N.Y. 4'49— Rader v.
Simmons, 49 N.E.2d 523, 290 N.Y.
449, appeal denied 37 N.Y.S.2d 621,
265 App.Div. 1003, motion denied
49 N.E.2d 624, 290 N.Y. 668— Riv-
era v. Simmons, 49 N.E.2d 523, 290
N.Y. 449— Smith v. Simmons, 49 N,
E.2d 523, 290 N.Y. 449— Le Fevre v.
Reliable Paint Supply Co., 273 N.Y.
S. 903, 152 Misc. 594.
81. 111. — Kanik v. Johnson Bros.
Heating Co., 5"4 N.E.2d 751, 323
IlLApp. 282.
Mich.— Bed v. Fallen, 12 N.W.2d 396,
307 Mich. 466.
N.Y. — Enterprise Frame & Novelty
Corporation v. Schieman, 49 N.Y.
S.2d 860, 183 Misc. 3— Mill Fac-
tors Corporation v. Bridal Veil &
Accessories Co., 51 N.Y.S.26! 356.
Wis. — Prime Mfg. Co. v. A. F. Gal-
lun & Sons Corporation, 281 N.W.
697, 229 Wis. 348.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 225
real82 property, services rendered,88 specific per-
formance,84 subscriptions for stocks85 or bonds,86
trade acceptances,87 and wrongful discharge.88
On defendant's motion. On the basis of the affi-
davits or other proof submitted, following the prin-
ciples discussed in the foregoing subdivisions of this
section, defendant has been held entitled to sum-
mary judgment dismissing the complaint, either en-
tirely or in part, in various actions,89 including ac-
tions for or involving accounts stated,90 bank de-
posits,91 bonds,92 breach of marriage promise,93
commissions,94 conspiracy and slander,96 eject-
ment,96 employment agreements,97 fraudulent trans-
fers,98 insurance,99 liens on realty,1 malicious pros-
ecution and false arrest,2 property settlements be-
82. Mich. — Maser v. Gibbons, 274
N.W. 352, 280 Mich. 621— MacClure
v. Noble, 244 N.W. 174, 259 Mich.
601 — Sloman v. Allen, 233 N.W.
4&1, 252 Mich. 578.
Assignment of land contract
In vendor's action on land contract
wherein defendant filed answer as-
serting that another had been sub-
stituted as vendee, defendant's affi-
davit of merits, stating: that con-
tract was assigned with plaintiffs
consent and that by agreement de-
fendant was released, was held suf-
ficient.— Lauppe v. Silverstein, 260 N.
W. 105, 271 Mich. 19.
S3. Colo. — Inter-Mountain Iron &
Metal Co. v. Cortinez, 162 P.2d 237.
111. — Fein v. Taylor Washing Mach.
Co., 28 N.E.2d 3'44, 306 IlLApp.
273.
Mich. — Laughery v. Wayne County,
11 N.W.2d 902, 307 Mich. $16.
N.Y.— Knapp v. -Friedman. 238 N.Y.
S. 22, 227 App.Div. 261— Gruss v.
City of New York, 40 N.Y.-S.2d
81«6, 179 Misc. 105'3— Brandt v. Da-
vidson, 48 N.Y.S.2d 917— Miller v.
Wightman, 43 N.Y.S.2d 681.
R.I.— Berick v. Curran, 179 A. 708,
55 R.I. 19'3.
Wis.— Sullivan v. State, 251 N.W.
2-51, 213 Wis. 185, 31 A.L.R. '877.
Liability of stockholders for services
performed for corporation.
Plaintiff, suing under statute mak-
ing stockholders personally liable to
laborers, servants, and employees
for services performed for corpora-
tion, was held not entitled to sum-
mary judgment wfrere answering
affidavits presented triable issues
whether plaintiff was laborer, serv-
ant, or employee, and whether action
was commenced within period of lim-
itation.— Warsen v. Granger, 2*84 N.
Y.S. 308, 246 App.Div. 778.
84. N.Y. — Herrick Park Develop-
ment Corporation v. Sholom Real-
ty Co., 298 N.Y.S. 656, 164 Misc.
-603.
85. N.Y.— Armleder Motor Truck Co.
of New York v. Barnes, 202 N.Y.«S.
472, 207 App.Div. 764.
86. N.Y. — Woodmere Academy v.
Moskowitz, 208 N.Y.S. -678, 212
App.Div. 457.
%
87. N.Y. — Berson Sydeman Co. v.
Waumbeck Mfg. Co., 203 N.Y.S.
716, 212 App.Div. 422.
88. N.Y. — Stevens v. Elizabeth Ar-
den, Inc., 2 N.Y.S.2d 187, 253 App.
Div. 358.
89. 111.— Fisher v. Hargrave, 48 N.
B.2d 9«6, '318 IlLAp-p. '510.
NT.Y.-^Graves v. Northern N. Y. Pub.
Co., 22 N.Y.S.2d -537, 260 App.Div.
900, motion granted 32 N.-E.2d 832,
285 N.Y. 547— Gnozzo v. Marine
Trust Co. of Buffalo, -17 N.Y.S.2d
168, 258 App.Div. 298, reargument
denied Gnozzo v. Marine Trust
Co., 18 N.Y.S.2d 752, 259 App.Div.
788, affirmed Gnozzo v. Marine
Trust Co. of Buffalo, 29 N.B.2d
93*3, 284 N.Y. '617— Marmor v.
Bernstein, 11 N.Y.S.2d 818, 2-56
App.Div. 1106, affirmed 23 N.E.2d
557, 281 N.Y. 7-54— Hyde v. Clark,
3'9 N.Y.S.2d '229, 179 Misc. 414—
Beisheim v. People, 39 N.Y.S.2d
333.
Hospital as charitable institution.
In action for injuries to patient
at hospital, the mere assertion of
patient's counsel in affidavit that de-
fendant hospital was not a charita-
ble institution did not create an is-
sue as opposed to affidavit of hospi-
tal's superintendent which contained
copies of material documents, the
articles of incorporation, constitu-
tion, and by-laws, which showed the
actual charitable, benevolent, and ed-
ucational practices of defendant;
and hence defendant's motion for
summary judgment should have 'been
granted. — Schau v. Morgan, 6 N.W.
2d 212, 241 Wis. 334.
90. N.Y.— Ziegfeld Theatre Corp. v.
Sixth Ave. Amusement Corp., -57
N.Y.S.2d -195.
91. U.'S.— U. -S. v. Guaranty Trust
Co. of New York, Q.C.A.N.Y., 100
F.2d 369.
92. N.Y.— Anglo - Continental Trust
Maatschappij (Anglo - Continental
Trust Co.) v. Allgemeine Blek-
tricitaets - Gesellschaft (General
Electric Co., Germany), 1*3 N.Y.
S.2d 397, 171 Misc. 714.
93- N.Y. — Sweinhart v. Bamberger,
2 N.Y.SJSd 1'30, 16-6 Misc. 25'6.
94. N.Y. — Dumbadze v. Agency of
Canadian Car & 'Foundry Co., 38
N.Y.S.2d 991, affirmed Gurge v.
Agency of Canadian Car & (Foun-
dry Co., 45 N.Y.S.2d 955, 2"67 App.
Div. 782, appeal denied In re Dum-
badze's Estate, 47 N.Y.S.2d *15,
267 App.Div. 878.
95. Mich. — Robertson v. New York
•Life Ins. Co., 19 N.W.2d 498, 312
Mich. 92, certiorari denied 6*6 S.Ct
470, rehearing denied 66 S.Ct. 896.
96. Wis. — Tregloan v. Hay den, 282
N.W. 698, 229 Wis. -500.
97. U.S. — Larson v. Todd Shipyards
Corporation, D.C.N.Y., 16 OP.Supp.
967.
111. — Owen v. Mathias Klein &.'Sons,
• 54 N.E.2d 88, 322 Ill.Ap»p. "689.
N.Y. — Kirschbaum v. Dauman, 26 N.
Y.S.2d 646, 261 A-pp.Div. 998, re-
argument denied 28 N.Y.S.2d 15'6,
262 App.Div. 747.
98. N.Y.— 'Lederer v. Wise Shoe Co.,
12 N.E.2d 544, STfc N.Y. 459, motion
denied 296 N.Y.S. 824, 250 App.
Div. 352.
99. N.Y.— Starker v. Prudential Ins.
Co. of America, 282 N.Y.S. 845, 246
AppJDiv. 567 — Ludmerer v. New
York «Life Ins. Co., 19 N.Y.S.2d
272.
•Wis. — Fehr v. General Accident Fire
& Life Assur. Corp., 16 N.W.2d
787, 246 Wis. 228.
Lapse for nonpayment of premiums
Where insurer's affidavit showed
that on date of insured's death life
policy sued on had lapsed for non-
payment of premiums, and insurer's
claim was not controverted, insurer's
motion for summary judgment
should have been granted. — Mecca v.
Metropolitan Life Ins. "Co., 42 N.YjS.
2d 452, 26'6 App.Div. 910.
Vessel unattended
Affidavits disclosing that marine
policy contained warranty by insured
that barge when moored should be
in charge of competent watchman,
and that loss occurred while moored
barge was unattended, entitled in-
surer to summary judgment dis-
missing complaint for lack of merits.
— IT. S. Gypsum Co. v. Insurance Co.
of North America, D.C.N.Y., 19 F.
Supp. 767.
1. N.Y.— Tymon v. Tyrose Homes, 1
N.Y.-S.2d 974, 2#3 Aj?p.Div. 900, re-
settled 3 N.Y;S.2d 74, 254 App.
Div. 5*82, appeal dismissed IS N.E.
2d 869, 279 N.Y. 787.
2. N.Y. — Goldman v. Nu-Boro Park
Cleaners, 41 N.Y.S.2d 532, 2"66 App.
Div. 780, appeal denied 43 N.Y.S.2d
'635, two cases, 26$ App.Div. 8-56.
427
225
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
tween spouses,3 releases,4 rents or leases,5 res judi-
cata,6 specific performance,7 stockbrokers,8 and
stocks or stockholders.9
In other cases, summary judgment in favor of
defendant dismissing the complaint, at least as to all
causes of action involved, has been held not justi-
fied on the basis of the affidavits or other proof sub-
mitted,10 as, for example, in actions for or involv-
ing alimony,11 bonds,12 condemnation of land,13 det-
inue,14 employment contracts or services rendered,15
foreclosure of mortgages,15 guaranties,17 insur-
ance,18 liability of corporate directors for alleged
dereliction of duty,19 libel,20 notes,21 personal inju-
ries,22 releases,23 rents or leases,24 replevin,25 roy-
3. CaL— Hardy v. Hardy, 143 P.2d
701, 23 Cal.2d 244.
4. N.Y.— Murphy v. Bissell, 5 N.Y.
S.2d 22-5, 254 App.Div. 891, fol-
lowed in 5 N.Y.S.2d 226, 254 App.
• Div. 891.
Insufficient proof of infirmity in re-
lease
Where documentary evidence sup-
ported defense of release 'and plain-
tiff, to meet that defense, interposed
only an affidavit of an attorney hav-
ing no personal knowledge and re-
citing hearsay, although it affirma-
tively appeared that several individ-
uals, including plaintiff, were in po-
sition to make affidavits if true sit-
uation revealed any infirmity in re-
lease, defendants' motion for sum-
mary judgment should have been
granted. — Favole v. G-allo, 30 N.Y.S.
2d 878, 263 App.Div. 729, reargument
denied 32 N.Y.S.2d 139, 203 App.Div.
826. affirmed 45 N.E.2d 456, 289 N.Y.
696.
5. N.Y. — Ziegfeld Theatre Corp. v.
Sixth Ave. Amusement Corp., -57
N.Y.S.2d 195.
6. N.Y.— Ritter v. Broff, 43 N.Y.S.2d
867.
7. N.Y. — Brookwood Parks v. Jack-
son, 26 N.Y.S.2d 127, 261 App.Div.
410.
Wis.— 'Strelow v. Bohr, 290 N.W. '603.
234 Wis. 170.
S. N.Y. — Mackenzie v. Rothschild,
47 N.Y.'S.2d 928, 267 App.DJv. 989,
reargument denied 50 N.Y.S.2d 174,
268 App.Div. 780, affirmed 62 N.
E.2d 237, 294 N.Y. 800.
9. U.S. — Toebelman v. Missouri-
Kansas Pipe Line Co., C.C.A.Del.,
130 'F.2d 1016.
N.Y. — O'Brien v. American Beverage
Corporation, 45 N.Y.S.2d 760, 267
App.Div. :813 — Vendrink Corpora-
tion of New York v. MacBride, 23
N.Y.S.2d 705, 261 App.Div. 19—
Diamond v. Davis, '38 N.Y.S.2d 103,
affirmed 39 N.Y.S.2d 412, first case,
265 App.Div. 919, appeal denied
41 N.Y.S.2d 191, first case, 265
App.Div. 1052, and affirmed 54 N.
. E.2d 683, first case, 292 N.Y. 552—
Diamond v. Davis, 38 N.Y,S.2d 93,
affirmed "39 N.Y.S. 2d 412, second
case, 265 App.Div. 919, appeal de-
nied 41 N.Y.S.2d 191, second case,
295 App.Div. 1052, and affirmed 54
JT.E.24 '683, second case, 292 N.Y.
5 5 4 — Druckerman
N.Y.S.2d 370.
v. Harbord, 29
10. N.Y.— Idoni v. Down, 8 N.Y.S.2d
719, 170 Misc. 303-^Dale Radio Co.
v. Fairbrother, «32 N.Y.S.2d 344—
Michigan Millers Mut. Ins. Co. v.
Regan, 21 N.Y.S.2d 3*6.
Wis.— Holzschuh v. Webster, 17 N.
W.2d 553, 246 Wis. 423.
11. N.Y.— Bogert v. Watts, 38 N.Y.
S.2d 426. 265 App.Div. $31, revers-
ing "8-8 N.Y.S.2d 658, appeal denied
39 N.Y.S.2d 988, 265 App.Div. 992.
12. N.Y. — Aronow Bros. v. U. S
Casualty Co., 35 N.Y.S.2d 75, af-
firmed 39 N.Y.iS.2d 99<3, 265 App,
Div. 992, appeal denied 41 N.Y.S,
2d 192, 265 App.Div. 1052.
13. Wis.— City of Milwaukee v,
Heyer, 4 N.W.2d -126, 241 Wis. 56.
14. 111.— Macks v. Macks, App., 67 N.
E.2d 505.
15. -N.Y.— Rechtschaffer v. Recht-
schaffer, 59 N.Y.S.2d 735, 270 App.
Div. 812, appeal denied 61 N.Y.S.2d
386, 270 App.Div. 343 — King v. Laf-
ayette Nat. Bank of Brooklyn in
New York, 31 N.Y.S.2d '602, 2'63
App.Div. 830, reargument denied
33 N.Y.S.2d 256, 26'3 App.Div. 8
— King v. Lafayette Nat. Bank of
Brooklyn in New York, '31 N.Y.S.2d
601, 263 App.Div. '830— Schwartz v.
Frieder, 291 N.Y.S. 836, 249 App.
Div. 199 — Qruss v. City of New
York, 40 N.Y.S.2d 816, ' -17D Misc.
1053 — Semprevlvo v. Winn, 62 N.Y.
S.2d "350— New York Post Corp. v.
Kelley, 61 N.Y.S.2d 264, affirmed
Hearst Consolidated Publication v.
Kelley, 61 N.Y.S.2d 762, 270 App.
Div. 916, appeal granted '62 N.Y.S
2d 614, 270 App.Div. 923, New
York Sun v. Kelley, '62 N.Y.S.2d
614, 270 App.Div. 924, New York
World Telegram Corp. v. Kelley,
62 N.Y.S.2d 614, 270 App.Div. 924,
and New York Post Corp. v. Kel-
ley, '62 N.Y.S,2d 615, 270 App.Div.
923 — Pohlers v. Exeter Mfg. Co.,
52 N.Y.S.2d 316— Russell v. Lopez,
16 N.Y.S,2d 595, affirmed 20 N.Y.S.
2d 1016, 259 App.Div. •SSS.
16. N.Y,— Riordan v. Crabtree, 56
N.Y.S.23 425, 2-69 App.Div. 907, ap-
peal dismissed 68 N.E,2d 455, 296
N.Y. 515.
428
17. N.Y.— Gervis v. Knapp, 43 N.Y.S.
2d 849, 182 Misc. 311.
18. N.Y. — Gold v. Travelers Ins. Co.,
31 N.Y.S.2d 580, 263 App.Div. 817
— Daly v. National Civil Service
Endowment Ass'n, 43 N.Y.S.2d 339,
181 Misc. 16-3— Roth v. Equitable
Life Assur. Soc. of U. S., 50 N.Y.
S.2d 119, affirmed 5-5 N.Y.S.2d 117,
269 App.Div. 746, appeal denied
56 N.Y.S.2d 202, 2'69 App.iDiv. 818
— Biloz v. Tioga County Patrons'
Fire Relief Ass'n, 21 N.Y.S.2d 643,
affirmed 23 N.Y.S.2d 460, 260 App.
Div. 976.
Notice of accident
In action for injuries sustained 'in
an automobile accident, where de-
fendant's liability insurer moved for
summary judgment dismissing com-
plaint on ground that insurance cov-
erage was lost because of insured's
failure to give insurer notice of the
accident as soon as practicable, mo-
tion was properly denied in view of
affidavits raising an issue of fact
whether insurer was notified as soon
as practicable. — "Vande Leest v. Bas-
ten, 6 N.W.2d $67, 241 Wis. !509.
19. U.S. — Toebelman v. 'Missouri-
Kansas Pipe Line Co., C.C.A.Del.,
130 F.2d 1016.
N.Y.— Levine v. Behn, 25 N.E.2d 871,
282 N.Y. 120.
20. N.Y.— Wels v. Rubin, 20 N.E.2d
737, 280 N.Y. 233.
21. N.Y.— (First Trust & Deposit
Co. v. Dent, 34 N.Y.-S.2d 282, 263
App.Div. 1058 — Farley v. Overbury,
3 N.Y.S.2d 990, 254 App.Div. 739—
Strong v. Dahm, -39 N.Y.S.2d 266
—O'Brien v. O'Brien, 16 N.Y.S.2d
799.
22. Wis. — Hanson v. Halvorson, 19
N.W.2d 882, 247 Wis. 434— Ettel-
dorf v. Yellow Cab & Transfer Co.,
18 N.W.2d <330, 246 Wis. 602.
23. N.Y.— Adams v. Judson, 277 N.
Y.S. 304r 243 App.Div. 404.
24. TT.S.— Weisser. v. Mursam Shoe
Corporation, C.C.A.N.Y., 127 F.2d
344, 145 A.L.R. 467.
N.Y. — Port Chester 'Central Corpora-
tion v. iLeibert, 39 N.Y.S.2d 41, 179
Misc. '839.
25. N.Y. — Kennedy v. Schroeder, 40
N.Y.S.2d 611, 265 App.Div. 725.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 226
alties,26 sales of personalty,27 and stock subscrip-
tions.28
§ 226.
Hearing and Determination; Relief
Awarded
A motion for summary judgment is to be determined
on the facts shown by the record, and relief awarded in
accordance with the rules of law and equity.
In passing on a motion for summary judgment
the court should consider all the facts shown by
the record,29 and, if the circumstances require, may
hold its decision on the motion in abeyance pending
submission to it of facts necessary for a determi-
nation.30 The pleadings should be considered in
order that the court may know what the issues
are,3i although it has been held that, on a motion
for summary judgment by plaintiff, the court will
not decide whether particular defenses have been
properly denominated or pleaded.32 The questions
to be decided are whether the facts set forth suffi-
ciently show all that the case will involve on a
trial, and whether the evidence, including the plead-
ings and exhibits, clearly demonstrates that the
movants are entitled to judgment in their favor.33
Relief is to be awarded in accordance with the
rules of law and equity,34 and, where the circum-
28. U.S. — Sartor v. Arkansas Natur-
al Gas Corporation, La., 64 S.Ct.
724, 321 U.S. -620, 88 L.Ed. 967, re-
hearing denied 64 S.Ct. 941, 322 U.
S. 767, 88 L.Ed. 1593.
27. N Y. — Price v. Spielman Motor
Sales Co., 26 N.Y.S.2d 886, 261
App.Div. 62"6 — S. Reubens & Bros,
v. Samdperil, 47 N.Y.S.2d 407, 181
Misc. 7113 — Jenks v. La due, 59 N.
Y.-S.2d 353.
aa Pa.— Bell v. Brady, 31 A.2d 547,
346 Pa. 666.
29. Ariz. — Suburban Pump & Water
Co. v. Linville, 135 P.2d 210, 60
Ariz. 274.
111. — Gliwa v. Washington Polish
Loan & Building Ass'n, 34 N.E.2d
•136, 310 IlLApp. 4-65.
Matters subsequent to formation of
original issues
The court has jurisdiction to ren-
der summary judgment on issues
raised by stipulations and facts oc-
curring after the formation of issues
by the original pleadings, since such
stipulations and facts could be set
up by supplemental pleadings. —
Costello v. Polenska, 7 N.W.2d 593
242 Wis. 204, modified on other
grounds 8 N.W.2d 307, 242 Wis. 204
Correction of name
A difference in pleadings and no-
tice of motion for summary judg
ment as to defendant's name will be
disregarded on filing of affidavit as tc
his correct name. — Grossman Stee
Stair Corp. v. Steinberg, 54 N.Y.S.2
275.
30. N.Y. — -Forma Corp. v. A. & L
Constructors Corp., 5-9 N.Y.S.2c
5 7 8— Grossman Steel Stair Corp. v
Steinberg, 54 N.Y.>S.2d 275— Mi]
Factors 'Corporation v. Bridal Vei
6 Accessories Co., 51 N.Y.S.2d 256
AeoLueat for additional information
It was held not improper for th
court, after argument on motion fo
summary judgment, to ask for add
tional information which was sup
plied, and which completed th
showing that entitled plaintiff t
summary judgment, where defend
ants were accorded full opportunit
o supply any facts which they j
eemed material and motion papers
ontained all that was necessary to
dvise defendants of claim of plain-
._- Winter v. Trepte, 290 N.W. 599,
34 Wis. 193.
1. 111. — Roberts v. Sauerman Bros.,
20 N.B.2d 849, 300 IlLApp. 213.
All pleadings considered
NT.Y. — 'Fertig v. General Accident
Fire & Life Assur. Corporation,
Limited, of Perth, Scotland, 13 N.
Y.S.2d 872, 171 Misc. 921.
A liberal construction must be giv-
n to the pleadings of the party
against whom the motion is made. —
Eagle Oil & Refining Co. v. Pren-
ice, 122 P.2d 264, 19 Cal.2d 55'3.
Inclusion of separate defense in an-
swer
Plaintiff's motion that amended
answer be stricken and summary
udgment entered for him constitut-
ed an attack on answer as it then
stood, and propriety of granting of
motion must be tested on under-
standing that answer included sep-
arate defense to which general de-
murrer was pending. — Ware v. Hel-
ler, 148 P.2d 410, 63 Cal.App.2d 817.
Cross complaint treated as counter-
claim
It has been held that a cross com-
plaint could be treated as counter-
claim, notwithstanding statute relat-
ing to summary judgments does not
specifically mention cross complaints.
— Loehr v. Stenz, 263 N.W. 373, 219
Wis. 361.
32. N.Y. — Standard Factors Corp. v.
Kreisler, 53 N.Y.S.2d 871, affirmed
56 K.Y.S.2d 414, 269 App.Div. 830.
33, U.S.— Sun Oil Co. v. Blevins, D
C.La., 29 F.-SUPP. 901, affirmed, C
C.A., Blevins v. Sun Oil Co., 110
F.2d 566.
"The test of a motion for summary
judgment is whether the pleadings
affidavits, and exhibits in support of
the motion are sufficient to overcome
the opposing papers, and to justify a
finding as a matter of law that therr
is no defense to the action/'— Stuy
vesant Credit Union v. Manufactur
429
ers' Trust Co., 267 N.Y.S. 302. 305,
2«39 App.Div. 187— Tidewater Oil
Sales Corporation v. Pierce, 210 N.
Y.S. 759, 760, 213 App.Dir. 796— Wm.
H. 'Frear & <Co. v. Bailey, 214 N.Y.S.
'675, 677, 127 Misc. 79.
Showing1 a* to good faith and merits
Under some statutes, the test in
determining right to relief in sum-
mary judgment proceedings is good
faith and merits as disclosed by
showing made. — Jackson Reinforced
Concrete Pipe Co. v. Central Con-
tracting & Engineering Co., 234 N.
V. Ill, 253 Mich. 157.
34. N.Y. — Federal Reserve Bank of
Philadelphia v. Weekes, 11 N.Y.S.
2d 952, 171 Misc. 404— First Trust
& Deposit Co. v. Potter, 278 N.Y.
S. 847, 155 Misc. 106— Balio v.
Utica General Truck Co., 38 N.Y.
S.2d 85.
Restating burdens
The rules cannot be changed mere-
y because grave burdens will there-
>y 'be placed on individuals or in-
stitutions.—First Trust & Deposit
Co. v. Potter, 278 N.Y.S. 847, 155
Misc. 106.
Failure to as* proper relief
As the duty of judges is to admin-
ister justice according to law, if
counsel should inadvertently omit to
ask what his client is entitled to de-
mand in a summary proceeding, the
court is nevertheless bound to award
it to him, notwithstanding the omis-
sion.—Roth v. Steffe, 9 Lanc.Bar.,
Pa,, 77.
Possibility of double liability
Summary judgment will not be de-
nied on the ground that defendant
may be subjected to a double liabil-
ity where defendant can fully protect
himself by an application for a stay
of execution. — Jackson Reinforced
•Concrete Pipe Co. v. Central Con-
tracting & Engineering Co., 434 N.W.
Ill, 253 Mich, 157.
Striking out of answer
An answer containing defenses or
denials may be stricken out as .sham
or frivolous when the motion papers
on a motion for summary judgment
226
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
stances require, the court will look through the
form of a transaction to determine its true nature,35
although it cannot inquire into the circumstances of
the case except as they are revealed in the papers
submitted36 The number of affidavits submitted
on behalf of the respective parties is not controlling
any more than the weight of the testimony on the
trial of an action is governed by the number of wit-
nesses.37 The amount awarded by way of summary
judgment should be consistent with that demanded
and shown to be due,38 and the various provisions
of the judgment must be consistent with each oth-
er.39 Where a motion by defendant for judgment
on the pleadings has been granted, his motion for
summary judgment is properly denied as academ-
ic^
Determination of the issues should not be made
piecemeal,41 and the granting of a motion for sum-
mary judgment with respect to some of the issues
has been held improper where there was no dis-
position of other issues.42 However, where the
proofs adduced on the motion show no issue as to
the existence of some liability on the part of de-
fendant, although they do present an issue as to the
amount of liability, summary judgment may be
granted on the issue of liability, with directions for
the assessment of the amount of liability by trial or
hearing;43 but where a complaint demanding a liq-
uidated amount is supported by the moving affida-
make it appear that the answer falls
within either category. — Common-
wealth (Fuel Co. v. Powpit Co., 209
N.Y.S. 60S, 212 App.Div. 553.
Amendment of statement of claim
Where statement of claim was not
in form required by statute, the
court instead of entering summary
Judgment against plaintiff, should
have permitted him to amenta so as
to make his cause of action clear. —
Seaman v. Tamao.ua Nat. Bank, 124
A. '32'3, 280 Pa. 124.
Default
Defendant was properly defaulted
when absent from hearing on plain-
tiff's motion for judgment, and
hence was not entitled to file demand
for trial within seven days from or-
der for judgment, and thus secure
advance of case for speedy trial. —
Norwood Morris Plan Co. v. Mc-
Carthy, 4 N.B.2d 450, 295 Mass. 597,
107 A.<L.R. 1215.
35. N.Y. — Lamula v. Morris Plan
Industrial Bank of New York, 19
N.Y.S.2d 357, 173 Misc. "847.
36. N.Y.— First Trust & Deposit Co.
v. Potter, 278 N.Y.S. 847, 155 Misc.
106.
Insertions in written contract
In action for breach of an alleged
contract to convey property, on de-
fendants' motion for summary judg-
ment for nonexistence of a contract
in writing,, trial judge was not bound
to insert in the agreement what was
omitted but merely to ascertain and
declare legal effect of contents of
writings purporting to evidence con-
tract—AJax Holding Co. v. Heins-
•bergen, 149 P.2d 189, 64 Cal.App.2d
'665.
Matter* not before the court
(1) A notice of intention to apply
for leave to amend a pleading is not
properly before the court on an ap-
plication for summary judgment —
Dale Kadio Co. v. Fairbrother, 32 N.
T.8.2d 344.
(2) An order which strikes out ar
. answer, and from which no ajppeal
has been taken, cannot be revised on
a motion for summary judgment —
2018 Seventh Ave., Inc., v. Nach-
Haus (Leasing Corporation, 46 N.E.2d
900, 289 N.Y. 490, motion denied 47
N.E.2d 443, 289 N.Y. 848, motion de-
nied SO N.E.2d 308, 290 N.Y. 925.
37. N.Y.— La Pointe v. Wilson, 61
N.Y.S.2d 64.
3& HI.— Drake v. Wood, 4 N.B.2d
50, 286 IlLApp. 623.
Mich. — Baxter v. Szucs, 227 N.W.
<66*6, 248 Mich. 672.
Va. — Morrow v. Vaughan-Bassett
•Furniture Co., 4 S.E.2d '399, 173
Va, 417.
Srroneon* item
Where computation in notice of
motion for judgment on note showed
on its face that plaintiff's claim in-
cluded a certain item which was no
part of note, court was without au-
thority to enter office judgment for
plaintiffs without deduction of such
item irrespective of defendant's ap-
pearance.— Bacon v. Dettor, 33 "S.E.
2d 648, 183 Va. 835.
Allowance previously credited
Defendant was not entitled to an
allowance provided in contract, on
plaintiff's recovering summary judg-
ment for breach of contract, where
it appeared that allowance had al-
ready been credited to defendant—
Lowenstern Bros. v. Marks Credit
Clothing, 48 N.E.2d 729, 313 IlLApp.
71.
39. N.Y. — Closson v. Seaboard Sand
& Gravel Corporation, 265 N.Y.S.
160, 238 App.Div. 5*84, motion de-
nied 189 N.B. 701, 26«3 N.Y. -5-68.
Assessment of damages on denial of
motion
An order which denies plaintiff's
motion for summary Judgment, .and
at the same time sets the case down
for trial for the purpose of assess-
ing damages, is inconsistent. — R. K
L. Dresses v. Nationwide Packing &
Shipping Service, 11 N.Y.S.2d 729. 171
Misc. L,
430
Direction for trial after striking of
answer
It is error for the court to direct
that the answer be stricken out on
a motion for summary judgment,
leaving no issues whatever to be
tried, and then to send the matter to
another part of the court for trial. —
Closson v. Seaboard Sand & Gravel
Corporation, 265 N.Y.S. 160, 2'38 App.
Div. 584, motion denied 189 N.E. 701,
263 N.Y. 568.
40. N.Y.— Dry Dock Sav. Inst v.
Grant, 60 N.Y.S.2d 2'38.
41. 111. — Gliwa v. Washington Po-
lish Loan & Building Ass'n, 34 N.
B.2d 736, 310 111. App. 4'65.
42. N.Y.— Warner v. P. F. Collier &
•Son Distributing Corporation, 218
N.Y.S. 262, 218 App-Div. 354.
Undetermined plea in abatement
A decision granting a plaintiff's
motion for summary judgment made
while a plea in abatement, for non-
joinder of necessary parties, re-
mained open for judicial determina-
tion, was premature and judgment
was a nullity. — Goucher v. Herr, 14
A.2d '651, 65 R.I. 246.
43. N.Y.— Reid v. Reid, 10 N.Y.S.2d
916, 170 Misc. 719— Kollsman v.
Detzel, 55 N.Y.S.2d 491— President
and Directors of Manhattan Co. v.
Spier, 43 N.Y.S.2d 954.
Questions determinable at assess-
ment
In action against liability insurer
for failure to defend . action against
insured, amount of expenses in-
curred by insured in defending ac-
tion, and whether settlement made
was reasonably necessary, were
questions which could properly be
determined at an assessment ordered
in connection with granting of in-
sured's motion for summary judg-
ment against insurer. — Krasilovsky
Bros. Trucking Corp. v. Maryland
Cas. Co., 54 N.Y;S.2d 60.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 226
vit, and no issue with respect thereto has been
raised by the answering affidavit, it is error to di-
rect ah assessment of damages.44 The court may
grant partial summary judgment for the amount es-
tablished to be due, and may direct that the action
be severed, and the case proceed in its usual course
as to the balance of the claim.45 It has been held
that where defendant admits plaintiffs claim, but
asserts a counterclaim, plaintiff is entitled to sum-
mary judgment only for the difference between his
claim and the amount of defendant's counter-
claim;46 but it has also been held proper in such
a case to award plaintiff judgment for the amount
of his claim and allow the counterclaim to stand,
to be disposed of in the usual course of practice.47
In some jurisdictions, on a motion by either party
for summary judgment, the other party may have
a judgment to which he shows himself to be enti-
tled.48 Thus summary judgment may be granted
to plaintiff, notwithstanding the motion for sum-
mary judgment was made by defendant and plaintiff
did not move therefor, where it appears that plain-
tiff is entitled to judgment.49 Similarly summary
judgment may be granted in favor of defendant dis-
missing the complaint, notwithstanding 'the motion
for summary judgment was made by plaintiff.50
Under the practice in other jurisdictions, however,
the court is not authorized to dismiss the suit on
striking plaintiff's affidavit for summary judgment
from the files, in the absence of a motion by de-
fendant for dismissal.51
Terms or conditions. It is within the discretion
of the court, where justified by the circumstances,
to deny or grant a motion for summary judgment
on such terms as the justice of the case may re-
quire;52 but, in the absence of circumstances war-
ranting the imposition of terms or conditions, a mo-
tion for summary judgment must be granted or de-
nied without condition.53
Decision as without prejudice or on the merits.
In a proper case the court may deny the motion for
summary judgment without prejudice to a new mo-
tion54 or without prejudice to the right of the
moving party to seek other appropriate relief.56
It has been held that dismissal of a cause of action
on defendant's motion for summary judgment may
be made without prejudice to plaintiff's right to
move for permission to serve an amended com-
plaint;56 but it has also been held that dismissal
of the complaint without prejudice, on defendant's
motion for summary judgment, is improper.57
Where an action has been submitted to the court
on a motion for summary judgment only, and has
not been assigned for hearing on the merits, it is
error for the court to dispose of the case on the
merits after it appears that a decision necessarily
involves the determination of a controverted issue
of fact."
44, N.Y.— -Mayer v. Sulzberger, 41
N.Y.S.2d 822.
45. N.Y.— Direct Realty Co. v. Birn-
baum, 46 N.Y.S.2d 435— Tenny v.
Tenny, «3'6 N.Y.S.2d 704.
Claim of excessive amount held not
fatal
The fact that plaintiff claims an
-excessive amount does not necessi-
tate denial of his motion for sum-
mary judgment, since he is entitled
to partial summary judgment for the
amount established to be due. — Up-
town Transp. Corporation v. !Fisk
Discount Corporation, 271 N.Y.S. 723,
151 Misc. 469.
48. N.Y.— Dairymen's League Co-
Op. Ass'n v. Egli, 239 N.Y.S. 152,
228 App.Div. 164.
"Effect of counterclaim generally see
supra § 220 c (1).
47. N.Y.— Little Palls Dairy Co. v.
Berghorn, 224 N.Y.S. '34, 130 Misc.
454.
Restraint against disposition, of
Judgment or recovery
It was held proper to sever the
action on the counterclaim and to
permit plaintiff to proceed to collect
the amount of his judgment, except
that plaintiff was restrained, pend-
ing disposition of the counterclaim,
from assigning or otherwise dispos-
ing of the judgment, or of the mon-
eys payable thereunder to an amount
equal to defendant's counterclaim. —
Little Falls Dairy Co. v. Berghorn,
supra.
48. N.Y.-JCuchal v. Walsh, 59 N.Y.
S.2d 435, 185 Misc. 1008, modified
on other grounds 60 N.Y.S.2d 7T6.
43. N.Y.— Bradley v. Koe, 13 N.Y.
S.2d 693, 257 App.Div. 1005, certi-
fied questions answered 27 N.E.2d
35, 282 N.Y. 525, 129 A.L.R. 633,
reversed on other grounds 27 N.B.
2d '35, 282 N.Y. 525, -129 A.L.R. 633.
50. N.Y.— Porcella v. Kramrisch, 59
N.Y.S.2d 349.
Where lack of Jurisdiction appears,
the court on a motion for summary
judgment should dispose of the case
finally on the jurisdictional point
without requiring an additional mo-
tion for a dismissal. — Mara v. U. S.,
•D.C.N.Y., 54 'F^d 397.
51: 111. — People, for Use of Dyer, v.
Sawyer, 2 N.B.2d 343, 284 IlLApp.
46*3.
52. N.Y.— Souhami v. Prudence-
Bonds Corporation, 270 N.Y.S. 359,
150 Misc. '602— Free v. "Fisher, 41
431
N.Y.S.2d 111— Lalor v. Bour, 36 N.
Y.S.2d 850.
34 C.J. p 20'6 note 92.
53. N.Y.— National City Bank of
Cleveland v. Cold Mix, 1 N.Y.S. 2d
459.
Famishing of bond
An order granting a motion for
summary judgment unless defendant
gives bond to pay any judgment ul-
timately recovered has been held un-
authorized.— Gibson v. Standard Au-
tomobile Mut. Casualty Qo. of New
York, 203 N.Y.S. 5'3, 208 App.Div. 91.
54. N.Y.— A. Sidney Davison Coal
Co., Inc. v. Interstate Coal & Dock
Co., 193 N.Y.S. 883.
34 C.J. p 207 note 98.
55. N.Y. — Ottone v. American Lon-
don Shrinkers Corp., 55 N.Y.S.2d
243.
56. N.Y. — Boscarino v. Spear Box
Co., 52 N.Y.S.2d 252, 268 App.Div.
1041.
57. Wis.-— Potts v. Farmers' Mut
Automobile Ins. Co., 289 N.W. 606,
233 Wis. 313.
58. Mich.— Eston v. Robert Brown,
Limited, 282 N.W. 895, 887 Mich.
44.
§ 226
JUDGMENTS
49 (XJ.S.
Reconsideration or renewal of motion. The court
may, before final judgment, reconsider its ruling
on a motion for judgment.59 It may grant reargu-
ment of the motion60 and, in the interests of jus-
tice, may on reargument consider a new affidavit
presented by a party as though it had been timely
presented.61 On denial of a motion for summary
judgment for insufficiency of the affidavit submit-
ted, leave may be granted to renew the motion on
affidavits which comply with the statutes.62 It has
been held that where plaintiffs motion for summary
judgment was denied and the case tried, he waived
his right to move again for summary judgment.63
Costs. Notwithstanding denial of a motion for
summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff's
affidavit is insufficient to support his cause of ac-
tion, if defendant has failed to show sufficient facts
to entitle him to defend, the motion should be de-
nied without costs.64
Disposition of exhibits. Where exhibits are pro-
duced in court in support of a motion for sum-
mary judgment, the court on granting the motion
may make suitable provision for their disposition.65
Construction and operation. It has been held that
the validity of a summary judgment is to be deter-
mined by the sufficiency of the affidavits considered
on the hearing of the motion.66 Where the facts
are undisputed, the decision on a motion for sum-
mary judgment is on the law.67 An order which
terminates plaintiffs motion for summary judgment
and defendant's cross motion to dismiss the com-
plaint, by grant of defendant's motion, by neces-
sary inference denies the motion for summary judg-
ment68 A dismissal as to one of the parties to a
motion for judgment is not a discontinuance of the
entire motion,69 although the party dismissed was
notified and has appeared and pleaded.70
§ 227. Form, Requisites, and Entry of Judg-
ment
A summary Judgment should show compliance with
statutory requirements as to its form and entry, and
should set forth those facts necessary to give the court
jurisdiction and to support the judgment.
A summary judgment on motion must show on its
face the existence or proof of all facts whidi were
necessary to give the court jurisdiction and support
the judgment71 It must show that there was com-
pliance with all the statutory requirements,72 such
as that notice was given for the time and in the
manner required73 and that the motion was made
at the proper time and place.74 The court should
not make findings of fact and conclusions of law
on granting a motion for summary judgment.75
On the granting of a motion for summary judg-
ment for plaintiff, it is better practice to enter an
order striking out the answer and directing judg-
ment,76 with the result that there is an entry of
59. 111.— Roach v. Village of Win-
netka, 10 N.E.2d 356, (366 111. 578.
60. N.Y.— Newman v. Special, 13 N.
Y.S.2d fr34, 257 App.Div. 1030.
Piling- of bond as condition for new
hearing1
The court may grant a new hear-
ing to Defendant on facts not pre-
sented in opposition to a motion for
summary judgment on his filing a
bond to protect plaintiff against any
judgment that may be procured. —
Greenberg v. Rudnick, 258 N.T.S. 679,
143 Misc. 793.
motion held one for rehearing-
A motion for reargument on which
new facts were adduced was held in
effect a motion for a rehearing on
additional papers. — Gold v. Travelers
Ins. Co., 31 N.T.6.2d -580, 2*3 App.Div.
817.
61. N.Y. — Musler v. Brooks, Inc., 1
IST,Y.S.2d 527, 1S5 Misc. 797, af-
firmed 1 N.Y.S.2d 528, 253 App.
Div. 793.
62. Wis. — 'Puller v. General Accident
Fire & -Life Assur. Corporation,
Limited, of Perth, Scotland, 272 N.
W. 8139, 224 Wis, -603.
G3. N.Y. — Corr v. Boggiano, 278 N.
Y.S. 455, 244 App.Div. 724. . ;
64. N.Y.— A. Sidney Davison Coal
Co., Inc. v. Interstate Coal & Dock
Co., 193 N.Y.S. '883.
65. Safeguarding1 of notes
In an action on notes, where notes
are produced in court in support of
motion for summary Judgment, the
court on granting the judgment
should require the notes to 'be
marked as exhibits, or should seal
the notes, or require them to be
placed in a safe depositary' to be re-
tained under the -order of the court
and redelivered under like order to a
person designated therein after final
termination of a litigation. — General
Inv. Co. v. Interborough Rapid
Transit Co., 139 N.E. 216, 235 N.Y.
133.
66. Cal. — McComsey v. 'Leaf, 97 P.
2d 242, '38 Cal.App.2d 132.
67. Mich.— Michigan Lafayette
Bldg. Co. v. Continental Bank, 246
N/W. 5«3, 2-61 Mich. 256.
ea N.Y.— New York Cent .R. Co. v.
Beacon Milling Co., !53 N.Y.S.2d
405, 184 Misc. 187.
69. Ala. — Beard v. Mobile Branch
Bank, '8 Ala. 344.
70. Ala. — Beard v. Mobile Branch
Bank, supra.
432
71. N.Y. — Brown v. Randazzo, 15 N.
Y.S.2d 425, 258 App.Div. 748.
Tenn.— Phillips v. Landess, 2'80 S.TT.
694, 152 Tenn. 682.
34 C.J. p 20'6 note 83.
Production of note
In rendering summary Judgment
in an action on a note, where the
note Is produced in court, the court
should recite in its order that the
note was produced. — General Inv.
Co. v. Interborough Rapid Transit
Co., 139 N.B. 216, 235 N.Y. 133.
72. Ala.— Arthur v. State, 22 Ala. 61.
Pa, — Freihofer v. Diggins, Com.PL.
27 Del. 275.
73. Tenn. — Lane v. Keith, 2 Baxt.
189.
'34 C.J. p 20'6 note 85.
Notice held sufficient
111.— Mecartney v. Hale, 48 N.B.2d
570, i318 I11.APP. 502.
74. Tenn. — Curry v.
Heisk. 61.
Munford, 5
75. N.Y. — Brescia Const.tCo. v. Wai-
art Const. Co., 264 N.Y.S. 862, 238
App.Div. 360.
76. N.Y. — Donne'lly v. Bauder, 216
N.Y.S. 437, 217 App.Div. 59.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 228
both an order and a judgment;77 but such an or-
der is not strictly necessary.78
Entry^ Summary judgment must be entered by
a person authorized so to do.79 The entry of a de-
cree by the clerk on the minutes of the court in a
summary proceeding is the judgment;80 and where,
after such entry, defendant dies, the fact that it is
signed during the term thereafter does not make it
irregular.81 If judgment is entered on the motion
before the time as to which defendant was notified
it is erroneous, but not void.82
X. AMENDING, CORRECTING, REVIEWING, OPENING, AND VACATING JUDGMENT
A. JURISDICTION AND POWER GENERALLY
§ 228. In General
Courts have inherent power to control, amend, open,
and vacate their judgments under proper circumstances,
although in some Jurisdictions statutes regulate the
courts' control of their judgments.
In the absence of a statute to the contrary, courts,
under proper circumstances, may control, amend,
open, and vacate their own judgments.88 This pow-
er is inherent and independent of statutes.84 In
77. N.Y. — Weinberg v. Goldstein,
235 N.Y.S. 529, 226 App.Div. 479.
78. N.Y. — Donnelly v. Bauder, 218
N.Y.S. 437, 217 App.Div. 59.
79. Court or judge at chambers may
enter summary judgment after su-
preme court commissioner has struck
out answer. — National Surety Co. v.
Mulligan, 146 A. 372, 10-5 N.J.Law
336.
80. S.C.— -Dibble v. Taylor, 29 S.C.
L. 308, 42 Am.D. 368.
•34 C.J. p 206 note 87.
81. S.C.— Dibble v. Taylor, supra.
82. Ky. — Bustard v. Gates, 4 Dana.
429.
83. U.S.— Pet way v. Dobson, D.C.
Tenn., 46 P.Supp. 114— Illinois
Printing Co. v. Electric Shovel
Coal Corporation, D.Q.IU., 20 F.
Sup-p. 181.
Ala. — Du Pree v. Hart, *8 'So.2d 183,
242 Ala. 690.
Ark.— State v. West, 254 S.W. 828,
160 Ark. 413.
Cal.— In re Estrem's Estate, 107 P.
2d 36, 16 Cal.2d 563— Kohlstedt v.
Hauseur, 74 P.2d 314, 24 Cal.App.2d
£0.
Conn.— Persky v. Pugiisi, 127 A. 351,
101 Conn. 658.
Ga. — Coker v. Eison, 151 S.-E. '682, 40
Ga.App. 835.
111.— Western Smelting & Refining
Co. v. Benj. Harris & Co., 24 N.E.
2d 255, 302 Ill.App. 535.
Kan.— State v. Riverside Drainage
Dist. of Sedgwick County, 255 P.
>37, 123 Kan. 393.
Ky.— Dotson v. Burchett, 190 S.W.2d
697, 301 Ky. 28.
La. — Termini v. McCormick, 23 So.2d
52, 20S La. 221— 'Frank v. Currie,
Ap.p., 172 So. 843.
Mass.— Russell v. Foley, 179 N.E,
619, 278 Mass. 145.
Mich.— Home Life Ins. Co. v. Cohen,
270 N.W. 256, 278 Mich. 1'69.
Miss. — Moore v. Montgomery Ward &
Co., 156 So. 875, 171 Miss. 420.
N.J.— Pink v. Deerlng, 4 A.2d -790,
122 N.J.Law 277, motion denied 17
49C.J.S.-28
A.2d 603, 12-5 N.J.Law 569— Assets
Development Co. v. Wall, 119 A, 10,
97 N.J.Law 468— Davis v. City of
Newark, 17 A.2d 305, 19 N.J.Misc.
85.
N.Y. — Youngs v. Goodman, 148 N.E.
639, 240 N.Y. 470, reargument de-
nied 150 N.E. 533, 241 N.Y. 509—
White v. White, 231 N.Y.S. 146,
224 App.Div. 355— La «Salle Exten-
sion University v. Parella, 294 N.
.Y.S. 146, 1-62 Misc. 220— Siegel v.
State, 246 N.Y.S. 652, 188 Misc. 474
— Tousey v. Barber, 231 N.Y.S. 133,
132 Misc. 861.
N.C.— Fowler v. "Fowler, 130 S.E. 315,
190 N.C. 536.
Pa.— 'In re Sale of Real Estate on
Compromise of Taxes, Com,P}., 46
•Lack.Jur. 31.
S.C. — Foster v. Pruitt, 167 S.E. 410,
168 S.C. 262.
Tex. — Spence v. National Life & Ac-
cident Ins. Co., Civ.App., 50 »S.W.
2d 212— Texas Co. v. Beall, Civ.
App., 3 S.W.2d 524, error refused.
Authority of court over its records
generally see Courts §§ 229-236.
Power of:
Amendment and correction of
judgments see infra § 236.
Opening and vacating judgments
see infra § 265.
Memorandum of court, designated
'memorandum on final hearing,'*
which contained court's conclusions
of law entitling plaintiff to recover,
and concluded, "Judgment according-
ly," was at most a memorandum hav-
ing weight of general verdict of ju-
ry, and neither special finding of
facts nor final judgment, which pre-
cluded court from reopening case at
succeeding term.— G. Amsinck & Co.
v. Springfield Grocer Co., C.C.A.Mo.,
7 «F.2d 855.
Unsigned judgment may be modi-
fled. — Koontz v. Butler, 38 S.W.2d
204, 238 Ky. 406.
Until order book to signed by judge
judgment is under court's control
and may be amended, 'modified, or set
- . 433
aside. — Hazelip v. Doyel, 85 S.W.2d
685, 260 Ky. 313.
Void judgment
When the court's attention is di-
rected to a void judgment, it should
purge its records of the nullity by
canceling the entry.— Stretch v.
Murphy, 112 P.2d 1018, 166 Or. 439.
Xn declaratory Judgment action
after there had been a trial of the
issues, the trial judge had no power
to vacate the judgment. — Jay-Wash-
ington Realty Corporation v. Koon-
del, 49 N.Y.S.2d 308, 268 App.Div. 116.
t. U.S.— Illinois Printing Co. v.
Electric Shovel Coal Corporation,
•D.C.I11., 20 F.Supp. 181— Peters v.
Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York,
D.C.Pa., 17 F.Supp. 246, reversed
on other grounds, -C.C.A., 92 F.2d
301.
Ala.— Louisville & N. R. Co. v.
Bridgeforth, 101 So. 807, 20 Ala.
App. 326.
Del.— Miles v. Lay ton, 193 A. -567, 8
W.W.Harr. -411, 112 AJL.R. 7S6.
Ind. — Cory v. Howard, 164 N.E. 639,
88 Ind.App. 503.
N.Y.— Application of Bond, 36 N.Y.S.
2d 147, 264 App.Div. 484, motion
denied In re Bond 49 N.E.2d 1006,
290 N.Y. 739, and affirmed 50 N.
R2d 299, 290 N.Y. 901— Albright
v. New York Life Ins. Co., 26 N.
Y.S.2d 210, 261 App.Div. 419— Wil-
liams v. Williams, 25 N.Y.S.2d 940,
261 App.Div. 470, affirmed 40 N.E.
2d 1017, 287 N.Y. 799— Monahan v,
Kenny, 288 N.Y.S. 323, 24'8 App.
Div. 159 — Jacobowltz v. Herson,
276 N.Y.S. 816, 243 App.Div. 274,
reversed on other grounds Jacobo-
witz v. Metselaar, 197 N.B. -169, 26S
N.Y. 130, 99 A.L.R. 1198, reargu-
ment denied Jacobowitz v. Herson,
198 N.B. 528. 268 N.Y. 630— Klein
v. Fairberg, 276 N.Y.S. 347, 242
App.Div. 609 — In re Wing, 295 N.
Y.S. "386, 162 Misc. 551— Greenberg
v. Rudnlck, 258 N.Y.S. «'&79, 143
Misc. 793— American Cities Co, v.
Stevenson, 60 N.Y.S.2d fiSo — Los
Angeles Inv. Securities Corpora-
§ 228
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
some states it has been held that jurisdiction, at
least with respect to certain courts, ceases with
the rendition of the final judgment, and that there-
after the court has no power to amend or vacate
the judgment except pursuant to statutory author-
ity.8*
Where the court is not justified in modifying or
vacating a judgment, it may not accomplish the
same result by indirection by refusing to enforce
the judgment.86
Statutory provisions generally. In various juris-
dictions statutes have been enacted which regulate
the amendment, correction, opening, and vacation
of judgments.87 Some such statutes do not affect
the inherent power and control of the court over
its judgments,88 while other statutes do.8d In cases
not within the statute, the common-law rules pre-
vail.90 Such statutes are remedial and should be
tion v. Joslyn, 12 N.Y.S.2d 370, re-
versed on other grounds 14 N.Y.S.
2d 798, 258 App.Div. T62, motion
denied 15 N.T.S.2d 175, 25'8 App.
Div. 821, motion granted 16 N.Y.
S.2d 875, 258 App.'Div. 1018, motion
granted 25 N.E.2d 146, 285 N.T.
-592, appeal dismissed 26 N.E.2d
9-68, 282 N.Y. 438.
Pa. — Davis v. Commonwealth Trust
Co., 7 A.2d 3, 335 Pa. 387— In re
Stetson's Estate, 155 A. 856, 305
Pa. 62.
S.D. — Janssen v. Tusha, 5 N.W.2d
684, 68 -S.D. 6*39— Boshart v. Na-
tional Ben. Ass'n of Mitchell, 2T3
N.W. 7, 65 S.D. -260.
Tex.— Nevitt v. Wilson, 285 S.W.
1079, 1118 Tex. 29, 48 A.L.B. 355—
Garrett v. Katz, Civ.App., 27 S.W.
2d 373.
Wis. — Libby v. -Central Wisconsin
Trust Co., 197 N.W. 206, -182 Wis.
59$.
Court of claims has same inher-
ent discretionary powers to set aside
own judgments for error of law as
supreme court. — Siegel v. State, 246
N.Y.S. 652, 138 Misc. 474.
Power to vacate judgment on
ground It is prejudicially irregular,
therefore voidable, is not dependent
on statute. — ^Fowler v. Fowler, 130 S.
B. 315, 190 N.C. 536.
Zn California
(1) Independently of statute
courts have power to correct, amend,
and annul judgments. — Bastajian v.
Brown, 120 P.2d 9, 19 Cal.2d 209—
Treat v. Superior Court in and for
City and -County of San "Francisco, 62
P.2d. 147, 7 Cal.2d 636— Qarson v.
Emmons ODraying- & Safe Moving Co.,
64 P.2d 176, 18 Cal.App.2d 326, fol-
lowed in 64 P.2d 17'8, 18 Gal.App.2d
7-68 — Button Dredge Co. v. Goss, 247
P. 594, 77 CaLApp. 727.
(2) However, it has been stated
that in the absence of statutory
authority courts have no jurisdic-
tion to alter their final judgments. —
Gillespie v. Andrews, 248 P. 715, 78
CaLApp. '59-5.
03) Once a decree has become final
it may not be amended, modified, or
supplemented except where other-
wise authorized 'by statute or where
there has been a clerical error or
misprision due to inadvertence. — ,
Hales v. Snowden, 105 P.2d 1015, 40
Gal.App.2d '801.
85. La. — Succession of Harrison, 123
So. 120, 168 La, '675— Albritton v.
Nauls, App., 15 So.2d 126— Lacaze
v. Hardee, App., 7 So.2d 719 — Jeff-
erson v. 'Laure N. Truck Line,
App., 181 So. 821, affirmed Jeffer-
son v. 'Lauri N. Truck Lines, 187
So. 44, 192 La. 29— American Mul-
tigraph Sales Co. v. Globe Indem-
nity Co., 123 «So. 358, 11 La.App.
353.
Mass.— Amory v. Kelley, 3'4 N.B.2d
507, 309 Mass. 162.
34 C.J. p 210 note 8.
Money judgment is not subject to
change
La.— Wright r. Wright, 179 So. 866,
189 La, 539.
86. N.Y.— In re Kananack's Estate,
278 N.T.S. 898, 155 Misc. 35.
87. Ariz.— Swisshelm Gold Silver
Co. v. Farwell, 124 P.2d 544, '59
Ariz. 162.
•Cal. — Olivera v. Grace, 122 P.2d 5-64,
19 Cal.2d 570, 140 A.L.R. 1<328—
In re Smead's Estate, 82 P.2d 182,
12 Cal.2d 20 — Stan ton v. Superior
Court within and for Los Angeles
County, 261 P. 1001, 202 Cal. 478—
In re Wiechers' Estate, 250 P. 397,
199 Cal. !523, certiorari denied
Wiechers v. Wiechers, 47 S.Ct. 476,
273 U.S. 762, 71 L.Ed. 879— Wat-
terson v. Owens River Canal Co.,
210 P. 625, 190 CaL 88— Wetzel v.
Wetzel, App., 1'62 P.2d 299— Jones
v. Clover, 74 P.2d 517, 24 CaLApp.
2d 210.
I1L — Trupp v. 'First Bnglewood State
Bank of Chicago, 50 N.B.2d 198,
307 111. App. 258.
Iowa. — Workman v. District Court,
Delaware -County, 269 N.W. 27, 222
Iowa '364.
Minn.— Cacka v. Gaulke, 3 N.W.2d
791, 212 Minn. 404.
N.Y.— Keim v. Orel, 31 N.Y.S.2d 321,
26'3 App.Div. "779, reargument de-
nied '32 N.Y.'S.2d 1010, 26-3 App.
Div. 908, motion dismissed Lefko-
witz v. Keim, 41 N.B.2d 165, 287
N.Y. 837 — Germann v. Jones, 221
N.Y.S. 32, 220 App.Div. 5— Goishen
v. Samor Realty Co., 4 N.Y.S.2d
107, 167 Misc. 477 — In re Kenne-
dy's Estate, 266 N.Y.S. 883, 149
Misc. 188.
434
NJX— Bellingham State Bank of
Bellingham v. McCormick, 215 N.
W. 152, 55 N.D. 700.
Ohio. — Corpus Juris quoted In Kins-
man Nat. Bank v. Jerko, 25 Ohio
N.P..N.S., 4'45, 457.
Pa. — Davis v. Commonwealth Trust
Co., Com.Pl., 46 Dauph.Co. 419.
34 C.J. -p 221 note '54.
Correction and vacation of decrees in
equity see Equity §§ 622-667, 674-
'677, 682.
Repeal of statute
Statute providing that judgment
shall not be set aside for irregular-
ity on motion unless made within
three years after term At which such
judgment was rendered is not incon-
sistent, and therefore is not repealed
by implication by civil code for prac-
tice and procedure in all courts en-
acted in 194'3, or by harmonizing
rules of supreme court. — Poindexter
v. Marshall, Mo.App., 193 S.W.2d 622.
88. Ga. — East Side Lumber & Coal
Co. v. Barfleld, 18 S.E.2d 492, 193
Ga. 273.
Ohio. — Corpus Juris quoted in Kins-
man Nat Bank v. Jerko, 25 Ohio
N.P..N.S., 445, 457. .
Tex. — Nevitt v. Wilson, 28-5 "S.W.
1079, 116 Tex. 29, 48 A.L.R. 355.
34 C.J. p 223 note 56, p 332 note 57
[a].
Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 21,
does not deprive court of inherent
power to set aside judgment during
,the term. — Arenstein v. Jencks, Tex.
Civ.App., 179 S.W.2d 831, error dis-
missed.
Court rule relating to time for per-
fecting appeal to supreme court did
not limit power of trial court to va-
cate judgment for defendant, which
was entered without payment of
judgment fee required by statute and
another court rule. — Detroit Edison
Co. v. Hartrick, 278 N.W. 664, 283
Mich. -502.
'. Colo. — 'Empire Constr. Co. v.
Crawford, 141 P. 474, 57 Colo. 281.
Ohio. — Corpus Juris quoted in Kins-
man Nat. Bank v. Jerko, 25 Ohio
N.P.,N.S., 445, '457.
34 C.J. p 224 note 57.
90- N.M.— De Baca v. Sais, 99 P.2d
106, 44 N.M. 105.
Ohio. — Corpus Juris quoted in Kins-
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 228
liberally construed,91 although they cannot be ex-
tended beyond their legitimate purport.92 Thus if
they speak only of "defaults" they cannot be ap-
plied to final judgments otherwise rende/ed.93 Stat-
utes of this character should not be construed retro-
spectively.94
Under some of these statutes a court retains con-
trol of its judgments for a fixed period of time,95
and a judgment may be amended, corrected, opened,
or vacated only within the time so limited,96 such
as thirty days,97 sixty days,98 or six months99 aft-
er the making or entry of the judgment or notice
of the judgment, during the term, as considered in-
fra § 229, or within a reasonable time, but not ex-
ceeding six months after judgment is taken.1 The
court may amend a judgment after the expiration
of the statutory period as to matters of form2 or
where the judgment is interlocutory.^ Where the
judgment is void the court may vacate it after the
expiration of the time fixed by statute.4
After expiration of time for appeal. Unless oth-
erwise provided by statute,5 a court ordinarily does
not lose the power to vacate a judgment merely on
man Nat. Bank v. Jerko, 2-5 Ohio
N.P..N.S., 445, 457.
34 C.J; p 224 note 58.
91. Cal.— Bonftlio v. Ganger, 140 P.
2d 861, 60 Cal.App.2d 405.
Ohio. — Corpus Juris quoted in Kins-
man Nat. Bank v, Jerko, 25 Ohio
N.P.,N.S., 445, 457.
34 C.J. p 224 note '59.
92. Ohio. — Corpus Juris quoted in.
Kinsman Nat. Bank v. Jerko, 25
Ohio N.P..N.S., 4'45, 457.
34 C.J. p 224 note '61.
93. Ga. — O'Connell v. 'Friedman, 45
S,B. 668, 118 Ga. 831.
34 C.J. p 224 note 61.
94. Miss. — Pendleton Y. Prestridge,
20 Miss. <302.
34 C.J. p 224 note 62.
'95. Ala. — Reese & Reese v. Burton
& Watson Undertaking Co., 184 So.
820, 28 Ala.App. 384.
Control of Judgments where terms
abolished see infra § 231.
96. Ala.— Oabbert v. Gabbert, 117
So. 214, 217 Ala. 599— Reese &
Reese v. Burton & Watson Under-
taking Co., 184 So. 820, 28 Ala.
A'pp. 3$ 4.
CaL— Olivera v. Grace, 122 P.2d 564,
19 Cal.2d 570, 140 A.L.R. 1328—
Cikuth v. Loero, 57 P.2d 1009, 14
Cal.App.2d 32 — Delmuto v. Superior
Court in and for San Joaquin Coun-
ty, 6 P.2d 1007, 119 CaLApp. 590.
Iowa.— Albright v. Moeckley, 237 N.
W. -'309.
Minn. — Elsen v. State (Farmers Mut.
Ins. Co., 17 N.W.2d 6-52, 219 Minn.
315 — Smude v. Amidon, 7 N.W.2d
776, 214 Minn. 266.
N.D. — Kilby v. Movius Land & Loan
Co., 219 N.W. 948, 57 N.D. 14—
Bellingham State Bank of Belling-
ham v. McCormick, 215 N.W. 152,
5-5 N.D. 700.
Wis. — Amalgamated Meat Cutters &
Butcher Workmen of N. A., A. P.
of 'K, Local Union No. 73 v. Smith,
10 N.W.2d 114, 24«3 Wis. '390—
Kickapoo Development Corporation
v. Kickapoo Orchard Co., 285 N.W.
354, 231 Wis. 458.
34 C.J. p 221 note 54.
97. Ala.— Pate v. State, 14 So.2d
251, 244 Ala. 396— Brand v. State, 6
So.2d 446, 242 Ala. 15, certiorari
denied 6 So.2d 450, 242 Ala. 349—
Ex parte Howard, 142 So. 403, 225
Ala. 108— Ex parte Fidelity & De-
posit Co. of Maryland, 134 So. 861,
223 Ala. 98— Ex parte Green, 129
'So. 72, 221 Ala. 298— Mt. Vernon-
Woodberry Mills v. Union Springs
Guano Co., 155 So. 710, 26 Ala.App.
13'6. certiorari denied 155 So. 716,
229 Ala. 91.
111.— Barnard v. Michael, 6? N.E.2d
858, S92 111. 130— Illinois Nat.
Bank of Springfield v. Gwinn, 61
N.E.2d 249, 590 111. 345— In re
Reexnts' Estate, 50 N.E.2d €14, 3S3
111. 447— People ex rel. Meier v.
Lewe, 44 N.E.2d -551, 380 111. '531—
Department of Public Works and
Buildings v. Legg, 29 N.E.2d 515,
374 111. 306— Scribner v. Village of
Downers Grove, 25 N.E.2d 54, 372
III 614— Simon v. Horan, 5'6 N.E.
2d 147, 32i3 Ill.App. 627— Thome v.
Thome, 45 N.E.2d 85, 316 IlLApp.
451 — Schmahl v. Aurora Nat
Bank, 35 N.E.2d 689, 311 IlLApp.
228 — Trupp v. 'First Englewood
State Bank of Chicago, 30 N.E.2d
198, 307 IlLApp. 258— Becker v.
Loebs Ins. Agency Co., 2*6 N.E.2d
653, 304 IlLApp. 575 — Rasmussen
v. National Tea Co., 26 N.E.2d 523,
•304 IlLApp. «353— Parish Bank &
Trust Co. v. Uptown Sales & Serv-
ice Co., 20 N.E.2d 634, 300 IlLApp.
7$ — McKenna v. Forman, 2*83 111.
App. 606.
Md.— Harvey v. Slacum, 29 A.2d 276,
1S1 Md. 20'6.
tf.J. — Zicarelli v. General (Finance
Co., 186 A. 726, 14 N.J.Misc. 711.
N.M.— De Baca v. «Sais, 99 P.2d 106,
44 N.M. 105— Arias v. Springer, 78
P.2d 153, 42 N.M. 350— Pugh v.
Phelps, 19 P.2d 315, 37 N.M. 126.
Tenn.— Broadway Motor Co. v. Public
Fire Ins. Co., 12 Tenn.App. 278—
Durham Coal & Iron Co. v. Bischel,
4 Tenn.App. 233.
Tex. — Joy v. Toung, Civ.App., 1W S.
W.2d 159.
34 C.J. p 210 note 8 [a], p 221 note 54
[d]. I
435
Common rule allowing1 correction
or vacation during- term was changed
by statute limiting time to thirty
days. — Reese & Reese v. Burton &
Watson Undertaking Qo.f 184 So. 820,
28 Ala.Aj>p. 384.
98* Ky. — Hutchinson v. Hutchinson,
168 S.W.2d 738, 293 Ky. 270—
Straton & Terstegge 'Co. v. Begley,
61 S.W.2d 287, 249 Ky. «32.
99. Ariz.— Hartford Accident & In-
demnity Co. v. Worrells, 69 P.2d 240,
50 Ariz. 90— In re Ralph's Estate,
67 P.2d 230, 49 Ariz. 391— Inter-
mountain Building & Loan Ass'n v.
Allison Steel Mfg. Co.. 22 P.2d -413,
42 Ariz. 51.
Cal.— Goatman v. Fuller, 216 P. 35,
191 Cal. 245.
Mont. — Edgar State Bank v. Long,
278 P. 108, 85 Mont. 225.
Nev.— iLauer v. Eighth Judicial -Dis-
trict Court in and for Clark Coun-
ty, 140 P.2d 95«3f 62 Nev. 78.
1. Cal. — People v. Greene/ 16 P.
197, 74 Cal. 400, 6 Am.S.R. 448—
Wetzel v. Wetzel, App., 162 P.2d
2-99.
2. 111.— Thorne v. Thorne, 45 N.E.
2d 185, 316 IlLApp. 451.
3. Ala.— Blankenship v. Hail, 106
So. '594, 214 Ala. 35.
4. 111.-— Barnard v. Michael, 63 N.E.
2d 858, 392 111. 130— Pedersen v.
Logan Square State & Savings
Bank, 32 N.E.2d S44, -309 IlLApp.
>54, reversed on other grounds 36
N.E.2d 732, 377 111. 408.
84 C.J. p 210 note 8 [a].
Fraud on court and counsel
N.J. — Zicarelli v. General Finance
Co., 186 A. 72«, 14 N.J.Misc. 711.
5. Minn. — Smude v. Amidon, 7 N.W.
2d 77«, 214 Minn. 266.
Interlocutory Judgment
After expiration of time to appeal
from or to modify interlocutory
judgment, trial court had no juris-
diction to determine whether inter-
locutory Judgment was supported by
the finding. — Kickapoo Development
Corporation v. Kickapoo Orchard Co.,
285 N.W. 854, 231 Wis. 458.
§ 229
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
the lapse of the statutory period during which an
appeal may be taken.6
§ 229. During Term
At common law a court has full control over Its or-
ders or Judgments during the term at which they are
made, and may, on sufficient cause shown amend, cor-
rect, open, or vacate such judgments.
In the absence of a statute to the contrary, a
court has full control over its orders or judgments
during the term at which they are made, and may,
on sufficient cause shown, in the exercise of its
sound discretion, amend, correct, revise, supple-
ment, open, or vacate such judgments, at least
where the court is a court of general jurisdiction.?
8. U.S. — Denholm & McKay Co. v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue,
C.C.A., 132 «F.2d 243.
7. U.S.— Zimmern v. U. S., Ala,, 56
S.Ct. 706, 298 U.S. 1*67, 80 L.Ed.
1118— U. S. v. Benz, 51 S.Ct. 113.
282 U.S. 304, 75 L.Ed. 354— Sun OU
Co. v. Burford, C.C.A.Tex., 130 F.
2d 10, reversed on other grounds
63 S.Ct. 109S, 319 U.-S. '315, 87 L.Ed.
1424, rehearing denied 63 S.Ct.
1442, 320 U.S. 214, $7 L.Ed. 1851,
and 63 S.Ct 1442, 320 U.S. 214. 87
L.Ed. 1851— Suggs v. Mutual Ben.
Health & Accident Ass'n, C.-C.A.
OkL. 115 F.2d 'SO — Arcoil Mfg. Co.
v. American Equitable Assur. Co.
of New York, C.C.A.N.J., 87 F.2d
206 — American Guaranty Co. v.
Caldwell, C.C.A.CaL, 72 F.2d 209—
Associated Mfrs. Corporation of
America v. De Jong, C.C.A.Iowa, 64
*F.2d i$4 — Obear-Nester Glass Co. v.
Hartford-Empire Co., C.C.A.Mo.. 61
F.2d 31 — Massachusetts Fire & Ma-
rine Ins. Co. v. Schmick. CC.A.S.
D.. 58 F.2d 130— Gentry v. State of
Missouri, ex rel. and to Use of
Butler, C.C.A.MO., 32 (F.2d 159—
McCandless v. Haskins, C.C.A.S.D.,
28 «F.2d 693 — Cudahy Packing Co.
v. City of Omaha, C.C.A.Neb., 24
F.2d '3, certiorari denied 49 S.Ct.
D '78 U.«S 601, 73 L.Ed. 530— Chi-
ckgo, lil & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Lever-
entz, C.C.A.Minn., 19 F.2d 915, cer-
tiorari denied 48 S.Ct. '38, 275 U.S.
343, 72 <L.Ed. 416— Maison Dorin
SociSte1 Anonyme v. Arnold, C.C.A.
AJY 16 'F.2d 977, certiorari denied
47 S.Ct. 571, 273 U.S. 766, 71 L.Ed.
SSI — Pennsylvania R. R. v. Mont-
gomery, C.C.A.N.Y., 6 F.2d '386—
In re Vardaman Shoe Co., D.C.Mo.
52 'F.Supp. 562— Leslie v. Floyd
Gas Co., D.O.Ky., 11 F.Supp. 401—
Greyerbiehl v. Hughes Electric
•Co., C.C.A.N.D., 294 F. 802, certio^
rari denied Hughes Electric Co. v
Greyerbiehl, 44 S.Qt 402, 264 U.S
589, '68 L.Ed. 864.
Ala.— Schaeffer v. Walker, 3 So.2d
405, 241 Ala. 530— Sovereign Camp
W. O. W., v. Gay, 104 So. 895, 20
Ala.App. 650, reversed on other
grounds 104 So. 898, 213 Ala, 5—
State v. Heflin, 96 So. 459, 19 Ala,
App. 222.
Alaska.— Mitchell v. Beaver Dredging
Co., 8 Alaska 566.
^riz. — in re Ralph's Estate, 67 P
3d 230, 49 Ariz. 391— Corpus Juris
cited in Intermountain Building &
JLoan Assfn v. Allison Steel Mfg
Co., 22 P.2d 413, 415, 42 Ariz. 51.
\rk.— Stinson v. Stinson. 159 S.W.2d
446. 203 Ark. 888— Security Bank
of Branson, Mo., v. Speer, 157 S.W.
2d 775, 203 Ark. 562 — Browning v.
Berg, 118 S.W.2d 1017, 196 Ark. 595
— McDonald v. Olla State Bank, 93
S.W.2d 325, 192 Ark. 603— Union
Sawmill Co. v. Langley, 66 S.W.2d
300, 188 Ark. 316 — American Build-
ing & Loan Ass'n v. Memphis Fur-
niture Mfg. Co., 49 S.W.2d 377,
185 Ark. 762— Union & Planters'
Pank & Trust Co. v. Pope, 5 S.
W.2d 330, 176 Ark. 1023 — T. J.
Moss Tie Co. v. Miller, 276 S.W.
586, 169 Ark. 657 — Dawson v.
Mays, 252 S.W. 33, 159 Ark. 331,
30 A.UR. 1463.
Cal.— Olivera v. Grace, 122 P.2d 56'4,
19 Cal.2d 570, 140 A.L.R. 1328.
Conn. — Ideal Financing Ass'n v. La-
Bonte, 180 A. 300, 120 Conn. 190 —
Ferguson v. Sabo, 162 A, 844, 115
Conn. 619, certiorari denied 53 S.
Ct 595, 289 U.S. 734, 77 L.Ed. 1482
— McCulioch v. Pittsburgh Plate
Glass Co., 140 A. 114, 107 Conn.
164.
Del. — Tweed v. Lockton, 167 A. 703, 5
W.W.Harr. 474.
D.C.— Meloy v. F'nbers Realty Co.,
66 F.2d 208, 62 App.D.C. 228.
Fla. — State v. City of Sarasota, 17
So.2d 109, 154 Fla. 250 — Revell v
Dishong, 175 So. 905, 129 Fla. 9—
State v. Wright, 145 So. 598, 107
Fla. 178 — Hozen v. Smith, 135 So.
813, 101 Fin. 767 — Whi taker v,
Wright, 129 So. 889. 100 Fla. 282—
Robinson v. Farmers' & Merchants'
Bank of Tullahoma, Tenn., 117 So,
393, 95 Fla. 940 — Alabama Hotel
Co. v. J. L.' Mott Iron Works, 98
So. 825, 86 Fla. 608.
a. — East Side Lumber & Coal Co
v. Barfleld, IS S.E.2d 492, 193 Ga
273 — Deen v. Baxley State Bank,
'15 S.E.2d 194, 192 Ga. 300 — Corpus
Juris cited in Kerr v. Kerr, 189 S
E. 20, 183 Ga. 573— Gaines v
Gaines, 150 S.E. 645, 169 Ga. 432-
Loughridge v. City of Dalton, 14
S.E. 393, 166 Ga. 323— Berrien
County Bank v. Alexander, 115 S.E
648, 154 Ga. 775, answers to certi
fled questions conformed to 11
S.E. 231, 29 Ga.App. 658— Milton
v. Mitchell County Electric Mem
bership Ass'n, 12 S.E.2d 367, 6
Ga.App. 63— Methodist Episcopa
Church South v. Decell, 5 S.E.2
66, 60 Ga.App. 843 — Frazier
Beasley, 1 S.E.2d 458, 59 Ga.App
500 — International Agr. Corpora
436
tion v. Law, 151 S.E. 557, 40 Ga.
App. 756 — J. S. Schofield's Sons
Co. v. Vaughn, 150 S.E. 569, 40 Ga.
App. 568 — Grogan v. Deraney, 143
S.E. 912, 38 Ga.App. 287— Dabney
v. Benteen, 132 S.E. 916, 35 Ga.
App. 203 — Terrell v. Clarke, 122 S.
E. 718, 32 Ga.App. 39— Hardwick
v. Hatfield, 119 S.E. 430, 30 Ga,App.
760.
Hawaii. — A-One Building Co. v. Tee.
32 Hawaii 15.
ll.-_Corwin v. Rheims, 61 N.E.2d 40,
390 111. 205— People v. Lyle, 160
N.E. 742, 329 111. 418— Brelsford v.
Community High School Dist. No.
36 of Pulaski County, 159 N.E. 237,
328 111. 27 — Unbehahn v. Fader, 149
N.E. 773, 319 111. 250— Simon v.
Horan, 56 N.E.2d 147, 323 IlLApp.
-527 — Schmahl v. Aurora Nat. Bank,
35 N.E.2d 689, 311 IlLApp. 228—
People ex rel. Nelson v. Farmers &
Merchants State Bank of Mendota,
281 IlLApp. 354 — Wilson v. Hilli-
goss, 278 IlLApp. 564.
Ind. — Tri-City Electric Service Co. v.
Jarvis, 185 N.E. 136, 206 Ind. 5—
State v. Superior Court of Marion*
County, 174 N.E. 732, 202 Ind. 456
—Hoffman v. Hoffman, 57 N.E.2d
591, 115 Ind.App. 277, rehearing de-
nied 58 N.E.2d 201, 115 Ind.App.
277 — Papuschak v. Burich, 185 N.
E. 876, 97 Ind.App. 100— Butcher
v. Olmstead, 182 N.E. 265, 99 Ind.
App. 92.
Iowa. — Corpus Juris cited in Concan-
non v. Blackman, 6 N.W.2d 116,
119, 232 Iowa 722 — Hallam v.
Finch, 195 N.W. 352, 197 Iowa 224.
Kan.— Rasing v. Healzer, 142 P.2d
832, 157 Kan. 516 — Hoffman v.
Hoffman, 135 P.2d 887, 156 Kan.
647 — Corpus Juris cited in Herd v.
Chambers, 122 P.2d 784, 787, 155
Kan. 55 — Mayall v. American Well
Works Co., 89 P.2d 846, 149 Kan.
781 — Epperson v. Kansas State De-
partment of Inspections and Regis-
tration, 78 P.2d 850, 147 Kan, 762
—Standard Life Ass'n v. Merrill,
75 P.2d 825, 147 Kan. 121— Gaston
v. Collins, 72 P.2d 84, 146 Kan.
449 — Board of Com'rs of Montgom-
ery County v. Allen, 25 P.2d 374,
138 Kan. 265— Corpus Juris quoted
in, Isenhart v. Powers, 9 P.2d 988,
989, 13'5 Kan. Ill— J. B. Colt Co. v.
Clark, 266 P. 41, 125 Kan. 722—
Wichita Motors Co. v. United
Warehouse Co., 255 P. 30, 123 Kan.
235 — Golden v. Southwestern Util-
ities Corporation of Delaware, 250
P. 286, 121 Kan. 793— Schubach v.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
229
Hammer, 232 P. 1041, 117 Kan.
fflo.
Ky.— Furst v. Meek, 180 S.W.2d 410,
297 Ky. 509 — Welch v. Mann's Ex'r,
88 S.W.2d 1, 261 Ky. 470 — Equita-
ble Life Assur. Soc. of U. S. v.
Goble, 72 S.W.2d 35, 254 Ky. 614
—Clements v. Kell, 39 S.W.2d 663,
239 Ky. 396— Fields v. Combs, 18 S.
\V.2d 965, 230 Ky. 97 — Morris v.
Morris, 10 S.W.2d 277, 225 Ky.
823.
ana. — Eddy v. Summers, 39 A.2d 812,
183 Md. 683 — Harvey v. Slacum, 29
A.2d 276, 181 Md. 206.
Miss.— Mutual Health & Benefit
Ass'n v. Cranford, 156 So. 876, 173
Miss. 152.
3£o. — Corpus Juris cited in In re
Zartman's Adoption, 65 S.W.2d 951,
955, 334 Mo. 237— Corpus Juris cit-
ed in State v. Lonon, 56 S.W.2d
378, 380, 331 Mo. 591— Bruegge v.
State Bank of Wellston, 74 S.W.2d
835 — State ex rel. Holtkamp v.
Hartmann, 51 S.W.2d 22, 330 Mo.
386— Meffert v. Lawson, 287 S.W.
610, 315 Mo. 1091 — Boegemann v.
Bracey, 285 S.W. 992, 315 Mo. 437
— Spickard v. McNabb, App., 180
S.W.2d 611— McCormick v. St.
John, 149 S.W.2d 894, 236 Mo.App.
72 — Savings Trust Co. of St Louis
V. Skain, 131 S.W.2d 566, 345 Mo.
46 — Wilson v. Teale, App., 88 S.W.
2d 422 — In re Henry County Mut.
Burial Ass'n, 77 S.W.2d 124, 229
Mo.App. 300 — Niedringhaus v. Wm.
F. Niedringhaus Inv. Co., App., 54
S.W.2d 79, certiorari quashed State
ex rel. Williams v. Daues, 66 S.W.
2d 137, 334 Mo. 91— Herbert V.
Hawley, App., 32 S.W.2d 1095—
Dietrich v. Dietrich, 28 S.W.2d 418
— National City Bank of St. Louis
v. Pattiz, App., 26 S.W.2d 815—
State ex reL Ramsey v. Green,
App., 17 S.W.2d 629 — Ekonomou v.
Greek Orthodox Church St. Nicho-
las, App., 280 S.W. 57— State ex
rel. Pargeon v. McPike, App., 243
S.W. 278.
Neb. — Barney v. Platte Valley Pub-
lic Power & Irr. Dist., 23 N.W.2d
335 — First Nat. Bank of Fairbury
v. First Trust Co. of Lincoln, 15
N.W.2d 386, 145 Neb. 147— Corpus
Juris cited in Sedlak v. Duda, 13
X.W.2d 892, 899, 1'44 Neb. 567, 154
A.L.R. 490 — Gate City Co. v. Doug-
las County, 282- N.W. 532, 135 Neb.
531— Britt v. Byrkit, 268 N.W. 83,
131 Neb. 350 — Lyman v. Dunn, 252
N.W. 197, 125 Neb. 770— Lacey v.
Citizens' Lumber & Supply Co.,
2-48 N.W. 378, 124 Neb. 813— Citi-
zens' State Bank of Cedar Rapids
v. Young, 244 N.W. 294, 123 Neb.
786— Shafer v. Wilsonville Eleva-
tor Co., 237 N.W. 155, 121 Neb. 280
— Netusil v. Novak, 235 N.W. 335,
120 Neb. 751.
N. JT. — Corpus Juris quoted in Dorman
v. Usbe Building & Loan Ass'n, 180
A. 413, 415, 115 N.J.Law 337— Sha-
heen v. New Jersey Fidelity &
Plate Glass Ins. Co., 160 A. 553,
109 N.J.Law 201.
N.M. — Corpus Juris quoted in Gilbert
v. New Mexico. Const. 'Co., 295 P.
291, 292, 35 N.M. 262.
Ohio.— In re Kleinhen's Estate, 63
N.E.2d 315, .76 Ohio App. 122—
Thompson v. Stonom, App., 57 N.
E.2d 788— Rauth v. Rauth, 57 N.E.
2d 266, 73 Ohio App. 564— Davis v.
Teachnor, App., 53 X.E.2d 208 —
Ames Co. v. Busick, App., 47 N.E.
2d 647— Central Nat. Bank of
Cleveland v. Ely, App., 44 N.E.2d
822 — Mosher v. Mutual Home &
Savings Ass'n, App., 41 N.E.2d 871
— Schnitzler v. Lake Shore Coach
Co., 41 N.E.2d 436, 69 Ohio App.2d
265 — Maryland Casualty Co. v.
John F. Rees Co., App., 40 N.E.2d
200— Coble v. Coble, App., 38 N.E.
2d 928 — State ex rel. Hussey v.
Hemmert, App., 37 N.E.2d 668 —
Leatherman v. Maytham, 83 N.E.2d
1022, 66 Ohio App. 344— National
Guaranty & Finance Co. v. Lindi-
raore, App., 31 N.E.2d 155 — Pfeiffer
v. Sheffield, 37 N.E.2d 494, 64 Ohio
App. 1— Sullivan v. Cloud, 24 N.E.
2d 625, 62 Ohio App. 462— Barger-
Mitchell Motor Co. v. Levy, 170 N.
E. 443, 34 Ohio App. 84— Smith v.
Smith, 157 N.E. 768, 25 Ohio App.
239.
Okl.— Harder v. Woodside, 165 P.2d
841 — Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Da-
vis, 147 P.2d 135, 19'4 Okl. 84—
Long v. Hill, 145 P.2d 434, 193
Okl. 463— Riddle v. Cornell, 135 P.
2d 41, 192 Okl. 232— Roland Union
Graded School Dist No. 1 of Se-
quoyah County v. Thompson, 124
P.2d 400, 190 Okl. 416— Haskell v.
Cutler, 108 P.2d 146, 188 Okl. 239—
Pitts v. Walker, 105 P.2d 760, 188
Okl. 17 — Western Union Telegraph
Co. v. Martin, 95 P.2d 849, 186 Okl.
24 — Corpus Juris quoted in Monta-
gue v. State ex rel. Commission-
ers of Land Office of Oklahoma, 89
P.2d 283, 285, 184 Okl. 574— Hart v.
Howell, 85 P.2d 401, 184 Okl. 146
— Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v.
Washington, 56 P.2d 1190, 176
Okl. 521 — Firemen's Fund Ins. Co.
v. Griffin, 54 P.2d 1032, 176 Okl.
94— Lane v. O'Brien, 49 P.2d 171,
173 Okl. 475 — Nichols v. Bonaparte,
42 P.2d 866, 171 Okl. 234— Johnson
v. Bearden Plumbing & Heating
Co.. 38 P.2d 500, 170 Okl. 63— Mc-
Nac v. Kinch, 238 P. 424, 113 Okl.
59— McNac v. Chapman, 223 P. 350,
101 Okl. 121 — Ross v. Irving, 220
P. 642, 96 Okl. 124— Wall v. Snider,
219 P. 671, 93 Okl. 99— Missouri
Quarries Co. v. Brady, 219 P. 868,
95 Okl. 279.
Or. — Seufert v. Stadelman, 167 P.2d
936— In re Mannix' Estate, 29 P.
2d 364, 146 Or. 187— Jackson v.
United Rys. Co., 28 P.2d 836, 145
Or. 546 — Rosumny v. Marks. 246
P. 723, 118 Or. 248— In re Gerhar-
<dus' Estate, 239 P. 829, 116 Or. 113
— Finch v. Pacific Reduction &
437
Chemical Mfg. Co., 234 P. 296, 113
Or. 670 — Hudelson v. Sanders-
Swafford Co., 227 P. 310, 111 Or.
600.
Pa,— Bergen v. Lit Bros., 47 A.2d 671
— Bekelja v. James E. Strates
Shows, 3.7 A.2d 502, 349 Pa. 442—
H. H. Robertson Co. v. Pfotzer, 28
A.2d 721, 150 Pa,Super. 457 — Com-
monwealth ex rel. Howard v. How-
ard, 10 A.2d 779, 138 Pa.Super.
505 — Hoffer v. Carlisle Community
Hotel Co., 198 A. 478, 130 Pa.Super.
457 — Keefer v, Lancaster Intelli-
gencer and News-Journal, 6 Pa.
Dist. & Co. 476, 39 Lanc.L.Rev. 225.
38 York Leg.Rec. 167— Collins v.
Media-69th St. Trust Co., Com.Pl..
30 DeLCo. 332— Allied Store Util-
ities Co. v. Azat. Com.Pl. 34 Luz.
Leg.Reg. 41.
S.D. — Brown v. Brown, 206 N.W.
68S, 49 S.D. 167.
Tenn. — Citizens' • Bank & Trust Co.
v. Bayles, 281 S.W. 932, 153 Tenn.
40 — Broadway Motor Co. v. Pub-
lic Fire Ins. Co., 12 Tenn.App. 278.
Tex.— Callahan v. Staples, 161 S.W.
2d 489, 139 Tex. 8 — Turman v. Tur-
man, 64 S.W.2d 137, 123 Tex. 1—
Wear v. McCallum, 33 S.W.2d 723,
119 Tex 473— Dittman v. Model.
Baking Co., Com.App., 271 S.W. 75
— Collins v. Davenport, Civ.App.,
192 S.TT.2d 291 — Henderson v.
Soash, Civ.App., 157 S.W.2d 161—
Glasscock v. Bryant, Civ.App., 185
S.W.2d 595, refused for want of
merit — Arenstein v. Jencks, Civ.
App., 179 S.W.2d 831, error dis-
missed— Witty v. Rose. Civ.App.,
148 S.W.2d 962, error dismissed—
St. John v. Archer, Civ.App., 147 S.
W.2d 519, error dismissed— Rhodi-
us v. Miller, Civ.App.. 139 S.W.2d
316, error dismissed, judgment cor-
rect— Johnson v. Henderson, Civ.
App., 132 S.W.2d 458— Zachary v.
Home Owners Loan Corporation,
Civ.App., 117 S.W.2d 153, error dis-
missed— F. C. Crane Co. v. Gosdin,
Civ.App., 94 S.W.2d 221, followed
in F. C. Crane Co. v. Bozarth, 94
S.W.2d 223 and F. C. Crane Co. v.
Williams, 94 S.W.2d 224— Gaffney
v. Kent, Civ.App., 74 S.W.2d 176—
Corpus Juris cited in Turman v.
Turman, Civ.App., 71 S.W.2d 898,
901, error dismissed— Guaranty
Bond State Bank of Timpson v.
Redding, Civ.App., 24 S.W.2d 457
— Perkins v. Lightfoot, Civ^App.,
10 S.W.2d 1030, error dismissed—
Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v.
Knouff, Civ.App., 297 S.W. 799, re-
versed on other grounds. Com.App.,
7 S.W.2d 68 — Adamson v. Collins,
Civ.App., 286 S.W. 598 — Ex parte
Reis, 33'S.W.2d 435, 117 Tex.Cr.
123— Reeves v. State, 4 S.W.2d 49,
109 Tex.Cr. 289, followed in 4 S.W.
2d 1115, 1116, 109 Tex.Cr. 462.
Va. — Massanutten Bank of Strasburg
v. Glaize, 14 S.E.2d 2-85, 177 Va.
519 — -®tna Casualty & Surety Co,
of Hartford, Conn., v. Board of
§ 229
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
This power is. inherent and exists independently
of any statute.8 Unless previously adjourned sine
die, every term continues until the beginning of
the next for the purpose of this rule.9 The power
of the court extends, at least in cases tried without
the intervention of a jury, to the hearing of addi-
tional testimony with respect to any part of the
proceedings as to which the judge may entertain
doubt.10 The perfection of an appeal during the
term does not deprive the court of this power.11
Statutory provisions. In some jurisdictions the
statutes expressly provide that the judgment may
be amended or vacated during the term at which
it was entered.12
§ 230. After Expiration of Term
a. In general
b. Void judgments
c. Reservation of power in judgment
d. Consent and waiver
a. IE General
In the absence of statutory authority, a court ordi-
narily has no power to correct, amend, open, or va-
cate a Judgment after the expiration of the term.
In the absence of a statute providing otherwise,
jurisdiction over the cause ceases with the expira-
tion of the term at which final judgment is ren-
dered13 and thereafter the court has no power to
correct or amend the judgment,14 and a fortiori the
Sup'rs of Warren County, 188 S.E.
617, 180 Va. 11.
W.Va.— Baker v. Gaskins, 36 S.B.2d
893 — Chaney v. State Compensation
Com'r, S3 S.E.2d 284.
Wis. — Feiges v. Racine Dry Goods
Co., 285 N.W..805, 231 Wis. 284.
Wyo.— Book v. Book, T41 .P.2d 546,
59 Wyo. 423 — Corpus Juris quoted
in In re Shaul, 39 P.2d 478, 480,
46 Wyo. 549— Sioux City Seed Co.
v. Montgomery, 291 P. 918, 42
Wyo. 170— State v. Scott, 247 P.
699, 35 Wyo. 108.
34 C.J. p 207 note 5.
Amendment and correction see in-
fra §§ 236-264.
Jurisdiction of courts of limited ju-
risdiction see infra § 235.
Opening- and vacating see infra §§
265-310.
Setting aside dismissal and rein-
statement of cause see Dismissal
and Nonsuit §§ 41, 79.
Resorting to motion for judgment
non obstante veredicto in trial with-
out jury does not deprive court of
control of judgment during term. —
Fitzpatrick v. Bates, 92 Pa. Super.
114.
8. Ariz. — Intel-mountain Building &
Loan Ass'n v. Allison Steel Mfg.
Co., 22 P.2d 413, 415, 42 Ariz. 51.
Fla.— Whitaker v. Wright, 129 So.
889, 100 Fla. 282.
111. — Department of Public Works
and Buildings v. Legg, 29 N.E.2d
•515, 374 HI. 306.
Iowa. — Concannon v. Blackman, 6 N.
W.2d 116, 119, 232 Iowa 722.
Ohio. — Moherman v. Nickels, 4'5 N.E.
2d 405, 140 Ohio St. 450, 143 A.L.R.
1174 — Ames Co. v. Busick, App.,
47 N.E.2d 647.
Okl.— Montague v. State, 89 P.2d 283,
184 Okl. 574.
3-4 C.J. p 207 note 5.
Hot dependent on statute regulating
new trials
Ky. — City of Hazard v. Duff, 175 S.W.
2d 357, 295 Ky. 701— -First State
Bank v. Asher, 117 S.W.2d 581,
273 Ky. 574— South Mountain Coal
Co. v. Rowland, 265 S.W. 320, 204
Ky. 820.
Mo.— Ritchie v. Ritchie, App., 173 S.
W.2d 101.
Okl. — Firemen's Fund Ins. Co. v.
Griffin, 54 P.2d 1032, 176 Okl. 94.
Tex. — Townes v. Lattimore, 272 S.W.
435, 114 Tex. 511.
Statute relating to entry of judg-
ment did not affect power of district
court to modify at term in which it
was rendered a judgment which was
entered after direction of verdict. —
Zachary v. Home Owners Loan Cor-
poration, Tex.Civ.App., 117 S.W.2d
153, error dismissed.
9. Wyo. — Corpus Juris quoted in In
re Shaul, 30 P.2d 478, 480, 46 Wyo.
549.
34 C.J. p 209 note 6.
Terms and sessions see Courts §§
147-169.
lOt Tex. — P. C. Crane Co. v. Gosdin,
CIv.App., 94 S.W.2d 221, followed
in F. C. Crane Co. v. Bozarth, 94
S.W.2d 223 and F. C. Crane Co. v.
Williams, 94 S.W.2d 224.
11. Pa.— Kingsley Clothing Mfg. Co.
v. Jacobs. 26 A.2d 315, 344 Pa, 551.
Tex. — Glasscock v. Bryant, Civ.App.,
185 S.W.2d 595, refused for want
of merit.
12. Iowa. — Concannon v. Blackman,
6 N.W.2d 116, 232 Iowa 722— John-
ston v. Calvin, 5 N.W.2d 840, 232
Iowa 531.
34 C.J. p 221 note 54 [e] (1).
13. U.S. — New England Furniture
& Carpet Co. v. Willcuts, D.C.
Minn., 55 F.2d 983.
Ala.— Pate v. State, 14 So.2d 251, 244
Ala, 396.
Ark. — Coulter v. Martin, 139 S.W."2d
688, 200 Ark. 1189, 201 Ark. 21.
Conn. — Corpus Juris quoted in Appli-
cation of Title & Guaranty Co. of
Bridgeport to Change Name to
Bankers' Security Trust Co., 145 A.
151, 109 Conn. 45.
DeL— Miles v. Dayton, 193 -A. 567,
8 W.W.Harr. 411, 112 A.L.R. ?86.
Fla.— State v. Wright, 1'45 So. 598,
438
107 Fla. 178— Kroier v. Kroier, 116
So. 753, 95 Fla. 865.
Hawaii. — Goo v. Hee Fat, 34 Hawaii
123.
111. — Wallace Grain & Supply Co. v.
Gary, 24 N.E.2d 907, 303 Ill.App.
221, reversed on other grounds 28
N.E.2d 107, 374 111. 57.
Ind.— In re Perry, 148 N.E. 163, 83
Ind.App. 456.
Kan. — Thornton v. Van Horn, 37 P.2d
1015, 140 Kan. 568.
Ky.— Reed v. Hatcher, 1 Bibb. 346,
Md. — Harvey v. Slacum, 29 A.2d 276,
181 Md. 206.
Mo. — ^Etna Ins. Co. v. O'Malley, 118
S.W.2d 3, 342 Mo. 800 — Burton v.
Chicago & A. R. Co., 204 S.W. 501,
275 Mo. 185.
Ohio. — Davis v. Teachnor, App., 63 N.
E.2d 208 — Ryan v. Buckeye State
Building & Loan Co., 163 N.E. 719,
29 Ohio App. 476.
Okl. — U. S. Smelting Co. v. McGuireK
253 P. 79, 123 Okl. 272.
Pa. — Cesare v. Caputo, 100 Pa.Supen
188.
S.C. — Burns v. Babb, 3 S.E.2d 247,
190 S.C. 508 — Eagerton v. Atlantic
Coast Line R. Co., 178 S.E. 844,.
175 S.C. 209.
Tenn. — Citizens' Bank & Trust Co. v.
Bayles, 281 S.W. 932, 153 Tenn. 40
—Shaw v. Shaw, 277 S.W. 898, 15*
Tenn. 360, rehearing denied 280 S.
W. 23, 152 Tenn. 552.
Tex. — Reeves v. State, 4 S.W.2d 49,
109 Tex.Cr. 28'9, followed in 4 S.W.
2d 1115, 1116, 109 TexCr. 462.
Wyo. — Midwest Refining Co. v.
George, 7 P.2d 213, 44 Wyo. 25.
34 C.J. p 210 note 11, p 212 note 12 —
15 C.J. p 825 note 85.
Amendment and correction see infra
§§ 236-264.
Terms and sessions see Courts §§"
147-169.
14. U.S. — Stewart Die Casting Cor-
poration v. National Labor Rela-
tions Board, C.C.A., 129 F.2d 481—
Beyer v. McGeorge, C.C.A.N.J., 90
F.2d 998— U. S. v. Wilson, C.C.A.
Wash., 85 F.2d 444 — Hiawassee
Lumber Co. v. U, S., C.C.A.N.C.,.
49 0. J. S. JUDGMENTS § 230
court has no power after expiration of the term to | open or vacate the judgment,^ except in either
64 F.2d 417 — Board of Com'rs of
Muskogee County v. Merely, C.C.A.
Oki:, 6 F.2d 553— Canning v. Hack-
ett, D.C.Mass., 3 F.Supp. 460.
AJa.— Corpus Juris cited in Sisson v.
Leonard, 11 So.Sd 144, 146, 243 Ala,
546 — Ex parte Bergeron, 193 So.
113, 238 Ala. 665— Ex parte How-
ard, 142 So. 403, 22-5 Ala. 106—
Gabbert v. Gabbert, 117 So. 214,
217 Ala. 599.
Ariz.— In re Ralph's Estate, 67 P.2d
230, 49 Ariz. 391.
Ark. — Bright v. Johnson, 152 S.W.2d
5-40, 202 Ark. 751— Bank of Rus-
sellville v. Walthall, 96 S.W.2d
952, 192 Ark. 1111— Evans v. U. S.
Anthracite Coal Co., 21 S.W.2d 952,
180 Ark. 578 — Browning v. Wai-
drip, 273 S.W. 1032, 169 Ark. 261.
Colo.— Osborne v. MacDonald, 8 P.2d
707, 90 Colo. 292.
Conn. — Foley v. George A. Douglas &
Bro., 185 A. 70, 121 Conn. 377—
Corpus Juris cited in Ferguson v.
Sabo, 162 A, 844, 845, 115 Conn.
619, certiorari denied 53 S.Ct. 595,
289 U.S. 734, 77 L.Ed. 1482.
Del.— Smulski v. H. Feinberg Fur-
niture Co., 193 A, 585, 8 W.W.Harr.
451. <mt
Fla.— State ex rel. Coleman v. Wil-
liams, 3 So:2d 152, 147 Fla. 514—
Alabama Hotel Co. v. J. L. Mott
Iron Works, 98 So. 825, 86 Fla. 608.
Ga. — Crowell v. Crowell, 11 S.E.2d
190, 191 Ga. 36 — Frazier v. Beasley,
1 S.E.2d 458, 59 Ga.App. 500—
Rogers v. Rigell,' 188 S.E. 704, 183
Ga. 455— Farmers Mut. Fire Ins.
Co. of Georgia v. Pollock, 184 S.E.
383, 52 Ga.App. 603— Jill Bros. v.
Holmes, 150 S.E. 921, 40 Ga.App.
625.
Hawaii. — Goo v. Hee Fat, 3'4 Ha-
waii 123.
111.— People ex rel. McDonough v.
Klein, 186 N.E. 533, 353 111. 80
—People v. Lyle, 160 N.E. 742,
329 111. 418— Village of Downer's
Grove v. Glos, 147 N.E. 390, 316
111. 583— Marabia v. Mary Thomp-
son Hospital of Chicago for Wo-
men and Children, 140 N.E. 836
309 111. 147— Chicago Title & Trust
Co. v. Gottschalk, 45 N.E.2d 194
316 HLApp. 455— Schmahl v. Au-
rora Nat. Bank, 35 N.E.2d 689, 311
HLApp. 228 — Chicago Faucet Co. v
839 Lake St. Bldg. Corporation, 1
N.E.2d 865, 285 Ill.App. 151— Quig-
ley v. Quigley, 268 Ill.App. 130—
Walentarski v. Racine, 264 IlLApp
369 — Nelson v. Arcola State Bank,
261 HLApp. 421.
Ind.— Wagner v. McFadden, 31 N.E
2d 628, 218 Ind. 400— Scheiring v
Baker, 177 N.E. 866, 202 Ind. 67?
— Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.
177 N.E. 45'4, 202 Ind. 641.
Iowa. — COrpns Juris cited in Concan
non v. Blackman, 6 N.W.2d 116
119, 232 Iowa 722.
Kan.— Elliott v. Elliott, 114 P.2d 823,
154 Kan, 145— State v. Frame, 95
P.2d 278, 150 Kan. 646— Shope v.
Shope, 89 P.2d 859, 149 Kan. 754
— Bigler v. Goltl. 64 P.2d '39, 145
Kan. 191— Riley v. Riederer, 61 P.
2d 106, 1414 Kan. 422— Drury v.
Drury, 41 P.2d 1032, 141 Kan. 511
— J. B. Colt Co. v. Clark, 266 P. 41,
125 Kan. 722— Heston v. Finley,
236 P. 841, 118 Kan. 717.
Ky.— Schlenker v. Clarkr 11 S.W.2d
725, 226 Ky. 665— People's Bank &
Trust Co. v. Sleet, 4 S.W.2d 689.
223 Ky. 749— Nelson v. Cartmel, 6
Dana 7.
Mo.— City of St. Louis v. Franklin
Bank, 173 S.W.2d 837, 351 Mo. 688
—Smith v. Smith, 164 S.W.2d 921,
350 Mo. 104— Seigle v. First Nat.
Co., 90 S.W.2d 776, 338 Mo. 417,
105 A.L.R. 181— Corpus Juris cited
in JBtna Ins. Co. v. Hyde, 34 S.W.
2d 85, 87, 327 Mo. 115— Johnson v.
Underwood, 24 S.W.2d 133, 324 Mo.
578—state ex rel. Maple v. Mulloy,
15 S.W.2d 809, 322 Mo. 281— Clancy
v. Herman C. G. Luyties Realty
Co., 10 S.W.2d 914, 321 Mo. 282
— Madden v. Fitzsimmons, 150 S.
W.2d 761, 235 Mo.App. 1074.
N.J.— Somers v. Holmes, 177 A, 434,
114 N.J.Law 497.
N.Y. — Walzer v. Manufacturers Trust
Co., 290 N.T.S. 879, 160 Misc. 803,
affirmed 290 N.Y.S. 880, 248 App.
Div. 865, affirmed 12 N.E.2d 452,
276 N.T. 507.
Ohio.— Davis v. Teachnor, App,, 53
N.E.2d 208— Corpus Juris auoted in
Kinsman Nat. Bank v. Jerko, 25
Ohio N.P..N.S., 445, 456.
Okl.— Harder v. Woodside, 165 P.2d
841 — Great American Ins. Co. v,
Keswater, 268 P. 258, 131 Okl. 196
— McNac v. Kinch, 238 P. 424, 113
Okl. 59 — Pennsylvania Co. v. Pot-
ter, 233 P. 700, 108 Okl. 49— Mc^Tac
v. Chapman, 223 P. 350, 101 Okl.
121.
Or. — Hicks v. Hill Aeronautical
School, 286 P. 553, 132 Or. 545 —
Smith v. Rose, 265 P. 800, 125 Or.
56— Western Land & Irrigation Co.
v. Humfeld, 247 P. 143, 118 Or
416 — Finch v. Pacific Reduction &
Chemical Mfg. Co., 234 P. 296, 113
Or. 670.
Pa.— Commonwealth v. Wright, Oyer
& T., 33 DeLCo. 254.
Tenn.— Sullivan v. Eason, 8 Tenn.
App. 429— Everett v. Everett, 1
Tenn.App. 85.
Tex. — Arrington v. McDahiel, 25 S
W.2d 295, 119 Tex. 148— Federal
Surety Co. v. Cook, 24 S.W.2d 39'4
119 Tex. 89 — O'Neil v. Norton, Com
App., 33 S.W.2d 733— Collins v
Davenport Civ.App., 192 S.W.2d
291 — Railroad Commission v. Dyer
Civ.App., 144 S.W.2d 375— Render-
son v. Stone, 'Civ.App., 95 S.W.2
772, error dismissed.
439
Utah.— Frost v." District Court of
First- Judicial District in and for
Box Elder County, 83 P-2d 737, 96
Utah 106, rehearing denied 85 P.
2d 601, 96 Utah 115.
.— Baker v. Gaskins, 36 S.E.2d
893— Chaney v. State Compensa-
tion Com'r, 33 S.E.2d 284— Stan-
nard Supply Co. v. Delmar Coal
Co., 158 S.E. 907, 110 W.Va. 560.
Wyo.— Bales v. Brome, 105 P.2d 568,
56 Wyo. Ill— Midwest Refining Co.
v. George, 7 P.2d 213, 44 Wyo. 25 —
Boulter v. Cook, 234 P. 1101, 32
Wyo. 461, rehearing denied 236 P.
245, 32 Wyo. 461.
34 C.J. p 210 notes 10, 11.
In determining whether federal
court lost jurisdiction to modify
udgment by expiration of term, case
should be deemed as belonging to di-
vision in which county was situated
from which removal was made, — Up-
ton-Lang Co. v. Metropolitan Casual-
ty Ins. Co. of New York, C.C.A.Pa.,
57 F.2d 133.
Judgment on petition fox new trial
is "final Judgment" and cannot be
modified by the court rendering it at
a subsequent term on a motion for a
new trial.— Wilhoit v. Nicely, 134 S.
W.2d 615, 280 Ky. 793.
15. U.S.— Aderhold v. Murphy, C.C.
A.Kan., 103 F.2d 492 — Sun Indem-
nity Co. of New York v. U. S., C.C.
A.N.J., 91 F.2d 120— Beyer v. Mc-
• George, C.C.A.N.J., 90 F.2d 998—
Mallinger v. U. S., C.C.A.Pa., 82
Ft2d 705— Upton-Lang Co. v. Met-
ropolitan Casualty Ins. Co. of New
York, C.C.A.Pa., 57 F.2d 133—
Woods Bros. Const. Co. v. Yank-
ton County, S. D., C.C.A.S.D., 54 F.
2d 304, 81 A.L.R. 300— Ayer v.
Kemper, C.C.A.N.Y., 48 F.2d 11,
certiorari denied Union Trust Co.
of Rochester v. Ayer, 52 S.Ct. 20,
284 U.S. 639, 76 L.Ed. 543— Henry
v. U. S., C.C.A.Pa., 46 F.2d 640—
Kulesza v. Blair, C.C.A.I11., 41 F.2d
439, certiorari denied 51 S.Ct. 86,
282 U.S. 883, 75 L.Ed. 779 — Bach»3
v. Moe, D.C.Ohio, 33 F.2d 976—
Roman v. Alvarez, C.C.A.Puerto
Rico, 30 F.2d 813— U. S, v. Ali, D.
CMich., 20 F.2d 998 — G. Amsinck
& Co. v. Springfield Grocer Co.,
C.C.A.MO., 7 F.2d 855 — Ex parte
Robinson, D.C.Tex., 44 F.Supp. 795
— Heffern v. The De Witt Clinton,
• D.C.N.Y., 44 F.Supp. 550— U. S; v..
Clatterbuck, D.C.Md., 26 F.Supp.
297— Borough of Hasbrouck
Heights, N. J., v. Agrios, D.C.N.J.,
10 F.Supp. 371 — U. S. v. Manger, D.
C.N.J., 7 F.Supp. 720 — Canning v.
Hackett, D.C.Mass., 3 F.Supp. 460.
Ala.— Pate v. State, 14 So.2d 251, 2-44
Ala. 396— Ex parte Bergeron, 193
So. 113, 238 Ala. 665— Ex parte
Howard, 142 So. 403, 225 Ala. 106
—Ex parte Fidelity & Deposit Ch.
§ 230 JrDGUENTS 49 C. J. 8.
case pursuant to proceedings begun within the proper time and continued to the subsequent term;
of Maryland, 134 So. 861, 223 Ala.
98 — Monroe County Growers' Exch.
v. Harper, 103 So. 600, 20 Ala.App.
532.
Ariz.— In re Ralph's Estate, 67 P.2d
230, 49 Ariz. 391— Mosher v. Dye,
39 P.2d 639, 44 Ariz. 555.
Ark.— Feild v. Waters, 1 S.W.2d S07,
175 Ark. 1169— McConnell v. Hour-
land, 299 S.W. 44, 175 Ark. 253—
Browning v. Waldrep, 273 S.W.
1032, 169 Ark. 261.
Cal. — Casner v. San Diego Trust &
Savings Bank, 94 P.2d 65, 34 Cal.
App.2d 52'4.
Colo. — Osborne v. MacDonald, 8 P.2d
707, 90 Colo. 292— Monte Vista Po-
tato Growers' Co-op. Ass'n v. Bond,
252 P. 813, 80 Colo. 516.
Conn. — Foley v. George A. Douglas
& Bro., 185 A. 70, 121 Conn. 377 —
Application of Title & Guaranty
Co. of Bridgeport to Change Xame
to Bankers' Security Trust Co.,
145 A. 151, 109 Conn. 45.
Del. — Smulski v. H. Peinberg Furni-
ture Co., 193 A, 585, 8 W.W.Harr.
451 — Hazzard v. Alexander, 178 A.
873, 6 W.W.Harr. 512— Tweed v.
Lockton, 167 A. 703, 5 W.W.Harr.
474.
D.C. — Yerkouteren v. Edwards, 128
P.2d 33, 76 U.S.App.D.C. 18— Fidel-
ity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v.
Hurley, 72 F.2d 927, 63 App.D.C.
377— Taliaferro v. Carter, 72 F.2d
172, 63 App.D.C. 304.
Fla. — Cassels v. Ideal Farms Drain-
age Dlst, 23 So.2d 247— State ex
rel. Coleman v. Williams, 3 So.2d
152, 147 Fla, 514— Zemurray v. Kil-
gore, 177 So. 714, 130 Fla. 317—
Kroier v. Kroier, 116 So. 753, 95
Fla. 865,
Ga.— Peoples Loan Co. v. Allen, 34
•S.E.2d 811, 199 Ga. 537— Smith v.
Cone, 15-6 S.E. 612, 171 Ga, 697—
Loughridge v. City of Dal ton, 143
S.B. 39»3, 166 Ga. 323— Gulf Life
Ins. Co. v. Gaines, 179 S.E. 199, 50
Ga.App. 50-4 — Jill Bros. v. Holmes,
150 S.E. 921, 40 Ga.App. 625.
111.— Wilson v. Fisher, 17 N.E.2d 216,
369 111. 538— Checker Taxi Co. v.
Industrial Commission, 174 N.E.
84'9, 343 111. 139— McCorcl v. Briggs
& Turivas, 170 N.E. 320, 33'8 111.
15-S— Shoup v. Cummins, 1'66 N.E.
118, 3<34 111. 533, 65 A.L.R. 887—
Loew y. Krauspe, 150 N.E. 683, 320
111. 244 — People v. Omega Chapter
of Psi Upsilon Fraternity, 150 N.E.
677, 320 111. 326— Noonan v.
Thompson, 83 N.E. 426, 231 111. 588
—Continental 111. Nat. Bank &
Trust Co. of Chicago v. Universi-
ty of Notre Dame Du Lac, 63 N.
E.2d 127, 32« 111. App. 567— Chicago
Faucet Qo. v. 839 Lake St. Bldg.
•Corporation, 1 N.E.2d 865, 285 111.
App. 151 — People ex rel. Nelson v.
Farmers & Merchants 'State Bank
of Mendota. 281 IlLApp. 854—
Travelers Ins. Co. v. Wagner, 279
111. App. 13— Hamilton Glass Co. v.
Borin Mf0'. Co., 248 IlLApp! 301.
Ind.— Irwln v. State, 41 X.E.2d $09,
220 Ind. 228.
Kan. — Hoffman v. Hoffman, 135 P.2d
SS7, 156 Kan. 647— Keys v. Small-
wood, 102 P.2d 1001, 152 Kan. 115
— Gaston v. Collins, 72 P.2d "84,
146 Kan. 449— Bigler v. Goltl, 64
P.2d 39. 145 Kan. 191— Thornton
v. Van Horn, 37 P.2d 1015, 140
Kan. 5'6-S.
Ky. — First State Bank v. Asher, 117
S.W.2d 581, 273 Ky. 574— Faulk-
ner v. Faulkner, 110 S.W.'d 465,
270 Ky. 693— Warfleld Natural Gas
Co. v. Endicott, 99 S.W.2d 822,
266 Ky. 735— Fidelity & Columbia
Trust Co. v. Huffman, 82 S.W.2d
482, 2-59 Ky. 477— Bobbins v. Hop-
kins, 65 S.W.2d 54, 251 Ky. 413—
Stratton & Terstegge Co. v. Begley,
61 S.W.2d 287, 249 Ky. 632— Sandy
Hook Bank's Trustee v. Elliott
County Fiscal Court, -58 S.W.2d
'$37, 248 Ky. 498— Center's Guard-
ian v. Center, 51 S.W.2d 460, 244
Ky. 502— Crawford v. Riddle, 45
S.W.2d 463, 241 Ky. 839— Brown's
Adm'r v. Gabhart, 23 S.W.2d 551,
232 Ky. 336— Malnowski v. Stacy,
20 S.W.2d 1008, 231 Ky. 23— Com-
monwealth v. Partin, 3 S.W.2d 779,
223 Ky. 405— Barnes v. Montjoy's
Adm'r, 290 S.W. i349, 217 Ky. 465
—Watts v. Noble, 262 S.W. 1114,
203 Ky. 699— Cooper v. Williamson,
248 S.W. 245, 198 Ky. 62.
Md. — Armour -Fertilizer Works, Divi-
sion of Armour & Co. of Del. v.
Brown, 44 A.2d 753.
Mich. — Moebius v. McCracken, 246
N.W. 163, 261 Mich. 409.
Miss.— Strain v. Gayden, 20 So.2d 697,
197 Miss. 353— Evans v. King-Peo-
ples Auto Co., 99 So. 758, 135 Miss.
194.
Mo, — City of St. Louis v. Franklin
' Bank, 173 S.W.2d 837, 351 Mo. 688
— State ex rel. Holtkamp v. Hart-
mann, -51 S.W.2d 22, 3<30 Mo. 386—
Harrison v. Slaton, 49 S.W.2d 31 —
People's Bank of Glasgow v. Yager,
4-6 S.W.2d 585, 329 Mo. 767— Sut-
ton v. Anderson, 31 S.W.2d 1026,
326 Mo. 304 — Johnson v. Under-
wood, 24 S.W.2d 133, 324 Mo. 678
— Johnson v. Baumhoff, 18 S.W.2d
13, 322 Mo. 1017— State ex rel.
Maple v. Mulloy, 15 S.W.2d 809,
322 Mo. 281— Bess v. Bothwell,
App., 163 S.W.Sd 125— State ex reL
Caplow v. Kirkwood, App., 117 S.
W.2d 652— Haight v. Stuart, App.,
31 -S.W.2d 241.
.— Hamaker v. Patrick, 244 N.W.
420, 123 Neb. 809.
N.J. — Somers v. Holmes, 177 A. 434,
114 N.J.Law 497.
N.Y.— Kalwite v. National Liberty
Ins. Co. of America, 233 N.T.S.
440
183, 225 App.Div. 898, appeal d.s-
missed 170 N.E. 136, 252 N.Y. 542.
N.C.— Clark v. Cagle, '37 S.E.2d 672.
226 N.C. 230— Crow v. McCullen, 17
S.E.2d 107, 220 N.C. 306— State v.
Hollingsworth, 175 S.E. 99, 206 N.
C. 739 — Hinnant v. American Fire
& Marine Ins. Co., 168 S.E. 199
(first case), 204 N.C. 307— Bisanar
r. Suttlexnyre, 138 S.E. 1, 193 N.C.
711—1 Dunn v. Taylor, 121 S.E. 65S,
187 N.C. 385.
Ohio. — Mosher v. Mutual Home &
Savings Ass'n, App., 41 N.E.2d 871
— Rabinovitz v. Novak, App., 31 N.
E.2d 151— Pfeiffer v. Sheffield, 27
N.E.2d 494, 64 Ohio App. 1— Corpus
Juris quoted in Kinsman Nat.
Bank v. Jerko, 25 Ohio N.P..N.S.,
445, 456.
Okl.— Savery v. Mosely, 76 P.2d 902,
182 Okl. 133 — 'Fowler v. Humphrey
Inv. Co., 286 P. 867, 142 Okl. 221—
Okmulgee Northern Ry. Co. v. Ok-
lahoma Salvage & Supply Co., 271
P. 167, 1«33 Okl. 64— McNac v.
Kinch, 238 P. 424, 113 Okl. 69—
McNac v. Chapman, 223 P. 350, 101
Okl. 121.
Or. — Hicks v. Hill Aeronautical
School. 2'S'6 P. -553, 132 Or. 545—
Western Land & Irrigation Co. v.
Humfeld, 247 P. 143, 118 Or. 416.
Pa.— York v. George, 39 A.2d 625, 850
Pa. 439— 'Frantz v. City of Phila-
delphia, -3 A.2d 917, 333 Pa. 220—
Dellacasse v. -Floyd, 2 A.2d 860,
332 Pa. 218 — Dormont Motors v.
Hoerr, 1 A.2d 493, 132 Pa.Super.
567— Kappel v. Meth, 189 A. 795,
125 Pa. Super. 443^Citizens' Bank
v. Gwinner, 170 A. 471, 112 Pa.Su-
per. 12 — Schlosberg v. City of New
Castle, 100 Pa.Super. 139— Abram-
son v. Getz, 89 Pa. Super. 403 —
Brader v. Alinikoff, 85 Pa. Super.
285— Petition of 'Lissi, 16 Pa.Dist.
& Co. 787, 23 Berks Co. 255— Knip-
per v. B. & L. E. Traction Co., 9
PaJDist. & Co. 235, 8 Erie Co. 112,
74 Pittsb;Leg.J. 564— McKenzie Co.
v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Mary-
land, Com.Pl., 54 Dauph.Co. 294 —
Levitt v. Wayne Title & Trust Co.,
Com.Pl., 29 Del.Co. 558— Wanner v.
Thompson, Com.Pl., 27 iDeLCo. 455
—Allied Store Utilities Co. v. Azat
Com.Pl., 34 Luz.Leg.Reg. 41— Pitts-
ton Building & {Loan Ass'n v. Cog-
gins, 'Com.Pl., 31 Luz.Leg.Reg. 345.
Tenn.— Battle v. National Life & Ac-
cident Ins. Qo., 157 S.W.2d 817, 17&
Tenn. 283.
Tex. — Lanier v. Parnell, Civ.App., 190
S.W.2d 421— Aldridge v. General
Mills, Civ.App., 188 S.W.2d 407—
Smith v. Pegram, Civ.App., 80 S.W.
2d 354, error refused — Pfeifer v.
Johnson, Civ. App., 70 S.W.2d 203 —
Bell v. Rogers, Civ.App., 58 S.W.2d
.$78 — Pass v. Ray, Civ.App., 44 S.
W<2d 470— Keller v. Keller, Civ.
App., 3 S.W.2d 590, error dismissed
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 230
in such cases the proceedings remain in fieri, and reenter it as of a later date for the purpose of ex-
the court may open, amend or vacate the judgment ' tending, or reviving, the time for appeal there-
at the subsequent term.16 The court may not, after from.17 The only remedy after the term for ir-
the expiration of the term, set aside a judgment and regular and erroneous, as distinguished from void,
— Texas & N. O. R. Co, v. Owens,
Civ.App., 299 S.W. 516— Kahl v.
Porter, Civ.App., 296 -S.W. 324—
Phoenix Oil Co. v. Illinois Torpedo
Co., Civ.App., 261 S.W. 487— Lepp
v. Ward County Water Improve-
ment Dist., No. 2, Civ.App., 257 S.
W. 916 — Wier v. Tates, Civ.App.,
25*6 S.W. 636— Silver v. State, 9 S.
W.2d 358, 110 Tex.Cr. 512, 60 A.L.
R. 290.
W.Va. — Baker v. Gaskins, 36 S.E.2d
893— Chaney v. State Compensation
Com'r, 3'3 S.E.2d 284— County Court
of Mason County v. Roush, 142 S.
•E. 520, 105 W.Va. 355.
^•jS. — Osmundson v. Lang, 290 N.W.
125, 233 Wis. 591— State ex rel.
Wingenter v. Circuit Court for
Walworth County, 248 .N.W. 413,
211 Wis. 561.
Wyo.— Boulter v. Cook, 234 P. 1101,
32 Wyo. 461, rehearing denied 236
P. 245, 32 Wyo. 461.
34 C.J. p 210 note 10, p 212 note 12.
Opening and vacating see infra §§
265^310.
Setting aside dismissal and rein-
statement of cause after close of
term see Dismissal and Nonsuit §§
41, 79.
for rule
<t) Basis of rule that court is
without power to modify or vacate
Judgment in other than clerical mat-
ters after expiration of term in
which It was rendered is that in In-
terest of public as well as parties
time must be fixed after expiration
of which controversy is regarded as
settled. — Foley v. George A. Douglas
& Bro., 185 A. 70, 121 Conn. 377.
(2) Other cases see 34 C.J. p 212
note 12 [a].
Judgment should, not be lightly set
aside after expiration of terra at
which rendered. — Dunlap v. Villareal,
Tex.Civ.App., 91 S.W.2d 1124.
Rule ordinarily refers to Judg-
ments recovered after trial or by de-
fault, where defendant has, or is
treated as having, knowledge of
judgment — Denton Nat. Bank of
Maryland v. Lynch, 142 A. 103, 155
Md. 333.
Time limit is not when right of ex-
caption expires, but rather is the end
of the term. — Deen v, Baxley State
Bank, 15 «S.B.2d 19-4, 192 Ga, 300.
Where court did not enter Judg-
ment and prothonotary's entries were
insufficient, rule that judgment can-
not be disturbed after term of entry,
except on appeal, does not control. —
Trestrail v. Johnson, 146 A. 150, 297
Pa. 49.
Judgment vacating previous judg-
ment
Ga. — East Side 'Lumber & Coal Co. v.
Barfleld, 18 S.B.2d 492, 193 Ga. 273.
Judgment rendered in vacation
Ky. — Hurd v. Laurel County Board
of Education, 103 S.W.2d 277, 267
Ky. 7*30 — Clark County Nat. Bank
v. Rowan County Board of Educa-
tion, 89 S.W.2d $38, 262 Ky. 153,
overruling Center's Guardian v.
Center, '51 S.W.2d 460. 244 Ky. 502
— Estes v. Woodford, 55 S.W.2d
396, 24'6 Ky. 485.
Miss.— Ex parte Stanfield, 53 So. 538,
98 Miss. 214.
Portion of judgment vacated dur-
ing term may not be reinstated after
expiration of term. — 'Furst v. Meek,
180 -S.W.2d 410, 297 Ky. 509.
16, U.S.— Windholz v. Everett, C.C.
A.N.C., 74 F.2d 834, followed in
Blackley v. Powell, 74 F,2d 1009—
Montgomery v. Realty Acceptance
Corporation, C.C.A.DeL, <51 P.2d 642,
affirmed Realty Acceptance Corpo-
ration v. Montgomery, 52 S.Ct. 215,
284 U.S. 547', 76 'L.Ed. 476— Ex
parte Robinson. iD.C.Tex., 44 F.
Supp. 79-5 — Canning v. Hackett, D.
C.Mass., 3 'F.'Su-pp. -460.
Ala.— Pate v. State, 14 So.2d 251, 244
Ala. 396.
Conn. — Ferguson v. Sabo, 162 A. '844,
115 Conn. 619, certiorarl denied 53
S.Ct. 595, 289 U.S. '734, 77 L.Ed.
14132— -Application of Title & Guar-
anty Co. of Bridgeport to Change
Name to Bankers1 Security Trust
Co., 145 A. 151, 109 Conn. 45.
Del. — Hazard . v. Alexander, 178 A.
87*3, 6 W.W.Harr. 512.
Fla,— E. B. Elliott €o. v. Turrentine,
151 So. 414, 113 Fla. 210— State v.
Wright, 145 So. 598, 107 Fla. 178.
Ga.— 'Frazier v. Beasley, 1 -S.E.2d 458,
'5'9 Ga.App. 500 — Hardwick v. Sha-
han, 118 S.E. 575, 30 Ga.App. 526.
Ky.— Riggs v. Ketner, 187 S.W.2d
287, 299 Ky. "754 — Welch v. Mann's
Ex'r, 88 S.W.2d 1, 2-61 Ky. 470—
Lilly v. Marcum, 283 S.W. 1059, 214
Ky. 514.
Mo.— -S3tna Ins. Co. v. Hyde, 34 S.
W.2d 85, 327 Mo. 115— Herrmann v,
Kaiser, App., 85 S.W.2d 928.
Ohio. — Pfeiffer v. Sheffield, 27 N.E.2d
49-4, 64 Ohio App. 1— Corpus Juris
auoted in Kinsman Hat. Bank v.
Jerko, 25 Onio NT.P.,N.S., 445, 45*6.
Okl. — Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Da-
vis, 147 P.2d 185, 194 Okl. 84
Riddle v. Cornell, 135 P.2d 41,
192 Okl. 232 — Canada v. Canada,
121 P.2d 989, 190 Okl. 203— Nichols
, V. Bonaparte, 42 P.2d 866, 171 Okl.
441
234— Martin v. Jones, 33* P. 458,
111 Okl. 101.
Or.— Hicks v. Hill Aeronautical
•School, 286 P. 553, 132 Or. 54-5 —
Finch v. Pacific Reduction &
Chemical Mfg. Co.. 234 P. 296, 113
Or. 670.
Pa. — Stein v. Kessler, '92 Pa.Super.
359 — Commonwealth v. Wright,
Oyer & T., 33 DeLCo. 254.
Tex. — Duclos v. Applin, Civ.App., '66
S.W.2d 1105.
W.Va. — Womeldorff & Thomas Co. v.
Moore, 152 S.E. 783, 108 W.Va. 721
— Bank of Gauley v. Osenton, 114
S..E. 435, '92 -W.Va. 1.
Wyo.— Ramsay v. Gottsche, 69 P.2d
535, 51 Wyo. 516.
34 C.J. «p 214 note 13.
Sufficiency of proceedings
(1) In absence of motion for new
trial, district court's attempted modi-
fication of judgment, more than thir-
ty days after rendition but in same
term, could not form predicate for
modification of judgment at subse-
auent term.— Hardy v. McCulloch.
Tex.Civ.App., 286 S.W. 629.
(2) Motions to modify or to vacate
a judgment, when not acted on dur-
ing the term, have been held not t*
confer, jurisdiction to modify or va-
cate at a subsequent term. — Hoffman
v. Hoffman, 135 P.2d 887, r5»6 Kan.
647.
(3) Other cases. — Ayer v. Kemper,
•C.C.A.N.Y., 48 F.2d 11, certiorari de-
nied Union Trust Co. of Rochester
V. Ayer, 52 S.Ot. 20, 284 U.S. '639, 76
LuEd. 543—34 C.J. p 214 note 1« [b]-
[h].
Motion for new trial
(1) Where a motion for a new tri-
al is made and continued over the
'term, it suspends the finality of the
judgment so that the court may
modify or set it aside at a subse-
quent terra. — Luther Lumber Co. v.
Sheldahl Sav. Bank, 139 P. 433, 22
Wyo. 302.
(2) Pendency of motion for new
trial does not authorize court to re-
open cause at subsequent term for
taking further evidence and entering
another decree. — Irwin v. Burgan, 28
S.W.2d 1017, 32-5 Mo. 309.
Order within term suspending- all
proceeding* to keep way open for
further action was within court's
discretion. — Stein v. Kessler, 92 Pa.
Super. 3-59,
17. U.S.— Board of Com'rs of Musk-
ogee C.ounty v." Morely, C.C.A.OkL,
6 F.2d'o53.
230
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
judgments is usually by new trial, review, writ of
error, or appeal, as may be appropriate and allow-
able by law, or by some other mode specially pro-
vided by statute.18
Exceptions to rule. There are various exceptions
to the rule that jurisdiction of a court over its judg-
ments terminates with the close of the term.19
Clerical or formal corrections or amendments of the
judgment record, necessary to make it speak the
truth, and not involving any change in the judicial
action already taken, may be made at any time,
before or after expiration of the term.20 Judg-
18L U.S. — Arcoil Mfg. Co. v. Amer-
ican Equitable Assur. Co. of New
York, C.C.A.N.J., 87 F.2d 206—
U. S. v. Manger, D.C.N.Y., 7 F.
Supp. 720.
Ark. — Hagen v. Hagen, 183 S.W.2d
785. 207 Ark. 1007— Robertson v.
Cunningham, 178 S.W.2d 1014, 207
Ark. 76— Merriott v. Kilgore, 139
S.W.2d S87, 200 Ark. 394— Bank of
Russellville v. Walthall, 96 S.W.2d
952, 192 Ark. 1111 — IFawcett v.
Rhyne, 63 S.W.2d '349, 187 Ark. 940
—Merchants' & Planters' Bank &
Trust Co. v. Ussery, 38 S.W.2d
10S7, 183 Ark. 838.
Fla, — Alabama Hotel Co. v. J. L.
Mott Iron Works, 98 So. 825, *6
Fla. 608.
Ga. — Donalson v. Bank of Jakin, 127
S.E. 229, 33 Ga.App. 428.
Ill._Wilson v. Fisher, 17 N.E.2d 216,
•369 111. 538— Katauski v. Eldridge
Coal & Coke Co., 255 Ill.A-pp. 41—
Hickman v. Ritchey Coal Co., 252
IlLApp. 560— Toth v. Samuel Phil-
lipson & Co., 250 IlLApp. 247.
Iowa. — Concannon v. Blackman, >6 N.
W.2d 116, 232 Iowa "722.
Kan.— Sparks v. Maguire, 169 P.2d
82 s— Hoffman v. Hoffman, 13'5 P.
2d 887, 156 Kan. 647 — Keys v.
Smallwood, 102 P.2d 1001, 152 Kan.
115— Riley v. Riederer, 61 P.2d 106,
144 Kan. 422.
Ky. — House v. Rawlings, 177 S.W.2d
562, 296 Ky. -578— Swartz v. Caudill,
1'30 S.W.2d 80, 279 Ky. 206— 'First
State Bank v. Asher, 117 S.W.2d
»5'81, 273 Ky. 574— Faulkner v.
•Faulkner, 110 S.W.2d 465, 270 Ky.
693— Sauerman Bros. v. Roberts,
100 S.W.2d 225, 286 Ky. 815—
Schlenker v. Clark, 11 S.W.2d 725,
226 Ky. '665 — Newman v. Ohio Val-
ley Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 299 S.
W. 559, 221 Ky. 616— Duff v. Duff,
265 S.W. 305, 205 Ky. 10.
Md. — Armour Fertilizer Works Divi-
sion of Armour & Co. of Del. v.
Brown, 44 A.2d 753.
Mo. — Johnson v. Underwood, 24 S.
W.2d 133, '324 Mo. 678— Robinson
v. Martin Wunderlich Const. Co.,
App., 72 S.W.2d 127 — Goodman v.
Meyer, App., «8 S.W.2d 268.
Neb.— Stanton v. Stanton, 18 N.W.
2d '654 — State ex rel. Spillman v.
Commercial State Bank of Omaha,
10 N.W.2cl 2818, 143 Neb. 4-90-—
(Feldt v. Wanek, £78 N.W. S-57, 134
Neb. 334— Elvidge v. Brant, 267 N.
W. 169, 131 Ne-b. 1— Cronkleton v.
Lane, 263 N.W. 388, 130 Neb. 17—
Hoeppner v. Bruckman, 2*61 N.W.
572, 129 Neb. 390— Howard Stove &
Furnace Co. v. Rudolf, 260 N.W.
189, 128 Neb. 665 — Lyman v. Dunn,
2-52 N.W. 197, 125 Neb. 770— State
ex reL Sorensen v. Security State
Bank of Plain view, 251 N.TT. 97,
125 Neb. 516.
N.C.— Phillips v. Ray, 129 S.E. 177,
190 N.C. 152.
Ohio. — State ex rel. Bell v. .Edmond-
son, App., 43 N.B.2d 108— Maryland
Casualty Co. v. John F. Rees Co.,
App., 40 N.K2d 200— State ex rel.
Hussey v. Hemmert, App., «37 N.E.
2d 668— Dusha v, Binz, 155 N.B.
256, 23 Ohio App. 285— Corpus Ju-
ris quoted in Kinsman Nat Bank
v. Jerko, 25 Ohio N.P.,N.S., 445,
456.
Okl.— Harder v. Woodside, 165 P.2d
841— Savery v. Mosely, 76 P.2d 902,
182 Okl. 133— Purcell Wholesale
Grocery Co. v. Cantrell, 2-55 P. 704,
124 Okl. 2T3— Taliaferro v. Batis,
252 P. 845, 123 Okl. 59— American
Inv. Co. v. Wadlington, 244 P. 43-5,
114 Okl. 124— First Nat. Bank v.
Smith, 241 P. 761, 115 Okl. 119—
Pennsylvania Co. v. Potter, 233 P.
700, 10'S Okl. 49.
Or. — Rosumny v. Marks, 246 P. 723,
118 Or. 248.
Tex. — Smith v. Ferrell, «Com.App., -44
S.W.2d 962— Universal Credit Co. v.
Cunningham, Civ. App., 109 S.W.2d
507, error dismissed.
Utah.— Salt Lake City v. Industrial
Commission, 22 P.2d 104J6, 82 Utah
179.
W.Va.— Aide v. Amburgey, 148 S.E.
326, 107 W.Va. 370— County Court
of Mason County v. Roush, 142 S.
B. 520, 105 W.Va. 355.
Wls. — Amalgamated Meat Cutters &
Butcher Workmen of N. A., A. F. of
•L. Xiocal Union No. 73 v. Smith, 10
N.W.2d 114, 243 Wis. 390— Kel-
logg-Cltizens Nat. Bank of Green
Bay v. "Francois, 3 N.W.2d 68"6, 240
Wis. 432— State ex rel. Gaudynski
v. Pruss, 290 N.W. 2-89, 233 Wis.
600 — In re Meek's Estate, 227 N.
W. 270, 199 Wis. 602.
Wyo. — Corpus Juris cited in Ramsey
v. Gottsche, 69 P.2d 535, #39, 51
Wyo. 516.
84 C.J. p 215 note 15.
19. Del.— Webb Packing Co. v. Har-
mon, 193 A. 596, 8 W.W.Harr. 476.
Ohio. — Maryland Casualty Co. v.
John 'F. Rees Co., App., 40 N.B.2d
200.
Fa, — Kappel v. Meth, 189 A. 795, 125
Pa. Super. 4-43.
Tex. — Halbrook v. Quinn, Civ.App.,
286 S.W. 954, certified Questions
442
dismissed Quinn v. Halbrook, 285
S.W. 1079, 115 Tex. 1079.
"These exceptions may be sum-
marized as follows: (1) where the
subject is governed by statute, (2)
the correction of a clerical error, (3)
where the judgment has been en-
tered by misprision of a clerk, (4)
errors of law disclosed by the rec-
ord or where it appears that there
are errors in matters of fact which
have not been put in issue and
passed upon, and were material to
the validity and regularity of the
proceedings, and (5) where from the
record it is apparent that the judg-
ment is void in law." — Goo v. Hee
Fat, 34 Hawaii 123, 127.
Tendency in modern judicial pro-
cednre is to minimize or abandon
the significance of the mere expira-
tion of the term of court as no long-
er having the importance attached to
it under other conditions .prevailing-
at common law. — U. S. v. Clatter-
buck, D.C.Md., 26 F.Supp. 297.
Where record shows that defend-
ants have been deprived of rights
given by law, judgments have been
vacated. — Webb Packing Co. v. Har-
mon, 193 A, 596, 8 W.W.Harr., Del.,
476.
20. U.S.— Gilmore v. U. S., C.C.A.
Ark., 131 F.2d 873— In re Pottasch
Bros. Co., D.C.N.Y., 11 F.Supp. 275,
affirmed, C.C.A., 79 F.2d $1«3— Ex
parte Robinson, D.C.Tex., 44 F.
Supp. 795.
Ala.— Ex parte French, 147 So 631,
22-6 Ala. 297.
Ark.— Richardson v. Sallee, 183 S.W.
2d 508, 207 Ark. 915— Bright v.
Johnson, 152 S.W.2d 540, 202 Ark.
751— Kory v. 'Less, 87 S.W.2d 92,
183 Ark. 553— Evans v. U. 43. Anth-
racite Coal Co., 21 S.W.2d 952, 180
Ark. 578.
Conn.— Gruber v. Friedman, 132 A.
395, 104 Conn. 107.
D.C. — Verkouteren v. Edwards, 128
F.2d 33, 76 U.S.App.D.C. 18— Fidel-
ity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v.
Hurley, 72 F.2d 927, 63 App.D.C.
•377.
I1L— Quigley v. Quigley, 268 IlLApp.
130.
Iowa. — Murnan v. Schuldt, 265 N.W.
36-9, 221 Iowa 242.
Kan.— Bush v. Bush, 150 P.2d 168,
1-58 Kan. 760— Elliott v. Elliott 114
P.2d 823, 154 Kan. 145— North
. American Life Ins. Co. of. Chicago,
111., v. Dyatt, 250 P. "341, 121 Kan.
«73.
49 O.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 230
ments entered as the result of clerical mistake or
inadvertence,21 or which are void on their face,22
may be vacated after expiration of the term.
Where a judgment is irregular by reason of er-
ror or mistake of fact, such as was ground for a
writ of error coram nobis, the practice in some ju-
risdictions permits it to be opened or vacated on
motion after the term;23 but this exception does
not reach to facts submitted to a jury, or found
by a referee or by the court sitting to try the is-
sues.24 In some cases equitable relief against the
judgment has been granted in a summary way on
motion after the term to avoid the expense and de-
lay of a formal suit in equity,25
Statutes in some states confer on the court which
rendered the judgment a prescribed and limited
control over it after expiration of the term at which
it was rendered.26 Statutory judgments entered
by the clerk, and which may be entered in vaca-
tion, are not within the general rule ;27 and it has
been held that in statutory proceedings the judg-
ment may be opened at a subsequent term where
there is due diligence.28
Interlocutory judgments. The rule against
amending or vacating a. judgment after expiration
of the term at which it was rendered has no ap-
plication to interlocutory judgments, and such judg-
ments may be opened, amended, or vacated at any
time while the proceedings remain in fieri, and be-
fore the final judgment,29 and a statute making such
Me.-0avis v. Cass, 142 A. 377, 127,
Me. 167.
Mo,— Campbell v. Spotts, 55 S.W.2d
986 331 Mo. 974 — Vaughn v. Kan-
sas City Gas Co., 159 S.W.2d 690,
236 Mo.App. $69 — -Ex parte Mes-
sina, 128 S.W.2d 1082, 23-3 Mo.App.
1234.
Mont.— Morse v. Morse, 154 P.2d 982
— State ex reL Kruletz v. District
Court of Fifth Judicial Dist. in
and for Beaverhead County, 98 P.
2d 883, 110 Mont. 36.
Xeb.— Petersen v. Dethlefs, 298 N.W.
155, 139 Neb. 572.
N.H. — Hubley v. Goodwin, *4 A.2d
* 665, 90 N.H. 54.
N.M.— De Baca v. Sais, 99 P.2d 106,
44 N.M. 105.
«pex. — Jones v. Bass, Com.App., 49
S.W.2d 723 — Collins v. Davenport,
Civ.App., 192 S.W.2d 291 — De ILeon
v. Texas Employers Ins. Ass'n, Civ.
App.. 159 S.W.2d 574, error refused
— Kveton v. 'Farmers Royalty
Holding Co., Civ.App., 149 S.W.2d
998 — Duncan v. Marlin Motor Co.,
Civ.App.f 41 S.W.2d 740, error re-
fused—Bray v, -Clark, Civ.App., 9
S.W.2d 203, error dismissed.
yt. — St. Pierre v. Beauregard, 152 A.
914, 103 Vt. 258.
Wash.— Pappas v. Taylor, 244 P. 393,
138 Wash. 31.
W.Va.— Chaney v. State Compensa-
tion Com'r, 33 S.E.2d 2S4.
Wis.— JEtna Life Ins. Co. v. McCor-
mick, 20 Wis. 265.
Wyo.— Bales v. Brome, 105 P.2d 568,
56 Wyo. 111.
Correction of clerical and formal er-
'rors generally see infra §§ 237
239-249.
Power of court exists "by virtue of
continuing' power over its records
and right of parties to have a cor-
rect record without instituting an
independent suit to obtain it—Weav-
er v. Humphrey, Tex.Civ.App., 114
S.W.2d 609, error dismissed.
Jnterlooutory order
Wyo.— Bales v. Brome, 105 P.2d 568
56 Wyo. 111.
21. 111. — Chapman v. North Ameri-
can Life Ins. Co., 126 N.E. 732, 292
111. 179.
Wis.— JEtna Life Ins. Co. v. McCor-
mick, 20 Wis. 265.
Grounds for opening and vacating
generally see infra §§ 2:66-281.
L Del.— Hendrix v. Kelley, 143 A.
480, 4 W.W.Harr. 120.
Miss. — Home v. Moorehead, 153 So.
668, 169 Miss. "362.
Mo. — Case v. Smith, 257 S.W. 148,
215 Mo.Apfc. 621.
Okl.— Skipper v. Baer, 277 P. 930,
136 Okl. 2-86.
«34 C.J. p 215 note 18.
Judgment is "void on its face,"
when, it reqtOres only inspection of
the judgment roll to show its in-
validity.— Anderson v. Lynch, 221 P.
415, 94 Okl. 137.
23. U.-S.— Gilmore v. U. S., C.C.A.
Ark., 131 'F.2d 873 — Hiawassee
Lumber Co. v. U. S., C.C.A.N.C., 64
F.2d 417.
111.— Gunn v. Britt, 39 N.E.2d 76, 313
IlLApp. 13.
34 C.J. p 215 note 20.
Writ of error coram nobis see infra
§§ -311-313.
24. U.S. — Bronson v. Schulten, N.
Y., 104 U.S. 410, 26 L.Ed. 997,
34 C.J. p 216 note 21.
25. U.S. — Bronson v. Schulten, su-
pra.
34 C.J. p 216 note 22.
Equitable relief against judgments
see infra §§ 341-400.
26. Iowa.— Albright v. Moeckley,
237 N.W. 309.
Minn. — Elsen v. State Farmers Mut
Ins. Co., 17 N.W.2d '652, 219 Minn.
315.
Okl. — Carter v. Grimmett, 213 P
732, 89 Okl. 37.
Wis. — Osmundson v. Lang, 290 N.W
125, 2*38 Wis. 591.
Wyo. — Midwest Refining -Co. v
George, 7 P.2d 213, 44 Wyo. 25—
Boulter v. Cook, 236 P. 245, 32
Wyo. 461.
34 C.J. p 216 note 23, p 221 note 54
443
27. Cal. — People v. Greene, 16 P.
197, 74 CaL '400, 5 Am.S.R. 448.
34 C.J. p 216 note 24.
I Pa. — M. A. Long Co. v. Keystone
Portland Cement Co., 153 A. 429,
302 Pa. 308— Kantor v. Herd, 120
A. 450, 276 Pa. 519.
29. Ala.— Scott v. Leigeber, 18 So.
2d 275, 245 Ala. 58"3— Ooipus Juris
cited in Ex parte Green, 129 So.
72, 73, 221 Ala. 298.
Conn. — Stolman v. Boston Furniture
Co., 180 A. 507, 120 Conn. 235.
(Fla.— State v. City of Sarasota, 17
So.2d 109, 154 -Fla, 2-50— Whitaker
V. Wright, 129 'So. S'89, 100 Fla. 282
—Alabama Hotel Co. v; J. L. Mott
Iron Works, 98 So. 825, SB Fla, 608.
111. — Parsons v. Parsons 'Lumber Co.,
27 N.E.2d 477, 305 Ill.App. 486.
Ind. — State ex reL Unemployment
Compensation Board of Unemploy-
ment Compensation Division v.
Burton, 44 N.E.2d 506, 112 Ind.
App. 268.
Iowa.^Riley v. Board of Trustees of
Policemen's Pension Fund, 222 N.
W. 403, 207 Iowa 177.
y.— Corbin v. Corbin, 176 S.W.2d
«691, 29'6 Ky. 276— Wilcoxen v.
'Farmers' Nat Bank of Scottsville,
10 S.W.2d 298, 225 Ky. 764.
Mo. — Corpus Juris cited in Barlow
V. Scott, 85 S.W.2d 504, 519.
N.T.— Bannon v. Bannon, 1 N.E.2d
975, 270 N.T. 484, 105 A.-L.R. 1401.
Pa.— Markofski v. Tanks, 146 A. 569.
297 Pa. 74.
Tex. — Manley v. Razien, Civ.App., 172
•S.W.2d 798 — Standard Oil Co. v.
•State, Civ.App., 132 S.W.2d 612, er-
ror dismissed, judgment correct —
Blain v. Broussard, Civ.Aj?p., 99
S.W.2d -993 — Ellis v. Jefferson
Standard Life Ins. Co., Civ.App.,
78 S.W.2d 645 — Brannon v. Wilson,
Civ.App., 260 S.W. 201.
Utah.— Richards v. District Court of
Weber Qounty, 267 P. 779, 71 Utah
473.
Va.— Freezer v. Miller. 176 S.E. 159,
163 Va. 180.
Wyo.— Corpns Juris cited in Bales v.
§ 230
JUDGMENTS
49 C. J. S.
a judgment appealable does not change the rule.30
Removal of cause. When a cause is remanded to
the state court after removal to a federal court, the
state court again has the same jurisdiction it had
at the time of removal, and may open, amend, or
vacate a judgment notwithstanding the lapse of a
term if it could have done so at the time of re-
moval.31
Effect of improper amendment or vacation after
term. According to some decisions any change or
modification or attempted vacation of the judgment
itself at a subsequent term is beyond the jurisdic-
tion of the court and is void for that reason.32 Ac-
cording to other decisions, however, where an im-
proper amendment in a matter of substance has
been made, the order making such amendment, while
erroneous, is not void, and may not be assailed col-
laterally; the party aggrieved must seek his reme-
dy by appeal from the order.33
b. Void Judgments
A judgment which is void for want of jurisdiction
may be vacated at a subsequent term.
Where a judgment is entirely void for want of
jurisdiction, the power to vacate it or set it aside is
not limited to the term at which it was rendered, but
may be exercised at a succeeding term,34 subject
to any existing statutory provisions.35 A judgment
of a court of last resort may not be set aside after
the term on the ground that the court had no ju-
risdiction.36
c. Reservation of Power in Judgment
A reservation in the Judgment of power to amend
or vacate it at a subsequent term does not enlarge or
extend the authority of the court.
An attempted reservation in the judgment itself
of power to amend or vacate it at a subsequent
term does not enlarge or extend the authority which
the court otherwise has in that behalf.37 A new or
amended judgment rendered at a subsequent term
pursuant to such reservation is without jurisdic-
tion and void, and the prior judgment continues in
force.38
Brome, 105 P.2d 5*8, 574, =56 Wyo.
111.
34 C.J. p 216 note 30 — 47 C.J. p 4'35
note 10, p 43'6 note 24.
Final or interlocutory Judgment see
supra § 11.
Interlocutory decrees In equity see
Equity § «624.
Ruling on pleading-
Trial court, when it becomes satis-
fied that erroneous ruling has been
made concerning a pleading, should
set aside such ruling. — Shaw v. Dor-
ris, 124 N.E. 796, 290 111. 196— Mater
v. Silver Cross Hospital, 2 N.B.2d
138, 285 IlLApp. 437.
In Georgia
The court cannot revoke interlocu-
tory rulings made at preceding term,
notwithstanding cause is still pend-
ing and no final judgment on merits
has been rendered. — Gulf iLife Ins.
Co. v. Gaines, 179 S.E. 199, 50 Ga.
App. 504.
30. Mo.— Aull v. Day, 34 S.W. 578,
133 Mo. 3-37.
31. 111. — Jansen v. Grimshaw, 17 N.
E. 'S'50, 125 111. 46S.
32. U.-S. — In re Metropolitan Trust
Co. of City of New York, N. Y., 31
S.Ct 18, 218 U.S. 312, 54 L.Ed.
1051.
34 C.J. p 216 note 27.
Validity of second judgment
Second judgment, entered after ex-
piration of term, expunging judg-
ment timely entered from record,
was void. — Hubbard v. Trinity State
Bank, Tex.Civ.App., 48 S.W.2d 379,
error dismissed.
33. N.Y.— Stannard v. Hubbeli; 25 N.
E. 1084, 123 N.Y. 520.
Trial court's opening judgment,
after end of term during which it
was rendered, is erroneous but not
void. — Simpson v. Young Men's
Christian Ass'n of Bridgeport, 172 A.
•855, 118 Conn. 414.
34. U.S.— U. S. v. Sotis, C.C.A.I11.,
131 F.2d 783— Corpus Juris guoted
in Woods Bros. Const Co. v. Yank-
ton County, S. D., C.C.A.S.D., '54
F.2d 304, 310 — Corpus Juris cited
in U. S. v. Turner, C.C.A.N.D., 47
JF.2d 86, 88.
Ala. — Corpus Juris cited in Ex parte
B. H. Byrd Contracting Co., 156 So.
579, 581, 26 Ala.App. 171.
Del. — Hazzard v. Alexander, 178 A.
873, 6 W.W.Harr. 512.
•Fla. — State ex rel. Coleman v. Wil-
liams, 3 So.2d 152, 147 Fla. 514.
Ga. — Hamilton v. Hardwick, 170 S.E.
826, 47 Ga.App. 513.
111. — In re Johnson's Estate, 277 111.
App. '319 — Heckman v. Ritchey
Coal Co., 252 IlLApP. 560.
Kan. — Sparks v. Maguire, 169 P.2d
826.
Mo. — Corpus Juris cited in In re
Main's Estate, App., 152 S.W.2d
696, 701 — Corpus Juris, cited in
•Dickey v. Dickey, App., 132 S.W.2d
1026, 1032.
N.J.— Pink v. Deering, -4 A.2d 790,
122 N.J.Law 277, motion denied
17 A.2d 603, 12-5 N.J.Law 569.
N.Y. — Corpus Juris cited in People
v. Ashworth, 56 N.Y.S.2d 791, 793,
185 Misc. 391.
Ohio. — Synder v. Clough, 50 N.E.2d
384, 71 Ohio App. 440— McAllister
v. Schlemmer & Graber Co., 177
N.E. '841, 39 Ohio App. 434— Corpus
Juris quoted in Kinsman Nat.
444
Bank v. Jerko, 25 Ohio N.P.,N.S.,
445, 457.
Or. — Finch v. Pacific Reduction &
Chemical Mfg. Co., 234 P. 296, 113
Or. 670.
Pa. — Stickel v. Barren, Com.Pl., 7
Ffcy.L.J. «35.
Tex. — Corpus Juris clte4 ia Harri-
son v. Whiteley, Com.App., 6 S.W.
2d 89, 90— Nymon v. Eggert, Civ.
App., 154 S.W.2d 157.
34 C.J. p 217 note 32.
Especially where defect appears on
record, authority of court to set aside
void judgment continues beyond ex-
piration of term. — Harrison v. White-
ley, Tex.Com.App., 6 S.W.2d 89.
Tiling answer did not deprive
court of jurisdiction to (pass on mo-
tion to set aside void judgment ren-
dered before service of summons. —
Kastner v. Tobias, 282 P. 585, 129
Kan. 321.
35. Ohio. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Kinsman Nat Bank v. Jerko, 25
Ohio N.P.,N.S., '445, 457.
34 C.J. p 219 note 33.
36. Ohio.— Corpus Juris quoted in
Kinsman Nat. Bank v. Jerko, 25
Ohio N.P.,N.S., 445, 4'57.
Wis. — State v. Waupaca County
Bank, 20 Wis. 640.
34 C.J. p 219 note 34.
37. U.S. — Corpus Juris quoted In
Woods Bros. Const. Co. v. Yank-
ton County, C.C.A.S.D., 54 F.2d
304, 310, 81 A.LJR. 300
Okl. — Corpus Juris citei* *n Consoli-
dated School Disk No. Ib » Green,
71 P.2d 712, 714, 1'SO Okl. 557.
34 C.J. p 219 note 35.
3a Mo.— Hill v. St Louis, 30 Mo.
584.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 232
d. Consent and Waiver
The authorities are In disagreement on the question
whether or not a judgment rendered at one term of
court can be set aside at a subsequent term by consent
of both parties.
On the ground that consent cannot confer ju-
risdiction, it has been held that a judgment rendered
ac one term of court cannot be set aside at a sub-
sequent term even by consent of both parties,39
except where the judgment was entered by reason
of a clerical mistake or inadvertence.40 Other
courts have held that, although a court may not
amend or vacate its own final judgments, after ex-
piration of the term at which they were rendered
without the consent of both parties, it may do so
with such consent, and the second judgment in such
cases is not void for want of jurisdiction.41 Parties
who consent to the amendment of a judgment have
been held to be estopped from afterward objecting
to it.42 Appearance on application to amend judg-
ment after term, however, has been held to con-
fer no jurisdiction to make it.43
§ 231. Where Terms Abolished
Where terms of court have been abolished, relief
against a final judgment may be had In the manner and
within the time provided by statute.
Where terms of court are abolished, and the court
is deemed to be continuously in session, as con-
sidered in Courts § 148, the general rule of control
during the term, as discussed supra § 229, has no
application,44 and relief against a final judgment
may be had only in the manner and within the time
provided by statute,45 except that judgments inad-
vertently or improvidently made, or prematurely
entered, may be vacated under the inherent power
of the court,46 and 'judgments void on their face
may be vacated at any time.47
§ 232. At Chambers or in Vacation
In the absence of statutory authority, a Judgment
ordinarily may not be amended, opened, or vacated at
chambers or in vacation.
Except as to purely clerical amendments of the
record,48 the exercise of the power to amend, open,
or vacate a judgment is a judicial act which, unless
otherwise authorized by statute, must be performed
in open court, in term time, and which cannot be
done at chambers or in vacation.49
39. Tenn. — Everett v. Everett, 1
Tenn.App. 85.
34 C.J. p 219 note 37.
40. Tenn. — Anderson v. Thompson,
7 Lea 259.
41. 111.— Steinhagen v. Trull, 151 N.
B. 250, 320 111. 382— Reisman v.
Central Mfg. Dist. Bank. 45 N.E.
2d 90, 316 IU.APP. 371— Hickman
v. Ritchey Coal Co., 252 IlLApp.
S60.
Tex. — Slattery v. Uvalde Rock As-
phalt Co., Civ.App., 140 S.W.2d 987,
error refused.
34 C.J. -p 220 note 39.
Consent not shown
N.C.— Clark v. Cagle, 37 S.E.2d 672,
226 N.C. 230.
Persons not parties to stipulation
are not bound. — Western Land & Ir-
rigation Co. v. Humfeld, 2*47 P. 143,
118 Or. 416.
In Arkansas
(1) A valid agreement between
the parties that a foreclosure decree
be vacated is enforceable, although
the term at which the decree was
rendered has expired. — 'Franzen v.
Juhl, «32 S.W.2d 627, 182 Ark. 663.
(2) It has also been held, however,
that consent of parties will not au-
thorize vacation of judgment after
the expiration of the term. — Brady
v. Hamlett, 33 Ark. 105— Little Rock
v. Bullock, 6 Ark. 282.
42. Wis. — Steckmesser v. Graham,
10 Wis. 37.
43. Mo.— Ross v. Ross, 83 Mo. 100.
34 C.J. p 220 note 41,
44. U.S.— U. S. v. Maier, 18 C.C.P.
A., Customs, 409.
N.D. — Bank of Inkster v. Christen-
son, 194 N.W. 702, 49 N.D. 1047.
34 C.J. p 220 note 43.
45. U.S.— IT. S. v. Maier, 18 C.C.P.A.,
Customs, 409.
Ala.— Pate v. State, 14 So.2d 2-51, 244
Ala. 396.
Ariz. — In re Ralph's Estate, 67 P.2d
230, 49 Ariz. 391 — Intel-mountain
Building & Loan Ass'n v. Allison
Steel Mfg. Co., 22 P.2S '413, 42
Ariz. 51.
111. — McKenna v. Fonnan, 283 111.
App. 606.
Xy. — Hutchinson v. Hutchinson, 168
S.W.2d 738, 293 Ky. 270— Straton &
Terstegge Co. v. Begley, 61 S.W.2d
287, 24-9 Ky. «632.
Mont. — In re Jennings' Estate, 254
P. 1069, 79 Mont 80— In re Jen-
nings' Estate. 254 P. 1067, 79 Mont.
73 — stabler v. Adamson, 237 P.
•4<S3, 73 Mont. 490.
S.D.— Janssen v. Tusha, 5 N.W.2d
684, 68 S.D. 6*39.
Tex. — Joy v. Young, Civ.App., 194 S.
W.2d 159.
34 C.J. p 220 note 44, p 221 note 54.
Independent suits
Rule fixing time applies only to
motions in original cause and not to
independent suits to set aside judg-
ment.— Lauer v. Eighth Judicial Dis-
trict Court in and for Clark County,
140 P.2d 953, 62 Nev. 78.
46. N.D.— Martinson v. Marzolf, 103
N.W. 937, 14 N.D. 301.
34 C.J. p 220 note 45.
445
47. CaL— JLuckenbach v. Krempel.
204 P. 591, 188 Cal. 175.
Nev. — 'Lauer v. Eighth Judicial Dis-
trict Court in and for Clark Coun-
ty, 140 P.2d 953, 62 Nev. 78.
3-4 C.J. p 220 note 46,
48. Tex.— Ft. Worth & D. C. R. Co.
r. Roberts, 81 S.W. 25, 98 Tex. 42
— Baum v. Corsicana Nat. Bank,
75 S.W. 863, 32 Tex.Qiv.App. 581,
error refused.
34 C.J. p 220 note 48.
Amendment and correction of. cleri-
cal errors generally see infra §§
237, 239-249.
49. Ga. — O'Neal v. Neal Veneering
Co., 143 S.B. 381, 166 Ga. 376—
Davis v. Bennett, 125 S.B. 714, 15D
Ga. 332— Davis v, Bennett, 128 S.E.
11, 158 Ga. 368— Revels v. Kilgo,
121 S.R 209, 1-57 Ga. 39— Atlantic
Coast Line R. Co. v. Devero, 173
S.E. 885, 48 Ga.App. 800.
Okl.— Appeal of Barnett, 252 P. 41$,
122 Okl. 169 — Appeal of Barnett,
252 P. 410, 122 Okl. 160.
34 C.J. p 220 note 50, p 221 note 51.
Consent of parties
(1) It has been held that a motion
to vacate may be made and heard in
vacation by consent of parties. —
Skinner v. Terry, 12 S.E. 118, 107 N.
C. 103.
(2) Under some statutes a judge
at chambers, except by consent of
parties to be affected, has no juris-
diction to modify or correct decree
of district court — Nicholson v. Get-
chell, 202 N.W. 618, 113 Neb. 248.
§ 233
§ 233. Authority of Clerk
Unless authorized by statute, the clerk of court Is,
-without power to amend, correct, or vacate a Judgment.
Except to the extent that permission may be giv-
en by statute,50 the clerk of the court has no au-
thority on his own responsibility and without an
order or direction of the court to amend, change, or
correct a judgment record.51 A court may not dele-
gate its judicial functions to its clerk so that he may
set aside a judgment on the performance of a condi-
tion.52
§ 234. Judgments Subject to Amendment or
Vacation
Various classes and kinds of Judgments may be
amended or vacated, but a void Judgment, or a Judg-
ment which has been vacated, may not be amended.
In proper cases and for sufficient cause shown,
-various classes and kinds of judgments may be
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
amended or vacated,53 including, as considered in-
fra §§ 321, 328-330, 333, judgments by confession,
consent, or default.
Where the court does not render a formal or
proper judgment, there is no judgment to vacate.54
An unauthorized and void judgment may not be
amended ;55 nor may a vacated judgment be amend-
ed^
A judgment on demurrer, where proper grounds
exist, may be vacated with leave to amend or plead
over.57
Executed or satisfied jiidgments. In some juris-
dictions a judgment may be opened, amended, or
vacated for good cause, even after the amount of
it has been collected by payment or by levy and
sale on execution.58 In other jurisdictions a judg-
ment which has been paid or otherwise satisfied
(3) It has also been held that ju-
risdiction to vacate judgment at
chambers cannot -be conferred by
agreement. — Moody v. «Freeman, 104
P. 30, 24 Okl. 701.
•Proceeding1 "begun, in. vacation
A judgment passed in term time in
a proceeding begun in vacation,
-which judgment sets aside a judg-
ment ^previously entered, was not
void for lack of jurisdiction.— Revels
v. Kilgo, in S.B. 209, 157 Ga. »39—
Kalil v. Spivey, 27 S.B.2d 475, 70 Ga.
.App. 84.
.50. N.C.— Caldwell v. Caldwell, 128
S.E. 329, 189 N.C. SOS.
Motion to vacate may be made be-
fore judge or clerk for irregularity
of judgment entered by clerk of su-
perior court — Caldwell v. Caldwell,
supra.
Decision of clerk is reviewable by
judge
!N.C.— Caldwell v. Caldwell, supra,
.51. U.S.— Barnes v. iLee, D.C., 2 -F.
Cas.No.1,017, 1 Cranch C.C. 430.
34 C.J. p 221 note 52.
JSxercise of judicial functions by
clerk generally see Clerks of
Courts §§ 3*4-37.
52. N.C. — Hopkins v. Bowers, 16 S.
E. 1, 111 N.C. 175.
34 C.J. p 221 note 53.
53. Ala. — Louisville & N. R. Co. v.
Bridgeforth, 101 So. 807, 20 Ala.
App. 326.
Ariz. — Hartford Accident & Indem-
nity Co. v. -Sorrells, 69 P.2d 240,
50 Ariz. 90.
N.Y. — McCormick v. Walker, 142 N.
T.S. T59, 158 App.Div. 54.
54 C.J. p 224 note 6*.
Amendment, modification, and vaca-
tion of orders see the C.J.3. title
Motions and Orders § 62, also 42 C.
J. p 541 note 17 et sea.
Amendment, opening, and vacation
of interlocutory judgments after
term see supra § 230 a.
Correction and vacation of decrees in
equity see Bauity §§ 622-667.
Effect of filing transcript in other
court on power to amend or vacate
see supra § 129.
Setting aside dismissal or nonsuit
and reinstatement of cause see
Dismissal and Nonsuit §§ 40-44,
7S-85.
Statute authorizing* court to modi-
fy or set aside its Judgment for
good cause shown applies to all judg-
ments and not simply to default
judgments or judgments that are er-
roneous.—Holmes v. Center, 295 N.
W. 649, 209 Minn. 144.
judgment on directed verdict
Tex. — Zachary v. Home Owners Loan
Corporation, Civ.App., 117 S.W.2d
153, error dismissed.
Judgment entered on failure to pre-
sent exceptions
Mass.— Russell v. -Poley, 179 N.E.
1619, 278 Mass. 145.
Judgment for partition
Kan.— Daleschal v. Geiser, 13 P. 595,
36 Kan. 374.
47 C.J. p 436 notes 15, 17, 23.
Judgments based on jury verdict
do not come within court's discre-
tionary power to revise or vacate
during term of entry. — J. S. Scho-
fteld's Sons Co. v. Vaughn, 150 S.E.
569, 40 Ga.App. 568— Grogan v. Der-
aney, 1'43 S.E. 912, 38 Ga.App. 287.
54. I1L — Robinson v. (Stewart, 252
IlLAjpp. 203.
Stipulation
The filing, prior to trial, of stip-
ulation which stated "settled no
costs," and which had the effect of
terminating the action, was not a
"Judgment" within statute authoriz-
446
ing person, against whom judgment
has been rendered in action wherein
no trial has been had, to petition su-
preme court for a trial, since no act
or determination of trial court was
involved in bringing about such ter-
mination.— Girard v. Sawyer, 9 A.2d
854, 64 R.I. 48.
55. N.T. — Ainsworth v. Ainsworth,
267 N.Y.S. 587, 239 App.Div. 2'58—
American Cities Co. v. Stevenson,
60 N.T.S.2d 685.
Tex. — Ashton v. -Farrell & Co., Civ.
App., 121 S.W.2d 611, error cUs-
missed.
34 C.J. p 225 note 67.
Judgment declared void by appellate
court
Ala.— Ex pane S. & R. McLeod, 104
So. 688, 20 Ala.App. 641.
Void judgment cannot be made val-
id 'by amendment — Wunnicke v.
Xieith, Wyo., 157 P.2d 274.
56. N.C. — Carolina-Tennessee Power
Co. v. Hiawassee River Power Co.,
88 S.E. 349, 171 N.C. 248.
57. N.D. — Taylor State Bank v.
Baumgartner, 147 N.W. 385, 27 N.
D. $06.
34 C.J. p 224 note 63 [b]— 49 C.J. p
465 note 81.
5a Cal.— Patterson v. Keeney, 132
P. 1043, 165 Cal. 465, Ann.Cas.
1914D 232.
Ky. — Williams v. Isaacs, 256 S.W. ±9,
201 Ky. 158.
34 C.J. p 225 note 6'8.
Irrespective of tender of amount
of judgment "by defendant in open
court, court of common -pleas, dur-
ing term on its own motion and in
interests of justice, has inherent
power to strike off judgment entered
against defendant. — Bergen v. Lit
Bros., '45 A.2d 373, 158 PaJSuper. 469,
affirmed, Sup., 47 A.2d 671.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 236
and discharged may not be amended,59 modified,60
or vacated.61
§ 235. Jurisdiction of Particular Courts and
Judges
A judgment ordinarily may be amended, opened, or
vacated only by the court by which it wasi rendered.
A judgment may not be amended or vacated by
a court unless the court has jurisdiction.62 As a
general rule a judgment may be amended, opened,
vacated, or set aside only by the court by which it
was rendered.63 A judge of that court, other than
the one who presided at the trial and rendered the
judgment, may order its amendment or vacation,64
although, as a matter of practice, what amounts to
an appeal from one judge to another coordinate
judge will not be permitted in the absence of spe-
cial circumstances.65
The jurisdiction of the proper court to amend
the judgment is not affected by defendant's absence
from the state, jurisdiction of his person having at-
tached in the action,66 or by the fact that similar
relief has already been granted to a joint party.67
Courts of special or limited jurisdiction. Unless
authority is conferred by statute, courts of special
or limited jurisdiction have no power to review, re-
try, annul, or set aside their judgment*.68
. B. AMENDMENT AND CORRECTION
§ 236. In General
The general rule is that a court may amend Its Judg-
ment as truth requires and the rules of law permit, so
as to make it express what was actually decided or in-
tended.
As a general rule, all courts whose judgments are
preserved in any species of record or memorial have
the power and authority to make such amendments
and corrections therein as truth and justice require
and the rules of law permit,69 to the end that the
59. Miss.— Spring- v. Tidwell, 31
Miss. 63.
Tvjeb. — Durlana Trust Co. v. Uttley,
172 N.W. 2-51, 103 Neb. 461.
34 C.J. p 225 note. 69.
60. La. — Sweeney v. Black River
Lumber Co., 4 La.App. 244.
61. N.C.— Pardue v. Absher, 94 S.B.
414, 174 N.C. $76.
34 C.J. p 225 note 70.
62. Iowa,— Albright v. Moeckley,
237 N.W. 309.
Power of probate court see CJourts §
309 c.
Superior court has general juris.,
diction over subject matter of setting
aside judgments rendered therein. —
State v. Superior Court for Thurston
County, 271 P. 87, 149 Wash. 443.
63. Ga. — Jackson v. Jackson, -35 S.
E.2d 258, 199 Ga. 716— Barber v.
Barber, 121 S.B. 317, 157 Ga. 188—
City of Albany v. Parks, 5 S.E.2d
680, 61 Ga.App. 55.
Iowa.— Hansen v. McCoy & McCoy,
266 N.W. 1, 221 Iowa 523.
Ky. — Kaze v. Wheat's Guardian, 4 S.
W.2d 723, 223 Ky. 719.
Mich. — Jackson City Bank & Trust
. Co. v. Fredrick, 260 N.W. «0«8, 271
Mich. 538.
N.Y.— Harvey v. Harvey, 48 N.Y.S.2d
238, 183 Misc. 475— Feinberg v.
•Feinberg, 41 N.T.S.2d 869, 180
Misc. 305.
N.C. — Gaster v. Thomas, 124 S.B.
609, 188 N.C. 3"46.
Ohio.— Buckeye State Building &
Loan Co. v. Ryan, 157 N.B. 811, 24
Ohio App. 481.
Pa — Frew v. Heinbach, Com.PL, $
Sch.Reg. 91.
Tex.— Texas-Carolina Oil Co. v.
Fires, 4'8 S.W.2d 600, 121 Tex. 396.
34 C.J. p 225 note 75.
Collateral attack see infra §§ 401-
435.
Effect of filing transcript in other
court on power to amend or vacate
see supra § 129.
Jurisdiction to grant equitable relief
see infra § 342.
Vacating, modifying, or annulling
decisions of other courts see
Courts §§ 501, 552.
Appellate court is without juris-
diction to vacate judgment of trial
court.
CaL— Bank of Italy v. B. N. Cadenas-
so, 274 P. 534, 20>6 Cal. 436.
Wis,— Milwaukee County v. H. Neid-
ner & Co., 265 N.W. 226, 220 Wis.
185, motion denied 266 N.W. 238,
220 Wis. 185.
34 C.J. p 225 note 75 [b].
64. Conn. — Gruber v. Friedman, 132
A. 395, 104 Conn. 107.
Mass. — Commonwealth v. Gedzium,
159 N.B. 51, 261 Mass. 299.
Neb.— State Life Ins. Co. of Indian-
apolis, Ind., v. Heffner, 269 N.W.
629, 131 Neb. 700.
S.<X— Bx parte Hart, 2 S.E.2d 52, 190
S.C. 47-3, certiorari denied Bowen
v. Hart, 60 S.Ct. 82, 308 U.S. 569,
84 L.Ed. 477.
34 C.J. p 227 note 76.
Powers of:
Substitute or special judge see
Judges $ 105.
Successor judge see Judges $56.
65. N.Y.^Levy v. Kurak, 52 N.T.
S.2d 304, 184 Misc. 29.
-.C.— -Price v. Life & Casualty Ins.
447
Co. of Tennessee, 160 S.B. 367, 201
tf.C. 376.
£4 C.J. p 227 note 77.
68. La. — Smith T. Railroad Lands
Co., 45 So. 441, 120 La. 564.
Me.— Hall v. Williams, 10 Me. 278.
Jurisdiction once acquired over
the parties to a suit oon.tin.ueB as
long as action by the court for the
purpose of making a true record may
be necessary. — Hubley v. Goodwin, •*•
A.2d 665, 90 N.H. 54.
67. Miss.— Healy v. Just, 53 Miss,
547.
63. Ind.— Pass v. State, 147 N.E,
287, 83 tnd.App. 598.
Amendment and vacation by justice-
of peace see the C.J.S. title Justic-
es of the Peace §§ U2, 113, also 3&
C.J. p 677 note 47 et seq.
Courts of limited jurisdiction see
Courts §§ 244-248.
Circuit court commissioneri after1
judgment in summary proceedings by
vendors to repossess premises had
been entered on his docket and
signed by him, was without authori-
ty to make any alterations in docket
entry either by addition, deletion, or
change of name or figures. — Spring-
ett v. Circuit Court Com'r for Jack-
son County, 283 N.W. 857, 287 Mich.
271.
69. U.S.— Illinois Printing Co. v.
Electric Shovel Coal Corporation,.
D.C.I11., 20 F.Supp! 181.
Ark. — Kory v. Less, 37 »S.W.2d 92,
183 Ark. 553— United Drug Co. v.
Bedell, 2'62 S.W. 316, 164 Ark. 527.
Cal. — Olivera v. Grace, 122 P.2d 5-64,
19 CaL2d 570, 140 A.L.R. 1328 —
Leftridge v. City of Sacramento,.
§ 236
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
judgment may express what was actually decided or
intended.70 This power is inherent and independent
of statutes ;71 but the power to amend and correct
judgments is very largely regulated by statute in the
different jurisdictions.72
119 P.2d 390, 48 Cal.App.2d 589—
Carter v. Shinsako, 108 P.2d 27,
42 CaI.App.2d 9 — Phipps v. Superi-
or Court in and for Alameda Coun-
ty, 89 P.2d 698, 32 Cal.App.2d 371.
Colo. — Wilson v. Carroll, 250 P. 555.
SO Colo. 234.
Ind. — Corpus Juris cited in filler v.
Muir, 56 N.E.2d 496, 50'4, 115 Ind.
App. 335.
Mont — In re Jennings' Estate, 254 P.
1067, 79 Mont. 73.
N.H.— Hubley v. Goodwin, 4 A.2d
665, 90 N.H. 54.
N.Y.— American .Cities Co. v. Steven-
son, 60 N.Y.S.2d 685.
Tex. — Jones v. Bass, Com. App., 49
S.W.2d 723— Weaver v. Humphrey,
Civ.App., 114 S.W.2d 609, error dis-
missed— Corbett v. Rankin Inde-
pendent School Dist, Civ.App., 100
S.W.2d 113.
Wyo. — Corpus Juris cited in Bales v.
Brome, 105 P.2d 568, 572, 56 Wyo.
111.
34 C.J. p 228 note 80, p 229 note 82—
47 C.J. p 435 note 2.
After decision and mandate on ap-
peal see Appeal and Error § 1967.
Amendment and correction of Judi-
cial records generally see Courts
§§ 231-236.
Jurisdiction and power of court to
deal with judgments generally see
supra §§ 228-235.
Jurisdiction of probate courts to
amend or correct judgments or
orders see Courts § 309 c.
"If in fact the judgment fails to
set forth the court's determination of
the prior suit in accordance with
the record, it is the privilege of
the plaintiff to move for amendment
of the judgment to procure such re-
lief as the law affords." — O'Brien v.
New York Edison Co., D.C.N.Y., 26
•F.Supp. 290, 292.
Amendment or modification held not
shown
(1) It is not a modification of a
judgment of partition, which directs
the commissioners to proceed gen-
erally according to law, to give, in
a subsequent order appointing new
commissioners, specific instructions
following the statute, as every judg-
ment of partition contains the stat-
utory directions by implication, if
they are not expressed. — Houston v.
Blythe, 10 <S.W. '520, 71 Tex. 719.
(2) Other circumstances.
jf.J. — Terminal Cab Co. v. Mikolasy,
25 A.2d 253, 128 N.J.Law 275.
N.Y.— Siegel v. State, 246 N.Y.S. 652,
138 Misc. 474.
Motion for modification not required
Wnere both plaintiff and defendant
sought ejectment against the other
and court entered judgment denying
plaintiff relief but failed to pass on
issues raised by defendant's plead-
ing, plaintiff properly moved court
to enter a final judgment and was
not required to move for modifica-
tion of judgment entered and thus
invite error as moving court to find
against him on issues tendered by
his opponent.— State ex rel. Clark v.
Rice, 47 N.E.2d 849, 113 Ind.App. 238.
Revision by lay judges
The court may change its decision
on the day on which it is rendered,
so that, treating the prior decree of
president judge of court of common
pleas of county as that of the court,
it was still subject to revision as to
facts by a majority of lay judges
on the same day. — Petition of Mur-
ray, 105 A. 61, 262 Pa. 188.
70. Cal. — Phipps v. Superior Court
in and for Alameda County, S9 P.2d
698, 32 Cal.App.2d 371— In re East-
on's Estate, 28 P.2d 376, 136 Cal.
App. 213.
111. — Rogers v. Trudzinski, 67 N.E.
2d 427, 329 Ill.App. 170.
Kan.— Bush v. Bush, 150 P.2d 168,
158 Kan. 760.
Mont. — Morse v. Morse, 154 P.2d 9'82
— State ex rel. Vaughn v. District
Court of Fifth Judicial Dist. in
and for Madison County, 111 P.2d
810, 111 Mont. 552— State ex rel.
Kruletz v. District Court of Fifth
Judicial Dist. in ana for Beaver-
head County, 98 P.2d 883, 110 Mont.
3£— Kline v. Murray, 257 P. 465,
79 Mont 530 — State v. Silver Bow
County Second Judicial Dist. Ct,
176 P. «08, 55 Mont. 324.
N.J.— Terminal Cab Co. v. Mikolasy,
25 A.2d 253, 128 N.J.Law 275.
N.Y. — American Cities Co. v. Steven-
son, 60 N.Y.S.2d 6S5.
Pa. — Davis v. Commonwealth Trust
Co., 7 A.2d 3, 335 Pa, 387.
Tex. — Weaver v. Humphrey, Civ.
App., 114 S.W.2d 609, error dis-
missed.
As long as trial court has juris-
diction of the cause, it has the inher-
ent power to modify its judgment to
make it conform to the judgment
actually entered. — Penchos v. Ran-
ta, 155 P.2d 277, 22 Washed 198.
At any time
(1) A court may at any time cor-
rect a judgment so as to make it
conform to the decision actually
made.— Ben way v. Benway, 159 P.2d
682, 69 Cal.App.2d 574.
(2) This is true at least as be-
tween the parties. — Klinefelter v.
Anderson, 230 N.W. 288, 59 N.D. 417.
"XTo lapse of time, however long,
will preclude the correction of the
judgment roll so as to make it speak
448
precisely what the court Intended."
— Cazzell v. Cazzell, 3 P.2d 479. 480,
133 Kan. 766.
71. U.S.— Illinois Printing Co. v.
Electric Shovel Coal Corporation,
D.C.I11., 20 F.Supp. 181.
Cal.— In re Goldberg's Estate, 76 P.
2d 508, 10 Cal.2d 709 — Olivera v.
Grace, 122 P.2d 564, 19 Cal.2d 570,
140 A.L.R. 1328— Bastajian v.
Brown, 120 P.2d 9, 19 Cal.2d 209.
Mont. — Edgar State Bank v. Long,
278 P. 10'S, 85 Mont. 225— In re
Jennings' Estate, 254 P. 1067, 79
Mont 73.
Nev. — Lindsay v. Lindsay, 280 P.
95, 52 Nev. 26, 67 A.L.R. 824.
N.D. — Klinefelter v. Anderson, 230
N.W. 288, 59 N.D. 417.
Okl. — Montague v. State ex rel. Com-
missioners of Land Office of Okla-
homa, 89 P.2d 283, 184 Okl. 574.
Pa. — Davis v. Commonwealth Trust
Co., 7 A.2d 3, 335 Pa. 387.
Tex. — Collins v. Davenport, Civ.App..
192 S.W.2d 291— Weaver v. Humph-
rey, Civ.App., 114 S.W.2d «609, er-
ror dismissed.
Utah. — Garrison y. Davis, 54 P.2d
439, 88 Utah «358.
Wyo.— Corpus Juris cited in Bales v.
Brome, 105 P.2d 568. 572, 56 Wyo.
111.
34 C.J. p 228 note 81.
In Iowa-
(1) The power of the court to
modify a judgment, when once en-
tered, is purely statutory. — Hammon
v. Gilson, 291 N.W. 448, 227 Iowa
1366 — Workman v. District Court,
Delaware County, 269 N.W. 27, 222
Iowa 364.
(2) "When a clear mistake of fact,
due to misunderstanding honestly
made, is presented to the court at the
same term at which the entry is
made, both statutory authority (sec-
tion 10801, Code of 1935) and inher-
ent power is [are] vested in the
court to change, modify or even ex-
punge the record." — Watters v. Knut-
sen, 272 N.W. 420, 422, 223 Iowa 225.
(2) "The power and authority of
the court to correct an evident mis-
take is [are] not restricted either
by section 11550 or sections 12787,
12790, and 12791, but ...
suchi power is inherent in the court,
and [correction] may be made under
such inherent power as well as un-
der section 10803." — Murnan v.
Schuldt, 265 N.W. 369, 373, 221 Iowa
242.
72. CaL — Brown v, Jones, 52 P.2d
962, 11 CaLA*>p.2d 30.
Kan,— 4Leach v. Roberson, 52 P.2d
629, 142 Kan. 687.
Mass.— Araory v. Kelley, 34 N.K2d
507, 309 Mass. 163.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
237
It has been held that in the case of fraud, mis-
representation, or mistake relief must be granted by
a court by the correction of its decrees, in the in-
terests of justice;73 and, under some authorities,
a judgment procured through fraud, collusion, de-
ceit, or mistake may be modified at any time, on a
proper showing by the party injured.74 However,
the right of a court to modify its judgment is not
limited to a showing that it was procured by fraud,
collusion, or misrepresentation,75 but it is sufficient
if there is a showing that the rights of interested
parties are prejudicially affected by the judgment,
and if there was a withholding of matters which
should have been before the court, but for which
withholding the judgment would not have been ren-
dered.76
Where amendments affecting the enforcement of
a judgment or its application to the subject matter
adjudicated may be made without relitigating for-
mer issues, no attack on the judgment is made.77
§ 237. Clerical and Formal Changes
The general rule is that clerical and formal errors
in a Judgment may be corrected, either during or after
the term at which it was rendered.
The general rule is that the court, at any time
either before or after the expiration of the term at
which a judgment was rendered, may and should
correct or amend clerical or formal errors and mis-
prisions of its officers so as to make the record en-
try speak the truth and show the judgment which
was actually rendered by the court ;7* and the
Wash.— SchmelliBg v. Hoffman, 213
P. 478, 124 Wash. 1.
34 C.J. p 229 note 82.
'Irregular;" "irregularity"
(1) Under some statutes courts
may modify their judgments or or-
ders for irregularity in proceedings.
— Vann v. Board of Education of
Town of Lenapah, 229 P. 433, 102
Okl. 286.
(2) Under such statute, errors in
permitting amendment of petition
after judgment, in fixing amount of
attorney's fees, and in rendering
judgment on verdict, were held not
grounds for modifying judgment on
motion filed after expiration of term
at which judgment was rendered. —
•Duncan v. Wilkins, 229 P. 801, 103
Okl. 221.
(3) An "irregular judgment" with-
in meaning of statute providing that,
for irregularity in obtaining a judg-
ment, a district court has power to
modify the judgment, after expira-
tion of the term at which the judg-
ment was rendered is a judgment
which is rendered contrary to the
course of law and the practice of the
courts. — Petersen v. Dethlefs, 298 N.
W. 155, 139 Neb. 572.
(4) "Irregularity," within statute
permitting modification of judgment
by proceeding begun within three
years for mistake, neglect, or omis-
sion of clerk, or irregularity in ob-
taining judgment or order, does not
apply merely to acts of clerk or oth-
er ministerial officers, but includes
case where court has acted on er-
roneous understanding of facts. —
Phoenix Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Aby, <61
P.2d 915, 144 Kan. 544, rehearing de-
nied 64 P.2d 21, 145 Kan. 18.
Unavoidable casualty
Illness of litigant represented by
counsel was not "unavoidable casual
ty or misfortune" within statute au-
thorizing modification of judgment
against litigant after expiration of
term at which, it was rendered for
49 CJ.S.-29
unavoidable casualty or misfortune
preventing litigant from appearing
:>r defending, where nothing could
have been done to protect litigant's
rights while she was ill which could
not have been done theretofore, and
no continuance of hearings before
commissioner because of her Inabil-
ity to be present was requested. —
Washle v. Security Bank, 97 S.W.2d
82-3, 265 Ky. '808.
Negligence
Some statutes are not intended to
relieve a party from the consequenc-
es of his own negligence. — Hickman
v. Ritchey Coal Co., 252 Ill-App. 560.
73. U.S.— Illinois Printing Co. v.
Electric Shovel Coal Corporation,
D.C.I11., 20 F.Supp. 181.
Iowa.— Watt ers v. Knutsen, 272 N.
W. 420, 223 Iowa 225.
7*. Fla, — Zemurray v. Kilgore, 177
So. 714, 130 Fla, 317— State v.
Wrigh't, 145 So. '598, 107 Fla. 178—
Eli Witt Cigar & Tobacco Co. v.
Somers, 127 So. 333, 99 Fla, 592—
Alabama Hotel Co. v. J. L. Mott
Iron Works, 98 So. 825, 186 'Fla. 608.
Correctness of final judgment can-
not be questioned on application for
modification, in absence of error,
fraud, or misrepresentation. — Bailey
v. Gifford Sand & Gravel Co., La.
App., 145 So. 712.
Errors corrective by writ of error
coram nobis
. (1) Under statutes providing that
all errors of fact committed in pro-
ceedings of any court of record,
which by common law could have
been corrected by writ of error cor-
am nobis, may be corrected by court
in which error was committed on
motion in writing made at any time
within five years after the rendition
of final judgment, "errors of fact"
include duress, fraud, and excusable
mistake, and fraud of opposing par-
ty or his counsel which prevents one
from making his defense is such sa.
449
error of fact. — Gunn v. Britt, 3D N.
E.2d 76, 313 IlLApp. 13.
(2) Errors of fact which may be
assigned under motion authorized by
such statute must be as to facts,
unknown to court, which would have
precluded entry of judgment order. —
Tylke v. Norwegian American Hos-
pital, 54 N.E,2d 75, 322 IlLApp. 283.
(3) Writ of error coram nobis
generally see infra §§ 311-313.
76. Ohio. — Pengelly v, Thomas,
App., 65 N.E.2d 897, appeal dis-
missed 67 N.E.2d 71'4, 146 Ohio St.
69*3.
70. Ohio. — Pengelly v. Thomas, su-
pra,
77. Ky. — Ballew v. Denny, 177 S.W.
2d 152, 296 Ky. 368, 150 A.L.R. 770.
78. U.S. — Simonds v. Norwich Union
Indemnity Co., C.C.A.Minn., 73 F.
2d 412, certiorari denied Norwich
Union Indemnity Co. v. Simonds,
55 S.Ct 507, 29'4 U.S. 711, 79 L.Ed.
124-6 — Woods Bros. Const. Co. v.
Tankton County, C.C.A.S.D., 54 F.
2d 304, 81 AJUR. 300— Fultz v.
Laird, CXC.A.Mich.t 24 F.2d 172—
Ex parte Robinson, D.C.Tex., 44 »F.
Supp. 795 — New River Collieries
Co. v. U. S., D.C.N.J., 300 F. 333—
Ewert v. Thompson, C.C.A.OkL, 281
tF. 449.
Ala, — Parker v. Duke, 157 So. 436,
229 Ala. 3-61— Ex parte R. H. Byrd
Contracting Co., 156 So. «79, 26 Ala.
App. 171, certiorari denied 156 So.
582, 229 Ala. 248.
Ark. — Kory v. Less, «37 S.W.2d 92,
183 Ark. 553 — Reynolds v. Winship,
299 S.W. 16, 175 Ark. 352— United
Drug Co. v. Bedell, 263 -S.W. 316,
164 Ark. 527.
CaL— Ollvera v. Grace, 122 P.2d 564,
Ifl CaL2d 570, 140 A.L.R. 1328—
In re Goldberg's Estate, 76 P.2d
508, 10 CaL2d 709— Security-First
Nat. Bank of Los Angeles v. Rud-
dle Properties, 295 P. 343, 211 CaL
346— Barkelew v. Barkelew, Afcp.,
1&6 P.2d <57— Benway Y. Benway,
§ 237
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
correction of such error may be authorized by stat-
ute.79 The term "clerical error" as here used must
not be taken in too narrow a sense; it includes not
only errors made by the clerk in entering the judg-
ment, but also those mistakes apparent on the rec-
ord, whether made by the court or by counsel during
159 P.2d 682, *69 Cal.App.2d 574—
Hercules Glue Co. v. Littooy, 113
P.2d 490, 45 CaLApp.2d 42— Phipps
v. Superior Court in and for Alam-
eda County. 89 P.2d 698, 32 Cal.
App.2d $71 — Kohlstedt v. Hauseur,
74 P.2d 314, 24 Cal.App.2d 60—
Bradbury Estate Co. v. Carroll,
276 P. 394, 98 CaLApp. 145— Mc-
Kannay v. McKannay, 230 P. 21-8,
'68 CaLApp. 709.
Conn. — Varanelli v. Luddy, 32 A.2d
61, 130 Conn. 74 — Sachs v. Feinn,
183 A. 384, 121 Conn. 77— Connecti-
cut Mortgage & Title Guaranty
Co. v. Di 'Francesco, 151 A. 491, 112
Conn. 673— Application of Title &
Guaranty Co. of Bridgeport to
Change Name to Bankers' Security
Trust Co., 14'5 A. 151, 109 Conn.
45.
Fla. — Kroier v. Kroier, 116 So. 753,
95 Fla. 865 — R. R. Ricou & Sons
Co. r. Merwin, 113 So. 745, *94 Fla.
86.
Ga. — Robinson v. Vickers, 127 S.E.
849, 160 Ga. ®62.
Hawaii. — City and County of Hon-
olulu v. Caetano, 30 Hawaii 1.
111. — People ex rel. Sweitzer v. City
of Chicago, 2 N.E.2d 330, 363 111.
409, 104 A.L.R. 1335— People v.
iLyle, 160 N.E. 742, 329 111. 418—
Mclntosh v. Glos, 136 N.E. 781, 304
111. 620 — Rogers v. Trudzinski,
App., 67 N.E.2d 427-<Jhicago
Wood Piling Co. v. Anderson,
N.E.2d 702, 313 IlLApp. 242— Hick-
man v. Ritchey Coal Co., 252 111.
App. 560— Nokol Co. of Illinois v.
Cunningham, 231 111. App. 154.
Iowa. — Equitable Life Ins. Co. of
Iowa v. Carpenter, 212 N,W. 145,
202 Iowa 1334.
Kan.— Elliott v. Elliott, 114 P.2d 823,
154 Kan. 145 — State v. Frame, 95
P.2d 278, 150 Kan. 646— Perkins v.
Ashmore, 61 P.2d 888, 144 Kan. 540.
Ky.— Wides v. Wides, 188 S.W.2d
471, 300 Ky. 344— Weil v. B. E.
Buffaloe & Co., 65 S.W.2d 704, 251
Ky. 673 — Stratton & Terstegge Co.
v. Begley, 61 S.W.2d 287, 249 Ky.
«32— Keyser v. Hopkins, -34 S.W.2d
968, 237 Ky. 10'5— Lindholm v. Kice,
2'81 S.W. 795, 213 Ky. -544— Jones
v. Dalton, 273 S.W. -449, 209 Ky.
•593.
Mass.— In re Keenan, 47 N.E.2d 12,
313 Mass. 186 — Amory v. Kelley,
34 N.E.2d 507, 309 Mass. 162.
Minn. — Plankerton v. Continental
Casualty Co., 230 N.W. 464, 180
Minn. 168.
Mo. — State ex rel. Holtkamp v. Hart-
mann, 51 &W.2d 22, -330 Mo. 386—
Clancy v. Herman C. G. Luyties
Realty Co., 10 S.W.2d 914, 321 Mo.
282— Haycraft v. Haycraft, App.,
141 S.W.2d 170— Corpus Juris cited
in Thomas v. Brotherhood of Rail-
way & Steamship Clerks, App., 72
S.W.2d 502, 503 — Everett v. Glenn,
35 S.W.2d 652, 225 Mo.App. 921—
Greggers v. Gleason, 29 S.W.2d
183, 224 Mo.App. 1108.
Mont. — State ex reL Kruletz v. Dis-
trict Court of 'Fifth Judicial Dist.
in and for Beaverhead County,
P.2d 883, 110 Mont. 36— Edgar
State Bank v. Long, 278 P. 108, 85
Mont. 225 — Oregon Mortg. Co. v.
Kunneke, 245 P. 539, 76 Mont 117.
Nev. — Corpus Juris cited in Silva v.
Second Judicial Dist. Court in and
for Washoe County, 66 P.2d 422,
424, 57 Nev. 468— Lindsay v. Lind-
say, 280 P. 95, 52 Nev. 26, <67 A.L.
R. 824.
N.J. — Terminal Cab Co. v. Mikolasy,
25 A.2d 253, 128 N.J.Law 275.
N.Y.— Hiser v. Davis, 137 N.B. 596,
234 N.Y. -300— West 158th Street
Garage Corporation v. State, 10 N.
T.S.2d 990, 256 App.Div. 401, rear-
gument denied 12 N.T.S.2d 759, 257
App.Div. 875— In re Gould, 8 N.Y.
S.2d 714, 255 App.Div. 433— In re
Brady's Estate, 264 N.Y.S. 4-49,
147 Misc. 613— Siegel v. State, 2
N.Y.S. 652, 138 Misc. 474— Board
of Hudson River Regulating Dist.
v. De Long, 236 N.Y.S. 245, 134
Mis<j. 775— Santasino v. Karnuth,
41 N.Y.S.2d 459.
N.C. — 'Federal Land Bank of Colum-
bia v. Davis, 1 S.E.2d 350, 215 N.
C. 100.
N.D. — Klinefelter v. Anderson, 230 N.
W. 288, 59 N.D. 417.
Ohio.— Webb v. Western Reserve
Bond & Share Co., 153 N.E. 289,
115 Ohio St. 247, 48 A.L.R. 1176.
Oil. — McAdams v. C. 'D. Shamburger
Lumber Co., 240 P. 124, 112 Okl.
17«3 — Mason v. Slonecker, 219 P.
357, 92 Okl. 227.
Or.— 'Farmers1 Loan & Mortgage Co.
v. Hansen, 260 P. 999, 123 Or. 72.
Pa. — 'Fitzpatrick v. Bates, 92 Pa.Su-
per. 114— -Casey Heat Service Co.
v. Klein, Com.Pl., 46 'Lack.Jur. 257.
S.C.— Varser v. Smith. 197 S.E. 394,
187 S.C. 328.
S.D. — Janssen v. Tusha, 5 N.W.2d
684. 68 S.D. -639.
Tenn. — College Coal & Mining Co. v.
•Smith, 21 S.W.2d 1038, 160 Tenn.
93.
Tex. — Panhandle Const. Co. v. Llnd-
sey, 72 S.W.2d 1068, 123 Tex. 613—
O'Neil v. Norton, Com. App., 3-3 S.
W.2d 733 — Collins v. Davenport,
Civ.App., 192 S.W.2d 291— Weaver
v. Humphrey, Civ.App., 114 S.W.2d
'609, error dismissed — Acosta v.
Realty Trust Co., Civ.App., Ill S.
W.2d 777— Flannery v. Eblen, Civ.
App., 106 S.W.2d 837, error dis- j
450
missed — Florence v. Swails, Civ.
App., 85 S.W.2d 257— Goodyear
Tire & Rubber Co. v. Pearcy, Civ.
App., 80 S.W.2d 1096— Veal v. Jag-
gers, Civ.App., 13 S.W.2d 745, er-
ror dismissed.
Utah. — Garrison v. Davis, 54 P.2d
439, 88 Utah 358.
W.Va. — Haller v, Digman, 167 S.E.
593, 113 W.Va. 240.
Wyo.— Riverton Valley Drainage
Dist v. Board of Com'rs of 'Fre-
mont County, 74 P.2d 871, 52 Wyo.
3-36, 114 A.L.R. 1093— Corpus Juris
quoted in In re Pringle's Estate, 67
P.2d 204, 209, 51 Wyo. 352.
34 C.J. p 229 note 83.
"It is the generally accepted rule
that courts have the inherent power
to correct or amend their judgments
so that they shall truly express that
which was actually decided, where it
appears from the face of the record
that a clerical mistake has been
made in setting forth correctly that
which was in fact determined by the
court" — In re Jennings1 Estate, 254
P. 1067, 1068, 79 Mont. 73.
Correction without vacation
•Such an error may and should be
corrected by amendment without va-
cating the Judgment. — Chadwick v.
Superior Court of California in and
for Los Angeles County, 270 P. 192,
20-5 Cal. 163.
Correction within reasonable time
Mont — State Bank of New Salem v.
Schultze, 209 P. 599, 63 Mont. 410.
Judgment in ejectment
Idaho. — Wilcox v. Wells, 51 P. 985,
5 Idaho 786.
19 C.J. p 1212 note 60.
79. La. — Glen Falls Indemnity Co. v.
Manning, App., IBS So. 787.
Neb.— Crete Mills v. Stevens, 235 N.
W. 453, 120 Neb. 794.
Okl.— Hurley v. Childers, 243 P. 218,
116 Okl. 84.
Tex.— Arrington v. McDaniel, 25 S.
W.2d 295, 119 Tex. 148— Miller v.
Texas Life Ins. Co., Civ. App., 12-3
S.W.2d 756, error refused — Hays v.
Hughes, Civ. App., 106 S.W.2d 724,
error refused^Bell v. Rogers* Civ.
App., 58 S.W.2d 878— State Bank
6 Trust Co. of San Antonio v.
Love, Civ.App., 57 S.W.2d 924, af-
firmed Love v. State Bank & Trust
Co. of San Antonio, 90 S.W.2d 819,
126 Tex. 591 — Pring v. Pratt, Civ.
App., 1 S.W.2d 441, error dismissed
—Bray v. City of Corsicana, Civ.
App., 280 S.W. 609.
W.Va.— Yost v. O'Brien, ISO S.E. «442,
100 W.Va. 408.
Wis.— In re Cudahy's Estate, 219 N.
W. 203, 196 Wis. 260.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
238
the progress of the case, which cannot reasonably
be attributed to the exercise of judicial considera-
tion or discretion.80 Errors into which the court it-
self falls, however, have been said to be judicial
errors,81 and it has been said that an error in ar-
riving at a conclusion cannot possibly be a clerical
error, but must be a judicial one.82 A mere arith-
metical error, as in computation, may be correct-
ed as a clerical error.83
The amendment of clerical errors after the term
has been limited to situations in which the error has
not misled, and does not prejudice, -the party op-
posing the amendment84
§ 238. Judicial and Substantial Changes
Subject to some exceptions, the general rule is that,
after the term at which it renders a judgment, a court
cannot amend It In a matter of substance or In a manner
Involving the exercise of judicial discretion on the -merits.
After expiration of the term at which it was ren-
dered, or of the statutory period of limitation, in
cases governed by statute, a judgment is no longer
open to any amendment, revision, modification, or
correction whiih involves the exercise of the judg-
ment or discretion of the court on the merits or on
matters of substance.85 The only amendment then
permissible is one which is intended to make the
80. Gal. — Ben way y. Benway, 169
P.2d 682. 69 Cal.App.2d 574— Car-
ter v. Shinsako, 108 P.2d 27, 42
Cal.App.2d 9 — McKannay v. Mc-
Kannay, 230 P. 218, 68 Cal.App.
709.
Tex.— Hays v. Hughes, Civ. App., 106
S.W.2d 724, error refused.
Wyo. — Corpus Toils quoted in In re
Pringle's Estate, 67 P.2d 204, 209,
51 Wyo. 352.
34 C.J. P 231 note 84.
"Ordinarily, although originally
and in its literal significance, a
'clerical error* is one that has been
made by a clerk or some subordinate
agent, latterly the meaning has been
broadened and extended so that it
now may include an error that may
have been made by the judge or by
the court." — In re Goldberg's Estate,
76 P.2d '508. 511, 10 CaL2d 70S.
Nature of clerical error
(1) "Such a mistake ordinarily is
apparent upon the face of the record
and capable of being corrected by
reference to the record only. It is
usually a mistake in the clerical
work of transcribing the particular
record. It is usually one of form.
It may be made by a clerk, by coun-
sel, or by the court. A clerical er-
ror in reference to an order for Judg-
ment or judgment, as regards cor-
rection, includes one made by the
court which cannot reasonably be at-
tributed to the exercise of judicial
consideration or discretion." — Wilson
v. City of 'Fergus Falls, 232 N.W. 322,
323, 181 Minn. 329.
(2) "Clerical error" defined gener-
ally see Clerical 14 C.J.S. p 1202 note
33-p 1203 note 52.
(3) "Clerical misprislon" ' defined
generally see Clerical 14 C.J.-S. p 1203
notes 53-60.
Expression of Judicial desire or in-
tention
Where judgment assigned by trial
judge does not express the actual
judicial desire or intention of the
trial court, but is contrary thereto,
the signing of such purported Judg-
ment is a clerical error rather than
a judicial one. — Bastajian y. Brown,
120 P.2d 9, 19 CaL2d 209. j
Types of errors oorrectible
Mistakes in the names of the par-
ties, dates, descriptions of lands,
amounts, and others of similar char-
acter may be corrected on the court's
own motion at any time, when it is
clear from the whole record what the
entry should be.
Kan.— Cubitt v. Cubitt, 86 P. 475,
74 Kan. 353.
OkL— Mason v. Slonecker, 219 P. 357,
92 Okl. 227.
Use of "and" for "or"
Mo.— 'Fulton Loan Service No. * v.
Colvin, App., 81 S.W.2d.373.
Personal Judgment, entered in suit
to enforce paving lien, not praying
for such judgment, was not clerical
misprislon, correctible by motion in
lower court — Dotson v. People's
Bank, 27 S.W.2d 673, 234 Ky. 138—
Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. City of
Olive Hill, 21 S.W.2d 127, 231 Ky.
65.
81. Conn. — Connecticut Mortgage &
Title Guaranty Co. v. Di 'Frances-
co, 151 A. 491, 112 Conn. 673.
34 C.J. p 232 note 85.
Judicial and substantial changes see
infra § 238.
82. Cal. — Howland v. Superior Court
of Los Angeles County, 16 P.2d
318, 1,27 CaLApp. 695.
83. Cal.— Chadwick v. Superior
Court of California in and for Los
Angeles County, 270 P. 192, 205
CaL 163.
ICy. — Weil v. B. B. Buff aloe & Co., 65
S.W.2d 704, 251 Ky. 673— Jones v.
Dalton, 273 S.W. 449, 209 Ky. 593.
Mass.— Amory v. Kelley, 34 N.E.2d
507, 309 Mass. 1<62.
Minn. — Barnard-Curtiss C|o. v. Min-
neapolis Dredging Co., 274 N.W.
22-9, 200 Minn. 327.
Wash. — In re Darning's Guardianship,
73 P.2d 7fr4, 192 Wash. 190.
Wis.— Olson v. Elliott, 15 N.W.2d 37,
245 Wis. 279.
34 C.J. p 231 note 84 [h].
Amount of recovery and allowance of
interest see infra § 2*47.
Costs and allowances see infra §
2*8. i
451
Computation of commissions and
fees
Wyo. — In re Pringle's Estate, 67 P.
2d 204, 51 Wyo. 352.
84. Ga.— Rogers v. Rigell, 188 S.B.
704, 183 Ga. 455.
Reliance on date of judgment
Defendants in action were not en-
titled nine months after rendition of
judgment of nonsuit to have judg-
ment revised so as to show true
date on which it was rendered, where
such revision would have required
dismissal of plaintiff's second action
which had been commenced within
six months from date appearing on
original Judgment, on which plaintiff
had relied.— Rogers v. Rigell, supra.
85. U.S. — Ex parte Robinson, B.C.
Tex., 44 F.Supp. 795.
Fla.— Kroier v. Kroier, 116 So. 753,
95 Fla. 865.
Ga. — Rogers v. Rigell, 188 S.E. 704,
183 Ga. 455.
111. — People ex rel. Sweitzer v. City
of Chicago, 2 N.E.2d 330, 363 111.
409. 104 A.L.R. 1335— Mclntosh v.
Glos, 13-6 N.E. 781, 304 111. 620—
'Dillenburg v. Hellgren, 25 N.E.2d
890, 304 Ill.A«pp. 51, transferred,
see, 21 N.E.2d 393, 371 111. 452—
Parish Bank & Trust Co. v. Up-
town Sales & Service Co., 20 N.E.
2d 634, 300 Ill.App. 73.
Ind. — Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.,
177 N.E. 454, 202 Ind. 641— Farm-
ers' & Merchants Nat Bank of
Rensselaer v. Elliott, 141 N.E. 652,
80 IndApp. 596.
Minn.— Wilson v. City of 'Fergus
Falls, 232 N.W. 322, 181 Minn. 329.
Mo. — State ex rel. Holtkamp v. Hart-
mann, 51 S.W.2d 22, 880 Mo. 386.
Mont. — Oregon Mortg. Co. v. Kun-
neke, 245 P. 539, 76 Mont. 117.
N.Y.— In re Gould, 8 N.T.S.2d 714,
255 App.Div. 433.
Tenn.— College Coal & Mining C.o. v.
Smith, 21 S.W.2d 1038, 1-60 Tenn. 93.
Tex. — O'Neil v. Norton, Com. App., 33 •
S.W.2d 733— Bell v. Rogers, Civ.
App., $8 S.W.2d 578.
Utah.— Frost v. District Court of
IFirst Judicial District In and for
Box Elder County, 83 P.2d 737, 9ft
§ 238
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
judgment speak the truth by showing what the ju-
dicial action really was, and not one which corrects
judicial errors or remedies the effects of judicial
nonaction; the court has no power at such time to
revise and amend a judgment by correcting judicial
errors, and making it express something which the
court did not pronounce, and did not intend to pro-
nounce, in the first instance.86 Judicial errors in
judgments are to be corrected by appeal or -writ of
error, or by certiorari, or by awarding a new trial,
or by any means specially provided by statute, and
not by amendment,87 unless the statute permits such
Utah 106, rehearing: denied 85 P.
2d 601, -96 Utah 115.
34C.J. p 232 note 90.
Expiration of term generally see su-
pra § 230.
Statutory provisions generally see
supra § 223.
»ule limited to operative portion
The rule limiting1 the <power of the
court over its own judgments and de-
crees to the term is applicable only
to the operative portion of the decree
or judgment sought to be affected. —
Santasino v. Karnuth, 41 N.Y.S.2d
459.
Failure of clerk to extend judgment
on minutes
(1) If a judge makes a docket
memorandum of his judgment, and
the clerk fails during term to extend
it in form on the minutes, it is a
"mistake of the clerk" which is not
merely "clerical" but it may 'be cor-
rected at a subsequent term by a
judgment nunc pro tune under stat-
ute,— Sisson v. Leonard, 11 So.2d 144,
243 Ala. 546.
(2) Allowing amendment nunc
pro tune generally see infra § 258.
86. Cal.— In re Goldberg's Estate, 78
P.2d 508, 10 Cal.2d 709— Hercules
Glue Co. v. Littooy, 113 P.2d 490,
45 Gal.App.2d 42— Los Angeles
County v. Rindge County, 230 P.
468, 69 Cal.App. 72, error dismissed
Marblehead Land Co. v. Los An-
geles County, 47 S.Ct 247, 273 U.
S. 646, 71 CL.Ed. 820.
Conn. — Varanelli v. Luddy, 32 A.2rf
61, 130 Conn. 74 — Connecticut
Mortgage & Title Guaranty Co. v.
Di 'Francesco, 151 A. 491, 112 Conn.
673.
Ga.— Rogers v. Rigell, 188 S.E. 704,
183 Ga. 455.
Hawaii.— City and County of Hon-
olulu v. Caetano, 30 Hawaii L
111. — Chicago Wood Piling Co. v. An-
derson, 39 N.E.2d 702, 313 IlLApp.
242.
Ind. — State ex rel. Clark v. Rice, 47
N.E.2d 849, 113 Ind.Apj?. 238.
Kan. — State v. Frame, 95 P.2d 278,
150 Kan. «46.
Mo. — Clancy v. Herman C. G. Luyties
Realty Co., 10 S.W.2d 914, 321 Mo.
282— Haycraft v. Haycraft, App.,
141 8.W.2d 170.
N.C. — -Federal Land Bank of Colum-
bia v. Davis, 1 S.E.2.d 360, 215 N.
C. 100.
Tenn. — College Coal & Mining Co.
v. Smith, 21 S.W.2d 1038, 160 Tenn.
93.
Tex. — 'Panhandle Const. Co. v. !Lind-
sey, 72 S.W.2d 10*8, 123 Tex. 613
— Arrington v. McDaniel, 25 S.W.
2d 295, 119 Tex. 148— Jones v.
Bass, Com. App., 49 S.W.2d 723 —
Collins v. Davenport Civ.A'pp., 192
S.W.2d 291— Kveton v. Farmers
Royalty Holding Co., Civ. App., 149
S.W.2d 998— Miller v. Texas Life
Ins. -Co., Civ.App., 123 S.W.2d 756,
error refused — Acosta v. Realty
Trust Co., Civ.App., Ill S.W.2d
777 — Flannery v. Eblen, Civ.App.,
106 -S.W.2d 837, error dismissed—
Hays v. Hughes, Civ.App., 106 S.
W.2d 724, error refused — Florence
v. Swails, Civ.App., 85 S.W.2d 257
— Bell v. Rogers, Civ.App., 58 S.
W.2d 878— -State Bank & Trust Co.
of San Antonio v. Love, Civ.App.,
57 S.W.2d 924, affirmed Love v.
State Bank & Trust Co. of San
Antonio. 90 S.W.2d 819, 126 Tex.
591 — Montgomery v. Huff, Civ.
App., 11 S.W.2d 237, error refused
— Pring v. Pratt Civ.A'pp., 1 S.W.
2d 441, error dismissed.
W.Va. — Corpus Juris cited In First
Nat. Bank of Williamson v. Webb,
158 S.E. 378, 379, 110 W.Va. 387.
34 C.J. p 234 note 91.
"Under the guise of an amend-
ment there is no authority to cor-
rect a judicial mistake. .
The authority of the court is to
amend its record so as to make it
speak the truth, but not to make it
speak what it did not speak but
ought to have spoken." — Kory v.
Less, 37 S.W.2d 92, 93, 183 Ark. 553.
87. U.S. — Parker Bros. v. QFagan, C.
C.A.Fla., 68 F.2d 616, certiorari
denied 54 S.Ct 719, 292 U.S. 638,
78 L.Ed. 1490.
Cal.— -Reichert v. Rabun, 265 P. 260,
89 CaLApp. 375— McConville v. Su-
perior Court within and for Los
Angeles County, 2-4-8 P. 553, 78 Cal.
App. 203 — Los Angeles County v.
Rindge County, 230 P. 468, 69 Cal.
App. 72, error dismissed Marble-
head Land Co. v. Los Angeles
County, 47 S.Ct. 247, 273 U.S. 646,
71 L.Ed* 820 — McKannay v. Mc-
Kannay, 230 P. 218, 68 CaLApp. 709.
Colo. — Schattinger v. Schattinger,
250 P. 851, 80 Colo. 2'61.
Fla.— Malone v. Meres, 109 So. 677,
91 Fla. 709.
Hawaii. — City and County of Hon-
olulu v. Caetano, 30 Hawaii 1.
Idaho. — Baldwin v. Anderson, 299 P.
341, 50 Idaho 606, certiorari dis-
missed American Surety Co. v.
Baldwin, 53 S.Ct. 98, 287 U.S. 156,
77 (L.Ed. 231, 86 A.L.R. 298.
Ky. — Corpus Juris cited in Broderick
v. Bourbon-Agricultural Bank &
452
Trust Co., '58 S.W.2d 397, 398, 248
Ky. 191 — Dotson v. People's Bank,
27 S.W.2d 673, 234 Ky. 138.
La. — Jefferson v. Laure N. Truck
Line, App., 181 So. 821, affirmed
Jefferson v. Lauri 2*. Truck Lines,
187 So. 44, 192 La. 29.
Mont. — Hawker v. Hawker, llg P.2d
759, 112 Mont. 546-— Corpus Juris
olted in Midland Development Co.
v. Cove Irr. Dist, 58 P.2d 1001.
1003, 102 Mont 479 — Oregon Mort-
gage Co. v. Kunneke, 245 P. 539, 76
Mont 117.
N.Y.— Application of Bond, 36 N.Y.
S.2d 147, 2«64 App.Div. 484, motion
denied In re Bond, 49 N.E.2d 1006,
290 N.Y. 739, affirmed 50 N.E.2d
299, 2-96 N.Y. 901— J. H. & 'S. Thea-
tres v. 'Fay, 257 N.Y.S. 64, 235 App.
Div. 820, followed in 257 N.Y.S. 65,
235 App.DIv. 820— Kittinger v.
Churchill Evangelistic Ass'n, 276
. N.Y.S. 465, 1-53 Misc. 880, affirmed
281 N.Y.»S. 680, 244 App.Div. 876,
reargument denied 2U1 N.Y.S. 409,
245 App.Div. 805, affirmed 2'81 N.
Y.S. 681, 244 App.Div. 877— In re
Brady's Estate, 264 N.Y.S. 449, 147
Misc. 613.
N.C.— Nail v. McConnell, 190 S.E. 210,
211 N.C. 258— State v. Hollings-
worth, 175 S.E. 99, 206 N.C. 739—
Thomas v. Watkins, 137 S.E. 818,
193 N.C. 630.
Tex. — Love v. State Bank & Trust
Co. of San Antonio, 90 S.W.2d «19,
126 Tex. '591 — Jones v. Bass, Com.
App., 49 S.W.2d 723 — Acosta v.
Realty Trust Co., Civ.App., Ill «S.
W.2d 777— Pring v. Pratt, Civ.
App., 1 S.W.2d 441, error dismissed.
Wash. — Spalsbury v. Wycoff, 213 P.
47-6, 123 Wash. 691.
34 C.J. p 232 note 90 EC], p 234 note
92.
The reason for the rule is that if,
on the application of one party, the-
court could change its judgment to
the prejudice of the other, it could
thereafter, on application of the lat-
ter, again change the judgment and:
continue this practice indefinitely. —
Kline v. Murray, 257 P. 465, 79 Mont
530.
Judgment rendered as Intended be-
comes final and may be reviewed or
corrected only on appeal or motion
for new trial. — St Onge v. Blakely,.
245 P. 532, 76 Mont 1.
Correction by trial court
Judicial e-ror cannot be corrected
by trial co;.rt except through new
trial or on t raely motion, where er-
roneous conclusions of law not con-
sistent with findings have been
49 C.J.S.
amendment.88
JUDGMENTS
§ 238
At common law, and in the absence of statute
changing the rule, all proceedings of the court re-
.main in the breast of the judge until the expira-
tion of the term at which they were had, and, ac-
cordingly, it has been held or stated that a judg-
ment may be amended and changed in matter of
substance by the judicial action of the court, taken
during the term at which such judgment was ren-
dered;89 but some authorities, without express ref-
erence to the term or time, deny the power of the
court to correct a judicial error or omission, or to
make a change in substance,90 even where such
drawn, or where judgment is incon- i
sistent with special verdict — How-
land v. Superior Court of Los An-
geles County, 16 P.2d 318, 127 Cal.
App. 695.
Conformity to evidence, findings, or
order
(1) Where a decree fails to con-
form to evidence, findings, or order,
error may be corrected only on some
seasonable and legally recognized
•proceeding for review. — Hill v. Tay-
lor, Mass., 65 N.B.2d 97.
(2) If judgment conforms to find-
ing, only remedy is by motion for
new trial asking that finding and
judgment be set aside. — S. J. Pea-
body Lumber Co. v. Northam, 184 N.
B. 794, 96 Ind.App. 197 — Tri Lake
Const. Co. v. Northam, 184 N.K 792,
96 Ind.App. 183.
Giving judgment over against an-
other defendant
N.T. — Terry & Gibson v. Bank of
New York & Trust Co., 273 N.T.S.
32, 242 App.Div. 699.
Inclusion of matters outside issues
Where judgment allegedly includes
matters outside of issues, only rem-
edy is by motion to modify judg-
ment, designating changes desired,
ruling on motion being assignable
as error. — Rooker v. 'Fidelity Trust
Co., 177 N.B. 454, 202 Infl. 641.
On opposition to administrator's
final account, judge could not reverse
or amend judgment to prejudice of
administrator without giving him
opportunity to be heard again by
new trial.— Succession of Coreil, 148
So. 711, 177 La. 568.
laps© of time for appeal or motion
for new trial
A court has no jurisdiction to
modify its judgment after time for
appeal or motion for new trial has
lapsed, except to correct clerical
mistakes. — Johnson v. Superior Court
in and for Tuba County, 87 P.2d 384,
31 Cal.A-pp.2d 111.
88. Cal.— Bastajian v. Brown, 120 P.
2d 9, 19 Cal.2d 209— McMahan v.
Baringer, 122 P.2d 63, 49 Cal.App.
2d 431.
89. U.S. — Suggs v. Mutual Ben.
Health & Accident Ass'n, C.C.A.
Okl., 115 P.2d 80.
Conn. — Varanelli v. Luddy, 82 A.2d
6.1, 130 Conn. 74.
Ind. — Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.,
177 N.B. 454, 202 Ind. 641.
Mo. — Clancy v. Herman C. G. Luyties
Realty Co., 10 S.W.2d 914, 321 Mo. i
282.
34 C.J. p 232 note 87.
Jurisdiction and power during term
generally see supra § 229.
Statutory provisions as to court's
dealing with judgments generally
see supra § 228.
90. Cal. — In re Burnett's Estate, 79
P.2d 89, 11 Cal.2d 2-59— (Liuzza v.
Brinkerhoff, 83 P.2d 97-6, 29 Cal.
App.2d 1 — McConville v. Superior
Court within and for Los Angeles
County, 248 P. 553, 78 CaLApp. 203
— McKannay v. McKannay, 230 P.
218, 68 CaLApp. 709.
111.— Dillenburg v. Hellgren, 25 N.B.
2d 890, 304 IlLApp. 61, transferred,
see, 21 N.B.2d 393, 371 111. 452.
Ind. — First State Bank of «Frankfort
v. Spradling, 11 N.B.2d 76, 104
Ind.App. 342.
Mont. — Hawker v. Hawker, 118 P.2d
759, 112 Mont 546 — State ex rel.
Vaughn v. District Court of ^ifth
Judicial Dist. in and for. Madison
County, 111 P.2d 810, 111 Mont.
552.
N.T.— Hiser v. Davis, 137 N.B. 596,
234 N.T. 300— Application of Bond,
36 N.T.S.2d 147, 264 App.Div. 484,
motion denied In re Bond, 49 N.B.
2d 1006, 290 N.Y. 739, affirmed 50
N.E.2d 299, 290 N.T. 901— Fred
Medart Mfg. Co. v. Rafterty, 276
N.T.S. 678, 243 App.Div. 632—
Feinberg v. 'Feinberg, 41 N.T.S.2d
869, 180 Misc. 305— Kittinger v.
Churchill Evangelistic Ass'n, 276
N.T.S. 465, 153 Misc. 380, affirmed
281 N.T.S. '680,. 244 App.Div. 876,
reargument denied 281 N.T.S. 409,
245 App.Div. 805, affirmed 281 N.
T.-S. 6'Sl, 244 App.Div. 877— Siegel
v. State, 246 N.T.S. 652, 138 Misc.
474— Gellens v. Saso, 44 N.T.S.2d
84— Seward v. Jackson, 8 Cow.
406.
S.C.— Varser v. Smith, 197 S.E. 394,
187 S.C. 32$.
Vt — In re Prouty's Estate, 163 A.
•566, ia5 Vt 66.
"Judicial error" defined
A judicial error is one which is
not merely clerical, but affects the
substance and justice of the judg-
ment—Connecticut Mortgage & Title
Guaranty Co. v. Di Francesco, 151
A. 491, 492, 112 Conn. 673.
judgment following findings or eon.
elusions
(i) Where Judgment accords with
findings, any omission, if error, can-
not be remedied by an amendment
453
made after judgment is entered. —
Van Tiger v. Superior Court in and
for Los Angeles County, 60 P.2d 851,
7 Cal.2d 377.
(2) Motion to modify judgment
will not lie where judgment followed
court's finding. .
Colo. — Schattinger v. -Schattinger,
250 P. 851, 80 Colo. 261.
Ind. — S. J. Peabody 'Lumber Co. v.
Northam, 184 N.E. 794, 96 Ind.App.
197— Tri Lake Const. Co. v. North-
am, 184 N.E. 792, 96 Ind.App. 183
— Heppe v. Heppe, 152 N.B. 293, 85
Ind. App. 39, transferred, see, 149
N.B. 890, 199 Ind. 566— Southern
Colonization Co. v. Sanford, 149
N.E. '655, 83 Ind. App. 626— Hall v.
Bledsoe, 149 N.B. 448, 83 Ind.App.
622.
(3) The same is true where the
judgment is in accordance with the
court's conclusions of law. — Pitts-
burgh, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Mun-
cie & Portland Traction Co., 91 N.B.
600, 174 Ind. 167— Old First Nat
Bank & Trust Co. of Fort Wayne v.
Snouffer, 192 N.B. 369, 99 Ind.App.
325.
(4) Trial court properly refused to
modify judgment which followed
finding of facts and conclusions of
law laid down by court sitting with-
out jury. — Griffith State Bank v.
Clark, 199 N.B. 447, 101 Ind.App.
458.
(5) Where error in computation
appeared in judgment findings of
fact and conclusions of law, amend-
ed judgment correcting error was
not supported by findings or conclu-
sions.— Proctor v. Smith, 4 P.2d 773,
214 Cal. 227.
An error of law in judgment as
originally entered cannot be correct-
ed by amending Judgment where en-*
try made was the one intended to
be made and was free from mistake
other than error of law. — Amory v.
Kelley, S'4 N.B.2d 507, 309 Mass. 162.
Resettlement
(1) Resettlement is a procedure of
correction or clarification and not a
procedure to change or amplify the
direction of the court, and is un-
available in a situation where object
sought is an alteration of the deci-
sion actually made. — In re Chisholm's
Estate, 30 N.T.S.2d «70, 177 Misc.
123, affirmed 35 N.T.S.2d 212, 264
App.Div. 793, appeal denied 37 N.T.S.
2d 442, 264 App.Div. 956, affirmed 50
N.E.2d 239, 290 N.T. 842— In re Bart-
238
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
change is for the purpose of meeting some supposed
equity subsequently called to the court's attention
or subsequently arising,91 or newly ascertained pro-
visions of law.92 A new adjudication on an issue
not previously disposed of cannot be made in the
guise of an amendment of a judgment.93
A court cannot correct a judicial error under the
guise of correcting or rectifying a clerical one;94,
but it has full power to determine whether an al-
leged error is clerical or judicial in character.95 It
has been said to be difficult, often, to draw the dis-
tinction between the two types of error,96 but that
the distinction is not dependent on the source of the
error.97 The court has been held not precluded
from determining whether an error is judicial or
clerical by the fact that the judgment follows the
findings of fact and conclusions of law;9* but it
has also been held that, where the judgment accords
with the findings, any omission, if error, is a judi-
cial, rather than a clerical, error.99
Exceptions to rule. The rule against rectification
of judicial error after the term has been said to
obtain except in exceptional circumstances.1 Thus,
according to some decisions, when it clearly appears
what judgment should have been rendered as of
course on the facts in the record, the court will as-
sume to treat the failure to render such judgment
as a mere clerical misprision, and will amend the
judgment so as to make it conform to that which
should have been rendered on the facts.2 Likewise,
directions for carrying a judgment into effect, which
do not change or modify the judgment with respect
to matters put in issue and determined by the judg-
ment, may be inserted or modified by amendment.3
lett's Will, 299 N.Y.S. 3*6, 184 Misc.
524.
(2) When properly performed, the
act of resettlement of a decree is
merely the exercise of the court's in-
herent authority to alter its formal
pronouncements in cases in which
the initial instrument of adjudication
is shown to have been the result of
mistake or inadvertence. — In re Bart-
lett's Will, supra.
(8) Where decree as originally en-
tered correctly reflected the decision
of the court, there was no authority
for its resettlement — In re Put-
nam's Will, 17 N.T.S.2d 238, 173 Misc.
151.
(4) In order to obtain an altera-
tion of a decision actually made,
there must be an actual vacatur of
the order or decree in Question, and
not merely a resettlement of such
order or decree. — In re Chisholm's
Estate, supra,
91* N.T. — Application of Bond, 36 N.
T.S.2d 147, 264 App.Div. 484, mo-
tion denied In re Bond, 49 N.E.2d
1006, 290 N.7. 739, affirmed 50 N.
B.2d 299, 290 N.T. 901— West 158th
Street Garage Corporation v. State,
10 N.Y.S.2d 990, 25'6 App.Div. 401,
reargument denied 12 NVJr.S.2d 759,
2*57 App.Div. 8T5 — (Feinberg v.
Feinberg, 41 N.T.S.2d 869, 180
Misc. 305.
34 C.J. p 282 note 90 CcL
92. N.Y.— West 158th Street Garage
•Corporation v. State, 10 N.T.S.2d
'9*90, 256 App.Div. 401, reargument
denied 12 N.Y&2& 759, 257 App.
3>iv. 875.
93. Cal. — Lef tridge v. City of Sacra-
mento, 119 P.2d 390, 48 Cal.App.2d
589.
Mont. — State ex rel. Vaughn v. Dis-
trict Court of Fifth Judicial Dlst j
in and for Madison County, 111 P. j
2d 810, 111 Mont 552. j
Adjudication as to land not in issue
Wash. — Engstrom v. Edendale Land
Co., 157 P. 683, 91 Wash. 241.
19 C.J. p 1212 note 61 [a].
Resettlement of a decree is wholly
unavailable for purpose of including
a ruling on a matter not initially
adjudicated.— In re Bartlett's Will,
299 N.T.S. 316, 164 Misc. 524.
94. Cal. — Carpenter v. Pacific Mut
Life Ins. Co. of California, 96 P.
2d 796, 14 Cal.2d 704.
Idaho. — -"Fall River Irr. Co. v. Swend-
sen, 241 P. 1021, 41 Idaho 68*6.
95. Cal. — In re Goldberg's Estate, 76
P.2d 508, 10 Cal.2d 709—Harman v.
Cabaniss, 276 P. 569, 207 Cal. 60.
Final determination by trial court
A trial Judge who has made a de-
cision in which error appears in
record has full power in the first in-
stance to determine whether error
is clerical or judicial, and his con-
clusion, in the absence of a clear
showing to the contrary, is final. —
Carpenter v. Pacific Mut. Life Ins.
Co. of California, 96 P.2d 796, 14 CaL
2d 704.
9* Ky.— Wides v. Wides, 188 S.W.
2d 471, 300 Ky. 344.
97. Ky. — Wides v. Wides, supra.
98. Cal. — Harman v. Cabaniss, 276
P. 569, 207 Cal. 60— Kohlstedt v.
Hauseur, 74 P.2d 314, 24 CaLApp.
2d 60.
The signing of the findings does
not necessarily establish that an er-
ror in a judgment is a judicial error.
— Bastajian v. Brown, 120 P.2d 9, 19
Cal.2d 209.
99. Cal. — Van Tiger y. Superior
Court in and for Los Angeles
County, 60 P.2d 851, 7 Cal.2d 377.
1* Conn.— Application of Title &
Guaranty Co. of Bridgeport to
Change Name to "Bankers' Secur-
ity Trust Co., 145 A. 151, 109 Conn.
45.
454
2. HI. — Dillenburg v. Hellgren, 25
N.EL2d 890, 304 IlLApp. 51, trans-
ferred, see 21 N.E.2d 393, 371 111.
452.
N.Y.— West 158th Street Garage Cor-
poration v. State, 10 N.Y.S.2d 990,
25fl App.Div. 401, reargument de-
nied 12 N.Y.S.2d 759. 257 App.Div.
575 — Board of Hudson River Reg-
ulating Dist. v. De Long, 536 N.Y.
S. 245, 134 Misc. 775.
34 C.J. p 235 note 94.
3. CaL — Corpus Juris quoted in
Gibson v. River Farms Co. of Cali-
fornia, 121 P.2d 504, 508, 49 Cal.
App.2d 278.
HI.— Dillenburg v. Hellgren, 10 N.E.
2d 44, 291 IlLApp. 448, cause re-
manded 21 N.B.2d 393, 371 111. 452,
transferred, see, 25 N.E.2d 890, 304
IlLApp. 51.
Kan.— Cazzell v. Cazzell, 3 P.2d 479,
133 Kan. 7£6.
Tex. — Chambers v. Hodges, 3 Tex.
617— Collins v. Davenport, Civ.
App., 192 S.W.2d 291 — Flannery v.
Bblen, Civ.App., 106 S.W.2d 837, er-
ror dismissed.
34 C.J. p 235 note 95.
Extension, of time.
(1) The court has power to make
an order extending the time within
which, by the terms of a judgment
for specific performance, a defendant
is required to pay purchase money
and accept title to land.
Cal. — Corpus Juris quoted in Gibson
v. River Farms Co. of California,
121 P.2d '504, 508, 49 Cal.App.2d
278.
N.Y.— Adams v. Ash, 46 Hun 105.
(2) Where a time is prescribed
within which money must be paid
to entitle a party to the benefit of a
judgment, the court may, even after
such time has expired, extend it by
a modification of the judgment in
furtherance of justice.
CaL — Corpus Juris quoted in, Gibson
V. River Farms Co. of California,
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 242
§ 239. Particular Amendments and Correc-
tions
The application of the general rules governing
the amendment or correction of judgments, consid-
ered supra §§ 236-238, to particular types of amend-
ment or correction is treated infra §§ 240-249.
Examine Pocket Parts for later cases.
§ 240. Supplying Omissions Generally
Matter which Is properly part of a Judgment, and was
so Intended, but was negligently or inadvertently omit-
ted, may be supplied by amendment, even after the
term.
If anything has been omitted from the judgment
which is necessarily or properly a part of it, and
which was intended and understood to be a part of
it, but failed to be incorporated in it through the
negligence or inadvertence of the court or counsel,
or the clerk, the omission may be supplied by an
amendment, even after the term.4 If the proposed
addition is a mere afterthought, and formed no part
of the judgment as originally intended and pro-
nounced, it may not be brought in by way of amend-
ment.5
§ 241. Striking Out Improper or Errone-
ous Entries
Matter Improperly Included In a Judgment may be
stricken out by amendment.
The power of amendment may be employed to
strike out surplusage or other matter improperly
included in a judgment.6
§ 242.
Recitals in General
Incorrect recitals in a Judgment may be corrected,
omitted recitals supplied, and improper recitals stricken
out, by amendment.
121 P.2d 504, 508, 49 Cal.App.2d
278.
N.D.— Tyler v. Shea, '61 N.W. -468, 4
N.D. 377, 50 Am.S.R. 660.
4. Ala. — Nabson v. McGowen, 54
Ala, 167.
Cal.— Olivera v. Grace, 122 P.2d 564,
19 Cal.2d 570, 140 A.L.R. 1328.
Fla.— Corpus Juris quoted in. walling
v. Carlton, 147 So. 236, 239, 109
(Fla. 97.
Kan. — Corpus Juris cited in Cazzell
v. Cazzell, 3 P.2d 479, 480, 133 Kan.
76-6— Cubitt v. Cubitt, 86 P. 475, 74
Kan. 353.
Miss.— Huckaby v. Huckaby, 122 So.
4*87, 154 Miss; 378.
Neb.— -Crete Mills v. Stevens, 235 N.
W. 453, 120 Neb. 794.
OkL— Mason v. Slonecker, 219 P.
357, 92 OkL 227.
S.IX— Gerhart v. Quirk, 209 N.W.
•544, 50 S.D. 269.
Tex.— »Luck v. Riggs Optical Co., Civ.
App., 149 S.W.2d 204— Corpus 'Juris
quoted in Veal v. Jaggers, Civ.App.,
13 «S.W.2d 745, error dismissed—
O'Qulnn v. Harrison, Civ.App., 271
S.W. 137.
Wis. — Corpus Juris cited in, Olson
v. Elliott, 15 N.W.2d 37, 40, 245
Wis. 279.
34 C.J. p 235 note 1.
Amendments as to carrying judg-
ment into effect see supra § 238.
Particular omissions see Infra §§
242-249.
Matter supplied "by amendment
(1) Inadvertent omission of claim
from computation. — Olson v. Elliott,
15 N.W.2d 37, 245 Wis. 279.
(2) Failure to state, in 'judgment
for plaintiff in full amount claimed,
that defendants' counterclaims were
dismissed. — S. J. B. Building Corpo-
ration y. Matt O. M. Construction Co.,
192 N.E. 413, 265 N.Y. 282.
235
(3) Other matter see 34 C.J.
note 1 [a].
Resettlement is permissible for in-
clusion in Judicial pronouncement of
some provision which was initially
omitted through inadvertence. — In re
Chlsholm's Estate, 30 N.Y.S.2d 870,
177 Misc. 423, affirmed 35 N.T.S.2d
212, 264 App.Div. 793, appeal denied
37 N.Y.S.2d 442, 264 AppJWv. 956,
affirmed 50 N.E.2d 239, 290 N.Y.
842.
B. Vt.— In re Prouty's Estate, 163 A},
566, 105 Vt 66.
W.Va. — Corpus Juris quoted in First
Nat. Bank of Williamson v. Webb,
158 S.E. 378, 379, 110 W.Va. 387.
34 C.J. p 236 note 2.
Nunc pro tune amendments see infra
§ 258.
Bounds of encumbrance
In Judgment record establishing
prescriptive right to pile materials
on easement of way, omission of
finding giving definite bounds of en-
cumbrance cannot be cured by
amendment of record. — Noyes v.
Levine, 159 A. 117, 131 Me. 88.
& 111. — Nokol Co. of Illinois v. Cun-
ningham, 231 IlLApp. 154.
S.D. — Corpus Juris cited In Cannon
v. Merchen, 223 N.W. 824, 825, 54
S.D. 592.
34 C.J. p 23-'6 note 3, «p 243 note 59
[I,]— 19 c.J. p 1212 note 6'4 [b].
Striking out improper recitals see
infra § 242.
Matters properly stricken out by
(1) A finding or other part of a
judgment foreign to any pleading
and not necessary to the relief
grantable to any litigant— Petersen
v. Dethlefs, 298 N.W. 155, 139 Neb.
572.
(2) Improper directions to probate
court. — Anderson v. Anderson, 2'66 N.
W. 841, 197 Minn. 252,
455
(3) Improper personal judgment. —
Perkins v. Ashxnore, 61 P.2d 888, 144
Kan. 540.
(4) Statement of theory on which
damages were awarded. — Brown v.
•Shyne, 206 N.Y.S. 310, 123 Misc. $51.
(5) Void portion of judgment
which court was unauthorized to de-
cide.—Maloney v. Zipf, 237 P. 632, 41
Idaho 30.
C6) Other matters. — 'Goldstein v.
Schick, 261 N.T.S. 839, 237 App.Div.
905, motion denied 185 N.E. 804, 261
N.Y. 713, affirmed 188 N,E. 126, 262
N.Y. 696—34 C.J. p 231 note 84 [c]
(3), p 23-6 note 3 [a].
Matters not properly stricken out by
— ,,- __ JB««J AH 4*
(1) Words "with prejudice" In di--
vorce decree are improperly stricken
out, ten months after entry, where
change in judgment was not made
because of any changed findings, but
because court had reached a differ-
ent conclusion on a point of law. —
Hawker v. Hawker, 118 P.2d 759, 112
Mont. 546.
(2) Trial court's order, emending
judgment for defendant in action . on
fire insurance policy by striking out
words, "solely upon the ground that
an appraisement of the loss was not
had prior to the commencement of
the above entitled action," was im-
proper.— Jacobs v. Norwich Union
Fire Ins. Soc., 40 P.2d 899, 4 CaLApp.
2d 1.
(3) Other matters.
CaL— Ouzza r. Brinkerhoff, "83 P.2d
976, 29 Cal.App.2d 1. '
Ind.— -First State Bank of (Frankfort
v. Spradling, 11 N.E.2d T6, 104 Ind.
App. 342.
Kan. — Leach v. Roherson, $3
629, 142 Kan. «87.
19 C.J. p 1212 note 60 [c], £fl.
242
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
Incorrect and erroneous recitals in a judgment
may be corrected,7 omitted recitals supplied,8 and
improper recitals stricken out,9 by amendment ; but
a judgment will not be amended in order to show
facts.**
§ 243. Conforming Judgment to Ver-
dict or Findings
A judgment may be amended so as to make it con-
form to the verdict or findings.
A judgment may properly be amended so as to
make it conform to the verdict, findings, or decision
where by mistake or inadvertence it has been en-
tered in terms differing therefrom,11 but the court
is limited to the substitution of the judgment that
should have been given on the findings, and cannot
substitute new findings and judgment.12 Correc-
tion of a judgment will not be granted where the
findings are not inconsistent therewith.18
It has been held that a motion for an order cor-
recting a judgment so as to conform to the verdict,
being in effect a request to construe the verdict,
must be made before the jury are discharged.14
7. Cal.— McKannay v. McKannay,
230 P. 218, 68 €al.App. 709.
Tex. — Corpus Juris quoted in Flan-
nery v. Eblen, Civ.App., 106 S.W.2d
837, error dismissed.
34 C.J. p 236 note 5.
Recital as to issuance and service
of process see infra § 245.
8. Cal. — McKannay v. McKannay,
230 P. 218, 68 CaLApj). 709.
Tex. — Corpus Juris quoted in Flan-
nery v. Eblen, Civ.App., 106 S.W.2d
837, error dismissed.
34 C.J. p 237 note 6.
Supplying: omissions generally see
supra § 2-40.
Resettlement is permissible for in-
clusion in judicial pronouncement of
some recital which was initially
omitted through inadvertence. — In re
Chisholm's Estate, 30 N.T.S.2d '870,
177 Misc. 423, affirmed 35 N.Y.S.2d
212, 264 App.Div. 793, appeal denied
37 N.Y.S.2d 442, 2«64 App.Div. 956, af-
firmed 50 N.E.2d 239, 290 N.Y. 842—
In re Bartlett's Will, 299 N.Y.S. 316,
164 Misc. 524.
9. Tex. — Corpus Juris quoted in
•Flannery v. Eblen, Civ.App., 106
S.W.2d 837, error dismissed.
34 C.J. p 237 note 7.
Striking out improper or erroneous
entries see supra § 241.
Erroneous recital of • dismissal "on
jfofr merits"
An erroneous recital in the judg-
ment that it was dismissed "on the
merits" may be stricken out on mo-
tion.—Mink v. Keim, 41 N.Y.S.2d 769,
266 App.Div. 184, affirmed 52 N.R2d
444, 291 N.Y. 300—33 C.J. p 1215 note
88—34 C.J. p 236 note 5 [b].
la Ind. — Carr v. Besse, 143 N.E.
639, 52 Ind.App. 124.
Facts as to mortgage
It Is not function of judgment to
show facts, and hence motion to
modify judgment adjudging deed
sought to be set aside a mortgage,
to show what amount of money
mortgage secured, and what debt
was secured, was properly overruled.
— Carr v. Besse, supra.
II. .U.S. — Kenyon v. Chain O'Mines,
C.C.A.Colo., 107 F.2d 160.
Cal. — Benway v. Benway, 159 P.2d
682, 69 Cal.App.2d 574— Button
Dredge Co. v. Goss, 247 P. 594,
77 CaLApp. 727.
Ga.— Brown v. Cole, 28 S.E.2d 76,
196 Ga. 8'43— Jones v. Whitehead,
146 S.E. 768, 167 Ga, 848.
Hawaii. — City and County of Hon-
olulu v. Caetano, 30 Hawaii 1.
Minn. — Berthiaume v. Erickson, 16
N.W.2d 288, 218 Minn. 403— Plank-
erton v. Continental Casualty Co.,
230 N.W. 464, 180 Minn. 168.
Mont. — Morse v. Morse, 154 P.2d
982— Hawker v. Hawker, 118 P.2d
759, 112 Mont 546.
N.Y.— Smith v. Moles, 223 N.Y.S.
637, 130 Misc. 399.
Ohio. — State ex rel. Fulton v. Ach, 24
N.E.2d 462, 62 Ohio App. 439.
Wash. — In re Christiansen's Estate,
132 P.2d 368, 16 Wash.2d 48 —
City of Tacoma v. Nyman, 281
P. 48'4, 154 Wash. 154— Pappas v.
Taylor, 244 P. 393, 138 Wash. 31.
Wyo. — Marcante v. Hein, 67 P.2d 196,
51 Wyo. 329.
34 C.J. p 237 note 8.
Conformity to verdict or findings see
supra §§ 55-61.
Amendment at following terra
Ky. — Koontz v. Butler, 38 S.W.2d
204, 238 Ky. 406.
Tex. — Batson v. Bentley, Civ.App.,
297 S.W. 769.
lament at subsequent term
(1) Generally.
Ga. — Jones v. Whitehead, 146 S.E.
768, 167 Ga. 848— Merchants' Gro-
cery Co. v. Albany Hardware &
Mill Supply Co., 160 S.E. 658, 44
GsuApp. 112.
Tex. — Rush v. Klapproth, Civ.App.,
81 S.W.2d 257.
(2) However, a judgment for dou-
ble rent in dispossessory proceeding
despite verdict against double rent
was not an error appearing on face
of record or an error to which ex-
ception could be. taken in a motion
for new trial, and hence trial court
could not modify judgment at a sub-
sequent term in absence of a motion
made at term at which judgment
was rendered. — Frazier v. Beasley, 1
S.E.2d 458, 59 Ga.App. 500, transfer-
red, see, 199 S.E. 194, 186 Ga. 861.
456 .
Amendment after issuance of exeou-
tion
Judgment may be amended to con-
form to verdict even after issuance
of execution. — Frank E. Wood Co. v.
Colson, 158 S.E. 533, 43 Ga.App. 265.
Amount
Where by clerical misprision judg-
ment was entered for greater sum
than that named in verdict, it could
be corrected by motion below. —
Jones v. Dalton, 273 S.W. 449, 209
Ky. 593.
The intention of the jury should
govern and control recitals in a
judgment; thus, where the state-
ments therein do not conform to
what the panel intended, it may be
amended.
Ark. — Reader R. R. v. Sanders, 90 S.
W.2d 762, 192 Ark. 28.
Ky. — Wolff v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co.,
32 .S.W.2d 548, 236 Ky. 1.
Okl.— Marker v. Gillam, 196 P. 126,
80 Okl. 259.
Snowing of error by court's notes.
Where the notes required to be
kept by court of its proceedings
show that a duly recorded judgment
does not reflect the true procedure
and finding of the court, the judg-
ment may be corrected on motion of
an aggrieved party. — Ex parte Mes-
sina, 128 S.W.2d 1082, 233 Mo.App.
1234.
Judgment reciting "dismissed on
the merits" will be corrected to «,
judgment "by dismissal" in order to
conserve possible equity right of
plaintiff where the court intimated
that plaintiff, although not entitled
to recover at law, might have pos-
sible equitable rights.— Hertenberger
v. Smith, 280 N.Y.S. 926, 24'5 App.
Div. 785.
12. Oal. — Jones v. Clover, 74 P.2d
'517. 24 Cal.App.2d 210.
13- Ind.— Wise v. Layman, • WO N.
E. 368, 197 Ind. 393— Brier v.
Childers, 148 N.E. 474, 196 Ind.
520.
Utah. — Frost v. District Court of
First Judicial Dist. in and for Box
Elder County, 85 P.2d 60X 96 Utah
115.
14. Cal.— Murray v. Babb, 86 P,2d
146, 30 CaLApp.2d 301.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 2M
§ 244. Parties
Errors of omission. Inclusion, or description of par-
ties In a Judgment may generally be corrected by amend-
ment, provided new parties, not previously before the
court, are not brought in, and the judgment Is not
changed in substance.
Where a judgment entry fails to correspond with
the record in consequence of a clerical error, or in-
advertence, which makes it include more or fewer
parties than it should, it may be amended by strik-
ing out the names of those erroneously added,15 or
inserting the names of those improperly omitted.16
A judgment may be corrected, with respect to the
parties, so as to conform to the verdict17 It may
even be permissible, where necessary- to carry out
the purpose of the judgment, to substitute one party
for another as plaintiff or defendant,18 or to cor-
rect the entry of judgment, through inadvertence,
for the wrong party.19 The power of amendment,
however, cannot be employed to bring within the
judgment new parties, v/ho were not previously be-
fore the court,20 or for the purpose, or with the ef-
fect, of changing the substance and effect of the
judgment as to the parties who were before the
court.21
A misnomer or misdescnption ot a party or
wrong spelling of his name in the judgment may
Reason fox role
Any objections to form of verdict
must be made before Jury are dis-
charged, and change, if any, in ver-
dict must be made, not by the court,
but by the jury acting under proper
instructions. — Murray v. Babb, 86 P.
2d 146, 80 Cal.App.2d 801.
15. Fla. — Robinson v. Farmers' &
Merchants' Bank of Tullahoma,
Tenn., 117 So. 398, 95 Fla. 940.
Ga,— Miller v. Jackson, 175 S.E. 409,
49 Ga.App. 809— Merchants' Gro-
cery Co. v. Albany Hardware &
Mill Supply Co., 160 S.E. 658, 44
Ga.App. 112.
La.— Fradelia v. Pumilia, 174 So. 850,
187 La. 263.
Pa. — Merchants Banking Trust Co. v.
Klimosky, 9 Pa.Dist. & Co. 143,
23 Sch.Leg.Rec. 78.
Tex. — Rush v. Klapproth, Civ.App.,
81 S.W.2d 257— Batson v. Bentley,
Crv.App., 297 S.W. 769.
34 C.J. p 238 note 14.
Parties to judgment:
Generally see supra $9 27-38.
Designation of see supra 8 75.
Nominal party
A wife, who Is made a nominal
party in a suit against her husband,
has a right to have the judgment is-
sued in the action amended by de-
leting her name. — Rawlings v. Lew-
ert, 9 Pa.Dist & Co. 701, 28 Lack.
Jur. 15, 75 Pittsb.Leg.J. 111.
16. S.C. — Boykin v. Capehart, 31 S.
E.2d 506, 203 S.C. 276.
Tex. — Brite v. Atascosa County, Civ.
App., 247 S.W. 878.
34 C-J. p 238 note 1*5.
Agent's name may be inserted in
judgment by amendment where the
verdict was against both him and
his principal. — Power v. Crown Stage
Co., 256 P. 457, 82 CaLApp. 660.
Judgment against defendant "et aL"
(1) Trial court was ( authorized to
amend original judgment against one
of three defendants "et als." by ren-
dering second judgment naming all
defendants in action, so that execu-
tion issued thereon would be valid. —
Glen Falls Indemnity Co. v. Manning,
La.App., 168 So. 787.
(2) However, judgment against a
named defendant "et al.," based on a
decision directing judgment against
"defendant," without specifying
which defendant was intended, can-
not be amended so as to name spe-
cifically each of defendants. — Marc
v. Pinkard. 230 N.T.S. 765, 133 Miss.
83.
Defendant not cast in. original judg-
ment
Under the general law, a defini-
tive judgment cannot be amended by
rule to condemn a party defendant
who by inadvertence was not cast in
the original judgment. — Jefferson v.
Laure N. Truck Line, La. App., 181
So. 821, affirmed Jefferson v. Lauri
N. Truck Lines, 187 So. 44, 192 La.
29— State ex reL Sehrt v. Registrar
of Conveyances, 129 So. 197, 1'4 La.
App. 30.
17. Cal. — Phipps v. Superior Court
in and for Alameda County, 89 P.
2d 698, 32 Cal.App.2d 371.
Ohio. — State ex rel. Fulton v. Ach,
24 N.E.2d 462, 62 Ohio App. 439.
Conforming judgment to verdict or
findings generally see supra § 243.
18. Mich.— Kees v.. Maxim. 58 N.W.
473, 99 Mich. 493.
34 C.J. p 238 note 16.
Partnership or members thereof
(1) Where a partnership was sub-
stituted for corporate plaintiff, judg-
ment was required to be amended to
run in favor of the partnership and
individual members thereof. — Wil-
liams Lumber Co. v. Stewart Gast
& Bro., La.App.f 21 So.2d 773.
C2) Judgment in favor of partner-
ship was properly amended by sub-
stituting individual names of plain-
tiffs as recovering judgment, where
original amended petition showed
dissolution of partnership and that
plaintiffs seeking to recover were
surviving partner and widow of de-
ceased partner, individually and as
independent executrix of his estate.
— Bridges v. Wilder, Tex.Oiv.App., 72
S.W.2d 644.
Administrator gubstttiited for payee
of note
Pa.— Aiken, to Use of Mayberry, v.
457
Mayberry, 193 A. 374, 128 Pa.Su-
per. 15.
19. Pa.— Fitzpatrick v. Bates, 92 Pa.
Super. 114.
Correction "before or after term
Pa. — Fitzpatrick v. Bates, supra.
20. OkL— Hurley v. Childers, 243 P.
218, 116 Okl. 8'4.
Tex. — Florence v. S wails, Civ. App.,
85 S.W.2d 257 — Turman v. Turman,
Civ.App., 71 S.W.2d 898, error dis- '
missed.
34 C.J. p 238 note 17.
21. B.C.— U. S. ex rel. Rauch v. Da-
vis, 8 P.2d 907, 56 App.D.C. 46,
certiorari denied 46 S.Ct 352, 270
U.S. £53, 70 L.Ed. 782.
N.Y.— Piratensky v. Wallach, 295 N.
Y.S. 581, 162 Misc. 749.
34 C.J. p 238 note 18.
Judicial and substantial changes
generally see supra § 238.
Joint or several right
(1) The erroneous entry of a joint
judgment does not preclude plaintiff
from applying for and having a sev-
eral judgment against defendants. —
Leese v. Clark, 28 Cal. 26.
(2) Where auditor's findings and
judgment thereon were for plaintiffs
severally, and execution was in favor
of plaintiffs jointly and severally,
amendment of judgment in favor of
plaintiffs jointly and severally was
unauthorized. — Kicklighter v. Burk-
halter, 170 S.B. 75, 177 Ga. 187.
(3) Where clerk inadvertently en-
tered a several judgment against
each defendant when in fact verdict
correctly construed was a joint and
several judgment and should have
been entered against both defend-
ants, nunc pro tune order correcting
entry of judgment was not an order
vacating a previous judgment, but
was merely an order for correction
of clerical mistake in original 'en-
try, so that court had jurisdiction
to make order, although judgment,
had become final. — Phipps v. Superior
Court in and for Alameda County, 89
P.2d 698, 32 CaLApp.2d 871. >
§ 244
JUDGMENTS
aj.s.
be cured by amendment,22 as may an error in the
description of the attorney.2^
Personal or representative capacity. A judgment
entered against a party in a representative capac-
ity, when it should have been against him individ-
ually, or vice versa, or a personal judgment against
an executor or administrator which should have
been against the goods of the estate, may be cured
by amendment when the mistake was clerical, but
not where the error was judicial.24
Remission against one or more defendants. By
consent, the court, after judgment in an action of
trespass to try title, may reform the judgment and
permit plaintiff to dismiss or remit the judgment
against one or more of several defendants.26
§ 245.
Process and Appearance
A recital in a judgment as to the Issuance or service
of process, or as to appearance, may be 'amended to
make ft conform to the facts or to make It more explicit.
An erroneous recital in a judgment with respect
to the issuance or service of process may be amend-
ed to make it conform to the actual facts, or to
make it more explicit;26 and recitals as to appear-
ance likewise may be amended.27 A fault, howev-
er, which is not in the statements or recitals of the
record, but in the writ or process itself, cannot be
amended, being a jurisdictional defect.28
§ 246. Relief Awarded in General
A judgment may be amended with respect to the re-
lief granted so as to carry out the court's intention, as
by correcting clerical or formal mistakes; but correcting
judicial errors after the term, or granting relief other
than that originally intended, may not be accomplished
by amendment.
With respect to the extent and character of the
relief granted, if the judgment entered does not
correspond with that actually intended and pro-
nounced by the court, it may be amended to carry
out the court's intention,29 by correcting any cleri-
cal mistake,30 by supplying matters inadvertently
omitted,31 by striking out clauses erroneously in-
serted,32 or by making merely formal or insub-
stantial changes,38 such as are necessary to make
the judgment conform to the pleadings,34 verdict,35
22. N.M.— Zintgraff v. Slsney, 249
P. 108, 31 N.M. 564.
N.Y. — Emmons v. Hirschberger, 55
N.T.S.2d 257, 269 App.Biv. 789, ap-
peal denied 63 N.E.2d 712, 294 N.
7. 978, affirmed 65 N.E.2d 328, 295
N.Y. 680.
S.C. — Tunstall v. Lerner Shops, 159
S.E. 386, 160 S.C. 557.
34 C.J. p 239 note 20.
23. U.S. — Odell v. Reynolds, Ohio,
70 F. 6-56, 17 C.C.A. 317.
24. Ark.— -Crane v. Crane, 11 S.W.
1, 51 Ark. 287.
34 C.J. p 238 note 22.
25. Tex. — Jones v. Andrews, 9 S.W.
170, 72 Tex. 5.
26. Tex. — Gerlach Mercantile Co. v.
Hughes-Bozarth-Anderson Co., Civ.
App., 189 S.W. 784.
34 C.J. p 239 note 2*4.
Amendment as to recitals in general
see supra § 242.
Validity and regularity of judgment
as dependent on process or ap-
pearance see supra §§ 23-26.
27. Mass. — Tilden v. Johnson, 6
Cush. 3-54.
34 C.J. p 239 note 25.
28. Tex.— Florence v. SwaUs, Civ.
App., 85 S,W.2d 257.
3'4 OJ. p 240 note 26.
Amendment of process or return
see the C.J.S. title Process §§ 114-
118, also 50 C.J. p 599 note 12-p
612 note 2.
Effect on judgment generally of de-
fective process or service see supra
8 24.
29. Arjp. — Morgan v. Scott-Mayer
Commission Co., 48 S.W.2d 838, 185
Ark. 637.
Cal. — Dutton Dredge Co. v. Goss, 247
P. 594, 77 CaLApp. 727.
Mont— St. Onge v. Blakley, 245 P.
532, 76 Mont. 1.
34 C.J. p 240 note 27.
Judgment's failure to speak tne
trutli is ground for modification. —
City of Tacoma v. Nyman, 281 P. 484,
154 Wash. 1'54.
Release of lien on realty
Where court never intended recov^
ery .to be preferred claim against
company in process of liquidation,
judgment could be amended so that
it would not be a lien on realty. —
Davis v. Commonwealth Trust Co., 7
A.2d 3, 335 Pa. 387.
Source of payment
Judgment ordered paid out of
funds in hands of highway commis-
sion may be amended to require pay-
ment out of funds in hands of its
transferee. — Pigeon-Thomas Iron Co.
v. Drew Bros., Ill So. 182, 162 La.
836.
30. 111. — Berghoff v. Cummings, 22*5
IlLApp. 1.
34 C.J. p 2"40 note 27.
Clerical and formal changes gener-
ally see supra 5 287.
31. N.Y.— New York Ice Co. V.
Northwestern Ins. Co., 23 N.T. 357.
34 C.J. p 240 note 27.
Supplying omissions generally see
supra § 240.
32. Pa. — Altoona Trust Co. v. Fock-
ler, 16-5 A. 740, 311 Pa. 426.
34 C.J. p '2*40 note 27.
33. Ind.— Scheiring v. Baker, 177 N.
458
B. 866, 202 Ind. 678— Hinton v.
Bryant, 190 N.E. 554, 99 Ind.App.
38 — Haas v. Wishmier's Estate, 190
N.E. 548, 99 Ind.App. 31.
Judicial and substantial changes gen-
erally see supra § 238.
Itemising property
Where court, in decree interpreting
original judgment, merely sets out
particular tteais of property referred
to generally in original judgment,
there was no material alteration or
amendment substantially changing
such original Judgment^Baptiste v.
Southall, 102 So. 420, 157 La. 333.
Dismissing without prejudice
Where judgment of dismissal was
predicated on pendency of suit before
railroad commission, amendment,
making dismissal without prejudice
to bringing of another suit, was not
erroneous, as it added nothing to
original judgment — Marine Produc-
tion Co. v. Shell Oil Co., Tex.Civ.
App., 146 S.W.2d 1024.
34. Ga, — Robinson v. Vickers, 127 S.
E. 849, 160 Ga. 362.
N.C. — Federal Land Bank of Colum-
bia v. Davis, 1 S.E.2d 360, 215 N.C.
100.
34 C.J. p 240 note 28.
Conformity to pleadings see supra
§§ 47-54.
35. Ga. — Jones v. Whitehead, 146 S.
E. 768, 167 Ga. 8-48— Robinson v.
Vickers, 127 S.E. 849, 160 Ga. 362.
Ind. — Scheiring v. Baker,, 177 N.E.
866, 202 Ind. 678 — Tom v. Tom,
26 N.E.2d 410, 107 Ind.App. 599—
Moore v. Moore, 129 N.B. 480, 74
Ind.App. 626.
34 C.J. p 240 note 29.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
findings,86 conclusions of law,87 and agreements of
the parties.88
Although there is some authority to the con-
trary,89 it has generally been held that there is no
power to amend by correcting a judicial mistake or
error of law, at least after the term at which the
judgment is rendered.40 Also a court may not
grant relief in addition to,41 or in lieu of,42 that
originally contemplated and intended to be given,
or change the rights of the parties as fixed by the
original decision,48 or adjudicate a matter which
might have been, but was not, considered and de-
termined on the trial.44
Medium of payment. An amendment in the pro-
vision of a judgment designating the medium of
payment may be allowed in a proper case.45
Conforming judgment to verdict and
findings generally see supra § 243.
Verdict toy implication.
Jury's failure to mention employee
in verdict against employer was in
law equivalent of a verdict for em-
ployee, and trial court should have
granted motion to amend judgment
to provide that complaint be dis-
missed as against employee.— Thibo-
deau v. Gerosa Haulage & Warehouse
Corporation, 300 N.Y.S. 686, 252 App.
Div. 615, affirmed 16 N.E.2d 9'8, 278
N.T. 551.
§ 247
§ 247. Amount of Recovery and AUo\v-
ance of Interest
A Judgment may be amended in order to correct
clerical mistakes as to the amount OP Interest recoverable
so as to make It conform to the record and the court's
intention; but judicial errors with respect to such mat-
ters may not be corrected by amendment, at least after
the term.
An amendment of a judgment is proper where
the clerk in entering the judgment has omitted to
insert the sum recovered.46 If, in consequence of a
clerical error47 or miscalculation on the part of the
clerk or the court,48 the amount of the recovery in
a judgment is stated at a wrong sum, the judgment
may be amended to conform to the truth. Where,
however, the amount of a judgment is wrong be-
cause of a judicial error in fixing the amount, it
cannot be amended after the term,4* although, dur-
36. Ind. — Scheiring v. Baker, 177 N.
B. 866, 202 Ind. 678— Tom v. Tom,
26 N.B.2d 410, 107 Ind.App. 599—
Moore v. Moore, 129 N.B. 480, 74
Ind. App. 626.
34 OJ. p 240. note 29.
37. Mont— Monteath v. Monteath,
4'4 P.2d 517, 99 Mont 444.
38. Pa,— Altoona Trust Co. v. Fock-
ler, 165 A. 740, 311 Pa, 426.
39. N.Y.— Caruso v. Metropolitan
5 to 50 Cent Store, 212 N.Y.S. 109,
214 App.Div. 328.
Wash. — Bulkley v. Dunkin, 230 P.
429, 131 Wash. 422, affirmed on re-
hearing 236 P. 301.
40. Tex.— Acosta v. Realty Trust
Co., Civ.App., Ill S.W.2d 777.
34 C.J. p 240 note 31.
Amendment removing1 material*
man's lien on a building: was held
improper as being a correction of
Judicial error. — Johnson v. Foreman,
56 N.B. 2-54, 24 Ind.App. 93.
41. N.T.— Winter v. New York L
Ins. Co., 23 N.Y.S.2d 759, 260 App.
Div. 676, appeal denied 25 N.Y.S.
2d 781, 261 App.Div. 816.
34 C.J. p 240 note 32.
Adjudicating new issue
Judgment deciding issue of title to
land against municipality could n<>t
be amended so as to adjudicate va-
lidity of taxes imposed by the city
after the entry of the judgment—
EGarway Improvement Co. v. Part-
ridge, 222 N.Y.S. 176, 220 App.Div.
595.
42. Ind.— Scheiring v. Baker, 177 N.
B. 866, 202 Ind. 678— Haas v. Wish-
mier's Estate, 190 N.B. 548, 99 Ind.
App. 31.
K.Y.— Winter v. New York Life Ins.
Co., 23 N.Y.S.2d 759, 260 App.Div.
676, appeal denied 25 N.Y.S.2d 781,
261 App.Div. 816!
34 C.J. p 240 note 32.
"Amendments to judgments can
only be made for the purpose of
making the record conform to the
truth, and not for the purpose of
revising and changing the judg-
ment"—Barkelew v. Barkelew, Cal.
App., 166 P.2d 57, 59— Felton Chemi-
cal Co. v. Superior Court in and for
Los Angeles County, 92 P.2d 684, 687,
33 Cal.App.2d 622.
43. CaL — Jacobs v. Norwich Union
Fire Ins. Soc., 40 P.2d 899, 4 Cal.
App.2d 1.
34 C.J. p 240 note 34.
Reason for rule
Public policy requires end to liti-
gation and that Judgment securing
valuable rights should not lightly be
disturbed. — Palm Beach Estates v.
Croker, 152 So. 416. Ill Fla. 671.
Award of possession
Where defendants were awarded
certain items of decedent's person-
alty, and plaintiff other items, refus-
al to amend judgment, by expunging
portion purporting to award defend-
ants any property described in com-
plaint, was upheld. — Hinton v. Bry-
ant, 190 N.E. 55*4, 99 Ind.App. 38.
Award to one not party
Where vendor was not party to
suit in which court awarded propor-
tionate share of rents to him and
during pendency of which purchaser
bought vendor's interest, mistake ir
award to vendor instead of
459
purchaser was held not to authorize
correction of judgment. — Bell v. Rog-
ers, Tex.Civ.App., 58 S.W.2d 878.
44. Wash.—- Engstroxn v. Bdendale
Land Co., 157 P. 683, 91 Wash. 241.
34 C.J. p 240 note 35.
45. N.Y.— Miller v. Tyler, 58 N.Y.
477.
34 C.J. p 240 note 30.
Specifying medium of payment i»
judgment see supra § 79.
46. Ga.— Bank of Tupelo v. Collier,
15 S.B.2d 499, 192 Ga. 409.
34 C.J. p 2'40 note 36.
47. Iowa. — Muraan v. Schuldt, 265
N.W. 369, 221 Iowa 242.
Ky.~ Weil v. B. E. Buftaloe & Co.,
65 S.W.Sd 704, 251 Ky. 673.
Tex. — Wedgeworth v. Pope, Civ.App.,
12 S.W.2d 1045, error refused.
Wyo.— Riverton Valley Drainage
Dist v. Board of Com'rs of Fre-
mont County, 74 P.2d 871, 52 Wyo.
336, 114 A.L..R. 1093.
C.J. p 241 note 37.
48. Tex.— Birdsong v. Allen, Civ.
App., 166 S.W. 1177.
34 C.J. p 241 note 37.
Pact that evidence fails to sup-
port fnH amount of judgment is a
basis for new trial and does not war-
rant modification of judgment. — Boos
v. State, 39 N.B. 197, 11 Ind.App.
257.
49. Ind.— Pursley v. Wickle, 30
HI'S, '4 Ind.App. 382.
Kan.— Barker v. Mecartney, B2 P.
439, 10 Kan.App. 130.
N.Y.— Minnesota Laundry Service v.
Mellon, 32 N.Y.S.2d 455, 263 App.
Div. 889, reargument denied 33 N.Y.
S.2d 826, 263 App.Div. 968, reargu-
ment denied 33 N.Y.S.2* 826, 263
App.Div. 968, affirmed 46 N.B.2d
354, 289 N.Y. 749.
Tex. — Arlington v. McDaniel, 25 S.
W.2d 295, 119 Tex. 148.
34 C.J. P 241 note «4S.
§ 247
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
ing the term such errors have been held correcti-
ble.50
In accordance with the foregoing rules, an amend-
ment may be made, particularly where plaintiff re-
mits the excess,51 in a case in which the amount
of the judgment is in excess of that claimed by
plaintiff in his pleadings,52 or is in excess of the
sum found by the verdict,53 or findings,54 or or-
dered by the court,55 or is larger than the total
which limits the jurisdiction of the court,55 or is
excessive in consequence of the failure to allow
proper credits.57
A rule similar to that followed in the case of
excessive judgments, applies where through inad-
vertence or mistake the judgment is entered for
too small an amount,58 as where it is for less than
appears on the face of the obligation in suit,5* or
less than the amount admitted to be due by de-
fendant's pleadings.60
In some jurisdictions the statutes contain express
provisions governing the correction of the amount
awarded in a judgment.61
Allowance of interest. A clerical error in the
calculation of interest62 or in fixing the date from
or to which interest shall run,63 or the inadvertent
Amendments after term generally
see supra § 230.
Amount of recovery for slander
held not amendable. — Crowder v.
fitters, 1 S.E.2d 353, 215 N.C. 123.
After a proceeding1 in partition, a
valuation of the estate by a jury,
confirmation of the inquisition, and
awarding: the estate to one of the
heirs, it is not in the power of the
'orphans' court to make any subse-
quent decree or order by which the
amount of the liability of the heir
to whom the estate was awarded is
either increased or diminished. — Gal-
braith v. Galbraith, 6 Watts, Pa.,
112.
50. Iowa. — Flickinger v. Omaha
Bridge Terminal R. Co., 67 N.W.
372, 98 Iowa 358.
Amendments during term generally
see supra § 229.
51. N.J.— Bozza v. Leonardis, 131 A.
87, 3 N.J.Misc. 1186.
34 C.J. p 242 note 48!
52. N.J.— Bozza v. Leonardis, 131 A.
87, 3 N.J.MISC. 1186.
S.D. — Sinclair Refining Co. v. Larson,
214 N.W. 842, 51 S.3X 443.
34 C.J. p 241 note 38.
53. CaL— Alpers v. Schaxnmel, 17 'P.
708, 75 Cal. 590.
34 GJ. p 241 note 39.
64. Mont— Quigley v. Birdseye, 28
P. 741, 11 Mont 439.
34 CJ. p 241 note 39.
55. Colo.— Kindel v. Beck & Paul!
Lithographing Co., 85 P. 538, 19
Colo. 310.
34 C.J. p 241 note 39.
Liability of oodefendants
(1) Judgment ordering full recov-
ery against each of a number of de-
fendants requires reformation to pro-
vide that any sum paid by any de-
fendant shall to that extent satisfy
Judgment against other defendants.
—First Nat Bank v. Slaton Inde-
pendent School Dist, Tex.Clv.App.,
58 S.W.2d 870, error dismissed.
(2) Where Judgment was entered
against both owner and operator of
motor vehicle for five thousand dol-
lars and twelve thousand five hun-
dred dollars, respectively, and costs,
it should be modified so as to pre-
vent collection of more than twelve
thousand five hundred dollars and
costs, and to show that owner's stat-
utory liability depended on nonpay-
ment by operator.— O'Neill v. Wil-
liams, 15 P.2d 879, 127 CaLApp. 385.
66. N.Y.— Stinerville & B. Stone Co.
v. White. 54 N.T.S. 577, 25 Misc.
31*4, reversed on other grounds 65
N.T.S. 609, 32 Misc. 135.
34 C.J. p 241 note 40.
57. U.S. — Sabine Hardwood Ce. v.
West Lumber Co., D.C.Tex., 238 F.
611.
34 C.J. p -241 note *1.
Where court's instructions con-
fused Jury and resulting verdict was
too large because of Jury's failure
to understand charges and credits,
Judgment rendered on verdict was
properly modified, especially where
the change received plaintiffs ap-
proval.— Mosher v. Sanford-Bvans
Co., 216 P. 811. 68 Mont 64.
BTeoessity of pleading* credit item
Fact that Judgment includes allow-
ances for work done by plaintiff for
defendant on Sunday is not ground
for modifying it, issue of right to
pay for Sunday work not having
been raised by the pleadings. — Mos-
ing v. Bankers' Oil Co., 212 P. 115,
112 Kan. 575.
Allowance for prior recovery
Where bonds, secured by trust
deed, had already been basis of per-
sonam Judgment obtained by bond-
holder, subsequent deficiency Judg-
ment, obtained by trustee in foreclo-
sure suit, for entire debt, less pro-
ceeds of foreclosure sale, was exces-
sive to extent of first recovery and
could have been corrected. — Doerr v.
Schmitt, 81 N.B.-2d 971, 375 111. 470.
Effect of code provision
Amendment of Judgment, holding
defendants liable for rent fer bal-
ance of term, after abandonment of
premises by them, is not necessary
to give them credit, to which they
are entitled for rent collected by
460
plaintiff for such period from new
tenants, as under the code such cred-
it may be urged as a set-off against
the Judgment itself, in reduction and
partial compensation thereof. — Meri-
wether v. Dorrity, 104 So. 187, 158
La. 405.
58. Iowa. — Murnan v. Schuldt, 265
N.W. 369, 221 Iowa 242.
Ky. — Weil v. B. B. Bufflaloe & Co.,
65 S.W.2d 704, 251 Ky. 673.
34 C.J. p 3*1 note 42.
59. La. — Brumfleld v. Mortee, 15 La.
116.
34 C.J. p 241 note *3.
6<X Minn. — Brown v. Lawler, 31
•Minn. 327.
34 OJ. p 241 note 44.
£L Iowa. — McConkey v. Lamb, 33
N.W. 146, 71 Iowa 636.
Court has both inherent and stat-
utory power to correct evident mis-
takes in awarding amounts in Judg-
ments, and such power is not re-
stricted by provisions of statutes
providing for vacation or modifica-
tion of Judgments to correct errors
in amount or mistakes, neglect, or
omissions of clerk and limiting time
within which motion therefor may
be made to one year. — Murnan v.
Schuldt, 265 N.W. 369, 221 Iowa 242.
62. Ga. — Haygood v. B. B. Clark Co.,
118 S.E. 461, 30 Ga.App. 392.
84 C.J. p 242 nete 50.
Interest in Judgments generally see
supra § 77.
Where plaintiff's attorney incor-
rectly computed interest to which
plaintiff was entitled, plaintiff was
entitled to order amending and cor-
recting Judgment by inserting there-
in proper amount of Interest — Spatz
v. Pulensky. <48 N.Y.S.2d 314, 267
App.Div. 1031.
63. Idaho. — Donahoe v. Herrick, 260
P. 150, <44 Idaho 560.
Ky.— Keyser v. Hopkins, 34 S.W.2d
968, 237 Ky. 105.
La. — Gurney Refrigerator Co. v. Mc-
Donald, 131 So. 853, 15 La.App. 319.
N.T.— Board of Hudson River Regu-
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 248
omission of a provision for interest,64 may be cor-
rected by an amendment; and the court may cor-
rect its judgment so as to show the rate of inter-
est65 and the date from which interest is to run.66
However, judicial error in passing on the right to
interest,67 or in fixing the amount of interest to
be recovered,68 or in failing to make any provi-
sion for interest in the judgment,69 cannot be cor-
rected by amendment, at least after the term.
In determining whether an amendment of the
award of interest is proper, courts will consider
whether the correction will conform the judgment
to the verdict,70 and to the findings.71
§ 248. Costs and Allowances
A clerical error or omission as to the costs In a judg-
ment may be corrected by amendment; but errors of
substance In the allowance of costs or attorneys' fees,
may not be amended after the term.
A clerical error72 or omission73 with respect to
the costs to be included in the judgment may be
corrected by amendment It is not permissible,
however, by an amendment after the term, to add to
the judgment costs which were not originally al-
lowed or within the purview of the original judg-
ment,74 or to reconsider or review the allowance
latin* Dist. v. De Long, 236 N.T.S.
245, 134 Misc. 775.
34 C.J. p 242 note 50.
64. U.S. — Hartmann-Schneider Co. v.
Farish Co., C.C.A.Pa., 7 F.2d 561.
Cal. — Pacific Coast Adjustment Bu-
reau v. Indemnity Ins. Co. of North
America, 2 F.2d 218, 115 Cal.App.
583.
Mich. — Porter v. Michigan Elevator
Exchange, 271 N.W. 757, 279 Mich.
276.
N.Y.— Tedesco v. Genova, 235 N.Y.S.
739, 134 Misc. 222.
Interest as matter of course
Where judgment as entered bears
Interest as a matter of course, ad-
dition of a provision expressly pro-
viding for interest was held a change
in form, and not in substance. — New
River Collieries Co. v. U. S.. D.C.
N.J., 300 F. 333.
Amendment after term
(1) Where judgment has been ren-
dered for principal, interest and
costs, without specifying any
amounts, but they are determinable
by inspection of record, including
pleadings and verdict, without resort
to extraneous proof, judgment may
be amended at a subsequent term by
inserting the several amounts thus
shown to be due. — Bank of Tupelo v.
Collier, 15 S.E.2d 499, 192 Ga. 409.
(2) Where jury's answers showed
that verdict did not include interest,
court at subsequent term may in-
crease judgment by including inter-
est— Beeler v. Continental Casualty
jCo., 265 P. 57, 125 Kan. 441.
(3) Judgment .may be corrected
before execution to provide for in-
terest on contract demand, regard-
less of expiration of trial term. —
McLaughlin v. Brinckerholt 226 N.T.
S. 623, 222 App.Div. '458, followed in
Joannes Bros. Co. v. Lambprn, 234
N.Y.S. 817, 226 App.Div. 777.
*6. Tex. — Luck v. Riggs Optical Co.,
Civ.App., 1'49 S.W.2d 204.
66. Tex.— Luck v. Riggs Optical
Co., supra.
67. N.Y. — Rambusch v. Burke, 223
N.Y.S. 464, 221 App.Div. 777— In
re Brady's Estate, 264 N.Y.S. 449,
147 Misc. 613.
68. N.C.— Garrett v. Love, 90 N.C.
368.
34 C.J. p 242 note 51.
Allowance for insufficient period.
If court erred in failing to pro-
vide for interest on amount recov-
erable from collector of internal rev-
enue from date of judgment to date
of payment, error was judicial and
not subject to correction after ex-
piration of term at which judgment
was rendered.— Reed v. Howbert C.
C. A. Colo., 77 F.2d 227.
69. Conn. — Goldreyer v. Cronan, 65
A. 594, 76 Conn. 113.
34 C.J. p 2'42 note 51.
Bight to interest debatable
Denial of interest from date of or-
der for possession in condemnation
proceeding was held judicial error,
if any, and not subject to correction
as clerical error, where matter of
defendants' right to such interest
was debatable. — Howland v. Superior
Court of Los Angeles County, 16 P.
2d 318, 127 CaLApp. 695.
70. Objection to verdict necessary
(1) Where no objection was made
to verdict which did not allow inter-
est on notes sued on, court was pow-
erless to fix amount of interest to be
recovered or to amend judgment ac-
cordingly.— Meffert v. Lawson, 287
S.W. 610, 315 Mo. 1091.
(2) Conformity of Interest award
to verdict and findings see supra S
58.
71. Interest not recoverable eo no-
mine but as damages is a question
for jury, and, in absence of finding
awarding such interest, judgment in-
cluding such interest should be re-
formed so as to exclude it — Atkin-
son v. Jackson Bros., Tex.Civ.App.,
259 S.W. 280, modified on other
grounds, Com.App., 270 S.W. 848.
72. Conn. — Albright v, MacDonald,
183 A. 389, 121 Conn. 88.
Kan. — Corpus Juris quoted in Gallo-
way v. Wesley, 73 P.2d 1073, 1079,
146 Kan. 937.
461
Tex.— Weaver v. Humphrey, 114 S.
W.2d 609, error dismissed.
34 C.J. p 242 note 52.
Costs, allowances, and attorney's
fees in judgments generally see
supra § "78.
Taxation against wrong party
Clerical error of clerk In entering
judgment taxing costs against plain-
tiff in error instead of defendant in
error could be corrected.— O'Neil v.
Norton, Tex.Com.App., 33 S.W.2d
733.
Stipulation binding on parties
Where attorneys for plaintiff and
defendant drew and signed stipula-
tion that judgment should be enter-
ed for plaintiff for one hundred dol-
lars "without costs" and judgment
was entered by clerk for one hundred
two dollars, including two dollars
clerk fees, trial court on defendant's
motion properly reduced the judg-
ment to one hundred dollars. — Berth-
iaume v. Erickson, 16 N.W.2d 288,
218 Minn. 403.
73. Ga. — Bank of Tupelo v. Collier,
15 S.B.2d 499, 192 Ga, 409.
Kan. — Corpus Jnria quoted in Gallo-
way v. Wesley, 73 P.2d 1073, 1079,
146 Kan. 937.
N.Y. — Empire Produce Co. v. Ring,
232 N.Y.S. 82, 225 App.Div. 6.
34 C.J. p 242 note 52, p 243 note
55 [c].
After satisfaction of judgment
Judgment may be amended to al-
low costs to defendant notwithstand-
ing the judgment has been satisfied.
—Coffee v. Johnson, 24 N.Y.S.2d 588,
Cost* to which party in entitled as
of course may be added by amend-
ment.— Coffee v. Johnson, supra —
34 C.J. p 242 note 52 [b].
74. Kan. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Galloway v. Wesley, 73 P.2d 1073,
1079, 146 Kan. 937.
34 OJ. p 242 note 53.
Remedy for omitting costs from
judgment is by appeal or motion to
vacate, if omission is substantial. —
Empire Produce Co. v King, 232 N.
Y.S. 82, 226 App.Div. 6.
248
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
of costs,76 or to shift them from one party to the
other.™
Allowances for attorneys' fees. Error with re-
spect to the allowance of attorneys' fees may be
presented by motion to modify the judgment.77
Such allowances are also subject to the rule that
the correction of other than clerical or formal er-
rors, by amendment, is limited to the term at which
the judgment is rendered.78
§ 249. Other Errors or Defects
The general rules governing the amendment of judg-
ments have been applied to various particular types of
amendments or corrections, such as those relating to the
cure of ambiguity, date of judgment, signature, and de-
scription of property.
In addition to the amendments and corrections
discussed supra §§ 240-248, under the general rules
governing the amendment and correction of judg-
ments particular amendments have been permitted
or have been held proper,™ or have been not per-
mitted or have been held improper.80
of substance
A provision withholding: or award-
ing1 costs is a substantive part of a
Judgment in an action In equity and
cannot be amended. — Schenectady
Trust Co. v. Emmons, 48 N.E.2d 497,
290 N.Y. 225—34 C.J. p 242 note 53
Cb] (1).
75. Kan. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Galloway v. Wesley, 73 P.2d 1073,
1079, 146 Kan. 937.
Tex. — Wiggins v. Hensley, Civ.App.,
114 S.W.2d 914, error dismissed.
3*4 C.J. p 243 note 54.
Bemedy
Effect of judgment for costs in-
curred by successful appellant was
not avoidable by motion to modify
judgment, but only by motion for
new trial and appeal from order de-
nying- it — Reno Electrical Works v..
Ward, 290 P. 1024, 63 Nev. 1, re-
hearing denied 296 P. 1112, 53 Nev. 1.
76. Kan. — Corpus Juris quoted la
Galloway v. Wesley, 73 P.2d 1073,
10-79, 1'46 Kan. 937.
34 C.J. p 243 note 54.
77. Ind. — Tom v. Tom, 26 N.R2d
410, 107 IndApp. 599.
Separability of fee from award
Fact that judgment has been ren-
dered for an amount including attor-
ney's fees, which were not recover-
able, is cause for striking that part
of judgment covering attorney's fees,
and this portion can be stricken only
where the amount thereof is separa-
ble from the balance of the judge-
ment.— Love v. National Liberty Ins.
Co., 121 S.E. 648, 157 Ga. 259.
7S. Kan. — Corpus Juris quoted In
Galloway v. Wesley, 73 P.2d 1073,
. 1079, 146 Kan. 937.
3"4 C.J. p 243 note 5-5.
'Scrivener's error in deoree in fore-
closure suit was properly amended
nearly two years after -entry to show
correct amount of ' attorney's fee. —
Wilson v. Carroll, 250 P. 555, 80 Colo.
234.
79. Defects held amendable or oor-
xeotlbto
<1) Failure to enter judgment as
directed by court. — Bwert v. Thomp-
son, C.C.A.Okl., 281 F. 449.
(2) Failure of judgment against
guardian to direct that levy should.
be made on goods of ward in guard-
ian's hands.— Haller v. Digman, 167
S.B. 593, 113 W.Va. 240.
(3) Clerk's mistake in recording
decree providing for sale of oil and
gas leases instead of land.— Reynolds
v. Winship, 299 S.W. 16, 175 Ark.
352.
(4) Dismissal on merits in absence
of plaintiff's counsel, resulting from
a misunderstanding between plain-
tiff and his counsel as to disposal of
case.— Massachusetts Fire & Marine
Ins. Co. v. Schmick, C.C.A.S.D., 58
F.2d 130.
(5) Failure to provide for return
of property or its value in a judg-
ment of nonsuit in claim and deliv-
ery action. — Skaggs v. 'Taylor, 247 P.
218, 77 Cal.App. 519.
(6) Failure to include an order for
sale of attached debt — Hudelson v.
Sanders-Swafford Co., 227 P. 310, 111
Or. 600.
(7) Other amendments.
Cal.— Carter v. Shinsako, 108 P.2d 27,
42 Cal.App.2d 9.
Iowa. — Walters v. Knutsen, 272 N.W.
420, 223 Iowa 225.
Ky. — Williams v. Isaacs, 256 S.W.
19, 201 Ky. 165.
N.T. — Vogel v. Harriman Nat. Bank
& Trust Co. of City of New York,
5 N.T.S.2d 306, 254 App.Div. 479.
Tex. — Kittrell v. Conanico, Civ.App.,
56 S.W.2d 272.
34 C.J. p 231 note 84 [c], p 235
note 99 [a].
SO.
adments held improper or
not permitted
(1) Order striking words "on the
merits" from judgment dismissing
action on merits. — McElroy v. Board
of Education of City of Minneapolis,
238 N.W. 681, 184 Minn. 357.
(2) Order directing receiver, in-
stead of sheriff, to sell property and
pay costs and expenses from pro-
ceeds, instead of rent money. — State
ex reL Maple v. Mulloy, 15 S.W.2d
809, 322 Mo. 281.
(3) Refusal of judgment against
attachment claimant and bondsmen
for value of property. — Pring v.
Pratt, Tex.Civ.App., 1 S.W^d 441,
error dismissed.
(4) To correct error in conclusions
462
of law and judgment, in failing to
state that property was not benefited
by improvement, so as to constitute
res judicata. — Wilson v. City of Fer-
gus Falls, 232 N.W. 322, 181 Minn.
329.
(5) To correct error in judgment
vesting title, where ownership of
land was adjudicated in trespass to
try title in partition suit.— Montgom-
ery v. Huff, Tex.Civ.App., 11 S.W.
2d 237, error refused.
(6) Other amendments.
CaL— Liuzza v. Brinkerhoff, 83 P.2d
976, 29 Cal.App.2d 1— McConville
v. Superior Court within and for
Los Angeles County, 248 P. 553,
78 Cal.App. 203 — McKannay v. Mc-
Kannay, 230 P. 218, 68 CaLApp.
709.
Colo.— Berkley v. Consolidated Low-
er Boulder Reservoir & Ditch Co.,
216 P. 5'48, 73 Colo. 483.
Ga. — City of Cornelia v. Wells, 183
S.B. 66, 181 Ga, 55'4.
111.— Noel State Bank v. Blakely Real
Estate Imp. Corporation, 53 N.B.2d
621, 321 IlLApp. 594.
Kan. — Leach v. Roberson, 52 P.2d
629, 142 Kan. 687.
Ky.— Broderick v. Bourbon-Agricul-
tural Bank & Trust Co., 58 S.W.2d'
397, 248 Ky. 191.
N.T. — Brocia v. F. Romeo & Co., 150
N.B. 530, 241 N.T. 505— Hiser v.
Davis, 137 N.EL 596, 234 N.T. 300—
Kittinger v. Churchill Evangelistic
Ass'n, 276 N.T.S. 465, 153 Misc.
880, affirmed 281 N.T.S. 680, 244
App.Div. 876, reargument denied
281 N.T.S. 409, 245 App.Div. 805,
affirmed 281 N.T.S. 681, 244 App.
Div. 877.
Or.— Hicks v. Hill Aeronautical
School, 286 P. 553, 132 Or. 545.
Tex.— Arrington v. McDaniel, 25 S.
W.2d 295, 119 Tex. 148— Miller v.
Texas Life Ins. Co., Civ.App., 123
S.W.2d 756, error refused.
Utah.— Frost v. District Court of
First Judicial District in and for
Box Elder County, 83 P.2d 737, 96
Utah 106, rehearing denied 85 P.2d
601, 96 Utah 115.
34 OJ. p 235 note 99 [b].
Dismissal without prejudice
(1) Under some statutes trial
court was without power to amend
judgment of dismissal by inserting
49 C. J. S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 249
Curing ambiguity. Independently of statute,81 a
judgment may be amended so as to cure it of am-
biguity or remove the possibility of confusion.82
Date of judgment. An error in the date of ren-
dition of a judgment is amendable,83 even at a
subsequent term,84 so as to make it express the
true date. It has been held, however, that the
date on which the judgment is entered is not a
part of the judgment, and that it is a fact which
the court cannot correct.85
Signature. The required signature of the judge
or clerk may be supplied by amendment;86 and
the defect of an intervening space between the end
of the judgment and the judge's signature may be
corrected at any time.87
Description of property. Where a description of
the land or other property involved is omitted from
a judgment, or where such description is erroneous
or uncertain, it may be inserted or corrected by
amendment.88
Conforming judgtnent to pleadings. A judgment
may be reformed or amended so as to conform to
the pleadings.89
words "without prejudice," without
showing that its original intention
was to dismiss without prejudice. —
Testa v. Armour & Co., 8 N.Y.S.2d
302, 255 App.Div. 998— Cabang v.
U. S. Shipping Board Merchant Fleet
Corporation. 237 N.Y.S. 105, 227 App.
Div. 751.
(2) Refusal to amend judgment of
dismissal by making dismissal with-
. out prejudice, as for failure of proof,
was justified, under some statutes. —
Ziegler v. International Ry. Co., 248
7ST.T.S. 375, 232 App.Div. 43— Commer-
cial Motors Mortg. Corporation v.
Mack International Motor Truck Cor-
poration, 209 N.T.S. 661, 213 App.Div.
25.
81. Nev. — Lindsay v. Lindsay, 280
P. 95, 52 Kev. 26, 67 A.L.R. 824.
82. Cal. — Dahlberg v. Dahlberg, 268
P. 695, 92 CaLApp. 639.
La. — Qien Falls Indemnity Co. v.
Manning, App., 168 So. 787.
Tex. — Weaver v. Humphrey, 114 S.W.
2d 609, Civ.App., error dismissed —
Corpus Juris quoted in, Flannery
v. Eblen, Civ.App., 106 S.W.2d 837,
error dismissed — Shipman v.
Wright, Civ.App., 3 S.W.2d 519,
error refused.
34 C.J. p 236 .note 4.
Specifying parties
<1) Where it appeared that, al-
though judgment was entered in fa-
vor of one defendant, judgment was
erroneously entered against "defend-
ants" without specifying them, judg-
ment file could be corrected. — Sachs
v. Feinn, 183 A. 384, 121 Conn. 77.
(2) Parties generally see supra
$ 244.
Double recovery
Judgment for plaintiffs which was
ambiguous and could be construed as
permitting double recovery was re-
quired to be amended to remove am-
biguity.— Coluccip v. State, 64 P.2d
786, 189 Wash. 236.
Ownership of property
In suit for damages resulting from
conversion of furniture, where de-
fendants were shown to be the own- j
era of items of furniture described
in their answer and in the judgment,
defendants were entitled to have the
judgment amended so as to leave no
doubt of defendants' ownership of
such items. — Turner v. Charlton, La.
App., 197 So. 187.
83. Or.— Fuller v. Blanc, 77 P.2d
4'40, 160 Or. 50.
Date of rendition, shown in judgment
Where judgment was actually ren-
dered, as recited in the judgment it-
self, on a certain date, motion for
leave to amend to show that it was
actually rendered on a later date, so
as to render effective appeal bond
filed within thirty days of entry of
judgment but more than thirty days
from date of rendition, was overrul-
ed.— Sloan v. Richey, Tex.Civ.App.,
T43 S.W.2d 119, error dismissed,
judgment correct.
84. Iowa. — Greazel v. Price, 112 N.
W. 827, 135 Iowa 364.
34 C.J. p 237 note 9.
85. Ohio. — Friedman v. Brown, 172
K.E. 565, 35 Ohio App. 450.
Delay in spreading entry on journal
Under a statute authorizing the
court to modify its judgment after
the term for mistake, neglect, or
omission of the clerk, the record
will not be corrected to show the en-
try of judgment to have been made
on the date the journal clerk spread
the entry on the journal, rather than
the earlier date on which it was
filed with the clerk, as there was no
mistake, neglect, or omission by
the clerk in not spreading the entry
on the journal on the date of filing.
— Morewood Realty Holding Co. v.
Amazon Rubber Co., 18 Ohio App.
201, affirmed Amazon Rubber Co. v.
Morewood Realty Holding Co., 142 N.
E. 363, 109 Ohio St. 291.
86. -Gfiu— Pollard v. King, 62 Ga.
103.
N.Y.— Seaman v. Drake, 1 Cal. 9.
Signing by judge or clerk generally
see supra § 85.
463
87. Ky. — Leming v. Farmers' Nat
Bank, 25 S.W.2d 1020, 233 Ky. 438.
88. Ala.— Parker v. Duke, 157 So.
436, 229 Ala. 361.
Cal. — Bradbury Estate Co. v. Carroll,
276 P. 394, 98 CaLApp. 145— -Ho-
gan v. Horsfall, 266 P. 1002, 91 Cal.
App. 37, followed in 266 P. 1005, 91
CaLApp. 797.
Mont. — State Bank of New Salem v.
Schultze, 209 P. 599, 63 Mont. 410.
Or.— Winslow v. Burge, 237 P. 979,
115 Or. 375.
S.D. — Corpus Juris cited in Gerhart
v. Quirk, 209 N.W. 54'4. 545, 50 S.D.
269.
3«4 C.J. p 237 note 10.
Conformity to description in plead-
ing-
Court has authority at any time to
correct misdescriptlon of lands con-
tained in judgment where pleadings
and proof correctly describe land in
question; but erroneous description
of land which was in accordance
with description referred to in com-
plaint cannot be corrected as clerical
error, since the judgment correctly
expresses the decision of the court
— Oregon Mortg. Co. v. Kunneke, 245
P. 539, 76 Mont 117—34 C.J. p 237
note 10 [b].
39. Cal.— McFarland v. Cordiero, 278
P. 889, 99 CaLApp. 352.
Tex. — Davis v. Standard Rice Co.,
Civ.App., 293 S.W. 593.
Changes with respect .to relief
awarded see supra S 246.
Conformity to pleadings generally
see supra §5 47-54.
, Judgment in ejectment was sub-
ject to amendment to conform to the
declaration. — Renwick v. Noggle, 225
N.W. 535, 247 Mich. 150.
After Judgment in foreclosure suit
and sale of land thereunder and con-
firmation of sale, judgment there-
after should be modified an motion
to conform to pleadings and. proof, if
at all, in such respect as not to prej-
udice uncontroverted rights of par-
ties.—First State Bank. of Larned v.
Arnold, 234 P. 1003, 118 Kan, 389.
250
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
§ 250. Procedure and Relief
A judgment once entered must be corrected, If Irreg-
ular or erroneous, by some proper proceeding for that
purpose.
A judgment once entered must be corrected, if ir-
regular or erroneous, by some proper proceeding
for that purpose; it cannot be merely disregarded
and the proper judgment entered anew.90 A judg-
ment once regularly signed or entered may be mod-
ified or altered by the court which entered it only
in the manner, if any, prescribed by statute.91
Substantial or judicial errors, as discussed supra
§ 238, are generally to be corrected by a motion for
a new trial or by appeal or writ of error, or they
may be amended under appropriate statutory proce-
dure,92 or, after the term, by independent action ;9S
and it has been held that the correction cannot be
made on the court's own motion.94
Merely formal or clerical errors in the judgment
as entered are to be corrected by amendment in the
trial court, and not by writ of error or appeal from
the judgment;95 and they may be corrected on
motion or at the instance of the parties.96 During
the term at which the judgment was rendered, the
90. Wis. — Hottelet v. Von Cotzhau-
sen, 154 N.W. 701, 162 Wis. 12.
34 C.J. p 24S note 57.
Action to review judgment see infra
§§ 314-319.
Writ of error coram nobis see infra
§§ 311-313.
(1) A judgment stands in amount
as it is entered, and the only way
in which it may be modified is by a
direct proceeding for that purpose.
— Blakeslee's Storage Warehouse v.
City of Chicago, 17 N.E.2d 1, 369 111.
480, 120 A.L.R. 715.
(2) Amendment as to amount of
recovery generally see supra § 247.
Final judgment
To modify an original Judgment
that has become final, proceedings
must be had directed to that end un-
der statute or in some direct pro-
ceeding to correct the Judgment. —
Jackson v. Redding, 139 So. 317, 162
Miss. 323.
91. Gal. — Eisenberg v. Superior
Court in and for City and County
of San Francisco, 226 P. 617, 193
Cal. 575.
Idaho. — Occidental Life Ins. Co. v.
Niendorf, 44 P.2d 1099, 55 Idaho
•521.
Ky.— Gardner v. Breedlove, 76 S.W.2d
240, 256 Ky. 413.
La. — Castelluccio v. Cloverland Dairy
Products Co., 115 So. 796, 165 La.
606, conformed to 8 La. App. 723.
Ohio.— Barman v. Feid, 27 Ohio N.P.,
N.S., 409.
Wash. — Betz v. Tower Sav. Bank, 55
P.2d 338, 185 Wash. 314.
92. Cal.— Bastajian v. Brown, 120 P.
2d 9, 19 Cal.2d 209— McMahan v.
Baringer, 122 P.2d 63, 49 Cal.App.
2d 431.
Time for correction or motion
(1) Judicial errors cannot be cor-
rected at any time, but must be cor-
rected seasonably, in accordance
with statutory or code provisions
for the correction of erroneous judg-
ments.— Wides v. Wides, 188 S.W.2d
4-71, 300 Ky. 344.
(2) A motion calling, not for cor-
rection of a mere clerical error, but
for modification of an essential judi- j
catory part of a judgment must be
made during the term at which the
Judgment was rendered. — Farmers' &
Merchants' Nat. Bank of Rensselaer
v. Elliott, 141 N.E. 652, 80 Ind.App.
596.
93. Tex. — Love v. State Bank &
Trust Co. of San Antonio, 90 S.W.
2d 819, 126 Tex. 591— Coleman v.
Zapp, 151 S.W. 10'40, 105 Tex. 491
— Miller v. Texas Life Ins. Co.,
Civ.App., 123 S.W.2d 756, error re-
fused.
94* Minn. — Wilson v. City of Fergus
Falls, 232 N.W. 322, 181 Minn. 329.
N.Y.— In re Starbuck, 225 N.T.S.
113, 221 App.Div. 702, affirmed In
re Starbuck's Ex'x, 162 N.E. 522,
248 N.Y. 5*55.
95. N.Y.— Goldstein v. Schick, 261
N.Y.S. 839, 237 App.Div. 905, mo-
tion, denied 185 N.E. 804, 261 N.
T. 713, affirmed 188 N.E. 126, 262
N.T. 696.
34 C.J. p 243 note 59.
96. Ariz.— Fay v. Harris, 164 P.2d
860.
CaL — Benway v. Benway, 159 P.2d
682, 69 Cal.App.2d 574.
Ky. — Weil v. B. E. Buffialoe & Co.,
65 S.W.2d 704, 251 Ky. 673— Strat-
ton & Terstegge Co. v. Begley, 61
S.W.2d 287, 249 Ky. 632— Keyser v.
Hopkins, 34 S.W.2d 968, 237 Ky.
105— Williams v. Isaacs, 256 S.W.
19, 201 Ky. 165.
N.T.— Goldstein v. Shicfc, 261 N.Y.S.
839, 237 App.Div. 905, motion de-
nted 185 N.E. 804, 261 N.Y. 713, af*
firmed 188 N.E. 126, 262 N.Y. 696—
Brown v. Shyne, 206 N.Y.S, 310,
123 Misc. 851.
N.C. — Federal Land Bank of Colum-
bia v. Davis, 1 S.E.2d 350, 215 N.C.
100.
Okl.— Hurley v. Childers, 243 P. 218,
116 Okl. 84— McAdams v. C. D.
Shamburger Lumber Co., 240 P.
124, 112 Okl. 173.
Tex. — t<ove v. State Bank & Trust
Co. of San Antonio, 90 S.W.2d 819,
126 Tex. 591 — Coleman v. Zapp, 151
S.W. 10-40, 105 Tex. 491— Weaver
v. Humphrey, Civ. App., 114 S.W.
2d 609, error dismissed— Acosta v. j
464
Realty Trust Co., Civ.App., Ill S.
W.2d 777.
34 C.J. p 244 note 64.
Defects amounting- only to irreg-
ularities should be corrected by a
motion for that purpose. — Brantley
v. Greer, 71 Ga. 11 — City of Albany
v. Parks, 5 S.E.2d 680, 61 Ga.App.
55.
"Errors" may be corrected on the
application of a party in interest-
In re Cornine's Guardianship, N.J.
Orph., 199 A. 733.
Improper recital of dismissal on
merits
A judgment improperly reciting
that the dismissal is on the merits
may be corrected by motion. — Mink
v. Keim, 41 N.Y.S.2d 769, 266 App.
Div. 184, affirmed 52 N.E.2d 444, 291
N.Y. 300.
Motion as not suggestion of error
In order to include material ele-
ments left out through error or over-
sight, judgment may be corrected on
motion; and such motion is not a
suggestion of error. — Huckaby v.
Jenkins, 122 So. '487, 154 Miss. 378.
Securing1 costs
Where defendant in law action was
entitled to recover statutory costs
as matter of course, and judgment
was entered for plaintiff and was
satisfied, proper procedure to secure
costs for defendant was by motion to
amend judgment and not by the en-
try of second judgment for costs. —
Coffee v. Johnson, 24 N.Y.S.2d 588.
ZH Tnffi'M'Lft
(1) The office of a motion to' mod-
ify judgment is to make the judg-
ment conform to the verdict or find-
ing.— Wise v. Layman, 150 N.E. 368,
197 Ind. 393— Blagetz v. Blagetz, 37
N.E.2d 318, 109 Ind.App. 662— First
State Bank of Frankfort v. Sprad-'
ling, 11 N.E.2d 76, 10*4 Ind.App. 342
— Hinton v. Bryant, 190 N.E. 554,
99 Ind. App. 38 — Moore v. Moore, 135
N.B. 3*2, 81 Ind. App. 169.
(2) Such a motion cannot be usei
for any other purpose than to raise •
questions affecting the form of the
judgment. — First State Bank of
Frankfort v. Spradling, supra.
49 0. J. S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 250
correction may be made by an order of the court on
a mere suggestion of the error.97 Under a num-
ber of authorities, the court may act of its own mo-
tion, without application by a party,98 although
some authorities restrict this power to the term"
and hold that after the term the amendment can
be made only on the presentation of a formal pe-
tition or motion,1 entitled and filed in the action or
proceeding in which the judgment was rendered.2
A motion in the cause, as distinguished from an
independent action, is generally the proper remedy
to obtain an amendment of a judgment,8 and such
* (3) Such a motion may be used to
correct some matter of form in judg-
ment, but not to secure the substi-
tution of a different one. — Blagetz
v. Blagetz, supra— Hinton v. Bryant,
supra.
(4) Such a motion cannot be made
to perform the office of a motion
for a new trial. — Blagetz v. Blagetz,
supra — Hinton v. Bryant, supra —
Hatfield v. Ralston, 155 N.B. 221, 85
Ind.App. 621.
(5) Remedy against an erroneous
or improper judgment is a motion
to modify the judgment, not a mo-
tion for a new trial. — Smith v. Hill,
165 N.E. 911, 200 Ind. 616— Edwards
v. Wiedejitoaupt, 32 N.E.2d 106, 109
Ind.App. 450.
(6) Remedy against judgment not
within issues, and which did not
follow findings, was held to be a mo-
tion to modify the judgment and
not a motion for a new trial. — Fisher
v. Rosander, 151 N.E. 12, 84 Ind. App.
694—34 C.J. p 243 note 59 [ej.
97. Mo.— Marsala v. Marsala, 282
S.W. 1048, 288 Mo. 501.
84 C-J. p 243 note 60.
98. Ariz.— Fay v. Harris, 1$4 P.2el
860— Swisshelm Gold Silver Co. v.
Farwell, 124 P.2d 5*4,* 59 Ariz. 162.
Gal.— In re Soboslay's Estate, 47 P.
2d 714, 4 Cal.2d 17.7— Benway v.
Benway, 159 P.2d 682, 69 CaLApp.
2d 574— Kohlstedt v. Hauseur, 74
P.2d 314, 24 Cal.App,2d 60— Hogan
v. Horsfall, 266 P. 1002, 91 Cal.
App. 37, followed in 266 P. 1005,
91 CaLApp. 797— McConville v. Su-
perior Court within and for Los
Angeles County, 248 P. 553, 78 Cal.
App. 203.
Kan.— Cubitt v, Cubitt, 86 P. 475, 74
Kan. 353.
Minn. — Wilson v. City of Fergus
Falls, 232 N.W. 322, 181 Minn.
329 — Plankerton v. Continental
Casualty Co., 230 N.W. '4S4, 180
Minn. 168.
Mont.— Morse v. Morse, 154 P.2d 982.
Okl. — Mason v. Slonecker, 219 P. 357,
92 Okl. 227.
Tex, — Liove v. State Bank & Trust
Co. of San Antonio, 90 S.W.2d 819,
126 Tex. 591— Corpus Juris cited in
• Townes v. Lattiraore, 272 S.W. 435,
437, 114 Tex. 511— Coleman v.
Zapp, 151 S.W. 1040, 105 Tex. 491
— Weaver v. Humphrey, Civ. App.,
114 S.W.2d 609, error dismissed—
49C.J.S.— 30
Acosta v. Realty Trust Co., Civ.
App., Ill S.W.2d 777.
34 C.J. p 244 note 61.
Notice see infra § 254.
Correction within period for signing1
District judge was entitled to
correct clerical errors in judgment
ex proprio motu within period pro-
vided by statute for signing .judg-
ment. — State ex rel. Porterie v.
Walmsley, 162 So. 826, 183 La. 139,
appeal dismissed Board of Liquida-
tion v. Board of Com'rs of Port of
New Orleans, 56 S.Ct 141, 296 U.S.
5!40, 80 L.Ed. 3S4, rehearing denied
Board of Liquidation, City Debt of
New Orleans v. Board of Com'rs of
Port of New Orleans, 56 S.Ct 246,
296 U.S. 663, 80 L.Ed. 473.
Duty of court
If a court is made aware that
through mistake or omission its rec-
ords do not recite its judgment as
actually rendered, it is not only the
right but the duty of the court,
of its own motion, to order the prop-
er entry. — Coleman v. Zapp, 151 S.W.
1040, 105 Tex. 491— Magnolia Petro-
leum Co. v. Wheeler, Tex. Civ. App.,
132 S.W.2d 456, error dismissed,
judgment correct.
'•Errors" may -be corrected by court
on its own motion. — In re Cornine's
Guardianship, N.J.Orph., 199 A. 733.
99. Ark. — Stinson v. S tin son, 159 S.
W.2d 446, 203 Ark. 888— American
Building & Loan Association v.
Memphis Furniture Manufacturing
Co., 49 S.W.2d 377, 185 Ark. 762.
Mo.— Marsala v. Marsala, 232 S.W.
1048, 288 Mo. 501.
34 C.J. p 244 note 61.
1. Mo. — Marsala v. Marsala, supra.
3'4 C.J. p 244 note 62.
2. Md.— Clark v. Digges, 5 GUI 109.
34 C.J. P 244 note 63.
3. Ky. — Gardner v. Breedlove, 76 S.
W.2d 240, 256 Ky. 413— Campbell v.
First Nat. Bank, 50 S.W.2d 17, 244
Ky. 110.
N.C.— Federal Land Bank of Colum-
bia v. Davis, 1 S.E.2d 350, 215 N.
C. 100 — Murray v. Southerland, 34
S.E. 270, 125 N.C. 175.
34 C.J. p 244 note 64.
Action to review judgment see in-
fra §§ 314-319.
If a judgment is irregular, remedy
is by motion in the case made with-
in a reasonable time. — Nail v. Mc-
ConneH, 190 S.E. 210, 211 N.C. 258.
Remedy after statutory
Where invalidity of a judgment is
465
apparent from the record so that the
court rendering it, in the absence
of an application within six months
after its rendition for relief from
mistake, is powerless to modify the
judgment, the sole remedy of the
aggrieved party is by a new action.
— People ex rel. Pollock v. Bogart,
138 P.2d 360, 58 Cal.App.2d 831.
Iffiotion to bring forward suit
Usual form of procedure where a
correction of record of judgment is
sought is a motion to bring forward
the suit and to correct the judg-
ment entry therein; suit by plaintiff
to amend record of judgment against
nonresident motorist and another for
damages growing out of accident or
collision could be treated as a mo-
tion to bring forward the law action
for the correction of the judgment
entry therein. — Hubley v. Goodwin, 4
A.2d 665, 90 N.H. 54.
Salt constituting1 collateral attack
(1) Under some statutes an error
of form of a judgment in replevin
is not rectifiable in suit constituting
collateral attack on such judgment
—Fore v. Chenault, 271 S.W. 704, 108
Ark. 747.
(2) Collateral attack generally see
infra §§ 401-435.
Separate suit a» not abridging rights
Fact that party seeking to have
alleged error in judgment corrected
brought separate suit instead of pro-
ceeding by motion in original suit as
apparently contemplated by statute,
was held not to abridge his rights.
—Bell v. Rogers, Tex.Civ.App., 58 S.
W.2d 878.
Trial of i»sne on claim of property
Where original judgment on the
merits had become final by reason of
the fact that no appeal had been tak-
en therefrom, such judgment was not
amendable on the trial of claimant's
issue pursuant, to statutory affidavit
claiming property before sale under
levy. — Spencer v. Harmon, 126 So.
824, 156 Miss. 729.
Xn Illinois
(1) The practice and procedure un-
der PractAct 5 89, stating the man-
ner in which all errors in fact com-
mitted in the proceeding of any
court of record may be corrected, are
similar in most respects to the prac-
tice under the writ of error coram
nobis; the rmotion under § 89 is
treated substantially as the petition
or motion for the common-law writ,
and is the beginning of a new suit,
and the sufficiency of the motion
§ 250
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
notion is to be disposed of in a summary manner
without formal pleadings,4 although formal plead-
ings and process, if resorted to, may and should be
regarded as constituting merely a written motion
and notice.5 However, in some jurisdictions, the
amendment may be obtained by action, the same as
on motion in the original cause,6 although, of
course, an action cannot take the place of an appeal
as a means for the correction of erroneous judg-
ments.7
Where a judgment is incomplete, in not going as
far as the pleadings demand, the remedy has been
held to be by motion to modify.8
Error in entering judgment after trial for more
than the amount demanded has been held correcti-
ble on motion or by appeal.9
§ 251. Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction over the amendment of judgments is
discussed generally supra §§ 228-235, and the ju-
risdiction of particular courts and judges supra §
235.
Examine Pocket Parts for later cases.
§252.
Time for Application
An application to amend a Judgment must be made
within the time prescribed by statute unless it invokes
the inherent power of the court to amend its Judgments.
Laches may defeat the application.
Any statutory limitation of the time within which
an application to amend or correct a judgment may
be made must be observed in all applications mad.e
under, and within the operation of, the statute.*0
It has been held that, where a judgment becomes
final at the end of a specified period, an application
to amend or correct errors must be filed before the
lapse of that time.11
Where an application for the amendment of a
judgment is not made under statute, or on statutory
grounds, but invokes the inherent power of the
court to amend its judgments, the statutory limita-
tion is generally deemed not applicable,12 and the
power of the court to correct or amend in proper
cases is not lost by mere lapse of time, the ex-
piration of the term, or the time for appeal.13
However, judicial errors, unlike clerical mistakes,
may not be corrected at any time and the appli-
may be raised by demurrer, or an
Issue of fact may be raised by plea
denying the truth of the error in
fact alleged. — Smyth v. Fargo, 138
N.R 610, 307 111. 300.
(2) Writ of error coram nobls see
infra 5§ 311-313.
4. Ind. — Morrow v. Greeting, 55 N.
R 787, 23 Ind.App. 494.
34 C.J. p 244 note 65.
Alleging valid cause of action or
defense
Where motion to modify Judgment
is filed during term at which it is
rendered, movant need not allege or
prove a valid cause of action or de-
fense.—Long v. Hill, Okl., 1-45 P.2d
434 — Montague v. State ex rel. Com-
missioners of Land Office of Okla-
homa, 89 P.2d 283, 184 Okl. 5'74.
5. Ind. — Jenkins v. Long, 23 Ind.
460.
34 C.J. p 244 note 65.
•6. OkL— Grayson v. Stith, 72 P.2d
820, 181 Okl. 131, 114 A.L.R. 276.
34 C.J. p 244 note 67.
7. N.T. — Libby v. Rosekrans, 5*5
Barb. 202.
Equitable relief against judgments
see infra §§ 341-400.
8. Ind. — Walters v. Cantner, 60 N.
B.2d 138.
9. Minn.— Becker v.. Brecht, 231 N.
W. 2.20, 180 Minn. 482.
10. CaL— Goatman v. Fuller, 216 P.
35, 191 CaL 2*45— People ex rel. Pol-
lock v. Bogart,
CaLApp.2d 831.
Ky.— Wides v. Wides, 188 S.W.2d
471, 300 Ky. 344.
La,— Nichols v. Bell & Bachal, 2 La.
App. 16,
Pa.— Balch v. Shick, 24 A.2d 548, 147
Pa.Super. 273 — Commonwealth v.
Wright, O. & T., 33 Del.Co. 254.
34 C.J. p 244 note 76, p 245 note 77.
138 P.2d 360, 58 I include statutory damages, however,
need not be filed within time for fil-
ing suggestions of error. — Huckaby
v. Jenkins, supra.
11. Tenn. — Harris v. Penn. Nat.
Hardware Mutual, 7 Tenn.App. 330.
12. Colo.— Pleyte v. Pleyte, 24 P.
679, 15 Colo. 44.
34 C.J. p 245 note 79.
Particular requirements as to time
(1) Within time for taking appeal.
—In re Simon's Estate, 246 N.W.
31, 187 Minn. 399.
(2) Within thirty days.— Pugh v.
Phelps, 19 P.2d 315, 37 N.M. 126.
(3) Within one year.
N.Y.— Petition of Holman, 51 N.T.S.
2d 246, 268 App.Div. 330.
Wash. — Nevers v. Cochrane, 229 P.
738, 131 Wash. 225.
3-4 C.J. p 244 note 76 [a], [b].
(4) Within two years.— Applica-
tion of Beaver Bam Ditch Co., 93 P.
2d 934, 54 Wyo. 459.
(5) Within three years. — Wash-
burn v. Culbertson, 75 P.2d 190, 181
Okl. 476— Ritchie v. Keeney, 73 P.2d
397, 181 Okl. 207.
(6) Within four years. — Huggins
v. Johnston, Civ.App., 3 S.W.2d 937,
affirmed 35 S.*W.2d 688, 120 Tex 21.
Time for suggestion of error
(1) Motion to correct judgment, in-
volving change in court's decision,
must be filed within time for filing
suggestion of error. — Huckaby v.
Jenkins, 122 So. 487, 154 Miss. 378.
(2) Motion to correct judgment to <
466
Statute held applicable
(1) Where it did not appear satis-
factorily that a clerical error was
made and all-important witnesses,
including the judge, were dead, it
was held that failure to take steps
within the statutory period to amend
a judgment was a bar, and the court
had no inherent power to amend. —
Application of Beaver Dam Bitch
Co., 93 P.2d 934, 5'4 Wyo. 459.
(2) Where the error was in no
way disclosed in the record, and
there was no clerical error and no
difference between the judgment and
the record, it was held that the stat-
utory limitation applied and the
court did not have inherent power to
correct or amend the judgment —
Goatman v. Fuller, 216 P. 35, 191 Cal.
245.
13. Ga.— Brown v. Cole, 28 S.B.2d
76, 196 Ga. 843.
Kan. — Corpus Juris cited in Cazzell
v. Cazzell, 3 «P.2d 479, 480, 133
Kan. 766.
Mich. — Partch v. Baird, 199 N.W. 692,
227 Mich. 660.
34 C.J. p 2*45 note 79.
Jurisdiction and power after term
generally see supra $ 230.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
254
cation must be made seasonably, in accordance with
statutory or code provisions.14
Laches or undue delay in making application for
the amendment of a judgment is ground for denial
of the application,15 particularly where rights have
vested under the judgment as entered which would
be disturbed by its alteration.16 Mere delay ex-
plained and excused is not fatal to the applica-
tion;17 but a prima facie case of laches and delay
must be excused to warrant relief.18
Although an application to amend or correct a
judgment has been held timely if filed while the
execution is in the hands of the sheriff,19 generally
an application to amend a judgment is too late after
the amount of it has been paid, especially if the
amendment would make a party liable to pay it a
second time.20
§ 253.
Parties
An application for the amendment of a judgment
must be made by one entitled to such relief; and all
parties whose rights or Interests may be affected by the
amendment should be made parties to the application.
An application for the amendment of a judgment
must be made by one entitled to such relief.31 It
has variously been held that the application may
be made by either litigant,22 by the party for or
against whom judgment has been given,23 by any-
one injuriously affected,24 by a defendant, to de-
termine rights as between him and a codefendant,25
and by persons not parties whose vested rights
would be affected ;26 but it has also been held that
only the parties to a judgment may apply,27 except
that, where the rights of one not a party are direct-
ly and necessarily affected, he may intervene after
judgment and have his rights protected.28 A per-
son who suffers no loss by a judgment has been
held to have no right to a modification thereof.29
All the parties to the judgment whose rights or
interests may be affected by the proposed amend-
ment should be made parties to the application
therefor;80 but persons whose rights are not af-
fected need not be joined.31
§ 254. Notice
It is a general rule that a Judgment cannot be ma-
terially amended, especially after the term, unless due
and proper notice of the application for amendment has
been given to the opposite party; but notice Is not re-
quired for clerical amendments based on matters appear-
ing in the record.
14. Ky.— Wides v. Wides, 188 S.W.
2d 471, 300 Ky. 344.
Judicial errors generally see supra
S 238.
15. U.S.— Albion-Idaho Land Co. v.
Actons, D.dldaho, 58 F.Supp. 579.
Iowa. — Corpus Juris cited in Floyd
County v. Ramsey, 239 N.W. 237,
238, 213 Iowa 556.
Wyo. — Application of Beaver Dam
Bitch Co., 93 P.2d 934, 54 Wyo.
459.
34 C.J. p 245 note 81.
Laches generally see Equity 89 112-
132.
laches not shown
Where a Judgment was defective
for failure of the trial court to cer-
tify the evidence and direct that
Judgment be entered for plaintiffs,
plaintiffs, in waiting four and a
half years before attempting to per-
fect the Judgment, were not guilty
of laches so as to preclude relief,
since the oversight was the fault
of the trial court.— Balch v. Shick,
24 A.2d 548, 147 Pa.Super. 273.
16. TJ.S. — Albion-Idaho Land Co. v.
Adams, D.C.Idaho. 58 F.Supp. 579.
Wyo. — Application of Beaver Dam
Ditch Co., 93 P.2d 93*4, 54 Wyo. 459.
34 OJ. p 245 note 82.
17. Pa.— Balch v. Shick, 24 A.2d
548, 147 Pa.Super. 273.
34 C.J. p 245 note 83.
18. Wis. — In re Brandstedter's Es-
tate, 224 N.W. 735, 198 Wis. 457.
Wyo. — Application of Beaver Dam
Ditch Co., 93 P.2d 934. 54 Wyo. 459.
19. N.C. — Brown v. Norfolk South-
ern R. Co., 181 &E. 279, 208 N.C.
423.
20. Pa,— Appeal of Hassler, 5 Watts
176.
3*4 C.J. p 245 note 85.
Executed or satisfied Judgments see
supra £ 234.
21. Ind.— Pritchard v. Mines. 106 N.
E. 411, 56 Ind.App. 671.
34 C.J. p 245 note 86.
Judgment in rent
Where a Judgment operates only
in rem against property, a party who
is the holder of a claim adverse to
that of the Judgment creditor is en-
titled to a correction of the Judg-
ment so as to reduce the tetter's
claim. — Globe Automatic Sprinkler
Co. v. Bell, 165 So. 150, 183 La. 937.
22. Tex. — Batson v. Bentley, Civ.
App., 297 S.W. 769.
23. N.T.— Montgomery v. Ellis, 6
How.Pr. 326.
34 C.J. p 245 note 86 JbL
Who may invoke statute
Statute providing that Judgment
becomes vested property of person
in whose favor it is rendered, which
cannot be altered except in mode
provided by law, can be invoked only
by person in whose .favor Judgment
is rendered.— Glen Falls Indemnity
Co. v.. Manning, LauApp., 168 So. 787.
467
24. Wash. — In re Christiansen's Es-
tate, 132 P.2d 368, 16 Wash.2d 48.
25. N.T. — Cohen v. Dugan Bros., 235
N.Y.S. 116, 134 Misc. 500.
26. Colo. — In re German Ditch &
Reservoir Co., 139 P. 2, 56 Colo.
252.
Village tnurtees ousted by unau-
thorized part of Judgment in an
action in which they were not made
parties are entitled to apply for
relief by motion to strike out un-
authorized part.— Abell v. Hunter,
207 N.T.S. 203, 211 App.Div. 467, af-
firmed 148 N.E. 765, 240 N.T. 702.
27. Tex. — Standard Oil Co. v. State,
Civ.App., 132 S.W.2d 612, error dis-
missed, Judgment correct
28. Tex.— Standard Oil Co. v. State,
supra.
29. Mo. — Heldbreder r. Superior Ice
& Cold Storage Co* 83 S.W. 469,
184 Mo. 456.
3D. Ind.— Bradford v. McBride, 96
N.E. 508, 50 Ind.App. 624.
34 C.J. p 246 note 87.
•mnrM-ng parti** before court
Where all parties whose rights or
interests may be affected by the pro-
posed amendment are not made par-
ties to the application, an amend-
ment of the Judgment is binding only
on those parties properly before the
court. — Pritchard v. Mines, 106 NJE.
411, 56 Ind.App. 671.
31. Mo. — Turner v. Christy, 50 Mo.
145.
34 C.J. p 246 note 88.
§ 254
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
As a general rule a judgment cannot be amended
in a material particular unless due and proper no-
tice of the application for amendment has been giv-
en to the adverse, interested, or affected parties, so
that they may have an opportunity to appear and
show cause against the proposed correction;32 but
it has been held that, in order to make a judgment
as entered conform to the judicial decision actually
made, the court may correct the judgment with or
without notice,33 although in this situation notice
has also been required-84 It has been held that an
amendment may be made without notice during the
same term at which the judgment was rendered,35
but that notice36 or voluntary appearance37 is nec-
essary to an amendment at a subsequent term. It
has also been held that formal or clerical amend-
ments, based entirely on matters appearing in the
record,38 or resting in the recollection of the
judge,39 may be made without notice, but that
amendments based on evidence aliunde may be
32. Ariz.— Fay v. Harris, 164 P.2d
860.
111.— Thome v. Thome, 45 N.R2d
85, 316 IlLApp. 451— Schmahl v.
Aurora Nat Bank, 35 N.E.2d 6""
311 IlLApp. 228.
Iowa. — Corpus Juris cited in Charf-
ton & Lucas County Nat. Bank v.
Taylor, 232 N.W. 487, 490, 210
Iowa 1153.
Mich. — McHenry v. Merriam, 204 N.
W. 99, 231 Mich. 479— Partch v.
Baird, 199 N.W. 692, 22? Mich. 660.
Miss. — Corpus Juris cited in Countiss
v. Lee, 131 So. 643. 644, 159 Miss.
11.
N.J. — Surety Building & Loan Ass'n
of Newark v. Risack, 179 A. 6SO,
118 N.J.EQ. 425.
N.T. — Metropolitan Commercial Cor-
poration v. Scheffier, 256 N.Y.S. 473,
143 Misc. 359.
Okl.— Lewis v. Ward, 223 P. 839, 101
Okl. 146— Co-Wok-Ochee v. Chap-
man, 183 P. 610, 76 OkL 1.
Tex. — Kveton v. Farmers Royalty
Holding Co., Civ.App.f 149 S.W.2d
998— Miller v. Texas Life Ins. Co.,
Civ.App.. 123 S.W.2d 756, error re-
fused— Turman v. Turxnan, Civ.
App., 71 S.W.2d 898, error dismiss-
ed—Presidio Cotton Gin & Oil Co.
v. Dupuy, Civ. App., 2 S.W.2d 341
— Bray v. City of Corsicana, Civ.
App., 280 S.W. 609.
34 C.J. p 246 note 91.
Parties to application see supra §
253.
After final decree, entry of sup-
plemental order without notice to,
and in absence of, parties in inter-
est, and proceedings thereunder,
were void.— First Nat Bank v. Webb,
158 S.E. 378, 110 W.Va. 387.
Entry of remtttitnr
Court did not err in permitting:
plaintiff to enter remittitur of part
of Judgment for him without notice
to defendant— Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry.
Co. v. Morrow, Tex.Civ.App., 66 S.
W.2d 481, error dismissed.
Person without advene interest
The statute requiring reasonable
notice to be given to adverse party
of proceedings to correct irregularity
in obtaining judgment is for pur-
pose of protecting one's adverse in-
terest and notice is not required to
be given to one whose interest can-
not possibly be adverse to the re-,
suit to be accomplished. — Franklin
v. Hunt Dry Goods Co., 123 P.2d 258,
190 Okl. 296.
Sureties on redelivery bond are not
entitled to notice of application for
modification of judgment in replev-
in suit, not being parties thereto. —
White Automobile Co. v, Hamilton,
226 P. 687, 3 Wyo. 390.
3& Cal. — Benway v. Benway, 159 P.
2d 682, 69 Cal. App. 2 d 574.
Iowa. — Hobson v. Dempsey Const.
Co., 7 N.W.2d 896, 232 Iowa 1226.
Obvious mistake
Generally notice is not necessary
to make a nunc pro tune entry to
correct an obvious mistake in judg-
ment in order to make record speak
truth.— Miller v. Bates, 292 N.W. 818,
228 Iowa 775.
34. Tex. — Coleman v. Zapp, 151 S.
W. 1040, 105 Tex. 491— Magnolia
Petroleum Co. v. Wheeler, Civ.
App., 132 S.W.2d 456, error dis-
missed, judgment correct
35. U.S. — Corpus Juris cited in 17. S.
ex rel. Campbell v. Bishop, C.C.A.
Fla., 47 F.2d 95, 97.
Ark.— Stinson v. Stinson, 159 S.W.2d
446, 203 Ark. 888.
Wyo. — White Automobile Co. v.
Hamilton, 226 P. 687, 31 Wyo. 390.
34 C.J. p 246 note 92.
36. Ga.— Crowell v. Crowell, 11 S.B.
2d 190, 191 Ga. 36.
111. — People ex rel. Sweitzer v. City
of Chicago, 2 N.E.2d 330, 363 HI.
409, 104 A.L.R. 1335— Chicago
Wood Piling Co. v. Anderson, 39
N.E.2d 702, 313 m.App. 242— Hick-
man v. Ritchey Coal Co., 252 111.
App. 560.
Ind. — Penn v. Ducomb, 12 NJE.2d 116,
213 Ind. 133.
Mich.— Emery v. Whitehill, 6 Mich.
474.
Miss. — Countiss v. Lee, 131 So. 6*43,
159 Miss. 11.
Mo. — State ex rel. Holtkamp v.
Hartxnann, 91 S.W.2d 22, 330 Mo.
386 — Clancy v. Herman C. G. Luy-
tles Realty Co., 10 S.W.2d 914, 321
Mo. 282.
N.C.— Pendergraph v. Davis, 1$9 S.E.
815. 205 N.C. 29.
34 C.J. p 247 note 93. i
468
37. Ind. — Penn v. Ducomb, 12 N.E.
2d 116, 213 Ind. 133.
38. U.S.— U. S. ex rel. Campbell v.
Bishop, CC.A.Fla., 47 F.2d 95.
Ala. — Sisson y. Leonard, 11 So.2d
144, 243 Ala. 546.
OaL — Carpenter v. Pacific Mut Life
Ins. Co. of California, 96 P.2d 796,
14 Cal.2d 704 — Benway v. Benway,
159 P.2d 682. 69 CaLApp.2d 574—
Hogan v. Horsfall, 266 P. 1002.
91 CaLApp. 37, followed in 266 P.
1005, 91 CaLApp. 797.
Mo. — Conrath v. Houchin, 34 S.W.2d
190, 226 Mo.App. 2«1.
34 C.J. p 2*7 note 94.
"Having had jurisdiction of the
parties and subject matter when the
decision was made, the power of the
court to control the record and its
ministerial officers does not depend
upon the continued presence of the
parties." — Hobson v. Dempsey Const.
Co., 7 N.W.2d 896, 900, 232 Iowa 1226.
Ex parte amendment held proper
(1) In an action in which the
court in rendering judgment errone-
ously described defendant, there was
no error in directing the clerk to
strike out the name improperly used
and insert defendant's name, without
citing defendant to show cause why
the correction should not be made, as
the error was of little or no impor- .
tance. — Town of Mandeville v. Pa-
duette, 95 So. 391, 153 La, 33.
(2) An order amending judgment
on plaintifFs- ex parte application so
as to render liable a defendant who
had appeared and filed answer and
had been held not liable to plaintiff,
although he had not taken part in
trial, was valid.— Kohlstedt v. Hau-
seur, 74 P.2d 314, 2-4 CaLApp.2d 60.
Under statute
(1) Under some statutes the prop-
er method of correcting clerical mis-
prislon is by motion on reasonable
notice to adverse party or his at-
torney.— Stratton & Terstegge Co. v.
Begley, 61 S.W.2d 287, 249 Ky. 632.
(2) Also under some statutes a
mistake or omission of the clerk in
entering judgment on the journal
may be corrected by motion on rea-
sonable notice during or after term
at which judgment was rendered. —
Hurley v. Childers. 243 P. 218, 116
OkU 84.
39. CaL— Carpenter v. Pacific Mut
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§255
made only after notice* and that, in the absence of
notice, the proceedings for amendment or correc-
tion are void.40
Other authorities have held that during the same
term and before the judgment has been entered of
record, the court may change its rulings of its own
motion and without notice, and direct a different
judgment,41 but that after the judgment has been
entered the court may not change the record with-
out notice even at the same term.42
The notice, if required, must be sufficient in form
and substance to inform the party of the time and
purpose of the proceeding.43 Written notice is not
always required;44 and actual notice may supply
the place of formal notice.45 Appearance at the
hearing waives the absence of, or defects in, the
notice of the application.46 Service of notice must
be on the party or his attorney of record.47
«
Where the time of notice is prescribed by statute
or rule of court, failure to give the required notice
may be fatal to the order amending the judgment48
§ 255. Contents and Sufficiency of Ap-
plication
An application for amendment of a Judgment should
specify the errors or omissions complained of and the
correction desired, and should state a sufficient ground
for the modification asked.
A petition or motion for the amendment or cor-
rection of a judgment should set forth dearly and
specifically the nature of the errors or omissions
complained of, and the terms of the correction de-
sired;49 an application which states no ground or
reason for the modification asked, or an insufficient
one, is properly overruled.50
Life Ins. Co. of California, 96 P.2d
796, 14 Cal.2d 704.
34 C.J. p 247 note 95.
Recollection of judge as basis for
amendment see infra § 256.
40. U.S. — Odell v. Reynolds, Ohio,
70 P. 656, 17 C.C.A. 317.
34 C-J. p 2-47 note 96.
Evidence as basis of amendment see
infra § 256.
41. Tex. — Daniel v. Sharpe. Civ.App.,
69 S.W.2d 508.
34 C.JT. p 247 note 97.
42. Iowa. — Willson v. Polk County
Dist Ct., 147 N.W. 766, 166 Iowa
352— Kwentsky v. Sirovy, 121 N.
W. 27, 142 Iowa 385.
43. Cal.— Citizens' Nat. Trust &
Savings Bank of Los Angeles v.
Holton, 290 P. 447, 210 CaL 44.
Tex.— Luck v. Riggs Optical Co., Civ.
App., 149 S.W.2d 204.
34 C.J. p 247 note 99.
Personal service not required
On motion to correct a judgment
-entry, personal service on the op-
posing party such as would give Ju-
risdiction in a new proceeding is not
required, but notice of the motion to
the opposing party is sufficient —
Hubley v. Goodwin, 4 A.2d 665, 90
N.H. 54.
44. Va.— Dillard v. Thornton, .29
Gratt 392, 70 Va. 392.
45. OkL^Jones v. Gallagher, 166
P. 204, 64 Okl. 41.
Tex.— Varn v. Yarn, 125 S.W. 639,
58 Tex.Civ.App. 595.
46. Ind. — Penn v. Ducomb, 12 N.E.
2d 116, 213 Ind. 133.
Tex.— -Luck v. Riggs Optical Co.,
Clv.App., 149 S.W.2d 204.
34 C.J. p 247 note 3.
47. Ely. — Stratton & Terstegge Co.
v. Begley, 61 S.W.2d 2871, 249 Ky.
632.
N.T. — Metropolitan Commercial Cor-
poration v. Scheffier, 256 N.Y.S.
473, 143 Misc. 359.
Okl.— Hurley v. Childers, 243 P. 218,
116 Okl. 84.
34 C.J. p 247 note 4.
Service on attorney after final judge-
ment
The notice of application to correct
a final Judgment may be given to the
attorney who appeared for adverse
party in the original action or pro-
ceeding, notwithstanding the final
termination thereof, since the au-
thority of an attorney does not nec-
essarily terminate on the entry of
judgment but he is regarded as still
representing the party for the pur-
pose of receiving notices of motion
or other appropriate process. — Lang-
rick v. Rowe, 32 N.T.S.2d 328, af-
firmed 41 N.T.S.2d 82, 265 App.Div.
793, affirmed 52 N.E.td 96-4, 291 N.
T. 756.
Service on transferee of interest
Notice was properly given to one
to whom original adverse party had
transferred interest. — Burris v. Rein-
hardt, 242 P. 143, 120 TCan. 32.
48- U.S. — Bernard v. Abel, Wash,,
156 F. 649, 84 C.C.A. 361.
Statute requiring reasonable notice
Notice of hearing of motion to
amend judgment given by registered
mail and received a reasonable time
before hearing, which was attended
by defendant who made due objection
and formal protest, constituted "rea-
sonable notice" within statute au-
thorizing correction of judgments. —
Luck v. Riggs Optical Co., Tex.Civ.
App., 14*9 S.W.2d 20*4.
49. Ind.— Mazac v. Michigan City,
189 'N.B. 400, 98 Ind.App. 366.
Tex. — Wier v. Yates, Civ. App., 256
S.W. 636.
34 C.J. p 247 note 7.
469
Conforming- to verdict
Motion to reform judgment to con-
form to verdict is in essence motion
to amend judgment, — Jones v. White
head, 146 S.E. 768, 167 Go. 848.
Motion to correct journal entry of
judgment by clerk was not insuffi-
cient in failing to allege that error
was due to clerk's mistake or omis-
sion.—Hurley v. Childers, 243 P. 218,
116 Okl. 84.
Where rule seeks modification of
postea*, reasons for such modification
must be set forth in statement of
case. — Fantauzzo v. Phoenix Assur.
Co. of London, 155 A. 749, 9 N.J.Misc.
713.
Verification
Failure of plaintiff to swear to
motion to correct record of judgment
erroneously entered was immaterial.
— Greggers v. Gleason, 29 S.W.2d
183, 224 Mo.App. 1108.
Agreement of parties as to referee's
findings
Correction of judgment entered on
report of referee, settling contro-
versy on count on note, to show that
parties had agreed that referee's
findings should not pertain to count
on note, could be made at term at
which judgment was rendered, on
motion to correct entry and judg-
ment, as against contention that
matter could only be presented by
motion for new trial, or under stat-
utes relating to vacation or modifi-
cation of judgments, since such stat-
utes had reference to proceedings in-
stituted after term at which judg-
ment was entered. — Waiters v. Knut-
sen, 272 N.W. 420, 223 Iowa 225.
5<X Ind. — Briles v. Prudential Ins.
Co., 25 N.B.2d 2-40, 216 Ind. 627—
Brier v. Childers, 148 N.EL 474,
196 Ind. 520— Elliott v. Gardner, 46
N.E.2d 702, 113 Ind.App. 47.
Mo. — State ex reL Woolman v. Gui-
§ 256
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
§ 256. Evidence; Source of Amend-
ment or Correction
While some authorities hold that a Judgment may be
amended on any satisfactory extrinsic evidence, other
authorities hold that an amendment after the term must
be based on evidence in the record, or matter in the
nature of record. During the term, an amendment may
be based on any satisfactory evidence, or on the court's
recollection.
notte, 282 S.W. 68, 221 Mo.App
466.
34 C.J. p 2-47 note 8.
Allegations held sufficient
Motion to amend judgment refer-
ring to pleadings in original suit,
and containing copies of verdict and
of judgment sought to be amended,
set forth sufficient facts to authorize
relief.— Brown v. Cole, 28 S.B.2d 76,
190 Ga. 843.
Expression of opinion or "belief is
insufficient. — Wier v. Yates, Tex.Civ.
App., 256 S.W. 636—34 C.J. p 247
note 8 [a].
51. Ala. — Corpus Juris cited in Pal-
atine Ins. Co. v. Hill, 121 So. 412,
415, 219 Ala, 123— Jackson v. Board
of Revenue of Choctaw County, 1
So. 799. 215 Ala. 41S.
Ga. — Brown v. Cole, 28 S.E.2d 76,
198 Ga. 843 — Jones v. Whitehead,
146 S.B. 768, 167 Ga. 848— Miller
v. Jackson, 175 S.B. 409, 49 Ga^App.
309 — Frank B. Wood Co. v. Col-
son, 158 S.B. 533, 43 Ga.App. 265.
111. — McCord v. Briggs & Turivas,
170 N.E. 320, 338 111. 158.
Ky. — Bowling v. Evans, 98 S.W.2d
916, 266 Ky. 2-42 — Decker v. Tyree,
264 S.W. 726, 204 Ky. 302— Combs
v. Deaton, 251 S.W. 638, 199 Ky.
477.
Mo.— Schulte v. Schulte, 140 S.'w.2d
51 — Clancy v. Herman C. G. Luy-
ties Realty Co.. 10 S.W.2d 914, 321
Mo. 282 — Vaughn v. Kansas City
Gas Co.. 159 S.W.2d 690, 236 Mo.
App. 669 — Corpus Juris cited in
State v. Guinotte, 282 S.W. 68. 70,
221 Mo. App. 466 — Fulton Loan
Service Xo. 2 v. Colvin, App., 81
S.W.2d 373.
Tenn.— Clardy v. Clardy, 186 S.W.
2d 526. 23 Tenn.App. 608.
Wyo. — Application of Beaver Dam
Ditch Co., 93 P.Sd 934, 54 Wyo. 459.
34 C.J. p 248 note 13, p 249 note 16.
Evidence as basis for amending de-
crees see Equity J 632 b.
Amendment nunc pzo tuno
(1) A Judgment may be amended
nunc pro tune only on record or
quasi-record evidence. — Palatine Ins.
Co. v. Hill, 121 So. 412, 219 Ala. 123
— Jackson v. Board of Revenue of
Choctaw County, 110 So. 799, 215 Ala.
418.
(2) Where formal judgment con-
tained entry taxing costs against
contestant, and there was no evi-
dence of any other Judgment respect-
ing costs, nunc pro tune order at
subsequent term amending judgment
by taking costs against estate was
erroneous. — Calnane v. Calnane, 17
S.W.2d 566, 223 Mo.App. 381.
(3) Evidence was held insufficient
to justify amendment nunc pro tune.
— Wiggins v. Union Trust Co. of
East St. Louis. 266 IlLApp. 560.
Power or authority to allow amend-
ment nunc pro tune see infra §
258.
Nunc pro tune entry of judgment see
supra § 120.
Nunc pro tune entry to correct or
amend court records generally see
Courts S 227 d.
Deficiency in judgment cannot be
supplied by parol. — Jackson v. Board
of Revenue of Choctaw County, 110
So. 79*9, 215 Ala. 418.
Presumptions and burden of proof
(1) In proceedings to correct a
Judgment nunc pro tune, a pre-
sumption exists that judgment en-
tered of record is Judgment actual-
ly rendered. — In re Tompkin's Es-
tate, Mo.App., 50 S.W.2d 659.
(2) Rule that, where Judgment is
shown to be rendered for one of
the parties, and statute directs what
that judgment shall be. it will be
presumed that the judgment render-
ed was only such as could have been
rendered, applies in proceedings to
correct and amend judgment nunc
pro tune. — Saunders v. Scott, 111
S.W. 874. 132,Mo.App. 209— State v.
Juden, Mo.App., 50 S.W.2d 702.
(3) Burden is on party seeking to
correct judgment record to overcome
presumption of truthfulness of
court's recitals of fact in record. —
Sullivan v. Coakley, 217 N.W. 820,
205 Iowa 225.
(4) Under statute providing that
a judgment shall not be vacated at
plaintiff's request until it is ad-
judged that there is a valid cause of
action, where defendants demurred
on grounds of misjoinder of causes
of action, and that petition did not
state a cause of action, and court
informed defendants that demurrer
would be sustained on ground of mis-
joinder of parties, and thereafter
sustained demurrer generally, and
ordered action dismissed, plaintiff, at
subsequent term, seeking to correct
order sustaining demurrer to corre-
spond to the facts, was not required
to show that petition stated cause
of action, since trial court, in refus-
ing to sustain demurrers on ground
470
There is considerable authority for the rule that
an amendment or correction of a judgment cannot
be made, especially after the term, on extrinsic evi-
dence but must be based on evidence contained in
the record, or quasi of record,51 including the ver-
dict and the pleadings,62 at least where the error
or mistake complained of is such that, if it exists,
that it failed to state a cause of ac-
tion, impliedly held that it stated
such cause. — Bales v. Brome, 105 P.
2d 568, 56 Wyo. 111.
Recital held insufficient
Where amended Judgment recited
that, through inadvertence, there
was inserted in the record of the
Judgment a direction and order that
a receiver be appointed, such recital
cannot Justify review by the court of
its own Judicial act without showing
to justify it — Schroeder v. Superior
Court of California in and for Ala-
meda County, 239 P. 65, 73 CaLApp.
687.
Sule not dependent on statute
Necessity of record evidence as
condition to amendment of judgment
is not dependent on statute. — Pala-
tine Ins. Co. v. Hill, 121 So. 412, 219
Ala. 123.
TTnoertainty in judgment may not
be supplied by parol proof, since
the rule is that judgments may not
be amended in any such manner, but
the entire record may be Inspected
to cure the uncertainty. — Decker v
Tyree, 264 S.W. 726, 204 Ky. 302.
62. Ga.— Brown v. Cole, 28 S.B.2d
76, 196 Ga, 843— Jones v. White-
head, 146 S.B. 768, 167 Ga. 848—
Miller v. Jackson, 175 S.B. 409, 49-
Ga.App. 309.
Mo.— Pulton Loan Service No. 2 v.
Colvin, App., 81 S.W.2d 373.
Evidence hold sufficient
(1) Contract and pleadings held to
authorize court to enter judgment
nunc pro tune, adding name of de-
fendant omitted from original judg-
ment.— Batson v. Bentley, Tex. Civ.
App., 4 S.W.2d 577.
(2) Evidence authorized trial
judge's finding that recital in judg-
ment denying recovery on pleas of
intervention was clerical error, which
court could correct at term subse-
quent to rendition of Judgment. —
Duncan v. Marlin Motor Co., Tex.
Civ.App., 41 S.W.2d 740, error re-
fused.
Findings ftnfl. pleadings
(1) In deciding a motion to modify
the judgment, the court cannot look
beyond the findings and pleadings.
— - Briles v. Prudential Ins. Co., 2&
N.B.2d 240, 216 Ind. 627— Brier v.
Childers, 148 N.E. 474, 196 Ind. 520 —
Elliott v. Gardner, 46 N.B.2d 702,.
113 Ind-App. 47 — Eteaton v. Grant
Lodge No. 335 X. O. O. F., 103 N.
E. 488, 55 Ind.App. 100.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 256
it should be apparent from the papers and records
in the case.53 For the purpose of this rule, the
matters relied on need not be part of the record
proper, or strict judgment roll; it is generally
deemed sufficient if the amendment is not based on
parol evidence alone, but is supported by the rec-
ord, or some note or minute made by the judge or
clerk, or notes taken by the stenographer, or some
memorial paper or document in the nature of a rec-
ord made in connection with the case or on the
trial or hearing.54
Some • authorities, however, adhere to the rule,
characterized as the more liberal rule,55 that an
amendment may be based on any satisfactory or
competent extrinsic evidence,56 parol as well as
written.57 This rule is subject to the limitation that,
where there is no record or quasi-record evidence,
the court should act with great caution,58 and only
on evidence which is clear and convincing.5 9
(2) While, on motion to modify |
judgment, the court cannot look be-
yond the pleadings to determine the-
ory of the case, this rule refers to
the pleadings as construed by the
parties. — Montgomery v. Montgom-
ery, 1'40 N.E. 917, 81 Ind.App. 1.
53. Cal.— Citizens' Nat. Trust &
Savings Bonk of Los Angeles v.
Holton, 290 P. 447, 210 Cal. 44.
Hl._McCord v. Briggs & Turivas,
170 N.E. 320, 338 111. 158.
Ky.— Bowling v. Evans, 98 S.W.2d
916, 266 Ky. 2*42 — Combs v. Deaton,
251 S.W. 638, 199 Ky. 477.
Tenn.— Clardy v. Clardy, 136 S.W.2d
526, 23 Tenn.App. 608.
34 C.J. P 248 note 13.
54. m. — People v. City of Chicago,
2 N.E.2d 330. 363 111. 409, 104
A.L.JL 1335— People v. Weinstein,
131 N.B. 631, 298 111. 264— People
v. Leinecke, 125 N.B. 513, 290 111.
560.
Mo._ Vaughn v. Kansas City Gas Co.,
159 S.W.2d 690, 236 Mo.App. 669
—Corpus Juris cited in State ex
rel. Woolman v. Guinotte, 282 S.
W. 68, 70, 221 MO.APP. 466.
34 OJ. P 248 notes 13, 15.
Judgment roll or record see supra §§
122-125.
Affidavit of plaintiff's attorney that
defendant's name had been omitted
from judgment by mistake, record
disclosing such omission was held
sufficient for amendment — Citizens'
TSTat. Trust & Savings Bank of Los
Angeles v. Holton, 290 P. 447. 210
Cal. 44.
Appearance or Judgment docket en-
tries
(1) Appearance and docket entries
of amount of judgment were held
admissible in proceeding to correct
judgment.— Brooks v. Owen, 202 N.
-W. 505, 200 Iowa 1151, modified on
other grounds and rehearing denied
•206 N.W. 149.
(2) Where action and cross action
were identified on court's docket by
•same number and style, court's dock-
et entry stating that such numbered
and styled case was "dismissed for
-want of prosecution" sufficiently evi-
denced the fact that the court ren-
dered judgment dismissing the whole
case so that, if judgment as entered
was not sufficient to effect a dismis-
sal of the cross action, it was a suf-
ficient notation to support a mine pro
unc order to correct the judgment
so as to make it include the cross
action in dismissal. — Johnson v.
Campbell, Tex.Civ.App., 154 S.W.2d
878.
Evidence outside of the Judgment
sought to be amended may be ad-
mitted.—Willard v. Loucks, 175 N.B.
!56, 97 Ind.App. 131.
Memoranda of judge
Judgment may be amended after
term, where memoranda of judge
form basis therefor. — McCord v.
Briggs & Turivas, 249 IlLApp. 516,
affirmed 170 N.E. 320, 338 111. 158—
34 C.J. p 248 note 15 [f].
$5. Vt— In re Prouty's Estate, 163
A. 566, 105 Vt. 66.
Wis. — Milwaukee Electric Crane &
Mfg. Corporation v. Feil Mfg. Co.,
230 N.W. 607, 201 Wis. 494 — Pack-
ard v. Kinzie Avenue Co., 81 N.W.
488, 105 Wis. 323.
56. Ark.— Kory v. Less, 37 S.W.2d
92, 183 Ark. 553 — Bowman v.
State, 129 S.W. 80, 93 Ark. 168—
Liddell v. Bodenheimer, 95 S.W.
475, 78 Ark. 364, 115 Am.S.R. 42—
Goddard v. State, 95 S.W. 476, 78
Ark. 226— Ward v. Magness, 86 S.
W. 822. 75 Ark. 12.
Kan.— Bush v. Bush, 150 P.2d 168,
158 Kan. 760 — United Zinc &
Chemical Co. v. Morrison, 93 P.
111'4, 76 "ESfrn. 799 — Christisen v.
Bartlett, 84 P. 530, 73 Kan. 401,
rehearing denied 85 P. 594, 73 Kan.
401— Martindale v. Battey, 84 P
527, 73 Kan. 92.
jj.H. — Hubley v. Goodwin, 4 A.2d
665, 90 N.H. 54.
Vt. — In re Prouty's Estate, 163 A.
566, 105 Vt 66.
. — Packard v. Kinzie Avenue Co
81 N.W. 488, 105 Wis. 323.
34 C.J. p 247 note 12.
Nature and amount of evidence re-
Quired
Court in which judgment is en-
tered may correct it on evidence sat-
isfactory to itself, whether oral or
documentary, record or otherwise
and the kind and amount of evi
dence requisite to show that amend
ments should be made are for court
— McAdams v. C. D. Shamburger
' 471
Lumber Co., 240 P. 124, 112 Okl.
.73.
Motion within two months after en-
try
Where motion to amend Judgment
was made within two months after
entry, court could order correction
>ased on facts outside record. —
Milwaukee Electric Crane & Mfg.
Corporation v. Feil Mfg. Co., 230 N.
W. 607, 201 Wis. 494.
57. Ark.— Kory v. Less, 37 S.W.2d
92, 183 Ark. 553.
Kan.— Bush v. Bush, 150 P.2d 168,
158 "Kan. 760— United Zinc &
Chemical Co. v. Morrison, 92 P.
1114, 76 Kan. 799— Christisen v.
Bartlett, 84 P. 530, 703 Kan. 401,
rehearing denied 85 P. 594, 73
Kan. 401— Martindale v. Battey, 84
P. 527, 73 Kan. 92.
Okl. — McAdams v. C. D. Shamburger
Lumber Co., 240 P. 124, 112 Okl.
173.
58. Okl.— McAdams v. C. D. Sham-
burger Lumber Co., supra.
Vt.— In re Prouty's Estate, 163 A.
566t 105 Vt 66.
34 C.J. p 247 note 12 [b].
59. Ark.— Tracy v. Tracy, 43 S.W.
2d 539, 184 Ark. 832— Kory v. Less,
37 S.W.2d 92, 183 Ark. 553.
Okl. — Co-Wok-Ochee v. Chapman, 183
P. 610, 76 Okl. 1— Jones v. Galla-
gher, 166 P. 20-4, 64 Okl. 41, 10
A.L.R. 518.
Vt— In re Prouty's Estate, 163 A.
566, 105 Vt 66.
Absence of witness at opening of
probate court when certain person
was adjudged incompetent and
guardian was appointed, and absence
of sheriff and clerk from hearing
were insufficient to overturn recitals
of judgment. — Randolph v. Porter, 67
S.W.2d 574, 188 Ark. 729.
Overcoming recitals
In order to justify nunc pro tune
judgment after term, evidence, sup-
plemented by judge's personal recol-
lection, must be so clear as to over-
come recitals of written judgment
sought to be corrected. — Morgan v.
Scott-Mayer Commission Co., 48 S.W.
2d 838, 185 Ark. 637.
Parol evidence was sufficient where
the judge who rendered the original
judgments was the same judge who
made the correction therein as to
§ 256
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
Parol and extrinsic evidence may be competent
for various purposes in connection with record evi-
dence,60 as to show whether the record shows what
was really done,61 or to support or rebut evidence
not technically a matter of record.62
Although there is authority to the contrary,6^ it
has been held that an amendment at a subsequent
term cannot be based on the judge's knowledge or
recollection of the facts,64 and that such an amend-
ment cannot rest on the recollection of other per-
sons.65
After the lapse of a long period, such as fifty
years, clear, cogent, and convincing proof should be
required for amendment,66 nothing being left to
speculation or conjecture.67
During the term, and before the court has lost
jurisdiction of -the cause, it has been held that an
amendment of the judgment may be made on any
evidence satisfactory to the court, whether oral or
documentary, and whether of record or otherwise,68
or the court may act solely on its own knowledge
and recollection.6^
§ 257. Hearing and Determination in
General
On an application to amend a Judgment, the adverse
party Is entitled to a hearing. Only matters Involved In
determining the necessity or propriety of the amend-
ment will be examined.
On an application to amend a judgment, the ad-
verse party is entitled to be heard in opposition.70
The questions presented, whether of law or fact,
are for the determination of the court to which the
motion is addressed.71 No questions will be ex-
amined other than those necessary to determine the
necessity or propriety of the amendment.72 Mat-
ters already determined will not be reviewed and
the date on which judgments were
rendered, and the time between the
rendition of the judgments and the
correction thereof was not long. — St.
Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. v. Hov-
ley, 120 S.W.2d 14, 196 Ark. 775.
To correct clerical mistake in
judgment, evidence must be clear and
convincing that mistake is clerical,
and not judicial.— Fall River Irr. Co.
v. Swendsen, 241 P. 1021, 41 Idaho
686.
60t Miss. — Wilson Y. Handsboro, 54
So. $45, 99 Miss. 252, Ann.Cas.
1913B 345.
34 C.J. p 249 note 17.
61. Colo.— West Pueblo Ditch &
Reservoir Co. v. Bessemer Ditch
Co., 210 P. 601, 72 Colo. 224.
62. Teac. — Getzendaner v. Trinity &
B. V. R. Co., 102 S.W. 161, 43 Tex.
Civ.App. 66.
24 C.J. p 249 note 18.
63. Ark. — Randolph v. Porter, 67 S.
W.2d 574, 188 Ark. 729— Morgan v.
Scott-Mayer Commission Co., 48 S.
W.2d 838, 185 Ark. 637— Bertig
Bros. v. Grooms Bros., 262 S.W.
672, 164 Ark. 628.
Cal. — Bastajian v. Brown, 120 P.2d 9,
19 Cal.2d 209.
Kan.— Elliott v. Elliott, 114 P.2d 823,
154 Kan. 145— Christisen v. Bart-
lett, 84 P. 530, 73 Kan. 401, rehear-
ing denied 85 P. 594, 73 Kan. 401.
Vt.— In re Prouty's Estate, 163 A.
566, 105 Vt. 66.
Wis. — Wyman v. Buckstaff, 24 Wis.
477.
34 C.J. p 249 note 20.
Amendment of court records general-
ly on court's recollection see
Courts § 235.
Porce of evidence
Judge's recollection of circum-
stances of rendering judgment and
of court's intention has force of evi-
dence on question of propriety of
nunc pro tune order. — Cazzell v. Caz-
zell, 3 P.2d 479, 133 Kan. 766.
Bole should be confined to cases
in which the application is made
within so short a time after the
judgment is entered that the terms
of the judgment pronounced will be
fresh in the minds of both counsel
and court. — Milwaukee Electric
Crane & Mfg. Corporation v. Fell
Mfg. Co., 230 N.W. 607, 201 Wis. 494
— Packard v. Kinzie Avenue Co., 81
N.W. 488, 105 Wis. 323.
Vagueness or inaccuracy in terms
of entry of judgment on docket could
be corrected or omissions therefrom
supplied through testimony and tri-
al judge's own recollection of trans-
action.— Kluck v. Spitzer, Tex-Civ.
App., 54 S.W.2d 1063.
64. HI. — People ex reL Sweitzer v.
City of Chicago, 2 K.E.2d 330, 363
111. 409, 104 AJL.R. 1335— People v.
Welnstein, 131 N.E. 631, 298 111.
264— People v. Leineeke, 125 N.E.
513, 290 I1L 560.
Ky.— Combs v. Deaton, 251 S.W. 638,
199 Ky. 477.
34 C.J. p 249 note 19.
65. 111. — >People v. City of Chicago,
2 N.E.2d 330, 363 111. 409, 104 A.
L.R. 1335 — People v. Weinstein,
131 NJE.. 631, 298 HI. 2$4— People
v. Leinecke, 125 N.E. 513, 290 111.
560.
Counsel
Tenn. — Clardy v. Clardy, 136 S.W.2d
526, 23 Tenn.App. 608.
6& Wyo. — Application of Beaver
Dam Ditch* Co., 93 P.2d 934, 54
Wyo. 459.
67. Wyo. — Application of Beaver
Dam Ditch Co., supra.
68. Mo. — In re Henry County Mut.
472
Burial Ass'n, 77 S.W.2d 124, 229
Mo. App. 300.
34 C.J. p 249 note 21.
69. Mo. — Kirkxnan v. Stevenson, 238
S.W. 543, 210 Mo.App. 380.
34 C-J. p 249 note 22.
7Q, I1L — Village of Downer's Grove
v. Glos, 147 N,E. 390, £16 111. 563.
Mo. — Clancy v. Herman C. G. Luyties
Realty Co.. 10 S.W.2d 914, 321 Mo.
282.
N.Y. — Cohen v. Dugan Bros., 235 N.
7.S. 118, 134 Misc. 155.
Tex. — Presidio Cotton Gin & Oil Co.
v. Dupuy, Civ.App., 2 S.W.2d 341.
34 C.J. p 249 note 23.
Notice of application see supra § 254.
Bight to cxoss-4
tie clerk
Before entry of nunc pro tune or-
der in subsequent term correcting
judgment plaintiff has right to be
present and cross-examine clerk.—
Clancy v. Herman C. G. Luyties
Realty Co., 10 S.W.2* 914, 321 Mo.
282.
Correction of parties' auutne*
Proofs or admissions and findings
should precede order correcting
names of parties, where corrections
may involve questions of jurisdiction
over parties. — E. B. Elliott Co. v.
Turrentine, 151 So. 414, 113 Fla, 210.
71. N.H,— Hubley v. Goodwin, 4 A.
2d 665, 90 N.H. 54— Prink v. Frink,
43 N.H. 508, 80 Am.D. 189, 82 Am.
D. 172.
OkL — McAdams v. C. D. Shamburger
Lumber Co., 240 P. 124, 112 OkL.
173.
34 C.J. p 249 note 24.
Discretion of court see infra $ 259.
72. Ga. — Pryor v. Leonard, 57 Ga.
136.
Nature of questions raised
(1) Motion to modify judgment
merely raises the question whether
judgment follows the conclusions of
49 O.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
re-examined; the motion is not a new trial or re-
hearing of the original case.™
The opening of the judgment for the purpose of
amending it should not be made the occasion for
granting relief other than that asked in the mo-
tion,74 although it is proper to impose reasonable
and just conditions on granting the amendment, as
discussed infra § 260. A judgment may be amend-
ed as to one only of several joint parties where the
rights of the others will not be affected.75
Where an alteration of the record would be futile,
an application therefor will not be granted.76 An
equitable estoppel is ground for denial of the appli-
cation.77 Where the motion is too broad, it may
be denied in toto.78
An inquiry into facts dehors the record may be
had by reference or otherwise.79
§ 258-
§ 258* Allowing Amendment Nunc pro
Tune
Subject to the rules governing amendments and
corrections of Judgments generally, a court may amend
or correct Its own Judgments nunc pro tune, for clerical
errors or omissions, so as to make them speak the truth,
but not to correct Judicial errors or omissions, or to
change a Judgment.
Subject to the rules governing amendments and
corrections of judgments generally, discussed supra
§ 228 et seq, the power to amend or correct a judg-
ment nunc pro tune so as to make it speak the truth
is inherent in courts of record.80 Thus, if a judg-
ment has been irregularly entered, or fails to con-
tain all that is essential to it, or to express the true
decision of the court, in consequence of clerical er-
rors or omissions, it may be completed by an order
nunc pro tune, or may be set aside and the true and
correct judgment entered nunc pro tune.81
law.— Kostanzer v. State ex rel. \
Ramsey, 187 N.E. 587. 205 Ind. 536. !
(2) A motion to modify a Judg-
ment does not present any question
as to what finding ought to be, but
only whether Judgment conforms to
findings actually made. — Briles v.
Prudential Ins. Co., 25 N.B.2d 2-40,
n6 Ind. 627— Brier v. Childers, 148
N.E. 474, 196 Ind. 520— Elliott v.
Gardner, 46 N.E.2d 702, 113 Ind. App.
47.
(3) A judge who has made a deci-
sion should not direct amendment,
unless he is satisfied that original
entry does not clearly express order
which was made. — Kohlstedt v. Hau-
setir, 74 P.2d 314, 24 Ca-l.App.2d 60.
Existence of cause of action or de-
fense
Modification of Judgment was held
substantially to comply with statute
requiring existence of cause of ac-
tion or defense to be adjudged.—
Burris v. Reinhardt, 242 P. 143, 120
Kan. 32.
73. Wyo. — Application of Beaver
Dam Ditch Co., 93 P.2d 934, 54
Wyo. 459.
3-4 C.J. p 249 note 26.
74. N.T.— Siegrist v. Holloway, 7 N.
T.Civ.Proc. 58.
75. Ark.— Kory v. Less, 37 S.W.2d
92, 183 Ark. 553.
Mo.— Neenan v. St. Joseph, 28 S.W.
963, 126 Mo. 89.
Entirety of judgments see supra 8
33.
Rights of third persons see infra 5
264.
76. Me.— Hurley v. Robinson, 27 A.
270, 85 Me. 400.
77. Kan.— Cornell University
Parkinson, 53 P. 138, 59 Kan. 365.
78. Ind.— Overbay v. Fisher, 115 N.
E. 366, 64 Ind.App. 44.
34 C.J. p 250 note 32.
Motion good in part and bad in part
Although a judgment for costs in-
cludes costs not properly recovera-
ble, it is not error to overrule a mo-
tion to modify such judgment, the
motion including both costs prop-
erly, and those improperly, awarded.
— Spence v. Owen County, 18 N.E.
513, 117 Ind. 573.
79. N.T.— Pitt v. Davison, 12 Abb.
Pr. 385, affirmed 37 N.T. 235.
Extrinsic evidence as source of
amendment see supra § 256.
80. Cal.— Mather v. Mather, 134 P.2d
795, reheard 140 P.2d 808, 22 CaL
2d 713 — E. Clemens Horst Co. v.
•Federal Mut. Liability Ins. Co., 71
P.2d 599, 22 Cal.App.2d 548.
Iowa. — Hobson v. Dempsey Const
Co., 7 N.W.2d 896, 232 Iowa 1226.
Mo. — Schulte v. Schulte, 140 S.W.2d
61— In re Toxnpkins' Estate, App.,
50 S.W.2d 659.
OkL — Hawks v. McConnack, 71 P.2d
724, 180 OkL 569.
Tex. — Collins v. Davenport, Civ.App.,
192 S.W.2d 291— White v. Haynes,
Civ.App., 60 S.W.2d 275, error dis-
missed.
34 C.J. p 7*6 note 69.
Amending and correcting record gen-
erally see Courts §§ 231-23'6.
Entering judgment nunc pro tune
see supra §§ 117-121.
33^ TJ.S. — Irving Trust Co. v. Amer-
ican Silk Mills, Inc., C.C.A^T.Y., 72
F.2d 288, certiorari denied Amer-
ican Silk Mills, Inc., v. Irving
Trust Co., 55 S.Ct 239, 293 U.S.
•624, 79 'L.Ed. 711— Fultz v. Laird,
C.C.A.Micbu, 24 F.2d 172.
Ala. — Sisson v. Leonard, 11 So.2d 144
243 Ala. -546— Gaston v. Recon-
struction Finance Corporation, 185
So. 893, 237 Ala. Ill— Parker v
Duke, 157 So. 436, 22» Ala, 361—
Ex parte R. H. Byrd Contracting
Co., 156 So. 579, 26 Ala~A.pp. 171
473
certiorari denied 156 So. B82, 229
Ala. 248.
Ark. — Corpus Jfcris quoted In Wright
v. Curry, 187 S.W.2d SSO, 881, 208
Ark. 816— Bright v. Johnson, 152
S.W.2d 540, 202 Ark. 751.
CaL — Mather v. Mather, 134 P.2d
795, reheard 140 P.2d 808, 22 Cal.2d
713_Hughes v. Hughes, App., 168
P.2d 429— Benway v. Benway, 159
P.2d 682, 69 Cal.App,2d 574 — Stew-
art v. Abernathy, 144 P.2d 8-44, 62
Cal.App.2d 429— Felton Chemical
Co. v. -Superior Court in and for
Los Angeles County, 92 P.2d 684,
33 Cal. App. 2d 622 — Phipps v. Su-
perior Court in and for Alameda
County, 89 P.2d 698, 32 CaLApp.2d
371 — B. Clemens Horst Co. v. Fed-
eral Mut. "Liability Ins. Co., 71 P.2d
599, 22 Cal.App.2fl 548 — Albori v.
Sykes, 65 P.2d 84, 18 Oal.App.2d
619 — Haug v. Superior Court in
and for Los Angeles County, 37 P.
2d 1048, 2 CaLApp.2d 547— Schroe-
der v. Superior Court of Califor-
nia in and for Alameda County,
239 P. 6-5, 73 CaLApp. 687.
Fla. — Corpus Juris cited in Taylor
V. Chapman, 173 So. 143, 144, 127
Fla. 401 — R. R. Ricou & Sons Co.
v. Merwin, 113 So. 745, 34 Fla, 86.
Ga.— Rogers v. Rigell, 188 S.E. 704,
183 Ga. 455.
IXL — Village of Downer's Grove v.
Glos, 147 N.E. 390, 316 I1L 563—
Chicago Wood Piling Co. v.- An-
derson, 39 N.E.2d 702, 313 ULApp.
242.
Ind. — Citizens' Trust Co. v. Wheeling
Can Co., 157 KB. 441, 199 Ind. 311.
Iowa.— Hobsan v. Dempsey Const
Co., 7 N.W.2d 396. 232 Iowa 1226—
Muman v. Schuldt, 265 N.W. 369,
221 Iowa 242.
Kan. — State v. 'Frame, 95 P.2d 2J8,
150 Kan. >64'6.
Mich.— Ttonohue v. Merriam, 213 N.
W. 150, 238 Mich. 253.
258
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
The power to order the entry of judgments mine
pro tune, however, cannot be used for the purpose
of correcting judicial errors or omissions of the
court.82 This procedure cannot be employed to
give life to, or validate, a void judgment,83 or to
change or revise a judgment,84 or to set aside a
judgment actually rendered,85 or to change the
judgment actually rendered to one which the court
neither rendered nor intended to render,86 or to
render a judgment different from the one actually
Minn. — Plankerton v. Continental
Casualty Co., 230 X.W. 464, ISO
Minn. 16S.
Mo.— Wiggins v. Perry, 119 S.W.2d
S39, 343 Mo. 40, 126 A.L.R. 949—
Curry v. Crull. 116 S.W.2d 125.
342 Mo. 553— State ex rel. Holt-
kamp v. Hartmann, 51 S.W.2d 22,
330 Mo. 3 S6— Clancy v. Herman C.
G. Luyties Realty Co., 10 S.W.2d
914, 321 Mo. 282— Vaughn v. Kan-
sas City Gas Co., 159 S.W.2d 690,
236 Mo.App. 669 — State ex rel.
Arthur v. Hammett, 151 S.W.2d
695. 235 MO.APP. 927— Haycraft v.
Haycraft, App., 141 S.W.2d 170—
Thompson v. Baer, App., 139 S.W.
2d 1080— Ex parte Messina, 128 S.
W.2d 1082, 233 Mo.App. 1234— Ful-
ton X«oan Service No. 2 v. Colvin,
App., SI S.W.2d 373— State ex rel.
and to Use of Grant v. Juden, App.,
50 S.W.2d 702— In re Tompkins'
Estate, App., 50 S.W.2d 659 — Ever-
ett v. Glenn, 35 S.W.2d 652, 225
Mo.App. 921 — Cordes v. Femmer,
App., 2S9 S.W/ 13— Pulitzer Pub. !
Co. v. Allen, 113 S.W. 1159. 134
Mo.App. 229.
Mont.— State Bank of New Salem v.
Schultze, 209 P. 599, 63 Mont. 410.
Ohio. — Webb v. Western Reserve
Bond & Share Co., 153 N.SL 289;
115 Ohio St. 247, 48 A.-L..R. 1176—
State ex rel. Stephens v. Wiseman,
App., 42 N.E.2d 240— State ex rel.
Fulton v. Ach, 24 N.E.2d '462, 62
Ohio App. 439.
Okl. — Hawks v. McCormack, 71 P.2d
724, 180 Okl. 569.
Tex. — Collins v. Davenport, Civ.App.,
192 S.W.2d 291 — Johnson v. Camp-
bell, Civ.App., 154 S.W.2d 878—
Kveton v. Farmers Royalty Hold-
ing Co., Civ.App., 149 S.W.2d 398—
Hays v. Hughes, Civ.App., 106 S.
W.2d 724, error refused — Rogers v.
Allen, Civ.App., 80 -S.W.2d 1085—
Veal v. Jaggers, Civ.App., 13 S.W.
2d 745, error dismissed.
34 C.J. p 76 note 70.
What constitutes clerical error gen-
erally see supra § 237.
The test of whether a judgment
may be amended nunc pro tune is
-whether the change will make the
record speak the truth as to what
was actually determined or done or
intended to be determined or done by
the court, or whether it will alter
such action or intended action. —
State ex rel. Kruletz v. District Court
of Fifth Judicial Dist. in and for
Beaverhead County, 9$ P.2d 883, 110
Mont. 86.
Purpose •
(1) The purpose of & nunc pro
tune order correcting a clerical er-
ror in a judgment appearing on the
face of the record is to make the
judgment as entered conform to the
judicial decision actually made. —
Barkelew v. Barkelew, Cal.App., 166
P.2d 57.
(2) The purpose of a nunc pro
tune judgment is to record a judg-
ment theretofore pronounced by the
court but which has been imperfect-
ly or erroneously entered. — Goodman
v. Mayer, 128 S.W.2d 1156, 133 Tex.
319.
(3) The purpose of a nunc pro
tune order is to have judgment re-
flect its true finding, and, whenever
original judgment entry does not do
so, trial court has very broad power
to correct the entry by nunc pro tune
order. — Tresemer v. Gugle, 42 N.E.2d
712, 70 Ohio App. 409.
(4) The sole purpose for which a
judgment may be amended nunc pro
tune is to correct an error which
has crept into the judgment by rea-
son of misprision on part of the
clerk, judge, or counsel, when the er-
ror is apparent on face of the rec-
ords, so that the judgment will truly
express what was actually decided or
intended to be decided and will grant
the relief originally intended to be
granted together with the relief fol-
lowing therefrom by reason of law. —
State ex rel. Kruletz v. District
Court of Fifth Judicial Dist. in and
for Beaverhead County, 98 P.2d 883,
110 Mont. 36.
Judgment in excess of statutory
limit was not a clerical error which
could be corrected by a nunc pro
tune order. — Garrison v. Williams, 17
P.2d 1072, 128 CaLApp. 598.
Lapse of long1 period
A judgment may be amended at a
subsequent term, nunc pro tune,
eTen a long time after rendition, and
thus perfect verdict, where rights of
intermediate parties will not be prej-
udiced*— Tanner v. Wilson, 192 S.E.
425, 184 Ga. 628.
82. Ark.— Wright v. Curry. 187 S.W.
2d 880, 208 Ark. 816.
Gal. — Reider v. Aqueduct Const Co..
89 P.2d 169, 32 Cal.App.2d 90—
E. Clemens Horst Co. v. Federal
Mut. Liability Ins. Co., 71 P.2d 599,
22 Cal.App.2d 548— Albori v. Sykes,
65 P.2d 8-4, 18 Cal.App.2d 619 —
Garrison v. Williams, 17 P.2d 1072,
128 GaLApp. 598 — Schroeder v. Su-
perior Court of California in and
for Alameda County, 239 P, 65, 73
CaLApp. 687.
474
Ky. — Bowling v. Evans, 98 S.W.2d
916, 266 Ky. 242.
Mo.— Wiggins v. Perry, 119 S.W.2d
839, 343 Mo. 40, 126 A.L.R. 949—
State ex rel. Holtkamp v. Hart-
mann, 51 S.W.2d 22, 330 Mo. 386
— Haycraft v. Haycraft, App., 141
S.W.2d 170 — Thompson v. Baer,
App., 139 S,W.2d 1080 — Cordes v.
Femmer, App., 2S9 S.W. 13.
Tex. — Hays v. Hughes, Civ.App., 106
S.W,2d 724, error refused.
34 C.J. p 77 note 72.
Judicial errors generally see supra
§ 238.
83. Ga.— Wright v. Broom, 158 S.E.
443, 43 Ga.App. 269.
Mo. — State v. Pemberton, 151 S.W.2d
111, 235 Mo.App. 1128.
84. Ark. — Evans v. U. S. Anthracite
Coal Co., 21 S.W.2d 952, ISO Ark.
578.
Cal.— Albori v. Sykes, 65 P.2d 84, 18
Cal.App.2d 619-*-Schroeder v. Su-
perior Court of California in and
for Alameda County, 239 P. 65,
73 CaLApp. 687.
Ga.— Rogers v. Rigell, 188 S.E. 704,
183 Ga, '455.
Change of date to save appeal
from being premature is a nullity. —
Hampshire Arms Hotel Co. v. Wells,
298 N.W. 452, 210 Minn. 286.
Description of lands
The purpose of such amendment is
not to change the description of
lands in the decree otherwise than to
conform to pleadings and proof. —
State ex reL Kruletz v. District
Court of Fifth Judicial Dist. in and
for Beaverhead County, 98 P.2d 883,
110 Mont. 36.
Matters not in court's decision
The amendment of a judgment by
order nunc pro tuno may not make
the judgment express anything not
embraced in the court's decision, al-
though proposed amendment con-
tains matters which ought to have
been so pronounced. — Felton Chemi-
cal Co. v. Superior Court in and for
Los Angeles County, 92 P.2d 684, 33
CaLApp.2d 622.
85. Mont — State ex rel. Kruletz v.
District Court of Fifth Judicial
Dist. in and for Beaverhead Coun-
ty, 98 P.2d 883, 110 Mont. 36.
86. Ark. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Wright v. Curry, 187 S.W.2d 880,
881, 208 Ark. 816.
Cal.— Albori v. Sykes, 65 P.2d 84, 18
Gal. App. 2d 619 — Schroeder v. Su-
perior Court of California in and
for Alameda County, 239 P, 65, 73
CaLApp. 687.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
260
rendered, even though the judgment actually ren-
dered was not the judgment the judge intended to
render.87 It cannot be used to enlarge the judg-
ment as originally rendered88 or to change the
rights fixed by it as it was originally intended or
made,89 nor can it be employed where the fault in
the original judgment is that it is wrong as a mat-
ter of law90 or to allow the court to review and
reverse its action with respect to what it formerly
refused to do or assent to.91
Where the clerk has made no entry of the judg-
ment, a motion to amend by entering judgment nunc
pro tune cannot be granted because there is no
judgment to amend.92
§ 259.
Discretion of Court
Whether or not a court will amend, modify, or cor-
rect a judgment generally rests within Its sound discre-
tion.
Although in some circumstances the allowance of
an amendment or correction of a judgment is a
matter of duty,93 an application to amend, modify,
or correct a judgment is generally addressed to the
sound discretion of the court,9* and, as stated in
Appeal & Error § 1630, the exercise of such discre-
tion will not be interfered with by an appellate
court unless an abuse of discretion is manifest, nor,
as discussed in the CT.S. title Mandamus § 97, also
38 CJ. p 636 notes 71-78, will it usually be con-
trolled by mandamus. This discretion, however,
must not be exercised in an arbitrary manner,95
and the court will not favorably exercise its discre-
tion and allow an amendment where injustice will
thereby be done to anyone.96 Relief is granted on
equitable principles and only on a showing of merits
in the application.9?
After the term, the power of amendment should
be exercised discretely and with caution.98
§ 260. Imposition of Terms
In granting an application to amend a Judgment, the
court may impose reasonable and Just terms.
In the exercise of its discretion to grant or re-
fuse an application to amend a judgment, the court,
in granting such application, may impose such terms
as are reasonable and just99
Ohio. — Herman v. Oliio Finance Co.,
32 N.E.2d 28, 66 Ohio App. 164.
34 C.J. p 77 note 75.
87. Mo. — Wiggins v. Perry, 119 S.W.
2d 839, 343 Mo. 40, 126 A.L.R. 949
— State ex rel. Holtkamp v. Hart-
' mann, 51 S.W.2d 22, 330 Mo. 386—
Clancy v. Herman C. G. Luyties
Realty Co., 10 S.W.2d 914, 821 Mo.
282— Burnside v. Wand, 71 S.W.
337, 170 Mo. 531, 62 L.R-A. 427—
Hay craft v. Haycraft, App., 141
S.W.2d 170— Thompson v. Baer,
App., 139 S.W.2d 1080— Cordes v.
Pemmer, App., 289 S.W. 13.
88. Cal.— Felton Chemical Co. v. Su-
perior Court in and for Los An-
geles County, 92 P.2d 684, 33 CaL
App.2d 622.
Varying rights of parties
A nunc pro tune order enlarging a
Judgment so as to vary the rights
of the parties as fixed by the orig-
inal decision is void, although the
court informed counsel of its inten-
tion to enter such order and read its
contents to counsel who did not ob-
ject thereto, and although the court
committed a judicial error through
inadvertence and oversight — Felton
Chemical Co. v. Superior Court in
and for Los Angeles County, supra.
89. Mont.— State ex rel. Kruletz v.
District Court of Fifth Judicial
Dist. in and for Beaverhead Coun-
ty. 98 P.2d S83, 110 Mont 36.
90. Ark. — Corpus Juris guoted i&
Wright v. Curry, 187 S.W.2d 880,
881. 208 Ark. 816.
3'4 C.J. p 77 note 76.
91. Ark.— Corpus Juris quoted in
Wright v. Curry, 187 S.W.2d 880,
881, 208 Ark. 816.
34 OiJ. p 77 note 77.
92. S.C. — Brown v. Coward, 21 S.C.
L. 4.
34 CJ. p 244 note 69.
93. Minn. — National Council, K. &
L, S. v. Silver, 164 N.W. 1015, 138
Minn. 330, 10 A.L.R. 523.
Wash. — O'Bryan v. American Inv. &
Imp. Co., 97 P. 241, 50 Wash. 371.
ft'»**ftTifliTiftti1? as ualrfcer. of right
(1) In a case where the mistake
is conceded, where it is material,
where the judgment is unexecuted,
and the parties are still in statu quo,
and the rights of no third parties
have intervened, the parties are en-
titled as a matter of right to the
judgment the court has ordered, and
it is the duty of the court to correct
the mistake.— National Council K, &
L. S. v. Silver, 164 N.W. 1015, 138
Minn. 330, 10 A.L.R. 523.
(2) Where an entry of a judgment
concededly does not speak the truth,
no discretion is involved and it is
the imperative duty of the court to
correct such an entry when no Inno-
cent third person will suffer thereby.
— O'Bryan v. American Inv. & Imp.
Co., 97 P. 241, 50 Wash. 371.
94. Ind. — Bearing v. Speedway Real-
ty Co., 40 N.B.2d 414, 111 Ind.App.
585.
Kan. — Hoffman v. Hoffman, 135 P.2d
887, 156 Kan. 6-47— Schubach v.
Hammer, 232 P. 1041, 117 Kan. 615.
Nev. — Gottwals v. Bencher, 98 P.2d
481, 60 Nev. 35, 126 AJt*R. 1262.;
475
Ohio. — Central Nat Bank of Cleve-
land v. Ely, App., 44 NJEL2d 822.
Okl.— Long v. Hill, 145 P.2d 434, 193
Okl. 463— Pitts v. Walker, 105 P.2d
760, 188 Okl. 17— Parker v. Board
of County Com'rs of Okmulgee
County, 102 P.2d 880, 187 Okl. 308,
followed in Parker v. Board of
Com'rs of Okmulgee County, 102
P.2d 883. 187 Okl. 311— Montague
v. State ex rel. Commissioners of
Land Office of Oklahoma, 89 P.2d
283, 184 Okt 574— Wilson v. Por-
ter, 221 P. 713, 94 Okl. 259.
34 C.J. p 250 note 34.
Discretion of court during term see
supra § 229.
95. Ga. — Grogan v. Deraney, 143 S.
B. 912, 38 Ga.App. 287.
W.Va.— Baker v. Gaskins, 36 S.B.2d
893.
9ft, Ohio.— Central Nat Bank of
Cleveland v. Ely, App., 44 N.B.2d
822.
34 C.J. p 250 note 38.
Rights of third persons see infra §
264.
97. Wis.— Reichenbach v. Fisher. 32
133.
98. U.S.— Odell v. Reynolds, Ohio,
70 P. 656, 17 C.C.A. 317.
99. Mich.— Salter v. Sutherland, 85
N.W. 112, 125 Mich. 662.
34 C.J. p 250 note 42.
Payment of specified, sum
The court may amend a Judgment
subject to the payment of a speci-
fied sum by the party who caused
the irregularities necessitating such
amendment.— Whitney v, Lyric-Ro-
§ 261
§ 261. Order
An order granting or refusing an amendment to a
judgment is a final order. Where it allows such amend-
ment, it should recite all necessary jurisdictionai facts
and should not be too broad.
The order granting or overruling a motion to
amend a judgment is a final order which cannot be
set aside at a subsequent term,1 and which precludes
a renewal of the motion2 or a retrial of the ques-
tion in a subsequent action.^
An order allowing an amendment of a judgment
should recite all necessary jurisdictionai facts.4
It should not be too broad;5 only as much of the
judgment as needs correction should be corrected.6
§ 262. Mode of Making Amendments
Although good practice requires that the amendment
of a judgment be actually made as directed, other meth-
ods are permitted or tolerated, such as the entry of the
order for amendment, or erasure and interlineation.
Although good practice requires not only that the
amendment of a judgment should be ordered, but
that the clerk should actually make it as directed,7
such amendment may practically be accomplished by
entering the order therefor, or the making and en-
try of an order which effects the same result,8 in
which case the amendment may actually be made
at any time thereafter,9 or by the entry of a re-
lease or remittitur, where that will make the nec-
essary correction.10 The courts tolerate, but do
not favor, the making of such corrections by erasure
and interlineation on the original record,11 the bet-
ter method being to annul .or vacate the defective
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
entry and replace it by a new entry,12 which, as
stated supra § 258, in proper cases may be ordered
to be made nunc pro tune. There must be a com-
pliance with a statute requiring amendment in open
court1* The judgment of a court cannot be
changed or modified by the agreement of parties
or the testimony of witnesses.14
Where a judgment already made in a cause is
tacitly revoked during the same term, and a second
judgment is made on the same subject matter, it is
more orderly and convenient, in making the second
judgment, to refer to the first one and state in
what particular it is intended to modify, supplement,
or supersede it; but this is not essential where a
comparison of the two judgments discloses the
changes or modifications made.15 An order au-
thorizing execution on a judgment does not con-
stitute an amendment of the judgment.1^ The filing
of amended findings and the entry of a modified
judgment, without first vacating the judgment pre-
viously entered, has been held proper.17
263.
Operation and Effect in Gen-
eral
Generally an amendment or correction of a Judg-
ment makes the Judgment of the same effect as though
the defects necessitating the amendment had never ex-
Isted; It does not confer any new or additional rights.
Since the amendment of a judgment is merely
perfected evidence of what, in contemplation of law,
existed from the time judgment was pronounced,18
as between the parties the amendment or correction
of a judgment relates back to the original judgment
Chester Corporation, 287 N.Y.S. 126,
247 App.Div. 925.
1. Ky. — Bonar v. Gosney, 30 S.W.
602, 1-7 Ky.L. 92.
2. Ky. — Bonar v. Gosney, supra.
34 C.J. p 250 note 45.
3. Kan. — Emery v. Farmers' State
Bank, 155 P. 34, 97 Kan. 231.
4. Tenn. — Carney v. McDonald, 10
Heisk. 232.
5. N.Y. — Frankland v. Schoenfeld,
106 N.T.S. 1101, 58 Misc. 547.
34 C.J. p -250 note '48.
e. Ky. — Snowden v. Darnaby, 15 Ky.
L. 332.
7. Mo.— State v. Broaddus. Ill R
W. 508, 212 Mo. 685.
34 C.J. p 251 note 55.
8. Tex. — Swanson v. Holt Civ.App.,
56 S.W.2d 266, reversed on other
grounds 87 S.W.2d 1090, 126 Tex.
383, remanding cause for further
consideration, Civ.App., 97 S.W.2d
285.
34 C.J. p 251 note 52.
9. N.C.— Marshall v. Fisher, 46 N.C.
111-
la U.S.— Ambler v. McMechen, D.
C.. 1 F.Cas.No.273, 1 Cranch C.C.
320.
34 C.J. p 251 note 54.
Waiver of new entry after remittiU
tux
Parties after reduction of judg-
ment by writing of remittitur on
combination docket could waive new
entry on district court record; par-
ties on filing of motion after re-
mittitur actuating continued exist-
ence of Judgment in effect waived
cancellation of existing Judgment
and new entry. — Fox v. McCurnin,
228 N.W. 582, 210 Iowa 429.
11. Tex — Goodyear Tire & Rubber
Co. v. Pearcy, Civ.App., 80 S.W.2d
1096.
34 C.J. p 251 note 56.
Party's initials
Although the better practice in
correcting a clerical mistake in en-
tering a Judgment, such as where a
party's initials are erroneously giv-
en, is to renter the corrected Judg-
ment nunc pro tune, a correction by
erasure or by interlineation does not j
476
destroy the Judgment— Rogers v. Al-
len, Teac.Civ.App., 80 S.W.2d 1085—
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Pear-
cy, Tex.Civ.App., 80 S.W.2d 1096.
12. Tex.— Swanson v. Holt, Civ.App.,
56 S.W.2d 266, reversed on oth-
er grounds 87 S.W.2d 1090. 126
Tex. 383, remanding cause for fur-
ther consideration, Civ.App., 97
S.W.2d 285.
34 C.J. p 251 note 57.
13. Tex.— Presidio Cotton Gin & Oil
Co.. v. Dupuy, Civ.App.f 2 S.W.2d
341.
14. 111. — People v. Traeger, 171 N.B.
548, 339 111. 356.
15. Mo.— Eddie v. Eddie, 39 S.W.
451, 138 Mo. 599.
34 C.J. p 251 ncte 59.
16. Colo.— Scott v. Woodhams, 246
P. 1027, 79 Colo. 528, followed in
246 P. 102*. 79 Colo. 532.
17. Cal. — Robinson v. Fidelity & De-
posit Co. of Maryland, 42 P.2d 653,
5 CaLApp.2d 241.
18. Okl. — Gaines v. Gaines, 151 P.2d
S93, 194 OkL "343.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§264
and becomes a part of it, and makes the judgment
of the same effect as though the defects or mistakes
because of which it was amended or corrected had
never existed.19 However, it usually does not make
a new judgment or confer any new or additional
rights,20 although a change materially affecting a
judgment and the rights of the parties against
whom it is rendered and involving the exercise of
judicial discretion does amount to a new judg-
ment.21
Generally an amendment leaves the original judg-
ment effective and unimpaired;22 and where the
court strikes out part of a judgment the remaining
portion stands23 so that the court need not enter
a new judgment with the stricken part omitted.24
An order amending a clerical error in a judg-
ment does not supersede the judgment or incorpo-
rate it into the order,25 and the act of the clerk
in correcting the judgment pursuant to such order
is ministerial and does not affect-the materiality or
finality of the judgment or order.26
Where a party applies for and obtains an amend-
ment of the judgment, he thereby waives all errone-
ous rulings of the court preceding the judgment27
An amendment or correction of a judgment is bind-
ing on those parties who were afforded an oppor-
tunity to be heard ;28 but an amendment or modifi-
cation changing the rights of the parties as fixed by
a former judgment is not binding on a party in in-
terest who was not afforded such opportunity.29
§ 264. Rights of Third Persons
An amendment of a judgment, unless made at the
same term at which the judgment was rendered, will not
be allowed to prejudice the rights of third persons who
have acquired Interests for value and without notice.
While a few cases hold that it is the duty of the
court to amend and correct its records so as to make
them speak the truth regardless of the effect of so
doing on the interests of either parties or third per-
sons,30 the general rule is that an amendment of a
judgment will not be allowed to prejudice the rights
of third persons who have acquired interests for
value,31 except where they have taken with notice32
or where the amendment is made at the same term
at which the judgment is rendered33 The order
allowing an amendment should contain a saving of
the intervening rights of third persons34 but the
law makes such reservation whether or not it is
expressly reserved.35
19. Ark.— T. J. Moss Tie Co. v. Mil-
ler, 276 S.W. 586, 169 Ark. 657.
Okl. — Gaines v. Gaines, 151 P.2d 393,
194 Okl. 343— Mason v. Slonecker,
219 P. 357. 92 Okl. 227.
34 C.J. p 251 note 60.
Waiver of irregularity
Recitation in amendment to final
judgment that all parties consented
to amendment was waiver of al-
leged irregrularity of circuit judge
in having arrived at his conclusions
and placed them in form of order
and judgment in chambers in city
which was not county seat and after-
wards filing them in office of clerk
of court in county seat to be record-
ed in court's minutes as judgment
of court. — State ex rel. Landis v.
City of Auburndale, 163 So. 698, 121
Fla. 336.
20. Cal.— McConville v. Superior
Court within and for Los Angeles
County, 248 P. 553, 78 Cal.App. 203.
Okl. — Mason v. Slonecker, 2 19. P. 357,
92 Okl. 227.
34 C.J. p 251 note 61.
21. Cal. — McConville v. Superior
Court within and for Los Angeles
County, 248 P. 553, 78 Cal.App. 203.
22. CaL— McConville v. Superior
Court within and for Los Angeles
County, supra.
23. Ind.— Elliott v. Gardner, 46 N.
B.2d 702, 113 Ind.App. '47.
Where the name of a defendant is
stricken from a judgment, the judg-
ment is valid as against the re-
maining defendants. — Henderson v.
Ellarbee, 131 S.E. 524, 35 Ga.App. 5.
24. Ind.— Elliott v. Gardner, 46 N.E.
2d 702, 113 Ind.App. 47.
26. Cal.— McConville v. Superior
Court within and for Los Angeles
County, 248 P. 553, 78 CaLApp. 203.
26. Cal.— McConville v. Superior
Court within and for Los Angeles
County, supra.
27. U.S. — Sabine -Hardwood Co. v.
West Lumber Co., D.C.Tesi, 238 F.
611, affirmed 248 F. 123, 160 C.C.
A. 263.
Ind.— Pittsburg, C. C. & St. L. R. Co.
v. Beck, 52 N.E. 399, superseded,
53 N.E. 439, 152 Ind. 421.
28. Iowa.— Samek v. Taylor, 213 N.
W. 801, 203 Iowa 1064.
Pa. — Altoona Trust Co. v. Fockler,
165 A. 740, 311 Pa. 426.
29. N.T. — Emmet v. Runyon, 123 N.
T.S. 1026, 139 App-Div. 310.
3<X N.C.— Walton v. Pearson, 85 N.
C. 34.
34 C.J. p 252 note 69.
Estoppel
Parties to the record by their
dealings with third persons may sub-
ject themselves .to estoppels or other
equities which will prevent them
from taking any advantage from the
amendment.— Foster v. Woodfin, 65
BT.C. 20.
477
31. U.S. — Sabine Hardwood Co. v.
West Lumber Co., D.C.Tex., 23 S
F. 611, affirmed 248 F. 123, 160 C.C.
A. 263.
34 C.J. p 252 note 64—47 C.J. p 435-
note 6.
laand descriptions
Clerical error in judgments con-
cerning land descriptions may be
corrected nunc pro tune, if the rights
of strangers are not affected. — State
Bank of New Salem v. Schultze, 209-
P. 599, 63 Mont 410.
Third persons held not prejudiced
by correction. — Plankerton v. Con-
tinental Casualty Co., 230 N.W. 464.
180 Minn. 168.
32. U.S.— Sabine Hardwood Co. v.
West Lumber Co., D.C.Tex., 238 F.
611, affirmed 248 F. 123, 160 C.C.A.
263.
Ind. — Colman v. Watson, 54 Ind. 65.
33. U.S. — Henderson v. Carbondale-
Coal & Coke Co., 111., 11 S.Ct SSI,
140 U.S. 25, 35 L.Ed. 332.
34 C.J. p 252 note 66.
34. Or. — Senkler v. Berry, 96 P-
1070, 52 Or. 212.
34 C.J. P 252 note 67.
35. U.S. — Sabine Hardwood Co. v.
West Lumber Co., IXC-Ter., 238
F. 611, affirmed 248 F. 123, 160 CL
C.A. 363.
34 C.J. p 252 notes 64-67.
§ 265
JUDGMENTS
C. OPEXIXG AND VACATING
1. IN GENERAL
49 C.J.S.
§ 265. In General
Courts of record OP of general Jurisdiction have in-
herent power to vacate or set aside their own Judgments.
In accordance with the rules governing the pow-
er and control of a court over its judgments gener-
ally, considered supra §§ 228-235, the authority to
vacate or set aside its own judgments is inherently
incident to all courts of record or of general juris-
diction^ and may be exercised without the grant
of any special statutory authority,*? although courts
of special or limited jurisdiction have no such pow-
ers in the absence of statutes expressly granting
them.88 However, in jurisdictions having statutes
regulating the power, the statutes are controlling.39
The rules governing the vacation of decrees in eq-
uity and of judgments at law are the same.40
Opening and vacating distinguished. Opening a
judgment is not setting it aside, striking it, annul-
ling, or reversing it, but is a mode of allowing de-
fendant a hearing on the merits, the judgment
meanwhile remaining in force and standing as se-
curity; if the defense is successful the judgment is
vacated, otherwise when it is closed by the action
of the court it operates as though it had never been
disturbed.41 Another distinction is that a petition
to vacate or set aside or strike a judgment is based
on fatal defects apparent on the face of the record,
while petitions to open concern other matters associ-
ated with the judgment, or those on which the
judgment is based, in other words, the merits of
the controversy.42 An application to open a judg-
ment admits its validity.43
Judgments against personal representative. The
rule stated above has been held to apply to judg-
ments against a personal representative, and such
judgments may be opened or vacated when proper
grounds for such relief exist.44
Judgments in ejectment. Within and under the
general rules, a judgment in ejectment may be
set aside for a sufficient cause,45 whether the judg-
ment is against the casual ejector46 or against the
tenant.4?
Motion for new trial distinguished. The motion
to vacate is to be distinguished from a motion for
a new trial which is granted on different principles
and grounds;48 and statutes regulating or limiting
motions for a new trial have no application to mo-
tions to open or vacate the judgment.49
"Impeach" The word "impeach," as applied to
36. Ala.— Alabama By-Products Cor-
poration v. Rutherford, 195 So.
210, 239 Ala, 413.
Pla. — Skipper v. Schumacher, 160 So.
357, 118 Flsu 867, followed In Col-
lier v. Kins, 160 So. 926. 118 Fla.
866, and certiorari denied 56 S.Ct
88, 296 U.S. 578, 80 L.Ed. 408.
Tex. — Pavelka v. Overton, Civ.App.f
47 S.W.2d 369, error refused.
34 C.J. P 252 note 72.
Opening or vacating:
Divorce decrees see Divorce §§ 166,
168-172.
Judgments against married women
see Husband and Wife § 454.
Power of:
Appellate court to vacate its judg-
ments see Appeal and Error §
1957 a.
Probate court to open or vacate its
judgments or orders see Courts
$ 309 c.
Trial court to open or vacate judg-
ment after perfection of appeal
see Appeal and Error § 616.
Review of referee's decision.
A court cannot, on a motion to va-
cate a judgment, review the decision
of the referee on which the judgment
was entered, as such remedy is only
by appeal. — Jones v. Jones, 24 N.Y.S.
1031, 71 Hun 519.
37. Ark.— -Wells v. W. B. Baker
Lumber Co., 155 S.W. 122. 107
Ark. 415.
34 C.J. p 253 note 76.
38. Ind.— Pass v. State, 147 NJB.
287, 83 Ind.App. 598.
N.Y.— Holmes v. Evans, 13 N.T.S.
610, 59 N.T.S. 121, affirmed 29 N.
E. 233, 129 N.T. 140.
Wis.— In re Cudahy's Estate, 219
N.W. 203, 196 Wis. 260.
34 C.J. p 253 note 76 [a].
39. Iowa. — Hammon v. Gilson, 291
N.W. 448, 227 Iowa 1366— Work-
man v. District Court, Delaware
County, 569 N.W. 27, 222 Iowa 364.
34 C.J. p 254 note 77.
40. Mont— Meyer v. Lemley, 282 P.
268, 86 Mont. 83.
Vacation of decrees in equity see
Equity §§ 622-667,
41. Neb. — Farmers' Loan & Trust
Co. v. Killinger, 65 N.W. 790, 46
Neb. 677, 41 L.R.A. 222.
Pa. — rcaftn v. Kahn, Com.Pl., 47
Dack.Jur. 101 — Schantz v. Clem-
mer, Com.Pl., 21 X,eh.L.J. 394.
34 C.J. p 255 note 81.
42. Pa.— Nixon v. Nixon, 198 A. 154,
329 Pa. 256.
Judgment must be null and void
Generally a judgment cannot be
478
stricken off unless it is entirely null
and void; and if it is merely irreg-
ular it will be opened and defendant
let in to a defense. — Dikeman v. But-
terfield, 19 A. 938, 135 Pa. 236—34 C.
J. p 376 note 14.
43. Pa. — Noonan v. Hoff, Com.PL, 57
York Leg.Rec. 113, affirmed R. S.
Noonan, Inc., v. Hoff, 38 A.2d 53,
350 Pa. 295.
34 C.J. p 255 note 82.
44. Ba. — Fischer v. Woodruff, 98 A.
878, 254 Pa. 140—24 C.J. p 887 note
79, p 888 note 80.
46. Ga. — Bryan v. Averett, 21 Ga.
401, 68 Am.D. '464.
19 C.J. p 1212 note 65.
46. Ala. — Howard v. Kennedy, 4 Ala.
592, 39 Am.D. 307.
19 C.J. p 1212 note 67.
47. I1L— Williams v. Brunton, 8 HL
600.
19 C.J. p 1212 note 68.
48. I1L— Grubb. v. Milan, 157 HI.
App. 228, reversed on other
grounds 94 N.E. 927, 249 111. 456.
34 CJJ. p 254 note 79.
49. Ky. — Union Gas & Oil Co. v.
Kelly, 238 S.W. 384, 194 Ky. 158.
34 C.J. p 255 note 80.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
266
a judgment, means to show that it was erroneous,50
not to deny its existence.51
§ 266. Right to and Grounds for Relief
The grounds on which courts may open op vacate
their Judgments, particularly after the term, are gen-
erally matters which render the Judgment void or which
are specified in statutes authorizing such action.
In accordance with the rules governing the pow-
er and control of courts over their judgments gen-
erally, considered supra §§ 228-235, it has been held,
without reference to the term or time at which the
judgment was rendered, that the inherent power of
a court to open or vacate its judgment may be ex-
ercised when the judgment is void,52 or when
there has been a procedural or jurisdictional de-
fect or where a question of fraud or other col-
lateral issue is raised,58 and that courts have
no power to set aside judgments on other grounds
unless specific power is granted to them.54 How-
ever, under some statutes the courts may open
or vacate their judgments on various other
grounds;55 but the statute will not prevent the
courts from acting on other grounds or causes
which would be good and sufficient at common law,
and an application based on such a ground is not
governed by the statute.56 In general a judgment
or decree once solemnly entered should not be easily
or lightly opened or vacated except for cogent rea-
sons.57 A judgment can be set aside for various
reasons even though it is not reversible.58
Time. During the term the power of the court
is absolute, and the court may even change its de-
cision on the merits; accordingly any consideration
sufficient to move the equitable discretion of the
court is ground for opening or vacating the judg-
ment during the term.59 While the statutory
grounds have been held merely cumulative,60 it has
been held that after the term the judgment can be
opened only on statutory grounds,61 except where
50. La, — Pratt v. McCoy, 52 So. 151,
125 La, 1040.
51. N.J.— rDen v. Downam, 13 N.J.
Law 135.
52. Fla. — Skipper v. Schumacher,
160 So. 357, 118 Fla. 867, followed
in Collier v. King, 160 So. 926, 118
Fla. 866, and certiorari denied 56
S.Ct 88, 296 U.S. 578, 80 L.Ed. 408.
53. N.Y.— Quirk v. Quirk, 24 N.Y.S.
2d 937, 175 Misc. 703.
Grounds for equitable relief against
judgment see infra §§ 350-376.
Right to, and grounds for, opening
or vacating default judgments see
infra § 334.
54. N.T. — Quirk v. Quirk, supra.
N.C.— Poison v. Strickland, 136 S.B.
873, 193 N.C. 299.
Pa,— Frantz v. City of Philadelphia,
3 A.2d 917, 333 Pa, 220— Schwartz
v. Stewart, 55 Pa.Dist. & Co. 633,
5 Lawrence L.J. 1— Dickel v. Ty-
son, Com.Pl., 50 Larcc.Rev. 163.
55. Cal. — McMahan v. Baringer, 122
P.2d 63, 49 Cal.App.2d 431— Fisch
6 Co. v. Superior Court in and for
Los Angeles County, 43 P.2d 855,
6 Cal.App.2d 21.
N.D.— Bellingham State Bank of Bel-
lingham v. McCormick, 215 N.W.
152, 55 N.D. 700.
34 C.J. p 268 note 45.
fi^refr grounds as for writ of error
coram nobis
Reasons for correcting judgment
under statute are same as those re-
quired by writ of error coram no-
bis.— Coultry v. Yellow Cab Co., 252
IlLApp. 443.
56. N.Y.— Ladd v. Stevenson, 19 N.
E. 842, 112 N.Y. 325, 8 Am.S.R.
T48.
34 C.J. p 268 note 47.
57. Ark.— Dent v. Adkisson, 157 S.
W.2d 16, 203 Ark. 1'76.
Cal.— Spahn v. Spahn, App., 162 P.
2d 53.
N.M.— Board of Com'rs of Quay
County v. Wasson, 24 P.2d 1098,
37 N.M. 503, followed in Board of
Com'rs of Quay County v. Gardner,
24 P.2d 1104, 37 N.M. 514— Baly v.
McGahen, 21 P.2d 84, 37 N.M. 246.
N.Y.— In re Madden's Estate, 279 N.
Y.S. 218, 155 Misc. 308— In re Mi-
nard's Will, 35 N.Y.S.2d 457.
Pa,— Ferguson v. O'Hara, 132 A. $01,
286 Pa, 37— McKenzie Co. v. Fidel-
ity & Deposit Co. of Maryland,
Com.PL, 54 Dauph.Co. 294— Wan-
ner v. Thompson, Com.Pl., 27 DeL
Co. 455— Charles B. Scott Co. v;
Oliver, Com.PL, 1 Monroe L.R. 143.
S.C.— - Anderson v. Toledo Scale Co.,
6 S.E.2d '465, 192 S.C. 300-^Feffer-
son Standard Life Ins. Co. v. Hy-
drick, 141 S.E. 278, 143 S.C. 127.
Wash. — In re Upton's Estate, 92 P.
2d 210, 199 Wash. 447, 123 A.L.R.
1220.
Wyo. — Application of Beaver Dam
Ditch Co., 93 P.2d 934, 54 Wyo. 459.
58. N.Y. — Lasser v. Stuyvesant Ins.
Co., 16 N.Y.S.2d 401, 258 App.Div.
340, affirmed 17 N.Y.S.2d 221, 258
App.Div. 340.
Conviction of crime
Where insured's conviction for de-
stroying apartment by fire with in-
tent to defraud insurer was upheld
by supreme court, sound public pol-
icy required that insurer's motion
for arrest and vacation of judgment
for insured in action on flre policy,
begun before trial on criminal
charge, be granted on that ground.
—North River Ins. Co. of City of
Mfew York v. Militello, 67 P.2d 625,
100 Colo. 343.
479
59. U.S.— Corpus Juris cited i&
Suggs v. Mutual Ben. Health & Ac-
cident Ass'n, C.C.A.OkL, 115 F.2d
SO, 82.
Ala. — Louisville & N. R. Co. v.
Bridgeforth, 101 So. 807, 20 Ala*
App. 326.
Idaho. — Corpus Juris cited in Occi-
dental Life Ins. Co. v. Niendorf,
44 P.2d 1099, 1102, 55 Idaho 521.
Ky. — Kentucky Home Mut Life Ins.
Co. v. Hardin, 126 S.W.2d 427, 277"
Ky. 565.
Neb. — First Nat. Bank of Fairbury v.
First Trust Co. of Lincoln, 15 N.
W.2d 386. 145 Neb. 147.
Ohio. — Harbine v. Davis, App., 57
N.B.2d 421— Ames Co. v. Buslck,
App., 47 N.E.2d 647— Canal Win-
chester Bank v. Exline, 22 N.B.26?
528, 61 Ohio App. 253.'
34 C.J. p 268 note 48.
Additional evidence
A district court has discretionary-
power, in furtherance of justice, to-
vacate a decree at the same term,
in order to allow additional evidence
to be introduced. — Bartels v. Meyer,
285 N.W. 698, 136 Neb. 274.
6O. Ohio. — Snyder v. Clough, 50 N.
R2d 384, 71 Ohio App. 440— Mosh-
er v. Mutual Home & Savings-
Ass'n, App., 41 N.E.2d 871.
£L Ark. — Old American Ins. Co. v-
Perry, 266 S.W. 943, 167 Ark. 198.
Cal.-— Hotel Park Central v. Security-
First Nat Bank of Los Angeles, S9-
P.2d 606, 15 Cal.App.2d 29&— Ci-
kuth v. Loero, 57 P.2d 1009, 14 Cat
App.2d 32.
Iowa. — Montagne v. Cherokee Coun-
ty, 2.05 N.W. 228, 200 Iowa 534.
Okl. — Burton v. Graves, 273 P. 89&f
135 Okl. *5— McAleer v. Waddell-
§ 267
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
the grounds are sufficient to invoke the inherent
power of the court, generally limited to matters
which render the judgment void, or which affect
the correctness or authoritative character of the
record.62
§ 267. Invalidity of Judgment in Gen-
eral
Invalidity of the judgment of such nature as to ren-
der It void Is a valid ground for vacating it, at least If
the invalidity is apparent on the face of the record.
Under or apart from statutory provisions, inva-
lidity of the judgment as for want of jurisdiction
either of the person or of the subject matter, or of
the question determined and to give the particular
relief granted, rendering the judgment void, as dis-
tinguished from merely voidable or erroneous, is
ground for vacating it,63 even after the expiration
O'Brien Motor Co.. 231 P. 4 SO. 105
Okl. 35.
34 C.J. p 26S note 49.
62. Cal.— Cikuth v. Loero, 57 P.2d
1009, 14 Cal.App.2d 32— F. B.
Young- Co. v. Fernstrom, 79 P.2d
1117, 31 Cal.App.2d Supp. 763.
Fla.— Malone v. Meres, 107 So. 625,
91 Fla. 490.
Idaho. — Baldwin v. Anderson, 8 P.2d
461, 51 Idaho 614.
Ky. — Mclntosh v. Clark, Thurmund
* & Richardson, 177 S.W.2d 155, 296
Ky. 358.
Mo. — Irwin v. Burgan, 28 S.W.2d
1017, 325 Mo. 309.
N.J. — Gimbel Bros. v. Corcoran, 192-
A. 715. 15 N.J.Misc. 538.
Ohio.— Snyder v. Clough, 50 N.E.2d
384, 71 Ohio App. 440— Mosher v.
Mutual Home & Savings Ass'n,
App., 41 X.E.2d S71.
Pa. — Corby v. Swing, 22 Pa.Dist. &
Co. 717 — James B. Sheehan Build-
ing & Loan Ass'n v. Scanlon, 16
Pa.Dist. & Co. 646, affirmed 164 A.
722, 310 Pa. 6.
Judgment held not void on face
Where appearance bond did not
purport to have been executed by
surety as a feme covert, and to es-
tablish the fact of coverture and its
consequent disabilities would require
evidence aliunde the record, and
term of court at which judgment
was rendered against surety had
expired, federal district court was
without Jurisdiction in a summary
proceeding to declare judgment,
which was not void on its face, void
ab initio on ground that judgment
of Florida court declaring the sure-
ty to be a feme sole was without ef-
fect.— U. S. v. Peacock, D.C.Fla., 34
P.Supp. 557.
63. U.S. — Simonds v. Norwich Union
Indemnity Co., C.C.A.Minn., 73 F.2d
412, certiorari denied Norwich Un-
ion Indemnity Co. v. Simonds, 55
S.Ct. 507, 294 U.S. 711, 29 L.Ed.
1246— U. S. v. Turner, C.C.A.N.D.,
47 F.2d. 86.
Ala. — Hanover Fire Ins. Co, v. Street,
176 So. 350, 234 Ala. 537.
Alaska. — Smith v. Coucher, 9 Alas-
ka 730 — In re Young's Estate, 9
Alaska 158 — Corpus Juris cited in
U. S. v. Hoccle, 8 Alaska 201, 209.
Ark. — Taylor v. O'Kane, 49 S.W.2d
400, 185 Ark. 782.
CaL — Casner v. San Diego Trust &
Savings Bank, 94 P.2d 65, 34 Cal.
App.2d 524— Richert v. Benson
Lumber Co., 34 P.2d 840, 139 Cal.
App. 671— Harvey v. Griffiths, 23
P.2d 532, 133 CaLApp. 17— Jellen v.
O'Brien, 264 P. 1115, 89 CaLApp.
505 — Petition of Furness, 218 P.
61, 62 CaLApp. 753.
Colo.— Sidwell v. First Nat Bank,
233 P. 153, 76 Colo. 547.
Fla. — Watkins v. Johnson, 191 So. 2,
139 Fla. 712 — Skipper v. Schumach-
er, 160 So. 357, 118 Fla. 867, fol-
lowed in Collier v. King, 160 So.
926. 118 Fla, 866, and certiorari de-
nied 56 S.Ct. 88, 296 U.S. 578, 80
L.Ed. 408 — Frostproof State Bank
v. Mallett, 131 So. 322, 100 Fla.
1464— Kroier v. Kroier, 116 So. 753,
95 Fla. 865.
Ga. — Ward v. Master Loan Service,
33 S.E.2d 313, 199 Ga. 108— Ander-
son v. Turner, 133 S.E. 306, 35 Ga.
App. 428 — Smoyer v. Jarman, 114
S.E. 924, 29 Ga.App. 305.
Idaho.— McHan v. McHan, 84 P.2d
984, 59 Idaho 496— Jensen v.
Gooch, 211 P. 551, 36 Idaho 457.
HI.— Barnardt v. Michael, 63 N.E.2d
858, 392 111. 130— City of Des
Plaines v. Boeckenhauer, 50 N.E.2d
. '483, 383 III. 475— Thayer v. Village
of Downers Grove, 16 N.E.2d 717,
369 111. 334— Industrial Nat. Bank
of Chicago v. Altenberg, 64 N.E.2d
219, 327 IlLApp. 337— Personal
Loan & Savings Bank v. Schuett,
20 N.E.2d 329, 299 Ill.App. 421—
Webster Grocer Co. v. Gammel, 1
NJ3.2d 890, 285 IlLApp. 277— Cum-
mer v. Cummer, 283 111. App. 220
— Calbreath v. Beckwith, 260 I1L
App. 7 — Sherman & Ellis v. Jour-
nal of Commerce and Commercial
Bulletin, 259 IlLApp. 453 — Conway
v. Gill, 257 111. 606— Hickman v.
Ritchey Coal Co., 252 IlLApp. 560.
Kan. — Sparks v. Maguire, 169 P.2d
• 826 — Penn Mut. iLife Ins. Co. v.
Tittel, 111 P.2d 1116, 153 Kan.
530, rehearing denied 114 P.2d 312,
153 Kan. 747— Wible v. Wible, 110
P.2d 761, 153 Kan. 428— Taylor v.
Focks Drilling & Manufacturing
Corporation, 62 P.2d 903, 144 Kan.
626 — Poorman v. Carlton, 253 P.
424, 122 Kan. 762.
Ky. — Morris V. Morris, 1'85 S.W.2d
244, 299 Ky. 235— Dees' Adm'r v.
Dees' Ex'rs. 13 S.W.2d 1025, 227
Ky. 670 — Harding v. Board of
Drainage Com'rs of McCracken
480
County, 13 S.W.2d 1011, 227 Ky.
661.
Md. — Spencer v. Franks, 195 A. 306,
173 Md. 73, 114 A.L.R. 263.
Minn. — In re Belt Line, Phalen, and
Hazel Park Sewer Assessment, 222
N.W. 520, 176 Minn. 59.
Mo.— Haight v. Stuart, App., 31 S.W.
2d 241.
Mont. — Oregon Mortg. Co. v. Kun-
neke, 245 P. 539, 76 Mont 117.
Neb. — Rasmussen v. Rasmussen, 269
N.W. SIS, 131 Neb. 724 — Shafer v.
Wilsonville Elevator Co., 237 N.W.
155, 121 Neb. 280— Foster v. Fos-
ter, 196 N.W. 702, 111 Neb. 414.
N.J. — New Jersey Cash Credit Cor-
poration v. Zaccaria, 19 A.2d 448,
126 N.J.Law 334 — Gloucester City
Trust Co. v. Goodfellow, 3 A.2d
561, 121 N.J.Law 546 — Gimbel Bros,
v. Corcoran, 192 A. 715, 15 N.J.
Misc. 538.
N.Y. — Conkling Rug Co. v. Hinman,
29 N.T.S.2d 244, 176 Misc. 842.
N.C.— Casey v. Barker, 14 S.E.2d 429,
219 N.C. 465— Ellis y. Ellis, 136 S.
E. 350, 193 N.C. 216 — Fowler v.
Fowler, 130 S.E. 315, 190 N.C. 536
—Ellis v. Ellis, 130 S.E. 7, 190
N.C. 418.
Ohio. — Corpus Juris quoted in Kins-
man Nat. Bank v. Jerko, 25 Ohio
KP..N.S., 445, 457.
Okl. — Petty v. Roberts, 98 P.2d 602,
186 Okl. 269— Hinkle v. Jones, 66
P.2d 1073, 180 OkL 17— Blake v.
Metz, 276 P. 762, 136 OkL 146,
followed in Blake v. Metz, 276 P.
765, 136 Okl. 150— Nero v. Brooks,
244 P. 588, 116 Okl. 279.
Or.— Lothstein v. Fitzpatrick, 138 P.
2d 919, 171 Or. 64'8— -Corpus Juris
cited in Dixie Meadows Independ-
ence Mines Co. v. Kight, 45 P.2d
909, 911, 150 Or, 395— McLean v.
Porter, 35 P.2d 664, 148 Or. 262—
Finch v. Pacific Reduction &
Chemical Mfg. Co., 234 P. 2'96,
113 Or. 670.
Pa.— In re Galli's Estate, 17 A.2d
899, 340 Pa. 561 — Commonwealth
ex rel. Howard v. Howard, 10 A.2d
779, 138 Pa.Super. 505— Baker v.
Carter, 157 A, 211, 103 Pa.Super.
344 — Department of Public Assist-
ance v. Scalzo, 45 Pa.Dist. & Co. 89,
44 Lack.Jur. 19— Webber v. Dolan,
17 Pa.Dist & Co. 93— Sterling Fi-
nance Ass'n v. Frankel, 11 Pa.Dist.
& Co. 456 — Toder v. Universal
Credit Co.. Com,PL, 8 SckReg. 76.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 267
of the term, as discussed supra § 230, and without
limitation of time other than such as may be ex-
pressly prescribed by statute, discussed infra § 288,
at least if such invalidity is apparent on the face
of the record.6* In fact it is the duty of the court
S.D.— Janssen v. Tusha, 5 N.W.2dj
684, 63 S.D. 639 — In re Shafer*s Es- I
tate 209 N.W. 355, 50 S.D. 232,
opinion adhered to In re Schafer's
Estate, 216 N.W. 9*48, 52 S.D. 182
—Wayne v. Caldwell, 47 N.W. 547,
1 S.D. 483.
Tex. — Crouch v. McGaw, 138 S.W.
2d 94, 134 Tex. 633 — Wichita Palls,
R. & Fort Worth Ry. Co. v. Combs,
2S3 S.W. 135, 115 Tex 405— Corpus
juris guoted In Ferguson v. Fergu-
son, Civ.App., 98 S.W.2d 847, 850—
Mendlovitz v. Samuels Shoe Co.,
Civ.App., 5 S.W.2d 559— Barton v.
Montex Corporation, Civ.App., 295
S.W. 950.
Utah. — Cooke v. Cooke, 248 P. 83, 67
Utah 371.
Wash. — John Hancock Mut Life Ins.
Co. v. Gooley, 83 P.2d 221, 196
Wash. 357, 118 A.L.R. 1484.
Wis.— State ex rel. Wall v. Sovinski,
291 N.W. 344, 234 Wis. 336— State
ex rel. Dang v. Civil Court of Mil-
waukee County, 280 N.W. 3"47, 228
Wis. 411.
Wyo. — Bank of Commerce v. "Wil-
liams, 69 P.2d 525, 52 Wyo. 1, 110
A.I».R. 1463.
34 C.J. P 269 note 57.
Existence of valid or meritorious de-
fense to action as condition of re-
lief see infra § 290.
The reason for enacting statute
authorizing courts to set aside void
judgments or orders was the proba-
bility that the legislature feared that
courts not of record might be held
not to possess such power after re-
peal of statutes authorizing justice
courts to set aside void judgments
and to relieve against judgments on
ground of inadvertence, surprise or
excusable neglect— F. B. Young Co.
v. Fernstrom, 79 P.2d 1117, 31 CaL
. App.2d Supp. 763.
Judgment beyond issues
(1) A judgment outside the issues
in the case and on a matter not
submitted to the court for its de-
termination is a nullity, and may be
vacated at any time on motion of the
judgment debtor or other persen af-
fected thereby.
Kan.—- Hawkins v. Smith, 111
1108, 153 Kan. 542.
Okl.— Electrical Research Products
v. Haniotis Bros., 39 P.2d 42, 171
OkL 150.
34 C.J. p 269 note 57 [d].
(2) In action to declare a result
ing trust of real property in favor of
plaintiffs where judgment for plain-
tiffs undertook to adjudicate rights
to described personal property, plain-
tiffs' statement that no personalty
was demanded was a concession of
errer subject to attack by defend-
ant's motion after judgment term to
49OJ.S.-31
et the judgment aside on ground of
rregularity.— -Weatherford v. Spir-
tual Christian Union Church, Mo.,
63 S.W.2d 916.
Judgment for less than juxisdietional
amount
Under statute providing for dis-
missal of cause where amount sued
for is less than jurisdiction of court,
and for taxation of entire cost
against plaintiff where suit is
brought for amount of which court
has Jurisdiction and a smaller sum
s recovered, the overruling of de-
fendants' motion to set aside judg-
ment for plaintiff for one cent and
costs on ground that Judgment was
for an amount less than jurisdiction
of court was not error. — -Watson v.
Spinks, 199 So. 1, 240 Ala. 291.
Question of venue
(1) Whether trial should be in
county court from which summons
issued or in county in which served
was Question, not of Jurisdiction,
rat of venue, which should be raised
ay motion for removal to latter coun-
ty, not by motion to set aside Judg-
ment—Virginia-Carolina Chemical
Co. v. Turner, 130 SJB. 154, 190 HT.C
471.
(2) Where an action to recover
damages to land caused by drainage
water from defendants' adjoining
land was brought in county where
plaintiff's land was situated, against
defendants residing in other counties
and in which counties each was serv-
ed with summons, a motion filed aft-
er term to vacate Judgment was im-
properly overruled, even though •
defense to the action was not ten-
dered, since action, being "transi-
tory," was maintainable only in
county in which one of the defend-
ants resided or service could be had
and judgment was "void" ab initio. —
Snyder v. Clough, 50 NJEL2d 884, 71
Ohio App. 440.
judgment based on void Judgment
On motien to set aside judgment
based on filing transcript of another
judgment, it is proper to grant re-
lief asked on showing that the other
judgment was void. — Lowry v.
BQmmler, 239 N.T.S. 847, 186 Misc.
215.
judgment "based on void verdict
In joint action for injuries sus
tained in automobile collision agains
owner of automobile and her son
who was driving automobile at time
of collision, a verdict exeneratinj
son but finding owner liable was void
and the judgment based thereon
could be attacked on a motion to se
aside.— Kalil r. Spivey, 27 S.E.2<
•475, 70 Ga-App. 84.
481
Pacts Held not to show want of ju-
risdiction
Where surviving partners suing
he alien property custodian and the
United States treasurer to recover
a, debt claimed to be owing to firm
by an enemy corporation set forth in
heir complaint their claim, their
nonenerny status, transactions out
of which claim arose, and that they
had given statutory notice of claim,
denials of answer concerning part-
ners' status and transactions, and
affirmative defenses alleging that
there were prior claims, that part-
ners did not have title to cause of
action, that partnership had been
dissolved through outbreak of war,
that claim had passed to another
partner and on his death to his
3-erman executors who had entered
nto an arbitration agreement, and
that arbitrators had found no lia-
bility en part of enemy corporation,
presented issues which the district
court was competent to try, and
hence unappealed from judgment on
such issues could not be set aside
for want of jurisdiction on ground
that beneficial owner of claim was
an enemy as defined by the act. —
Jackson v. Irving Trust Co., 61 S.
Ct. 326, 311 U.S. 494, 85 L.Ed. 297.
Pacts held not to warrant relief
(1) Conduct of condemnation pro-
ceeding by special assistant to at-
torney general is not ground for va-
cation of final condemnation order
and judgment — U. S. v. Certain Land
at Great Neck in Xassau County,
N.Y., D.C.N.Y., 57 F.Supp. 157.
(2) A definitive Judgment, in pet-
itory action by plaintiffs who had
possession of land under recorded
tax deed, could not be set aside for
alleged invalidity of tor sale because
taxes for collection of which sale
was made had been made on part of
property by third person. — Adkins*
Heirs v. Crawford, Jenkins & Booth,
La., 24 8o.2d 246.
(3) Where the court has jurisdic-
tion of the parties and the subject
matter, a judgment cannot be vacat-
ed on the ground that there was
no case or controversy before the
court, since that question should
properly be raised by appeal or
bill of review.— Swift & Co. v. XT.
S., AppJXC., 48 S.Ct 811, 276 U.&
811, 72 L.Ed. 587.
C4) Other facts.
Ariz.— In re Hannerkam's Estate, 77
P.2d 814. 51 Ariz. 447.
Ga,— Manrr v. Stephens. 0 S^J.2d
58, !»• Ga. 80S.
64. Ala.— Gibson *. Edwards, 16 So.
2d 8«5, 245 Ala. 834— Griffin v,
Proctor. 14 So,2d 116, *44 Ala.
587.
§ 267
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
to annul an invalid judgment.65 However, it has al-
so been held that a void judgment need not be set
aside since it is an absolute nullity and ineffective
without being set aside.6* Any applicable statutes
are, of course, controlling.67
Process, sen-ice, or notice lacking or defective.
Since the validity and regularity of a judgment de-
pend on the existence and sufficiency of the process
or notice on which it is based, as discussed supra §£
23-25, it is good ground for vacating or opening
a judgment that defendant had no notice of the ac-
tion, either because of a failure to serve him with
process or because the process or service was fa-
tally irregular or defective.68 Thus a false return
Cal.— Olivera v. Grace, 122 P.2d 564,
19 Cal.2d 570, 140 A.L.R. 1328—
City of Salinas v. Luke Kow Lee,
18 P.2d 335, 217 Cal. 252— Michel
v. Williams, 56 P.2d 546, 13 Cal.
App.2d 19S— Shelley v. Casa Be
Oro, Limited, 24 P.2d 900, 133 Cal.
App. 720— People v. Barnes City,
288 P. 442. 105 Cal.App. 618.
Idaho. — Occidental Life Ins. Co. v.
Niendorf, 44 P.2d 1099, 55 Idaho
521 — Baldwin v. Anderson, 8 P.2d
461, 51 Idaho 614.
Mo.— Harrison v. Slaton, 49 S.W.2d
31 — McFadden v. Mullins, 136 S.
W.2d 74, 234 Mo.App. 1056.
N.C.— Dunn v. Wilson, 187 S.B. S02,
210 X.C. 493.
Okl.— Morgan v. City of Ardmore ex
rel. Love & Thurmond, 78 P*2d
785, 1S2 Okl. 542 — Weimer v. Au-
gustana Pension and Aid Fund, 67
P.2d 436, 179 Okl. 572— American
Exchange Corporation v. Lowry,
63 P.2d 71, 178 Okl. 433— Green v.
James, 296 P. 743, 147 Okl. 273—
Bleflsoe v. Green, 2SO P. 301, 138
OkL 15— Skipper v. Baer, 277 P.
930, 136 Okl. 286.
Pa.— Commonwealth ex rel. Howard
v. Howard, 10 A.2d 779, 138 Pa,
Super. 505 — Gedrich v. Yaroscz,
156 A. 575, 102 Pa.Super. 127.
Determination from record
(1) Whether the judgment is void
on its face must be determined from
an inspection of the judgment roll
alone, and unless the record affirm-
atively shows that the court was
without jurisdiction, the judgment
is not subject to such summary ac-
tion.— Spahn v. Spahn, CaLApp., 162
P.2d 53.
(2) A judgment is void on its face
when the judgment roll affirmatively
shows that trial court lacks either
Jurisdiction over the person, juris-
diction over the subject matter, or
judicial power to render the par-
ticular Judgment. — Town of Watonga
v. Crane Co., 114 P.2d 941, 189 Okl.
184 — Caraway v. Overholser, 77 P.
2d 688, 182 Okl. 357.
Judgment held not void on face
(1) In general.
CaL— In re Robinson's Estate, 121 P.
2d 734, 19 Cal.2d 534-— In re Es-
tremfs Estate, 107 P.2d 36, 16 Cal.
2d 563.
Okl. — Caraway v. Overholser, 77 P.2d
€88, 182 Okl. 357.
(2) Absence from judgment roll
of original summons against sub-
contractors as to whom cause was
continued was held not to make
judgment declaring materialman's
lien void, and subject to attack after
term. — Harris v. Spurrier Lumber
Co., 265 P. 637, 130 Okl. 99.
(3) Judgment failing to show de-
fendant's presence at trial, but show-
ing that she was represented, was
held not void on face, so as to jus-
tify setting it aside on motion after
term at which rendered. — Steiner
v. Smith, 242 P. 207, 115 Okl. 205.
(4) A judgment would not be va-
cated where it would be presumed
that facts required to be proved to
confer jurisdiction were duly proved,
even though record was silent on
the matter. — Town of Watonga v.
Crane Co., 114 P.2d 941, l'S9 Okl.
184.
65. N.J. — Gimbel Bros. v. Corcoran,
192 A. 715, 15 X.J.Misc. 538.
Tex. — Bridgman v. Moore, 183 S.W.
2d 705, 143 Tex. 250.
63. Miss. — Walton v. Gregory Fu-
neral Home, 154 So. 717, 170 Miss.
129.
67. Ohio.— Corpus • Juxi* quoted In
Kinsman Nat Bank v. Jerko, 25
Ohio N.P..N.S., 445, 457.
34 C.J. p 270 note 'SO.
68. U.S.— Pen-Ken Gas & Oil Corpo-
ration v. Warfleld Natural Gas Co.,
C.C.A.Ky., 137 F.2d 871, certiorari
denied 64 S.Ct. 431, 320 U.S. 800, -88
L.Ed. 483, rehearing denied 64
Ct. 634, 321 U:S. 803, 88 L.Ed. 1089.
Alaska. — Corpus Juris cited in U. S.
v. Hoxie, S Alaska, 201, 208.
Fla.— Rhea v. Hackney, 157 So. 190,
117 'Fla. 62.
Ga. — Cone v. Eubanks, 145 S.E. '652,
167 Ga. 384— Wilby v. McRae, 191
S.E. 662, 56 Ga.App. 140.
111.— Howard v. Howard, 26 N.E.2d
421, 304 IlLApp. 637— Sweet v.
Sweet, 277 IlLApp. 545.
Ky.— Center's Guardian v. Center, 51
S.W.2d 460, 244 Ky. 502— Farmers'
Bank of -Salvisa v. Riley, 272 S.W.
9, 209 Ky. 54.
Mich. — Huebner v. WinskowskI, 224
N.W. 340, 24'6 Mich. 77.
N.Y.— Pacek v. Ferrar, 14 N.T.S.2d
814, 258 App.Div. 772— Universal
Credit Co. v. Blinderman, 288 N.
T.S. 77, 159 Misc. 802— Doctor's
Hospital v. Kahal. 277 N.Y.S. 73-6,
155 Misc. 126, affirmed 277 N.Y.S,
738, 155 Misc. 127— Potenza v. Can-
to, 18 N.Y.S.2d 849.
Okl. — American Exchange -Corpora-
tion v. Lowry, 63 P.2d 71, 17i8 Okl.
482
433— Locke v. Gilbert, 271 P. 247.
133 Okl. 93 — Hatfield v. Lewis, 236
P. 611, 110 Okl. 9S— Good v. First
Nat Bank, 211 P. 1051, 88 Okl. 110.
Pa. — In re Stolzenbach's Estate, 29
A.2d 6, 346 Pa. 74— Schlegel v.
Brobst, Com.Pl., 18 Leh.L.J. 365
— Rought v. Billings, Com.Pl., 3S
Luz.Leg.Keg. 405.
Tex. — Empire Gas & Fuel Co. v. Al-
bright, 87 S.W.2d 1092, 126 Tex.
485 — Mandlovitz v. Samuels Shoe
Co., Civ. App., 5 S.W.2d 559.
Va.— Mann v. Osborne, 149 S.E. 537,
153 Va. 190— Lockard v. Whiten-
ack, 144 S.E. 606, 151 Va. 143.
Wash. — City of Tacoma v. Nyman,
2S1 P. 484, 154 Wash. 1*54.
34 C.J. p 270 note 63.
Judgment against several defendants
Judgment, valid as to one defend-
ant, will not be set aside as to such
defendant for the reason that no
service, or insufficient service, has
been had on codefendant. — Burns v.
Pittsburg Mortg. Inv. Co., 231 P.
887, 105 Okl. 150—34 C.J. p 270 note
63 [a].
Notice to unauthorized attorney
Judgment rendered pursuant to no-
tice to attorney acting without au-
thority may be vacated even after
term. — Jacobson v. Ashkinaze, 168
N.R «647, 337 111. 141.
Decree on cross complaint
Ark.— Taylor v. Harris, 54 S.W.2d
701, 186 Ark. 580.
Service by publication
(1) Where service of summons by
publication on defendants was based
on an affidavit which was defective
because of failure to allege that de-
fendants could not after due dili-
gence be found in the state, the de-
nying of motion of defendants to
vacate the judgment because of de-
fective service was error. — Groce v.
Groce, 199 S.E. 388, 214 N.C. 398.
(2) However where court appoint-
ed guardian ad litera for certain de-
fendants who were cited by publica-
tion in suit on notes and to fore-
close vendor's and trust deed liens,
and judgment made specific provision
protecting interests of defendants so
summoned, judgment would not be
set aside on ground that by exercise
of reasonable diligence defendants'
residences could have been ascer-
tained; moreover without showing
that defendants' residence could
have been ascertained by reasonable
diligence or that he had meritorious
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
267
of service of process has been held ground for va-
cating the judgment.69 However, in some cases it
has been held that the failure or defect must be ap-
parent on the face of the record,70 so that a judg-
ment will not be vacated on the claim of a false
return of service, since the return is conclusive,71
unless there is an irreconcilable conflict in the judg-
ment roll.72
In any event, a judgment will not be set aside for
mere clerical errors, omissions, or irregularities in
the process not affecting the jurisdiction,7^ espe-
cially where defendant had actual notice of the com-
mencement of the action74 and refrained from ap-
pearing and defending in the expectation that he
could overturn the judgment in consequence of such
error or defect,75 or where his objections to the
process or service are waived by his appearance.76
Moreover, when a party has once been properly
served with proper process, he is in court for every
purpose connected with the action, and cannot have
the judgment vacated for the failure to notify him
of some intermediate step in the case.77
Unauthorized appearance. Where a judgment is
entered without service of process on the judgment
defendant, based solely on an unauthorized appear-
ance of an attorney, some cases have held that the
remedy of the judgment defendant is against the
attorney, and that the judgment cannot be opened
or vacated on the ground that such appearance was
unauthorized unless the attorney is insolvent and
not able to respond in damages for his wrong,78
or unless plaintiff or his attorney was guilty of
fraud or collusion, or was otherwise a party to the
wrong,™ or where there is some other good reason
for not confining the party to his remedy against
the attorney, in which cases the judgment may be
opened or vacated80 However, the generally pre-
vailing rule is that a judgment entered without the
service of process on the unauthorized appearance
of an attorney may be set aside without regard to
whether or not the attorney is financially responsi-
ble for his wrong,8* provided defendant did not ac-
cept or ratify the unauthorized act of the attorney,
as by acquiescing in it or failing to object, with full
knowledge.82
Where process has been served, and plaintiff is
innocent of any fraud or collusion, and the attorney
is solvent, the party for whom the attorney appeared
is confined to his remedy against the latter, plaintiff
in such case being regarded as blameless and de-
fendant negligent in not appearing and making de-
fense by his own attorney, if he had any defense*83
defense to the action, Judgment
would not be set aside on ground
that defendant was improperly cited.
— Patridge v. Peschke, Tex.Civ.App.,
Ill S.W.2d 1147.
Summons held sufficient;
Okl. — Thomas v. Tucker, 86 P.2d
1011, 184 Okl. 304.
3^088 of papers
Bight to attack judgment on
ground of nonservice would not be
denied because papers in suit except
judgment had been lost. — Downing
v. White, 188 S.E. 815, 211 N.C. 40.
Defendant held to have "been, served
KY.— Peppe v. Black, 7 N.Y.S.2d 748.
N",C. — Jackson v. Turnage, 22 S.B.
3d 434, 222 N.O. 752.
69. N.D.— Corpus Juris cited in
Baird v. Ellison, 293 N.W. 794,
800, 70 N.D. 261.
34 C.J. p 271 note 84.
•j|*mT>frfr/»>nyi •T'l? of return
Ky. — Gardner v. Lincoln Bank &
Trust Co., 64 S.W.2d 497, 251 Ky.
109.
70t Ky. — Horton v. Horton, 92 «S.
W.2d 373, 263 Ky. 413.
Okl.— Good v. 'First Nat Bank, 211
P. 1051, 88 OkL 110.
Judgment rendered on proper serv-
ice by publication is not void on its
face within law providing for vaca-
tion of void judgment. — Moore v.
Hawkins, 271 P. 244, 133 Okl. 227.
Special provision where invalidity
not apparent
Okl.— Morrissey v. Hurst, 229 P. 431,
107 Okl. 1— Woodley v. McKee, 223
P. 346, 101 Okl. 120.
71. Pa.— Liberal Credit Clothing Co.
v. Tropp, 4 A.2d 565, 135 Pa.Super.
53.
72. OkL— Babb v. National Life
Ass'n, -86 P.2d 771, 184 OkL 273.
73. Fla. — Walker v. Carver, 112 So.
45, 93 Fla. 337.
34 C.J. 9 271 note 66.
Amendable defect
Ga. — Hayes v. American Bankers'
Ins. Co., 167 S.B. 731, 4-6 Ga.App.
552.
74. Fla.— Seiton v. Miami Roofing &
Sheet Metal, 10 So.2d 428, 151 Fla.
631.
34 C.J. p 272 note «7.
Cross complaint
Ark. — Taylor v. Harris, 54 S.W.2d
701, 186 Ark. 580.
75. Cal.— McGinn v. Rees, 165 P. 52,
33 CaLApp. 291.
34 C.J. p 272 note 68.
76* E^in. — Home Owners' Loan Cor-
poration v. Clogston, 118 P.2d 568,
154 Kan. 257.
34 C.J. P 272 note 69.
483
77. N.Y. — Eyring v. Hercules Land
Co., 41 N.Y.S. 191, 9 AppJDiv. 306.
34 C.J. p 272 note 70.
ATnonifTritt'n* Q± petition
U.S.— U. S. v. 165.1978 Acres of ILand,
More or Less, in East Hampton
TpM Suffolk County, D. a, N.Y., 61
'F.Supp. 362.
Intervention hy third parties
Ark. — Progressive Life Ins. Co. v.
Riley, 88 S.W.2d 66, 191 Ark. 850.
7S. N.Y.— Vilas v. Pittsburgh & M.
R. Co., 25 N.E. 941, 123 N.Y. 440,
20 Am.S.R. 771, 9 L.R.A. 844.
34 C.J. p 272 note 72.
Validity of judgment based on un-
authorized appearance see supra 5
26.
79. N.Y. — Yates v. Horansoa, 30 N.
Y.Super. 12.
34 C.J. p 273 note 73.
«X N.Y.— Hamilton v. Wright, 37
N.Y. 502, 504, 5 Transcr.A. L
34 C.J. P 273 note 75.
81. Fla. — St. Lucie Estates v. Palm
Beach. Plumbing Supply Co., 133
So. 841, 101 Fla. 205.
Okl.— Myers v. Chamness, 228 P. 9*$,
102 Okl. 131.
34 C.J. p 274 note 76.
82. Ga. — Jackson v. Jackson, 35 SJBL
2d 258, 199 Ga, 716.
84 C,J. p 274 note 77.
83. N.C. — Hatcher v. Faison, 55 S.E.
284, 142 N.C. 364.
34 C.J. p 274 note 78.
268
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
§ 268. Irregularity of Judgment in Gen-
eral
A material and substantial Irregularity which has
not been cured or waived Is a ground for opening or va-
cating judgment If the complaining party Is adversely
affected thereby.
A judgment ordinarily will not be vacated for
merely technical, formal, and unimportant irregu-
larities which may be disregarded on the principle
of harmless error,84 or which are eurable by amend-
ment,85 or which may be deemed cured or waived
as by failure to object in due season;86 and the only
remedy for such irregularity is by proceedings for
review by an appellate court87 However, irregu-
larity in the proceedings leading to the entry of a
judgment, as distinguished from mere error which
is considered infra § 274, has been held a ground
for vacating the judgment,88 provided it is preju-
84. U.S. — Soroush v. Hasbrouck
Heights, N. X, T. Agrios, D.C.N.J.,
10 F.Supp. 371.
Ga. — Manry v. "Stephens, 9 S.B.2d 58,
190 Ga, 305.
Ky.— Barker v. Hoe, 109 S.W.2d 395,
270 Ky. 158.
N.J.— Cook v. American Smelting &
Refining Co., 122 A. 743, 99 N.J.
Law 81.
N.M —American Nat Bank of Tu-
cumcari v. Tarpley, 250 P. 1$, 31 N.
M. 667.
N.Y.— Harwitz v. Cohen, 245 N.Y.S.
350, 138 Misc. 300 — Brockman v.
Pape, 116 N.T.S. 752.
N.C.— Mitchell v. Mitchell, 190 S,B.
487, 211 N.C. 508.
Pa. — Holland 'Furnace Co. v. Davis,
31 Pa.Dist & Co. 469, 5 Sch.Reg.
157.
Tex — Bearden v. Texas Co., Civ.App.,
41 S.W.2d 447, affirmed, ConuApp.,
60 S.W.2d 1031.
Wis. — Luebke v. City of Watertown,
284 N.W. 519, 230 Wis. 512.
34 C.J. p 276 note 84.
Particular irregularities held insuffi-
cient
(1) -Failure to give notice of entry
of Judgment, at least where the oth-
er party was not harmed thereby.
Ky.— McAllister v. Dravenstott, 115
S.W.2d 1041, 273 Ky. 239.
Okl.— Mayer v. Keener, 163 P.2d 991,
195 Okl. 658.
Wash. — Larson v. Department of La-
bor and Industries, 25 P.2d 1040,
17-4 Wash. 618.
(2) Fact that court in rendering
final judgment inadvertently over-
looked previous minute entry setting
case for hearing at subsequent date
was held not to justify mine pro tune
order at subsequent term annulling
final judgment. — State ex reL Holt-
kamp v. Hartmann, 51 S.W.2d 22,
330 Mo. 38*6.
(3) Failure of commissioners, ap-
praising land condemned, to include
description thereof, date of view* and
other details, was not irregularity
authorizing vacation of final judg-
ment awarding owner amount of
damages assessed by, them. — Board
of Com'rs of Quay County v. Was-
son, 24 P.2d 1098, 37 N.M. '503. fol-
lowed ta Board of Com'rs of Quay
County v. Gardner, 24 P.2d 1104, 37
N.M. 514.
(4) On bill to review judgment
rendered on notice by publication,
where the issues were made and tried
on the bill and answers filed there-
to, . the judgment will not be set
aside merely because there was tech-
nical failure to set aside the orig-
inal judgment and make up the same
issues on the old petition and an-
swers.—Witcher v. Hanley, 253 -S.W.
1002, 299 Mo. 696.
(5) A valid judgment is not ren-
dered void merely by an unauthor-
ized, immaterial, and nonprejudicial
interlineation, and addition to judg-
ment by attorney for plaintiff after
judge had signed judgment and im-
mediately over judge's signature did
not change nature, force or effect of
judgment, and hence such interpola-
tion did not invalidate otherwise val-
id judgment as constituting a fraud
upon defendants' rights. — Parrish v.
Ferriell, 186 S.W.2d 625, 299 Ky.
676.
(6) Judgment creditor's laches in
not having judgment entered of rec-
ord unttl more than six years after
rendition thereof, where there was
no showing that judgment debtor had
been harmed in any way by belated
filing, since belated entry of judg-
ment did not extend lien thereof. —
Harvey v. Gibson, 2 S.E.2d 385, 190
S.C. 98.
(7) Other irregularities.
'U.S.— Coggeshall v. U. S., C.C.A.S.C.,
95 'F.2d 986.
Ala.— Du Pree v. Hart 8 So.2d 183,
242 Ala. 690.
N.Y.— Peters v. Berkeley, 219 N.T.S.
709, 219 App.Div. 261.
Pa.— Liberal Credit Clothing Co. v.
Tropp, 4 A.2d 565, 135 Pa. Super.
53.
34 C. J. <p 276 note 84 [a].
85. Ga. — Nottingham v. Nicholson,
157 S.B. 11'8, 42 Ga,App. -628.
C.J. p 277 note 85.
An inquest to make partition will
not *be set. aside for an irregularity
which may be corrected by amend-
ment.— In re Schweitzer, 3 DeLCo.,
Pa., 285, 4 Lanc.L.Rev. 369, 1 North.
Co. 65.
Statute 9* to automatic amendment
Where record was insufficient to
sustain decree in failing to require
county in whom title to realty was
adjudged to pay county's bid on tax
sales to sheriff and in failing to
show payment thereof, and deficien-l
484
cy could have been supplied by
amendment, plaintiff was not enti-
tled to have decree set aside, in view
of statute providing that an amenda-
ble decree under such circumstances
is, in legal effect, amended. — Burch v.
Dodge County, 20 S.E.2d 428, 193 Ga.
890.
88. Mo. — State ex rel. Holtkamp v.
Hartmann, 51 S.W.2d 22, 330 Mo.
386.
N.Y.— C«hn v. Warschauer Sick Sup-
port Soc. Bnei Israel, 19 N.Y.S.
2d 742, appeal denied 20 N.V.S.2d
669, 259 App.Div. 914.
Wyo. — Bank of Commerce v. Wil-
liams, 69 P.2d 525, 52 Wyo. 1, 110
A.L.R: 1453.
34 C.J. p 278 note 86.
Motion to open judgment
One moving t.o open judgment will
be held to have, waived mere irreg-
ularity in entry thereof. — Pasco Rur-
al 'Lighting Co. v. Roland, 88 Pa. Su-
per. 245.
Filing of amended answer
Defendants in partition action who
took no further steps until nearly
two years after filing of answer when
they filed an amended answer after
cause had been submitted without
objection was held not entitled to
assert that judgment entered on
same day that amended answer was
filed was irregular or premature,
where filing of amended answer was
permitted on condition that it should
not delay trial. — Horton v. Horton, 92
S.W.2d 373, 263 Ky. '413.
87. U.S. — Parker Bros. v. Fagan, C.
C.A.Fla., 68 $*.2d 61*6, certiorari de-
nied 54 «.Ct 719, 292 U.S. '638, 78
L.Ed. 1490.
111. — Hamilton Glass Co. v. Borin
Mfg. Co., 248 IlLApp. 501.
88. Ariz. — American Surety Ce. • of
New York v. Mosher, 'S4 P.2d 1025,
48 Ariz. 552.
Conn. — Corpus Jtiris quoted in. Stol-
man v. Boston 'Furniture Co., 180
A. 507, 509, 120 Conn. 235.
Ind. — Isaacs v. 'Fletcher American
Nat. Bank, 185 N.E. 154, 98 Ind.
App. 111.
Mont. — Stenner v. Colorado-Montana.
Mines Ass'n, 149 P.2d -546.
N.C.— Nail v. McConnell, 190 SJSL
210, 211 N.C. 2-58— Fowler v. bowl-
er, 130. S.B. 315, 190 N.C. 536.
Oil. — Vann v. Board of Education of
Town of (Lenapah, 229 P. 433, 103
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
268
dicial or dangerous to the substantial rights and in-
terest of the party affected,89 at least during the
term.90
Irregularity apparent on -face of record. In some
states it has been held that a judgment cannot be
vacated for irregularity unless the irregularity ap-
pears on the face of the record,91 at least where
Okl. 286— Boaz v. Martin, 225 P
516, 101 Okl. 243.
•S.D. — Janssen v. Tusha, 5 N.W.2d
684, 68 S.D. 639.
Tex. — British General Ins. Co. v
Ripy, 106 S.W.2d 1047, 130 Tex.
101.
Wis.— Corpus Juris quoted in Feder-
al Land Bank of St. Paul v. Olson
1 N.W.2d T52, 754, 239 Wis. 448.
Wyo. — Ramsay v. Gottsche, 69 P.2d
535, 51 Wyo. 516 — Bank of Com-
merce v. Williams, 69 P.2d 525
52 Wyo. 1, 110 A.L.R. 1463.
34 C.J. p 274 note 81.
89. Conn. — Corpus Juris Quoted in
Stolman v. Boston 'Furniture Co.,
180 A. 507, 509, 120 Conn. 235.
Ga. — Byers v. Byers, 154 S.E. 456,
41 Ga.App. -671.
111. — City of Des Plaines v. Boecken-
hauer, 50 N.E.2d 483, 383 111. 475.
Kan.— Swalwell v. Wyatt, 257 P. 742,
124 Kan. 152.
La. — Coltraro v. Chotin, 1 La.App.
628.
Md.— Harvey v. Slacum, 29 A.2d 276,
181 Md. 206.
N.J.— Kohn v. Lazarus, 15'5 A. 260,
9 N.J.Misc. 644.
N.C.— Fowler v. Fowler, 130 S.B. 315,
190 N.Q. 536— Snow Hill Live Stock
Co. v. Atkinson, 126 S.E3. 610, 189
N.C. 248.
Okl.— Le Hoi Co. v. Grimes, 144 P.2d
973, 93 Okl. 430— Stull v. Hoehn,
126 P.2d 1007, 191 Okl. 190.
Pa.— Moyer v. Meray, 25 A.2d 612,
14'S Pa.Super. 284 — Kerstetter v.
Kers tetter, Com.Pl., 49 GDauph.Co.
102— Hair v. Kulp Roofing: & Paint-
ing1 Co., Com.Pl., 34 Luz.Leg.Reg.
14.
Wis. — Corpus Juris quoted in Federal
Land Bank of St. Paul v. Olson,
1 N.W.2d 752, 754, 239 Wis. 448.
34 C.J. p 275 note 83.
Irregularity within, rule
(1) The irregularity must be a
want of adherence to .some pre-
scribed rule or mode of proceeding,
either in omitting to do something
that is necessary for the orderly
conduct of a suit, or doing- it at an
unreasonable time, or in »an improp-
er manner.
Mo. — State ex rel. Caplow v. Kirk-
wood, App., 117 S.W.2d 652—
Platies v. Theodorow Bakery Co.,
App., 79 S.W.2d 504— Robinson v.
Martin Wunderlich Const. Co.,
App., 72. S.W.2d 127— Mefford v.
Mefford, App., 26 S.W.2d 804.
N.M. — Sheppard v. Sandfer, 102 P.2d
6-68, 44 N.M. 357.
Wash.— In re Ellern, 160 P.2d 639, 23
Wash.2d 219.
34 OT. p 275 note 83 M.
(2) Judgment is "irregular" when
ever it is not entered in accordant
with practice and course of proceed
ing where it was rendered.
Conn.— Stolman v. Boston Furniture
Co., 180 A. 507, 120 Conn. 23S.
N.C. — Everett v. Johnson, 14 S.B.2d
520, 219 N.C. 540— Fowler v. Fowl
er 130 S.E. 315. 190 N.C. 536.
Particular irregularities held suffi-
cient
(1) Entry of Judgment without
notice to parties concerned.
Ky.— Middleton v. Lewis, 95 S.W
2d 1114, 265 Ky. '9.
Minn. — Kemerer v. -State -Farm Mut.
Auto. Ins. Co. of Bloomington, 111.,
288 N.W. 719, 206 Minn. 325.
N.M. — Moore v. Brannin, 274 P. 50,
33 N.M. 624.
Ohio.— Baldwin v. Lint, 5 N.B.2d 413,
53 Ohio App. 349, appeal dismissed
4 N.B.2d 399, 132 Ohio St. 140.
Okl.— Sizemore v. Dill, 220 P. 352, 93
Okl. 176.
Or.— 'Lawson v. Hughes, 270 P. 922,
127 Or. 16.
Wash. — Larson v. Department of (La-
bor and Industries, 25 P.2d 1040,
174 Wash. 618.
(2) Entry of Judgment without no-
tice, after transfer, where attorneys
before transfer agreed notice would
be given. — Home State Bank of Ar-
cadia V. Haynes, 290 P. 338, 144 Okl.
190.
(3) Failure to give prior notice of
entry of Judgment in case taken un-
der advisement as required by stat-
ute.— McKinley County Abstract &
Investment Co. v. -Shaw, 239 P. 865,
•80 N.M. 517.
(4) Where court took case under
advisement and, before rendition of
Judgment, plaintiff's attorney mailed
notice, addressed to residence of de-
fendant's attorney, that a form of
Judgment would be presented to
court, but defendant's attorney did
not receive notice, trial court prop-
erly vacated Judgment for plaintiff,
since under the statute actual notice
from court was required. — R. V.
Smith Supply Co. v. Black, 88 P.2d
269, 43 N.M. 177.
(5) Entry of judgment without
disposition having been made of
counterclaim. — Springfield Gas &
Electric Co. v. Fraternity Bldg. Co.,
Mo.App., 264 S.W. 429.
06) Judgment not in conformity
with verdict- Mielcarek v. Riske, N.
D., 21 N.W.2d 218.
(7) Clerical mlsprision.
111.— Simon v. Balasic, 39 N.E.2d '685,
313 I1LAPP. 266.
485
Ky.— Stratton & Terstegge Co. v.
Begley, 61 S.W.2d 287, 249 Ky. 632.
(8) Other irregularities.
Ohio. — Morrison v. Baker, App., 58
N.B.2d 708 — Ramsey v. Holland,
172 N.B. 411, -35 Ohio App. 199.
Wash. — State v. Superior Court of
Okanogan County, 290 P. 430, 158
Wash. 46.
34 C.J. p 275 note S3 [c].
Particular matters held not irregu-
larities
(1) The statute authorizing the
court to vacate a Judgment because
of "irregularity" in obtaining it does
not authorize the vacation of a Judg-
ment because of perjured testimony
of prevailing party. — Cherry v. Gam-
ble, 224 P. 960, 101 Okl. 234.
(2) The statute providing that no
judge of the county court shall be
retained as attorney in any action
which may depend on or relate to
any Judgment passed by him did not
require vacating Judgment rendered
in proceedings wherein claimant was
represented by attorney who was
public administrator of county under
an appointment by the Judge who
presided over the proceedings. — In re
Evans' Estate, 22 N.W.Sd 497, 248
Wis. 456
90, Conn.— Application of Title &
Guaranty Co. of Bridgeport to
Change Name to Bankers' Security
Trust Co., 145 A. 1'51, 109 Conn. 45.
Okl. — Curtis v. Bank of Dover, 241
P. 173, 113 Okl. 224.
91. Ga.— Jackson v. Jackson, 35 S.
B.2d 258, 199 Ga. 716— Fields v.
Arnall, 34 S.E.2d 692, 199 Ga, 491.
Mo. — Badger Lumber Co. v. Good-
rich, 184 S.W.2d 435, 35-3 Mo. 769
— Weatherford v. Spiritual Chris-
tian Union Church, 163 S.W.2d 916
—Harrison v. Slaton, 49 S.W.2d 31
— State ex rel. Caplow v. Kirk-
wood, Ajpp., 117 S.W.2d 1652— Mef-
ford v. Mefford, App., 26 S.W.2d
804.
>a. — McConnell v. Bowden, 41 A.2d
849, 352 Pa. 48— Nixon v. Nixon,
198 A, 154, 329 Pa, 256— Harr v.
Bernheimer, 185 A. 857, 322 Pa. 412
—Giles v. Ryan, 176 A. 1, 517 Pa.
6-5— Liberal Credit Clothing Co. v.
Tropp, 4 A.2d 565, 135 Pa. Super.
53 — Eastman Kodak Co. v. Oseni-
der, 193 A, 284, 127 Pa.Super. 332
— Lyman (Felheim Co. v. Walker,
193 A. 69, 128 Pa. Super. 1— C. '
Trevor Bunhara, Inc. v. Maloney,
7 Pa.Dist & Co. 419— Picone v.
Barbano, Com.Pl., 32 Del.Co. 88—
•Siddall v. Burke, Com.Pl., 30 Bel.
Co. 47— Kahn v. Kahn, Com.Pl., 47
§ 268
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
the application is made after the end of the term at
which judgment was rendered.92
The taxation of costs ivithout notice has been held
not of itself a sufficient ground to set aside a judg-
ment,93 especially where the judgment is just and
equitable94 or where no error is claimed.95
§ 269. Fraud or Collusion
Fraud or collusion In obtaining Judgment Is a suffi-
cient ground for opening or vacating It, even after the
term at which It was rendered, provided the fraud was
extrinsic and collateral to the matter tried and not a
matter actually or potentially In issue in the action.
The fact that a judgment was obtained through
fraud or collusion is universally held to constitute
a sufficient reason for opening or vacating such
judgment either during or after the term at which
it was rendered.96 In some jurisdictions statutes
confer power on the courts to vacate judgments
on the ground of fraud and to regulate its exer-
cise,97 although generally courts of record possess
La.ck.Jur. 101 — Aponikas v. Skryp-
kun, Com.Pl., $ Sch.Heg. 1.
34 C.J. |p 3-57 note 97.
92. Mo. — In re Tompkins* Estate,
App.f SO S.W.2d '659.
34 C.J. p 35S note 98.
93. vt.— Nicholas v. Nicholas, 67 A.
531, 80 Vt. 242.
15 C.J. p 177 note 45—34 C.J. p 276
note 84 [a] (31), (32), p 290 note
53 [a].
Irregularity in taxation of costs as
error of law see infra § 274,
94. Wis.— Rollins v. Kahn, 29 N.W.
640, 66 Wis. 65'8.
95. Vt.— Nicholas v. Nicholas, «67 A.
531, 80 Vt. 242.
9a U.S.— Griffin v. Griffin, App.D.C.,
66 S.Ct. 556, rehearing denied 66
•S.Ct 975— In re Cox, D.C.Ky., 33
•F.Supp. 796— Illinois Printing Co.
v. Electric Shovel Coal Corpora-
tion, D.C.I11., 20 F.Supp. 181.
Ala. — Bean v. Harrison, 104 So. 244,
213 Ala. 33-^Louisville & N. R.
Co. v. Bridgeforth, 101 So. 807, 20
Ala.App. 326.
Ariz.— Gordon v, Gordon, 278 P. 375,
35 Ariz. -357, motion denied 281
P. 215, 3-5 Ariz. 532— Kendall v.
Silver King of Arizona Mining Co.,
226 P. 540, 26 Ariz. 456.
Ark. — Chronister v. Robertson, 185 S.
W.2d 104.
Cal.— In re Estrem's Estate, 107 P.2d
36, 16 Cal.2d 5-63— Hirsch v.
Hirsch, App., 168 P.2d 770 — Cowan
v. Cowan, App., 166 P.2d 21— Rhea
V. Millsap, 156 P.2d 941, 68 CaLApp.
2d 449— King v. Superior Court in
and for San Diego County, 56 P.2d
268, 12 QU.App.2d 501 — Kronman
v. Kronman, 18 P.2d 712, 129 Cal.
App. 10— Vale v. Maryland Casual-
ty Co., 281 P. 1058, 101 CaLApp.
599.
Fla.— Zemurray v. Kilgore, 177 So.
714, 130 Fla. 317 — State v. Wright,
145 So. 598, 107 Fla. 178— Alabama
Hotel Co. v. J. L. Mott Iron Works,
98 So. 825, 86 Fla. 608.
Ga. — Young v. Young, 2 S.E.2d 622,
188 Ga. 29 — Lester v. Graham, 123
S.E. 37, 32 Ga.App. 379.
HI. — Barnard v. Michael, 63 N.E.2d
858, 392 111. 130— Nash v. Park
Castles Apartment Bldg. Corpora-
tion, 50 N.E..2d 725, 384 111. 68—
Thorne v. Thorne, 45 N.E.2d 85,
316 IlLApp. 451— In re Togneri's
Estate, 15 N.E.2d 908, 296 IlLApp.
33.
Md.— Harvey v. Slacum, 29 A.2d 276,
181 Md. 206.
Miss.— Rockett v. Finley, 18'4 So.
78, 183 Miss. 308.
Neb.— Lincoln County v. Provident
Loan & Inv. Co. of Lincoln, 22 N.
W.2d 609 — State Life Ins. Co. of
Indianapolis, Ind. v. Heffner, 269
N.W. 629, 131 Neb. 700.
Nev. — Lauer v. Eighth Judicial Dist
Court in and for Clark County, 140
P.2d 953, 62 Nev. 78.
N.J.— Simon v. Calabrese, 46 A.2d 58,
137 N.J.EQ. 581— Kaffltz v. Claw-
son, 36 A.2d 215, 134 N.J.Ea. 4*94.
NT.M. — Corpus Juris cited in Kerr v.
Southwest Fluorite Co., 294 P. 324,
326, 35 N.M. 232.
N.Y.— Lyons v. Goldstein, 47 N.E.Sd
425, 290 N.Y. 19, 146 A.L.R. 1422
—In re Holden, 2 N.E.2d 631, 271
N.Y. 212— Scopano v. TJ. S. Gypsum
Co., 3 NT.Y.S.2d 300, 166 Misc. 805.
N.D.— Jacobson v. Brey, 6 N.W.2d
269, 72 N.D. 269— Smith v. Smith,
299 N.W. 693, 71 N.D. 110— Lamb
v. King, 296 N.W. 185, 70 N.D. 469.
Okl.— Pruner v. McKee, 258 P. 749,
126 Okl. 121.
Pa.— First Nat. Bank & Trust Co.
of Bethlehem v. Laubach, 5 A.2d
139, 333 Pa. 34-4— Salus v. Fogel,
153 A. 547, 302 Pa, 268— Sallada
v. Mock, 121 A. 64, 277 Pa. 2"85—
Dormont Motors v. Hoerr, 1 A.2d
493, 132 Pa.Super. 567— Willetts v.
Willetts, 96 Pa.Super. 198— Stoll
v. Kunkel, 5 Pa.Dist & Co. 161,
38 York Leg.Rec. 1 — Zardus v. Zar-
dus, Com.Pl., 28 DeLCo. 332 —
Davis v. Tate, Com.PL, 26 Erie Co.
141— Kahn v. Kahn, Com.PL, 47
Lack.Jur. 101.
Tex. — Crouch v. McGaw, 138 S.W.2d
94, 134 Tex. 633— Corpus Juris
quoted in Ferguson v. Ferguson,
Civ.App., 98 S.W.2d 847, 850—
Brammer & Wilder v. Limestone
County, Civ. App., 24 S.W.2d 99, er-
ror dismissed — Saunders v. Saun-
ders, Civ.App., 293 S.W. 899.
W.Va. — Baker v. Gaskins, 36 S.E.2d
893.
34 C.J. p 278 note 89.
Collateral attack on ground of fraud
see infra § 434.
486
Equitable relief on ground of fraud
see infra § 372.
Fraud as within statute authorizing
opening or vacating of Judgment
for surprise, mistake, or excusable
neglect see infra § 280.
Pacts held not to constitute fraud
Where case on oral agreement is
continued to permit defendant's coun-
sel to take depositions, action of
plaintiffs counsel in taking Judgment
at subsequent term, in absence of de-
fendant's counsel, is not fraud, or
ground for setting Judgment aside.
— National Union Fire Ins. Co. v.
Ethridge, 124 S.E. 5*46, 32 Ga.App.
725.
Fraud of party attacking Judgment
A declaratory Judgment establish-
ing that plaintiff had never been
validly married to defendant would
not be vacated on plaintiff's motion
on ground that plaintiff had facilitat-
ed granting of judgment, in that
she had accepted a settlement and
thereafter acquiesced in the result
without trial justice's knowledge. —
Greenman v. Greenman, 53 N.Y.S.2d
551, affirmed 59 N.Y.S.2d 153, 269
App.Div. 998. t
Party attacking Judgment not de-
ceived
Fraudulent misrepresentations are
not ground for vacating decree, if
complainant knew of misrepresenta-
tions or was not deceived. — Grant
Inventions Co. v. Grant Oil Burner
Corporation, 157 A. 108, 109 NJ".Eq.
281.
Fraud of executor or administrator
A Judgment procured through the
fraud or collusion of an executor or
administrator will not be allowed to
stand against the objection of a
party in interest. — Patterson v. Car-
ter, 4T So. 133, 1'47 Ala. 522—24 C.J.
p 888 note 81.
97. Ky. — Buttermore v. Hensley, 103
S.W.2d 68, 267 Ky. 669.
Wash. — Pacific Telephone & Tele-
graph Co. v. Henneford, 92 P.2d
214, 199 Wash. 462, certiorari de-
nied Henneford v. Pacific Tele-
phone & Telegraph Co., 59 S.Ct.
483, 306 U.S. 637, 83 L.Ed. 1038.
34 C.J. p 280 note 93.
Txand practiced in obtaining Judg-
ment"
Where defendant was allegedly in-
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
269
an inherent common-law power in this behalf, which
is not • dependent on legislation.98 However, in-
ferior courts not of record do not possess this pow-
er," unless it is conferred by statute.1
Nature of fraud required. While a few cases
have held or assumed for the purpose of the deci-
sion that a judgment should be vacated for fraud
or deceit practiced by one party on the other in re-
gard to the cause of action,2 the authority to set
aside judgments for fraud after the term usually is
limited to cases where the fraud complained of was
practiced in the very act of obtaining the judgment,
and all cases of fraud which might have been used
as a defense to defeat the action are excluded; the
fraud must be extrinsic and collateral to the matter
tried, and not a matter which was actually or po-
tentially in issue in the action,3 unless the interpo-
duced to sign note by misrepresenta-
tion and misrepresentation was al-
legedly repeated shortly before suit,
such fraud, if inducing defendant to
believe that he had no defense, was
"fraud practiced in obtaining Judg-
ment" within statute permitting va-
cation of judgment and granting new
trial after term. — Rock Island Plow
Co. v. Brunkan, 248 N.W. 32, 215
Iowa 1264.
Fraud of "successful party"
A creditor who, in order to es-
tablish his claim, intervened in ac-
tion for dissolution of partnership,
could thereby become a "successful
party" as to judgment approving re-
ceiver's sale of personal property,
within statute authorizing district
court to vacate its judgment, after
the term, for fraud practiced by the
"successful party." — Mayer v. Har-
rison, 166 P.2d 674, 161 Kan. 'SO.
98. Cal.— Rhea V; Millsap, 156 P.2d
941, 68 Cal.App.2d 449.
Mont— Gillen v. Gillen, 159 P.2d 511.
N.Y. — Corpus Juris cited in People
v. Ashworth, 56 N.Y.S.2d 791, 793,
185 Misc. 391.
N.D.— Lamb v. King, 296 N.W. 185,
70 N.D. -469.
Wis.— In re Cudahy's Estate, 219 N.
W. 203, 196 Wis. 260.
Wyo.— Midwest Refining Co. v.
George, 7 P.2d 213, '4-4 Wyo. 25.
34 C.J. p 279 note 92.
Motion made tinder statute
Fact that notice of motion to va-
cate decree stated that it was made
under statute and for fraud did not
deprive court of inherent jurisdic-
tion to vacate decree obtained by
fraud. — Kronman v. Kronman, 18 P.
2d 712, 129 CaLApp. 10.
99. N.Y. — Corpus Juris Quoted in
People v. Ashworth, 5* N.Y.S.2d
791, 793, 185 Misc. 391.
3-4 C.J. p 280 note 94.
1. N.Y. — Corpus Juris auoted in
People v. Ashworth, 56 N.Y.S.2d
791, 793, 185 Misc. 391.
34 C.J. p 280 note 95.
2. 111. — Chicago v. Newberry Li-
brary, 79 N.B. 666, 224 111. 330.
34 C.J. p 283 note 8.
Fraud held immaterial
Refusal to strike out judgment
for manager of department who sued
owner of milliner/ establishment
for percentage of net profits of de-
partment, because manager falsely
represented that she was unmarried
and was working in similar business
at inception of contract, which could
be severed after six months, was
held not error, where manager vol-
untarily left after three years' serv-
ice.—Morris v. Phillips, 168 A. 400,
.165 Md. 392.
3. U.S.— Piske v. Buder, C.C.A.Mo.,
125 F.2d 841— In re Burton Coal
Co., D.C.I11,, 57 F.Supp. 361.
Ariz. — Corpus Juris cited in Schus-
ter v. Schuster, 73 P.2d 1345, 134<8,
51 Ariz. 1.
Ark. — Manning v. Manning, 175 S.W.
2d 982, 206 Ark. 425— Karnes v.
Gentry, 172 S.W.2d 42-4, 205 Ark.
1112— Kersh Lake Drainage Dist.
v. Johnson, 157 S.W.2d 39, 203 Ark.
315, certiorari denied Johnson v.
Kersh Lake Drainage Dist., 62 S.
Ct 10-44, 316 U.S. 673, 86 L.Ed.
1748 — Baker v. State, for Use and
Benefit of Independence County,
1'47 S.W.2d 17, 201 Ark. 652— Hol-
land v. Wait, 86 S.W.2d 415, 191
Ark. 405— Peild v. Waters, 1 S.W.
2d 807, 175 Ark. 1169.
Cal.— Metzger v. Vestal, 42 P.2d 67,
2 Cal.2d 517— Hirsch v. Hirsch,
App., 168 P.2d 770.
Ga.— Corpus Juris cited in Aber-
crombie v. Hair, 196 S.E. 447, 450,
185 Ga. 728.
Ind.— State v. Martin, 154 N.E. 284,
198 Ind. 516.
Iowa.— Girdey v. Girdey, 238 N.W.
•432, 213 Iowa 1.
Kan.— Suter v. Schultz, 7 P.2d 55, 134
Kan. 538 — Putnam v. Putnam, 268
P. 797, 126 Kan. 479.
Ky.— Clifton v. McMakin, 157 S.W.
2d -81, 288 Ky. 813.
Minn. — Swan v. Rivoli Theater Co.,
219 N.W. 85, 1T4 Minn. 137.
Miss. — Corpus Juris quoted in Car-
raway v. State, 148 So. 3*40, 344,
167 Miss. 390.
Mo.— State ex inf. McKittrick ex rel.
Oehler v. Church, App., 158 S.W.2d
215.
Nev.— Calvert v. Calvert, 122 P.2d
426, 61 Nev. 168.
N.M. — Corpus Juris cited in Kerr v.
Southwest Fluorite Co., 294 P. 324,
326, 35 N.M. 232.
N.Y.— In re Holden, 2 N.BL2d <631,
271 N.Y. 212— Klein v. Fairberg,
276 N.Y.S. 347, 243 App.Div. 609.
N.D. — Jacobson v. Brey, '6 N.W.2d
J69, 72 N.D. 269.
487
Ohio.— May v. May, 50 N.E.2d 790,
72 Ohio App. 82 — Haynes v. United
Ins. Co., 194 N.E. 3»S1, 48 Ohio App.
475.
Okl. — Corpus Juris cited in Metzger
v. Turner, 158 P.2d 701, 704, 195
Okl. 406— Davison v. Mutual Sav-
ings & Loan Ass'n, 73 P.2d 455, 181
Okl. 29S— Render v. Capitol Hill
Undertaking Co., 56 P.2d 829, 176
Okl. 520— Wright v. Saltmarsh, 50
P.2d 694, 174 Okl. 226— Lee v. Ter-
rell, 40 P.2d 10, 170 Okl. 310—
Brown v. Exchange Trust Co., 36
P.2d 495, 169 Okl. 175— Riley v.
Jones, 4 P.2d 1070, 153 Okl. 64—
Bird v. Palmer, 3 P.2d 890, 152
Okl. 3, followed In Bird v. Palm-
er, 3 P.2d 894, 152 Okl. 7— Vacuum
Oil Co. v. Brett, 300 P. «32, 150
Okl. 15-3 — Cherry v. Gamble, 224
P. 960, 101 Okl. 234.
Pa.— Greiner v. Brubaker, 30 A.2d
621, T51 Pa.Super. 515, certiorari
denied Royer v. Greiner, '64 S.Ct.
42, 320 U.S. 742, 88 L.Ed. 440, re-
hearing denied 64 S.Ct 194, 320 U.
S. 813, 88 L.Ed. 491, rehearing de-
nied 64 S.Ct 434, 320 U.S. 816, 88
L.Ed. 493 — Estok v. Estok, 157 A.
356, 102 Pa.Super. 604— Kahn v.
Kahn, Com.PL, 47 Lack.Jur. 101.
Tex. — O'Meara v. O'Meara, Civ.App.,
181 S.W.2d 891, error refused-
Price v. Smith, Civ.App., 109 S.
W.2d 1144, error dismissed—Cor-
pus Juris cited in Traders & Gen-
eral Ins. Co. v. Rhodabarger, Civ.
App., 109 S.W.2d 1119, 1123— Cor-
pus Juris quoted in 'Ferguson v.
Ferguson, Civ.App., 98 S.W.2d 847,
1850 — Corpus Juris cited in Yount-
Lee Oil Co. v. Federal Crude Oil
Co., Civ.App., 92 S.W.2d 49-3, 495—
Corpus Juris cited in State v.
Wright Civ.App., '56 S.W.2d 950,
952— Saunders v. Saunders, Civ.
App., 293 S.W. 899— Wame v.
Jackson, Civ.App., 273 S.W. 315.
34 C.J. p 230 note 46, p 287 note 25.
What constitutes "extrinsic or col-
lateral fraud"
(1) "Fraud, which is extrinsic or
collateral to the matter tried by the
court," withta the rule, is fraud, the
effect of which is to prevent the un-
successful party from having a trial
or from presenting his case fully, as
keeping him away from court, or
purposely keeping him in ignorance
of the action, or where an attorney
fraudulently pretends to represent a
269
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
sition of such defense was prevented by fraud, ac-
cident, or the act of the opposite party without fault
or blame on his own part.4 The principle. that a
final judgment concludes all matters litigated, or
which might have been litigated in the case, affords
the fundamental reason for this rule5 which applies
equally whether the judgment is attacked by mo-
tion in the cause or by separate suit.6 The instances
in which the judgment may be vacated are those in
which the party is prevented from having a fai*
trial of the real issue by reason of the fraudulent
contrivance of his adversary.7
Fraud practiced on the court is always ground
for vacating the judgment, as where the court is
deceived or misled as to material circumstances, or
its process is abused, resulting in the rendition of a
judgment which would not have been given if the
whole conduct of the case had been fair.8 So a
party and connives at his defeat or,
being regularly employed, sells out
his client's interest, or where a par-
ty, residing without the jurisdiction
of the court, is induced "by false pre-
tenses or representations to come
within the jurisdiction for the sole
purpose of getting personal service
of process on him, or where, through
the instrumentality of the successful
party, the witnesses of his adversary
are forcibly or illegally detained
from court or bribed to disobey the
subpoena served on them, or where
a judgment is obtained in violation
of an agreement between the parties.
U.S. — U. iS. v. Kusche, D.C.Cal., 56
F.Supp. 201.
Mont— Clark v. Clark, 210 P. 93, 64
Mont. 3-86.
Okl.— Beatty v. Beatty, 242 P. 7«66,
114 Okl. 5.
Tex.— Price v. Smith, Civ.App., 109
S.W.2d 1144.
34 C.J. p 280 note 96 [b].
<2) "-Extrinsic fraud" is act or
conduct preventing fair submission
of controversy.
Kan.— Putnam v. Putnam, 268 P.
797, 126 Kan. 479.
Pa.— Willetts v. Willetts, 96 Pa.Su-
per. 198.
Hearsay evidence
Proof that only evidence given by
plaintiff, in quiet title action against
county, was. hearsay evidence, would
not establish that decree in favor of
plaintiff was fraudulently entered,
so as to provide ground for vacat-
ing the decree. — Harter v. King
County, 119 P.2d 919, 11 Wash.2d
583.
False allegations in pleadings are
not such fraud as will justify or re-
quire vacation of the judgment —
Steele v. The Maccabees, 53 P.2d
232, 175 Okl. 471—34 C.J. p 280 pote
96 [c].
Defendant's fraud as to garnishee
Where insurer under automobile
liability policy was summoned as
garnishee in attachment execution
on a judgment obtained in action by
injured party against insured, in
which insurer was not a party, "peti-
tion to open judgment on ground of
collusion and fraud imposed on gar-
nishee by insured and injured party
was properly denied, since such de-
fenses could be interposed in the at-
tachment proceeding; and the pro-
cedure formerly adhered to of per-
mitting a party to open judgment to
interpose a defense of fraud or col-
lusion to defraud garnishee should
not be resorted to unless there is
some compelling reason therefor and
the third party should be compelled
to litigate his right in a collateral
issue. — Renschler v. Pizano, 198 A.
33, 329 Pa. 249.
4. U.S.— Hartford-Empire Co. v.
Hazel-Atlas Glass Co., C.C.A.Pa.,
137 P.2d 764, reversed on other
grounds Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v.
Hartford-Empire Co., 64 S.Ct 997,
322 U.S. 238, 88 'L.Ed. 1250, re-
hearing denied 64 S.Ct 1281, 322
U.S. 772, 88 'L.Ed. 1596. Motion
denied, C.C.A., Hartford-Empire
Co. v. Shawkee Mfg. Co., 147 F.2d
•532 — Hartford - -Empire Co. v.
Shawkee Mfg. Co., C.C.A.Pa., 137
F.2d 764, reversed on other
grounds Shawkee Mfg. Co. v. Hart-
ford-Empire Co., 64 S.Ot. 1014, 322
U.S. 271, 88 L.Ed. 1269, rehearing
denied 64 S.Ct 1281, 3221 U.S. 772,
88 L.Ed. 1596. Motion denied C.
C.A., Hartford-Empire Co. v.
Shawkee Mfg. Co., 147 F.2d 532—
Abbott v. Mtna. Casualty & Surety
Co., D.O.Md., 42 'F.Supp. 793, af-
firmed C.O.A., -aEtna Casualty &
Surety Co. v. Abbott, 130 'F.2d 40.
Ariz. — Corpus Juris cited in -Schuster
v. Schuster, 73 P.2d '1345, 134-8, 51
Ariz. 1.
Okl. — Corpus Juris cited in Metzger
v. Turner, 158 P.2d 701, 704, 195
Okl. 406— Bird v. Palmer, 3 P.2d
890, 152 Okl. 3, followed in Bird v.
Palmer, 3 P.2d 894, 152 Okl. 7.
Pa. — Fleming v. Fleming, 83 Pa. Su-
per. 554.
Tex.— Corpus Juris cited in Traders
& General Ins. Co. v. Rhodabarger,
Civ.App., 109 S.W.2d 1119, 1123—
Corpus Juris quoted in Ferguson
v. Ferguson, Civ.App., 98 S.W.2d
847, 850.
34 C.J. p 281 note 97.
-Failure to interpose defenses gen-
erally as ground for opening or
vacating judgment see infra § 272.
5. U.S. — U. S. v. Throckmorton, Cal.,
98 U.S. '61, 25 L.Ed 93.
34 C.J. p 282 note 99.
8. Mont— Clark v. Clark, 210 P. 93,
64 Mont. 386.
7. Kan. — Putnam v. Putnam, 268 P.
797, 126 Kan, 4?9.
488
Okl. — Corpus Juris quoted in Stout
v. Derr, 42 P.2d 136, 13'8, 139, 171
Okl. 1-32.
34 C.J. p 282 note 2.
8. U.S. — American Ins. Co. v. Lucas,
D.C.Mo., 38 F.Supp. 926, appeals
dismissed 62 S.Ct 107, 314 U.S.
575, 86 L.Ed. 466 and affirmed C.O.
A,, American Ins. Co. v. Scheufler,
129 F.2d 143, certiorari denied «3
S.Ct 257, 317 U.S. 6-87, 87 iL.Ed.
5-51, rehearing denied *63 S.Ct 433,
317 U.S. 712, 87 L.Ed. 567.
Ark.— Holland v. Wait 86 S.W.2d
415, 191 Ark. 405.
Cal.— Kasparian v. Kasparian, W P.
2d 802, 132 CaLApp. 773.
N.T. — Corpus Juris cited in In re
Holden, 2 KE.2d 631, 633, 271 N.
T. 212— In re Gellis' Estate, 252 N.
T.S. 725, 141 Misc. 432.
Okl. — Corpus Juris quoted in Stout
v. Derr. 42 P.2d 136, 138, 139, 171
Okl. 132.
Pa.— Willetts v. Willetts, 96 Pa-Su-
per. 198.
34 C.J. p 282 note 3.
Concealment of material facts
(1) The concealment of facts
which, if revealed to a trial court,
may result in a postponement of an
adjudication until absent party can
be heard, constitutes "extrinsic
fraud" which will warrant setting
aside of the judgment — Landon v.
Landon, Cal.App., 169 P.2d 980.
(2) An order of partition procured
by a party who concealed such ma-
terial facts as would have defeated
the action is properly vacated on
the application of the real parties
in interest — Daleschal v. Geiser, 13
P. -595, 36 Kan. 374.
(3) Judgment obtained against
corporation by default in action
wherein four of five directors had
adverse interest constituted "extrin-
sic fraud or collusion/' warranting
vacation of judgment at instance of
stockholder, where directors' interest
had not been disclosed. — Kerr v.
Southwest Fluorite Co.. 294 .P. 324, .
35 N.M. 232.
Fraud in service of process
(1) A judgment obtained against
one induced by fraud to come within
the jurisdiction where he is served
with process may be set aside as
fraudulent.— Wyman v. Newhouse, C.
C.A.ST.Y., 93 F.2d 313, 115 A.L.R. *60,
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
270
judgment may be vacated for misrepresentations or
tricks practiced on defendant to keep him away
from the trial, or to prevent him from claiming his
rights in the premises, or from setting up an avail-
able defense,9 or for fraudulent collusion between
some of the parties to the action, or between the
counsel in the case, working injury to the just
rights of the others.1** However, mere failure to
disclose to the adversary, or to the court, matters
which would defeat one's own claim or defense is
not such extrinsic fraud as will justify or require
vacation of the judgment.11
While there is some authority to the contrary,12
actual fraud as distinguished from constructive
fraud has been held essential,13 except in the case
of judgments against municipalities.14
§ 270. Perjury
In general perjury at the trial Is not regarded as a
ground for vacating the Judgment.
Perjury at the trial generally is held to be no
ground for vacating the judgment16 as being one
certiorari denied 58 S.Ct 8-31, 30*3
U.S. 664, 82 I^Bd, 1122. ,
(2) A willful misstatement of de-
fendant's address In an affidavit for
publication of summons is "extrinsic
fraud" which justifies setting asidi
judgment resulting from proceed-
ings of which defendant did not
have notice. — Rivieccio v. Bothan
Cal., 1*5 P.2d 677.
9. Okl. — Covington v. Anthony, 128
P.2d 1012, 191 Okl. 266— Corpus
Juris quoted in Stout v. Derr, 42
P.2d 136, 138, 139, 171 OkL 132.
Pa,— Kahn v. Kahn, Com.PL, 47 Lack.
Jur. 101 — Schantz v. Clemmer,
Com.Pl., 21 X,eh.!,.J. 394.
34 C.J. p 282 note 4.
10. Ga. — Hargroves' Bx'rs v. Nix, 14
Ga. 316.
Okl. — Corpus Juris quoted to Stout
v. Derr, 42 P.2d 136, 138, 139, 171
Okl. 132— In re Gypsy Oil Co., 285
P. 67, 141 Okl. 291.
Tex. — Ferguson v. Ferguson, Civ.
App., 98 S.W.2d 847.
34 C.J. p 2*83 note 5.
Bribery
Where suits by fire insurance com-
panies to enjoin superintendent of
insurance from Interfering with col-
lection of proposed increased rates
were settled by bribery of the super-
intendent the bribery constituted
extrinsic fraud which would permit
reopening of decrees of dismissal
after term for purpose of ordering
redistribution of amount of rate in-
crease which had been impounded
and collected pending the litigation.
— American Ins. Co. v. (Lucas, D.C.
Mo., 38 F,Supp. 926, appeals dis-
missed 62 S.Ct 107, 314 U.S. 575, *6
L.Ed. 466, and affirmed, C.C.A.,
American Ins. Co. v. Scheufler, 129
'F.2d 143, certiorari denied 63 S.Ct.
257, 317 US. 687, 87 L.B3d. 551, re-
hearing denied <63 &Ct 433, -317 U.S.
. 712, 87 L.Bd. 567.
No injury resulting
Collusion between third persons
and municipal employees or official
not shown to have resulted in injury
to the municipality is not cause for
setting aside a judgment regularly
obtained,— City of New York v. Bra-
dy, 22 N.E. 237, 115 N.Y. «9$.
11. Ga. — Young v. Young, 2 S.E.25
'62*2, 188 Ga, 29— Coker v. (Bison
151 S.E. 682, 40 Oa,App. 835.
Mo. — Corpus Juris quoted Ja 'First
Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of King
City v. Bowman, 15 S.W.Sd 842
852, 322 Mo. 654.
Okl.— Corpus Juris quoted in Stout
v. Derr, 42 P.2d 136, 13$, 139, 171
Okl. 132.
Tex.— Corpus Juris oited in Price v
Smith, Civ.App., 109 S.W.2d 1144
1149.
•34 C.J. p 283 note 6.
Nondisclosure of agreement with oo-
defendant
In action against several defend-
ants Jointly to recover for an injury,
plaintiff was under no duty to inform
one defendant of agreement with co-
defendants under which plaintiff re-
ceived sum of money in satisfaction
of her claim against them, and plain-
tiffs nondisclosure thereof was not
"fraudulent" so as to require vaca-
tion of judgment against such de-
fendant for fraud. — Gillespie v.
Brewer, Miss., 10 So.2d 197.
12. inadvertent withholding of
facts
The right of a court to vacate or
modify judgment is not limited to
showing that it was procured by
actual fraud, collusion, and misrep-
resentation, but it is sufficient if
there is a showing that the rights of
interested parties are prejudicially
affected by the judgment and if there
was inadvertently a withholding
from the court of matters which
should have been properly before it,
but for which withholding the judg-
ment would not have been rendered.
— Pengelly v. Thomas, App., 65 N.-B.
2d 897, appeal dismissed 67 N.B.2d
714, 146 Ohio St. 693.
13. Mo. — Corpus Juris quoted In
First Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of
King City v. Bowman, 15 S.W.2d
•842, 852, 322 Mo. 654.
Okl.— Abernathy v. Huston, 26 P.2d
939, 166 Okl. 184.
4 -C.J. p 2S3 note 7.
14. Constructive or legal fraud as
sufficient
Where illegal claim against munic-
pal or quasi-municipal corporation!
489
is reduced to Judgment under agree-
ment between claimant and officers
representing municipality without
judicial determination of merits of
claim and where circumstances sur-
rounding entry of judgment Justify
finding of collusion, court may va-
cate judgment on grounds of legal
fraud; and where, after taxpayer
had established, in test cases, right
to recover protested tax because not
properly notified of increase in prop-
erty valuation, attorneys of claim-
ants in consolidated case and county
official prepared journal entry recit-
ing rendition of Judgment in consoli-
date4 case as of date of trial of test
cases and obtained judge's signature
without consulting city and school
district, not parties to case but in-
terested in funds involved and whose
attorneys had indicated disposition
to participate in trial, facts estab-
lished that Judgment in consolidated
case should be vacated because based
on legal fraud.— Abernathy v. Hus-
ton, supra.
15. U.S.— Delaware, L. & W. R. Co.
v. Rellstab, N.J., 48 S.Ct. 203, 276
U.-S, 1, 72 L.E6V 439.
Ark.— Turley v. Owen, '69 S.W.2d 882,
188 Ark. 1067.
Cal.— Stiebel v. Roberts, 109 P.2d 22,
42 Cal.App.2d 434.
Conn. — Boushay v. Boushay, 27 A.2d
800, 129 Conn. 347.
111. — Thorne v. Thorne, 45 N.E.'2d 85,
316 IlLApp. 451.
Iowa. — Genco v. Northwestern Mfg.
Co., 214 N.W. €45, 203 Iowa 1390.
Mass.— Stephens v. Lampron, 30 N,
B.2d 838, 308 Mass. 50, 131 A.L.R.
1516 — Chagnon v. Chagnon, 15 N.
E.2d 231, 300 Mass. 309.
Mo.— Wright v. Wright, 16-5 S.W.2d
870, 350 Mo. 325.
Mont — Corpus Juris cited in m>«m
v. Khan, 105 P.2d 665, *66, 110
Mont. 591.
Okl.— Davison v. Mutual Savings &
X<aan Ass'n, 73 P.2d 455, H81 Okl.
295— Render v. Capitol Hill Under-
taking Co., 56 P.2d 829, 17-6 Okl.
520— Small v. White, 46 P.2d 517,
173 Okl. 83— State ex reL Oklaho-
ma Tax Commission v. Sinclair
Prairie Oil Co., 41 P.2d 876, 171
OkL 498— National Aid Life Asa'n
§ 271
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
obtained by fraud,16 within the rule stated supra §
269, unless specially made so by statute,17 or un-
less the perjury is connected with extrinsic or col-
lateral fraud and the complaining party is without
fault.18 This rule rests on grounds of public policy
which requires that there shall be an end to liti-
gation.1^ Some courts hold, however, that a judg-
ment may be vacated for perjury under certain con-
ditions,20 as where a party obtains a judgment by
his own willful perjury, or by the use of false tes-
timony, which he knows at the time to be false.21
In any event perjury is not ground for vacating the
judgment where the judgment does not rest on the
perjured testimony, as where it relates to an imma-
terial matter,22 or where it does not appear that the
perjury was in any way instrumental in the court's
assuming jurisdiction of the case.23
§ 271.
Violation of Agreement
A judgment secured in violation of an agreement not
to enter judgment may be vacated on that ground.
Where there was an agreement between the par-
ties that the case should be continued, or that de-
fendant's time to answer should be extended, or that
the action should be dismissed as the result of a
compromise or settlement, or a promise of plaintiff
that he would not press the case to judgment, in vi-
olation of which plaintiff, without notice to defend-
ant, secures a judgment against the latter in his
absence, it is good ground for vacating the judg-
v. Morgan, 33 P.2d 290, 1'68 Okl. 224
—National Aid Life Ass'n v. Mor-
gan, 32 P.2d 2-88, 168 Okl. 226—
Oklahoma Union Ins. -Co. v. Mor-
gan ,32 P.2d 287, 168 Okl, 225—
Oklahoma Union Ins. Co. v. Mor-
gan, 32 P.2d 287, 168 OkL 225—
Riley v. Jones, 4 P.2d 1070, 153
Okl. -64— Bird v. Palmer, 3 P.2d
890, 152 Okl. 2, followed in -3 P.2d
894, 152 Okl. 7— Vacuum Oil Co. v.
Brett, 300 P. '632, 150 Okl. 1'53—
Bell v. Knoble, 225 P. 897, 99 Okl.
110— Cherry v. Gamble, 224 P. 960,
101 Okl. 234.
Pa. — Corpus Juris cited in Crouse v.
Volas, 178 A. 414, 416, 117 Pa.-Su-
per. 532 — Kahn v. Kahn, Com.Pl.,
47 JLack.Jur. 101.
Tex. — Corpus Juris cited in Crouch
v. McGaw, 13«S S.W.2d 94, 96, 134
Tex. -633— Yount-Lee Oil Co. v. Fed-
eral Crude Oil Co., Civ.App., 92 S.
W.2d 493, certiorari denied Federal
Crude Oil Co. v. YountJLee Oil Co.,
«7 S.Ct 16, 299 U.S. 554, 81 L.Ed.
408.
Wis. — Gray v. Gray, 287 N.W. 708,
2-32 Wis. 400.
34 C.J. p 284 note 10.
Equitable relief on ground of perjury
see infra § 374.
Opportunity to refute
The alleged perjury of witness on
trial of contested issue, to which op-
posing party had the opportunity to
refute, will not furnish basis for
setting aside Judgment on bill of re-
view.— Crouch v. McGaw, 138 S.W.2d
94, 134 Tex. 633.
A forged instrument introduced In
evidence is the equivalent of per-
jured testimony, for which a judg-
ment cannot be set aside. — Bradford
v. Trapp, 193 P. 584, 49 CaLApp. 493
—34 C.J. p 280 note 96 [o].
ia 111. — Conway v. Gill, 257 Ill.Aj?p.
606,
Iowa.— Girdey v. Girdey, 288 N.W.
4*32, 213 Iowa 1.
tf.Y.— Cowens v. Ticonderoga Pulp &
Paper Co., 217 N.Y.S. 647, 127 Misc.
898, affirmed in part 219 N.Y.S. 774,
219 App.Div. 749, and reversed in
part on other grounds Cowans v
Ticonderoga Pulp & Paper Co., 219
N.Y.S. 284, 219 AppjDiv. 120, appeal
dismissed in part 157 N.E. 862, 245
N.Y. 573, affirmed 159 N.E. 669, 246
N.Y. 603.
Okl.— Small v. White, 46 P.2d 517
173 Okl. 83.
Pa.— Sallada v. Mock, 121 A. 54, 277
Pa. 28'5.
Perjury is "intrinsic fraud" for
which a judgment will not ordinarily
be vacated.
CaL— Adams v. Martin, 44 P.2d 572,
3 Cal.2d 24*6.
Kan.— Suter v. Schultz, 7 P.2d 5-5, 134
Kan. 538.
Pa. — Greiner v. Brubaker, 30 A.2d
621, 151 Pa, Super. 515, certiorari
denied Royer v. Greiner, 64 S.Ct.
42, 320 U.S. 742, S'8 (L.Ed. 640, re-
hearing denied 64 -S.Ct. 194, 320 U.
S. 31-3, 88 L.Ed. 491, rehearing de-
nied 64 S.Ct. 434, 320 U.S. 816, 88
L.Ed. 493— Willetts v. Willetts,
Pa. Super. 198.
17. Ark.— JFawcett v. Rhyne, $3 S.
W.2dr 349, 187 Ark. 340.
•Ga. — Grogan v. Deraney, 143 S.E. 912,
38 Ga.App. 287.
34 C.J. p 284 note 12.
Statute authorizing new trial
Perjured testimony in obtaining
judgment constitutes "fraud" with-
in statute authorizing new trial. —
Reynolds v. Evans, 50 S.W.2d €49,
244 Ky. 267.
& Wash, — E. R. Thomas & Co. v.
Penland, 268 P. 867, 148 Wash. 279.
la, 111.— Cohen v. Sparberg, 44 N.E.
2d 335, '316 Ill-App-. 140.
34C.J.'p 285 note 13.
20. Against arood conscience
Only when a judgment is clearly
shown to have been obtained by
fraud or false testimony and when it
would be against good conscience
to enforce judgment and proper
showing of due diligence is made
will a judgment be vacated after
term in which it was rendered. — Lin-
coln County v. Provident Loan &
490
Inv. Co. of Lincoln, Neb., 22 N.W.2d
609— Kielian v. Kent & Burke Co.,
2#8 N.W. 79, 131 Neb. 308.
Complaining party without fault
An action will lie to set aside a
judgment procured by the false and
perjured testimony of the party in
whose favor the judgment was ren-
dered, where the party against whom
such judgment was rendered was not
personally served, was not wanting
in diligence in presenting his defens-
es in the original action, was pre-
vented from so doing by the wrong-
ful conduct of the adverse party, and
moved with due diligence to set aside
the judgment after its rendition. —
Lunt v. Lunt Tex.Civ.App., 121 S.
W.2d 445, error dismissed.
After conviction of witness
Ground for vacation of judgment
that judgment was secured by per-
jured testimony is not available un-
til after conviction of witness
against whom charge of perjury is
made. — Haynes v. United Ins. Co.,
194 N.B. •SSI, 48 Ohio Aj>p. 475.
21. Ky.— Webb v. Niceley, 151 S.W.
2d 768, 286 Ky. 632.
La. — Corpus Juris cited in Christie
v. Patorno, 8 !La.App. 603.
Ohio. — Cincinnati Traction Co. v.
Schlasinger, 26 Ohio N.P.,N.S., 9.
34 C.J. p 285 note 14.
Mare suspicion of truth of defend-
ant's testimony founded on improb-
ability or conflicting statements will
not be sufficient to support finding
of perjury. — Christie v. Patorno, 8
La.App. 60-3.
22. Pa.— Sallada v. Mock, 121 A. 54,
277 Pa, 285.
Tex. — Yount-Lee Oil Co. v. -Federal
Crude Oil Co., Civ.App., 92 S.W.2d
493, certiorari denied Federal
Crude Oil Co. v. Yount-Lee Oil Co.,
57 S.Ct. 16, 299 'U.S. 554, 81 L.Ed.
408.
34 C. J. p 285 note 15.
23. Ariz. — In re Hanrierkam's Es-
tate, 77 P.2d 814, 51 Ariz. 447,
49 C.J.S,
JUDGMENTS
§ 272
ment.24 However, the agreement or promise must
have been explicit, and of such a character that de-
fendant could rely on it and remain inactive without
being thereby chargeable with negligence or lack
of due diligence in guarding his own interests.25
Where a statute or rule of court requires agree-
ments to extend the time for pleading, or for the
trial, to be reduced to writing and filed, or com-
municated to the court, a mere oral agreement of
the parties, not brought to the notice of the court,
will not be sufficient to authorize the vacation of a
judgment taken in violation of its terms.2^ It has
nevertheless been held that, although oral stipula-
tions are not regarded with favor,27 relief -may be
granted on the basis of an oral agreement satisfac-
torily established.28
§ 272.
Defenses to Action
In general, a judgment will not be opened or va-
cated on grounds which could have been pleaded In the
original action.
Except where the motion to vacate is filed within
the term at which the judgment was rendered,2^
a proceeding to open or vacate a judgment cannot
be sustained on any grounds which might have been
pleaded in defense to the action, and could have
been so pleaded with proper care and diligence.30
Within this rule are included various defenses,81
24. Ky. — American Ry. Express Co.
v. Hulentoops & Co., 261 S.W. 889,
203 Ky. 107.
Pa,— First Nat. Bank of Irwin, for
Use of, v. Shields, Com.Pl., 22
West.Co. 50.
34 C.J. p 285 note 16.
Violation of agreement as surprise
see infra § 280.
Party having1 notice; appearing- at
trial
An alleged agreement by defend-
ant with one of the attorneys for
plaintiff before judgment, that suit
would be dismissed, is not ground
for setting aside the judgment "or ar-
resting execution, where it appears
that defendant appeared at the trial
and defended against the action. —
Felker v. Johnson, 7 S.E.2d -668, US 9
Ga. 797.
25. 111.— -Hartford Life & Annuity
Ins. Co. v. Rossiter, 63 N.B. 680,
19-6 111. 277.
34 C.J. p 286 note 17.
Unenforceable agreement
Fact that testator's widow orally
agreed with certain of husband's
heirs that, if they would offer no
defense to her suit for construction
of the will, she would execute a will
whereby at her death the heirs would
be devised all of the real property
of the husband of which she should
die possessed, was not valid ground
for setting aside the decree in the
will construction suit, since such
oral promise was not fraud in the
legal sense and was unenforceable
under statute of frauds. — Sample v.
Ward, Fla., 23 So.2d 81.
26. Pa. — Bauman Iron Works v.
Buono, 22 Pa,Dist. & Co. 362.
34 C.J. p 286 note 18.
27. Iowa. — Dixon v. Brophey, 29
Iowa 460.
28. Cal. — Johnson v. Sweeney, -30 P.
540, 95 Cal. 304.
34 C.J. p 286 note 20.
29. Ohio. — Ames Co. v. Busick, App.,
47 N.B.2d 647.
Additional defense necessary
A final judgment for plaintiff, if
correct will not be vacated for the
purpose of granting leave to amend
the answer, unless the proposed
amended answer discloses additional
facts or defenses material to the
action and not pleaded in the orig-
inal answer. — State v. Coleman, 127
P. 568, 71 Wash. 15.
30. Ga.— Alexander v. Slear, 169 S.
B. 304, 177 Ga. 101— Wilder v.
Hardwick, 122 S.E. 624, 32 Ga.App.
105— Hardwick v. Hatfleld, 119 S.
E. 430, 30 Ga.App. 760.
111. — Gliwa v. Washington Polish
Loan & Building Ass'n, 34 N.E.2d
736, 310 IlLApp. 465— Mitchell v.
Eareckson, 250 IlLApp. 508.
Ky.— Childers v. Potter, 1-65 S.W.2d
3, 291 Ky. 478.
Mass. — Lynch v. City of Boston, 48
N.B.2d 26, 313 Mass. 478— Besero-
sky v. Mason, 168 N.B. 726, 269
Mass. 325.
Mich.— Kirn v. loor, 2-53 N.W. 318,
266 Mich. 335.
Minn. — In re Jordan's Bstate, 271 N.
W. 104, 109 Minn. 53.
Mo.—Bodine v. Farr, 182 fi.W.2d 173,
353 Mo. 206— State ex rel. Gary
Realty Co. v. Hall, 17 S.W.2d 935
322 Mo. 1118.
N.Y.— Winter v. New York Life Ins.
Co., 23 N.Y.S.2d 759, 260 App.Div.
676, appeal denied 25 N.Y.S.2d 7-81,
261 App.Div. 816, appeal denied 33
N.B.2d 568, 285 N.Y. 8«63— Corpus
Juris quoted in Dl Donato v. Ros-
enberg-, 245 N.Y.S. 675, 679, 230
App.Dir. 538.
Okl. — Staples v. Jenkins, 62 P.2d 504,
178 Okl. 186— Corpus Juris cited
*n Dial v. Kirkpatrick, 31 P.2d 591,
592, 168 Okl. 21, 95 A.L.R. 126*3.
Pa.— Berkowitz v. Kass, 40 A.2d 691,
351 Pa. 263— Keystone Bank of
Spangler, Pa., v. Booth, 6 A.2d 417,
334 Pa. 545— McCloskey v. Sykes,
14 Pa.Dist & Co. 437— New York
Joint Stock Land Bank v. Kegerise,
Com.Pl., 29 Berks.Co. 296 — Plcone
v. Barbano, Com.Pl., 32 Del. Co. 88
— Gapes v. Lawrenitis, (Qom.Pl., 4.
Sch.Reg. 403:
Utah. — Logan Cityv. Utah Power &
491
Light Co., 16 P.2d 1097, 86 Utah
340, opinion adhered to 44 P.2<T
•698, 86 Utah 354.
34 C.J. p 286 note 21.
Good defense is insufficient ground
for setting aside judgment, .unless
judgment debtor brings himself
within particular class to whom re-
lief may be given. — Collins' Bx'rs v.
Bonner, 294 S.W. 1027, 220 Ky. 212.
Disqualification of attorney
Attack on judgment for disqualifi-
cation of other party's attorney was
held too late, where no objection was
made before judgment, although
facts were known. — Dewey v. Fraw-
ley, 2-36 N,Y.S. 484, 227 App.Div. 757.
Matter available on motion for new
trial
Where, on an equitable petition
and an answer by defendant in the
nature of a cross bill, the jury re-
turned a verdict in favor of defend-
ant on the special issues of fact
submitted by the judge, and plain-'
tiff*s motion for new trial on gen-
eral and special grounds was denied,
and his writ of error from such
judgment was dismissed by the su-
preme court, plaintiff could not in a
subsequent petition or motion to set
aside the verdict and judgment at-
tack them on any grounds which ei-
ther were included in previous mo-
tion for new trial or could in the ex-
ercise of reasonable diligence have
been so included, if the grounds pre-
sented such questions as could be
raised by motion for new trial. —
Manry v. Stephens, 9 S.B.2d 58, 190
Ga. 305.
Individual or partnership liability
Where defendant defended as in
action for Individual liability, he
might not have judgment vacated on
ground based on partnership liabil-
ity.— Pace v. Continental Supply Co.,
251 P, 743, 120 Oil. 302.
31. Statute of limitations
Refusing to open judgment on
pleadings to afford defendant oppor-
tunity to plead statute of limita-
tions was held not abuse of discre-
§ 272
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
such as payment;82 set-off and counterclaim ;3S
want or failure of consideration;34 fraud as dis-
cussed supra § 269; forgery;85 and illegality of
the contract or transaction out of which the al-
leged cause of action arose,3* except in so far as
statutes have changed the rule,37 or public policy
requires the opening of the judgment to permit the
introduction of such defense.38 Moreover, if the
parties were equally guilty in participating in an
immoral or unlawful contract, the courts will give
no relief after the recovery of a judgment thereon,
but will leave them where they stand.39
• Notwithstanding the general rule, where the
pleading and triail of a defense is prevented by
fraud, accident, or other cause for which the mov-
ing party is not to blame, the judgment may be
opened or vacated to let in the defense;40 and, as
appears infra § 334, default judgments ordinarily
will be opened to let in substantial defenses where
the default is sufficiently excused. Also, while some
authorities have held that a judgment will not be
opened to let in a defense which has arisen since
the entry of the judgment,41 others have held that
matter arising after judgment, or before judgment
but too late to be presented as a defense, which
would have been an effectual bar to the action if
it had occurred in time to be presented as a de-
fense, is ground for vacating the judgment.42 In
any event, the court will usually decline to open a
judgment to let in a merely technical defense as
distinguished from a meritorious defense.43
Subsequent changes in law. A judgment will not
be opened or vacated on the ground that a statute
becoming effective after the judgment would have
warranted a different decision, where such statute
does not purport to be curative.44 Similarly, a ju-
dicial decree will not be set aside by reason of a
change in the law, resulting from a subsequent de-
cision by a higher court reaching a contrary con-
clusion.45 The reason for the rule is that there
tion.— Bedell v. Oliver H. Bair Co.,
158 A. 651, 104 Pa,Super. 146.
32. N.C.— Council v. Willis, 66 N.C.
359.
34 C.J. j> 2>S7 note 22.
33. Pa.— Bennett v. Bechtel, 7 Pa.
Dist & Co. 283.
•84 C.J. p 287 note 23.
During* term
The rule that a counterclaim can-
not be made available as a basis to
vacate judgment is inapplicable to a
motion to vacate judgment filed
within term at which judgment was
rendered. — Ames Co. v. Busick, Ohio
App., 47 N.E.2d 647.
34. 111.— Blake v. State Bank, $2 N.
B. 957, 178 HI. 182.
34 C.J. p 287 note 24.
35. Philippine. — Cruz v. Lopez, 19
Philippine 555.
38. Okl. — Corpus Juris cited in
Dial v. Kirkpatrick, 31 P.2d 591,
692, 168 Okl 21, 95 A.L..R 1268.
34 C.J. p 287 note 27.
Champerty
Where defendants In quiet title
action proceeded to trial on theory
of validity of resale tax deed to
county and commissioners' deed un-
der which they claimed and appealed
on same theory without attempting
to inject defense of champerty, they
could not assert such defense as
grounds for vacating adverse judg-
ment in quiet title action. — Dierks v.
Walsh, Okl., 165 P.2d 354.
Usury
Judgments will not be opened to
let in a defense of usury which
could and should have been raised at
the trial.
S.D. — James Valley Bank v. Nichol-
as, 210 N.W. 1«1, 50 S.D. &6$. j
Wash.— Arnot v. Fischer, 295 P. 1117,
161 Wash. 67.
34 C.J. p 287 note 27 [a],
37. 111.— West v. Carter, 21 JT.H. 782,
129 111. 249.
34 C.J. <p 287 note 28.
3a Okl.— Dial v. Kirkpatrick, 31 P.
2d 591, 168 Okl. 21, 95 A.L.R. 1263.
Pa. — Nescopeck Nat Bank v. Smith,
165 A. 526, 108 Pa.Super. 553—
•Gordon v. Miller, 21 PaoDist & Co,
272, 39 Dauph.Co. 126— Smith v.
Press, Com.Pl., 54 Montg.Co. 169.
34 O.J. p 287 note 27 [b].
Wo trial on merits
The rule that the lack of consid-
eration is an affirmative defense that
can-not be raised after judgment does
not apply in a direct proceeding to
vacate a judgment procured on an
affidavit of demand without trial on
the merits and for defects apparent
on the face of the record. — American
University y. Todd, 1 A.2d 595, 9 W.
W.Harr. Del, 449*
Usury
Pa.—- Personal finance Co. v. Ketter-
ing, 20 Pa.Dist. & Co. '654.
39. Pa.— Woelfel v. Hammer, 28 A.
146, 159 Pa. 446.
34 C.J. p 287 note 2 9.
40. Ohio. — Buckeye State Building
& "Loan Co. v. Ryan, 157 N.E. fill,
24 Ohio App. 481.
Pa. — Zuch v. Gorman, 7 Pa,Dist &
Co. '564, 39 ljanc.X4.Rev. 557.
•34 C.J. p 287 note 30.
Pleading defense of fraud prevented
by fraud or accident see supra 5
299.
Defense held not prevented
Defendants in quiet title action
were not prevented from asserting
defense of champerty by inadvertent
institution of action in name of
492
former record owner of the land
without disclosing the fact of his
prior death, where his grantee by
unrecorded deed was substituted as
plaintiff before trial and introduced
in evidence his deed, showing date
when he acquired title. — Dierks v.
Walsh, Okl., 165 P.2d 354.
41. Pa.— Ward & Wiener v. Caster-
line, Com.Pl., 33 Luz.Leg.Reg. 54.
34 C.J. p 286 note 21 [c].
4S. Cal.— Gordon v. Hillman, 191 P.
62, 47 CaLApp. 571.
34 C.J. p 288 note 82.
4& Ka.n. — Mulvaney v. Lovejoy, 15
P. 181, 37 Kan. 305.
44. Pa.— In re Kulp's Estate, Orph.,
•5*6 Montg.Co. 347.
Wash. — Pacific Telephone & Tele-
graph Co. v. Henneford, 92 P.2d
'214, 199 Wash. 462, certiorari de-
nied Henneford v. Pacific Tele-
phone & Telegraph Co., 59 S.Ot
483, 306 U.S. 637, 33 L.Ed. 1038.
45. Cal. — Sontag Chain Stores Co.
r. -Superior Court in and for Los
Angeles County, 113 P.2d 689, 18
Cal.2d 92— Union Oil Co. of Califor-
nia v. Reconstruction Oil Co., 135
P.2d 621, 58 CaLApp.2d 30.
N.T. — Williams v. Madison Personal
Loan, 4'2 N.Y.S.2d 144, 180 Misc.
497.
Change in law as to estate by curtesy
•Finality of Judgment that title by
curtesy consummate existed in fa-
vor of husband to all laads of which
Chickasaw wife became seized dur-
ing coverture was held not subject
to subsequent attack by motion to
vacate as void after rule of law had
been established by subsequent de-
cision of a higher court that estate
by curtesy did not attach.— Latimer
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 274
must be an end to litigation, and it is the policy of
the law to prohibit, as far as possible, the further
contest of an issue once judicially decided and to
accord finality to judgments.46 However, a motion
to open a judgment has been allowed -where the
higher court subsequently made a contrary decision
on the identical facts.47
§273.
Newly Discovered Evidence
Newly discovered evidence Is ground for vacating a
judgment, provided it could not have been discovered at
the time of the trial, and it Is material and such as to
affect the decision.
Newly discovered evidence, as distinguished from
matter newly arising which would have constituted
a defense if it had occurred in time to be presented
as a defense in the action, as considered supra §
272, is ground for vacating a judgment,48 pro-
vided the party was ignorant of such evidence and
could not have discovered it in time to adduce it at
the trial, by the exercise of due diligence,49 and pro-
vided the evidence is material and such as to affect
the decisidn of the issue,60 and not merely cumu-
lative or additional to that which was introduced
at the trial.51 It has been held that the power to
open or vacate a judgment for newly discovered evi-
dence applies only during the term in which the
judgment was rendered, and not after the expira-
tion of the term.62
§ 274.
Errors of Law
While a judgment may be opened or vacated during
the term for errors of law, such relief ordinarily will not
be granted after the expiration of the term.
During the term, a judgment may be opened or
vacated for errors of law,63 even though the error
v. Vanderslice, 62 P.2d 1197, 178 Okl.
501.
46. Cal. — Sontag Chain Stores Co. v.
Superior Court in and for Los An-
geles County, 113 P.2d 689, 18 Cal.
2d 92— Union Oil Co. of California
v. Reconstruction Oil go., 185 P.2d
621, 58 Cal.App.2d 30. "
47. La. — Townley v. Pomes, 194 So.
763, 194 La. 730.
48. Ark. — Papa v. Jackson, 67 S.W.
2d 187, 188 Ark. 1167.
Minn. — Holmes y. Center, 295 N.W.
649, 209 Minn. 144.
N.J.— Strong v. Strong, 47 A.2d 4'27.
Wis. — Welhouse v. Industrial Com-
mission of Wisconsin, 252 N.W.
717, 214 Wis. 1-63.
34 C,J. p 288 note 36.
Grounds for opening, not vacating
Where new evidence relating to
the cause of action must be Intro-
duced in order to sustain an attack
on a judgment, the judgment should
not be vacated or set aside, but
should be opened for the purpose of
admitting the new evidence. — Nixon
v. Nixon, 198 A. 154, 329 Pa. 2*56.
Failure to comply with statute
In suit on fire policy, defendant's
motion to vacate judgment for plain-
tiff, which alleged that fact had been
discovered since trial that plaintiff
was not owner of building was prop-
erly overruled, where motion was
not verified, no testimony was offered
to support it, and no attempt was
made to comply with statute relat-
ing to granting of new trial on
ground of newly discovered evidence.
— Farmers Union Mut. Ins. Co. v.
Jordan, 140 S.W.2d 430, 200 Ark. 711.
49. Ark. — Papa v. Jackson, 67 S.W.
2d 187, 188 Ark. 1167.
111.— Hodge v. Globe Mut. Life Ins.
Co., 274 IlLApp. 31.
Minn, — Holmes v. Conter, 295 N.W.
649, 209 Minn. 144.
N.J.— Strong v. Strong, 47 A.2d 427.
N.Y.— Albright v. New York Life Ins.
Co., 26 N.T.S.2d 210, 261 App.Div.
419 — Corpus Juris cited in Di Don-
ato v. Rosenberg, 245 N.Y.S. 675,
679, 230 App.Div. 53'8—In re Lynn's
Estate, 23 N.Y.S.2d 995, 175 Misc.
441, modified on other grounds and
affirmed 26 N.Y.S.2d 96, 261 App.
Div. 'SIS, affirmed In re (Lynn's
Will, 39 N.B.2d 28-6, 287 N.Y. 627.
Tex. — Corpus Juris cited in, Walker
v. State, Civ.App., 103 S.W.2d 404,
•405.
•34 C.J. p 288 note 38.
Inability to locate property in issue
Where party seeks to set aside
judgment for newly discovered evi-
dence which could not have been pro-
duced before because the location
of property in issue was not known,
owing to the loss of the deeds, the
party must show that the deeds were
not recorded, or, if recorded, were
improperly indexed, since otherwise
slight effort would have disclosed a
true description of the property. —
Trustees of Cumberland Presbyterian
Church of Central Qity v. Central
City, 11 S.W.2d 694, 226 Ky. 699.
Evidence held previously ascertain-
able
N.J. — Pamrapau Corporation v. City
of Bayonne, 19 A.2d 877, 129 N.
J.EQ. 586.
N.Y. — Joannes Bros. Co. v. federal
Sugar Refining Co., 218 N.Y.S. 504,
21)8 App.Div. 396.
50. Conn. — Comcowich v. Zapary-
niuk, 37 A.'2d 612, 131 Conn. 40.
Minn. — Holmes v. Conter, 295 N.W.
649, 209 Minn. 144.
N.J.— Strong v. Strong, '47 A.2d 427.
N.Y.— In re Madden's .Estate, 279 N.
Y.S. 218, 155 Misc. 308.
Tex. — Corpus Juris cited In Kelley
v. Wright, Civ.App., 184 S.W.2d 64$,
654. .
34 C.J. P 288 note 39.
493
Evidence held to warrant opening
Judgment
Judgment holding defendant liable
on agreement in bill of sale will be
set aside on production of copy of
bill of sale showing no liability. —
Bddingston v. Acorn, Tex.Civ.App.,
287 S.W. 96.
Evidence held not to warrant opening
Judgment
(1) Petition, alleging newly dis-
covered evidence that judgment had
been secured by perjury, was held
insufficient to reopen case. — King v.
King, Tex.Civ.App., 279 S.W. 899.
(2) Defendant could not attack
Judgment on ground of ne.wly discov-
ered evidence that it awarded dam-
ages based on retail rather than
wholesale values. — White Transp. Co.
v. Michelin Tire Co., 161 A. 163, 1-63
Md. 142.
(3) Other evidence.
Ind. — Lowther v. Union Trust Co. of
Indianapolis, 50 N.B.2d 872, 221
Ind. 63'5.
N.Y.— In re Lynn's Estate, 23 N.Y.
S.2d 995, 175 Misc. 441, modified on
other grounds and affirmed 26 N.
Y.S.2d 96, 261 App.Div. 513, af-
firmed In re Lynn's Will, 39 N.E.
2d 266, 287 N.Y. 627.
51. 111.— Hodge v. Globe Mut. Life
Ins. Co., 27* IlLApp. 31.
34 C.J. p 2-89 note 40.
52. N.C.— Crow v. McCullen, 17 S.
EL2d 107, 220 N.C. 306.
53. U.S. — Suggs v. Mutual Ben.
Health & Accident Ass'n, C.C.A.
Okl., 115 (P.2d 80.
Ky.— Kentucky Home Mut Life Ins.
Co. v. Hardin, 126 <S.W.2d 427, 277
Ky. «65.
Mich. — -Strausser v. Sovereign Camp,
W. O. W., 278 N.W. 101, 283 Mich.
370.
N.C.— Price v. Life & Casualty Ins.
Co. of Tennessee, 157 SJL 132, 200
N.C. 427.
§ 274
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
was invited by the party against whom the judg-
ment was entered.54 However, after the term at
which a judgment was rendered, it cannot be va-
cated or set aside on the sole ground that it is er-
roneous in matter of law,55 except in so far as such
Okl. — Corpus Juris cited in Pitts v.
Walker, 105 P.2d 760, 7-61, 188 Okl.
17.
84 C.J. p 289 note 41.
Duty
It is duty of judge of court to set
aside a judgment which he concludes
was erroneously entered by him. —
Dorman v. Usbe Building & Loan
Ass'n. 180 A. 41-3, 115 N.J.Law 337.
Refusal held error
Where court improperly rendered
judgment, discharging garnishee
without requiring it to answer, it
was error to refuse motion made
during term to vacate judgment —
American Agricultural Chemical Co.
v. Bank of Madison, 123 S.E. 921, 32
Ga.App. 473.
To make additional findings
In death action, trial court had
authority to reopen judgment against
'defendant for purpose of making ad-
ditional findings which it had omit-
ted to make where court acted with-
in term at which judgment was ren-
dered and all parties were before
court and no advantage was taken of
either.— Western Union Telegraph
Co. v. Martin, 95 P.2d «849, 186 Okl.
24.
54. Okl.—Pitts v. Walker, 105 P.2d
7-60, 188 Okl. 17.
55. Ariz.— Hawkins v. Leake, 22 P.
2d 833, 42 Ariz. 121.
Ark. — Magnolia Grocer Co. v. Far-
rar, 11'5 S.W.2d 1094, 195 Ark. 1069
— Feild v. Waters, 1 S.W.2d -807.
175 Ark. 1169.
Cal.— Phillips v. Trusheim, 156 P.2d
25, 25 Cal.2d 913— Bastajian v.
Brown, 120 P.2d 9, 19 Cal.2d 209—
Stevens v. Superior Court in and
for San Joaquin County, 59 P.2d
988, 7 Cal.2d 110— In re Lingg's
Estate, App., 162 P.2d 707— Reich-
ert v. Rabun, 265 P. 260, 89 Cal.
App. 375.
Conn. — Corpus Juris quoted in Kal-
inick v. Collins Co., 163 A. 460,
462, 116 Conn. 1.
Ga.— Lester v. Rogers, 121 S.E. 582,
31 GfuApp. 590.
111. — Jerome v. 5019-21 Quincy Street
Bldg. Corporation, 5$ N.E.2d 444,.
•3*5 111. 524— McNulty v. White, 248
IlLApp. 572.
Kan. — McLeod v. Hartman, 253 P.
1094, 123 Kan. 110.
Ky.— McKim v. -Smith, 172 S.W.2d'
•634, 294 Ky. 835— Crawford v. Rid-
dle, 45 S.W.2d 463, 241 Ky. 839.
La. — Wunderlich v. Palmisano, App.,
177 So. 843.
Mass. — Peterson v. Hopson, 29 N.E.
2d 140, 306 Mass. '597, 132 A.L.R. 1
^ — Powdrell v. Du Bois, 174 N.B.
220, 274 Mass. J.06.
Minn. — In re Holum's Estate, 229 N.
W. 133, 179 Minn. 315.
Miss. — Mclntosh v. Munson Road
Machinery Co., 145 So. 731, 16
Miss. 546.
Mo. — Weatherford r. Spiritual Chris-
tian Union Church, 163 S.W.2d 916
— Harrison v. Slaton, 49 S.W.2d 31
— McPadden v. Mullins, 136 S.W.
2d 74, 234 Mo.App. 1056.
Neb. — Penn Mut. (Life Ins. Co. v.
Sweeney, 273 N.W. 46, 13'? Neb.
624.
Nev. — Scheeline Banking & Trust Co.
v. Stockgrowers' & Ranchers' Bank
of Reno, 16 P.2d 368, 54 Nev. 34*6.
N.M. — Corpus Juris cited in In re
Field's Estate, 60 P.2d 945, 951, 40
N.M. 4'2-3— Mozley v. Potteiger, l'8
P.2d 1021, 87 N.M. 91.
N.T.— Dana v. Howe, IS N.T. 306—
West 158th -Street Garage Corpora-
tion v. State, 10 N.T.S.2d 990, 256
App.Div. 401, reargument denied 12
N.Y.S.2d 759, 257 App.Div. 875—
Klein v. Pairberg, 276 N.Y.S. 347,
243 App.Div. 609— In re Beach 9th
St (Jarvis Lane) in City of New
York, 54 N.Y.S.2d 1«87, 183 Misc.
446— Feinberg v. Peinberg, 41 N.Y.
S.2d 868, 180 Misc. 305— In re Min-
ard's Will, 35 N.Y.S.2d 457.
N.C. — Herbert B. Newton & Co. v.
Wilson Furniture Mfg. Co.," 174
S.E. 449, 206 N.C. 533.
N.D.— Kranz v. Tavis, 192 N.W. 176,
49 N.D. 55-3.
Ohio. — State ex reL Ehmann v.
Schneider, App., 67 N.E.2d 117.
Okl.— Tolliver v. First Nat Bank, 64
P.2d 1215, 179 Okl. 191— Hill v. Cap-
itol State Bank, >63 P.2d 957, 178
Okl. 610.
Pa.— Levitt v. Wayne Title & Trust
Co., Com.Pl., 29 Del. Co. 558 — In re
Kulp's Estate, Orph., 56 Montg.Co.
347.
S.D.— Payton v. Rogers, 285 N.W. 873,
66 S.D. 486— Boshart v. National
Ben. Ass'n of Mitchell, '273 N.W. 7,
65 S.D. 260.
Wash. — Pacific Telephone & Tele-
graph Co. v. Henneford, 92 P.2d
214, 199 Wash. 462, certiorari de-
nied Henneford v. Pacific Tele-
phone & Telegraph Co., 59 S.Ct 483,
306 'U.S. 637, 83 L.Bd. 1038— Good-
win v. American Surety Co. of New
York, 68 P.2d 619, 190 Wash. 457.
Wyo. — Bank of Commerce .v. Wil-
liams, 69 P.2d 525, 52 Wyo. 1, 110
A.L.R. 14*3.
34 C.J. p 289 note 42.
An "error of law" is committed
when court either on motion of one
of the parties or on its own motion,
makes some erroneous order or rul-
ing on some question of law which
s properly before it and within its
jurisdiction to make. — In re • Ellern,
160 P.2d 639, '23 Wash. 2 d 219.
494
Even gross error in decree does
not render it void and subject to mo-
tion to vacate.— Swift & Co. v. U. S.,
APP.D.C., 48 S.Ct 311, 276 U.S. 311,
72 L.Ed. 587.
Error held not "Judicial"
Where trial judge intended to pro-
nounce judgment for defendants but
signed a judgment for plaintiff,
whose counsel had prepared findings
of fact, conclusions of law, and judg-
ment, the error in signing judgment
was a "clerical error" and not a "ju-
dicial error." — Bastajian v. Brown,
120 P.2d 9, 19 Cal.2d 209.
Appeal held proper remedy
Miss.— Bates v. Strickland, 103 «So.
432, 139 Miss. 636.
Mo. — Platies v. Theodorow Bakery
Co., App., 79 S.W.2d 504.
N.T.— Whitney v. Chesbro. 280 N.
Y.S. 133, 244 App.Div. 594—
Schwert v. Crawford, 271 N.T.S.
«54, '241 App.Div. 909— In re
White's Estate, 10 N.Y.S.2d 983,
170 Misc. 657.
N.C. — Crissman v. Palmer, 3-5 S.-E.2d
422, 225 N.C. 472— Dail v. Hawkins,
189 S.E. 774, 211 N.C. 283.
S.D.— Janssen v. Tusha, 5 N.W.2d
684, 68 S.D. 639.
Estoppel
One making Judicial declaration on
which judgment is rendered cannot
ordinarily attack judgment for er-
ror of law. — Succession of Williams,
121 So. 171, 168 La. 1.
Particular matters within rule
(1) A motion to vacate a judg-
ment cannot be based on the recep-
tion of incompetent evidence or the
alleged insufficiency of the evidence
to support the judgment.
Kan. — Sparks v. Maguire, 169 P.2d
826 — American Oil & Refining Co.
v. Liberty-Texas Oil Co., 211 P.
137, 112 Kan. 309.
Mo.— Weatherford v. Spiritual Chris-
tian Union Church, 163 S.W.2d 91-6
— Robinson v. Martin Wunderlich
Const. Co., App., 72 S.W.2d 127.
N.C. — Crissman v. Palmer, 35 S.E.2d
422, 225 N.C. 472.
34 C.J. p 289 note 42 [a].
(2) Where court had jurisdiction
of parties and to administer legal
and equitable relief, mistake, if any,
in holding complaint sufficient to
warrant both was judicial error, not
irregularity.— Porter v. Alamocitos '
Land & Live Stock Co., 256 P. 179,
32 N.M. 344.
(3) Errors in permitting amend-
ment of petition after judgment, and
in fixing amount of attorney's fees,
and in rendering judgment on ver-
dict were held not grounds for va-
cating judgment on motion filed after
expiration of term at which judg-
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 275
procedure may be authorized by statute,56 or unless
the error is one going to the jurisdiction;57 and,
while there is some authority to the contrary,58
it has been held to be immaterial that the time for
a review of the judgment has expired.55
Amount of judgment. A judgment may be vacat-
ed when rendered for an amount in excess of that
claimed in the writ or declaration,60 -or where it
includes an unauthorized allowance of damages in
addition to the amount fixed by the jury,61 unless
the fault can be cured by reducing or remitting the
excess,62 or unless the excess is very trifling.63
However, this cannot generally be done on account
of an erroneous computation of the amount of dam-
ages or interest,64 or on an allegation that the
amount of the judgment is greater than the facts
of the case will warrant.65 It has been held that
a judgment may be set aside on the ground of clear
inadequacy of the amount awarded,66 at least during
the term.67
Taxation of costs. A judgment should not be set
aside for irregularity in the taxing of costs, or er-
ror in the amount as taxed, the remedy being by
motion to correct the judgment by reducing or oth-
erwise changing the taxed costs.68 The taxation of
costs without notice as ground for setting aside a
judgment is considered supra § 268.
§ 275.
Errors of Fact
Errors of fact going to the validity or regularity
of a judgment constitute grounds for opening or vacat-
ing the judgment.
Error or mistake of fact going to the validity or
regularity of the judgment, such as furnished
ground for the writ of error coram nobis at com-
mon law, discussed infra §§311, 312, has been held
a ground, sometimes by virtue of statutory provi-
sions, for opening or vacating the judgment.^ Er-
tnent was rendered. — Duncan v.
Wilkins, 220 P. 801, 103 Okl. 221.
<4) Other matters.
Ga. — Hood v. Bibb Brokerage Corpo-
ration, 173 S.B. 236, 48 Oa.App.
606.
111. — Linehan v. Travelers Ins. Co.,
18 N.B.2d 178, 370 111. 157.
56. Cal.— Phillips v. Trusheim, 156
P.2d 25, 25 Oal.2d 913— Bastajian
v. Brown, 120 P.2d 9, 19 Cal.2d 209
— In re Lingg*s Estate, App., 162 P.
2d 707.
34 C.J. p 290 note 44.
Error of law as 'Irregularity"
An "irregularity," within statute
authorizing setting aside of a judg-
ment for irregularity, does not em-
brace judicial error in rendition of
Judgment, and, where proceedings
have been regular, court's power to
correct judgment ceases with end of
Judgment term, regardless of how
erroneous proceedings may have
been. — State ex rel. Caplow v. Kirk-
wood, Mo.App., 117 S.W.2d 652—34 C.
jr. p 290 note 44 [a].
Vkunipported Judgment or conclu-
sions of law
(1) Under statute so providing, a
Judgment may be vacated "and an-
other and different judgment entered
for either of the following causes
materially affecting the substantial
rights of such party and entitling
him to a different judgment: 1. In-
correct or erroneous conclusions of
law not consistent with or not sup-
ported by the findings of fact; and
in such case when the judgment is
set aside, the conclusions of law
shall be amended and corrected. 2.
A judgment not consistent with or
not supported by the special ver-
dict"—Irer v. Gawn, 277 P. 1053,
• ,09 Cal. App. 17— Gale v. Dixon, 267
P. 342, 91 CaLApp. 529—34 QJ. P
290 note 44 [c].
(2) In particular cases the facts
were held not to furnish grounds for
setting aside the judgment under
such a statute. — Stanton v. Superior
Court within and for -Los Angeles
County, 261 P. 1001, 202 Cal. 478.
(3) Order vacating judgment find-
ings of fact, and conclusions of law
on ground that they were signed and
fled by inadvertence, and granting
certain defendants leave to substi-
tute modified judgment, findings of
fact, and conclusions of law, was
held invalid as not within the stat-
ute. — Warden v. Barnes, 295 P. 569,
111 CaLApp. 387.
57. N.Y.— <Schaettler v. Gardiner, 47
N.Y, 404.
58. N.Y.— Siegel v. State, 246 N.T.S.
•6'52, 1-38 Misc. 474.
59. Minn.— State ex rel. Wendland
v. Probate Court of St. Louis Coun-
ty, 22 N.W.2d 448.
Wash.— In re Jones, 199 P. 734, 116
Wash. 424.
€0. Pa. — Great American Tea Co. v.
McCabe^ 94 Pa.Super. 573."
34 C.J. p 290 note 46.
61. N.Y. — Chicago Corn -Bxch. Bank
v. Blye, 23 N.E. »805, 119 N.Y. 414.
62. Ga. — Love v. National -Liberty
Ins. Co., 121 S.E. 648, 157 Ga. 259.
N.J. — A. Poth Brewing Co. v. Bernd,
Sup., 36 A. 664.
63. Cal.— Ziel v. Dukes, 12 Cal. 479.
Wis.— Lathrop v. Snyder, 17 Wis.
110.
34 C.J. p 290 note 49.
64. Mo. — Robinson v. Martin Wun-
derlich Const Co., App., 72 S.W.
2d 127.
495
Wash. — E. R. Thomas & Co. v. Pen-
land, 268 P. 867, 148 Wash. 279. '
34 C.J. p 290 note 50.
After term
Rendition of judgment changing
interest date at term subsequent to
rendition of judgment reopened was
held error. — Potter v. Prudential Ins.
Co., 142 A, 891, 108 Conn. 271.
65. Ga. — Lester v. Rogers, 121 S.B.
582, 31 Ga.App. 590.
Okl. — Welden v. Home Owners &
Loan Corporation, 141 P.2d 1010,
193 Okl. 167.
34 C.J. p 290 note 51.
66. Cal. — Collier v. Landram, 155 P.
2d 652, .67 Cal.App.2d 752.
Conn. — Santoro v. Kleinberger, 163 A.
107, 115 Conn. 631.
67. Ohio.— Licht v. Woertz, 167 N.
B. 614, 32 Ohio App. 111.
Pa.— Bekelja v. James B. Strates
Shows, 37 A.2d 502, 349 Pa. 442.
68. Or. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Linn County v. Rozelle, 162 P.2d
150, 165.
15 C.J. p 186 note 10—34 C.J. jp 290
note 53.
69. Ill.^-Loew v. Krauspe, 150 N.B.
683, 320 111. 244— Harris v. Chica-
go House-Wrecking Co., 145 N.B.
666, 314 111. 500 — O'Connell v.' Ja-
cobs, '30 N.B.2d 136, 307 IlLApp.
245— Reid v. Dolan, 19 N.B.2d 764,
299 Ill.App. 612 — Chicago Securi-
ties Corporation v. Olsen, 14 N.B..
2d 893, 295 Ill.App. 615— Seither &
Cherry Co. v. Board of Education
of District No. 15, Town of La
Harpe, 283 Ill.App. 392.
Miss. — Lott v. Illinois Cent R. Co.,
. 10 So.2d 96, 193 Miss. 443.
Tex. — John EL Quarles Co. v. Lee,
Com. App., 58 S.W.2d 77, costs re-
taxed 67 S.W.2d 607— Corpus Juris
§ 276
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
rors of fact within this rule are errors in material
matters, prejudicial to the judgment debtor, and
which, if known, would have prevented rendition of
the judgment.70 Erroneous or mistaken findings
as to facts in issue afford no ground for vacating
the judgment.71
§ 276. Defects and Objections as to
Parties
A Judgment may be opened or vacated for serious
defects or objections as to parties, and generally for
the disability or death of a party.
A judgment may be vacated for nonjoinder of
a necessary party,72 or where it was rendered on a
cited in Walker v. State, Civ.App.,
103 S.W.2d 404, 405.
W.Va.— Yost v. O'Brien, 130 S.E. 442,
100 W.Va. 408.
34 C.J. p 290 note 55, p 291 note 57.
Mistake of fact generally see infra S
280.
Opening or vacating Judgment after
expiration of term generally see
supra § 230.
Errors not appearing- on face of rec-
ord
(1) Statutory motion in nature of
writ of error coram nobis is not
available to review questions of fact
arising on pleadings, being limited
to matters not appearing of record. —
Jacobson v. Ashkinaze, 168 N.E. 647,
337 111. 141.
(2) Under statute substituting
motion for writ 'of error coram nobis
and providing that motion may be
made in writing within five years
after rendition of final judgment on
reasonable notice, certain errors of
fact not appearing on face of record
can be corrected on proper' showing.
—Grice v. Grice, '26 N.E.2d 747, 304
IlLApp. 584.
Effect of negligence
(1) Under statute substituting mo-
tion for writ of error coram nobis
and providing that motion may be
made in writing within five years
after rendition of final Judgment on
reasonable notice, motion will not lie
where party seeking relief is guilty
of negligence. — Grice v. Grice, 26 N.
B.2d 747, 304 IlLApp. 5'84.
(2) Failure of attorneys for plain-
tiff to attend call of calendar of cer-
tain Judge which resulted in dismiss-
al of cause for want of prosecution
is not such negligence as bars vaca-
tion of Judgment for error of fact on
motion under the statute, where it
appears that cause was improperly
on calendar of such Judge and was
on calendar of another Judge, to
whom cause had been originally as-
signed, for call on same day, and
that attorneys were present before
such latter Judge, and that attorneys
for both parties were absent at call
of first judge's calendar. — Reid v.
Chicago Rye. Co., 231 Ill.App. 58.
70. Conn. — Stolman v. Boston Furni-
ture Co.. 180 A. 507, 120 Conn. 235.
I1L — Jacobson v. Ashkinaze, 168 N.E.
647, 337 111. 141— Loew v. Krauspe,
150 N.E. 683, 320 111. 244— Lusk v.
Bluhm, 53' N.E.2d 1-35. 321 IlLApp.
349— Reid v. Dolan, 19 N.E.2d 764,
299 IlLApp. 612— Mitchell v. Ear-
eckson, 250 IlLApp. 508— McNulty
v. White, 248 IlLApp. 572.
Miss.— Lott v. Illinois Cent. R. Co.,
10 So.2d 96, 193 Miss. 443.
34 C.J. p 291 note 58.
Effect of statute on court's power
The statute authorizing a court in
its discretion and on Just terms, at
any time within one year after no-
tice, to relieve a party .from a judg-
ment, order, or other proceeding tak-
en against him through his mis-
take, inadvertence, surprise, or ex-
cusable neglect is not a limitation
on court's power to set aside a judg-
ment based on stipulated facts
where it appears that there was a
mutual mistake concerning certain
material facts. — Payton v. Rogers,
285 K.W. -873, '66 S.D. 486.
Errors held -within rule
(1) Error in fact, to justify vaca-
tion of judgment, is not necessarily
one which would have precluded ren-
dition of Judgment for lack of juris-
diction.— Baird & Warner, Inc., v.
Roble, 250 IlLApp. 255.
(2) Where trial judge intended to
pronounce judgment for defendants
but signed a judgment for plaintiff,
whose counsel had prepared findings
of fact, conclusions of law, and judg-
ment, the error in signing judgment
was a "clerical error" and not a "Ju-
dicial error," and hence trial court,
on defendants' motion, had -power to
vacate findings and judgment on
ground that they were signed as re-
sult of mistake. — Bastajian v.
Brown, 120 P.2d 9, .19 Cal.2d 209.
(3) Mistakes of fact, Justifying
vacation of judgment, are not con-
fined to omissions or misprisions of
clerk of court — Toth v. Samuel Phil-
lipson & Co., 260 IlLApp. 247.
(4) Other errors.— Chicago Secur-
ities corporation v. Olsen, 14 N.E.2d
893, 295 IlLApp. 613 — Hooper v. Wa-
bash Automotive Corporation, 10 N.EL
2d 89*2, 291 IlLApp. '618— Swiercz v.
Nalepka, 259 IlLApp. 262— Reid v.
Chicago Rys. Co., 231 IlLApp. 68.
Errors held not within role
(1) (Facts that cause was stricken
off calendar through mistake, and
inadvertence in office of plaintiff's
attorney, and that, latter being ig-
norant of fact that case was within
order striking certain cases from
docket, it was again stricken from
calendar, were held not errors of
fact authorizing recall of judgment
of dismissal. — Harris v. Chicago
496
House-Wrecking Co., 145 N.E. 666,
•314 111. 500.
(2) A trial court's entry of Judg-
ment, without observing court rules
of record, such as rule requiring that
testimony be taken down by court
reporter, does not constitute "error
of fact" entitling defendant to vaca-
tion of Judgment on motion, as
courts take judicial notice of their
own records, which are always con-
structively before* them. — Viedens-
chek v. Johnny Perkins Playdium, 49
KE.2d 339, 319 IlLApp. 523.
(3) "Errors of fact" not arising-
on the trial of an action, which au-
thorize the vacating of a Judgment,
do not include a failure to present a
defense based on facts known to the
party at the time of the original ac-
tion.—Boslov v. Boslov, 31 N.Y.S.2d
970, 177 Misc. «17, affirmed 36 N.
T.S.2d 744, 264 App.Div. 943.
(4) Other errors. — McNnlty v.
White, 248 IlLApp. 572.
71. Mass. — Chagnon v. Chagnon, 15
H.*E.2d 231, 300 Mass. '309— Parse-
kian v. Oynoian, 13 K.R2d 409, 299
Mass. 543, 115 A.L.R. 470.
N.M. — Porter v. Alaznocitos Land &
ILive Stock Co., 256 P. 179, 82 N.M.
344.
94 CJ. p 291 note 59.
Effect of statute
Statute authorizing setting aside
of judgment where conclusions are
inconsistent with findings has been
held not to authorize attack on find-
ings of fact — Stanton v. Superior
Court within and for Los Angeles
County, 261 P. 1001, 202 Cal. 478.
72. Ky. — Hazard Lumber & Supply
Co. v. Horn, 15 S.W.'2d 492, 22-8
Ky. 554.
34 C.J. p 291 note 61.
Demurrer held proper remedy
Judgment cannot be attacked by
motion to set aside as beyond juris-
diction of court, where defect is of
parties, demurrer being the proper
remedy. — -Royal Indemnity Co. v.
Peebles Ceramic Products Co., 169'
N.E. 39, 3-3 Ohio App. 247.
Vacation not warranted
Where action against county to
quiet title was duly commenced by
proper service on county auditor and
defended by assistant prosecuting
attorney, lack of knowledge by
board of county commissioners of
such action and board's failure to
participate therein afforded no
grounds for vacation of decree en-
49 O.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
277
joint contract against only some of the defend-
ants,73 or where it affects persons who were never
made parties to the suit,74 .or where it appears that
the real party in interest has not been joined,76 al-
though on the last point there is some authority to
the contrary.76 However, it has been held that a
judgment good as to at least some of the defend-
ants will not be stricken, although it may be
opened;77 and, except during the term in which
the judgment was rendered,78 a judgment will not
be set aside because of the misnomer of a party, at
least where it did not mislead, and is not calculated
to work substantial injury;79 nor will a judgment
be set aside because of a technical objection, not
appearing on the face of the record, to plaintiff's
capacity to sue.80
Legal disability. Except in so far as there may
be a waiver of the right to raise the objection,81
legal disability, such as coverture, infancy, or insan-
ity, of a party against whom a judgment is improvi-
dently rendered without regard to such disability is
ground for opening or vacating such judgment,81
in some instances under statutes to that effect88
Such a case is one of mistake of fact,84 as distin-
guished from irregularity.85
Death of party. It is competent and proper for
the court to set aside a judgment which was ren-
dered for or against a party after his death,86 par-
ticularly where statutes so provide.87 However, a
party's death after judgment has been rendered does
not warrant vacation of the judgment, even though
the cause of action would not have survived.88
Bankruptcy of party. The bankruptcy of defend-
ant has been held to be no ground for opening a
judgment against him.89
§ 277. Defects and Objections as to
Pleadings
While ordinarily a Judgment will not be set aside
for mere defects In the pleadings, It may be set aside
where there Is a fatal error.
A judgment will not be set aside because of de-
tered therein. — Harter v. King Coun-
ty, 119 P.2d 919, 11 Wash.2d 583.
73. Tex. — Uher v. Cameron State
Bank, 125 S.W. 321, 59 TeatCiv.
App. 134.
34 C.J. p 292 note 62.
74* Mich. — Rosenfield v. Wayne Cir-
cuit Judge, 177 N.W. 946, 210 Mich.
689.
34 C.J. p 292 note #3.
Judgment aniettng- title to land is
void, except as to land of plaintiff
and subject to be set aside on de-
fendants' motion, in so far as they
were affected thereby, where action
was brought by plaintiff for himself
and other landowners not parties to
case, whose lands were not de-
scribed.— Taylor v. Pocks Drilling &
Manufacturing Corporation, 62 P.2d
903, 144 Kan. 626.
75. N.M.—Miller v. Klasner, 140 P.
1107, 19 N.M. 21.
Tex. — Bbel v. Bursinger, 8 S.W. 77,
70 Tex 120.
Substitution of parties
Court, in vacating judgment for
defendant and allowing substituted
party for plaintiff to put in com-
plaint, did not abuse discretion. —
Demarrias v. Burke, 210 N.W. ,198, '50
S.D. 353.
76. N.Y.— Grinnell v. Schmidt, 4 N.
T.Super. 706, 3 Code Rep. 19.
Pa,— McKenzie Co. v. 'Fidelity & De-
posit Co. of Maryland, C|om.PL, 54
Dauph.Co. 294.
77. Pa. — Merchants Banking Trust
Co. v. Klimosky, 9 Pa.Dist. & Co.
143, 23 Sch.L.R. 78.
78. Kan. — Standard Life Ass'n v.
Merrill, 75 P.2d 825, 147 Kan. 121.
49 C.J.S.-^32
79. N.Y.— Meurer v. Berlin, 80 N.T.
•S. 240, SO App.Div. 294.
34 C.J. p 292 note 65.
80. Tex. — Sayles v. Abilene First
State Bank & Trust Co., Civ. App.,
199 S.W. 823.
34 C.J. p 292 note 66.
81. Previous claim of legal ability
Where a married woman claiming
disability and seeking to otpen a
judgment on that ground previously
swore that she was unmarried she
is precluded from asserting the con-
trary.— Cole v. Hunter, 20 Pa.Dist. &
Co. 477, 35 Lack.Jur. 23f
82. 111.— Mitchell v. Eareckson, 250
IlLApp. 508.
Mass. — Herlihy v. Kane, 38 KT.B.2d
£20, 310 Mass. 457.
34 C.J. p 292 note 67, p 316 note 44
[b].
Availability of writ of error coram
nobis see infra § 312.
Abnormal mental condition
The trial court has discretion to
vacate a judgment which has been
brought about as the result of an
abnormal mental condition- of a par-
ty against whom it was rendered,
and who was not represented by a
guardian or a guardian ad litem. —
Herlihy v. Kane, 38 K.E.2d 620, 810
Mass. 457.
83. Ark. — Hare v. Ft Smith & W.
Co., 148 S.W. 10-38, 104 Ark. 187.
34 C.J. P 292 note 71.
84. 111.— St. Louis Cons. Goal Co. v.
Oeltjen, 59 N.B. 600> 189 m. 85.
Mo.— Powell v. Gott, 13 Mo. 458, 53
Am.D. 153.
Knowledge prior to entry of Judg-
ment
Where the disability is known to,
497
the court before the entry of judg-
ment, the judgment will not be va-
cated since the error then is one of
law, to be remedied by appeal. —
Mitchell v. QEareckson, 250 IlLApp.
€08.
85. Mo.— Powell v. Gott. 13 Mo. 458,
53 Am.D. 153.
34 C.J. p 292 note *69.
86. Ala, — Griffln v. Proctor, 14 So.
2d 116, 244 Ala. 537.
HI. — State Bank of Prairie du Hoch-.
er v. Brown, 263 IlLApp. -312.
34 C.J. p 269 note 57 [e], p 293 note
72, p 317 note 50.
Death of executor
Judgment against estate of dece-
dent was properly set aside, where
executor was dead at time of trial
and his death was unknown to coun-
sel for plaintiff and for estate, and
administrator cum testamento an-
nexo was not made party to action
and did not appear therein, notwith-
standing cause was properly and
fairly tried and fully presented to
jury and that administrator cum
testamento annexo on order of court,
paid two hundred and fifty dollars
to attorneys who tried case and who
prepared and served statement of
case on appeal. — Taylor v. Caudle,
180 -S.E. £99, 208 N.C. 298.
87. Okl.— Jefferson v. Hicks, 126 P.
739, 33 Okl. 407.
34 C.J. p 293 note 73.
88. Colo.— Ahearn v. Goble, 7 P.2d
409, 90 Colo. 173.
89. Pa. — Felin v. Conway, 32 £*. Su-
per. 171.
34 C.J. p 293 note 75.
§ 277
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S
fects or insufficiency in the pleadings,90 especially
where the alleged fault is amendable,91 or has been
waived, as by joining issue and going to trial,92 or
has been cured by the verdict,93 or otherwise will
not result in a miscarriage of justice.94 However,
a judgment without a declaration to support it may
be set aside as irregular ;95 and it has been held that
a judgment will be set aside where there is a fatal
error as to the pleadings.96 A judgment for de-
fendant on the pleadings for want of a reply may
be vacated and plaintiff granted leave to reply.97
Failure to state cause of action. It has been held
that since, where the declaration or complaint states
no cause of action, or contains no averments show-
ing liability on the part of defendant, the judgment
based thereon is erroneous and reversible, but not
void, as is discussed supra § 40, it is not subject to
vacation on the ground of such insufficiency of the
declaration or complaint,98 in accordance with the
90. Ariz.— Hawkins v. Leake, 22 P.
2d 833, 42 Ariz. 121.
Mo. — Harrison v. Slaton, 49 S.W.2d
31.
Pa. — Lauderbaugh v. Lumley, 38
Lu2.Lieff.Reg. 441.
Tex. — Corpus Juris quoted in Em-
pire Gas & Fuel Co. v. Noble, Com.
App., 36 S.W.2d 451, 454.
34 C.J. p 293 note 76.
Petition held not insufficient
In suit to declare a resulting- trust,
petition alleging that plaintiffs' an-
cestor purchased the real estate in-
volved and paid the consideration
therefor and that defendant con-
tributed no part of such considera-
tion, containing no allegation that
the ancestor had acted contrary to
the law, was not insufficient as
against motion filed after judgment
term to set judgment for plaintiffs
aside on ground of irregularity be-
cause of alleged fraudulent appro-
priation by ancestor.— Weatherford
v. Spiritual Christian Union Church,
Mo., 163 S.W.2d 916.
91. Ga. — Auld v. Schmelz, 34 S.B.2d
860, 199 Ga. 633— Burch v. Dodge
County, 20 S.B.2d 428, 193 Ga. 890
—•Georgia Securities Co. v. Ward,
17 S.B.2d 605, '66 Ga.App. 182.
Okl.— Simmons v. Howard, 276 P.
718, 136 Okl. 118— Ashinger v.
White, 23'2 P. 850, 106 Okl. 19—
Latimer v. Haste, 223 P. 879, 101
Okl. 109.
Tex. — Corpus Juris quoted in Empire
Gas & Fuel Co. v. Noble, Com.App.,
36 S.W.2d 451, 454.
34 C.J. p 293 note 77.
Pendency of demurrers undisposed
of did not constitute defect on rec-
ord authorizing setting aside judg-
ment where petition was amendable.
— Oliver v. Fireman's Ins. Co., 155
S.B. 227, 42 Ga.App. 99.
Particular defects
(1) Omission of prayer for proc-
ess from petition held "amendable
defect" within statute providing
that judgment may not be set aside
for any defects in pleadings or rec-
ord that is aided by verdict or
amendable as matter of form. —
Guthrie v. Spence, 191 S.E. 188, 55
Ga.App. 669.
(2) Where plaintiff filed amended
petition alleging that, by mistake
and oversight, case was styled by
name of another instead of plaintiff,
court entered order directing that
plaintiff's name be substituted, and
subsequent proceedings were con-
ducted in the name and for plaintiff's
benefit under original title, plaintiff
was party in interest and proceed-
ings would not be set aside because
of mistake in title.— Spence v. Yell,
71 P.2d 701, 180 Okl. 475.
92. Ark. — 'Manhattan Const. Co. v.
Atkisson, 88 S.W.2d 819, 191 Ark.
920.
Mo.— MoFadden v. Mullins, 136 S.W.
2d 74, 234 Mo.App. 1056.
Tex. — Corpus Juris quoted in Em-
pire Gas & Fuel Co. v. Noble, Com.
App., 36 S.W.2d 451, 454.
34 C.J. p 293 note 78.
Tinder statute so providing, where
complaint states substantial cause
of action, judgment for plaintiff can-
not be set aside for insufficiency of
averment in complaint, in absence of
previous objection thereto. — Chand-
ler v. Price, 15 So.2d 462, 244 Ala.
667—34 Q.J. p 293 note 7-8 [a],
93. Ga. — Auld v. Schmelz, 34 S.B.2d
8-60, 199 Ga. 633— -Stowers v. Har-
ris, 22 S.B.2d 405, 194 Ga. 636.
Tex.— Corpus Juris quoted in Em-
pire Gas & Fuel Co. v. Noble, Com.
App., 36 S.W.2d 451, 454.
34 C.J. p 293 note 79.
Particular defects
(1) Where petition by holder of
note against maker alleged that note
was delivered by payee to another
and through a number of successive
assignees was delivered to plaintiff,
but it did not appear that the note
was ever transferred by indorsement
by payee or any of the assignees or
that any of the assignees or holder
had paid anything of value for the
note, such defects in the petition
were subject to amendment and were
cured by verdict and judgment ren-
dered thereon could not be set aside
on ground that petition failed to
state a cause of action. — Georgia
Securities Co. v. Ward, 17 S.E.2d -605,
66 Ga.App. 182.
(2) In suit to recover alleged bal-
ance due of money advanced by
plaintiff against his salesman's com-
mission, where judgment was ren-
dered against salesman when he
failed to prosecute case after filing
demurrer and answer, salesman was
498
held not entitled to set aside judg-
ment because of failure of petition
to allege agreement that salesman
was to return any excess of sums
advanced over commissions earned,
since such defect was cured by ver-
dict and judgment — Smith v. 'Frank-
lin Printing Co., 187 S.B. 904, 54 Ga.
App. 385.
94. Cal. — Myers v. Metropolitan
Trust Co. of California, 70 P.2d
992, 22 CaLApp.2d 284.
Particular defects or objections
(1) Where defendants did not
show that substantial justice re-
quired a new trial or that any real
injustice was done -by refusal of tri-
al court to receive a special plea
three years after entry of action by
plaintiff, motion to vacate judgment
was properly denied. — 'Lehigh Nav.
Coal Co. v. Keene Coal Co., 197 A.
410, 89 N.H. 274.
(2) In claim and delivery, the fact
that the complaint merely consisted
of a statement of the facts consti-
tuting the cause of action in ordi-
nary and concise language, together
with a demand for relief, and did
not formally set up the cause of ac-
tion in claim and delivery, did not
mislead defendant to his prejudice,
within constitutional provision pro-
viding that no judgment shall be set
aside for errors in pleadings unless
resulting in a miscarriage of justice.
— Faure v. Drollinger, 313 P. 724, 60
CaLApp. 594.
96. U.S.— Ringgold v. Elliot, 20 F.
qas.No.11,844, 2 Cranch C.C. 462.
98. W.Va. — Collins v. Dravo Con-
tracting Co., 171 S.B. 757, 114 W.
Va. 229.
Certification "by clerk
Judgment for amount of liquidated
damages was properly set aside
where it did not appear that copy of
affidavit claim served on defendant
was certified by clerk of court as re-
quired by statute. — Virginia-Lincoln
Furniture Corporation v. Southern
Factories & Stores Corporation, 174
S.B. 848, 162 Va. 767.
97. Minn.— Mclaughlin v. City of
Breckenridge, 142 N.W. 134, 122
Minn. 154.
98. Ariz.— Hawkins v. Leake, 22 P.
2d 833, 4'2 Ariz. 121.
34 C.J. p 293 note 81.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
279
rule, considered supra § 274, that mere error in law
is not ground for vacating a judgment after the
term. Other courts, however, have held that fail-
ure of the declaration or complaint to state a cause
of action is ground for vacating the judgment"
§ 278. Unauthorized, Inadvertent, Im-
provident, or Premature Entry
A Judgment may be set aside where its entry was
unauthorized, inadvertent, improvident, or premature.
A judgment may be set aside where it was en-
tered by the clerk without any authority therefor,
whether his entry thereof was the result of mistake,
inadvertence, or wrongful intent, and whether there
was a total lack of authority to enter any judgment,
or only a lack of authority to enter the particular
judgment;1 and the same is true where the entry
was ordered by the court inadvertently, improvi-
dently, or under a mistake.2 A judgment may be
stricken off where it is entered without the author-
ity of the party in whose favor the judgment is en-
tered and he disavows such entry.3
Premature entry. While there is some authority
to the contrary,4 it has been held that a judgment
may be set aside where it was prematurely en-
tered,6 either because made before the return day,
or the day fixed by law for entering judgments,6
or before the time for answering or otherwise plead-
ing had expired,7 or while there was an answer or
demurrer on file and not disposed of,8 or before
pleadings had been completed,9 or because, for any
other reason, it was made before the case was ripe
for trial or regularity came on for hearing.10
§ 279. Disobedience of Order of Court
or Other Misconduct of Party or
Counsel
Where a Judgment is entered In violation of a court
order or direction it may be set aside, as may also a
judgment obtained through the misconduct of a party's
attorney.
A judgment may be set aside where it is entered
in violation of a court order or direction,11 as where
it is entered in disobedience to an injunction or stay
forbidding the further prosecution of the action, or
in disregard of a pending order for a new trial.12
Misconduct of counsel. A judgment may be set
aside where it was obtained through the fraudulent
or dishonest conduct of a party's attorney, as where
99. Ala. — Chandler v. Price, 15 So.
2d 462, 244 Ala, 6*67.
Ga. — Auld v. Schmelz, -34 S.E.2d 860,
199 Ga, 633— Stowers v. Harris, 22
S.R2d 405, 194 Ga. 636— Burch v.
Dodge County, 20 S.E.2d 428, 193
Ga. 890— Smith v. 'Franklin Print-
ing: Co., 187 S.E. 904, 54 Ga.App.
385— Tolbert v. Tolbert, 154 S.E.
655, 41 Ga.App. 737.
34 C.J. p 293 note €3.
1. Ala. — Du Pree v. Hart, $ So.2d
183, 242 Ala, 690— Ex parte Ander-
son, 4 So.2d 420, 242 Ala, '31.
Ga. — Athens Apartment Corporation
v. Hill, 119 SB. 631, 156 Ga, 437.
N".C. — Powler v. Fowler, 130 S.E. 315,
190 N.C. 536.
Okl. — Abernathy v. Huston, 26 P.2d
939, 16*6 O'.ti. 184.
S.D.-^anssen v. Tusha, 5 N.W.2d
684, 68 S.D. 639.
Tex. — O'Nell v. Norton, Qom.App., 33
S.W.2d 733.
34 C.J. p 294 note 86.
2. Cal.— Carter v. Shinsako, 108 P.
2d 27, 42 Cal.App.2d 9.
Pa. — Moore v. Monarch Accident
Ins. Co., 17 Pa.Dist & Co. 553, 30
Sch.L.R. 272.
34 C.J. p 294 note 87.
Entry of judgment not intended,
and without proof required, justified
setting1 aside judgment — Morsbach
v. Thurston County, 268 P. 135, 148
Wash. 87.
£aclc of hearing1
In suit to enjoin a nuisance wttere
cause was by consent passed for
a hearing in vacation and no hearing
was held, refusal to grant defend-
ant's' motion to vacate inadvertent
and invalid decree was error. — Hes-
ter v. Bishop, 10 So.2d 350, 193 Miss.
449.
Misapprehension of agreement
Judgment entered out of county,
confirming sale under deed of trust,
where entered under misapprehen-
sion of agreement of parties, was
properly vacated on motion. — Brown
v. Mitchell, 176 S.E. 258, 207 N.C.
132.
3. Pa. — Commonwealth v. Kerr, 2*5
Pa.Co. 645.
4. Ark. — Magnolia Grocer Co. v.
Farrar, 115 S.W.2d 1094, 195 Ark.
1069.
5. N.J. — Corpus Juris cited in West
Jersey Trust Co. v. Bigham, 187 A.
•561, 56-3, 14 N.J.Misc. 752.
ILL— Baus v. Coffey, 165 A. 593, 53
R.I. 227.
34 C.J. p 294 note 88.
Eatry before decision
A judgment entered before a deci-
sion is made is premature and will
be set aside on motion. — Hager v.
Arland, 143 N.Y.S. 388, <S1 Misc. 421.
6. Mass. — Everett-Morgan Co. v.
Boyajian Pharmacy, 139 N.B. 170,
244 Mass. 4-60.
34 C.J. p 294 note -88.
7. Mo. — Poindexter v. Marshall,
App., 193 S.W.2d 622.
N.J. — Corpus Juris cited in Westfield
Trust Co. v. Court of Common j
499
Pleas of Morris County, ITS A. 546,
«49, 115 N.J. 86.
34 C.J. p 294 note 89.
8. Idaho.— Vincent v. Black, 166 P.
923, -30 Idaho 636.
34 C.J. p 295 note 90.
9. Ky.— Robbing v. Hopkins, 65 S.
W.2d 54, 251 Ky. 413.
10. I1L— Simon v. Balasic, 4-5 N.E.
2d 98, 316 Ill.App. 442.
Or.— Herrick v. Wallace, 236 P. 471,
114 Or. 520.
Wyo. — Ramsay v. Gottscfce, -69 p.2d
535, 51 Wyo. 516.
34 C.J. p 295 note 91.
Time of service
In suit against four grantees to
cancel deed, where only one grantee
was served in time to make follow-
ing term return term as to such
grantee, verdict against all and judg-
ment against two grantees taken at
next term were properly set aside. —
Hooper v. Weathers, 16-5 S.E. 52, 175
Ga, 133. i
Continuance to ffubseanent term
Entry of judgment before term to
which cause was continued was pre-
mature.— Nordquist v. Armourdale
State Bank, 19 S.W.2d 553, 2'25 Mo.
App. 186.
11. N.T.— Kerr v. JDildine, 15 N.T.
St 616, 14 N.Y.Civ.Proc. 176.
34 O.J. p 295 note 93 [a].
12. N.Y.— Lobdell v. Livingston, 8
N.Y.Super. 661.
34 C.J. p 295 note 93.
279
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
he deceives and misleads his client,18 enters into a
collusive arrangement with the opposing party or
counsel,14 or corruptly sells out his client's inter-
ests.15 A judgment may also be set aside for such
constructive fraud as is implied in the attorney's
attempt to act for both parties,16 or, out of hos-
tility to his client, his secret withdrawal from the
case and leaving it undefended.17 It has even been
held that the unauthorized withdrawal of an attor-
ney without any, circumstances of fraud or dishon-
esty is a sufficient ground for vacating the result-
ing judgment provided the client did not know of
or consent to such withdrawal.18 '
However, where a party is actually represented
by counsel in court, fully prepared to try the cause,
and such counsel refuses to proceed for the sole
reason that he thinks the justice presiding may de-
cide against him, the judgment thus rendered can-
not be vacated as though taken by default.19
§ 280. Mistake, Inadvertence, Surprise,
Excusable Neglect, Casualty, or
Misfortune
a. In general
b. Mistake
c. Surprise
d. Excusable neglect
e. Act or fault of counsel
f. Casualty or misfortune
a. In General
In general the trial court may grant relief against
judgments suffered by reason of mistake. Inadvertence,
surprise, excusable neglect, casualty, or misfortune.
It is the general rule, in many jurisdictions by
virtue of statutes so providing, that the trial court
may, in its discretion, grant relief against judgments
suffered by reason of mistake, inadvertence, sur-
prise, excusable neglect, casualty, or misfortune.20
The most usual application of provisions of this na-
ture is found in the case of judgments entered by
default, as appears infra § 334; and some such stat-
utes apply only where the party, by reason of some
mistake, inadvertence, etc., failed to be present or
represented at the trial.21 Such statutes are enti-
tled to a liberal interpretation so as to advance the
13. N.J. — Barton v. Harker, 55 A.
105, 69 N.J.Law -603.
34 C.J. p 312 note 10.
Attorney lacking1 authority
Where plaintiff's former attorney
was without authority to settle and
discontinue action, court should
have granted motion to vacate Judg-
ment entered pursuant to settlement
and should ' have restored case to
calendar. — Kropiewnicki v. National
Transp. C.o., 29 N.Y.S.2d 257, 262
App.Div. 112.
14. Tenn.— Smith v. Miller, Ch.A.,
42 S.W. 1-82.
Wyo. — Chadron Bank v. Anderson, 48
P. 197, 6 Wyo. 518.
16. Neb. — Anthony v. Karbach, 90
N.W. 243, 64 Neb. 509, 97 Am.S.R.
662.
•34 C.J. p 313 note 12.
la N.C.— Patrick v. Bryan, 1«62 S.B.
207, 202 N.C. 62.
34 C.J. p 313 note 13.
17. N.T>.— Nichells v. Nichells, 64
N.W. 73, 5 N.D. 125, 57 Am.S.R.
540, 33 L.R.A. '515.
54 C.J. p 313 note 14.
18. <S.C. — Ex parte Roundtree, 29 S.
E. 66, 51 B.C. 405.
34 O.J. P 313 note 15.
19. N.Y.— ' Sutter v. New York, 94 N.
Y.S. 515, 106 App.Div. 129.
34 C.J. p 313 note 16.
20. Alaska. — Bubenstein v. Imlach,
9 Alaska 62.
Ariz. — Postal Ben. Ins. Co. v. John-
son, 165 P.2d 173.
CaL — Pease v. City of San Diego,
App., 169 P.2d 973 — In re Rabino-
witz' Estate, 155 P.2d 915, 67 CaL
App.2d 840 — Hewlns v. Walbeck,
141 P.2d 241, 60 Cal.App.2d «03—
Clark v. Clark, 132 P.2d S27, 5-6
Cal.App.2d 324 — In re Moreland's
Estate, 1'2 1 P.2d 867, 49 Cal.App.2d
434 — Burbank v. Continental Life
Ins. Co., 3'S P.2d 451, 2 CaL App. 2 d
664 — Startzman v. Ix>s Banos Cot-
ton Gins, 256 P. 220, 82 Cal.App.
624, followed in Erreca v. Los
Banos Cotton Gins, 274 P. 1041, 96
CaLApp. 783.
Conn. — Kurzaji v. Warner & Bow-
man, 137 A. 19, 10*6 Conn. 90.
Iowa. — Dimick v. Munsinger, 211 N.
W. 404, 202 Iowa 784.
Minn. — Stebbins v. Friend, Crosby &
Co., 22-8 N.W. 150, ITS Minn. 549.
N.J. — Simon v. Qalabrese, 46 A.2d 58,
137 N.J.Eq. 581— Kaffltz v. Claw-
son, 36 A.2d 215, 134 N.J.Eq. 494.
Or.— Hartley v. Rice, 261 P. 689, 123
Or. 237.
S.C. — Savage v. Cannon, 30 S.E.2d 70,
204 S.C. 47-3.
S.D. — Payton v. Rogers, 285 N.W.
873, 66 S.GD. 486.
Tex.— Saunders v. Saunders, Civ.
App., 293 S.W. 899.
W.Va.— Baker v. Gaskins, 36 S.E.2d
893.
Wyo. — Midwest Refining Co. v.
George, 7 P.2d 213, 44 Wyo. 25.
34 C.J. p 296 note 4.
Surprise, accident, mistake, and in-
advertence as grounds for new tri-
al see the CI.J.S. title New Trial i§
78-100, also 46 C.J. j> 214 note 74-p
243 note 37.
500
Relief from act of court only
The statute authorizing persons
against whom Judgment has been
rendered in action wherein no trial
has been had, to petition supreme
court for a trial, was not intended to
furnish relief against voluntary acts
of such person, but only against act
of court in rendering Judgment un-
der the conditions definitely set out
in the statute. — Girard y. Sawyer, 9
A.2d 854, 64 R.I. 48.
term only
It has been held under some stat-
utes that the power to ' set aside a
Judgment for mistake, inadvertence,
or neglect is confined to the term in
which the Judgment is rendered and
does not apply after the term. — State
ex rel. Spillman v. Commercial State
Bank of Omaha, 10 N.W.2d 26S, 143
Neb. 490— State Life Ins. Co. of In-
dianapolis, Ind. v. HefCner, 26$ N.W.
629i, 131 Neb. 700.
Legal reasons
To authorize vacation of Judg-
ment, facts shown by applicant must
constitute mistake, inadvertence,
surprise, or excusable neglect as
matter of law, and erroneous reli-
ance on reasons which would merely
constitute everyday excuse for suf-
fering Judgment to be rendered will
not suffice. — Salazar v. Steelman, 71
P.2d 79, 22 Cal.App.'2d 402.
21. S.C.— Kaminitsky v. Northeast-
ern R. Co., 35 S.C. 53. . '
34 C.J. p 296 note 6.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
280
remedy.22 However, relief should not be granted
where to do so would be* to grant a new trial at the
capricious demand of a party who was either gross-
ly negligent or had simply changed his mind after
•die judgment;23 and relief should be granted only
when it is sought in good faith and when no injus-
tice will result therefrom.24 It has been held that
tinder such statutes a judgment may be set aside for
fraud25 and that in such case it is immaterial wheth-
er the fraud was extrinsic or intrinsic.26
Judgment on verdict, findings, or conclusions. It
lias been held that a statute authorizing the setting
aside of a judgment for "mistake, inadvertence, sur-
prise, or excusable neglect," does not apply to such
judgments as necessarily follow a verdict, the set-
ting aside of which, without at the same time dis-
turbing the verdict, would be of no advantage to
the party, as the verdict would stand even if the
judgment were vacated, and such verdict could not
be set aside after the term;27 and the same rule has
been held to apply to judgments which follow find-
ings of fact or conclusions of law.28
b. Mistake
In general a Judgment taken against a person by
mistake may be opened or vacated provided the mistake
Is one of fact.
Under numerous statutes a judgment taken
against a person by mistake may be opened or va-
cated;29 but. this applies only to mistakes of fact,
not to mistakes of law,80 unless otherwise provid-
ed by the statute.81 If the statute gives the right
to open or vacate a judgment taken against a party
through "his" mistake, no mistake made by any oth-
er person will justify this action;82 but in the ab-
22. Ariz.— Brown v. Beck, 169 P.2d
855.
<Cal. — Elms v. Elms, App., 164 P.2d
93,6-- Marston v. Rood, 144 P.2d
863, 62 Cal.App.2d 435— He wins v.
Walbeck, 141 P.2d 241, 60 Cal.App.
2d 603— Miller v. (Lee, 125 P.2d 627,
52 Cal.App.2d 10 — Kent v. County
•Fire Ins. Co. of Philadelphia, 80
P.2d 1019, 27 Cal.App.2d 340—
Starkweather v. Minarets Mining
Co., 43 P.2d 321, 5 Cal.App.2d 501.
S.C. — Jenkins v. Jones, 38 S.E.2d 255.
34 C.J. p 296 note 7.
23. Cal.— Elms v. Elms, App., 164
P.2d 936.
'Inadvertence" as excusable
As used in such statutes, "inadver-
tence" does not mean mere inadver-
tence in the abstract; and if it is
wholly inexcusable it does not jus-
tify relief. — Elms v. Elms, supra.
24. Cal.— Hewins v. Walbeck, 141
P.2d 241, 60 Cal.App. 603.
26. Or.— Nichols v. Nichols, 143 P.
2d 663, 174 Or. 390.
. 'Fraud as ground for opening- or va-
cating- judgment generally see su-
pra § 269.
Concealment of facts
The concealment from court by
vendor of agricultural land of fact
of its actual forfeiture of vendee's
rights under conditional sales agree-
ment constituted a "fraud" justify-
ing an order setting aside a sum-
mary judgment granting vendor the
proceeds derived from sales of crops
growing upon the land, which pro-
ceeds had been assigned by vendee
as security for payment of portion
of purchase price. — Security-First
Nat Bank of Los Angeles v. Hauer,
117 P.2d 952, 47 Cal.App.2d 302.
26. Cal.— Security-First Nat. Bank
of Los Angeles v. Hauer, supra.
27. N.C. — Brown v. Rhinehart, 16 S.
E. '840, 112 N.C. 772.
34 C.J. p 296 note 8. .
28. Or.— Haas v. Scott 239 P. 202,
11* Or. 580.
29. Cal.— Salazar v. Steelman, 71 P.
2d 79, 22 CaLApp.2d 402— Tale v.
Maryland Casualty Co., -281 P.
1058, 101 CaLApp. 599.
Md. — Harvey v. Slacum, 29 A.2d 276,
181 Md. 206.
Minn. — Fagerstrom v. Cotton, 246 N.
W. 884, 188 Minn. 245.
Neb.^Crete Mills v. Stevens, 235 N.
W. 453, 120 Neb. 794.
N.H. — Lancaster Nat Bank v. White-
field Sav. Bank & Trust Co., 30
A.2d 47-3, 92 N.H. 337.
R.I.— Dlmond v. Marwell, 190 A. 683,
57 ILL 477— Baus v. Coffey, 165 A.
593, 53 ILL 227.
S.C.— Ex parte Clark, 118 S.H. 27,
125 S.C. 34.
W.Va.— Baker v. Oaskins, 36 S.E.2d
(893.
Wis. — Welhouse v. Industrial Com-
mission of Wisconsin, 252 N.W.
717, 214 Wis. 163.
34 C.J. p 294 note 9.
Consent to waive finding's
Motion to vacate judgment and re-
quire filing of findings of fact was
held properly granted, where con-
sent to waive findings was inadver-
tently given, — Baucus v. Riveroll,
272 P. 760, 95 Cal.App. 224.
Mistake must be shown by facts
Original judgment cannot be va-
cated for mistake, where not shown
by facts, and subsequent consent
judgment is not predicated upon
such mistake. — Sheehan v. Connor,
136 A. 355, 82 N.H. 529.
80. CaL — SaJazar v. Steelman, 71 P.
2d 79, 22 Cal.App.24 402.
Ind.— Carty v. Tore, 57 N.E.2d 434.
Mont— Rieckhoff v. Woodhull, 75 P.
2d 66, 10-6 Mont 22.
N.C.— Crissman v. Palmer, 35 S.E.2d
422, 225 N.C. 472.
B.C. — Savage v. Cannon, 30 fi.-E.2d*
70. 204 S.C. 473— Oerptw Juris olt-
501
ed in Lucas v. North .Carolina Mut
Life Ins. Cor, 191 S.E.* 711, 712, 184
S.C. 119.
34 a J. p 297 note 10.
Errors of fact or law generally see
supra 5S 274, 275.
Belief denied
(1) A defendant who did not ap-
pear, demur, answer, or otherwise
plead to petition in belief that his
property could not be reached by
execution, was held not entitled to
have the judgment vacated. — Bell v.
Knoble, 225 P. 897, 99 OkL 110.
(2) Refusal to vacate judgment
for party's failure properly to inter-
pret plain and unambiguous lan-
guage of trial court was proper. —
Howe v. (Farmers' & Merchants'
Bank, 263 P. 673, 129 OkL 140.
(3) 'Failure to object to bill of
costs was held not "mistake" within
statute, authorizing court to set
aside judgment for mistake, hence
court exceeded jurisdiction in vacat-
ing judgment to revise costs, sole ef-
fect -being to extend time for appeal
— Bottum & Torrance Co. v. Consoli-
dated Yarns, 163 A. 544, 53 R.L 50.
31. CaL— Miller v. Lee, 125 P.2d
627, '52 Cal.App.2d 10.
34 C.J. p 298 note 11.
32. N.Y.— Barron v. Feist 101 N.T.
S. 72, 51 Misc. f*».
34 C.J. p 298 note 12.
Mistake of court
(1) Error in the decision of the
issue directly before the court is not
in the legal sense, a "mistake" for
which the judgment may be im-
peached.—Bradford v. Trapp, 153 P.
584, -49 Cal.App. 493.
(2) Statutes authorizing the va-
cating of an order made as result of
mistake, omission, inadvertence, or
defect or through mistake, inadver-
tence, surprise, or excusable neglect
refers to the parties or their attor-
neys and not to mistake, omission,
§ 280
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
sence of such a restriction the mistake may be one
made by plaintiff, whereby he fails to secure all he
is entitled to,33 a mutual mistake or misunderstand-
ing of the parties,34 or a mistake of the court aris-
ing from misinformation or misunderstanding as to
matters of fact,35 or even the mistake of an entire
stranger, which affects the action of the parties, or
the progress of the cause, and the entry of judg-
ment,36 The mistake must have been one which
was excusable under the circumstances; an inex-
cusable mistake is no ground for opening the judg-
ment.37 A motion for relief on the ground that de-
fendant was prevented by a mistake from being
present at the trial and making his defense will not
be granted where the defense set up in the moving
papers is entirely new, and not disclosed by the
original pleadings.38
As to cause of action. A judgment will not gen-
erally he set aside on account of a mistake as to the
identity of the suit or the cause of action, as where
the party erroneously supposes the action is brought
on one claim or obligation, although it is really on
another,3^ unless there are strong circumstances to
show that the mistake was natural and excusable
and productive of decided injustice.40 However, a
mistake as to the capacity in which the party is
sued, as where he supposes the action to be against
him in an official capacity, when he is really sued
as an individual or vice versa, may be ground for
vacating the judgment,41 except where it is inex-
cusable;42 and this is true of a mistake as to plain-
tiff's capacity or title to sue.43 Where by mistake
a party splits his cause of action, the judgment ren-
dered in the action first brought may be vacated as
it bars another action for the balance of the party's
claim.44
As to time for pleading or trial. A party who
makes an honest and excusable mistake as to the
time when he is required to plead or answer, or as
to the time of the trial, whereby he is prevented
from making his defense in due season, may have
judgment opened or set aside;45 but not where the
mistake was the result of his own heedlessness or
lack of due attention and care.46 A party ordinarily
is bound to take notice of the time and place where
the court sits and of the condition of the calen-
dar.47 However, a judgment rendered in the ab-
sence of defendant and of his counsel should be set
aside where such absence was caused by their re-
liance on a statement made officially by the judge
of the court that the case could not be reached, or
would not be tried, before a certain date, or that
nothing further would be done 'without notifying
counsel,48 or where they were similarly misinformed
and misled by the clerk of the court,49 or by the
calendar or official list of cases set for trial,50 or
by counsel for the adversary party ;51 but some cas-
es hold that even such official assurances will not
irregularity, defect, inadvertence,
surprise, or excusable neglect of
court, the correction of which lies in
the discretion of the court. — Ham-
mond v. Barone, 33 N.Y.S.2d 119.
33. U.S. — Newton v. Weaver, C.C.D.
C., 18 F.Cas.No.10,193, 2 Cranch Q
C. 685.
34. S.D.— Payton v. Rogers, 2-85 N.
W. 873, 66 S.D. 486.
34 C.J. p 293 note 14.
35. Ky.— Rudy v. Raraey, 170 S.W.
179, 160 Ky. 842.
34 C.J. p 398 note 15.
36. Idaho. — Thum v. Fyke, 55 P.
364, 6 Idaho 359.
34 C.J. p 298 note 1*6.
37. S.C. — Martin v. Fowler, 2$ S.B
312, 51 S.C. 164.
34 C.J. p 298 note 17.
38. U.S. — Kehler v. New Orleans
• Ins. Co., C.C.MO., 23 'F. 709.
39. Kan.— Vail v. School Dist. No. 1,
122 P. 885, 86 Kan. 808.
34 C. J. p 298 note 19.
40* Minn.— Martin v. Ourley, 73 N.
W. 405, 70 Minn. 489.
34 C.J. p 299 note 20.
41 Iowa. — Capital Sav. Bank &
Trust Co. v. Swan, 69 N.W. 1065,
100 Iowa 718.
42. N.C.— Williamson v. Cocke, 32 S.
B. 963, 124 N.C. 585.
13. N.J.— Western Nat. Bank v.
Paul. Sup., 49 A. 830.
44. N.Y.— Rockefeller v. St Regis
Paper Co., 80 N.Y.S. 975, 39 Misc.
746, appeal dismissed 83 N.Y.S.
138, 85 App.Div. 267.
45. Iowa. — Newlove v. Stern, 196 N.
W. 51, 196 Iowa 1111,
34 C.J. p 299 note 25.
Mistake as to time for appeal
Judgment could not be vacated
after time for appealing had expired
on ground of mistake as to time to
appeal. — Johnson v. Union Sav. Bank
& Trust Co., 266 N.W. 169, 196 Minn.
5S8.
49. OkL— Ross v. Irving, 220 P. 642,
96 Okl. 124.
Pa. — Spadaro v. Chase Const. Co., 17
Pa.Dist. & Co. 65, 23 North Co. 143.
34 C.J. p 299 note 26.
47. Iowa.— Dollister v. Pilkington,
171 N.W. 127, 185 Iowa 815.
34C.J.P299 note 27.
48. Del.— Corpus Juris cited in
Yerkes v. Dangle, Super., 33 A.2d
406, 408.
Ga. — International Agr. Corporation
v. Law, 151 S.B. 557, 40 Ga.App.
756.
Okl. — Sharum v. Dean, 239 P, 666,.
113 Okl. 95.
34 C.J. p 299 note 2*8.
49. Del. — Corpus Juris cited IB.
Yerkes v. Dangle, Super., 33 A.2d
406, 408.
Okl. — Sharum v. Dean, 239 P. 666,.
113 Okl. 95.
34 C.J. p 300 note 29.
Clerk's failure to notify
(1) In absence of statute or rule
of court, it is not duty of court clerk
to notify party or his attorney of
setting of cause for trial, and failure
to do so Is not ground to vacate
judgment rendered in absence or
such party or his attorney. — Me-
Candless v. Childs, 239 P. 254, 113:
Okl. 97.
(2) It is not sufficient grounds on
which to vacate judgment that nei-
ther plaintiffs nor their attorneys of
record were notified by the clerk of
the court at the time that the case
was set for trial. — Ross v. Irving,
220 P. 642, 9-6 Okl. 124.
60. N.Y. — Carpenter v. Tuffs, 2;
How.Pr. 166.
34 C.J. p 300 note -31.
51. Ga. — Rodgers T. (Purse, D S.1L
669, 83 Ga. 115.
N.Y. — Rabinowitz v. Haimowitz, 9L
N.Y.S. 11.
502
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 280
relieve litigants or their counsel from the duty of
exercising the utmost vigilance in watching the
progress of their cases.52
As to process. A person served with a summons
must make sure that he understands what it is, by
reading it or having it read to him, since he cannot
have a judgment set aside on the ground that he
mistook it for a subpoena or for a notice in another
suit,58 or a suit against him in a representative in-
stead of an individual capacity or vice versa,54 un-
less he failed to receive a copy of the writ and was
misled by the officer as to its purport,55 or where
the copy was so illegible that the command of the
writ could not be ascertained and obeyed,56 or
where there was some other sufficient excuse.57
As to retainer of counsel. A defendant ordina-
rily cannot procure the setting aside of a judgment
against him on the ground of his mistaken belief
that he had retained an attorney to protect his in-
terests for he must see to it that the attorney un-
derstands and accepts the retainer, and his. failure
to pay personal attention to the case is inexcusable
negligence.58 However, there are cases of this kind
where the court, in the exercise of its discretion,
has granted relief.59 Where the mistake was as to
the employment of counsel by a person whom de-
fendant justifiably relied on to attend to that mat-
ter as a codefendant, or a business agent, it may
furnish cause for vacating the judgment60
As to validity and regularity of proceedings. A
mistake as to the validity or regularity of the pro-
ceedings is one of law, not of fact, and therefore a
defendant cannot have a judgment set aside because
he erroneously believed that the service of process
on him was illegal61 or that the proceedings were
otherwise irregular or invalid.62
Ignorance as excuse. The illiteracy of a defend-
ant, or ignorance of the English language, of the
course of judicial procedure, or of his rights and
duties, will furnish no excuse for failing to defend
the action, or justify the vacation of the judgment,
where he at least knew that he had been sued, and
neglected to ask information or advice from oth-
ers,63 although it may be otherwise where such ig-
norance prevented him from discovering that legal
proceedings had been taken against him until after
the rendition of the judgment,64 or where plaintiff
has taken a fraudulent or deceitful advantage of his
ignorance,65 or where defendant was not negligent
and asked information or advice from others but
was given no notice of the case being set for trial.66
c. Surprise
Judgments usually may be opened or vacated on
the ground that they were obtained through surprise of
the party Injuriously affected.
Under the statutes in many jurisdictions judg-
ments may be opened or vacated on the ground that
they were obtained through some surprise of the
party injuriously affected,67 provided such surprise
could not have been avoided by the exercise of due
diligence.68
What constitutes "surprise" within rule. The sur-
prise contemplated by the statute is some condition
or situation in which a party to a cause is unex-
pectedly placed to his injury, without any fault or
negligence of his own, which ordinary prudence
could not have guarded against.69 However, this
52. Minn. — Stewart v. Cannon, 68 N.
W. 604, 66 Minn. 64.
34 C.J. .p 300 note 33.
53. Ky.— Dean v. Noel, 70 S.W. 406,
24 Ky.L. 969.
34 C.J. p 300 note '34.
34. N.C.— Williamson v. Cocke, 32 S.
B. 963, 124 N.O. 585.
34 C.J. p 300 note 35.
.'56. Ind.— Kite v. Fisher, 7-6 Ind. 231.
,56. N.D.— Wheeler v. Castor, 92 N.
W. 381, 11 N.D. 347, 61 L.R.A, 746.
.57. Mont.— Delaney v. Cook, 19*5 *F.
8-33, 59 Mont 92.
34 C.J. p 300 note 38.
J38. Tex. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Dempsey v. Gibbon, Civ.App., 100
S.W.2d 430, 432.
:34 C.J. p 300 note 39, p 306 note 72.
..59. Wash. — Kain v. Sylvester, 113
P. 57-3, 62 Wash. 151.
34 C.J. p 300 note 40.
«60. Iowa. — Barto v. Sioux City -Elec-
tric Co., 93 N.W. 268, 119 Iowa
179.
34 C.J. p 300 note 41.
61. Ky. — Sergeant of the Court of
Appeals v. George, 5 Litt. 198.
S.D. — Piano Mfgr. Co. v. Murphy, 92
• fr.W. 1072, 16 S.D. 380, 102 Am.
S.R. 692.
62. Conn. — Jartman v. Pacific Fire
Ins. Co., 37 A. 970, 69 Conn. 355.
34 C.J. P 301 note 43.
63. Fla. — Gainesville v. Johnson, 51
So. -852, 59 'Fla. 459.
34 C.J. p 301 note 44.
64. Mont. — State v. Second Judicial
Dist. Ct., 100 P. 207, 38 Mont. 415.
34 C.J. p 301 note 45.
65. Wash. — Paltro v. Gavenas, 166
P. 1156, 97 Wash. 327.
34 C.J. P 301 note 46.
66. Okl.— McNac v. Kinch, 238 P.
424, 113 Okl. -59— McNac v. Chap-
man, 223 P. 350, 101 Okl. 121.
503
67. M<3. — Harvey v. Slacum, 29 A.2d
276, 181 Md. 206.
34 C.J. p 301 note 47.
Change in law "by subsequent deci-
sion
Where supreme court decision,
rendered after trial court granted
defendants' motion for judgment on
pleadings in action for malicious
prosecution, established that amend-
ed complaint stated cause of action
because It sufficiently alleged that
particular criminal proceeding
against plaintiff for embezzlement
was terminated by final judgment of
dismissal after trial, trial court did
not abuse its discretion in granting
plaintiff's motion to vacate judgment
on ground of "surprise." — Miller v.
Lee, 125 P.2d 627, 52 Cal.App.2d 10.
68. W.Va. — Baker v. Gaskins, 36 &.
E.2d 893.
34 C.J. p -302 note 4-8.
6d. Cal.— Miller v. Lee, 125 P.2d 627,
52 Cal.App.2d 10.
34 C.J. p 302 note 49.
§ 280
JUDGMENTS
49
does not include surprise occasioned by a ruling or
decision of the court,70 the unexpected introduction
or rejection of evidence at the trial,71 or the calling
of the case for trial before defendant thought it
could possibly be reached.72
The unanticipated transfer of the case to another
court may constitute legal surprise,78 and so may
the taking of judgment contrary to an agreement
to postpone the time for answering or for the
trial,74 or a mistake as to the employment of coun-
sel,.75 or a misunderstanding among several counsel
for the defense as to who was charged with the
duty of filing the answer.76 There is no legal "sur-
prise" where the judgment was given by consent of
the party's attorney, and the contention is merely
that he exceeded his authority.77
d. Excusable Neglect
A party may be relieved agafnat a Judgment taken
against him through his excusable neglect.
Implication of active misconduct
"Surprise, in the legal sense of the
term, that would defeat a Judgment,
always involves the idea that there
has been active misconduct on part
of the plaintiff amounting to much
the same thing as fraud." — Turley
v. Taylor, 6 Baxt., Tenn., 376, 390.
Tacts held not to constitute "sur-
prise"
(1) Where mineral deed, 'bearing
notary's certificate that his commis-
sion expired on date before that of
deed, was in grantee's possession ap-
proximately twenty years, parties
suing to remove cloud thereof from
their title to land containing miner-
als conveyed specifically denied in
reply, filed some time before trial,
that deed was validly registered, and
record of notaries' commissions in
governor's office was available at all
times to grantee, he could not claim
surprise or inadvertence entitling
him to vacation of Judgment for
plaintiffs because such record
showed that notary's commission ex-
pired after execution of deed. — Criss-
man v. Palmer, 35 S.E.2d 422, 225 N.
•0. 472.
(2) Judgment in partition proceed-
ings would not be set aside because
plaintiff did not receive as much
land as he expected, where Judge had
indicated by his opinion previously
filed Just how property was to be
partitioned and had authorized a sur-
veyor to prepare a map showing
courses and distances in accordance
with directions contained in opinion,
and immediately preceding drawing
of decree, all of parties with their
respective attorneys had met with
Judge and agreed . to waive findings,
it not appearing that decree as
signed -by Judge departed in any de-
gree from conclusions announced. —
Chavez v. Scully, 232 P. 165, «9 Cal.
App. 633.
70. N.C. — Crissman v. Palmer, 35 S.
B.2d 422, 225 N.C. 472.
•34 C.J. P 302 note '50.
71. Ark. — Robinson v. Davis, 51 S.
W. 66, 66 Ark. 429.
34 C.J. p 302 note 51.
72. Okl.— -Tracy v. Fancher, 159 P.
496, 60 Okl. 109.
34 C.J. p 302 note 52.
73. W.Va,— Bennett v. Jackson, 11
S.B. 734, 34 W.Va, 62.
Wis. — Dunlop v. Schubert, 72 NVW.
350, 97 Wis. 135.
74. Or. — Durham v. Commercial
Nat Bank, 77 P. 902, 4*5 Or. 385.
•34 C.J. p 302 note 54.
75. S.C. — Ex parte Rountree, 29 S.
B. 6-6, 51 S.C. 405.
34 C.J. p 302 note 55.
70. N.X.— Bradley v. McPherson,
Ch., <56 A. 303.
7% N.C. — Halrston v. Qarwood, 81
-S.E. 653, 123 N.<X 345.
78. N.C.— Hooks V. Neighbors, 190
S.E. 236, 211 N.C. 382.
•34 C.J. p 302 note 58.
Act of prudent person a* test
"•Excusable neglect" must be such
neglect as might have been the act
ef a reasonably prudent person un-
der the same circumstances. — Elms
v. Elms, Cal.App., 164 P.2d 936.
Inexcusable nefifUgrence
(1) Inexcusable negligence may
defeat an application to open or va-
cate a Judgment. — National Fertil-
izer Co. v. Hinson, 15 So. 344, 103
Ala. 532.
(2) Statute providing for correc-
tion of errors of fact by motion in
nature of application for writ of er-
ror coram nobis was not intended to
relieve & party f^-n consequences of
504
Under the statutes in many states a party may be
relieved against a judgment taken against him
through his "excusable neglect," which means a
lack of attention to the progress of his cause, or
failure to attend the trial, which is excused or justi-
fied by the peculiar circumstances of the case.78
However, the term "excusable neglect" has no fixed
legal meaning,79 the question being one of fact de-
pendent on the circumstances of each case;80 but
whether the facts found or admitted constitute ex-
cusable neglect is a conclusion of law,*1 unless dif-
ferent inferences as to the ultimate fact might rea-
sonably be drawn by different minds, in which case
it is a question of fact82
Negligence may be excusable where it is caused
by failure to receive notice of the action or the
trial,83 by an accident or chain of accidents which
could not have been avoided or controlled,84 by a
genuine and excusable mistake or miscalculation,85
his own negligence. — Trust Co. of
Chicago v. Public Service Co. of
Northern Illinois, 57 N.E.2d 900, 924
IlLApp. 228 — Blaha v. Turk, 12 N.E.
2d 338, 393 IlLApp. 626.
(3) In action for personal injuries
sustained in automobile collision
wherein defendant was informed by
his insurer that it would look after
case for him and it appeared that
the insurer instructed a firm of at-
torneys to appear, but they later
withdrew their appearance without
notice to defendant and damages
were assessed and judgment taken
against him without notice, it was
held that defendant was not so neg-
ligent as to preclude him from ob-
taining relief by motion In the na-
ture of a writ of error coram nobis,
there being nothing to show that the
case was on the regular trial call
when heard. — Heinsius v. Poehl-
mann, 282 IlLApp. 472.
79* N.C. — Beaufort Lumber Co. v.
Cottingham, 92 S.B. 3, 173 N.C, ***.
34 C.J. p 303 note 59.
80. Ind. — Masten v. Indiana Car &
•Foundry Co., 57 N.E. 14$, 25 Ind.
App. 175.
34 CJ. p 303 note 60.
81. N.C. — Gaylord v. Berry, 86 S.B.
623, 16? N.C. 733— Morris v. Liver-
pool, CU & G. Ins. Co., 42 S.B. 577,
131 N.C. 212.
82. Ind. — Masten v. Indiana Car &
Foundry Co., 57 N.E. 148, 25 Ind.
App. 175.
83. Ind.— Knowlton T. Smith, 7jL N.
EL 895, 1>63 Ind. 294.
34 C.J. p 304 note 63.
84. Or. — Capalija v. Kulish, 201 P.
545, 101 Or. 666.
34 C.J. p 304 note 64.
85. Minn.— Barta .v. Nestaval, 157
N.W. 1076, 133 Minn. 116.
34 CJ. P 304 note 66.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§280
by reliance on assurances given by those on whom
the party had a right to depend, as the adverse party
or counsel retained in the case, or a competent busi-
ness adviser, that it would not be necessary for him
to take an active part in the case or that the suit
would not be prosecuted,86 by relying on another
person to attend to the case for him, when such
other person promised to do so or was chargeable
with that duty,87 by a well-founded belief that the
case would not be reached for trial as quickly as it
was in fact reached,88 or by other circumstances
not involving fault of the moving party.89
Diligence required of suitors. A party seeking
relief against a judgment on the ground of excusa-
ble negligence must clear himself of the imputation
of want of due diligence, and he cannot have relief
if the taking of the judgment appears to have been
due to his own carelessness, slothfulness, or indif-
ference to his own rights.90 Thus, in order to put
himself in a position where he can claim relief
against an adverse judgment, suffered by reason of
excusable neglect, he must, unless he means to try
his own case, retain an attorney practicing in the
particular court,91 and, as appears supra subdivi-
sion b of this section, see that his attorney under-
stands and accepts the retainer. In case his coun-
sel dies, or withdraws or is discharged from the
case,92 or is otherwise unable to handle the case
properly,98 he must promptly engage another, unless
he is excused therefrom by ignorance of the facts
requiring it, in which case he must act promptly on
discovery of the facts.94
It is the duty of a party to inform his counsel
fully of the facts constituting his cause of action
or defense,95 and to be personally active in procur-
ing witnesses, collecting evidence, and otherwise
preparing for trial, the mere employment of counsel
not being sufficient to excuse the party from giving
the case his personal attention".96 A party must
keep himself informed of the progress of the case,
not relying on such news as he can obtain from per-
sons not bound to keep him advised,97 and, particu-
86. Tex. — Jordan v. Brown, Civ.
App., 94 S.W. 398.
34 C.J. p 304 note 66.
87. Iowa. — Acheson v. Inglis, 135 N.
W. 632, 155 Iowa 239.
34 C.J. p 304 note 67.
88. 111.— Rapp v. Goerlitz, 40 N.E.
2d 7*67, 314 Ill.App. 191.
34 C.J.- p 305 note 68.
89. Cal.— Rehfuss v. Kehfuss, 145
P. 1020, 169 Cal. 86.
34 C.J. p 305 note 69.
90. Ark.— Hill v. Teague, 108 S.W.
2d 889, 194 Ark. 552— Merchants'
& Planters' Bank & Trust Co. v.
Ussery, 38 S.W.2d 1087, 183 Ark.
838.
Cal. — Elms v. Elms, App., 164 P.2d
936.
Ga. — Gray v. Georgia -Loan & Trust
Co., 143 S.E. 'SOI, 166 Ga. 445—
Hoke v. Walraven, 194 S.E. 610, 57
Ga.App. 106.
Ely. — Workingmen's Perpetual Bldg.
& Loan Ass'n v. Stephens, 1'84 S.
W.2d 575, 299 Ky. 177— Vanover v.
Ashley, 183 S.W.2d 944, 298 Ky.
' 722—Gorin v. Gorin, 167 S.W.2d
52, 292 Ky. 562. .
Mich.— Corpus Juris cited in First
Nat. Bank of Boyne City v. Pine
Shores Realty Co., 241 N.W. 190,
191, 257 Mich. 289.
Minn. — Johnson v. Union Sav. Bank
& Trust Co., 26-6 N.W. 169, 196
Minn. 588.
Mo. — Corpus Juris quoted in Allen v.
Fewel, 87 S.W.2d 142, 146, '337 Mo.
955.
N.Y.— Winter v. New York Life Ins.
Co., 23 N.T.S.2d 759, 260 App.Div.
676, appeal denied 25 N.Y.S.2d 781,
261 App.Div. 816. Appeal denied.
N.C. — Hyde County Land & Lumber
Co. v. Thoraasville Chair Co., 130
S.E. 12, 190 N.C. 437.
Tex. — Fowler v. Roden, 105 -S.W.2d
187, 129 Tex. 599— Hubbard v. Tal-
lal, Civ.App., 57 <S.W.2d 226, re-
versed on other grounds and ap-
peal dismissed 92 S.W.2d 1022, 127
Tex. 242.
Wash.— Morsbach v. Thurston Coun-
ty, 268 P. 135, 143 Wash. 87.
34 C.J. p 305 note 70.
Irregular Judgment for defendant,
rendered in plaintiffs absence,
should have been vacated and case
restored to docket for- trial on mer-
its, where motion was made with
proper diligence after notice of judg-
ment, and meritorious defense was
shown, negligence before Judgment
only defeating right to vacate Judg-
ment regularly entered. — Snow Hill
Live Stock Co. v. Atkinson, 126 S.R
610, 189 N.C. 248.
8QL N.C.— Gray v. King, 104 S.B.
646, 180 N.C. 667.
34 OJ. p 306 note 71.
92. Ky. — Horton v. Horton, 92 S.W.
2d 378, 263 Ky. 413.
34 C.J. p 306 note 78.
93. Attorney on military service
Prolonged absence of an attorney
who formerly represented a defend-
ant, due to his military service
which continued until after trial at
which a final judgment was rendered
against absent defendants who had
been duly served, and failure of such
defendants to obtain services of an-
other attorney, and their lack of In-
formation that case would be, or
was, tried and Judgment entered, un-
til after its rendition, did not consti-
tute good cause for setting aside
505
such Judgment during the term of
court at which it was rendered. — Ba-
ker v. Gaskins, W.Va., 36 S.E.2d 893.
94. Iowa. — Ennis v. Fourth St. Bldg.
Assoc., 71 N.W. 426, 102 Iowa 520.
3'4 C.J. p 807 note 74.
95. Ky.— (Corpus Juris quoted la
Douthitt v. Guardian Life Ins. Co.
of America, 81 S.W.2d 877, 380, 235
Ky. 328.
34 C.J. p 307 note 75.
96. Ky. — Corpus Juris cited In
Carter v. Miller, 95 S.W.2d 29, 30,
26*4 Ky. 532— Corpus Juris quoted
in Douthitt v. Guardian Life Ins.
Co, of America, 31 S.W.2d 877, 380,
235 Ky. 328.
Tex. — Fowler v. Roden, 105 S.W.2d
187, 129 Tex. 599.
34 C.J. p 307 note 76.
Belay in obtaining- deposition
Where court appointed commis-
sioner to take deposition of plain-
tiff, a deafmute; and plaintiff delayed
almost five months without seeking
to have deposition taken, and made
no objection when cause was submit-
ted for Judgment, refusal to set
aside judgment so as to permit
plaintiff to have proof taken was
held not error. — Smith v. First Nat
Bank, 56 S.W.2d 953, 247 Ky. 171.
97. Ky. — Corpus Jnzis quoted In
Douthitt v. Guardian Idfe Ins. Co.
of America, 31 S.W.2d 377, 380,
235 Ky. 328.
34 C.J. p 307 note 77.
Surety's reliance on principal
In personal injury action by bridge
contractors* employee against con-
tractor and surety, it was surety's
duty to defend its rights from time
service was made on it and not de-
pend on contractor, as regards right
280
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
larly, he must find out when his case is set down
for trial or when it is likely to be reached in its
order on the calendar,9* and must be in attendance
while the court is in session and there is a prospect
of his case being called."
e. Act or Fault of Counsel .
(1) In general
(2) Mistake
(1) In General
A trial court may, In Its discretion, open or vacate
a judgment rendered against a party as a result of acci-
dent, negligence, or surprise of such party's attorney.
In a proper case* a trial court may, in its discre-
tion, open or vacate a judgment rendered against a
party as a result of the accident, mistake, negli-
gence, or surprise, of such party's attorney.1 It is
a general rule that the negligence of an attorney is
imputable to his client, and that the latter cannot
be relieved from a judgment taken against him in
consequence of the neglect, carelessness, forgetful-
ness, or inattention of the former,2 unless such neg-
lect was excusable under the circumstances.3 This
rule applies not only where the negligence of the
attorney consisted in his failure to enter an appear-
ance, or to file a plea, or answer in due season,4
but also where it consisted in a failure to pursue
and follow up the case with due care and watchful-
ness,5 in accordance with the diligence required of
suitors, considered supra subdivision d of this sec-
tion.
There are, however, a considerable number of
cases in which it has been held, sometimes by vir-
tue of statutory provisions, that, where the party
himself has not been guilty of negligence, a judg-
ment against him may be set aside because obtained
through the negligence of his counsel.6 While such
relief has been granted on a showing that the at-
to set judgment aside for allegedly
excusable neglect. — Detroit Fidelity
& Surety Co. v. Foster, 169 S.E.
'871, 170 S.C. 121.
Parent** reliance on oodafendant
child
Fact that defendant's child, who
was codefendant, told defendant he
would see counsel and advise as tt>
proper defense, but failed to do so,
was held insufficient to Justify "va-
cating chancery decree after term. —
Merchants' & Planters' Bank & Trust
Co. v. TJssery, 38 S.W.2d 1087, 183
Ark. 838.
98. Ala. — McCord v. Harrison, 93 So.
428, 207 Ala. 480.
34 C.J. p 307 note 78.
99. Iowa.— Hagar v. Galles, 244 N.
W. 700.
Neb.— Holman v. Stull, 267 N.W.
149, 130 Neb. 876.
34 C.J. p 307 note 79.
Conflict in dates of two trials
Defendant's motion to vacate Judg-
ment entered against him in action
on open book account, on ground
that on date set for trial his at-
tendance was required in another
court, was properly denied, where
defendant made no effort to have the
dates of either proceeding changed,
and it was not shown that he would
have been unsuccessful had he done
so. — Palomar Refining Co. v. Pren-
tice, 136 P.2d 83, 57 Cal.App.2d 954.
1. Mass.— Lovell v. Lovell, 176 N.
E. 210, 276 Mass. 10.
34 C.J. p 307 note 80.
Absence or sickness of counsel see
infra subdivision f of this section.
Misconduct of counsel see supra §
279,
Liability of client for acts of attor-
ney generally see Attorney and
' Client § 6*8. ,
2. Ark. — Corpus Jnri* cited in
Dengler v. Dengler, 120 S.W.2d 340,
345, 196 Ark. 913.
Ga. — Robinson v. Tarbrough, 162 S.
B. 629. 44 Ga.App. 648— Williams
v. Swift & Co., 114 S.B. 646, 29
Oa.App. 239.
Ind. — Sharp v. Grip Nut Co., App.,
62 N.E.2d 774.
Ky.— Gorin v. Gorin, 167 S.W.2d 52,
£92 Ky. 562— Childers v. Potter,
165 S.W.2d 3, 291 Ky. 478— Cooper
v. Douglas, 77 S.W.2d 49, 256 Ky.
787 — Corpus Juris guoted, in Dou-
thitt v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of
America, 31 S.W.2d 377, 379, 235
Ky. 328.
Mass. — Silverstein v. Daniel Russell
Boiler Works, .167 N.E. 676, 268
Mass. 424.
Mont. — Rieckhoff v. Woodhull, 75 P.
2d 56, 106 Mont. 22— First State
Bank of Thompson Falls v. Lar-
sen, 233 P. 960, 72 Mont. 400.
OkL— Grayson v. Stlth, 72 P.2d '820,
181 Okl. 131, 114 A.L.R. 276—
Schneider v. Decker, 291 P. 80,
144 Okl. 213.
Or. — Western Land & Irrigation Co.
v. Humfeld, 247 P. 143, 118 Or. 416.
S.D. — Corpus Juris cited in Smith v.
Wordeman, 240 N.W. 325, 326, 59
S.D. 368.
Tex. — Traders & General Ins. Co. v.
Keith, Civ.App., 107 S.W.2d 710,
error dismissed.
VL— Haskins v. Haskins' Estate, 35
A.2d 662, 113 Vt 466.
34 C.J. p 307 note 81.
Corpus Juris ha* been cited as
containing an analysis of cases rele-
vant to the issue of whether a Judg-
ment may be set aside because of
the negligence of counsel. — Ledwith
v. Storkan, D.C.Neb., 2 F.R.D. 539,
544.
506
3. Ky. — Corpus Juris quoted *in
Douthitt v. Guardian Life Ins. Co.
of America, 31 S.W.2d 377, 379,
235 Ky. 328.
Mont.— First State Bank of Thomp-
son Falls v. Larsen, 233 P. 960,
72 Mont. 400.
S.C.— Martin v. Fowler, 28 S.B. 312,
51 S.C. 164.
S.D.— Corpus Juris cited in Smith v.
Wordeman, 240 N.W. 325, 326, 59
S.D. 36>8.
4. Ky. — Childers v. Potter, 165 S.W.
2d 3, 291 Ky. '478— Cooper v. Doug-
las, 77 S.W.2d 49, 256 Ky. 787.
Tex.— Collins v. National Bank of
Commerce of San Antonio, Civ.
App., 154 S.W.2d 296, error re-
fused.
34 C.J. p 808 note 83.
5. Minn.— Slatoski v. Jendro, 159 N.
W. 752, 134 Minn. 328.
34 C.J. p 309 note 84.
6. Mass.— Borst v. Young, 18 N.B.2d
544, 302 Mass. 124.
S.C.— Detroit Fidelity & Surety Co.
v. Foster, 169 S.B. 871, 170 S.C.
121.
34 C.J. p 309 note 86.
Party having abnormal mental con.
dition
Mass.— Herlihy v. Kane, 38 N.B.23
620, 310 Mass. 457.
Foreign attorney
The code provision relating to the
setting aside of a Judgment entered
against a party through neglect of
an "attorney" of such party to file or
serve any paper within time limited
therefor refers to neglect of an at-
torney having authority and owing
duty to represent the litigant in the
courts of the state, and does not in-
clude acts of a foreign attorney who
is forbidden by law to practice in
the state. — Cleek v. Virginia Gold
49 O.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 280
torney is insolvent and therefore unable to make
good his fault by paying damages,7 according to
some decisions relief should be granted without re-
gard to the financial responsibility of the attorney.8
The negligence of an attorney may be excusable,
when attributable to an honest mistake, an accident,
or any cause which is not incompatible with prop-
er diligence on his part, and in these circumstances
it will be proper to set aside or open the judgment
taken in consequence thereof.9 However, in any
case the client himself must be free from fault, and
negligence of his counsel is not excusable negli-
gence, for which a judgment will be set aside, if the
client wholly neglected the case and took no inter-
est in its issue.10 He must show that he employed
counsel practicing habitually in the particular court,
or who specially agreed to attend to the case.11
When an attorney is employed simply to retain
counsel to. appear at another place, he is a mere
agent, and his negligence is imputable to his cli-
ent;12 and likewise the negligence of any person
who is delegated or employed by the attorney to at-
tend to the case is imputable to the attorney himself,
and will not be excusable in the one unless it would
have been in the other.1^
Misunderstanding. While it has been held that
the mere fact of a misunderstanding between a
party and his attorney is insufficient to deprive the
other party of his judgment,14 it usually has been
held that where a defense is not interposed, and
judgment is consequently suffered, through a genu-
ine and accidental misunderstanding between' the
party and his counsel, the judgment may be set
aside,15 except where either is chargeable with in-
excusable negligence or carelessness, without which
the misunderstanding would not have arisen.16
The rule is similar where the misunderstanding
was between different counsel retained on the same
side, or between the attorneys for the opposing par-
ties, or opposing counsel and a party, 'the courts
holding this sufficient ground for vacating the judg-
ment17 In all such cases, however, in order that
the judgment may be set aside, it is necessary that
the facts shall be fully explained and that the mis-
take shall be shown to be excusable.18
(2) Mistake
A genuine and reasonable mistake of fact made by
a party's attorney may be a ground for opening or va-
cating a Judgment against the party resulting from such
mistake.
A mistake of the party's counsel, as well as a
mistake of his own, may be pleaded as a reason for
opening or vacating a judgment, provided it was
genuine and reasonable, and a mistake of fact rath*
er than of law,19 such as counsel's mistaking the
case in which he was retained or becoming con-
fused between several similar cases,20 or his misun-
derstanding of the real facts of the case or the cir-
cumstances of the transaction out of which the suit
arose,21 or his erroneous impression that the action
Mining & Milling Co., 122 P.2d 232,
63 Idaho 445.
7. Minn.— Hildebrandt v. Robbecke,
20 Minn. 100.
3-4 C.J. P 309 note 87.
S. N.Y.— Sharp v. New York, 31
Barb. 578, 19 How.Pr. 193.
. 3*4 C.J. p 309 note 88.
9. Ark. — Corpus Juris cited in Met-
ropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Duty,
126 S.W.2d 921, 925, 157 Ark. 1118.
34 C.J. p 309 note 89.
la N.C.— Allen v. McPherson, 84
S.E. 766, 168 N.C. 435.
34 C.J. p 310 note 90.
11. N.C.-— Ham v. Person, 91 S.E.
605, 173 N.C. 72.
34 C.J. p 310 note 91.
12. N.C.— Chatham Lumber Co. v.
Parsons Lumber Co., 90 S.E. 241,
172 N.C. 320.
34 C.J. p 310 note 92.
18. Ky. — Kohlman v. Moore, 194 S.
W. 933, 175 Ky. 710.
34 C.J. p 310 note 93.
14. Ga.— J. S. Schofield's Sons Co.
v. Vaughn, 150 S.B. 569, 40 Ga.
App. 568.
34 C.J. p 313 note 19.
15. Ind.— Beatty v. O'Connor, 5 N.E.
880, 106 Ind. 81.
34 C.J. p 313 note 17.
16. Del.— Home Loan Assoc. v.
Foard, 50 A. 537, 19 DeL 165.
3'4 C.J. p 313 note 18.
17. S.C. — Ex parte Charleston Re-
public Truck Co.. 115 S.B. 820,
123 S.C. 13.
W.Va.— -Corpus Juris cited fa Black
v. Foley, 185 S.B. 902, 903, 117 W.
Va. 490.
34 C.J. p 313 note 20.
18. Iowa. — Tschohl v. Machinery
Mut. Ins. Assoc., 101 N.W. 740,
126 Iowa 211.
34 C.J. p 313 note 21.
19. Cal. — Starkweather v. Minarets
Mining Co., 43 P.2d 321, 5 Cal.App.
2d 501 — Callaway v. Wolcott, 266
P. 574, 90 CaLApp. 753.
I0wa.— Rounds v. Butler, 227 N.W.
417, 20« Iowa 1391, followed in 227
N.W. 419— Dimick v. Munsinger,
211 N.W. 404, 202 Iowa 784.
Ky.— Dow v. Pearce, 289 S.W. 245,
217 Ky. 20-2.
34 C.J. p 310 note 9*4.
Mistake generally see supra subdi-
vision b of this section.
507
•Unauthorized compromise
A judgment based on unauthorized
compromise of claim by attorney
may be vacated on seasonable ap-
plication.— Harris v. Diamond Const.
Co., Va.. 36 S.B.2d 573.
Relief denied
(1) The trial court did not abuse
its discretion in refusing to set aside
judgment and stay proceedings
thereon until disposition of garnish-
ment and execution proceedings
against judgment debtor by creditors
of judgment creditor's assignor on
ground of reasonable and justifiable
mistake of law by judgment debtor's
counsel in believing that proper rem-
edy was interpleader action against
execution and gamishee creditors.—-
Kent v. County Fire Ins. Co. of Phil-
adelphia, 80 P.2d 1019, 27 Cal.App.
2d 340.
(2) Other instances see 34 C.J. p
310 note 94 [b].
20. Mont.— Mantle v. Largey, 43 P.
633, 17 Mont. 479.
34 C.J. p 311 note 95.
21. Cal. — Underwood v. Underwood,
25 P. 1065, 87 Cal. 523.
N.T.— McCredy v. Woodcock, 58 N.
280
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
had been discontinued22 or settled.25
Time for appearance or pleading or trial A
judgment may be vacated or opened when the fail-
ure to defend was due to a mistake or miscalcula-
tion of the party's attorney as to the time allowed
him for appearing, pleading, or taking some other
step in the action,2* as to -the term of court at
which the case would be tried,2^ or the day of the
term or hour of the day,26 or as to its being on the
calendar for trial,2? Or as to the time when it would
probably be reached for trial in its order,2* provid-
ed, always, there was sufficient excuse for the mis-
take.29
Ignorance or mistake of law. It is a general rule
that a party cannot be relieved from a judgment
taken against him in consequence of the ignorance
or mistake of his counsel with respect to the law,
whether it concerns the rights or duties of the cli-
ent, the legal effect of the facts in the case, or the
rules of procedure.30 However, there are cases
where relief has been granted largely, if not en-
tirely, on the ground of ignorance or mistake of
Erroneous advice. It has generally been held not
to be good ground for setting aside a judgment that
it was suffered by the party in consequence of re-
ceiving erroneous advice from his attorney as to
the necessity of making a defense or as to tfee va-
lidity of his defense ;32 but some courts have grant*
ed relief on this ground.**
f. Casualty or Misfortune
A party may have an adverse Judgment opened or
vacated on the ground that he was prevented by un-
avoidable casualty or misfortune from properly pros*
ecu ting or defending the action.
Under the statutes of many states, a party may
have a judgment adverse to him opened or vacated
on the ground that he was prevented by unavoidable
casualty or misfortune from properly prosecuting*
or defending the action in which it was rendered.34
The "unavoidable casualty or misfortune," for
which a judgment may be opened or vacated is a»
accident or mishap arising from causes beyond the
party's control, and against which he could not have
guarded in the exercise of due foresight and dili-
gence.35
Absence of party. The mere fact that a party
was absent from the trial is not cause for setting
the judgment aside, where his absence is not ex-
cused or shown to have been unavoidable.88 How-
T.S. 656, 41 App.Div. 526, appeal
dismissed 55 N.E. 1097, 160 N.T.
676.
22. Ky.— Rosen v. Galizio, 212 S.W.
104, 184 Ky. 367.
34 C.J. p 311 note 97.
23. R.I.— Fox v. Artesian Weil &
Supply Co., 83 A. 115, 34 R.I. 260.
34 C.J. p 311 note 98.
24. Iowa.— Banks v. C. C. Taft Co.,
1T4 H.W. 576, 188 Iowa 559.
34 O.J. p 311 note 99.
25. S.D.— Western Surety Co. v.
Boettcher, 156 N.W. 68, 36 S.D.
583.
34 C.J. p 311 note 1.
26. N.C.— Smith v. Holmes, 61 S.B.
631, 148 N.C. 210.
34 C.J. p 311 note 2.
.27. Mont— Collier v. Fitzpatrick, 57
P. 181, 22 Mont. 553.
34 C.J. p 311 note 3.
28. N.C.— Grandy v. Carolina Metal
Products Co., 95 S.B. 914, 175 N.C..
511.
34 C.J. p 311 note 4.
29. Ark. — Progressive Life Ins. Co.
v. Riley, 88 S.W,2d 66, 191 Ark.
850.
Pa. — Silent Auto Corporation of
Northern New Jersey v. Folk, 97
Pa.Super. 688.
$4 C.J. p 311 note 5.
.80. OaL — Bonestell v. Western Au-
tomotive Finance Corporation, 232
P. 734, 69 CaLApp. 719.
OkL— Schneider v. Decker, 291 P.
80, 144 Okl. 213.
34C.J. p 312 note 6.
Errors of law generally see supra S
2T4.
31. Ariz. — Central Bank v. Willcox-
Pima Overland Co., 188 P. 133, 21
Ariz. 314.
34 C.J. p 312 note 7.
32. Cal. — Adams v. Alexander, App.,
162 P.2d 647.
34 QJ. p 312 note 3.
33. Okl.— Hatfleld v. Lewis, 236 P.
611, 110 Okl. 98.
34 C.J. p 31-2 note 9.
34. U.S.— in re Cox, D.C.Ky., 33 F.
Supp. 796,
Ark/— Kersh Lake Drainage Dist. v.
Johnson, 157 S.W.2d 39, 203 Ark.
315, certiorari denied Johnson .v.
Kersh Lake Drainage Dist, 62 S.
Ct. 1044, 316 U.S. 673, 86 L.Ed
1-748— Merchants' & Planters' Bank
& Trust Co. v. Ussery, 38 S.W.2d
1087, 183 Ark. 838.
Okl.— Boaz v. Martin, 225 P. 518,
101 Okl. 243.
35. Ark.— Wilder v. Harris, 168 S.W.
2d 804, 205 Ark. 341.
Okl.— Walker v. Gulf Pipe Line Co.,
226 P. 10-46, 102 OkL 7.
34 C.J. p 314 note 23.
Pacts constituting' unavoidable cas-
ualty
(1) Where trial court granted a
continuance to defendant, Judgment
rendered against him, through over-
508
sight of judge and without setting
aside continuance and without no-
tifying defendant or his counsel of
such action was, as to defendant on
unavoidable casualty, and was prop-
erly vacated. — K. & S. Sales Co. v»
Lee, 261 S.W. 903, 164 Ark. 449.
(2) Other facts see 34 C.J. p 314
mote 23 [a].
Xioss of papers
(1) The accidental misplacement
and loss of papers essential to in-
form the party of his rights or en-
able him to prepare his defense is-
a "casualty or misfortune."— North-
ern Dispensary Trustees v. Merriam,
59 How.Pr., N.Y., 226—34 C.J. p 314
note 23 [c].
(2) However, fact that church rec-
ords had been . negligently lost, and
that church's former name had been
forgotten, was held not "unavoidable
casualty or misfortune" such as to
warrant setting aside order in pro-
bate proceedings decreeing that de-
vise to church having different name
from applicant had failed. — In re-
Jones' Estate, 27 P.2d 237, 138 Kan.
581, rehearing denied First Colored
Baptist Church v. Caldwell, 30 P.
2d 144, 139 Kan. 45.
36, Iowa.— Hagar v. Galles, 24*4 N>
W. 700.
Pa. — Wanner v. Thompson, Com.Pl.,
27 Del.Co. 455. .
Tex.— Kurtz v. Carr, Civ.App., 261
S.W. *79.
34 C.J. p 315 note 26.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
280
ever, it is a good excuse if he shows that he was
compelled to absent himself from the trial by a con-
straint which he was bound to obey, or a cause
which he could not control,37 provided reasonable
diligence and foresight was exercised to anticipate
and avoid, or to overcome, the obstacles.88 Sim-
ilarly the absence of defendant from the state or be-
yond the seas at the time of the trial will be cause
for setting aside the judgment if he could not have
been present, and his absence operated to his preju-
dice,39 provided he is not chargeable with negli-
gence or lack of proper attention to his case.40
Absence of counsel. The mere absence of one's
attorney at the time of the trial is no cause for
setting aside a judgment41 unless it is shown that,
had he been present, he could have gone to trial,
or that he could have presented good grounds for
a continuance42 and that injustice and injury have
resulted to the client in consequence thereof43 or
that the attorney's absence was excusable or una-
voidable under the circumstances.44 It has been
considered a sufficient excuse that the attorney was
engaged at the time in trying a case in another
court,45 or was in attendance on another court as
a witness46 unless such attendance was voluntary
and without subpoena,47 or, being out of town, was
unexpectedly detained48 or was delayed by obstruc-
tion to travel,49 or even that the mere multiplicity
and pressure of his professional engagements pre-
vented him from giving attention to the case.50
Some cases, however, take a stricter view of the
attorney's obligations, and hold that if he has cases
coming on in different courts he must obtain leave
of absence from one court or the other, and arrange
that neither case shall be proceeded with in his ab-
sence,51 that if he is likely to be detained elsewhere
he must apply for a continuance or extension of
time,52 that if he is detained on his way to the
place of trial he should telegraph to the judges and
ask to have the case held,53 and that it is no excuse
for his voluntary absence that he believed the case
would not be reached before his return.54 Many
cases have refused to accept the excuse that the
attorney was detained elsewhere by important busi-
ness, even when it was of a public character, such
as his attendance on the legislature, of which he
was a member.55
Illness of party or relative. If a party is pre-
vented by sickness from preparing his case or at-
tending the trial, and the circumstances are such
that his personal attention and presence are neces-
sary to the due protection of his rights, a judgment
against him may be set aside on the ground of "cas-
ualty or misfortune," or of "excusable neglect."5*
It is otherwise, however, where the party's inter-
ests were, or could have been, adequately protected
by attorney or agent without the personal presence
or attention of the party,57 or where the character
and duration of the illness were not such as in fact
to obstruct the due prosecution or defense of the
action,58 or where the exercise of due diligence
would have prevented or obviated the alleged con-
37. Or.— Capalija v. Kullsh, 201 P.
545, 101 Or. 666.
34 C.JT. p 315 note 27.
38. Tex.— Miller v. First State Bank
& Trust Co. of Santa Anna Co.,
Civ.App., 184 S.W. 614.
34 C.J. p 315 note 28.
39. Mo. — McElvain v. Maloney, App.,
186 S.W. 745.
34 C.J. p 315 note 24.
40. Ark. — Trumbull v., Harris, 170 S.
W. 222, 11'4 Ark. 493*.
34 C.J. p 315 note 25.
41. Cal, — Startzman v. Los Banos
Cotton Gins, 256 P. 220, 82 Cal.
.App. 624, followed in Brreca v. Los
Banos Cotton Gins, 274 P. 1041, 96
CaLApp. ?83.
Okl. — Brockman v. Penn Mut Life
Ins. Co., 64 P.2d 1208, 179 Okl. 98.
S.C.— Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Sight-
ler, 127 S.B. 13, 131 S.C. 241.
34 C.J. p 315 note 29.
42. Mo. — Hurcfc V. St Louis Exposi-
tion & Music Hall Assoc., 28 Mo.
App. 629.
43. Cal.— Bixby v. Hotchkis, App.,
164 P.2d 808.
34 CjJ. p 315 note 31.
44. Wash.— O'Toole v. Phoenix Ins.
Co., 82 P. 175, 39 Wash. 688.
34 C.J. p 315 note 32.
Excuses held sufficient
(1) Judgment against party 'whose
sole counsel is absent by express
leave is properly vacated, when fact
is properly called to court's attention
by timely motion in writing.— Donal-
son v. Bank of Jakin, 127 S.E. 229,
33 Ga.App. '428— McNeill v. Morgan,
68 S.E. 10-20, 8 Ga.App. 323.
(2) Other excuses see 34 C.J. P
315 note 32 [a].
45. Wis.— Koch v. Wisconsin Pea
Canners Co., 131 N.W. 404, 146
Wis. 267.
34 C.J. p 316 note 33.
46. N.Y.— Hopkins v. Meyer, 78 N.T.
S. 459, 76 App.Div. 365.
N.C.— Wynne v. Prairie. -86 N.C. 73.
47. Cal.— Gray v. Sabin, 25 P. 422,
87 Cal. 211.
48. Iowa.— Ellis v. Butter, 43 N.W.
' 459, 78 Iowa 632.
34 C.J. p 316 note 36.
49. N.Y.— Hirschfeld v. Monahan,
141 N.Y.S. 520.
34 C.J. p 316 note 37.
509
50. Iowa.— McMillan v. Osterson*
183 N.W. 487, 191 Iowa 983.
34 C.J. p 316 note 38.
51. Ga. — Western & A. R. Co. T»
Pitts, 4 S.E. 921, 79 Ga. 532.
52. Wyo. — Luman v. Hill, 252 P.
1019, 36 Wyo. 48, rehearing denied
256 P. 339, 36 Wyo. 427.
34 C.J. p 316 note 40.
53L Minn. — Caughey v. Northern
Pac. El. Co., 53 N.W. 545, 51 Minn.
324.
54. Cal.— Gray v. Sabin, 25 P. 422,
87 Cal. 211.
34 C.J. p 316 note 42.
55. Ga.— Bentley v. Finch, 18 S.EL
155, 86 Ga. 809.
34 CJ. p 316 note 43.
56. Ky. — Baker v. Owensboro Sav»
Bank & Trust Co.'s Receiver Co.»
130 S.W. 969, 140 Ky. 121.
34 C.J. p 316 note 44.
Insanity of party see supra § 276*
67. Tex. — Woytek v. King, Civ.App.»
218 S.W. 1081.
3-4 C.J. p 317 note 45.
58. lowal— Reiher v. Webb, 35 N.W*
631, 73 Iowa 559.
34 C.J. p 317 note 46.
280
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
sequence of such sickness.59 The illness of a mem-
ber of a party's family, or of any other relative,
while it may be ground for a continuance, is gen-
erally held to be no cause for setting aside the judg-
ment;60 but in many cases judgments have been
opened or vacated largely, if not altogether, on the
ground of serious sickness of a close relative actu-
ally preventing attendance of the party.61
Ittness or death of counsel or relative. The ill-
ness of a party's counsel, so severe as to prevent
him from appearing and trying the case, is good
ground for vacating the judgment, provided such
party did not know of it in time to retain other
counsel or was prevented in some other way from
doing so.62 The same rule applies in case of the
illness or death of a member of the attorney's fam-
ily, or a near relative, withdrawing his attention
from professional business, and leaving the client
without legal aid and without the opportunity to
retain other counsel.63 The death of one's attorney
has been held to be an "unavoidable casualty" andx
as such, ground for vacating a judgment.64
§ 281. Other Grounds
The sufficiency of various other grounds for opening
or vacating judgment has been adjudicated, including
the consent of the parties and the disability, disqualifi-
cation, or misconduct of the Judge.
In addition to the matters considered supra §§
266-280, the courts have determined the sufficiency
of other matters as ground for opening or vacating
a judgment.65 The generality of the court's judg-
ment or decree,66 the lack of authority of the at-
torneys who instituted the suit,67 and the fact that (
the judgment was obtained by duress68 have been
held not ground for opening or vacating a judg-
ment.
Agreement or consent. Where a court has ju-
risdiction to set aside a judgment for specified rea-
sons, it may do so on consent of parties without
specifying any grounds;69 and where the parties
enter into an otherwise valid agreement for the
vacation of a judgment such agreement is binding
and enforceable.70 However, it is error to vacate
a judgment on an agreement not supported by a
consideration.71 Where, after the court has ordered
commissioners to partition land, defendants file ex-
ceptions and present a valid written agreement for
partition made by the parties, the court will vacate
its order, and direct a partition according to the
agreement, the partition by the parties being para-
mount to one made by the officers of the court72
.59. Iowa. — Iowa Savings & Loan
Assoc. v. Kent, 109 N.W. 773. 134
Iowa 444.
54 C.J. p 317 note 47.
60. Kan. — Gooden v. Lewis, 167 P.
1133, 101 Kan. 482.
•34 C.J. p 317 note 48.
Death of party see supra § 276.
«L Tex.— Clewis v. Snell, Civ.App.,
59 S.W. 910.
34 C.J. p 317 note 49.
•62. Neb.— Scott v. Wright, 70 N.W.
396, 50 Neb. 649.
£4 C.J. p 317 note 52.
Mental incapacity of attorney was
fteld to authorize vacation of Judg-
ment at subsequent term. — Baird &
Warner, Inc., v. Roble, 250 Ill.App.
255.
.Ability to notify court of condition
Motion to reinstate case for ill-
ness of counsel, not alleging that
•counsel was unable to notify court
of condition at time of dismissal,
held fatally defective. — Brannen v.
Riggs, 140 S.E. 515, 37 Ga.App. 356,
-affirmed T46 S.E. 169, 167 Ga. 493.
^Belief denied
(1) Where defendant had several
.attorneys, one of whom was ill. —
'Mays & Mays v. Flattery. Tex.Civ.
App., 252 S.W. 860.
(2) Other circumstances see 34 CL
4*; p 317 note 52 [a],
•63. Iowa. — Norman v. Iowa Cent. B.
Co., 128 N.W. 349, 149 Iowa 246.
r34 C.J. p 318 note 53.
64. Ark. — Columbia County v. Eng-
land, 236 S.W. 625, 151 Ark. 465.
Ky.— Snelling v. Lewis, 78 S.W. 1124,
25 Ky.L. 1856.
65. Extension of time for appeal
Vacating Judgment after expira-
tion of appeal period for purpose of
giving defendant opportunity to ap-
peal was held not vacation due to
"clerical" or "Judicial error" and
was improper. — Connecticut 'Mort-
gage & Title Guaranty Co. v. Di
Francesco. 151 A. 491, 112 Conn. 673.
Juror's false answers on voir dire
In statutory proceeding to vacate
Judgment because of misstatements
of Juror on voir dire examination, re-
lief would not be granted on mere
showing that Juror did not 'answer
truthfully and fully, but only on
showing of prejudice, and in action
against railroad for Injuries, where
juror's voir dire examination indicat-
ed that he was more favorable to
railroad, juror's misstatements to
the effect that no member of his
family had been involved in personal
injuries case, whereas he had been
involved in accidents resulting in
personal injuries, and his son had
been sued for personal injuries, were
held not to require vacation of Judg-
ment against railroad in statutory
proceeding, especially where judg-
ment had been affirmed by appellate
court, and leave to appeal to su-
preme court had been denied. — Maher
510
v. New York, C. & St. L. R. Co., *
N.E.2d 512, 290 Ill.App. 267.
66. U.S.— Swift & Co. v. U. S., App.
D.C.. -48 S.Ct. 311, 276 U.S. 311, 72
L.Ed. 5-87.
67. Mo. — Cooper v. Armour & Co.,
15 S.W.2d 9-46, 222 Mo.App. 1176.
68. Or. — Chaney v. Chaney, 156 P.
2d 559.
69. Ohio. — National Home for Dis-
abled Volunteer Soldiers v. Over-
holser, 60 N.E. 628, 64 Ohio St. 517.
34 C.J. p 295 note 94.
70. Ark. — Franzen v. Juhl, 32 S.W.
2d 627, 182 Ark. 663.
71. Mo.— State v. Broaddus, 111 S.
W. 508, 212 Mo. 685.
N.Y.— Schlesser v. Pearl, 185 N.Y.S.
116.
Oral agreement
A naked oral agreement for the
setting aside of a Judgment entered
into after the rendition of the judg-
ment Is insufficient to reauire that
the Judgment be set aside. — Smith v.
Cone, 156 S.E. 612, 171 Ga. 697.
Inability to comply with agreement
Equity will not enforce agreement
to vacate Judgment, where judgment
debtors seeking enforcement have
not complied therewith, although
given ample opportunity. — Chambers
v. Investors' Syndicate, 10 P.2d 389,
154 Okl. 142.
72. Tex. — High v. Tarver, Civ.App.,
25 S.W. 1098.
49 O.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
283
The effect of the consent of the parties on the
power of the court to vacate a judgment after the
expiration of the term in which the judgment was
rendered is considered supra § 230.
Disability, disqualification, or misconduct of
judge. Insanity of the judge or referee who tried
the case is not necessarily ground for vacating the
judgment,73 but where the mental capacity to ren-
der a proper judgment was lacking the judgment
should be set aside.74 It has been held that dis-
qualification of the judge rendering a judgment is
ground for vacating it,75 particularly where such
disqualification renders the judgment void.76 How-
ever, it has also been held that disqualification of
the judge renders the judgment merely voidable so
that the remedy is by appeal and not by motion to
vacate.77
Misconduct of judgs has been held ground for
vacating the judgment.78
§ 282. Defenses to Relief
The sufficiency of particular matters as defenses to
a motion to open or vacate a Judgment has been con-
sidered.
The sufficiency of particular matters as defenses
to a motion to open or vacate a judgment has been?
considered with respect to such matters as the lapse
of the term, supra § 230, the expiration of the
statutory limitation of time or laches, infra § 288,.
and other matters.70
§ 283. Other Remedies Available
Subject to some exceptions, a motion to vacate wtIF
not be entertained when the proper remedy is by some
other proceeding, such as by appeal.
Except where such remedies are cumulative under
the governing statutes,80 a motion to vacate or set
aside a judgment will not be entertained when the
proper remedy of the party aggrieved is by appeal,
error, or certiorari,81 but it has been held that the
availability of the remedy of appeal will not bar
the remedy of vacation of the judgment where the-
judgment is absolutely void.82 The same rule has
been held to apply where the proper remedy was-
73. N.Y. — Schoenberg v. Ulman, 99
N.T.S. 650, 51 Misc. 83, 18 N.T.
Ann.Cas. 353, reversed on other
grounds 101 N.Y.S. 798, 52 Misc.
104.
34 C.J. p 295 note 1.
74. N.Y.— R. A. Schoenberg & Co. v.
City Trust, Safe Deposit & Surety
Co., 101 N.Y.S. 798, 52 Misc. 104.
75. Ga.— State Mut. Life Ins. Co.
v. Walton, 83 S.B. 656, 142 Ga.
765.
34 C.J. p 295 note 97.
tTndgs beld not disqualified
Trial Judge, who had been law
partner of attorney for litigant, was
not disqualified, so as to warrant
setting aside judgment, where evi-
dence showed that partnership had
been dissolved as to new business
before litigation in question was in-
trusted to counsel. — Walker County
Lumber Co. v. Sweet, Tex.Civ.App.,
63 S.W.2d 1061, error dismissed.
76. Ga. — James v. Douglasville
Banking Co., 106 S.B. 595, 26 Ga.
App. 509.
34 C.J. p 295 note 9*8.
77. Ky. — Duff v. Hodges' Guardian,
14 S.W.2d 1058, 228 Ky. 29'4.
78. U.S. — Newton v. Joslin, C.C.
Colo., 30 F. 891.
34 C.J. p 295 note 99.
79. Inequitable conduct, or unclean
hands, on the part of the applicant
is sufficient reason for denying re-
lief.— Bly stone v. Bly stone, 51 Pa.
373—34 C.J. p 363 note 47.
Has Judicata
Judgment overruling contention
that fact findings were procured by
fraud practiced by successful party
which was affirmed on appeal was
held res judicata of issue whether
judgment was procured by extrinsic
fraud in proceeding on petition to
vacate Judgment on that ground. —
Hazen v. Dudley, 61 P.2d 898, 144
Kan. 467.
80, Cal.— Miller v. Lee, 125 P.2d 627,
52 Cal.App.2d 10.
Idaho. — Baldwin v. Anderson, 8 P.
2d 461, 51 Idaho 614.
34 C.J. p 362 note 22.
81. U.S. — Woods Bros. Const Co.
v. Yankton County, S. D., C.C.A.S.
D., 54 F.2d 304, 81 A.L.R. 300.
Ark. — Magnolia Grocer Co. v. Far-
rar, 115 S.W.2d 1094, 105 Ark. 1069
— Dent v. Farmers' & Merchants'
Bank, 258 S.W. 322, 162 Ark. 325.
Cal. — Kupfer v. Brawner, 122 P.2d
268, 19 CaL2d 562.
111.— Wilson v. Fisher, 17 N.E.2d
216, 369 111. 538.
Kan. — McLeod v. Hartxnan, 253 P.
109I4, 123 Kan. 110.
Ky. — Hargis Commercial Bank &
Trust Co.'s Liquidating Agent v.
Bversole. 7-4 S.W.2d 193, 255 Ky.
377 — Center's Guardian v. Center,
51 S.W.2d 460, 24'4 Ky. 602— Smith
v. Patterson, 2<80 S.W. 930, 213 Ky.
142— Combs v. Allen, 271 S.W.
598, 208 Ky. 519.
Minn. — Johnson v. Union Sav. Bank
& Trust Co., 266 N.W. 169, 196
Minn. 588— Matchan v. Phoenix
Land Inv. Co., 205 N.W. 637, 165
Minn. 479.
Mo. — Weatherford v. Spiritual Chris-
tian Union Church, 163 S.W.2d 916.
N.Y.— Sternkopf v. Killers, 285 N.Y.
S. 471, 247 App.Div. 738— In re
Evans' Estate,. 1 N.Y.S.2d 99, 165
511
Misc. 752, affirmed In re Evans*
Will, 17 N.Y.S.2* 1006, 258 App.
Div. 1037, affirmed 29 N.E.2d 392,.
284 N.Y. 576.
N.C.— Snow Hill Live Stock Co. V-
Atkinson, 126 S.B. 610, 189 N.O.
248— In re Ricks' Will, 126 S.B.
422, 189 N.C. 1-87.
Okl. — Welden v. Home Owners &
Loan Corporation, 141 P.2d 1010,.
193 Okl. 167.
Pa,— Griffith v. Hamer, 173 A, 874,.
113 Pa.Super. 239.
3*4 C.J. p 361 note 21.
Joint or several Judgment
A solidary Judgment against co-
makers of note who were personally
cited would not give rise to an ac-
tion of nullity on ground that judg-
ment was erroneous in that it should'
have been a Joint -one against co-
makers each only for virile share-
instead of against each for the-
whole, since error, if any, could have
been corrected on appeal. — Wunder-
lich v. Palmisano, La. App., 177 So..
843.
Finding of Jtudcdictional faotg
When all parties affected by judg-
ment are actually or constructively
before the court with an opportunity
to assert their contentions and to-
appeal from an adverse ruling, the
finding of Jurisdictions! facts by the
court may be reviewed only by an*
appeal or other timely and availa-
ble direct attack. — In re Robinson's-
Estate, 121 P.2d 73*4, 19 Cal.2d 534—
In re Estrem's Estate, 107 P.2d 36,.
16 Cal.2d 563.
82. La.— Collins v. McCook, 136 So*
204, 17 La.App. 415.
S.D.— In re Shafer*s Estate, 209 N.W..
§•284
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
by a motion for a new trial in the court rendering
the judgment,83 by motion to correct the judg-
ment,84 by mandamus requiring the court to take
some action which would give the party what he
seeks,85 by an independent action for damages,86
by a bill in equity for injunction or other relief,87
or by other proceedings.88
§ 284. Waiver and Estoppel
The right to vacation of a judgment may be lost
by waiver or estoppel.
While it has been held that estoppel may not be
invoked in support of an invalid proceeding or a
void judgment,89 in general a person who would
ordinarily be entitled to apply for the vacation of
a judgment may waive the right to such relief, or
be estopped by his conduct to ask for it90 The
right to have a judgment opened on the ground of
fraud may be waived by the party injured, or he
may be estopped by his subsequent conduct to ap-
ply for such relief.91
Conduct constituting waiver or estoppel. Waiver
or estoppel generally results where the party in-
jured acquiesces in the rendition of the judgment,93
or in the effect of the judgment as rendered,93 or
acknowledges its binding force,94 or receives and
retains benefits accruing to him under it,95 or volun-
tarily pays the amount of it,96 or suffers his prop-
erty to be sold on execution without objection,97 or
where the party against whom an interlocutory
355, adhered to on rehearing- In re
Schafer's Estate, 216 N.W. 948,
52 S.D. 182.
Tex. — Dempsey v. Gibson, Oiv.App.,
105 S.W.2d 423, error dismissed.
Va. — Mann v. Osborne, 149 S.E. 537,
153 Va, 190.
83. Md. — Brawner v. Hooper, 135 A.
420, 151 Md. 579.
Ohio.— Horwitz v. Franklin, 172 N.E.
303, 35 Ohio App. 95.
34 C.J. p 362 note 23.
Remedies held cumulative
Cal.— Miller v. Lee, 125 P.2d 627,
52 Cal.App.2d 10.
In Georgia
(1) The rule stated in the text has
been followed. — Mize v. Americus
Mfg. & Imp. Co., 34 S.E. 5*83, 109 Ga.
359 — Clark's Cove Guano Co. v. Steed,
17 S.E. 967, 92 Ga. 440.
(2) However, it has also been held
to be permissible to prosecute both
a motion for a new trial and a mo-
tion to set judgment aside at the
same time. — Kalil v, Spivey, 27 S.E.
2d 475, 70 Ga.App. 8'4.
(3) Certainly defendant was not
precluded from prosecuting- his mo-
tion to set aside judgment because
defendant had previously filed a skel-
eton motion for new trial which was
dismissed by trial court on ground
that defendant had abandoned it —
Kalil v. Spivey, supra.
After time for motion for new trial
Under statute so providing, where
the time for filing a motion for new
trial has elapsed, and the grounds
for a new trial could not have been
discovered within such time by the
application of reasonable diligence,
the remedy of a motion to set aside
the judgment may be available. —
Valley Iron Works v. Independent
Bakery, 17 P.2d 898, 171 Wash. 349.
84. S.D.— McDonald v. Egan, 178 N.
W. 296, 43 S.D. 147.
34 C.J. p 362 note 24.
85. Md.— Chappell v. Real-Estate
Pooling Co., 46 A. 982, 91 Md. 754.
96. N.C. — Bradburn v. Roberts, 61
S.E. 617, T48 N.C. 214.
34 C.J. p 362 note 26.
87. 111. — Pedersen v. Logan Square
State & Savings Bank, 36 N.E.$d
732, 377 IlL 408.
34 CJT. p 362 note 27.
88. N.T. — Railroad Federal Savings
& Loan Ass'n v. Rosemont Holding
Corporation, 290 N.Y.S. 609, 248
App.Div. 909 — Railroad Co-op.
Building & Loan Ass'n v. Cocks,
290 N.Y.S. 611, 248 App.Div. 905.
Pa. — Anderson v. Polaszewski, 52 Pa.
Dist. & Co. 659, 27 Erie Co. 19.
89. N.J. — Gimbel Bros. v. Corcoran,
192 A. 715, 15 N.J.Misc. 538.
90. Ky.— Kirk v. Springton Coal
Co., 124 S.W.2d 760, 276 Ky. 501.
N.Y.— Whitney v, Chesbro, 280 N.Y.S.
ISB, 244 App.Div. 594.
Ba. — Rapp v. Schlichtman, Com.Pl.,
54 Montg.Co. 13.
34 C.J. p 362 note 28.
Waiver of mere irregularities see
supra § 268.
91. Fla.— Stehli v. Thompson, 10
So.2d 123, 151 Fla. 566.
34 C.J. p 362 note 29.
92. N.C. — Crissman v. Palmer, 85
S.E.2d 422, 225 N.C. 472.
3'4 C.J. p 362 note 30.
Facts held not to snow waiver or
estoppel
(1) Filing answer did not waive
defendant's right to be heard on mo-
tion to set aside void judgment ren-
dered before service of summons. —
Kastner v. Tobias, 282 P. 585, 129
Kan. 321.
(2) Where defendants, when judg-
ments were first called to their at-
tention, asserted without any equivo-
cation that they had never been
served with any papers in the case,
and they at no time receded from
that position, defendants were not
precluded by "estoppel" from mov-
'ng to vacate the judgments, al-
-hough they may have known for
ibout eight years or more that the
512
judgments had been entered. — Baird
v. Ellison, 293 N.W. 794, 70 N.D. 261.
93. Pa.— In* re Mervine's Estate, IS
Pa,Dist. & Co. 528 — Kuhns v. Chaf-
fee, Com.Pl., 24 Erie Co, 6.
34 C.J. p 362 note 31.
Consent to continuance of lien
Where court had jurisdiction of
subject matter but not person of de-
fendant before judgment, defendant
waived such objection on motion to
strike out judgment by consenting to
let lien of judgment stand pending
trial on merits. — C. I. T. Corporation
v. Powell, 170 A. 740, 166 Md. 208.
94. Ohio.— Mannix T. Elder. 1 Ohio
Cir.Ct 59— Roberts v. Price, 2 Ohio
Dec., Reprint, 681, 4 WestL.Month.
581.
Compromise of liability and giving
of security therefor
Ark.— Brierton v. Guaranty Build-
ing & Loan Ass'n, 120 S.W.2d 570,
196 Ark. 1177.
Move to guasn garnishment pro-
ceedings
Refusal to vacate judgment irreg-
ularly obtained was not error, where
defendant allowed judgment to stand
and moved to quash garnishment
proceedings thereon.— Williams v.
State, 3 P.2d 443, 151 Okl. 223.
95. Fla. — Stehli v. Thompson, 10
So.2d 123, 151 Fla. "566.
Miss. — Corpus Juris cited in Cratln
v. Cratin, 17-4 So. 255, 256, 178
Miss. SSI.'
N.Y.— Whitney v. Chesbro, 280 K.Y.a
13'8, 244 App.Div. 594.
W.Va. — National Bank of Summers
of Hinton v. Barton, 155 S.E. 90?,
109 W.Va. 6*48.
34 C.J. p 362 note 33.
96. Ohio. — Lynch v. Board of Edu-
cation of City School Dist. of City
of Lakewood, 156 NJE2. 188, 116
Ohio St. 361.
,34 C.J. p 362 note 34.
i97. Kan. — Coffey v. Carter, 27 P.
' 128, 47 Kan. 22.
134 C.J. p 363 note 35.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
286
judgment is taken submits to and ratifies it by par-
ticipating in the further proceedings in the action,98
or generally by proceeding in the cause without ob-
jection tp errors or defects which may be waived,
and which could have been cured on timely objec-
tion." Where two entries of a judgment for the
same debt are made by mistake, and the debtor con-
trives to procure an entry of satisfaction of the
first, he is estopped to have the second vacated for
irregularity.1
Pursuit of other remedies. It has generally been
held that a party waives his right to apply for the
vacation of a judgment by pursuing other remedies,2
as by taking an appeal from it,3 or by instituting an
independent action for substantially the same re-
lief,4 although there is also some authority to the
contrary.5 Where a ground for the vacation of a
judgment is asserted as a ground for a new trial
but is withdrawn before the motion for new trial
is ruled on, it has been held that there is no es-
toppel to assert such ground in a petition to vacate
the judgment6
§ 285. Assignment of Judgment or
Rights Thereunder
Subject to statutory qualifications, the assignee or
purchaser of a judgment or rights thereunder cannot set
up his rights to prevent its being opened or vacated.
Except as the rule may be affected by statute,
the assignee of a judgment, or a subsequent pur-
chaser of rights affected thereby, cannot set up his
rights to prevent its being opened or vacated, as
he stands in no better position, than his assignor,
or vendor.7
The effect of the assignment of judgments on the
rights and liabilities of the parties generally is con-
sidered infra §§ 521-528.
2. PBOOEEDINGS AND RELIEF
§ 286. Nature and Form of Remedy
a. In general
b. Motion or petition in cause
c. Action
d. Statutory petition or complaint and
summons
e. Waiver of objections to form of rem-
edy
f. Indirect or implied vacation
98. N.Y.— Koehler v. Brady, 81 N.T.
S. 695, 82 App.Div. 279, appeal dis-
missed 73 KB. 1135, 181 N.T. 503.
34 C.J. p 363 note 36.
Moving1 for final judgment
Plaintiff's motion to set aside
Judgment, dismissing complaint on
merits for want of Jurisdiction to
enter it because of failure to Join
issue by answer or demurrer to
complaint and on order to show
cause, was properly denied, where
plaintiff moved for final Judgment,
and so acted as to consent to deci-
sion on agreed statement of facts.—
Luebke v. Cky of Watertown, 284
N.W. 519, 230 Wis. 512.
99. N.C.— Ollis v. Proffitt, 94 SJB3.
401, 174 N.C. 675.
34 C.J. p 363 note 37.
Judge's disqualification
Judgment will not be set aside on
attack by party with knowledge of
Judge's disqualification before trial
on ground of such disqualification,
when record shows consent, and it is
not necessary for reeord to use
word "consent" or its equivalent-
Gulf States Steel Co. v, Christison,
154 So. 565, 228 Ala, 622.
49C.J.S.-33 513
a. In General
Unless clearly so Intended, a statutory mode of pro-
ceeding for the vacation of a Judgment Is not the exclu-
sive remedy for the purpose.
In order to open or vacate a judgment there must
be a direct proceeding for that purpose, not a mere
incident to the progress of the cause or to the exe-
cution of the judgment, and one which is appropri-
ate to the relief sought;8 and a judgment cannot be
Capacity in which party appears
If a person submits himself to the
Jurisdiction of court and litigates
throughout in any particular ca-
pacity, he will not be permitted after
an adverse result to impeach the de-
cree as to himself on the ground
that his capacity was in fact differ-
ent.— Hubbard v. Massie, 4 So.2d
494, 192 Miss. 95.
Facts held not to constitute waiver
Fact that defendants, discovering
trial Judge's disqualification, prompt-
ly but erroneously moved in supreme
court rather than trial court to va-
cate Judgment, did not show waiver.
— Cadenasso v. Bank of Italy, 6 P.
2d 944, 214 Cal. 562.
1. N.Y.— Weed v. Pendleton, 1 Abb.
Pr. 51.
2. Bole held inapplicable
(1) Defects in service of state-
ment of claim or entry of Judgment
were not waived, where rule to open
Judgment was entered at time when
rule to strike ofC Judgment was
pending. — Skrynski v. Zeroka, 98 Pa,
Super. 469.
(2) Fact that by virtue of appeal
Judgment had become final as
against one of the parties would not
preclude another party from mov-
ing to set aside Judgment in a prop-
er case. — Nuckolls v. Bank of Cali-
fornia Nat. Ass'n, 74 P.2d 264. 10
Cal.2d 266, 114 A.L.R. 708.
3. La. — Sladovich v. Eureka Home-
stead Society, 108 So. 4T8, 161 La.
270.
34 CU. p 363 note 38.
4. Pa.— Mellerio v. Freeman, -60 A.
735, 211 Pa, 202.
3* C.J. p 363 note 39.
5. Ark.— -Clark v. Bowen, 56 S.W.Sd
1032, 186 Ark. 931.
Fending1 certiorari proceeding1
Since one may pursue more than
one remedy simultaneously, It is no
ground for setting Judgment aside
that there is pending in another
court a proceeding, such as certio-
rari, by defendant assigning error on
Judgment. — Whitley v. Jackson, 129
S.E. 662, 34 CteuApp. 286.
6. OkL— Fellows v. Owens, 62 P.2d
1215, 178 OkL 224.
7. S.D.— Weber v. Tschetter, '46 N.
W. 201, 1 S.D. 205, 215.
34 C.J. p 363 notes 41, 42.
8. Mass.— Davis v. National Life
286
JUDGMENTS
49 O.J.S.
nullified by agreement of the partfes.9 In a num-
ber of jurisdictions provision is made by statute for
the opening and vacating of judgments, but, tin--
less the statutory procedure is exclusive,10 a stat-
utory mode of proceeding for this purpose is not the
exclusive remedy, but is cumulative to the com-
mon-law right to proceed in proper time and form
for the setting aside of the judgment.11 Where
the statutory procedure is followed, strict compli-
ance with the statute may be necessary.12
Proceedings to open a judgment have been said
to be equitable in nature13 and in substance;14 but
at least one court has declined to entertain applica-
tions to vacate judgments except in simple cases, the
remedy in chancery being deemed a better mode of
investigation.15
It has been said that the power to vacate judg-
ments may be exercised by the court on suggestion
by a party or interested person,16 that a judgment
procured by fraud on the court may be vacated or
set aside at any time on the suggestion of any in-
terested party,17 that, during the term at which the
judgment was rendered, the judgment may be va-
cated on mere suggestion1* of a party in interest,19
Ins. Co., 73 N.B. 658, 187 Mass.
468.
34 C.J. p 318 note 63.
9. .Pa.— Ferriday v. Reinbold, 8 Pa.
Dist. 637.
10. Ariz.— -Paul v. Paul, 238 P. 399,
28 Ariz. 59'8.
Cal. — Eisenberg v. Superior Court in
and for City and County of San
Francisco, 226 P. 617, 193 Cal. 575
— McMahan v. Baringer, 122 P.2d
63, 49 Cal.App.2d 431.
Idaho.— Occidental Life Ins. Co. v.
Niendorf, 44 P.2d 1099, 55 Idaho
521.
La. — Cohn Flour & Feed Co. v.
Mitchell, 136 So. 782, 18 La.App.
534.
N.D.— Bellingham State Bank of Bel-
lingham v. McCormick, 215 N.W.
152, 55 N.D. 700.
Wash. — Pacific Telephone & Tele-
graph Co. v. Henneford, 92 P.2d
21'4, 199 Wash, 462, certiorari de-
nied Henneford v. Pacific Tele-
phone & Telegraph Co., 59 S.Ct.
483, 306 U.S. 637, 83 L.EdL 1038
— Betz v. Tower Sav. Bank, 55
P.2d 338, 185 Wash. 314.
34 C.J. p $19 note 64—47 C.J. p 437
note 36.
Specific and general statutes
General statute giving court con-
trol of its own records, with right
to amend or expunge them, must
be read in light of other provisions
of statute, and does not alone con-
trol method of vacating Judgments,
since vacation of Judgment is spe-
cifically treated by statute.— Work-
man v. District Court, Delaware
County, 269 N.W. 27, 222 Iowa 364.
11. Cal. — In re Sankey's Estate, 249
P. 517, 199 Cal. 391.
Ga. — Donalson v. Bank of Jakin,
127 S.E. 229, 33 Ga.App. 428.
Iowa. — Cedar Rapids Finance &
Thrift Co. v. Bo wen, 233 N.W. 495,
211 Iowa 1207.
34 C.J. p 319 note 64.
During1 or after term
(1) In some Jurisdictions the pro-
cedure for vacating Judgments dur-
ing term is not controlled by stat-
ute.— Mosher v. Mutual Home & Sav-
ings Ass'n, Ohio App., 41 N.E.2d 87L
(2) In such a Jurisdiction, a stat-
ute relating to the vacation of Judg-
ments after term provides a cumula-
tive and not an exclusive remedy. —
Vida v. Parsley, Ohio App., '47 N.K2d
663.
(3) Courts may vacate a Judgment
during term without following all
provisions of statutes applicable to
vacation of Judgments after term. —
National Guaranty & Finance Co. v.
Lindimore, Ohio App., 31 N.E.2d 155.
Judgment without jurisdiction
(1) Judgment void for want of Ju-
risdiction may be vacated at any
time on motion of party affected
thereby without compliance with
statutes otherwise applying to vacat-
ing Judgments. — Taylor v. Focks
Drilling & Manufacturing Corpora-
tion, 62 P.2d 903, 14'4 Kan. 626.
(2) The statute relating to pro-
cedure to vacate or modify Judgment
does not apply to proceedings to va-
cate a Judgment entered without Ju-
risdiction.—Martin Bros. Box Co. v.
Fritz, 292 N.W. 143, 228 Iowa 482.
Statute limiting time for proceed-
ings
Statute providing that Judgments
in any court of record shall not be
set aside for irregularity, on mo-
tion, unless such motion be made
within three years after term at
which Judgment was rendered, does
not make remedy there available ex-
clusive or condition precedent to re-
view proceedings; where more than
one method of procedure is available
for correction of irregularities pat-
ent on record and errors of fact call-
ing for introduction of evidence de-
hors record, and for prevention of
miscarriage of Justice, litigant
should be permitted to exercise his
choice of methods. — Crabtree v:
;Etna Life Ins. Co., Ill S.W.2d 103,
341 Mo. 1173.
13. Ariz.— Paul v. Paul, 238 P. 399,
2>8 Ariz. 598.
S.C. — Anderson v. Toledo Scale Co.,
6 S.E.2d 465, 192 S.C. 300.
"The proceedings prescribed by
such statutory provisions [for vaca-
tion of Judgments] were unknown to
the common law, and, being novel in
514
character, strict compliance with
such provisions is essential." — Ter-
ry v. Claypool, 65 N.E.2d 883, 888. 77
Ohio App. 77.
Judgment that is not void on it*
face can be attacked only under some
statutory provision and in manner
therein provided. — Latimer v. Van-
derslice,, 62 P.2d 1197, 178 Okl. 501 —
Walker v. Gulf Pipe Line Co., 226
P. 1046, 102 Okl. 7.
la Pa.— U. S. Savings & Trust Co.
of Conemaugh to Use of Hindes v.
Helsel, 188 A. 167, 325 Pa. 1— Hair
v. Bernheimer, 185 A. 857, 322 Pa.
412— Richey v. Gibboney, 34 A.2d
913, 154 Pa.Super. 1— Page v. Wil-
son, 28 A.2d 706, 150 Ba.Super.
.427— Liberal Credit Clothing Co. v.
Tropp, -4 A.2d 565, 135 Pa.Super.
53 — Kaufman v. Feldman, 180 A.
101, 118 PsuSuper. 435— Hamborsky
v. Magyar Presbyterian Church, 7S
Pa. Super. 519 — Packet v. Packet,
Com.Pl., '47 Lack.Jur. 149 — Sheaf-
fer v. Sheaffer, Com.Pl., 45 Lanc.L.
Rev. 613 — Stetsko v. Lea, Com.Pl.,
26 West.Co.L.J. 97 — Freedman for
the Use of Rothbard V. Freedman-
Smotkin, Com.Pl., 52 York Leg.Rec.
17.
Bole as substitute for bill in equity
A rule to show cause why Judg-
ment should not be opened and de-
fendant let into a defense is a sub-
stitute for a bill in eauity.— -Albert
M. Greenfield & Co. v. Roberts, 5 A.
2d 642, 135 Pa. Super. 328.
14. pa.— Richey v. Gibboney, 34 A.
2d 913, 154 Pa.Super. 1.
15. Del. — Industrial Trust Co. v.
Miller, 170 A. 923, 5 W.W.Harr.
554.
16. N.C.— Fowler v. Fowler, 130 S.B.
315, 190 N.C. 536.
Persons by whom proceedings may
be brought see infra S 293.
17. Ariz.— Kendall v. Silver King of
Arizona Mining Co., 226 P. 540,
26 Ariz. 456.
18. Mo. — Savings Trust Co. of St.
Louis v. Skain, 131 S.W.2d 566,
345 Mo. 46.
19. Okl.— Wall v. Snider, 219 P. 671,
93 Okl. 97.
34 C.J. p 318 note 61.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
286
and that the exercise of the broad power to set
aside a judgment during the term is not hampered
by the ordinary rules of procedure.20 The power
of the court to act on its own motion is considered
infra § 287.
The employment, at common law, of a writ of er-
ror coram nobis as a remedy to obtain the vacation
of a judgment, and its supercession, in most juris-
dictions, by a summary motion to vacate the judg-
ment, are discussed infra §§ 311-313. The former
and the present status of the writ of audita querela
as a remedy for this purpose are treated in Audita
Querela. Equitable relief against judgments is
considered infra §§ 341-400, and the vacation of de-
crees in equity, in Equity §§ 622-667. Procedure
and relief in connection with the opening or va-
cating of default judgments are considered infra §
337.
Proceeding for new trial distinguished. A pro-
ceeding for opening a judgment is not a proceeding
for a new trial,21 and is not governed by the same
rules of court.22 A statute authorizing a proceed-
ing to obtain a new trial on the ground of newly
discovered evidence and a statute providing for oth-
er relief, such as vacation, after judgment, ordina-
rily afford an alternative remedy.23
Plea or answer. Where a plaintiff relies on a <
judgment which is void or voidable, relief against
it may be had by plea or answer.24 Fraud in ob-
taining a judgment is available as an equitable de-
fense.25
b. Motion or Petition in Cause
Subject to some exceptions, judgments may be opened
or vacated. In most Jurisdictions, on simple motion or
petition In the cause.
In most jurisdictions, judgments may be opened
or vacated on simple motion, or petition in the
cause,26 with exceptions, considered infra subdivi-
sions c and d of this section, obtaining in some ju-
jW. Ky. — South Mountain Coal Co.
v. Rowland, 265 S.W. 320, 204 Ky.
820.
21. N.J. — Wardell v. Warshofsky,
159 A. 69'4, 10 N.J.Misc. 519— Kohn
v. Lazarus, 155 A. 260, 9 N.J.Misc.
644.
34 C.J. p 319 note 64 [c].
In Iowa
A statutory proceeding to vacate
judgment and grant new trial is at
law, not in equity, and must be dis-
tinguished from application for new
trial in original suit. — Shaw v. Ad-
dison, Iowa, 18 N.W.2d 796.
22. N.J.— Wardell v. Warshofsky,
159 A. 694, 10 N.J.Misc. 519— Kohn
v. Lazarus, 155 A. 260, 9 N.J.Misc.
644.
23. Ohio.— Townley v. A. C. Miller
Co., 45 N.E,2d 786, 70 Ohio App.
219.
24. Kan. — Simpson v. Kimberlin, 12
Kan. 579.
34 C.J. p 324 note 8.
25. Ind.— Hogg v. Link, 90 Ind. 346.
26. U.S. — American Ins. Co. v. Lu-
cas, D.C.MO., 38 F.Supp. 926, ap-
peals dismissed 62 S.Ct. 107, 314
U.S. 575, 86 L.Ed. '466, affirmed
American Ins. Co. v. Scheufler, 129
F.2d 143, certiorari denied 63 S.Ct.
257, 317 U.S. 687, '87 L.Ed. 551, re-
hearing denied 63 S.Ct. '433, 317
U.S. T12, 87 L.Bd. 567— U. S. v.
Certain Land in Falls Tp., Bucks
County, D.C., Pa., 3'8 F.2d 109.
Cal.— Gibbons v. Clapp, 277 P. 490,
207 Cal. 221 — King v. Superior
Court In and for San Diego Coun-
ty, 56 P.2d 268, 12 Cal. App. 2 d 501
— Fisch & Co. v. Superior Court in
and for Los Angeles County, 43
P.2£ 855, 6 Cal.App.2d 21— Applica-
tion of Behymer, 19 P.2d 829, 130
CaLApp. 200— JTellen v. O'Brien, 264
P. 1115, 89 CaLApp. 505— Fletcher
v. Superior Court of Sacramento
County, 250 P. 195, 79 CaLApp.
468 — In re Dahnke's Estate and
Guardianship, 222 P. 381, 64 Cal.
App. 555.
Fla.— McGee v. McGee, 22 So.2d 788
— In re Begg*s Estate, 12 So.2d
115, 152 Fla. 277.
Ga. — Grogan v. Deraney, 143 S.E.
912, 38 Ga.App. 287.
Idaho. — Occidental Life Ins. Co. v.
Niendorf, 44 P.2d 1099, 55 Idaho
521— Savage v. Stokes,. 28 P.2d
900, 54 Idaho 109— Baldwin v. An-
derson, 8 P.2d 461, 51 Idaho 614
— Jensen v. Gooch, 211 P. 551, 36
Idaho '457— Miller v. Prout, 197
P. 1023, 33 Idaho 709.
111. — City of Des Plaines v. Boeck-
enhauer, 50 N.E.2d 4'83, 383 111.
475— Industrial Nat. Bank of Chi-
cago v. Altenberg, 64 N.E.2d 219,
327 111. App. 337 — Anderson v. An-
derson, 11 N.E.2d 216, 292 Ill.App.
421.
Kan. — Taylor v. Focks Drilling &
Manufacturing Corporation, 62 P.
2d 903, 144 Kan. 626.
Mass. — Powdrel v. Du Bois, 174 N.
E. 220, 274 Mass. 106.
Minn. — In re (Jordan's Estate, 271 N.
W. 104, 199 Minn. 53.
Mo.— Spichard v. McNabb, App., 180
S.W.2d 611— National City Bank
of St Louis v. Pattiz, App., 26 S.
W.2d 8J5— Moutier v. Sherman,
App., 25 S.W.2d 490.
Neb.— Netusil v. Novak, 235 N.W.
335, 120 Neb. 751— Foster v. Fos-
ter, 196 N.W. 702, 111 Neb. 414.
N.J. — Collyer v. McDonald, 0.0 A.2d
284, 123 N-J.Law 5'47.
N.D.— Taylor v. Oulie, 212 N.W. 931,
55 N.D. 253.
OkL— Babb v. National Life Ass'n,
515
86 P.2d 771, 184 Okl. 273 — Ritchie
v. Keeney. 73 P.2d 397, 181 Okl. 207
— • Winters v. Birch, 36 P.2d 907,
169 Okl. 237— Maryland Casualty
Co. v. Apple, 267 P. 239, 130 Okl.
270— Central Nat Oil Co. v. Con-
tinental Supply Co., 2'49 P. 347,
119 Okl. 190— Grubb v. Fay State
Bank of Fay, 249 P. 341, 119 Okl.
199— Wall v. Snider, 219 P. 671,
93 Okl. 97 — Mason v. Slonecker,
219 P. 357, 92 Okl. 227.
S.C. — Ex parte Hart, 2 S.E.2d 52,
190 S.C. 473, certiorari denied
Bowen v. Hart, 60 S.Ct. 82, 308 U.
S. 569, 84 L.Ed. 477— Baker r.
Brewer, 123 S.E. 771, 129 S.C. 74.
Wash. — Nevers v. Cochrane, 229 P.
738, 131 Wash. 225.
Wis.— Ellis v. Gordon, 231 N.W. 585,
202 Wis. 134— In re Meek's Es-
tate, 227 N.W. 270, 199 Wis. 602.
Wyo. — Ramsay v. Gottsche, 69 P.2d
535, 51 Wyo. 516.
34 C.J. p 319 note 65.
Aid in equity; equity oases
(1) Ordinarily, equitable interposi-
tion cannot be invoked in aid of mo-
tion to vacate judgment, and a peti-
tion in equity is necessary therefor.
•Lojagmire v. Diagraph-Bradley
Stencil Mach. Corporation, 173 S.W.
2d 641, 237 Mo.App. 553.
(2) "This remedy by motion Is
available in equity cases as well as
those at law." — Freeman v. Wood, 88
N.W. 721, 11 N.D. 0, 7.
(3) A proceeding to set aside a
final decree by a court of chancery,
regular on its face and alleged to
have been obtained by fraud, deceit,
artifice or trickery, or other unlaw-
ful means, .should be instituted by
bill of complaint rather than a mo-
tion to set aside final decree and
open up the case. — Sauer v. Sauer,
286
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.&
risdictions when certain grounds are relied on.
Thus judgments may, it has been held, be opened or
vacated on motion based on any of the following
grounds: Irregularity;27 invalidity or voidness;**
19 So.Sd 247, 154 Fla. 827— State
ex rel. Lorenz v. Lorenz, 6 So.2d 620,
149 Fla. 625.
(4) Equitable relief against Judg-
ments see infra §§ 341-400.
Motion for resettlement of Judg-
ment to provide for striking out of
certain provision may be deemed mo-
tion to vacate Judgment. — Gray v.
Gray, 278 N.Y.S. 9, 243 App.Div. 793
—Harlem Sav. Bank v. Salvador
Realty Corporation, 24 N.Y.S.2d 55,
175 Misc. 504.
Motion or petition in. nature of bill
of review
Tex. — Galbraith v. Bishop, Com.App.,
287 S.W. 1087 — Jackson v. Wallace,
Civ.App., 239 S.W. 698, affirmed
Com.App., 252 S.W. 745.
Motion to reverse
W.Va.— Williams v. Stratton, 174 S.
B. 417, 114 W.Va. '837.
Proceeding1 for new trial
(1)A motion to set aside and va-
cate order overruling defendant's
plea of privilege and the Judgment
on the merits against defendant was
in .effect a motion for a new trial on
both features of the case. — Joske
Bros. Co. v. Bddingston, Tex.Civ.
App., 123 S.W.2d 405.
(2) Petition for relief against
Judgment irregularly or improperly
obtained, although defect does not
appear on record, is not technically
statutory petition to set aside judg;-
ment, but is, In effect, motion for
new trial. — J. S. Schofteld's Sons Co.
v. Vaughn, 150 S.B. '569, 40 Go. App.
568 — Grogan v. Deraney, 143 S.E. 912,
38 Ga.App. 287.
(3) Application for new trial may
be regarded as motion to set aside
Judgment as. void. — Lamereaux v.
Dixie Motor Co., 91 S.W.2d 993, 263
Ky. 67.
(4) Action intended as action for
new trial would be treated as motion
to set aside, as void, Judgment in
original action which was entered
without consent or agreement of ap-
pellant and without statutory notice
after expiration of statutory term of
court. — Green v, Blankenship, 91 S.
W.2d 99*, 26-3 Ky. 29.
Remedy by motion at same term
Ala. — Ex parte Fidelity & Deposit
Co. of Maryland, 134 So. 861, 2
Ala. 98.
Conn. — Application of Title & Guar-
anty Co. of Bridgeport to Change
Name to Bankers' Security Trust
Co., 145 A. 151, 109 Conn. 45.
Ohio.— In re Kleinhen's Estate, App.,
63 N.B.2d 315.
.Statutory rules were held not In-
tended as statement of common-law
rule. — Grogan v. Deraney, 143 .S.E.
3-8 Ga.App. 287.
Where grouaid is not based on
fraud, motion is the proper remedy.
— Abernethy Land & -Finance Co. v.
First Security Trust Co., 196 S.B.
340, 213 N.C. 369.
In Pennsylvania
(1) Remedy of parties aggrieved
by Judgment regular on its face is
by motion or -petition to open Judg-
ment and not to strike it off.— Harr
v. Bernheimer, 185 A. 857, 322 Pa.
412 — Wilson v. Vincent, 150 A. 642,
•300 Pa. 321 — Lincoln Bank of Erie
v. Gem City Wholesale Grocery Co.,
133 A. 554, 286 Pa. -421— Hotel Red-
ington v. Guffey, 25 A.2d 773, 148
Pa.Super. 502 — Lyman Felheim Co.
v. Walker, 193 A. 69, 128 Pa.Super. 1
—Broadway Nat Bank of Scottdale
v. Diskin, 161 A. 470, 105 Pa.Super.
279 — vogt Farm Meat Products Co.
v. Sherman, 5 Pa.Dist & Co. 609—
Bell v. -Fitzgerald, Com.Pl., 31 Del.
Co. 3 — Jenkins v. Keystone Mut.
Casualty Co., Com.PL, 45 Lack.Jur.
88— Keyser v. Cardon, Com.Pl., 5$
Montg.Co. 366 — 'Faust v. Gluck, Com.
PL, 6 Sch.Reg. 1— Walters v. Dooley,
Com.Pl., 5 Sch.Reg. 174.
(2) A motion or petition to strike
off a Judgment may be regarded as
a petition to open, if it is such in
substance. — Curran v. James Regu-
lator Co., 36 A.2d 187, 154 Pa.Super.
2-61-^Scalatis & Qalogeros v. Cargas,
10 Pa.Dist & Co. 704, 40 .Lanc.Xj.Rev.
523 — Vogt Farm Meat Products Co.
v. Sherman, 5 Pa.Dist & Co. 609.
(3) Where a Judgment is irregular
on its face, the remedy is to strike
it off the record and not a motion
to open. — Sayers v. Redbank Tel. Co.,
25 PaJMst 655— Keyser v. Cardon,
Com.PL, 55 Montg.Co. '366— Jenkins
V. Keystone Mut Casualty Co., Com.
PI., 45 Lack.Jur. 88— Faust v. Gluck,
Com.Pl.r 6 SchuReg. 1.
(4) A rule to "strike off Judg-
ment" is essentially a common-law
proceeding, a short and summary
substitute for an audita querela, a
writ of error coraxn vobis, or a cer-
tiorari or writ of error from a su-
perior court by which the same re-
lief was formerly administered, and,
being for an irregularity on the face
of the proceedings, it is in the na-
ture of a demurrer to the record. —
Hotel Redington v. Guffey, 25 A.2d
773, 148 Pa.Super. 502— Albert M.
Greenfield & Co. v. Roberts, 5 A.2d
642, 135 Pa.Super. 328— Rome Sales
& Service Station v. Finch, Ii83 A.
54, 120 Pa.Super. 402.
(6) Petitions to vacate and set
aside are based on fatal defects ap-
parent on the face of the record,
while petitions to open concern other
matters associated with the decree
or Judgment, or those on which the
decree or judgment is based; where
516
a Judgment is being attacked for a
matter of record, the proper motion
is to strike off or vacate, which op-
erates as a demurrer to the record.
— Nixon v. Nixon, 198 A. 154, 329 Pa.
2-56 — Strauch v. Miller, Com.Pl., 27
West.Co.L.J. 109.
(6) A rule to strike off a Judg-
ment is a common-law proceeding,
raising questions of irregularity or
insufficiency apparent on the face of
the record; a rule to open Judgment
is an equitable proceeding; the two
are not interchangeable, and, where
the parties do not consent thereto,
one cannot be substituted for the
other by the court — Hamborsky v.
Magyar Presbyterian Church, 78 Pa.
Super. 519 — 'Faust v. Gluck, CJom.PL,
6 Sch.Reg. 1.
(7) A rule to strike- off Judgment
is not a substitute for a rule for
more specific statement of claim or
a rule to strike off a pleading. — Ho-
tel Redlngton v. Guffey, 25 A.2d 773,
148 Pa.Super. 602.
(8) Where defenses arise after
the rendition of a Judgment, the bet-
ter practice now is to proceed by
way of motion, or the parties may
agree to the relief. — German Trust
Co. of Davenport, Iowa, v. Plotke,
118 A. 508, 274 Pa. 4'83.
(9) Petition to open is the proper
method to test validity of Judgment
entered on former scire facias. —
Brusko v. Olshefski, 13 A.2d 916, 140
Pa.Super. 485— Miller Bros. v. Keen-
an, 90 Pa. Super. 470.
27. Mo.— Moutier v. Sherman, App.,
25 S.W.2d 490.
K.C.— Cox v. Cox, 18 S.E.2d 713, 221
tf.C. 19— Dail v. Hawkins, 189 S.-E.
774, 211 N.C. 283— Duffer v. Brun-
son, 125 S.E. 619, 188 N.C. 789.
•34 C.J. p 319 note 65 [h], p 320 note
<68.
Elimination of defendant
Trial court's action in modifying
judgment by eliminating therefrom
one of the defendants on the ground
that, at the time of signing the
journal entry, court did not know
that entry recited a judgment
against such defendant constituted
the vacation of a judgment irregu-
larly obtained and proceeding there-
for was properly by motion. — Good-
kin v. Hough, 130 P.2d 93. 191 OkL
372.
28. Idaho. — Occidental ILife Ins. Co.
v. Niendorf, 44 P.2d 1099, '55 Idaho
521 — Baldwin v. Anderson, 8 P.2d
461, 51 Idaho 614— Jensen v. Gooch,
211 P. 551, 36 Idaho 457— Miller
v. Prout, 197 P. 1023, 33 Idaho 709.
Kan. — Taylor v. 'Focks Drilling &
Manufacturing Corporation, 62 P.
2d 903, 144 Kan. 626.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§286
error or mistake of fact,29 such as was ground for
relief at common law by writ of error coram nobis,
as discussed infra §§ 311-313; fraud in obtaining
judgment;30 perjury;31 accident, mistake, inadver-
tence, surprise, excusable neglect, casualty, or mis-
fortune ;32 and likewise judgments may be vacated
Neb.— Foster v. Foster, 196 N.W.
702, 111 Neb. 414.
Okl. — Maryland Casualty Co. v. Ap-
ple, 267 P. 239, 130 Okl. 270—
Grubb v. Fay State Bank of (Fay,
249 P. '341, 119 Okl. 199— Mason v.
Slonecker, 219 P. 357, 92 Okl. 227.
S.D.— -Lessen v. Lessert, 263 N.W.
559, 64 S.D. 3.
34 C.J. p 320 note 69.
Want of Jurisdiction of person
U.S.— U. S. v. Sotis, C.C.A.I1L, 131 IF.
2d 783.
Fla.— McGee v. McGee, 22 So.2d 788.
111. — Anderson v. Anderson, 11 N.E.
2d 216, 292 IlLApp. 421.
29. Miss.— Lott v, Illinois gent. R.
Co., 10 So.2d 96, 193 Miss. '443.
34 C.J. p 320 note 70.
In Illinois
(1) Under the statute abolishing
the writ of error coram nobis and
providing that .errors of fact which
could have been corrected by such
writ may be corrected on motion by
the court in which the error was
committed, petition to vacate judg-
ment under statute takes place of
writ of error coram nobis at common
law. — Josten Mfg. Co. v. Keeler, 2
N.E.2d 586, 284 Ill.App. 646.
(2) The courts of Illinois, al-
though they refused to recognize the
writ of error coram nobis, have en-
couraged the development of its
statutory equivalent and have per-
mitted its use in new situations
wherever such was consonant with
the history of its common-law ante-
cedent, due to the tendency of the
courts of law to apply equitable
principles wherever necessary to
prevent injustice; tho Civil Prac-
tice Act has expanded the scope of
the statute providing for motion in
nature of writ of error coram nobis.
— Nikola v. Campus Towers Apart-
ment Bldg. Corporation, 25 N.B.2d
583, 303 Ill.App. 516.
(3) The motion under the statute
is independent of the suit or pro-
ceeding in which the Judgment
sought to be corrected or vacated
was rendered. — Central Bond &
Mortgage Co. v. Roeser, 153 N.B.
732, 323 111/ 90— Sherman & Ellis v.
Journal of Commerce and Commer-
cial Bulletin, 259 Ill.App. 453—
Mitchell v. Bareckson, 250 IlLApp.
508 — Marabia v. Mary Thompson
Hospital of Chicago for Women and
Children, 224 IlLApp. -367, reversed
on other grounds 140 N.B. 836, 309
111. 147—34 C.J. p 319 note 65 [g].
(4) Such a motion stands as a
declaration in a new suit, in which
new issues are presented and on
which there must be a finding and a
Judgment. — Christian v. .Smirinotis, i
57 N.B.2d 457, 388 111. 73— Jacobson
v. Ashkinaze, 16-8 N.E. 647, 337 111.
141 — Central Bond & Mortgage Co. v.
Roeser, 153 N.E. 732, 323 Ill."90—
Reid v. Dolan, 19 N.B.2d 764, 2
Ill.App. 612 — Topel v. Personal Loan
& Savings Bank, 9 N.B.2d 75, 290
IlLApp. 558— Adams v. Butman, 264
Ill.App. 378 — Sherman & Ellis v.
Journal of Commerce and Commer-
cial Bulletin, 259 IlLApp. 453—
Mitchell v. Bareckson, 250 IlLApp.
508— Ness v. Bell, 246 IlLApp. 79—
Marabia v. Mary Thompson Hospital
of Chicago for Women and Children,
224 IlLApp. 367, reversed on other
grounds 140 N.B. 836, 309 111. 147—
34 C.J. p 320 note 70 [c].
(5) The proceeding on the petition
has nothing to do with the merits
of the original controversy between
the parties. — Christian v. Smirinotis,
57 N.B.2d 457, -388 111. 73.
(6) In a proceeding under the
statute to correct errors of fact in
the record by motion after the term,
the scope of inquiry is limited to er-
rors in fact not appearing on the
fiace of the record, and which could
have been inquired into by the com-
mon-law writ of error coram nobis. —
Jerome v. 5019-21 Quincy Street
Bldg. Corporation, 53 N.B.2d 444, 385
111. 524.
(7) The purpose of such motion is
to bring before court matters of fact
not appearing of record which, if
known at time of rendition of Judg-
ment, would have prevented its ren-
dition.— Linehan v. Travelers Ins.
Co., 18 N.B.2d 178, 370 111. 157—
Viedenschek v. Johnny Perkins Play-
dium, 49 N.B.2d 339, 319 IlLApp. 523
—Reid v. Dolan, 19 N.B.2d 7-64, 299
Ill.App. 612 — Swiercz v. Nalepka, 259
IlLApp. 262. •
(8) The motion is not available to
review questions of fact arising on
the pleadings in original proceeding
or to correct errors of court on ques-
tions of law therein. — Linehan v.
Travelers Ins. Co., supra — Jacobson
v. Ashkinaze, 168 N.E. 647, 337 111.
141 — Marabia v. Mary Thompson
Hospital of Chicago for Women and
Children, 140 N.B. 836, -309 111. 147.
(9) The proceeding under the stat-
ute refers only to a Judgment sought
to be set aside at a term subsequent
to that at which the Judgment was
rendered. — Cooper y. Handelsman,
247 IlLApp. 454.
(10) The statute and the proce-
dure thereunder apply to law actions
and not to equity actions. — Pedersen
v. Logan Square State Bank, 36 N.E.
2d 732, 377 111. 408— Frank v. Salo-
mon, 34 N.B.2d 424, 376 111. 439—
Lamons & Co. v. American Cast Iron .
517
Pipe Qo., 3-8 N.B.2d 779, 312 IlLApp.
573 — Solomon v. Bayles, 56 N.B.2d
274, 311 IlLApp. 368.
(11) The motion is not appropriate
in statutory proceedings, but only In
proceedings at common law. — Reid v.
Chicago Rys. Co., 231 IlLApp. 58—
Bishop v. Illinois Western Electric
Co., 221 IlLApp. 141.
(12) The motion does not lie In
insanity proceedings. — People v.
Janssen, 263 IlLApp. 101.
(13) Motion filed forty-five days
after Judgment for clarification of
new trial order could not be consid-
ered as a motion brought under the
statute.— Rome Soap Mfg. Co. v.
John T. La Forge & Sons, 54 N.E.
2d 252, 322 Ill.App. 281.
(14) Relief under statute was held
not unavailable because of interven-
ing appeal and affirmance of Judg-
ment— Maher v. New York, C. & St
L. R. Co., 8 N.B.2d 512, 290 IlLApp.
267.
In Missouri
The scope of the remedy adminis-
tered on the motion now employed
as a substitute for the writ of error
coram nobis reaches far beyond the
ordinary writ of error as known to
the common law. — Moutier v. Sher-
man, App., '25 S.W.2d 490.
3CK 111. — Clausen v. Varrin, 11 N.1L
2d 820, 292 IlLApp. 641.
Minn. — In re Jordan's Estate, 271 N.
W. 104, 199 Minn. 53.
N.D.— Smith v. Smith, 299 N.W. 693,
71 N.D. 110.
34 C.J. p 320 note 72.
Motion in. nature of writ of error
coram nobis
Where wife, because of husband's
representation that his divorce suit
had been dismissed, did not appear
at the trial, and husband continued
to live with her until the divorce de-
cree was granted, it was held that,
even though the Judgment was pro-
cured by fraud, a motion in the na-
ture of a writ of error coram nobis
to set aside the decree on the ground
of fraud on the wife and on the
court was not the proper remedy;
such motion cannot be considered
as a suit in equity; a motion in the
nature of writ of error coram nobis
to set aside Judgment for fraud In
its procurement does not reach any-
thing occurring after final Judgment.
— Ragland v. Ragland, Mo. App., 258
S.W. 728.
31. Minn. — In re Jordan's Estate,
371 N.W, 104, 199 Minn. 53.
34 C.J. p 320 note 74 [a].
32. Colo.— Wharton v. De VInna, ,
246 P. 279, 79 Colo. 450*
§286
. JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
or opened on various other specific grounds.38
On the other hand, it has been held that the in-
sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict
cannot be attacked by a motion to vacate and set
aside the judgment,34 and that a final decree of
partition cannot be opened by mere motion after the
term.35
In some jurisdictions a judgment may be vacated
on motion only when it is void or irregular on its
face,36 except pursuant to statutory provisions
granting power to act on motion;37 but in other ju-
risdictions this limitation does not prevail.38 It has
been held that an erroneous, as distinguished from
an irregular, judgment, cannot be set aside on mo-
tion.39 A petition addressed to the court wherein
the judgment was rendered, with rule nisi or proc-
ess served on the necessary parties, has been deemed
a proper form of procedure to vacate a judgment
for defects not appearing on the face of the rec-
ord.40 A motion to set aside a judgment may not
be made to perform the office of an appeal.41
While an action is pending to set aside a judg-
ment, the same relief will not be" granted on mo-
tion;42 and, where an appeal is perfected before
a motion is made to vacate, it has been held that
the court has no power to vacate the judgment ex-
cept on the ground of jurisdiction.43
During the term at which it was rendered, the
court has inherent power to vacate the judgment on
motion, on any ground appealing to the judicial
discretion.44
A motion to set aside a verdict and judgment
has been said to be distinguishable from,4^ and not
to be subject to the same rules of practice as,46 a
motion to set aside a judgment only; and that it
should also be distinguished from an independent
suit in equity to set aside a verdict and judgment47
A petition to vacate a verdict and judgment for
matters not appearing on the record has been held,
in effect, a motion for a new trial.4*
Petition as independent proceeding. A petition to
vacate a judgment has been regarded, in at least one
jurisdiction, as a new proceeding, separate from,
and independent of, the action in which the judg-
ment was entered,49 and riot as a supplemental step
111. — Clausen v. Varrin, 11 N.E.2d
820, 292 Ill.App. 641.
34 C.J. p 320 note 73.
Ground held not shown, so that
motion was not available. — Chavez
v. Scully, 232 P. 165, 69 Cal.App. 63-3.
33. Particular grounds
(1) Failure of complaint to state
cause of action. — Alabama Power Co.
v. Curry, 153 So. 634, 228 Ala. 444.'
<2) (Failure to serve process. — Da-
vis v. Brigman, 169 S.E. 431, 204 N.
C. 680—34 C.J. p 320 note 74 ,[e].
(3) Other grounds see 34 C.J. p
«20 note 74 [b]-[d], [f].
34. S.D.— First Nat. Bank v.
Thompson, 227 N.W. 81, 55 S.D.
629.
35. Wis.— Kane v. Parker, 4 Wis.
123.
36. CaL— Jacks y. Baldez, 31 P. 899,
97 CaL 91.
Ga. — S towers v. Harris, 22 S.E.2d
405, 194 Ga. 636 — Wofford v. Van-
diver, 34 S.E.2d 579, "92 Ga.App,
623.
Okl.— Petty v. Roberts, -98 P.2d 602,
18*6 Okl. 269— Ritchie v. Keeney,
73 P.2d 397, 181 Okl. 207 — Simmons
v. Howard, 276 P. 718, 136 Okl. 118
— Central Nfc. Oil Co. v. Continen-
tal Supply Co., 249 P. 347, 119 OkL
190 — Grubb v. Fay State Bank of
iFay, 249 P. 341, 119 Okl. 199—
Steiner v. Smith, 242 P. 207, 115
OkL 205— lie Clair v. Calls Him,
233 P. 1087, 106 Okl. 247— Miller v.
Madigan, 215 P. 742, 90 Okl. 17.
34 C.J. p S20 note 75.
Coram, nobia
A motion to vacate a judgment on
an irregularity not appearing on the
face of record, but to be shown out-
side of record, if available, is in the
nature of a writ of error coram no-
bis.— Audsley v. Hale, 261 S.W. 117,
303 Mo. 451—34 C.J. p 320 note 7'5
[b].
Where rights of third persons have
not intervened, however, it has been
held that a judgment may be vacated
on motion, even though the nullity
of the judgment is not apparent
from an inspection of the judgment
roll. — Sharp v. Eagle Lake Lumber
Co., 212 P. -9-33, 60 Cal.App. 386.
37- CaL— Jacks v. Baldez, 31 P. 889,
97 CaL 91.
3a S.C.— Tolbert v. Roark, 119 S.E.
571, 126 S.C. 207.
34 C.J. P 321 note 77.
39. N.C.— Dail v. Hawkins, 189 S.3L
774, 211 N.C. 283— State v. Hol-
lingsworth, 175 49.BL 99, 206 N.C.
739.
S.D. — Janssen v. Tusha, 5 N.W.2d
684, 68 &.D. 639 — Jennings v. Des
Moines Mutual Hail & Cyclone Ins.
Ass'n, 146 N.W. 564, 3-3 S.D. 385.
40i Ga, — Grogan v. Deraney, 143 S.
H. 912, 38 Ga.App. 2>87 — Longshore
v. Collier, 140 S.B. «636, 37 Ga.App.
450, followed in Reddy-Waldhauer-
Maffiett Co. v. Cranman, 153 S.E.
616, 41 Oa.App. 563.
34 C.J. p 321 note 78.
41. S.D. — Janssen v. Tusha, 5 N.W.
2d 684, 68 S.D. 639— Jennings v.
Des Moines Mutual Hail & Cyclone
Ins. Ass'n, 146 N.W. 564, 33 SJD,
385.
518
42. Wash.— Stolze v. Stolze, 191 P.
641, 111 Wash. 398.
34 C.J. p 321 note 79.
43. Or. — Blanchard v. Makinster,
290 P. 1098, 137 Or. 58.
Mistake of fact resulting in judg-
ment cannot be remedied by motion
to vacate judgment after perfecting
appeal. — Blanchard v. Makinster, 290
P. 1098, 137 Or. 58.
44. Mo.— Reid v. Moulton, 210 <S.W.
34.
34 C.J. p 321 note 80.
Discretion of court generally see in-
fra 8 300.
45. Ga.— Wrenn v. Allen, 180 S.E.
104, 180 Ga. 613 — (Lucas v. -Lucas,
177 «S.E. 684. 179 Ga. 821— Fire-
men's Ins. Co. v. Oliver, 167 S.E.
99, 176 Ga. 80.
48. Ga.—-Louis K Liggett Co. v.
•Foster, 136 S.E. 93, 36 Ga.App. 185.
47. Ga.— Wrenn v. Allen, 1«0 S.B.
104, 180 Ga. 613 — Lucas v. Lucas,
177 S.B. 684, 179 Ga. 821.
Equitable relief against judgments
see infra §§ 341-400.
48. Ga. — Firemen's Ins, Co. v. Oliv-
er, 162 S.B. 636, 44 Ga.App. 639,
reversed on other grounds 167 &B.
99, 176 Ga. 80— Oliver v. Fire-
man's Ins. Co., 15'5 S.B. 2'27, 42
Ga.App. 99— J. S. Schofield's Sons
Co. v. Vaughn, 150 S.E. 569, 40
GaJLpp. 668 — Donalson v. Bank of
Jakin, 127 S.E. 229, 33 Ga.App. 423.
49. Mass. — Noyes v. Bankers In-
demnity Ins. Co., -30 N.E.2d '867,
307 Mass. 5-67 — Lynch v. Spring-
field Safe Deposit & Trust Co., 13
N.E.2d 611, 300 Mass. 14— Town of
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 286
in the original cause.^0
Interlocutory judgments or orders may always be
vacated on motion in the cause made before the
action is determined by final judgment.61
c. Action
It is variously held, with respect to particular
grounds or circumstances, that an action, rather than a
motion, is or is not the proper mode for seeking vaca-
tion of a Judgment; some authorities permit the use of
either.
In some jurisdictions the vacation of a judgment
on certain grounds, or in certain circumstances,
must be obtained by a direct action with appropri-
ate pleadings, brought for the purpose of annulling
such judgment, and cannot be obtained by mere
motion.52 Thus it has been held that the remedy
is by plenary action, and not by motion, where va-
cation of the judgment is sought on any of the fol-
lowing grounds: Invalidity not apparent on the
face of the record;53 want of service of process,
and of jurisdiction of the person;54 fraud;55 and
accident or mistake.56
On the other hand, it has been held that the
remedy by motion or petition in the cause is ex-
clusive, and that an independent action will not
lie,57 at least not where based on certain grounds,58
* including irregularity,59 failure to serve process,60
the unauthorized appearance of an attorney,61 the
premature entry of judgment,62 or the death of de-
fendant before judgment63 The principle is that
an independent action will not be allowed where
the relief or remedy demanded may be had in an
existing action.64
In some jurisdictions, the rule is that an inde-
pendent action to vacate a judgment will lie where,
without plaintiffs fault, the remedy by motion is
not available, or adequate, but not otherwise.65
In some cases, it has been held that the remedy
either by motion or by action is available.66
Hopkinton v. B. F. Sturtevant Co.,
189 N.E. 107, 285 Mass. 272— Pow-
drell v. Du Bois, 174 N.E. 220. 274
Mass. 106 — French v. Kemp, 170
N.E. 815, 271 Mass. 79— -Mellet v.
Swan, 168 N.E. 732, 269 Mass. 173
— Beserosky v. Mason, 168 N.E.
726, 269 Mass. 325— Wr inn v. Sel-
lers, 147 N.E. 899, 252 Mass. 423—
Maker r. Bouthier, 136 N.E. 255,
242 Mass. 20.
When judgment was entered pre-
maturely, cutting1 off plaintiff's right
to present exceptions, he could file
petition as separate proceeding- to
vacate the Judgment. — Everett-Mor-
gan Co. v. Boyajian Pharmacy, 139
N.E. 170, 244 Mass. 460.
50. Mass. — Lynch v. Springfield
Safe Deposit & Trust -Co., 13 N.E.
2d 611, 300 Mass. 14 — Beserosky v.
Mason, 168 N.B. 726, 269 Mass. 325.
51. N.C.— Vaughan v. Gooch, 92 N.
C. 624.
34 C.J. p 321 note 81.
Bqtiity doctriB.es inapplicable
Doctrines limiting the functions of
an action in equity to set aside a de-
cree are not applicable to a motion
made in the action itself and with-
in the time prescribed by statute to
set aside an interlocutory decree of
divorce on ground of fraud and coer-
cion.— Wetzel v. Wetzel, CaLApp.,
1*62 P.2d 299.
52. N.C.— Cox r. Cox, 18 S.E.2d 713,
221 N.C. 19.
34 C.J. p 321 note <83.
Judgment not void
Belief against judgment which is
not void may be granted only in In-
dependent suit brought for such re-
lief.— Halbrook v. Quinn, Civ.App.,
286 S.W. 954, certified questions dis-
missed Quinn v. Halbrook,' 28S S.W.
1079, 115 Tex. 513. I
lapse of time; rights of third per.
sons
Where one of the parties to a par-
tition has been evicted by title par-
amount, the decree cannot be set
aside on motion, where a considera-
ble time has elapsed, the rights of
third persons have intervened, and
other complicated circumstances are
involved, but remedy is to be sought
by a new action. — Marvin v. Marvin,
1 Abb.N.Cas.,N.Y., 372, 52 How.Pr.
97.
53. Gal. — People ex rel. Pollock v.
Bogart, 138 P.2d 360, 58 CaLApp.2d
831— -Moran v. Superior Court in
and for Sacramento County, 96 P.
2d 193, 35 Cal.App.2d 629.
Okl. — Simmons v. Howard, 276 P.
718, 136 Okl. 118.
34 C. J. p 321 note '84.
54. Okl. — Simmons v. Howard, su-
pra.
34 C.J. p 321 note 85.
55. Ga. — Simpson v. Bradley, 5 S.E.
2d '893, 189 Ga. 316, mandate con-
formed to 6 S.E.2d 424, 61 Ga.App.
495, certiorarl denied *0 S.Ct 1105,
•310 U.S. 643, 84 L.Ed. 1410, rehear-
ing denied 61 S.Ct. 56, 811 U.S.
725, 85 L.Ed. 472.
N.C.— Cox V. Cox, 18 S.E.2d 713, 221
N.C. 19— Abernethy Land &
•Finance Co. v. First Security Trust
Co., 19-6 -S.E. 340, 213 N.C. B69—
Fowler v. (Fowler, 130 S.B. 315, 190
N.C. 536.
34 C.J. p 321 note 86.
56L Mo.— Curtiss v. Bell, 111 S.W.
131, 131 Mo.App. 245.
34 C.J. p 322 note 87.
57. N.D.— Lamb v. King, 29^6 N.W.
185, 70 N.D. 469.
S.C.— Baker v. Brewer, 123 S.E. 771,
129 S.C. 74.
34 C. J. p 322 note t89.
519
58. Ky. — Thompson v. Porter, 210
S.W. 948, 183 Ky. 848.
34 C. J. .p 322 note 90.
Grounds other than fraud
N.C.— Abernethy JLiand & Finance Co.
v. First Security Trust Co., 196 S.
E. 340, 213 N.C. -369.
59. N.C. — Scott v. Mutual Reserve
Fund Life Ass'n, 50 S.E. 221, 137
N.C. 515— Knott, v. Taylor, 6 S.E.
7*8, 99 N.C. 611, 6 Am.-S.R. 547.
GO, N.C.— Davis v. Brigman, 169 S.
E. 421, 204 N.C. 680— Grant v. Har-
rell, 13 S.B. 718, 109 N.C. 78.
61. N.Y.— Vilas v. Plattsburgh & M.
R. Co., 25 N.B. 941, 123 N.Y. 440,
20 Am.S.R. 7fl, 9 'L.R.A. 844.
34 C.J. p 322 note 92.
62. Minn. — Calhoun Beach Holding
Co. v. Minneapolis Builders' Sup-
ply Co., 252 N.W. 442, 190 Minn.
576.
63. N.C.— Knott v. Taylor, 6 S.BL
788, 99 N.C. 511, 6 Am.S.R. $47.
64* N.C. — Knott v. Taylor, supra.
Where order of consolidation of
societies was obtained by fraudulent
proof of compliance with statutory
requirements, redress is by motion in
consolidation proceeding and not by
separate action. — CamemoUa v. So-
ciety of Citizens of Pozzallo, 270 N.
T.S. 517, 241 App.Diy. 76tf.
65. N.D. — 'Freeman v. Wood, 88 N.
W. 721, 11 N.D. 1, following Kitz-
man v. Minnesota Thresher Mfg.
Co., 84 N.W. 585, 10 N.D. 2«.
34 O.J. p 322 note 95.
66. ' Ariz. — American -Surety Co. of
New York v. Mosher, 64 P.2d 1025,
4)8 Ariz. 552.
Minn.-— In re Melgaard's Will, 274 N.
W. 641, 200 Minn. 49-3.
§ 286
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
It has been held that after the term*? or after
long delay68 relief should be sought by action and
not by motion.
Without regard to whether or not relief may be
had by motion or petition, a number of cases have
held that relief may be had by action.6^
d. Statutory Petition or Complaint and Sum-
mons
The statutory proceedings for vacating -a Judgment
after the term, on specified grounds, by verified com-
plaint or petition and summons are exclusive in some Ju-
risdictions, but cumulative in others.
Under some statutes the proceedings to vacate or
set aside a judgment in the court in which it was
rendered, after the expiration of the term, on cer-
tain grounds therein enumerated, are by verified
complaint or petition, and not by motion, and on
such complaint or petition a summons or notice is-
sues and is served, and other proceedings are had,
substantially as in an action.70 Such statutory pro-
ceeding, while incidental to the original action, has
been declared, in effect, a new action,71 equitable
in character,72 or an independent proceeding7^ or
action,74 or in the nature of an independent ac-
N.C. — Fowler v. Fowler, 130 S.E. 315,
190 N.C. 536.
34 C.J. p 322 note 97.
Fraud; perjury
Remedy afforded by statute au-
thorizing setting aside of judgment
obtained by means of perjury
fraud may be put into effect either
by motion or by an original action. —
In re Jordan's Estate, 271 N.W. 104,
199 Minn. 53—34 C.J. p 322 note 97
[cj, [e].
67. Conn. — Application of Title &
Guaranty Co. of Bridgeport to
Change Name to Bankers' Secur-
ity Trust Co., 145 A. 151, 109 Conn.
45.
68. Mich. — Jennison y. Haire, 29
Mich. 207.
34 C.J. p 322 note 98.
69. Ind. — Scudder y. Jones, -32 N.E.
221, 134 Ind. 547.
34 C,J. p 323 note 99.
Action for review of drainage as-
sessment see Drains S 70.
Fraud
A party may attack a judgment
for fraud by an Independent action.
— Dates v. Texas Co., 166 S.B. 317,
203 N.C. 474.
Action and motion for new trial
(Litigant .may enter motion for new
trial, and prosecute appeal, and si-
multaneously therewith, or after ap-
peal is decided, sue to vacate judg-
ment and for new trial provided
ground on which he relies In his
petition is one of which he did not
avail himself on motion for new tri-
al; but he is not entitled to both
remedies on same ground. — Ison v.
Buskirk-Rutledge Lumber Co., 266
S.W. 243, 205 Ky. 583.
In Louisiana
(1) The action of nullity under
Code Pract. art. 607 is independent
of the remedy of appeal and is not a
substitute for an appeal, its purpose
being to furnish relief against fraud
which has operated in the obtention
of a judgment which makes no ap-
pearance in the record, and for
which an appeal would afford no
remedy.— Miller v. Miller, 100 So.
4'5, 15 6 La, 46— State ex rel. Pelle-
tier v. Sommerville, 36 So. 864, 112
La, 1091— Vinson v. Picolo, La.App.,
15 So.2d 778.
(2) A petition to annul a defini-
tive judgment rendered in a prior
proceeding, on ground that court in
prior proceeding was without juris-
diction ratione personae to adjudge
the cause in so far as present plain-
tiffs were concerned because they
were not cited, constituted a direct
and independent action attacking a
judgment that had become final, and
was not an attempt to appear in the
prior proceedings, notwithstanding
-plaintiffs did not found their action
solely on lack of citation, but also
sought to establish nullity of the
judgment on two other wholly un-
related grounds. — Adkins' Heirs v.
Crawford, Jenkins & Booth, 3 So.2d
539, 200 La. 561.
70. Ky.— Miller v. National Bank of
London, 116 S.W.2d 320, 273 Ky.
* 243.
Okl.— Grayson v. Stith, 72 P.2d "820,
181 Okl. 131, 114 A.L.R. 27-6—
Steiner v. Smith, 242 P. 207, 115
Okl. 205— Cherry v. Gamble, 224
P. 960, 101 Okl. 234.
Wyo. — Boulter v. Cook, 236 P. 245,
32 Wyo. 461.
34 C.J. p 323 note 1.
Proceeding entitled in original ac-
tion,
Iowa, — Bates v. Farmers Loan &
Trust Co. of Iowa City, 291 N.W.
184, 227 Iowa 1347— McKee v. Na-
tional Travelers Casualty Ass'n,
282 N.W. 291, 225 Iowa 1200.
"Application" sustained; as petition
Iowa, — Newlove v. Stern, 196 N.W.
51, 196 Iowa 1111.
Contentions available on petition,
but not on motion
Contentions that a personal judg-
ment could not be had on the aver-
ments of an amended petition, that
lack of notice of proceedings under
amended petition constituted casual-
ty, and that there was accident and
surprise on the part of defendant,
could be relied on in a petition to set
aside the judgment, but could not be
presented on motion to set it aside,
—Williams v. Isaacs, 256 S.W. 19,
201 Ky. 158. i
520
Rehearing under Alabama statute
The character of judgment within
purview of statute authorizing ap-
plication for rehearing within four
months from rendition of judgment
when a party has been prevented
from making his defense by sur-
prise, accident, mistake, or fraud,
without fault on his part, is a judg-
ment valid ex facia which on prin-
ciples of equity and justice should
not be allowed to stand. — Marshall
County v. CJritcher, 17 So.2d 540, 245
Ala. 357.
71. Kan.— State v. Soffietti, 136 P.
260, 90 Kan. 742.
34 C.J. p 323 note 2.
In Alabama
Rehearing under four-month stat-
ute is new proceeding, cumulative
to remedy in equity, and sustainable
on like grounds as to diligence re-
quired in presenting defense in orig-
inal suit— Craft v. Hirsh, 149 So.
683, 227 Ala. 257, appeal dismissed
54 S.Ct 455, 291 U.S. 644, 78 L.Ed.
1041.
72. Wash. — Corpus Juris cited in
Roth v. Nash, 144 P.2d 271, 27'5,
19 Wash.2d 731.
34 CJ. p 323 note 3.
Equitable relief see infra &§ 341-400.
73- Ark. — United Order of Good
•Samaritans v. Bryant, 57 S.W.2d
399, 186 Ark. 960, certlorarl denied
54 S.Ct 59, 290 U.S. 641, 78 iLJBd.
557.
Piling- application under title of orlg-
- toal cause
If application to be relieved from
judgment on ground of mistake, in-
advertence, surprise, or excusable
neglect is filed under title of cause
in which original judgment was en-
tered, application will be treated as
an independent proceeding. — "Vail v.
Department of Financial Institutions
of Indiana, 17 N.B.2d 854, 106 Ind.
App. 39.
74. Okl. — -Thompson v. General Out-
door Advertising Co., 151 P,2d 379,
194 'Okl. 300.
Docketing
(1) Such proceeding may be dock-
eted as a separate action or as part
of, and in connection with, original
case in which the judgment sought
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§287
tion ;75 but it has also been said not to be in the na-
ture of a new or independent action, but supplemen-
tary,76 and not to be a civil action, but a special pro-
ceeding.77
Under some statutes, the statutory proceeding is
an exclusive remedy, in cases where it is available,
and a judgment cannot be vacated after the term
in any other form of proceeding,7* except by bill
of review under equity practice.™ Under other
statutes, the statutory remedy is cumulative and not
exclusive; it does not impair the remedies by mo-
tion or suit in equity which continue to be available
in proper cases;80 but an adverse decision in one
form of proceeding will bar a subsequent resort to
the other form of remedy.81
e. Waiver of Objections to Form of Remedy
Failure to object to the manner In which an applica-
tion to vacate a Judgment Is made may be treated as a
waiver of such objection.
Where the manner in which an application to va-
cate a judgment is made is not objected to at the
time, it has been held that such objection will be
considered waived and that it comes too late on ap-
peal.82 Thus, where no objection is made to the
proceedings being by motion instead of by petition,
the appellate court will consider the application as
regular;83 and the action of the court in setting
aside a judgment on a petition instead of a motion
will be considered a mere irregularity, and the ir-
regular order will not be void for want of jurisdic-.
tion.84 The irregularity of a motion instead of a
formal complaint may likewise be waived.86
It has been held to be error for the court of its
own motion, and without the consent of the par-
ties, to treat a motion as an independent action;86
but where, by mistake, a remedy is sought by inde-
pendent action instead of fnotion in the original
cause, the court may, in its discretion, treat the
summons and complaint as a motion, to the end that
the issues may be (Jetermined and the rights of
the parties adjudicated.87
f . Indirect or Implied Vacation
A Judgment may be In effect vacated by the taking
of subsequent proceedings in the action which are in-
consistent with its continuing in force. Authorities dif-
fer as to whether the entry of a second and different
Judgment in the ease has this effect.
A judgment may be practically, or in effect, va-
cated, although not in terms set aside, by the taking
of subsequent proceedings in the same action which
are inconsistent with the judgment's continuing in
force,88 as by the entry of a second judgment in
the case, different from the first,89 although as to
the last point there is authority to the contrary,90
or, as appears in the CJ.S. title New Trial § 210,
also 34 CJ. p 326(note 21, 46 C.J. p 436 notes 77-81,
84-85, by an order granting a new trial. The gen-
eral rule, however, is that a judgment stands as
such until it is expressly vacated in the manner pre-
scribed by law.91
§ 287.
Vacation on Court's Own Motion
A court may, on Its own motion, vacate a Judgment
during the term at which It was rendered; and, If It Is
void, may do ao at any time, even after the term.
Courts have been broadly said to be authorized
to set aside or vacate their judgments on their own
to be vacated was rendered. — Thomp-
son v. General Outdoor Advertising
Co., supra.
(2) Docketing generally see supra
§§ 126-128.
75. Okl.— Grayson v. Stith, 72 P.2d
*20, 181 Okl. 181, 114 A.L..R. 276.
76. Iowa, — Oilman v. Donovan, 12
N.W. 779, 59 Iowa 76.
34 O.J. p 828 note 2 [a] (2).
77. Kan.-— Blair v. Blair, 153 P. 544,
96 Kan. 757.
Ohio.— Vida v. Parsley, App., 47 N.E.
2-d 663.
Wyo.— -Luman v. Hill, 256 P. 339, 36
Wyo. 427.
7ft, Okl. — Cherry v. Gamble, 224 P.
960, 101 Okl. 234.
34 C.J. p 324 note 4.
Bxclusiveness of statutory proceed-
ings generally see supra subdivi-
sion a of this section.
79. Wash.— -Ball v. Clothier, 75 P.
1099, 34 Wash. 299.
34 C.J. p 324 note 5.
80. Ky.— Southern Nat Life Ins.
Co. v. Ford, 152 S.W. 243, 151 Ky.
476.
34 C.J. p 324 note 6.
81. Wash.— Stolze v. Stolze, 191 P.
641, 111 Wash. 398 — Boylan v.
Bock, 111 P. 454, -60 Wash. 423.
82. Mass. — Maker v. Bouthier, 136
N.E. 255, 242 Mass. 20.
34 O.J. p 324 note 10.
83. Ind. — Indiana Travelers' Acci-
dent Ass'n v. Doherty, 123 N.E.
242, 70 Ind.App. 214.
Iowa. — Callanan v. JEBtna Nat, Bank,
50 N.W. 69, 84 Iowa -8.
84. Neb.— Pollock v. Boyd, 54 N.W.
560, 36 Neb. 369.
85. Ind. — Beatty v. O'Connor, 5 N.B.
880, 106 Ind. 81.
Wash. — State v. Washington Dredg-
ing & Improvement Co., 86 P. 936,
43 Wash. 508.
86. N.C.— Smith v. <Fort, 10 S.E. 914,
105 N.C. 446, 453, 454.
34 C.J. -p 324 note 14.
87. N.C. — Abernethy (Land &
•Finance Co. v. First Security
521
Trust Co., 196 S.E. 840, 21$ N.C.
369.
88. Mo. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Marsden v. Nipp, 30 S.W.2d 77, SI,
825 Mo. 822.
34 C.J. p 325 note 1*8.
89. Mo. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Marsden v. Nipp, 30 S.W.2d 77, 81,
325 Mo. '822. .
Contra Mitchell v. Dabney, Mo.App.,
71 S.W.2d 165, transferred, see, 58
S.W.2d 731, 332 Mo. 410.
34 C.J. p 325 note 19.
One of more judgments in same case
generally see supra 5 •$£.
90. Tex. — Mullins v. Thomas, 150 S.
W.2d 83, 136 Tex 215— Bridgman
v. Moore, Cir.App., 180 S.W.2d 211,
affirmed, Sup., 183 S.W.2d 705.
Contra Luck v. Hopkins, 49 S.W. 860,
92 Tex 426— Watson v. Harris, 68
Tex 61.
34 C.J. p 325 note 20.
ML. Mo.— Marsden v. Nipp, -80 B.W.
2d 77, -325 Mo. 822.
34 C.J. p 326 note 22.
287
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
motion,92 and, independently of statutory provi-
sions, to annul on their own motion, and within a
reasonable time, judgments inadvertently made.93
More particularly, during the term at which a judg-
ment was rendered, the court has power on its own
motion to vacate it or set it aside.94 It may quash,
vacate, or set aside a void judgment on its own mo-
tion,95 at any time,96 and, according to the deci-
92. N.M.— Arias v. Springer, 78 P.
2d 153, 42 N.M. 350.
N.C. — Fowler v. Fowler, 130 S.E.
315, 190 N.C. 53$.
Setting' aside to allow new trial
Trial court's order of its own mo-
tion setting aside judgment and or-
der allowing appeal, for purpose of
allowing motion for new trial, was
held unauthorized and void. — Dough-
erty v. Manhattan Rubber Mfg. Co.,
29 S.W.2d 126, 325 Mo. 656.
Nonpayment of fee
Under statute requiring collection
of fee prior to entry of final Judg-
ment and court rule requiring depos-
it of judgment fee prior to taking
of proofs, court could vacate judg-
ment for defendant, which was en-
tered without payment of fee, even
if plaintiff had no right to move for
vacation of judgment because of
plaintiff's noncompliance with court
rule. — Detroit Edison Co. v. 'Hart-
rick, 278 N.W. 664, 283 Mich. 502.
In Texas
(1) "The trial court has control
of its judgments for a period of 30
days after the rendition thereof, and
may set aside any judgment . . .
on its own motion." — Christner v.
Mayer, Civ.App.f 123 S.W.2d 715, 71*,
error dismissed, judgment correct.
(2) Where plaintiff's motion for
new trial was overruled by operation
of law for failure to present motion
to trial court within thirty days aft-
er it was filed, judgment for defend-
ant became final at the end of thirty-
day period and trial court was with-
out authority to set aside judgment
either on strength of motion or on
court's own motion, where term of
court at which Judgment was ren-
dered had ended. — Aldridge v. Gener-
al Mills, Civ.App., 188 S.W.2d 407.
(3) Where trial judge had juris-
diction to render judgment in first
instance and judgment had been
spread on minutes of court under
judge's written instructions in form
of an approved decree and had stood
for five years without challenge, tri-
al judge had no power to vacate the
judgment on his own motion, merely
because he had no recollection of
having pronounced judgment from
the bench; statutes empowering
court to correct certain clerical er-
rors and misrecitals in judgment
after judgment has become final do
not give court authority to vacate
and set aside an entire judgment on
court's own motion, where judge had
directed clerk to enter such judg-
ment.—^Bskridge & Williams v. Mer-
chants State Bank & Trust Co., Civ.
App., 173 S,*W.2d 518, error refused.
(4) Under Acts 38th Leg., 1923, c
105 § 1 subds 14-16, inclusive, re-
quiring motions or amended motions
for new trial to be determined with-
in forty-five days after motion is
filed, after filing of original motion,
trial court had jurisdiction of case
for at least forty-five days thereaft-
er, during which time he could set
aside his judgment without any mo-
tion and of his own accord. — Townes
v. Lattimore, 272 S.W. 435, 114 Tex.
511.
93. Cal.— Burbank v. Continental
Life Ins. Co., S8 P.2d 4:51, 2 Cal.
App.2d -664 — Harris v. Minnesota
Inv. Co., 265 P. 306, 39 Cal. App.
•396.
94. Ark. — Stinson v. Stinson, 159 $.
W.2d 446, 203 Ark. 8-88.
Ga. — Athens Apartment Corporation
v. Hill, 119 S.B. 631, 156 Ga. 437.
Mo. — Savings Trust Co. of St Louis
v. Skain, 131 S.W.2d 566, 345 Mo.
46 — -Taylor v. Cleveland, C., C. &
St. L. Ry. Co., 63 S.W.2d 69, 333
Mo. 650, certiorari denied Cleve-
land, C. C. & St L. Ry. Co. v. Tay-
lor, 54 S.Ct. 121, 290 U.S. 685, 78
L.Ed. 590— Marsden v. Nipp, 30 S.
W.24 77, 325 Mo. 822— In re Henry
County Mut Burial Ass'n, 77 S.W.
2d 124, 229 Mo.App. 300— National
City Bank of St. Louis v. Pattiz,
App., 2-6 S.W.2d 815.-
Neb.— Netusil v. Novak, 235 N.W.
335, 120 Neb. 751.
Okl. — Roland Union Graded School
ODist. No. 1 of Sequoyah County v.
Thompson, 124 P.2d 400, 190 Okl.
416— Wall v. Snider, 219 P. 671,
«3 Okl. 97.
Tex. — Brannon v. Wilson, Civ.App.,
260 S.W. 201.
34 C.J. p 325 note 15.
Power of court over judgment dur-
ing term generally see supra §
229.
'During the term of the court at
which a judgment is rendered, the
judgment is in the breast of the
court and, in the exercise of its com-
mon law right, it may, in the inter-
est of justice, set aside the Judg-
ment upon its own motion." — Cherry
v. Cherry, 35 S.W.2d fr59, 660, 225 Mo.
App. 998.
Reason for rule
"The entire proceeding remains in
the breast of the court throughout
the term in which the judgment is
rendered."— Spickard v. McNabb, Mo.
App., 180 S.W.2d 611, 6131
Dismissal
<1) Where a proceeding was dis-
missed by inadvertence or mistake,
the court had a right on its own mo-
tion to set aside a judgment of dis-<
522
missal, during the term at which it
was rendered.— Hallam v. -Finch, 195
N.W. 352, 197 Iowa 224.
(2) Vacation of entry of dismiss-
al of judgment nunc pro tune made
without motion or petition, however,
was held to be void.— Baylor v. Kil-
linger, 186 N.H. 512, 44 Ohio App.
523.
Prompt action, required
• However, a statute permitting a
trial court to set aside a verdict on
its own motion, in certain circum-
stances, was held to contemplate
prompt action by the court on the
coming in of the verdict, so that the
court could not, on its own motion,
vacate a Judgment eighty-three days
after the verdict was returned. —
Mountain States Implement Co. v.
Arave, 291 P. 1074, 49 Idaho 710.
95. Ind. — Isaacs v. Fletcher Ameri-
can Nat Bank, 1S5 N.EJ. 154, 98
Ind.App. 111.
N.C.— Clark v. Carolina Homes, 128
S.B. 20, 189 N.C. 703.
Pa. — Stickel v. Barron, Com.PL, 7
«Fay.L.J. 35.
Wash. — Ballard Savings & Loan
Ass'n v. (Linden, 62 P.2d 1364, 188
Wash. 490.
Tt is the duty of the court to
strike off a void judgment of its own
motion whenever its attention is
called to it — Roml^erger v. Romberg-
er, 139 A. 159, 290 Pa. 454.
96. Nev. — Scheeline Banking &
Trust Co. v. Stockgrowers' &
Ranchers' Bank of Reno, 16 P.2d
3-6-8, 54 Nev. 346.
Pa.— Stickel v. Barron, Com.PL, 7
Fay.L.J. 35.
Judgment void on its face
Cal.— Gibbons v. Clapp, 277 P. 490,
207 Cal. 221— Application of Behy-
mer, 19 P.2d «29, 130 Cal.App. 200.
Idaho. — Occidental Life Ins. Co. v.
Niendorf, 44 P.2d 1099, 55 Idaho
521— Savage v. Stokes, 28 P.2d 900,
54 Idaho 109 — Baldwin v. Ander-
son, -8 P.2d 461, -51 Idaho 614—
Jensen v. Gooch, 211 P. 551, 36
Idaho 457— Miller v. Prout, 197 P.
1023, 33 Idaho 709.
Judgment without Jurisdiction
Cal.—Jellen v. O'Brien, 264 P. 1115,
89 Cal.App. 505.
Or. — May v. Roberts, 286 P. 546, 133
Or. 643— Ladd & Tilton v. Mason,
10 Or. 308.
It is the duty of the court on its
own motion to strike off a void judg-
ment whenever its attention is called
to it.
N.J.. — Collyer v. McDonald, 10 A.2d
284, 123 N.J.Law 547— Westfield
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
288
sions on the question, even after the term;97 and
it may set aside, on its own motion, a constructively
fraudulent entry,98 and may vacate a clearly fraud-
ulent judgment on its own motion after the term.99
The act of a court in setting aside a judgment
on its own motion may be instigated by an appli-
cation or paper filed in the case by a stranger to
the record.1
§ 288. Time for Application
a. In general
b. Statutory provisions
c. Ladies and delay
d. Irregular judgments
e. Fraudulent .or collusive judgments
a. In General
An application for vacation of a Judgment, Invoking
the court's inherent power and not made under statute,
is generally not subject to statutory limitations of time;
and under some authorities a void Judgment, at least If
void on its face, may be vacated at any time.
As appears infra subdivision b of this section, any
statutory limitation of the time within which an ap-
plication to open or vacate a judgment may be made
must be observed in all applications to open or va-
cate made under, or within the operation of, the
statute. Wherer however, the application is not
made under the statute, or on statutory grounds, but
invokes the inherent power of the court, as dis-
cussed supra § 265, the statutory limitation is gen-
erally deemed not applicable2 and the power to va-
cate in proper cases is not lost by. mere lapse of
time or expiration of the term.8 Further, a void
judgment may, under some authorities, be set aside
or vacated at any time,4 time not barring a motion
Trust Co. v. Court of Common
Pleas, 178 A. 546, 115 N.J.Law 86.
Pa. — Cadwallader v. Firestone, Com.
PI., 7 Fay.L.J. 259.
97. Or.— White v. Ladd, 68 P. 789,
41 Or. 324, 93 Am.S.R. 732.
34 C.J. p 325 note 16.
Power of court over void judgment
after term see supra § 230.
96. Ind.— Isaacs v. Fletcher Ameri-
can Nat Bank, 185 N.E. 154, 98
Ind.App. 111.
99. N.Y. — Davidson v/ Ream, 162 N.
Y.S. 375, 1T5 App.Div. 760.
1. Mo. — In re Henry County Mut.
Burial Ass'n, 77 S.W.2d 124, 229
Mo.App. 300.
34 C.J. p 325 note 15 [b].
2. Ariz. — Vasquez v. Dreyfus, 2-69
P. 80, 34 Ariz. 184.
Colo.—Peterson v. Vanderlip, 278 P.
607, 86 Colo. 130.
Idaho. — Rice v. Rice, 267 P. 1076, 46
Idaho 41*8.
CT.D. — corpus Juris dtefl in Ellison
v. Baird, 293 N.W. 793, 794, 70 N.D.
226— Miller v. Benecke, 212 N.W.
925, 55 N.D. 231.
•34 C.J. p 256 note 87.
Time for opening- default Judgments
see infra § 337.
3. Ariz.— VasQuez v. Dreyfus, 269
P. 80, 34 Ariz. 1-84.
Colo. — Peterson v. Vanderlip, 278 P.
607, 86 Colo. 130.
DeL— Hendrix v. Kelley, 143 A. 460,
4 W.W.Harr. 120.
Idaho.— Rice v. Rice, 267 P. 1076,
4-6 Idaho 418.
N.D.—- Miller v. Benecke, 212 N.W.
925, 55 N.D. 231.
34 C.J. p 256 note 88.
Vacation on. court's own motion aft-
er term see supra $287.
"Under some circiunstaaces a void
judgment which was a nullity in law
when entered may or should be
stricken oft notwithstanding1 the
term has ended." — U. S. v. Certain
Land in Falls Tp., Bucks County, D.
C.Pa., 38 F.2d 109, 111.
4. Fla. — Chisholm v. Chisholm, 125
So. 694, 98 Fla. 1196— Kroier v.
Kroier, 116 So. 753, 95 Fla. i865—
Einstein v. Davidson, 17 So. 563,
35 'Fla. 342.
Idaho.— Rice v. Rice, 267 P. 1076, 46
Idaho 418.
111.— Barnard v. Michael. 63 N.E.2d
858, 392 111. 130— Thayer v. Village
of Downers Grove, 16 N.B.2d 717,
369 111. 334— Industrial Nat. Bank
of Chicago v. Altenberg, 64 N.B.2d
219, 327 IlLApp. 337.
Kan. — Taylor v. Focks Drilling &
Manufacturing Corporation, <62 P.
2d 903, 144 Kan. 626.
Ky.— Hill v. Walker, 180 S.W.2d 93,
297 Ky. 257, 154 A.L.R. 814—
Brown's Adm'r v. Gabhart, 23 S.
W.2d 551, 232 Ky. 336.
Neb.— Foster T. Foster, 196 N.W. 702,
111 Neb. 414.
Nev. — Scheeline Banking & Trust Co.
v. Stockgrowers' & Ranchers' Bank
of Reno, 16 P.2d 36'8, 54 Nev. 346.
jq-.j. — Collyer v. McDonald, 10 A.2d
284, 123 N.J.Law 547— Westfleld
Trust Co. v. Qourt of Common
Pleas of Morris County, 17-8 A. 546,
115 N.J.Law 86 — Gimbel Bros. v.
Corcoran, 192 A. 715, 15 N.J.Misc.
538.
N.C.— Johnston County v. Ellis, 38
S.B.2d 31, 226 N.C. 268— City of
Monroe v. Niven, '20 S.E.2d 311, 221
N.C. 862.
N.D. — Taylor v. Oulie, 212 N.W. 931,
55 N.D. 2:53— Miller v. Benecke, 212
N.W. 925, 55 NJX 231.
Pa. — School Dist. of Haverford Tp.,
to Use of Tedesco, v. Herzog, 171
A. 455, 314 Pa. 161— Stickel v. Bar-
ron, Com.Pl., 7 FayJUJ. 35 — Yoder
v. Universal Credit Co*, Com.Pl.,
8 Sch.Reg. 7*6.
523
Utah. — In re Goddard's Estate, 27-8
P. 961, 73 Utah 298.
Invalidity of judgment as ground for
vacating see supra $ 267.
Power of court as to void judgments
after term generally see supra 8
230.
Filing1 false affidavit
Decree against unknown defend-
ants obtained by filing false affidavit
may be set aside at any time. — Gra-
ham v. O'Connor, 182 N.B. 764, 350
111. 36.
Under statute
(1) In some jurisdictions the text
rule has been enacted by statute.
Kan. — Board of Com'rs of Labette
County v. Abbey, 100 P.2d 720,
151 Kan. 710.
Okl.— Neal v. Travelers Ins. Co., 106
P.2d 811, 188 Okl. '131— State v.
City of Tulsa, 5 P.2d 744, 153 Okl.
262— Central Nat Oil Co. v. Conti-
nental Supply Co., 249 P. 347, 119
Okl. 190— Le Clair v. Calls Him,
233 P. 1087, 106 OkL 247.
(2) Under such statutes, action of
court in denying motions to vacate
void judgment, from which no ap-
peal was taken, did not preclude
movant from obtaining vacation of
judgment on motion subsequently
filed, since void judgment may be at-
tacked at any time by party affected
thereby.— Hinkle v. Jones, 66 P.2d
1073, 180 Okl. 17.
(3) Also, a judgment entirely out-
side the issues in the case and on a
matter not submitted to the court for
its determination is a nullity and
may be vacated and set aside at any
time.— Hinkle v. Jones, 66 P.2d 1073,
180 OkL 17— Winters v. Birch, 36 P.
2d 907, 169 OkL 237.
Told and voidable Judgment*
Void judgment may be set aside
and stricken from record on motion
at any time, but judgment voidable
§ 288
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
to set aside such a jtidgment unless the lapse of
time has been so great that the rights of innocent
persons may be prejudicially affected by the de-
lay;5 other authorities so hold with respect to a
judgment which is void on the face of the record or
judgment roll.6 Within these rules fall cases where
the judgment is vacated because it is void for want
of jurisdiction,7 or because it was entered as the
only because irregular or erroneous
must be timely attacked by motion
to vacate or by appeal or it becomes
absolute verity.
TJ.-S. — Parker Bros. v. Fagan, C.C.A.
'Fla., (68 F.2d 616, certiorari denied
54 S.Ct 719, 292 U.S. 638, ?8 (L.Bd.
1490.
'Fla. — In re Begg's Estate, 12 So.2d
115, 152 -Fla. 277— Malone v. Meres,
109 So. 677, 91 Fla. 709.
5. Ky.— HU1 v. Walker, 180 S.W.2d
93, 297 Ely. 257 — Allen v. Sweeney,
213 S.W. 217, 1-85 Ky. 94.
& TJ.S. — Simonds v. Norwich Union
Indemnity Co., C.C.A.Minn., 73 F.
2d 412, certiorari denied Norwich
Union Indemnity Co. v. Sim&nds,
55 S.Ct. 507, 294 U.-S. 711, 79 L.Ed.
1248 — Woods Bros. Qonst. Co. v.
Tankton County, C.C.A.S.GD., 54 «F.
2d 304, 81 A.L.R. 300.
Ala.— State v. Smith. Ill So. 28, 215
Ala. 449.
Cal. — In re Dahnke's Estate and
Guardianship, 222 P. 381, 64 Cal.
App. 555 — King v. Superior Court
in and for San Diego County, 56
P.2d 268, 12 Cal.App.2d 501— Fisch
& Co. v. Superior Court in and for
Los Angeles County, 43 P.2d 855,
6 Cal. App. 2d 21 — In re Callaway's
Guardianship, 26 P.2d 698, 135 CaL
App. 158.
(Fla.— McGee v. McGee, 22 So.2d 788.
Idaho. — Occidental Life Ins. Co. v.
Niendorf, 44 P.2d 1099, 55 Idaho
521— Savage v. Stokes, 28 P.2d
900, -54 Idaho 109— Baldwin v. An-
derson, 8 F.24 461, 51 Idaho 614—
Jensen v. Gooch, 211 P. 551, 36
Idaho 457— Miller v. Prout, 197 P.
1023, 33 Idaho 709.
Okl. — Town of Watonga v. Crane Co.,
114 P.2d 941, 189 Okl. 184— Petty
v. Roberts, 98 P.2d '602, 186 Okl.
269 — Caraway v. Overholser, 77 P.
2d 688, 182 Okl. 357— Ritchie V.
Keeney, 73 P.2d 397, 181 Okl. 207—
Weimer v. Augustana pension and
Aid Fund, 67 P.2d 436, 179 Okl. 572
— Latimer v. Vanderslice, 62 P.2d
1197, 178 Okl. 501 — First Nat. Bank
v. Darragh, 19 P.2d 651, 162 Okl.
243 — Roubedcaux v. Givens, 292 P.
•343, 145 Okl. 221— Simmons v.
Howard, 276 P. 718, 136 Okl. 118—
Maryland Casualty Co. v. Apple,
267 P. 239, 130 Okl. 270 — Crowther
v. Schoonover, 266 P. 777, 130 Okl.
249— ^Central Nat Oil Co. v. Con-
tinental Supply Co., 249 P. 347, 119
Okl. 190— B-R Electric & Tele-
phone Mfg. Co. v. Town of Wewo-
ka,- 239 P. 919, 113 Okl. 225— Le
Clair v. Calls Him, 233 P. 1087,
106 Okl. 247 — Mason v. Slonecker,
.219 P. 3'57, 92 Okl. 227--Good v.
•First Nat Bank, 211 P. 1051, 88
Okl. 110.
S.D. — Corpus Juris cited 'in Lessert
v. Lessert, 263 N.W. 559; Ml, 64 S.
D. 3.
34 C.J. p 257 note 89 [a].
"A judgment which is void upon
its face and requires only an inspec-
tion of the Judgment roll to demon-
strate its want of validity is a 'dead
limb upon the judicial tree which
may be lopped off at any time;' it
can bear no fruit to the plaintiff, but
is a constant menace to the defend-
ant, and may be vacated by the court
rendering it 'at any time on motion
of a party or any person affected
thereby,' either before or after the
expiration of three years from the
rendition of such void judgment.
Such motion is unhampered by a
limitation of time." — Grubb v. Fay
State Bank of (Fay, 249 P. 341, 119
Okl. 199.
Invalidity not appearing1 on face
(1) At common law, court's au-
thority to vacate judgment not void
on face 'of judgment roll, but void in
fact for want of jurisdiction of per-
son of defendant, ceased with ending
of term at which judgment was en-
tered.— Richert v. Benson Lumber
Co., 34 P.2d «40, 139 CaLApp. 671.
(2) It has been held that a void
judgment may be vacated on motion
made within reasonable time where
invalidity does not appear on judg-
ment roll. — Savage v. Stokes, 28 P.
2d 900, 54 Idaho 109— Baldwin v. An-
derson, 8 P.2d 461, 51 Idaho 614 —
Miller v. Prout, 197 P. 1023, 33 Idaho
709.
(3) In some jurisdictions, how-
ever, a judgment that is not void on
its face can be attacked only within
the time provided by statute. — Lati-
mer v. Vanderslice, 62 P.2d 1197, 178
Okl. 501 — Crowther v. Schoonover,
266 P. 777, 130 Okl. 249.
Judgment held not void on face
Ala. — Ex parte R. H. Byrd Contract-
ing Co., 156 -So. 579, 26 Ala. App.
171, certiorari denied 156 So. 582,
229 Ala. 248.
When judgment void on face
(1) Within this rule, a judgment
is void on its face when its invalidity,
is apparent on inspection of judg-
ment roll.
Cal.— Gibbons v. Clapp, 277 P. 490,
207 Cal. 221— Application of Behy-
mer, 19 P.2d 829, 130 CaLApp. 200.
Okl.— Dale v. Carson, 2-83 P. 1017,
141 Okl. 105 — Carson v. Carson,
283 P. 1015, 141 Okl. 106— Savoy
Oil Co. v. Emery, 277 P. 1029, 137
Okl. 67 — Pennsylvania Co. v. Pot-
ter, 233 P. 700, 108 Okl. 49. i
524
(2) Within this rule, a judgment
is void on its face when the judg-
ment roll affirmatively shows that
the trial court lacked either Juris-
diction over the person, jurisdiction
over the subject matter, or judicial
power to render the particular judg-
ment— Town of Watonga v. Crane
Co., 114 P.2d 941, 189 Okl. 184.
(3) A Judgment which on its face
discloses that the court had jurisdic-
tion of the subject matter and of
the parties is not void on its face. —
Pennsylvania Co. v. Potter, 233 P.
700, 108 Okl. «49.
7. U.S.— U. S. v. Turner, C.Q.A.N.D.,
47 F.2d 86.
Cal.— Jellen v. O'Brien, 2-64 P. 1115,
89 CaLApp. 605.
Fla. — Kroier v. Kroier, 118 So. 753,
95 iFla. 865.
111.— Barnard v. Michael, 63 N.B.2d
858, -392 111. 130— Sherman & Ellis
v. Journal of Commerce and Com-
mercial Bulletin, 259 111. App. 453.
TE^TI, — Taylor v. Focks Drilling &
Manufacturing Corporation, 62 P.
2d 903, 144 Kan. 626.
Mont. — Kosonen v. Waara, 285 P.
668, 87 Mont 24.
N.D.— Corpus Juris cited la Ellison
v. Baird, 293 N.W. 793, 794, 70 N.
D. 226— Miller v. Benecke, 212 N.
W. 925, 55 N.D. 231-^Freeman v.
Wood, 88 N.W. 721, 11 N.D. 1.
Ohio. — 'Kinsman Nat. Bank v. Jerko,
25 Ohio N.P.,N.S., 445.
Or.— May v. Roberts, 286 P. 546, 133
Or. 643 — Ladd & Tilton v. Mason,
10 Or. 308.
Pa.— Mintz T. Mintz, -83 Pa. Super. 85
— Keister v. Bitter, Com.PL, 53
Dauph.Co. 29$ — Toder v. Universal
Credit Co., Com.PL, 8 Sch.Reg. 76.
S.D.— iLessert v. Lessert, 263 N.W.
559, 64 S.D. 3.
Wis.~ In re Cudahy's Estate, 219 N.
W. 203, 196 Wis. 260.
.34 C.J. p 217 note 32, p 257 note 89.
Want of Jurisdiction of person
(1) Generally.
u.-s.— u. s. v. sotis, c.q.A.iiL, 131
F.2d 783.
Ala.— State v. Smith, 111 So. 28, 215
Ala. 449. ,
Colo. — Peterson v. Vanderlip, 278 P.
607, 86 Colo. 130.
Fla.— McGee v. McGee, 22 So.2d 788.
I1L — Graham v. O'Connor, 182 N.E.
764, 350 111. 36— Anderson v. An-
derson, 11 N.E.2d 216, 292 IlLApp.
421.
Neb.— Foster v. Foster, 196 N.W. 702,
111 Neb. 414.
(2) "It would be an absurdity to
suppose that a person, against whom
a judgment has been rendered with-
out any service of process whatever.
49 O.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
288
result of clerical mistake or inadvertence,8 or be-
cause of irregularity by reason of mistake of fact,9
or, as appears infra subdivision e of this section,
because of fraud, deception, or collusion in obtain-
ing the judgment, in all of which classes of cases the
court has inherent power to vacate the judgment
after expiration of the term, and without limitation
as to time, unless a limitation is prescribed by stat-
ute,10 and it has also been held that a judgment
made through mistake may be vacated at any
time.11
' It has been said that ordinarily it is a litigant's
duty to take steps during the term of court to set
aside any unsatisfactory judgment12 The power to
vacate a judgment because the court has changed
its mind, and desires to change its ruling on the
merits, expires with the term.18 A premature mo-
tion will not be granted.14
Court rules. A motion to open or vacate a judg-
ment nlay be denied where not made within the
time prescribed by rule of court.15
b. Statutory Provisions
Statutory limitations on the time for making an ap-
plication to open or vacate a Judgment must be observed
in all applications made under, or within the operation
of, the statute.
Statutes in many jurisdictions expressly provid-
ing that a judgment may be set aside, opened, or
vacated on grounds enumerated therein, and speci-
fying the time within which the application shall
be made, haye been construed and applied in a num-
ber of cases.16 Any statutory limitation of the
could be precluded by any lapse of
time from contesting its validity.
Even though he has become aware
of its existence, there is no rule of
law or of reason that requires him
to take any action for its annulment.
He may wait until it is sought to be
enforced against him. This is a po-
sition so well settled that it would
be useless to enlarge upon it, or to
cite authorities in its support." —
Harper v. Cunningham, 18 App.D.C.
430, 439.
Invalidity on face of record
(1) Judgment is not legally void
for want of Jurisdiction unless in-
validity appears on face of record. —
Dale v. Carson, 283 P. 1017, 141 Okl.
105— Carson *• Carson, 283 P. 1015,
141 Okl. 106 — Savoy Oil Co. v. Km*
ery, 277 P. 1029, 137 Okl. 67.
(2) A Judgment, void for want of
valid service on defendant appearing
from an inspection of the Judgment
roll, may be vacated at any time. —
Good v. 'First Nat. Bank, fill P. 1051,
88 Okl. 110.
Judgment held not void
Kan.— Westerman v. Westerman, 2'47
P. 863, 121 Kan. 501.
pkl.— Petty v. Roberts, 98 P.2d 602,
1S'6 Okl. 269.
8. Fla.— St. Lucie Estates v. Palm
Beach Plumbing Supply Co., 133
So. 841, 101 Fla. 205.
34 C.J. p 257 note 90.
9. N.D. — Martinson v. Marzolf, 108
N.W. 937, 14 N.D. 301.
34 C.J. p 257 note 91.
Irregular Judgments generally see
infra subdivision d of this section.
10. Tex. — Watson v. Texas & P. R.
Co., Civ.App., 73 S.W. 830.
34 C.J. p 257 note 94.
11. Fla. — Zemurray v. Kilgore, 177
So. 714, 130 Fla. 817— Eli Witt Ci-
gar & Tobacco Co. v. Somers, 127
So. 333, 99 'Fla, 592.
12. Tex. — Dallas Development Co. v.
Reagan, Civ.App., 25 &W.2d 240,
Petition during1 term ordinarily re-
quired
Pa. — Brosch v. Brosch, Com.Pl., 56
Dauph.Co. 376.
13. Cal.— Hanson v. Hanson, 20 P.
736, 3 Cal.Unrep.Cas. 66.
14. N.T.— Woods v. Pangburn, 7$ N.
T. 495.
34 C. J. p 257 note 96.
15. Nev.— Scheeline Banking &
Trust Co. v. Stockgrowers' &
Ranchers' Bank of Reno, 16 P.2d
368, 54 Nev. 3'46.
34 C.J. p 258 note 97.
Purpose and application, of rule
The district court rule fixing a
period of six months within which a
Judgment might be vacated was
adopted to take place of former rule
requiring motions to vacate Judg-
ments to be noticed during terms at
which they were rendered; by vir-
tue of rule, Judgments which former-
ly could not be set aside by a dis-
trict court after expiration of terms
at which they were rendered cannot
now be set aside by motion noticed
more than six months after they are
rendered; rule does not apply to a
Judgment void on its face, or to sep-
arate or independent suits brought
to set aside Judgments; rule applies
only to motions in the original case
to vacate Judgments.— ILauer v.
Eighth Judicial District Court in
and for Clark County, 140 P.2d 953,
62 Nev. 78.
16. NJD.— Freeman v. Wood, 103 N.
W. 392, 14 N.D. 95.
34 C.J. p 258 note 99.
In Alabama
(1) Under statute, circuit court
has no power to open or set aside a
final Judgment or decree after the
lapse o.f thirty days from the date
of its rendition.— Maya Corporation
v. Smith, 196 So. 125, 239 Ala. 470
— First Nat Bank v. Garrison, 180
So. 690, 235 Ala. 687.
(2) Under statute, * proceeding
525
for rehearing must be initiated withr
in four months from rendition of
:he Judgment; otherwise Jurisdiction
of the court is not quickened into
exercise, and the proceedings are
void.— Marshall County v. Critcher,
17 So.2d 540, 245 Ala. 357— Venable
v. Turner, 183 So. 644, 236 Ala. 488—
3-4 C.J. p 258 note 99 [a] (1).
(8) Other holdings under the Ala-
bama statutes see 34 C.J. p 258 note
99 [a].
In (California
(1) Under Code Civ.Proc. § 478, an
application for relief against a Judg-
ment on the ground of mistake, in-
advertence, surprise, or excusable
neglect must be made within a rea-
sonable time, but in no case ex-
ceeding six months after the Judg-
ment -was taken.— Hewins v. Wai-
beck, 141 P.2d 241, 60 Cal.App.2d
603—34 C.J. p 258 note. 99 [b] (1),
(6).
(2) Under the statute, now Code
Civ.Proc. S 473a, when from any
cause the summons in an action has
not been personally *erved on de-
fendant, the court may allow de-
fendant, at any time within one year
after the rendition of any Judgment
in such action, to answer to the
merits of the original action. — Rich-
ert v. Benson Lumber Co., 34 P.2d
840, 139 CaLApp. 671— 84 C.J. p 258
note 99 [b] (2). *
(3) It has been held that a court
has no power to set aside on mo-
tion a Judgment not void on its face
unless the motion is made within
a reasonable time. — Thompson v.
Cook, 127 P.2d 909, 20 Cal.2d 564—
Richert v. Benson Lumber Co., su-
pra—p. B. Young Co. v. Femstrom,
79 P.2d 1117, 31 CaJUApp.2d Supp.
763—34 C.J. p 258 note 99 [b] (4).
(4) What constitutes a reasona-
ble time depends on the circumstanc-
es of the particular case. — In re
Dahnke'B Estate and Guardianship,
§288 JUDGMENTS 49 O.J.S.
time within which an application to open or vacate I a judgment may be made must be observed in all
222 P. 381, ff4 CaLApp. 555—34 C.JT.
P 258 note 99 [b] (7).
(5) It has been declared to have
been definitely determined that such
time will not extend beyond the
time fixed by Code Civ.Proc, § 473.
— In re Andrews' Guardianship, 110
P.2d 399. 17 Cal.2d 500— Hall v. Im-
perial Water Co. No. 3, 251 P, 912,
200 CaL 77 — Thompson v. Thompson,
101 P.2d 160, 38 Cal.App.2d 377— Ci-
kuth v. Loero, 57 P.2d 1009, 14 Cal.
App.2d 32— In re Callaways Guard-
ianship, 26 P.2d 698, 135 Cal.App.
158— In re Dahnke's Estate and
Guardianship, 222 P. 381, 64 CaLApp.
555.
(6) In determining what consti-
tutes a reasonable time, by analogy
to the statute, now Code Civ.Proc. §
473a, it has been held that the mo-
tion must be made within the year
next following the entry of Judg-
ment except in the case of bad faith
on the part of the process server. —
P. B. Young Co. v. Pernstrom, 79 P.
2d 1117, 31 Cal.App.2d Supp. 763—
Richert v. Benson Lumber Co., 34
P.2d 840, 139 CaLApp. 671— 3'4 C.J. p
258 note 99 [b] (5).
(7) To these rules, however, there
is a well established exception which
provides that, although the judg-
ment is valid on its face, if the
party in favor of whom the Judg-
ment runs admits facts showing its
invalidity, or, without objection on
his part, evidence is admitted which
clearly shows the existence of such
facts, it is the duty of the court
to declare the judgment void.—
Thompson v. Cook, 127 P.2d 909, 20
Cal.Sd 564, prior opinion 120 P.2d
54.
(8) On the other hand, it has al-
so been held that under certain cir-
cumstances the trial court has the
inherent power, but not equivalent
duty, to set aside its decrees after
the expiration of the six-month peri-
od.—McCarthy v. McCarthy, 72 P.2d
255, 23 Cal.App.2d 151.
(9) A judgment void on its face is
not within the statutory limitation
and may be vacated on motion with-
out regard to the lapse of time.—
Michel v. Williams, 56 P.2d 546, 13
Cal.App.2d 19-8—84 C.J. p 258 note
99 [b] (3),
(10) California legislation and de-
cisions reviewed. — P. B. Young Co. v.
Pernstrom, 79 P.2d 1117, 31 CaLApp.
2d Supp. 763 — Richert v. Benson
Lumber Co., 34 P.2d 8"40, 139 Cal.
App. 671.
la Georgia
(1) Under Code § 3-702, proceed-
ings to set aside judgments or de-
crees must be brought within three
years from the rendition thereof. —
Sewell v. Anderson, 30 S.B.2d 102,
1197 Ga. £23—34 C.J. p 258 note 99 I In ICnnesota
Ed] (1).
(2) Under Civ.Code, 1910, §§ 4358,
5957, 5958, judgment may be set
aside within three years from rendi-
tion for any defect not amendable
which appears on face of record. —
Byers v. Byers, 154 S.E, 456, 41 Ga.
App. 671.
(3) Single judgment for defendant
on cross actions in bail trover and
attachment cases by same plaintiff,
tried together, was held voidable by
plaintiff and his sureties on motion
within three-year limitation period.—
Pipkin v. Garrett, 162 S.B. 645, 44
Ga.App. 616.
(4) Affidavit that affiant had new-
er seen decree, enforcement of which
he sought to enjoin, until his prop-
erty had been levied on and adver-
tised for sale, or known thereof, was
held not to prevent application of
statute requiring motion to set aside
decree to be, made within three
years.— Phillips v. Whelchel, 170 S.B.
480, 177 Ga, 489.
(5) Prior decisions see 34 C.J. p
258 note 99 [dj.
Ui Idaho
(1) Court cannot set Judgment
aside on motion after statutory time
for vacating it, which, under Comp.
St § 6726, as amended by L.1921,
c 235, in cases where defendant was
not personally served with process,
is one year within entry of Judg-
ment, unless judgment is void on
face of record. — Rice v. Rice, 267 P.
1076, '46 Idaho 418.
(2) Under Code, 1932, § 5-905, ap-
plication to vacate judgment must
be made within six months after ad-
journment of term whether movant
moves on ground of mistake, inad-
vertence, surprise, or excusable neg-
lect, or by reason of neglect or fail-
ure of. movant's attorney to file or
serve any paper within time limited
therefor.— Roberts v. Wehe, 27 P.2d
964, 53 Idaho 783—34 C.J. p 258 note
99 Eg] CD.
(3) Other particulars of Idaho
rules see 34 OJ. p 258 note 99 [g].
In. Kentucky
(1) Jefferson circuit court is one
of continuous session, and under
statute has control over its Judg-
ments for sixty days; order of Jeffer-
son circuit court of September 15, at-
tempting to set aside decree of Feb-
ruary 13, was erroneous for want of
power to set aside order seven
months after expiration of term
during which it was entered.— Baum-
lisberger v. Dorman, 81 S.W.2d 876,
259 Ky. 37.
(2) Other decisions under the Ken-
tucky statutes see 34 C.J. p 258 note
99 CJ3.
526
(1) A motion to set aside a Judg-
ment for judicial error must be
made within time limited to ap-
peal since relief asked for would be
same as that obtainable on appeal,
but, where judgment is sought to be
modified or vacated for good cause
shown, the statutory limitation of
one year after notice of entry of the
judgment is applicable and, within
the one year, the party seeking to
vacate must act with diligence.—
Holmes v. Center, 295 N.W. 649, 209
Minn. 144 — Alexander v. Hutchins,
197 N.W. 75'4, 158 Minn. 391— Alex-
ander v. Hutchins, 197 N.W. 756, 158
Minn. 396.
(2) Other decisions under the Min-
nesota statutes see 34 C.J. p 258
note 99 [k].
In Missouri
(1) The motion permitted by stat-
ute, Mo.Rev.StAnnot. $ 1267, pro-
viding that judgment shall not be
set aside for irregularity on mo-
tion unless made within three years
after term at which such judgment
was rendered, is not an ordinary mo-
tion, within the usual meaning of
that word, but is in the nature of
a writ of error coram nobis, or an
independent proceeding. — Poindexter
v. Marshall, App., 198 S.W.2d 622—
34 C.J. p 258 note 99 [ZJ (1).
(2) The statute contemplates as-
sault on an irregularity patent on
record, and not one depending on
proof dehors the record.— Crabtree v.
-Eltna Life Ins. Co., Ill S.W.2d 103,
341 Mo. 1173— Buchholz v. Manzella,
App., 158 S.W.2d 200— Stulz v. Len-
tin, 295 S.W. 487, 220 Mo.App. 840—
3-4 C.J. p 258 note 99 HI (2).
(3) Decree rendering judgment for
improvement of two distinct projects
was not responsive to petition for
improvement of one project, and,
therefore, Irregular on its face, so
as to come within statute. — Johnson
v. Underwood, 24 S.W.2d 133, 324 Mo.
578.
(4) Other decisions under the Mis-
souri statutes see 34 C.J. p 258 note
99 CH.
In New Mexico
(1) Under statute, after the ex-
piration of thirty days and within
a year from the making and entry
of a Judgment, it may be set aside
only for an irregularity. — Miera v.
State, 129 P.2d 334, 45 N.M. 369—
Board of Com'rs of Quay County
v. Wasson. 24 P.2d 1098, 37 N.M.
503, followed in Board of Com'rs of
Quay County v. Gardner, 24 P.2d
1104, 37 N.M. 514.
(2) A denied motion filed within
statutory time, to vacate final judg-
ment, cannot be refiled after such
time and subsequent motion consid-
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
288
applications to open or vacate made under, or with- ( in the operation of, the statute.17 This statutory
ered as amended original motion. —
Board of Com'rs of Quay County v.
Wasson, 24 P.2d 109-8, 37 N.M. 503,
followed in Board of Com'rs of Quay
County v. Gardner, 24 P.2d 1104,
37 N.M. 51'4.
la New Jersey
(1) An interlocutory decree passes
beyond the control of the chancery
court one month after date thereof,
but a final decree is for three
months subject to reconsideration
by chancery court.— Reilly v. Ma-
honey, 19 A.2d 887, 129 N.J.Eq, 599.
(2) A decree in partition suit con-
firming report of master, and adr
judging that complainant had no In-
terest in land and that defendants
owned the whole of the land and
ordering sale thereof was "final de-
cree." — Reilly v. Mahoney, supra.
(3) The court does not lose juris-
diction of a timely motion to va-
cate by reason of a continuance. —
Reilly v. Mahoney, supra.
In New York
(1) Under Ciy.Pract.Act § 528 a
motion to set 'aside a final judg-
ment for error in fact not arising
on the trial cannot be heard after
expiration of two years since the
filing of the judgment roll, unless
noticed for a day within that time
and adjourned or renoticed for fail-
ure to hold the term. — Petition of
Holman, 51 N.T.S.2d 246, 268 App.
Div. 330—34 C.J. P 258 note 99 [m]
(3).
(2) This statute is inapplicable to
a motion to set aside a judgment for
error of law.— Siegel v. State, 246 N.
7.S. 652. 138 Misc. 474.
(3) Judgment of county court
without its jurisdiction was void,
and not mere irregularity, within
statutory limitation of time on mo-
tions to vacate judgments for ir-
regularity.—Kline v. Snyder, 231 N.
Y.S. 275, 133 Misc. 128.
(4) Other decisions under New
York statutes see 34 C.J. p 258 note
99 [m].
T^ Qlf Iftfa QTM ft.
(1) If judgment is valid on its
face, or if it is necessary to resort
to intrinsic evidence to show its in-
validity, motion or petition to va-
cate it must be presented within
period, varying with nature of
ground for vacation relied on, as
provided for in successive statutes.
— Honeycutt v. Severin, 98 P.2d 1093,
186 Okl. 509— Babb v. National Life
Ass'n, 86 P.2d 771, 18-4 Okl. 273—
Caraway v. Overholser, 77 P.2d
68-8, 182 Okl. 357— Yahola Oil Co. v.
.Causey, 72 P.2d 817, 181 Okl. 129
— Weimer v. Augustana Pension and
Aid Fund, 67 P.2d 436, 179 Okl. 572
— Clones v. Norris, 55 P.2d 984, 176
Okl. 434— First Nat Bank v. Bar-
rough, 19 P.2d 551, 162 Okl. 243—
Roubedeaux v. Givens, 292 P. 343,
145 Okl. 221— Simmons v. Howard,
276 P. 718, 136 Okl. 118— Crowther
v. Schoonover, 266 P. 777, 130 Okl.
249— B-R Electric & Telephone Mfg.
Co. v. Town of Wewoka, 239 P. 919,
113 Okl. 225—34 C.J. p 258 note 99
[P].
(2) Where service was by publica-
tion and journal entry of judgment
recited that service had been made
t>y publication as required by law,
the judgment was not void on its
flace, within such statute. — Ritchie v.
Keeney, 73 P.2d 397, 181 Okl. 207.
(3) Judgment rendered on notice
by publication, requiring defendant
to answer within forty-one days aft-
er date of first publication, is irregu-
lar and may be set aside on appeal
or timely motion, but is not void
on its face, and cannot be vacated on
motion filed more than three years
after rendition, under such statute. —
Burns v. Pittsburg Mortg. Inv. Co.,
231 P. 887, 105 Okl/150.
Oregon
(1) Under Code Civ.Proc. $ 1-1007,
the court may, at any time within
one year after notice thereof, re-
lieve a party from a judgment tak-
en against him through his mistake,
inadvertence, surprise, or excusable
neglect— Haas v. Scott 239 P. 202,
115 Or. 580.
(2) Fact that defendant's attorney
had been informed on inquiry from
deputy clerk that decree was not on
file, although the record showed the
contrary, was not surprise, mistake,
or excusable neglect within statute.
— Haas v. Scott, supra.
In, Texas
(1) Under statute, the trial court
has control of its judgments for a
period of thirty days after rendition
thereof, and may set aside any judg-
ment on motion filed, or on its own
motion. — Christner v. Mayer, Civ.
App., 123 S.W.2d 715, error dismiss-
ed, judgment correct— American Soda
Fountain Co. v, Hairston, Civ.App.,
69 S.W.2d 546.
(2) Where no motion for a new
trial was filed before expiration of
thirty days from the date of the
judgment, such- judgment became
final and, if not void, could be se1
aside only by a bill of review and
not by motion to set aside the judge-
ment; a motion made after such
thirty-day period to set aside judg-
ment and for judgment non obstante
veredicto was a collateral attack on
judgment and court was unauthor-
ized to set it aside unless it was
void.— Bridgman v. Moore, 183 S.W
2d 705, 143 Tex. 250.
(3) Other decisions under Texas
statutes see 34 C.J. p 258 note 99
Cs3.
527
In Utah
Under statute, judgment not void
on its face cannot be opened or va-
cated, in same proceeding except
within six months after term.— In
re Goddard's Estate, 273 P. 961, 73
Utah 29-8— 3'4 C.J. p 258 note 99 [t].
17. Cal.— Thompson v. Cook, 127 P.
2d 909, 20 Cal.2d 564— King v. Su-
perior Court in and for San Diego
County, 56 P.2d 268, 12 Cal.App.2d
501 — Fisch & Co. v. Superior Court
in and for Los Angeles County, 48
P.2d 855, 6 Oal.App.2d 21— F. B.
Young v. Fernstrom, 79 P.2d 1117,
31 Cal.App.2d Supp. 763.
Colo. — Levand v. North America
Realty Co., 271 P. m, 84 Colo.
445.
Ga. — Phillips v. Whelchel, 170 S.E.
'480, 177 Ga. 489 — Mobley v. Phin-
izy, 157 S.E. 182, 172 Ga, 339,
Idaho.— Rice v. Rice, 267 P. 1076,
46 Idaho 418.
HI. — Gertz v. Neiman, 66 N.E.2d 108,
328 IlLApp. 356— La Salle Mort-
gage & Discount Co. v. Continental
Illinois Nat Bank & Trust Co. of
Chicago, 32 N.B.2d 643, first case,
309 IlLApp. 135— Davis v. Bast St
Louis & S. Ry. Co., 9 N.B.2d 254,
290 IlLApp. €40.
Iowa.— Shaw v. Addison, 18 N.W.2*
796.
Kan. — Brooks v. National Bank of
Topeka, 113 P.2d 1069, 153 Kan.
831— Bemis v. Bemis, 98 P.2d 156,
151 Kan. 186— Harder v. Johnson,
76 P.2d 763, 147 Kan. <440.
Minn,— Cox v. Selover, 225 N.W. 2«2,
177 Minn. 369.
N.D.— Bellingham State Bank of
Bellingham v. McCormick, 215 N.
W. 152. 55 N.D. 700.
Ohio.— Baylor v. Killinger, 186 N.B.
512, 44 Ohio App. 523.
Okl.— Honeycutt v. Severin, 98 P.2d
1093, 186 Okl. 509— Babb v. Na-
tional Life Ass'n, ;86 P.2d 771, 184
Okl. 273— Caraway v. Overholser,
77 P.2d 688, 182 Okl. 357— Ritchie
v. Keeney, 73 P.2d 397, 181 Ofcl.
207 — Weimer v. Augustana Pension
and Aid Fund, 67 P.2d 436, 179
Okl. 572— First Nat. Bank v. Dar-
rough, 19 P.2d 551, 162 Okl. 243 —
Simmons v. Howard, 276 P. 718,
136 Okl. 118 — B-R Electric & Tele-
phone Mfg. Co. v. Town of Wewo-
ka, 239 P. 919, 113 Okl. 225—
Burns v. Pittsburg Mortg. Inv. Co.,
231 P. 887, 105 Okl. 150— Walker
v. Gulf Pipe Line Co., 226 P. 1046,
102 OkL 7. '
Utah.— In re Goddard's Estate, 273
P. 961, 73 Utah 298.
Wash.— Nevers v. Cochrane, 229 F.
738, 131 Wash. 225— Collins v. Sea
Products Co., 215 P. 15, 124 Wash,
625.
Wis.— Volland v. McGee, 300 N.W.
506, 238 Wis. 598— Application of
Dan* County for Condemnation of
288
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
power of the court over the judgment absolutely
ceases on the expiration of such time, and there-
after it has no discretion, or even jurisdiction, to
grant relief under the statute by opening or vacat-
ing the judgment.18 A judgment, however, may be
vacated on statutory grounds at any time within the
time limited, by statute, either during or after the
term at which it was rendered.19
The period within which an application on stat-
utory grounds may be made begins to run, depend-
ing on the language of the statute, from the rendi-
tion or entry of the judgment,20 or after notice or
knowledge of the judgment,21 or service of a copy
of it,22 or after the adjournment of the .term at
which the judgment was rendered,23 or from the
taking of the proceeding against a party.24 The
time of the pendency of an appeal is not consid-
ered as any portion of the statutory period.25 The
Certain Lands for Park Purposes,
298 N.W. 616, 238 Wis. 156— -Har-
ris v. Golliner, 294 N.W. 9, 235
Wis. 572.
Wyo.— Boulter v. Cook, 234 P. 1101,
32 Wyo. 461, rehearing- denied 236
P. 245, 32 Wyo. '461.
34 C.J. p 255 note 85—47 C.J. p 437
note 39.
Judgment voidable as prematurely
entered
After expiration of statutory pe-
riod for attacking: judgment prema-
turely entered and therefore void-
able, judgment became invulnerable
to motion. — Merchants' Collection Co.
v. Sherburne, 290 P. 991, 158 Wash.
426.
18. Ala. — Maya Corporation v.
Smith, 196 So. 125, 239 Ala. 470.
Ariz. — Hartford Accident & indem-
nity Co. v. Sorrells, 69 P.2d 240,
50 Ariz. 90 — Dockery v. Central
Arizona Light & Power Co., 45 P.
2d 656, 45 Ariz. 434— Vazquez v.
Dreyfus, 269 P. 80, 34 Ariz. 184.
Cal. — Thompson v. Cook, 127 P.2d
909, 20 Cal.2d 56*4.
HI. — Rome Soap Mfg. Co. v. John
T. La Forge & Sons, 54 N.E.2d
252, 322 Ill.App. 281— Madigan
Bros. v. Garfleld State Bank, 34
N.B.2d 92, 310 IlLApp. 358— Trupp
v. First Englewood State Bank of
Chicago, 30 N.E.2d 198, 307 Ill.App.
258.
Iowa.— Albright v. Moeckley, 237 N.
W. 309.
Ky. — Baumlisberger v. Dorman, 81
S.W.2d 876, 259 Ky. 37.
Minn.— In re Belt Line, Phalen, and
Hazel Park Sewer Assessment, 222
N.W. 520, 176 Minn. 59.
• N.J.— Dietsch v. Smith, 186 A. 598,
5 N.J.Misc. 388.
N.D. — Patterson Land Co. v. Lynn,
199 N.W. 766, 51 N.D. 329.
Or, — Lawson v. Hughes, 270 P. 922,
127 Or, 16.
Tenn. — Payne v. Eureka-Security
Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 122 S.W.2d
431, 173 Tenn. 659, affirmed 133 S.
W.2d 456, 175 Tenn. 134.
Utah. — In re Goddard's Estate, 273
P. 961, 73 Utah 298.
Wis.— In re Cudahy's Estate, 219 N.
W. -203, 196 Wis. 260.
34 OJ. p 232. note 86 [a], p 260 note
1.
" ''The judgment is immune from
attack by the statutory methods aft-
er the time limit imposed by the
statute."— Foster v. Foster, 227 P.
514, 515, 130 Wash. 376.
"The statute ... is as inflex-
ible as to the maximum time as any
of our statutes of limitations." —
Kosonen v. Waara, 285 P. 668, 673,
87 Mont 24.
19. Ga.— J. S. Schofield's Sons Co.
v. Vaughn, 150 S.E. 569, 40 Ga.
App. 568 — Grogan v. Deraney, 143
S.E. 912, 38 Ga.App. 2*87.
111. — Clausen v. Van-in, 11 N.E.2d
820, 292 IlLApp. 641.
Okl.— Denton v. Walker, 217 P, 386,
90 Okl. 222.
Or. — Anderson v. Guenther, 25 P.2d
146, 14*4 Or. 4-46.
34 CJ. p 261 note 2.
Laches within statutory period of
limitation see infra subdivision c
of this section.
Want of Jurisdiction
Remedy by statutory motion to
set aside judgment is proper, not-
withstanding lapse of judgment term
without appeal being perfected, if
record discloses want of jurisdiction.
— Dewey v. Union Electric Light &
Power Co., Mo.App., 83 S.W.2d 203.
Renewal of oral motion after term
Where plaintiff orally moved to set
aside judgment of dismissal, but
procured no ruling on motion and
filed no written motion, a renewal of
the oral motion at a subsequent term
came too late. — Haddon v. Brinson,
148 S.E. 541, 39 Ga.App. 798.
20, HI. — Rome Soap Mfg. Co. v.
John T. La Forge & Sons, 54 N.E.
2d 252, 322 IlLApp. 281,
Wash. — Scottish American Mortg.
Co. v. Stone, 232 P. 289, 132 Wash.
487.
3*4 C.J. p 261 note 3.
Judgment i* that of lower court,
not that of higher court affirming
it— Shaw vr Addison, Iowa, 18 N.W.
2d 796.
Judgment need not "be formally en-
tered before motion may be made to
vacate It if there is sufficient entry
of memorandum to sustain formal
entry to be made at later date.— Dor-
rough v. Mackenson, 165 So. 575, 231
Ala. 431.
Terms of court as obsolete
A statute providing that trial
courts may vacate judgments and or-
ders for good cause any time with-
in six months after entry thereof
affirms common-law doctrine with
528
respect to right of setting aside
judgments and orders, but fixes pe-
riod during which court may act in
place of obsolete terms of court. — In
re Ralph's Estate, 67 P.2d 230, 49
Ariz. 391 — Intel-mountain Building &
Loan Ass'n v. Allison Steel Mfg. Co.,
22 P.2d 413, 42 Ariz. 51.
21. Minn. — Holmes v. Conter, 295
N.W. 6-49, 209 Minn. 144.
Or. — Anderson v. Guenther, 25 P.2d
146, 144 Or. 446.
3-4 C.J. p 262 note 4.
22. Tenn. — Brown v. Brown, 6 S.W.
869, 7 S.W. 640. 86 Tenn. 277.
34 C.J. p 262 note 5.
28. Colo. — Levand v. North Ameri-
ca Realty Co., 271 P. 177, 84 Colo.
445.
Idaho.— Roberts v. Wehe, 27 P.2d
964, 53 Idaho 783.
Utah.— In re Goddard's Estate, 273
P. 961, 73 Utah 298.
3*4 C.J. p 232 note 86 [a], p 262 note
6.
24. In California
(1) Under Code Civ.Proc. $ 473,
authorizing the court to relieve a
party from a judgment, order, or
other proceeding taken against him,
provided the application therefor is
made within a reasonable time, but
in no 'case exceeding six months aft-
er such judgment, order, or 'proceed-
ing was taken, the signing and filing
of a formal order constitutes a "tak-
ing."— Brownell v. Tolo County Su-
per. Ct, 109 P. 91, 157 CaL 703.
(2) Court cannot by antedating or-
der or entry of it cut off right of
party to move to set aside judgment.
—In re Harris, 52 P.2d 605, 10 CaL
App.2d 586.
25. Wash. — Pacific Telephone & Tel-
egraph Co. v. Henneford, 92 P.2d
214, 199 Wash. 462, certlorari de-
nied Henneford v. Pacific Tele-
phone & Telegraph Co., 59 S.<2t
483, 306 U.S. 637, 83 LJBd, 1038.
Vacation after expiration of time for
appeal
Where judgment was unauthorized
because of plaintiff's failure to give
defendant notice of application for
order for judgment, rather than
merely erroneous, it could be vacat-
ed, notwithstanding the time for ap-
peal from the judgment expired be-
fore application for relief was made.
— Kemerer v. State Farm Mut Auto
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
288
fact that a judgment does not include costs and dis-
bursements does not have the effect of extending
the statutory period.26
A statute extending the time limit cannot be given
a retroactive effect so as to authorize the vacation
of judgments which have become vested property
rights by expiration of the time within which they
could be vacated or modified;27 but such statutes
may apply to judgments previously rendered pro-
vided jurisdiction over them has not been lost.28
Statutory limitations of the time within which a
motion for a new trial may be made have no ap-
plication to motions to vacate the judgment,29 be-
cause, as appears supra § 265, a motion to vacate
a judgment is n'ot a motion for a new trial.
Where the statute limits the time for applying
for the vacation of a judgment, the moving party,
to bring himself within its terms, must not only file
his motion or petition within the prescribed time,
but must also issue or serve such process or notice
as may be necessary to bring the opposite party in-
to court,80 and present his case in a condition to
be heard within the limited time.31 When this has
been done in due season, it has been held that the
petition may be amended, or a*new one substituted,
after the expiration of the time,32 or new parties
added,33 or the application continued for further
hearing.34
Under some statutes it has been held 'that the re-
lief must be granted as well as the application there-
for made within the time prescribed by statute;35
but under other statutes, if the motion was made
within the limited time, it is competent for the
court to act on it and grant the relief demanded
although the time has expired before the order is
made.36
c. Laches and Delay
An application for the opening OP vacating of a Judg-
ment must be made with reasonable promptness, and de-
lay amounting to laches, will Justify refusal of the ap-
plication.
A party who has knowledge of the judgment
against him is required to exercise reasonable dili-
gence and promptness in seeking to have it opened,
vacated, or set aside, and his unexcused delay in
making the application, amounting to laches, will
justify the court in refusing the relief asked,37- es-
Ins. Co. of Bloomington, 111., 288 N.
W. 719, 206 Minn. 325.
26. Minn.— Cox v. Selover, 225 N.
W. 282, 177 Minn. 369.
27* Minn.— Wieland v. Shillock, 24
Minn. 3*45.
N.Y.— New York Health Dept v.
Babcock, 84 N.T.S. 604.
28. Wash. — Marston v. Humes, 28 P.
520, 3 Wash. 267.
29. Ariz.— Blair v. Blair, 62 P.2d
1321, 48 Ariz. 501.
Ohio. — In re Kleinhen's Estate, App.,
63 N.E.2d 315.
34 C.J. p 25*8 note 99 CJ] (3), p 262
note 10.
Striking- inadvertent decree
Such a statute does not apply to
order striking an inadvertent de-
cree, in view of statute permitting
court to amend Judgment. — Nevitt v.
Wilson, 285 S.W. 1079, 116 Tex. 29,
48 A.L.R. 355.
30. Cal. — Brownell v. Tolo County
Super. Ct., 109 P. 91, 157 Cal. 703.
34 C.J. p 262 note 12.
31. Mo. — Underwood v. Dollins, '47
Mo. 259.
32. Neb.— Rine v. Rine, 135 N.W.
1051, 91 Neb, 248.
34 C.J. p 262 note 14.
33. Ohio. — Bever v. Beardmore, 40
Ohio St. 70.
34. 111.— People v. Wells, 99 N.B.
606, 255 111. 450.
Minn, — Nornborg v. Larson, 72 N.W.
564, 69 Minn. 344.
49 C. J.S.-34
35. Or. — Lawson v. Hughes, 270 P.
922, 127 Or. 16.
Wis.— Harris v. Golliner, 294 N.W.
9, 235 Wis. 572..
34 C.J. p 263 note 17.
36. Okl.— Hill v. Bucy, 219 P. 124,
95 Okl. 275.
Tenn.— Payne v. Eureka-Security
Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 122 S.W.2d
431, 173 Tenn. 659, affirmed 133 S.
W.2d '456, 175 Tenn. 134.
34 C.J. p 263 note 18.
37. U.S.— Henry v. U. S., C.C.A.
Pa., 46 F.2d 640.
Ark.— Corpus Juris quoted in O'Neal
v. B. F. Goodrich Rubber Co., 162
S.W.2d 52, 54, 204 Ark. 371.
Cal.— Cowan v. Cowan, App., 166 P.2d
21— Sepulveda v. Apablasa, 77 P.2d
530, 25 Cal.App.2d 390.
Ind. — Harvey v. Rodger, 143 N.B. 8,
84 Ind.App. 409.
Ky. — Richardson v. Louisville & N.
R. Co., 164 S.W.2d 602, 291 Ky.
357— Ballman v. Ballman, 67 S.W.
2d 39, 252 Ky. 332— Alexander v.
Tipton, 2-91 S.W. 1019, 218 Ky. 666.
Mass.— Borst v. Young, 18 N.E.2d
544, 302 Mass. 124.
Minn.— In re Belt Line, Phalen, and
Hazel Park Sewer Assessment,
222 N.W. 520, 176 Minn. 59— Brock-
man v. Brockman, 157 N.W. 1086,
133 Minn. 148.
Miss. — Corpus Juris quoted in Car-
raway v. State, 148 So. 340, 844,
167 Miss. 390.
N.T.— West 158th Street Garage
Corporation v. State, 10 N.T.S.2d
990, 256 App.Div. 401, reargument
529
denied 12 N.Y.S.2d 759, 257 App.
Div. 875— In re White's Estate, 46
N.Y.S.2d 917, 1*2 Misc. 223, af-
firmed In re Bishop's Will, 49 N.T.
S.2d 275, 268 App.Div. 759, appeal
denied 51 N.Y.S.2d 83, 268 App.
Div. 893, appeal dismissed 57 N.E.
2d &45, 293 N.Y. 767.
N.C.— Cincinnati Coffin Co. v. Yopp,
175 S.E. 164, 206 N.C. 716— Fow-
ler v. Fowler, 130 S.E. 315, 190 N.
C. 536— S. J. Bartholomew & Co.
v. Parrish, 129 S.E. 190, 190 N.C.
151.
N.D. — Patterson Land Co. v. Lynn,
199 N.W. 766, 51 N.D. 329.
Or.— Cook v. Cook, 118 P.2d 1070,
167 Or. 474.
Pa. — Bianca v. Kaplan, 160 A. 148,
105 Pa.Super. 98 — Kupres v. Cit-
izens' Nat. Bank, 101 Pa.Super. 351
— McKenzie Co. v. Fidelity & De-
posit Co. of Maryland, Com.Pl.,
54 Dauph.Cc. 294— Stickel v. Bar-
ron, Com.Pl., 7 Fay.L.J. 35—-
Schantz v. Clemmer, Com. PI., 21
Lehigh Co.L.J. 394— Secretary of
Banking v. Koppenhaver, Com.Pl.,
8 Sch.Reg. 17.
W.Va. — Seymour v. Alkire, 34 S.E.
953, 47 W.Va, 302.
3'4 C.J. p 263 note 19—47 C.J. p 436
note 20.
Laches as bar to equitable relief see
infra § 381.
First opportunity
A court has power to open a judg-
ment on good cause shown, at any
time while the cause remains under
its control, provided the moving par-
§ 288
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
pecially where, under the circumstances of the par-
ticular case, the vacating of the judgment would
work undue hardship to the opposing party,38 or
where rights of innocent third persons have inter-
vened.39 Even if the application is made within
the statutory time, it will be regarded with dis-
favor, and may be refused, if there is unexplained
delay in presenting it, or such unreasonable dila-
toriness as amounts to laches;40 but some cases
hold that a party has the whole of the statutory pe-
riod in which to move, and that laches cannot be
imputed to him within that time,41 and that delay
within the term is immaterial.42
However great the lapse of time, laches is not
imputable to a party who had no knowledge of the
judgment against him ; it is only required of him to
be diligent in seeking relief after he has notice of
it,43 although it has also been held that a person
asking that a judgment be set aside must show
that he used diligence to learn the facts.44 A per-
son under legal disability is not chargeable with
laches for failure to move during the period of dis-
ability,45 but he must exercise reasonable diligence
in moving to vacate after the removal of the dis-
ability.46
Laches is not mere lapse of time, but is unrea-
sonable delay under the circumstances, generally in-
volving injustice or injury to the opposite party,47
and accordingly it is impossible to lay down a pre-
cise rule as to what lapse of time will constitute
reasonable diligence, or what amounts to laches in
moving to open or vacate a judgment; what is a
reasonable time is a matter within the court's sound
legal discretion,48 and depends on the facts and
circumstances of each case.49
ty embraces the first opportunity he
has of presenting his case. — Assets
Development Co. v. Wall, 119 .A. 10,
97 N.J.Law 468.
Voidable fragment
If party knows judgment which
was merely voidable was rendered
against him, unexcused laches or de-
lay generally precludes him from
having it vacated.
Fla. — Chisholm v. Chisholm, 125 So.
6$4, 98 Fla. 1196— Kroier v. Kroier,
116 So. 753, 95 Fla. 865.
Pa. — McK Beckman v. Zerbe, Com.
PL, 10 Sch.Reg. 49.
Vacating and opening judgment dis-
tinguished
Although there is no time limit
within which to act in striking .off
or vacating a judgment, it must be
in a reasonable time after knowl-
edge, while applications to open
judgment, where cause has been liti-
gated, must be made within term
time, except in extraordinary equita-
ble circumstances requiring a con-
trary result — Nixon v. Nixon, 198 A.
154, 329 Pa. 256.
38. Miss. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Carraway v. State, 148 So. 3-40, 344,
167 Miss. 390.
34 C.J. p 265 note 20.
Injury to opposing party as rule of
decision generally see infra § 299.
39. Ind.— Harvey v. Rodger, 143 N.
B. 8, 84 Ind.App. 409.
Miss. — Corpus Juris quoted in Car-
raway v. State, 148 So. 3'40, 34'4,
167 Miss. 390.
34 C.J. p 265 note 21.
40. Minn.— Holmes v. Conter, 295 N.
W. 649, 20$ Minn. 144— Alexander
v. Hutchins, 197 N.W. 756, 158
Minn. 396 — Alexander v. Hutchins,
197 N.W. 754, 158 Minn. 391.
34 CxT. p 265 note 22.
41. 111. — Central Cleaners and Dy-
ers v. Schild, 1 N.B.2d 90, 284 HI.
App. 267.
3*4 C.J. p 265 note 23.
42. Tex.— -Mitchell v, Gregory, Civ.
App., 283 S.W. 211.
43. 111.— Relsman v. Central Mfg.
Dist. Bank, 15 N.E.2d 903, 296 111*
App. 61 — Corpus Juris quoted in
Cummer v. Cummer, 283 111. App.
220, 239.
Mass. — Borst v. Young, 18 N.E.2d
544, 302 Mass. 124.
N.C. — S. J. Bartholomew & Co. v.
Parrish, 129 S.E. 190, 190 N.C.
151.
Pa.— Bianca v. Kaplan, 160 A. 143,
105 Pa. Super. 98.
34 C.J. p 265 note 24.
Bights of innocent third persons
Delay in moving to vacate judg-
ment, as long as party had no notice
thereof and rights of innocent third
persons did not intervene, will not
usually bar relief. — Chisholm v.
Chisholm, 125 So. 694, 98 Fla. 1196—
Kroier v. Kroier, 116 So. 758, 95
Fla. .865.
TTse of check
Debtor moving to vacate judgment
was not barred by laches from
claiming that use of check, sent as
payment, constituted accord and sat-
isfaction, where he did not discover
use for two years. — Hemingway v.
Mackenzie, 244 N.T.S. 4'8, 137 Misc.
876, affirmed 245 N.Y.S. 766, 230
App.Div. 819, and 249 N.Y.S. 910, 233
App.Div. 652.
44. Ky.— Ballman v. Ballman, 67 S.
W.2d 39, 252 Ky. 332.
45. Tenn. — Fitzslmmons v. Johnson,
17 S.W. 100, 90 Tenn. 416.
84 C.J. p 265 note 25.
46. Tex. — Johnson v. Johnson, 85
S.W. 1023, 38 Tex.Civ.App. 385.
34 C.J. p 265 note 26.
47. 111.— Reisman v. Central Mfg.
530
Dist. Bank, 15 N»E.2d 903, 296
111. App. 61— -Corpus Juris quoted in
Cummer v. Cummer, 283 111. App.
220, 239— First Nat Bank v. Trott,
236 IlLApp. 412.
Pa. — Eastman Kodak Co. v. Osenider
193 A. 284, 127 Pa. Super. 332.
48. Cal. — McGuinness v. Superior
Court in and for City and County
of San Francisco, 237 P. 42, 196
CaL 222, 40 A.L..R. 1110— McCarthy
v. McCarthy, 72 P.2d 255, 23 Cal.
App.2d 151 — McKeever v. Superior
Court of California in and for San
Mateo County, 259 P. 373, 85 Cal.
App. 381.
Pa. — Citizens' Bank v. Gwinner, 170
A. 471, 112 Pa.Super. 12.
3*4 C.J. p 266 note 28.
Discretion of court as to hearing and
determination in general see infra
§ 300.
Discretion held abused because of
excessive delay. — Ayer v. Chicago,
M., St. P. & P. R. Co., 249 N.W. 581,
189 Minn. 359.
Discretion held not abused
Pa.— Philadelphia Fixture & Equip-
ment Corporation v. Carroll, 191 A.
216, 126 Pa.Super. 454.
Delay because of attorney's illness
Where motion to vacate was de-
layed because of attorney's illness,
trial judge should exercise sound le-
gal discretion. — Deen v. Baxley State
Bank, 15 S.E.2d 194, 192 Ga. 300.
49. Pa. — Eastman Kodak Co. v. Ose-
nider, 193 A. 284, 127 Pa.Super. 332
—Bianca v. Kaplan, 160 A. 143,
105 Pa.Super. 98.
34 C.J. p 266 note 28.
Delay held laches under particular
circumstances:
(1) Nine years.
TT.S.— Henry v. U. S., C.C.A.Pa., 46
F.2d 640 — U. S. v. Certain Land in
Falls Tp., Bucks County, Pa., D.CL
Pa., 38 F.2d 109.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 288
Laches cannot run against a void judgment,50
at least where no injury is shown,51 and delay does
not estop one from attacking a -void or invalid judg-
ment entered against him,52 or a judgment which
has been discharged in fact by accord and satisfac-
tion.53
d. Irregular Judgments
Apart from statutory provisions as to time, which
must be observed, a Judgment will generally not be va-
cated aftef the term for mere Irregularity not render-
ing it void; and an application to set aside a judgment
for mere technical Irregularities has been required to
be made at the first opportunity or within a reasonable
time.
Where it is sought to set aside a judgment for a
mere technical irregularity, and not a matter of sub-
stance, the application, being without merits, has
been required to be made at the first opportunity,
or within a reasonable time, or the irregularity will
be deemed waived.54 This rule does not apply .
where the motion is based on substantial, and not
merely technical, irregularities.55 Application
should be made to vacate before taking any subse-
quent step in the cause.58
Generally a judgment will not be vacated after
the end of the term for any mere irregularity not
affecting the jurisdiction, and therefore not render-
ing the judgment void,57 unless the statute grants
an extended time for moving to vacate it on this
Pa. — Eastman Kodak Co. v. Osenider,
193 A. 284, 127 Pa. Super. 832.
(2) Tear and eight months. — Se-
pulveda v. Apablasa, 77 P.2d 530, 25
Cal.App.2d 390.
(3) Other circumstances.
Ind. — Harvey v. Rodger, T43 N.E. 8,
84 Ind.App, 409.
Ky. — Ballnran v. Ballman, 67 S.W.2d
39, 252 Ky. 332.
Minn. — Ayer v. Chicago, M.t St. P.
& P. R. Co., 249 N.W. 581, 189
.Minn. 359.
N.J.— Somers v. Holmes, 177 A. 434,
114 N.J.Law 497.
N.2.— - In re White's Estate, 46 N.T.
S.2d 917, 182 Misc. 223, affirmed In
re Bishop's Will, 49 N.T.S.2d 275,
268 App.Div. 759, appeal denied 51
N.Y.S.2d 83, 268 App.Div. 893, ap-
peal dismissed 57 N.E.2d 845, 293
N.T. 767.
N.D. — Patterson Land Co. v. Lynn,
199 N.W. 766, 51 N.D. 329.
Pa. — Liberty Trust Co. of Emporium-
v. Emporium Land Co., 25 Pa.Dist
& Co. 619 — Commonwealth v.
Jones, Com.PL, 36 Luz.L.Reg. 190
— Bridgeport Realty Co. v. lon-
none, Com.Pl., 61 Montg.Co. 284 —
Kelly v. Dervin, Com.Pl., 55 Montg.
Co. 317.
S.C.— Gleaton v. Gleaton, 151 S.E.
276, 154 S.C. 140.
W.Va. — Seymour v. Alkire, 3'4 S.E.
953, 47 W.Va. 302.
34 C.J. p 266 note 28 [a]— 19 C.J.
p 1212 note 69 [b] CD.
Delay held not laches under particu-
lar circumstances:
(1) Two years. — Hendrix V. Kel-
ley, 143 A. 460, 4 W.W.Harr.Del.
120.
(2) More than one year.— Pink v.
Deering, 4 A.2d 790, 122 N.J.Law
277, motion denied 17 A.2d 603, 125
N.J.Law 569.
(3) Five months. — Gedrich v. Tar-
oscz, 156 A. 575, 102 Pa.Super. 127.
(-4) Other circumstances.
U.S. — Edwards v. Lathan, D.C.La.,
24 F.Supp. 138, reversed on other
grounds, C.C.A., Lathan v. Ed-
wards, 121 F.2d 183.
111. — Reisman y. Central Mfg. Disk
Bank, 15 N.E.2d 903, 296 IlLApp.
61 — Cummer v. Cummer, 283 111.
App. 220 — First Nat. Bank v.
Trott, 236 IlLApp. 412— Reid v,
Chicago Rys. Co., 231 IlLApp. 58.
Mass. — Borst v. Toung, 18 N.E.2d
544, 302 Mass. 124.
Mich.— Williams v. Truaac, 251 N.W.
375, 265 Mich. 323.
N.T. — Hemingway v. Mackenzie. 24'4
N.T.S. 48. 137 Misc. 876, affirmed
2-45 N.T.S. 766, 230 App.Div. 819,
and 249 N.T.S. 910, 233 App.DiY.
652.
Pa. — Roundsley v. Tuscarora Tp.
School Dist., 47 Pa.Super. 623— The
Conestoga Nat. Bank v. Hallman,
20 Pa,Dist. & Co. 193, 43 Lanc.L.
Rev. 659, 6 Som.Leg.J. 354.
34 C.J. p 266 note 28 [b].
Belay until after execution
Where evidence showed conclusive-
ly that summons was personally
served on defendant and a judgment
duly entered in trial court, and de-
fendant had knowledge of entry of
judgment and did not question serv-
ice or entry until after execution
was issued against his salary. &n
order vacating judgment was un-
authorized.— Suffin v. Cavanagh, 29
N.T.S.2d 170.
SO. . 111.— Thayer v. Village of Down-
ers Grove, 16 N.E.2d 717, 369 111.
334.
N-.J.— Collyer v. McDonald, 10 A.2d
284, 123 N.J.Law 547— Westfleld
Trust Co. v. Court of Common
Pleas, 178 A. 546, 115 N.J.Law 86
— Gimbel Bros. v. Corcoran, 192
A. 715, 15 N.J.Misc. 538.
N.C. — Johnston County v. Ellis, 88
S.E.2d 31, 226 N.C. 268.
Pa. — Romberger v. Romberger, 139
A. 159, 290 Pa. 45'4— Peoples Nat
Bank of Reynoldsville, to Use of
Mottern, y. D. & M. Coal Co.. 187
A. 452, 124 Pa.Super. 21 — Cadwal-
lader v. Firestone, Com.PL, 7 Fay.
L.J. 259.
531
Misinterpretation by clerk
Where court clerk's entry of judg-
ment on record not only misinter-
preted trial judge's entry on calen-
dar, but was such an interpretation
as would constitute action which was
beyond jurisdiction of court, ag-
grieved party's right to have Judg-
ment set aside was not waived by
delay and negligence. — Tost v. Gadd,
288 N.W. 667, 227 Iowa 621.
51. Del.— Hendrix v. Kelley, 1'43 A,
460, 4 W.W.Harr. IfcO.
Condemnation decree
Court should not set aside con-
demnation decree entered nine years
previously, where decree, even if
void, was consent decree, coupled
with voluntary conveyances, and for-
mer owners failed to tender back
money received or to give notice of
proceeding to subsequent purchasers
of land. — U. S. r. Certain Land in
Falls Tp., Bucks County, Pa., D.C.Pa.,
38 F.2d 109.
52. 111. — Thayer v. Tillage of Down-
ers Grove, 16 N.E.2d 717, 369 111.
334.
Pa. — School Dist of Haverford Tp.f
to use of Tedesco, v. Herzog, 171
A, 455, 314 Pa. 161— Peoples Nat.
Bank of Ellwood City v. Wein-
gartner, 33 A.2d 469, 153 Pa.Super.
40— Davis v. Tate, Com.PL, 26
Erie Co. 141— Smith v. Press, Com.
PL, 54 Montg.Co. 169.
53. Pa.— Peoples Nat. Bank of Ell-
wood City of Weingartner, 33 A.2d
469, 153 Pa.Super. 40.
54. Pa, — Eastman Kodak Co. v. Os-
enider, 193 A. 284, 127 Pa.Super.
332.
34 OJ. p 26-7 note 29.
55. N.T.— Lucas v. Geneva Second
Baptist Church, 4 How.Pr. 353.
56. N.T. — Chicago Com Exch. Bank
v. Blye, ?3 N.E. 805, 119 N,T. 414.
34 C.J. p 267 note 81.
Appeal as waiver see supra $ 284.
57. U. S. — Loeser v. Savings Depos-
it Bank & Trust Co., Ohio, 163 F.
212, -89 C.CJL 642.
34 C.J. p 267 note 32.
288
JUDGMENTS
49
ground;58 and in any case the application is too
late if not made within the statutory period.59
Some cases hold that a motion to vacate for ir-
regularity may be made at any time within a rea-
sonable period.60
e. Fraudulent or Collusive Judgments
Under some authorities, an application under the
court's inherent power to set aside a judgment obtained
by fraud may be made at any time; others limit it to a
reasonable time after discovery of the fraud. A statute
limiting the time for applications on statutory grounds,
unless expressly made applicable, does not apply to an
application on the ground of fraud, at least where the
fraud is extrinsic.
Under some authorities, the inherent power of
courts to set aside or vacate a judgment obtained
through fraud, deception, or collusion may be ex-
ercised at any time,61 even after the expiration of
the term at which it was rendered;62 but it has
also been held that an application to vacate must
be made within a reasonable time after discovery
of the fraud,63 and that laches is ground for deny-
ing relief.64
A statute limiting the time within which appli-
cations to vacate judgments on statutory grounds
must be made does not apply to an application to
vacate on the ground of fraud,66 at least where
the fraud is extrinsic,66 and unless the statute is
58. Mo. — Crabtree v. Mtna. Life Ins.
Co., Ill S.W.2d 103, 341 Mo. 1173
— Johnson v. Underwood, 24 S.W.
2d 133, 324 Mo. 578— Buchholz v.
Manzella, App., 158 S.W.2d 200—
Stulz v. Lentin, 295 S.W. '487, 220
Mo. App. 840.
Okl. — Haggerty v. Terwilliger, 16$ P.
872, 67 Okl. 194.
Wyo.— Boulter v. Cook, 23*4 P. 1101,
32 Wyo. 461, rehearing denied 2
P. 245, 32 Wyo. 461.
34 C.J. p 258 note 99 [i],
59. Kan. — Harder v. Johnson, 76 P.
2d 763, 147 Kan. 440.
Oki. — Weinier v. Augustana Pension
and Aid Fund, 67 P.2d 436, 179
Okl. 572.
Wyo.— Boulter v. Cook, 234 P. 1101.
82 Wyo. 461, rehearing denied 236
P. 245, 32 Wyo. 461.
First three days of succeeding term
Under some statutes, a proceed-
ing to set aside a judgment on the
ground of irregularity in taking and
entering the judgment is not lim-
ited to the period within the first
three days of the succeeding term.
— Lemieux v. Kountz, 140 N.E. 637,
107 Ohio St. *4.
Irregularity not shown.
N.M.— Miera v. State, 129 P.2d 33'4,
45 N.M. 369.
Extension of time
Statute providing that judgment
shall not be set aside on motion for
irregularity unless such motion is
made within three years after term
at which such judgment was ren-
dered merely extends the time for
filing after the term at which the
judgment was rendered, as compared
with the common-law practice of
filing during the term. — Poindexter v.
Marshall, Mo.App., 193 S*W.2d 622.
60. N.C. — Cincinnati Coffin Co. v.
Topp, 175 S.E. 164, 206 N.C. 716.
84 C.J. p 267 note 35.
61. Ariz. — Vazquez y. Dreyfus, 269
P. 80, 34 Ariz. 184— Kendall v.
Silver King of Arizona Mining Col,
226 P. 5-40, 26 Ariz. 456.
Colo. — Peterson v. Vanderlip, 278 P.
607, 86 Colo. 130. j
Fla. — Zemurray v. Kilgore, 177 So.
714, 130 Fla. 317.
N.Y. — Davidson v. Ream, 175 App.
Div. 760, 162 N.T.S. 375.
Or.— May v. Roberts, 286 P. 546, 133
Or. 643.
34 C.J. p 257 note 92.
"A court . . . has authority to
purge its own records and may
set aside a judgment at any time
when it appears that the court has
been imposed upon by extrinsically
fraudulent acts." — Rivieccio v. Both-
an, CaL, 165 P.2d 677, 680.
Effect OIL property rights
The court's power to set aside a
judgment at any time when it ap-
pears that it has been imposed on
by extrinsically fraudulent acts is
not dependent on whether or not
property rights are involved. — ^Riv-
ieccio v. Bo than, supra.
Fraud held not shown
111. — Madigan Bros. v. Garfield State
Bank, 34 N.E.2d 92, 310 Ill.App.
358.
62. Miss. — Home y. Moorehead, 153
So. 668, 169 Miss. 362.
N.M. — Corpus Juris cited in Kerr v.
Southwest Fluorite Co., 294 P.
324, 326, $5 N.M. 232.
34 C.J. p 267 note 36.
Fraud of party, not perjury of
witness, is required. — Thome v.
Thome, 45 N.E.2d 85, 816 Ill.App.
451.
63. CaL — McGuinness v. Superior
Court in and for City and County
of San Francisco, 237 P. 42, 196
Cal. 222, 40 A.L..R. 1110— Cowan
v. Cowan, App., 166 P.2d 21 — Kas-
parian v. Kasparian, 23 P.2d 802,
132 Cal.App. 773.
Mont— Gillen v. Gillen, 159 P.2d 511.
Or.— Cook v. Cook, 118 P.2d 1070,
167 Or. 47-4.
34 C.J. p 268 note 41.
What is a reasonable time is a
matter within the sound legal dis-
cretion of the court — McGuJnness v.
Superior Court in and for City and
iounty of 'San Francisco, 237 P. 42,
96 Cal. 222, 40 A.L.R. 1110— McKee-
ver v. Superior Court of California
532
in and for San Mateo County, 259
P. 373, 85 CaLApp. 381.
64. Minn. — Brockman v. Brockman,
157 N.W. 1086, 133 Minn. 148.
Laches generally see supra subdi-
vision c of this section.
35. Ariz.— Vasquez v. Dreyfus, 269
P. 80, 3'4 Ariz. 184.
Colo. — Peterson v. Vanderlip, 278 P.
607, «6 Colo. 130.
Wis. — In re Cudahy's Estate, 219 N.
W. 203, 196 Wis. 260.
34 C.J. p 257 note 92, p 267 note 37.
Statutes held inapplicable
(1) Cases of fraud are not within
statutory periods of limitation pre-
scribed for setting aside judgments
because of mistake, irregularity, or
error in fact not arising on trial. —
Gysin Y. Gysin, 189 N.B. 568, 263 N.
Y. 509, reargument denied 191 N.B.
581, 264 N.T. 595— In re Humpfner's'
Estate, 3 N.T.S.2d 143, 166 Misc. 672.
(2) Adjudgment obtained by fraud
practiced on the court is not validat-
ed by lapse of time prescribed by
statute for vacation thereof on
ground of surprise or -excusable neg-
lect—Lamb. v. King, 296 N.W. 185,
70 N.D. 469.
66, CaL— Chiarodit r. Chiarodit, 21
P.2d 562, 218 CaL 147— Kasparian
v. Kasparian, 23 P.2d 802, 134 CaL
App. 773.
Mont— Gillen v. Gillen, 159 P.2d 511
— Kosonen v. Waara, 285 P. 668, 87
Mont. 24.
N.M. — Kerr T. Southwest Fluorite
Co., 294 P. *S24, 35 N.M. 232.
Where process server's affidavit of
personal service is willfully false
or made with reckless disregard for
truth, judgment is procured by ex-
trinsic fraud practiced on court, so
that motion to, vacate is not lim-
ited by statute which by analogy
governed time limit within which
motion to vacate must be brought;
where such affidavit is not true be-
cause of honest mistake of identity
or for some reason compatible with
good faith, judgment in such ease is
not procured by extrinsic fraud prac-
ticed on the court, so that motion to
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
289
made applicable by express language.67 If the stat-
ute applies, a motion made after the statutory time
has run comes too late, as discussed supra subdi-
vision b of this section.
§ 289. Requisites and Sufficiency of Applica-
tion
An application to open or vacate a Judgment must
conform to the ordinary requirements of a motion, pe-
tition, complaint, or bill, and must set. forth facts show-
ing adequate ground for the relief requested and free-
dom from fault or negligence.
An application to open or vacate a judgment must
conform to the ordinary requirements of a motion,
petition, complaint, or bill, according to the form
of proceeding adopted.68 Where applicant has
erred as to his proper remedy and proceeding, the
court may treat his application as in the proper
form if it contains the matter and allegations re-
quired in the proper proceeding.69 Where the ap-
plication is under a statute, the provisions of the
statute must be substantially complied with, in or-
der to authorize the court to act,70 but a strict com-
pliance with the statute is unnecessary, trifling ir-
regularities not being sufficient to oust the jurisdic-
tion of the court.71 Harmless errors may be dis-
regarded72 and amendments may be allowed.73
A motion, petition, or complaint to vacate a judg-
ment must state the nature of the cause of action on
which it was rendered,74 describe the judgment or
portion of it sought to be opened or vacated,75 show
vacate is limited by such statute. —
Richert v. Benson Lumber Co., 34
P.2d 840, 139 CaLApp. 671.
67. Okl. — Caraway v. Overholser, 77
P.2d 688, 182 Okl. 357.
34 C.J. p 268 note 38.
(1) Under statute, in order to va-
cate a judgment on ground of fraud,
the petition must be filed within two
years from the rendition of the judg-
ment. — Bemis v. Bemis, 98 P.2d 156,
151 Kan. 186— Sanford v. Weeks, 31
P. 1088, 50 Kan. 339.
(2) Statute applies to duress, as
being a species of fraud. — Brooks v.
National Bank of Topeka, 113 P.2d
1069, 153 Kan. 831.
68. Cal. — Liebman v. Choynski, 99
P.2d 1119, 37 Cal.App.2d 565.
Nature and form of proceeding see
supra § 286.
Application in Judgment term
Motion to vacate judgments filed
within term at which such judg-
ments are entered are addressed to
trial court's sound discretion, and
need not conform to statutes relat-
ing to vacating of judgments and de-
crees after expiration of term of
•court at which they were rendered.
—McDonald v. Olla State Bank, 93 S.
W.2d 325, 192 Ark. 603.
•Jurisdiction not affected
Fact that an application to vacate
a judgment is defective in form,
•does not deprive court of jurisdic-
tion.— -Finlen v. Skelly, 141 N.E. 388,
310 111. 170.
Motion for new trial
Motion to set aside verdict based
on matters not appearing on record
must have substantially the form
and contents of motion for new trial,
and must, comply with rules govern-
ing such motion. — Wrenn v. Allen,
180 S.E. 104, 180 Ga. 613.
The completeness and formality of
toe pleading in an ordinary action
at law are not required in a petition
to vacate a judgment. — Herlihy v.
Kane, 38 N.E.2d 620, 310 Mass. '45.7.
69. Alaska. — Smith v. Coucher, 9
Alaska 730.
Ark.— Merriott v. Kilgore, 139 S.W.
2d 387, 200 Ark. 394.
Cal.— Miller v. Lee, 125 P.2d 627,
52 Cal.App.2d 10.
Mo. — Harrison v. Slaton, 49 S.W.2d
31.
Okl.— Petty v. Roberts, 9* P.2d 602,
186 Okl. 269— Corliss v. Davidson
& Case Lumber Co., 84 P.2d 7, 183
Okl. 618— Morgan v. City of Ard-
more ex rel. Love & Thurmond, 78
P.2d 785, 182 Okl. 542— Welborn v.
Whitney, $5 P.2d 971, 179 Okl.
420 — Cooper v. State ex rel. Com'rs
of Land Office, 63 P.2d 698, 178
Okl. 532— Lane v. O'Brien, 49 P.
2d 171, 173 Okl. 475.
Pa.— Siddall v. Burke, Com.PL, 30
Del. Co. 47— Kemmerer, Inc. v. Sny-
der, Com.PL, 18 Leh.L.J. 146—
Franks v. Aponick, Com.Pl., 42
Sch.L.R. 24.
34 C.J. p 327 note 35 [«,].
Particular applications
(1) Motion for new trial was
treated as motion to set aside judg-
ment— Driver v. Treadway, 1 S.W.2d
84, 175 Ark. 1028.
(2) Motion to set aside judgment
was treated as petition. — Fulton v.
National Finance & Thrift Corpora-
tion, '4 N.W.2d 406, 232 Iowa .378.
(3) Petition to set aside judgment
was treated as motion therefor. — Fu-
gate v. -Fugate, '81 S.W.2d 889, 259
Ky. 18 — Klarer Provision Co. v. Frey,
66 S.W.2d 63, 252 Ky. 206— First
State Bank v. Thacker's Adm'x, 284
S.W. 1020, 215 Ky. 186. %
74X Ark.— Moon v. Moseley, 167 S.W.
2d 871, 205 Ark. 134.
m. — Freedman v. Hunt, Hartford
Accident & Indemnity Co., Inter-
venor, 22 N.E.2d 864, 301 IlLApp.
604.
Okl. — Featherstone v. Southwestern
Lumber Co., 243 P. 240, 116 Okl.
86.
34 C.J. p 326 note 25.
533
Application to court which rendered
The legislative intent is that the
petition for vacation or modification
of judgment should be filed in the
action in which the judgment sought
to be vacated or modified is rendered.
— Terry v. Claypool, 65 N.E.2d 888,
77 Ohio App. 77.
Motion in open court
The statutory provisions for set-
ting aside judgments and orders on
notice contemplate actual presenta-
tion of motions for such relief to
trial judge in open court, and mere
filing and service of notice of inten-
tion to make such motions is insuffi-
cient to give court Jurisdiction to
consider and determine them. — Mil-
stein v. Sartain, 133 P.2d '836, 56 CaL
App.2d 924.
Signatures of attorneys
Application to vacate judgment de-
nied where application was signed
by attorneys from foreign state, sig-
nature of resident attorney was in-
effective because at that time he was
justice of supreme court and was
not party on record, and signatures
of other resident attorneys were af-
fixed more than six months after ad-
journment of term at which judg-
ment was rendered. — Roberts v.
Wehe, 27 P.2d 964, 53 Idaho 783.
71. Iowa. — Sitzer v. Fenzloff, 84 N.
W. 514, 112 Iowa 491.
34 C.J. p 326 note 26.
72. Mass. — Magee v. Flynn, 139 N.E.
8*42, 245 Mass. 128.
34 C.J. p 326 note 27.
73. Ga.— Wilby v. McRae, 191 S.E.
662, 56 Ga.App. 140— Hard wick v.
Shahan, 11*8 S.E. 575, 30 Ga.App.
526.
34 C.J. p 326 note 28.
74. Ind. — Thompson v. Harlow, 50
IvT.E. 474, 150 Ind. 450.
34 C.J. p 327 note 37.
75. Okl.— Richards v. Baker, 99 P.
2d 118, 186 Okl. 533— Myers v.
Chamness, 228 P. 988, 102 Okl. 131.
34 C.J. p 327 note 38.
§ 289
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
an interest in the judgment sufficient to entitle ap-
plicant to apply for its vacation,76 show compliance
with all preliminary requisites or conditions pre-
cedent,77 contain an appropriate demand for re-
lief,78 and show a meritorious cause of action, or
defense, available to applicant if the judgment is
vacated, as discussed infra § 290. Unless prescribed
by statute, no particular form or formula of words
is necessary.79 It is enough if the application shows
a case for relief under the statute, or the inherent
power of the court.80 An application substantially
in the language of the statute will generally be
sufficient.81 Ordinarily the, application is required
to be in writing,82 unless made during the term at
which the judgment was rendered, in which case a
mere suggestion will suffice,88 since at such time, as
discussed supra § 287,. the court may act on its own
motion without any form of application. A statu-
tory requirement of writing has been held to be
directory only, and not mandatory.84
An application which is insufficient on its face is
subject to demurrer;85 but a demurrer is not neces-
sary to authorize the court to dismiss such an ap-
plication.86
Separate and distinct judgments may not be va-
cated on one and the same application.87
Grounds for relief. Facts constituting sufficient
ground for vacating the judgment must be set forth
in the application,88 although it is sufficient if such
76. Wash. — Kuhn v. Mason, 64 P.
182, 24 Wash. 94.
34 C.J. p 327 note 39.
77. Mass. — Magee v. Flynn, 139 N.
E. £42, 245 MASS. 128.
34 C.J. p 327 note 43.
Offer to return "benefits received
(1) A petition to set aside a judg-
ment in condemnation must include
an offer to return all benefits re-
ceived.— Henry v. U. S., C.C.A.Pa.,
46 F.2d 640.
(2) Where suits by fire insurance
companies to enjoin superintendent
of insurance from interfering with
collection of proposed increased rates
were dismissed, and amount of in-
crease which had been collected and
impounded pending the litigation
was distributed in specified propor-
tions to the insurance companies,
to trustees, and to the policyholders,
the court was not barred from re-
opening the decrees after term by
fact that superintendent did not re-
store or offer to restore the status
quo by returning to court custodian
the funds distributed to policyhold-
ers and the portion of funds distrib-
uted to trustees and paid by them to
superintendent for expenses and at-
torney's fees. — American Ins. Co.. v.
Lucas, D.C.Mo., 38 F.Supp. 926, ap-
peals dismissed 62 S.Ct. 107, 314
U.S. 575, 86 KEd. 466, and affirmed,
C.C.A., American Ins. Co. v. Scheufler,
129 F.2d 143. certiorari denied 63 S.
Ct 257, 317 U.S. 687, 87 UBd. 651,
rehearing denied 63 S.Ct 433, 317 U.
S. 712, 87 'L.Bd. 567.
78. N.T.— Lowry v. Himmler, 239 N.
Y.S. 347, 136 Misc. 215.
34 C.J. p 327 note 44.
Errors of fact
Under statute authorizing the
court on motion in writing to cor-
rect errors in fact within five
years after rendition of judgment,
a motion to correct errors should not
only point out the errors of fact
committed, but should affirmatively
show in the prayer - for relief, in
what way those errors could be cor-
rected.—Dressor v. Baldwin, 32 N.E.
2d 959, 309 IlLApp. 182.
79. N.Y.— Tudin v. Stoller, 142 N.
T.S. '484.
34 C.J. p 326 note 83.
80. Wash. — Chaney v. Chaney, 105
P. 229, 56 Wash. 145.
34 C.J. p 327 note 35.
81. Ind. — Beatty v. O'Connor, 5 N.
E. 880, 106 Ind. 81, 83.
34 C.J. p 327 note 38.
82. N.C.— Union Nat. Bank v. Haga-
man, 179 S.E. 759, 208 N.C. 191.
34 OJ. p 326 note 29.
83. 111. — Geisler v. Bank of Brus-
sels, 44 N.E.2d 754, 316 Ill.App.
309.
34 C.J. p 826 note 30.
84. Tex. — Dorsey v. Brotherhood of
Friends, Civ.App., 202 S.W. 350.
85. Ga.— Fields v. Arnall, 34 S.E.2d
692, 199 Ga. 491 — Grogan v. Dera-
ney, 143 S.B. 912, 38 Ga.App. 287
—Hood v. Duren, 117 S.E. 260, 30
Ga.App. T44.
111. — Reid v. Chicago Rys. Co., 231
Ill.App. 58.
Okl.— Wolfe v. Freeman, 238 P. 460,
111 Okl. 123 — Thomas v. Deming
Inv. Co., 232 P. Ill, 105 Okl. 187.
Well-pleaded facts are admitted
by demurrer.
Alaska.— Smith v. Coucher, 9 Alaska
•730.
111.— Barnett v. Gitlitz, 8 N.E.2d 517,
290 Ill.App. 212— Marabia v. Mary
Thompson Hospital of Chicago for
Women and Children, 224 Ill.App.
367, reversed on other grounds 140
N.B. 836, 309 111. 147.
Where plaintiffs elected to stand
on demurrer and refused to plead
further, defendant was not required
to prove that he had a valid defense,
but court could enter order vacating
judgment, and such order was a suf-
ficient adjudication that defense al-
leged was valid as required by stat-
ute.— Federal Tax Co. v. Board of
Oom'rs of Okmulgee County, 102 P.
Jd 148( 187 Okl. 223.
534
86. Wyo. — Luman v. Hill, 256 P.
339, 36 Wyo. 427.
87. Ga. — James v. Equitable Mortg.
Co., 60 S.E. 258, 130 Ga. 87.
88. Ark.— H. G. Pugh & Co. v. Mar-
tin, 262 S.W. 308, 164 Ark. 423.
Ga.— Merritt v. Mott, 117 S.B. 252,
30 Ga.App. 212.
111. — Trupp v. First Bnglewood State
Bank of Chicago, 30 N.B.2d 198,
807 IlLApp. 258— Atkinson v. Mc-
Keogh's Estate, 1 N.E.2d 267, 284
IlLApp. 85 — Fitzgerald v. Power,
225 IlLApp. 118.
Ind. — Vail v. Department of Finan-
cial Institutions of Indiana, 17 N.
B.2d 854, 106 Ind.App. 39.
Iowa.— In re Kinnan's Estate, 255 N.
W. 632, 218 Iowa 572— Cedar Rap-
ids Finance & Thrift Co. v. Bowen.
233 N.W. 495, 211 Iowa 1207— Dil-
lard v. Van Heukeloxn, 200 N.W.
567, 198 Iowa 915.
Ky.— Morris v. Morris, 185 S.W.2d
244, 299 Ky. 235 — Cecil v. Dorman,
97 S.W.2d 797, 265 Ky. 771 — Car-
ter v. Carter, 265 S.W. '478, 205 Ky.
96.
La. — Adkins' Heirs v. Crawford, Jen-
kins & Booth, 24 So.2d 246.
N.Y.— O'Neill v. Bender, 25 Hun 189.
N.C. — Fanners' & Merchants' Bank
v. Duke, 122 S.B. 1, 187 N.C.' 386.
Okl.— Moran v. City Nat Bank of
Lawton, 82 P.2d 682, 183 Okl. 308
— Carlin v. Prudential Ins. Co. of
America, 52 P.2d 721, 175 Okl.
398 — Myers v. Chaxnness, 228 P.
988, 102 Okl. 131.
Pa. — Philadelphia Fixture & Equip-
ment Corporation v. Carroll, 191 A.
216, 126 Pa.Super. 454.
Tex. — Phoenix Oil Co. v. Illinois Tor-
pedo Co., Civ.App., 261 S.W. 487.
Wis. — In re Coloma Stale Bank, 2U2
N.W. 568, 229 Wis. 475.
34 C.J. p 327 note 47.
Grounds for opening or vacating see
supra §§ 266-281.
Compared to motion for new trial
A motion to open up the case after
judgment requires virtually the same
showing as for a motion for a new
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
290
facts appear from affidavits contained in the mo-
tion papers instead of the petition or motion it-
self.89 Facts as distinguished from conclusions of
law must be stated.90 It is not enough to allege
"mistake," "surprise," "fraud," "unavoidable cas-
ualty or misfortune," or the like, in general terms ;
the very facts which led up to the taking of the
judgment or which prevented the party from de-
fenditfg the suit must be stated explicitly.91 An
averment of the facts, without stating the legal con-
clusion to be drawn therefrom, is sufficient.92
Freedom from fault or negligence. The petition,
complaint, or moving papers must show, not gen-
erally or inferentially, but by specific averments,
that applicant has not been in fault, or that he has
exercised due diligence and vigilance.93 If a pri-
ma facie case of negligence appears, there must be
a showing of facts excusing such negligence.94
Verification. Under a statute or court rule so
providing, an application to vacate a judgment must
be verified,95 but such a statutory requirement has
been held to be directory only, and not jurisdiction-
§ 290. - Meritorious Cause of Action or
Defense in General
a. In general
b. Sufficiency of showing
c. Sufficiency of cause of action or de-
fense
a. In General
Although there are some exceptions to the rule, an
application to open or vacate a Judgment generally must
be supported by a showing of a meritorious cause of
action or defense.
To obtain an order opening or vacating a judg-
ment, the party applying therefor must generally al-
lege and show to the court that he has a good and
meritorious defense,97 or, if the application is made
by plaintiff, that he has a good and meritorious
trial, and will not be granted un-
less petitioner shows that he was
prevented from making: the defense
by surprise, accident, mistake, or
fraud of his adversary, without fault
on his part.— Estes v. Nell, 63 S.W.
724, 163 Mo. 387.
Waiver
Failure to state grounds on which
motion to vacate judgment was made
was waived, where opposing party
did not object but filed counter affi-
davit— Heca v. Conner, 265 P. 180,
203 Cal. 504.
Applications held sufficient
Iowa. — First Nat. Bank v. Federal
Reserve Bank of Chicago, 231 N.
W. 453, 210 Iowa 521, 69 A.L.R.
1329.
Okl. — Thompson v. Board of Com'rs
of Okmulgee County, 102 P.2d 867,
187 Okl. 312.
Pa. — Weiner v. Targan, 100 Pa, Super.
278.
Applications held insufficient
Fla.— State v.« Wright, 145 So. 598,
107 Fla. 178.
Ga,— Stowers v. Harris, 22 S.E.2d
405, 194 Ga. 636.
111. — Emcee Corporation v. George,
12 N.E.2d 333, 293 Ill.App. 240.
Kan. — Mayer v. Harrison, 166 P.2d
674, 161 Kan. 80— Rogers v. J. R.
Oil & Drilling Co., 89 P.2d 847,
149 Kan. 807.
Pa.— Gsell v. Helman, 164 A. '853, 108
Pa,Super. 258.
S.C. — Roberts v. Drayton, 116 S.E.
744, 121 S.C. 124.
Wyo.— Luman v. Hill, 252 P. 1019,
36 Wyo. 48, rehearing denied 256
P. 339, 36 Wyo. 427.
89. Iowa. — Comes v. Comes, 178 N.
W. 403, 190 Iowa 547.
3'4 C.J. p 328 note 48.
da Mo.— Bess v. Bothwell, App., 163 '
S.W.2d 125.
Tex.— Wadell Connally Hardware Co.
v. Brooks, £75 S.W. 168.
34 C.J. p 328 note 49.
91. Pa, — Silent Auto Corporation of
Northern New Jersey v. Folk, 97
Pa,Super. 588.
34 C.J. p 328 note 50.
92. Iowa.— Oliver v. Riley, 60 N.W.
180, 92 Iowa 23.
34 C:J. p 329 note 51.
93. Ala, — Ex parte New Home Sew-
ing Mach. Co., 189 So. 374, 238 Ala.
159.
Neb. — Corpus Juris quoted in, In re
Reikofski's Estate, 14 N.W.2d 379,
382, 144 Neb. 735.
Pa,— Peace v. Reinhart, 18 Pa.Dist
& Co. 9.
34 C.J. p 329 note 52, p 354 note 71.
94. 111. — Viedenschek v. Johnny Per-
kins Playdium, 49 N.E.2d 339, 319
111. App. 523.
34 CU. p 329 note 53.
95. Ark. — Farmers Union Mut, Ins.
Co. v. Jordan, 140 S.W.2d 430, 200
Ark. 711.
Okl.— Scott v. Bailey, 169 P.2d 208 —
American Inv. Co. v. Wadlington,
244 P. 435, 114 Okl. 124.
34 C.J. p 343 note 46.
No Judgment rendered
Failure of plaintiff to swear to
motion to set aside judgment was
immaterial where no judgment had
been rendered. — Greggers v. Gleason,
29 S.W.2d 183, 224 Mo.App. 1108.
98. Ky. — Berryhill v. Holland, 99 S.
W. 902, 123 Ky. 615, 30 Ky.L. 831.
34 C.J.- p ,343 note 47.
Amendment of application so as
to add verification permitted. — State
Life Ins. Co. v. Llddell, 61 P.2d 1075,
535
178 Okl.
Ca].
114— 3*4 C.J. p 343 note 47
97. U.S. — Corpus Juris cited in
Koen v. Beardsley, C.C.A.Colo., 63
F.2d 595, 597.
Ala.— Fletcher v. First Nat. Bank of
Opelika, 11 So.2d 854, 244 Ala, 98
— Union Indemnity Co. v. Good-
man, 144 So. 108, 225 Ala. 499.
Alaska. — Rubenstein v. Imlach, 9
Alaska 62.
Ark. — Nichols v. Arkansas Trust Co.,
179 S.W.2d 857, 207 Ark. 174—
Davis v. Bank of Atkins, 167 S.W.
2d 876, 205 Ark. 144— Merriott v.
Kilgore, 139 S.W.2d 387, 200 Ark
394— Sweet v. Nix, 122 S.W.2d 538,
197 Ark. 284.
Cal.— Hewins v. Walbeck, 141 P.2d
2'41, 60 Cal.App.2d 603.
Ga, — Johnson v. Lock, 137 S.E. 910,
36 Ga.App. $20 — Dabney v. Ben-
teen, 132 S.E. 916, 35 Ga.App. 203.
111. — Buchanan v. Stephens, 26 N.E.
2d 733, 304 Ill.App. 477— Emcee
Corporation v. George, 12 N.E.2d
333, 293 Ill.App. 240 — Fitzgerald v.
Power, 225 111. App. 118.
Ky. — Workingmen's Perpetual Bldg.
& Loan Ass'n v. Stephens, 184 S.
W.2d 575, 299 Ky. 177— Overstreet
v. Grinstead's Adm'r, 140 S.W.2d
836, 283 Ky. 73 — Kammerer v.
Brown, 27 S.W.2d 959, 234 Ky. 199.
Md. — Corpus Juris cited in C. I. T.
Corporation v. Powell, 170 A. 740,
743, 166 Md. 208.
Mass.— Russell v. Foley, 179 N.E.
619f 278 Mass. 145— Lovell v. Lov-
ell, 176 N.E. 210, 276 Mass. 10.
Mich.— Electric Ry. Securities Co. v.
Hendricks, 232 N.W. 367, 251 Mich.
602.
> — Hurst v. Gulf States Creosot-
ing Co., 141 So. 346, 163 Miss. 512.
290
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
cause of action.98 It must be made to appear that
a retrial will result in a judgment different from the
one sought to be vacated." In the absence of such
a showing, or where the contrary affirmatively ap-
pears, the judgment will not be opened or vacated.}
Statutes regulating the proceedings sometimes ex-
pressly require such a showing of merits,2 but, even
under statutes not so providing, the courts generally
impose such requirement in the exercise of their eq-
uitable discretion.3 The reason for this rule is that
if defendant has no valid defense, or plaintiff has
no cause of action, as the case may be, so that a
Mo. — Corpus Juris quoted in Savings
Trust Co. of St. Louis v. Skain,
131 S.W.2d 566, 573, 3*45 Mo. 46.
N.J.— Simon v. Calabrese, 46 A.2d 58,
137 N.J.EQ. 581— Kaffltz v. Claw-
son, 36 A.2d 215, 134 N.J.Eq. 494.
N.Y.— In re Gori's "Will, 222 N.Y.S.
250, 129 Misc. 541.
N.C. — State v. O'Connor, 27 S.B.2d
88, 223 N.C. 469— Roediger v. Sa-
pos, 6 S.E.2d 801, 217 N.C. 95—
Hooks v. Neighbors, 190 S.E. 236,
211 N.C. 382— Woody v. Privett,
154 S.E. 625, 199 N.C. 378— Fowler
v. Fowler, 130 S.E. 315, 190 N.C.
536.
Ohio. — Beachler v. Ford, 60 N.E.2d
330, 77 Ohio App. 41— Kosher v.
Mutual Home & Savings Ass'n,
App., 41 N.E.«d 871— In re Vesel-
ich, 154 N.B. 55, 22 Ohio App. 528.
OKI. — Jupe v. Home Owners Loan
Corp., 167 P.2d 46 — McVean v.
Challes, 69 P.2d 382, 180 Okl. 375
— Methvin v. Mutual Savings &
Loan Ass'n, 67 P.2d 792, 180 Okl.
80 — Carlin v. Prudential Ins. Co.
of America, 52 P.2d 721, 175 Okl.
398— Crosbie v. Absher, 51 P.2d
970, 174 Okl. 593— Couch v. Gar-
man, 50 P.2d 1103. 174 Okl. 515
— Edge v. Security Building &
Loan Ass'n, '45 P.2d 1108, 172 Okl.
513 — Harlow Pub. Co. v. Tallant,
43 P.2d 106, 171 Okl. 579— In re
Bruner's Estate, 256 P. 722, 125
Okl. 101— Woodley v. McKee, 223
P. 346, 101 OkL 120.
Pa. — Ferguson v. O'Hara, 132 A. 801,
286 Pa, 37— Moyer v. Diehl, 11 A.
2d 651, 139 Pa.Super. 59— Phila-
delphia Fixture & Equipment Cor~
poration v. Carroll, 191 A. 216, 126
Pa. Super. 454 — Commonwealth v.
Eclipse Literary and Social Club,
178 A. 341, 117 Pa.Super. 339—
Shelinski v. Obrekes, 97 Pa. Super.
340 — Green v. Davis, 19 Pa.Dist &
Co. 156, 32 Sch.Leg.Rec. 307— Wil-
liams & Co. v. Orlando, 6 Pa.Dist.
& Co. 153, 19 North Co. 295— Mc-
Kenzie Co. v. Fidelity & Deposit
Co. of Maryland, Com.Pl., 54
Dauph.Co. 294 — Harr v. Kelly,
Com.Pl., 43 Lack.Jur. 221 — Dunlap
Tire & Rubber Corporation v. Pow-
ell, Com.Pl., 33 Luz.Leg.Reg. 216
— Kalna v. Sopata, Com.Pl., 33 Luz.
Leg.Reg. 96 — Favinger v. Favinger,
Com.Pl., 60 Montg.Co. 149— First
Baptist Church v. Entress, Corn.Pl.,
94 Pittsb.Leg.J. 132— Stetsko v.
Lea, Coxn.Pl., 26 West. Co. 97 — Eys-
ter v. Peterman, Com.PL, 55 York
Leg.Rec. 181. .
S.C. — Savage v. Cannon, 80 S.E.2d 70,
204 S.C.' 473— Detroit Fidelity &
Surety Co. v. Foster, 169 S.E. 871,
170 S.C. 121.
Tex. — Commercial Credit Corp. v.
Smith, 187 S.W.2d 263, 143 Tex.
612— Yellow Transit Co. v. Klaff,
Civ.App., 145 S.W.2d 264— Benson
v. Drummond, Civ.App., 137 S.W.2d
125— Hubbard v. Tallal, Civ.App.,
57 S.W.2d 226, reversed on other
grounds and appeal dismissed 92
S.W.2d 1022, 127 Tex. 242— Sembera
v. Usener, Civ.App., 295 S.W. 200.
Wash. — Morsbach v. Thurston Coun-
ty, 268 P. 135, 148 Wash. 87.
Wyo. — Bank of Commerce v. Wil-
liams, 69 P.2d 525, 52 Wyo. I, 110
A.L.R. 1463.
34 C.J. p 329 note 55.
Confessed judgments see infra § 324.
Default judgments see infra § 336.
On bill for equitable relief see in-
fra § 349.
Coram nobis
(1) On an application in the na-
ture of a writ of error coram nobis,
the matter of a meritorious cause
of 'action or defense is immaterial. —
Reid v. Chicago Rys. Co., 231 HI.
App. 58.
(2) Writ of .error coram nobis gen-
erally see infra §§ 311-313.
On* seeking1, as a favor oppor-
tunity to reopen a litigation, must
show that a meritorious controversy
exists.— In re Gross' Will, 31 N.Y.
S.2d 479, 263 App.Div. 818.
Petition, to strike off Judgment
Defendant filing a petition to
strike off Judgment is not required
to set forth a meritorious defense,
since a rule to "strike off Judgment"
is not an equitable proceeding, and
in that respect it differs fundament-
tally from a "rule to open a judg-
ment."— Hotel Redington v. Guffey,
25 A.2d 773, 148 Pa.Super. 502.
38. US.— Peters v. Mutual Life Ins.
Co. of New York, D.C.Pa.f 17 F.
Supp. 246, reversed on other
grounds, C.C.A., 92 F.2d 301.
Cal. — Doyle v. Rice Ranch Oil Co.,
81 P.2d 980, 28 Cal.App.2d 18.
Mass.— Maki v. New York, N. H. &
H. R. Co., 199 NJS. 760, 293 Mass.
223.
Miss. — Hurst v. Gulf States Creosot-
ing Co., 141 So*. 3*46, 163 Miss. 512.
Neb.— Morrill County v. Bliss, 249
N.W. 98, 125 Neb. 97, '89 A.L.R.
932.
N.Y.— Manzo v. AJello, 214 N.Y.S.
251, 216 App.Div. 733— Lunghino v.
Marine Trust Co. of Buffalo, 298
N.Y.S. 659, 163 Misc. 765, affirmed
536
6 N.Y.S.2d 650, 254 App.Div. 924,
reargument denied 8 N.Y.S.2<%1012,
255 App.Div. 936 — In re Gori's Will,
222 N.Y.S. 250, 129 Misc. 541—
Mandel v. Donohue, 208 N.Y.S. 807, '
124 Misc. 861.
N.C. — Roediger v. Sapos, 6 S.E.2d
801, 217 N.C. 95.
Okl.— Methvin v. Mutual Savings &
Loan Ass'n, 67 P.2d 792, 180 Okl.
80 — Carlin v. Prudential Ins. Co.
of America, 52 P.2d 721, 175 Okl.
398 — In re Bruner's Estate, 256
P. 722, 125 Okl. 101.
Pa. — Derbyshire Bros. v. McManamy,
101 Pa.Super. 514 — Franks v. Apon-
ick, 42 Sch.Leg.Rec. 24.
S.C. — Savannah Supply Co. v. Ross,
122 S.E. 772, 128 S.C. 29«.
34 C.J. p 332 note 56.
99. N.J. — Somers v. Holmes, 177 A.
434, 114 NJT.Law 497.
OkL— Murrell v. City of Sapulpa, 297
. P. 241, 148 Okl. 16.
S.C. — Wise v. First Nat Ins. Co.,
172 S.E. 764, 172 S.C. 53.
Tex. — Harris v. Sugg, Civ.App., 145
S.W.2d 149, error dismissed, Judg-
ment correct
34 C.J. p 336 note '80, p 272 note 83.
L CaL — Bixby v. HotchJkis, App.,
164 P.2d 808.
Ga.— Louis K. Liggett Co. v. Fos-
ter, 136 S.E. 93, 36 Ga.App. 185—
Dabney v. Benteen, 132 S.E. 916,
35 Ga.App. 203.
Iowa.— In re Rinnan's Estate, 255 N.
W. 632, 218 Iowa 572.
Mass. — Woods v. Woods, 195 N.E.
377, 290 Mass. 392.
Pa. — Phillips & Sons Co. v. Worley
Corporation, 97 Pa, Super. 506 —
Williams & Co. v. Orlando, 6 Pa.
Dist & Co. 153, 19 North.Co. 295-
— Bloch & Son v. Schweitzer, Com.
PL, 30 Berks Co. 81— Markle Bank
& Trust Co. v. Paladino, Com.PL,
81 Luz.Leg.Reg. 210 — Quandel v.
Ortt, Com.Pl., 4 Sch.Reg. 439—
Donora Real Estate. Co. v. Coulter,
• Com.PL, 18 Wash.Co. 26 — Eyster
v. Peterman, Com.Pl., 55 York Leg.
Rec. 181.
Wyo. — Bank of Commerce v. Wil-
liams, 69 P.2d 525, 52 Wyo. 1, 110
A.L.R. 1463.
34 C.J. p 333 note 59, p 372 note 83.
2, Ark. — Nichols v. Arkansas Trust
Co., 179 S.W.2d 857, 207 Ark. 174.
Wyo. — Bales v. Brome, 105 P.2d 568,
56 Wyo. 111.
3. Ind. — Wills v. Browning, 96 Ind.
149.
34 C.J. p 332 note 58.
49 0. J. S.
JUDGMENTS
290
second trial must result in an identical judgment,
then no actual injustice has been done, and it would
be a vain and idle thing to disturb the judgment al-
ready entered.4
Exceptions to the rule have been made in a vari-
ety of cases.5 It has been held that a judgment may
be opened or vacated without the showing of a
meritorious action or defense where the judgment
is void,6 as for want of jurisdiction,7 although some
cases hold that merits must be shown even in the
case of a void judgment.8 It has been held that,
where the judgment was obtained by fraud, a mer-
itorious defense or action need not be shown,9 al-
though in some jurisdictions merits must be shown
in such case.10 Where judgment was irregularly
• taken against a person under legal disabilities, such
as an infant or an insane person, a showing of
merits is not required,11 but there is also authftrity
to the contrary.12 It has likewise been held that a
meritorious action or defense need not be shown
where the judgment was entered without authority,
by mistake, or improvidently,18 or where the ground
of objection to the judgment is clearly well found-
ed.14 It has generally been held that the applica-
tion need not show a meritorious defense or action
where the application is made during the judgment
term,15 but the court, in its discretion, may impose
such requirement.16
1). Sufficiency of Showing
The facts constituting the cause of action or defense
must be set forth in an application to open or vacate
a Judgment; It Is not sufficient to allege that the appli-
cant has a meritorious cause of action or defense.
Where it is necessary to show merits, it is not
sufficient to allege in general terms that defendant
has a good or meritorious defense to the action, or
that plaintiff has a good and sufficient cause of ac-
tion;17 the nature of the defense, or cause of ac-
tion, must be shown.18 The facts constituting the
proposed defense, or claimed cause of action, must
4. Wyo. — Bales v. Brome. 105 P.2d
568, 56 Wyo. 111.
34 C.J. p 333 note 61.
5. N.C.— Campbell v. Campbell, 102
S.E. 737, 179 N.C. 413.
34 C.J. p 334 note 72.
6. Md.— C. I. T. Corporation v. Pow-
ell, 170 A. 740, 166 Md. 208.
Ohio. — Snyder v. Clough, 50 N.E.2d
384, 71 Ohio App, 440— Corpus Ju-
ris quoted in Kinsman Nat. Bank
v. Jerko, 25 Ohio N.P.,N.S., 445,
457.
Okl. — Abernathy v. Bonaparte, 26 P.
2d 947, 166 Okl. 192.
Wash. — Corpus Juris quoted in John
Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v.
Cooley, 83 P.2d 221, 229, 196 Wash.
357 — Ballard Savings & Loan Ass'n
v. Linden, 62 P.2d 1364, 188 Wash.
490.
Wis. — Corpus Juris cited in Chippe-
wa Valley Securities Co. v. Herbst,
278 N.W. 872, 875, 227 Wis. 422.
Wyo. — Elstermeyer v. City of Chey-
enne, 120 P.2d 599, 57 Wyo. 421.
Judgment void on face of record
Tex. — Ferguson v. Ferguson, Civ.
App., 98 S.W.2d 847— Carson v.
Taylor, Civ.App., 261 S.W. 824.
Where it is established that no
Judgment was rendered, the purport-
ed judgment may be vacated in prop-
er proceeding instituted for that
purpose by party affected thereby
without establishing a meritorious
defense. — City of Clinton ex rel.
Richardson v. Cornell, 132 P.2d 340,
191 Okl. 600.
7. Ohio. — Beachler v. Ford, 60 N.E.
2d 330, 77 Ohio App. 41.
Okl. — Jupe v. Home Owners Loan
Corp., 167 P.2d 46— Methvin v. Mu-
tual Savings & Loan Ass'n, 67 P.
2d 792. 180 Okl. 80— Carlin v. Pru-
dential Ins. Co. of America, 52
P.2d 721, 175 Okl. 398— Myers v.
Chamness, 228 P. 988, 102 Okl. 131.
Wis. — Chippewa Valley Securities Co.
v. Herbst, 278 N.W. 872, 227 Wis.
422.
34 QJ. p 333 note 62.
Party not served
Cal. — Shelley v. Casa De Oro; Limit-
ed, 24 P.2d 900, 133 CaLApp. 720.
Colo. — Bray v. Germain Inv. Co., 98
P.2d 993, 105 Colo. 403.
Okl.— Jones v. Norris, 55 P.2d 984,
176 Okl. 434— Mayhue v. Clapp,
261 P. 144, 128 Okl. 1— Myers v.
Chamness, 228 P. 988, 102 Okl. 131.
Tex, — Goodman v. Mayer, Civ.App.,
105 S.W.2d 281, reversed on other
grounds 128 S.W.2d 1156, 133 Tex.
•319.
a Ark.— Nichols v. Arkansas Trust
Co., 179 S.W.2d-«57, 207 Ark. 174.
9. N.D.— • Williams v. Fairmount
School Dist., 129 N.W. 1027, 21 N.
D. 198.
34 C.J. p 334 note 64.
10. Ark.— Holland v. Wait, 8-6 S.W.
2d 415, 191 Ark. 405.
Okl. — Abernathy v. Huston, 26 P.2d
939, 166 Okl. 184— Myers v. Chain-
ness, 228 P. 988, 102 Okl. 131.
34 C.J. p 334 note 65.
11. N.Y.— Kent v. West 50 N.T.S.
339, 22 Misc. 403, affirmed €3 N.Y.
S. 244, 33 App.Div. 112, appeal dis-
missed 57 N.E. 1114, 163 N.T. 589.
34 C.J. p 334 notes 66-6*8.
12. Ark.— Ryan v. Fielder, 138 <S.W.
973, 99 Ark. 374.
34 C.J. p 334 note 69.
13. Ariz.— Gila Valley Electric, Gas
& Water Co. v. Arizona TJrust &
Savings Bank, 215 P. 159, 25 Ariz.
177.
34 CJ. p 334 note 71.
537
14. N.D.— NaderhoftT v. Benz, 141 N.
W. 501, 25 N.D. 165, 47 L.R.A.,N.
S., 853.
34 C.J. p 334 note 72.
15. Mo. — Savings Trust Co. of St.
•Louis v. Skaln, 131 S.W.2d 566,
345 Mo. 46— National City Bank of
St. Louis v. Pattiz, App., 2-6 S.W.
2d 815.
Neb.— Morrill County v. Bliss, 249 N.
W. 98, 125 Neb. 97, 89 A.L.R. 932.
Ohio. — Ames Co. v. Busick, App., 47
N,B.2d 647— Edge v. Stuckey, 178
N.E. 210, 40 Ohio App. 122.
Okl.— Long v. Hill, 145 P.2d 434, 193
Okl. 463— Montague v. State ex rel.
Commissioners of Land Office of
Oklahoma, 89 P.2d 283, 184 Okl. 5*74
— Methvin 'v. Mutual Savings &
Loan Ass'n, 67 P.2d 792, ISO Okl.
80 — Carlin v. Prudential Ins. Co.
of America, 52 P.2d 721, 17-5 Okl.
398.
Wyo.— Bank of Commerce v. Wil-
liams, 69 P.2d 525, 52 Wyo. 1, 110
A.L.R. 1463.
16. Ohio. — Harbine v. Davis, App.,
57 N.E.2d 421.
17. Ala.-^Fletcher v. 'First Nat
Bank of Opelika, 11 So.2d 854, 244
Ala. 98 — Union Indemnity Co. v.
Goodman, 144 So. 108, 225 Ala. 499.
Ky.— Horn v. Green, 178 S.W.2d 430,
296 Ky. 714.
Miss. — Corpus Juris cited in Cocke v.
Wilson, 134 So. £86, 087, 161 Miss.
1.
Mo. — Corpus Juris cited in Jeffrey v.
Kelly, App., 146 S.W.2d 850, 852.
Tex. — Bishop v. Galbralth, Civ.App.,
246 S.W;. 41-6, reversed on other
grounds Galbraith v. Bishop, Com.
App., 287 S.W. 1087.
34 C.J. p 335 note 76.
ia Tex. — Commercial Credit Corp.
290
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
be set forth in detail, so that the court may judge
whether or not it is meritorious and sufficient19
A statement of the facts is sufficient ; it is not nec-
essary to allege the legal conclusion that applicant
has a meritorious defense or cause of action.20 It
has been held that an unverified declaration or com-
plaint is not sufficient,21 and that the facts must be
stated positively, and not merely on information and
belief.22 Amendments to make a more adequate
showing as to the meritorious action or defense may
be allowed in furtherance of justice.23
c. Sufficiency of Cause of Action or Defense
To constitute a meritorious defense or cause of ac-
tion in support of an application to open or vacate a
Judgment^ the claim must be legally sufficient; It must
not be merely technical, unjust, or inequitable.
A meritorious and substantial cause of action or
defense must be shown in support of an application
to open or vacate a judgment, that is, one which
raises questions of law deserving investigation or a
real controversy as to the essential facts.24 Mat-
ter which would be a sufficient defense to an action
is not necessarily a meritorious defense warranting
the vacation of a judgment which has been en-
tered;25 a judgment will not be opened or vacated
if the defense or cause of action is not meritorious,
but is purely technical in its character, or is dis-
honest or unconscionable;26 and the defense or
v. Smith, 187 S.W.2d 363, 143 Tex.
612.
34 C.J. p 336 note 77.
Showing was liberally construed to
support order vacating: final judg-
ment on motion. — Kerr v. Southwest
Fluorite Co., 294 P. 324, 35 N.M. 2!
19. 111.— Fitzgerald v. Power, 225
ULApp. 118.
Mo. — Meyerhardt v. Fredman, App.,
131 S.W.2d 916.
N.C.— Hooks v. Neighbors, 190 S.B.
236, 211 N.C. 382.
Ohio. — Canal Winchester Bank v. Ex-
line. 22 N.E.2S 528, 61 Ohio App.
253.
Pa. — White v. Consumers 'Finance
Service, Com.PL, 33 Luz.Leg.Beg.
164 — Kalna v, Sopata, Oom.Pl., 33
Luz.Leg.Heg. 96.
Tex. — Bishop v. Galbraith, Civ.App.,
246 S.W. 416, reversed on other
grounds, Galbraith v. Bishop, Com.
App., 2S7 S.W. 1087.
34 C.J. p 335 note 76.
Reference to record
Defendant's sworn motion to va-
cate Judgment, setting up that he
has meritorious defense "upon rec-
ord," is sufficient, where record
showed a legal defense and answer,
which, although unverified, expressly
denied allegation of unverified peti-
tion with regard to notice for attor-
ney's fees. — Donalson v. Bank of Ja-
kin, 127 S.E. 229, 33 Ga.App. 428.
20. Mass.— Herlihy v. Kane, 38 N.E.
2d -620, 310 Mass. 457.
21. Miss.— Hurst v. Gulf States
Creosoting Co., 141 So. 346, 163
Miss. 512.
22. Wis. — Union -Lumbering Co. v.
Chippewa County, 2 N.W. 281, 47
Wis. 245.
£4 C.J. p 336 note 81.
23. Kan. — Chandler v. Cajples, 144
P. 191, 93 Kan. 313.
34 C.J. p 336 note 82.
2*. Cal. — Doyle v. Rice Ranch Oil
Co., *81 P.2d 980, 28 Cal.App.2d 18.
Mass.^-Russell v. Foley, 179 N.E.
619, 278 Mass. 145— -Lovell v. Lov-
ell, 176 N.E. 210, 276 Mass. 10.
Tex.— Miles v. Dana, 36 S.W. 848,
13 Tex.Civ.App. 240.
Wyo. — Elstermeyer v. City of Chey-
enne, 120 P.2d 599, 57 W^o. 421.
Defenses passed on in previous tri-
al were not available on motion to
vacate judgment unless fraud in pro-
curing judgment is alleged. — Howe
v. Farmers' & Merchants' Bank, 263
P. 673, 129 Okl. 140.
Defense not provable under plead-
ings is not sufficient — Sohn v. Flav-
in, 244 N.W. 349, 60 S.D. 305.
Meritorious action or defense shown
Ariz. — Swisshelm Gold Silver Co. v.
Farwell, 124 P.2d 544, 59 Ariz. 162.
Cal. — (Bullion v. -Superior Court in and
for City and County of San Fran-
cisco. 90 P.2d 858, 33 Cal.App.2d
48.
Ga. — Lester v. Graham, 123 S.K 37,
32 Ga.App. 379.
Iowa.— Rock Island Plow Co. v.
Brunkan, 248 N.W. 32, 215 Iowa
1264— Newlove v. Stern, 19-6 N.W.
51, 196 Iowa 1111.
Mass.— Herlihy v. Kane, 38 N.E.2d
620, 310 Mass. 457.
Chip. — Buckeye State Building &
'Loan Co. v. Ry«n, 157 N.B. *11, 24
Ohio App. 481.
Okl. — Abernathy v. Huston, 26 P.2d
939, 166 Okl. 184.
Pa. — Cramer v. Sizemore, Com.Pl.,
48 Dauph.Qo. 169 — Hanover Trust
Co. v. Keagy, Com.PL, 51 York Leg.
Rec. 157, reversed on other
grounds 6 A.2d 786, 3S5 Pa, 356.
Meritorious action or defense not
shown
Ark. — Nichols v. Arkansas Trust Co.,
179 SLW.2d 857, 207 Ark. 1T4.
111.— Bird-Sykes Co. v. McNamara,
252 IlLApp. 262.
Kan. — Haggart v. Wheeler, 229 P.
357, 116 Kan. 702.
Mo. — Audsley v. Hale, 261 S.W. 117,
303. Mo. 451.
N.J. — Manufacturers' Finance Co. v.
Miller, 137 A. 717, 5 N.J.Misc. -676
— Dtagfeld v. McGackin, 132 A. 92,
4 N.J.Misc. 117.
N.D.— r Dennis v. Pease, 240 N.W. 611,
61 N.D. 718.
538
Okl.— Moran v. City Nat Bank of
Lawton, 82 P.2d 682, 183 Okl. 308
— Couch v. Garman, 50 P.2d 1103,
174 Okl. 515.
Pa.— Roper v. Scevcnik, 194 A. 333,
128 Pa.€uper. 453 — Waldman v.
Baer, 81 Pa.Super. 390.
25. Ohio. — Canal Winchester Bank
v. Exline, 22 N.E.2d 528, 61 Ohio
App. 253.
26. Okl. — Featherstone v. South-
western Lumber Co., 243 P. 240,
116 Okl. 86.
Pa. — Richey v. Gibboney, 34 A.2d
913, 154 Pa.Super. 1— Philadelphia
Fixture & Equipment Corporation
v. Carroll, 191 A. 216, 126 Pa.Super.
45*4 — Bury & Holman v. Pezalla,
Com.Pl., 27 DeLCo. 405— Hair v.
Kelly, Com.Pl., 43 Lack.Jur. 221—
Cronauer v. Bayer, £om.Pl., 87
Luz.Leg.Reg. 94.
Wyo. — Elstermeyer v. City of Chey-
enne, 120 P.2d 599, 57 Wyo. 421.
34 C.J. p 337 note 83, note 85-p 339
note 13.
Capacity to contract
A Judgment will not be opened on
the ground that defendant was in-
capacitated by habitual drunkenness
to make the contract sued on, where
no fraud or imposition is charged,
and the evidence does not show that
he was entirely incapable of making
a contract.— Spetz v. Howard, 23 Pa,
Super. 420.
Compounding a felony
A judgment entered on a bond giv-'
en to secure any indebtedness that
might be found against the obligor
by award of arbitrators will not be
opened on the ground that it was
given to compound a felony, where
the evidence shows that there was
no actual agreement not to prose-
cute, and that the obligor, although
charged with a felony, did not actual-
ly commit it — Woelfel v. Hammer,
28 A. 146, 159 Pa. 446.
Gambling contract
The fact that plaintiff's cause of
action was based on a contract made
in state for purchase of "punch
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
293
cause of action must be such that the judgment in
disregard of it is unjust and inequitable.27
§ 291. Proposed Answer
The requirement that an application for the open-
ing or vacation of a default judgment be supported
by a showing of the answer which defendant pro-
poses to interpose is discussed infra § 336 e.
Examine Pocket Parts for later cases.
§ 292. Answer and Other Pleadings
An answer Is required where the proceeding to open
or vacate the Judgment is by action, but not where It
is by motion in the cause.
Where an application to open or vacate a judg-
ment takes the form of a motion in the cause, it is
governed by the rules applicable to motions gener-
ally, and no formal pleadings in opposition are re-
quired.28 A like rule has been applied to a proceed-
ing by complaint under a statute providing that the
application may be by complaint or motion,29 but in
most jurisdictions, where the application is made by
formal action, or petition, the usual rules of plead-
ing are applicable, and the holder of the judgment
must controvert the allegations of the petition or
complaint by an answer.30 The answer must raise
an issue by direct and positive averments ; if it fails
to do so, the petition or complaint may be taken
as confessed and the judgment set aside.31 The
answer is sometimes required to be verified.32 The
petition may be dismissed for failure to file a repli-
cation, if one would be 'required by the ordinary
rules of pleading.33
A cross complaint seeking affirmative relief may
not be interposed in opposition to an application to
open or vacate a judgment.34
§ 293. Parties; Persons by and against
Whom Proceedings May Be Brought
a. In general
b. Who may apply
a. In General
Generally all the parties to a Judgment should be
joined In a proceeding to open or vacate the Judgment.
As a general rule all the parties to a judgment
should be made parties to a proceeding to vacate or
open it,85 as well as those who may have acquired
interests in the judgment, or under it, and therefore
have an interest in maintaining it,3^ and gener-
board," which was gambling- device,
was a prima facie showing of a valid
defense against such judgment — K.
& 3. Sales Co. v. liee, 261 8.W. 903,
164 Ark. 449.
27. Wyo. — Elstermeyer v. City of
Cheyenne, 120 P.2d 599, -57 Wyo.
421.
34 C.J. p 337 note <84.
28. Md. — Craig v. Hebron Building
& Loan Ass'n No. 2, 189 A. 218, 171
Md. 522.
Mass. — Lynch v. Springfield Safe De-
posit & Trust Co., 13 N.E.2d -611,
300 Mass. 14.
$4 C.J. p 343 note 50.
Special matter
While, in general, pleadings are not
necessary in proceeding under some
statutes to vacate Judgments, defend-
ant relying on special matter not go-
ing to merits of case must raise it
by special pleading.— Wrinn v. Sell-
ers, 147 N.E. 899, 252 Mass. 423.
Where party did* not respond to
motion to vacate and submitted no
proof to refute that offered by -plain-
tiffs, affidavits submitted in support
would be considered as prima facie
true. — Holland v. Wait, 86 S.W.2d
415, 191 Ark. 405.
29. Ind. — Douglass v. Keehn, 78 .Ind.
199.
34 C.J. p 343 note 52.
30. Pa. — Silent Auto Corporation of
Northern New Jersey v. IFolk, 97
Pa.Super. 58*8.
34 C.J. p 343 note 55.
Waiver
Answer on the merits waives ques-
tion of sufficiency of the application.
—Smyth v. -Fargo, 138 N.E. 610, 307
111. 300.
A statutory motion in nature of
writ of error ooram nobis being dec-
laration in new suit, other party
thereto should be required to file
pleading to such motion. — Topel v.
Personal Loan & Savings Bank, 9 N.
E.2d 75, 290 Ill.App. 558.
81. N.Y.— iLansing v. MeKillup, '1
Cow. 35.
Pa. — Hunter v. Mahoney, 23 A* 1004,
148 Pa, 232.
32. Ohio.-— Metzger v. Zeissler, 13
Ohio N.P.,N.S.f 49.
Pa.— Appeal of Russell, 93 Pa, 384.
33. Pa.— Appeal of Russell, supra.
34. Ark. — Jerome Hardwood (Lum-
ber Co, v. Jackson- Vreeland Land
Corporation, 254 S.W. 660, 160 Ark.
303.
55. 'XI.S.— U. S. v. Peacock, D.-C-Fla.,
34 F.Supp. 557.
Tex. — Hartel v. Dishman, 145 <S.W.2d
865, 135 Tex. 600 — Hannon v. Hen-
son, Com.App., 15 S.W.2d 579 —
Wixom v. Bowers, Civ.App., 152
S.W.2d 896, error refused.
34 C.J. p 3*44 note 59.
The real parties in interest must
be brought before the court.
Ark.— State v. West, 254 S.W. 828,
160 Ark. 413.
Ky.— Morris v. Morris, 185 S.W.2d
244, 299 Ky. 235.
Intervention
Trial court could allow owner of
property to be made party on hear-
ing to set aside judgment requiring
sheriff to deliver tax deed of own-
er's property to purchaser. — Barth-
olomew v. RufCner, 273 P. 9t86, 35
Ariz. 12.
Bight to object
Maker of notes who was not par-
ty to original suit thereon could not
question right of holder of notes to
set aside, as void, original judgment
rendered against wrong party and
to commence another suit thereon.—
Ford v. Vetsch, La.App., 167 So. 842.
36. Minn.— Aldrich v. Chase, 73 N.
W. 161, 70 Minn. 243.
34 C.J. p 344 note 60.
Assignee of Judgment
(1) On a proceeding to vacate a
judgment, the assignee of the judg-
ment is a necessary party and enti-
tled to notice. — Robinson v. Ameri-
can Chemical Co., 9 N.Y.Civ.Proc. 78.
(2) iPiling1 and recording assign-
ment of judgment held not construc-
tive notice to judgment debtors that
assignee had become owner thereof,
and thereby to oblige them to serve
notice and make her a party in pro-
ceedings to set aside judgment and
grant new trial, there being no stat-
ute pertaining to assignment of a
judgment — Miller v. Greenfield Sav.
Bank, 203 N.W. 236, 199 Iowa 1039.
539
§ 293
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
ally one not party to the judgment should not be
joined.37 A merely nominal party need not be
joined.38 Where a judgment against joint defend-
ants is not deemed an entirety, codefendants are
not necessary parties to an application by one de-
fendant to vacate a judgment on grounds peculiar
to himself,89 such as lack of jurisdiction.40 A co-
defendant against whom no relief is sought, and
who will not be affected by an order vacating the
judgment, need not be made a party to the mo-
tion*41
It has been held that where defendant seeks to
avoid judgment on the ground that he was not
duly served, and there is an entry of service pur-
porting to have been made by a sheriff, he must
traverse the return and make the officer a party to
the proceeding.42
b. Who May Apply
An application to open or vacate a judgment may
generally be made only by a party to the record who ha*
been prejudicially affected; but In some cases one not a
party who has been injured may apply.
The general rule is that an application to open or
vacate a judgment can be made only by a party to
the record43 who in some way has been prejudicial-
ly affected by the judgment,44 and that a stranger
to the record who was neither a party nor a privy
to the action cannot make such an application.45
If it appears that the parties really in interest are
content that the judgment shall stand and submit
to the irregularities affecting its validity, it should
not be set aside at the instance of a stranger,46
and this is particularly true where he would not be
benefited.47
37. Ga.— Buchannon v. Park, 104 S.
B. 20, 25 Ga.App. 635.
34 C.J. p 344 note 66.
Gaxnisher
Oarnlsher has no standing to re-
sist motion by garnishee to quash
judgment obtained against garnishee.
— Home Telephone Co. v. North Ar-
kansas Highway Improvement Dist.
No. 2, 19 S.W.2d 1014, 179 Ark. 875.
38. Ohio.^Fitzgerald v. Cross, 30
Ohio St. 44'4.
39. Ind. — Durre v. Brown, "34 N.E.
577, 7 Ind.App. 127.
40. Ind.— Durre v. Brown, supra.
W.Va.— Carlon Y. Ruffner, 12 W.Va.
297.
«L Cal.— Schart v. -Schart, 47 P.
927, US Cal. 91.
34 C.J. p 544 note 65.
44. Ga. — Green v. Grant, 32 S.E. 846,
108 Ga. 751.
43, Ark.— Golightly v. New York
'Life Ina Co., 120 S.W.2d 69-7, 196
Ark. 1024.
Colo.— Scott v. Sullivan, 244 P. 466,
79 Colo. 173.
DeL— Rhoads v. Mitchell, Super., 47
A.2d 174.
Ga. — Ingram & Le Grand Lumber
Co. v. Burgin Lumber Co., 13 S.
B.2d 370, 191 Ga, 584— Thomas v.
Lambert, 1 S.E.2d 443, 187 Ga. 616
— Pope v. TJ.-S. Fidelity & Guar-
anty Co., 21 S.E.2d 289, £7 Ga.Ai>p.
560— Howe v. People's Credit
Clothing Co., 140 S.E. 800, 37 Ga.
App. 535. .
EL— Continental HI. Nat. Bank &
Trust Co. of Chicago v. University
of Notre Dame Du Lac, 63 N.B.2d
127, 326 IlLApp. 567.
Ind.— Corpus Juris quoted in Brokaw
v. Brokaw, 192 N.BL 728, 729, 99
Ind.App. 385.
Ky.— Brewer v. Herndon, 300 &.W.
858, 222 Ky. 419.
Mo.— Inter-River Drainage Dist of
Missouri v. Henson, App., 99 &W.
2d 866.
N.Y.— People ex rel. Ferris v. Agos-
ttnelli, 291 N.T.S. 66, 249 AppJMv.
638.
N\D. — Corpus Juris cited in Guenther
v. Punk, 274 N.W. 839, £43, 67 N.D.
543.
Okl.— 'Fidelity Building & Loan Ass'n
v. Newell, 55 P.2d 131, 176 Okl.
184.
Pa. — Kupres v. Citizens' Nat Bank,
101 PaSfcper. 361.
Tex. — Corpus Juris cited in Standard
Oil Co. v. State, Civ.App., 132 S.
W.2d 612, 614, error dismissed,
judgment correct
Wash. — State v. Superior Court for
Pierce County, 7 P.2d 604, 1«66
Wash. 502.
WIs. — Home Owners' Loan Corp. v.
Mascari, 19 N.W.2d 283, 247 Wis.
190, rehearing denied 19 N.W.2d
851, 247 Wis. 190.
34 C.J. p 344 note 69.
Amiens curtae
Court may set aside judgment, in
interest of justice, during term on
suggestion of amicus curias. — Cherry
v. Cherry, 35 S.W.2d 659, 225 Mo.App.
998.
Estoppel
A fraudulent judgment will not be
set aside at the instance of a party
who has participated in the fraud. —
Sherner v. Spear, 92 N.C. 1'48— 34 C.
J. p 347 note 84.
Plaintiff's assignee*
Where payee, after instituting ac-
tion on note insured by United
•States, assigned all payee's right, ti-
tle, and interest In note to United
States, defendant moved for sum-
mary judgment against payee,
payee defaulted on motion, and sum-
mary judgment was granted dismiss-
ing complaint on merits, the 'United
States was not entitled to have the
judgment vacated and to be substi-
tuted as party plaintiff. — Central
Nat Bank of Tonkers v. Richmond,
22 N.YJS.2d 747, 175 Misc. '425.
540
44. Mich.— Detroit -Fidelity & Sure-
ty Co. v. Donaldson, 237 N.W. 380,
255 Mich. 129.
N.T.— Peters v. Berkeley, 219 N.Y.
S. 709, 219 'App.Div. 261— Gordon
v. Sterling, 13 How.Pr. 405.
Okl. — Savoy Oil Co. v. Emery, 277
P. 1029, 137 Okl. 67.
34 C.J. p 344 note 69.
45. Ark.— Gulf Refining Co. v.
Haire, 1 S.W.2d 76, 175 Ark. 1036.
Colo. — Denver & R. G. W. R. Co. v.
Town of Castle Rock, 62 P.2d 1164,
99 Colo. 340.
Ind. — Corpus Juris QLuoted in Brokaw
v. Brokaw, 192 N.E. 728, 730, 99
Ind.App. 385.
Mont. — Moore v. Capital Gas Corp.,
158 P.2d 302.
N.C. — In re Hood ex rel. Carolina
State Bank of Gibson, 181 S.E.
621, 208 N.C. 509.
Ohio. — Suiter v. -Suiter, 57 N.E.2d
616, 74 Ohio App. 44.
Pa. — Mooney v. Marchetti, Com.PL,
31 Luz.Leg.Reg. 293 — Young- v.
Pindley, Co"m.PL, 4 Sch.Reg. 442.
Wash.— Ballard Savings & Loan
Ass'n v. Linden, <62 P.2d 1364, 188
Wash. 490.
34 C.J. p 345 note 70.
"Privity" which will entitle per-
sons not parties to judgment to
move directly for its nullification
rests on some actual mutual or suc-
cessive relationship as to the same
right of property and has no per-
sonal basis as mere matter of senti-
ment— Thomas v. (Lambert, 1 fi.B.2d
443, 187 Ga. 616.
46. N.Y.— -Assets Realization Co. v.
Howard, 127 N.Y.S. 798, 70 Misc.
651, affirmed 136 N.Y.S. 1130, 1(2
App.Div. 900.
34 C.J. p 345 note 71.
47. -XI.S.— Poster v. Mansfield, a &
I. M. R. Co., Ohio, 13 S.Ct 2ft, 146
U.S. 88, 36 L.Ed. 899;
34 aj. p 345 note 72.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
293
This rule is, however, subject to the limitation
that a person not a party may apply for the open-
ing or vacation of the judgment where his rights
are injuriously affected thereby.48 .Persons who,
while not parties to the record, are the real parties
in interest affected by the judgment stand in such
relation to the judgment that they are entitled to
move to set aside or vacate it.4 9 Where the statute
under which the proceeding is instituted specifies the
persons entitled to relief, only persons within the
statute may apply.50 An application to vacate may
be made by a receiver for a party,51 by his trustee
in bankruptcy,52 by a garnishee,53 by a surety for
the principal debtor,54 or by an indemnitor.55 A
subrogee has the necessary interest to procure the
revocation of an order irregularly rescinding the
decree by which he was surrogated.56
Persons who by reason of the filing of a lis pen-
dens are bound to a judgment as though they were
parties may move the court and be heard with ref-
erence to any judgment affecting their rights.57 It
has been held that a void judgment may be vacated
and stricken from the record as a nullity at the in-
stance of any person interested or affected there-
by,58 but a person whose interest was acquired aft-
er judgment cannot have the judgment vacated for
irregularities of which the parties do not com-
plain.59
Successful party. The courts have power in a
proper case to open or set aside a judgment at the
instance of the party in whose favor it was ren-
dered, since, although nominally in his favor, it
may be really prejudicial to him, or not so favor-
able as it should have been,60 but a party cannot ob-
ject to so much of a judgment as is clearly favor-
able to him although it is unauthorized,61 or to a
judgment in his favor rendered at his instance with
knowledge of its irregularity.62
48. Alaska. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Smith v. Ooucher, 9 Alaska 730,
738.
Cal.— Greif v. Dullea, 153 P.2d 581,
66 Cal.App.2d 986.
Kan. — White v. Central Mut. Ins.
Co., 91 P.2d 1, 150 Kan. 47.
N.C.— Carter v. Smith, 185 -S.E. 15,
209 N.C. 78-8.
N.D.— <Jorpus Juris cited In Guenther
v. Funk, 274 N.W. 839, 8"43, 67 N.
D. 543.
Pa. — Holltnger v. Lynch, 52 Pa.Dist
& Co. 537, 56 Dauph.Co. 159.
S.C.— Ex parte Hart, 2 S.E.2d 52, 190
S.C. 473, certiorari denied Bowen
v. Hart, 60 S.Ct. 82, 308 U.S. 569,
84 L.Ed. 477.
34 C.J. p 345 note 73.
Rights directly and necessarily af-
fected
Where the rights of one not a par-
ty to a judgment are directly and
necessarily affected, he may inter-
vene after judgment and have his
rights protected. — Standard Oil Co.
v. Statue, Tex.Civ.App., 132 S.W.2d
612, error dismissed, judgment cor-
rect.
Judgment procured by fraud
Exception to rule that direct at-
tack may not be made on judgment
by one not a party thereto exists
where such judgmen.t was procured
by fraud and materially affects in-
terest of person making the attack.
— Turman Oil Co. v. Roberts, Tex.
Civ.App., 96 S.W.2d 724, error re-
fused.
lands
Where lands are held by the (Five
Civilized Tribes under .patents in fee
with restraints on alienation, a de-
cree undertaking the alienation of
the Indians' interest in the lands in
a suit to which the -United States is
not a party has no binding effect and
the United -States may sue to can-
eel the decree.— Town of Okemah, t54. Ala. — Bean v. Harrison, 104 So.
rvi,i «. TT a rt rt A f\iri 1 in HP 9.A 241 ft13 Ala. 33.
OkL, v. U. S., C.C.A.Okl., 140 'P.2d
963.
intervention
(1) A person not a party of record
cannot be heard to challenge a judg-
ment or decree until he obtains leave
to become a party by application to
intervene based on sufficient ground.
—In re Jordan, 1 A.2d 152, 332 Pa.
270.
(2) Order granting motion of
bankruptcy trustee of one of the liti-
gants to vacate judgment and to per-
mit trustee to appear in cause was
the equivalent of an order making
the trustee a party to the action. —
Nuckolls v. Bank of California, Nat.
Ass'n, 74 P.2d 264, 10 Cal.2d 266, 114
A.L.R. 708.
49. N.C— Corpus Juris quoted in
Buncombe County v. Penland, 173
S.B. 609, 612, 206 N.C. 299.
34 C.J. p 346 note '77.
Enforcement unjust
Where enforcement of a judgment
against petitioners who were not
parties to the action would be unjust
because of judgment having been
paid or its never having been a lien
or claim against the property, peti-
tioners may apply for relief in the
original action.— Home Owners' Loan
Corp. v. Mascari, 19 N.W.2d 851, 247
Wis. 190.
50. Ind.— Bundy v. Hall, 60 Ind. 177.
51. N.Y.— Kubie v. Miller, 64 N.Y.S.
44'S, 31 Misc. 440.
34 C.J. p 346 note 78.
52. Cal.— Nuckolls v. Bank of Cali-
fornia, Nat. Ass'n, 74 P.2d 264,
10 Cal.2d 266, 114 A.L.R. 708.
53. N.B.— Atwood v. Tucker, 145 N.
W. 587, 26 N.D. 622, 51 L.RJL,N.
S., 597.
34 C.J. p 346 note 79.
541
244, 213 Ala.
34 C.J. p 346 note 80.
55. N.T. — Manahan v. Petroleum
Producing & Refining Co., 189 N.
Y.S. 127, 198 App.Div. 192.
84 C.J. p 346 note 81.
56. La.— Buck v. Blair, 34 La,Ann.
767.
57. N.Y.— Ladd v. Stevenson, 19 N.
R tf42, 112 N.Y. 325, '8 Am.S.R. 748.
34 C.J. p 347 note 83.
58. La. — In re Webster's Tutorship,
177 So. 688, 188 La. 623— Logwood
v. Logwood, 148 So. 310, 1*5 La. 1.
Mich.— Williams v. Truax, 251 N.W.
3J5, 265 Mich. 323.
N.C. — Corpus Juris quoted in Bun-
combe County v. Penland, 173 S.EL
609, 612, 206 N.C. 299.
OkL — Simmons v. Howard, 276 P.
718, 136 OkL 118.
34 C.J. p 346 note 75.
59- Wis. — Mine. Ins. Co. v. Aldrich,
38 Wis. 107.
34 C.J. p 345 note 74.
60. La. — Ford v. Vetsch, App., 167
So. 842.
Mont.— Meyer v. Lemley, 282 P. 268,
86 Mont. 83.
N.J. — Grant Inventions Co. v. Grant
Oil Burner Corporation, 145 A.
721, 104 N.J.Bq. 341.
34 C.J. p 347 note 8-5.
Void judgment
Judgment entered without due
service of process is void, and can
be moved against by prevailing par-
ty.— State v. Fishing Appliances, 1$
P.2d 822, 170 Wash. 426.
6L Cal.— Kellett' v. Kellett, 294 P.
. 755, 110 CaLApp. 691.
34C.J. P 3*47 note 86.
62. Miss. — Corpus Juris cited in
293
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
Joint defendants. A 'judgment against several
defendants jointly, which is void or irregular as to
one of them, may be vacated on the application of
that defendant.63 In such a case it is not necessary
that the judgment should be vacated as to all the
defendants if their liability is several as well as
joint,64 unless they are inseparably connected in in-
terest,65 except in those jurisdictions where a joint
judgment is regarded as an entirety for all purpos-
es.66 One joint defendant cannot object to errors
and irregularities affecting only his codefendants.67
Legal representatives. Under statutes regulating
the opening or vacating of judgments which pro-
vide that an application for such relief may be
made by the "legal representatives of the defend-
ant," or by "any person legally representing him,"
an application may be made not only by the execu-
tor or administrator of a deceased defendant68 and
his widow and heirs,69 but also one who by deed or
other grant has acquired his entire interest in the
subject matter of the action.70 Even in the absence
of such a statute, the executor or administrator of
a deceased judgment debtor is not a stranger to the
record and may move to vacate in proper cases.71
Persons applying in this character for the vacation
of the judgment must show a state of facts which
would have supported the application if made by
the original party.72
Creditors whose claims have not been reduced to
judgment have been held to have no standing on an
application to vacate a judgment against their
debtor.73
Judgment creditors whose interests are affected
may maintain an application to vacate a prior judg-
ment against their debtor on the ground that such
judgment is fraudulent as to them,7* or wholly void
for want of jurisdiction,75 but mere irregularities
not rendering the judgment void cannot be taken
advantage of by subsequent judgment creditors.76
A subsequent purchaser of land, on which a judg-
ment has become a lien, takes cum onere, and can-
not maintain an application to vacate the judgment
for irregularity,77 although there is also authority
to the contrary;78 but a void judgment, as distin-
guished from one that is merely irregular,™ or a
judgment voidable as fraudulent,80 may be vacated
at the instance of a subsequent purchaser. A trans-
feree pendente lite of all the interest of defendant
becomes the real party in interest, and as such may
apply to set aside the judgment.81 An execution
purchaser may have a fraudulent judgment vacat-
ed.8*
Mortgagors and lienors have sufficient interest to
attack a judgment for invalidity,83 but a prior mort-
Cratln v. Cratin, 174 So. 255, 256,
178 Miss. 881.
Mo.— Downing v. Still, 43 Mo. 309.
63. Mont— Morse r. Callantine, 47
P. 635, 19 Mont «7.
34 CJ. p 347 note 88.
64. N.Y.— Hewlett v. Van Voorhis,
187 N.Y.-S. 533, 196 App.Div. 322,
affirmed 135 N.B. 952, 233 N.T. 642.
34 CJ. p 347 note 89.
65. Neb. — Sturgis, Cornish & Burn
Co. v. Miller, 112 N.W. 595, 79 Neb.
404.
34 CJ. p 347 note 90.
66. W.Va.— Steubenville Nat Bxch.
Bank v. McElflsh Clay Mfg. Co., 37
S.B. 541, 48 W.Va, 406.
34 C.J. p 347 note 91.
•67. Pa. — Cleary v. Quaker City Cab
Co., 132 A. 185, 285 Pa. 241.
34 CJ. p 347 note 92.
68. N.Y.— Hartigan v. Nagle, 32 N.
T.S. 220, 11 Misc. 449.
Pa.— Dick v. Mahoney, 21 Pa.Co. 241.
09. Iowa.— Wood v. Wood, 113 N.W.
492, 136 Iowa 128, 125 Am.S.R.
223, 12 L.R.A.,N.S., -891.
34 C.J. p 348 note 95.
70. N.C.— Hood ex rel. Merchants' &
Manufacturers' Bank of Andrews
v. Freel, 174 S.B. 310, 206 N.C 432.
34CJ.p348note96/
TL 111.— Whitney v. Bohlen, 42 N.B.
162, 157 111. 571.
34 C.J. p 348 note 97.
72. Cal.— Corwin v. Bensley, 43 CaL
253.
Iowa.— Wood v. Wood, 113 N.W. '492,
136 Iowa 128, 125 Am.S.B. 223, 12
L.R.A..N.S., 891.
73. N.J.— Melville y. Brown, 16 N.
J.Law 363.
34 C.J. p 348 note 99.
Attaching1 creditor
A judgment will not be opened at
the instance of plaintiff in attach-
ment against the same defendant,
since prior to Judgment he is not a
creditor in legal contemplation, but
merely one who may turn out to be
such. — Burtis v. Dickinson, 30 N.T.
S. 886, 81 Hun 343—34 C.J. p 348 note
2.
74. Mo. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Shepard v. ghepard, 186 S.W.2d
472, 475, 353 Mo: 1057.
N.C.— -Corpus Juris quoted in Bun-
combe County v. Penland, 173 S.E.
609, 612, 206 N.C. 299.
Ohio.— Corpus Juris qnoted in Hooff-
stetter v. Adams, 35 N.E.2d 896,
901, 67 Ohio App. 21.
34 C.J. p 346 note 76, p 348 note 3.
75. Wyo. — O'Keefe y. (Foster, 40 P.
525, 5 Wyo. 343.
34 CJ. p 348 note 4.
76. Pa. — Silverstein v. -CJohen, 12
PaJDist & Co. 218, 21 North Co.
877 — Zlarko v. Harun, Coxn.Pl., 17
542
Northumb.Leg.J. 53, 59 York Leg.
Rec. 25.
34 CJ. p 3*48 note 5.
Statutory right of creditor to at-
tack Judgment of another creditor
because of an alleged defect appear-
ing on face of record or pleadings
does not extend to mere irregulari-
ties previous to judgment, but de-
fects must be such as are not
amendable.— Mell v. McNulty, 195 S.
E. 181, 1-85 Ga. 343.
77. Neb.— Powell v. McDowell, 20
N.W. 271, 16 Neb. 424.
34 C.J. p 349 note 9.
7& Kan.— Leslie r. Gibson, 103 P.
115, 80 Kan. 504, 133 Am.S.R. 219,
26 Ii.R.A.,N.S., 1063.
34 C.J. p 349 note 10.
79. N.J.— In re Mullineaux, 69 A.
968, 76 N.J.Law 39-6.
34 C.J. p 349 note 11.
80. Mich.— Vincent v. Benzie Cir.
Judge, 102 N.W. 369, 139 Mich. 90.
34 CJ. p '349 note 12.
81. Cal. — McKendrick v. Western
Zinc Min. Co., 130 P. 865, 165 CaL
24.
34 CJ. p 349 note 14.
82. N.Y.— Easton Nat Bank v. Buf-
falo Chemical Works, 1 N.T.S. 250,
•48 Hun 557.
83. W.Va.— George v. Male, 153 S.
B. 507, 109 W.Va, 222.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 294
gagor or lienor who was not a party, and whose
rights are not affected by the judgment, cannot move
to vacate it.84
"Unknown parties." Persons who are actually
affected by a judgment by reason of having been
made parties as "unknown" defendants may apply
to have such judgment opened or vacated.85
§ 294. Notice or Process
An application to open or vacate a judgment is gen-
erally required to be on notice to the adverse parties,
and, where the proceeding is by way of action, process
must be served.
As a general rule an application to open or va-
cate a judgment must be on notice to die adverse
parties,86 particularly where the application is made
after the expiration of the term.87 It has been held
that during the term at which a judgment is ren-
dered it may be set aside for sufficient cause without
notice to the party affected,88 but there is also au-
thority to the contrary.89 Where the court would
have been justified in setting the judgment aside on
its own motion, want or insufficiency of notice has
been held to be immaterial.90 It has likewise been
held that leave to withdraw a motion to vacate may
be granted without notice to the adverse party,*1
and an order vacating a judgment may be set aside,-
and the judgment reinstated, without notice.92 No-
tice may be waived by appearance or otherwise.93
Where the proceedings are by action, or by way
of statutory petition or complaint and summons, a
summons must be served;94 but process need not
be served where the proceeding is by motion in the
original action.95
Sufficiency. A notice of motion to vacate should
be in writing96 and must be sufficiently full and
explicit to advise the party of the nature of the
proceeding, the judgment to be affected, and the
grounds on which the motion will be based,97 as
well as the time and place of hearing.98 A notice
is sufficient when it informs the party entitled there-
to of the thing which is to be done and leads him
to the place of doing it at the proper time.99 Stat-
Wyo. — O'Keefe v. Foster, 40 P. -525,
5 Wyo. 343.
84. Wis.— Bean v. Fisher, 14 WIs.
67.
88. Minn.— Boeing v. McKinley, 46
N.W. 766, 44 Minn. 392.
34 C.J. p 349 note 19.
86. U.S.— American Ins. C.o. T. Lu-
cas, D.C.MO., 38 F.Supp. 926, ap-
peals dismissed 62 S.Ct 107, 314
U.S. 575/86 L.Bd. 46-6, and affirmed,
C.C.A., American Ins. Co. v.
Scheufler, 129 F.2d 143, certiorari
denied 63 S.Ct. 257, 317 U.S. 687,
87 "L.Ed. 551, rehearing denied 63
S.Ct. 433, 317 U.6. 712, *7 ,L.Ed.
567.
Ark.— State v. West, 254 S.W. 828,
160 Ark. 413.
Cal.— Harth v. Ten Eyck, 108 P.2d
675, 16 Cal.2d 829— Bond v. "Farm-
ers & Merchants Nat. Bank, Los
Angeles, 149 P.2d 722, 64 Cal.App.
2d 8'42— Colby v. Pierce, 63 P.2d
778, 17 Cal.App.2d 612— Linstead
v. Superior Court in and for Men-
docino County, 61 P.2d 355, 17 Cal.
App.2d 9.
Ga. — Jackson v. Jackson, 35 S.E.2d
258, 199 GSL 71-6— Citizens' & Con-
tractors' Bank v. Maddox, 166 S.E:
227, 175 Ga. 77$.
BL — Schmahl v. Aurora Nat Bank,
35 N.E.2d 689, 311 Ill.App. 228.
Ind. — Penn v. Ducomb, 12 N.E.2d
116, 213 Ind. 133— State ex rel.
Symons v. Wells County Bank,
196 N.B. 873, 208 Ind. 543, 103 A.L.
R. 611.
Mich.— McHenry v. Merriam, 204 N.
W. 99, 231 Mich. 479.
N.J; — Surety Building & Loan Ass'n
of Newark v. Risack, 179 A. 680,
118 N.J.EQ. 425.
N.C.— Virginia-Carolina Joint Stock
Land Bank v. Alexander, 160 <S.E.
462, 201 N.C. 453.
Okl.— Neff v. Edwards, 226 P. 358,
99 Okl. 176.
Pa. — German Trust Co. of Davenport,
Iowa, v. Plotke, 118 A. 508, 274
Pa. 483.
W.Va.— Smith v. Wallace, 182 S.E.
538, 116 W.Va. 546.
Wis.— In re Meek's Estate, 227 N.W.
270, 199 Wis. 602.
34 C.J. p 351 note 25.
87. Alaska. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Smith & Coucher, 9 Alaska 730,
•73-6.
Ind. — Zimmerman v. Zumpfe, 33 N.
E.2d 102, 218 Ind. 476.
Ky. — First State Bank v. Thackei"s
Adm'x, 284 S.W. 1020, 215 Ky. 186.
Mo. — State ex rel. Holtkamp v. Hart-
mann, 51 S.W.2d 22, 330 Mo. 386.
34 C.J. p 350 note 23.
83. Alaska. — Corpus Juris q,not«d in
Smith v. Coucher, D Alaska 730,
736.
Ark.— Stinson v. Stinson, 159 S.W.2d
446, 203 Ark. 88*.
N.M.— Arias v. Springer, 78 P.2d 153,
42 N.M. 350.
S.D.— In re Barnes' Estate, 220 N.W.
€27, 63 S.D. 200.
Tex. — Brannon v. Wilson, Civ.App.,
260 S.W. 201.
Wyo.— In re Shaul, 30 P.2d 478, '46
Wyo. 549.
34 C.J. p 349 note 21.
89. Mo. — Sayings Trust Co. of St.
Louis v. Skain, 131 S.W.2d 566,
345' Mo. 46.
34 C.J, p 350 note 22.
543
90. Kan. — Hetzer v. Koogler, 123 P-
876, 87 Kan. 37.
3*4 C.J. p 351 note 27.
91. Mont — Jensen v. Barbour, 31 K
592, 12 Mont 566.
92. N.C.— Perry v. Pearce, 68 N.C.
367.
93. Ind. — Penn v. Ducomb, 12 N.1L
2d 116, 213 Ind. 133.
S.D.— In re Barnes' Estate, 220 N.
W, 527, 53 S.D. 200.
34 C.J. p 351 note 24.
Knowledge of hearing- dispenses
with notice, unless complaint is
made of date of notice and postpone-
ment is sought in order to make-
preparation. — Ex parte Fidelity &
Deposit Co. of Maryland, 134 So. 861,
223 Ala, 98.
94. Okl. — Ptircell Wholesale Gro-
cery v. Cantrell. 255 P. 704, 124
Okl. 273 — American, Inv. Co. v.
Wadlington, 244 P. 435, 11'4 OkL
124 — Myers T. Chamness, 228 P.
988, 102 Okl. 131.
34 C.J. p 361 note 32.
95. Arkl— iState v. West, 254 S.W.
828, 160 Ark. 413.
9* N.C.— Harper v. Sugg, 16 S.BL
1-73, 111 N.C. 324.
34 C.J. p 351 note 35.
97. Cal.— O'Brien v. Leach, 72 P,
1004, 139 Cal. 220, 96 Am.S.R, 105.
34 C.J. p 351 note 36.
98. Nev. — Horton v. New Pass Gold
& Silver Min. Co., 27 P. 376, 21
Nev. 184, reheard 27 P. 1018, 21
Nev. 184..
34 C.J. p 351 note 37.
99. Neb.— Fisk v. Thorp, 70 N.W»
498, 51 Neb. 1.
34 C.J. p 351 note 39.
294
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
utes as to the time, form, and manner of notice must
be observed.1
Service. Process must be served on the party,
and service on his attorney is insufficient, where the
proceeding to vacate is by action, or by statutory pe-
tition, or complaint, and summons.2 Notice of mo-
tion may be served either on the party3 or on his
attorney of record,4 but under some decisions serv-
ice on the attorney is insufficient.5 If the party is
dead, notice must be served on his legal representa-
tive.6
- Notice by publication. A motion to set aside a
judgment is not such a proceeding as will authorize
notice to the opposing party by publication pursuant
to statutes providing for service by publication in
actions,7 but service by publication may be had in
otherwise proper cases, where the proceeding is by
way of action, or by statutory petition or complaint
and summons.8
§ 295. Affidavits on Application
A motion to open or vacate a judgment should be
supported by affidavits as to the facts on which the ap-
plicant relies.
A petition or motion to vacate a judgment should
be verified or supported by affidavits as to the facts
set forth,9 except where the facts necessary to sup-
port the application appear on the face of the rec-
ord,10 or rest within the personal knowledge of the
judge, where the application is made at the same
term at which the judgment was rendered, and
while the cause is still in fieri.11 A copy of the
affidavits should be served on the opposite party or
his counsel,12 but ordinarily the affidavits need not
be filed until the hearing of the motion.1*
Requisites and sufficiency. The affidavits in sup-
port of the application should show the existence
and nature of the judgment sought to be set aside,14
state the grounds on which relief is asked, not infer-
entially but directly, and not generally but specifi-
cally and in detail,15 show the existence of a meri-
torious cause of action or defense, as discussed su-
pra § 290, and show that applicant has not been
negligent or lacking in due diligence, as discussed
supra § 289. In all these particulars the affidavit is
to be construed most strongly against the party
1. Cal. — Jameson v. Warren, 267 P,
872, 91 CaLApp. 590.
£4 C.J. p Sol note 40.
2. Wash.— State v. Superior Court
for King County, 3 P. 3d 1098, 164
Wash. 618, 78 A.L.R. 36-6— Foster
v. 'Foster, 227 P. 514, 130 Wash.
376.
34 C.J. p 352 notes 41, 42.
Service of summons in, another
county is proper. — Buckeye State
Building & Loan Co. v. Ryan, 157 N.
E. 811, 24 Ohio App. 481.
Waiver
Attorney's agreement that petition
to vacate judgment rendered at pre-
vious term may be continued does
not constitute waiver of service of
summons.— Purcell Wholesale Gro-
cery v. Cantrell, 255 P. 704, 124 Okl.
273.
3. X3aL— ' Vallejo v. Green, 16 CaL
160.
N.Y.— Lusk v. Hastings, 1 Hill 656,
Okl.— Neff v. Edwards, 226 P. 358,
99 Okl. 176.
Nominal plaintiff as "adverse par-
ty"
Where a judgment is recovered by
one person for the use of others in
a proceeding to open the judgment
where the statute requires notice to
be given to the "adverse party," the
notice need not be given to the nom-
inal plaintiff, but it is sufficient to
notify the usee. — Fitzgerald v. Cross,
30 Ohio St. 444.
4. Ark. — State v. West, 254 S.W.
828, 160 Ark, 413.
N.Y.— Langrick v. Rowe, 32 N.Y.-S.2d
328, affirmed '41 N.Y.S.2d 82, 265
App.Div. 793, appeal denied 41 N.
Y.S.2d 949, 266 App.Div, 7«67, mo-
tion denied 50 N.E.2d 309, 290 N.
Y. 926, affirmed 52 N.E.2d 964,
291 N.Y. 756.
Okl.— Neff v. Edwards, 226 P. 358,
99 Okl. 176.
Wash.— Poster v. Foster, 227 P. 514,
130 Wash. 376.
34 C.J. p 352 note 44.
5. Iowa. — McCoy v. Philadelphia
•Fire Assoc., 185 N.W. 101, 192 Iowa
4.52.
34 C.J. p 352 note 45.
6. Ga. — Grier v. Jones, £4 Ga. 154.
34 C.J. p 352 note 46.
Revocation of agency
Death of defendant prior to the
filing of plaintiff's petition to vacate
judgment for defendant terminated
the authority of defendant's attor-
neys to act further as his agents
and to receive order of notice of pe-
tition to vacate the judgment. —
Noyes v. Bankers Indemnity Ins. Co.,
30 N.E.2d 867, 307 Mass. 5B7.
7. Ind.— Beck v. Koester, 79 Ind.
135.
Iowa. — Des Moines Union R Co. v.
Polk County Dist Ct, 153 N.W.
217, 170 Iowa 56'8.
& Ohio. — Whitehead v. Post, 2 Ohio
Dec., Reprint, 4-68, 3 WestL.Month.
195.
Okl. — Corpus Juris cited in .Parker
v. Board of County Com'rs of Ok-
mulgee County, 102 P.2d 880, 882,
187 Okl. 308.
Action in ran
An action to vacate a judgment
was not an action in which service
544
of process could be made by publica-
tion of summons, since it was not
"an action in rem" in which the
court already had jurisdiction of the
res.— Stevens v, Cecil, 199 S.E. 161.
214 N.CJ 217.
9. Cal. — Hecq. v, Conner, 265 P. 180,
203 Cal. -504.
Pa. — Elliott-Lewis Qo. vl Clarke,
Com.Pl., 28 DeLCol 250.
3*4 C.J. p 353 note 62.
Affidavit unnecessary where petition
verified
Neb.— Nelson v. Nielsen, 203 N.W.
640, 113 Neb. 453.
Requirement may be waived
I1L— Martin J. Hecht Inc., v. Steig-
erwald, 24 N.E.2d 394, 302 ULApp.
'556.
la Ind. — Wabash R Co. v. Gary,
132 N.B. 737, 191 Ind. 394.
34 C.J. p 354 note 63.
11. 111. — Geisler v. Bank of Brus-
sels, 44 N.E.2d 754, 316 ULApp.
309.
34 C.J. p 354 note 64.
, 111.— Scales v. (Labar, -61 111. "232.
34 C.J. p 354 note 66.
13. Cal.— San Diego Realty Co. v.
McGinn, 94 P. 374, 7 CaLApp. 2fr4.
N.C.— Jones v. Swepson, 94 N.C. 700.
14. N.M. — Corpus tfuxi* quoted in
Singleton v. Sanabrea, 2 P.2d 119,
121, 35 N.M. 491.
34 C.J. p 354 note £8.
15. N.M. — Corpus Juris guotad in
Singleton v, Sanabrea, 2 P.2d 119,
121, 35 N.M. 491.
34 C.J. p 354 note 69.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
297
making it.16 The affidavit must state the facts pos-
itively and directly; it is not sufficient to allege
them on information and belief;17 but affidavits
made only on information and belief may serve to
initiate the proceeding, since the defect is not juris-
dictional and may be cured by subsequently filing
amended or supplemental affidavits made on knowl-
edge.18 Substantial compliance with statutory re-
quirements is sufficient.19 Ordinarily the applica-
tion should be supported by an affidavit made by
the party himself, but the necessary affidavits may
be made by the attorney, or other person, provided
they are made on knowledge, instead of on infor-
mation and belief, and a sufficient reason is shown
why a*a affidavit is not made by the party.20 An af-
fidavit which fails to show why it was not made by
the party has been held to be insufficient.21 One
of several defendants, having personal knowledge
of the facts, may make the affidavit on behalf of
all.22 Affidavits used in the original suit, but not
referred to, and not made part of the affidavits on
the proceedings to vacate, cannot be considered.23
An unsigned affidavit of the attorney presented with
the motion papers may be treated by the court as a
professional statement of counsel.24 .Matters of
record should be shown by the record itself, or a
transcript thereof, and not merely by affidavit.25
§ 296. Counter-Affidavits
Counter-affidavits, In opposition to opening or vacat-
ing the judgment, may be submitted.
The party seeking to sustain a judgment, as
against a motion to set it aside, may present for the
consideration of the court affidavits in opposition to
those of the moving party, with regard to the al-
leged grounds for vacating the judgment or the
matters set up in excuse of defendant's failure to
make his defense in due time,26 but the existence of
a meritorious cause of action or defense, as shown
by the moving party's affidavit of merits, cannot be
controverted by counter-affidavits,27 because, as dis-
cussed infra § 299, on the application to vacate the
court does not try ,and determine whether or not a
cause of action or defense exists in point of fact,
but only whether such a prima facie case has been
made as ought to be tried and determined in the reg-
ular way.
Counter-affidavits must set forth facts, and not
merely matters of inference, conjecture, or be-
lief.2*
§ 297. Evidence
General rules of evidence apply In a proceeding to
open or vacate a judgment.
The party who seeks to have a judgment opened
or set aside must assume the burden of proving the
facts essential to entitle him to the relief asked.29
16. N.M. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Singleton v. Sanabrea, 2 P.2d 119,
122, 35 N.M, 491.
34 C.J. p 354 note 72.
17. N.M. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Singleton v. Sanabrea, 2 P.2d 119,
• 121, 35 N.M. 491.
34 C.J. p 354 note 73.
18. N.M. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Singleton v. Sanabrea, 2 P.2d 119,
121, 35 N.M. 401.
3*4 C.J. p 355 note 74.
19. W.Va. — Ceranto v. Trimboli, 60
S.E. 138, 63 W.Va. 340.
20. Mass. — Magee v. Flynn, 139 N.
E. 842, 245 Mass. 128.
34 C.J. p 355 note 76.
Party or bis legal representative
An affidavit by a lawyer who was
a regular employee of plaintiff's at-
torney and was especially delegated
to handle plaintiff's case was proper-
ly filed in support of motion to re-
lieve plaintiff from judgment alleg-
edly obtained through mistake, not-
withstanding statute was construed
as requiring that affidavit be made
by party or his legal representative.
— Salazar v. Steelman, 71 P.2d 79,
22 Cal.App.2d 402.
21. Okl.— Crowley - Souther-land
Commn. Co. v. Husband,. 140 P.
1144, 42 Okl. 77.
34 C.J. p 355 note 77.
49C.J.S.-35
P.
22. Cal. — Palmer v. Barclay,
226, 92 Cal. 199.
34 C.J. p 355 note 78.
23. Ind.— Williams v. Kessler, 82
Ind. 183.
34 C.J. p 355 note 79.
24. Iowa. — McMillan y. Osterson,
183 N.W. 487, 191 Iowa 983.
25. Mo. — Heilburn v. Jennings, 111
S.W. 857, 132 Mo.App. 216.
26. 111. — Gliwa v. Washington Po-
lish Loan & Building Ass'n, 34 N.
B.2d 736, 310 IlLApp. 465.
N.M.— Corpus Juris quoted in Sin-
gleton v. Sanabrea, 2 P.2d 119, 121,
35 N.M. 491.
Pa. — Patterson Building & Loan
Ass'n No. 2 v. Bolif, 18 Pa.Dist. &
Co. 119.
34 C.J. p 355 note 82.
Leave to file affidavit
Trial court properly disregarded
affidavit of defense in passing on de-
fendant's motion to vacate an ex
parte judgment, where defendant
had not obtained leave to file affi-
davit of defense,— Latham v. Salis-
bury, 61 N.B.2d 306, 326 IU.App. 2-53.
27. N.M.— Corpus Juris quoted in
Singleton v. Sanabrea, 2 P.2d 119,
121, 35 N.M. 491.
N.D.— Bothum v. Bothum, 10 N.W.2d
603, 72 N.D. 649.
34 C.J. p 355 note 84.
545
28. Cal.— Pelegrinelll v. McCloud
River Lumber Co., 82 P. -695, 1
Cal.App. 593.
34 C.J. p 356 note 87.
29. U.S.— Erie R. Co. v. Irons, C.C.
A.N.J., 48 F.2d 60, certiorari de-
nied 51 S.Ct. 649, 283 U.S. 857, 75
L.Ed. 1463.
Ala. — Bx parte New Home Sewing
Mach. Co., 189 So. 874, 238 Ala.
159— Bean v. Harrison, 104 So. 244,
213 Ala. 33.
Ariz.— Bell v. Bell, 39 P.2d 629, 44
Ariz. 520.
Ark. — Karnes v. Gentry, 172 S.W.2d
424, 205 Ark. 1112— Farmers Union
Mut Ins. Co. v. Jordan, 140 S.W.2d
'430, 200 Ark. 711— Merchants' &
Planters' Bank & Trust Co. v. Us-
sery, 3-8 S.W.2d 1087, 183 Ark. 838.
Cal.-— Hewins v. Walbeck, 141 P,2d
241, 60 Cal.App.2d 603— Bruskey v.
Bruskey, 41 P.2d 203, 4 Cal.App.2d
472.
Ga. — Hamilton v. Kinnebrew, 131 &
B. 470, 161 Ga. 495— Benton v.
Maddox, 184 S.B. 7S<8, €2 GfuApp.
813.
111. — Topel v. Personal Loan & Sav-
ings Bank, 9 N.BL2d 75,' 290 111.
App. -568-— Central Cleaners and
Dyers v. Schild, 1, N.B.2d 90, 284
IlLApp. 267.
Iowa. — In re Kinnan's Estate, 255 N.
W. 632, 218 Iowa 572.
297
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
General inferences and presumptions of fact apply
in such proceedings.30 On an inquiry of this kind
presumptions will be indulged, requiring evidence
to overcome them, of the regularity and validity of
proceedings in the case anterior to judgment,31 of
the correctness of recitals in the record,32 and of
the jurisdiction of the court.33 In a direct attack
of this character all these presumptions are prima
facie only, and may be contradicted by proof,34 and
it has been held that no presumption of regularity
will be indulged in support of the judgment.35 On
the other hand, it has been held that the record can-
not be impeached in a proceeding instituted at a
subsequent term.36 Where the application is by
motion to strike, and such proceeding is available
only to reach defects apparent on the face of the
record, the record must be taken as true and mat-
ters outside the record cannot be considered.37
Admissibility. General rules govern as to the ad-
missibility of evidence in a proceeding to open or
vacate a judgment.38 Evidence, in order to be ad-
missible, must be competent, relevant, and mate-
rial.39 The evidence should be confined to the mat-
ters stated in applicant's moving papers.40
Weight and sufficiency. The facts on which the
judgment is sought to be opened or vacated must
be established by clear, strong, and satisfactory
proof,41 and this is especially true where it is nee-
La. — Smith v. Crescent Chevrolet
Co., App., 1 So.2d 421.
N.J.— Strong v. Strong, 47 A.2d 427
— Simon v. Calabrese, 46 A.2d 58,
137 N.J.Eq. 581— Corpus Juris
cited in In re Gilbert's Estate, 15
A.2d 111, H4, 18 N.J.Misc. 540.
N.D.— Jacobson v. Brey, 6 N.W.2d
269, 72 N.D. 2-69.
Ohio. — Eight v. Boren, APP., 67 N.E.
2d 48.
Okl.— Welden v. Home Owners Loan
Corporation, 141 P.2d 1010, 193 Okl.
167— Pruner v. McKee, 258 P. T49,
126 OkL 121— Elias v. Smith, 246
P. 409, 117 Okl. 273.
Pa.— Keystone Bank of Spangler,
Pa., v. Booth, 6 A.2d 417, 334 Pa.
545— Griffith v. Hamer, 173 A. 874,
113 Pa. Super. 239 — Steehler v.
Volk, 167 A. 424, 109 Pa.Super. 190
—Schwartz v. Stewart, Com.Pl., 55
Pa.Dist. & Co. 633, 5 Lawrence X*
J. 1 — Ftazier v. Pursel, 6 Pa.Dist
& Co. 102, 39 York Leg.Rec. 117—
Roth v. Cranmer, Com.Pl., 21 Leh.
L.J. 97 — 'Landau Bros. v. Mclntosh,
Com.Pl., 35 Luz.Leg.Reg. 16—
DTavinger v. -Favinger, Com. PI., 60
Montg.Co. 149.
Tex. — Kern v. Smith, Civ.App., 164
S.W.2d 193, error refused— Snell v.
Knowles, Civ.App., 87 S.W.2d 871,
error dismissed.
Wis. — Corpus Juris cited' in Harris
v. Golliner, 294 N.W. 9, 11, 235
Wis. 572.
34 C.J. p 352 note 50.
30. N.Y.— Vernon v. Gillen Printing
Co., 39 N.Y.S. 172, 16 Misc. 507,
74 C.J. p 353 note 53.
Time of discovery of Judgment
In proceeding to vacate a judg-
ment, no intendments can be in-
dulged to establish the time of dis-
covery of entry of judgment except
such as are shown by the record.
—Harris v. Golliner, 294 N.W, 9, 235
Wis. 572.
Sim U.S. — Baumgartner v. II. S., C.C.
A.Mo., 138 F.2d 29, reversed on
other grounds 64 S.Ct 1240, 322 U.
S, 665, 88 L.Ed. 1525.
Cal.— Bank of Italy v. E. N. Cad-
enasso, 274 P. 534, 206 Cal. 436.
Ga.— Bentcm v. Maddox, 192 S.E. 316,
56 Ga.App. 132.
Ky. — Commonwealth ex rel. Love v.
Reynolds, 146 S.W.2d 41, 284 Ky.
809.
N.D. — Jacobson v. Brey, 6 N.W.2d
269, 72 N.D. 269.
Ohio. — McCullough v. Luteman, 15
Ohio App. 207.
Tex. — Smith v. Pegram, 80 S.W.2d
354, error refused.
34 C.J. p 353 note 51.
Absolute verities
In a suit to set aside a judgment
it has been stated that judgments
and decrees import absolute verities.
—Rice v. Moore, 109 S.W.2d 148,
194 Ark. 585.
32. Ark.— First Nat. Bank v. Dal-
sheimer, 248 S.W. 575, 157 Ark.
464.
34 C.J. p 353 note 52, p 356 note 93.
33. Ariz.— Bell v. Bell, 39 P.2d 629,
44 Ariz. 520,
Cal. — Spahn v. Spahn, App., 162 P.
2d 53.
Fla. — State ex rel. Everette v. Pette-
way, 179 So. 666, 131 Fla. 516.
Mass. — Robinson v. Freeman, 128 N.
E. 718, 236 Mass. 446.
34. Ariz.— Bell v. Bell, 39 P.2d 629,
44 Ariz. 520.
Ark.— State v. West, 254 S.W. 828,
160 Ark. 413.
Cal.— In re Dahnke's Estate and
Guardianship, 222 P. 381, 64 CaL
App. 555.
111.— Reid v. Chicago Ry.s. Co., 231
IlLApp. 58.
Miss. — Bank of Richton v. Jones, 121
So. 823, 153 Miss. 796.
Mo. — Crabtree v. .SJtna Life Ins. Co.,
Ill S.W.2d 103, 341 Mo. 1173.
N.M. — Corpus Juris quoted in Single-
ton v. Sanabrea, 2 P.2d 119, 121,
35 N.M. 491.
Okl.— City of Clinton ex rel. Rich-
ardson v. Cornell, 132 P.2d 340,
191 Okl. 600— Morrissey v. Hurst,
229 P. 431, 107 Okl. 1— Myers v.
Chamness, 228 P. 988, 102 Okl. 131.
Tex.— Levy v. Roper, Civ.App.. 230
546
S.W. 514, modified on other
grounds 256 S.W. 251, 118 Tex. 356.
34 C.J. p 353 note 55, p 356 note 94
-P 357 note 96.
Presumptions on collateral attack
are not applicable*. — City of Clinton
ex rel. Richardson v. Cornell, 132
P.2d 340, 191 Okl. 600.
35. U.S.— Blythe v. Hinckley, C.C.
Cal., 84 F. 228, affirmed 111 F. 827,
49 C.C.A. 647, certiorari denied 22
S.Ct. 941, 184 U.S. 701, 46 L.EO.
766.
34 OJ. p 353 note 56.
36. Mo.— Harrison v. Slaton, 49 &
W.2d 31 — In re Henry County Mut
Burial Ass'n, 77 S.W.2d 124. 229
Mo.App. 300.
37. Pa.— Broadway Nat. Bank of
Scottdale v. Diskin, 161 A. 470, 105
Pa. Super. 279.
35. Idaho.— Baldwin v. Anderson, 8
P.2d 461, 51 Idaho 614.
N.H.— Barclay v. Dublin Lake Club,
1 A.2d 633, 89 N.H. 500.
Va.— Brame v. Nolen, 124 S.E. 299,
139 Va. 413.
34 C.J. p 356 note 88.
A petition to vacate is not evi-
dence of allegations therein. — Topel
v. Personal Loan & Savings Bank,
9 N.R2d 75, 290 IlLApp. 558.
Failure to object
Judge could consider statements of
petitioner's counsel at hearing on pe-
tition to vacate judgment, in absence
of exception to erroneous ruling that
it was unnecessary to introduce sup-
porting evidence, — Mellet v. Swan,
168 N.E. 732, 269 Mass. 173.
39. Cal. — Cresta v. Ocean Shore R.
Co., 206 P. 460, 56 Cal.App. 687.
Pa. — Kines v. Grossman, Com.PL, 51
Dauph.Co. 58.
34 C.J. p 356 note 89.
40. N.Y.— Zeltner v. Henry Zeltner
Brewing Co., 83 N.Y.S. 366, 85 App.
Div. 387.
34 C.J. p 356 note 90.
41. Ala. — Ex parte Dayton Rubber
Mfg. Co., 122 So. 643, 219 Ala. 482.
Ark.— Corpus Juris quoted in Gra-
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 297
essary to overcome an officer's return of service.42
According to some authorities, the application
should be denied where the evidence is evenly bal-
anced,48 but others hold that where the court is in
doubt the better course is to give applicant the ben-
efit of the doubt.44 Where the proofs in support
of the application are uncontradicted and unim-
peached, they must be accepted as true.45 Appli-
ham v. Graham, 133 S.W.2d $27,
630, 199 Ark. 165.
Iowa. — In re Carpenter's Estate, 5
N.W.2d 175, 232 Iowa 919.
Mont — Burgess v. Lasby, 9 P.2d 164,
91 Mont. 482.
KM. — Corpus Juris quoted in Single-
ton v. Sanabrea, 2 P.2d 119, 121, 35
N.M. 491.
Okl. — Welden v. Home Owners Loan
Corporation, 141 P.2d 1010, 193
Okl. 167 — Cummins v. Chandler, 97
P.2d 765, 186 Okl. 200— Burkhart v.
Lasley, 75 P.2d 1124, 182 Okl. 43—
Morrison v. Swink, 261 P. 209, 128
Okl. 97.
Pa.— Plunkett v. Raniszewski, 166 A.
500, 108 Pa.Super. 506— Nellis v.
McSweeney, 6 Pa.Dist. & Co. 608,
6 Erie Co. 166 — Frazier v. Pursel,
6 Pa.Dist. & Co. 102, 39 York Leg.
Rec. 117 — Kines v. Grossman, Com.
PL, 51 Dauph.Co. 58— Hollenbaugh
v. Welchans, Com.PL, 46 Dauph.Co.
165— Neon Electric Mfg. Co. v.
Hultzapple, Com.PL, 27 DeLCo. 174
— E. P. Wilbur Trust Co. v. Arm-
strong, Com.Pl., 20 Leh.L.J. 112—
Miller v. Miller, Com.Pl., 37 Luz.
Leg. Reg. 19 — Dinicuola v. Agresta,
Com.Pl., 34 Luz.Leg.Reg. 204— Pish
v. Regula, Com.Pl., 33 Luz.Leg.
Reg. 249 — Lincoln Deposit & Sav-
ings Bank v. Kline, Com.PL, 33
Luz.Leg.Reg. 117 — Kurlancheek v.
Aruscavage, Com.PL, 32 Luz.Leg.
Reg. 272 — Goeringer v. Bonner,
Com.PL, 32 Luz.Leg.Reg. 231 —
Bridgeport Realty Co. v. lonnone,
Com.PL, 61 Montg.Co. 284— Favin-
ger v. Favinger, Com.Pl., 60 Montg.
Co. 149 — Austra v. Yurgenc, Com.
PL, 8 Sch.Reg, 96.
Wis. — Corpus Juris quoted in Harris
v. Golliner, 294 N.W. 9. 11, 235
Wis. 572.
34 C.J. p 358 note 99.
Presumption
Judgment or order of court of
general jurisdiction should not be
set aside merely on a statutory pre-
sumption, such as presumption of
regular performance of official duty.
—Burgess v. Lasby, 9 P.2d 164, 91
Mont 482.'
Want of Jurisdiction must be es-
tablished by more than a preponder-
ance of the evidence where the rec-
ord recites Jurisdiction^ facts. —
Hayes v. Kerr, 45 N.T.S. 1050, 19
App.Div. 91.
Clerical misprision cam only fee
•hown "by record, and, where not so
shown, exception to Judgment based
thereon cannot avail. — Newman v.
Ohio Valley Fire & Marine Ins. Co.,
299 S.W. 559, 221 Ky. 616.
Evidence held sufficient
111. — Central Cleaners and Dyers v.
Schild, 1 N.B.2d 90, 284 IlLApp.
267.
Iowa.— First Nat. Bank v. Federal
Reserve Bank of Chicago, 231 N.
W. 453, 210 Iowa 521, 69 A.L.R.
1329.
Ky. — Klarer Provision Co. v. Frey, 66
S.W.2d 63, 252 Ky. 206.
Mass.— Maki v. New Tork, N. H. &
H. R. Co., 199 N.E. 760, 293 Mass.
223.
N.T. — Karchman -v. Karchman, 230
N.Y.S. 856, 224 App.Div. 773.
Okl.— Bastland v. Oklahoma City,
246 P. 830, 118 Okl. 97.
Pa.— Bickel v. Maddak, 158 A. 614,
104 Pa.Super. 325-— Safe Deposit &
Trust Co. v. Cassella, 83 Pa.Super.
255 — Trump v. Barr, Com.PL, 48
Dauph. Co. 455 — Cramer v. Size-
more, Com.Pl., 48 Dauph.Co. 169 —
Hayes v. Mack, Com.PL, 19 Brie
Co. 501.
34 C.J. p 358 note 99 [a].
Evidence held insufficient
U.S. — Erie R. Co. v. Irons, C.C.A.N.
J., 48 F.2d 60, certiorari denied 51
S.Ct 649, 283 U.S. 857, 75 L.Bd.
1463.
Ariz. — Patterson v. Connolly, 77 P.2d
813, 51 Ariz. 443.
Ga. — Burch v. Dodge County, 20 S.B.
2d 428, 193 Ga. 890.
Ky. — Spencer v. Martin Mining Co.,
83 S.W.2d 39, 259 Ky. 697— Citi-
zens' Ins. Co. of New Jersey v.
Railey, 77 S.W.2d 420, 256 Ky. 838
—Barnes v. Montjoy's Adm'r, 290
S.W. 349, 217 Ky. 465.
Md.— Wagner v. Scurlock, 170 A. 539,
166 Md. 284.
Mass.— Mellet v. Swan, 168 N.B. 732,
269 Mass. 173.
Minn.— Wilcox v. HedWall, 243 N.W.
709, 186 Minn. 504— In re Belt
Line, Phalen, and Hazel Park Sew-
er Assessment, 222 N.W. 520, 176
Minn. 59 — Hede v. Minneapolis
Const Co., 215 N.W. 859, 172 Minn.
462.
N.M.— Board of Com'rs of Quay
County v. Wasson, 24 P.2d 1098, 37
N.M. 503, followed in Board of
Com'ra of Quay County v. Gard-
ner, 24 P.2d 1104, 37 N.M. 514.
N.T.— Halper v. Broadmain Const.
Corp., 60 N.T.S.2d 533.
OkL — Cummins v. Chandler, 97 P.
2d 765, 186 Okl. 200— State ex rel.
Williams v. Smith, 59 P.2d 410,
177 Okl. 321— Coker v. Vierson, 41
P.2d 95, 170 Okl. 528.
Pa.— Keystone Bank of Spangler, Pa.,
v. Booth, 6 A.2d 417, 334 Pa. 545—
Kaufman v. Feldman, 180 A. 101,
118 Pa.Super. 435— Ferrainolo v.
Locker, 167 A. 651, 110 Pa.Super.
547
128— Phillips & Sons Co. v. Worley
Corporation, 97 Pa. Super. 506 —
Bixler & Co. v. Stoker & Son, 91
Pa.Super. 265 — Farmers' & Mer-
chants' Deposit Co. v. McAvoy, 87
Pa.Super. 569 — Lapensohn v.
Swann, 83 Pa. Super. 192 — Common-
wealth v. Burke, 84 Pa.Dist. & Co.
447, 46 Dauph.Co. 270 — Dymond v.
DeLong, Com.Pl., 38 Luz.Leg.Reg.
265 — Lincoln Deposit & Savings
Bank v. Kline, Com. PL, 33 Luz.Leg.
Reg. 117— Favinger v. Favinger,
Com.PL, 60 Montg.Co. 149.
S.C.— Detroit Fidelity & Surety Co.
v. Foster, 169 S.B. 871, 170 S.C.
121.
Tex — Turner v. Larson, Civ.App., 72
S.W.2d 397, error dismissed — First
State Bank of Loraine v. Jackson,
Civ.App., 13 S.W.2d 979.
34 C.J. p 358 note 99 [b].
Evidence held to establish laches
OkL— Walker v. Gulf Pipe Line Co.,
226 P. 1046, 102 Okl. 7.
42. Ala. — Ex parte New Home Sew-
ing Mach. Co., 189 So. 874, 238 Ala.
159.
Tex. — Johnson v. Cole, Civ.App., 138
S.W.2d 910, error refused.
34 OJ. p 358 note 1.
43. N.M.-^Corpus Juris quoted i*
Singleton v. Sanabrea, 2 P.2d 119,
121, 35 N.M. 491.
Pa. — Kaufman v. Feldman, 180 A*
101, 118 Pa.Super. 435— Nelly v.
Diskin, 173 A. 735, 113 Pa,Super.
249 — Saslow v. Saslow, 100 Pa. Su-
per. 414 — Frazier -v. Pursel, 6 Pa.
Dist. & Co. 102, 39 York Leg.Rec,
117 — Charles B. Scott Co. v. Oliver,
Com.PL, 1 Monroe L.R. 143.
34 C.J. p 359 note 3, p 360 note 8.
Mere conflict of evidence or oaths
does not warrant opening of Judg-
ment— Pierce, to Use of Snipes, v.
Kaseman, 192 A. 105, 326 Pa. 280—
Mielcuszny v. Rosol, 176 A. 236, 317
Pa. 91— Kienberger v. Lally, 198 A.
453, 130 Pa.Super. 583— McCarty, to
Use of Hoblitzell Nat. Bank of
Hyndman, v. Bmerick, 170 A. 326,
111 Pa.Super. 463— New York Joint
Stock Land Bank v. Kegerise, Com.
PI., 29 Berks Co. 296— Kines v.
Grossman, Com.PL, 51 Dauph.Co. 58
— Aponikas v. Skrypkun, Com.PL, 5
Sch.Reg. 1 — Gapes v. Lawrenitis,
Com.PL, 4 SctuReg. 403— Stetsko v.
Lea, Com.PL, 26 WestCo. 97— M. &
H. Pure Food Stores v. Moul, Com.
PL, 51 York Leg.Rec. 197.
44. CaL— Salazar v. Steelman, 71 P.
2d 79, 22 Cal.App.2d 402— Callaway
v. Wolcott, 266 P. 574, 90 CaLApp.
753.
34 C.J. p 360 note 9. .
45. Colo.— Burlington Ditch, Reser-
§ 297
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
cant's own sworn statement alone may be sufficient
to warrant opening the judgment46 Various cir-
cumstances may rende'r opposing affidavits of un-
equal weight.47 In case of a decided and irrecon-
cilable conflict in the evidence for and against the
motion, it has been held that the court must decide
according to the fair preponderance of the evi-
dence.48 Thus, where there are opposing affidavits,
but one party or the other is corroborated by cir-
cumstances, admissions, or evidence drawn from the
record, the decision will be in his favor.49 The
court can act on knowledge of facts which occurred
in open court without formal proof.50
Fraud or collusion must be clearly shown in or-
der to authorize the vacation of a judgment on
this ground;51 a balanced case is not enough.52
However, the requirement as to proof is less strin-
gent where the application is made during the judg-
ment term.53
Unauthorised appearance. While a judgment
based on an unauthorized appearance by an attor-
ney is generally voidable, and subject to be set
aside on that ground, in order that a judgment may
be vacated on such ground, want of authority on
the part of the attorney must be clearly shown,54
especially where innocent third persons have ac-
quired rights under the judgment or decree sought
to be set aside.55
§ 298. Status of Judgment Pending Applica-
tion
An application to open or vacate a Judgment does
not suspend or stay the operation of the judgment.
The filing of a motion or petition to vacate a
judgment does not suspend its operation, or prevent
the issue and execution of • final process on it.5s
On the contrary, some cases hold that such action
admits the regularity of the judgment and waives
any objections to it on that score,57 but an appli-
cation to vacate a void judgment does not make it
effectual for any purpose.58
§ 299. Hearing and Determination in Gen-
eral
An application to open or vacate a judgment Is to be
disposed of on equitable principles. The parties are en-
titled to a hearing, and it is proper to determine the
existence and sufficiency of alleged grounds for relief be-
fore considering whether a meritorious cause of action
or defense exists.
The applicant for the opening or vacation of a
judgment is entitled to a hearing;59 on a contested
application to open or vacate a judgment, the court
should hear both parties and examine into all per-
tinent facts and circumstances,60 and it is error to
voir & Land Co. v. Ft. Morgan
Reservoir & Irrigation Co., 151 P.
432, 59 Colo. 571.
34 C.J. p 359 note 6.
46. Ind. — International Bldgr. &
Loan Ass'n v. Stark, 89 N.E. 611,
44 Ind.App. 535.
34 C.J. p 359 note 2.
Applicant's unsupported oath
As a general rule, the court will
not open a judgment on the unsup-
ported oath of defendant, where the
testimony of plaintiff is directly con-
tradictory; but where there is cor-
roboration, or where there are cir-
cumstances on which corroborative
inferences may be drawn in favor
of defendant, the court ordinarily
will open the judgment and submit
the Question in dispute to a Jury. —
Hotaling v. Fisher, 79 Pa. Super. 103.
47. Mont — Hag-gin v. Lorentz, 34 P.
607, 13 Mont 406.
34 C.J. p 359 note 4.
48. Pa. — Appeal of Jenkintown Nat
Bank, 17 A. 2, 124 Pa. 337, 345.-
34 C.J. p 360 note 7.
49. Minn.— Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald,
152 N.W. 772, 129 Minn. 414.
34 C.J. p 359 note 5.
60. Iowa. — State Ins. Co. v. Gran-
ger, 17 N.W. 504, 62 Iowa 272.
34 C.J. p 360 note 10.
Tacts within, the trial judge's per-
•oaal knowledge may be considered
in determining whether a judgment
should be vacated on grounds of a
clerical error, and in vacating or cor-
recting a clerical error or mistake
the judge may give effect to his own
recollection. — Bastajian v. Brown,
120 P.2d 9, 19 Cal.2d 209. ,
51. U.S.—Fiske v. Buder, C.C.A.MO.,
125 F.2d 841.
Cal.— Cowan v. Cowan, App., 166 P.
2d 21.
111.— In re Togneri's Estate, IB N.E.
2d 908, 296 IlLApp. 33.
Iowa.— Watt v. Dunn, 17 N.W.2d 811.
.34 C.J. p 360 note 12—23 C.J. P 25
note 27.
Evidence held insufficient
U.S. — Sorenson v. Sutherland, C.C.A.
N.Y., 109 F.2d 714, affirmed Jack-
son v. Irving Trust Co., 61 S.Ct
826, 311 U.S. 494, 85 L.Bd. 297.
Ark.— Karnes v. Gentry, 172 S.W.2d
424, 205 Ark. 1112— Bank of Rus-
sellville v. Walthall, 96 S.W.2d 952,
192 Ark. 1111.
N.D. — Jacobson v. Brey, 6 N.W.2d
269, 72 N.D. 269.
Okl.— Pruner v. McKee, 258 P. 749,
126 Okl. 121.
Tex. — Surge v. Broussard, Civ. App.,
258 S.W. 502.
Wash.— Harter v. King County, 119
P.2d 919, 11 Wash.2d 583.
34 C.J. p 360 note 12 [b].
52. N.T.— Hill v. Northrop, 9 How.
Pr. 525.
34 C.J. p 361 note 13.
53. Iowa. — Cedar Rapids Finance &
Thrift Co. v. Bowen, 233 N.W. 495,
211 Iowa 1207.
54. Mo. — Patterson v. Tancey, 71 S.
W. 845, 97 Mo.App. 681, 695.
34 C.J. p 361 note 16.
55. HL — Kenyon v. Shreck, 52 111.
382.
56. Mo. — Childs v. Kansas City, St.
J. & C. B. R. Co., 23 S.W. 373, 117
Mo. 414, 423.
34 C.J. p 361 note 18.
57. Neb.— Tootle v. Jones, 27 N.W.
635, 19 Neb. 588.
34 OJ. p 361 note 19.
58. Kan. — Morris v. Winderlln, 142
P. 944, 92 Kan. 935.
59. N.C. — Cincinnati Coffin Co. v.
Topp, 175 S.B. 164, 206 N.C. 716.
80. N.M.— Arias v. Springer, 78 P:2d
153, 157, 42 N.M. 350— Corpus Ju-
ris quoted in, Singleton v. Sana-
brea, 2 P.2d 119, 121, 35 N.M. 491.
Ofcl. — McNac v. Kinch, 238 P. 424,
113 Okl. 59 — McNac v. Chapman,
223 P. 350, 101 Okl. 121.
Pa. — Kingston Nat Bank v..Wruble,
Com.Pl.f 38 Luz.Leg.Reg. "321.
Tex. — Kern v. Smith, Civ. App., 164
S.W.2d 193, error refused.
34 C.J. p 363 note 48.
Hearing and determination of ap-
plication to open or vacate:
Default judgment see infra § 337.
Judgment by confession see infra
S 326.
548
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
299
grant or dismiss the motion summarily or on an ex
parte hearing, unless the question at issue is one
which can be determined from an inspection of the
record, or unless the facts are such as do not ad-
mit of dispute.61
Except where the statute gives a right to trial by
jury, the issues of fact arising on a motion of this
kind are triable by the court,62 although it is within
the power of the court in a proper case to award an
issue to be tried by a jury,63 or to order a refer-
ence,64 or itself to proceed to take an accounting.65
In conducting the investigation, the court possesses
all the. powers of a chancellor,66 and it is its duty
to weigh the evidence and determine the credibility
of the witnesses.67 -
The application may be tried on affidavits or
depositions where the proceeding is by motion or
petition in the cause,68 or by statutory complaint
.and summons,69 although in the latter case it has
been said that the trial should be on legal evidence,
as in the case of an action, and not on affidavit.70
If not satisfied with the affidavits, the court may re-
quire the parties to present oral evidence.71 It has
been held that, where the affidavits are in conflict,
testimony must be taken,72 but it has also been held
that where the conflict is not likely to be resolved
by the taking of testimony it is not necessary.73
The inquiry will generally be limited to the mat-
ters set up in support of the motion and in oppo-
sition to it.74 Since, as discussed supra § 292, for-
mal pleadings in opposition are often not required,
an objection to the petition which has not been em-
Consideration not limited to record
On motion to set aside judg-
ment for irregularities patent on rec-
ord and errors of fact calling for in-
troduction of evidence dehors the
record, contention that only matter
of record proper could be considered
was not well taken.— Crabtree v.
JEtna Life Ins. Co., Ill S.W.2d 103,
341 Mo. 1173.
Failure of court to pass on all is-
sues raised by petition to vacate
judgment was not error, If it prop-
erly determined determinative issue
of res judicata.— Harju v. Anderson,
234 P. 15, 133 Wash. 506, 44 A.L.R.
450.
61. N.M, — Corpus Juris quoted in
Singleton v. Sanabrea, 2 P.2d 119,
121, 35 N.M. 491.
34 C.J. p 364 notes 49, 50.
62. Pa.— McCarty, to Use of Hoblit-
zell Nat. Bank of Hyndman, v.
Emerick, 170 A. 326, 111 Pa.Super.
463.
34 C.J. p 364 note 51.
Questions of fact
Motion to set aside judgment on
ground that no summons, execution,
or other notice was ever legally
served on defendant presented ''ques-
tions of fact" and not "issues of
fact," so that it was for the judge
to hear the evidence, find the facts,
and render judgment thereon. — Cleve
v. Adams, 22 S.B.2d 567, 222 N.C.
211.
63. Pa.— McCarty, to Use of Hoblit-
zell Nat. Bank of Hyndman, v.
Emerick, 170 A. 326, 111 Pa.Super.
463— Kingston Nat Bank v. Wru-
ble, Com.Pl., 38 Luz.Leg.Reg. 321 —
Foulk v. Oswald, Com. PI., 5 Sen.
Beg. 164.
34 C.J. p 364 note 53.
Conflicting1 testimony <
On petition to open judgment,
court need not, in every case of con-
flicting testimony, send case to jury.
— Bader v. Sell, 151 A. 683, 401 Pa.
139. .
Issue properly submitted to jury
Tex. — Johnson v. Cole, Civ.App., 138
S.W.2d 910, error refused.
Presumption of payment of judg-
ment by virtue of lapse of more than
twenty years since entry thereof
was enough to carry case to jury on
motion to open judgment. — Ott v.
Ott, 166 A. 556, 311 Pa. 130.
Questions held for Jury
In suit to vacate judgment, wheth-
er plaintiff was served, whether debt
forming basis of judgment existed,
and whether instrument transferring
property was Intended as mortgage,
held question of fact determinable
only by the jury which was im-
paneled in the case. — Farmers' State
Bank of Burkburnett v. Jameson,
Tex.Com.App., 11 S.W.2d 299, re-
hearing denied Farmers' State Bank
of Burkburnett v. Jameson, 16 S.W.
2d 526.
Where several questions are to be
determined by issue, the jury should
be required to answer them separate-
ly.—Austen v. Marzolf, 161 A. 72,
307 Pa. 232.
64. N.T.— Vilas v. Pittsburgh & M.
R. Co., 25 N.E. 941, 123 N.T. 440,
20 Am.S.R. 771, 9 L.R.A. 844, 19
N.T.Civ.Proc. 333, 26 Abb.N.Cas.
100.
34 C.J. p 364 note 54.
65. Kan.— Ross v. Noble, 51 P. 792,
6 Kan.App. 361.
66. Pa.— Nelly v. Diskin, 173 A.
735, 113 Pa.Super. 249.
34 C.J. P 364 note 56.
67. Pa. — Helzlsouer v. Golub, 160 A.
118, 306 Pa. 474— Warren Sav.
Bank & Trust Co. v. Foley, 144
A. 84, 294 Pa. 176 — Kaufman v.
Feldman, 180 A. 101, 118 Pa.Super.
435 — McCarty, to Use of Hoblitzell
Nat. Bank of Hyndman, v. Emer-
ick, '170 A. 326. Ill Pa.Super. 463.
549
68. 111.— Bird-Sykes Co. v. McNa-
mara, 252 Ill.App. 262.
N.M. — Corpus Juris quoted in Sin-
gleton v. Sanabrea, 2 P.2d 119,
121, 35 N.M. 491.
34 OJ. p 353 note 58.
Determination on pleading's
Where an answer is filed, appli-
cant may have depositions taken
and have the application determined
on the petition, answer, and deposi-
tions, or he may have the applica-
tion determined on the petition and
answer, in which case the averments
of the answer will, be taken as true.
— M. A. Long Co. v. Keystone Port-
land Cement Co., 153 A. 429, 302 Pa.
308.
On a lav question, raised by the
answer, averments of petition for
rule to open judgment must be taken
as true. — Gsell v. Helman, 164 A.
853, 108 PsuSuper. 258.
69. Ind. — Lake v. Jones, 49 Ind. 297.
70. % Kan. — Fullenwider v. Bwing, 1
P. 300, 30 Kan. 15.
34 C.J. p 353 note 60.
71. Ark.— Union Sawmill Co. v.
Langley, 66 S.W.2d 300, 188 Ark.
318.
34 C.J. p 364 note 57.
However, it has also been held
that oral testimony may not be tak-
en on a motion. — ;Carr v. Commer-
cial Bank, 18 Wis. 255.
72. N.Y.— -Dege v. Mascot Realty
Corporation, 275 N.Y.S. 884, 243
App.Div. 546 — Gaines v. Bryant
Park Bldg., 28 N.Y.S.2d 215, appeal
denied 32 N.Y.S.2d 1018, 263 App.
Div. 876.
73. N.T. — Halper v. Broadmain
Const Corp., 60 tt.Y.S.2d 533.
74. Pa. — Keystone Nat. Bank of
Manheira, now to Use of Balmer v.
Deamer, 18 A.2d 540, 144 Pa. Super.
52.
Wash, — Harter v. King County, 119
P.2d 919, 11 Wash.2d 583.
34 O.J. P 364 note 58.
299
JUDGMENTS
49 C.'J.S.
bodied in a pleading may nevertheless be urged at
the hearing.75
A continuance or postponement of the hearing
may be had at the discretion of the court because
of the absence of a party76 or to allow the filing of
additional affidavits or the presentation of addition-
al evidence.77
A proper and timely motion must be decided on
its merits, and not simply stricken from the files.78
The motion may be dismissed for want of juris-
diction if it appears that notice of it was not served
on the party opposing,79 or it may be withdrawn by
the party presenting it,80 or dismissed for his fail-
ure to appear at the hearing.81
Rules of decision. An application to open or va-
cate a judgment is an appeal to the equitable pow-
ers of the court,82 addressed to the discretion of the
court, as discussed infra § 300, and is to be disposed
of on equitable principles so as to do justice to all
persons concerned.83 Generally the discretion will
not be favorably exercised unless the enforcement
of the judgment would be unjust, oppressive, or in-
equitable as to the moving party, who must be actu-
ally or prospectively injured or prejudiced by it,84
and be benefited by its opening or vacation,85 or un-
less the motion can be granted without material in-
justice or injury to the opposing party86 or preju-
dice to the intervening rights of third persons.87 It
has been held that there is no fixed rule which de-
termines whether an application to open or vacate a
judgment will be granted, but that each case is to be
75. Mass.— Lynch v. Springfield
Safe Deposit & Trust Co., 13 N.E.
2d 611, 300 Mass. 14.
78. Iowa.— Wilson v. Pfaffe, 103 N.
W. 992.
34 C.J. p 364 note 61.
77. 111. — Central Cleaners and Dy-
ers v. Schild, •! N.B.2d 90, 284 111.
App. 267.
34 C.J. p 364 note 62.
Denial of continuance held not abuse
of discretion
HI. — Central Cleaners and Dyers v.
Schild, 1 N.E.2d 90, 284 HLApp.
267.
78. Mo. — Dower v. Conrad, 232 S.W.
174, 207 Mo.App. 176.
79. Ga.— Alken v. Wolfe, 76 Ga. 816.
80. Ga. — Cherry v. Home Building
& Loan Assoc., 55 Ga. 19.
81. N.Y.— Levine v. Munchik, 101 N.
Y.S. 14, 51 Misc. 556.
82. I1L — Fitzgerald v. Power, 225
m. APP. us.
Minn. — Tanfcar Gas v. Lumbermen's
Mut. Casualty Co., 9 N.W.2d 754,
215 Minn. 265, 146 A.L.R. 1223.
N.J. — Grant Inventions Co. v. Grant
Oil Burner Corporation, 145 A. 721,
104 N.J.Eq. 341— Corpus Juris
quoted in Davis v. City of New-
ark, 17 A.2d 305, 307, 19 N.J.Misc.
85 — Corpus Juris quoted in West
Jersey Trust Co. v. Bigham, 191
A. 743, 744, 118 N.J.Law 160.
N.D.— Smith v. Smith, 299 N.W. 693,
71 N.D. 110 — Corpus Juris quoted
in Guenther v. Funk, 274 N.W.
839, 845, 67 N.D. 543.
Pa, — Keystone Bank of Spangler,
Pa., v. Booth, 6 A.2d 417, 334 Pa.
545 — George v. George, 178 A. 25,
318 Pa. 203 — Reidlinger v. Camer-
on, 134 A. 418, 287 Pa. 24— First
N Nat. Bank v. Smith, 200 A. 215, 132
Pa.Super. 73 — Ferrainolo v. Lock-
er, 167 A. 651, 110 Pa.Super. 128
— McKenzie Co. v. Fidelity & De-
posit Co. of Maryland, Com.Pl., 54
Dauph.Co. 294.
34 C.J. ji 371 note 76.
Questions determinate in equity .
Court has Jurisdiction to deter-
mine all questions which could be
determined in an equity proceeding.
— Kowatch v. Home Building & Loan
Ass'n of Latrobe, 200 A. Ill, 131
Pa. Super. 517.
83. Md. — Harvey v. Slacum, 29 A.2d
276, 181 Md. 206:
Mass. — Town of Hopkinton v. B. F.
Sturtevant Co., 189 N.E. 107, 285
Mass. 272 — Alpert v. Mercury Pub.
Co., 172 N.B. 223, 272 Mass. 43.
N.J.— Davis v. City of Newark, 17 A.
2d 305, 19 N.J.Misc. 85.
N.D.— Smith v. Smith, 299 N.W. 693,
71 N.D. 110.
Pa. — Richey v. Gibboney, 34 A.2d
913, 154 Pa.Super. 1— Page v. Wil-
son, 28 A.2d 706, 150 Pa. Super,
427.
Wash.— <torpus Juris cited in Roth v
Nash, 144 P.2d 271, 275, 19 Wash.
2d 731,
34 C.J. p 371 note 78.
Application during1 Judgment term
(1) Courts usually act liberally in
those cases in which application to
strike out a judgment is made dur-
ing term in which judgment was en*
tered. — Pioneer Oil Heat v. Brown,
16 A.2d 880, 179 Md. 155.
(2) Time for application see su-
pra § 288.
Contempt
Judgment of contempt is not nee-
essary to deny relief against court
order, but relief will be denied if
person stands in position of con-
tenmer.— Cooper v. Cooper, 143 A.
559, 103 N.J.Eq. 416.
Defect cured
Garaishee's motion to set aside
judgment on ground of variance in
name of plaintiff was properly
stricken after judgment had been
amended. — Merchants' Grocery Co. v
550
Albany Hardware & Mill Supply Co.,
160 S.B. 658, 44 Ga.App. 112.
Irregular judgment
Action of court in passing on ap-
plication to set aside judgment, void-
able for irregularity, is largely con-
trolled by promptness with which
application is made. — Fowler v. Fow-
ler, 130 S.E. 315, 190 N.C. 536.
84. N.J. — Corpus Juris cited in La
Bell v. Quasdorf, 184 A. 750, 753,
116 N.J.Law 868.
N.Y.— Adair v. Adair, 201 N.T.S. 398,
206 App.Div. 394.
N.C. — Fowler v. Fowler, 130 S.E. 315,
190 N.C. 536.
Pa. — Koenig v. Curran's Restaurant
& Baking Co., 159 A. 553, 306 Pa.
345.
34 C.J. p 372 note 79.
Rule as to opening of default judg-
ments see infra § 337.
Petitions to vacate Judgment are
extraordinary in nature, and should
be granted only after careful consid-
eration, and where required to ac-
complish justice.— Russell v. Foley,
179 N.B. -619, 278 Mass. 145.
There should be finality and per-
manenoy to court decrees, which
should not be vacated and set aside
without careful consideration, but
court should be slow to say that an
injustice may not be corrected by
such means.— In re Macior's Will, 52
N.T.S.2d 389.
85. N.J. — Corpus Juris quoted in
West Jersey Trust Co. v. Bigham,
119 A. 743, 744, 118 N.J.Law 160.
34 C.J. p 372 note 80.
86. N.J. — Corpus Juris quoted in
West Jersey Trust Co. v. Bigham,
119 A. 743, 744. 118 N.J.Law 160.
34 C.J. p 372 note 81.
87. N.J.— Corpus Juris quoted In
West Jersey Trust Co. v. Big-
ham, 119 A. 743, 744, 118 N.J.
Law 160.
34 C.J. p 372 note 82.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 299
determined on its particular facts.88 The applica-
tion should be denied where the averments of
the petition are denied and are not supported by
proof.8*
Grounds of application. A judgment should not
be opened or vacated unless it is found that one of
the statutory or other recognized grounds for such
action exists.90 It has generally been held that the
court should limit its consideration to such grounds
for opening or vacating the judgment as are set
forth in the application,91 but it has bsen held that
the application should be granted where sufficient
grounds appear of record, although not relied on
by the party seeking relief.92 The application
should not be granted in any case where the relief
to which the party is entitled can more appropri-
ately be awarded in some other action or proceed-
ing, as discussed supra § 283, or where another suit
is pending between the same parties in which the
court can grant all the relief or protection called
for by the equities of the case.98 After a motion
for a new trial has been denied, a motion to va-
cate based on the same grounds is improper and
will be denied.94 It has generally been held, some-
times under statutes so providing, that it is proper
for the court to try and determine the existence and
sufficiency of the alleged grounds for opening or
vacating the judgment before trying or deciding the
existence of a meritorious cause of action or de-
fense.95 With respect to the grounds of relief, ev-
idence will be heard on both sides.96 Should the
court find that the grounds relied on are not suffi-
cient, or are not proved, it is unnecessary to go into
the inquiry as to the validity of the defense.97
However, both issues may be tried together where
the parties waive the right to have them tried sep-
arately.98
Merits of cause of action or defense. Where a
meritorious cause of action or defense is required,
as discussed supra § 290, a judgment should not be
opened or vacated until it is found and adjudged
that there is a cause of action, or a defense to the
action in which the judgment was rendered.99 Aft-
er it has been decided that the grounds of the ap-
plication are sufficient, in order that the validity of
the defense may be adjudged, an issue or issues
may be made up and a trial had thereon.1 The
court is not to try and decide the merits of the
proposed cause of action or defense,2 but is only to
88. Ga.— Deen v. Baxley State Bank,
15 S.E.2d 194, 192 Ga. 300.
Mont.— Rieckhoff v. Woodhull, 75 P.
2d 56, 106 Mont. 22.
89. Pa. — Ferguson v. O'Hara, 132 A.
801, 286 Pa, 37.
90. N.T. — Duffield v. Franklin Lum-
ber Co., 248 N.T.S. 5, 231 App.Div.
510.
Ohio.— Washington v. (Levinson, 35
N.E.2d .161, -66 Ohio App. 461—
Minetti v. Einhorn, 173 N.B. 243,
36 Ohio App. 310.
34 C.J. p 373 note 85.
Convenience of party
An application will not "be grant-
ed for the mere convenience of the
moving party or to restore to him
some right or advantage which, he
has forfeited.— Davis v. Pierce, 52
Pa.Super. 615—34 C.J. p 373 note -86.
Court's change of view
The trial justice is not authorized
to vacate a judgment merely because
his views have changed, and to sus-
tain order granting new trial the
record must reveal sufficient grounds
for the exercise of discretionary
power. — Albright v. New York Life
Ins. Co., 26 N.Y.S.2d 210, 261 App.
Div. '419.
rinding of intent to defraud was
unnecessary to set aside judgment
where affidavit for publication was
fraudulent— Wells v. Zenz, 256 P.
484, 83 Cal.App. 137.
91. Ga. — White v. Hutcheson, 15*4 S.
E. 157, 41 Ga.App. 602.
Minn.— Wilcox v. Hedwall, 243 N.W.
709, 186 Minn. 504.
N.D.— Lee v. Luckasen, 204 N.W. 831,
52 N.£>. 934.
Pa.— Keystone Nat Bank of Man-
helm, now to Use of Balmer v.
Deamer, 18 A.2d 540, 144 Pa.Su-
per. 52.
92. N.C.— -Skinner v. Terry, 12 S.E.
118, 107 N.C. 103.
34 C.J. p *373 note 88, p 374 notes 99,
1.
93. N.T.— Wade v. De Leyer, 40 N.
Y.Super. 541.
94. CaL— Treat v. Treat, 150 P. 57,
170 Cal. 337.
Ga. — Manry v. Stephens, 9 S,E.2d 58,
190 Ga, 305.
95. Ark. — Jerome Hardwood Lum-
ber Co. v. Jackson- Vreeland Land
Corporation, 254 S.W. 660, 160
Ark. 303.
N.M.— Corpus Juris quoted in Sin-
gleton v. Sanabrea, 2 P.2d 119, 121,
35 N.M. -491.
Ohio.— Horwitz v. Murri, 156 N.B.
420, 24 Ohio App. 109.
?4 C.J. p 373 notes 94, 95.
96. N.M.— Corpus Juris quoted in
Singleton v. Sanabrea, 2 P.2d 119,
121, 35 N.M. 491.
34 C.J. p 374 note 96.
97. N.M.— Corpus Juris cited in
Woodson v. -Baynoldfi, 76 P.2d 34,
41, 42 N.M. 161.
Wash. — Harte* v. King County, 119
P.2d 919, 11 Wash.2d 583.
34 C.J. p 374 note 97.
551
98. N.M. — Corpus Juris guoted in
Singleton v. Sanabrea, 2 P.2d 119,
121, 35 N.M. 491.
34 C. J. p 374 note 98.
99. 111. — Emcee Corporation v.
George, 12 N.B.2d 333, 293 I1L
App. 240.
Mo. — Corpus Juris cited in Crow v.
Crow-Humphrey, 73 S.W.2d 807,
813, 335 Mo. 636.
Neb.— Morrill Qounty v. Bliss, 249 N.
W. 98, 125 Neb. 97, 89 A.L.R. 932.
N.C.— Garrett v. Trent, 4 S.E.2d 319,
216 N.C. 162.
Ohio.— Minetti v. Einhorn, 173 N.B.
248, 36 Ohio App. 310— Horwitz v.
Murri, 156 N.E. 420, 24 Ohio App.
109.
Pa.— Fidelity Title & Trust Co. v.
Garrett, 194 A. 39$, 327 Pa. 305—
Helzlsouer v. Golub, 160 A. 11-8, 306
Pa. 474 — Roper v. Scevcnik, 194 A.
333, 128 PfuSuper. 453.
34 C.J. p 374 notes 2, 3, p 375 note 9,
p 376 notes 10, 11.
Dismissal
A finding that applicant is without
a meritorious defense warrants a
dismissal of the application.-—
Braughon v. Warren, 199 S.E. -629,
214 N.C. 404.
L, Kan.— List v. Jockheck, 27 P. 184,
45 Kan. 349, 748.
34 C.J. p 37*5 note 5.
2. Ohio. — Lutkenhouse v. Telia,
App., 60 N,E.2d 798— Mosher v.
Gross, App., 60 N.B.2d 730— Wash-
ington v. ILevinson, 85 N.E.2d 161,
66 Ohio At>p. 461.
300
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
inquire whether it is meritorious, interposed in good
faith, and prima facie sufficient.8
§ 300. Discretion of Court
The determination of an application to open or va-
cate a judgment generally rests in the sound legal dis-
cretion of the court.
An application to open or vacate a judgment is
generally addressed to the sound legal discretion of
the court on the particular facts of the case,4 and
Okl.— Nero v. Brooks, 244 P. 588, 116
Okl. 279.
Wash. — State v. Superior Court ir
and for Spokane County, 267 P.
775, 148 Wash, 24.
34 C.J. p 375 note 6.
3. Ohio. — Luktenhouse v. Vella.
App., 60 N.E.2d 798— Mosher v.
Goss, App., 60 N.E.2d 730— Wash-
ington v. Levinson, 35 N.E.2d 161,
66 Ohio App. 461.
Okl.—Corpus Juris cited in Honey-
cutt v. Severin, 98 P.2d 1093, 1095,
186 Okl. 509.
Wash. — State v. Superior Court in
and for Spokane County, 267 P.
775, 148 Wash. 24.
34 C.J. p 375 notes 7, 8.
4. TT.S. — Western Union Telegraph
Co. v. Dismang, C.C.A.Okl., 106 F.
2d 362— Coggeshall v. U. S., C.C.
A.S.C., 95 F.2d 986 — Peters v. Mu-
tual Life Ins. Co. of New York, D.
C.Pa., 17 F.Supp. 246, reversed on
other grounds, C.C.A., 92 F.2d 301.
Ariz. — School Dist. No. 9 of Apache
County v. First Nat. Bank of Hoi-
brook, 118 P.2d 78, 5S Ariz. -86—
Blair v. Blair, 62 P.2d 1321, 49
Ariz. 501— Corpus Juris cited to
Smith v. Washburn & Condon, 297
P. 879, 38 Ariz. 149— Faltts v. Col-
achis, 274 P. 776, 35 Ariz. 78.
Ark.— Clark v. Bowen, -5-6 S.W.2d
1032, 1°,6 Ark. 931.
CaL— Miller v. -Lee, 125 P.2d 627, 62
Cal.App.2d 10 — In re Bartholo-
mew's Adoption, 84 P.2d 199, 29
Cal.App.2d; 343— In re McCarthy's
Estate, 73 P.2d 914, 23 Cal.App.2d
398.
Colo. — Corpus Juris cited in Moun-
tain v. Stewart, 149 P.2d 176, 112
Colo. 302.
Conn. — Boushay v. Boushay, 27 A.2d
800, 129 Conn. 347.
D.C.— Bush v. Bush, 63 F.2d 134, 61
APP.D.C. 357.
Fla. — Lawyers Co-op. Pub. Co. v.
Williams, 5 So.2d 871, 149 Fla.
390 — Alabama Hotel Co. v. J. L.
Mott Iron Works, 98 So. 825, 86
•Fla, 608.
Ga. — Raines v. Lane, 31 S.E.2d 403,
198 Ga. 217— Hurt Bldg. v. Atlanta
Trust Co., 182 S.B. 187, 181 Ga, 274
— Landau Bros. v. Towery, 179 S.
E. 647, 51 Ga.App. 113. *
HI.-— Village of La Grange Park v.
Hess, 163 N.E. 672, 332 111. 236—
Albers v. Martin, 45 N.E.2d 102,
316 IlLApp. -44-6— Gliwa v. Wasfi-
* ington Polish 'Loan & Building
Ass'n, 34 N.E.2d 736, 310 IlLApp.
465-^Simon v. (Foyer, 17 N.E.2d
632, 297 IlLApp. 640.
Iowa. — Scott v. Union Mut. Casual-
ty Co., 252 N.W, 85, 217 low* 390
—Albright v. Moeckley, 237 N.W.
309— Swan v. McGowan, 231 N.W.
440, 212 Iowa 631.
Kan. — Hoffman v. Hoffman, 135 P.2d
887, 156 Kan. 647— Ford v. Blasdel,
276 P. 283, 128 Kan. 43.
La. — Hanson y. Haynes, App., 170 So.
257, rehearing denied 171 So. 146.
Mass. — Town of Hopkinton v. B. F.
Sturtevant Co., 189 N.E. 107, 283
Mass. 272— Sweeney v. Morey &
Co., 181 N.E. 782, 279 Mass. 495—
Waltham Bleachery & Dye Works
v. Clark-Rice Corporation, 175 N.
B. 174, 274 Mass. 488 — Powdrell v.
Du Bois, 174 N.E. 220, 274 Mass.
106— Mellet v. Swan, 168 N.E. 732,
• *9 Mass. 173 — Beserosky v. Ma-
son, 168 N.E. 726, 269 Mass. 325—
Draper v. Draper, 166 N.E. 874, 267
Mass. 528— Lee v. Fowler, 161 N.
E. 910, 263 Mass. 440.
Mich. — Corpus Juris cited In Mack
International Truck Corporation v.
Palmer, 242 N.W,.«98, 259 Mich.
234— Curtis v. Curtis, 229 N.W. 622,
250 Mich. 105.
Minn. — In re Holum's Estate, 229 N.
W. 133, 179 Minn. 315.
Mo.— Gerber v. Schutte Inv. Co., 194
S.W.2d 25— Allen v. Fewel, 87 S.
W.2d 142, 337 Mo. 955.
Mont — Kospnen y. Waara, 285 P.
668.
N.J.— Davis v. City of Newark, 17 A.
2d 305, 19 N.J.Misc. 85.
N.M. — Corpus Juris Quoted in ^Tot
Springs Nat. Bank v. Kenney, 48 P.
2d 1029, 1031, 39 N.M. 428— Board
of Com'rs of Quay County v. Was-
son, 24 P.2d 1098, 37 N.M. 503,
followed in Board of Com'rs of
Quay Qounty v. Gardner, 24 P.2d
1104, 87 N.M. 514.
N.Y.— Albright v. New York Life Ins.
Co., 26 N.Y.S.2d 210, 2-61 App.Div.
419— Quigg y. Treadway, 219 N.Y.
S. 897, 21$ AppoDiv. 739. - .
N.D.— Bothum v. Bothum, 10 N.W.2d
603, 72 N.D. 649— Jacobson >. v.
Brey, 6 N.W.2d 269, 72 N.D. 269—
Smith v. Smith, 299 N.W. 693, 71
N.D. 110— Corpus Juris cited in
Guenther v. (Fink, 274 N.W. 839,
843, 67 N.D. 5*3.
Ohio.— Central Nat. Bank of Cleve-
land v. Ely, App., 44 N.B.2d 822.
OkL^Le Roi Co. v. Grimes, 144 P.
2d 973, 193 OkL 430— Stull v.
Hoehn, 126 P.2.d 1007, 191 Okl. ISO
— Donley v. Donley, 89 P.2d 312,
184 Okl. -5 67— Park v. Continental
OU Co., 87 P.2d 324, 184 Okl. 314—
Babb v. National Life Ass'n, 86 P.
2d 771, 1-84 Okl. 273— Sabiu v. Sun-
set Gardens Co., 85 P.2d 294, 184
OkL 106 — Brockman v. Fenn Mut.
Life Ins. Co., <64 P.2d 1208, 179
552
Okl. 98 — Fellows v. Owens, 62 P.2d
1215, 178 Okl. 224— Small v. White.
46 P.2d 517, 173 Okl. 83— Stumpf
v. Stumpf, 46 P.2d 315, 173 Okl.
1 — Johnson v. Bearden Plumbing
& Heating Co., 38 P.2d 500, 170
Okl. 63 — Vacuum Oil Co. v. Brett,
300 P. 632, 150 OM. 153— American
Inv. Co. v. Wadlington, 277 P. 583,
136 Okl. 246— Eastland v. Okla-
homa City, 246 P. 830, 118 Okl. 97
—Bell v. Knoble, 225 P. 897, 99
Okl. 110— Wilson v. Porter, 221 P.
713, 94 OkL 259— Tidal Oil Co. v.
Hudson, 219 P. 95, 95 OkL 209—
Dentbn v. Walker, 217 P. 386, 90
Okl. 222— McBride v. Cowen, 216
P. 104, 90 OkL 130.
Or. — Merryman v. Colonial Realty
Co., 120 P.2d 230, 168 Or. 12—
Bronn v. Soules, 11 ± ,Jd 284, 140
Or. 308.
Pa. — Berkowltz vv. Kass, 40 A.2d 691,
351 Pa. 2»63— Bekelja v. James E.
Strates Shows, 37 A.2d 502, 349 Pa.
442— Fidelity Title & Trust Co. v.
Garrett, 194 A. 398, 327 Pa. 305—
Pierce, to Use of Snipes, v. Kase-
man, 192 A. 105, 326 Pa. 280—
Schuylkill Trust Co. v. Sobolewski,
190 A. 919, 325 Pa. 422— U. S. v.
Savings & Trust Co. of Conemaugh
to Use of Hindes v. Helsel, 1-88 A.
167, 325 -Pa. 1— Bader v. Kell, 151
A. 683, 301 Pa. 139 — Ferguson v.
• O'Hara, 132 A. 801, 286 Pa. 37—
Tressler v. EmeHch, 122 A. 229,
278 Pa. 128— Brill v. Haifetz, 44
A.23 311, 158 Pa.Super. 158—
Richey v. Gibboney, 34 A.2d 913,
154 Pa.Super. 1 — Roper v. Scev-
cnik, 194 A. 333, 128 Pa.Super. 453
— Philadelphia 'Fixture & Equip-
ment Corporation v. Carroll, 191 A.
216, 126 Pa.Super. 454— Kaufman
v. IFeldmah, 180 A. 101, 118 Pa.Su-
per. 435— Landis v. Hoch, 164 A.
828, 108 Pa.Super. 285 — McCoy ?.
Royal Indemnity Co., 164 A, 77,
107 Pa.Super. 486 — Bianca v. Kap-
lan, 160 A. 143, 105 Pa.Super. 98—
Silent Auto Corporation of North-
ern New Jersey v. Folk, 97 Pa. Su-
per. '58-8 — J. S. Bache & Co. v.
•Locke, 186 Pa.Super. 501 — Deane v.
Geilfuss & Co., 86 Pa, Super. 405
— Schmitt v. Yuhazy, 84 Pa. Super.
7'6 — Foos v. Pogar & Pogar, 84 Pa.
Super. 54 — Rasp v. Rasp, 79 Pa.
Super. 29 — Mann v. Schneller, 11
Pa.Dist & Co. 205, 21 North.Co.
240 — Renschler v. Piaano, Com.PL,
38 Lack.Jur. 157,, 51 York Leg.Rec.
109, affirmed 198 A. 33, 329 Pa.
249 — Sheaffer v. SheofCer, Com.PL,
45 Lanc.Revi. 613— Kingston Nat.
Bank v. Wruble, ConcuPL, 38 Luz.
. Leg.Reg. 32L
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
300
ordinarily its determination is conclusive and will
not be disturbed except for abuse of discretion.5
This rule is particularly applicable where 'relief
against the judgment is sought during the term at
which the judgment is entered.6 The discretionary
rule applies whether or not the application to open
S.C.— Betsill v. Betsill, 196 S.E. 381,
187 S.C. 50— Jefferson Standard
Life Ins. Co. v. Hydride, 141 S.B.
278, 143 S.C. 127— Ex parte Clark,
118 S.E. 27, 125 S.C. 34.
Wash. — Corpus Juris cited in Both v.
Nash, 144 P.2d 271, 275, 19 Wash.
2d 731 — Agricultural & Live Stock
Credit Corporation v. McKenzie,
289 P. 527, 157 Wash. 597— Robert-
son v. Wise, 279 P. 106, 152 Wash.
624.
Wis. — People's Trust & -Savings Bank
v. Wassersteen, 276 N.W. 330, 226
Wis. 249— In re Meek's Estate, 227
N.W. 270, 199 Wis. 802— Erickson
v. Patterson, 211 N.W. 775, 191
Wis. 628.
34 C.J. p 365 note 67.
Purpose of rule
The discretionary nature of Juris-
diction to vacate a decree is designed
to prevent too ready unravelling of
judgments, avoid putting a premium
on continued litigation and promote
considerateness of judicial decision.
— W. E. Hedger Transp. Corp. v. Ira
S. Bushey & Sons, C.C.A.N.Y., 155
F.2d 321.
Wholly discretionary
An application to open a judgment
is addressed wholly to the discretion
of the court.
N.J. — Assets Development Co. v.
Wall, 119 A. 10, 97 N.J.Law 468.
Pa.— Perri v. Perri, 6 A.2d 775, 335
Pa. 394.
Largely, but not exclusively, discre-
tionary
The granting of a petition for va-
cation of a judgment is addressed
largely, although not exclusively," to
the sound discretion of the court —
Herlihy v. Kane, 38 N.E.2d £20, 310
Mass. 457 — 'Lynch v. Springfield Safe
Deposit & Trust Co., 13 N.E.2d 611,
300 Mass. 14 — Kravetz r. Lipofsky,
200 N.B. 865, 294 Mass. SO— Maki v.
New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 199 N.
E. 760, 293 Mass. 223— Russell v.
Foley, 179 N.E. 619, 278 Mass. 145—
Alpert v. Mercury Pub. Co., 172 N.E.
223, 272 Mass. 43.
Motion to vacate interlocutory or-
der is addressed to trial court's
sound discretion. — Kirn v. Bembury,
178 S.E. 53, 163 Va. 891.
Void Judgment
Even where the judgment is whol-
ly void, the court may in its discre-
tion refuse to vacate it and leave the
party affected to show that it is void
whenever it is invoked against him.
— Corpus Juris quoted in Ouenther
v. Funk, 274 N.W. 839, 843, 67 N.D.
543—34 C.J. p 369 note 69.
Attorney's neglect
Grant of relief from consequences
of attorney's neglect or denial there-
of, on motion to vacate judgment,
lies within the discretion of the
court. — First State Bank of 'Thomp-
son Falls v. Larsen, 233 P. 960, 72
Mont. 400.
5. U.S. — Western Union Telegraph
Co. v. Dismang, C.C.A.OkL, 106 F.
2d 362.
•Cal.— Potts v. Whitson, 125 P.2d 947,
52 Cal.App.2d 199— Miller v. Lee,
125 P.2d 627, 52 Cal.App.2d 10—
In re Bartholomew's Adoption, 84
P.2d 199, 29 Cal.Aj?p.2d 343— In re
McCarthy's Estate, 73 P.2d 914, 23
Cal.App.2d 398.
Colo. — Mountain v. Stewart, 149 P.2d
17-6, 112 Colo. 302.
Ga. — Deen v. Baxley, 15 S.E.2d 194,
192 Ga. 300.
HI.— Albers v. Martin, 45 N.E.2d 102,
316 Ill.App. 446 — Simon v. Foyer,
17 N.E.2d 632, 297 IlLApp. 640.
Kan. — Epperson v. Kansas State 'De-
partment of Inspections and Reg-
istration, 78 P.2d 850, 147 Kan. 762.
Mass. — Town of Hopkinton v. B. 'F.
-Sturtevant, 189 N.E. 107, 283 Mass.
272.
N.C.— Price v. Life & Casualty Ins.
Co. of Tennessee, 160 S.E. 367, 201
N.C. 376.
Pa.— Berkowitz v. Kass, 40 A.2d 691,
351 Pa. 263— Perri v. Perri, 6 A.2d
775, 335 Pa, 394— Tressler v. Emer-
ick, 122 A. 229, 278 Pa. 128— First
Nat. Bank v. Smith, 200 A. 215,
132 Pa. Super. 73 — Kaufman v.
Feldman, 180 A. 101, 118 Pa.Super.
435.
S.C. — Jefferson Standard Life Ins.
Co. v. Hydrick, 141 S.E. 278, 143
S.C. 127.
A decision either way ordinarily is
not an abuse of discretion. — Davis v.
Teachnor, Ohio App., -53 N.E.2d 208.
Court's decision presumed to be ex-
ercise of discretion
Ga.— Milton v. Mitchell -County Elec-
tric Membership Ass'n, 12 S.E.2d
367, -64 Ga.App. 63.
Discretion held not abused
(1) By denial of relief.
AHZ. — School Dist. No. 9 of Apache
County v. First Nat. Bank of Hoi-
brook, 118 P.2d 78, 58 Ariz. S6.
CaL — In re Mallon's Estate, 93 P.2d
245, 34 Cal.App.2d 147.
Conn. — Kaiser v. Second Nat. Bank,
193 A. 761, 123 Conn. 248.
Ga. — American Commercial -Service
v. Bailey, 130 S.E. 370, 34 Ga_App.
540.
I1L— Herr v. Morgan, 57 N.E.2d 141,
324 IlLApp. 16— Albers v. Martin,
45 N.E.2d 102, 316 IlLApp. 446.
Mont — -First State Bank of Thomp-
son QFalls v. Larsen, 233 P. 960,
72 Mont. 400.
N.M.— Board of Com'rs of Quay
County v. Wasson, 24 P.2d 1098,
553
37 N.M. 503, followed in Board of
Com'rs of Quay County v. Gard-
ner, 24 P.2d 1104, 37 N.M. 51'4.
Pa, — Bekelja v. James E. Strates
Shows, 37 A.2d 502, 849 Pa. 442 —
Perri v. Perri, 6 A.2d 775, 335 Pa.
394— Griffith v. Hamer, 173 A. 874,
113 Pa.Super. 239 — Meehan v.
Shreveport-Eldorado Pipe Line Co.,
164 A. 364, 107 Pa.Super. 580 —
Roberts Electric Supply Co. v.
Crouthamel, 97 Pa. Super. 463 — Pe-
ters v. Alter, 89 Pa. Super. 34.
(2) By grant of relief.
Ga. — Deen v. Baxley State Bank, 15
•S.E.2d 194, 192 Ga, 300— Allison V.
Garber, 178 S.E. 158, 50 GcuApp.
333.
Mass.— Smith v. Brown, 184 N.E. 383,
282 Mass. $1.
OkL— Long v. Hill, 145 P.2d 434, 193
Okl. 463 — American Inv. Co. v.
Wadlington, 277 P. 583, 13-6 OKI.
246.
Pa, — H. H. Robertson Co. v. Pfotzer,
28 A.2d 721, 150 Pa.Super. 457.
6. Ala. — Reese & Reese v. Burton &
Watson Undertaking Co., 184 So.
'820, 28 Ala.App. 384.
Colo. — London Option Gold Mining
Co. v. Dempsey, 66 P.2d 327, 100
Colo. 156.
Conn. — Kaiser v. Second Nat. Bank,
193 A. 761, 123 Conn. 248-^Ideal
Financing Ass'n r. LaBonte, 180 A.
.300, 120 Conn. 190 — Connecticut
Mortgage & Title Guaranty Co. v.
Di Francesco, 151 A. 491, 112 Conn.
673.
Ga. — Hardwick v. Shah an, 118 S.E.
575, 30 Ga,App. 526.
Kan. — Epperson v. Kansas State De-
partment of Inspections and Reg-
istration, 78 P.2d 850, 147 Kan. 762
— Schubach v. Hammer, 232 P.
1041, 117 Kan. 615.
Ky. — Kentucky Home Mut. 'Life Ins.
Co. v. Hardin, 126 S.W.2d 427, 277
Ky. 565.
Md. — Harvey v. Slacum, 29 A.2d 27-6,
181 Md. 206— Silverberg v. Dear-
holt, 22 A.2d 588, 180 Md. 38.
Neb.— Holman v. Stull, 267 N.W. 149,
130 Neb. 876.
Ohio. — Thompson v. Stonom,. App.,
57 N.E.2d 788— Davis v. Teachnor,
App., 53 N.E.2d 208— Mosher v.
Mutual Home & Savings Ass'n,
App., 41 N.E.2d 871.
OkL— Long v. Hill, 145 P.2d 434, 193
OkL 463— Pitts v. Walker, 105 P.2d
760, 188 OkL 17— Montague v.
State ex rel. Commissioners of
Land Office of Oklahoma, £9 P.2d
283, 184 Okl. 574— Harlow Pub.
Co. v. Tallant, 43 P.2d 106, 171 Okl.
579— Halliburton v. Illinois Life
Ins. Co., 40 P.2d 1086, 170 Okl. 360
—Goodwin v. Scrtfggs, 9 P.2d 4E6,
156 Okl. 118— Curtis v. Bank of
300
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
or vacate the judgment is made at common law7 or
under statutory provisions.8
On the other hand, the court's discretion is not to
be exercised arbitrarily, oppressively, or from mere
caprice; it is a judicial discretion to be exercised
in accordance with legal and equitable principles,9
and should be so exercised as to promote the ends
of justice.10 The court's action must rest on com-
petent evidence.11 It is an abuse of discretion to
open or vacate a judgment where the moving party
shows absolutely no legal ground therefor, or offers
no excuse for his own negligence or default,12 or
where the application is granted purely for the pur-
pose of extending applicant's time to appeal.13 If,
however, applicant shows himself plainly and justly
entitled to the relief demanded, the court must grant
the application and it is an abuse of discretion to
refuse it.14 Under no circumstances will the court
be justified in refusing to receive and hear a motion
to vacate the judgment; its discretion is to be ex-
ercised on the facts as developed on a hearing, not
in advance of it15
.§ 301. Relief Awarded
On an application to open or vacate a Judgment, the
court may generally grant such relief as Is appropriate
under the circumstances.
On an application to open or vacate a judgment,
the court may award such relief as is appropriate
under the circumstances.16 It has been held that
the court, on vacating a judgment, may set aside
conclusions of law,17 and that a judgment regular-
ly entered on a verdict may not be vacated unless
the verdict is also set aside;1? but it has been held
that on vacating a judgment the court is without
power to make new findings inconsistent with thos"e
Dover. 241 P. 173, 113 Okl. 224— |
McNac v. Kinch, 238 P. 424, 113
Okl. 59 — McNac v. Chapman, 223 P.
350, 101 Okl. 121.
34 C.J. p 207 note 5.
Power of court during Judgment
term see supra § 229.
Time for application see supra § 288.
Elapse of time to appeal does not
terminate court's discretion. — Deen
v. Baxley State Bank, 15 S.B.2d 194,
192 Ga. 300.
"Wide discretion
Okl.— Welborn v. Whitney, 65 P.2d
971, 179 Okl. 420— Cooper v. State
ex pel. Com'rs of lLand Office, 63 P.
2d -69*8, 178 Okl. 532.
7. Ind. — Bearing- v. Speedway Real-
ty Co., 40 N.E.2d 414, 111 Ind.App.
585.
N.J. — Somers v. Holmes, 177 A. 434,
114 N.J.Law 497.
8- Ind.— Bearing v. Speedway Real-
ty Co., 40 N.E.2d 414, 111 Ind.App.
585.
Mont— Rieckhoff v. Woodhull, 75 P.
2d 56, 106 Mont 22.
9. Cal. — Elms v. Elms, App., 164 P.
2d 936— Potts v. Whitson, 125 P.2d
947, 52 Cal.App.2d 199.
Ga. — Grogan v. Deraney, 143 «S.E.
912, 38 Ga.App. 287.
N.Y.— Albright v. New York Life
Ins. -Co., 26 N.Y.S.2d 210, 261 App,
DiT. 419.
Or.— Bratt v. State Industrial Acci-
dent Commission, 236 P. 478, 114
Or. 644.
34C.J. p 369. note 70.
"Sound Judicial discretion." as re-
gards petition to vacate judgment
implies calmness, conscience, cour-
age, impartiality, wisdom, and dis-
cernment of just result. — Russell v.
Foley, 179 N.E. 619, 278 Mass. 145.
Court has reasonable discretion
CaL — Palomar Refining Co. v. Pren-
tice, 136 P.2d 83, 57 CaLApp.2d 954
Discretion held abused
(1) By denial of relief.— Boyd v.
Lemmon, 189 N.W. 681, 49 N.D. «64.
(2) By grant of relief.— Holbrook
v. Weiss, 3 N.B.2d 915, 52 Ohio App.
458.
ia Mass.— Alpert v. Mercury Pub.
Co., 172 N.E. 223, 272 Mass. 43.
Okl. — Donley v. Donley, 89 P.2d 312,
184 Okl. 567— Vacuum Oil Co. v.
Brett, 300 P. 632, 150 Okl. 153.
Orderly administration
Discretion should be exercised so
as to promote orderly administration
of justice and not to encourage care-
lessness, Ignorance, or laxity in
practice.— Kravetz v. Lipofsky, 200
N.E. 865, 294 Mass. '80.
Legislative policy
In exercising discretion to set
aside judgments, courts should main-
tain liberal spirit prompting legisla-
ture to grant such power. — Kosonen
v. Waara, 285 P. 668, 87 Mont 24.
11. Pa. — Tradesmens Nat Bank &
Trust Co. v. Lewis, 34 A.2d 818,
154 Pa.Super. 17— Silent Auto Cor-
poration of Northern New Jersey
v. Folk, 97 Pa.Super. 588.
34 C.J. p 370 note 71.
12. Minn. — Ayer v. Chicago, M., St.
P. & P. R. Co., 249 N.W. 581, 189
Minn. 359.
Ohio. — Holbrook v. Weiss, 8 N.E.2d
915, 52 Ohio App. 458.
34 C.J. p 370 note 72.
13. Conn. — Connecticut Mortgage &
Title Guaranty Co. v. Di 'Frances-
co, 151 A. 491, 112 Conn. 673.
Ohio.— Sullivan v. Cloud, 34 N.E.2d
625, 62 Ohio App. 462.
14. Ga.— Donalson v. Bank of Jakin
127 S.E. 229, 33 Ga.App. 428.
N.D. — Boyd v. Lemmon, 189 N.W,
681, 49 N.-D. 64.
34 C.J. p 370 note 73, p 371 note 74.
554
15. Cal.— Cahill v. San Francisco
Super. Ct, 78 P. 4-67, 145 Cal. 42.
34 C.J. p 371 note 75.
16. CaL — Berning v. Colodny & Col-
odny, 284 P. 496, 103 Cal.App. 188.
Pa.— Sniffer, to Use of Sniffer, v.
Shiffer, Com.Pl., 46 Dauph.Co. 313
— Cadwallader v. Firestone, Com.
PL, 7 Ffc,y.L,J. 259— Nuss v. Kem-
merer, Com.Pl, 17 Leh.L.J. 379, 52
York SLeg.Rec. 15.
Decree should go no further thaa
is necessary to correct the wrong. —
Indianapolis Life Ins. Co. v. Lund-
quist, 53 N.E.2d 338, 222 Ind. 359.
Suspension of Judgment
In action to set aside a judgment
rendered at a prior term1, if the court
finds that defendant has a valid de-
fense, it does not render Judgment
in the original action but makes an
order suspending the judgment until
such time as the issues in the origi-
nal action can 4>e joined and deter-
mined as though no judgment had
ever been entered.— Washington v.
Levinson, 35 N.E.2d 161, 66 Ohio
App. 461.
Violation of settlement agreement
Judgment will not be opened
where appeal was not taken due to
compromise, but issue will be framed
to determine amount due. — Brader v.
Alinikoff, 85 Pa.Super. 28-5.
Provision transferring1 cause to an-
other district court held illegal. —
Schubert v. District Court of Third
Judicial Dist of Bergen County, 159
A. 615, 10 N.J.Misc. 414.
17. Ind. — Tri-City Electric Service
Co. v. Jarvis, 185 N.E. 136, 206
Ind. 5.
18. Ga. — Dabney v. Benteen, 132 S.
E. 916, 35 Ga.App. 203.
34 C.J. p 376 note 1-6.
49 O.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
303
already made,19 and that it may not, on opening or
vacating a judgment against applicant, proceed to
enter a judgment in his favor20 where the parties
have the right to a jury trial.21 Either on opening
or vacating the judgment, the relief granted may
include the setting aside of an execution or a sale
thereunder.22 Where a court or judge is author-
ized to set aside' or vacate a judgment, the juris-
diction includes the right to grant any less or in-
cidental relief by which justice may be obtained and
the rights of the parties may be protected.28 Where
justice can be done between the parties by amend-
ing or correcting the judgment, or reducing its
amount, the court will be warranted in entering a
new judgment in the proper form.24 Under a spe-
cial statutory motion to vacate a judgment and en-
ter a different judgment based on the findings, it
has been held that the court may not consider any
facts except those included in the findings,25 and
that it may not change the findings of fact.26 Un-
der a statute so providing, the failure to determine
the application within a specified time constitutes a
denial of the application.27
§ 302. Partial Vacation
A court having power to vacate a judgment entirely
may grant less relief by vacating It In part only, where
Justice so requires.
A court having power to vacate a judgment en-
tirely may grant less relief by vacating it in part
only, where justice so requires.28 Where one por-
tion of the judgment is separable from the balance
thereof, and the objection goes only to a separable
part, the court should not set aside the whole judg-
ment but only the objectionable part.29 A motion
to vacate the whole of a judgment is too broad, and
may properly be overruled, if any separable por-
tion of the judgment is free from objection.80 A
judgment against several persons may be set aside
as to one or more of them, and allowed to stand as
to the others,81 except where a judgment is entire
and indivisible, when, being irregular and errone-
ous as to a part of the defendants, it is of necessity
so as to all and must be opened or vacated as to
all.32 A judgment may be opened or vacated with
respect to a part of the amount of recovery,88 ex-
cept where the recovery is not apportionable,84 or
as to the recovery on one or more separate counts
or causes of action united in the same suit85
§ 303.
Terms and Conditions
The court may generally Impose reasonable terms
and conditions on opening or vacating a judgment.
19. N.Y.— Citizens' Nat Bank of
Bast Northport v. Caldwell, 251 N.
Y.S. 319, 233 App.Div. 875.
20. Tex. — Marmion v. Herrin
Transp. Co., Civ.App., 127 S.W.2d
558, error refused.
21. Tex. — Schaffer v. Speckels, Com.
App., 62 S.W.2d 85— Wichita Palls
Traction Co. v. Cook, 60 S.W.2d
764, 122 Tex. 446.
22. Or. — Anderson v. Guenther, 25
P.2d 146, 144 Or. 446.
34 C.J. p 376 note 15.
23. N.T.— Me Call v. McCall, 54 N.Y.
541.
34 C.J. p 376 note 18.
24. Ind. — Marion Mfg. Co. v. Hard-
ins, 58 N.JE. 194, 155 Ind. 648.
34 C.J. p 376 note 17.
25. Cal. — Westervelt.v. McCullough,
228 P. 734, 68 Cal.App. 198.
26. Cal. — Akley v. Bassett, 209 P.
576, 189 Cal. 625— Herz v. Here-
ford, 263 P. 382, 88 CaLApp. 290.
27. N.M.— King' v. McBlroy, 21 P.2d
80, 37 N.M. 238.
BUI of review treated as motion, to
vacate
Where purported bill of review
was treated on appeal as a motion
for rehearing or a motion to vacate
because filed .before judgment in
cause became final, bill was over-
ruled by operation of law where it
had not been acted on before Judg-
ment became final and appellant had
made no request to act on it before
that time or that term of court be
extended for purpose of acting on
the motion. — Joy v. Toung, Tex.Civ.
App., 194 S.W.2d 159.
2& Ark.— Taylor v. O'Kane, 49 S.W.
2d 400, 185 Ark. 782.
Cal.— People v. Barnes City, 288 P.
442, 105 CaLApp. 618.
Conn. — Persky v. Puglisi, 127 A. 351,
101 Conn. 658.
Tex.— Corpus Juris anoteft in Mis-
souri-Kansas-Texas R. Co. of Tex-
as v. Pluto, 156 -S.W.2d 265, 269,
138 Tex. 1 — Corpus Juris cited in
Kern v. Smith, Civ.App., 164 S.W.
2d 193, 195— Pavelka v. Overton,
Civ.App., 47 S.W.2d 369, error re-
fused.
34 C.J. p 376 note 19.
, Cal.— People v. Barnes City, 2
P. 442, 105 Cal.App. 618.
Ga.— George A. Rheman Co. v. May,
31 S.E.2d 738, 71 Ga.App. -651.
Idaho. — Occidental Life Ins. Co. v.
Niendorf, 44 P.2d 1099, 55 Idaho
521.
Ky.— Phillips v. Green, 155 S.W.2d
841, 288 Ky. 202.
Tex, — Corpus Juris quoted in Mis-
souri-Kansas-Texas R. Co. of Tex-
as v. Pluto, 156 S.W.2d 265, 269,
138 Tex. 1.
34 C.J. P 876 note 20.
Collusion
Judgment -against principal and
surety, which was canceled as
against surety on ground of collu
sion and fraud of judgment creditor
and principal, remained valid adjudi-
555
cation between judgment creditor
and principal. — Goldberg v. {Fuller,
172 S.B. 52, 178 Ga. 58.
30. Ga. — Smith v. Knowles, 7'8 S.U.
264, 12 Ga.App. 715.
34 C.J. p 3T7 note 21.
31. Cal.— Michel Y. Williams, 56 P.
2d 546, 13 Cal.App.2d 198— Bishop
v. Superior Court in and for Los
Angeles County, 209 P. 1012, 59
Cal.App. 46.
Okl. — Galeener v. Reynolds, 69 P.2d
49, 180 Okl. 200.
Tex. — Corpus Juris quoted in Mis-
souri-Kansas-Texas R. Co. of Tex-
as v. Pluto, 156 S.W.2d 265, 269,
138 Tex. 1.
34 C.J. p 377 note 22.
32. 111.— Freflrich v. Wolf, -50 N.BL
2d 755, 383 111. 638— Central Clean-
ers and Dyers v. Schild, 1 N.E.2d
90, 284 IlLApp. 267.
Ohio.— Beachler v. 'Ford, App., 60 N.
B.2d 330.
Tex. — McClaren Rubber Co. T. Wil-
liams Auto Supply Co. of Big
Spring, Civ.App., 81 S.W.2d 2-55.
34 C.J. p 377 note 23.
33. N.Y. — Uptown Transp. Corpora-
tion v. Fisk Discount Corporation,
271 N.T.S. 723, 151 Misc. 469.
3-4 C.J. p 377 note 24.
34. jq-.Y. — Irwin v. Knox, 10 Johns.
365.
34 C.J. p 377 note 25.
35. Kan.— Weaver v. Leach, 26 Kan.
179.
34 C.J. P 377 note 26.
303
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
Where, as is generally the case, as considered su-
pra § 300, the opening or vacation of the judgment
is discretionary with the court, it is within the sound
discretion of the court to impose, as a condition to
granting the application, such terms as may be just
and reasonable,36 provided, of course, there are no
statutory provisions to the contrary;37 and the
court's decision will not be disturbed except for
abuse of discretion.38 The imposition of terms,
however, is not a necessary condition on opening
the judgment ; and the opposing party may not com-
plain that terms were not imposed, unless he can
also show that the action of the court was arbi-
trary and unjust.39 The circumstances may be such
that it would be an abuse of discretion to impose
terms, and in such cases terms should not be im-
posed.40 Where the opening or setting aside of the
judgment is demandable as of right, it is not prop-
er to impose any terms.41 Where the judgment is
void for want of jurisdiction, terms may not be im-
posed as a condition to granting relief.42 In any
event, the discretion of the court wifh respect to
imposing terms must be exercised in a reasonable
manner.43 ' Under some circumstances, a court may
refuse to open a judgment on some condition to be
performed by the successful party.44 An order set-
ting aside a judgment for plaintiff at his request,
should be conditioned on his remitting payments
made on the judgment46 The court, on opening
a judgment, may limit the issues to be determined.4*
§ 304. Findings
In some jurisdictions, but not In others, the court Is
required to make findings of fact and conclusions, of law
In passing on an application to open or vacate a judg-
ment.
In some jurisdictions, on an application to open
or vacate a judgment, the trial court is required to
find the facts separately from the conclusions of
law, much as in the case of a special verdict, and to
set them forth on the record;47 in other jurisdic-
tions findings are not required,48 although it has
been said that the court ought to file an opinion set-
ting forth its findings of facts and the grounds of
its decision.49 Findings are unnecessary where the
court exercises its plenary power and discretion to
set aside a judgment at the same term at which it
was rendered.50 Where parties desire to insist on
findings, they must request them.51 Except where
separate findings are required by statute, an order
vacating a judgment is an implied finding of the
facts necessary to support it.52 Similarly a denial
36. Fla, — Corpus Juris cited in
Knabb v. Reconstruction 'Finance
Corporation, 197 So. 707, 711, 144
Fla. 110.
iLa. — McCoy v. Arkansas Natural
Gas Corporation, 196 So. 23, 195
La. 82.
Md. — Pioneer Oil Heat v. Brown, 16
A.2d 880, 179 Md. 155 — Commercial
Sav. Bank v. Quail, 142 A. 488, 156
Md. 16.
34 C.J. p 377 note 28.
Terms and conditions on opening:
Default judgment see infra § 337.
Judgment by confession see infra
§ 326.
Applicant cannot accept beneficial
part of order and reject part consid-
ered burdensome. — Beck v. Beck, 192
N.E. 791, 48 Ohio App. 105.
Attorney's fees
It was erroneous to order, as a
condition to setting aside a judg-
ment, that attorney's fees be paid to
plaintiff's attorney, since the attor-
ney was not a litigant. — Smith v.
Zuta, 347 IlLApp. 203.
Default in paying compromise settle-
ment
Judgment entered pursuant to
stipulation for settlement, which
permitted entry of judgment on fail-
ure to pay installment when due,
should be set aside at instance of
defendants, on imposition of terms,
where defendant's check in payment
cf installment was returned for in-
sufficient funds due to error of
bank's bookkeeper or delay in enter-
ing deposit to defendant's account —
Goldstein v. Goldsmith, 27* N.Y.S.
861, 243 App.Div. 268.
37. Tex. — Hargrave v. Boero, Civ.
App., 23 SAV. 403, following Se-
crest v. Best, 6 Tex. 199.
34 C.J. p 379 note 29.
38. Pa. — Huston Tp. Co-op. Mut.
Fire Ins. Co. v. Beale, 1 A. 926,
110 Pa. 321.
34 C.J. p 379 note 30.
39. Cal.— Robinson v. Merrill, 22 P.
260, 80 Cal. 415.
34 C.J. p 379 note 3L
40. Colo.— -Sidwell v. IFirst Nat.
Bank, 233 P. 153, 76 Colo. £47.
34 C.J. p 379 note 32.
41. N.T.— Tates v. Guthrie, 23 N.B.
741, 119 N.T. 420.
34 C.J. p 379 note 37.
42. Colo. — Corpus Juris cited in
Sidwell v. First Nat. Bank, 233 P.
153, 154, 76 Colo. 547.
N.Y. — Amusement Securities Corpo-
ration v. Academy Pictures Dis-
tributing Corporation, ^295 N.Y.S.
436, 251 App.Div. 227, motions de-
nied 295 N.Y.S. 472, 250 App.Div.
749, affirmed 13 N.B.2d 471, 277 N.
Y. 557, reargument denied 14 N.E.
2d 383, 277 N.Y. 672.
34 C.J. p 379 note 33.
43. Tex. — Continental Oil Co. v.
Henderson, Clv.App., 180 &W.2d
998, error refused.
34 C.J. p 379 note 38. .
556
44. Pa.— Irwin's Appeal, 12 A. 840,
9 Pa.Cas. 479.
34 C.J. p 379 note 39.
45. Mich.— Denison v. Crowley, Mil-
ner & Co., 271 N.W. 735, 279 Mich.
211.
Restitution generally see infra § 307.
46. Pa,— Cassler v. Gassier, 144 A.
8*, 294 Pa. 197.
47. N.C. — Turner v. J. L Case
Threshing Mach. Co., 45 S.E. 781,
133 N.C. 381.
34 C.J. p 384 note 81.
Formal finding as to meritorious
defense is required where showing of
defense is by affidavit, but not where
defendant has filed a pleading set-
ting forth his defense. — Sutherland
v. McLean, 154 S.E. 662, 199 N.C. 345.
48. Wash.— Frieze v. Powell, 140 P.
•690, 79 Wash. 483.
34 C.J. p 384 note 82.
49. Pa. — Haines v. Elfman, 84 A.
349, 235 Pa. '341.
34 C.J. p 384 note 83.
Finding not supported by evidence
Pa. — Barnes v. Silveus, 19 Pa-Dist &
Co. 581.
50u N.C.— Allison Y. Whlttier, 8 S.B.
338, 101 N.C. 490.
51. Kan. — Moore v. Zeman, 200 P.
270, 109 Kan. 566.
34 C,J. p 384 note -85.
52. Kan. — Moore y. Zeman, supra.
34 C.J. p '384 note 87.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
306
of the application is an implied finding that grounds
for such relief do not exist.53 The findings, if
proper, have the same effect as a verdict.54
§ 305. Order
General rules as to orders apply to orders opening or
vacating judgments.
An order opening or vacating a judgment must
comply with the requirements of orders generally,55
and also with any special statutory requirements.56
The order must be the judicial act of the court57
and should show clearly what disposition of the
judgment the court intended to make.58 The judg-
ment affected, must be described with sufficient ac-
curacy to be identified,59 but mere inaccuracy of
description does not invalidate the order.6(> While
it has been held that the order must recite the
grounds for granting the application,61 there is also
authority to the contrary.62 The order must be duly
entered of record.63
§ 306.
Operation and Effect in General
Where a judgment Is vacated or set aside, it is as
though no Judgment had ever been entered; but a judg-
ment which has been opened generally remains opera-
tive as security until the termination of the litigation.
Where a judgment is vacated or set aside by a
valid order or judgment, it is entirely destroyed and
the rights of the parties are left as though no such
judgment had ever been entered.64 No further
steps can be legally taken to enforce the vacated
judgment.65 The action, however, is left still pend-
53. Cal. — Chavez v. Scully, 232 P.
165, 69 Cal.App. 633.
54. Iowa. — Genco v. Northwestern
Mfg. Co., 214 N.W. 545, 203 Iowa
1390.
55. Kyi— Lovill v. Hatfteld, 268 S.W.
807, 207 Ky. 142.
Order as Judgment
An order vacating a judgment or
an order for a judgment is not a
judgment and does not determine an
application to enter another and dif-
ferent judgment. — Prothero v. Supe-
rior Court of Orange County, 238 P.
357. 196 Cal. 439.
Improper caption and index
Where intent of order, made in
term in which judgment was entered,
to set aside judgment was unmistak-
able, court thereafter properly dis-
regarded judgment notwithstanding
order may have been improperly cap-
tioned and indexed. — City of Haz-
ard v. Duff, 175 S.W.2d 357, 295 Ky.
701.
68. N.D.— Harris v. Hessin, 151 N.
W. 4, 30 N.D. 33.
34 C.J. p 384 note 89.
Time of entry
Where the court's inherent power
to open or vacate a judgment is lim-
ited to the judgment term, an order
rendered under its inherent power is
ineffective if rendered after the ex-
.piration of -the. judgment term. — Da-
vis v. Oaks, 60 S.W.2d 922, 187 Ark.
501.
.67. Ind. — Barton v. Bryant, 2 Ind.
189.
34.C.J. p 384 note do.
Sa Pa.— Fisher v. -Hestonville, M. &
F. Pass. R. C.O., 40 A. 97, 185 Pa.
602.
34 C.J, p 384 note 91. ;
Still relief
On a statutory proceeding to set
aside a . .judgment as inconsistent
with the findings and to enter a dif-
ferent judgment .based on the find-
Ings,, the court must grant full relief
^In one orde.r; it ; cannpt vacate the
judgment in one order and leave the
entry of a proper Judgment for an-
other order. — Stanton v. Superior
Court within and for Los Angeles
County, 261 P. 1001, 202 Cal. 478—
34 C.J. p 376 note 17 [a].
Orders inconsistent with judgment
(1) Where, after judgment is en-
tered, an order is made which is in-
consistent with the continued opera-
tion of the judgment, as where a
party is given leave to file a plea to
the complaint, the effect of the or-
der is to vacate the judgment —
Box v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.,
168 So. 216, 232 Ala. 1.
(2) The granting of defendant's
motion to dismiss complaint after
judgment had been entered in de-
fendant's favor was equivalent to a
"vacation of judgment," and defend-
ant was thereafter precluded from
relying on alleged finality of the
judgment. — Bricson v. Slomer, C.C.A.
111., 94 F.2d 437.
59. Mont— Morehouse v. Bynum,
152 P. 477, 51 Mont 289.
60. Mont. — Morehouse r. Bynum,
supra.
34 C.J. p 384 note 93.
61. N.Y. — Strassner v. Thompson,
57 N.Y.S. 546, 40 App.Div. 28.
34 C.J. p 384 note 94.
62. Mo.— Spickard v. McNabb, App.,
1*0 S.W.2d 611.
63. Tex.— Witty v. Rose, Civ.App.,
148 -S.W.2d 962, error dismissed.
34 C.J. p 385 note 97.
Notation on docket did not have
effect of setting aside judgment —
Burleson v. Moffett, Tex.Civ.App., 3
S.W.2d 544.
64. Conn. — Corpus Juris cited in
Union & New Haven Trust Co. v.
Taft Kealty Co., 192 A. 268. 271,
123 Conn. 9.
Fla. — Corpus Juris cited in Adelhelm
v. Dougherty, 176 So. 775, 777, 129
Fla. 680.
Kan. — Hoffman v. Hoffman, 135 P.2d
887, 156 Kan. 647— Corpus
557
quoted in Standard Life Ass'n v.
Merrill, 75 P.2d «25, 827. 147 Kan.
121.
Ky.— Morris v. Morris, 10 S.W.2d
277, 225 Ky. 823.
Mich. — Denison v. Crowley, Milner &
Co., 271 N.W. 735, 279 Mich. 211.
N.Y.— In re Grube's Will, 294 N.Y.S.
311, 162 Misc. 267— Corpus Juris
cited iii Hammond v. Hammond, 11
N.Y.S.2d 585, 587.
Pa. — Bergen v. Lit Bros., 47 A.2d
671.
34 C.J. p 385 note 98.
Void order vacating judgment is
wholly ineffective. — Mountain States
Implement Co. v. Arave, 2 P.2d 314,
50 Idaho 624.
Erroneous order is operative and
effective. — Hibben, Hollweg & Co. v.
Western & Southern Life Ins. Co.,
169 IsT.E. 693, 90 Ind.App. 683.
Denial of application
Judgment overruling defendant's
motion to set aside judgment against
him on ground that plaintiff had not
filed a verified petition was in ef-
fect ruling that plaintiff did not
have to verify petition. — Garrison v.
Bradford Supply Co., 51 S.W.2d 254,
244 Ky. 430.
Partition
Where a partition, long before
made, is set aside,* the court in de-
creeing new partition will direct
that former allotments be followed
as far as justice will permit — Oneal
v. Stimson, 74 S.B. 413, 70 W.Va. 452.
Merits
, In setting aside a judgment ob-
tained by one party litigant on mo-
tion filed by other party at same
term of court at which judgment
was taken, the court would provide
that action in setting aside judg-
ment should not prejudice rights of
the parties on a trial of the merits.
— South Texas Life Ins. Co. v. Dan-
haus, Tex.Civ.App., 146 S.W.2d 1098.
65. Kan. — Corpus Juris guoted IXL
Standard Life Ass'n v. Merrill, 76
§ 306
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
ing and undetermined, and further proceeding may
be had and taken therein.** The case stands again
for trial or for such other disposition as may be
appropriate to the situation.67 It has been held that
the effect of setting aside a judgment based on the
verdict of a jury is to set aside the verdict and
grant a new trial,68 but it does not necessarily va-
cate prior interlocutory orders or judgments.69 The
vacation of a judgment vacates all proceedings
taken under the judgment™ Where the judg-
ment is vacated, the lien falls with the judgment,
and cannot be made to attach to the judgment ulti-
mately entered.71 Where a judgment of which a
transcript has been entered in another county is set
aside, the judgment on the transcript falls with it.72
It has been held that a vacated judgment affords no
justification for acts done before the order of va-
cation,78 except to mere ministerial officers,74 and
affords no bar to a new action.75
Generally the rights of third persons, such as
purchasers in good faith who have relied on the
judgment, will be saved so far as is consistent with
the rights of the judgment debtor.76 Where the
judgment vacated is void, the rights of an interven-
ing purchaser of the property affected will not be
protected.77 Where the judgment is voidable but
not void, its vacation will not divest the title of
third persons acquired under it in good faith for a
valuable consideration.78 One having acquired title
under an irregular judgment will not be affected by
proceedings to set it aside unless he is made a party
thereto.79
Although it has been held that the effect of open-
ing the judgment is to leave the case standing as
though no judgment had ever been rendered,80 it is
generally held that a judgment which is opened, as
distinguished from one which is vacated, does not
lose its status as a judgment;81 it does not deter-
mine any rights of the parties in the action, but
subsists only for the purpose of security,82 its lien
remaining unimpaired.83 Merely opening a judg-
ment does not necessarily vacate prior interlocu-
tory judgments, orders, or proceedings in the case
except such as are dependent on the judgment.84
If the party who obtains the opening of a judgment
is afterward defeated in the action, the effect is to
restore the original judgment to full force and
finally conclude his rights in the premises ;86 if the
defense is successful, the judgment is vacated.86
An order denying a motion to set aside a judg-
P.2d 825, 827, 147 Kan. 121.
84 C,J. p 385 note 99.
66. Kan. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Standard Life Ass'n v. Merrill, 75
P.2d 825, 827, 147 Kan. 121.
N.J. — Dorman v. Usbe Building &
Loan Ass'n, 180 A. 418, 115 N.J.
Law 837.
84 C.J. p 385 note 1.
67. Conn.— Simpson v. Young Men's
Christian Ass'n of Bridgeport, 172
A. 855, 118 Conn. 414.
84 C.J. p 385 note 2, p 376 note 12.
68. Tex.— Smith v. Thornton, 29 S.
W.2d 314, 119 Tex. 344.
69. Mo.— Davidson v. I. M. Davidson
Real Estate & Investment Co., 155
S.W. 1, 249 Mo. 474.
70. Wash.— Hillman v. Gordon, 219
P. 46, 126 Wash. 614.
71. 111.— Chicago Title & Trust Co.
v. Benjamin Moore & Co., 277 111.
App. 340.
34 C.J. P 387 note 17.
72. Pa. — Nelson v. Guffey, 18 A.
1073, 131 Pa. 273, 289.
34 C.J. p 387 note 18.
73. Wis. — Anderson .v. Sloane, 40 N.
W. 214, 72 Wis. 566, 7 Am.S.R.
885.
34 C.J. p 385 note 3.
When a Judgment is *«t aside a»
void, all proceedings thereunder are
also void. — Newsome v. Hall, 161 S.
W.2d 629, 290 Ky. 486, 140 A.L.R.
*18.
74. Kan.— Morris v. Hardie, 118 P.
308, 84 Kan. 9.
34 C.J. p 385 note 4.
75. Ind.— Martin v. Baugh, 27 N.E.
110, 1 Ind.App. 20.
34 CJT. p 385 note 5.
76. Minn. — Go wen v. Conlow, 53 N.
W. 365, 51 Minn. 213.
34 C.J. p 385 note 6.
77. Kan. — Bryner v. Fernetti, 41 P.
2d 712, 141 Kan. 446.
34 C.J. p 385 note 6 [a].
78. N.J.— Ostrom v. Ferris, 134 A.
305, 99 N.J.Eq. 551, affirmed 141 A.
920, two cases, 103 N.J.Eq. 22.
34 C.J. p 386 note 7.
Purchaser must show "bona fides
Ky. — Rouse v. Rouse, 262 S.W. 596,
203 Ky. 415.
Interlocutory Judgment
Vendee, granted new trial after
Judgment foreclosing vendor's lien,
could recover for conversion of oil
taken from land, Judgment being
merely interlocutory. — Texas Co. v.
Dunlap, Tex.Com.App., 41 S.W.2d 42,
rehearing denied 43 S.W.2d 92.
79. Minn.— Aldrich v. Chase, 73 N.
W. 161, 70 Minn. 243, 247.
34 C.J. p 386 note 8.
80. Conn. — Padaigis v. Kane, 4 A.2d
335, 125 Conn. 727.
81. Ohio. — Washington v. Levinson,
35 N.E.2d 161, 66 Ohio App. 461.
Pa.— Markofski v. Tanks, 146 A. 569,
297 Pa. 74.
558
a decree of partition cannot be
opened to change results without
also setting aside the titles obtain-
ed under it— Walsh v. Varney, ' 88
Mich. 73.
L N.T. — Pomeroy v. Hocking Val-
ley R. Co., 175 N.T.S. 489, 187 App.
Div. 164.
34 C.J. p 386 note 12.
83. 111.— Park Ridge v. Murphy, 101
N.E. 524, 258 111. 365.
34 C.J. p 386 note 14.
Vacating judgment held erroneous
Vacating Judgment against sure-
ties on official bond before final de-
termination of cause was held to be
error, since plaintiff should have
been allowed to retain his lien un-
til final determination of the case.
— City of Luverne v. Skyberg, 211 N.
W. 5, 169 Minn. 234.
84. Mo.— McLaran v. Wilhelm, 50
Mo.App. 658.
34 C.J. p 386 note 9.
85. U.S.— Leonard v. St Joseph
Lead Co., C.C.A.MO., 75 F.2d 390—
17. S, v. A. Bentley & Sons Co.,
D.C.Ohio, 293 F. 229.
34 C.J. p 386 note 15.
86. U.S. — Leonard v. St Joseph
Lead Co., C.C.A.MO., 75 F.2d 390.
34 OJ. p 387 note 16.
Original judgment is superseded
by new judgment where applicant is
successful on motion to set aside
judgment and enter a different judg-
ment based on the findings. — Karsh
v. Superior Court in and for Los
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
306
ment does not give jurisdiction where none before
existed or confer on the judgment any validity it
did not originally possess.87 A refusal to set aside
a judgment alleged to be void for want of juris-
diction is not a conclusive determination that the
judgment i$ valid.88 An order erroneously award-
ing relief against a judgment is not void where the
court had jurisdiction.89
Subsequent proceedings. It has been held that
the order opening the judgment rather than a gener-
al practice act controls the subsequent pleadings in
the action.^0 Unless the order otherwise provides,
defendant on the opening of a judgment may inter-
pose any defense,91 including one not previously
raised.92 Where a judgment is opened generally,
the burden is on plaintiff to prove his cause of ac-
Persons bound. An order granting or denying
a motion to open or vacate a judgment is binding
and conclusive on all parties to the application and
on those in privity with them.9*
Renewal of application. The remedy of a party
aggrieved by the denial of a motion to open or va-
cate a judgment is by appeal,95 and not by resort
to independent proceedings to obtain the same re-
lief,96 although it has been held that a denial of
relief on motion is no bar to an action on the same
grounds for the same relief,97 and particularly not
to an action for the same relief but on different
grounds.98 While the decision on a motion to va-
cate or set aside a judgment is not in the strict
sense res judicata," it has been held that a plea of
res judicata may be sustained where the second ap-
plication is on the same grounds as the first,1 and it
is general rule of practice that a second application
for the same purpose, based on the same grounds
as the first, will not be entertained2 without first
obtaining leave of the court,3 unless the order de-
nying the motion is made without prejudice to its
renewal4 or is made in a manner too defective or
imperfect to prevent a renewal.5
A second application to vacate a judgment found-
ed on facts which were known or which should
have been known to the applicant at the time of
making the first application will not, as a rule, be
considered,6 although a refusal to vacate a judg-
ment on one ground is no bar to an application to
vacate it on other grounds.7 If, however, the court
is satisfied that there was excusable neglect in not
bringing forward all the grounds in the first in-
stance, leave may properly be granted to renew the
application.8 A new motion should always be en-
tertained when based on new grounds, not covered
by the former motion and not then known or avail-
able to the party.9 Where leave to renew an ap-
plication to vacate or set aside a judgment is grant-
ed, such second application must be in accordance
with the terms imposed on granting such relief.10
Where the second application is for different re-
lief, as, for instance, where the former motion was
to vacate a judgment as a nullity, and the second is
to open such judgment and let applicant in to de-
fend, or vice versa, the denial of the first motion is
no bar as to the second.11
Angeles County, 12 P.2d 658, 124
CaLApp. 373.
87. Cal.— Smith v. Los Angeles & P:
R. Co.* 34 P. 242, 4 Cal.Unrep.Cas.
237.
34 C.J. p 387 note 19.
88. N.Y.— Pendleton v. Weed, 17 N.
Y. 72.
89. Wis.— Volland v. McGee, 295 N.
W. 635, 236 Wis. 358.
90. Pa. — Cassler v. Cassler, 144 A.
88, 294 Pa. 197.
81. Pa. — Austen v. Marzolf, 161 A.
72, 307 Pa, 232.
Plaintiff is not required to antici-
pate defense or sustain greater than
normal burden of proof. — Austen v.
Marzolf, supra.
92. Conn.— -Padaigis v. Kane, 4 A.2d
335, 125 Conn. 727.
93. Pa.— Austen v. Marfcolf, 161 A.
72, 307 Pa, 232— Knierim v. Pfeil,
Com.Pl., 6 Sch.Reg. 329.
34 C.J. p 386 note 14 [a].
94. N.Y.— Bush v. O'Brien, 62 N.Y.
S. 685, 47 App.Div. 581, reversed
on other grounds 58 N.E. 106, 164
N.Y. 205.
34 C.J. p 387 note 21.
95i 111. — Emcee Corporation v.
George, 12 N.E.2d 333, 293 IlLApp.
240.
34 C.J. p 387 note 23.
98. Ga. — Palmer v. Jackson, 4 S.E.
2d 28, 188 Ga. 336.
34 C.J. p 387 note 24.
97. N.Y.— Monroe v. Monroe, 21 N.Y.
S. 655.
34 C.J. p 387 note 25.
98. Cal. — Estudillo v. Security Loan
& Trust Co., 87 P. 19, 149 Cal. 556.
34 C.J. p 387 note 26.
99. Conn.— Santoro v. Kleinberger,
163 A. 107, 115 Conn. 631.
34 C.J. p 387 note 27.
1. Ga.— Revels v. Kilgo, 121 S.R
209, 157 Ga. 39.
2. 111. — Emcee • Corporation v.
George, 12 N.B.2d 333, 293 IlLApp.
240.
Mass.— Old Colony Trust Co. v. Pep-
per, 167 N.E. 656, 268 Mass. 467.
34 C.J. p 388 note 28.
559
3. Minn. — Carlson v. Carlson, 52 N.
W. 214, 49 Minn. 655.
34 C.J. p 388 note 29.
4. Mass. — Soper v. Manning, 33 N.
E. 516, 158 Mass. 381.
34 C.J. p 388 note 30.
5. Va.— Webb v. McNeil, 8 Munf.
184, 17 Va. 184.
6. Ga. — Palmer v. Jackson, 4 S.E.2d
28, 188 Ga. 336.
34 C.J. %p 388 note 32.
A special plea setting up the judg-
ment and facts as to the first attack
is not required. — Palmer v. Jack-
son, supra.
7. Ga, — Palmer v. Jackson, supra,
34 C.J. p 388 note 33.
8. Mont. — Jensen v. Barbour, 81 P.
592, 12 Mont. 566.
34 C.J. p 388 note 34.
9. S.D. — Olson v. Advance Rumely
Thresher Co., 178 N.W. 141, 43 S.
D. 90.
34 C.J. p 389 note 35.
10. N.Y.— People v. Samuels, 8 N.Y.
S. 475.
34 C.J. p 389 note 36.
11. Pa.— Albert M. Greenfield & Co.
307
JUDGMENTS
49 (XJ.S.
§ 307. Restitution
A party who has received benefits under a Judgment
which is vacated should be required to make restitution.
Where a final judgment is absolutely vacated, aft-
er it has been paid, or satisfied by execution or by
possession of the property in controversy, the party
benefiting by it should be ordered to make restitu-
tion,12 but not where the judgment is merely opened
to permit a defense; in the latter case therS should
be no order of restitution until after trial and final
judgment13 An attorney who has shared in the
proceeds of a vacated judgment may be ordered
to make restitution.14
§ 308. Objections and Exceptions
Objections to defects In proceedings to open OP va-
cate a Judgment may be waived.
Defects or irregularities in the proceedings to
vacate a judgment, or in the action of the court
thereon, are waived if the party fails to object
in due season, or shows his acquiescence by par-
ticipating in the further proceedings in the action.15
v. Roberts, 5 A.2d 642, 135 Pa,
Super. 328.
34 C.J. p 389 note 87.
12. U.S.— U. S. v. Morgan, Mo., 59
S.Ct. 795, 307 U.S. 183, 83 L.Ed.
1211, mandate conformed to, D.C.,
Morgan v. U. S., 32 F.Supp. 546,
reversed on other grounds U. S. v.
Morgan, 61 S.Ct 999, 313 U.S.
409, 85 L.Ed. 1429.
Cal.— -Brown v. Howard, 261 P. 732,
86 Cal.App. 532.
Fla.— State ex rel. Revell v. City of
Wauchula, 189 So. 247, 138 Fla.
184 — Revell v. Dishong, 175 So.
905, 129 Fla, 9— Hazen v. Smith,
135 So. 813, 101 Fla. 767.
Mo. — Corpus Juris cited in In re
Main's Estate, 152 S.W.2d 696, 701,
236 Mo.App. 88.
K.J.— Westfleld Trust Co. v. Court
of Common Pleas of Morris Coun-
ty, 183 A. 165, 116 N.J.Law 191—
Westfleld Trust Co. v. Cherry, 183
A. 165, 116 N.J.Law 190.
Wyo.— Healy v. Wostenberg, 38 P.
2d 325, 47 Wyo. 375.
34 C.J. P 389 note 38.
Rigftt to restitution is not abso-
lute, to be had by litigant regardless
of justice of matter.— Healy v. Wos-
tenberg, supra.
One in privity with successful party
When a void judgment is set aside,
• party receiving benefit thereof or one
in privity with him is obligated to
make restitution to other party of
all property received under judg-
ment—Peoples Building & Loan
Ass'n v. Wagner, 180 S.W.2d 295, 297
Ky. 558.
Trust fund; identity
With respect to the right of bank-
ruptcy trustee to recover from judg-
§ 309. Vacation and Review of Order
An order opening or vacating a Judgment may Itself
be vacated.
The court has power to reverse, correct, or mod-
ify orders made by it on an application to open or
vacate a judgment.16 An order opening or vacat-
ing a judgment may itself be vacated or rescind-
ed,17 as where the order was made without juris-
diction,1* or was obtained irregularly or fraudu-
lently,19 or because it was erroneous,20 or on fail-
ure to comply with the conditions imposed.21
An application to vacate an order vacating or
opening a judgment must be timely made,22 and due
notice must be given.23 It has been held that the
application must be made to the judge who ren-
dered the order sought to be vacated.24
The effect of vacating such an order is to re-
store the original judgment.25 When this is done,
provision should be made for saving the interven-
ing rights of third persons.26 The court may pro-
ment creditor money obtained under
execution on judgment which was
subsequently vacated, trust for mon-
ey so obtained did not come into be-
ing until order setting aside Judg-
ment became final, after which time
law imposed on Judgment creditor
obligation of returning money to
bankrupt, notwithstanding .failure of
bankruptcy trustee to identify trust
res. — Levy v. Drew, 50 P.2d 435, 4
Cal.2d 456, 101 A.L.R. 1144.
Discharge of lien
The tender of special assessments
was not required as a condition to
vacate a Judgment void on its face,
rendered in action to foreclose de-
linquent special assessments, where
property was purchased by Judgment
creditor and lien was not discharged
since Judgment was void. — Morgan v.
City of Ardmore ex rel. Love &
Thurmond, 78 P.2d 785, 182 Okl. 542.
13- N.Y.— Ketcham v. Elliott, 20 N.
T.S. 745.
14. Mo.— Warren v. Order of Hall-
way Conductors of America, 201 S.
W. 368, 199 Mo.App. 200.
15. 111.— National Lead Co. v. Mor-
tell, 261 IlLApp. 332— Cooper v.
Handelsman, 247 IlLApp. 454.
34 C-J. p 389 note 41.
16. N.J.— Wardell v. Warshofsky,
159 A. 694, 10 N.J.Misc. 519.
17. U.S. — Thomas v. Newton, C.C.
Pa., 23 F.Cas.No,13,905, Pet.C.C.
4444.
Kan. — Mayall v. American Well
Works Co,, 89 P.2d 846, 149 Kan.
•781.
Ky. — Commonwealth v. Partin, 3 S.
W.2d 779, 223 Ky. 405.
34 C.J. p 389 note 46.
560
Compared with power to vacate
Judgment
The power of court to set aside
judgment should be no greater than
its power to set aside an order va-
cating Judgment. — Morey v. Morey,
299 N.T.S. 161, 164 Misc. 527.
18. Fla.— State v. Wright, 145 So.
598, 107 Fla. 178.
34 C.J. p 389 note 42.
19. Wash.— Hays v. Mercantile Inv.
Co., 132 P. 406, 73 Wash. 586.
34 C.J. p 389 note 43.
20. Mo. — Wilson v. Teale, App., 88
S.W.2d 422.
34 C.J. p 389 note 44.
21. Cal. — Gregory v. Haynes, 21 Cal.
443.
34 C.J. p 389 note 45.
22. Ind.— Kolb v. Raisor, 47 N.E.
177, 17 Ind.App. 551.
34 C.J. p 389 note 47.
23. Wash. — Chehalis County v. El-
lingson, 59 P. 485, 21 Wash. 638.
34 C.J. p 390 note 49.
24. TJ.S. — Newcomb v. Burbank, C.C.
N.T., 159 F. 569.
Collateral proceeding
The decree or order of a court of
competent Jurisdiction, although va-
cated or modified by subsequent or-
der fraudulently procured, may not
be reinstated by decree in collateral
proceeding. — Goodman v. Goodman,
194 A. 866, 15 N.J.Misc. 716.
25. Ky. — Vanderpool v. Stewart, 279
S.W. 645, 212 Ky. 373.
34 C.J. p 390 note 51.
26. N.J.— Keogh v. Delany, 40 N.J.
Law 97.
49 C.J.S.
vide that the judgment be reinstated as of the date
it was originally entered.27
Review on appeal or error of an order granting
or denying an application to open or vacate a judg-
ment is considered in Appeal and Error § 132.
JUDGMENTS
§ 310.
§ 311
Liabilities on Bonds Given in Pro-
ceedings to Vacate
The imposition of terms on the opening or va-
cating of judgments is discussed supra § 303.
Examine Pocket Parts for later cases.
D. WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS
§ 311. In General
A writ of error coram nobls Is a common-law writ
used in a proper case to obtain a review and correction
cf a judgment by the court which rendered it. Although
widely replaced by more convenient remedies, the writ
still obtains in some jurisdictions.
A writ of error coram nobis, sometimes called a
"writ of error coram vobis,"28 is an ancient com-
mon-law writ,29 used for the purpose of obtaining
a review and correction of a judgment by the same
court which rendered it, with respect to some error
of fact affecting the validity and regularity of the
judgment.30 The writ has grown out of use and
become substantially obsolete both in England and
in this country,31 the more convenient and sum-
87. Neb. — Shafer v. Wilsonville El-
evator Co., 237 N.W. 155. 121 Neb.
280.
28. U.S. — Hiawassee Lumber Co. v.
U. S.f C.C.A.N.C., 64 F.2d 417—
United States v. One Trunk Con-
taining Fourteen Pieces of Em-
broidery, D.C.N.Y., 155 F. 651— Mc-
Ginn v. U. S., D.C.Mass., 2 F.R.D.
562.
Ala, — Snodgrass v. Snodgrass, 101
So. 837, 212 Ala, 74.
Colo. — Tatarsky v. De Vere, 242 P.
973, 78 Colo. 49G.
Md.— Hawks v. State, 157 A. 900,
162 Md. 30.
34 C.J. p 390 note 54.
Distinctions considered
(1) "It is called a writ of error
coram nobis in King's Bench, be-
cause the record and proceedings are
stated in the writ to remain 'before
us*. It was a fiction of old English
law that the King was supposed to
preside in person in that court. In
the Court of Common Pleas, where
the king is not supposed to reside,
the writ is called a writ of error
coram vobis, because the record and
proceedings are stated in the record
to remain 'before ydu,' meaning the
king's justices. . , . The differ-
ence referred only to the. form ap-
propriate to" each court, neither of
which exists in the United States,
and as a result there is no difference
between a writ of error coram nobis
and a writ of error coram vobis in
this country." — Baker v. Smith's Es-
tate, 18 S.W.2d 147, 151, 228 Mo.App.
1234, 226 Mo.App. 510.
(2) Other statements.
111. — Me G rath & Swanson Const. Co.
v. Chicago Kys. Co., 252 IlLApp.
476.
Md.— Keane v. State, 166 A. 410, 164
Md. 685.
34 C.J. p 390 note 54 [a].
29. U.S. — New England Furniture &
Carpet Co. v. Willcuts, D.C.Minn.,
55 F.2d 983— McGinn v. U. S., D.C.
Mass., 2 F.R.D. 562.
49 C. J.S.-36
Til. — McCord v. Briggs & Turivas,
170 N.E. 320, 338 111. 158— Mara-
b'a v. Mary Thompson Hospital of
Chicago for Women and Children,
140 N.E. 836, 309 111. 147— Nikola
v. Campus Towers Apartment
Bldg. Corporation, 25 N.E.2d 582,
303 IlLApp. 516— Frank v. New-
burger, 19 N.E.2d 147, 298 IlLApp.
548— Swiercz v. Nalepka, 259 111.
App. 262.
Kan. — Gibson v. Enright, 37 P.2d
1017, 140 Kan. 700.
Md.— Keane v. State, 166 A. 410, 164
Md. 685— Hawks v. State, 157 A.
900, 162 Md. 30.
Mo. — Hartford Fire Ins. Go. v. Stan-
fill, App.f 259 S.W. 867— Ragland
v. Ragland, App., 258 S.W. 728.
Wis.— Ernst v. State, 192 N.W. «5,
179 Wis. 646, 30 A.L.R. 681.
34 C.J. p 390 note 55.
"The writ of error .coram nobis
is one of the oldest writs known to
the English Common Law. Black-
stone refers to it as a 'writ of most
remedial nature which seems to have
been invented lest in any way there
should be an oppressive defeat of
Justice.' " — Central Franklin Process
Co. v. Gann, 133 S.W.Sd 503, 508,
175 Tenn. 267.
"Coram nobis means 'before us*
or quae coram nobis resident, which
roughly translated is 'which before
us remain/ so called 'from its being
founded on the record and process,
which are stated in the writ to re-
main in the court of the king before
the king himself.' Bouvier's Law
Dictionary."— McGrath & Swanson
Const. Co. v. Chicago Rys. Co., 252
IlLApp. 476, 478,
30. U.S. — Hiawassee Lumber Co. v.
U. S., C.C.A.N.C., 64 F.2d 417—
New England Furniture & Carpet
Co. v. Willcuts, D.C.Minn., 55 F.2d
983 — United States v. One Trunk
Containing Fourteen Pieces of Em-
broidery, D.C.N.T., 155 F, 651—
McGinn v. U. S., t>.C.Mass.f 2 F.
R.D. 562.
561
Ark. — Corpus Juris cited In State v.
Hudspeth, 88 S.W.2d 858, 860, 191
Ark. 963.
Colo. — Tatarsky v. De Vere, 242 P.
973, 78 Colo. 496.
Del. — Corpus Juris cited in Tweed v.
Lockton, 167 A. 703, 705, 5 Harr.
474.
111. — People ex rel. Waite v. Bristow,
62 N.E.2d 545, 391 111. 101— Maher
v. New York, C. &• St, L. R. Co.,
8 N.E.2d 512, 290 IlLApp. 267—
Lynn v. Multhauf, 279 IlLApp. 210
—-Swiercz v. Nalepka, 259 IlLApp.
262 — McGrath & Swanson Const.
Co. v. Chicago Rys. Co., 252 111.
App. 476.
Ind.— Berry v. State, 173 N.E. 705,
202 Ind. 294, 72 A.L.R. 1177.
Md. — Corpus Juris cited in Keane v.
State, 166 A. 410, 412, 164 Md. 685
—Hawks v. State, 157 A. 900, 162
Md. 30.
Mo.— City of St. Louis v. Franklin
Bank, 173 S.W.2d 837, 351 Mo.
688 — Townsend v. Boatmen's Nat.
Bank, App., 148 S.W.2d 85— Bank
of Skidmore v. Ripley, App., 84 S.
W.2d 185 — Kings Lake Drainage
Dist. v. Winkelmeyer, 62 S.W.2d
1101, 228 Mo.App. 1102— Moutier v.
Sherman, App., 25 S.W.2d 490 —
Schneider v. Schneider, App., 273
S.W. 1081— Ragland v. Ragland,
App., 258 S.W. 728.
Tex. — Ex parte Minor, 27 S.W.2d 805,
116 Tex.Cr. 634.
34 C.J. p 390 note 56.
The earliest known use of the
writ was to disclose misprision of
clerk, infancy, coverture, or death
of a party. — Nikola v. Campus Tow-
ers Apartment Bldg. Corporation, 25
N.E.2d 582, 303 IlLApp. 516.
31. U.S. — New England Furniture &
Carpet Co. v. Willcuts, D.C.Minn.,
55 F.2d 983.
Kan.— Gibson v. Enright, 37 P.2d
1017, 140 Kan. 700.
Colol — Carpus Juris cited In Grand-
bouche v. People, 89 P.2d 577, 582,
104 Colo. 175.
Md.— Keane v. State, 166 A. 410, 164
§ 311
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
mary remedy by motion having taken its place, ei-
ther as a matter of practice or by express statu-
tory provision,32 although, of course, distinctions do
exist between a motion to open or vacate a judg-
ment, and proceedings on a writ of error coram no-
bis.33
The writ is still an available remedy, and is oc-
casionally used,34 except where it has been abol-
ished by statute;35 and in some jurisdictions the
writ is expressly authorized by statute,36 or is pre-
served by operation of a general constitutional pro-
vision retaining common-law remedies.37 Howev-
er, in modern practice the writ is not so compre-
hensive as at common law because of the existence
of statutory remedies, such as motion to vacate, mo-
tion for new trial, and appeal.38
§312. When Writ Lies
a. In general
b. Other adequate remedies
c. Errors of fact
d. Errors of law
a. In General
Except as otherwise provided by statute, all courts
of record exercising general original jurisdiction at com-
mon law have power to issue the writ. The writ is in-
appropriate in chancery proceedings.
A writ of error coram nobis will not ordinarily
lie after affirmance of the judgment on writ of er-
ror or appeal;39 nor will the writ lie after the dis-
missal of a certiorari for want of merits in the pe-
tition.40 Where a petition for a writ is denied and
a second petition is subsequently brought in the
same court that court has jurisdiction to decide
whether or not the denial of the first petition is
res judicata.41
In what courts and proceedings. All courts of
record exercising general original jurisdiction at
common law have power to issue writs of error
coram nobis, as part of their common-law juris-
diction,42 except as otherwise provided by stat-
ute.43 It has been held that, in courts exercising
only appellate jurisdiction, the writ does not lie;44
but there is authority to the contrary,4^ The ex-
tent of the power of other courts to entertain the
Md. 685— Hawks v. State, 157 A.
900, 162 Md. 30.
Mo.—Baker v. Smith's Estate, 18 8.
W.2d 147, 223 Mo.App. 1234, 226
Mo.App. 510 — Hartford Fire Ins.
Co. v. Stanflll, App., 259 S.W. 867.
34 C.J. p 391 note 63.
32. U.S. — New England Furniture &
Carpet Co. v. Willcuts, D.C.Minn.,
55 F.2d 983— McGinn v. U. S., B.C.
Mass., 2 F.R.D. 562.
Colo. — Corpus Juris cited in Grand-
bouche v. People, 89 P.2d 577, 582,
104 Colo. 175.
111.— McCord v. Briggs & Turivas,
170 N.E. 320, 338 111. 158— Harris
v. Chicago House-Wrecking Co.,
145 N.E. 666, 314 111. 500— Marabia
v. Mary Thompson Hospital of
Chicago for Women and Children,
140 N.E. 836, 309 111. 147— Nikola
v. Campus Towers Apartment
Bldg. Corporation, 25 N.E.2d 582,
303 IlLApp. 516— Frank v. New-
burger, 19 N.E.2d 147, 298 IlLApp.
548— Maher v. New York, C. & St
L. R. Co., 8 N.E.2d 512, 290 111.
App. 267 — Josten Mfg. Co. v. Keel-
er, 2 N.E.2d 586, 284 IlLApp. 646
— Lynn v. Multhauf, 279 IlLApp.
210 — Reid v. Chicago Rys. Co., 231
IlLApp. 58.
Kan. — Gibson v. Enright, 37 P.2d
1017, 140 Kan. 700.
Md.— Hawks v. State, 157 A, 900,
162 Md. 30.
Mo.—Baker v. Smith's Estate, 18 S.
W.2d 147, 223 Mo.App. 1234, 226
Mo. App. 510 — Hartford Fire Ins.
Co. v. Stanflll, App., 259 S.W. 867.
34 C*J. p 391 note 64. j
33. Mo.— Scott v. Rees, 253 S.W.
998, 300 Mo. 123.
34 C.J. p 391 note 66.
34. U.S. — Hiawassee Lumber Co. v.
U. S., C.C.A.N.C., 64 F.2d 417.
Md.— Hawks v. State, 157 A. 900,
162 Md. 30.
Mo.— Baker v. Smith's Estate, 18 S.
W.2d 147, 225 Mo.App. 1234, 226
Mo.App. 510.
Tex.— Ex parte Minor, 27 S.W.2d 805,
. 115 Tex.Cr. 634.
34 C.J. p 392 note 67.
After time for motion
A motion to vacate a judgment
made three years after the term at
which judgment was rendered, for
matters outside the record, will be
considered as a motion for writ
coram nobis, in view of the similari-
ties of the two motions as independ-
ent proceedings. — Scott v. Rees, 253
S.W. 998, 300 Mo. 123.
35. Or.— State v. Rathie, 200 P. 790,
101 Or. 368.
34 OJ. p 392 note 68.
Essentials of remedy remain
While the statute abolishes the
writ, it does not abolish the essen-
tials of the proceeding, which re-
main the same. — People ex rel. Waite
v. Bristow, 62 N.E.2d 545, 391 111.
101— Frank v. Salomon, 34 N.E.2d
424, 376 111. 439— People v. Sullivan,
171 N.E. 122, 339 111. 146— Jacobson
v. Ashkinaze, 168 N.E. 647, 337 111.
141 — Harris v. Chicago House-
Wrecking, Co., 145 N.E. 666, 314 111.
500 — Marabia v. Mary Thompson
Hospital of Chicago for Women and
Children, 140 N.E. 836, 309 111. 1'47 —
Coultry v.' Yellow Cab Co., 252 111.
562
App. 443 — Waldron v. Tarpey, 234 I1L
App. 287 — Reid v. Chicago Rys. Co.,
231 IlLApp. 58—34 C.J. p 392 note
68 [c] (1).
36. Tenn. — Gates v. City of McKen-
zie, 141 S.W.2d 471, 176 Tenn. 313
— Central Franklin Process Co. v.
Gann, 133 S.W.2d 503, 175 Tenn.
267 — Hyde v. Dunlap, 8 Tenn. App.
260.
34 C.J. p 392 note 69.
37. Wis.— Ernst v. State, 192 N.W.
65, 179 Wis. 646, 30 A.L.R. 681.
38. Ind.— Berry v. State, 173 N.E.
705, 202 Ind. 294, 72 A.L.R. 1177.
Wis.— Ernst v. State, 192 N.W. 65,
179 Wis. 646, 30 A.L.R. 681.
34 C.J. p 392 note 70.
39. N.C.— Latham v. Hodges, 35 N.
C. 267.
34 C.J. p 392 note 77.
40. Tenn. — Welsh v, Harman, 8
Terg. 103.
34 C.J. p 392 note 79.
41. Ind.— State ex rel. Emmert v.
Hamilton Circuit Court, 61 N.E.2d
182.
43. Mo.— Reed v. Bright, 134 S.W.
653, 232 Mo. 399.
34 C.J. p 392 note 80.
43. Mich.— Teller v. Wetherttl, 6
Mich. 46.
34 C.J. p 392 note 81.
44. Tenn. — Lamb v. Sneed, 4 Baxt
349.
34 C.J. p 392 note 82.
45. Ohio. — Dows v. Harper, -6 Ohio
518, 521, 27 Am.D. 270.
34 C.J. p 392 note 83.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
312
writ depends on the statutes controlling their ju-
risdiction and practice.46 In England the writ did
not lie either in the house of lords,47 or in the ex-
chequer chamber,48 but did lie in the king's bench
and common pleas.49
Since the writ of error coram nobis, is a com-
mon-law writ, it is inappropriate in chancery pro-
ceedings.50 A divorce decree cannot be reviewed
by writ of error coram nobis.51 As appears in
•Criminal Law § 1606, the writ may be available
in criminal, as well as in civil, proceedings.
b. Other Adequate Remedies
The writ of error coram nobis will not lie where there
is another adequate remedy.
The writ of error coram nobis will not lie where
there is another adequate remedy,52 as by motion
to vacate the judgment,53 which, as discussed supra
§ 311, is now widely substituted for the writ, or by
motion for a new trial,54 or by appeal.55 As fall-
ing within this rule, it has been held that a writ of
error coram nobis will not lie on any of the fol-
lowing grounds, namely : Defenses available at the
trial ;56 accident and surprise;57 verdict against
evidence;58 newly discovered evidence;59 and oth-
er like matters.60
c. Errors of Fact
(1) In general
(2) Jurisdictional facts
(3) Disability or death
(4) Fraud, mistake, and clerical errors
(5) New or adjudicated facts
(1) In General
A writ of error coram nobis lies for an error of fact
not apparent on the record, not attributable to the ap-
plicant's negligence, and which, if known by the court,
would have prevented rendition of the judgment.
A writ of error coram nobis lies, sometimes by
virtue of statutory provisions, for an error of fact,6*
46. Ky. — Breckinridge v. Coleman,
7 B.Mon. 331.
34 CJT. p 393 note 84.
47. 111.— Nikola v. Campus Towers
Apartment Bldg. Corporation, 25
N.E.2d 582, 303 IlLApp. 516.
34 C.J. p 393 note 85.
48. 111.— Nikola v. Campus Towers
Apartment Bids. Corporation, su-
pra.
34 C.J. p 393 note 86.
49. Ohio. — Dows v. Harper, 6 Ohio
518, 27 Am.D. 270.
34 C.J. p 393 note 87.
50. Ala, — Snodgrass v. Snodgrass,
101 So. 837, 212 Ala. 74.
111.— Frank v. Salomon, 34 N.E.2d
424, 376 111. 439— Corpus Jttris cit-
ed la, Frank v. Newburger, 19 N.E.
'2d 147, 153, 298 IlLApp. 548— Cor-
pus Juris cited in People v. Jans-
sen, 263 IlLApp. 101, 104.
34 C.J. p 393 note 89.
Beason for role
In chancery the court may at any
time, either by motion or by a nunc
pro tune order or by a motion in
the nature of a bill of review, cor-
rect the record or make the decree
or judgment speak the truth. — Peo-
ple v. Janssen, 263 IlLApp. 101.
51. Tenn.— Tarver v. Tarver, 10
Tenn. App. 677.
52. Colo.— Tatarsky v. De Vere, 242
P. 973, 78 Colo, 496.
Kan.— Gibson v. Enright, 37 P.2d
1017, 140 Kan. 700.
Mo. — Bank of Skidmore v. Ripley,
App., 84 S.W.2d 185.
34 C.J. p 393 note 90.
Other remedy inadequate . .
Fact that motion to set aside Judg-
ment for irregularities patent on
record and errors of fact calling for
introduction of evidence dehors the
record was filed within one year
after rendition of judgment did not
preclude substitution of coram nobis
proceeding for writ of error, since
writ of error proceeding would pre-
clude establishment of errors of
fact dehors the record. — Crabtree v.
JEtna Life Ins. Co., Ill SlW.2d 103,
341 Mo. 1173.
53. Wis.— Second Ward Bank v. Up-
man, 14 Wis. 596.
54. Miss.— Fugate v. State, 37 So.
554, 85 Miss. 94, 107 Am.S.R, 268,
3 Ann.Cas. 326.
34 C.J. p 393 note 93.
55. Ind.— Sanders v. State, 85 Ind.
318, 44 Am.R. 29.
56. 111.— Seither & Cherry Co. v.
Board of Education of District No.
15, Town of La Harpe, 283 IlLApp.
392.
Ind.— Sanders v. State, 85 Ind* 318,
44 Am.R. 29.
Mo. — Townsend v. Boatmen's Nat
Bank, App., 148 S.W.2d 85.
57. Ind.— Sanders v. State, 85 Ind.
318, 44 Am.R. 29.
Error of fact caused by accident or
surprise see infra subdivision c
(4) of this section.
58. Ind. — Sanders v. State, supra.
59. Ind.— Sanders v. State, supra,
34 C.J. p 393 note -98.
New evidence as showing error of
•fact see infra subdivision c (5) of
this section.
60. Miss.— Fugate v. State, 37 So.
554, 85 Miss. 94, 107 AnauS.R. 268,
3 Ann.Cas. 326.
34 C.J. p 393 note 99.
61. U.S. — Hiawassee Lumber Co. v.
U. S., C.C.A.N.C., 64 F.2d 417—
New England Furniture & Carpet
Co. v. Willcuts, D.C.Minn., 55 F.2d
983— United States v. One Trunk
563
Containing Fourteen Pieces of Em-
broidery. D.C.N.Y., 155 F. 651—
McGinn v. U. S., D.C.Mass., 2 F.
KJX 562.
Colo. — Tatarsky v. De Vere, 242 P.
973, 78 Colo. 496.
Fla. — Catlett v. Chestnut, 168 So. 26,
120 Fla. 636— Williams v. Yelving-
ton, 137 So. 156, 103 Fla. 145.
111.— McCord v. Briggs & Turivas,
170 N.E. 320, 338 111. 158— Harris
v. Chicago House-Wrecking Co.,
145 N.E. 666, 314 111. 500— Marabift
v. Mary Thompson Hospital of
Chicago for Women and Children,
140 N.E. 836, 309 111. 147— Nikola
v. Campus Towers Apartment
Bldg. Corporation, 25 N.E.2d 582,
303 IlLApp. 516— Reid v. Dolan,
19 N.E.2d 764, 299 IlLApp. 612—
Martin v. Starr, 255 IlLApp. 189
— Waldron v. Tarpey, 234 IlLApp.
287.
Ind.— Berry v. State, 173 N.E. 705,
202 Ind. 294, 72 A.L.R. 1177.
Mo. — Badger Lumber Co. v. Good-
rich, 184 S.W.2d 435, 353 Mo. 769
— Corpus Juris cited in, City of
St Louis v. Franklin Bank, 173
S.W.2d 837, 846, 351 Mo. 688—
Spotts v. Spotts, 55 S.W.2d 984,
331 Mo. 942— Scott v. Hees, 253
S.W. 998, 300 Mo. 123— Pike v.
Pike, App.. 193 S.W.2d 637— Town-
send v. Boatmen's Nat Bank, App.,
148 S.W.2d 85— Haines v. Jeffrey
Mfg. Co., App., 31 S.W.2d 26P—
Mefford v. Mefford. App., 26 S.W.
2d ,804 — Schneider v. Schneider,
App., 273 S.W. 1081— Hartford
Fire Ins. Co. v. Stanfill, App., 259
S.W. 867— Bagland v. Ragland,
APP., 258 S.W. 728.
Tenn. — Central Franklin Process Co.
v. Gann, 133 S.W.2d 503, 175 Tenn.
267.
34 C.J. P 393 note 1, p 395 note 13.
§312
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
was
32. -g-.S. — New England Furniture
& Carpet Co. v. Willcuts, D.C.
Minn., 55 F.2d 983— McGinn v. U.
S., D.C.Mass., 2 F.R.D. 562.
, Fla.— Cole v. Walker Fertilizer Co.,
for Use and Benefit of Walker, 1
So.2d 864, 147 Fla. 1— Williams v.
Telvington, 137 So. 156, 103 Fla.
145.
111. — People ex rel. Waite v. Bristow,
62 N.B.2d 545, 391 111. 101— Je-
rome v. 5019-21 Quincy Street
Bldg. Corporation, 53 N.B.2d 444,
385 111. 524— Linehan v. Travelers
Ins. Co., 18 N.E.2d 178, 370 HI.
157— People v. Sullivan, 171 N.B.
122, 339 111. 146 — McCord v. Briggs
& Turivas, 170 N.B. 320, 338 111.
158— Jacobson v. Ashkinaze, 168 N.
B. 647, 337 111. 141— Marabia v.
Mary Thompson Hospital of Chi-
cago for Women and Children. 140
N.B. 836, 309 111. 147— Frank v.
Newburger, 19 N.E.2d 147, 298 111.
App. 548— Maher v. New York, C.
& St. L. R. Co., 8 N.E.2d 512. 290
IlLApp. 267— Chicago Faucet Co. v.
839 Lake St. Bldg. Corporation, 1
N.E.2d 865, 285 IlLApp. 151— Swi-
erez v. Nalepka, 259 IlLApp. 262—
Martin v. Starr, 255 IlLApp. 189—
Mitchell v. Bareckson, 250 IlLApp.
508— Waldron v. Tarpey, 234 111.
App. 287.
Miss.— ^Corpus Juris quoted in Carra-
way v. State, 141 So. 342, 343, 163
Miss. 639.
Mo.— Badger Lumber Co. v. Good-
rich, 184 S.W.2d 435, 353 Mo. 769—
City of St. Louis v. Franklin Bank,
173 S.W.2d 837, 351 Mo. 688—
Corpus Juris cited in Crabtree v.
JEtna Life Ins. Co., Ill S.W.2d
103, 106, 341 Mo. 1173 — Fadler v.
Gabbert, 63 S.W.2d 121, 333 Mo,
851— Scott v. Rees, 253 S.W. 998,
300 Mo. 123— Pike v. Pike, App.,
193 S.W.2d 637— Townsend v.
Boatmen's Nat. Bank, App., 148
• S.W.2d SS^Jeffrey v. Kelly, App.,
146 S.W.2d 850— State ex reL Cap-
low v. Kirkwood, App., 117 S.W.2d
652— Bank of Skidmore v. Ripley,
App., 84 S.W.2d 185— Kings Lake
Drainage, Dist. v. Winkelmeyer, 62
S.W.2d 1101, 228 Mo.App. 1102—
Hecht Bros. Clothing Co. v. Walk-
er, 35 S.W.2d 372, 224 Mo.App. 1156
— Schneider v. Schneider, App., 273
S.W. 1081.
Tenn.— Roller v. Burrow, 175 S.W.2d
537, 180 Tenn. 380, rehearing de-
nied 177 S.W.2d 547, 180 Tenn. 380
— Roy Newman Cigar Co. v. Mur-
phy, 2 Tenn. App. 321.
Wis.— Ernst v. State, 192 N.W. 65
179 Wis. 646, 30 A.L.R. 681.
Wyo. — Corpus Juris cited in Schoo
, Dist No. 7 in Weston County v
School Dist. No. 1 in Weston Coun
ty, 236 P. 1029, 1Q31, 33 Wyo. 65
-S4 C.J. p 394 note 2.
63. U.S.— McGinn v. IT. S., D.C.
Mass., 2 F.R.D. 562.
Colo.— Tatarsky v. De Vere, 242 P.
973, 78 Colo. 496.
Fla.— Cole v. Walker Fertilizer Co.,
for Use and Benefit of Walker, 1
So.2d 864, 147 Fla. 1— Catlett v.
Chestnut, 163 So. 26, 120 Fla, 636
— Williams v. Yelvington, 137 So.
156, 103 Fla. 145.
HI. — Linehan v. Travelers Ins. Co.,
18 N.E.2d 178, 370 111. 157— People
v. Sullivan, 171 N.B. 122, 339 111-
146— Marabia v. Mary Thompson
Hospital of Chicago for Women
and Children, 140 N.B. 836, 309
111. 147— Joseph Kaszab, Inc. v.
Gibson, App., 63 N.B.2d 629— Reid
v. Dolan. 19 N.B.2d 764, 299 111.
App. 612 — Chicago Faucet Co. v.
839 Lake St. Bldg. Corporation, 1
N.B.2d 865, 285 IlLApp. 151—
Lynn v. Multhauf, 279 IlLApp. 210
—Martin v. Starr, 255 IlLApp. 189
— Hickman v. Ritchey Coal Co.,
252 IlLApp. 560 — MeGrath & Swan-
son Const. Co. v. Chicago Rys. Co.,
252 IlLApp. 476— Mitchell v. Bar-
eckson, 250 IlLApp. 508— Waldron
v. Tarpey, 234 IlLApp. 287— Reid
v. Chicago Rys. Co., 231 IlLApp.
58.
Miss. — Corpus Juris quoted in Carra-
way v. State, 141 So. 342, 343, 163
Miss. 639.
Mo. — Badger Lumber Co. v. Good-
rich, 184 S.W.2d 435, 353 Mo. 769—
City of St. Louis v. Franklin Bank,
173 S.W.2d 837, 351 Mo. 688 —
Pike v. Pike, App., 193 S.W.2d 637
— Townsend v. Boatmen's Nat.
Bank, App., 148 S.W.2d 85— Ross
v. Davis, 139 S.W.2d 542, 234 Mo.
App. 1079— Ex parte Messina, 128
S.W.2d 1082, 233 Mo.App. 1234—
Bank of Skidmore v. Ripley, App.,
84 S.W.2d 185— Kings Lake Drain-
age Dist v. Winkelmeyer, 62 S.W.
2d 1101, 228 Mo.App. 1102— Hecht
Bros. Clothing Co. v. Walker, 35
S.W.2d 372, 224 Mo.App. 1156—
Haines v. Jeffrey Mfg. Co., App.
81 S.W.2d 269— Mefford v. Mefford
App., 26 S.W.2d 804 — Schneider v
Schneider, App., 273 S.W. 1081—
Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Stanfill
App., 259 S.W. 867.
•Wy0, — Corpus Juris cited in Schoo
Dist. No. 7 in Weston County v
School Dist. No. 1 in Weston Coun-
ty, 236 P. 1029, 1031, 33 Wyo. 65
34 C.J. P 394 note 3. •
The Judgment must be silent as to
the matter complained of as const!
tuting an error of fact — McCord v
Briggs & Turivas, 170 N.E. 820, 33"
111. 158.
64. Colo. — Corpus Juris cited in
Grandbouche v. People, 89 P:2d 577
582, 104 Colo. 175— Tatarsky v. D
Vere, 212 P. 973, 78 Colo. 496.
564
Del. — Corpus Juris cited iu Tweed
v. Lockton, 167 A. 703, 705, 5 Harr.
474.
Pla.— Cole v. Walker Fertilizer Co.,
for Use and Benefit of Walker, 1
So.2d 864, 147 Fla. 1— Catlett v.
Chestnut, 163 So. 26, 120 Fla. 636
—Williams v. Telvington, 137 So.
156, 103 Fla. 145.
11.— People ex rel. Waite v. Bris-
tow, 62 N.E.2d 545, 391 111. 101—
Linehan v. Travelers Ins. Co., 18
N.B.2d 178, 370 111. 157— People v.
Sullivan, 171 N.B. 122, 339 111.
146— McCord v. Briggs & Turivas,
170 N.E. 320, 338 111. 158— Jacob-
son v. Ashkinaze, 168 N.B. 647,
337 111. 141— Loew v. Krauspe, 150
N.E. 683, 320 111. 244— Marabia v.
Mary Thompson Hospital of Chi-
cago for Women and Children, 140
N.B. 836, 309 111. 147 — Joseph Kas-
zab, Inc., v. Gibson, App., 63 N.E.
2d 629— Reid v. Dolan, 19 N.E.2d
764, 299 IlLApp. 612— Chicago Fau-
cet Co. v. 839 Lake St. Bldg. Cor-
poration, 1 N.E.2d '865, 285 111.
App. 151 — Seither & Cherry Co. v.
Board of Education of District No.
15, Town of La Harpe, 283 Ill.App.
392 — Heinsius- v. Poehlmann, 282
Ill.App. 472 — Lynn v. Multhauf,
279 IlLApp. 210— Swiercz v. Nalep-
ka, 259 IlLApp. 262 — Martin v.
Starr, 255 IlLApp. 189 — Hickman
v. Ritchey Coal Co., 252 IlLApp.
560 — MeGrath & Swanson Const.
Co. v. Chicago Rys. Co., 252 111.
App. 476— Coultry v. Yellow Cab
Co., 252 IlLApp. 443 — Mitchell v.
Bareckson, 250 IlLApp. 508— Wal-
dron v. Tarpey, 234 IlLApp. 287—
Reid v. Chicago Rys. Co., 231 111.
App. 58.
Md.— Corpus Juris cited In Keane v.
State, 166 A. 410, 412, 164 Md. 685
—Hawks v. State, 157 A. 900, 162
Md. 30.
Miss.— Corpus Juris quoted in Carra-
way v. State, 141 So. 342, 343, 163
Miss. 639.
Mo. — Corpus Juris cited in, Badger
Lumber Co. v. Goodrich, 184 S.W.
2d 435, 438, 353 Mo. 769— Corpus
juris cited in City of St Louis
v. Franklin Bank, 178 S.W.2d 837,
846, 351 Mo. 688 — Crabtree v. ./Etna
Life Ins. Co., Ill S.W.2d 103, 341
Mo. 1173— Pike v. Pike, App., 193
S.W.2d 637— Quattrochi v. Quat-
trochi, App., 179 S.W.2d 757—
Townsend v. Boatmen's Nat Bank,
App., 148 S.W.2d 85— Jeffrey v.
Kelly, App., 146 S.W.2d 850— Ex
parte Messina, 128 S.W.2d 1082,
233 Mo.App. 1234— State ex rel.
Caplow v. Kirkwood, App., 117 S.
W.2d 652 — Bank of Skidmore v.
Ripley, App,, 84 S.W.2d 185—
Kings Lake Drainage Dist. v. Win-
kelmeyer, 62 S,W.2d 1101, 228 Mo.
App. 1102— Hecht Bros. Clothing
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
312
not consider any facts which might have been pre-
sented to the court on the trial of the cause;65 and
the writ will not lie where the party complaining
knew the fact complained of, at the time of, or
before trial, or, by the exercise of reasonable dili-
gence, might have known it,66 or is otherwise guilty
of negligence in the matter.67
While the court will not look into the cause of
action on which the judgment was rendered,68 or
consider facts going to the merits of the cause,69
the error of fact to be corrected by this writ must
be an error of fact pertinent to the issues in the
case, and not mere extraneous matters,70 Only
such errors may be assigned as are consistent with
the record before the court.71 An absolutely cor-
rect record cannot be annulled, changed, or ex-
punged by a writ coram nobis.72
(2) Jurisdictional Facts
A mistake as to the existence of a fact on which Ju-
Co. v. Walker, 35 S.W.2d 372, 224
Mo.App. 1156 — Haines v. Jeffrey
Mfg. Co., App., 31 S.W.2d 269—
Mefford v. Mefford, App., 26 S.W.
2d 804 — Degener v. Kelly, App., 6
S.W.2d 998— Hartford Fire Ins.
Co. v. Stanfill, App., 259 S.W. 867
— Ragland v. Ragland, App., 258
S.W. 728.
Tex,— Ex parte Minor, 27 S.W.2d 805,
115 Tex.Cr. 634.
Wash. — Pacific Telephone & Tele-
graph Co. v. Henneford, 92 P.2d
214, 199 Wash. 462, certiorari de-
nied Henneford v. Pacific Tele-
phone & Telegraph Co., 59 S.Ct
483, 306 U.S. 637, 83 L.Ed. 1038.
Wyo. — Corpus Juris cited in School
Dist. No. 7 in Weston County v.
School Dist. No. 1 in Weston Coun-
ty, 236 P. 1029, 1031, 33 Wyo. 65.
34 C.J. p 394 note 4.
65. Ark. — Corpus Juris quoted in
State v. Hudspeth, 88 S.W.2d 858,
861, 191 Ark. 963.
111. — Seither & Cherry Co. v. Board
of Education of District No. 15,
Town of La Harpe, 283 111. App.
392— Lynn v. Multhauf, 27» 111.
App. 210 — Coultry v. Yellow Cab
Co., 252 IlLApp. 443,
Mo. — Townsend v. Boatmen's Nat.
Bank, App., 148 S.W.2d 85— Kings
Lake Drainage Dist v. Winkel-
meyer, 62 S.W.2d 1101, 228 Mo.
App. 1102.
•34 C.J. p 395 note 7.
•68. Ark. — Corpus Juris quoted in
State v. Hudspeth, 88 5.W.2& 858,
861, 191 Ark. 963.
Colo. — Tatarsky v. De Vere, 242 P.
973, 78 Colo. 496.
E*la.— Cole v. Walker Fertilizer Co.
for Use and Benefit of Walker, 1
So.2d -864, 147 'Fla. 1.
111. — Carroll, Schendorf & Boenicke
v. Hastings, 259 IlLApp. 564—
Mitchell v. Bareckson, 250 IlLApp.
508.
3£o. — Corpus Juris cited in. City of
St. Louis v. 'Franklin Bank, 173 -S.
W.2d 837, 846, 351 Mo. 688— Pike
v. Pike, App., ;i93 S.W.2d 637—
Quattrochi v. Quattrochi, App.,
179 S.W.2d 757— Corpus Juris cit-
ed in Jeffrey v. Kelly, App., 146 S.
W.2d 850, 852— State ex rel. Cap-
low v. Kirkwood, App., 117 S.W.
2d 652 — Bank of Skidmore v.- Rip-
ley, App., 84 S.W.2d 185— State ex
rel. Chadd v. American Surety Co.
of New York, App., -6-6 S.W.2d 941
—Kings Lake Drainage Dist. v.
Winkelmeyer, 62 S.W.2d 1101, 228
Mo.App. 1102 — Schneider v. Schnei-
der, App., 273 S.W. 10S1— Hartford
Fire Ins. Co. v. Stanfill, App., 259
S.W. 867.
'Tenn. — Hyde v. Dunlap, 8 Tenn.App.
260— Inman v. Fox, 1 Tenn.App.
11.9.
Wyo. — Corpus Juris cited in School
Dist. No. 7 in Weston County v.
School Dist. No. 1 in Weston Coun-
ty, 236 P. 1029, 1031, 33 Wyo. 65.
34 C.J. p 394 note 5.
67. Ark.-— Corpus Juris quoted in
State v. Hudspeth, 88 S.W.2d 858,
661, 191 Ark. 963.
Fla.— Williams v. Yelvington, 137
So. 156, 103 Fla. 145. .
111.— McCord v. Briggs & Turlvas,
170 N.E. 320, 338 111. 158— Joseph
Kaszab, Inc., v. Gibson, App., 63
N.E.2d 629— Blaha v. Turk, 12 N.
E.2d 338, 293 IlLApp. •626— In re
McKeogh's Estate, 11 N.E. 23 856,
293 IlLApp. 621— Sixty^Flrst &
Calument Apartments v. Woo, 9 N.
E.2d 491, 291 IlLApp. 607— Lynn v.
Multhauf, 279 IlLApp. 210.
Mo. — Badger ILumber Co. v. Good-
rich, 184 S.W.2d 435, 353 Mo. 769
—Pike v. Pike, App., 193 S.W.2d
637— Haines v. Jeffrey Mfg. Co.,
App., 31 S.W.2d 269 — Degener v.
Kelly, App., 6 S.W.2d 998.
Tenn. — Inman v. Fox, 1 Tenn.App.
119.
Wash. — Pacific Telephone & Tele-
graph Co. v. Henneford, 92 P.2d
214, 199 Wash. 462, certiorari de-
nied Henneford v. Pacific Tele-
phone & Telegraph Co., 59 S.Ct
483, 306 U.S. 637, 83 L.Ed 1038.
Wyo. — Corpus Juris cited in School
Dist No. 7 in Weston County v.
School Dist No. 1 in Weston Coun-
ty, 236 P. 1029, 1031, 33 Wyo. 65.
34 C.J. p 394 note <6.
GS. 111.— Seither & Cherry Co. v.
Board of Education of District No.
15, Town of La Harpe, 2-83 IlLApp.
•392.
Mo. — Townsend v. Boatmen's Nat
Bank, App., 148 S.W*2d 85 — Gen-
eral Motors Acceptance Corpora-
tion v. Lyman, 78 S.W.2d 109, 229
Mo.App. 455— Kings Lake Drainage
565
Dist v. Winkelmeyer, 62 S.W.2d
1101, 228 Mo.App. 1102.
34 C.J. p 395 note 11.
69. 111. — Seither & Cherry Co. v.
Board of Education of District No.
15, Town of (La Harpe, 283 111.
App. 392. •
Mo. — Badger Lumber Co. T. Good-
rich, 184 S.W.2d 435, 353 Mo. 769
— Townsend v. Boatmen's Nat.
Bank, App., 148 S.W.2d 85— State
ex rel. Caplow v. Kirkwood, App.,
117 S.W.2d 652— Kings Lake
Drainage Dist. v. Winkelmeyer, 62
S.W.2d 1101, 228 Mo.App. 1102.
7<X U.S.— McGinn v. U. S., D.C.
Mass., 2 F.R.D. 562.
Mo.— Spotts v. Spotts, 55 S.W.2d 984,
331 Mo. 942— Jeude v. Sims, 166 S.
W. 1048, 258 Mo. 26— Ross v. Da-
vis, 139 S.W.2d 542, 234 Mo.App.
1079 — Schneider v. Schneider, App..
273 S.W. 1081— Hartford Fire Ins.
Co. v. Stanfill, App., 259 S.W. 867
— Ragland v. Ragland, App., 258
S.W. 728.
71. 111.— McCord v. Briggs & Turi-
vas, 170 N.E. 320, 338 111. 158—
Nikola v. Campus Towers Apart-
ment Bldg. Corporation, 25 N.E.2d
582, 303 IlLApp. £16— Reid v. Do-
Ian, 19 N.E.2d 7*64, 299 IlLApp. 612
— Waldron v. Tarpey, 234 IlLApp.
287— Reid v. Chicago Rys. Co., 231
IlLApp. 58.
Mo. — Jeffrey v. Kelly, App., 146 S.W.
2d 850— Kings Lake Drainage Dist
v. Winkelmeyer, 62 S.W.2d 1101,
228 Mo.App. 1102— Baker v.
•Smith's Estate, 18 S.W.2d 147, 223
Mo.App. 1234, 226 Mo.App. 510.
Tenn. — Roller v. Burrow, 175 S.W.
2d 537, 180 Tenn. 3-30, rehearing de-
nied 177 S.W.2d 547, 180 Tenn. 380.
34 C.J. p 395 note 9.
sroaessential recital
"Writ of error coram nobis" can-
not be used to attack the verity of
recitals in a judgment essential to
its validity, but a recital that de-
fendant had been duly notified could
be attacked thereby, since such re-
cital was not essential to validity
of the judgment — General Motors
Acceptance Corporation v. Lyman, 78
S.W.2d 109, 229 Mo.App. 455.
72. Iowa. — Coppock v. Reed, 178 N*
W. 382. 189 Iowa 581, 10 A.LJR.
1407.
312
JUDGMENTS
49 O.J.S.
rlsdictlon to proceed depends, the defect not appearing
on the record, is ground for a writ of error coram nobls.
A mistake in regard to the existence of a fact on
which jurisdiction to proceed depends and which
defect does not appear on the face of the record
is ground for a writ of error coram nobis.73 How-
ever, where the jurisdictional defect appears on
the record, the error in giving judgment without
jurisdiction is one of law and not ground for this
writ;74 and similarly, if the court erroneously de-
termines that the jurisdictional requirements have
been met, such determination is not subject to re-
view on error coram nobis.75 The writ lies to ob-
tain relief against a judgment rendered by the court
without knowledge of the fact that there has been
no process or notice,76 or that there were such
defects in the process77 or in the service of the
process78 as to have prevented the rendition of the
judgment had the fact been known to the court
The writ lies where a resident defendant was
brought in by publication, or other form of sub-
stituted service, on the mistaken assumption that
he was a nonresident of the state.79
Under the rule, as considered in the C.J.S. title
Process § 100, also 50 CJ. p 574 note 94-p 575
note 7, that, after the term has ended in which the
judgment was entered, the sheriff's return of serv-
ice, on which jurisdiction of defendant depends,
cannot be contradicted in the same suit, but is con-
clusive as between parties and privies, a writ of
error coram nobis does not lie to vacate a judg-
ment on the ground that, contrary to the sheriffs
return, there was in fact no valid service,80 unless
such false return has been procured by the fraud of
plaintiff;81 but, where the sheriffs return is held
not conclusive, it may be contradicted on error cor-
am nobis.82
Where the rule prevails that a judgment based
on an unauthorized appearance by attorney is con-
clusive, as discussed supra § 26, the authority of
an attorney to enter defendant's appearance cannot
be questioned on error coram nobis.83 A mistake
in assuming an appearance for "defendants" was an
appearance for all defendants, including those not •
served, is ground for the writ to vacate the judg-
ment as against those not served.84
(3) Disability or Death
The writ lies, to correct a judgment where the fact
of death or disability of a party was unknown to the
court when Judgment was rendered.
The writ of error coram nobis will lie to correct
a judgment for or against a party under a disability
which would have prevented the rendition thereof
had the fact been known to the court.85
Infancy. A judgment for or against an infant
on the assumption that he is an adult, since he did
not appear by next friend or guardian ad litem as
the case may be, is irregular, and the mistake is
ground for relief on writ of error coram nobis.8e
73. 111.— Heinsius v. Poehlmann, 282
IlLApp. 472.
Mo.— Badger Lumber Co. v. Good-
rich, 184 S.W.2d 435, 353 Mo. 769
— City of St Louis v. -Franklin
Bank, 173 S.W.2d 837, 351 Mo. 688
— Crabtree v. ^Btna Life Ins. Co.,
Ill S.W.2d 103. 341 Mo. 1173—
Townsend v. Boatmen's Nat. Bank,
App., 148 S.W.2d 85— General Mo-
tors Acceptance -Corporation v.
Lyman, 78 S.W.2d 109, 229 Mo.App.
455— Baker v. Smith's Estate, 18 S.
W.2d 147, 223 Mo.App. 1234, 226
Mo.App. 510 — Sowers-Taylor Co. v.
Collins, App., 14 S.W.2d 692.
34 C.J. p 396 note 23.
74. 111.— Chapman v. North Ameri-
can Life Ins. Co., 126 N.B. 732, 292
111. 179.
Mo.— Baker v. Smith's Estate, IS S.
W.2d 147, 223 Mo.App. 1284, 226
Mo. App. 510.
75. Mo. — Hadley v. Bernero, 78 S.
W. 64, 103 Mo.App. $49.
34 C.J. p 396 note 24.
Adjudicated facts generally see in-
fra subdivision c (5) of this sec-
tion.
76. Mo. — Badger Lumber- Co. v.
Goodrich, 184 S.W.2d 435, 353 Mo.
759 — Townsend v. Boatmen's Nat
Bank, App., 148 S.W.2d 85.
34 C.J. p 396 note 26.
After continuance
Judgment entered for defendant
after ex parte setting aside of order
for continuance, entered by agree-
ment, is subject to attack by motion
in nature of writ of error coram no-
bis.— Carroll, Schendorf & Boenicke
v. Hastings, 259 IlLApp. 564.
77. 111. — Chapman v. North Ameri-
can Life Ins. Co., 126 N.E. 732, 292
111. 179.
34 C.J. >p 396 note 27.
78. U.S.— Phillips v. Russell, Super.
Ark., 19 F.Cas.No.ll,105a, Hempst
62.
79. Mo.— Hadley v. Bernero, 78 S.W.
64, 103 Mo.App. 549.
34 C.J. p 396 note 29.
80. 111. — Nikola v. Campus Towers
Apartment Bldg. Corporation, 25
N.E.2d 582, 803 IlLApp. 516— Chi-
cago Faucet Co. v. 839 'Lake St
Bldg. Corporation, 1 N.E.2d '865,
285 IlLApp. 151— Adams v. But-
man, 264 IlLApp. 378 — Satin v.
Twin City Fire Ins. Co. of Minne-
apolis, Minn., 238 IlLApp. 440—
Marquette Nat. Fire Ins. Co. v.
566
Minneapolis Fire & Marine Ins.
Co., 233 IlLApp. 102.
34 C.J. p 39'6 note 31.
81. 111. — Chicago Faucet Co. v. 83 fr
Lake St Bldg. Corporation, 1 N.E.
2d 865, 285 IlLApp. 151— Adams v.
Butman, 264 IlLApp. 375.
34 C.J. p 396 note 32.
82. N.Y. — Tracy v. Shannon, 3 N.T.
S. 245, 16 N.Y.Civ.Proc. 448, 22
Abb.N.Cas. 136.
34 C.J. p 396 note 34.
88. Miss.— Miller v. Ewing, 16 Miss.
421.
34 C.J. p 396 note 36.
84. Mo.— Craig v. Smith, 65 Mo. 536.
85. I1L — Marabia v. Mary Thompson
Hospital of Chicago for Women
and Children, 140 N.E. 836, 309 111.
147.
86. U.S.— McGinn v. U. S., D.C.
Mass., 2 F.R.D. 562.
I1L — Marabia v! Mary Thompson
Hospital of Chicago for Women
and Children, 140 N.E. 836, 309 HL
147.
Mo. — Schneider v. Schneider* App.,.
273 S.W. 1081.
34 C.J. p 395 note 17.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 312
Insanity. It is generally stated that a judgment
irregularly entered against an insane person may be
corrected by a writ of error coram nobis,87 although
there is authority to the contrary.8^ If, however,
the fact of insanity is known to the court at the
entry of the judgment, the writ will not lie.8^
Coverture. Where coverture is a disability ren-
dering a judgment for or against a married woman
irregular, as discussed in Husband and Wife §
389, the irregularity may be remedied by writ of
error coram nobis.90
Death tf party. Since a judgment for or against
a party after his death is irregular and erroneous,
as stated supra § 29, a writ of error coram nobis
lies to correct it.91
(4) Fraud, Mistake, and Clerical Errors
There is a conflict among the authorities on whether
the writ of error coram nobis will lie for fraud, accident,
or mistake, preventing a party from presenting his de-
fense. The writ lies to correct clerical errors or mis*
prisions.
According to some authorities, a writ of error
coram nobis will not lie for fraud,92 or for accident
or mistake,93 whereby the party was prevented from
presenting his defense; but there is also authority
to the contrary.94 Under some statutes, the writ
will lie as for a material error of fact where appli-
cant was prevented from making a defense through
fraud, accident, mistake, or surprise, without fault
on his part.95 The writ has been held not to lie for
alleged false testimony at the trial.96
Clerical errors. The writ of error coram nobis
lies to correct clerical errors or misprisions.97
(5) New or Adjudicated Facts
A writ of error coram nobis may not be grounded
on newly discovered evidence or newly arising facts after
judgment, or on facts adjudicated on the trial.
Neither newly discovered evidence on the issues
already heard and determined,98 .nor facts newly
arising after judgment,99 are ground for relief on
error coram nobis. Facts which were in issue and
adjudicated on the trial cannot be retried on writ
of error coram nobis j1 and this rule will be adhered
to, even though it is shown that the party applying
S7. 111. — Marabta v. Mary Thomp-
son Hospital of Chicago for Wo-
men and Children, 140 N.E. '838,
309 111. 147.
Mo.— Bank of -Skidmore v. Ripley,
App., 84 S.W.2d 185.
34 C.J. p 396 note 20.
£& W.Va. — Withrow v. Smithson, 17
S.E. 316, 37 W.Va, 757, 19 'L.R.A.
762.
•89. Mo. — Graves v. Graves, 164 S.W.
496, 255 Mo. 468.
«0t U.S.— McGinn v. U. S., D.C.
Mass., 2 P.R.D. 562.
.111. — Marabia v. Mary Thompson
Hospital of Chicago for Women
and Children, 140 N.E. )836, 309
111. 147.
"Mo. — Schneider v. Schneider, App.,
273 S.W. 1081.
34 C.J. p 395 note 19.
-U. U.S.— McGinn v. U. S., D.C.
Mass., 2 F.R.D. 562.
111. — Marabia v. Mary Thompson
Hospital of Chicago for Women
and Children, 140 N.E. 83-6, 309 111.
147.
Mo. — -Schneider v. Schneider, App.,
273 S.W. 1081.
34 C.J. p 395 note 15.
£3. Mo.— Spotts v. Spotts, 55 S.W.
2d 984, 331 Mo. . 942— -Haines v.
Jeffrey Mfg. Co., App., 31 S.W.2d
269 — Schneider v. Schneider, App.,
273 S.W. 1081— Hartford -Fire Ins.
Co. v. Stanflll, App., 259 S.W. 867—
Ragland v. Bagland, App., 258 S.
W. 728.
34 C.J. p 397 note 40.
.Fraud as to jurisdictional facts see
supra subdivision c (2) of this
section.
93. Mo.— Simms v. Thompson, 236 S.
W. 876, 291 Mo. 493— Haines v.
Jeffrey Mfg. Co., App., 31 S.W.2d
269.
94. 111.— People ex reL Waite v.
. Bristow, 62 N.E.2d 545, 391 I1L
101 — Jerome v. 5019-21 Quincy
Street Bldg. Corporation, 53 N.E.
2d 444, 385 111. 524— Jacobson v.
Ashkinaze, 168 N.E. 647, 337 111.
141 — Chapman v. North American
Life Ins. Co., 126 N.E. 732, 292 111.
179 — Joseph Kaszab, Inc., v. Gib-
son, App., 63 N.E.2d 629— Gunn v.
Britt, 39 N.E.2d 76, 313 IlLApp.
13.
95* Tenn. — Hyde v. Dunlap, 8 Tenn.
App. 260 — Inman v. Fox, 1 Tenn.
App. 119.
34 C.J.p 397 note 43.
Construction of allegations
Whenever a petitioner for a writ
of coram nobis has a meritorious
defense which he has for any rea-
son failed to make on trial, he is
entitled to as favorable a construc-
tion of allegations of the petition
showing surprise, accident, mistake,
or fraud without fault as is consist-
ent with the provisions of the stat-
ute regulating issuance of such a
writ.— Central Franklin Process Co.
v. Gann, 133 S.W.2d 503, 175 Tenn.
267— Rose v. Morrow, 10 Tenn.App.
698.
98. 111.— Conway v. Gill, 257 IlLApp.
606.
97. U.S. — Hiawassee Lumber Co. v.
U. S., C.C.A.N.C., 64 F.2d 417.
Del. — Corpus Juris cited, in Tweed v.
Lockton, 167* A, 703, 705, 5 Harrl
474.
567
111. — Simon v. Balasic, 39 N.B;2d 685,
313 IlLApp. 266— Butterick Pub.
Co. v. Goldfarb, 242 IlLApp. 228.
34 C.J. p 397 note 39.
What constitutes clerical arror
Dismissal of case because of no
advancement in pleadings for a year
is not a "clerical mistake, error or
default," cognizable by writ of error
coram nobis.— New England -Furni-
ture & Carpet Co. v. U. S., D.C.Minn.,
2 'F.Supp. 648.
98. Fla.— Corpus Juris quoted in
Cole v. Walker Fertilizer Co., for
Use and Benefit of Walker, 1 So.2d
£64, 147 Fla. 1 — Corpus Juris cit-
ed in Baker v. Peavy-Wilson Lum-
ber Co., 200 So. 528, 14«6 Fla. 217 —
Jennings v. Pope, 136 So. 471, 101
. Fla. 1476.
Kan. — Gibson v. Enright, 37 P.2d
1017, 140 Kan. 700.
Mo. — Callicotte v. Chicago, R. I. & P.
Ry. Co., 204 S.W. 528— Kings Lake
Drainage Dist v. Winkelmeyer, 62
S.W.2d 1101, 228 Mo.App. 1102.
34C.J. p 397 note 44.
99. Fla. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Cole v. Walker Fertilizer Co. for
Use and Benefit of Walker, 1 So.2d
864, 867, 147 Fla. 1 — Corpus Juris
cited in Baker v. Peavy-Wilson
Lumber Co., 200 So. 628, 146 'Fla.
217.
Mo.— Ragland v. Raglancl, App., 258
S.W. 728.
34 C.J. p 397 note 45.
1. Ala. — Snodgrass T. Snodgrass,
101 So. 837, 212 Ala, 74.
'Fla. — Corpus Juris quoted in Cole
v. Walker Fertilizer Co. for Use
and Benefit of Walker, 1 So.2d $64,
§ 312
JUDGMENTS
49 O.J.S.
for the writ will be able to produce most convinc-
ing evidence which was not available at the time
of the trial.2
d. Errors of Law
A writ of error coram nobls has been held not avail-
able to correct errors of law.
A writ of error coram nobis has been held not
available to correct errors of law.3
§ 313, Proceedings and Relief
a. In general
b. Jurisdiction
c. Limitations and laches
d. Parties
e. Application
f. Allowance and issuance of writ and
supersedeas
g. Pleadings
h. Evidence
i. Trial, judgment, and costs
a. In General
A writ of error coram nobls Is In substance a new
suit commenced to reverse a former Judgment.
As will appear in the succeeding subdivisions of
this section, proceedings to obtain a writ of error
coram nobis are generally instituted by petition or
motion, on notice to the adverse party, and, after
the issuance of the writ, plaintiff makes a formal
assignment of errors in the nature of a declara-
tion, and to this assignment defendant may plead
or demur; the issues resulting from the pleadings
are thereafter tried, and judgment either revoking
or affirming the original judgment is thereupon ren-
dered. The proceeding is in substance a new suit
commenced to reverse a former judgment4 The
proceeding is not for irregularity, but for error,5
and therefore is not governed by statutory provi-
sions relating to vacation of judgments for irreg-
ularity.6
b. Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction of a writ of error coram nobls Is exclu-
sively In the court which rendered the judgment.
The court which rendered the judgment has ex-
clusive jurisdiction of a writ of error coram nobis
to vacate it.7 The writ cannot be employed to re-
867, 147 Fla. 1 — Corpus Juris cit-
ed in. Baker v. Peavy-Wilson Lum-
ber Co., 200 So. 528, 146 Fla. 217—
Jennings v. Pope, 138 So. 471, 101
•Fla. 1476.
111. — Joseph Kaszab, Inc., v. Gibson,
App., 63 N.E.2d «629— Waldron v.
Tarpey, 234 IlLApp. 287.
Mo.— Callicotte v. Chicago, R. I. &
P. Ry. Co., 204 S.W. 528— Town-
send, v. Boatmen's Nat. Bank, App.,
148 S.W.2d 85.
Tenn. — Roller v. Burrow, 175 S.W.2d
537, ISO Tenn. 380, rehearing de-
nied 177 S.W.2d 547, 180 Tenn.
'380— Davis v. Robertson, 56 S.W.
2d 752, 165 Tenn. 609 — Roy New-
man Cigar Co. v. Murphy, 2 Tenn.
App. 321.
34 C.J. p 397 note 46.
Jurisdictional fact
Determination of fact necessary to
jurisdiction prevents new trial on
that issue by writ of error coram no-
bis.— Baker v. Smith's Estate, 18 S.
W.2d 147, 223 Mo.App. 1234, 226 Mo.
App. 510.
2. «Fla.— Baker v. Peavy-Wilson
Lumber Co., 200 So. 528, 146 Fla.
217.
3. 111.— People ex rel. Waite v.
Bristow, 62 N.E.2d 545, 391 111. 101
— Jerome v. 5019-21 Quincy Street
Bldg. Corporation, 53 N.E.2d 444,
385 111. 524—Linehan v. Travelers
Ins. Co., 18 N.B.2d 178, 370 111. 157
— Marabia v. Mary Thompson Hos-
pital of Chicago for Women and
Children, 140 N.E. 836, 309 111. 147
— Fickard v. Rice, App., 67 N.E.
2d 425, appeal transferred, se*e, 63
N.E.2d 743, 391 111. 615— Joseph
Kaszab, Inc., v. Gibson, App., -63
N.E.2d 629— Waldron v. Tarpey,
234 IlLApp. 287.
Md.— Hawks v. State, 157 A. 900, 162
Md. 30.
Mo.— City of St. Louis v. Franklin
Bank, 173 S.W.2d 837, 351 Mo. 688
— Corpus Juris cited in Spotts v.
Spotts, 66 S.W.2d 984, 985, 331 Mo.
942 — Townsend v. Boatmen's Nat.
Bank, App., 148 S.W.2d 85— State
ex rel. Caplow v. Kirkwood, App.,
117 S.W.2d 652— Hecht Bros.
Clothing Co."v. Walker, 35 S.W.2d
372, 224 Mo. App. 1156 — Haines v.
Jeffrey Mfg. Co., App., 31 S.W.2d
269— Mefford v. Mefford, App., 26
S.W.2d 804— Hartford Fire Ins. Co.
v. Stanfill, App., 259 S.W. 867.
Tenn. — Central Franklin Process Co.
v. Gann. 133 S.W.2d 503, 175 Tenn.
267 — Roy Newman Cigar Co. v.
Murphy, 2 Tenn. App. 321.
Wash.— Pacific Telephone & Tele-
graph Co. v. Henneford, 92 P.2d
214, 199 Wash. 462, certiorari de-
nied Henneford v. Pacific Tele-
phone & Telegraph Co., 5$ S.Ct.
483, 306 U.S. 637, 83 L.Ed. 1038.
Wyo. — Corpus Juris cited in School
Dist No. 7 in Weston County v.
School Dist. No. 1 in Weston Coun-
ty, 23-6 P. 1029, 1031, 33 Wyo. 65.
34 C.J. p 397 note 47.
Construction, of court rules
Error of court in construing its
rules is error of law to correct which
writ of error coram nobis will not
He.— -Swiercz v. Nalepka, 259 IlLApp.
262— La Page v. Devine, 195
140.
568
4. 111.— Christian v. Smirinotis, 57
N.E.2d 457, 388 111. 73— Joseph
Kaszab, Inc., v. Gibson, App., 63
N.E.2d 629— Reid v. Dolan, 19 N.
E.2d 764, 299 IlLApp. 612 — Topel v.
Personal Loan & Savings Bank, 9
N.E.2d 75, 290 IlLApp. •1558— Seither
& Cherry Co. v. Board of Educa-
tion, 283 IlLApp. 392— Martin v.
Starr, 255 IlLApp. 189.
Mo. — In re Sheldon's Estate, 189 S.
W.2d 235 — Bank of -Skidmore v.
Bartram, App., 142 S.W.2d 657—
State ex rel. Bank of Skidmore v.
Roberts, 116 S.W.2d 166, 232 Mo.
App. 1220.'
Tenn. — Rose v. Morrow, 10 Tenn.
App. 698 — Inman v. Fox, 1 Tenn.
APP. 119.
34 C.J. p 398 note 57.
Statement qualified
"While with respect to process,
pleadings and judgment the writ
may be considered as a new and in-
dependent action, yet it is not whol-
ly so but is supplementary in its
nature for the purpose of correcting
errors committed in a preceding
cause." — McGrath & Swanson Const.
Co. v. Chicago Rys. Co., 252 IlLApp.
476, 477.
5. Mo.— ODugan v. Scott, 37 Mo.App.
663.
6. Mo. — Dugan v. Scott, supra.
7. Ala.— Snodgrass v. Snodgrass,
101 So. 837, 212 Ala. 74,
HI. — Corpus Juris quoted in Mc-
Grath & -Swanson Const. Co. v.
Chicago Rys. Co., 252 IlLApp. 476,
478.
34 C.J. p 398 note 60.
49 0. J. S.
JUDGMENTS
313
verse the judgment of another court,8 especially a
higher one;9 nor can it be employed in an appel-
late court to set aside the judgment of an inferior
court.10
c. Limitations and Laches
Unless prescribed by statute, the time for prosecut-
ing a writ of error coram nobfs Is not limited, but the
relief may be barred by laches.
It has been held that there is no limitation of
time within which a writ of error coram nobis lies11
except where such a limitation is prescribed by stat-
ute.12 Relief may be refused, however, on the
ground of laches.13 A statute of limitations ap-
plicable to writs of error generally does not apply
to the writs of error coram nobis.14 In some ju-
risdictions statutes limiting the time for prosecuting
the remedy in analogous proceedings have been held
applicable, such as motions for a new trial,15 or
the prosecution of a writ of review.16
d. Parties
Only a party or privy to the record may procure a
writ of error coram nobis, and all those who may be af-
fected by the vacating of the Judgment should be joined.
A writ of error coram nobis can be procured only
by one who is a party, or privy to the record, and
who is prejudiced thereby,17 and not by a stranger
to the record.18 It has been held that the petition
must be brought in the names of all the parties
against whom the judgment was given,19 but there
is authority holding that only those parties as to
whom there was error of fact need be joined,20
and it has also been held that only those who have
rights against petitioner and who may be preju-
diced by the vacating of the judgment are neces-
sary parties.21 Where a married woman is under
the common-law disability, her husband must join
in the application.22
e. Application
Ordinarily notice of the application for a writ of er-
ror coram nobis must be given to the opposing party.
The application must set forth with, certainty and par-
ticularity the errors or defects on which It Is based.
Notice of the application must be given to the op-
posing party or to his attorney,23 unless sufficient
reason for omitting notice is made to appear,24 or
unless notice is waived.25
Moving papers. The proper mode of proceed-
ing is by petition or motion,26 in writing,27 setting
forth with certainty and particularity the errors or
defects complained of;28 but the want of such al-
legations may be cured by failure of the adverse
party to move for a dismissal.29 If the petition is
insufficient, advantage may be taken of the defect
by motion to dismiss,30 made at any time,31 unless
a Wash. — Pacific Telephone & Tel-
egraph Co. v. Henneford, 92 P.2d
214, 199 Wash. 463, certiorari de-
nied Henneford v. Pacific Tele-
phone & Telegraph Co., 59 S.Ct
483, 306 U.S. 637, 83 L.Ed. 1033.
34 C.J. p 398 note 61.
9. N.C.—Latham v. Hodges, 35 N.C.
267.
10. Mo. — Forest Lumber Co. v. Os-
ceola Lead & Zinc Min. Co., 222
S.W. 398.
11. U.S.— McGinn v. TJ. S., B.C.
Mass., 2 F.R.D. 562.
Mo. — Corpus Juris cited in In re
Sheldon's Estate, 189 S,W.2d 235,
237.
34 C.J. p 398 note 64.
Expiration of the term at which
the challenged judgment was ren-
dered does not prevent allowance of
the writ at a subsequent term. —
Bank of Skidmore v. Rlpley, Mo.
App., 84 S.W.2d 185.
12. Tenn.— Gates v. City of McKen-
zie, 141 S.W,2d 471, 176 Tenn. 313.
34 C.J. p 398 note -65.
The purpose of statute providing
that a writ of error coram nobis
may be had within one year from
rendition of the judgment is to lim-
it right to proceed thereunder to
one year from time when matters
complained of in petition for review
had been considered and adjudicat-
ed, having in mind that such pro-
ceedings should be brought before
such a lapse of time as would make
it unlikely that witnesses could be
reproduced and the facts correctly
reviewed.— Cates v. City of McKen-
zie, supra.
13. Mo.— Gibson v. Pollock, 166 S.
W. 874, 179 Mo.App. 188.
Tenn.— Sisson v. Delaney, 8 Tenn.
App. 442.
14. U.S.— Strode v. Stafford Jus-
tices, C.C.Va., 23 F.Cas.No.13,337,
1 Brock. 162.
34 C.J. p 398 note 67.
15. Conn. — Jefltery v. (Fitch, 46
Conn. 601.
16. Tex.— "Weaver v. Shaw, 5 Tex.
286.
17. Ala.— Snodgrass v. Snodgrass,
101 So. 837, 212 Ala. 74.
Mo. — Baker v. Smith's Estate, 18 S.
W.2& 147, 223 Mo.App. 1234, 226
Mo.App. 510.
34 C.J. p 39S note 70.
Bank depositors
• Writ of error coram nobis to re-
verse consent decree dismissing bank
superintendent's suit on bond would
lie at instance of depositors, al-
though not parties to original suit
—Davis v. Robertson, 56 S.W.2d 752,
165 Tenn. 609.
ia Tenn,— Hillman v. Chester, 12
Heisk. 34.
569
19. Ky. — Watson v. Whaley, 2 Bibb.
392.
34 C.J. p 399 note 72.
20. N.C.— Roughton v. Brown, 53 N.
C. 393.
21. Tenn. — Rose v. Morrow, 10
Tenn. App. -698.
22. N.C. — Houghton v. Brown, 53 NT.
C. 393.
23. U.S.— Wetmore v. Karrick, App.
D.C., 27 S.Ct. 434, 205 U.S. 141, 51
L,Ed. 7-45.
34 C.J. p 399 note 75.
24. N.Y. — Ferris v. Douglass, 20
Wend. 626.
25. Tenn. — Crawford v. Williams, 1
Swan 341.
26. 111. — Topel v. Personal Loan &
Savings Bank, 9 N.E.2d 75, 290
IlLApp. 558.
34 C.J. p 399 note 78.
27. Ky. — Handley v. Fitzhugh, Z A.
KMarsh. 561.
34 C.J. p 399 note 79. •
28. Tenn. — Dunnivant v. Miller, 1
Baxt. 227.
34 C.J. p 399 note 80.
29. Tenn. — Hicks v. . Haywood, 4
Heisk. 598.
30. Tenn.— Inman v. Fox, 1 Tenn.
App. 119.
34 C.J. p*399 note 82.
31. Tenn. — Elliott v. McNairy, 1
§ 313
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
the right to do so is waived82 A motion to dismiss
admits the allegations of the petition.83 A petition
or motion must be accompanied by an affidavit
showing the occasion therefor.34 A petition may be
amended but, in allowing it, the court will exercise
great caution.3^ The papers on the application
should not be entitled in any suit.36
Bond. Petitioner must comply with a statutory
provision requiring a bond to be given at the time
of the filing of the petition.37
f . Allowance and Issuance of Writ and Super-
sedeas
The granting of the writ of error coram nobis de-
pends on a showing of cause and is generally held to be
a matter of discretion, not of right; and the granting of
a supersedeas is likewise discretionary.
While it has been held that a writ of error coram
nobis is a writ of right,3* it usually has been held
that it is not a writ of right but is granted only on
a showing of cause,39 and even then it is in the
court's discretion whether or not, on the affidavits
presented, to allow the writ40 However, if the
circumstances warrant the allowance of the writ,
relief should not be denied on immaterial grounds.41
At common law, the trial of the sufficiency of the
petition was preliminary to the trial on the assign-
ment of errors, and was independent of it,42 but in
some jurisdictions the two are now blended togeth-
er.48 On an application for the writ, the fact as-
signed is not decided by the court definitively;44
nor will the court look at the cause of action on
which the judgment was recovered.46 The fact
that applicant acted with palpable dishonesty and
bad faith is not ground for its refusal.46 If, on
an application for such a writ, plaintiff elects to
vacate the judgment,4? or if the writ will avail
nothing,48 the application will be denied. It must
appear with reasonable certainty that there has
been some error in fact, before the writ will be al-
lowed.49
Although the writ issues on an order of the court
allowing it,50 it is necessary to obtain something
more than a mere rule that writ of error issue.51
The usual rule in such cases is that a writ of er-
ror in the nature of error coram nobis be allowed.52
In practice, however, the actual issuance of the writ
is a fiction, as the writ never issues,53 the writ be-
ing presumed to issue on the fiat of the judge.54
In some states the writ issues in the name of the
people and is directed to the supreme court.55 The
writ coram nobis properly commands, "that the rec-
ord and proceedings remaining before you being in-
spected, you cause further to be done/' etc.,56 and
it must assign errors.57
The name of the parties in the judgment sought
to be reversed must be correctly stated, or the writ
Baxt. 342— Inman r. Pox, 1 Tenn.
App. 119.
32. Tenn. — Inman v. -Fox, 1 Tenn.
App. 119— Elliott v. McNairy. 1
Baxt. 342.
33. 111. — Chapman v. North Ameri-
can Life Ins. 12$ N.E. 732, 292 111.
179.
34 C.J. p 399 note 85.
34. Tenn. — Reid v. Hoffman, 6
Heisk. 440.
34 C.J. p 399 note 86.
35. Tenn.— Baxter v. Grandstaft, 3
Tenn.Ch. 244.
34 C.J. p 399 note 87.
36. N.Y.— Maher v. Comstock, 1
How.Pr. 175.
34 C.JT. p 399 note 88.
317. Tenn. — Roller v. Burrow, 175 S.
W.2d 537, 180 Tenn. 380, rehearing
denied 177 S.W.Sfl 547, 180 Tenn.
380.
38. Ky.— Breckinridge v. Coleman, 7
B.Mon. 331.
39. Colo. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Medberry v. People, 108 P.2d 243,
247, 107 Colo. 15 — Corpus Juris cit-
ed in Grandbouche v. People, 89 P.
2d 577, 582, 104 Colo. 175.
<Fla.— Williams v. Yelvington, 137
So. 156, 103 Fla. 145.
34 C.J. p 399 note 90.
40. U.S. — Lupfer v. <C.arlton, for Use
and Benefit of Board of Public In-
struction of Bade County, C.C.A.
Fla., 64 F.2d 272.
Colo. — Corpus Juris quoted in Med-
berry v. People, 108 P.2d 243, 247
107 Colo. 15— Corpus Juris cited in
Grandbouche v. People, 89 P.2d 577,
582, 104 Colo. 175.
Fla.— Cole v. Walker 'Fertilizer Co.,
for Use and Benefit of Walker, 1
So.2d 864, 147 Fla, 1— Williams v.
Yelvington, 137 So. 156, 103 Fla,
145.
Kan.— Gibson v. Enright, 37 P.2d
1017, 140 Kan. 700.
Mo.— Pike v. Pike, App., 193 S.W.2d
*37.
34 C.J. p 400 note 91.
41. Mo. — Badger Lumber Co. v.
Goodrich, 184 S.W.2d 435, 353 Mo.
769 — Bank of Skidmore v. Ripley,
App., 84 S.W.2d 185.
42. Tenn. — Jacobs .v. Silverman, 93
•S.W.2d 648, 19 TennApp. 629—
Boiling v. Anderson, 1 Tenn.Ch.
127.
43. Tenn. — Jacobs v. Silverman, 93
S.W.2d 648, 19 Tenn.App. 629—
Boiling v. Anderson, l Tenn.Cn.
127.
44. N.C.— Tyler v. Morris, 20 N.C.
487, 34 Am.D. 395.
45. N.Y.— Higbie v. Comstock, 1
Den. 652.
570
46. N.Y.— Higbie v. Comstock, su-
pra,
47. N.Y.— Higbie v. Comstock, su-
pra,
48. Mo. — Hartman v. Hart man, 133
S.W. 669,' 154 Mo.App. 243.
49. Fla,—Catlett v. Chestnut, 163
So. 26, 120 'Fla, 63*6.
Miss.— Corpus Juris cited in Carra-
way v. State, 141 So. 342, 343, 163
Miss. 639.
N.Y.— Ferris v. Douglass, 20 Wend.
626.
5a N.Y.--Comstock v. Van Schoon-
hoven, 3 How.Pr. 258.
34 C.J. p 400 note 1.
51. N.Y.— Comstock v. Van Schoon-
hoven, supra.
52. N.Y. — Comstock v. Van Schoon-
hoven, supra.
53. Tenn. — Elliott v. McNairy 1
Baxt 342.
54. Mo.-^Teude v. Sims, 166 S.W.
1048, 258 Mo. 26, 41.
34 C.J. p 400 note 5.
55. N.Y.— Comstock v. Van Schoon-
hoven, 3 How.Pr. 25$.
50. N.Y. — Comstock v. Van Schoon-
hoven, supra.
34 C.J. p 400 note 7.
57. Miss. — Fellows v. Griffln, 17
Miss. 362.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
313
will be quashed,58 and a scire facias issued on the
writ on the ground that the adverse party is dead
must be directed to the adverse party's legal rep-
resentative.59 The writ is not made returnable, as
it is merely in the nature of a commission to the
court to examine the record and rectify the er-
ror.60 While it is usual to have the allowance of
such a writ indorsed thereon by the clerk in open
court, it is not indispensable to the regularity of
the writ.61 If it appears that a party is entitled to
the writ and will be remediless if the writ is quashed
because of an irregularity in the issuance, the writ
will be allowed as of the time it was filed, nunc pro
tune.62
While the writ did not of itself operate as a su-
persedeas,63 at common law execution could not be
taken out after the issuance of the writ without
leave of court.64 If an applicant wishes a stay he
should make that a part of a motion for the allow-
ance of the writ, stating the facts on which the
stay is asked.65 While a supersedeas may be grant-
ed ex parte without notice,66 whether a supersedeas
shall issue depends on the discretion of the court67
In general, the stay will be ordered only on put
ting in and justifying bail.68 Where there are sev-
eral applicants for the writ of error coram nobis
and a supersedeas, the supersedeas may be retained
as to some of the applicants and dismissed as to the
others.69
g. Pleadings
After a writ of error coram nobis Is allowed, the
applicant makes a formal assignment of errors In the
nature of a declaration, to which defendant may either
plead or demur.
The writ being allowed, applicant makes a formal
assignment of errors in the nature of a declara-
tion,70 which should be verified,71 stating the er-
rors in fact on which he relies.72 Errors in fact
and in law cannot be assigned together.73 The
grounds set forth in the petition must be the basis
of the issue presented in the more formal assign-
ment of errors.74 The assignment of errors having
been filed, the rules of pleading in actions at law
obtain.75
Pleadings in defense. Defendant may either
plead or demur to the assignment of errors.76 A
demurrer admits the facts assigned as error.77 The
common plea is in nulla est erratum,78 which is in
the nature of a demurrer79 and admits the fact
to be as alleged, but insists that in law it is not er-
ror.80 If the assignment of errors embraces the
reasons for the application as well as the grounds
for the revocation of the judgment, a general de-
murrer to the assignment is good if the reasons are
insufficient.81 If defendant would deny the truth
of the error in fact assigned, he must traverse it
by plea and take issue thereon,82 or, if the case re-
quires it, he may plead specially matter in confes-
sion and avoidance,83 such as a statutory limita-
tion.84
Reply. A plea of new matter in avoidance may
be met by a reply or demurrer as the circumstances
may demand.85
L Evidence
• Presumptions are In favor of rather than against
the validity of the Judgment; evidence dehors the rec-
ord Is admissible.
5a N.T. — Browa v. Davenport, 4
Wend. 205.
59. Ky.— Rochester v. Anderson, 2
Bibb. 569.
60. N.T. — Comstock v. Van Schoon-
hoven, 3 How.Pr. 258.
'61. N.Y. — Comstock v. Van Schoon-
hoven, supra.
62. N.T. — Ferris v. Douglass, 20
Wend. 626.
63. N.T.—- Ferris v. Douglass, supra.
34 C.J. p 400 note 14.
64. N.T. — Tyler v. Morris, 20 N.C.
487, 34 Am.D. 395.
34 C.J. p 400 note 15.
65. N.T.— jFerris v. Douglass, 20
Wend. 626.
16 C.J. p 400 note 16.
66. Tenn. — Crawford v. Williams, 1
Swan 341.
Tex.— Milam County v. Robertson,
47 Tex 222.
67. N.C.— Tyler v. Morris, 20 N.C.
487, 34 Am.D. 395.
34 C.J. p 400 note 18.
63. N.T.— Ferris Y. Douglass, 20
Kingsley, 19
Wend. 626— Smith v,
Wend. 620.
69. Miss.— Miller v. Swing, 16 Miss.
421.
34 C.J. p 400 note 20.
7a Tenn.— Gallsna v. Sudheixner, 9
Heisk. 189.
34 C.J. p 400 note 22.
71. I1L — Marabia v. Mary Thompson
Hospital of Chicago for Women
and Children, 140 N.E3. 836, 309 I1L
147.
7£ Tenn. — Crawford v. Williams, 1
Swan 341.
Tex. — Milam County v. Robertson, 47
Tex. 222.
73. Ky.— Rightfoot v. Common-
wealth Bank, 4 Dana 492.
74. Tenn.— Elliott ' v. McNairy, 1
Baxt 342 — Gallena v. Sudheimer, 9
Heisk. 189.
75. Tenn.— Crouch v. Mullinix, 1
Heisk. 478.
73, -Ky. — Case v. Ribelin, 1 J.J.
Marsh. 29.
34 C.J. P 401 note 27.
571
77. 111. — Chapman v. North Ameri-
can Life Ins. Co., 126 N.E. 732, 292
111. 179.
34 C.J. p 401 note 28.
78. Ky. — Case v. Ribelin, 1 J.J.
Marsh. 29.
34 C.J. p 401 note 29.
79. Ky.— Shoffett v. Menlf ee, 4 Dana
150.
34 C.J. p 401 note 30.
80. 111. — Chapman v. North Ameri-
can Life Ins. Co., 126 N.E. 732, 292
111. 179.
34 C.J. p 401 note 31.
81. Tenn. — Boiling v. Anderson, 1
Tenn.Cn. 127.
82. Ky.— Case v. Ribelin, 1 J.J.
Marsh. 29.
34 C.J. p 401 note 33.
83. Tenn. — Crawford v. Williams, 1
Swan 341.
84. Va.— Eubank v. Rail, 4 {Leigh.
305, 31 Va, 308.
85. Tenn. — Crawford v. Williams, I
Swan 341.
§ 313
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
Any presumptions that are indulged on the hear-
ing must be in favor of the validity of the judgment
rather than against it86 The petition is not evi-
dence,87 although sworn to,88 as its office is merely
to point out the errors of fact on which relief is
sought.89 The record in the original cause becomes
a part of the proceedings, without being made so by
the petition.90 Since, > as discussed supra § 312 c,
the office of the writ is to make apparent to the
court some error of fact not apparent on the face
of the record and which was unknown to the court,
evidence dehors the record may be admitted,91 but
the general rule is that the record may not be di-
rectly contradicted.92 General rules are applicable
in determining the sufficiency of the evidence.9^
i. Trial, Judgment, and Costs
If the pleadings in proceedings on a writ of error
coram nobis result In an Issue of fact, such Issue must
be tried, and judgment rendered in accordance with its
determination; costs are within the discretion of the
court.
If the pleadings result in an issue of fact, such
issue must be tried94 by a jury.95 Issues of law
are tried by the court.96 The writ does not open up
the whole case for a new trial, but only those points
and questions raised by the application for it97 In
some states the matter must be tried at the first
term; otherwise defendant may move to discharge
the supersedeas on denying on oath the facts stated
in the petition.98
Judgment. The judgment on a writ of error
coram nobis is that the judgment complained of be
recalled, revoked, and annulled, if the issue is found
in favor of petitioner,99 whereupon the original suit
is ^placed in the same position as it was when the
judgment was rendered.1 If the original judgment
has been satisfied, the court cannot order fhat the
money be refunded, but only that the judgment be
vacated and annulled.2 The judgment complained
of is affirmed if the issue is found in favor of de-
fendant in error.3 In some jurisdictions if the trial
court dismisses the writ, it may affirm the main
judgment with a statutory penalty.4
Costs. Unless otherwise provided by statute,5
costs are discretionary with the court6
E. ACTION TO REVIEW JUDGMENT
314. In General
a. General principles
b. Presentation and reservation of error
at trial, and bill of exceptions
c. Election of remedies
a. General Principles
Under some statutes an action to review a Judgment
may be maintained in the court which rendered the Judg-
ment.
Under some statutes, as in Indiana, an action may
be maintained on specified grounds to review a judg-
ment in the same court which rendered the judg-
ment7 This statutory action is modeled after a
Tex. — Milam County v. Robertson, 47 Tenn. — Hicks r. Haywood, 4 Heisk.
• Tex. 222. 598.
86. 111. — Chapman v. North Ameri-
can Life Ins. Co., 212 IlLApp. 389,
•aiRrmed 126 N.E. 732, 292 111. 179.
Tenn, — Inman v. Fox, 1 Tenn.App.
119.
87. Tenn. — Inman v. Fox, supra.
34 C.J. p 401 note 38.
sa Ala. — Johnson 7. Straus Sad-
dlery Co., 56 So. 755, 2 Ala.App.
300.
111.— Corpus Juris cited in Ruehr v.
Continental Illinois Nat Bank &
Trust Co., 16 N.B.2d 180, 182, 296
IlLApp. 293 — Corpus Juris cited in
Topel v. Personal Loan & Savings
Bank, 9 N.B.2d 75. 79, 290 IlLApp.
558— Corpus Juris cited in Mitchell
v. Eareckson, 250 IlLApp. 508, 511.
89. 111. — Corpus Juris cited in
Ruehr v. Continental Illinois Nat.
Bank & Trust Co., 16 N.E.2d 180,
182, 296 IlLApp. 293 — Corpus Juris
cited la Topel v. Personal Loan &
• Savings Bank, 9 N.E.2d 75, 79, 290
IlLApp. $58 — Corpus Juris cited in
Mitchell v. Eareckson, 250 IlLApp.
508, 511.
9a Tenn. — Hicks v. Haywood, su-
pra.
91. Mo.— State v. Riley, 118 S.W.
647, 219 Mo. 667.
34 C.J. p 401 note 43.
92. 111.— McCord v. Briggs & Turi-
vas, 170 N.E. 320, 338 111. 158—
Reid v. Chicago Rys. Co., 231 I1L
App. 58.
Tenn.— Roller v. Burrow, 175 S.W.2d
53*7, 180 Tenn. 380, rehearing de-
nied 177 S.W.2d 547, ISO Tenn. 380.
34 C.J. p 401 note 44.
93. Tenn. — Rose v. Morrow, 10
Tenn. App. 698.
94. Mo. — Simms v. Thompson, 236 S.
W. 876, 291 Mo. 493.
34 C.J. p 401 note 45.
96. Mol— Simms v. Thompson, su-
pra.
34 C.J. p 401 note 4*6.
99* Tenn. — Crawford v. Williams, 1
Swan 341.
97. 111. — Joseph Kaszab, Inc., v.
Gibson, App., 63 N.E.2d 629.
572
Tenn. — Rose v. Morrow, 10 Tenn.
App. 698.
34 C.J. p 401 note 48.
9a Tenn. — Gallena v. Sudheimer, 9
Heisk, 189.
99. 111.— Topel v. Personal Loan &
Savings Bank, 9 N.E.2d 75, 290
IlLAjpp. 558.
34 C.J. p 401 note 50.
1. 111. — Topel v. Personal 'Loan &
Savings Bank, supra.
34 C.J. p 401 note 51.
2. Tenn.— Bigham v. Brewer, 4
Sneed 432.
111, — Topel v. Personal Loan &
Savings Bank, 9 N.E.2d 75, 290 I1L
App. 558.
34 C.J. p 401 note 53.
4. Tenn.— Wright v. Curtis, 237 S.
W. 1103, 145 Tenn: 623.
B. N.T.— Arnold v. Sanford, 15
Johns. 534.
34 C.J. p 402 note 55.
Va. — Gordon v. Frazier, 2 Wash.
130, 2 Va, 130.
7. Ind.— Clark v. Hillis, 34 N.B. 13,
134 Ind. 431— Jones v. Tipton, 41
N.E. 831, 13 IndApp. 393.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§314
bill of review in equity,8 and is in the nature of a
petition for a rehearing0 and necessarily involves
the merits of the original cause.10 It is not strictly
an independent action,11 but is a continuation of
the original action12 and incidental to it.13 The
object of the action is to set aside the judgment and
obtain a new trial,14 but the proceeding is to be dis-
tinguished from a motion for a new trial,1^ and
from an appeal,16 although an action to review for
error of law at the trial is 4n the nature of an ap-
peal17 and is governed largely by the same rules
of procedure.18 A void judgment may be attacked
by a statutory action to review it;19 but the action
to review is to be distinguished from an action to
vacate a judgment for invalidity; the latter is an
independent proceeding not governed by the stat-
b. Presentation and Reservation of Error at
Trial, and Bill of Exceptions
An error of law, In order to be the basis of an ac-
tion to review, must, unless waived, be presented to the
trial court by proper and timely ob lection and exception;
and unless the error is apparent on the record It must
be Incorporated In a bill of exceptions.
An error of law not presented to the trial court
cannot be made the basis of an action to review the
judgment.21 In order to reserve questions for such
review, objections must be made at the trial of the
original cause,22 exceptions reserved to the court's
rulings,23 and the errors assigned made the ground
of a motion for a new trial,24 and exceptions re-
served to the court's ruling thereon.2^
Objections to a judgment must be presented either
by a motion to modify or correct the judgment26 or
by a motion to set the judgment aside,27 and excep-
tions must be taken to the court's ruling on the mo-
tion.28 The sufficiency of a complaint may be pre-
sented without having been demurred to, in the
original action.2^
Waiver of error. Ordinarily failure to except to
the ruling of the court amounts to a waiver of the
error.30 Where, however, the failure to except
does not amount to a waiver,31 as where the court
is without jurisdiction of the subject matter,32 or
Writ of review, a somewhat similiar
statutory remedy prevailing in
some states, see the C.J.S. title
Review § 1, also 54 C.J. p 748 note
1-p 749 note 19.
8. Tnd. — Ross v. Banta, 34 N.B. 865,
140 Ind. 120, rehearing denied 39
N.E. 732, 140 Ind. 120.
34 C.J. p 402 note 58.
Bill of review see Equity §§ 635-65*5.
Equitable means of reviewing judg-
ments, including statutory bills of
review see infra §§ 341-400.
9. Ind. — Attica Building & Loan
Ass'n of Attica v. Col vert, 23 N.
E.2d 483, 492, 216 Ind. 192.
"It is a method by which the court
that tried the case may have oppor-
tunity to correct its own error." —
Attica Building & Loan Ass'n of At-
tica v. Colvert, supra.
10. Ind.— Ex parte Kiley, 34 N.E.
989, 135 Ind. 225.
11. Ind.— Attica Building & Loan
Ass'n of Attica v. Colvert, 23 N.E.
2d 483, 216 Ind. 192— Ex parte
Kiley, 34 N.E. 989, 135 Ind. 225.
12. Ind. — Evansville & R. R. Co. v.
Maddux, 33 N.B. 345, 134 Ind. 571,
rehearing denied 34 N.E. 511, 134
Ind. 571.
13. Ind.— Attica Building & Loan
Ass'n of Attica v. Colvert, 23 N.
E.2d 483, 216 Ind. 192— Jones v.
Tipton, 41 N.E. 831, 13 Ind.App.
392.
14. Ind. — Hoppes v. Hoppes, 24 N.E.
139, 123 Ind. 397— Hornaday v.
Shields, 21 N.E. 654, 119 Ind. 201.
15. Ind.— Hill v. Roach, 72 Ind. 57
—Hall v. Palmer, 18 Ind. 5.
34 C.J. p 402 note -67.
Motion for new trial generally see
the C.J.S. title New Trial '§ 117,
also 46 C.J. p 286 note 40-p 287
note 62.
1ft Ind. — Bartmess v. Holliday, 61
N.E. 750, 27 Ina.App. 544.
34 C.J. p 402 note 68.
17. Ind. — Calumet Teaming &
Trucking Co. v. Young, 33 N.BJ.2d
583, 218 Ind. 468— Attica Building
& Loan Ass'n of Attica v. Colvert,
23 N.E.2d 483, '216 Ind. 192— Silts
v. Henderlong Lumber Co., 33 N.E.
2d 373, 109 Ind.App. 559— In re
Boyer's Guardianship. 174 N.B.
714, 96 Ind.App. 161.
34 C.J. p 402 note 69.
An action to review presents same
question to reviewing trial court
that might be presented to appellate
court on an appeal. — Calumet Team-
ing & Trucking Co. v. Young, 33 N.H.
2d 583, 218 Ind. 468.
18. Ind. — Murphy v. Branaman, 59
N.E. 274, 156 In*. 77.
34 C.J. p 402 note 70.
19. Ind.— Bartmess v. Holliday, 61
N.B. 750, 27 Ind.App. 544.
34 C.J. p 402 note 72.
20. Ind.— Willman v. Willman, 57
Ind. 500.
34 C.J. p 402 note 71.
Action in equity to annul a judg-
ment see infra §§ 341-400.
21. Ind. — Shoaf v. Joray, 86 Ind. 70.
34 C.J. p 403 note 85.
22. Ind.— Eilts v. Henderlong Lum-
ber Co., 33 N.E.2d 373, 109 Ind.App.
559.
34 C.J. p 403 note 86.
23. Ind. — Egoff v. Madison County
573
Children's Guardians, 84 N.B. 151,
170 Ind. 238.
34 C.J. p 403 note 87.
24. Ind. — Eilts v. Henderlong Lum-
ber Co., 33 N.E,2d 373, 109 Ind.
App. 559.
34 C.J. j? 404 note 88.
Insufficiency of defense
An alleged insufficiency of facts
pleaded and proved to constitute a
defense could not be presented by
proceeding to review Judgment for
defendants where such alleged error
was not called to attention -of trial
court by motion for a new trial. —
Eilts v. Henderlong 'Lumber Co., su-
pra.
25. Ind. — Slussman v. Kensler, £8
Ind. 190.
26. Ind.— Egoff v. Madison County
Children's Guardians, 84 N.E. 151,
170 Ind. 238.
34 C.J. p 404 note 90.
27. Ind.— Baker v. Ludlam, 20 N.E.
648, 118 Ind. -87— Searle v. Whip-
perman, 79 Ind. 424.
2a Ind.— Baker v. Ludlam, 20 N.E.
648, 118 Ind. 87.
29. Ind.— 'Ferguson v. Hull, 36 NJBL
254, 136 Ind. 339— Berkshire v.
Young, 45 Ind. 461.
30. Ind. — Collins v. Rose, 59 Ind.
33
34 G!J. p 404 note 96.
31. Ind. — Berkshire v. Young, 45
Ind. 461— Davis v. Perry, 41 Ind.
305.
32. Ind. — Davis v. Perry, supra.
§ 314
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
where the judgment is void for want of jurisdiction
of the person,33 or where the complaint fails to
state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of ac-
tion,34 exceptions are not necessary.
Bill of exceptions. In order to make proceedings,
which are not properly of record, apparent of rec-
ord, they must be incorporated in a bill of excep-
tions,35 filed within the time limited.36
c. Election of Remedies
The complaining party may appeal from the judg-
ment to an appellate court or he may maintain the stat-
utory action to review the Judgment In the same court
in which it was rendered.
The statutory action to review is not an exclusive
remedy.37 The complaining party to a judgment
may appeal from the judgment in the original ac-
tion to an appellate court for an error of law or
bring an action, under the statute, to review the
judgment in the same court,38 but he must elect
between the two courses; he cannot pursue both
remedies.39
§ 315. Grounds of Action and Judgments
Reviewable
The statutory action will lie to review all Judgments,
at law or In equity, with certain exceptions, on the
ground of error of law on the face of the record or be-
cause of newly discovered material matter.
All judgments, at law or in equity, are review-
able by this statutory action,40 except judgments in
criminal actions,41 judgments concerning decedents'
estates,42 and, by the express provisions of statute,
judgments in divorce actions.43
The statutory action lies for error of law,44 avail-
able on appeal,45 apparent on the face of the rec-
ord.46 It will not lie because a witness committed
perjury at the prevailing party's solicitation in the
trial of the cause;47 nor will it lie to review the
act of a clerical or ministerial officer after the ren-
dition of the judgment.48
The action will lie for material new matter dis-
covered since the rendition of the judgment,49 pro-
vided it could not have been discovered by the ex-
ercise of reasonable diligence before the rendition of
the judgment,50 and provided it is such new matter
of fact that, if presented in the original action, the
complaining party would have been entitled to a
different judgment.51 An action to review for new
matter discovered after the rendition of the orig-
33. Ind. — McCormack v. Greens-
burgh First Nat. Bank, 53 Ind. 46-6.
34 G.J. p 404 note 99.
34. Ind. — Berkshire v. Young, 45
Ind. 461 — Davis v. Perry, 41 Ind.
305. ,
35. Ind. — Hancher v. Stephenson, 46
N.B. 916, 147 Ind. 498.
34 O.J. p 404 note 3.
36. Ind. — Graves v. State, 36 N.E.
275, 136 Ind. -406— Yuknavich v.
Yuknavich, 58 N.E.2d 447, 115 Ind.
App. $30.
34 C.J. p 404 note 4.
37. Ind.— Attica Building & -Loan
Ass'n of Attica v. Colvert, 23 N.B.
2d 483, 216 Ind. 192.
34 C.J. p 402 note 57 [a].
38. Ind. — Calumet Teaming &
Trucking Co. v. Young, 33 N.B.2d
583, 218 Ind. 468— Attica Building
& Loan Ass'n of Attica v. Colvert,
23 N.E.2d 483, 216 Ind. 192.
34 C.J. p 404 note 5.
39. Ind. — McCurdy v< 'Love, 97 Ind.
62.
34 O.J. p 404 note <6.
Right to different remedies for re-
view in same case and election of
remedies see Appeal and Error §
32.
40. Ind.— Ross v. Banta, 34 N.E.
865, 140 Ind. 120, rehearing denied
39 N.E. 732, 140 Ind. 120.
34 O.J. p 402 note 74.
41. Ind. — Frazier v. State, 7 N.E.
378, 106 InO. 562.
42. Ind. — McCurdy v. Love, 97 Ind.
62.
43. Ind.— Keller v. Keller, 38 N.E.
337, 139 Ind. 38.
34 C.J. p 402 note 77.
Setting aside divorce judgment or
decree generally see Divorce §§
168-172.
44. Ind.— Attica Building & Loan
Ass'n of Attica v. Colvert, 23 N.E.
2d 483^216 Ind. 192.
34 C.J. p 402 note 78.
Lack of Jurisdiction of the sub-
ject matter in the court rendering
the judgment constitutes such, an
error of law as will support the ac-
tion.— Shoaf v. Joray, 86 Ind. 70.
45. Ind. — Eilts v. Henderlong Lum-
ber Co., 33 N.E.2d 373, 109 Ind.App.
559 — In re Boyer's Guardianship,
174 N.E. 714, 96 Ind.App. 161.
34 C.J. p 403 note 79.
48. Ind. — Hancher v. Stephenson, 46
N.E. 916, 147 Ind. 498.
34 C.J. p. 403 note 80.
47. Ind. — Yuknavich v. Yuknavich,
58 N.E.2d 447, 115 Ind.App. 530 —
Walker v. State ex rel. Laboy-
teaux, 8*6 N.E. 502, 43 Ind.App. 605.
48. Ind. — Ferguson v. Hull, 36 N.E.
254, 136 Ind. 339.
34 C.J. p 403 note 84.
49. Ind. — Yuknavich v. Yuknavich,
58 N.E.2d 447, 115 Ind.App. 530.
34 C.J. p 403 note 82. -
50. Ind. — Egoff v. Madison County
574
Children's Guardians, 84 N.E. 151,
170 Ind. 238.
34 C.J. p 403 note 83.
51. Ind. — Egoff v. Madison County
Children's Guardians, supra.
34 C-J. p 403 note 82 [d], [e].
Pacts held not material new matter
(1) Newly discovered receipts,
documents, and other evidence of
facts set up by defendants' pleadings
in action for fraud and constituting
defense which was known to exist
and was employed in such action. —
Yuknavich v. Yuknavich, 58 N.E.2d
447, 115 Ind.App. 530.
(2) Other facts held not material
see 34 O.J. p 403 note -82 [h].
Changed conditions since rendi-
tion of judgment, in that ju4gments
were fully paid and that there was
no one to whom money might be
paid if collected, do not entitle de-
fendant to a review of judgment,
where judgments were paid by sure-
ties on order of court, and who
therefore had right to be subrogated
to all rights of creditors whom they
had paid, including their right to
judgment for damages: — Trust &
Savings Bank of Rensselaer v.
Brusnahan, 147 N.E. 168, 88 Ind.App.
257, rehearing denied Trust & Sav-
ings Bank of Rensseiaer y. Brusha-
ham. 148 N.E. 427, 88 Ind.App. 257.
Matter already in issue
Newly-discovered evidence will
not justify a review of Judgment,
where at most it concerns matter al-
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 317
inal judgment is of a different character from an
action to review for error committed at the trial52
and is much like a coram nobis proceeding.53
§ 316. Jurisdiction and Procedure Generally
A statutory action to review a judgment may be
brought only in .the court which rendered the Judgment.
The complaint may be filed only by a party to the Judg-
ment, or one claiming under or representing him; it
must be filed within the time fixed by the statute, and
notice thereof must be given to the defendant.
The statutory action to review a judgment may
be brought only in the court which rendered the
judgment.54 Under the statute the complaint to
review may be filed without leave of court;55 but
defendant must be notified of the filing.56 The fil-
ing of a complaint for review does not of itself stay
proceedings on the original judgment,57 but at any
time after the filing of the complaint and before the
final hearing the court may on the application of
plaintiff stay all further proceedings on the judg-
ment, and direct that bond be given as in cases of
appeal.58
Limitations of time. The action to review must
be brought within the time fixed by the statute59
in force at the time of the institution of the action
to review,60 and with reasonable promptness within
such time.61 A person under a legal disability, how-
ever, is excepted from the operation of the statute
for a fixed period of time after the disability is re-
moved.62
Parties. Under the express provisions of the
statute, the complaint may be filed only by a party
to the judgment sought to be reviewed, or by the
heirs, devisees, or personal representatives of a
deceased party,63 and ordinarily all the parties who
were in the original proceeding should be before the
court,64 either as complainants or defendants in ac-
cordance with their respective interests in the mat-
ter to be reviewed.65
§ 317. Pleading and Evidence
a. Complaint
b. Pleadings in defense
c. Evidence
a. Complaint
A complaint In an action to review must be suffi-
cient without resorting to the record. If based on error
of law, the complaint must set forth the errors relied
on, and show that objections and exceptions were duly
taken and reserved; If based on new matter, It must
allege all the elements of this ground for review.
An action to review a judgment is commenced
by a complaint,66 which stands on the same foot-
ing as the complaint in other actions,67 and which
must be sufficient without resorting to the exhib-
its.68 A complaint stating a cause of action in
general terms will be good, after verdict, as against
a motion in arrest of judgment69 A complaint is
not bad on demurrer for want of facts, if otherwise
sufficient,, merely because it fails to show that the
suit was commenced within the time limited by the
statute,70 unless the complaint shows on its face
ready in issue, and if introduced
would not have produced different
result — Trust & Savings Bank of
Rensselaer v. Brusnahan, 147 N.E.
168, 88 Ind.App. 257, rehearing de-
nied Trust & Savings Bank of Rens-
selaer v. Brushaham, 148 N.E. 427,
88 Ind.App. 257.
52. Ind. — Calumet Teaming &
Trucking Co. v. Young, 33 N.E.2d
583, 218 Ind. 468.
53. Ind.— Calumet Teaming &
Trucking Co. v. Young, supra.
Writ of error coram nobis see supra
§§ 311-313.
54. Ind.— Ex parte Kiley, 34 N.E.
989, 139 Ind. 225.
34 C.J. p 404 note 7.
55. Ind.-— Hornady v. Shields, 21 N.
B. 554, 119 Ind. 201— Webster v.
Maiden, 41 Ind. 124.
66, Ind.— Hornady v. Shields, 21 N.
E. 554, 119 Ind. 201.
57. Ind.— State v. King, 66 N.E. 85,
30 Ind.App. 339.
Status of judgment pending motion
or petition to vacate see supra §
298.
58. Ind. — State v. King, supra.
59. Ind. — Talge Mahogany Co. v.
Astoria Mahogany Co., 145 N.E.
495, 195 Ind. 433.
34 C.J. p 404 note 9.
60. Ind.— Rupert v. Martz, 18 N.E.
381, 116 Ind. 72.
61. Ind.— Simpkins v. Wilson, 11
Ind. 541.
34 C.J. p 404 note 11 [c],
62. Ind.— Rupert v. Martz, 18 N.E.
381, 116 Ind. 72 — Rosa v. Prather,
2 N.E. 575, 103 Ind. 191.
34 C.J. p 404 note 11.
Within, time to appeal
Where action to review, for al-
leged error, a judgment rendered
against plaintiff while an infant was
commenced by -plaintiff within the
time in which plaintiff might have
perfected an appeal from such judg-
ment, the action to review judgment
could be maintained by plaintiff. —
Attica Building & 'Loan Ass'n of At-
tica v. Colvert, 23 N.B.2d 483, 216
Ind. 192.
63. Ind. — Michener v. Springfield
Engine & Thresher Co., 40 N.E.
679, 142 Ind. 130, 31 L.R.A. 59.
34 C.J. p 404 note 12.
61. Ind. — Douglay v. Davis. 45 Ind.
493.
34 C.J. p 405 note 13.
575
65. Ind. — Concannon v. Noble, 9$
Ind. 326 — Burns v. Singer Mfg.
Co., 87 Ind. 541.
34 <XJ. p 405 note 14.
66. Ind.— Hornady v. Shields, 21 N.
E. 554, 119 Ind. 201.
34 C.J. p 405 note 17.
67. Ind. — Hague v. Huntington
•First Nat Bank, 65 N.H 907, 159-
Ind. 63-6.
34 C.J. p 405 note 18.
6a Ind.— Clark v. Clark, 172 N.H.
124,. 202 Ind. 104.
34 C.J. p 405 note 22.
Setting forth original pleading-
The complaint should contain
enough of the pleading in the cause,
or the substance or nature or char-
acter thereof, to present the ques-
tion of the alleged error without re-
sorting to the transcript of the rec-
ord, filed as an exhibit. — Clark v.
Clark, supra — Jamison v. Lake Erie-
& W. R. Co., 48 N.E. 223, 149 Ind.
521.
69. Ind. — Johnson v. Ahrens, 19 NV
E. 335, 117 Ind. 600— Jones v.
Ahrens, 19 N.E. 334, 116 Ind. 490.
70. Ind.— Boyd v. 'Fitch, 71 Ind. 305
—Whitehall v. Crawford, 67 Ind-
84.
§ 317
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
that it is barred by lapse of time.71 A complaint to
review a judgment which is insufficient will not be
held good as an application to be relieved from a
judgment on the ground of mistake, inadvertence,
surprise, or excusable neglect72 Leave to amend
the complaint may be granted in a proper case.73
In action for error of law. If the action is based
on an error of law, the complaint must set forth the
errors relied on74 and show that objections and ex-
ceptions to the errors alleged were duly taken and
reserved in the original proceedings ;75 but this rule
does not apply where the error is one which is not
waived by a failure to except,76 as where the com-
plaint does not state any cause of action,77 or where
the court has no jurisdiction over the subject mat-
ter.78 The complaint should itself set forth a com-
plete record of the case,79 or as much thereof as is
necessary fully to present the errors complained
of,80 either by embodying it in the complaint or by
referring to and identifying it as an exhibit so as
to become substantially a part of the complaint;81
but it is not necessary that the copy of the record
set forth in the complaint should be a certified
copy.82 A bill of exceptions, even though a part
of the record, is not such a written instrument as
may be filed as an exhibit with the complaint.83
In action for new matter. When the complaint
is based on material new matter discovered after
the rendition of the judgment, it must set forth the
character of the action,84 the facts discovered
since the rendition of the judgment,85 the materi-
ality of the new matter,86 plaintiffs ignorance of it
at the time of the trial,87 the fact that the new mat-
ter could not have been discovered before the judg-
ment by the exercise of reasonable diligence,88 and
that the-co.mplaint was filed without delay after the
discovery.89 The complaint must be verified by
complainant.90 The pleadings and evidence in the
original case and the newly discovered evidence
may be filed with the complaint as an exhibit,91
but the affidavit of the witness by whom the new
matter is expected to be established is not required
to be filed with the complaint.92
b. Pleadings in Defense
The defendant may demur to the complaint, Inter-
pose a general or special denial, or plead proper affirma-
tive defenses.
Defendant may demur to the complaint for its
failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause
of action,93 or he may interpose a general or spe-
cial denial,94 or he may plead proper affirmative
defenses,95 such as would have been available on
appeal,96 or he may plead the pendency of an ap-
peal.97 However, he cannot make any defense
which was available in the original action.98
c. Evidence
In an action to review for error of law, the question
must be determined by the record Itself; but to review
71. Ind. — Harlen v. Watson, 63 Ind.
143.
72. Ind. — Baker v. Ludlam, 20 N.E.
648, 118 Ind. 87.
73. Ind.— Foster v. Potter, 24 Ind.
363.
74. Ind. — Hague v. Huntingdon
First Nat. Bank, 65 N.E. 907, 159
Ind. 63*6.
34 C.J. p 405 note 25.
75. Ind. — Wohadlo v. Fary, 46 N.E.
2d 489, 221 Ind. 219— Calumet
Teaming & Trucking Qo. v. Young.
33 N.B.2d 109, 218 Ind.' 468, rehear-
ing denied 33 N.E.2d 583, 218 Ind.
468— ^Lambert v. Smith, 23 N.E.2d
430, 216 Ind. 226— Eilts v. Hender-
long Lumber Co., 33 N.E.2d 373,
109 Ind.App. 559.
34 C.J. p 405 note 26.
Complaint held demurra'ble
Ind.— Lambert • v. Smith, 23 N.B.2d
430, 216 Ind. 226.
76. Ind. — Calumet Teaming &
Trucking Co. v. Young, 33 N.E.2d
109, 218 Ind. 468, rehearing denied
33 N.E. 583, 218 Ind. 463— Lambert
v. Smith, 23 N.E.2d 430, 21-6 Ind.
226— Davis v. Perry, 41 Ind. 305.
77. Ind. — Lambert v. Smith, 23 N.
E.2d 430, 216 Ind. 226.
78. Ind. — Lambert v. Smith, supra.
79. Ind.— 'Findling v. Lewis, 47 N.E.
831, 148 Ind. 429.
34 C.J. p 405 note 27.
80. Ind. — Eilts v. Henderlong Lum-
ber Co., 33 N.E.2d 373, 109 Ind.
App. 559.
34 C.J. p 405 note 28.
81. Ind.— Findling v. Lewis, 47 N.E.
831, 148 Ind. 429.
34 C.J. p 405 note 29.
82. Ind. — Hoppes v. Hoppes, 24 N.E.
139, 123 Ind. 397.
34 C.J. p 405 note 27 [b].
83. Ind. — Yuknavich y. Yuknavich,
58 N.E.2d 447, 115 Ind.App. 530.
84. Ind. — Jamison v. Lake Erie &
W. R. Co., 48 N.E. 223, 149 Ind.
521.
85. Ind. — Hornady v. Shields, 21. N.
E. 554, 119 Ind. 201— Francis v.
Davis, 69 Ind. 452.
I Ind. — Jamison v. Lake Erie &
W. R. Co., 48 N.E. 223, 149 Ind.
521— Francis v. Davis, 69 Ind. 452.
87. Ind.— Whitehall v. Crawford, 67
Ind. 84.
88. Ind.— Warne v. Irwin, £3 N.E.
926, 153 Ind. 20.
34 C.J. p 406 note 34. j
'576
89. Ind. — Osgood v. Smock, 40 N.E.
37, 144 Ind. 387.
34 C.J. p 406 note 35.
90. Ind. — Dippel v. Schicketanz, 100
Ind. 376.
34 C.J. p 406 note 3-6.
91. Ind.— Hill v. Roach, 72 Ind. 57.
34 C.J. p 406 note 37.
92. Ind. — Hill v. Roach, supra.
93. Ind. — Hornady v. Shields, 21 N.
E. 554, 119 Ind. 201.
34 C.J. p 406 note 39.
94. Ind.— Kiley v. Murphy, 34 N.E.
112, 7 Ind. App. .239, rehearing de-
nied 34 N.E. 650, 7 Ind.App. 239.
34 C.J. p 406 note 40.
95. Ind. — Kiley v. Murphy, supra.
34 C.J. p 406 note 41.
Cross errors
To a complaint pleading errors of
law, defendant may set up cross er-
rors.— Kiley v. Murphy, supra.
96. Ind. — Richardson v. Howk, 45
Ind. 451— Kiley v. Murphy, 34 N.E.
112, 7 Ind.App. 239* rehearing de-
nied 34 N.E. 650, 7 Ind.App. 239.
97. Ind. — Kiley v. Murphy, supra.
34 C.J. p 406 note 41 EC].
98. Ind. — Richardson v. Howk, 45
Ind. 451— Kiley v. Murphy, 24 N.E.
112, 7 Ind.App. 239, rehearing de-
nied 24 N.E. 650, 7 IndJLpp. 239.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
319
for new matter, the plaintiff must prove the averment
of material new matter.
In an action to review for error of law the ques-
tion must be determined by the record itself," and
the recitals of the record will control, and cannot be
contradicted by, the allegations of the complaint.1
In an action to review a judgment for new matter
plaintiff must prove the averment of material new
matter,2 and that it could not have been discovered
by proper diligence.3
§ 318. Hearing, Determination, and Relief
The hearing in a statutory action to review is by
the court, as an appellate court, and It may reverse, af-
firm, or modify the judgment.
In an action to review a judgment for an error
of law, the hearing is by the court4 which sits as
an appellate court.5 No right to a jury in such an
action exists,6 and the application should be deter-
mined on the principles governing motions for a
new trial.7 The judgment being reviewed will not
be disturbed because of the insufficiency of the evi-
dence to sustain the finding of the court, or the ver-
dict of the jury, if there is any evidence legally
tending to support the finding or the verdict.8
Judgment. Under the statute the court may re-
verse or affirm the judgment in whole or in part, or
modify it as the justice of the case may require,9
•the same as on an appeal to an appellate court;10
but it has been held that a substantial error requires
reversal of the judgment and that it is not neces-
sary to show substantial error plus great injustice.11
Leave to amend the pleadings in the original case
cannot be granted.12
At least in the absence of an appeal, a judgment
for or against a review of a former judgment puts
an end to the action for review,13 unless, on the
overruling of a demurrer to the complaint, leave is
granted to answer over.14 If the judgment is
against the review, the whole proceedings are at
an end.15 A judgment of reversal reverses and sets
aside the judgment in the original action, leaving
the action to proceed as though no trial had taken
place ;16 and, moreover, a judgment of reversal will
not bar another suit for the same cause of action.17
A judgment of affirmance bars a second action to
review the same judgment.18
§ 319. Review and Costs
An appeal may be taken from the Judgment in an
action to review, and costs may be awarded according
to the rules for awarding costs on appeal in general.
An appeal lies from the judgment in an action to
review,19 provided the party had a right to appeal
from the judgment in the original action when he
filed his complaint for review.20 The appeal lies
to the same court to which an appeal from the
original judgment lies.21 The determination of
an action for relief from a judgment taken through
mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect
does not bar the right of another party to the main
action to have the judgment reviewed for error.22
Costs. Under the statute the court may award
costs according to the rule prescribed for the award-
ing of costs on an appeal.23
99. Ind. — Eilts v. Henderlong Lum-
ber Co., 33 N.E.2d 373, 109 Ind.
App. 559 — Edwards v. Van Cleave,
94 N.E. 596, 47 Ind.App. 347.
34 C.J. p 406 note 4-6.
3- Ind. — State v. Holmes, 69 Ind.
577— Weathers v. Doerr, 53 Ind.
104— Hall v. Palmer, 18 Ind. 5.
2. Ind.— Hill v. Roach, 72 Ind, 57.
3. Ind.— Alsop v. Wiley, 17 Ind. 452.
4. Ind.— Hornady v. Shields, 21 N.E.
554, 119 Ind. 201— Richardson v.
Howk, 45 Ind. 451.
5. Ind. — Searle v. Whipperman, 79
Ind. 424 — Eilts v. Henderlong
Lumber Co., 33 N.B.2d 373, 109
Ind.App. 559.
«. Ind. — Hornady v. Shields, 21 N.
E. 554, 119 Ind. 201.
7. Ind. — Hornady v. Shields, supra.
34 C.J. p 407 note 53.
Ind. — Terry
Ind. 95.
v. Bronnenberg, 87
9. Ind.— Hornady v. Shields, 21 N.
E. 554, 119 Ind. 201.
3-4 C.J. p 407 note 55.
10. Ind. — Wright v. ' Churchman, 85
N.E. -835, 185 Ind. 683— Indianapo-
49 O.J.S.-37
lis Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Routledge,
7 Ind. 25.
Judgment on appeal see Appeal and
Error §§ 1846-1952.
11. Ind. — Calumet Teaming- &
Trucking: Qo. v. Young, 33 N.E.2d
583, 218 Ind. 468.
Prejudice presumed
If it appears that error was com-
mitted, it will be presumed to have
been prejudicial unless the contrary
is made to appear, and where a par-
ty's substantial rights have been
prejudiced he has not had a "fair
trial," and that is injustice enough
to require a reversal. — Calumet
Teaming & Trucking Co. v. Young,
supra.
12. Ind.— Leech v. Ferry, 77 Ind.
422.
13. Ind. — Brown v. Keyser, 53 Ind.
85.
34 C.J. p 407 note 57.
14. Ind. — Leech v. Perry, 77 Ind.
422.
15. Ind. — Brown v. Keyser, • 53 Ind.
85.
16. Ind. — Leech v. Perry, 77 Ind. 422
— Brown v. Keyser, 53 Ind. 85.
34 C.J. p 407 note 60.
577
17. Ind.— Maghee v. Collins, 27 Ind.
83.
18. Ind. — Coen v. (Funk, 26 Ind. 289.
34 C.J. p 407 note 62.
19. Ind. — Attica Building & Loan
Ass'n of Attica v. Colvert, 23 N.E.
2d 483, 216 Ind. 192— Keepfer v.
Force, 86 Ind. 81 — Brown v. Key-
ser, 53 Ind. 85.
2<X Ind. — McCurdy v. Love, 97 Ind.
•62 — Klebar v. Corydon, 80 Ind. 95.
A Judgment denying a petition to
review a Judgment from which no
appeal has been taken within the
statutory period provided therefor is
not appealable.— Talge Mahogany Co.
v. Astoria Mahogany Co., 141 N.E. 50,
195 Ind. 433, rehearing overruled 146
N.E. 495, 195 Ind. 433.
21. Ind.— Ex parte Kiley, 84 N.E.
989, 135 Ind. 225— Jonea v. Tlpton,
41 N.E. 831, 13 Ind. App. 392.
22. Ind.— Attica Building & .Loan
Ass'n of Attica v. Colvert, 28 N.E.
24 483, 216 Ind. 192.
23. Ind. — Francis v. Davis, 69 Ind.
452— Davidson v. King, 49 Ind. 338.
320
JUDGMENTS
F. CONFESSED JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
§ 320. Amendment
A Judgment by confession may be amended to cor-
rect mistakes or omissions, but an Invalid Judgment may
not be amended.
A judgment by confession, like other judgments,
as discussed supra § 236, may be amended by recti-
fying mistakes, correcting lie form of the judg-
ment, or supplying omissions,24 but an invalid judg-
ment may not be amended.25 The court has no au-
thority at a subsequent term to substitute a judg-
ment on nil dicit for a judgment by confession, on
the ground that the latter was entered by mistake.26
Generally it is not necessary to join in the proceed-
ing to amend the judgment creditors or persons sub-
sequently acquiring interests in the property affect-
ed.27
§ 321. Opening and Vacating
a. In general
b. Who may apply
c. Time for application
a. In General
Proceedings to open or vacate a Judgment by con-
fession must be In accordance with the requirements of
statutes and court rules.
Proceedings to open or vacate a judgment by con-
fession must be in accordance with the requirements
o.f statutes and court rules.28 As a general rule an
application to open or set aside a judgment by con-
fession should be made by petition or motion in the
cause.29 In some jurisdictions the vacation of a
judgment may be secured on certain grounds, such
as fraud on creditors, by action,80 and it has been
held that, if the confession and judgment are reg-
ular, they may be impeached only by a suit in eq-
uity on the ground of fraud.31 It has been held
that an application to open a judgment by confes-
sion, is, or is in the nature of, an equitable proceed-
ing,32 and that a motion or petition to open judg-
Costs on:
Appeal see Costs §§ 292-350.
Award or refusal of new trial see
Costs §§ 404-409.
24. N.J.— Haddonfleld Nat. Bank v.
Hippie, 164 A. 575, 110 N.J.Law
271.
Pa. — Harr v. Furman, 29 A.2d 527,
346 Pa. 138, 144 A.-L.R. 828— House-
hold Finance Corporation v. Mac-
Morris, Com.PL, 32 DeLCo. 65.
34 C.J. p 407 note 69.
25. S.C.— Ex parte Carroll, 17 S.C.
446 — Southern Porcelain Mfg. Co.
v. Thew, 5 S.C. 5.
26. Va. — Richardson v. Jones, 12
Gratt 53, 53 Va. 53.
27. 111. — Adam v. Arnold, 86 111.
185.
N.Y.— Mann v. Brooks, 7 How.Pr.
449, affirmed 8 How.Pr. 40.
gg. 111. — State Bank of Blue Island
v. Kott, =54 N.E.2d 897, 323 IlLApp.
27 — Moore v. Monarch Distributing
Co., 32 N.E.2d 1019, 309 IlLApp.
339— McKenna v. 'Forman, 283 111.
• App. 606.
Pa. — -Wayne v. International Shoe
Co., 18 Pa.Dist. & Co. 521— Chiara
v. Johnston, Com.Pl., 55 'Dauph.Co.
60— Rule v. Elchinski, C?om.PL, 38
Luz.Legr.Reg. 103.
Procedure to . open or vacate Judg-
ment generally see supra § 28*6.
Purpose of rule
(1) The purpose of the court rules
governing motions to open a judg-
ment by confession is to regulate
and prescribe the procedure where-
by a court may determine whether
or not a defense exists, and to pre-
vent frivolous defenses and defeat
'attempt to use formal pleadings as a
means to delay the recovery of just
demands. — Kirchner v. Boris & Dave
Goldenhersh, 42 N.E.2d 953, 315 111.
App. 305.
(2) The rule requiring a defend-
ant to be summoned, and to show
cause why a judgment by confession
under power in note should be va-
cated, opened, or modified, provides
a means to inform judgment debtor
of the judgment and affords him an
opportunity to move that it be vacat-
ed, opened, or modified. — Foland v.
Hoffman, Md., 47 A.2d 62.
Notice of application
(1) Formal notice to plaintiff of
defendant's motion and of the court's
action in granting defendant leave to
plead is not required, where he had
•actual notice thereof. — Rock Falls
First Nat. Bank v. Deneen, 196 111.
Aj?p. 427.
(2) Issuance of rule to show cause
why judgment by confession should
not be opened may be waived, and
plaintiff in judgment may appear by
counsel without service of writ, or
service may be had in usual way. —
Chandler v. Miles, 193 A. 576, 8 W.
W.Harr.,Del., 431.
(3) Order setting aside order de-
nying motion to vacate judgments by
confession, without notice to mov-
ant or showing that first order was
improvidently made or fraudulently
obtained, was void.— Vale v. Mary-
land Casualty Co., 281 P. 1058, 101
CaLApp. 599.
Motion to open may be treated as
motion to vacate or strike judgment
and vice versa.
111. — Jefferson Trust & Savings Bank
v. W. Heller & Son. 280 IlLApp.
578
399 — 'First Nat. Bank v. Yakey,
253 IlLApp. 128.
Pa. — Fairview Cemetery Ass'n v.
Goranflo, Com.Pl., 23 Erie Co. 101,
102 — Hayes v. Goranflo, Com.PL,
23 Erie Co. 100.
29. Del.— Miles v. Layton, 193 A.'
567, 8 W.W.Harr. 411. 112 A.L.R.
786.
111. — Moore v. Monarch Distributing
Co., 32 N.E.2d 1019, 309 IlLApp.
339.
Md. — Foland v. Hoffman, 47 A.2d 62.
34 C.J. p 408 note 85.
30. N.Y.— Miller v. ' Earle, 24 N.Y.
110.
34 C.J. p 408 note 90.
31. Or. — Miller v. Bank or .British
Columbia, 2 Or. 291.
Equitable relief in general see infra
§ 341 et seq.
32. Del.— Chandler v. Miles, 193 A.
576, 8 W.W.Harr. 431.
Pa. — Perfect Building & Loan Ass'n
v. Mandel, 29 A.2d 484, 345 Pa. 616
— Jamestown Banking Co. v. Con-
neaut Lake Dock & Dredge Co.,
14 A.2d 325, 339 Pa. 26— Welch v.
Sultez, 13 A.2d 399, 338 Pa. 583—
Kweller, now for Use of Caplan v.
Becker, 12 A.2d 567, 338 Pa. 169—
Horn v. Witherspoon, 192 A. -654,
327 Pa. 295— Sferra v. TTrling, 188
A. 185, 324 Pa. 344— Mutual Build-
ing & Loan Ass'n of Shenandoah v.
Walukiewicz, 185 A. 648, 322 Pa.
2-4Q — Mielcuszny v. Rosol, 176 A.
236, 317 Pa. 91— Associates Dis-
count Corp. v. Wise, 41 A.2d 418,
156 Pa.Super. 659— First Nat Bank
of Mount Holly Springs v. Cumb-
ler, 21.A.2d 120, 145 Pa.Super. 595
— Werner v. Deutsch, 7 A.2d 511.
49 C.J.S. JUDGMENTS
ment is in effect a bill in equity.3*
Where the application is tinder a statute or court
rule, the petition and supporting papers must com-
ply substantially therewith.34 The petition or mo-
tion and the supporting affidavits must set forth
the grounds for the relief requested,3^ and where,
within the rules discussed infra § 324, a meritorious
§ 321
defense must be shown, must show that applicant
has a meritorious defense to the claim for which the
judgment was entered,36 and must account for any
delay in instituting the proceeding.37 In stating
the grounds for relief or a meritorious defense the
application and supporting affidavits must set forth
the facts38 in reasonable detail,3^ and the allegation
of mere conclusions is insufficient40 It has been
135 FsuSuper. 519 — Babcock Lum-
ber Co. v. Allison, 7 A.2d 374, 136
Pa.Super. 353 — Miller v. Mastroco-
la, 2 A.2d 550, 133 Pa.Super. 210—
Michaels v. Moritz, 200 A. 176, 131
Pa. Super. 426 — Kienberger v. Lal-
ly, 198 A. 453, 130 Pa.Super. 5S3—
Burger, for use of Henderson v.
Township of Freedom, 190 A. 387,
126 Pa. Super. 128 — Gardner v. Sa-
lem, 187 A. 94, 123 Pa.-Super. 418
— Cramer Oil Burner Co. v. 'Fergu-
son, 89 Pa,Super. 471— Mid-City
Bank & Trust Co. v. Wear, Com.
PI., 31 DeLCo. 219— South Side
Bank & Trust Co. v. Hornbaker,
Com.Pl., 45 'Lack.Jur. 197.
33. Pa. — Commonwealth v. Miele, 14
A.2d 337, 140 Pa.Super. 313— Mil-
ler v. Mastrocola, 2 A.2d 550, 133
Pa. Super. 210 — Rome Sales & Serv-
ice Station v. Finch, 183 A. 54, 120
Pa. Super. 402 — Lukac v. Morris,
164 A. 834, '108 Pa. Super. 453.
Motion may be treated as beginning
of new suit
111. — Brinkman v. Paulciewski, 245
IlLApp. 307.
34. 111. — Kirchner v.. Boris & Dave
Goldenhersh, 42 N.E.2d 953, 315
IlLApp. 305 — Moore v. Monarch
Distributing Co., 32 N.E.2d 1019,
309 IlLApp. 339.
Sufficiency of application to open or
vacate judgment generally see su-
pra 5 289.
Signature
The application must be signed by
applicant or his attorney. — Wyoming
Valley Trust Co. v. Tisch, 18 Pa.
Disk & Co. 581, 27 Luz-Leg.Reg. 277.
35. I1L— Houston v. Ingels, 48 N.E.
2d 196, 318 IlLApp. 383— Harris v.
Bernfeld, 250 IlLApp. 446.
Pa. — Stevenson v. ODersam, 119 A.
491, 27-5 Pa. 412— Potter Title &
Trust Co. v. Vance Engineering
Co., 18 Pa.Dist & Co. -682, 13 Wash.
Co. 10 — Colonial Lumber & Tim-
ber Co. v. Mailander, Coxn.PL, 32
•liUZ.Lieg.Heg. 460.
34 C.J. p 4 OS notes 86, 87.
Grounds for opening or vacating see
infra § 323.
If motion is made on behalf of
creditors it should allege fraud or
collusion between the parties and
consequent injury to applicants'
rights. — Grazebrook v. McCreedie, i>
Wend.,N.Y., 437.
If application is based on an ir-
regularity, it should specify the ir-
regularity.—Winnebrenner v. Edger-
ton, 30 Barb.,N.Y., 185, 8 Abb.Pr. 419,
17 How.Pr. 368.
Piecemeal application
Defendant moving to set aside
judgment was under duty to urge all
grounds tending to show bias in
judgment, .since courts do not look
favorably on trying issues piecemeal.
— Hot Springs Nat. Bank v. Kenney,
48 P.2d 1029, 39 N.M. 428.
30. I1L— Zipperman v. Wiltse, 47 N.
E.2d 365, 317 IlLApp. 654— Lleber-
man v. Kanter, 33 N.E.2d 129, 309
IlLApp. 444— Automatic Oil Heat-
ing Co. v. Lee, 18 N.E.2d 919. 296
IlLApp. 628 — Mandel Bros. v. Co-
hen, 248 IlLApp. 188 — Harris Trust
& Savings Bank v. Neighbors, 222
IlLApp. 201.
Pa. — Citizens Bank of Wind (Jap v.
Sparrow, Com.PL, 27 North.Co. 213
— Hill Top Lumber Co. v. Gillman,
Com.PL, 92 Pittsb.Leg.J. 350— Harr
v. Kelly, Com.PL, 43 Lack.Jur. 221,
56 York Leg.Rec. 151.
37. 111.— Hannan v. Biggio, 189 111.
App. 460.
Pa. — Cooke r. Edwards, 9 Pa.Dist.
182.
Diligence held properly shown.
111. — Stranak v. Tomasovic, 32 N.E.2d
994, 309 IlLApp. 177.
38. 111. — Bankers Bldg. v. Bishop, 61
N.E.2d 276, 326 1 11. App. 256, cer-
tiorari denied Bishop v. Bankers
Bldg., 66 S.Ct 1352— Prairie State
Bank v. Baer, 35 N.E.2d 536, 311
IlLApp. 248 — Davis v. Mosbacher,
252 IlLApp. 536— Parent Mfg. Co.
v. Oil Products Appliance Co., 246
IlLApp. 222— Harris Trust & Sav-
ings Bank y. Neighbors, 222 111.
App. 201.
Pa.— Joslin v. Albrewczynski, Com.
PL, 93 Pittsb.Leg.J. 32— Potts v.
Mitchell, Com.PL, 27 WestCo.L.J.
63.
34 C.J. p 415 note 50.
Applications held sufficient
111.— Fidler v. Kennedy, 62 N.E.2d
10, 326 IlLApp. 449— Great North-
ern Store Fixture Mfg. Co. v.
(Lamm, 58 N.E.2d 745, 324 IlLApp.
1587— Selimos v. Marines, 54 N.B.2d
836, 323 IlLApp. 144— Moore v.
Monarch Distributing Co., 32 N.E.
2d 1019, 309 IlLApp. 339— Jefferson
Trust & Savings Bank v. W. Heller
& Son, 280 IlLApp. 399— Ross v.
Wrightwood-Hampden Bldg. Cor-
579
poration, 271 IlLApp. 22 — Gross-
man v. Lifshitz, 261 IlLApp. 523.
Applications held insufficient
I1L — Chicago Bank of Commerce v.
Kraft, 269 IlLApp. 295— Sternberg-
er v. Wright, 239 IlLApp. 490.
Applications held too vague and gen.
eral
I1L— University State Bank v. Kelly,
35 N.E.2d 559, 311 IlLApp. 24'S—
Mandel Bros. v. Cohen, 248 IlLApp.
188.
Pa.— Potts v. Mitchell, Com.PL, 27
West. 63.
39. Del.— Chandler v. Miles, 193 A.
576, 8 W.W.Harr. 431.
111. — Parent Mfg. Co. v. Oil Products
Appliance Co., 246 IlLApp. 222.
Damages claimed by buyer as re-
sult of seller's alleged breaches of
warranty constituting difference in
value between fixtures furnished and
those contracted for were general
damages and were not required to be
alleged with greater particularity. —
Great Northern Store Fixture Mfg.
Co. v. Lamm, 58 N.E.2d 745, 324 I1L
App. 587.
Degree of certainty
The facts need not be stated with
the same detail and certainty as is
required in a formal pleading.
Colo.— McGinnis v. Hukill, 208 P.
248, 71 Colo. 476.
111.— State Bank v. Parkhurst, 155 111.
App. 101.
40. DL— Bankers Bldg. v. Bishop, 61
N.E.2d 276. 326 IlLApp. 256. cer-
tiorari denied Bishop v. Bankers
Bldg., 66 S.Ct 1352— 'Freudenthal
v. Lipman, 51 N.E.2d 7IJ4, 320 lil.
App. 681 — Kirchner v. Boris &
Dave Goldenhersh, 42 N.E.2d 953,
315 IlLApp. 305 — Larson v. Lybyer,
38 N.E.2d 177, 312 IlLApp. 188—
Chicago Bank of Commerce v.
Kraft, 269 IlLApp. 295— Davis v.
Mosbacher, 252 IlLApp. 536— Har-
ris Trust & Savings Bank v.
Neighbors, 222 IlLApp. 201.
Ohio. — Canal Winchester Bank v.
Exline, 23 N.E.2d 528, 61 Ohio App.
253.
Pa. — Harr v. Kelly, Com.Pl., 43 {Lack.
Jur. 221, 66 York Leg.Rec. 151.
34 C.J. p 415 note 90.
Fraud
A general allegation of fraud Is
insufficient; the facts constituting
the fraud must be set forth. — Potter
Title & Trust Co. v. Vance Engineer-
321
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
held that the motion or petition and the affidavits
in support thereof must state positively, and not
by way of inference or belief, the facts on which ap-
plicant relies.41 The affidavits should be closely
scrutinized, and be construed most strongly against
the party making the motion.42
Mere defects or irregularities in a petition are
amendable,43 and the filing of an amended petition
averring additional facts may be permitted where
such facts do not constitute a new ground for the
opening of the judgment.44
A petition or motion to open -or vacate a judg-
ment by confession is subject to attack by demurrer
or motion to dismiss where it is insufficient on its
facets
The answer to an application to open a judgment
by confession is subject to much the same pleading
requirements as an answer to a bill in equity.46
b. Who May Apply
An application to open or vacate a Judgment by con-
fession may be made by the defendant, his personal rep-
resentatives, a judgment creditor of the defendant, or,
in some Jurisdictions, by a general creditor of the de-
fendant.
An application to vacate or set aside a judgment
by confession may be made by the debtor or de-
fendant himself,47 or his executors or administra-
tors,48 or, in the case of a dissolved corporation, by
its receiver.49 A judgment against two or more
defendants may be opened on the application of only
one of them;50 and, where such application is made
at the term when the judgment is entered, it may
be continued, and the other debtors be joined by
amendment.51
A judgment by confession may be vacated or set
aside, for good cause shown, on an application by
other judgment creditors of defendant,62 or by an
attaching creditor,5^ or, it has been held, by any
general creditor of the judgment defendant;54 but
it has also been held that only a judgment creditor
has the right to move to set aside a judgment by
confession.55 A judgment confessed by several de-
fendants will not be set aside on the motion of a
creditor who has recovered judgment against some
only of the defendants,56 and a judgment, although
defective, will not be set aside on a motion of a
creditor whose judgment is subject to the same ob-
jection.57
A judgment entered without the principal credi-
ing Co., 18 Pa.Dist & Co. 682, 13
Wash.Co. 10.
41. 111.— Giddings v. Senneff, 41 N.
B.2d 106, 314 I11.APP. 205.
Pa, — Baldwin & Welcoraer Co. v.
Haines, Com. PI., 28 Erie Co. 85.
34 C. J. p 415 note 91.
Pacts as to which affiant competent
to testify
An affidavit in support of a motion
to vacate a judgment by confession
must be made on personal knowledge
of affiant and must consist only of
such facts as would be admissible
in evidence, and it must affirmatively
appear from affidavit that if affiant
were sworn as a witness he could
testify competently thereto. — Bark-
hausen v. Naugher, Ill.App., 64 N.E.
2d 561 — Bankers Bldg. v. Bishop, 61
tf.E.2d 276, 326 IlLApp. 256, certio-
rari denied Bishop v. Bankers Bldg.,
66 S.Ct. 1352— Kirchner v. Boris &
Dave Goldenhersh, 42 N.B.2d 953, 315
IlLApp. 305.
42. 111. — Automobile Supply Co. v.
Scene-in-Action Corporation, 172
N.E. 35, 340 111. 196, 69 A.L.R. 10S5
— Paluszewski v. Tomczak, 273 111.
App. 245 — Chicago Bank of Com-
merce v. Kraft, 2-69 IlLApp. 295 —
Mandel Bros. v. Cohen, 243 IlLApp.
188— Stemberger v. Wright, 239
ULApp, 490— (Great Western Hat
Works v. Pride Hat Co., 224 111.
App. 249.
34 C.J: p 415 note 93.
43. Pa. — Standard Furnace Co. v.
Roth, 156 A. 600, 102 Pa. Super. 341.
44. Pa. — Standard Furnace Co, v.
Lorincz, 161 A. 573,. 106 Pa.Super.
116.
45. 111. — Brinkman v. Paulciewskl,
245 IlLApp. 307.
Pa. — Bekelja v. James E. Strates
Shows, 37 A.2d 502, 349 Pa, 442—
Potts v. Mitchell, Qom.PL, 27 West.
CoJUJ. 63.
At any time
If verified petition £or rule to
show cause why Judgment entered
on warrant of attorney should not
be opened is insufficient, motion to
dismiss may be made and heard at
any time by court — Chandler v.
Miles, 193 A. 576, 8 W.W.Harr.,DeL,
431.
Implication from failure to 'move to
strike
Plaintiff, by failing to file motion
to strike, conceded impliedly that de-
fendant's verified motion set up mer-
itorious defense. — Gilmore v. Mix,
IlLApp., 67 N.E.2d 313— Security
Discount Corporation v. Jackson, 51
N.B.2d 618, 320 IlLApp. 440.
46. Pa. — George v. George, 178 A.
25, 318 Pa. 203.
47. Del.— Hollis v. Kinney, 120 A
356, 13 DeLCh. 366.
K.J.— Harrison v. Dobkin, 168 A, 837,
11 N.J.Misc. 892.
Pa.— Arrott Steam Power Mills Co.
v. Philadelphia Wood Heel Co., 50
D. & C. 462.
34 C.J. p 409 note 1.
48. N.J.— Young v. Stout, 10 N.J.
580
Law 302 — Wood v. Hopkins, 3 N.
J.Law 263.
49. Del.— Rhoads v. Mitchell, Su-
per., 47 A.2d 174.
50. N.Y. — President & Directors of
Manhattan Co. v. Elton, 39 N.Y.S.
2d 327.
34 C.J. p 409 note 3.
51. Ohio. — Knox County Bank v..
Doty, 9 Ohio St 505, 75 Am.D. 479.
52. N.Y. — Johnston v. A. L. Erlang-
er Realty Corporation, 296 N.Y.S-
89, 162 Misc. 881.
34 C.J. p 349 note 7, p 409 note 5.
53. Cal. — Pehrson v. Hewitt, 21 P.
950, 79 Cal. 594.
34 C.J. p 409 note 6.
54. Pa.— Potter Title & Trust Co. v.
Vance Engineering Co., 13 Pa.
Dist. & Co. 682, 13 Wash.Co. 10—
Wansacz v. Wansacz, Com.PL, 43
Lack.Jur. 127 — Bach v. Morley, 1
!Leh.Val.L.R. 58.
55. N.Y,— Williams v. Mittlemann,
20 N.Y.S.2d 690, 259 App.Div. 697,
appeal denied 22 N.Y.S.2d $22, 260
App.Div. 811, appeal denied.
'34 C.J. p 410 note 7 [a].
53. Mo. — Powell v. January, 35 Mo.
134.
57. N.Y.— Williams v. Mittlemann,
20 N.Y.S.2d 690, 259 App.Div. 697,
appeal denied 22 N.Y.S.2d 822, 260
App.Div. 811, appeal denied— Rae
v. Lawser, 9 Abb.Pr. 380 note, IS
How.Pr. 23.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
321
tor's consent or knowledge may be vacated on his
motion.58
A judgment by confession may be vacated or set
aside for good cause shown at the instance of a
bona fide purchaser or claimant of property on
which the judgment is an apparent lien,5^ or by
others whose rights or interests are affected by the
judgment,60 but it has been held that one who is
not a party to the record may not apply to set aside
• the judgment for irregularities in entering it.61
The court may, in a proper case, act on its own
motion.62
c. Time for Application
In the absence of a statute to the contrary, as a
general rule there Is no limitation of time for exercis-
ing the equitable power of the court to open or set aside
a confessed judgment, although an application to open
or set aside such a Judgment may be denied where the
defendant has been guilty of laches.
As a general rule there is no limitation of time
for exercising the equitable power of the court to
open or set aside a confessed judgment,63 except
when a limitation is fixed by statute,64 and except
that, where the application is made after such un-
reasonable delay on defendant's part as to make
him chargeable with laches, it is viewed with great
disfavor, and ordinarily will not be granted65 un-
less a sufficient excuse for the delay is shown.66
Laches, however, is not necessarily a bar to the
58. Ind. — Chapin v. McLaren, 5 N.E.
688, 105 Ind. 563.
Iowa. — 'Farmers' & Mechanics' Bank
v. Mather, 30 Iowa 283.
69. N.Y.— Kendall v. Hodgins, 14 N.
T.Super. 659, 7 Abb.Pr. 309.
34 C.J. p 410 note 11.
60. Ga. — Ho well v. Gordon, 40 Ga.
302.
Pa. — Whi taker v. Whitaker, 28 Pa.
Dist. 193.
61. Pa. — Williams v. Robertson, 3
Pittsb. 32.
Wis.— Packard v. Smith, 9 Wis. 184.
62. Ohio.— Roberts v. Davis, 35 N.E.
2d 609, 66 Ohio App. 527.
63. Pa.— Salus v. Fogel, 153 A. 547,
302 Pa. 268 — Dormont Motors v.
Hoerr, 1 A.2d 493, 132 Pa.Super.
567— Kappel v. Meth, 189 A. 793,
125 Pa. Super. 443 — Rome Sales &
Service Station v. Finch, 183 A, 54,
120 Pa. Super. 402 — Rudolph v.
Matura, Com.Pl., 27 Del.Co. 521.
34 C.J. p 409 note 93.
General limitation inapplicable
A proceeding- to vacate a judgment
obtained by confession on warrant of
attorney is not subject to the same
limitation of time that prevails as
to judgments regularly entered aft-
er service of process or trial, but
time will be considered in connection
with all other features. — Rhoads v.
Mitchell, DeLSuper., 47 A.2d 174.
64. Wis.— Wessling v. Hieb, 192 N.
W. 4.58, 180 Wis. 160.
34 C.J. p 409 note 94.
Defective statement of confession
Motion to set aside confession
judgment on ground of defective
statement of confession was not sub-
ject to one-year statute of limita-
tions applicable to motions to set
aside judgments for Irregularities,
•since defective statement of confes-
sion was not a mere "irregularity."
—Johnston v. A. L. Brlanger Realty
Corporation, 296 N.T.S. 89, 162 Misc.
881.
Judgment procured "by fraud
One-year, statutory limitation does
not apply to Judgment procured by
fraud. — Gardner v. Rule, 289 P. 606,
87 Colo. 544 — Investors' Finance Co.
v. Luxford, 271 P. 625, 84 Cjolo. 519.
65. 111.— Tackett v. Rebmann, 45 N.
E.2d 58, 316 Ill.App. 443.
Pa. — Horn v. Witherspoon, 192 A.
•654, 327 Pa. 295— McDowell Nat
Bank of Sharon, to Use of Nathan
Rosenblum & Co. v. Rosenblum,
200 A. 679, 132 Pa.Super. 48—
First Nat. Bank of Mt. Holly
Springs v. Cumbler, Com.Pl., 50
Dauph.Co. 203, affirmed 21 A.2d 120,
145 Pa.Super. 595 — Duquesne City
Bank v. McDermott, Com.Pl., 94
Pittsb.Leg.J. 177.
34 C.J. p 409 note 95.
Belay held to constitute laches
(1) In general.
Ill,— 'Foreman v. Martin, 11 N.E.2d
856, 292 Ill.App. 640— Sternberger
v. Wright, 239 Ill.App. 490.
Pa. — Horn v. Witherspoon, 192 A.
654, 327 Pa. 295 — Beckman v. Ciap-
ko, Com.Pl., 33 Luz.Leg.Reg. 348 —
North Wales Nat Bank v. Nuss,
. Com,Pl., 60 Montg.Co. 94, 58 York
Leg.Rec. 69.
34 C.J. p 409 note 95 [a].
(2) Eight months. — Jones v. Lad-
erman, 198 A. 528, 9 W.W.Harr.,Del.,
308.
(3) Seven years. — Jankovich v.
Lajevich, 57 N.E.2d 216, 324 IlLApp.
85.
(4) Nine years. — St. Clair Savings
& Trust Co., for Use of Billhartz v.
Hahne, 29 A.2d 21, 345 Pa, 420.
Delay held not to constitute laches
(1) In general.
Colo.— Mitchell v. Miller, 252 P. 886,
81 Colo. 1.
111.— Gilmore v. Mix, App., 67 N.E.2d
313 — Koknar, Inc., v. Moore, 55 N.
E.2d 524, 323 Ill.App. 323.
Md. — Automobile Brokerage Corpora-
tion v. Myer, 139 A. 539, 154 Md. 1.
Pa.— Austen v. Marzolf, 143 A. 908,
294 Pa. 226— Ransberry, to Use of
Ransberry, v. Predmore, Com.PL,
1 Monroe L.R. 141 — Lorey v.
581
Kauffman, Com.PL, 57 Montg.Co.
57.
(2) Twenty days, but within one
day after learning of judgment —
Handley v. Wilson, 242 Ill.App. 66.
(3) Three months.— Johnstown &
S. Ry. Co. v. Hoffman, 123 A. 302,
278 Pa. 314.
(4) One year, where delay was sat-
isfactorily explained. — Grossman v.
Lifshitz, 261 ULApp. 523.
(5) Four years, where there was
no change in situation of parties. —
Finance Co. of America v. Myerly,
155 A. 148, 161 Md. 23.
Delay in perfecting motion or pro-
ceeding with hearing may constitute
laches.
Colo. — Parham v. Johnson, 292 P.
599, 88 Colo. 127— Sullivan v. Inter-
national Harvester Co. of Ameri-
ca, 279 P. 43, 86 Colo. 177.
111. — Heritage Coal Co. v. Dreves, 20
N.E.2d 114, 296 ULApp. 652.
Pa, — Seaboard Finance Corporation
v. Harding, Com.Pl., 38 Luz.*Leg.
Reg. 80.
Delay short of statutory period of
limitations at law may call for the
application of the doctrine of laches
to petition to open judgment by con-
fession.— Horn v. Witherspoon, 192
A. 654, 327 Pa. 295.
Irregularities
It has been held that no irregular-
ity in the form of proceeding may
be inquired into after the lapse of
one year.— State ex rel. Thompson v.
Police Jury of Qatahoula Parish, 160
So. 414, 181 La. 789 — Parker v. Scog-
in, 11 La.Ann. 629.
What constitutes laches depends
on the particular circumstances.
Md. — Denton Nat. Bank of Maryland
v. Lynch, 142 A. 103, 155 Md. 333.
Pa. — Cronauer v. Bayer, 13 A.2d 75,
140 Pa.Super. 91— South Side Bank
& Trust Co. v. Hornbaker, Com.
PI., 45 Lack-Jur. 197.
66. Del. — Jones v. -Laderman, 198 A.
528, 9 W.W.Harr. 308.
111.— Stranak v. Tomasovic, 32 N.E.2d
§ 321
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
opening or setting aside of a confessed judgment,67
particularly where the rights of third persons have
not intervened;68 and laches will not bar the ap-
plication where the judgment is void.69
During or subsequent to term. A judgment by
confession may be opened or vacated on motion dur-
ing the term at which it was entered,70 and in the
absence of a statutory limitation to the contrary, or
of circumstances constituting laches, it may be
opened after the end of such term,71 such as at a
subsequent term,72 unless, under some statutes, the
party has in the meantime unsuccessfully prosecuted
another remedy against the judgment.73
§ 322. Jurisdiction and Authority
The court has equitable Jurisdiction and power to
open or vacate a judgment by confession.
While a judgment by confession operates as a
release or waiver of formal errors and irregulari-
ties, as discussed supra § 169, nevertheless the judg-
ment confessed remains within the control of the
court,74 and it may exercise an equitable juris-
diction over a judgment entered in this way, and
has power to open, vacate, or set aside the judg-
ment for good cause shown.75
994, 309 IlLApp. 177— Spindler v.
McKay, 13 N.E.2d 864, 294 IlLApp.
610.
Md.— Johnson v. Phillips, 122 A. 7,
143 Md. 16.
Pa. — Jamestown Banking* Co. v. Con-
neaut Lake Dock & Dredge Co., 14
A.2d 325, 3S9 Pa. 2-6— Cronauer v.
Bayer, 13 A.2d 75, 140 Pa.Super.
91 — First Nat Bank & Trust Co.
of 'Ford City v. Stolar, 197 A. 499,
130 Pa.Super. 480.
Excuses held sufficient
(1) Fact that defendant had been
patient in hospital in another state
at time of judgment entry. — Elab-
orated Ready Roofing Co. v. Hunter,
262 IlLApp. 380.
(2) Fact that defendant was away
from home moving from place to
place with no known address during
period in which judgment by confes-
sion was obtained, execution issued,
and defendant's property sold. — Lu-
cero v. fimith, 132 P.2d 791. 110 Colo.
165.
(3) Misconception of appropriate
remedy. — Miller Bros. v. Keenan, 94
Pa.Super. 79.
Delays caused by judgment credi-
tor's attorney could not be charged
as laches against defendant. — Kol-
mar, Inc., v. Moore, 65 N.B.2d 524,
323 IlLApp. 323.
07. 111.— Ross v. Wrightwood-Hamp-
den Bldg. Corporation, 271 IlLApp.
22.
Pa. — Miller Bros. v. Keenan, 94 Pa.
Super. 79.
Application by trustee
Delay in applying to open con-
fessed judgment against corporation
was immaterial where judgment
debtor's trustee in bankruptcy was
not guilty of laches.— Klein v. Lan-
caster Trust Co., 138 A. 768, 290 Pa.
280.
Question, not raised
The question of laches should not
be considered where it is not raised
by the pleadings. — Warren -Sav. Bank
& Trust Co. v. :Foley, 144 A. 84, 294
Pa. 176.
0S. 111. — Kolmar, Inc.,. y. Moore,
N.B.2d 524, 323 IlLApp. 323.
69. Del.— Rhoads v. Mitchell, Su-
per., 47 A,2d 174.
111. — Solomon v. Dunne, 264 IlLApp.
415— State Bank of Prairie du
Rocher v. Brown, 263 IlLApp. 312.
70. Md.— Sunderland v. Braun Pack-
ing Co., 86 A. 126, 119. Md. 125,
Ann.Cas.l914D 156.
34 C.J. p 409 note 9<6.
Courts usually act liberally in
those cases in which application to
strike out a judgment is made dur-
ing term in which judgment was en-
tered.— Pioneer Oil Heat v. Brown,
16 A.2d 880, 179 Md. 155.
71. Del.— Miles v. Layton, 193 A.
567, 8 W.W.Harr. 411, 112 A.L.R.
786.
111. — Solomon v. Dunne, 264 IlLApp.
415— Elaborated Ready Roofing
Co. v. Hunter, 262 IlLApp. 380 —
Lathrop-Paulson Co. v. Perksen,
229 IlLApp. 400.
Md. — Denton Nat. Bank of Maryland
V. Lynch, 142 A. 103, 1'55 Md. 333.
Pa.— Salus v. Fogel, 153 A. 547, 302
Pa. 268— -Markeim-Chalmers-Lud-
ington, Inc., v. Mead, 14 A.2d 152,
140 Pa- Super. 490 — New Amster-
dam Building & ILoan Ass'n v.
Moyerman, 95 Pa, Super. 47.
34 C.J. p 409 note 97.
72. Del. — Dover Motors Corporation
r. North & South Motor Lines, 193
A. 592, 8 W.W.Harr. 467— Miles
v. Dayton, 193 A. 567, 8 W.W.Harr.
411, 112 A.L.R. 786.
111.— Mutual Life of Illinois v. Little,
227 IlLApp. 436.
34 C.J. p 409 note 98.
73. Ohio. — Kesting v. East Side
Bank Co., 33 Ohio Cir.Ct 77, af-
firmed 81 N.E. 1188, 76 Ohio St.
591.
34 C.J. p 409 note 99.
74. CaL— Vale v. Maryland Casual-
ty Co., 281 P. 1058, 101 CaLApp.
599.
I1L— 'First Nat Bank'v. Galbraith,
271 IlLApp. 240.
Pa.— Farmers Trust Company v.
Egulf, 32 Pa.Dist & Co. 598—
Household Finance Corporation v.
MacMorris, Com.PL, 32 DeLCo. «65
582
— Sterling Land Co. v. Kline, Com.
PL, «7 Pittsb.Leg.J. 279.
— Tost v. O'Brien, 130 S.E. 442,
100 W.Va, 408.
34 CJ. p 407 note 75.
75. Del. — Smulski v. H. Feinberg
Furniture Co., 193 A. 585, 8 W.W.
Harr. 451.
I1L — Kolmar, Inc., v. Moore, 55 N.
B.2d 524, 323 IlLApp. 323— Treager
v. Totsch, 53 N.E.2d 719, 322 111.
App. 75— Automatic Oil Heating
Co. v. Lee, 16 N.E.2d 919, 296 111.
App. 628— 'First Nat. Bank v. Gal-
braith, 271 IlLApp. 240.
Ohio.— Bliss v. Smith, 156 N.E. 618,
24 Ohio App. 366.
Pa. — Luce v. Reed Colliery Co., 78
Pa.Super. 248 — Barrasso v. Catari-
no, 49 Pa,Dist. & Co. 540, 45 Lack.
Jur. 57 — Evans v. Stilley, 8 Pa.
Dist & Co. 466— Potts v. Mitchell,
Com.PL, 27 West.Co.L.J. 63.
Wis. — State v. Braun, 245 N.W. 176,
209 Wis. 483— Wessling v. Hieb,
192 N.W. 458, 180 Wis. 160.
3-4 C.J. p 407 note 76, p 408 notes 77,
78.
Inherent power
The superior court In entertaining
application to open judgment by con-
fession under warrant of attorney
exercises jurisdiction because of in-
herent power over Its own records,
and not under statutory authority. —
Chandler v. Miles, 193 A. 576, 8 W.
W.Harr.,DeL, 431 — Hollis v. Kinney,
120 A. 356, 13 Del.Ch. 366.
Exhaustion of power
(1) Orders made after denial of
regularly submitted motion to va-
cate judgments by confession were
invalid. — Vale v. Maryland Casualty
Co., 281 P. 1058, 101 CaLApp. 599.
(2) Order opening judgment con-
fessed under warrant of attorney is
proper, although rule to open such
judgment had been discharged at
previous term of court. — Johnson v. *
Nippert, 133 A. ISO, 286 Pa, 175.
Power to control execution
The trial court had power to con-
trol judgment by confession and any
execution issued thereon. — Keystone
Bank of Spangler, Pa., v. Booth, 6 A-
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 323
§ 323.
Grounds
In the absence of a statute to the contrary, a con-
fessed judgment will be opened or vacated only where
some equitable ground or reason therefor la shown.
An application to open or vacate a judgment ordi-
narily is addressed to the equitable power of the
court,76 and, except where other grounds are speci-
fied by statute,77 the judgment will be opened or
vacated only where some equitable ground or reason
therefor is shown.78 A judgment by confession will
not be opened or vacated for mere technical errors
or irregularities.79
A judgment by confession may, in the discretion
of the court, be opened or vacated on the following
grounds: A failure substantially to comply with
material requirements of the statute or rule author-
izing such judgments ;80 forgery of defendant's sig-
nature to the confession or warrant of attorney;81
that his name was never signed by him or by any-
one authorized to sign it for him ;82 that the power
to confess judgment was void;83 that the attorney
who assumed to appear for him and confess the
judgment had no authority to do so, or acted be-
yond the scope of his authority;84 that there was
2d 417, 334 Pa. 545— Markofski v.
Yanks, 146 A. 569, 297 Pa, 74— South
Side Bank & Trust Co. v. Scheuer,
Pa.Com.Pl., 43 Lack.Jur. 95.
Opening- in part
The trial court was authorized to
open revived judgment by confession
to such extent as might be neces-
sary to do justice between the par-
ties, and to continue it as to the bal-
ance.— Keystone Bank of Spangler,
Pa,, v. Booth, 6 A.2d 417, 334 Pa, 545.
Belief desired by both parties
Pa.— McConnell v. Bowden, 41 A.2d
>849, 352 Pa. 48.
7& 111.— Mayer v. Tyler, 19 N.E.2d
211, 298 Ill.App. 632 — Alton Bank-
in? & Trust Co. v. Gray, 259 111.
App. 20, affirmed 179 K.I!. 469,. 347
111. -99.
N.J. — Corpus Juris quoted in. Knoett-
ner v. Integrity Corporation of
New Jersey, 1-60 A. 527, 528, 109 N.
J.Law 186.
Pa. — Bonebrake v. Koons, 5 A.2d 184,
333 Pa. 443— Newtown Title &
Trust Co. v. Underwood, 177 A. 27,
317 Pa, 212— Certelli v. Braum, 144
A. 403, 294 Pa, 488— Baker's Es-
tate v. Woodworth, 198 A. 469, 130
Pa.Super. 452 — Lukac v. Morris,
164 A. 834, 108 Pa.Super. 453—
McBnery v. Nahlen, Qom.Pl., 21
Brie Co. 172— Minet Motor Co. v.
(Lehn, Com.Pl., 54 York Leg.Rec.
3.
34 C.J. p 408 note 78.
77. Ohio. — Ames Co. v. Buslck, App.,
47 N.B.2d 647.
Wis.— Wessling v. Hieb, 192 N.W.
458, 180 Wis. 160.
78. 111. — Elaborated Ready Roofing-
Co, v. Hunter, 262 IlLApp. 380 —
Barrow v. Phillips, 250 IlLApp.
587 — iLong v. Coif man, 230 IlLApp.
527.
Md.— Denton Nat. Bank of Maryland
v. Lynch, 142 A. 103, 155 Md. 333.
N. J. — Corpus Juris quoted in Knoett-
ner Y. Integrity Corporation of
New Jersey, 160 A. 527, «28, 109
N.J.Law 1*6.
Pa. — Grant Const Co., for Use of
Home Credit Co., v. Stokes, 167 A.
643, 109 Pa.Super. 421— Klein v.
Brookside Distilling Products
Corp., Com.Pl., 47 Lack.Jur. 165.
34 Q J. p 410 note 15.
Existence of a meritorious defense
as ground for opening or vacating
see infra § 324.
Excessive cumulation, of remedies
'Lease or bailment contract, pro-
viding for cumulation of remedies in
such manner as to produce results
so grossly inequitable as to be un-
conscionable, will not be sustained.
—Lukac v. Morris, 164 A, 834, 108
Pa,Super. 453.
Judgment held valid and not to be
subject to vacation. — Rhoads v.
Mitchell, DeLSuper., 47 A.2d 174.
79. N.J.— Stetz v. Googer, 18 A.2d
41-6, 126 N.J.Law 213.
Pa.— Albert M. Greenfield & Co. v.
Roberts, 5 A.2d 642, 135 Pa.Super.
328 — Hefer v. Hefner, 95 Pa.Super.
551— Waldman v. Baer, 81 Pa. Su-
per. 290 — Casey Heat -Service Co.
v. Klein, 55 Pa.Dist & Co. 293—
Industrial 'Fibre Products Co. of
Caldwell, N. J., v. Arters, 49 Pa.
Disk & Co. 304, 26 Brie Co. 202 —
Cohen v. Stergiakis, 26 PajDlst. &
Co. 699 — Scouton v. Saunders,
Com.PL, 39 Luz.Leg.Reg. 102 — Bar-
ney v. Nogen, Com.PL, 35 GLtUZ.Leg.
Reg. 441 — Ward & Wiener v. Cas-
terline, Com.PL, 33 Luz.Leg.Reg.
54 — Crane v. Harris, Qom.PL, 8
Monroe L.R. 24 — Rapp v. Schlicht-
man, Com.PL, 54 Montg.Co. 16.
34 C.J. p 412 note 57.
80. Ga. — Thomas v. Bloodworth, 160
•S.E. 709, 44 Ga,App. 44.
Pa. — Gorchov v. Moran, 17 Pa.Dlst.
& Co. 248— Heller v. Goldsmith, 14
Pa.DIst & Co. 746, 33 Dauph.Co.
377— Orner v. Hurwitch, 12 Pa.
Dist & Co. 403, affirmed 97 Pa.Su-
per. 263 — Heller v. Bloom, Com.
PL, 51 Dauph.Co. 360 — Bell v. ILaw-
ler, Com.PL, 45 ,Lack.Jur. 181—
Xiimbert v. Nossal, Com.PL, 32 Luz.
Leg.Reg. 352.
34 C.J. p 410 note 16.
Confession not filed
K.Y.— Williams v. Mittlemann, 20 N.
Y.S.2d 690, 259 App.DIv. 697, ap-
peal denied 22 N.7.S.2d 822, 2*60
App.DiT. 811, appeal denied. ,
583
Mortgage foreclosure
Under statute authorizing recov-
ery of deficiency existing after mort-
gage foreclosure sale, obligors on
mortgage bond who executed war-
rant of attorney to enter judgment
by confession waived the commence-
ment of suit for deficiency by proc-
ess and were not entitled to set aside
judgment for deficiency entered by
confession on bond and warrant,
notwithstanding statutory provision
that obligor may file an answer in
suit on the bond. — Chambers v.
Boldt, 8 A.2d 73. 123 N.J.'Law 111.
Notice to surety
Failure to give surety notice of
proceedings for revocation of liquor
dealer's license was held not to enti-
tle surety to open Judgment con-
fessed on liquor license bond, where
statute did not contemplate that
surety should be party to such pro-
ceedings.— Commonwealth v. Mc-
Menamin, 184 A. 679, 122 Pa,Super.
91.
Venue
Judgment by cognovit on note au-
thorizing entry of judgment thereon
in any state or county cannot be
disturbed merely for failure to lay
proper venue. — State v. Braun, 245
N.W. 176, 209 Wis. 483.
81. Pa. — Sobieskl Building & Loan
Ass'n v. McGrady, 80 Pa. Super.
277 — South Side Bank & Trust Co.
v. Hornbaker, Com.PL, 45 Lack.
Jur. 197 — Szabari v. Kuzman, Com.
PL, 18 Leh.L.J. 421— Makarewicz v.
Yova, Com.PL, 33 Luz.:Leg.Reg.
336.
34 C. J. p 410 note 17.
82. Pa. — Charles D. Kaier Co. v.
O'Brien, 51 A. 760, 202 Pa, 153—
Keystone Brewing Co. v. Varzaly,
39 Pa.Super. 155.
83. 111.— Barrow v. Phillips, 250 I1L
App. 587.
84. 111.— Handley v. Wilson, 242 HL
App. 66.
N.Y. — President and Directors of
Manhattan Co. v. Elton, 39 N.T.-S.
2d 327.
Pa. — DIsanto v. Rowland, $3 Pa.Su-
per. 155 — Medvidovlch v. Sterner,
50 Pa.Dist, & CO. 690, 92 Pittsb.
Leg.J. 223 — Guardian Financial
323
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
a material alteration in the judgment note;85 that
a joint judgment was entered on separate war-
rants;86 that judgment was not entered in favor of
the proper party plaintiff;87 that plaintiff has bro-
ken an agreement with defendant as to entering up
or enforcing the judgment;88 or that defendant had
died before entry of the judgment.^ It has been
held that it is not a ground for opening or setting
aside the judgment that it was in violation of an
injunction issuing from another court.90
Time of entering judgment. A judgment by con-
fession will not be opened or vacated on the mere
ground that it was taken prematurely,91 such as
before the maturity of the obligation secured,92 un-
less it is entered under a warrant of attorney which
authorizes a confession only after maturity.93
Objections to affidavit or statement. Mere defects
or irregularities in the affidavit or statement of the
indebtedness required by the statute constitute no
ground for vacating or setting aside the judg-
ment;94 although even in such a case some of the
decisions hold that the judgment should not be set
aside where no fraud or injustice is shown, and the
debt is admitted to be due, unless some equitable
ground is shown for the court's interposition,95
but this relief may be granted where the affidavit
or statement is wholly lacking or entirely insuffi-
cient.96 It has been held that before a judgment,
confessed under a warrant of attorney which is
over a year and a day old, will be set aside because
an affidavit is not filed showing that defendant was
alive and that the debt was due an'd unpaid, the
party making the application must show in addi-
tion some equitable reason therefor.97
Defects in pleading or evidence. A judgment by
confession cannot be set aside because of immate-
rial defects in the pleadings or evidence in the
case98 or because of immaterial variances,99 but it
may be vacated for want of proof of the execution
of the power of attorney by defendant,1 or where
the petition for judgment does not state facts neces-
sary to give jurisdiction.2
Corporation v. Pish, Com.Pl., 32
Luz.Leg.Heg. 408.
34 C.J. p 410 note 19—6 C.J. p 646
note 37.
Judgment entered "by prothonotary
will be stricken where the amount
of the indebtedness cannot be ascer-
tained from the face of the authority
to confess Judgment — Orner v. Hur-
witch, 97 Pa.Super. 263.
85. 111. — Heldman v. Gunnell, 201
IlLApp. 172.
Pa. — Colonial Finance Co. v. Hoover,
170 A, 338, 112 Pa.Super. 60.
34 C.J. p 410 note 20.
86. Pa.— Peoples Nat. Bank of
Reynoldsville, to Use of Mottern,
v. D. & M. Coal Co., 187 A. 452,
124 Pa.Super. 21.
87. Pa. — Rome Sales & Service Sta-
tion v. 'Pinch, 169 A. 476, 111 Pa.
Super. 226 — Market St. Trust Co.
now for Use of Swails v. Grove,
46 Pa.Dist. & Co. 605, 53 Dauph.Co.
114— Hogsett v. (Lutrario, 34 Pa.
DIst & Co. 637, 87 PittsbJLreg.J. 73,
2 Pay.'Co.Leg.J. 1. affirmed 13 A.2d
902, 140 PavSuper. 419.
Agent
Where lease provided that certain
person who signed lease as agent,
was acting as agent, failure to en-
ter judgment by confession in lease
in favor of such person, as well as
in favor of admitted lessors was not
ground for striking off judgment,
since it sufficiently appeared, in ab-
sence of contrary averment, that
such person had no other status than
that of agent. — Forgeng v. Blank,
185 A. 729, 822 Pa. 208.
Xlctitions plaintiff
•Defendant could not have judg-
ment entered pursuant to warrant
of attorney stricken as void because
judgment designated allegedly un-
registered fictitious name as plain-
tiff.— Rome Sales & Service Station
v. Finch, 169 A. 476, 111 Pa,Super.
226.
88. Pa.— Byrod v. Bweigert, 12 Pa.
Dist. 565.
34 C.J. p 410 note 21.
89. Del.— Rhoads v. Mitchell, Su-
per.. 47 A.2d 174.
34 C.J. p 410 note 22.
90. N.Y. — Grazebrook v. McCreedie,
9 Wend. 437.
34 C.J. p 410 note 23.
91. Pa, — Spiese v. Shee, 95 A. 555,
250 Pa. 399.
34 C.J. p 411 note 24.
92. Miss.— Black v. Pattison, 61
Miss. 599.
34 C.J. p 411 note 25.
93. Wis.— Reid v. Southworth, 36
N.W. 866, 71 Wis. 288.
94. 111.— Larson v. Lybyer, 38 N.E.
2d 177, 312 IlLApp. 188.
N.J. — Harrison v. Dobkin, .168 A.
837, 11 N.J.Misc. 892.
Pa. — Prosewicz v. Gorski, 30 ' A.2d
224, 151 Pa.Super. 309— New Am-
sterdam Building & 'Loan Ass'n v.
Moyerman, 95 Pa-Super. 47 — Joyce,
to Use of v. Hawtof, 30 Pa.Dist
& Co. 642, affirmed 4 A.2d 599, 135
Pa.-Super. 30 — Hazleton Motor Co.
v. Siroski, ConuPL, 36 Luz.Leg.
Reg. 237.
34 C.J. p 411 note 28.
95. N.J.— Ely v. Parkhurst, 25 N.
J.Law 188.
Tex.— Chestnutt v. Pollard, 13 S.W.
852, 77 Tex. 86.
584
96. 111. — Preisler v. Gulezynski, 264
IlLApp. 12.
N.J. — 'Fortune Building & Loan
Ass'n v. Codomo, 7 A.2d 880, 122
N.J.Law 565 — Harrison v. Dobkin,
168 A. 837, 11 N.J.Misc. 892.
N.Y, — Johnston v. A. L. Brlanger
Realty Corporation, 296 N.Y.S. «9,
162 Misc. 881.
Pa. — Advance-Rumely Thresher Co.
v. Frederick, 98 Pa.Super. 560 —
Jordan v. Kirschner, 94 Pa. Super.
252— Lillis v. Reed, Com.PL, 21
Brie Co. 8 — Newswander v. Fox,
Com.PL, 86 Pittsb.Leg.J. 342.
34 C.J. p 411 note 29.
Objection available to creditor only
A motion to vacate a judgment by
confession on ground of alleged de-
ficiency in statement of confession
was properly denied, since alleged
deficiency was not available to judg-
ment debtor, statute relating to
such judgment being intended only
to protect creditors of a defendant
from judgments entered on confes-
sion by collusion. — Magalhaes v.
Magalhaes, 5 N.Y.S.2d 43, 254 App.
Div. 880.
97. 111. — Larson v. ILybyer, 38 N.B.
2d 177, 312 IlLApp. 188.
34 C.J. p 411 note 31.
9a 111. — Adam v. Arnold, 86 111.
185— -Hall v. Jones, 32 111. 38.
99. 111. — Hall v. Jones, supra.
1. 111.— Stein v. Good, 3 N.B. 735,
115 111. 93.
2. Ohio. — Hower v. Jones, 4 Ohio
Dec,, Reprint, 302, 1 ClevJLuRep.
257.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
323
Fraud. A confessed judgment may be vacated
on a sufficient showing that it was obtained by
means of fraud, deception, or imposition practiced
on defendant,3 although it has been held that the
judgment will not be vacated on such ground where
the evidence in support of the petition to vacate
shows that defendant has no defense to the action.4
Where a judgment is confessed directly to a third
party, who takes the same in good faith and for
value, it cannot be impeached for fraud existing be-
tween the other parties ;5 but it is otherwise if such
third party takes such judgment as collateral se-
curity only after it has been confessed.6 Where
there is no evidence of fraud or undue influence, it
is no ground for setting aside the judgment that
defendant is of weak understanding and in the habit
of making improvident bargains,7 that he is illiter-
ate,8 or that he was intoxicated at the time,9 or
that defendant did not know that his note contained
authority for confession of judgment.10
Fraud or collusion between the original parties
to the judgment will be cause for setting it aside
at the instance of other creditors, as discussed in
Fraudulent Conveyances § 44 b, or other parties in
interest;11 but not at the instance of defendant or
the other original party.12
Duress. A judgment by confession may be set
aside where it was obtained by duress.13 A judg-
ment will not be set aside for duress, however,
where it is confessed in the presence of the court ;14
nor is the mere fact that defendant makes the con-
fession while under arrest sufficient ground for set-
ting aside the judgment, where it is shown that it
was his voluntary act.15
Objection to amount of judgment. A judgment
by confession may be opened or set aside where the
amount of it is excessive.16 The fact, however, that
the judgment includes costs is no ground for set-
ting it aside, if they are reasonable in amount;17
and the mere fact that the judgment was confessed
for less than the amount apparently due is no
ground for setting it aside on the motion of de-
fendant.18 Where' a judgment for less than au-
thorized is confessed under a warrant of attorney,
it has been held that an amended judgment there-
after entered for the proper sum is voidable and
that it may be opened.19
Distinction between grounds for striking and op-
ening judgment. A distinction is made, in some ju-
3. Colo. — Investors' Finance Co. v.
Luxford, 271 P. 625, 84 qolo. 519.
HI.— Preisler v. Gulezynski, 264 111.
App. 12 — Beard v. Baxter, 242 111.
App. 480.
Pa. — Standard Furnace Co. v. Lor-
incz, 161 A. 573, 106 PsuSuper. 116
— Davis v. Tate, Com.Pl., 26 Brie
Co. 141 — Guth v. Raymond, Com:
PL, 19 Leh.'L.J. 126— Bonat v.
•Filer, Com.Pl., 10 Sch.Reg. 112.
84 C.J. p 411 note 36.
Mistake
Where it is made to appear that a
note on which a judgment has been
taken by confession was executed
in belief that some other document,
not a note, was being signed, leave
to plead should be allowed on due
application. — Stranak v. Tomasoyic,
32 N.E.2d 994, 309 IlLApp. 177.
Fraud held shown
Colo. — Investors' Finance Co. v. Lux-
ford, 271 P. 625, 84 Colo. 519.
Fraud held not shown
Del. — Testardo v. Bresser, 153 A.
800, 17 Del.Cn. 312.
Ga. — Thomas v. Bloodworth, 160 -S.
El. 709, 44 Ga.App. 44.
IlL— Glanz v. Mueller, 54 N.E.2d 639,
322 IlLApp. 507— Stellwagen v.
Schmidt, 234 IlLApp. 325.
Pa. — Keystone Bank of Spangler, Pa.,
v. Booth, 6 A.2d 417, 334 Pa. ,545—
Vaughan & Co. v. Hopewell, 79
Pa. Super, 23$ — Eastern Light Co.
v. Wojciechowski, Com.PL, 3*6 Luz.
Leg.Reg. 233.
34 C.J. p 411 note 36 [a].
4. Neb.— Osborn v. Gehr, 46 N.W.
84, 29 Neb. 661.
Necessity of meritorious defense see
infra § 324.
5. N.Y.— Kirby v. Fitzgerald, 31 N.
T. 417.
a. N.Y.— Kirby v. 'Fitzgerald, supra.
fl, Va.— Mason v. Williams, 3 Munf.
126, 17 Va. 126, -5 Am.D. 505.
& N.J.— Modern Security Co. v.
Lockett, Sup., 143 A. 511.
9. Wis.— Kissinger v. Zieger, 120 N.
W. 249, 138 Wis. 368.
34 C.J. p 411 note 41.
10. Md. — International Harvester
Co. v. Neuhauser, 97 A. 372, 128
Md. 173.
11. CaL— Crescent Canal Co. v.
Montgomery, «6 P. 797, 124 CaL
134.
12. Pa,— Harbaugh v. Butner, 23 A.
983, 148 Pa. 273.
34 C.J. p 411 note 45.
Assignee for benefit of creditors
A Judgment by confession good as
against the debtor, even though it
is fraudulent as against creditors,
cannot be set aside on motion of
the assignee for the benefit of cred-
itors.—'Beekman v. Kirk, IS How.
Pr., N.Y., 228—34 C.J. p 349 note 8.
13. Pa. — Guadiere v. Simeone, 29 A.
2d 702, 151 Pa.Super. 65.
34 C.J. p 411 note 46.
Threat of prosecution
Fact that note was procured by
threat of prosecution did not war-
rant opening judgment confessed on
note. — First Nat. Bank v. Reynolds,
256 IlLApp. 553.
14. Ky.— Hamilton v. Clarke, 1 Bibb
251.
15. IlL— Baldwin v. Murphy, 82 HL
485.
N.Y.— Storm v. Smith, 1 Wend. 37.
16. IlL— Bnzelis v. Bnzelis, 4 N.BL
2d 750, 287 IlLApp. 617.
Ohio.— Meyer v. Meyer, 158 N.B. 320, .
25 Ohio App. 249.
Pa. — Peerless Soda Fountain -Service
Co. v. Lipschutz, 101 Pa. Super. '568
— Rotbstein v. Satz, Com.PL, 7
Sch.Reg. 124 — York Concrete Co.
v. Harvey, Com.PL, 57 Tork Leg.
Rec. 1.
34 C.J. p 412 note 49.
Such error is not Jurisdiotioaal
111.— Stead v. Craine, 256 IlLApp.
445.
17. Wis. — Milwaukee Second Ward
Sav. Bank v. Schranck, 73 N.W. 31,
97 Wis. 250, 39 L.R.A. 569.
sa IlL— Mayer v. Tyler, 19 N.B.2d
211, 298 IlLApp. 632.
Pa.— Miller v. Desher, 12 Pa.Dist. #
Co. 315, 41 "Lanc.LuRev. 335.
Wis.— Blaikie v. Griswold, 16 Wis.
293.
19. Pa.— Mars Nat. Bank v. Hughes,
89 A. 1130, 243 Pa, 223.
S85
324
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
risdictions, between grounds for striking off or va-
cating and opening the judgment. It can be strick-
en off or vacated, on petition or motion, only for an
irregularity appearing on the face of the record.20
If it has been regularly entered, and defendant is
entitled to relief, such relief must come through a
motion or petition to open it and let defendant into
a defense ;21 and in such a case it cannot be strick-
en off on motion.22
§ 324. Meritorious Defenses
Unless the judgment by confession Is void, a meri-
torious defense to the claim on which it was entered
must be shown to warrant its opening or vacation, and
the showing of a meritorious defense Is In itself suffi-
cient to warrant such relief.
It has generally been held that the fact that de-
fendant has a meritorious defense to the claim for
which judgment by confession was entered is in it-
self a sufficient ground for opening or vacating the
judgment28 Moreover, unless the judgment by
20. Del.— Miles v. .Layton, 193 A
567, 5 W.W.Harr. 411, 112 A.L.R
786.
Pa, — Pacific Lumber -Co. of Illinois v
Rodd, 135 A. 122, 287 Pa. 454 —
Prosewicz v. Qtorski, 30 A.2d 224
151 Pa.Super. 309 — Peerless Soda
Fountain Service Co. v. 'Lipschutz
101 Pa.Super. 568 — Gintep v. Blo-
ser, 47 Pa,Dist. & Co. 660 — Com-
monwealth v. Sands, 27 PavDist &
Co. 367 — Hunter v. Wertz, Com
PL. 31 Pittsb.Leg.J. 348, 57 York
Leg.Rec. Ill— Gilflllan v. Stack,
Com.Pl., 85 Pittsb.Leg.J. 720— Mil-
ler v. Miller, Com.PL, 10 Sch.Reg.
109.
34 C.J. p 408 note 82.
Truth of record
Averments in sworn statement ac-
companying confessed judgment
must be taken as true in proceedings
to strike off judgment — Gold v. 'Fox
Film Corporation, 137 A. 605, 289 Pa.
429.
21. Del.— Miles v. Layton, 193 A.
•5-67, 8 W.W.Harr. 411, 112 A.L.R.
786.
Pa. — R. S. Noonan, Inc., v. Hoff, 38
A.2d 53, 350 Pa, 295— Wilson v.
Vincent, 150 A. 642, 300 Pa. 321—
Pacific Lumber Co. of Illinois v.
Rodd, 135 A. 122, 287 Pa, 454—
Brumbaugh v. Brumbaugh, 16 Pa.
Disk & Co. 281— Miners Sav. Bank
of Pitts ton v. Falzone, Com.Pl., 35
Luz.Leg.Reg. 315.
34 C.J. p 408 note 83.
Existence of meritorious defense as
ground for opening or vacating
confessed judgments generally see
infra § 324.
Denial of motion to strike
Defendant whose motion to strike
off judgment, entered by warrant of
attorney, for irregularity on face
of record was denied, was not pre-
cluded from presenting defense to
judgment on petition to open judg-
ment.— Rome Sales & Service Sta-
tion v. Finch, 183 A. 54, 120 Pa.
Super. 402.
Waiver of irregularities in entry
(1) Party moving to open judg-
ment and to be let into defense on
merits waives irregularities in entry
of judgment, which might have been
attacked . by motion to strike off. —
Rome Sales & Service Station v.
Finch, 183 A. 54, 120 Pa.Super. 402—
Parsons v. Kuhn, 45 Pa.Dist. & Co
356 — Noonan v. Hoff, Com.PL, 5
York Leg.Rec. 113, affirmed R. S
Noonan, Inc., v. Hoff, 3* A.2d 53, 350
Pa, 295.
(2) Irregularity in entering joinl
judgment on separate warrants ol
attorney to confess judgment is not
waived by filing petition to open. —
Peoples Nat. Bank of Reynoldsville,
to Use of Mottern, v. D. & M. Coal
Co., 187 A. 452, 124 Pa.Super. 21.
22. Pa.— Harr v. Bernheimer, 185
A. 857, 322 Pa. 412— Pacific Lum-
ber Co. of Illinois v. Rodd, 135 A-
122, 287 Pa. 454— Stevenson v.
Dersam, 119 A. 451, 275 Pa. 412—
Collins v. Tracy Grill & Bar Cor-
poration. 19 A.2d 617, 144 Pa.Su-
per. 440 — ILyman 'Felheim Co. v.
Walker, 193 A. 69, 128 Pa.Super.
1 — Durso v. Fiorini, 98 Pa. Super.
Ill— Melnick v. Hamilton, 87 Pa-
Super. 575 — Picone v. Barbano,
Com.Pl,, 32 Del.Co. 88— Baldwin &
Welcomer Co. v. Haines, Com.PL,
28 Erie Co. 85 — Kahler v. Shaffer,
Com.PL, 32 XiUZ.Leg.Reg. 68.
34 C.J. p 408 note 84.
Matters purely defensive and go-
ing in denial of plaintiff's right to
recover do not afford grounds to set
aside a judgment by confession. —
Thomas v. Bloodworth, 160 S.E. 709,
4*4 Ga.App. 44.
23. Colo.— Lucero v. Smith, 132 P.
2d 791, 110 Colo. 165— Parham v.
Johnson, 292 P. 599, 88 Colo. 127
—Mitchell v. Miller, 252 P. 886,
81 Colo. 1 — Commercial Credit Co.
v. Calkins, 241 P. 529, 78 Colo.
257.
111.— Gilmore v. Mix, App., 67 N.E.
2d 313— Fidler v. Kennedy, 62 N.B.
2d 10, 326 IlLApp. 449— Albany v.
Phillips, 48 N.E.2d 453, 318 111.
App. 642— Kirchner v. Boris &
Dave Goldenhersh, 42 N.E.2d 953,
315 IlLApp. 305 — Moore v. Mon-
arch Distributing Co., 32 N.B.2d
1019, 309 IlLApp. 339— Stranak v.
Tomasovic, 32 N.B.2d 994, 309 111.
App. 177 — May v. Chas. 0. Larson
Co., 26 *T.E.2d 139, 304 IlLApp. 137
—Mutual Life of Illinois v. Lit-
tle, 227 IlLApp. 436— Harris Trust
& Savings Bank v. Neighbors, 222
IlLApp. 201. i
586
Md. — Vane v. Stanley Heating Co.,
152 A. 511, 160 Md. 24— Cardwell-
Fisher Fixture Co. v. Commerce
Trust Co., 141 A. 121, 154 Md.
366 — Automobile Brokerage Corpo-
ration v. Myer, 139 A. 539, 154
Md. 1.
Pa. — Bonebrake v. Koons, 5 A.2d 184,
333 Pa. 443 — Marshall v. Jackson;
145 A. 584, 296 Pa, 16— Common-
wealth v. Cohen, 14 A.2d 362, 140
Pa.Super. 361 — Improve Your
Home System v. Collins, 94 Pa.
Super. 575— Hoffman v. Winston,
86 Pa.Super. 130— Siddall v. Burke,
Com.PL, 29 DeLCo. 530— Walker v.
Oakley, Com. PL, 43 Lack.Jur. 249,
56 York Leg.Rec. 197, modified on
other grounds 32 A.2d 563, 347 Pa.
405 — Cleland-Simpson Co. v. Lynch,
Com.Pl., 41 Lack.Jur. 94 — Kintzer
v. Williams, Com.PL, 34 Luz.Leg.
Reg. 285 — Landes Motor Co. v.
Rhoads, Com.PL, 54 Montg.Co. 408,
9 Som.Co.Leg.J. 162 — Gordon v.
Brickley, Com.PL, 92 Pittsb.Leg.J,
343 — Newswander v. Fox, Com.PL,
86 Pittsb.Leg.J. 342— Holland Fur-
nace Co. v. Davis, Com.PL, 7 Sch.
Reg. 297 — Williamsport Auto Parts
Co. v. Sprenkle, • Com.PL, 54 York
Leg.Rec. 154— Wildwood Strand
Realty Co. v. Skipper, Com.PL, 53
York 19.
34 C.J. p 412 note 55.
Distinction between grounds for
striking and opening confessed
judgments see supra § 323.
Defense to whole or part of claim
is sufficient.
Ohio.— Edge v. Stuckey, 178 N.E.
210, 40 Ohio App. 122.
Pa. — Plympton Cabinet Co. v. Rosen-
berg, 96 Pa. Super. 330.
Judgments are freely stricken to let
in defenses
Md. — Craig v. Hebron Building &
Loan Ass'n No. 2, 189 A. 218, 171
Md. 522.
Opening1 not mandatory
Since, as discussed infra § 326,
the opening of such a judgment,
rests largely in the discretion of the
court, a judgment need not be open-
ed merely because testimony offered
>y defendant would, if true, consti-
tute a defense. — St Clair Savings &
Trust Co., for Use of Billhartz> v.
Hahne, 29 A.2d 21, 345 Pa. 420.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
324
confession is void, it will not be opened or vacated
for a defect or irregularity therein unless it is shown
that defendant has a meritorious defense to the
claim for which the judgment was entered.24 If no
meritorious defense is shown and it appears to the
court that an action on the debt or claim ought to
go against the moving party, a judgment by con-
fession will not be disturbed.25 Where, however,
a judgment by confession is entirely void, the court
may vacate it without regard to the question wheth-
er defendant has a good defense to the claim on
which it was based.26
The proposed defense must be meritorious; it
must raise questions of law deserving investigation
or a real controversy as to the essential facts.27
The judgment may be opened or set aside on a
24. U.S.— Glinski v. U. S., C.C.A.
111., 93 P.2d 418.
111. — May v. Chas. O. Larson Co., 26
N.E.2d 139, 304 IlLApp. 137— Wal-
rus Mfg. Co. v. Wilcox, 25 N.B.2d
132. 303 Ill.App. 286— Freedman v.
Hunt, Hartford Accident & Indem-
nity Co., Intervenor, 22 N.B.2d 864,
301 IlLApp. 604 — Browning V.
Spurrier, 245 IlLApp. 276.
Md. — Crothers v. National Bank of
Chesapeake City, 149 A. 270, 158
Md. 587.
Ohio. — Canal Winchester Bank v. E3&-
line, 22 N.E.2d 528, 61 Ohio App.
253.
Pa. — Commonwealth v. J. & A.
Moeschlin, Inc., 170 A, 119, 314
Pa. 34 — Pacific Lumber Co. of Illi-
nois v. Rodd. 135 A. 122, 287 Pa.
454 — Commonwealth v. Mahoning-
town Ry. Men's Club, 14 A.2d 356,
140 Pa.Super. 413 — Commonwealth
v. Eclipse Literary and Social
Club. 178 A. 341, 117 Pa.Super.
339 — Heyer-Kemner, Inc., v. Sachs,
Com.PL. 57 Montg.Co. 73— Citizens
Bank of Wind Gap v. Sparrow,
Com.Pl., 27 North.Co. 213.
34 C.J. p 412 note 55.
Defects held Insufficient unless mer-
itorious defense shown
(1) Technical errors or irregulari-
ties.
111.— Mayer v. Tyler, 19 N.E.2d 211,
298 IlLApp. 632.
N.J.— Stetz v. Googer, 18 A.2d 416,
126 N.J.Law 213.
(2) Insufficient power of attorney.
— May v. Chas. O. Larson Co., 26
N.E.2d 139. 304 IlLApp. 137— Sekela
v. Tokarz, 6 N.E.2d 489, 288 IlLApp.
617— Alton Banking & Trust Co. v.
Gray, 259 IlLApp. 20, affirmed 179
N.E. 469. 347 I1L 99.
(3) Power of attorney revoked by
death. — Terendy v. Swierski, 15 N.
E.2d 613, 296 IlLApp. 635.
(4) Transfer of note by payee to
cut off defenses.— Davis v. Wirth,
249 IlLApp. 544.
Importance of Question
Generally on motion to open a
Judgment entered by confession and
'for leave to defend the question of
a meritorious defense is of much
more importance than the Question
of defendant's diligence or the lack
of it.— Gilmore v. Mix, IlLApp., 67
N.E.2d 313 — Stranak v. Tomasovic,
32 N.B.2d 994, 309 IlLApp. 177.
25. Pa. — Sferra v. Urling, 188 A.
185, 324 Pa. 344— Commonwealth
v. Miele, 14 A.2d 337, 140 Pa.Super.
313 — C. Trevor Dunham, Inc. v.
Pursel, 12 Pa.Dist. & Co. 425.
34 C.J. p 412 note 56.
26. 111.— Rixmann v. Witwer, 63 N.
E.2d 607, 327 IlLApp. 205— Gillham
v. Troeckler, 26 N.E.2d 413, 304
IlLApp. 596— Duggan v. Kupitz, 22
N.E.2d 392, 301 IlLApp. 230— Mer-
rion v. O'Donnell, 279 IlLApp. 435
— Genden v. Bailen, 275 IlLApp.
382.
Wis. — Chippewa Valley Securities Co.
v. Herbst, 278 N.W. 872, 227 Wis.
422.
34 C.J. p 412 note 54.
Vacation and opening distingiiidhed
Motion to vacate judgment by con-
fession based on court's lack of Ju-
risdiction does not embrace request
to plead to merits, whereas motion
to open up Judgment by confession
carries request for leave to plead to
merits.— First Nat. Bank v. Takey,
253 IlLApp. 128.
27. 111.— Busse v. Muller, 14 N.E.2d
669, 295 IlLApp. 101— Dixie Dairy
Co. v. Schultz, 14 N.E.2d 506, 295
IlLApp. 623— Cohen v. Gaytime
Frocks, 2 N.E.2d 590, 284 IlLApp.
649.
Pa.— Shinn v. Stemler, 45 A.2d 242,
158 Pa. Super. 350 — Commonwealth
v. Rubenstein, Iff4 A. 687, 122 Pa.
Super. 101 — Zanflno v. Moretti,
Com.PL, 86 Pittsb.Leg.J. 605.
Inconsistent defenses
Defendant who urges inconsistent
defenses as grounds for opening
judgment should not be required to
elect between them until after appli-
cation is granted. — Cole v. Hess, 63
P.2d 882, 99 Colo. 417.
scatter already passed on
If denying continuance on facts
provable by due diligence was not
abuse of discretion, denying motion
on same facts to vacate judgment by
confession was not abuse of discre-
tion.— Smith v. Washburn & Condon,
297 P. 879. 38 Ariz. 149.
Parties in par! delicto
The Judgment will not be opened
merely to let in an equitable defense
that might have been pertinent if no
judgment had been entered, where
under the defense the parties were
in pari delicto.— Sebring v. Rathbun,
I Johns.Cas., N.T., 331.
Penalty
Judgment entered on judgment
587
note constituting pan of deposit on
sale of land should be set aside
where provision for forfeiture of
deposit amounted to penalty. — Ellis
v. Roberts, 98 Pa.Super. 49.
Meritorious defense shown
Colo. — Denver Industrial Corporation
v. Kesselring, 8 P.2d 767. 90 Colo.
295.
111.— Kolmar, Inc., v. Moore, 55 N.E.
2d 524, 323 IlLApp. 323 — Moore v.
Monarch Distributing Co., 32 N.E.
2d 1019, 309 IlLApp. 339 — Stranak
v. Tomasovic, 32 N.E.2d 994, 309
IlLApp. 177 — Bauer v. Parker, 17
N.E.2d 335, 297 Ill.App. 639— Edi-
son Const. Co. v. Kurzeja, 15 N.E.
2d 899, 296 IlLApp. 638 — Doss v.
Sievers, 14 N.E.2d 677, 295 IlLApp.
107— Elaborated Ready Roofing
Co. v. Hunter, 262 IlLApp. 380—
Beard v. Baxter, 242 Ill.App. 480
—Mutual Life of Illinois v. Little,
227 Ill.App. 436.
N.J.— Wills v. Atkinson, 192 A. 67.
15 N.J.Misc. 418.
Ohio. — Canton Implement Co. v.
Rauh, 175 N.E. 230, 37 Ohio App.
544.
Pa. — Bonebrake v. Koons, 5 A.2d 184,
333 Pa, 443— Pine Brook Bank v.
Kearney, 154 A. 365, 303 Pa. 223
— Lyda v. Edwards, 146 A. Ill, 298
Pa. 434 — Stevenson v. Dersaxn, 119
A. 491, 275 Pa. 412— First Nat.
Bank v. Smith, 200 A. 215, 132 Pa.
Super. 73 — Hobart Mfg. Co. v. Rod-
ziewicz, 189 A. 580. 125 Pa.Super.
240 — Newman v. Herron, 184 A.
310, 121 Pa.Super. 370 — Rome Sales
& Service Station v. Finch, 188
A. 54, 120 Pa.Super. 402— McCarty,
to Use of Hoblitzell Nat. Bank of
Hyndman v. Emerick. 170 A. 326,
111 Pa,Super. 463— Holland Fur-
nace Co. v. Gabriel. 157 A. 373,
102 Pa.Super. 578 — Greco v. Wood-
lawn Furniture Co., 99 Pa.Super.
290 — Goodis v. Stehle, 87 Pa. Super.
336— Hotaling v. Fisher, 79 Pa.Su-
per. 103 — Commonwealth v. Mahon-
ingtown Ry. Men's Club and Con-
tinental Casualty Co., Com. PL, 46
Dauph-Co. 405, affirmed 14 A.2d 357,
140 Pa.Super. 413 — Commonwealth
v. Coldren, 46 Dauph.Co. 403, af-
firmed 14 A.2d 340, 140 Pa,Super.
321 — Commonwealth v. Miele, 46
Dauph.Co. 400, affirmed 14 A.2d
337, 140 Pa.Super. 318— Common-
wealth v. Steiner, C6m.PL, 46
Dauph,Co. 398— Baldwin & Wei-
comer Co. v. Hat nes, Com.Pl>, 28
§ 324
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
showing that there was a want of consideration
for the note, bond, or other obligation on which it
was entered,28 or a failure of such consideration,29
or that the consideration was illegal or immoral,30
or that the claim is subject to the defense of
usury,81 or that the debt had already been paid or
otherwise released or discharged32 or was subject
to credits for which no allowance was made,33 or
that the debt was secured by a mortgage which, by
statute, must first be resorted to,34 or that defend-
ant was under a personal disability as to the debt
or obligation.35
Brie Co. 85 — Stickel v. Barron,
Com.PL, 6 Fay.Co.L.J. 213 — Palum-
bo Realtors v. Occulto, Com.PL, 46
Lack.Jur. 66 — Conlon Keystone
Coal Co. v. Perugia Ben. Soc., Com.
PL, 86 Luz.Legr.Reg. 384 — Empire
Furniture Co. v. Dryda, Com.Pl.,
36 Luz.Leg.Reg. 352 — Bokin v.
Rusackas, Com.PL, 82 Luz.Leg.Reg.
321 — Guarantee Trust Co. v. Yad-
lowski, Com. PL, 15 Northumb.L.J.
359 — Burgunder v. Cerceo, Com.PL,
91 Pittsb.Leg.J. 576— Pennsylvania
Trust Co. v. Billings, Com.Pl., 90
Pittsb.Leg.J. 614 — Secretary of
Banking v. Hako, Com.PL, 23
Wash.Co. 70.
Meritorious defense not shown
111.— Stead v. Craine, 256 IlLApp. 445
—Handel v. Curry, 254 IlLApp. 36
— Davis v. Mosbacher, 252 IlLApp.
636— Harris v. Berafeld, 250 111.
App. 446— Davis v. Wirth, 249 111.
App. 544 — Brinkman v. Paulciew-
ski, 245 IlLApp. 807— Hirsch v.
Home Appliances, Inc., 242 IlLApp.
418 — Sternberger v. Wright, 239
IlLApp. 490— S tell wage n v.
Schmidt, 234 IlLApp. 325— Brad-
shaw v, Hansen, 232 IlLApp. 44
— Harris Trust & Savings Bank v.
Neighbors, 222 IlLApp. 201.
Md.— Johnson v. Phillips, 122 A. 7,
143 MdL 16.
N.J.— Modern Security Co. of Phil-
adelphia v. De Vito, 165 A. 282, 11
N.J.Misc. 258.
Ohio.— Roberts v. Third Nat Ex-
change Bank of Sandusky, 18 Ohio
App. 185.
Pa. — Freeman v. Greenberg, 40 A.2d
457, 351 Pa. 206— Ulick v. Vibra-
tion Specialty Co., 35 A.2d 332,
348 Pa. 241— Schuylkill Trust Co.
v. Sobolewski, 190 A. 919, 325 Pa.
422 — Nathan Rosenblum & Co. v.
Rosenblum, 169 A. 79, 313 Pa. 49,
followed in 169 A. 886, 313 Pa. 50
— Breslin v. Mooney, 161 A. 736,
307 Pa, 473— Gold v. Fox Film
Corporation, 137 A. 605, 289 Pa.
429— Werdebach v. Abel, 120 A.
267, 276 Pa. 368— Shinn v. Stemler,
45 A.2d 242, 158 Pa.Super. 350—
Krewson v. Erny, 45 A.2d 240, 158
Pa. Super. 380 — Tradesmens Nat.
Bank & Trust Co. v. Lewis, 34 A.
2d 818, 154 Pa.Super. 17— Babcock
Lumber Co. v. Allison, 7 A.2d 374,
136 Pa. Super. 353 — Sebastianelli v.
Frank, 165 A. 664, 108 Pa.Super.
550 — Plympton Cabinet Co. v. Ros-
enberg, 96 Pa.Super. 330 — Brady v.
Laskowsky, .90 Pa.Super. 370 —
Wallace v. Snifflet, 86 Pa.Super.
S27 — Graham v. Hay, 81 Pa.Super.
594— Wagner v. Lenarth, 80 Pa.
Super. 547 — Meetoan v. De Leo, 45
Pa.Dist. & Co. 85— New Tork Joint
Stock Land Bank v. Kegerise, Com.
PL, 29 Berks Co.L.J. 296— Com-
monwealth v. Penelope Club, Com.
PL, 46 Dauph.Co. 278, affirmed 7 A.
2d 558, 136 Pa.Super. 505 — Com-
monwealth, v. Hollo waty, Com.PL,
46 Dauph.Co. 248— Picone v. Bar-
bano, Com.PL, 32 DeLCo. 88— Mid-
City Bank & Trust Co. v. Wear,
Com.Pl., 31 DeLCo. 219— Szczepan-
ski v. Filipkowski, Com.PL, 20 Brie
Co. 272— Oleski v. Oleski, Com.PL,
20 Erie Co. 226— Latrobe Coal &
Coke Co. v. Kahley, Com.PL, 6 Fay.
Co.L.J. 242— Pinkus v. Frank, Com.
PL, 41 Lack^Tur. 173— Billiowski v.
Boruch, Com.PL, 40 Lack.Jur. 135
— Pienkos v. Kulatz, Com.PL, 36
Luz.Leg.Reg. 50— Fidelity-Philadel-
phia Trust Co. v. Watkins, Com.
PL, 62 Montg.Co. 191— Hever-Kem-
ner, Inc., v. Sachs, Com.PL, 57
Montg.Co. 73 — Shoup v. North Dia-
mond Candy Co., Com.PL, 89
Pittsb.Leg.J. 357— Kiefer v. Rosan-
off, Com.PL, 87 Pittsb.Leg.J. 443
— Balkus v. Elchisak, Com.PL, 6
Sch-Reg. 21 — Gbpes v. Lawrenitis,
Com.PL, 4 Sch.Reg. 403— Miller v.
Glendenning, Com.PL, 26 Wash.Co.
164— Peoples Pittsburgh Trust Co.
v. Evans, Com.Pl., 23 WestCo.L.J.
86 — Allegheny Valley Trust Co. v.
City of Monessen, Com.Pl., 22
WestCo.L.J. 36 — Pressel v. Har-
vey, Com.PL, 57 York Leg.Rec. 5.
28. 111.— Aidner v. Cobin, 258 I1L
App. 245.
Pa.— First Nat. Bank v. Smith, 200
A. 215, 132 Pa.Super. 73.
34 C.J. p 413 note 59.
89. I1L— Automatic Oil Heating Co.
v. Lee, 16 N.E.2d 919, 296 IlLApp.
628 — Continental Const. Co. v.
Henderson County Public Service
Co., 227 IlLApp. 43.
Md. — Vane v. Stanley Heating Co.,
152 A. 511, 160 Md. 24.
Pa.— Welch v. Suitez, 13 A.*d 399,
338 Pa, 583 — Cooper v. Frost, 43
PaJDist. & Co. 636, 5 Fay.L.J. 5,
55 Tork Leg.Rec. 203 — Lutz v.
Helm, Com.PL, 5 Sch.Reg. 190.
34 C.J. p 413 note 60.
failure of plaintiff to perform is
good reason for opening judgment
entered by confession in warrant of
attorney contained in contract —
Hoffman y. Winston, 86 Pa. Super.
130.
Breach of warranty
Ohio. — Ames Co. v. Busick, App., 47
N.E.2d 647. ' {
588
Pa. — Plympton Cabinet Co. v. Rosen-
berg, 96 Pa.Super. 330.
34 C.J. p 413 note 60 [a].
note under seal
Judgment confessed on note may
be struck out to let in defense of
failure of consideration, although
note was under seal. — Crothers v.
National bank of Chesapeake City,
149 A. 270, 158 Md. 587.
Failure of consideration not shown
111. — May v. Chas. O. Larson Co., 26
N.E.2d 139, 304 IlLApp. 137.
30. Pa.— Murray v. McDonald, 84 A*
579, 236 Pa. 26.
34 C.J. p 413 note 61.
Purchase of contraband liauor
Pa. — Brady v. Laskowsky, 90 Pa.Su-
per. 370.
31. 111.— Morton v. Wilson, 3 N.E.2d
891, 286 IlLApp. 619.
Pa.— Moll v. Lafferty, 153 A. 557,
302 Pa. 354.
34 C.J. p 413 note 62.
32. 111. — Ford Roofing Products Co.
v. Servatius, 20 N.E.2d 126, 299
IlLApp. 617— Flnley v. Paige, 11
N.E.2d 126, 292 IlLApp. 636—
Rogers v. Cowen, 4 N.E.2d 880, 287
IlLApp. 617.
Md.— Redding v. Redding, 26 A.2d 18,
180 Md. 545.
Pa. — U. S. Savings & Trust Co. of
Conemaugh to use of Hindes v.
Helsel, 188 A, 167, 324 Pa. 1—
Gardner v. Salem, 187 A. 94, 123
Pa.Super. -418 — Witherow v. Kess-
ler, Com.PL, 28 DeLCo. 81 — Ru-
dolph v. Mature, Com.PL, 27 Del.
521— South Side Bank & Trust Co.
v. Scheuer, Com.PL, 43 Lack.Jur.
95 — Flammer v. Smith, Com.PL, 19
Leh.L.J. 271 — Schneck v. Borsos,
Com.PL, 32 Luz.Leg.Reg. 401 —
Kerr v. Erach, Com.Pl., 91 Pittsb.
Leg.J. 245— Potts v. Mitchell, Com.
PL, 27 WestCo.L.J. 63.
34 C,J. p 413 note 63.
33. Md. — Webster v. People's Loan,
Savings & Deposit Bank of Cam-
bridge, 152 A. 815, 160 Md. 57.
Ohio. — Mosher v. Goss. App., 60 N.E.
2d 730.
Pa. — Jacob v. Corey, 83 Pa.Super.
605 — Central Nat Bank v, Reisin-
ger, 31 Pa.DIst & Co. 119, 19 Erie
Co. 446, 51 Tork Leg.Rec. 162.
34 C.J. p 413 note 64..
34. N.J.— Knight v. Cape May Sand
Co., 83 A. 964, 83 N.J.Law 597.
34 O.J. p 413 note 65.
35. N.J. — Crosby v. Washburn, 49 A*
455, 66 N.J.Law 494.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
325
It has been held that the' judgment may be opened
to permit defendant to interpose a counterclaim or
set-off,36 unless the counterclaim is not liquidat-
ed37 or arises out of a collateral transaction;38 but
it has also been held that a counterclaim or set-off
does not meet the requirement of a meritorious de-
fense.39
The judgment will not be opened on the ground
that defendant had been mistaken as to the legal
effect of a stipulation in the bond on which the
judgment was entered ;40 nor will it be opened to let
in matters of defense which arise subsequent to
the entry of the judgmental
Statute of limitations. The court may in its dis-
cretion open a judgment where it appears that the
statute of limitations had run against the debt at
the time the judgment was entered;42 but a judg-
ment should not be opened for the sole purpose of
affording an opportunity to plead the statute of lim-
itations to a defendant who has already had his day
in court4*
§ 325. Affidavits and Othcir Evidence
a. Affidavits and counter-affidavits •
b. Presumptions and burden of proof
c. Admissibility and weight and suffi-
ciency
a. Affidavits and Counter- Affidavits
It is generally held to be within the discretion of the
court to hear and determine an application to open or
vacate a confessed Judgment either on affidavits or on
oral testimony given In open court.
It is generally held to be within the discretion of
the court to hear and determine an application to
open or vacate a confessed judgment either on affi-
davits or on oral testimony given in open court.44
Pa.— C. & S. Motor Co. v. Schroeder
Bros., Com.PL, 40 LackJTur. 73.
34 C.J. p 413 note 66.
Where judgment by warrant of
attorney was entered on a note made
by adult defendant during his mi-
nority and, on motion to set aside
the judgment, defendant made no
showing of disafflrmance of note,
there was no "valid defense" to the
action. — McKenzie v. Tellis, Ohio
App., 47 N.E,2d 253.
Xncompetency not shown
Pa. — Grelner v. Brubaker, 16 A.2d
6*9, 142 Pa.Super. 538.
36. Pa.— Walter v. Fees, 25 A. 829,
155 Pa. 65.
34 C.J. p 413 note 64.
Where the application is made dur-
ing the judgment term it may be
based on a counterclaim. — Ames Co.
v. Busick, Ohio App., 47 N.E.2d 647.
In Illinois
(!•) Denial of motion to open up
judgment by confession on a prom-
issory note, supported by affidavit of
defendant that he .had a counter-
claim has been held to be error. —
State Bank of Blue Island v. Kott,
54 N.E.2d 897, 323 IlLApp. 27.
(2) Verified motion to vacate judg-
ment by confession in action on note
given for part of purchase price of
business, requesting leave to file
counterclaim against plaintiff for
damages for false representations of
material facts by way of inducing
defendant to enter into oral agree-
ment to purchase, and stating desire
to Include charge against plaintiff
for difference between contract pur-
chase price of truck and O.P.A. sell-
ing price, alleged a good defense,
and court should have set aside
judgment and permitted defense to
be made. — Gilmore v. Mix, App., 67
N.E.2d Sta.
(3) It has also been held, however,
that a judgment by confession will
not be opened to permit a defendant
to file a counterclaim or cross-state-
ment.— Bankers Bldg. v. Bishop, 61
N.E.2d 276, 326 IlLApp. 256, certio-
rari denied Bishop v. Bankers Bldg.,
66 S.Ct. 1852— Mayer v. Tyler, 19 N.
E.2d 211, 298 IlLApp. 632— Busse v.
Muller, 14 N.E.2d 669, 295 Ill-App.
101 — Smysor v. Glasscock, 256 I1L
App. 29.
37. Pa.— Kramer v. Moss, 90 Pa-
Super. 550— Baird v. Otto, 90 Pa-
Super. 452— Trostel v. Steinle,
Com.Pl., 61 Montg.Co. 187, 59 York
Leg.Rec. 77.
88. Pa.— Pollard & Brant, Inc., v.
Stein, 81 Pa.Super. 374.
39. Ohio.— Bulkley v. Greene, 120 N.
E. 216, 98 Ohio St. 55.
34 QJ. p 413 note 64 [b].
40. Pa.— Shields v. Hitchxnan, 96 A.
1039, 251 Pa. 455.
41. 111.— Handley v. Moburg, 266 111.
App. 356.
Ohio.— Mosher v. Goss, App., 60 N.E.
2d 730.
Pa. — International Finance Co. v.
Magilansky, 161 A. 613, 105 Pa,
Super. 309.
34 C.J. p 414 note 68.
42. 111.— Rixmann v. Witwer, 63 N.
E.2d 607, 327 IlLApp. 205— Fried-
lund v. Cunnally, 48 N.E.2d 747,
319 IlLApp. 36— Buchanan v. Ste-
phens, 26 N.E.2d 733, 304 IlLApp,
477.
Minn. — Berg v. Burkholder Lumber
Co., 204 N.W. 923, 164 Minn. 81.
Pa.— American Surety Co. v. Mitch-
neck, Com.PL, 31 Luz.Leg.Reg. 356.
34 G.J. p 414 note 69..
43. Pa.— Woods v. Irwin, 21 A. 603,
141 Pa, 278, 23 Am.S.R. 282.
34 <XJ. p 414 note 76.
589
44. Del.— Chandler v. Miles, 193 A.
576, S W.W.Harr. 431.
Md.— Johnson v. Phillips, 122 A. 7,
143 Md. 16.
Ohio. — Saulpaugh v. Born, 154 N.E.
166, 22 Ohio App. 275.
Pa.— Welch v. Sultez, 13 A.2d 399,
338 Pa, 583— Harr v. Mahalsky,
Com.PL, 33 Luz.Leg.Reg. 65 — Penn-
sylvania Trust Co. v. Billings,
Com.PL, 90 Pittsb.Leg.J. 614.
34 C.J. p 414 note 71.
Where issues were sharply con-
tested, issues should not have been
resolved on affidavits and motion
should have been denied without
prejudice to plenary action to vacate
judgment since in such an action,
court could afford adequate protec-
tion to the parties. — Smith v. Kent,
18 N.T.S.2d 262, 259 App.Div. 117.
Plaintiff entitled to hearing
Where defendant against whom a
judgment on confession without an
action had been entered made ap-
plication to vacate such judgment,
plaintiff was entitled to an oppor-
tunity to present the facts in con-
nection with the execution, delivery,
and filing of the confession of judg-
ment and the entry thereof. — Gotham
Credit Corporation v. Ferdman, 13 N.
T.S.2d 1011.
Granting realignment and taking
additional depositions at hearing on
matter of opening judgment entered
by confession held discretionary. —
Holland Furnace Co. v. Gabriel, 157
A. 373, 102 Pa.Super. 578.
Testimony offered
Where answer accompanying mo-
tion to vacate judgment showed
grounds for vacation, court should
have heard testimony offered. — Can-
ton'Implement €o. v. Rauh, 175 N.
E. 230, 37 Ohio App. 544.
325
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
It has been held, however, that the question of a
meritorious defense is to be determined solely on
the affidavits submitted in support of the applica-
tion,45 and that for such purpose the allegations of
the affidavits are to be taken as true*46 Under this
rule a showing sufficient to warrant opening the
judgment is made where the evidence contained in
the affidavits in support of the application makes
out a prima facie defense to the claim for which
judgment was entered.47
Counter-affidavits in opposition to those submitted
in support of the application may be received and
considered where the question involved is purely
one for the court,48 and the court may refuse to
disturb the judgment if the counter-affidavits are
as strong and convincing as the affidavits of the
moving party,49 but it has been held that counter-
45. 111.— Walrus Mfg. Co. v. Wilcox,
25 N.E.2d 132, 303 IlLApp. 286.
affidavits cannot be considered on the question of
the merits of defendant's proposed defense.50
b. Presumptions and Burden of Proof
Ordinarily in a proceeding to open or vacate a con-
fessed judgment the burden of proof Is on the appli-
cant.
As a general rule the party who moves to have a
judgment by confession opened or vacated must as-
sume the burden of proving the facts on which he
relies as the ground of his application,51 except that
in some jurisdictions, where defendant alleges that
the note on which the judgment was entered is a
forgery, the burden of establishing the genuineness
of the note is on plaintiff in the judgment.52 Gen-
eral presumptions and inferences of fact apply,58
including the presumption in favor of the regularity
and validity of a judgment.54
Bight to cross-examine
A defendant seeking to vacate
judgment agaJnst him by confession
on a cognovit in a lease cannot be
examined by counsel for plaintiff on
hearing of motion to vacate. — Stone
v. Levinson, 228 IlLApp. 342.
46. 111.— Walrus Mfg. Co. v. Wilcox,
25 N.E.2d 132, 303 IlLApp. 286.
Facts lint not conclusions or de-
ductions In affidavit must be taken
as true. — Automobile Supply Co. v.
Scene-in- Action Corporation, 172 N.
E. 35, 340 111. 196, 69 A.L.R. 1085.
47. 111.— Ruwisch v. Theis, 60 N.B.
2d 108, 325 IlLApp. 307— Nudelman
v. Haimowltz, 52 N.E.2d 822, 321
IlLApp. 306— Bauer v. Parker, 17
N.E.2d 336, 297 IlLApp. 80— Sha-
piro v. Masor, 242 IlLApp. 63.
Showing held sufficient
111.— Becker v. Ketter, 56 N.E.2d 649,
• 323 IlLApp. 656.
Showing held insufficient
HI. — Davis v. Mosbacher, 252 IlLApp.
536.
48. HI.— Jankovich v. Lajevich, 57
N.E.2d 216, 324 IlLApp. 85— Stran-
ak v. Tomasovic, 32 N.E.2d 994,
309 IlLApp. 177— Elaborated Ready
Roofing Co. v. Hunter, 262 IlLApp.
380.
34 C.J. p 416 note 94.
Allegations deemed admitted
(1) Where no counter-affidavits
are filed, the court must accept as
true the material allegations in a
verified motion to vacate a judg-
ment by confession on a note. — Gil-
more v. Mix, 67 N.E.2d 313, 329 I1L
App. 177.
(2) In proceeding by defendant to
vacate plaintiff's confession judg-
ment, the truth of allegations of
material facts contained in plaintiff's
counter-affidavit was necessarily ad-
mitted, where such allegations were
not denied in defendant's additional
affidavit.— May v. Chas. O. Larson
Co., 26 N.E.2d 139, 304 IllApp. 137.
(3) Where plaintiff failed to file
a counter-affidavit in defense of
judgment, case was properly heard
on motion to vacate and supporting
affidavit. — Doss v. Sievers, 14 N.E.
2d 677, 295 IlLApp. 107.
(4) If defendants placed applica-
tion to open confession judgment on
argument list for disposition on pe-
tition and answer, pertinent facts
set forth in answer could be accept-
ed as true. — Matovich v. Gradich, 187
A. 65, 123 Pa.Super. 355.
49. 111.— Morgan v. Bark Nat. Bank,
. 44 IlLApp. 582.
34 C.J. p 416 note 95.
50. Colo. — Parham v. Johnson, 292
P. 599, 88 Colo. 127— Mitchell v.
Byers State Bank, 252 P. 887, 81
Colo. 4— Mitchell v. Miller, 252 P.
886, 81 Colo. 1.
111.— Fidler v. Kennedy, 62 N.E.2d
10, 326 IlLApp. 449— Bankers Bldg.
v. Bishop, 61 N.E.2d 276, 326 111.
App. 256, certiorari denied Bishop
v. Bankers Bldg., 66 S.Ct 1352—
Kolmar, Inc., v. Moore, 55 N.E.2d
524, 323 IlLApp. 323— Stranak v.
Tomasovic, 32 N.E.2d 994, 309 111.
App. 177— Mutual Life of Illinois
v. Little, 227 IlLApp. 436— Conti-
nental Const Co. v. Henderson
County Public Service Co., 227 111.
App. 43.
Purpose of role
The rule preventing use of coun-
ter-affidavits going to the merits of
defense on motion to vacate judg-
ment entered by confession was in-
tended to prevent depriving a party
of the right of a trial by jury. —
Walrus Mfg. Co. v. Wilcox, 25 N.E.2d
132, 303 IlLApp. 286.
61. Md.— Hart v. Hart, 166 A. 414,
165 Md. 77— Cardwell-Fisher Fix-
ture Co. v. Commerce Trust Co.,
141 A. 121, 154 Md. 366.
590
Pa.— Boggs v. Levin, 146 A. 533,
297 Pa. 131 — Warren Sav. Bank &
Trust Co. v. Foley, 144 A. 84. 294
Pa. 176 — Pacific Lumber Co. of Il-
linois v. Rodd. 135 A. 122, 287
Pa, 454 — Babcock Lumber Co. v.
Allison, 7 A.2d 374, 136 PsuSuper.
353— Fish v. Kaye, 4 A.2d 190, 134
Pa. Super. 49 — Matovich v. Gradich,
187 A. 65, 123 Pa.Super. 355—
Lukac v. Morris, 164 A. 834, 108
Pa.Super. 453— First Credit Cor-
poration v. Lindstrom, Com.PL, 31
Del.Co. 202 — Eastern Light Co. v.
Wojciechowski, Com.PL, 36 Luz.
Leg.Reg. 233— Fidelity-Philadel-
phia Trust Co. v. Watkins, 62
Montg.Co. 191 — Campbell v. Die-
rolf, Com.PL, 58 Montg.Co. 144 —
Heyer-Kemner, Inc., v. Sachs, Com.
PL, 57 Montg.Co. 73— First Nat
Bank v. Reidinger, Com.PL, 14
Northumb.Leg.J. 22 — Canfield v.
Hornung, Com.PL, 9 Sen. Reg. Ill —
Perrino v. Benmtre, ConxPL, 28
WestCo. 113.
34 C.J. p 414 note 72.
52. Pa. — Mutual Building & Loan
Ass'n of Shenandoah v. Walukie-
wicz, 185 A. 648, 322 Pa. 240—
Jones & Sons, Inc. v. Rishkofski,
Com.PL, 37 Luz.Leg.Reg. 229.
34 C.J. p 414 note 73.
53. 111.— Rixmann v. Witwer, 63 N.
E.2d 607, 327 IlLApp. 205.
Pa, — Little v. Gardner-Denver Co.,
Com. PL, 41 Lack.Jur. 9.
54. N.J.— Stetz v. Googer, 18 A.23
416, 126 N.J.Law 213.
N.M.— Hot Springs Nat. Bank v.
Kenney, 48 P.2d 1029, 39 N.M. 428.
Judgment entered in vacation
The same presumptions exist in
favor of a judgment by confession
entered in term time as in case of a
judgment entered by service of proc-
ess, but the rule is different where
judgment is entered by confession in
vacation. — Rixmann v. Witwer, 6&
N.E.2d 607, 327 IlLApp. 205.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 325
c. Admissibility and Weight and Sufficiency
The general rules of admlsslbllity of evidence apply
In proceedings to open or vacate a confessed Judgment;
and the court will open or set aside the Judgment where,
and only where, there Is clear, positive, and satisfactory
evidence' of the grounds alleged In the petition or mo-
tion and of the existence of a meritorious defense.
The general rules relating to the relevancy, ma-
teriality, and competency of the evidence in civil ac-
tions apply in determining the admissibility of evi-
dence.55
It has been held that the measure of proof re-
quired to open a judgment by confession cannot be
defined by rule,56 that the court will open or set
aside the judgment where, and only where, there
is clear, positive, and satisfactory evidence of the
grounds alleged in the petition or motion and of
the existence of a meritorious defense,57 and that
65. Del. — Dolby v. Whaley, 197 A.
181, 9 W.W.Harr. 155.
HI.— First Nat. Bank v. Galbraith,
271 IlLApp. 240.
Md.— Denton Nat Bank of Maryland
v. Lynch, 142 A. 103, 155 Md. 333.
Pa.— Hoffman v. Winston, 86 Pa.Su-
per. 130— Wetzel v. Keefer, 20 Pa.
Dist. & Co. 576, 11 Northumb.Leg.
J. 379.
34 C.J. P 414 note 76.
Comparison of disputed signature
to note with admitted signatures of
purported signer and peculiarities
of such signature were proper mat-
ters for jury's consideration .on ap-
plication to open Judgment by con-
fession thereon.— First Nat. Bank v.
Albright, 170 A, 370, 111 Pa.Super.
392.
Consideration of testimony, not
technically admissible under petition
to open confessed judgment, and or-
der reopening case for further tes-
timony, without requiring amend-
ment is not error. — Johnson v. Nip-
pert, 133 A. 150, 286 Pa. 175.
Pleadings as evidence
Motion to vacate judgment and ac-
companying answer are not evidence,
but are only basis for proof to be
offered thereon. — Canton Implement
Co. v. Rauh, 175 N.H. 230, 37 Ohio
App. 544.
Payments on note may %e shown
on rule to open judgment thereon
and determine amount due after al-
lowing credit for payments. — Keiber
v. Keiber, 90 Pa.Super. 116.
56. Pa.— Jacob v. Corey, 88 Pa.Su-
per. 605.
34 C.J. p 415 note 79.
57. Pa.— Schmitt v. Tuhazy, 84 Pa.
Super. 76-nJohnstown & Somerset
Ry. Co. v. Mostollar, 83 Pa.Super.
492 — Sugarman v. Baldini, Com.Pl.,
28 West.Co. 41.
Wis.— Harris v. Golliner, 294 N.W. 9,
235 Wis. 572.
34 C.J. p 414 note 78.
Answer not responsive
In proceeding on petition to va-
cate a. judgment obtained on a judg-
ment note, on ground of failure of
consideration, wherein plaintiff filed
answer which was evasive in not
averring real consideration for the
note, plaintiff was held to a higher
degree, of proof since his answer
not responsive. — Welch V. Sultez, 13
A.2d 399, 338 Pa. 683.
Negligence 'barring defense
Testimony of defendant, denying
his signature of note sued on, as to
presence of rubber stamp facsimile
of his signature on his desk, did not
show negligence barring defense of
forgery as matter of law. — First
Nat. Bank v. Albright 170 A. 370,
111 Pa.Super. 392.
{Pleadings <as well as evidence may
be taken into consideration to deter-
mine whether meritorious defense is
indicated.— Lloyd v. Jacoby, 39 A.2d
525, 156 Pa.Super. 105.*
Evidence held sufficient to author-
ize or require opening of judgment.
Md.— Denton Nat. Bank of Mary-
land v. Lynch, 142 A. 103, 155 Md.
333— Cardwell-Fisher Fixture Co.
v. Commerce Trust Co., 141 A. 121,
154 Md. 366— Automobile Broker-
age Corporation v. Myer, 139 A.
539, 154 Md. 1.
N.Y.— Delaney v. Wyman, 251 N.Y.S.
5, 232 App.Div. 607.
Pa.— Points • v. Gibboney, 17 A.2d
365, 340 Pa. 522— Lansford Build-
ing & Loan Ass'n v. Sheerin, 190
A. 901, 325 Pa. 474— Austen v.
Marzolf, 143 A. 908, 294 Pa. 226
—Humbert v. Meyers, 123 A, 733,
279 Pa. 171— Riedrich v. Mistarz,
13 A.2d 106, 140 Pa.Super. 73—
Rosenblum v. Edwards, 8 A.2d 468,
137 Pa.Super. 33— Michaels v. Mor-
itz, 200 A. 176, 131 Pa.Super. 426 —
Messmer v. McLaughlin, 186 A.
286, 122 Pa.Super. 531— First Nat.
Bank v. Albright, 170 A. 370, 111
Pa.Super. 392— White Co. v. Fran-
cis, 95 Pa.Super. 315— Farling v.
Urich, 84 Pa.Super. 105— Boyer v.
Community Park Ass'n of Gratz,
Pennsylvania, Com.Pl., 45 Dauph,
Co. 23— Boyer v. Bellis, Com.Pl., 45
Dauph.Co. 21 — Fisher v. Bonini,
Com.Pl., 39 Lack.Jur. 170— Lumley
v. Barrett, Com.Pl., 19 Leh.L.J.
166— National Radiator Corpora-
tion v. Rydzewski, Com.Pl., 36 Luz.
Leg.Reg. 114— Bronson v. Milman,
Com.Pl., 36 Luz.Leg.Reg. 33—
Ransberry, to the use of Rans-
berry, v. Pre<Jmore, Com.Pl., 1
Monroe L.R. 141— Lorey v. Kauff-
xnan, Com.Pl., 57 Montg.Co. 57 —
Kerr v. Bmch, Com.Pl., 91 Pittsb.
Leg.J. 245— Bbert v. Wayne, Com.
PL, 86 Pittsb.Leg.J. 34— McCooll v.
591
Chowanes, Com.Pl., 8 Sch.Reg. 165
— Williamsport Auto Parts Co. v.
Sprenkle, Com.PL, 54 York Leg.
Rec. 154.
Va. — Hartman v. Melfa Banking Co.,
174 S.B. 653, 162 Va. 433.
Evidence held insufficient to au-
thorize or require opening of judg-
ment.
111.— Davis v. Mosbacher, 252 ULApp.
536.
Pa.— Kait v. Rose, 41 A.2d 750, 351
Pa. 560 — Pierce, to Use of Snipes
v. Kaseman, 192 A. 105, 326 Pa.
280 — Schuylkill Trust Co. v. Sobo-
lewski, 190 A. 919, 325 Pa. 422—
Hallgarten & Co. v. Schwing, 185
A. 753, 322 Pa. 255— Spanko v.
Trisick, 160 A, 718, 307 Pa. 166—
Helzlsouer v. Golub, 160 A. 118,
306 Pa. 474— Hein v. Fetzer, 152 A.
388, 301 Pa. 403— Merit Square
Building & Loan Ass'n v. Atkins,
149 A. 315, 299 Ba. 244— Certelli v.
Braum, 144 A. 403, 294 Pa. 488—
Tradesmens Nat. Bank & Trust
Co. v. Lewis, 34 A.2d 818, 154 Pa.
Super. 17 — Greiner v. Brubaker, 30
A.2d 621, 151 Pa.Super. 515, certio-
rari denied Royer v. Greiner, 64 S.
Ct 42, 320 U.S. 742, 88 L.Bd. 440,
rehearing denied 64 S.Ct. 194, 320
U.S. 813, 88 L.Ed. 491, rehearing
denied 64 S.Ct. 434, 320 U.S. 816,
88 L.Ed. 493— Fish v. Kaye, 4 A.2d
190, 134 Pa.Super. 49 — Kienberger
v. Lally, 198 A. 453, 130 Pa.Super.
583— Landis v. Hoch, 164 A. 828,
108 Pa.Super. 285 — International
Finance Co. v. Magilansky, 161 A.
613, 105 Pa.Super. 309— Public Se-
curity Co. v. Turnbull, 100 Pa-
Super. 367 — Seidel v. Welzel, 94
Pa.Super. 345 — Kaufman v. Leh-
man, 94 Pa.Super. 306 — Art-Ascep-
tible Furniture Co. v. Maratta, 94
Pa.Super. 263 — Cramer Oil Burner
Co. v. Ferguson, 89 Pa. Super. 471
— Grotefend v. Valley Laundry Co.,
88 Pa.Super. 510 — C. Trevor Dun-
ham, Inc. v. Pursel, 12 Pa.Dist &
Co. 425 — Commercial Credit Co. v.
Toung, Com.Pl.f 31 Berks Co. 326 —
Durbin v. Connelly, Com.Pl., 55
Dauph.Co. 349^— Warshall Bros. v.
Hall, Com.Pl., 36 Luz.Leg.Reg. 261
— Schrader v. Schrader, Com,Pl., 36
Luz.Leg.Reg. 821— Roth v. Mirmak,
Com.Pl., 33 Lu2LLeg.Reg. 480 —
Beckman v. Ciapko, Com.PL, 33
Luz.Leg.Reg. 348 — Whitenight Cor-
325
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
the grounds relied on for opening or setting aside
the judgment must be established by a preponder-
ance of the evidence.58 It has also been held that
applicant is entitled to relief where the evidence es-
tablishes that there is a real and substantial con-
flict as to the merits of the claim for which the
judgment was entered.59 The test has been held
to be whether or not the evidence would justify a
verdict or decree in defendant's favor on the mer-
its;60 the mere fact alone that there is a conflict
of evidence is not sufficient,61 and the judgment
should not be opened where the preponderance of
the evidence is against defendant,62 or where the
moving partys testimony is contradicted, and is in
no way corroborated.63
On the other hand, the judgment should be opened
and defendant allowed a trial where he has made
out a case by a preponderance of the evidence suf-
ficient to sustain a verdict in his favor,6* or where
the evidence is such that the contested matter is in
such doubt as would warrant submitting the issue
to a jury,65 or where defendant, although contra-
dicted, presents evidence, which, if true, constitutes
a good defense to the judgment, and such evidence
is corroborated by one or more witnesses or cir-
oftnstances.66
Where the claim for which judgment was entered
is attacked for fraud, it has been held that the evi-
dence of fraud must be clear, precise, and indubita-
ble.67 It has also been held that, where there is
clear evidence to sustain the averment of forgery,
the judgment should be opened, notwithstanding
such evidence is contradicted.68 More than a pre-
poratlon v. Brezna, Com.Pl., 33
Luz.Leff.Reg. 48 — Campbell v. Die-
rolf, Com.Pl., 58 Montg.Co. 144 —
Heyer-Kemner, Inc., v. Sachs, Com.
PL, 57 Montg.Co. 73 — International
Finance Co. v. Barnes, Com. PI., 86
Pittsb.Leg.J. 44— McBurney v. Wil-
liams, Com.PU 22 Wash.Co. 199—
Deardorff v. Witmer, Com.PL, 57
York Leg.Rec. 94— Minet Motor
Co. v. Lehu, Com.Pl., 54 York Leg.
Rec. 3.
34 C.J. p 414 note 78 [a].
68. Pa. — Jacob v. Corey, 83 Pa.Su-
per. 605.
34 C.J. p 415 note 80.
59. Md. — Finance Co. of America v.
Myerly, 155 A. 148, 161 Md. 23—
Cardwell-Fisher Fixture Co. v.
Commerce Trust Co., 141 A. 121,
154 Md 366.
Ohio. — Mosher v. Goss, App., 60 N.B.
2d 730.
If proper prima facie grounds for
opening of judgment are shown at
hearing, rule to open judgment is
made absolute. — Miles v. Lay ton, 193
A. 567, 8 W.W.Harr., Del., 411, 112
A.L.R. 786.
60. Pa.— Williams v. Caples, 12 A.
2d 566, 338 Pa. 451— Gardner v.
Salem, 187 A. 94, 123 Pa,Super,
418— Landis v. Hoch, 164 A. 828,
108 Pa. Super. 285 — Schultz v. Rud-
man, 81 Pa.Super. 239 — Durbin v.
Connelly, Com.Pl., 55 Dauph.Co.
349 — Soutter v. Soutter, Com.Pl.,
52 Dauph.Co. 359 — Palumbo Real-
tors v. Occulto, Com.PL, 46 Lack.
Jur. 66 — Household Finance Corp.
v. Krzywicki, Com.Pl., 38 Luz.Leg.
Reg. 436 — Bokin v. Rusackas, Com.
PI., 32 X.uz.Leg.Reg. 321.
34 C.J. p 415 note 81.
61. Pa. — Stoner v. Sley System Ga-
rages, 46 A,2d 172, 353 Pa. 532—
Machalicka v. Lukasevic, 81 A.2d
164, 346 Pa. 487— Michaels v. Mor-
itz, 200 A. 176, 131 Pa.Super. 426—
Lukao v. Morris, 164 A. 834, 108
Pa.Super. 453 — Schultz v. Rudman,
81 Pa.Super. 239— Wayne Title &
Trust Co. v. Sweet, Com.Pl., 32
Del.Co. 106— Mid-City Bank &
Trust Co. v. Wear, Com.Pl., 31
Del. Co. 219-rLandau Bros. v. Rev-
itt, Com.Pl., 33 Luz.Leg.Reg. 64—
Whitenight Corporation v. Brezna,
Com.Pl., 33 Luz.Leg.Reg. 48 — King
v. Van Sciver, Com. PI., 62 Montg.
Co. 141.
34 C.J. p 415 note 82.
Oath against oath.
There must be more than oath
against oath or mere conflict of tes-
timony.— Sferra v. Urling, 188 A.
185, 324 Pa, 344— Mutual Building &
Loan Ass'n of Shenandoah v. Wa-
lukiewicz, 185 A. 648, 322 Pa. 240—
Van Scoten v. Botsford & Kunes, 98
Pa.Super. 270 — Voegler v. Klingen-
smith Co., 88 Pa.Super. 34 — Schultz
v. Rudman, 81 Pa.Super. 239 — Mary-
land Coal & Coke Co. v. Gonzales
Coal Mining Co., 12 Pa.Dist. & Co.
311 — Spangler v. Zimmerman, Com.
PI., 50 Dauph.Co. 93 — Silver v. Palm-
er, Com.Pl., 49 Dauph.Co. 219 — Lack-
awanna Thrift & Loan Corporation
v. Katsanis, Com.Pl., 45 Lack. Jur.
169 — Cassalia v. Dushney, Com.Pl.,
40 Lack. Jur. 131 — Heyer-Kemner,
Inc., v. Sachs, Com.Pl,, 57 Montg.
Co. 73 — Deardorff v. Witmer, Com.
PI., 57 York Leg.Rec. 94.
62. Pa. — Eagler v. Cherewfka, 86
Pa.Super. 122 — Durbin v. Connelly,
Com.PL. 55 Dauph.Co. 349.
34 C.J. p 415 note 83.
68. Pa.— Fish v. Kaye, 4 A.2d 190,
134 Pa. Super, 49 — Snyder v. Ar-
nold, 36 Pa.Dist. & Co. 689— Miller
v. Leonard, Com.Pl., 48 Lanc.Rev.
337.
34 OJ. p 415 notes 84, 85.
Single witness im.corro'borated
Application was denied where
supported only by the oath of de-
fendant without corroborative cir-
cumstances, or circumstances from
592
which inferences could be drawn
corroborative of his statements. —
Chubb v. Kelly, 80 Pa,Super. 487—
Rasp v. Rasp, 79' Pa.Super. 29.
64. Pa.— -Heimgartner v. Stewart, 3T
A. 93, 180 Pa. 500.
34 C.J. p 415 note 86.
65. Pa.— Stoner v. Sley System Ga-
rages, 46 A.2d 172, 353 Pa. 532 —
Arata v. Wright, 101 Pa.Super.
575— Webber, Inc. v. Gehry, Com.
PI., 38 Berks Co. 135— Soutter v.
Soutter, Com.Pl., -52 Dauph.Co. 359
— Dailey v. Woods, Com.Pl., 28
Brie Co. 337— Ecoma Building &
Loan v. Klemm, Com.Pl., 21 Brie
Co. 153 — Munson v. Mummart,
Com.Pl., 7 Fay.L.J. 27 — Graft v.
Bell, Com.Pl., 6 Fay.L.J. 91— Flam-
mer v. Smith, Com.Pl., 19 Leh.L.
J. 271 — Heyer-Kemner, Inc., v.
Sachs, Com.Pl., 57 Montg.Co. 73.
34 C.J. p 415 note 87.
60, Pa,— Ritter v. Henry, 17 Pa.
Dist. & Co. 528.
34 C.J. p 415 note 88.
67. Pa. — Exchange Bank & Trust
Co. v. Bartley, 39 A.2d 833, 350 Pa.
585 — Reidlinger v. Cameron, 134
A. 418, 287 Pa. 24— McEnery v.
Nahlen, Com.PL, 21 Brie Co. 172—
Security 'Finance Co. v. Stradnick,
•Com.PL, 35 Luz.Leg.Reg. 308.
Evidence heia sufficient
Pa.— Simcoe v. Szukegs, 13 A.2d 103,
140 Pa. Super. 75 — Werner v.
Deutsch, 7 A.2d 511, 135 Pa.Super.
519.
Evidence held Insufficient
Pa, — Exchange Bank & Trust Co. v.
Bartley, 39 A.2d 833, 350 Pa. 585.
68. Pa, — Austen v. Marzolf, 143 A.
908, 294 Pa. 226— Levy v. Gilligan,
90 A. 647, 244 Pa. 272— Bailey v.
Brown, Com.Pl., €2 Pa.Dist. & Co.
56.
Evidence may establish that in-
strument 18 not a forgery; there is
no inflexible rule requiring court to
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 326
ponderance of evidence is required to open a jtidg-"
ment by confession on a note given in settlement.6^
The sufficiency of evidence to show various mat-
ters has been adjudicated in particular cases.70
§ 326. Hearing, Determination, and Re-
lief
An application to open or vacate a Judgment Is to
be determined In accordance with equitable principles,
and its determination rests largely in the sound discre-
tion of the court.
It is generally held that an application to open or
vacate a judgment by confession should be deter-
mined in accordance with equitable principles,71 and
that the disposition of the application rests largely
within the sound discretion of the court,72 whose
determination will not be disturbed except for abuse
open judgment entered on a warran'
of attorney on an averment of forg-
ery.— Mutual Building- & Loan Ass'r,
of Shenandoah v. Walukiewicz, 18?
A. 648, 322 Pa. 240— -Jones & Sons v
Rishkofski, Pa., Com.Pl., 37 Luz.Leg.
Reg. 229 — Schrader v. Schrader, Pa.
Com.Pl., 35 Luz.Leg.Reg. 321.
Evidence held to establish gen-
Fineness of instrument. — Mutual
Building & Loan Ass'n of Shenan-
doah v. Walukiewicz, 185 A. 648, 322
Pa, 240.
Weight given to note itself
Under defense of forgery, note is
given no weight of itself, in the ab-
sence of proof that defendant actual-
ly signed it. — Austen v. Marzolf, 143
A. 908, 294 Pa, 226.
.69. U.S.— Willett v. Fister, D.C., 18
Wall. 91, 21 L,Ed. 304.
Pa,— English's Appeal, 13 A, 479, 119
Pa, 533, 4 Am.S.R. 656.
70. Evidence held sufficient
Md. — Card well-Fisher Fixture Co. v.
Commerce Trust Co., 141 A. 121,
154 Md. 366.
Pa,— Thompson v. Qarns, 93 Pa.Su-
per. 575 — Eastern -Light Co. v.
Wojciechowski, Com.Pl.f 36 Luz.
Leg. Reg. 233 — Sugarman v. Bal-
dini, Com.Pl., 28 WestCo. 41.
Evidence held insufficient
Colo.— Lucero v. Smith, 132 P.2d 791,
110 Colo. 165.
Pa.— Kienberger v. Lally, 198 A. 453,
130 Pa.Super. 583— Hobart Mfg.
Co. v. Rodziewicz, 189 A. $80, 125
Pa.Super. 240.
Former verdict
Verdict in action of scire facias
sur mortgage which was set aside by
court as against weight of evidence
was without persuasive force in sub-
sequent proceeding on rule to show
cause why judgment entered on bond
accompanying mortgage under war-
rant of attorney should not be
opened. — Schuylkill Trust Co. v.
Sobolewski, 190 A. 919, 325 Pa, 422
—New York Joint Stock Land Bank
v. Kegerise, Pa.Com.Pl., 29 Berks Co.
296— Gapes v. Lawrenitis, Pa. Com.
PL, 4 Sch.Reg. 403.
71. Del.— Chandler v. Miles, 193 A.
576, 8 W.W.Harr. 431.
111. — Browning v. Spurrier, 245 111.
App. 276.
Pa.—Perfect Building & Loan Ass'n
v. Mandel, 29 A.2d 48-4, 345 Pa.
616 — Horn v. Witherspoon, 192 A.
49 C.J.S.— 38
654, 327 Pa, 295— Mutual Buildin-
& Loan Ass'n of Shenandoah v
Walukiewicz, 185 A. 648, 322 Pa
240 — Mielcuszny v. Rosol, 176 A
236, 317 Pa. 91 — Babcock Lumber
Co. v. Allison, 7 A.2d 374, 136 Pa.
Super. 353 — Miller v. Mastrocola, 2
A.2d 550, 133 Pa.Super. 210— Kien-
berger v. Lally, 198 A. 453, 130
Pa.Super. 583 — Burger, for Use of
Henderson, v. Township of 'Free-
dom, 190 A. 387, 12-6 Pa.Super. 128
— Gardner v. Salem, 187 A. 94, 123
Pa. Super. 418 — Jacob v. Corey, 83
Pa.-Super. 605— Bates v. Kirk, 83
Pa. Super. $73 — Luce v. Reed Col-
liery Co., T8 Pa,Super. 248 — Bailey
V; Brown, 52 Pa.t>ist. & Co. 56—
McBnery v. Nahlen, Com.PL, 21
Erie Co. 172 — Holland Furnace Co.
v. Davis, Com.Pl., 7 Sch.Reg. 297.
34 C.J. p 408 note 78.
Rsmedial action
Judgments entered by confession
on warrant of attorney are in nature
of summary proceedings, and re-
medial action as to them will not be
unduly limited. — Miles v. Lay ton, 193
A. S67, 8 W.W.Harr.,DeL, 411, 112 A.
L.R.' 786.
Where defendant shows no equita-
ble reasons why the judgment should
not have been rendered against him,
the court will not inquire as to er-
rors in rendering the judgment
against him alone, on a declaration
against him and another jointly. —
Robey v. Updyke, 61 111. App. 328.
72. Ala,— Kendrick v. Ward, 21 So.
2d 676, 246 Ala, 550— Koonce v.
Arnold, 14 So.2d 512, 244 Ala. 513.
Ariz. — Smith v. Washburn & Condon,
297 P. 879, 38 Ariz. 149.
Del.— Chandler v. Miles, 193 A. 576,
8 W.W.Harr. 431.
111.— Bankers Bldg. v. Bishop, 61 N.
E.2d 276, 326 1 11. App. 25-6, certio-
rari denied Bishop v. Bankers
Bldg., 66 S.Ct. 1352— Mayer v.
Tyler, 19 N.E.2d 211, 298 IlLApp.
632— Automatic Oil Heating Co. v.
Lee, 16 N.E.2d 919, 296 Ill.App. 628
—First Nat. Bank v. Galbraith, 271
IlLApp. 240— Mandel Bros. v. Co-
hen, 248 IlLApp. 188— Parent Mfg.
Co. v. Oil Products Appliance Co.,
246 IlLApp. 222— Handley v. Wil-
son, 242 IlLApp. 66.
Pa. — Stoner v. Sley System Garages,
46 A.2d 172, 353 Pa. 532— Macha-
licka v. Lukasevic, 31 A.2d 164,
346 Pa. 487 — Kweller, now for use
593
of Caplan v. Becker, 12 A.2d 567,
388 Pa. 189 — Bonebrake v. Koons,
5 A.2d 184, 333 Pa, 443— Mutual
Building & Loan Ass'n of Shenan-
doah v. Walukiewicz, IS 5 A. 648,
322 Pa. 240 — George v. George, 178
A. 25, 318 Pa. 203 — Mielcuszny v.
Rosol, 176 A. 236, 317 Pa, 91—
William B. Rambo Building &
Loan Ass'n v. Dragone, 166 A. 888,
311 Pa. 422— Spanko v. Trisick, 160
A. 718, 307 Pa, 166— Stevenson v.
Dersam, 119 A. 491, 275 Pa. 412—
Lloyd v. Jacoby,-39 A.2d 525, 156
Pa.Super. 105— First Nat. Bank of
Mount Holly Springs v. Cumbler,
21 A.2d 120, 145 Pa.Super. 595—
Sprenger, now for Use of Stoecker,
v. Litten, 15 A.2d 527, 142 Pa.Su-
per. 194 — Babcock Lumber Co. v.
Allison, 7 A.2d 3fr4, 13-6 Pa.Super.
353— Miller v. Mastrocola, 2 A.2d
550, 133 Pa.Su.per. 210— Baker's
Estate v. Woodworth, 198 A. 469,
130 Pa.Super. 452 — Kienberger v.
Lally, 198 A. 453, 130 Pa. Super.
5 S3— Philadelphia Fixture & Equip-
ment Corporation v. Carroll, 191 A.
216, 126 PavSuper. t54 — Burger, for
Use of Henderson v. Township of
Freedom, 190 A. 387, 126 Pa. Super.
128 — Gardner v. Salem, 187 A,. 94»
123 Pa.Super. 418 — Messmer v. Me-
Laughlin, 186 A. 286, 122 PeuSuper.
531— Landis v. Hoch, 164 A. 828,
108 Pa. Super. 285 — Brady v. Lask-
owsky, 90 'Pa,Super. 370 — Cramer
Oil Burner Co. v. Ferguson, 89 Pa,
Super. 471 — Jacob v. Corey, 83 Pa,
Super. 605 — Bates v. Kirk, 83 Pa.
Super. 273 — Luce v. Reed Colliery
Co., 78 Pa,Super. 248 — Bailey v.
Brown, 52 Pa,Dist & Co. 56— »
Klein v. Brookside Distilling Prod-
ucts Corp., Com. PL, 47 Lack.Jur.
165— South Side Bank & Trust Co.
v. Hornbaker, Com.PL, 45 Lack.
Jur. 197 — Keene v. Ryman, Com.
PL, 38 Lu2.Leg.Reg. 330 — Jones &
Sons, Inc. v. Rishkofski, Com.PL,
37 LuzvLeg.Reg. 229— Williams-
port Auto Parts Co. v. Sprenkle,
Com.PL, 54 York Leg.Rec. 154—
Minet Motor Co. v. Lehn, Com.PL*
54 York Leg.Rec. 3.
Wis.— Wessling v. Hieb, 192 N.W.
458, 180 Wis. 160.
34 C.J. p 408 note 78.
Prior determination
Judgment debtor's rule to show
cause why confession of judgment
should not be stricken off and money
held by garnishee decreed- not sub-
326
JUDGMENTS
49 O.J.S.
of discretion.7* On the other hand, it has been held
that where it is shown that defendant has a good
legal defense, it is the duty of the court to set aside
or open the judgment to let in such defense, and a
refusal to do so is erroneous.74
The court may determine the issues itself75 or
may direct an issue to be tried by a jury.76 It has
been held that the court in submitting an issue to
ject to attachment did not raise de
fense on merits of judgment, and
hence order discharging such rule
was not res judicata precluding* con
sideration of subsequent rule to
show cause why judgment should
not be opened and debtor let into a
•defense. — Albert M. Greenfield & Co
v. Roberts, 5 A.2d 642, 135 Pa, Super
328.
73. Ala,— Kendrick v. Ward, 21 So
2d -676, 246 Ala. 550.
111. — Automatic Oil Heating Co. v
Lee, 16 N.E.2d 919, 296 IlLApp
628.
Pa. — Bekelja v. James E. Strates
Shows, 37 A.2d 502, 349 Pa. 442—
Machalicka v. Lukasevic, 31 A.2d
164, 346 Pa. 487— Perfect Building
& :Loan Ass'n v. Handel, 29 A.2c
484, 345 Pa. 616— Kweller, now for
Use of Caplan, v. Becker, 12 A.2d
•567, 338 Pa. 169 — George v. George,
178 A. 25, 318 Pa. 203— Lloyd v.
Jacoby, 39 A.2d 525, 156 Pa. Super.
105 — First Nat. Bank of Mount
Holly Springs v. Cumbler, 21 A.2d
120, 145 Pa.Super. 595 — Sprenger,
now for Use of Stoecker, v. Litten,
15 A.2d 527, 142 Pa.Super. 194—
Foos v. Pogar & Pogar, $4 Pa.Su-
per. 54.
Discretion, of court must rest on
competent evidence
Pa. — Baird v. Otto, 90 Pa.Super. 452.
Opening Judgment of revival
Where a judgment of revival is
entered on a confession to revive an
old judgment, and evidence is of-
fered in support of the petition to
open that the confession of Judg-
ment was made in pursuance of a
conspiracy to cheat and defraud, it
is not an abuse, of discretion for the
court to open the judgment of re-
vival, but such order should not in-
clude the original judgment, where
the petition does not ask that it be
opened, or the evidence does not
call for any interference with it. —
McPherson v. Cole, 87 A. 70S, 240
Pa, 444, followed in 87 A. 709, 240
Pa, 448—34 C.J. p 417 note 13.
Discretion held not abused
(1) By opening or vacating judg-
ment.
111. — Treager v. Totsch, 53 N.B.2d
719, 322 m.App. 75.
Md. — Silverberg v. Dearholt, 22 A.2d
•588, 180 Md. 38.
Pa. — Commonwealth v. Keirsted, 17
A.2d 188, .340 Pa. 512— E. P. Wil-
bur Trust Co., now to Use of Fed-
eral Deposit Ins. Corporation, v.
Eberts, 10 A.2d 397, 337 Pa. 161—
George v. George, 178 A. 25, 318
Pa. 203— William B. Rambo Build-
ing & Loan Ass'n v. Dragone, 16*6
A. 888, 311 Pa. 422— Schline v
Kine, 152 A. 845, 301 Pa. §86—
Slattery Bros. v. Powers, 131 A.
859, 285 Pa. 286— <Lloyd v. Jacoby
39 A.2d 525, 156 Pa.Super. 105—
West, for Use of West v. Hotel
Pennsylvania, 25 A.2d 593, 148 Pa.
Super. 373 — Sprenger, now for Use
of Stoecker, v. Litten, 15 A.2d -527
142 Pa.Super. 194 — Baker's Estate
v. Woodworth, 198 A. 469, 130 Pa.
Super. 4*52 — Heilman v. Ruther-
ford, 158 A. 203, 103 Pa.Super. 595
— Standard QPurnace Co. v. Roth,
156 A. 600, 102 Pa.Super. 341—
Commercial Acceptance Corpora-
tion v. Burrell, 87 Pa.Super. 571
— Farting v. Urich, 84 Pa. Super.
105.
(2) By refusal to open or vacate
judgment.
Ariz. — Smith v. Washburn & Condon,
297 P. 879, 38 Ariz. 149.
N.M.— Hot Springs Nat. Bank v.
Kenney, 48 P.2d 1029, 39 N.M. 428.
Pa. — Berkowitz v. Kass, 40 A.2d 691,
351 Pa. 263— Machalicka v. Luka-
sevic, 31 A.2d 164, 346 Pa. 487—
United Natural Gas Co. v. James
Bros. Lumber Co., 191 A. 12, 325
Pa. 469— Schuylkill Trust Co. v.
Sobolewski, 190 A. 919, 325 Pa.
422— Matovich v. Gradich, 187 A.
•65, 123 Pa.Super. 355 — Howard v.
Flanigan, 184 A. 34, 320 Pa, 569
— Sirant v. Solkosky, 166 A. 561,
311 Pa. 142— First Nat. Bank of
Mount Holly Springs v. Cumbler,
21 A.2d 120, 145 Pa.Super. '-595 —
Greiner v. Brubaker, 16 A.2d 689,
142 Pa.Super. 538 — Rosen v. Sei-
denberg, 170 A. 351, 111 Pa.Super.
534 — Citizens' Nat Bank of 'Le-
highton v. Kupres, 161 A 466, 106
Pa. Super. 164 — Lutz v. Voulopos,
101 Pa.Super. 359 — Van Scoten v.
Botsford & Kunes, 9:8 Pa. Super.
270 — Bloom v. Lundberg, 96 Pa.
Super. 248 — Volkmar v. Vladi, 95
Pa.Super. 420 — Commonwealth v.
Spine Hi, 90 Pa. Super. 502.
(3) By opening, but refusing to
strike, judgment — Kweller, now for
Use of Caplan, v. Becker, 12 A.2d 567,
338 Pa. 169.
Discretion held abused by refusal
:o open or vacate judgment.
Ohio. — Lutkenhouse v. "Vella, App.,
60 N.E.2d 798.
Pa.— Vidmar v. Martincic, 21 A.2d
470, 146 Pa.Super. 47— Race v. No-
vis, 178 A. 164, 117 Pa.Super. 357
— Martz v. McKinley, 96 Pa. Super.
213.
74, 111.— Handley v. Wilson, 242 I1L
App. 66.
34 C.J. p 417 note 10. j
594
Discretion should be exercised lib.
erally where a meritorious defense is
shown. — Kolmar, Inc. v. Moore, 55
N.E.2d 524, 323 IlLApp. 323.
Where the undisputed evidence
would establish a defense, it is error,
in absence of any legal barrier, not
to open the judgment and let the
case go to a jury. — Cronauer v. Bay-
er, 13 A.2d 75, 140 PaSuoer. 91.
75. Pa. — Spanko v. Trisick, 160 A.
718, 307 Pa. 166.
34 C.J. p 416 note 97.
The weig-ht of evidence and credi-
bility of witnesses are for the judge
who sits as a chancellor. — Stoner v.
Sley System Garages, 46 A.2d 172,
353 Pa. 532— Schuylkill Trust Co. v.
Sobolewski, 190 A. 919, 325 Pa. 422
— Mutual Building & Loan Ass'n of
Shenandoah v. Walukiewicz, 185 A.
•648, 322 Pa. 240.
78. ODel.— Miles v. Layton, 193 A.
S67, 8 W.W.Harr. 411, 112 A.L.R.
786.
Pa.— Martz v. McKinley, 96 Pa.Supem*
213— Olekszyk v. Walelko, 92 Pa.
Super. 565 — Whittaker v. Tow-
kanecs, 86 Pa.Super. 118— Auto Se-
curity Co. v. Canelli, 80 Pa.Super.
43 — Vaughan & Co. v. Hopewell,
79 Pa. Super. 239 — Sisemore & Kier-
bow Co. v. Nicholas, Com.Pl., 27
North. Co. 193, reversed on other
grounds Sizemore & Kierbow Co.,
to Use of Bastian-Blessing Co. v.
Nicholas, 27 A.2fl 473, 149 Pa.Su-
per. 376.
34 C.J. p 416 notes 98, 99.
A "feigned issne" framed to try
Questions of fact, on making abso-
lute rule to open judgment to per-
mit defendant to interpose defense,
means issue at instance of court or
of parties to determine fact which
court has either not power or is un-
willing to decide, and such issue
proceeds, not from right of parties
:o have matter determined by jury,
but from fact that in rule to open
judgment Court is exercising: its in-
herent equitable powers and may
prefer question of fact to be deter-
mined by jury.— Miles v. OJayton, 193
A. 567, 8 W.W.Harr.,Del., 411, 112
A-L.R, 786.
Purpose of submission
Submission of issue to jury on
hearing of rule to show cause why
judgment by confession entered on
warrant of attorney should not be
opened is for purpose of informing
conscience of court on particular
questions embraced in issue. — Chan-
dler v. Miles, 193 A. 576, 8 W.W.
Harr.,DeL, 431.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
326
a jury is in effect opening the judgment for a lim-
ited purpose.77
Scope of inquiry* Where the matter is heard on
motion or petition and answer, the hearing is lim-
ited to matters raised by such pleadings,78 and it
has been held that if the answer is responsive and
denies the facts averred in the petition and no evi-
dence is taken in support of the petition, the court
is bound to decide all disputed facts in favor of
plaintiff in the judgment,79 and the only question
remaining for discussion is as to the validity of the
entry of the judgment80 It has been held that the
hearing should be limited to the questions whether
defendant has a valid defense prima facie and
whether he has acted with due diligence,81 and that
the court should not pass on the merits of the de-
fense alleged where a valid defense is prima facie
shown,82 since such determination deprives defend-
ant of his day in court and of a right to appeal from
the decision.83 It has also been held that the court
should not consider the question of a meritorious de-
fense until it has first determined whether grounds
to vacate the judgment exist.84
Relief. In a proceeding to open or vacate a con-
fessed judgment, the court may grant such relief
against the judgment as is appropriate under the
circumstances.85 On a proper showing the court
may vacate the judgment,86 open the judgment gen-
Questions of law and fact
(1) The question whether the note,
on its face purported to be a sealed
instrument but not question of
whether the corporation intended to
adopt the word "seal" as its corpo-
rate seal for the occasion was a
"question of law" to be determined
by the court on inspection. — Collins
v. Tracy Grill & Bar Corporation, 19
A.2d 617. 144 PaJSuper. 440.
(2) A petition to open judgment
on a Judgment note under seal which
averred that petitioner "never re-
ceived any consideration by reason
of the execution ... of said
judgment note," and answer averring
that petition did not present a valid
defense, raised the issue and pre-
sented a legal rather than a factual
question. — Shinn v. Stemler, 45 A.2d
242, 158 Pa.Super. 350.
(3) Particular questions held to be
questions of fact for the jury. —
Ouadiere v. Simeone, 29 A.2d 702,
151 Pa.Super. 65 — White Co. v. Fran-
cis, 95 Pa.Super. 315 — Kaufman v.
Karuza, Pa.Com.Pl., 33 Luz.Leg.Beg.
416.
77. Del. — Miles v. Layton, 193 A.
567, 8 W.W.Harr. 411, 112 A.L.R.
786.
78. Pa. — Bloom v. Lundberg, 96 Pa.
Super. 248 — Heyer-Kemner, Inc.,
v, Sachs, Com.Pl., 57 Montg.Co. 73.
34 C.J. p 416 note 1.
Estoppel
The court was not required to con-
sider question whether defendant
was estopped to question validity of
note where question of estoppel was
not raised in answer to amended pe-
tition.—Sprenger, now for Use of
Stoecker, v. Litten, 15 A.2d 527, 142
Pa,Super. 194.
Told instrument
A petition to set aside confession
of judgment on a note need not al-
lege error or fraud respecting sign-
ing of note, to admit evidence con-
cerning proof of maturity of debt
subsequent to signing thereof, where
note was an absolute nullity because
executed and given in contravention
of prohibitory law. — Taylor v.
Shreveport Fertilizer Works, La.
App., 197 So. 164.
79. Pa.— McKee v. Verner, 86 A. 646,
239 Pa. 69, 44 L.R.A.,N.S., 727.
34 C.J. p 416 note 2.
80. Pa,— United Security Life Ins.
& Trust Co. v. Vaughn, 8 Pa.Dist
302, 22 Pa.Co. 167.
81. 111.— Becker v. Ketter, 5-6 N.E.
2d 649, 323 Ill.App. 656— Elaborat-
ed Ready Roofing Co. v. Hunter,
262 Ill.App. 380.
82. 111. — Great Northern Store Fix-
ture Mfg. Co. v. Lamm, 58 N.E.2d
745, 324 IlLApp. 587— Kolmar, Inc.,
v. Moore, 55 N.E.2d 524, 323 111.
App. 323— Freudenthal v. Lipman,
51 N.E.2d 794, 320 IlLApp. 681.
34 C.J. p 416 note 4.
83. Ariz. — Arizona Mining & Trad-
ing Co. v. Benton, 100 P. 952, 12
Ariz. 373.
HI. — Great Northern Store Fixture
Mfg. Co. v. Lamm, 58 N.E.2d 745,
324 IlLApp. 587.
84. Ohio. — Canton Implement Co. v.
Rauh, 175 N.E. 230, 37 Ohio App.
544.
85. Judgment may be reduced to the
amount which the court finds to be
justly due. — Walker v. Oakley, 32 A.
2d 563, 347 Pa. 405—34 C.J. P. 417
note 19*
Vacation in part
If the judgment includes several
claims or items, some of which are
due and others not, or some of which
are sufficiently described in the
statement and others not, it may be
vacated or set aside as to those de-
mands which cannot be supported
and left standing as to the others. —
Wells v. Gieseke, $ N.W. 380, 27
Minn. 478 — 34 C.J. p 417 note 18.
Joint judgment
(1) A judgment in assumpsit is an
entity and where it is rendered
against several persons it cannot be
set aside as to one party without set-
ting it aside as to alL— First Nat.
Bank v. Yakey, 253 IlLApp. 128.
595
(2) Order made on motion of one
of two makers sued jointly on judg-
ment note, directing court to open
judgment entered by confession to
admit defense of material alteration
after execution of note, was held to
reopen judgment as to both defend-
ants.—-First Nat. Bank v. May, 231
IlLApp. 509.
(3) Where, however, a joint con-
fession of judgment on a note is en-
tered against the two signers there-
of, and one of the signers had been
discharged from his liability on the
note by bankruptcy proceedings, it
has been held that the court may
properly vacate the judgment as to
the bankrupt and open up the judg-
ment only as to the cosigner. — Good-
man American Ice Cream Co. v.
Mendelsohn, 274 IlLApp. 253.
(4) Where court vacated joint
judgment as to deceased defendant,
it could subsequently enter vacation
as to other joint defendant — Saul-
paugh v. Born, 154 N.E. 166, 22 Ohio
App. 275.
(5) Where judgment is entered by
confession against joint and several
obligors after the death of one of
them and the warrant of attorney is
joint and not Joint and several and
the court, on motion of the surviving
obligor, vacates the judgment, the
rights of the obligee are not preju-
diced thereby where the obligee is
granted leave to file an amended
statement of claim and to proceed
against the surviving obligor. — Gen-
den v. Bailen, 275 IlLApp. 382,
86^ N.J.— Fortune Building & Loan
Ass'n v. Codomo, 7 A.2d 880, 122 N.
J.Law 565.
Pa. — Morris v. Chevalier, Com.Pl., 20
Leh.L.J. 133 — Worthlngton Bldrs,
v. Rutt, Com.PL, 30 North. Co. 155
— Turko v. Jurkuv, Com.PL, 87
Pittsb.Leg.J. 8.
When entry of judgment by con-
fession was unauthorized, order
striking off judgment was appropri-
ate remedy. — ILansdowne Bank &
Trust Co. T. Robinson, 154 A. 17, 203
Pa. 58.
326
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
erally,87 open the judgment, but restrict the issues
to be tried,88 or open the judgment and frame an
issue for a jury.89 On the other hand, relief will
be denied where a proper showing is not made.90
Imposition of terms. Terms or conditions may be
imposed on defendant, on granting his application
to open the judgment,91 such as the payment of
costs92 and reasonable attorney's fees,93 if the judg-
ment is confirmed. It has been held that it is not
proper to impose as a condition precedent that de-
fendant shall bring into court the sum which is sup-
posed to be due,94 but the deposit of a sum conced-
edly due may be required,95 although it has been
held that the court may set aside the judgment to
let in the defense of usury, without a tender of the
amount due.96 The judgment may be allowed to
stand as security to abide the result,97 although, as
discussed infra § 327, it has been held that this is
the normal effect of an order which simply opens
the judgment as distinguished from an order vacat-
ing or setting aside the judgment. Terms may also
be imposed on plaintiff as a condition of a refusal
to open the judgment.98
87. Pa. — Home Sales & Service Sta
tion v. Finch. 183 A. 54, 120 Pa.
Super. 402 — Witwer v. Baer, Com.
PL, 32 Berks Co. 269— Wayne Title
& Trust Co. v. Sweet, Com.Pl., 32
DeLCo. 106 — Dickel v. Tyson, Com.
PL, 50 Lanc.Rev. 163 — Keene v
Ryman, Com. PI., 38 Luz.Leg.Reg.
330 — Mathewson v. Lehigh Valley
Coal Co., Coxn.Pl., 38 Luz.Ijeg-.Reg.
116— Pierce -Street Automobile Co.
v. Sparlow, Com.PL, 33 Luz,Leg.
Reg. 432 — Wildwood Strand Realty
Co. v. Och, Com.PL, 53 Montg.Co.
264 — Associates Discount Corpora-
tion v. Debies, Com.Pl., 90 Pittsb.
Leg.J. 569.
Opening- the Judgment IB the ap-
propriate relief where the court is
exercising its equitable power to per-
mit defendant to interpose a defense.
Dal.— -Dolby v. Whaley, 197 A. 161, 9
W.W.Harr. 155.
111. — Farmers Bank of North Hen-
derson v. Stenfeldt, 258 Ill.App.
428.
lack of Jurisdiction
In suit to vacate decree pro con-
fesso which is void for lack. of serv-
ice, where parties are the same, court
may rehear cause and deny relief
not warranted by merits. — Snyder v.
Abbott, 161 S.B. 11, 111 W.Va. 201.
83. Pa. — A. B. O. Oil Burner & En-
gineering Co. v. Duncan, Com.PL,
2S DeLCo. 308.
89. Pa. — Lyman Felheim Co. v.
Walker, 193 A. 69, 128 Pa.Super. 1
— Peerless Roofing & Siding Cor-
poration v. Bryson, Com.PL, 29
DeLCo. 448 — Waterhouse v. Bur-
dick, Com.PL, 90 PittsbXeg.J. 399,
24 Erie Co. 366 — Colonial 'Finance
Co. v. Mitchell, Com.Pl., 87 Pittsb.
Leg.J. 383, 2 Fay.L.J. 154— JLatrobe
Trust Co., for Use of, v. Ruffner,
Com.PL, 22 WestuCo. 46.
•90. Del.— Miles v. Layton, 193 A,
567, 8 W.W.Harr. 411, 112 A.L.R.
786.
.N.Y.— Hays v. Smith, 58 N.T.S.2d
439, 269 App.Div. 1008, appeal de-
nied 6.1 N.Y.S.2d 526, 270 App.Div.
867, appeal dismissed 67 N.E.2d
527, 295 N.Y. 896.
Pa.— Held v. Held, 45 A.2d 16, 353
Pa. 389— Wilson v. Richard, 147
A. 833, 298 Pa, 17— Bush v. Frutch-
ey, 83 Pa.Super. 208 — Armitage v,
Ulrich, Com.PL, 3« Berks Co. 79—
Commonwealth ex rel. Reno v.
Snyderwine, Com. PL, 56 Dauph.Co.
9 — Chiara v. Johnston, Com.PL, 55
Dauph.Co. 60— First Nat. Bank of
Mt Holly Springs v. Cumbler,
Com.PL, 50 Dauph.Co.. 203, affirmed
21 A.2d 120, 145 Pa.Super. 595—
Sipangler v. Zimmerman, Com.PL,
50 Dauph.Co. 93 — Peerless Roofing
& Siding Corporation v. Bryson,
Com.PL, 29 DeLCo. 448— Williams
v. Puline, Com. PL, 28 Erie Co. 256
— Hebrew Loan Society of Wyo-
ming Valley v. Margolis, Com.PL,
33 IjUZ.Lieg.Reg. 101 — Empire Fur-
niture Co. v. Yale, Com.PL, 32 Luz.
Leg.Reg. 397 — Gawinowicz v.
Yurkewicz, Com.PL, 14 Northumb.
Leg.J. 15— Hill Top Lumber Co. v.
Gillman, Com.PL, 92 Pittsb.Leg.J.
350 — Automobile (Finance Co. v.
Varner, Com.PL, 90 Pittsb.Leg.J.
169— Sterling ILand Co. v. Kline,
Com.PL, 87 Pittsb.Leg.J. 279—
Lutz v. Heim, Com.PL, 5 Sch-Reg.
190 — Sugarman v. Baldini, Com.
PL, 28 WestCo. 41. '
34 C.J. p 416 note 7.
If no sufficient ground is shown
for opening judgment by confession
on warrant of attorney, rule to show
cause is discharged and petition dis-
missed.— Chandler v. Miles, 193 A.
57-6, 8 W.W.Harr.,DeL, 431.
Defects cured
(1) Where the objections relied on
in the motion are corrected on the
hearing thereof the application will
be denied.
111. — Evans v. Barclay, 38 Ill.App.
•496,
Pa. — Peerless Soda Fountain Service
Co. v. Hummer, 19 Pa.Dist. & Co.
302, 46 York Leg.Rec. 201.
(2) Court could on argument of
rule to strike judgment entered on
copy of obligation containing war-
rant of attorney to confess judg-
ment grant leave to file original ob-
ligation.— Altoona Trust Co. v. Fock-
ler, 165 A. 740, 311 Pa. 426.
Stay of execution
Recital in order confirming judg-
ment by confession that order was
596
without prejudice to any parties as
to subsequent action did not permit
judgment debtors subsequently to at-
tack court's action in confirming the
judgment by applying for perpetual
stay of execution. — Local Loan Co.
v. Norman, 48 N.E.2d '80S, 319 111.
App. 114.
91. Colo. — Axelson v. Dailey Co-op.
Co., 298 P. 957, 88 Colo. 555.
111.— Western Cold -Storage Co. v.
Keeshin, 252 Ill.App. 165.
34 C.J. p 417 note 20.
92. Wis. — Port Huron Engine &
Thresher Co. v. Clements, 89 N.
W. 160, 113 Wis. 249.
93. 111.— West v. McNaughton, 211
111. App. 259 — Fisher v. Wecker, 210
IlLApp. 345.
94. 111.— Page v. Wallace, 87 111. 84.
34 C.J. p 417 note 23.
95. Md. — Taylor v. Gorman, 126 A.
897, 146 Md. 207.
9S. Ohio. — Riddle v. Canby, 2 Ohio
Dec., Reprint, 586, 4 West.'L.Month.
124.
97. 111.— First Nat Bank v. Hahne-
mann Institutions of Chicago, 190
N.B. 707, 356 111. 36-6.
Ohio. — Commercial Credit Corp. v.
Wasson, 63 N.E.2d 560, 76 Ohio
App. 181.
34 C.J. p 417 note 16.
Retention of lien
Where court strikes out a Judg-
ment for plaintiff on motion of de-
fendant, whether court should re-
tain the lien is a question entirely
within the court's discretion. — Sil-
verberg v. Dearholt, 22 A.2d 588, 180
Md. 38.
Where execution has been levied it
is error to set aside such execution
and the levies made thereunder, in
the absence of other equivalent se-
curity substituted therefor.
I1L— 'Farmers' Bank of North Hen-
derson y. Stenfeldt, 258 IlLApp.
428.
Pa. — Adams v. James L. !Leefls Co.,
42 A. 19'5, 189 Pa. 544.
98. Pa. — Murray v. Auman, 42 Pa.
Super. 574 — Williams v. Puline,
CoxxLPL, 28 Erie Co. 250.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 327
§ 327. - — Operation and Effect of Opening
or Vacating
The opening of a judgment by confession does not
vacate the judgment, but the vacation of such a judg-
ment places the action in the same state as though It
had been commenced in the ordinary procedure by sum-
mons.
The opening of a judgment by confession does not
vacate the judgment;95 it stands as security until
the determination of the case on the merits.1 The
vacation of a judgment by confession places the ac-
tion in the same state as though it had been com-
menced in the ordinary procedure by summons.2
If the judgment is opened generally, and without
terms, plaintiff is put to the proof of his cause of
action precisely as though no judgment had been
entered.3 Where the court in opening the judg-
ment did not direct the parties to file pleadings, the
petition to open and the answer thereto may be
taken as the pleadings.4 It has been held that plain-
tiff is restricted to the cause of action for which the
judgment was entered and that he cannot change
it,5 but defendant may set up on the trial any de-
fense which would have been available to him if an
action had been brought, instead of a judgment be-
ing entered, on the debt or instrument in suit,6 al-
though he cannot set up matters of defense which
have arisen subsequent to the judgment.7
The court in opening judgment may frame an
issue,8 and in such case the trial should be confined
to such issue.9
By asking for and obtaining leave to plead in the
case of a judgment entered by confession, all tech-
nicalities and objections to the judgment are
waived,10 and defendant is limited to the merits.11
It is not sufficient for defendant to file a general
demurrer to the declaration,12 and, if he declines to
plead to the declaration, he may be defaulted for
failure to comply with the rule to plead15 An or-
der setting aside a judgment as to one only of sev-
eral defendants merely restrains plaintiff from ex-
ecuting the judgment on defendant as to whom it
is set aside.14
On the trial of the action after the judgment is
opened, general rules apply as to procedure,1^ pre-
99. Del.— -Miles v. Layton, 193 A.
567, 8 W.W.Harr. 411, 112 A.L.R.
786.
HI. — Sharp v. Barr, 284 IlLApp. 214.
Pa. — Braum v. Rohrbach, 147 A. 519,
297 Pa. 496.
1. 111. — Mayer v. Tylor. 19 N.E.2d
• 211, 298 IlLApp. 632— Ross
Wrightwood-Hampden Bldtf. Cor-
poration, 271 Ill.App. 22 — Farmers'
Bank of North Henderson v. Sten-
feldt, 258 IlLApp. 428— Streeter v.
Junker, 230 IlLApp. 366.
2. 111. — George J. Cooke Co. v. John-
son, 179 IlLApp. 83.
Attack on garnishment
Judgment debtor's rule to show
cause why confession of Judgment
should not be stricken off -and mon-
«y held by garnishee under attach-
ment execution on judgment decreed
not subject to attachment and debt-
or afforded opportunity to show that
attached money was not his personal
funds was not a rule to show cause
why judgment should not be opened
generally and debtor let into defense
on merits, and did not raise ques-
tion of defense on merits of judg-
ment.— Albert M. Greenfield & Co. v.
Roberts, 5 A.2d -642, 135 Pa.Super.
328.
against maker of note
When a judgment against the
maker on a note is vacated, the same
relief is afforded the indorsers.—
Gilmore v. Mix, 67 N,E.2d 313, 329
IlLApp. 177.
Judgment on transcript
Where a judgment by confession is-
-stricken off, a judgment on a tran-
script thereof entered In another
county falls with the original judg-
ment.—Banning v. Taylor, $4 Pa.
297.
Power over order vacating Judgment
Where court vacated judgment by
confession instead of entering or-
der merely allowing judgment to be
opened up, and thereafter court en-
tered a summary judgment, and on
realizing within thirty days that it
was a mistake to vacate the judg-
ment, court still had jurisdiction and
was justified in rectifying mistake
by setting aside the order of vaca-
tion and reinstating judgment by
confession, leaving two judgments,
which was permissible under stat-
ute.—National Builders Bank of Chi-
cago v. Simons, 31 N.B.2d 269, 307
IlLApp. 552.
3. 111.— Streeter v. Junker, 230 I1L
App, 366.
Pa.'— Austen v. Marzolf, 161 A. 72,
307 Pa. 232— First Nat Bank v.
St John's Church, Windber, 146
A. 102, 296 Pa. 467.
34 C.J. p 417 note 28.
Tiling of plea
Under rule requiring defendant to
be summoned and show cause why
judgment by confession under power
In note should be vacated, opened,
or modified, no plea should have been
filed until trial court reopened the
judgment and permitted defendant
to file pleas. — Foland v. Hoffman,
Md., 47 A.2d 62.
4. Pa. — Rzasa v. Gorniak, 174 A.
659, 115 Pa.Super. 47.
5. Pa. — Beers v. 'Fallen Timber Coal
Co., 161 A. 409, 307 Pa. 2$1— Keal
597
v. Feissner, Com.PL, 37 Luz.Leg.
Reg. 3-6.
6. Colo. — Axelson v. Dailey Co-op.
Co., 298 P. 957, 88 Colo. 555.
Pa. — Ankeny v. Lohr, 99 PaJSuper.
203.
34 C.J. p 417 note 29.
Fleas tendered late
It is not an abuse of discretion to
deny leave to file additional pleas
tendered after the case had been
placed on the calendar for trial. —
Northeastern Coal Co. v. Tyrrell, 138
IlLApp. 472.
7. Pa.— Curtis v. Slosson, 6 Pa. 265.
8. Pa. — International Finance Co. v.
Magilansky, 161 A, 613, 105 Pa,
Super. 309 — Goenner v. Glumicich,
81 Pa.Super. 521— Fogel v. New-
berg, Com.PL, 37 Pa.Dist & Co.
254.
9. Pa.— Weber v. Roland, 39 Pa, Su-
per. 611.
34 C.J. p 418 note 34.
10. 111.— Robey v. XJpdyke, 61 111.
App. 328.
Pa. — Treasurer Div. No. 163 A. A. of
S. R. E. of A. v. Keller, 23 Pa-
Super. 135.
11. 111. — Dazey v. Williams, 252 HL
App. 329.
12. 111. — Feldman v. Polishuck, 200
IlLApp. 15.
13. 111. — (Feldman v. Polishuck, su-
pra.
14. N.J.— Reynolds v. Silvers, 18 N.
J.Law 238.
15. 111. — Security Discount Corpo-
ration v. Jackson, 51 N.E.2d 618,
320 IlLApp. 440.
§ 327
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
sumptions and burden of proof,16 questions of law
and fact,17 admissibility of evidence,18 the weight
and sufficiency of evidence,19 and instructions.20
Judgment on retrial. If on the retrial the issues
are found for plaintiff, the judgment should direct
that the previous judgment continue in full force and
effect,21 and should not be for a greater sum than
was allowed by the prior judgment.22 Under such
circumstances the entry of a separate and inde-
pendent judgment is erroneous.23 Where the issues
are found for defendant after the judgment is
opened, the judgment should be vacated and de-
clared null and void.24
G. JUDGMENTS BY CONSENT, OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE, AND ON MOTION OB
SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS
§ 328. Consent Judgments
The amendment, opening, or vacating of judg-
ments by consent is considered infra §§ 329, 330.
Examine Pocket Parts for later cases.
§ 329. Amendment
The consent of all parties Is generally required to
permit amendment of a consent judgment, except for
fraud or mutual mistake, but this rule does not preclude
correction of clerical errors or prevent amendment where
the Judgment reserves the cause for further orders.
As a general rule, a consent judgment may not
be amended, modified, or corrected in any essential
particular except with the consent of all the parties
thereto,25 in the absence of fraud or mutual mis-
16. 111. — Security Discount Corpora-
tion v. Jackson. 51 N.E.2d 618, 820
IlLApp. 440.
Pa. — Austen v. Marzolf, 1-61 A. 72,
307 Pa. 232 — Jones & Sons, Inc. v.
Rtshkofski, Com.PL, 37 Luz.L,eg.
Reg. 229.
17. I1L — Farmers' Bank of North
Henderson v. Stenfeldt, 258 111.
App. 428.
Pa. — Collins v. Tracy Grill & Bar
Corporation. 19 A.2d 617, 144 Pa.
•Super. 440 — Murray v. Flesher, 88
Pa.Super. 592.
34 C.J. p 418 note 34 [c].
18. 111. — Teuber v. Schumacher, 44
IlLApp. 577.
Pa.— Austen v. Marzolf, 161 A, 72,
307 Pa. 232.
Contradiction of writing
On a petition to open judgment
averring a parol contemporaneous
agreement as one of the inducements
to the signing of a judgment note,
the effect of granting the petition is
not to permit defendant to contra-
dict the terms of a written instru-
ment, but to prove by parol evidence
the existence of the agreement and
the circumstances under which it
was made.— Hotaling v. Fisher, 79
Pa. Super. 103.
19. Fraud
If fraud is set up as a defense, it
must be affirmatively and positively
proved.— Hipps v. Wardle, 1 A. 727,
1 Pa.Cas. 147— Davis v. Neel, 61 Pa-
Super. 299.
Evidence held sufficient
(1) To justify confirmation of
Judgment by confession. — Automatic
Oil Heating Co. v. Lee, 33 N.E.2d 129,
309 IlLApp. 444 — Aurora Nat Bank
V. Funk, 10 N.E.2d 442, 296 IlLApp.
437.
(2) To sustain, judgment for de-
fendant.
111. — Miller Fur Co. v. Gorabossy, 44
N.B.2d 341, 316 IlLApp. 159.
Pa. — Rosenblum v. Edwards, 8 A.2d
46S, 137 Pa.Super. 33.
(3) To show that obligation was
not supported by consideration.—
Klovas v. Wedeskis, 41 N.E.2d 222,
314 111. App. 384.
(4) To show that obligation was
not conditional. — Mitchell v. Corn-
stock. 27 N.E.2d 620, 305 IlLApp. 360.
Evidence held insufficient
(1) To sustain judgment. — Carroll
Graham Glass Co. v. Stattman, 32
N.E.2d 930, 309 IlLApp. 132.
(2) To show payment — Bait v.
Hartman, 11 N.E.2d 240, 29*2 IlLApp.
639.
20. Pa. — U. S. Savings & Trust Co.
of Conemaugh, to Use of Hindes,
V. Helsel, 2 A.2d 823, 332 Pa. 433.
34 C.J. p 418 note 34 [6].
instruction held erroneous
Pa,— Sears v. Birbeck, 184 A. 6, 321
Pa. 375.
21. Colo. — Axelson v. Dailey Co-op.
Co., 298 P. 957, 88 Colo. 555.
ni.— Schrader v. Heflebower, 243- 111.
App. 139— Bowers v. Heflebower,
2-43 Ill.Aj?p. 129 — Sharp v. Barr,
234 IlLApp. 214.
34 C.J. p 418 note 40.
Where the judgment was improp-
erly opened, the subsequent proceed-
ings should be vacated and the orig-
inal judgment reinstated.
111. — Shinner v. Raschke, 213 IlLApp.
324.
Pa. — Rosenblum v. Edwards, 8 A,2d
4-68, 137 Pa.Super. 33.
On order that judgment stand as
of date of rendition, case is substan-
tially same as when judgment was
entered. — Sharp v. Barr, 234 IlLApp.
214.
598
22. 111.— King v. Heilig, 203 IlLApp.
117.
23. 111. — Excelsior Stove & Manu-
facturing Co. v. Venturelli, 8 N.E.
2d 702, 290 IlLApp. 502.
34 C.J. p 418 note 42.
24. 111. — Shumway v. Shumway, 280
ULApp. 104.
25. U.S. — Steingruber v. Johnson, D.
C.Tenn., 35 F.Supp. 662.
Ky. — Boone v. Ohio Valley Fire &
Marine Ins. Co.'s Receiver, 55 S.
W.2d 374, 246 Ky. 489.
Mich.— Orban v. Stelle, 290 N.W. 821,.
292 Mich. 341.
Neb. — Me Arthur v. Thompson, 299 N»
W. 519, 140 Neb. 408, 139 A.L.R.
413.
N.T.— Fred Medart Mfg. Co. v. Raf-
ferty, 276 N.Y.S. 678. 243 App.Div.
632— Brooklyn Children's Aid Soc.
v. Mein, 218 N.Y.S. 557, 218 App.
Div. 773.
N.C.— Deitz v. Bolch, 183 S.E. 384*
209 N.C. 202 — Weaver v. Hampton,
161 S.E. 480. 201 N.C. 798 — Town
of Gary v. Templeton, 152 S.E. 79 7,.
198 N.C. 604— First Nat Bank v.
Mitchell, 131 S.E. 656, 191 N.C.
190.
Pa. — Commonwealth v. Highland, 28-
WestCo.UJ. 45.
34 QJ. p 418 note 46.
Judgments by consent generally see-
supra §§ 173-178.
Liability on note
Validity of amendment to consent
judgment entered by parties to show
that one defendant was primarily
and other secondarily liable on notes,
depended on whether defendant pri-
marily liable consented to amend-
ment—-Delta v. Bolch, 188 S.E. 384,.
209 N.C. 202.
Where the amendment is not ma-
terial, the rule does not apply. — Wig-
gam Milk Co. v. Johnson, 13 N.E.2d
522, 213 Ind. 508.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 330
take,26 and this rule applies to cases where a party
has acquired rights in the final result, which would
be jeopardized by a change in the terms of the con.
sent judgment.27 In this connection it has been
said that, if the court should change a consent judg-
ment in any material respect without the consent of
the parties, it would cease to be the judgment agreed
on by them,28 and that such exercise of judicial
power would be a practical denial of the right of the
party prejudiced to be heard according to law.29
It has been said, however, that the power of a
court to revise its judgments for protection of ad-
judicated rights in relation to changed conditions
that affect those rights in respect of their judicial
enforcement is inherent, and that such power exists
whether the judgment was entered after litigation
or by consent,30 and that a formal order oi correc-
tion is not essential to granting relief consistent
with the agreement.81 It has also been held that,
where a judgment fails, in a material respect, to
accord with the stipulation made, relief should be
sought by motion for new trial or appeal, and that
such a judgment cannot be corrected under code
provisions governing amendment of judgments.32
Clerical defects or omissions in the judgment,
caused by mistake, may be amended nunc pro
tune,33 and the court may amend a judgment to
correct a misnomer of defendant either during or
after the term at which the judgment was ren-
dered.34 The rule requiring consent to effect a
modification or amendment of a consent judgment
or decree will not be carried so far as to confer
on a party seeking to enforce an unconscionable
penalty provided for in a consent judgment the
right to obtain affirmative relief contrary to the
paramount duty of the court to do equity,85 and,
where a consent decree or judgment may indirectly
affect the rights of many persons in addition to
those of the litigants, the rule that courts will not
modify a consent decree except on the consent of
the parties will not be too rigidly enforced.36
Reservation for further orders; interlocutory
judgments. Where a consent judgment reserves
the cause for further orders, the court may there-
after modify the judgment as conditions may re-
quire in conformity with justice and the legal rights
of the parties.37 It has been held that an interlocu-
tory consent judgment may be modified by the court
to meet changed conditions,38 but that such a judg-
ment, in strict accordance with a stipulation en-
tered into between the parties, cannot be amended
on a motion made by one of the parties and opposed
by the other,39 the remedy of the party objecting
to the form of the judgment being to make a mo-
tion to be relieved from the stipulation and to have
the judgment vacated.40
§ 330. Opening or Vacating
• a. In general
b. Grounds
c. Procedure and relief
a. In General
Ordinarily, a consent judgment may not be opened,
set aside, or vacated without consent of the parties or
proof of grounds adequate for such relief, but, before
the Judgment has become final, the trial court retains
plenary power to set it aside.
Generally speaking, a judgment by consent may
26. N.Y.— Feinberg v. Feinberg, 41
N.Y.S.2d 868, 180 Misc. 305.
N.C. — Johnson v. Futrell Bros. Lum-
ber Co., 35 S.R2d 889.
Wyo. — Midwest Refining Co. v.
George, 7 P.2d 213, 44 Wyo. 25.
Boundary dispute
Supreme court had jurisdiction to
•correct consent decree fixing bound-
ary line between states, and to es-
tablish true boundary line, where de-
cree was erroneous in certain re-
spects due to mutual mistakes. —
-State of Wisconsin v. State of Mich-
igan, 55 S.Ct 786, 295 U.S. 455, 79
L.Ed. 1541.
•27. N.C.— Fowler v. Winders, 116 S.
B. 177, 185 N.C. 105.
«8. Ky.— Karnes v. Black, 215 S.W.
191, 185 Ky. 410.
N.C.—- Lynch v. Loftin, 69 S.B. 143,
153 N.C. 270.
29. Ky.— Karnes v. Black, 215 S.W.
191, 185 Ky. 410.
•80. Fla.-7-State ex rel. Klemm v.
Baskin, 150 So. 517, 111 Fla. 667.
31. U.S. — Butler v. Denton, D.C.Okl.,
57 F.Supp. 656, affirmed, C.C.A.,
150 F.2d 687.
Wyo. — Midwest Refining Co. v.
George, 7 P.2d 213, 44 Wyo. 25.
32. Cal. — Chavez v. Scully, 232 P.
165, 69 Cal.App. 633.
33. 111.— People v. Quick, 92 111. 580.
W.Va. — Stewart v. Stewart, 20 S.E.
862, 40 W.Va. 65.
34. Ind, — Wiggam Milk Co. v. John-
son, 13 N.E.2d 522, 213 Ind. 508.
Appearance without objection
The modification of consent Judg-
ment made by court in changing
name of defendant from a certain
"Company Inc." to such "Company"
was not a material change and was
within authority of court, where
president of company was personally
served with summons, the company
appeared by attorney and filed an-
swer in general denial, and did not
make objection to name under which
It was being sued. — Wig-gam Milk
599
Co. v. Johnson, 13 N.E.2d 522, 213
Ind. 508.
35. Mich.— Orban v. Stelle, 290 N.W.
821, 292 Mich. 341.
36- Mich.— Royal Oak Tp. v. City
of Huntington Woods, 20 N.W.2d
840.
37. U.S. — Chrysler Corporation v. U.
S., Ind., 62 S.Ct 1146, 316 U.S. 556,
86. L.Ed. 1668.
N.C.— Harriss v. Hughes, 17 S.B.2d
679, 220 N.C. 473— Coburn v. Board
of Com'rs of Swain County, 131
S.E. 372, 191 N.C. 68.
Tex. — State v. Swift & Co., Civ.App.,
187 S.W.2d 127, error refused.
38. N.C.— Hales v. National Land
Exchange, 14 S.E.2d 667, 219 N.C.
651 — Fowler v. Winders, 116 S.E.
177, 185 N.C. 105.
39. N.T.— Beer v. Orthaus, 109 N.T.
S. 997, 125 App.Div. 574— Aronson
v. Sire, '83 N.T.S. 362, 85 App.Div«
607.
40. N.Y.— Aronson v. Sire, supra.
330
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
not be opened, set aside, or vacated without the
consent of all the parties,41 except in due proceed-
ings on proper grounds, as discussed infra subdi-
visions b and c of this section. The trial court has
power, however, to open or vacate a judgment en-
tered by consent or agreement of the parties where
a good cause therefor is shown,42 the granting or
refusing of the application being within the sound
discretion of the court.43 It has been held that,
before lapse of the time necessary to make a con-
sent judgment final in character, the court may
lawfully vacate it,44 and under some practice the
court has plenary power over consent judgments
during the term at which they are rendered and
within such time may vacate and set aside such a
judgment whenever justice and equity so require.45
b. Grounds
A consent Judgment will not be opened or vacated
In the absence of adequate grounds, but such a Judg-
ment may be opened or vacated for want of consent,
fraud, collusion, or mutual mistake of fact.
A judgment by consent will not be opened or va-
cated in the absence of adequate grounds therefor,4*
especially where the conditions have become such
that the opposing party would be prejudiced there-
by,47 and, where the court rendering the judgment
had jurisdiction of both the parties and the general
subject matter of the action, no objection to the
merits is reviewable on motion to vacate a consent
judgment.48 Generally speaking, a judgment by
consent will not be opened or vacated in the ab-
sence of fraud or mistake or want of consent in
fact.49 " A consent judgment may not be set aside
on such grounds as that applicant made a bad bar-
gain;50 erroneous advice of counsel;51 the exist-
ence of a legal defense which might have been
pleaded in the action;52 errors and irregularities
of procedure ;53 misconduct or negligence of party's
41. Ind. — Scares v. Chacker, App.,
56 N.E.2d 503.
Mich. — Goldberg v. Trustees of Elm-
wood Cemetery, 275 N.W. 663, 281
Mich. 647— In re Meredith's Estate,
266 N.W. 351, 275 Mich. 278, 104
A.L.R. 34S.
Neb. — McArthur v. Thompson, 299 N.
W. 519, 140 Neb. 408, 139 A.L.R.
413.
N.J.— Fidelity Union Trust Co. v.
Union Cemetery Ass'n, 40 A.2d 205,
136 N.J.EQ. 15, affirmed 45 A.2d
670, 137 N.J.Eq. 455, and 45 A.2d
698, 137 N.J.Eq. 456.
N.T.— In re Kenny's Will, 220 N.T.
S. 188, 128 Misc. 553, modified on
other grounds 230 N.T.S. 74, 224
App.Div. 152, affirmed 166 N.B. 337,
250 N.T. 594.
N.C. — Weaver v. Hampton, 161 S.E.
480, 201 N.C. 798— Town of Gary v.
Templeton, 152 S.E. 797, 198 N.C.
604— Lentz v. Lentz, 138 S.E. 12,
193 N.C. 742— Ellis v. Ellis, 136
S.E. 350, 193 N.C. 216— First Nat
Bank v. Mitchell, 131 S.E. 656,
191 N.C. 190— Walker v. Walker,
117 S.E. 167, 185 N.C. 380.
42, Ala. — Louisville & N. B. Co. v.
Bridgeforth, 101 So. 807. 20 Ala,
App. 326.
Mich. — J. L. Hudson Co. v. Barnett,
238 N.W. 243, 255 Mich. 465.
34 C.J. p 418 note 55.
Improper order of dismissal
Where action was dismissed pur-
suant to stipulation of the parties
but without any formal reference to
the agreement of settlement, trial
court had jurisdiction under statute
to set aside the order of dismissal
and to enter judgment on the stipu-
lation.— Anderson v. Ludwig, 22 N.
W.2d 530, 248 Wis. 464.
43. Ga. — Raines v. Lane, 31 S.E.2d
403, 198 Ga/217.
Mich. — J. L. Hudson Co. v. Barnett,
238 N.W. 243, 255 Mich. 465.
N.Y.— Whitson v. Bates, 283 N.T.S.
663, 246 App.Div. 726.
•34 C.J. p 419 note 56.
Abuse of discretion not shown
Mo.— Allen v. Fewel, 87 S.W.2d 142,
337 Mo. 955.
Okl. — Sherrill v. Board of Com'rs
of Stephens County, 130 P.2d 100,
191 OkL 373.
44. 111.— In re Reemts' Estate, 50 N.
E.2d 514, 383 111. 447..
45. U.S. — McDonnell v. Wasenmiller,
C.C.A.Neb., 74 F.2d 320.
46. La. — Corpus Juris oited in Son-
nier v. Sonnier, 140 So. 49, 50, 19
La.App. 234.
Okl.— Starr v. Tennant, 128 P. 733,
35 Okl. 125.
34 C.J. p 419 note 70.
47. Ky. — Karnes v. Black, 215 S.W.
191, 185 Ky. 410.
34 C.J. p 419 note 73.
4a U.S.— Walling v. Miller, C.C.A.
Minn., 138 F.2d 629, certiorari de-
nied 64 S.Ct 781, 321 U.S. 784, 88
L.Ed. 1076.
49. U.S. — Lust gar ten v. Felt & Tar-
rant Mfg. Co., C.C.A.N.J., 92 F.2d
277--Butler v. Denton, D.C.Okl., 57
F.Supp. 656, affirmed, C.C.A., 150 F.
2d 687.
Ala.— Garrett v. Davis, 112 So. 342,
216 Ala. 74.
Ind.— Scares v. Chacker, App., 56 N.
E.2d 505.
Ky.— Myers v. Myers, 100 S.W.2d 693,
266 Ky. 831.
N.H.— Hubley v. Goodwin, 17 A.2d
96, 91 N.H. 200.
N.C.— King y. King, 35 S.B.2d 893—
Jones v. Griggs, 25 S.E.2d 862,
223 N.C. 279— Smith v. Land &
Mineral Co., 8 S.E.2d 225, 217 N.C.
346— Keen v. Parker, 8 S.E.2d 209,
600
217 N.C. 378— Board of Education
of Sampson County v. Board of
Com'rs of Sampson County, 134 S.
E. 852, 192 N.C. 274— First Nat.
Bank v. Mitchell, 131 S.E. 656, 191
N.C. 190.
Tex. — Commercial Credit Co. v. Ram-
sey, Civ.App., 138 S.W.2d 191, er-
ror dismissed, judgment correct
34 C.J. p 419 note 75.
Change of mind
Consent decree confirming com-
missioners' report was binding on
parties, who could npt have it set
aside because they changed minds
and employed new attorneys. — Berg-
man v. Rhodes, 165 N.E. 598, 334 111.
137, 65 A.L.R. 344.
Threats
Threat of foreclosure and agree-
ment to extend time made out of
court were not ground for vacating
judgment entered by consent. — Arnot
v Fischer, 295 P. 1117, 161 Wash.
67.
50. Minn. — Rusch v. Prudential Ins.
Co. of America, 266 N.W. 86, 197
Minn. 81.
N.T.— In re Del Drago's Estate, 36
N.T.S.2d 811, 179 Misc. 383.
51. Ga. — Murray v. Willoughby, 66
S.E. 267, 133 Ga. 514.
La.— Doll v. Doll, 19 So.2d 249, 206
La. 550.
34 C.J. p 420 note 83.
52. Ark. — Blair v. Askew-Jones
Lumber Co., 55 S.W.2d 78, 186 Ark.
687.
34 C.J. p 420 note 85.
Limitations
Ark. — Blair v. Askew-Jones Lumber
Co., 55 S.W.2d 78, 186 Ark. 687.
53. Mo. — Henry v. Gibson, 55 Mo.
570.
v. Webb, 8 S.C. 202.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
330
attorney, unmixed with collusion or fraud of the
other party;54 failure of a defendant duly cited
to employ counsel or file an answer;55 nonperform-
ance of stipulations to be performed subsequent to
entry of judgment;56 improper distribution of the
proceeds of the judgment;51? or breach of parol
agreement made out of court consenting to entry of
judgment by default, where a rule of court refuses
to recognize such parol agreements.58
Want of consent. A purported consent judgment
may generally be opened or vacated where it was
entered without the authority or consent of the
-moving party,59 or in violation of the agreement
Tof the parties.60 This rule has been applied to in-
validate judgments entered on the unauthorized
/consent of the attorneys,61 although there is au-
thority to the effect that a judgment regularly en-
tered pursuant to agreement of the attorneys may
not be opened after the term on the ground that
the agreement was not authorized,62 that showing
that a party did not consent will not justify vaca-
tion of the judgment where there is failure to show
nonconsent of his attorney,68 and that the client is
bound by the unauthorized consent of his attorney
within the scope of his apparent authority so as to
preclude the client from securing -vacation of a
judgment entered on the unauthorized consent or
agreement of the attorney.64 It has also been stat-
ed that courts are not inclined to set aside a judg-
ment rendered pursuant to a compromise, even
though the attorney who agreed may have lacked
actual authority to do so, in the absence of a show-
ing of injury to the party seeking to set aside the
judgment.65 An amendment of a consent judg-
ment may be set aside on proof that the amendment
was made without consent of the party concerned.66
It has been held that a judgment affecting the rights
of persons under disability, entered by consent of
representatives of such persons, may be set aside
if found prejudicial to their interests.67
Fraud, collusion, mistake, unavoidable casualty, or
usury. A consent judgment may be opened or va-
54. N.C.— Painter v. Norfolk & W.
R. Co., 57 S.E. 151, 144 N.C. 436.
Tex. — Adams v, Beaumont First Nat.
Bank, Civ.App., 52 S.W. 642.
Disregard of petitioner's wishes
Fact that consent judgment by in-
sane petitioner's counsel in prior lit-
igation was against petitioner's
wishes is not ground for setting
aside prior adjudication in absence
• of fraud, it not being presumed that
an insane person is capable of giving
proper direction as to conduct of
litigation, and no more appearing
from- the application to set aside
the consent judgment than that pe-
titioner's guardian ad litem may
have been negligent. — Gray v. Geor-
gia Loan & Trust Co., 143 S.E. 501,
166 Ga. 445.
55. Tex. — Baldwin v. Stamford
State Bank, Civ.App., 82 S.W.2d
701, error refused.
56. N.Y.— Cohen v, Orlove, 202 N.Y.
S. 517, 207 App.Div. 603.
Wis.— Duras v. 'Keller, 186 N.W. 149,
176 Wis. 88.
57. Pa, — Automobile-Securities Co.
v. Wilson, 151 A. 889, 301 Pa, 232.
Payment of whole proceeds to one
plaintiff '
Fact that entire amount of settle-
ment of judgment was paid to use-
plaintiff, although nominal plaintiff
claimed part, was .held not to require
setting judgment aside, where settle-
ment was not challenged but only
distribution made thereunder by the
attorney to whom defendant had
properly paid over the money. — Au-
tomobile Securities Co. v. Wilson,
151 A. 889, 301 Pa. 232.
58. Ind. — Barnes v. Smith, 34 Ind.
516.
59. Ala.— National Bread Co. . v.
Bird, 145 So. 462, 226 Ala. 40.
Colo.— Lewis v. Vache, 20 P.2d 554,
92 Colo. 358.
Tenn. — Cummins v. Woody, 152 S.W.
2d 246, 177 Tenn. 636— Jones v.
Williamson, 5 Cold. 371.
W.Va.— Dwight v. Hazlett, 147 S.E.
877, 107 W.Va. 192, 66 A.L.R. 102.
34 OJ. p'420 note 81.
60. Ky.— Sebree v. Sebree, 99 S.W.
282, 30 Ky.L. 670.
34 C.J. p 420 note 82.
Ex parte extension of time
Judgment granted ex parte extend-
ing time for payment under consent
decree was void and could be vacat-
ed at subsequent term. — Baker v.
McCord, 162 S.E. 110, 173 Ga, 819.
61. Ala.— National Bread Co. v.
Bird, 145 So. 462, 226 Ala. 40.
Colo. — Lewis v. Vache, 20 P.2d 554,
92 Colo. 358.
Okl.— Walker v. Gulf Pipe Line Co.,
226 P. 1046, 102 Okl. 7.
34 C.J. p 420 note 81 [c].
Seasonable application
Judgment pursuant to compromise
by attorney without authority of cli-
ent may be vacated on seasonable
application.— Dwight v. Hazlett, 147
S.E. 877, 107 W.Va. 192, 66 A.L.R.
102.
If the parties can be put in statu
<*TLO, a consent judgment entered on
agreement of the attorneys may be
set aside on the, ground that the at-
torney of applicant. acted against the
express instructions of his client. —
City of Medford v. Corbett, 20 N.E.
2d 402, 302 Mass. 573— Dal ton v.
West End St. Ry. Co., U N.E. 261,
159 Mass. 221.
601
62. Ky. — Karnes v. Black, 215 8.W.
191, 185 Ky. 410, 414.
63. Ky.— De Charette v. St. Mat-
thews Bank & Trust Co., 283 S.W.
410, 214 Ky. 400, 50 A.L.R. 34.
64. Mich. — Holmes v. Heywood, 1
Mich.,N.P., 292.
34 C.J. p 420 note 81 [b].
65. Tex. — Commercial Credit Co. v.
Ramsey, Civ.App., 138 S.W.2d 191,
error dismissed, judgment correct.
66. N.C.— Deitz v. Bolch, 183 S.E.
384, 209 N.C. 202.
Consent of all parties as prerequisite
to amendment of consent -judgment
see supra § 329.
67. Tenn. — Ledford v. Johnson City
Foundry & Machine Co., 88 S.W.2d
804, 169 Tenn. 430.
Tex. — Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. Co.
of Texas v. Pluto, Civ.App., 1&0 S.
W.2d 1048, reversed on other
grounds 156 S.W.2d 265, 138 Tex. 1.
Workmen's compensation
Where statutory provisions state
that no settlement or compromise
shall be made except on the terms
provided by the statute in work-
men's compensation cases, the em-
ployer and employee cannot make
a settlement except on the statutory
terms, and a consent judgment en-
tered on agreement of counsel and
not in accordance with the statute
may be set aside, and in fact should
be set aside for noncompliance with
the statute even if it is rendered
after proof and a. full hearing. — Led-
ford v, Johnson City Foundry & Ma-
chine Co., 88 S.W.2d 804, 169 Tenn.
430.
330
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
cated on the ground of collusion68 or fraud,69 as
where defendant was tricked or misled by false rep-
resentations,70 but may not be set aside on this
ground where the facts fail to disclose fraud of a
remediable character.71
Generally speaking, a trial court may set aside or
vacate a consent judgment on the ground of a mis-
take of fact,72 at least if mutual in character,™ or
shared by the court,74 but it may not vacate a con-
sent judgment on the basis of a mistake of law.75
Where the party or his authorized counsel consents
to entry of judgment with full knowledge of the
facts, ordinarily it may not be set aside or vacated
on the alleged ground of inadvertence or mistake,76
surprise or excusable neglect,77 or unavoidable cas-
ualty and misfortune ;78 but it has been held ground
for vacation of a consent judgment that it resulted
from a mistake of fact arising from excusable neg-
lect,79 or that defendant was prevented from ap-
pearing or defending by unavoidable casualty.80
While usury has been held a ground for vacating
a consent judgment,81 it has also been held that
consenting to judgment waives the defense of usury
precluding defendant from having judgment vacat-
ed for usury as matter of right.82
c. Procedure and Belief
(1) In general
(2) Time for application
(3) Relief; effect of setting judgment
aside
(1) In General
Ordinarily, vacation of a consent Judgment may be
sought by motion or petition, although an independent
action may lie In some jurisdictions. The attack on the
Judgment by action or motion should be on notice to
the other party and the burden rests on the plaintiff or
movant to show grounds for the relief sought.
As a general rule a consent judgment may be
vacated on a petition or motion,83 addressed to the
court which entered it.84 Under some practice it
has been held that ordinarily the proper procedure
to vacate a consent judgment is by independent ac-
tion,85 but that, when a party to an action denies
that he gave consent to the judgment as entered,
68. Ala.— Louisville & N. R. Co. v.
Bridgeforth, 101 So. 807, 20 Ala,
App. 326.
34 C.J. p 419 note 77.
69. U.S. — U. S. v. Radio Corpora-
tion of America, D.C.Del., 46 P.
Supp. 654, appeal dismissed 63 S.
Ct. 851, 318 U.S. 796, 87 L.Ed. 1161.
Ala-— Louisville & N. R. Co. v.
Bridgeforth, 101 So. 807, 20 Ala.
App. 326.
Ky. — Honaker v. Honaker, 101 S.W.2d
679, 267 Ky. 129.
34 C.J. P 419 note 76.
70u Tex. — Cetti v. Dunman, 64 S.W*
787, 26 Tex.Civ.App. 433.
34 CUT. p 420 note 80.
71. Ark.— Haydon v. Haydon, 158
S.W.2d 689, 203 Ark. 1147.
N.J. — Mathews v. American Tobacco
Co., 23 A.2d 301. 130 N.XEq. 470,
affirmed 37 A.2d 99, 135 N.J.EQ. 11.
N.Y.— Evans v. Stein. 59 N.Y.S.2d
544, second case, affirmed 59 N.Y.S.
2d 625, second case, 269 App.Div.
1052, appeal denied 60 N.T.S.2d
288, 270 AppJMv. 810.
Tex. — Clark v. W. L. Pearson & Co.,
Civ.App.. 26 S.W.2d 382, affirmed
39 S.W.2d 27, 121 Tex. 34.
dements of remediable fraud
Consent Judgment will not be set
aside for fraud, unless it is shown
that material misrepresentation of
material fact was made by party
who knew, or should have known, of
Its falsity, for purpose of having
misrepresentation relied on by prej-
udiced party who had right to, and
in good JBaith did, rely thereon.—
Harrel v. Tonts. 113 S.W.2d 426,
in Ky. 783— Boone v. Ohio Valley
Fire & Marine Ins. Co.'s Receiver, 55
S.W.2d 374, 246 Ky. 489.
"Intrinsic" fraud insufficient
Tex.— O'Meara v. O'Meara, Civ.App.,
181 S.W.2d 891. error refused.
72. Iowa. — Corpus Juris cited to
Hall v. District Court of Taylor
County, 215 N.W. 606, 607, 206
Iowa 179.
R.I.— Everett v. Cutler Mills, 160 A.
924, 52 R.I. 330.
34 C.J. p 419 note 79.
73. Iowa.— Hall v. District Court of
Taylor County, 215 N.W. 606, 206
Iowa 179.
Mutual mistake not shown
Minn. — Rusch v. Prudential Ins. Co.
of America, 266 N.W. 86, 197 Minn.
81.
74. R.I.— Everett v. Cutler Mills,
160 A. 924, 52 R.L 330.
75. Iowa. — Steiner v. Lenz, 81 N.W.
190, 110 Iowa 49.
La.— Doll v. Doll, 19 So.2d 249, 206
La. 550.
N.C.— King v. King, 35 S.E.2d 893.
Mutual mistake
Doubt has been expressed as to
whether a mistake of law is suffi-
cient ground for vacation of a con-
sent Judgment, even though the mis-
take was mutual in character. — The
Amaranth, C.C.A.N.Y., 68 F.2d 893.
76. S.C.— Wilson v. Wilson, 150 . S.
E. 897, 153 S.C. 472— Dixon v.
Floyd, 53 S.E. 167, 73 S.C. 202.
77. N.C.— Morris v. Patterson, 105
S.E. 25, 180 N.C. 484— Hairston v.
Garwood, 81 S.E. 653, 123 N.C. 345.
S.C.— Wilson v. Wilson, 150 S.B. 897,
602
153 S.C. 472— Dixon v. Floyd, 53
S.E. 167, 73 S.C. 202.
78. Iowa. — Mains v. Des Moines
Nat Bank, 85 N.W. 758, 113 Iowa
395.
79. S.C.— Maybank Fertilizer Co. v.
Jeffcoat, 127 S.E. 835, 131 S.C. 418.
Confusion with different case
Affidavit showing that defendant's
attorney had consented to Judgment
without contest under mistake due
to confusion of facts with those of
similar case was held to warrant
finding of excusable neglect inuring
to benefit of client, and warranting
court in vacating Judgment. — May-
bank Fertilizer Co. v. Jeffcoat, su-
pra.
80. Ark.— Union Sav. Building &
Loan Ass'n v. Grayson. 76 S.W.2d
963, 190 Ark. 62.
81. Pa.— Marr v. Marr, 20 A. 692.
110 Pa. 60.
82. Wash.— Arnot v. Fischer, 295 P.
1117, 161 Wash. 67.
83. N.T.— Fred Medart Mfg. Co. v.
Rafferty, 276 N.T.S. 678, 243 App.
Div. 632.
34 C.J. p 419 note 60.
84. Ky.— Hargis v. Hargis, 66 S.W.
2d 59, 252 Ky. 198— Boone v. Ohio
Valley Fire & Marine Ins. Co.'s
Receiver, 55 S.W.2d 374, 246 Ky.
489.
Special term
N.T.— Whitson v. Bates, 283 N.T.S.
663, 246 App.Div. 726.
85. N.C.— King v. King, 35 S.E.2d
893 — Weaver v. Hampton, 161 S.E.
480, 201 N.C. 798.
34 G.J. p 419 note 61.
49 C. J. S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 330
the proper procedure in attacking such judgment
is by motion in the cause.86 Where a motion to set
aside the judgment is based solely on the moving
party's want of consent, he may not attack the
court's jurisdiction in a motion for rehearing after
denial of the original motion to set aside the judg-
ment87 Where the court on its own motion orders
a case dismissed "as to personal judgment of de-
fendant," there is a clerical misprision not pre-
cluding the court from entering a personal consent
judgment88
An action or application to set aside or vacate a
consent judgment should be instituted on due no-
tice to the other party,89 and a motion or petition
in the cause should show adequate grounds for va-
cating the judgment,90 and under some practice
should be supported by affidavit, or sworn to by
applicant or his representative,91 and then support-
ed by proof.92 It has been held, however, that,
where allegations of a petition to vacate a consent
judgment are undenied, they may be accepted as
true.93 One seeking to set aside or vacate a con-
sent judgment against him should sufficiently show
a meritorious defense,94 and the burden rests on
him to prove his allegations as to the grounds for
the relief sought.95 The judge need not invoke
findings of fact by a jury on his own motion where
no such motion is made by the parties, but on the
contrary both counsel appear and enter on a trial
of the application before the court,96 and it has
been held that, where motion is made to vacate the
judgment for lack of consent, the court may de-
termine the fact of consent without allowing a
jury trial as matter of right97
(2) Time for Application
An application to set aside or vacate a consent Judg-
ment should be made In due time and ordinarily dur-
ing the term at which the Judgment was entered, al-
though under certain circumstances the application may
properly be made after the term.
A motion or other application to vacate a consent
judgment should be timely made,98 as within the
80. N.C.— King v. King, 35 S.E.2d
893 — Boucher v. Union Trust Co.,
190 S.E. 226, 211 N.C. 377— Cason v.
Shute, 189 S.E. 494, 211 N.C. 195.
Grounds for opening or vacating con-
sent judgment see supra § 330 b.
Incapacity to consent
Where Judgment was entered on
compromise in action for negligence,
and plaintiff did not consent, or was
incapable of consenting, proper pro-
cedure in attacking Judgment would
be by motion in the cause. — Gibson
V. Gordon, 197 S.E. 135, 213 N.C. 666.
87. Mo. — Thomas v. Craghead, 58 S.
W.2d 281, 332 Mo. 211, transferred,
see, App., 22 S.W.2d 1057.
88. Ky.— Boone v. Ohio Valley Fire
& Marine Ins. Co.'s Receiver, 55 S.
W.2d 374, 246 Ky. 489.
89. N.C.— Board of Education of
Sampson County v. Board of
Com'rs -of Sampson County, 134 S.
E. 852, 192 N.C. 274.
Tex. — Commercial Credit Co. v.
Ramsey, Civ.App., 138 S.W.2d 191,
error dismissed, Judgment correct.
Aetna! party
Pact that party in whose name
former suit had been brought was
not made party to suit to set aside
consent judgment in former suit was
not ground for refusing to set such
Judgment aside, where such party
had not been actual party to former
suit, had no interest in subject mat-
ter, and obtained no benefit by Judg-
ment therein. — Wilison v. Kuhn, Tex.
Civ.App., 96 S.W.2d 128, error dis-
missed, rehearing denied 96 S.W.2d
236.
90. Ga. — Raines v. Lane, 31 S.B.2d
403, 198 Ga. 217.
91. Tex. — Commercial Credit Co. w
Ramsey, Civ.App., 138 S.W.2d 191,
error dismissed, Judgment correct.
92. Tex. — Commercial Credit Co. v.
Ramsey, supra.
93. W.Va.— Dwight v. Hazlett, 147
S.E. 877, 107 W.Va. 192, 66 A.L.R.
102.
94. Miss. — Cocke v. Wilson, 134 So.
686, 161 Miss. 1.
Meritorious defense generally see
supra § 290.
Prima facie defense necessary
U.S.—The Amaranth, C.C.A.N.T., 68
F.2d 893.
Facts on which defense is based
Allegation, or proof, simply that
defendant has meritorious defense,
is insufficient to obtain setting aside
of Judgment, but the facts constitut-
ing the meritorious defense must be
set forth with sufficient detail to en-
able court to determine therefrom
whether defense is meritorious. —
Cocke v. Wilson, 134 So. 686, 161
Miss. 1.
Petition held defective
U.S.—The Amaranth,. C.C.A.N.Y., 68
F.2d 893.
95. U.S.— Watson v. U. S., IXC.N.C.,
34 F.Supp. 777.
34 C.J. p 419 note 74.
Prima facie showing
Tex. — Willson v. Kuhn, Civ. App., 96
S.W.2d 128, error dismissed, re-
hearing denied 96 S.W.2d 236.
Weight and sufficiency of evidence
(1) Evidence held sufficient to Jus-
tify denial of application to open
or vacate consent Judgment
D.C. — Torrens v. Proctor, 133 F.2d
25, 77 U.S.APP.D.C. 55.
Pa. — Finn v. Fiedorowicz, Com. PL,
SI Luz.Leg.Reg. 448.
603
(2) Bvidence held sufficient to sus-
tain the overruling of plaintiff's mo-
tion to strike defendants' motion to
open up consent Judgment. — Parish
Bank & Trust Co. v. Wennerholm
Bros., 39 N.B.2d 383, 313 IH.App. 121.
(3) Bvidence held to support find-
ing that Judgment establishing road
was .entered by consent of party
moving to set it aside. — Thomas
v. Craghead, 58 S.W.2d 281, 332 Mo.
211, transferred, see, App., 22 S.W.
2d 1057,
Waiver
Where counsel impliedly consents
that a Judgment not conforming to
the stipulation of the parties should
be opened or modified in the event
of a certain contingency as pro-
vided by the stipulation but not by
the Judgment, he thereby waives the
necessity of any showing that the
defect in the Judgment was not the
fault of the other party seeking to
open it— Midwest Refining Co. v.
George, 7 P.2d 213, 44 Wyo. 25. '
98. Ga.— Raines v. Lane, 31 S.E.2d
403, 198 Ga. 217.
97. N.C.— King v. King, 35 S.E.M
893.
98. N.J. — Mathews v. American To-
bacco Co., 37 A.2d 99, 135 N.J.Ba.
11.
Okl.— Walker v. Gulf Pipe Line Co.,'
226 P. 1046, 102 Okl. 7.
Tex. — Pendery v. Panhandle Refining
Co., Civ.App., 169 S,W.2d 766, error
refused — Sanders v. O'Connor, Civ.
App., 98 S.W.2d 401, error dis-
missed.
Wis. — Amalgamated Meat Cutters &
Butcher Workmen of N, A., A. F.
of L., Local Union No. 73, v.
§ 330
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
period prescribed by statute,9^ and may be denied
for delay amounting to laches.1 Where a motion to
vacate a consent judgment is made within the period
prescribed by statute, the court retains jurisdiction
to consider and pass on the motion after expiration
of such period.2
In accordance with the general rules discussed
supra §§ 228-235, an application to set aside or va-
cate a consent judgment may be made at the same
term in which the Judgment was entered,3 but or-
dinarily may not be made in vacation,4 or at a sub-
sequent term,6 unless a sufficient excuse for the
delay is shown,6 or the ground for vacation is one
available after the term.7 There is authority, how-
ever, to the effect that the common-law rule limit-
ing the control of the court over its judgments to
the term at which they were rendered applies only
to judgments in controversial cases and not to
judgments entered by consent without contest.8
(3) Relief; Effect of Setting Judgment
Aside
A consent judgment. If vacated, should be set aside
in its entirety and as to all joint defendants. The ef-
fect of setting aside a consent judgment Is to reinstate
the former case.
If a consent judgment is set aside, it must be set
aside in its entirety;9 a party may not have it set
aside as far as it is unfavorable to him, and claim
the benefit of the favorable part ;10 and, where the
judgment is against several joint defendants, if it is
set aside as to part of them, it must be set aside as
to all.11 The fact that an order vacates a con-
sent judgment, although the notice of motion asked
merely for a modification, so that the order grant-
ed went beyond the relief asked by the motion, does
not in itself constitute sufficient ground for vacating
the order;12 but on appeal from such an order the
superior court may, in an otherwise proper case,
reverse the order with instructions to the trial court
to modify the consent judgment in compliance with
the relief asked in the original motion.1^
Where a consent judgment is set aside, the for-
mer case will be reinstated and the parties given
the same rights as to the prosecution and defense
thereof as they would have had before the consent
judgment was catered, together with any additional
right germane to the litigation.14
§ 331. Judgments on Offer and Acceptance
A judgment entered on offer and acceptance may
be vacated on sufficient grounds, such as the absence of
an authorized offer, or noncompliance with statutory re-
quirements, but it may not be amended without con-
sent of all parties.
In accordance with the general rules governing
amendment and vacation of consent judgments, as
discussed supra §§ 329-331, a judgment entered on
acceptance of defendant's offer may be vacated oh
Smith, 10 N.W.2d 114, 243 Wis.
390.
34 C.J. p 419 note 62.
99. Wis. — Amalgamated Meat Cut-
ters & Butcher Workmen of N. A.,
A. P. of L,, Local Union No. 73,
v. Smith, supra,
34 OJ. p 419 note 63.
Period for review or appeal
Where statutory period for review
of Judgment entered under stipu-
lation had elapsed before any mo-
tion to review was made, and time
for appeal had passed and there was
no claim of fraud, mistake, surprise,
or excusable neglect, ' defendants
were not entitled to have judgment
set aside on ground that the stipu-
lation was a contract for a penalty
and unenforceable. — Amalgamated
Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of
N. A., A. F. or L., Local Union No.
73, v. Smitb, supra.
Mutual mistake
A statute authorizing the court
within one year after notice, in
its discretion, to relieve a party
from a judgment taken against him
through his mistake refers to a
unilateral mistake and does not con-
trol a motion to vacate a consent
judgment for mutual mistake, which
latter the court may vacate on mo-
tion after expiration of the statu-
tory period. — Elsen v. State Farm-
ers Mut. Ins. Co., 17 N.W.2d 652, 219
Minn. 315.
1. N.J. — Ma thews v. American To-
bacco Co., 37 A.2d 99, 135 N.J.Eq.
11.
Tex. — Pendery v. Panhandle Refining
Co., Civ.App., 169 S.W.2d 766, er-
ror refused.
34 OJ. p 419 note 64.
Laclies not shown.
Minn. — Elsen v. State Farmers Mut.
Ins. Co., 17 N.W.2d 652, 219 Minn.
315.
2. CaL— Marston v. Rood, 144 P.2d
863, 62 Cal.App.2d 435.
3. Ohio. — Sponseller v. Sponseller,
144 N.E. 48, 110 Ohio St 395.
34 C.J. p 419 note 65.
4. Ga. — O'Neal v. Neal Veneering
Co., 143 S.E. 381, 166 Ga. 376.
5. .U.S.— Mallinger v. U. S., C.C.A.
Pa., g2 F.2d 705.
34 C.J. p 419 note 66.
6. Tex. — Lindsley v. Sparks, 48 S.
W. 204, 20 Tex.Civ.App. 56.
34 C.J. p 419 note 67.
7. .N.C. — People's Bank of Burns-
ville, 173 S.E. 345, 206 N.C. 323.
Ohio. — Sponseller v. Sponseller, 144
N.E. 48, 110 Ohio St 395.
604
Jurisdiction and power after expira-
tion of term generally see supra \
230.
Lack of consent in fact
Where defendant in purported con-
sent judgment showed that she nei-
ther agreed, nor authorized anyone
to agree, to the judgment, court, on
defendant's motion after expiration
of term, was held authorized to set
aside such judgment — People's Bank
of Burns ville v. Penland, 173 S.E.
345, 206 N.C. 323.
8. Minn. — Elsen v. State Farmers
Mut Ins. Co., 17 N.W.2d 652, 219
Minn. 315.
9. N.C.-— Edwards v. Sutton, 116 S.
E. 163, 185 N.C. 102.
34 C.J. p 419 note 57.
10. Wash.— Connor v. Seattle, 144
P. 52, 82 Wash. 296.
11. N.C. — Glade Spring Bank v. Mc-
Ewen, 76 S.B. 222, 160 N.C. 414,
Ann.Cas.19HC 542..
Okl.— Outcalt v. Collier, 58 P. 642,
8 Okl. 473, 52 P. 738, 6 Okl. 615.
12. CaL— Marston v. Rood, 144 P.2d
863, 62 Cal.App.2d 435.
13. CaL — Marston v. Rood, supra.
14. Ga.— Davis v. Blakely First Nat
Bank, 78 S.E. 190, 139 Ga, 702, 46
L.R.A.,N.S., 750.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
333
sufficient grounds.15 Thus the judgment may be
vacated if the offer of judgment was made without
authority,16 or the offer was not accepted in time,17
or there was a noncompliance with statutory re-
quirements.18 A mistake of law is not sufficient
ground for vacating the judgment.19 However,
a judgment entered on acceptance of defendant's
offer ordinarily may not be. changed without con-
sent of all the parties.20
§ 332. Summary Judgments
A summary Judgment on motion may be opened or
vacated for good cause.
A summary judgment on motion may be opened
or vacated for good cause shown.21 A* statutory
provision relating to the opening and setting aside
of judgments by default in actions does not, how-
ever, apply to judgments in summary proceedings.22
Where defendant is permitted to file an amended
answer, after plaintiff's motion for judgment has
been sustained, such permission is, in effect, an
informal setting aside of the order sustaining the
motion.23
H. JUDGMENTS BY DEFAULT
§ 333. Opening, Amending, and Vacating
Generally
A court has Jurisdiction and power to amend, open,
or vacate default judgments rendered >by it during the
term at which they are rendered,, but not usually after
expiration of the time prescribed by statute or at a
subsequent term, although the latter rule Is subject to
some exceptions.
Subject to the rules of general application as to
opening, amending, or vacating judgments, which
are discussed supra §§ 228-235, a judgment by de-
fault may be amended or corrected in a proper
case, at the instance of either party.24 Likewise the
power to open or to vacate a judgment extends to
judgments rendered on default,25 particularly under
15. Neb. — Becker v. Breen, 94 N.W.
614, 68 Neb. 379.
34 C.J. P 420. note 93.
16. N.Y. — Garrison v. Garrison, 67
How.Pr. 271 — Bridenbecker v. Ma-
son, 16 How.Pr. 203.
17. Neb.— Becker v. Breen, 94 N.W.
614, 68 Neb. 379.
18. Neb.— Becker v. Breen, supra.
34 C.J. p 420 note 96.
19. N.Y.— Walsh v. Empire Brick.fc
Supply Co., 85 N.Y.S. 538, 90 Ap'p.
Div. 498.
34 C.J. p 420 note 98.
80. N.Y.—- Shepherd v. Moodhe, 44
N.B. 963, 150 N.Y. 183— Stillwell v.
Stillwell, 30 N.Y.S. 961, 81 Hun
392, 24 N.Y.Civ.Proc. 124.
21. Idaho. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Baldwin v. Anderson, 13 P.2d 650,
655, 52 Idaho 243.
34 C.J. p 420 note 2.
Modification, held improper
Where, in action on bond indem-
nifying owner against liability for
cost of building constructed by les-
see, summary judgment was grant-
ed for amount of liens adjudicated
to be due in mechanics' lien action,
order reducing summary judgment
to amount realized on sale of prop-
erty in mechanics' lien foreclosure
action was improper, since no new
situation arose subsequent to entry
of judgment which could not have
been foreseen and pleaded as de-
fense in action on bond. — 755 Sev-
epth Ave. Corporation v. Carroll, 194
N.B. 69, 266 N.Y. 157.
32. N.Y.— Cochran v. Reich, 46 N.Y.
S. 441, 20 Misc. 593.
34 C.J. p 421 note 3.
23. Kan.— Fritts v. Reidel, 165 P.
671, 101 Kan. 68.
24. GSL — Columbus Heating & Ven-
tilating Co. v. Upchurch, 171 S.E.
180, 47 Ga.App. 673.
Kan. — Burris v. Beinhardt, 242 P.
143, 120 Kan. 32.
La. — Jackson v. Bre water, App., 169,
So. 166.
Mo. — Faulkner v. F. Bieraran & Sons
Metal & Rubber Co., App., 294 S.
W. 1019.
N.C. — Federal Land Bank of Colum-
bia v. Davis, 1 S.E.2d 350, 215
N.C. 100.
Pa. — Brummer v. Linker, 196 A. 834,
329 Pa. 192.
Wis. — Parish v. Awschu Properties,
10 N.W.2d 166, 243 Wis. 269.
34 C.J. p 207 note 5.
Bringing* in additional defendants
In action against individuals,
where default judgment was entered
against individuals, title and judg-
ment were not amendable by bring-
ing in such defendants as trustees
and making them additionally liable
as trustees without opportunity to
defend as such.— Greater New York
Export House v.. Hurtig, 267 N.Y.S.
173, 239 App.Div. 183, appeal dis-
missed Greater New York Export
House v. Peirson, 193 N.E. 290, 265
N.Y. 500.
Clerical error
Where docket entry for default
judgment was dated and judgment
was filed Monday, October 15, but
judgment as written and recorded
bore date of Sunday, October 14, by
clerical error, nunc pro tune order
correcting date of judgment was not
erroneous, as Against contention that
605
judgment could not be corrected
since it was void because it was
rendered on Sunday. — Hays v.
Hughes, Tex.Civ.App., 106 S.W.2d
724, error refused.
Excessive Judgment
, (1) Trial court had authority to
reduce default judgment on showing
that judgment was for a sum in
excess of the amount due. — Spiking*
v. Ellis, 8 N.E.2d 962, 290 111. App.
585.
(2) Court should correct default
judgment to extent that it included
unauthorized interest. — Stratton &
Terstegge Co. v. Begley, 61 S.W.2d
287, 249 Ky. 632.
Belief unwarranted by complaint
Defendant is concluded by default
decree only as far as it is supported
by the allegations in complaint and,
if it gives relief in excess of, or
different from, that to which plain-
tiff is entitled under complaint, de-
cree may be modified to conform to
the allegations. — Federal Land Bank
of Columbia v. Davis, 1 S.E.2d 350,
215 N.C. 100.
Where defendant appeared alter
entry of default judgment against
her, the only relief to which plaintiff
would be entitled under its motion
to amend judgment would be such
relief as might be granted as a mat-
ter of course. — Irving Trust Co. v.
Seltzer, 40 N.Y.S.2d 451, 265 App.Div.
696.
25. Ala.— -Marshall County v.
Critcher, 17 So.2d 540, 245 Ala. 857
— Drennen Motor Co. v. Patrick,
141 So. 681, 225 Ala. 36.
Cal. — Penland v. Goodman, 111 P.2d
913, 44 CaLApp.2d 14— Stuart v.
333
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
statutes expressly authorizing or regulating the
opening or vacating of default judgments.26 Ac-
cordingly, the court has power to open or vacate its
default judgments during the term at which they
are rendered,27 and also to the extent provided for
by statute, after expiration of the term;28 but as
a general rule the court has no power to grant re-
lief after expiration of the time prescribed there-
for by statute,29 or, except as authorized by statute,
after expiration of the term,30 unless pursuant to
Alexander, 43 P.2d 557, 6 Cal.App.
2d 27.
Del. — Terkes v. Dangle, Super., 33
A.2d 406.
111. — Jerome v. 5019-21 Quincy Street
Bids. Corporation, 45 N.B.2d 878,
317 IlLApp. 335, reversed on oth-
er grounds 53 N.E.2d 444, 385 III.
524 — Nikola v. Campus Towers
Apartment Bldg. Corporation, 25
N.E.2d 582, 303 IlLApp. 516.
Md. — Armour Fertilizer Works, Di-
vision of Armour & Co. of Del. v.
Brown, 44 A.2d 753.
N.J.— New Jersey Cash Credit Cor-
poration v. Zaccaria, 19 A.2d 448,
126 N.J.Law 334.
N.Y.— Baldwin v. Yellow Taxi Cor-
poration, 225 N.Y.S. 423, 221 App.
Dlv. 717, followed in Woodward v.
Weekes, 241 N.Y.S. 842, 228 App.
Div. 870.
Okl. — Thompson v. Hensley, 281 P.
931, 128 Okl. 139.
Pa.— Nixon v. Nixon, 198 A. 154, 329
Pa. 256.
24 C.J. p 887 note 78 [a]— 34 C.J. P
421 notes 9, 10 [a].
Opening and vacating distinguished
see supra § 265.
At ott&mberB
Under statute a default judgment
may be opened by the judge at
-chambers. — Whiteside v. Logan, 17
P. 34, 7 Mont. 373.
Pailnre of party to comply with
statutes with regard to motions for
new trial does not affect the juris-
diction of the court to set aside a
default judgment. — Missouri Quar-
ries Co. v. Brady, 219 P. 368, 95 Okl.
279.
Xa partition, suit, where, at time of
•default by one defendant, mortgagee
defendant had not answered but an-
swer and cross petition of other de-
fendants, which were subsequently
•adopted by defaulting defendant,
were on file, and allegations of such
pleadings, if true, would prevent
partition and invalidate mortgagee's
lien against defaulting defendant's
interest, court hod jurisdiction to
set aside default.— Redding v. Red-
•ding, 284 N.W. 167, 226 Iowa 327. '
Jffeglect or failure of attorneys
Statute relating to the general
power of courts to permit amend-
ments and relieve from defaults,
•etc., was held to refer only to de-
fault judgment taken through neg-
lect or failure of an attorney. — At-
wood v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 217
P. 600, 37 Idaho 654.
.Spurious entry
A motion to set aside default judg-
ment on ground that entry thereof j
was spurious invoked power and
duty of court to expunge from rec-
ord spurious entry rather than dis-
cretionary power incident to ordi-
nary motion to set aside default
judgment.— Du Pree v. Hart, 8 So.2d
183, 242 Ala. 690.
Judgment taken in defendant's ab-
sence on affidavit of proof was taken
at trial within contemplation of stat-
ute authorizing new trial in cases
tried by courts, provided application
therefor is made within thirty days
after judgment. — Nutley Finance Co.
v. De Federicis, 150 A. 241, 8 N.J.
Misc. 382.
26. Neb.— Strine v. Kaufman, 11 N.
W. 867, 12 Neb. 423.
34 C.J. p 421 note 11.
Statutes were held Inapplicable in
absence of showing that case was
marked in default or that judgment
was rendered before movant filed
motion to set aside judgment. —
Guthrie v. Spence, 191 S.E. 188, 55
Ga.App. 669.
27, Ala. — Drennen Motor Co. v. Pat-
rick, 141 So. 681, 225 Ala. 36.
Ark. — Supreme Lodge, Woodmen of
. Union v. Johnson, 17 S.W.2d 323,
179 Ark. 589.
Ky. — Guyan Machinery Co. v. Pre-
mier Coal Co., 163 S.W.2d 284, 291
Ky. 84 — Zimmerman v. Segal, 155
S.W.2d 20, 288 Ky. 33— Farris v.
Ball, 79 S.W.2d 7, 257 Ky. 683—
Northcutt v. Nicholson, 55 S.W.
2d 659, 246 Ky. 641— Latham v.
Commonwealth, 43 S.W.2d 44, 240
Ky. 826 — Corbin Bldg. Supply Co.
v. Martin, 39 S.W.2d 480, 239 Ky.
272 — Farmers' Nat. Bank of Som-
erset v. Board of Sup'rs of Pulaski
County, 8 S.W.2d 401, 225 Ky. 246
— Hackney v. Charles, 295 S.W.
869, 220 Ky. 574— Sachs v. Hens-
ley, 294 S.W. 1073, 220 Ky. 226.
Me.— Diplock v. Blasi, 149 A. 149,
128 Me. 528.
Mo. — Faulkner v. F. Bierman & Sons
Metal & Rubber Co., App., 294 S.
W. 1019.
Ohio. — Rabb v. Board of Com'rs of
Cuyahoga County, 173 N.B. 255, 36
Ohio App. 481.
Okl. — Mays v. Board of Com'rs of
Creek County, 23 P.2d 664, 164 Okl.
231.
Tex.— Johnson v. Henderson, Civ.
App., 132 S.W.2d 458— Gann v.
Hopkins, Civ.App., 119 S.W.2d 110.
W.Va. — Sigmond v. Forbes, 158 S.B.
677, 110 W.Va. 442.
34 C.J. p 207 note 5.
Time for application see infra § 337.
Showing of good cause not neces-
sary see infra § 334 a.
606
28. Ark.— Hill v. Teague, 108 S.W.
2d 889, 194 Ark. 552.
Iowa. — Fulton v. National Finance &
Thrift Corporation, 4 N.W.2d 406,
232 Iowa 378.
N.J. — Geithner v. Paechiana, 150 A.
240, 8 NJ-.Misc. 384.
Ohio. — Dayton Morris Plan Bank v.
Graham, App., 62 N.B.2d 98— Rabb
v. Board of Com'rs of Cuyahoga
County, 173 N.E. 255, 36 Ohio App.
481.
24 C.J. p 887 note 78 [a] (2), (3).
During1 vacation
Under statute, the judge of a cir-
cuit court in vacation may, for er-
rors appearing on the record, set
aside a default judgment entered at
the preceding term of court. — State
v. O'Brien, 122 S.B. 919, 96 W.Va.
353.
29. Cal.— Washko v. Stewart, 112 P.
2d 306, 44 Cal.App.2d 311— Knox
v. Superior Court in and for Riv-
erside County, 280 P. 375, 100 Cal.
App. 452.
Fla. — Cornelius v. State ex rel. Tam-
pa West Coast Realty Co., 183 So.
754, 136 Fla. 506.
Idaho.— McAllister v. Brickson, 261
P. 242, 45 Idaho 211.
Mont. — Housing Authority of City of
Butte v. Murtha, 144%P.2d 183,
115 Mont. 405.
N.J. — Steinhauser v. Friedman, 170
•A. 630, 12 N.J.MISC. 167— New Jer-
sey Cash Credit Corporation v.
Linehan, 142 A. 650, 6 N.J.Misc.
740.
N.Y. — Gilmore v. De Witt, 10 N.Y.S.
2d 903, 256 AppJDiv. 1046.
Tex.— Ridley v. McCallum, 163 S.W.
2d 833, 139 Tex. 540.
Utah.— J. :B. Colt Co. v. District
Court of Fifth Judicial Dist. in
and for Millard County, 269 P.
1017, 72 Utah 281.
34 C.J. p 260 note 1, p 430 note 92.
Judgment held flimi
Where defendants file no motion
to set aside, and do not appeal from,
default judgment perpetuating in-
junction against them by court hav-
ing jurisdiction of parties and sub-
ject matter, judgment becomes final.
— Miller-Link Lumber Co. v. Ste-
phenson, Tex.Civ.App., 265 S.W. 215,
affirmed Stephenson v. Miller-Link
Lumber Co., Com. App., 277 S.W.
1039.
30. Ark.— Hill v. Teague, 108 S.W.
2d 889, 194 Ark. 552.
Ga. — Avery & Co. v. Sorrell, 121 S.B.
828, 157 Ga. 476, answers to cer-
tified Questions conformed to 122
S.B. 638, 32 Ga.App. 41.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
333
proceedings begun within the proper time and law-
fully continued to the subsequent term.31 The gen-
eral rule is also subject to certain other excep-
tions;32 and in at least one jurisdiction the court
has power at any time to open a default judgment
in order to give the parties a hearing or trial.33
The only remedy after the term for irregular and
erroneous, as distinguished from void, judgments
is usually by new trial, review, writ of error, or
appeal, as either may be appropriate and allowable
by law, or by some other mode specially provided
by statute.34
The authority to relieve a party in default, on
application made in apt and proper time, is inher-
ent in all courts of record exercising general ju-
risdiction,35 and does not depend on statute unless
expressly regulated thereby ;36 but, where the court
is of special or limited jurisdiction, it cannot be
exercised unless conferred by statute.37
In the exercise of a sound judicial discretion,
courts may take off a default at any time before
judgment,38 or set aside a preliminary entry of de-
fault,39 and a naked or simple default may be set
aside at a subsequent term, on a proper showing.40*
Interlocutory judgments. An interlocutory judg-
111. — National Lead Co. v. Mortell,
261 111. App. 332.
Ky. — Guyan Machinery Co. v. Pre-
mier Coal Co., 163 S.W.2d 284, 291
Ky. 84— Stratton & Tersteggre Co.
v. Begley, 61 S.W.2d 287, 249 Ky.
632.
Ohio. — Rabb v. Board of Coin'rs of
Cuyahoga County, 173 N.E. 255, 36
Ohio App. 481.
Or. — Marsters v. Ashton, 107 P.2d
981, 165 Or. 507.
Tex. — Ridley v. McCallum, 163 S.W.
2d 833, 139 Tex. 540.
34 C.J. p 212 note 12.
Court having1 Jurisdiction of sub-
ject matter and of parties, and ren-
dering default Judgment where plea
was on Ale, could not set aside Judg-
ment after term elapsed. — Mclntosh
v. Munson Road Machinery Co., 145
So. 731, 167 Miss. 546.
Inherent discretionary power
It has been held, however, that
the common-law right to set aside a
default Judgment, either at term at
which it is rendered, or at a subse-
quent term, is part of inherent dis-
cretionary power of a court of gen-
eral Jurisdiction. — Kelly v. Serviss,
39 A.2d 336, 114 Vt. 52— Greene v.
Riley, 172 A. 633, 106 Vt. 319.
81. Ark.— Metz v. Melton Coal Co.,
47 S.W.2d 803, 185 Ark. 486.
Ky.— Riggs v. Ketner, 187 S.W.2d
287, 299 Ky. 754.
34 OJ. p 214 note 13.
Nonpayment of appearance fee with-
in term
Where defendant presented peti-,
tion to vacate Judgment within term
and defendant's appearance fee was
paid after term, and hearing on peti-
tion and amendment was postponed
by series of continuances without
any break in continuity, court had
Jurisdiction thereafter to vacate
Judgment, notwithstanding appear-
ance fee required by statute had not
been paid when petition was present-
ed and within term, since statute re-
quiring appearance fee did not re-
quire defendant to pay fee until
court allowed defendant to come into
case and defend.— Wolf v. Proviso
Hospital Ass'n, 33 N.E.2d 632, 309 111.
App. 479.
County court
Under some statutes, however, a
county court's order continuing to
next term motion to set aside de-
fault Judgment is void, and motion
to set aside default Judgment, not
acted on before adjournment of term
at which made, is discharged by op-
eration of law, and, in effect, over-
ruled.— Motor Inv. Co. v. Killman,
Tex.Civ.App., 43 S.W.2d 633.
32. Utah.— Park v. Higbee, 24 P.
524, 6 Utah 414.
34 C.J. p 215 note 16— p 216 note 24.
33. Pa. — Richey v. Gibboney, 34 A.
2d 913, 154 Pa.Super. 1— Dormont
Motors v. Hoerr, 1 A.2d 493, 132
Pa.Super. 567 — Rome Sales & Serv-
ice Station v. Finch, 183 A. 54, 120
Pa. Super. 402 — Horrocks v. White,
94 Pa.Super. 413— Rudolph v. Ma-
tura, Com.Pl., 27 Del.Co. 521.
34 C.J. p 212 note 12 [d], p 431 note
97 [a].
34. Ky. — Guyan Machinery Co. v.
Premier Coal Co., 163 S.W.2d 284,
291 Ky. 84.
Tex.— Ridley v. McCallum, 163 S.W.
2d 833, 139 Tex. 540.
34 CJT. p 215 note 15.
35. Ala. — Sovereign Camp, W. O. W.
v. Gay, 104 So. $95, 20 Ala.App.
650, reversed on other grounds 104
So. 898, 213 Ala. 5.
Ark. — Supreme Lodge, Woodmen of
Union v. Johnson, 17 S.W.2d 323,
179 Ark. 589.
Ky. — Zimmerman v. Segal, 155 S.W.
2d 20, 288 Ky. 33— Farris v. Ball,
79 S.W.2d 7, 257 Ky. 683— North-
cutt v. Nicholson, 55 S.W.2d 659,
246 Ky. 641 — Latham v. Common-
wealth, 43 S.W.2d 44, 240 Ky. 826
— Corbin Bldg. Supply Co. v. Mar-
tin, 39 S.W.2d 480, 239 Ky. 272 —
Hackney v. Charles, 295 S.W. 869,
220 Ky. 574— Sachs v. Hensley, 294
S.W. 1073, 220 Ky. 226.
N.Y.— Baldwin v. Yellow Taxi Cor-
poration, 225 N.Y.S. 423, 221 App.
Div. 717, followed in Woodward v.
Weekes, 241 N.Y.S. 842, 228 App.
Div. 870.
607
N.D.— Ellison v. Baird, 293 N.W. 793,
70 N.D. 226— Odland v. O'Keeffe
Implement Co., 229 N.W. 923, 5fr
N.B. 335.
Ohio. — Rabb v. Board of Com'rs of
Cuyahoga County, 178 N.B. 255,
36 Ohio App. 481.
Tex. — Johnson v. Henderson, Civ.
App., 132 S.W.2d 458.
34 C.J. p 252 note 72, p 421 note 12.
Inherent power of court over Judg-
ments generally see supra §§ 228—
235.
36. Ky.— Farris v. Ball, 79 S.W.2d 7,
257 Ky. 683— Northcutt v. Nichol-
son, 55 S.W.2d 659, 246 Ky. 641
— Latham 'v. Commonwealth, 43 S.
W.2d 44, 240 Ky. 826— Corbin Bldg.
Supply Co. v. Martin, 39 S.W.26?
480, 239 Ky. 272— Hackney v.
Charles, 295 S.W. 869, 220 Ky.
574.
34 O.J. p 253 note 76, p 254 note 77.
Inadvertent or improvident Judgment
A trial court, entering default
Judgment through inadvertence or
improvidence, has power, independ-
ently of statute, to correct such mis-
take by amending or setting aside-
Judgment, as such action presents,
no question of Judicial review on*
merits. — Phillips v. Trusheim, 156 P.
2d 25, 25 Cal.2d 913.
37. Or. — American Building & Loan.
Ass'n v. Fulton, 28 P. 636, 21 Or.
492.
34 C.J. p 421 note 14.
Rule to show cans* why judgment
of nonsuit by default should not be
opened is a supreme court issue, and
circuit court Judge has no Jurisdic-
tion to hear and determine such a.
rule. — Giordano v. Asbury Park &
Ocean Grove Bank, 129 A. 202, 3-
N.J.Misc. 554, affirmed 134 A. 915,
103 N.J.Law 171.
38. Mass. — Cohen v; Industrial)
Bank' & TrusJ Co., 176 N.B. 78,.
274 Mass. 498.
39. La.— Wilco* v. Huief 18 La. 426.
34 C.J. p 190 note 65.
40. Iowa.— Weinhart v. Meyer. 24T
N.W. 811, 215 Iowa 1317.
333
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
ment by default remains in the treast of the court
until it is made final, and may, for good cause
shown, be set aside at any time, even at a subse-
quent term, before the damages are assessed, or
final judgment is rendered.41
Void judgments. Subject to any existing statu-
tory provisions, where a default judgment is entire-
ly void for want of jurisdiction, the power to va-
cate it or set it aside is not limited to the term at
which it was rendered or otherwise, but may be
exercised at a succeeding term, or at any time.42
Jurisdiction of particular courts end judge. Un-
der some statutes, a judge is without power to set
aside a default judgment entered by another judge
unless the latter is absent or unable to act,43 but
generally the power to open or set aside default
judgments is inherent in the court, not in the
judge,44 and the fact that a writ of inquiry after
default -was executed before another division of
the court presided over by a different judge is im-
material.4^ The judge presiding in the division
in which the action was pending may, in the ab-
sence of rules specifically prohibiting such pro-
cedure, order the hearing on application to vacate
'the default to be before the judge, then presiding
in another division, who made the default order.46
Where a default judgment rendered in the court of
one county was opened on petition of one defend-
ant who had the cause transferred to the court of
another county on motion for change of venue, a
codefendant's subsequent petition to open the judg-
ment is properly filed in the court to which the
cause had been transferred rather than in the court
in which the default judgment was originally rqn-
dered.47 The mere docketing of a district court
judgment in common pleas court does not deprive
the former of jurisdiction thereof to the extent of
vacating it for want of jurisdiction over the per-
son of defendant.48 When authorized by statute, a
default judgment rendered by the clerk of court
may -be vacated by the clerk or, on appeal from
the clerk, by the presiding judge.49
Waiver. A person who ordinarily would be en-
titled to apply for the vacation of a default judg-
ment may waive the right to such relief, or be es-
topped to ask for it, where he submits to and rati-
fies the judgment by participating in the further
proceedings in the action.60
§ 334. Right to and Grounds for Opening or
Vacating
a. In general
b. Invalidity or irregularity of judgment
c. Fraud
d. Agreement with, or statement by,
party taking default or his counsel
e. Statement or order of judge or clerk
f. Defense to action
g. Error in law
h. Error or mistake of fact
i. Objections as to parties
41. Mo. — O'Connell v. Dockery, App.,
102 S.W.2d 748 — Ornellas v. Moyni-
hanf App., 16 S.W.2d 1007.
34 C.J. p 216 note 30, p 422 notes 19,
20.
42. D.C.-T-Ray v. Bruce, Mun.App.,
31 A.2d 693.
111. — Lewis v. West Side Trust &
Savings Bank, 36 N.B.2d 573, 377
111. 384.
Minn. — Pugsley v. Magerfleisch, 201
N.W. 323, 161 Minn. 246.
N.J.— New Jersey Cash Credit Cor-
poration v. Zaccaria, 19 A.2d 448,
126 N.J.Law 334— Westfleld Trust
Co. v. Cherry, 183 A. 165, 116 N.J.
Law 190.
Or.— -Mutzig v. Hope, 158 P.2d 110.
Utah.— Park v. Higbee, 24 P. 524, 6
Utah 414.
34 C.J. p 217 note 32, p 219 note 33,
p 220 note 46.
Invalidity as ground for vacating
default judgment see infra § 334 b.
In, California
(1) The court has power at any
time on motion or on the court's own
motion, to vacate a judgment void on
Ita face. — Gibbons v* Clapp, 277 P.
490, 207 Cal. 221.
(2) The court has power to vacate
a judgment not void on the face
of the judgment roll, but void in
fact for want of jurisdiction of the
person of the defendant by reason of
nonservice of process on such de-
fendant, independently of statute,
provided motion is made within a
reasonable time. — In re Estrem's Es-
tate, 107 P.2d 36, 16 Cal.2d 563—
Penland v. Goodman, 111 P.2d 913,
44 Cal.App.2d 14.
43. Mich. — Jageriskey v. Kelemen,
193 N.W. 208, 222 Mich. 575.
44. Ala. — Ex parte Richerzhagen,
113 So. 85, 216 Ala. 262.
Power to amend, open, or vacate
judgments generally see supra §
235.
Judgfe sitting in motion part has
power to open a default taken after
a denial by the trial judge of a re-
quest for an adjournment. — Dressier
v. Baron, 201 N.Y.S. 683.
45, ' Ala, — Ex parte Richerzhagen,
113 So. 85, 216 Ala. 262.
46, Colo.— Koin v. Mutual Ben.
Health & Accident Ass'n, 41 P.2d
306, 96 Colo, m
608
4ff. Ind. — State ex rel. Karsch v.
Eby, 33 N.E.2d 336, 218 Ind. 431.
48. N.J. — Andersen v. Independent
Order of Foresters, 126 A. 631, 98
NJT.Law 648.
49. N.C.— Gunter v. Dowdy, 31 S.E.
2d 524, 224 N.C. 522— Dunn v.
Jones, 142 S.E. 320, 195 N.C. 354
— A<5me Mfg. Co. v. Kornegay, 142
S.E. 224, 195 N.C. 373— Page Trust
Co. v. Pumpelly, 132 S.E. 594, 191
N.C. 675.
50. N.C.— Burke v. Stokely, 65 N.C.
569.
34 C.J. p 363 note 36.
Error not waived
Error in awarding actual and pu-
nitive damages by default without
aid of jury on unliquidated demand
in slander action was not waived
where defendant filed motion to set
aside Judgment on two jurisdictional
grounds, and generally for an order
opening the judgment and for per-
mission to answer, and motion was
refused on the two jurisdictional
grounds, but was in effect granted
on remaining grounds. — Nettles v.
tMacMirian Petroleum Corp., 37 S.E,
2d 134, 208 S.C. 81*
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 334
j. Objections as to pleadings
k. Ignorance or illiteracy
/. Absence of party or counsel
m. Illness or death
n. Mistake, inadvertence, surprise, ex-
cusable neglect, casualty, or misfor-
tune
o. Other grounds
a. In General
An application to open a default judgment will ordi-
narily be granted where a legal excuse is presented and
the default suffered was neither willful nor deliberate;
but the party seeking to be relieved must show a good
excuse for failing to appear or plead in due season un-
less the judgment is void or irregularly entered, or, ac-
cording to some authority, unless the application is
made during the term at which the judgment is ren-
dered.
In accordance with the usual rules, as discussed
supra §§ 266-281, as to the grounds on which judg-
ments may be opened or vacated generally, and sub-
ject to the rules, as considered infra § 336, relat-
ing to the existence of a meritorious defense, an
application to open a default judgment will be
granted where a legal excuse for unreadiness to
proceed to trial is presented and where the default
suffered was neither willful nor deliberate.51 A
default judgment which has resulted in no preju-
dice to movant, however, will not be set aside,62
and the court may refuse on defendant's motion to
vacate a default judgment where plaintiff would
suffer prejudice therefrom and an injustice would
be done.53 Each case must depend on its own par-
si. Cal. — Grace Corset Co. v. Brown
Bros., 263 P. 234, 203 Cal. 199—
Waybright v. Anderson, 253 P. 148,
200 Cal. 374.
E*la. — Coggin v. Barfleld, 8 So.2d 9,
150 Fla. 551.
111.— Hogan v. Ermovick, 166 N.E.
503, 335 111. 181.
Iowa. — Allemang v. White, 298 N.
W. 658, 230 Iowa 626— Tate v.
DelU, 269 N.W. 871, 222 Iowa 635.
Ky. — Vanover v. Ashley, 183 S.W.2d
944, 298 Ky. 722 — Carr Creek Com-
munity Center v. Home Lumber
Co., 125 S.W.2d 777, 276 Ky. 840
—Welch v. Mann's Ex'r, 88 S.W-
2d 1, 261 Ky. 470— Parris v. Bali,
79 S.W.2d 7, 257 Ky. 683.
La.— Surgi v. McDonough Motor Ex-
press, App., 187 So. 693.
Minn.— Pilney v. Funk, 3 N.W.2d
* 792, 212 Minn. 398— Tiden v. Shur-
stead, 254 N.W. 617, 191 Minn.
518.
Mo. — Leis v. Massachusetts Bonding
& Insurance Co., App., 125 S.W.2d
906 — Anspach v. Jansen, 78 S.W.2d
137, 229 Mo.App. 321.
Mont. — Reynolds v. Gladys Belle Oil
Co., 243 P. 576, 75 Mont. 332.
N.J. — Ross v. C. D. Mallory Corpora-
tion, 37 A.2d 766, 132 N.J.Law
1 — Shaw v. Morris, Sup., 146 A.
196— Kenter Co. v. Errath, 32 A.
2d 592, 21 N.J.Misc. 214.
N.Y.— Hilton v.- Mack, 15 N.T.S.2d
187, 257 A.pp.Div. 709, appeal dis-
missed Hilton v. Gaston, 24 N.E.2d
506, 281 N.Y. 881— Kelly v. Braun-
schweig, 286 N.Y.S. 505, 247 App.
Div. 809 — Puller & Robinson Co. v.
New York State Normal College
Alumni Ass'n, 285 N.Y.S. 108, 246
App.Div. 884— G. H. Crandall Co. v.
Shanley, 280 N.Y.S. 918, 245 App.
Div. 787— In re Schroeder's Will,
280 N.Y.S. 905, 245 App.Div. 762—
Hogan v. Johnson, 272 N.Y.S. 113,
$41 App.Div. 914— Allen v. Lake,
201 N.Y.S. 882, 207 App.Div. 886
— Decatur Contracting Co. v. Ed-
ward S. Murphy Bldg. Co., 2 N.Y.
49 C. J.S.-39
S.2d 970, 166 Misc. 614— Watsky v.
212th St. Realty Corporation, 252
N.Y.S. 533, 141 Misc. 312 — 210
West Fifty-Sixth Street Co. v.
Pantinakis, 211 N.Y.S. 851, 125
Misc. 762— Martin v. Reiber, 61
N.Y.S.2d 473— Arlene Furs v.
Kurtz, 53 N.Y.S.2d 884— Kefer v.
Gunches. 48 N.Y.S.2d 767— Valeri-
oti v. Brooklyn & Queens Transit
Corporation, 22 N.Y.S.2d 82.
N.C.— Carter v. Anderson. 181 S.E.
750, 208 N.C. 529— Dunn v. Jones,
142 S.E. 320, 195 N.C. 354.
N.D.— Mantel v. Pickle, 218 N.W.
605, 56 N.D. 568— Goddard v. Great
Northwest Land Co., 195 N.W. 656,
50 N.D. 357.
Okl. — Wade v. Farmers Union Co-op.
Royalty Co., 103 P.2d 511, 187 Okl.
402— Halliburton v. Illinois Life
Ins. Co., 40 ?.2d 1086, 170 Okl.
360— Standard v. Fisher, 35 P.2d
878, 169 Okl. 18— First Nat. Bank
v. Kerr, 24 P.2d 985, 165 Okl. 16—
Claussen v. Amberg, 249 P. 330,
119 Okl. 187— Slyman v. State, 228
P. 979, 102 Okl. 241— Hoffman v.
Deskins, 221 P. 37, 94 Okl. 177.
Or. — Irwin v. Klamath County, 228
P. 736, 110 Or. 374.
Pa.— Atkins v. Canadian SKF Co.,
45 A.2d 28, 353 Pa, 312— Quaker
City Chocolate & Confectionery Co.
v. Warnock Bldg. Ass'n, 32 A.2d
5, 347 Pa. 186 — Emery v. Union
County, 192 A. 645, 326 Pa. 479—
. Linker v. Fidelity-Philadelphia
Trust Co., 28 A.2d 704, 150 Pa.Su-
per. 440 — Sturges v. Page, 163 A.
327, 106 Pa.Super. 520— Esterbrook
v. Fisk Tire Co., 13 Pa.Dist. & Co.
514 — Bott v. Aronlmink Transp.
Co.. ComuPL, 81 Del.Co. 172— Her-
ring v. ' Abromitis, Com.Pl., 15
Northum.lreg.J. 213.
S.C.— Gaskins v. California Ins. Co.,
11 S.B.2d 436, 195 S.C. 376— Ex
p-arte Peden, 199 S.E. 693, 188 S.C.
456.
Tex. — Craddock v. Sunshine Bus
Lines, 133 S.W.2d 124. 134 Tex.
609
388— Hubbard v. Tallal, 92 S.W.2d
1022, 127 Tex. 242— Foster v.
Christensen, Com. App., 67 S.W.2d
246 — Southwestern Specialty Co.
v. Brown, Civ. App., 188 S.W.2d
1002, error refused — Motor Inv. Co.
v. Killman, Civ.App., 43 S.W.2d 633
— Chaney v. ' Allen, Civ.App., 25
S.W.2d 1115— Trigg v. Gray, Civ.
App., 288 S.W. 1098— Hadad v. El-
lison, Civ.App., 283 S.W. 193 — Cald-
well Oil Co. v. Hickman, Civ.App.,
270 S.W. 214 — Green v. Cammack,
Civ.App., 248 S.W. 739.
Wash. — Johnston v. Medina Improve-
ment Club, 116 P.2d 272, 10 Wash.
2d 44.
Wis. — Welfare Building & Loan
Ass'n v. Breuer, 250 N.W. 846, 218
Wis. 97, followed in West Side
Building & Loan Ass'n v. Ander-
son, 250 N.W. 849, 213 Wis. 104,
East Side Mut. Building & Loan
Ass'n v. Lock, 250 N.W. 849, -218
Wis. 105, Mortgage Discount Co. v.
Continental Discount Corporation,
250 N.W. 849, 213 Wis. 106, West
Side Building & Loan Ass'n v.
Breuer, 250 N.W. 850, 213 Wis. 107,
West Side Building & Loan Ass'n
v. Continental Discount Corpora-
tion, 250 N.W. 850, 213 Wis. 108
and East Side Mut. Building &
Loan Ass'n v. Thoreson, 250 N.W.
850, 213 Wis. 109.
34 C.J. p 423 note 34 [e].
Discretion of court see infra § 337.
Default Judgment against convict
in state prison who never had chance
to present defense, and who offered
affidavit stating good defense, was
properly set aside. — Roy v. Tan-
guay, R.I., 131 A. 553.
52. Cal. — Antonsen v. San Francis-
co Container Co., 66 P.2d 716, 20
Cal.App.2d 214— McCauley v. Ey-
raud, 261 P. 760, 87 Cal.App. 121.
Ga.— Mulling v. First Nat. Bank,
118 S.E. 495, 30 Ga.App. 587.
53. Cal. — Hewins v. Walbeck, 141
P.2d 241, 60 Cal.App.2d 608.
§ 334
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
ticular facts.54
A party seeking to be relieved against a judgment
regularly taken against him by default must show
a good excuse for failing to appear or plead in due
season ;55 and that his own conduct with regard to
the action has not been so reprehensible from a le-
Tex. — Borger v. Mineral Wells Clay
Products Co., Civ.App., 80 S.W.2d
333.
54. Colo. — Carpenter -Liebhardt
Fruit Co. v. Nelson, 234 P. 1067,
77 Colo. 175 — Drinkard v. Spencer,
211 P. 379, 72 Colo. 396.
Ind. — United Taxi Co. v. Dilworth,
20 N.B.2d 699, 106 Ind.App. 627.
Iowa.— Hatt v. McCurdy, 274 N.W.
72, 223 Iowa 974— Tate v. Belli,
269 N.W. 871, 222 Iowa 635.
Mont. — St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins.
Co. v. Freeman, 260 P. 124, 80
Mont. 266 — Pacific Acceptance Cor-
poration v. McCue, 228 P. 761, 71
Mont. 99.
Okl.— Leslie v. Spencer, 42 P.2d 119,
170 Okl. 642— Morrell v. Morrell,
299 P. 866, 149 Okl. 187— Hale v.
Mclntosh, 243 P. 157, 116 Okl. 40
— Boaz v. Martin, 225 P. 516, 101
Okl. 243.
Tex. — Sunshine Bus Lines v. Crad-
dock, Civ.App., 112 S.W.2d 248,
affirmed Craddock v. Sunshine Bus
Lines, 133 S.W.2d 124, 134 Tex,
888.
Wash.— Moe v. Wolter, 235 P. 803,
134 Wash. 340, reheard 240 P. 565,
136 Wash. 696.
Wyo.— McDaniel v. Hoblit, 245 P.
295, 34 Wyo. 509.
55. Ala.— Harnischfeger Sales Co. v.
Burge, 129 So. 37, 221 Ala. 387—
Griffin Burial Ass'n v. Snead, 149
So. 875, 25 Ala.App. 543.
Ariz.— Brown v. Beck, 169 P.2d 855
— Postal Ben. Ins. Co. v. John-
son, 165 P.2d 173 — Swisshelm Gold
Silver Co. v. Farwell, 124 P.2d 544,
59 Ariz. 162 — Perrin v. Perrin,
Properties, 86 P.2d 23, 53 Ariz.
121, 122 A.L.R. 621— Daniel v. Tel-
ford, 75 P.2d 373, 51 Ariz. 197—
MacNeil v. Vance, 60 P.2d 1078, 48
Ariz. 187— Huff v. Flynn, 60 P.2d
931, 48 Ariz. 175— Michener v.
Standard Accident Ins. Co., 47 P.2d
438, 46 Ariz. 66— Martin v. Sears,
44 P.2d 526, 45 Ariz. 414— Bryant
v. Bryant, 14 P.2d 712, 40 Ariz. 519
— Faltis v. Colachis, 274 P. 776, 35
Ariz. 78.
Ark. — Barringer y. Whitson, 168 S.
, W.2d 395, 205 Ark. 260.
CaL— Beard v. Beard, 107 P.2d 385,
16 Cal.2d 645— Waybright v. An-
derson, 253 P. 148, 200 Cal, 374—
Elms v. Elms, App., 164 P.2d 936
—Hughes v. Wright, 149 P.2d 392,
64 Cal. App. 2d 897— Weinberger v.
Manning, 123 P.2d 531, 50 Cal.
App.2d 494 — Equitable Life Assur.
Soc. of U. S. v, Milstein, 93 P.2d
843, 34 Cal.App.2d 436— People's
Finance & Thrift Co. of Porterville
v. Phoenix Assur. Co., Limited, of
London, 285 P. 857, 104 CaLApp.
334— Grey v. MUligan, 281 P. 656.
101 CaLApp. 328— BroOks v. Nel-
son, 272 P. 610, 95 OaLApp. 144—
Williams v. McQueen, 265 P. 339,
89 CaLApp. 659— Fink & Schindler
Co. v. Gavros, 237 P. 1083, 72 Cal.
App. 688.
Colo. — Carpenter-Llebhardt Fruit Co.
v. Nelson, 234 P. 1067, 77 Colo. 175.
B.C.— Bush v. Bush, 63 F.2d 134, 61
AppD.C. 357.
Fla.— Streety v. John Deere Plow
Co., 109 So. 632.
Ga. — Brown v. Hammond, 128 S.E.
66, 160 Ga. 446— Cavan v. A. M.
Davis Co., 189 S.E. 684, 55 Ga.App.
200— Coker v. Eison, 151 S.E. 682,
40 Ga.App. 835— Sherman v. Ste-
phens, 118 S.E. 567, 30 Ga.App. 509
—Mulling v. 'First Nat. Bank, 118
S.E. 495, 30 Ga.App. 587.
Idaho. — Kingsbury v. Brown, 92 P.
2d 1053, 60 Idaho 464, 124 A.L.R.
149— Boise Valley Traction Co. v.
Boise City, 214 P. 1037, 37 Idaho
20.
Ind.— Hoag v. Jeffers, 159 N.E. 753,
201 Ind. 249— Falmouth State Bank
v. Hayes, 185 N.E. 662, 97 Ind.App.
68.
Iowa. — Genco v. Northwestern Mfg.
Co., 214 N.W. 545, 203 Iowa 1390—
Standard Oil Co. v. Marvill, 206
N.W. 37, 201 Iowa 614.
Kan.— Sparks v. Nech, 26 P.2d 586,
138 Kan. 343— Farmers* State Bank
of Whiting v. Bokel, 235 P. 1053,
118 Kan. 491.
Ky. — Bond v. W. T. Congleton Co.,
129 S.W.2d 570, 278 Ky. 829— Mer-
genthaler Linotype Co. v. Griffin,
10 S.W.2d 633, 226 Ky. 159.
La. — Cutrer v. Cutrer, App., 169 So.
807.
Md. — Armour Fertilizer Works, Di-
vision of Armour & Co. of Del.
v. Brown, 44 A.2d 753— Dixon v.
Baltimore American Ins. Co. of
New York, 188 A. 215, 171 Md. 695
—Wagner v. Scurlock, 170 A. 539,
166 Md. 284.
Mich.— Bartnik v. Samonek, 21 N.W.
2d 817, 313 Mich. 464— First Nat.
Tank v. Pine Shores Realty Co.,
241 N.W. 190, 257 Mich. 289.
Minn.— National Guardian Life Ins.
Co. v. Schwartz Bros., 14 N.W.2d
347, 217 Minn. 288— Peterson v.
W. Davis & Sons, 11 N.W.2d 800,
216 Minn. 60— Lodahl v. Hedburg,
238 N.W. 41, 184 Minn. 154— Mar-
thaler Machine & Engineering Co.
v. Meyers, 218 N.W. 127, 173 Minn.
606— Moot v. Searle, 206 N.W. 447,
165 Minn. 308.
Mo.— Allen v. Fewel, 87 S.W.2d 142,
337 Mo. 955 — Quattrochi v. Quat-
trochi, App., 179 S.W.2d 757—
O'Connell v. Dockery, App., 102
S.W.2d 748— Williams v. Barr,
App., 61 S.W.2d 420— Karat v. Chi-
610
cago Fraternal Life Ass'n, App.,
22 S.W.2d 178— McFarland v. Lass-
well, App., 282 S.W. 447.
Mont. — Madson v. Petrie Tractor &
Equipment Co., 77 P.2d 1038, 106
Mont. 382— Middle States Oil Cor-
poration v. Tanner-Jones Drilling
Co., 235 P. 770, 73 Mont. 180.
N.J. — E. J. Davino & Co. v. National
Surety Co., 141 A. 663, 104 N.J.Law
475, 6 N.J.Misc. 478.
N.T.— Perlmutter v. Gross, 40 N.T.S.
2d 37, 266 App.Div. 694— Booraem
v. Gibbons, 34 N.T.S.2d 198, 263
App.Div. 665, appeal denied 35 N.
T.S.2d 717, 264 App.Div. 768—
Centerville Creamery Co. v. Wex-
ler, 30 N.T.S.2d 232, 262 AppJDiv.
1055— Sobel' v. Sobel, 4 N.Y.S.2d
194, 254 App.Div. 203, reargument
denied 6 N.Y.S.2d 328, 254 App.
Div. «836 — Falvey v. Cornwall Ter-
minal Co., 294 N.T.S. 525, 209 App.
Div. 448— Hogan v. Johnson, 272
N.Y.S. 113, 241 App.Div. 914—
Goldstein v. Friedland, 271 N.Y.S.
236, 241 App.Div. 829— Utica Gas
& Electric Co. v. Sherman, 208
N.Y.S. 594, 212 App.Div. 472—
Zaza v. Zaza, 246 N.Y.S. 148, 138
Misc. 218— Schulte Leasing Corp.
v. Friedman, 61 N.Y.S.2d 665—
General Exchange Ins. Corporation
v. Stern, 25 N.Y.S.2d 266— Pesner
v. H. M. Goldman, Inc., 23 N.Y.S.2d
698.
N.C. — Johnson v. Sidbury, 34 S.E.2d
67, 225 N.C. 208— Hendricks v.
Town of Cherryville, 153 S.E. 112,
198 N.C. 659 — Dunn v. Jones, 142
S.E. 320, 195 N.C. 354— Buchanan
v. B. & D. Coach Line, 140 S.E.
439, 194 N.C. 812— Crye v. Stoltz,
138 S.E. 167, 193 N.C. 802— Helder-
man v. Hartzell Mills Co., 135 S.E.
627, 192 N.C. 626.
N.D.— Croonquist v. Walker, 196 N.
W. 108, 50 N.D. 388.
Ohio.— Horwitz v. Franklin, 171 N.E.
415, 35 Ohio App. 32— Balind v.
Lanigan, 159 N.E. 103, 26 Ohio
App. 149.
Okl.— Nolen v. Nolen, 167 P.2d 68—
Franklin v. Hunt Dry Goods Co.,
123 P.2d 258, 190 Okl. 296— Saut-
bine v. Jones, 18 P.2d 871, 161 Okl.
292— Morrell v. Morrell, 299 P.
866, 149 Okl. 187— New v. Elliott,
211 P. 1025, 88 Okl. 126.
Or.— Steeves v. Steeves, 9 P.2d 815,
139 Or. 261 — Peterson v. Hutton,
284 P. 279, 132 Or. 252.
Pa. — Quaker City Chocolate & Con-
fectionery Co. v. Warnock Bldg.
Ass'n, 32 A.2d 5, 347 Pa, 186—
Linker v. Fidelity-Philadelphia
Trust Co., 28 A.2d 704, 150 Pa.Su-
per. 440— Planters Nut & Choco-
late Co. v. Brown-Murray Co., 193
A. 381, 128 Pa.Super. 239— Dirpy
49 O.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 334
gal point of view as to bar relief,56 and, if he fails
to do so, the fact that he alleges a meritorious de-
fense is immaterial.57 It is otherwise where the
judgment is void, or irregularly entered; in such
cases applicant need show only invalidity of the
judgment, or prejudicial or dangerous irregularity,
to authorize or require the court to open or vacate
it, and need not excuse the default,58 and, as dis-
cussed infra § 336, it is not necessary in such case
to show a meritorious defense. Furthermore, dur-
ing the term at which a default judgment is ren-
dered, the court may set it aside without first re-
quiring the party to show good cause for being in
default,59 and it has been held that the trial court
should ordinarily sustain a motion made at the
same term to set aside the judgment and permit the
cause to be heard on the merits,60 particularly
where no intervening rights have arisen between the
entry of the judgment and the making of the mo-
v. Emerson C. Custis & Co., 176 A.
551, 116 Pa.Super. 274— Kanai v.
Sowa, 167 A. 429, 109 Pa.Super. 426
—Page v. Patterson, 161 A. 878,
105 Pa.Super. 438— Schwartz v.
Stewart, 55 Pa.Dist. & Co. 633, 5
Lawrence L.J. 1 — Risser v. Kaylor,
Com.Pl., 54 Dauph.Co. 202 — Com-
monwealth v. Dr. Crandall's
Health School, Com.Pl., 51 Dauph.
Co. 333 — Klein v. Brookside Dis-
tilling Products Corp., Com.Pl., 47
Lack.Jur. 165 — Moyer v. Moyer,
Com.Pl., 34 Luz.Legr.Reg. 176.
R.I.— Vingi v. Vigliotti, 6 A.2d 719,
63 R.I. 9— Dimond v. Marwell, 190
A. 683, 57 R.I. 477.
S.C.— Baitary v. Gahagan, 12 S.B.2d
735, 195 S.C. 520— Rutledge v.
Junior Order of United American
Mechanics, 193 S.E. 434, 185
S.C. 142— Lucas v. North Carolina
Mut Life Ins. Co., 191 S.E. 711,
184 S.C. 119— Bissonette v. Joseph,
170 S.E. 467, 170 S.C. 407— Epworth
Orphanage of South Carolina Con-
ference v. Strange, 155 S.E. 594,
158 S.C. 379.
S.D.— Sohn v. Flavin, 244 N.W. 349,
60 S.D. 305 — Squires v. Meade
County, 239 N.W. 747, 59 S.D. 293
—Connelly v. Franklin, 210 N.W.
735, 50 S.D. 512.
Tex. — Wear v. McCallum, 33 S.W.2d
723, 119 Tex. 473— Lawther Grain
Co. v. Winniford, Com. App., 249
S.W. 195 — Brown v. St Mary's
Temple No. 5 S. M. T. United
Brothers of Friendship of Texas,
Civ.App., 127 S.W.2d 531— Babing-
ton v. Gray, Civ.App., 71 S.W.2d
293 — Aviation Credit Corporation
of New York v. University Aerial
Service Corporation, Civ.App., 59
S.W.2d .870, error dismissed— Pe-
ters v. Hubb Diggs Co., Civ.App.,
35 S.W.2d 449, error dismissed —
Hooser v. Wolfe, Civ.App., 30 S.W.
2d 728 — Chaney v. Allen, Civ.App.,
25 S.W.2d 1115 — Griffin v. Burrus,
Civ.App., 24 S.W.2d 805, affirmed
Com.App., 24 S.W.2d 810— Hum-
phrey v. Harrell, Civ.App., 19 S.W.
2d 410, affirmed, Com.App., 29 S.W.
2d 963 — Sneed v. Sneed, Civ.App.,
296 S.W. 643— St Paul Fire & Ma-
rine Ins. Co. v. Earnest, Civ.App.,
293 S.W. 677, affirmed 296 S.W.
1088, 116 Tex. 565— Trigg v. Gray,
Civ.App., 288 S.W. 1098— Colorado
River Syndicate Subscribers v.
Alexander, Civ.App., 288 S.W. 586
— Paggi v. Rose Mfg. Co., Civ.
App., 285 S.W. 852 — Stoudemneier
v. First Nat. Bank, Civ.App., 246
S.W. 761.
Wash. — Skidmore v. Pacific Credi-
tors, 138 P.2d 664, 18 Wash.2d 157
— Marsh v. West Fir Logging Co.,
281 P. 340, 154 Wash. 137— Law-
rence v. Rawson, 217 P. 1019. 126
Wash. 158.
W.Va.— Winona Nat Bank v. Frid-
ley, 10 S.E.2d 907, 122 W.Va. 479
— Arnold v. Reynolds, 2 S.E.2d
433, 121 W.Va. 91— State ex rel.
Alkire v. Mill, 180 S.E. 183, 116
W.Va. 277— Sands v. Sands, 138
S.E. 463, 103 W.Va. 701— Gainer
v. Smith, 132 S.E. 744, 101 W.Va.
314— Ellis v. Gore, 132 S.E. 741,
101 W.Va. 273.
Wis.— Farmington Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
v. Gerhardt. 257 N.W. 595, 216
Wis. 457.
Wyo.— Kelley v. Eidara, 231 P. 678,
32 Wyo. 271.
34 C.J. p 422 note 25—19 C.J. p 1213
note 88%.
Excusable neglect generally see in-
fra subdivision n (5) of this sec-
tion.
5ft, Mass. — Manzl v. Carlson, 180 N.
E. 134, 278 Mass. 267.
Freedom from fault or negligence as
requisite to relief see infra subdi-
vision n (5) (b) of this section.
"Such motions will be denied or-
dinarily only when there has been
some persistent wrongful conduct,
willfulness, or bad faith by a par-
ty."—Baldwin v. Yellow Taxi Cor-
poration, 225 N.T.S. 423,' 425, 221
App.Div. 717, followed in Woodward
v. Weekes, 241 N.T.S. 842, 228 App.
Div. 870.
57. Ark.— Karnes v. Ramey, 287 S.
W. 743, 172 Ark. 125.
Tex. — San Antonio Paper Co. v. Mor-
gan, Civ.App., 53 S.W.2d 651, er-
ror dismissed.
Defense to "action as ground for va-
cating judgment see infra subdi-
vision f of this section.
58. Iowa.— Dewell v. Suddick, 232
N.W. 118, 211 Iowa 1352.
Mont— Paramount Publix Corpora-
tion v. Boucher, 19 P.2d 223, 93
Mont. 340.
N.J.— Westfield Trust Co. v. Court
611
of Common Pleas of Morris Coun-
ty, 178 A. 546, 115 N.J.Law 86, af-
firmed 183 A. 165, 116 N.J.Law 191.
34 C.J. p 423 notes 28, 29.
Invalidity or irregularity as ground
for relief see infra subdivision b
of this section.
50. Ky. — Latham v. Commonwealth,
43 S.W.2d 44, 240 Ky. 826.
Ohio. — Davis v. Teachnor, App., 53
N.E.2d 208.
34 C.J. p 268 note 48.
Power of trial court to open default
judgments during term see supra
S 333.
In Texas
(1) A distinction is recognized be-
tween cases in which a good, suffi-
cient, legal, or equitable excuse is
required to be shown to support a
motion to vacate, and cases in which
only a slight showing, amounting
only to some excuse, would be suffi-
cient. The distinction turns on the
presence, or absence, of facts show-
ing that by the granting of the ap-
plication the adverse party would be
injured. Presumably the setting
aside of a judgment at a subsequent
term would be injurious, and hence
in such a case a good excuse must
be shown which implies a showing
of the absence of negligence or ex-
ercise of ordinary care. On the oth-
er hand, if the application is made
promptly at the same term, and the
facts show that there will be no
material delay, and the failure of
the party to answer or appear in
time is not due wholly to his fault
or neglect, or that of his attorney,
but there are some extenuating cir-
cumstances, then the application
should be granted. — Borger v. Min-
eral Wells Clay Products Co., Civ.
App., 80 S.W.2d 333,
(2) During the term at which it
was rendered, the trial court
may set aside a default judgment
with, or without, express cause. —
Gann v. Hopkins, Civ.App., 119 S.W.
2d 110.
60. Neb.— Barney v. Platte Valley
Public Power & Irr. Dist, 23 N.W.
2d 335— Britt v. Byrkit, 268 N.W.
83, 131 Neb. 350— Lacey v. Citi-
zens' Lumber & Supply Co., 248
N.W. 378, 124 Neb. 813.
§ 334
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
tion to set it aside, and the ends of justice will
be furthered thereby.61
The default, for which relief is provided, must be
that of a litigant and not of a stranger to the pro-
ceeding;62 and a stranger to the record is not
in a position to ask to be relieved of a default or
to have a decree set aside which was taken at a
time when he was not a party to the action.68
Statutory provisions. Statutes relating to the
setting aside of default judgments have been held
to be constitutional,64 and, being remedial, should
be liberally construed so as to give litigants an op-
portunity to have the case disposed of on the merits
to the end that justice be done;65 but, where the
matter is governed by statute, one of the statutory
grounds must be shown.66 Statutes dealing with
vacation and modification of judgments are exclu-
sive on a motion to vacate a default judgment, un-
less by reason of special circumstances the statu-
tory remedy is inadequate.67 A statute providing
that no judgment may be set aside for matter not
previously objected to if the complaint contain a
substantial cause of action does not apply to a de-
fault judgment entered against an innocent par-
ty.68 In order to have both a default and a judg-
ment thereon set aside under some statutes a show-
ing as to mistake, or the like, must be shown as
to each.69 An amendatory statute applies to a mo-
tion to set aside a judgment entered before the stat-
ute goes into effect where the motion was made
after the effective date of the statute and within
the time allowed for the motion by the statute in
force at the time the judgment was entered.70 A
statutory provision requiring the court to render
judgment in specified actions if defendant does not
appear and defend does not preclude defendant
from showing cause for a failure to answer or de-
mur within the prescribed time.71
b. Invalidity or Irregularity of Judgment
(1) Invalidity of judgment in general
(2) Irregularity of judgment in general
(3) Want or insufficiency of notice of
proceeding's
(4) Unauthorized, inadvertent, improvi-
dent, or premature entry
(1) Invalidity of Judgment in General
Invalidity of a default judgment rendering It void,
as distinguished from merely voidable or erroneous, is
ground for vacating it.
Invalidity of a default judgment rendering it void,
61. Ky. — Hackney v. Charles. 295 S.
W. 869, 220 Ky. 574 — South Moun-
tain Coal Co. v. Kowland, 265 S.
W. 320, 204 Ky. 820.
Furtherance of justice as ground for
setting aside default judgment
generally see infra subdivision o
of this section.
Question, on motion to set aside
a default judgment made promptly
at the same term of court is wheth-
er the ends of justice will be fur-
thered by reopening case* in "which
one party has obtained a judgment
without the other having been heard
when the latter shows the court
that prima facie he has a meritori-
ous defense. — Columbia Coal & Min.
Co. v. Radcliff. 186 S.W.2d 419, 299
Ky. 596— Vanover v. Ashley, 183 S.
W.2d 944, 298 Ky. 722 — Latham v.
Commonwealth, 48 S.W.2d 44, 240
Ky. 826.
62. Idaho. — Hanson v. Rogers, 32 P.
2d 126, 54 Idaho 360.
63. Idaho. — Hanson v. Rogers, su-
pra.
Indemnity insurer could not have
default judgment against insured
set aside because insured had not
given notice of automobile accident,
Insurer not being party to judgment.
— Earle v. Earle, 151 S.B. 884, 198
N.C. 411.
64. N.C. — Foster v. Allison Corpo-
ration, 131 S.E. 648, 191 N.C. 166,
44 A.L..R. 610.
65. Cal.— Riskin v. Towers, 148 P.2d
611, 24 Cal.2d 274, 153 A.L.R. 442
— Waybright v. Anderson, 253 P.
148, 200 Cal. 374— Hughes v.
Wright, 149 P.2d 392, 64 Cal.App.2d
897— Tearney v. Riddle, 149 P.2d
387, 64 Cal.App.2d 783— Potts v.
Whitson, 125 P.2d 947, 52 CaLApp.
2d 199 — Thompson v. Sutton, 122
P.2d 975, 50 Cal.App.2d 272— Rose-
borough v. Campbell, 115 P.2d 839,
46 Cal.App.2d 257— Stub r. Harri-
son, 96 P.2d 979, 35 Cal.App.2d 685
— Application of Mercereau, 14 P.
2d 1019, 126 Cal.App. 590— Wil-
liams v. McQueen, 265 P. 339, 89
CaLApp. 659 — Corgiat v. Realty
Mortg. Corporation of California,
260 P. 573, 88 CaLApp. 37— Sofuye
v. Pieters-Wheeler Seed Co., 216
P. 990, 62 CaLApp. 198.
Ga. — Bradley v. Henderson, 193 S.B.
79, 56 Ga,App. 488.
Ind. — Padol v. Home Bank & Trust
Co., 27 N.B.2d 917, 108 Ind.App.
401 — Falmouth State Bank v.
Hayes, 185 N.E, 662, 97 Ind.App.
68.
Minn.— Lentz v. Lutz, 9 N.W.2d 505,
215 Minn. 230.
Mo.— Chilton v. Cady, 250 S.W. 403,
298 Mo. 101.
Nev. — Bowman v. Bowman, 217 P.
1102, 47 Nev. 207.
Or. — Snyder v. Consolidated High-
way Co., 72 P.2d 932, 157 Or. 479
—Peters v. Dietrich, 27 P.2d 1015,
145 Or. 589.
34 C.J. p 296 note 7,
612
66. Iowa. — Heuer v. Hartman, 200
N.W. 314.
Mont— Mihelich v. Butte Electric
Ry. Co., 281 P. 540, 85 Mont. 604.
S.D. — Connelly v. Franklin, 210 N.
W. 735, 50 S.D. 512.
False return of service
Where service of original writ was
in fact made by sheriff and judg-
ment for default of appearance en-
tered, statute permitting "taking,
off" of judgment by following cer-
tain procedure at or before, term fol-
lowing entry of default judgment
did not authorize reopening of judg-
ment, such statute covering only the
situations where sheriff had returned!
that defendant had been served,
when in fact this was not the case.
— Yerkes v. Dangle, DeLSuper., 33
A.2d 406.
67. Okl. — Jupe v. Home Owners
Loan Corp., 167 P.2d 46.
68. Ala. — Ex parte Crumpton, 109
So. 184, 21 Ala.App. 446.
69. Mont. — State v. District Court
of Second Judicial Dist. in and for
Silver Bow County, 272 P. 525,
83 Mont 400.
TO. Idaho. — Brainard v. Cceur
d'Alene Antimony Mining Co., 208
P. 855, 35 Idaho 742.
71. Wash. — State v. Superior Court
for Thurston County, 271 P. 87,
149 Wash. 443.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§334
as distinguished from merely voidable or erroneous,
is ground for vacating it,72 as where the judgment is
invalid for want of jurisdiction of the person,73 or
where the judgment is based on a defective affida-
vit for publication of summons,74 or where the court
is without jurisdiction to adjudicate the question de-
termined or to give the particular relief granted.75
A party has a right to presume that no other or
different judgment will be taken against him by de-
fault than the facts alleged will warrant,76 and a
judgment against a party in his individual capacity
which is void because no facts were alleged in the
complaint which would permit a judgment against
him in that capacity will be vacated.77 Also, a final
judgment after default will be set aside for want
of jurisdiction where summons was addressed to
defendant as an individual and the declaration de-
clared against him in a representative capacity.78
(2) Irregularity of Judgment in General
A default judgment may be vacated for Irregularity
In the proceedings leading to the entry of the judg-
ment, as distinguished from mere error, but not ordi-
narily for merely technical, formal, and unimportant Ir-
regularities.
A default judgment, like any other, may be va-
cated for irregularity in the proceedings leading to
the entry of a judgment, as distinguished from mere
error,79 but such a judgment will not ordinarily be
72, Cal.— Baird v. Smith, 14 P.2d
749, 216 Cal. 408— Sheehy v. Ro-
man Catholic Archbishop of San
Francisco, 122 P.2d 60, 49 Oal.App.
2d 537.
Pla.— Kellog-Citizens Nat. Bank of
Green Bay, Wis. v. Felton, 199 So.
50, 145 Fla. 68— Kroier v. Kroier,
116 So. 753, 95 Fla. 865.
111. — Rau v. Village of Warrensburg,
23 N.E.2d 371, 302 Ill.App. 37.
Ky. — Fugate v. Creech, 111 S.W.2d
402, 271 Ky. 3.
Md. — Fick v. Towers, 136 A. 648, 152
Md. 335.
N.J.— New Jersey Cash Credit Cor-
poration v. Zaccaria, 19 A.2d 448,
126 N.J.Law 334 — Gloucester City
Trust Co. v. Goodfellow, 3 A.2d
561, 121 N.J.Law 546— Westfleld
Trust Co. v. Court of Common
Pleas of Morris County, 178 A.
- 546, 115 N.J.Law 86, affirmed 183
A. 165, 116 N.J.Law 191— Green-
baum v. Higgins, 147 A. 722, 7 N.
J.Misc. 1012.
N.Y.— Valz v. Sheepshead Bay Bun-
galow Corporation, 163 N.E. 124,
249 N.T. 122, certiorari denied 49
S.Ct. 82, 278 U.S. 647, 73 L.Ed.
560.
N.D.— Baird v. Ellison, 293 N.W. 794.
70 N.D. 261.
Okl. — Okmulgee Northern Ry. Co. v.
Oklahoma Salvage & Supply Co.,
271 P. 167, 133 Okl. 64— Hoffman
v. Deskins, 221 P. 37, 94 Okl. 117.
Or.— Mutzig v. Hope, 158 P.2d 110.
Pa. — Borough of Wilkinsburg v.
School Dist. of Borough of Wil-
kinsburg, 148 A. 77. 298 Pa. 193—
Simko v. Kunkle, Com.Pl., 36 Pa.
Dist. & Co. 229, 22 WestCo. 149.
Tex.— Uvaldo Rock Asphalt Co. v.
Lacy, Civ.App., 131 S.W.2d 698.
34 C.J. p 269 note 57, p 423 note 28.
Error in law as ground for vacating
default judgment see infra sub-
division g of this section.
Invalidity as ground for vacating
judgment generally see supra §
267.
Necessity for excusing default see
supra subdivision a of this section.
"Void judgment" within text rule
is one which has semblance but
lacks some essential element, as Ju-
risdiction or service of process. —
Simms v. Sampson, 20 S.E.2d 554,
221 N.C. 379— Wynne v. Conrad, 17
S.E.2d 514, 220 N.C. 355— Wellons
v. Lassiter, 157 S.E. 434, 200 N.C.
474— Finger v. Smith, 133 S.E. 186,
191 N.C. 818— Duffer v. Brunson,
125 S.E. 619, 188 N.C. 789.
Judgment void on its face
Invalidity apparent from inspec-
tion of judgment roll renders judg-
ment void on its face and subject to
be vacated at any time. — Gibbons v.
Clapp, 277 P. 490, 207 Cal. 221.
Judgments held not subject to va-
cation, as void
Cal.— Phillips v. Trusheim, 156 P.
2d 25, 25 Cal.2d 913— Pavlovich
v. Watts, 115 P.2d 511, 46 Cal.
App.2d 103.
Ga. — Southern Fertilizer & Chemical
Co. v. Kirby, 184 S.E. 363, 52 Ga.
App. 688— McCray v. Empire Inv.
Co., 174 S.E. 219, 49 Ga.App. 117.
Idaho. — Occidental Life Ins. Co. v.
Niendorf, 44 P.2d 1099, 55 Idaho
521.
Kan.— Hawkins v. Smith, 111 P.2d
1108, 153 Kan. 542.
Ky. — Stratton & Terstegge Co. v.
Begley, 61 S.W.2d 287, 249 Ky.
632 — Fowler v. Wiley, 33 S.W.2d
14, 236 Ky. 313.
Mass.— Moll v. Town of Wakefleld,
175 N.E. 81, 274 Mass. 505.
Minn. — City of Luverne v. Skyberg,
211 N.W. 5, 169 Minn. 234.
N.C. — Duffer v. Brunson, 125 S.E.
619, 188 N.C. 789.
Pa. — Eastman Kodak Co. v. Oseni-
der, 193 A. 284, 127 Pa.Super. 332.
73. Gal. — Hollywood Garment Cor-
poration v. J. Beckerman, Inc.,
143 P.2d 738, 61 Cal.App.2d 658 —
Reichert v. Rabun, 265 P. 260, 89
CaLApp, 375.
Ga.— Davis-Washington Co. v. Tick-
ers, 155 S.E. 92, 41 Ga.App. 818
—Anderson v. Turner, 133 S.E.
306, 35 Ga.App. 428 — Smoyer v.
613
Jarman, 114 S.E.* 924, 29 Ga.App.
305.
111. — Lewis v. West Side Trust &
Savings Bank, 36 N.E.2d 573, 377
111. 384.
Md. — Piedmont-Mt Airy Guano Co.
of Baltimore v. Merritt, 140 A. 62,
154 Md. 226.
Minn. — Pugsley v. Magerfleisch, 201
N.W. 323, 161 Minn. 246.
N.D.— Baird v. Ellison, 293 N.W.
794, 70 N.D. 261— Odland v.
O'Keeffe Implement Co., 229 N.W.
923, 59 N.D. 335— Beery v. Peter-
son, 225 N.W. 798, 58 N.D. 273—
Gallagher v. National Nonparti-
san League, 205 N.W. 674.
Wyo. — Kimbel v. Osborne, 156 P.2d
279.
34 C.J. p 269 note 57.
Judgment entered without sufficient
service
D.C. — Ray v. Bruce. Mun.App., 31 A,
' 2d 693.
74. Cal.— Gibbons v. Clapp, 277 P.
490, 207 Cal. 221.
75. Ga. — Woodall v. Exposition Cot-
ton Mills, 120 S.E. 423, 31 Ga.App.
269.
N.T.— Coles v. Carroll, 6 N.E.2d 107,
273 N.T. 86— Seeley v. Greene, 247
N.Y.S. 679, 139 Misc. 90.
Or. — Leonard v. Bennett, 106 P.2d
542, 165 Or. 157.
S.C.— Nettles v. MacMillan Petrole-
um Corp., 37 S.E.2d 134, 208 S.C.
81.
34 C.J. p 269 note 57.
Vacation of default judgment ren-
dered for amount in excess of that
claimed in writ or declaration see
infra subdivision g of this sec-
tion.
76. Wash. — Sandgren v. West, 115
P.2d 724, 9 Wash.2d 494.
77. Wash. — Sandgren v. West, su-
pra.
78. Fla. — Frostproof State Bank v.
Mallett, 131 So. 322, 100 Fla. 1464.
79. Ariz. — Burbage v. Jedlicka, 234
P. 32, 27 Ariz. 426 — Gila Valley
Electric, Gas & Water Co. v. Arl-
§ 334
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
vacated for merely technical, formal, and unimpor- r principle of harmless error,8° or which may be
tant irregularities which may be disregarded on the | deemed cured or waived as by failure to object in
zona Trust & Savings Bank, 215
P. 159, 25 Ariz. 177.
Cal.— Harris v. Minnesota Inv. Co.,
265 P. 308, 89 Cal.App. 396.
111.— Stanke v. Atherton, 7 N.E.2d
467, 289 IlLApp. 614.
Iowa. — Brenton v. Lewiston, 216 N.
W. 6, 204 Iowa 892— Chandler Mill.
& Mfg. Co. v. Sinaiko, 208 N.W.
323, 201 Iowa 791.
Kan. — Samuel Ach Co. v. Thorpe,
278 P. 15, 128 Kan. 296.
Md.— Martin v. Long, 120 A. 875, 142
Md. 348.
Mich.— Smak v. Gwozdik. 291 N.W.
270, 293 Mich. 185— Dades v. Cen-
tral Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 248 N.W.
616, 263 Mich. 260.
Mo.— Fleming v. McCall, App., 35
S.W.2d 60— Boggess v. Jordan,
App., 283 S.W. 57.
Mont— Stenner v. Colorado-Montana
Mines Ass'n, 149 P.2d 546.
N.M. — Animas Consol. Mines Co. v.
Frazier, 69 P.2d 927, 41 N.M. 389
— Dallaxn County Bank v. Burn-
side, 249 P. 109, 31 N.M. 537.
N.T.— Hilton v. Mack, 15 N.T.S.2d
187, 257 App.Dlv. 709, appeal dis-
missed Hilton v. aaston, 24 N.B.2d
506 281 N.Y. 881— Cowperthwait v.
Critchley, 276 N.T.S. 133, 243 App.
D1V 70 — Devonia Discount Corpo-
ration v. Bianchi, 271 N.Y.S. 413,
241 App.Div. 838— Mills v. Nedza.
227 N.T.S. 156, 222 App.Div. 615—
Christal v. Fifty-Five Columbus
Corporation, 5 N.T.S.2d 227, 168
Misc. 118.
jq-.C. — Simms v. Sampson, 20 S.E.2d
554, 221 N.C. 379— Everett v. John-
son, 14 SJB.2d 520, 219 N.C. 540—
Clegg v. Canady, 195 S.E. 770, 213
!^c. 258 — Wellons v. Lassiter, 157
S.E. 434, 200 N.C. 474— Standard
Supply Co. v. Vance Plumbing &
Electric Co., 143 S.E. 248, 195 N.
C. 629 — Finger v. Smith, 133 S.E.
186, 191 N.C. 818.
jq-.D. — Ruchverg v. Russell, 3 N.W.
2d 459, 71 N.D. 658, 139 A.L.R.
1474.
Ohio.— Morrison v. Baker, App., 58
N.E.2d 708 — French v. Friesinger,
App., 38 N.E.2d 90— Mt. Ida School
v. Clark, 177 N.E. 604, 39 Ohio
App. 389.
Okl.— Gill v. Meis, 12 P.2d 692, 158
OWL 154 — Adachi v. Blckford, 275
P. 306, 135 Okl. 228— McKinney v.
Swift, 274 P. 659, 135 Okl. 164—
Okmulgee Northern Ry. Co. v.
Oklahoma Salvage & Supply Co.,
271 P. 167, 133 Okl. 64— Great
American Ins. Co. v. Keswater,
268 P. 258, 131 Okl. 196— Nation v.
Savely, 260 P. 32, 127 Okl. 117.
Pa. — Richard T. Camden Fire Ins.
Co., 46 Pa.Dist. & Co. 365, 4 Mon-
roe IuR. 65 — Simko v. Kunkle, 36
Pa.Dist & Co. 229, 22 WestCo. 149
— Norton v. Frantz, Com.PL, 42
Lack.Jur. 97.
Tex.— Daniel Miller Co, v. Puett, Civ.
App., 252 S.W. 333.
Wash.— State v. Superior Court for
Thurston County, 271 P. 87, 149
Wash. 443.
.— Federal Land Bank of St. Paul
v. Olson, 1 N.W.2d 752, 239 Wis.
448.
Wyo.— McDaniel v, Hoblit, 245 P.
295, 34 Wyo. 509.
34 C.J. p 275 note 81, p 423 notes 28,
32.
Error in law as ground for vacating
default judgment see infra subdi-
vision g of this section.
Irregularity as ground for vacat-
ing judgments generally see supra
§ 268.
Objections as to pleadings as ground
for setting aside default judg-
ments see infra subdivision j of
this section.
''Irregularity" defined
(1) Irregularity authorizing set-
ting (aside judgment on motion is
want of adherence to some pre-
scribed rule or mode of proceeding,
by omitting to do something neces-
sary for orderly conduct of suit, or
doing it in unseasonable time or in
improper manner. — Ealy v. McGahen,
21 P.2d 84, 37 N.M. 246.
(2) An irregularity is a departure
in legal procedure from things which
are regular; it is something by way
of procedure which is unusual and
irregular. — Rabb v. Board of Com'rs
of Cuyahoga County, 173 N.E. 255,
257, 36 Ohio App. 481.
Irregrnlar and erroneous Judgments
defined and distinguished
An "irregular judgment" is one
rendered contrary to the course and
practice of the court, whereas an
"erroneous judgment" is one ren-
dered according to the course and
practice of court, but contrary to
law, or on a mistaken view of the
law, or on an erroneous applica-
tion of legal principles, an errone-
ous judgment being not necessarily
irregular. — Simms v. Sampson, 20 S.
E.2d 554, 221 N.C. 379— Wynne v.
Conrad, 17 S.E.2d 514, 220 N.C. 355
—Wellons v. Laseiter, 157 S.E. 434,
200 N.C. 474— Finger v. Smith, 133
S.E. 186, 191 N.C. 818— Duffer v.
Brunson, 125 S.E. 619, 188 N.C. 789.
Voidable Judgment
(1) Where a judgment by default
is entered in an action on a petition
not filed by the date fixed in the no-
tice and ten days before the term,
it is the right of defendant directly
to attack the judgment as voidable,
and the duty of the court to set it
aside and have it vacated. — Sioux
County v. Kosters, 191 N.W. 315, 194
Iowa 1300.
614
(2) Fact that entry of default
judgment without a Jury was with-
out authority, however, was held
not proper ground of motion to set
aside the judgment, but under stat-
ute merely rendered it voidable on
direct bill of exceptions. — McDuffie
Oil & Fertilizer Co. v. Her, 118 S.E.
772, 30 Ga.App. 671.
failure to serve copy of statement
of claim
A judgment entered for want of
appearance will be stricken off on
defendant's application where plain-
tiff failed to serve on defendant a
copy of the statement of claim filed,
as required by court rule. — North-
western Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v.
Heenerfauth, 18 Pa.Dist. & Co. 534.
Held not Irregularity within role
(1) Convening term hour before
customary. — Kingery v. Reliance
Fertilizer Co., 158 S.E. 346, 43 Gai
App. 240.
(2) .Correction of recorded notice
of materialman's lien by interlinea-
tion of correct description of proper-
ty in notice without new acknowl-
edgment or verification. — Ealy v. Mc-
Gahen, 21 P.2d 84, 37 N.M. 246.
(3) Court order, allowing defend-
ants to withdraw their pleadings,
which specified answer only and not
cross complaint — Sheppard v. Sand-
fer, 102 P.2d 668, 44 N.M. 357.
(4) Erroneous finding of fact. —
Bank of Commerce v. Williams, 69
P.2d 525, 52 Wyo. 1, 110 A.L.R. 1463.
(5) Failure to introduce evidence
to show that note had been regis-
tered with county treasurer and tax
paid thereon as provided by statute.
— Thomas v. Tucker, 86 P.2d 1011,
184 Okl. 304.
(6) Inclusion in judgment fore-
closing materialman's lien a nonlien-
able item.— Ealy v. McGahen, 21 P.
2d 84, 37 N.M. 246.
(7) Making order of revivor with-
out first spreading on the record, a
conditional order of revivor as pro-
vided by code. — French v. Friesinger,
Ohio App., 38 N.E.2d 90.
(8) Mere failure to plead.— Rabb
v. Board of Com'rs of Cuyahoga
County, 173 N.E. 255, 36 Ohio App.
481.
(9) Other matters.
Mo.— Allen v. Allen, App., 14 S.W.2d
686.
Mont— Smith v. Hamill, 112 P.2d
195, 111 Mont 585.
80. Ala. — Gray v. Bank of Mound-
ville, 107 So. 804, 214 Ala. 260.
Mich.— Bartnik v. Samonek, 21 N.W.
2d 817, 313 Mich. 494.
Mo. — Daugherty v. Lanning-Harris
Coal & Grate Co., 265 S.W. 866,
218 Mo.App. 187.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
334
due season,81 particularly where the proceeding to
set aside the default was belatedly taken.82 In or-
der to set aside a default judgment as being irregu-
larly entered, the court must test the right of
movant by the same principles as those by which
it tests the right of a movant against whom a
judgment was entered in a litigated action.8^
(3) Want or Insufficiency of Notice of Pro-
ceedings
Want or Insufficiency of the required notice of the
action or Intermediate proceedings therein is ground for
opening or vacating a default judgment.
It is good ground for vacating or opening a de-
fault judgment that defendant had no notice of the
action, either because of a failure to serve him with
process, or because the process or service was fa-
tally irregular or defective,84 and this rule has been
applied where an attempted service by publication
N.M. — Bourgeious v. Santa Fe Trail
Stages, 95 P.2d 204, 43 N.M. 453.
N.Y.— Quist v. Gwinup, 46 N.Y.S.2d
105, 267 App.Div. 224.
34 C.J. p 276 note 84.
Failure to demand appointment of
attorney
Statute providing that, when one
party's attorney ceases to act as
such, adverse party must, before any
further proceedings may be had,
by written notice require such party
to appoint another attorney or to
appear in person, has no application
where adverse party has personal
knowledge of withdrawal of her at-
torney and of setting of case for
trial, and denial of plaintiff's mo-
tion to vacate judgment on cross
complaint, because no written de-
mand had been made on plaintiff by
defendants to appoint attorney in
lieu of attorney of -record who had
withdrawn, or to appear in person,
was not abuse of discretion under
such circumstances. — Savage v.
Stokes, 28 P.2d 900, 54 Idaho 109—
Smith-Nieland v. Reed, 231 P. 102,
39 Idaho 786. •
Failure to serve proposed form of
default
(1) Where defendants, while de-
murrers to complaint were pending
before circuit court, knew that their
original attorney had withdrawn
but took no steps to have other
counsel substituted or to notify
plaintiffs of defendants' addresses,
and defendants did not show that
plaintiffs knew where defendants
could be found, and defendants made
no showing that default order and
decree for plaintiffs were taken
against defendants through their
mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or
excusable neglect, refusal to set
aside default on ground that plain-
tiffs did not serve copies of proposed
forms thereof on defendants person-
ally before order and decree were
entered was not an abuse of dis-
cretion.— Merryman v. Colonial Real-
ty Co., 120 P.2d 230, 168 Or. 12.
(2) Even if a firm of attorneys
were attorneys for defendants when
a default order was taken, failure
to serve such form was immaterial
in determining whether order and
decree entered thereon should have
been set aside, where defendants
were served with a copy of order
overruling demurrers and setting
time for defendants to answer and
with a copy of motion for default
and setting time for hearing on mer-
its.— Merryman v. Colonial Realty
Co., supra.
81. Pa, — Caromono v. Garman, 42
Pa.Dist & Co. 96, affirmed 23 A.2d
92, 147 Pa.Super. 1.
34 C.J. p 278 note 86.
82. Mich. — Bartnik v. Samonek, 21
N.W.2d 817, 313 Mich. 464.
Time for application to set aside
default judgment generally see
infra § 337.
83. N.M. — Bourgeious v. Santa Fe
Trail Stages, 95 P.2d 204, 43 N.M.
453.
84. Ala. — Murphree v. International
Shoe Co., 20 So.2d 782, 246 Ala.
384 — Ex parte Whitehead, 199 So.
876, 29 Ala. App. 583, certiorari de-
nied Ex parte Whisler, 199 So. 879,
240 Ala. 447.
Ariz.— Lore v. Citizens Bank of Win-
slow, 75 P.2d 371, 51 Ariz. 191.
Ark. — First Nat Bank v. Turner, 275
S.W. 703, 169 Ark. 393.
Cal.— Riskin v. Towers, 148 P.2d
611, 24 CaUd 274, 153 A.L.R. 442
— Washko v. Stewart, 112 P.2d 306,
44 CaI.App.2d 311— Penland v.
Goodman, 111 P.2d 913, 44 CaLApp.
2d 14— Doxey v. Doble, 54 P.2d
1143, 12 CaLApp.2d 62.
D.C.— Wise v. Herzog, 114 F.2d 486,
72 App.D,C. 335.
Ga.— Walker v. T. H. Sirmans & Co.,
148 S.E. 592, 168 Ga. 658— Courier-
Herald Pub. Co. v. Georgian Co.,
128 S.E. 744, 160 Ga. 583— Smoyer
v. Jarman, 114 S.E. 924, 29 Ga.App.
305.
111. — McCoy v. HT-G Corporation, 47
N.E.2d 384, 318 IlLApp. 229— Je-
rome v. 5019-21 Quincy Street
Bldg. Corporation, 45 N.E.2d 878,
317 Ill.App. 335, reversed on other
grounds 53 N.E.2d 444, 385 111. 524
— Nikola, v. Campus Towers Apart-
ment Bldg. Corporation, 25 N.E.2d
582, 303 Ill.App. 516.
Ind.— -Kilmer v. McCormick, 150 N.E.
794, 84 Ind.App. 215.
Iowa. — Jackson v. Jones, 300 N.W.
668, 231 Iowa 106.
Md. — Harvey v. Slacum, 29 A.2d 276,
615
181 Md. 206 — Plummer v.. Rosen-
thai, 12 A.2d 530, 178 Md. 149.
Mont — Housing Authority of City of
Butte v. Murtha, 144 P.2d 183, 115
Mont. 405.
N.J. — Porter v. Building Associates,
169 A. 515, 127 N.J.Misc. 42— Joyce
v. Bauman, 165 A. 425, 11 N.J.Misc.
237.
N.T. — Devonia Discount Corporation
v. Bianchi, 271 N.Y.S. 413, 241 App.
Div. 838— Katz v. Silverberg, 50
N.T.S.2d 83, 183 Misc. 492.
N.C. — Hershey Corporation v. Atlan-
tic Coast Line R. Co., 165 S.E. 550,
203 N.C. 184.
N.D.— -Baird v. Ellison, 293 N.W. 794,
70 N.D. 261— Ellison v. Baird, 293
N.W. 793, 70 N.D. 226.
Okl.— Roth v. Fern Oil & Gas Co.,
8 P.3d 63, 155 Okl. 154— Hawkins
v. Payne, 264 P. 179, 129 Okl. 243.
Pa. — Sasso's Inc. v. Progansky; Com.
PL, 38 Luz.Leg.Reg. 323.
Tex. — Foster v. Christensen, Com.
App., 67 S.W.Sd 246 — Wyman v.
American Mortg. Corporation, Civ.
App., 45 S.W.2d 629— Motor Inv.
Co. v. Killman, Civ.App., 43 S.W.
2d 633 — Southern Trading Co. of
Texas v. Feldman, Civ.App., 247
S.W. 702, reversed on other
grounds, Com. App., 259 S.W. 566.
Utah. — State Tax Commission v.
Larsen, 110 P.2d 558, 100 Utah 103.
Wash. — Golson v. Carscallen, 283 P.
681, 155 Wash. 176.
Wyo.— Kimbel v. Osborn, 156 P.2d
279.
34 C.J. p 270 note 63, p 423 note 34
Ca] (2).
BIffht to relief held absolute
N.D. — Odland v. O'Keeffe Implement
Co., 229 N.W. 923, 59 N.D. 335—
Beery v. Peterson, 225 N.W. 798.
58 N.D. 273.
Right held not absolute
CaL— Tucker v. Tucker, 139 P.2d 848,
59 Cal.App.2d 557.
Leaving* at defendant's abode in Ills
absence
Where copy of petition and proc-
ess was left at defendant's most no-
torious place of abode while defend-
ant was absent from county, and
first discovered after default was
entered, vacating default was held
proper. — Carr-Lee Grocery Co. v.
Brannen, 167 S.E. 536, 46 Ga.App.
225.
334
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
was fatally defective.85 A judgment will not be
set aside, however, for mere clerical errors, omis-
sions, or irregularities in the process, not affecting
the jurisdiction,8^ especially where defendant had
actual notice of the commencement of the action,87
and it has been held that a defendant who knew
about the suit in time to make a defense, even
though he was not served with summons, is not en-
titled to have a default judgment against him set '
aside.88 Where the party knew of the claim a co-
defendant was making against him, and had actual
notice that he was a codefendant, the court properly
refused to vacate a judgment on the ground that
the moving party did not know that a pleading
such as a cross petition in which the claim was
made had been filed.89 A default will not be set
aside where defendant's objections to process or
service are waived by his voluntary appearance90
or by his failure promptly to claim immunity from
service made on him.91 A default judgment will
not be set aside on the ground of defective return of
service where the return could have been amended
so as truthfully to show good service.92
It has been held that parties to litigation are en-
titled to actual or constructive notice of every step
to be taken, and, if anything is done affecting their
rights without notice and they apply in a timely
manner for redress, the trial court should grant it,93
Service held proper, precluding relief
111. — Groth v. Schueneman-Flynn's
Logan Square, 33 N.B.2d 914, 310
IlLApp. 260.
Mo.— State ex rel. Fabrico v. Trim-
ble, 274 S.W. 712, 309 Mo. 415.
N.D.— Beery v. Peterson, 225 N.W.
798, 58 N.D. 273.
Tex.— Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v.
Williams, 15 S.W. 478, 79 Tex. 633.
Wash.— Larson v. Zabroski, 152 P.2d
154, 21 Wash.2d 572, opinion ad-
hered to 155 P.2d 284, 21 Wash.
2d 572.
Substituted defendant
County treasurer, substituted for
predecessor without notice to treas-
urer, was held entitled to have de-
fault set aside on proper motion. —
Dewell v. Suddick, 232 N.W. 118, 211
Iowa 1352.
Want of actual notice
Judgment against foreign corpora-
tion, having constructive notice of
institution of suit but not actual
notice until after rendition, was
properly set aside under statute au-
thorizing defense after judgment
"upon good cause shown" but pro-
tecting bona flde purchasers. — Fos-
ter v. Allison Corporation, 131 S.B.
648, 191 N.C. 166, 44 A.L.R. 610.
86. Ariz.— Evans v. Hallas, 167 P.2d
94.
86. Ark. — Furst v. Boatman, 122 S.
W.2d 189, 197 Ark, 1175.
Mich.— Foster v. Talbot, 241 N.W.
141, 257 Mich. 489.
Minn.— Whipple v. Mahler, 10 N.W.
2d 771, 215 Minn. 578.
N.Y.— Abo v. Panish, 239 N.Y.S. 669,
135 Misc. 792.
Pa. — Caromono v. Garman, 42 Pa.
Dist. & Co. 96, affirmed 23 A.2d
92, 147 Pa,Super. 1.
Tex. — Caldwell Oil Co. v. Hickman,
Civ.App., 270 S.W. 214.
Wash.— Hurby v. Kwapil, 286 P. 664,
156 Wash. 225.
34 C.J. p 271 note 66.
Failure to return original »uminons
with proof of service
The tenure of the person who
made service of summons on corpo-
rate defendant's statutory agent, and
who made return, to return original
summons with proof of service, as
required hy statute, was not such
an irregularity that defendant was
entitled to have execution recalled
and judgment vacated pursuant to
statute. — Bourgeious v. Santa Fe
Trail Stages, 95 P.2d 204, 43 N.M.
453.
87. Ark. — Furst v. Boatman, 122 S.
W.2d 189, 197 Ark. 1175.
34 C.J. p 272 note 67.
88. Ark.— O'Neal v. B. F. Goodrich
Rubber Co., 162 S.W.2d 52, 204
Ark. 371 — Furst v. Boatman, 122
S.W.2d 189, 197 Ark. 1175— United
Order of Good Samaritans v. Roe-
buck, 32 S.W.2d 435, 182 Ark. 731—
Stewart v. California Grape Juice
Corporation, 29 S.W.2d 1077, 181
Ark. 1140— Lambie v. W. T. Raw-
leigh Co., 14 S.W.2d 245, 178 Ark.
1019— C. A. Blanton Co. v. First
Nat Bank, 1 S.W.2d 558, 175 Ark.
1107 — Karnes v. Ramey, 287 S.W.
743, 172 Ark. 125— First Nat. Bank
v. Turner, 275 S.W. 703, 169 Ark.
393— Fore v. Chenault, 271 S.W.
704, 168 Ark. 747.
Cal. — Tucker v. Tucker, 139 P.2d
348, 59 Cal.App.2d 557.
Mont — Skinner v. Carlysle Oil De-
velopment Co., 2feO P. 1038, 80
Mont 464.
Service by little boy
Where decree recited that sum-
mons had been duly served on de-
fendant, sheriff's return recited serv-
ice on defendant defendant admit-
ted that summons was brought to
him, allegedly by a little boy, and
defendant was in court room while
case was being tried, chancery court
properly refused to set aside decree
entered after defendant's default on
ground that defendant was not prop-
erly served. — Rockamore v. Pem-
broke, 188 S.W.2d 616, 208 Ark. 995.
Actual notice of some, but not alls
codefendants
Fact that one of many bondhold-
616
ers, against whom a default Judg-
ment was rendered without personal
service, in a suit to foreclose a lien
for materials furnished to the com-
pany issuing the bonds, had no ac-
tual notice of the action in time
to appear and defend, did not en-
title another of such bondholders,
who had actual and timely notice,
to have the judgment opened under
statute, in the absence of any motion
on behalf of the former or anything
in the latter^ motion indicating that
it was made for or on the former's
behalf or because of any authority
or assignment from him. — Clarke v.
Shoshoni Lumber Co., 224 P. 845, 31
Wyo. 205, error dismissed 48 S.Ct
302. 296 U.S. 595, 72 L.Ed. 722.
89. Kan.— Suter v. Schultz, 7 P.2d
55, 134 Kan. 538.
90. Cal.— James v. Hall, 264 P. 516,.
88 Cal.App. 528.
34 C.J. p 272 note 69.
91. Kan. — Phcenix Joint Stock Land
Bank v. Eells, 148 P.2d 732, 158
Kan. 530.
92. U.S. — Mandel Bros. v. Victory
Belt Co., C.C.A.I11., 15 F.2d 610.
93. Ariz.— Daniel v. Telfqrd, 75 P.2d
373, 151 Ariz. 197— Faltis v. Cola-
chis, 274 P. 776, 35 Ariz. 78.
Tex. — Morris v. National Cash Reg-
ister Co., Civ.App., 44 S.W.2d 433,
error dismissed.
Wyo.— Barrett v. Oakley, 278 P. 538,
40 Wyo. 449.
Alien property custodian
Where judgment by default
against a French banking corpora-
tion was entered, at a time when ex-
ecutive order authorizing alien prop-
erty custodian to take measures in
representing alien In a proceeding
in interest of United States was en-
tered without notice to custodian
who was entitled under executive or-
der to opportunity of contesting the
action on being appointed corpora-
tion's representative, judgment was
vacated on custodian's motion. —
Metzger v. Credit Industrial D' Alsace
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
334
and this is particularly true where a party failed to
receive a notice to which he was entitled by estab-
lished custom94 or rule of court;95 and a default
judgment has been opened where defendant ten-
dered a good defense and defendant's counsel was
absent from court because he unwarrantedly relied
on the clerk of the court or opposing counsel to
give him timely notice of the trial day.96 On the
other hand, it has been held that, where a party has
once been properly served with proper process, he
is in court for every purpose connected with the
action, and cannot have the judgment vacated for
the failure to notify him of some intermediate step
in the case;97 and, where it is the duty of a party
and his counsel to know when the case will be called
for trial, it is no ground for setting aside a default
judgment that neither was notified of the time the
case was set for trial,98 or that neither had any
notice or knowledge that a term of court would be
held or was being held on the date on which the
judgment was rendered.99 So, in the absence of
statute requiring the clerk of the court to notify
parties or attorneys as to the day on which a par-
ticular case is set for trial, a party who relies on
the- clerk so to notify him acts at his peril,1 and
failure of the clerk to give him such notice does
not require the vacation of a judgment taken in his
absence2 even, it has been held, if the clerk prom-
ised to do so.8 It is not error to refuse to set aside
a default judgment for failure to notify defendant
of the setting of the case after the filing of a for-
mal answer where the answer expressly stated that
defendant disclaimed interest in, or responsibility
for, the suit.4
(4) Unauthorized, Inadvertent, Improvident,
or Premature Entry
A default judgment may be set aside where entry
thereof was unauthorized, Inadvertent, improvident, or
premature.
A default judgment may be set aside where it was
entered by the clerk without any authority therefor,6
Et De Lorraine, 44 N.T.S.2d 575,
181 Misc. 75.
Hearing1 set on condition of notice
Where hearing* was set on condi-
tion that attorney for plaintiff no-
tify attorneys for defendants, find-
ing- that one of the attorneys rep-
resenting1 defendants was notified
and that through some oversight,
lapse of memory, or misunderstand-
ing, he failed to notify defendants
and their other attorneys, was in-
sufficient to warrant the conclusion
that they had notice of time and
place of hearing, and hence Judg-
ment entered in their absence should
be set aside. — Everett v. Johnson, 14
S.B.2d 520. 219 N.C. 540.
Failure to serve counterclaim
In view of statute, where defend-
ant's answer containing counterclaim
was not served on plaintiff, and no
answer, demurrer, or reply was filed
by plaintiff, court properly set aside
judgment entered by default and in-
quiry on defendant's counterclaim. —
Williams Fulgham Lumber Co. v.
Welch, 148 S.E. 250, 197 N.C. 249.
94. Colo. — Drinkard v. Spencer, 211
P. 379, 72 Colo. 396.
Fla.— Segel v. Staiber, 144 So. 875,
106 Fla. 946.
Iowa. — Lunt v. Van Gorden, 281 N.
W. 743, 225 Iowa 1120.
95. U.S. — Marion County Court, W.
Va., v. Ridge, C.C.A.W.Va., 13 F.
2d 969.
111. — Marland Refining Co. v. Lewis,
264 Ill.App. 163.
Utah. — Okerlund v. Robinson, 281 P.
200, 74 Utah 602.
34 C.J. p 423 note 34 [a] (1).
Judgment taken, laomediately alt-
er overruling' demurrer and in vio-
lation of a rule requiring notice and
time to answer is properly vacated
on that ground.
Cal. — Harris v. Minnesota Inv. Co.,
265 P. 306, 89 CaLApp. 396.
Philippine. — FresseH v. Agustin, 8
Philippine 529.
93. N.J.— First Nat. Bank v. Stone-
ley, 160 A. 764, 10 N.J.Misc. 785.
97. Ark.— Hill v. Teague, 108 S.W.
2d 889, 194 Ark. 552.
N.H. — Lewellyn v. Follansbee, 47 A.
2d 572.
Tex. — Grand United Order of Odd
Fellows v. Wright, Civ.App., 76
S.W.2d 1073— Oldham v. Heatherly,
Civ.App., 17 S.W.2d 113.
34 C.J. p 272 note 70.
Failure of counsel to disclose loca-
tion
Where defendant was kept in court
by adjournments and files did not
disclose location of defendant's coun-
sel, refusal to set aside judgment
taken without notice was not abuse
of discretion.— O'Neill v. Hendrlck-
son, 147 A, 721, 7 N.J.Misc. 1022.
Hearing of demurrer
In absence of fraud or mistake,
it is not ground to vacate default
that defendant or attorneys had no
notice of hearing of demurrer, and
granting time to further plead after
overruling it, after which judgment
was rendered. — Graham Production
Co. v. Western Drilling Co., 251 P.
1004, 123 Okl. 79.
98. Okl. — MacDonnell v. Maiers, 3
P.2d 681, 152 Okl. 244— Green v.
James, 296 P. 743, 147 Okl. 273—
Wilson v. Porter, 221 P. 713, 94
Okl. 259.
Duty of party to know when case
will be called for trial see infra
617
subdivision n (5) (b) of this sec-
tion.
Duty of counsel to know when case
will be called for trial see infra
subdivision n (6) (b) of this sec-
tion.
Mistake as to time or place of hear-
ing or trial as ground for open-
ing or vacating default Judgment
see infra subdivision n (2) (c) of
this section.
99. Ala. — McCord v. Harrison &
Stringer, 93 So. 428, 207 Ala. 480.
1. Okl.— Colley v. Sapp, 216 P. 454,
90 Okl. 139.
2. Okl. — Colley v. Sapp, supra.
3. Okl. — Colley v. Sapp, supra.
Inaccuracy of information given by,
or reliance on statements of, judge
or clerk of court as ground for
opening default judgment see In-
fra subdivision e of this section.
4. Tex. — University Development
Co. v. Wolf, Civ.App., 93 S.W.2d
1187.
5. Ala. — Ex parte Anderson, 4 So.
2d 420, 242 Ala. 31.
Cal.— Baird v. Smith, 14 P.2d 749,
216 Cal. 408 — Crofton v. Younff,
119 P.2d 1003, 48 Cal.App.2d 452.
Fla.— Albert M. Travis Co. v. At-
lantio Coast Line R. Co., 136 So.
884, 102 Fla. 1117, rehearing de-
nied 102 Fla. 1117, 139 So. 141.
N.T.— Sobel v. Sobel, 4 N.T.S.2d 194,
254 App.Div. 203, reargument de-
nied 6 N.T.S.2d 328, 254 App.Div.
836.
N.C.— Cook v. Bradsher, 12 S.B.2d
690, 219 N.C. 10— Cleggr v. Canady,
195 S.E. 770, 213 N.C. 258.
Wyo. — Kimbel v. Osborne, 156 P.2d
279.
34 C.J. p 294 note 86.
334
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
as where default was improperly entered for fail-
ure of plaintiff to answer a cross complaint which
under the circumstances was unnecessary. 6 Also
a judgment entered contrary to the course of the
court by inadvertence, improvidence, mistake, or the
like may be set aside.7 A judgment may be set aside
whether there was a total lack of authority to en-
ter any judgment or only lack of authority to en-
ter a particular judgment, when the entry of such
a judgment was premature,8 as where it was en-
tered before expiration of the time for the filing of
an answer,9 before expiration' of a continuance
granted by the trial judge,10 pending an applica-
tion for a change of venue,11 prior to the day on
which the cause was docketed for trial,12 or prior
to the date reserved for decision on a demurrer.13
A default judgment erroneously rendered where
defendant was not in default may be vacated.14
c. Fraud
A default judgment may be vacated for extrinsic
and collateral fraud in obtaining the judgment.
A default judgment, like any other, may be va-
cated for fraud,15 including legal fraud practiced
by the prevailing parties without it being inten-
tional,16 according to the decisions on the ques-
Unauthorized, inadvertent, improvi-
dent, or premature entry as ground
for setting aside judgments gen-
erally see supra § 278.
6. Cal. — Crofton v. Young, 119 P.
2d 1003, 48 Cal.App.2d 452.
7. Cal. — Harris v. Minnesota Inv.
Co., 265 P. 306, 89 CaLApp. 396.
N.M.— Ealy v. McGahen, 21 P.2d 84,
87 N.M. 246.
84 C.J. p 294 note 87.
Inadvertence in permitting default
as ground for relief see infra sub-
division n (4) of this section.
Adoption of pleadings
In partition suit, where, at time
of default by one defendant, mortga-
gee defendant had not answered but
answer and cross-petition of other
defendants, which were subsequent-
ly adopted by defaulting defendant
were on file, and allegations of such
pleadings, if true, would prevent
partition and invalidate mortgagee's
lien against defaulting defendant's
interest, court did not abuse discre-
tion in setting aside default. — Red-
ding v. Redding, 284 N.W. 167, 226
Iowa 327.
a U.S.— In re Nelson, D.CJdaho, 36
F.2d 979.
111. — Phegley v. Kroger Grocery &
Baking Co., 281 IlLApp. 544.
Mont. — Paramount Publix Corpora-
tion v. Boucher, 19 P.2d 223, 93
Mont. 340.
Ohio.— Ramsey v. Holland, 172 N.E.
411, 35 Ohio App. 199.
34 C.J. p 294 note 88, p 295 notes 90,
91.
9. Ariz. — Michener v. Standard Ac-
cident Ins. Co., 47 P.2d 438, 46
Ariz. 66.
Cal. — Harris v. Minnesota Inv. Co.,
265 P. 306, 89 Cal.App. 396.
Mo, — Poindexter v. Marshall, App.,
193 S.W.2d 622.
Mont — Paramount Publix Corpora-
tion v. Boucher, 19 P.2d 223, 93
Mont. 340.
N.J. — Gloucester City Trust Co. v.
Goodfellow, 3 A.2d 661, 121 N.J.
Law 546 — Corpus Juris cited in
Westfleld Trust Co. v. Court of
Common Pleas of Morris County,
178 A. 546, 549, 115 N.J. Law 86,
affirmed 183 A. 165, 116 N.J.Law
191.
N.M. — Dallam County Bank v. Burn-
side, 249 P. 109, 31 N.M. 537.
N.D.— Kaull v. Johnson, 218 N.W.
606, 56 N.D. 563.
Tex. — Andrus v. Andrus, Civ.App.,
168 S.W.2d 891.
34 C.J. p 294 note 89.
Nonappearanoe within, time for an-
swer
Fact that defendant did not ap-
pear before expiration of time al-
lowed to answer did not preclude
her from making direct attack on
prematurely entered default judg-
ment by timely motion to vacate
judgment — Netland v. Baughman,
Colo., 162 P.2d 601.
10. Tenn.— Fidelity-Phenix Fire
Ins. Co. v. Oliver. 152 S.W.2d 254,
25 Tenn.App. 114.
After order granting continuance
was set aside without notice
111. — Coen-Berkson & Co. v. Gordon,
283 IlLApp. 28.
11.' Mo. — Carpenter v. Alton R. Co.,
App., 148 S.W.2d 68.
Flea of privilege
Refusal to set aside default was
held abuse of discretion, in view of
moving party's reliance on plea of
privilege to be sued in county of his
residence, not* properly disposed of
before trial — Sun Lumber Co. v.
Huttig Sash & Door Co., Tex.Civ.
App., 36 S.W.2d 561 — Federal ^Sup-
ply Co. v. Bailey, Tex.Civ.App.^ 297
S.W. 235.
12. Ky. — Clements v. Kell, 39 S.W.
2d 663, 239 Ky. 396.
13. Ariz. — Garner v. Towler, 218 P.
390, 25 Ariz. 101.
14. 111.— Harris v. Juenger, 11 N.B.
2d 929, 367 I1L 478.
OkL — Joplin Furniture Co. v. Bank
of Picher, 8 P.2d 173, 151 Okl. 158.
15. Md.— Martin v. Long, 120 A. 875,
142 Md. 348.
N.Y.— Mills v. Nedza, 227 N.T.S. 156,
222 App.Div. 615.
Tex.— Halbrook v. Quinn, Civ.App..
286 S.W. 954, certified questions
dismissed Quinn v. Halbrook, 285 '
618
S.W. 1079, 115 Tex. 513— Marsh v.
Tiller, Civ.App., 279 S.W. 283.
Wash. — Bishop v. Illman, 126 P.2d
582, 14 Wash.2d 13 — State v. Su-
perior Court for Thurston County,
271 P. 87, 149 Wash. 443.
34 OJ. p-278 note 89.
Fraud or collusion as ground for
vacating Judgments generally see
supra § 269.
Adverse interest of parties
Judgment obtained against corpo-
ration by default in action wherein
four of five directors had adverse
interest constituted extrinsic fraud
or collusion, warranting vacation of
Judgment at instance of stockholder,
where directors' interest had not
been disclosed and was not known
to the court. — Kerr v. Southwest
Fluorite Co., 294 P. 324, 35 N.M. 232.
Collusion
Where there was some proof of
an understanding or collusive agree-
ment between officers of Judgment
debtor and judgment creditor where-
by judgment creditor's judgment
was obtained, opening of default
judgment and permitting answer to
be filed was proper.— Adler v. Atlas
Brick Corporation, 11 N.T.S.2d 920,
257 AppJMv. 876, rehearing denied
14 N.T.S.2d 412, 257 App.Div. 1063,
affirmed 27 N.R2d 434, 283 N.T. 64.
Fraud held not shown
Ark. — Magnolia Grocer Co. v. Farrar,
115 S.W.2d 1094, 195 Ark. 1069—
Hill v. Teague, 108 S.W.2d 889, 194
Ark. 552.
16. Okl.— Lane v. O'Brien, 49 P.2d
171, 173 Okl. 475.
Test
Whether statements of plaintiff's
attorney misled and induced defend-
ant to omit assertion of right is
test whether statements amounted
to constructive fraud warranting
setting aside default judgment — Kir-
by v. Hoeh, 21 P.2d 732, 94 Mont
218.
Undue delay in bringing case to-
trial
Where advantage has been taken
of defendant through undue delay in
bringing a case to trial, a Judgment
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 334
tion, as well as intentional or deliberate fraud.17
The authority to set aside judgments for this cause
is limited to cases where the fraud complained of
was practiced in the very act of obtaining the
judgment, and all cases of fraud which might have
been used as a defense to defeat the action are ex-
cluded; the fraud must be extrinsic and collateral
to the matter tried, and not a matter which was po-
tentially in issue in the action.18 The mere send-
ing of statements by plaintiff to defendant after
institution of the suit showing that the amount due
was different and substantially less than that sued
for does not amount to a representation that a judg-
ment would not be taken for the amount alleged to
be due in the petition.1?
d. Agreement with, or Statement by, Party
Taking Default or His Counsel
It Is ground for vacating a default judgment that It
was entered In violation of an explicit agreement or
promise on which the party was entitled to rely.
A default which arises from reliance placed by
a party or his counsel on assurances given him by
the opposing party or counsel is excusable within
the meaning of the law.20 So, where there is an
agreement between the parties or their counsel, such
as an agreement that the case should be continued,
or that time to plead should be extended, or that
th action should be dismissed as the result of a com-
promise or settlement, or a promise of a party that
he would not press the case to judgment, or a prom-
ise that the case would be heard at a time mutually
to be agreed on, or other agreement in violation of
which one party without notice to the other enters
a default, or secures a judgment in his absence, it is
good ground for vacating the judgment.21 The
agreement or promise must have been explicit, how-
ever, and of such a character that the party could
rely on it and remain inactive without being thereby
chargeable with negligence or lack of due diligence
in guarding his own interests.22
An oral agreement, not communicated to the
court, is entitled to little favor,23 and when of un-
. certain and indefinite character will not afford
ground for vacation of a judgment;24 but relief
may be granted on the basis of an oral agreement
satisfactorily established,26 although where a statute
taken against him in his absence
should be set aside and a new trial
awarded. — Stansberry v. Dennison,
158 S.E. 716, 110 W.Va. 470.
17. Okl.— Lane v. O'Brien, 49 P.2d
171, 173 Okl. 475.
34 C.J. p 282 note 4.
18. Kan. — Irvine v. Eysenbach, 267
P. 995, 126 Kan. 362.
N.T.— Schlegel v. Wagner, 29 N.Y.S.
2d 389.
34 CJ. p 280 note 96.
Delay in giving notice of taking
judgment
The alleged fact that no notice
was given to defendants of the tak-
ing of a default judgment until it
was too late to have default judg-
ment set aside on motion was not
ground for the setting aside of the
default judgment.— Nicholson v.
Thomas, 127 S.W.2d 155, 277 Ky.
760.
Pailuxe to disclose facts to court
The alleged fact that assignee of
subject matter of suit did not make
disclosure of facts and status of
case to the trial court would not au-
thorize the setting aside of a default
judgment. — Nicholson v. Thomas, 127
S.W.2d 155, 277 Ky. 760.
False allegations in, pleadings are
not such fraud as will justify or re-
quire vacation of the judgment —
Irvine v. Eysenbach, 267 P. 995, 126
Kan. 362—34 C.J. p 280 note 96 [c].
19. Ga,— Courier-Herald Pub. Co. v.
Georgian Co., 128 S.E. 744, 160 Ga,
583.
20. Gal.— Ackerman v. Beach, 285 P.
895, 104 CaLApp. 299, followed in
285 P. 896, 104 CaLApp. 788.
Colo. — Mountain States Silver Min-
ing Co. v. Hukill, 244 P. 605, 79
Colo. 128.
Conn.— Crane v. Loomis, 25 A.2d 650,
128 Conn. 697.
Ky. — Hackney v. Charles, 295 S.W.
869, 220 Ky. 574.
N.Y.— Linden v. West 21st Street
Holding Corporation, 12 N.T.S.2d
77, 257 App.Div. 844— Jacoby v.
Jacoby, 280 N.T.S. 611. 245 App.
Div. 763.
N.C.— Edwards v. Butler, 119 S.E. 7,
186 N.a 200.
Or. — Leonard v. Bennett, 106 P.2d
542, 165 Or. 157.
S.D.—Jones v. Johnson, 222 N.W.
688, 54 S.D. 149.
Tex. — Metropolitan Casualty Ins. Co.
of New York v. City of Junction,
Civ.App., 55 S.W.2d 655 — Dickinson
v. Reeder, Civ.App., 22 S.W.2d 725
—Lewis v. Bell, Civ.App., 12 S.W.
2d 237 — Trigg v. Gray, Civ.App.,
288 S.W. 1098— Marsh v. Tiller,
Civ.App., 279 S.W. 283.
Wash. — Melosh v. Graham, 210 P.
667, 122 Wash. 299.
21. Ariz. — Bartholomew v. Ruffner,
273 P. 986, 35 Ariz. 12.
Ark,— Wrenn v. Manufacturers' Fur-
niture Co., 289 S.W. 769, 172 Ark.
599.
Cal.— Waybright V. Anderson, 253 P.
148, 200 Cal. 374— Taranto v. Dick,
6 P.2d 334, 119 CaLApp, 161.
Conn. — Crane v. Loomis, 25 A.2d 650,
128 Conn. 697.
Ga. — Landau Bros. v. Towery, 179 S.
E. 647, 51 Ga.App. 113.
619
Kan. — American Nat. Bank v. Mar-
shall,' 253 P. '214, 122 Kan. 793.
Neb. — National Co-op. Hail Ass'n v.
Doran Bros. 238 N.W. 527, 121
Neb. 746.
N.J. — Geithner v. Paechiana, 150 A.
240, 8 N.J.Misc. 384.
Okl.— Welborn v. Whitney, 65 P.2d
971, 179 Okl. 420— Sudik v. Sin-
clair Oil & Gas Co., 44 P.2d 954,
172 Okl. 334.
Pa.— Welzel v. Link-Belt Co., 35 A.
2d 596, 154 Pa.Super. 66.
34 C.J. p 285 note 16, p 423 note 34
[a] (1).
Violation of agreement as ground for
opening or vacating judgments
generally see supra 9 271.
22. Ky.— Harris v. First Nat. Bank,
98 S.W.2d 468, 266 Ky. 174.
N.Y. — Cusano v. Mitterloft, 298 N.
Y.S. 870, 252 App.Div. 803.
34 OJ. p 286 note 17.
Mere correspondence about possi-
ble settlement was held not to ex-
cuse default in pleading. — St. Paul
Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Freeman,
260 P. 124, 80 Mont 266.
23. Iowa,— Standard Oil Co. v. Mar-
vill, 206 N.W. 37, 201 Iowa 614—
Dixon v. Brophey, 29 Iowa 460.
Mont. — St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins.
Co. v. Freeman, 260 P. 124, 80
Mont. 266.
24. Iowa.— Holtz v. Sweet, 206 N.W.
286.
Mont— St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins.
Co. v. Freeman, 260 P. 124, 80
Mont. 266.
25. Cal. — Waybright v. Anderson,,
253 P. 148, 200 Cal. 374.
334
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
Dr rule of court requires agreements of the charac-
ter relied on to be reduced to writing and filed, or
communicated to the court, a mere oral agreement
of the parties not brought to the notice of the court
will not be sufficient to authorize the vacation of a
judgment taken in violation of its terms.2^
Where the agreement to withhold proceedings on
the suit is terminated or expressly withdrawn, a
default judgment subsequently taken will not be va-
cated.2?
e. Statement or Order of Judge or Clerk
A default judgment may be opened If It Is due to
the inaccuracy of information given by, or reliance on
statements of, the judge or clerk of court, although some
cases hold that even official assurances will not relieve
litigants from the duty of exercising vigilance In watch-
ing the progress of their cases.
Litigants are entitled to rely on statements by offi-
cials charged with the custody and control of pa-
pers and records relating to judicial proceedings in
which they are interested, and about which informa-
tion is sought; and accordingly a judgment by de-
fault will be opened if it is due to the inaccuracy
of information given by, or reliance on statements
of, such officials,28 such as a judge29 or the clerk of
the court,80 Accordingly if the court or an officer
of the court by his conduct has misled parties as to
the time cases will be tried, the absence of such
parties may be excused,31 although some cases hold
that even official assurances will not relieve liti-
gants or their counsel from the duty of exercising
vigilance in watching the progress of their cases.32
f . Defense to Action
The existence of a complete defense available to
the defendant before entry of a default judgment is not
ground for opening or vacating the judgment, although
the rule is otherwise as to a defense which arose after
the default or of which the defendant was Ignorant.
A default judgment regularly entered cannot be
opened or vacated on defendant's motion on the
ground of the existence of a complete defense
which was available to defendant before entry of
the judgment,33 but the court may open or vacate
the judgment to give the defaulted party the ad-
Nib. — Howard Stove & Furnace Co.
v. Rudolf, 260 N.W. 189, 128 Neb.
665.
34 C.J. p 286 note 20.
23. Colo.— Newland v. Frost, 263 P.
715, 83 Colo. 207.
Mont.— St Paul Fire & Marine Ins.
Co. v. Freeman, 260 P. 124, 80
Mont 266.
N.J. — O'Neill v. Hendrickson, 147 A.
721, 7 N.J.Misc. 1022.
Pa, — Planters Nut & Chocolate Co.
v. Brown-Murray Co., 193 A. 381,
128 Pa.Super. 239 — Lucia v. Pru-
dential Ins. Co. of America, 173
A. 441, 113 Pa.Super. 823.
34 C.J. p 286 note 18.
27. Iowa. — Iowa Cord Tire Co. v.
Babbitt, 192 N/W. 431, 195 Iowa
922.
Tex. — Jackson v. Manning, Civ.App.,
287 S.W. 1103.
TTfcere agreement is conditioned on
payment of stipulated sum in settle-
ment of the claim against defend-
ant, which defendant on reasonable
demand fails to pay notwithstand-
ing notice by plaintiff that on non-
payment the case would be set for
trial, defendant is not Justified in
concluding that the case would not
be tried on the date set, and the cir-
cumstances afford no ground for set-
ting aside a default judgment taken
on that date. — Walker County Fer-
tilizer Co. v. Napier, 149 S.E. 705,
40 Ga.App. 387.
£3. Del.— Corpus Juris cited . in
Yerkes v. Dangle, Super., 33 A.2d
406, 408.
34 C.J. p 299 note 28, p 300 note 29.
Mistake as to time for appearance or
trial as ground for. vacating:
Default judgments see infra sub-
divisions n (2) (c), n (6) (c) of
this section.
Judgments generally see supra 8
280.
29. Ky.— Cumberland Fluorspar
Corp. v. Waddell, 183 S.W.2d 641,
298 Ky. 594.
Miss. — Corpus Juris quoted in Gard-
ner v. Price, 25 So.2d 459, 461.
34 C.J. p '299 note 28.
30. Ariz.— Beltran v. Roll, 7 P.2d
248, 39 Ariz. 417.
Del. — Corpus Juris cited in Yerkes
v. Dangle, Super., 33 A.2d 406, 408.
Pa. — De Kalb v. Rollison, 90 Pa. Su-
per. 128 — Kozuhowski & Reuss v.
Snigel & Snigel, 90 Pa.Super. 75.
34 C.J. p 300 note 29.
81. Okl. — Carter v. Qrimmett, 213 P.
732, 89 Okl. 37.
34 C.J. p 299 note 28, p 300 note 29.
Season for rule
It is policy of law to afford every
litigant fair opportunity to present
his cause. — Hale v. Mclntosh, 243
P. 157, 116 Okl. 40— -Hoffman v. Des-
kins, 221 P. 37, 94 Okl. 117.
32. Cal. — Taecker v. Parker, 93 P.
2d 197, 34 Oal.App.2d 143.
111.— Blaha v. Turk, 12 NJS.2d 338,
293 Ill.App. 626.
N.C. — Gaster v. Thomas, 124 S.B.
609, 188 N.C. 346.
Okl. — Schuman v. Sternberg, 65 P.
2d 410, 179 Okl. 115— Foster v.
State. 270 P. 84, 132 Okl. 256.
620
S.C.— Kerr v. Cleveland, 188 S.E. S70,
182 S.C. 29.
34 C.J. p 300 note 33.
Diligence required of suitors gen-
erally see infra subdivision n (5)
(b) of this section.
Pacts not warranting relief
A default judgment would not be
set aside because one of the defend-
ants had asked the court not to call
the matter up while she was in an-
other city, and court told her that
.the matter would not be set before
certain date, where the judgment
was not rendered until that date,
and defendant did not leave the city
at the time she had specified. — Sabin
v. Sunset Gardens Co., 85 P.2d 294,
184 OkL 106.
33. Ariz. — Postal Ben. Ins. Co. Y.
Johnson, 165 P.2d 173.
N.M.— Ealy v. McGahen, 21 P.2d 84,
37 N.M. 246.
Ohio. — Rabb v. Board of Com'rs of
Cuyahoga County, 173 N.E. 255,
36 Ohio App. 481.
Okl.— -Woodruff v. Moore, 77 P.2d 62,
182 Okl. 120— Boles v. MacLaren,
4 P.2d 106, 106 Okl. 265— U. S.
Smelting Co. v. McGuire, 253 P.
79, 123 Okl. 2T2.
Pa. — Planters Nut & Chocolate Co.
v. Brown-Murray Co.. 193 A. 381,
128 Pa.Super. 239.
34 C.J. p 286 note 21-p 287 note 28.
Defense to action as ground for
opening or vacating judgments
generally see supra § 272.
Existence of meritorious defense as
requisite to opening .or vacating
default judgment see infra 8 336.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
334
vantage of a defense which arose after the default84
or of which he was ignorant.3^
g. Error in Law
In the absence of a statute authorizing such relief,
a default judgment ordinarily cannot be vacated by the
trial court, after expiration of the term at which it Is
rendered, on the sole ground that it Is erroneous In
matter of law not going to the jurisdiction.
Unless, as shown supra subdivision b (1) of this
section, the error is one going to the jurisdiction,
a default judgment, in the absence of statute au-
thorizing such relief, may not be vacated or set
aside by the trial court, after expiration of the
term at which it is rendered, on the sole ground
that it is erroneous in matter of law,36 the remedy
in such case being by appeal.37 A judgment may,
however, be vacated when it improperly exceeds the
relief prayed for, or is rendered for an amount in
excess of that claimed in the writ or declaration.38
L Error or Mistake of Fact
Error or mistake of fact going to the validity or
regularity of the judgment, such as furnished ground for
the writ of error coram nobis at common law, is ground
for opening or vacating a default Judgment.
Error or mistake of fact going to the validity or
regularity of the judgment, such as furnished
ground for the writ of error coram nobis at com-
mon law, is ground for opening or vacating a de-
fault judgment.39 Errors in fact within this rule
are errors in material matters, prejudicial to the
judgment debtor, and which, if known, would have
prevented rendition of the judgment,40 and which
do not appear on the face of the record.41
i. Objections as to Parties
A default judgment may, In a proper case, be va-
cated because of defects or objections as to parties.
A default judgment may be vacated as to one
who was not definitely named as a party defendant
34. Pa.— First Nat. Bank & Trust
Co. of Bethlehem v. Laubach, 5 A.
2d 139, 333 Pa. 344.
34 C.J. p 288 note 32.
35. Pa.— First Nat. Bank & Trust
Co. of Bethlehem v. Laubach, su-
. pra.
Ignorance as ground for excuse for
, default generally see Infra sub-
division k of this section.
$6. Ark. — Magnolia Grocery Co. v.
Farrar, 115 S.W.2d 1094, 195 Ark.
1069.
Ind.— Colvert v. Colvert, 180 N.B.
192, 95 Ind.App. 325.
Ky. — Stratton v. Terstegge Co. v.
Begley, 61 S.W.2d 287, 249 Ky. 632
—Fowler v. Wiley, 33 S.W.2d 14,
* 236 Ky. 313.
Mass. — Moll v. Town of Wakefield,
175 N.E. 81, 274 Mass. 505.
N.M.— Ealy v. McGahen, 21 P.2d 84,
37 N.M. 246.
N.C.— Finger v. Smith, 133 S.E. 186,
191 N.C. 818.
Wash.— Hurley v. Wilson, 225 P.
441, 129 Wash. 567.
34 C.J. p 289 note 42, p 290 note 43.
Error of law as ground for vacating
judgment generally see supra 8
274.
Mistake as ground for vacating de-
fault judgment generally see infra
subdivisions n (2), (6) of this sec-
tion.
Want or insufficiency of evidence
A default judgment will not be re-
opened and set aside because evi-
dence or sufficient legal evidence was
not introduced as a basis for its ren-
dition.— Citizens' Bank v. Brandau,
Tex.Civ.App., 1 S.W.2d 466, error re-
fused.
37. TIL— Seither & Cherry Co. v.
Board of Education of District No.
15, Town of La Harpe, 283 IlLApp.
392.
N.C. — Wellons v. Lassiter, 157 S.B.
434, 200 N.C. 474— Finger v. Smith,
133 S.E. 186, 191 N.C. 818— Duffer
v. Brunson, 125 S.E. 619, 188 N.C.
789.
Right of appeal from default judg-
ment generally see Appeal and
Error § 155.
38. Cal. — Pease v. City of San Die-
go, App., 169 P.2d 973.
Iowa.— Rayburn v. Maher, 288 N.W.
136, 227 Iowa 274.
Mo. — Boggess v. Jordan, App., 283 S.
W. 57.
N.C. — Simms v. Sampson, 20 S.E.2d
654, 221 N.C. 379— Federal Land
Bank of Columbia v. Davis, 1 S.E.
2d 350, 215 N.C. 100.
Or, — Leonard v. Bennett, 106 P.2d
542, 165 Or. 157.
S.D. — Jones v. Johnson, 222 N.W.
688, 54 S.D. 149.
34 C.J. p 290 note 46.
39. 111.— Rapp v. Goerlitz, 40 N.E.
2d 766, first case, 314 Ill.App. 191
—Simon v. Balasic, 39 N.E.2d 685,
313 Ill.App. 266— Katauski v. El-
dridge Coal & Coke Co., 255 .111.
App. 41— Marquette Nat Fire Ins.
Co. v. Minneapolis Fire & Marine
Ins. Co., 233 IlLApp. 102.
34 C.J. p 290 notes 55, 57.
Error or mistake of fact as ground
for opening or vacating judgments
generally see supra § 275.
Mistake of fact generally <as ground
for opening or vacating default
judgment see infra subdivision n
(2) of this section.
"Clerical error"
Clerk's placing ot case, pleadings
in which were 'not advanced for one
year, on calendar without notice, was
"clerical error" authorizing vacation
of judgment dismissing action, for |
021.
want of appearance within rule. —
New England Furniture & Carpet Co.
v. Willcuts, D.C.Minn., 55 F.2d 983.
Ignorance of want of notice
Where court was unaware at time
of entering default and judgment
thereon that notice of such proceed-
ings had not been served on defend-
ant or his attorney, court properly
set the judgment aside on ground of
error of fact unknown to the court
when judgment was rendered. — Lusk
v. Bluhm, 53 N.E.2d 135, 321 IlLApp.
349.
40. 111. — Seither & Cherry Co. v.
Board of Education of District No,
15, Town of ,La Harpe, 283 Ill.App.
392— Katauski v. Eldrldge Coal &
Coke Co., 255 IlLApp. 41 — Loew v.
Krauspe, 237 Ill.App. 441, affirmed
150 N.E. 683, 320 111. 244— Preci-
sion Products Co. v, Cady, 233 111.
App. 77.
34 C.J. p 290 note 59.
Dismissal of other defendant*
without notice was not an error of
fact within text rule.— McNulty v.
White, 248 Ill.App. 572.
Pendency of another action
Where at time plaintiff obtained
default judgment for purchase price
of a fur coat, there was withheld
from the court the information that
purchaser's action in small claims
court against plaintiff to recover
payments made on the coat had been
continued that same day, setting
aside the default judgment even aft-
er expiration of the term was prop-
er.—Marvin's Credit v. Kitching, D.
C.Mun.App., 34 A,2d 866.
41.' 111. — Sherman & Ellis v. Journal
of Commerce and Commercial Bul-
letin, 259 IlLApp. 453.
§ 334
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
in the complaint,42 particularly where the complaint
did not allege that plaintiffs were ignorant of the
name of such defendant and plaintiffs did not seek
before entry of default judgment to amend the
complaint to show that movant was the party sued
as "J°nn Doe/*43 Inasmuch as nonjoinder of a co-
maker or surety is a curable defect, and inasmuch
as in a suit against joint or joint and several ob-
ligors, where some are not served, the judgment is
good as against those served, there is no error in
overruling a motion to set aside the judgment on al-
legation and proof of such defects.44
j. Objections as to Pleadings
A default Judgment will not be set aside because of
mere defects or Insufficiency In the pleadings, although
failure of the declaration or complaint to state a cause
of action Is ground for vacating a default Judgment.
A default judgment will not be set aside because
of defects or insufficiency in the pleadings,45 espe-
cially where the alleged fault is amendable46 or
the facts alleged are sufficient to challenge the at-
tention of the court having jurisdiction of the sub-
ject matter and parties.47 It has been held, howev-
er, that failure of the declaration or complaint to
state a cause of action is ground for vacating a de-
fault judgment48 A default judgment rendered on
a petition which shows on its face that the alleged
cause of action was barred by the statute of limi-
tations may, it has been held, be set aside for ir-
regularity;49 but, on the other hand, the view has
been taken that no ground to set aside the judgment
exists in such case, since such a petition does not
fail to set out a cause of action.50
Default in service. Plaintiff suing defendant in-
dividually and as executor, but not serving the com-
plaint in both actions, may have his default opened
and the actions consolidated.51
k. Ignorance or Illiteracy
A party's ignorance or illiteracy, standing alone. Is
no excuse for a default, although such Ignorance In
connection with other circumstances may move the court,
In the exercise of Its discretion, to vacate a default Judg-
ment.
Standing alone, ignorance,52 such as ignorance
42. cal.— Flores v. Smith, 117 P.2d
712, 47 Cal.App.2d 253.
34 C.J. p 292 note 63.
Objection as to parties as basis for
vacating judgments generally see
supra § 276.
43. Cal. — Flores v. Smith, supra.
44. Ga. — Henderson v. Ellarbee, 181
S.E. 524, 35 Ga.App. 5.
46. Qa, — Burch v. Woftord-Terrell
Co., 184 S.E. 419, 52 Ga.App. 685.
Ind.T.— Merrill v. Martin, 64 S.W.
539, 3 Ind.T. 571.
N.C.— Hood ex rel. Citizens Bank &
Trust Co. v. Stewart, 184 SJE. 36,
209 N.C. 424.
34 C.J. p 293 note 76.
Setting aside judgments because of
defects or insufficiency in plead-
ings generally see supra § 277.
46. Ga. — Henderson v. Ellarbee, 131
S.E. 524, 35 Ga.App. «.
34 CJT. p 293 note 77.
47. Wyo. — James v. Lederer-Strauss
& Co., 233 P. 137, 32 Wyo. 377.
Petition stating prima facie cause of
action
In motion to vacate default judg-
ment after expiration of term at
which judgment was rendered, de-
fendant cannot question sufficiency
of petition, allegations of which
state prima facie cause of action. —
Royse v. Grage, 28 P.2d 732, 138
Kan. 779.
48. Ga.— Tolbert v. Tolbert, 154 S.E.
655, 41 Ga.App. 737.
Ill,— Baxter v. Atchison, T. & S. P.
Ry. Co., 35 N.E.2d 563, 310 IlLApp.
616.
Minn.— Pilney v. Punk, 3 N.W.2d 792,
212 Minn. 398.
Pa. — Borough of Wilkinsburg v.
School Dist of Borough of Wil-
kinsburg, 148 A. 77, 298 Pa. 193—
Waber v. Schaffhauser, 34 PaJDist.
& Co. 348.
34 C.J. p 293 note 83.
There in a difference between a
defective statement of a good cause
of action and a statement of no
cause of action where the complaint
is wholly insufficient to make out
a cause of action. A judgment by
default on the former is erroneous
and must be appealed from; the
latter is irregular and can be set
aside within a reasonable time where
merit is shown and there is no lach-
es.— Hood ex rel. Citizens Bank &
Trust Co. v. Stewart, 184 S.E. 36,
209 N.C. 424.
Failure to file exhibits
Where the basis of plaintiff's ac-
tion consisted of two exhibits said
to have been filed therewith, and his
petition did not purport to copy or
use the language of either one of
those exhibits, and plaintiff had
never filed either one of them, and
it appeared that attorney for defend-
ants moved the court to require
plaintiff to file with his petition the
exhibits referred to therein, the
court abused its discretion in over-
ruling motion to set aside default
judgment — Miller v. Sachs, 258 S.W.
84, 201 Ky. 630.
Default Judgment for want of affi-
davit of defense will be opened if
plaintiff's statement was not suffi-
cient to call for such affidavit —
Bichey v. Gibboney, 34 A.2d 913, 154
622
Pa. Super. 1 — Nikulnikoff v. Ortho-
dox Russian Church of St Andrew,
Inc., 97 Pa. Super. 291 — Cadwallader
v. Firestone, Pa.Com.Pl., 7 Fay.LuJ.
259.
Default Judgment properly set aside
A default judgment against indi-
vidual defendants doing business as
association, not named in caption of
summons and complaint, or charged
in complaint, as defendant, was
properly set aside as against con-
tention that lack of partnership or
common name in such caption could
not nullify judgment, as attack on
judgment was based on entire ab-
sence of material allegations in body
of complaint, not merely words in
caption. — Burns v. Downs, 108 P.2d
953, 42 Cal.App.2d 322.
49. Okl. — Nordman v. School Dist.
No. 32 of Choctaw County, 121 P,
2d 290, 190 Okl. 135.
Irregularity as ground for vacating
default judgment generally see su-
pra subdivision b (2) of this sec-
tion.
5<K Ga. — Burch v. Wofford-Terrell
Co., 184 S.E. 419, 52 Ga,App. 685.
51. N.T. — Von Wilmowsky v. Prin-
dle, 234 N.T.S. 15, 225 App.Div.
594.
52. Ariz. — Daly v. Okamura, 213 P.
389, 25 Ariz. 50.
N.J.— Nutley Finance Co. v. De Fed-
ericis, 150 A. 241, 8 N.J.Misc. 382.
S.D.— Languein v. Olson, 227 N.W.
869, 56 S.D. 1.
Ignorance as ground for vacation of
judgments generally see supra 9
280.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 334
of the law53 or rules of court,54 is not a sufficient
excuse for failure to plead or for a default. So the
illiteracy of a defendant, or ignorance of the Eng-
lish language, of the course of judicial procedure,
or of his rights and duties, will furnish no excuse
for failing to defend the action, or justify the va-
cation of the judgment, where he at least knew
that he had been sued, and neglected to ask infor-
mation or advice from others.55 Where, however,
defendant has failed to answer because of ignorance
of the law, and it is properly shown that he has a
meritorious defense, and that no harm has resulted
or will result, the default judgment may, in the dis-
cretion of the court, be vacated.56
I. Absence of Party or Counsel
The mere un excused absence of SL party or his coun-
sel from the trial Is not ground for opening or setting
aside a default judgment, although such relief may be
granted on a showing of sufficient excuse for the ab-
sence.
In the absence of a statute providing otherwise,57
the mere fact that a party was absent from the
trial is no cause for opening or setting aside a de-
fault judgment where his absence is not excused or
shown to have been unavoidable.58 Also the mere
absence of one's attorney at the time of the trial
is no cause for opening or setting aside a default
judgment,5^ and relief will not be granted for this
reason unless counsel was prevented from appear-
ing by accident, mistake, or other reasonable
cause.60 It has been considered a sufficient excuse
that the absent attorney was engaged at the time
in trying a case in another court,61 or that he was
63. Ariz. — Daly v, Okamura, 213 P.
3S9, 25 Ariz. 50.
Cal.— Williams v. McQueen, 265 P.
339, 89 Cal.App. 659.
Minn. — Application of Bonley, 6 N.
W.2d 245, 213 Minn. 214.
Mo.— Reuck v. Strickland, 12 S.W.2d
764, 222 Mo.App. 1171.
Pa, — Commonwealth v. Dr. Crandall's
Health School, Com.Pl., 51 Dauph.
Co. 333.
S.D.— Languein v. Olson, 227 N.W.
369, 6S S.D. 1.
Attorney's ignorance of law as ex-
cuse for default see infra subdivi-
sion n (6) (d) of this section.
64. Mo.— Reuck v. Strickland, 12 S.
W.2d 764, 222 Mo.App. 1171.
55. Ariz. — Daly v. Okamura, 213 P.
389, 25 Ariz. 50.
S.D. — Languein v. Olson, 227 N.W.
369, 56 S.D. 1.
34 C.J. p 301 note 44.
56. Mo.— Reuck v. Strickland, 12 S.
W.2d 764, 222 Mo.App. 1171.
. 34 C.J. p 301 notes 45, 46.
Discretion of court generally see In-
fra § 337.
Existence of defense of which de-
faulted party was ignorant as
ground for opening judgment see
supra subdivision f of this section.
57. Ga.— Lankford r. Milhollin, 28
S.E.2d 752, 197 Ga. 227.
Judgment of partition
The statute providing that when
judgment of partition is had any
party in interest absent from state
or not notified may move to set aside
such judgment within twelve months
is not dependent on absence of serv-
ice, but applies where party in in-
terest is absent from state or has
not been notified. — Lankford v. Mil-
hollin, supra.
58. Mass. — Beserosky v. Mason, 168
N.E. 726, 269 Mass. 325.
Mo. — Harrison v. McNergney, App.,
Ill S.W.2d 191.
Tex.— Cauble v. Key, Clv.App., 256 S.
W. 654.
34 C.J. p 315 note 26.
Absence of:
Counsel as unavoidable casualty or
misfortune see infra subdivision
n (7) of this section.
Party or counsel as ground for
opening or setting aside judg-
ment generally see supra § 280.
Attendance at school
Fact that defendant was a uni-
versity student, and had to attend to
his duties at time of trial, is insuffi-
cient ground for vacating default
judgment. — Lynch v. Powers, 200 N.
W. 725, 198 Iowa 1060. .
59. Ark. — Morrow v. Lindsey, 262
S.W. 641, 164 Ark. 606.
Cal.— Taecker v. Parker, 93 P.2d 197,
34 Cal.App.2d 143.
Kan.— Johnson v. Salkeld, 271 P. 385,
126 Kan. 807.
La.— Rodick v. Jacobs, 116 So. 583,
166 La. 30.
Mo. — McFarland v. Lasswell, App.,
282 S.W. 447.
N.Y. — Dewey v. Agostini Bros. Bldg.
Corporation, 283 N.Y.S. 174, 246
App.Div. 667 — Zaza v. Zaza, 246
N.Y.S. 148, 138 Misc. 218— Bno v.
Tracy, 223 N.T.S. 674, 130 Misc.
198— United Textile Print Works
v. Black Knitting Mills, 205 N.Y.S.
196, 123 Misc. 299.
Ohio.— Balind v. Lanigan, 159 N.E.
1Q3, 26 Ohio App. 149.
Okl. — Runyan v. Hecker, 66 P.2d
1072, 179 Okl. 595— Wheeler v.
Walker, 294 P. 641, 147 Okl. 63.
Tex.— ^Briggs v. Ladd, Civ.App., 64
S.W.2d 389— Colorado River Syndi-
cate Subscribers v. Alexander, Civ.
App., 288 S.W. 586.
W.Va.— Hill' v. Long, 150 S.B. 6, 107
W.Va. 664.
34 C.J, p 315 note 2fc
Attorney's abandonment of, or with-
drawal from, case as ground for
vacating default see infra subdi-
vision n (6) (f ) of this section.
623
Refusal of Jury trial on, tardy ar-
rival
Defendant, not present with his
counsel at time assigned for trial
of case, which court offered to hear
on its merits without intervention
of jury when defendant's attorney,
appearing after default was entered
and jury panel excused, asked court
to set aside default and permit de-
fense, was offered all he was entitled
to, and, having refused to proceed as
directed by court cannot complain of
default and permission of plaintiff
to prove his case on appeal from
order overruling his motion to set
aside default and judgment for plain-
tiff.—Vaux v. Hensal, 277 N.W. 718,
224 Iowa 1055.
60. Conn. — Barton v. Barton, 196 A.
141, 123 Conn. 487.
N.M.— Abbott v. Sherman Mines, 71
P.2d 1037, 41 N.M. 531.
N.Y.— Posin v. Hawley, 232 N.Y.S.
441, 225 App.Div. 763 — Zaza v. Za-
za, 246 N.Y.S. 148, 138 Misc. 218.
34 C.J. p 315 note 32.
61. Cal.— Nicol v. Davis, 265 P. 867,
90 CaLApp. 337.
N.Y.— Kefer v. Gunches, 48 N.Y.S.2d
767.
Tex, — Yellow Transit Co. v. Klaff,
Civ.App., 145 S.W.Sd 264.
34 OJ. p 316 note 33.
Tolerance of court In enforcing* at-
tendance
With respect to right to set aside
a default judgment, generally courts
recognize that counsel are at times
unable to transact business in court
at the particular time required on
account of urgent business or on ac-
count of being busily engaged with
other legal matters, and under such
a showing they are tolerant in en-
forcing attendance of counsel. — Unit-
ed Taxi Co. v. Dilworth, 20 NJB.2d
699, 106 IndApp. 627.
334
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
delayed by obstruction to travel,62 or even that the
multiplicity and pressure of his professional en-
gagements prevented him from giving attention to
the
On the other hand it has been held to be no ex-
cuse that the attorney was absent because of try-
ing another case in another court where he took in-
sufficient steps to notify the other party and the
court of the reason for his absence,64 and many
courts have refused to accept the excuse that the
attorney was detained elsewhere by important busi-
ness, even when it was of a public character, such
as his attendance on the legislature, of which he
was a member.65 According to some cases, if the
attorney is detained on his way to the place of
trial, he should telephone or telegraph to the judge,
and ask him to have the case held;66 and one seek-
ing to vacate a judgment obtained in his absence
must show not only good excuse for his absence,
but also that he was unable to notify the court
thereof.67 A judgment entered during the absence
of a party and his counsel may be set aside where
such absence was due to the mistake, neglect, or
omission of the clerk of the court in placing the case
on a docket to which it did not belong without no-
tice to counsel and then not notifying them of the
assignment of the case for trial.68
m. Illness or Death
The Illness of a party or his close relative, the Ill-
ness or death of an attorney or his close relative, or
the Illness of a material and necessary witness Is a
sufficient excuse for a default, provided the alleged con-
sequence thereof could not have been prevented or ob-
viated by the exercise of due care or diligence.
Illness is not a sufficient excuse for a default
where the exercise of due care or diligence would
have prevented or obviated the alleged consequences
of such illness.69 If a party is prevented by sickness
from preparing his case or attending the trial, and
the circumstances are such that his personal atten-
tion and presence are necessary to the due protec-
tion of his rights, a default judgment against him
may be set aside;70 and default judgments have
been opened or vacated largely, if not altogether,
on the ground of serious illness of a close relative
actually preventing attendance of the party.71 It
is otherwise where the party's interests were, or
could have been, adequately protected by attorney or
agent without the personal presence or attention of
the party.72
Of counsel or his relative. The illness of a par-
62. Ark. — Supreme Lodge, Woodmen
of Union, r. Johnson, 17 S.W.2d
323, 179 Ark. 589.
Cal. — Peterson v. Taylor, 152 P.2d
349, 66 Cal.App.2d 333.
34 C.J. p 316 note 37.
63. Kan. — Gordan v. Tennhardt, 8
P.2d 328, 134 Kan. 799.
Miss. — Planters' Dumber Co. v. Sib-
ley, 93 So. 440, 130 Miss. 26.
Mo. — Goodwin v. Kochitltzky, App.,
3 S.W.2d 1051.
34 C.J. p 316 note 38.
64. Mo. — Williams v. Barr, App., 61
S.W.2d 420 — Schopp v. Continental
Underwriters' Co., App., 284 S.W.
808 — Daugherty v. Lanning-Harris
Coal & Grain Co., 265 S.W. 866, 218
Mo. App. 187 — Case v. Arky, App.,
253 S.W. 484.
65. Ark. — Morrow v. Lindsey, 262
S.W. 641, 164 Ark. 606.
Kan. — Royse v. Grage, 42 P.2d 942,
141 Kan. 702.
34 C.J. p 316 note 43.
66. Cal.— Hall v. Bru, 13 P.2d 716,
216 Cal. 153.
Minn. — Caughey v. Northern Pac. El.
Co., 53 N.W. 545, 51 Minn. 324.
67. Ga. — Eves v. Davison-Paxon Co.,
161 S.B. 275, 44 Ga.App. 322.
Ind. — United Taxi Co. v. Dilworth,
20 N.R.2d 699, 106 Ind.App. 627.
68. Kan. — Samuel Ach Co. v.
Thorpe, 278 P. 15, 128 Kan. 296.
69. Ark. — Thomas v. Arnold, 96 S.
W.2d 1108, 192 Ark. 1127.
111. — Conard v. Camphouse, 230 111.
App. 598.
Mont. — Pacific Acceptance Corpora-
tion v. McCue, 228 P. 761, 71 Mont.
99.
34 C.J. p 317 note 47.
Illness:
As unavoidable casualty or mis-
fortune authorizing vacation of
default judgment see infra sub-
division n (7) of this section.
Or death as ground for vacating
judgment generally see supra S§
276, 280.
70. Ariz. — Swisshelm Gold Silver
Co. v. Farwell, 124 P.2d 544, 59
Ariz. 162.
Cal.— Salsberry v. Julian, 277 P. 516,
98 Cal.App. 638, followed in 277 P.
518, amended 278 P. 257, 98 Cal.
App. 645— Pink & Schindler Co. v.
Gavros, 237 P. 1083, 72 CaLApp.
688.
Me.— Bolduc v. Nadeau, 148 A. 565,
128 Me. 542.
Minn.— Deaver v. Nelson, 230 N.W.
122, 180 Minn. 36.
Mo. — Anspach v. Jans en, 78 S.W.2d
137, 229 Mo.App. 321.
34 C.J. p 316 note 44.
Mental condition
111.— Kemper v. Fournier, 12 N.E.2d
339, 293 ULApp. 629.
Neb.— Citizens' State Bank of Cedar
Rapids v. Toung, 244 N.W 294
123 Neb. 786.
34 C.J. p 316 note 44 [b], [c],
624
Childbirth
Court properly set aside Judgment
granting writ of possession against
defendant who failed to appear be-
cause of childbirth but who immedi-
ately thereafter sued to set aside-
judgment. — Hazard Lumber & Sup-
ply Co. v. Horn, 15 S.W.2d 492, 228.
Ky. 554.
nines* of officer of defendant
Where officer of defendant bank,,
who attended to its litigation, be-
came .ill, and as a result services of-
attorney were not secured until an-
employee happened to run across .
matter, and attorney on same day-
prepared plea of privilege and mail-
ed it to clerk of trial court, fact
that plea was not filed until shortly
after hour citation was returnable,
and default judgment entered, was
excusable. — First Nat. Bank v.
Southwest Nat. Bank of Dallas, Tex.
Civ.App., 273 S.W. 951.
71. Ky.— Welch v. Mann's Ex'r, 81
S.W.2d 1, 261 Ky. 470.
34 OJ. p 317 note 49.
72. 111. — Conard v. Camphouse, 230
IlLApp. 598.
N.Y. — Quist v. Gwinup, 46 N.Y.S.23
105, 267 App.Div. 224.
Philippine.— Adela v. Judge of Ilocos
Sur. Court of First Instance, &
Philippine 674, 4 OftGaz. 728.
W.Va.— State ex rel. Alkire v. Mili,.
180 S,E. 183, 116 W.Va. 277.
34 C.J. p 317 note 45.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
334
ty's counsel, so severe as to prevent him from ap-
pearing and trying the case, is good ground for va-
cating a default judgment, provided such party did
not know of it in time to retain other counsel or
was prevented in some other way from doing so;73
otherwise such illness of counsel is not ground for
vacating the judgment.74 The same rule applies in
the case of the illness of a member of the attorney's
family, or a near relative, withdrawing his attention
from professional business and leaving the client
without legal aid and without opportunity to retain
other counsel.75 Death of one's attorney may be
ground for vacating a default judgment76
Of material and necessary witness. A default
judgment may be set aside on the ground of the
illness of a material and necessary witness at the
time originally scheduled for trial.77
n. Mistake, Inadvertence, Surprise, Excusable
Neglect, Casualty, or Misfortune
(1) In general
(2) Mistake
(3) Surprise
(4) Inadvertence
(5) Excusable neglect
(6) Negligence, mistake, or misconduct
of counsel
(7) Unavoidable casualty or misfortune
(1) In General
A default judgment ordinarily may be opened or va»
eated for mistake, Inadvertence, surprise, excusable neg-
lect, casualty, or misfortune.
A default judgment ordinarily may be opened or
vacated for mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusa-
ble neglect, casualty, or misfortune;78 but, in or-
73. Fla. — Johnson v. City of Se-
bring, 140 So. 672, 104 Fla. 584.
Iowa. — Equitable Life Ins. Co. of
Iowa v. McNamara, 259 N.W. 231,
220 Iowa 297, supplemented and
rehearing denied 262 N.W. 466,
220 Iowa 297.
N.J. — Jarrett v. Standard Diesel En-
gine Co., 12 A.2d 671, 124 N.J.Law
429.
N.Y.— Gawel v. Deluca, 31 N.T.S.2d
567, 263 App.Div. 838— Allen v.
Lake, 201 N.Y.S. 882, 207 App.Div.
886.
Pa, — Lichterman v. Hanlon, 100 Pa-
Super. 245.
R.T. — Hoye v. Red Top Cab Co. of
Rhode Island, 150 A. 125.
Tex. — Stollenwerck v. State Nat.
Bank in Terrell, Civ.App., 63 S.W.
2d 312.
34 C.J. p 317 note 52.
Mental confusion or aberration
Cal.— Hayes v. Pierce, 64 P.2d 728,
18 Cal.App.2d 531.
Mental inoompetency
N.Y. — Kamelhaar v. National Transp.
Co., 29 N.Y.S.2d 745, 176 Misc.
1005.
74. Ala. — Brown v. Brown, 105 So.
171, 213 Ala. 339.
Cal. — Thomas v. Toppins, 272 P.
1042, 206 Cal. 18.
Tex, — Welsch v. Keeton, Civ.App.,
287 S.W. 692.
34 C.J. p 317 note 52.
Vacation properly denied
(1) The trial judge did not abuse
his discretion in refusing to vacate
default judgment for excusable neg-
lect on affidavit of defendant's offi-
cer that he became suddenly ill and
was confined to his home "for two
weeks or more" after placing sutn-
mons and complaint on his desk,
that a clerk filed away such papers
and failed to call matter to affiant's
attention after his return to work,
49 C.J.S.-40
and that absence thereof from his
desk caused affair to escape his no-
tice.— Rutledge v. Junior Order of
United American Mechanics, 193 S.
E. 434, 185 S.C. 142.
(2) Defendant's motion to vacate
default judgment, on the ground
that failure to appear was due to
sickness of counsel, was properly de-
nied where it did not appear that
such counsel agreed to represent de-
fendant, defendant was present in
court on the day the case was called
without attempting to have case con-
tinued and the application to vacate
default was not timely made. — Dodd
v. State, Tex.Civ.App., 193 S.W.2d
569.
Inability to notify court
Defendant seeking to vacate judg-
ment entered in his absence, as re-
sult of serious illness of attorney,
must show attorney's inability to
notify court. — Eves v. Davison-Paxon
Co., 161 S.E. 275, 44 Ga.App. 322.
75. Ark. — Johnson v. Jett, 159 S.W.
2d 78, 203 Ark. 861.
Cal.— Stub v. Harrison, 96 P.2d 979,
35 Cal.App.2d 685.
S.C. — Jenkins v. Jones, 38 S.E.2d
255.
34 OJ. p 318 note 53.
Illness of attorney and wife
Where failure to file an answer
was due to illness and death of at-
torney's wife, and prolonged illness
of attorney himself failure or neg-
lect of attorney to file answer was
excusable. — Gunter v. Dowdy, 31 S.E.
2d 524, 224 N.C. 522.
76. Fla, — Johnson v. City of Se-
bring, 140 So. 672, 104 Fla. 584.
34 C.J. P 318 note 54.
77. N.Y. — Braverman v. Monterey
Operating Corporation, 283 N.Y.S.
874, 246 App.Div. 735.
78. U.S.— Little v. Cox & Carpen-
ter, C.C.A.Miss., 66 F.2d 84, cer-
625
tiorari denied 54 S.Ct 102, 290 IT*
S. 678, 78 L.Ed. 585.
Ala, — Ex parte Southern Amiesite
Asphalt Co., 200 So. 435, 30 Ala.
App. 3, certiorari denied 200 So.
434, 240 Ala. 618.
Cal.— McNeil v. Blumenthal, 81 P.2d
566, 11 Cal.2d 566, followed in Le
Due v. Blumenthal, 81 P.2d 567, 11
Cal.2d 780 — Pease v. City of San
Diego, App., 169 P.2d 973— Potts v.
Whitson, 125 P.2d 947, 52 CaLApp.
2d' 199 — Sofuye v. Pieters-Wheeler
Seed Co., 216 P. 990, 62 CaLApp*
198.
Colo.— Calkins v. Smalley, 294 P. 534*
88 Colo. 227.
D.C. — Barnes v. Conner, Mun.App.»
44 A.2d 925.
Ind. — Falmouth State Bank v. Hayes*
185 N.B. 662, 97 Ind.App. 68.
Md.— Martin v. Long, 120 A. 875*
142 Md. 348.
N.T. — Luckenbach S. S. Co; v. Musso,
16 N.Y.S.2d 378, 258 App.Div. 914.
N.D. — Chittenden & Eastman Co. v.
Sell, 227 N.W. 188, 58 N.D. 664—
Tesel v. Watson, 216 N.W. 199, 66
N.D. 98— First State Bank of Cros-
by v. Thomas, 208 N.W. 852, 54
N.D. 108 — Engen v. Medberry
Farmers' Equity Elevator Co., 204
N.W. 7, 52 N.D. 681.
S.C.— Jenkins v. Jones, 88 S.E.2d 255.
Tex. — Sunshine Bus Lines v. Crad-
dock, Civ.App., .112 S.W.2d 248,
affirmed Craddock v. Sunshine Bus
Lines, 133 S.W.2d 124, 124 Tex. 388
— Hadad v. Ellison, Civ.App., 283:
S.W. 193.
W.Va. — Sigmond v. Forbes, 158 S.BL
677, 110 W.Va, 442— Sands v.
Sands, 138 S.E. 463, 103 W.Va.
701.
34 C.J. p 296 notes 4-7.
Mistake, inadvertence, surprise, ex-
cusable neglect, casualty, or mis-
fortune as ground for opening or
vacating judgments generally see
supra § 280.
§ 334
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
der to obtain relief under statutes authorizing it in
such cases, the default judgment from which relief
is sought must be valid and regular in all respects,79
although, as shown supra subdivision b of this sec-
tion, relief from void or irregular default judgments
may be had in proper cases. The mistake, inadver-
tence, surprise, or excusable neglect referred to in
such statutes does not apply only to the mistake,
inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect of the
attorney for one of the parties, but also applies to
that of the parties themselves;80 and such statutes
do not apply to, or afford relief from, errors of
law committed by the court.81 The mistake or neg-
lect relied on as a basis for relief, to be sufficient,
must be such as may be expected on the part of a
reasonably prudent person situated as was the party
against whom the judgment was entered.82
(2) Mistake
(a) In general
(b) As to cause of action or defense
(c) As to time or place of appearance or
trial
(d) As to process
(e) As to employment of counsel
(a) In General
A default Judgment may be opened or vacated where
the appearance of a party or his pleading was prevented
by mistake, particularly a mistake of fact, although un-
der some circumstances a mistake of law may afford
sufficient basis for the relief.
A default may be excused and a default judgment
opened or vacated where the appearance of the
party or his pleading was prevented by mistake.8*
To vacate a default judgment, it is generally incum-
bent on the defaulted party to show that his mis-
take was one of fact, and not of law,8* but in some
jurisdictions it has been held that, if a mistake of
law is a reasonable one under the facts as they are
made to appear, the neglect to file an answer be-
cause of the belief entertained is at least excusa-
ble.85 According to some authorities, the mistake
contemplated by statutes relating to relief from de-
fault judgments is such as might be expected on
the part of a reasonably prudent person under the
circumstances.86 If a statute gives the right to open
79. N.C. — Simms v. Sampson, 20 S.
B.2d 554, 221 N.C. 379— Abbitt v.
Gregory, 141 S.E. 587, 195 N.C.
203 — Foster v. Allison Corpora-
tion, 131 S.B. 648, 191 N.C. 166, 44
A.L.R. 610 — Duffer v. Brunson, 125
S.E. 619, 188 N.C. 789.
80. N.Y.— Pember v. Meyer, 45 N.Y.
S.2d 673.
81. Ind. — Colvert v. Colvert, 180 N.
B. 192, 95 Ind.App. 325.
Brror in law as ground for vacating
default judgment generally see
supra subdivision g of this section.
82. Idaho. — Savage v. Stokes, 28 P.
2d 900, 54 Idaho 109.
"If judgment be entered against a.
party in his absence before he can
be relieved therefrom he must show
that it was the result of a mis-
take or inadvertence which reasona-
ble care could not have avoided, a
surprise which reasonable precaution
could not have prevented, or a neg-
lect which reasonable prudence could
not have anticipated."— Elms v.
Elms, Cal.App., 164 P.2d 936, 939.
"It is not every inadvertence or
negligence that warrants judicial re-
lief, but only such inadvertence or
negligence as may reasonably be
characterized as excusable." — Hughes
v. Wright, 149 P.2d 392, 395, 64 Cal.
App.2d 897.
83. U.S. — Marion County Court, W.
V*., v. Ridge, C.C.A.W.Va., 13 P.2d
969.
Cal.— Bonftlio v. Ganger, 140 P.2d
861, 60 Cal.App.2d 405.
Or. — Snyder v. Consolidated Highway
Co., 72 P.2d 932, 157 Or. 479.
Pa.— Giles T. Ryan, 176 A. 1, 317
Pa. 65.
34 C.J. p 296 note 9.
Mistake as ground for opening or
vacating judgments generally see
supra § 280.
Opening or vacating default judg-
ment for mistake of counsel see
infra subdivision n (6) of this
section.
Vacation of judgment during term at
which rendered
Okl. — Illinois Electric Porcelain Co.
v. B. & M. Const Corporation, 117
P.2d 106, 189 Okl. 336.
84. Idaho. — Kingsbury v. Brown, 92
P.2d 1053, 60 Idaho 464, 124 A.L.R.
149.
111. — Loew v. Krauspe, 150 N.E. 683,
320 111. 244.
N.C.— Lerch Bros. v. McKinne Bros.,
122 S.E. 9, 187 N.C. 419— Battle v.
Mercer, 122 S.B. 4, 187 N.C. 437,
rehearing denied 123 S.B. 258, 188
N.C. 116.
Philippine.— Adela v.. Judge of Ilocos
Sur. Court of First Instance, 6
Philippine 674, 4 Off.Gaz. 728.
S.c. — Savage v. Cannon, 30 S.E.2d 70,
204 S.C. 473 — Corpus Juris cited in
Lucas v. North Carolina Mut Life
Ins. €o., 191 S.B. 711, 712, 184 S.
C. 119.
34 C.J. p 297 note 10.
Counsel's ignorance or mistake of
law as affecting right to open or
vacate default judgment see in-
fra subdivision n (6) (d) of this
section.
Error or mistake of fact going to
validity or regularity of judgment
as ground for opening or vacating
626
default judgment see supra subdi-
vision h of this section.
Mistake as to process as ground for
vacating default judgment see in-
fra subdivision n (2) (d) of this
section.
Vacating default judgment on ground
that it is erroneous in matter of
law see supra subdivision g of this
section.
Hfeld mistake of law
Mistaken belief of defendant that
complaint would be served on it
after summons had been served was
a "mistake of law." — Anderson v.
Toledo Scale Co., 6 S.E.2d 465, 192
S.C. 300.
Mistaken "belief as to effect of
judgment taken against a party with
his knowledge and on his willful de-
fault is not ground for vacation
of the judgment. — Messing v. Mat-
tikow, 197 N.Y.S. 620, 120 Misc. 68.
85. Cal.— Waite v. Southern Pac.
Co., 221 P. 204, 192 Cal. 467 —
Roehl v. Texas Co., 291 P. 262,
107 CaLApp. 728 — Mahana v. Al-
exander, 263 P. 260, 88 CaLApp.
Ill—Williams v. Thompson, 213 P.
705, 60 CaLApp. 658.
Or. — Federal Reserve Bank of San
Francisco v. Weant, 231 P. 134, 113
Or. 1.
S.c. — Savage v. Cannon, 30 S.B.2d
70, 204 S.C. 473.
34 C.J. p 298 note 11.
88. Idaho.— Cleek v. Virginia Gold
Mining & Milling Co., 122 P.2d
232, 63 Idaho 445— Atwood v.
Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 217 P. 600,
37 Idaho 554.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 334
or vacate a judgment taken against a party through
"his" mistake, no mistake made by any other per-
son will justify this action.87
(b) As to Cause of Action or Defense
A default suffered because of a reasonable and ex-
cusable misapprehension as to the cause of action or
defense may be set aside.
Where a party suffers a default judgment because
of a reasonable and excusable misapprehension as to
the cause of action or defense, the judgment should
be set aside,88 and this has been held to be the rule
even though the misapprehension was as to the
law.89
(c) As to Time or Place of Appearance or
Trial
A party may have a default Judgment opened or set
aside when he has made an honest and excusable mis-
take as to the time or place for appearance, pleading,
or trial.
A party may have a default judgment opened or
set aside when be has made an honest and excusa-
ble mistake as to the time when he was required to
plead or answer90 or as to the time of trial,91 but
not where the mistake was the result of his own
heedlessness or lack of due attention and care.92
In view of a court rule that all cases at issue on
the merits at the commencement of a term shall
stand for trial on the first day of the term, a party
is not warranted in assuming that his case would
not be reached on that day, and his failure to ap-
pear for trial on that day is not ground for vacat-
ing a decree taken in his absence.9^
Where an inexperienced suitor attempted to com-
ply with a summons by appearing in the office of
plaintiffs attorney, understanding such appearance
to be sufficient, a default judgment may be opened
on the ground that his failure to appear was due to
excusable neglect, other requisites being present94
(d) As to Process
A default Judgment may be vacated where the de-
fendant's failure to appear was due to an excusably mis-
taken belief as to process.
A default judgment may be vacated where de-
fendant's failure to appear was due to an excusa-
bly mistaken belief that no process had been
served95 or where defendant thought the summons
87. N.C.— Corpus Juris quoted in
Earle v. Earle, 151 S.E. 884, 887,
198 N.C. 411.
34 C.J. p 298 note 12.
88. N.Y.— Zimraer v. Wilber, 5 N.Y.
S.2d 573, 254 AppJDiv. 917.
Or. — Federal Reserve Bank of San
Francisco v. Weant, 231 P. 134, 113
Or. 1.
34 C.J. p 298 note 19-p 299 note 24.
Mistake as to cause of action as
ground for. setting1 aside judgments
generally see supra § 280.
89. Or. — Federal Reserve Bank of
San Francisco v. Weant, supra.
Vacation of default judgment for
mistake of la,w generally see su-
pra subdivision n (2) (a) of this
section.
90. Ariz.— Brown v. Beck, 169 P.2d
855.
N.D.— Burgett v. Porter, 205 N.W.
623, 53 N.D. 312.
Pa,— Remick v. Letterle, 89 Pa.Su-
per. 322.
34 C.J. p 299 note 25.
Mistake:
As to time for pleading or trial as
ground for opening or setting
aside judgments generally see
supra § 280.
Of counsel as to time or place of
appearance or trial as ground
for opening or vacating default
judgment see infra subdivision
n (6) (c) of this section.
91. Conn. — Mountain States Silver
Mining Co. v. Hukill, .244 P. 605,
79 Colo. 128.
Kan.— Kansas City Power & Light
Co. v. City of Elkhart, 31 P.2d
62, 139 Kan. 374.
Ky. — Lewis v. Browning, 4 S.W.2d
734, 223 Ky. 771.
N.T.— Kopisar v. Paley, 219 N.T.S.
82, 128 Misc. 463.
Okl.— Carter v. Grimmett, 213 P. 732,
89 Okl. 37.
Or. — Snyder v. Consolidated Highway
Co., 72' P.2d 932, 157 Or. 479.
R.I. — Rhode Island Discount Corpo-
ration v. Carr, 136 A. 244.
S.D. — Johnson v. Johnson, 210 N.W.
155, 50 S.D. 341.
Tex. — Meckel v. State Bank of
Barksdale, Civ.App., 256 S.W. 668.
Va. — Morriss v. White, 131 S.E. 835,
146 Va, 553.
34 OJ. p 299 note 25.
Want or insufficiency of notice of
proceedings as ground for opening
or vacating default judgment see
supra subdivision b (3) of this
section.
Time for filing papers
Where defendant had made clear
to court and to plaintiff that defend-
ant intended to defend the case, con-
tinuance of one day was granted,
court's alleged intention that defend-
ant should file his papers prior to
call of next day's calendar was not
clearly expressed and defendant filed
his affidavit of defense and demand
for jury trial a few hours after de-
fault was entered, default should be
vacated. — Barnes v. Conner, D.C.Mun.
App., 44 A.2d 925.
627
92. Colo.— Scott v. Sullivan, 244 P.
466, 79 Colo. 173.
111. — Latham v. Salisbury, 61 N.B.
2d 306, 326 Ill-App. 253— Travelers
Ins. Co. v. Wagner, 279 111. App.
13.
La. — Brownlee-Wells Motors v. Hol-
lingsworth, 127 So. 754, 13 La.
App. 19.
Okl.— Hall v. Price, 277 P. 239, 136
Okl. 202.
34 C.J. p 299 note 26.
Duty of party to know when case
will be called for trial see infra
subdivision n (5) (b) of this sec-
tion.
93. Conn. — Scott v. Sullivan, 244 P.
468, 79 Colo. 173.
94. N.T.— Pember v. Meyer, 45 N.T.
S.2d 673.
Opening or vacating default judg-
ments where appearance or plead-
ing was prevented by excusable
neglect see infra subdivision n (5)
of this section.
95. Mont. — Madson v. Petrie Trac-
tor & Equipment Co., 77 P.2d 1038,
106 Mont 382.
Mistake as to process as ground for
vacating judgments generally Bee
supra § 280.
Failure to file statutory return
Where return of service was not
filed as required by statute, defend-
ant's attorney was Justified in as-
suming that no service had been
made within fifteen-day period. —
Reynolds' v. Gladys Belle Oil Co.,
243 P. 576, 75 Mont 332.
§ 334
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
served on him was for his employer96 or was mis-
led by a belief that the process was in a different
suit97 Where defendant reasonably entertained a
belief that the service of process was invalid, a de-
fault judgment based on failure to answer will be
set aside under the statutory rule obtaining in some
jurisdictions that a reasonable mistake of law is
excusable,98 but, on the other hand, it has been
held that relief will not be granted merely because
defendant, through ignorance of the law, believed
that the process served was invalid,99 and the dis-
cretion of the trial court in refusing to vacate a
judgment on failure of defendant to appear where
defendant was erroneously advised that the service
was not good has been held properly exercised.1
(e) As to Employment of Counsel
A party ordinarily cannot procure the setting aside
of a default judgment against him on the ground of
his mistaken belief that he had retained an attorney to
protect his interests, but the circumstances of the case
may warrant the exercise of the court's discretion In
granting the relief.
A party ordinarily cannot procure the setting
aside of a default judgment against him on the
ground of his mistaken belief that he had retained
an attorney to protect his interests;2 but there are
cases of this kind where the court in the exercise
of its discretion has granted relief.3 Where the
mistake was as to the employment of counsel by a
person on whom defendant justifiably relied to at-
tend to that matter, it may furnish cause for vacat-
ing the judgment.4
(3) Surprise
In a number of Jurisdictions a default may be ex-
cused and a default Judgment opened or set aside where
the appearance of the party or his pleading was pre-
vented by surprise.
In a number of jurisdictions a default may be ex-
cused and a default judgment opened or set aside
where the appearance of the party or his pleading
was prevented by surprise,5 and there is authority
holding that, before a judgment by default regularly
entered will be opened for the purpose of interpos-
ing a defense, the one seeking to invoke the aid of
the court must establish surprise.6 There can be no
fixed formula by which the necessary element of
surprise may be measured in eve'ry case,7 but the
extenuating factors of each particular situation
must be the ultimate determinants,8 Neglect of an
96. Ky.— Steuerle v. T. B. Duncan
& Co., 299 S.W. 205, 221 Ky. 501.
97. Colo.— Green v. Halsted, 238 P.
40, 77 Colo. 578.
Mass.— -Hyde Park Sav. Bank v.
Davankoskas, 11 N.E.2d 3, 298
Mass. 421.
98. Cal.— Riskin v. Towers, 148 P.2d
611, 614, 24 Cal.2d 274, 153 A.L..R.
442, distinguishing Thorndyke v.
Jenkins, 142 P.2d 848, 61 OaLApp.
2d 119, and Wheat v. McNeill, 295
P. 102, 111 CaLApp. 72— Roehl v.
Texas Co., 291 P. 262, 107 CaLApP.
708.
Vacation of default Judgment for
mistake of law generally see supra
subdivision n (2) (a) of this sec-
tion.
99. N.D.— Foley v. Davis, 211 N.W.
818, 54 N.D. 864.
Ignorance as excuse for default gen-
erally see supra subdivision k of
this section.
1. Cal.— Moskowitz T. McGlinchey,
259 P. 105, 85 GaLApp. 189.
Setting aside default judgment suf-
fered in consequence of receiving
erroneous advice from attorney see
infra subdivision n (6) (e) of this
section.
•2. Cal. — Noble v. Reict-Avery Co.,
264 P. 841, 8-9 Cal.App. 75.
Tex. — Corpus Juris qrioted in Demp-
sey v. Gibson, Civ.App., 100 S.W.
2d 430, 432 — Colorado River Syn-
dicate Subscribers v. Alexander,
Civ.App., 288 S.W. 586.
34 C,J. p 300 note 89.
Duty to see that attorney under-
stands and accepts retainer see
infra subdivision n (5) (b) of this
section.
Mistake as to retainer of counsel as
ground for setting aside judgments
generally see supra § 280.
Miscarriage of letter
Default judgment could not be set
aside on mere showing that attorney
did not receive letter requesting him
to make defense. — George County
Bridge Co. v. Catlett, 144 So. 704,
165 Miss. 652.
3. Ark. — American Co. of Arkansas
v. Wilson, 61 S.W.2d 453, 187 Ark.
625.
Cal. — John A, Vaughan Corporation
v. Title Insurance & Trust Co., 12
P.2d 117, 123 CaLApp. 709.
34 C.J. p 300 note 40.
Miscarriage of letter
Relief has been granted where
foreign corporation's letter to its
attorney directing him to attend to
case miscarried. — Reynolds v. Gladys
Belle Oil Co., 243 P. 576, 75 Mont.
332.
4. Okl. — Bearman v. Bracken, 240
P. 713, 112 Okl. 237.
34 C.J. p 300 note 41.
5. U.S. — Marion County Court, W.
Va., v. Ridge, C.C.A.W.Va., 13 F.
2d 969.
N.J.— Viviano T. Service Bottling
Works, 158 A* 395, 10 N.J.Misc.
187,
34 C.J. p 301 note 47.
Surprise as ground for opening or
628
vacating judgments generally see
supra § 280.
6. N.J. — Hanover Trust Co. v. Rizzo,
166 A. 326, 110 N.J.Law 581— Mc-
Carthy v. Guire, 187 A. 739, 14 N.
J.Misc. 795.
7. N.J.— McCarthy v. Guire, supra.
8. N.J.— McCarthy v. Guire, supra.
Circumstances held to warrant re*
lief
(1) Calling a case for trial in the
absence of a party who had made
several unsuccessful attempts to
learn the probable date of trial. —
McCarthy v. Guire, supra.
(2) Entering judgment privately in
room adjoining courtroom without
notice to .defendant's attorney who
was present in court waiting for the
case to be called, and without men-
tion of case in open court. — Taylor v.
Combs, 23 S.W.2d 545, 232 Ky. 333.
Circumstancei held not to warrant
relief
(1) Fact that plaintiff took judg-
ment against defendant without indi-
cating Intention to press claim to
final determination, defendant being
detained to answer criminal charge.
—Gainer v. Smith, 132 S.B. 744, 101
W.Va, 314.
(2) Fact that defendant erroneous-
ly thought he was insured and sent
papers in suit to an insurance com-
pany for attention, which retained
them until after the time to answer
had expired. — Busching v. Vanden-
berg, 152 A. 704. 9 N.J.Misc. 43.
49 O.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
334
attorney to file a pleading within the time allowed
by law may fairly be considered a surprise on
his client warranting the vacation of a default judg-
ment against the latter.9
(4) Inadvertence
A default Judgment Inadvertently permitted may be
opened or set aside.
The trial court has great latitude in relieving a
party from a default judgment inadvertently per-
mitted.10 To be ground for relief, however, the
inadvertence must be based on more than mere for-
getfulness,11 and must be such as might be expected
on the part of a reasonably prudent person under
the circumstances.12
(5) Excusable Neglect
(a) In general
(b) Diligence required of suitors
(a) In General
In many jurisdictions a default may be excused and
a default judgment opened or set aside where the ap-
pearance of the party or his pleading was prevented
by excusable neglect based on more than mere forget-
fulness or utter indifference and inattention to busi-
ness.
In many jurisdictions a default may be excused
and a default judgment opened or set aside where
the appearance of the party or his pleading was
prevented by excusable neglect.13 Excusable neg-
lect must be based on more than mere forgetfulness
(3) Rendering: default Judgment,
where defendant had notice that
complaint would be filed and did not
show meritorious defense. — Perkins
v. Sharp, 131 S.B. 584, 191 N.C. 224.
(4) Rendering default judgment
where defendant was properly served,
and was chargeable with knowing
conseauences of law-suit, but ig-
nored such conseauences. — Hanover
Trust Co. v. Rizzo, 166 A. 326, 110
N.J.Law 581.
9. S.D.— W. B. Poshay Co. v.
Springfield Light & Power Co., 206
N.W. 239, 49 S.D. 92.
Negligence of attorney as ground for
vacating default judgment general-
ly see infra subdivision n (6) (b)
of this section.
10. Cal.— Week v. Sucher, 274 P.
579, 96 CaLApp. 422.
N.Y.— Baldwin v. Yellow Taxi Cor-
poration, 225 N.Y.S. 423, 221 App.
Div. 717, followed in Woodward v.
Weekes, 241 N.Y.S. 842, 228 App.
Div. 870.
Inadvertent entry of judgment as
ground for opening or vacating it
see supra subdivision b (4) of this
section.
Vacation of Judgment during1 term at
which rendered
Okl. — Illinois Electric Porcelain Co.
v. B. & M. Const Corporation, 117
P.2d 106, 189 Okl. 336.
Inadvertence of insurance carrier
In trespass to recover damages fer
injuries to one struck by defendant's
automobile, trial court did not abuse
discretion in opening default judg-
ment on prompt application, where
default occurred through no neglect
of defendant or his counsel, but
through inadvertence of defendant's
insurance carrier. — Scott v. Mc-
Ewing, 10 A.2d 436, 337 Pa. 273, 126
A.L.R. 367.
Inadvertence as to process served
Default judgment against corpora-
tion was held properly vacated for
inadvertent failure to call president's
attention to summons and complaint
served on secretary. — Gorman v. Cal-
ifornia Transit Co., 248 P. 923, 199
Cal. 246.
Inadvertence of clerk in placing
summons and complaint in a file
where the mayor of respondent city
did not see them does not constitute
such inadvertence as is contemplated
by statute authoring relief. — Boise
Valley Traction Co. v. Boise City,
214 P. 1037, 37 Idaho 20.
11. CaL— Gorman v. California
Transit Co., 248 P. 923, 199 Cal.
246.
12. Idaho.— Atwood v. Northern Pac.
Ry. Co., 217 P. 600, 37 Idaho 554.
Diligence required of suitors see in-
fra subdivision n (5) (b) of this
section.
13. U.S. — Marion County Court, W.
Va. v. Ridge, C.C.A.W.Va.f 13 F.2d
969.
CaL— Pease v. City of San Diego,
App., 169 P.2d 973— Tearney v.
Riddle, 149 P.2d 387, 64 CaLApp.
2d 783— Potts v. Whitson, 125 P.2d
947, 52 Cal.App.2d 199— Wright v.
Snyder, 32 P.2d 991, 138 CaLApp.
495— Toon v. Pickwick Stages,
Northern Division, 226 P. 628, 66
CaLApp. 450.
Minn.— First Trust & Savings Bank
v. U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co.,
194 N.W. 376, 156 Minn. 231.
Neb. — Ak-Sar-Ben Exposition Co. v.
Sorenson, 229 N.W. 13, 119 Neb.
358.
N-.Y.— Leslie I. Gumport, Inc., v.
Groell, 232 N.Y.S. 414, 225 App.Div.
696— Baldwin V. Yellow Taxi Cozv
poration, 225 N.Y.S. 423, 221 App.
Div. 717, followed in Woodward v.
Weekes, 241 N.Y.S. 842, 228 App.
Div. 870 — Union Trust Co. v. J. A.
Smith Milling Co., 216 N.Y.S. 505,
217 App.Div. 176— Pember v. Mey-
er, 45 N.Y.S.2d 673.
N.C.— Parker v. Smith, 18 S.R2d 118,
220 N.C. 821— Hershey Corpora-
tion v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.,
165 S.B. 550, 203 N.C. 184-r-J. B.
Colt Co. v. Martin, 160 S.B. 287,
201 KG. 354.
629
N.D.— Beehler v. Schantz, 1 N.W.Sd
344, 71 -N.D. 409.
Okl.— Hasfcell v. Cutler, 108 P.2d 146,
188 Okl. 239.
S.C. — Jenkins v. Jones, 38 S.E.2d 255.
S.D. — Gubele v. Methodist Deaconess
Hospital of Rapid City, 225 N.W.
57, 55 S.D. 100.
Tex. — Roberts v. Schlather & Stein-
meyer, Civ. App., 8 S.W.2d 296, er-
ror dismissed — Holland v. Stark,
Civ.App., 281 S.W. 590.
Wash. — Larson v. Zabroski, 152 P.2d
154, 21 Wash.2d 572, opinion ad-
hered to 155 P.2d 284, 21 Washed
572— Bishop v. Illman, 126 P.2d
582, 14 Wash.2d 13— Agricultural &
Live Stock Credit Corporation v.
McKenzie, 289 P. 527, 157 Wash.
597 — Jacobsen v. Defiance Lumber
Co., 253 P. 1088, 142 Wash, 642.
34 C.J. p 302 note 58.
Excusable neglect as ground for
opening or vacating Judgments
generally see supra § 280.
The word "neglect," as In civil
procedure rule authorizing court to
set aside default for excusable neg-
lect, means omission of proper atten-
tion, disregard of duty from indif-
ference or willfulness, failure to do,
use, or heed anything1, and negligence.
—Booth v. Central States Mut Ins
Ass'n, 15 N.W.2d 893, 235 Iowa 5.
Carelessness and negligence are
not akin to "excusable neglect" spec-
ified by statute as grounds for va-
cating default judgment. — Doyle v.
Rice Ranch Oil Co., 81 P.2d 980, 28
Cal.App.2d 18.
Defendant's failure to answer tro-
ver' suit, because he was informed
different proceeding would have to
be filed, was not excusable neglect.
— Coker v. Eison, 151 S.E. 682, 40
Ga.App. 835.
Failure to notify general manager
or attorney
The president of board of direc-
tors of power and irrigation dis-
trict and superintendent of power
and irrigation were at feult in not
notifying district's general manager
§ 334
JUDGMENTS
49 O.J.S.
on the part of the person or official charged with
the duty of responding to the legal process in due
time,14 and is such as might be expected on the part
of a reasonably prudent person under the circum-
stances;15 utter indifference and inattention to
business is not excusable neglect,16 and failure to
pay personal attention to the case is inexcusable
negligence.1? Thus, although under the -peculiar
circumstances of the particular case a different hold-
ing may be required,18 as a general rule, where
service of process has been made on a duly appoint-
ed agent who fails to notify his principal through
mere carelessness, such a showing does not con-
stitute excusable neglect,1* but constitutes inexcusa-
ble neglect,20 and the same rule applies where the
agent has been made so by law rather than by ap-
pointment.21
Reliance on the assurance of one not a party to
the action that he will take care of the matter does
not show such excusable neglect as would require
the trial court to set aside a default,22 although the
circumstances of the particular case may be such
as to warrant the court, in the exercise of its dis-
or attorney that action was pend-
ing against the district, but their
conduct was not so inexcusable as
to defeat the district's right to a
trial of the issues on the merits,
and hence default judgment against
the district would be set aside on
motion of district.— Barney v. Platte
Valley Public Power & Irr. Dist.,
Neb., 23 N.W.2d 335.
Judgment taken against petitioner,
after petitioner failed timely to
amend petition, demurrer to which
was sustained, was within purview
of statute authorizing relief from
judgment taken through excusable
neglect, and order vacating judgment
was not clear abuse of trial court's
discretion.— Greenamyer v. Board of
Trustees of Lugo Elementary School
Dist. in L.OS Angeles County, 2 P.2d
848, 116 CaLApp. 319.
14. Cal. — Gorman v. California
Transit Co., 248 P. 923, 199 Cal.
246.
Idaho.— Boise Valley Traction Co. v.
Boise City, 214 P. 1037, 37 Idaho
20.
Minn.— Whipple v. Mahler, 10 N.W.
1 2d 771, 215 Minn. 578.
Mont.— Mihelich v. Butte Electric
Ry. Co., 281 P. 540, 85 Mont. 60<
St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
Freeman, 260 P. 124, 80 Mont 266
— Pacific Acceptance Corporation v.
McCue, 228 P. 761, 71 Mont 99.
15. Idaho.— Cleek v. Virginia Gold
Mining & Milling Co., 122 P.2d 232,
63 Idaho 445 — Atwood v. Northern
Pae. Ry. Co., 217 P. 600, 37 Idaho
554.
cretion, to grant the relief.^ Negligence of de-
fendant's employee in mislaying a summons or
failing timely to notify defendant that he was served
has under varying circumstances been held to con-
stitute24 or not to constitute25 sufficient grounds for
vacating a default judgment. Neglect attributable
to a miscarriage of the mails may be excusable,26
although the circumstances of the case may be such
as to warrant a denial of relief.27
Defendant's neglect may be excusable where de-
fault was entered while his proposal for settlement
was pending,28 or while he believed negotiations for
a settlement were pending,29 or that the action
against him had been ended- in fact by virtue of
a compromise.30 Conduct of defendant in inform-
ing his attorney that the facts alleged in the com-
plaint were true when in fact they were not is in-
excusable neglect and no ground for setting aside a
judgment for plaintiff in an undefended action.51
(b) Diligence Required of Suitors
Since Inexcusable negligence knputable to a party
seeking to open or *et aside a default Judgment may de-
feat the application, such a party must have been dllU
Duty to give litigation such atten-
tion as prudent man bestows on
important business see infra sub-
division n (5) (b) of this section.
16. Idaho. — Atwood v. Northern Pac.
Ry. Co., supra.
17. Ga,— Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
v. Scarboro, 156 S.E. 726, 42 Ga,
App. 423.
N.C.— Harrell v. Welstead, 175 S.E.
283, 206 N.C. 817.
Tex.— Corpna Juris gttoted in Demp-
sey v. Givson, Clv.App., 100 S.W.2d
430, 432.
34 C.J. p 300 note 39.
18. Held excusable neglect
Act of foreign corporation's proc-
ess agent in mailing papers to cor-
poration's attorney, and corporation'^
failure to notify agent of attorney's
discharge, constituted excusable neg-
lect.— Reynolds v. Gladys Belle Oil
Co., 243 P. 576, 75 Mont. 332.
19. Ariz.— Postal Benefit Ins. Co. v.
Johnson, 165 P.2d 173.
Del.— Penn Central Light & Power
Co. v. Central Eastern Power Co.,
171 A. 332, 6 W.W.Harr. 74.
111. — Marabia v. Mary Thompson
Hospital of Chicago for Women
and Children, 140 N.E. 836, 309
111. 147.
Iowa. — Lawler r. Roman Catholic
Mut Protective Soc. of Iowa, 197
N.W. 633, 198 Iowa 233.
20. Ariz. — Postal Benefit Ins. Co. v,
Johnson, 165 P.2d 173.
Ky. — Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v,
Ditto, 269 S.W. 527, 207 Ky. 434.
21. Ariz. — Postal Benefit Ins. Co. v
Johnson, 165 P.2d 173.
630
Service on corporation commission
Where service of process in suit
against benefit insurance company
was made on chairman of corpora-
tion commission, as authorized by
statute, proof that summons was
placed in files of the commission,
uid nothing further done to advise-
defendant company of the summons*
did not establish "excusable neglect",
so as to authorize setting aside de-
fault judgment. — Postal Benefit Ins.
Co. v. Johnson, supra.
22. Ind.— Carty v. Toro, 57 N.E.23
434.
23. Idaho.— Ward v. Burley State
Bank, 225 P. 497, 38 Idaho 764.
34 C.J. p 304 note 66.
4. Pa.— McDevitt v. Teague, 89 Pa.
Super. 332.
25. Tex. — San Antonio Paper Co. v»
Morgan, Civ.App., 53 S.W.2d 651»
error dismissed.
26. Mont — Reynolds v. Gladys Belle-
Oil Co., 243 P. 576, 75 Mont. 332.
Tex.— Yellow Transit Co. v. Klaff,.
Civ.App., 145 S.W.2d 264.
27. Tex. — Texas Indemnity Ins. Co..
v. Rice, Civ.App., 271 S.W. 134.
28. Or. — Peters v. Dietrich, 27 P.24
1015, 145 Or. 589.
29. Or.— Peters v. Dietrich, supra.
30. Philippine.— Salazar v. Salazar:
8 Philippine 183.
31. g.D. — Rose v. Babington, 263 K
W. 557, 64 S.D. 8.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 334
gent and free from culpable neglect In the proceedings
leading up to the default, and must not have ignored
a writ willfully or through inattention or forgetful ness,
or neglected to retain an attorney.
In order to open or set aside a default judgment
regularly obtained by due process of law, the party
complaining must have been diligent in the proceed-
ings leading up to the default32 and free from culpa-
ble neglect;33 inexcusable negligence imputable to
the applicant may defeat the application,34 but
where the judgment is evidently unjust a certain
32. Ga. — Flanigan v. Hutchins, 138
S.B. 793, 164 Ga, 313— Fraser v.
Neese, 137 S.B. 550, 163 Ga. 843—
Fitzgerald v. Ferran, 124 S.E. 530,
158 Ga, 755.
111.— Harris v. Juenger, 7 N.E.2d 376,
289 IlLApp. 467, reversed on other
grounds 11 N.B.2d 929, 367 111. 478
— Whalen v. Twin City Barge &
Gravel Co., 280 IlLApp. 596, cer-
tiorari denied Twin City Barge &
Gravel Co. v. Whalen, 56 S.Ct. 590,
297 U.S. 714, 80 L.Ed. 1000.
Ky. — Zimmerman v. Segal, 155 S.W.
2d 20, 288 Ky. 33.
Md. — Dixon v. Baltimore American
Ins. Co. of New York, 188 A. 215,
171 Md. 695.
N.C. — Carter v. Anderson, 181 S.B.
750, 208 N.C. 529.
Okl.— Wheeler v. Walker, 294 P. 641,
147 Okl. 63.
Tex.— Humphrey v. Harrell, Civ.App.,
19 S.W.2d .410, affirmed, Com.App.,
29 S.W.2d 963— Welsch v. Keeton,
Civ.App., 287 S.W. 692— Thomas v.
Goldberg, Civ.App., 283 S.W. 230
— Cauble v. Key, Civ.App., 256 S.
W. 654.
Wyo.— Kelley v. Eidam, 231 P. 678,
32 Wyo. 271.
34 C.J. p 305 note 70.
."Diligence required of suitors in pro-
ceedings :
Trading up to judgment general-
ly see supra § 280.
To oaen or vacate default see in-
fra § 337.
:33. Ala. — Harnischfeger Sales Co. v.
Burge, 129 So. 37, 221 Ala. 387—
Dulin v. Johnson, 113 So. 397, 216
Ala. 393.
_Ariz. — Brown v. Beck, 169 P.2d 855
— Postal Benefit Ins. Co. v. John-
son, 165 P.2d 173— Perrin v. Per-
Tin Properties, 86 P.2d 23, 53 Ariz.
121, 122 A.L.R. 621— Beltran v.
Roll, 7 P.2d 248, 39 Ariz. 417.
JLrk. — Bickerstaff v. Harmonia Fire
Ins. Co., 133 S.W.2d 890, 199 Ark.
424.
'Cal. — Elms v. Elms, App., 164 P.2d
936— Hughes v. Wright, 149 P.2d
392, 64 Cal.App.2d 897— Weinberger
v. Manning, 123 P.2d 531, 50 Cal.
App.2d 494 — Gordon v. Harbolt,
App., 280 P. 701, rehearing denied
281 P. 1048.
'111. — Bird-Sykes Co. v. McNamara,
252 IlLApp. 262.
'Iowa. — Ryan v. Phcanix Ins. Co. of
Hartford, Conn., 215 N.W. 749,
205 Iowa 655.
JiKy. — Bond v. W. T. Congleton Co.,
129 S.W.2d 570, 278 Ky. 829.
.Mo. — Williams v. Barr, App., 61 S.
W.2d 420— Case v. Arky, App., 253
S.W. 484.
N.Y. — Dewey v. Agostini Bros. Bldg.
Corporation, 283 N.Y.S. 174, 246
App.Div. 667.
N.C.— Crye v. Stoltz, 138 S.B. 167,
193 N.C. 802.
N.D. — Moos v. Northwestern Im-
provement Co., 6 N.W.2d 73, 72
N.D. 223.
Tex. — Yellow Transit Co. v. KlafC,
Civ.App., 145 S.W.2d 264— Dempsey
v. Gibson, Civ.App., 100 S.W.2d
430— Briggs v. Ladd, Civ.App., 64
S.W.2d 389 — Homuth v. Williams,
Civ.App., 42 S.W.2d 1048— Hooser
v. Wolfe, Civ.App., 30 S.W.2d 728
— Humphrey v. Harrell, Civ.App.,
19 S.W.2d 410, affirmed, Com.App.,
29 S.W.2d 963 — Colorado River
Syndicate Subscribers v. Alexan-
der, Civ. App., 288 S.W. 586— Stou-
denmeier v. First Nat. Bank, Civ.
App., 246 -S.W. 761.
W.Va.— Winona Nat. Bank v. Frid-
' ley, 10 S.B.2d 907, 122 W.Va. 479
—State ex rel. Alkire v. Mili, 180
S.E. 183, 116 W.Va. 277— Gainer
v. Smith, 132 S.E. 744, 101 W.Va.
314— Ellis v. Gore, 132 S.E. 741,
101 W.Va. 273— Hill v. Long, 150
S.E. 6, 107 W.Va. 664— Sands v.
Sands, 138 S.E. 463, 103 W.Va. 701.
34 C.J. p 305 note 70.
34. Ariz. — Garden Development Co.
v. Carlaw, 263 P. 625, 33 Ariz. 232.
Ark. — Magnolia Grocer Co. v. Farrar,
115 S.W.2d 1094, 195 Ark. 1069—
Stewart v. California Grape Juice
Corporation, 29 S.W.2d 1077, 181
Ark. 1140.
Cal.— Hughes v. Wright, 149 P.2d
392, 64 Cal.App.2d 897— Bodin v.
Webb, 62 P.2d 155, 17 Cal.App.2d
422— W. J. Wallace & Co. v. Grow-
ers Sec. Bank, 57 P.2d 998, 13 Cal..
App.2d 743 — Essig v. Seaman, 264
P. 552, 89 CaLApp. 295— Brennan
v. Weissbaum, 245 P. 1104, 77 Cal.
App. 120 — Rudy v. Slotwinsky, 238
P. 783, 73 CaLApp. 459.
Ga. — Flanigan v. Hutchins, 138 S.E.
793, 164 Ga. 313.
Idaho. — Cleek v. Virginia Gold Min-
ing & Milling Co., 122 P.2d 232, 63
Idaho 445.
111.— Maclaskey v. Kurz, 45 N.E.2d
566, 316 IlLApp. 671— Gray v. Kro-
ger Grocery & Baking Co., 13 N.E.
2d 672, 294 IlLApp. 151— Alfred M.
Best Co. v. Index Pub. Co., 9 N.E.
2d 439, 291 IlLApp. 612— Whalen
v. Twin City Barge & Gravel Co.,
280 IlLApp. 596, certiorari denied
Twin City Barge & Gravel Co. v.
Whalen, 56 S.CL ,590, 297 U.S. 714,
80 L.Ed. 1000— Lynn v. Multhauf,
631
279 IlLApp. 210 — Travelers Ins.
Co. v; Wagner, 279 IlLApp. 13.
Ind.— Gibson v. Searcy, 137 N.E. 182t
192 Ind. 515.
Iowa.— Dewell v. Suddick, 232 N.W.
118, 211 Iowa 1352 — Bossenberger
v. Bossenberger, 229 N.W. 833, 210
Iowa 825 — Anderson, v. Anderson,
229 N.W. 694, 209 Iowa 1143—
Lawler v. Roman Catholic Mut.
Protective Soc. of Iowa, 197 N.W.
633, 198 Iowa 233.
Ky. — Zimmerman v. Segal, 155 S.W.
2d 20, 288 Ky. 33 — Kengreen Gas
Utilities Corporation v. Crozer, 51
S.W.2d 262, 244 Ky. 440.
Md. — Moss v. Annapolis Sav. Inst., 8
A.2d 881, 177 Md. 135.
Miss. — Strain v. Gayden, 20 So.2d
697, 197 Miss. 353.
N.H. — Lewellyn v. Follansbee, 47 A.
2d 572.
N.Y.— Allen v. Lake, 198 N.Y.S. 815,
reversed on other grounds 201 N.
Y.S. 882, 207 App.Div. 886 — Dewey
v. Agostini Bros. Bldg. Corpora-
tion, 283 N.Y.S. 174, 246 App.Div.
667.
N.C.— Standard Fertilizer Co. v.
Whorton, 195 S.E. 349, 213 N.C.
211 — Carolina Discount Corpora-
tion v. Butler, 158 S.E. 249, 200
N.C. 709— Strickland v. Shearon,
137 S.E. 803, 193 N.C. 599.
Okl, — Johnson v. Bearden Plumbing
& Heating Co., 38 P.2d 500, 170
Okl. 63.
Pa.— Hamilton v. Sechrist, 16 A.2d
671, 142 Pa.Super. 354— In re
Stroud's Estate, 22 Pa.Dist. & Co.
591, 40 Dauph.Co. 207 — Cook v.
Jenkins, 21 Pa.Dist. & Co. 381, 19
West Co. 166 — Rusynyk v. Holy
Resurrection Russian Orthodox
Greek Catholic Church, Com.PL, 23
WastuCo. 87.
Philippine. — Dougherty v. Evangelis-
ta, 7 Philippine 37— Adela v. Judge
of Court of First Instance of no-
cos Sur, 6 Philippine 674.
RX — Tew v. Rhode Island Coach Co.,
133 A. 660 — Charles B. Maguire Co.
v. Miller, 118 A. 625.
S.D. — Languein v. Olson, 227 N.W.
369, 56 S.D. 1.
Tex. — San Antonio Paper Co. v. Moi>
gan, Civ.App., 53 S.W.2d 651, er-
ror dismissed — Hooser v. Wolfe,
Civ.App., 30 S.W.2d 728— St. Paul
Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Earnest,
Civ.App., 293 S.W. 677, affirmed
2961 S.W, 1088, 116 Tex. 565— Colo-
rado River Syndicate Subscribers
v. Alexander, Civ.App., 288 S.W.
586.
Wash.— Riddell v. David, 23 P.2d 22.
173 Wash. 370.
W.Va.— Sands v. Sands, 138 S.E. 468,
§ 334
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
degree of neglect may be held excusable,85 and it
has been held, considering the language of control-
ling statutes and the circumstances of their enact-
ment, that a party's mere negligence is not fatal to
the exercise of discretion to vacate a final judg-
ment against him pursuant to an interlocutory judg-
ment of default.86 During the term at which it was
rendered, moreover, a default judgment may be va-
cated in the Discretion of the court notwithstand-
ing defendant's negligence.87
A person of mature years and judgment may not
idly ignore a summons to defend an action,88 and the
courts will seldom relieve one who has disregarded
the command of a writ willfully39 or through mere
inattention or neglect40 or sheer forgetfulness,41 or
who ignores a notice that on a specified date plain-
tiff will apply for a default judgment,42 or who
willfully slumbers on his rights and makes no ef-
fort to protect himself.43 So a party will not be
relieved from a judgment taken against him with
his knowledge and on his willful default,44 as
where the default was suffered as a part of a policy
of intentional delay on the part of defendant,4* or
where the judgment was not due to an oversight,
but was the result of a decision, after deliberation,
not to defend,46 although thereafter he changes his
mind and desires to defend because of changing cir-
cumstances.47
Furthermore, in order to be able to set aside a
judgment for excusable neglect, a party must give
the litigation such attention as a man of ordinary
prudence usually bestows on important business.4*
103 W.Va. 701 — Gainer v. Smith, ]
132 S.E. 744, 101 W.Va. 314.
34 C-J. p 305 note 70.
Effect of negligence where applica-
tion based on unavoidable casu-
alty or misfortune see infra sub-
division n (7) of this section.
Negligence of defendant's insurer
has been held imputable to defend-.
ant, thus defeating the application.
— Homuth v. Williams, Tex.Civ.App.,
42 S.W.2d 1048.
35. Or.— Astoria Sav. Bank v. Nor-
mand, 267 P. 524, 125 Or. 347.
36. N.M.— -Dyne v. McCullough, 9 P.
2d 385, 36 N.M. 122— Gilbert v.
New Mexico Const. Co., 295 P. 291,
35 N.M. 262.
37. Okl.— Illinois Electric Porcelain
Co. v. B. & M. Const Corporation,
117 P.2d 106, 189 Okl. 336.
Jurisdiction and power to vacate de-
fault Judgment during term see
supra § 333.
38. 111. — Stasel v. American Home
Security Corporation, 199 N.E. 798,
362 111. 350, affirming 279 111. App.
172.
Ind.— Carty V. Torro, 57 N.E.2d 434.
39. Wash.— Larson v. Zabroski, 152
P.2d 154, 21 Wash.2d 572, opinion
adhered to 155 P.2d 284, 21 Wash.
2d 572 — Bishop v. Illman, 126 P.2d
582, 14 Wash.2d 13— Rule v. Som-
ervill, 274 P. 177, 150 Wash. 605 —
Jacobsen v. Defiance Lumber Co.,
253 P. 1088, 142 Wash. 642.
40. 111. — Gray v. Kroger Grocery &
Baking Co., 13 N.E.2d 672, 294 111.
App. 151 — Giles v. Grady & Neary
Ink Co., 8 N.B.2d 120, 284 IlLApp.
651.
Ky.— Kengreen Gas Utilities Corpo-
ration v. Crozer, 51 S.W.2d 262,
244 Ky. 440.
•Rfash. — Larson v. Zabroski, 152 P.2d
154, 21 Wash.2d 572, opinion ad-
hered to 155 P.2d 284, 21 Wash.2d
572— Rule v. Somervill, 274 P.
177, 150 Wash. 605.
Mislaying1 summons and complaint
Denial of motion to open default
Judgment on ground that summons
and complaint were mislaid in the
confusion of moving and forgotten
was not an abuse of discretion. —
Whipple v. Mahler, 10 N.W.2d 771,
215 Minn. 578.
Preoccupation with other matters
Fact that original notice was
served on defendant's president at
his residence while he was working
in yard during afternoon after de-
fendant's office was closed, and facts
that his duties as president were
principally confined to defendant's
production and that he had nothing
to do with its claim department, and
fact that he devoted much time to
supervision of drives for war bond
sales, made over three months after
such service, were not reasonable ex-
cuses for defendant's default and
hence afforded no basis for its mo-
tion to set aside default on ground
of excusable neglect— Booth v. Cen-
tral States Mut Ins. Ass'n, 15 N.W.
2d 893, 235 Iowa 5.
41. S.C.— Rutledge v. Junior Order
of United American Mechanics, 193
S.E. 434. 185 S.C. 142.
42. Colo. — Mountain v. Stewart, 149
P.2d 176, 112 Colo. 302.
43. Cal.— Williams v. McQueen, 265
P. 339, 89 Cal.App. 659.
Minn.— Barwald v. Thuet, 195 N.W.
768, 157 Minn. 94.
Pa. — Caromono v. Garman, 42 Pa.
Dist. & Co. 96, affirmed 23 A.2d
92, 147 Pa.Super. 1.
Notice of orders or decrees
As respects negligence in suffer-
ing default, litigants were chargea-
ble with notice of orders and de-
crees, made by the court in their
case, especially when entered on the
date set for action thereon, with no-
tice to litigants of such setting.— Ty-
ler v. Henderson, Tex.Civ.App., 162
S.W.2d 170, error refused.
632
44. N.T.— Messing v. Mattikow, 107
N.T.S. 620, 120 Misc. 68.
Wash. — Bishop v. Illman, 126 P.2d
>82, 14 Wash.2d 13.
45. Cal. — Steineck v. Coleman. 236
P. 962, 72 CaLApp. 244.
46. Idaho. — Kingsbury v. Brown, 92
P.2d 1053, 60 Idaho 464, 124 A.L.R.
149.
y. — Bond v. W. T. Congleton Co.,
129 S.W.2d 570, 278 Ky. 829.
N.T. — Booraem v. Gibbons, 34 N.T.S.
2d 198, 263 App.Div. 665, appeal
denied 35 N.T.S.2d 717, 264 App.
DJv. 768— Tabakin v. Preiman, 217
N.T.S. 378, 217 App.Div. 665—
Demuth v. Kemp, 129 N.T.S. 249,
144 App.Div. 287 — Clark v. Pear-
sail, 252 N.T.S. 556, 141 Misc. 387
— Schlegel v. Wagner, 29 N.T.S.2d
389.
Pa.— Kanai v. Sowa, 167 A. 429, 109
Pa.Super. 426.
"Where a party suffers an inten-
tional default and abandons its
cause, and judgment results there-
from, there is, in fact, no default,
and the judgment may not be vacat-
ed."— Colonial Fuel Corporation v.
Kahn, 211 N.T.S. 50, 52, 214 App.
Div. 83.
47. Idaho.— Mason v. Pelkes, 59 P.
2d 1087, 57 Idaho 10, certiorari de-
nied Pelkes v. Mason, 57 S.Ct.
319, 299 U.S. 615, 81 L.Ed. 453.
Ky. — Bond v. W. T. Congleton Co.,
129 S.W.2d 670, 278 Ky. 829.
43. N.C. — Sutherland v. McLean, 154
S.E. 662, 199 N.C. 345.
Excusable neglect as that which
might be expected on part of pru-
dent person under circumstances
see supra subdivision n (5) (a) of
this section.
Rule criticized
"We do not think the requests
[resting on the proposition that
whatever is or ought to be the con-
duct of the reasonable man in stat-
ed circumstances sets the standard
by which all must be Judged and by
49 C. J. S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 334
Thus he must, unless he means to try his own case,
retain an attorney practicing in the particular
court,49 and see that the attorney understands and
accepts the retainer,5** and in case his counsel dies,
or withdraws, or is discharged from the case he
must promptly engage another.51 It is the duty of
a party to take account of the time and place of
holding court, the position of the case on the calen-
dar, and the state of the calendar,62 and to keep
himself informed of the. progress of the case, when
it is set for trial, or when it is likely to be reached,53
and then to attend court prepared to establish his
case,54 but it has been held that a client may rely
on his counsel to inform him as to the time the
case will be set for trial and to advise him as to
all matters necessary to a proper presentation of
the case to the court.55
(6) Negligence, Mistake, or Misconduct of
Counsel
(a) In general
(b) Negligence
(c) Mistake as to time or place of ap-
pearance or trial
(d) Ignorance or mistake of law
(e) Erroneous advice
(f) Misconduct
(g) Misunderstanding:
(a) In General
Generally a default judgment may be opened or va-
cated for the excusable, but not the inexcusable, neg-
lect or surprise, or mistake or oversight of counsel for
the party against whom the default was taken.
The general rule is that a default judgment may
be opened or vacated for the excusable neglect or
surprise56 or mistake or oversight57 of counsel for
the party against whom the default was taken. The
law does not look with favor, however, on setting
aside defaults resulting from inexcusable inadver-
tence, surprise, or neglect of attorneys in the per-
formance of their duties to their clients.58 Such
failure on the part of attorneys ordinarily is im-
putable to their clients, unless their default can be
excused as being the result of accident or surprise,
that which ordinary prudence on their part could
not have avoided.59 So it has been said that mis-
takes of one's counsel, unaccompanied by fraud,
accident, or improper conduct of the opposite side,
are not ground for setting aside a judgment by de-
which sound judicial discretion must
• be bounded] state accurately the
pertinent rule of law. One may be
stupid or ignorant, or otherwise
under disability so as not to be ca-
pable of exercising: reasonable care
and diligence with respect to an
action brought against him in court,
and yet be found by the court, even
after judgment has been entered
against him, to have such a mer-
itorious defence as to be the victim
of injustice if the judgment is al-
lowed to stand. In such circum-
stances, the law does not prevent
remedial action." — Manzi v. Carlson,
180 N.B. 134, 137, 278 Mass. 267.
49. Ga.— Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
v. Scarboro, 156 S.B. 726, 42 Gteu
App. 423.
Idaho.— Cleek v. Virginia Gold Min-
ing & Milling Co., 122 P.2d 232,
63 Idaho 445— Boyle v. Miles, 288
P. 893, 49 Idaho 412.
Ind. — Carty v. Torro, 57 N.E.2d 434.
N.C.— Harrell v. Welstead, 175 S.E.
283, 206 N.C. 817— Sutherland v.
McLean, 154 S.E. 662, 199 N.C.
345.
Tex. — Corpus Juris cited in Dempsey
y. Givson, £iv.App., 100 S.W.2d
430, 432— Thomas v. Goldberg, Civ.
App., 283 S.W. 230 — Caubte v. Key,
Civ.App., 256 S.W. 654.
34 C.J. p 306 note 71.
Inability after exercise of due dili-
gence
Where defendant had used dili-
gence to procure an attorney to rep-
resent him, but failed because of re-
fusal of one attorney to act, absence
of another, and defendant's own ill-
ness, it was an abuse of discretion
to deny relief. — Landgraf v. Muchow,
Tex.Civ.App., 102 S.W.2d 308.
Reliance on advioe of another's at-
torney
Surety on forthcoming bond can-
not have new trial after default, on
showing of reliance on advice of at-
torney for attachment defendant. —
Holbrook v. Holbrook, 288 S.W. 1039,
217 Ky. 77.
50. N.Y. — Dewey v. Agostini Bros.
Bldg. Corporation, 283 N.T.S. 174,
246 App.Div. 667.
Tex.— Corpus Juris cited in Dempsey
v. Gibson, Civ.App., 100 S.W.2d 430,
432.
34 C.J. p 300 note 39, p 306 note 72.
Mistak-e as to employment of coun-
sel as ground for vacating default
judgment see supra subdivision n
(2) (e) of this section.
51. Cal.— Hughes v. Wright, 149 P.
2d 392, 64 Cal. App. 2 d 897.
Idaho. — Cleek v. Virginia Gold Min-
ing & Milling Co., 122 P.2d 232, 63
Idaho 445.
Ky. — Zimmerman- v. Segal, 155 S.W.
2d 20, 288 Ky. 33.
34 C.J. p 306 note 73.
52. Wyo. — Corpus Juris cited in
Boulter v. Cook, 234 P. -1101, 1104,
32 Wyo. 461, rehearing denied 236
P. 245, 32 Wyo. 461.
34 OJ. p 299 note 27, p 307 notes 77,
78.
53. Ark.— Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. ,
633
v. Duty, 126 S.W.2d 921, 197 Ark.
1118.
54. Ala. — McCord v. Harrison &
Stringer, 93 So. 428, 207 Ala. 480.
34 C.J. p 307 note 79.
55. Okl.— Hale v. Mclntosh, 243 P.
157, 116 Okl. 40.
56. Colo. — Beyer v. Petersen, 21 P.
2d 1115, 92 Colo. 462.
34 C.J. p 307 note 80.
Negligence, mistake, or misconduct
of counsel as ground for opening
or vacating judgments generally
see supra §§ 279, 280.
57. Pa,— Pinsky v. Master, 23 A.2d
727, 343 Pa. 451 — Curran v. James
Regulator Co., 36 A.2d 187, 154 Pa,
Super. 261 — Horning v. David, 8 A.
2d 729, 137 Pa.Super. 252— Planters
Nut & Chocolate Co. v. Brown-
Murray Co., 193 A. 381, 128 Pa, Su-
per. 239 — Kanai v. Sowa, 167 A.
429, 109 Pa,Super. 426— Page v.
Patterson, 161 A. 878, 105 Pa.Su-
per. 438 — Robert Baile Co. v. Stong
& Stong, 84 Pa. Super. 241 — Le-
schinski v. W. C. Hack & Sons, 47
Pa.Dist & Co. 475 — Stevenson v.
Rhoades, Com. PI., 25 Wash. Co. 82.
34 OJ. p 310 note 94.
58. Cal. — People's Finance & Thrift
Co; of Porterville v. Phoenix Assur.
Co., Limited, of London, 285 P. 857,
104 Cal. App. 334.
59. Cal. — People's Finance & Thrift
Co. of Porterville v. Phceniac Assur.
Co., Limited, of London, supra.
334
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
fault60 In the determination of motions to set
aside defaults, mistakes of attorneys and those of
parties to the action are to be measured by the
same rules.61
(b) Negligence
Although negligence of counsel does not necessarily
bap relief, generally a client cannot be relieved from a
default Judgment taken against him in consequence of
the neglect, carelessness, forgetfulness, or inattention of
his attorney unless such neglect was excusable under
the circumstances.
As a general rule, the negligence of an Attor-
ney is imputable to his client, and the latter cannot
be relieved from a default judgment taken against
him in consequence of the neglect, carelessness, for-
getfulness, or inattention of the former" unless
the neglect was excusable under the circumstanc-
es.63 This rule applies where the negligence of
60. Tex.— St. Paul Fire & Marine
Ins. Co. v. Earnest, Civ. App., 293
S.W. 677, affirmed 296 S.W. 1088,
116 Tex. 565.
61. CaL— Morgan v. Brothers of
Christian Schools, 92 P.2d 925, 34
Cal.App.2d 14.
"Ordinarily a party will not be
relieved from a judgment or decree
taken against him through the mis-
take, negligence, or inadvertence
of his attorney, unless the act or
omission of the attorney was such
that had it been committed or omit-
ted by the party himself, he would
be entitled to a vacation of the judg-
ment or decree." — Carlson v. Bank-
ers' Discount Corporation, 215 P. 986
988, 107 Or. 686.'
62. Ala. — Brown v. Brown, 105 So.
171, 213 Ala. 339.
CaL— Flores v. Smith, 117 P.2d 712,
47 CaL App. 2d 253 — Zuver v. Gener-
al Development Co., 28 P.2d 939,
136 CaLApp. 411— IT. S. v. Dues-
dieker, 5 P.2d 916, 118 CaLApp.
723— Massimino v. Taranto, 292 P.
139, 108 CaLApp. 692.
Ga.— Smith v. Cone, 156 S.B. 612
171 Ga. 697 — Strother v. Harper,
136 S.E. 828, 36 Ga.App. 445.
Idaho.— Kingsbury v. Brown, 92 P.2d
1053, 60 Idaho 464, 124 A.L.R. 149
111.— Whalen v. Twin City Barge &
Gravel Co., 280 IlLApp. 596, certio-
rari denied Twin City Barge &
Gravel Co. v. Whalen, 56 S.Ct
590, 297 U.S. 714, 80 L.Bd. 1000 —
Travelers Ins. Co. v. Wagner, 279
111. App. 13 — Gaines v. Chicago Rys
Co., 255 IlLApp. 30.
Ind.— Smith v. Heyns, 186 N.B. 563
78 Ind.App. 565.
Iowa,— Pride v. Kittrell, 257 N.W
204, 218 Iowa 1247— Anderson v
Anderson, 229 N.W. 694, 209 Iowa
1143— Iowa Cord Tire Co. v. Bab
bitt, 192 N.W. 431, 195 Iowa 922—
Starkey v. Porter Tractor Co,
N.W. 135.
Mass. — Kravetz v. Lipofsky, 200 N.E
865, 294 Mass. 80.
Mich.— Petersen v. Moynihan, 220 N
W. 791, 243 Mich. 600.
Miss. — Britton v. Beltzhoover, 11
So. 346, 147 Miss. 737.
Mo. — O'Connell v. Dockery, App., 10
S.W.2d 748.
Mont— Mihelich v. Butte Blectri
" Ry. Co., 281 P. 540, 85 Mont. 60
— St Germain v. Vollmer, 216 P
788, 68 Mont 264.
sreb.— Lyman v. Dunn, 252 N.W. 197,
125 Neb. 770 — Beem v. Davis, 195
N.W. 948, 111 Neb. 96.
Sev. — Guardia v. Guardia, 229 P. 386,
48 Nev. 230.
tf.j. — O'Neill v. Hendrickson, 147 A.
721, 7 N.J.Misc. 1022.
>hio. — Lazarus v. Cleveland House-
hold Supply Co., 154 N.B. 343, 23
Ohio App. 15.
Okl.— Grayson T. Stith, 72 P.2d 820,
181 Okl. 131, 114 A.KR. 276.
Pa. — Schweikart v. American Slic-
ing Mach. Co., 173 A. 427, 113 Pa.
Super. 485— Derbyshire Bros. v.
McManamy, 101 Pa.Super. 514.
S.C.— Poston v. State Highway De-
partment, 5 S.B.2d 729, 192 S.C.
137.
S.D.— Corpus Juris cited in Smith v.
Wordeman, 240 N.W. 325, 326, 59
S.D. 368.
Tex.— Briggs v. Ladd, Civ.App., 64
S.W.2d 389— Hubbard v. Tallal,
Civ.App., 57 S.W.2d 226, reversed
on other grounds and a-ppeal dis-
missed 92 S.W.2d 1022, 127 Tex.
242— St- Paul Fire & Marine Ins.
Co. v. Earnest, Civ. App., 293 S.W.
677, affirmed 296 S.W. 1088, 116
Tex. 565.
Wash.— Wolfe v. Henry Gerlich Tie
& Timber Co., 211 P. 753, 123
Wash. 70.
34 C.J. p 307 note 81.
Neglect of attorney timely to file
pleading as surprise on client war-
ranting vacation of default judg-
ment see supra subdivision n (3)
of this section.
Negligence of counsel as ground for
opening or vacating judgments
generally see supra § 280.
Bule held inapplicable where de
fendant's lessor agreed but neg
lected to defend any suit brought by
plaintiff.— Sofuye v. Pieters-Wheelei
Seed Co., 216 P. 990, 62 CaLApp. 198
Repudiation.
Defendant niay not repudiate at
torney of record after trial resulting
in adverse judgment in order to hav
judgment set aside.— Hendricks v
Town of Cherry ville, 153 S.B. 112
198 N.C, 659.
63. cal. — Bonfilio v. Ganger, 140 P
2d 861, 60 Cal.App.2d 405— Potts v
Whitson, 125 P.2d 947, 52 CaLApp
2d 199— Hicks v. Sanders, 104 P.2
549, 40 Cal.App.2d 211— Stub v
Harrison, 96 P.2d 979, 35 CaLApp
2d 685.
634
olo. — Drinkard v. Spencer, 211 P.
379, 72 Colo. 396.
Fla.— Segel v. Staiber, 144 So. 875,
106 Fla. 946.
.1.— Haller v. Rieth, 247 IlLApp. 541.
£y. — South Mountain Coal Co. v.
Rowland, 265 S.W. 320, 204 Ky.
820.
Mo. — Faulkner v. F. Bierman & Sons
Metal & Rubber Co., App., 294 S.
W. 1019.
N«v.— Guardia v. Guardia, 229 P. 386,
48 Nev. 230.
.C.— Abbitt v. Gregory, 141 S.B.
587, 195 N.C. 203.
N.D. — Moos v. Northwestern Im-
provement Co., 6 N.W.2d 73, 72 N.
D. 223.
Or. — McAuliffe v. McAuliffe, 298 P.
239, 136 Or. 168.
g.C. — Gaskins v. California Ins. Co.t
11 S.B.2d 436, 195 S.C. 376.
S.D.— Corpus Juris cited in Smith v.
Wordeman, 240 N.W. 325, 326, 59
S.D. 368.
Tex.— Presidio Cotton Gin & Oil Co.
v. Dupuy, Civ.App., 2 S.W.2d 341 —
Paggi v. Rose Mfg. Co., Civ.App.,
259 S.W. 962.
34 C.J. p 308 note 82.
Beliance on rule of court
Where the rules of a trial court
made every Monday law day, on
which all matters then pending
would be disposed of, counsel is war-
ranted in relying on that rule and
in presuming that it will be follow-
ed unless informed to the contrary.
— Garner v. Towler, 213 P. 390, 25
Ariz. 101.
Reliance on official records
Attorney is justified in relying on
official records showing condition of
case pending in court, and court
should relieve client from effect of
error in record.— Reynolds v. Gladys
Belle OH Co., 243 P. 576, 75 Mont
332.
Attorney recently discharged from
army
In view of difficulties facing an
attorney recently discharged from
army in picking up threads of hl»
practice, some latitude should be ex-
tended in passing on such attorney's
motion to open default judgment
against his client entered after ex-
piration of time to serve pleading. —
Cunningham v. Port Washington
Synagogue, 66 N.T.S.2d 786.
49
JUDGMENTS
334
the attorney consisted in his failure to enter an
appearance or file a pleading in due season,64 and
also where it consisted of a failure to pursue and
follow up the case with due care and watchful-
nessi65 or where, being present in court, he refused
to proceed with the trial and failed to avail himself
of the privileges which the law affords to him in
such case.66
Negligence or misconduct of the petitioner's at-
torney, however, does not necessarily bar a petition
to vacate a judgment,6? and a considerable number
of cases have held . that, where the party himself
has not been guilty of negligence, a judgment
against him may be set aside because it was obtained
through the negligence of his counsel68 if it can be
done without prejudicing the rights of the other
€4. Ariz.— Martin v. Sears, 44 P.2d
526, 45 Ariz. 414.
Ark. — Alger v. Beasley, 20 S.W.2d
317, 180 Ark. 46.
Cal. — Woolner v. Hawthorne Im-
provement Co., 265 P. 194, 203 Cal.
547— Pickerill v. Strain, 239 P.
323, 196 Cal. 683.
Mo. — State ex rel. Schwettman v,
Oberheide, App., 39 S.W.2d 395—
Allen v. Allen, App., 14 S.W.2d 686.
N.J. — Barenson v. Zaritsky, 167 A.
671, 11 N.J.Misc. 530.
Pa.— Herbst v. Derrick, 175 A. 297,
115 Pa.Super. 205 — Page v. Pat-
terson, 161 A. 878, 105 Pa. Super.
438.
Tex. — St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins.
Co. v. Earnest, Civ. App., 293 S.
W. 677, affirmed 296 S.W. 1088, 116
Tex. 565.
34 C.J. p 308 note 83.
Tailure timely to plead held excusa-
ble
(1) Where defendant's motion for
security for costs was undisposed of,
notwithstanding such motion was
not an answer sufficient to prevent
default from being- taken. — Hutt v.
Flynn, 60 P.2d 931, 48 Ariz. 175.
(2) Where failure was caused by
attorney's absence from office on
business when process was forward-
ed by defendant.— Collister v. Inter-
State Fidelity Building & Loan Ass'n
of Utah, 38 P.2d 626, 44 Ariz. 427, 98
A.L.R. 1020.
(3) Where failure was caused by
one of defendant's three attorneys
being away on business at the time
the plea was due, and who supposed
it would be filed by his associates,
both of whom were unavoidably pre-
vented from doing so. — Planters'
Lumber Co. v. Sibley, 93 So. 440,
130 Miss. 26.
(4) Where defendants' attorney,
through inadvertence, had failed to
note expiration of time to answer
the new pleading. — Shively v. Koch-
man, 73 P.2d 637, 23 Cal.App.2d 420.
(5) Where failure was due to rush
of business and associate's absence.
— Carbondale Mach. Co. v. Byraud,
271 P. 349, 94 Cal.App. 856.
. (6) Where plaintiff's attorney re-
ceived case in 1942, during, which
year he was inducted into army,
and did not reestablish his office
until April, 1945, and despite search
did not locate file until March, 1945.
— Cunningham v. Port Washington
Synagogue, 56 N.T.S.2d 786.
(7) Other facts.— Waybright v.
Anderson, 253 P. 148, 200 Cal. 374
—Stub v. Harrison, 96 P.2d 979. 35
Cal. App. 2d 685 — Eberhart v. Salazar,
235 P. 86, 71 CaLApp. 336— Rahn v.
Peterson, 218 P. 464, 63 CaLApp. 199.
65. Ariz.— MacNeil v. Vance, 60 P.2d
1078, 4$ Ariz. 187— Faltis v. Co-
lachis, 274 P. 776, 35 Ariz. 78.
Cal. — People's Finance & Thrift Co.
of Porterville v. Phoenix Assur.
Co., Limited, of London, 285 P.
857, 104 CaLApp. 334— Anglo Cali-
fornia Trust Co. v. Kelly, 272 P.
1080, 95 CaLApp. 390.
Ga. — Henderson v. American Hat
Mfg. Co., 194 S.E. 254, 54 Qa.App.
10.
N.Y.— Mandel v. Donohue, 208 N.T.S.
807, 124 Misc. 861.
N.C. — Chapman v. Lineberry, 140 S.
B. 302, 194 N.C. 811.
Okl. — Pickering Lumber Co. v. Lacy,
44 P.2d 42, 170 Okl. 447— Sautbine
v. Jones, 18 P.2d 871, 161 Okl. 292
— Key v. Minnetonka Lumber Co.,
241 P. 143, 112 Okl. 301.
Pa.— East Pittsburgh Building &
Loan Ass'n v. Teets, 186 A. 166,
123 Pa.Super. 117.
Tex. — Brown v. St. Mary's Temple
No. 5 S. M. T. United Brothers of
Friendship of Texas, Civ.App., 127
S.W.2d 531— Ladd v. Coleman, Civ.
App., 285 S.W. 1096.
34 C.J. p 309 note 84.
Duty to ascertain time for trial
(1) The duty rests on an attorney
to be diligent and ascertain the
time for trial.
Ala. — McCord v. Harrison & Stringer,
93 So. 428, 207 Ala. 480.
Okl. — Thornton v. Eoff, 84 P.2d 5,
183 Okl. 504— Mid-Texas Petroleum
Co. v. Western Lumber & Hard-
ware Co., 52 P.2d 15, 175 OkL 260.
Wyo.— Boulter v. Cook, 234 P. 1101,
32 Wyo. 461, rehearing denied 236
P. 245, 32 Wyo. 461.
(2) Defendant's attorney has no
right to rely on counsel for plaintiff
to notify him of setting of cause, in
absence of agreement providing for
such notice.— -Grand United Order of
Odd Fellows v. Wright, Tex.Civ.App.,
76 S.W.2d 1073.
(3) While courts frequently, and
ordinarily in fact, have counsel noti-
fied or called when a case is reached
for trial, that is done as a courtesy
635
and not as a duty. — Boulter v. Cook,
supra.
66. 111. — Gaines v. Chicago Rys. Co.,
255 IlLApp. 30.
67. Mass. — 3£anzi v. Carlson, 180 N.
£3. 134, 278 Mass. 267.
Neb.— Beem v. Davis, 195 N.W. 948,
111 Neb. 96.
N.C.— Helderman v. Hartsell Mills
Co., 135 S.B. 627, 192 N.C. 626.
Negligence of co-counsel named as
compliment
The alleged negligence of person
who had been admitted to practice
law and whose name appeared on
some of pleadings as of counsel for
defendants did not preclude them
from having set aside default decree
entered against them without knowl-
edge of their counsel, where it ap-
peared that such person's name had
been inserted merely as a compli-
ment and that he actually had no re-
sponsibility for any matters con-
nected with case. — Lunt v. Van Gor-
den, 281 N.W. 743, 225 Iowa 1120.
68. Colo. — Calkins v. Smalley, 294
P. 534. 88 Colo. 227.
Iowa.— Hatt v. McCurdy, 274 N.W.
72, 223 Iowa 974.
Ky.— Adams v. Nelson, 283 S.W. 405,
214 Ky. 411.
Minn. — Kennedy v. Torodor, 276 N.
W. 650, 201 Minn. 422— Wagner
v. Broquist, 231 N.W. 241, 181
Minn. 39 — Unowsky v. Show, 201
N.W. 936, 161 Minn. 489— Hasara
v. Swaney, 200 N.W. 847, 161 Minn.
94 — Zell v. Friend Crosby & Co.,
199 N.W. 928, 160 Minn. 181.
Mo. — Goodwin v. Kochititzky, App.,
3 S.W.2d 1051 — Amos James Gro-
cery Co. v. Pri chard, App., 297 S*
W. 721.
Neb. — Lacey v. Citizens' Lumber &
Supply Co., 248 N.W. 378, 124 Neb.
813.
N.J. — Jarrett v. Standard Diesel En-
gine Co., 12 A.2d 671, 124 N.J.Law
429.
N.M. — Ambrose v. Republic Mortg.
Co., 34 P.2d 294, 38 N.M. 370.
N.T.— Kyles v. City of New York, 80
N.T.S.2d 314, 262 App.Div. 1033—
Jensen v. Backman, 283 N.T.S. 862,
246 App.Div. 741 — Marcus v. Simo-
tone & Combined Sound & Color
Films, 237 N.Y.S. 509, 135 Misc.
228.
N.C. — Gunter v. Dowdy, 81 S.B.2d
524, 224 N.C. 522— Meece v. Com-
mercial Credit Co., 159 S.B. 17,
201 N.C. 139— Sutherland v. Me-
§ 334
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.&
party,69 that is, without loss to such other party
other than that which might result from establish-
ing the claim or defense of the party applying.70
Furthermore, under some statutes a default is re-
quired to be set aside when taken against a party
otherwise without default through the neglect or
failure of his attorney to file or serve any paper
within the time limited therefor,71 although such
statutes do not apply where the party asking for
relief was not represented by attorney at the time of
the default and the default was not taken by reason
of the negligence of counsel.72 The negligence of
an attorney may be excusable when attributable to
an honest mistake, an accident, or any cause which
is not incompatible with proper diligence on his
part, and in these circumstances it will be proper to
set aside or open a default judgment taken in con-
sequence thereof.78 The fact that an attorney was
lulled into a sense of security by continued negoti-
ations between the parties for settling the case out
of court has been held a sufficiently reasonable ex-
cuse for failure to file an answer,74 but there is
authority holding that mere discussion by litigants
of settlement pending action does not excuse fail-
ure to plead.75
In any case, however, the client himself must be
free from fault; negligence of his counsel is not
excusable negligence for which a judgment will be
set aside if the client wholly neglected the case and
took no interest in the issue,76 even though fraud
reasonably discoverable exists.77 Efe must show
that he employed counsel practicing habitually in
the particular court, or who specially agreed to at-
tend to the case,78 and the relief will not be grant-
ed on this ground where to do so would delay
trial of the cause to the consequent injury of the
party not in default.79 Where an attorney is em-
ployed simply to retain counsel to appear at an-
other place, he is a mere agent and his negligence
is imputable to his client.80
(c) Mistake as to Time or Place of Appear-
ance or Trial
A default Judgment may be opened or vacated for
excusable mistake of counsel as to time or place of ap-
pearance or trial.
A default judgment may be opened or vacated
when the default was due to a mistake or miscalcu-
lation of the party's attorney as to the time allowed
him for appearing, pleading, or taking some other
step in the action,81 or as to the day at which the
Lean, 154 S.E. 662, 199 N.C. 345—
Abbitt v. Gregory, 141 S.E. 587, 195
N.C. 203 — Helderman v. Hartsell
Mills Co., 135 S.E. 627, 192 N.C.
626.
Okl.— State ex rel. Higgs v. Musko-
gee Iron Works, 103 P.2d 101, 187
Okl. 419.
Or.— Astoria Sav. Bank v. Nonnand,
267 P. 524, 125 Or. 347.
Pa. — National Finance Corporation v.
Bergdoll, 151 A. 12, 300 Pa, 540—
Horning v. David, 8 A.2d 729, 137
Pa. Super. 252 — Robert Baile Co. v.
Stong & Stong, 84 Pa.Super. 241 —
Public Ledger Co. v. Kleinman, 75
Pa.Super.' 345 — Roth v. Lehigh
Valley Trust Co., Com.Pl.f 18 Leh.
L.J. 176.
R.I.— Dooley v. Slavit, 165 A. 771,
53 R.I. 264.
S.D. — W. B. Foshay Co. v. Spring-
field Light & Power Co., 206 N.W.
239, 49 S.D. 92 — Coniey v. Lunz-
mann, 197 N.W. 294, 47 S.D. 241.
Wyo. — Corpus Juris cited in McDan-
iel v. Hoblit, 245 P. 295, 297, 34
Wyo. 509.
34 C.J. p 309 note 86—24 C.J. p 887
note 78 [a] (2).
69. Minn. — Kennedy v. Torodor, 276
N.W. 650, 201 Minn. 422.
Mo. — Goodwin v. Kochititzky, App.,
3 S.W.2d 1051.
Wyo.— McDaniel v. Hoblit, 245 P.
295, 34 Wyo. 509.
70i Wyo.— McDaniel v. Hoblit, su-
pra.
71. Idaho. — State ex reL Sweeley v. j
Braun, 110 P.2d 835, 62 Idaho 258
—Miller v. Brinkman, 281 P. 372,
42 Idaho 232 — Consolidated Wagon
& Machine Co. v. Housman, 221 P.
143, 38 Idaho 343 — Weaver v. Ram-
bow, 217 P. 610, 37 Idaho 645.
72. Idaho.— Day v. Burnett, 224 P.
427, 38 Idaho 620.
73. Ark. — Corpus Juris cited in. Met-
ropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Duty,
126 S.W.2d 921, 925, 197 Ark. 1118.
34 C.J. p 309 note 89.
74. Cal.— Beard v. Beard, 107 P.2d
885, 16 Cal.2d 645— Pease v. City
of San Diego, App., 169 P.2d 973.
Or.— McAuliffe v. McAuliffe, 298 P.
239, 136 Or. 168.
75. Mont— Middle States Oil Corpo-
ration v. Tanner-Jones Drilling
Co., 235 P. 770, 73 Mont 180.
73. Alaska. — Rubenstein v. Imlach,
9 Alaska 62.
Ky.— Carter v. Miller, 95 S.W.2d 29,
264 Ky. 532.
Miss.— Britton v. Beltzhoover, 113
So. 346, 147 Miss. 737.
N.C.— Kerr v. North Carolina Joint
Stock Land Bank of Durham, 171
S.E. 367, 205 N.C. 410.
Wash.— Luger v. Littau, 288 P. 277,
157 Wash. 40.
34 C.J. p 310 note 90.
77. Miss. — Britton v. Beltzhoover,
113 So. 346, 147 Miss. 737.
Fraud as ground for opening or va-
cating default judgment see supra
subdivision c of this section.
636
78. N.C.— Kerr v. North Carolina
Joint Stock Land Bank of Durham,
171 S.E. 367, 205 N.C. 410.
S.D.— Corpus Juris cited in Smith v.
Wordeman, 240 N.W. 325, 326, 59
S.D.-368.
34 C.J. p 310 note 91.
Duty to retain counsel generally see
supra subdivision n (5) (b) of this
section.
79. Miss.— Lee v. Spikes, 112 So.
588, 145 Miss. 897.
Delaying- trial six mouths would
result in injury sufficient to justify
refusal to interfere with default
judgment resulting from counsel's
neglect — Lee v. Spikes, supra.
80. Idaho. — B rainard v. Coeur
d'Alene Antimony Mining Co., 208
P. 855, 35 Idaho 742.
N.C.— Kerr v. North Carolina Joint
Stock Land Bank of Durham, 171
S.B. 367, 205 N.C. 410— Pailin v.
Richmond Cedar Works, 136 S.E.
635, 193 N.C. 256.
34 C.J. p 310 note 92.
81. Cal. — Morgan v. Brother* of
Christian Schools, 92 P.2d 925, 34
Cal.App.2d 14 — Salsberry v. Julian,
277 P. 516, 98 CaLApp. 638, fol-
lowed in 277 P. 518, amended 278
P. 257, 98 CaLApp. 645— Week v.
Sucher, 274 P. 579, 96 Cal.App.
422— Rahn v. Peterson, 218 P. 464,
63 Cal.App. 199.
Colo. — Brennan-Tucker Motor Co. v.
Tucker, 242 P. 970, 78 Colo. 550.
34 C.J. p 311 note 99.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§334
case would be tried or the hour of the day,82 or
as to the case being on the calendar for trial,8^ or
as to the position of the case on the calendar,84
or as to the place of trial,85 provided, however,
there was sufficient excuse for the mistake.86
(d) Ignorance or Mistake of Law
While Ignorance of the law on the part of an attor-
ney ordinarily is not sufficient ground for setting aside
a default judgment, a party may, in a proper case, be
granted relief notwithstanding an attorney's mistake of
law.
Ignorance of the law on the part of an attorney
ordinarily is not sufficient ground for setting aside
a default judgment,87 but the mere fact that an at-
torney erroneously stated a proposition, of law in
court, which error would not justify setting aside
a default judgment, does not bar him from assert-
ing other grounds for setting aside the default which
the court might find sufficient.88 Furthermore, the
court, in its discretion, may grant relief from an
attorney's mistake of law as to the legal effect of
an order89 or as to the proper procedure.90
(e) Erroneous Advice
The fact that a default Judgment was suffered by a
party In consequence of receiving erroneous advice from
his attorney Is generally no ground for setting aside the
judgment, although under the facts of the particular case
relief may be Justified on this ground.
The responsibility of a person of mature years
and judgment is independent of that of the attor-
ney by whom he is advised.91 So it is generally
held not to be good ground for setting aside a de-
fault judgment that it was suffered by the party in
consequence of receiving erroneous advice from his
attorney as to the necessity of making a defense or
as to the validity of the defense;92 but under the
facts of a particular case relief may be justified on
this ground.93
(f) Misconduct
A default judgment may be set aside where It was
obtained through the misconduct of the party's attorney
or because of his abandonment of, or withdrawal from,
the case without timely notice to his client.
A default judgment may be set aside where it
was obtained through the misconduct of the party's
attorney.94 Abandonment of, or withdrawal from,
Mistake of:
Counsel as to time for appearance,
pleading, or trial as ground for
opening or vacating: judgments
generally see supra § 280.
Party as to time or place of ap-
pearance or trial as ground for
opening or setting aside default
judgment see supra subdivision
n (2) (c) of this section.
Want or insufficiency of notice of
proceedings as ground for opening
or vacating default judgment see
supra subdivision b (3) of this
section.
82. Ala. — Sovereign Camp, W. O.
W., v. Gay, 104 So. 895, 20 Ala.
App. 650, reversed on other
grounds 104 So. 898, 213 Ala. 5.
Cal. — Johnston v. Liffman, 287 P.
558, 105 Cal.App. 187.
N.D. — Central Metropolitan Bank v.
American State Bank of Burling^
ton, 190 N.W. 813, 49 N.D. 165.
34 C.J. p 311 note 2.
83. N.Y. — Marcus v. Simotone &
Combined Sound & Color Films,
237 N.Y.S. 509, 135 Misc. 228.
34 C.J. p 311 note 3.
84. N.J. — Le Pore v. De Meester,
147 A. 863, 7 N.J.Misc. 1110..
85. Minn. — Kennedy v, Torodor, 276
N.W. 650, 201 Minn. 422.
86. Ga. — Turner v. Citizens' Bank
of Valdosta, 121 S.B. 698, 31 Ga.
App. 549.
Ill; — Travelers Ins. Co. v. Wagner,
279 Ill.App. 13.
34 C.J. p 311 note 5.
Miscalculation, held insufficient
ground
Attorney's miscalculation of time I
to plead or appear was held insuffi-
cient ground to set aside default
judgment. — Guardia v. Guardia, 229
P. 386, 48 Nev. 230.
87. Cal.— Beard v. Beard, 107 P.2d
385, 16 CaUd 645— Schoenfeld v.
Gerson, 120 P.2d 674, 48 CaLApp.
2d 739.
Idaho. — Kingsbury v. Brown, 92 P.2d
1053, 60 Idaho 464, 124 A.L.R. 149.
Minn. — Application of Bonley, 6 N.
W.2d 245, 212 Minn. 214.
Mont — Mihelich v. Butte Electric
Hy. Co., 281 P. 540, 85 Mont 604.
34 C.J. p 312 note 6.
Counsel's ignorance or mistake of
law as ground for opening or va-
cating Judgments generally see su-
pra § 280.
Ignorance of party as excuse for de-
fault see supra subdivision k of
this section.
88. Cal.— Beard v. Beard, 107 P.2d
385, 16 CaUd 645.
89. Cal. — Schoenfeld v. Gerson, 120
P.2d 674, 48 Cal.App.2d 739.
Bankruptcy adjudication
The trial court did not abuse its
discretion in vacating a Judgment,
where it appeared that defendant
had advised plaintiff's attorney, the
court, and the clerk that he had been
adjudicated a bankrupt and that he
left the courtroom in the belief that
in view of such bankruptcy no fur-
ther proceedings would be had, and
thereafter plaintiff and his attorney
appeared without further notice to
defendant and proved up plaintiff's
case as on default. — Davenport v.
Sackett, 288 N.W. 167, 206 Minn. 69.
637
dO. S.C.— -Savage v. Cannon, 30 S.B.
2d 70, 204 S.C. 473.
91. Ind. — Carty v. Toro, 57 N.E.2fl
434.
92. Ind. — Carty v. Toro, supra.
Pa.— In re Stroud's Estate, 22 Pa.
Dist & Co. 591, 40 Dauph.Co. 207.
Tex. — Johnson v. Whatley, Civ.App.,
45 S.W.2d 766, error refused.
34 C.J. p 312 note 8.
Erroneous advice of counsel as
ground for setting aside judgments
generally see supra § 280.
93. Cal. — Mahana v. Alexander, 26$
P. 260, 88 CaLApp. 111.
Wash.— Moe v. Wolter, 235 P. 803,
134 Wash. 340, affirmed 240 P. 565,
136 Wash. 696.
34 C.J. p 312 note 9.
94. Colo.— Calkins v. Smalley, 294 P.
534, 88 Colo. 227.
34 C.J. p 312 note 10, p 313 notes 11-
14-
Misconduct of counsel as ground for
opening or vacating judgments
generally see supra § 279.
Refusal to accept notice of trial
Where defendant's attorney of rec-
ord refused to accept notice of trial,
stating that he intended to withdraw
from the case, and never notified de-
fendant that the case had been no-
ticed or set for trial, and defend-
ant received no information of the
proposed trial from any source, a
judgment rendered in the absence
of defendant should be vacated. —
Calkins v. Smaller, 294 P. 534, 88
Colo. 227.
§334
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
the case by an attorney without timely notice to his
client 'has been held sufficient ground for vacating
a resulting default judgment,96 although relief on
such ground has been denied in view of the circum-
stances of the particular case.96
(g) Misunderstanding
The fact that a default Judgment was the conse-
quence of a genuine, accidental, and excusable misun-
derstanding of counsel is ground for opening or vacat-
ing it.
A default judgment may be opened or set aside
where the default occurred when the party's coun-
sel, who was guilty of no negligence or omission of
duty to his client, failed, because of a genuine
and accidental misunderstanding, to perform an
act which would otherwise have been performed,97
and this rule applies where the misunderstanding
was between the party and his counsel,98 between
opposing counsel,99 or between counsel and the
court,1 or where, without fault on their part, coun-
sel were misled by the record.2 In all such cases,
however, in order that the judgment may be set
aside, it is necessary that the mistake shall be
shown to be excusable*8
(7) Unavoidable Casualty or Misfortune
Under some statutes a default may be excused and
a default judgment opened or vacated where the appear-
ance of a party or his pleading was prevented by un-
avoidable casualty or misfortune, which is defined as
that which could not have been prevented by the exer-
cise of reasonable skill and diligence or human prudence
or foresight, and which does not exist where the com
plaining party was himself guilty of negligence in al-
lowing the default Judgment to be taten.
Under statutes in some jurisdictions a default
may be excused and a default judgment opened or
vacated where the appearance of the party or his.
pleading was prevented by unavoidable casualty or
misfortune.4 While it has been said that such stat-
utes are in derogation, not only of the common law,
but of the policy of holding judgments final after
the close of the term,5 on the other hand, the view
has been taken that they are consistent with the
95. Oal. — People's Finance & Thrift
Co. of Porterville v. Phoenix Assur.
Co., Limited, of London, 285 P. 857,
104 CaLApp. 334.
111. — Hogan v. Ermovick, 166 N.E.
503, 335 111. 181.
Iowa,— Ferris v. Wulf, 249 N.W. 156,
216 Iowa 289.
N.C.— Gosnell v. Hilliard, 171 S.B. 52,
205 N.C. 297.
Okl. — Bearman v. Bracken, 240 P.
713, 112 Okl. 237— Shuler v. Viger,
229 P. 280, 103 Okl. 129.
B.I. — Shapiro v. Albany Ins. Co., 163
A. 747.
Absence of attorney .from trial as
ground for setting aside default
judgment see supra subdivision I
of this section.
Withdrawal of attorney as unavoida-
ble casualty or misfortune see in-
fra subdivision n (7) of this sec-
tion.
•96. Cal. — De Recat Corporation v.
Dunn, 242 P. 936, 197 Cal. 787—
Newman v. Menne, 244 P. 951, 76
CaLApp. 331.
111. — B. A. Railton Co. v. Kearns, 10
N.E.2d 689, 291 Ill.App. 614.
Kan. — American Oil & Refining Co.
v. Liberty-Texas Oil Co., 211 P.
137, 112 Kan. 309..
3£y. — Ebner v. Official Board of M.
B. Church of Pineville, 282 S.W.
785, 214 Ky. 70.
2T.Y. — Dewey v. Agostini Bros. Bldg.
Corporation, 263 N.T.S. 174, 246
AppJDiv. 667— New York State La-
bor Relations Board v. Paragon
Oil Co., 45 N.Y.S.2d 152.
IN.C.— Baer v. McCall, 193 S.B. 406,
212 N.C. 389.
V?. Fla. — Stevens-Davis Co. v
Stock, 193 So. 745, 141 Fla. 714.
Misunderstanding:
As unavoidable casualty or mis-
fortune see infra subdivision n
(7) of this section.
Of counsel as ground for vacating
judgments generally see supra
§ 280.
98. Ariz. — Avery v. Calumet & Je-
rome Copper Co., 284 P. 159, 36
Ariz. 239.
34 C.J. p 313 note 17.
Language difficulties
Default judgment on notes against
Japanese defendants was properly
set aside on showing of meritorious
defense and that defendants and
their attorney did not understand
each other, defendants having little
knowledge of the English language
and the laws. — Daly v. Okamura, 213
P. 389, 25 Ariz. 50.
99. U.S.— Rogers v. Arzt, D.C.N.Y.,
1 F.R.D. 581.
Ark.— Kochtitzky & Johnson v. Mal-
vern Gravel Co., 92 S.W.2d 385,
192 Ark. 523.
Cal.— Waybright v. Anderson, 253 P.
148, 200 Cal. 374.
Or. — Leonard v. Bennett, 106 P.2d
542, 165 Or. 157.
R.L— De Santis r. Amicarelli, 131 A.
197.
S.C.— Jenkins v. Jones, 38 S.B.2d 255.
W.Va. — Corpus Juris cited in Black
v. Foley, 185 S.B. 902, 903, 117 W.
Va. 490— Sigmond v. Forbes, 158
S.B. 677, 110 W.Va. 442.
34 C.J. p 313 note 20.
Effect of court rule a* to verbal
agreements
District court rule providing that
verbal agreement between opposing
counsel with respect to proceedings
In suit will not be noticed does not
638
stand in the way of granting a new
trial in the interests of justice,
where a judgment has gone by de-
fault against defendant because of
misunderstanding resulting from
verbal negotiations between opposing
counsel, provided motion for new
trial is timely filed. — Blchinger v.
Lacroix, 189 So. 572, 192 La. 908.
1. N.D.— Central Metropolitan Bank
v. American State Bank of Bur-
lington, 190 N.W. 813, 49 N.D. 165.
2. Idaho.— Kivett v. Crouch, 104 P.
2d 21, 61 Idaho 536.
3. Ky.— Pinnacle Motor Co. v. Simp-
son, 287 S.W. 566, 216 Ky. 184.
Okl.— Key v. Minnetonka Lumber
Co., 241 P. 143, 112 Okl. 301.
34 C.J. p 313 note 21.
Reasonableness of belief
Whether judgments were taken
through plaintiffs' excusable neglect
depended on whether counsel rea-
sonably believed oral stipulation
gave extension for amending com-
plaints.— Waybright v. Anderson, 253
P. 148, 200 Oal. 374.
4. Ark. — Barringer v. Whitson, 168
S.W.2d 395, 205 Ark. 260— Metro-
politan Life Ins. Co. v. Duty, 126
S.W.2d 921, 197 Ark. 1118.
Ofci, — Tippins v. Turben, 19 P.2d
605, 162 Okl. 136.
34 C.J. p 314 note 23.
Unavoidable casualty or misfortune
as ground for opening or vacat-
ing judgments generally see su-
pra § 280.
5. Ark. — Bickerstaff v. Harmonia
Fire Ins. Co., 133 S.W.2d 890, 199
Ark. 424.
49 C.J-S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 334
fundamental rule that each case should be tried on
the merits, and a strict construction of the word
"unavoidable" as used therein will not be counte-
nanced.6 A casualty within the statutes is some-
thing in the nature of an accident,7 something un-
expected;8 it is in the nature of a misfortune, and
in a sense the two words are legally synonymous.9
Forgetfulness is not in and of itself a misfortune;
if anything, it is the basis of the misfortune.10
While there is some question as to whether the word
"unavoidable" in the statutory phrase "unavoidable
casualty or misfortune" applies to the word "mis-
fortune" as it does to "casualty,"11 that has been
held to be the significance and legal effect of the
word as it stands alone.12 Unavoidable casualty or
misfortune is distinguished from a mere ordinary
casualty or misfortune;13 it is such casualty or
misfortune as could not have been avoided by the
exercise of reasonable skill and diligence14 or hu-
man prudence or foresight ;15 it is an event or cas-
ualty happening against the will and without the
negligence or default of a party,16 and it does not
exist where the complaining party was himself
guilty of negligence in allowing the default judg-
ment to be taken.17
The lack of diligence of a party or his attor-
ney,18 an attorney's negligence,19 or the mere fail-
ure of an attorney to follow his client's instruc-
tions20 is not unavoidable casualty or misfortune
within the statute. Unavoidable casualty may be
based on mistake of counsel,21 but a mistake of
counsel in thinking that he had an agreement with
opposing counsel is not unavoidable casualty.22 The
mere absence of employed counsel from court be-
cause of other business engagements is not such
an unavoidable casualty as will necessarily entitle
the defaulting party to a new trial,23 although the
court in its discretion may vacate a judgment for
this reason.24
The act of an attorney in abandoning his client's
case without notice to the latter, and in permitting
a default judgment to be rendered against his cli-
ent without his knowledge or consent, has been held
6. Iowa. — Lunt v. Van Gorden, 281
N.W. 743, 225 Iowa 1120.
7. Ohio. — Rabb v. B<rard of Com'rs
of Cuyahoga County, 173 N.E. 255,
36 Ohio App. 481.
8. Ohio. — Rabb v. Board of Com'rs
of Cuyahoga County, supra.
9. Ohio.— Rabb v. Board of Com'rs
of Cuyahoga County, sfcpra.
10. Ohio. — Rabb v. Board of Com'rs
of Cuyahoga County, supra.
11. Ohio. — Rabb v. Board of Com'rs
of Cuyahoga County, supra.
12. Ohio. — Rabb v. Board of Com'rs
of Cuyahoga County, supra.
13. Ky.— Carter v. Miller, 95 S.W.2d
29, 264 Ky. 532.
34 C.J. p 314 note 23 [I].
14. Ky. — Carter v. Miller, supra.
Okl. — Mid-Texas Petroleum Co. v.
Western Lumber & Hardware Co.,
52 P.2d 15, 175 Okl. 260.
34 C.J. p 314 note 23.
15. Okl. — Sabin v. Sunset Gardens
Co., 85 P.2d 294, 184 Okl. 106.
16. Okl.— Sabin v. Sunset Gardens
Co., supra.
17. Okl. — Sabin v. Sunset Gardens
Co., 85 P.2d 294, 184 Okl. 106—
Thornton v. Eoff, 84 P.2d 5, 183,
Okl. 504 — Schuman v. Sternberg,
65 P.2d 410, 179 Okl. 115— Mid-
Texas Petroleum Co. v. Western
Lumber & Hardware Co., 52 P.2d
15, 175 Okl. 260— Upton v. Ship-
ley, 40 P.2d 1048, 170 Okl. 422—
Foster v. State, 270 P. 84, 132 Okl.
256 — Hunter v. National Bank of
Hastings, 241 P. 186, 113 Okl. 220
— Eagle Loan & Investment Co. v.
Turner, 241 P. 138, 113 Okl. 251.
34 C.J. p 314 note 23.
Negligence as defeating application
for relief generally see supra sub-
division n (5) <b) of this section.
Negligence of agent
Physician carrying Indemnity in-
surance against suits for malprac-
tice, who referred defense of suit to
insurance carrier, made insurance
company his agent for conducting
defense, and negligence of compa-
ny's adjuster in failing to transmit
information concerning suit to com-
pany's attorneys was imputed to
physician on physician's application
to set aside default Judgment
against him, and physician was not
entitled to have default judgment
set aside for "unavoidable casualty
or misfortune." — Leslie v. Spencer,
42 P.2d 119, 170 Okl. 642.
18. Neb.— Lyman v. Dunn, 252 N.W.
197, 125 Neb. 770.
Okl.— Leslie v. Spencer, 42 P.2d 119,
170 Okl. 642.
19. Iowa, — Starkey v. Porter Trac-
tor Co., 192 N.W. 135.
Kan. — Johnson v. Salkeld, 271 P. 385,
. 126 Kan. 807.
Ky.— Carter v. Miller, 95 S.W.2d 29,
264 Ky. 532.
Neb. — Lyman v. Dunn, 252 N.W. 197,
125 Neb. 770.
Okl.— Grayson v. Stith, 72 P.2d 820,
181 Okl. 131, 114 A.L.R. 276— Mid-
Texas Petroleum Co. v. Western
Lumber & Hardware Co., 52 P.2d
15, 175 Okl. 260 — Pickering Lum-
ber Co. v. Lacy, 44 P.2d 42, 170
Okl. 447— Upton v. Shipley, 40 P.
2d 1048. 170 Okl. 422— Gavin v.
Heath, 256 P. 745, 125 Okl. 118—
Vincent v. Kelly, 249 P. 942, 121
Okl. £02.
34 C.J. p 314 note 23 [b] (1).
639
Negligence of counsel as ground for
opening or vacating default judg-
ment generally see supra subdivi-
sion n (6) (b) of this section.
20. Ohio. — Rabb v. Board of Com'rs
of Cuyahoga County, 173 N.B. 255,
36 Ohio App. 481.
21. Okl.— Langley v. Moulton, 13 P.
2d 120, 158 Okl. 212.
Mistake of counsel as ground for
opening or vacating default Judg-
ment generally see supra subdivi-
sion n (6) of this section.
22. Ky. — Pinnacle Motor Co. v.
Simpson, 287 S.W. 566, 216 Ky.
184.
23. Ark. — Morrow v. Lindsey, 262
S.W. 641, 164 Ark. 606.
Absence of counsel as ground for
opening or vacating default judg-
ment generally see supra subdivi-
sion Z of this section.
Attendance on legislature
Facts that defendant's attorney
depended on plaintiff's attorney for
information regarding filing of ac-
tion, and that after action was filed
defendant's attorney became member
of stats legislature, and by reason
thereof was absent from office for
period of three months, unable to re-
main in contact with source of in-
formation which would have ap-
prised him of pendency of action,,
did not constitute unavoidable cas-
ualty or misfortune, so as to entitle-
defendant to have judgment vacated.
— Hoyse v. Grage, 42 P.2d 942, 141.
Kan. 702.
24. Kan. — Gordon v. Tennhardt, 8 P»
2d 328, 134 Kan. 799.
334
JUDOMENTS
49 C.J.S.
to constitute unavoidable casualty or misfortune,25
but there is also authority apparently to the con-
trary.26 Sickness which prevents an attorney from
being in attendance on the court is an unavoidable
casualty,27 whether it be sickness of the attorney
himself28 or of members of his family;29 but the
illness of defendant is not such unavoidable casualty
or misfortune as will entitle him to vacation of the
judgment where he was able to attend to the case
at his home and his physical presence either at the
courthouse or at his attorney's office was not re-
quired.30 A misunderstanding between opposing
counsel and the defaulted party as to the intent of
the former to press the suit may constitute unavoid-
able casualty or misfortune preventing defendant
from appearing and defending.31 Loss or miscar-
riage of mail may constitute unavoidable casualty
or misfortune ;32 but, where service of process has
been made on a duly appointed statutory agent who
fails to notify his principal through mere careless-
ness, such a showing does not constitute unavoid-
able casualty or misfortune.33
o. Other Grounds
Various matters have been held, to constitute, or not
to constitute, grounds for opening or vacating default
judgments.
In addition to those discussed supra subdivisions
b-n of this section, miscellaneous other matters
have been held to constitute34 or not to constitute35
grounds for opening or vacating default judgments.
Advice of sheriff. It is no ground for vacating a
default judgment that the sheriff, in delivering the
summons, advised defendant that it would not be
necessary for him to appear.36
Conduct of codefendant. Defendant's reliance on
the promise of a codefendant to settle or defend the
cause of action in behalf of all defendants is not
in itself sufficient to require the court to vacate a
default judgment against defendant,37 although un-
der the circumstances of the particular case such
relief may be warranted.38
Furtherance of justice. Courts may not legally
25. Okl.— Grayson v. Stith, 72 P.2d
820, 181 Okl. 181, 114 A.L.R. 276,
34 C.J. p 314 note 23 [a] (4).
Attorney's abandonment of, or with-
drawal from, case as ground for
opening or vacating default judg-
ment generally see supra subdivi-
sion n (6) (f) of this section.
Withdrawal of attorney
An attorney's act in abandoning
case and withdrawing therefrom
without notice to client, thus per-
mitting default judgment to be ren-
dered against client without client's
knowledge and consent, is "unavoid-
able casualty and misfortune" which
justifies setting such judgment
aside; and, where defendants' attor-
ney did not formally withdraw, but
without notice to clients stated to
court that clients had no defense,
this amounted to withdrawal as at-
torney <and abandonment of clients'
interests within rule. — Grayson v.
Stith, Okl., 165 P.2d 984.
26. Kan. — Johnson v. Salkeld, 271 P.
385, 126 Kan. 807.
27. Ark.— Johnson v. Jett, 159 S.W.
2d 78, 203 Ark. 861.
34 C.J. p 817 note 52, p 318 note
53.
Illness as ground for opening or va-
cating default judgment general-
ly see supra subdivision m of this
section.
28. Ky. — ^3tna Ins. Co. v. Hensley,
284 S.W. 425, 215 Ky. 45.
Ohio. — Lazarus v. Cleveland House-
hold Supply Co., 154 N.E. 343, 23
Ohio App. 15.
34 C.J. p 317 note 52.
29. Ark.— Johnson v. Jett, 159 S.W.
2d 78, 203 Ark. 861.
34 C.J. p 318 note 53.
30. Okl.-— Upton v. Shipley, 40 P.2d
1048, 170 Okl. 422.
31. Ark. — McElroy v. Underwood,
281 S.W. 368, 170 Ark. 794.
Misunderstanding of . counsel as
ground for opening or vacating de-
fault judgment generally see su-
pra subdivision n (6) (g) of this
section.
32. Okl.— Kellogg v. Smith, 42 P.2d
493. 171 Okl. 355— Nevins v. Seiber,
236 P. 415, 110 Okl. 126.
34 C.J. p 314 note 23 [f].
33. Ky.— Metropolitan Life* Ins. Co.
v. Ditto, 269 S.W. 527, 207 Ky.
434.
Failure of secretary of state to no-
tify foreign corporation of service
of process on him in action against
corporation does not constitute such
unavoidable casualty or misfortune
as to warrant vacation of default
judgment. — Geo. O. Richardson Ma-
chinery Co. v. Scott, 251 P. 482, 122
Okl. 125, certiorari granted 47 S.Ct.
587, 274 U.S. 729, 71 L.Ed. 1319, cer-
tiorari dismissed 48 S.Ct 264, 276
U.S. 128, 72 L.Bd. 497.
34. Tea^— Weatherford v. Van Al-
styne, 22 Tex. 22.
34 C.J. p 423 note 34 [a] (4), [d].
Appearance before execution of writ
of inquiry
Default judgment on depositary
bond should be set aside as to de-
fendant filing before execution of
writ of inquiry affidavit denying ow-
ing any debt — State v. Picklesimer,
138 S.E. 313, .103 W.Va. 561. .
640
Variance
Where state of demand in action
on guarantee of a sealed note al-
leged that plaintiff was owner and
holder of note but affidavit on de-
fault did not so aver or explain how
plaintiff was the owner, it was prop-
er for the court to open the de-
fault judgment — Ehnes v. Quinn, 23
A.2d 295, 127 N.J.Law 447.
35. S.D.— McDonald v. Egan, 178 N.
W. 296, 43 S.D. 147.
34 C.J. p 423 note 34 [b].
Pendency of another suit
Tex. — Simpson v. Glenn, Civ. App.,
103 S.W.2d 433— Dempsey v. Gib-
son, Civ.App., 100 S.W.2d 430.
Settlement "between parties stib-
seqnent to entry of Judgment did
not entitle defendant to be relieved
from his default which had occur-
red previously. — G. H. Poppenberg,
Inc., v. Martin. 270 N.T.S. 561, 241
App.Div. 792.
36. Cal.— Cann v. Parker, 258 P. 105,
84 Cal.App. 379.
37. Cal. — Handy v. Samaha, 290 P.
492, 107 CaLApp. 565.
Mich.— First Nat. Bank v. Pine
Shores Realty Co., 241 N.W, 190,
257 Mich. 289.
N.C. — Elramy v. Abeyounis, 126 S.B.
743, 189 N.C. 278.
38. Ariz.— Teast v. Fleck, 121 P.2d
426, 58 Ariz. 469.
Cal. — John A. Vaughan Corporation
v. Title Insurance & Trust Co., 12
P.2d 117, 123 CaLApp. 709.
Wash, — Johnston v. Medina Improve-
ment Club, 116 P.24 272, 10 Wash.
2d 44.
49 O.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
335
set aside a judgment by default confirmed in strict
conformity with the requirements of the law solely
on the alleged ground that such action would be in
furtherance of justice where defendant has been
properly cited.39 The action of the trial court in
setting aside an order adjudging defendant in de-
fault has been upheld, however, under the broad
power of the court to modify, set aside, or vacate
any order previously made where to do so would be,
in the opinion of the court, to further the princi-
ples of justice and rights;40 and, as shown supra
subdivision a of this section whether the ends of
justice will be furthered thereby is a matter for con-
sideration on a motion to set aside a default judg-
ment made at the same term. The removal of a
default by judicial action is proper where there is
a substantial defense, and where it is necessary for
the promotion of justice.41
Good cause or adventitious circumstances. Under
some statutes a default judgment may be vacated on
a showing of "good cause"43 or some "adventitious
drcumstance" beyond the control of the party.48
§ 335. Judgment an Constructive Service
In accordance with express statutory provisions which
are liberally construed, a defendant who has been only
constructively served by publication of summons, and
against whom a judgment is given by default, may ap-
pear and have the judgment vacated and be admitted
to defend the action, within a limited period of time.
Under express statutes in a number of jurisdic-
tions, a defendant, or a nonresident defendant, who
has been only constructively served by publication
of summons, and against whom a judgment is giv-
en by default, may appear and have the judgment
vacated and be admitted to defend the action, with-
in a limited time after the rendition of the judg-
ment or after receiving notice of it44 Such stat-
utes are remedial, and should be construed liber-
ally so as to advance the remedy,45 and the show-
ing defendant is required to make should not be
Insurer of codefendant
Where one defendant in good faith
believed, from what an insurance
Agent told him, that the insurance
company, having insured a code-
fendant, would defend the action on
behalf of all the defendants, and
therefore did not appear to defend,
the court should have set aside the
default — Newton v. De Armond, 212
P. 630, 60 CaLApp. 231.
89. La. — Stout v. Henderson, 102 So.
193, 157 La. 169— Raphiel v. Lou-
isiana Ry. & Nav. Co., 99 So. 459,
155 La. 590— Item Co. v. St. Tam-
many Hotel, App., 175 So. 421—
Brownlee-Wells Motors v. Hol-
lingsworth, 127 So. 754, 13 La.App.
19.
40. Okl. — Bunger v. Rogers, 112 P.
2d 361, 188 Okl. 620.
41. Mass.— Cohen v. Industrial Bank
& Trust Co., 175 N.E. 78, 274 Mass.
49$.
42. Cal. — Elms v. Elms, App., 164
P.2d 936.
W.Va. — Wagner v. Edgington Coal
Co., 180 S.E, 94, 100 W.Va. 117.
Held to constitute "good cause"
(1) Surprise, mistake, and excus-
able neglect. — Marion County Court,
W. Va., v. Ridge, C.C.A.W.Va., 13 F.
2d 969.
(2) Error in proceeding with trial
as though defendant, whose answer
was on file, was in default— Turbe-
ville v. McCarrell, 30 P.2d 496, 43
Ariz. 236.
(3) Where active Jurisdiction of
case attaches to extent conferred by
citation of nonresident defendants by
publication, that movant did not
know of rendition of Judgment
49C.J.S.-41
against him in time to attack it
during term at which rendered and
had good defense to cause of action
on which Judgment • was based. —
Watts v. City of El Paso, Tex.Civ.
App., 113 S.W.2d 249, error refused.
43. What constitutes
"Adventitious circumstance," au-
thorizing setting aside default judg-
ment, is one which is unusual, be-
yond movant' s control, and free from
his neglect — Rollins v. North River
Ins. Co., 149 S.E. 838, 107 W.Va, 602,
dissenting opinion 150 S.E. 753, 107
W.Va. 698.
Failure to receive registered snail
Failure of foreign insurance cor-
poration to receive summons by reg-
istered mail was held adventitious
circumstance, authorizing setting
aside of default Judgment — Rollins
v. North River Ins. Co., 149 S.E.
838, 107 W.Va. 602, dissenting opin-
ion 150 S.E. 753, 107 W.Va. 698.
44. Ariz.— Southwest Metals Co. v.
Snedaker, 129 P.2d 314, 59 Ariz.
374.
Cal.— Hiltbrand v. Hiltbrand, 23 P.
2d 277, 218 Cal. 321— Application
of Mercereau, 14 P.2d 1019, 126
Cal. App. 590.
Ind. — Padol v. Home Bank & Trust
Co., 27 N.E.2d 917, 108 Ind.App.
401.
Kan.— Boiler v. Boiler, 150 P.2d 157,
158 Kan. 742 — Board of Com'rs of
Wyandotte County v. Axtell, 5 P.
2d 1078, 134 Kan. 304— Adams v.
Snyder, 20 P.2d 827, 137 Kan. 365
—Martens v. Green, 218 P. 642, 113
Kan. 142.
La.— Miller v. Krouse, App., 177 So.
472.
Mo,— Chilton v. Cady, 250 S.W. 403,
641
'298 Mo. 101— Osage Inv. Co. v.
Sigrlst, 250 S.W. 39, 298 Mo. 139.
Nev.— Nahas v. Nahas, 90 P.2d 223,
59 Nev. 220, rehearing denied 92 P.
2d 718, 59 Nev. 220.
N.C.— Blankenship v. De Casco, 189
S.E. 773, 211 N.C. 290.
Okl.— Wall v. Snider, 219 P. 671, 93
Okl. 99.
Tex. — Hunsinger v. Boyd, 26 S.W.2d
905, 119 Tex. 182— Seymour v.
Schwartz, Civ.App., 172 S.W.2d 138
— Winn v. Federal Land Bank of
Houston, Civ.App., 164 S.W.2d 864,
error refused.
34 C.J. p 424 note 38.
Personal service outside state
The words "personally served" or
"personal service" in the statute
mean personal, service of summons
and complaint on' a defendant with-
in the state, and do not include per-
sonal service of summons and com-
plaint on defendant without the
state.
Cal.— Tucker v. Tucker, 139 P.2d 348,
59 Cal.App.2d 557.
Minn. — Kane v. Stallman, 296 N.W.
1, 209 Minn. 138.
Nev.— Nahas v. Nabas, 90 P.2d 223,
59 Nev. 220, rehearing denied 92
P.2d 718, 59 Nev. 220.
45. Ariz. — Gordon v. Gordon, 281 P.
215, 35 Ariz. 532.
Cal. — Application of Mercereau, 14
P.2d 1019, 126 CaLApp. 590.
Ind. — Padol v. Home Bank & Trust
Co.. 27 NJB.2d 917, 108 Ind.App.
401.
Kan. — Board of Com'rs of Wyan-
dotte County v. Axtell, 5 P.2d 1078,
134 Kan. 304.
34 C.J. p 425 note 89.
335
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
unnecessarily strict.46 Under some statutes actual
knowledge of the pending action has been held not
to preclude defendant from subsequently moving to
reopen the judgment;47 but generally -a defendant
may not avail himself of these statutes, although
constructively summoned, if he had actual knowl-
edge or notice of the action in time to make his de-
fense,48 or if he appeared in the action,49 and, of
course, such statutes do not apply where defendant
was personally served, and thereafter suffered a
default.5*)
Defendant need not present any excuse for his
failure to appear except the fact that he was not
personally served with the summons.51 While some
of this class of statutes in terms require "cause" or
"good cause" to be shown,52 the existence of a meri-
torious defense, together with want of notice of the
action in time to present it, is sufficient "cause"
within the meaning of the statute.53 No irregular-
ity in the proceedings or defect in the judgment
need be shown.54 The application presupposes the
validity of the judgment by default, and the regu-
larity of the proceeding may not be attacked.55
Defendant is not precluded from having the judg-
ment reopened by entering a general appearance
and attaching a cross petition to his motion.5**
§ 336. Showing Meritorious Defense
a. In general
b. Sufficiency of showing
c. Sufficiency of defense
d. Affidavit of merits
e. Proposed answer
a. In General
Subject to some exceptions, as where the judgment
is void for want of jurisdiction, an application to open
or vacate a default judgment must generally be supported
by a showing that the applicant has a meritorious de-
fense.
As a general rule, a judgment by default will not
be opened or vacated unless defendant shows that
he has a meritorious defense to the action.5? It
46. Ariz. — Gordon v. Gordon, 281 P.
215, 35 Ariz. 532.
47. Mo.— Miners' Bank v. Kingston,
103 S.W. 27, 204 Mo. 687.
Kev.— Nahas v. Nahas, 90 P.2d 223,
59 Nev. 220, rehearing- denied 92
P.2d 718, 59 Nev. 220.
48. Ark.— Horn v. Hull, 275 S.W.
905, 169 Ark. 463.
Cal.— Palmer v. Lantz, 9 P.2d 821,
215 Cal. 320— Tucker v. Tucker,
139 P.2d 348, 59 Cal.App.2d 557.
Kan. — Suter v. Schultz, 7 P.2d 55,
134 Kan. 538.
Minn.— Kane v. Stallman, 296 N.W.
1, 209 Minn. 138.
Xex. — Watts v. City of El Paso, Civ.
App., 183 S.W.2d 249, error refused.
84 C.J. p 425 note 44.
Actual notice held not given
Utah.— Naisbitt v. Herrick, 290 P.
950, 76 Utah 575.
49. Mo.— Boas v. Cliffdale Land &
Farm Co., 193 S.W. 806.
34 C.J. p 425 note 45.
50. Mo. — Boas v. Cliffdale Land &
Farm Co., supra.
34 C.J. p 426 note 46.
Service other than "by publication
A statute permitting an applica-
tion to set aside the default judg-
ment if it has been rendered with-
out other service than publication
in a newspaper has been held not to
apply if notice has been mailed to
defendant. — Lynch v. Collins, 233 P.
709, 106 Okl. 133.
51. Ariz. — Collins v. Streitz, 54 P.
2d 264, 47 Ariz. 146, appeal dis-
missed 56 S.Ct. 835, 298 U.S. 640,
80 L.Ed. 1373.
Cal.— Randall v. Randall, 264 P. 751,
203 Cal. 462— In re Stanfield's
Guardianship, 89 P.2d 696, 32 Cal.
App.2d 283.
3-4 C.J. p 426 note 49.
52. Alaska. — Inland Finance Co. v.
Standard Salmon Packers, 7 Alas-
ka 131.
Mo.— Chilton v. Cady, 250 S.W. 403,
298 Mo. 101.
Tex. — Watts v. City of El Paso, Civ.
App., 183 S,W.2d 249, error refused.
34 OJ. p 426 note 51.
Good cause held not shown
Tex. — Devereauac v. Daube, Civ.App.,
185 S.W.2d 211.
53. Alaska. — Inland Finance Co. v.
Standard Salmon Packers, 7 Alas-
ka 131.
Ariz.— Collins v. Streitz, 54 P.2d 264,
47 Ariz. 146, appeal dismissed 56
S.Ct. 835, 298 U.S. 640, 80 L.Ed.
1373 — Gordon v. Gordon, 281 P.
215, 35 Ariz. 532.
Mo. — Osage Inv. Co. v. Sigrist, 250
S.W. 39, 298 Mo. 139.
Tex. — Devereaux v. Daube, Civ.App.,
185 S.W.2d 211— Ashton v. Farrell
& Co., Civ.App., 121 S.W.2d 611,
error dismissed — Smalley v. Octa-
gon Oil Co., Civ.App., 82 S.W.2d
1049, error dismissed.
34 C.J. p 427 note 52.
Personal service prevented by de-
fendant
Defendant is not required to show
affirmatively anything more than
that he has a good defense on the
merits, but, if it appears from the
record that defendant has deliberate-
ly prevented personal service of
summons on him, there is not "good
cause" within statute and trial court
does not abuse its discretion in re-
fusing a new trial. — Perrin v. Perrin
642
Properties, 86 P.2d 23, 53 Ariz. 121,
122 A.L.R. 621.
54. N.Y.~- Marvin v. Brandy, 9 N.Y.
S. 593, 56 Hun 242, 18 N.T.Civ.
Proc. 343.
55. Kan. — Durham v. Moore, 29 P.
472, 48 Kan. 135, 136.
34 C.J. p 427 note 54.
56. Okl.— Bagsby v. Bagsby, 89 P.2d
345, 184 Okl. 627, 122 A.L.R. 155.
57. U.S. — Atlantic Dredging & Con-
struction Co. v. Nashville Bridge
Co., C.C.A.Fla., 57 F.2d 519— Man-
del Bros. v. Victory Belt Co., C.C.
A.I1L, 15 F,2d 610.
Ala. — Ex parte Anderson, 4 So.2d
420, 242 Ala. 31— Harnischfeger
Sales Co. v. Burge, 129 So. 37,
221 Ala. 387.
Ariz.— Brown v. Beck, 169 P.2d 855
— Swisshelm Gold Silver Co. v.
Farwell, 124 P.2d 544, 59 Ariz. 162
— Perrin v, Perrin Properties, 86
P.2d 23, 53 Ariz. 121, 122 A.L.R.
621— MacNeil v. Vance, 60 P.2d
1078, 48 Ariz. 187— Huff* v. Flynn,
60 P.2d 931, 48 Ariz. 175— Sturges
v. Sturges, 50 P.2d 886, 46 Ariz.
331 — Michener v. Standard Acci-
dent Ins. Co., 47 P.2d 438, 46 Ariz.
66— Martin v. Sears, 44 P.2d 526,
45 Ariz. 414— Bryant v. Bryant, 14
P.2d 712, 40 Ariz. 519— Beltran v.
Roll, 7 P.2d 248, 39 Ariz. 417— Se-
curity Trust & Savings Bank v.
Moseley, 234 P. 828, 27 Ariz. 562.
Ark. — Rockamore v. Pembroke, 18B
S.W.2d 616, 208 Ark. 995— Barrin-
ger v. Whitson, 168 S.W.2d 395,
205 Ark. 260— O'Neal v. B. F.
Goodrich Rubber Co., 162 S.W.2d
52, 204 Ark. 371— Mayberry v.
Penn, 146 S.W.2d 925, 201 Ark.
756 — Federal Land Bank of St
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
336
Louis v. Cottrell, 126 S.W.2d 279,
197 Ark. 783— Hill v. Teague, 108
S.W.2d 883, 194 Ark. 552— Quirles
v. Smith, 56 S.W.2d 427, 186 Ark.
835— Lambie v. W. T. Rawleigh
Co., 14 S.W.2d 245, 178 Ark. 1019
— C. A. Blanton Co. v. First Nat.
Bank, 1 S.W.2d 558, 175 Ark. 1107
— United Order of Good Samari-
tans v. Brooks, 270 S.W. 955, 168
Ark. 570— Minick v. Ramey, 269 S.
W. 565, 168 Ark. 180.
Cal.— Beard v. Beard, 107 P.2d 385,
16 Cal.2d 645 — Elms v. Elms, App.,
164 P.2d 936— Bonfilio v. Ganger,
140 P.2d 861, 60 Cal.App.2d 405—
Thompson v. Sutton, 122 P.2d 975,
50 Cal.App.2d 272— Doyle v. Rice
Ranch Oil Co., 81 P.2d 980, 28 Cal.
App.2d 18 — Antonsen v. San Fran-
cisco Container Co., 66 P.2d 716,
20 Cal.App.2d 214 — Application of
Mercereau, 14 P.2d 1019, 126 Cal.
App. 590 — Sharp v. Paulson, 295 P.
856, 111 CaLApp. 515— Brooks v.
Nelson, 272 P. 610, 95 Cal.App. 144.
Colo. — Connell v. Continental Cas-
ualty Co., 290 P. 274, 87 Colo. 573.
Fla. — State Bank of Eau Gallie v.
Raymond, 138 So. 40, 103 Fla. 649.
Ga.— Golightly v. Line, 121 S.E. 878,
81 Ga.App. 550.
Idaho. — State ex rel. Sweeley v.
Braun, 110 P.2d 835, 62 Idaho 258
— Voellmeck v. Northwestern Mut.
Life Ins. Co., 92 P.2d 1076, 60 Ida-
ho 412.
111.— Lusk v. Bluhm, 53 N.E.2d 135,
321 IlLApp. 349— Brown v. Zau-
bawfcy, 52 N.B.2d 725, 321 111. App.
297, reversed on other grounds 57
N.B.2d 856, 388 111. 351— Harris v.
Juenger, 7 N.E.2d 376, 289 IlLApp.
467, reversed on other grounds 11
N.B.2d 929, 367 111. 478— Whalen v.
Twin City Barge & Gravel Co.,
280 IlLApp. 596, certiorari de-
nied Twin City Barge & Gravel Co.
v. Whalen, 56 S.Ct 590, 297 U.S.
714, 80 L.Ed. 1000— Crystal Lake
Country Club v. Scanlan, 264 111.
App. 44 — People v. Wade, 258 I1L
App. 138.
Ind.— Hoag v. Jeffers, 159 N.E. 753,
201 Ind. 249— Ffclmouth State Bank
v. Hayes, 185 N.E. 662, 97 Ind.App.
68.
Iowa. — Bates v. Ely Trust & Savings
Bank, 261 N.W. 614, 219 Iowa 1356
— Borden v. Voegtlin, 245 N.W. 331,
215 Iowa 882 — Ryan v. Phoenix Ins.
Co. of Hartford, Conn., 215 N.W.
749, 205 Iowa 655— Upmier v.
Freese, 202 N.W. 8, 199 Iowa 405—
Sioux County v. Kosters, 191 N.W.
315, 194 Iowa 1300.
Kan.— Pilsen State Bank v. Riffel, 21
P.2d 348, 137 Kan. 678— Board of
Com'rs of Wyandotte County v.
Kerr, 211 P. 128, 112 Kan. 463.
Ky. — Carr Creek Community Center
v. Home Lumber Co., 125 S.W.2d
777, 276 Ky. 840.
Mass.— Manzi v. Carlson, 180 N.E.
134, 278 Mass. 267.
Md. — Harvey v. Slacum, 29 A.2d 276,
181 Md. 206— Martin v. Long, 120
A. 875, 142 Md. 348.
Mich. — Feierabend v. Manistee, Cir-
cuit Judge, 234 N.W. 148, 253 Mich.
115.
Mo. — Quattrochi v. Quattrochl, App.,
179 S.W.2d 757— Jeffrey v. Kelly,
App., 146 S.W.2d 850— O'Connell v.
Dockery, App., 102 S.W.2d 748—
Williams v. Barr, App., 61 S.W.2d
420, transferred, see, Sup., 55 S.W.
2d 467 — Karst v. Chicago Fraternal
Life Ass'n, App., 22 S.W.2d 178—
Case v. Arky, App., 253 S.W. 484.
Neb. — Ak-Sar-Ben Exposition Co. v.
Sorensen, 229 N.W. 13, 119 Neb.
358.
N.J. — Hanover Trust Co. v. Rizzo,
166 A. 326, 110 N.J.Law 581— Mc-
Carthy v. Quire, 187 A. 739, 14 N.
J.Misc. 795— E. J. Lavino & Co. v.
National Surety Co., 141 A. 663,
104 N.J.Law 475, 6 N.J.Misc. 478—
Auto Brokerage Co. v. Ullrich, 134
A. 885, 4 N,J.Misc. 808.
N.T.— Hogan v. Johnson, 272 N.T.S.
113, 241 App.Div. 914— Katzenberg
v. Land Estates, 271 N.T.S. 282,
241 App.Div. 874— Tabakin v. Frei-
man, 217 N.T.S. 378, 217 App.Div:
665— Titus v. Halsted, 204 N.T.S.
241, 209 App.Div. 66— Procter &
Gamble Distributing Co. v. Scher,
200 N.T.S. 428, 20B App.Div. 737—
Broderick v. Saretsky, 39 N.T.S.
2d 802, 179 Misc. 737— Hutchinson
v. Weston, 290 N.T.S. 334, 160
Misc. 890— Zaza v. Zaza, 246 N.T.S.
148, 138 Misc. 218— Crouse Grocery
Co. v. Valentine, 226 N.T.S. 613,
131 Misc. 571— Mandel v, Donohue,
208 N.T.S. 807, 124 Misc. 861—
Lennox v. Meehan, 201 N.T.S. 710,
121 Misc. 678— Schulte Leasing
Corp. v. Friedman, 61 N.T.S.2d 665
— Hospital Credit Exchange v.
Mintz, 53 N.T.S.2d JS30— Federal
Schools v. Saponaro, 25 N.T.S. 2d
313 — General Exchange Ins. Cor-
poration v. Stern, 25 N.T.S,2d 266
— National Advertising Agency v.
Greco, 201 N.T.S. 704.
N.C. — Graver v. Spaugh, 88 S.E.2d
525, 226 N.C. 450— Johnson v. Sidr
bury, 34 S.E.2d 67, 225 N.C. 208—
Cayton v. Clark, 193 S.E. 404, 212
N.C. 374— Carter v. Anderson, 181
S.E. 750, 208 N.C. 529— Fellos v.
Allen, 162 S.E. 905, 202 N.C. 375—
Sutherland v. McLean, 154 S.E.
662, 199 N.C. 345— Bowie v. Tuck-
er, 150 S.E. 200, 197 N.C. 671—
Dunn v. Jones, 142 S.E. 820, 195
N.C. 354— Baker v. Corey, 141 S.E.
892, 195 N.C. 299— Crye v. Stoltz,
138 S.E. 167, 193 N.C. 802— Helder-
man v. Hartsell Mills Co., 135 S.E.
627, 192 N.C. 626— Taylor & Fetzer
v. Gentry, 135 S.E. 327, 192 N.C.
503— Duffer v. Brunson, 125 S.E.
619, 188 N.C. 789— Hill v. Humnes
Hotel Co., 125 S.E. 266, 188 N.C.
586.
N.D.— Berry v. Berry, 234 N.W. 520,
«0 N.D. 353— Hart v. Hone, 223
N.W. 346, 57 N.D. 590— Kozak v.
643
Ashbridge, 222 N.W. 620, 57 N.D.
496 — Warren v. Resaake, 208 N.W.
564, 54 N.D. 65.
Ohio. — Lazarus v. Cleveland House-
hold Supply Co., 154 N.E. 343, 28
Ohio App. 15.
Okl. — Jupe v. Home Owners Loan
Corp., 167 P.2d 46 — Turner v. Dex-
ter, 44 P.2d 984, 172 Okl. 252 —
Petros v. Fox-Vliet Drug Co., 280
P. 812, 138 Okl. 253.
Or. — Snyder v. Consolidated High-
way Co., 72 P.2d 932, 157 Or. 479
— Finch v. Pacific Reduction &
Chemical Mfg. Co., 234 P. 296, 113
Or. 670.
Pa. — Quaker City Chocolate & Con-
fectionery Co. v. Warnock Bldg.
Ass'n, 32 A.2d 5, 347 Pa. 186 —
Sturges v. Page, 163 A. 327, 106
Pa.Super. 520 — Page v. Patterson,
161 A. 878, 105 Pa.Super. 438—
Silent Auto Corporation of North-
ern New Jersey v. Folk, 97 Pa.
Super. 588 — Brown v. Bray, 90 Pa.
Super. 180 — Remick v. Letterle, 89
PsuSuper. 322 — Henderson v. Oshi-
rak, -56 Pa.Dist & Co. 25— Leschin-
ski v. W. C. Hack & Sons, 47 Pa.
Dist. & Co. 475— Green v. Davis, 19
Pa-Dist. & Co. 156, 32 Sch.Leg.Rec.
307 — Commonwealth v. Dr. Cran-
dall's Health School, Com.PL, 51
Dauph.Co. 833 — Davis v. Tate,
Com.PL, 26 Erie Co. 141 — Kopec v.
Sullivan, Com.PL, 23 Erie Co. 413
—Smith v. Morris, Com.PL, 41
Lack.Jur. 18 — White v. Consumers
Finance Service, Com.PL, 33 Luz.
Leg.Reg. 461 — Thomas Bros. v.
Grohowski, Com.PL, 32 Luz.Legr.
Reg. 454— Herring v. Abromitis,
Com.PL, 15 Northum.Leg.J. 213.
Philippine. — Lerma v. Antonio, 6
Philippine 236— Wahl v. Donaldson,
2 Philippine 301.
R.I. — Chemick v. Annelfo, 17 A.2d
848, 66 R.I. 95— Nelen v. Wells,
123 A. 599, 45 ILL 424— Milbury
Atlantic Mfg. Co. v. Rocky Point
Amusement Co., 118 A. 737, 44 R.I.
458— Whitney v, Jenks, 118 A. 689.
S.C.— Lillard v. Searson, 170 S.E. 449,
170 S.C. 304 — Savannah Supply Co.
v. Ross, 122 S.E. 772, 128 S.C. 298.
S.D. — Connelly v. Franklin, 210 N.W.
735, 50 S.D. 512.
Tex. — Commercial Credit Corp. v.
Smith, 187 S.W.2d 363, 143 Tex.
612 — Craddock v. Sunshine Bus
Lines, 133 S.W.2d 124, 134 Tex. 388
— City of Fort Worth v. Gause,
101 S.W.2d 221, 129 Tex 25— Law-
ther Grain Co. v. Winniford, Com.
App., '249 S.W. 195 — Southwestern
Specialty Co. v. Brown, Civ.Apufc,
188 S.W.2d 1002, error refused-
Harris v. Elm Oil Co., Civ.App^
183 S.W.2d 216, error refused-
Brown v. St. Mary's Temple No. U
S. M. T. United Brothers of
Friendship of Texas, Civ. App., 127
S.W.2d 531 — Ferguson v. Chapman,
Civ.App., 94 S.W.2d 593, error dis-
missed— University Development
Co. v. Wolf, Civ.App., 93 S.W.2d
336
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
must appear that a retrial will result in a judgment
different from the one sought to be vacated58 The
existence of a meritorious defense is an express or
implied condition of relief under some of the stat-
utes providing for the opening or vacating of de-
fault judgments taken on constructive service of
process,59 but such a showing is not necessary un-
der all of the statutes.60
Exceptions to the rule have been made in a vari-
ety of cases.61 A meritorious defense need not be
shown where the application to open or vacate the
default judgment is made during the judgment
term;62 but there is also authority to the contra-
ry.68 It has been held that a meritorious defense
need not be shown where the judgment is void,64
or at least where it is void on the face of the rec-
1187--Babington v. Gray, Civ.App.,
71 S.W.2d 293— Aviation Credit
Corporation of New York v. Uni-
versity Aerial Service Corporation,
Civ.App., 59 S.W.2d 870, error dis-
missed— Peters v. A. Brandt Up-
holstering Co., Civ.App., 50 S.W.2d
409, error dismissed — Homuth v.
Williams, Civ.App., 42 S.W.2d 1048
— Housewright v. Housewright,
Civ-App., 41 S.W.2d 1071, error re-
fused— Sun Lumber Co. v. Huttig
Sash & Door Co., Civ.App., 36 S.W.
2d 561 — Peters v. Hubb Diggs Co,
Civ.App., 85 S.W.2d 449, error dis-
missed— Chaney v. Allen, Civ.App.,
25 S.W.2d 1115 — Griffin v. Burrus,
Civ.App., 24 S.W.2d 805, affirmed,
Com.App., 24 S.W.2d 810 — Humph-
rey v. Harrell, Clv.App., 19 S.W.2d
410, affirmed, Com.App., 29 S.W.2d
963 — Sneed v. Sneed, Civ.App.. 296
S.W. 643— St. Paul Fire & Marine
Ins. Co. v. Earnest, Civ.App., 293
S.W. 677, affirmed 296 S.W. 1088,
116 Tex. 565 — Thompson v. Glover
Johns Auto Co., Civ.App., 289 S.W.
124 — Trigg v. Gray, Civ.App., 288
S.W. 1098 — Colorado River Syndi-
cate Subscribers v. Alexander, Civ.
App., 288 S.W. 586— Welsch v. Kee-
ton, Civ.App., 287 S.W. 692— Paggi
v. Rose Mfg. Co., Civ. App., 285 S.
W. 852 — Thomas v. Goldberg, Civ.
App., 283 S.W. 230— First Nat
Bank v. Southwest Nat. Bank of
Dallas, Civ.App., 273 S.W. 951—
Allen v. Frank, Civ.App., 252 S.W.
£47 — Stoudenmeier v. First Nat
Bank, Civ.App., 246 S.W. 761.
Vt— Greene v. Riley, 172 A, 633, 106
Vt. 319.
Wash. — Person v. Plough, 24 P.2d
591, 174 Wash. 160— Luger v. Lit-
tau, 288 P. 277, 157 Wash. 40—
Hurby v. Kwapil, 286 P. '664, 156
Wash. 225 — Jacobsen v. Defiance
Lumber Co., 253 P. 1088, 142 Wash.
642 — Boerlnga v. Brockway, 234
P. 1015, 134 Wash. 43— Hurley v.
Wilson, 225 P. 441, 129 Wash. 567.
W.Va. — Arnold v. Reynolds, 2 S.B.
2d 433, 121 W.Va. 91— State ex rel.
Alklre v. Mili, 180 S.E. 183, 116
W.Va. 277— Gainer v. Smith, 132
S.E. 744, 101 W.Va. 314.
34 C.J. p 329 note 55, p 428 note 69.
Showing meritorious defense gener-
ally see supra § 290.
Defense in whole or in, part
Kan. — American Oil & Refining Co.
v. Liberty-Texas Oil Co., 211 P.
137, 112 Kan. 309.
N.D.— Croonquist v. Walker, 196 N,
W. 108, 50 N.D. 388.
Default order and Judgment distin-
guished
Under the statutes, the distinction
between an order vacating a default
judgment and an order vacating a
default order entered before judg-
ment is that in the former the pre-
requisite is showing a meritorious
defense, while in the latter only good
and sufficient cause need be set out
—Johnston v. Medina Improvement
Club, 116 P.2d 272, 10 Wash.2d 44.
58. Cal. — Greenamyer v. Board of
Trustees of Lugo Elementary
School Dist in Los Angeles Coun-
ty, 2 P.2d 848. 116 CaLApp. 319.
Colo. — Bray v. Germain Inv. Co., 98
P.2d 993, 105 Colo. 403.
Kan. — Miner v. Blakeman, 210 P.
1089, 112 Kan. 393.
Pa.— Citizens' taat. Bank of Tunk-
Hannock v. Hallock, 154 A. 304,
303 Pa. 205.
S.D.— Sohn v. Flavin, 244 N.W. 349,
60 S.D. 305.
Tex. — Cragin v. Henderson County
Oil Development Co., Com.App., 280
S.W. 554 — Sanns v. Chapman, Civ.
App., 144 S.W.2d 341, error dis-
missed, judgment correct — Dickson
v. Navarro County Levee Improve-
ment Dist No. 3, Civ.App., 124 S.
W.2d 943, followed in Dickson v.
Ellis County Levee Improvement
Dist No. 10, 124 S.W.2d 946, re-
versed on other grounds 139 S.W.
2d 260, 135 Tex. 102, set aside
Dickson v. Navarro County Levee
Dist No. 3, 139 S.W.2d 257, 135
Tex. 95.
34 C.J. p 336 note 80—37 OJ. p 656
note 15 [a].
59. Alaska. — Inland Finance Co. v.
Standard Salmon Packers, 7 Alas-
ka 131.
Kan. — Board of ConVrs of Sherman
County v. Demaree, 142 P.2d 722,
157 Kan. 478.
Tex. — Watts v. City of El Paso, Civ.
App., 183 S.W.2d 249, error re-
fused. .
34 C.J. p 427 note 55.
Statutes of limitation
On motion to open default judg-
ments and to be permitted to defend,
statutes of limitation specifically
pleaded constituted a "full answer"
within the meaning of the statute
dealing with the opening of a default
judgment rendered on service by
publication after the filing of a "full
644
answer." — Tawney v. Blankenship, 90
P.2d 1111, 150 Kan. 41.
60. Ala. — May v. Granger, 139 So.
569, 224 Ala. 208.
34 C.J. p 427 note 56.
61. Ind. — Gary Hobart Inv. Real-
ty Co. v. Barle, 135 N.B. 798, 78
Ind.App. 412.
Iowa. — Wagoner v. Ring, 240 N.W.
634. 213 Iowa 1123.
Pa. — Eastman Kodak Co. v. Osenider,
193 A. 284, 127 Pa. Super. 332.
34 C.J. p 427 note 65.
Constructive service
A defendant who was constructive-
ly served had right under statute to
seek to set aside default judgment
within two years thereafter ' and to
make her defense on giving bond for
costs, without first showing meri-
torious defense. — Wright v. Burlison,
128 S.W.2d 2S8, 198 Ark. 187.
Default induced by plaintiff
Defendant, seeking to set aside
verdict for plaintiff rendered in ab-
sence'of defendant and his counsel,
who was misled by statements of
plaintiffs counsel, was not required
to make showing on merits. — Black
v. Foley, 185 S.E. 902, 117 W.Va.
490.
Default due to negligence of defend-
ant's attorney
Idaho. — Weaver v. Rambow, 217 P.
610, 37 Idaho 645.
Where a sufficient answer Is on
file, a meritorious defense need
not be shown. — Cause v. Cities Serv-
ice Oil Co., Civ.App., 70 S.W.2d 224,
affirmed City of Fort Worth ,v.
Gause, 101 S.W.2d 221, 129 Tex. 25.
62. Mo. — Faulkner v. F. Bierman &
Sons Metal & Rubber Co., App., 294
S.W. 1019.
Okl. — Joplin Furniture Co. v. Bank
of Picher, 3 P.2d 173, 151 Okl, 158.
Tex. — Atkinson v. I/eonard, Civ.App.,
287 S.W. 535.
Before Judgment entered
A meritorious defense need not be
shown on an application to vacate
a default, where made before judg-
ment is entered. — Johnston v. Me-
dina Improvement Club, 116 P.2d
272, 19 Washed 44.
63. Iowa. — Sioux County v. Kosters,
191 N.W. 315, 194 Iowa 1300.
L D.C.— Wise v. Herzog, 114 F.2d
486, 72 APP.D.C. 335.
Ga. — McCray v. Empire Inv. Co., 174
S.B. 219, 49 Ga.App. 117.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
ord,65 or where the judgment is void for want of
jurisdiction,66 as where defendant was never
served;67 but it has been held that a meritorious
defense must be shown where the judgment recites
facts sustaining jurisdiction,68 or where the judg-
ment is voidable.69 It has been held that, a meri-
torious defense need not be shown where the de-
fault judgment was entered without authority, by
mistake, irregularity, or improvidently,70 as where
a judgment was taken by default before defendant's
time to answer had expired or after the case was
at issue ;71 but it has also been held that the fact
that the judgment was irregularly entered does not
dispense with the need of showing a meritorious
defense.72 It has been held that a meritorious de-
fense need not be shown where the judgment is
fundamentally erroneous.78
b. Sufficiency of Showing
The facts constituting the defense must be set forth
In the application to open or vacate a default judgment;
It Is not sufficient to allege that the applicant has a
meritorious defense.
The defense must be set forth in sufficient detail
in an application to open or vacate a default judg-
ment to permit the court to determine whether or
not it is meritorious and sufficient;74 it is not suf-
N.J.— Westfield Trust Co. v. Court
of Common Pleas of Morris Coun-
ty, 178 A. 546, 115 N.J.Law 86, af-
firmed 183 A. 165, 116 N.J.Daw 191.
Tex. — City of Corpus Christ! v.
Scruggs, Civ.App., 89 S.W.2d 458.
Wash. — Person v. Plough, 24 P.2d
591, 174 Wash. 160.
Attorney's fees
Where default Judgment entered
by clerk of district court in action
on note was void because judgment
included an amount for reasonable
attorney's fees, defendant was enti-
tled to have judgment opened at sub-
sequent term without necessity of
showing a meritorious defense to
note. — Wunnicke v. Leith, Wyo., 157
P.2d 274.
65. Tex.— City of Fort Worth v.
Gause, 101 S.W.2d 221, 129 Tex.
25— Hitt v. Bell, Civ.App., Ill S.
W.2d 1164.
66. Cal.— Hollywood Garment Cor-
poration v. J. Beckerman, Inc., 143
P.2d 738, 61 Oal.App.2d 658.
Iowa.— Dewell v. Suddick, 232 N.W.
118, 211 Iowa 1352.
67. IXC.— Wise v. Herzog, 114 F.2d
486, 72 App.D.C. 335.
Minn,— Pugsley v. Magerfleisch, 201
N.W. 323, 161 Minn. 246.
N.C.—- City of Monroe v. Niven, 20
S.B.2d 811, 221 N.C. 362.
Ohio.— Hayes v. Kentucky Joint
Stock Land Bank of Lexington, 181
N.E. 542, 125 Ohio St 359.
Okl. — Burnett y. Clayton, 252 P. 397,
123 Okl. 156.
Or. — Finch v. Pacific Reduction &
Chemical Mfg. Co., 234 P. 296, 113
Or. 670.
68. Tex.— Bell v. Cobb, Civ.App.,
296 S.W. 976— Tanton v. State Nat
Bank of El Paso, Civ.App., 277 S.
W. 449.
69. Okl.— Brazell v. Brockins, 217 P.
847, 95 Okl. 38.
Tex. — Commercial Credit Corp. v
Smith, 187 S.W.2d 363, 143 Tex.
612.
70. Ala.— Ex parte State ex rel.
Harle Haas Co., 97 So. 680, 19 Ala,
App. 400.
Ariz.— Qila Valley Electric, Gas &
Water Co. v. Arizona Trust & Sav-
ings Bank, 215 P. 159, 25 Ariz. 177.
Colo. — Netland v. Baughman, 162 P.
2d 601.
Mich.— Flewelling v. Prima Oil Co.,
189 N.W. 160, 291 Mich. 281.
Tex. — Sun Lumber Co. v. Huttig
Sash & Door Co., Civ.App., 36 S.
W.2d 561.
Utah.— Sanders v. Milford Auto Co.,
218 P. 126, 62 Utah 110.
34 C.J. p 428 note 66.
71. Mo.— Corpus Juris quoted in
Savings Trust Co. of St Louis v.
Skain, 131 S.W.2d 566, 575, 345
Mo. 46.
Wash. — Batchelor v. Palmer, 224 P.
685, 129 Wash. 150.
W.Va. — Arnold v. Reynolds, 2 S.E.
2d 433, 121 W.Va, 91.
34 01. p 334 note 70, p 428 note
67.
73. N.C. — Simms v. Sampson, 20 S.
B.2d 554, 221 N.C. 379— Chozen
Confections v. Johnson, 11 S.E.2d
472, 218 N.C. 500 — Cayton v. Clark,
193 S.E. 404, 212 N.C. 374— Stand-
ard Supply Co.: v. Vance Plumbing
& Electric Co., 143 S.E. 248, 195
N.C. 629.
Wash. — Penfound v. Gagnon, 20 P.2d
17, 172 Wash. 311.
73. Tex.— City of Fort Worth v.
Gause, 101 S.W.24 221, 129 Tex. 25.
74. Ala.— Little v. Peevy, 189' So.
720, 238 Ala, 106.
Ariz.— Beltran v. Boll, 7 P.2d 248, 39
Ariz. 417 — Security Trust & Sav-
ings Bank v. Moseley, 234 P. 828,
27 Ariz. 562.
Ark. — Eockamore v. Pembroke, 188 S.
W.2d 616, 208 Ark. 995— Davis v,
Bank of Atkins, 167 S.W.Sd 876,
205 Ark. 144— O'Neal v. B. F. Good-
rich Rubber Co., 162 &W.2d 52
204 Ark. 371— Merriott v. Kilgore,
139 S.W.2d 387, 200 Ark. 394— Hill
v. Teague, 108 S.W.2d 889, 194 Ark.
552— Quirles v. Smith, 56 S.W.2d
427, 186 Ark. 835.
Cal. — Thaler v. Thaler, 15 P.2d 192
127 Cal.App. 28 — Los Angeles Bon<!
& Securities Co. v. Tyler, 7 P.2d
1052, 120 CaLApp. 412.
Idaho.— State ex reL Sweeley v
Braun, 110 P.2d 835, 62 Idaho 25
645*
— Voellmeck v. Northwestern Mut
Life Ins. Co., 92 P.2d 1076, 60 Ida-
ho 412.
Iowa. — Boody v. Sawyer, 207 N.W.
589, 201 Iowa 49-6.
Kan. — American Oil & Refining Qo. v.
•Liberty-Texas Oil Co., 211 P. 137,
112 Kan. 309.
Miss.— Planters' Lumber Co. v. Sib-
ley, 93 So. 440, 130 Miss. 26.
Mont. — First Nat Corporation v.
Perrine, 43 P.2d 1073, 99 Mont. 454
— Reynolds v. Gladys Belle Oil Co.,
243 P. 576, 75 Mont. 332 — Brothers
v. Brothers, 230 P. 60, 71 Mont 878.
N.J.— Zippier v. Westney, 149 A. 539,
105 N.J.BQ. 661.
N.T.— Hannel v. Serbert, 255 N.T.-S.
758, 143 Misc. 61 — Grouse Grocery
Co. v. Valentine, 226 N.T.S. 613,
131 Misc. 571 — Lennox v. Meehan,
201 N.T.S. 710, 121 Misc. 678.
Okl.— 'Fair Department Store v. 'Dal-
las Jobbing House, 46 P.2d $29, 172
OkL 486.
Or. — -Finch v. Pacific Reduction &
Chemical Mfg. Co., 234 P. 296, 118
Or. S70.
Tex. — Dickson v. Navarro County
Levee Improvement Dist No. 3,
Civ.App., 124 S.W.2d 943, followed
in Dickson r. Ellis County Levee
Improvement Dist No. 10, 124 S.
W.2d 946, reversed on other
grounds 139 S.W.2d 260, 135 Tex.
102, set aside Dickson v. Navarro
County Levee Imp. Dist. No. 3, 139
S.W.2d 257, 135 Tex. 95— Universi-
ty Development Co. v. Wolf, Civ.
App., 93 S.W.2d 1187.
Wash. — Penfound v: Gagnon, 20 P.2d
17, 172 Wash. 311.
Affidavit by counsel was held to be
sufficient — Bowman v. Bowman, 217
P. 1102, 47 Nev. 207.
Failure to file affidavit until after
hearing on motion to vacate default
judgment did not vitiate proceeding,
where contents were read in open
court — Rhode Island Discount Cor-
poration T. Carr, R.L, 136 A. 244.
Evidence
On motion by foreign mining cor-
poration which was served by pub-
lication, and which did' not appear, to
set aside judgment, an affidavit
336
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
ficient to allege that defendant has a good and meri-
torious defense.75 A bare formal affidavit of mer-
its, while it may be necessary, as discussed infra
subdivision d of this section, is not a sufficiently
specific showing.™ A verified answer, however, is
generally sufficient,77 unless it consists only of a
general denial.78 The showing need not be made
by affidavit where the record of the proceeding
shows a meritorious defense.79
c. Sufficiency of Defense
A defense to be meritorious must be legally suffi-
cient, and it must not be unjust, inequitable, or merely
technical.
A meritorious and substantial defense which must
showing «> meritorious defense to the
action was sufficient without the
presentation of evidence to support
such defense. — Southwest Metals Co.
v. Snedaker, 129 P.2d 814, 59 Ariz.
874.
Xn trespass action, wherein no affi-
davit of defense Is necessary to put
case at issue, court may grant peti-
tion to open default judgment in its
discretion, without requiring defend-
ant to state exact nature of defense
in petition for such relief, where
equities are clear.— Scott v. Mc-
Bwing, 10 A.2d 436, 337 Pa. 273, 126
A.L.R. 367.
Frima facie showing1
(1) Must be made.
U.S.— The Amaranth, C.OA.N.Y., 68
F.2d 893.
Ark. — Smith v. Globe & Rutgers fire
Ins. Co., 295 S.W. 388, 174 Ark. 346,
followed in Deatherage v. Denni-
son, 295 S.W. 390, 173 Ark. 1180.
Pa. — Henderson v. Hendricks, 94 Pa-
Super. 568.
Tex. — Employer's Reinsurance Cor-
poration v. Brock, Civ.App., 74 S.
W.2d 435, error dismissed.
(2) Is sufficient
Ark. — O. O. Scroggin & Co. v. Mer-
rick, 5 S.W.2d 344. 176 Ark. 1205.
CaL— Hallett v. Slaughter, 140 P.2d
•3, 22 CaL2d 552 — Thompson v. Sut-
ton, 122 P.2d 975, 50 Cal.App.2d
272.
Mass. — Hyde Park Sav. Bank v. Dav-
ankoskas, 11 N.B.2d 3, 298 Mass.
421.
Mont— Kirby v. Hoeh, 21 P.2d 732,
94 Mont 218.
N.J.— McArdle Real Estate Co. v.
McGowan, 163 A. 24, 109 N.J.Law
595— McCarthy v. Guire, 187 A.
739, 14 N.J.Misc. 795.
Pa. — Popky v. Shimpkus, Com.Pl., 42
Lack.Jur. 125.
S.D. — Johnson v. Johnson, 210 N.W.
155, 50 S.D. 341.
•Written statement required
Pa.— Sturges v. Page, 163 A. 327, 10-6
Pa.Super. 520.
Pleading as evidence
Verified complaint may be used as
evidence in determining fact of good
cause of action, but the allegations
therein are not conclusive, nor will
they override a finding of the judge
made on conflicting testimony. — Gra-
ver v. Spaugh, 38 S.E.2d 525, 226 N.C.
450.
Probative and ultimate facts
Where defendants who claimed
easement on land sought relief from
default and judgment entered
against them in a suit to partition
the land, defendants, in alleging
facts to show that they had a good
defense to the action on the merits,
were not required to state probative
facts concerning origin of their title
to easement — Thompson v. Button,
122 P.2d 975, 50 Cal.App.2d 272.
Reference to other documents
In determining sufficiency of affi-
davit of merits supporting motion to
vacate default judgment, affidavit
cannot be aided by reference to doc-
uments or records which are not
part thereof. — Beltran v. Roll, 7 P.
2d 248, 39 Ariz. 417.
Sworn testimony
In order to Justify the setting
aside of a default judgment, a show-
ing of a meritorious defense, if based
on oral testimony, contemplates
sworn testimony developed in con-
nection with the proceedings to set
aside the Judgment — Jeffrey v. Kel-
ly, Mo.App., 146 S.W.2d 850.
75. Ariz.— Beltran v. Roll, 7 P.2d
248, 39 Ariz. 417.
Ark.— Quirles v. Smith, 56 S.W.2d
427, 186 Ark. 835.
CaL — Thompson v. Sutton, 122 P.2d
975, 50 Cal.App.2d 272.
Idaho. — Voellmeck v. Northwestern
Mut. Life Ins. Co., 92 P.2d 1076,
60 Idaho 412.
111.— JLatham v. Salisbury, 61 N.E.
2d 306, 326 IlLApp. 253— Whale n v.
Twin City Barge & Gravel Co., 280
IlLApp. 596, certiorari denied Twin
City Barge & Gravel Co. v. Whalen,
56 S.Ct 590, 297 U.S. 714, 80 L.Ed.
1000.
Iowa. — Boody v. Sawyer, 207 N.W.
5:89, 201 Iowa 4 £6.
Mo. — Jeffrey v. Kelly, App., 146 S.
W,2d 850.
OkL— 'Fair Department Store v. -Dal-
las Jobbing House, 46 P.2d 529,
172 Okl. 486.
Tex.— Dickson v. Navarro County
Levee Improvement Dist No. 3,
124 S.W.2d 943, followed in Dick-
son v. Ellis County I/evee improve-
ment Dist No. 10, Civ.App., 124 S.
W.2d 946, reversed on other
grounds 139 S.W.2d 260, 135 Tex.
102, set aside' Dickson v. Navarro
County Levee Imp. Dist. No. 3,
139 S.W.2d 257, 135 Tex. 95— Hall
v. Kynerd, Civ.App., 97 S.W.2d 278,
646
error dismissed — Welsch v. Keeton,
Civ.App., 287 -S.W. 692— Mutual Oil
Consolidated v. Beavers, Civ.App.,
272 S.W. 507.
Wash. — Penfound v. Gagnon, 20 P.2d
17, 172 Wash. 311.
76. N.T.— Hannel v. Serbert, 255 N.
T.S. 758, 143 Misc. 61— Grouse Gro-
cery Co. v. Valentine, 226 N.T.S.
613, 131 Misc. 571— Lennox v. Mee-
han, 201 N.Y.S. 710, 121 Misc. 678.
W.Va. — Corpus Juris cited in State
ex rel. Alkire v. Mill, 180 S.E. 183,
185, 116 W.Va. 277.
34 C.J. p 33-6 note 79.
77. CaL— Beard v. Beard, 107 P.2d
385, 16 Cal.2d 645— Pulweiler v.
Hog's Back Cons. Min. Co., 23 P.
65, 83 Cal. 126.
Mont. — Brothers v. Brothers, 230 P.
60, 71 Mont 378.
N.D.— Yesel v. Watson, 216 N.W. 199,
56 N.D. 98 — Jesse French & Sons
Piano Co. v. Getts, 192 N.W. 765,
49 N.D. 577.
Or. — Peters v. Dietrich, 27 P.2d 1015,
145 Or. 589.
S.C.— Maybank Fertilizer Co. v. Jeff-
coat 127 S.E. 835, 131 S.C. 418.
Complaint was sufficient showing
of merits in application by plaintiff
to open default
Cal. — Waybright v. Anderson, 253 P.
148, 200 Cal. 374.
Wash. — Graham v. Takima Stock
Brokers, 72 P.2d 1041, 192 Wash.
121.
Deficiencies in affidavit may be
cured by verified answer. — Alexander
v. Mayer, 102 P.2d 540, 39 Cal.App.2d
157— Shively v. Kochman, 73 P.2d
637, 23 Cal.App.2d 420-^John A.
Vaughan Corporation v. Title Insur-
ance & Trust Co., 12 P.2d 117, 123
CaLApp. 709.
Exceptions filed by defendant to a
report of a referee were held to con-
stitute a sufficient showing of merit
to entitle him to be heard. — Everett
v. Johnson, 14 S.E.2d 520, 219 N.C.
540.
78. Mont. — Reynolds v. Gladys Belie
Oil Co., 243 P. 576, 75 Mont 332.
N.D.— Kozak v. Ashbridge, 222 N.W.
620, 57 N.D. 496.
OkL— Petros v. Fox-Vliet Drug Co.,
280 P. 812, 138 OkL 253.
79. Minn. — Unowsky v. Show, 201
N.W. 93-6, 161 Minn. 489.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
336
be shown in support of an application to open or
vacate a default judgment is one which raises ques-
tions of law deserving investigation or a real con-
troversy as to the essential facts.8° A defense
which is legally sufficient is not necessarily a meri-
torious defense which will support such an appli-
cation; a defense to be meritorious must be just and
equitable,81 and a defense which is purely techni-
cal or unconscionable is not a meritorious defense.82
It is not necessary that the defense should go to
the entire action; it is sufficient if it purports to de-
feat any substantial part of plaintiffs claim,88
80. Ala. — -Little v. Peevy, 189 So
720, 238 Ala. 106— Stephens v
Bruce, 114 So. 306, 216 Ala. 677.
111.— Melick v. Metropolitan Casualty
Ins. Co. of New York, 4 N.B.2i
769, 287 IlLApp. 613.
Kan. — American Oil & Refining Co. v
Liberty-Texas Oil Co., 211 P. 137
112 Kan. 809 — Miner v. Blakeman
210 P. 1089, 112 Kan. 393.
Mo.— Jeffrey v. Kelly. App., 146 S.W
2d 850.
N.Y.— Larney v. S. & I. Lefkowitz
296 N.Y.S. 679, 2-51 App.-Div. 404—
City Bank Farmers Trust Co. v
Klein, 283 N.Y.S. 490, 246 App.Div
633.
N.C. — Simms v. -Sampson, 20 S.B.2d
554, 221 N.C. 379.
N.D.— Hart v. Hone, 223 N.W. 346
57 N.D. 590.
Okl.— Murrell v. City of Sapulpa, 29
P. 241, 148 Okl, 1-6.
Pa. — Planters Nut & Chocolate Co
v. Brown-Murray Co., 193 A. 381
128 Pa.Super. 239 — West Susque-
hanna Building & Loan Ass'n v
Sinclair, 188 A. 371, 124 Pa. Super,
133 — Page v. Patterson, 161 A.
878, 105 Pa, Super. 438 — Henderson
v. Hendricks, 94 Pa.Super. 568 —
Ensminger v. Bentz, Com.Pl., 54
Dauph.Co. 219.
R.I.— Whitney v. Jenks, 118 A. 689.
Tex. — Lamb-McAshan Co. v. Ellis,
Com.App., 270 S.W. 547 — Harris v.
Elm Oil Co., Civ.App., 183 S.W.2d
216, error refused — Brown v. St.
Mary's Temple No. 5 S. M. T. Unit-
ed Brothers of Friendship of Tex-
as, Civ.App., 127 S.W.2d 531.
Defense denmrrable
Defense set up in affidavit of mer-
its in support of motion to set aside
default judgment is sufficient unless
such defense would be subject to
general demurrer. — Huff v. Flynn, 60
P.2d 931, 48 Ariz. 175.
Special defense not provable under
general denial pleaded is not suffi-
cient.— Security Nat. Bank of Mo-
bridge v. Boekhout 211 N.W. $06, 51
S.D. 31.
Meritorious defense shown
Ala. — Ex parte Southern Amiesite
Asphalt Co., 200 So. 435, 30 Ala.
App. 3, certlorarl denied 200 So.
434, 240 Ala. 618 — Ex parte Crump-
ton, 109 So. 184, 21 Ala.App. 446.
Ariz.— Evans v. Hallas, 167 P.2d 94—
Huff v. Flynn, 60 P.2d 931, 48 Ariz.
175 — Avery v. Calumet & Jerome
Copper Co., 284 P. 159, 36 Ariz.
239.
Cal.— Hallett v. Slaughter, 140 P.26V
3, 22 CaUd 552— Beard v. Beard
107 P.2d 385, 1-6 CaUd 645.
Colo.— Wenig v. -Lyons, 252 P. 889, 81
Colo. 6.
Ky.— Columbia Coal & Min. Co. v
Radcliff, 186 S.W.2d 419, 299 Ky
596— Bishop v. Bishop, 2*1 S.W
824, 213 Ky. 703.
Minn. — City of Luverne v. -Skyberg
211 N.W. 5, 169 Minn. 234-HFirst
Trust & Savings Bank v. U. S
Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 194 N.W,
376, 156 Minn. 231.
N.Y. — Hogan v. Johnson, 272 N.Y.S.
113, 241 App.Div. 914— Clifton
Springs Sanitarium Co. v. De
Voyst 240 N.Y.S. 729, 136 Misc.
293 — Grushka v. Bentwood Prod-
ucts Corporation, 206 N.Y.S. 714,
123 Misc. 927.
N.C. — Chozen Confections v. Johnson,
11 S.E.2d 472, 218 N.C. 500— Byerly
v. General Motors Acceptance Cor-
poration, 145 S.E. 236, 196 N.C. 256
— Standard Supply Co. v. Vance
Plumbing & Electric Co., 143 8.E.
248, 195 N.C. 629.
S.D.— Leech v. Brady, 231 N.W. 93-6,
57 S.D. 271.
Tenn.— Fidelity-Phenix Fire Ins. Co.
v. Oliver, 152 S.W.2d 254, 25 Tenn.
App. 114.
Tex. — Commercial Credit Corp. v.
Smith, 187 S.W.2d 363, 143 Tex.
612 — Camden Fire Ins. Co. v. Hill,
Com.App., 276 S.W. 887— Yellow
Transit Co. v. Klaff, Civ.App., 145
S.W.2d 264— 'Lissner v. State
Mortgr. Corporation, Civ.App., 29 S.
W.2d 849, error dismissed— Sneed
v. Sneed, Civ.App., 296 S.W. 643—
Missouri State Life Ins. Co. v.
Rhyne, Civ.App., 276 S.W. 757, re-
versed in part on other grounds
and affirmed in part Rhyne v. Mis-
souri State Life Ins. Co., CorruApp.,
291 S.W. 845— Caldwell Oil Co. v. \
Hickman, Civ.App., 270 S.W. 214.
Meritorious defense not shown
Ala.— Stephens v. Bruce, 114 So. 306,
216 Ala, 677.
Ark. — 0. O. Scroggin & Co. v. Mer-
rick, 5 S.W.2d 344, 176 Ark. 1205.
Cal. — Thompson v. Sutton, 122 P.2d
97o, 50 Cal.App.2d 272.
Colo. — Connell v. Continental Casual-
ty Qo., 290 P. 274, 87 Colo. «73.
Ga, — Henderson v. American Hat
Mfg. Co., 194 S.B. 254, 67 Ga.App.
10.
11. — Nikola v. Campus Towers
Apartment Bldg. Corporation, 25
N.E.2d 582, 303 IlLApp. 516.
owa.— Wade v. Swartzendruber, 220
647
N.W. -67, 206 Iowa 637— Starkey v.
Porter Tractor Co., 192 N.W. 135.
Kan.— Board of Com'rs of Wyandotte .
County v. Kerr, 211 P. 128. 112
Kan. 463.
Minn. — Madsen v. Powers, 260 N.W.
510, 194 Minn. 418.
N.J.— Warren v. Dilkes, 131 A. 98,
3 N.J.Misc. 1239.
N.Y. — Municipal Investors v. Hes-
sian Hills Corporation, 10 N.Y.S.
2d 737, 256 App.Div. 1000.
N.C.— Graver v. Spaugh, 38 S.E.2d
525, 226 N.C. .450— Duffer v. Brun-
son, 125 S.E. 619, 188 N.C. 789—
Garner v. Quakenbush, 122 S.B.
474, 187 N.C. 603, modified on other
grounds 124 S.E. 1&4, 188 N.C. 180,
36 A.L.R. 1095.
Tex.— Pacific Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Wil-
liams, 15 S.W. 478, 79 Tex. 633—
Lawther Grain Co. v. Winniford,
Com.App., 249 S.W. 195— Aviation
Credit Corporation of New York v.
University Aerial Service Corpora-
tion, Civ.App., 59 S.W.2d 870, error
dismissed — Sfiris v. Madis, Civ.
App., 13 S.W.2d 750— St. Paul 'Fire
& Marine Ins. Co. v. Earnest, Civ.
App., 293 S.W. 677, affirmed 296
S.W. 1088, 116 Tex. 565— Allen v.
Frank, Civ.App., 252 S.W. 347.
Wash.— Hurby v. Kwapil, 28-6 P. 664,
156 Wash. 225.
81. N.J. — Cameron v. Penn Mut.
Life Ins. Co., 173 A. 344, 116 N.J.
Eq. 311.
a. — Krall v. Lebanon Valley Sav-
ings & Loan Ass'n, 121 A. 405, 277
Pa, 440.
Tex.— Rasmussen v. Grimes, Civ.
App., 13 S.W.2d 959, affirmed. Com.
A#p., 24 S.W.2d 346.
L Okl. — Murrell v. City of Sapul-
pa, 297 P. 241, 148 Okl. 16.
Pa. — Krall v. Lebanon Valley Sav*
ings & Loan Ass'n, 121 A. 405, 277
Pa, 440.
Denumev
A default Judgment will not be va-
cated merely to permit the interpo-
sition of a demurrer.
Mont— Bowen v. Webb, 85 P. 739,
34 Mont 61.
Neb.— Sloan v. Hallowell, 120 N.W.
449, 83 Neb. 762.
83. Fla. — Corpus Juris cited in
State Bank of Eau Gallle v. Ray-
mond/ 138 So. 40, 42, 103 Fla, 649.
Wyo. — Wunnicke v. Leith, 157 P.2d
274.
34 C.J. p 339 note 12.
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.a
Among: the defenses which have been held to be
so technical, unconscionable, or lacking in equity as
not to be sufficiently meritorious to support an ap-
plication to open or vacate a default judgment are
usury,84 coverture of defendant,85 plaintiff's want
of capacity to sue,86 ultra vires,87 nul tiel record,88
the statute of frauds,89 a forfeiture or breach of
condition,90 fraudulent conduct in which defendant
participated91 or which he could have discovered
and pleaded by using due diligence,92 and a failure
to allow proper credits,98 although as to the latter
there is also authority to the contrary.94
On the other hand, a variety of matters have been
held to be sufficiently meritorious defenses to sup-
port an application to open or vacate a judgment ;95
such as a discharge in bankruptcy or insolvency,96
invalidity of the statute or ordinance on which the
action is founded,97 release,98 payment or tender,^9
failure of consideration,1 non est factum,2 denial of
partnership on which liability depends,8 want of ti-
tle in plaintiff to the property in suit,4 want of
authority in an agent or trustee to make the con-
tract or conveyance in suit,5 want of service of
process,6 contributory negligence,7 and res judi-
cata.8 The statute of limitations has been held to
be9 and not to be10 a meritorious defense. A spe-
cific denial of material allegations on which the al-
leged liability rests is usually deemed sufficient11
Where the amount of the judgment is greatly in
excess of what plaintiff is entitled to recover, th«
judgment may be opened or vacated.12 A set-off
or counterclaim will not support an application to
open or vacate a judgment18
d. Affidavit of Merits
An application to open a default judgment must In
some jurisdictions be supported by an affidavit to the
effect that the defendant has stated the case to his
attorney, and that he is advised and believes that he
has a good and substantial defense.
Under the practice prevailing in some jurisdic-
tions, an application to open or vacate a default
judgment must be supported by a formal affidavit
of merits substantially to the effect that defendant
has fully and fairly stated the case to his counsel,
and that he has a good and substantial defense on
the merits to the action, as he is advised by his coun-
sel and verily believes.1* The required affidavit has
84. Pa,— Moll v. Lafferty, 153 A. 557,
302 Pa. 354.
84 C.J. p 337 note 85.
85. Ala. — Marion v. Reg-ens tein, 13
So. 384, 98 Ala. 475.
34 C.J. p 337 note 86.
86. Pa. — Wilson's Estate, to Use of
Patterson, v. Transportation Ins.
Co. of New York, 173 A. 722, 113
Pa.Super. 405.
34 C.J. p 337 note 87.
87. Ark.— Missouri & N. A. R. Co. v.
Killebrew, 132 S.W. 454, *6 Ark.
520.
34 C.J. p 337 note 8*.
88. Iowa. — Stratton Bank v. Dixon,
74 N.W. 919, 105 Iowa 148.
34 C. J. p 337 note 89.
89. Ark.— Missouri & N. A. 5. Co.
v. Killebrew, 132 S.W. 454, 96 Ark.
520.
34 C.J. p 337 note 90.
90. Tex. — Union Cent Life Ins. Co.
v. Lipscomb, Civ.App., 27 S.W. 307.
91. Kan. — Johnson v. Richardson, 73
P. 113, 67 TCa.n. 521.
N.Y. — Parker v. Grant, 1 Johns.Ch.
•630.
92. Ky. — Overstreet v. Brown, 62 S.
W. 885, 23 KyJL. 317.
93. N.Y. — Tallman v. Sprague, 18 N.
T.S. 207, 60 N.Y.-Super. 425.
84 C.J. p 337 note 92.
94. Pa.— -Bright v. Diamond, 42 A.
45, 189 Pa. 476.
34 OJ. P 337 note *2 [a].
€6. Ark.— First Nat Bank v. Tur-
ner, 275 S.W. 703, 169 Ark. 393.
34 C.J. p 33* note 10.
98. Minn. — Bearman (Fruit Qo. v.
Parker, 3 N.W.2d 501, 212 Minn.
327.
34 C.J. p 333 note 98.
97. Mo.— Welch v. Mastin. 71 S.W.
1090, 98 Mo.App. 273.
98. N.C.— Sircey v. Rees, 71 ' S.E.
310, 155 N.C. 296.
99. S.D. — Jones T. Johnson, 222 N.
W. 688, 54 S.D. 149.
Tex. — First Nat. Bank v. Southwest
Nat Bank of Dallas, Civ.App., 273
S.W. 951.
34 C.J. p 338 note 2.
1. N.D.— Racine-Sattley Mfg. Co. v.
Pavlicek, 130 N.W. 228, 21 N.D.
222.
34 C.J. p 338 note 3.
2. Wash.— Wheeler v. Moore, 38 P.
1053, 10 Wash. 309.
34 C.J. p 338 note 4.
3. Ind.— Bristor v. Oalvin, 62 Ind.
352.
N.T. — Newark Electric Supply Co. v.
Sarkjian, 173 N.T.S. 462.
4. Mo.— Lindell Real Estate Co. v.
Lindell, 43 S.W. 368, 142 Mo. 61.
34 C.J. p 338 note 6.
6. Iowa.— Wishard v. McNeil, 42 N.
W. 578, 78 Iowa 40.
Wis.— Bloor v. Smith, 87 N.W. 870,
112 Wls. 340.
6. N.C.— City of Monroe v. Niven, 20
S.E.2d 311, 221 N.C. 362.
7. Iowa. — Barto v. Sioux City Elec-
tric Co., 93 N.W. 26S, 119 Iowa
179.
8. N.T. — Audubon v. Excelsior Fire
Ins. Co.. 10 Abb.Pr. 64.
648
9. U.S. — U. S. v. Oregon .Lumber Co.,
Or., 43 S.Ct 100, 260 U.S. 290, $7
L.Ed. 261.
Mich. — Smak v. Gwozdik, 291 N.W.
270, 293 Mich. 185.
Mo. — Ose.se Inv. Co. v. Siffrist, 250
S.W. 39, 298 Mo. 139.
Okl.— Richards v. Baker, 99 P.2d 118,
186 Okl. 533.
Pa. — Commonwealth, for Use of Fay-
ette County, v. Perry* 199 A. 204,
330 Pa. 355.
Tex.— Corpus Juris cited in. Cain v.
Thomson, Civ.App., 72 S.W.2d 339,
340.
34 C.J. p 338 note 97.
10. Cal.— Eldred v. White, 36 P. 944,
102 Cal. 600.
34 C.J. p 338 note 97 [a].
11. Fla. — Corpus Juris cited in
State Bank of Eau Gallie v. Ray-
mond, 138 So. 40, 42, 103 (Fla. 649.
34 C.J. p 339 note 11.
12. Ohio. — Taylor Bros. v. Clinger-
man, 187 N.E. 578, 45 Ohio App.
560.
Tex. — Roberts v. Schlather & Stein-
meyer, Civ. App., 8 S.W.2d 296, er-
ror dismissed.
3-4 C.J. p 339 note 13.
13. Pa. — Brown v. Bray, 90 Pa.Su-
per. 180 — Favinger v. Favinger,
Com.PL, *0 Montg.Co. 149.
34 C.J. p 337 note 91.
14. CaL— Beard v. Beard, 107 P.2d
385, 16 Cal.2d 645— Pingree v.
Reynolds, 73 P.2d 1266, 23 CaLApp.
2d 649 — Vernon v. Deesy, 15 P.2d
788, 127. CaLApp. 313— Fin*. &
49 O. J. S.
JUDGMENTS
336
been held to be a jurisdictional prerequisite.15
Where such an affidavit is necessary, it has been
held that its lack cannot be supplied by a proposed
answer or any other paper;16 but a verified plead-
ing has been accepted as a sufficient affidavit of
merits,17 and, where it fairly appears from the rec-
ords and papers on which the motion is based that
the moving party has a good defense on the merits,
the sufficiency of an affidavit of merits, or the ne-
cessity for one, has been said to be discretionary
with the trial court.18
The affidavit should be made by applicant him-
self, unless good reasons exist for having it made
by another person ;1& but it may be made by his at-
torney, or by some other person, on showing a suf-
ficient reason why the party himself does not make
it.20 In that case, however, the affidavit must show
that affiant has personal knowledge of the facts of
the case, and its averments must be based on such
knowledge, and not on information or belief.21 An
affidavit by a third person not based on personal in-
formation has been held to be insufficient.22
e. Proposed Answer
An application to open or vacate a default Judgment
must in some jurisdictions be supported by a copy of
the answer that the defendant proposes to Interpose In
the action.
In some jurisdictions, applicant for the vacation
of a default judgment is required to present or file
with his moving papers a copy of the answer which
he proposes to put in when the judgment is opened,
and the motion cannot be granted unless this is
done,23 unless, it has been held, the application is
Schlndler Co. r. Gavros, 237 P.
1083, 72 Cal.App. 68S.
N.Y.— -Harrison v. Gargiulo, 276 N.Y.
S. 482, 243 App.Div. 616 — Browns-
ville Lumber Co. v. Weiner, 232 N.
Y.S. 643, 225 App.Div. 374— Grouse
Grocery Co. v. Valentine, 226 N.Y.
S. 613, 131 Misc. 571.
S.D— Squires v. Meade County, 239
N.W. 747, 59 S.D. 293— Wendel v.
Wendel, 53-6 N.W. 468, 158 S.D. 438.
34 C.J. p 339 note 17.
Defendant's case
Affidavit was insufficient where it
alleged that defendant had fully and
thoroughly stated his defense or his
case to his attorney rather than that
he had fully and fairly stated facts
of the case to attorney.
Cal.— Pingree v. Beynolds, 73 P.2d
1266, 23 Cal.App.2d 649.
Wis.— Velte v. Zeh, 206 N.W. 197,
188 Wis. 401.
15. Cal. — Morgan v. McDonald, 11
P. 350, 70 Cal. 32.
34 C.J. p HO note 19.
16. S.D.— W. T. Rawleigh Co. v.
Keely, 220 N.W. 857, 53 S.B. 425.
34 C.J. p 340 note 20.
17. Cal. — Greenamyer v. Board of
Trustees of Xugo Elementary
School Dist. in Los Angeles Coun-
ty, 2 P.2d 848, 116 CaLApp. 319—
Salsberry v. Julian, 277 P. 516, 98
CaLApp. 638, followed in 277 P. 518,
amended 278 P. 257, 9* Cal.App.
645 — EJberhart v. Salazar, 235 P.
86, 71 CaLApp. 338— Park v. Hill-
man, 224 P. 100, 67 CaLApp. 92—
Montijo v. Sherer, 91 P. 2-61, 5 CaL
.App. 736.
Minn. — Peterson v. W. Davis & Sons,
11 N.W.2d 800, 216 Minn, 60.
N.D.— Madden v. Dunbar, 201 N.W.
991, 52 N.D. 74.
34 C.J. p 340 note 21.
Unverified or improperly verified aau
swer
(1) An unverified answer is not
sufficient. — Pingree v. Reynolds, 73
P.2d 1266, 23 Cal. App. 2 d 649.
(2) Trial court did not abuse its
discretion in granting motion of de-
fendant to vacate default, although
motion was not supported "by such
defendant's affidavit, and although
copy of his proposed answer tendered
on hearing of motion did not pur-
port to be verified, where trial court,
in light of verified answers of other
defendants, which answers were in-
cluded among papers specified in the
notice of motion as a basis thereof,
might well have concluded that such
defendant had a meritorious defense.
— Eustace v. Dechter, 128 P.2d 367,
53 Cal.App.2d 726.
(3) Improperly verified answer be-
ing equivalent at least to affidavit
of merits, court did not err in set-
ting aside default and permitting an-
swer.—Hubble v. Hubble, 279 P. 550.
130 Or. 177.
18. Cal. — Thompson v. Sutton, 122
P.2d 975, 50 CaLApp.2d 272.
34 C.J. p 340 note 22.
1ft, S.D.— Wendel v. Wendel, 236 N.
W. 468, 58 S.D. 438.
34 C.J. p 341 note 23.
20. S.C.— Savage v. Cannon, 30 S.B.
2d 70, 204 S.C. 473.
S.D.— Wendel v. Wendel, 236 N.W.
468, 58 S.D. 438.
34 C.J. p 3-41 note 24.
21. N.C. — Montague v. Lumpkins,
100 S.BL 417, 178 N.C. 270.
34 C.X p 341 note 25.
22. Minn. — People's Ice Co. v.
Schlenker, 52 N.W. 219, 50 Minn.
1.
34 C.J. p 341 note 26.
23. Cal.— Beard v. Beard, 107 P.2d
385, 16 CaUd 645— Roseborough v.
Campbell, 115 P.2d 839, 46 CaL
App.2d 257 — Vernon v. Deesy, 15
P.2d 788, 127 CaLApp. 813— La,
649
Bonte & Ransome Co. v. SceUers,
265 P. 550, 90 Cal.App. 183.
D.C. — Cockrell v. Fillah, 50 P.2d 500,
60 APP.D.C. 210.
Idaho.— Miller v. Brinkman, 281 P.
372, 42 Idaho 232.
N.Y.— Grouse Grocery Co. v. Valen-
tine, 226 N.Y.S. 613, 131 Misc. 571
— Pember v. Meyer, 45 N.Y.S.2d 673
— Schlegel v. Wagner, 29 N.T.S.2d
389.
Ohio. — Davis v. Teachnor, App., 58
N.R2d 20*.
Or. — Snyder v. Consolidated Highway
Co., 72 P.2d 932, 157 Or. 479—
Johnston v. Braymill White Pine
Co., 19 P.2d 93, 142 Or. 95— Bronn
v. Soules, 11 P.2d 284, 140 Or. 308
— 'Pinch v. Pacific Reduction &
Chemical Mfg. flo.. 234 P. 296, 113
Or, 670.
S.C. — Savage v. Cannon, 30 S.B.2d 70,
204 3.C. 473.
S.D.— Wendel v. Wendel, 236 N.W.
1 468, 58 S.D. 438.
Tenn.— Wright v. Lindsay, 140 aW.
2d 793, 24 Tenn.App. 77.
Wis.— Velte v. Zeh, 20-6 N.W. 1*7,
188 Wis. 401.
34 C.J. p 341 note 27.
Answer on file
Where defendants filed verified
amended answer two days after de-
fault judgment was entered, it con*
stituted part of record and files in
case, and fact that no copy thereof
was served on plaintiff or produced
in court on motion 'to vacate default
judgment was immaterial, where no-
tice of motion stated that it was
made on notice and record. — Eber-
hart v. Salazar, 235. P. 86, 71 CaL
App. 336.
The term "full answer" as used in
statute requiring applicant to have
judgment opened up, to file a "full
answer/' means an answer setting
up a meritorious defense as to all
or a material part of the petition.—
§ 336
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
made during the judgment term,24 or the complaint
fails to state a cause of action.25 Even where not
required by mandatory statute or court rule, it has
been deemed the better practice to accompany an
application to open or vacate a judgment with a
copy of the proposed answer.2^ While it has been
held that an affidavit showing a meritorious defense
may be accepted in lieu of a verified answer, in the
discretion of the court,27 generally such answer is
required in addition to an affidavit of merits, both
being required.28 In cases where it is not neces-
sary to show merits, as where the judgment is void
for want of jurisdiction, it is not necessary to pre-
sent or file the proposed answer.2^
Requisites and sufficiency. The answer filed with
the motion must present an issuable plea, to the
merits,30 meeting fully the matters contained in the
declaration or complaint,31 or some distinct part
of it82 It has been held that the averments must
be made on knowledge and not only on informa-
tion and belief;83 but there is also authority that
the averments may be on information and belief,34
except as to matters peculiarly within defendant's
knowledge.3^ If the answer fails to state a defense,
the motion must be overruled.3^ Facts as distin-
guished from mere conclusions must be alleged.37
An answer consisting only of a general denial has
been held insufficient,38 but such an answer has been
held sufficient when supported by affidavits setting
out sufficient facts to support it.39 Verification of
the answer is required by some courts,40 but not
by others.41 In any event, the failure to verify
the answer is a curable defect42
§ 337* Procedure and Relief
a. In general
b. Time for application
c. Requisites and sufficiency of applica-
tion generally
d. Answer and other pleadings
e. Parties
f. Notice or process
g. Affidavits on application
h. Counter-affidavits
i. Evidence
j. Hearing and determination
k. Relief awarded
I. Findings
m. Order
n. Objections and exceptions
o. Vacation and review of order
p. Costs
q. Liabilities on bonds
a. In General
The proceeding to open or vacate a default Judgment
Bemis v. Bemls, 98 P.2d 156, 151 Kan.
186—34 C.J. p 342 note 37 [a],
24. Kan.— Wichita Motors Co. v.
United Warehouse Co.. 255 P. 30,
123 Kan. 235.
25. CaL— Reid v. Merrill, 52 P.2d
218, 4 Cal.2d 693.
96. CaL— Bailey v. Taaffe, 29 CaL
422.
Neb.— Barney v. Platte Valley Public
Power & Irr. Dist, 23 N.W.2d 335.
34 C.J. p 341 note 29.
27. Montr— Brothers v. Brothers,
230 P. 60, 71 Mont 878.
Ohio. — Lutkenhouse v. Vella, App.,
60 N.E.2d 798.
34 C.J. p 342 note, 30.
28. S.D.— Wendel v. Wendel, 236 N.
W. 468, 58 S.D. 438.
34 C. J. p 342 note 32.
29. CaL— Barnett v. Reynolds, 18 P.
2d 514, 124 CaLAjpp. 750.
3-4 C.J. p 342 notes 34, 35.
30. Fla. — Corpus Juris cited in
State Bank of Eau Gallie v. Ray-
mond, 138 So. 40, 43, 103 'Fla. 649.
34 C.J. p 342 note 36.
Answer held sufficient
Okl. — Jones v. American Inv. Co.,
274 P. -673, 135 Okl. 112.
Answer held, insufficient
Kan.— Bemis v. Bemis, 98 P.2d 156,
i:51 Kan. 186.
31. Fla. — Corpus Juris cited
State Bank of Eau Gallie v. Ray-
mond, 138 So. 40, 43, 103 Fla. 649.
34 C.J. p 342 note 37.
in, Okl.— Givens v. Anderson, 249 P. 339,
119 Okl. 212.
34 C.J. p 342 note 42.
Specific and general denial may be
32. Fla. — Corpus Juris cited in
State Bank of Eau Gallie v. Ray-
mond, 138 So. 40, 43, 103 Fla. 649.
34 C.J. p 342 note 38.
33. 'Fla. — Corpus Juris cited in
State Bank of Eau Gallie v. Ray-
mond, 138 So. 40, 43, 103 Fla. 649.
3-4 C.J. p 342 note 39.
34. Ariz. — Avery v. Calumet & Jer-
ome Copper Co., 284 P. 159, 36
Ariz. 239.
35. CaL— Thompson v. Sutton,
P.2d 975, 50 Cal.App.2d 272.
122
36. U.S.— Glenn v. W. C. Mitchell
Co., C.C.A.N.D., 282 F. 440, modi-
fled on other grounds 285 (F. 381.
Minn. — Peterson v. W. Davis & Sons,
11 N.W.2d 800, 216 Minn. 60— Cen-
tral Hanover Bank & Trust Co. v.
Price, 248 N.W. 287, 189 Minn. 36.
34 C.J. P 342 note 40.
37. Ky,— Ray v. Ellis, 172 S.W. 951,
162 Ky. 517.
34 C.J. p 342 note 41.
38. Ohio. — Davis v. Teachnor,
53 K.B.2d 208.
technically sufficient, but good prac-
tice requires full and frank state-
ment of fact relative to all asserted
defenses.— Kane v. Stallman, 296 N.
W. 1, 209 Minn. 138.
39. Mont— Farmers' Co-op. Ass'n v.
Roper, 1S8 P. 141, 57 Mont 42.
Okl.— Haskell v. Cutler, 108 P.2fl 14-6,
188 Okl. 239.
40. Ariz.— Avery v. Calumet & Jer-
ome Copper Co., 284 P. 159, 36
Ariz. 239.
Ohio.— Strain v. Isaacs, 18 NT.E.2d
816, 59 Ohio App. 495.
Okl. — McAdams v. Q. D. Shamburger
Lumber Co., 240 P. 124, 112 OkL
173.
34 C.J. p 342 note 44.
Xf the Judgment is a Joint Judg-
ment against two or more as Joint
defendants, the answer must be ver-
ified by all. — Dunlap v. Mcllvoy, 3
Litt, Ky., 269—34 C.J. p -343 note 46.
41. €al. — Eustace v. Dechter, 128 P.
2d 367, 59 CaLApp.2d 726— Rose-
borough v. Campbell, 115 P.2d 839,
46 Cal.App.2d 257.
2. CaL— Williams v. Thompson,
213 P. 705, 60 CaLApp. 6-58.
650
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
337
must be direct and appropriate to the relief sought, and
there must be a compliance with the statutes Governing
the matter of procedure. As a general rule the proper
procedure under the statutes Is by a motion to open,
vacate, or set aside the Judgment.
The proceeding to open or vacate a default judg-
ment must be a direct proceeding, and one which is
appropriate to the relief sought,43 unless the judg-
ment is an absolute nullity, in which case defend-
ant may have it declared void when plaintiff seeks
to enforce it, without the necessity of a direct ac-
tion to obtain its annulment44 The proceedings
are equitable in nature and arc! to be governed by
equitable principles.46 Statutory regulations or
court rules applicable to judgments by default gov-
ern in cases falling within the scope of their pro-
visions,46 and the party seeking to open or vacate
a default judgment must proceed in accordance
therewith,47 and such statutes are to be given a
liberal construction.48 The statutory rules for va-
cating judgments have no application except as
provided for therein.4^ Where both a default and a
final judgment have been rendered, it has been held
that defendant may not have the default opened
without first vacating the judgment.50
As a general rule under the statutes providing
for the opening or vacating of default judgments,
the proper procedure is by a motion to open, va-
cate, or set aside the judgment,51 and not by an
43. I1L— Glanz v. Mueller, 54 N.B.
2d 639, 322 IlLApp. 507.
34 C.J. p 318 note 63.
Motion held direct attack
Cal. — Hollywood Garment Corpora-
tion v. J. Beckerman, Inc., 143 P.
2d 738, 61 Cal.App.2d $58.
44. La.— McClelland v. District
Household of Ruth, App., 151 So.
24*6.
45. Okl. — •'Farmers' Guaranty State
Bank v. Bratcher, 241 P. 340, 112
Okl. 254.
Pa,— 'Linker v. Fidelity-Philadelphia
Trust Co., 28 A.2d 704, 150 Pa.Su-
per. 440 — Caromono v. Garman, 23
A.2d 92, 147 Pa.Super. 1— Planters
Nut & Chocolate Co. v. Brown-
Murray Co., 193 A. 381, 128 Pa.Su-
per. 239 — Henderson v. Hendricks,
94 Pa. Super. 568.
Wash.— Roth v. Nash, 144 P.2d 271,
19 Wash.2d 731.
Wyo. — Clarke v. Shoshoni Lumber
Co., 224 P. 845, 31 Wyo. 205, error
dismissed 4S S.Ct 302, 276 U.S. 595,
72 L.Ed. 722.
Substitute for Dill in equity
The practice of opening' of Judg-
ments by default on motion and rule,
is a substitute for bill in equity
adopted by Pennsylvania Judges
when no courts of chancery existed
in Pennsylvania and continued after
establishment of such courts with
limited Jurisdiction.— Welzel v. Link-
Belt Co., 35 A.2d 596, 154 Pa.Super.
66.
48. Ga. — McCray v. Empire Inv. Co.,
174 S.E. 219, 49 Go.App. 117— J. S.
Schofteld's Sons Co. v. Vaughn, 150
S.E. 569, 40 Ga.App. 568.
Ind.^01ds v. Hitzemann, 42 N.E.2d
35, 220 Ind. 300.
N.T.— Redfteld v. Critchley, 14 N.B.
2d 377, 277 N.T. 336, reargument
denied 15 N.B.2d 73. 278 N.T. 483.
34 C.J. p 428 note 75.
trnlawful detainer action
Relief from default Judgment in
unlawful detainer action may be had
under either of two sections of code
of civil procedure. — Shupe v. Evans,
261 P. 492, 86 CaLApp. 700.
47. Ala. — Dulin v. Johnson, 113 -So.
397, 216 Ala. 393.
Ark.— Merriott v. Kilgore, .139 S.W.
2d 387, 200 Ark. 394— American
Inv. Co. v. Keenehan, 291 S.W. 56,
172 Ark. -832.
Ga.— Craft v. Miles, 186 S.E. 188, 182
Ga. 584 — Johnston v. Ford, 158 S.
B. 527, 43 Ga.App. 132— Riggs v.
Kinney, 140 S.E. 41, 87 Ga.App.
307.
La.— Conn (Flour & Feed Co. v. Mitch-
ell, 136 So. 782, 18 -La.App. 534.
Mont— Galbreath v. Aubert, .157 P.2d
105.
N.Y. — Walton 'Foundry Co. v. A. -D.
Granger Co., 196 N.T.S. 719, 203
App.Div. 226.
Okl.— Vinson v. Oklahoma City, 66 P.
2d 933, 179 Okl. 590— Samuels v.
Granite Sav. Bank & Trust Co., 1
P.2d 145, 150 Okl. 174— Missouri
Quarries Co. v. Brady, 219 P. 368,
95 Okl. 279.
Tex. — Commercial Credit Corp. v.
Smith, 187 S.W.2d 363, 143 Tex.
612— Foster v. Martin, 20 Tex. 11=8.
W.Va.— Shenandoah Valley Nat.
Bank v. Hiett, 6 S.E.2d 769, 121 W.
Va. 454.
Wyo. — Clarke v. Shoshoni Lumber
Co., 224 P. 845, 31 Wyo. 205, error
dismissed 48 S.Ct. 302, 276 U.S.
595, 72 L.Ed. 722.
Judgment for lew than amount due
Where default Judgment was ren-
dered for less than amount allegedly
due, because of mistake in drafting
original petition, plaintiff's remedy
was to have the Judgment vacated
or set aside and to be granted a new
trial pursuant to statutory proce-
dure, and an amendment of the
pleadings to state the correct amount
due is not of itself sufficient — John-
son v. Dry Creek Oil & Gas Co., 141
S.W.2d 243. 283 Ky. 340.
Statute held complied with
111.— Lusk v. Bluhm, 53 N.B.2d 135,
321 IlLApp. 849.
48. Kan.— Wyatt v. Collins, 180 P.
651
789, 105 Kan. 182, reheard 180 P.
992, 105 Kan. 182.
49. Ga. — J. S. Schofleld's Sons Co. v.
Vaughn, 150 S.E. 569, 40 CteuApp.
568.
Statute relating* to action
Where attack on default Judgment,
based on alleged fraud, was made by
motion and not by action, the stat-
ute relating to an action to set aside
Judgment for fraud was inapplicable.
— Lenhart v. Lenhart Wagon Co., 2
N.W.2d 421, 211 Minn. 572.
50. Ga. — Cavan v. A. M. Davis Co.,
189 S.E. 684, 55 Ga.App. 200— Ten-
nessee Oil & Gas Co. v. American
Art Works, 72 S.E. 517, 10 Ga.App.
45.
51. Cal.— Bodin v. Webb, 62 P.2d
155. 17 Cal.App.2d 422.
Ga. — J. S. Schofleld's Sons Co. v.
Vaughn, 150 S.E. 569, 40 Ga.App.
568.
111. — Viedenschek v. Johnny Perkins
Playdium, 49 N.B.2d 339, 319 111.
App, 523 — Selther & Cherry Co. v.
Board of Education of -District No.
15, Town of La Harpe, 283 IlLApp.
392.
Ky. — Holcomb v. Creech, 56 S.W.2d
998, 247 -Ky. 199.
Mont. — Paramount Publix Corpora-
tion v. Boucher, 19 P.2d 223, 93
Mont. 340 — Rowan v. Gazette
Printing Co., 220 P. 1104, 69 Mont
170.
N.T,— Coastal Equipment Co. v. Her-
rick, 276 N.T.S. 183, 243 AppJMv.
97— Nelson v. Hirsch, 268 N.T.S.
225, 240 App.Div. 933, appeal dis-
missed 190 N.E. 653, 264 N.T. 31*6
—White v. Sebring, 240 N.T.S. 477,
228- App.Div. 413— Ornsteln v.
Goldberg, 233 N.T.S. 586, 226 App.
Div. 746.
N.C. — City of Monroe v. Niven, 20 S.
E.2d 311, 221 N.Q. 362— Wynne v,
Conrad, 17 S.E.2d 514, 220 N.C. 355
— Federal Land Bank of Columbia
v. Davis, 1 S.E.2d 350, 215 N.C.
100 — Jordan v. McKenzie, 155 S.E.
868, 199 N.C. 750— Simon v. Mas-
ters, 135 S.E. 861, 192 N.C. 781—
§ 337
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
appeal,52 or, as discussed in the CJ.S. title New-
Trial § 3, also 34 CJ. p 421 note 16, 46 CJ. p
62 note 57, by a motion for a new trial, but under
some statutes an application to set aside a default
judgment is in the nature of a motion for a new
trial.53 In some jurisdictions the motion to set
aside a default judgment made more, than a pre-
scribed period of time after entry of the judgment
is in the nature of a petition for a writ of error
coram nobis.54 If .want of jurisdiction to render
the default judgment appears on the face of
the record the remedy has been held to be by ap-
plication to the court to expunge the judgment from
the court record.55 Where the judgment is at-
tacked because of defective service of summons al-
though the return shows substantial compliance with
the statute, a rule to show cause why the judgment
should not be vacated has been held to be the prop-
er procedure in some jurisdictions.56
The proceedings to open or set aside the judg-
ment should be instituted in the same court in
which the judgment was rendered.57
Petition or bitt to review. Under some statutes a
petition to review a default judgment58 or a .peti-
tion in the nature of a bill of review59 may be
filed under proper circumstances to set aside a de-
fault judgment. In accordance with some statutes,
an action to review a default judgment will lie to
review questions of jurisdiction and of the suffi-
ciency of the complaint without a motion to set
aside the judgment having first been made,60 but
an action of review to test the correctness of the
entry of default will not lie unless a motion to set
aside the default was first made, overruled, and ex-
ception taken.61
As continued or ne^v proceeding. Dependent on
the provisions of the statutes under which the ap-
plication to open or set aside the default judgment
has been instituted, the proceedings have been held
to be a continuation of the suit in which the judg-
ment complained of was rendered,62 or they have
Whiteburst v. Merchants' & Farm-
ers' Transp. Co., 13 S.E. 937, 109 N.
C. 342.
N.D.— Baird v. Ellison, 293 N.W. 794,
70 N.D. 261.
Ohio.— Ramsey v. Holland, 172 N.E.
411, 35 Ohio App. 199.
OfcL— Arnold v. McTon Oil Co., 233
P. 192, 109 OkL 287.
S.D. — Sohn v. Flavin, 244 N.W, 849,
60 S.B. 305.
Tenn.— Wright v. Lindsay, 140 S.W.
,2d 793, 24 Tenn.App. 77.
Utah.— Madsen v. Hodson, 258 P. 792,
69 Utah 527.
84 C.J. p 421 note 15—46 C.J. p 62
note 57 [aj.
During1 and after term
Under some statutes an applica-
tion during: term should be by mo-
tion and subsequent to the term by
petition or complaint. — National Life
Ins. Co. of U. S. v. Wheeler, 137 N.
E. 529, 79 IndApp. 184.
Default in absence of Judgment
Where defendants were defaulted,
proper procedure, in absence of Judg-
ment, is by motion, not new suit,
to set aside default. — Commercial
Acceptance Co. v. Betzler, 182 N.E.
714, 95 Ind.App. 177.
Dependent on grounds
Under some statutes after the ex-
piration of the term a Judgment can
be set aside on motion only fOn cer-
tain grounds and on all* other
grounds the proceeding must be by
petition or complaint. — Boulter v.
Cook, 284 P. 1101, 32 Wyo. 461, re-
hearing denied 236 P. 245, 32 Wyo.
461.
Motion to strike judgment
Proper practice to seek relief
against judgment by default is by
motion to open It, and not by mo-
tion to strike it off.— Welzel v. Link-
Belt Co., 35 A.2d 596, 154 Pa.Super.
66.
Error by the clerk In entering
Judgment may be corrected -on mo-
tion.—Bertagnolli v. Bertagnolli, 148
P. 374, 23 Wyo. 228—34 C.J. p 179
note 50.
52. Neb.— Strine v. Kingsbaker, 10
N.W. 584, 12 Neb. 52.
84 C.J. p 422 note 17.
Default Judgment as a decision re-
viewable by appeal see Appeal and
Error § 155.
63. Ind.— State ex ret Krodel v. Gil-
kison, 198 N.E. 323, 209 Ind. 213.
La. — Wallace v. Martin, App., 166 So.
874— Cohn Flour & Feed Co. v.
Mitchell, 136 So. 782, 18 La,App.
534.
Tex.— Callahan v. Staples, 161 S.W.2d
489, 139 Tex S— Foster v. Martin,
20 Tex, 118.
Equivalent to Mil of review
The "motion for new trial on Judg-
ment following citation by publica-
tion" provided for In rules of civil
procedure is the equivalent of an
equitable bill of review. — Rimbow v.
Rimbow, Ter.Civ.App., 191 S.W.2d 89.
64. HI. — Chicago Securities Corpora-
tion v. Olsen, 14 N.E.2d 893, 295
HLApp. 615 — Bornman v. Rabb, 8
N.E.2d 374, 290 HLApp. 604— Chi-
cago Securities Corporation v. Mo-
Bride, 5 N.E.2d 752, 288 IlLApp.
65— Lynn v. Multhauf, 279 IlLApp.
« 210— National Lead Co. V. Mortell,
261 IlLApp. 332.
Writ of error coram nobis as remedy
for relief against Judgment see su-
pra §§ 311-313. i
652
55- Ala. — Marshall County v. Critch-
er, 17 So.2d 540, 245 Ala, 357.
56. N.J.— Sullivan v. Walburn, 154
A. 617, 9 N.J.Misc. 280.
57. Ind.— Kemp v. Mitchell, 29 Ind.
163 — Padol v. Home Bank & Trust
Co., 27 N.E.2d 917, 108 Ind.App.
401.
N.Y.— Collins v. Izzo, 48 N.T.S.2d 192,
267 App.Div. 1023.
Jurisdiction of particular courts and
Judges see supra $ 833.
58- Mo.— Garrison v. Schmicke, 193
S.W.2d 614— Dillbeck v, Johnson,
129 S.W.2d 885, 344 Mo. 845.
59. Tex. — Ridley v. McCaUum, 16S
S.W.2d 833, 139 Tex. 540.
Attack on Judgment prior to default
Suit in nature of bill of review
to set aside default Judgments for
estoppel by prior Judgment has been
held to be neither direct nor collat-
eral attack on the prior Judgment
— Bray v. First Nat. Bank, Teac.Civ.
App., 10 S.W.2d 235, error dismissed.
80. Ind. — Searle v. Whipperman, 79
Ind. 424.
84 C.J. p 402 note 78 [b].
Action to review Judgment generally
see supra §§ 314-319.
61. Ind. — Calumet Teaming &
Trucking Co. v. Young, 33 N.E.2d
109, 218 Ind. 468, rehearing denied
33 N.E.2d 583, 218 Ind. 468— Baker
v. Ludlam, 20 N.E. 648, 118 Ind. 87
— Searle v. Whipperman, 79 Ind.
424.
62. Tex.— Callahan v. Staples, 161 S.
W.2d 489, 139 Tex. 8— Lovensteln
v. Lovenstein, Civ.App., 35 S.W.2d
271, error dismissed.
Wash. — Harju v. Anderson, 215 P«
327. 125 Wash. 161.
49 C. J. S.
JUDGMENTS
337
been held to be new or independent proceedings63
even though the application has been filed under the
title of the cause in which the original judgment
was rendered.64
Vacation on motion of court. -As a general rule,
where the court has retained jurisdiction of the
cause it may set aside a default judgment on its
own motion,65 but it cannot set aside a default judg-
ment on its own motion where the statute gives the
right to act only on request by the aggrieved par-
ty.66
b. Time for Application
(1) In general
(2) Under statutory provisions generally
(3) Under rule of court generally
(4) During and after term generally
(5) Requirement of diligence
(6) Default before final judgment
(7) Void or irregular judgments
(S) Commencement and termination of
time
(1) In General
The motion or application for opening or vacating
a default Judgment must be made while the court may
exercise Jurisdiction over Its Judgment.
The motion or application for opening or vacating
a default judgment must be made while the court
may exercise jurisdiction over its judgment.67 It
has been held that, after execution has been re-
turned satisfied, a default judgment cannot proper-
ly be vacated on a motion to set it aside,68 but, as
discussed infra § 379, a suit in equity may be avail-
able. A default judgment based on service by pub-
lication after garnishment may not be set aside on
the motion of the garnishee under the claim that no
assets of the principal defendant are in the posses-
sion of the garnishee until the issue of whether or
not the garnishee holds assets is litigated in the
garnishee action.69
(2) Under Statutory Provisions Generally
An application based on atatutory grounds to open a
default Judgment must be made within the time limited
by the statute.
Statutes in a number of jurisdictions specify the
time within which an application to set aside a de-
fault judgment must be made, and, accordingly,
the judgment may properly be opened or vacated
within the period of time specified.70 An appli-
Mode of service in original case
A distinction exists between an
equitable bill of review as against
a previously rendered judgment un-
der, process served on defendant, and
similar action on judgment rendered
when process was by publication,
since, in the former, actions are
docketed separately from action
sought to be reviewed, and are tried
out on issues made, while, in latter
cases, motions are treated as mo-
tions for new trials in original case
and are filed in that case and heard
as part of it, irrespective of how
they are indorsed, styled or docketed.
— Smith v. Higginbotham, Tex.Civ.
App., 112 S.W.2d 770.
63. Ala.— Kelley v. Chavis, 142 So.
423, 225 Ala. 218 — Mosaic Templars
of America v. Hall, 124 So. 879,
220 Ala. 805— Evans v. Wilhite, 52
So. 845, 167 Ala. 587.
111. — Adams v. Butman, 264 Ill.App.
378.
Ind.— State ex rel. Krodel v. Gilkt-
son, 198 N.E. 323, 209 Ind. 21$ —
General Outdoor Advertising Co. v.
City of Indianapolis, 172 N.E. 309,
202 Ind, 85, 72 A.L.R. 453.
Wyo. — Clarke v. Shoshonl Lumber
Co., 224 P. 845, 31 Wyo. 205, error
dismissed 48 S.Ct. 302, 276 U.S.
595, 72 LuBd. 722.
Petition for review of default
judgment is of the nature of on in-
dependent action. — Garrison v. ,
Schmicke, Mo.r 193 S.W.2d $14— Dill-
beck v. Johnson, 129 S.W.2d 885. 344
Mo. 845.
Judgment
Where motion asserts invalidity of
Judgment, as where it has been en-
tered without sufficient service, the
attack may be regarded as an inde-
pendent proceeding. — Ray v. Bruce,
D.C.Mun.App., 31 A.2d 693.
64. Ind. — Padol v. Home Bank &
Trust Co., 27 N.E.2d 917, 108 Ind.
App. 401— Globe Mining Co. v. Oak
Ridge Coal Co., 134 N.E. 508, 79
Ind.App. 76.
85. Mo. — Faulkner v. P. Bierman &
Sons Metal & Rubber Co., App.,
294 S.W. 1019.
Or.— Milton v. Hare, 280 P. 511, 130
Or. 590.
Tex. — Gann v. Hopkins, Civ.App., 119
S.W.2d 110— Allison v. American
Surety Co. of New York, Civ.App.,
248 S.W. 829.
Judgment prematurely entered
Trial court had inherent power on
its own motion to set aside default
Judgment prematurely entered. —
Stuart v. Alexander, 43 P.2d 557, 6
Cal.App.2d 27.
66. Ariz. — Swisshelm Gold Silver
Co. v. Farwell, 124 P.2d 544, 59
Ariz. 162.
67. B.C.— Ray v. Bruce, Mun.App.,
31 A.2d 693.
Time for opening or vacating judg-
ments generally see supra $ 288.
Mont — State ex
653
reL Redle v.
District Court in and for Missoula
County, 59 P.2d 58, 102 Mont 541 —
Green v. Wiederhold, 181 P. 981.
56 Mont. 237 — Foster v. Hauswirth,
6 P. 19, 5 Mont. 566.
69. Kan. — Herd v. Chambers, 122 P.
2d 784, 155 Kan. 55.
Opening or vacating default Judg*
ments against garnishee see Gar-
nishment § 256 b.
70. Ala.— -Ex parte Haisten, 149 So.
213, 227 Ala. 183— Ex parte Day-
ton Rubber Mfg. Co., 122 So. 643,
219 Ala. 482— Ex parte Richerzha-
gen, 113 So. 85, 216 Ala. 262— Ex
parte Motley, 170 So. 81, 27 Ala.
App. 241 — Ex parte Crump ton, 10$
So. 184, 21 Ala.App. 446.
Ariz.— Collister v. Inter-State Fidel-
ity Building & Loan Ass'n of Utah,
38 P.2d 626, 44 Ariz. 427, 98 A.L.R.
1020.
Cal. — Gould v. Richmond School
Dist, 136 P.2d 864, -58 Cal.App.2d
497 — Roseborough v. Campbell, 115
P.2d 839, 46 Cal.App.2d 257.
Mo. — Garrison v. Schmicke, 193 S.W.
2d 614— Dillbeck v. Johnson, 129 8.
W.2d 885, 344 Mo. 845.
Mont.— State v. District Court of
Second Judicial Dist. in .and for
Silver Bow County, 272 P. 526,
83 Mont 400.
Nev.— Nahas v. Nahas, 92 P.2d 718,
59 Nev. 220.
N.M. — Bourgeious v. Santa Fe Trail
Stages, 95 P.2d 204, 43 N.M. 453
— Baly v. McGahen, 21 P.2d 84,
87 N.M. 246.
337
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
cation based on statutory grounds to open a de-
fault judgment must be made within the time limit-
ed by the statute71 or the application must be de-
nied.72 In some jurisdictions statutes setting forth
the procedure for opening default judgments with-
in a limited time have been construed as affording
an additional and not an exclusive remedy, and the
court may exercise its inherent power to afford re-
lief in proper cases, in proceedings not based on -
such statutes, without regard to the statutory limi-
tation of time.75 An application to open a default
judgment has been held not to come within the time
limit prescribed for an application for a new trial74
unless the statutory procedure for setting aside the
Okl. — Gassin v. McJunkin, 48 P.2d
320, 173 Okl. .210.
Tex. — Callahan v. Staples, 161 S.W
2d 489, 139 Tex. 8— Pellum v
Fleming, Civ.App., 283 S.W. 531
error refused Fleming1 v. Pellum
287 S.W. 492, 116 Tex 130.
34 C.J. p 258 note 99.
Before ease ripe for Judgment
(1) Where defendant filed motion
to remove default day after default,
case was not "ripe for judgment" so
as to go to judgment without clerk's
making note to that effect — Cohen v.
Industrial Bank & Trust Co., 175
N.E. 78, 274 Mass. 498.
(2) In general, case is "ripe for
Judgment" wHen under last entry
case has been brought to final de-
termination and everything seems to
have been done that should have
been done before entry of final ad-
judication.— Cohen v. Industrial Bank
& Trust Co., supra.
71. Ark.— Horn v. Hull, 275 S.W.
905, 169 Ark. 463.
Cal. — Phillips v. Trusheim, 156 P.2d
25, 25 Cal.2d 913— Hunt Mirk & Co.
v. Patterson, 253 P. 317, 20 Cal.
382— Scott- v. Crosthwaite, 159 P.
2d 660. 69 CaLApp.2d 663— Rose-
borough v. Campbell, 115 P.2d 839,
46 Cal.App.2d 257— Washko v.
Stewart, 112 P.2d 306, 44 CaLApp.
2d 311— Bouvett v. Layer, 104 P.
2d 115, 40 Cal.App.2d 43— Doyle v.
Rice Ranch Oil Co., 81 P.2d 980,
28 Cal.App.2d 18— Jackson
Shaw, 68 P.2d 310, 20 Cal.App.2d
740— McNeill v. Wheat, 295 P. 105,
111 Cal.App. 79— Wheat v. McNeill,
295 P. 102, 111 CaLApp. 72— Jones
v. Moers, 266 P. 821, 91 CaLApp. 65
— Vaughn v. Pine Creek Tungsten
Co., 265 P. 491, 89 CaLApp. 759—
Keown v. Trudo, 234 P. 910, 71
CaLApp. 155 — Hinds v. Superior
Court of Los Angeles County, 223
P. 422, 65 Cal.App. 223.
Fla. — Atlanta Life Ins. Co. v. Hopps,
183 So. 15, 133 Fla. 300.
Idaho. — Hanson v. Rogers, 32 P.2d
126, 54 Idaho 360— McAllister v.
Erickson, 261 P. 242, 45 Idaho 211
—Smith v. Peterson, 169 P. 290.
31 Idaho 34.
Iowa. — Kern v. Woodbury County,
14 N.W.2d 687, 234 Iowa 1321—
Vaux v. Hensal, 277 N.W. 718, 224
Iowa 1055 — Borden v. Voegtlin, 245
N.W. 331, 215 Iowa 882.
La. — Wallace v. Martin, App., 166
So. 874. j
Mich.— Zirfcaloso y. Merriam, 224 N
W. 361, 246 Mich. 210.
Minn.— Lentz v. Lutz, 9 N.W.2d 505
215 Minn. 230— Marthaler Machine
& Engineering Co. v. Meyers, 218
N.W. 127, 173 Minn. 606.
Miss. — Britton v. Beltzhoover, 113
So. 346, 147 Miss. 737.
Mont. — Galbreath v. Aubert, 157 P
2d 105 — Kosonen v. Waara, 285 P.
668, 87 Mont. 24.
N.Y.— Gilmore v. De Witt, 10 N.Y.S.
2d 903, 256 App.Div. 1046— Schlim-
mer v. Ontario & W. R. Co., 209 N,
T.S. 547, 212 App.Div. 782.
N.C. — Foster v. Allison Corporation,
131 S.E. 648, 191 N.C. 166, 44 A.
L.R. 610.
Ohio.— In re Veselich, -154 N.E. 55, 22
Ohio App. 528.
Okl. — Rodesney v. Robins, 88 P.2d
333, 184 Okl. 457— VInson v. Okla-
homa City, 66 P.2d 933, 179 Okl.
590— Bradshaw v. Tinker, 264 P.
162, 129 Okl. 244.
Philippine.— Almadin v. Almadin, 1
Philippine 748, 1 Off.Gaz. 142.
Tex.— Ridley v. McCallum, 163 S.W.
2d 833, 139 Tex. 540.
Utah.— Intermill v. Nash, 75 P.2d
157, 94 Utah 271.
Wyo. — Boulter v. Cook, 234 P. 1101,
82 Wyo. 461, rehearing denied 236
P. 245, 32 Wyo. 461.
34 C.J. p 430 note 91.
Irregularity in taking default
judgment before cause stood for trial
in accordance with court rule was
waived by failure to move for va-
cation of judgment within first three
days of succeeding term of court as
provided by statute. — Strain v.
Isaacs, 18 N.E.2d 816, 59 Ohio App.
495.
Application* held timely
N.T.— Coles v. Carroll, 6 N.E.2d 107,
273 N.T. 86.
Or. — Leonard v. Bennett, 106 P.2d
542, 165 Or. 157— Galbraith v. Mon-
arch Gold Dredging Co., 84 P.2d
1110, 160 Or. 282.
72. Ala. — Ex parte Cunningham, 99
So. 834, 19 AUuApp. 584, certiorari
denied Ex parte Ewart-Brewer Mo-
tor Co., 99 So. 836, 211 Ala. 191.
Cal. — Gibbons y. Clapp, 277 P. 490,
207 Cal. 221— Wasko v. Stewart,
112 P.2d 306, 44 Cal.App.2d 311—
Knox v. Superior Court in and for
Riverside County, 280 P. 375, 100
CaLApp. 452.
Fla.— Cornelius v. State ex rel. Tam-
pa West Coast Realty Co., 183 So.
754, 136 Fla. 506.
654
Ga.— Fraser v. Neese, 137 S.E. 550,
163 Ga. 843.
Tdaho. — Backman v. Douglas, 270 P.
618, 46 Idaho 671— McAllister v.
Erickson, 261 P. 242, 45 Idaho 211
— Commonwealth Trust Co. of
Pittsburgh v. Lorain, 255 P. 909,
43 Idaho 784.
TIL— Whalen v. Twin City Barge &
Gravel Co., 280 IlLApp. -596, cer-
tiorari denied Twin City Barge &
Gravel Co. v. Whalen, 56 S.Ct 590,
297 U.S. 714, 80 L.Ed. 1000.
Iowa.— Kern v. Woodbury County, 14
N.W.2d 687, 234 Iowa 1321.
Ky. — Stokes v. Commonwealth, 150 S.
W.2d 892, 286 Ky. 391— Fowler v.
Wiley, 33 S.W.2d 14, 236 Ky. 313.
La. — McClelland v. District House-
hold of Ruth, App., 151 So. 246. .
Mont. — Housing Authority of City
of Butte v. Murtha, 144 P.2d 183,
115 Mont. 405— Kosonen v. Waara,
285 P. 668, 87 Mont. 24.
N.J. — Steinhauser v. Friedman, 170
A. 630, 12 N.J.Misc. 167— New Jer-
sey Cash Credit Corporation v.
LInehan, 142 A. 650, 6 N«J.Misc.
740.
N.M.— Clark v. Rosenwald, 247 P.
306, 31 N.M. 443.
N.T.— Gilmore v. De Witt, 10 N.Y.S.
2d' 903, 256 App.Div. 1046.
Okl.— Yahola Oil Co. v. Causey, 72 P.
2d 817, 181 Okl. 129.
Tex.— Ridley v. McCallum, 163 S.W.
2d 833, 139 Tex. 540. ;
Utah. — J. B. Colt Co. v. District
Court of Fifth Judicial Dist in
and for Millard County, 269 P.
1017, 72 Utah 281.
34 C.J. p 260 note 1, p 430 note 92.
73. Cal. — Barnett v. Reynolds, 18 P.
2d 514, 124 CaLApp. 750.
N.T.— Malicky v. Rosenberg, 273 N.
T.S. 818, 152 Misc. 197— White v.
Sebring, 233 N.Y.S. 497, 133 Misc.
784.
Tex. — Travelodge Corporation v.
Schwake, Civ.App., 126 S.W.2d 523.
34 CJ\ p 430 note 95.
Time for equitable proceedings for
relief against judgment see infra
§ 379.
'4. N.J.— Finkel v. District Court
for First Judicial Dist. of Union
County, 21 A.2d 306, 127 N.J.Law
132, affirmed 28 A.2d 119, 129 N.
J.Law 97.
Constructive service
Laws relating to time for filing
motions for new trial were inapplica-
ble where suit was. by publication
and only appearance by attorney ad
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
337
default judgment is in the nature of a motion for a
new trial.75
(3) Under Rule of Court Generally
An application to open or vacate a default judgment
which is not made within the time fixed by rule of court
may properly be denied.
An application to open or vacate a default judg-
ment not made within the time fixed by rule oi
court may properly be denied.76 The court in its
discretion may grant relief after the time limited
therefor by its own rule,77 but if the rules are made
by a superior tribunal the court must deny an ap-
plication made after the prescribed time.78
(4) During and after Term Generally
Where the application is filed during the term at
which the default Judgment was rendered, the Judgment
may properly be opened or vacated on any ground that
moves the favorable discretion of the court. If the ap-
plication Is filed after the term, the judgment may not
be opened or vacated except under statutory authoriza-
tion or except on some ground on which the court has
inherent power to act after term.
Where the application is filed during the term at
which the default judgment is rendered, the judg-
ment may properly be opened or vacated on any
ground that moves the favorable discretion of the
court79 If the application is filed after the term,
the default judgment may not be opened or vacat-
ed80 except on some ground on which the court has
inherent power to act after the term,81 or where
statutory authority exists to open or vacate a judg-
ment after term.82 A motion filed during the term
litem.— Hunsinger v. Boyd, 26 S.W.2d
$05, 119 Tex. 182.
75. La.— -Wallace v. Martin, App.,
166 So. 874.
76. D.C. — Ray v. Bruce, Mun.App.,
31 A.2d 693.
Mich. — Tymkiew v. Nicolopolus, 22
N.W.2d 66 — Sczesny v. Colling-
wood, 222 N.W. 759, 245 Mich. 438.
34 C.J. P 431 note 2.
Application to set aside default judg-
ment not regularly entered see in-
fra subdivision b (7) of this sec-
tion.
77. g.c. — Sargent v. Wilson, 13 S.C.
It 512.
7B. Mich.— Kunsky-Trendle Broad-
casting Corporation v. Kent Circuit
Judge, 275 N.W. 175, 281 Mich.
367— Domzalski v. Guzynski, 274
N.W. 753, 281 Mich. 175— Vozbut
v. Pomputis, 269 N.W. 149, 277
Mich. 212-^Watkins v. Hunt, 225
N.W. 554, 247 Mich. 237— Sczesny
v. Collingwood, 222 N.W. 759, 245
Mich. 438 — Rosen v. Brennan, 221
N.W. 276, 244 Mich. 397— Westlawn
Cemetery Ass'n v. Codd, 213 N.W.
143, 238 Mich. 119— Newman v.
Hunt, 183 N.W. 745, 215 Mich. 185.
34 C.J. p 431 note 2 [a] (2), (3).
79. Ark.— Young v. Young, 147 S.
W.2d 736, 201 Ark. 984.
Iowa.— Kern v. Sanborn, 7 N.W.2d
801, 233 Iowa 458.
Kan. — Wichita Motors Co. v. United
Warehouse Co., 255 P. 30, 123 Kan.
235.
Ky. — Corbin Bldg. Supply Co. v.
Martin, 39 S.W.2d 480, 239 Ky.
272.
Neb.— Fremont Joint Stock Land
Bank v. Harding, 266 N.W. 714, 130
Neb. 842.
Ohio.— State ex rel. Hughes v. Cra-
mer, 34 N.B.2d 772, 138 Ohio St.
267 — Davis v. Teachnor, App., 53
N.E.2d 208. •
Tex.— Dorsey v. Cutbirth, Civ.App.,
178 S.W.2d 749, error refused.
34 C.J. p 431 note 96.
80u D.C. — Ray v. Bruce, Mun.App.t
31 A.2d 693.
111.— Chicago Faucet Co. v. 839 Lake
St Bldg. Corporation, 1 N.E.2d
865, 285 IlLApp. 151.
Iowa.— Clarke v. Smith, 192 N.W.
136, 195 Iowa 1299.
y.— Wood's Ex'x v. City of Middles-
boro, 90 S.W.2d 1018, 262 Ky. 627
—National Surety Corporation v.
Mullins, 90 S.W.2d 707, 262 Ky.
465 — Stratton & Terstegge Co. v.
Begley, 61 S.W.2d 287, 249 Ky.
632— Pinnacle Motor Co. v. Simp-
son, 287 S.W. -566, 216 Ky. 184.
Mo.— State ex rel. Sterling v. Shain,
129 S.W.2d 1048, 344 Mo. 891—
Buchholz v. Manzella, App., 158
S.W.2d 200— Boggess v. Jordan,
App., 283 S.W. 57— Barkwell v.
Carlisle. 256 S.W. 513, 215 Mo.App.
214.
Neb.— Cronkleton v. Lane, 263 N.W.
388, 130 Neb. 17.
Ohio.— Ryan v. Buckeye State Build-
ing & Loan Co.. 163 N.B. 719, 29
Ohio App. 476.
34 C.J. p 431 note 98.
Trial term
• (1) Statutory right to open de-
fault Judgment must be exercised
before beginning of trial term.— Mo-
Cray v. Empire Inv. Co., 174 S.B.
219, 49 Ga.App. 117— W. H. Coker &
Son v. Lipscomb, 87 S.E. 704, 17 Ga,
App. 506.
(2) Default Judgment cannot be
opened after trial term has passed,
although court may not be held at
trial term. — Miller v. Phoenix Mut,
Life Ins. Co., 147 S.E. 527, 168 Ga.
321.
81. Pa.— Salus v. Fogel, 153 A. 547,
302 .Pa. 268— Lichterman v. Han-
Ion, 100 Pa.Super. 245 — Ames Shov-
el & Tool Co. v. Schock, 100 Pa-
Super. 84 — New Prague Flouring
Mill Co. v. Kirschner, 70 Pa.Super.
74.
34 C.J. p 431 notes 97, 99.
Void or irregular Judgment see in-
655
fra subdivision b (7) of this sec-
tion.
Necessity for equitable ground for
relief
An adverse judgment may not be
opened after exgj^tion of term at
which it was entSfed, unless fraud
or some other recognized equitable
ground for relief is shown. — Kappel
v. Meth, 189 A. 795, 125 Pa.Super*
443.
Deprivation of rights
Where it appears that defendant
has been deprived of his rights by
a default Judgment, the common-
law principle that the power of
courts to vacate their Judgments
does not extend beyond the term
at which they were entered is not
adhered to, and a Judgment may
be vacated after term. — Webb Pack-
ing Co. v. Harmon, 193 A. 596, &
W.W.Harr., Del., 476.
Substituted service
Where court was without Jurisdic-
tion to enter Judgment against non-
resident motorist because of insuffi-
cient notice of effect of service of
process on secretary of state, peti-
tion to vacate Judgment by default,
although made at subsequent term,
was granted. — Webb Packing Co. v.
Harmon, supra.
82. 111. — Korner v. Weinshenk, 7 K.
E.2d 635, 289 IlLApp. 625.
Ohio. — State ex rel. Hughes v. Cra-
mer, 34 N.B.2d 772. 138 Ohio St
267.
Okl.— Hoffman v. Deskins, 221 P, 37,
94 Okl. 117.
34 C.J. p 431 note 1.
-Within time prescribed by statute
A default judgment may be set
aside after the term if within the
period of time prescribed by statute.
—Lake v. Williams & Nobbs, 147 So.
221, 109 Fla. 78— Ell Witt Cigar &
Tobacco Co. v. Somers, 127 So. 333,
99 Fla. 592.
Statutory grounds
The court may set aside a default
§ 337
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
at which the judgment is rendered may be consid-
ered at a subsequent term.88
(5) Requirement of Diligence
A defendant must proceed with reasonable diligence
In moving to set aside a default judgment.
Defendant must proceed with reasonable diligence
in moving to set aside a default judgment,84 and any
.apparent laches or delay must be explained and ex-
cused.85 Laches or undue delay will bar relief8*
even in cases where the application has been made
judgment after term only on the
grounds specified by statute.
Ark. — American Inv. Co. v. Keene-
han, 291 S.W. 56, 172 Ark. 832.
Ky.— Wood's Ex'x v. City of Middles-
boro, 90 S.W.2d 1018, 262 Ky. 627.
Mo. — Force v. Margulius, App., S3
S.W.2d 1023.
Neb. — Cronkleton v. Lane, 263 N.W.
388, 130 Neb. 17.
83. Okl.— Hawkins v. Payne, 264 P.
179, 129 Okl. 243— Claussen v. Am-
berg, 249 P. 330, 119 Okl. 187—
Missouri Quarries Co. v. Brady,
219 P. 368, 95 Okl. 279.
84. Cal. — Massimino v. Taranto, 292
P. 139, 108 CaLApp. 692.
111.— Lusk v. Bluhxn, 53 N.R2d 135,
• 321 IlLApp. 349— Blackman v. Illi-
nois Cent. R. Co., 52 N.E.2d 825,
321 IU.APP. 310— Crystal Lake
Country Club v. Scanlan, 564 HI.
App. 44.
Md. — Harvey v. Slacum, 29 A.2d 276,
181 Md. 206— Weisman v. Davitz,
199 A. 476, 174 Md. 447.
Minn. — Lentz v. Lutz, 9 N.W.2d 505,
215 Minn. 230— Pilney v. Funk, 3
N.W.2d 792, 212 Minn. 398— In re
Belt Line, Phalen, and Hazel Park
Sewer Assessment, 222 N.W. 520,
176 Minn. 59.
Mont — Madson v. Petrie Tractor &
Equipment Co., 77 P.2d 1038, 106
Mont. 382 — St. Paul Fire & Ma-
rine Ins. Co. v. Freeman, 260 P.
124, 80 Mont 266 — Middle States
Oil Corporation v. Tanner-Jones
Drilling Co., 235 P. 770, 73 Mont.
180.
N.J.— Kiefer v. Fleming, 134 A, 110,
4 N-J.Misc. 635.
Or. — Steeves v. Steeves, 9 P.2d 815,
139 Or. 261.
Tex.— Callahan v. Staples, 161 S.W.2d
489, 139 Tex. 8 — Stoudenmeier v.
First Nat. Bank, Civ.App., 246 S.
W. 761.
Wash. — Moe v. Wolter, 235 P. 803,
134 Wash. 340, affirmed 240 P. €65,
136 Wash. 696.
34 C.J. p 263 note 19.
Necessity for diligence where Judg-
ment void flee infra subdivision b
(7) of this section.
Barli«Bt moment praoUoaUe
One in default must move to set
it aside at the earliest moment prac-
ticable.— In re Bast Bench Irr. Dist,
224 P. 859, 70 Mont 186.
Prompt application for relief after
learning of default judgment is nec-
essary.
Or. — Snyder v. Consolidated Highway
Co., 72 P.3d 932, 157 Or. 479.
Pa.— Quaker City Chocolate & Con-
fectionery Co. v. Warnock Bldg.
Ass'n, 32 A.2d 5, 347 Pa. 186—
Silent Auto Corporation of North-
ern New Jersey v. Folk, 97 Pa.Su-
per. 588 — Commonwealth v. Dr.
Crandall's Health School, Com.Pl.,
51 Dauph.Co. 333— Hotel Redington
v. Guttey. 36 Luz.Leg.Reg. 209, 3
Monroe L.R. €2, affirmed 25 A.2d
773, 148 Pa.Super. 502.
Tex.— Farrell v. Truett Abernathy &
• Wolford, Civ.App., 60 S.W.2d 475,
error dismissed.
Claim of fraud
Even though defendant claims that
default judgment was . obtained
against him by extrinsic fraud, de-
fendant should not be permitted to
wait until more than a year after
he concededly had actual notice of
Judgment before attacking it by mo-
tion to set judgment aside on ground
that defendant was not served with
summons. — Washko v. Stewart, 112
P.2d 306, 44 CaLApp.2d 311.
Mere forffetfolaess has been held
no excuse for failure to move
promptly to set aside default, not-
withstanding disorganization of at-
torneys' business because of death
of partner. — St. Paul Fire & Marine
Ins. Co. v. Freeman, 260 P. 124, 80
Mont 266.
86. Tex. — Simpson v. Glenn, Civ.
App:, 103 S.W.2d 433— Welsch v.
Keeton, Civ.App., 287 S.W. 692—
Stoudenmeier v. First Nat Bank,
Civ.App., 246 S.W. 761.
34 C.J. p 427 note 62.
86. Ala.— Craft v. Hirsh, 149 So.
683, 227 Ala. 257, appeal dismissed
54 S.Ct 455, 291 U.S. 644, 78 I*
Ed. 1041.
Ariz. — Postal Ben. Ins. Co. v. John-
son, 165 P.2d 173— Avery v. Calu-
met & Jerome Copper Co., 284 P.
159, 36 Ariz. 239 — Garden Develop-
ment Co. v. Carlaw, 263 P. 625, 33
Ariz. 232.
Ark.— O'Neal v. B. F. Goodrich Rub-
ber Co.,. 162 S.W.2d 52, 204 Ark.
371 — Bictoerstaff v. Harmonia Fire
Ins. Co., 133 S.W.2d 890, 199 Ark.
424.
Cal.— Hlltbrand v. Hiltbrand, 23 P.2d
277, 218 Cal. 321— Scott v. Cros-
thwaite, 159 P.2d 660, 69 CaLApp.
2d 663 — Sharp v. Paulson, 295 P.
856, 111 CaLApp. 515— Grey v. Mfl-
ligan, 281 P. 656, 101 CaLApp. 328.
Idaho.— Nielson v. Garrett, 43 P.2d
380, 55 Idaho 240— Savage v.
Stokes, 28 P.2d 900, 54 Idaho 109.
I1L— Shaw v. Carrara, 38 N.B.2d
785, 312 IlLApp. 410.
656
Iowa. — Anderson v. Anderson, 229
N.W. 694, 209 Iowa 1143.
Md. — Wagner v. Scurlock, 170 A. 539,
166 Md. 284.
Mich. — In re State Highway Com'r,
279 N.W. 883, 284 Mich. 414, certio-
rarl denied Halsted v. State High-
way Commissioner, 59 S.Ct. 148,
305 U.S. 644, 83 L.Ed. 416.
Minn.— Kane v. Stallman, 296 N.W.
1, 209 Minn. 138 — Nystrom v. Ny-
strom, 243 N.W. 704, 186 Minn.
490— Beelman v. Beck, 205 N.W.
636, 164 Minn. 504— Ladwig v. Pe-
terson, 199 N.W. 226, 160 Minn. 13.
Mo. — O'Connell v. Dockery, App., 102
S.W.2d 748.
N.J.— Kiefer v. Fleming, 134 A. 110,
4 N.J.Miso. 635— Vanderbilt v. Chi-
oscinski, 129 A. 178, 3 N.J.Misc.
584.
N.T. — Booraem v. Gibbons, 34 N.T.S.
2d 198, 263 App.Div. 665, appeal
denied 35 N.T.S.2d 717, 264 App.
Div. 768 — Carpello v. Carana, 220
N.T.S. 81, 219 App.Div. 736— Brod-
erick v. Saretsky, 39 N.Y.S.2d 802,
179 Misc. 737— Sobel v. Steinberg,
273 N.Y.S. 630, 152 Misc. 443—
Hannel v. Serbert, 255 N.Y.S. 758,
143 Misc. 61 — Stewart v. Barry,
250 N.Y.S. 67, 139 Misc. 724— Kefer
v. Gunches, 49 N.Y.S.2d 554— Rocki
v. Chiprut, 203 N.Y.S. 100.
Pa.— Quaker City Chocolate & Con-
fectionery Co. v. Warnock Bldg.
Ass'n, 32 A.2d 5, 347 Pa. 186—
Planters Nut & Chocolate Co. v.
Brown-Murray Co., 193 A. 381, 128
Pa. Super. 239 — Commonwealth v.
Dr. Crandall's Health School, Com.
PL, 51 Dauph.Co. 333— Oltorik T.
Bozer, Com.PL, 40 Lack.Jur. 25.
S.C.— Brown v. Nix, 37 S.B.2d 579.
SJD.— Heitman v. Gross, 19 N.W.2d
508— Smith v. Wordenmn, 240 N.W.
325, 59 S.D. 368.
Tex. — Dodd v. State, Civ.App., 193
S.W.2d (69 — Simpson v. Glenn, Civ.
App., 103 S.W.2d 433— Farrell v.
Truett, Abernathy & Wolford, Civ.
App., 60 S.W.2d 475, error dismiss-
ed— Oldham v. Heatherly, Civ.App.,
17 S.W.2d 113— Cauble v. Key, Civ.
App., 256 S.W. 654 — Stoudenmeier
v. First Nat Bank, CLv.App., 246
S.W. 761.
Wyo. — Clarke v. Shoshoni Lumber
Co., 224 P. 845, 31 Wyo. 205, error
dismissed 48 S.Ct 302, 276 U.S.
695, 72 LJEd. 722.
34 C.J. p 427 note 57.
Necessity for knowledge
Mere passage of time since entry
of judgment sought to be enforced
does not create "laches" without pre-
cedent of knowledge on defendant's
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§337
within the statutory time,87 but it is not laches to
make the application at the latest period prescribed
by the statute where no intervening facts appear
which make it inequitable to grant the application.88
Under some statutes the motion must be filed with-
in a reasonable time, not to exceed a specified peri-
od, after rendition of the default judgment89
What constitutes due diligence90 or a reasonable
time91 depends on the circumstances of the particu-
lar case.
(6) Default before Final Judgment
Statutes limiting the period of time within which
proceedings may be instituted to open or set aside a
default judgment have been held to be applicable to de-
fault judgments which are merely Interlocutory.
General statutory limitations on the period of
time within which proceedings may be instituted to
open or set aside a default judgment have been held
to apply only to final, and not to interlocutory, judg-
ments,92 but where the limitation is inserted in a
statute pertaining to both interlocutory and final
judgments it has been held to apply to interlocutory
as well as to final judgments.** The rule against
vacating a default judgment after expiration of the
term at which it was rendered, discussed supra sub-
division b (4) of this section, does not apply to a
mere interlocutory entry of default, and such an en-
try may be vacated on proper grounds after adjourn-
ment of the term at which such default was en-
tered;94 and, in the absence of a statute to the con-
trary, a default on which no judgment has been en-
tered may be set aside on an application made at
any time.95
(7) Void or Irregular Judgments
Statutes imposing limitations on the time within
which applications may be made to open or set aside
default judgments and the doctrine of laches have been
held to be inapplicable to default Judgments which are-
void.
Statutes imposing limitations on the time within
which an application may be made to open or set
aside default judgments have been held to be inap-
plicable to a default judgment which is void96 or
void on its face,97 such as where the judgment is il-
legal for want of jurisdiction98 due to the lack of
part or existence of such circum-
stances that defendant should have
known of judgment and acted
promptly by applying for vacation
of default judgment to protect his
rights. — Renter Co. v. Errath, 32 A.
2d 592, 21 N.J.Misc. 214.
87. Ariz. — Perrin v. Perrin Proper-
ties, 86 P.2d 23, 53 Ariz. 121, 122
A.L.R. 621.
Cal.— Hiltbrand v. Hiltbrand, 23 P.
2d 277, 218 Cal. 321.
Minn. — Kane v. Stallman, 296 N.W.
1, 209 Minn. 138.
34 C.J. p 427 note 58.
88. N.Y.— Marvin r. Brandy, 9 N.
T.S. 593, 56 Hun 242, 18 N.Y.Civ.
Proc. 343.
89. Cal. — Hollywood Garment Cor-
poration v. J. Beckerman, Inc., 143
P.2d 738, 61 Cal.App.2o: 658— Wash-
ko v. Stewart, 112 P.2d 306, 44 Cal.
App,2d 311 — Weinberger v. Man-
ning, 123 P.2d 531, 50 CaLApp.2d
494.
Idaho. — Hanson y. Rogers, 32 P.2d
126, 54 Idaho 360.
90. N.D.— Powell v. Bach, 217 N.W.
172, 56 NJ>. 297.
"Undue delay held not shown
Ariz. — Avery v. Calumet & Jerome
Copper Co., 284 P. 159, 36 Ariz,
239.
111.— Lusk v. Bluhm, 53 N.E.2d 135,
321 IlLApp. 349.
Mont.— Brothers v. Brothers, 230 P.
60, 71 Mont. 378.
N.D.— First State Bank of Crosby v.
Thomas, 268 N.W. 852, 54 N.D.
108.
Wash.— Moe v. Wolter, 235 P. 8frS,
49C.J.S.-42
134 Wash. 340, affirmed 240 P. 565,
136' Wash. 696.
91. Cal.— Wm. Wolff & Co. v. Cana-
dian Pac. Ry. Co., 26 P. 825, 89 Cal.
332.
Iiimlt for reasonable time
Where the statute requires the
motion to be filed within a reason-
able time not to exceed a specified
period, the limit for reasonable time
is the specified period.
Cal.— Smith v. Jones, 163 P. 890, 174
Cal. 513 — Hollywood Garment Cor-
poration v. J. Beckerman, Inc., 143
P.2d 738, 61 CaLApp.2d 658.
Idaho. — Hanson y. Rogers, 32 P.2d
126, 54 Idaho 360.
Time held reasonable under circum-
stances
CaL — Waybright v. Anderson, 253
P. 148, 200 CaL 374— Waite v.
Southern Pac. Co., 221 P. 204, 192
Cal. 467— Sofuye v. Pieters-Wheel-
er Seed Co., 216 P. 990, 62 Cal.App.
198.
92. Ala. — Ex parte Bozeman, 104 So.
402, 213 Ala. 223— Ex parte Savage,
186 So. 586, 28 AlfiuApp. 440.
Tenn. — Gammon v. Robbing, 53 S.W.
2d 223, 165 Tenn. 128. .
93. Del.— Yerkes v. Dangle, Super.,
33 A.2d 406.
94. Del.— Yerkes v. Dangle, supra.
Iowa.— Redding v. Redding, 284 N.
W. 167, 226 Iowa 327— Weinhart v.
Meyer, 247 N.W. 811, 215 Iowa
1317.
34 CUT. P 422 note 20.
95. Ala.— Ex parte Savage, 186 So.
586, 28 Ala.App. 440.
657
Iowa.— Weinhart v. Meyer, 547 N.W*
811, 215 Iowa 1317.
34 C.J. p 422 note 19.
96. D.C. — Ray v. Bruce, MuxuApp*
31 A.2d 693.
Fla. — Kellogg-Citizens Net Bank of
Green Bay, Wls., v. Pelton, 199 So.
50, 145 Fla. 68— -Kroier v. Kroier*
116 So. 753, 95 Fla, 865.
111.— Lewis v. West . Side Trust &
Savings Bank of Chicago, 36 N.B.
2d 573, 377 111. 384.
N.J.— New Jersey Cash Credit Cor-
poration v. Zaccaria, 19 A.2d 448,,
126 NJ.Law 334— Gloucester City
Trust Co. v. Goodfellow, 3 A.24
561, 121 N.J.Law 546— Andersen v.
Independent Order of Foresters,.
126 A. 631, 98 N.J.Law 648.
Tex. — Smith v. Lightfoot, Civ.App.fc
143 S.W.2d 151.
97. Cal. — Vaughn v. Pine Creek
Tungsten Co., 265 P. 491, 89 CaL
App. 759.
Idaho. — Hanson v. Rogers, 32 P.2d
126, 54 Idaho 360— Savage v.
Stokes, 28 P.2d 900, 54 Idaho 109.
Mont.— Hodson v. O'Keeffe, 229 P»
722, 71 Mont 322.
Wash, — Marinovich v. Idndh, 220 Pi.
807, 127 Wash. 349.
Rule held inapplicable to valid jndg~
Cal. — Vaughn v. Pine Creek Tung-
sten Co., 245 P. 491, 89 Cal.App.
759 — Hinds v. Superior Court of
Los . Angeles County, 223 P. 422,
65 Cal.App. 223.
98. Mont— Hodson v. O'Keeffe, 229'
P, 722, 71 Mont 322.
N.J. — Andersen v. Independent Or-
der of Foresters, 126 A. 631, 98.
337
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
•proper summons or notice," or where the default
judgment has been entered by the clerk of the court
-without legal authority.1 Some statutes have also
1)een held not to apply to irregular judgments,2 but
•other statutes have been held to apply if the judg-
ment is merely irregular and voidable.5
The doctrine of laches does not apply in the case
of a judgment by default which is void,4 and un-
der such circumstances a showing of diligence is not
necessary.6
During or after term. A void judgment may
properly be set aside at a subsequent term.6 A judg-
ment irregularly entered may be opened or vacated
after term,7 particularly where a statute so pro-
vides.8
Rules of court. A rule of court requiring an
application to be filed within a fixed period of time
has been held to apply only to a default judgment
which is regularly entered,9 and not to apply if
there has not been a proper legal service of proc-
ess,10 although only a substantial compliance with
the statute with respect to notice is required.11
Such a court rule has also been held to require that
the proceedings after default be regular.12 Where
the default was due to the judge having misled de-
fendant, an order setting aside the default has been
permitted even though the application was filed after
the time prescribed by rule of court.13
(8) Commencement and Termination of Time
Under statutes prescribing the time within which
applications to open or set aside default judgments must
be filed, the commencement of the period limited depends
on the terms of the particular statute under which ap-
plication is made.
Under the various statutes prescribing the time
N.J.Law 648— Palansky v. Reich,
164 A. 701, 11 N.J.Misc. 106, affirm-
ed 168 A. 297, 11 N.J.Law 241—
Corpus Juris cited in Greenbaum
v. Higgins, 147 A. 722, 723, 7 N.J.
Misc. 1012.
84 C.J. P 257 note 89.
99. Cal.— Gibbons v. Clapp, 277 P.
490, 207 Cal. 221.
tf.D. — Ellison v. Baird, 293 N.W.
793, 70 N.D. 226.
Ohio. — Vida v. Parsley, App., 47 N.
E.2d 663.
1. Cal. — Potts v. Whitson, 125 P.2d
947, 52 CaLApp.2d 199— Crofton v.
Young, 119 P.2d 1003, 48 CaLApp.
2d 452.
Fla,— St. Lucie Estates v. Palm
Beach Plumbing Supply Co., 133
So. 841, 101 Fla, 205— Eli Witt
Cigar & Tobacco Co. v. Somers, 127
So. 333, 99 Fla. 592— Kroier v. Kro-
ier, 116 So. 753, 95 Fla. 865—
Ex parte Jones, 110 So. 532, 92
Fla, 1015— Mickler v. Reddick, 21
So. 287, 38 Fla. 341.
2. N.C.— Hood ex rel. Citizens Bank
& Trust Co. v. Stewart, 184 S.E.
36, 209 N.C. 424— Foster v. Allison
Corporation, 131 S.B. 648, 191 N.
C. 166, 44 A.L.R. 610.
A mere clerical error which does
not affect the substantial rights of
the parties will be disregarded.—
Galbreath v. Aubert, Mont., 157 P.
2d 105.
Failure to give notice of judgment
Default and judgment entered
against defendant which had filed af-
fidavit of defense was held properly
vacated, notwithstanding that more
than thirty days had elapsed from
date of entry of Judgment where no
notice was given defendant of entry
of Judgment as required by rule of
court, since such fact, if known to
. court, would ha"ve prevented entry of
Judgment — Josten Mfg. Co. v. Keel-
er, 2 N.E.2d 586, 284 IlLApp. 646.
3. N.M.— Dallam County Bank v.
Burnside, 249 P. 109, 31 N.M. 537.
4. N.J.— Weiner v. Wittman, 27 A.
2d 866, 129 N.J.Law 35— Westfield
Trust Co. v. Court of Common
Pleas of Morris County, 178 A.
546, 115 N.J.Law 86, affirmed 183
A. 165, 116 N.J.Law 191.
N.Y. — Valz v. Sheepshoad Bay Bung-
alow Corporation, 18% N.E. 124, 249
N.Y. 122. certiorarl denied 49 S.
Ct 82, 278 U.S. 647* 73 L.Ed. 560.
Or.— Mutzig v. Hope, 158 P.2£ 110.
Pa. — Borough of Wilkinsburg v.
School Dist. of Borough of Wil-
kinsburg, 148 A. 77, 298 Pa, 193.
5. Minn. — Pugsley v. Magerfieisch,
201 N.W. 323, 161 Minn. 246.
6. Ky. — Corbin Bldg. Supply Co. v.
Martin, 39 S.W.2d 480, 239 Ky.
272.
7. Pa,— Kappel v. Meth, 189 A. 795,
125 Pa.Super. 443.
8. Mo. — Boggess v. Jordan, App.,
283 S.W. 57.
Ohio.— Levy v. Foley, 61 N.B.2d 615,
75 Ohio App. 220— Davis v. Teach-
nor, App., 53 N.E.2d 208 — Lyons
v. Weihe, 24 N.E.2d 835, 62 Ohio
App. 527.
OkL— Mayhue v. Clapp, 261 P. 144,
128 Okl. 1— Nation v. Savely, 260
P. 32, 127 Okl. 117.
9. Mich.— Smak v. Gwozdik, 291 N.
W. 270, 293 Mich. 185— McHenry v.
Village of Grosse Pointe Farms,
251 N.W. 783, 265 Mich. 581— Wat-
kins V. Hunt, 225 N.W. 554, 247
Mich. 237 — Rosen v. Brennan, 221
N.W. 276, 244 Mich. 397— Westlawn
Cemetery Ass'n v. Codd, 213 N.W.
143, 238 Mich. 119.
34 C.J. p 431 note 2 [a] (1).
Determination from face of record
Whether or not default Judgment
was irregularly entered so as to au-
thorize setting it aside after pre-
scribed period must be determined
658
from face of record. — Rosen v. Bren-
nan, 521 N.W. 276, 244 Mich. S97.
Defective caption to default de-
cree will not prevent tolling of cir-
cuit court rule limiting time for va-
cation of default — Westlawn Ceme-
tery Ass'n v. Codd, 213 N.W, 143,
238 Mich. 119.
Signature by deputy clerk
Where default was entered, the
fact that order pro confesso was
signed by deputy clerk instead of
plaintiffs attorney was held not to
toll rule limiting time for setting
aside default — Westlawn Cemetery
Ass'n v. Codd, supra,
10. Mich. — John W. Masury & Son
v. Lowthsr, 300 N.W. 866, 299
Mich. 516.
Where service of writ of garnish-
ment issued against foreign corpora-
tion was unauthorized because per-
son served was the principal de-
fendant who was an employee of the
corporation, corporation's motion to
set aside default and default Judg-
ment was timely, even though not
made until more than four months
after entry of default Judgment —
John W. Masury & Son v. Lowther,
supra.
11. Mich. — Westlawn Cemetery
Ass'n v. Codd, 213 N.W. 143, 238
Mich. 119— Kentucky Wagon Mfg.
Co. v. Kalamazoo Circuit Judge,
175 N.W. 150, 208 Mich. 267.
12. Mich.— Foster v. Talbot, 241 N.
W. 141, 257 Mich. 489— Westlawn
Cemetery Ass'n -v. Codd, 213 N.W.
143, 238 Mich. 119.
34 C.J. p 431 note 2 [a] (1).
Award of damages in excess of claim
Mich.— Foster v. Talbot, 241 N.W-
.141, 257 Mich. 489.
13. Mich.— Geib v. Kent Circuit
Judge, 19 N.W.2d 124, 311 Mich.
631.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
337
within which applications to. open or set aside de-
fault judgments must be filed, the period limited has
been held to begin to run at the date of the rendition
of the judgment14 and not at the time of the entry
of the default,15 at the time of the entry of the de-
fault rather than at the time of the entry of the
judgment based on the default,16 at the date of en-
try of the judgment in the default docket,17 or at
the time of notice of the entry of the judgment.18
Notice, within the contemplation of statutes pro-
viding for the latter rule, has been held to mean
actual knowledge of the judgment,19 but it has
also been held that the constructive notice afforded
by recordation of the entry of judgment is suffi-
cient.20 Under some statutes notice must be given
through actual service before the period limited will
commence to run.21
Some statutes of this character have been held
to cease to run at the time the motion to set aside
the default judgment is filed although it is not heard
or disposed of within the statutory period,22 but
under other statutes it has been held that not only
the motion, but also the time for the hearing on the
motion, must be within the statutory period.23
The running of the statutory period within which
default judgments may be opened or vacated has
been held not to be suspended by postponements
by consent,24 by the pendency of negotiations for a
settlement,25 or by a stipulation of counsel to waive
the tardy filing of the motion.26 Where, however,
delay in applying to vacate a default judgment is
attributed to the opposite party's acts and declara-
tions, the lapse of time may become more or less im-
material.27 The statutory period has been held to
commence to run even though a motion for removal
from a state court to a federal court is pending at
the time of the rendition of the default judgment.28
The period limited for setting aside default judg-
ments has been held not to be tolled by reason of de-
fendant's insanity.29
14. Ala. — Marshall County v. Critch-
er, 17 So.2d 540, 245 Ala. 357.
Cal. — Bell v. McDermoth, 246 P.
805, 198 Cal. 594. '
Iowa.— Tracy v. McLaughlin, 223 N.
W. 475, 207 Iowa 793.
Mont— -State v. District Court of
Second Judicial Dist. in and for
Silver Bow County, 272 P. 525, 83
Mont. 400.
34 C.J. P 430 note 91 [a], [b].
Entry in official minutes
"Rendition of judgment," within
statute relating to vacation there-
of, occurred when court's order for
Judgment was entered in official min-
utes.—Azadian v. Superior Court in
and for Los Angeles County, 263 P.
298, 88 CaLApp. 296.
15. Default without personal service
Period of time from rendition of
default judgment in action wherein
defendant has not been personally
served with' summons within which
default may be set aside commences
at date of rendition of judgment and
not entry of default.
Cal. — Doxey v. Doble, 54 P.2d 1143,
12 Cal.App.2d 62.
I0wa, — Tracy v. McLaughlin, 223 N.
W. 475, 207 Iowa 793.
16. CaL — Macbeth v. Macbeth, 25 P-
2d 11, 219 Cal. 47— Title Ins. &
Trust Co. v. King Land & Im-
provement Co., 120 P. 1066, 163
Cal. 44— Washko v. Stewart, 112
P.2d 306, 44 Cal.App.2d 311—
Brooks v. Nelson, 272 P. 610, 95
CaLApp. 144 — McLain v. Llewellyn
Iron Works, 204 P. 869, 56 Cal.
App. 58.
Idaho. — Commonwealth Trust Co. of
Pittsburgh v. Lorain, 255 P. 909,
43 Idaho 784.
Mont — Galbreath v. Aubert, 157 P.
2d 105.
17. Fla.— Security Finance Co. v.
Gentry, 109 So. 220, 91 Fla, 1015,
followed in 109 So. 222, 91 Fla.
1024.
18. N.Y.— Redfield v. Critchley, 14
N.B.2d 377,- 277 N.Y. 336, reargu-
ment denied 15 N.B.2d 73, 278 N.Y.
483— Cowperthwait v. Critchley,
276 N.T.S. 133, 243 App.Div. 70.
S.C.— Witt v. Leysath, 158 S.E. 226,
160 S.C. 251.
34 C.J. p 430 note 91 [a], [b], [d].
Actual knowledge of entry of de-
fault judgment satisfies requirement
of notice. — Walrod v. Nelson, 210 N.
W. 525, 54 N.D. 753.
19. Or. — Anderson T. Guenther, 25
P.2d 146, 144 Or. 446 — Chapman v.
Multnomah County, 126 P. 99-6, 63
Or. 180— Evans v. Evans, 118 P.
177, 60 Or. 195— Fildew v. Milner,
.109 P. 1092, 57 Or. 16.
20. S.C.— Anderson v. Toledo Scale
Co., 6 S.E.2d 465, 192 S.C. 300—
Witt v. Leysath, 168 S.E. 226, 160
S.C. 251.
21. N.Y.— Redfield v. Critchley, 14
N.E.2d 377, 277 N.Y. 336, reargu-
ment denied 15 N.E.2d 73, 278 N.
Y. 483— Stapen's Radio Shop v.
Black, 21 N.Y.S.2d 650.
34 C.J. p 430 note 91 [d].
22. Ark. — Davis v. Collums, 168 S.
W.2d 1103, 205 Ark. 390.
Cal.— Wm. Wolff & Co. v. Canadian
Pac. Ry. Co., 26 P. 825, 89 Cat 332
— Roseborough v. Campbell, 115 P.
2d 839, 46 Cal. App. 2d 257.
Nev.— Bowman v. Bowman, 217 P.
1102, 47 Nev. 207.
Term. — Lif e & Casualty Ins. . Co. v.
Baber, 57 S.W.2d 791, 1-66 Tenn. 10.
Attention, of court
Defendant's motion to take oft de-
659
fault need not be brought to court's
attention for affirmative action be-
fore time when under general rules
case will be ripe for judgment. —
Cohen v. Industrial Bank & Trust
Co., 175 N.E. 78, 274 Mass. 49S.
23. Okl.— Rodesney v. Robins, 188 P.
2d 333, 184 Okl. 457.
Calling judge's attention to motion
(1) Duty to call judge's attention
to motion to vacate default judgment
is on movant and not on clerk. — Kel-
ley v. Charts, 142 So. 423, 225 Ala.
218.
(2) 'Failure to cause judge to act
on or continue motion to* vacate de-
fault judgment within statutory pe-
riod of time has been held to require
the denial of the motion. — Kelley y.
Chavis, supra.
(3) Presence of judge in another
county has been held not to be an
excuse for failure to cause him time-
ly to act on or continue motion to
vacate default judgment. — Kelley v.
Chavis, supra.
24. Cal.— Colthurst v. Harris, 275 P.
868, 97 CaLApp. 430.
25. Mich. — Zirkaloso v. Merriam,
224 N.W. 361, 246 Mich. 210.
28. S.D. — Bon Homme County Bank
v. Bainbridge, 200 N.W. 107, 47 43.
D. 563.
27. N.D.— Powell r. Sach, 217 N.W.
172, 5-6 N.D. 297.
8a Fla. — Hewitt v. International
Shoe Co., 154 So. 838, 114 Fla. 743,
motion denied 155 So. 725, 115 Fla.
508.
29. N.-D.— Walrod v. Nelson, 310 N.
W. 525, «4 N.D. 753.
337
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
c. Requisites and Sufficiency of Application
Generally
An application to open or vacate a default judgment
must comply with the requirements of the statutes and
court rules.
An application to open or vacate a default judg-
ment must be in compliance with the requirements
of the statutes and court rules,80 although it is gen-
erally held that a substantial compliance therewith
is sufficient.31 The application must contain alle-
gations which show that defendant is entitled to
the relief sought,32 and it has been held that it
should contain an offer to go to trial immediately.35
The allegations must set forth facts as distinguished
from mere conclusions.34 The application must also
state a proper ground fpr setting aside the default
judgment,35 and accordingly it must present facts
reasonably excusing the failure to answer or ap-
pear,36 such as by a showing of surprise, mistake,
or excusable neglect,37 or unavoidable casualty or
misfortune,38 and that defendant exercised due dil-
30L Ala. — Dulin v. Johnson* 113 So.
397, 216 Ala, 393.
Ark. — American Inv. Co. v. Keene-
han, 291 S.W. 56, 172 Ark. 332.
Ga.— 'Fitzgerald v. Ferran, 124 S.EL
530, 158 Ga, 755.
Tex.— Commercial Credit Corp. . *v.
Smith, 187 S.W.2d 363, 143 Tex.
612.
Applications bald sufficient
Cal.— Week v. Sucher, 274 P. 579, 96
Cal.App. 422.
Ga. — Walker v. T. H. Sinnans & Co.,
148 S.B. 592, 168 Ga. -658.
111. — Manaster v. Harpy's New York
Cabaret, 3 N.E.2d 349. 286 IlLApp.
609. .
K.Y. — ILuckenbach S. S. Co. v. Musso,
16 N.Y.S.2d 378, 258 App.Div. 914.
Okl.— Hale v. Mclntosh. 243 P. 157.
116 Okl. 40.
Motions held insufficient
Ark. — American Inv. Qo. v. Keene-
han, 291 S.W. 56, 172 Ark. 432.
m. — Chicago Securities Corporation
V. McBride, 5 N.B.2d 752. 288 111.
App. 65.
Ind.— Hessong v. Wolf, 151 N.E. 15,
85 IndApp. 581.
81. Ky. — Cumberland Fluorspar
Corp. v. Waddell, 183 S.W.2d 641,
298 Ely. 594— Bishop v. Bishop, 281
S.W. 824, 213 Ky. 703.
Default foreclosure Judgment
In mortgage foreclosure suit, to
which Junior mortgagee Is party de-
fendant, a motion, made by such
mortgagee before distribution of pro-
ceeds of foreclosure sale and served
on all parties, who are thereafter
.given opportunity to plead and be
heard, is proper means for opening
up default foreclosure Judgment to
allow Junior mortgagee to make
claim to surplus proceeds, as such
motion Is equivalent to motion to set
aside default. — Cowan v. Stoker, 115
P.2d 153, 100 Utah 377.
32. Ala.— Craft v. Hirsh, 149 So. 683,
227 Ala. 257, appeal dismissed 54
S.Ct. 455, 291 U.S. 644, 78 L.Ed.
1041.
I1L— Shaw v. Carrara, 38 N.E.2d 785,
312 IlLApp. 410.
OkL— Foltz v. Deshon, 249 P. 358,
122 Okl. 42.
Pa.— Liberal Credit Clothing Co. v.
Tropp, 4 A.2d 565, 135 Pa.Super.
53.
Tex. — Tyler v. Henderson, Ciy.App.,
162 S.W.2d 170, error refused-
University Development Co. v.
Wolf, Civ.App., 93 S.W.2d 1187.
Affidavits in support of application
see infra subdivision g of this sec-
tion.
Necessity and sufficiency of showing
of meritorious defense see supra S
336.
Belief In furtherance of Justice
In order to open a default Judg-
ment there must be a prima facie
showing from which court itself may
infer that the relief asked would be
in furtherance of Justice.
•S.C. — Gaskins v. California Ins. Co.,
11 S.E.2d 436, 195 S.C. 376.
Wyo. — Kelley v. Eidam, 231 P. S78,
32 Wyo. 271.
33. Fla.— State Bank of Eau Gallie
v. Raymond, 138 So. 40, 103 Fla.
&49 — Benedict v. W. T. Hadlow Co.,
42 So. 239, 52 -Fla. 18*.
34. Colo. — Redeker v. Denver Music
Co., 265 P. 681, 83 Colo. 370.
111.— Katauski v. Eldridge Coal &
Coke Co., 255 IlLApp. 41.
Tex. — Allen v. Frank, Civ.App., 252
S.W. 347.
Injustice of Judgment
It is not sufficient for the moving
party to say as a legal conclusion
that the Judgment is improper .or un-
just.— Gaskins v. California Ins. Co.,
11 S.B.2d 436, 195 S.C. 376.
Trial not according to law
A motion to set aside a default
Judgment and reinstate the case on
the ground that the cause was not
set down for trial according to law
states a mere conclusion and is in-
sufficient— Gibson v. Searcy, 137 N.
B. 182, 192 Ind. 51-5.
Traud
(1) A general allegation that de-
fault Judgment resulted from fraud
and collusion would be a mere "con-
clusion" and would not authorize va-
cation of Judgment in absence of al-
legation of facts constituting fraud
and collusion. — Higginbothaxn T.
Adams, 14 -S.E.2d 856, 192 Ga. 203.
(2) Allegations setting forth the
facts constituting fraud are suffl-
660
dent.— Suttoh T. Davia. 140 S.W.2d
1920, 283 Ky. 146.
36. Ark. — American Inv. Co. v.
Keenehan, 291 S.W. 56, 172 Ark.
8*32.
Pa. — Kopec v. Sullivan, Com.PL, 23
Brie Co. 413.
36. Ariz.— Beltran v. Roll, 7 P.2d
248, 39 Ariz. 417.
Fla. — State Bank of (Eau Gallie v.
Raymond, 138 So. 40, 103 OTa. *49.
Ga. — 'Fitzgerald, v. Ferran, 124 S.B.
530, 158 Ga. 755.
N.T. — Falvey v. Cornwall Terminal
Co., 204 N.Y.S. 525. 209 App.Div.
448.
Pa. — Eastman Kodak Co. T. Osenider,
193 A. 284, 127 Pa. Super. 332.
"Good cause," within statute pro-
viding that defendant against whom
judgment is rendered on service by
publication may move for new trial
on showing good cause, means that
verified motion must show good
cause why movant did not appear at
the trial and present his defenses
shown by motion to exist. — Smith v.
Higginbotham, Tez.Civ.App., 112 S.
W.2d 770.
Sufficient excuse held not shown
Pa. — West Susquehanna Building &
Iioan Ass'n v. Sinclair, 188 A, *7J.,
124 Pa.Super. 133.
87. Mont. — Madson v. Petrie Trac-
tor & Equipment Co., 77 P.2d 1038,
106 Mont. 382.
Wyo.— Kelley v. Eidam, 381 P.- 678,
32 Wyo. 271.
Excusable neglect of counsel
A motion to set aside a default
judgment obtained on a cross com-
plaint was not fatally defective be*
cause it specified the mistake, inad-
vertence, surprise, and excusable
neglect of counsel of plaintiff, rather
than of plaintiff, since an attorney is
agent of his client, and neglect of
the agent is the neglect of his prin-
cipal.—Hicks v. Sanders, 104 P.2d
549, 40 CaLApp.2d 211.
3a Okl.— Gavin v. Heath, 2*6 P.
745, 125 OkL 118.
Existence of complete defense
Where record on face shows juris-
diction of parties and subject mat-
ter, petition to vacate Judgment at
subsequent term on ground of un-
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
387
igence;89 and, where the default judgment was
obtained on constructive or substituted service, it
has been held that the application must allege that
petitioner had no actual notice in time to appear
and defend.40 The petitioner's name should be
correctly stated in the application even though it
was incorrectly stated in the original proceedings.41
Construction of pleadings. The application is to'
be construed most strongly against the pleader.42
A petition in an independent action when timely-
made may be treated as a statutory motion to set
aside the judgment.4^
Bond. Defendant cannot assail a default judg-
ment where he fails to file a bond, as required by
statute, unless he is excused therefrom.44 Failure
to give a bond on filing the petition has been held
not to be a fatal defect since the court may re-
quire the bond after the order to reopen and retry
the case is made.46
Proposed answer. The answer filed with the mo-
tion must present an issuable plea to the merits,46
by averments made on knowledge and not only on in-
formation and belief.47
Amendment. The amendment of an application
may be permitted,48 and an amendment may be
granted on the same day that a hearing on the mo-
tion is had,49 but, after the statutory period of
time for moving to set aside the judgment has ex-
pired, an amendment which would add new and dis-
tinct grounds may properly be denied.50 The trial
court may properly refuse permission to file an
amendment which is insufficient to entitle petitioner
to the relief sought.51 After an adverse ruling it
has been held that the motion cannot be amended.62
d. Answer and Other Pleadings
Plaintiff may raise an Issue of fact by his answer,
or he may by demurrer test the legal sufficiency of the
motion to open or vacate the default Judgment.
Plaintiff may raise an issue of fact on a motion
to set aside a default judgment by filing a plea de-
nying the facts alleged by the motion, or the legal
sufficiency of the motion may be raised by demur-
rer.63 Plaintiffs motion to strike defendant's mo-
tion to vacate a default judgment tests the sufEcien-
a voidable casualty or misfortune is
subject to demurrer when facts
pleaded do not show unavoidable cas-
ualty or misfortune, even though de-
fense pleaded would be complete. —
•Foltz v. Deshon, 249 P. 358, 122 Okl.
42.
Impossibility of attorney's attend-
ance at court
Petition to vacate a default judg-
ment on ground of unavoidable cas-
ualty or misfortune was insufficient
to warrant vacating the judgment,
where it merely stated that it was
impossible for defendants' attorney
to be present in court on day when
judgment was rendered without any
explanation of why it was impossi-
ble.— Stockgrowers State Bank v.
Clay, 90 P.2d 1102, 150 Kan. 93.
Ineffectiveness of diligence to pre-
vent Judgment
Defendant seeking to vacate de-
fault judgment because of unavoid-
able casualty or misfortune must
state facts showing that no reason-
able or proper diligence could have
prevented trial or judgment — Geo. O.
Richardson Machinery Co. v. Scott
251 P. 482, 122 Okl, 125, certiorari
granted 47 S.Ct 587, 274 U.S. 729, 71
L.E<t 1319, certiorari dismissed 48
S.Ct 264, 276 U.S. 128, 72 -L.Ed. 497.
89. Iowa. — Hawthorne v. Smith, 197
N.W. 9, 197 Iowa 1306.
Kan.— -Stockgrowers State Bank v.
Clay, 90 P.2d 1102, 150 Kan. 93.
Pa. — Kopec v. Sullivan, Com.Pl., 23
Brie Co. 413.
Tex.— Knight v. Sledge Mfg. Co., Civ.
App., 144 S.W.2d 607, error dis-
. missed:
A mere conclusion of the pleader
that he exercised due diligence to
present his defense is insufficient —
Allen v. Prank, Tex.Qiv.App., 252 S.
W. 347.
40. Colo. — Redeker v. Denver Music
Co., 265 P. 681, 83 Colo. 370.
Kan. — Irvine v. Eysenbach, 267 P.
995, 126 Kan. 362.
Tex.— :Sanns v. Chapman, Civ.App.,
144 S.W.2d 341, error dismissed,
judgment correct
41. RX^Feldman v. Silva, 171 A.
922, 54 R.I. 202.
42. 111.— Standard Statistics Co. v.
Davis, 45 N.B.2d 1005, 317 IlLApp.
377— shaw v. Carrara, 38 N.E.2d
785, 312 Ill.App. 410.
43. Ky.— Holcomb v. Creech, 56 8.
W.2d 998, 247 Ky. 199.
Motion for new trial
The pleadings may be construed as
a statutory motion for a new trial
although a new trial Is not specifical-
ly requested where the facts alleged
are sufficient to entitle petitioner to
that remedy under the prayer for
general relief.— Ashton v. Faxrell &
Co., Tex.Civ.App., 121 S.W.Sd 611.
terror dismissed.
44. N.C.— Jones v. Best, 28 S.B. 187,
121 N.C. 164.
45. Ark.— Davis y. Collums, 168 S.
W.2d 1103, 205 Ark. 390.
46. Fla.— Corpus JariJi cited in
661
State Bank of Eau Gallie v. Ray-
mond, 138 So. 40, 43, 103 -Fla. 649.
34 C.J. p 342 note 36.
Gsneral denial
On motion to open default Judg-
ments and to be permitted to defend,
general denial constituted a "full an-
swer" within statute dealing with
opening of default judgments ren-
dered on service by publication after
the filing of a "full answer." — Taw-
ney v. Blankenship, 90 P.2d 1111, 150
Kan. 41.
47. Fla.— Corpus Juris cited in.
State Bank of Eau Gallie v. Ray-
mond, 138 So. 40, 43, 103 'Fla. 649.
34 C.J. p 342 note 39.
48. Iowa,— Fulton v. National
Finance & Thrift Corporation, 4
N.W.2d 406, 232 Iowa 37S.
49. 'I1L — Hay den v. Bredemeler, 27
N.B.2d 477, 305 IlLApp. 484.
to correspond with evi-
dence
Judge may order that petition to
vacate default judgment be made to
correspond with evidence. — Mt. Ida
School v. Clark, 177 N.E. 604, 39 Ohio
App. 389.
50. Ala,— Ex parte U. S. Shipping
Board Emergency <Fieet Corpora-
tion, 110 So. 469, 215 Ala. 321.
61. Iowa.— Hawthorne v. Smith, 197
N.W. 9, 197 Iowa 1306.
52. Iowa.— Lynch v. Powers, 200 N.
W. 725, 198 Iowa 1060.
53. ni.— Marquette Nat Fire Ins.
Co. v. Minneapolis 'Fire & Marine
. Ins. Co., 233 IlLApp. 102.
337
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
cy of defendant's motion.54 A demurrer55 or a mo-
tion to strike56 admits all well-pleaded allegations
of fact in defendant's motion, but not conclusions
or inferences drawn by the pleader.5?
By reason of his unconscionable conduct plain-
tiff may be precluded from pleading laches as a de-
fense to the motion.58
e. Parties
A party in Interest who Is prejudiced by the default
Judgment may appiy to have it set aside even though he
Is not a party to the record.
A party in interest who is prejudiced by the de-
fault judgment may apply to have it set aside,59
even though he is not a party to the record.60 An
application may be made only by a person who
has an interest in the subject matter of the suit61
and who has been in some way prejudicially affected
by the judgment or decree.62 Where a person
seeks to have a default judgment opened because
of the death of a party prior to the judgment, he
must show an interest derived from the decedent.63
Plaintiff may apply to have a default opened,64
but if plaintiff is the successful party he cannot
have a default judgment opened in the absence of
a showing that he has been unjustly deprived of
rights to which he is entitled.65
Judgment on constructive service. Statutes which
provide for the vacating of default judgments ob-
tained on constructive service have been held to be
open to any person not personally served with proc-
ess and whose rights are affected, whether or not
he was named in the action,66 including the rep-
64. 111.— Standard Statistics Co. v
Davis. 45 N.E.2d 1005, 317 IlLApp
377— Adams v. Butman, 264 111
App. 378— McNulty v. White, 24
IlLApp. 572.
55. 111.— Swiercz v. Nalepka, 259
IlLApp. 262.
Consideration, of demurrer
A . demurrer to motion to strike
out default judgment can be consid-
ered only as an admission of truth of
facts alleged in the motion and
sworn to by defendant and as evi-
dence of willingness of plaintiff to
submit question on affidavit of de-
fendant without filing counter-affida-
vits or testimony in contradiction of
the facts alleged in the motion. —
Eddy v. Summers, 3$ A.2d 812, 183
Md. 683.
58. 111.— Standard Statistics Co. v.
Davis, 45 N.E,2d 1005, 317 IlLApp.
377— Rapp y. Goerlitz, 40 N.E.2d
766, first case, 314 IlLApp. 191.
57. Non compos mentis
In action on note, defendant's mo-
tion to vacate default judgment on
ground that he was non compos men-
tis at time of execution of note, com-
mencement of suit, and entry of
judgment was vulnerable to plain-
tiff's motion to strike as against con-
tention that such motion admitted
defendant's mental incompetency at
such times, in absence of allegations
in defendant's motion as to foreign
state court proceedings and judg-
ments by which motion alle'ged that
defendant was found non compos
mentis and restored to legal capaci-
ty.— Standard Statistics Co. v. Da-
vis, 45 N.R2d 1005, 317 IlLApp. 377.
58. Imposition on court
Where plaintiff in an action of
ejectment against an owner in fee
and some of his tenants, after the
cause had been placed on the calen-
dar of one judge, went before a dif-
ferent judge, without notice to the
owner, and without informing the
judge that the answering defend
ant was the owner and the other de-
fendants his tenants, and procured
a dismissal as to the answering de-
fendant and judgment by default
against the other defendants, there
was such a flagrant imposition on
the court as to preclude plaintiff
from pleading laches as a defense to
a motion in the nature of a writ of
error coram nobis to vacate the order
of dismissal and default judgment—
Chicago Securities Corporation v.
Olsen, 14 N.E.2d 893, 295 IlLAjpp. 615.
5ft. Wash. — Johnston v. Medina Im-
provement Club, 116 P.2d 272, 10
Wash.2d 44.
Guardian appointed for one who is
mentally incompetent may be enti-
tled to have a default judgment ren-
dered .against the ward vacated. —
Citizens' State Bank of Cedar Rapids
v. Toung, 244 N.W. 294, 123 Neb. 786.
Payor of obligation
Fact that defendant, a seed com-
pany, paid to a lessor of land all that
was due to the lessee for the serv-
ices of the latter in raising a crop
of seed on the land, such payment
being made under agreement of all
parties concerned to secure the pay-
ment of the rent due, did not de-
prive defendant of interest, so as to
preclude it from moving to open a
default judgment against it in favor
of an assignee of the lessee, al-
though the payment was made under
an agreement of the lessor to defend
any suit for the services rendered. —
Sofuye v. Pieters-Wheeler Seed Qo.,
216 P. 990, 62 CaLAPp. 198.
Grantors in aa absolute convey-
ance of lands to secure payment of
debt had equitable interest in the
land, resulting in such an interest in
subject matter of action to set aside
such conveyance that they could,
maintain petition for review of de-
'ault judgment obtained on service
by publication, setting aside the con-
662
veyance.— Garrison v. Schmicke, Mo..
193 «.W.2d 614.
Transferee
A judgment In suit to quiet title,
purporting to cancel trust deed se-
curing payment of notes, which was
void for lack of service on notehold-
ers, was void as to transferee of
notes after entry of judgment in-
quiet title suit, and such transferee,
having interest in realty forming
subject matter of quiet title suit,
should be permitted to defend such
suit— Bray v. Germain Inv. Co., 9*
P.2d 993, 105 Colo. 403.
60. Cal.— Burns v. Downs, 108 P.2d
953, 42 Cal.App.2d 322.
63L Wyo. — Clarke v. Shoshoni Lum-
ber Co., 224 P. 845, 31 Wyo. 205,
error dismissed 48 S.Ct 302, 276
U.S. 595, 72 L.Bd. 722.
A. board of education has no stand-
ing to vacate a judgment different
from that of any other defendant —
Seither & Cherry Co. v. Board of
Education of District No. 15, Town
of La Harpe, 283 IlLApp. 392.
A stockholder cannot in the name
of the corporation move to have a
default judgment against the corpo-
ration set aside.— Hamill v. Great
Northern Copper Co., 217 N.W. 195,.
52 S.D. 271.
62. Pa.— Young v. Findley, 31 Pa*
Dist. & Cd. 630, 5 Sch.Reg. 176.
63. Wyo. — Clarke v. Shoshoni Lum-
ber Co., 224 P. -845, 31 Wyo. 205,
error dismissed 48 S.Qt 302, 27S-
U.S. 595, 72 L.B4. 722.
64. N.Y. — Wolfert v. New York City
Ry. Co., 103 N.Y.S. 768, £3 Misc.
536.
66. Del. — Tweed v. Lockton, 187 JL.
703, 5 W.W.Harr. 474.
66. Kan.— Withers v. Miller, 34 P..
2d 110, 140 Kan. 123, 104 A.L.R. -692-
— Board of Com'rs of Wyandotte-
County v. Axtell, 5 P.2d 1078, 134
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 337
resentative or successor of defendant.67 An ap-
plication may not be made by one who has no in-
terest in the subject matter of the action,68 such
as a person who has parted with all his interest be-
fore suit was filed,69 but the application may be
made in the name of a person who has parted with
his interest after suit was filed where by statute or
rules of practice an action may be continued in the
name of the original party if the interest has been
transferred.70
f . Notice or Process
Where a statute so requires, notice of a motion to
set aside a default Judgment must be given to the ad-
verse party, unless the notice Is waived.
In the absence of statute, notice of a motion to
set aside a default judgment is unnecessary,™ but if
a statute so requires notice must be given to the ad-
verse party,72 unless notice is waived.73 Persons
who no longer have an interest in the subject mat-
ter of the suit are not adverse parties within such
a statute.74 Under some statutes it has been held
that plaintiff must give notice where he seeks to
reopen a default judgment in his favor in order to
obtain additional relief,75 but no notice to defend-
ant is required where plaintiff seeks merely to va-
cate a judgment in favor of himself.76
The notice must comply substantially with the re-
quirements of the statute,77 and service of the no-
tice must be timely made.78 A statute which re-
quires the grounds for the motion to be stated in
Kan. 304 — Board of Com'rs of
•Cheyenne County v. Walter, 112 P.
599, 83 Kan. 743.
34 C.J. p 425 note 41.
67. OP.— Felts v. Boyer, ,144 P. 420,
73 Or. 83.
34 C.J. p 425 note 42.
68. Neb. — Browne v. Palmer, 92 N.
W. 315, 66 Neb. 287.
34 C.J. p 425 note 43.
09. Neb. — Browne v. Palmer, supra.
70. Kan.— Withers v. Miller, 34 P.
2d 110,. It 0 Kan. 123, 104 A.L.R.
692.
71. Okl.-— Crook v. Heizer, 263 P.
447, 129 OkL 36.
During term
A Judgment by default may be set
aside during the term at which it
was rendered, without notice to the
party in whose favor it was ren-
dered.
Ark. — Metz v. Melton Coal Co., 47 S.
W.2d 803, 185 Ark. 486.
Miss. — Planters' ILumber Co. v. -Sib-
ley, 93 So. 440, 130 Miss. 26.
•72. Ala.— Dulin v. Johnson, 113 So.
397, 216 Ala, 393.
•CaL— Hicks v, Sanders, 104 P.2d 549,
40 Cal.App.2d 211.
Idaho. — Occidental Life Ins. Co. v.
Niendorf, 44 P.2d 1099, 55 Idaho
521.
;N.Y.— Walton Foundry Co. v. A. D.
Granger Co., 196 N.T.S. 719, 203
App.Div. 22-6.
jpa._ Hotel Bedington v. GufCey, Com.
PL, 36 Luz.Leg.Reg. 209, 3 Monroe
L.R. 82, affirmed 25 A.2d 773, 148
Pa. Super. 502.
"V7yo. — Clarke v. Shoshoni 'Lumber
Co., 224 P. 845, 31 Wyo. 205, writ
of error dismissed 48 S.Ct 302,
276 U.S. 595, 72 !L.Ed. 722.
Purpose of statute requiring com-
•plaint to be filed and notice to be is-
sued as in original action in proceed-
ing to set aside default judgment
was to give sufficient notice to all of
adverse parties of proceeding, and
-was not to create original civil action
in which change of venue could be
had. — State ex rel. Krodel v. Gllki-
son, 198 N.E. 323, 209 Ind. 213.
Notice to oodefeadant
(1) Where codefendant was a
"necessary party" to defendant's mo-
tion to set aside default judgment
and no notice of motion was given
codefendant, trial court was without
jurisdiction to set aside default judg-
ment, as far as codefendant was af-
fected thereby.— Washko v. -Stewart,
112 P.2d 306, 44 Cal.App.2d 311.
(2) A motion to set aside a de-
fault judgment, made by one of sev-
eral codefendants, need be served
only on the party in whose favor the
judgment runs where the statute
simply provides for notice to the ad-
verse party without denning that
term.— Consolidated Wagon & Ma-
chine Co. v. Housman, 221 P. 143, 38
Idaho 843.
73. Cal.— Hicks v. Sanders, 104 P.2d
5*19, 40 Cal.App.2d 211.
Waiver by appearance
(1) Notice may be waived by ap-
pearing and participating in proceed-
ings to open default judgment.
Ind. — Schaffner v. Preston Oil Co.,
154 N.B. 780, 94 Ind.App. 554.
Okl. — Lofton v. McLucas, 113 P.2d
966, 159 Okl. 115.
(2) An appearance to defend
against vacating the judgment in
proceedings brought under one stat-
ute does not waive the notice re-
quired in proceedings under another
statute.— Clarke v. Shoshoni Lum-
ber Co., 224 P. 845, 31 Wyo. 205, er-
ror dismissed 48 S.Ct. 302, 276 U.S.
595, 72 L.Bd. 722.
74. Vxcuisf eror
In suit by bondholders' trustee to
foreclose trust deed on patented min-
ing claims which were transferred by
mortgagor, wherein default judg-
ment was rendered against trans-
feree, mortgagor corporation and its
statutory trustees were held not "ad-
verse parties" within statute requir-
663
ing notice to adverse party on mo-
tion to vacate judgment. — Nlelson v.
Garrett 43 P.2d 380, 55 Idaho 240.
75. Idaho. — Occidental Life Ins. Co.
v. Niendorf, 44 P.2d 1099, *55 Idaho
521.
76* Okl.— 'Franklin v. Hunt Dry
Goods Co., 123 P.2d 258, 190 OkL
296.
77, Wyo. — Clarke v. Shoshoni -Lum-
ber Co., 224 P. 845, 31 Wyo. 205,
error dismissed 48 S.Ct 302, 276
U.S. 595, 72 L.Ed. 722.
Service at residence
Where attempted service, in suit to
set aside default judgment quieting
title, was defective because summons
was not left at defendant's usual or
last place of residence, court could
not set aside default Judgment —
Papuschak v. Burich, 185 N.B. 876.
97 Ind.App. 100.
Service of copy of petition.
Ala. — Dulin v. Johnson, 113 So. 397,
216 Ala. 393.
Possible ambiguity held not fatal to
motion
N.Y.— Conrad v. Harbaugh, 287 N.Y.
S. 1012, 248 App.Div. 655.
Notice held sufficient
Nev. — Bowman v. Bowman, 217 P*
1102, 47 Nev. 207.
Okl.— Bagsby v. Bagsby, 89 P.2d 345,
184 Okl. 627, 122 A.L.R. 155.
7& N.T.— -Steinberg v. Blank, 205 N.
T.S. 620, 123 Misc. 388.
Pa. — Hotel Redington v. GufCey, Com.
PI., 36 LrUZ.Leg.Reg. 209, 3 Monroe
L.R. 82, affirmed 25 A.2d 773, 148
Pa. Super. 502.
Before presentation of application
Where the statute requires notice
by the applicant of his intention to
make an application to set aside a
default judgment, the adverse party
should be given* notice prior to pres-
entation of application to court, but
need not be given notice prior to fil-
ing of application.— Bagsby v. Bags-
by, «9 P.2d 345, 184 Okl. 627, 122 A.
L.R. 155.
§ 337
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
the notice is sufficiently complied with if the grounds
for the motion can be ascertained from the accom-
panying affidavits79 or other papers attached to the
. notice.80 Under some statutes service may be made
on plaintiff outside the state.81
It has been held that a party who has been served
with proper notice may not raise an objection that
notice was not given to another party.82
g. Affidavits on Application
As a general rule a petition or motion to open or
vacate a default Judgment must be verified or supported
by affidavits as to the facts set forth.
As a general rule a petition or motion to open
or vacate a default judgment must be verified or
supported by affidavits as to the facts set forth.83
The affidavits in support of the motion must in-
clude all the facts which are essential to entitle
movant to the relief sought,84 and a mere state-
ment of legal conclusions is not sufficient 8$ A»
affidavit need not aver that defendant had no actu-
al notice of the pendency of the action in time to
answer where such condition is not a prerequisite
to a right to relief86 or where the statute provides
that the party moving to set aside the default must
make it appear by affidavit or other evidence that
he had no notice of the pendency of the action.87"
In the absence of a statutory requirement, the
court may properly consider a motion which is not
sworn to,88 and, where an affidavit is required only
by the court's own rule, the court may dispense with
the affidavit when its action does not prejudice tile-
other party.8*
A verification or affidavit may be made by de-
fendant's attorney if it states that the matters sworn
to are true of the attorney's own knowledge;90 it is
79. CaL— Steuri v. Junkin, 298 P
823, in CaLApp. 653— Gordon v
Harbolt App., 280 P. 701, rehear
ing- denied 281 P. 1048.
80. CaL — Fink & Schindler Co. v
Gavros, 237 P. 1083, 72 CaLApp
688.
81. Wash. — Harju v. Anderson, 21
P. 827. 125 Wash, 161.
Bight to longer period for appear
anee
Where an action was still pending
in the superior court for the purpose
of proceeding to vacate the Judgmenl
when defendant or his attorneys
were served in a foreign state, he
cannot insist, as a matter of right,
o* a longer period for his appear-
ance than he would have if he or his
attorneys had been served physical-
ly within the state. — Harju v. Ander-
son, 215 P. 327, 125 Wash. 161.
812. Kan; — Board of Com'rs of Wy-
andotte County v. Axtell, £ P.2d
1078, 134 Kan. 304.
Service on codef endanta
Plaintiff could not .complain that
defendant's notice of motion for re-
lief against default judgment was
served on plaintiff alone and not on
codefendants where defendant was
seeking relief against plaintiff and
not against codefendants, and no co-
defendant was complaining, and
plaintiff had not been injured. — Rose-
•borough v. Campbell, 115 P.2d 839,
46 gal.App.2d 257.
83. Ala.— Dulin v. Johnson, 113 So.
397, 216 Ala. 8-93.
Ark.— Merriott T. Kilgore, 139 S.W.
2d 387, 200 Ark. 394— Furst v.
Boatman, 122 S.W.24 189, 197 Ark.
117$.
Cola— Nash v. Gurtey, 3 P.2d 791, 89
Colo. 418.
N.J. — Kravitz Mfg; Corporation v.
Style-Kraft Shirt Corporation, 21
A.24 7*1, 127 N-JXaw 253.
Tenn. — Wright v. ILindsay, 140 S.W
2d 793, 24 Tenn.App. 77.
Tex. — Peters v. Hubb Biggs Co., Civ
App., 35 S.W.2d 449, error dis
missed.
Wash. — Johnston v. Medina Improve
ment Club, 116 P.2d 272, 10 Wash.
2d 44.
W.Va.— Sands v. Sands, 138 S.B. 463
103 W.Va. 701.
Unverified motion amended by affida-
vit
An unverified motion to set aside
a default judgment as amended by a
supporting affidavit was the equiv-
alent of a verified petition, and suffi-
cient compliance with statute relat-
ing to proceedings for vacating judg-
ments after term time, to warrant
the court in entertaining the pro-
ceeding.— Fulton v. National Finance
& Thrift Corporation, 4 N.W.2d 406,
232 Iowa 378.
84, Ky.— Guyan Machinery Co. v.
Premier Coal Co., 1*3 S.W.2d 284,
291 Ky. 84.
34 C.J. p 3fr4 note 71 [a] [b].
Grounds for opening or vacating de-
fault judgment see supra 2 334.
Affidavits held insufficient
(1) In general.
111. — Hayden v. Bredemeier, 27 N.E.
2d 477, 305 IlLApp. 484— McNulty
v. White, 248 m.App. 672— Preci-
sion Products Co. r. Cady, 233 I1L
App. 77.
Ky. — Bond v. W. T. Congleton Co.,
129 S.W.2d '570, 278 Ky. 829.
Wyo.— Kelley v, Bidam, 231 P. 678,
32 Wyo. 271:
(2) To show excusable neglect.—
Elms v. Elms, CaLApp., 164 P.2d 936
—Doyle v. Rice Ranch Oil Co., 81
>.2d 980, 28 CaLAppJtd 18.
Affidavit* held sufficient
(1) In general.
Cal.— -Bodin v. Webb, 62 P.2d 155, 17
Cal.App.2d 422 — Salsberry v. Juli-
664
an, 277 P. 516, 98 CaLApp. 638, fol-
lowed in 277 P. 518, amended 27*
P. 257, 98 CaLApp. 645.
Mich.— Tallis v. Stuart, 255 N.W.
354, 268 Mich. 84.
N.T.— Martin r. Peters, 60 N.Y.S.23
122.
(2) To show lack of personal serv-
ice.— Thompson v. Sutton, 122 P.2d
975, 50 CaLApp.2d 272.
(3) To show mistake of law. —
John A. Yaughan Corporation v. Ti-
tle Insurance & Trust Co., 12 P.2d
117, 123 CaLApp. 709.
8Bb Idaho.— Occidental Life Ins. Co.
v. Niendorf, 44 P.2d 1099, 55 Idaho-
521.
HL— McGregor v. Lament, 225 I1L
App. 45.L
Oversight and inadvertence
An affidavit to set aside a Judg-
ment or default is insufficient where
it merely statea that the judgment
or order sought to be vacated was
taken by oversight and inadvertence
and does not state the facts and cir-
cumstances which it is claimed con-
stitute the oversight and inadver-
tence.— Kingsbury v. Brown, 92 P.2d
1053, 60 Idaho 464, 124 AJUB. 149—
Occidental Life Ins. Co. v. NIendort
44 P.2d 1099, 55 Idaho 521.
86. Nev. — Bowman v. Bowman, 217
P. 1102, 47 Nev. 207.
87. OkL — Lofton v. McLucas, lift
P.2d 9-66, 189 OkL 115.
L Ga.— Hooper v. Weathers, 165
S.EL 52, 175 Ga. 133.
89. Pa. — McFadden v. Pennzoil Co*
191 A. 584, 326 Pa. 277.
90. Ariz,— Huff v. Flynn, 60 P.2d
931, 48 Ariz. 175.
Ind. — Padol v. Home Bank & Trust
Co., 27 N.m2d 917, 108 Ind.Ap?»
401.
Nev. — Bowman v. Bowman, 217 P.
1102, 47 Nev. 207.
49 0. J. S.
JUDGMENTS
§337
insufficient if it does not allege personal knowl-
edge91 or the source of the information.92 Under
some statutes the affidavit need not be made by
applicant but may be made by anyone knowing the
facts, for and on behalf of all concerned.98
Affidavits are to be construed most strongly
against the pleader.94
The necessity and sufficiency of an affidavit of
merits are considered supra § 336.
h. Counter-Affidavits
The party seeking to sustain the default Judgment
•may present counter-affidavits with respect to the al-
leged grounds for vacating the Judgment or to the mat-
ters set up in excuse of the defendant's failure to make
Ills defense In good time.
The party seeking to sustain the default judg-
ment may present affidavits in opposition to those of
the moving party with respect to the alleged
grounds for vacating the judgment or to the mat-
ters set up in excuse of defendant's failure to make
his defense in due time,9^ but if a trial on the mer-
its is improper, as discussed infra subdivision j (3)
of this section, counter-affidavits on the merits of
the defense are improper96 and are insufficient as a
basis for precluding relief to defendant.97
L Evidence
(1) Presumptions and burden of proof
(2) Admissibility
(3) Weight and sufficiency
(1) Presumptions and Burden of Proof
As a general rule the defaulted party has the burden
of proving the facts, entitling him to have the judgment
opened or vacated. A Judgment regular on its face will
be presumed to have been properly entered where the
record shows nothing Inconsistent with the- presump-
tion.
As a general rule the party who seeks to have the
default judgment opened or vacated has the bur-
den of proving the facts entitling him to the relief
asked,98 such as excusable neglect,^9 due diligence
or freedom from negligence,1 unavoidable casualty
Jgistake of attorney
Where the default is sought to be
•set aside because of the mistake of
the attorney, an affidavit of the par-
ty himself in support of the motion
is not necessary. — Morgan v. Broth-
ers of Christian Schools, 92 P.2d 925,
34 Cal.App.2d 14.
*1. N.Y.— Titus v. Halsted, 204 N.
Y.S. 241, 209 App.Div. 66— Grouse
Grocery Co. v. Valentine, 226 N.Y.
S. 613, 131 Misc. 571.
•92. Pa. — Borteck v. Goldenburg, $7
Pa.Sujper. 602.
Statements by client
Defaults are not opened on attor-
ney's averments of what client told
. him, unless client- swears that in-
formation imparted is true. — Grouse
Orocery Co. v. Valentine, 226 N.Y.S.
$13, 131 Misc. 571.
S3. Ind.— Padol v. Home Bank &
Trust Co., 27 N.E.2d 917, 108 Ind,
App. 401.
34 C.J. p 428 note 75 CD].
•94 111.— Stellwagen v. Schmidt, 234
IlLApp. 325.
35. III.— Sheehan v. Pioneer Lucky
Strike Gold Mining Co., 54 P.2d
72, 11 Cal.App.2d 530— Gilchrist
Transp. Co. v. Northern Grain Co.,
«8 N.R 558, 204 111. 510— Reed v.
Curry, 35 111. 636— Crystal Lake
Country Club v. Scanlan, 2-64 111.
App. 44 — Elaborated Ready Roof-
ing Co. v. Hunter, 262 IlLApp. 380
— Kloepher v. Osborne, 177 I1L
App. 384.
9«. CaL— Salsberry v. Julian, 277 P.
516, 98, Cal.App. 638, followed in
277 P. 518, amended 278 P. 257,
98 Cal.Ajpp. 645.
I1L — Gilchrist Transp. Co. v. North-
ern Grain Co., 68 N.B. 558, 204 111.
510— Mendell r. Kimball, 85 I1L 582
— Crystal Lake Country Club v.
Scanlan, 264 IlLApp. 44— Mutual
Life of Illinois v. Little, 227 111.
App. 436 — Kloepher v. Osborne, 177
IlLApp. 384 — Scrafield v. Sheeler,
18 IlLApp. 507— Kalkaska Mfg. Co.
v. Thomas, 17 IlLApp. 235— Thelin
v. Thelin, 8 IlLApp. 421.
Waiver of objections
On a motion to vacate a default
judgment where plaintiff Introduced
counter-affidavits on the merits and
no objection was then raised to their
consideration or motion made to
strike them out, having failed to
make objection In the court below,
defendant waived the right to object
to them thereafter on appeal. —
Washington Mill Co. v. Marks, 67 P.
565, 27 Wash. 170.
97. CaL — Thompson v. Sutton, 122
P.2d 975, 50 Cal.App.2d 272.
9& Colo.— Connell v. Continental
Casualty Co., 290 P. 274, 87 Colo.
573 — Redeker v. Denver Music Co.,
265 P. 6S1, 83 Colo. 370.
111. — Shaw v. Carrara, 38 NJ3L2d 785,
312 IlLApp. 410.
Ind. — Carty v. Toro, 67 N.B.2d 484.
Mass.— Kravetz v. Lipofsky, 200 N.
E. 845, 294 Mass. 80.
Ohio.— Rabinovitz v. Novak, App., 31
N.B.2d 161.
OkL— Gavin v. Heath, 256 P. 745, 125
Okl. 118.
Or. — Corpus Juris cited in Peterson
.v. Hutton, 2S4 P. 279, 280, 132 Or.
252.
Pa. — Oaromono v. Garman, 23 A,2d
92, 147 Pa.Super. 1— Planters Nut
& Chocolate Co. v. Brown-Murray
Co., 193 A. 3*1, 128 Pa.Super. 239.
665
Tex. — Commercial Credit CJorp. v.
Smith, 187 S.W.2d 363, .143 Tex.
612— Harris v. Sugg, Civ.App., 143
S.W.2d 149, error dismissed, Judg-
ment correct — Smalley v. Octagon
Oil Co., Civ.App., 82 S.W.2d 1049,
error dismissed— Babington v.
Gray, Civ.App., 71 S.W.2d 29S.
Wash. — Larson v. Zabroski, 152 P.2d
154, 21 Washed 572, opinion ad-
hered to 155 P.2d 284, 21 Wash. 2 d
572.
34 C.J. p 352 note 50.
Appeal to court's discretion
Before trial court will set aside
default judgment, facts must be
shown which appeal to court's dis-
cretion.— Savage v. Stokes, 28 P.2d
•900, 54 Idaho 109.
99. Cal. — Weinberger v. Manning,
123 P.2d 931, 50 Cal.App.2d 494.
Iowa. — Booth v. Central -States Mut.
Ind. Ass'n, 15 N.W.2d 893, 235 Iowa
5.
Ohio. — Rabinovitz v. Novak, A<pp., 31
N.E.2d 151.
Wash. — Jacobsen v. Defiance Lumber •
Co., 253 P. 1088, 142 Wash. 642.
Absence of requirement at common
law
- Showing of facts and circumstanc-
es constituting oversight and inad-
vertence, alleged as ground for vaca-
tion of default and judgment there-
on, cannot be dispensed with because
they are not required at common
law.— Occidental Life Jns. Co. v.
Nlendorf, 44 F.2d 1099, 55 Idaho 521.
1. Mo.— Meyerhardt v. Fredxnan,
App., 131 S*W.2d 916— Anspach v.
Jansen, 78 S.W.2d 137, 229 Mo.
App. 321.
Pa. — Caromono v. Garman^ 23 A.2d
337
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
and misfortune,2 nonservice of summons,3 absence
of knowledge of the proceedings in time to make a
defense,4 prompt action to set aside the default,5
irregularity in the entry of the judgment,6 or fraud.7
A default judgment will be presumed to have been
properly entered where it is regular on its face and
the record shows nothing inconsistent with the pre-
sumption,8 but, if the record does not affirmatively
show that the proceedings were according to law, it
has been held that nothing will be presumed in fa-
vor of the judgment.8 Presumptions will be in-
dulged, requiring evidence to overcome them, that
the recitals in the record are correct,10 and that a
public officer fulfilled his duty.11 The presumptions
are prima facie only and may be overcome by
proof.12
There is no presumption against a defendant only
constructively served of notice or lack of dili-
gence,13 and, where the party seeking to set aside
a default judgment rendered on constructive service
makes a prima facie showing for relief, the bur-
den is on plaintiff to show laches or inexcusable
neglect or other circumstances which would make
the granting of relief inequitable.14 However,
where the statute requires a showing that defend-
ant had no actual notice, the burden of proving the
absence of actual notice is on defendant.15 In a
proceeding to vacate a judgment rendered on con-
92, 147 Pa.Super. 1— Planters Nut
& Chocolate Co. v. Brown-Murray
Co., 193 A. 881, 128 Pa.Super. 239.
Tex. — Sunshine Bus Lines v. Crad-
dock, Civ.App., 112 S.W.2d 248, af-
firmed Craddock v. Sunshine Bus
Lines, 133 S.W.2d 124, 134 Tex.
388 — San Antonio Paper Co. v.
Morgan, Civ.Apj>., 53 S.W.2d 651,
error dismissed.
2. Ky.— Carter v. Miller, 95 S.W.2d
29, 264 Ky. 532.
3. Ark.— Rockamore v. Pembroke,
188 S.W.2d 616, 208 Ark. 995—
O'Neal v. B. P. Goodrich Rubber
Co., 162 S.W.2d 52, 204 Ark. 371.
N.D. — Pirst State Bank of Strasburg
v. Schmaltz, 237 N.W. 644, 61 N.D.
150— Beery v. Peterson, 225 N.W.
798, 58 N.D. 273.
Or. — Peterson v. Button, 284 P. 279,
132 Or. 252.
Impropriety of service by publication
In order to show a lack of juris-
diction in the court to render the
judgment when service was had by
publication, defendant must show
that service by publication was im-
proper.— Van Rhee v. Dysert, .191 N.
W. 53, 154 Minn. 32.
4. Ark.— O'Neal v. B. T. Goodrich
Rubber Co., 1-62 S.W.2d 52, 204
Ark. 371.
5. S.D.— Connelly v. Franklin, 210
N.W. 735, 50 S.D. 512.
•Within statutory limitation
Defendant who sought to have de-
fault Judgment against him in action
on note set aside because he was des-
ignated throughout the proceedings
by the wrong middle initial had bur-
den of proving that he had knowl-
edge of entry of judgment for not
more than one year prior to date
when judgment was sought to be set
aside, where the statute requires pro-
ceedings to be instituted within one
year after knowledge of judgment —
Cacka v. Gaulke, 3 N.W.2d 791, 212
Minn. 404.
& Ohio.— Davis v. Teachnor, App.,
53 N.R2d 208.
7. Ohio.— Rabinovitz v. Novak,
App., 31 N.B.2d 151.
& Ind. — Walsh v. H. P. Wasson &
Co., 13 N.E.2d 696, 213 Ind. 556—
Hoag v. Jeffers, 159 N.E. 753, 201
Ind, 249.
Ohio. — Davis v. Teachnor, App., 53
N.B.2d 208— Strain v. Isaacs, 18 N.
B.2d 816, 59 Ohio App. 495.
Pacts outside record
On petition to vacate default judg-
ment against defendant, plaintiff was
not required to support judgment by
proof of facts outside record. — Strain
v. Isaacs, 18 N.E.2d 816, 59 Ohio App.
495.
Failure of attorney to act
Where motion for judgment by de-
fault was served on a regular prac-
ticing attorney in the division, who
was a clerk for defendant's attorney
and who accepted service as one of
defendant's attorneys, if there was
any reason why default judgment
should not have been entered, the at-
torney had duty to inform himself
and make the proper showing, and on
failure to do so the court was re-
quired to conclude that default and
judgment were duly and regularly
entered. — Rubenstein v. Imlach, 9
Alaska 62.
9. Ark.— Vaccinol Products Corpora-
tion v. State, for Use and Benefit
of Phillips County, 148 S.W.2d
1069, 201 Ark. 1066.
10. Sheriffs return
Fact that no attempt had been
made to levy on personal estate of
garnishee before proceeding against
real estate was held not to justify
opening default judgment against
garnishee, in view of presumption
that sheriff's return of nulla bona
as to personalty was true. — Jennings
v. Yanovitz, 175 A, 721, 115 Pa.Super.
427.
11. Duty to mail process
Where default judgment entered
by circuit court was made subject, of
direct attack on ground of insuffi-
666
cient service of process on agent of
defendant, presumption that copy of
process was duly mailed by clerk to
home office of defendant association
by registered letter was held to pre-
vail, in absence of affirmative show-
ing that copy of process was not
duly mailed. — Brotherhood of Rail-
road Trainmen v. Agnew, 155 So. 205,
170 Miss. 604.
12. Ark.— JFirst Nat. Bank v. Tur-
ner, 275 S.W. 703, 169 Ark. 393.
Service of summons
(1) On a motion by a defendant
to vacate a judgment on the ground
that no service of summons was
made on him, the proof of service
on which the judgment is predicated
may be contradicted, and defendant
may show that such proof of service
is untrue.— Baird v. Ellison, 293 N.
W. 794, 70 N.D. 2-61.
(2) Defendant could, on petition,
after term, in order to vacate default
judgment, show that place where
copy of summons was left was not
defendant's usual place of residence
•as recited in sheriff's return. — Hayes
v. Kentucky Joint Stock Land Bank
of Lexington, 181 N.B. 542, 125 Ohio
St 359.
13. Cal.— Randall v. Randall, 264 P.
751, 203 CaL 462.
34 C.J. p 427 note 61.
14. Cal.— Gray v. Lawlor, 90 P. 691,
151 CaL 352, 12 AmvCas. 990.
Nev.— Nahas v. Nahas, 92 P.2d 718,
59 Nev. 220.
Service not calculated to give actual
notice
With respect to opening default
judgment, if manner of constructive
service is not calculated to give actu-
al notice, notice is not presumed, and
adversary has burden of proving it
— Naisbitt v. Herrick, 290 P. 950, 76
Utah. 575.
15. Wyo. — Clarke v. Shoshoni Lum-
ber Co., 224 P. 845, 31 Wyo. 205,
error dismissed 48 S.Ct. 302, 276
U.S. 595, 72 L.Bd. 722.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 337
structive service, it has been held that it is not
incumbent on applicant to show that the original
judgment was wrong.16
(2) Admissibility
As a general rule in passing on an application to
open or set aside a default Judgment, the court may ad-
mit any evidence which may properly aid It In reach-
ing a conclusion, but irrelevant and immaterial evidence
may properly be excluded.
Unless the decision in a proceeding to open or
set aside a default judgment is to be made only on
the motion and supporting affidavits,17 or on the
record,18 as a general rule the court may admit any
evidence which may properly aid it in reaching a
conclusion,19 but irrelevant and immaterial evi-~
dence may properly be excluded.20 The exclusion
of evidence showing that defendant is protected by
insurance is not necessary.21
Meritorious defense. Evidence of a meritorious
defense is admissible where the existence of a meri-
torious defense is properly at issue,22 or where the
court is entitled to determine whether a prima facie
valid defense exists,23 but it is not admissible where
the existence of a defense is not in issue ;24 and, if
the existence of the defense must be determined on
the motion and affidavits alone, evidence as to
whether the defense could be sustained is inadmis-
sible.^
(3) Weight and Sufficiency
The defaulted party should establish the facts on
which he relies as grounds, for relief by a preponderance
of the evidence, or by clear, convincing, and satisfactory
proof.
In order to be entitled to have a regularly en-
tered default judgment opened or vacated, the de-
faulted party should establish the facts on which he
relies as grounds for relief by a preponderance of
the evidence,26 or by clear, convincing, and satis-
factory proof ;27 but it has been held that a show-
ing of the excusability of neglect need not be strong
where the showing of a meritorious defense is con-
16. Ind. — Padol v. Home Bank &
Trust Co., 27 N.E.2d 917, 108 Ind.
App. 401 — Gary Hobart Inv. Real-
ty Co. v. Earle, 135 N.B. 798, 78
Ind.Ap*>. 412.
17. Tenn.— Fidelity - Phenlx Fire
Ins. Co. v. Oliver, 162 S.W.2d 254,
25 Tenn. App. 114.
1& Mo.— Jeffrey v. Kelly, App., 146
S.W.2d 850.
19. Knowledge of action
Where defendants' notice of mo-
tion to set aside default Judgment
recited that they did not have knowl-
edge of pendency of action until aft-
er judgment was rendered, admitting
evidence tending to show that de-
fendants had such knowledge before
judgment was rendered, and part of
which threw light on issue of serv-
ice, was held not error. — Wood v. Pe-
terson Farms Co., 22 P.2d 565, 132
CaLApp. 233.
Evidence of error of fact unknown
to Judge at the time he rendered
judgment may be admissible.—
Stanke v. Atherton, 7 N.B.2d 467, 289
I11.APP. 614.
Evidence of custom and practice of
attorneys may be admitted.— Lunt v.
Van Gorden, 281 N.W. 743, 225 Iowa
1120.
Evidence to rebut proof of service
may be admitted.
D.C. — James B. Colliflower & Co. v.
McCallum-Sauber Co., 63 <F.2d 3-66,
61 App.D.C. 390.
K.D.— Baird v. Ellison, 293 N.W. 794,
70 N.D. 261.
Evidence in support of judgment
IU. — Marland Refining Co. v. Lewis,
264 IlLApp. 163.
Tex.— Pellum v. .Fleming, Civ. App.,
283 S.W. 531, error refused Flem-
ing v. Pellum, 287 S.W. 492, 116
Tex. 130.
Amended, return of service
Where, on hearing of motion to
set aside default judgment because
of allegedly defective service of ci-
tation, amended return was admit-
ted in evidence over objection and
motion denied, court's conclusion was
held tantamount to definite finding
in favor of validity of return as
amended, warranting inference that
amendment was made with knowl-
edge and consent of court and was,
therefore, presumptively with Its au-
thority.— Employer's Reinsurance
Corporation v. Brock, Tex.Civ.App.,
74 S.W.2d 435, error dismissed.
20. 111.— Standard Statistics Co. v.
Davis, 45 N.E.2d 1005, 317 Ill.App.
377.
Okl.— Elias v. Smith, 246 P. 409, 117
Okl. 273.
Tex.— Allen v. Frank, Clv.Aj?p.f 252
S.W. 347.
21. References to insurance in affi-
davit
Refusal to- strike references that
defendant carried indemnity insur-
ance, inserted in plaintiff's affidavit
counter to defendant's affidavits in
support of motion to open default
judgment in automobile accident
case, was held not error, since the
reason for refusing to admit evi-
dence, in a trial before a jury, that
defendant is protected by insurance
does not apply. — Bissonette v. Jo-
seph, 170 S.E. 467, 170 S.C. 407.
22. Ark. — Metropolitan iLife Ins. Co.
v. Duty, 126 S.W.2d 921, 197 Ark.
1118.
667
23. OkL— Kellogg v. Smith, 42 P.2d
493, 171 Okl. 355.
Tex. — Lawther Grain Co. v. Winni-
ford, Com.App.f 249 S.W. 19'5—
Babington v. Gray, Civ.App., 71 S.
W.2d 293.
24. La. — Cutrer v. Cutrer, App., 169
So. 807.
Absence of excuse for default
If there has been no excuse for
failure of defendant to answer, evi-
dence of a meritorious defense is
inadmissible.— Metropolitan Life Ins.
Co. v. Duty, 126 S.W.2d 921, 197 Ark.
1118.
25. R.I.— Milbury Atlantic Mfg. Co.
v. Rocky Point Amusement Co.,
118 A. 737, 44 R.L 45*.
26. Cal. — Weinberger v. Manning,
123 P.2d 531, 50 CaLApp.2d 494.
27. CaL — Dunn v. Standard Acci-
dent Ins. Co., 299 P. 575, 114 CaL
App. 208.
Colo. — Redeker v. Denver Music Co.,
265 P. 681, 83 Colo. 370.
Md.— Weisman v. Davitz, 199 A, 476,
174 Md. 447— Dixon v. Baltimore
American Ins. Co. of New York,
188 A. 215, 171 Md. 695.
Mo.— State ex rel. Sterling v. Shain,
129 S.W.2d 1048, 344 Mo. 891.
K.Y.— De Marco v. McConnell, 260 N.
Y.S. 540, 146 Misc. 9.
Okl.— Tidal Oil Co. v. Hudson, 219 P.
95, 95 Okl. 209.
Tex. — Grand United Order of Odd
Fellows v. Wright, Civ.App., 76 S.
W.2d 1073.
Fraud
In petition to vacate Judgment for
fraud evidence must be clear and
convincing. — In re Veselich, 154 N.
B. 55, 22 Ohio App. 528.
§ 337
JUDGMENT3
49 C.J.S.
vincing.28 In order to show lack of notice or proc-
ess, defendant may impeach an officer's return of
process by parol evidence,29 but the evidence must
be clear, cogent, and convincing,8^ and the testi-
mony of a single witness, however credible, has been
held not to be sufficient.81 A motion to set aside a
default judgment for irregularities on the face of
the record must be denied where it is supported only
by evidence outside the record.32
Under the particular facts and circumstances of
the case, the evidence has been held sufficient33 or
insufficient34 generally to entitle defendant to have
the default judgment set aside or vacated, or it has
been specifically held sufficient85 or insufficient3*
to show lack of proper notice or process; suffi-
cient37 or insufficient38 to show mistake, inadver-
tence, or excusable neglect; sufficient to show un-
28. Wash. — Jacobsen v. Defiance
Lumber Co., 253 P. 1088, 142 Wash.
642.
6, 5 N.J.
29. N-.C.— Dunn v. Wilson, 187 S.E
802, 210 N.C. 493.
30. Okl.— - Neff T. Edwards, 230 P
234, 167 Okl. 101— Okmulgee Pro-
ducing: & Refining Co. v. Pilsbry-
Becker Engineering & Supply Co.,
214 P. 185, 89 Okl. 200.
Tex. — San Antonio Paper Co. v. Mor-
gan, Civ.App., 53 S.W.2d 651, er-
ror dismissed.
Clear and ULeanivocal proof
N.C.— Dunn v. Wilson, 187 -S.E. *02,
210 N.C. 493.
N.D.— 'First State Bank of Strasburg
v. Schmaltz, 237 N.W. 644, 61 N.
D. 150.
31. Tex.— -San Antonio Paper Co. v.
Morgan, Civ.App., 53 S.W.2d 651,
error dismissed.
Uncorroborated parol testimony of
defendant that summons was not
served on him is insufficient to war-
rant the setting aside of a default
judgment.
N.Y. — Biala v. Abramow, 277 N.Y.S.
416, 154 Misc. 536.
Okl.— Bates v. Goode, 281 P. 558, 139
Okt 141— Neff v. Edwards, 230 P.
234, 167 Okl. 101.
32. Mo.— Buchholz v. Manzella,
App., 158 S.W.2d 200— Jeffrey v,
Kelly. App., 146 S.W.£d 850.
* 3& Ark.— Smith v. Globe & Rutgers
Fire Ins. Co., 295 S.W. 388, 174
Ark. 346, followed in Deatherage
v. Dennison, 295 S.W. 390, 173 Ark.
1180.
Cal. — Palmer v. Lantz, 0 P.2d 821,
215 Cal. 320 — Rogers v. -Schneider,
270 P. 451, 205 Cal. 202— Paul v.
Walburn, 26 P.2d 1002, 135 CaL
App. 364.
I1L — Clausen v. Varrin, 11 N.E.2d
820/292 IlLApp. 641— Marland Re-
fining Co. v. Lewis, 264 111. App,
163— Crystal Lake Country Club v.
Scanlan, 264 IlLApp. 44.
Iowa. — Fulton v. National Finance &
Thrift Corporation, 4 N.W.2d 406,
232 Iowa 378.
^£ass. — Almeida v. Socony-Vacuum
Oil Co., 49 N.E.2d 217, 314 Mass.
28.
N.J. — Niagara Realty Co. v. Consoli-
dated Indemnity & Insurance Co.,
166 A. US, 11 N.J.M1SC. 361— Phil-
lips v. Adams, 138 A.
Misc. 377.
N.Y.— Di Maggio v. Magnelli, 16 N.
T.S.2d 735.
Okl.— Lane v. O'Brien, 49 P.2d 171,
173 Okl. 475— W. W. Bennett & Co.
v. La Fayette, 271 P. 248, 133 Okl.
233— Thompson v. Hensley, 261 P.
931, 128 Okl. 139— Carter v. Grixn-
mett. 213 P. 732, 89 Okl. 37.
R.I. — Chernick v. Annelfo, 17 A.2d
84$, 66 R.L $5.
3* La.— P. E. 'Fitzpatrick & Co. v.
Hessler, App., 150 So. 392.
Miss.— Lee v. Spikes, 112 So. 588,
145 Miss. 897.
Mo. — Cornoyer v. Oppermann Drug
Co., App., 56 S.W.2d 612.
Neb.— Drake v. Ralston, 288 N.W.
377, 137 Neb. 72.
N.J.— Smith v. White, 16 A.2d 628,
125 N.J.Law 493.
N.T.— Rose v. Romano, 23 N.T.S.2d
16, 262 App.Dlv. 731.
N.C.— Pailin v. Richmond Cedar
Works, 136 S.BL 635, 193 N.C. 256.
Pa. — Anderson v. Shaffer, 18 Pa.Dist
& Co. 334 — Sanders v. Krater, Com.
PL, 57 York Leg.Rec. 33.
Tex. — Dickson v. Navarro County
Levee Improvement Dist. No. 3
Civ.App., 124 S.W.2d 943, reversed
on other grounds 139 S.W.2d 260,
135 Tex. 102, and followed in Dick-
son v. Ellis County Levee Improve-
ment Dist No. 10, 124 S.W.2d -946,
set aside Dickson v. Navarro Coun-
ty Levee Imp. Dist No. 3, 139 S.
W.2d 257, 135 Tex. 95— Smalley v.
Octagon Oil Co., Civ.App., 82 S.W.
2d .1049, error dismissed — Employ-
er's Reinsurance Corporation v.
Brock. Civ.App,, 74 S.W.2d 435, er-
ror dismissed — Brlggs v. Ladd, Civ.
App., 64 S.W.2d 389— Humphrey v.
Harrell, Civ. App., 19 S.W.2d 410,
affirmed, Com.App., 29 S.W.2d 963.
Wash. — Turner v. Brassesco, 219 P.
11, 126 Wash. 658.
35. N.J. — Deighan v. Beverage Re-
tailer Weekly & Trade Newspaper
Corporation, 16 A.2d 612, 18 N.J.
Misc. 705.
N.D.— Baird v. Ellison, 293 N.W. 794,
70 N.D. 2-61.
Agency to receive process
In action against foreign corpora-
:ion wherein service of process was
lad on alleged agent of corporation,
default judgment was entered, and
corporation appeared specially and
668
moved to set aside judgment on
ground that alleged agent was not
its agent, a letter appearing in rec-
ord showing that alleged agent once
represented corporation in securing
a contract was, without more, insuf-
ficient to prove fact of agency to-
receive process. — Consolidated Radio-
Artists v. Washington Section, Na-
tional Council of Jewish Juniors, 105
F.2d 785, 70 AppJXC. 262.
33. Ark. — Federal Land Bank of St.
Louis v. Cottrell, 126 S.W.2d 279v
197 Ark. 783.
Ky.— Joseph v. Bailey, 277 S.W. 466v
211 Ky. 394.
Md.— Weisman v. Davitz, 1-99 A, 476;
174 Md. 447.
Minn.— Van Rhee v. Dysert, 191 N.
W. 53, 154 Minn. 32.
Or.— Peterson v. Hutton, 284 P. 27fr,
132 Or. 252.
Tex. — San Antonio Paper Co. v. Mor-
gan, Civ.App., 53 S.W.2d 651, error
dismissed.
37. Cal. — Hadges y. Kouris, 162 P.
2d 476, 71 CaLApp.2d 213— Fink &
Schindler Co. v, Gavros, 237 P.
1033, 72 CatApp. 688.
Mental ana physical distress
Evidence that plaintiff, seeking to
reform default judgment, was in-
mental and physical distress at time
citation was served on her was held
to justify finding that her failure to-
answer was excusable. — Hadad v.
Ellison, Tex.Civ.App,, 283 S.W. 193.
Failure to receive notice of hearing
Evidence was held to sustain chan-
cellor's decree setting aside default
judgment because of failure of plain-
tiff's attorney to receive notice of
hearing. — Metz v. Melton Coal Co., 47
S.W.2d 803., 185 Ark. 486.
38. Cal. — Dunn v. Standard Accident
Ins. Co., 299 P. 575, 114 CaLApp. •
208.
Ind. — Walsh v. H. P. Wasson & Co.,
13 N.E.2d 69<6, 213 Ind. 556— Hoag-
v. Jeffers, 159 N.B. 753, 201 Ind.
249 — Kuhn v. Indiana Ice & 'Fuel
Co., 11 N.E.2d 508, 104 Ind.App.
387.
Miss.— Lee v. Spikes, 112 So. 588,.
14$ Miss. 897.
Mo. — Koester v. McNealey, App., 274
S.W. 475.
Mont— Grant v. Hewitt, 208 P. 887,
S3 Mont 422.
Tex. — Canion v. Brown, Civ.App.f 48
S.W.24 1031.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
337
avoidable casualty or misfortune;39 sufficient40 or
insufficient41 to show proper diligence; sufficient to
show a legal excuse for delay in filing the motion;42
or insufficient to show fraud,43 irregularities,44 or
lack of good faith.45
j. Hearing and Determination
(1) In general
(2) Discretion of court generally
(3) Merits of cause of action or de-
fense * •
(4) Principles and rules of decision
(1) In General
Generally, where Issues of fact are presented In pro-
ceedings to open or set aside a default Judgment, the
court should conduct a hearing or require further dep-
ositions or affidavits, and thereupon determine the ques-
tions of law and of fact which are properly presented.
Where an application to open or set aside a de-
fault judgment is contested and issues of fact are
presented, the court should conduct a hearing or
require further depositions or affidavits on the is-
sues raised,46 and, unless the question can be de-
termined from an -inspection of the record, it has
been held to be error to grant or dismiss the motion
summarily or on an ex parte hearing.47 Except
to the extent to which the proceedings are governed
by statute, the court has a reasonable discretion
with respect to the form and manner of proof.4*
Under some statutes the court may receive oral
evidence,49 or it may consider affidavits50 in addi-
tion to those presented with the motion,51 but un-
der the statutes or rules of practice in some juris-
dictions a verified petition which was the basis of
the rule to show cause and ex parte affidavits may
not be considered,52 and applicant must supply proof
by deposition taken on notice.53 It is proper for
the court to try and determine the existence and
sufficiency of the alleged grounds for opening or
vacating a default judgment before trying, or de-
ciding the existence of, a meritorious cause of ac-
tion or defense.54
The credibility or veracity of affiants or wit-
nesses,55 and the weight of the evidence,56 are for
the trial court's determination, and it must deter-
mine the questions of law and of fact which are
properly presented in the proceedings.57 Accord-
39. Ark.' — Mayberry v. Perm, 146 3.
W.2d 925, 201 Ark. 756.
40. Minn.— Van Rhee v. Dysert, 191
N.W. 53, 154 Minn. 32.
Mo. — Karst v. Chicago Fraternal
Life Ass'n, App., 22 S.W.2d 178.
Tex. — Camden Fire Ins. Co. v. Hill,
Com.App., 276 S.W. $87.
Evidence held not to show negligence
Tex. — Hubbard v. Tallal, Civ.App.,
57 S.W.2d 226, reversed on other
grounds and appeal dismissed 92
S.W.2d 1022, 127 Tex. 242.
41. 111. — Rome v. D. Warshafsky,
Inc., 19 N.B.2d 759, 299 IlLApp.
609.
42. Tex. — Camden Fire Ins* Co. Y.
Hill, Com.App., 276 S.W. 887.
43. N.D.— Walrod v. Nelson, 210 N.
W. 525, 54 N.D. 753,
44. Ohio.— Davis T. Teachnor, App.,
53 N.E,2d 208.
45. Kan,— Withers v. Miller, 34 P.
2d 110, 140 Kan. 123, 104 A.L.R.
692.
40. Pa.— Hamilton v. Sechrist, 16 A.
2d 671, 142 Pa.Super. 354.
Wash.— Baer v. Lebek, 219 P. 22,
ISO Wash. 576.
Where averments are not denied,
no depositions are required to sup-
port the application. — Sockett v.
Philadelphia Toilet & Laundry Co.,
92 PsuSuper. 254.
Hearing- held Jinffldent
Wls.— Wujcik v. ' Globe & Rutgers
•Fire Ins. Co. of New York, 207 N.
W. 710, 189 Wis. 366.
47. Pa.— Hamilton v. Sechrist, 16 A.
2d 671, 142 Pa.Super. 3:54.
Hat parte affidavits should be
strictly scrutinized.
U.-S.— Silver Peak Gold Min. Co. v.
Harris, C.C.Nev., 116 »F. 439.
HL— Mendell v. Ktmball, 85 111. 582.
48. Cal. — Roseborough v. Campbell,
115 P.2d 839, 46 Cal, App. 2 d 257.
limiting time for proof
Trial court was held not to have
abused discretion in limiting ' time
within which defendant might intro-
duce testimony in proof of his con-
tention that he had received no no-
tice of intended hearing in case pri-
or to rendition of default judgment
against him, in view of defendant's
previous dilatory conduct. — Woods-
ville Fire Dist. v. Cray, 187 A. 47-8,
88 N.H. 264.
49. Cal. — Roseborough v. Campbell,
115 P.2d 839, 46 Cal.App.2d 257.
111. — Simon v. 'Foyer, 17 N.B,2d 632,
297 IlLApp. 640»
Okl.— Turner v. Dexter, 44 P.2d 984,
172 Okl. 252.
Pa.— Bott v. Aronimink Transp. Co.,
Com.Pl., 31 Del.Co. 172.
50. Cal.— Hollywood Garment Cor-
poration v. J. Beckerman, Inc., 143
P.2d 738, 61 Cal.App.2d 658.
D.C.— Marvin's Credit v. Kitching,
Mun.App., 34 A.*2d 86$.
Kan.— York v. Bundy, 23 P.2d 447,
138 Kan. 20.
Affidavit attached to pleadings on
application to vacate default Judg-
ment and for new trial is not evi-
dence respecting lack of negligence
669
in suffering default. — Canlon T.
Brown, Tex.Civ.App., 48 S.W.2d 108^
A. motion for new trial after judg-
ment on service of process against
defendant not appearing, although
sworn to, was not evidence of the
facts therein alleged, especially
where answer thereto was a sworn
denial. — Harris v. Sugg, Tex.Clv.
App., 143 S.W.2d 149, error dis-
missed, judgment correct
51. Cal — Roseborough v. Campbell,
115 P.2d 839, 46 Cal.App.2d 257.
52. N.J. — Kravitz Mfg. Corporation
v. Style-Kraft Shirt Corporation,
21 A.2d 761, 127 N.J.Law 253— At-
lantic Casualty Ins. Co. v. War-
nock Bros., 1 A.2d 482, 121 N.J.Law
n.
63. N.J. — Kravitz Mfg. Corporation
v. Style-Kraft Shirt Corporation,
21 A.2d 761, 127 N.J.Law 253.
54. S.C. — Corpus Juris cited in
Lucas v. North Carolina Mut (Life
Ins. Co., 191 S.R 711, 712, 184 S.
C. 119.
34 C.J. p 373 note 94.
55. Ariz.— Beltran v. Roll, 7 P.2d
248, 39 Ariz. 417.
Cal. — Zuver v. General Development
Co., 28 P.2d 939, 136 Cal.App. 411.
50. Cal. — Bonfilio v. Ganger, 140 P.
2d 861, 60 Cal.App,2d 405— Zuver
v. General Development Co.. 28 P.
2d 93d, 136 Cal.App. 411.
57. Cal. — Thompson v. -Button, 122
P.2d 975, 50 Cal.App.2d 272— Green-
amyer v. Board of Trustees of
Lugo Elementary School -Diet. In
337
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
ingly, the court must decide whether defendant ex-
ercised reasonable diligence in making the motion
to open or vacate the default judgment,58 whether
defendant's failure to defend was excusable,59
whether service of notice was properly made,66 and
whether the court had jurisdiction to enter judg-
ment.61 Issues not involved in the proceedings are
not to be determined.62 In consonance with equity
practice the court may elect to have questions of
fact submitted to a jury for decision,63 but in such
cases the verdict of the jury is merely advisory, and
it is not binding on the court.64
The trial court may take all the matters and cir-
cumstances bearing on the case into consideration,65
including events which occur after entry of the de-
fault judgment,66 and it may rest its action on mat-
ters within its own knowledge.67 Facts and cir-
cumstances which are not material to the motion
should not be considered.68 Uncontradicted facts
stated in motions or affidavits should be taken as
£•05 Angeles -County, 2 P.2d 548,
116 CaLApp. 319.
Pla. — Kellerman v. Commercial
Credit Co., 189 So. 689, 138 Pla,
133.
Ind. — Haley v. Burke-Cadilac Co., 170
N.E. 791, 91 Ind.App. 603.
Okl.— Turner v. Dexter, 44 P.2d 984,
172 Okl. 252.
Judgment entered in ignorance of
facts
Whether motion to vacate default
judgment discloses that judgment
has been entered by court in Igno-
rance of existing facts, which if
known would have prevented entry
of the judgment, is question of law
for the court. — Katauski v. Bldridge
Coal & Coke Co., 255 IlLApp. 41.
S3. Minn.— Roe v. Widme, 254 N.W.
274, 191 Minn. 251.
59. Ala. — Mosaic Templars of Amer-
ica v. Hall, 124 So. 879, 220 Ala,
305.
Ariz. — Brown v. Beck, 169 P.2d '855
— Michener v. Standard Accident
Ins. Co., 47 P.2d 438, 46 Ariz. 66.
CaL— Tucker v. Tucker, 139 P.2d 348,
59 CaLApp.2d 557 — Thompson v.
Sutton, 122 P.2d 975, 50 CaLApp.2d
272— Cann v. Parker, 258 P. 105,
84 CaLApp. 379.
•«na. — Streety v. John Deere Plow
•Co., 109 So. 632, 92 Fla. 210.
Idaho. — Atwood v. Northern Pac. Ry.
Co., 217 P. 600, 37 Idaho 554.
Ind. — Walsh v. H. P. Wasson & Co.,
13 N.E.2d 696, 213 Ind. 556.
Okl. — Lrott v. Kansas Osage Gas Co.,
281 P. 297, 139 Okl. 6.
S.D. — Jones v. Johnson, 222 N.W.
688, 54 S.D. 149.
Tex.— Lawther Grain Qo. v. Winni-
ford, Com.App.f 249 S.W. 195-*-
Sunshine Bus (Lines v. Craddock,
Civ.App., 112 S.W.2d 248, affirmed
Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines,
133 S.W.2d 124, 134 Tex. 388.
<6O. N.D. — Beery v. Peterson, 225 N.
W. 798, 58 N.D. 273.
Wash. — Skidmore v. Pacific Credi-
tors, 138 P.2d 664, 18 Wash.3d 157.
<6l. N.D. — Beery v. Peterson, 225 N.
W. 798, 58 N.D. 273.
Wash. — Peha's University Food Shop
v. Stimpson Corporation, 31 P.2d
1023, 177 Wash, 406.
42. Cal. — Waite v. Southern Pac.
Co., 221 P. 204, 192 CaL 467.
111.— Marland Refining Co. v. L«ewis,
264 IlLApp. 163.
Defects In the original declaration
will not be considered on a motion
to vacate a default judgment entered
at a prior term for the reason that
errors in pleading cannot be ques-
tioned collaterally.— Lynn v. Mult-
hauf, 279 IlLApp. 210.
Jurisdiction over subject matter
A motion to set aside a default
judgment for lack of proper service
does not raise question of jurisdic-
tion over subject matter, but only
goes to jurisdiction over person. —
State ex rel. Oompagnie GSnSrale
TransatlantiQiue v. Falkenhainer, 274
S.W. 758, 309 Mo. 224.
63. Wash.— Roth v. Nash, 144 P.2d
271, 19 Washed 731.
64. Wash. — Roth v. Nash, supra.
65. CaL — Bonfilio v. Ganger, 140 P.
2d 861, 60 Cal.App.2d 405.
Md. — Dixon v. Baltimore American
Ins. Co. of New York, 188 A. 215,
171 Md. 695.
Failure to demand bill of particu-
lars before motion therefor may be
considered by trial court in passing
on motion to vacate default. — Butler
v. Robinson, 244 P. 162, 76 Cal.App.
223.
Possibility of further litigation
On motion to set aside default
judgment restraining defendants
from discharging sewage on plain-
tiff's land, trial court, for purpose
of avoiding "multiplicity of actions,"
was authorized to consider that de-
fendants' claim of an easement for a
drainage ditch over plaintiff's land
would result in further litigation. —
Bonfilio v. Ganger, 140 P.2d 861, 60
Cal.App.2d 405.
Defects of judgment
Where defects of the judgment
are apparent on its face, they may
be considered by the court, although
they are not alleged in the applica-
tion.—Watson Co., Builders, v.
Bleeker, Tex.Civ.App., 269 S.W. 147.
Local customs and practices at bar
may "be considered by the court. —
Lunt v. Van Gorden, 281 N.W. 743,
225 Iowa 1120— Chandler MilL &
Mfg. Co. v. Sinaiko, 208 N.W. 323,
201 Iowa 791.
670
Proof offered under allegations
On motion to set aside default
judgment, in determining question
of excuse for delay in filing answer,
court will look not only to allega-
tions in motions, but also to proof
offered thereunder. — First Nat. Bank
v. -Southwest Nat. Bank of Dallas,
Tex.Civ.App., 273 S.W. 951.
66. Pacts pertinent to diligence aft-
er default are properly considered. —
Hicks v. Sanders, 104 P.2d 549, 40
Cal.App.2d 211.
67. Iowa. — Mitchell v. Brennan, 241
N.W. 408, 213 Iowa 1375.
34 C.J. p 430 note 90.
Knowledge of issues in original suit
The trial judge, who tried case
and entered judgment sought to be
set aside by motion for new trial
under statute authorizing such mo-
tion where judgment is rendered on
service by publication against de-
fendant who has not appeared, could
employ knowledge of issues involved
in original suit in passing on plain-
tiff's exception to the motion. — Dev-
ereaux v. Daube, Tex.Civ.App., 185
S.W.2d 211.
Telephone conversation
Where plaintiff's showing in sup-
port of motion to set aside default
judgment was largely based on claim
of an ex parte telephone conversa-
tion between counsel and the trial
judge, trial judge could have appro-
priately filed affidavit setting out his
own recollection of what telephone
conversation was in order to make
his own account of it a matter of
record as preliminary to passing on
application to set aside the default.
— Taecker v. Parker, 93 P.2d 197, 34
Cal.App.2d 143.
68. 111.— Standard Statistics Co. v.
Davis, 45 N.B.2d 1005, 317 IlLApp.
377.
Acts of other persons
On defendant's motion to set aside
a default judgment on ground of in-
advertence and excusable neglect,
court could not consider acts and
negligence of other persons which
were not material to the motion. —
-Gorman v. Yorke, 199 S.E. 729, 214 N.
C, 524.
Review of evidence in original case
The right to open a default judg-
49 C. J. S.
JUDGMENTS
337
true.69 The failure of defendant to produce avail-
able evidence may authorize an inference that the
evidence would not corroborate him.70
Rights of purchasers. The rights of purchasers
of the property which was the subject of the judg-
ment may be determined in proceedings to open the
judgment or in subsequent proceedings in which
they are made parties.71
Diligence after filing motion. Defendant must
exercise diligence in ascertaining the disposition
made by the court of the motion.72 Where defend-
ant, after filing a motion to set aside the default
judgment, delays in prosecuting the motion, the
court should permit defendant to show, if he can,
a sufficient excuse for the delay before dismissing
the motion.73
Proceedings after error. Where the court has
erred in failing to sustain a motion to dismiss the
motion to set aside the judgment, the error has
been held to render further proceedings nugatory.74
Time of helvring. The mere fact that the motion
is not heard until a subsequent term after- filing has
been held not to preclude the court from granting
relief on the ground that the motion has been over-
ruled by operation of law.75 Postponement of a
hearing on the motion does not result in a discon-
tinuance of the proceedings.76
Reopening case; rehearing. The court may prop-
erly reopen the case after it has been submitted for
decision to receive additional evidence77 even on-
its own motion,78 or it may properly receive addi-
tional evidence without formally reopening the-
case.79 Plaintiffs right to a reargument is not
lost by accepting the costs ordered to be paid by
defendant as a condition for reopening, receiving*
his answer, and excepting to the sufficiency of the
sureties to the undertaking.80 A motion for a re-
hearing filed after the court has lost jurisdiction is
ineffectual.81
(2) Discretion of Court Generally
Except In cases where the statute gives an absolute-
right to relief, the court may exercise a large discre-
tion In granting or denying an application to open or
vacate a default Judgment; but the discretion Is not
to be exercised arbitrarily or capriciously.
Except in cases where the statute gives an ab-
solute right to relief, in which case the court can-
not refuse to open the default judgment,82 as a gen-
eral rule, a default judgment will not be opened or
vacated as a matter of course;88 but the court may
exercise a large discretion in granting or denying-
ment is not to be determined by a
review of the evidence which sup-
ports the original Judgment — Nais-
bitt v. Herrick, 290 P. 950, 76 Utah
575.
99. Del.— Yerkes v. Dangle, Super.,
33 A.2d 406.
Ky. — Bond v. W. T. Congleton Co.,
129 S.W.2d '570, 278 Ky. 829.
Tex.— Trigg v. Gray, Civ.App., 288 S.
W. 1098.
70. Ind.— Carty v. Toro, 57 N.E.2d
434.
'71. Okl.— Swartz v. FarisS, 72 P.2d
738, 181 Okl. 115.
lack of notice
For the subsequent purchase of
land to be protected by the order
entered in an action to set aside de-
fault judgment and for new trial,
burden is on purchaser to plead and,
if denied, to show that he purchased
without notice of infirmity in judg-
ment—Rouse V. Rouse, 262 S.W. 596,
203 Ky. 415.
72. Tex. — Tyler v. Henderson, Civ.
App,, 162 S.W.2d 170, error refused.
Negligence of counsel
Allegations in judgment debtors'
petition to set aside judgment, filed
after debtors learned of order over-
ruling their motion for new trial,
that debtors were deprived of their
right to appear and present their
grounds for new trial because of al-
leged negligence of their counsel in
failing to represent them at hearing
on motion, were insufficient to enti-
tle debtors to the relief sought —
Tyler v. Henderson, supra,
73. Tex.— Callahan v. Staples, 161 S.
W.2d 489, 139 Tex. 8.
74. Ga.— Coker v. Eison, 151 S.E.
6'S2, 40 Ga.App. 835.
75. Tex.— Smith v. Higginbotham,
158 S.W.2d 481, 138 Tex. 227—
Smith v. Higginbotham, Civ.App.,
112 S.W.2d 770.
Commencement and termination of
time for application see supra sub-
division b (8) of this section..
Jurisdiction of court see supra § 333.
78. Ala.— Ex parte Doak, 66 So. 64,
188 Ala. 406— Ex parte Southern
Amiesite Asphalt Co., 200 So. 435,
30 AUuApp. 3, certiorari denied 200
So. 434, 240 Ala. 618.
77. Ariz. — Avery v. Calumet & Jer-
ome Copper Co., 284 P. 159, 36 Ariz.
239.
After upholding service
Where, however, the trial court
had originally denied a motion to
vacate a default judgment for non-
service of process and had thus up-
held service, it was held that the
court was unwarranted in subse-
quently granting a motion to reargue
the motion to vacate the judgment—
Danowitz- v. -Fero, 21 N.T.S.2d 813.
78. Ariz.— Avery v. Calumet & Jer-
ome Copper Co., 284 P. 150, 36
Ariz. 239.
671
79. Ariz.— Avery v. Calumet & Jer-
ome Copper Co., supra.
80. N.T.— Lanahan v. Drew, 17 N_
T.S. 840.
81. Ohio.— Balind v. Lanigan, 15*9 N-
E. 103, 26 Ohio App. 149.
82. Ala.— Marshall Qounty v*
Critcher, 17 -So.2d 540, 245 Ala. 357.
Mich.— McDowell v. Mecosta Chv
Judge, 144 N.W. 498, 17* Mich. 108.
In Georgia
(1) The statutory right to open,
default within thirty days or before-
the beginning of the trial term is not.
dependent on discretion of judge.™
McCray v. Empire Inv. Co., 174 S.E.
219, 49 Ga.App. 117— Rawls v. Bow-
ers, 172 S.E. 6*7, 48 Ga.App. 324 —
J. S. Schofield's Sons Co. v. Vaughn,
150 S.B. 569, 40 Ga.App. &68.
(2) At a subsequent term the mat-
ter is within the trial court's discre-
tion.— Hard wick Bank & Trust Co..
v. Manis, 183 S.E. 63, 181 Ga. 498—
Bawl? v. Bowers, supra. . .
83. Ky. — Bond v. W. T. Congleton*
Co., 129 S.W.2d 570, 278 Ky. 829.
W.Va.— Winona Nat Bank v. (Fridles
10 S.B.2d 907, 122 W.Va. 479.
34 C.J. p 422 note 23.
Beaaoa for rule
Demand which has ripened into-
regular valid judgment becomes es-
tablished right which must be pro-
tected not only by court which ren-
dered it, but by other courts.— Baly
V. MoGahen, 21 P.2d 34, 37 N.M. 246.
§337 JUDGMENTS 49 C.J.S.
an application to open or vacate a default judg- • ment,84 and, as discussed in Appeal and Error §
84. U.S.— Handel Bros. v. Victory-
Belt Co., C.C.A.I1L, 15 F.2d 610.
Ala.— Du Free v. Hart, S So.2d 183,
242 Ala. 690— Ex- parte Anderson,
4 So.2d 420, 242 Ala. 31— Ex parte
Richerzhagen, 113 So. 85, 216 Ala.
262— Ex parte Savage, 186 So. 586,
28 AUuApp. 440— Ex parte Motley,
170 So. 81, 27 Ala.App. 241— Ex
parte Crumpton, 109 So. 184, 21
Ala.App. 446— Sovereign Camp, W.
O. W., v. Gay, 104 So. 895, 20 Ala.
App. 650, reversed on other
grounds 104 So. 893, 213 Ala. 5.
Ariz.— Brown v. Beck, 169 P.2d 855—
Swisshelm Gold Silver Co. v. Par-
well, 124 P.2d 544, 59 Ariz. 1-62—
Huff v. Flynn, 60 P.2d 931, 48 Ariz.
175— Michener v. Standard Acci-
dent Ins. C|o., 47 P.2d 438, 46 Ariz.
66 — Avery v. Calumet & Jerome
Copper Co., 284 P. 159, 36 Ariz. 239
— Western Indemnity Co. v. Ken-
dall, 233 P. 583, 27 Ariz. 342—
Daly v. Okamura, 213 P. 389. 25
Ariz. €0.
Ark.-^Tohnson v. Jett 159 S.W.2d
73, 203 Ark. 861— Hamburg Bank
v. Jones, 151 S.W.Sd -990, 202 Ark.
622— Urschel (Lead & Zinc Mines
v. Smith, 111 S.W.2d 480, 195 Ark.
86.
Cal. — Beard v. Beard, 107 P.2d 385,
16 Cal.2d 645 — McNeil v. Blumen-
thal, 81 P.2d 566, 11 Cal.2d 5-66,
followed in Le Due v. Blumenthal,
81 P.2d 567, 11 Cal.2d 780— Brill v.
Fox, 297 P. 25, 211 Cal. 739— Rog-
ers v. Schneider, 270 P. 451, 205
CaL 202— Gomes v. Bragg, 255 P.
499, 201 Cal. 70— Waybright v. An-
derson, 253 P. 148, 200 Cal. 374—
Gorman v. California Transit Co.,
248 P. 923, 199 CaL 246— Pickerill
V. Strain, 239 P. 323, 196 QaL 6*3
— Waite v. Southern Pac. Co., 221
P. 204, 192 Cal. 467— Badges v.
Kouris, 162 P.2d 476, 71 Cal.App.2d
213 — Peterson v. Taylor, 152 P.2d
349, 66 Cal.App.2d 333— Tearney v.
Riddle, 149 P.2d 387, 64 CaLApp.2d
783— Bonfllio v. Ganger, 140 P.2d
8*1, 60 Cal.App.2d 405— Weinberger
v. Manning, 123 P.2d 531, ISO CaL
App.2d 4$ 4 — Thompson v. Button,
122 P.2d $75, -50 Cal.App.2d 272—
Schoenfeld r. Gerson, 120 P.2d 674,
48 Cal.App.2d 739— >Flores v. Smith,
117 P.2d 71.2, 41 Cal.App.2d 253—
Hicks v. Sanders, 104 P~2d 549, 40
Cal.Aw>.2d 211 — Stub v. Harrison,
96 P.2d 979, 35 CaLApp.2d 685—
Taecker v. Parker, 93 P.2d 197, 34
CaLApp.2d 143— Morgan v. Broth-
ers of Christian Schools, 92 P.2d
925, 34 Cal.App.2d 14— Shively v.
Kochman, 73 P.2d 637, 23 CaLApp.
2d 420 — Bodin v. Webb, 62 P.2d
155, 17 Cal.App.2d 422— Wright v.
Snyder, 32 P.2d 991, 138 CaLApp.
495— Bole v. McAdams, 28 P.2d
431, 136 CaLApp. 6 — John A.
Vaughan Corporation v. Title In-
surance & Trust Co., 12 P.2d 117,
123 CaLApp. 703— Golish Y. Fein-
stein, 11 P.2d 893, 123 Cal.App. 547
— U. S. v. Duesdieker, 5 P.2d 916,
148 Cal.App. 723-^Greenamyer v.
Board of Trustees of Lugo Ele-
mentary School Dist in Ix>s An-
geles County, 2 P.2d *4S, 116 Cal.
App. 319 — Dunn v. Standard Acci-
dent Ins. Co., 299 P. 575, 114 CaL
App. 208— Roehl v. Texas Co., 291
P. 262, 107 CaLApp. 708— Johnston
v. Liftman, 287 P. 558, 105 CaLApp.
187 — Hammond Lumber Qo. v.
Bloodgood, 3.S1 P. 1101, 101 Cal.
App. 561— Grey v. Milligan, 2-81 P,
656, 101 CaLApp. 323— Gordon v,
Harbolt, 280 P. 701, rehearing de-
nied 281 P. 1048— Anglo California
Trust Co. V. Kelly, 272 P. 1080, 95
CaLApp. 390— Carbondale Mach.
Co. v. Eyraud, 271 P. 349, 84 CaL
App. 356— Noble v. Reid- Avery Co.,
264 P. 341, 89 CaLApp. 75— Corgiat
v. Realty Mortgage Corporation of
California, 260 P. 573, 86 CaLApp.
37— Butler v. Robinson, 244 P. 162,
76 CaLApp. 223— Eberhart v. Sala-
zar, 235 P. '86, 71 CaLApp. 336.
Colo. — Koin v. Mutual Ben. Health &
Accident Ass'n, 41 P.2d 306, 96
Colo. 163— -(Lock v. Berkins, 33 P.
2d 393, 95 Colo. 135— Connell v.
Continental Casualty Co., 2-90 P<
274, 87 Colo. 573— Mosco v. Jean-
not, 232 P. 874, 86 Colo. 441—
Diebold v. Diebold, 243 P. 630, 73
Colo. 7 — Carpenter-liiebhardt Fruit
Co. v. Nelson, 234 P. 1067, 77 Colo.
.175 — Drinkard v. Spencer, 211 P.
379, 72 Colo. 396.
Conn. — Barton v. Barton, 196 A. 141,
123 Conn. 487.
D.C.— Cockrell v. OTllah, 50 (F.2d 500.
60 App.D.C. 210 — Ray v. Bruce,
Mun.App., 31 A.2d 693.
(Fla. — Coggin v. Barfield, 8 So.2d 9,
150 Fla. 551— Stevens-Davis Co. v.
Stock, 193 So. 745, 141 Fla. 714—
Segel v. Staiber, 144 So. 875, 106
•Fla, 946— State Bank of Eau Gallie
r. Raymond, 138 So. 40, 103 Fla.
649.
Ga. — McCray v. Empire Inv. Co., 174
S.B. 219, 49 Ga.App. 117— Carr-Lee
Grocery Co. v. Brannen, 167 S.E.
536, 46 Ga.App. 225— Nix v. Bas-
sett, 123 S.E. 37, 32 Ga.App. 345—
Golightly v. Line, 121 S.E. 873, 31
Ga~App. 550.
Idaho.— Cleek v. Virginia Gold Min-
ing & Milling Co., 122 P.2d 232, «3
Idaho 445 — Nielson v. Garrett, 43
P.2d 380, 56 Idaho 240—Savage v.
Stokes, 28 P.2d 900, 54 Idaho 109—
Mortgage Co. Holland America v.
Yost, 228 P. 282, 33 Idaho 489-
Day v. Burnett, 224 P. 427, 38 Ida-
ho 620.
111.— -Borman v. Oetzell, 46 N.K2d
914, 382 m. 110— i Kunde v. Pren-
tice, 160 N.E. 193, 329 HL 32—
Lusk v. Bluhzn, 53 N.E.2d 135, 321
672
IlLApp. 349 — Maclaskey v. Kurz, 45
N.E.2d 566, 316 IlLApp. 671— Bax-
ter v. Atchlson, T. & S. F. Ry. Co.,
35 N.E.2d 563, 310 IlLApp. *16—
Simon v. Foyer, 17 N.E.2d $32, 297
IlLApp. 640— Whalen v. Twin City
Barge & Gravel Co., 280 IlLApp.
593, certiorari denied Twin City
Barge & Gravel Co. r. Whalen/ S«
S.Ct 590, 597 TJ.S. 714, 80 I*Ed.
1000.
Ind.— Carty v. Toro, 57 N.E.2d 484.
Iowa. — Kern v. Sanborn, 7 N.W.zd
801, 233 Iowa 4M— Craig v. Welch,
2 N.W.2d 745, 231 Iowa 1009— Al-
lemang v. White, 2« N.W. 653, 230
Iowa 526— Brunswick - Balke -
Collender Co. v. Dillon, 283 N.W.
872, 226 Iowa 244— Tate y. Delli,
269 N.W. 871, 222 Iowa 635— Lena-
ley v. Hopson, 232 N.W. £11 — Bos-
senberger v. Bossenberger, 229 N.
W. 833, 210 Iowa 825 — Anderson v.
Anderson, 229 N.W. 694, 209 Iowa
1143— Chandler MilL & Mfg. Co. v.
Sinaiko, 208 N.W. 323, 201 Iowa
791 — Lawler v. Roman Catholic
Mut. Protective Soc. of Iowa, 197
N.W. 633, 198 Iowa 233— Iowa Cord
Tire Co. v. Babbitt, 192 N.W. 431,
195 Iowa 922.
gait. — American Oil & Refining Co. v.
Liberty-Texas Oil Co., 2U P. 137,
112 Kan. 309.
Ky.— Northcutt Y. Nicholson, 55 S.
W-2d 659, 246 Ky. 641— Hackney v.
Charles, 295 S.W. 869, 220 Ky. 574.
(La. — Iberville Bank & Trust Co. v.
Zito, 125 So. 435, 1*9 La, 421.
Me.— Diplock v. Blasi, 149 A. 149, 128
Me. 528.
Mass. — Kravetz v. Lipofsky, 200 N.E.
•865, 294 Mass, 80— Manzi v. Carl-
son, 180 N.E. 134, 27« Mass. 267—
Moll v. Town of Wakefleld, 175 N.
<E. '81, 274 Mass. 505.
Mich.— Orlich v. Stone, 424 N.W. 610,
246 Mich. 487.
Minn.— Peterson v. W. Davis & Sons,
11 N.W.2d 800, 216 Minn. 60—,
Whipple v. Mahler, 10 N.W.2d 771,
215 Minn. 578— Application of Bon-
ley, 6 N.W.2d 245, 213 Minn. £14—
Pilney v. Funk, 3 N.W.2d 792, 212
Minn. 398 — Isensee Motors v.
Rand, 264 N.W. 782, 196 Minn.
267 — Central Hanover Bank &
Trust Co. r. Price, 24* N.W. 287,
189 Minn. 36— Nystrom v. Nfr-
strom, 243 N.W. 704, 186 Minn. 490
— McMahon v. Peauot Rural Tele-
phone Co., 242 N.W. <620, 186 Minn.
141— Child v. Henry, 536 N.W. 202,
183 Minn. 170— Johnson v. Hall-
man, 225 N.W. 283, 177 Minn. «19—
In re Belt Line, Phalen, and Hazel
Park Sewer Assessment, 222 N.W.
520, 176 Minn. 59— Marthaler Ma-
chine & Engineering Co. v. Meyers,
218 N.W, 127, 173 Minn. 606— City
of Luverne v. Skyberg, 211 N.W.
5, 169 Minn. 234— Zell v. Friend,
Crosby & Co., 199 N.W. 928, 160
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
337
1632, the court's action will not be disturbed on appeal unless it clearly appears that there has been
% [inn. 181 — 'First Trust & -Savings
Bank v. U. S. -Fidelity & Guaranty
Co., 194 N.W. 376, 156 Minn. 231.
Ho.— Hartle v. Hartle, App., 184 S.
\Vr.2d 786 — Quattrochi v. Quat-
trochi, App., 179 S.W.2d 757— Wil-
liams v. Burr, App., 61 S.W.2d 420
— Karst v. Chicago Fraternal Life
Ass'n, App., 22 S.W.2d 178 — Good-
win v. Kochititzky, App., 3 S.W.2d
1051 — Amos James Grocery Co. v.
Prichard, App., 297 S.W. 721— Bog-
gess v. Jordan, App., 283 S.W. 57
— Case v. Arky, App., 2*3 S.W. 484.
Mont. — Madson v. Petrie Tractor &
Equipment Co., 77 P.2d 1038, 106
Mont. 382— Mihelich v. Butte Elec-
tric Ry. Co., 281 P. 540, 85 Mont
$04 — Skinner v. Carlysle Oil Devel-
opment Co., 260 P. 1038, 80 Mont.
4g4 — st Paul Fire & Marine Ins.
Co. v. Freeman, 260 P. 124, 80
Mont. 266— Reynolds v. Gladys
Belle Oil Co., 243 P. 576, 75 Mont.
330 — Pacific Acceptance Corpora-
tion v. McCue, 228 P. 761, 71 Mont
99 — in re East Bench Irr. Dist,
224 P. 859, 70 Mont 186.
Neb.— Barney y. Platte Valley Pub-
lic Power & Irr. Dist., 23 N.W.2d
335.
jf.j. — Becker v. Welliver, 34 A.2d 893,
131 N.J.-Law 64— Jarrett v, -Stand-
ard Diesel Engine Co., 12 A.2d 671,
124 N.J.Law 429— McDermott v.
City of Paterson, 4 A.2d 306, 122
N.J.Law 81 — Benedetto v. Flecken-
stein, 154 A. 769, 108 N.J.Law 1-84
— Limpert Bros. v. Manufacturers*
Liability Ins. Co., 137 A. 712, 5 N.
J.Misc. 675.
N.M. — Grant v. Booker, 249 P. 1013,
31 N.M. 639.
N.Y.— Allen v. -Fink, 207 N.Y.S. 428,
211 App.Div. 411, modified on other
grounds 208 N.Y.S. 827 — Decatur
Contracting Co. v. Edward S.
Murphy Bldg. Co., 2 N.Y.S.2d 970,
166 Misc. 614— In re Mi-Her's Will,
295 N.Y.S. 943, 162 Misc. 563, af-
firmed 300 N.Y.S. 798, 252 App.Div.
872— Crouse Grocery Co. v. Valen-
tine, 226 N.Y.S. 613, 131 Misc. 571.
N.C. — Garner v. Quakenbush, 122 S.
E. 474, 187 N.C. 603, modified on
other grounds 124 S.E. 154, 188 N.
C. ISO, 36 A.L.R. 1005.
N.D.— Beehler v. Schantz, 1 N.W.2d
344, 71 N.D. 409— Chittenden &
Eastman Co. v. Sell, 227 N.W. 188,
58 N.D. 664 — Beery v. Peterson,
225 N.W. 798, 58 N.D. 273— Mantel
v. Pickle, 218 N.W. -605, 56. N.D.
588— Powell v. Bach, 217 N.W. 172,
56 N.D. 297— Mueller v. Occident
Elevator Co., .212 N.W. 530, 55 N.
D. 206— First State Bank of Cros-
by v. Thomas, 208 N.W. 852, 54 N.
0, 108 — Burgett v. Porter, 205 N.
W. 623, 53 N.D. 312— Croonquist v.
Walker, 196 N.W. 108, 50 N,D. 388
— Farmers' & Merchants' State
49C.J.S.-43
Bank of Tolna v. Stavn, 194 N.W.
689, 49 N.D. 993.
Okl.— Franklin v. Hunt Dry Goods
Co., 123 P.2d 258, 190 Okl. 296 —
State Life Ins. Co. v. Liddell, 61
P.2d 1075, 178 Okl. 114 — Fair De-
partment Store v. Dallas Jobbing
House, 46 P.2d 529, 172 Okl. 486—
Leslie v. Spencer, 42 P.2d 119, 170
Okl. 642— Mays v. Board of Com'rs
of Creek County, 23 P.2d 664, 164
Okl. 231 — Tippins v. Turben, 19
P.2d 605, 162 Okl. 136— Sautbine v.
Jones, 18 P.2d -871, 161 Okl. 292 —
Boles v. MacLaren, 4 P.2d 106, 152
OkL 265— McKinney v. Swift, 274
P. 659, 135 Okl. 164— Nation v.
Savely, 260 P. 32, 127 OkL 117—
Givens v. Anderson, 249 P. 339, 119
Okl. 212— Nave v. Conservative
Loan Co., 245 P. 65, 117 Okl. 85—
•Farmers' Guaranty State Bank v.
Bratcher, 241 P. 340, 112 Okl. 254
—Goodwill Oil Co. v. Elliott, 230
P. 902, 107 Okl. 127 — Colley v.
Sapp, 216 P. 454, 90 OkL 139.
Or. — Merryman v. Colonial Realty
Co., 120 P.2d 230, 1-68 Or. 12—
Snyder v. Consolidated Highway
Co., 72 P.2d 932, 157 Or. 479 —
Hubble v. Hubble, 279 P. 550, 130
Or. 177 — E. J. -Struntz Planing Mill
Co. v. Paget 262 P. 263, 123 Or.
651, rehearing denied 263 P. 389,
123 Or. 651 — Anderson v. Morse,
222 P. 1083, 110 Or. 39.
Pa. — Quaker City Chocolate & Con-
fectionery Co. v. Warnock Bldg.
Ass'n, 32 A.2d 5, 347 Pa. 186—
McFadden v. Pennzoil Co., 191 A.
584, 336 Pa, 277— Luzerne Nat
Bank v. Gosart, 185 A, 640, 822 Pa.
446 — Krall v. Lebanon Valley Sav-
ings & Loan Ass'n, 121 A. 405, 2T7
Pa. 440— Welzel v. 'Link-Belt Co.,
35 A.2d 696, 154 Pa,Super. 66—
Horning v. David, 8 A.2d 729, 137
Pa.Super. 252 — Schweikart v.
American Slicing Mach. Co., 173 A.
427, 113 Pa,Super. 485.
Philippine.— Wait v. Rogers, 10 Phil-
ippine 94— Wahl v. Donaldson, 5
Philippine 11 — Quiros v. Carman,
4 Philippine 722 — California-Manila
Lumber Commercial Co. v. Gterchi-
torena, 2 Philippine 628.
R.I.— Vingi v. Vigliotti, 6 A.2d 719,
63 R.I. 9 — Fudim v. Kane, 136 A.
306, 48 R.I. 155— Rhode Island Dis-
count Corporation v. Carr, 136 A.
244 — Roy v. Tanguay, 131 A. 553
— Nelen v. Wells, 123 A, 599, 45 R.
I. 424— Milbury Atlantic Mfg. Co.
v. Rocky Point Amusement Co.,
118 A. 737, 44 RJ. 458.
S.C. — Savage v. Cannon, 30 S.E.2d 70,
204 S.C. 473— Poston v. State High-
way Department, 5 -S,E.2d 729, 192
s<Ct 137— Rutledge v. Junior Or-
der of United American Mechanics,
193 S.B. 434, 185 S.C. 142— ¥rs.
Hall's Cafeteria v. Phoenix Ins.
673
Co. of Hartford, Conn., 122 S.R
580, 128 S.C. 209.
S.D. — Smith v. Wordeman, 240 N."W.
325, 59 S.D.. 36-8— Squires v. Meade
County, 23$ N.W. 74'7, 59 S.D. 293
— Gubele v. Methodist Deaconess
Hospital of Rapid City, 225 N.W.
57, 55 S.D. 100— Connelly v. Frank-
lin, 210 N.W. 735, 50 S.D. 512.
Tex. — Lawther Grain Co. v. Wlnni-
ford, Com.App., 249 S.W. 195— Sun-
shine Bus Lines v. Craddock, Civ.
App., 112 S.W.2d 248, affirmed
Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines,
133 S.W.2d 154, 134 Tex. 388—
Simpson v. Glenn, Civ.App., 103 S.
W.2d 433 — Employer's Reinsurance
Corporation v. Brock, Civ.App., 74
S.W.2d 435, error dismissed— Far-
rell v. Truett, Abernathy & Wol-
ford, Civ.App., 60 S.W.2d 475, error
dismissed — San Antonio Paper Co.
V. Morgan, Civ.App., 53 S.W.2d 651,
error dismissed — Homuth v. Wil-
liams, Civ.App., 42 «S.W.2d 1048—
Green v. Jackson, Civ.App., 42 S.
W.2d 91— 'Federal Supply Co. v.
Bailey, Civ.App., 297 S.W. 235—
Sneed v. Sneed, Civ. App., 296 S.W.
643— ^Etna Casualty & Surety Co.
v. Austin, Civ.App., 285 S.W. 951,
affirmed; Austin v. ^B3tna Casualty
& Surety Co., Com.App., 300 S.W.
638, rehearing denied 3 S.W.2d XT,
and followed in ^Etna Casualty &
Surety Co. v. Austin, Civ.App., 2*5
S.W. 955, affirmed Austin v. -fflltna
Casualty & Surety Co., Com.App.,
200 S.W. 639 — Thomas v. Goldberg,
Civ.App., 283 S.W. 230— Mutual Oil
Consolidated v. Beavers, Civ.App.,
272 S.W. ;507 — Celeste State Bank
v. Security Nat. Bank, Civ.App.,
254 S.W. -653— Allen v. Frank, Civ.
App., 252 S.W. 347.
Utah.— Madsen v. Hodson, 256 P. 792,
69 Utah -527— Cornelius v. Mohave
Oil Co., 239 P. 475, 66 Utah 22.
Wash. — Larson v. Zabroski, 152 P.2d
154, 21 Wash.2d 572, opinion ad-
hered to 155 P.2d 284, 21 Wash. 2 d
572 — Corpus Juris cited in Roth v.
Nash, 144 P.2d 271, 275, 19 Washed
731— Bishop v. Illinan, 126 P.2d
582, 14 Wash.2d 13— Riddell v. Da-
vid, 23 P.2d 22, 173 Wash. 370—
Penfound v. Gagnon, 20 P.2d 17,
172 Wash. 311— Marsh v. West Fir
Logging Co., 281 P. 340, 154 Wash.
137— Rule v. -Somervill, 374 P. 177,
150 Wash. 605.
W.Va.— Arnold v. Reynolds, 2 S.B.2d
433, 121 W.Va. 91.
Wis. — Welfare Building & Loan
Ass'n v. Breuer, 250 N.W. 846, 213
Wis. 97, followed in West -Side
Building & Loan Ass'n v. Ander-
son, 250 N.W. 849, 213 Wis. 104,
East Side Mut Building & Loan
Ass'n v. Lock, 250 N.W. 849, 218
Wis. 105, Mortgage Discount Co.
v. Continental Discount Corpora-
337
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
an abuse of discretion. The court's discretion is
not a limitless discretion85 to be exercised arbitra-
rily or capriciously^6 without reference to any
guiding rule or principle,87 and its action must rest
on competent evidence.88 In particular cases the
circumstances may be such as to leave no room for
the exercise of discretion.89
Principles and rules as controlling the court's dis-
cretion are discussed infra subdivision j (4) of this
section.
Judgment on constructive set-vice. Under statutes
which permit defendant, against whom a default
judgment was taken on constructive service only,
to vacate the judgment and to be admitted to de-
fend the action, discussed generally supra § 335, it
has been held that, on complying with the conditions
of the statute, express and implied, the moving party
acquires an absolute right to have the judgment
opened, which the court has no discretion to deny,90
but under some statutes of this nature it has been
tion, 250 N.W. 849, 213 Wis. 106
West Side Building & Loan Ass1
v. Breuer, 250 N.W. 850, 213 Wis
107, West Side Building & Loan
Ass'n v. Continental Discount -Cor
poration, 250 N.W. 850, 213 Wis
10S, and Bast Side Mut. Buildin,
& Loan Ass'n v. Thoreson, 250 N
W. 850, 213 Wis. 109— Black Hawk
State Bank v. Kinzler, 215 N.W
433, 194 Wis. 29— Marshall Field &
Co. v. Fishkin, 192 N.W. 463, 18<
Wis. 149.
34 C.J. p 429 note 79.
During term
(1) Where motion to set aside de-
fault judgment, with supporting affi-
davits, is filed during: term at which
default judgment was entered, trial
court exercises a wide discretion. —
Allemang v. White, 298 N.W. 658
230 Iowa 526.
(2) A motion to set aside a de-
fault judgment, made promptly a1
the same term of court, is addressed
to judicial discretion of trial court
without the restrictions of code pro-
visions relating to granting of a new
trial when there has been a hearing
on the merits of the case.— Vanover
v. Ashley, 183 S.W.2d 344, 298 Ely.
722 — Carr Creek Community Center
v. Home Lumber Co., 125 S.W.2d 777,
276 Ky. -840.
(3) The rule that trial court has
wide discretion in setting. aside de-
fault judgment and that appellate
court will not intervene until such
discretion is abused is applicable
only when timely application has
been made at the same term in which
judgment was rendered. — State ex
rel. Sterling v. -Shain, 129 S.W.2d
1048, 344 Mo. 891.
(4) The granting of motion to va-
cate default judgment during term
rests within trial court's sound dis-
cretion, regardless of statute relat-
ing to judgments after term. — Miller
v. -Smith, 12 N.R2d 296, 57 Ohio App.
127.
(5) Application, during term, to
vacate default judgment, where not
founded on statutory ground, is ad-
dressed to court's discretion. —
Wheeler v. Walker, 294 P. 641, 147
Okl. 63 — Arrington v. Wallace, 288
P. 986, 143 Okl. 286— Kennedy v.
Martin, 223 P. 652, 101 Okl. 87.
(6) The discretion granted tria
judges in opening or vacating thei
judgments during the term extend
to a reasonable degree in both direc
tions. — Woodruff v. Moore, 77 P. 2
62, 182 Okl. 120.
After term
Application to vacate default judg-
ment, filed after term in which judg-
ment was rendered, is addressed to
sound legal discretion of court. — Up-
ton v. Shipley, 40 P.2d 1048, 170 Okl
422— Standard v. Fisher, 35 P.2d 878
169 Okl. IS— First State Bank of
Vian v. Armstrong, 300 P. 763, 150
Okl. 60— Morrell v. Morrell, 299 P
86-6, 149 Okl. 187-^Lott v. Kansas
Osage Gas Co., 281 P. 297, 139 Okl.
6— W. W. Bennett & Co. v. La Fay-
ette, 271 P. 248, 133 Okl. 233—
Thompson v. Hensley, 261 P. 931, 128
Okl. 139 — Bearman v. Bracken, 240
P. 713, 112 Okl. 237.
Before entry of final judgment
(1) Trial court has discretionary
power, for promotion of justice, to
remove default at any time before
judgment. — Doodlesack v. Superfine
Coal & Ice Corporation, 19S N.EJ. 773,
292 Mass. 424, 101 A.L.R. 1247.
(2) Under the statute, a motion
to set aside an order of default made
before entry of final judgment is
within the discretion of trial court
to grant or deny. — Johnston v. Medi-
na Improvement Club, 116 P.2d 272,
10 Wash.2d 44.
85. N.M. — Ambrose v. Republic
Mortg. Co., 34 P.2d 294, 38 N.M.
370.
S.D.— Cook v. Davis, 230 N.W. 765,
57 S.D. 82.
88. Cal.— Riskin v. Towers, 148 P.
2d 611, 24 Cal.2d 274, 153 A.L.R.
442 — Peterson v. Taylor, 152 P.
2d 349, 66 Oal.App.2d 333— Wein-
berger v. Manning, 123 P.2d 531,
50 Cal.App.2d 494— Toon. v. Pick-
wick Stages, Northern Division,
226 P. 628, 66 CaLApp. 450.
Ga.— Rawls v. Bowers, 172 S.B. 687,
48 Ga.App. 324.
Ky.— Farris v. Ball, 79 S.W.2d 7,
257 Ky. 683.
Wash.— Roth v. Nash, 144 P.2d 271,
19 Wash.2d 731.
Sound judicial discretion"
Exercise of "sound judicial dis- 1
674
cretion" in ruling on petition to va-
cate default judgment imports invo-
cation by clear and trained mind of
reason, courage, impartiality, and
conscience to accomplish in calm
spirit result in conformity to law
and just and equitable to all parties.
— Kravetz v. Lipofsky, 200 N.B. 865,
294 Mass. 80.
As rebuke or favor
(1) The trial court's power to set
aside default judgment should never
be withheld as a rebuke for short-
comings in practice, and it should
never be granted as a favor. — Zim-
merman v. Segal, 155 S.W.2d 20, 288
Ky. 33 — Latham v. Commonwealth,
43 S.W.2d 44, 240 Ky. 826.
(2) Court's discretion to set aside
default judgment is not to be ex-
ercised ex gratia. — Essig v. Seaman,
264 P. 552, 89 Cal.App. 295.
87. Tex.— Craddock v. Sunshine Bus
Lines, 133 S.W.2d 124, 134 Tex.
388— Southwestern Specialty Co. v.
Brown, CUv.App., 188 S.W.2d 1002,
error refused.
88. Pa.— Hamilton v. Sechrist, 16 A.
2d 671, 142 Pa.Super. 354.
Tenn.— Wright v. Lindsay, 140 S.W.
2d 793, 24 Tenn.App. 77.
89. Wash.— Roth v. Nash, 144 P.2d
271, 19 Wash.2d 731.
9a Cal.— Daniels v. Colkins, 255 P.
182, 201 Cal. 10.
Ind. — State ex rel. Karsch v. Eby,
33 NJE.2d 336, 218 Ind. 431— Padol
v. Home Bank & Trust Co., 27 N.E.
2d 917, 108 Ind.App. 401.
Kan. — Cassell v. Cassell, 166 P.2d
669, 161 Kan. 72.
Mich. — McDowell v. Mecosta Cir.
Judge, 144 N.W. 498, 178 Mich. 103.
Minn. — Kane v. Stallman, 296 N.W.
1, 209 Minn. 138 — Madsen v. Pow-
ers, 260 N.W. 510, 194 Minn. 418.
Mo.— Osage Inv, Co. v. Sigrist, 250
S.W. 39, 298 Mo. 139.
N'.J. — Security Trust Co. of Potts-
town v. Anderson, 159 A. 310, 10
NJT.Misc. 352.
N".C. — J. B. Bassett Lumber Co. v.
Rhyne, 135 S.B. 926, 192 'N.C. 735.
Okl. — Richards v. Baker, 99 P.2d 118,
186 Okl. 533— Ambrister v. Done-
hew, 83 P.2d 544, 1S3 Okl. 595 —
Wise v. Davis, 269 P. 248, 132
OkL 65— Berkey v. Rader, 244 P.
49 C.J.&
JUDGMENTS
§337
held that the granting of the application by the
court is not mandatory but is dependent on the
court's sound legal discretion,91 although it is an
abuse of discretion to refuse to vacate the judg-
ment if a meritorious defense is presented which, if
proved, would as a matter of law require a judg-
ment in favor of defendant.92
(3) Merits of Cause of Action or Defense
As a general rule under the statutes providing for
proceedings to open or vacate a default judgment the
court must determine whether or not the applicant has
a valid cause of action or a meritorious defense before
it may open or vacate a default judgment.
As a general rule under the statutes the court may I
not open or vacate a default judgment until it has
determined that applicant has a valid cause of ac-
tion or a meritorious defense to the judgment ren-
dered98 In proceedings under some statutes the
court is limited to a determination of whether or
not a valid defense is presented by the motion and
affidavits, and it may not conduct a hearing on the
merits,94 or 'consider controverting affidavits or ev-
idence,95 to determine whether the asserted cause
of action or defense should prevail, but under other
statutes it has been held that a judgment will not
be vacated until a trial on the merits has been had
and the validity of the defense asserted has been
established.96 Under the latter statutes the court
184, 116 Okl. 258— Wall v. Snider,
219 P. 671, 93 Okl. 99.
Tex.— Middleton v. Moore, Civ.App.,
4 S.W.2d ,9SS, reversed on other
grounds Moore v. Middleton, Com.
App., 12 S.W.2d 995.
Utah.— Naisbitt v. Herrick, 290 P.
950, 76 Utah 575.
•VV.Va. — State v. American Piano-
graph Co., 123 S.B. 410, 96 W.Va.
574.
34 C.J. p 426 note 47.
laches
If the question of laches is pre-
sented, a case arises for the exer-
cise of th« discretion of the court,
and it must determine whether or
not the laches is of a character that
should preclude the relief. — Boland
v. All Persons, Etc., 117 P. -547, 160
Cal. 486— Tucker v. Tucker, 139 P.
2d 348, 59 Cal.App.2d 557.
Good cause
Whether a motion states "good
cause," within statute providing that
defendant against whom judgment
is rendered on service by publica-
tion may move for new trial on
showing good cause, is within trial
court's discretion. — Smith v. Higgin-
botham, Tex.Civ.App., 112 S.W.2d 770
— Strickland v. Baugh, Tex.Civ.App.
169 S.W. 181.
pinng motion, and service of notice
The filing and service of a no-
tice of motion to set aside default
Judgment, followed by a motion for
relief from the default and proof
that notice and motion is seasona-
bly given and made, constitutes a
prima facie showing in favor of a
defendant against whom a default
judgment has been obtained.— Nahas
v. Nahas, 92 P.2d 718, 59 Nev. 220
91. Ariz.— Southwest Metals Co. v
Snedaker, 129 P.2d 314, 59 Ariz. 374
— Perrin v. Perrin Properties, 86 P
2d 23, 53 Ariz. 121, 122 A.L.R. 621
Colo. — Redeker v. Denver Music Co.
265 P. 681, 83 Colo. 870— Perry v
Perry, 219 P. 221, 74 Colo. 106 —
Bunnell v. Holmes, 171 P. 365, 6
Colo. 345.
92. Ariz.— Evans v. Hallas, 167 P,2d
94— Southwest Metals Co. v. Sned-
aker, 129 P.2d 314, 59 Ariz. 374.
93. Ariz.— Brown v. Beck, 169 P.2d
855— Michener v. Standard Acci-
dent Ins. Co., 47 P.2d 438, 46 Ariz.
66.
[owa.— - Allemang v. White, 298 N.W.
658, 230 Iowa 526.
N.C.— Parnell v. Ivey, 197 S.E. 128,
213 N.C. 644 — Cayton v. Clark, 193
S.E. 404, 212 N.C. 374.
Ohio.— Morrison v. Baker, App., 58
N.E.2d 708.
Okl. — Turner v. Dexter, 44 P.2d 984,
172 Okl. 252.
R.I.— Nelen v. Wells, 123 A. 599,
45 R.I. 424.
Wyo, — James v. Lederer-Strauss &
Co., 233 P. 137, 32 Wyo. 377.
34 C.J. p 374 note 2, p 375 note 9-
p 376 note 11.
Matters not raised by pleadings
On motion to set aside default
judgment, insurance companies,
claiming defense of failure to file
proof of loss, were not required to
Introduce question of waiver not
raised by pleadings.— Smith v. Globe
& Rutgers Fire Ins. Co., 295 S.W.
388, 174 Ark. 346, followed in Death-
erage v. Dennison, 295 S.W. 390, 173
Ark. 1180.
Postponement until retrial
Final determination of defense,
claimed on motion to vacate judg-
ment, is postponed until retrial. —
Smith v. Globe & Rutgers Fire Ins.
Co., 295 S.W. 388, 174 Ark. 346, fol-
lowed in Deatherage v. Dennison,
295 S.W. 390, 173 Ark. 1180.
94. Cal. — Sheehan v. Pioneer Lucky
Strike Gold Mining Co., 54 P.2d
72, 11 Cal.App.2d 530— Cann v
Parker, 258 P. 105, 84 CaLApp. 379,
Iowa.— Hatt v. McCurdy, 274 N.W
72, 223 Iowa 974— Brotk v. Ells-
worth State Sav. Bank, 186 N.W
3, 192 Iowa 1042.
N.Y.— Karchman v. Karchman, 227 N
Y.S. 194, 131 Misc. 462, reversed
on other grounds 230 N.Y.S. 856
224 App.Div. 773.
B,I._Nelen v. Wells, 123 A. 599, 45
R.I. 424.
675
S.D. — Cleveland Stone Co. v. Holling-
worth, 244 N.W. 917, 60 S.D. 499.
W.Va. — Womeldorff & Thomas Co. v.
Moore, 163 S.E. 47, 111 W.Va. 691.
;4 C.J. p 375 notes 6-8.
Availability of evidence
Whether the defense alleged could
be supported by evidence is not con-
sidered on the hearing. — Rosebor-
ough v. Campbell, 115 P.2d 839, 46
Cal.App.2d 257.
95. Cal. — Salsberry v. Julian, 277 P.
516, 98 CaLApp. 638, followed in
277 P. 518, amended 278 P. 257,
98 CaLApp. 645.
S.D. — Cleveland Stone Co. v. Hoi-
lingworth, 244 N.W. 917, 60 S.D.
499.
Counter-affidavits generally see su-
pra subdivision h of this section.
Allegations deemed true
(1) In considering whether a mer-
itorious defense was presented by de-
fendant moving to have default judge-
ment rendered on service by publi-
cation set aside, allegations of an-
swer and cross-complaint are deemed
to be true. — Evans v. Hallas, Ariz.,
167 P.2d 94.
(2) Statements, in verified petition
for review of default Judgment, that
allegations of plaintiff's petition,
were untrue and that defendants
had a good defense to the action,
were considered conclusively true
for purpose of showing good cause
for setting aside the judgment. —
Garrison v. Schmicke, Mo., 193 S.W.
2d 614.
96. Ohio.— National Guaranty & Fi-
nance Co. v. Lindimore, App., 31
N.E.2d 155 — Rabinovitz v. Novak,
App., 31 N.E.2'd 151.
Wyo. — Cottonwood Sheep Co. v. Mur-
phy, 44 P.2d 1000, 48 Wyo. 250,
98 A.L.R. 1373— James v. Lederer-
Strauss & Co., 233 P. 137, 32 Wyo.
377.
34 C.J. P 375 note 5.
On motion within term time where
the court's jurisdiction is not de-
pendent on statute, the truth of al-
legations of valid defense is not to
be considered on motion to vacate
§ 337
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
must first adjudicate that a meritorious ground for
vacating the judgment exists, and after it does so
it proceeds to a trial on the merits.97 Under some
statutes, where a default judgment is based on per-
sonal service of process, on a motion to vacate made
on grounds such as excusable neglect or unavoid-
able casualty a final determination of the validity
of the defense may not be made,98 but at most the
court can hear evidence only to determine whether
defendant could present a prima facie defense;99
but if judgment has been rendered on constructive
service the merits of the suit may be determined in
connection with the hearing of the motion in or-
der to avoid trial of the two issues by piecemeal.1
(4) Principles and Rules of Decision
An application to open or vacate a default judg-
ment should be disposed of In accordance with fixed le-
gal and equitable principles, to serve the ends of sub-
stantial Justice. The court should exercise its power
liberally to relieve from the judgment and It should re-
solve a real doubt In favor of the application.
An application to open or vacate a default judg-
ment should be disposed of in accordance with fixed
legal2 and equitable3 principles in such a manner as
to serve, and not to defeat or impede, the ends of
substantial justice.4 Courts usually are liberal in
opening judgments entered for want of appearance
if the default was not willful,5 and, where defend-
ant has a reasonable excuse and appears to have a
default— Resnick v. Paryzek, 154 N.
B. 350, 23 Ohio App. 327.
Judgment on constructive service
If judgment has been rendered on
constructive service the judgment
will not be vacated until after a
hearing on the merits. — Davis v.
Collums, 168 S.W.2d 1103, 205 Ark.
390 — American Inv. Co. v. Gleason,
28 S.W.2d 70, 181 Ark. 739— More-
land v. Youngblood, 247 S.W. 385,
157 Ark. 86 — Gleason v. Boone, 185
S.W. 1093, 123 Ark. 523.
97. Ohio. — Rabinovitz v. Novak,
App., 31 N.E.2d 151.
98. Tex.— Cragin v. Henderson
County Oil Development Co., Com.
App., 280 S.W. 554— Smith v. Hig^
ginbotham, Civ.App., 141 S.W.2d
752, affirmed 158 S.W.2d 481, 138
Tex. 227 — Bablngton v. Gray, Civ.
App., 71 S.W.2d 293 — Chaney v.
Allen, Civ.App., 25 S.W.2d 1115—
Sneed v. Sneed, Civ. App., 296 S.W.
643— First Nat. Bank T. Southwest
Nat Bank of Dallas, Civ. App., 273
S.W. 951.
99. Tex.— Cragin v. Henderson
County Oil Development Co., Com.
App., 280 S.W. 554— Lawther Grain
Co. v. Winniford, Com.App., 249 S.
W. 195 — Babington v. Gray, Civ.
App., 71 S.W.2d 293— Chaney v.
Allen, Civ.App., 25 S.W.2d 1115—
Sneed v. Sneed, Civ.App., 296 S.
W. 643.
1. Tex. — Harris v. Sugg, Civ.App.,
143 S.W.2d 149, error dismissed,
judgment correct — Smith v. Hiff-
ginbotham, Civ.App., 141 ..S.W.2d
752, affirmed 158 S.W.2d 481, 138
Tex. 227 — Ashton y. Farrell & Co.,
Civ.App., 121 S.W.2d 611, error
dismissed.
»T0w cause of action
Where motion for new trial was
filed by party who was served by
publication in action on note, and,
in answer to the motion, plaintiff
filed amended answer wherein plain-
tiff set up cause of action on a re-
newal of the note, action of trial
court in refusing to grant motion
to confine hearing to Question of new 1
trial and to strike the new cause
of action set up by plaintiff was not
error. — Smith v. Higginbotham, 158
S.W.2d 481, 138 Tex. 227.
2. Cal. — Weinberger v. Manning, 123
P.2d 531, 50 Cal.App.2d 494.
Idaho. — Voellmeck v. Northwestern
Mut. Life Ins. Co., 92 P.2d 1076,
60 Idaho 412.
Wash.— Roth v. Nash, 144 P.2d 271,
19 Washed 731— Bishop v. Illman,
126 P.2d 582, 14 Wash.2d 13.
Statutory law
(1) Court cannot ignore statutory
law in exercising discretion in per-
mitting default Judgment to be va-
cated.— Essig v. Seaman, 264 P. 552,
89 Cal.App. 295.
(2) While trial court has large
discretion in setting aside a default,
such discretion cannot be exercised
in contravention of statute. — Upmier
v. Freese, 202 N.W. 3, 199 Iowa 405.
3. Ky. — Clements v. Kell, 39 S.W.2d
663, 239 Ky. 396.
Pa. — Quaker City Chocolate & Con-
fectionery Co. v. Warnock Bldg.
Ass'n, 32 A.2d 5, 347 Pa. 186— Wei-
zel v. Link-Belt Co., 35 A.2d 596,
154 Pa.Super. 66.
Tex. — Sunshine Bus Lines v. Crad-
dock, Civ.App., 112 S.W.2d 248, af-
firmed Craddock v. Sunshine Bus
Lines, 133 S.W.2d 124, 134 Tex.
388.
4. Ala. — Sovereign Camp, W. O. W.,
v. Gay, 104 So. 895, 20 Ala,App.
650, reversed on .other grounds
104 So. 898, 213 Ala. 5.
Cal. — Peterson v. Taylor, 152 P.2d
349, 66 CaJ.App.2d 333— Bodin v.
Webb, 62 P.2d 155, 17 Cal.App.2d
422 — Toon v. Pickwick Stages,
Northern Division, 226 P. 628, 66
Cal.App. 450.
111. — Cooper v. Handelsman, 247 111.
App. 454.
Ky.— Farris v. Ball, 79 S.W.2d 7, 257
Ky. 683.
N.T. — Glamore Motor Sales v. Brod-
erick, 20 N.Y.S.2d 553, 259 App.Div.
1022.
Okl.— State Life Ins. Co. v. Liddell,
61 P.2d 1075, 178 OkL 114— Up-,
676
ton v. Shipley, 40 P.2d 1048, 170
Okl. 422— Standard v. Fisher, 35
P.2d 878, 169 Okl. 18— First State
Bank of Vian v. Armstrong, 300 P.
763, 150 Okl. 60— Morrell v. Mor-
rell, 299 P. 866, 149 Okl. 187— Lott
v. Kansas Osage Gas Co., 281 P.
297, 139 Okl. 6 — Thompson v. Hens-
ley, 261 P. 931, 128 Okl. 139— Bear-
man v. Bracken, 240 P. 713, 112
Okl. 237.
Or.— Nichols v. Nichols, 149 P.2d 572,
174 Or. 390 — Snyder v. Consolidat-
ed Highway Co., 72 P.2d 932, 157
Or. 479 — Peters v. Dietrich, 27 P.
2d 1015, 145 Or. 589.
S.C. — Savage v. Cannon, 30 S.E.2d 70,
204 S.C. 473.
Wash.— Larson v. Zabroski, 152 P.2d
154, 21 Wash.2d 572, opinion ad-
hered to 155 P.2d 284, 21 Wash. 2 d
572.
5. Cal. — Hammond Lumber Co. v.
Bloodgood, 281 P. 1101, 101 Cal.
App. 561.
Iowa. — Allemang v. White, 298 N.W.
658, 230 Iowa 526.
Mass. — Cohen v. Industrial Bank &
Trust Co., 175 N.B. 78, 274 Mass.
498.
Minn. — Zell v. Friend, Crosby & Co.,
199 N.W. 928, 160 Minn. 181.
N.T.— Iger v. Boyd-Scott Co., 290 N.
T.S. 619, 248 AppJDiv. 902— Long
Island Trading Corporation v. Tut-
hill, 276 N.Y.S. 477, 243 App.Div.
617 — Baldwin v. Yellow Taxi Cor-
poration, 225 N.Y.S. 423, 221 App.
Div. 717, followed in Woodward v.
Weekes, 241 N.Y.S. 842, 228 App.
Div. 870— New York State Labor
Relations Board v. Paragon, Oil
Co., 45 N.Y.S.2d 152.
Or. — Marsters v. Ashton, 107 P.2d
981, 165 Or. 507.
R.I. — Corpus Juris cited la Borden
v. Briggs, 142 A. 144, 49 R.I. 207.
34 C.J. p 429 note 80.
In ejectment, where a proposed de-
fense has merits the courts are very
liberal in setting aside a regular de-
fault on equitable terms. — Tennessee
Coal, Iron & R. Co. v. Wise, 49 So.
253, 159 Ala. 632—19 C.J. p 12U
notes 82-86.
49 O.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 337
meritorious defense, the court should freely and
liberally exercise its power to relieve .from the de-
fault judgment,6 unless the granting of the appli-
cation will unduly prejudice plaintiff by delay or
otherwise.7 A real doubt should be resolved in fa-
vor of the application,8 as the law favors a dispo-
sition of cases on the merits.9 Default judgments
will be opened or vacated more readily than a judg-
During term
(1) An effort to set aside a de-
fault judgment, made promptly at
the same term of court when no
such fixation of rights has occurred
that the setting aside of judgment
would prejudice anybody, is regard-
ed with favor. — Vanover v. Ashley,
183 S.W.2d 944, 298 Ky. 722.
(•S) Courts adopt a liberal attitude
in setting aside default judgments
during the term at which they were
rendered, and permitting defense to
be made, and a party applying to
have a default judgment set aside is
not required to show himself strict-
ly entitled to the legal relief under
statutes regulating granting of new
trial. — Bond v. W. T. Congleton Co.,
129 S.W.2d 570, 278 Ky. 829.
(3) In passing on applications to
strike out default judgment when
such applications are made at the
same term at which judgments are
entered, courts usually act liberally
and on reasonable proof of merit and
other equitable circumstances, strike
out the judgment, and let defendant
in to be heard. — Eddy v. Summers,
He., 39 A.2d 812.
(4) Courts are usually liberal in
opening default or setting aside de-
cree or judgment during term, but
different rule obtains after term. —
Sleeves v. Steeves, 9 P.2d 815, 139
Or. 261.
Proceedings under statute or Inde-
pendent suit
The courts are more inclined to
open up default judgment under
statute authorizing such relief for
mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or
excusable neglect than to vacate
judgment in an independent suit.
Matloon v. Cole, 143 P.2d 679, 172
Or. CC4— Hartley v. Rice, 261 P. 689,
123 Or. 237.
6. Cal. — Dunn v. Standard Accident
Ins. Co., 299 P. 575, 114 CaLApp.
208— Carbondale Mach. Co. v. Ey-
raud, 271 P. 349, 94 CaLApp. 356.
Colo. — Drinkard v. Spencer, 211 P.
379, 72 Colo. 396.
Fla. — Coggin v. Barfield, 8 So.2d 9,
150 Fla. 551.
Iowa. — Lemley v. Hopson, 232 N.W.
811.
Kan.— Corpus Juris quoted in Amer-
ican State Bank of Hill City v,
Richardson, 38 P.2d 96, 97, 140
Kan. 555.
Ky. — Bond v. W. T. Congleton Co,
129 S.W.2d 570, 278 Ky. 829—
Steuerle v. T. B. Duncan & Co,
299 S.W. 205, 221 Ky. 501.
Minn, — Bearman Fruit Co, v. Parker,
3 N,W.2d 501, 212 Minn. 327.
Mo. — Henneke v. Strack, App., 101 S. |
W.2d 743.
Mont. — Madson v. Petrie Tractor &
Equipment Co., 77 P.2d 103S, 106
Mont. 382— First Nat. Corporation
v. Perrine, 43 P.2d 1073, 99 Mont.
454.
Okl.— Slyman v. State, 228 P. 979,
102 Okl. 241.
S.C. — Savage v. Cannon, 30 S.E.2d
70, 204 S.C. 473— Gaskins v. Cali-
fornia Ins. Co., 11 S.B.2d 436, 195
S.C. 376.
S.D. — Gubele v. Methodist Deacon-
ess Hospital of Rapid City, 225
N.W. 57, 55 S.D. 100.
Tex. — Gordon v. Williams, Civ.App.,
164 S.W.2d 867.
34 C.J. p 372 note 84, p 430 notes S4-
88.
Default due to counsel's mistake
Generally default judgment due
to mistake of counsel will be opened
where application is promptly made,
reasonable excuse is offered, and de-
fense on merits shown. — Page v.
Patterson, 161 A. 878, 105 Pa.Super.
438.
7. Tex. — Southwestern Specialty Co.
v. Brown, Civ.App.f 188 S.W.2d
1002, error refused — National Mut.
Casualty Co. v. Lambert, Civ.App.,
149 S.W.2d 1086, error dismissed,
judgment correct.
34 C.J. p 430 note 88.
Caution must toe used in setting
aside default decree, lest negligent
be rewarded to detriment of honest
and diligent — Hyde Park Sav. Bank
v. Davankoskas, 11 N.E.2d 3, 298
Mass. 421.
Paotors for consideration
In considering whether plaintiff
will suffer injury by vacation of
judgment, it is not considered that
plaintiff has any vested rights in
shutting out a meritorious defense,
but questions of unreasonable delay,
expense, or hardship are determina-
tive factors. — Borger v. Mineral
Wells Clay Products Co., Tex.Civ.
App., 80 S,W.2d 333.
Prejudice not shown
l. — Morgan v. Brothers of Chris-
tian Schools, 92 P.2d 925, 34 CaL
App.2d 14.
8. Ariz.— Brown v. Beck, 169 P.2d
855.
Cal._Brill v. Fox, 297 P. 25, 211
Cal. 739 — Waite v. Southern Pac.
Co., 221 P. 204,. 192 Cal. 467— Bodin
v. Webb, 62 P.2d 155, 17 CaLApp.
2d 422 — Endicott v. Southern Cal-
ifornia Cleaners and Dyers, App.,
6 P.2d 556 — Williams v. McQueen,
265 P. 339, 89 Cal.App. 659 — Cor-
giat v. Realty Mortg. Corporation
677
of California, 260 P. 573, 86 Cal.
App. 37.
Fla. — state Bank of Eau Gallie v,
Raymond, 138 So. 40, 103 Fla. 649. ,
Ind.— United Taxi Co. v. Dilworth, 20
N.B.2d 699, 106 Ind.App. 627 — Rid-
dle v. McNaughton, 163 N.E. 846,
88 Ind. App. 352 — Christ v. Jo van-
off, 151 N.E. 26, 84 Ind.App. 676,
rehearing denied 152 N.E. 2, 84
Ind. App. 676.
Kan.— Corpus Juris quoted in Ameri-
can State Bank of Hill City v.
Richardson, 38 P.2d 96, 97, 140
Kan. 555.
Okl.— Morrell v. Morreil, 299 P. 866,
149 Okl. 187.
Utah.— Hurd v. Ford, 276 P. 908, 74
Utah 4C.
34 C.J. p 372 note 84, p 429 note 82.
9. Ariz. — Brown v. Beck, 169 P.2d
855.
Cal.— Kalson v. Percival, 20 P.2d 380,
217 Cal. 568— Waite v. Southern
Pac. Co., 221 P. 204, 192 Cal. 467—
McMahon v. McMahon, 160 P.2d
892, 70 Cal.App.2d 126— Potts v.
Whitson, 125 P.2d 947, 52 CaLApp.
2d 199 — Thompson v. Sutton, 122
P.2d 975, 50 Cal.App.2d 272— Nich-
olls v. Anders, 56 P.2d 1289, 13
Cal.App.2d 440— Endicott v. South-
ern California Cleaners and Dyers,
App., 6 P.2d 556 — Shupe v. Evans,
261 P. 492, 86 CaLApp. 700.
Colo. — Mountain States Silver Min-
ing Co. v. Hukill, 244 P. 605, 79
Colo. 128.
111.— Rapp v. Goerlitz, 40 N.E.2d 767,
314 IlLApp. 191.
Iowa.— Craig v. Welch, 2 N.W.2d 745,
231 Iowa 1009 — Allemang v. Whit*,
298 N.W. 658, 230 Iowa 526 — Fer-
ris V. Wulf, 249 N.W. 156, 216
Iowa 289 — Cedar Rapids Finance &
Thrift Co. v. Bowen, 233 N.W. 495,
211 Iowa 1207 — Lemley v. Hopson,
232 N.W. 811— Rounds v. Butler,
227 N.W. 417, 208 Iowa 1391, fol-
lowed in 227 N.W. 419.
Miss. — Strain v. Gay den, 20 So.2d
697, 197 Miss. 353.
Mo.— Hartle v. Hartle, App., 184 S.
W.2d 786 — Karst v. Chicago Fra-
ternal Life Ass'n, App., 22 S.W.2d
178.
Mont — Madson v. Petrie Tractor &
Equipment Co., 77 P.2d 1038, 106
Mont. 382 — First Nat. Corporation
v. Perrine, 43 P.2d 1073, 99 Mont.
454.
Okl.— Haskell v. Cutler, 108 P.2d 146,
188 Okl. 239— State ex rel. Higjgrs
v. Muskogee Iron Works, 103 P.2d
101, 187 Okl. 419 — Morrell v. Mor-
rell, 299 .P. 866, 149 Okl. 187—
Bearman v. Bracken, 240 P. 713,
112 Okl. 237.
Or.— Marsters v. Ashton, 107 P.2d
337
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
merit rendered after defendant has had his day in
court and been heard in his own behalf,10 or one
entered on a confession of judgment.11 Where
there are circumstances of fraud or great oppres-
sion in the case, a default will be readily opened.12
Generally courts look with more favor on an ap-
plication by a defaulted defendant than on a similar
application by a defaulted plaintiff.18
The court cannot properly vacate a default judg-
ment without sufficient cause,14 and where defend-
ant fails to show good grounds for setting the de-
fault judgment or decree aside,15 or fails to bring
himself within the terms of the statute granting re-
lief,16 the application is properly denied.
Whether or not relief should be granted to ap-
plicant or whether the court has abused its discre-
tion in granting or refusing relief depends on the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the individual
case,17 and under particular facts and circumstanc-
es the opening or vacating of a default judgment
has been held to be,18 or has been held not to be,19
improper or an abuse of discretion, or a refusal to
9 81, 165 Or. 507 — Steeves v.
Steeves, 9 P.2d 815, 139 Or. 261.
34 CJT. p 429 note 83.
10. Kan. — Corpus Juris quoted in
American State Bank of Hill City
v. Richardson, 38 P.2d 96, 97, 140
Kan. 555.
Okl.— Haskell v. Cutler, 108 P.2d 146,
188 Okl. 239.
84 <XJ. p 429 note 80.
U. Pa.— Roth v. Pechin, 103 A. 894,
260 Pa. 450 — Scranton Supply Co.
v. Cooper, 4 Pa.C.Pl. 103.
12. N.Y. — Greer v. Tweed. 13 Abb.
FrMN.S., 427.
Tex. — Crosby v. Di Palma, Civ.App.,
141 S.W. 321.
18. Or. — Snyder v. Consolidated
Highway Co., 72 P.2d 932, 157 Or.
479.
Season for rule
Plaintiff, who begins the litigation,
generally may withdraw his suit
and begin again without material
prejudice, while defendant cannot
abandon the case against himself. —
McAuliffe v. McAuliffe, 298 P. 239,
136 Or. 168.
ML N.Y.— Utica Gas & Electric Co.
v. Sherman, 208 N.Y.S. 594, 212
App.Div. 472.
SJX— Cook v. Davis, 230 N.W. 765, 57
S.D. 82.
15. Ala. — Kaplan v. Potera, 105 So.
177, 213 Ala, 334.
HL— Pikora v. Pilgrim Nat. Life
Ins. Co., 10 N.E.2d 894, 292 IlLApp.
634.
N.C. — Kerr v. North Carolina Joint
Stock Land Bank of Durham, 171
S.B. 367, 205 N.C. 410 — Chapman
v. Lineberry, 140 S.B. 302, 194
N.C. 811.
Pa. — Schwartz v. Stewart, 55 PaJMst.
& Co. 633, 5 Lawrence L.J. 1 —
Wood v. Whitmore, 27 Pa.Dist. &
Co. 545, 37 Lack.Jur. 57 — Oltorik v.
Bozer, Com.Pl., 40 Lack.Jur. 25.
Great injustice as sole grounds
Fact that refusal to open default
Judgment would result in great in-
justice to defendant, failing to an-
swer without sufficient excuse, does
not justify vacation thereof. — Rut-
ledge v. Junior Order of United
American Mechanics, 193 S.B. 434,
185 S.C. 142.
failure to redeem
Where a judgment by default, bar-
ring redemption, has been rendered
against a junior encumbrancer
through his excusable neglect, and
he learns of the judgment while the
period of redemption is running, but
fails to redeem, he cannot have the
judgment vacated. — Becker v. Tell
City Bank, 41 N.B. 323, 142 Ind. 99.
Failure to except to said
The chancellor properly refused to
reopen a mortgage foreclosure ac-
tion wherein a default judgment was
rendered where parties, although
sui juris and properly before the
court when judgment was rendered,
failed to except to the report of sale
which was confirmed. — Colston v.
Mitchell's Adm'x, 175 S.W.2d 1020,
296 Ky. 1.
16. Ga. — Fitzgerald v. Perran, 124
S.E. 530, 158 Ga, 755.
Iowa. — Upmier v. Freese, 202 N.W. 8,
199 Iowa 405.
Refusal of relief on motion
Where the facts are not sufficient
to justify relief on motion filed un-
der the statute, defendant may be
left to his remedy by action to have
it set aside. — Warren v. Resaake, 208
N.W. 564, 54 N.D. 65— Campbell v.
Coulston, 124 N.W. 689, 19' N.D. 645.
Absence of objection
Where failure to comply with stat-
utory provisions regarding opening a
default was not objected to at time
of hearing, motion to set aside de-
fault judgment was held properly
sustained.— Hooper v. Weathers, 165
S.B. 52, 175 Ga. 133.
17. Mont.— Reynolds v. Gladys Belle
Oil Co., 243 P. 576, 75 Mont. 332.
Okl. — Sudik v. Sinclair Oil & Gas
Co., 44 P.2d 954, 172 Okl. 334—
First Nat. Bank v. Kerr, 24 P.2d
985. 165 Okl. 16— Hall v. Price,
277 P. 239, 136 Okl. 202 — Shuler
v. Viger, 229 P. 280, 103 Okl. 129
— Boaz v. Martin, 225 P. 516, 101
Okl. 243.
Or.— Peters v. Dtetrich, 27 P.2d 1015,
145 Or. 589.
Discretionary power of court gen-
erally see supra subdivision j (2)
of this section.
Showing' abuse of discretion
Where default judgment has been
678
set aside much stronger showing of
abuse of discretion must be made
than where application to set aside
such judgment has been refused. —
First State Bank of Vian v. Arm-
strong, 300 P. 763, 150 Okl. 60 — Mor-
rell v. Morrell, 299 P. 866, 149 Okl.
187 — Bearman v. Bracken, 240 P. 713,
112 Okl. 237—34 C.J. p 372 note 82
[b].
18. Ala. — Ex parte Motley, 170 So.
81, 27 Ala.App. 241.
Cal. — Weinberger v. Manning, 123 P.
2d 531, '50 Cal.App.2d 494.
Idaho. — Kingsbury v. Brown, 92 P.2d
1053, 60 Idaho 464, 124 A.L.R. 149.
Minn.— Cacka v. Gaultoe, 3 N.W.2d
791, 212 Minn. 404.
Ohio. — Davis v. Teachnor, App.t 58
N.B.2d 208.
S.D.— Cook v. Davis, 230 N.W. 765,
57 S.D. 82.
19. Ala.— Ex parte Haisten, 149 So.
213, 227 Ala. 183 — Ex pane Sav-
age, 186 So. 586, 28 Ala.App. 440.
Cal.— Kalson v. Percival, 20 P.2d
330, 217 Cal. 568— Endicott v.
Southern California Cleaners and
Dyers, App., 6 P.2d 556— Greena-
myer v. Board of Trustees of Lugo
Elementary School Dist In Los
Angeles County, 2 P.2d 848, 116
Cal. App. 319 — Hammond Lumber
Co. v. Bloodgood, 281 P. 1101, 101
Cal. App. 561 — Corgiat v. Realty
Mortg. Corporation of California,
260 P. 573, 86 Cal.Ap&. 37.
Fla. — Kellerman v. Commercial Cred-
it Co., 189 So. 689. 138 Fla, 133.
111. — Bornman v. Rabb, 8 N.E.2d
374, 290 IlLApp. 604— Cooper v.
Handelsman, 247 Ill.App. 454.
Ind.— Alexander v. Pate, 14 N.E.2d
328, 105 Ind.App. 219.
Iowa. — Brunswick-Balke-Collender
Co. v. Dillon, 283 N.W. 872, 226
Iowa 244.
Mass. — Manzi v. Carlson, 180 N.B.
134, 278 Mass. 267.
Mich. — Rosen v. Brennan, 221 N.W.
276, 244 Mich. 397.
Minn. — High v. Supreme Lodge of
the World, Loyal Order of Moose,
290 N.W. 425, 207 Minn. 228— Isen-
see Motors v. Rand, 264 N.W. 782,
196 Minn. 267 — Chamber of Com-
merce of Minneapolis v. Thomas,
214 N.W. 57, 171 Minn. 327.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 337
open or vacate a default judgment has been held
to be,20 or has been held not to be,21 improper or
an abuse of discretion. The court may refuse to
grant the application even in cases where the ex-
istence of a meritorious defense is shown,22 but if
defendant shows a legal excuse for failure to ap-
pear and a meritorious defense to the action, and
in all matters complies with the requisites of the
statute, it has been held that the court no longer
has discretion but must set aside the judgment,23
The fact that defendant may have challenged
the validity of service by publication and the juris-
diction of the court to render any judgment will not
justify a denial of the application to have the judg-
ment opened.24 Where the order of default25 or the
default judgment26 has been entered prematurely,
an order setting aside the judgment is proper.
Where the judgment has been entered without ju-
risdiction the court must grant the application to
vacate the judgment.2? It has been held that the
Mont— KIrby v. Hoeh, 21 P.2d 732,
94 Mont. 218.
N.Y.— Konnight v. Terpak, 54 N.Y.S.
2d 796, 269 App.Div. 759 — People
ex rel. Morgan v. Gucci, 22 N.Y.S.
2d 330, 260 App.Div. 827 — Conrad
v. Harbaugh, 287 N.Y.S. 1012, 248
App.Div. 655.
N.C.— Spell v. Arthur, 171 S.B. 362,
205 N.C. 405 — Cagle v. Williamson,
158 S.B. 391, 200 N.C. 727.
N.D. — Mueller v. Occident Elevator
Co., 212 N.W. 830, 55 N.D, 206.
Okl.— Blakeney v. Ashford, 81 P.2d
309, 183 Old. 213— State Life Ins.
Co. v. Liddell, 61 P.2d 1075, 178
Okl. 114— First State Bank of Vian
v. Armstrong, 300 P. 763, 150 Okl.
60— Morrell v. Morrell, 299 P. 866,
149 Okl. 187 — Farmers' Guaranty
State Bank v. Bratcher, 241 P.
340, 112 Okl. 254.
Or.— Oeder v. Watt, 214 P. 591, 107
Or. 600.
Ba. — Bianca v. Kaplan, 160 A. 143,
105 Pa. Super. 98 — Markovitz v.
Ritter, 92 Pa.Super. 394 — Sockett
v. Philadelphia Toilet & Laundry
Co., 92 Pa. Super. 254 — Kozuhowski
& Reuss v. Snigel & Snigel, 90 Pa.
Super. 75 — Auberle v. Ciliberto,
Com.PL, 31 Del.Co. 32.
Tex. — Green v. Jackson, Civ.App.,
42 S.W.2d 91.
20. Ark.— Urschel Lead & Zinc
Mines v. Smith, 111 S.W.2d 480,
195 Ark. 36.
111.— Revzen v. Brown, 17 N.B.2d
1011, 397 IlLApp. 476.
Minn. — Bearman Fruit Co. v. Parker,
3 N.W.2d 501, 212 Minn. 327.
Neb. — Ak-Sar-Ben Exposition Co. v.
Sorensen, 229 N.W. 13, 119 Neb.
358.
Okl.— First Nat. Bank v. Kerr, 24
P.2d 985, 165 Okl. 16.
Tex. — Craddock v. Sunshine Bus
Lines, 133 S.W.2d 124, 134 Tex.
388 — Travelodge Corporation v.
Schwake, Civ.App., 126 S.W.2d 523
— Watson Co., Builders, v. Bleek-
er, Civ.App., 269 S.W. 147.
Utah.— Naisbitt v. Herrick, 290 P.
950, 76 Utah 575.
Wash. — Golson v. Carscallen, 283 P.
681, 155 Wash. 176,
21. U.S.— Glenn v. W. C. Mitchell
Co., C.C.A.N.D., 282 F. 440, modi-
fied on other grounds 285 F. 381.
Ark. — Stephenson v. Union Nat.
Bank of Little Rock, 132 S.W.2d
173, 198 Ark. 1187— Thomas v. Ar-
nold, 96 S.W.2d 1108, 192 Ark. 1127.
Cal.— Cooper v. Deon, 137 P.2d 733,
58 Cal.App.2d 789— Flores v.
Smith, 117 P.2d 712, 47 Cal.App.2d
253— Thaler v. Thaler, 15 P.2d 192,
127 Cal.App. 28 — Dwyer v. Davis, 8
P,2d 168, 120 CaLApp. 435— Ratliff
v. Ratliff, 2 P.2d 222, 116 CaLApp.
39 — M-ahana v. Alexander, 263 P.
260, 88 Cal.App. 111.
Ga. — Jones v. Empire Furniture Co.,
142 S.B. 694, 3$ Ga.App. 93.
111.— Whalen v. Twin City Barge &
Gravel Co., 280 Ill.App. 596, cer-
tiorari denied Twin City Barge &
Gravel Co. v. Whalen, 56 S.Ct
590, 297 U.S. 714, 80 L.Bd. 1000.
Ind.— National Fire Ins. Co. of Hart-
ford, Conn., v. Burton, 168 N.B. 37,
91 Ind.App. 196.
Iowa. — Bleakley v. Long, 268 N.W.
152, 222 Iowa 76 — Lernley v. Hop-
son, 232 N.W. 811 — Cedar Rapids
Nat. Bank v. Todd, 203 N.W. 390,
199 Iowa 957.
Kan. — American Oil & Refining Co.
v. Liberty-Texas Oil Co., 211 P.
137, 112 Kan. 309.
Md.— Martin v. Long, 120 A. 875, 142
Md. 348.
Mass. — Burnham v. Ellsworth, 60 N.
B.2d 959.
Minn.— Scott v. Van Sant, 258 N.W.
817, 19.3 Minn. 465— Ramsay v.
Barnard, 249 N.W. 192, 189 Minn.
333 — McMahon v. Pequot Rural
Telephone Co., 242 N.W. 620, 186
Minn. 141— Child v. Henry, 236 N.
W. 202, 183 Minn. 170— Jennrich v.
Hoeller, 234 N.W. 638, 182 Minn.
445 — MacLean v. Reynolds, 220 N.
W. 435, 175 Minn. 112— Lambertz
v. Daniels, 199 N.W. 904, 160 Minn.
180.
Mo. — Bedell v. Garton, App., 86 S.W.
2d 1073 — Acme Roofing Co. v.
Johnson, App., 26 S.W.2d 854 — Ste-
vens v. Hurst Automatic Switch &
Signal Co., App., 270 S.W. 414—
Daugherty v. Lanning-Harris Coal
& Grain Co., 265 S.W. 866, 218 Mo.
App. 187.
Mont.— Mihelich v. Buttfe Electric
Ry. Co., 281 P. 540, 85 Mont. 604.
N.J.— Becker v. Welliver, 34 A.2d
893, 131 N.J.Law 64— Kravitz Mfg.
Corporation v. Style-Kraft Shirt
Corporation, 21 A.2d 761, 127 N.J.
Law 253 — McDermott v. City of
Paterson, 4 A.2d 306, 122 N.J.Law
679
81 — Benedetto v. Fleckenstein, 151
A. 98, 8 N.J.Misc. 590, affirmed 154
A. 769, 108 N.J.Law 184.
N.M. — McCanna v. Mutual Invest-
ment & Agency Co., 26 P.2d 231,
37 N.M. 597— Grant v. Booker, 249
P. 1013, 31 N.M. 639.
N.C. — Marvin Wade Co. v. Stewart,
129 S.E. 192, 190 N.C. 854.
N.D.— Galloway v. Patzer, 226 N.W.
491, 58 N.D. 443, followed in Paul
v. Patzer, 226 N.W. 495, 58 NJX
442— Madden v. Dunbar, 201 N.W*
991, 52 N.D. 74— Jesse French &
Sons Piano Co. v. Getts, 192 N.W.
765, 49 N.D. 577.
Okl.— Thornton v. Soft, 84 P.2d 6,
183 Okl. 504 — Nave v. Conservative
Loan Co., 245 P. 65, 117 Okl. 85—
Mid-West Fruit Co. v. Davis. Ill
P. 208, 104 Okl. 254.
Pa. — Caromono v. Garman, 23 A.$d
92, 147 Pa.Super. 1.
R.I. — Delerson Press v. Silvermaa,
159 A. 735— Fudim v. Kane, 136 A.
306, 48 R.I. 155.
S.C. — Bissonette v. Joseph, 170 SJJ.
467, 170 S.C. 407.
Tex. — Southwestern Specialty Co. v.
Brown, Civ.App., 188 S.W.2d 1002.
error refused — Briggs v. Ladd, dv»
App., 64 S.W.2d 389— Celeste Sljato
Bank v. Security Nat. Bank, Civ.
App., 254 S.W. 653 — Fay v. Rob*
erts, Civ.App., 249 S.W. 533.
Wash.— Roth v. Nash, 144 P.2d 271,
19 Wash.2d 731.
22. Ga.— Taylor v. Stovall, 118 BJSL
795, 30 Ga.App. 678.
111.— Maclaskey v. Kurz, 45 N.E.M
•566, 316 IlLApp. 671.
N.M. — McCanna v. Mutual Invest*
ment & Agency Co., 26 P.2d 2S1*
37 N.M. 597.
34 C.J. p 422 note 24.
23. Idaho. — Wagner v. Mower, 257
P. 118, 41 Idaho 380— Consolidated
Wagon & Machine Co. v. Housman,
221 P. 143, 38 Idaho 343.
24. Okl. — Seekatz v. Brandenburg,
300 P. 678, 150 Okl. 53— Wise V.
Davis, 269 P. 248, 132 Okl. 65.
25. 111. — Barthelemy v. Braun, 272
IlLApp. 321.
26. Mont. — Rowan v. Gazette Print-
ing Co., 220 P. 1104, 69 Mont. 170,
27. D.C.— Consolidated Radio AT-
tists v. Washington Section, Na-
tional Council of Jewish Juniors,
105 F.2d 785, 70 App.D.C. 262.
§ 337
JUDGMENTS
49 O.J.S.
court cannot vacate the judgment where the evi-
dence does not correspond with the petition.28
Where a default judgment is subject to be set
aside because of the lack of necessary allegations
in the original petition on which judgment was
rendered, it has been held that allegations or proof
on the motion to set aside the judgment may not be
used to supply the defects in the original petition.29
k. Belief Awarded
(1) In general
(2) Modification or partial vacation
(3) Terms and conditions of relief
(1) In General
The relief which may be awarded In a proceeding
to open or vacate a default judgment depends in a large
measure on the terms of the particular statute under
which the proceeding Is brought.
In accordance with the provisions of the statutes
and the interpretation thereof in the several juris-
dictions, the court may render final judgment on
the merits after vacating the judgment;30 it can
only enter an order setting aside the judgment and
cannot give judgment on the merits;31 or, before
it has adjudicated the merits of the case, the only
order it may make is one suspending the operation
of the judgment.32 It is improper for the court to
restrain plaintiff from collecting the judgment pend-
ing proceedings to have the judgment vacated where
there has not been a compliance with the statutory
conditions for granting such relief.33 Where the
court acts under its inherent powers it may award
relief other than that provided for in proceedings
solely under the statute.34
It is an idle act for the court to set aside a judg-
ment entered on a default if it has no jurisdiction
to set aside the default35
Rights of third persons. Intervening rights of
third persons acquired in good faith will be saved,
either by provision of the statute itself or by the
order of the court38
(2) Modification or Partial- Vacation
Where a default judgment Is severable, the portion
of the Judgment which Is irregular or erroneous may be
set aside and other portions of the, judgment may be
permitted to stand.
Where a judgment is severable, the portion of the
judgment which is irregular or erroneous may be
set aside and other portions of the judgment may
be permitted to stand,37 and if a partial defense
is presented the court may modify or set aside the
decree to that extent.38 Although the court allows
the judgment itself to stand, it may permit the ques-
tion as to the quantum of damages to be opened for
hearing.39 Where a default judgment is entered as
a unit against two or more defendants and is so
irregular or erroneous as to necessitate its vacation
as to one defendant, it has been held that it must
be set aside as to all;40 but where a default judg-
N.D. — Odland v. OTCeeffe Implement
Co., 220 N.W. 923r 59 N.D. 335—
Beery v, Peterson, 225 N.W. 798,
58 N.D. 273.
28. Statutory ground not alleged
Where petition to vacate default
Judgment alleged fraud, court was
held unauthorized to vacate Judg-
ment on proved statutory ground of
irregularity, in absence of order
amending petition to correspond with
evidence. — Mt. Ida School v. Clark,
177 N.B. 604, 89 Ohio App. 389.
29. Tex. — Nueces Hardware & Im-
plement Co. v. Jecker, Civ.App.,
56 S.W.2d 474.
30. Tex. — Smith v. EHgginbotham,
Civ.App., 141 S.W.2d 752, affirmed
158 S.W.2d 481, 138 Tex. 227.
Bight to determine merits see supra
subdivision 5 (3) of this section!
Bight to accounting
Where there was no dispute about
original amount of mortgage indebt-
edness and no dispute about the pay-
ments made or about the fact that
payments were to be made monthly
on mortgage on which a default
Judgment was taken, the mortgagors
who filed suit to set aside default
Judgment as having been obtained
by fraud were not entitled to an ac-
counting.— Brown v. Merchants &
Planters Bank & Trust Co., 152 S.W.
2d 548, 202 Ark. 684.
31. N.Y.— Tilney v. Gerner, 286 N.
T.S. 919,. 247 App.Div. 859.
32. Ohio. — National Guaranty & Fi-
nance Co. v. Lindimore, App., 31
N.E.2d 155-— Rabinovitz v. Novak,
App., 31 N.R2d 151.
33. N.Y. — Walton Foundry Co. v. A.
D. Granger Co., 196 N.Y.S. 719, 203
App.Div. 226.
34. Vt— Green* v. Riley, 172 A. 633,
106 Vt 319.
35. Cal.— Brooks v. Nelson, 272 P.
610, 95 Cal.App. 144.
Idaho. — Commonwealth Trust Co. of
Pittsburgh v. Lorain, 255 P. 909,
43 Idaho 784.
36b Okl.— Berkey v. Rader, 244 P.
184, 116 Okl. 258.
34 C.J. p 427 note 63.
37. Cal.— Stack v. Welder, 43 P.2d
270, 3 Cal.2d 71.
Idaho. — Backman v. Douglas, 270 P.
618, 46 Idaho 671.
N.J. — Paterson Stove Repair Co. v.
Ritzer, 8 A.2d 133. 123 N.J.Law
145.
38. Ark.— Minick v. Ramey, 269 S.
W. 565, 168 Ark. 180.
680
Ky.— Welch v. Mann's Ex'r, 88 S.W.
2d 1, 261 K3'. 470.
39. N.J. — Horner v. Atchisoa, 132
A. 513, 4 N.J.Misc. 842.
Nominal damages
Where error in entering judgment
in replevin action for more than
nominal damages appeared on. the
face of record, defendants were en-
titled to have that part of the judg-
ment set aside. — Barslund v. Ander-
son, 103 P.2d 23, 106 Colo. 23S.
Seduction, to amount admittedly due
Pa. — Farmers Trust Co. v. IBgulf, 32
Pa.Dist. & Co. '598.
40. 111. — Skiras v. Magenis, 68 N.B.
2d 322, 324 Ill.App. 250.
Husband and wife
Where default judgment In per-
sonal injury action was entered
jointly against husband and wife,
and judgment was so defective as to
husband because of insufficiency in
the process as to necessitate its
vacation as to him, judgment was
required to also be set aside as to
wife without regard to whether suf-
ficient cause otherwise existed. —
Brown v. Zaubawky, 57 N.E.2d 856,
388 HI. 351.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 337
ment has been rendered against codefendants whose
interests are distinct and severable, and where only
one defendant moves to vacate it, it may be improp-
er to vacate the judgment as a whole.41
On denying a petition to vacate based on insuf-
ficiency of service and fraud, it has been held that
the court may not modify the original judgment42
(3) Terms and Conditions of Relief
(a) In general
(b) Paying or securing costs and ex-
penses
(c) Limiting defenses
(d) Securing payment of judgment
(e) Allowing judgment to stand as se-
curity
(f) Performance of conditions
(a) In General
Where the court has discretion in opening or vacat-
ing a default Judgment it may Impose, as a condition to
granting the application, such terms as may be just and
reasonable.
Where the opening or vacation of -a default judg-
ment is discretionary with the court, the court may
impose, as a condition to granting the application,
such terms as may be just and reasonable'13 and
which will preserve plaintiff's rights.44 Likewise,
under some statutes which entitle defendant to have
a default judgment obtained on constructive serv-
ice opened or vacated, as discussed supra § 334, the
court may impose such terms as may be just45
Terms are not properly imposed where the default
was caused by the other party's wrongful conduct,4*
where the judgment was taken without notice to
defendant,47 where the judgment was entered pre-
maturely or improvidently,48 or where it was pro-
cured by fraud and collusion.49 Where the power
to impose terms is regulated by statute it has been
held that the court may not exceed the statutory
restrictions.50
The amount of the judgment may be reduced to
correspond with the prayer for relief before it is
vacated on condition.51
Payment of amount admitted to be due. It is
proper, on opening a default, to require defendant
to pay as much of plaintiff's claim as he admits to
be due, as a condition of allowing him to dispute
the rest52
Judgment against cob'wners
Where default Judgment was en-
tered as unit against all coSwners
of tavern for automobile accident in-
juries because driver of automobile
which caused injuries was intoxi-
cated on liquor purchased in such
tavern, and thereafter court vacated
the default as to infant coiJwner be-
cause no guardian ad litem had been
appointed to represent her, the de-
fault judgment was required to be
vacated as to all other coSwners. —
Skiras v. Magenta, 58 N.E.2d 322, 824
IlLApp, 250.
41. Ala. — Ex parte C. W. Hooper &
Co., 93 So. 283,. 18 Ala.App. 490,
certiorari denied Ex parte Jones,
93 So. 661, 207 Ala. 607.
Colo.— Green v. Halsted, 238 P. 40,
77 Colo. 578.
42. Okl. — Holshouser v. Holshouser,
26 P.2d 189, 166 Okl. 45.
43. Ala. — Corpus Juris cite* in Mo-
saic Templars of America v. Hall,
124 So. 879, 220 Ala. 305.
Cal. — Sheffler v.. Hutchings, 13 P.2d
527, 124 CaLApp. 760.
Fla. — Knabb v. Reconstruction Fi-
nance Corporation, 197 So. 707, 144
Fla. 110.
N.Y.— Iger v. Boyd-Scott Co., 290 N.
Y.S. 619, 248 App.Div. 902— Bellin-
ger v. Gallo, 224 N.Y.S. 162, 221
App.Div. 482 — Famigletti v. Del
Terzo, 60 N.Y.S.2d 766.
Okl.— Halliburton v. Illinois Life
Ins. Co., 40 P.2d 1086, 170 Okl.
360.
Or.— Burkitt v. Vail, 260 P. 1014, 123
Or. 461.
R.I.— Borden v. Briggs, 142 A. 144,
49 R.I. 207.
Wash.— Roth v. Nash, 144 P.2d 271,
19 Wash.2d 731.
34 C.J. p 377 note 28.
Use of testimony of deceased wit-
ness.
Defendant's application to open de-
fault judgment which had been en-
tered on inquest sought favor of the
court, and, therefore, irrespective of
whether under present circumstances
right of plaintiff to use, without de-
fendant's consent, testimony of wit-
ness who had died since taking of
inquest was sanctioned by law, trial
court should have required defendant
to stipulate that such testimony
might be used as a condition to
opening the default. — New Amster-
dam Casualty Co. v. Augner, 28 N.Y.
S.2d 277, 262 App.Div. 113.
Examination More trial
Trial court could reasonably re-
quire defendant to submit to an ex-
amination before trial as a condition
of opening defendant's default. —
Becker v. Niagara Textile Co., 26 N.
Y.S.2d 62, 175 Misc. 963.
Trial of case without jury
N.Y. — Zeesell Realty Co. v. Cunning-
ham, 211 N.Y.S. 591, 125 Misc. 444,
modified without opinion 213 N.Y.
S. 942, 215 App.Div. 811.
TJnoontroverted, facts taken as true
In imposing conditions for open-
ing default of defendant, uncontro-
verted facts alleged in complaint
must be taken as true. — Sheffler v.
Hutchings, 13 P.2d 527, 124 CaLApp.
760.
44. N.Y.— O'Neal v. Seifert, -288 N.
Y.S. 125, 24S App.Div. 638— Warren
v. Boehm, 260 N.Y.S. 474, 236 App.
Div. 602.
45. Cal.— Gray v. Lawlor, 90 P. 691,
151 Cal. 352, 12 Ann.Cas. 990.
34 C.J. p 426 note 48.
46. N.Y.— Mitzas v. Spector, 212 N,
Y.S. 295, 125 Misc. 923.
47. N.Y. — Pearson Bros. v. Fratian-
ni, 20 N,Y.S.2d 680.
34 C.J. p 379 note 34.
48. Or.— Mitchell v. Campbell, 13 P.
190, 14 Or. 454.
34 C.J. p 379 note 35.
49. N.Y.— Marotta v. Marvullo, 160
N.Y.S. 1003.
34 C.J. p 379 note 86.
50. N.Y.— Wood v. Gallagher, 200 HT.
Y.S. 361, 206 App:Div. 738.
Utah.— Kurd v. 'Ford, 276 P. 908, f4
Utah 46.
BL N.Y.— Famigletti v. Del Terzo,
57 N.Y.S.2d ,101, 185 Misc. 4*3,
modified on other grounds 60 N.Y.
S.2d 766.
52. Cal. — Youngman v. Tenner, &
P. 120, 82 Cal. -611.
34 C.J. p 382 note 67.
681
§ 337
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
(b) Paying or Securing Costs and Expenses
Unless otherwise provided by statute, the trial court
In opening or vacating a default judgment may impose
such terms as to the payment of costs as in its discre-
tion it determines to be proper.
Unless otherwise provided by statute,53 the trial
court in opening or vacating a default judgment
may impose such terms as to the payment of costs
as in its discretion it determines to be proper.54 It
is usually proper for the court to impose as a con-
dition a requirement that defendant shall pay the
accrued costs in the action,55 and also, in a proper
case and where justice requires it, the disburse-
ments of the opposite party,56 his reasonable per-
sonal expense incurred in connection with the suit,57
a proper fee to his attorneys,58 and the costs of
the motion itself.59 Where a judgment is opened
or vacated as a matter of favor or grace to de-
fendant and on his motion, costs ordinarily should
be imposed on him.60
Under some statutes payment of all the costs
which have accrued is a mandatory condition for
opening the default,61 but, if not required by stat-
ute, the court may properly omit the imposition of
costs as a condition,62 particularly if it is not in-
sisted on by plaintiff63 or if defendant is not charge-
able with any negligence or fault in suffering the
judgment64 The imposition of a condition that de-
fendant pay all costs may be erroneous.65 The
court may properly require the payment of a lump
sum as a condition for opening the judgment.66
Where it is improper to impose any terms as a
condition of opening the judgment, it is not proper
to require payment of costs, etc., as a condition of
relief,67 as where the court had no jurisdiction of
defendant,68 where the entry of the default judg-
ment was erroneous,69 or where judgment by default
was entered at a time when the party was not in
default70 or in violation of an agreement not to
do so.71
Defendant may be required to secure any costs
and disbursements that may thereafter be adjudged
in favor of plaintiff in the action.72
Costs to abide event. It has been held that costs
may be left to abide the event,73 and, where this
53. Ala. — Mosaic Templars of
America v. Hall, 124 So. 879, 220
Ala. 305.
9C Neb.— -Barney v. Platte Valley
Public Power & Irr. Dist, 23 N.
W,2d 335.
55. Mo. — Crown Drug Co. v. Ray-
mond, App., 51 S.W.2d 215.
Pa.— Horning v. David, 8 A.2d 729,
1S7 Pa.Super. 252.
14 C.J. p 380 note 47.
Imposition of costs generally see in-
fra subdivision p of this section.
Default opened by plaintiff
Costs may be awarded to defend-
ant where be is without fault on
opening of default judgment by
plaintiff.— Delbon v. Krautwald, 171
N.Y.S. &92.
$6. Pa.— Homing v. David, 8 A.2d
729, 137 Pa.Super. 252.
*4 C.J. p. S8.1 note 48.
Reimbursement for trouble caused by
defendant's conduct
N.Y.— O'Neal v. Seifert, 288 N.Y.S.
125, 248 App.Div. 638.
ft. Wis.-^Brihm v. <aDtna Ins. Co.
of Hartford, Conn., 211 N.W, 759,
191 wis. aas.
34 C.J. p 381 note 49.
Additional expense for witnesses
Trial court did not abuse its dis-
cretion in overruling defendant's mo-
tion to set default Judgment aside
«nd grant a new trial in suit for
. damages sustained as result of au-
tomobile accident, where plaintiffs
lost contact with two witnesses who
were present at scene of accident
«nd defendant did not offer to bear
«&y additional expense to which
plaintiffs would be put in case a new
trial should be granted and defend-
ant refused to agree to immediate
trial. — Southwestern Specialty Co. v.
Brown, Tex.Civ.App., 1&8 S.W.2d
1002, error refused.
58. R.I. — Shapiro v. Albany Ins. Co.,
163 A. 747.
34 C.J. p 381 note 50.
59. N.J. — 'Fox v. Simon & Krivlt,
Inc., Sup., 109 A. 900.
34 C.J. p 381 note 51.
Costs on appeal from order denying
application
Neb. — Barney v. Platte "Valley Public
Power & Irr. Dist, 23 N.W.2d 335.
Wash.— Melosh v. Graham, 210 P.
667, 122 Wash. 299.
60. N.Y.— Linden . v. West 21st
Street Holding Corporation, 12 N.
Y.S.2d 77, 257 App.Div. 844.
34 C.J. p 381 notes 57, -58.
61. Ga.— Miller v. Phoenix Mut
Life Ins. Co., 147 S.E. 527, 168 Ga.
321 — Fitzgerald v. Ferran, 124 -S.
E. 530, 158 Ga. 758 — Rawls v. Bow-
ers, 172 S.E. 887, 48 Ga.App. 324 —
Henderson v. Ellarbee, 13.1 S.E.
524, 35 Ga-App. $ — Sweat v. L.
Mohr & Sons, 94 S.E. 79, 21 Ga.
App. 93.
W.Va. — Shenandoah Valley Nat.
Bank v. Hiett, «6 S.B.2d 769, 121 W.
Va. 454.
02. Cal.— Carbondale Mach. Co. v.
Byraud, 271 P. 349, 94 CaLApp. 356.
34 C.J. p 381 note 53.
63. Cal. — Robinson v. Merrill, 22 P.
260, 80 Cal. 415.
Ga. — Butler v. Richmond & D. R.
Co., 15 S.E. 668, 88 Ga. 594.
682
64. Wis.— Reeves v. Kroll, 113 N.W.
440. 133 Wis. 196.
34 C.J. p 351 note 55.
65. N.Y. — Voelker v. 'Fieldman, 221
N.Y.S. 919, 222 App.Div. 826.
34 C.J. p 381 note -56.
66. Twenty-five dollars
Cal.— Stub v. Harrison, 96 P.2d 97*,
35 Cal.App.2d 685.
N.Y.— Iger v. Boyd-Scott Co., 290 N.
Y.-S. 619, 248 App.Div. «02— Voelker
v. Fieldman, 226 N.T.S. 919, 222
App.Div. 826.
Wash.— Melosh v. Graham, 210 P.
667, 122 Wash. 299.
67. N.Y.— Girbekian Y. Castikyan,
111 N.Y.S. 243, 126 App.Div. 812.
34 C.J. p 381 note 60.
68. Cal.— Waller -v. Weston, 57 P.
892, 125 Cal. 261.
34 C.J. p 381 note 61.
69. Ohio.— McCabe v. Tom, 171 N.E.
£68, 35 Ohio App. 73.
7a N.Y.— Gillespie v. Satterlee, 42
N.Y.S. 463f 18 Misc. 606.
71. N.Y.— Marotta v. Marvulla, 160
N.Y.S. 1003.
34 C.J. p 381 note 63.
72- Or. — Russell v. Piper, 201 P.
436, 101 Or. 680.
34 C.J. p 382 note 66.
Approval of bond nnno pro tuno
Superior court can approve bond
nunc pro tune as of time prior to
proceedings without objection subse-
quently to entry of order vacating
judgment of dismissal. — Smith v.
Brown, 184 N.B. 383, 282 Mass. 81.
73. Ky.— Williams v. Taylor, 11
Bush 375.
49 C. J. S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 33 <
is done, the court may impose the condition that de-
fendant shall furnish security for them,74 but it
has also been held to be error to award costs of
the motion to abide the event.75
(c) Limiting Defenses
The court In Its discretion may require, as a con-
dition to opening a default Judgment, that the defend-
ant shall plead Issuably or to the merits, or It may re-
strict him to the defenses set up In his petition or mov-
ing papers.
It is in the discretion of the court on opening a
default judgment to require as a condition that de-
fendant shall plead issuably or to the merits,76 and
that he shall not resort to a demurrer77 or dilatory
plea.78 In like manner, it may, if it deems proper,
restrict him to the defenses set up in his petition
or moving papers.79 So the court, in its discretion,
may make it a condition that defendant shall for-
bear to set up some particular defense which is con-
sidered unconscionable or purely technical.80 It is
an abuse of discretion, however, to require defend-
ant to waive a meritorious defense.81 The statute
of limitations has been held to be a meritorious de-
fense which should not be excluded as a condi-
tion for opening the default judgment,82 if it would
have been available as a defense at the time the
default judgment was entered,83 but if the statute
of limitations would not have been a defense at
the time the default was taken,84 or if the ac-
tion is one to which a statute of limitations cannot
apply,85 defendant may be required to waive or
abandon it as a condition to opening the judgment
(d) Securing Payment of Judgment
Where conditions, may be Imposed on the opening
of a default Judgment the court may require the de-
fendant to give a bond or undertaking to pay any Judg-
ment plaintiff may eventually recover.
Where conditions may be imposed, it is within the
authority of the court, on opening a default judg-
ment, to impose the condition that defendant shall
give a bond or undertaking to pay any judgment
plaintiff may eventually recover.86 This, however,
is regarded as a severe condition, and will be held to
be an abuse of discretion unless the facts of the
case and the situation of the parties fully justify
it.87 Security for payment of the judgment must
be made a condition when so provided by statute.8*
It is also competent for the court in proper cases
to require defendant to give an undertaking that
he will not sell or encumber any of his property so
as to hinder plaintiff in the collection of his claim,**
or even to require him to deposit with the clerk of
the court a su>n sufficient to secure plaintiffs
claim.90
74. Ky.— Williams v. Taylor, supra,
34 C.J. p 382 note 65.
75* N.T. — Richardson v. Sun Print-
Ing- & Publishing Ass'n, 46 N.Y.S.
814, 20 App.Div. 329 — Roome v.
linger, 12 N.T.S.2d 523, 171 Misc.
293.
76. Kan. — Kansas Torpedo Co. v.
Brie Petroleum Co., 89 P. 913, 75
Kan. 530.
34 C.J. p 379 note 40.
77. Iowa.— Perkins v. Davis, 3
Oreene 235.
rRTis. — Doty v. Strong, 1 Pinn. 313,
40 Am.D. 773.
Where no terms should be imposed
on defendant, a requirement that de-
fendant shall answer by a certain
time has been held to be erroneous,
since it deprives him of the right to
demur.— Berg v. Pohl, 63 N.T.-S. 799,
24 Misc. 740.
73^ <3ai. — Dennison v. Chapman, 36
P. 943, 102 Cal. 618.
34 C.J. p 380 note 42.
79. S.C. — Powers v. 'Fidelity & De-
posit Co. of Maryland, 166 S.B. 729,
167 S.C. 513.
34 C.J. p 380 note 43.
80. Md.— Cornblatt v. Bloch, 103 A.
137, .132 Md. 44.
34 C.J. p 380 note 44.
Wont of Jurisdiction
Where the court has jurisdiction
of the class of cases to which the
one at bar belongs, but for some rea-
son failed to acquire jurisdiction in
the -particular case, it has power, on
opening a default at defendant's re-
quest, to impose the condition that
he shall waive the want of jurisdic-
tion.—Putney v. Collins, 8 Grant,
Pa., 72.
81. Or.— Mitchell v. Campbell, 13 P.
190, 14 Or. 454.
34 C.J. p 380 notes 45, 46.
82. R.I. — Corpus Juris cited in. Bor-
den r. Briggs, 142 A. 144, 49 R.L
207.
34 C.J. p 380 note 46 [b] (2), (3).
However, there are general state-
ments in son e cases to the con-
trary.— Audubon v. Excelsior Fire
Ins. Qo., 10 Abb.Pr.,N.T., 64— Fox v.
Baker, 2 Wend.,N.T., 244.
83. N.T. — Musgrave v. Musgrave,
176 N.T.S. 314, 188 App.Div. 908.
84. Ala. — Sawyer v. Patterson, 12
Ala. 295.
85. Wis.— Meiners v. Frederick Mil-
ler Brewing Co., 47 N.W. 430, 78
Wis. 364, 10 L.R.A. 586.
86. Cal.— Sheffler v. Hutchings, 13
P.2d 527, 124 CaLApp. 7-60.
I^a, — Taylor v. Gorman, 126 A. 897,
146 Md. 207.
N.T.—- Goldstein v. Marks, 59 N.T.S.
2d 663— Rosenstreich & Ballon v.
Scher, 202 N.T.S. 2-65.
683
Okl.— Halliburton v. Illinois
Ins. Co., 40 P.2d 1086, 170 Okl S60.
34 C.J. p 382 note 69.
87. N.T— Dietz v. Weisthal, 32T &
T.S. 568, 131 Misc. 697.
34 C.J. p 382 note 70.
TTnitttentioiial or unwillful default
Where defendants' default was nei-
ther intentional nor willful, it was
improper to require the filing of caaa
or a bond as a condition for opening
the default.-X3-ustavus J. Esselen,
Inc., v. Visor, 45 N.T.S.2d 258, ISO
Misc. 537.
88. Del.— Penn Central Light A
Power Co. v. Central Eastern Pow-
er Co., 171 A. 332, 6 W.W.Harr. 74,
Applicability of statute
Code provision, authorizing1 court,
without requiring security, to take
off default judgments if defendant
files affidavit of lack of notice of
suit, has been held applicable only
to judgments in default of appear-
ance entered under same code sec-
tion, not to judgments for want of
affidavit of defense obtained under
different code section. — Penn Central
Light & P*wer Co. v. Central East-
ern Power Co., 171 A. 332, 6 W.W.
Harr. 74.
89. N.T. — Schwartz v. Schendel, S3
N.T.S. 773, 24 Misc. 701.
90. N.T.— Fuchs & Lang Mfg. Co. t;
§ 337
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
(e) Allowing Judgment to Stand as Security
On opening a default judgment the court may prop-
erly impose the condition that the Judgment already en-
tered shall stand as security for the amount ultimately
recovered.
On opening a default judgment to let in a de-
fense it is proper to impose the condition that the
judgment already entered shall stand as security for
the amount ultimately recovered.91 Where this is
done the judgment exists only for the purpose of
security.52 Such condition, however, need not be
imposed where it is not necessary for plaintiffs
protection;98 and, where the judgment debtor has
a right to have the judgment opened or vacated un-
conditionally, such right cannot be clogged with
the condition that the judgment shall stand as se-
curity.94
Where the statute requires security for payment
of the judgment, the court cannot accept the judg-
ment itself as security by ordering it to remain cau-
tionary.96
(f) Performance of Conditions
Compliance with the terms Imposed on the opening
of a default Judgment is a condition precedent to the
granting of relief.
Compliance with the terms imposed on the open-
ing of a default judgment is a condition precedent
to the relief granted; unless and until they are com-
plied with the judgment remains in full force and
effect.96 The performance of the conditions, how-
ever, may be waived by the party for whose bene-
fit they were prescribed,97 and, where a judgment
which should never have been entered is stricken off
on terms, an order reinstating it for noncompliance
with the terms is erroneous.98
L Findings
In a proceeding to open or vacate a default Judg-
ment, only the specific findings required by statute need
be made by the court.
In a proceeding to open or vacate a default judg-
ment, the court must make specific findings required
Springer & Welty Co., 37 N.Y.S.
24, 15 Misc. 443.
34 C.J. p 382 note 72.
91. Ind.— Christ v. Jovanoff, 1*2 N.
U. 2, 84 Ind.App. 67*.
OkL— Halliburton v. Illinois Life Ins.
Co., 40 P.2d 1086, 170 Okl. 360.
S.D.—Boshart v. National Ben. Ass'n
of Mitchell, 273 N.W. 7, 65 S.D.
260.
34 C.J. p 382 note 73.
92. 111.— Kroer y. Smith, 48 N.E.2d
743, 318 Ill.A^p. 489.
93. Wis. — Bond v. Neuschwander, 57
N.W. 54, 86 Wis. 391.
04 C.J. p 383 note 75.
94. N.T. — Tates v. Guthrie, 23 N.M.
741, 119 N.Y. 420.
34 C.J. p 383 note 77.
95. DeL— Penn Central O^ight &
Power Co. v. Central Eastern Pow-
er Co., 171 A. 332, 6 W.W.Harr. ?4.
96. Ga. — Coker v. Llpscomb, 87 S.
JSL 704, 17 GaJ^pp. 506.
34 a JT. p 883 note 73.
Piling1 answer originally tendered
(1) Where order vacating* default
Judgment was on condition that de-
fendant file answer originally ten-
dered, defendant could not raise ju-
risdictional questions invoking addi-
tional relief from that contemplated
In original answer. — Powers v. Fidel-
ity & Deposit Co. of Maryland, 166 S.
B. 729, 167 S.C. 513.
(2) Defaulting defendant's serving
•f answer adding new matter was
held not noncompliance with order
vacating default judgment, directing
defendant to file answer originally
tendered, where such order required
defendant to serve itemized state-
ment and authorized plaintiff to
plead thereto. — Powers v. -Fidelity &
Deposit QO. of Maryland, 1-66 S.B.
729, 167 S.C. 513.
Order requiring- surety company feond
Bond signed by individual surety
was held not to comply with order
for setting aside default judgment on
filing surety company bond. — Boyle v.
Berg, 218 N.W. 757, 242 Mich. 225.
Payment of costs
Under statute dealing with the
opening of judgment after default on
service by publication, the require-
ment that applicant must "pay all
costs, if the court require them to be
paid," does not require of applicant
a formal offer to pay costs before the
court orders that they be paid. —
Bagsby v. Bagsby, 89 P.2d 34-5, .184
Okl. 627, 122 A.L.R. 155.
Sending check by registered mail
Defendants' tender to plaintiff's at-
torney of cashier's check, payable to
plaintiff, for sum which trial court
directed defendants to pay -plaintiff
as costs in order conditionally grant-
ing defendants' motion to set aside
default and judgment thereon, and
sending of check by registered mail,
addressed to plaintiff at room near
that of plaintiff in same building,
after plaintiff's attorney had refused
check, but within time limited by
court order, was sufficient compli-
ance with terms thereof, so as to
authorize final order unconditionally
setting aside default and judgment.
—Hayes v. Pierce, 104 P.2d 493, 15
CaLM 662— Hayes v. Pierce, 64 P.2d
728, 18 Oal.App.2d 531.
684
Search for accrued costs
Where the trial court orders a de-
fault judgment reopened pursuant to
statute on condition that defendant
pay costs, defendant is not ordinar-
ily required to search beyond appear-
ance docket for accrued costs in aa
effort to comply with order. — 'Lofton
v. MclAicas, 113 P.2d 966, 189 OkL
115.
Payment from account with clerk
Defendant was held not to have
failed to pay costs required by order
vacating default judgment where
credit of defense counsel's running1
account with clerk of court relieved
plaintiff from responsibility of pay-
ment.— Powers v. Fidelity & Deposit
Co. of Maryland, 166 S.E. 729, 167 S.
C. 513.
Belief from consequences of noncom-
pliance
Although practice of moving at
special term after same question has
been passed on by another special
term is not approved, the special
term had power under circumstances
to relieve defendant from noncom-
pliance with order of special term as
made by official referee, where the
order conditionally opened defend-
ant's default, which, however, was
never opened, since defendant de-
faulted in complying with such or-
der.— Schleeter v. Bommer, 53
S.2d 167, 268 App.Div. 1020.
97. N.Y.— Bimboni
157 N.T.S. 314.
34 C.J. p 383 note 79.
v. McCormack,
98. Md.— Wolfe v, Murray, 6*4
876, 96 Md. 727.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
337
by statute," but it need not make specific findings
which arc not required by statute.1
m. Order
(1) In general
(2) Operation and effect
(3) Renewal of application
(1) In General
An order vacating a default judgment Is properly
limited to the issues which are before the court, and
which are necessary to a decision.
An order vacating a default judgment is prop-
erly limited to the issues which are before the
court,2 and which are necessary to a decision.8 Al-
though a statute requires the grounds on which a
new trial is granted to be specified of record, it has
been held that the court in setting aside a default
judgment need not specify the grounds for its ac-
tion.4 On denial of a motion to vacate a default
judgment it has been held that it is error for the
court to insert in the order a provision permitting
defendant to answer.^ An order that the judgment
be set aside and that the cause be retained to be
heard on the merits has been held to vacate the
verdict on which the judgment was based as well
as the judgment.6
Where the statute provides that a judgment shall
not be vacated until it is adjudged that a valid de-
fense exists, the entry of the order vacating the
judgment must show that the court adjudged that
a valid defense existed if not otherwise apparent
on the record.7
An order may constitute a judicial order al-
though it is not entered in the court's minutes.*
The trial court's memorandum may be considered
with the order vacating the judgment to deter-
mine the reason for the order.*
Nunc pro tune entry. Where no formal order
appears of record although a hearing was had
and judgment reopened, the court may enter a
nunc pro tune order in accordance with the facts
reflected by the minutes.10 An order containing no
recital that it is entered as of an earlier date and
which relates to a subject other than an earlier or-
der cannot be regarded as a nunc pro tune entry
as of the time of the earlier order.11
Right to knowledge of order. If the court sus-
tains defendant's motion to set aside a default judg-
ment, plaintiff is entitled to know that fact.12
(2) Operation and Effect
An order vacating a default Judgment Is binding on
all parties and must be given full faith and credit until
vacated or reversed.
An order vacating a default judgment is binding
on all parties13 and must be given full faith and
credit until vacated or reversed.14 As a general
rule the order leaves the case pending for further
and final action on the merits,15 and the case stands
in the docket in the same condition as though the
judgment had never been rendered.16 The order
99. N.C.— Parnell v. Ivey, 197 S.B.
128, 213 N.C. 644— Cayton v. Clark,
193 S.E. 404, 213 N.C. 3-74.
1. Cal. — Wood v. Peterson 'Farms
Co., 22 P.2d 565, 132 Cal.App. 233.
2. Ga. — Maynard v. Luton, 146 -S.B.
640, 39 Ga.App. 242.
Vacating- judgment to bring* in. party
Vacating default judgment in or-
der to allow the bringing in of a nec-
essary party did not justify setting
'aside the default itself but only the
judgment. — Taylor v. Western States
Land & Mortgage C|o,, 147 P.2d 36,
63 Cal.App.2d 401.
Xack of jurisdiction
An order vacating default judg-
ment because of lack of jurisdiction
is not void as transcending scope of
rule to show cause why default judg-
ment should not be reopened. — Pal-
ansky v. Reich, 164 A. 701, 11 N.J.
Misc. 106, affirmed 168 A. 297, 11 N.
XLaw 341.
S. Ky.— Welch v. Mann's Ex'r, 88 S.
\V.2d 1, 261 Ky. 470.
4* Mo. — Crossland v. Admire, 24 S.
W. 154, 118 Mo. 87.
S. N.Y.— Levine v, Berger, 21 N,Y.
S.2d 449.
a N.C.— Gosnell v. Billiard, 171 S.
B. 52, 205 N.C. 297.
Default entered by clerk
An order relating to vacating judg-
ment rendered by court has been
held sufficient to vacate default en-
tered by clerk. — -Week v. Sucher, 274
P. 579, 96 Cal.App. 422.
7. Ohio. — National Guaranty &
Finance Co. v. Lindimore, Apj?., 31
N.E.2d 155.
8. Tex.— Buttrill v. Occidental -Life
Ins. Co., Civ.App., 45 S.W.2d -636.
9. Minn. — Marthaler Machine & En-
gineering Co, v. Meyers, 218 N.W.
127, 173 Minn. 606.
10. Okl.—H Lofton v. McLucas, 113 P.
2d 966, 189 Okl. 115.
Order made by agreement of parties
Court erred in denying motion to
enter nunc pro tune in minutes of
court order made by agreement of
parties vacating default judgment as
to sureties on waiver of jury, par-
ticularly where entry did not con-
tradict record.— Buttrill v. Occidental
Life Ins. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 45 S.W.2d
636.
11. Ohio.— Levy v. Foley, 61 N.B.2d
615, 75 Ohio App. 220.
12. N.Y.— National Advertising
Agency v. Greco, 201 N.Y.S. 704.
13. Pla. — Adelhelm v. Dougherty,
176 So. 775, 129 Fla. 680.
14. 111.— Haller v. Rieth, 247 111.
App. 541.
R.L— 'Feldman v. Silva, 171 A. 922,
•54 RI. 202.
15. Ga. — Ryles v. Moore, 13 S.B,2d
672, 191 Ga. 661.
Ind.— State ex rel. Krodel v. Gilki-
son, 198 N.E. 323, 209 Ind. 213.
Determination of merits in the pro-
ceedings see supra subdivision j
(3) of this section.
Order at same term
Setting aside default judgment on
motion at same term judgment was
rendered does not affect merits, but
provides means whereby merits may
be tried.— Metz v. Melton Coal Co.,
47 -S.W.2d 503, 185 Ark. 486.
Granting' new trial
Setting aside of default judgment
amounted to granting of new trial
at term of court at which judgment
was entered and set aside. — Saund-
ers v. Hornsby, Tex.Civ.App., 173 S.
W.2d 795, error refused.
16. Tex.— Trujillo v. Piarote, 53 S.
685
337
JUDGMENTS
49 O.J.S.
gives defendant only a right to be heard and does
not preclude the court on final hearing from enter-
ing such judgment as is warranted by the facts of
the case.17 In a statutory proceeding an order va-
cating a decree will not be given greater effect than
that contemplated by the statute.18
A judgment overruling a motion to vacate a de-
fault judgment for lack of jurisdiction constitutes
a decision that the default judgment was valid in a
jurisdictional sense.19
A judgment setting aside a default may be amend-
ed during the term.20
Void orders. An order, entered without jurisdic-
tion, opening a judgment of default is void,21 and
the court may properly disregard such order.22
Subsequent orders based on a void order vacating
a default are also invalid.28
(3) Renewal of Application
The strict rule of res Judlcata does not apply to a
decision on a motion to vacate a default judgment and
the court In its discretion may allow and act on a re-
newal of the motion.
The strict rule of res judicata does not apply to
a decision on a motion to vacate a default judgment
and the court in its discretion may allow and act
on a renewal of the motion,24 at least where the
order denying the first motion is vacated25 or where
^different grounds are alleged in the second motion,26
"but it may also properly dismiss a motion for the
reason that it has formerly been refused.27 In
some jurisdictions a second application may be per-
mitted even on the same grounds which were pre-
viously ruled on adversely,28 but in other jurisdic-
tions a judgment refusing to open a default judg-
ment concludes defendant as to a second motion on
the same grounds,29 although defendant may not
have been present when the first motion was heard
and a judgment was rendered.30 To justify grant-
ing the second motion, the motion must show ad-
ditional facts to excuse the default and not merely
newly discovered evidence,31 and if it does not re-
fer to the first motion it must contain a full show-
ing of facts to excuse the default.32 Where the
second application is for different relief, as, for
instance, where the former motion was to vacate
a judgment as a nullity, and the second is to open
up such judgment and let the applicant in to de-
fend, or vice versa, the denial of the first motion
is no bar as to the second.33
Where defendant after two opportunities has
failed to show a meritorious defense, it has been
held that an order denying an application to open
a default should not grant leave to renew the ap-
plication.34
Application in different cowt. After a motion
to remove a default has been denied, it has been held
that the party may not petition another court of
concurrent jurisdiction for relief on the same
grounds.35
Necessity for leave. It has been held that leave
W.2d 466, 122 Tex. 173 — Saunders
v. Hornsby, Civ.App., 173 S.W.2d
795, error refused.
17. Ky. — Joseph v. Bailey, 277 S.W.
466, 211 Ky. 394.
jg. U.S. — tJ. S, v. Mayse, C.C.A.Or.,
5 F.2d 885, certiorar! denied Leath-
erman v. Mayse, 46 S.Ct. 105, 269
U.S. 580, 70 L.Ed. 422.
19. D.C. — Operative Plasterers' and
Cement Finishers' International
Ass'n of U. -S. and Canada v. Case,
93 F.2d 56, 68 App.D.C. 43.
20. Ind. — Butcher v. Olmstead, 182
N.E. 235, 99 IndLApp. 92.
21. Cal.— Gibbons v. Clapp, 277 P.
490, 207 Cal. 221.
Ga. — Avery & Co. v. Sorrell, 121 S.
B. 828, 157 Ga. 476, answers to cer-
tified questions conformed to 122
S.E. 638, 32 Ga.App. 41.
Ohio. — Ryan v. Buckeye State Build-
ins & 'Loan Co., 163 N.B. 719, 29
Ohio App. 476.
22. Cal. — G'bbons v. Clapp, 277 P.
490, 207 CaL 221.
23. Fla.— Hewitt v. International 25. Cal.— -Tearney v. Riddle, 149 P.
Shoe Co., 154 So. 833, 114 'Fla. 743,
motion denied 155 So. 725, 115 Fla.
508.
24. Ariz. — Colllster v. Inter-State
Fidelity Building & Loan Ass'n of
Utah, 38 P.2d 626, 44 Ariz. 427, 98
A.L.R. 1020.
Minn.— Wilhelm v. Wilhelm, 276 N.
W. 804, 201 Minn. 462— La Plante
v. Knutson, 219 N.W. 184, 174
Minn. 344.
N.J.— Finkel v. District Court for
First Judicial Dist. of Union Coun-
ty, 21 A.2d 306, 127 N.J.Law 132,
affirmed 28 A.2d 119, 129 N.J.Law
97.
Wis. — State ex rel. C. W. 'Fischer
Furniture Co. v. Detlingr, 279 N.W.
616, 228 Wis. 68.
Statement of doctrine of res judicata
see infra § 592.
Discretion held not abused
Cal.— Tearney v. Riddle, 149 P.2d
387, -64 Cal.App.2d 783.
Wis. — State ex rel. C. W. Fischer
Furniture Co. v. Detling, 279 N.
W. 616, 228 Wis. 68.
2d 387, 64 Cal.App.2d 783.
686
26. Okl. — Tippins v. Turben, 19 P.
2d 605, 162 Okl. 136.
34 C.J. p 387 note 56.
27. Minn. — Universal Ins. Co. v.
Brasie, 243 N.W. 393, 186 Minn.
648.
28. Ariz. — Swlsshelm Gold Silver
Co. v. Farwell, 124 P.2d 544, 59
Ariz. 162— Collister v. Inter-State
'Fidelity Building & Loan Ass'n of
Utah, 38 P.2d <626, 44 Ariz. 427, 38
A.L.R. 1020.
Minn. — La Plante v. Knutson, 219 N.
W. 184, 174 Minn. 344.
29. Ga.— Miller v. Phoenix Mut. Life
Ins. Co., 147 S.B. 527, 168 Ga. 321.
30. Ga. — Miller v. Phoenix Mut (Life
Ins. Co., supra.
31. N.T.— White v. Sebring, 240 N.
Y.S. 4T7, 228 App.Div. 413.
32. N.T. — White v. Sebrins, supra.
33. Kan. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Ford v. Blasdel, 276 P. 283, 284,
123 Kan. 43.
34 C.J, p 389 note 37.
34. N.T. — De Fini v. Imperatori,
215 N.Y.S. 175, 127 Misc. 42.
35. R.I.— Feldman v. -Silva, 171 A.
922, 54 R.I. 202.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
337
to renew a motion to open a default must be pro-
cured,36 but the irregularity of failing to procure
leave is cured where the court overrules an objec-
tion to a hearing of the second motion.37
n. Objections and Exceptions
By participating In a trial on the merits after entry
of an order vacating the default Judgment, the plaintiff
waives, or Is estopped to question, the propriety of the
order.
Where plaintiff participates in a trial on the mer-
its which takes place after entry of an order va-
cating the default judgment he waives, or is es-
topped to question, the propriety of the order,38
but he is not estopped to raise the question of the
court's jurisdiction.39 Parties moving to set aside
a judgment as a nullity and recognizing it as a nul-
lity in the proceedings after the motion has been
granted are estopped to deny the nullity of the judg-
ment.40 Where objections to the introduction of
an amended return of service of process are spe-
cifically stated by movant, other grounds not men-
tioned as a basis of objection are waived.41
o. Vacation and Review of Order
The court, while it retains jurisdiction, may cancel
a former order granting or overruling a motion to set
aside a default judgment if a sufficient reason exista
for that action.
While the court retains jurisdiction of the cause,
it may cancel a former order granting or overruling
a motion to set aside or vacate a default judg-
ment,42 if a sufficient reason exists for such ac-
tion.43 After a default judgment has been set aside
and defendant has filed a plea, it has been held that
the court cannot vacate the order setting aside the
judgment.44 An order signed by the trial judge
may not be impeached in a proceeding against the
clerk.4*
Where an affidavit in the original action has not
been regarded as a pleading by plaintiff, defendant,
or the court, it will not be regarded as a pleading
in proceedings to review the propriety of an order
refusing to vacate a default.46
p. Costs
Where a default Judgment Is opened or vacated as
a matter of favor or grace to the defendant and on his
motion, it Is error to impose the costs on the plaintiff.
Where a judgment is opened or vacated as a mat-
ter of favor or grace to defendant and on his mo-
tion, it is error to impose the costs on plaintiff.47
Plaintiff will not be compelled to pay costs as a
penalty for his refusal to stipulate for a new trial
on defendant's proffer of costs and disbursements.48
36. N.Y.— -Mandel v. Schoenfeld, 233
N.Y.S. 227, 226 App.Div. 676.
An order to show cause why a pre-
vious order of the court denying a
motion to vacate a judgment and
permit defendant to answer should
not be vacated, the default removed,
and defendant permitted to answer,
is equivalent to leave by the court
to renew the first motion. — First
Trust & Savings Bank v. U. S. 'Fidel-
ity & Guaranty Co., 194 N.W. 376,
156 Minn. 231.
37. Minn.— Wilhelm v, Wilhelm, 276
N.W. 804, 201 Minn. 462— La
Plante v. Knutson, 21:9 N.W. 184,
174 Minn, 344.
33. Qa.— Avery & Co. v. Sorrell, 121
S.B. 838, 157 Ga. 476, answers to
certified questions conformed to
122 S.B. 638, 32 Ga.App. 41.
HI. — Thomas T. Melmed, 33 N.B.2d
919, 310 Ill.App. 2-62 — National
Lead Co. v. Morteli, 2«1 IlLApp.
332.
Piling1 hill of particulars
Plaintiff's conduct in filing bill of
' particulars after entry of order va-
cating default judgment obtained by
plaintiff was tantamount to filing an
amended complaint, and constituted
acquiescence in such order which
precluded writ of review.— -Matson
v. Rhodes, 149 P.2d 974, 174 Or. 550.
33. Cal.— Knox v. Superior Court in
and for Riverside County, 280 P.
375, 100 CaLApp. 452.
40. La.— White v. Hill, 121 So. 5'85,
168 La. 92— White v. Hill, 124 So.
578, 12 La.App. 412.
41. Tex.— -Employer's Reinsurance
Corporation v. Brock, Civ.App., 74
S.W.2d 435, error dismissed.
42. Iowa.— Kern v. fianborn, 7 N.W.
2d 801, 233 Iowa 458— Braverman
v. Burns, 224 N.W. 596, 207 Iowa
1382.
Renewal of application see supra
subdivision m of this section,
43. Order in ex parte proceeding's
Where default decree was set
aside ex parte during term in which
it was rendered, but later in the
term, case was fully reviewed in
presence of both parties, and show-
ing previously made as to reasonable
excuse for default, if any, was found
insufficient, court properly reinstat-
ed default decree. — Kern v. Sanborn,
7 N.W.2d 801, 233 Iowa 458.
Affidavit filed but not indorsed as
filed
Where, in an action of debt on
foreign Judgment, the declaration
was accompanied by affidavit re-
Quired by statute, and at the follow-
ing term, after office Judgment, de-
fendant filed plea of nul tiel record,
duly verified, and an order was en-
tered reciting tender and filing of
687
such plea with affidavit, and setting
aside the office Judgment, it was er-
ror to set aside such order, reject
the plea, and render judgment for
plaintiff on the ground that there
had been no counter affidavit filed
under the statute, although a verified
affidavit was found in the file, sworn
to prior to the entry of the order,
but not indorsed as filed by the clerk,
which affidavit the court treated as a
stray paper. — Forest Glen Land Co.
v. George, 122 S.B. 543, 96 W.Va. 209.
44. 111.— Marland Refining Co. v.
Lewis, 264 IlLApp. 163.
45. Mich.— Boyle v. Berg, 218 N.W.
757, 242 Mich. 225.
48. Ky.— Pinnacle Motor Qo. v.
Simpson, 287 S.W. '566, 216 Ky. 184.
47. Wis. — Port Huron Engine &
Thresher Co. v. Clements, 89 N.W.
160, 113 Wis. 249.
34 C.J. p 381 note 58.
Payment of costs as condition for
opening default see supra subdivi-
sion k (3) of this section.
48. Wis. — Port Huron Engine &
Thresher Co. v. Clements, 89 N.W.
160, 113 Wis. 249.
Reason for rule
Plaintiff is under no obligation
voluntarily to consent to the open-
ing of a default, although defendant
presents a sufficient excuse. — Camp
v. Stewart, 2 E.D.Smith., N.T., 88.
§ 337
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
q. Liabilities on Bonds
The surety on a bond given In proceedings to open
or vacate a default judgment may not be held liable on
the bond unless Its conditions are violated.
The surety on a bond given in proceedings to open
or vacate a default judgment is not liable on the
bond unless its conditions are violated.49 A judg-
ment canceling the bond is conclusive written evi-
dence of the termination of the surety's liability.50
§ 338. Proceedings in Cause Operating to
Open Default
A default Judgment may be vacated by subsequent
proceedings In the same action which are Inconsistent
with the Judgment continuing In force.
A default judgment may be vacated in effect, al-
though not in terms set aside, by subsequent pro-
ceedings in the same action which are inconsistent
with the judgment continuing in force.51 As a
general rule, an amendment of the complaint after a
default has been taken, which introduces a new
cause of action or goes to the substance of the
pleading operates to- open the default,62 but an
amendment in matters of form rather than sub-
stance does not operate to open the default.53
Where the court tries the case on the merits it has
been held that the default judgment is impliedly set
aside or vacated without a specific order to that ef-
fect,54 but it has also been held that the default
judgment is not impliedly vacated if there has been
no finding as to whether defendant was excused
from filing an answer in the original proceeding.55
Where plaintiff participates in a trial on the merits
after rendition of the default judgment he impliedly
consents to the vacation of the judgment.66 A non-
suit which is entered on the motion of plaintiff after
a default judgment has been entered against de-
fendant has the effect of setting aside the default
judgment57
§ 339. Proceedings after Opening Default
Where a default is opened the defendant should be
allowed or required to serve or file his plea or answer.
The case should be placed on the calendar or set for
trial, and should thereupon be proceeded with as though
no default had been entered.
Where a default is opened, defendant should be
allowed or required to serve or file, within a pre-
scribed or reasonable time, his plea or answer,58
49. Failure of principal to pay
Where Judgment by default was
set aside on defendant's filing a bond
In effect that, if the principal should
fail to pay costs and judgment re-
covered, the bond should be in effect,
judgment could not be entered
against the surety, as until failure of
the principal to pay, the conditions
of the bond were not violated. — Sun-
set Motor Co. T. Woodruff, 22£ P.
519, 130 Wash. 51-6.
Limitation to defendant furnishing
bond
Words "any recovery," in bond,
were held not to include judgments
against any defendants, where sure-
ty undertook to answer only for de-
fendant furnishing bond. — Guaranty
Trust Co. of New York v. National
Surety Co., 227 N.Y.S. 189, 131 Misc.
679.
5ft, N.Y.— Guaranty Trust Co. of
New York v. National Surety Co.,
supra.
51. Idaho.— Vincent v. Black, 166 P.
923, 30 Idaho 636.
34 C.J. p 325 note 18.
52. Ark. — Shepherd v. Grayson Mo-
tor Co., 139 fl.W.2d 54, 200 Ark.
199.
CaL — Thompson v. Cook, 127 P.2d
909, 20 Cal.2d 564 — Stack v. Weld-
er, 43 P.2d 270. 3 CaL2d Tl— Lubar-
sky v. Bichardson, 21 P.2d 557,
218 CaL 27 — Sheehy v. Roman
Catholic Archbishop of San Fran-
cisco, 122 P.2d 60, 4$ CaLApp.2d
637— Bley v. Dessin, 87 P.2d 889,
31 CaLApp.3d 338 — Strosnider v.j
Superior Court in and for El Dora-
do County, 62 P.2d 1394, 17 Cal.
App.2d 647— Gutleben v. Crossley,
56 P.2d 954, 13 Cal.App.2d 249.
Ga.— Elrod v. Hulett, 9 -S.E.2d 279,
62 Ga.App. 659— Land v. Pikes
Peak Lumber Co., 132 S.E. -644, 35
Ga.App. 159 — Henderson v. Ellar-
bee, 131 S.E. <524, 35 Ga.App. 5.
111.— Lusk v. Bluhm, 53 N.E.2d 135,
321 I11.APP. 349— Dahlin v. Maytag
Co., 238 IlLApp. 85.
Mont— Price v. Skylstead, 222 P.
1059, 69 Mont. 453.
34 C.J. .p 157 note 64.
Necessity for notice of amendment
see supra 5 1*94.
53. Ark. — Shepherd v. Grayson Mo-
tor Co., 139 S.W.2d 54, 200 Ark.
1-99.
Cal.— Stack v. Welder, 43 P.2d 270,
3 Cal.2d 71.
Mont. — Price T. Skylstead, 222 P.
1059, 69 Mont 453.
Curing' defects
While filing of material amend-
ment will open default, filing of
amendment, merely alleging facts
defectively alleged in original peti-
tion will not affect validity of de-
fault judgment, since judgment
cured defects. — Henderson v. Ellar-
bee, 131 S.E. 524, 35 GaJlgpp. 5.
Hi'onnta'teiial amendment
An amendment to petition in tro-
ver, amplifying description of arti-
cle sued for, and alleging title or
right of possession, not being ma-
terial, was held not, after default to
open case for answer. — Land v. Pikes
688
Peak Lumber Co., 132 S.E. 644, 35
Ga.App. 159.
54. IlL^Green v. Drew, 57 N.E.2d
227, 324 IlLApp. 84.
S.D. — Boshart v. National Ben. Ass'n
of Mitchell, 273 N.W. 7, 66 S.D.
260.
55. Tex. — Griffin v. Burrus, Com.
App., 24 S.W.2d 810.
58. CaL— Nlcholls v. Anders, <56 P.
2d 1289, 13 Cal.App.2d 440.
57. Ala. — Green v. NuGrape Co.,
100 So. 84, 19 Ala.App. 66&
5a N.Y.^Luke v. Polstein, 51 N.Y.
S.2d 427, 268 App.Div. 921, followed
in 51 N.Y.S.2d 429, 268 App.Div.
921, appeal denied 55 N.Y.S.2d -665,
269 App.Div. 784. Motion granted
61 N.E.2d 781, 294 N.Y. 775. Af-
firmed 63 N.E.2d 27, 294 N.Y. 896.
34 C.J. p 431 notes 8, 10.
Application for leave to answer
(1) Application for leave to file
answer, after vacation of default
judgment, is not a pleading and, if
not required by statute, need not be
in writing. — Schaffner v. Preston Oil
Co., 154 N.E. 780, 94 Ind.App. 554.
(2) Although made in writing, the
application is not demurrable. —
Schaffner v. Preston Oil Co., supra.
Extension of time
(1) Extension of time to answer
may be permitted where the court
is obliged to open default— Nader-
hoff v. Benz, 141 N.W. 501, 25 N.D.
501, 47 L.R.A.,N.S., 853.
49 C. J. S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 340
except where the judgment is vacated because it is
void for want of jurisdiction of defendant, in which
case it is not proper to require defendant to appear
and plead.59 The case should be placed on the cal-
endar or set for trial,60 and should thereupon be
proceeded with as though no default had been en-
tered.61 Plaintiff is not bound to serve the declara-
tion on a party who is let in to defend after a de-
fault.62 The issues of the case should be deter-
mined,63 and the trial should be before a jury if,
under usual rules, a jury case is presented.64 The
court may require defendant to proceed with his
defense rather than cause plaintiff to prove his
case,65 but, where judgment is entered generally and
without terms, plaintiff, in the absence of a statute
otherwise providing, is put to proof of the cause of
action as though judgment had not been entered.66
The action may be dismissed for want of prosecu-
tion,67 or it may be dismissed as to defendants
against whom no cause of action is stated.68 If de-
fendant defaults again, a second judgment by de-
fault may be entered against him.69 Where a trial
on the merits results in the same decision as before,
it has been held that a new judgment should not
be rendered but that the original judgment should
be reinstated.70 A partial reversal of the judgment
does not automatically work a reversal of the en-
tire judgment.71
Amendment of pleadings. The trial court may
use its sound discretion in refusing or permitting1
the amendment or withdrawal of pleadings.72
Notice or service of amended pleadings after
opening of default by amendment of the declara-
tion or complaint is considered supra § 194.
§ 340.
Defenses Available
Except to the extent to which the defendant is lim-
ited by the conditions imposed by the court, he may
avail himself of any meritorious defense existing at the-
time of the vacation of a default judgment.
Where the court, as a condition of opening or
vacating the judgment, has limited the defenses
which defendant may make to the action, defendant
will not be allowed to set up matters outside the
(2) On motion to set aside judg-
ment, extension of time beyond twen-
ty days for filing- answer was held
authorized where time for filing- an-
swer had not expired when Judg-
ment was entered, and defendants
had meritorious defense. — Town of
Greenville v. Munford, 131 S.E. 740,
191 N.C. 373.
59. Cal.— Merced Co. v. Hicks, 7 P.
181, 2 Cal.Unrep.Cas. 483.
60. 111.— Chicago v. English, 64 N.
E. 976, 198 111. 211.
N.Y. — Martin v. Universal Trust Co.,
78 N.Y.S. 465, 76 App.Div. 320.
61. Colo. — Swanson v. 'First Nat.
Bank, 219 P. 784, 74 Colo. 135.
34 C.J. p 432 note 12.
After default "by plaintiff
Plaintiff who failed to serve no-
tice of controverting affidavit to de-
fendant's plea of privilege, which re-
sulted in default judgment, could,
after twenty-eight terms, contest
such plea, where plaintiff, after judg-
ment became final, acted promptly in
sotting aside judgment and giving
notice of hearing on such plea. —
Gribble v. Scruggs, Tex.Civ.App., 55
S.W.2d 567, error dismissed.
62. N.T.— Hitchcock v. Barlow, 2
Wend. $29.
63. N.J.— Ehnes v. Quinn, 23 A.2d
295, 127 N.J.Law 447.
Issues affecting codefendants
Where testator's widow at same
term moved to set aside default
judgment against widow and execu-
tor on note and mortgage and
showed that executor was without
power to make mortgage and that
testator's children had not been
49 C.J.S.-44
made parties, widow's showing was
held to have inured to benefit of
executor who made no application
for relief until subsequent term, and
after vacation of the judgment the
court was authorized to consider the
Issue as it affected the executor. —
Welch v. Mann's Bx'r, 88 S.W.2d 1,
261 Ky. 470.
64. Ohio.— Minetti v. Binhorn, 173
N.B. 243, 36 Ohio App. 310.
. ind. — Butcher v. Olmstead, 182
N.B. 265, 99 Ind.App. 92.
86. Pa.— Austen v. Marzolf, 161 A,
72, 307 Pa. 232.
34 C.J. p 432 notes 15, 16.
67. 111. — Charles H. Thompson Co.
v. Burns, 199 IlLApp. 418.
N.T.— Hewlett v. Van Voorhis, 187 N.
T.S. 533, 196 App.Div. 322, affirmed
135 N.B. 952, 233 N.T. «642.
L Ga. — H. B. Jarman & Sons v.
Drew, 21 S.E.2d 444, 67 Ga.App.
850.
€9. La.— White v. Hill, 121 So. &85,
168 La. 92.
N.C. — Wilson v. Thaggard, 34 S.B.
2d 140, 225 N.C. 348.
34 C.J. p 432 note 17.
Proposed answer as pleading1
Although defendant filed proposed
verified answer at time of filing mo-
tion to set aside first default, order-
ing second default for failure to file
answer was held within discretion of
court. — James A. Clay & Co. v. Shaf-
er, 35 P.2d 572, 140 Cal.App. 625.
Terms
Where defendant's default was
twice opened' on identical terms
which were not met, the default
should not have been opened a third
689
time on more favorable terms on an
application for reargument, particu-
larly where defendant not only de-
liberately failed to comply with
original terms, but also failed to an-
swer a subpoena for his examination
in proceeding supplementary to exe-
cution of the default judgment, for
which he was adjudged in contempt
and fined. — General Bxchange Ins.
Corporation v. Stern, 25 N.Y.S.2d 266.
70. 111.— Walentarski v. Racine, 264
IlLApp. 369.
Kan.— Cox v. Brown, 224 P. 908, 115.
Kan. 709, rehearing overruled 225
P. 1044, 116 Kan. 213. '
Right to regain title after redemp-
tion period
Defendant who procures opening
of judgment based on service by pub-
lication without actual notice, after
sale of land on execution and expira-
tion of period of redemption, does
not acquire right to end litigation
and regain title by payment of debt
with interest and costs, unless final
decision is in his favor on some de-
fense or partial defense set out in
answer.— Cox v. Brown, 225 P. 1044,
116 Kan. 213.
71. Ark.— First Nat. Bank v. Bank
of Horatio, 255 S.W. 881, 161 Ark,
259.
Judgment for reduced amount
Judgment, vacated as to one de-
fendant with permission to defend,
stands in reduced amount adjudged
against such defendant after hearing
without further proceeding. — John-
son v. Dakota Nat. Bank, 207 N.W.
217, 49 SJX 381.
72. Wyo.— McDaniel v. Hoblit, 245
P. 295, 34 Wyo. 509.
§ 341
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
specifications of the order;75 but otherwise he may
avail himself of any meritorious defense,74 exist-
ing at the time of the judgment vacated, but not
a defense subsequently accruing.75 Merely formal
and technical objections76 or dilatory pleas77 usu-
ally will not be permitted, and defendant may be
limited to issuable pleas, excluding special demur-
rers which do not go to the merits,7* although de-
murrers79 or pleas in abatement80 may be permit-
ted Under statutes permitting defendants served
only constructively, as by publication, to be let in
to defend, as discussed supra § 335, the defense is
not limited to matters which if pleaded in apt time
would defeat the action,81 but includes any matter
of defense or exception which would have prevented
or modified the judgment.82
XL EQUITABLE BELIEF AGAINST JUDGMENT
A. IN GENERAL
§ 341. Nature of Remedy and Right to Relief
in General
a. In general
b. Requisites of relief in general
a. In G-eneral
Equitable relief against a Judgment, although not
regarded with favor by the courts, may nevertheless
be had where sufficient grounds appear; and under some
circumstances the remedy in equity is exclusive.
On a showing of proper circumstances, and when
required by the ends of justice, appropriate relief
against a judgment may be had in equity,83 the
73. Colo.— Oumaer v. Bell, 149 P.
255, 59 Colo. 213.
34 C.J. p 432 note 21.
74. Okl. — Pollack v. ILeonard &
Braniff, 241 P. 15$, 112 Okl. 27*.
34 C.J. p 432 note 22.
Statute of limitations may be
pleaded.
Minn. — Roe v. Widme, 254 N.W. 274,
191 Minn. 351.
N.Y.— Luke v. Polstein, Cl N.Y.S.2d
427, 268 App.Div. 921, followed in
51 N.Y.S.2d 429, 268 App.Div. -921,
appeal denied 55 N.Y.8.2d 665, 269
App.Div. 7S4. Motion granted 61
N.E.2d 781. 294 N.Y. 775. Affirmed
63 N.B.2d 27, 294 N.Y. 89*6.
34 C.J. p 432 note 22 £b].
75. Tex. — Howell v. Fidelity Lum-
ber Oo., Com. App., 228 S.W. 181.
34 C.J. p 432 note 23.
76. Pa.— Ekel v. Snevily. 3 Watts &
S. 272, 38 Am.D. 758.
34 C.J. p 432 note 24.
77. La. — Citizens' Bank v. Beard, 5
La.Ann. 41.
34 C.J. p 432 note 25.
78. Ky.— Vlolett v. Dale, 1 Bibb. 144.
34 C.J. p 432 note 27.
79. 111.— Chicago v. English, 64 N.B.
976, 198 111. 211.
Va. — Syme v. Griffin, 4 Hen, & M.
277, 14 Va. 277.
89. Ala.— Ex parte Haisten, 149 So.
213, 227 Ala. 183.
Premature action
Allowance of plea in abatement,
averring that suit on group insur-
ance certificate was premature, after
withdrawal of demurrer to complaint
and vacation of judgment thereon,
was within trial court's discretion. —
Box v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Cjo., 168
So. 209, 27 AUuApp. 21, reversed on
other grounds 168 So. 217, 232 Ala. 1
321, certiorari denied 168 So. 220, 232
Ala. 447.
Matter existing at time of original
salt
A plea in abatement on the setting
aside of a default Is improper, where
the matter in abatement existed at
the time of the institution of the
suit. — Bradley v. Welch, 1 Munf.
284, 15 Va, 284.
81. N.C.— Rhodes v. Rhodes, 34 S.EL
271, 125 N.C. 191.
82. N.C. — Rhodes v. Rhodes, supra.
34 C.J. p 432 note 31.
83. Ala. — Barrow v. Lindsey, 159 So.
232, 230 Ala. 45 — Hanover Fire Ins.
Co. v. Street, 154 So. 816, 228 Ala.
677 — Florence Gin Co. v. City of
Florence, 147 So. 417, 226 Ala. 478,
followed in 147 So. 420, three
cases, 226 Ala. 482, 147 So. 421, 226
Ala. 482, and 147 So. 421, 226 Ala.
483— King v. Dent, 93 So. 823, 208
Ala. 78.
Cal.— -Hallett v. Slaughter, 140 P.2d
3, 22 Cal.2d 552— Hammell v. Brit-
ton. 119 P.2d 333, 19 Cal.2d 72—
Caldwell v. Taylor, 23 P.2d 758,
218 Cal. 471, 88 A.L.R. 1194— -Bank
of Italy v. B. N. Cadenasso, 274
P. 534, 206 Cal. 436— King v. Su-
perior Court in and for San Diego
County, 56 P.2d 268, 12 Cal.App.2d
501 — Fisch & Co. v. Superior Court
in and for Los Angeles County, 43
P.2d 855, 6 Cal.App.2d 21— Fletch-
er v. Superior Court of Sacramen-
to County, 250. P. 195, 79 CaLApp.
468.
Conn.— -Application of Title & Guar-
anty Co. of Bridgeport to Change
Name to Bankers' Security Trust
Co., 145 A. 151, 109 Conn. 45.
Del. — Commercial Realty Incorpora-
tion v. Jackson, 166 A. 657, 5 W.W.
Harr. 395.
690
Fla. — Gamble v. Gamble Holding
Corporation, 162 So. 886, 120 Fla.
340.
111.— Balsay v. Conte, 264 IlLApp.
60.
Iowa. — Shaw v. Addison, 18 N.W.2d
796 — Foote v. State Sav. Bank,
Missouri Valley, Iowa, 206 N.W.
819, 201 Iowa 174.
Mass. — Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v.
Hathaway Baking Co., 28 N.E.2d
425, 306 Mass. 428 — Connor v.
Morse, 20 N.E.2d 424, 303 Mass.
42.
Mich.— Blehm Y. Hanzek, 262 N.W.
403, 272 Mich. 541.
Minn. — Lenhart v. Lenhart Wagon
Co., 2 N.W.2d 421, 211 Minn. 572.
Mo.— Fadler v. Gabbert, 63 S.W.2d
121, 333 Mo. 851 — Overton v. Over-
ton, 37 S.W.2d 565, 327 Mo. 530.
N.J.— Young v. Weber, 175 A. 273,
117 N.J.Eq. 242— Di Paola v. Trust
Co. of Orange, 156 A. 439, 109 N.J.
Eq. 80— William Peter Brewing
Corporation v. Bernhardt, 137 A.
828, 101 N.J.EQ. 60.
Ohio.— Seeds v. Seeds, 156 N.E. 193,
116 Ohio St. 144, 52 A.L.R. 761—
Hinman v. Executive Committee of
Communistic Party of U. S. A., 47
N.E.2d 820, 71 Ohio App. 76— Eck-
field v. State, 155 N.E. 160, 23 Ohio
App. 150.
Pa,— Mook v. Larsen, Com.PL, 23
Erie Co. 320.
S.C. — Scott v. Newell, 144 S.E. 82,
146 S.C. 385.
Tex.— Sedgwick v. Kirby Lumber
Co., 107 S.W.2d 358, 130 Tex 163—
Humphrey v. Harrell, Com.App., 29
S.W.2d 963 — Garza v. Kenedy, Com.
App., 299 S.W. 231— Stone v. Stone,
Civ.App., 101 S.W.2d 638— Bonner
v. Pearson, Civ.App., 7 S.W.2d 930
— Cook v. Panhandle Refining Co.,
Civ.App., 267 S.W. 1070— Waurika
49 C. J. S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 341
power of equity in this connection being inherent,84
and existing irrespective of any statute authorizing
such relief.8** A bill attacking a judgment is not
regarded with favor by the courts,8^ and will lie
only in exceptional cases.8? Such relief may be
had, not of right, but in the exercise of a sound
Oil Ass'n v. Ellis, Civ.App., 267 S.
W. 523 — Cooper v. Cooper, Civ.
App., 260 S.W. 679 — Vacuum Oil
Co. v. Liberty Refining Co., Civ.
App., 251 S.W. 321.
W.Va. — Weld on v. Callison, 193 S.E.
441t 119 W.Va. 306— Williams v.
Stratton, 174 S.E, 417, 114 W.Va,
837.
Wis. — Ellis v. Gordon, 231 N.W. 585,
202 Wis. 134— Kiel v. Scott & Wil-
liams, 202 N.W. 672, 186 Wis. 415.
Nature and form of remedy for
opening and vacating judgments
in general see supra § 286.
"One of the methods of directly
attacking a judgment, which is as
old as the common law, is by bill in
equity." — McElroy v. Puget Sound
Nat. Bank, 288 P. 241, 242, 157 Wash.
' 43.
legal discretion,88 and each case must stand on its
own peculiar merits.89
Under some circumstances, relief against a judg-
ment ordinarily must or should be sought by a suit
in equity.^ Thus it has been held that the only re-
rules.— Wattson v. Dillon. 56 P. 2
220, 6 Cal.2d 33.
Enjoining- enforcement of judgment
It has been held that, in the ab-
sence of statutory authority, a court
has no power to enjoin a judgment
creditor from enforcing his judg-
ment against a judgment debtor. —
Pisciotta v. Preston, 10 N.Y.S.2d 44,
170 Misc. 376.
84. Mont.— Bullard v. Zimmerman,
268 P. 512, 82 Mont. 434.
N.J.— Miller v. Bond & Mortgage
Guaranty Co., 188 A. 678, 121 N.J.
Eq. 197.
Tex.— McMillan v. McMillan, Civ.
App., 72 S.W.2d 611.
Correction of court's own record
In suit to set aside decree entered
by chancery court clerk without ap-
proval by such court or aggrieved
party's counsel, court has inherent
right to make its record speak truth
at any time, either in or out of
term, by canceling such decree as
not that of court. — Henderson v.
Freeman, 171 S.W.Sd 66, 205 Ark.
856.
85. La.— Vinson v. Picolo, App., 15
So.2d 778.
Ohio. — Northern Ohio Power & Light
Co. v. Smith, 186 N.E. 712, 126
Ohio St. 601.
Tex.— Bonner v. Pearson, Civ.App., 7
S.W.2d 930— Robbie v. Upson, Civ.
App., 153 S.W. 406.
Statute held not to broaden power
of equity
A statute providing for relief be-
fore judgment becomes final where
rendered against party through his
neglect has been held not to broad-
en power of equity court to vacate
final judgment in Independent pro-
ceeding calling for exercise of equi-
table pewers based on established
88. 111.— Chandler v. Chandler, App
63 N.E.2d 272.
Mo.— Sanders v. Brooks, App., 18
S.W.2d 353.
Or. — Olsen v. Crow, 290 P. 233, 13
Or. 310— Corpus Juris citad in
Dixon v. Simpson, 279 P. 939, 942
130 Or. 211 — Parker v. Reid, 27
P. 334, 127 Or. 578.
Tex. — Citizens' Bank v. Brandau
Civ.App., 1 S.W.2d 466, error re
fused— King v. King, Civ.App., 27
S.W. 899.
34 C.J. p 432 note 1.
Excuse of moment
Although there is no InflexibL
rule, some excuse of moment mus
exist to carry rights over to an
other judicial forum. — Blazewicz v
Weberski, 208 N.W. 452, 234 Mich.
431.
Comparison with collateral attack
Except in cases of palpable fraud
the rules and limitations established
and recognized by courts of equity
render a direct attack on a judg
ment almost as difficult of accom<
plishment as would be a collateral
attack,— Redfield v. First Nat. Bank,
244 P. 210, 66 Utah 459.
Rehearing of litigated issues not de-
sired.
Statute authorizing bill of review
to revise judgment must be con-
strued so as not to allow unending
rehearing of litigated issues or fur-
nish uncertainty of administration of
guardian's estate. — Watts v. Moss,
Tex.Civ.App., 63 S.W.2d 1095, error
dismissed.
Adjudication of title to land
Statutory bill of review cannot be
employed directly to adjudicate title
to land. — Johnson v. Oritz Oil Co.,
Tex.Civ.App., 104 S.W.2d 543.
Different interpretation of will
In the absence of extrinsic fraud
or certain Jurisdictional defects, an
action in equity does not lie to se-
cure an interpretation of a will dif-
ferent from that adopted by the
probate court whose decree of distri-
bution has become final. — Vincent v.
Security-First Nat. Bank of Los An-
geles, 155 P.2d 63, 67 Cal.App.2d 602.
87. Mass. — Long v. MacDougall, 173
N.E. 507, 273 Mass. 386.
Pa. — Frantz v. City of Philadelphia,
, 3 A.2d 917, 333 Pa. 220.
Extreme and restricted cases
Equitable proceedings to set aside
a final judgment after the term are
691
jealously watched, and granted only
in extreme and restricted cases. —
Floyd v. Eggleston, Tex.C:v.App., 137
S.W.2d 182, error refused, certiorari
denied 61 S.Ct. 314, 311 U.S. 708,
S5cL.Ed. 460, rehearing denied 61 S.
Ct. 609, 312 U.S. 713, 85 L.Ed. 1143.
88. Cal.— In re Davis' Estate, 101 P.
2d 761, 38 Cal.App.2d 579, rehear-
ing denied 102 P.2d 545, 38 Cal.
App.2d 579.
N.M.— Quintana v. Vigil, 147 P.2d
356, 48 N.M. 195.
Or. — Parker v. Reid, 273 P. 334, 127
Or. 578.
Pa. — Simcoe v. Szukegs, Com.Pl., 27
North.Co. 182.
89. Pa.— Sherwood Bros. Co. v. Ken-
nedy, 200 A. 689, 132 Pa.Super. 154.
Proceeding to enjoin execution of
garnishment Judgment on replevin
bond is determinate by ordinary
rules applicable to judgments.—
Southern Surety Co. v. Texas Oil
Clearing House, Tex.Com.App., 281 S.
W. 1045.
90. U.S.— Glinski v. U. S., C.C.A.I1L,
93 F.2d 418.
Cal.— Sepulveda v. Apablasa, 77 P.2d
530, 25 Cal.App.2d 300.
Fla. — Sauer v. Sauer, 19 So.2d 247,
154 Fla. 827 — State ex rel, Lorenz
v. Lorenz, 6 So.2d 620, 149 Fla.
265.
Iowa.— Shaw v. Addison, 18 N.W.2d
796.
Mo. — In re Beauchamp's Estate,
App., 184 S.W.2d 729.
Presence of innocent tliird parties
Where a judgment, although not
id on its face, is for some col-
ateral reason void, as, for instance,
where it has been procured by means
of fraud extrinsic to the merits of
:he case, and innocent third parties
lave acquired interests through or
y virtue of the judgment, the more
rderly course Is to proceed by an
ndependent suit in equity to set it
aside or to restrain and prevent the
>arty in whose favor the judgment
las thus been procured from raak-
ng an equitable use thereof.— Sharp
. Eagle Lake Lumber Co., 212 P.
33, 60 Cal.App. 386.
Mistake affecting rights of all parti.
tioners
A mistake which, if corrected,
would affect the rights of all parti-
oners cannot, unless by agreement
f all the parties, be corrected ex-
ept by suit in equity. — Hutton v.
Tard, 128 S.E. 647, 99 W.Va. 364.
xclnsive Jurisdiction
Generally, courts of equity have
§ 341
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
lief against a judgment after adjournment of the
term of court at which it was rendered is by plenary
suit in equity,9* and that a judgment which is void-
able, rather than void, may be set aside only in an
equitable proceeding.^ On the other hand, a party
attacking a judgment is not always restricted to the
remedy of injunction against enforcement of the
judgment,93 and it has been judicially observed that
in modern practice, the remedies at law by amend-
ing, opening, vacating, and reviewing judgments or
by granting new trials have greatly lessened the oc-
casions for resorting to equity for relief against a
judgment94 It has been asserted that a judgment
which becomes unjust by subsequent developments
may be corrected by proceeding in equity ;9& but it
has also been asserted that an action will not lie
in equity' to modify or discharge a judgment by
reason of matters arising subsequent to the entry
of the judgment.96
Nature of remedy. A suit to set aside a judgment
and retry the original case, or an attack on a judg-
ment on the ground of fraud, is generally an equita-
ble proceeding or in the nature of such a proceed-
ing.97 The equitable remedy against a judgment is .
not a proceeding in rem, but is a proceeding in per-
sonam against a party to the judgment seeking to
deprive him of the benefit of the judgment by en-
joining him from enforcing it.98 The remedy in
equity does not assail the court in which the judg-
ment was rendered;99 it need not seek to change,
modify, suspend, or vacate the judgment,1 but may
be employed to secure relief against the judgment
on the ground that the rights acquired thereunder
cannot be retained in good conscience.2 An action
in equity to vacate a decree is analogous to a mo-
tion for a new trial in so far as it involves a re-
examination of the issues.8
b. Requisites of Belief in General
In general, one seeking equitable relief against a
judgment must show that there is some recognized
ground for equitable interference, and also that his sit-
uation is not due to his own fault and that he Is entitled
to the favorable consideration of the court.
In order to entitle a party to relief in equity
against a judgment, he must show that there is in
the case a recognized ground, such as fr-ard, acci-
dent, mistake, or the like, for equitablt interfer-
ence,4 and, as discussed infra § 343, that there is
exclusive jurisdiction to annul judg-
ments at law, as well as their own
decrees because of fraud or mistake.
— Jordan v. Tharp, 137 So. 667, 2
Ala, 619.
91. Tex. — Squyres v. Rasmussen,
Civ.App., 296 S.W. 977— Peters v.
Pursley, Civ.App., 278 S.W. 229.
92. Tex. — Bryan v. Jacoby, Civ.App.,
11 S.W.2d 373.
93. B.C. — Consolidated Radio Ar-
tists v. Washington Section, Na-
tional Council of Jewish Juniors,
105 F.2d 785; 70 App.D.C. 262.
94. U.S.— U. S. y. Mani, D.C.S.D.,
196 F. 160.
Preferable procedure
Procedure by petition to open final
decree and order to show cause is
substitute for bill of review and is
preferable as simpler and more di-
rect procedure. — Cameron v. Penn
Mut. Life Ins. Co., 173 A. 344, 116
811.
95. U.S.— In re Drainage Dlst No.
7, B.C. Ark., 25 F.Supp. 372, affirm-
ed, C.C.A., Lruehrmann v. Drainage
Dist. No. 7 of Poinsett County, 104
F.2d 696, certiorari denied Haver-
stick v. Drainage Dist. No. 7 of
• Poinsett County, Ark., 60 S.Ct 141,
308 U.S. 604, 84 L.Ed. 505, rehear-
ing denied 60 S.Ct 260, 308 U.S.
638, 84 L.Ed. 530.
96. Wis. — Libby v. Central Wiscon-
sin Trust Co., 197 N.W. 206, 152
Wis. 599. i
97. OkL— Schulte v. Board of]
Com'rs of Pontotoc County, 250 P.
123, 119 OkL 261.
Tex. — Crouch v. McGaw, 138 S.W.2d
94, 134 Tex. 633— Mann v. Risher,
116 S.W.2d 692, 131 Tex. 498—
Sedgwick v. Kirby Lumber Co., 107
S.W.2d 358, 130 Tex. 163— Winters
Hut. Aid Ass'n Circle No. 2 v.
Reddtn, ConuApp., 49 S.W.2d 1095
— Green v. Green, Com.App., 288
S.W. 406— Floyd v. Bggleston, Civ.
App., 137 S.W.2d 182, error re-
fused, certiorari denied 61 S.Ct.
314, 311 U.S. 708, 85 L.Ed. 460,
rehearing denied 61 S.Ct 609, 312
U.S. 713, 85 LJSd. 1143.
Bill of review
An independent suit for relief
against a judgment, while not strict-
ly speaking a bill of review, is large-
ly of the same nature. — Halbrook v.
Quinn, Civ.App., 286 S.W. 954, cer-
tified questions dismissed Quinn v.
Halbrook, 285 S.W, 1079, 115 Tex.
513.
A petition to open a judgment is
essentially an equitable proceeding,
and the opening of the judgment an
exercise of equity powers.— Sher-
wood Bros. Co. v. Kennedy, 200 A.
689, 132 Pa.Super. 154.
Motion treated as plenary suit
Motion to set aside judgment al-
leging excuse for failure to defend
and meritorious defense, on which
citation was duly issued, should be
treated as plenary suit in equity to
obtain relief from Judgment —
Squyres v. Rasmussen, Tex.Civ.App.,
296 S.W. 977.
692
Equity administered under common-
law forms
In proceeding to open Judgment,
court of common pleas administers
equity under common-law forms. —
Kowatch v. Home Building & Loan
Ass'n of Latrobe, 200 A, 111, 131 Pa.
Super. 517.
Suit in partition by heirs against
other heirs who obtained property by
representing that they were the only
heirs was held neither direct nor col-
lateral attack on judgment, but equi-
ty proceeding based on fraud. — Beat-
ty v. Beatty, 242 P. 766, 114 Okl. 5.
Proceeding- held not action in equity
A proceeding to vacate or set
aside an order or Judgment filed in
original suit is not an action in equi-
ty, although it is equitable in char-
acter and relief is granted on equita-
ble terms.— In re Vanderlip's Es-
tate, 12 Ohio Supp. 123.
98. Ohio. — Kundert v. Kundert, 156
X.B. 237, 24 Ohio App. 342.
99. Ohio. — Kundert v. Kundert, su-
pra.
1. U.S. — Hiawassee Lumber Co. v.
U. S., C.C.A.N.C., 64 F.2d 417.
Ohio. — Kundert v. Kundert 156 N.
B. 237, 24 Ohio App. 342.
2. U.S.— Hiawassee Lumber Co. v.
U. S., C.OA.N.C., 64 F.2d 417.
3. Cal.— Foy v. Foy, 73 P.2d 618,
23 Cal.App.2d 543.
4. U.S. — Simonds v. Norwich Union
Indemnity Co., C.C.A.Minn., 73 F.
2d 412, certiorari denied Norwich
Union Indemnity Co* v. Simonds,
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§341
tio other available or adequate remedy. It must [ neglect, or carelessness,6 and that he did not pro-
appear that his situation is not due to his own fault, | cure Or consent to the judgment attacked, or ac-
55 S.Ct 507, 294 U.S. 711, 79 L.
Ed. 124« — Continental Nat. Bank of
Jacksoo County, at Kansas City,
Mo. v. Holland Banking Co., C.C.A.
Mo., 66 F.2d 823.
Ala. — Carson v. Rains, 187 So. 707,
237 Ala. 534.
Cal. — Kupfer v. MacDonald, 122 P.
2d 271, 19 Cal.2d 566— Hendricks
v. Hendricks, 14 P.2d 88, 216 Cal.
821 — Molema v. Molema, 283 P.
956, 103 CaLApp. 79;
Fla. — Rosenstone v, Johnston, 111 So.
630, 93 Fla, 319.
«Ga. — Groom v. Bennett, 147 S.B. 560,
168 Ga. 178.
Md.— Redding v. Redding, 26 A2d
18, 180 Md. 545.
Mich.— Barr v. Payne, 298 N.W. 460,
298 Mich. 85— Broadwell v. Broad-
well, 209 N.W. 923, 236 Mich. 60.
OKI.— Kennedy v. XJhrich, 62 P.2d
994, 178 Okl. 366.
Or. — Oregon-Washington R. & Nav.
Co. v. Reid, 65 P.2d 664, 155 Or.
602.
Pa. — Conenraugh Iron Works Co. v.
Delano Coal Co., 148 A. 94, 298
Pa. 182.
Tenn. — Tallent v. Sherrell, 184 S.W.
2d 561, 27 Tenn.App. 683 — Johnson
v. Sharpe, 7 Tenn.App. 685.
Tex. — Gehret v. Hetkes, Com.App.,
36 S.W.2d 700 — Humphrey v. Har-
rell, ComApp., 29 S.W.2d 963—
Grayson v. Johnson, Civ.App., 181
S.W.2d 312— Gotten v, Stanford,
Civ.App., 169 S.W.2d 489— Union
Bank & Trust Co. of Fort Worth
v. Smith, Civ.App., 166 S.W.2d
328 — Brannen v. City of Houston,
Civ.App., 153 S.W.2d 676, error re-
fused — Padalecki v. Dreibrodt, Civ.
App., 129 S.W.2d 4^1, error dis-
missed, judgment correct — Poland
v. Risher, Civ.App., 88 S.W.2d 1106,
affirmed Mann v. Risher, 116 S.W.
2d 692, 131 Tex. 498— Ricketts v.
Ferguson, CivApp., 64 S.W.2d 416,
error refused — Griggs v. Brewster,
Civ.App., 16 S.W.2d 839, affirmed
62 S.W.2d 980, 122 Tex, 588— Shaw
v. Etheridge, Civ.App., 15 S.W.Sd
722 — Massa v. Guardian Trust Co.,
Civ.App., 258 S.W. 598.
W.Va.— Brinegar v. Bank of Wyo-
ming, 130 S.E.. 151, 100 W.Va. 64.
34 C.J. p 433 note 8.
Grounds for relief see infra §§ 350-
376.
Prlma facie case for vacation of
judgment
Injunctive . relief to prevent en-
forcement of judgment will not be
granted, unless prima facie case for
vacation of such judgment is pre-
sented. — Smith v. Patterson, 280 S.
W. 930, 213 Ky. 142.
of jurisdiction over person
Party seeking to have judgment
set aside in equity on ground that
court had acquired no jurisdiction
over him must bring himself within
rules of law or equity applicable for
such relief. — Reynolds v. Volunteer
State Life Ins. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 80
S.W.2d 1087, error refused.
Question held not cognizable
Question whether attorneys and
court acted in pursuance of mandate
of appellate court in proceedings
which followed receipt of mandate
is not cognizable in independent suit
in equity based on ground that judg-
ment was procured by fraud. — Math-
eson v. National Surety Co., C.C.A.
Alaska, 69 F.2d 914.
Intent of testatrix
In an equity action to amend and
construe a decree of distribution af-
fecting a testamentary trust, where
no mistake appeared, it was imma-
terial that testatrix may have in-
tended or done something different
in a former will, later revoked. —
Vincent v. Security-First Nat. Bank
of Los Angeles, 155 P.2d 63, 67 Cal.
App.2d 602.
Personal judgment in foreclosure
suit
Purchaser of mortgaged property
was held not entitled to set aside
personal judgment against him by
default in foreclosure suit, wherein
he was personally served, and where-
in it was alleged that he 'assumed
mortgage indebtedness, where decree
recited that cause was heard on doc-
umentary and oral evidence, and
there was no evidence that judgment
was procured through fraud. — Fort
Smith Building & Loan Ass'n v.
Hight, 86 S.W.2d 923, 191 Ark. 415.
5. U.S.— Simonds v. Norwich Un-
ion Indemnity Co., C.C.A.Minn., 73
F.2d 412, certiorari denied Norwich
Union Indemnity Co. v. Simonds,
55 S.Ct. 507, 294 U.S. 711, 79 L.
Ed. 1246 — Continental Nat. Bank
of Jackson County, at Kansas City,
Mo., v. Holland Banking Co., C.C.A.
Mo., 66 F.2d 823.
Ala.— Carson v. Rains, 187 So. 707,
237 Ala. 534 — Timmerman v. Mar-
tin, 176 So. 19S, 234 Ala. 622—
Leath v. Lister. 173 So. 59, 233
Ala, 595 — Barrow v. Lindsey, 159
So. 232, 230 Ala. 45— Hanover Fire
Ins. Co. v. Street, 154 So. 816, 228
Ala. 677.
111.— Metzger v. Horn, 143 N.B. 408,
312 111. 173— Zimel v. Southern Pac.
Co., 40 N.E.2d 830, 314 111. App.
198.
La. — Surety Credit Co. v. Bauer, 1
La. App. 285.
Md.— Redding v. Redding, 26 A.2d
18, 180 Md. 545.
Mich.— Barr v. Payne, 298 N.W. 460,
298 Mich. 85.
Mo. — Silent Automatic Sales Corpo-
693
ration v. Stay ton, App., 58 S.W.2d
800.
Ohio. — Mosher v. Mutual Home &
Savings Ass'n, App., 41 N.E.2d
871.
Or.— Mattoon v. Cole, 143 P.2d 679;
172 Or. 664 — Oregon-Washington
R. & Nav. Co. v. Reid, 65 P.2d 664,
155 Or. 602.
Tenn. — Tallent v. Sherrell, 184 S.W.
2d 561, 27 Tenn. App. 683 — Johnson
v, Sharpe, 7 Tenn. App. 685.
Tex.— Mann v. Risher, 116 S.W.2d
692, 131 Tex. 498— Stewart v.
Byrne, ComApp., 42 S.W.2d 234 —
Humphrey v. Harrell, Com.App., 29
S.W.2d 963 — Duncan v. Smith Bros.
Grain Co., 260 S.W. 1027, 113 Tex.
555 — Grayson v. Johnson, Civ.App.,
181 S.W.2d 312— Union Bank &
Trust Co. of Fort Worth v. Smith.
Civ.App., 166 S.W.2d 928— Garcia v.
Jones, Civ.App., 155 S.W.2d 671,
error refused — Bramien v. City of
Houston, Civ.App., 153 S.W.2d 676,
error refused — Padalecki v. Drei-
brodt, Civ.App., 129 S.W.2d 481,
error dismissed, judgment correct
— Hacker v. Hacker, Civ.App., 110
S.W.2d 923 — Traders & General
Ins. Co. v. Keith, Civ.App., 107 S.
W.2d 710, error dismissed — Corpus
Juris cited in Cooper v. Walker,
Civ.App., 96 S.W.Sd 847, 848— Po-
land v. Risher, Civ.App., 88 S.W.2d
1106, affirmed Mann v. Risher, 116
S.W.2d 692, 131 Tex. 498— Ricketts
v. Ferguson, Civ.App., 64 S.W.2d
416, error refused — Watts v. Moss,
Civ.App., 63 S.W.2d 1095, error dis-
missed— Lindsey v. Dougherty,
Civ.App., 60 S.W.2d 300, error re-
fused— Shaw v. Etheridge, Civ.
App., 15 S.W.Sd 722— Bray v. First
Nat. Bank, Civ.App., 10 S.W.Sd 235,
error dismissed — Citizens' Bank v.
Brandau, Civ.App., 1 S.W.2d 466,
error refused — Taylor v. Master-
son, Civ. App., 259 S.W, 629 — Bar-
ton v. Pochyla, Civ.App., 243 S.W.
785.
W.Va. — Brinegar v. Bank of Wyo-
ming, 130 S.E. 151, 100 W.Va. 64.
S C.J. p 661 note 50—34 CJ". p 433
note 3, p 442 note 14, p 459 note
13.
Defenses not interposed at law as
ground for relief see infra 55 361,
362.
Discovery of defense
Statute limiting time in which
proceedings to set aside judgment
may be commenced does not confer
right to set taside judgment within
time limit, regardless of negligence
or diligence of judgment debtor in
discovering defense. — W. T. Raw-
leigh Go. v. Seagraves, 173 S.B. 167,
178 Ga, 459.
Negligence held not shown
Tex. — Bddingston v. Acorn, CivApp.,
287 S.W. 98.
§ 341
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
quiesce in it, or waive the errors complained of.6
He must also show that he is not liable for the
debt for which judgment was rendered;7 that he is
injured by the judgment as it stands or will be in-
jured by its enforcement ;8 that there is an attempt
or threat to enforce the judgment against him;9
that he is in a position equitably to seek relief;10
and that he comes into equity with clean hands and
is entitled to the favorable consideration of the
court11
Equity will never interfere to vacate a judgment
where the party seeking the relief could not possibly
derive any benefit from the relief sought,12 and thus
he is generally required to show that if relief were
granted a different result would obtain than that
reached in the judgment of which he complains.18
§ 342. Jurisdiction
A court having genera! equity powers has Jurisdic-
tion to grant equitable relief against a judgment In a
proper case; but Its Jurisdiction In this respect Is not
supervisory over courts of law, and cannot be made to
serve the purpose of an appellate review.
A court possessing general equity powers has au-
thority in a proper case to grant equitable relief
against a judgment,14 Courts of equity have no
supervisory jurisdiction over courts of law, and, ac-
cordingly, a suit in equity for relief against a judg-
ment at law cannot be made to serve the purposes
of an appellate review of the judgment with regard
to alleged errors therein,15 and the power of a court
of equity to enjoin enforcement of a judgment is
6. Ala. — Henley v. Foster, 125 So.
662, 220 Ala, 420.
Fla.— Hall v. Hall, 112 So. 622, 93
Fla. 709.
La, — Napoleon ville Moss Mfg. Co. v.
Templet, 139 So. 546, 19 La.App.
61.
Mass.— McNally v. Clare, 183 N.B.
173, 281 Mass. 82.
N.Y.— Franz v. Nigri, 249 N.Y.S. 218,
232 App.Div. 150.
Tex. — Bearden v. Texas Co., Clv.App.,
41 S.W.2d 447, affirmed, Com.App.,
60 S.W.2d 1031.
34 C.J. p 432 note 2.
Assent to settlement
Where parties to suit appeared be-
fore judge in open court and stated
that they had settled suit on speci-
fied terms, which judge noted on
docket, and parties and their attor-
neys all assented to, or made no
complaint of, such terms after judge
read to them his understanding of
settlement, and judgment was ren-
dered in accordance with such state-
ment, defendant was not entitled to
have judgment set aside on ground
of additional settlement agreement,
covering questions at issue in anoth-
er suit pending in different chancery
court, in absence of fraud or bad
faith.— Tallent v. Sherrell, 184 S.W.
2d 561, 27 Tenn.App. 683.
Waiver held not shown
Fact that defendants, discovering
trial judge's disqualification, peti-
tioned supreme court for rehearing,
did not constitute waiver of right
to vacate judgment. — Cadenasso v.
Bank of Italy, 6 P.2d 944, 214 Cal.
562.
7. Tex. — Duncan v. Smith Bros.
Grain Co., 260 S.W. 1027, 113 Tex.
555.
Meritorious defense see infra § 349.
8. Tex. — Gotten v. Stanford, Civ.
App., 169 S.W.2d 489.
34 C.J. p 433 note 5, p 459 note 13. j
Proceeds of sale as sufficient to sat-
isfy judgment
Where, although personal judg-
ment against a particular defendant
was not authorized, it was possible
that sufficient would be realized on
the sale of the property involved to
satisfy the judgment in full, so that
such defendant would not be in-
jured by a personal judgment, it
would be premature to grant relief
to him in a suit to set aside the de-
cree until the question of injury
should be determined by the result
of the sale. — Marsters v. Ashton, 107
P.2d 981, 165 Or. 507.
Actual eviction held unnecessary
It has been held that a purchaser
in possession under a contract of
sale need not show that he has been
actually evicted in order to secure
injunctive relief against a judg-
ment obtained on a note given for
the purchase price; it is sufficient
that a judgment of ejectment has
been rendered against him. — Green v.
McDonald, 21 Miss. 445.
9. Conn. — Chambers v. Bobbins, 28
Conn. 552.
34 C.J. p 433 note 4.
10. U.S.— Glinski v. U. S., C.C.A.I11.,
93 F.2d 418— Smith v. Apple, C.C.
A.Kan., 6 F.2d 559.
(Fair conduct and dealings
Complainant, in order to invoke
aid of equity to restrain execution of
judgment, must show that his own
conduct and dealings were fair and
consistent with equity. — Harper v.
Farmers' & Merchants' Nat Bank of
Cambridge, 142 A. 590, 155 Md. 693.
Restoration of benefits
Party accepting benefits of judg-
ment cannot challenge validity of
judgment without restoring benefits.
—State v. Marsh, 169 N.E. 564, 121
Ohio St. 477— State v. Marsh, 168 N.
B. 473, 121 Ohio St 321.
11. U.S. — Murrell v. Stock Growers'
Nat Bank of Cheyenne, C.C.A.
694
Wyo., 74 F.2d 827 — Corpus Juris
cited in Byrara v. Miner, C.C.A., 47
F.2d 112, 119.
Fla.— Hall v. Hall, 112 So. 622, 93
Fla. 709.
N.T.— Franz v. Nigri, 249 N.Y.S. 218,
232 App.Div. 150 — Rubin v. Yedlin,
230 N.Y.S. 463, 224 App.Div. 768.
34 C.J. p 433 note 6.
Clean hands generally see Equity $§
93-99.
Public policy
Even though the parties are in
par! delicto and applicant does not
come into court with clean hands,
equity may grant relief where re-
quired by reasons of public policy. —
Dahms v. Swinburne, 167 N.E. 486.
31 Ohio App. 512.
12. Cal. — Hite v. San Francisco
Mercantile Trust Co., 106 P. 102,
156 Cal. 765.
Ga.— Howell v. Howell, 9 S.E.2d 149,
190 Ga. 371.
Useless relief see Equity § 16.
Value of collateral
Burden is on plaintiff, seeking to
set aside judgment on note on
ground that it did not direct sale of
collateral, to plead and prove that
collateral had some value, and that
proceeds thereof would at least have
partially satisfied judgment. — Red-
field v. First Nat Bank, 244 P. 210,
66 Utah 459.
13. Ark.— Horn v. Hull, 275 S.W.
905, 169 Ark. 463.
Cal. — Wilson v. Wilson, 130 P.2d
782, 55 Cal.App.2d 421— Jeffords v.
Young, 277 P. 163, 98 Cal.App. 400
— Hogan v. Horsfall, 266 P. 1002,
91 CaLApp. 37, followed in 266 P.
1005, 91 CaLApp. 797.
Tenn.— Whitson v. Johnson, 123 S*
W.2d 1104, 22 Tenn.App. 427.
34 C.J. p 433 note 10.
14. Tex. — Barton v. Pochyla, C*v.
App., 243 S.W. 785.
15. N.J.— Weinstein v. Chelsea Se-
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 343
not dependent on its jurisdiction to review the pro-
ceedings on which the judgment is based.16 Where
no proper grounds exist, equity has no jurisdiction
to afford relief against a judgment.17
§ 343. Existence of or Resort to Other
Remedy; Inadequacy of Remedy at
Law
a. In general
b. Statutory remedies
c. Remedy by review
a. In General
Equitable relief against a Judgment generally will
not be granted where other adequate remedies, as by
motion for a new trial or independent action at law, are
available, or by the exercise of proper diligence would
have been available; and this rule has been applied by
some authorities even to Judgments, which are void or
have been procured by fraud, Equity will interfere,
however, where there has been a loss of legal remedies
without fault on the part of the one seeking relief.
As a general rule, equity will not grant relief
against a judgment where the party complaining
of the judgment has, or by exercising proper dili-
gence would have had, an adequate remedy at law,
or by proceeding's in the original action, by motion,
petition, or the like to open, vacate, modify, or oth-
erwise obtain relief against, the judgment.18 Equi-
ty will not interfere to relieve against a judgment
where the complaining party has an adequate rem-
edy by a motion in an appellate court,19 or by a
motion or proceedings to arrest judgment,20 or to
stay or quash execution.21 Under some circum-
stances, however, it has been held that injunction
may be granted, although relief against the judg-
ment might be obtained at law, or by motion to va-
cate or set aside, and the time for obtaining such
curities & Investment Co., 145 A.
231, 104 N.J.Eq. 258.
34 C.J. p 433 note 12.
Jurisdiction of particular courts see
infra § 382.
16. Iowa. — Shaw v. Addison, 18 N.
W.2d 796.
Mo. — Overton v. Overton, 37 S.W.Sd
565, 327 Mo. 530 — Loveland v. Dav-
enport, App., 188 S.W.2d 850.
Wis. — Ambers v. Deaton, 271 N.W.
396, 223 Wis. 653.
34 CJT. p 433 note 12.
Examination of evidence
It is not the province of a court
of equity to examine the evidence
Adduced at a former trial and to de-
termine whether the evidence sup-
ports the judgment rendered there-
on.— Sabin v. Levorsen, 145 P.2d 402,
193 Okl. 320, certiorari denied 64 S.
Ot. 205, 320 U.S. 792, 88 L.Ed. 477,
rehearing denied 64 S.Ct 368, 320 TJ.
S. 815, 88 L.Ed. 492.
17. Iowa.— -Shaw v. Addison, 18 N.
W.2d 796.
34 C.J. p 433 note 16.
18. Ala.— Riley v. Wilkinson, 23 So.
2d 582.
Ark. — Corpus Juris cited in Twin
City Bank of North Little Kock v.
J. S. McWillkims Auto Co., 34 S.W.
2d 229, 230, 182 Ark. 1086.
Cal. — Harris v. Harris, 52 P.2d 985,
10 Cal.App.2d 734, hearing denied,
Sup., 54 P.2d 459, 10 Cal.App.2d
734 — De Tray v. Chambers, 297 P.
575, 112 CaLApp. 697.
Oa. — Cone v. Eubanks, 145 S.E. 652,
167 G-a. 384.
Idaho. — Lind v. Moyes, 20 P.2d 794,
52 Idaho 785.
111. — Calbreath v. Beckwith, 260 111.
App. 7 — Kahn v. Rasof, 253 111.
App. 546.
Ky.— Campbell v. Campbell, 4 S.W.2d
1112, 223 Ky. 836.
e.— Fort Fairfteld Nash Co. v.
Noltemier, 189 A. 415, 135 Me. 84,
108 A.L.R. 1276.
Md. — Pioneer Oil Heat v. Brown, 16
A.2d 880, 179 Md. 155.
Mich.— Barr v. Payne, 298 N.W. 460,
298 Mich. 85— Thompson v. Doore,
257 N.W. 864, 269 Mich. 466.
Mo.— Jones v. Overall, 13 S.W.2d 581,
223 Mo.App. 266.
Mont— Meyer v. Lemley, 282 P, 268,
86 Mont 83.
N.J. — Rafferty v. Schutzer, 153 A.
626, 107 N.J.Eq. 613.
N.Y.— Corpus Juris cited in, Wil-
liamsburgh Sav. Bank v. Bern-
stein, 12 N.E.2d 551, 553, 277 N.T.
11— Franz v. Nigri, 249 N.Y.S. 218,
232 App.Div. 150.
N.D. — Corpus Juris cited in Ellison
v. Baird, 293 N.W. 793, 794, 70 N.
D. 226.
Or.— Mattoon v. Cole, 143 P.2d 679,
172 Or. 664 — Oregon- Washington
TL & Nav. Co. v. Reid, 65 P.2d 664,
155 Or. 602 — Corpus Juris quoted
in Olsen v. Crow, 290 P. 233, 235,
133 Or. 310.
Pa.— Dunn v. Hild, 188 A. 834, 324
Pa. 530— Rocks v. Santella, 38 A.
2d 718, 155 Pa.Super. 473— Sher-
wood Bros. Co. v. Kennedy, 200 A.
689, 132 Pa.Super. 154.
S.C.— Baker v. Brewer. 123 S.E. 771,
129 S.C. 74.
Tex. — Stewart v. Byrne, Com.App.,
42 S.W,2d 234 — Arenstein v.
Jencks, Civ.App., 179 S.W.2d 831,
error dismissed — Thomas v. Mul-
lins, Civ.App., 175 S.W.2d 276 —
Brannen v. City of Houston, Civ.
App., 153 S.W.2d 676, error refused
— Hacker v. Hacker, Civ.App., 110
S.W.2d 923— Birge v. Conwell, Civ.
App., 105 S.W.2d 407, error re-
fused— Bennett v. Carter, Civ.App..
102 S.W.2d 450, error dismissed—
Reynolds v. Volunteer State Life
Ins, Co., Civ.App., 80 S.W.Sd 10S7,
error refused — Cox, Inc., v. Knight,
695
Civ.App., 50 S.W.2d 915— Pass v.
Ray, Civ.App., 44 S.W.2d 470 — Fort
Worth & D. C. Ry. Co. v. Great-
house, Civ.App., 41 S.W.2d 418, re-
versed on other grounds Great-
house v. Fort Worth & Denver
City Ry. Co., Com. App., 65 S.W.2d
762 — Camden Fire Ins. Ass'n v.
Hill, Civ.App., 264 S.W. 123, re-
versed on other grounds, Com.
App., 276 S.W. 887 — Galloway v.
Marietta State Bank, Civ.App., 258
S.W. 532, reversed on other
grounds Marietta State Bank v.
Galloway, Com.App., 269 S.W. 776
—First Nat. Bank v. Curtis, Civ.
App., 244 S.W. 225— Taylor v. Hu-
stead & Tucker, Civ. App., 243 S.W.
766, reversed on other grounds,
Com.App., 257 S.W. 232.
34 C.J. p 433 note 7, p 434 note 20,
p 435 note 28, p 439 note 67, p 440
note 83—24 C.J. p 888 note 82.
Adequate remedy at law as affecting
jurisdiction of equity generally see
Equity §§ 19-38.
Intervention
A complaint demanding an injunc-
tion staying execution and opening a
default judgment to allow plaintiffs
to intervene as parties to the orig*
inal action does not involve the ap~
plication of any equitable remedy
not available by a motion in the
original action, and hence cannot be
maintained. — Tolbert v. Roark, 119 S.
E. 571, 126 S.C. 207.
19. Ala. — J. A. Roebling Sons Co. v.
Stevens Electric Co., 9 So. 369, 93
Ala. 39.
34 C.J. p 435 note 30.
20. Tex. — Stewart v. Byrne, Com.
App., 42 S.W.2d 234 — Brannen v.
City of Houston, Civ.App., 153 S.W.
2d 676, error refused — Hacker v.
Hacker, Civ.App., 110 S.W.2d 923.
21. W.Va. — Howell v. Thompson, 12
S.E. 1088, 34 W.Va. 794.
34 C.J. p 435 note 29.
§ 343
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S,
relief has not yet expired.22 Equitable relief is of
course available in a proper case where there is
no other or adequate remedy;23 and in this connec-
tion there is ordinarily no adequate remedy at law
where the facts relied on as rendering it inequita-
ble to enforce the judgment did not exist when the
judgment was rendered.24
Fraud. The general rule requiring inadequacy
of other remedies as a prerequisite to equitable re-
lief against a judgment is usually applied to a judg-
ment procured by fraud.25 In some cases, however,
it has been held that, where the element of fraud
is present, the party aggrieved may go into either
a court of equity or a court of law for relief,26
and, having applied to equity, he cannot be sent
back to a court of law, although he may also have
a remedy there.27 Clearly, a party may, in a prop-
er case, have equitable relief against a judgment
secured by fraud where his remedies at law are
inadequate or have been exhausted.28
Void judgment. In the case of a void judgment
the cases are not harmonious.29 According to some
decisions, equity will grant relief by injunction, al-
though there may be an adequate remedy in the
original cause.30 It has generally been held, how-
ever, that in order to obtain relief on this ground*
it is necessary for complainant to show that he-
has no adequate remedy at law,31 or that he has ex-
hausted his legal remedies without obtaining re-
lief.32 These decisions proceed on the theory that,,
where there is an ordinary remedy for error, an ex-
traordinary one will not be allowed.33 Equitable
relief against a void judgment will be granted where,
an adequate remedy at law is not available.34
New trial. Injunction will not be granted to re--
strain the enforcement of a judgment or to order a
new trial, where the party still has an opportunity
to move the trial court for a new trial, or had such
opportunity and negligently omitted to avail himself
of it.35 However, only parties to a suit are re-
quired to move for new trials, and a person against
whom a judgment is rendered in an action to which.
22. Tenn. — Williams v. Pile, 56 S.W. j
833, 104 Tenn. 27S.
34 C.J. p 435 note 32.
23. Del. — Hollis v. Kinney, 120 A.
356, 13 Del.Ch. 366.
111. — Printers Corporation v. Hamil-
ton Inv. Co., 14 N.E.2d 517, 295
IlLApp. 34.
Mich.— Doering v. Baker, 270 N.W.
185, 277 Mich. 683.
N.D.— Vinquist v. Siegert, 225 N.W.
806, 58 N.D. 295.
34C.J. p 435 note 33.
24. Md.— Michael v. Rigler, 120 A.
382, 142 Md. 125.
25. Iowa. — Swartzendruber, v. Polke,
218 N.W. 62, 205 Iowa 382.
Mont. — Bullard v. Zimmerman, 268 P.
512, 82 Mont 434.
Neb.— Johnson v. Marsh, 19 N.W.2d
366, 146 Neb. 257.
34 C.J. P>34 note 21.
23, Cal. — Sontag v. Denio, 78 P.2d
248, 23 CaLApp.2d 319.
34 C.J. p 434 note 22.
27. Ala.— Merrill v. Travis, 26 So.2d
258.
Cal. — Sontag v. Denio, 73 P.2d 248,
23 Cal.App.2d 319.
Ga. — Griffin v. Sketoe, 30 Ga. 300.
Mo. — Crow v. Crow-Humphrey, 78 S.
W.2d 807, 335 Mo. 636.
Concurrent Jurisdiction over fraud
generally see Equity' S 49.
28. Mont. — Bullard v. Zimmerman,
268 P. 512, 82 Mont 434.
Or. — Fain v. Amend, 100 P.2d 481,
164 Or. 123.
29. Utah.— <3orpns Juris quoted in
Kramer v. Pixton, 268 P, 1029,
1032, 72 Utah 1.
30. Colo.— Watkins v. Perry, 139 P.
551, 25 Colo.App. 425.
34 C.J. P 434 note 24.
31. 111. — Calbreath v. Beckwith, 260
IlLApp. 7.
Mich. — Corpus Juris cited in Blehm
v. Hanzek, 262 N.W. 403, 404, 272
Mich. 541.
Utah. — Corpus Juris quoted in Kra-
mer v. Pixton, 268 P. 1029, 1032, 72
Utah 1.
34 C.J. p 434 note 25, p 435 note 31.
Xn Texas
(1) The rule set forth in the text
has been followed.— Mills v. Disney,
Civ.App., 54 S.W.2d 596—34 C.J. P
434 note 25.
(2) However, it has also been held
that a judgment void on its face
may be enjoined at any time in an
independent action without resort to
the remedy of appeal. — D. P. Con-
nolly Agency, Inc., v. Popejoy, Civ.
App., 290 S.W. 881.
32. Mich. — Corpus Juris cited in
Blehm v. Hanzek, 262 N.W. 403,
404, 272 Mich. '541.
Utah. — Corpus Juris quoted in Kra-
mer v. Pixton, 268 P. 1029, 1032,
72 Utah 1.
34 C.J. p 434 note 26.
33. Utah. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Kramer v. Pixton, 268 P. 1029,
1032, 72 Utah 1.
34 C.J. p 435 note 27.
34. Conn. — Clover v. Urban, 142 A.
389, 108 Conn. 13.
35. Mo. — Kingshighway Bridge Co.
v. Parrell, App., 136 S.W.2d 335.
Tex. — Southern Surety Co. v. Texas
Oil Clearing House, Com. App., 281
S.W. 1045 — Duncan v. Smith Bros.
Grain Co., Com. App., 260 S.W. 1027,
696
113 Tex, 555 — Arenstera v. Jencks^
Civ.App., 179 S.W.2d 831, error dis-
missed—Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.,
v. Pribble, Civ.App., 130 S.W.2*
332, error refused — Allen v. Trent-
man, Civ.App., 115 S.W.2d 1177 — .
Universal Credit Co. v. Cunning-
ham, Civ.App., 109 S.W.2d 507, er--
ror dismissed — Birge v. Conwell,,
Civ.App., 105 S.W.2d 407, error re-
fused— Smith v. Poppe, Civ.App.,
102 S.W.2d 1108 — Chapman v. De-
Bogory, Civ. App., 83 S.W.2d 447 —
Reynolds v. Volunteer State Life,
Ins. Co., Civ.App., 80 S.W.2d 1087,,.
error refused — Dennis v. McCas-*
land, Civ.App., 69 S.W.2d 506, re-
versed on other grounds 97 S.W.2d
684, 128 Tex 266— Lindsey v..
Dougherty, Civ.App., 60 S.W.2*
300, error refused — Pass v. Ray,.
Civ.App., 44 S.W.2d 470— Hollis v..
Seibold, Civ.App., 23 S.W.2d 811,.
error dismissed — Patton v. Crisp &-.
White, Civ.App., 11 S.W.2d 826, er--
ror dismissed — Davis v. Cox, Civ..
App., 4 S.W.2d 1008, error dismiss--
ed — Hansen v. Bacher, Civ.App.,.
295 S.W. 316— Madero v. Calzado,.
Civ.App., 274 S.W. 657.
34 C.J. p 436 note 40.
lack of counsel; diligence before.
trial
It is not sufficient to sustain an
action to set aside a Judgment that
plaintiff, without fault or negligence,
was deprived of counsel at the trial
of the case, but he must show a
sufficient excuse for not filing a mo-
tion for new trial at the term at
which the judgment was rendered;
and, in the absence of such showing,
the extent of his diligence before
trial is immaterial. — Moore v. Moore*
Tex.Civ.App., 259 S.W. 322.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 343
lie has not been made a party need not move for a
new trial before suing to enjoin the judgment36
Independent action or remedy at law. Equity or-
•dinarily will refuse to enjoin or reform a judgment
where the party would have an available and ade-
quate remedy for any damage he may suffer from
its enforcement, by means of an independent action
.at law,37 or an action or remedy against some third
•person responsible over to him.38 However, the
;action for damages must be as complete, practical,
.-and efficient as the equitable remedy in order to bar
relief.3**
Loss of legal remedy. Where the party had a
remedy at law by appeal or motion to vacate or for
a new trial, and has lost it, without fault on his
own part, by causes which he could not control,
preventing him from applying for it in due season,
equity will not refuse to enjoin the judgment merely
because the remedy at law, if it had been available,
would have been appropriate and adequate.40 How-
ever, the mere loss or exhaustion of legal remedies
is no ground for equity to interfere, unless it is also
shown that there is equitable ground of objection
to the judgment as it stands ;41 and it has been held
that relief will not be granted where the loss of the
remedy at law was due to accident42 or a mistaken
mode of proceeding.43
Relief will in no case be granted where the loss
of the remedy at law was due to the party's own
negligence or fault or that of his counsel.44
b. Statutory Remedies
Statutes which provide remedies cumulative to those
available in equity do not preclude equitable relief against
Judgments. However, equity will generally decline Ju-
risdiction where the grounds of relief are equally with-
in the cognizance of the law courts under the statutes,
and complete and adequate relief may be had at law
under the statutes.
The existence of statutes permitting courts of law
to open, vacate, modify, or set aside their own judg-
ments, for causes specified, does not exclude the
power of courts of equity to relieve against judg-
ments on sufficient grounds, where the statutes are
deemed to furnish a cumulative or additional rem-
edy;45 and, a fortiori, equitable relief will not be
36. Tex. — Owens v. Gage, 106 S.W.
880, 101 Tex. 286.
37- Fla.— Allison v. Handy Andy
Community Stores, 143 So. 263, 106
Fla. 274.
Ga.— Beddingfleld v. Old Nat. Bank
& Trust Co., 165 S.E. 61, 175 Ga.
172 — Bishop v. Bussey, 139 S.E.
212, 164 Ga, 642.
34 C.J. p 437 note 54.
38. Va, — Drake v. Lyons, 9 Gratt.
54, 50 Va. 54.
Contribution
Petition to enjoin enforcement of
joint judgment against petitioner
would not lie where he had an ade-
quate legal remedy to compel con-
tribution.— Autry v. Southern Ry.
Co., 144 S.B. 741, 167 Gto. 136.
39. N.M. — Pickering v. Palmer, 138
P. 198, 18 N.M. 473, 50 L.R.A.,N.
S., 1-055.
34 C.J. p 437 note 56.
40. Ark. — Road Improvement Dist.
No. 4, Prairie County v. Mobley,
245 S.W. 482, 156 Ark. 242.
Cal. — In re Hartley's Estate, 142 P.
2d 423, 23 Cal.2d 120, 149 A.L.R.
1250.
•Or. — Marsters v, Ashton, 107 P.2d
981, 165 Or. 507.
Tex. — Edwards v. Riverside Royal-
ties Corporation, Civ.App., 99 S.W.
2d 418. Error dismissed.
34 C.J. p 437 note 57.
Denial of motion to vacate
An order denying a motion to va-
cate a judgment at law does not de-
stroy the jurisdiction of equity to
entertain «, bill to set aside such
Judgment, where the motion was
made at & time when the court of
law had lost jurisdiction to entertain
it.— Spring Valley Coal Co. v. Don-
aldson, 123 I11.APP. 196.
41. 111.— Pitcairn v. Dreyfuss, 20 N.
E.2d 161, 299 IlLApp. 618.
Md.— Pioneer Oil Heat v. Brown, 16
A.2d 880, 179 Md. 155.
34 C.J. p 438 note 58.
42. 111. — Ballance v. Loomiss, 22 I1L
82.
34 C.J. p 438 note 59.
43. N.Y.— Jacobs v. Morange, 47 N.
T. 57.
34 C.J. p 438 note 60.
Mortgagor's reliance on . attorney's
advice that foreclosure judgment
rendered against him without service
of citation was void and no action
was necessary to set aside judgment
does not excuse mortgagor from first
exhausting legal remedies as con-
dition precedent to suing in equity to
set aside judgment. — Reynolds v.
Volunteer State Life Ins. Co., Tex.
Civ.App., 80 S.W.2d 1087, error re-
fused.
44. Ala.— Hatton v. Moseley, 156 So.
546, 229 Ala. 240— Kelley v. Chavls,
142 So. 423, 225 Ala. 218.
Cal. — Gundelflnger v. Mariposa Com-
mercial & Min. Co., App., 165 P.2d
67— Hogan v. Horsfall, 266 P. 1002,
91 CaLApp. 87, followed in 266
P. 1005, 91 CaLApp. 797.
Ky. — Hoover v. Dudley, 14 S.W.2d
410, 228 Ky. 110.
Ma. — Pioneer Oil Heat v. Brown, 16
A.2d 880, 179 Md. 155.
Mich. — Corpus Juris quoted in Bryll
v. Karchmarz, 235 N.W. 812, 253
Mich. 678.
697
Miss. — Lamar v. Houston, 184 So.
293, '183 Miss. 260.
Mo. — -Corpus Juris cited in Brinker-
hoff-Faris Trust & Savings Co. v.
Hill, 19 S.W.2d 746, 749, 323 Mo.
180, reversed on other grounds 50
S.Ct. 451, 281 U.S. 673, 74 L.Bd.
1107, conformed to 42 S.W.2d 23,
328 Mo. 836.
Okl. — Corpus Juris cited in State v.
Wood, 43 P.2d 136, 138r 171 OkL
341.
Or.— Mattoon v. Cole, 143 P.2d 679,
172 Or. 664 — Marsters v. Ashton,
107 P.2d 981, 165 Or. 507 — Corpus
Juris cited in Holmes v. Graham,
80 P.2d 870, 872, 159 Or. 466— Cor-
pus Juris quoted in Olsen v. Crow,
290 P. 233, 235, 133 Or. 310.
Tex. — Noble v. Empire Gas & Fuel
Co., Civ.App., 20 S.W.2d 849, af-
firmed Empire Gas & Fuel Co. v.
Noble, Com.App., 36 S.W.2d 451—
Camden Fire Ins. Ass'h v. Hill,
Civ. App., 264 S.W. 123, reversed on
other grounds, Com.App., 276 S.W.
887.
34 C.J. p 438 note 61.
Knowledge of rendition of Judgment
In suit to enjoin execution and
cancel judgment on ground of want
of service, relief was denied where
president of defendant association
knew of pendency of suit and of ren-
dition of judgment therein, had tried
to have cause continued, and no ex-
cuse was offered for failure to file
motion to have judgment set aside
or for a new trial. — Citizens Hut.
Life & Accident Ass'n of Texas v.
Gillespie, Tex.Civ.App., 93 S.W.2d
200.
45. Ala. — Leath v. Lister, 173 So.
§ 343
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
denied where the legal remedy under the statute is
inadequate.46 Resort to equity is cut off, however,
where the grounds of the application and the relief
to which the party is entitled are within the cogni-
zance of the law court under statutes, and a mo-
tion or other proceeding under the statute will
furnish, or by the exercise of proper diligence by
the complaining party would have furnished, an ade-
quate and complete remedy.47
During the period in which the statutory reme-
dies are available, courts of law and courts of eq-
uity sometimes have concurrent jurisdiction,48 but,
under the rule that the latter will not grant relief
where the former have jurisdiction to do so, courts
of equity generally will not assume jurisdiction dur-
ing such statutory period.49 When, however, the
time within which a motion may be made has ex-
pired, and no laches or want of diligence is imputa-
ble to the party asking relief, equity will grant re-
lief.50
c, Remedy by Review
One who has, or by taking proper steps would have
had, an adequate remedy by appeal or error ordinarily
can have no relief against a judgment in equity. This
is not an inflexible rule, however, and does not defeat
equitable relief in cases where the remedy by review
Is doubtful or Inadequate.
The general rule is that relief will not be granted
in equity against a judgment where the party has
an adequate remedy as to the matters complained
of by review, appeal, or writ of error and makes no
effort to avail himself of it, or has lost such reme-
dy by failing to take proper steps to secure or to
perfect it51 This is equally true whether the party
59. 233 Ala. 595— Kelley v. Chavis,
142 So. 423, 225 Ala, 218— Choctaw
Bank v. Dearmon, 134 So. 648, £23
Ala, 144.
Cal.— Winn v. Torr, 81 P.2d 457, 27
Cal. A pp. 2 d 623 — Jeffords v. Young,
277 P. 163, 98 Cal.App. 400— Rudy
v. Slotwlnsky, 238 P. 783, 73 Gal.
App. 459.
Minn. — Lenhart v. Lenhart Wagon
Co., 2 N.W.2d 421, 211 Minn. 572.
Neb.— Pavlik v. Burns, 278 N.W. 149,
134 Neb. 175— Howard Stove &
Furnace Co. v. Rudolf, 260 N.W.
189, 128 Neb. 665.
Ohio.— Seeds v. Seeds, 156 N.B. 193,
116 Ohio St. 144, 52 A.L.R. 761—
Young v. Guella, 35 N.B.2d 997, 67
Ohio App. 11.
Or.— Mattoon v. Cole, 143 P.2d 679,
172 Or. 664.
34 C:J. p 435 note 35.
46. Mont. — Bullard v. Zimmerman,
268 P. 512, 82 Mont. 434.
Okl.— Amos v. Johnston, 19 P.2d 344,
162 Okl. 115.
Utah. — Kramer v. Pixton, 268 P.
1029, 72 Utah 1.
Belief limited to parties
A statute permitting- a party to
move within a specified period for
relief from a judgment taken against
him through his mistake, inadvert-
ence, or excusable neglect does not
afford an adequate legal remedy,
which will exclude relief in equity,
to one who was not a party to the
action. — Gill v. Frances Inv. Co., C.
C.A.Cal., 19 F.2d 880.
Broader power of chancellor
As respects availability of remedy
of injunction against collection of
judgment entered by confession, al-
though courts exercise equitable
powers in motions to vacate judg-
ments entered by confession, the
courts do not exercise equity power
on such motion as broad as that
exercised by the chancellor in a suit
in equity; and the distinction be-
tween the equitable powers exer-
cised by court on motion to vacate
'and equity powers of a chancellor in
a suit in equity is not entirely abro-
gated by the statute providing for
joinder of legal and equitable causes
of action and setting up of all cross-
demands in counterclaims. — Printers
Corporation v. Hamilton Inv. Co., 14
N.E.2d 517, 295 Ill.App. 84.
47. Cal. — Gundelflnger v. Mariposa
Commercial & Min. Co., App., 165
P.2d 57.
Colo. — Wharton v. De Vinna, 246 P.
279 79 Colo. 450.
Mont. — Meyer v. Lemley, 282 P. 268,
86 Mont 83.
Neb.— Johnson v. Marsh, 19 N.W.2d
366, 146 Neb. 257— Bend v. Marsh,
18 N.W.2-d 106, 145 Neb. 780— In
re Marsh's Estate, .17 N.W.2d 471,
145 Neb. 559— Lindstrom v. Nils-
son, 274 N.W. 485, 132 Neb. 184—
Weber v. Allen, 238 N.W. 740,
121 Neb. 833.
Ohio. — Shedenhelm v. Myers, 63 N.E.
2d 34, 76 Ohio App. 28.
Okl. — Flynn v. Vanderslice, 44 P.2d
967, 172 Okl. 320— Reeder v. Mitch-
ell, 32 P.2d 26, 167 Okl. 621— Amos
v. Johnston, 19 P.2d 344, 162 Okl.
115— Kendall v. Watts, 273 P. 991,
135 Okl. 66.
34 C.J. p 435 note 86.
Ctarnisliee'8 ignorance of consequenc-
es of default
Where judgment creditor took
judgment against garnishee by de-
fault, and notified garnishee, which
did nothing within time allowed for
granting relief from judgments, be-
cause garnishee was not aware of
consequences following the default,
garnishee could not restrain enforce-
ment of judgment — Plumbers' Wood-
work Co. v. Merchants' Credit and
Adjustment Bureau, 226 N.W. 303,
199 Wis. 466.
48. Ind.— Hitt v. Carr, 130 N.E, 1,
77 Ind.App. 488.
698
49. Ala.— Leath v. Lister, 173 So.
59, 233 Ala. 595.
Iowa. — Bates v. Farmers Loan &
Trust Co. of Iowa City, 291 N.W.
184, 227 Iowa 1347.
Wash. — Muller v. Hendry, 17 P.2d
602, 171 Wash. 9.
34 C.J. p 436 note 38.
Statutory procedure as preferable
The courts are more inclined to
open up default judgment under
statute authorizing such relief for
mistake, inadvertence, surprise or
excusable neglect than to vacate
judgment in an independent suit. —
Mattoon v. Cole, 143 P.2d 679, 172
Or. 664.
50. Ala.— Kelley v. Chavis, 142 So.
423, 225 Ala. 218.
Mont. — Stocking v. Charles Beard
Co., 55 P.2d 949, 102 Mont. 65.
Okl. — Weimer v. Augustana Pen-
sion and Aid Fund, 67 P.2d 436,
179 Okl. 573.
34 C.J. p 436 note 39.
Time of discovery of fraud
Equity will afford relief against
judgment procured by fraud of suc-
cessful party when injured party, in
exercise of reasonable diligence, did
not discover, within time allowed for
commencing statutory proceeding to
vacate judgment, sufficient evidence
of fraud to warrant reasonable belief
and expectation that such proceeding
would be successful, if instituted.—
Hoeppner v. Bruckman, 261 N.W.
572, 129 Neb. 390— Krause v. Long,
192 N.W. 729, 109 Neb. 846.
51. U.S.— Moffett v. Bobbins, C.C.A.
Kan., 81 F.2d 431, denied 56 S.Ct.
940, 298 U.S. 675, 80 L.Ed. 1397—
U. S. v. Davis & Andrews Co., D.
C.Tenn., 3 F.Supp. 535.
Ark. — Parker v. Sims, 51 S.W.2d 517,
185 Ark. 1111 — Road Improvement
Dist. No. 4, Prairie County, v.
Mobley, 245 S.W. 482, 156 Ark.
242.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
has neglected altogether to take an appeal or has
prosecuted a defective or insufficient appeal.62 Eq-
uity will not interfere if there has been a failure
to resort to or exhaust an adequate remedy by cer-
tiorari53 or supersedeas.64
Failure to resort to or exhaust all remedies by
way of review, however, does not always bar relief
in equity against a judgment,55 and some decisions
make an exception to the general rule in cases where
fraud is alleged against the judgment.66 Resort
to, or exhaustion of, remedies by way of review has
been held not a prerequisite to equitable relief
against a judgment in cases where an equitable de-
fense fails because it is not cognizable at law,67 or
where a case for equitable interference, independ-
ent of a mere reversible error, is stated,68 and also
where the remedy by review is doubtful or inade-
quate,59 as where the matters alleged against it lie
outside the record and therefore are not cognizable
on appear or writ of error60 or, likewise, are not
Cal. — Doran v. Sherman, $4 P.2d
442, 18 Cal.App.2d 479.
Fla.— -Allison v. Handy Andy Com-
munity Stores, 143 So. 2§3, 106
Fla. 274 — Adams v. Reynolds, 134
So. 45, 101 Fla, 271.
Ga. — Barker v. People's Loan & Sav-
ings Co., 173 S.E. 704, 178 Ga, 464
— Futch v. Olmstead, 165 S.E. 582,
175 Ga. 563 — Dixie Realty Finance
Co. v. Morgan, 164 S.E. 200, 174
Ga. 807— Adams v. Bishop, 163 S.B.
148, 174 Ga. 420— Hutchings v.
Roquemore, 155 S.E. 675, 171 Ga.
359.
111. — Knaus v. Chicago Title & Trust
Co., 7 N.E.2d 298, 365 111. 588—
Mohr v. Messick, 53 N.E.2d 743,
322 IlLApp. 56 — Mecartney v. Hale,
48 N.E.2d '570, 318 IlLApp. 502.
Kan.— Bitsko v. Bitsko, 122 P.2d 753,
155 Kan. 80.
Md. — Pioneer Oil Heat v. Brown, 16
A.2d 880, 179 Md. 155.
Mass* — Untersee v. Untersee, 13 N.B.
2d 34, 299 Mass. 425— Morin v.
Ellis, 189 N.E. 95, 285 Mass. 370.
Mich. — Koppas v. Hettner & Flem-
ming, 282 N.W. 245, 286 Mich. 562.
Miss. — Max N. Tobias Bag Co, v.
Delta Cotton Oil Co», 11 So.2d 210,
193 Miss. 873.
Mo. — Gee v. Bothwell, App., 176 S.W.
2d 848 — Mutual Casualty Co. of
Missouri v. Sansone, App., 17 S.W.
2d 558.
Okl.— Wheeler v. Ridpath, 259 P. 247,
126 Okl. 290.
Tenn. — Peoples Tel. £ T«L Co. v.
Prye, 10 Teim.App. 160.
Tex. — Lynn v. Hanna, 296 S.W. 280,
116 Tex 652— Winters Mut. Aid
Ass'n, Circle No. 2, v. Reddin,
Com.App., 49 S.W.2d 1095— South-
ern Surety Co. v. Texas Oil Clear-
ing House, Com.App., 281 S.W.
1045— Smith v. Lockhart, Civ.App.,
177 S.W.2d 117— Smith v. Zenith
Corporation, Civ.App., 134 S.W«2d
337— Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v.
Pribble, Civ.App., 130 S,W.2d 332,
error refused — Smith v. Rogers,
Civ.App., 129 S.W.2d 776— Hacker
v. Hacker, Civ.App., 110 S.W.2d
923— Universal Credit Co. v. Cun-
ningham, Civ.App., 109 S.W.2d 507,
error dismissed — Robin v. Robin,
Civ.App., 106 S.W.2d 1082, error
dismissed — Birge v. Conwell, Civ.
App., 105 S.W.2d 407, error refused
— Snell v. Knowles, Civ.App., 87
S.W. 3d 871, error dismissed — Trigg
v. Trigg, Civ.App., 83 S.W.2d 1066,
error dismissed — Reynolds v. Vol-
unteer State Life Ins. Co., Civ.
App., 80 S.W.2d 1087, error refused
— Murry v. Citizens' State Bank of
Ranger, Civ.App., 77 S.W.2d 1104,
error dismissed — Inman v. Texas
Land & Mortgage Co., Civ.App.,
74 S.W.2d 124— Pass v. Ray, Civ.
App., 44 S.W.2d 470— Hollis v. Sei-
bold, Civ.App., 23 S.W.2d 811, er-
ror dismissed— Noble v. Empire
Gas & Fuel Co., Civ.App., 20 S.W.
2d 849, affirmed Empire Gas &
Fuel Co. v. Noble, Com. App., 36 S.
W.2d 451— U. O. Colson Co. v.
Powell, Civ.App., 13 S.W.2d 40S
— Fatton v. Crisp & White, Civ.
App., 11 S.W.2d 826, error dismiss-
ed— Crutcher v. Wolfe, Civ.App.,
269 S.W. 841— Getting v. Mineral
Wells Crushed Stone Co., Civ.App.,
262 S.W. 93— First Nat Bank v.
Curtis, Civ.App.t 244 S.W. 225.
34 C.J. p 436 note 42.
Availability of other remedies as
bar to opening or vacating Judg-
ment see supra § 283.
Mere ignorance of rendition of
Judgment, after due service of proc-
ess, is not sufficient showing of dili-
gence to excuse failure to prosecute
appeal or writ of error. — Murchison
Oil Co. v. Hampton, Tex.Civ.App., 21
S.W.2d 59, error refused.
Refusal to submit issues
Trial court's refusal to submit
plaintiffs requested issues is not
ground for enjoining enforcement of
judgment, since court's action might
be properly attacked cm appeal. —
Cooper v. Walker, Tex.Civ.App., 96
S.W.2d 847.
52. Tex. — Long v. Smith, 39 Tex.
160.
34 C.J. p 437 notes 42, 44.
53. Fla. — Sommers v. Colourpicture
Pub., 8 So.2d 281, 150 Fla. 659.
Mich, — Koppas v. HefCner & Flem-
ming, 282 N.W. 245, 286 Mich. 562.
Tex. — Hernandez v. Alamo Motor
Co., Civ.App., 299 S.W. 272.
34 C.J. p 437 note 45.
54. Ala, — Leath v. Lister, 173 So.
59, 233 Ala. 595.
34 C.J. p 437 note 46.
699
Failure to give supersedeas bond
One who has appealed from judg-
ment without giving supersedeas
bond cannot stay proceedings on
judgment by Injunction. — Glenn v.
Hollums, Tex. Civ. App., 73 S.W.2d
1068.
55. Execution defendants who wore
not parties to suit or judgment were
held entitled to enjoin execution as
against contention that they had
adequate remedy by writ of error. —
Maier v. Davis, Tex.Civ.App., 72 S.
W.2d 308.
56. Mo. — Baldwin v. Davidson, 40 S.
W. 765, 139 Mo. 118, 61 Am.S.B.
460.
34 C.J. p 437 note 47.
57. N.J. — Gallagher v. Lembeck &
Betz Eagle Brewing Co., 98 A. 461,
86 N.J.Eq. 188— Headley v. Leavitt,
55 A. 731, 65 N.J.Ea. 748.
58. Ala. — Robinson v. Reid, 50 Ala.
69.
Tex. — Elstun v. Scanlan, Civ.App.,
202 S.W. 762.
59. Colo.— Ferrier v. Morris, 122 P.
2d 880, 109 Colo. 154.
111. — Bachechi v. Inlander Paper Co.,
252 IlLApp. 178.
Ind. — City of New Albany v. Lemon,
149 N.E. 350, 198 Ind. 127, rehear-
ing denied 152 N.E. 723, 198 Ind.
127.
Mont. — Bullard v. Zimmerman, 268
P. 512, 82 Mont. 434.
Tex. — Bennett v. Carter, Civ.App.,
102 S.W.2d 450, error dismissed —
Senter v. 'Garland, Civ.App., 298 S.
W. 614 — Cook v. Panhandle Refin-
ing Co., Civ.App., 267 S.W. 1070.
34 C.J. p 437 note 49.
Default judgment
As respects right to maintain pro-
ceedings to set aside default judg-
ment, legal remedy of appeal is not
an adequate remedy. — Bennett v.
Carter, Tex.Civ.App., 102 S.W.2d 450,
error dismissed.
60. Mo. — Chouteau v. City of St.
Louis, App., 131 S.W.2d 902.
Tex. — Edwards v. Riverside Royal-
ties Corporation, Civ. App,, 99 S.W.
2d 418, error dismissed — Ritch v.
Jarvis, Civ. App., 64 S.W.2d 831, er-
ror dismissed.
34 CJ*. p 437 note 51.
Agreement not of record
Where plaintiffs took Judgment
§ 344
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
cognizable on certiorari,61 or where the amount
in controversy was so small that no appeal could
be taken.62
§ 344. Persons Entitled to Relief
Equitable relief against a judgment ordinarily will
be granted only to parties to the action or their privies,
or persons directly Jeopardized by the judgment. An
owner or purchaser of property affected by the judg-
ment may be entitled to relief.
As a rule relief in equity against a judgment
at law is given only to the parties to the action63
or those in privity of interest or estate with them ;64
and a third person or stranger to the proceedings
who is not affected by the judgment cannot attack
it in equity or enjoin its enforcement.65 In proper
instances, however, particularly in the case of a
fraudulent or collusive judgment, relief in equity
may be had at the instance of one who, although not
a party to the proceeding in which the judgment was
rendered, shows that he is directly injured or jeopar-
dized by the judgment as it stands,66 as where he
claims to be the true owner of the property in con-
troversy or sets up a paramount title to it67
One who had full knowledge of the pendency of
the suit, and neither sought to become a party there-
to nor made any effort to intervene therein so as to
protect his rights, may be barred, after rendition of
judgment, from suing to set such judgment aside or
to restrain its enforcement;68 but voluntary inter-
vention is not required as a condition of equitable
relief to one who was absolutely entitled to a hear-
ing, and such a person, although not a party to the
proceedings in which the judgment was rendered,
may nevertheless have relief against it in a proper
case.6 ^
Purchasers, encumbrancers, and creditors. A pur-
chaser of property subject to the lien of a judgment
to which his grantor makes no objection cannot
maintain a suit to enjoin its enforcement, unless
without notice, contrary to vali<
agreement not of record, defendants
had no remedy by writ of error, bu
remedy lay in direct attack on judg
xnent— - Caffarelli v. Reasonover, Tex
Civ.App., 54 *SAV.2d 170.
Discharge in bankruptcy
As respects right of motorist, aft
er discharge in bankruptcy, to bring
bill in equity to vacate judgment for
injuries to pedestrian, quash body
execution, and discharge jail limits
bond, discharge in bankruptcy grant-
ed after judgment was rendered
would not be ground for appeal from
Judgment. — Doering v. Baker, 270 N.
W. 185, 277 Mich. 683.
61. Mich.— Wilcke v. Duross, 107 N.
W. 907, 144 Mich, 243, 115 Axn.S.R.
394.
34 C.J. p 437 note 52.
62. Tex.— Gulf, C. & S. P. R. Co. v.
Henderson, 18 S.W. 432, 83 Tex. 70.
34 C.J. p 437 note 53.
63. Ga. — Martocello v. Martocello,
30 S.E.2d 108, 197 Ga. 629— Thom-
as v. Lambert, 1 S.B.2d 443, 187
Ga. 616.
Tex, — Garcia v. Jones, Civ.App., 155
S.W.2d 671, error refused — Hugh
Cooper Co. v. American Nat. Ex-
change Bank of Dallas, Civ.App.,
30 S.W.2d 364.
84 C.J. p 438 note 62 — 47 C.J. p 438
note 62.
Claim of interest
Persons not parties to a partition
action could not petition to have the
decree set aside merely because they
claimed an interest in the property.
—Gage v. Lee, 141 N.B. 397, 309 111.
614.
party"
(1) Statute authorizing suit to set
aside judgment to be brought b^
"aggrieved party" against "prevail-
ing party" was held intended to in-
clude all those who were parties t
action, although having varying in
terests therein. — Tankar Gas v. Lum
bermen's Mut. Casualty Co., 9 N.W
2d 754, 215 Minn. 265, 146 A.L.R
1223.
(2) In a proceeding by a minority
stockholder, the corporation was the
"aggrieved party" within meaning of
the statute. — Lenhart v. Lehhar
Wagon Co., '298 N.W. 37, 210 Minn
164, 135 A.L.R. 833. mandate modified
on other grounds 2 N.W.2d 421, 211
Minn. 572.
64. Tex. — Jackson v. Wallace, Com.
App., 252 S.W. 745.
34 C.J. p 438 note 63.
65. Ga. — Thomas v. Lambert, 1 S.E.
2d 443, 187 Ga, 616.
HI. — Gage v. Lee, 141 N.B. 397, 309
HI. 614.
Ohio.— Suiter v. Suiter, 57 N.E.2d 616,
74 Ohio App. 44.
Tex.— Carlton v. Hoff, Civ.App., 292
S.W. 642.
34 C.J. p 439 note 64—24 C.J. p 888
note 85.
Parties to action for equitable relief
against judgment see infra § 884.
Injury by reason of nonjoinder
One may not attack judgment void-
.ble for nonjoinder of parties unless
he sustained injury by reason of
nonjoinder. — State Mortg. Corpora-
tion v. Garden, Tex.Civ.App., 11 S.
W.2d 212.
Absence of f rand on lienor
One claiming landlord's lien could
iot enjoin enforcement of .condition-
al seller's judgment in detinue,
where bill did not allege facts show-
ng that judgment was concocted in
raud of lien claimant's rights. —
L«arue v. Loveman, Joseph & Loeb,
32 So. 715, 222 Ala. 472.
700
66. Ala. — Mudd v. Lanier, 24 So.26T
550— Henley v. Foster, 125 So. 662,.
220 Ala. 420.
Cal. — Difani v. Riverside County OiP
Co., 256- P. 210, 201 Cal. 210 —
Harada v. Fitzpatrick, 91 P.2d 941,
33 Cal. App. 2 d 453.
Mass. — Connor v. Morse, 20 !r.E.2cT
424, 303 Mass. 42.
Mich.— Casey v. Goetzen, 214 N.W.
948, 240 Mich. 41.
34 C.J. p 439 note 65.
A taxpayer is entitled to equitable
relief from a judgment entered
against a city when it appears that
his case comes within some of the
recognized grounds of which a court
of equity assumes Jurisdiction, such
as fraud of either of the parties to-
the judgment or the collusion of
both. — Indiana Harbor Belt R. Co.
v. Calumet City, 63 N.B.2d 369, 391
111. 280.
67. Cal. — Bernhard v. Waring, 2 P..
2d 32, 213 Cal. 175.
Tex. — McCook v. Amarada Petroleum*
Corporation, Civ.App., 73 S.W.2cH
914.
34 C.J. p 489 note 66.
Cloud on title
Third person, if sufficiently Inter-
ested, may by suit attack validity of
Judgment as cloud on title. — Weld*
v. Morris, 291 P. 1048, 49 Idaho 781
—34 CJT. p 439 note 66 [b].
68, Ga. — Fitzgerald v. Bowen, 40 Sw
E. 735, 114 Ga. 691.
La. — Hawthorne v. Jackson Parish
School Board, 5 La. App. 508.
Or.-^Oorpus Jttris gnotefl in Olsen v.
Crow, 290 P. 233, 235, 133 Or. 31fr.
S9. U.S.— Chase Nat. Bank v. City
of Norwalk, Ohio, 54 S.Ct 475, 291
U.S. 431, 78 L.Ed. 894,
49 C. J. S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 346
he can show that it was fraudulent or expressly de-
signed to injure him;70 and a similar rule obtains
in the case of encumbrancers by mortgage or oth-
erwise,71 and other creditors of the common debt-
or.72 Under proper circumstances, however, the
purchaser of property may have the right to im-
peach a judgment, and the lien thereof against his
property, although not a party to the action in which
the judgment was rendered,73 at least in cases in
which the judgment is void by reason of facts ap-
pearing on the judgment roll.74
Sureties. Although there is nothing in the mere
character of a surety entitling him to special con-
sideration in the awarding of equitable relief against
a judgment,75 yet there may be circumstances ren-
dering it inequitable and against conscience to al-
low the enforcement of the judgment.76 Where
judgment is erroneously or wrongfully taken against
one as principal, when he is liable only as surety or
indorser, equity may relieve him against the judg-
ment, on evidence showing the true character of his
liability.77
§ 345. Persons against Whom Relief Avail-
able
Equitable relief against a judgment may in general
be had against any one who attempts to enforce it, ex-
cept the sovereign and bona fide purchasers of property
affected by the Judgment.
An action to enjoin a void, fraudulent, or uncon-
scionable judgment may generally be maintained
against any person who attempts to enforce it,78 in-
cluding the heirs at law of the judgment creditor.™
Relief ordinarily will not be awarded against pur-
chasers of the property affected, who take it in good
faith and without notice of the circumstances af-
fecting the validity of the judgment.80 An excep-
tion to this latter rule 'exists, however, in the case
of gambling contracts, made void by statute, and
relief against a judgment on such a contract may
be obtained even against a bona fide holder for
vjue without notice.81
United States. Since the sovereign is beyond the
reach of any prohibitory process, an injunction can-
not be issued to restrain the United States from
collecting a judgment in its favor.82
§ 346. Judgments against Which Relief May
Be Granted
It is generally considered that equity may grant re-
lief against judgments of any judicial tribunal, and of
whatever form or nature, including decrees In equity and
judgments of special tribunals.
Subject to some limitations and exceptions, a
court of equity, on sufficient cause shown, ordinarily
may grant relief against a judgment, decree, or or-
der of any judicial tribunal,83 and the form or na-
70. Cal.— Whitney v. Kelley, 29 P.
' 624. 94 Cal. 146. 28 Am.S.R. 106,
15 L..R.A. 813.
34 C.J. p 439 note 69.
71. Tex. — Llvezey v. Putnam Supply
Co., Civ.App., 30 S.W.2d 902, error
refused.
34 C.J. P 439 note 70.
72. Mich. — Edson v. Cumings, 17 N.
W. 693, 52 Mich. 52.
34 C.J. p 439 note 71.
Divestiture of property -with intent
to defraud creditors
Creditors of persons who through
fraudulent contrivance or fraudulent
complicity with others cause a Judg-
ment to be. rendered whereby they
are divested of their property with
a design to defraud their creditors
may resort to courts having equity
Jurisdiction for relief against such
injustice, since the fraud in those
cases is regarded not only on the
person aggrieved but likewise on the
court itself. — Hooffstetter v. Adams,
35 N.E.2d 896, 67 Ohio App. 21.
Future creditor
A Judgment creditor may not be
precluded from satisfying his Judg-
ment from a private fund on the
ground that a future creditor may
thereby find himself in the position
of having an uncollectable Judgment
against the debtor.— Pisclotta v<
Preston, 10 N.Y.S.2d 44, 170 Misc.
376.
73. N.C.— Helsabeck v. Vass, 146 S.
B. 576, 196 N.C. 603.
Purchaser under judgment In attach-
ment suit
A purchaser at a sale under the
Judgment in an attachment suit ac-
quires the title of defendant in at-
tachment, and has the same right
to file a bill to annul a Judgment in
a senior attachment.— McKinney v.
Adams, 50 So. 474, 95 Miss. 832.
74. Cal. — Swallow v. Tungsten
Products Co., 270 P. 366, 205 Cal.
207.
75. Tex.— Watts v. Moss, Civ.App.,
63 S.W.2d 1095, error dismissed.
34 C.J. P 440 note 73.
76." Tex.— Axtell v. Lopp, Civ.App.,
152 S.W. 192.
24 C.J. p 888 note 85 [a].
77. S.C.— Baubien v. Stoney, 17 S.C.
Bq. 508.
34 C.J. p 440 note 84.
78. Kan. — Chambers v. King
Wrought-Iron Bridge Manufactory,
16 Kan. 270.
Parties to action for equitable relief
against Judgment see infra § 384.
Belief denied as against escrow hold-
er
The purchasers of property under
701
an unrecorded deed, against whom
a subsequent purchaser obtained a
Judgment quieting title in him, were
held to have no right of action to
set the judgment aside as against
a bank which held the unrecorded
deed and the contract of sale in .es-
crow.— Jeffords v. Young, 277 P. 163,
98 Cal.App. 400.
79. Va. — Evans v. Spurgln, 11 Gratt.
615, 52 Va. 615.
80. Tex. — Gar2a v. Kenedy, Civ.App.,
291 S.W. 615, reversed on other
grounds, Com. App., 299 S.W. 231.
34 C.J. p 440 note 87.
PtuKlamental jurisdlctional defect
In Judgment debtor's suit against
Judgment creditor and third party
to set aside Judgment and sale there-
under for fundamental Jurisdictional
defect, third party is not entitled to
protection of Judgment unless It ap-
pears that he is a purchaser in good
faith and that the Judgment is reg-
ular on its face. — Morris v. Soble, 61
S.W.2d 139.
81. Miss.— Lucas v. Waul, 20 Miss.
157.
34 C.J. p 440 note 88.
82. U.S.— Hill v. U. S., Miss., 9 How.
386, 13 L.Ed. 185— IT. S. v. McLe-
more, Tenn., 4 How. 286, 11 L.Ed.
977.
83. U.S. — Smith v. Smith, D.C.Mont,
§ 346
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
ture of the judgment is not generally material in
this respect84 While it has been broadly held that
probate decrees may not be set aside in equity,85
even for fraud,86 it has also been held that they
may be set aside in a proper case,87 as for fraud,
accident, or mistake, or the acts of the adverse party
unmixed with the negligence or fault of complain-
ant,88 or where a defect in jurisdiction or other
fatal error affirmatively appears on the record.89
A court of equity may, on sufficient reasons for
such action being shown, grant relief against the
enforcement of a judgment at law in favor of90 or
against91 an executor or administrator.
Decrees in equity. If, through lapse of time or
for other reasons, the remedy by way of bill of re-
view is not available to attack a decree in equity
which has been improperly entered, there may be
relief by way of an injunction in equity, where
justice so demands, and there is no other way
open.92 In a proper case a bill will lie to review
a decree in equity against a personal representa-
tive.93
Interlocutory decrees. A court of equity will not
interfere to set aside an interlocutory decree in
a cause then pending in another court94 because the
party complaining of such a decree has a sufficient
remedy by applying to the court which made it.95
Judgments affirmed on appeal It has been held
by some authorities that a judgment which has been
affirmed on appeal may not be impeached or set
aside by a court of equity, in a suit brought for that
purpose;96 it has also been held, however, that such
a judgment may be enjoined97 on any ground of
error apparent on the face of such judgment, or on
the record of the case in which it was rendered,98
at least where it appears that the judgment is void99
or that it was obtained by fraud.1
Pendency of an appeal or a writ of error does not
necessarily affect the jurisdiction of a court of equi-
ty over a bill to enjoin a judgment,2 at least where
the suit in equity does not draw into question the
judgment and proceedings at law, or claim a right
to revise them, but sets up an equity independent of
the judgment, which admits the validity thereof,
but suggests reasons why the party who has ob-
tained it ought not to avail himself of it.3
Special tribunals. It has been said that injunc-
tion does not lie to restrain the execution of a judg-
ment of a special tribunal created by statute, certi-
orari being the proper remedy.4 However, the
judgment of such a tribunal which is a nullity may
be enjoined.6
210 P. 947, affirmed 224 F. 1, 139
C.C.A. 465.
34 C.J. p 440 note 91.
Judgment of court of another county
The district court of one county
liad no jurisdiction to enjoin execu-
tion of judgment of court of another
county on ground that there was no
service of citation on defendant,
where judgment on its face appeared
to be valid. — Stewart v. Adams, Tex.
Civ.App., 171 S.W.2d ISO.
«4. Miss. — Brown v. Wesson, 74 So.
831, 114 Miss. 216.
34 CUT. p 441 note 92.
Cognovit judgments
U.S. — Glinski v. U. S., C.C.A.I1L, 98
F.2d 418.
Wis.— -Ellis v. Gordon, 231 N.W. 585,
202 Wis. 134.
35. Decree allowing prolate account
Mass. — Grassie v. Grassie, 61 N.B.
2d 526.
36. Mass. — Mahoney v. Nollman, 35
N.B.2d 265, 309 Mass. 522— Far-
quhar v. New England Trust Co.,
158 N.B. 836, 261 Mass. 209.
*7. Ark.— Hill v. Taylor, 135 S.W.2d
825, 199 Ark. 695.
Mich.— Kurant v. Higbee, 9 N.W.2d
824, 305 Mich. 411.
Tex. — Union Bank & Trust Co. of
Fort Worth v. Smith, Civ.App., 166
S.W.2d 928.
34 C.J. p 440 note 91 [a] (1).
Acts of county judge
Exercise of circuit court's super-
visory power over acts, proceedings,
and doings of county judge relating
to probate or guardianship matters
can be invoked by suit in equity. —
Ex parte Hansen, 162 So. 715, 120
Fla, 333 — Pitts v. Pitts, 162 So. 708,
120 Fla. 363.
88- Ga. — Bowers v. Dolen, 1 S.E.2d
734, 187 Ga. 653.
89. Mass. — Farquhar v. New Eng-
land Trust Co.. 158 N.E. 836, 261
Mass. 209.
90. Mo.— Link v. Link, 48 Mo.App.
345.
24 C.J. p 888 note 83.
91. Tenn. — Hamilton v. Newman, 10
Humphr. 557.
92. Mass. — Corbett v. Craven, 82 N.
E. 37, 196 Mass. 319.
34 C.J. p 441 note 3.
93. Ky.— Head v. Perry, 1 T.B.Mon.
253.
24 C.J. p 889 note 94.
94. Neb.— James v. McNeill, 97 N.W.
22, 70 Neb. 132.
34 C.J. P 441 note 93.
95. U.S.— Furnald v. Glenn, N.Y., 64
F. 49, 12 C.C.A. 27.
56. U.S. — Central Trust Co. of New
York v. Evans, Tenn., 73 F. 562,
19 C.C.A. 563.
24 C.J. p 441 note 95.
702
97. Ind. — Stephenson v. State, 186
N.E. 293, 205 Ind. 141.
98. W.Va. — Armstrong v. Poole, 5 S.
E. 257, 30 W.Va. 666.
99. Tex. — Chambers v. Hodges, 23
Tex. 104.
34 C.J. p 441 note 97.
1. Ala. — Chambers v. Crook, 42 Ala,
171, 94 Am.D. 637.
34 C.J. p 441 note 98.
2. U.S. — Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Mc-
Sherry Mfg. Co., Ohio, 155 F. 524,
84 C.C.A. 38— Platt v. Threadgill,
C.C.Va., 80 F. 192, appeal dismissed
18 S.Ct 945, 42 L.Ed. 1208.
3. U.S. — Johnson v. St. Louis, I. M.
& S. R. Co., Ark., 12 S.Ct 124,
141 U.S. 602, 35 L.Ed. 875— Parker
v. Judges Maryland Cir. Ct., Md.,
12 Wheat. 561, 6 L.Ed. 729.
4. S.C. — Hornesby v. Burdell, 9 S.C.
303.
5. Tenn. — Walt v. Thomasson, 10
Heisk. 151.
34 C.J. p 441 note 5.
Compensation award
Equity court has been held to have
jurisdiction to enjoin enforcement of
judgment based on compensation
award on ground that judgment was
fraudulently obtained, as against
contention that jurisdiction of courts
over compensation awards is limited
to review provided by statute, which
does not include fraud, since juris-
49 O.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 349
§ 347.
By Confession or on Consent or
Offer
Equitable relief against a judgment by confession
or on consent, although not readily granted, may never-
theless be had on a showing of sufficient grounds.
Where a party to an action at law voluntarily
confesses judgment, usually he is not entitled to
equitable relief against the judgment, unless with-
out negligence on his part he was prevented from
making his defense by fraud, accident, surprise, or
mistake.6 However, if sufficient grounds appear,
equitable relief against a judgment by confession
may properly be granted.7 If judgment is confessed
for a balance claimed, with the privilege of cor-
recting errors, if any, it can be enjoined only on
proof of errors.8
Consent judgment. Although equity is little dis-
posed to overhaul judgments settled by consent or
compromise,9 yet on a showing of proper circum-
stances, such as fraud or mistake in the procurement
of the judgment, relief against it may be obtained
in equity.10
§ 348. By Default
A court of equity may grant relief against a de-
fault judgment provided the complaining party was not
at fault in falling to defend.
A court of equity will not grant relief against a
judgment taken by default where the applicant,
diction of equity to enjoin a judg-
ment founded on a compensation
award has nothing to do with a re-
view of the award. — Amberg v. Dea-
ton, 271 N.W. 396, 223 Wis. 653.
6. Ala. — Moore v. Barclay, 23 Ala.
739.
34 C.J. P 441 note 7.
7. Colo.— Sarchet v. Phillips, 78 P.
2d 1096, 102 Colo. 318.
Pa. — Sherwood Bros. Co. v. Kennedy,
200 A. 689, 132 Pa.Super. 154.
34 C.J. p 441 notes 8-10.
altered power of attor-
ney
Equity may enjoin a judgment on
a note entered on a fraudulently al-
tered power of attorney to confess
judgment. — Hodge v. Oilman, 20 111.
437.
8. U.S.— Gear v. Parish, Wis., 5
How. 168, 12 L.Ed. 100.
9. Ala.— State v. Neuhoff, 196 So.
130, 239 Ala. 584.
Ga.— Elliott v. Elliott, 191 S.E. 465,
184 Ga. 417.
34 C.J. p 442 note 16.
10. Ala.— Mudd v. Lanier, 24 So.2d
550.
— Hanrahan v. Andersen, 90 P.
3d 494, 108 Mont 218.
Tenn. — Corpus Juris cited in Coley
v. Family Loan Co., 80 S.W.2d 87,
88, 168 Tenn. 631.
Tex. — Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v.
Arnold, 88 S.W.2d 473, 126 Tex.
466.
34 C.J. p 442 note 16.
•Unauthorized obligations of munici-
pality
Equity may set aside a consent
judgment rendered against a munici-
pality on unauthorised obligations. —
Village of Hartford v. First Nat
Bank of Wood River, 30 N.E.2d 524,
307 IlLApp. 447.
11. Or. — Corpus Juris quoted In Ol-
sen v. Crow, 290 P. 233, 235, 133
Or. 310.
Tex.— Murry v. Citizens' State Bank
of Ranger, Civ.App., 77 S.W.2d
1104, error dismissed — Winn v.
Houston Building & Loan Ass'n,
Civ.App., 45 S.W.2d 631, error re-
fused.
34 C.J. p 442 note 18.
Negligence or misconduct of counsel
as excuse for not defending at law
see infra § 368.
Confirmation of default against in-
solvent
Injunction by surety of insolvent
will not lie to prevent confirmation
of default against insolvent — Levee
Const. Co. v. Equitable Casualty &
Surety Co. of New York, 138 So. 431,
173 La. 648.
703
shown to have been duly served with summons,
failed to avail himself of an opportunity to defend,
such failure not being the result of fraud, accident,
mistake, or the like.11 On a showing of sufficient
grounds, however, a court of equity will grant re-
lief against a default judgment which was obtained
without fault on the part of the one seeking re-
lief.12 Where a judgment by default is obtained
against a party by his own neglect, it constitutes no
ground for equitable intervention that his adver-
sary obtained more relief than he was entitled to.13
§ 349. Meritorious Cause of Action or De-
fense
A& a general rule, the plaintiff must show a meri-
torious cause of action, and the defendant a meritorious
defense, as a condition of equitable relief to him against
a Judgment. Some authorities, however, do not require
such a showing where the attack is made on a void
judgment.
A court of equity will not interfere with the
enforcement of a judgment recovered at law,
unless it is unjust and unconscionable; and there-
fore as a general rule such relief will not be
granted unless complainant shows that he has a.
good and meritorious defense to the original action,
or, where the party seeking relief was the plain-
tiff in the action in which the judgment was ren-
dered, that he has a meritorious cause of action.1*
This is the rule where the judgment was procured
12. Ala,— Alabama Chemical Co. Y-
Hall, 101 So. 456, 212 Ala. 8.
Cal. — Jeffords v. Young, 277 P. 163,.
98 CaLApp. 400.
111. — Marquette Nat. Fire Ins. Co. v.
Minneapolis Fire & Marine Ins.
Co., 233 IlLApp. 102.
Mo. — Crown Drug Co. v. Raymond,
App., 51 S.W.2d 215.
Tex. — Gehret v. Hetkes, Com.App.,
36 S.W.2d 700— Guaranty State-
Bank of New Braunfels v. Kuehler,
Civ.App., 114 S.W.Sd 622, error re-
fused.
13. Cal.— Murdock v. De Vries, 37*
Cal. 527.
Or. — Corpus Juris quoted in Olsen
v. Crow, 290 P. 233, 235, 133 Or.
310.
14. U.S. — Simonds v. Norwich XTnion
Indemnity Co., C.C.A.Minn., 73 F.
2d 412, certiorari dented Norwich.
Union Indemnity Co. v. Simonds,
55 S.Ct. 507, 204 U.S. 711, 79 L.Ed.
1246— Continental Nat Bank of
Jackson County, at Kansas City,
Mo., v. Holland Banking Co., C.C.
A.Mo., 66 F.2d 823— Miller Rub-
ber Co. of New York v. Massey, C.
C.A.I11., 36 F.2d 4fl6, certiorari <^-
nied Massey v. Miller Rubber Co*
of New York, 50 S.Ct. 354, 281
U.S. 749, 74 L.Bd. 1161— Corpus
Juris quoted in David A. Manville-
§ 349
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
by fraud, accident, or mistake,15 and although the
judgment is by default16 or confession.17 It has
been said, however, that the rule and the reason for
it entirely fail when defendant comes into court
with the money and offers to pay the judgment as
a condition precedent to its being set aside.1^
Although the party seeking relief must show at
least presumptively that he has a defense,19 the re-
quirement of a meritorious case does not necessi-
tate an absolute guarantee of victory20 or a con-
clusive showing of sufficient cause of action or de-
fense.21 It is enough to present facts from which
it can be ascertained that the complaining party has
a sufficiently meritorious claim to entitle him to a
trial of the issue at a proper adversary proceed-
ing;22 it suffices to establish good faith and to ten-
der a seriously litigable issue.23
& Co. v. Francis Oil & Refining
Co., C.C.A.Okl.f 20 F.2d 473, 474
Ala. — Fletcher v. First Nat. Bank of
Apelika, 11 So.2d 854, 244 Ala. 98
— Corpus Juris cited in Hanover
Fire Ins. Co. v. Street, 176 So. 350,
353, 234 Ala. 537 — Timmerman v.
Martin, 176 So. 198, 234 Ala. 622
Corpus Juris cited in Snyder v.
Woolf, 166 So. 803, 805, 232 Ala.
07 — Barrow v. Lindsey, 159 So.
232, 230 Ala. 45— Hanover Fire
Ins. Co. v. Street, 154 So. 816, 228
Ala. 677— Oden v. King, 114 So. 1,
216 Ala. 597.
Ark. — Sweet v. Nix, 122 S.W.2d 538,
197 Ark. 284 — Greer v. Keathly, 87
S.W.2d 26, 191 Ark. 529— McDonald
Land Co. v. Shapleigh Hardware
Co., 260 S.W. 445, 163 Ark. 524.
Cal. — Olivera v. Grace, 122 P.2d 564,
19 Cal.2d 570, 140 A.L.R. 1328—
Frost v. Hanscome, 246 P. 53, 198
Cal. 500.
Colo. — Wagner v. Johnson, 247 P.
1053, 79 Colo. 664.
Conn. — Bellonio v. V. R. Thomas
Mortg. Co., 149 A. 218, 110 Conn.
103.
Ga. — Felker v. Johnson, 7 S.E.2d 668,
189 Ga, 797— Kilburn v. Mechanics'
Loan & Savings Co., 165 S.E. 76,
175 Ga. 146, 83 A.L.R. 1292.
Mo. — Corpus Juris cited in Hocken-
berry v. Cooper County State Bank
of Bunceton, 88 S.W.2d 1031, 1037,
338 Mo. 31.
Ohio.— Corpus Juris quoted in Barn-
hart v. Aiken. 177 N.B. 284, 285,
39 Ohio App. 172.
Or. — Oregon-Washington R. & Nav.
Co. v. Reid, 65 P.2d 664, 155 Or.
602.
Tenn.— Tallent v. Sherrell, 184 S.W.
2d 561, 27 TemuApp. 683.
Tea:. — Stewart v. Byrne, Com.App.,
42 S.W.2d 234 — Empire Gas & Fuel
Co. v. Noble, Com. App., 36 S.W.2d
451 — Humphrey v. Harrell, Com.
App., 29 S.W.2d 963 — Southern
Surety Co. v. Texas Oil Clearing
House, Com.App., 281 S.W. 1045 —
Gray v. Moore, Civ. App., 172 S.W.
3d 746, error refused — American
Red Cross v. Longley, Civ.App., 165
S.W.2d 233, error refused — Goldapp
v. Jones Lumber Co., Civ.App., 163
S.W.2d 229, error refused — Garcia
v. Jones, Civ.App., 155 S.W.2d 671,
error refused — Brannen v. City of
Houston, Civ. App., 153 S.W.2d 676,
error refused — Hicks v. Wallis
Lumber Co., Civ.App., 137 S.W.2d
93 — Smith v. Zenith Corporation,
Civ.App., 134 S.W.2d 337— Smith
v. Rogers, Civ.App., 129 S.W.2d 776
— Donovan v. Young, Civ.App., 127
S.W.2d '517, error refused— Allen
v. Trentman, Civ.App., 115 S.W.2d
1177 — Hacker v. Hacker, Civ.App.,
110 S.W.2d 923— Smith v. Poppe,
Civ.App., 102 S.W.2d 1108— Fowzer
v. Huey & Philp Hardware Co.,
Civ.App.t 99 S.W.2d 1100, error dis-
missed— Finlayson v. McDowell,
Civ.App., 94 S.W.2d 1234, error dis-
missed— Hill v. Lester, Civ.App.,
91 S.W.2d 1152, error dismissed —
Snell v. Knowles, Civ.App., 87 S.
W.2d 871, error dismissed — Trigg
v. Trigg, Civ.App., 83 S.W.2d 1066,
error dismissed — Graves v. Slater,
Civ.App., 83 S.W.2d 1041, error dis-
missed— Schultz v. Mabry, Civ.
App., 60 S.W.2d 1045 — Stevenson v.
Thomas, Civ.App., 56 S.W.2d 1095,
error dismissed— National Loan &
Investment Co. v. L. W. Pelphrey
& Co., Civ.App., 39 S.W.2d 926 —
Hollis v. Seibold, Civ.App., 23 S.
W.2d 811, error dismissed — First
State Bank of Loraine v. Jackson,
Civ.App., 13 S.W.2d 979— U. O. Col-
son Co. v. Powell, Civ. App., 13 S.
W.2d 405— Smith v. Kraft, Civ.
App., 9 S.W.2d 472 — Cunningham
v. Carpenter, Civ.App., 258 S.W.
607— Broocks v. Lee, 102 S.W. 777,
46 Tex.Civ.App. 372, error refused.
Wash. — John Hancock Mut. Life Ins.
Co. v. Gooley, 83 P.2d 221, 196
Wash. 357, 118 A.L.R. 1484.
W.Va. — Brinegar v. Bank of Wyo-
ming, 130 S.E. 151, 100 W.Va. 64.
34 C.J. p 334 note 63, p 442 note 27.
Showing meritorious cause of ac-
tion or defense on application to
open or vacate generally see su-
pra § 290.
Necessity of ground for relief
The question of a meritorious de-
fense is immaterial and is not reach-
ed if the complaining party fails
otherwise to establish sufficient
cause or ground for equitable relief
against the judgment. — Baldwin v.
Stamford State Bank, Tex.Civ.App.,
82 S.W.2d 701, error refused— Win-
ter v. Davis, Tex.Civ.App., 10 S.W.
2d 181, error refused.
15. Cal.— Kupfer v. MacDonald, 122
P.2d 271, 19 Cal.2d 566.
111.— Crane Co; v. Parker, 136 N.E.
733, 304 111. 331. '
704
Okl. — Fernow v. Fernow, 247 P. 106,
114 Okl. 298.
Tex. — Southern Sales Co. v. Parker,
Civ.App., 54 S.W.2d 217.
34 C.J. p 443 note 28.
16. U.S.— Miller Rubber Co. of New
York v. Massey, C.C.A.I11., 36 F.
2d 466, certiorari denied Massey v.
Miller Rubber Co. of New York,
50 S.Ct. 354, 281 U.S. 749, 74 L.
Ed. 1161.
Neb.— Staben v. Mehrens, 241 N.W.
108, 122 Neb. 683.
Tex, — Honey v. Wood, Civ.App., 46
S.W.2d 334— Citizens' Bank v.
Brandau, Civ.App., 1 S.W.2d 466,
error refused — Ellis v. Lamb-Mc-
Ashan Co., Civ.App., 264 S.W. 241,
affirmed Lamb-McAshan Co. v. El-
lis, Com.App., 270 S.W. 547.
34 C.J. p 443 note 29.
17. WJs.— Ford v. Hill, 66 N.W. 115,
92 Wis. 188,- 53 Am.S.R. 902.
34 C.J. p 443 note 30.
18. Mont.— Hauswirth v. Sullivan, 9
P, 798, 6 Mont 203.
19. -U.S.— William Lane, Inc., v. Sel-
by Shoe Co., C.C.A.N.Y.. 45 F.2d
581.
Presumptive chance of success on
appeal
Plaintiff suing to set aside judg-
ment and claiming that he was de-
prived of an appeal must show that
appeal had at least presumptive
chance of success. — William Lane,
Inc., v. Selby Shoe Co., C.C.A.N.Y.,
45 F.2d 581.
20. Cal.— Olivera v. Grace, 122 P.2d
564, 19 Cal.2d 570, 140 A.L.R. 1328.
21. Mo. — Corpus Juris cited in.
Hockenberry v. Cooper County
State Bank of Bunceton, 88 S.W.2d
1031, 1037, 338 Mo. 31.
Or. — Corpus Juris quoted in Oregon-
Washington R. & Nav. Co. v. Reid,
65 P.2d 664, 668, 155 Or. 602.
34 C.J. p 443 note 31.
L Cal.— Olivera v. Grace, 122 P.
2d 5C4, 19 Cal.2d '570, 140 A.L.R.
1328.
Prima facie meritorious defense
All that is required is for him
to show that he had a prima fticie
meritorious defense. — Missoula Trust
& Savings Bank v. Boos, 77 P.2d 385,
106 Mont 294— Stocking v. Charles
Beard Co*, 55 P.2d 949, 102 Mont 65.
23. Mo. — Corpus Juris cited in
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§349
Void judgment. The authorities are not in har-
mony in requiring a meritorious defense where the
judgment is void, as where it was obtained without
service of process, and where defendant had no
opportunity to be heard; in some jurisdictions de-
fendant is not required to show a good defense in
such case.24 However, it has generally been held
that a showing that defendant has, or at the time
of the judgment had, a meritorious defense, is none
the less necessary because the judgment is allegedly
void,25 as in the case of a judgment obtained with-
out proper service of the summons or appearance
of defendant,26 or on an unauthorized appearance,27
or on a false return of service,28 especially where
the lack of jurisdiction does not appear on the
face of the record.29
Nature of defense. It has been said that equity
will not relieve against a judgment on the showing
of a merely technical defense30 or one which would
be considered unconscionable.31 However, it has
also been asserted broadly that a meritorious de-
fense is one which, if established on another trial,
would produce a different result.32 The question
of whether or not, in any given case, the claim of
the complaining party is meritorious must be deter-
mined by the particular facts presented.83 While
there is some' authority to the contrary,34 it is gen-
erally considered that the statute of limitations is
a meritorious defense within the meaning of the
rule.35 A discharge in bankruptcy has also been
held a meritorious defense.36
Hockenberry v. Cooper County
State Bank of Bunceton, 88 S.W.2d
1031, 1037, 338 Mo. 31.
Or. — Corpus Juris quoted in Oregon-
Washington K. & Nav. Co. v. Reid,
65 P.2d 664, 668, 155 Or. 602.
34 C.J. p 443 note 31.
24. Ky. — Holcomb v. Creech, 56 S.
W.2d 998, 247 Ky. 199.
Term.— Martin v. Slagle, 156 S.W.2d
403, 178 Tenn. 121.
Tex. — Empire Gas & l£uel Co. v. No-
ble, Com.App., 36 S.W.2d 451—
Rosenfleld v. Bevill, Civ.App., 143
S.W.2d 414, error dismissed, judg-
ment correct — Jameson v. Farm-
ers' State Bank of Burkburnett,
Civ.App., 299 S.W. 458, affirmed
Farmers' State Bank of Burkbur-
nett v. Jameson, Com.App., 11 S.
W.2d 299, rehearing denied 16 S.
W.2d 526 — Alexander v. Svoboda,
Civ.App., 297 S.W. 560, reversed on
other grounds Svoboda v. Alexan-
der, Com.App., 3 S.W.2d 423 — Perez
v. B. P. Lipscomb & Co., Civ.App.,
267 S.W. 748.
Wash. — Hancock Mut Life Ins. Co.
v. Gooley, 83 P.2d 221, 196 Wash.
357, 118 A.L.R. 1484.
34 C.J, p 443 note 32.
35. Cal.— Kupfer v. MacDonald, 122
P.2d 271, 19.Cal.2d 566.
III. — Adams & Pigott Co. v. Allen,
141 N.B. 386, 310 111. 119.
3£ule inapplicable to enforcement of
Rule whereby party seeking aid
against void judgment is required to
disclose meritorious defense does not
apply if plaintiff is seeking to en-
force judgment.
Ala. — McCarty v. Yarbrough, 128 So.
786, 221 Ala. 330.
Neb, — Campbell Printing Press &
Mfg. Co. v. Harder, Luse & Co., 69
N.W. 774, 50 Neb. 283.
26. Ala. — Murphree v. International
Shoe Co., 20 So.2d 782, 246 Ala.
384.
Ark.— Adams v. Mitchell, 74 S.W.2d
49 C.J.S.-45
969, 189 Ark. 696— North Ameri-
can Provision Co. v. Fischer Lime
& Cement Co., 269 S.W. 993, 168
Ark. 106.
111.— Nasti v. Cook County, 180 N.B.
'847, 348 111. 342.
Miss.— Walton v. Gregory Funeral
Home, 154 So. 717, 170 Miss. 129.
Neb.— Braun v. Quinn, 199 N.W. 828,
112 Neb. 485, 39 A.L.R. 411.
Ohio. — Corpus Juris quoted in. Barn-
hart v. Aiken, 177 N.B. 284, 285, 39
Ohio App. 172.
34 C.J. p 443 note 33.
27. Miss. — Harris v. Gwin, 18 Miss.
563.
34 C.J. p 444 note 34.
28. Kan. — Hope v. Biashor, 163 P.
463, 99 Kan. 804.
34 C.J. p 444 note 35.
29. Neb.— Pilger v. Torrence, 61 N.
W. 99, 42 Neb. 903.
34 C.J. p 444 note 36.
30. U.S.— Skirving v. National Life
Ins. Co. of Montpelier, Neb., 59 F.
742, 8 C.C.A. 241.
34 C.J. p 444 note 40.
31. U.S. — Corpus Juris cited in By-
ram v. Miner, C.C.A.Minn.f 47 F.
2d 112, 119, certlorari denied 51 S.
Ct. 648, 283 U.S. 854, 75 L.Ed.
1461.
34 C.J. p 444 note 41.
32. Tex. — Fowzer v, Huey & Philp
Hardware Co., Civ.App., 99 S.W.2d
1100, error dismissed.
33. Okl. — Fernow v. Fernow, 247 P*
106, 114 Okl. 298.
34 C.J. p 444 note 42 [a].
. The matter of contribution among
signers of notes Is not a meritorious
defense against payment of Judge-
ment secured by payee, so as to
warrant equitable relief against such
judgment at the suit of individual
signer against whom judgment was
entered by confession under war-
rants of attorney. — Chandler v.
Chandler, 63 N.E.2d 272, 326 Ill.App.
670.
705
Lack of title
A mortgagor was not entitled to
open judgment entered on bond ac-
companying purchase-money mort-
gage on ground that, at time of sale,
mortgagee had no title, where con-
tract of sale by its terms was made
subject to mortgagee's acquisition of
title under decree in partition. —
Stoner, now for Use of Dinch, v.
Wise, 200 A. 320, 331 Pa. 446.
Showing as to merits of cause of
action, or defense held sufficient to
justify equitable relief against judg-
ments rendered in actions for or re-
lating to:
(1) Alimony. — Crow v. Crow-
Humphrey, 78 S.W.2d 807, 335 Mo.
636.
(2) Contracts.
NJT. — William Peter Brewing Corpo-
ration v. Bernhardt, 137 A. 828,
101 N.J.Bq. 60.
Tex. — Taylor v. Hustead & Tucker,
Com. App., 257 S.W. 232.
(3) Foreclosure. — Wade v. Saffell,
9 S.W.2d 803, 177 Ark. 1186.
(4) Insurance. — Collier v. Missis-
sippi Beneficial Life Ins. Co., 261 S.
W. 39, 164 Ark. 54.
(5) Mining claims. — Nevada Cor-
nell Silver Mines v. Hankins, 279 P.
27, 51 Nev, 420,
(6) Notes.— Adams v. First Nat.
Bank, Tex.Civ.App., 294 S.TV. 909.
(7) Sale of personalty. — Clarke v.
Smith, 192 N.W. 136, 195 Iowa 1299.
(8) Other matters.— Hill v. Fain,
175 S.B. 921, 179 Ga. 310.
34. Fla. — Budd v. Gamble, 13 Fla.
265.
Tenn. — Bstis v. Patton, 3 Terg. 382.
35. Tex. — Fowzer v. Huey & Philp
Hardware Co., Civ.App., 99 S.W.2d
1100, error dismissed — Cain v.
Thomson, Civ. App., 72 S.W.2d 339.
34 C.J. p 444 note 42 [b] (1).
36. Tex. — Kerby v. Hudson, Civ,
App., 13 S.W.2d 724.
§ 350
JUDGMENTS
B. GBOUNDS FOR BELIEF
49 C.J.S.
§ 350. In General
a. General principles
b. Disability or privilege of party; un-
authorized suit
a. General Principles
Generally, any fact showing it to be against good
conscience to enforce a judgment may afford ground for
equitable relief to a complainant otherwise entitled there-
to; but equitable power to relieve against a judgment
at law will be exercised sparingly and confined to cases
clearly of equitable cognizance.
Injunctive relief from invalid judgments must rest
on grounds cognizable in equity.37 As a general
rule any fact which dearly proves it to be against
good conscience to execute a judgment, and of
which the injured party could not have availed him-
self in a court of law, or of which he might have
availed himself there, but was prevented by fraud
or accident unmixed with any fault or negligence
in himself or his agents, will authorize a court of
equity to set aside or to enjoin the adverse party
from enforcing such judgment.88
Since the power to set aside or enjoin the en-
forcement of judgments is liable to abuse, and the
abuse thereof is extremely mischievous, as tending
to conflicts of jurisdiction, its exercise will be close-
ly and carefully scrutinized, and confined to clear
cases and well recognized grounds of equitable in-
terference.39 In other words, equitable relief
against a judgment will not be granted in the ab-
sence of clear and sufficient grounds of an equita-
ble character.40 It should appear that it would be
37. Tex. — Svoboda v. Alexander,
Com.App., 2 S.W.2d 423.
38. U.S.— Continental Nat. Bank v.
Holland-Banking Co., C.C.A.Mo.,
66 P.2d 823 — Realty Acceptance
Corporation v. Montgomery, D.C.
Del., 6 F.Supp. 593, affirmed, C.C.
A., 77 F.2d 762, certiorari denied
56 S.Ct. 103, 296 U.S. 590, 80 L.Ed.
418, rehearing denied 56 S.Ct. 167,
296 U.S. 662, SO L.Ed. 472— Har-
rington v. Denny, D.C.Mo., 3 F.
Supp. 584 — Exchange Nat. Bank of
Shreveport, La. v. Joseph Reid
Gas Engine Co., C.C.A.La., 287 P.
870 — Mineral Development Co. v.
Kentucky Coal Lands Co., D.C.Ky.,
285 P. 761, affirmed, C.C.A., 285 P.
1021.
Ala. — Timmerman v. Martin, 176 So.
198, 234 Ala. 622— Hanover Fire
Ins. Co. v. Street, 154 So. 816, 228
Ala. 677 — Corpus Juris quoted in
Prestwood v. Bagley, 149 So. 817,
818, 227 Ala. 316.
Cal. — Brown v. Jernigan, 241 P. 108,
74 CaLApp. 524.
Conn. — Hoey v. Investors' Mortgage
& Guaranty Co., 171 A. 438, 118
Conn. 226.
Ga,— Bailey v. McElroy, 6 S.E.2d 140,
61 Ga.App. 367, transferred, see 2
S.E.2d 634, 188 Ga. 40.
Idaho. — Corpus Juris cited in Lind v.
•Moyes, 20 P.2d 794, 795, 52 Idaho
785.
111. — Kulikowski v. North American
Mfg. Co., 54 N.E.2d 411, 322 111.
App. 202— Stade v. Stade, 42 N.E.
2d 631, 315 Ill.App. 136.
Mo. — Jefferson City Bridge & Trans-
it Co. v. Blaser, 300 S.W. 778, 318
Mo. 373.
N.J. — Palisade Gardens v. Grosch,
185 A. 27, 120 N.J.EQ. 294, af-
firmed 189 A. 622, 121 N.J.Eq. 240
— Crandol v. Garrison, 169 A. 507,
115 N.J.Eq. 11.
N.T. — 755 Seventh Ave. Corporation ,
v. Carroll, 194 N.E. 69, 266 N.T.
157.
Or.— Adams v. McMickle, 158 P.2d
648.
Tenn. — Coley v. Family Loan Co., 80
S.W.2d 87, 168 Tenn. 631.
Tex. — Thomas v. Mullins, Civ.App.,
175 S.W.2d 276— Coffman v. Meeks,
Civ.App., 119 S.W.2d 96— Brooks
Supply Co. v. Hardee, Civ.App., 32
S.W.2d 384, error refused.
Wis.— Lau v. Harder, 270 N.W. 341,
223 Wis. 208.
21 C.J. p 85 note 16—34 C.J. p 444
note 43.
Xaofc of legal remedy warranting
equitable relief
U.S. — Laycock v. Hidalgo County
Water Control and Improvement
Dist. No. 12, C.C.A.Tex., 142 F.2d
789, 155 A.L.R. 460, certiorari de-
nied 65 S.Ct 68, 323 U.S. 731, 89
L.Ed. 587.
Md.— Michael v. Rigler, 120 A. 382,
142 Md. 125.
Partition
(1) Injustice may afford ground
for equitable relief from a judgment
or decree in partition. — Carter v.
Carter, 5 Munf. 108, 19 Va. 108.
(2) Equitable relief may be award-
ed to secure protection against an
eviction of a party by a paramount
title. — Ross v. Armstrong, 25 Tex.
Suppl. 354, 78 Am.D. 574.
Executors and administrators
(1) In the case of suits involving
decedents' estates and funds in the
hands of executors and administra-
tors, it is sufficient ground for the
intervention of a court of equity
that the Judgment defendant, al-
though having a good equitable de-
fense to the claim, had no legal de-
fense to the action at law. — Lyon v.
Howard, 16 Ga, 481—24 C.J. p 888
note 87.
(2) It is sufficient that, having a
706
legal defense, the Judgment creditor
was unable for sufficient reason to
present it. — Pickett v. Stewart, 1
Rand. 478, 22 Va* 478—24 C.J. p 888
notes 88, 89.
(3) In a proper case an executor
or administrator may be relieved in
equity from personal liability under
a Judgment at law, as where there
are no assets or there is a deficien-
cy of assets. — Pendleton v. Stuart, 6
Munf. 377, 20 Va. 377—24 C.J. p 888
note 90.
(4) On the other hand, in a num-
ber of instances, equitable relief on
the foregoing ground has been de-
nied.— Brenner v. Alexander, 19 P.
9, 16 Or. 349, 8 Am,S.R. 301—24 C.J.
p 888 note 91.
Grounds of relief available to sure-
ties
(1) Extension of the time of pay-
ment of the debt, without surety's
knowledge or consent. — Kennedy v.
Evans, 31 111. 258—34 OJ. p 440 note
74.
. (2) Release of the principal or of
cosureties. — Johnson v. Givens, 3
Mete., Ky., 91—34 C.J. p 440 -note 75.
(3) Promise to the surety not to
hold him liable or enforce the debt
against him. — Cage v. Cassidy, Miss.,
23 How., U.S., 109, 16 L.Ed. 430—34
C.J. p 440 note 76.
39. Ky.— Byron v. Evans, 91 S.W.2d
548, 263 Ky. 49.
Tex. — Crouch v. McGaw, 138 S.W.2d
94, 134 Tex. 633— Citizens' Bank v.
Brandau, Civ.App.t 1 S.W.2d 466,
error refused.
Wash. — Corpus Juris cited in Pisch
v. Mkrbler, 97 P.2d 147, 152, 1
Wash.2d 698.
34 C.J. p 445 note 44.
40. Ala,— Mudd v. Lanier, 24 So.2d
550 — Exalted Most Excellent Grand
Chapter Royal Arch Masons of Al-
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 350
unjust and against good conscience to enforce the
judgment,41 that some rule or law of public policy
has been violated,42 or that the defense available to
the party seeking relief is one of purely equitable
cognizance,43 and equity will not interfere merely
on account of hardship,44 because of prejudice 'in
the community,45 or because an equity court in
deciding the same case would have reached a dif-
ferent conclusion.46 It must also reasonably ap-
pear that the result would be different from that
already reached if the judgment were set aside and
a new trial granted.47 Where a proper case for
equitable relief is made out, the fact that the judg-
ment creditor is of undoubted solvency and able to
refund the money which may be collected on an exe-
cution will not prevent the interposition of equity.48
The principal grounds for equitable relief against
a judgment are lack of power or jurisdiction
in the court rendering it,49 or procurement of the
judgment through fraud, accident, mistake,50 or oth-
abama v. Calloway, 165 So. 254,
231 Ala. 420 — Ex parte Cunning-
ham, 99 So. 834, 19 Ala. App. 584,
certiorari denied Ex parte Ewart-
Brewer Motor Co., 99 So. 836, 211
Ala. 191.
Cal. — Miller v. Turner, 8 P.2d 1057,
121 Cal.App. 365 — Bruno v. Gugliel-
mo, 297 P. 967, 113 CaLApp. 148.
Colo. — Rogers v. Bruce, 193 P. 1076,
69 Colo. 298.
pla, — Adams v. Reynolds, 134 So. 45,
101 Fla. 271.
Ga. — Nolan v. Southland Loan & In-
vestment Co., 169 S.E. 370, 177 Ga.
59— Whiteside v. Croker, 142 S.E.
139, 165 Ga. 765— John Hancock
Mut Life Ins. Co. v. Ross, 134 S.E.
762, 162 Ga. 654.
111.— Reinhold v. Lingbeek, 52 N.B.
2d 294, 321 Ill.App. 119— Gray v.
First Nat. Bank, 13 N.E.2d 497,
294 Ill.App. 62.
Ky.— Mason v. Lacy, 117 S.W.2d
1026, 274 Ky. 21.
La. — Couret v. Couret, 18 So.2d 661,
206 La. 85— Wunderlich v. Pal-
misano, App., 177 So. 843.
Mich.— Racho v. Woeste, 9 N.W.2d
827, 305 Mich. 522 — Brewster Loud
Lumber Co. v. General Builders'
Supply Co., 220 N.W. 697, 243
Mich. 557 — Blazewicz v. Weberski,
208 N.W. 452, 234 Mich. 431.
N.Y. — Gerseta Corporation v. Grama-
tan Nat. Bank of Bronxville, 198
N.Y.S. 385, 205 App.Div. 868.
Pa.— Nixon v. Nixon, 198 A. 154, 329
Pa. 256.
Tex.1 — Grayson v. Johnson, Civ.App.
181 S.W.2d 312— American Red
Cross v. Longley, Civ.App., 165
S.W.2d 233, error refused — Johnson
v. Ortiz Oil Co., Civ.App., 104 S.W
2d 543 — Browning-Ferris Machin-
ery Co. v. Thomson, Civ. App., 55
S.W.2d 168— Bearden v. Texas Co.
Civ.App., 41 S.W.2d 447, affirmed
Com.App., 60 S.W.2d 1031— Smith
v. Switzer, Civ.App., 293 S.W. 850
affirmed Switzer v. Smith, Com
App., 300 S.W. 31, 68 A.L.R. 377.
Wash.— Puett v. Bernhard, 71 P.2d
406, 191 Wash. 657.
Wis. — Amalgamated Meat Cutters ^
Butcher Workmen of N*. A., A. F
of L., Local Union No. 73, v
Smith, 10 N.W.2d 114, 243 Wis
390.
JTonresidence or insolvency j
Judgment will not be interfered
with merely because of nonresidence
r insolvency of judgment creditor.
—Parker v. Reid, 273 P. 334, 127 Or.
78.
Whim of survivor
It is against public policy of state
o permit vacation of decree after
hange in conditions, assumption of
iew relations by parties, and death
>f one of them, at whim of surviv-
ng party, particularly in absence of
'raud.— Rice v. Moore, 109 S.W.2d
48, 194 Ark. '685.
Judgment or decree of partition
La.— Haas v. Reese, 196 So. 564, 195
La. 376 — Amerada Petroleum Cor-
poration v. Reese, 196 So. 558, 195
La, 359—47 C.J. p 438 note 58.
41. U.S.— In re Innis, C.C.A.Ind.,
140 F.2d 479, certiorari denied 64
S.Ct. 1048, 322 U.S. 736, 88 L.Ed.
1569 — Missouri Pac. Transp. Co. v.
Priest, C.C.A.Ark., 117 F.2d 32.
Iowa.— Shaw v. Addison, 18 N.W.2d
796 — Coulter v. Smith, 206 N.W.
827, 201 Iowa 984 — Bingman v.
Clark, 159 N.W. 172, 178 Iowa
1129.
La.— First Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Bell,
141 So. 379, 174 La. 692.
Mich. — Barr v. Payne, 298 N.W. 460,
298 Mich. 85.
Ohio.— Bamhart v. Aiken, 177 N.B.
284, 39 Ohio App. 172.
g.C. — Cathcart v. Jennings, 135 S.B.
658, 137 S.C. 450.
34 C.J. p 445 note 45.
A Judgment in a court of law wil
not be set aside by a court of equity
unless such judgment is so manifest-
ly wrong that it is against good
conscience.— Barr v. Payne, 298 N.W
460, 298 Mich. 85— Smith v. Pontiac
Citizens Loan & Investment Co., 293
N.W. 661, 294 Mich. 312— Bassett v
Trinity Bldg. Co., 236 N.W. 237, 254
Mich. 207.
Unconscionable advantage
It is essential to relief in equity
against judgment that plaintiff, i
permitted to enforce it, will obtain
unconscionable advantage. — Ellis v
Gordon, 231 N.W. 585, 202 Wis. 134
42. La. — Edison Electric Co. v. New
Orleans, 58 So. 512, 130 La. 693.
707
3. N.J.— Raimondi v. Bianchi, 140
A. 584, 102 N.J.EQ. 254.
L CaL— Hersom v. Hersom, 226 P.
937, 67 CaLApp. 116.
Tex. — Browning-Ferris Machinery
Co. v. Thomson, Civ.App., 55 S.W.
2d 168.
4 C.J. p 445 note 47.
45. W.Va. — Graham v. Citizens' Nat.
Bank, 32 S.E. 245, 45 W.Va. 701.
. U.S. — Town of Boynton v. White
Const Co., C.C.A.Fla., 64 F.2d 190.
Fla. — Peacock v. Feaster, 42 So. 889,
52 Fla. 565.
47. Iowa. — Shaw v. Addison, 18 N.
W.2d 796 — Bingman v. Clark, 159
N.W. 172, 178 Iowa 1129.
Necessity of showing meritorious
defense to action see supra § 349.
48. Conn.— Carrington v. Holabird,
19 Conn. 84.
49. Tex.— Bearden v. Texas Co., Civ.
App., 41 S.W.2d 447, affirmed, Com.
App., 60 S.W.2d 1031.
Invalidity of judgment as ground for
relief generally see infra § 351.
50. Ala,— Barrow v. Lindsey, 159 So.
232, 230 Ala. 45 — Hanover Fire Ins.
Co. v. Street, 154 So. 816, 228 Ala.
677.
Cal. — Anglo California Trust Co. v.
Kelley, 4 P.2d 604, 117 Cal.App.
692— Jeffords v. Young, 277 P. 163,
98 Cal.App. 400.
Ga. — Jackson Discount Co. v. Merck,
173 S.E. 647, 178 Ga. 660— Ehrlich
v. Bell, 136 S.E. 423, 163 Ga. 547.
Mass. — Byron v. Concord Nat. Bank,
13 N.E.2d 13, 299 Mass. 438.
Mo. — Overton v, Overton, 37 S.W.2d
565, 327 Mo. 530.
N.J.— Simon v. Henke, 139 A, 887,
102 N.J.Ea. 115.
Tex. — Bearden v. Texas Co., Civ.App.,
41 S.W.2d 447, affirmed, Com.App.,
60 S.W.2d 1031.
Accident or mistake as excuse for
not defending at' law see infra §8
365, 366.
Fraud, perjury, collusion, or other
misconduct as ground for relief
generally see infra §§ 371-375.
Rule applied to Judgment or decree
in partition
N.T. — Douglass v. Viele, 3 Sandf.Ch.
439.
47 C.J. p 437 notes 50, 51, 54.
350
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
er adventitious circumstance beyond complainant's
control,51 without fault, negligence, or fraud on his
part.52 It has been said, however, that equity will
afford relief against a judgment irrespective of any
issue of inattention or neglect, where the circum-
stances under which the judgment was rendered
show deprivation of the legal rights of the litigant
seeking relief and enforcement of the judgment
would be unconscientious and inequitable,53 at least
where the other party has not changed his position
in reliance on complainant's actions.54
Effect of statutory provisions. Statutes provid-
ing for the setting aside or vacating "of judgments
in equity authorize relief on grounds specified there-
in*55 Some statutes specifying grounds on which
a judgment may be annulled have been construed
as not restrictive and as permitting equitable relief
against a judgment under general equitable prin-
ciples, even though the statutory grounds for re-
lief are not shown,56 but under other statutes the
grounds for relief must be among those enumerat-
ed therein.57
b. Disability or Privilege of Party; Unauthor-
ized Suit
There Is a conflict of authority as to whether equity
will grant relief against the enforcement of a judgment
rendered against one in violation of a privilege or dis-
ability precluding suit; it has been held that relief is
warranted from a Judgment entered in a suit brought
without authority of the ostensible party plaintiff.
It has been held that a personal disability,58 or
privilege59 of defendant in a judgment is not a
ground for equitable interference with the judg-
ment, the defect not being jurisdictional, and the
remedy being at law. Other decisions, however, re-
garding a judgment against such a person as void,
hold it proper for chancery to restrain its enforce-
ment60 Execution on a judgment against a person
deceased, it has been held, will not be enjoined, the
remedy being at law.61
Judgment on suit brought without authority. En-
forcement *of a judgment obtained by an attorney
who had no authority from plaintiff to bring the
suit may be enjoined;62 and a similar rule prevails
where complainant was joined as a plaintiff in the
suit without his consent,63 or where the suit was
Btatnal mistake of fact
Equity will not permit Judgment
based on mutual mistake of fact to
be enforced so as to work injustice
to judgment debtor. — Bankers Trust
Co. v. Hale & Kilburn Corporation,
C.C.AJN-.Y., 84 F.2d 401.
Relief from consent decree, enter-
ed as result of unilateral mistake
induced by fraudulent concealment
of facts by party against whom re-
lief is sought, is available, whether
on ground of fraud or mistake, but,
in absence of such concealment or
other inequitable conduct, relief is
not available on either theory. —
Mudd v. Lanier, Ala., 24 8o.2d 550.
51. Tex. — Smith v. Rogers, Civ.App.,
129 S.W.2d 776.
W.Va. — Parsons v. Parsons, 135 S.E.
228, 102 W.Va, 394.
62. N.J.— Raimondi v. Bianchi, 140
A. 584, 102 N.J.EQ. 254— Simon v.
Henke, 139 A. 887, 102 NXT.Eq.
115.
Tex. — Fidelity Trust Co. of Houston
v. Highland Farms Corporation,
CivJlpp., 109 S.W.2d 1014, error
dismissed — Hill v. Lester, Civ.App.,
91 S.W.2d 1152, error dismissed.
63. La. — Succession of G-ilmore, 102
So. 94, 157 La. 130 — Bell v. Hold-
craft, App., 196 So. 379 — Engeran
r. Consolidated Companies, App.,
147 So. 743.
64. Mont.— Little Horn State Bank
of Wyola v. Gross, 300 P. 277, 89
Mont. 472.
66. Iowa.— Atkin v. Westfall, 17 N.
W.2d 532, 235 Iowa 618.
Inability to procure record
Inability to procure record in case
after motion for new trial, by dili-
gent search and inquiry of clerk and
counsel, while a misfortune, is not
character of "casualty" or "misfor-
tune" for which judgment may be
vacated on petition in equity. — Ison
T. Buskirk-Butledge Lumber Co., 266
S.W. 243, 205 Ky. 583.
"Praud or other ill-practices" re-
quire more than a mere error or
mistake of a party to warrant re-
lief.— Sonnier v. Sonnier, 140 So. 49,
19 La-App. 234.
Patent error
Under some statutes a bill of re-
view lies for error apparent on the
face of the judgment or decree.
Md.— Bailey v. Bailey, 30 A.2d 249,
181 Md. 3851
Mo.— Fadler v. Gabbert, 63 S.W.2d
121, 333 Mo. 851.
56. La. — Succession of Gilmore, 102
So. 94, 157 La. 130— Sandfield Oil
& Gas Co. v. Paul, App., 7 So.2d
725 — Engeran v. Consolidated .Com-
panies, App., 147 So. 743 — Schneck-
enberger v. John Bonura & Co., 130
So. 870, 14 La.App. 692.
57. Cal. — Molema v. Molema, 283 P.
$56, 103 CaLApp. 79.
Iowa. — Shaw v. Addison, 18 N.W.2d
796 — Montagne v. Cherokee Coun-
ty, 205 N.W. 228, 200 Iowa 534.
Ky.— McGuire v. Cope, 9 S.W.2d 528,
225 Ky. 521.
Me. — Jason v. Goddard, 149 . A. 622,
129 Me. 483.
Tex.— Turner v* Parker, Civ.App., 14
S.W,2d 931.
708
58. Ark.— Church v. Gallic, 88 S.W.
307, 88 Ark. 507.
34 C.J. p 449 note 98.
Defects or objections as to parties
generally see infra § 357.
Infancy may afford no ground for
equitable relief against a judgment.
— Weinstein v. Chelsea Securities &
Investment Co., 145 A. 231, 104 N.J.
Eq. 258—34 C.J. p 449 note 98 [a].
89. Md. — Peters v. League, 13 Md.
58, 71 Am.D. 622.
34 C.J. p 449 note 99.
60. Tex. — Buhrman-PhaxT Hardware
Co. v. Medford Bros., Civ.App., 118
S.W.2d 345, error refused.
34 C.J. p 449 note 1.
Unenforceable Judgment
Judgment debtor against whom
assignee of judgment, a joint tort-
feasor, could not enforce judgment
was entitled to have judgment can-
celed as to himself. — Manowitz v.
Kanov, 154 A. 326, 107 N.J.Law S23,
75 A.L.R. 1464.
61. U.S. — Wynn v. Wilson, C.C.Ark.,
30 F.Cas.No.18,116, Hempst. 698.
Va. — -Williamson v. Appleberry, 1
Hen. & M. 206, 11 Va. 206.
62. N.H.— Smyth v. Balch, 40 N.H.
363.
S.C. — Latimer v. Latimer, 22 S.G.
257.
Unauthorized appearance of attorney
for defendant as ground for relief
in suit by judgment debtor see in-
fra § 354.
3. Mo.— Lillibridge v. Boss, 59 Mo.
217.
49 O.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 351
brought by a nominal plaintiff who had no authority
from the real party in interest.64
§ 351. Invalidity of Judgment
Some authorities have held that equity will afford
relief against a void judgment, such as one rendered
without Jurisdiction of the subject matter or of the par-
ties, while others take the view that the mere fact that
a judgment is void will not alone suffice aa a basis for
equitable relief, but that there must exist further grounds
for equitable cognizance.
Some authorities hold broadly to the effect that a
void judgment is open to equitable attack,65 and
that equity may set aside, cancel, or annul a void
judgment,66 or enjoin its enforcement67 Equita-
ble relief has been held available against a judg-
ment where the court had no jurisdiction68 of the
subject matter69 or of the person.70 While it has
been held that the rule applies where the judg-
ment is regular on its face and does not disclose the
grounds of its invalidity,71 and that a suit in eq-
uity will not lie to set aside a judgment void on
its face,72 it has also been held that equitable re-
lief may be obtained against a judgment void for
lack of jurisdiction appearing from the face of the
record.78 •<*
On the other hand, according to some decisions,
the fact that the judgment is void74 because of a
mere defect in jurisdiction75 of the subject mat-
ter76 will not justify equitable relief in the ab-
sence of some further ground of equitable cogni-
zance,77 as where the judgment is inequitable as
between the parties.78
Where it affirmatively appears that the court
had jurisdiction of the parties and the subject mat-
ter, the judgment is at most merely voidable, its
enforcement may not be enjoined for mere error,73
and it has been stated that complainant is entitled
to enjoin enforcement of a judgment only if it is
void.80 However, there are also decisions to the
64. Ga. — Marchman v. Sewell, 21 3.
E. 172, 93 Ga. 653.
Ohio.— Abbott v. Hughes, 3 Ohio 278.
65. Cal. — Newport v. Superior Court
of Stanislaus County, 230 P. 168,
192 Cal. 92.
Ohio. — Snyder v. Clough, 50 N.E.2d
384. 71 Ohio App. 440.
Tex. — Waurika Oil Ass'n v. Ellis,
Civ. App., 267 S.W. 523/
Judgment against insane person
Where one is deprived of liberty
and property by a void Judgment,
as in the case of one adjudicated to
be insane, it has been held the duty
of equity to provide him with a rem-
edy if one does not already exist. —
Hitter v. Hitter, 38 N.B.2d 997, 219
487.
"66. Colo.— Ferrier v. Morris, 122 P.
2d 880, 109 Colo. 154.
Ga. — Henry & Co. v. Johnson, 173 S.
E. 659, 178 Ga, 641— Anderson v.
Turner, 133 S.E. 306, 35 Ga.App.
428.
A consent decree, authorizing cor-
poration to issue preferred stock
to common stockholder in satisfac-
tion of money Judgment awarded
him by same decree against corpora-
tion, was invalid and subject to va-
cation by proper party cis based on
contract without valid consideration,
regardless of whether contract as a
whole was detrimental to such par-
ty. — Mudd v. Lanier, Ala., 24 So.2d
550.
67. Iowa. — Shum v. Prow & Letter,
298 N.W. 868, 230 Iowa 778.
Okl.— Black v. Kussell, 266 P. 448,
130 Okl. 180.
Tex.— Smith v. Givens, Civ.App., 97
S.W.2d 532— Maier v. Davis, Civ.
App., 72 S.W,2d 308.
34 C.J p 446 note 59—32 C.J. p 116
not& (L [a]-
68. Fla.— Krivitsky v. Nye, 19 So.
2d 563, 155 Fla. 45.
Ohio. — Young v. Guella, 35 N.E.2d
997, 67 Ohio App. 11.
Okl.— Kenoly v. Hawley, 202 P. 494,
84 Okl. 120.
Or. — Dixie Meadows Independence
Mines Co. v. Kight, 45 P.2d 909,
160 Or. 395.
Compliance with statutory provi-
sions
It has been held that a Judgment
illegal for failure to comply with
mandatory statutory provisions pre-
requisite to the judge's Jurisdiction
to grant the Judgment is open to
equitable attack.— Pitts v. Pitts, 182
So. 708, 120 Fla. 363.
^legality of partition Judgment
N.Y.— Corwithe v. Grifflng, 21 Barb.
9,
34 OJ. p 437 note 52.
Judgment by confession entered
without authority is open to equita-
ble attack. — Christy v. Sherman, 10
Iowa 535—34 C.J. p 441 note 10.
69. Tenn.— Culwell v. Culwell, 133
S.W.2d 1009, 23 Tenn.App. 389.
34 C.J. p 446 note 60.
70. Okl. — Honeycutt v. Severin, 98
P.2d 1093, 186 Okl. 609.
Tenn.— Myers v. Wolf, 34 S.W.2d
201, 162 Tenn. 42— Culwell v. Cul-
well, 133 S.W.2d 1009, 23 Tenn.
App. 389.
34 C.J. p 446 note 61.
71. Kan. — Nelson v. Gossage, 107 P.
2d 682, 152 Kan. 805.
Mo. — Tokash v. Workmen's Compen-
sation Commission, 139 S.W.2d 978,
346 Mo. 100.
Tex. — Ferguson r. Ferguson, Civ.
App., 98 S.W.2d 847.
34 C.J. p 446 note 62.
709
72. Mo. — Tokash v. Workmen's
Compensation Commission, 139 S.
W.2d 978, 346 Mo. 100— National
Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Vermillion,
App., 19 S.W.2d 776.
73. Ga,— Stanley v. Metts, 149 S.E.
786, 169 Ga. 101.
74. TT.S. — Harrington v. Denny, D.C.
Mo., 3 F.Supp. 584.
Qualification of rule
It has been held that the rule that
injunction will not lie to restrain
collection of a void Judgment ap-
plies only where the Judgment cred-
itor threatens to enforce its collec-
tion and nobody is involved except
the Judgment creditor and Judgment
debtor, and does not apply as against
a gamishee, where he is threatened
with several suits and files a bill of
interpleader. — Pfeiffer v. McCul-
lough, 115 IlLApp. 251.
75. Colo. — Wagner v. Johnson, 247
P. 1058, 79 Colo. 664.
76- U.S. — Donham v. Springfield
Hardware Co., Mo., 62 P. 110, 10
C.C.A. 294.
34 C.J. p 445 note 52.
77. Mo.— St Louis & S. F. By. Co.
v. Lowder, 3D S.W. 799, 138 Mo.
533, 60 Am.S.R. 565.
34 C.J. p 445 note 56.
78. IT.S. — Harrington v. Denny, D.
C.Mo., 3 F.Supp. 584.
Colo. — Wagner v. Johnson, 247 P.
1058, 79 Colo. 664.
34 C.J. p 445 note 55, p 446 note 65.
79. Tex. — Richardson v. Kelly, Civ.
App., 179 S.W.2d 991, affirmed,
Sup., 191 S.W.2d 857— Dearinff v.
City of Port Neches, Civ.App.f 65
S.W.2d 1105, error refused.
80. N.C. — Cameron v. McDonald, $
S.E.2d 497, 216 N.C. 712.
§ 351
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
effect that, while a court of chancery will not en-
join enforcement of a judgment merely because it is
erroneous, it will enjoin one which is either void
or voidable for certain reasons recognized as
grounds of equitable relief.81
Where no judgment at all was in fact rendered,
equity will relieve against enforcement of what
purports to be a judgment.82 Enforcement of a
judgment may be enjoined where it was obtained in
violation of a restraining order.83 If it is deter-
mined that the judgment is neither void nor void-
able, relief will, of course, be denied.84
§ 352. Want of, or Defects in, Process
or Service
a. In general
b. Defective process or service
a. In General
As a general rule, one may secure equitable relief
from a judgment rendered against him without service
of process or essential notice in the suit, unless he has
duly waived the defect.
It has generally been held that a party may ob-
tain equitable relief from a judgment rendered
against him without service of process or other nec-
essary notice in the suit, by reason whereof he fails
to appear and defend,85 and the rule has been held
applicable, even though it is not shown that com-
plainant lacked independent knowledge of the pend-
ency of the action against him,86 unless the cir-
cumstances were sufficient to amount to a waiver
of notice.87 This rule has been held to apply wheth-
er the record affirmatively shows want of service of
process,88 or merely omits to show the service, leav-
ing it to be presumed prima facie.89 There are
some decisions, however, which seem to hold, with-
out any qualification, that a judgment void because
defendant was not served with process cannot be
relieved against in equity by injunction or other-
wise,90 unless there is some further ground of eq-
uitable cognizance, as discussed supra § 351.
Where, on a proceeding for final distribution of
an estate, personal notice is not required by statute,
the want of such notice furnishes no ground for
enjoining the judgment.91 Failure to give notice
in the manner directed by a statute which is not
mandatory has been held not to render the jtidg-
83- Term. — New York Casualty Co.
v. Lawson, 24 S.W.2d 881, 160
Tean. 329 — Clemmons v. Haynes, 3
Tenn.App. 20.
82. Okl.— Cone v. Harris, 230 P. 721,
104 Okl. 114.
83. Term. — Hutsell v. Harrington, 12
S.W.2d 370, 157 Tenn. 553.
84. Tex.— Richardson v. Kelly, 191
S.W.2d 857.
86. Ala. — Murphree v. International
Shoe Co., 20 So.2d 782, 246 Ala. 384
— Timmerman v. Martin, 176 So.
198, 234 Ala, 622— King v. Dent,
93 So. 823, 208 Ala. 78.
Ark.— Morgan v. Leon, 12 S.W.2d
404, 178 Ark. 768.
Cal.— Husar v. Husar, 119 P.2d 798,
48 Cal.App,2d 326.
j>,C.— Consolidated Radio Artists v.
Washington Section, National
Council of Jewish Juniors, 103 F.
2d 785, 70 App.D.C. 262.
Fla. — Fleming v. Fleming, 177 So.
607, 130 Fla. 264.
Ga. — Napier v. Bank of La Fayette,
189 S.E. 822, 183 Ga. 865.
Ind. — Traders' Loan & Inv. Co. v.
Houchins, 144 N.E. 879, 195 Ind.
256.
Iowa. — Sloan v. Jepson, 252 N.W.
535, 217 Iowa 10S2.
Kan.— Gibson v. Enright, 9 P.2d 971,
185 Kan. 181.
Xy.— Newsome v. Hall, 161 S.W.2d
629, 290 Ky. 486, 140 A.L.R. 818.
IA. — Adkins' Heirs v. Crawford, Jen-
kins & Booth, 8 So.2d 539, 200 La.
$61— Weldon v. Gandy, App., 195
So. 655— Dickey v. Pollock, App.,
183 So. 48 — Davis v. Southland
Inv. Co., App., 149 So. 303.
Md. — Parker v. Berry man, 198 A.
708, 174 Md. 356.
Mich.— Gross v. Kellner, 219 N.W.
620, 242 Mich. 656.
Mo.— Smoot v. Judd, 61 S.W. 854, 161
Mo. 673, 84 Am.S.R. 738— State ex
rel. Woolman v. Guinotte, 282 S,
W. 68, 221 Mo.App. 466— Patterson
v. Tancey, 71 S.W. 845, 97 Mo.App.
681.
N.J. — C. & D. Building Corporation
v. Grifflthes, 157 A. 137, 109 N.J.
EQ. 319.
Tex. — Galbraith v. Bishop, Com.App.,
287 S.W. 1087— Gotten v. Stanford,
Civ.App., 169 S.W.2d 489— Lee v.
Massey, Civ.App., 135 S.W.2d 529
— Kerby v. Hudson, Civ. App., 13
S.W.2d 724.
Utah.— Kramer v. Pixton, 268 P.
1029, 72 Utah 1.
Wash. — John Hancock Mutj Life Ins.
Co. v. Gooley, 83 P.2d 221, 196
Wash. 357, 118 A.L.R. 1484.
34 C.J. P 447 note 70.
Notice to complainant's agent may
be regarded as equivalent to no-
tice to complainant so as to pre-
clude equitable relief. — Avant v.
Broun, Tex.Civ.App., 91 S.W.2d 426,
error dismissed.
Constructive service
Equitable relief may be obtained
against a judgment rendered on con-
structive service, as by publication
or by substitution, where personal
710
service should have been made or
attempted.
La. — National Park Bank v. Concor-
dia Land & Timber Co., 97 So. 272,
154 La. 31.
Utah. — Liebhardt v. Lawrence, 120
P. 215, 40 Utah 243.
34 C.J. p 447 note 70 [a].
Expiration of time for other reme-
dies
When the time set by statute for
other remedies has expired, defend-
ant may pursue his remedy of a sep-
arate suit in equity to secure relief
from a judgment rendered against
him without his being served with
process. — Washko v. Stewart, 112 P.
2d 306, 44 Cal.App.2d 311—34 C.J. P
447 note 70 [b].
86. Md.— Kartman v. Miliman, 125
A. 170, 144 Md. 502.
Or. — Dixie Meadows Independence
Mines Co. v. Kight, 45 P.2d 909,
150 Or. 395.
34 C.J. p 447 note 71.
87. Cal. — Maple v. Walser, 21 P.2d
984, 131 Cal. App. 631.
34 C.J. p 447 note 72.
88. Colo. — San Juan & St. Louis
Mining & Smelting Co. v. Finch,
6 Colo. 214.
Tenn.— Bell v. Williams, 1 Head 229.
89. Ind. — Hill v. Newman, 47 Ind.
187.
90. Mo. — St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co.
v. Lowder, 39 S.W. 799, 138 Mo.
533, 60 Am.S.R. 565.
34 C.J. p 446 note 68.
91. Cal. — Daly v. Pennie, 25 P. 67,
86 Cal. 552, 21 Am.S.R. 61.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
353
ment subject to equitable attack if actual notice
was duly received.92
Joint defendants. Where judgment was rendered
against two defendants, although process was served
on only one of them, defendant not served may have
relief in equity against the judgment.93 However,
a defendant who has been served with process may
not attack the judgment in equity on the ground
that his codcfendant had not been served.94
b. Defective Process or Service
Defective process or notice, or defective service of
process, may afford ground for equitable relief, although
such relief will ordinarily be denied where the complain-
ant had an adequate remedy at law.
Defects in the process so radical that it docs not
serve its purpose of notifying defendant of the suit
and the time for proceeding in it will be ground for
an injunction against the judgment;95 but it is oth-
erwise where the process or notice is sufficient to
put him on inquiry as to the action, which inquiry
he negligently fails to pursue.96 Ground for the
interposition of equity may be laid by showing a
fatal defect in the manner of serving the process,97
but a defective return or proof of process duly
served has been held not a sufficient ground for
equity to interfere.98 Equitable relief may be de-
nied where the circumstances are such that com-
plainant had an adequate remedy at law of which
he negligently failed to avail himself,99 as where
the service was merely irregular,1 or not in strict
compliance with the statute.2
§ 353. False Return of Service
There is a conflict of authority as to whether equita-
ble relief may be granted against a Judgment obtained
where there was a false return without due service of
process.
It has been acknowledged that there is some dif-
ference of judicial opinion as to whether or not
equitable relief may be granted against a judgment
where there was a false return without due service
of process.8 Some authorities hold that if the proc-
ess is returned executed on defendant at law, and
was not in fact executed, and judgment was ren-
dered without appearance or opportunity to defend,
chancery has power to enjoin the judgment.4 Ac-
cording to these decisions, the return of the officer
to the writ is only prima facie evidence of the fact
stated by it, and may be contradicted,5 and, while
complainant may be denied the right to attack the
sheriffs return regarding service under statutes pro-
viding for remedy by motion, nevertheless he re-
tains the right to equitable relief.6
On the other hand, there are authorities to the*
effect that a return is so far conclusive as between
the parties that the judgment is not open to equita-
ble attack on the ground that the return was false
and complainant not duly served with process unless
some further ground for equitable relief appears,?
as that complainant had a meritorious defense8 or
92. Tex. — Stewart v. Byrne, Civ.
App., 42 S.W.2d 234.
93. Iowa. — Gerrish v. Seaton, 34 N.
W. 485, 73 Iowa 15.
34 C.J. P 447 note 76.
94. «peXt — Taylor v. Hustead &
Tucker, Com.App., 257 S.W. 232.
95. Ala. — Roberts v. Henry, 2 Stew.
42.
La,— -Bird v. Cain, 6 La.Ann. 248.
90. Tex. — Stewart v. Byrne, Com.
App., 42 S.W.2d 234.
34 C.J. p 447 note 79.
97. Cal. — Petersen v. Vane, 134 P.2d
6, 57 Cal.App.2d 58.
Fla. — MacKay v. Bacon, 20 So.2d 904.
34 C.J. p 447 note 80.
Service on attorney after disbarment
Cal. — Antonsen v. Pacific Container
Co., 120 P.2d 148, 48 Cal.App.2d
535.
98. Tex.— Johnson v. Cole, Civ.App.,
138 S.W.2d 910, error refused.
34 C.J. p 448 note 84.
False return see infra § 353.
99. Ala. — Murphree v. International
Shoe Co., 20 So.2d 782, 246
384.
34 C.J. p 448 note 81*
1. Neb.— Mayer v. Nelson, 74 N.W.
841, 54 Neb. 434.
34 C.J. p 44S note 82.
2. Iowa.— Ballinger v. Tarbell, 16
Iowa 491, 85 Am.D. 527.
34 C.J. p 448 note S3.
3. Mich. — Garey v. Morley Bros.,
209 N.W. 116, 234 Mich. 675.
o. — Ellis v. Nuckols, 140 S.W. 867,
237 Mo. 290.
Va. — Caskie v. Durham, 147 S.E.
218, 152 Va. 345.
4* 111.— Marnik v. Cusack, 148 N.E.
42, 317 111. 362— Marabia v. Mary
Thompson Hospital of Chicago for
Women and Children, 140 N.B. 836,
309 111. 147— Hilt v. Heimberger,
85 N.E. 304, 235 111. 235— Kochman
v. O'Neill, 66 N.B. 1047, 202 111.
110— Michalowski v. Stefanowski,
58 N.B.2d 264, 324 Ill.App. 363 —
Kulikowski v. North American
Mfg. Co., 54 N.B.2d 411, 322 111.
App. 202 — Nikola v. Campus Tow-
ers Apartment Bldg. Corporation,
25 N.E.2d 582, 303 IlLApp. 516—
Harper v. Mangel, 98 Ill.App. 526.
See Rosenthal v. Loeber, 27 N.B.
2d 539, 305 IlLApp. 624.
Kan. — Board of Com'rs of Jjabette
County v. Abbey, 100 P.2d 720, 151
Kan. 710.
Mich. — Argo Oil Corporation v. IL
D. Mitchell, Inc., 257 N.W. 852,
269 Mich. 418— Gross v. Kellner,
219 N.W. 620, 242 Mich. 656— Gar-
ey v. Morley Bros., 209 N.W. 116,
234 Mich. 675.
Okl. — Seekatz v. Brandenburg, 300 P.
678, 150 Okl. 53.
Tenn. — Home Ins. Co. v. Webb, 61 B.
W. 79, 106 Tenn. 191.
W.Va. — Nuttalburg Smokeless Fuel
Co. v. First Nat. Bank, 145 S.B.
824, 106 W.Va. 487.
34 C.J. p 448 note 85.
5. 111. — Owens v. Ranstead, 22 HL
161.
6. HI. — Nikola v. Campus Towers
Apartment Bldg. Corporation, 35
N.B.2d 582, 303 IlLApp. 516.
7. Fla. — Cox v. Stuckey, 153 So.
898, 114 Fla. 488— Allison v. Han-
dy Andy Community Stores, Inc.,
143 So. 263, 106 Flsu 274— Lewter
v. Hadley, 66 So. 567, 68 Fla. 131.
34 C.J. p 448 note 87.
Defective return see supra § 352 bi
8- Ind. — Meyer v. Wilson, 76 N.E,
748, 166 Ind. 651— Brown T,
711
§ 353
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
that his adversary was guilty of fraud in connec-
tion with the matter.9 Il has, however, been held
that a court of equity has power to entertain a
bill containing clear and convincing allegations
which, on being proved, would establish that no
service of process whatsoever was had on a neces-
sary party defendant in contradiction of the facts
appearing on the record,10 and that statutes preclud-
ing attack on a sheriffs return do not prevent com-
plainant from attacking a judgment on the .ground
that he was not legally cited, as the real basis of
such an attack is in respect of the citation and not
of the return, which latter is simply evidence of the
citation.11
Where defendant appears and pleads to the ac-
tion, the judgment will not be enjoined notwith-
standing a false return of service.12
§ 354. Unauthorized Appearance
There Is a conflict of authority as to whether a Judg-
ment resting on an unauthorized appearance may be
canceled or Its enforcement restrained In equity.
According to some decisions, a judgment obtained
and resting on an unauthorized appearance for the
party may be canceled or its enforcement restrained
in equity, irrespective of the question whether the
attorney entering the appearance is responsible or
irresponsible, or acted by procurement or collu-
sion with his antagonist.18 According to other
decisions, where a regular attorney of the court
appears and answers for a defendant in a suit
at law, a judgment recovered by plaintiff will not
be vacated and execution enjoined by a court of
equity, although the attorney appeared without au-
thority from defendant, unless it is shown that the
attorney is not of sufficient ability to answer for
the damages caused by his unauthorized appear-
ance, or there has been collusion between him and
plaintiff in the suit at law; in such a case redress
must be sought against the attorney.14
There are also authorities to the effect that a
judgment obtained on an unauthorized appearance
of an attorney will not be enjoined, whether the
attorney is or is not solvent and able to respond
in damages,15 unless special circumstances render
it necessary,16 as where the question of unauthor-
ized appearance is complicated by fraud,17 or where
it would be "against conscience" to execute the
judgment,18 or where it is evident that the court
cannot properly determine on motion all the inter-
ests affected, the only proper method of procedure
in such cases being in equity.19 It has also been
held that relief will be denied unless it is shown
that the attorney's appearance and answer were
prejudicial to -the rights of the complaining party
and resulted in the judgment against him.20 With-
drawal by attorneys of their appearance with con-
sent of the court has been held not of itself to de-
prive the latter of jurisdiction so as to authorize
cancellation of the judgment in equity.21
§ 355. Payment or Satisfaction of Judgment
In an otherwise proper case the complainant may
secure equitable relief against enforcement of a Judg-
ment previously paid or satisfied.
It has generally been held that equity may enjoin
a judgment creditor from proceeding to collect a
judgment which has been in fact paid, discharged,
Rhodes, 155 N.E. 614, 86 IndApp.
12.
Necessity of meritorious defense
generally see supra § 349.
9. U.S. — Knox County v. Harshman,
Mo., 10 S.Ct 257, 133 U.S. 152, 33
L.Ed. 5S6.
Ky. — Doty v. Deposit Building &
Loan Ass'n, 46 S.W. 219, 103 Ky.
710, 20 Ky.L. 625, 43 L.R.A. 551,
rehearing- denied 47 S.W. 433, 103
Ky. 710, 20 Ky.L. 625, 43 L.R.A.
'554.
Mo.— Ellis v. Nucfcols, 140 S.W. 867,
237 Mo. 290.
Va, — Caskie v. Durham, 147 S.E. 218,
152 Va. 345 — Ramsburg v. Kline,
31 S.E. 608, 96 Va. 465.
W.Va. — McClung v. McWhorter, 34
S.B. 740, 47 W.Va. 150, 81 Am.S.
R. 785.
34 C.J. p 448 notes 87, 88.
10. Fla. — Fleming v. Fleming, 177
So. 607. 130 Fla. 264.
11. La. — Dickey v. Pollock, App.,
183 So. 48*
12. U.S.— Walker v. Robbins, Miss.,
14 How. 584, 14 L.Ed. 552.
13. GfcL— • Moon v. Moon, 35 S.EL2d
439, 199 Ga. 808.
Iowa. — Sloan v. Jepson, 252 N.W.
535. 217 Iowa 1082.
Miss. — Hirsch Bros. & Co. v. R. E.
Kennington Co., 124 So. 344, 155
Miss. 242, 88 A.L.R. 1.
34 C.J. p 449 note 96.
Party joined "by attorney
Judgment entered against party
joined by attorney without authority
may be set aside, vacated, or en-
joined in appropriate proceedings. —
Hirsch Bros. & Co. v. R. B. Kenning-
ton Co., supra.
14. N.H. — Everett v. Warner Bank,
1>8 N.H. 340.
34 C.J. p 449 note 90.
15. N.Y.— Vilas v. Pittsburgh & M.
R. Co., 25 N.E. 941, 123 N.T. 440,
34 N.Y.St. 67, 20 Am.S.R. 771, 9
L.R.A. 844.
34 C-J. p 449 note 9.
Belief in original cause
Relief from domestic judgment,
712
obtained through attorney's unau-
thorized appearance, must be sought
in original cause. — Hunter v. Har-
rell, 163 N.E. 295, 88 Ind.App. 68.
16. N.Y.— U. S. Life Ins. Co. v. Hel-
linger, 114 N.T.S. 885, 130 App.Div.
415— New York v. Smith, 20 N.Y.S.
666, 61 N.Y.Super. 374, appeal dis-
missed 34 N.B. 400. 138 N.Y. 676.
17. N.Y.— Vilas v. Pittsburgh &
M. R. Co., 25 N.B. 941, 123 N.Y.
440, 34 N.Y.St 67, 20 Am.S.R. 771,
9 L.R.A. 844.
34 C.J. p 449 note 93.
18. Fla. — Budd v. Gamble, 13 Fla.
265.
19. N.Y.— Vilas v. Plattsburgh & M.
R. Co., 25 N.B. 941, 123 N.Y. 440,
34 N.Y.S. 67, 20 Am.S.R. 771, 9 U
R.A. 844— Oilman v. Prentice, 3 X.
Y.St. 544, 11 N.Y.Civ.Proc. 310.
20. OkL— Homaokla Oil Co. v. M. K.
Tank Co., 247 P. 346, 118 Okl. 144.
21. Iowa. — Sloan v. Jepson, 252 N.
W. 535, 217 Iowa 1082.
'49 C. J. S.
JUDGMENTS
356
or satisfied,22 provided, of course, payment was
made to some one having authority to receive the
money.23 Under some circumstances such equitable
relief may be proper notwithstanding the court in
which the judgment was rendered may have the
power to grant the same relief on motion to stay
the execution.24 However, it has been held that
equity has no jurisdiction to relieve against a judg-
ment which has been satisfied, where the remedy at
law is adequate,26 either by the ancient writ of audi-
ta querela 26 or by motion made in the court in which
such judgment was rendered,27 unless there are
questions of law and fact which may be better tried
in a court of equity than in a law court, or there
is an equitable right involved more appropriate for
the. jurisdiction of the former tribunal than the lat-
ter,28 Similarly, one who might have set up the fact
of payment or discharge of a judgment, by way of
defense to an action at law on it, or in a proceeding
to revive it, cannot claim equitable relief against
its enforcement.29 In any case, where the legal
remedy is not available,80 or where fraud31 or in-
justice32 appears, the judgment may be enjoined.
It has been held that a court cannot rescind or an-
nul a judgment theretofore paid by one of several
solidary judgment debtors.83
§ 356. Errors and Irregularities
Errors and Irregularities in a judgment will not af-
ford ground for relief by a court of equity unless facts
extrinsic to the error bring the case within one of the
recognized grounds for equitable cognizance or the er-
rors are fundamental.
Equity will not set aside or enjoin a judgment re-
covered at law, against a party who had a full op-
portunity to defend himself, in a case of which the
court had jurisdiction, simply on the ground that
the judgment is irregular or erroneous,34 as a
court of equity may not review judgments of other
22. N.Y. — Allgeier v. Gordon & Co.,
9 N.Y.S.2d 848, 170 Misc. 607.
34 C.J. p 440 note 78, p 450 note 7.
Payment to fall liability on, "bond
Sureties on officers' bonds, having
paid Judgment for full penalty, as-
signed to judgment creditor's attor-
ney, were entitled to restrain judg-
ment creditor's wife, who also recov-
ered judgment, from enforcing her
judgment — Southern Surety Co. v.
Bender, 180 N.E. 198, 41 Ohio App.
541.
Tender of property
Injunction lies to restrain enforce-
ment of alternative money judgment
obtained in action to recover person-
alty, where property had been ten-
dered in good condition. — Lindsey v.
Faylor, 1 P.2d 755, 151 Okl. 46.
Satisfaction not shown
Enforcement of judgment regular
on its face could not be restrained
by virtue of alleged settlement
agreement, where application for in-
junction showed that applicant had
paid only part of amount due and
failed to show tender of balance. —
Bond v. Dugat, Tex. Civ. App., 81 S.W.
2d 786.
23. Md.— Akin v. Denny, 87 Md. 81.
34 C.J. p 450 note 9.
24. Call — Thompson v. Laughlin, 27
P. 752, 91 Cal. 313.
85. Cal. — Schwartz v. California
Claim Service, 125 P.2d 883, 52 Cal.
, App.2d 47.
Del.— White v. Osserman, 139 A, 761,
16 Del.Ch. 39.
N.Y. — Allgeier v. Gordon & Co., Inc.,
9 N.T.S.2d 848, 170 Misc. 607.
14 C.J. p 450 note 10.
•ft, HL— -Pyle v. Crebs, 112 IlLApp.
480.
27. 111. — Chandler v. Chandler, 63 N.
B.2d 272, 326 IlLApp. 670.
34 C.J. p 450 -note 12.
28. Va. — Crawford v. Thurmond, 3
Leigh 85, 30 Va. 85.
29. Va. — Barnett v. Barnett, 2 S.ES.
733, 83 Va, 504.
34 C.J. p 450 note 14.
30. N.Y.— Mallory v. Norton, 21
Barb. 424.
31. N.T.— Shaw v. Dwight, 16 Barb.
536.
34 C.J. p 450 note 16.
32. 111.— Edwards v. McCurdy, 13
111. 496.
N.Y. — Remington Paper Co. v.
O'Dougherty, 81 N.Y. 474.
33. La.— Swift & Co. v, Villemeur,
131 So. 855, 15 La.App. 503.
34. U.S. — Town of Boynton v. White
Const. Co., C.C.A.Fla., 64 F.2d 190
— Mineral Development Co. v. Ken-
tucky Coal Lands Co., D.CKy., 285
F. 761, affirmed, C.C.A., 285 F.
1021.
Ala.— Corpus Juris cited in Miller
v. Miller, 189 So. 768, 769, 238 Ala,
228 — Ex parte Cunningham, 99 So.
834, 19 Ala.App. 584, certiorari de-
nied Ex parte Ewart-Brewer Motor
Co., 99 So. 836, 211 Ala, 191.
Colo. — Schattinger v. Schattinger,
250 P. 851, 80 Colo. 261.
Fla. — Adams v. Reynolds, 134 So. 45,
101 Fla. 271.
Ga. — Flowers v. Thompson, 124 S.B.
720, 158 Ga, 844.
Ill,— Gray v. First Nat Bank, 13 N.
E.2d 497, 294 IlLApp. 62.
Iowa, — Jensen v. Martinsen, 291 N.
W. 422, 228 Iowa 307.
La, — National Park Bank v. Concor-
dia Land & Timber Co., 97 So. 272,
154 La. 31.
Md.— Hansel v. Collins, 23 A.2d 1,"
180 Md. 100.
713
Mich.— Craig v. Black, 229 N.W. 411,
249 Mich. 485 — Broadwell v. Broad-
well, 209 N.W. 923, 236 Mich. 60.
Mo. — State ex rel. Caplow v. Kirk-
wood, App., 117 S.W.2d 652— State
ex rel. Woolman v. Guinotte, 282
S.W. 68, 221 Mo.App. 466 — Bulli-
vant v. Greer, 264 S.W. 95, 216 Mo,
App. 324 — State ex rel. and to Use
of Clinkscales v. Scott, 261 S.W.
680, 216 Mo.App. 114, record quash-
ed State ex rel. Scott v. Trimble,
272 S.W. 66, 308 Mo. 123.
N.J. — Arons v. Haberman, 176 A.
680, 114 N.J.Law 403— Rogers-
Ebert Co. v. Century Const Co.,
23 A.2d 905, 131 N.J.Equ 67, affirm-
ed 25 A.2d 635, 131 N.J.Eq. 469.
N.Y.— Harvey v. Comby, 28C N.Y.S.
958, 245 App.Div. 318.
N.C.— Cameron v. McDonald, 6 S.E.
2d 497, 216 N.C. 712.
Ohio. — Barnhart v. Aiken, 177 N.E.
284, 39 Ohio App. 172.
Tenn. — New York Casualty Co. v.
Lawson, 24 S.W.2d 881, 160 Tenn.
329 — Corpus Juris cited in Clem-
mons v. Haynes, 3 Tenn. App. 20,
28.
Tex.— Winters Mut. Aid Ass'n, Circle
No. 2, v, Reddin, Com. App., 49 S.
W.2d 1095— Petty v. Mitchell, Civ.
App., 187 S.W.2d 138, error refused
— Gray v. Moore, Civ. App., 172 S.
W.2d 746, error refused — Urbanec
. v, Jezik, Clv.App., 138 S.W.2d 1008
— Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v.
Pribble, Civ.App., 130 S.W.2d 332,
error refused — Snell v. Knowles,
Civ.App., 87 S.W.2d 871, error dis-
missed— Morris v. Soble, Civ.App.,
61 S.".V.2d 139— Coffman v. Nation-
al Motor Products Co., Civ.App., 26
S.W.M 921, error dismissed —
Crutcher v. Wolfe, Civ.App., 269 S.
W. 841.
Utah. — Logan City v. Utah Power
& Light Co., 16 P.2d 1097, 86 Utah
§ 356
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
courts of competent jurisdiction,35 or afford eq-
uitable relief for mistakes of fact86 or errors of
law,37 unless the judgment is against good con-
science,38 or there are facts extrinsic to the error
justifying relief,39 as where the errors are the re-
sult of fraud or collusion40 or of such a nature as
to deprive the party of all opportunity of making
his defense in the action at law.41
Mere irregularities or errors in the proceedings
leading up to a judgment constitute no ground for
equitable interference,42 and it has been held im-
material that the judgment is unjust43 or that the
error was such as to warrant a new trial,44 although
under statutes regulating bills of review it has been
held that such a bill will lie only if the grounds pre-
sented are such as would have required granting of
a new trial at law.45 Where there was in legal
contemplation no error committed, equitable relief
will, of course, be denied.46 On the other hand,
fundamental errors going to the power or juris-
diction of the court to render the judgment may af-
ford a basis for equitable relief,47 except, it has
been said, where the interests of third persons in-
tervene which should be protected under broad prin-
ciples of public policy ;48 and where the errors com-
mitted are of a character making the judgment a
nullity, and it would be against good conscience to
enforce it, enforcement of the judgment may be
enjoined.49
§ 357. Defects or Objections as to Par-
ties or Pleadings
Equity will not grant relief against a Judgment for
defects or objections as to parties or pleadings consti-
tuting mere irregularities.
340, adhered to 44 P.2d 698, 86
Utah 354.
Wash.— Hanson v. Foltz, 17 P.2d 616,
170 Wash. 652.
Wyo.— North Laramie Land Co. v.
Hoffman, 219 P. 561, 30 Wyo. 238,
affirmed 45 S.Ct 491, 268 U.S. 276,
69 L.Ed. 953.
S4 C.J. p 451 note 18—47 C.J. p 1015
note 74.
judgment "by confession
(1) A judgment by confession is
not subject to equitable relief for
mere defects or Irregularities in the
instrument of confession. — Burch v.
West, 25 N.E. 658, 134 IlL 258—
84 C.JL P 441 note 11.
(2) Likewise such relief cannot
be granted merely because the affi-
davit to the complaint on which the
judgment was rendered was defec-
tive.— Reiley v. Johnston, 22 Wis.
879.
Jfcnl* applied in partition suit
Or.— Howell v. Howell, 152 P. 217,
77 Or. 539.
47 C.J. p 437 note 67. p 438 note 79.
35. N.J. — Rogers-Ebert Co. v. Cen-
tury Const Co., 23 A.2d 905, 131
N.J.Eq. 67, affirmed 25 A.2d 635,
131 N.J.EQ. 469— Red Oaks v. Dor-
ez, Inc., 184 A. 746, 120 N.J.EQ.
282 — Raimondi v. Bianchi, 140 A.
684, 102 N.J.EQ. 254— Boulton v.
Scott, 3 N.J.Eq. 231.
Term.— New York Casualty Co. v.
Lawson, 24 S.W.2d 881, 160 Tenn.
329.
judgments not appealable
Courts of equity will not Interfere
to control the judgment of an in-
ferior court although erroneous
where the matters are cognizable In
the inferior court and have been de-
cided there even though the judg-
ment is not appealable. — Zurich Gen-
eral Accident & Liability Ins. Co. v.
-Dyesa, Tez.CXv.App., 167 S.W.2d 294
—Hayes v. Bone, Tex.Civ.App., 69
S.W.2d 180.
33. N.M.— Caudill v. Caudill, 44 P.2d
724, 39 N.M. 248.
Tex. — Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v.
Pribble, Civ.App., 130 S.W.2d 332,
error refused.
34 C.J. p 452 note 22, p 462 note 45.
37. U.S.— U. S. v. Irving Trust Co.,
D.C.N.Y., 49 F.Supp. 683.
Ind. — Attica Building & Loan Ass'n
of Attica v. Colvert, 23 N.E.2d 483,
216 Ind. 192.
Mont. — Cocanougher v. Montana Life
Ins. Co., 64 P.2d 845, 103 Mont
536.
N.J.— Red Oaks v. Dorez, Inc.. 184 A.
746, 120 N.J.Eq. 282.
Tex. — Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v.
Pribble, Civ.App., 130 S.W.2d 332,
error refused.
34 aj. p 452 note 23.
38. Iowa.— Shaw v. Addison, 18 N.
W.2d 796.
34 C.J. p 462 note 43.
39. Tex. — Bearden v. Texas Co., Civ.
App., 41 S.W.2d 447, affirmed, Com.
App., 60 S.W.2d 1031.
40. Wyo. — Miller v. Hagie, 140 P.2d
746, 5-9 Wyo. 383.
34 C.J. p 452 note 24.
41. Wyo. — Miller v. Hagie, supra.
34 C.J. p 462 note 25.
42. CaL— Bley v. Dessin, 87 P.2d
889, 31 Cal.App.2d 338.
Ind. — Globe Mining Co. v. Oak Ridge
Coal Co., 177 N.E. 868, 204 Ind. 11.
Ky. — Sexton v. Dorman, 147 S.W.2d
703, 285 Ky. 270— Bass v. Louis-
ville & N. R. Co., 288 S.W. 738, 216
Ky. 796.
Md.— Hansel v. Collins, 23 A.2d 1,
180 Md. 100.
Tex. — Richardson v. Kelly, Civ.App.,
179 S.W.2d 991, affirmed, Sup., 191
S.W.2d 857.
Wyo.— Miller v. Hagie, 140 P.2d 746,
59 Wyo. 383.
34 C.J. p 451 note 21.
714
Misconduct of jury, in discussing
facts not in evidence, did not au-
thorize setting aside judgment in
separate suit in nature of bill of
review. — Reed v. Bryant, Tex.Civ.
App., 291 S.W. 605.
43. Tex.— Petty v. Mitchell, Civ.
App., 187 S.W.2d 138, error refused
—Wood v. Lenox, 23 S.W. 812, 5
Tex.Civ.App. 318.
44. Ky.— Reynolds v. Horine, 13 B.
Mon. 234.
Tenn. — Nicholson v. Patterson, 6
Humphr. 394.
45. Tex. — Pearl Assur. Co. v. Wil-
liams, Civ.App., 167 S.W.2d 808.
46. 111. — Carroll, Schendorf & Boe-
nicke v. Hastings, £59 Ill.App. 564.
Md.— Hansel v. Collins, 23 A.2d 1,
ISO Md. 100.
Mich. — Koppas v. Heffner & Flem-
ming, 282 N.W. 245, 286 Mich. 562.
Neb.— Wistrom v. Forsling, 9 N.W.2d
294, 143 Neb. 294, rehearing denied
and opinion modified on other
grounds 14 N.W.2d 217, 144 Neb.
638.
Tex. — Maytag Southwestern Co. v.
Thornton, Civ.App., 20 S.W. 3d 383,
error dismissed.
Wash. — Puett v. Bernhard, 71 P.2d
406, 191 Wash. 557.
Alleged error as to analiflcation of
Judge
Ala. — Hanover Pire Ins. Co. v.
Street, 154 So. 816, 228 Ala. 677.
Tex. — Crutcher v. Wolfe, Civ.App.,
269 S.W. 841.
47. Colo. — Ferrier v. Morris, 122 P.
2d 880, 109 Colo. 154.
Tex. — Morris v. Soble, Civ.App., 61
S.W.2d 139.
48. Tex. — Morris v. Soble, supra.
49. Colo.— Ferrier v. Morris, 122 P,
2d 880, 109 Colo. 154.
49 0. J. S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 359
Where the trial court had jurisdiction to render
judgment, defects and objections as to parties
amounting to no more than irregularities do not
constitute grounds for equitable relief against the
judgment.50 Nonjoinder of a proper party defend-
ant will not authorize equitable relief to other de-
fendants who were properly cited,51 but failure to
join a necessary party defendant may justify equi-
table relief in an action by such party.52 A court of
equity may not amend a judgment so as to add a
new party where there is no statutory provision
authorizing such procedure.53
If the trial court had jurisdiction of the person
and subject matter, equity ordinarily will deny re-
lief against a judgment on the ground of defects,
objections, mistakes, or insufficiency with respect to
the pleadings,54 especially where the defects are
due to the mistake or negligence of complainant
himself55 and he failed to avail himself of his rem-
edy at law.56 So it has been held that a court of
equity will not restrain enforcement of a judgment
because the complaint in the action was fatally de-
fective.57 Equitable relief may be afforded, how-
ever, where the defect in the pleadings is of such
character as to deprive the court of jurisdiction,58
and an independent bill may lie to set aside a judg-
ment where it is beyond the scope of the pleadings59
or issues.60
§ 358. Objections to Evidence
Ordinarily equity will not afford relief against t
Judflment for insufficiency of the evidence to support it,
or for erroneous rulings of the trial court In respect of
admissibility of evidence.
Ordinarily equity will not afford relief or enjoin
the enforcement of a judgment at law on the ground
of the insufficiency of the evidence to support it61
or the lack of evidence of essential facts62 or be-
cause of erroneous action of the court in admitting
or excluding particular evidence.63
§ 359. Error in Amount of Judgment
or Relief Granted
Error in respect of the amount of the Judgment or
the relief awarded affords no ground for equitable re-
lief where the court had Jurisdiction of the parties and
subject matter, unless other grounds of equitable cogni-
zance appear, such as fraud or mistake, coupled with
lack of an adequate remedy at law.
Where the court has jurisdiction of the person
and the subject matter, and there is no special
ground for equitable interference, the fact that a
judgment is erroneous as to the amount awarded,64
as for a greater amount than claimed,65 or fails in
other respects to grant the proper relief,66 affords
no ground for vacating it in equity or enjoining its
enforcement. Similarly, mere error in the taxation
of costs,67 or in the allowance of interest where the
50. La, — Surety Credit Co. v. Bauer,
1 LsuApp. 285,
Ohio. — Rauch v. Immel, 8 N.E.2d 569,
55 Ohio App. 71.
Tex. — Duncan v. Smith Bros. Grain
Co., 260 S.W. 1027, 113 Tex. 555—
Smith v. Zenith Corporation, Civ.
App., 134 S.W.2d 337— Arcola Sug-
ar Mills Co. v. Doherty, Civ.App.,
254 S.W. 650.
Disability and privilege see supra §
350 b.
51t- Qa. — Thomasson v. Farmers' &
Merchants' Nat. Bank of Rock-
mart, 153 S.E. 419, 170 Ga. 555.
52. Okl. — Phelps v. Theime, 217 P.
376, 92 Okl. 8.
Purchaser in possession
Enforcement of Judgment in sum-
mary proceedings for restitution was
properly enjoined, where purchaser
in possession was not party. — Hepp-
ner v. Smith, 213 N.W. 119, 238
Mich. 245.
63, Ga.— Bishop v. Bussey, 139 S.B.
212, 164 Ga. 642.
54. Ga. — Walters v. Southern Brigh-
ton Mills, 147 S.B. 87, 168 Ga. 15.
Ky. — Dorsey v. Lawrence, Hard, p
508.
Tex.— .Empire Gas & Fuel Co. v. No-
ble, Com.App., 36 S.W.2d 451— Fin-
layson v. McDowell, Civ.App., 94
S.W.2d 1234, error dismissed.
Utah.— Redfield v. First Nat Bank,
244 P. 210, 66 Utah 459.
34 C.J. p 452 note 26.
Overruling- of demurrer to com-
plaint in suit at law, if error, would
be mere irregularity reviewable on
appeal, and could not be made basis
for bill to vacate Judgment. — Han-
over Fire Ins. Co. v. Street, 154 So.
816, 228 Ala. 677.
55. Tex. — Cooper v. Walker, Civ.
App., 96 S.W.2d 847.
56. Tex. — Allen v. Jones, Civ.App.,
192 S.W.2d 298, error refused, no
reversible error.
57. Utah.— Redfleld v. First Nat.
Bank, 244 P. 210, 66 Utah 459.
58. Tex. — Morris v. Soble, Civ. App.,
61 S.W.2d 139.
Unsigned petition
Tex. — Morris v. Soble, supra.
59. Tenn. — Culwell v. Culwell, 133
S.W.2d 1009, 23 Tenn.App. 389.
60. Kan. — Southern Kansas Stage
Lines Co. v. Webb, 41 P.2d 1025,
141 Kan. 476.
61. U.S. — Mineral Development Co.
v. Kentucky Coal Lands Co., D.C.
Ky., 285 F. 761, affirmed, C.C.A.,
285 F. 1021,
Ark. — Malkin v. Cramer Cotton Co.,
252 S.W. 596, 159 Ark. 508.
715
Iowa.— Harris v. Blgley, 111 N.W.
432, 136 Iowa 307.
Tenn. — Life & Casualty Ins. Co. v.
Clark, 54 S.W.2d 965, 165 Tenn.
219.
Wash.— Manson v. Foltz, 17 P.2d 616,
170 Wash. 652.
34 C.J. p 453 note 27.
62. CaL— Pico v. Sunol, 6 Cal. 294.
34 C.J. p 453 note 28.
63. Nev.— Douglas Milling & Power
Co. v. Rickey, 217 P. 590, 47 Nev.
148.
34 C.J. p 453 note 29.
64. Neb. — Kramer v. Bankers' Sure-
ty Co., 133 N.W. 427, 90 Neb. 801.
34 C.J. p 453 note 31.
Attorneys' fees
Dissatisfaction of Judgment debt-
ors with amount of attorney's fees
for which default Judgment was ren-
dered was not ground for annulling
Judgment. — Treichlingrova v. Layne,
139 So. 659, 19 La, A pp. 71.
65. Ind. — Gum-Elastic Roofing Co.
v. Mexico Pub. Co., 39 N.B3. 443,
140 Ind. 158, 30 L.B.A. 700.
66. Tex. — Kalmans v. Baumbush,
CiV.App., 187 S.W. 697.
Utah.— Redfleld v. First Nat. Ban*,
244 P. 210, 66 Utah 459.
67. Or.— Nicklta v. Hobin, 10 P. 835,
13 Or. 406.
34 C.J. p 453 note 37.
359
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
verdict gives none,68 affords no ground f°r enjoin-
ing the judgment.
On the other hand, where through fraud, acci-
dent, mistake, or miscalculation a judgment is en-
tered for an amount or in terms not intended, or
inconsistent with the pleadings, equity may give re-
lief on dear and satisfying proof.60 Relief will not
he granted, however, where the party has an ade-
quate remedy by appeal, motion, or other proceeding
in the law court,70 or where he is chargeahle with
negligence in permitting the mistake to occur or in
failing to seek his remedy in due time.71
§ 360* Irregular Rendition or Entry
Errors in the time, form, or manner of rendition or
entry of a judgment ordinarily afford no ground for
equitable relief; but where there are additional grounds
of equitable cognizance relief may be granted.
Irregularities or errors in the time, form, or man-
ner of the rendition or entry of a judgment furnish
no ground for equity to reform it or enjoin its col-
lection.72 On the other hand, some cases recognize
the right of equity to interfere in a grave emer-
gency produced by an erroneous entry of judg-
ment73 where there is no other way of obtaining
relief74 or where the party has been prevented
from obtaining relief at law by fraud, accident, or
the act of the opposite party, without fault or neg-
lect on his own part75 So, where the clerk of the
law court has made mistakes or erroneous entries
in the record of the judgment, it is proper for eq-
uity to grant relief.76 It has been held that a de-
fect in rendition of a judgment going to the juris-
diction of the court may constitute ground for suit
in equity.77
§ 361. Defenses Not Interposed in Former
Action
a. In general
b. Particular defenses
a. In General
A defendant who negligently fails to interpose an
available defense in an action, and who Is not prevented
from interposing it by fraud, accident, or the like, can-
not assert such defense as a ground for equitable re-
lief against the judgment.
A defendant in an action who has a defense of
which he is or should be fully aware, which is cog-
nizable by and within the jurisdiction of the court
in which the action is brought, and which he has
an opportunity to interpose, is chargeable with
negligence if he fails to set up such defense
and insist on it, not being prevented from doing
so by any fraud, accident, or surprise; and he
cannot have relief in equity against the judgment
in that action on the same grounds which consti-
tuted such defense.78 This proposition has been so
68. La.— McMicken v. Milaudon, 2
La, 180.
69. La. — Engeran v. Consolidated
Companies, App., 147 So. 743.
Mo. — Chouteau v. City of St. Louis,
App., 131 S.W.2d 902.
Wyo. — Corpus Juris cited in Midwest
Refining Co. v. George, 7 P.2d 213,
214, 44 Wyo. 25.
34 C.J. p 453 note 34.
Violation, of agreement
Judgment taken in violation of
agreement should have been set
aside and defendant given opportuni-
ty to defend.— Riddle v. McNaugh-
ton, 163 K.E. 846, 88 Ind.App. 352.
If jurisdictions! facts do not ap-
pear, equity will deny relief. — Prest-
wood v. Bagley, 149 So. 817, 227 Ala.
S16.
70. U.S.— Furnald v. Glenn, C.C.N.
Y., 56 F. 372, affirmed 64 F. 49,
12 C.C.A. 27.
34 C.J. p 453 note 35.
71. Wyo. — Edwards v. City of Chey-
enne, 114 P. 677, 687, 122 P. 900,
19 Wyo. 110.
34 C.J. p 453 note 36.
72. Mass. — Bromfield v. Gould, 193
N.B. 796, 289 Mass. 80.
Old. — Missouri, O. & G. Ry. Co. v.
Riley, 127 P. 391, 34 Okl. 760.
34 C.J. p 453 note 40*
Entry of default in vacation is
insufficient ground for an injunction
where the rules of the court in
which the Judgment was rendered
authorize the entry of judgments in
vacation.— Porter v. Moffett, Morr.,
Iowa, 108.
73. Tex. — Houston, E. & W. T. R.
Co. v. Skeeter Bros., 98 S.W. 1064,
44 Tex.Civ.App. 105.
34 C.J. p 454 note 41.
Supplying imperfections in partition
decree or judgment
U.S. — Gay v. Parpart, 111., 1 S.Ct.
456, 106 U.S. 679, 27 L.Ed. 256.
47 C.J. p 437 note 56.
74. Iowa. — Partridge v. Harrow, 27
Iowa 96, 99 Am.D. 643.
Okl.— -Ellis v. Akers, 121 P. 258, 32
Okl. 96.
75. OkL — Ellis v. Akers, supra.
34 OJ. p 454 note 43.
76. Va. — Smith v. Wallace, 1 Wash.
254, ,1 Va. 254.
34 C.J. p 454 note 44.
77. Ariz. — American Surety Co. of
New York v. Mosher, 64 P.2d 1025,
48 Ariz. 552,
7a U.S.— In re Innls, C.C.AJnd., 140
F.2d 479, certiorari denied 64 S.Ct
1048, 322 U.S. 736, 88 L.Ed. 1569—
Helms v. Holmes, C.C.A.3ST.C., 129
F.2d 263, 141 A.UEU 1367— Town
716
of Boynton v. White Const. Co., C.
C.A.Fla., 64 F.2d 190— Jenner v.
Murray, C.C.A.Fla., 32 F.2d 625.
Ala.— Leath v. Lister, 173 So. 59, 233
Ala. 595 — Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v.
Street, 154 So. 816, 228 Ala. 677
— Oden v. King, 114 So. 1, 216
Ala, 597.
Cal.— Hammell v. Britton, 119 P.2d
333, 19 Cal.2d 72— De Tray v.
Chambers, 297 P. 575, 112 Cal.App.
697.
Ga. — Lester v. Southern Security Co.,
147 S.B. 529, 168 Ga. 307.
111.— Mohr v. Messick, 53 N.E.2d
743, 322 111. App. 56 — Meyer v. Sur-
kin, 262 111. App. 83.
Ind. — Jullen v. Lane, 157 N.E. 114,
second case, 95 Ind. App. 139.
Ky.— Holt v. Mahoney, 270 S.W. 795,
208 Ky. 330.
La.— Wunderlich v. Palmisano, App.,
177 So. 843 — Treichlingrova v.
Layne, 139 So. 659, 19 La.App. 71
— Mercantile Adjustment Co. v.
Powers, 5 La.App. 534.
Md. — Bedding v. Redding, 26 A.2d
18, 180 -Md. 1545.
Mich. — Westin v. Hatfield, 10 N.W.2d
840, 306 Mich. 235— Broadwell v.
Broadwell, 209 N.W. 923, 236 Mich.
60.
Mo. — Hockenberry v. Cooper County
State Bank of Bunceton, 88 S.W.
3d 1031, 338 Mo. 31— State ex reL
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 361
repeatedly affirmed that it has become a well rec-
ognized principle and maxim of equity,79 and will
not be abrogated merely because the judgment may
be wrong in law or fact,80 or may work injustice
and hardship,81 as, for instance, when the effect of
allowing the judgment to stand will be to compel
the payment of a debt which defendant does not owe
or which he owes to a third person.82 An excep-
tion to this rule has been held to exist, however, in
cases where relief is sought by persons incapacitat-
ed to contract generally or specially ;83 and, as dis-
cussed infra §§ 363-368, relief in equity may be had
where there was an adequate excuse for not pre-
senting the defense in the original action.
Defensrt available either at law or in equity.
Where a party's defense to an action is cognizable
either at law or in equity, it has been held in some
jurisdictions that he may choose in which form he
will make his defense, and if he omits to do so at
law he may then have recourse to equity for re-
lief against the judgment.84 However, if in any
such case the party makes his defense in the trial
at law, he will be regarded as having made his elec-
tion, and if he fails he will have no ground for a
bill in equity for relief against the judgment85 un-
less his defeat occurred through fraud, surprise,
accident or the like.86
In other jurisdictions where a suit is first brought
in a court of law, in which defendant may make his
defense as fully and adequately as he could in a
court of equity, he must make his defense there, and
if he neglects to do so a court of equity has no ju-
risdiction to relieve him,87 except where some spe-
Ellsworth v. Fidelity & Deposit
Co. of Maryland, 147 S.W.2d 181,
235 Mo.App. 850.
N.J.— Brengel v. O'Toole, 148 A. 861,
103 N.J.EQ. 339— Raimondi v. Bian-
chi. 140 A. 584, 102 N.J.EQ. 254—
Simon v. Henke, 139 A. 887, 102
N.J.EQ. 115.
N.Y. — 755 Seventh Ave. Corporation
v. Carroll, 194 N.E. 69, 266 N.Y.
157 — Fuhrmann v. Fanroth, 173 N.
E. 685, 254 N.Y. 479— Home v. Mc-
Ginley, 299 N.Y.S. 1, 252 App.Div.
296.
Okl.— Sabin v. Levorsen, 145 P.2d
402, certiorari denied 64 S.Ct. 205,
320 U.S. 792, 88 LEd. 477, rehear-
ing denied 64 S.Ct. 368, 320 U.S.
815, 88 L.Ed. 492— Wheeler v. Rid-
path, 259 P. 247, 126 Okl. 290.
Or. — Dixon v. Simpson, 279 P. 939,
130 Or. 211.
Pa. — Graham Roller Bearing Corpo-
ration v. Stone, 126 A. 235, 281 Pa.
229.
Tenn. — Sharp v. Kennedy, 13 Tenn.
App. 170.
Tex. — Wear v. McCallum, 33 S.W.2d
723, 119 Tex. 473— Winters Mut
Aid Ass'n, Circle No. 2, v. Reddin,
Com.App., 49 S.W.2d 1095 — Empire
Gas & Fuel Co. v. Noble, Com.App.,
36 S.W.2d 451— Corpus Juris cited
in Smith v. Lockhart, Civ.App., 177
S.W.2d 117, 119— American Red
Cross v. Longley, Civ.App., 165 S.
W.2d 233, error refused — Smith v.
Rogers, Civ.App., 129 S.W.2d 776—
Sanders v. O'Connor, Civ.App., 98
S.W.2d 401, error dismissed— Smith
v. Dunnam, Civ.App., 57 S.W.2d
S73, error refused — Hetkes v. Geh-
ret, Civ.App., 16 S.W.2d 395, af-
firmed, Com. App., 36 S.W.2d 700 —
Garza v. Kenedy, Civ.App., 291 S.
W. 615, reversed on other grounds,
Com.App., 299 S.W. 231— Reed v.
Bryant, Civ.App., 291 S.W. . 605—
D. F. Connolly Agency, Inc., v.
Popejoy, Civ.App., 290 S.W. 831.
Utah.— Redfield v. First Nat. Bank,
244 P. 210, 66 Utah 459.
Wash.— Fisch v. Marler, 97 P.2d 147,
1 Wash.2d 698 — Manson v. Foltz,
17 P.2d 616, 170 Wash. 652.
24 C.J. p 889 note 92—34 C.J. p 454
note 45, p 440 notes 80, 82, p 442
note 13 — 47 C.J. p 1015 note 75.
Cancellation of insurance
Insurance company's suit to set
aside judgment on additional insur-
ance certificates, issued to injured
employee covered by group policy,
was held not maintainable where
there was negligence and lack of dil-
igence in failing to present defense
of cancellation of additional insur-
ance.— Wheiles v. ^Btna Life Ins.
Co., C.C.A.Tex., 68 F.2d 99.
Defect patent on face of record
Surety on garnishment bond was
held not entitled to enjoin enforce-
ment of garnishor's judgment on
bond on ground of discovering after
such judgment was rendered that the
former judgment on which breach of
bond was predicated was void, where
alleged defect was patent on face of
record. — JEtna Casualty & Surety Co.
v. McDougall Co., 150 So. 632, 112
Pla. 408.
Pendency of unit "by third person
Where, at the time of a suit to
require a partnership accounting
from the defendant in respect of a
lease held in his name, a suit by a
third person against such defendant
to establish a prior lease was pend-
ing in another court, but defendant
did not plead such fact, and a decree
for accounting was entered against
him, he cannot maintain a suit in
equity to enjoin enforcement of such
decree because of a subsequent de-
cree against him in the other suit.
—Smith v. Apple, C.C.A.Kan., 6 F.2d
559.
79. Va. — Holland v. Trotter, 52
Gratt 136, 63 Va. 136.
717
80. U.S.— In re Innis, C.C.A.Ind.,
140 F.2d 479, certiorari denied 64
S.Ct. 1048, 322 U.S. 736, 88 L.Ed.
1569.
Tex, — Ridge v. Wood, Civ.App., 140
S.W.2d 536, error dismissed, judg-
ment correct.
Utah.— Redfleld v. First Nat Bank,
244 P. 210, 66 Utah 459.
34 C.J. p 456 note 47.
8L U.S. — In re Innis, C.C.A.Ind.,
140 F.2d 479, certiorari denied 64
S.Ct. 1048, 322 U.S.. 736, 88 L.Ed.
1569.
Utah.— Redfield v. First Nat Bank,
244 P. 210, 66 Utah 459.
34 C.J. p 456 note 48.
82. W.Va. — Braden v. Reitzenberger,
18 W.Va. 286.
83. La, — Medart v. Fasnatch, 15 La.
Ann. 621.
84. Ark. — Arrington v. Washington,
14 Ark. 218.
34 C.J. p 457 note 78.
85. Ark. — Conway v. Ellison, 14 Ark.
360.
34 OJ. p 457 note 79.
Matters determined in original action
see infra § 369.
86. Ark. — Arrington v. Washington,
14 Ark. 218.
,87. U.S. — Corpus Juris cited in
Coos Bay Lumber Co. v. Collier,
C.C.A., 104 F.2d 722, 725.
Md.— Redding v. Redding, 26 A.2d 18,
180 Md. 545.
34 O.J. p 457 note 81.
Statutes requiring' interposition of
all defenses
The rule set forth in the text ap-
plies under statutes requiring de-
fendant in an action to interpose
all defenses which he may have,
whether legal or equitable.
Ky.— Chinn v. Mitchell, 2 Mete. 92.
Minn. — Fowler v. Atkinson, S Minn.
603..
§ 361
JUDGMENTS
49 C. J. S.
cial ground for relief can be established,88 or where
the statutes provide otherwise.89
b. Particular Defenses
(1) Insufficiency or illegality of cause of
action
(2) Other defenses
(1) Insufficiency or Illegality of Cause of
Action
Insufficiency or Illegality of the cause of action on
which the judgment was based Is generally considered
not a ground for equitable relief against the Judgment
where there was nothing to prevent the interposition of
such defense in the original action.
The fact that the cause of action stated by plain-
tiff is not sufficient to support the judgment or does
not entitle him to the relief awarded is a defense
which must be interposed at law, and equity will not
enjoin the judgment on this ground,90 unless it ap-
pears that there was some good reason why defend-
ant did not or could not plead it91 or there are cir-
cumstances impeaching the justice or validity of
the judgment.92 The fact that the contract or cause
of action was illegal, immoral, or contrary to pub-
lic policy is good ground for enjoining the enforce-
ment of the judgment,93 although, according to
some cases, only when the defense could not have
been made at law or was prevented.94 It has been
held that equity will not interfere where the party
seeking relief is in pari delicto with the other,95
except in so far as the contract remains in whole or
in part executory.96
Gambling contracts. Under statutes which ex-
pressly declare that judgments based on gaming con-
tracts shall be void, it is the rule that equity will
grant relief against a judgment founded on a gam-
ing consideration although no defense was made
at law.97 This is true although the judgment was
obtained by default98 or by confession.99 In ju-
risdictions where there is no statutory declaration
that judgments founded on gaming contracts shall
be void, the party is bound to make his defense at
law, and, having failed to do so, cannot come into
equity to enjoin the judgment on the ground of il-
legality of consideration.1 Where a party has un-
successfully attempted to resist the payment of a
debt for which he is sued at law, on the ground of
its being based on a gaming transaction, he cannot
afterward have relief in equity.2
Usury. While it has been held in some jurisdic-
tions that it is competent for a party to a usurious
contract to go into equity for relief as to the in-
terest, even after a judgment at law, and without
assigning any reason for have failed to defend him-
self at law,3' the general rule is well settled that
where defendant at law failed to make his defense
of usury and was not prevented by fraud or the
fault of the other party, or by accident, unmixed
with negligence on his part, a court of chancery
will not take jurisdiction to afford relief,4 unless
under the circumstances such defense could not have
been established at law, or would have involved
an embarrassing and complicated inquiry.5
(2) Other Defenses
The rule prohibiting equitable relief for defenses
88. 111.— Hopkins v. Medley, 99 111.
509.
34 C.J. P 457 note 82.
89. Va. — Hoge v. Fidelity Loan *
Trust Co., 48 S.B. 494, 103 Va.
1.
34 C.J. p 457 note 83.
Zfenitalle set-off
Va. — Hoge v. Fidelity Loan & Trust
Co., supra.
90. U.S. — Griswold v. Hazard, C.C.
" R.L, 28 F. 578, affirmed 11 S.Ct.
972, 999, 141 U.S. 260, 35 L.Ed. 678.
34 C.J. p 457 note 88.
91. U.S. — Mather v. Stokely, Mass.,
236 F. 124, 149 C.OA. 334.
34 C.J. p 458 note 89.
92. Term. — Scurlock v. Scurlock, 22
S.W. 858, 92 Tenn. 629.
34 C.J. p 458 note 90.
98. Pa.— Given's Appeal, 15 A. 468,
121 Pa. 260, 6 Am.S.R. 795.
34 C.J. p 458 note 91.
94. Idaho.— Donovan v. Miller, 88 P.
82, 12 Idaho 600, 10 Ann.Cas. 444,
9 L.R.A..N.S., 524.
34 C.J. p 458 note 92.
Excessive loams
Judgment debtor was held not en-
titled to cancellation of judgments
obtained on loans made in excess of
the amount permitted by Small Loan
Act, where he did not assert viola-
tions in suits leading1 to judgments,
and did not show that he was pre-
vented from asserting violations by
fraud, accident, or act of adverse
party unmixed with his own fraud
or negligence. — Nolan v. Southland
Loan & Investment Co., 169 S.E.
370, 177. Ga. 59.
95. Cal. — Pacific Debenture Co. v.
Caldwell, 81 P. 314. 147 Cal. 106.
34 C.J. p 458 nota 93.
96. N.Y.— Schley v. Andrews, 121 N.
B. 812, 225 N.Y. 110.
34 C.J. p 458 note 94.
97. HI. — Boddie v. Brewer & Hof-
mann Brewing Co., 68 N.E. 394,
204 111. 352.
34 C.J. p 458 notes 95 [a], 96.
96. Ala.— Paulding v. Watson, 21
Ala. 279.
718
Ky.— Clay v. Fry, 3 Bibb, 248, 6 Am.
D. 654.
99. IIL— West v. Carter, 21 N.E. 782,
129 111. 249.
N.Y. — Everitt v. Knapp, 6 Johns. 331.
1. Ga. — OT7ens v. Van Winkle Gin &
Machinery Co., 23 S.E. 416, 06 Ga.
408, 31 L.R.A. 767.
34 C.J. p 458 note 1.
2. Va.— White v. Washington, 5
Gratt. 645, 46 Va. 645.
34 C.J. p 458 note 2.
3. Va. — Greer v. Hale, 28 S.E. 873,
95 Va. 533, 64 AmuS.R. 814.
34 C.J. p 458 note 3.
4. N.Y. — Home v. McGintey, 299 N.
Y.S. 1, 252 App.Div. 296.
Tex. — Dallas Trust & Savings Bank
v. Brashear, Civ.App., 39 S.W.2d
148, modified on other grounds,
ConouApp.. 65 S.W.2d 288.
34 C.J. p 459 note 4.
5. Tenn. — BumpaPs v. Reams, 1
Sneed 505.
34 C.J. p 459 note 5.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 361
which should have been Interposed in the original ac-
tion has been applied to a great many defenses, includ-
ing such defenses as. want of consideration, and pay-
ment or discharge of the claim underlying the Judgment.
Although some decisions favor the right of equi-
ty to enjoin the enforcement of a judgment, be-
cause of the want or failure of consideration for
the contract on which it is founded, on the broad
ground that it would be against conscience to per-
mit the collection of the judgment under such cir-
cumstances,6 it has generally been held that this is
a defense which should be interposed in the original
action, and will furnish no ground for relief in
equity if the party raised it in the original action
or might have done so.7 Relief may be granted
under some circumstances, however, as where the
failure of consideration occurs or is discovered aft-
er the rendition of the judgment,8 provided the in-
jured party has then no adequate remedy at law,9
which is the case, for instance, where his remedy
would be by an action against the other party and
the latter is insolvent,10 and provided complainant
himself is free from all fraud or dishonesty and
is injured by the judgment as it stands.11
Payment, settlement, or discharge of the claim
in suit must generally be set up as a defense before
judgment, and will furnish no ground for a court of
equity to enjoin the judgment unless the party was
prevented from making his defense by fraud, cir-
cumvention, or deceit, or by an accident.12 This
applies to a defense that defendant in the original
suit was discharged from liability as surety by an
extension of time granted to the principal.13 Clear-
ly a party is not entitled to enjoin the collection of
the entire judgment because of the payment of a
part14
Miscellaneous defenses. The rule prohibiting
equitable relief against a judgment where the
ground of relief is based on matters which should
have been interposed as a defense in the original
action has been applied to a great many defenses in
addition to those already considered, including de-
fenses based on breach of warranty,15 coverture,16
a discharge in bankruptcy,17 duress or threats,18
forgery,19 infancy,20 invalidity of a statute,21 limi-
tation of liability under an insurance policy,22 mis-
representation in securing a contract,23 non est fac-
tum,24 the pendency of another action,25 rescission
of the contract in suit prior to judgment,26 the stat-
ute of limitations,27 and ultra vires.28 The rule has
also been applied to a defense that plaintiff in the
action at law was not legally incorporated;29 that
plaintiff, a foreign corporation, was without au-
thority to sue because of noncompliance with the
requirements of domestic statutes;80 that because
of collusion complainant's right to a set-off was de-
6. W.Va. — Jarrett v. Goodnow, 20 S.
B. 675, 39 W.Va, 602, 32 L.R.A.
321.
34 C.J. P 459 note 6.
7. N.T. — Fuhrmann v. Fanroth, 173
N.E. 685, 254 N.T. 479.
Tex. — Browning-Ferris Machinery
Co. v. Thomson, Civ.App., 55 S.W.
2d 168.
34 C.J. p 4=59 note 7.
8. Md. — Michael v. Rigler, 120 A.
382, 142 Md. 125.
34 C.J. p 459 note 10.
Newly discovered evidence see in-
fra § 376.
9. Minn. — Hulett v. Hamilton, 61 N.
W. 672, 60 Minn. 51.
34 C.J. p 459 note 11.
10. Ind.— Gillett v. Sullivan, 26 N.E.
827, 127 Ind. 327.
34 C.J. p 459 note 12.
11. Kan. — Cheney v. Hovey, 44 P.
605, 56 Kan. 637.
34 a JT. p 459 note 13.
12. Ark.— Smith v. Thomas, 78 S.W.
2d 880, 190 Ark. 261.
111.— Moore v. Robbins Machinery &
Supply ۥ., '252 IlLApp. 24.
Ky. — Nicholson v. Ausmus, 132 S.
W.2d 748, 280 Ky. 99.
Tex. — Corcanges v. Childress, Civ.
App., 280 S.W. 892.
34 C.J. p 459 note 15, p 440 note 82
Payment or satisfaction of judgment
see supra § 855.
Conveyance to mortgagee in satis-
faction, of delft
In foreclosure proceedings where
mortgagors were served with sum-
mons and failed to interpose defense
to the suit, mortgagor could not
thereafter have the decree of fore-
closure set aside on ground of al-
leged conveyance to mortgagee in
satisfaction of debt prior to rendi-
tion of decree.— White v. Milburn,
122 S.W.2d 589, 197 Ark. 373.
13. N.Y.— Vilas v. Jones, 1 N.Y. 274,
How.A.Cas. 759.
14. Tex. — Alexander v. Baylor, 20
Tex. 660.
34 C.J. p 460 note 18.
16. Tex. — Browning-Ferris Machin-
ery Co. v. Thomson, Civ. App., 55
S.W.2d 168.
16. Tex. — City Nat. Bank of Colora-
do, Tex., v. Gamel, Civ. App., 241
S.W. 735, affirmed Gamel v. City
Nat. Bank, Com. App., 258 S.W.
1043.
34 C.J. p 456 note 58.
17. Ind. — Burke v. Pinnell, 93 Ind.
540.
34 C.J. p 456 note 53.
15. Va. — Hendricks v. Compton, 2
Rob. 192, 41 Va. 192.
34 C.J. p 456 note 60.
719
19. Minn. — Watklns v. Landon, 69
N.W. 711, 67 Minn. 136.
34 C.J. p 456 note 59.
20. Ohio. — Clark v. Bond, Wright p
282.
21. Fla.— Crum v. Baily, 184 So.
774, 135 Fla. 192.
22. Tex. — Southern Travelers Ass'n
v. Stillman, Civ.App., 109 S.W.2d
285, error dismissed.
(. N.J. — Raimondi v. Bianchi, 140
A. 584, 102 N.J.Eq. 254.
24. N.C.— Partin v. Luterloh, 59 N.
C. 341.
34 C.J. p 456 note 56.
25. Cal. — Brown v. Campbell, 43 P.
12, 110 Cal. 644.
26. Ala.— Moore v. Dial, 3 Stew. 155.
27. Tex. — Griffin v. Burrus, Civ.
App., 24 S.W.2d 805, affirmed, Com.
App., 24 S.W.2d 810.
34 C.J. p 456 note 54.
28. 111. — Atwater v. American Exciu
Nat Bank, 40 IlLApp. 501, reversed
on other grounds 38 N.B. 1017, 152
111. 605.
29. La. — Mahan v. Accommodation
Bank, 26 La. Ann. 34.
30. Mont— Schilling v. Reagan, 48
P. 1109, 19 Mont. €08.
§ 362
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
feated;31 that a credit to which he was entitled was
not given to complainant;32 that the issues on re-
trial of the original action were not limited in ac-
cordance with the decision of the appellate court ;33
and other defenses.34
§ 362.
Equitable Defenses
Relief against a Judgment at law may be had In
equity on grounds constituting an equitable defense
which could not have been Interposed in the law action.
If a party's defense to an action at law is not
within the cognizance of a court of law, being pure-
ly equitable in its nature, he is, of course, not
chargeable with negligence in failing to make it
effectual at law; and he may have relief in equity
against the judgment, if it is unjust and inequitable,
on the grounds constituting such defense.35 The
rule applies whether the party suffers judgment to
go against him without attempting to make the de-
fense,36 or whether, on attempting it, it is adjudged
to be purely equitable and not a defense to an ac-
tion at law.37 If defendant has both a legal and an
equitable defense, the latter not cognizable at law,
a failure to use diligence in making his legal de-
fense will not prevent a court of equity from grant-
ing an injunction on proof of the equitable de-
fense*38
Under codes of practice which blend legal and
equitable powers, or confer extensive equitable pow-
ers on the courts of common law, it has been held
that a defense, if available under the code, must be
set up in the original action, and cannot be made
the basis of a subsequent application to equity, al-
though it is inherently equitable in its nature.39
§ 363. Excuses for Not Defending
Failure to interpose a defense will not bar equitable
relief against a judgment where a sufficient excuse ex-
ists for such failure, provided the party asserting the
excuse was not guilty of any fault or negligence.
Equity may grant relief against a judgment which
is unjust and inequitable, where the party had a
good defense to the action, but had no opportunity
to avail himself of it, or lost such defense through
the wrongful acts of the adverse party.40 Thus
31. U.S. — Marine Ins. Co. of Alex-
andria v. Hodgson, B.C., 7 Cranch
332, 3 L.Ed. 362.
Tenn. — Thurmond v. Durham, 3
Yerg. 99.
32. Tenn. — Reeves v. Hogan, Cooke
175, 5 Am.D. 684, 1 Overt 513.
33. Cal. — Harris v. Hensley, 6 P.2d
253, 214 Cal. 420.
34. CaL — De Tray v. Chambers, 297
P. 575, 112 CaLApp. 697.
Iowa. — West v. Heyman, 241 N.W.
461, 214 Iowa 1173.
Mass. — Lynn Sand & Stone Co. v.
TardiO, 6 N.E.2d 349, 296 Mass.
470.
Mo.— McFadln v. Simms, 273 S.W.
1050, 309 Mo. 312.
Pa. — Graham Roller Bearing- Corpo-
ration v. Stone, 126 A. 235, 281
Pa. 229.
Tex. — Blackman v. Blackman, Civ.
App., 128 S.W.2d 433, error dis-
missed, Judgment correct.
34 C.J. p 456 note 72.
Remarriage of widow
Equity will not grant relief
against judgment for death of hus-
band because widow did not disclose
fact of remarriage, where matter
was available in law action. — Simon
v. Henke, 139 A. 887, 102 N.J.Eq. 115.
Agreement to cancel note*
Where defendant in an action to
enforce payment of notes, failed to
set up his defense that plaintiff had
agreed to cancel notes, he could not
afterward apply to a court of equity
for an injunction to restrain enforce-
ment of a Judgment rendered in such
action, and in such proceeding assert
that defense. — Corcanges v. Chil-
dress, Tex.Civ.App., 264 S.W. 175.
Severance of coupons from bonds
The rule has been applied to a
defense that coupons which com-
plainant had contracted to buy were
invalid because they were severed
from the bonds before issuance. —
McMullen v. Ritchie, C.C.Ohio, 64
F. 253, modified on other grounds
79 F. 522, 25 C.C.A. 50, certiorari
denied 18 S.Ct 945, 168 U.S. 710, 42
L.Ed. 1212.
Claim of reinsurer against insurer
In insured's action against rein-
surers after insurer's insolvency, re-
insurer who failed to plead claim
against insurer waived it as defense
against insured. — Southern Surety
Co. v. Globe Nat. Fire Ins. Co., 228
N.W. 56, 210 Iowa 359.
35. U.S. — Coos Bay Lumber Co. v.
Collier, C.C.A.Or., 104 F.2d 722—
Town of Boynton v. White Const.
Co., C.C.A.Fla., 64 F.2d 190-^Ten-
ner v. Murray, C.C.A.Fla., 32 F.2d
625 — Mineral Development Co. v.
Kentucky Coal Lands Co., D.C.Ky.,
285 F. 761, affirmed, C.C.A., 285 F.
1021.
Ga. — Simmons v. Camp, 65 Ga. 673.
111.— Mohr v. Messick, 53 N.R2d 743,
322 111. App. 56 — Meyer v. Surkin,
262 IlLApp. 83— Peck v. Peck, 238
IlLApp. 396.
N.J. — Palisade Gardens v. Grosch,
189 A. 622, 121 NJT.Eq. 240.
Or.— Adams v. McMickle, 158 P.2d
648.
34 C.J. p 456 note 73.
Equitable defenses as barred under
doctrine of res judicata see infra
§ 683.
Partly executed accord
Equitable relief based on a partly
720
executed accord was not foreclosed
by Judgment in the law court, as in
that court the defense of a partly
executed accord was unavailable. —
American Mut Liability Ins. Co. v.
Volpe, C.C.A.N.J., 284 F. 75.
A claim constituting in effect a
recoupment rather than an equitable
defense does not Justify equitable re-
lief under a statute permitting a de-
fendant, who has failed to set up an
equitable defense, thereafter to seek
equitable relief.— McGhee v. Stevens,
3 S.E.2d 615, 121 W.Va. 430.
36. 111.— Meyer v. Surkin, 262 111.
App. 83.
34 C.J. p 457 note 74.
37. N.J.— Palisade Gardens v.
Grosch, 189 A. 622, 121 N.J.Eq.
240.
34 C.J. p 457 note 75.
38. Tenn. — Winchester v. Gleaves, 3
Hayw. 213 — Cornelius v. Thomas,
1 Tenn.Ch. 283.
39. U.S. — Corpus Juris cited in
Coos Bay Lumber Co. v. Collier,
C.C.A.Or., 104 F.2d 722, 725.
34 C.J. p 457 note 76.
Equitable matters available in par-
tition proceedings
Equity will not enjoin a Judgment
for partition at law to enable de-
fendant to set up equitable matters
as to which complete relief could be
had in the proceedings at law. —
Hopkins v. Medley, 99 111. 509.
40. Ala,— Wise v. Miller, 111 So.
913, 215 Ala. 660,
Fla. — Sommers v. Colourpicture Pub.,
8 So.2d 281, 150 Fla. 659.
Ky. — Johnson v. Gernert Bros. Lum-
ber Co., 75 S.W.2d 857, 255 Ky. 734.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 363
equity may relieve against a judgment at law where
the defense could not have been set up at law,41 as
where payment or settlement was made after the
institution of the suit and was not then pleada-
ble.42- A judgment may be enjoined if, according
to the jurisdiction of a court of common law, it is
doubtful whether the grounds of plaintiff's defense
were legally available,43 or if there would have
been great difficulty and embarrassment in com-
plainant's legal remedy,44 especially where such
difficulty and embarrassment were produced by the
conduct of defendant.45
The party asserting the excuse must have been
without fault as to the rendition of the judgment
and must have exercised due diligence, for a court
of equity will not grant relief against a judgment in
a former action when the failure to have a full and
fair presentation of the case therein resulted from
the negligence or fault of the party seeking relief
or that of his agents.46 As a rule it must appear
that, notwithstanding the exercise of ordinary dili-
gence, the circumstances on which the complaining
party relies were unknown to him before judg-
ment.47 A defendant is not justified in failing to
Mich. — Lake v. North Branch Tp.,
22 N.W.2d 248.
N.J. — Commercial Nat Trust & Sav-
ings Bank of Los Angeles v. Ham-
ilton, 133 A. 703, 99 N.J.Eq. 492,
affirmed 137 A. 403, 101 N.J.EQ.
249.
Tex. — Peaslee-Gaulbert Corporation
v. Hughes, Civ.App., 79 S.W.2d 149.
error refused — Kerby v. Hudson,
Civ.App., 13 S.W.2d 724.
34 C.J. p 460 notes 19, 20.
Gambling contract see supra § 361.
Reasonableness of attorney's charg-
es
Where a client has not had an op-
portunity in a court of law to test
the reasonableness or fairness of his
attorney's charges, he will not be
precluded in equity from so doing. —
Raimondi v. Bianchi, 134 A. 866, 100
N.J.EQ. 238.
41. 111.— Hawkins v. Harding, 31 N.
B. 307, 141 111. 572, 33 Am.S.R. 347.
34 C.J. p 4*59 note 8, p 460 notes 16,
19 [a].
Oompj
rith joint tort-feasor
Defendant tort-feasor's failure to
present plaintiff's compromise with
another joint tort-feasor in damage
action was held not to bar present-
ment thereof in subsequent proceed-
ing to prohibit enforcement of judg-
ment, where, under the statutes, the
compromise was not defense in dam-
age action. — New River & Pocahon-
tas Consol. Coal Co. v. Eary, 174 S.B.
573, 115 W.Va^46.
Defense originating1 after rendition
of judgment
It has been said to be poor prac-
tice to open a judgment, to estab-
lish a defense which has originated
since the rendition of the judgment;
but when the subject matter of de-
fense is attached to the judgment
or to the consideration on which it
rests, the court under its equitable
powers will entertain a petition and,
if the facts warrant, will open the
judgment. — Pollard & Brant, Inc., v.
Stein, 81 Pa, Super. 374.
42. Ohio. — Southern Surety Co. v.
Bender, 180 N.E. 198, 41 Ohio App.
541.
49 O.J.S.-46
43. Va. — Crawford v. Thurmond, 8
Leigh 85, 30 Va. 85.
34 C.J. p 460 note 2ti.
44. Tenn. — Cornelius v. Morrow, 12
Heisk. 630.
34 C.J. p 460 note 23.
45. Tenn. — Bedford v. Brady, 10
Terg. 350.
46. U.S.— Mclntosh v. Wiggins, C.C.
A.Mo., 123 F.2d 316, certiorari de-
nied 62 S.Ct 800, 315 U.S. 815, 86
L.Ed. 1213, rehearing denied 62 S.
Ct. 914, 315 U.S. 831, 86 L.Ed.
1224 — Smith v. Apple, C.C.A.Kan.,
6 F.2d 559.
Ala.— Leath v. Lister, 173 So. 59, 233
Ala. 595— Oden v. King, 114 So.
1, 216 Ala. 597 — Damon v. Gaston,
Williams & Wigmore, 104 So. 512,
213 Ala. 164— Alabama Chemical
Co. v. Hall, 101 So. 456, 212 Ala. 8.
Cal.— Wattson v. Dillon, 56 P.2d 220,
6 Cal.2d 33— Wilson v. Wilson, 130
P.2d 782, 55 Cal.App.2d 421— Jef-
fords v. Young, 277 P. 163, 98 Cal.
App. 400.
Conn. — Palverari v. Finta, 26 A.2d
229, 129 Conn. 38.
Ga. — Beavers v. Cassells, 196 S.E.
716, 186 Ga. 98— W. T. Rawleigh
Co. v. Seagraves, 173 S.B. 167, 178
Ga, 459 — Garrison v. Toccoa Elec-
tric Power Co., 171 S.E. 564, 177
Ga. 850, followed in Hayes v. Too-
coa Electric Power Co., 171 S.E.
566, 177 GfcL 856— Nolan v. South-
land Loan & Investment Co., 169
S.E. 370, 177 Ga, 59— Beddingfleld
-v. Old Nat. Bank & Trust Co., 165
S.E. 61, 175 Ga. 172.
Idaho. — Boise Payette Lumber Co. v.
Idaho Gold Dredging Corporation,
58 P.2d 786, 56 Idaho 660, certio-
rari denied 57 S.Ct 40, 299 U.S.
577, 81 L.Bd. 425.
111.— Crane Co. v. Parker, 136 N.B.
733, 304 111. 331— Mohr v. Messick,
53 N.E.2d 743, 322 IlLApp. 56—
Goelitz v. Lathrop, 3 N.E.2d 305,
286 Ill.App. 248.
Ind. — Vail v. Department of -Finan-
cial Institutions of Indiana, 17 N.
B.2d 854, 106 IndJVpp. 39— Bran-
ham v. Boruff, 145 N.E. 901, 82
Ind. App. 370.
Ky. — Byron v. Evans, 91 S.W.2d 548,
263 Ky. 49 — Mussman v. Pepples,
721
49 S.W.2d 592, 243 Ky. 674— Lee
v. Lee, 38 S.W.2d 223, 238 Ky. 477.
Mo.— Milltkin v. Anderson, 269 S.W.
675.
N.J. — Simon v. Henke, 139 A. 887,
102 N.J.EQ. 115.
Ohio. — Buckeye State Building &
Loan Co. v. Ryan, 157 N.E. 811, 24
Ohio App. 481.
Tex.— Kelly v. Wright, Sup., 188 S.
W.2d 983— Petty v. Mitchell, Civ.
App., 187 S.W.2d 138, error refused
— Thomas v. Mullins, Civ.App., 175
S.W.2d 276 — Donovan v. Young,
Civ.App., 127 S.W.2d 517, error re-
fused— Universal Credit -Co. v.
Cunningham, Civ.App., 109 S.W.2d
507, error dismissed — Ricketts v.
Ferguson, Civ.App., 64 S.W.2d 416,
error refused — Honey v. Wood,
Civ.App., 46 S.W.2d 334— Davis v.
Cox, Civ.App., 4 S.W.2d 1008, error
dismissed — Kahl v. Porter, Civ.
App., 296 S.W. 324— R. A. Toombs
Sash & Door Co. v. Jamison, Civ.
App., 271 S.W. 253— Levine v. Cul-
lum Boren Co., Civ.App., 253 S.W.
. 894.
Utah.— Anderson v. State, 238 P. 557,
65 Utah 512.
Wash.— Fisch v. Marler, 97 P.2d 147,
1 Wash.2d 698.
Wis.— Grady v. Meyer, 236 N.W. 569,
205 Wis. 147.
21 C.J. p 86 note 17—34 C.J. p 460
note 20 — 47 C.J. p 438 notes 80,
81.
failure to present evidence
Fact that existing evidence was
not presented because of accident,
mistake, or misfortune Is not suffi-
cient reason for revocation of final
decree in equity suit — Holyoke Nat
Bank v. Dulitzky, 173 N.E. 405, 273
Mass. 125.
Negligence induced "by adverse party
Alleged negligence of the com-
plaining party superinduced by neg-
ligence of the party opposing re-
lief cannot be invoked to estop the
former to set aside Judgment — Ov-
erton v. Overton, 37 S.W.2d 565, 327
Mo. 530.
47. Mich.— Lake v. North Branch
Tp., 22 N.W.2d 248.
N.J. — Commercial Nat Trust & Sav-
ings Bank of Los Angeles v. Ham-
363
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
present his defense at law simply because plaintiff
verbally assures him that he will not be held re-
sponsible according to the terms of the judgment
prayed for.48 Equity will not enjoin a judgment
where the only reason alleged for the failure of de-
fendant to avail himself of a legal defense is an
erroneous ruling of the trial court excluding such
defense, for this is to be remedied by appeal.49
Availability of evidence at law. Where defend-
ant cannot make good his defense, because the only
evidence to sustain it is not admissible or cannot
be produced in a court of law, but can be supplied
in equity, he may be relieved against the judg-
ment.50 Relief will not be granted, however, where
the same grounds of objection to the proposed evi-
dence are equally prohibitive in equity as at law.51
Reliance on advice, statements, or acts of others.
It is not a sufficient excuse for failing to defend an
action at law that the party relied on others, who
were not officially bound to give him correct infor-
mation or any information at all, to advise him con-
cerning the character or purpose of the suit, the
necessity of defending it, the progress of the cause,
or its probable time of trial.52 An exception to the
rule has been made in the case of executors and ad-
ministrators, who are obliged, from the nature of
their office, to rely on the information of others.53
It has been held that one of two defendants has the
right to rely on the assurance of the other that he
will take care of the matter.54 A party is not at
fault for assuming that commissioners making a
partition acted impartially.55
§ 364.
Ignorance of Facts or Law
A party's Ignorance of facts which constitute a de-
fense, and which he could not have discovered by the
exercise of due diligence, may furnish a ground for equi-
table relief against a judgment; but ignorance of the
law generally will afford no ground for equitable inter-
ference.
Equity may grant relief against a judgment at
law, where there was a good and valid defense to
the action, of which defendant was ignorant during
the pendency of the original action, and which he
could not have discovered, by the exercise of rea-
sonable and proper diligence, in time to set it up.56
However, he must show the exercise of due dili-
gence to discover his defense, or that he was pre-
vented from employing such diligence by fraud, ac-
cident, or the act of the opposite party, unmixed
with fault or negligence on his own part; other-
wise equity will do nothing for him.57 Although
a party may have suspected the existence of a fact
which would have given him a good defense to the
action at law, this will not preclude him from relief
in equity, if his suspicions did not amount to legal
or moral certainty, and if he is not chargeable with
laches in failing to make efforts to discover the
truth.58
Special favor to administrators. Some courts are
disposed to show special indulgence in this particu-
lar to administrators, on the ground that they are
obliged, from the nature of their office, to rely on
the information which they may derive from
others.5^
Necessity of seeking discovery. If defendant in
an action at lavp could obtain information concern-
ilton, 133 A. 703, 99 N*.J.Eq. 492,
alarmed 137 A. 403, 101 N.J.Eq.'
249.
W.Va. — Smith Pocahontas Coal Co. v.
Morrison, 117 S.E. 152, 93 W.Va.
356.
48. Ala.— Weakley v. Gurley, 60 Ala.
399— Wilson v. Randall, 37 Ala, 74,
76 AmJX 347.
49. U.S. — Griswold v. Hazard, R.I.,
11 S.Ct. 972, 999, 141 U.S. 260,
35 KEd. 678.
14 OJ. p 460 note 21.
50. Iowa. — Partridge v. Harrow, 27
Iowa 96, 99 Am.D. 643.
84 aX p 461 note 33.
51. U.S. — Hendrickson v. Hinckley,
Ohio, 17 How. 443, 15 L.Ed. 123.
34 C.J. p 462 note 34.
52. Ky. — Hoover v. Dudley, 14 S.W.
2d 410, 228 Ky. 110.
34 C.J. P 465 note 75.
Character of process
Failure of debtor to appear and
assert defense in response to sum-
mons served on him, because per-
son serving- process told him it was
subpoena to appear as witness, is
not sufficient ground to set aside
Judgment against him. — Brinegar v.
Bank of Wyoming, 130 S.E. 151, 100
W.Va. 64.
Availability of remedy in another
proceeding
In action by maker of a note
against surety thereon, court's state-
ment in opinion that equities be-
tween makers and surety could be
worked out in another proceeding did
not excuse surety's failure to set up
prima facie defense to such action,
so as to authorize equitable relief.
— Graham Roller Bearing Corpora-
tion v. Stone, 126 A. 235, 281 Pa.
229.
53. N.Y.— Hewlett v.
Bdw. 7.
Hewlett, 4
54. Va.— Lee v. Baird, 4 Hen. & M.
453, 14 Va. 453.
34 C.J. p 465 note 77.
56. Mich. — Adair v. Cummin, 12 N.
W. 495, 48 Mich. 375.
722
56. Ga. — Toung v. Toung, 2 S.E.2d
622, 188 Ga. 29.
111.— Tabero v. Stutkowski, 3 N.B.2d
115, 286 Ill.App. 225.
Tex.— Walker v. State, Civ.App., 103
S.W.2d 404.
34 C.J. p 460 notes 20, 26.
Death of principal
Judgments rendered against sure-
ties on bonds without knowledge
that principal was dead at time of
forfeitures were subject to review by
bill of review. — Walker v. State, Tex.
Civ.App., 103 S.W.2d 404.
57. Ga.— W. T. Rawleigh Co. v.
Seagraves, 173 S.E. 167, 178 Ga.
459.
Tex. — American Red Cross v. Longu
ley, Civ.App., 165 S.W.2d 233, er-
ror refused.
34 C.J. p 461 note 26.
Fraud preventing defense see infra
§ 372.
58. Va. — West v. Logwood, 6 Munf.
491, 20 Va. 491.
59. N.T.— Hewlett v. Hewlett. 4
Edw. 7.
34 C.J. p 456 note 52.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
365
ing the facts which constitute his defense, and
which are necessary to make his defense effectual,
by the aid of a bill in equity for a discovery from
the adverse party, his failure to avail himself of
this means of information will preclude him from
afterward obtaining an injunction against the judg-
ment.60
Ignorance of the law, of the nature or conse-
quences of the action, or of the party's legal rights
and duties, will generally afford no ground for eq-
uitable interference.61 However, in some cases it
has been held that ignorance of the unconstitution-
ality of an act is excusable, and that mistake caused
by proceeding under such a law is a ground for
relief.62 A party cannot be permitted to defeat a
judgment on the ground that he did not understand
the legal effect of papers served on him.63
§ 365. Mistake or Surprise
a. Mistake
b. Surprise
a. Mistake
An honest, mutual, and extrinsic mistake of fact
which deprives a party of an opportunity to present his
case affords ground for equitable relief against a judg-
ment. A mistake of law, however, ordinarily is not suf-
ficient.
While in a proper case equity may grant relief
against a judgment on the ground of mistake,64 a
mere showing of a mistake of some kind is not
of itself sufficient to justify such relief.65 The mis-
take must be one of fact;66 usually it must relate to
matters which prevented a party from, making a
valid defense,67 and it must be unmixed with the
fault, negligence, or laches of the injured party.68
60. Ala. — Standard Coal Co. v. Wei-
sel, 74 So. 935, 199 Ala. 468.
34 C.J. p 461 note 32.
61. Idaho. — Corpus Juris cited In
Scanlon. v. McDevitt, 296 P. 1016,
1017, 50 Idaho 449.
Mont.— Federal Land Bank of Spo-
kane v. Gallatin County, 274 P.
288, 84 Mont 98.
Ohio. — Mosher v. Mutual Home &
Savings Ass'n, App., 41 N.B.2d
871.
Tex.— Universal Credit Co. v. Cun-
ningham, Civ.App., 109 S,W.2d 507,
error dismissed.
34 C.J. P 461 note 29.
Mistake of law see infra § 365.
62. Tex. — Cobbs v. Coleman, 14 Tex.
594.
34 C.J. P 461 note 30.
$3. cal.— Tolcr v. Smith, 23 P.2d
788, 133 Cal.App. 199.
34. tJ.S. — Russell v. Superior Jour-
nal Co., D.C.Wis., 47 F.Supp. 282.
Ala.— Phoenix Chair Co. v. Daniel,
155 So. 363, 228 Ala. 579.
Cal.— Wattson v. Dillon, 56 P.2d 220,
6 CaUd 33— Vincent . v. Security-
First Nat Bank of Los Angeles,
155 P.2d 63, 67 Oal.App.2d 602—
Wilson v, Wilson, 130 P.2d 782,
55 Cal.App.2d 421 — Antonsen v.
Pacific Container Co., 120 P.2d 148,
48 Cal.App. 535— Boyle v. Boyle,
276 P. 118, 97 CaLApp. 703.
Conn. — Hoey v. Investors' "Mortgage
& Guaranty Co., 171 A, 438, 118
Conn. 226.
Ga.— Bailey v. McElroy, 2 S.B.2d 634,
188 Ga. 40, transferred, see 6 S.
E.2d 140, 61 Ga.App. 367.
111.— Mohr v, Mosslck, 53 N.K.2d 743,
822 IlLApp. 66— Izzi v. lalongo, 248
111. App. 'JO.
It. 3.— Globe Mining Co. v. Oak Ridge
Coal Co., 177 N.E. 868, 204 Ind.
11 — Livengood v. Munns, 27 N.B.
2d 92, 108 Ind.App. 27.
Mass. — Byron v. Concord Nat Bank,
13 N.E.2d 13, 399 Ma^s. 438.
Miss. — Robertson v. ^E3tna Ins. Co.,
98 So. 833, 134 Hiss. 398.
Mo. — Overton v. Overton, 37 S.W.2d
565, 327 Mo. 530— Krashin v. Griz-
zard, 31 S.W.2d 984, 326 Mo. 606—
Loveland v. Davenport, App., 188
S.W.2d 850.
N.H.— Lancaster Nat Bank v. White-
field Sav. Bank & Trust Co., 30 A.
2d 473, 92 N.H. 337— Lamarre v.
Lamarre, 152 A. 272, 84 N.H. 441.
Ohio.— Toung v. Guella, 35 N.E.2d
997, 67 Ohio App. 11— In re Van-
derlip's Estate, 12 Ohio Supp. 123.
Tenn.— Winters v. Allen, 62 S.W.2d
51, 166 Tenn. 281— Tallent v. Sher-
rell, 184 S.W.2d 561, 27 Tenn.App.
683.
Tex. — Crouch v. McGaw, 138 S.W.2d
94, 134 Tex. 633— Love v. State
Bank & Trust Co. of San Antonio,
90 S.W.2d 819, 126 Tex. 591— Pet-
ty v. Mitchell, Civ.App., 187 S.W.
2d 138, error refused — Peaslee-
Gaulbert Corporation v. Hughes,
Civ.App., 79 S.W.2d 149, error re-
fused—Kerby v. Hudson, Civ.App.,
13 S.W,2d 724— Hudson v. Kerby,
Civ.App., 5 S.W.2d 1007— Rachel v.
Bland, Civ.App., 259 S.W. 230—
Galloway v. Marietta State Bank,
Civ.App., 258 S.W. 532, reversed on
other grounds Marietta State Bank
v. Galloway, Com. App., 269 S.W.
776.
34 C.J. p 440 note 77, p 460 note 20.
Rights of third persons
An independent suit to equity may
be brought to correct an unjust
judgment on the ground of mistake,
if the rights of others have not in-
tervened.— Ramsey v. McKamey, 152
S.W.2d 322, 137 Tex. 91.
Mistake held not shown
U.S.— Mclntosh v. Wiggins, C.C.A.
Mo., 123 F.2d 316, certiorari de-
nied 62 S.Ct 800, 313 U.S. 815, 86
L.Ed. 1213, rehearing denied 62
723
S.Ct 914, 315 U.S. 831, 86 L.Ed.
1224.
65. Cal. — De Tray v. Chambers, 297
P. 575, 112 Cal.App. 697.
Ky. — Mussman v. Pepples, 49 S.W.2d
592, 243 Ky. 674— Lee v. Lee, 38 S.
W.2d 223, 238 Ky.. 477.
Tex.— Kelly v. Wright, Sup., 188 S.
W.2d 983 — Maytag Southwestern
Co. v. Thornton, Civ.App., 20 S.YP.
2d 383, 'error dismissed — Davis v.
Cox, Civ.App., 4 S.W.2d 1008, error
dismissed.
Availability of funds to satisfy
claim
The surety on a replevy bond of
a defendant was held not entitled to
have a judgment against him on
the bond set aside on the ground of
mistake based on a claim that he
was induced to sign the bond by a
representation that defendant had
deposited with the attorney sufficient
funds to satisfy the note and mort-
gage involved, and that after judg-
ment was entered the money was
returned to defendant without the
surety's knowledge or consent, in the
absence of anything connecting
plaintiff with the transaction. —
Reeves v. Chapman, Tex.Civ.App.,
19 S.W.2d 132.
66. Miss. — Robertson v. ^BStna Ins.
Co., 98 So. 833, 134 Miss. 398.
67. Tax.— Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
v. Pribble, Civ.App., 130 S.W.2d
33$, error refused.
68. Cal. — Wilson v. Wilson, 180 P.
•2d 782, 55 Cal.App.2d 421.
Comx. — Hoey v. Investors' Mortgage
& Guaranty Co., 171 A. 438, 118
Conn. 226.
HI.— Mohr v. Messick, €3 N.E.2d 743,
322 Ill.App. 56.
Mo. — Gorg v. Rutherford, App., 31
S.W.2d 585.
N.H.— Lancaster Nat Bank v. White-
field Sav. Bank & Trust Co., 30 A.
365
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
As the rule is sometimes expressed, a mistake of
fact, provided it is honest and genuine, and such
as a man might reasonably make, will be a suffi-
cient excuse for not defending an action at law, and
will warrant a court of equity, if the judgment is
against conscience, in enjoining its enforcement.69
The mistake relied on as a ground for equitable
relief against a judgment must be a mutual mis-
take,70 or a unilateral mistake of the complaining
party coupled with some act of the opposing party
which brings about the mistake.71 The mistake
must be extrinsic rather than intrinsic.72
Mistake of lew. It is no ground for relief in
equity that the party was prevented from making
his defense at law by a mistake of law, not induced
by the fraud or misconduct of the other party,73
or by reason of mistaking or misunderstanding his
rights in the premises.74 This is true even where
the mistake is due to an erroneous statement made
by the trial judge.75 Relief, however, may be de-
creed in cases of mistakes in law induced by the
fraud or circumvention of the party profiting there-
by76 or where there are other facts sufficient to
take the case out of the general rule.77
Mistake of court officers. Relief is sometimes
granted for mistake made by officers of the court,78
at least when the mistake is of a ministerial rather
than a judicial character.™
b. Surprise
Equity may grant relief against a Judgment on the
ground of surprise unmixed with negligence on the part
of the complaining party; but surprise caused by the
evidence given at the trial, and against which the in-
jured party could have protected himself by proper care,
Is insufficient.
Equity may relieve a party from a judgment ob-
tained against him by surprise,80 especially where
the facts constituting the surprise are tantamount to
a perpetration of fraud by the opposite party.81
Thus a party will be entitled to equitable relief
2d 473, 92 N.H. 337— Lamarre v.
Lainarre, 152 A. 272, 84 N.H. 441.
Tex. — American Law Book Co. v.
Chester, Civ.App., 110 S.W.2d 950,
error dismissed.
34 C.J. p 462 note 37, p 460 note 20.
69. Ala, — Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v.
Street, 154 So. 816, 228 Ala. 677.
34 C.J. p 462 note 35.
70t Ind.— Wohadlo v. Fary, 46 N.E.
2d 489, 221 Ind. 219— Livengood v.
Munns, 27 N.E.2d 92, 108 Ind.App.
27.
Miss. — Robertson v. .SStna Ins. Co.,
98 So. 833, 134 Miss. 398.
Mo. — Gorg v. Rutherford, App.t 31
S.W.2d 585.
Tex. — Universal Credit Co. v. Cun-
ningham, Civ.App., 109 S.W.2d 507,
error dismissed.
34 C.J. p 462 note 36.
71. Tex. — Universal Credit Co. v.
Cunningham, Civ.App., 109 S.W.2d
507, error dismissed.
Fraudulent concealment or inequita-
ble conduct
Relief from consent decree, en-
tered as result of unilateral mistake
induced by fraudulent concealment
of facts by party against whom re-
, lief is sought, is available; but in
absence of such concealment or oth-
er inequitable conduct, relief is not
available.— Mudd v. Lanier, Al^u, 24
So.2d 550.
72. CaL— Hallett v. Slaughter, 140
P.2d 3, 22 Cal.2d 552— Westphal v.
Westphal, 126 P.2d 105, 20 Cal.2d
393— Olivera v. Grace, 122 P.2d
564, 19 Cal.2d 570, 140 A.L.R. 1328
—Rogers v. Mulkey, 147 P.2d 62,
63 Cal.App.2d 567 — Antonsen v. Pa-
cific Container Co., 120 P.2d 148,
.48 CaJUApp.2d 535.
A •mlitaTre is extrinsic when it de-
prives the unsuccessful party of an
opportunity to present his case tr
the court.— Westphal v. Westphal,
126 P.2d 105, 20 Cal.2d 393— Roger?
v. Mulkey. 147 P.2d 62. 63 Cal.App.2d
567 — Rosenbaum v. Tobias* Estate,
130 P.2d 215. 55 Cal.App.2d 39.
73. Ariz. — Snyder v. Betsch, 130 P.
2d 510, 59 Ariz. 535.
Kan.— Bitsko v. Bitsko, 122 P.2d 753,
155 Kan. 80.
Mich.— Barr v. Payne, 298 N.W. 460,
298 Mich. 85.
Mont — Federal Land Bank of Spo-
kane v. Gallatin County, 274 P.
288, 84 Mont 98.
KM.— Caudill v. Caudill, 44 P.2d 724,
39 N.M. 248.
Tex. — Universal Credit Co. v. Cun-
ningham, Civ.App., 109 S.W.2d 507,
error dismissed.
34 C.J. p 462 note 38.
Time for perfecting appeal
A mistake of law as to the time
in which an appeal could be per-
fected is not a ground for relief. —
Wardlow v. McGhee, 63 S.W.2d 332,
187 Ark. 955.
74. Or.— French v. Goin, 146 P. 91,
75 Or. 255.
34 C.J. p 462 note 39.
75. Mo. — Risher v. Roush, 2 Mo. 95,
22 Am.D. 442.
Mistake of court see supra § 356.
Opinions or suggestions of Judge
In the absence of some element
of fraud or misconduct on the part
of the adverse party, equity will not
interpose to vacate or enjoin 'a judg-
ment on the ground of a mistake of
law caused by opinions or sugges-
tions of the judge before whom the
cause was tried. — Universal Credit
Co. v. Cunningham, Tex.Civ.App.,
109 S.W.2d 507, error dismissed.
724
76. Ala. — Jones Y. Watkins, 1 Stew.
81.
111.— Paine v. Doughty, 96 N.m 212,
251 I1L 396.
77. U.S. — Wellman v. Bethea, S.C.,
228 F. 882, 143 C.C.A. 280.
34 C.J. p 462 note 42.
78. Ind. — Livengood v. Munns, 27 N.
B.2d 92, 108 Ind.App. 27.
Mo. — Anderson Motor Co. v. Ster-
ling, App., 121 S.W.2d 275, opin-
ion quashed on other grounds
State ex rel. Sterling v. Shaln, 129
S.W.2d 1048, 344 Mo. 891— State ex
rel. Woolman v. Guinotte, 282 S.
W. 68, 221 MoJlpp. 466.
Failure to mark motion as filed
Where motion to stay proceedings
was actually filed, but through mis-
take of clerk was not marked as filed,
default judgment thereafter taken
against party having meritorious de-
fense could be set aside in equity. —
Krashin v. Grizzard, 31 S.W.2d 984,
326 Mo. 606.
79. Mo. — State ex rel. Woolman v.
Guinotte, 282 S.W. 68, 221 Mo.
App. 466.
80. Ala.— Craft v. Hirsh, 149 So.
683, 227 Ala. 257, appeal dismissed
54 S.Ct 455, 291 U.S. 644, 78 L.
Ed. 1041.
Conn. — Hoey v. Investors' Mortgage
& Guaranty Co., 171 A. 438, 118
Conn. 226.
111.— Mohr v. Messick, 53 N.E.2d 743,
322 IlLApp. 56.
Ind. — Globe Mining Co. v. Oak Ridge
Coal Co., 177 N.E. 868, 204 In.d. 11.
Mass. — Byron v. Concord Nat Bank,
13 N.E.2d 13, 399 Mass. 438.
34 C.J. p 462 note 46, p 460 note 20.
81. N.Y.— Post v. Boardman, 10
Paige 580..
34 CJ. p 462 note 47.
49 C. J. S.
JUDGMENTS
366
where he had no knowledge of the suit until after
judgment had been obtained,82 where a party for
good and sufficient reasons, and without any neg-
ligence or inattention, believes that his case will not
be reached for trial during the current term or with-
in a certain time, but nevertheless it is called and
he is defaulted,83 or where at a subsequent day of
the term judgment was taken in a litigated case,
defendant and his counsel having in the meantime
left the court, relying on an order of continuance
of all cases until the next term.84 On the other
hand, an injunction will not be allowed where the
surprise relied on was such as might reasonably
have been guarded against,85 where the party has a
remedy in the trial court,86 or where the surprise
was occasioned by his own negligence or lack of
care or attention.87
Surprise caused by evidence or witnesses. Relief
in equity against a judgment ordinarily cannot be
had on the ground of surprise caused by the absence
of a witness from the trial,88 by the unexpected
character of the testimony given by a witness,89
by the introduction of unanticipated evidence,90
or by a discovery that a witness who was relied on
to testify is incompetent or privileged,91 at least
where the party could have guarded himself against
such a surprise by the exercise of proper care and
vigilance.92 However, where a witness who imme-
diately before the trial assured defendant that he
could prove material facts either designedly or
from lapse, of memory failed to do so, equity will
grant relief.93
§ 366.
Accident or Misfortune
Accident or misfortune, such as that preventing a
party or his counsel from attending the trial, may af-
ford ground for equitable interference with a Judgment,
provided the accident or misfortune was unavoidable and
not attributable in any way to the fault of the party
aeeking relief.
Unavoidable accident, misfortune, or casualty pre-
venting the party from making his defense is suf-
ficient ground for the interference of equity in an
otherwise meritorious case.94 However, it must
appear that the accident, casualty, or misfortune
was in fact unavoidable or in no way attributable
to the negligence or lack of diligence of the party
seeking equitable relief,96 and relief will not be
32.
Hen.
980,
Va.— Mosby v. Haskins, 4
; M. 427. 14 Va- 427.
S3. Vt— Weed v. Hunt, 56 A.
76 Vt. 212.
34 C.J. p 463 note 49.
34. Mo.— Beck v. Jackson, 140 S.W.
019, 160 Mo.App. 427.
34 C.J. p 463 note 50.
S5. Iowa.— Finch v. Hollinger, 47
Iowa 173.
34 C.J. p 463 note 51.
$6. U.S. — Crim v. Handley, Ga., 94
U.S. 652, 24 L.Ed. 216.
Minn. — Wieland v. Shillock, 23 Minn.
227.
S7. Ky.— Logan v. Outen, 4 Bibb
399.
34 C.J. p 463 note 53.
Sale of property to complaining' par-
ty's agent
Defendants could not, on petition
to open foreclosure decree pro con-
fesso, complain of surprise in inade-
quacy of price of the property, which
was sold to their agent— Etz v.
Weinmann, 150 A. 436, 106 N.J.Bq.
309.
S3. U.S. — Chapman v. Scott, C.C.D.
C., 5 F.Cas.No.2,609, 1 Cranch C.C.
302.
34 C.J. p 468 note 54.
39. 111.— Bell v. Gardner, 77 111. 319.
34 C.J. P 463 note 55.
90. U.S.— Hendrickson v. Hinckley,
Ohio, 17 How. 443, 15 L.Ed 123.
34 C.J. p 463 note 56.
SI. IlL — Abrama v. Camp, 4 HL
290.
92. U.S,— Hendrickson v. Hinckley, j
Ohio. 17 How. 443, 15 L.Ed. 123.
34 C.J. p 463 note 58.
93. Va. — White v. Washington, 5
Gratt. 645, 46 Va. 645.
94. U.S.-^Town of Boynton v. White
Const. Co., C.C.A.Fla,, 64 F.2d 190
— Jenner v. Murray, C.C.A.Fla.,
32 F.2d 625— Russell v. Superior
Journal Co., D.C.Wis., 47 F.Supp.
282.
Ark.— United Order of Good Samari-
tans v. Bryant, '57 S.W.2d 399, 186
Ark. 960, certiorari denied 54 , S.
Ct. 59, 290 U.S. 641, 78 L.Ed. 557.
Cat— Hallett v. Slaughter, 140 P.
2d 3, 22 Cal.2d 552.
Conn. — Hoey v. Investors' Mortgage
& Guaranty Co., 171 A. 438, 118
Conn. 226.
Fla. — Sommers v. Colourpicture Pub.,
8 So.2d 281, 150 Fla. 659.
Ga.— Bailey v. McBlroy, 2 S.B.2d 634,
188 Ga. 40, transferred, see 6 S.
B.2d 140, 61 Ga.App. 367— Young
v. Young, 2 S.E.2d 622, 188 Ga. 29.
III.— Mohr v. Messick, 53 N.B.2d 743,
322 IlLApp. 56— Izzi v. lalongo, 248
Ill.App. 90.
Iowa.— Clarke v. Smith. 192 N.W.
136, 195 Iowa 1299.
. — Byron v. Concord Nat Bank,
13 N.E.2d 13, 299 Mass. 438.
. — Robertson v. ^Gtna Ins. Co.,
98 So. 833, 134 Miss. 398.
Mo. — Krasbin v. Grizzard, 31 S.W.2d
984, 326 Mo. 606— Boeckmann v.
Smith, App., 189 S.W.2d 449— Love-
land v. Davenport, App., 188 S.W.
2d 850— State ex rel. Woolman v.
725
Guinotte, 282 S.W. 68, 221 Mo.
App. '466.
Tenn. — Winters v. Allen, 62 S.W.2d
51, 166 Tenn. 281— Tallent v. Sher-
rell, 184 S.W.2d 561, 27 Tenn.App.
683.
Tex. — Crouch v. McGaw, 138 S.W.2d
94, 134 Tex. 633— Love v. State
Bank & Trust Co. of San Antonio,
90 S.W.2d 819, 126 Tex 691— Petty
v. Mitchell, Civ.App., 187 S.W.2d
138, error refused — American Law
Book Co. v. Chester, Civ.App., 110
S.W.2d 950, error dismissed — Peas-
lee-Gaulbert Corporation v.
Hughes, Civ.App., 79 S.W.2d 149,
error refused — Kerby v. Hudson,
Civ.App., 13 S.W:2d 724— Hudson
v. Kerby, Civ.App., 5 S.W.2d 1007
— Rachel v. Bland, Civ.App., 259 S.
W. 230— Galloway v. Marietta
State Bank, Civ.App., 258 S.W. 532,
reversed on other grounds Mariet-
ta State Bank v. Galloway, Com.
App., 269 S.W. 776.
34 C.J. p 463 note 60, p 440 note 77,
p 460 note 20.
95. Ark.— Lamhie v. W. T. Rawleigh
Co., 14 S.W.2d 245, 178 Ark. 1019.
Ky. — Mason v. Lacy, 117 S.W.2d
1026, 274 Ky. 21— Blkhorn Coal
Corporation v. Cuzzort, 284 S.W.
1005, 215 Ky. 254.
34 C.J. p 464 note 63.
Unavoidable casualty or misfortune
held not shown
(1) Neglect of a party and his at-
torney in failing to examine the rec-
ord to determine whether the case
had been stricken from the docket
was held not to constitute an un-
366
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
granted on this ground where no counsel was em-
ployed, or witnesses summoned, or any other steps
taken to defend the action.96 Misunderstandings
between counsel, or between counsel and clients,
may constitute unavoidable casualty or misfortune
justifying relief against a judgment.97 It has been
held that the required unavoidable casualty and
misfortune has reference to the inability of a party
to be present and participate in the proceedings,
and has no application to the inability of a party to
discover evidence necessary to constitute a de-
fense^*
Absence or incapacity of counsel. The unavoid-
able or excusable absence of the party's attorney
from the court at the time of the trial may in some
circumstances entitle the party to relief in equity,"
although the courts are not very much disposed to
interfere on this account,1 and will not do so where
it appears that defendant could have saved himself
by the timely employment of other counsel2 or where
he had another attorney in the case.3 Equity will
furnish relief where, without the knowledge or fault
of a party, his attorney becomes physically or men-
tally incapacitated causing his acts or conduct to
lead to damaging result so detrimental and unjust as
to shock the conscience.4
Sickness of party or relative. The severe illness
of defendant, or of a near relative, preventing him
from attending the trial may be ground for relief
in equity against the judgment,5 provided his per-
sonal presence was necessary to the successful de-
fense of the action,6 and it appears that, had he
been present, there would probably have been a dif-
ferent result and one more favorable to him.7 How-
ever, a party in this situation must use diligence in
endeavoring to prepare for the trial, employing
counsel, summoning witnesses, asking for a contin-
uance or for a new trial, or otherwise making suit-
able efforts to save himself; and, if he fails in this,
equity will not relieve him.8
§ 367.
Excusable Neglect
Excusable neglect, unmixed with any carelessness on
the part of the complaining party, may justify equitable
relief against a judgment.
Equity may relieve a party from a judgment
taken against him through his excusable neglect.9
However, if he has carelessly or foolishly omitted
avoidable casualty.— McCoimnas v.
McCawley, 14 S.W.2d 1057, 228 Ky.
263.
(2) Where grantee of realty lent
money to owner, took a warranty
deed to realty, and pledged realty to
secure grantee's debt, fact that when
pledgee sued for foreclosure and
served summons on owner, owner
was informed by attorney that gran-
tee would bid in the realty for own-
er's benefit, which grantee failed to
do, did not constitute unavoidable
casualty or misfortune preventing
owner from defending, so as to en-
title owner to vacation of foreclo-
sure Judgment — Mason v. Lacy, 117
S.W.Sd 1028, 274 Ky. 21.
(3) Where mortgagor and wife did
not file answer to foreclosure suit
and evidence showed that wife at
time of service of summons on hus-
band was not too ill to accept serv-
ice and that illness did not take
place until after summons was serv-
ed on husband with whom copy of
summons was left for wife, Judg-
ment of foreclosure would not be set
aside on ground of unavoidable cas-
ualty.—White v. Milburn, 122 S.W.2d
589, 197 Ark. 373.
(4) Other cases.
U.S.— Mclntosh v. Wiggins, C.C.A.
Mo., 123 F.2d 316, certiorari de-
nied 62 S.Ct. 800, 315 U.S. 815, 86
KEd. 1213, rehearing denied 62 S.
Ct. 914, 816 U.S. 831. 86 KBd. 1224.
Tex. — Reeves v. Chapman, Civ.App.,
19 S.W.2d 132.
96. Ky.— Mason v. Lacy, 117 S.W.2d
1026, 274 Ky. 21.
34 C.J. p 464 note 61.
Discharge of attorney
In suit to vacate judgment, record
indicating that plaintiff had dis-
charged his attorney after attorney
had taken preliminary steps for an
appeal precluded contention that
plaintiff was prevented from appeal-
ing such judgment by reason of un-
avoidable casualty. — Fernow v. Gub-
ser, Okl., 162 P.2d 529.
97. Ark. — Baskin v. .SBtna Life Ins.
Co., 79 S.W.2d 724, 190 Ark. 448.
Iowa. — Thoreson v. Central States
Electric Co., 283 N.W. 253, 225
Iowa 1406.
98. Okl — Burton v. Swanson, 285 P.
839, 142 Okl. 134.
Identification of allottee
The facts that an allottee was too
young at the time he was enrolled to
know who could identify him, that
the witnesses to his enrollment were
dead, and that he was unable to
learn the names of individuals who
could identify him as the allottee
have been held not to constitute un-
avoidable casualty and misfortune
justifying an attack on a judgment.
— Burton v. Swanson, 285 P. 839, 142
Okl. 134.
99. Ga, — Pratt v. Rosa Jarmulow-
sky Co., 170 S.B. 365, 177 Ga. 522
— Eatonton Oil & Auto Co. v. Led-
better, 163 S.E. 891, 174 Ga. 715.
34 OJ» p 464 .note 64.
726
3U Ark, — Izard County v. Huddles-
ton, 39 Ark. 107.
34 C.J. p 464 note 65.
2. Ky. — Elkhorn Coal Corporation v.
Cuzzort, 284 S.W. 1005, 315 Ky.
254.
Tex. — Harrell v. Humphrey, Civ. Apr*..
292 S.W. 920.
34 C.J. p 464 note 66.
3. Kan. — Brenneisen v. Phillips, 45
P.2d 867, 142 Kan. 98.
34 C.J. p 464 note 67.
4. Col. — Jeffords v. Young, 277 P.
163, 98 CaLApp. 400.
Serious illness of complainant's
counsel, preventing his appearance
at trial on fair presentation of case,
may warrant equitable intervention
to set aside judgment. — Jeffords v.
Young, 277 P. 163, 98 CaLApp. 400
—34 C.J. p 464 note 64 [a],
5. Mo. — Jackson v. Chestnut, 131 S.
W. 747, 151 Mo.App. 275.
34 C.J. p 464 note 68.
6. Miss.— McDonald v. Myles, 20
Miss. 279.
34 C.J. p 464 note 69.
7. Ga.— McCall v. Miller, 47 S.E.
920, 120 Ga. 262.
8. Mich.— Kelleher v. Boden, 21 N-
W. 346, 55 Mich. 295.
34 C.J. p 464 note 71.
9. Cal.— Wilson v. Wilson. 130 P.2d
782, 55 Cal.App.2d 421.
Or.— Hartley v. Rice, 261 P. 689,
123 Or. 237.
34 C.J. p 464 note 72.
Excuse held sufficient
In a suit to vacate and restrain
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
368
to attend to his case, to retain and instruct coun-
sel, to gather his witnesses, or otherwise to prepare
for the trial, he is in no position to invoke the aid
of equity, and it will be refused.10 If a litigant au-
thorizes another to look after the defense of the
action, the failure of such other person to employ
an attorney or to take other proper and necessary
measures will bar relief in equity in the absence of
fraud.11
A distinction must be made between such neglect
as is attributable solely to the party himself and
such as is brought about by the improper or deceit-
ful conduct of the other side; the former is not
excusable, the latter sometimes is.12
§ 368. Negligence or Misconduct of
Counsel
Negligence or misconduct of a party's counsel Is
generally attributable to the party himself, and ordina-
rily furnishes no ground for equitable relief against a
judgment. Under some circumstances, however, as
where the party has. been betrayed by his attorney, or
where the opposite party has caused the misconduct, re-
lief against the Judgment may be granted.
It is not sufficient ground for relief in equity that
a judgment was obtained against a party in conse-
quence of the neglect, inattention, mistake, or in-
competence of his attorney,13 unless it was caused
collection of a judgment entered by
a real estate agent against a land-
owner for a commission for selling
the land, letters written by the
agent to the landowner to the effect
that he was suing the one who had
contracted to purchase, and that
although the landowner would be a
necessary party the suit could not
hurt him, presented a sufficient ex-
cuse for failure of the landowner to
.appear and defend. — Walberg v. Rog-
ers, Tex.Civ.App., 250 S,W. 297.
10. Ala. — Choctaw Bank v. Dear-
mon, 134 So. 648, 223 Ala, 144.
Cal.— Wattson v. Dillon, 56 P.2d 220,
6 Cal.2d 33.
111. — Goelitz v. Lathrop, 3 N.E.2d 305,
286 Ill.App. 248.
jCy. — Johnson v. Gernert Bros. Lum-
ber Co., 75 S.W.2d 357, 255 Ky.
734.
•Tex. — Smith v. Ferrell, Com.App., 44
S.W.2d 962— Stewart v. Byrne,
Com.App., 42 S.W.2d 234— Maytag
Southwestern Co. v. Thornton, Civ.
App., 20 S.W.2d 383, error dis-
missed.
tVie. — Schulteis v. Trade Press Pub.
Co., 210 N.W. 419, 191 Wis, 164.
34 C.J. p 464 note 73.
Failure to verify time of trial
Where judgment was rendered in
absence of defendants and their
counsel because of reliance by one
defendant on alleged announcement
of opposing Counsel in open court
during sounding of docket that case
would not be tried during week for
which it had been set and such de-
fendants' notice to their counsel of
such announcement, without seeking
to verify it, defendants were held
not entitled to have judgment vacat-
ed.— Poland v. Risher, Civ. App., 88
S.W.2d 1106, affirmed Mann v. Rish-
er, 116 S.W.2d 692, 131 Tex. 498.
Discharge of attorneys
Plaintiffs' discharge of attorneys
on false assumption that trial would
remain in abeyance pending subse-
quent action has been held negli-
gence precluding equitable relief
jigainst judgment — Davis v. Cox,
Tex.Civ.App., 4 S.W.2d 1008, error
dismissed.
Belief as to abandonment of case
The fact that the party seeking
relief believed that case had been
abandoned, because he had not heard
from it for a long time, does not ex-
cuse his default — Millikin v. Ander-
son, Mo.App., 269 S.W. 675.
Failure to file caveat
Petitioner, although nonresident,
was held not entitled to set aside
judgment setting apart statutory
support for widow and children,
where he filed no caveat to applica-
tion on which citation had issued
and been published. — Beddingfleld v.
Old Nat. Bank & Trust Co., 165 S.B.
61, 175 Ga. 172.
11. 111.— Goelitz v. Lathrop, 3 N.E.
2d 305, 286 IlLApp. 248.
Neglect of codefendant
One intrusting entire defense of
action to codefendant, who employed
attorney, received notice of latter's
withdrawal, employed no other attor-
ney, and was present and represent-
ed complaining party when judg"-
ment was entered against them, was
held not entitled to injunction
against enforcement of judgment. —
Goelitz v. Lathrop, supra.
12. Tenn. — Rowland v. Jones, 2
Heisk. 321.
13. Ala.— Williams v. Martin, 188
So. 677, 237 Ala. 624.
Cal,— City of San Diego v. California
Water & Tel. Co., 162 P.2d 684,
71 Oal.App.2d 261— Corpus Juris
cited in Greenwood v. Greenwood,
297 P. 589, 591, 112 CaLApp. 691.
Conn.— Palverari v. Finta, 26 A.2d
229, 129 Conn. 38.
Ga. — W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. Sea-
graves, 173 S.B. 167, 178 Ga. 459—
Coleman v. Morris, 168 S.B. 9, 176
Ga. 467.
Iowa. — Ware v. Eckman, 277 N.W.
725, 224 Iowa 78$.
Kan. — corpus Juris cited in Huls v.
Gafford Lumber & Grain Co., 243
P. 806, 310, 120 Kan. 209.
Ky. — Fuson v. Fuson, 132 S.W.2d
508, 280 Ky. 91 — Mussman v. Pep-
727
pies, 49 S.W.2d 592, 243 Ky. 674
—Lee v. Lee, 38 S.W.2d 223, 23S
Ky. 477.
Mo.— Texier v. Texier, 119 S.W.2d
778, 342 Mo. 1220— Wuelker v.
Maxwell, App., 70 S.W.2d 1100.
Mont— Khan v. Khan, 105 P.2d 665,
110 Mont. 591 — Corpus Juris cited
in Federal Land Bank of Spokane
v. Gallatin County, 274 P. 288, 291
84 Mont 98.
N.J.— Simon v. Henke, 139 A. 887,
102 N.J.Eq. 115.
N.M.— Corpus Juris quoted in Sow-
der v. Citizens Nat. Bank of Lub-
bock, 50 P.2d 856, 858, 39 N.M. 508,
Tex.— Kelly v. Wright, 188 S.W.2d
983— Whitehurst v. Estes, Civ.App.,
185 S.W.2d 154, error refused—
Collins v. National Bank of Com-
merce of San Antonio, Civ.App.,
154 S.W.2d 296, error refused-
Universal Credit Co. v. Cunning-
ham, Civ.App., 109 S.W.2d 507, er-
ror dismissed~£icketts v. Fergu-
son, Civ.App., 64 S.W.2d 416, error
refused — Corpus Juris cited in
Caldwell Oil Co. v. Hickman, Civ.
App., 270 S.W. 214, 218.
Va.— Lockard v. Whitenack, 144 S.
E. 606, 151 Va. 143.
34 C.J. p 465 note 78.
"The 'mere employment of counsel
is not sufficient to excuse a party
from giving his personal attention
to a case. . . . There must be
something more than misplaced con-
fidence in a negligent attorney to
constitute unavoidable casualty or
misfortune." — Byron v. Evans, 91 S.
W.2d 548, 550, 263 Ky. 49.
Suspension of attorney
The fact that an attorney was
suspended shortly after the proceed-
ings complained of is not of itself
sufficient to justify relief in equity.
— De Tray v. Chambers, 297 P. 675,
112 CaLApp. 697.
Failure of third person to follow at.
toraey's directions
A litigant is not entitled to have
default judgment against him va-
cated by fact that attorney, em-
ployed by him to defend suit, on be*
ing called out of town, directed third
§ 368
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
by the opposite party,14 the fault of the attorney be-
ing attributed to the party himself.15 The rule is
in no way affected by the fact that the attorney is
insolvent and unable to respond in damages.16 Not
every act of inadvertence on the part of an attorney,
however, is negligence imputable to the client,17 and
the courts have thought proper to grant relief in
some cases of misunderstanding or misapprehension
on the part of the attorney,18 especially where the
mistake arose from misinformation.19 Relief may
also be granted where the party has been deceived
or betrayed by his attorney,20 or where the attorney
withdrew from the case without notice and without
lawful cause.21
In applying the rule prohibiting relief for neg-
ligence or misconduct of counsel, it has been held
no ground for relief against a judgment under the
circumstances of the particular case that counsel
neglected to answer or file a plea for a party, or
failed properly to present the defenses of his cli-
ent;22 that counsel managed the trial of the cause
unskillfully;23 absented himself from court during
the trial, intentionally or otherwise;24 failed to
notify his client of the time of trial ;25 advised his
client to remain away from court;26 failed to in-
person to file answer that attorney
had prepared, but third person for-
got to do so. — Roberts v. Seymore, 73
P.2d 395, 181 Okl. 201.
14. Cal. — Corpus Juris cited in.
Greenwood v. Greenwood, 297 P.
589, 691, 112 CaLApp. 691.
Fla. — Peacock v. Feaster, 43 So. 889,
52 Fla. 565.
Mont. — Corpus Juris cited in Federal
Land Bank of Spokane v. Gallatin
County, 274 P. 288, 291, 84 Mont.
98.
N.M. — Corpus Juris quoted In Sowder
v. Citizens Nat. Bank of Lubbock,
50 P.2d 856, 858, 39 N.M. 508.
Tex. — Corpus Juris cited in Caldwell
Oil Co. v. Hickman, Civ.App., 270
S.W. 214, 218.
15. Ind. — Branham v. Boruflt, 145 N.
E. 901, 82 Ind.App. 370.
Ky. — Byron v. Evans, 91 S.W.2d 548,
263 Ky. 49.
Mo.— MiHikin v. Anderson, App., 269
S.W. 675.
N.M. — Corpus Juris quoted in Sow-
der v. Citizens Nat. Bank of Lub-
bock, 50 P.2d 856, 858, 39 N.M.
508.
Tex. — Kahl v. Porter, Civ.App., 296
S.W. 324— Corpus Juris cited in.
Caldwell Oil Co. v. Hickman, Civ.
App., 270 S.W. 214, 218.
34 C.J. p 442 note 20, p 466 note 80.
"It is a general rule that no mis-
take, inadvertence, or neglect at-
tributable to an attorney can be
successfully used as a ground of re-
lief, unless it would have been ex-
cusable if attributable to the cli-
ent"— Ferrara v. Genduso, 14 N.E.2d
580, 581, 214 Ind. 99.
Tailure to set up cancellation of in-
surance
Negligence of insurance company's
attorney In failing to set up cancel-
lation of additional insurance as de-
fense to injured employee's action on
group policy and additional insur-
ance certificates was equivalent to
insurance company's negligence. —
Wheiles v. JBtna Life Ins. Co., C.C.
A.Tex., 68 F.2d 99.
16. 111.— Bardonski v. Bardonski, 33
N.3L 39, 144 111. 284*
34 OX p 466 note SI. •
17. Cal.— Hallett v. Slaughter, 140
P.2d 3, 22 Cal.2d 552.
Iowa,— Clarke v. Smith, 192 N.W.
136, 195 Iowa 1299.
18. Tex.— Corpus Juris cited in
Caldwell Oil Co. v. Hickman, Civ.
App., 270 S.W. 314, 218.
84 C.J. p 466 note 83.
Custom of notifying attorneys
Where judgment was entered In
the absence of defendant after the
case had been twice set for trial, and
defendant had no knowledge of such
judgment, until execution was pre-
sented by the sheriff, it was not er-
ror to grant a temporary injunction
restraining plaintiffs and the sheriff
from proceeding, it appearing that it
was customary to notify defendant's
attorneys of the time of trial when
they resided in another county. —
Dallas Cooperage & Wooden Ware
Co. v. Southwestern Cooperage Co.,
Tex.Civ.App., 254 S.W. 1116.
19. Iowa, — Buena Vista County v.
Iowa Falls & S. C. R Co., 49 Iowa
657.
20. CaL — Crow v. Madsen, App., Ill
P.2d 7, rehearing denied 111 P.2d
663— Jeffords v. Toung, 277 P. 163,
98 Cal.App. 400.
La. — Richardson v. Hells, 189 So,
454, 192 La. 856.
Neb. — Seward v. Churn Ranch Co..
287 N.W. 610, 136 Neb. 804.
Tex. — Corpns Juris cited In Cald-
well Oil Co. v. Hickman, Civ.App,,
270 S.W. 214, 218.
34 C.J. p 466 note 82.
21. Tex. — Stanley v. Spann, Civ,
App., 21 S.W.2d 305, error dis-
missed.
Withdrawal after notice
A judgment was held not void or
voidable on the ground that a par*
ty's counsel abandoned his defense
where such counsel, after being em-
ployed, advised the party that they
held a retainer from the adverse par-
ty and dropped out of the suit, after
which other counsel took up the de-
fense.— Spence v. State Nat Bank of
728
El Paso, Tex.Civ.App., 294 S.W. 618,
affirmed, Com.App., 5 S.W.2d 754.
22. Ark.— White v. Milburn, 122 S,
W.2d 589, 197 Ark. 373.
Iowa. — Ware v. Eckman, 277 N.W.
725, 2-24 Iowa 783.
Ky. — Byron v. Evans, 91 S.W.2d 548,
263 Ky. 49.
N.J. — Red Oaks v. Dorez, Inc., 184
A. 746, 120 N.J.Eq. 282.
Ohio. — MosHer v. Mutual Home &
Savings Ass'n, App., 41 N.E.2d 871,
Okl.— Luna v. Miller, 42 P.2d 809,
L71 Okl. 260.
Tex.— Wear v. McCallum, 33 S.W.2d
723, 119 Tex. 473— Thomas v. Mul-
lins, Civ.App., 175 S.W.2d 276—
White v. Glenn, Civ.App., 138 S.W,
2d 914, error dismissed, judgment
correct — Winn v. Houston Building
& Loan Ass'n, Civ.App., 45 S.W.2d
631, error refused.
34 C.J. p 466 note 86.
Failure to set up oral agreement
Fact that defendants' attorney*
did not set up oral agreement alleg-
edly constituting a defense to action,
but permitted judgment to be en-
tered in favor of plaintiff, did no*
entitle defendants to have judgment
vacated, In absence of any claim of
fraud on part of attorneys, or that
failure to present defense resulted
from connivance or fraud of plain-
tiff.—Ferrara v. Genduso, 14 N.E.2*
580, 214 Ind. 99.
23. Cal.— Julien v. West, 274 P. 421».
96 CaLApp. 558.
34 C.J. p 466 note 85.
24. U.S.— Miller Rubber Co. of New-
Tork v. Massey, C.C.A.I11., 36 F:.
2d 466, certiorari denied Massey v.
Miller Rubber Co. of New York, 50-
S.Ct 354, 281 U.S. 749, 74 L.Ed..
1161.
34 C.J. p 466 note 87.
25. Ga. — W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. Sea-~
graves, 173 S.B. 167, 178 Ga, 459.
Mo. — Bowman v. Field, 11 Mo.App..
595.
26. Ga.— Sasser v. Olliff, 16 S.E..
312, 91 Ga. 84.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
369
troduce material witensses;27 failed to file a mo-
tion for a new trial ;28 neglected to take an appeal
in the proper time and manner;29 lost the right of
appeal through delay in signing the bill of excep-
tions,30 or filing the statement of facts,81 or by neg-
lect to assign errors,82 or by failure to call up a
motion for a new trial through the mistaken im-
pression that such motion had been overruled,88 or
to take any other requisite step in the case;84 ad-
vised the party that the proof of a material fact
was unnecessary, whereby the party failed to prove
it;85 failed to enter a credit on the execution ac-
cording to agreement;86 caused the rendition of a
judgment on a stipulation, in disobedience of the
client's instructions;87 or lost the right to new trial
by adopting the statement of the reporter of the
testimony taken down by him, without observing
the errors in such statement.88
§ 369. Matters Determined in Original Ac-
tion
Matters determined in the original action, including
matters determined on motions fop a new trial, to va-
cate the Judgment, or for a continuance, generally can-
not again be advanced as a ground for equitable relief
against the Judgment rendered.
Equity will not entertain a bill for relief against
a judgment, founded on any matters which were
tried and determined in the prior action, or which
were there so put in issue that they might have been
adjudicated,89 however unjust the judgment may
appear to be.40 This rule assumes, however, that
there has been a trial in which the respective par-
ties have had an opportunity fully to present their
claims.41
On motion for new trial or to vacate. Equity will
refuse to interfere by injunction, when the grounds
presented for its action have been already consid-
ered and held insufficient on a motion made in the
trial court to open or vacate the judgment or for a
new trial.42
On motion for continuance. A bill for an injunc-
27. Ala. — Ex parte Walker, 64 Ala,
577.
Tex. — Estey v. Luther, Civ.App., 142
S.W. 649.
28. Mont. — Khan y. Khan, 105 P.2d
665, 110 Mont. 591.
29. Fla. — Sommers v. Colourpicture
Pub., 8 So.2d 281, 150 Fla. 659.
Mass. — Barron v. Barronian, 175 N.
E. 271. 275 Mass. 77.
Mo. — Bowman v. Field, 11 Mo.App.
595.
Tex. — Thomas v. Mullins, Civ.App.,
175 S.W.2d 276.
80. Md. — Ruppertsberger y. Clark,
53 Md. 402.
31. Tex. — Avocato v. Dell'Ara, Civ.
App., 91 S.W. 830.
"32. Fla. — Peacock y. Feaster, 42 So.
889, 52 Fla. 565.
Mo.— Miller y. Bernecker, 46 Mo. 194.
33. Ark. — Scroggtn v. Hammett Gro-
cer Co., 49 S.W. 820, 66 Ark. 183.
34. Fla. — Peacock y. Feaster, 42 So.
$89, 52 Fla. 565.
35. Fla. — Peacock y. Feaster, supra.
34 C.J. p 466 note 97.
36. Ga. — Brown v. Wilson* 56 Ga.
534.
37. U.S. — Cowley v. Northern Pac.
R. Co., C.C.Wash., 46 F. 325, re-
versed on other grounds 16 S.Ct.
127, 159 U.S. 569, 40 LuEd. 263.
38. Cal. — Quinn v. Wetherbee, 41
Cal. 247.
39. U.S. — Corpus Juris cited in Coos
Bay Lumber Co. v. Collier, C.C.A.
Or., 104 F.2d 722, 725.
Ala. — Worthington v. Worthington,
117 So. 645, 218 Ala, 80.
Ark. — Oliver v. Franklin Fire Ins.
Co. of Philadelphia, 114 S.W.2d
1071, 195 Ark. 840.
Cal. — Corpus Juris cited in Rudy v.
Slotwinsky, 238 P. 783, 785, 73 Cal.
App. 459.
Fla.— Crura v. Baily, 184 So. 774, 135
Fla. 192.
Ga.— Felker v. Still, 169 S.B. 897, 177
Ga. 160.
Mich. — Graure v. Detroit Lumber Co.,
244 N.W. 225, 260 Mich. 47— Bas-
se tt v. Trinity Bldg. Co., 236 N.W.
237, 254 Mich. 207.
Minn. — Spears v. Drake, 258 N.W.
149, 193 Minn. 162— Betcher v.
Midland Nat. Bank, 209 N.W. 325,
167 Minn. 484.
Mo. — Overton v. Overton, 37 S.W.2d
565, 327 Mo. 530—- Loveland v. Dav-
enport, App., 188 S.W.2d 850 —
Crowley v. Behle, App., 131 S.W.
2d 383.
Neb.— Brandeen v. Beale, 220 N.W.
298, 117 Neb. 291.
N.J.— Raimondi v. Bianchi, 140 A.
584, 102 N.J.BQ. 254— Simon v.
Henke, 139 A. 887, 102 N.J.Bq, 116.
Okl.— Scott v. Bailey, 169 P.2d 208
— Yellow Taxicab & Baggage Co.
v. Pettyjohn, 21 P,2d 743, 163 Okl.
103.
Or. — Walker v. Sutherland, 299 P.
335, 136 Or. 355, certiorari denied
52 S.Ct. 30, 284 U.S. 649, 76 L.BdL
551.
Pa.-— Petition of Wilwohl, 166 A.
654, 311 Pa, 152.
R.I. — Havens v. Crandall, 150 A. 76,
51 B.I. 8.
Tex. — Ferguson v. Ferguson, Civ.
App., 98 S.W.2d 847.
Wash.— Manson v. Foltz, 17 P.2d 616,
170 Wash. 652.
34 C.JT. p 440 note 81, p 466 note 2.
729
Payment
Mortgagor's petition to vacate
foreclosure judgment alleging that
mortgage was paid, which was de-
fense to foreclosure, was held de-
mure-able as attempt to obtain retrial
after adjournment. — Simpson v.
Zuehlke, Tex.Civ.App., 26 S.W.2d 663.
AflCenibersliip in firm
Party who was Joined as codef end-
ant as being a member of debtor
firm, but allowed Judgment to be en-
tered, cannot attack Judgment on
ground that he was not member of
firm, since that was defense to for-
mer action and was concluded by
Judgment. — Quinn~Marshall Co. v.
Hurley, 272 S.W. 402, 209 Ky. 154.
40. Cal. — Corpus Juris cited in Ru-
dy v. Slotwinsky, 238 P. 783, 785,
73 CaJLApp. 459.
34 C.J. p 466 note 2.
41. Cal. — Corpus Juris cited in Ru-
dy v. Slotwinsky, 238 P. 783, 785,
73 Cal. App. 459.
Or. — Corpus Juris quoted in Oregon-
Washington R. & Nav. Co. v. Reid,
65 P.2d 664, 668, 155 Or,. 602.
34 C.J. p 467 note 4.
42. U.S. — American Bakeries Co. v.
Vining, D.C.Fla.t 13 F.Supp. 323,
affirmed, C.C.A., 80 F.2d 932.
Ala. — Trognitz v. Touart, 122 "So. 620,
219 Ala. 404.
Ariz. — American Surety Co. of New
York v. Mosher, 64 P.2d 1025, 48
Ariz. 552.
Iowa. — Martin Bros. Box Co. v. Fritz,
292 N.W. 143, 228 Iowa 482.
Kan. — Corpus Juris quoted in Me*
Nergney v. Harrison, 84 P.2d 944,
948, 148 Kan. 843.
Tex. — Fort Worth & D. C. Ry. Co. v.
370
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
tion cannot be maintained on grounds which were
presented and overruled on a motion for a continu-
ance, or on the ground that the refusal to continue
forced the party to trial at a disadvantage.43
§ 370. Compelling Set-Off or Reduction of
Damages
a. In general
b. Subject matter of set-off
a. In General
Equitable relief against a Judgment may sometimes
be had to enable the judgment debtor to set off a claim
against the judgment creditor which by reason of the
judgment creditor's nonresidence or insolvency, or for
some other sufficient reason, would otherwise be uncol-
iectable; but in order to justify such relief it must ap-
pear that the complaining party has not been guilty of
inexcusable failure to plead his set-off in the original
action.
As equity may order one judgment to be set off
against another, so it has power to restrain the ex-
ecution of a judgment to the extent that the judg-
ment debtor has a claim against the judgment credi-
tor which the judgment debtor cannot otherwise
collect.44 If a case for equitable relief is present-
ed, but the amount due on the set-off is less than the
amount of the judgment, the court should not en-
join the whole judgment,45 but should permit the
balance to be collected by execution.46 A party go-
ing into equity to enjoin a judgment on the ground
of a set-off must show as strong a claim to be paid
the amount of his demand as if he were suing on
it at law or in equity,47 and such relief will not be
granted where the judgment debtor has an adequate
remedy at law,48 or where he has been guilty of
such negligence or lack of diligence as to render in-
equitable his demand for an offset49 In order to
justify relief of this nature it must appear that the
judgment creditor is -in some way unable to respond
to the claim against him, so that complainant is in
danger of losing it.50
Insolvency or nonresidence of judgment creditor.
According to some decisions the mere insolvency of
the judgment creditor will not of itself justify an
injunction against the enforcement of a judgment
at law in order to let in a set-off which might have
been pleaded at law at the time when such judg-
ment was recovered.51 The rule laid down by the
weight of authority, however, is to the effect that
the insolvency of the party seeking to enforce a
judgment furnishes a sufficient ground for the in-
terposition of a court of equity to enable the debtor
to avail himself of a set-off;52 and even though
insolvency may not of itself be considered a suffi-
cient ground on which to base equitable relief, it is
always an important factor and may with other
grounds of equitable relief justify the interposition
of the court of equity by the process of injunc-
tion."
Greathouse, Civ.App., 41 S.W.2d
418, reversed on other grounds
Greathouse v. Fort Worth & Den-
ver City By. Co., Com.App., 65 S.
W.2d 762.
34 C.J. p 467 note 5—19 C.J. p 1212
note 69 [D] (2).
Application for rehearing1 based on
lack of service
Where, after default, defendant
filed application for rehearing: al-
leging that summons and complaint
had not been served on him and that
he had no notice until after judg-
ment was rendered, and judgment
was rendered against him on this
application, which was afterward af-
firmed, there was an adjudication,
and relief against the judgment will
be denied In equity.— Handy v. Gray,
93 So. 614, 207 Ala, 615.
43. Kan. — Corpus Juris quoted in
McNergney v. Harrison, 84 P.2d
944, 94%, 148 Kan. 843.
34 C.J. p 467 note 6.
44. Ala. — Adams v. Alabama Lime &
Stone Corporation, 127 So. 544,
221 Ala. 10— Stewart v. Burgin, 121
So. 420, 219 Ala. 131.
La,— Sliman v. Mahtook, 136 So. 749,
17 La.App. 635, *
Miss. — Corpus Juris cited in Bett-
man-Dunlap Co. v. Gertz, 116 So.
299, 300, 149 Miss. 892.
Mo.— Jegglin v. Orr, 29 S.W.2d 721,
224 Mo.App. 773.
Neb. — Rogers v. Buettgenback, 211
N.W. 168, 114 Neb. 834— State v.
Farmers' State Bank of Bayard,
203 N.W. 629, 113 Neb. 497, fol-
lowed in 203 N.W. 632, 113 Neb.
503.
34 C.J. p 467 note 8.
Set-off of claim against judgment
see infra § 572.
45. La.— Salter v. McHenry, 17 La.
507— Palfrey v. Shuff, 2 Mart.,N.S.,
51.
46. Md.— Levy v. Steinbach, 43 Md.
212.
47. Iowa. — Walker v. Ayres, 1 Iowa
449.
48. Ala. — Adams v. Alabama Lime
& Stone Corporation, 127 So. 544,
221 Ala. 10.
34 C.J. p 468 note 9.
49. Mo. — Kansas City Rapid Motor
& Transp. Co. v. Young, 175 S.W.
95, 188 Mo.App. 289.
Disclosure of set-off in corporate
books
Neglect was imputable to corpo-
ration seeking to enjoin collection
of judgment in having previously
failed to assert set-off, where set-off
730
appeared from books and ordinary
diligence would have disclosed it?
existence. — Adams v. Alabama Lime
& Stone Corporation, 127 So. 544, 221
Ala. 10.
Absence of injury to assignee
A judgment debtor was held not
barred from equitable relief against
an assignee of the judgment be-
cause of delay in bringing his ac-
tion where it appeared that the judg-
ment had been assigned for a pre-
existing debt and that the assignee
had not been injured by the delay.
-^Tegglin v. Orr, 29 S.W.2d 721, 224
Mo.App. 773.
50. U.S. — Montgomery Water Power
Co. v. Chapman, C.C.R.I., 128 F.
197.
34 C.J. p 468 note 11.
51. S.C. — Rives v. Rives, 28 S.C.Eq.
353.
34 C.J. p 469 note 37.
52. Ala.— Stewart v. Burgin, 121 So.
420, 219 Ala. 131.
Mo.— Jegglin v. Orr, 29 S.W.2d 721,
224 Mo.App. 773.
Neb. — Rogers v. Buettgenback, 211
N.W. 168, 114 Neb. 834.
34 C.J. p 469 note 38.
53. 111. — Matson v. Oberne, 25 111.
App. 213.
49 0. J. S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 370
It has been held by some decisions that the non-
residence of the party against whom the set-off is
asserted is good ground for equitable relief,54 pro-
vided he became a nonresident after the rendition
of the judgment,55 particularly if he has no property
within the state;56 but there are decisions to the
contrary.57
Failure to plead set-off in original action. Equity
will not enjoin a judgment on account of matters
which might have been pleaded by way of set-
off in the action in which the judgment was re-
covered, where the party neglected his opportunity
in that respect,58 unless he shows a good and suffi-
cient excuse for his neglect.59 Still less will equity
grant relief because of any set-off or counterclaim
which was set up in the action at law and rejected
or decided adversely to him.60 However, if the
remedy in equity is more adequate, or rests on eq-
uitable principles, the failure to present the set-off
at law is no defense,61 and injunction will not be
denied on the ground of an adequate remedy at
law where a remedy at law was not in fact avail-
able or was extremely doubtful.62
Relief to vendee on failure of title. Where a
vendor of property has recovered judgment for the
purchase money and become insolvent, and the ven-
dee is damnified by a failure of title or possession,63
or by having to pay off an encumbrance,64 equity
may enjoin the judgment to the extent of the loss
which the vendee has suffered ; but such relief will
not be granted where the vendee has a plain and
adequate remedy at law by action for breach of the
covenant of warranty or against encumbrances,65 or
where he has neglected an opportunity to set off his
damages when sued for the purchase price.66
b. Subject Matter of Set-Off
In a proper case, equitable relief may be had to set
off one judgment against another, or an equitable debt
against a legal one; but relief ordinarily will not be
granted to permit the debtor to assert a contingent or
unliquidated claim.
Where equitable grounds are shown, injunction
may be used as a means of setting off one judgment
against another.67 Equity possesses the power to
set off an equitable debt against a legal one, where
there are special circumstances of which only a
court of chancery may take notice,68 and, although
the claims may not appear on their face to be mu-
tual, a court of equity will look beyond the nom-
inal parties to the real parties in interest and ad-
judge accordingly.69 Where a judgment creditor
is insolvent, the debtor may, in equity, set off
against the judgment in the hands of an assignee
thereof a demand against the creditor which became
due before the assignment.70 So, also, a judgment
debtor may in this way set off an amount which he
has paid in the character of a surety for the judg-
ment creditor.71
Equity ordinarily will not grant this relief where
the claim set up is contingent, uncertain, or unliq-
54. Miss. — Corpus Juris cited to,
Bettman-Dunlap Co. v. Gertz, 116
So. 299, 300, 149 Miss. 892.
34 C.J. p 470 note 40.
55. Ky. — Walker v. Thomas, 11 S.
W. 434, 88 Ky. 486, 11 Ky.L. 20.
53. Q-a, — Livingston v. Marshall, 11
S.E. 542, 82 Ga. 281.
Miss. — Corpus Juris cited in Bett-
man-Dunlap Co. v. Gertz, 116 So.
299, 300, 149 Miss. 892.
57. Md.— Smith v. Washington Gas-
light Co., 31 Md. 12, 100 Am.D. 49
— Beall v. Brown, 7 Md. 393.
58. Ala. — Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v.
Street, 154 So. 816, 228 Ala. 677—
Adams v. Alabama Lime & Stone
Corporation, 127 So. 544, 221 Ala.
10.
34 C.J. p 469 note 34.
59. Tox. — Corpus JTnris cited to
Jackson v. Birk, Civ.App., 88 S.
W.2d 632, 633.
34 C.J. p 469 note 35.
Concealment or fraud
No advantage will accrue to judg-
ment creditor if debtor seeking to
enjoin collection was precluded from
discovering set-off by concealment or
fraud.— -Adams v. Alabama Lime &
Stone Corporation, 127 So. 544, 221
Ala, 10.
60. Ky.— Carlyle v. Long, 5 Litt.
167.
34 C.J. p 469 note 36.
Matters determined in original ac-
tion see supra § 369.
61. Ala.— Adams v. Alabama Lime
& Stone Corporation, 127 So. 544,
221 Ala. 10.
62. Mo.— Jegglin v. Orr, 29 S.W.2d
721, 224 Mo.App. 773.
63. va.— Jaynes v. Brock, 10 Gratt.
211, 51 Va. 211.
34 C.J. p 469 note 30.
64. Ind.— Shelby v. Marshall, 1
Blackf. 384.
Va.— Shores v. Ware, 1 Rob. 1, 40
Va. 1.
65. N.C.— Henry v. Elliott, 59 N.C.
175.
34 C.J. p 469 note 32.
06. Ga.— Hambrick v. Dickey, 48 Ga.
578.
Mo,— Hall v. Clark, 21 Mo. 415.
67. Ohio. — Barbour v. National
Exch. Bank, 33 N.B. 542, 50 Ohio
St. 90, 20 L.R.A. 192.
34 C.J. p 468 note 18.
Payment, satisfaction, or discharge
731
of judgment by set-off of another
judgment see infra §§ 566-570.
8. Del.— Small v. Collins, 11 Del.
273.
34 C.J. p 468 note 19.
69. Cal.— Hobbs v. Duff, 23 Cal. 596.
34 C.J. p 468 note 20.
Insolvency of owner of beneficial in-
terest in judgment
Where one defendant had legal ti-
tle to judgment against plaintiff, but
the beneficial interest in the judg-
ment was in another defendant who
was insolvent and against whom
plaintiff's assignor had obtained a
judgment which had been assigned
to plaintiff, and which was larger
than the judgment against plaintiff,
plaintiff was entitled to a permanent
injunction enjoining the enforcement
of the judgment. — Sherwood v. Salis-
bury, 299 N.W. 185, 139 Neb. 838.
70. Iowa. — De Laval Separator Co.
v. Sharpless, 111 N.W. 438, 134
Iowa 28.
34 C.J. p 468 note 21.
71. W.Va. — Hughes v. McDermitt,
102 S.B. 767, 86 W.Va. 86.
34 C.J. P 468 note 22.
§ 371
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
uidated,72 unless tte circumstances are such as to
warrant the interference of equity to prevent wrong
and injustice,™ as where defendant is insolvent;74
and it is immaterial whether the demand arises out
of the same75 or different™ transactions. Equity
will not grant relief where the claim accrued or was
acquired by complainant after the recovery of the
judgment at law;77 but it is otherwise where the
claim was acquired before the rendition of the judg-
ment at law, but too late to plead it by way of set-
off in that action.78
§ 371. Fraud, Perjury, Collusion, or Other
Misconduct
Duress or other mfsconduct practiced by the suc-
cessful party on his adversary furnishes ground for equi-
table relief against a Judgment, provided the complain-
ing party is not himself guilty of fault or negligence in
the matter.
Courts of equity may grant relief against a judg-
ment for misconduct preventing a bona fide adver-
sary trial ;79 but their willingness so to act is lim-
ited to cases where the unsuccessful party has been
prevented from presenting the full strength of his
case by reason of some wrongful, misleading, or de-
ceptive, act or conduct on the part of the success-
ful party,80 unmixed with any fault or negligence
on the part of the complaining party.81
Duress. A judgment may be attacked in equity
on the ground of duress,82 although entered pursu-
ant to ostensible agreement or consent of the par-
ties.83 In order to warrant the vacation of a judg-
ment for coercion, the means of coercion must be
extrinsic or collateral to the subject of dispute in
the action wherein the order or judgment com-
plained of was entered,84 aiid, where evidence of
the coercion or duress could have been presented to
the court or to an attorney of complainant's own
choosing during the pendency of the action so that
full examination of the facts could have been made
and full protection given to the rights of the par-
ties, equity will not interfere.86
§ 372. Fraud or Concealment
a. In general
b. Nature of fraud
a, In General
Equity has inherent power to grant relief against a
judgment on the ground of fraud, especially if it was
practiced on the court, inducing It wrongfully to assume
Jurisdiction. To justify such relief, the fraud must be
perpetrated by the successful party or his agents, and
must be unmixed with any fault or negligence on the
part of the complaining party.
A court of equity on a proper application will
relieve against, or enjoin a party from enforcing, a
72. Iowa. — Baker v. Ryan, 25 N.W.
890, 67 Iowa 708.
34 O.J. p 468 note 23.
73. Neb. — Rogers v. Buettgenback,
211 N.W. 168, 114 Neb. 834— State
v. Farmers* State Bank of Bayard,
203 N.W. 659, 113 Neb. 497, fol-
lowed in 203 N.W. 632, 113 Neb.
503.
34 aj. p<468 note 24.
74. Tenn. — Memphis & C. R. Co. v.
Greer, 11 S.W. 931, 87 Tenn. 698, 4
L.R.A. 858.
34 C.J. p 468 note 25.
75. Ark. — Dugan v.. Cure ton, 1 Ark.
31, 31 Am.D. 727.
34 C.J. p 469 note 26.
76. Ky. — Brown v. Scott, 2 Bibb
635.
N.J.— Jackson v. Bell, 31 N.J.Eq. 554,
affirmed 32 N.J.Ea. 411.
77. Miss. — Desearn v. Babers, 62
Miss. 421.
34 C.J. p 469 note 28.
78. Tex. — Ellis v. Kerr, Civ.App., 23
S.W. 1050.
79. U.S.— Miller Rubber Co. of New
Tork v. Massey, C.C.A.I11., 36 F.2d
466, certiorari denied Massey v.
Miller Rubber Co. of New York, 60
S.Ct. 354. 381 U.S. 749, 74 L.Ed.
1161.
Cal. — Olivera v. Grace, 122 P.2d 564,
19 Cal.2d 570, 140 A.L.R. 1328—
Sears v. Rule, 114 P.2d 57, 45 Cal.
App.2d 374.
80u U.S.— Miller Rubber Co. of New
Tork v. Massey, C.C.A.I11.. 36 F.2d
466, certiorari denied Massey v.
Miller Rubber Co. of New Tork, 50
S.Ct. 354, 281 U.S. 749, 74 I*Ed.
1161.
Tex. — Ridge v. Wood, Civ.App., 140
S.W.2d 536, error dismissed, judg-
ment correct — Kost v. Rose, Civ.
App., 103 S.W.Sd 429— Landa v.
Bogle, Civ.App., 62 S.W.Sd 579,
set aside on other grounds Bogle
v. Landa, 94 S.W.2d 154, 127 Tex.
317.
Misconduct of jury
Failure of plaintiff to discover
jury's misconduct in motion for new
trial did not authorize setting aside
judgment where his failure was not
chargeable to defendant, notwith-
standing plaintiff was not negligent
in failing sooner to discover alleged
misconduct. — Brannen v. City of
Houston, Tex. Civ. App., 153 S.W.2d
676, error refused.
A. definitive Judgment may be an-
nulled, except for defects of form
prescribed in statute, only where it
appears that it has been obtained
through wrong practices of party in
whose favor it was rendered. — Ad-
kins' Heirs v. Crawford, Jenkins &
Booth, La., 24 So.2d 246.
Misconduct held not shown,
Tex.— Traders & General Ins. Co. v.
Keith, Civ.App., 167 S.W.2d 710,
error dismissed.
732
81. Tex. — Brannsn v. City of Hous-
ton, Civ. App., 153 S.W.2d 676, er-
ror refused — Ridge v. Wood, Civ.
App., 140 S.W.2d 636, error dis-
missed, judgment correct-— Kost v.
Rose, Civ.App., 103 S.W.2d 429—
Landa v. Bogle, Civ.App., 62 S.W.
2d 579, set aside on other grounds
Bogle v. Landa, 94 S.W.2d 154, 127
Tex 317.
Estoppel may arise precluding the
granting of relief against judgment
obtained by means of fraudulent act.
practice, or representation of prevail-
ing party. — Bloomguist v. Thomas, 91
N.W.2d 337, 215 Minn. 35.
82. Ga.— Toung v. Toung, 2 S.E.2d
622, 1*88 Ga. 29— Colclough v. Bank,
of Penfield, 103 S.E. 489, 150 Ga.
316.
83. U.S.— Griffith v. Bank of N. T...
C.C.A.N.T., 147 F.2d 899, 160 A.L.R..
1340, certiorari denied Bank or
New Tork v. Griffith, 65 S.Ct. 1414r
325 U.S. 874, 89 L.Ed. 1992.
Ky.— Hargis v. Hargis, 66 S.W.2d 59;
252 Ky. 198.
34 C.J. p 441 note 9.
84. Cal. — Hendricks v. Hendricks, 14
P.'2d 83, 216 Cal. 321.
85. CaL — Hendricks v. Hendricks,
supra — Johnson v. Johnson, 128 P.
2d 617, 53 Cal.App.2d 805, appeal
denied 128 P.2d 919, 53 Cal.App.2£
805.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 372
judgment obtained by means of fraud,8^ and espe- / cially where the fraud has been imposed or prac-
86. U.S.— Griffith v. Bank of N. Y.,
C.C.A.N.Y., 147 F.2d 899, 160 A.L.
H. 1340, certiorari denied Bank of
New York v. Griffith, 65 S.CL 1414,
325 U.S. 874, 89 L.Ed. 1992— Whit-
taker v. Brictson Mfg. Co., C.C.A.
S.D., 43 F.2d 485— Twist v. Prairie
Oil & Gas Co., C.C.A.Okl., 27 F.2d
470, vacated on other grounds 28
F.2d 1021 — Russell v. Superior
Journal Co., D.C.Wls., 47 F.Supp.
282 — Mineral Development Co. v.
Kentucky Coal Lands Co., D.C.Ky.,
285 F. 761, affirmed, C.C.A., 285 F.
1021.
Ala,— Mudd v. Lanter, 24 So.2d 550—
Farrell v. Farrell, 10 So.2d 153,
243 Ala. 389— Fowler v. Nash, 144
So. 831. 225 Ala. 613— Ex parte
Cade, 127 So. 154, 220 Ala. 666—
Fowler v. Fowler, 122 So. 440,
219 Ala. 453 — Garvey v. Inglenook
Const. Co., 104 So. 639, 213 Ala. 267
— Danne v. Stroecker, 98 So. 479,
210 Ala, 483.
Ark. — Chronister v. Robertson, 185 S.
W.2d 104, 208 Ark. 11.
Cal. — Newport v. Superior Court of
Stanislaus County, 230 P. 168, 192
Cal. 92 — Cowan v. Cowan, App., 166
P.2d 21— Hosner v. Skelly, App.,
164 P.2d 573— Vincent v. Security-
First Nat. Bank of Los Angeles,
155 P.2d 63, 67 Cal.App.2d 602—
Crow v. Madsen, App., Ill P.2d 7,
rehearing denied 111 P.2d 663— An-
glo California Trust Co. v. Kelley,
4 P.2d 604, 117 CaLApp. 692—
Wells v. Zenz, 256 P. 484, 83 Cal.
App. 137.
Colo.— Wilson v. Birt, 235 P. 563, 77
Colo. 206.
Conn. — Hoey v. Investors' Mortgage
& Guaranty Co., 171 A. 438, 118
Conn. 226.
Fla. — Gross v. Gross, 18 So.2d 538,
154 Fla. 649— State ex rel. War-
ren v. City of Miami, 15 So.2d 449,
153 Fla. 644— State ex rel. Fulton
Bag & Cotton Mills v. Burnslde, 15
So.2d 324, 153 Fla. 599— Miller v.
Miller, 7 So.2d 9, 149 Fla. 722—
Reybine v. Kruse, 174 So. 720, 128
Fla. 278.
Ga. — Beavers v. Williams, 33 S.E.2d
343, 199 Ga. 113— Corpus Juris
quoted in Walker v. Hall, 166 S.E.
757, 759, 176 Ga. 12— Clark v. Ten-
nessee Chemical Co., 145 S.E. 73,
167 Ga. 248 — Branan v. Feldman,
123 S.E. 710, 158 Ga. 377— Bailey
v. McElroy, 6 S.E.2d 140, 61 Ga.
App. 367 — Mullis v. Bank of
Chauricey, 150 S.E. 471, 40 Ga.App.
582.
Idaho. — Idaho Gold Dredging Corpo-
ration v. Boise Payette Lumber
Co., 90 P.2d 688.
111.— Moore v. Silvers, 168 N.B. 259,
336 111. 316— Meyer v. Meyer, 83
N.E.2d 738. 309 Ill,App. 643, af-
firmed 39 N.E.2d 311, 379 111. 97,
140 A.L.R. 484— Village of Hart-
ford v. First Nat Bank of Wood
River, 30 N.E.2d 524, 307 IlLApp.
447 — Reisman v. Central Mfg. Dist.
Bank, 15 N.E.2d 903, 296 IlLApp.
61 — Hughes v. First Acceptance
Corporation, 260 IlLApp. 176.
Ind.— Wohadlo v. Fary, 46 N.E.2d
489, 221 Ind. 219— Livengood v.
Munns, 27 N.E.2d 92, 108 Ind.App.
27.
Iowa. — Foote v. State Sav. Bank,
Missouri Valley, Iowa, 206 N.W.
819, 201 Iowa 174.
Kan.— Brown v. Wilson, 286 P. 247,
130 Kan. 359.
Ky.— Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. of
New York v. Myers, 109 S.W.2d
1194, 270 Ky. 523— Hargis v. Har-
gis, 66 S.W.2d 59, 252 Ky. 198.
La.— Hebert v. Hebert, App., 187 So.
317.
Md.— Fetting v. Flanigan, 45 A.2d
355— Green v. Green, 35 A.2d 238,
182 Md. 571— Bailey v. Bailey, 30
A.2d 249, 181 Md. 385.
Mass. — Commonwealth v. Aronson, 44
N.E.2d 679, 312 Mass. 347.
Mich.— Racho v. Woeste, 9 N.W.2d
827, 305 Mich. 522— Corpus Juris
cited in Grigg v. Hanna, 278 N.W.
125. 130, 283 Mich. 443— Wabash
Ry. Co. v. Marshall, 195 N.W. 134,
224 Mich. 593.
Miss. — Keanum v. Southern Ry. Co.,
119 So. 301, 151 Miss. 784.
Mo. — Crow v. Crow-Humphrey, 73 S.
W.2d 807, 335 Mo. 636— Spotts v.
Spotts, 55 S.W.2d 984, 331 Mo. 942
— Krashin v. Grizzard, 31 S.W.2d
984, 326 Mo. 606— Boon v ill e Nat.
Bank v. Schlotzhauer, 298 S.W. 732,
317 Mo. 1298, 55 A.L.R. 489— Love-
land v. Davenport, App., 188 S.W.
2d 850.
Mont — Bullard v. Zimmerman, 268
P. 512, 82 Mont. 434.
Neb. — Kielian v. Kent & Burke Co.,
268 N.W. 79, 131 Neb. 308— Selleck
v. Miller, 264 N.W. 754, 130 Neb.
306.
NML — Lamarre v. Lamarre, 152 A.
272, 84 N.H. 441.
N.J.— Simon v. Henke, 139 A. 887, 102
N.J.Eq. 115 — Nugent v. Hayes, 125
A. 576, 96 N.J.EQU 485.
N.T.— Arcuri v. Arcuri. 193 N.E. 174,
265 N.T. 358— Boston & M. R. R.
v. Delaware & H. Co., 264 N.Y.S.
470, 238 App,Div. 191— Herring-
Curtiss Co. v. Curtiss, 200 N.Y.S.
7, 120 Misc. 733, modified on other
grounds 227 N.Y.S. 489, 223 App.
Div. 101.
N.C. — Scales v. Wachovia Bank &
Trust Co., 143 S.E. 868, 195 N.C.
772.
N.D.— Elm Creek School Dist No. 21,
Mercer County v. Jung-era, 205 N.
W. 676, 53 N.D. 231.
Ohio. — Harig v. Lepasky, App., 49 N.
E.2d 694, first case.
OkL— Hill v. Cole, 137 P.2d 679, 192
733
Okl. 476 — Fellows v. Owens, 62 P.
2d 1215, 178 Okl. 224.
Or.— Fain v. Amend, 100 P.2d 481,
164 Or. 123— Hartley v. Rice, 261
P. 689, 123 Or. 237.
Pa. — In re Culbertson's Estate, 152
A. 540, 301 Pa. 438.
Tenn.— Winters v. Allen, 62 S.W.2d
51, 166 Tenn. 281 — Larus v. Bank
of Commerce & Trust Co., 257 S.
W. 94, 149 Tenn. 126 — Tallent v.
Sherrell, 184 S.W.2d 661, 27 Tenn.
App. 683— Culwell v. Culwell, 133
S.W.2d 1009, 23 Tenn.App. 389—
Corpus Juris cited in Hartman v.
Spivey, 123 S.W.2d 1110, 1114, 22
Tenn. App. 435.
Tex. — Crouch v. McGaw, 138 S.W.2d
94, 134 Tex. 633— Love v. State
Bank & Trust Co. of San Antonio,
90 S.W.2d 819, 126 Tex 591—
Strickland v. Ward, Civ.App., 185
S.W.2d 736 — Pearl Assur. Co. v.
Williams, Civ.App., 167 S.W.2d.
808 — American Law Book Co. v.
Chester, Civ.App.. 110 S.W.2d 950,
error dismissed — Peaslee-Gaulbert
Corporation v. Hughes,' Civ.App.,
79 S.W.2d 149, error refused —
State v. Wright, Civ.App., 56 S.W.
2d 950 — Hudson v. Kerby, Civ.App.,
5 S.W.2d 1007— Corpus Juris cited
in Marsh v. Tiller, Civ.App., 279
S.W. 283, 284— Eldridge v. El-
dridge, Civ.App., 259 S.W. 209—
Galloway v. Marietta State Bank,
Civ.App., 258 S.W. 532, reversed
on other grounds Marietta. State
Bank v. Galloway, Com. App., 269
S.W. 776.
34 C*J. p 441 note 8, p 442 note 23,
p 459 note 9, p 460 note 20, p
470 note 44—47 C.J. p 437 note 51,
p 1015 note 73.
Judgment or decree
Belief in equity on the ground of
fraud may be had against any judg-
ment or decree, legal or equitable.
U.S.— U. S. v. Gallucci, D.C.Mass.,
54 F.Supp. 964.
Ala.— Hooke v. Hooke, 25 So.2d 33.
Unconscionable or fraudulent agree-
ment
Equity may relieve against a judg-
ment founded on an unconscionable
or fraudulent agreement, particularly
where it arose out of confidential re-
lations, or was obtained by undue in-
fluence.— Raimondi v. Bianchi, 134 A.
866, 100 N.J.Eq. 238.
Solvency of defendant
Where a party has obtained a
judgment by fraud, it is no ground
for refusing to enjoin the judgment
that he is solvent — Sanderson v.
Voelcker, 51 Mo.App. 328.
When proceeding to in rem, injured
party, without notice of proceeding,
and not wanting in diligence, may
have equitable relief against decree
procured by fraud. — Quick v. McDon-
ald, 108 So. 529. 214 Ala. 587.
§ 372
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
ticed on the court.87 The power of equity in this
respect is inherent.88 Equitable relief may be had
on the ground of fraud in inducing the court to as-
sume jurisdiction which it did not have or would
not otherwise have exercised.89 Relief will also be
granted where, by reason of fraud, the party loses
his right to obtain or move for a new trial90 or to
take an appeal.91 To justify relief on the ground
87. Cal.— Scott v. Dilks, 117 P.2d
700, 47 Cal.2d 207 — Crow v. Mad-
sen, App., Ill P.2d 7, rehearing de-
nied 111 P.2d 663.
Ga. — Corpus Juris quoted in Walker
v. Hall, 166 S.E. 757, 759, 176 Ga.
12.
XT. — Boston & il. R. R. v. Delaware
& H. Co., 260 X.Y.S. 817, 146 Misc.
221, reversed on other grounds 264
itf.Y.S. 470, 238 App.Div. 191.
Ohio.— Young v. Guella, 35 N.B.2d
997, 67 Ohio App. 11 — Byrne v.
Vanderbilt, 187 X.B. 731, 46 Ohio
App. 304 — Laird v. Holan, 192 N.
B. 806, 48 Ohio App. 127.
Okl.— Cone v. Harris, 230 P. 721, 104
Okl. 114.
04 C.J. p 471 note 46.
Conspiracy to give false testimony
Conduct of attorney in conspiring
with ostensibly disinterested wit-
ness who did not in fact witness ac-
cident to give false testimony as to
cause of collision and in using such
testimony to obtain verdict for
plaintiff amounted to a fraud on the
court for which equity should grant
relief.— gutter v. Easterly, Mo., 189
S.W.2d 284.
88. Mo. — Wm. H. Johnson Timber &
Realty Co. v. Belt, 46 S.W.2d 153,
329 Mo. 515.
Mont— Gillen v. Gillen, 159 P.2d 511
— Bullard v. Zimmerman, 292 P.
730, 88 Mont. 271— State v. Dis-
trict Court of Sixteenth Judicial
District in and for Custer County,
214 P. 85, 66 Mont. 496, 33 A.L.R.
464.
Or.— Fain v. Amend, 100 P.2d 481,
164 Or. 123 — State Bank of Sher-
idan v. Heider, 9 P.2d 117, 139
Or. 185.
Origin and flexibility of rule
''Equitable relief against fraudu-
lent judgments is not of statutory
creation. It is a Judicially devised
remedy fashioned to relieve hard-
ships which, from time to time, arise
from a hard and fast adherence to
another court-made rule, the gen-
eral rule that judgments should not
be disturbed after the term of their
entry has expired. Created to avert
the evils of archaic rigidity, this
equitable procedure has always been
characterized by flexibility which en-
ables it to meet new situations
which demand equitable intervention,
and to accord all the relief neces-
sary to correct the particular injus-
tices involved in these .situations."
— Hazel-Atlas Glass Co, v. Hartford-
Empire Co., 64 S.Ct. 997, 1002, 322
U.S. 238, 88 L.Ed. 1250, rehearing de-
nied 64 S.Ct. 1281, 322 U.S. 772, 88
L.Ed. 1596.
Statutes held not controlling
(1) Statutory limitation for filing
petitions to review judgments by
persons served by publication who
did not appear and defend does not
deprive equity of power to set aside
after such period judgments pro-
cured by fraud. — Fadler v. Gabbert,
63 S.W.2d 121, 333 Mo. 851.
(2) Statutes specifically providing
grounds for the vacation of judg-
ments in the court of common pleas,
which, by virtue of other statutes,
apply equally to the probate court,
have been held to have no control-
ling effect where the proceedings in
the probate court are in equity for
the purpose of impeaching a judg-
ment for fraud. — Hooffstetter v.
Adams, 35 N.E.2d 896, 67 Ohio App.
21.
89. Ala. — Wright v. Ffcnnin, 156 So.
849, 229 Ala. 278— Nichols v. Dill,
132 So. 900, 222 Ala. 455.
Ga. — Abercrombie v. Hair, 196 S.E.
447, 185 Ga. 728— Hamilton v. Bell,
132 S.E. S3. 161 Ga. 739.
111.— People v. Sterling, 192 N.E. 229,
357 111. 354, followed in People v.
Small, 192 N.E. 235, 357 111. 388
— Hintz v. Moldenhauer, 243 111.
App. 227.
Ky.— Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. of
New York v. Myers, 109 S.W.2d
1194, 270 Ky. 523.
Mass. — McLaughlin v. Feerick, 176
N.E. 779, 276 Mass. 180.
Miss. — Lamar v. Houston, 184 So.
293, 183 Miss. 260.
Okl.— Johnson v. Petty, 246 P. 848,
118 Okl. 178.
Fraudulent concoction of simulated
cause of action
Equity will afford relief against a
judgment where the jurisdiction of
the court was acquired by the fraud-
ulent concoction of a simulated
cause of action. — Wright v. Fannin,
156 So. 849, 229 Ala. 278— Bolden v.
gloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co., 110
So. 574. 215 Ala. 334, 49 A.L.R. 1206.
Necessity of fraud affecting juris-
diction
(1) A fraud which justifies the
court in setting aside a judgment
must relate to jurisdictional mat-
ters, and not to such matters as
may be available as a defense. —
734
of fraud it must be shown that the fraud was suc-
cessfully perpetrated and that the judgment com-
plained of would not have been rendered had it not
been for the fraud ; there is no ground for equita-
ble intervention where the fraud, if attempted, would
have been unsuccessful.92 It should appear that
the judgment complained of is unjust93 and that
Mason v. Lacy, 117 S.W.2d 1026,
274 Ky. 21— Metcalf v. Metcalf, 61
S.W.2d 1083, 250 Ky. 202— Greene v.
Pitzpatrick, 295 S.W. 896, 220 Ky.
590.
(2) "It is the general rule that a
judgment cannot be impeached for
fraud . . . unless the fraud al-
leged affects the Jurisdiction of the
court or appears on the face of the
judgment roll itself."— Dr. P. Phil-
lips Co. v. Billo, 147 So. 579, 581,
109 Fla. 316.
90. Cal. — Thompson v. Laughlin, 27
P. 752, 91 Cal. 313.
Or. — State Bank of Sheridan v. Hei-
der, 9 P.2d 117, 139 Or. 185.
91. Mo. — Sanderson v. Voelcker, 51
Mo.App. 328.
92. Cal. — Karlslyst v. Fraxier, 2 P.
. 2d 362, 213 Cal. 377— Church v.
Church, 105 P.2d 643, 40 CaLApp.
2d 701.
Kan.— BItsko v. Bitsko, 122 P.2d 753,
155 Kan. 80 — McNergney v. Har-
rison, 84 P.2d 944, 148 Kan. 843.
Or.— Mattoon v. Cole, 143 P.2d 670,
172 Or. 664 — Oregon-Washington
R. & Nav. Co. v. Reid, 65 P.2d 664,
155 Or. 602.
Utah. — Anderson v. State, 238 P. 557,
65 Utah 512.
34 C.J. p 471 note 56.
y of concealed evidence
A suit in equity cannot be main-
tained to set aside a judgment for
insurer in an action on a policy on
the ground that insurer fraudulently
concealed certain evidence, where
such evidence would have been in-
admissible because irrelevant to the
issues in the former action. — Kith-
cart v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.,
C.C.A.MO., 119 F.2d 497, certiorari de-
nied U. S. ex rel. Kithcart v. Gard-
ner, 62 S.Ct 793, 315 U[.S. 808, 86 L.
Ed. 1207— Kithcart v. Metropolitan
Life Ins. Co., C.C.A.MO., 88 F.2d 407.
93. Cal.— Karlslyst v. Frazier, 2 P.
2d 362, 213 Cal. 377— Church v.
Church, 105 P.2d 643, 40 Oal.App.
2d 701.
Or. — Oregon-Washington R. & Nav.
Co. v. Reid, 65 P.2d 664, 155 Or.
602.
Belief against annulment decree
In considering equities of wife
seeking to set aside default annul-
ment decree obtained by husband
through extrinsic fraud, and woman
who subsequently married husband
in good faith, haste of the woman in
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 372
some detriment or injury has been occasioned or
contributed to by the fraud.94
Fraudulent alteration. It is good ground for
the intervention of equity that a judgment fairly and
regularly obtained has afterward been fraudulent-
ly altered so as to increase the amount for which it
stands95 or so as to include a person not originally
named in it or made a party to the action.96 .
By and on whom perpetrated. In order to obtain
relief against a judgment on the ground of fraud
it must appear that the fraud was practiced or par-
ticipated in by the judgment creditor9 7 or his
agent98 or attorney.99 The fraud must have been
practiced on the opposite party1 or his agents2 or
attorneys,3 or on the court;4 fraud between code-
fendants will not affect the plaintiff, however gross
it may be.5
Fault or fraud of complaining party. The party
seeking relief on the ground of fraud must show
that he is free from fault, negligence, or lack of due
attention to his case; relief will not be granted
where the injured party is chargeable with such
timely knowledge of the facts alleged as would have
enabled him to prevent the entry of the judgment,
if he had used proper diligence.6 Further, relief
will not be granted to one whose conduct has been
marrying the husband was a factor
for consideration. — Bloomquist v.
Thomas, 9 N.W.2d 337, 215 Minn. 35.
94. u.S. — Brady v. Beams, 132 F.2d
985, certiorari denied 63 S.Ct. 1032,
319 U.S. 747, 87 L.Ed. 1702, rehear-
ing denied 63 S.CL 1315, 319 U.S.
784, 87 L.Ed. 1727.
Ala. — Quick v. McDonald, 108 So.
529, 214 Ala. 587.
Cal. — Church v. Church, 105 P.2d
643, 40 Cal.App.2d 701.
Judgment correct as matter of law
Alleged fact that plaintiff bribed
juror did not constitute ground for
suit in nature of bill of review to
vacate judgment where plaintiff was
entitled to judgment on facts as a
matter of law, since alleged fraud
of plaintiff and juror if true would
not taint or impair judgment ren-
dered.— Elder v. Byrd-Frost, Inc.,
Tex.Civ.App., 110 S.W.2d 172.
95. 111.— Babcock v. McCamant, 53
111. 214.
96. Cal.— Chester v. Miller, 13 Cal.
558.
97. Ga.— Rivers v. Alsup, 2 S.E.2d
632, 188 Ga. 75— Elliott v. Elliott,
191 S.E. 465, 184 Ga. 417.
Iowa. — Ware v. Ecknmn, 277 N.W.
725, 224 Iowa 783.
Okl.— Davis v. Pennsylvania Co. for
Insurance on Lives & Granting
Annuities, 103 P.2d 880, 187 Okl.
436.
Or.— Mattoon v. Cole, 143 P.2d 679,
172 Or. 664.
34 C.J. p 471 note -51.
Traud of officer of complaining' cor-
poration
Insurer was not entitled to have
default judgment set aside on ground
that its own secretary and mem-
ber of board of directors had fraud-
ulently failed to disclose that he had
been served with process and that
suit had been filed.— Southern Trav-
elers Ass'n v. Stlllman, Tez.Civ.App.,
109 S.W.2d 285, error dismissed.
Dispute involving one of several de-
fendants
Where plaintiff is induced by one
of several defendants to exchange
parcel awarded to plaintiff in parti-
tion for tract awarded to such de-
fendant and judgment is entered ac-
cordingly, plaintiff may not maintain
a separate action to set aside such
judgment for extrinsic fraud perpe-
trated on him where none of other
defendants are involved in the dis-
pute and all other parties received
their own awards and none of them
participated in alleged misrepresen-
tations.— Machado v. Machado, 152
P.2d 457, 66 Cal.App.2d 401.
Correspondence with clerk of court
A defendant who received due no-
tice of the pendency of the action
and filed an answer, but failed to
appear for trial due to correspond-
ence with the clerk of the court
whereby he was informed that the
case would not be called, neither
plaintiff nor his attorney having
knowledge of such correspondence,
could not have a judgment thereafter
rendered for plaintiff set aside on
the ground of fraud. — Farmers' Mut.
Fire Ins. Co. v. Defries, 1 S.W.2d
19, 175 Ark. 548.
98. Ga. — Rivers v. Alsup, 2 S.E.2d
632, 188 Ga. 75.
Okl. — Davis v. Pennsylvania Co. for
Insurance on Lives & Granting
Annuities, 103 P.2d 380, 187 Okl.
436.
34 C.J. p 471 note 52.
99- Ga. — Rivers v. Alsup, 2 S.B.2d
632, 188 G*,. 75.
Iowa. — Ware v. Eckman, 277 N.W.
725, 224 Iowa 783.
N.Y. — Boston & M. R. R. v. Delaware
& H. Co., 264 N.Y.S. 470, 238 App.
Div. 191.
34 C.J. p 471 note 53.
1. u.S. — Continental Nat. Bank of
Jackson County, at Kansas City,
Mo., v. Holland Banking Co., C.C.A.
Mo., 66 F.2d 823.
Ind.— State v. Holmes, 69 Ind. 577.
Okl. — Davis v. Pennsylvania Co. for
Insurance on Lives & Granting
Annuities, 103 P.2d 380, 187 Okl.
436.
Wis.— In re MacCormick, 190 N.W.
108, 178 Wis. 408.
735
Omitting* necessary parties
A decree, obtained without making
those persons whose rights are af-
fected thereby parties to the suit in
which the decree is had, is fraudu-
lent and void as to those parties.
— Elieff v. Lincoln Nat. Life Ins. Co.,
17 N.E.2d 47, 369 111. 408.
2. Okl. — Davis v. Pennsylvania Co.
for Insurance on Lives & Granting
Annuities, 103 P.2d 380, 187 Okl.
436.
3. Okl.— Davis v. Pennsylvania Co.
for Insurance on -Lives & Granting
Annuities, supra.
4. Ga,— White v. Roper, 167 S.E. 177,
176 Ga. 180.
Mo. — State ex rel. Ellsworth v. -Fidel-
ity & Deposit Co. of Maryland, 147
S.W.2d 131, 235 Mo.App. '850.
Wis.— In re MacCormick, 190 N.W.
108, 178 Wis. 408.
5. Ind. — State v. Holmes, 69 Ind.
577.
6. Ark. — Berry v. Sims, 112 S.W.2d
25, 195 Ark. 326— Matkin v. Cramer
Cotton Co., 252 S.W. 596, 159 Ark.
508.
Cal. — Hosner v. Skelly, App., 164 P.
2d 573.
Ind.— Atha v. Glenn, 174 N.E. 826, 92
Ind. App. 449 — Branham v. Boruft
145 N.E. 901, 82 Ind.App. 370.
Ky. — Overstreet v. Grinstead's Adm'r,
140 S.W.2d 836, 283 Ky. 73— Com-
monwealth v. Harkness' Adm'r, 246
S.W. 803, 197 Ky. 198.
La.— First Nat. !Lif e Ins. Co. v. Bell,
.141 So. 379, 174 La. -692.
Mo. — Wuelker v. Maxwell, App., 70 S.
W.2d 1100.
Neb. — Pinches v. Village of Dickens,
268 N.W. 645, 131 Neb. 573.
N.T.— In re Gray's Will, 8 N.T.S.2d
850, 169 Misc. 985.
Tex.— Adams v. -First Nat. Bank, Civ.
App., 294 S.W. 909— Moore v.
Moore, Civ.App., 259 S.W. 322.
Utah. — Wright v. W. B. Callahan
Const Co., 156 P.2d 710 — Anderson
v. State, 238 P. 557, 65 Utah 512.
34 C.J. -p 473 note TO, p 474 note 86.
Misplaced confidence
Fact that one has placed confidence
372
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
improper or fraudulent,7 except in some cases where
the parties are not in pari delicto.8
b. Nature of Fraud
(1) In general
(2) Extrinsic or intrinsic fraud
(3) Concealment or deceit
j
(1) In General
In determining whether the circumstances amount
to fraud so as to justify equitable relief against a judg-
ment, each case must be judged on its own facts. Mere
error of fact or law is Insufficient, and It Is sometimes,
necessary to show the elements of actionable fraud.
As respects the right to equitable relief against a
judgment on the ground of fraud, the term "fraud"
is a generic term,9 and while it has been held that
equitable relief against a judgment may be granted
for extrinsic fraud, but not for intrinsic fraud, as
discussed infra subdivision b (2) of this section,
in the final analysis each case must be judged on
its own facts in determining whether the circum-
stances amount to fraud so as to justify equitable
relief against a judgment.10 Broadly speaking, if
in another is not sufficient to excuse
lack of diligence in investigating
facts respecting fraud.— Lindsey v.
Dougherty, Tex.Civ.Ajpp., 60 S.W.2d
300, error refused.
of pleading
In an action on a note where the
answer was sufficient to render a co-
defendant served with summons, hut
who made default, primarily liable,
and the answer was afterward
amended by adding an allegation of
his liability and a prayer for judg-
ment accordingly, and he had knowl-
edge of the contents of the original
answer, but was not notified of the
amendment, a judgment pursuant to
the prayer is not subject to vacation
on the ground of fraud. — Scott v.
Johnson, 224 P. 41, 115 Kan. 661.
Tault of complaining party held not
shown
(1) Generally.
Ga. — Bryant v. Bush, 140 S.E. 366,
165 Ga. 252.
Minn. — BloomQuist v. Thomas, 9 N.
W.2d 337, 215 Minn. 35.
(2) In a suit to set aside a judg-
ment on a fraudulent contract, proof
that men, apparently working in his
interest, were participating in the
conspiracy to defraud, excused plain-
tiff's lack of diligence to discover the
fraud until after judgment—Paulson
v. Kenney. 224 P. 634, 110 Or. 688.
(3) Payment of taxes for single
year was held not sufficient notice of
procurement of judgment accom-
plished by fraudulent practices, so
as to bar relief against the judg-
ment, where adverse claimant paid
taxes for other years. — Bernhard v.
Waring, 2 P.2d 32, 213 CaL 175.
7. Ky.— Hoover v. Dudley, 14 S.W.
2d 410, 228 Ky. 110.
Mo. — Crane v. Deacon, 253 S.W. 1065.
N.H. — Lamarre v. Lamarre, 152 A.
272, 84 N.H. 441.
34 C.J. p 474 note 87.
8. Attorney and client
Where parties to fraudulent trans-
action occupy fiduciary relationship
of client and attorney, and client
r&Ues on advice of counsel, client is
not in pari delicto with attorney;
attorney is deemed more culpable
than client, and equity can relieve
client from burden of unjust and
fraudulent judgment obtained by at-
torney against client.— Sontag v.
Denio, 73 P.2d 248, 23 Cal.App.2d 319.
9. N.C.— McCoy v. Justice, 155 -S.E.
452, 199 N.C. 602.
10. CaL — 'Larrabee v. Tracy, 134 P.
2d 265, 21 Cal.2d 645, followed in
Salvation Army v. Security-First
Nat Bank of Los Angeles, 134 P.2d
271, 21 €al.2d 892.
N.C. — McCoy v. Justice, 155 S.E. 452,
199 N.C. 602.
Circumstances held to constitute
fraud
(1) Plaintiff knowing that notes
sued on were given to suppress crim-
inal prosecution was guilty of fraud
in initiating litigation. — Dahms v.
Swinburne, 167 N.B. 486, 51 Ohio
APp. 512.
(2) Prosecution of appeal, after
representations that appeal without
notice would not be taken, consti-
tutes fraud. — American Ry. Express
Co. v. Murphy, 234 Ill.App. 346.
(3) Fraud was held established
where it appeared that counsel for
plaintiffs assisted judge in preparing
findings and conclusions without
knowledge of defendant's counsel. —
•Fellows v. Owens, 62 P.2d 1215, 178
Okl. 224.
(4) Other circumstances.
Ark.— Parker v. Nixon, 44 S.W.2d
1088, 184 Ark. 1085.
Ga. — Bryant v. Bush, 140 S.B. 366,
165 Ga. 252— Phillips v. Phillips,
137 S.E. 561, 163 Ga. 599.
Ky. — People's Bank & Trust Co. v.
Sleet, 4 S.W.2d 689, 223 Ky. 749.
La. — Cilluffa v. Monreate Realty Co.,
24 So.2d 606.
Okl. — Western Paint & Chemical Co.
v. Board of Com'rs of Garfleld
County, 18 P.2d 888, 161 Okl. 300.
Tex. — Pearl Assur. Co. v. Williams,
Civ.App., 167 S.W.2d -508.
Wash.— Bates v. Qlaser, 227 P. 15,
130 Wash, 328.
Circumstances held not to constitute
fraud
(1) The fact alone that the com-
plaining party was without business
experience does not establish fraud,
736
so as to warrant relief against a
judgment. — McLaughlin v. Feerick,
176 N.B. 779, 276 Mass. 180.
(2) Entry of judgment without
notice to defendant, on tetter's fail-
ure to perform settlement agreement,
is not fraud for which injunction
will lie.— Mutual Casualty Co. of
Missouri v. Sansone, Mo.App., 17 8.
W.2d 558.
(3) Fact that creditor knew debt-
or had been discharged in bankrupt-
cy as against debt sued on could not
be made basis of charge of fraud in
taking judgment by default. — Hard-
ing v. Quinlan, 229 N.W. 672, 209
Iowa 1190.
(4) Failure of a party or his attor-
ney to advise the adverse party re-
garding the competency of the at-
torney for such adverse party does
not constitute fraud justifying an
attack on the judgment — Luna v.
Miller, 42 P.2d 809, 171 Okl. 260.
(5) Failure to advise defendant's
attorney of setting of case for trial
did not constitute fraud justifying
vacation of judgment for plaintiff. —
Hanover 'Fire Ins. Co. v. Street, 154
So. 816, 228 Ala. 677.
(6) A mistake of judgment where-
by a party consented to or permit-
ted a decree to be entered against
him and from which he did not ap-
peal does not constitute extrinsic
fraud or misrepresentation warrant-
ing equitable relief. — Eskridge v.
Brown, 94 So. 353, 208 Ala. 210.
(7) Failure of debtor to appear
and assert defense in response to
summons served on him, because
person serving process told him it
was subpoena to appear as witness,
is not sufficient ground to 'set aside
judgment against him as -procured by
fraud. — Brinegar v. Bank of Wyo-
ming, 130 S.E. 151. 100 W.Va. «64.
(8) Fact that judgment in parti-
tion was not fraudulently obtained
was held shown by recital that par-
ty opposed its entry. — Bennls v. CJon-
ley, 231 N.Y.S. 635.
(9) A party may in separate and
contemporaneous actions against dif-
ferent defendants pursue inconsist-
ent remedies for demands arising
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 372
the result complained of is a consequence of fraud,
the mode or manner in which the fraud was effect-
ed is immaterial j11 where there is no question that
gross fraud has been committed, technicalities of
interpretation or refinement of distinction will not
be permitted to embarrass the court in exercising its
power to do justice.12
In order to have a judgment set aside on the
ground of fraud, the essential elements of action-
able fraud are sometimes required to be shown.13
Thus, for representations to be sufficient to amount
to fraud justifying relief against the judgment, it
must appear that the representations were made as
to existing facts,14 that they were false,15 that the
complaining party was ignorant of such falsity and
believed and relied on them,16 and that by reason
of such belief and reliance he was injured.17 A
mere error of fact18 or law19 does not constitute
fraud. Fraud is not established by the fact that a
larger judgment was rendered than the facts justi-
fied,20 or by the fact that voluminous, ambiguous,
and disorderly testimony has been offered and re-
ceived on a trial.21
Fraud as actual or constructive; breach of fiduci-
ary relation. It is generally considered that the
wrong constituting the basis of the fraud must be
intentional and done with knowledge22 or consti-
tute the breach of a duty growing out of a fiduciary
relation.23 Fraud cannot be predicated on a state-
ment or representation which was made without
from a single transaction without
advising court thereof, and judgment
obtained by such party is not subject
to attack as being obtained by fraud
on court. — Savery v. Mosely, 76 P.2d
902, 182 Okl. 133.
(10) Other circumstances.
U.S.— Mclntosh v. Wiggins, C.C.A.
Mo.. 123 -F.2d 316, certiorari de-
nied 62 S.Ct. 800, 315 U.S. 515, 86
L.Ed. 1213, rehearing denied 62 3.
Ct. 914, 315 U.S. 831, 86 LuEd. 1224
— Murrell v. Stock Growers' Nat.
Bank of Cheyenne, C.C.A.Wyo., 74
F.2d 827 — American Surety Co. of
New York v. Baldwin, D.C. Idaho,
51 F.2d 596, reversed on other
grounds, C.C.A., 55 F.2d 555, re-
versed on other grounds, Baldwin
v. American Surety Co., 53 S.Ct
98, 287 U.S. 156, 77 L.Ed. 231, '86
A.L.R. 298— U. S. v. Irving Trust
Co., D.C.N.Y., 49 F.Supp. 663.
Ala.— Wright v. Fannin, 15-6 So. 849,
229 Ala. 278.
Ark. — Thornton v. Commonwealth
Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n, 152
S.W.2d 304, 202 Ark. 670.
Cal.— Rudy v. Slotwinsky, 238 P. 783,
73 CaLApp. 459.
Ga. — Lloyd v. Milner Motor Co., 190
S.E. 641, 184 Ga. 181.
til. — Slocum v. -First Nat Bank, 27
N.E.2d 479, 305 IlLApp. 488, cer-
tiorari denied 61 S.Ct 450, 312 U.
S. 678, 85 L.Bd. 1117— Francis v.
Legris, 17 N.E.2d 359, 297 IlLApp.
164 — Moore v. Bobbins Machinery
& Supply Co., 252 IlLApp. 24.
Ky. — Elkhorn Coal Corporation v.
Cuzzort, 284 S.W. 1005, 215 Ky.
254.
La. — Rowe v. Crichton Co., 123 So.
442, 38 La.Apj>. 454.
Me.— Fort Fairfield Nash Co. v. Nol-
temier, 189 A. 415, 135 Me. 84, 108
A.L.R. 1276.
OkL— Stout v. Derr, 42 P.2d 136, 171
Okl. 132.
Or.— Hartley v. Rice, 261 P. 689, 123
Or. 237.
Tex. — O'Quinn v. Tata, Civ.App., 187
S.W.Sd 241.
49 C.J.S.-47
11. N.Y.— Boston & M. R. R. v. Del-
aware & H. Co.. 264 N.Y.S. 470,
238 App.Div. 191.
OkL— Jones v. Snyder, 249 P. 813, 121
Okl. 254.
Any conduct which tends to trick
an adversary out of a defense or to
blind him to the pendency of an ac-
tion constitutes an act of fraud. —
Fadler v. Gabbert, 63 S.W.2d 121,
333 Mo. 851.
12. Ky.— Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
of New York v. Myers, 109 S.W.2d
1194, 270 Ky. 523.
13. Cal. — Gundelflnger v. Mariposa
Commercial & Min. Co., App., 165
P.2d 57.
14L Tex.— Moore v. Moore, Civ.App.,
259 -S.W. 322.
Expression of opinion,
A statement of plaintiff's counsel,
that there was no question but that
plaintiff could go into court and re-
cover judgment on the facts, was
held a mere expression of opinion,
which could not be made the basis
of a charge of fraud. — Moore v.
Moore, Tex.Civ.App., 259 S.W. 322.
15. Tex. — Moore v. Moore, supra.
16. Ky. — Commonwealth v. Hark-
ness' Adm'r, 246 S.W. 803, 197 Ky.
198.
Tex. — Moore v. Moore, Civ.App., 259
S.W. 322.
Statements in brief on appeal could
not have misled defendant in its
preparation for trial, so as to enti-
tle it to have the decree set aside as
for fraud.— Toledo Scale Co. v. Com-
puting Scale Co., Ohio, 43 S.Ct 458,
261 -U.S. 399, 67 L.Bd. 719.
17. Tex.— Moore v. Moore, Civ.App.,
259 S.W. 322.
Misrepresentation which would not
have prevented recovery of Judgment
will not warrant eauitable relief
against the judgment — Ellis v. Gor-
don, 231 N.W. 585, 202 Wis. 134.
18. Kan. — Peterson v. Peterson, 246
P. 506, 121 Kan. 212.
737
19. Kan. — Peterson v. Peterson, su-
pra,
N.M.— Caudill v. Caudill, 44 P.2d 724,
39 N.M. 248.
Misconception of the law control-
ling the issues by counsel for either
party is not a fraud for which equi-
ty can or will give relief. — Phoenix
Finance Corporation v. Iowa-Wiscon-
sin Bridge Co., C.C.A.Iowa, 115 F.2d
1, 139 A.L.R. 1430, reversed on other
grounds 62 S.Ct. 139, 314 U.S. 118, ,86
L.Bd. 100, 137 A.L.R. 967.
Banning- of statute of limitations
Fact that court may have given an
erroneous judgment in holding that
statute of limitations had not run
would not support a decree to annul
judgment for fraud in procurement
of judgment — Bullivant v. Greer, 264
-S.W. 95, 216 Mo.App. 324.
20. Ark.— Parker v. Sims, 51 S.W.2d
517, 185 Ark. 1111.
21. U.S. — Phoenix Finance Corpora-
tion v. Iowa-Wisconsin Bridge Co.,
C.C.A.Iowa, 115 F.2d 1, 139 A.L.R.
1490, reversed on other grounds
62 S.Ct 139, 314 U.S. 118, 86 L.Ed.
100, 137 A.L.R. 967.
22. Ga.— Rivers v. Alsup, 2 S.B.2d
632, 188 Ga. 75 — Abercrombie v.
Hair, 196 -S.E. 447, 185 Ga. 728—
Corpus Juris quoted in Walker v.
Hall, 166 S.E. 757, 759, 176 Ga, 12.
Or.— Mattoon v. Cole, 143 P.2d 679,
172 Or. 664.
34 C.J. p 471 note 49.
Circumstances consistent with hon-
esty
'Fraud which, will warrant the set-
ting aside of a judgment is not to
be presumed where the parties do
not stand in fiduciary relation, and
will not be imputed when the facts
and circumstances from which it is
supposed to arise are fairly and rea-
sonably consistent with honesty of
intention. — Farrell v. 'Farrell. 10 So.
2d 153, 243 Ala, 389.
23. Ga. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Walker v. Hall, 166 S.E. 757, 759,
176 <*a. 12.
§ 372
JUDGMENTS
49 O.J.S.
knowledge on the part of the alleged wrongdoer of
its falsity, or without an intent to deceive,24 or
which was made in the belief that it was true,25
however implicitly it may have been acted on. It
has been held that the fraud must be actual and
positive,26 and not merely constructive.27 Other
authorities, however, have held that intentional
wrongdoing or actual fraud is not essential to the
granting of relief in equity,28 and that equity will
grant relief, under appropriate circumstances, on
the ground of constructive, as well as actual,
fraud.2**
(2) Extrinsic or Intrinsic Fraud
While the authorities are not unanimous, the gen-
eral rule is that the fraud which will justify equitable
relief against a judgment must be extrinsic or collateral
to the issues tried in the original action, and that in-
trinsic fraud, or fraud In the cause of action or Instru-
ment In suit, will not suffice.
Generally speaking equitable relief against a
judgment may be granted for extrinsic fraud30 but
Or.— Mattoon v. Cole, 143 P.2d 679,
172 Or. 664.
34 C.J. P 471 note 50.
Inducing- person not to protect his
interests
Where a person holding confiden-
tial relationship with, and charged
with duty to, another person, induces
him not to protect his interests in a
legal proceeding for first person's
own gain, with result that judgment
is rendered against such other per-
son, invocation of equity to right
such wrong is warranted. — Rosen-
baum v. Tobias' Estate, 130 P.2d 215,
55 Cal.App.2d 39.
Where there 1* a duty to speak be-
cause of a trust or confidential rela-
tion, the failure to do so is a fraud
for which equity may afford relief
from a judgment thereby obtained,
whether such fraud be regarded as
extrinsic or as an exception to the
extrinsic fraud rule.
U.S. — Ferguson v. Wachs, C.C.A.I1L,
96 F.2d 910.
CaL— JLarrabee v. Tracy, 134 P.2d
265, 21 Cal.2d 645, followed in Sal-
vation Army v. Security-First Nat.
Bank of Los Angeles, followed in
134 P.2d 271, 21 CaL2d 892.
D.C.— Earll v. Picken, 113 -F.2d 150,
72 App.D.C. 91.
24. Cal.— Heller v. Dyerville Mfg.
Co., 47 P. 1016, 116 CaL 127.
25. Kan. — Page v. Sawyer, 168 P.
878, 101 Kan. 612.
36. Ala,— Farrell v. Farrell, 10 So.2d
153, 243 Ala. 389— Quick v. Mc-
Donald, 108 So. 529, 214 Ala, 587.
Ga. — Rivers v. Alsup, 2 S.E.2d 632,
188 Ga. *75 — Corpus Juris cited in
Abercrombie v. Hair, 196 S.E. 447,
450. 185 Ga. 728— Corpus Juris
quoted in Walker v. Hall, 166 S.E.
757, 759, 17-6 Ga. 12.
Me.— In re Baker's Estate, 195 A. 202,
135 Me. 277.
Mich. — Corpus Juris cited in Grigg
v. Hanna, 278 N.W. 125, 130, 283
Mich. 443.
34 C.J. p 471 note 48.
27. Ga. — Bivers v. Alsup, 2 S.B.2d
632, 188 Ga. 75— Corpus Juris cited
in Abercrombie v. Hair, 196 S.E.
447, 450, 185 Ga. 728— Corpus Juris
quoted in Walker v. Hall, 166 S.E.
757, 769, 176 Ga, 12.
Mich.— Corpus Juris cited in G-rigg v.
Hanna, 278 N.W. 125, 130, 283
Mich. 443— Ombrello v. Duluth, S.
S. & A. Ry. Co., 233 N.W. 357, 252
Mich. 396.
34 C.J. p 471 note 48.
28. Mo. — Chouteau v. City of St.
Louis, App., 131 S.W.2d 902.
•Wicked motive unnecessary
The fraud for which relief will be
afforded against a judgment is not
confined to vicious import of a wick-
ed motive or deliberate deceit, or
the like, purposely conceived, but em-
braces merely leading astray, throw-
ing off guard, or lulling to security
and inaction, be its intention or mo-
tives good or bad. — Triplett v. Stan-
ley, 130 S.W,2d 45, 279 Ky. 148.
29. Cal. — Antonsen v. Pacific Con-
tainer Co., 120 P.2d 148, 48 CaLApp.
2d 535.
Mont. — State ex rel. Clark v. District
Court of Second Judicial Dist. in
and for Silver Bow County, 57 P.
2d 509, 102 Mont. 227.
interested persons misled and de-
ceived
Relief has been granted where the
circumstances, if not constituting
actual fraud, at least showed legal
or constructive fraud, and interested
persons were misled and deceived to
such an extent that they suffered an
unavoidable casualty. — Kersh (Lake
Drainage Dist. v. Johnson, 157 S,W.
2d 39, 203 Ark. 315, certlorari denied
Johnson v. Kersh Lake Drainage
Dist., 62 S.CL 1044, 316 U.S. 673, 86
L.Bd. 1748.
30. U.S. — Cohen v. Randall, C.C.A.N.
Y., 137 F.2d 441, certiorari denied
64 S.Ct 263, 320 U.S. 796, 88 -L.Bd.
480.
Arias.— Dragoon Marble & Mining Co.
v. McNeish, 235 P. 401, 28 Ariz.
96.
CaL — Larrabee v. Tracy, 134 P.2d
265, 21 Cal.2d -645, followed in Sal-
vation Army v. Security-'First Nat.
Bank of Los Angeles, 134 P.2d 271,
21 Cal.2d 892— Olivera v. Grace,
122 P.2d 564, 19 Cal.2d 570, 140 A.
L.B. 1328 — In re Estrem's Estate,
107 P.2d 36, 16 CaL2d 563— Purin-
ton v. Dyson, 65 P.2d 777, 8 Cal.2d
322, 113 A.L.R. 1230— Wattson v.
Dillon, 56 P.2d 220, 6 CaL2d 33—
Baker v. Raker, 18 P.2d 61, 217 Cal.
738
216 — Hendricks v. Hendricks, 14
P.2d 83, 216 Cal. 321— Wilson v.
Wilson, 130 P.2d 782, 55 Cal.App.2d
421 — Rosenbaum v. Tobias' Estate,
130 P.2d 215, 55 Cal.App.2d 39 —
Kallmeyer v. Poore, 125 P.2d 924,
52 Cal.App.2d 142— Antonsen v. Pa-
cific Container Co., 120 P.2d 148,
48 Cal.App.2d 535 — Gump v. Gump,
108 P.2d 21, 42 Cal.App.2d 64 —
Giavocchini v. Bank of America
Nat. Trust & Savings Ass'n, 103
P.2d 603, 39 Cal.App.2d 444— Hara-
da v. -Fitzpatrick, 91 P.2d 941, 33
Cal.App.2d 453 — Young v. Young
Holdings Corporation, 80 P.2d 723,
27 Cal. App. 2d 129 — Sontag v. iDenio,
73 P.2d 248, 23 Cal.App.2d 319 —
Mitchell v. Rasey, 33 P.2d 1056, 139
CaLApp. 350 — Jones v. Moers, 266
P. 821, 91 CaLApp. 65.
Fla.— Reybine v. Kruse. 174 So. 720,
128 Fla. 278.
Minn. — Bloomquist v. Thomas, -9 N.
W.2d 337, 215 Minn. 35.
Mo. — Chouteau v. City of -St. Louis,
App., 131 S.W.2d 903.
Mont.— Minter v. Minter, 62 P.2d 233,
103 Mont. 219— Frisbee v. Coburn,
52 P.2d 882, 101 Mont. 58.
OkL — Kauffman v. McLaughlin, 114
P.2d 929, 189 Okl. 194— Harjo v.
Johnston, 104 P.2d 985, 187 Okl.
561 — Schulte v. Board of Com'rs of
Pontotoc County, 250 P. 123, 119
Okl. 261 — Jones v. Snyder, 233 P.
744, superseded 249 P. 313, 121 Okl.
254— Ross v. Breene, 211 P. 417, 88
OkL 37.
Or. — Oregon-Washington R, & Nav.
Co. v. Reid, 65 P.2d 664, 1=55 Or.
602.
Pa. — In re Culbertson's Estate, 152
A. 540, 543, 301 Pa. 438.
Inherent power of equity
The power of a court of equity to
give relief against judgment ob-
tained by extrinsic fraud is inherent.
— Moore v. Capital Gas Corp., Mont.,
158 P.2d 302.
Public policy
The demand of public policy that
there should be an end of litigation
for repose of society yields to ends
of justice where extrinsic fraud has
been practiced only because main
characteristic of such fraud is that
it deprives party of opportunity of
presenting his case or defense and
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 372
not for intrinsic fraud.31 The fraud which will af-
ford ground for equitable relief against a judgment
must be extrinsic, extraneous, or collateral to the
matters or issues tried in the action in which the
judgment was rendered;32 relief on the ground of
fraud cannot be predicated on matters or issues
renders result as to him no trial at
all in legal sense. — Home v. Ed-
wards, 3 S.E.2d 1. 215 N.C. 622.
Extrinsic or intrinsic nature of fraud
as affecting remedy
Generally, where fraud is extrinsic
or collateral, operating from without,
remedy also may be from without,
and judgment may be set aside by an
independent action; but when the
fraud is intrinsic, operating from
within upon some matter within the
line of consideration of the court on
the merits, remedy must also be
from within by motion in the cause
made in apt time. — Home v. Ed-
wards, 8 S.E.2d 1, 215 N.C. -622.
The submission of stipulation for
Judgment to court for signing of for-
mal judgment did not put it beyond
power of court of equity to set aside
judgment on ground of extrinsic
fraud.— Scott v. Dilks, 117 P.2d 700,
47 Cal.App.2d 207.
31. U.S. — T. J. Moss Tie €o. v. Wab-
ash Ry. Co., C.C.A.I11., 71 «F.2d 107,
certiorari denied American Surety
Co. of New York v. Conroy, 55 S.
Ct 90, 293 U.S. 578, 79 L.Ed. 675—
Toledo Scale Co. v. Computing
Scale Co., C.C.A.I11., 281 F. 488,
affirmed 43 S.Ct. 458, 261 U.S. 399,
67 L.Ed. 719 — Harrington v. Den-
ny, D.C.Mo., 3 F.-Supp. 584.
Cal.— Hnmmell v. Britton, 119 P.2d
333, 19 Cal.2d 72— «La Salle v. Pe-
terson, 32 P.2d 612, 220 Cal. 739—
O. A. Graybeal Co. v. Cook, 60 P.2d
525, 16 Cal.App.2d 231— Harvey v.
Griffiths, 23 P.2d 532, 133 Cal.App.
17— Jeffords v. Young, 277 P. 163,
98 Cal.App. 400.
Kan. — Huls v. Gafford Lumber &
Grain Co., 243 P. 306, 120 Kan.
209.
Minn. — Tankar Gas v. Lumbermen's
Mut. Casualty Co., 9 N.W,2d 754,
215 Minn. 265, 146 A.L.R. 1223.
Mo.— Winchell v. Gaskill, 190 S.W.2d
266.
N.C. — Home v. Edwards, 3 S.E.2d 1,
215 N.C. -622.
Tex. — Crouch v. McGaw, 138 S.W.2d
94, 134 Tex. 633— Mills v. Baird,
Civ.App., 147 S.W.2d 312, error re-
fused— Reed v. Bryant, Civ.App.,
291 S.W. 605.
32. U.-S. — Brady v. Beams, C.Q.A.
Okl., 132 F.2d 985, certiorari denied
63 S.Ct 1032, 319 U.S. 747, 87 L.Bd.
1702, rehearing denied 63 S.Ct.
1315, 319 U.-S. 784, 87 L.Bd. 1727—
wSEtna Casualty & Surety Co. v.
Abbott, C.C.A.Md., 130 F.2d 40—
Angle v. Shinholt, C.C.A.Tex., 90
*F.2d 294, certiorari denied 5*8 S.Ct
40, 302 U.S. 719, 82 'L.Ed. 555—
T. J. Moss Tie Co. v. Wabash Ry.
Co., C.C.A.I1L, 71 F.2d 107. •certio-
rari denied American Surety Co.
of New York v. Conroy, 55 S.Ct.
90, 293 U.S. 578, 79 L.Ed. 675—
Continental Nat. Bank of Jackson
County, at Kansas City, Mo., v.
Holland Banking Co., C.C.A.MO.,
F.2d 823— Toledo -Scale Co. v. Com-
puting Scale Co., C.C.A.I11., 281 F.
488, affirmed 43 S.Ct. 458, 261 U.S.
399, 67 L.Ed. 719— Pittsburgh
Forgings Co. v. American Foundry
Equipment Co., D.C.Pa.f 41 OBVSupp.
841.
Ala.— Farrell v. Farrell, .10 So.2d 153,
243 Ala. 389— Miller v. Miller, 175
So. 284, 234 Ala. 453— Kelen v.
Brewer, 129 So. 23, 221 Ala. 445 —
Bskridge v. Brown, 94 So. 353, 20-8
Ala. 210.
Ariz. — Schuster v. Schuster, 73 P.2d
1345, 51 Ariz. 1 — Dockery v. Cen-
tral Arizona Light & Power Co., 45
P.2d 656, 45 Ariz. 434.
Ark.— Gulley v. Budd, 189 S.W.2d 385
—Parker v. Sims, 51 S.W.2d 517,
185 Ark. 1111— American Liberty
Mut. Ins. Co. v. Washington, 36 S.
W.2d 963, 183 Ark. 497.
Cal.— Neblett v. Pacific Mut. Life Ins.
Co. of California, 139 P.2d 934, 22
Cal.2d 393, certiorari denied 64 S.
Ct. 428, 320 U.-S. 802, 188 L.Ed. 484 —
Westphal v. Westphal, 126 P.2d
105, 20 Cal.2d 393— Hammell v.
Britton, 119 P.2d 333, 19 Cal.2d 72
— Horton v. Horton, 116 P.2d 605,
18 Cal.2d 579— La Salle v. Peter-
son, 32 P.2d 612, 220 Cal. 739 —
Caldwell v. Taylor, 23 P.2d 758,
218 Cal. 471, 88 A.-L.R. 1194— Rog-
ers v. Mulkey, 147 P.2d 62, 63 Cal.
App.2d 567 — Johnson v. Johnson,
128 P.2d 617, 53 Cal.App.2d 805, re-
hearing denied 128 P.2d 91-9, 53 Cal.
App.2d $05— Stiebel v. Roberts, 109
P.2d 22, 42 Cal.App.2d 434— Mc-
Laughlin v. Security-«First Nat.
Bank of Los Angeles, 6'7 P.2d 726,
20 CaLApp.2d 602— Harvey v. Grif-
fiths, 23 P.2d 532, 133 CaLApp. 17—
Abels v. Frey, 14 P.Sd 594, 12-6
CaLApp. 48 — Jeffords v. Young, 277
P. 163, 98 Cal.App. 400— Stanley v.
Westover, 269 P. 468, 93 Cal.App.
97.
D.C. — Fidelity Storage Co. v. Urice,
12 F.2d 143, 56 App.D.C. 202.
Ga. — Stephens v. Pickering, 15 S.E.2d
202, 192 Ga. 199— Elliott v. Marsh-
all, 185 S.E. 831, .182 Ga. 513.
Idaho. — Corpus Juris cited in Scan-
Ion v. MoDevitt, 296 P. 1016, 1017,
•50 Idaho 449.
Iowa. — Shaw v. Addison, 1« N.W.2d
796.
Kan.— -Bitsko v. Bitsko, 122 P.2d 753,
155 Kan. 80 — McNergney v. Harri-
son, 84 P.2d 944, 148 Kan. 843—
Elfert v. Elfert, 294 P. 921, 132
Kan. 218 — Huls v. Gafford Lumber
739
& Grain Co., 243 P. 306, 120 Kan.
209.
Md. — Bachrach y. Washington Unit-
ed Co-op., 29 A.2d 822, 181 Md. 315.
Mass. — Stephens v. Lampron, 30 N.E.
2d 838, 308 Mass. 50, 131 A.L.R.
1516.
Mich.— Fawcett v. Atherton, 299 N.
W. 105, 298 Mich. 362.
Minn. — Tankar Gas v. Lumbermen's
Mut. Casualty Co., 9 N.W.2d 754,
215 Minn. 265, 146 A.-L.R. 1223—
Nichols v. Village of Morristown,
283 N.W. 748, 204 Minn. 212 — In
re Jordan's Estate, 271 N.W. 104,
199 Minn. 53.
Miss. — Lamar v. Houston, 184 -So.
293, 183 Miss. 2-60.
Mo.— Winchell v. Gaskill, 190 S.W.2d
266 — Sutter v. Easterly, 189 S.W.
2d 284— Bodine v. 'Farr, 182 S.W.
2d 173, 353 Mo. 206— Texier v
Texier, 11-9 S.W.2d 778, 342 Mo,
1220 — Corpus Juris cited in Hock-
enberry v. Cooper County State
Bank of Bunceton, 88 S.W.2d 1031,
1036, 338 Mo. 31— Corpus Juris cit-
ed in Phillips v. Air Reduction
Sales Co., 85 £.W.2d 551, 559, 337
Mo. 587— Fadler v. Gabbert, 63 S.
W.2d 121, 333 Mo. 851— Peeters v.
Schultz, 254 -S.W. 182, 300 Mo. 324
—Crane v. Deacon, 253 S.W. 1068
— State ex rel. Ellsworth v. -Fidel-
ity & Deposit Co. of Maryland, 147
S.W.2d 131, 235 Mo.App. 850.
Mont— Khan v. Khan, 105 P.2d 665,
110 MonL 591— Moser v. Fuller, ,86
P.2d 1, 107 Mont. 424— Bullard v.
Zimmerman, 268 P. 512, '82 Mont.
434.
Ner. — Chamblin v. Chamblin, 27 P.2d
1061, 55 Nev. 146. *
1ST.J. — Giehrach v. Rupp, 1-64 A. 465,
112 N.J.Ea. 296.
N.Y.— Boston & M. R. R. v. Delaware
& H. Co., 264 N.Y.S. 470, 238 App.
Div. 191— In re Gray's Will, 8 N.
Y.S.2d 850, 169 Misc. 985— Ei del-
berg v. Snyder, 44 N.Y.S.2d 60.
N.C.— Home v. Edwards, 3 S.E.2d 1,
215 N.C. 622.
Ohio.— Minetti v. Einhorn, 173 N.E.
243, 36 Ohio App. 310.
OkL— Lewis v. Couch, 154 P.2d 51,
194 Okl. 632 — Park v. Continental
Oil Co., -87 P.2d 324, 184 Okl. 314—
Calkin v. Wolcott, 77 P.2d 96, 182
Okl. 278— Smith v. Smith, 69 P.2d
392, 393, 180 Okl. 312— Stout v.
Derr, 42 P.2d 136, 171 OkL 132 —
Burton v. Swanson, 285 P. 839, 142
Okl. ,134— Estes v. Pickard, 283 P.
1004, 141 Okl. 60.
Tex. — Crouch v. McGaw. 138 S.W.2d
94, 134 Tex. 633— Traders & Gen-
eral Ins. Co. v. Rhodabarger, Civ.
App., 109 S.W.2d 1119, error dis-
missed— State v. Wright, Civ.App.,
56 S.W.2d 950.
§ 372
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
which actually were, or which with due diligence
could have been, presented and adjudicated in the
original proceedings.83 As the rule is sometimes
expressed, fraud in the matter on which the judg-
ment or decree was rendered is not sufficient;34
the fraud must not be something which was actually
or potentially in issue in the case, unless the inter-
position of the defense was prevented by fraud or
conduct of the opposite party.35 On the other
hand, it has been said that relief lies in cases of
intrinsic as well as extrinsic fraud.36
Utah.— Wright v. W. B. Callahan
Const. Co., 156 P.2d 710 — Logan
City v. Utah Power & Light Co.,
16 P.2d 1097, 86 Utah 340, adhered
to 44 P.2d 698, 56 Utah 354— Ander-
son v. State, 238 P. 557, 65 Utah
512.
Va. — Taylor v. Taylor, 165 S.E. 414,
159 Va. 338.
TT.Va. — Corpus JTozig quoted In Par-
sons v. Parsons, 135 S.R 228, 229,
102 W.Va. 394.
Wis.— Grady v. Meyer, 236 N.W. 569,
205 Wis. 147— In re MacCormick,
190 N.W. 108, 178 Wis. 408.
34 C.J. p 472 note 66.
Matters previously presented
Decree could not be impeached on
ground of extrinsic fraud consisting
mainly of alleged bribery of witness-
es and prevention of plaintiff from
presenting his evidence, where same
matters had theretofore been pre-
sented to the court and found to be
without merit. — Harris v. Jackson, D.
C.Okl., 30 P.Supp. 185.
33. U.S. — Brady v. Beams, C.C.A.
Okl., 132 F.2d 985, certiorari denied
63 act 1032, 319 U.S. 747, 87 L.Ed.
1702, rehearing denied 63 S.Ct.
1315, 319 U.S. 784, 87 L.Ed. 1727
— Harrison v. Triplex Gold Mines,
C.C.A.Mass,, 33 F.2d 667.
Ala.— Wynn v. First Nat Bank, 159
So. 58, 229 Ala. 639.
Ariz. — Schuster v. Schuster, 73 P.2d
1345, 51 Ariz. 1 — Dockery v. Cen-
tral Arizona Light & Power Co.,
45 P.2d 656, 45 Ariz. 434.
Ark.— Gulley v. Budd, 189 S.W.2d 385
— Parker v. Sims, 51 S.W.2d 517,
185 Ark. 1111.
Cal.— Horton v. Horton, 116 P.2d 605,
18 Cal.2d -579— Hendricks v. Hen-
dricks, 14 P.23 53, 216 CaL 321 —
Johnson v. Johnson, 128 P.2d £17,
53 Cal.App.2d 805, appeal denied
128 P.2d 919, 53 Cal.App.2cL. 805—
Crow v. Madsen, App., Ill P.2d '7,
rehearing granted 111 P.2d 663 —
Godfrey v. Godfrey, 86 P.2d 357,
30 CaLApp.2d 370 — Hersom v. Her-
som, 226 P. 937, 67 CaLApp. .116.
Idaho. — Boise Payette Lumber Co. v.
Idaho Gold Dredging Corporation,
58 P.2d 786, 56 Idaho 660, certio-
rari denied 57 «S.Ct. 40, 299 U.S.
577, 81 -UEd. 425.
Ky. — Mason v. Lacy, 117 S.W.2d 1026,
274 Ky. 21.
Md. — Bachrach v. Washington Unit-
ed Co-op., 29 A.2d 822, 181 Md. 315.
Mo.— Winchell v. Gaskill, 190 S.W.2d
266 — Hockenberry v» Cooper Coun-
ty State Bank of Bunceton, 88 S.
W.2d 1031, 338 Mo. 31— State ex
rel. Ellsworth v. Fidelity & De-
posit Co. of Maryland, 147 S.W.2d
131, 235 Mo.App. S50— Crowley v.
Behle, App., 131 S.W.2d 383.
XT.— Arcuri v. Arcuri, 193 N.BL 174,
265 N.Y. 35 S — Lerner v. Sheinhorn,
54 N.Y.S.2d 678, 184 Misc. 361.
Okl.— Park v. Continental Oil Co.,
87 P.2d 324, 184 Okl. 314.
S.D.— Seubert v. Seubert, '7 N.W.2d
301.
Tex. — Elder v. Byrd-Frost, Inc., Civ.
App., 110 -S.W.2d 172 — Simpson v.
Zuehlke, Clv.App., 26 S.W.2d &63—
Halbrook v. Quinn, Civ. App., 286 S.
W. 954, certified questions dis-
missed Quinn v. Halbrook, 285 S.
W. 1079, 115 Tex. 513.
Wis.— Grady v. Meyer, 236 N.W. 569,
205 Wis. 147.
Fraud is not extrinsic where the
court rendering the judgment had be-
fore it the same issue of fraud on
the same essential facts. — Mills v.
Baird, Tex.Civ.App., 147 S.W.2d 312,
error refused.
Intrinsic fraud is that which aris-
es within the proceeding itself and
concerns some matter necessarily un-
der the consideration of the court on
the merits. — Home v. Edwards, 3 S.
B.2d 1, 215 N.C. 622.
Equitable fraud
It has been held that chancery
may, for equitable fraud, restrain the
enforcement of a judgment at law
even though legal fraud in respect
of the same matter has been unsuc-
cessfully pleaded in the action at
law. — Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v.
Tarnowski, 20 A.2d 421, 130 N.J.Eq..
1.
Allegation as to conveyance of title
In action to cancel deed, grantees'
allegation that deed conveyed legal
and equitable title was, if untrue, a
misstatement as to an issue in con-
troversy, and hence constituted in-
trinsic and not extrinsic fraud. —
Crockett v. Root, 146 P.2d -555, 194
OkL 3.
Time of discovery of facts
(1) Discovery of the alleged fraud
after, not before, the commencement
of the original action or the entry
of the judgment attacked ordinarily
is an essential element to the grant-
ing of relief.
U.S.— Brady v. Beams^ C.CJLOkl., 132
F.2d 985, certiorari denied 63 S.Ct.
1032, 319 U.S. 747, 87 LJBd. 1702,
rehearing denied 63 S.Ct 1315, 319
U.S. 784, 87 L.Bd. 1727.
Wis. — Nehring v. Niemerowicz, 276
N.W. 325, 226 Wis. 285.
(2) Bill of review would only be
allowed if court were satisfied that
evidence was not available at time
that original suit was litigated and
that it was presented without undue
delay after discovery. — Sorenson v.
Sutherland, C.C.A.N.Y., 109 F.2d 714,
reversing 27 F.Supp. 44, affirmed
Jackson v. Irving Trust Co., 61 S.Ct.
326, 311 U.S. 494, S5 L.Ed. 297.
34. U.S. — Pittsburgh Forgings Co. v.
American Foundry Equipment Co.,
D.C.Pa., 41 F.Supp. 841.
Cal. — Crow v. Madsen, App., Ill P.
2d 7, rehearing granted 111 P-2d
663.
Fla.— Dr. P. Phillips Co. v. Billo, 147
So. 579, 109 Fla. 316.
Mass.— McLaughlin v. Feerick, 176
N.E. 779, 276 Mass. 180.
Miss. — Lamar v. Houston, 184 So.
293, .183 Miss. 260.
Mo.— Bodine v. 'Farr, 182 S.W.2d 173,
353 Mo. 206.
Mont.— Moser v. Fuller, 86 P.2d 1,
107 Mont. 424.
N.J.— Giehrach v. Rupp, 164 A. 465,
112 N.J.Eq. 296.
N.Y. — Boston & M. R. R. v. Delaware
& H. Co., 264 N.T.S. 470, 235 App.
Div. 191.
The rule rests on public policy
which requires that there be an end
to litigation.
CaL — Caldwell v. Taylor, 23 P.2d 758,
218 Cal. 471, 88 A.L.R. 1194.
R.I. — Broduer v. Broduer, 1»67 A. 104,
53 R.I. 450.
35. Ariz. — Schuster v. Schuster, 73
P.2d 1345, 51 Ariz. 1.
Tex. — Crouch v. McGaw, 138 -S.W.2d
94, 134 Tex. 633 — Traders & Gen-
eral Ins. Co. v. Rhodabarger, Civ.
App., 109 S.W.2d 1119, error dis-
missed.
Exaggeration, of injuries
Employer, not demanding physical
examination of injured employee,
was held not entitled to annulment
of judgment awarding damages on
ground of employee's fraud in exag-
gerating effect of injury by appear-
ing in court on crutches and not ris-
ing from chair without assistance. —
First Nat Life Ins. Co. v. Bell, 141
So. 379, 174 La. 692.
36. U.S.— Fiske v. Buder, C.C.A.MO.,
125 F.2d 841.
Wis.— Nehring v. Niemerowicz, 276
N.W. 325, 226 Wis. 285.
34 C.J. p 471 note 64 [a].
Difficulty in. applying rule
(1) It has been judicially observed
that the line of distinction between
extrinsic and intrinsic fraud is some-
740
49 G.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 372
In general the fraud must be such as prevented
the unsuccessful party from fully and fairly pre-
senting his case or defense;87 it must be such as
prevented the losing party from having an adver-
sary trial of the issue.38 Where a party to an ac-
tion had a good case or defense but was prevented
from setting it up by the fraud, artifice, deceit, or
misrepresentation of the opposite party, without
times indistinct. — Brady v. Beams, C.
C.A.Okl., 132 F.2d 985, certiorari De-
nied 63 S.Ct. 1032, 319 U.S. 747, 87
L.Ed. 1702, rehearing denied 63 S.Ct
1315, 319 U.S. 784, -87 L.Ed. 1727.
(2) Practical application of the
distinction Is often difficult — Eaton
v. Koontz, 25 P.2d 351, 138 Kan. 267.
37. U.S. — Toledo Scale Co. v. Com-
puting- Scale Co., Ohio, 43 S.Ct. 458,
261 U.S. 399, 67 L.Ed. 719— -Brady
v. Beams, C.C.A.Okl., 132 F.2d 985,
certiorari denied 63 S.Ct 1032, 319
U.S. 747, 87 'L.Ed. 1702, rehearing
denied 63 S.Ct. 1315, 319 U.S. 784,
87 L.Ed. 1727— Fiske v. Buder, C.C.
A.Mo., 125 F.2d 541— Continental
Nat* Bank of Jackson County, at
Kansas City, Mo., v. Holland Bank-
ing Co., C.C.A.MO., 66 F.2d 823—
Harrison v. Triplex Gold Mines, C.
C.A.Mass., 33 «F.2d 667.
Ariz. — Dockery v. Central Arizona
Light & Power Co., 45 P.2d 656,
45 Ariz. 434.
Cal.— Neblett v. Pacific Mut. Life
Ins. Co. of California, 139 P.2d
934, 22 Cal.2d 393, certiorari denied
64 S.Ct 428, 320 U.S. 802, 88 L.Ed.
484_ westphal v. Westphal, 126 P.
2d 105, 20 Cal.2d 393— Ringwalt v.
Bank of America Nat. Trust &
Savings Ass'n, 45 P.2d 967, 3 Cal.2d
680— Rogers v. Mulkey, 147 P.2d
62, 63 Cal.App.2d 567— Rosen-
baum v. Tobias' Estate, 130 P.2d
215, 55 Cal.App.2d 39 — Larrabee v.
Tracy, 104 P.2d 61, 39 Cal.App.2d
593— McLaughlin v. Security-First
Nat. Bank of Los Angeles, 67 P.2d
726, 20 Cal.App.2d 602,
Fla. — Sommers v. Colourpicture Pub.,
8 So.2d 281, 150 Fla. 659.
Ga. — Young v. Young, 2 S.E.2d 622,
188 Ga. 29.
Ky. — Overstreet v. Grinstead's
Adm'r, 140 S.W.2d 836, 283 Ky. 73
—Mason v. Lacy, 117 S.W.2d 1026,
274 Ky. 21.
Mo.— Winchell v. Gaskill, 190 S.W.2d
266— Bodlne v. Fair, 182 S.W.2d
173, 353 Mo. 20-6— Texier v. Texier,
119 S.W.2d 778, 342 Mo. 1220—
Hockenberry v. Cooper County
State Bank of Bunceton, 88 S.W.2d
1031, 338 Mo. 31— State ex reL
Ellsworth v. 'Fidelity & Deposit Co.
of Maryland, 147 S.W.2d 131, 235
Mo.App. 850.
Mont. — Bullard v. Zimmerman, 292 P.
730, 88 Mont. 271.
Nev. — Corpus Juris cited in, Chamb-
lin v, Chamblin, 27 P.2d 1061, 55
Nev. 146.
Okl.— Stutsman v. Williams, 209 P.
406, 87 Okl. 64.
Dr. — Oregon-Washington R. & Nav.
Co. v. Reid, 65 P.2d 664, 155 Or.
602.
Tex. — Hermann Hospital Estate v.
Nachant, Com.App., 55 S.W.2d 505
—Mills v. Baird, Civ.Ap-p., 147 «S.
W.2d 312, error refused — American
Law Book Co. v. Chester, Civ.App.,
110 S.W.2d 950, error dismissed—
Price v. Smith, Civ.App., 109 S.W.
2d 1144— State v. Wright, Civ.App.,
56 S.W.2d 350.
Utah.— Wright v. W. E. Callahan
Const Co., 156 P.2d 710.
34 C.J. p 472 note 66 [a]— 25 C.J. p
332 note 16 [b].
Lack of interference in search for
evidence
The alleged fraud of the owner of
a patent in conspiring to monopolize
the business of making and selling
scales by means of suits brought on
a patent which it knew to be invalid
because of prior use, and in buying
up as many of the anticipating scales
as it could secure, was held not to
have interfered with defendant in its
search for evidence of prior use, so
as to justify setting aside a decree. —
Toledo Scale Co. v. Computing Scale
Co., Ohio, 43 S.Ct. 458, 261 U.S. 399,
67 L.Bd. 719.
aa U.S.— Fiske v. Buder, C.C.A.Mo.,
125 F.2d 841— Angle v. Shtnholt, C.
C.A.Tex., 90 F.2d 294, certiorari de-
nied 58 S.Ct 40, 302 U.S. 719, «82
L.Ed. 555.
Ariz.— Dockery v. Central Arizona
Light & Power Co., 45 P.2d 656, 45
Ariz. 434.
Cal.— Scott v. Dilks, 117 P.2d. 700, 47
Cal.2d 207 — Ringwalt v. Bank of
America Nat. Trust & Savings
Ass'n, 45 P.2d 967, 969, 3 Cal.2d 680
— Thompson v. Thompson, 101 P.2d
160, 38 Cal.App.2d 377— Godfrey v.
Godfrey, 86 P.2d 357, 30 Cal.App.2d
370— Jeffords v. Young, 277 P. 1-63,
165, 38 Cal.App. 400.
Ga. — Young v. Young, 2 S.E.2d 622,
188 Ga. 29.
Kan. — Eaton v. Koontz, 25 P.2d 351,
138 Kan. 267— Stillie v. Stillie, 249
P. 672, 121 Kan. 591.
Mich. — Fawcett v. Atherton, 299 N.
W. 108, 298 Mich. 362.
Minn. — Tankar Gas v. -Lumbermen's
Mut Casualty Qo., 9 N.W.2d 754,
215 Minn. 265, 146 A.IL.R. 1223.
Mont. — Bullard v. Zimmerman, 292 P.
730, 88 Mont. 271.
Nev.— Chamblin v. Chamblin, 27 P.2d
1061, 55 Nev. 146.
N.Y.— In re Gray's Will, 8 N,Y.S.2d
850, 169 Misc. 985.
Okl.— Smith v. Smith, 69 P.2d 392,
180 Okl. 312— Wood v. Wood, 216 P.
936, 92 Okl. 297.
Pa. — In re CuJbertson's Estate, 152
A. 540, 301 Pa. 438— Carey v.
Carey, 183 A. 371, 121 Pa.Super.
251.
Tex.— Mills v. Baird, Civ.App., 147
S.W.2d 312, error refused.
Wash.-^Farley v. Davis, 116 P.2d
263, 10 Washed 62, 155 A.L.R.
1302.
34 C.J. p 472 note 66 [a] (2).
Extrinsic fraud held shown
(1) In general.
U.S.— Park v. Park, C.C.A.Ga., 123 F.
2d 370.
Cal.— Young v. Young Holdings Cor-
poration, 80 P.2d 723, 27 CaLApp.
2d 129.
(2) Where a court is deceived and
misled by a fraudulent concealment
of jurisdictional facts, such fraud
woulcl necessarily be extraneous.—
Jones r. Snyder, 249 P. 313, 121 Okl.
254.
(3) It is always extrinsic fraud
for an attorney to fail fully to dis-
close to his client all material facts
in any transaction in which their in-
terests are adverse, resulting in the
failure of client to defend against
claim of his attorney.— Fiske v. Bud-
er, C.C.A.M6., 125 F.2d 841.
(4) Where husband who flled an-
nulment proceeding against wife by
his words and actions led her to be-
lieve after service of process on her
that proceeding was abandoned and
obtained a default annulment decree,
he was guilty of extrinsic fraud.—
Bloomquist v. Thomas, 9 N.W.2d 337,
215 Minn. 35.
(5) Where trust deed secured a
usurious note, but mortgagees ac-
quired the mortgaged land by fraud-
ulently representing that they would
reconvey if mortgagor would not
op-pose foreclosure, the fraud was
extrinsic to the judicial proceedings,
so as to authorize attack on the
foreclosure judgment — Smith v.
Schlein, 144 F.2d 257, 79 U.S.App,D.
C. 166.
Extrinsic fraud held not shown
Cal.— Smith v. Young, 122 P.2d 624,
50 Cal.App. 2 d 152.
N.Y.— Eidelberg v. Snyder, 44 N.Y.S.
2d 60.
Knowledge and wrongful intent
Extrinsic fraud has been defined
to be actual fraud, such that there
is on the part of the person charge-
able with it malus animus, the mala
mens, putting itself in motion and
acting in order to take an undue ad-
vantage of some other person for the
purpose of actually and knowingly
defrauding him. — Continental Nat.
Bank of Jackson County, at Kansas
City, Mo., v. Holland Banking Co.,
C.C.A.MO., 66 F.3d 823—34 C.J. p 471
note 48 [a], p 472 note 64 [a] (1).
§ 372
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
negligence or fault on his own part, and a judg-
ment was thereby obtained against him, a proper
case is made out for equitable relief.39
Fraud in procurement of judgment. The rule has
frequently been laid down that the fraud must have
been in the procurement of the judgment,40 and
such fraud is sufficient,41 since it is regarded as
perpetrated on the court as well as on the injured
party.42 This may, for example, consist in deceit
and imposition*practiced on the court as a means of
obtaining a judgment which otherwise would not be
rendered,43 or in the act of the successful party in
illegally tampering with the jury,44 or in wrongfully
obtaining a judgment by the surreptitious use of le-
gal process and proceedings.45 Deception practiced
by the successful party in keeping his opponent in
39. U.S.— Fiske v. Buder, C.C.A.MO.,
125 -P. 3d 8 4 I—Mineral Development
Co. v. Kentucky Coal Lands Co., D.
C.Ky., 285 P. 761, affirmed, C.C.A.,
2*5 F. 1021.
Ala, — Garvey v. Inglenook Const. Co.,
104 -So. 639, 213 Ala. 267— Hooper v.
Peters Mineral Land Co., 98 So. 6,
210 Ala. 346.
CaL — Rosenbaum v. Tobias1 Estate,
130 P.2d 215, 55 Cal.App.2d 39—
Crow v. Madsen, App., Ill P-2d 7,
rehearing granted 111 P.2d 663.
Ga. — Morris Const Co. v. Randolph,
135 S.E. 72, 163 Ga. 6.
111.— Mohr v. Messick, 53 N.E.2d 743,
322 111. App. 56 — Stade v. Stade, 42
N.E.2d 631, 315 IlLApp. 136.
Ky.— Triplett v. Stanley, 130 S.W.2d
45, 279 Ky. 148 — Metropolitan Life
Ins. Co. of New York v. Myers, 109
S.W.2d 1194, 270 Ky. 523.
La.— Richardson v. Helis, 189 So.
454. 1^2 -La. 856.
Mass. — McLaughlin v. 'Feerick, 176
N.E. 779, 276 Mass. 180.
Mo.— corpus Juris cited in Phillips
v. Air Reduction Sales Co., 85 S.
W.2d 551, 559, 337 Mo. 587.
Mont.— state ex rel. Clark v. Dis-
trict Court of Second Judicial Dist.
in and for Silver Bow County, 57
P.2d 809, 102 Mont. 227.
N.D. — Elm Creek School Dist No. 21,
Mercer County, v. Jungers, 205 N.
W. 676, 53 N.D. 231.
Or. — Pain v. Amend, 100 P.2d 481,
164 Or. 123— Oregon-Washington R.
& Nav. Co. v. Reid, 65 P.2d 664, 155
Or. -602 — State Bank of Sheridan v.
Heider, 9 P.2d 117, .139 Or. 185.
S.D. — Seubert v. Seubert, 7 N.W.2d
301.
Tex. — McAfee v. Jeter & Townsend,
Civ.App., 147 S.W.2d 884— Kerby v.
Hudson, Civ.App., 13 S.W.2d 724—
Corpus Juris cited in Marsh v.
Tiller, Civ.App., 279 S.W. 283, 284.
34 C.J. p 440 note 77, p 473 note 78.
ientation as to dismissal of
Bepx
suit
Where defendant was prevented
from defending action by plaintiff's
fraudulent representation before tri-
al that he would have suit dismissed
because of settlement between par-
ties, the judgment could be set aside
as fraudulently obtained. — Doyal v.
Tomraey, 127 SJB. 750, 160 Ga. 378.
40. AI«L— MUler v. Miller, 175 So,
284, 234 Ala, 453— Kelen v. Brew-
er, 129 So. 23, 221 Ala. 445— Esk-
ridge v. Brown, 94 So. 353, 208 Ala.
210.
Ariz.— Schuster v. Schuster, 73 P.2d
1345, 51 Ariz. 1.
Ark.— Gulley v. Budd, 139 S.W.2d 385
— Hendrickson v. Farmers' Bank &
Trust Co., 73 S.W.2d 725, 189 Ark.
423— American Liberty Mut. Ins.
Co. v. Washington, 36 S.W.2d 963,
183 Ark. 497.
CaL— Borg v. Borg, 76 P.2d 218, 25
Cal.App.2d 25.
I1L— Mohr v. Messick, 53 N.E.2d 743,
322 IlLApp. 56.
Mich.— Pawcett v. Atherton, 299 N.W.
108, 298 Mich. 362— Grigg v. Han-
na, 278 N.W. 125, 283 Mich. 443.
Mo.— Winchell v. Gaskill, 190 S.W.2d
266— Bodine v. Parr, 182 S.W.2d
173, 353 Mo. 206 — Texier v. Texier,
119 S.W.2d 778, 342 Mo. 1220—
Hockenberry v. Cooper County
State Bank of Bunceton, 88 S.W.2d
1031, 338 Mo. 31— Crow v. Crow-
Humphrey, 73 S.W.2d 807, 335 Mo.
636— Sanders v. Brooks, App., 183
S.W.2d 353— State ex rel. Ellsworth
v. Pidelity & Deposit Qo. of Mary-
land, 147 S.W.2d 131, 235 Mo.App.
850— Wuelker v. Maxwell, App., 70
S.W.2d 1100— Gurley v. St. Louis
Transit Co. of St. Louis, App., 259
S.W. 895.
N.Y. — Fuhrmann v. Panroth, .173 N.B.
685, 254 N.Y. 479— Home v. Mc-
Ginley, 299 N.Y.S. 1, 252 App.Div.
296— Re v. Diamond, 2-84 N.T.S.
405, 246 App.Div. 776, 830— Boston
& M. R. R. v. Delaware & H. Co.,
2-64 N.Y.S. 470, 238 App.Div. 191—
In re Gray's Will, 8 N.Y.S.2d 850,
169 Misc. 985.
N.C.— McCoy v. Justice, 155 S.E. 452,
199 N.C. 602.
Tex. — Bearden v. Texas Co., Civ.App.,
41 S.W.2d 447, affirmed, Com. App.,
60 S.W,2d 1031.
W.Va. — Parsons v. Parsons, 135 S.E.
228, 102 W.Va. 394.
The gravamen of the offense of
fraud in procuring a judgment is the
deceit which is practiced. — Beavers
v. Williams, 33 S.E.2d 343, 199 Ga.
113.
41. U.S.— U. S. v. Bischof, C.C.A.N.
Y., 48 P.2d 538.
CaL — Crow v. Madsen, App., Ill P.2d
7, rehearing granted 111 P.2d 663
Ga.— Phillips v. Phillips, 137 S.E. 561,
163 Ga, 899.
742
Idaho. — Swinehart v. Turner, 224 P.
74, 38 Idaho 602.
La. — Vinson v. Picolo, App., 15 So.2d
77-8.
Mich. — Corpus Juris quoted in Oliver
Iron Mining Co. v. PnefC, 247 N.W.
126, 127, 262 Mich. 116.
Mo.— Corpus Juris cited in Phillips
v. Air Reduction Sales Co., So S.W.
2d 551, 559, 337 Mo. 587— Crow v.
Crow-Humphrey, 73 S.W.2d 807,
3*35 Mo. 636.
N.Y.— Scopano v. U. S. Gypsum Co..
3 N.Y.S.2d 300, 166 Misc. 805—
Herring-Curtiss Co. v. Curtiss, 200
N.Y.S. 7, 120 Misc. 733, modified
on other grounds 227 N.Y.S. 489,
223 App.Div. 101.
Okl. — Roland Union Graded School
Dist No. 1 of Sequoyah County v.
Thompson, 124 P.2d 400, 190 Okl.
416— Cone v. Harris, 230 P. 721,
104 Okl. 114.
Or.— Fain v. Amend, 100 P.2d 481, 164
Or. 123.
Tenn.— Coley v. 'Family Loan Co., SO
S.W.2d 87, 168 Tenn. 631.
Tex. — Mendlovitz v. Samuels Shoe
Co., Civ.App., 5 S.W.2d 559.
34 C.J. p 473 note 80.
Extrinsic fraud operates not on the
matters pertaining to the Judgment
itself, but to the manner in which it
is procured.
Ga. — Young v. Young, 2 S.E.2d 622,
188 Ga. 29.
Nev.— Chamblin v. Chamblin, 27 P.2d
1061, 55 Nev. 146.
Or. — Oregon-Washington R. & Nav.
Co. v. Reid, 65 P.2d 664, 155 Or.
602.
Tex.— Mills v. Baird, Civ.App., 147
•S.W.2d 312, error refused.
42. Mich. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Oliver Iron Mining Co. v. Pneff,
247 N.W. 126, 127, 262 Mich. 116.
34 C.J. P 473 note 80.
43. Mich.— Corpus Juris quoted la
Oliver Iron Mining Co. v. Pneff,
247 N.W. 126, 127, 262 Mich. 116.
34 C.J. p 474 note 81.
44. U.S.— Platt v. Threa<Jgill, C.C.
Va,, 80 P. 192.
Bribery of a Jury is fraud suffi-
cient to set aside the verdict of Jury
and to vacate judgment dependent on
that verdict — Elder v. Byrd-Prost,
Inc., Tex.Civ.App., 110 S.W.Sd 172.
45. Or.— Kirk v. Mullen, 197 P. 300,
100 Or. 563.
34 C.J. p 474 note 83.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 372
ignorance of the proceeding is extrinsic or collat-
eral fraud.46 Wrongfully preventing the complain-
ing party or his material witnesses from appearing
in court or attending the trial,47 or inducing his at-
torney to professional delinquency or infidelity in
connection with the case,48 also constitutes extrinsic
or collateral fraud.
Fraud in cause of action or instrument in suit.
Although some of the earlier cases support the right
of equity to enjoin a judgment on the ground of
fraud in the instrument or transaction on which it is
founded,49 for example, a judgment for the price
of property sold, where the sale was induced by
false representations or concealment of the truth,
with regard to quantity, character, or title,50 it has
been generally held that fraud in the cause of ac-
tion or instrument in suit must be set up in the
original action, and furnishes no ground for relief
in equity,51 unless the interposition of the fraud as
a defense was prevented by fraud of the opposite
party52 or the judgment was rendered in a court
where such defense was not available to him.63 The
fact that allegations set forth in the pleadings of
the successful party were false cannot be success-
fully urged as a ground for equitable interference
with the judgment rendered thereon.64
43. Cal.— Neblett v. Pacific Mut.
Life Ins. Co. of California, 139 P.
2d 934, 22 Cal.2d 393, certlorari de-
nied 64 S.Qt. 428, 320 U.S. 802, 88
L.Ed. 484 — Zaremba v. Woods, -61
P.2d 976, 17 Cal.App.2d 309.
Tex. — State v. Wright, Civ.App., 56
S.W.2d 950.
Presenting1 false affidavit for serv-
ice by publication is fraud for which
judgment will be set aside, where
rights of innocent parties have not
intervened. — Wells v. Zenz, 256 P.
484, 83 CaLApp. 137.
Fraudulent omission to post copy
of summons on the premises in all
persons action would constitute ex-
trinsic fraud. — Bernhard v. Waring,
2 P.2d 32, 213 Cal. 175.
Failure to notify heir of probate pro-
oeedingrs
Where proponent and residuary
legatee and executor under will, with
knowledge of existence of pretermit-
ted heir, failed to disclose her exist-
ence in the petition for probate and
gave her no notice of the proceeding
with result that a decree was made
distributing the residue of the estate
to him, the fraud was extrinsic so
as to authorize relief in equity. —
Purinton v. Dyson, 65 P.2d, 777, 8
Cal.2d 322, US AJL.R. 1230.
47. U.S. — Brady v. Beams, C.C.A.
Okl., 132 'F.2d 955, certiorarl denied
63 S.Ct. 1032, 319 U.S. 747, 87 L.Bd.
1702, rehearing denied 63 -S.Ct.
1315, 319 U.S. 784, 87 L.Bd. 1727.
Cal.— Larrabee v. Tracy, 104 P.2d
61, 39 CaLApp.2d 593 — Thompson
v. Thompson, 101 P.2d 160, 38 Cal.
App.2d 377 — Godfrey v. Godfrey,
86 P.2d 357, 30 Cal.App.2d 370.
48. U.S. — Brady v. Beams, C.C.A.
Okl., 132 F.2d 985, certiorari denied
63 S.Ct. 1032, 319 U.S. 747, 87 L.Bd.
1702, rehearing denied 63 S.Ct.
1315, 319 U.S. 784, 87 L.Bd. 1727.
49. U.S. — Trefz v. Knickerbocker
•Life Ins. Co., C.C.N.J., 8 P. 177.
34 C.J. p 471 note 64.
50. N.C.— Cox v. Jerman, 41 N.C.
526.
34 C.J. p 472 note -65.
51. Cal. — Crow v. Madsen, App., Ill
P.2d 7, rehearing granted 111 P.2d
663.
111.— Mohr v. Messick, 53 N.E.2d 743,
322 I11.APP. 56.
Mich,— Smith v. Pontiac Citizens
Loan & Investment Co., 293 N.W.
661, 294 Mich. 312— Bassett v.
Trinity Bldg. Co., 236 N.W. 237,
254 Mich. 207.
Mo. — Crow v. Crow-Humphrey, 73 S.
W.2d :S07, 335 Mo. 636 — Crowley v.
Bahle, App., 131 S.W.2d 383— Na-
tional Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Ver-
million, App., 19 S.W.2d 776.
Okl.— Stutsman v. Williams, 209 P.
406, 87 Okl. $4.
S.D.— Seubert v. Seubert, 7 N.W.2d
301.
Tex. — Browning - Ferris Machinery
Co. v, Thomson, Civ.App., 55 S.W.
2 d 168 — Corpus Juris cited in Bear-
den v. Texas Co., Civ.App., 41 S.
W.2d 447, 462, affirmed, Com. App.,
60 S.W.2d 1031.
W.Va. — Corpus Juris quoted in Par-
sons v. Parsons, 135 S.E. 228, 229,
102 W.Va. 394.
34 C.J. p 472 note 67.
Intrinsic frau4 includes fraud
based on the presentation of forged
or fraudulent instruments or other
fraudulent matter that was or could
have been considered in rendering
the judgment against which relief is
sought
U.S.— Brady v. Beams, C.C.A.Okl.,
132 'F.2d 985, certiorari denied 63
S,Ct. 1032, 319 U.S. 747, 87 L.Bd.
1702, rehearing denied 63 S.Ct.
1315, 319 U.S. 784, 87 L.Bd. 1727—
Angle v. Shinholt, C.C.A.Tex., 90
F.2d 294, certiorari denied 58 S.Ct.
40, 302 U.S. 719, 82 L.Bd. 555.
Cal.— Hammell v. Britton, 119 P.2d
333, 19 Cal.2d 72— Horton v. Hor-
ton, 116 P.2d 605, 118 Cal.2d 579—
Harvey v. Griffiths, 23 P.2d 532, 133
CaLApp. 17— Julien v. West, 274 P.
421, 96 Cal-App. 558.
Tex. — Crouch v. McGaw, 138 S.W.2d
94, 134 Tex. $33— Mills v. Baird,
Civ.App,, 147 S.W.2d 312, error re-
fused.— Traders & General Ins. Co.
v. Rhodabarger, Civ.App., 109 S.W.
743
2d 1119— State v. Wright, Civ.App.,
56 S.W.2d 950.
Where a party falls to defend an
action after being given an opportu-
nity by proper notice, fraud in ob«
taining the judgment against him is
usually held to be intrinsic. — West-
phal v. Westphal, 12-6 P.2d 105, 20
Cal. 2 a 393 — Hosner v. Skelly, App.,
164 P.2d 573 — Rosenbaum v. Tobias*
Estate, 130 P.2d 215, 55 Cal. App. 2 d
39.
Fraud in the procurement of a note
is not ground for equitable relief
against a judgment rendered on the
note since that circumstance could
and should have been urged as a de-
fense in the original action.
Ky.— Ring v. Freeland, 300 S.W. 341,
222 Ky. 147.
W.Va. — McGhee v. Stevens, 3 S.E.2d
615, 121 W.Va. 430.
Wis.— Grady v. Meyer, 236 N.W. 569,
205 Wis. 147.
fating- fictitious cause of action
and supporting it by false testimony
is intrinsic fraud. — Potts v. West,
262 P. 569, 124 Kan. 815.
Fraudulent assertion of cross ac-
tion would be intrinsic fraud.— Davis
v. Cox, Tex.Civ.App., 4 «S.W.2d 1008,
error dismissed.
62. 111.— Mohr v. Messick, 53 N.B.
2d 743, 322 IlLAp-p. 56.
Mo.— Crow v. Crow-Humphrey, 73 S.
W.2d 807, 335 Mo. 636.
W.Va. — Corpus Juris quoted in Par-
sons v. Parsons, 135 S.E. 228, 229,
102 W.Va. 394.
34 C.J. p 473 note 6'8.
53. N.C.— North Carolina Mutual &
Provident Ass'n v. Edwards, 84 S.
E. 359, 168 N.C. 378.
W.Va. — Corpus Juris quoted in Par-
sons v. Parsons, '135 S.E. 238, 229,
102 W.Va. 394.
54. Cal. — Horton v. Horton, 116 P.
2d 605, 18 Cal.2d 579.
N.C.— McCoy v. Justice, 155 S.E. 452,
199 N.C. 602.
Or.— Dixon v. Simpson, 279 P. 039,
130 Or. 211.
§ 372
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
Exceptions to the rule prohibiting relief for fraud
in the cause of action or instrument sued on have
been made,55 as, for example, in cases where the
judgment was based on service by publication and
defendant had no actual knowledge of the suit,56
where the court in which the action was brought
and the trial had was without jurisdiction to pass
on the question of fraud,57 or where the transac-
tion on which the judgment was based was against
public policy.58 Under statutes in some states au-
thorizing relief against decrees and judgments ob-
tained by fraud, such as perjured testimony, fraud-
ulent documents, forged instruments, and the like,
the jurisdiction of a court of equity has been held
limited to the granting of relief on the grounds enu-
merated.59
Strangers to record. The rule that a judgment by
a court of competent jurisdiction will be set aside
only for fraud which is extrinsic or collateral has
l)een held applicable to strangers as well as to par-
ties to the action.60 It has also been held, however,
that a stranger to the record may, when he has been
injured thereby, have -a judgment set aside for
fraud in the cause of action on which it is found-
ed61 because he has not had his day in court to
plead it sooner.62
(3) Concealment or Deceit
Concealment or deceit, at least where there Is a le-
gal duty to disclose the facts, Is ground for equitable re-
lief against a judgment. In the absence of such a duty,
however, mere silence Is not fraud justifying such relief.
Relief against an unjust judgment obtained by
means of deceit, artifice, or concealment may be
had in equity, provided there is no adequate reme-
dy at law.63 Fraud justifying such relief may con-
sist in the suppression of truth as well as a sugges-
tion of what is false;64 it may be based on' silence
when there is a legal duty to disclose the facts, as, §
for example, in the case of a trust or confidential
relation.65 However, in order that fraudulent con-
cealment shall be ground for any equitable relief,
there must be a duty to disclose.66 In the absence
of such a duty, no party is bound to furnish weapons
to his adversary or plead himself out of court; and
the mere fact that he keeps silent and does not com-
municate to the court or to the adverse party facts
which would defeat his recovery is not such fraud
as will justify a court of equity in granting relief
against the resulting judgment.67
Where fraudulent concealment of a fact is relief
on, it must be an intentional concealment of a ma-
terial and controlling fact, for the purpose of mis-
leading and taking advantage of the opposite
55. Ga. — Corpus Juris cited In El- 1
liott v. Marshall, 1S5 S.E. 831, 182
Ga. 513.
Audit obtained "by fraud
N.Y.— Brennan v. New York, 8 Daly
426.
34 C.J. p 473 note 72.
56. Mo. — Irvine v. L,eyh, 14 S.W.
715, 16 S.W. 10, 102 Mo. 200.
57. N.T. — Sanders v. Soutter, 27 N.
B. 263, 126 N.Y. 193.
5a Ohio. — Dahms v. Swinburne, 167
N.E. 486, 31 Ohio App. 512.
59. Iowa. — Richards v. Moran, 114
N.W. 1085, 137 Iowa 220.
34 C.J. p 473 note 77.
60. Vt. — 'Fillmore v. Morgan, 108 A.
840, 93 Vt. 491.
61. Ind.— State v. Holmes, 69 Ind.
577.
62. Ind. — State v. Holmes, supra.
63. U.S. — Ferguson v. Wachs, C.C.
A.I1L, 96 F.2d 910. .
Fla.— Miller v. Miller, 7 So.2d 9, 149
Fla. 722.
111.— Stade v. Stade, 42 N.B.2d 631,
315 IlLApp. 136.
N.J.— Simon v. Henke, 139 A. 887,
102 N.J.EQ. 115.
Tex. — Eldridge v. Eldridge, Civ. App.,
259 S.W. 209.
34 C.J. p 459 note 9, p 475 note 98.
Judgment against interests of minor
Where agreed Judgment in minor's
action is against interests of minor
and facts making it so are not dis-
closed to court approving agreement
for Judgment, minor may, as between
parties to Judgment, have it set aside
by bill of review. — Missouri-Kansas-
Texas R. Co. of Texas v. Pluto, 156
S.W.2d 265, 138 Tex. 1.
64. N.Y.— Boston & M. R. R. v. Del-
aware & H. Co., 264 N.Y.S. 470. 238
App.Div. 191.
"It seems to be generally held that
the fraudulent concealment of facts,
which would have caused the Judg-
ment or decree not to have been ren-
dered, will constitute extrinsic fraud
sufficient to authorize the court
. to vacate such Judgment or
decree."— State v. Vincent, 52 P.2d
203, 205, 152 Or. 205.
65. U.S. — 'Ferguson v. Wachs, C.C.A.
111., 96 F.2d 910— Hewitt v. Hewitt,
C.C.A.Cal., 17 F.2d 716.
Caj. — Larrabee v. Tracy, 134 P.2d
265, 21 Cal.2d -645, affirmed Salva-
tion Army v. Security-First Nat.
Bank of Los Angeles, 134 P.2d 271,
21 Cal.2d 892 — Crow v. Madsen,
App., Ill P.2d 7, rehearing grant-
ed 111 P.2d 663.
D.C.— Earll v. Picken, 113 F.2d 150,
72 App-D.C. 91.
Okl. — Kauffman v. McLaughlin, 114
P.2d 929, 189 Okl. 194.
34 C.J. p 475 note 98 [b].
66. Ala.— Hooper v. Peters Mineral
Land Co., 98 So. 6, 210 Ala. 346*
744
N.Y. — Boston & M. R. R. v. Delaware
& H. Co., 264 N.T.S. 470, 238 App.
Div. 191.
Settlement
Where a settlement was pleaded
as a defense, plaintiff owed no duty
to defendant or the court to prove
such defense, and hence fact that
plaintiff's attorneys, who testified at
the trial were not questioned as to
the alleged settlement did not show
fraud on part of plaintiff in obtain-
ing Judgment. — May v. May, 50 N.E.
2d 790, 72 Ohio App. 82.
67. Okl.— Crockett v. Root, 146 P.2d
555, 194 Okl. 3 — Corpus Juris quot-
ed in Wright v. Saltmarsh, 50 P.
2d 694, 705, 174 Okl. 226.
34 C.J. p US note 99.
Failure to give details of counter-
claim
Failure of buyer, sued for price of
merchandise, to advise seller in ad-
vance of details of counterclaim was
not fraud. — Zapon Co. v. Bryant, 28-6
P. 282, 156 Wash. 161.
Failure to disclose resale price
Failure of vendor, suing for breach
of contract to trade property, to dis-
close resale price of premises under
subsequent exchange contract did
not constitute fraud warranting va-
cation of default Judgment against
first vendee. — Minetti v. Binhorn, 173
N.B. 243, 36 Ohio App. 310.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
party.68 A judgment will not be set aside on the
ground that the prevailing party practiced a fraud
on the court and the adverse party, by concealing
the evidence of his fraud, where the particular
fraud, evidence to establish which is alleged to
have been concealed, was the issue in trial and
there adjudicated.69
§ 373.
Collusion
Collusion or fraudulent conspiracy In the procure-
ment of a Judgment, which could not have been Inter-
posed as a defense in the action, furnishes ground for
equitable relief to an innocent person injured thereby.
Equity may grant relief to an innocent person
against a judgment which was unjustly obtained by
means of a conspiracy or fraudulent collusion.70
This rule is applied where the collusive agreement
was between plaintiff or his attorney and the
judge,71 between plaintiff or his attorney and de-
fendant's attorney,72 between plaintiff and one of
several defendants, to the prejudice of another de-
fendant,73 between plaintiff and the officers of a
defendant corporation or municipality who are
bound to protect its interests,74 between the par-
ties to the action75 or between a party and another
person76 to the injury of a third person having an
interest in the property in suit, or between plain-
tiff and an executor or administrator, being de-
fendant, resulting in the establishment of an in-
valid claim against the estate.77
Collusion between codefendants, however gross
it may be, will not affect plaintiff.78 Collusion is no
ground for relief in equity if it could have been
pleaded in defense to the original action.79 Ordi-
narily a court of equity will not grant relief to
those who were parties to the collusion;80 but an
exception to this rule exists where a fiduciary re-
lationship existed between the parties and they were
not in pari delicto.81
§ 374. Perjury and Subornation of Per-
jury
According to the weight of authority, perjury or
subornation of perjury, not accompanied by any ex-
trinsic or collateral fraud, ordinarily does not constitute
ground for equitable relief against a Judgment.
Although some cases sustain the doctrine that
equity may grant relief against a judgment obtained
by means of false testimony,82 provided it was pro-
cured, concocted, and intentionally produced by the
successful party,83 the weight of authority is to the
effect that ordinarily there is no ground for equita-
ble interference with a judgment in the fact that
perjury or false swearing was committed by such
party or his witnesses at the trial,84 at least where
€8, Ala. — McDonald v. Pearson, 21
So. 534, 114 Ala. -630.
N.Y.— Ward v. Southfleld, 6 N.B. 660,
102 N.Y. 287.
09. Ga. — Thomason v. Thompson, 59
S.E. 236, 129 Ga. 440, 26 L.R.A.,N.
S. -536.
7<X Fla. — State ex rel. Warren v.
City of Miami, 15 So.2d 449, 153
<Fla. -644 — State ex rel. Fulton Bag
& Cotton Mills v. Burnside, 15 So.
2d 324, 153 Fla. 599.
Ga. — Branan v. Feldman, 123 S.B.
710, 158 Ga. 377.
Idaho. — Corpus Juris cited in Hark-
ness v. Village of McCammon, 298
P. 676, 678, 50 Idaho 569.
111.— Meyer v. Meyer, 33 N.B.2d 738,
309 Ill.App. 643, affirmed 39 N.E.2d
3X1, 379 111. 97, 140 A.L.R. 484.
Ind. — Corpus Juris quoted in Mer-
cantile Commercial Bank v. South-
western Indiana CJoal Corporation,
169 N.B. 91, 98, 93 Ind.Ap-p. 313, re-
hearing denied 171 N.E. 310, 93
Ind.App. 313.
Mass. — Commonwealth v. Aronson,
44 N.E.2d 679, 312 Mass. 347.
Mo.— Spotts v. Spotts, 56 S,W.2d 984,
331 Mo. 942.
N.Y.— Harvey v. Comby, 280 N.Y.S.
968, 246 App.Div. 318.
Okl. — Oorpiur Juris cited in Hill v.
Cole, 137 P.2d 579, 583, 192 Okl.
476.
Tex. — Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. Co.
of Texas v. Pluto, Civ.App., 130 S.
W.2d 1048, reversed on other
grounds 156 S.W.2d 265, 138 Tex. 1.
34 C.J. p 474 note 88.
71. Utah.— McMillan v. Forsythe,
154 P. -9-50, 47 Utah 571.
34 C.J. p 474 note 89.
72. TT.S.— Sanford v. White, C.C.N.
Y., 132 F. 531.
34 C.J. p 474 note 90.
73. U.S. — Young? v. Sigler, C.C.Iowa,
48 'F. 182.
34 C.J. P474 note 91.
74. Ind. — Mercantile Commercial
Bank v. Southwestern Indiana Coal
Corporation, 169 N.E. 91, 93 Ind.
App. 313, rehearing denied 171 N.
E. 310, 93 Ind.App. 313.
34 C.J. IP 474 note 92.
Express agreement not necessary
Wis.— Balch v. Beach, 95 N.W. 132,
.119 Wis. 77.
11 C.J. p 1221 note 29 [a].
75. Kan. — Leslie v. Proctor & Gam-
ble Mfg. Co., 169 P. 193, 102 Kan.
159.
34 C.J. p 475 note 93.
7G. Philippine. — Anuran v. Aquino,
38 Philippine 29.
34 C.J. p 475 note 94.
77. N.Y. — In re Abramowitz' Estate,
9 N.Y.S.2d 846, 170 Misc. 68.
34 C.J. p 475 note 95.
745
78. Ind. — State v. Holmes, 69 Ind.
«77.
79. Mo.— Murphy v. De France, 13
S.W. 756, 101 Mo. 151.
Availability and presentation, of evi-
dence
In order to justify setting aside
decree on ground of fraudulent collu-
sion, evidence must be presented
which not only entitles plaintiff to
relief sought, but which was unavail-
able at time of original suit and
which has been presented without
undue delay after discovery. — <U. S.
v. Irving Trust Co., D.C.N.Y., 49 F.
Supp. 663.
80. Cal.— Hendricks v. Hendricks, 14
P.2d 83, 216 Cal. 321— Sontag v.
Denio, 73 P.2d 248, 23 CaLApp.2d
319.
81. Cal. — Sontag v. Denio, supra.
82. Ky. — Corpus Juris cited in Nor-
heimer v. Keiper, 73 -S.W.2d 36, 37,
255 Ky. 232.
Wis.— Amberg v. Deaton, 271 N.W.
396, 223 Wis. 653— Schulteis v.
Trade Press Pub. Co., 210 N.W*
419, 191 Wis. 164.
34 C.J. p 475 note 4.
83. Neb. — Miller v. Miller, 95 N.W.
1010, 69 Neb. 441.
34 C.J. p 475 note 5.
84. Ala,— Hooke v. Hooke, 25 So.2d
33— Wright v. Fannin, 156 So. 849,
§ 374
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
the perjurious or false evidence was not accompa-
nied by any extrinsic or collateral fraud, and relat-
ed to issues or matters which were or could have
been considered in the original cause.85
On the other hand, it has been held that relief
may be granted where the false matter goes to the
ground or right of invoking the power or action
of the court,86 or where the perjury is accompanied
by any fraud extrinsic or collateral to the matter in-
volved in the original case sufficient to justify the
229 Ala. 278— Ex parte Cade, 127
So. 154, 220 Ala. 666 — Bolden v.
Sloss-Sheffleld Steel & Iron Co., 110
So. 574, 215 Ala. 334, 49 A.L.R,
1206 — Sloss-Sheffleld 'Steel & Iron
Co. v. Langr, 104 So. 770, 213 Ala.
412.
Ariz. — In re Hannerkam's Estate, 77
P.2d 814, 51 Ariz. 447— Schuster v.
Schuster, 73 P.261 1345, 51 Ariz. 1
— Drag-con Marble & Mining- Co. v.
McNeish, 235 P. 401, 28 Ariz. 96.
Ark.— Rice v. Moore. 109 S.W.2d 14-8,
194 Ark. 585 — Hendrickson v.
'Farmers' Bank & Trust Co., 73 S.
W.2d 725, 189 Ark. 423.
Cal.— Hammell v. Britton, 119 P.2d
333, 19 Cal.2d 72— Crow v. Madsen,
App., Ill P.2d 7, rehearing- granted
111 P.2d 663— Rudy v. Slotwinsky,
238 P. 783, 73 CaLApp. 459.
Ga. — Hutchings v. Roquemore, 155 S.
E. 675, 171 Ga. 359.
I1L— Hintz .y. Moldenhauer, 243 111.
App. 227.
Iowa.— Hewitt v. Blaise, 211 N.W.
481, 202 Iowa 1114.
Mich. — Graure v. Detroit 'Lumber Co.,
244 N.W. 225, 260 Mich. 47— Colum-
bia Casualty Co. v. Klettke, 244 N.
W. 164, 259 Mich. 564— Bassett v.
Trinity Bid*. Co.. 236 N.W. 237,
254 Mich. 207.
Minn. — Nichols v. Village of Morris-
town, 283 N.W. 748, 204 Minn. 212.
Mo.— Winchell v. Gaskill, 190 S.W.
2d 266 — Sutter v. Easterly, 189 S.
W.2d 284— Neevel v. McDermand,
27-8 S.W. 818, 220 Mo.App. 812.
Mont — Khan v. Khan, 105 P.2d 665,
110 Mont. 591.
N.Y.— Jacobowitz v. Metselaar, 197
N.E. 169, 268 N.Y. 130, 99 A.L.R.
1198, reargument denied 198 N.E.
528, 263 N.Y. 630.
N.Q. — Corpus Juris quoted in Home
v. Edwards, 3 S.E.2d 1, 3, 215 N.C.
622.
S.D. — Seubert v. Seubert 7 N.W.2d
301.
Tenn. — Sharp v. Kennedy, 13 Tenn.
App. 170.
Utah.— Wright v. W. E. Callahan
Const. Co., 156 P.2d 710 — Anderson
v. State, 238 P. 557, 65 Utah 512.
34 C.J. p 475 note 6, p 476 note 8.
Ownership of property
Insurer could not attack Judgment
for insured on ground that insured
made false representation about
ownership of insured property and
gave false testimony to that effect
before court in which Judgment was
obtained. — American Liberty Mut.
Ins, Co. v. Washington, 36 S.W.2d
963, 183 Ark. 497.
Federal role
(1) The federal courts are in con-
flict on the subject. — Publicker v.
Shallcross, C.C.A.Pa., 106 F.2d 949,
126 A.L.R. 386, certiorari denied 60
S.Ct. 379, 308 U.S. 624, 84 L.Ed. 521.
(2) Some of the decisions in the
federal courts adhere to the rule set
forth in the text.— ^Stna Casualty &
Surety Co. v. Abbott C.C.A.Md., 130
F.2d 40— Angle v. Shinholt, C.C.A.
Tex., 90 F.2d 294, certiorari denied
58 S.Ct 40, 302 U.S. 719, 82 L.Ed.
555 — Corpus Juris cited in Harring-
ton v. Denny, D.CMo., 3 F.Supp. 584,
594— Hughes v. U. S. Borax Co., C.
C.A.CaL, 286 <F. 24. certiorari denied
43 S.Ct. 699, 262 U.S. 753, 67 L.Ed.
1216.
(3) Others assert that relief may
be granted against a Judgment on
the ground of perjury in its procure-
ment.—Publicker v. Shallcross, C.C.
A.Pa., 106 F.2d 949, 126 A.L.R. 386,
certiorari denied 60 S.Ct. 379, 308 U.
S. 624, 84 L.Ed. 521.
In Texas
(1) It has been held that relief
will not be granted on the ground of
perjured testimony.— Kelly v.
Wright, 188 -S.W.2d 383— Crouch v.
McGaw, 138 S.W.2d 94, 134 Tex. 633
— Elder v. Byrd-Frost Inc., Civ.App.,
110 S.W.2d 172— State v. Wright, Civ.
App., 56 S.W.2d 950.
(2) In other cases, however, it has
been asserted that false and perjured
testimony, at least if willful, is
ground for relief. — Stanley v. Spann,
Civ.Apj>., 21 S.W.2d 305, error dis-
missed— Ellis v. SLamb-McAshan Co.,
Civ.App., 264 S.W. 241, affirmed
Lamb-McAshan Co. v. Ellis, Com.
App., 270 S.W. 547—34 C.J. p -475 note
5.
85. U.S.— T. J. Moss Tie Co. v. Wa-
bash Ry. Co., C.C.A.I11., 71 F.2d 107,
certiorari denied American Surety
Co. of New York v. Conroy, 55 -S.Ct.
90, 293 U.S. 578, 79 L.Ed. 675.
Ark. — H. G. Pugh & Co. v. Ahrens,
19 S.W.2d 1030, 179 Ark. 829.
D.C.— Fidelity Storage Co. v. Urice,
12 F.2d 143, 56 App.D.C. 202.
Iowa. — Hewitt v. Blaise, 211 N.W.
481, 202 Iowa 1114.
Kan.— Brenneisen v. Phillips, 45 P.2d
867, 142 Kan. 98.
Mich. — Hofweber v. Detroit Trust
Co., 294 N.W. 108, 295 Mich. 96 —
Smith v. Pontiac Qitlzens Loan &
Investment Co., 293 N.W. 6-61, 294
Mich. 312.
Minn. — Bloomquist v. Thomas, 9 N.
W.2d 337, 215 Minn. 35— Nichols v.
746
Village of Morristown, 283 N.W.
748, 204 Minn. 212 — Saari Bros. v.
Puustinen, 201 N.W. 434, 161 Minn.
367— Penniston v. Miller, 194 N.W.
944, 156 Minn. 403.
Mo.— Crane v. Deacon, 253 S.W. 1068
— Crowley T. Behle, App., 131 -8.W.
2d 383.
Okl.— Nolen v. Nolen, 167 P.2d 68—
Lewis v. Couch, 154 P.2d 51, 194
Okl. £32— Calkin v. Wolcott 77 P.
2d 96, 182 Okl. 278— Reeder v.
Mitchell, 32 P.2d 26, 167 Okl. 621—
Reynolds v. Grant, 299 P. 870, 149
OkL 261 — Burton v. Swanson, 2S5
P. 839, 142 Okl. 134— Douglas v.
Hoyle, 240 P. 1072, 115 Old. 7—
Hartsog v. Barry, 219 P. 94, 95
Okl. 274— Wood v. Wood, 216 P.
936, 92 Okl. 297— Clinton v. Miller.
216 P. 135, 96 Okl. 71— McBrld^ v.
Cowen, 216 P. 104, 90 Okl. 130.
Or. — Oregon-Washington R, & Nav.
Co. v. Reid, 65 P.2d 664, 155 Or.
602 — Dixon v. Simpson, 279 P. 939,
130 Or. 211.
R.I. — Broduer v. Broduer, 167 A. 104,
53 R.I. 450.
Tex. — Elder v. Byrd-Frost Inc., Civ.
App., 110 S.W.2d 172.
Wash.— Zapon Co. v. Bryant, 286 P.
282, 15* Wash, 161— Raisner v.
Raisner, 283 P. 704, 155 Wash. 52—
Colburn v. Denison, 271 P. 885, 149
Wash, 591.
Bztent of personal injuries
False testimony as to the extent
of a plaintiff's injuries does not jus-
tify equitable interference with a
judgment where the extent of the
injuries was a question in issue and
defendant was not prevented from
making a full defense.
U.S. — International Indemnity Co. v.
Peterson, -D.CMinn., 6 F.2d 230.
Tex. — Houston E. & W. T. Ry. Co. v.
Chambers, Qiv.App., 284 S.W. 1063.
Place of accident
In action for injuries received in
fall, defendant was held not entitled
to vacation of adverse judgment aft-
er expiration of term on ground that
plaintiff had falsely testified as to
place at which she fell, where peti-
tion alleged exact place of fall and
surrounding circumstances so that
defendant at time of trial, could
have located witnesses who allegedly
would have testified to seeing- plain-
tiff fall" at different place.— Pinches
v. Village of Dickens, 268 N.W. 645,
131 Neb. 573.
6. Ala. — Wright v. Fannin, 156 So.
849, 229 Ala. 278 — Ex parte Cade,
127 So. 154, 220 Ala. 666.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 374
conclusion that but for such fraud the result would
have been different.87 There is usually no ground
for equitable interference on the ground of perjury
even though the opposite party did not know of
the real facts,88 especially where it might have
been established at the trial by cross-examination;89
but in some cases, where it appears that the perjury
was not discovered in time to enable the complain-
ing party to avail himself of the knowledge on the
original trial, a bill to set aside the judgment has
been entertained.90 It has been held, in applying the
rules respecting the granting of equitable relief
against a judgment on the ground of perjury, that
there is no distinction between introducing false
and forged instruments in evidence and swearing
falsely as a witness.91
In some jurisdictions equity will not grant relief
against a judgment obtained in consequence of per-
jury unless it appears that the perjurer .was duly
convicted92 and that the judgment could not have
been obtained without the evidence of the perjurer.98
In any event, before a court of equity will interfere
with a judgment on the ground of perjury, it must
appear that the injured party has exercised due dil-
igence94 and that he is clearly entitled to the relief
sought.95
Perjury as intrinsic or extrinsic fraud. Perjury
or false swearing is a species of intrinsic, not ex-
trinsic, fraud,96 and hence the rule against granting
relief for perjury is in accordance with the general
rule discussed supra in § 372 b (2) that relief in eq-
uity ordinarily cannot be had for intrinsic fraud.
However, perjury as to jurisdictional facts, where-
by a court is imposed on and induced to assume ju-
risdiction where in reality none exists, and which
never could have been exercised if the truth had
87. Or.— Corpus Juris quoted la
Oregon- Washington R. & Nav. Co.
v. Reid, 65 P.2d 664, -667, 155 Or.
602.
34 C.J. p 476 note 12.
88. s.D.— Seubert v. Seubert, 7 N.W.
2d 301.
34 C.J. p476 note 10.
89. Wash.— Robertson v. 'Freebury,
152 P. '5, 87 Wash. 558, L..R.A.
1916B 883.
90. U.S.— Marshall v. Holmes, 'La.,
12 S.Ct. 62, 141 U.S. 5-89, 35 li.Bd.
870.
34 C.J. p 476 note 1'3.
91. Mo. — Lieber v. Lieber, 143 S.W.
458, 239 Mo. 1.
34O.J. p 476 note 9.
92. Ga. — Stephens v. Pickering, 15
S.E.2d 202, 192 Ga, 199— Bird v.
•Smith, 197 S.B. 642, 186 Ga, 301—
Beavers v. Oassells, 19-6 S.B. 716,
186 Ga. 98— Elliott v. Marshall, 185
S.B. 831, 182 Ga. 513— Hutchings v.
Roquemore, 155 S.E. 675, 171 Ga.
359.
In North Carolina
(1) It has been held that judgment
cannot be vacated in equity because
shown to have been based on per-
jured testimony, unless witness has
been convicted of perjury.— McCoy
v. Justice, 155 S.B. 4'52, 199 N.C. 602.
(2) It has also been held that in-
trinsic fraud consisting of perjured
testimony or false evidence is not
ground for equitable relief against a
judgment regardless of whether per-
jured witnesses have previously been
convicted of perjury, or falsity of
evidence established by deed, writ-
ing, or unimpeachable record, since
public policy demands end of litiga-
tion.—-Horne v. Edwards, 3 S.E.2d ,1
215 N.C. 622.
93. Ga,— Stephens v. Pickering, 15
S.E.2d 202, 192 Ga. 199— Bird v.
Smith, 197 S.E. 642, 186 Ga, 361—
Hutchings v. Roquemore, 155 S.E.
675, 171 Ga. 359.
Tex. — Elder v. Byrd-Frost, Inc., Civ.
App., 110 S.W.2d 172.
Materiality of testimony
(1) A party is not entitled to have
verdict and judgment against him
set aside on ground that certain tes-
timony was false, where it appears
that allegedly false testimony con-
cerned a subject immaterial to any
proper issue before the court — Ste-
phens v. Pickering, 15 S.E.2d 202, 192
Ga, 199.
(2) Court refused to annul judg-
ment where allegedly false testimo-
ny could have been entirely disre-
garded and same conclusion still
have been reached in original action.
—Silver Fleet of Memphis v. Hester
Truck Lines, La.App., 180 So. 451—
Silver Fleet of Memphis, Inc. v. Rog-
ers, L.a,App., 180 So. 450.
94, Nefc. — Gutru v. Johnson, 212 N.
W. 622. 115 Neb. 309.
Okl. — Reynolds v. Grant, 299 P. 870,
149 Okl. 261— Miller v. White, 265
P. 64*, 129 Okl. 184.
Utah.— Anderson v. State, 238 P. 557,
65 Utah 512.
Wis.— Schulteis v. Trade Press Pub
Co., 210 N.W. 419, 191 Wis. 164.
Employee's earnings after discharge
Bill would not lie by former em-
ployer to set aside judgment for
damages for wrongful discharge on
ground that former employee had
fraudulently misstated earnings aft
er discharge, where facts could hav<
been ascertained by diligent invest!
gation before trial.— Realty Accept
ance Corporation v. Montgomery, C
C.A.Del., 77 F.2d 762, certiorari de
nied 66 S.Ct 103,. 296 U.S. 590, 80 "
747
Ed. 418, rehearing denied 56 S.Ct.
167, 296 U.S. 662, 80 L.Ed. 472.
95. Okl.— Reynolds v. Grant, 299 P.
870, 149 Okl. 261— Miller v. White,
2-65 P. 646, 129 Okl. 184.
90. U.S.— Brady v. Beams, C.C.A.
Okl., 132 'F.2d 985, certiorari denied
63 S.Ct. 1032, 319 U.S. 747. 87 IL.
Ed. 1702, rehearing denied 63 S.Ct
1315, 319 U.S. 784, 87 L.Ed. 1727 —
Angle v. Shinholt, C.C.A.Tex.f 90
•F.2d 294, certiorari denied 58 S.Ct.
40, 302 U.S. 719, -82 L.Ed. 555 —
Hughes v. U. S. Borax Co., C.C.A.
Cal., 286 F. 24, certiorari denied
43 S.Ct 699, 262 U.S. 753, 67 I*.Ed.
1216.
Cal.— Hammell v. Britton, 119 P.2d
333, 19 Cal.2d 72— La Salle v. Pe-
terson, 32 P.2d 612, 220 Cal. 739—
Zaremba v. Woods, 61 P.2d 976, 17
Cal.App.2d 309—0. A, Graybeal Co.
v. Cook, 60 P.2d 525, 16 Cal.App.2d
231— Harvey v. Griffiths, 23 P.2d
532, 133 Cal. App. 17.
Kan.— Brenneisen v. Phillips, 45 P.2d
867, 142 Kan. 98.
Mich. — Fawcett v. Atherton, 299 N.
W. 108, 298 Mich. 362.
Minn.— Bloomquist v. 'Thomas. 9 N.
W.2d 337, 215 Minn. 35.
Mont.— Khan v. Khan, 105 P.2d $65,
110 Mont 591.
N.Y.— Jacobowitz v. Metselaar, 197
N.E. 169, 268 N.Y. 130, 99 A.L.R.
1198, reargument denied Jacobo-
witz v. Herson, 198 N.E. "528, 268 N.
T. 630— O'Neil v. Meccia, £ N.Y.S.
2d 850, 169 Misc. 985.
Tex.— Crouch v. McGaw, 138 S.W.2d
94, 134 Tex. 633— Mills v. Baird,
Civ.App., 147 S.W.2d 312, error re-
fused— Traders & General Ins. Co.
v. Rhodabarger, Qiv.App., 109 S.W.
2d 1119 — State v. Wright, CivJlpp,,
56 S.W.2d 950.
374
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S,
been known, is extrinsic, and relief against a judg-
ment so obtained may be had in equity.97
Subornation or conspiracy. It is not a ground for
equitable relief that the successful party suborned
the witnesses and conspired with them to secure a
judgment in his favor.9* However, it has been held
that where a lawyer engages in a conspiracy to com-
mit a fraud on the court by the production of fabri-
cated evidence, and by such means obtains a judg-
ment, a court of equity may grant relief against the
judgment"
§ 375.
Violation of Agreement
A party's violation of an agreement, as, for example,
with respect to the time of trial or settlement of the
ease, whereby his adversary, without negligence, was
prevented from presenting his case, has frequently been
held to furnish ground for equitable relief against a
Judgment.
The jurisdiction of equity to relieve against judg-
ments obtained by fraud is exercised very frequent-
ly where a party is prevented from presenting his
defense, or taking advantage of remedies to which
he is entitled, because of the violation by his adver-
sary of some express agreement with him,1 and it
is not necessary that the judgment creditor should
have directly threatened to enforce the judgment.2
Equity will enjoin a judgment taken in violation of
an agreement to dismiss or to discontinue a suit,3
to submit the matter in controversy to arbitration,4
or to credit a sum paid after the commencement of
suit.5
The rule permitting equitable relief for violation
of an agreement does not apply where complainant
has been guilty of negligence,6 or where there is an
adequate legal remedy,7 as by action at law for the
breach.8 Likewise the breach of an agreement will
not constitute a ground for relief where the suit at
law was in pursuance of an illegal act participated
in by complainant.9
It has been held that a consideration for the
agreement must be shown, and also that the appli-
cant for relief must have been injured by his re-
liance on it.10 However, it has also been consid-
ered that the right to relief does not depend on the
legal validity of the agreement but rather on the
question whether it has been relied on by the one
party, and made use of by the other to obtain an
unjust judgment.11 If the agreement relied on is
made by the attorney of the adverse party, the vio-
lation of it will not constitute a ground for eq-
uitable interference, unless it is shown that the
attorney had authority to make such agreement, or
that it has been ratified.12
97. Okl.— Johnson v. Petty, 246 P.
848, 118 OkL 178.
Pa.— Carey v. Carey, 183 A. 371, 121
Pa.Super. 251.
9& Cal.— La Salle v. Peterson, 32 P.
2d 612, «20 Cal. 739.
N.Y. — Jacobowitz v. Metselaar, 197
N.E. 169, 268 N.Y. 130, 99 A.X..R.
1198, reargument denied Jacobo-
witz v. Herson, 198 N.E. 52S, 268
N.Y. 630.
34 C.J. P 476 note 7.
99. Mo.— Sutter v. Easterly, 189 S.
W.2d 284.
1. Tex. — Sloan v. Newton, Civ.App.,
134 S.W.2d 697.
34 C.J. p 477 note 14.
Promise to do equity
Equity will relieve against a judg-
ment obtained by inducing defend-
ants thereto to withdraw an equita-
ble plea that they had filed in the
case, by the promise of plaintiff that
if such -plea was withdrawn he would
do the equity set up in the plea, and
would enter into writing to that ef-
fect, all of which he failed to "do. —
Markham v. Angler, 57 Ga. 43.
Agreement not to enforce Judgment
Relief may be granted against a
judgment for violation of an agree-
ment, on payment of a certain sum
of money, not to enforce a judgment
already obtained. — Thompson v.
Laughlin, 27 P. 752, 91 Cal. 313.
Personal judgment in ejectment suit
An agreement that plaintiff In the
action at law was not to take a per-
sonal judgment against defendant in
a suit in ejectment will Justify equi-
table relief.
Cal.— Heim v. Butin, 40 P. 39, 5 Cal.
Unrep.Cas. 19.
Ind.— Brake v. Payne, 37 N.E. 140,
137 Ind. 479.
Maker's liability on note
(1) Relief has been granted where
the maker of a note held a receipt
acknowledging payment thereof from
the indorsee, who sued on the note,
representing to the maker that he
did not intend to enforce its collec-
tion against him, but against the
payee, and judgment was accordingly
rendered by default. — Baker v. Redd,
44 Iowa 179.
(2) Where maker of note had nev-
er made any payments thereon and
had not acknowledged his liability
in writing, either before or after
running of statute of limitations, ac-
tion of payee in lulling maker into
security by repeated promises that
no harm would come to him if he
ignored summons which had been
served on him constituted fraud. —
Pavlik v. Burns, 278 N.W. 149, 134
Neb. 175.
2. Conn.— Chambers v. Robbins, 28
Conn. 552.
34 C.J. p 477 note 15.
748
3. Ind. — Cory v. Howard, 164 N.BL
639, 88 Ind.App. 503.
Tex. — Sloan v. Newton, Civ.App,, 134
S.W.2d 697.
34 C.J. p 477 note 16.
4. Mo. — Bresnahan v. Price, 57 Mo.
422.
5. Tex. — Dickenson v. McDermott,
13 Tex. 248.
34 C.J. p 477 note 19.
6. Tex. — Coleman v. Goyne, 37 Tex.
552.
34 C.J. p 477 note 26.
7. Ala, — J. A. Roebling Sons Co. v.
Stevens Electric Co., 9 So. 369,
93 Ala. 39.
34 C.J. p 477 note 27.
8. Iowa. — Lumpkin v. Snook, 19 N.
W. 333, 63 Iowa 515.
34 C.J. p 478 note 28.
9. Va,— Barnett v. Barnett, 2 S.E.
733, 83 Va. 504.
34 C.J. p 478 note 29.
10. Cal.-— Heim v. Butin, 42 P. 13$,
109 Cal. 500, 50 Am.S.R. 54.
11. Wis. — Blakesley v. Johnson, 13
Wis. 530.
34 C.J. p 478 note 30.
lO, Tex. — Anderson v. Oldham, 18
S.W. 557, 82 Tex '228.
34 C.J. . 478 note 31.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
376
Necessity that agreement be written. According
to some authorities, violation of an agreement with
regard to the suit will furnish no ground for eq-
uitable interference unless the agreement is in
writing.13 It has also been held, however, that
fraud involving the violation of an agreement may
constitute ground for equitable relief notwithstand-
ing the existence of a court rule requiring stipu-
lations and. agreements of counsel to be in writ-
ing,
14
Agreement as to time of trial. Equity may grant
relief against a judgment obtained in violation of
an agreement between counsel respecting the time
of trial and notice thereof to counsel for the com-
plaining party,15 particularly where the agreement
had been approved by the trial judge.16 Violation
of an agreement that the cause shall not be called
for trial except by consent has been held ground
for relief.17
Agreement as to compromise or settlement.
Where a judgment is fraudulently taken by default
in violation of an agreement for a compromise or
settlement, the interposition of a defense being thus
prevented, its enforcement will be restrained,1-8 if
defendant is not chargeable with negligence in fail-
ing to prevent the entry of judgment when he could
have done so,1^ and provided there is no longer an
adequate remedy at law.20
§ 376. Newly Discovered Evidence
a. In general
b. Character and effect of evidence
a. In General
Some authorities hold that equity will not grant re-
lief against a judgment on the ground of newly discov-
ered evidence, while others permit such relief under cer-
tain circumstances. The authorities are agreed that re-
lief on such ground will in no case be granted where the
complaining party failed to exercise due diligence In
securing the evidence in time to present it in the orig-
inal action.
In some cases it has been held that equity will
not relieve against a judgment on the ground of
newly discovered evidence,21 unless there are also
circumstances of fraud, accident, or mistake pre-
venting a defense,22 on the ground that courts of
law now have ample jurisdiction to grant relief, and
the reason for the exercise of equity jurisdiction has
therefore ceased to exist.23 Other cases, however,
hold that where a defendant was prevented from
making good his defense by the lack of evidence to
support it, being ignorant of the existence of such
evidence and unable to discover it by the exercise of
due diligence, equity will relieve him against the
judgment, on the subsequent discovery and produc-
13. Ala. — Brunnier v. Hill, 85 So.
691. 204 Ala. 403.
34 C.J. p 478 note 32.
Belief as to existence of agreement
A claim that the complaining par-
ty assumed and believed that the
parties had tacitly agreed that the
trial would remain in abeyance pend-
ing- disposition of a subsequent suit
was held insufficient to show any
equitable ground for relief where it
did not appear that the opposing par-
ties or counsel were responsible for
the belief and were not parties to
the subsequent suit, particularly
where a court rule required agree-
ments between attorneys or parties
to be in writing. — Davis v. Cox, Tex.
Clv.App., 4 S.W.2d 1008, error dis-
missed.
14. Mont. — Bullard v. Zimmerman,
292 P. 730, 58 Mont. 271— Bullard
v. Zimmerman, 268 P. 512, 82 Mont.
434.
1£ Ind.— Globe Mining Co. v. Oak
Ridge Coal Co., 177 NUB. 868, 204
Ind. 11,
Ky. — Johnson v. Gernert Bros. Lum-
ber Co., 75 S.W.2d 357, 255 Ky. 734.
La. — Schneckenberger v. John Bon-
ura & Co., 130 So. 870, 14 La.App,
692.
Mich.— Skibe v. Johnson, 228 N.W.
716, 249 Mich. 303*
Tex.— Adams v. First Nat Bank, Civ.
App., 294 S.W. 909— Huddleston v.
Texas Pipe Line Co., Civ. App.. 230
S.W, 250.
Mere misapprehension insufficient
It is not sufficient that the com-
plaining party was under some mis-
apprehension with reference to
whether the case would be tried, un-
less it appears that either the court
or the opposite party was in some
measure responsible for the false
impression. — Davis v. Cox, Tex.Civ.
App., 4 S.W. 2 d 1008, error dismissed.
16. Tex. — Caffarelli v. Reasonover,
Civ.App., 54 S.W.2d 170.
17. Tex.— Gulf, C. & S. «F. B. Qo. v.
King, 16 S.W. 641, 80 Tex. 6-81.
ia Conn. — Gates v. Steele, 20 A.
474, 58 Conn. 316, 18 Am.S.R. 2*68.
34 C.J. p 478 note 34.
19. Ga. — Lowry v. Sloan, 51 Ga. 633.
34 C.J. p 478 note 35.
Lack of diligence held not shown
Where party suing on note agreed
to dismiss suit after settlement
agreement was made, fact that de-
fendant therein did not investigate
court records to ascertain whether
plaintiff had complied with agree-
ment to dismiss case could not be
considered lack of diligence -preclud-
ing the vacating of default Judg-
ment— Sloan v. Newton, TexCiv.
App., 134 S.W.2d 697.
20. Ala. — J. A. Roebling Sons Co. v.
Stevens Electric Light Co., 9 So.
369, 93 Ala. 39.
21. S.D.— Seubert v. Seubert, 7 N.W.
2d 301.
Tex. — Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v.
Pribble, Civ.App., 130 S.W.2d 332,
error refused.
34 C.J. p 478 note 37.
28. Tex.— Strickland v. Ward, Civ.
App., 185 S.W.2d 736.
34 C.J. p 478 note 38.
Effect of reformed code procedure
Where reformed code procedure
was part of the state procedure from
the time the constitution was adopt-
ed, equity jurisdiction to grant re-
lief from a judgment on ground of
newly discovered evidence was not
the jurisdiction of the old courts of
equity, but the jurisdiction of equity
under the reformed code procedure,
whereby nothing short of a showing
of absolute extrinsic fraud would
justify granting a practical extension
of relief offered under the code. —
Wasem v. Ellens, 4 N.W.2d 850, 68
S.D. 524.
23. Ala.— Be £oto Coal Mining &
Development Co. v. Hill, 65 So. 988,
188 Ala. 667.
749
§ 376
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
tion of such evidence,24 unless he had a legal rem-
edy, and failed to avail himself of it,25 and that
statutes authorizing courts of law to grant new
trials on the ground of newly discovered evidence
do not divest courts of equity of the power to grant
a new trial in cases where the facts justify it.26
In determining whether, in the particular case,
equitable relief against a judgment will be granted
on the ground of newly discovered evidence, the
same rules govern as the rules prescribing the cir-
cumstances under which a new trial will be granted
on the ground of newly discovered evidence.27 It
must appear that the judgment is unjust,28 that re-
lief is necessary to protect a meritorious complain-
ant from a clear miscarriage of justice,29 and that
relief can be granted without mischief to the rights
of innocent persons.30
Diligence in former proceedings. Equity will not
grant relief against a judgment on the ground of
newly discovered evidence, where the evidence
could have been discovered before, and produced
on, the trial by the exercise of care and diligence
in searching foY it or in interrogating persons cog-
nizant of the facts.31 The same diligence is re-
quired as is required of a litigant who moves for
a new trial under statute.32 Thus, where it appears
that the evidence is matter of record, accessible to
defendant, and from its nature necessarily within
his knowledge,33 or where the facts might have I
been established at the trial by cross-examination,34
no ground for relief is shown. However, the fact
that defendant might have obtained evidence by a
bill of discovery or otherwise will not affect his
right to relief where he had no reason to suspect
the existence of such evidence;35 and even the fact
that the existence of the defense was suspected, and
that it was unsuccessfully set up at law, will not
necessarily preclude relief, where there was no lack
of diligence in making the discovery.36
b. Character and Effect of Evidence
The additional evidence for which equitable relief
against a Judgment is sought must in fact be newly dis-
covered; in addition, It must be material and calculated
to produce an opposite result, evidence which is merely
cumulative being insufficient.
Relief will not be granted against a judgment on
additional evidence which is not in fact newly dis-
covered;37 the evidence must have been discovered
too late for use in the original action.38 Evidence
is not newly discovered where the party relying on
it knew about it and that it existed, but had for-
gotten the circumstances or failed to appreciate
their significance and value.39
To justify a court of equity in enjoining a judg-
ment on the ground of newly discovered evidence,
it must appear that such evidence is material and
competent40 and is of such a character and strength
that it is reasonably certain that it would have
24L 111. — Crane .Co. v. Parker, 136 N.
E. 733, 304 111. 881.
Md.— Bailey v. Bailey, 30 A.2d 249,
181 Md. 385.
34 O.J. p 478 note 40.
25. Iowa.— Abell v. Partello, 211 N.
W. 868, 202 Iowa 1236.
34 C.J. p 478 note 41.
28. Neb. — Horn v. Queen, 4 Neb. 108.
34 C.J. p 478 note 43.
27. Va. — McCloud v. Virginia Blec-
trio & Power Co., 180 S.E. 299, 164
Va, 604.
28. HI. — Crane Co. v. Parker, 136 N.
E. 733, 304 111. 331.
29. Tex.— Kelley v. Wright, Civ.
App., 184 S.W.2d 649, affirmed,
Sup., 188 S.W.2d 983.
30. Tex. — Kelley v. Wright, supra.
31. U.S. — Harrington v. Denny, D.C.
Ho., '3 F.Supp. 584.
111.— Wackerle v. Nies, 3 N.B.2d 126,
286 Ill.App. 51.
Ky. — Elkhorn Coal Corporation v.
Cuzzort, 284 S.W. 1005, 215 Ky.
254.
Tex. — Reed v. Bryant, Civ. App., 291
S.W. *05.
34 C.J. p 479 note 44.
32. Idaho.*— Boise Payette Lumber
Co. T. Idaho Gold Dredging Corpo- 1
ration, 58 P.2d 786, 56 Idaho 660,
certiorari denied 57 S.£t. 40, 299 U.
S. 577, -81 L.E<t 425.
33. 111.— Palmer v. Bethard, 66 111.
529.
34 C.J. p 479 note 45.
A discharge in bankruptcy which
occurred before the rendition of
Judgment is not "a defense which
has arisen or been discovered since
the judgment was rendered" within
the meaning of a statute providing
that a judgment obtained in an ac-
tion by ordinary proceedings shall
not be annulled or modified in equita-
ble proceedings except for such a de-
fense.— Harding v. Quinlan, 229 N.
W. 672, 209 Iowa 1190.
34. Wash. — Robertson v. Preebury,
152 P. 5, 87 Wash. 558, L.R.A.1916B
883.
35. N. J. — Cairo & F. R. Co. v. Titus,
32 N.J.Eq. 397.
34 C.J. p 479 note 47.
38. U.-S. — Ocean Ins. Co. v. Fields,
C.C.Mass., 18 'F.Cas.No.10,406, 2
Story 59.
34 C.J. p 479 note 48.
37. U.S. — Harrington v. Denny, D.C.
Mo., 3 F.Supp. 584.
Miss.— Miller v. Doxey, 1 Miss. 329.
750
Wis. — Marsh v. Edgerton, 2 Pinn.
230, 1 Chandl. 198.
Wyo.— Corpus Juris cited in School
Dist No. 7 in Weston County v.
School Dist. No. 1 in Weston Coun-
ty, 236 P. 1029, 1032, '33 Wyo.' *5.
38. Idaho. — Boise Payette -Lumber
Co. v. Idaho Gold Dredging Corpo-
ration, 58 P.2d 786, 56 Idaho 660,
certiorari denied 57 S.Ct. 40, 299 U.
S. 577, 81 Ii.Ed. 425.
N.J.— Simon v. Henke, 139 A, 887,
102 N.J.EQ. 115.
N.Y. — Schenck v. Underbill, 199 N.Y.
S. 6G6, 205 App.Div. 162.
Documents passing between parties
Documents produced in suit to en-
join enforcement of judgment were
held not newly discovered evidence,
where bill alleged that documents
had passed between parties before
trial. — Harrington v. Denny, D.C.Mo.,
3 F.Supp. 584.
39. U.6. — Harrington, v. Denny, su-
pra.
40. U.S. — Harrington v. Denny, su-
pra.
N.J.— Cairo & F. R. Co. v. Titus, 28
N.J.Eq. 269.
Tex.— Kelley v. Wright, Civ.App., 184
S.W.2d 649, affirmed, Sup., 188 S.
W.2d 983.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 377
caused an opposite result if produced at the trial,41
some cases even going so far as to hold that the
new evidence must be incontrovertible and conclu-
sive.42 Evidence which is uncertain and inconclu-
sive in character and of slight probative value is
insufficient.43 Evidence will not be sufficient to
warrant equitable relief if it appears to be merely
cumulative or corroborative44 or merely intended to
impeach some of the witnesses at the former trial.45
The rule in this respect is the same in both courts
of equity and at law.46
Necessity of writing. Newly discovered evidence
need not be in writing to justify equitable relief
against a judgment.47
C. PROCEDURE
§ 377. Form of Proceedings
Equitable relief against a judgment is generally
sought In a separate and independent proceeding, equi-
table In nature, commenced by bill or complaint.
As a general rule, where application is to be
made to a court possessing equitable jurisdiction,
for relief against a judgment, it may and should be
in the form of a separate and independent proceed-
ing commenced by bill or petition,48 or, under the
code practice, by complaint.49 Where the adjudi-
cation to be impeached is a decree in equity, relief
may be sought either by petition in the original ac-
tion, by bill of review, or by original bill in the na-
ture of a bill of review, according to the circum-
stances, as discussed in Equity §§ 622-667. Under
some statutes, however, a bill of review may also
lie as an independent proceeding for the purpose of
obtaining equitable relief against a judgment at
law,50 and, while it has been held that such a pro-
ceeding is in the nature of, and has the same scope
Wyo. — Corpus Juris cited, in School
Dist. No. 7 in Weston County v. !
School Dist. No. 1 in Weston Coun-
ty, 236 P. 1029, 1032, 33 Wyo. 65.
41. 111. — Crane Co. v. Parker, 136 N.
B. 733, 304 111. 331.
Iowa.— Abell v. Partello, 211 N.W.
-S6S, 202 Iowa 1236.
Tex.— Kelley v. Wright, Civ.App., 184
S.W.2d 649, affirmed, Sup., 188 S.
W.2d 98'3.
34 C.J. p 479 'note 51.
42. U.S. — Harrington v. Denny, D.C.
Mo., 3 F.Supp. 584.
34 C.J. p 479 note 52.
43. Tex.— Kelley v. Wright, Civ.
App., 184 -S.W.2d 649, affirmed,
Sup., 183 S.W.2d 983.
44. U.S.— Harrington v. Denny, D.C.
Mo., 3 'F.Supp. 584.
Neb.— Kielian v. Kent & Burke Co.,
268 N.W. 79, 131 Neb. 308— Gutru
v. Johnson, 212 N.W. 622, 115 Neb.
309— Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v.
Skaggs, 211 N.W. 1007, 115 Neb.
176.
34 C.J. P 479 note 53.
45. 111.— Hintz v. Moldenhauer, 243
IlLApp. 227.
34 C.J. p 479 note 54.
46. 111.— Yates v. Monroe, 13 111.
212.
W.Va. — Bloss v. Hull, 27 W.Va. 503.
47. S.C. — Cantey v. Blair, 18 S.C.
Bq. 41.
48. Ga.— Mullis v. Bank of Chaun-
cey, 150 S.E. 471, 40 GteuApp. 582.
111.— Pedersen v. Logan Square State
& Savings Bank, 36 N.E.2d 732,
377 111. 408.
Kan.-^Tohnson v. •Schrader, 95 P.2d
273, 150 Kan. 545— In re Hardesty's
Adoption, 92 P.2d 49, 150 Kan. 271.
La.— -Dickey v. Pollack, App., 1*3 So.
43.
Mo. — Force v. Margulius, App., 33 S.
W.2d 1023.
Okl.— Lewis v. Couch, 154 P.2d 51,
194 Okl. 632— Sawyer v. Sawyer, 77
P.2d 703, 182 Okl. 348— Seekatz v.
Brandenburg, 300 P. 678, 150 Okl.
53.
Tex.— McCook v. Amarada Petroleum
Corporation, Civ.App., 73 S.W.2d
914. '
W.Va.— Williams v. Stratton, 174 S.
E. 417, 114 W.Va. 837.
34 C.J. p 479 note 57.
dgmBxit of dismissal
Petition to vacate Judgment was
proper proceeding to take following
judgment of dismissal. — Smith v.
Brown, 184 N.E. 393, 282 Mass. £1.
Original bill or bill of review
(1) A bill to set aside a decree for
fraud in its procurement, or for
fraud extrinsic and collateral to mat-
ter on which the decree rests, and
under which a third person has ac-
quired an interest, is an original bill
and not a bill of review. — Ostrom v.
Ferris, 134 A, 305, 99 N.J.Eq. 551,
affirmed 141 A. 920 (two cases), 103
N.J.EQ. 22.
(2) The position of parties who
filed petition to set aside decree in
equity suit more than two years aft-
er entry on ground that court had
no jurisdiction over subject matter,
if question could be raised by peti-
tion rather than by bill of review,
was no stronger than it would have
been had they raised it by bill of
review. — Fooks' Ex'rs v. Ghingher,
192 A. 782, 172 Md. 612, certiorari
denied Phillips v. Ghingher, 58 S.Ct
47, '302 U.S. 726, 82 L.Ed. 561.
Statutory procedure held inapplica-
ble
Service on defendant by leaving
751
copy of summons and petition at his
dwelling with member of family con-
stituted "personal service," so that
statutory provisions for vacating
judgment by petition for review
were inapplicable.— Force v. Mar-
gulius, Mo.App., 33 S.W.2d 1023.
Foreclosure
Equitable relief from action for de-
ficiency judgment can be had only
when sought by petition to review
original foreclosure proceeding and
not by bill to restrain the enforce-
ment of the deficiency judgment. —
Meranus v. Lawyers' & Homemak-
ers' Building & Loan Ass'n, 180 A.
665, 118 N.J.Eq. 586.
49. Ind. — Vail v. Department of
Financial Institutions of Indiana,
17 N.E.2d -854, 106 Ind. App. 39.
N.T. — People v. Judges of Court of
Common Pleas, 3 Abb.Pr. 181.
50. Tex.— Crouch v. McGaw, 138 S.
W.2d 94, 134 Tex 633— Wear v.
McCallum, 33 S.W.2d 723, 119 Tex.
473 — Gray v. Moore, Civ.App., 172
S.W.2d 746, error refused — Ameri-
can Red Cross v. Longley, Civ.
App., 165 S.W.2d 233, error refused
— Allen v. Trentman, Civ.App., 115
S.W.2d 1177— Griffith v. Tipps, Civ.
App., 69 S.W.2d '846.
Effectuation of relief sought
An equitable bill of review must
effectuate the relief sought complete-
ly within the particular proceedings.
— Cheney v. Norton, Civ.App., 126 S.
W.2d 1011, reversed on other grounds
Norton v. Cheney, 161 S.W.2d 73, 138
Tex. 622.
Distinction based on, service of proc-
ess
A distinction exists between equi-
table bill of review as against a pre-
viously rendered judgment under
§ 377
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
and purpose as, a motion for new trial51 or writ of
error in an action at law,52 it has also been held that
the remedy is distinct from, and not an alternative
for, such remedies as a motion for new trial, ap-
peal, or writ of error.53 Jn those jurisdictions
where legal and equitable powers are vested in the
same courts, jurisdiction of equity to grant relief
against a judgment may be invoked by means of a
motion addressed to the court which rendered the
judgment as well as by an independent action in eq-
uity,54 and under some practice a rule to show
cause is proper to bring the matter of cancellation
of a judgment before a court of equity.55 A di-
rect attack on a judgment may sometimes be set up
by a cross action or cross bill,56 and it may be per-
missible for the judgment debtor, when suit is
brought on the judgment, to set up in his answer
the grounds on which he claims that it should be
vacated or enjoined, and demand appropriate re-
lief, whereupon the answer will be treated as equiv-
alent to a bill in equity.57
An application to vacate a judgment, made after
the expiration of the term at which the judgment
was rendered, may be considered an independent
proceeding, although it was entitled as a part of
the original action and designated as a motion.5*
On the other hand, where a party by mistake brings
process served on defendant, and
similar action on judgment rendered
when process was by publication,
since, in the former, actions are
docketed separately from action
sought to be reviewed, and are tried
out on issues made, while, in latter
cases, motions are treated as mo-
tions for new trials in original case
and are filed in that case and heard
as part of it, irrespective of how
they are Indorsed, styled or docketed.
— Smith v. Higginbotham, Tex.Civ.
App., 112 S.W.Sd 770.
Statute not mandatory
Bill of review is not exclusive
method by which new trial may be
obtained after judgment on service
by publication, statute providing for
bill of review not being mandatory.
—Dennis v. McCasland, Civ.App., 69
S.W.2d :506, reversed on other
grounds 97 S.W.2d 684, 128 Tex. 266.
Proceedings held bill of review
Tex. — Pope v. Powers, 120 S.W.2d
432, 132 Tex. 80— Moon v. Weber,
Civ.App., 103 S.W.2d 807, error re-
fused— Texas Employers' Ins.
Ass'n v. Shelton, Clv.App., 74 S.
W.2d 280.
Proceedings held not bill of review
(1) Generally. — 'Love v. State
Bank & Trust Co. of San Antonio,' 90
S.W.2d 819, 126 Tex. 591.
(2) Proceeding to set aside Judg-
ment which is in effect only. a mo-
tion for a new trial. — Bridgman v.
Moore, 183 S.W.2d 705, 143 Tex. 250
— Trujillo v. Piarote, 53 S.W.2d 4-66,
122 Tex. 173— Smith v. Poppe, Civ.
App., 102 S.W.2d 1108 — Cox, Inc., v.
Knight, Civ.App., 50 S.W.2d 915.
(3) A petition to set aside a judg-
ment, filed years after judgment ren-
dered, where complaining party had
instituted original suit, tried it, and
failed.^— Warne v. Jackson, Tex. Civ.
App., 273 S.W. '315.
51. Tex. — Gotten v. Stanford, Civ.
App., 169 S.W.2d 489— Staples v.
Callahan,- Civ.App., 138 S.W.2d 206,
affirmed Callahan v. Staples, 161 S.
W.2d 489, 139 Tex. 8— Dennis v.
McCasland, Civ.App., 69 S.W.2d
506, reversed on other grounds 97
S.W.2d 684, 128 Tex. 266.
52. Tex. — Hugh Qooper Co. v. Amer-
ican Xat. Exchange Bank of Dal-
las, Civ.App., 30 S.W.2d 364.
53. Tex. — Dixon v. McNabb,. Civ.
App., 173 S.W.2d 228, error re-
fused—Union Bank & Trust Co. of
Fort Worth v. Smith, Civ.App., 166
S.W.2d 928 — Smith v. Rogers, Civ.
App., 129 S.W.2d 776.
Error not apparent on record
Where record would not disclose
error complained of in bill of review
to set aside judgment, appeal there-
from or writ of error would not be
available as remedy precluding re-
sort to such bill. — Pearl Assur. Co. v.
Williams, Tex.Civ.App., 1-67 S.W.2d
808.
54. Cal.— Olivera v. Grace, 122 P.2d
564, 19 Cal.2d 570, 140 A.L.R. 1328,
In Ohio
(1) While relief from judgment or
order may be granted in suit in equi-
ty, ordinarily a separate suit is not
required, but relief may be granted
In same proceedings. — In re Vander-
lip's Estate, 12 Ohio Supp. 123.
(2) Where other relief from Judg-
ment than that obtainable in case
wherein judgment was rendered is
sought, and impeachment of judg-
ment is only necessary to the further
relief sought, original action is prop-
er remedy. — Young v. Guella, 35 N.
B.2d 997, 67 Ohio Apj>. 11.
55. N.J. — Manowitz v. Kanov, 154 A.
326, 107 N.J.Law 523, 75 A.L.R.
1464.
5ft, Va.— • Sutherland v. Rasnake, 192
S.E. 695, 169 Va. 257.
Proceeding for bill of discovery
Defendant could file cross action to
cancel judgment held by plaintiffs
against him in proceeding for bill of
discovery to have defendant disclose
his assets.— Briggs v. Ladd, Tex.Civ.
App., 64 S.W.2d 389.
57. Tex. — CundifC v. Teague, 46 Tex '
475. i
752
Wis. — Brown v. Parker. 2,8 Wis. 21 —
Stowell v. Eldred. 26 Wis. 504.
58. Ind.— Globe Min. Co. v. Oak
Ridge Coal Co., 134 N.E. 508, 79
Ind. App. 76.
Sufficiency of pleadings generally see
infra § 389.
BUI of review
(1) A bill which states substance
of -proceedings sought to be revised
and facts relied on for relief will be
considered a "bill of review*' if in
fact it is an original proceedings to
set aside a judgment and shows
equitable grounds for relief, al-
though it is denominated a motion. —
Qaster v. McGough, Tex.Civ.App., 184
S.W.2d 668 — City of Eastland v.
Owen, Civ.App., 49 S.W.2d 534, re-
versed on other grounds Owen v. City
of Eastland, 78 S.W.2d 178. 124 Tex.
419— Smith v. Kraft, Tex.Civ.App., 9
S.W.2d 472.
(2) Pleading styled motion for
new trial, containing essential ele-
ments of bill of review, will be re-
garded as such if motion for new tri-
al could not have been filed. — Box v.
Pierce, Tex.Civ.App., 278 S.W. 226.
(3) If pleading possesses essential
elements of bill of review, it is im-
material that it was filed under num-
ber and style of former suit. — City of
Eastland v. Owen, Civ.App., 49 S.W.
2d 534, reversed on other grounds
Owen v. City of Eastland, 7<8 S.W.2d
178, 124 Tex. 419.
(4) However, where essential ele-
ments of a bill of review are lacking,
motion will not be treated as such a
bill. — OLindsey v. Panhandle Const.
Co., Civ.App., 46 S.W.2d 339, af-
firmed Panhandle Const. Co. v. Liind-
say, 72 S.W.2d 1068, 123 Tex. 613.
(5) -So defendant's motion to dis-
solve injunction subsequent to ex-
piration of judgment term could not
be treated as. a statutory petition
for review so as to warrant court in
acting on it, where it was not
claimed that injunction proceeding
wus irregular, but only that decree
entered was erroneous. — State ex reL
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 378
an independent action, when his remedy is by mo-
tion in the original cause, the court may, in its dis-
cretion, treat the summons and complaint as a mo-
tion,59 although a bill or action to vacate or enjoin
a judgment in which the only relief asked is a per-
petual injunction,60 or an action for reformation, in
which it is merely alleged that the prior judgment
does not constitute a bar to recovery,61 may not be
treated as a motion in the original cause or a pe-
tition for a new trial. A cause of action to set aside
a judgment or decree has been regarded as a con-
tinuation of the original suit in which the judgment
or decree was entered.62
In Louisiana, if it is claimed that an adjudica-
tion is absolutely void for illegality or other cause,
resort should be had to an action of nullity, and
not an injunction.63 Such a suit may not be
brought by way of intervention or third opposition ;
it must be brought in the ordinary form, by peti-
tion and citation.64
An action for equitable relief against a judgment
is equitable in nature and is governed by equitable
principles.65
§ 378. Conditions Precedent
A party seeking equitable relief against a judgment
must on his part do whatever equity requires, but leave
to sue Is usually not required.
A party coming into equity to obtain relief
against a judgment at law must on his part do
whatever equity requires.66 In particular, if com-
plainant does not dispute the validity of the judg-
ment with respect to the entire amount of it, he
must first pay or offer to pay whatever amount he
admits to be due,67 or show some sufficient excuse
for his failure to do so,68 unless the circumstances
are such that no payment or tender is required.60
However, it is not usual or necessary, before filing
a bill for this purpose, to obtain leave of the court
whose judgment is to be impeached or of that in
which the bill is filed.70
Caplow v. Kirk wood, Mo.App., 117 S.
W.2d 652.
59. N.C.— Craddock v. Brinkley, 98
S.B. 280, 177 N.C. 125.
60. U.S. — Bdmanson v. Best, HI., 57
F. 501, 6 C.C.A. 471.
N.C. — Poard v. Alexander, 64 N.C.
69.
61. N.C.— Virginia - Carolina Joint
Stock Land Bank v. Alexander, 160
S.E. 462, 201 N.C. 453.
62. U.S.— Hanna v. Brictson Mfg.
Co., C.C.A.S.D., 62 «F.2d 139.
63. La.— Cook v. State, 16 La. 288.
34 C.J. p 480 note 67.
64. La.— Woolfolk v. Woolfolk, 30
La. Ann. 139.
65. Minn. — Bloomquist v. Thomas, 9
N.W.2d 337, 215 Minn. 35.
Tex.— Hubbard v. Tallal, Civ.App., 57
S.W.2d 226, reversed on other
grounds and appeal dismissed 92
S.W.2d 1022, 127 Tex. 242.
A bill of review for equitable re-
lief from a judgment is addressed to
equitable powers of the court and
equity principles and maxims must
be observed. — Kelley v. Wright, Tex.
Civ.App., 184 S.W.2d 649, affirmed,
Sup., 188 S.W.2d 983— Harris v. Elm
Oil Co.r Tex.Civ.App., 183 S.W.2d 216,
error refused — American Red Cross
v. Longley, Tex.Civ.App., 165 S.W.2d
233, error refused— Smith v. Rogers,
Tex.Civ.App., 129 S.W.2d 776— Dono-
van v. Young, Tex.Civ.App., 127 S.W.
2d 517, error refused — Hacker v.
Hacker, Tex.Civ.App., 110 S.W.2d
923 — Murry v. Citizens' State Bank
of Ranjger, Tex. Civ.App., 77 S.W,2d
1104, error dismissed.
Prayer for rule nisi
The equitable character of a peti-
49 C.J.S.-48
tion to set aside a judgment or de-
cree is not affected by the fact that
it contains a prayer for a rule nisi
in addition to the prayers for equi-
table relief.— Williamson v. Had-
dock, 140 S.B. '373, 165 Ga. 1-68.
06. U.S.— Hazard v. Park, C.C.A.
Colo., 294 F. 40.
Fla. — Adams v. Reynolds, 134 So. 45,
101 Fla. 271.
Ga. — Autry v. Southern Ry. Co., 144
S.B. 741, 167 Ga, 136.
34 C.J. p 480 note 69.
Payment or security
It was improper to include, in an
order to show cause why a default
judgment should not be vacated, a
provision restraining plaintiff from
collecting the judgment, where there
was no compliance with statute re-
quiring payment or security as a
condition of the granting of an In-
junction to stay proceedings on a
judgment— Walton Foundry Co. v.
A. D. Granger Co., 196 N.Y.S. 719,
203 App.Div. 226.
67. Ga.— 'Felker v. Still, 169 S.B. 897,
77 Ga. 160 — Autry v. Southern Ry.
Co., 144 S.B. 741, 167 Ga. 136.
Ky. — Overs treet v. Grinstead's
Adm'r, 140 S.W.2d 836, 283 Ky. 73
— Grooms v. National Bank of
Kentucky, 292 S.W. 513, 218 Ky.
846.
Tex. — Early Grain & Seed Co. v. Mc-
Callum, Cir.App., 128 -S.W.2d 469
— Dallas Joint Stock -Land Bank of
Dallas v. 'Lancaster, Civ.App., 122
S.W.2d 659, error dismissed.
34 C.J. p 480 note 70.
Materlaamaa's lien
Defendants who failed to tender
753
sum covered by materialman's lien
on homestead could not have judg-
ment foreclosing lien set aside be-
cause rendered for amount in excess
of sum secured by lien. — Scott v.
Lewis, Tex.Civ.App., 64 S.W.2d 365.
68. Ala.— Zavelo v. Goldstein, 59 So.
618, 178 Ala. 321.
69. Or. — Paulson v. Kenney, 224 P.
634, 110 Or. 688.
Tex.— Dallas Coffee & Tea Co. v. Wil-
liams, Civ.App., 45 S.W.2d 724, er-
ror dismissed.
34 C.J. p 480 note 72.
Money collected by another
In action by minors to set aside a
judgment in their favor because ot
death of father, obtained by fraud,
it was not necessary for plaintiffs to
tender back the money collected un-
der the judgment, it appearing1 that
the money was paid to a so-called
next friend not authorized to receive
it, and was spent during minority of
plaintiffs and before commencement
of suit — Gurley v. St. Louis Transit
Co. of St. Louis, Mo.App., 259 S.W.
895.
70. Ala.— Nichols v. Dill, 132 So.
900, 222 Ala. 455.
N.J. — Ostrom v. Ferris, 134 A. 305,
99 N.J.Eq. 551, affirmed 141 A. 920,
two cases, 103 N.J.Eq. 22.
34 C.J. p 481 note 73.
Appellate court
A bill in equity to restrain the en-
forcement of a judgment at law is
not a bill of review, for which leave
from the appellate court to file is re-
quired.— Mineral Development Co. v.
Kentucky Coal Lands Co^ D.C.Ky.,
285 F. 7-61, affirmed, C.C.A.., 285 F.
1021.
I 379
§ 379. Time to Sue and Limitations
In the absence of a statute controlling the time of
application to a court of equity for relief against a judg-
ment, no particular lapse of time will be marked off as
barring a complainant's right to relief, the question be-
ing merely one of laches or diligence.
Ordinarily equitable relief against a judgment
may not be sought prior to the time permitted by
statute,71 and, where a statutory remedy for va-
cation of a judgment is exclusive for a specified
period of time, a party may not maintain an ac-
tion in equity to set aside the judgment prior to
the expiration of that period of time.72
In the absence of a statute controlling the time
of application to a court of equity for relief against
a judgment, no particular lapse of time will be
marked off as barring complainant's right to relief,
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
the question being merely one of laches or dili-
gence,73 and statutes authorizing courts of law to
vacate or open their own judgments for fraud, mis-
take, surprise, or other cause, generally do not pre-
clude relief in equity after the time which they fix
as a limit74 It is generally sufficient and necessary
for the party seeking relief to show due diligence
and to file suit within a reasonable time,75 either in
term or in vacation,76 and it is not required that
the proceeding be instituted at the term at which
the judgment was rendered.77 A suit in equity may
be available to set aside a default judgment on
which execution was issued, even after the execu-
tion has been returned satisfied.78
In many states there are statutes of limitation
specifically applicable to proceedings in equity for
relief against judgments,79 and, by analogy, statu-
71. Tex. — Joy v. Young, Civ.App.,
194 S.W.2d 159.
72. Wash.— Muller v. Hendry, 17 P.
2d 602, 171 Wash. 9.
73. U.-S.— McGinn v. TL S., B.C.
Mass., 2 F.R.D. 562.
Ark.— Parker v. Nixon, 44 S.W.2d
1088, 184 Ark. 1085.
Cal.— Cadenasso v. Bank of Italy, 6
P.2d 944, 214 Cal. 562.
Iowa. — Des Moines Coal & Coke Co.
v. Marks Inv. Co., 195 N.W. 597,
197 Iowa 5*89, modified on other
grounds 197 N.W. 628, 197 Iowa
589.
34 C.J. p 481 note 74.
Laches see infra § 381.
Time for appeal
A bill in the nature of a bill to im-
peach a decree for fraud practiced
in the procurement of service of
process was maintainable notwith-
standing the time to appeal had ex-
pired.— MacKay v. Bacon, (Bla., 20
So.2d 904.
Partition
Mere lapse of time will not pre-
vent equity court from correcting or
reversing decrees of partition en-
tered erroneously on testimony plain-
ly incorrect as to location of land. —
Crandol v. Garrison, 1-69 A. 507, 115
N.J.EQ. 11.
Liability created "by statute
•Limitation statute affecting ac-
tions on liability created by statute
was inapplicable to equitable action
to vacate judgment because of trial
judge's disqualification. — Cadenasso
*. Bank of Italy, 6 P.2d 944, 214 CaL
562.
74. Ala.— Quick v. McDonald, 10$ So.
529, 214 Ala. 587.
Cal. — Westphal v. Westphal, 126 P.2d
105, 20 Cal.2d 393— Rogers v. Mul-
key, 147 P.2d 62, 63 Cal.App.2d 567
— Bartell v. Johnson, 140 P.2d 878,
60 CaLApp.2d 432 — F. B. Young Co.
v. Pemstrom, 79 P.2d 1117, 31 Cal.
App.2d Supp. 763.
Ga.— Williamson v. Haddock, 140 S.
E. 373, 165 Ga. 168.
Nev.— Lauer v. Eighth Judicial Dis-
trict Court in and for Clark Coun-
ty, 140 P.2d 953, 62 Nev. 78.
Okl. — Caraway v. Overholser, 77 P.2d
688, 182 OkL 357.
Wash.— Dale v. Cohn, 127 P.2d 412,
14 Wash.2d 214 — Fisch v. Marler,
97 P.2d 147, 1 Wash.2d 698.
34 C.J. p 481 note 75.
Time for motion to vacate see supra
§ 288.
75. Ala. — Cassady v. Davis, 15 So.2d
909, 245 Ala. 93— Quick v. McDon-
ald, 108 So. 529, 214 Ala. 587.
HI.— Allen v. 220 B. Walton Place
Bldg. Corporation, 26 N.E.2d 662,
304 IlLApp. 585.
Salt held not brought in time
Tex. — Bddingston v. Allen, Civ.App.,
126 S.W.2d 1008.
70. Ga. — Williamson Y. Haddock,
140 S.E. 373, 165 Ga. 168.
77. Ga. — Longshore v. Qollier, 140
S.E. 636, 37 Ga.App. 450, followed
in Reddy-Waldhauer-Maffett Co. v.
Cranman, 153 S.E. 616, 41 Ga.App.
563.
Tex.— Mann v. Risher, 116 S.W.2d
692, 131 Tex 498— Universal Cred-
it Co. v. Cunningham, Civ.App., 109
S.W.2d 507, error dismissed — Old-
ham v. Heatherly, Civ.App., 3 S.
W.2d 484 — Barton v. Montex Cor-
poration, Civ.App., 295 S.W. 950.
Wyo. — Rock Springs Coal & Mining
Co. v. Black Diamond Coal Co., 272
P. 12, 39 Wyo. 379.
78. Cal.— Hallett v. Slaughter, 140
P.2d 3, 22 Cal.2d 552.
Mont. — State ex rel. Hedle v. District
Court in and for Missoula County,
59 P.2d 58, 102 Mont. 541.
79. Ind. — Globe Mining Co. v. Oak
Ridge Coal Co., 177 N.E. 868, 204
Ind. 11.
754
Minn.— Lenhart v. Lenhart Wagon
Co., 298 N.W. 37, 210 Minn. 164.
135 A.L.R. 833, mandate modified
on other grounds 2 N.W.2d 421, 211
Minn. 572 — Murray v. Calkins, 254
N.W. 605, 191 Minn. 460.
Mo.— Fadler v. Gabbert, 63 S.W.2d
121, 333 Mo. 551.
Ohio.— Baylor v, Killinger, 186 N.K
512, 44 Ohio App. 523.
Okl. — Caraway v. Overholser, 77 P.
2d 688, 1S2 Okl. 357— Savoy Oil Co.
v. Emery, 277 P. 1029, 137 Okl. 67
—Miller v. White, 265 P. 646, 129
Okl. 184.
Pa,— 'Frantz v. City of Philadelphia, 3
A.2d 917, 333 Pa. 220.
34 C.J. p 481 note 7-6.
In California
The limitation of six months pre-
scribed by Civ.Code § 473, in suits
for relief from a judgment taken
against one through his mistake, etc.,
does not apply to suits for relief be-
cause of extrinsic fraud, but ap-
plies where the fraud is intrinsic.—
Rogers v. Mulkey, 147 P.2d 62, 63
Cal.App.2d 567 — Tomb v. Tomb, 7 P.
2d 1104, 120 Cal.App. 438—34 C.J. p
481 note 76 [a].
In Iowa
(1) If party discovers or by rea-
sonable diligence might have discov-
ered fraud in securing judgment
within year, he may not sue In
equity to vacate Judgment after ex-
piration of year. — Gehle v. Hart, 229
N.W. 149, 209 Iowa 736— Swartzen-
druber v. Polke, 218 N.W. -62, 205
Iowa 382— Haas v. Nielsen, 206 N.W.
253, 200 Iowa 1314.
(2) Judgment will not be vacated
after one year on ground that plain-
tiff committed perjury. — Abell v.
Partello, 211 N.W. 868, 202 Iowa 1236.
(1) An action to set aside a judg-
ment for fraud practiced by the suc-
cessful party in obtaining it must be
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 379
tory limitations applicable to proceedings by bill of
review80 or appeal81 have been held applicable ; and
in all cases within the terms of such statutes suit
may and should be brought within the time limit-
ed.82 It has been held that a statute of limitations
does not bar suit where the ground of the appli-
cation for an injunction did not exist when the
judgment was rendered,88 where the institution of
proceedings within the time limited was prevented
by the fraud of the adverse party,84 or where he
was a nonresident during the running of the statu-
tory period.85
In the case of fraud it is generally provided that
brought within two years, unless
plaintiff is under some disability. —
Johnson v. -Schrader, 95 P.2d 273,
150 Kan. 545— Elfert v. Elfert, 294
P. 921, 132 Kan. 218— Harvey v. Do-
Ian, 176 P. 1*34, 103 Kan. 717.
(2) Proceedings to open up judg-
ment obtained without other service
than publication in newspaper must
be brought within three years.— El-
fert v. Elfert, supra.
In Louisiana
(1) An action to annul a judgment
must be brought within one year
from its rendition; if on the ground
of fraud, within one year from the
discovery of the fraud.— Adkins'
Heirs v. Qrawford, Jenkins & Booth,
24 So.2d 246 — Succession of Raphael,
144 So. 429, 175 La, 715—34 C.J. p
481 note 76 [f].
(2) However, prescription of one
year does not apply to action to an-
nul confession of judgment made in
violation of law or public policy. —
Cilluffa v. Monreale Realty Co., 24
So.2d 606— Phillips v. Bryan, 134 So.
88, 172 OLa, 269.
(3) A judgment against one who
has not been cited and who has not
appeared is a nullity so that attack
thereon is not barred by two-year
prescriptive period relating to suits
attacking judgments for mere in-
formalities.—Dickey v. Pollock, App.,
183 So. 4.8.
In South Dakota
The code provisions limiting to
one year the trial court's authority
to grant new trials for newly discov-
ered evidence or relief from a judg-
ment because of mistake, inadver-
tence, surprise, or excusable neglect
were adopted as a part of the re-
formed code procedure to the end
that there, might be a certain finality
to judgments, and were made applic-
able to suits in equity as well as ac-
tions at law.— Wasem v. Ellens, 4 N
W.2d 850, 68 S.D. 524.
In Texac
(1) A direct attack in equity on <
judgment is subject to the bar o
the four-year statute of limitations
— Whitehurst v. Estes, Civ.App., 185
S.W.2d 154, error refused — Litton v
Waters, Civ.App., 161 S.W.2d 1095
error refused — Laird v. Gulf Produc
tion Co., Civ.App., 64 S.W.2d 1080
error dismissed — Burge v. Broussard
Civ.App., 258 S.W. 502—34 C.J. P 4S
note 7-6 [13.
(2) Such statute applies to suit t
••acate a judgment by default ren-
dered on constructive service by pub-
ication.— Snell v. Knowles, Civ.App.,
7 S.W.2d 871, error dismissed—
Seastrunk v. Kidd, Civ.App., 53 S.
W.2d 678.
(3) Where defendant is cited by
mblication and judgment rendered,
le may file within two years a bill
jf review. — Texas Co. v. Dunlap, Civ.
App., 21 S.W.2d 707, affirmed, Com.
App., 41 S.W.2d 42, rehearing denied
3 S.W.2d 92.
(4) A petition for bill of review is
iot a "suit at law" governed by four-
/ear statute of limitations, but is an
'equitable proceeding" governed by
the rule of equity relating to stale
demands and laches.— Garcia v.
Jones, Civ.App., 155 S.W.2d 671, er-
ror refused.
(5) Statute prohibiting injunction
to stay execution, after expiration of
one year, is not applicable, where in-
iunction is auxiliary to suit to va-
cate judgment— West v. Dugger,
Civ.App., 278 S.W. 239.
SO, 111. — Knaus v. Chicago Title &
Trust Co., 7 N.E.2d 298, *365 111.
588.
Md.— Fooks' Ex'rs v. Ghingher, 192
A. 782, 172 Md. 612, certiorari de-
nied Phillips v. Ghingher, 58 -S.Ct.
47, 302 -U.S. 726, 52 L.Ed. 561.
Xa Alabama
(1) "In a long line of decisions
this court has declared bills in equi-
ty to enjoin or cancel judgments at
law because of mistake, accident, or
fraud, are bills in the nature of bills
of review, and by analogy, a limita-
tion of three years has been applied;
with proviso that one year must be
allowed after discovery of the fraud
mistake, etc., upon which the equity
of the bill rests." — Hatton v. Mose-
ley, 156 So. 546, 547, 229 Ala. 240.
(2) There are a number of cases
which have held in accordance with
this statement of the rule. — Swoope
v. Darrow, 188 So. 879, 237 Ala. 692
— Wynn v. First Nat Bank, 159 So
58, 229 Ala. 639— Nichols v. Dill, 132
So. 900, 222 Ala. 455— Quick v. Me
Donald, 108 So. 529, 214 Ala, 587—
34 C.J. p 481 note 76 [a].
(3) A complainant seeking in equi
ty to set aside a judgment at law
was not precluded \ by statute of lim
itations from maintaining suit, i
she had good excuse for delay. — Me
Williams v. Martin, 188 So. 677, 23
Ala. <624.
755
1. 111.— Knaus v. Chicago Title &
Trust Co., 7 N.E.2d 298, 365 111.
588.
Md.— Hunter v. Baker, 141 A. 368,
154 Md. 307 certiorari denied 49
S.Ct 28, 278 U.S. 627, T3 L.Ed. 546.
82. U.S.— McCampbell v. Warrich
Corporation, C.C.A.I1L, 109 F.2d
115, certiorari denied 60 <S.Ct. 1077,
310 U.S. 631, 54 L.Ed.' 1401, rehear-
ing denied -61 S.Ct 55, second case,
311 U.S. 612, 85 L.Ed. 388, and 61
S.Ct 1089, 313 U.S. 599, «5 LuEd.
1551.
\la.— Miller v. Miller, 175 So. 284,
234 Ala. 453 — Hatton v. Moseley,
156 So. 546, 229 Ala. 240.
Ark.— Berry v. Sims, 112 S.W.2d 25,
195 Ark. 326.
Ga.— Crane v. Stratton, 194 -S.E. 182,
185 Ga. 234.
Iowa. — Harding v. Quinlan, 229 N.
W. 672, 209 Iowa 1190— Swartzen-
druber v. Polke, 218 N.W. 62, 205
Iowa "382.
N.M.— Caudill v. Caudill, 44 P.2d 724,
39 N.M. 248.
Ohio.— Baylor v. Killinger, 186 N.E.
512, 44 Ohio App. 523.
S.D.— Wasem v. Ellens, 4 N.W.2d 850,
68 S.D. 524.
Tex. — Jones v. Sun Oil Co., 153 S.
W.2d 571, 137 Tex. 353— White-
hurst v. Estes, Civ.App., 185 S.W.
2d 154, error refused — Litton v.
Waters, Civ.App., 161 S.W.2d 1095,
error refused — Snell v. Knowles,
Civ.App., 87 S.W.2d 871, error dis-
missed— First Texas Joint Stock
Land Bank of Houston v. Webb,
Civ.App., 82 S.W.2d 159, error dis-
missed.
Proceeding- held taronglit within time
Ga. — Longshore v. Collier, 140 S.E.
636, 37 Ga.App. 450, followed in
Reddy-Waldhauer-Maffett Co. v.
Cranman, 153 S.E. 616, 41 Ga.App.
563.
y. — Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. of
New York v. Myers, 109 S.W.2d
1194, 270 Ky. 523.
83. Tex. — Trammel! v. Chamberlain,
128 S.W. 429, 60 Tex.Civ.Ap-p. 238.
34 C.J. p 481 note 77.
84. Iowa. — Lumpkin v. Snook, 19 N.
W. 333, 63 Iowa 515.
Wash. — Denny-Renton Clay & Coal
Co. v. Sartori, 151 P. 1088, 87
Wash. 545.
35. Kan,— Hentig v. Sweet, 27 Kan.
172.
§ 379
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
limitations do not begin to run until after the dis-
covery of the fraud,86 and, even in the absence of
specific provision, lapse of the statutory period does
not bar suit under such circumstances;87 but suit
may88 and should89 be brought within a reasonable
time after discovery of the fraud. Knowledge of
the fraud, with respect to running of the statute of
limitations, may be constructive,90 and may be im-
puted to a party deriving his claim from one who
had knowledge.91 Under some statutes ignorance
of the judgment,93 or of the alleged mistake, neg-
lect, or omission rendering the judgment voida-
ble,93 will not extend the running of the statute
beyond the statutory period, and, in any case, pas-
sage of the twenty-year period of prescription may
preclude attack on a judgment regardless of when
the alleged fraud was discovered.94 In case of a
person under disability, the limitation begins to run
from the removal of the disability.95
It is generally held that, where a judgment or
decree is utterly void, suit for equitable relief
against its enforcement may be brought at any time
regardless of the statute of limitations.96
§ 380. Defenses
Any ground destructive of the plaintiff's equity may
constitute a defense to a bill for equitable relief against
a judgment.
A bill for an injunction against a judgment may
be defended on any ground destructive of the eq-
uity set up by complainant,97 and his negligence
may sometimes preclude the granting of relief.98
The judgment attacked may not be pleaded as a bar
or as res judicata.99 A transfer of plaintiff's inter-
as. Cal. — Antonsen v. Pacific -Con-
tainer Co., 120 P.2d 148, 48 Cal.
App.2d 535.
La. — Hanson v. Haynes, App., 171 So.
146.
34 C.J. p 481 note 80.
When, fraud perpetrated
Where note containing confession
of judgment was not to be presented
for collection until after maker's
death, fraud was perpetrated against
maker only on institution of suit on
note and rendition of executory judg-
ment therein during maker's life-
time, and not from date of execu-
tion of note, as regards question of
prescription. — Hanson v. Hayn.js, La.
App., 170 So. 257, rehearing denied
171 So. 146.
Disclosure of
Under (Louisiana statute requiring
that suit for declaration of nullity
of judgment because of fraud be
brought within one year from dis-
covery of fraud, suit in federal court
to set aside mortgage foreclosure
„ sale on ground of fraud could not be
maintained when filed more than a
year after suit in state court disclos-
ing full knowledge of the alleged
fraud. — McCrory v. Harp, D.C.La,, 31
•F.Supp. "354.
87. Wash.— Bates v. Glaser, 227 P.
15, 130 Wash. 328.
88. Wash. — Bates v. Glaser, supra.
89. Iowa, — Reppert v, Reppert. 241
N.W. 487, 214 Iowa 17.
90. Okl. — Caraway v. Overholser, 77
P.2d 688; 182 Okl. 357.
91. La. — Jackson v. Florsheim Bros.
Dry Goods Co., 131 So. 725, 171 La.
605.
92. Kan. — Irrigation .Loan & Trust
Co. v. Oswald, 176 P. 134, 103 Kan.
676.
93. Ohio.— Baylor v. Killinger, 186
N.B. 512, 44 Ohio App. 523.
94. Ala.— Bailey v. Bond, 185 So.
411. 237 Ala. 59.
95. Okl.— Miller v. White, 265 P. 646,
129 Okl. 184.
34 C.J. p 481 note 82.
Supervening- disability
The disability existing at time de-
cree was entered determines right of
party to decree to institute action
questioning validity of decree within
two years after such disability is re-
moved, and no supervening disabil-
ity can be tacked onto former dis-
ability in computing time within
which direct attack can be made on
decree. — McCampbell v. Warrich Cor-
poration, C.C.A.I1L, 109 F.2d 115, cer-
tiorari denied 60 S.Ct. 1077, 310 U.S.
631, 84 L.Ed. 1401, rehearing denied
61 S.Ct. 55, second case, 311 U.S. 612,
85 L.Ed. 388, and 61 S.Qt. 1089, 313
U.S. 599, 85 L.Ed. 1551.
96. Md. — Fooks' EJx'rs v. Ghinger,
192 A. 782, 172 Md. 612, certiorari
denied Phillips v. Ghinger, 58 S.Ct.
47, 302 U.S. 726, 82 L.Bd. 561.
Wash. — In re Randall's Estate, 113
P.2d 54, 8 Wash.2d ^622.
lack of service
Statutory limitation on proceed-
ings to set aside Judgments was in-
applicable, where attack on judg-
ment is based on ground that Judg-
ment is void for lack of service. —
Strickland v. Willingham, 175 S.E.
605; 49 Ga.App. 355.
97. U.S. — Benjamin Schwarz & Sons
v. Kennedy, C.C.Or., 156 F. 316.
Waiver of right to equitable relief
against judgment see supra §§ 341,
343.
Matters constituting- defense
(1) Generally.
Ohio. — Briggs v. Hutson, 160 N.E.
860, 27 Ohio App. 93, affirmed Hut-
son v. Briggs, 165 N.E. 534, 120
Ohio St. 58.
Tex— Smith v. Lockhart, Civ.App.,
177 S.W.2d 117.
756
(2) Order, on motion for new tri-
al, overruling contention that judg-
ment was recovered on perjured tes-
timony, could be pleaded in bar of
action to set aside judgment. — Pucek
v. Koppa, Tex.Civ.App., 32 S.W.2d
248.
not constituting' defense
(1) Generally.
Ark.— Holthoff v. State Bank & Trust
Co. of Wellston, Mo.. 186 S.W.2d
162, 208 Ark. 307.
Or. — Maywood Inv. Co. v. Blair, 64
F.2d' 1W 155 Or. -696.
34 C.J. p 481 note 83 [a].
(2) Subsequent discharge in bank-
ruptcy of judgment creditor who did
not schedule judgment among assets
was no defense to bill, filed before
judgment creditor received his dis-
charge, to enjoin enforcement of
judgment because of fraudulent as-
signment and bankruptcy proceed-
ing to prevent offset — Dickey v.
Turner, C.C.A.Tenn., 4*9 F.2d 998.
<3) Heirs joining in petition to be
placed in possession of intestate's
property were not estopped to sue
for reformation of Judgment there-
on where petition provided that no
one should be estopped or bound by
proceedings thereon, with certain
exceptions. — Succession of Williams,
121 So. 171, 168 La. 1.
98. Wis.— Kiel v. Scott & Williams,
202 N.W. 672, 186 Wis. 416.
Neglect of party or negligence of
counsel as excuse for not defend-
ing at law see supra §§ '367, 368.
Negligence resulting in loss of rem-
edy* at law as affecting right to ra-
lief see supra $ 343.
99. La. — Couret v. Couret 1*8 So.2d
661, 206 La. 85— Haley v. Woods,
113 So. 144, 163 La. 911— Quinn v.
Brown, 105 So. 624, 159 (La. 570.
34 C.J. p 482 note 84.
Res judicata see infra $$ 592-848.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
381
^st, pending a suit to set aside a judgment in par-
tition on the ground of fraud, may not be pleaded in
of the proceeding.1
Laches
§381.
A party seeking equitable relief against a judgment
must act with reasonable promptness or his suit may
toe barred by laches, especially where the rights of other
persons have been prejudiced by the delay; but delay
due to legal disability, ignorance of the facts, or pur-
.suit of other remedies generally does not constitute
Jaches.
One who desires to invoke the assistance of eq-
uity as against a judgment at law must act with
reasonable promptness, and relief will not be grant-
ed to a complainant who has delayed his application
to equity, without adequate excuse, for such a con-
siderable period of time as to be chargeable with
laches,2 especially where the situation of the ad-
verse party has changed to his disadvantage,3 or
where the rights of innocent third persons have
intervened,4 as where the judgment has been col-
lected by execution and title to real estate would be
invalidated by the setting aside of the judgment.5
However, the court has a large discretion as to the
1. Iowa,— Wright v. Meek, 3 Greene
472.
fl< U.S.— Chase Nat. Bank v. City of
Norwalk, Ohio, 54 S.Ct. 475, 291
US 431, 78 L.Ed. 894— Morse v.
Lewis, C.C.A.W.Va., 54 F.2d 1027,
-certiorari denied 52 S.Ct. 640, 286
U.S. 557, 76 L.Ed. 1291— Ha2ard v.
Park, C.C.A.Colo., 294 F. 40.
Ala.— McWilliams v. Martin, 188 So.
677, 237 Ala. 624.
yia.— Columbus Hotel Corporation v.
Hotel Management Co., 156 So. 893,
116 Fla. 464 — Adams v. Reynolds.
134 So. 45, 101 Fla, 271.
1U. — Hintz v. Moldenhauer, 243 111.
App. 227.
X,a.— First Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Bell,
141 So 379, 174 La. 692 — Roque v.
Henry, App., 189 So. 358— Surety
Credit Co. v. Bauer, 1 La.App. 285.
Mich.— Barr v. Payne, 298 N.W. 460,
298 Mich. 85.
Minn.— -Bloomquist v. Thomas, 9 N.
W.2d 337, 215 Minn, 35.
3£iss. — Lainar v. Houston, 184 So.
293, 183 Miss. 260— Cratin v. Cra-
tin, 174 So. 255, 178 Miss. 881.
Ho.— Kingshighway Bridge Co. v.
Farrell, App., 136 S.W.2d 335.
Neb.— Lindstrom v. Nilsson, 274 N.
W. 485, 132 Neb. 184.
N.J — Cameron v. Penn Mut. Life
Ins. Co., 173 A. 344, 116 N.J.Eq.
311 — Etz v. Weinmann, 150 A. 436,
106 N.J.Bq. 209— Shields v. Cape
May Real Estate Co., 135 A. 669, 5
N.J.Misc. 92, affirmed, Err. & App.,
Shields v. Cape May Realty Estate
Co., 143 A. 919, 105 N.J.Law 247,
Pa.— Bailey v. Bailey, 12 A.2d 577
338 Pa. 221— Di Trolio v. Parisi
176 A. 733, 317 Pa. 507.
R.I.— Gilbane v. Union Trust Co.,
118 A. 577.
Tex.— Whitehurst v. Estes, Civ.App.
185 S.W.2d 154, error refused-
Thomas v. Mullins, Civ.App., 175
* S.W.2d 276— Litton v. Waters, Civ
App., 161 S.W.2d 1095, error re
fused— Garcia v. Jones, Civ.App.
155 S.W.2d 671, error refused —
Floyd v. Eggleston, Civ.App., 13"
S.W.2d 182, error refused, certio
rari denied 61 S.Ct 314, 311 TJ.S
708, 85 L.Ed. 460, rehearing denied
61 S.Ct. 609, 312 U.S. 713, 85 L.Bd
1143— -Dunlap v. Villareal, Civ.App.
91 S.W.2d 1124— Bryan v. Jacoby,
Civ.App., 11 S.W.2d 373— Kahl v.
Porter, Civ.App., 296 S.W. 324.
Vash.— Fisch v. Marler, 97 P.2d 147,
1 Wash.2d 698.
,4 C.J. p 482 note 85—24 C.J. p 888
note 86.
Laches generally see Equity §§ 112-
132.
"The question of laches on the
part of the petitioner will be deter-
mined largely on the question as to
whether the parties have changed
their position irrevocably or rights
of innocent third parties have inter-
vened, and, while laches alone will
not necessarily defeat such action,
it may under the circumstances of
the individual case justify the court
in denying relief."— Fernow v. Fer-
now, 247 P. 106, 107, 114 Okl. 298.
Delay held laches
(1) Fifty years. — Barnes v. Boyd,
C.C.A.W.Va., 73 F.2d 910, certiorari
denied 55 S.Ct. 550, 294 U.S. 723, 79
L.Ed. 1254, rehearing denied 55 S.Ct.
647, 295 U.S. 768, 79 L.Ed. 1708.
(2) Twenty years. — Scully v. Co-
lonial Trust Co., 147 A. 776, 105 N.J.
Eq. 309—34 C.J. p 482 note 85 [a]
(3).
(3) Fifteen years.— Metzger v.
Horn, 143 N.E. 408, 312 111. 173.
(4) Eleven years.— Craig v. Black,
229 N.W. 411, 249 Mich. 485.
(5) Ten years. — Swoope v. Darrow,
188 So. 879, 237 Ala. 692—34 C.J. ~
482 note 85 [a] (5).
(6) Five years.— Walling v. Lebb,
15 P.2d 370, 140 Or. 691—34 C.J. 482
note 85 [a] (9).
(7) Four years.— Kiel v. Scott &
Williams, 202 N.W. 672, 186 Wis. 415.
(8) Three years.
Ark.— Horn v. Hull, 275 S.W. 905
169 Ark. 463.
Or.— Olsen v. Crow, 290 P. 233, 133
Or. 310.
34 OJ. P 482 note 85 [a] (10).
(9) One year.
Cal.— Rudy v. Slotwinsky, 238 P. 783
73 Cal. App. 459.
Mont— St Paul Fire & Marine Ins
Co. v. Freeman, 260 P. 124, 8'
Mont. 266.
757
(10) Other periods see 34 C.J. P
82 note 85 [a].
Failure to join in previous suits
Suit to set aside judgments was
not maintainable where plaintiff, al-
hough knowing of previous suits
wrought for same relief by parties
having same interest which, if suc-
cessful, would have established
plaintiff's rights, did not join therein
nit waited until previous suits were
adversely determined. — Barnes v.
Boyd, D.C.W.Va., 8 F.Supp. 584, af-
firmed, C.C.A., 73 F.2d 910, certiorari
denied 55 S.Ct 550, 294 U.S. 723, 79
L.Ed. 1254, rehearing denied 55 S.Ct.
647, 295 U.S. 768, 79 L.Ed. 1708.
3. Ark. — Thornton v. Commonwealth
Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n, 152
S.W.2d 304, 202 Ark. 670.
111.— South East Nat Bank of Chi-
cago v. Board of Education of City
of Chicago, 18 N.E.2d 599, 298 111.
App. 621— South East Nat. Bank of
Chicago v. Board of Education of
City of Chicago, 18 N.E.2d 601, 298
IlLApp. 621— South East Nat Bank
of Chicago v. Board of Education
of City of Chicago, 18 N.E.2d 602,
298 IlLApp. 621— South East Nat.
Bank of Chicago v. Board of Edu-
cation of City of Chicago, 18 N.E.
2d 603, 298 IlLApp. 621— South
East Nat. Bank of Chicago v.
Board of Education of City of Chi-
cago, 18 N.E.2d 584, 298 IlLApp.
92.
Mich.— Craig v. Black, 229 N.W. 411,
249 Mich. 485.
Okl.— Fernow v. Fernow. 247 P. 106,
114 Okl. 298.
34 C.J. p 482 note 86.
4. Ind. — Indiana B. & W. R. Co. v.
Bird, 18 N.E. 837, 116 Ind. 217,
9 Am.S.R. 842 — Dausman v. Daus-
mah, 33 N.B.2d 775, 110 Ind.App.
238.
Miss. — Lamar v. T'ouston,. 184 So.
293, 183 Miss. 260.
kl. — Fernow v. Fernow, 247 P. 106,
114 Okl. 298.
RJ.— Gilbane v. Union Trust Co., 118
A. 577.'
5- Ark. — Jackson v. Becktold Print-
ing & Book Mfg. Co., 112 S.W. 161,
86 Ark. 591, 20 L.R.A.,N.SM 454.
Pa.— Gould v. 'Randal, 81 A. 809, 232
Pa. 612.
§ 381
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
lapse of time which will show laches,6 and a suit
will not be barred for mere delay, in the absence of
other elements of laches,7 as where it is not shown
that other persons were prejudiced by such delay.8
Accordingly, where plaintiff acts within a reason-
able time, considering the circumstances of the
case, he will not be barred by laches from seeking
relief.9 Ordinarily laches is not imputable to a
complainant who takes all the time which the stat-
ute allows him,10 but under certain circumstances
laches may operate to bar suit prior to the run-
ning of the statutory period,11 as where the delay
has been such as to justify the presumption that
defendant may have been prejudiced thereby.12
However great the lapse of time since the rendi-
tion of the judgment, applicant is not to be charged
with laches where he was ignorant of its existence,
or of his defenses against it, and acts promptly aft-
er discovering the facts;13 nor is laches imputable
to a party who, during the interval, has been con-
testing the validity of the judgment in the courts of
law or attempting to obtain relief against it in oth-
er proceedings.14 One against whom a void judg-
ment has been rendered will not be estopped by lach-
es to seek relief from such judgment at any time;15
and, with respect to laches in seeking correction of
a decree in partition, one in peaceable possession of
realty under a claim of right may rest in security
until his title or possession is attacked.16
Person under legal disability. As a rule laches is
not imputable to a person while he is under legal
disability,17 but in some circumstances the laches of
a parent or guardian may be imputable to a mi-
18
nor.A
6. Tex.— Wright v. "Wright, Civ.
App., 55 S.W.2d 578.
7. NX—Metropolitan Life Ins. Co,
v. Tarnowski, 20 JL2d 421, 130
N.J.Eq. 1.
Tex. — Ramsey v. McKamey, 152 S.W.
2d 322, 137 Tex. 91.
Ordinary rales as to diligence in
moving for new trial and appealing
from judgment have been held not to
apply to statutory bill of review. —
Stillwell v. Standard Savings & Loan
Ass'n, Tex.Civ.App., 30 S.W.2d 690,
error dismissed.
8. Cal.— Hallett v. Slaughter, 140
P.2d 3, 22 Cal.2d 552.
Fla. — MacKay v. Bacon, 20 So.2d 904,
155 Fla. 577.
Twenty-three yean
The fact that mutual mistake con-
cerning size of tract partitioned was
not discovered for twenty-three
years after entry of judgment in
partition proceeding did not preclude
the granting of repartition of the
land in order to correct the mistake,
in absence of intervening rights of
third persons. — Ramsey v. McKam-
ey, 152 S.W.2d 322, 137 Tex. 91.
9. Ark. — Kersh Lake Drainage Dial,
v. Johnson, 157 S.W.2d 39, 203 Ark.
315, certiorari denied Johnson v.
Kersh Lake Drainage Dist, 62 S.
Ct. 1044, 316 U.S. 673, 86 L.Ed.
1748.
Ga. — Turner v. Koske, 160 S.B. 398,
173 Ga. 390.
Minn. — Bloomquist v. Thomas, 9 N.
W.2d 337, 215 Minn. 35.
N.J.— Di Paola v. Trust Co. of
Orange, 156 A. 439, 109 N.J.Eq. 80.
Okl.— Wheeler v. BIgheart, 43 P,2d
1028, 172 Okl. 262— Fernow v. Fer-
now, 247 P. 106, 114 Okl. 298.
Wis. — Nehring v. Niemerowic^ 276
N.W. 325. 226 Wis. 285*
State cannot be barred of right
of action by laches. — Application of
Title & Guaranty Co. of Bridgeport
to Change Name to Bankers' Securi-
ty Trust Co.. 145 A. 151, 109 Conn.
45.
10. Iowa. — Independent School Dist
v. Schreiner, 46 Iowa 172.
Equitable defense
In absence of statutory duty to in-
terpose an equitable defense in an
action at law, it is not necessarily
"laches" for a defendant having such
a defense to wait deliberately until
judgment at law has been rendered
against him and then bring a suit
to restrain enforcement of judgment.
— Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hathaway
Baking Co., 28 N.E.2d 425, 306 Mass.
428.
Other remedy
One against whom judgment is
rendered may proceed, under statute
or in equity, for rehearing on ground
of want of notice or knowledge of
pendency of suit, or fraud prevent-
ing defense, and is not guilty of
laches in filing bill, without having
sought to avail herself of such stat-
ute.— Alabama Chemical Co. v. Hall,
101 So. 456, 212 Ala. 8.
11. Tex.— Williams v. Coleman-Ful-
ton Pasture Co., Civ. App., 157 S.
W.2d 995, error refused.
12. Cal. — Ex-Mission Land & Water
Co. v. Flash, 32 P. 600, 97 Cal.
610.
Miss. — Lamar v. Houston, 184 So.
293, 183 Miss. 260.
13. ' Cal. — Antonsen v. Pacific Con-
tainer Co., 120 P.2d 148, 48 Cal.
App.2d 535.
111. — Reisman v. Central Mfg. Dist.
Bank, 15 N.E.2d 903, 296 IlLApp.
61.
34 C.J. p 482 note 91.
14. Ark. — Parker v. Nixon, 44 S.W.
2d 1088, 184 Ark. 1085.
758
Cal. — Cadenasso v. Bank of Italy, 6
P.2d 944, 214 Cal. 562.
34 C.J. p 482 note 93.
15. Cal.— Gray v. Hall, 265 P. 246,
203 Cal. 306.
Iowa. — Cooley v. Barker, 98 NWV>
289, 122 Iowa 440, 101 Am.S.R. 276.
La. — Franek v. Turner, 114 So. 14 S,
164 La. 532 — Frank v. Currie, App.,
172 So. 843.
Pa.— In re Galli's Estate, 17 A.2d 899,
340 Pa. 561.
Judgment rendered without service
Mere knowledge of pendency of
suit placed no duty to act on defend-
ant who could rely on statute pro-
viding that no judgment shall be
rendered against defendant without
service, as respects laches barring
suit to vacate default Judgment
against defendant — Panhandle Const.
Co. v. Casey, Tex. Civ. App., 66 S.W.
2d 705, error refused.
16. N.J. — Crandol v. Garrison, 169
A. 507, 115 N.J.Bq. 11.
17. Tex. — Garza v. Kenedy, Com.
App., 299 S.W. 231, rehearing de-
nied 5 S.W.2d xx.
34 C.J. p 482 note 92.
An insane person is not guilty of
laches.
Ala. — Edmondson v. Jones, 85 So.
799, 204 Ala. 133.
Mo. — Crow v. Crow-Humphrey, 73 S.
W.2d 807, 335 Mo. 636.
18. U.S.— Morse v. Lewte, C.C.A.W.
Va., 54 F.2d 1027, certiorari denied
52 S.Ct 640, 286 U.S. 557, 76 L.
Ed. 1291.
Claim derived from parent
One suing to set aside judgments
confirming arbitrators' award of land
was chargeable with her mother's
laches, although plaintiff was non-
^esident infant at time of arbitration
*nd knew nothing thereof until
shortly before bringing suit, where
•JaintifTs claim was derived from
her. mother. — Morse v. Lewis, supra.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
382
Suit by person not a party to judgment. Gener-
ally the rule that an action for equitable relief
against a judgment must be diligently pursued with-
in a reasonable time after rendition of a judgment
does not apply where relief is sought by one not a
party or privy to the judgment involved,19 but one
deriving his claim of right from a party to the judg-
ment who was guilty of laches may be barred there-
by from seeking relief.20
§ 382. Jurisdiction of Particular Courts
Equitable relief against a judgment may be sought
only in a court having the requisite power and author-
ity, and, while usually it is proper to sue in the court
-which rendered the judgment, suit in another court of
concurrent or equal jurisdiction is permitted In some
states; and a federal court may in a s.uit within its
jurisdiction grant relief against a void Judgment of a
state court.
As a general rule, equitable relief against a judg-
ment may be sought only in a court having the pow-
er and authority to consider such an application,22
and ordinarily, if the court which rendered the
judgment has equitable powers, it is proper to bring
suit in that court to enjoin or set aside the judg-
ment22
In some states it is generally the rule, that any
court of equitable powers, having jurisdiction of
the parties and the subject matter, may enjoin the
enforcement of a judgment, although it was ren-
dered by a court of concurrent or equal jurisdic-
tion,23 and, where this rule prevails, a court of
chancery jurisdiction may enjoin a judgment ob-
tained in another chancery court,24 or in the su-
preme court of the state,25 or even in a court in
another state.26 In other jurisdictions, either by
statute or settled practice, a suit to enjoin a judg-
ment must be brought in the same court which ren-
dered it, and will not -be entertained by another
court of coordinate jurisdiction,27 unless such judg-
13U U.S.— Chase Nat. Bank v. City
of Norwalk, Ohio, 54 S.Ct 475,
291 U.S. 431, 78 L.Ed. 894.
20. U.S.— Barnes v. Boyd, D.C.W.
Va., 8 F.Supp. 584, affirmed, C.C.A.,
73 F.2d 910, certiorarl denied 55
S.Ct 550, 294 U.S. 723, 79 L.Ed.
1254, rehearing denied 55 S.Ct. 647,
295 U.S. 768, 79 L.Ed. 1708.
31. La. — McClelland v. District
Household of Ruth, App., 151 So.
246.
?*.M.— Vermejo Club v. French, 85 P.
2d 90, 43 N.M. 45.
N.Y.— Boston & M. R. R. v. Dela-
ware & H. Co., 264 N.Y.S. 470, 238
App.Div. 191.
Or. — McLean v. Sanders, 23 P.2d 321,
143 Or. 524, followed in Conrad v.
Sanders, 23 P.2d 323, 143 Or. 531.
«rex. — Petroleum Corporation v. Rod-
den, Civ.App.. 139 S.W.2d 218.
Jurisdiction:
Generally see supra § 342.
Of courts of particular states gen-
erally see Courts §§ 249-297.
Court held to have jurisdiction
tu.— Louis B. Bower, Inc., v. Silver-
stein, 13 N.E.2d 385, 298 Ill.App.
145.
Mich.— McFarlane v. McFarlane, 293
N.W. 895, 294 Mich. 648.
Ohio.— Young v. Guella, 35 N.E.2d
997, 67 Ohio App. 11.
Judgment made final by statute
The county court was without ju
risdiction to issue injunction re-
straining enforcement of county
court's final judgment in forcible de-
tainer proceeding which was insti-
tuted in justice court and appealed
to county court, notwithstanding no-
tice of appeal was not given as re-
quired by statute, where county
court's judgment on appeal from
forcible detainer proceeding institut-
ed in justice court was made final
by statute,— Urbanec v. Jezik, Tex.
Uiv.App., 138 S.W.2d 1098.
22. U.S. — Torquay Corporation v.
Radio Corporation of America, IXC.
N.Y., 2 F.Supp. 841.
Cal. — Cadenasso v. Bank of Italy, 6
P.2d 944, 214 Cal. 562— Tomb v.
Tomb, 7 P.2d 1104, 120 Cal.App.
438.
La.— Pullen v. Pullen, 109 So. 400,
161 La, 721.
N.D. — Lamb v. Northern Imp. Co., 3
N.W.2d 77, 71 N.D. 481.
Tex. — Texas Employers' Ass'n v.
Cashion, Civ.App., 130 S.W.2d 1112,
error refused — Elder v. Byrd-Frost,
Inc., Civ.App., 110 S.W.2d 172—
Shipman v. Wright, Civ.App., 288
S.W. 281 — Home Ben. Ass'n of
Henderson County v. Boswell, Civ.
App., 268 S.W. 979.
Municipal courts have the same
jurisdiction as equity courts to set
aside judgments on ground of fraud.
— Louis E. Bower, Inc., v. Silver-
stein, 18 N.E.2d 385, 298 Ill.App. 145.
Transfer of cause
Where suit to vacate district court
judgment was properly filed in that
court and legally transferred to an-
other district court, such other dis-
trict court had jurisdiction to try is-
sues.— Snell v. Knowles, Tex.Civ.
App., 87 S.W.2d 871, error dismissed
— Brox v. Kelly, Tex.Civ.App., 87
S.W.2d 753, error dismissed agree-
ment.
23. Miss.— Rockett v. Finley, 184
So. 78, 183 Miss. 308.
Ohio. — Young v. Guella, 35 N.E.2d
- 997, ,67 Ohio App. 11.
34 C.J. p 483 note 96.
(1) It has been held that the fact
that a fraudulent judgment was ob-
tained in one court does not deprive
759
other courts of general and equal
Jurisdiction from exercising their
equity powers to annul it — Bullard
v. Zimmerman, 268 P. 512, 82 Mont.
434.
(2) It has also been said, however,
that one court is without power to
nterfere with the judgments of an-
other court of concurrent Jurisdic-
tion unless the court in which the
suit is pending cannot for lack of
jurisdiction grant the .relief desired.
— Beck v. Fransham, 53 P. 96, 21
Mont 117.
24. Tenn. — Douglass v. Joyner, 1
Baxt 32.
25. Ga.— Wade v. Watson, 66 S.E.
922, 133 Ga. 608.
34 C.J. p 483 note 98.
28. N.Y.— Davis v. Cornue, 45 N.E.
449, 151 N.Y. 172.
34 C.J. p 483 note 99.
37. I1L — Simmons v. Hefter, 139 N.
E. 404, 308 111. 292— American Ry.
Express Co. v. Murphy, 234 111.
App. 346.
Ky.— Davis v. Caudill, 92 S.W.2d 62,
263 Ky. 214— Davis v. Davis, 10
Bush 274.
Mass. — Town of Hopkinton v. B. F.
Sturtevant Co., 189 N.E. 107, 285
Mass. 272.
Tex. — Waples Platter Co. v. Miller,
Civ.App., 139 S.W.2d 833^-Duncan
Coffee Co. v. Wilson, Civ.App., 139
S.W.2d 327, error dismissed — Tex-
as Employers' Ass'n v. Cashion,
Civ.App., 130 S.W.2d 1112,- error
refused — Brox v. Kelly, Civ.App.,
87 S.W.2d 753, error dismissed
agreement— Landa v. Bogle, Civ.
App., 62 S.W.2d 579, set aside on
other grounds Bogle v. Landa, 94
S.W.2d 154, 127 Tex. 317— Halbrook
v. Quinn, Civ.App., 286 S.W. 954,
certified questions dismissed Quinn
§ 382
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
ment is void and its invalidity is apparent on the
face of the record,28 or the enforcement of the
judgment is sought to be restrained for some pur-
pose collateral to the subsequent suit,29 or it ap-
pears that the court rendering the judgment is un-
able by reason of its limited jurisdiction to afford
the relief sought30 It has been held that the rule
is the same whether the second action is brought
by a party or a stranger to the first,81 but there is
also authority to the contrary.32 The consent of
the parties cannot change the rule requiring suit in
the court which rendered the judgment, or relax its
binding force in any particular case.33
The federal courts are prohibited by statute from
granting injunctions to stay proceedings in the
state courts,34 but such statute does not prevent a
federal court in a suit within its jurisdiction, by
reason of diversity of citizenship and the amount in-
volved, from granting relief against a judgment of
a state court on the ground that it was procured by
fraud or was void for want of jurisdiction,35 where
such relief could be granted if the judgment was
that of a federal court.36 Conversely, state courts,
have no power or jurisdiction to enjoin the enforce-
ment of a judgment rendered by a court of the
United States37 unless such judgment was procured
by fraud.38
§ 383. Venue
A suit for equitable relief against a Judgment gen-
erally should be brought in the county or other judicial
district in which the judgment was rendered, but the:
proper venue may sometimes be elsewhere.
A bill in equity for relief against a judgment
should as a general rule be brought in the county
or other judicial district in which the judgment was
rendered,39 unless an objection on this ground is,
waived,40 or a change of venue is granted for due
v. Halbrook, 285 S.W. 1079, 115
Tex. 513 — Borders v. Highsmith,
Civ.App., 252 S.W. 270.
34 C.J. p 483 note 1.
Bale
Where a Judgment itself orders the
sale of specific property, such sale
cannot be restrained by another
court on the application of a party
to the Judgment. — Carey v. Looney,
251 S.W. 1040, 113 Tex. 93.
Zn Connecticut
(1) Under a statute so providing,
all actions for equitable relief
against Judgments rendered in the
superior court must be brought in
that court exclusively. — Smith v.
Hall, 42 A. 86, 71 Conn. 427.
(2) However, the superior court
has power in its equitable Jurisdic-
tion to afford relief against decrees
of court of probate. — Folwell v. How-
ell, 169 A. 199, 117 Conn. 565.
In Iowa
Under a statute so providing, when
proceedings on a judgment are
sought to be enjoined, the suit must
be brought in the county and court
in which the judgment was obtained.
—Ferris v. Grimes, 215 N.W. 646,
204 Iowa 587—34 CJ. p 483 note 1
Cb].
In, Louisiana
(1) As a general rule, suit to set
aside a judgment is properly insti-
tuted in the court which rendered
Judgment. — Trichel v. Bordelon, 9
Rob. 191— Clark v. Christine, 12 La.
394— Dickey v. Pollock, App., 183
So. 48.
(2) The action of nullit7 of judg-
ment must usually be brought before
the court which rendered the Judg-
ment, and it may not be brought in
another court unless the judgment
is absolutely .void on its face. — Abra- j
ham Land & Mineral Co. v. Marble
Sav. Bank, D.C.La., 35 P.Supp. 500.
(3) However, a judgment on ap-
peal rendered by a court without ju-
risdiction ratione materise may be
attacked before the court in which
the Judgment appealed from was
rendered, — Hibernia Nat. Bank v.
Standard Guano & Chemical Mfg.
Co., 26 So. 274, 51 La.Ann. 1321.
28. U.S. — Abraham Land & Mineral
Co. v. Marble Sav. Bank, D.C.La.,
35 F.Supp. 500.
Tex. — Carey v. Looney, 251 S.W.
1040, 113 Tex. 93— Allen v. Jones,
Civ.App., 192 S.W.2d 298, error re-
fused, no reversible error.
34 C.J. p 483 note 2.
29. Tex. — Carey v. Looney, 251 S.W.
1040, 113 Tex. 93.
34 C.J. p 483 note 3.
30. La. — Trichel v. Bordelon, 9 Rob.
191— Clark v. Christine, 12 La. 394.
34 C.J. p 483 note 4.
31. Wis.— Stein v. Benedict, 53 N.W.
891, 83 Wis. 603.
34 C.J. p 483 note 5.
32. Tex. — Carey v. Looney, 251 S.
W. 1040, 113 Tex. 93.
33. Cal.— Crowley v. Davis, 37 Cal.
268.
34* U.S. — National Surety Co. v.
Humboldt State Bank, Neb., 120
P. 593, 56 C.C.A. 657, 61 L.R.A.
394.
34 C.J. p 483 note 7.
Jurisdiction of federal courts to en-
join proceedings in federal courts
generally see Courts § 543.
35. U.S. — Simon v. Southern R. Co.,
La., 35 S.Ct 255, 236 U.S. 115, 59
L.Ed. 492.
34 C.J. p 483 note 8.
3ft, U.S. — Lehman v. Graham, Fla.,
135 F. 39, 67 C.C.A. 513.
760
37. U.S.— Central Nat. Bank v. Ste-
vens, N.T., 18 S.Ct. 403, 169 U.SL
432, 42 L.Ed. 807.
34 C.J. p 483 note 10.
Jurisdiction of state courts to en-
join proceedings in state courts
generally see Courts § 542.
38. Mo. — Wonderly v. Lafayette
County, 51 S.W. 745, 150 Mo. 635.
73 Am.S.R. 474, 45 L.R.A. 386.
Tenn. — Keith v. Alger, 85 S.W. 71*
114 Tenn. 1.
33. Iowa. — Ferris v. Grimes, 215 N..
W. 646, 204 Iowa 587.
Wyo. — Corpus Juris quoted ia Rush:
v. Rush, 133 P.2d 366, 372, 68 Wyo..
406.
34 C.J. p 484 note 12.
Situs of judgment
For the purpose of a proceeding-
on petition and service of summons*
to vacate a judgment after expira-
tion of term at which it was ren-
dered, on ground that it was ob-
tained by fraud, situs of Judgment
was in county in which judgment
was rendered. — Parker v. Board of*
Com'rs of Okmulgee County, 102 P.
2d 880, 187 Okl. 308, followed in Par-
ker v. Board of Com'rs of Okmulgee
County, 102 P.2d 883, 187 Okl. 311^
Statutory rule of venue that suit
to enjoin execution of Judgment
must be brought in county in which
judgment was rendered does not
control fundamental jurisdiction or
courts. — Burris v. Myers, Tex.Civ.
App., 49 S.W.2d 931.
40. Ala. — Shrader v. Walker, 8 Ala.
244.
Colo. — Smith v. Morrill, 55 P. 824, 12-
Colo.App. 233.
Special pleading
Objection, to venue in suit to en-
Join execution of judgment as not
brought in county in which judg-
ment was rendered must be specially
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
384
•cause,41 or unless the judgment is void, in which
case it may be attacked in any court having equita-
ble jurisdiction.42 It has been held, however, that
the suit may be brought in any county, subject to
defendant's right to have the case transferred.43 In
some cases the proper venue of the action has been
held to be the place where defendant resides, al-
though it is other than the place of the rendition of
the judgment,44 and in others that, when the judg-
ment is sought to be enforced against specific prop-
erty, an action to restrain such enforcement may
l>e maintained at the place where the property is
situated.45
| 384. Parties
a. In general
pleaded under oath. — Burris v. My-
•ers, Tex.Civ.App., 49 S.W.2d 931.
b. Plaintiffs
c. Defendants
a. In General
Generally all the parties to the original action or
their representatives, and any other persons whose rights
are Involved, are proper and necessary parties to an ac-
tion for equitable relief against a judgment, but per-
sons having no interest in the controversy need not be
Joined as parties.
To a bill in equity to set aside, vacate, or enjoin
the enforcement of, a judgment recovered at law,
all the parties to the original action,46 or their rep-
resentatives47 or privies,48 and also any other per-
sons whose rights would or might be affected by
the grant of the relief asked,49 may and should be
made parties. On the other hand, persons not par-
ties to the original suit and having no interest in
the controversy are not proper5** or necessary51
•41. Mo. — State v. Price, 38 Mo.
382.
•42. Tex. — Automobile Finance Co. v.
Bryan, Civ.App., 3 S.W.Sd 835.
34 C.J. p 484 note 15.
Trand
Action for relief against judgment
on the ground of fraud in its pro-
curement may be brought before
court of equitable jurisdiction in any
•county, and it is not essential that
the action be brought in the county
in which the judgment was render-
ed.— Young v. Young Holdings Cor-
poration, 80 P.2d 723, 27 Cal.App.2d
129.
43. Mont — Bullard v. Zimmerman,
268 P. 512, 82 Mont 434.
44. Ala.— Corpus Juris cited in Pox
*v. Fox, 179 So. 237, 23S, 235 Ala.
338.
Ga.— Whiteley v. Downs, 164 S.E.
318, 174 Ga. 839.
Kan.— Heston v. Finley, 236 P. 841,
118 Kan. 717.
34 C.J. p 484 note 16.
45. Kan.— Busenbark v. Busenbark,
7 P. 245, 33 Kan. 572.
34 C.J. p 484 note 17.
46. U.S.— Continental Inv. Co. v.
Toelle, C.C.A.Kan., 5 F.2d 907.
Ark.— Parker v, Nixon, 44 S.W.2d
1088, 184 Ark. 1085.
Ga. — Sewell v. Anderson, 30 S.E.2d
102, 197 Ga. 623.
111. — Gaumer v. Snedeker, 162 N.B.
137, 330 111. 511.
Okl.— Fidelity Building & Loan Ass'n
v. Newell, 55 P.2d 131, 176 Okl.
184.
Tex. — Wells v. Stonerock, 37 S,W.2d
712, 120 Tex. 287 — Nymon v. Eg-
gert, Civ.App., 154 S.W.2d 167—
Mills v. Baird, Civ.App., 147 S.W.2d
312, error refused — Avant v.
Broun, Civ.App., 91 S.W.2d 426,
error dismissed — Brox v. Kelly,
Civ.App., 87 S,W.2d 753, error dis-
missed agreement — Glenn v. Con-
nell, Civ.App., 74 S.W.2d 451, fol-
lowed in 74 S.W.2d 455— Panhandle
Const. Co. v. Casey, Civ.App., 66
S.W.2d 705, error refused — Dial v.
Martin, Civ.App., 8 S.W.2d 241, er-
ror dismissed — Christensen v. Fos-
ter, Civ.App., 297 S.W. 657 — Rone
v. Marti, Civ.App., 244 S.W. 639.
34 CJT. p 484 note 18.
Pavoratle or unfavorable effect
In suit to annul a judgment, all
parties to previous suit from which
the judgment resulted must be made
parties, irrespective of whether they
were affected favorably or unfavora-
bly by the judgment. — O' Sullivan v.
Knop, 195 So. 366, reheard 198 So.
191.
Severafcle interest
A bill of review attacking a judg-
ment in trespass to try title in so
far as it awarded an interest in
land to one of several defendants,
where interest of the defendant was
severable from that of other parties
whose rights were not challenged,
was not defective for failure to make
all parties to judgment parties to
the bill. — Lamb v. Isley, Tex.Civ,
App., 114 S.W.2d 673, rehearing de-
nied 115 S.W.2d 1036.
Suit to annul partition judgment
La. — Cornish v. Chaney, 147 So. 363,
177 La, 10.
47 C.J, p 43£ note 66.
47. Tex. — In re Supples1 Estate, Civ.
App., 131 S.W.2d 13.
34 C.J. p 484 note 19.
48. Tex. — Nymon v. Bggert. Civ.
App., 154 S.W.2d 157— Brox v.
Kelly, Civ.App., 87 S.W,2d 753, er-
ror dismissed agreement
49. U.S. — Maryland Casualty Co. y.
Waldrep, C.C.A.Okl., 126 F.2d 55S.
111. — Gaumer v. Snedeker, 162 N.B.
137, 330 111. «11.
761'
Neb. — Howard v. Spragins, 200 N.
W. 799, 112 Neb. 641.
Tex. — Sedgwick v. Kirby Lumber Co.,
107 S.W.2d 358, 130 Tex. 163— Pure
Oil Co. v. Reece, 78 S.W.2d 932, 124
Tex. 476 — Dallas County Bois
D'Arc Island Levee Dist. v. Glenn,
Com. App., 288 S.W. 165 — Bragdon
v. Wright, Civ.App., 142 S.W,2d
703, error dismissed — Johnson v.
Ortiz Oil Co., Civ.App., 104 S.W.2d
543 — Moore v. Evans, Civ.App., 103
S.W.2d 850— Reed v. Harlan, Civ.
App., 103 S.W.2d 236, error refused
—Dallas Coffee & Tea Co. v. Wil-
liams, Civ.App., 45 S.W.2d 724, er-
ror dismissed — -Rone v. Marti, Civ.
App., 244 S.W. 639.
34 C.J. p 484 note 20.
Persons against whom relief may
be had see supra § 345.
Parties interested in. maintenance of
judgment
Tex. — Dallas Coffee & Tea Co. v.
Williams, Civ.App., 45 S.W.2d 724,
error dismissed.
Marital relation
The state is an "interested party"
in cases brought under statute pro-
viding that any judgment obtained
by means of perjury or any fraudu-
lent act, practice, or representation
of prevailing party may be set aside,
where marital relation is involved,
but, where death intervenes and
there are no children but only prop-
erty rights involved, the state has
no concern and equitable principles
should govern. — Bloomaulst v. Thom-
as, 9 N.W.2d 337, 215 Minn. 35.
50. La. — Succession of Moore, App.,
193 So. 222.
51. U.S.— Hanna v. Brictson Mfg.
Co.. C.C.A.S.D., 62 F.2d 139.
Tex. — Williams v. Tooke, Civ.App.,
116 S.W.2d 1114, error dismissed.
Loan deed
Order arresting and setting aside
void decree canceling loan deed to
§ 384
JUDGMENTS
49 CTJ.S.
parties, and parties to the former suit sometimes
may not be necessary parties where they will not be
affected by the relief sought.52 Under proper cir-
cumstances a third person may be allowed to in-
tervene.53
b. Plaintiffs
All persons interested In the relief sought may Join
as parties plaintiff but persons whose interests are hos-
tile to those of the plaintiff, or against whom no relief
is sought, and who cannot be adversely affected by the
decree entered in the action are not necessary parties.
All persons interested in the relief sought may
join as parties plaintiff to a suit to enjoin or set
aside a judgment.5* Where a judgment is recov-
ered against two or more as joint defendants, all
should join as plaintiffs in an action to enjoin its
enforcement,55 or be joined as defendants, in ac-
cordance with the general rule in equity.56 The
rule is the same where the judgment was recovered
jointly against a principal and surety.57 This rule,
however, is one of convenience, and must yield
where its rigid enforcement would be attended with
inconvenience,58 and persons whose interests are
hostile to those of plaintiff, or against whom no re-
lief is sought, and who cannot be adversely affected
premises purchased under warranty
deed duly recorded after entry of
decree was not erroneous because of
by any decree entered therein, are not necessary
parties.^ So, where one of several joint judgment
debtors sues to restrain the enforcement of the
judgment against himself alone, he need not join the
others as parties plaintiff.60 Tenants in common
may sue jointly to enjoin the enforcement of a
judgment in ejectment, although they were not all
made defendants in the ejectment.61 A judgment
debtor and his grantee may properly join as com-
plainants in a suit to restrain an execution sale and
to cancel the judgment,62 but it has been held that
a grantor disclaiming any interest in realty against
which a judgment foreclosed a lien, and who was
not a party to the prior suit, may not be properly
joined as a plaintiff with his grantee.63
c. Defendants
In an action for equitable relief against a judgment,
all persons really and beneficially interested in the judg-
ment, OP whose rights are likely to be affected by the
injunction, including necessary or proper parties who
refuse to join as plaintiffs;, should be Joined as defend-
ants.
A bill in equity fdr relief against a judgment
may and should join as defendants all persons really
and beneficially interested in the judgment, or whose
rights are likely to be affected by the injunction,64
was obtained was
Land Development
failure to make purchaser party to
proceeding to arrest decree or to
give him notice of pendency there-
of, it being sufficient that opposite
party in controversy wherein decree
given notice. —
Corporation v.
Union Trust Co. of Maryland, 180 S.
E. 836, 180 Ga. 785.
52. Idaho.— Welch v. Morris, 291
P. 1048, 49 Idaho 781.
Tex. — Bonner v. Pearson, Civ.App.,
7 S.W.2d 930.
Apparent rights
In suit to annul judgment on
ground that judgment, valid on its
face, was void as to those seeking
its annulment because they were not
parties to suit in which judgment
was rendered, only those parties who
have apparent rights under judgment
need be joined.— Willson v. Kuhn,
Tex.Civ.App., 96 S.W.2d 236.
53. Fla. — Eyles v. Southern Ohio
Sav. Bank & Trust Co., 19 So.2d
105, 154 Fla. 782.
34 C.J. p 484 note 21.
Claim in equity
A person need not be a judgment
creditor in order to intervene in
suit to enjoin enforcement of judg-
ment, but claim in equity is equally
as good a basis to support such
right. — Eyles v. Southern Ohio Sav.
Bank & Trust Co., supra.
Creditor of successful defendant, j
holding security deed which would
lose priority by setting aside of de-
cree, could intervene in suit to set
aside decree. — Williamson v. Had-
dock, 1'40 S.E. 373, 165 Ga. 168.
54. Mo.— Fadler v. Gabbert, 63 S.W.
2d 121, 333 Mo. 851.
Bights invaded
Plaintiff in such action must be
one whose rights have been directly
invaded. — Arcuri v. Arcuri, 193 N.E.
174, 265 N.Y. 358.
55. Tex. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Panhandle Const. Co. v. Casey,
Civ.App., 66 S.W.2d 705, 708, error
refused.
34 C.J. p 485 note 22.
Persons entitled to sue in general
see supra § 344.
A Judgment in trespass to try title
against four defendants cannot be
revised by a suit in the nature of a
bill of review brought by one of
such defendants who had purchased
interest of two of other defendants,
in which no mention is made of
fourth defendant and no excuse
pleaded for not making him a party.
— Sedgwick v. Kirby Lumber Co.,
107 S.W.2d 358, 130 Tex 163.
56. Tex. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Panhandle Const. Co. v. Casey,
CivJV.pp., 66 S.W.2d 705, 708, error
refused.
Naming as defendants parties who
refuse to join as plaintiffs see in-
fra subdivision c of this section.
762
57. Ky. — Love v. Cofer. 1 J.J.Marsh.
327.
34 C.J. p 485 note 25.
58. Md.— Michael v. Rigler, 120 A.
382, 142 Md. 125.
59. Ark. — North Arkansas Highway
Improvement Dist. No. 2 v. Home
Telephone Co., 3 S.W.2d 307, 176
Ark. 553.
Md.— Michael v. Rigler, 120 A. 382,
142 Md. 125.
60. Cal. — Merriman v. Walton, &8
P. 1108, 105 Cal. 403, 45 Am.S.R.
50, 30 L.R.A. 786.
34 C.J. p 485 note 28.
61. Mo. — Russell v. Def ranee, 39
Mo. 506.
62. Ala.— May v. Granger, 139 So.
569, 224 Ala. 208.
63. Tex. — Citizens' Bank v. Bran-
dau, Civ.App., 1 S.W.2d 466, error
refused.
64. Ga, — Beacham v. Beacham, 22
S.B.2d 787, 195 Ga, 9,
111. — Gaumer v. Snedeker, 162 N.E.
137, 330 111. 611.
Mo. — Terminal Railroad Ass'n of St.
Louis v. Schmidt, 182 S.W.2d 78,
353 Mo. 79.
N.C. — Pegram v. Wachovia Bank &
Trust Co., 13 S.E.2d 249, 219 N.C.
224.
Tex. — Garza v. Kenedy," Com.App.,
299 S.W. 231, rehearing denied 5
S.W.2d xx— Corpus Juris quoted in
Panhandle Const. Co. v. Casey. Civ.
App., 66 S.W.2d 705, 708, error re-
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 384
including plaintiff or joint plaintiffs in whose name
the judgment stands,65 the party .for whose use the
action was really brought, although he is not the
nominal plaintiff,66 persons claiming or acquiring
interests in the property specifically affected by the
judgment,67 and any persons who participated in
an alleged fraud, charged as the means whereby the
judgment was obtained, although they were not par-
ties to the original action.68 Necessary or proper
parties who refuse to join as plaintiffs should be
made defendants.6^ On the other hand, persons
against whom no relief is sought and who have no
interest in the controversy adverse to plaintiff are
not necessary parties.70
Where the owner of a judgment has assigned it
to a third person, both the assignor71 and the as-
signee72 are proper and necessary parties, unless
the latter is the, only one having an interest in the
judgment.73 However, the assignor of a cause of
action which is afterward merged in a judgment is
not a necessary party to an action to enjoin the en-
forcement of the judgment by the assignee.74
Where plaintiff sues to enjoin enforcement of two
judgments, rendered in favor of different parties,
such parties, who are not jointly affected by the
two judgments, may not be joined as defendants.75
If the action is brought against the sheriff or oth-
er officer holding process under the judgment to re-
strain him from proceeding for its collection, the
judgment plaintiff may be joined as a defendant,76
and sometimes is required to be joined as a party ;77
but where the suit is against the judgment creditor
it is neither necessary nor proper to make the sher-
iff a party78 unless a statute so provides79 or the
sheriff has joined with the creditor in the commis-
sion of the fraud of which complaint is made.80
Where the judgment is in the name of the sheriff,
he is properly made a party to a bill to set it aside,
although he may have no personal interest.81
The judge who rendered the judgment,82 the clerk
fused — Dallas Coffee & Tea Co. v.
Williams, Civ.App., 45 S.W.2d 724,
error dismissed.
Utah.— Logan City v. Utah Power &
Light Co., 16 P.2d 1097, 86 Utah
340, adhered to 44 P.2d 698, 86
Utah 354.
34 C.J. p 485 note 30.
Partition
In suit to set aside judgment of
partition, parties to partition suit
who had conveyed their lands were
necessary parties, notwithstanding
their grantees had been made par-
ties, where they might be liable on
warranties and their rights would be
adversely affected by a new parti-
tion.—Davis v. Caudill, 92 S.W.2d 62,
263 Ky. 214.
85. B.C.— Ray v. Carr, 107 F.2d 238,
71 App.D.C. 37.
111.— Gaumer v. Snedeker, 162 N.B.
137, 330 111. 511.
Neb.— Howard v. Spragins, 200 N,W.
799, 112 Neb. 641.
Tex. — Glenn v. Connell, Civ.App., 74
S.W.2d 451, followed in 74 S.W.2d
455.
34 C.J. p 485 note 31.
la direct attack OIL personal judg-
ment, regular on face, plaintiff in
original action is necessary party. —
Bonougli v. Guerra, Tex.Civ.App.,
286 S.W. 344.
«6. Ky. — Triplett v. Vandegrift, S
B.Mon. 420 — Turner v. Cox, 5 Litt,
175.
67. Ala.— Nichols v. Dill, 132 So.
900, 222 Ala. 465.
Tex. — Garza v. Kenedy, Com.App.,
299 S.W. 231, rehearing denied 5
S.W.2d xx — Corpus Juris quoted in
Panhandle Const Co. v. Casey, Civ.
App., 66 S.W,2d 705, 708, error re-
fused.
34 C.J. p 485 note 33.
Bonds
Money judgment against town,
duly issuing bonds for funding
thereof under appropriate statute,
cannot be set aside by court without
having bondholders before it as par-
ties to action. — Denver & R. G. W.
R. Co. v. Town of Castle Rock, 62 P.
2d 1164, 99 Colo. 340.
68. Ala.— Nichols v. Dill, 132 So.
900, 222 Ala. 455.
La. — Green v. Barnett, 120 So. 666,
10 La.App. 212.
34 C.J. p 485 note 34—47 C.J. p 438
note 67.
69. W.Va.— Wyatt v. Wyatt, 92 S.E.
117, 79 W.Va. 708.
34 C.J. p 486 note 49.
70. Ind. — Pattison v. Grant Trust
& Savings Co., 144 N.E. 26, 195
Ind. 313.
71. 111. — Gaumer v. Snedeker, 162
N.E. 137, 330 111. 511.
34 C.J. p 485 note 35.
72. Ga. — Winn v. Armour & Co.,
193 S.E. 447, 184 Gu. 769.
111. — Gaumer v. Snedeker, 162 N.E.
137, 330 111. 511— Mumford v.
Sprague, 11 Paige 438.
73. Tex. — Ellis v. Kerr, Civ.App.,
23 S.W. 1050.
74. Va. — Drake v. Lyons, 9 Gratt.
54, 50 Va. 54.
34 C.J. p 485 note 38.
75. Cal.— Miller v. Curry, 53 Cal.
665.
76. Cal. — Bast Riverside Irr. Dist.
v. Holcomb, 58 P. 817, 126 Cal.
315.
77. Tex. — Glenn v. Connell, Civ.
763
App., 74 S.W.2d 451, followed in
74 S.W.2d 455.
78. Tex.— Gulf, C. & S. P. R. Co.
v. Blankenbeckler, 35 S.W. 331, 13
Tex.Civ.App. 249.
34 C.J. p 485 note 41.
Expired execution
Where sheriff was made party to
proceedings to set aside default
judgment solely so that it would be
possible to enjoin him from enforc-
ing the judgment by levying out-
standing execution, and the execu-
tion expired while case was pending
and it then became apparent that
judgment would be set aside, sheriff
was no longer a necessary party. —
Kulikowski v. North American Mfg.
Co., 54 N.E.2d 411, 322 Ill.App. 202.
79. Ohio. — Howard v. Levering, 8
Ohio Cir.Ct. 614, 4 Ohio Cir.Dec.
236 — Adams v. Boynton, 4 Ohio
Dec., Reprint, 348, 1 Clev.L.Rep.
352.
34 C.J. p 485 note 42.
80. Ohio.— Allen v. Medill, 14 Ohio
445.
81. N.Y.— Campbell v. Western, 3
Paige 124.
82. Tex.— Gulf, C. & S. F, R. Co.
v. Blankenbeckler, 35 S.W. 331, 13
Tex. Civ. App. 249.
34 C.J. p 486 note 45.
Improper Joinder
In proceedings to expunge differ-
ent judgments and orders, various
clerks of court and groups of judg-
es from common pleas courts and
courts of appeal could not be Joined.
—State v. Marsh, 165 N.E. 843, 120
Ohio St. 222.
§ 384
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
of court,83 or other officers of the law84 usually
are not proper parties to a suit of this kind; and
in any case they may not be sued alone without
joining the real parties in interest.85 Officials in-
terested in the proceeds of a judgment levying a
fine, and not the state, are necessary- parties defend-
ant.8*
Persons not formally named. Where persons are
not formally named as defendants, but employ an
attorney to represent them, who appears in court
and conducts a defense in their name, they are par-
ties to the suit authorizing the court to adjudicate
issues involving their interests.87
§ 385. Process and Appearance
In a suit for equitable relief against a Judgment,
Jurisdiction of the person generally must be acquired by
proper service or by appearance, but the decisions are
in disagreement as to whether service by publication is
sufficient.
As a general rule, in a suit in equity to enjoin
or set aside a judgment, jurisdiction of the person
must be acquired either by proper service88 or by
appearance,89 but such a suit has also been regarded
as a continuation of the original suit in which the
judgment or decree was entered so that service of
subpcena within the state on parties to the original
suit was unnecessary.90 According to some deci-
sions service by publication will not give jurisdic-
tion91 since the action is one in personam requir-
ing personal service,92 but according to other deci-
sions such a suit is in the nature of one in rem in
which constructive service is authorized,93 and serv-
ice by publication is proper where the case is such
as to come within the statute authorizing such serv-
ice.94 Where the statute requires service of proc-
ess of the party himself, sen-ice may not be made
on the attorney of record for plaintiff in the original
action,95 but service on the attorney may be prop-
er where plaintiff in the original action is a non-
resident or out of the jurisdiction of the court96"
unless some other mode of service, such as by pub-
lication, is provided for in such cases.97
§ 386. Release of Errors
Although a bill for -equitable relief against a Judg-
ment does not of Itself constitute a release of errors,
some statutes require such a release, or make the in-
junction operate as one, in the case of attack on Judg-
ments at law which are not void; such a release ap-
plies only to errors in the legal proceeding which might
be taken advantage of in the appellate court.
A bill in equity to enjoin a judgment at law is not
of itself a release of errors.98 By statute, however,
83. N.C.— Edney v. Kins, 39 N.C.
465.
34 C.J. p 486 note 46.
84. N.C.— McLane v. Manning, 60 X.
C. 608.
34 C.J. p 486 note 47.
Sheriff was not necessary party in
suit to set aside default judgment
based on his alleged false return.—
Gross v. Kellner. 219 N.W. 620. 242
Mich. 656.
85. -D.C. — Ray v. Carr, 107 F.2d 238,
71 App.D.C. 37.
Neb.— Howard v. Spragins, 200 N.W.
799, 112 Neb. 641.
88. Ky. — Harris v. Beaven, 11 Bush
254.
Tex.— Smith v. State, 9 S.W. 274,
26 Tex.App. 49.
34 C.J. p 486 note 48.
87. Tex.— Bragdon v. Wright, Civ.
App.f 142 S.W.2d 703, error dis-
missed.
88- Ga. — -Ingram & Le Grand Lum-
ber Co. v. Burgin Lumber Co., 13
S.B.2d 370, 191 Ga, 584.
Ind. — Vail v. Department of Finan-
cial Institutions of Indiana, 17 N.
E.2d 854, 106 Ind.App. 39.
Kan. — Johnson v. Schrader, 95 P.2d
273, 150 Kan. 545.
Neb. — State v. Westover, 186 N."W.
998; 107 Neb. 593.
Tex. — Green v. Green, Com.App., 288
S.W. 406.
In equity cases generally see Equity
§§ 171-178.
In injunction cases generally see In-
junctions §§ 179, 180.
Dissolution of temporary injunc-
tion against collection of probate
judgment against sureties on guard-
ian's bond, on guardian and ward
giving refunding bond, was harmless
and not error, although guardian,
who had moved beyond court's ju-
risdiction, had not been brought into
court, complainants being bound to
take necessary steps to bring her
into court. — Scott v. Boyd, 101 So.
424, 211 Ala. 623.
In "bill of review, only original
parties need be given notice. — Texas
Co. v. Dunlap, Tex.Civ.App., 21 S.W.
2d 707, affirmed, Com.App., 41 S.W.
2d. 42, rehearing denied 43 S.W.2d 92.
89. Ind. — Vail v. Department of Fi-
nancial Institutions of Indiana, 17
N.B.2d 854, 106 Ind.App. 39.
Neb.— State v. Westover, 186- N.W.
998, 107 Neb. 593.
Tex. — Green v. Green, Com.App.,
288 S.W. 406.
90. U.S. — Hanna v. Brictson Mfg.
Co., C..C.A.S.D., 62 F.2d 139.
91. Ho. — Fisher v. Evans, 25 Mo.
App. 582.
92. D.C. — Indemnity Ins. Co. of
North America v. Smoot, 152 F.2d
667, certiorari denied 66 S.Ct. 981.
764
Judgment in favor of nonresident
In equity suit in Illinois court to
set aside a judgment in favor of a
nonresident who had no property in
Illinois, Illinois court acquired no-
jurisdiction by publication of notice
to the nonresident and decree of Illi-
nois court declaring the judgment
void did not vitiate money judgment
rendered by United States district
court for District of Columbia on the
Illinois judgment. — Indemnity Ins-
Co, of North America v. Smoot, su-
pra.
93. Fla, — Reybine v. Kruse, 174 So«.
720, 128 Fla. 278.
94. Fla. — Reybine v. Kruse, supra.
N.J. — Englander v. Jacoby, 28 A.2d
292, 132 N.J.Eq. 336.
Okl.— Parker v. Board of Com'rs of
Okmulgee County, 102 P.2d 880.
187 Okl. 308, followed in Parker v.
Board of Com'rs of Okmulgee
County, 102.P.2d 883, 187 Okl. 31U
34 C.J. p 486 note 54.
95. Wyo.— Boulter v. Cook, 236 P-
245, 32 Wyo. 461.
96. U.S.— Oglesby v. Attrill, C.C.Da.,
12 F. 227 — Doe v. Johnston, C.C.
Ohio, 7 F.Cas.No.3,958, 2 McLean.
323.
97. Iowa. — Death v. Pittsburg Bank*
1 Iowa 382.
98. Ohio. — Gano v. White, 3 Ohio 20.
Waiver of right to equitable relief
49 C.3T.S.
it is frequently provided that complainant in a bill
in equity for relief against a judgment at law shall
file or indorse on his bill a release of errors," if
required to do so by the court,1 or that the injunc-
tion, when granted, shall operate as such a release.2
In order that the granting of an injunction shall op-
erate as a release of errors, there must be an injunc-
tion of a judgment at law.3 The statutes do not
apply where the relief asked does not amount to a
stay of proceedings on the judgment,4 or where it
is sought to stay proceedings prior5 or subsequent6
to the judgment, and not to affect the judgment it-
self ; nor do they apply to proceedings in chancery
or those in their nature equitable,7 or where the
judgment is not merely erroneous but is void,8 or
where it is sought to enjoin proceedings in viola-
tion of law.9
A release of errors applies only to errors in the
legal proceedings of which advantage might be tak-
en in the appellate court10 It does not prevent the
correction of clerical errors,11 or preclude the party
from assailing the judgment for matters dehors the
record,12 as that the judgment was obtained by
fraud,18 or affect the remedy of the party in eq-
uity.14 The omission of a release is ground for
dissolving the injunction,15 but not for dismissing
the bill.16 A subsequent dismissal of the injunc-
tion will not affect the release.17
JUDGMENTS § 387
§ 387. Preliminary or Temporary Injunction
a. In general
b. Continuance or dissolution
a. In General
In a proper case, a preliminary or temporary Injunc-
tion may be granted in a suit for equitable relief against
a judgment, provided there has been compliance with
requirements as. to notice of application and furnishing
of security.
In a suit in equity for relief against a judgment
at law, a preliminary or temporary injunction may
be granted in a proper case to await the determina-
tion of the validity of the judgment where it ap-
pears that the judgment was obtained by fraud, mis-
take, or surprise,18 or to await the determination
of issues on which the rights of the parties de-
pend.19 However, this action will ordinarily be tak-
en only where plaintiffs equity is clear, or at least
is supported by a strong prima facie case,20 and
not where the judgment appears to rest on a good
and valuable consideration,21 pending an appeal
from the judgment,22 where the judgment has al-
ready been enforced by execution before the filing
of the bill,23 or where it is not shown that the re-
fusal of the injunction will cause serious injury to
complainant.24
Proceedings to obtain. Where a temporary in-
junction against a judgment is asked, notice of the
against judgment see supra §§ 341,
343.
99. Va. — Branch v. Burnley, 1 Call.
147, 153, 5 Va. 147, 153.
34 C.J. P 486 note 58.
1. Ind.— Dickerson v. Rlpley Coun-
ty, 6 Ind. 128, 63 Am.D. 373.
2. 111.— McConnel v. Ayres, 4 111.
210.
34 C.J. p 486 note 60.
3. 111.— St. Louis, A. & T. H. R.
Co. v. Todd, 40 111. 89— McConnel
v. Ayres, 4 111. 210.
4. Iowa.— Burge v. Burns, Morr.
287.
Miss.— Sevier v. Ross, Freem. 510.
34 C.J. p 486 note 62.
5. 111.— McConnel v. Ayres, 4 111.
210.
6. 111.— St. Louis, A. & T. H. R,
Co. v. Todd, 40 111. 89.
7. Colo.— San Juan & St. Louis Min-
ing & Smelting Co. v. Finch, ' 6
Colo. 214.
111.— McConnel v. Ayres, 4 111. 210.
8. Minn.— Hirsch Bros. & Co. v. R.
B. Kennington Co., 124 So. 344, 155.
Miss. 242, 88 A.L.R. 1.
34 C.J. p 486 note 66.
Jurisdictions! defects are not
cured by a statute providing1 that
an injunction staying execution shall
operate as a release of all errors. —
Hirsch Bros. & Co. v. R. B, Kenning-
Co., supra.
9. Iowa. — Burge v. Burns, Morr. p
287.
10. Miss.— Hirsch Bros. & Co. v. R. !
B. Kennington Co., 124 So. 344,
155 Miss. 242, 88 A.L.R. 1.
34 C.J. p 486 note 68.
11. Tenn.— Blake v. Dunn, 5
Huraphr. 578.
12. Miss.— Bass v. Nelms, 56 Miss,
502.
13. Miss.— Bass v. Nelms, supra.
14. Tenn. — Patterson v. Gordon, 3
Tenn.Ch. 18.
15. Ala.— Paulding v. Watson, 21
Ala. 279.
Ky. — Bradley v. Lamb, Hard. 527.
ie. Ala,— Paulding v. Watson, 21
Ala. 279.
Ky. — Vance v. Cummins, Ky.Dec.
247.
17. Tenn.— Henly v. Robertson, 4
Terg. 172.
18. Ga. — Pratt v. Rosa Jarmulowsky
Co., 170 S.B. 365, 177 Ga. 522.
34 C.J. p 487 note 77.
19. La. — Hursey Transp. Co. v. Koss
765
Const. Co., 131 So. 43, 171 La.
347.
34 C.J. p 487 note 78.
Settlement of cause of action
A petition, alleging parties' agree-
ment to settle cause of action car-
ried into judgment for stated sum,
payable in monthly installments, and
performance of agreement except
for payment of small balance and
costs tendered into court, sufficient-
ly alleged grounds for temporary in-
junction, restraining enforcement of
judgment pending final determination
of issue involved. — Coffman v.
Meeks, Tex.Civ.App., 119 S.W.2d 96.
20. U.S.— Foley v. Guarantee Trust
. Co., Minn., 74 F. 759, 21 C.C.A. 78.
34 C.J. p 48? note 79.
21. U.S.— Sohier v. Merril, C.C.Me.,
22 F.Cas.No.13,158, 3 Woodb. & M.
179.
22. 111. — Andrews v. Rumsey, 75 111.
598.
34 C.J. p 487 note 81.
23. U.S.— Kamm v. Stark, C.C.Ark.,
14 F.Cas.No.7,604, 1 Sawy. 647.
24. U.S.— Pierce v. National Bank of '
Commerce, C.C.A.Mo., 268 F. 487.
N.Y. — Ingalls v. Merchants' Nat
Bank, 64 N.Y.S. 911, 51 App.Div-
305.
§ 387
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
application must be served on defendant,2* unless
it appears that injury will be likely to occur before
a hearing can be had, in which case the facts as to
injury must be set forth either in the bill or by an
affidavit accompanying it26 As a further condition,
complainant is usually required to furnish securi-
ty, at least in cases provided for by statute.27 In
some states the ordinary injunction bond is consid-
ered sufficient for this purpose, and complainant is
not required to bring into court the amount of the
judgment, unless under extraordinary circumstanc-
es.28 In others, sometimes under statute, it is nec-
essary to pay the amount of the judgment and costs
into court, and give security for damages which
may be sustained, or, as an alternative within the
discretion of the court, to give a bond conditioned
to pay the amount of the judgment, damages, and
costs.29 A statute requiring the giving of a bond
must be strictly complied with; the court has no
discretion to fix the t condition or penalty of the
bond variant from that directed thereby.30 Where
there is no statutory provision on the subject, the
matter is left to the discretion of the court.31
Where an injunction is obtained without complying
with such statutes, defendant is entitled to sum-
mary relief, and is not put on his motion to dis-
solve.32 A bond given to obtain an injunction will
not operate as a supersedeas, if it describes a judg-
ment different from that sought to be enjoined.33
b. Continuance or Dissolution
In a proper case, a temporary Injunction may be con-
ttnued until the hearing and determination, but the in-
junction will be dissolved on the furnishing of a refund-
ing bond where it appears that the compiainant is not
entitled to relief against the Judgment, or where the re-
spondent's answer sufficiently denies the equity of the
bill.
Whether- a temporary injunction will be contin-
ued or dissolved is generally a matter within the
discretion of the court in which equitable relief is
sought34 Where the rights of the parties depend
on unsettled issues of fact,3* or it appears that dis-
solution might work irreparable mischief to com-
plainant,36 the preliminary injunction ordinarily
will be continued until the hearing and determina-
tion. On the other hand, it may be dissolved if the
court becomes satisfied that complainant is not en-
titled to relief against the judgment37 and that the
injunction ought never to have been granted,38
or where relief must be denied for want of a re-
lease of errors39 or for want of prosecution of the
suit,40 or where the amount proposed to be set off
against the judgment, for which purpose the injunc-
tion was sued out, bears an insignificant propor-
tion to the amount of the judgment.41
The injunction should not be dissolved for a
mere defect of parties42 or for amendable defects in
the bill or petition.43 Where the judgment was
recovered by a vendor of land for the purchase
money, and was enjoined on the ground of a defect
or failure of title, it should be dissolved on his ex-
hibiting a good title or tendering a good and suffi-
cient deed, as the case may be,44 but time to pro-
cure a good title will not be allowed.4^ Where an
injunction against a judgment at law is dissolved, it
should also be dissolved as to costs.46
35. Iowa. — Burlington v. Cox, 8 N.
W. 360, 55 Iowa 752.
34 C.J. p 487 note 84.
Misnomer of party
Granting interlocutory injunction
against enforcement of default Judg-
ment was not error, where suit
therefor was brought against iden-
tical parties who procured Judgment,
notwithstanding Judgment creditor
was not made party defendant under
allegedly correct name. — Pratt v.
Hosa Jarmulowsky Co., 170 S.E. 365,
177 G«u 522.
.28, 111.— Ebann v. Brown, 139 111.
App. 213.
27. Mich.— Gross v. Kellner, 219 N.
W. 620, 242 Mich. 656.
Except where suit is brought for
actual fraud, plaintiff suing to set
aside a default judgment is required
to give a bond as a condition to
obtaining a stay, under a statute so
•providing. — McFarlane v. McParlane,
i3S N.W. 895, 294 Mich. 648— Gross
v. Kellner. 219 N.W. 620, 242 Mich.
656.
28. Tenn. — Chester v. Apperson, 4
Heisk. 639.
34 C.J. p 487 note 88.
>. N.J.— Phillips v. Pullen, 16 A.
915, 45 N.J.EQ. 157.
34 C.J. p 487 note 89.
30. I1L — Ebann v. Brown, 139 111.
App. 213.
34 C.J. p 487 note 90.
31. Md. — Wagner v.
313.
Shank, 59 Md.
Perrine, 17 N.
32. N.J.— Marlatt v.
J.EQ. 49.
34 C.J. p 487 note 92.
33. Ala. — Wiswell v. Munroe, 4 Ala.
9.
34. Tex. — Reilly v. Delmore Corpo-
ration, Civ.App., 11 S.W.2d 327.
35. Tex.— Lott v. Lofton, Civ.App.,
280 S.W. 312.
34 01. p 487 note 94.
36. Del. — Kersey v. Rash, 3 Del.Ch.
321.
37. Ala. — Choctaw Bank v. Dear-
mon, 134 So. 648, 223 Ala. 144.
766
j. Tex.— Lewright v. Reese, Civ.
App., 223 S.W. 270.
34 C.J. p 487 note 96.
39. Ky.— Bradley v. Lamb, Hard.
527.
Necessity of release of errors see
supra § 386.
40. W.Va.— McCoy v. McCoy, 2 S.
B. 809, 29 W.Va. 794.
34 C.J. p 488 note 98.
41. La. — Barrow v. Robichaux, 15
La. Ann. 70.
34 C.J. p 488 note 99.
42. Fla.— Scarlett v. Hicks, 13 Fla.
314.
34 C.J. p 488 note 1.
43. Ala. — Choctaw Bank v. Dear-
mon, 134 So. -648, 223 Ala. 144.
44. Va. — Young v. McClung, 9 Gratt
336, 50 Va. 336.
34 C.J. p 488 note 2.
45. Ky.— Hays v. Tribble, 3 B.Mon.
106.
46. Ky.— Burrows v. Miller, 3 Bibb
77.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
38&
On answer. When respondent's answer denies
the equity of complainant's bill, and fully and ex-
plicitly negatives all its essential allegations, the
preliminary injunction should in general be dis-
solved,47 but this will not be done where the denials
of the answer are vague, general, or lacking in par-
ticularity,48 or where the answer admits the sub-
stantial rights of complainant,49 or where there ap-
pears to be some good reason for retaining it.50
If the answer shows that complainant is entitled to
some equitable relief, but not to the extent claimed
by the bill, the injunction may be dissolved in part,
or continued on such terms as will insure the ulti-
mate ends of justice between the parties.51 If it ap-
pears that a part of a judgment at law only should
be enjoined, the injunction may be perpetuated as
to such part, and dissolved as to the residue.52
Refunding bond. When the preliminary injunc-
tion is dissolved on the answer, it is proper to re-
quire of respondent a bond conditioned to refund
the amount he may collect on the judgment in case
the equity proceedings should finally be determined
against him.53
§ 388. Pleading
Pleadings are required In proceedings for equitable
relief against a Judgment.
In accordance with the rules as to equity plead-
ings generally, discussed in Equity §§ 179-198,
pleadings are required in proceedings for equitable
relief against a judgment, and the court may not as-
sume jurisdiction on its own motion to modify a
judgment in the absence of proper pleadings.54 The
rules of pleading must be strictly observed in such
proceedings.55
§ 389.
Bill or Complaint
a. In general
b. Specific grounds for relief
c. Allegations as to specific matters
a. In General
In a suit for equitable relief against a judgment,,
jurisdiction of the court Is Invoked by the filing of a
properly verified bill or complaint, and such pleading
must state a good cause of action.
The jurisdiction of a court to entertain a suit
for equitable relief against a judgment is ordinarily
invoked by the filing of a bill, petition,5^ com-
plaint, or motion in writing.57 In accordance with,
the general rules as to equity pleading, discussed
in Equity §§ 217-232, the bill, petition, or complaint
must show good and sufficient equitable reason why
the judgment complained of should be enjoined or
set aside, or, in other words, it must state a good
cause of action for equitable relief.58 Thus there
must be proper and sufficient allegations setting
Attorney's fees
Where a judgment debtor procured
an injunction restraining sheriff
from taking and holding him under
a capias ad satisfaciendum, but in-
junction did not enjoin payment of
judgment, judgment creditor was not
entitled to attorneys' fees incurred in
having debtor's complaint in injunc-
tion suit dismissed under statute re-
quiring debtor to pay damages on
dissolution of an injunction, since
injunction did not prevent the is-
suance of an execution and levy on
any property belonging to debtor. —
Bransky v. Lebow, 14 N.E.2d 509,
295 Ill.App. 31.
47. Ala.— Rice v. Tobias, 3 So. 670,
83 Ala. 348.
34 C.J. p 488 note 6.
48. Iowa. — Gates v. Ballou, 6 N.W.
701, 54 Iowa 485.
34 C.J. p 488 note 6.
49. N.C.— Myers v. Daniels, 59 N.
C. 1.
34 C.J. p 488 note 7.
50. Ala.— Collier v. Falk, 61 Ala.
105.
51. Ala.— Maulden v. Armistead, 18
Ala. 500.
34 C.J. p 488 note 9.
52. Ala. — Maulden v. Armistead, su-
pra.
53. Ala.— Jackson v. Elliott, 13 So.
690, 100 Ala. 669.
34 C.J. p 488 note 11.
54. Tex.— -Hardy v. McCulloch, Civ.
App., 286 S.W. 629.
55. U.S.— U. S. v. Korner, D.OCaL,
56 F.Supp. 242.
Pa. — Keystone Nat Bank to Use
of Balmer v. Deamer, Com.Pl.f 32
Berks Co. 124, affirmed Keystone
Nat. Bank of Manheim, now to
Use of Balmer v. Deamer, 18 A.
2d 540, 144 Pa.Super. 52.
56. Kan.— Johnson v. Schrader, 95
P.2d 273, 150 Kan. 545.
Exceptions not treated as petition,
In suit to obtain sale of realty in
which plaintiff claimed an interest
under deed from his father which
widow asserted was void because
father was of unsound mind when
deed was executed and because of
fraud and undue influence, widow's
exceptions to judgment and master
commissioner's report of sale could
not be treated as petition to vacate
or modify judgment within statute,
where widow advanced claim to
homestead in property in answer
and counterclaim and participated
in trial of the case. — Pugh v. Pugh,
130 S.W.2d 40, 279 Ky. 170.
57. Ind. — Vail v. Department of Fi-
767
nancial Institutions of Indiana, IT
N.E.2d 854, 106 Ind.App. 39.
58. Cal.— Machado v. Machado, 15?
P.2d 457, 66 Cal. App. 2 d 401.
Ga. — Hanleiter v. Spearman, 36 S.E.
2d 780— Oglesby v. Oglesby, 32 S-
E.2d 906, 198 Ga. 864.
Iowa.— Shaw v. Addison, 18 N.W.2d
796.
Ky.— McKim v. Smith, 172 S.W.2d
634, 294 Ky. 835 — Ohio Valley Fire
& Marine Ins. Co.'s Receiver v.
Newman, 13 S.W.2d 771, 227 Ky.
554.
Or. — Marsters v. Ashton, 107 P.26T
981, 165 Or. 507— Dlxon v. Simp-
son, 279 P. 939, 130 Or. 211.
Tex. — Smith v. Ferrell, Com.App.,
44 S.W.2d 9*2— Kelley v. Wright,
Civ.App., 184 S.W.2d 649, affirmed,
Sup., 188 S.W.2d 983— Quails v.
Siler, Civ.App., 183 S.W.2d 750—
Dorsey v. Cutbirth, Civ.App., 178.
S.W.2d 749, error refused — Ameri-
can Bed Cross v. Lon-gley, Civ.
App., 165 S.W.2d 233, error refused
— Fidelity Trust Co. of Houston v.
Highland Farms Corporation, Civ.
App., 109 S.W.2d 1014, error dis-
missed— Universal Credit Co. v,
Cunningham, Civ.App., 109 S.W.2d
507, error dismissed — Moon v.
Weber, Civ.App., 103 S.W.2d 807,
error refused — Pope v. Powers,.
Civ.App., 91 S.W.2d 873, reversed
§ 3SS JUDGMENTS 49 C.J.S.
forth the judgment in question,59 the court in which I it was rendered, who the parties were, what issues
on other grounds 120 S.W.2d 432.
182 Tex. 80— Sedgwick v. Kirby
Lumber Co., Civ.App., 78 S.W.2d
1107, affirmed 107 S.W.2d 358, 130
Tex. 163— Stillwell v. Standard
Savings & Loan Ass'n, Civ.App.,
30 S.W.2d 690, error dismissed —
Slider v. House, Civ.App., 271 S.
W. 644^— Phcenix Oil Co. v. Illinois
Torpedo Co., Civ.App., 261 S.W.
487 — Cooper v. Cooper, Civ.App.,
260 S.W. 679.
Wis.— Nichols v. Galpin, 202 N.W.
153, 186 Wis. 485.
47 C.J. p 438 notes 69-71.
Fraud
Where a petitioner for the review
of a default judgment has complied
with the statutory provisions, the
petition need not allege that the
judgment was procured by fraud in
order to secure a review of such
judgment. — Dillbeck v. Johnson, 129
S.W.2d 885, 344 Mo. 845.
Restrictions of eq.uitable practice
In proceeding to review probate
court orders, petition need not con-
form to rules and is not limited to
restrictions of equitable practice ap-
plicable to bill of review, as such
proceeding is not strictly speaking
a "bill of review" but in nature of
such a bill in eauity. — Union Bank &
Trust Co. of Port Worth v. Smith,
Tex.Civ.App., 166 S,W.2d 928.
Bill or petition held sufficient
(1) Generally.
U.S. — Dickey ;v. Turner, C.C.A.Tenn.,
49 F.2d 998.
Ala. — Timmerman v. Martin, 176 So.
198, 234 Ala. 622— Hanover Fire
Ins. Co. v. Street, 154 So. 816, 228
Ala. 677 — Alabama Chemical Co.
v. Hall, 101 So. 456, 212 Ala, 8.
CaL — Bartell v. Johnson, 140 P.2d
878, 60 Cal.App.2d 432— Johnson v.
Home Owners' Loan Corporation,
116 P.2d 167, 46 Cal.App.2d 546.
Fla. — Allison v. Handy Andy Com-
munity Stores, 156 So. 521, 116
Fla. 574— Willard v. Barry, 152 So.
411, 113 Fla. 402.
Ga. — Ward v. Master Loan Service,
33 S.E.2d 313, 199 Ga, 108— Rog-
ers v. MacDougald, 165 S.E. 619,
175 Ga. 642— Martin v. Peacock,
155 S.E. 182, 171 Ga. 219.
111. — Louis E. Bower, Inc., v. Silver-
stein, 18 N.E.2d 385, 298 IlLApp.
145 — Myers v. American Nat. Bank
& Trust Co. of Chicago, 277 111.
App. 378 — Hudson v. Hooper, 265
IlLApp. 325.
Iowa. — Martin Bros. Box Co. v. Fritz,
292 N.W. 143, 228 Iowa 482.
Ky. — Thacker v. Thacker, 75 S.W.2d
3, 255 Ky. 523 — Parsons v. Arnold.
31 S.W.2d 928, 235 Ky. 600— Combs
v. Beaton, 251 S.W. 638, 199 Ky.
477.
La. — Succession of Williams, 121 So.
171, 168 La. 1— Sandfield Oil &
Gas Co. v. Paul, App., 7 So.2d
725 — Hanson v. Haynes, App., 170
So. 257, rehearing denied 171 So.
146— Smith v. Williams, 2 La. App.
24.
Mo. — Cherry v. Wertheim, App., 25
S.W.2d 118.
N.J. — Di Paola v. Trust Co. of
Orange, 156 A. 439, 109 N.J.Eq. 80.
N.Y. — Hammond v. Citizens Nat.
Bank of Potsdam, 22 N.T.S.2d 656,
260 App.Div. 374, motion denied 23
N.Y.S.2d 559, 260 App.Div. 894.
Ohio. — Hamilton v. Ohio State Bank
6 Trust Co., 152 N.E. 731, 20 Ohio
App. 493.
Tex.— Hubbard v. Tallal, 92 S.W.2d
1022, 127 Tex. 242— McAfee v. Jet-
er & Townsend, Civ.App., 147 S.
W.2d 884 — Peaslee-Gaulbert Corpo-
ration v. Hughes, Civ.App., 79 S.W.
2d 149, error refused — Ritch v.
Jarvis, Civ.App., 64 S.W.2d 831,
error dismissed — Karr v. Brooks,
Civ.App., 50 S.W.2d 1103— Campbell
v. Wm. Cameron & Co., Civ.App.,
38 S.W.2d 865, error dismissed —
Cook v. Panhandle Refining Co.,
Civ.App., 267 S.W. 1070.
Utah. — Kramer v. Pixton, 268 P.
1029, 72 Utah 1.
(2) Petition, in suit to enjoin col-
lection of judgment, demonstrating
that judgment was utterly unintel-
ligible on its face, was good as
against general demurrer.— Wells v.
Stonerock, 37 S.W.2d 712, 120 Tex.
287.
BUI or petition held insufficient
(1) Generally.
Ark.— Wardlow v. McGhee, 63 S.W.
2d 332, 187 Ark. 955.
Gal.— Vincent v. Security-First Nat.
Bank of Los Angeles, 155 P.2d 63,
67 Cal.App.2d 602.
Ga. — Stowers v. Harris, 22 S.E.2d
405, 194 Ga. 636 — Green v. Spires,
7 S.E.2d 246, 189 Ga. 719— Shepard
v. Veal, 173 S.E. 644, 178 Ga. 535
— Watters v. Southern Brighton
Mills, 147 S.E. 87, 168 Ga. 15—
Walker v. Mizell, 121 S.E. 816, 157
Ga. 518 — Haskins v. Clements, 116
S.E. 594, 155 Ga. 283.
111.— Nicoloft v. Schnipper, 233 111.
App. 591.
La. — Salter v. Walsworth, App., 167
So. 494.
Mass. — Bartholomew v. Stobbs, 182
N.E. 846, 280 Mass. 559.
Miss. — Armistead v. Barber, 35 So.
199, 82 Miss. 788.
N.D.— Tibbs v. Hancock, 255 N.W.
572, 64 N.D. 647.
Okl.— Metzger v. Turner, 158 P.2d
701, 195 Okl. 406— Lewis v. Couch,
154 P.2d 51, 194 Okl. 632.
Or. — Dixon v. Simpson, 279 P. 939,
130 Or. 211.
Pa. — Cesare v. Caputo, 100 Pa.Super.
188.
Tex.— Kelly v. Wright, 188 S.W.2d
983 — Sedgwick v. Kirby Lumber
768
Co., 107 S.W.2d 358, 130 Tex. 163
— Wear v. McCallum, 33 S.W.2d
723, 119 Tex. 473— Smith v. Fer-
rell, Com.App., 44 S.W.2d 962—
Whitehurst v. Estes, Civ.App., 185
S.W.2d 154, error refused — Loom-
is v. Balch, Civ.App., 181 S.W.2d
849— Dixon v. McNabb, Civ.App.,
173 S.W.2d 228, error refused —
Gray v. Moore, Civ.App., 172 S.W.
2d 746— Smith v. City of Dallas,
Civ.App., 163 S.W.2d 681, error re-
fused— Ridge v. Wood, Civ. App., 14 C
S.W.2d 536, error dismissed, judg-
ment correct — Miller v. Texas Life
Ins. Co., Civ.App., 123 S.W.2d 756,
error refused — Bailey v. American
Casualty Co., Civ.App., 119 S.W.2d
697 — Williams v. Tooke, Civ. App.,
116 S.W.2d 1114, error dismissed—
Willard v. Phillips, Civ.App., 43
S.W.2d 170— Dunn v. Redfield, Civ.
App., 293 S.W. 338 — Box v. Pierce,
Civ.App., 278 S.W. 226— Slider v.
House, Civ.App., 271 S.W. 644.
(2) In action to set aside judg-
ment on note, petition alleging that
plaintiffs had not been served with
process and were not before court
in action on the note, but containing
allegations from which it might be
inferred that plaintiffs took part in
proceedings, especially subsequent to
entry of judgment, failed to state a
cause of action. — Hibbard v. Clay
County, 186 S.W.2d 423, 299 Ky. 560.
(3) A bill of review presents no
cause of action where gravamen of
complaint is merely that counsel
failed to present his client's cause or
defense. — Whitehurst v. Estes, Tex.
Civ.App., 185 S.W.2d 154, error re-
fused.
(4) Disclosure of garnishee in
amended petition to set aside judg-
ment was too late when delay in-
creased hazard in overcoming ad-
verse claims. — Ellis v. Lamb-McAsh-
an Co., Tex.Civ.App., 278 S.W. 858.
59. U.S. — U. S. v. Kusche, D.C.Cal.,
56 F.Supp. 201.
Pa.— Rocks v. Santella, 38 A.2d 718,
155 Pa.Super. 473.
34 C.J. p 488 note 14 [b].
Incorporation of record
(1) Compliance with text rule was
shown where plaintiffs, who were de-
fendants in prior action, made rec-
ord in prior action a part of their
petition as though incorporated
therein.— Triplett v. Stanley, 130 S.
W.2d 45, 279 Ky. 148.
(2) However, rules of pleading do
not require that record in former
suit be completely exhibited by pe-
tition seeking bill of review. — Sloan
v. Newton, Tex.Civ.App., 134 S.W.2d
697.
(3) Necessity of incorporating
transcript of record as an exhibit
see infra § 390.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
389
were- made, how they were finally determined,60
and for what reason the judgment is void.61 The
necessity of allegations as to the existence of a mer-
itorious defense, plaintiff's diligence and lack of
fault, injury or injustice to complainant resulting
from enforcement of the judgment, and lack or loss
of remedy at law are considered infra subdivision
c of this section.
The allegations of the bill or complaint must be
positive, explicit, and certain.62 The bill must set
forth facts, and not mere conclusions of law,63 and,
if conclusions are used, they must be supported by
allegations of fact.64 However, mere informality
of statement in the petition will not prevent it from
being considered on its merits,65 and the fact that
it contains inconsequential misstatements of fact is
not fatal where defendant was not harmed there-
by.66 The improper designation of a pleading is im-
material where it alleges the elements required of a
bill or complaint for equitable relief against a judg-
ment67 A petition substantially following the stat-
ute authorizing the proceeding is sufficient.68
In a proper case, a defective pleading may be
amended.69
Verification. In accordance with the general
rules as to verification of equity pleadings general-
ly, discussed in Equity §§ 183-190, a bill for an in-
junction against a judgment,70 or a petition to set
aside a judgment,71 must be verified by complain-
ant in person, unless there is some sufficient reason
for its verification by his attorney.75
60. Ga. — Hanleiter v. Spearman, 36
S.E.2d 780.
Tex. — Kelley v. Wright, Civ.App.,
184 S.W.2d 649, affirmed, Sup., 188
S.W.2d 983.
Pleadings and result
(1) A bill of review must clearly
recite pleadings and result of orig-
inal suit, so as to enable court to
determine with reasonable certainty
the issues involved. — Bevill v. Rosen-
field, Tex.Civ.App., 113 S.W.2d 340,
error dismissed — Griffith v. Tipps,
Tex.Civ.App., 69 S.W.2d 846— Winn
v. Houston Building & Loan Ass'n,
Tex.Civ.App., 45 S.W.2d 631, error re-
fused.
(2) Any fact averred in bill of re-
view inconsistent with, or contradic-
tory of, pleadings or judgment in
main case will be given no effect in
determining legal sufficiency of bill.
— Bevill v. Rosenfleld, supra.
History of proceedings
A bill of review to set aside pro-
bate court order appointing defend-
ant as attorney to represent interests
of plaintiff in an estate was suffi-
cient where bill set forth history of
probate proceedings and circum-
stances under which appointment
was made. — Bevill v. Rosenfield, su-
pra.
61. Ala. — Copeland v. Copeland, 7
So.2d 87, 242 Ala. 507,
Ga. — Hanleiter v. Spearman, 36 S.K
2d 780.
Ky.— Triplett v. Stanley, 130 S.W.2d
45, 279 Ky. 148.
Invalidity on face
In a direct attack on a judgment,
it is not necessary to allege that
the judgment showed its invalidity
on its face, — Garza v. Kenedy, Tex.
Com.App., 299 S.W. 231, rehearing
denied 5 S.W.2d xx.
63. Ala.— Fletcher v. First Nat.
Bank of Opelika, 11 So.2d 854, 244
Ala, 98.
Ga.— -Felker v. Still, 169 S.B. 351,
177 Ga. 30.
49 C.J.S.— 49
Tex. — Dunlap v. Villareal, Civ.App.,
91 S.W.2d 1124.
34 C.J. p 488 note 14.
Mere inference insufficient
A pleading to set aside a judg-
ment should be definite, and the non-
existence of facts which invalidate
the judgment should not be evaded,
and mere inference is insufficient to
show the invalidity of the judgment
when the question is raised by prop-
er demurrer. — Roy v. Abraham, 96
So. 883, 209 Ala. 691.
Allegations on, information and be-
lief
(1) Chancery will not restrain the
collection of a judgment at law on
a bill in which all the material facts
are charged on information and be-
lief only, without any allegation as
to whence the information was de-
rived or any affidavit connected with
the bill.— McGraw v. Walsh, W.Va.,
232 F. 122, 146 C.C.A. 314—34 C.J. p
488 note 14 [c].
(2) However, in an action to have
a judgment declared void and to
have it expunged from the record on
the theory that no personal service
was ever effected on plaintiff, it was
proper for plaintiff to allege facts
leading to entry of judgment on in-
formation and belief, since, presum-
ably, plaintiff had no personal
knowledge of the service on a per-
son other than himself or of the
facts concerning the lack of service.
—Hammond v. Citizens Nat. Bank
of Potsdam, 22 N.Y.S.2d 656, 260
App.Div. 374, motion denied 23 N.Y.S.
2d 559, 260 App.Div. 894.
63. Ala. — Copeland v. Copeland, 7
So.2d 87, 242 Ala. 507.
Ga. — Whiteside v. Croker, 142 S.B.
139, 165 Ga. 765.
Tex. — Gray v. Moore, Civ.App., 172
S.W.2d 746, error refused.
34 C.J. p 489 note 15.
Irregularities and omissions
In action to set aside a judg-
ment, it is not sufficient, with ref-
769
erence to the stating of a cause of
action, to make general allegations
of irregularities and omissions, but
plaintiff must clearly set forth defi-
nite facts from which there can be
drawn the conclusion that a recon-
sideration or the conducting of fur-
ther proceedings .will result in a dif-
ferent decree. — Termini v. McCor-
mick, 23 So.2d 52, 208 La. 221.
64. 111.— Reed v. New York Nat.
Exch. Bank, 82 N.E. 341, 230 111.
50.
65. Mass.— Smith v. Brown, 184 N.
E. 383, 282 Mass. 81.
66. Mass. — Smith v. Brown, supra.
67. Ark, — Brookfield v. Harrahan
Viaduct Improvement Dist, 54 S.
W.2d 689, 186 Ark. 599.
Tex. — Turman Oil Co. v. Roberts,
Civ.App., 96 S.W.2d 724, error re-
fused.
Pleading considered as independent
proceeding for equitable relief not-
withstanding designation as "mo-
tion" see supra § 377.
68. Ala. — Garvey v. Inglenook
Const Co., 104 So. 639, 213 Ala.
267.
Matter not discretionary
If a petition for review of a de-
fault judgment follows the statutory
provisions, the court is without dis-
cretion in the matter and must hold
the petition sufficient. — Dillbeck v.
Johnson, 129 S.W.2d 885, 344 Mo.
845.
69. OkL— Cook v. Bruss, 30 P.2d
686, 167 Okl. 466.
7fc Ind. — Ross v. Crews, 33 Ind.
120.
Mo. — Karicofe v. Schwaner, 196 S.W.
46, 196 Mo.App. 565.
71. Tex. — Warne v. Jackson, Civ.
App., 273 S.W. 315 — Batrucio v.
Selkirk, Civ.App., 160 S.W. 635.
72. Ala. — Smothers v. Meridian Fer-
tilizer Factory, 33 So. 898, 137 Ala.
166.
§ 389
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
Filing. Where a party has performed every act
required to place his case before the only court
which may entertain his bill, the omission of the
clerk of court to make a proper indorsement in filing
the bill does not prejudice the rights of the com-
plaining party.7$
b. Specific Grounds for Belief
(1) In general
(2) Fraud or perjury
(1) In General
The existence of the specific ground for relief against
the judgment must be shown by specific averments set-
ting forth in detail the particular facts constituting the
ground alleged.
Whatever the specific ground on which equity is
asked to interfere — whether fraud, accident, mis-
take, want of jurisdiction, or excusable neglect — the
bill or complaint must sufficiently show the exist-
ence of such ground by specific averments, setting
forth in detail the particular facts constituting the
ground alleged7* In order to show the invalidity
of the judgment on the ground of want of juris-
diction, the bill must set out in detail facts from
which it is apparent that under no circumstances
could the law court have had jurisdiction to ren-
der it.™
Nezvly discovered evidence. A bill for relief in
equity against a judgment at law on the ground of
newly discovered evidence must set forth such evi-
dence in detail, so that the court may judge of its
nature, materiality, and weight.76 It must also aver
that complainant was ignorant of such evidence at
the time of the trial at law,77 that it could not have
been discovered by due diligence, before judgment
was rendered,78 what efforts he made for that pur-
pose and what degree of diligence he employed,79
that the evidence was discovered after judgment,
La. — Boykin v. Holden, 6 La.Ann.
120.
78. Tex. — Texas Employers' Ass'n v.
Cashion, Civ.App., 130 S.W.2d 1112,
error refused.
74. Ala. — Copeland v. Copeland, 7
So.2d 87, 242 Ala. 507.
Ark. — Better Way Life Ins. Co. v.
Linder, 181 S.W.2d 467, 207 Ark.
533.
Ga. — Qglesby v. Oglesby, 32 S.B.2d
906, 198 Ga. 864.
111.— Mohr v. Messick, 53 3ST.E.2d
743, 322 IlLApp. 56.
Ind.— Wohadlo v. Fary, 46 N.E.2d
489, 221 Ind. 219— Bedron v. Baran,
155 N.E. 611, 85 Ind.App. 649.
Ky. — Board of Education of Pulas-
ki County v. Nelson, 88 S.W.2d 17,
261 Ky. 466.
La. — Sonnier v. Sonnier, 140 So. 49,
19 La.App. 234.
Okl.— Oklahoma Ry. Co. v. Holt, 17
P.2d 955, 161 Okl. 165.
Tenn. — Corpus Juris cited iu Hart-
man v. Spiv«y, 123 S.W.2d 1110,
' 22 Tenn.App. 435.
Tex. — Sedgwick v. Kirby Lumber
Co., 107 S.W.2d 358, 130 Tex. 163
— Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v.
Arnold, 88 S.W.2d 473, 126 Tex. 466
— Union Bank & Trust Co. of Port
Worth v. Smith, Civ.App., 166 S.
W.2d 928 — Stone v. Stone, Civ.App.,
101 S.W.2d 638— Dunlap v. Villa-
real, Civ.App., 91 S.W.2d 1124 —
Bray v. First Nat. Bank, Civ.App.,
10 S.W.2d 235, error dismissed —
Citizens' Bank v. Brandau, Civ.
App., 1 S.W.2d 466, error refused —
Cook v. Panhandle Refining1 Co.,
CiY.App.f 267 S.W. 1070.
34 C.J. p 491 note 31.
Allegation consistent with recitation
Allegation of bill to review judg-
ment that complainant had no no-
tice of setting of case wherein judg- J
ment was rendered was not incon-
sistent with recitation in Judgment
that cause came on for trial at regu-
lar setting and in its due order. —
Peaslee-Gaulbert Corporation v.
Hughes, Tex.Civ.App., 79 S.W.2d 149,
error refused.
Averments held sufficient
(1) Generally.
Ark. — North Arkansas Highway Im-
provement Dist No. 2 v. Home
Telephone Co., 3 S.W.2d 307, 176
Ark. 553.
Fla.— Moore v. Avriett, 125 So. 351,
98 Fla. 554.
Tex. — Ramsey v. McKamey, 152 S.
W.2d 322, 137 Tex. 91 — Perez v. E.
P. Lipscomb & Co., Civ. App., 267
S.TV. 748.
34 C.JT. p 491 note 31 [a].
(2) Averment that judgment cred-
itor does not have assets sufficient
to meet Indebtedness to judgment
debtor is sufficient averment of in-
solvency, in suit to enjoin collec-
tion of judgment on ground of set-
oft — Adams v. Alabama Lime &
Stone Corporation, 127 So. 544, 221
Ala. 10.
Averments held insufflcieat
(1) Generally.
Ala. — Choctaw Bank v. Dearmon, 134
So. 648, 223 Ala. 144.
Cal.— O. A. Graybeal Co. v. Cook, 60
P.2d 525, 16 Cal.App.2d 231.
Ga. — Green v. Spires, 7 S.E.2d 246,
189 Ga. 719 — Block v. Information
Buying Co., 153 S.E. 182, 170 Ga.
466, followed in Wallace v. Jack-
son, 153 S.E. 523, 170 Ga. 549.
Tex. — Browning-Ferris Machinery Co.
v. Thomson, Civ.App., 55 S.W.2d
168.
34 C.J. p 491 note 31 £b].
(2) Petition to set aside judg-
ment for fraud in subjecting land I
770
to execution did not entitle claim-
ants to set aside judgment for mis-
take.—Bryant v. Bush, 140 S.E. 366,
165 Ga. 252.
(3) Bill was held not to show that
proceeding was void on its 'face. —
Keenum v. Dodson, 102 So. 230, 212
Ala. 146.
75. Ind. — Gum-Elastic Roofing Co.
v. Mexico Pub. Co., 39 N.E. 443,
140 Ind. 158, 30 L.R.A. 700.
34 C.J. p 491 note 32.
Complaint held sufficient
Or. — Dixie Meadows Independence
Mines Co. v. Kight, 45 P.2d 909,
150 Or. 395.
7S. N.Y.— Crouse v. McVickar, 100
N.E, 697, 207 N.T. 213, 45 L.R.A.,
N.S., 1159.
34 C.J. p 492 note 42.
77. Va. — McCloud v. Virginia Elec-
tric & Power Co., 180 S.E. 299, 164
Va. 604.
34 C.J. p 492 note 43.
78. 111.— Wood v. First Nat. Bank of
Woodlawn, 50 N.E.2d 830, 383 111.
515, certiorari denied 64 S.Ct. 521,
321 U.S. 765, 88 L.Ed. 1061.
Ky.— Campbell v. Chriswell, 144 S.
W.2d 802, 284 Ky. 328.
N.M. — Ringle Development Corp. v.
Town of Tome Land Grant, 160 P.
2d 441, 49 N.M. 192.
Or.— Dixon v. Simpson, 279 P. 939,
130 Or. 211.
Va. — McCloud v. Virginia Electric &
Power Co., 180 S.E. 299, 164 Va.
•604.
34 C.J. p 492 note 44.
79. Or.— Dixon v. Simpson, 279 P.
939, 130 Or. 211.
Tenn. — Levan v. Patton, 2 Heisk.
108.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
389
and too late to take any action in the law case,80
and that it is now within his control, and that he
will be able to produce it on another trial.81 It
must also appear why no motion for a new trial
was made in the trial court before the lapse of the
term,82 that the complaint was filed without delay
after the discovery was made,83 and that the evi-
dence will produce a different result if a new trial
is granted.84
80. Cal. — Mulford v. Cohn, 18 Cal.
42.
34 C.J. P 492 note 46.
81. Cal. — Mulford v. Cohn, 18 Cal.
42.
Ga, — Hill v. Harris, 42 Ga. 412.
82. Cal. — Mulford v. Cohn, 18 Cal.
42.
83. Ind. — State v. Holmes, 69 Ind.
577.
84. Va. — McCloud v. Virginia Elec-
tric & Power Co., 180 S.B. 299, 164
Va. 604.
85. U.S.— U. S. v. Kusche, D.C.Cal.,
56 P.Supp. 201.
Ala,— Copeland v. Copeland, 7 So.
2d 87, 242 Ala. 507— Quick y. Mc-
Donald, 108 So. 529, 214 Ala. 587.
Cal. — Hammell v. Britton, 119 F.2d
333, 19 Cal.2d 72— See v. Joughin,
64 P.2d 149, 18 Cal.App.2d 414.
Pla. — State ex rel. Lorenz v. Lorenz,
6 So.2d 620, 149 Fla. 625.
Ga.— Elliott v. Elliott, 191 S.E. 465,
184 Ga. 417 — Dorsey v. Griffin, 161
S.E. 601, 173 Ga, 802.
111.— Barzowski v. Highland Park
State Bank, 31 N.E.2d 294, 371 111.
412.
Mo. — Wm. H. Johnson Timber &
Realty Co. v. Belt, 46 S.W.2d 153,
329 Mo. 515.
N*.M. — Bowers v. Brazell, 244 P. 893,
31 N.M. 316.
N-.Y.— Boylan v. Vogel, 264 N.Y.S.
209, 147 Misc. 554, reversed on oth-
er grounds 265 N.Y.S. 990, 240 App.
Div, "756.
Okl.— Metssger v. Turner, 158 P.2d
701, 195 Okl. 406.
Tex. — Johnston v. Stephens, Civ.App.,
300 S.W. 225, reversed on other
grounds 49 S.W.2d 431, 121 Tex.
374.
34 OJ. p 491 note 33—47 C.J. p 438
note 72.
Bill or complaint held sufficient
U.S. — Hanna v. Brictson Mfg. Co., C.
C.A.S.D., 62 F.2d 139.
Ala. — Bolden v. Sloss-Sheffleld Steel
& Iron Co., 110 So. 574, 215 Ala.
334, 49 A.L.R. 1206— Keenum v.
Dodson, 102 So. 230, 212 Ala, 146.
Ark. — Martin v. Street Improvement
Dist No. 349, 11 S.W.2d 469, 178
Ark. 588.
Cal. — Bernhard v. Waring, 2 P.2d 32,
213 Cal. 175— Newport v. Hatton,
231 P. 987, 195 Cal. 132.
Pla. — Reybine v. Kruse, 190 So. 711,
139 Pla. 577.
(2) Fraud or Perjury
Where a Judgment Is attacked for fraud or perjury,
the bill or petition must state a cause of action for re-
lief on this ground and set forth particularly the specific
facts constituting the alleged fraud or perjury.
Where the aid of equity in relieving against a
judgment is sought for fraud, the bill or complaint
must state a cause of action for relief on this
ground,85 by establishing extrinsic fraud,86 rather
Ga. — White v. Roper, 167 S.E. 177,
176 Ga, 180— Groom v. Bennett, 147
S.E. 560, 168 Ga. 178— Branan v.
Feldman, 123 S.E. 710, 158 Ga. 377
— Mullis v. Bank of Chauncey, 150
S.E. 471, 40 Ga,App. 582.
Kan.— Laidler v. Peterson, 92 P.2d
18, 150 Kan. 306.
Ky. — Jarvis v. Baughman, 137 S.W.
2d 1076, 282 Ky. 115— Stewart v.
Carter County, 36 S.W.2d 7, 237
Ky. 600.
La. — Terry v. Womack, 20 So.2d 365,
206 La, 1069— McHenry v. Wall,
App., 157 So. 632.
Minn. — Lenhart v. Lenhart Wagon
Co., 298 N.W. 37, 210 Minn. 164,
135 A.L.R. 833, mandate modified
on other grounds 2 N.W.2d 421,
211 Minn. 572.
N.Y.— Boston & M. R. R. v. Delaware
& H. Co., 264 N.Y.S. 470, 238 App.
Div. 191.
N. C.— McCoy v. Justice, 146 S.E. 214,
196 N.C. 553.
Okl.— Federal Tax Co. v. Board of
Com'rs of Okmulgee County, 102
P.2d 148, 187 Okl. 223.
Or. — Oregon-Washington R. & Nav.
Co. v. Reid, 65 P.2d 664, 155 Or.
602.
Tex. — Mauldin v. American Liberty
Pipe Line Co., Civ.App., 185 S.W.2d
158, ref.w.m — Early v. Burns, Civ.
App., 142 S.W.2d 260, error refused
— Lamb v. Isley, Civ.App., 114 S.W.
2d 673, rehearing denied 115 S.W.
2d 1036 — Sedgwick v. Kirby Lum-
ber Co., Civ.App., 78 S.W.2d 1107,
affirmed 107 S.W.2d 358, 130 Tex.
163— Ritch v. Jarvis, Civ.App., 64
S.W. 2 d 831, error dismissed — Dal-
las Coffee & Tea Co. v. Williams,
Civ.App., 45 S.W.2d 724, error dis-
missed.
Wash. — Rennebohm v. Rennebohm,
279 P. 402, 153 Wash. 102.
Wis. — Amberg v. Deaton, 271 N.W.
396, 223 Wis. 653.
Sill or complaint held insufficient
U.S. — Toledo Scale Co. v. Computing
Scale Co., Ohio, 43 S.Ct. 458, 261
U.S. 399, 67 L.Ed. 719— Morse v.
Lewis, C.C.A.W.Va,, 54 F.2d 1027,
certiorari denied 52 S.Ct 640, 286
U.S. 557, 76 L.Ed. 1291.
Ala. — Prestwood v. Bagley, 149 So.
817, 227 Ala. 316— Kelen v. Brew-
er, 129 So. 23, 221 Ala. 445— Quick
v. McDonald, 108 So. 529, 214 Ala,
587.
Ga, — Abercrombie v. Hair, 196 S.E.
771
447, 185 Ga. 728— Walker v. Hall,
166 S.E. 757, 176 Ga, 12— Ellis v.
Ellis, 163 S.E. 155, 174 Ga, 559.
Ky. — Board of Education of Pulaski
County v. Nelson, 88 S.W.2d 17,
261 Ky. 466.
Mich. — Hofweber v. Detroit Trus*
Co., 294 N.W. 108, 295 Mich. 96.
N.M.— Bowers v. Brazell, 244 P. 893,
31 N.M. 316.
N.Y.— Joelson v. Mayers, 4 N.Y.S. 2d
232, 254 App.Div. 749, appeal dis-
missed 18 N.E.2d 312, 279 N.Y.
681, appeal dismissed 18 N.E.2d
868, 279 N.Y. 785.
N.C. — Stevens v. Cecil, 199 S.E. 163,
214 N.C. 273.
Ohio.— May v. May, 50 N.E.2d 790, 72
Ohio App. 82.
Okl.— Clinton v. Miller, 216 P. 185,
96 Okl. 71.
Or. — Mattoon v. Cole, 143 P.2d 679,
172 Or. 664.
Tex. — Crouch v. McGaw, 138 S.W.2d
94, 134 Tex. '633— Kelley v. Wright,
Civ.App., 184 S.W.2d 649, affirmed,
Sup., 188 S.W.2d 983— Sedgwick v.
Kirby Lumber Co., Civ.App., 78
S.W.2d 1107, affirmed 107 S.W.2d
358, 130 Tex. 163.
Utah.— Wright v. W. E. Callahan
Const. Co., 156 P.2d 710.
Wash.— Zapon Co. v. Bryant, 286 P.
282, 156 Wash. 161.
Pacts not warranting conclusion
A general allegation that a Judg-
ment was procured by fraud is no
stronger than recital of facts from
which the general conclusion is
drawn, and, if such facts do not
warrant the conclusion the petition
is insufficient. — Oglesby v. Oglesby,
32 S.E.2d 906, 198 Ga. 864.
Plea of prescription against peti-
tion to annul judgment will not be
sustained, if petition is sufficient to
prove date of discovery of fraud. —
Smith v. Williams, 2 La-App. 24.
Particular allegations construed
Ga,— Bird v. Smith, 197 S.E. 642, 186
Ga. 301.
86. U.S. — Montgomery v. Gilbert, C
C.A.Mont., 77 F.2d 29.
Ariz. — Dockery v. Central Arizona
Light & Power Co., 45 P.2d 656, 45
Aria. 434.
Ark. — Ready v. Ozan Inv. Co., 79 S.
W.2d 433, 190 Ark. 606.
Fla. — Hamilton v. Flowers, 183 So.
811, 134 Fla, 828.
Procurement of decree
In order to sustain bill to vacate
389
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
than intrinsic fraud,8? and by showing that the
judgment is wrong.88 It is not sufficient to incor-
porate in the bill a general allegation of fraud, de-
ceit, or concealment, but the specific facts consti-
tuting the alleged fraud must be set forth particu-
larly.89 On the other hand, if the facts constitut-
ing fraud are so set forth, the bill is sufficient, al-
though it lacks a specific allegation of fraud,90 un-
less any reliance on fraud as a ground for relief
is specifically abandoned by statement to the court91
Where the fraud charged consists of acts of third
persons, it must appear from the bill that the judg-
ment creditor was a party to it.92
Perjury. Where a judgment is attacked on the
ground of perjury, the bill or complaint must con-
tain all necessary allegations warranting the relief
sought.93 The bill should name the witnesses, and
wherein they swore falsely,94 and set forth facts
tending to show that their testimony was false,95
to the knowledge of the judgment creditor,96 and
that complainant has witnesses to prove such
facts,97 giving their names and addresses.98 Plain-
tiff must also allege the means by which the perjury
decree for fraud, bill must allege
facts showing- that fraud was in con-
coction or procurement of decree. —
Jones v. Henderson, 153 So. 214, 228
Ala. 273.
Extrinsic fraud sufficiently alleged
Gal. — Stenderup v. Broadway State
Bank of Los Angeles, 28 P.2d 14,
219 Cal. 593— Caldwell v. Taylor,
23 P.2d 758, 218 Cal. 471, 88 A.L.R.
1194— Larrabee v. Tracy, 104 P.2d
61, 39 Cal.App.2d 593 — Bogardus v,
O'Dea, 287 P. 149, 105 CaLApp. 189,
Mo.— Fadler v. Gabbert, 63 S.W.2d
121, 333 Mo. 851.
Mont. — Bullard v. Zimmerman, 268 P.
512, 82 Mont 434.
87. U.S.— U. S. v. Kusche, D.C.CaL,
56 F.Supp. 201.
Cal.— La Salle v. Peterson, 32 P.2d
612, 220 Cal. 739— O. A. Graybeal
Co. v. Cook, 60 P.2d 525, 16 Cal.
App.2d 231.
Kan.— Bitsko v. Bitsko, 122 P.2d 753,
155 Kan. 80.
Mont. — Moser v. Fuller, 86 P.2d 1,
107 Mont 424.
Okl.— Metzger v. Turner, 158 P.2d
701, 195 Okl, 406.
88. Cal. — Machado v. Machado, 152
P.2d 457, 66 Cal.App.2d 401.
89. U.S. — Kithcart v. Metropolitan
Life Ins. Co., C.C.A.MO., 88 F.2d
407— Barnes v. Boyd, D.C.W.Va., 8
F.Supp. 584, affirmed, C.C.A., 73 F.
2d 910, certiorari denied 55 S.Ct
550, 294 U.S. 723, 79 L.Ed. 1254,
rehearing denied 55 S.Ct 647, 295
U.S. 768, 79 L.Bd. 1708.
Ala.— Hooke v. Hooke, 25 So.2d 33 —
Copeland v. Copeland, 7 So.2d 87,
242 Ala. 507— Quick v. McDonald,
108 So. 529, 214 Ala. 587.
Cal. — Hammell v. Britton, 119 P.2d
333, 19 Cal.2d 72— O. A. Graybeal
Co. v. Cook, 60 P.2d 525, 16 Cal.
App.2d 231.
Ga. — Stanton v. Galley, 33 S.B.2d 747,
7-2 GeuApp. 428.
Idaho. — Inman v. Round Valley Irr.
Co., 238 P. 1018, 41 Idaho 482.
111.— Woodworth v. Sandin, 20 N.E.2d
603, 371 111. 302.
Iowa. — Shaw v. Addison, 18 N.W.2d
796.
Ky. — Board of Education of Pulaski
County v. Kelson, 88 S.W.2d 17,
261 Ky. 466 — Hargis Commercial
Bank & Trust Co.'s Liquidating
Agent v. Eversole, 74 S.W.2d 193,
255 Ky. 377.
Minn.— Murray v. Calkins, 242 N.W.
706, 186 Minn. 192— Hawley v.
Knott 216 N.W. 800, 173 Minn. 149.
Mo.— Dorman v. Hall, 101 S.W. 161,
124 Mo.App. 5.
N.C.— Home v. Edwards, 3 S.E.2d 1,
215 N.C. 622— Gates v. Texas Co.,
166 S.E. 317, 203 N.C. 474.
Okl. — Southwick v. Jones, 60 P.2d
774, 177 Okl. 409— Finley v. Riley,
215 P. 950, 91 Okl. 58.
Tenn. — Corpus Juris cited in Hart-
man v. Spivey, 123 S.W.2d 1110,
1114, 22 TenruApp. 435.
Tex.— Petty v. Mitchell, Civ.App.,
187 S.W.2d 138, error refused.
34 C.J. p 491 note 33.
Averments held sufficient
Ark. — Brookfleld v. Harrahan Viaduct
Improvement Dist, 54 S.W.Sd 689,
186 Ark. 599.
Ga. — Mullis v. Bank of Chauncey,
150 S.E. 471, 40 Ga.App. 582.
Kan.— Laidler v. Peterson, 92 P.2d
18, 150 Kan. 306.
Okl.— Parker v. Board of Com'rs of
Okmulgee County, 102 P.2d 880,
187 Okl. 308— Parker v. Board of
Com'rs of Okmulgee County, 102 P.
2d 883, 187 Okl. 311.
Or. — Oregon-Washington R. & Nav.
Co. v. Reid, 65 P.2d 664, 155 Or.
602.
Tex.— Reitz v. Mitchell, CivJLpp., 256
S.W. 697.
34 C.J. p 491 note 33 [a].
Averments held insufficient
U.S. — Morse v. Lewis, C.C.A.W.Va.,
54 F.2d 1027, certiorari denied 52
S.Ct 640, 286 U.S. 557, 76 L.Ed.
1291.
Cal. — O. A. Graybeal Co. v. Cook, 60
P.2d 525, 16 Cal.App.2d 231.
N.C. — Hawkins v. Federal Land Bank
of Columbia, S.C., 18 S.E.2d 823,
221 N.C. 73.
The alleged fraudulent statement*
of the petition on which jurisdiction
of the court was invoked to render
the decree complained of must be set
forth. — Copeland v. Copeland, 7 So.2d
87, 242 Ala. €07.
772
Admissions
A petition to vacate judgment for
fraud, based on admissions made
after trial by plaintiff's attorney,
was not demurrable on ground of in-
admissibility of such admissions, in
absence of allegation that such ad-
missions were in some way part of
an offer to compromise. — Laidler v.
Peterson, 92 P.2d 18, 150 Kan. 306.
90. Ga. — Sylvania Ins. Co. v. John-
son, 160 S.E. 788, 173 Ga. 679.
34 C.J. p 492 note 34.
91. Tex1. — Sedgwick v. Kirby Lum-
ber Co., 107 S.W.2d 358, 130 Tex.
163.
92. Or.— Mattoon v. Cole, 143 P.2d
679, 172 Or. 664.
34 C.J. p 492 note 35.
93. Okl.— Lewis v. Couch, 154 P.2d
51, 194 Okl. 632.
S.D.— Seubert v. Seubert, 7 N.W.2d
301.
Averments held sufficient
La. — Adkins' Heirs v. Crawford, Jen-
kins & Booth, 3 So.2d 539, 200 La.
561.
Neb.— Krause v. Long, 192 N.W. 729,
109 Neb. 846.
94. Del. — Kersey v. Rash, 3 DeLCh.
321.
Tex. — Stringer v. Robertson, Civ.
App., 140 S.W. 502.
95. 111.— Nicoloff v. Schnipper, 233
IlLApp. 591.
34 C.J. p 492 note 37.
Conviction
Judgment would not be set aside
on ground that certain testimony
was false, where there was no alle-
gation that the witness giving the
allegedly false testimony had been
found guilty of perjury. — Stephens v.
Pickering, 15 S.E.2d 202. 192 Ga.
199— Bird v. Smith, 197 S.B. 642,
186 Ga. 301— Foster v. Cotton States
Electric Co., 157 S.E. -636, 172 Ga.
231.
96. N.C. — Burgess v. Lovengood, 55
N.C. 457.
94 C.J. p 492 note 38.
97. 111.-— Ames v. Snider, 55 111. 4%S.
98. Iowa. — Dixon v. Graham, *6
Iowa 310.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 389
was discovered," and that such discovery could not
have been made in time to have been available as
a defense in the law action.1
c. Allegations as to Specific Matters
Where such a showing Is a prerequisite to relief,
the bill must contain proper and sufficient allegations as
to the existence of a meritorious, defense, the plaintiff's
diligence and lack of fault, injury or injustice resulting
from the enforcement of the Judgment, and lack or loss
of remedy at law.
Where the existence of a meritorious cause of
action or defense is a prerequisite to relief, as dis-
cussed supra § 349, the bill must allege and show
that complainant has a good and meritorious claim
or defense to the action at law,2 that he is able to
present to the court the evidence constituting such
defense,3 and that a different judgment would en-
sue if the judgment at law were set aside and the
action tried anew.4 Ordinarily, a general allega-
tion that complainant has a meritorious defense to
99. Idaho. — Boise Payette Lumber
Co. v. Idaho Gold Dredging: Cor-
poration. 58 P.2d 786, 56 Idaho 660,
certiorari denied 57 S.Ct 40, 299
U.S. 677. 81 L.Ed. 425.
1. Idaho. — Boise Payette Lumber
Co. v. Idaho Gold Dredging Corpo-
ration, supra*
2. U.S. — Matheson v. National Sure-
ty Co., C.C.A.Alaska, 69 F.2d 914.
Ala. — Murphree v. International Shoe
Co., 20 So.2d 782. 246 Ala. 384—
Fletcher v. First Nat. Bank of
Opelika, 11 So.2d 854, 244 Ala. 98
— Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v. Street,
176 So. 350, 234 Ala, 537— Hatton
v. Moseley, 156 So. 546, 229 Ala.
240— Ikard v. Walker, 104 So. 129,
213 Ala. 13— King v. Dent, 93 So.
823, 208 Ala. 78.
Ark.— Holthoff y. State Bank &
Trust Co. of Wellston, Mo., 186 S.
W.2d 162, 208 Ark. 307— Baskins v.
Hosalc Templars of America, 4 S.
W.2d 932, 176 Ark. 940.
D.C.— Ray v. Carr, 107 F.2d 238, 71
App.D.C. 37.
Ga. — Huson Ice & Coal Co. v. City of
Covington, 172 S.B. 56, 178 Ga. 6.
111.— Nasti v. Cook County, 180 N.E.
847, 348 111. 342.
Kan. — Fitzhugh v. Central Trust Co.,
72 P.2d 959, 146 Kan. 585.
Ky. — Workingmen's Perpetual Bldg.
& Loan Ass'n v. Stephens, 184 S.
W.2d 575, 299 Ky. 177— Curtis v.
Reed, 176 S.W.2d 385, 296 Ky. 221
— McKim v. Smith, 172 S.W.2d 634,
294 Ky. 835— Ohio Valley Fire &
Marine Ins. Co.'s Receiver v. New-
man, 13 S.W.2d 771, 227 Ky. 554
— Collins' Ex'rs v. Bonner, 294 S.
W. 1027, 220 Ky. 212— Holt v. Ma-
honey, 270 S.W. 795, 208 Ky. 330.
Miss.— Strickland v. Webb, 120 So.
168, 152 Miss. 421.
Mo. — Corpus Juris cited in Hocken-
berry v. Cooper County State
Bank, 88 S.W.2d 1031, 1037, 338 Mo.
31.
Mont. — Frisbee v. Co burn, 52 P.2d
882, 101 Mont. 58.
Ohio. — Mosher v. Mutual Home &
Savings Ass'n, App., 41 N.E.2d
871.
Okl. — Honey cutt v. Severin, 98 P.2d
1093, 186 Okl. 509— Oklahoma Ry.
Co. v. Holt, 17 P.2d 955, 161 Okl.
165.
Or. — Dixon v. Simpson, 279 P. 939,
130 Or. 211.
Tex.— Mann v. Risher, 116 S.W.2d
692, 131 Tex. 498— Brown v. Clip-
penger, 256 S.W. 254, 113 Tex.
364— Winters Mut Aid Ass'n, Cir-
cle No. 2 v, Reddin, Com.App., 49
S.W.2d 1095— Smith v. Ferrell,
Com. App., 44 S.W.2d 962 — Dorsey
v. Cutbirth, Civ.App., 178 S.W.2d
749, error refused — Union Bank &
Trust Co. of Fort Worth v. Smith,
Civ.App., 166 S.W.2d 928— Goldapp
v. Jones Lumber Co., Civ.App., 163
S.W.2d 229, error refused — Barrow,
Wade, Guthrie & Co. v. Stroud, Civ.
App., 125 S.W.2d 365— Allen v.
Trentman, Civ.App., 115 S.W.2d
1177— Fort Worth & Denver City
Ry. Co. v. Reid, Civ.App., 115 S.W.
2d 1156— Universal Credit Co. v.
Cunningham, Civ.App., 109 S.W.2d
507, error dismissed — Stone v.
Stone, Civ.App., 101 S.W.2d 638—
Murry v. Citizens' State Bank of
Ranger, Civ.App., 77 S.W.2d 1104,
error dismissed — Texas Employers'
Ins. Ass'n v. Shelton, Civ.App., 74
S.W.2d 280— Smith v. Dunnam, Civ.
App., 57 S.W.2d 873, error refused
— Settles v. Milano Furniture Co.,
Civ.App., 51 S.W.Sd 655, error re-
fused— Dallas Coffee & Tea Co. v.
Williams, Civ.App., 45 S.W.2d 724,
error dismissed — Scott v. McGloth-
lin, Civ. App., 30 S.W.2d 511, af-
firmed McGothlin v. Scott, Com.
App., 48 S.W.2d 610— R. A. Toombs
Sash & Door Co. v. Jamison, Civ.
App., 271 S.W. 253— Crutcher v.
Wolfe, Civ.App., 269 S.W. 841—
Cooper v. Cooper, Civ.App., 260 S.
W. 679 — Bergeron v. Security Nat
Bank, Civ.App., 252 S.W. 856 — Cole
v. Varner, Civ.App., 246 S.W. 410
— Taylor v. Hustead & Tucker,
Civ.App., 243 S.W. 766, reversed on
other grounds, Com. App., 257 S.W.
232.
Utah. — Taylor v. Guaranty Mortg.
Co., 220 P. 1067, 62 Utah 520.
34 C.J. P 489 note 18.
Prlma facie showing of meritori-
ous defense in plaintiffs petition is
sufficient in suit to cancel judgment.
—Adams v, First Nat. Bank, Tex.Civ.
App., 294 S.W. 909.
Averments held trafllcient
Colo.— Ferrier v. Morris, 122 P.2d
880, 109 Colo, 154.
773
Del. — Battaglino v. Industrial Trust
Co., 175 A. 50, 20 DeLCh. 344.
Idaho. — Inman v. Round Valley Irr.
Co., 238 P. 1018, 41 Idaho 482.
111. — Adams & Pigott Co. v. Allen,
141 N.E. 386, 310 111. 119.
Ky. — Holcomb v. Creech, 56 S.W.2d
998, 247 Ky. 199.
Mo. — Cherry v. Wertheim, App., 25
S.W.2d 118.
Or. — State Bank of Sheridan v. Hei-
der, 9 P.2d 117, 139 Or. 185.
Tex. — Farmers' State Bank of Burk-
burnett v. Jameson, Com.App., 11
S.W.2d 299, rehearing denied Farm-
ers' State Bank of Burkburnett v.
Jameson, Coxn.App., 16 S.W.2d 52$
— McAfee v. Jeter & Townsend,
Civ.App., 147 S.W.2d 884,
Averments held insufficient
Ark.— Pullen v. Smith, 139 S.W.2d
245, 200 Ark. 420.
111.— Adams & Pigott Co. v. Allen,
228 IlLApp. 230, affirmed 141 N.E.
386, 310 111. 119.
Mont. — Frisbee v. Coburn, 52 P.M
882, 101 Mont. 58.
Ohio. — Mosher v. Mutual Home &
Savings Ass'n, App., 41 N.E.2d 871.
Allegations of original bill
Failure to allege good and meri-
torious defense against defendants'
supplemental answer and cross bill,
on which defendants obtained decree
pro confesso, was supplied by aver-
ment of plaintiffs original bill that
plaintiff had recovered judgment for
enforcement of which he was then
invoking aid of chancery jurisdiction
of court, which judgment had been
recorded as provided by statute, and
that judgment was valid. — McCarty
v. Yarbrough, 128 So. 786, 221 Ala.
330.
3. Ala. — Murphree v. International
Shoe Co., 20 So.2d 782, 246 Ala.
384.
Idaho. — Inman v. Round Valley Irr.
Co., 238 P. 1018, 41 Idaho 482.
34 C.J. p 489 note 19.
4. U.S.— Kithcart v. Metropolitan
Life Ins. Co., C.C.A.Mo., 119 F.2d
497, certiorari denied U. S. ex rel.
Kithcart v. Gardner, 62 S.Ct. 793,
' 315 U.S.- 808, 86 L.Ed. 1207.
Cal.— Wilson v. Wilson, 130 P.2d
782, 55 Cal.App.2d 421.
Tex. — Allen v. Trentman, Clv.App.,
115 S.W.2d 1177.
389
JUDGMENTS
49 O.J.S.
the original suit is not sufficient, and the facts
which constitute such defense must be pleaded,5
but it has been held that a pleading in general terms
may be sufficient in the absence of special excep-
tion thereto.6 It is not enough for complainant to
aver that he has stated the facts to his attorney and
that he is advised by him that he has a good de-
fense.?
The rule that a meritorious defense must be
pleaded does not apply where the judgment is at-
tacked as void, rather than voidable,8 as where the
judgment was rendered without obtaining jurisdic-
tion over the person of defendant,9 and it has been
held that this is the case whether the invalidity of
the judgment appears on its face or must be shown
by evidence dehors the record.10 A complaint to
set aside a judgment rendered through mistake or
the like need not show a meritorious defense where
the defense has already been made.11
Diligence and lack of fault. As a general rule,
complainant in a suit in equity for relief against a
judgment at law must exonerate himself from blame
for the situation in which he finds himself, that is,
his bill must contain proper averments to show that
the judgment against him was not attributable to
his own negligence or fault, and that he has been
diligent in seeking to make his defense, and he
must set forth the facts which he relies on as show-
ing such diligence,12 or, where it appears that the
judgment was obtained as a result of his neglect, he
5. Ala.— Murphree v. International,
Shoe Co., 20 So.2d 782, 246 Ala.
384— Fletcher v. First Nat. Bank
of Opelika, 11 So.2d S54, 244 Ala.
98— Corpus Juris cited in Little
v. Peevy, 189 So. 720, 725, 238 Ala.
106.
Cal. — Brozey v. Alesen, 3 P.2d 68,
116 OaLApP. 641.
H.C.— Hinton v. whitehurst, 19 S S.E.
579, 214 N.C. 99.
Tex. — Poland v. Kisher, Civ.App., 88
S.W.2d 1106, affirmed Mann v.
Risher, 116 S.W.2d 692, 131 Tex.
498 — "Winn v. Houston Building &
Loan Ass'n, Civ.App., 45 S.W.2d
631, error refused.
Va. — Lockard v. Whitenacfc, 144 S.
E. 606, 151 Va. 143.
84 C.J. p 489 note 20.
6. Tex. — Edwards v. Riverside Roy-
alties Corporation, Civ.App., 99 S.
W.2d 418. Error dismissed.
7. U.S.— Christy v. Atchison, T. &
S. F. R. Co., D.C-Colo., 214 F. 1016.
Cal.— Eldred v. White, 36 P. 944,
102 Cal. 600.
& Cal. — Cadenasso v. Bank of Italy,
6 P.2d 944, 214 Cal. 562.
Idaho. — Johnson v. J. A. Barrett Au-
to Co., 4 P.2d 344, 51 Idaho 95.
Or. — Dixie Meadows Independence
Mines Co. v. Kight, 45 P.2d 909,
150 Or. 395.
9. Wash. — John Hancock Mut. Life
Ins. Co. v. Gooley, 83 P.2d 221, 196
Wash. 357, 118 A.L.R. 1484.
10. Wash. — John Hancock Mut Life
Ins. Co. v. Gooley, supra.
11. Ind. — Globe Mining Co. v. Oak
Ridge Coal Co., 177 N.B. 868, 204
Ind. 11.
13. U.S. — Barnes v. Boyd, D.C.W.
Va., 8 F.Supp. 584, affirmed, C.C.
A., 73 F.2d 910, certiorari denied
55 S.Ct, 550, 294 U.S. 723, 79 L.
Ed. 1254, rehearing denied 55 S.Ct.
647, 295 U.S. 768, 79 L.Ed. 1708.
Ala. — Fletcher v. First Nat. Bank of
Opelika, 11 So.2d S54, 244 Ala. 98
— Farrell v. Farrell, 10 So.2d 153,
243 Ala. 3S9 — McWillrams v. Mar-
tin, 188 So. 677, 237 Ala. 624—
Leath v. Lister, 173 So. 59, 233
Ala. 595— Hatton v. Moseley, 156
So. 546. 229 Ala. 240— Florence Gin
Co. v. City of Florence, 147 So. 417,
226 Ala. 478, followed in 147 So.
420, three cases, 226 Ala. 482, 147
So. 421, 226 Ala. 482, and 147 So.
421, 226 Ala. 483— Adams v. Ala-
bama Lime & Stone Corporation,
127 So. 544, 221 Ala. 10— Quick v.
McDonald. 108 So. 529, 214 Ala.
587.
Ark.— Holthoff v. State Bank & Trust
Co. of Wellston, Mo., 186 S.W.Sd
162, 208 Ark. 307— Smith v. Thom-
as, 78 S.W.2d 380, 190 Ark. 261—
Farmers' Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v.
Defries, 1 S.W.2d 19, 175 Ark.
548.
Cal.— Hammell v. Britton, 119 P.2d
333, 19 Cal.2d 72— Fisher v. George,
216 P. 974, 62 Cal.App. 399— Hogan
v. Horsfall, 266 P. 1002, 91 Cal.
App. 37, followed in 266 P. 1005,
91 CaLApp. 797.
Del.— Di Luchio v. Otis Oil Burner
Corporation, 135 A. 482, 15 Del.Ch.
229.
G-a. — Scarborough v. Information
Buying Co., 154 S.E. 350, 170 Ga.
872 — Brown v. Verekas, 139 S.E.
344, 164 Ga. 733.
Idaho. — Boise Payette Lumber Co. v.
Idaho Gold Dredging Corporation,
58 P.2d 786, 56 Idaho 660, certio-
rari denied 57 S.Ct 40, 299 U.S.
577, 81 L.Ed. 425.
Ind.— Cooper v. Farmers' Trust Co.,
146 N.E. 336, 82 Ind.App. 442.
Kan.— Bitsko v. Bitsko, 122 P.2d
753, 155 Kan. 80.
Ky.— Campbell v. Chriswell, 144 S.W.
2d 802, 284 Ky. 328— Chriswell v.
Campbell, 127 S.W.2d 872, 278 Ky.
30— Smith v. Patterson, 280 S.W.
930, 213 Ky. 142.
Neb. — Kielian v. Kent & Burke Co.,
268 N.W. 79, 131 Neb. 308. ,
N.Y. — Harvey v. Comby, 280 N.T.S.
958,. 245 App.Div. 318.
774
Okl. — Corpus Juris cited in Metzger
v. Turner, 158 P.2d 701, 704, 195
Okl. 406— Weimer v. Augustana
Pension and Aid Fund, 67 P.2d 436,
179 Okl. 572.
Or. — Dixon- v. Simpson, 279 P. 939,
130 Or. 211.
Tex.— Kelly v. Wright, Sup., 188 S.
W.2d 983— Mann v. Risher, 116
S.W.2d 692, 131 Tex 498— Winters
Mut. Aid Ass'n, Circle No. 2, v.
Reddin, Com.App., 49 S.W.2d 1095
— Smith v. Ferrell, Com. App., 44
S.W.2d 962 — Grayson v. Johnson,
Civ.App., 181 S.W.2d 312— Dixon v.
McNabb, Civ.App., 173 S.W.2d 228,
error refused — Ramsey v. McKam-
ey, Civ.App., 138 S.W.2d 167, re-
versed on other grounds 152 S.W.
2d 322, 137 Tex. 91— Barrow, Wade,
Guthrie & Co. v. Stroud, Civ.App.,
125 S.W.2d 365— Allen v. Trent-
man, Civ.App., 115 S.W.2d 1177—
Fort Worth & Denver City Ry. Co.
v. Reid, Civ.App., 115 S.W.2d 1156
— Stone v. Stone, Civ.App., 101 S.
W.2d 638 — Finlayson v. McDowell,
Civ.App., 94 S.W.2d 1234, error dis-
missed— Dunlap v. Villareal, Civ.
App., 91 S.W.2d 1124— Mercer v.
Campbell, Civ.App., 86 S.W.2d 811
— Smith v. Dunnam, Civ.App., 57
S.W.2d 873, error refused — Staley
v. Vaughn, Civ.App., 50 S.W.2d
907, error refused — Honey v. Wood,
Civ.App., 46 S.W.2d 334— Whitting-
hill v. Oliver, Civ.App., 38 S.W.2d
896, error dismissed — Maytag
Southwestern Co. v. Thornton, Civ.
App., 20 S.W.2d 383, error dismiss-
ed— Davis v. Cox, Civ.App.t 4 S.W.
2d 1008, error dismissed — Wake-
field v. Burchers, Civ.App., 4 S.
W.2d 218— Citizens' Bank v. Bran-
dau, Civ.App., 1 S.W.2d 466, er-
ror refused — Crutcher v. Wolfe,
Civ.App., 269 S.W. 841— Home Ben.
Ass'n of Henderson County v.
Boswell, Civ.App.f 268 S.W. 979 —
Cook v. Panhandle Refining Co.,
Civ.App., 267 S.W. 1070 — Cole v.
Varner, Civ. App., 246 S.W. 410 —
Taylor v. Hustead & Tucker, Civ.
App., 243 S.W. 766, reversed on
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 389
must sufficiently allege that such neglect was ex-
cusable.13 Plaintiff must also allege a sufficient ex-
cuse for delay in instituting suit,14 and for his fail-
ure to move for a new trial during the term of the
court at which the judgment was rendered,1^ or to
seek relief from the judgment by appeal to a higher
court.16 However, where the ground relied on
could not have been set up as a defense at law, no
excuse for failure to prevent the judgment need be
alleged.17 So, where the facts make out a case from
which it appears doubtful whether there is any
remedy at law, or show an existing remedy to be
inadequate to do complete justice, failure to make
defense at law, or failure to defend successfully,
need not be excused.18 A party filing a petition un-
der a statute authorizing equitable relief against a
judgment is not required to acquit himself of neg-
ligence in failing to apply to the court of law for
relief before going into equity to obtain the same
relief."
Injury or injustice to complainant. The bill must
allege that it would be against conscience to allow
the enforcement of the judgment, or that it would
work injury or injustice to complainant in some spe-
cific manner.20 Facts must be alleged; a general
allegation of injury is not sufficient.21
Lack or loss of remedy at law. Where the non-
existence or inadequacy of a remedy at law is a
condition to the granting of equitable relief against
a judgment, as discussed supra § 343, complainant
must sufficiently allege that he has no adequate rem-
edy at law against the judgment, or if the case is
so, that he has unavailingly exhausted his legal rem-
edies,22 and an averment of the insolvency of re-
spondent may be a necessary part of this allega-
tion.23 However, a bill to enjoin the execution of
a fraudulent judgment need not aver that plaintiff
in such judgment is insolvent.24
other grounds, Com.App., 257 S.
W. 232.
34 C.J. p 490 note 23.
Lack of notice of Judgment
(1)A bill seeking- to set aside a
judgment at law must allege want of
notice of judgment — Murphree v. In-
ternational Shoe Co., 20 So.2d 782,
246 Ala. 384.
(2) Petition alleging that plaintiff
had no notice of filing- of suit or
rendition of judgment until several
months after rendition of judgment
was demurrable in failing clearly to
allege that he had no knowledge of
rendition of judgment during six
months within which remedy of ap-
peal by writ of error was available.
— Avant v. Broun, Tex.Civ.App., 91 S.
W.2d 426, error dism.
(3) Complaint in action to set
aside default judgment, which did
not allege that judgment was taken
by surprise, inadvertence, or excus-
able neglect, was demurrable, not-
withstanding allegation that plain-
tiff's attorney withdrew his appear-
ance without plaintiffs knowledge. —
Sweetman v. Peru Building & Loan
Ass'n, 200 N.BJ. 82, 101 Ind.App. 505.
Averments held sufficient
Ala. — Garvey v. Inglenook Const
Co., 104 So. 639, 213 Ala. 267.
Mont. — Stocking v. Charles Beard
Co., 55 P.2d 949, 102 Mont. 65.
Tex.— Lamb v. Isley, Civ.App., 114 S.
W.2d 673, rehearing denied 115 S.
W.2d 1030— Stanley v. Spann, Civ.
App., 21 S.W.2d 305, error dismiss-
ed— Cook v. Panhandle Reflning
Co., Civ.App,, 267 S.W. 1070.
Averments beld insufficient
Tex.— Whittinghill v. Oliver, Civ.
App., 38 S.W.2d 896, error dis-
missed.
13. Or.— Marsters v. Ashton, 107 P.
2d 981, 165 Or. 507.
Tex.— Padalecki v. Dreibrodt, Civ.
App., 129 S.W.2d 4S1, error dis-
missed, judgment correct — McOau-
ley v. Northern Texas Traction
Co., Civ.App., 21 S.W.2d 309, er-
ror dismissed — Davis v. Cox, Civ.
App., 4 S.W.2d 1008, error dis-
missed.
14. Ala,— Wynn v. First Nat. Bank,
159 So. 58, 229 Ala. 639.
Neb. — Hoeppner v. Bruckman, 261
N.W. 572, 129 Neb. 390.
Tex.— Garcia v. Jones, Civ.App., 155
S.W.2d 671, error refused — Ramsey
v. McKamey, Civ.App., 138 S.W.2d
167, reversed on other grounds
152 S.W.2d 322, 137 Tex. 91.
34 C.J. p 490 note 24.
15. Tex. — Gehret v. Hetkes, Com.
App., 36 S.W.2d 700— Lamb v. Is-
ley, Civ.App., 114 S.W.2d 673, re-
hearing denied 115 S.W.2d 1036 —
Finlayson v. McDowell, Civ.App.,
94 S.W.2d 1234, error dismissed—
Whittinghill v. Oliver, Civ.App., 38
S.W.2d 896, error dismissed— Cole
v. Varner, Civ.App., '246 S.W. 410—
Republic Supply Co. v. Weaver,
Civ.App., 235 S.W. 684.
16. Tex.— Scott v. McGlothlin, Civ.
App., 30 S.W.2d 511, affirmed Mc-
Gothlin v. Scott, Com.App., 48 S.
W.2d 610 — Republic Supply Co. v.
Weaver, Civ.App., 235 S.W. 684.
17. Ala. — Stevens v. Hertzler, 22 So.
121, 114 Ala. 563.
34 C.J. p 400 note 27.
18. Ala. — Graham v. Gray, 6 So. 87,
87 Ala. 446.
Conn. — Carrington v. Holabird, 17
Conn. 531— Carrington v. Holabird,
19 Conn. 84.
19. Ala. — Garvey v. Inglenook Const.
Co., 104 So. 639, 213 Ala. 267.
20. U.S.— Matheson v. National
Surety Co., C.C.A.Alaska, 69 F.2d
775
914— David A. Manville & Co. v.
Francis Oil & Reflning Co., C.C.A.
Okl., 20 F.2d 473.
Cal.— Machado v. Machado, 152 P.2d
457, 66 OaLApp. 401.
Tex.— Stone v. Stone, Civ.App., 101
S.W.2d 638— Citizens' Bank v.
Brandau, Civ.App., 1 S.W.2d 466,
error refused— Crutcher v. Wolfe,
Civ.App., 269 S.W. 841— Cole v.
Varner, Civ.App., 246 S.W. 410.
Utah.— Taylor v. Guaranty Mbrtg.
Co., 220 P. 1067, 62 Utah 520.
34 C.J. p 490 note 29.
Necessity of injury to afford right
to relief see supra §§ 341, 350.
Where a judgment is procured T>y
fraud, the complaint must show not
only the commission of the fraud,
but also damages resulting there-
from to plaintiff. — Machado v. Ma-
chado. 152 P.2d 457, 66 Cal.App.2d
401—34 C.J. p 490 note 29 [a].
21. Ark.— Lawson v. Bettison, W
Ark. 401.
Cal.— Machado v. Machado, 152 P.2d
457, 66 Cal.App.2d 401.
22. Mont — Housing Authority of
City of Butte v. Murtha, 144 P.2d
183, 115 Mont 405.
N.T.— Boston & M. R. R. v. Delaware
& H. Co., 264 N.T.S. 470, 238 App.
Div. 191.
Okl. — Dardenne v. Daniels, 225 P»
152, 101 Okl. -201.
Tex.— Reynolds v. Volunteer State
Life Ins. Co., Civ.App., 80 S.W.2d
1087, error refused.
34 C.J. p 492 note 50.
23. Ga, — McLendon v. Hooks, 15 Ga,
533.
34 C.J. p 493 note 51.
24. U.S.— Smith v. Schwed, C.C.MO.,
6 F. 455, 2 McCrary 441.
34 C.J. p 493 note 52.
389
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
Wliat judgment should be rendered. Where the
cause is one in which the court of equity may fully
determine the rights of the parties and enter a final
decree, as discussed infra § 397, the bill must not
only plead sufficient facts to show that a judgment
different from that under attack should have been
rendered, but also what that different judgment
should be.25 The facts pleaded must be sufficient
to authorize the court to determine the issues pre-
sented in the former suit and to render such judg-
ment as will be an effective substitute for the one
set aside.26
Prayer for relief. Under a prayer for general
relief, there may be awarded the appropriate re-
lief to which, on the allegations and proof, plain-
tiff may appear to be entitled27 A petition is not
defective for failure to include, in addition to the
general prayer for relief, a request for a new trial.28
It has been held that, where a judgment or decree
has been executed, the proper prayer for a bill to
review such determination is that it be reversed, and
that plaintiff be restored to his former condition or
status as though the judgment or decree had not
been rendered.29
§ ago. - Exhibits
The bill should Incorporate such exhibits as are nec-
essary to enable the court to determine the validity of
the Judgment and the right to relief.
As a general rule, where relief is sought in eq-
uity against the enforcement of a judgment, com-
plainant should incorporate in his bill or file as an
exhibit a transcript of the record,30 including the
judgment,81 pleadings,32 'and the substance of the
evidence,83 when necessary to enable the court to
determine the validity of the judgment and the
right to relief, and also any other documents which
may be necessary to present the case fully and
clearly to the mind of the court.34 However, where
the reason thus stated for the production of exhib-
its does not exist, the rule is not applied,35 and it
may be sufficient merely to make specific reference
to the judgment or decree sought to be vacated.36
§ 391. Answer, Motion to Dismiss, and
Demurrer
The defendant is entitled to file an answer to a pe-
tition for equitable relief against a Judgment, or he may
take objection to defects In the petition, in a proper
case, by motion to dismiss or demurrer. A cross bill
may sometimes be maintained.
In a proceeding for equitable relief against a
judgment, defendant is entitled to file an answer.37
Such answer should be responsive to the charges of
the bill,38 and should answer its allegations specifi-
cally and in detail,39 and negative every hypothesis
on which complainant's equity could be founded.40
If want of jurisdiction in the equity court appears
25. Tex. — Moon v. Weber, Civ.App.,
103 S.W.2d 807. error refused.
26. Tex. — Murry v. Citizens' State
Bank of Ranger, Civ.App., 77 S.W.
2d 1104, error dismissed — Texas
Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. Shelton,
Civ.App., 74 S.W.2d 280.
27. Tex. — Texas & P. R. Co. v. Mil-
ler, Civ.App., 171 S.W. 1069.
Belief afforded see infra § 397.
28. Ky.— Triplett v. Stanley, 130 S.
W.2d 45, 279 Ky. 148.
29. 111.— -Wood v. First Nat Bank
of Woodlawn, 50 N.E.2d 830, 383
111. 515, certiorari denied 64 S.
Ct. 521, 321 U.S. 765, 88 L.Ed. 1061.
30. Ky.— Curtis v. Reed, 176 S.W.2d
385, 296 Ky. 221— Harding v. Board
of Drainage Com'rs of McCracken
County, 13 S.W.2d 1011, 227 Ky.
661.
34 C.J. p 493 note 59.
31. Mo. — Parsons v. Wilkerson, 10
Mo. 713.
N.C.— -Neville 'v. Pope, 95 N.C. 346.
33. Ala.— Wiggins v. Steiner, 16 So.
8, 103 Ala. 655.
34 OJ. p 493 note 61.
83. Ark.— Whitehill v. Butler, 11 S.
W. 477, 51 Ark. 341.
34 C.J, p 493 note 62.
120
34. Md.— Michael v. Kigler,
382, 142 Md. 125.
34 C.J. p 493 note 63.
Sufficient exhibits held filed
Md. — Michael v. Higler, supra.
35. Ark.— Baskin v. -S3tna Life Ins.
Co., 79 S.W.2d 724, 190 Ark. 448.
34 C.J. p 493 note 64.
Brief of evidence
Petition to set aside judgment for
fraud is not defective because of
failure to file brief of evidence. —
Sylvania Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 160 S.
E. 788, 173 Ga. 679.
36. Ark.— Baskin v. -ffitna Life Ins.
Co., 79 S.W.2d 724, 190 Ark. 448.
37. 111.— Burton v. Cahill, 34 N.E.
2d 127, 310 Ill.App. 393.
Pa. — Keystone Nat. Bank to Use of
Balmer v. Deamer, Com.Pl., 32
Berks Co.L.J. 124, affirmed Key-
stone Nat. Bank of Manheim, now
to use of Balmor v. Deamer, 18 A.
2d 540, 144 Pa.Super. 52.
Wash. — Harju v. Anderson, 234 P.
15, 133 Wash. 506, 44 A.L.R. 450.
34 C.J. p 493 note 66.
Denomination, of pleas
In a suit to annul a judgment,
the fact that pleas presenting wheth-
er parties were bound by consent
judgment on compromise of contro-
versy were denominated a plea of
776
estoppel as well as an exception of
no cause or right of action was im-
material.— Couret v. Couret, 18 So.
2d 661, 206 La. 85.
38. N.J. — Hazelhurst. v. Sea Isle
City Hotel Co., Ch., 25 A. 201.
34 C.J. p 493 note 67.
Special defense
In suit to set aside a judgment,
the fact that judgment must be al-
leged in complaint does not pre-
clude defendant from asserting res
judicata as a special defense or
claiming that other facts and issues
were adjudicated which do not ap-
pear on face of complaint. — U. S. v.
Kusche, D.QCal., 56 F.Supp. 201.
39. U.S.— Mound City Co. v. Castle-
man, C.C.MO., 177 F. 510, affirming
187 F. 921, 110 C.C.A. 55.
34 C.J..p 403 note 68.
40. Mich.— Blehm v. Hanzek, 262 N.
W. 403, 272 Mich. 541.
34 C.J. p 493 note 69.
Answer held to state a defense
(1) Generally.— Willard v. Barry,
152 So. 411, 113 Fla. 402.
(2) Answer pleading fully facts
constituting plaintiffs' negligence
was sufficient pleading of laches. —
Olsen v. Crow, 290 P. 233, 133 Or.
310.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
392
on the face of the bill, the objection may be taken
by motion to dismiss,41 or, if the bill appears to
lack equity, and fails to state sufficient facts to war-
rant the relief prayed, respondent may demur,42 in
which case the court may determine the suit on
such demurrer,43 but the demurrer or other excep-
tion should be overruled if the petition sufficiently
states grounds for the relief sought44 Where the
bill fails to show circumstances warranting equita-
ble relief against the judgment, it must be dismissed
for want of jurisdiction, even though no demurrer
is filed.45 On exceptions to plaintiffs pleadings, the
facts alleged therein must be considered as true.46
Cross bill. In a proper case, defendant may file
a cross bill for such relief as he may be entitled
to,47 but it has been held that a cross bill which
states purely a cause of action at law, without any
independent equity, may not be maintained.48
§ 392. Issues, Proof, and Variance
In a suit for equitable relief against a judgment, the
hearing and the proof will be restricted to the issues
raised by the pleadings; plaintiff must prove all ma-
terlal allegations of his bill which are not admitted.
In order to. enable the court to act on an appli-
cation for relief against a judgment, it is necessary
that the parties should frame and present distinct is-
sues as to the matters they mean to contest,49 and
the hearing will be restricted to the issues thus
raised and presented.50 Ordinarily, if the judgment
is assailed on the ground of fraud or want of juris-
diction, the court will not enter on an inquiry as
to the validity of the obligation sued on or the mer-
its of the original action,51 further than to require
complainant to offer enough proof of his alleged de-
fense to show that, if given a trial on the merits, he
could at least make a prima facie case.52 According
to some authority, however, the proof should be suf-
Matters to "be specially pleaded
(1) In judgment debtor's suit
against third person to set aside
judgment and sale thereunder for
fundamental jurisdictional defect,
regularity of judgment and good
faith of purchaser are defensive
matters to be specially pleaded. —
Morris v. Soble, Tex.Civ.App., 61 S.
W.2d 139.
(2) A defense that plaintiff had an
adequate remedy at law should be
affirmatively pleaded. — Blehm v.
Hanzek, 262 JNT.W. 403, 272 Mich. 641.
41. Tenn. — Shaw v. Patterson, 2
Tenn.Ch. 171.
42. Okl. — Sawyer v. Sawyer, 77 P.
2d 703, 182 Okl. 348— Stout v. Derr,
42 P.2d 136. 171 Okl. 132— Bur-
ton v. Swanson, 285 P. 839, 14'2
Okl. 134.
34 C.J. p 493 note 71.
Demurrer held too general
A demurrer alleging that the peti-
tion failed to set forth facts con-
stituting fraud is too general to
raise any question as to whether or
not the petition should have alleged
fraud with greater particularity. —
Mullis v. Bank of Chauncey, 150 S.E.
471, 40 Ga.App. 582.
Effect of Judgment must fee con-
sidered when determining whether
complaint states a cause of action
on a demurrer or on a motion to
dismiss. — U. S. v. Kusche, D.C.Cal.,
56 F.Supp. 201.
43. Ga. — Huson Ice & Coal Co. v.
City of Covington, 172 S.B. 56, 178
Ga. 6.
Prior knowledge
Trial court which tried case and
entered Judgment from which relief
was sought by bill of review could
employ knowledge of issues involved
in original suit in passing on de-
murrers to petition for review. — Dix-
on v. McNabb, Tex.Civ.App., 173 S.
W.2d 228, error refused.
BUI held properly dismissed on de-
murrer
Tex. — Fort Worth & Denver City Ry.
Co. v. Reid, Civ.App., 115 S.W.2d
1156 — Sedgwick v. Kirby Lumber
Co., Civ.App., 78 S.W.2d 1107, af-
firmed 107 S.W.2d 358, 130 Tex.
163— Griffith v. Tipps, Civ.App., 69
S.W.2d 846— Whittinghill v. Oliver,
Civ.App., 38 S.W.2d 896, error dis-
missed.
44. Okl.— Arnold v. Arnold, 153 P.2d
224, 194 Okl. 571.
Tex. — Pearl Assur. Co. v. Williams,
Civ.App., 167 S.W.2d 808— Sloan v.
Newton, Civ.App., 134 S.W.2d 697
— Dallas Development Co. v. Rea-
gan, Civ.App., 25 S.W.2d 240.
45. Va. — McCloud v. Virginia Elec-
tric & Power Co., 180 S.E. 299, 164
Va. 604.
4ft. Tex. — Pearl Assur. Co. v. Wil-
liams, Civ.App., 167 S.W.2d 808.
On general demurrer to applica-
tion to set aside default judgment
entered at prior term of court, al-
legations must be accepted as true
except that court may consider rec-
ord in original cause, and any fact
averred in application that is in-
consistent with record will be given
no effect. — Barrow, Wade, Guthrie &
Co. v. Stroud, Tex.Civ.App., 125 S.W.
2d 365.
Conclusions not admitted
A demurrer to bill for injunction
did not admit allegations of bill as
to irregularity of former proceeding
and as to invalidity of judgment, en-
forcement of which was sought to be
enjoined, since such allegations were
mere "conclusions of law." — Viator
v. Edwins, 14 So.2d 212, 195 Miss.
220, certiorari denied 64 S.Ct. 518,
321 U.S. 744, 88 KEd. 1047, rehear-
ing denied 64 S.Ct 779, 321 U.S. 804,
88 L.Ed. 1090.
777
47. Miss. — Prudential Ins. Co. v.
Gleason, 187 So. 229, 185 Miss. 243.
Interest in partitioned property
In suit to set aside void partition
proceeding, allegations and prayer
of cross bill which averred that pro-
ceedings were valid, or if not, that it
had been ratified, or if not ratified
that cross complainant was owner of
an undivided interest in entire prop-
erty, or was entitled to general re-
lief, was sufficient to require action
by court on alternate contention of
cross complainant as to manner in
which its interest should be adjust-
ed.— Prudential Ins. Co. v. Gleason,
supra.
48. Ala.— Leath v. Lister, 173 So. 59,
233 Ala. 595.
49. Ind. — Dobbins v. McNamara, 14
N.E. 887, 113 Ind. 54, 3 Am.S.R.
626.
34 OJ. p 493 note 73.
50. Ky. — Elkhorn Coal Corporation
v. Cuzzort, 284 S.W. 1005, 215 Ky.
254.
La. — National Park Bank v. Con-
cordia Land & Timber Co., 97 So.
272, 154 La. 31.
Pa. — Miller v. Mastrocola, 2 A.2d
550, 133 Pa. Super. 210— Teutonic
Building & Loan Ass'n v. Stein, .
190 A. 189, 125 Pa. Super. 589.
34 C.J. p 493 note 74.
Issue of lack of jurisdiction held
raised
W.Va. — Perkins v. Hall, 17 S.B3.2d
795, 123 W.Va. 707.
51. Ky. — Green v. Blankenship, 91
S.W.2d 996, 263 Ky. 29.
La. — National Park Bank v. Con-
cordia Land & Timber Co., 97 So.
272, 154 La. 31.
34 OJ. p 494 note 75.
52. Mo.— Hess v. Fox, 124. S.W. 83,
'140 Mo.App. 437.
§ 392
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
ficient to enable the court to retry the issue of de-
fendant's liability and to render such judgment as
should be entered in lieu of the one attempted to be
set aside.53
The testimony must be limited to the points made
by the pleadings;54 and as far as it goes to sup-
port any point not in issue, it is irrelevant, and
•will be rejected.55 The pleadings and the proof
must correspond.56 Plaintiff must prove all the
material allegations of his bill5? which are not ad-
mitted.58
§ 393. Evidence
a. Presumptions and burden of proof
b. Admissibility
c. Weight and sufficiency
a. Presumptions and Burden of Proof
With some exceptions, In a proceeding to obtain
equitable relief against a judgment, presumptions will be
indulged In favor of the Jurisdiction of the court In which
the Judgment complained of was rendered, the regularity
of its proceedings, and the validity of the Judgment. The
burden is on the party seeking relief to sufficiently estab-
lish all the facts on which he relies as the basis of his
application.
As a general rule, on a bill in equity for relief
against a judgment at law, presumptions will be in-
dulged in favor of the jurisdiction of the court, the
regularity of its proceedings, and the validity of the
judgment,59 at least where the judgment appears
valid on its face.60 So it will be presumed that an
appearance entered for a party by an attorney was
Neb. — Bankers' Life Ins. Co. v. Rob- Okl. — Southwick v. Jones, 60 P.2d
bins. 73 N.W. 269, 53 Neb. 44. 774, 177 Okl. 409.
53. Tex. — Port Worth & Denver
City Ry. Co. v. Reid, Civ.App., 115
S.W.2d 1156.
54. Ky. — Cowan v. Price, 1 Bibb 173,
4 Am.D. 627.
Proof lield admissible under plead.
ing's
La. — Smith v. Williams, 2 La. App.
.24.
N.Y. — Boston & M. R. R. v. Delaware
& H. Co., 264 N.Y.S. 470, 23S App.
Piv. 191.
55. Ky.— Cowan v. Price, 1 Bibb 173,
4 Am.D. 627.
84 C.J. p 494 note 78.
56. Tenn. — Banks v. Kentucky Live
Stock Ins. Co., 7 Tenn.Civ.App.
419.
84 C.J. p 494 note 79.
87. Ala. — King v. Dent, 93 So. 823,
208 Ala, 78.
Gal.— Wilson v. Wilson, 130 P.2d
782, 55 Cal.App.2d 421.
HI.— Mohr v. Messick, 53 N.B.2d 743,
822 111. App. 56.
Okl. — Honeycutt v. Severin. 98 P.2d
1093, 186 Okl. 509— Oklahoma Ry.
Co. v. Holt, 17 P.2d 955, 161 Okl.
165.
Or.— Marsters v. Ashton, 107 P.2d
981, 165 Or. 507.
Tex. — Sedgwick v. Kirby Lumber
Co., 107 S.W.2d 358, 130 Tex. 163
•~-Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v.
Arnold, 88 S.W.2d 478, 126 Tex. 466
—-Reynolds v. Volunteer State
Life Ins. Co., Civ.App., 80 S.W.2d
1087, -error refused.
84 C.J. p 494 note 80.
Particular matters
(1) Fraud.
El. — Carroll, Schendorf & Boenicke
v. Hastings, 259 Ill.App, 564.
Ky. — Harris Commercial Bank &
Trust Co/s Liquidating Agent v.
Eversole, 74 S.W.2d 193, 255 Ky.
877.
(2) Meritorious defense.
Ala. — Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v. Street,
176 So. 350, 234 Ala. 537.
Mont. — Frisbee v. Coburn, 52 P.2d
882, 101 Mont 58.
(3) Diligence and lack of fault.
Ala.— Farrell v. Farrell, 10 So.2d 153,
243 Ala. 3S9.
Neb. — Kielian v. Kent & Burke Co.,
268 N.W. 79, 131 Neb. 308.
Okl. — Weimer v. Augustana Pension
and Aid Fund, 67 P.2d 436, 179
Okl. 572.
Tex. — Goldapp v. Jones Lumber Co.,
Civ.App., 163 S.W.2d 229, error re-
fused.
Judgment rendered
In suit to restrain filing of ab-
stract of void judgment in another
county, plaintiff should have intro-
duced judgment rendered. — Scruggs
v. Gribble, Tex.Civ.App., 17 S.W.2d
153.
Evidence adduced at former trial
On petition to vacate judgment be-
cause of fraud and perjury, petition-
er must introduce evidence adduced
at former trial which constitutes ba-
sis of complaint. — Weber v. Allen,
238 N.W. 740, 121 Neb. 833.
58. 111.— Nicoloff v. Schnipper, 233
IlLApp. 591.
Va. — Page v. Winston, 2 Munf. 298,
16 Va. 298.
34 C.J. p 494 note 81.
59. Ga. — Watters v. Southern Brigh-
ton Mills, 147 S.E. 87, 168 Ga. 15.
111.— Himmel v. Straus, 6 N.B.2d 494,
288 IlLApp. 566.
Mo.— Hidden v. Edwards, 285 S.W.
462, 313 Mo. 642.
Or. — Sturm v. Cooper, 28 P.2d 231,
145 Or. 583.
Tex. — Jackson v. Wallace, Com.App.,
252 S.W. 745— Williams v. Tooke,
Civ.App., 116 S.W.2d 1114. error
dismissed.
34 C.J. p 494 note 82. \
778
Regularity of service
Presumption arising from judg-
ment is in favor of regularity of
service of summons on judgment
debtor.
Cal. — Christie v. Superior Court in
and for City and County of San
Francisco, 23 P.2d 757, 218 Cal.
423. .
Tex. — Smith v. Dunnam, Civ.App., 57
S.W.2d 873, error refused.
Beoital
(1) Where Judgment recited that
matters of law and fact were heard
at term at which it was rendered,
and court which rendered judgment
had jurisdiction of the parties and
subject matter, court determining
suit to set aside judgment was re-
quired to presume that such recital
was true. — Gann v. Putman, Tex.Ci.v.
App., 159 S.W.2d 931, error refused.
(2) Where decree recites cause
was heard on process duly issued,
served, and returned, presumption is
court had process before it.— Stepp
v. State Road Commission, 151 S.E.
180, 108 W.Va. 346.
Incompetent testimony
Trial court, which had admitted
incompetent testimony in prior ac-
tion, would presumably have exclud-
ed that testimony, if objection had
been urged thereto, based on statute
rendering the testimony incompetent.
— Blackman v. Blackman, Tex. Civ.
App., 128 S.W.2d 433, error dismiss-
ed, judgment correct.
Presumption held not successfully
rebutted
W.Va. — Stepp v. State Road Com-
mission, 151 S.B. 180, 108 W.Va.
346.
ea Tex.— Empire Gas & Fuel Co.
v. Noble, Com.App., 36 S.W.2d 451.
Matters of record
Verity of judgment in all matters
of which it contains record will be
presumed in absence of contradict-
ing evidence. — Starkweather v. Min-
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 393
duly authorized61 and that the judgment is based
on evidence supporting it.62 It has been held, on
the other hand, that where a judgment is directly
attacked as void there is no presumption as to its
validity63 with respect to the particular in which it
is attacked.64 It has been held that fraud in pro-
curing the judgment will neither be presumed nor
inferred from circumstances which are not incon-
sistent with good faith,65 but there is also authority
holding that fraud will be presumed where the par-
ties stand in a relationship of trust and confidence,
and there is no evidence of fair dealing.66 The pro-
priety of other particular presumptions has been
adjudicated.67
Burden of proof. In general the burden of proof
is on the party demanding relief against the judg-
ment to establish by sufficient evidence all the facts
on which he relies as the basis of his application.65
Thus the party seeking relief has the burden of
showing want of jurisdiction,69 want of valid serv-
ice of process,70 or fraud or duress in the procure-
arets Mining Co., 43 P.2d 321, 5
Cal.App.-3d 501.
61. Or. — Handley v. Jackson, 50 P.
915, 31 Or. 552, 65 Am.S.R. 839.
34 C.J. p 494 note 83.
62. U.S.— Moffett v. Robbins, D.C.
Kan., 14 F.Supp. 602, affirmed, C.
C.A., 81 F.2d 431, certiorari denied
56 S.Ct 940, 298 U.S. 675, 80 L.
Ed. 1397 — Harrington v. Denny, D.
C.Mo., 3 F.Supp. 584.
Ky. — Karr's Adm'r v. Harmon, 116
S.W.2d 947, 273 Ky. 394.
34 OJ. p 494 note 82 [a].
In absence of contrary averments
Tex. — Slider v. House, Civ.App., 271
S.W. 644 — Barton v, Pochyla, Civ.
App., 243 S.W. 785.
Fraud in procurement
However, the rule that, in an ap-
peal from a judgment rendered by
trial court without a jury, presump-
tion will be Indulged that, trial judge
based his judgment on competent
evidence found in record and suffi-
cient to support the judgment, to
exclusion of improper evidence ad-
mitted, was not applicable on a di-
rect attack by bill of review on a
former judgment, for fraud in its
procurement. — Blackman v. Black-
man, Tex.Civ.App., 128 S.W.2d 433,
error dismissed, judgment correct.
63. Ky.— Wilburn v. Wilbum, 178
S.W:2d 585, 296 Ky. 781— Ramsey's
Ex'r v. Ramsey, 2C S.W.2d 37, 233
Ky. 507.
Pacts essential to jurisdiction
In direct attack on judgment for
plaintiff, no fact essential to court's
jurisdiction over defendant is pre-
sumed.— Starkweather v. Minarets
Mining Co., 43 P.2d 321, 5 CaLApp.
2d 501.
64. Tex.— First State Bank of Lor-
aine v. Jackson, Civ.App., 13 S.W.
2d 979.
65. Cal. — Otis v. Zeiss, 165 P. 524,
175 Cal. 192.
34 C.J. p 494 note $4.
66. Cal. — Young v. Young Holdings
Corporation, 80 P.2d 723, 27 Cal.
App.2d 129.
67. Tex.— Snell v. Knowles, Civ.
App., 87 S.W.2d 871, error dis-
missed.
Particular presumptions indulged
(1) That matter was still pending
in probate court. — Larrabee v. Tracy,
104 P.2d 61, 39 Cal.App.2d 593.
(2) That a party was legally cited
by publication as recited in the
judgment. — Ward v. Hinkle, Civ.
App., 252 S.W. 236, reversed on oth-
er grounds 8 S.W.2d 641, 117 Tex.
566.
Retention of knowledge of defend-
ant's residence was not presumed.
— Snell v. Knowles, Tex.Civ.App., 87
S.\V.2d 871, error dismissed.
68. Ala.— Wise v. Merritt, 134 So.
468, 223 Ala. 54, certiorari . denied
Wise v. Miller, 52 S.Ct. 30, 284 U.
S. 650, 76 L.Ed. 552.
111. — Nikola v. Campus Towers
Apartment Bldg. Corporation, 25
N.E.M 582, 303 Ill.App. 516.
Ind.— Julien v. Lane, 157 N.E. 114,
second case, 95 Ind. App. 139.
Iowa. — Thoreson v. Central States
Electric Co., 283 'N.W. 253, 225
Iowa 1406 — Sloan v. Jepson, 252 N.
W. 535, 217 Iowa 1082.
La. — Succession of St. Ange, 109 So.
909, 161 La. 1085.
Miss.— Walton v. Gregory Funeral
Home, 154 So. 717, 170 Miss. 129
— Hirsch Bros. & Co. v. R. E.
Kennington Co., 124 So. 344, 155
Miss. 242, 88 A.L.R. 1.
Ohio.-— Washing ion v. Levinson, 35
N.B.2d 161, 66 Ohio App. 461.
Okl.— McBride v. Cowen, 216 P. 104,
90 Okl. 130.
Or. — Davidhizar v. Gaulke, 280 P.
499, 130 Or. 492.
Pa.— Sears v. Birbeck, 184 A. $, 321
Pa. 375.
Tex. — Pennlngton v. Severing, Com.
App., 17 S.W.2d 772— Kelley v.
Wright, Civ.App., 184 S.W.2d 649,
affirmed, Sup., 188 S.W.2d 983 —
Loomis v. Balch, Civ.App., 181 S.
W.2d 849— Panther Oil & Grease
Mfg. Co. v. Crews, Civ.App., 124 S.
W.2d 436— Williams v. Tooke, Civ.
App., 116 S.W.2d 1114, error dis-
missed— Snell v. Knowles, Civ.
App., 87 S.W.2d 871, error dis-
missed— Baldwin v. Stamford State
Bank, Civ.App., 82 S.W.2d 701, er-
ror refused— Rltch v. Jarvis, Civ.
App., 64 S.W.2d 831, error dismiss-
ed— Fort Worth & D. C. Ry. Co.
v. Greathouse, Civ.App.f 41 S.W.
779
2d 418, reversed on other grounds
Greathouse v. Port Worth & Den-
ver City Ry. Co., Com.App., 65 S.
W.2d 762.
Utah.— Redfleld v. First Nat. Bank,
244 P. 210, 66 Utah 459.
34 C.J. p 446 note 65, p 494 note '85.
Issue of execution
However, plaintiff was relieved of
burden to prove no execution issued,
where defendant pleaded as execu-
tion order of sale which was insuffi-
cient— Carl ton v. HofC, Tex. Civ. App.,
292 S.W. 642.
Judgment valid on record
Where judgment attacked, when
record was consulted, was shown to
be a valid Judgment, burden rested
on judgment debtor seeking to set
aside the judgment to show the con-
trary.— Johnson v. Cole, Tex.Civ.App.,
138 S.W.2d 910, error refused.
Release or satisfaction
Burden of showing release or equi-
table satisfaction of judgment was
on judgment debtor, suing to en-
join collection. — Davidhizar v. Gaul-
ke, 280 P. 499, 130 Or. 492.
69. Cal. — Del Campo v. Camarillo,
98 P. 1049, 154 Cal. 647.
34 C.J. p 494 note 86.
70. Ark. — Davis v. Ferguson, 261
S.W. 905, 164 Ark. 340.
Cal. — Christie v. Superior Court in
and for City and County of San
Francisco, 23 P.2d 757, 218 CaL
423.
111. — Michalowski v. Stefanowski, 58
N.E.2d 264, 324 Ill.App. 363 —
Nikola v. Campus Towers Apart-
ment Bldg. Corporation, .25 N.E.
2d 582, 303 IlLApp. 516.
Ky. — Billingsly v. Pearcy, -65 S.W.
2d 699, 251 Ky. 546.
Mich.— Gross v. Kellner, 219 N.W.
620, 242 Mich. 656.
Tex.— Citizens Mut. Life & Accident
Ass'n of Texas v. Gillespie, Civ*
App., 93 S.W.2d 200— Winter v,
Davis, Civ.App., 10 S.W.2d 181, er-
ror refused.
W.Va. — Brinegar v. Bank of Wyo-
ming, 130 S.E. 151, 100 W.Va. 44.
34 C.J. p 494 note 87.
JTotice to manager
However, where, in a suit to set
aside a judgment on the ground that
no notice of suit was served on
§ 393
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
ment of the judgment,™ and also, in a proper case,
that he had a meritorious defense to the former
suit72 which he was prevented from urging by
fraud, accident, or the act of the other party7* with-
out fault or negligence on his "part,74 that he has
not been negligent in failing to seek his remedy at
Iaw75 or in delaying institution of the present suit,76
and that enforcement of the judgment would re-
sult in injury or injustice to him.77
On the other hand, it has been held 'that, where
the complaint alleged sufficient facts to show prima
facie the invalidity of the judgment, the burden is
on defendant to establish its validity,78 and that,
where the parties stand in a relationship of trust
and confidence to each other, defendant may have
the burden of establishing his fair dealing in ob-
taining judgment.79 Where the complainant has
established a right in equity to set aside the judg-
ment on some recognized ground and shows the
existence of a substantial controversy, which is
predicated on a plea denying the allegations of the
complaint by which the burden would be on plain-
tiff in the action at law, the same burden should be
the rule in the trial of that issue in the equity suit80
b. Admissibility
In proceedings for equitable relief against a judg-
ment, only legal evidence tending to establish or dis-
prove the facts in issue is admissible.
In proceedings to set aside a judgment, or to en-
join the enforcement thereof, evidence is admissi-
ble on the part of defendant as well as on the part
of complainant.81 The record of the case in which
the judgment was rendered is ordinarily admissible
in evidence,82 including a transcript of the evidence,
plaintiff company, the officer's re-
turn on the original notice purport-
ed to show service on two of plain-
tifTs officers, and such officers deniec
having: been served, no burden of
proof rested on plaintiff to show
they notified the manager of the
company. — Des Moines Coal & Coke
Co. v. Marks Inv. Co., 195 N.W. 597,
197 Iowa 589, modified on other
grounds on rehearing 197 N.W. 628,
197 Iowa 5S9.
71. Cal. — Church v. Church, 105 P.
2d 643. 40 Cal.App.2d 701.
111. — Woodworth v. Sandin, 20 N.E.
2d 603, 371 111. 302.
Ind.— Postal v. Postal, 136 NJE. 570,
192 Ind. 376.
Ky.— - Hargis v. Hargis, 66 S.W.2d
59, 252 Ky. 198.
Me.— In re Baker's Estate, 195 A.
202, 135 Me. 277.
Mich. — Karasek v. People's State
Trust & Savings Bank of Pon-
tiac. 247 N.W. 765, 262 Mich. 636.
Mo. — Wuelker v. Maxwell, App., 70
S.W.2d 1100.
N.J. — Mittenbuhler v. Kessler Truck-
ing Co., 181 A. 163, 119 N.J.EQ. 100.
Or. — Sturm v. Cooper, 28 P.2d 231,
145 Or. 583.
Tenn. — Corpus Juris cited in Hart-
man v. Spivey, 123 S.W.2d 1110,
1114, 22 Tenn.App. 435.
34 C.J. p 494 note 88.
72. U.S.— Wheiles v. JBtna Life
Ins. Co., C.OA.Tex., 68 F.2d 99.
Ala.— Wise v. Merritt, 134 So. 468,
223 Ala. 54, certiorari denied Wise
v. Miller, 53 S.Ct. 30, 284 U.S. 650.
76 L.Ed. 552.
Miss. — Walton v. Gregory Funeral
Home, 154 So. 717, 170 Miss. 129.
Ohio. — Washington v. Levinson, 35
N.E.2d 161, 66 Ohio App. 461.
O!il.— McBride v. Cowen, 216 P. 104,
90 Okl. 130.
Pa. — Miljer v. Mastrocola, 2 A.2d 550,
133 Pa.Super. 210.
Tex. — Stewart v. Byrne, Com.App.,
42 S.W.2d 234— Hicks v. Wallis
Lumber Co., Civ.App., 137 S.W.2d
93 — Citizens Mut Life & Accident
Ass'n of Texas v. Gillespie, Civ
App., 93 S.W.2d 200— Baldwin v,
Stamford State Bank, Civ. App., 82
S.W.2d 701, error refused.
34 C.J. p 495 note 89.
Prima lade showing
In suit to set aside judgment, bur-
den is on plaintiff to offer proof suf-
ficient to make a prima facie show-
ing of meritorious action and some-
thing more than mere allegations
are necessary. — Thoreson v. Central
States Electric Co., 283 N.W. 253, 225
Iowa 1406.
73. U.S. — Wheiles v. Mtua, Life Ins.
Co., C.C.A.Tex., 68 F.2d 99.
Tex.— Hicks v. Wallis Lumber Co.,
Civ.App., 187 S.W.2d 93.
34 C.J. p 495 note 90.
74. U.S.— Wheiles v. JBtna Life Ins.
Co., C.C.A.Tex., 68 F.2d 99.
La.— Mercantile Adjustment Co. v.
Powers, 5 La. App. 534.
Neb.— Martindale v. Panter, 289 N.
W. «69, 137 Neb. 522.
Okl.—McBride v. Qowen, 216 P. 104,
90 Okl. 130.
Tex. — Hicks v. Wallis Lumber Co.,
Civ.App., 137 S.W.2d 93.
34 C.J. p 495 note 91.
Bebnttal of presumption
Petitioner seeking to set aside
judgment must rebut presumption of
negligence In not objecting when
court rendered judgment. — Scarbor-
ough v. Information Buying Co., 154
S.B. 350, 170 Ga. 872.
75. Neb. — Martindale v. Panter, 289
N.W. 869, 137 Neb. 522.
Tex.— Stewart v. Byrne, Com. App., 42
•S.W.2d 234 — Petty v. Mitchell, Civ.
App., 187 S.W.2d 138, error refused
— Citizens Mut Life & Accident
Ass'n of Texas v. Gillespie, Civ.
App., 93 S.W.2d 200.
34 C.J. p 495 note 92.
780
7«, Ala. — Fletcher v. First Nat.
Bank of Opelika, 11 So.2d 854, 244
Ala. 98.
77. Utah.— Redfleld v. 'First Nat.
Bank, 244 P. 210, 66 Utah 459.
78. Colo.— terrier v. Morris, 122 P.
2d 880, 109 Colo. 154.
79. Cal. — Young v. Young Holdings
Corporation, «0 P.2d 723, 27 CaL
App.2d 129.
SO. Ala. — Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v.
Street, 176 So. 350. 234 Ala. '537.
Existence of verbal contract
Where only matter as to which bill
in equity to set aside a judgment
against complainant showed a con-
troversy was the existence of verbal
contract sued on in law action, bur-
den was on defendants, as plaintiffs
in law action, to establish the con-
tract after complainant established a
right to set aside judgment, while all
other matters set up as a meritori-
ous defense were by way of confes-
sion and avoidance and burden was
on complainant to establish them.—
Hanover Fire Ins. C.o. v. Street, su-
pra.
81. Okl. — Travis v. Aaronson, 228 P.
958, 102 Okl. 210.
34 C.J. p 495 note 98.
Absence of fraud
In action to set aside judgment for
fraud, any evidence tending to prove
no fraud is admissible, whether un-
der general denial or specific allega-
tions of answer. — Travis v. Aaron-
son, 228 P. 958, 102 Okl. 210.
L W.Va. — Stewart v. Tennant, 44
S.E. 223, 52 W.Va. 559.
34 C.J. p 495 note 93.
Petition and judgment
In suit to set aside decree remov-
ing minor's disabilities, court might
use petition and judgment in former
suit to determine whether or not
that court had jurisdiction.— Hobbs
v. Boyd, Tex.Civ.App., 292 S.W. 947.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
393
if properly authenticated,83 and also the record of
another judgment bearing on the facts in contro-
versy,84 as well as any collateral memorandum or
agreement between the parties85 or other legal evi-
dence tending to establish the facts in issue.8*5 On
the other hand, evidence which is not competent 01
relevant to the issues in controversy is not admis-
sible.87 Independent transactions, not in any way
connected with the transaction between the parties
to the suit, are not admissible in evidence.88
Parol evidence is admissible to prove such facts
as naturally rest in pais,89 such as lack of negli-
gence90 or complainant's knowledge of the penden-
cy of the action against him,91 but not to modify or
explain away the purport or terms of the judg-
ment,92 except where the judgment is attacked on
the ground of fraud or mistake.93
c. Weight and Sufficiency
(1) In general
(2) Fraud, perjury, Collusion, or other
misconduct
(1) In General
In order to warrant equitable relief against a Judg-
ment, the complainant's case must be supported by clear,
satisfactory, and convincing evidence, preponderating dis-
tinctly in his favor.
In order to justify a court of equity in setting
aside or enjoining the enforcement of a judgment,
the complainant's case, including alike the specific
grounds on which he asks equitable relief, his ex-
cuse for not making his defense in the original ac-
tion, and the showing that he himself is free from
fault or negligence, must be supported by clear,
satisfactory, and convincing evidence, preponderat-
ing distinctly in his favor,94 and this rule has been
3>ocket entries
In action in nature of bill of re-
view to set aside judgment, docket
entries made in suit wherein judg-
ment was rendered were competent
on issue whether or not defendants
in that suit were negligent in failing
to appear and defend suit. — Hill v.
Lester, Tex.Civ.App., 01 S.W.2d 1152,
error dismissed.
S3, in. — Brown v. Luehrs, 79 111.
575.
84. Tex. — Watson v. Rainey, 6 S.W.
840, 69 Tex. 319— Bilger v. Buchan-
an, 6 S.W. 408.
85. Ky.— Mason v. Holmes, 4 Bibb.
203.
j$j, — Sanders v. Wagner, 32 N.J.Eo;.
506.
86. 111.— Marnik v. Cusack, 148 N.E.
42, 317 111. 362— Myers v. American
Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago,
277 IlLApp. 378.
Ind.— Bearing v. Speedway Realty
Co., 40 N.K2d 414, 111 IncLApp.
585.
Ky.— Turner T. Gambia, 121 S.W.2d
705, 275 Ky. 330.
Mass. — Town of Hopkinton v. B. 'F.
Sturtevant Co., 189 N.B. 107, 285
Mass. 272.
Miss.— Hirsch Bros. & Co. v. R, B.
Kennington Co., 124 So. -344, 155
Miss. 242, 88 A.L.R. 1.
Wis^Federal -Life Ins. Co. v. Thay-
er, 269 N.W. 547, 222 Wis. 658.
34 C.J. p 495 note 97—47 C.J. p 438
note 74 [a].
Extrinsic evidence
Where attack on judgment is di-
rect or of such nature as to be gov-
erned by rules relating to direct
attacks, extrinsic evidence is ad-
missible to establish any facts which
will furnish basis for decree vacat-
ing judgment in equitable action for
such purpose*
Cal.— Stevens v. Kelley, 134 P.2d 56,
57 Cal.App.2d 318.
Utah. — Boston Acme Mines Develop-
ment Co. v. Clawson, 240 P. 165,
66 Utah 103.
87. Ga. — Continental Casualty Co.
v. White, 173 S.E. 117, 178 Ga. 287
— Brannan v. Mobley, 150 S.B. 76,
169 Ga. 243.
111.— Marnik v. Cusack, 148 N.B. 42,
317 111. 362.
a. — Davis v. Southland Inv. Co.,
App., 149 So. -303.
Mo.— Winchell v. Gaskill, 190 S.W.2d
266— National Union Fire Ins. Co.
v. Vermillion, App., 19 S.W.2d 776
— State ex rel. Woolman v. Guin-.
otte, 282 S.W. 68, 221 Mo.App. 466.
N.C.— McCoy v. Justice, 155 S.B. 452,
199 N.C. 602.
Tex, — Panhandle Const Co. v. Casey,
Civ.App., 66 S.W.2d 705, error re-
fused.
34 QJ. p 495 note 97 [bj, [c].
Particular evidence held inadmissible
(1) Record in action in which
judgment sought to be set aside for
fraud was obtained would be inad-
missible, where tendered to show in-
trinsic fraud rather than extrinsic
fraud. — McCoy v. Justice, 155 S.B.
452, 199 N.C. 602.
(2) Plaintiffs' testimony, in spous-
es' suit to set aside judgment on
their confession of judgment note,
that they never read instrument be-
fore signing it and were not in-
formed that it contained homestead
waiver, was inadmissible to support
their allegations of fraud and error
in connection with signing thereof.—
Jeffcoat v. Hammons, La,App., 160
So. 182.
Bx part* affidavits
In equity suit to vacate judgment,
ex parte affidavits are not competent
evidence to establish allegations of
781
meritorious defense to original ac-
tion.— Honeycutt v. Severin, 98 P.2d
1093, 186 Okl. 509.
88. Tex. — Lyon-Taylor Co. v. John-
son, Civ.App., 195 S.W. 875.
34 C.J. p 495 note 99.
89. Miss. — Keanum v. Southern Ry.
Co., 119 So. 301, 151 Miss. 784.
34 C.J. p 495 note 1.
Evidence held inadmissible to modify
terms of will
Cal.— Vincent v. -Security-First Nat.
Bank of Los Angeles, 155 P.2d 63,
67 CaLApp.2d 602.
90. Tex. — Dalhart Heal -Est Agency
v. Le Master, 132 S.W. 860, 62
Tex.Civ.App. 579.
91. Conn. — Blakeslee v. Murphy, 44
Conn. 188.
92. Ark.— Fowler v. Williams, 20
Ark. 641.
34 C.J. p 495 note 4.
93. Mo.— Bngler v. Knoblaugh, 110
S.W. 16, 131 Mo.App. 481.
Tex.— Weir v. Carter, Civ.App., 169
S.W. 111*3.
94. Ga. — Jones v. Jones, 184 S.B.
271, 181 Ga. 747.
y.— Walker v. Perkins, 76 S.W.2d
251, 256 Ky. 442.
Mich. — Denison v. Crowley, Milner &
Co., 271 N.W. 735, 279 Mich. 211.
Neb.— Messing v. Dwelling House
Mut Ins. Co., 226 N.W. 914, 119
Neb. 36.
Pa.— Stoner, now for Use of Pinch,
v. Wise, 200 A. 320, 331 Pa. 446—
Miller v. Mastrocola, 2 A-2d 550,
133 Pa.Super. 210 — Mook v. Larsen,
Com.Pl., 23 Brie Co. 320 — Simcoe
v. Szukegs, Com.Pl., 27 NorthuCo.
132 — Williams Valley Sav. 'Fund
v. Daub, CowuPL, 8 Sch.Reg. 104—
Nauyalis v. White, Com.PL, 7 Sen.
Reg. 1-66 — Sugarman v. Baldini,
Com-PL, 28 West.Co.L.J. 99.
§'393
JUDGMENTS
49 O.J.S.
applied in determining the sufficiency of evidence in
suits for relief against a judgment because of un-
avoidable rnsnalty, mistake, inadvertence, or ex-
cusable neglect.95 An injunction restraining the
Tex. — Ansley v. Moody, Civ.App., 146
S.W.2d 24'3, error refused — Mendlo-
vitz v. Samuels Shoe Co., Civ.App.
5 S.W.2d 559.
34 C.J. p 495 note 6.
Measure of proof
Same measure of proof as in pro-
ceeding to reform instrument was
not necessarily required in suit to
open judgment on note to interpose
defense of payment, where maker
admitted note's validity. — Nescopeck
Nat Bank v. Smith, 165 A. 526, 108
Pa. Super. 553.
Records good on face
In proceeding to vacate previous
decree, wherein complaint alleged
that decree was rendered without
notice and obtained by fraud, and
brought decree and records previ-
ously made into issue, such records
were good on their face until prop-
erly impeached. — Berry v. Sims, 112
S.W.2d 25, 195 Ark. 326.
Evidence held sufficient
(1) To establish no negligence of
plaintiff in failing to discover de-
fault judgment within time allowed
for vacation of Judgment by default.
— Stocking v. Charles Beard Co., 55
P.2d 949, 102 Mont. 65.
(2) To show that defendant was
not negligent in failing to answer. —
Hanson v. Pratt, Tex.Civ.App., 51 S.
W.2d 629, error dismissed.
(3) To support finding that answer
and copy thereof were mailed so as
to permit setting aside of default
judgment. — Hallett v. Slaughter, 140
P.2d 3, 22 Cal.2d 552.
(4) To support finding that for-
mer judgment was erroneous. — Riv-
ers v. Griffin, Tex.Civ.App., 16 S.W.
2d 874.
(5) To warrant denial of relief.
Fla. — Miami Bank & Trust Co. v.
Frank T. Budge Co., 145 So. 192,
107 Fla, 581.
La. — (Love v. Woodard, 190 So. 396,
193 La. 251 — Saucier v. McLean,
125 So. 163, 12 La.App. 158.
Mass.— Oliver v. Brazil, 192 N.E.
486, 288 Mass. 252.
Mich.— Racho v. Woeste, 9 N.W.2d
827, 305 Mich, 522.
Tex. — Fowler v. Roden, 105 S.W.2d
187, 129 Tex. 599— Richardson v.
Kelly, Civ.App., 179 S.W.2d 991,
affirmed, Sup., 191 S.W.2d -857 —
Stevenson v. Thomas, Civ. App., 56
S.W.2d 1095, error dismissed —
Shaw v. Etheridge, Civ.App., 16
S.W.2d 722.
(6) To warrant setting aside of
judgment
Ind.— Globe Mining Co. v. Oak Ridge
Coal Co., 177 N.E. 868, 204 Ind. 11.
Ky.— Harris v. Sparks, 1 S.W.2d 772,
222 Ky. 472.
La. — National Park Bank v. Con-
cordia Land & Timber Co., 97 So
272, 154 -La. 31 — Engeran v. Con-
solidated Companies, App., 147 So
743.
Mo. — Hockenberry v. Cooper County
State Bank of Bunceton, -88 S.W.2d
1031, 338 Mo. 31.
Mont. — Stocking v. Charles Beard
Co., 55 P.2d 949, 102 Mont. 65.
N.J. — Crandol v. Garrison, 169 A.
507, 115 N.J.Ed. 11.
Pa. — Price v. Shultz, 85 Pa. Super
78.
Tex. — McAfee v. Jeter & Townsend,
Civ.App.f 147 -S.W.2d SS4— Hanson
v. Pratt, Civ.App., 51 S.W.2d 629,
error dismissed — Hadad v. Ellison,
Civ.App., 283 S.W. 193.
47 C.J. p 438 note 77.
(7) As to other particular matters.
Cal. — Kupfer v. MacDonald, 122 P.
2d 271, 19 Cal.2d 566— Kupfer v.
Brawner, 122 P.2d 268, 19 Cal.2d
562.
IlL^Francis v. Legris, 17 N.E.2d 359,
297 IlLApp. 164— Goelitz v. Lath-
rop, 3 N.E.2d 305, 286 IlLApp. 24S.
3klont — Stocking v. Charles Beard
Co., 55 P.2d 949, 102 Mont. 65.
Tex. — Early v. Burns, Civ.App., 142
S.W.2d 260, error refused — Clark-
son v. Ruiz, Civ.App., 140 S.W.2d
206, error dismissed, judgment
correct — Johnson v. Cole, Civ.App.,
138 S.W.2d 910, error refused —
Snell v. Knowles, Civ.App., 57 S.
W.2d 871, error dismissed.
Va. — Lockard v. Whitenack, 144 S.E.
606, 151 Va, 143— Fitchette v. Cape
Charles Bank, 132 S.E. 688, 146
Va. 715, affirmed 133 S.E. 492, 146
Va. 715.
Wash.— Puett v. Bernhard, 71 P.2d
406, 191 Wash. 557.
34 C.J. p 495 note 6 [d] (1) — 47 C.J.
p 438 note 74 [d].
Evidence held
(1) To establish agreement of de-
fendant to buy judgment against
plaintiff at discount for plaintiff's
benefit— Davidhizar v. Gaulke, 280
P. 499, 130 Or. 492.
(2) To warrant recovery for com-
plainant.
Ala. — Greer v. Altoona "Warehouse
Co., 20 So.2d 513, 246 Ala. 297.
111. — Knaus v. Chicago Title & Trust
Co., 7 N.E.2d 298, 365 111. 588—
Crane Co. v. Parker, 136 N.E. 733,
304 111. •331— Ryan v. Wilson, 23
N.E.2d 566, 302 IlLApp. 18— Cal-
breath v. Beckwith, 260 IlLApp. 7.
Iowa. — Snyder v. Federal Land Bank
of Omaha, 284 N.W. 157, 226 Iowa
341 — Galvin v. Taylor, 212 N.W.
709, 203 Iowa 1139.
Ky.— Nicholson v. Ausmus, 132 S.W.
2d 748, 280 Ky. 99— Frederick v.
Rowe, 93 S.W.2d 349, 263 Ky. 706.
SL— Whitbeck v. Hughes, 134 So.
782
255, 1T2 La. 3SO— Henderson v. C
M. Thibodeaux Co., App., 177 So.
414.
N.J. — Wolf v. Federal Deposit Ins.
Corporation, 28 A.2d 219, 132 N.J.
Eq. 389.
Okl. — Oklahoma Ry. Co. v. Holt, 17
P.2d 955, 161 Okl. 165.
Pa. — Stoner. now for "Use of Dinch.
v. Wise, 200 A. 320, 331 Pa. 446.
Tex.— Richardson v. Kelly, 191 S.W.
2d 857 — Empire Gas* & 'Fuel Co.
v. Noble, Com. App., 36 S.W.2d 451
— Panther Oil & Grease Mfg. Co. v.
Crews, Clv.App., 124 S.W.2d 436—
Williams v. Tooke, Civ.App., 116
S.W.2d 1114, error dismissed —
Reasonover v. Reasonover, Civ.
App., 43 S.W.2d 174, error dis-
missed— Crutcher v. Wolfe, Civ.
App., 269 S.W. 841.
Utah. — Anderson v. State, 238 P. 557,
65 Utah 512.
Va. — Lockard v. Whitenack, 144 S.E.
606, 151 Va. 143.
W.Va. — 'Lyons v. Steele, 169 S.E. 4S1,
113 W.Va. 652.
(3) As to other particular matters.
Ariz. — American Surety Co. of New
York v. Mosher, 64 P.2d 1025, 4S
Ariz. 552.
Ky. — Sowards v. Sowards, 61 S.W.
2d 609, 249 Ky. 742.
La.— Green v. Barnett, 120 So. 666,
10 La.App. 212.
34 C.J. p 495 note 6 [e].
Joint complaint
Where complaint for new trial aft-
default was joint, evidence must
warrant granting of new trial as to
both applicants. — Julien v. Lane, 157
N.E. 114 (second case), 95 Ind.App.
139.
95. Wis.— Kiel v. Scott & Williams,
202 N.W. 672, 156 Wis. 415.
Proof beyoad reasonable doubt
"Sufficient evidence," within rule
that action in equity to set aside de-
fault judgment entered because of
mistake of officer of court in failing
to record filing of answer must be
based on sufficient and substantial
evidence, is that amount of proof
which ordinarily satisfies an unprej-
udiced mind beyond a reasonable
doubt — State ex pel. Sterling v.
Shain, 129 S.W.2d 1048, 344 Mo. 891.
Authority of counsel
In proceeding to be relieved from
[udgment on ground that it was en-
:ered through defendant's mistake,
nadvertence, and excusable neglect,
the appearance of counsel for defend-
ant in action wherein judgment was
rendered was prima facie evidence
of counsel's authority to appear for
defendant.— -Vail v. Department of
Financial Institutions of Indiana, 17
N.E.2d 854, 106 Ind.App. 3d.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
393
collection of a judgment will not be granted if
there is reasonable doubt of the existence of the
fp,c'cs on which the application is founded.96 Where
the rights of innocent third persons have become in-
volved, the courts will be more exacting as to the
quantum of proof required.97
Where, as discussed supra § 349, a meritorious
defense to the cause of action is required to be
shown, such defense must be fully set forth and
clearly proved.98 It is, however, sufficient to make
a prima facie showing of the truth or existence of
the defense.99 The same certainty of proof is not
required to establish an excuse for not making a
defense at law that would be required to establish
the existence of that defense;1 but if the excuse is
not proved it avails nothing to prove the defense.2
Lack of proper citation or notice of proceedings.
Where it is sought to set aside a judgment for lack
of proper citation or notice of the proceedings, the
proof must be clear and convincing to entitle com-
plainant to relief.8 While the recital in a judg-
Evidence held sufficient
Ark.— Halliday v. Fenton, 260 S.W.
961. 164 Ark. 11.
Ga.— Thomas v. Fred W. Amend Co.,
26 S.E.2d 415, 196 Ga, 455.
Iowa, — Thoreson v. Qentral States
Electric Co., 28"3 N.W. 253, 225
Iowa 1406 — Clarke v. Smith, 192
N.W. 136, 195 Iowa 1299.
Ky. — Ohio Valley -Fire & Marine Ins.
Co.'s Keceiver v. Newman, 13 S.
W.2d 771, 227 Ky. 554 — Collins'
Bx'rs v. Bonner, 294 S.W. 1027,
220 Ky. 212.
Evidence held insufficient
Ark.— Beth v. Harris, 188 S.W.2d 119,
208 Ark. 90*3 — "Farmers' Mut. Fire
Ins. Co. v. Defries, 1 S.W.2d 19,
175 Ark. -548.
Ga.— Gladden v. Mobley, 159 S.B. 569,
173 Ga. 48.
Ind.— Vail v. Department of Finan-
cial Institutions of Indiana, 17 N.
E.2d 854, 106 Ind.App. 39— Julien
v. Lane, 157 N.B. 114 (second
case), 95 Ind.App. 139.
Ky. — Overstreet v. Grinstead's Adm'r,
140 S.W.2d 836, 283 Ky. 73— Mc-
Commas v. McCawley, 14 S.W.2d
1057, 228 Ky. 263.
Mo.— Millikin v. Anderson, App., 269
S.W. «75.
96. -U.S.— Nelson v. First Nat. Bank
of Killingley, C.C.Minn., 70 F. 526.
37. Tex.— Pierce v. Pierce, Civ.App.,
218 S.W. 144— Pierce v. Southern
Baptist Convention Foreign Mis-
sion Bd., Civ.App., 218 S.W. 140.
98w Tex.— Humphrey v. Harrell,
Com.App., 2* S.W.2d 96*.
34 C.J. p 496 note 10.
Evidence held sufficient
(1) To show meritorious defense.
^rj^ — McClintock v. Lankford, 224 S.
W. 485, 145 Ark. 264.
Moi— Crown Drug Co. v. Raymond,
App., 51 S.W.2d 215.
. Tex.— Hadfcd v. Ellison, Civ.App., 283
S'.W. 19*3.
(2) To support finding of insuffi-
cient defense. — National Hardware &
Stove Co. v. Walters, Tex.Civ.App.,
58 &W.2d 146> error refused— Walker
v. Chatterton, Tex.Civ.App., 192 S.
W.. 10-85,
Evidence held insufficient
XoWa._-Thoresox* v. Central States
Electric Co., 283 N.W. 253, 225
Iowa 1406.
Tex. — First State Bank of Loraine v.
Jackson, Civ.App., 13 S.W.2d 979.
99. Iowa.— Clarke v. Smith, 192 N.
W. 136, 195 Iowa 1299.
Ohio.— Minetti v. Einhorn, 173 N.E.
243, 36 Ohio App. "310.
34 C.J. p 496 note 11.
1. Tenn. — Rice v. Railroad Bank, 7
Humphr. 39.
2. Va.— Turner v. Davis, 7 Leigh
227, *34 Va, 227, 30 Am.D. 502.
3. Ala. — Bastian - Blessing Co. v.
Gewin, 117 So. 197, 217 Ala. 592.
Cal.— Petersen v. Vane, 134 P.2d 6,
57 Cal.App.2d 58— De Tray v.
Chambers, 297 P. -575, 112 Cal-App.
697.
111.-— Nikola v. Campus Towers
Apartment Bldg. Corporation, 25
N.E.2d 582, 303 Ill.App. 516.
Ky.— McGuire v. Cope, 9 S.W.2d 528,
225 Ky. 521.
Mich. — Garey v. Morley Bros., 209 N.
W. 11-6, 234 Mich. 675.
Miss. — Hirsch Bros. & Co. v. B. E.
Kennington Co., 124 So. 344, 155
Miss. 242, 88 A.L.R. 1.
j.C. — Laurens Trust Co. v. Copeland,
151 -S.B. 617, 154 S.C. 390.
Tex. — Panhandle Const. Co. v. Casey,
Civ.App., 66 S.W.2d 705, error re-
fused.
34 C.J. p 495 note 6 [b], [c].
Evidence held sufficient
(1) To sustain Judgment for com-
plainant generally.
Ark.— Collier v. Mississippi Benefi-
cial Life Ins. Co., 261 S.W. 39, 164
Ark. 54.
111.— Kulikowski v. North American
Mfg. Co., 54 N.E.2d 411, 322 111.
App. 202.
Ky.— Newsorae v. Hall, 161 S.W.2d
629, 290 Ky. 486, 140 A.L.R. 818.
La. — Dickey v. Pollock, App., 183 So.
48 — Model Cleaners & Dyers v.
Falcone, 123 So. 483, 11 La.App.
218.
(2) To sustain Judgment for de-
fendant generally.
Ala. — Wright v. Fannin, 156 So*. 849,
229 Ala. 278.
Ky. — Miller v. National Bank of Lon-
don, 116 S.W.2d 320, 273 Ky. 243.
Tex. — Murry v. Citizens' State Bank
783
of Ranger, Civ.App., 77 S.W,2d
1104, error dismissed.
(3) To show service of process.
Ark.— Horn v. Hull, 275 S.W. 905,
169 Ark. 463.
Cal. — Christie v. Superior Court in
and for City and County of San
Francisco, 23 P.2d 757, 218 Cal.
423.
Iowa. — Sloan v. Jepson, 252 N.W. 535,
217 Iowa 1082.
Ky.— Billingsly v. Pearcy, 65 S.W.2d
699, 251 Ky. 546.
Mich.— Schlussel v. Ruhf, 229 N.W.
514, 249 Mich. 647.
W.Va. — Stepp v. State Road Com-
mission, 151 S.B. 180, 108 W.Va.
346.
34 C.J. p 495 note 6 [d] (3).
(4) To show want of service of
process.
Ark. — Brookfleld v. Harrahan Viaduct
Improvement Dist., 54 S.W.2d 689,
186 Ark. 599.
Kan.— Gibson v. Enright, 9 P.2d 971,
135 Kan. 181.
La.— Nolan v. Schultze, 126 So. «13,
169 La. 1022.
Mich. — Argo Oil Corporation v. R.
D. Mitchell, Inc., 257 N.W. 852,
269 Mich. 418— Reves v. Hillmer,
239 N.W. 328, 256 Mich. 239.
Tex. — Panhandle Const. Co. v. Casey,
Civ.App., 66 S.W.2d 705, error
refused — Laurenson v. Carrell, Civ.
App., 289 S.W. 1024.
34 C.J. p 495 note 6 [d] (4).
(5) To support findings favorable
to plaintiff on Question of plaintiff's
knowledge or notice of commence-
ment or pendency of action wherein
Judgment was entered. — Husar v.
Husar, 119 P.2d 798, 48 Cal. App. 2 d
326.
(6) To sustain finding that plain-
tiff was properly served as «t ficti-
tious defendant. — Petersen v. Vane,
134 P.2d 6, 57 Cal.App.2d 58.
Evidence held insufficient
(1) To warrant Judgment for
plaintiff.— First Nat* Bank v. Dals-
heimer, 248 S.W. 575, 157 Ark. 464.
(2) To show service of process.
Cal. — Noble v. Blanchard, 8 P.<2d
523, 120 Cal.App. 664.
La. — polk v. Saunders, 133 So. 777,
16 La.App. 174.
§ 393
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
ment that process was served is not conclusive,4
the falsity of the recital must be shown by clear
and convincing testimony and not merely by a pre-
ponderance of the evidence.5 It has been held that
the officer's return showing service may not be im-
peached by the testimony of one witness unless it
is strongly corroborated by other evidence.6
(2) Fraud, Perjury, Collusion, or Other Mis-
conduct
To warrant equitable relief against a Judgment on
the ground of fraud, collusion, or other misconduct, the
proof In support of the allegations must be clear, dis-
tinct, and certain, and an especially high degree of proof
is required in the case of a charge of perjury.
To entitle a complainant to relief in equity
against a judgment on the ground of fraud, collu-
sion, or other misconduct, the proof in support of
the allegations must be clear, distinct, and certain,7
and, according to some decisions, so cogent and
(3) To show want of service of
process.
Ark. — Davis v. Ferguson, 261 S.W.
905, 164 Ark. 340.
Ky. — Nicholson v. Thomas, 127 S.
W.2d 155. 277 Ky. 760.
La. — KoQize v. Henry, App., 189 So.
358.
Tex. — Wedgeworth v. Pope, Civ.App.,
12 S.W.2d 1045, error refused —
Joseph v. Kiber, Civ. App., 260 S.
W. 269.
34 C.J. p 495 note 6 [e] (2).
(4) To overcome verity of return
filed.
Tex. — Winter v. Davis, Civ.App., 10
S.W.2d 181, error refused.
Wash. — Thompson v. Short, 106 P.2d
720, 6 Wash.2d 71.
(5) To excuse default. — Cornelius
v. Early, Civ.App., 24 S.W.2d 757,
affirmed Early v. Cornelius, 39 S.W.
2d 6, 120 Tex. 335.
4. Ky.— Walker v. Perkins, 76 S.W.
2d 251, 256 Ky. 442.
5. Ark. — Federal Land Bank of St.
Louis v. Cottrell, 126 S.W.2d 279,
197 Ark. 783.
6. Okl.— Canard v. Ryan, 45 P.2d
122, 172 Okl. 339.
Tex. — Panhandle Const. Co. v. Casey,
Civ.App., 66 S.W.2d 705, error re-
fused— Joseph v. Kiber, Civ.App.,
260 S.W. 269.
Nature of evidence required
In suit to vacate default judg-
ment, corroborating evidence to im-
peach officer's return on citation
showing service in original suit
against plaintiff may consist of facts
and circumstances showing that di-
rect evidence is worthy of credit, but
need not be direct and positive; cor-
roborating evidence must come from
other sources than witness whose
testimony requires corroboration. —
Panhandle Const Co. v. Casey, Tex.
Civ.App., 66 S.W.2d 705, error re-
fused—Joseph v. Kiber, Tex.Civ.App.,
260 S.W. 269.
7. U.S.— Continental Nat Bank of
Jackson County, at Kansas City,
Mo., v. Holland Banking Co., C.C.
A,Mo., 66 F.2d 823— Jack, v. Hood,
D.C.OkL, 28 F.2d 118, affirmed, a
C.A., 39 F.2d 594.
Ala.— Quick y. McDonald, 108 So. 529,
214 Ala. 587. ,
Cal. — Frost v. Hanscome, 246 P. 53,
198 Cal. 500 — Gundelfinger v. Mari-
posa Commercial & Min. Co., App.,
165 P.2d 57.
Mich.— Grigg v. Hanna, 278 N.W.
125, 283 Mich. 443.
Mo.— Wright v. Wright, 165 S.W.2d
870, 350 Mo. 325— Elliott v. Mc-
Cormlck, 19 S.W.2d 654, 323 Mo.
263.
Neb.— Selleck v. Miller, 264 N.W. 754,
130 Neb. 306.
N.Y. — Boston & M. R. R. v. Delaware
& H. Co., 260 N.Y.S. 817, 146 Misc.
221, reversed on other grounds 264
N.Y.S. 470, 238 App.Div. 191.
Or.— Mattoon v. Cole, 143 P.2d 679,
172 Or. -664.
Pa.— Miller v. Mastrocola, 2 A.2d
550, 133 Pa, Super. 210 — Teutonic
Building & Loan Ass'n v. Stein,
190 A. 189, 125 Pa.Super. 389 — Ohl
v. Zimmerman, Com.PL, 7 Sch.Reg.
169.
Tex. — Smith v. Ferrell, Civ. App., 30
S.W.2d 371, reversed on other
grounds, Com. App., 44 S.W.2d. 962.
Wls. — Federal Life Ins. Co. v. Thay-
er, 269 N.W. 547, 222 Wis. 658.
34 C.J. p 496 note 14.
Evidence held sufficient
(1) To show fraud, collusion, or
other misconduct
Ark.— Brick v. Sovereign Grand
Lodge of Accepted Free Masons of
Arkansas, 117 S.W.2d 1060, 196
Ark. 372.
Iowa.— 'Foote v. State Sav. Bank,
Missouri Valley, Iowa, 206 N.W.
819, 201 Iowa 174.
Ky.— Webb v. Niceley, 151 S.W.2d
768, 286 Ky. 632— Triplett v. Stan-
ley, 130 S.W.2d 45, 279 Ky. 148—
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. of New
York v. Myers, 109 S.W.2d 1194,
270 Ky. 523 — Johnson v. Gernert
Bros. Lumber Co., 75 S.W.2d 357,
255 Ky. 734 — Rouse v. House, 262
S.W. £M. 203 Ky. 415.
Mo. — Shepard v. Shepard, 180 S.W.
2d 472, 353 Mo. 1057— Hockenberry
v. Cooper County State Bank of
Bunceton, 88 S.W.2d 1031, 338 Mo.
;31 — Gurley v. St. 'Louis Transit
Co. of St. Louis, App., 259 S.W.
$95.
N.J. — Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v.
Tarnowski, 20 A.2d 421, 130 N.J.Eq.
L
784
Ohio. — Northern Ohio Power & Light
Co. v. Smith, 186 N.E. 712, 126 Ohio
St. 601.
Tex. — Early v. Burns, Civ.App., 142
S.W.2d 260, error refused — ^Black-
man v. Blackman, Civ.App., 12 S
S.W.2d 433, error dismissed, judg-
ment correct — Dockery v. Hanan,
Cir.App., 54 S.W.2d 1017, error re-
fused— Rivers v. Griffin, Civ.App..
16 S.W.2d 874 — Chapman v. Clark,
Civ.App., 262 S.W. 161, affirmed,
Com.App., 276 S.W. 197.
34 C.J. p 496 note 14 [a] (1), (2).
(2) To show absence of fraud or
other misconduct.
Cal.— Voinich v. Roller!, 264 P. 240,
203 Cal. 379— Rogers v. Mulkey,
147 P.2d 62, -63 Cal.App.2d 567—
Church v. Church, 105 P.2d 643, 40
Cal.App.2d 701 — Be Tray v. Cham-
bers, 297 P. 575, 112 Cal.App. 697.
Fla. — Gamble v. Gamble Holding
Corporation, 162 So. 886, 120 Fla.
•340.
I1L— Allen v. Kahn, 26 N.E.2d 152,
304 IlLApp. 256.
Mich.— Racho v. Woeste, 9 N.W.2d
827, '305 Mich. 522.
Mo.— Winchell v. Gaskill, 190 S.W.
2d 266 — .Terminal R. R. Ass'n of
St. Louis v. Schmidt, 163 S.W.2d
772, 349 Mo. 890.
N.Y.— Penski v. Jacobs, 6 N.Y.S.2d
861, 255 App.Div. 745.
Pa,— Miller v. Mastrocola, 3 A.2d 550,
133 Pa.Super. 210 — Teutonic Build-
ing & Loan Ass'n v. Stein, 190 A.
189, 125 Pa-Super. 589.
Tex. — Hoelscher v. Ehlinger, Civ.
App., 57 S.W.2d 283.
34 C.J. p 496 note 14 [a] (3).
(3) To present issue requiring
finding as to fraud. — Ellis v. Gordon,
2-31 N.W. 555, 202 Wis. 134,
(4) To show conclusively that
complainant did not believe, and was
not misled by alleged fraudulent rep-
resentations of defendant's attorney.
— Moore v. Moore, Tex.Civ.App., 259
•S.W. '322.
Evidence held insnfflcient
(1) To show fraud, collusion, or
other misconduct
U.S.— Continental Nat Bank of Jack-
son County, at Kansas City, Mo.,
v. Holland Banking Co., C.C.A.Mo.»
66 F.2d 823 — Grimes v. -Grimes, D.
CJXTev., 52 'F.2d 171.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 394
strong as to leave no reasonable doubt.8 The evi-
dence may be circumstantial^ but it must be un-
equivocal,10 persuasive,11 and something more than
a suspicion.12 It has been held that the judgment
or decree will not be set aside on affidavits with-
out the examination and cross-examination of wit-
nesses, particularly where the affidavits are contra-
dictory with respect to important issues.18 The
proof must be especially clear to induce the court
to enjoin a judgment at the instance of strangers to
the suit, although incidentally affected by the de-
cision of the question involved.14
Perjury. It is established by all the authorities
that a very high degree of proof is required, where
relief is sought on the ground of perjury,15 the
cases generally holding that it must be established
either by a conviction for the alleged perjury16 or
by documentary evidence.17 A voluntary admission,
of perjury may be sufficient proof,18 but the affi-
davit of a former witness impeaching his prior tes-
timony may be insufficient where a charge of per-
jury could not well be predicated on it19
§ 394. Pleadings as Evidence
Although the complainant's verified bill, if not con-
Ark.— Parker v. Sims, 51 S.W.2d 517,
185 Ark. 1111— Childs v. Linton,
252 S.W. 21, 159 Ark. 529.
Cal. — Gundelflnger v. Mariposa Com-
mercial & Min. Co., App., 165 P.2d
57.
111. — Carroll, Schendorf & Boenicke v.
Hastings, 259 111. App. 564.
Ky. — Overstreet v. Grinstead's
Adm'r, 140 S.W.2d 836, 283 Ky. 73
—Hoover v. Dudley, 14 S.W.2d 410,
228 Ky. 110— Commonwealth v.
Harkness1 Adm'r/ 246 S.W. 803, 197
Ky. 198.
•La.— First Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Bell,
141 So. 379, 174 La. 692— Whitbeck
v. Hughes, 134 So. 255, 172 La. 380
— Herold v. Jefferson, 134 So. 104,
172 La. 315 — Reinecke v. Pelham,
App., 199 So. 521 — Treichlingrova
v. Layne, 139 So. 659, 19 La.App.
71 — Young v. Glynn, 126 So. 559,
14 La.App. 619, affirmed 131 So.
51, 171 La. 371— Rowe v. Crichton
Co., 123 So. 442, 38 La.App. 454.
Mo.— Elliott v. McCormick, 19 S.W.
2d 654, 323 Mo. 263— First Nat.
Bank & Trust Co. of King City v.
Bowman, 15 S.W.2d 842, 322 Mo.
654— McFadin v. Simms, 273 S.W.
1050, 309 Mo. 312— Nieman v. Nie-
man, App., 127 S.W.2d 34 — Wuelker
v. Maxwell, App., 70 S.W.2d 1100—
National Union Fire Ins. Co. v.
Vermlllion, App., 19 S.W.2d 776—
Neevel v. McDermand, 278 S.W.
818, 220 Mo.App. 812— Bullivant v.
Greer, 264 S.W. 95, 216 Mo.App.
324.
N.J.— Mittenbuhler v. Kessler Truck-
ing Co., 181 A. 163, 119 N.J.Eq. 100.
N.Y. — 'Fuhrmann v. Fanroth, 173 N.
JED. 685, 254 N.Y. 479.
Ohio.— Shriner v. Price, 59 N.E.2d
152, 74 Ohio App. 373.
Tex. — Graves v. Slater, Civ. App., 83
S.W.2d 1041, error dismissed.
Va.— Deeds v. Gilmer, 174 S.E. 37,
162 Va. 157.
34 C.J. p 496 note 14 [b] (1)— 47 C.J.
p 438 note 74 [b].
(2) To show that Judgment would
have been otherwise but for the
fraud. — Anderson r. State, 2*38 P.
557, (5 Utah 312.
49C.J.S.-50
(3) To establish duress.
Kan. — Johnson v. Schrader, 95 P.2d
273, 150 Kan. 545.
Md.— Pearce v. Arnold, 13 A.2d 549,
178 Md. 356.
Collusion to secure lease
The fact that plaintiffs colluded
to secure execution of lease to give
them equitable right to file bill does
not show fraud in procuring decree
by falsely alleging jurisdictional
facts. — Jones v. Henderson, 153 So.
214, 228 Ala. 273.
Evidence accepted as true
With respect to whether or not
judgment on note in favor of attor-
ney was void for fraud, evidence of
attorney's employment by judgment
debtor who promised to compensate
attorney would be accepted as true
where there was no contradiction of
testimony and no ground on which it
could be rejected. — Marcus v. Hudg-
ins, 176 A, 271, 168 Md. 79.
& Mo.— Terminal R. R. Ass'n of St
Louis v. Schmidt, 163 S.W.2d 772,
349 Mo. 890 — Elliott v. McCormick,
19 S.W.2d -654, 323 Mo. 263— Reger
v. Reger, 293 S.W. 414, 316 Mo.
1310— McFadin v. Simms, 273 S.W.
1050, 309 Mo. 312— Sutter v. Cava-
lier, App., 185 S.W.2d 304— Nieman
v. Nieman, App., 127 S.W.2d 34—
Neevel v. McDermand, 278 S.W.
818, 220 M6.App. 812— Bulivant v.
Greer, 264 S.W. 95, 216 Mo.App.
324.
34 C.J. p 406 note 15.
9. U.S.— Holton v. Davis, Mont, 108
•F. 138, 47 C.C.A. 246.
10. Minn.— Wann v. Northwestern
Trust Co., 139 N.W. 1061, 120 Minn.
493.
34 C.J. p 496 note 17.
11. U.S.— Holton v. Davis, Mont,
108 F. 138, 47 C.C:A. 346.
Pa. — Teutonic Building & Loan Ass'n
v. Stein, 190 A. 189, 125 Pa.-Super.
389.
12. Mo. — McFadin v. Simms, 273 S.
W. 1050, 30$ Mo. 312.
34 C.J. p 496 note 19.
13. U.S.— Sorenson v. Sutherland,
109 «F.2d 714, affirmed Jackson v.
785
Irving Trust Co., 61 S.Ct 326, 311
U.S. 494, 85 L,Ed. 297. *
14. Mo. — W. E. Bowen Impr. Co. \\
Van Hafften, 238 S.W. 147, 209 Mo..
App. 629.
ISb Okl.— McBride v. Cowen, 216 fV
104, 90 Okl. 130.
34 C.J. p 497 note 21.
Perjury as ground for relief see su->-
pra § 374.
Proof required of criminal acts
Perjury must be established by
the same degree of proof as general-
ly required in proof of criminal acta
in civil cases. — Am berg v. Deaton,
271 N.W. 396, 223 Wis. 653.
Farol testimony
A judgment will not be vacated on
parol testimony alone, even in de-
fault cases where the judgment is,
alleged to have been obtained
through perjury of plaintiff on in^
trinsic issues, but in such case the
alleged perjury must be clearly and
conclusively established by actual
physical facts which render the ques-
tion of perjury unmistakable. — Me-.
Bride v. Cowen, 216 P. 104, 90 Okl.
130.
Evidence held; sufficient to warrant
relief
Mo.— Sutter v. Easterly, 189 S.W.2d
284.
Neb.— Krause v. Long, 192 N.W. 729,
109 Neb. 846.
Evidence held insufficient to wor^
rant relief
La. — Jackson v. Dixon, 8 La. App. 761.
Neb.— Gutru v. Johnson, 212 N.W,
622, 115 Neb. -309.
16. N.C.— Moore v. Gulley, «6 -S.E,
681, 144 N.C. 81, 10 'L.R.A.,N.S...
242.
34 C.J. p 497 note 22.
17. N.C.— Kinsland v. Adams, 90 S,.
B. 899, 172 N.C. 765.
34 C.J. P 497 note 23.
18. 111. — Seward v. Cease, 50 111*.
228.
N.H.— Craft v. Thompson, 51 N.H,
536.
19- Mich. — Cleveland Iron Min, Cot
v. Husby, 40 N.W. 168, 72 Mich,
•61.
§ 394
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
tradictedf may be sufficient to justify a decree In his
favor, the interposition of an answer denying the charges
of the bill requires the complainant to furnish corrobora-
tive evidence.
According to some authority, complainant's veri-
fied bill, if not contradicted, may be sufficient to
justify a decree in his favor;20 but it has also been
held that the mere introduction of pleadings alleg-
ing facts warranting the setting aside of the judg-
ment does not meet the requirement of proof,21 and
that the answer of the respondent, if denying pos-
itively the charges of the bill, will be so far evi-
dence in his favor that the bill must be dismissed
unless complainant sustains his case by corrobora-
tive evidence.22 The answer of one defendant can-
not be considered as evidence against another.23
§ 395. Trial or Hearing
An action to enjoin or vacate a judgment proceeds
to trial in accordance with the rules and principles, of
equity, and the court may and should determine the is-
sues Involved, and, in Its discretion, may grant or deny
relief.
An action to enjoin or vacate a judgment pro-
ceeds to trial in accordance with the rules and prin-
ciples of equity.24 The proceeding is tried on the
allegations of the new petition and the answer of
the other party.25 Generally, the court may and
should determine the issues involved,26 and, in its
discretion, may grant or deny the requested re-
lief.27 The trial and hearing should be confined to
the question of the judgment against which relief
is sought,2* and, ordinarily, the court should not
enter on a trial of complainant's defense to the
original action once he makes a prima facie show-
ing of a meritorious defense;29 but, if the pro-
ceeding is one in which the court is authorized to
grant full relief to the parties in the one action, as
discussed infra § 397, it may try and determine all
questions involving the merits of the controversy.30
In determining whether the judgment from which
relief is sought should be opened, the court may and
should consider the evidence and the credibility of
the witnesses, and give due effect to writings,31
but, where the facts are undisputed and only ques-
tions of law are raised, the cause may be deter-
mined without the introduction of evidence or the
intervention of a jury.32 If there are disputed ques-
tions of fact involved, or the evidence appears to
be conflicting or contradictory, it is in the discre-
tion of the court to send the issues to a master or
commissioner for determination,33 or to a jury on
interrogatories or under proper limitations as to
the questions they are to consider in accordance
with the rules discussed in the C.J.S. title Juries §
37, also 33 C.J. p 497 notes 31, 32; 35 C.J. p 173
notes 90-94, and in this case the court should make
its decree in accordance with the facts as found
by the jury,34 unless manifest error has intervened
during the course of the trial.36 Issues should not
be submitted to a jury where the evidence is in-
sufficient to warrant such submission,36 but direct-
20. Ala. — Givens v. Tidmore, 8 Ala.
745.
21. OkL — Honeycutt v. Severin, 98
P.2d 1093, 186 Okl. 509.
Tex. — Empire Gas & Fuel Co. v. No-
ble, Com.App., 36 S.W.2d 451.
22. Tex. — Scales v. Gulf, C. & S. -P.
R. Co., Civ.App., 35 S.W. 205.
34 C.J. p 497 note 27.
23. Ky.— Timberlake v. Cobbs, 2 J.
J.Marsh. 13$.
24. Minn. — Geisberg v. O'Laughlin,
9-3 N.W. 310, 88 Minn. 431— -Spooner
T. Spooner, 1 N.W. 835, 26 Minn.
137.
Hearing- and submission of issues to
jury in equity generally see Equi-
ty §§ 480-512.
25. Tex. — Owen v. City of Bastland,
Civ.App., 37 S.W.2d 1053.
Failure to file written pleading*
Where defendant, on plaintiffs ap-
peal from a judgment of a justice's
court had not filed written pleadings
until after judgment adverse to
plaintiff was rendered in county
court, the case was treated in a suit
to enjoin enforcement of such judg-
ment as though defendant had filed
no written pleadings. — Allen v. Jones,
Tex.Clv.App., 192 -S.W.2d 298, error
refused no reversible error.
28. Tex. — Adams v. First Nat Bank,
Clv.App., 294 S.W. 909.
Sufficiency of excuse for absence at
former trial
Tex. — Adams v. 'First Nat Bank, su-
pra.
fl7. U.S. — W. B. Hedger Transp.
Corp. v. Ira S. Bushey & Sons, C
C.A.N.T., 155 F.2d 321.
Pa.— Barnes v. Silveus, 173 A. 837,
114 Pa.Super. 214 — Simcoe v.
Szukegs, Com.Pl., 27 North.Co. 182.
Tex.-— McMillan v. McMillan, Civ.
App., 72 S.W.2d 611.
Extent of discretion
The court does not have discre-
tion to set aside a judgment on the
ground that, if it had been sitting
in the trial of the case, it would
have granted a new trial on the
ground of newly discovered evidence.
—Anderson v. State, 2'38 P. 557, 65
Utah =512.
28L Tenn.— Tallent v. -Sherrell, 184
S.W.2d 561, 27 Tenn.App. 683.
29. Tex. — Adams v. First Nat
Civ.App., 294 S.W. 909.
30. Tex.— Hubbard v. Tallal, 92
W.2d 1023, 127 Tex. 242.
786
Title
In suit to set aside judgment ad-
judicating title and to quiet title, re-
trial of question of title was author-
ized.—Bonner v. Pearson, Tex,Civ.
App., 7 S.W.2d 9-30.
31. Pa.— Barnes v. Silveus, 1T3 A.
837, 114 Pa. Super. 214 — Sugarman
v. Baldini, Com.PL. 28 WestCo. $9.
Tex. — Griffin v. Burrus, Civ.App., 24
S.W.2d 805, affirmed, ConuApp., 24
S.W.2d 810.
Wis.— Federal Life Ins. Co. v. Thay-
er, 269 N.W. 547, 222 Wis. 65*.
32. Ga.— Swift & Co. v. First Nat
Bank, 132 -S.E. $9, 161 Ga. 543.
33. Va. — Rust v. Ware, •$ Gratt, 50,
47 Va. 50, 52 Am.D. 100.
Reference of issues in equity see
Equity §§ 513-562.
34. Mont— Daly v. Milen, a$ P. m,
14 Mont. 20.
34 C.J. p 497 note 33.
Effect of verdict in equity cases gen-
erally see Equity § 510.
36. Pa.— Quick v. Van Auken, 3
Pennyp. 476.
36. Ga. — Adams v. Higginbotham, 21
S.B.2d 616, 194 Ga. 292.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 397
ing a verdict for plaintiff37 or defendant38 is error
when the evidence would have authorized a verdict
for the other party. After enjoining a judgment
and directing issues to be tried by a jury, the court
may afterward, although no verdict has been cer-
tified, set aside the order and dissolve the injunc-
tion if it becomes satisfied that a new trial ought
not to be had.39
§ 396. Dismissal
A bill for equitable relief against a judgment may
be dismissed for failure to follow up the application, or
to establish the allegations of the bill, or to comply with
a statutory condition precedent to the Issuance of an
injunction; but a dismissal on the merits without a
hearing is usually erroneous.
The bill or petition for equitable- relief from a
judgment may be dismissed for failure of com-
plainant to appear and follow up his application,40
for want of necessary parties,41 for failure to es-
tablish the allegations of his bill42 or to comply with
a statutory condition precedent to the issuance of
an injunction,43 or where it appears from the
pleadings and the proof that complainant is not
entitled to the relief requested.44 When an in-
junction is the sole object of the suit, and it is dis-
solved because of the want of equity in the peti-
tion, the case should be dismissed, if plaintiff de-
clines to amend.45
On the other hand, where a bill sets forth a
ground for equitable relief, ordinarily it is error to
dismiss it without a hearing on the merits,46 so that,
where an injunction is dissolved on an answer con-
taining an unqualified denial of the charges of the
bill, the court should not dismiss the bill, if there
is sufficient equity on its face to give the court ju-
risdiction, since complainant has a right after his
injunction is dissolved to prove his bill.47 In such a
case it is error to dismiss the bill, although plain-
tiff makes no request for trial of the case on its
merits.48 It is error to dismiss a suit on the mer-
its on trial of a rule for a preliminary injunction,
since the only question presented is whether pre-
liminary injunction should be granted.49
§ 397. Judgment or Decree, and Relief
Awarded
a. In general
b. Relief awarded
a. In General
The form of the Judgment or decree In an equitable
proceeding to secure relief against a judgment must be
justified by the frame of the bill.
The decree, as far as form is concerned, must be
justified by the frame of the bill.50 As far as re-
lief is concerned, it should not go beyond the prayer
of the petition, as discussed infra subdivision b of
this section. A decree perpetuating an injunction
is irregular where no injunction was granted be-
cause of failure to execute a bond.51 It is error
to render a final judgment on overruling defend-
ant's motion to dissolve the injunction; he should
be allowed to answer.52 Where a new trial is nec-
essary, it is error at once to set aside the judg-
ment; the decree should await the result of the
new trial, the judgment meanwhile standing as se-
curity for what may be found to be justly due.53
37. Ga. — Adams v. Higginbotham,
supra.
38. Ga. — Rogers v. MacBougald, 165
S.B. 619, 175 Ga. 642.
39- Va.— Vass v. Magee, 1 Hen. & M.
2, 11 Va. 2.
4D. Ala. — Smothers v. Meridian Fer-
tilizer Factory, 33 So. 898, 137
Ala. 166.
Pa. — Williams Valley Sav. Fund v.
Daub, €om.Pl., 8 Sch.Reg. 104 —
Nauyalis v. White, Com.Pl., 7 Sch.
Keg. 166.
41. Tex. — In re Supples' Estate, Civ.
App., 131 S.W.2d 13.
Administration, of estate
While bill of review must be dis-
missed in so far as it affects ad-
ministration of an estate where nec-
essary parties are not brought in, it
may not be dismissed as to another
estate as to which all parties are
present.— In re Supples' Estate, su-
pra.
42. Cal. — Frost v. Hanscome,
P. 53, 198 Cal. 500.
246
Ga. — Burden v. Burden, 142 S.B. 151,
165*Ga. 813.
34 C.J. p 497 note 37.
Dismissal held improper
Ga. — White v. Koper, 167 S.B. 177,
176 Ga. 180.
43. Tex. — Dallas Joint Stock Land
Bank of Dallas v. Lancaster, Civ.
App., 122 S.W.2d 659, error dis-
missed.
44. Tex. — Arenstein v. Jencks, Civ.
App., 179 S.W.2d 831, error dis-
missed—Dixon v. McNabb, Civ.
App., 173 S.W.2d 228, error refused.
Disposal of all rights
Where all possible rights were
disposed of under the pleadings of
the parties in the suit from which
relief is sought, a judgment dis-
missing with prejudice an action to
stay the proceedings is proper. —
Ballard v. Cox, 75 P.2d 126, 193
Wash. 299.
Judgment entered on. dismissal held
final
Iowa. — Swartzendruber v. Polke, 218
N.W. 62, 205 Iowa 382.
787
45. Tex. — Avocato v. Dell'Ara, Civ.
App., 84 SW. 443.
46. 111. — Nicoloffl v. Schnipper, 233
HLApp. 591.
Tex. — Mauldin v. American Liberty
Pipe Line Co., Civ.App., 185 S.W.
2d 158, refused for want of man-
date.
47. Tex. — Avocato v. Dell'Ara, Civ.
App., 84 S.W. 443.
34 C.J. p 497 note 39.
48. Tex. — Love v. Powell, $ S.W.
456, 67 Tex. 15— Avocato v. Bell-
'Ara, Civ.App., 84 S.W. 443.
49. La. — Terry v. Womacfc, 20 So.2d
365, 206 La. 1069.
50. Mass. — Brooks v. Twitchell, 65
N.B. 843, 182 Mass. 443, 94 Am,S.
B. 662.
51. Ky. — Pilcher v. Higgins, 2 J.J.
Marsh. 16.
52. La. — Knox v. Coroner, 13 La.
Ann. 88.
53. W.Va. — Grafton & G. R. Co. v.
Bavisson, 29 S.E. 1028, 45 W.Va.
12, 72 Am.S.R, 799.
1 397
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
On voluntary dismissal of a bill, defendant is en-
titled to judgment by motion against plaintiff and
the sureties on his injunction bond for the amount
of the judgment and interest54
b. Belief Awarded
On a properly framed bill for an Injunction or other
equitable relief against a judgment at law, the court
has authority to grant the parties any and all relief to
which they may appear entitled, and to Impose condi-
tions on the granting of such relief so as equitably to
adjust the rights of the parties..
On a bill for an injunction or other equitable
relief against a judgment at law, properly framed,
the court has authority to grant the parties any and
all relief to which they may appear to be entitled,55
although the decree should not go beyond the prayer
of the petition or bill,56 and relief should be de-
nied if it appears that complainant is not entitled
. thereto.57 It is within the authority of a court of
equity to enjoin the enforcement of a judgment
at law, whenever sufficient equitable grounds are
shown,5* and ordinarily this is the proper method
of granting relief; but in so doing the equity court
does not undertake to interfere with the judgment
itself, but lays its prohibition on the party other-
wise entitled to enforce it.5** So, if the judgment
is attacked on the ground of fraud, want of no-
tice, or other like cause, a decree restraining its
enforcement and putting the parties in statu quo
will generally be proper,60 or the court may ingraft
a trust on the property in the hands of the bene-
ficiary of the fraud, and leave the judgment undis-
turbed.61 Complainant may sometimes be entitled
to the restitution of money already collected on the
judgment,62 or damages for the attempted or suc-
cessful enforcement of the judgment by execu-
tion;63 but restitution will not be ordered where
the court, on consideration of all the evidence, feels
that complainant is not entitled to such relief.64
In a proper case, the relief awarded may in-
clude the vacation or annulment of the judgment,65
Allowing: judgment to stand as se-
curity see supra § 303.
54. Tenn.— Ashby v. Lyles-Black
Co., 1 Tenn.Civ.A. 160.
55. Ala.— Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v.
Street, 176 So. 350, 234 Ala. 537.
Cal.— Walsh v. Majors, 49 P.2d 598,
4 Cal.2d 3S4.
Ky. — Taylor v. Webber. 83 S.W. 567,
26 Ky.L. 1199.
Minn. — Bloomquist v. Thomas, 9 N.
W.2d 337, 215 Minn. 35.
Mo.— National Union Fire Ins. Co. v.
Vermillion, App., 19 S.W.2d 776.
Tex. — Peters v. Pursley, Civ.App.,
278 S.W. 229.
34 C.J. p 498 note 47.
Amendment and correction in trial
court see supra §§ 236-264.
Adjudication of legality of service
Where Judgment on its face show-
ed that legal service was had, and
sheriff testified that* he had served
all parties, but did not return writ
into court, having failed to sign it
at all, the court was empowered at
a subsequent term, in action to set
aside such judgment and with all
interested parties before It, to ad-
judge that legal service had original-
ly been made, and to correct its rec-
ords accordingly. — O'Quinn v. Harri-
son, Tex.Civ.App., 271 S.W. 137.
Claim for betterment*
Grantee under unregistered deed
is not entitled to assert claim for
betterments, in suit for injunction
against enforcement of judgment ob-
tained against claimant's grantor. —
Baton v. Doub, 128 S.E. 494, 190 N.C.
14, 40 A.L.R. 273.
Continuing tmpasM*
In suit to enjoin enforcement of
judgment, equity had jurisdiction to
enjoin continuing trespasses.— -Elliott
v. Adams, 160 S.E. 336, 173 Ga. 312.
Damages for fraud
In an equitable action to set aside
judgment allegedly obtained by
fraud, plaintiff may plead a claim
for damages because of the alleged
fraud.— Scopano v. IT. S. Gypsum Co.,
3 N.T.S.2d 300, 166 Misc. 805.
Impounding1 proceeds of judgment
Where it was apparent that there
existed a financial obligation which
was asserted as an equitable set-off
to a judgment, but court in which
relief was sought did not have ju-
risdiction to determine amount there-
of, and delay in the proceeding to en-
able tribunal having jurisdiction to
determine the liability would be im-
practicable, court could make such
reasonable orders as might be nec-
essary to avoid any inequity either
by staying enforcement of judgment
or by permitting collection of the
judgment and impounding of the
proceeds thereof. — Southern Surety
Co. of New York v. Maney, 121 P.2d
295, 190 Okl. 129.
56. La.— Leverich v. Adams, 11 La.
Ann. 510.
34 C.J. p 498 note 48.
Limitation to relief sought by plead-
ings generally see supra § 49.
Relief in equity generally as lim-
ited by prayer of petition see
Equity § 607.
57. Tex.— American Red Cross v.
Longley, Civ.App., 165 S.W.2d 233,
error refused— Jones v. Lockhart,
Civ.App., 144 S.W.2d 426, error
dismissed, judgment correct
58. Ala. — Timmerman v. Martin, 176
So. 198, 234 Ala. 622.
Ga. — Campbell v. Gormley, 192 S.E.
430, 184 Ga, 647.
788
Idaho. — Idaho Gold Dredging Cor-
poration v. Boise Payette Lum-
ber Co., 90 P.2d 688, 60 Idaho 127.
34 C.J. p 498 notes 50, 56.
A bond is not required of judg-
ment debtor on quashing execution
and enjoining collection of judgment,
since injunction is part of final judg-
ment.— Sandy Hook Bank's Trustee
v. Bear, 61 S.W.2d 1045, 250 Ky. 177.
iBnjoininflf garnishment
In suit to cancel void judgment,
plaintiff nay obtain additional equi-
table relief, such as injunction
against prosecution of garnishment
proceedings based on judgment can-
celed.— Henry & Co. v. Johnson, 173
S.E. 659, 178 Ga. 541.
59. Ala. — Timmerman v. Martin, 176
So. 198, 234 Ala. 622.
34 C.J. p 498 note 57.
60. Iowa. — Brown v. Byam, 12 N.W.
770, 59 Iowa 52.
34 C.J. p 499 note 58.
61. Cal. — Purinton v. Dyson, 65 P.
2d 777, 8 Cal.2d 322, 113 A.L.R.
1230— Walsh v. Majors, 49 P.2d
-598, 4 Cal.2d 384.
Tex. — Johnston v. Stephens, Civ.App.,
300 S.W. 225, reversed on other
grounds 49 S.W.2d 431, 121 Tex.
374.
62. Minn.— Geisberg v. O'Laughlin.
93 N.W. 310, 88 Minn. 431.
34 C.J. p 498 note 51.
63. Minn.— Baker v. Sheehan, 12 N.
W. 704, -29 Minn. 235.
64. N.D.— Abdellah v. Hodge, 213
N.W. 4*5, 55 N.D. 392.
85. Tex. — Sloan v. Newton. Civ.App.,
134 S.W.2d 697.
34 C.J. p 498 note 49.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 397
"but it has been held that a court of equity has no
•power in a strict sense of the term to set aside a
judgment at law,66 or peremptorily to order a new
trial in the law action,67 and that the usual and
proper course is not to award a new trial in express
terms, but to decree that, unless the party consents
to have the judgment set aside and a new trial had,
lie shall be perpetually enjoined from collecting his
judgment.68 Under some practice, however, the
•court of equity may decree a new trial and rein-
•statement of the cause on the docket of the law
court.69 It has been held that, if a new trial is
-proper, the court should order an issue to be tried
as other issues out of chancery are tried.70 If the
grounds of action or defense are purely legal, it has
"been held that the parties may be sent back to the
law court for this purpose ;71 but, if they are suit-
able for the cognizance of equity, the chancellor will
generally try the merits of the cause and close the
controversy by a final decree.72 Relief may be
granted as to one of two or more complainants, and
denied as to the rest.73 Where it appears that any
part of the judgment is justly due, the injunction
may be so framed as to permit the collection of
that part, while forbidding proceedings to enforce
it as to the residue.74 However, where there is
no means of ascertaining how far it is correct or
justly due, but only that it is unconscionable to
some extent, it will be set aside in toto.75 Relief
will generally be granted to the extent of credits,
or unjust amounts, admitted by the judgment credi-
tor, although the bill makes out no case for equita-
ble relief.76 In setting aside a compromise judg-
ment in favor of plaintiff and awarding him a
larger recovery, defendant is entitled to credits for
payments made under the vacated judgment.77 In
denying relief in a suit to enjoin enforcement of
judgment, the court may not enjoin enforcement of
a stipulation whereby securities were deposited for
payment of judgment78
Decree against complainant. In refusing to grant
relief against a judgment a court of equity may not
<66. N.J.-^-C. & D. Building Corpo-
ration v. Griffithes, 157 A. 137, 109
N.J.EQ. 819.
-34 C.J. p 498 note 53.
belief against conseq.nen.ceg
Court of chancery is without pow-
er to set aside judgment at law,
tout merely grants equitable relief
against consequences of judgment. —
C. & D. Building Corporation v.
Grifflthes, supra.
€7. Idaho. — Idaho Gold Dredging
Corporation v. Boise Payette Lum-
ber Co., 90 P.2d 688, 60 Idaho 127.
34 C.J. p 498 note 54.
•68. Ala. — Timmerman v. Martin, 176
So. 198, 234 Ala. 622.
34 C.J. p 498 note 55.
-69. Mo. — Sutter v* Easterly, 189 3.
W.2d 284.
70. Ala. — Corpus Juris cited in Han-
over Fire Ins. Co. v. Street, 176
So. 350, 353, 34 Ala. 537.
34 C.J. p 499 note 59.
Trial issues out of chancery general-
ly see Equity §§ 503-508.
71. Ala. — Corpus Juris cited in Han-
over Fire Ins. Co. v. Street, 176
So. 350, 353, 34 Ala. 537.
Tenn. — Peoples Tel. & Tel. Co. v.
Prye, 10 Tenn.App, 160.
34 C.J. p 499 note 60.
Jurisdiction of court of law
If a court of equity orders a judg-
ment at law to be set aside and a
new trial awarded, a court of law
has jurisdiction, after the lapse of
the judgment term, to set aside the
judgment in question, redocket the
case, and subsequently to dismiss
the action for want of prosecution.
— Brown v. Bbann, 165 111. App. 218.
72. Ala. — Corpus Juris cited in Han-
over Fire Ins. Co. v. Street, 176 So.
350, 353, 34 Ala. 537.
34 C.J. p 499 note 61.
Complete relief in one proceeding
(1) Where an equitable suit is
brought to set aside judgment, it
is not contemplated that there shall
be two trials, the one in which judg-
ment is rendered setting aside for-
mer judgment, and other on trial of
the merits, but every issue arising
on the merits may and should be dis-
posed of and only one judgment ren-
dered.— Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n
v. Arnold, 88 S.W.M 473, 126 Tex.
466 — Humphrey v. Harrell, Tex.Com.
App., 29 S.W.2d 963 — Garza v. Ken-
edy, Tex.Com.App., 299 S.W. 231, re-
hearing denied 5 S.W.2d xx— Port
Worth & Denver City Ry. Co. v.
Reid, Tex.Civ.App., 115 S.W.2d 1156
— Stone v. Stone, Tex.Civ.App., 101
S.W.2d 638— Corbett v. Rankin Inde-
pendent School Dist, Tex.Civ.App.,
100 S.W.2d 113— Shaw v. Etheridge,
Tex.Civ.App., 15 S.W.2d 722— Wise
v. Lewis, TexCtv.App., 11 S.W.2d
329, affirmed, Com.App., 23 S.W.2d
299 — Squyres v. Rasmussen, Tex. Civ.
App., 296 S.W. 977— Peters v. Purs-
ley, Tex.Civ.App., 278 S.W. 229—
Cooper v. Cooper, Tex.Civ.App,, 260
S.W. 679.
(2) Judgment setting aside judg-
ment without adjudicating original
action on its merits is not "final." —
Dallas Coffee & Tea Co. v. Williams,
Tex.Civ.App., 45 S.W.2d 724, error
dismissed.
(3) Where judgment adjudicating
title was obtained by perjured tes-
timony without notice to plaintiffs,
and where defendant asserting 'ad-
789
verse possession paid rent, decree
setting aside judgment and quieting
title in plaintiffs was proper. — Bon-
ner v. Pearson, Tex.Civ.App., 7 S.
W.2d 930.
73. Tex. — Automobile Finance Co. v.
Bryan, Civ.App., 3 S.W.2d 835.
34 C.J. p 499 note 62.
74. 111. — Printers Corporation v.
Hamilton Inv. Co., 14 N.E.2d 517,
295 IlLApp. 34.
N.Y. — Leemor Realty Corporation v.
Tonkin, 150 N.E. 549, 241 N.Y.
546, motion denied 152 N.E. 416,
242 N.Y. 635— Allgeier v. Gordon
& Co., 9 N.Y.S.2d 848, 170 Misc.
607.
34 C.J. p 499 notes 63, 64 [a].
Injunction to extent of damages
In action by holder of judgment
on past-due purchase-money note for
land sold under bond for title, to re-
quire vendor to quitclaim land to
purchaser for purposes of execution
sale under judgment, wherein pur-
chaser Intervened and alleged exist-
ence of outstanding paramount title
to land and vendor's insolvency and
asked that damages for defective
title "be awarded1' and for general
relief, purchaser was entitled to in-
junction against judgment to extent
of damages. — Campbell v. Gormley,
192 S.E. 430, 184 Ga. 647.
75. Va. — McRae v. Woods, 2 Wash.
• 80, 2 Va. 80.
76. Md.— Webster v. Hardisty, 28
Md. 592.
34 C.J. p 499 note 65.
77. Tex. — Dallas Coffee & Tea Co. v.
Williams, Civ.App., 45 S.W.2d 724,
error dismissed.
78. U.S. — Harrington v. Denny, D.C.
Mo., 3 F.Supp. 584.
397
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
decree against complainant the amount due on the
judgment,79 unless such relief is permitted by stat-
ute.80
Conditions on granting relief. He who seeks re-
lief in equity against a judgment must do equity;
and it is competent and proper for the court to im-
pose such terms on him, or require him to submit
to such orders or conditions as may be necessary
to adjust the rights of all parties in entire accord-
ance with equity.81 So the court may require that
the adverse party free from fault be compensated
for expenses incurred in securing the judgment.82
It is also competent for the parties to agree that a
judgment may be set aside and enjoined, on con-
dition that it shall not affect the right of plaintiff
therein to prosecute a suit on his original cause of
action, which formed the basis of the judgment.83
An order for an injunction against a sale under ex-
ecution does not become effectual until there has
been a compliance with any conditions required by
the order, such as the execution of a bond.84
§ 398. Review and Costs
General rules relating to appeal and error usually
govern the review of decisions granting or denying equi-
table relief against judgments. Costs, are ordinarily al-
lowable to a successful complainant, but generally a
judgment debtor who seeks relief on the ground that he
has been prevented from making his defense at law Is
himself chargeable with the costs.
The decision of the court of chancery on a bill for
an injunction or other equitable relief against a
judgment will not be disturbed on appeal where the
evidence was conflicting and the determination of
the court was one within its discretion,86 or for
immaterial irregularities in its action,86 or on ob-
jections to the judgment not presented to the eq-
uity court.87 However, a decree for complainant
will be reversed where the bill states no cause of
action, or its want of equity is apparent on its
face.58 Assignments of error alleged to have been
committed on the trial of the former case may not
be considered.89 It has been held that the evidence
should be set forth in the record.90
Costs. Where a judgment debtor seeks relief in
equity, on the ground of his having been prevented
from making his defense at law, he is generally
chargeable with the costs of the proceeding,91 espe-
cially where he might have obtained the same relief
on application to the court of law,92 or where his in-
junction is dissolved,93 but otherwise costs are al-
lowable to a successful complainant.94 The success-
ful complainant, however, is not entitled to costs in
the action in which the judgment, set aside at his
suit, was rendered.95 While it has been held that
counsel fees are not properly allowed to plaintiff as
damages, in a suit to annul a judgment and enjoin
its execution,96 it has also been held that such
fees may be allowed as a beneficial p^rt of the
judgment, although not a matter of right, in an
action to set aside a former judgment.97
§ 399. Operation and Effect of Injunction
An Injunction against a Judgment operates against
the person, and, while it does not necessarily vacate the
Judgment, It does prevent the maintenance of any action
on it.
An injunction against a judgment is strictly in
person.am to restrain respondent from using the
judgment unconscientiously.98 It does not neces-
sarily negative the authority of the court render-
ing the judgment or the legality of its action; nor
does it, by relation back, make the proceedings at
79. Colo. — San Juan & St. Louis
Mining & Smelting Co. v. Pinch,
6 Colo. 214.
34 C.J. p 499 note 66.
80. W.Va. — Ho well v. Thomason, 12
S.B. 1088, 34 W.Va. 794.
34 C.J. p 499 note 67.
81. N.D. — Corpus Juris cited in, Ab-
dellah v. Hodge, 213 N.W. 495, 498,
55 N.D. 392.
Okl. — Southern Surety Co. of New
York v. Maney, 121 P.2d 295, 190
Okl. 129.
34 C.J. p 499 note 68.
82. Mo. — Crown Drug: Co. v. Ray-
mond, App., 51 S.W.2d 215.
N.D.— Abdellah v. Hodgre, 213 N.W.
495. 55 N.D. 392.
83. Mo.— Wilson v. St. Louis, I. M.
& S. R. Co., 87 Mo. 431.
84. Ky.— Pell v. Lander, 8 B.Mon.
554.
85. Tex. — Turner v. Parker, Civ.
App., 14 S.W.2d 931.
34 C.J. p 500 note 71.
Affirmance held proper under plead-
and evidence
Ga. — Bayne v. A. J. Deer Co., 123 S.
E. 693, 158 Ga. 401.
86. Ky. — Bradley v. Lamb, Hard.
527.
87. La. — Smith v. Barkemeyer, McG.
139.
88. Cal. — Gregory v. Ford, 14 Cal.
138, 73 Am.D. 639.
S.C. — Henderson v. Mitchell, 8 S.C.
Eq. 113, 21 Am.D. 526.
89. Ariz.— MacRitchie v. Stevens, 76
P. 478, 8 Ariz. 410.
90. Neb.— Barr v. Post, 80 N.W.
1041, 59 Neb. 361, 80 Am.S.R. 680.
34 C.J. p 500 note 76.
790
91. Va. — Degrraffenreid v. Donald, 2
Hen. & M. 10, 12 Va. 10.
34 C.J. p 500 note 77.
92. N.Y.— Gridley v. Garrison, 4
Paige 647.
93. 111. — Fisher v. Tribby, 5 IlLApp.
335.
34 C.J. p 500 note 79.
94. Va. — Reeves v. Dickey, 10 Gratt.
138, 51 Va, 138.
95. Tex. — Marsh v. Tiller, Civ.App.,
293 S.W. 223.
96. La. — Flynn v. Rhodes, 12 La.
Ann. 239.
97. Kan.— Fadely v. Fadely, 276 P.
826, 128 Kan. 287.'
98. Wis.— Kiel v. Scott & Williams,
202 N.W. 672, 186 Wis. 415.
34 C.J. p 500 note 83.
As release of errors see supra $
386.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
400
law irregular," or strip the judgment of its usual
incidents and consequences, except with respect
to proceedings to enforce it.1 The injunction will
prevent the maintenance of an action on the judg-
ment,2 either at law or in equity,3 or even an ac-
tion against the surety on a bond given in an ef-
fort to appeal from that judgment.4 However, this
does not prevent a proceeding to revive the judg-
ment, on the death of a party, by scire facias, al-
though the injunction will operate on the revived
judgment as well as on the original.5 Where a
judgment contains a mandamus compelling payment,
the dissolution of a subsequent injunction, enjoin-
ing payment of such judgment, has been held to
restore the mandamus in the judgment and to ren-
der issuance of a second mandamus unnecessary.6
An injunction effective only as to one of the par-
ties to the judgment will not prevent its enforcement
against the others.7 When complainant seeks not
only injunctive relief but also vacation of the judg-
ment and a determination of his interest in the sub-
ject matter, a decision in his favor may be broad
enough to constitute an adjudication of his inter-
est*
§ 400. Damages on Dissolution of Injunction
On the dissolution of an injunction, the statutes
usually permit recovery of damages sustained by the
interference; in an action on an injunction bond the
extent to which the amount collectable on the judgment
has been reduced by the injunction is a proper element
of damage and costs, interest on the judgment, and
counsel fees Incurred in its dissolution may also be re-
covered in a proper case.
On the dissolution of an injunction, the statutes
usually permit damages sustained by the interfer-
ence to be assessed by the court against complain-
ant and his sureties, the amount of which may be
fixed at a certain percentage on the amount of the
judgment.9 It is not proper to include in the award
of damages the amount of the judgment enjoined,
or the whole of the original debt,10 unless the whole
judgment or debt was lost in consequence of the
injunction.11 Such statutes relate only to judg-
ments for money; when the judgment is of a dif-
ferent character, the amount of damages becomes a
question of fact which must be determined in an
action on the bond.12 Where the injunction did not
extend to the whole judgment, but only stayed the
collection of a part of it, damages should be
awarded on that part only, when the injunction is
dissolved.13 Where an order of seizure against
two joint vendees is enjoined by one of them, dam-
ages are allowed only on the amount due by the
vendee who enjoined the proceedings.14 Such dam-
ages are allowed only in cases in which the injunc-
tion is obtained at the instance of a party to the
judgment enjoined,15 unless the terms of the act
are sufficiently broad to cover an injunction sued
out by a stranger.1^
Liability on injunction bond. In an action on an
injunction bond given in a suit to restrain enforce-
ment of a judgment, the extent to which the amount
collectable on the judgment has been reduced in
consequence of the injunction is a proper element of
damage.17 Damages may be allowed for tying up
an excessive amount of tie judgment.18 The dam-
ages in such an action may also include costs19
and interest on the judgment.20 Counsel fees in-
99. Ky. — Young v. Davis, 1 T.B.Mon.
152.
1. Wis.— Kiel v. Scott & Williams,
302 N.W. 672, 186 Wis. 415.
.14 C.J. p 500 note 85.
Operation and effect of opening and
vacating- judgment .generally see
supra § 306.
a, Or. — Corpus Juris quoted in Or-
egon-Washington R. & Nav. Co. v.
Reid, 65 P.2d 664, 669, 155 Or.
602.
34 C.J. p 500 note 86.
3. Md.— Little v. Price, 1 Md.Ch.
182.
Or. — Corpus Juris quoted in Oregon-
Washington R. & Nav. Co. v. Reid,
65 P.2d 664, 669, 155 Or. 602.
4. Ill,— Strong v. Wesley Hospital,
125 Ill.App. 201.
Or. — Corpus Juris quoted in Oregon-
Washington R. & Nav. Co. v. Reid,
65 P.2d 664, 669, 155 Or. 602.
.6. Va,. — Richardson v. Prince George
Justices, 11 Gratt. 190, 52 Va. 190.
•a Tex. — Donna Irr. Dist, Hidalgo
County No. 1 v. Magnolia Petro-
leum Co., Civ.App., 62 S.W.2d 207,
error dismissed.
7. Wyo. — Corpus Juris cited in Rock
Springs Coal & Mining Co. v. Black
Diamond Coal Co., 272 P. 12, 21, 39
Wyo. 379.
34 C.J. p 500 note 90.
8. U.S.— Moore v. Harjo, C.C.A.Okl.,
144 F.2d 318.
9. Iowa.— Western Fruit & Candy
Co. v. McFarland, 174 N.W. 57, 188
Iowa 204.
34 C.J. p 500 note 92.
Damages arising from issuance of
injunction generally see Injunc-
tions §§ 278-316.
10. Tex. — Fernandez y. Casey, 14 S.
W. 149, 77 Tex. 452.
34 C.J. p 501 note 93.
11. La. — Hefner v. Hesse, 29 La.
Ann. 149.
34 C.J. p 501 note 94.
12. La. — Green v. Reagan, 32 La.
Ann. 974.
34 C.J. P 501 note 97.
791
13. Ky. — Mitcherson v. Dozier, 7 J.
J.Marsh. 53, 22 Am.D. 116.
34 C.J. p 501 note 98.
14. La. — Gorham v. Hayden, 6 Rob.
450.
15. Miss. — Armstrong v. Fusz, 16 So.
532.
34 CJ-. p 501 note 1.
16. Va.— Claytor v. Anthony, 15
Gratt 518, 56 Va. 518.
17. Tex.— -Corpus Juris cited in
Green v. Hodge, Civ.App., 102 S.W.
2d 500, 501.
32 C.J. p 481 note 97.
18. Ky. — Bimbas v. Liberty Bank &
Trust Co., 25 S.W.2d 1019, 233 Ky.
. 430.
19. Ala. — Moore v. Harton. 1 Port
15.
32 C.J. p 471 note 48 [b],
20. Neb.— Harvard First Nat Bank
v. Hackett, 89 N.W. 412, 2 Neb.,
UnofC., 512.
32 C.J. p 479 note 53.
JUDGMENTS
49 O.J.S.
curred in procuring the dissolution of the injunc-
tion and sustaining the judgment are usually re-
coverable in an action on the bond,21 but fees for
sendees rendered prior to the execution of the bond
are not.22 Although it has been held that attor-
neys' fees should not be included if the effect would
be to make the damages greater than the statutory
limit,23 it has also been held that it is no objection
to an allowance for such counsel fees that the
amount of a judgment collected by execution from
the judgment debtor exceeds the penalty of a bond
given under an injunction against the judgment,24
and that the right to an allowance is not affected
by a statute providing that, on dissolution of the
injunction, damages, in lieu of interest at a given:
per cent, shall be incorporated in the debt25 Lia-
bility on an injunction bond is not dependent on
the form of procedure pursued to procure dissolu-
tion of the injunction.26
XIL COLLATERAL ATTACK
A. IN GENERAL
§ 401. General Rule
A Judgment which is not void is not subject to col-
lateral attack, but a void judgment may be attacked at
any time by any person in any proceeding.
A judgment rendered by a court having jurisdic-
tion of the parties and the subject matter, unless re-
versed or annulled in some proper proceeding, is not
open to contradiction or impeachment, in respect
of its validity, verity, or binding effect, by parties or
privies, in any collateral action or proceeding,27
21. Idaho. — Idaho Gold Dredging
Corporation v. Boise Payette Lum-
ber Co., 90 P.2d 6S8, 60 Idaho 127.
22. Idaho. — Idaho Gold Dredging
Corporation v. Boise Payette Lum-
ber Co., supra.
23. 111. — Moriarity v. Gait, 17 N.B.
714, 125 111. 417.
34 C.J. p 501 note 95.
24. W.Va.— State v. Graham, 69 S.
E. 301. 68 W.Va. 1.
25. W.Va. — State v. Graham, supra.
32 C.J. p 473 note 83.
26. Idaho. — Idaho Gold Dredging
Corporation v. Boise Payette Lum-
ber Co., 90 P.2d 688, 60 Idaho 127.
27. U.S. — Benitez v. Bank of Nova
Scotia, C.C.A.Puerto Rico, 125 F.
2d 519, certiorari denied Benitez
Sampayo v. Bank of Nova Scotia,
62 S.Ct. 1308, 316 U.S. 702, 86 L.Ed.
1770, rehearing denied 63 S.Ct. 24,
317 U.S. 706, 87 L.Ed. 563, certio-
rari denied 63 S.Ct. 31, 317 U.S. 624,
87 L.Ed. 505, rehearing denied 63
S.Ct 153, 317 U.S. 708, 87 L.Ed.
565— Guettel v. U. S., C.C.A.Mo.,
95 F.2d 229, 118 A.L.B. 1060, cer-
tiorari denied 59 S.Ct. 64, 305 U.S.
603, 83 KEd. 383— Moffett v. Rob-
bins, D.<2.Kan., 14 F.Supp. 602, af-
firmed, C.C.A., 81 F.2d 431, certio-
rari denied 56 S.Ct 940, 298 U.S.
675, 80 L.Ed. 1397— Cuff v. U. S.,
C.C.A.Cal., 64 F.2d 624, certiorari
denied 54 S.Ct. 96, 290 U.S. 676,
78 L.Ed. 583 — Mitchell v. Cunning-
ham, C.C.A.Wash., 8 F.2d 813—
Jackson v. Kentucky River Mills,
D.C.Ky., 65 F.Supp. 601— Griffith
v. Bank of New York, D.C.N.Y., 59
F.Supp. 271— Corpus Jtuls cited in
Prichard v. Nelson, D.aVa., 55
F.Supp. 506* 515, affirmed, C.C.A.,
137 F.2d 312— Nicolson v. Citizens
& Southern Nat Bank, D.C.Ga., 50
F.Supp. 92 — Gaskins v. Bonfils, D.
C.Colo., 4 F.Supp. 547.
Ala. — A. B. C. Truck Lines v. Kene-
mer, 25 So.2d 511— Corpus Juris
cited in Bond v. Arondale Baptist
Church, 194 So. 833, 835, 239 Ala.
366.
Ariz. — City of Phoenix v. Banner, 95
P.2d 987, 54 Ariz. 363— Hill v.
Favour, 84 P.2d 575, 52 Ariz. 561
— Corpus Juris cited in Varnes v.
White, 12 P.2d 870, 871, 40 Ariz.
427.
Ark.— Allison v. Bush, 144 S.W.2d
1087, 201 Ark. 315— Sailer v. State,
92 S.W.2d 382, 192 Ark. 514— Hobbs
v. Lenon, 87 S.W.2d 6, 191 Ark.
509— State v. Wilson, 27 S.W.2d
106, 181 Ark. 683— Stumpff v. Lou-
ann Provision Co., 292 S.W. 106,
173 Ark. 192— Power Mfg. Co. v.
Arkansas Rice Growers' Co-op.
Ass'n, 281 S.W. 379, 170 Ark. 771.
Cal.— Baird v. Smith, 14 P.2d 749,
216 Cal. 40 S — Rico v. Nasser Bros.
Realty Co., 137 P.2d 861, 58 Cal.
App.2d 878— Kirkpatrick v. Harvey,
124 P.2d 367, 51 Cal.App.2d 170—
Gerinl v. Pacific Employees Ins.
Co., 80 P.2d 499, 27 Cal.App.2d 52,
followed in 80 P.2d 502, 27 Cal.
App.2d 767 — Fisch & Co. v. Superi-
or Court in <and for Los Angeles
County, 43 P.2d 855, 6 Cal.App.2d
21 — Corpus Juris cited in Associ-
ated Oil Co. v. Mullin, 294 P. 421,
423, 110 Cal.App. 385.
Colo. — Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co.
v. Board of Com'rs of Fremont
County, 37 P.2d 761, 95 Colo. 435
— Bieser v. Stoddard, 216 P. 707,
73 Colo. 554.
D.C. — Citizens Protective League v.
Clark, 155 F.2d 290— Fishel v. Kite,
101 F.2d 685, 69 App,D.C. 360, cer-
tiorari denied Kite v. Fishel, 59
792
S.Ct. 645, 306 U.S. 656, 83 L.Ed,
1054.
Fla. — State ex rel. Friedrich v. How-
ell, 23 So.2d 153— Town of Bel-
leair v. Newberry, 8 So.2d 7, 150
Fla. 511 — Adams v. Adams, 180 So.
516, 131 Fla. 777, followed in
Adams v. Dommerich, 180 So. 519,
131 Fla, 782— Bemis v. Loftin, 173:
So. 683, 127 Fla. 515.
Ga. — Chappell v. Small, 20t S.E.24'
916, 194 Gte. 143— Payne v. Mc-
Crary, 1 S.E.2d 742, 187 Ga. 573 —
Williams v. Maddox, 134 S.E. 29 D.
162 Ga. 589 — Chance v. Chance, 5:
S.E.2d 399, 60 Ga.App. 889.
Idaho. — Moyes v. Moyes, 94 P.2d 7.82,.
60 Idaho 601 — Corpus Juris quoted"
in Rogers v. National Surety Co.,.
22 P.2d 141, 142, 53 Idaho 128 —
Peterson v. Hague, 4 P.2d 350, Si:
Idaho 175.
111.— Walton v. Albers, 44 N.B.2d 145;.
380 111. 423— Baker v. Brown, 23r
N.B.2d 710, 372 111. 336 — Gunnell
v. Palmer, 18 N.E.2d 202, 370 111.
206, 120 A.L.R. 871— Brown v. Ja-
cobs, 12 N.E.2d 10> 367 111. 545—
Green v. Hutsonville Tp. High,
School Dist. No. 201, 190 N.E. 267;.
356 111. 216— Madison & Kedzie-
State Bank v. * Cicero-Chicago. Cor-
rugating Co., 184 N.B. 218, 351 111:.
180— Balzer v. Pyles, 183. N.B. 215,.
350 111. 344— Healea v. Verne/ 17R
N.E. 562, 343 111. 325— Crane v.
Crane, 173 N.B. 352* 341 111. 36$—
Wyman v. Hageman, 148 N.B. 852,.
318 111. 64— Holt v. Snodgrass, 146
N.E. 562, 315 111. 548— Hummel!
v. Cardwell, 55 N.B.2d 881, 323
Ill.App. 440, affirmed in part and.
reversed in part on other grounds.
62 N.B.2d 433, 390 111. 526, certio-
rari denied 66 S.Ct. 819, three cas-
es, rehearing denied 66 S.Ct. 898,
three cases — Molner v. Arendt, 55>
49 C.J.S. JUDGMENTS §401
except, as discussed infra § 434, for fraud in its | procurement. Even if the judgment is voidable,
N.E.2d 407, 323 IlLApp. 289— Lord
v. Board of Sup'rs of Kane County,
41 N.K2d 106, 314 IlLApp. 161—
Schnur v. Bernstein, 32 N.E.2d 675,
309 Ill.App. 90.
Iowa. — Corpus Juris cited in New
York Life Ins. Co. v. Breen, 289 N.
W. 16, 22, 227 Iowa 738.
Kan. — Federal Savings & Loan Ins.
Corporation v. Hatton, 135 P.2d
559, 156 Kan. 673 — Smith v. Pow-
er, 127 P.2d 452, 155 Kan. 612—
Brotlon v. Luther, 41 P.2d 1017,
141 Kan. 489 — Corpus Juris cited
In. Kansas City Power & Light Co.
v. City of Elkhart, 31 P.2d 62, 64,
139 Kan. 374.
Ky.— -Wells v. Miller, 190 S.W.2d 41,
300 Ky. 680— Wiiburn v. Wilburn,
178 S.W.2d 585, 296 Ky. 781—
White v. White, 172 S.W.2d 72,
294 Ky. 563— Poynter v. Smith, 160
S.W.2d 380, 290 Ky. 169— Nichol-
son v. Thomas, 127 S.W.2d 155,
277 Ky. 760 — Flinn v. Blakeman,
71 S.W.2d 961, 254 Ky. 416— Hous-
ton's Guardian (now Luker) v. Lu-
ker's Former Guardian, 69 S.W.2d
1014, 253 Ky. 602— Wells' Adm'x v.
Hell, 47 S.W.2d 1041, 243 Ky. 282
— Mussman v. Pepples, 22 S.W.2d
605, 232 Ky. 254— Corpus Juris cit-
ed in Parker v. White, 4 S.W.2d
380, 382, 223 Ky. 561— Hoffman v.
Shuey, 2 S.W.2d 1049, 223 Ky. 70,
58 A.L.R. 842— Hays v. Adams, 294
S.W. 1039, 220 Ky. 196— Cain v.
Hall, 278 S.W. 152, 211 Ky. 817
— Woollums v. Fowler, 269 S.W.
721, 207 Ky. 532— Moore v. Carr,
269 S.W. 302, 207 Ky. 388— Logs-
don v. Logsdon, 263 S.W. 728, 204
Ky. 104.
La. — Poise v. St. Bernard Parish Po-
lice Jury, 10 So.2d 892, 201 La.
1048 — Ethridge-Atkins Corporation
v. Tilly, App., 178 So. 669— Meyer
v. Reid, 8 La. App. 23.
Me. — Leavitt v. Youngstown Press-
ed Steel Co., 166 A. 505, 132 Me.
70 — Crockett v. Borgerson, 152 A.
407, 129 Me. 395.
Md. — Spencer v. Franks, 195 A. 306,
173 Md. 73, 114 A.L.R. 263.
Mass. — Noyes v. Bankers Indemnity
Ins. Co., 30 N.E.2d 867, 307 Mass.
567— SciarafCa v. Debler, 23 N.E.2d
111, 304 Mass. 240— Bennett v.
Powell, 187 N.E. 559, 284 Mass.
246 — City of Boston v. Jenney, 184
N.E. 464, 282 Mass. 168— Bremner
v. Hester, 155 N.E. 454, 258 Mass.
425.
Mich. — Life Ins. Co. of Detroit v.
Burton, 10 N.W.2d 315, 306 Mich.
81— Adams v. Adams, 8 N.W.2d
70, 304 Mich. 290— Rudell v. Union
Guardian Trust Co., 294 N.W. 132,
295 Mich. 157— Hoadley v. Gafill
Oil Co., 216 N.W. 407, 241 Mich.
15— Broad well v. Broadwell, 209 N.
W. 923, 236 Mich. 60.
Minn.— In re Melgaard's Will, 274
N.W. 641, 200 Minn. 493— Hawley
v. Knott, 226 N.W. 697, 178 Minn.
225.
Miss.— Neely v. Craig, 139 So. 835,
162 Miss. 712.
Mo. — Corpus Juris cited in Spitcauf-
sky v. Hatten, 182 S.W.2d 86, 100,
853 Mo. 94— Oldham v. Wright, 85
S.W.2d 483, 337 Mo. 170— Jefferson
City Bridge & Transit Co. v. Bla-
ser, 300 S.W. 778, 318 Mo. 373—
Corpus Juris cited in, State v. Dor-
ris, App., 168 S.w!2d 167, 168—
Davis v. Morgan Foundry Co., 23
S.W.2d 231, 224 Mo.App. 162—
Aufderheide v. Aufderheide, App.,
18 S.W.2d 119— State ex rel. Wool-
man v. Guinotte, 282 S.W. 68, 221
Mo.App. 466.
Mont.— Missoula Light & Water Co.
v. Hughes, 77 P.2d 1041, 106 Mont.
355— Coburn v. Coburn, 298 P. 349,
89 Mont. 386.
Neb.— Stanton v. Stanton, 18 N.W.2d
654, 146 Neb. 71.
Nev. — State ex rel. Smith v. Sixth
Judicial Dist. Court, Humboldt
County, 167 P.2d 648.
N.H. — Strong v. New Hampshire Box
Co., 131 A. 688, 82 N.H. 221.
N.J.— Nitti v. Public Service Ry. Co.,
139 A. 62, 104 N.J.Law 67— Lippin-
cott v. Godfrey, 136 A. 174, 103
N.J.Law 407— Stout v. Sutphen, 29
A.2d. 724, 132 N.J.Eq. 583— McMa-
hon v. Amoroso, 154 A. 840, 108
N.J.Eq. 263, certiorari denied Dia-
mond v. McMahon, 52 S.Ct. 31, 284
U.S. 652, 76 L.Ed. 553— Kaplan v.
Heiles, 152 A. 855, 107 N.J.EQ.
443 — Westerhoff v. Citizens Trust
Co., 190 A. 84, 15 N.J.Misc. 202,
affirmed 190 A. 88, 117 N.J.Law
453 — Matawan Bank v. Feldman,
174 A. 442, 12 N.J.Misc. 785—
North Hudson Bond & Mortgage
Co. v. Luberto, 155 A. 259, 9 N.J.
Misc. 637.
N.Y.— Hiser v. Davis, 137 N.E. 596,
234 N.Y. 300— People v. Paterno, 50
N.T.S.2d 713, 182 Misc. 491— Cor-
pus Juris cited in McCarthy v. Mc-
Carthy, 39 N.Y.S.2d 922, 925, 179
Misc. 623, affirmed 52 N.Y.S.2d
817, 268 App.Div. 1070— Shaul v.
Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Mary-
land, 227 N.Y.S. 163, 131 Misc. 401,
affirmed 230 N.Y.S. 910, 224 App.
Div. 773 — In re Chambers' Will, 7
N.Y.S.2d 250, 169 Misc. 124.
N.C.— Newton v. Chason, 34 S.E.2d
70, 225 N.C. 204— State v. Adams,
195 S.E. 822, 213 N.C. 243— Pate
Hotel Co. v. Morris, 171 S.E. 779,
205 N.C. 484 — Duffer v. Brunson,
125 S.B. 619, 188 N.C. 789.
N.D. — Rasmusson v. Schmalenberger,
235 N.W. 496, 60 N.D. 527— Len-
hart v. Lynn, 194 N.W. 937, 50 N.
D. 87,
Ohio.— State v. Le Blond, 140 N.E.
510, 108 Ohio St. 126, certiorari de-
nied and error dismissed State of
793
Ohio ex rel. Hawke v* Le Blond, 44
S.Ct. 134, 263 U.S. 679, 714, 68 L.
Ed. 503, and followed in State v.
Darby, 144 N.E. 611, 109 Ohio St.
632 — Risman v. Krupar, 186 N.E.
830, 45 Ohio App. 29.
Okl. — Collingsworth v. Hutchison, 90
P.2d 416, 185 Okl. 101— Chicago,
R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Excise Board
of Oklahoma County, 33 P.2d 1081,
168 Okl. 428— First Nat. Bank v.
Darrough, 19 P.2d 551, 162 Okl.
243 — Protest of St. Louis-San
Francisco Ry. Co., 19 P.2d 162, 162
Okl. 62— Orth v. Hajek, 259 P.
854, 127 Okl. 59— Lynch v. Collins,
233 P. 709, 106 Okl. 133.
Or. — Linn County v. Rozelle, 162
P.2d 150 — Travelers Ins. Co. of
Hartford, Conn., v. Staiger, 69 P.
2d 1069, 157 Or. 143— Corpus Juris
quoted in McLean v. Sanders, 23
P.2d 321, 322, 143 Or. 524 — Corpus
Juris auoted in Glickman v. Solo-
mon, 12 P.2d 1017, 140 Or. 358—
Title & Trust Co. v. U. S. Fidel-
ity & Guaranty Co., 7 P.2d 805,
138 Or. 467 — Corpus Juris quoted
in Abel v. Mack, 283 P. 8, 10, 131
Or. 586.
Pa. — Hoff v. Allegheny County, 23 A.
2d 338, 343 Pa. 569 — Common-
wealth ex rel. Howard v. Howard,
10 A.2d 779, 138 Pa.Super. 505—
Mulvihill T. Philadelphia Sav.
Fund Soc., 177 A. 487, 117 Pa.
Super. 455 — Marshall v. Keystone
Mut. Casualty Co., Com.PL, 56
Dauph.Co. 343.
R.I. — Corpus Juris cited la McDuff
Estate v. Kost, 158 A. 373, 375,
52 R.I. 136.
S.C. — Greenwood County v. Watkins,
12 S.E.2d 545, 196 S.C. 51— First
Carolinas Joint Stock Land Bank
"of Columbia v. Knotts, 1 S.E.2d
797, 191 S.C. 384— Piedmont Press
Ass'n v. Record Pub. Co., 152 S.
E. 721, 156 S.C. 43, followed in
Spartanburg Herald-Journal Co. v.
La Varre, 152 S.E. 728, 155 S.C.
425.
Tenn.— Fransioli v. Podesta, 134 S.W.
2d 162, 175 Tenn. 340 — Green v.
Craig, 51 S.W.2d 480, 164 Tenn. 445
— Fidelity Phenix Fire Ins. Co. v.
Ford & Cantrell, 47 S.W.2d 558,
164 Tenn. 107 — Sloan v. Sloan, 295
S.W. 62, 155 Tenn. 422 — Brown v,
Jarvis, 123 S.W.2d 852, 22 Tenn.
App. 394.
Tex. — Producers' Refining Co. v. Mis-
* souri, K. & T. R. Co. of Texas,
Com.App., 13 S.W.2d 679 — Produc-
ers' Refining Co. v. Missouri K, &
T. Ry. Co. of Texas, Com. App., 13
S.W.2d 680 — Galbraith v. Bishop,
Com.App., 287 S.W. 1087 — Southern
Surety Co. v. Texas Oil Clearing
House, Com.App., 281 S.W. 1045 —
Witty v. Rose, Civ.App., 148 S.W,
2d 962, error dismissed — Childers
v. Johnson, Civ.App., 143 S.W.2d
§ 401
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
that is, so irregular or defective that it would be
set aside or annulled on a proper direct applica-
tion for that purpose, it is well settled as a general
rule that it is not subject to collateral impeachment
as long as it stands unreversed and in force.28
On the other hand, a judgment which is absolutely
void is entitled to no authority or respect, and there-
fore may be impeached at any time, in any proceed-
ing in which it is sought to be enforced or in which
its validity is questioned, by anyone with whose
rights or interests it conflicts.29 By the weight of
123 — Eakin v. Glenn, Civ.App., 141
S.W.2d 420— Gamble v. Banneyer
Civ.App., 127 S.W.2d 955, affirmed
151 S.W.2d 586, 137 Tex. 7— Allen
v. Trentman, Civ.App., 115 S.W.2d
1177 — Jones v. Griffith, Civ.App.,
109 S.W.2d 565 — Longmire v. Tay-
lor, Civ.App., 109 S.W.2d 525—
Olton State Bank v. Howell, Civ,
App., 105 S.W.2d 287— Southern
Ornamental Iron Works v. Morrow,
Civ.App., 101 S.W.2d 336— Cruse
v. Mann, Civ.App., 74 S.W.2d 545,
error dismissed — Barfield v. Miller,
Civ.App., 70 S.W.2d 632, error dis-
missed—Corpus Juris cited in
Commercial State Bank of Nacog-
doches v. Van Dorn, Civ.App., 25
S.W.2d 192, 193— Corpus Juris cit-
ed in National Surety Co. v. Hemp-
hill, Civ.App., 13 S.W.2d 921, 9
error refused — Mills v. Snyder,
Civ. App., 8 S.W.2d 790 — Sederholm
v. City of Port Arthur, Civ.App,
3 S.W.2d 925, affirmed Tyner v. La
Coste, Com. App., 13 S.W.2d 685
and Tyner v. Keith, 13 S.W.2d 687
— Burleson v. Moffett, Civ.App.,
3 S.W.2d 544— Johnston v. Ste-
phens, Civ.App., 300 S.W. 225, re-
versed on other grounds 49 S.W.
2d 431, 121 Tex. 374.
Utah.— Intermill v. Nash, 75 P.2d
157, 94 Utah 271.
Va. — Law v. Commonwealth, 199 S.
B. 516, 171 Va. 449— Buchanan v.
Buchanan, 197 S.E. 426, 170 Va.
458, 116 A.L.R. 688— Mayes v.
Mann, 180 S.B. 425, 164 Va. 584—
Cottrell v. Reams, 145 S.B. 317,
151 Va. 773.
AVash. — Corpus Juris quoted in Bas-
kin v. Livers, 43 P.2d 42, 43, 181
Wash. 370 — Levinson v. Vander-
veer, 13 P.2d 448, 169 Wash. 254
— Corpus Juris quoted in Treosti
v. Treosti, 13 P.2d 45, 46, 168
Wash. 672.
W.Va. — Crickmer v. Thomas, 200 S.B.
353, 120 W.Va. 769— Newhart v.
Pennybacker, 200 S.B. 350, 120 W.
Va. 774, concurring opinion 200 S.
B. 754, 120 W.Va. 774— Fink v.
Fink, 137 SJE. 703, 103 W.Va, 423.
Wis.— State v. Williams, 245 N.W.
663, 209 Wis. 541— Milwaukee Cor-
rugating Co. v. Flagge, 198 N.W.
394, 184 Wis. 139.
Wyo. — Corpus Juris cited in State v.
District Court of Eighth Judicial
Dist. in and for Natrona County,
238 P. 545, 547, 33 Wyo. 281.
34 C.J. p 511 note 46—25 C.J. p 767
note 51.
TTnf&ir methods
Judgment procured by unfair
methods, after statutory require-
ments essential to jurisdiction have
been complied with, will not be dis-
turbed to injury of innocent third
persons. — Crabb v. Uvalde Paving
Co., Tex.Com. App., 23 S.W.2d 300.
28. U.S.— Corpus Juris cited in
Prichard v. Nelson, C.C.A.W.Va.,
137 F.2d 312, 314— Parker Bros. v.
Fagan, C.C.A.Fla., 68 F.2d 616, cer-
tiorari denied 54 S.Ct. 719, 292 U.S.
638, 78 L.Ed. 1490.
Ariz. — Dockery v. Central Arizona
Light & Power Co., 45 P.2d 656,
45 Ariz. 434.
111.— Walton v. Albers, 44 N.E.2d 145,
380 111. 423— Lord v. Board of
Sup'rs of Kane County, 41 N.E.2d
106, 314 IlLApp. 161— Schnur v.
Bernstein, 32 N.E.2d 675, 309 111.
App. 90.
Ind. — Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New
York v. State, 184 N.E. 916, 98
Ind.App. 485.
Iowa. — Educational Film Exchanges
of Iowa v. Hansen, 266 N.W. 487,
221 Iowa 1153.
Ky.— Hopkins v. Cox, 174 S.W.2d 418,
295 Ky. 286— May v. Sword, 33 S.
W,2d 314, 236 Ky. 412— Grooms v.
Grooms. 7 S.W.2d 863, 225 Ky. 228
—Cain v. Hall, 278 S.W. 152, 211
Ky. 817— Haddix v. Walter, 266 S.
W. 631, 205 Ky. 740— Oliver v.
Belcher, 265 S.W. 942, 205 Ky.
417.
Mass. — Sullivan v. Jordan, 36 N.E.2d
387, 310 Mass. 12.
Mich. — Attorney General ex rel.
O'Hara v. Montgomery, 267 N.W.
550, 275 Mich. 504.
Mo. — Corpus Juris cited in State v.
Ragland, 97 S.W.2d 113, 116, 339
Mo. 452.
Nev. — State ex rel. Smith v. Sixth
Judicial Dist. Court, Humbolt
County, 167 P.2d 648.
N.C.— Clark v. Carolina Homes, 128
S.B. 20, 189 N.C. 703.
Ohio.— Steiner v. Rainer, 42 N.E.2d
684, 69 Ohio App. «.
Okl.— Slemp v. City of Tulsa, 281 P.
280, 139 Okl. 76, appeal dismissed
and certiorari denied 50 S.Ct. 407,
281 U.S. 703, 74 L.Ed. 1127.
Or. — Corpus Juris quoted in Abel v.
Mack, 283 P. 8, 10, 131 Or. 586.
Pa.— In re Limber's Estate, 131 A.
244, 284 Pa. 346— In re Murray's
Estate, 45 A.2d 411, 158 Pa.Super.
504.
Tenn. — State ex rel. Hooten v. Hoot-
en, 1 Tenn. App. 154.
Tex. — Gehret v. Hetkes, Com.App., 36
S.W.2d 700 — Clark v. Puls, Civ.
App., 192 S.W.2d 905, error refused J
794
no reversible error — Wilson v.
King, Civ.App., 148 S.W.2d 442—
Walton v. Stinson, Civ. App., 140 S.
W.2d 497, error refused — Darling-
ton v. Allison, Civ.App., 12 S.W.
2d 839, error dismissed — State
Mortg. Corporation v. Garden, Civ.
App., 11 S.W.2d 212 — Robins v.
Sandford, Civ.App., 1 S.W.2d 520,
affirmed, Com.App., 29 S.W.2d 969
— Gathings v. Robertson, Civ.App.,
264 S.W. 173, reversed on other
grounds, Com. App., 276 S.W. 21 S —
Getting v. Mineral Wells Crushed
Stone Co., Civ.App., 262 S.W. 93.
Utah.— Intermill v. Nash, 75 R2d
157, 94 Utah 271— Corpus Juris
cited in Salt Lake City v. Indus-
trial Commission, 22 P.2d 1046.
1048, 82 Utah 179.
Va. — Corpus Juris cited in Barnes v.
American Fertilizer Co., 130 S.E.
902, 906, 144 Va. 692.
34 C.J. p 513 note 48.
"Good faith, as well as sound pub-
lic policy demands that erroneous
and voidable judgments be set aside
or modified in courts in which they
are rendered." — Jackson City Bank
& Trust Co. v. Fredrick, 260 X.YT.
908, 910, 271 Mich. 538.
The distinction between erroneous
and void judgments is based on
wholesome public policy which facil-
itates final determination of disputed
issues by decreeing that erroneous
judgments may be attacked only di-
rectly, that is, by appeal or in man-
ner prescribed by statute, and void
judgments collaterally only where
fact which rendered them void,
namely, lack of jurisdiction in court
to render them, appears on face of
the record. — Commonwealth ex rel.
Dummit v. Jefferson County, 189 S.
W.2d 604, 300 Ky. 514.
Dormant Judgment
A dormant judgment is not void,
but only voidable, and an order
of sale of execution on dormant judg-
ment is merely voidable, and not
subject to collateral attack.— Mc-
Glothlin v. Scott, Tex. Civ. App., 6 S.
W.2d 129—34 C.J. p 513 note 48 [a].
. U.S. — State of Missouri ex rel.
and to Use of Stormfeltz v. Title
Guaranty & Surety Qo., C.C.A.MO.,
72 «F.2d 595, certiorari denied Title
Guaranty & Surety Co. v. State of
Missouri ex rel. and to Use of
Stormfeltz, 55 S.Ct. 404, 294 U.S.
70'8, 79 L.Ed. 1242— Abraham Land
& Mineral Co. v. Marble Sav. Bank,
D.C.La., -35 F.Supp. 500— In re
American -Fidelity Corporation, B.
C.0al., 28 F.Supp. 462.
49 C.J.S. JUDGMENTS ' §401
authority, whether a judgment is void or voidable f is to be determined from an inspection of the reo
Ala, — Robertson v. State, 104 So.
561, 20 Ala.App. 514.
Ariz. — Hallford v. Industrial Com
mission, 159 P.2d 305.
Ark.— McClellan v. Stuckey, 120 S
W.2d 155, 196 Ark. 516— Taylor v
O'Kane, 49 S.W.2d 400, 185 Ark.
782— Stahl v. Sibeck, 40 S.W.2d 442
183 Ark. 114-3 — Bragg v. Thomp-
son, 9 S.W.2d 24; 177 Ark. 870—
Hart v. Wimberly, 296 S.W.
173 Ark. 1083.
Cal. — Texas Co. v. Bank of America
Nat. Trust & -Savings Ass'n, 53 P
2d 127, 5 Cal.2d 35— Conlin v
Blanchard, 28 P.2d 12, 219 Cal
632— Associated Oil Co. v. Mullin
294 P. 421, 110 QaLApp. 385— Pen-
nell v. Superior Court in and for
Los Angeles County, 262 P. 48, 87
Cal.App. 375.
Colo.— Perdew v. Perdew, -64 P.2d
602, 99 Colo. 544.
Fla. — In re Begg's Estate, 12 So.2d
115, 152 «Fla. 277— Watkins v.
Johnson, 191 So.' 2, 139 Fla. 712—
Corpus Juris cited in Adams v.
Adams, 180 So. 516, 519, 1'31 Fla.
777 — Goodrich v. Thompson, 118
So. -60, 96 Fla. '327— Kroier v. Kroi-
er, 116 So. 7'53, 95 Fla. 865— Ma-
lone v. Meres, 109 So. 677, 91 Fla.
709.
Qa. — Montgomery v. Suttles, 13 S.E.
2d 781, 191 Go. 781— Patten v.
Miller, 8 S.E.2d 757, 190 Ga. 123—
Drake v. -Drake, 1 S.E.2d 573, 1'87
Ga. 423 — Jones v. Jones, 184 -S.E.
271, 181 Ga, 747— Shotkin v. State,
App., 35 S.B.2d 556 — Nixon v. £i.
A. Russell Piano Co., 180 S.B. 743,
51 Ga.App. '399.
Idaho. — Weil v, Defenbach, 208 P.
1025, 36 Idaho '37.
111. — Barnard v. Michael, 63 N.B.2d
858, 392 111. 130 — Anderson v. An-
derson, 44 N.B.2d 54, 380 111. 435
— Noorman v. Department of Pub-
lic Works and Buildings, 8 N.E.2d
637, 36<6 111. 216, dismissed door-
man v. Department of Public
Works and Buildings of State of
Illinois, 58 S.Ct. 30, 302 U.S. 637,
52 L.Ed. 496 — People ex rel. Lange
v. Old Portage Park Dist., 190 NT.
B. 664, 356 111. '340— People v. Mil-
ler, 171 N.E. 672, 339 111. 573—
People v. Brewer, 160 N.B. 76, 328
111. 472— Meyer v. Meyer, 66 N.B.
2d 457, 338 IlLApp. 408— Industrial
Nat. Bank of Chicago v. Altenberg,
64 N.B.2d 219, 327 Ill.App. 'M7—
Walton v. Albers, -40 N.B.2d 90,
313 Ill.App. 304, reversed on other
grounds 44 N.B.2d 145, 380 111. 423
—Schillinger v. O'Connell, 7 N.B.
2d 153, 289 Ill.App. 271— Mclnness
v. Oscar F. Wilson Printing Co.,
258 IlLApp. 161— Levin v. Sylvan
Metal Products Co., 252 IlLApp.
140— .Levy v, Odell, 237 IlLApp.
606.
Ind. — Calumet Teaming & Trucking
Co. v. Young, 33 N.E.2d 109, 21
Ind. 468, rehearing denied '33 N.B
2d 583, 215 Ind. 468.
Iowa.— Brown v. Tank, 297 N.W. 801
230 Iowa 370— Gohring v. Koonce
278 N.W. 283, 224 Iowa 1186— Day
ton v. Patterson, 250 N.W. 595. 216
Iowa 13S2.
Kan.— Starke v. Starke, 125 P.2d 738
second case, 155 Kan. 3'31 — Patter-
son v. Board of Corn'rs of Mont
gomery County, 66 P.2d 400, 145
Kan. 559 — Hoover v. Roberts, 58
P.2d S3, 144 Kan. 58— Franklin v
Jennings, 264 P. 1041, U5 Kan
553.
Ky. — Morris v. Morris, 185 S.W.2d
244, 299 Ky. 2-35— Miller v. Hill
168 S.W.2d 769, 293 Ky. 242—
Booth v. Copley, 140 S.W.2d 662,
283 Ky. 23 — Commonwealth v. Min-
iard, 99 S.W.2d 166, 266 Ky. 405—
Bwing v. Union Central Bank, 72
S.W.2d 4, 254 Ky. 623— Grooms v.
Grooms, 7 S.W.2d 863, 225 Ky. 22-8
— Bowies' Guardian v. Johnson, 291
S.W. 29, 218 Ky. 221.
La. — Nottingham v. Hoss, 141 So.
'391, 19 La.Ajpp. 643— Jones v. Cres-
cent City Ice Mfg. Co., 3 «La.App.
7.
Md.— -JCorpns Juris cited in Fooks'
Ex'rs v. Ghingher, 192 A. 752, 785,
172 Md. 612, certiorari denied Phil-
lips v. Ghingher, 58 S.Ct 47, 302
U.S. 726, 82 L.Ed. 561.
Mass.— Carroll v. Berger, 150 N.B.
870, 255 Mass. 132.
Mich. — Adams v. Adams, 8 N.W.2d
70, 304 Mich. 290— Attorney Gen-
eral ex rel. O'Hara v. Montgomery,
2-67 N.W. 550, 275 Mich. 504— Mor-
ris v. Barker, 235 N.W. 174, 253
Mich. '334.
Miss. — Stephenson v. New Orleans &
N. B. R. Co., 177 -So. 509, 180 Miss.
147 — City of Pascagoula v. Krebs,
118 So. 286, 151 Miss. 676.
Mo.— Faris v. City of Caruthersville,
162 S.W.2d 237, 349 Mo. 454— Da-
vison v. Arne, 155 S.W.2d 155, 348
Mo. 790 — Rhodus v. Oeatley, 147 S.
W.2d 631, 347 Mo. 397— Merz v.
Tower Grove Bank & Trust Co.,
130 S.W.2d 611, 344 Mo. 1150—
Truesdale v. St. Louis Public Serv-
ice Co., 107 S.W.2d 778, 341 Mo.
402, 112 A.L.R. 135-XJorpus Juris
cited in State ex rel. National Lead
Co. v. Smith, App., 184 S.W.2d 1061,
1069 — Simplex Paper Corporation
v. Standard Corrugated Box Co.,
97 S.W.2d 862, 231 Mo.App. 764—
Drake v. Kansas City Public Serv-
ice Co., 41 S.W.2d 1066, 22-6 Mo.
App. 365, rehearing denied 54 S.
W.2d 427, 226 Mo.App. -365— Corpus
Juris cited in National Union 'Fire
Ins. Co. v. Vermillion, App., 19 S.
W.2d 776, 783.
Mont — Barnes v. Montana Lumber
& Hardware Co., 216 P. 335, 67
Mont. 481.
795
Neb.— Oorptis Juris cited in Drainage
Dist. No. 1 v. Village of Hershey,
296 N.W. 879, 882, 139 Neb. 205—
Garrett v. State, 224 N.W. 860, 118
Neb. 373.
Nev.— State ex rel. Smith v. Sixth
Judicial Dist. Court, Humboldt
County, 167 P.2d 648 — Corpus Ju-
ris cited in State ex rel. Wood v.
Haeger, 33 P.23 753, 754, 55 Nev.
331.
N.J.— Corpus Juris quoted In Novo-
grad v. Kayne's, 199 A. 59, -61, 16
N.J.Misc. 283."
N.Y.— In re Rudgers, 294 N.Y.-S. 142,
250 App.Div. 359— Cantor v. Killen,
5 N.Y.S.2d 798, 167 Misc. 620—
Shaul v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of
Maryland, 227 N.Y.S. 163, 131 Misc.
401, affirmed 230 N.Y.S. 910, 224
App.Div. 773.
N.C. — Holden v. Totten, 31 S.B.2d
635, 224 N.C. 547— Butler v. Win-
ston, 27 S.E.2d 124, 223 N.C. 421—
Casey v. Barker, 14 S.B.2d 429, 219
N.C. 465— Abernethy v. Burns, 188
S.B. 97, 210 N.C. 6S6— Pridgea v.
Pridgen, 166 S.E. 591, 203 N.C. 533
—Ellis v. Ellis, 130 S.B. 7, 190 N.
C. 418— Clark v. Carolina Homes,
128 S.B. 30, 189 N.C. 703.
Ohio. — Steiner v. Rainer, 42 N".E.2d
6-84, 69 Ohio App. 6— State v. Price,
164 N.E. 765, 30 Ohio App. 218, af-
firmed Price v. State, 165 N.B. 44,
119 Ohio St. 558.
Okl. — Corpus Juris cited in Porter v.
Hansen, 124 P.24 391, 396, 190 Okl.
429— Prudential Ins. Co. of Ameri-
ca v. Board of Com'rs of Garvin
County, 92 P.2d 359, 185 OkL 362
— Independent Oil & Gas Co. v.
Clark, 52 P.2d 789, 175 Okl. 257—
Henson v. Oklahoma State Bank,
23 P.2d 709, 165 Okl. 1— Baton v.
St Louis-San 'Francisco Ry. Co.,
251 P. 1032, 122 Okl. 143.
Or.— Corpus Juris cited in. Dixie
Meadows Independence Mines Co.
v. Kight, 45 P.2d 909, 911, 150 Or.
895 — Corpus Juris quoted in Abel
v. Mack, 283 P. 8, 10, 131 Or. 5'86.
Pa.— In re Patterson's Estate, 19 A.
2d 16-5, 341 Pa. 177— In re Omber's
Estate, 131 A, 244, 284 Pa. 346—
Mamlin v. Tener, 23 A.2d 90, 146
Pa.Super. 593 — Commonwealth ex
pel. Howard v. Howard, 10 A.2d
779, 138 Pa.Super. 505— Mehalko v.
Dauphin. County, Quar.Sess., 54
Dauph.Co. 363 — Commonwealth v. -
Boyer, Quar.Sess., 6 Fay.L.J. 233.
11 Som.Leg.J. 385.
Tenn. — Tennessee Marble & Brick Co.
v. Young, 163 'S.W.2d, 71, 179 Tenn.
11-6— Blumberg v. Abbott, 21 S.
W.2d 396, 159 Tenn. &S6— West v.
Jackson, App., 186 S.W.2d 915—
Long v. Alford, 14 Tenn. App. 1.
Tex. — Grant v. Ellis, Com.App., 50 S.
W.2d 1093 — Switzer v. Smith, Com.
App., 300 S.W. 31, 68 A.L.R. 377—
Southern Surety Co. v. Texas Oil
§401 JUDGMENTS 49 C.J.SL
ord. If the record discloses the jurisdiction^ de- | feet, the judgment is void;30 if it does not, the
Clearing- House, Com. App., 281 S.
W. 1045 — Maury v. Turner, Com.
App., 244 S.W. 809— Miller v. State
ex rel. Abney, Civ.App.t 155 S.W.2d
1012, error refused— Dittmar v. St.
Louis Union Trust Co., Civ.App.,
155 S.W.2d 388, error refused —
Burrage v. Hunt, Civ.App., 147 S.
W.2d 532, error dismissed, judg-
ment correct — Lipscomb v. Lofland,
Civ.App., 141 S.W.2d 983— Cheney
v. Norton, Civ.App., 126 S.W.2d
1011, reversed on other grounds,
Norton v. Cheney, 161 S.W.2d 73,
138 Tex. 622— Klier v. Richter,
Civ.App., 119 S.W.2d 100, error re-
fused— Longmire v. Taylor, Civ.
App., 109 S.W.2d 525, error dis-
missed— Reynolds v. Volunteer
State Life Ins. Co., Civ.App., SO S.
W.2d 1087, error refused— San Lor-
enzo Title & Improvement Co. v.
Caples, Civ.App., 48 S.W.2d 329,
affirmed 73 S.W.2d 516, 124 Tex.
'33 — Prazier v. Hanlon Gasoline
Co., Civ.App., 29 S.W.2d 461, error
refused — Coffman v. National Mo-
tor Products Co., Civ.App., 26 S.
W.2d 921, error dismissed—
Scruggs v. Gribble, Civ.App., 17 S.
W.2d 153— Dyer v. Black, Sivalls
& Bryson, Civ.App., 13 S.W.2d 142,
error dismissed— White v. Hidalgo
County Water Improvement Dist.
No. 2, Civ.App., 6 S.W.2d 790—
Pumphrey v. Hunter, Civ. App., 270
S.W. 237— Aleman v. Gonzales, Civ.
App., 246 S.W. 726— Reed v. State,
Cr., 1ST S.W.2d 660.
Utah.— Cooke v. Cooke, 248 P. 83, 67
Utah 371.
Va. — Robertson v. Commonwealth, 25
S.E.2d 352, 181 Va. 520, 146 A.L.R.
966— Broyhill v. Dawson, 191 S.E.
779, 168 Va. 321— Powers v. Suth-
erland, 160 S.E. 57, 157 Va. 336—
American Mut. Liability Ins. Co.
v. Hamilton, 1'35 S.B. 21, 145 Va.
391— Hunt v. Kennedy Coal Corpo-
ration, 124 S.B. 189, 140 Va. 17.
Wash.— King County v. Rea, 152 P.
2d 310, 21 Wash.2d 593— France v.
Freeze, 102 P.2d 687, 4 Wash.2d 120
—State v. Bayles, 209 P. 20, 121
Wash. 215.
W.Va.— Pettry v. Hedrick, 19 S.E.2d
583, 124 W.Va. 113.
Wyo.— Boulter v. Cook, 234 P. 1101,
32 Wyo. 461, rehearing denied 236
P. 245, 32 Wyo. 461.
34 C.J. p 514 note 49.
Power of court to dispose of void
judgment
A court of general jurisdiction
may, by virtue of its inherent pow-
ers and without the aid of statutes,
clear its records of a void judgment,
no matter in what form or in what
manner the application to do so is
made, — John Hancock Mat, Life Ins.
Co. v. Gooley, 8$ P.23 221, 196 Wash.
$57, 118 A.L.R. 1484.
Estoppel
(1) Where circumstances are such
as might otherwise afford sufficient
grounds for successful collateral at-
tack on judgment or decree, the con-
duct of the attacking party may be
such as to estop him from availing
himself of those grounds. — Askew v.
Rountree, Tex.Civ.App., 120 S.W.2d
117, error dismissed.
(2) A party is not estopped from
assailing a void Judgment, especially
where the prima facie effect of such
judgment is to confer on the party a
false marital status.— Coast v. Coast,
Tex.Civ.App., 135 S.W.2d 790.
(3) In attacking a decree based on
an application to have land regis-
tered under the Torrens Title Act,
and void on its face, petitioner is
not reauired to excuse himself for
negligence in not asserting his
claim, the fact that he failed to an-
swer the application, in the absence
of other facts creating an estoppel,
being immaterial.— Petition of Fur-
ness, 218 P. 61, 62 Cal.Aj>p. 753.
(4) One is not estopped from ob-
jecting to a determination made by
an administrative body, including in-
dustrial commission, or by a court,
that body or court had no jurisdic-
tion to make. — Zimmermann v. -Scan-
drett, D.C.Wis., '57 F.Supp. 799.
laches or limitations no bar
Neither doctrine of laches nor
statute of limitations applies to col-
lateral attack on judgment void be-
cause of want of jurisdiction, since
there is no time limiting collateral
attack on void judgment. — Garrison
v. Blanchard, 16 P.2d 273, 127 Cal,
App. -616.
Statute m airing1 judgment absolute
not applicable
The statute providing that if pe-
tition for review is not filed within
three years after final judgment is
rendered, the judgment shall stand
absolute applies only to special pro-
cedure on petition for review of a
valid default judgment, as provided
in statute concerning time when final
judgment may be vacated, based on
grounds set out in statute concerning
what must be shown by petition to
set aside judgment, and the statute
concerning time when judgment shall
stand absolute is not applicable to a
judgment which is void for lack of
jurisdiction to enter it. — Hankins v.
Smarr, 137 S.W.2d 499, 345 Mo. 973.
Judgment after dismissal
Judgment of restitution, rendered
after suit for possession of premises
was dismissed, is subject to collat-
eral attack in suit to set it aside. —
Woods v. Wark, 209 N.W. 76, 235
Mich. 90.
In ejectment
The rule which permits a collater-
796
al attack on a void judgment when-
ever it is called to the attention or
the court in any proceeding in which:
it is material to the issue presented
is particularly apposite in an eject-
ment suit in which a party may-
show that any instrument relied on
by his adversary as evidence of title-
is void. — Powell v. Turpin, 29 S.R2d
26, 224 N.C. 67.
On appeal
Void decree could be first attacked'
on appeal. — Powers v. Sutherland,.
160 S.E. 57, 157 Va, 336.
30. U.S. — State of Missouri ex reU.
and to Use of Stormfeltz v. Title-
Guaranty & Surety Co., C.C.A.Mo.,.
72 F.2d 595, certiorari denied Ti-
tle Guaranty & Surety Co. v. State
of Missouri ex rel. and to Use of
Stormfeltz, 55 S.Ct 404, 294 U.S:
708, 79 L.Ed. 1242.
Ariz. — Maricopa County v. Bloomer,
78 P.2d 993, 52 Ariz. 28.
Ark.— Lambie v. W. T. Rawleigh Co.,
14 S.W.2d 245, 178 Ark. 1019.
Cal.— In re Smead's Estate, -82 P.2d
182, 12 Cal.2d 20— Texas Co; v.
Bank of America Nat. Trust &
Savings Ass'n, 53 P.2d 127, 5 Cal.2<T
35 — Security-First Nat. Bank or
Les Angeles v. Superior Court in
and for Los Angeles County, 37 P.
2d 69, 1 Cal.2d 749— Scoville v.
Keglor, 84 P.2d 212, 29 Cal.App.2d
66— Ex parte Wyatt, 300 P. 132;
114 CaLAPP. 557— Petition of Fur-
ness, 218 P. 61, 62 Cal.App. 753.
D.C. — U. S. ex reL Rauch v. Davis;,
8 F.2d 907, 56 App.D.C. 46, certio-
rari denied 4-6 S.Ct. '352, 270 U.-S:.
653, 70 L.Ed. 782.
Idaho. — Rogers v. National Surety-
Co., 22 P.2d 141, 53 Idaho 12S.
111. — Lord v. Board of Sup'rs of Kane-
County, 41 N.E.2d 106, 314 IlLApp.
161.
Kan. — Corpui Juris quoted in Harder
v. Johnson, 76 P.2d 763, 764, 14 T
Kan. 440 — Corpus Juris guoted in:
Skaer v. Capsey, 273 P. 464, 466,
127 Kan. 383.
Miss. — Home v. Moorehead, 153 So-
668, 169 Miss. 362.
Mo. — State ex rel. Holtkamp v. Hart-
mann, 51 S.W.2d 22, 330 Mo. 386—
Corpus Juris cited in State ex rel.-
National Lead Co. v. Smith, App.,.
134 S.W.2d 1061, 1069— Citizens'
Bank & Trust Co. v. Moore, 263'
S.W. 530, 215 Mo.App. 21.
Nev.— -Beck v. Curti, 45 P.2d -601, 36"
Nev. 72.
N.Y. — Corpus Jurii quoted in Nervo
v. Mealey, 25 N.T.S.2d 632, 634, 175-
Misc. 952.
N.C.— -Wyatt v. Berry, 170 S.E. 131,
205 N.C. 118— Fowler v. Fowler,
130 S.B. 315, 190 N.C. 5-36.
N.D. — Johnson v. Ranum, 244 N.W.
-642, 62 N.D. 607 — Zimmerman v.
Boynton, 229 N.W. '3, 59 N.D.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 401
judgment is merely voidable.31 In some jurisdic- I tions, however, as discussed infra § 421, extrinsic
Okl.— Mid-Continent Pipe Line Co. v.
Seminole County Excise Board, 146
P.2d 996, 194 Okl. 40— Crawford v.
Le -Fevre, 61 P.2d 196, 177 Okl. 508
— Sinclair Prairie Pipe Line Co. v.
Excise Board of TuJsa County, 49
P.2d 114, 173 Okl. 375— Excise
Board of Le Flore County v. Kan-
sas City Southern Ry. Co., 47 P.
2d 5SO, 173 Okl. 238 — Moroney v.
State ex rel. Southern Surety Co.,
31 P.2d 926, 168 Okl. 69— Adams v.
Carson. 25 P.2d 653, 165 Okl. 161—
State v. Armstrong, 13 P.2d 198,
158 Okl. 290— Protest of Kansas
City Southern Ry. Co.» 11 P.2d 500,
157 Okl. 246— Excise Board of Car-
ter County v. Chicago, R. I. & P.
Ry. Co., 3 P.2d 1037, 152 Okl. 120
—Bird v. Palmer, 3 P.2d 890, 152
Okl. '3, followed in 3 P.2d 894, 152
Okl. 7— Jent v. Jent, 291 P. 529,
145 Okl. 74— Rock Island Imple-
ment Co. v. Pearsey, 270 P. 846, 133
Okl. 1 — Eaton v. St. Louis-San
Frnncisco Ry. Co.. 251 P. 1032, 122
Okl. 143.
Or. — Corpus Juris quoted in Abel v.
Mack, 283 R 8, 10, 131 Or. 586.
S.C.— Chamberlain v. First Nat.
Bank of Greenville, 24 S.E.2d 158,
202 S.C. 115 — First Carolinas Joint
Stock Land Bank of Columbia v.
Knotts, 1 S.B.2d 797, 191 S.C. 3-S4
—Stone v. Mincey, 185 S.E. 619, 180
S.C. 317— Hood v. Cannon, 182 S.
E. 306, 178 S.C. 94.
Tenn. — Lynch v. State ex rel. Kille-
brew, 166 S.W.2d 397, 179 Tenn.
339 — New York Casualty Qo. v.
Lawson, 24 S.W.2d 881, 160 Tenn.
329.
Tex. — Ringgold v. Graham, Com.App.,
13 S.W.2d 355— Gehret v. Hetkes,
Com.App., 36 S.W.2d 700— Smith v.
Paschal, Com.App., 1 S.W.2d 1086,
rehearing denied 5 S.W.2d 135 —
Hatch v. Kubena, Civ.App., 190 S.
W.2d 175, reversed on other
grounds, Sup., Kubena v. Hatch,
193 S.W.2d 175— Litton v. Waters,
Civ.App., 161 S.W.2d 1095, error
refused — Buhrman - Pharr Hard-
ware Co. v. Medford Bros., Civ.
App., 11$ S.W.2d 345, error refused
—•Ferguson v. Ferguson, Civ.App.,
98 S.W.2d 847 — Adams v. Epstein,
Civ.App., 77 S.W.2d 545— Simms
Oil Co. v. Butcher, Civ.App., 55 S.
W.2d 192, error dismissed — Ter-
rell v. Alpha Petroleum Co., Civ.
App., 54 S.W.2d 821, affirmed Alpha
Petroleum Co. v. Terrell, 59 S.W.2d
364, 122 Tex. 257, amended 59 S.
W.2d 372, 122 Tex. 257, and fol-
lowed in Alpha Petroleum Co. v.
Walker, 59 S.W.2d 3T3, 122 'Tex.
246 — Edinburg Irr. Co. v. Ledbet-
ter, Civ.App., 247 S.W. 335, modi-
fled on other grounds, Com. App.,
286 S.W. 185— Aleman v. Gonzales,
Civ.App., 24$ S.W. 726.
Utah.— Intermill v. Nash, 75 P.2d 157,
94 Utah 271 — Frankey v. Patten,
284 P. 318, 75 Utah 231— Stock-
yards Nat. Bank of South Omaha
v. Bragg, 245 P. 966, 67 Utah 60.
Va.— Wood v. Kane, 129 S.E. 327, 143
Va. 251.
C.J. p 514 note 50.
A test in determining whether
judgment is void and subject to "col-
lateral attack" is whether, if party
attacking it had been a party there-
to, a motion in arrest could have
been sustained for defects appearing
in face of pleadings, which could not
have been aided by amendment or
cured by verdict.— Deck v. Shields,
25 S.E.2d 514, 195 Ga. 697.
Judgment constituting' collateral at-
tack on judgment
Where first final decree of county
court in probate proceeding was val-
id and not subject to collateral at-
tack, orders made in connection with
special administration proceedings
and second Anal decree constituted a
collateral attack" on the first final
decree, and were void on the face of
the judgment roll and subject to
collateral attack, and county court
properly vacated all orders made in
connection therewith. — Porter v.
Hansen, 124 P.2d 391, 190 Okl. 429.
31. U.S. — Corpus Juris cited in
Prichard v. Nelson, C.C.A.W.Va.,
137 F.2d '312, 314— State of Mis-
souri ex rel. and to Use of Storm-
feltz v. Title Guaranty & Surety
Co., C.C.A.MO., 72 F.2d 595, certio-
rari denied Title Guaranty & Sure-
ty Co. v. State of Missouri ex rel.
and to Use of Stormfeltz, 55 S.CL
404, 294 U.S. 708, 79 L.Ed. 1242.
Ala.— Wise v. Miller, 111 So. 913, 215
Ala. 660.
Ariz. — Dockery v. Central Arizona
Light & Power Co., 45 P.2d 656, 45
Ariz. 434.
Cjal. — Wells Fargo & Co. v. City and
County of San Francisco, 152 P.2d
625 — Kaufmann v. California Min-
ing1 & Dredging Syndicate, 104 P.
2d 1038, 16 Cal.2d 90— Texas Co. v.
Bank of America Nat Trust & Sav-
ings Ass'n, 53 P.2d 127, 5 Cal.2d
36 — Hamblin v. Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, 233 P. 337, 195
Cal. -364, 4'3 A.L.R. 1509— Rico v.
Nasser Bros. Realty Co., 137 P.2d
861, 68 Cal.App.2d 878— Stevens v.
Kelley, 134 P.2d 66, 57 Cal.App.2d
.318— Kirkpatrick v. Harvey, 124 P.
2d 367, 51 CaLApp.2d 170— People
v. Spivey, 77 P.2d 247, 25 Cal.App.
2d 279 — Burrows v. Burrows, 52 P.
2d 606, 10 Cal.App.2d 749— Ream v.
Barr, 291 P. 451, 108 CaLApp. 172.
Ga. — Payne v. McCrary, 1 S.E.2d 742,
187 Ga. 573 — Thomas v. Lambert, 1
S.E.2d 443, 187 Ga. 616.
Idaho.— Welch v. Morris, 291 P. 1048,
49 Idaho 781.
797
Ind.— Cooper v. Morris, 200 N.B. 222,
210 Ind. 162.
Kan.— Corpus Juris quoted in Harder
v. Johnson, 76 P.2d 763, 764, 147
Kan. 440 — Corpus Juris quoted in
Skaer v. Capsey, 273 P. 464, 466,
127 Kan. 38-3.
Ky.— Bailey v. Jones, 14 S.W.2d 152,
228 Ky. 42— Collier v. Peninsular
Fire Ins. Co. of America, 263 S.
W. 353, 204 Ky. 1.
Mont— Frisbee v. Coburn, 52 P.2d
S82, 101 Mont. 58 — Coburn v. Co-
burn, 29-8 P. 349, 89 Mont. 386— In
re Ft Shaw Irr. Dist, 261 P. 962,
81 Mont. 170.
N.C.— Clark v. Carolina Homes, 128
S.B. 20, 189 N.C. 703.
N.D. — Corpus Juris cited in Rasmus-
sen v. Schmalenberger, 235 N.W.
496, 499, 60 N.D. 527.
Okl.— >Lee v. Harvey, 156 P.2d 134,
195 Okl. 178— Mid-Continent Pipe
Line Qo. v. Seminole County Excise
Board,' 146 P.2d 996, 194 Okl. 40—
Sabin v. Levorsen, 145 P.2d 402,
193 Okl. 320, certiorari denied 64
S.Ct 205, '320 U.S. 792, 88 L.Ed.
477, rehearing denied -64 S.Ct 368,
320 U.S. 815, 88 L.Ed. 492— Adams
v. Carson, 25 P.2d 653, 165 Okl. 161
— Protest of St. Louis-San Fran-
cisco Ry. Co., 19 P.2d 162, 162 Okl.
62 — Protest of Kansas City South-
ern Ry. Co., 11 P.2d 500, 157 Okl,
246— Protest of St Louis-San
•Francisco Ry. Co., 11 P.2d 189, 157
Okl. 131— Reliance Clay Products
Co. v. Rooney, 10 P.2d 414, 157 Okl.
24— Excise Board of Creek County
v. Gulf Pipe Line Co. of Oklahoma,
9 P.2d 460, 156 Okl. 103— Bird v.
Palmer, 3 P.2d 890, 152 Okl. 3. fol-
lowed in 3 P.2d 894, 152 Okl. 7.
Or. — Corpus Juris auoted in Abel v.
Mack, 283 P. 8, 10, 131 Or. 586.
S.C. — Stone v. Mincey, 185 S.E. 619,
180 S.C. 317— Scott v. Newell, 144
S.E. 82, 146 -S.C. 385.
Tex. — Gehret v. Hetkes, Com.App., 36
S.W.2d 700 — Ringgold v. Graham,
Com.App., 13 S.W.2d 355— Williams
v. Coleman-Fulton Pasture Co.,
Civ.App., 157 S.W. 3d 995, error re-
fused— Perdue v. Miller, Civ.App.,
64 S.W.2d 1002, error refused —
Edinburg Irr. Co. v. Ledbetter, Civ.
App., 247 S.W. 335, modified on oth-
er grounds, Com. App., 286 S.W.
185.
Utah. — Corpus Juris cited in Salt
Lake City v. Industrial Commis-
sion, 22 P.2d 1046, 1048, 82 Utah
179.
Va.— Wood v. Kane, 129 S.B. 327, 143
Va. 281.
Wash. — Corpus Juris cited in
Thompson v. Short, 106 P.2d 720,
724, 6 Washed 7L
34 C.J. p 514 note 51.
402
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
evidence is admissible to show the jurisdictional
defect. In order to make a judgment subject to
collateral attack it must have been rendered by a
court without legal organization ;32 or, as discussed
infra §§ 421-427, by a court without jurisdiction.
Where an attack is collateral, the ordinary rules
governing a direct attack on a judgment have no
bearing in determining the contention,33 and the
only question before the court is whether the judg-
ment or decree is void.34
§ 402. To What Judgments and Courts Rule
Applies
In general the rule against collateral attack applies
to all varieties of valid Judgments In all kinds of judi-
cial proceedings.
The rule against the collateral impeachment of
judgments applies generally to all varieties of judg-
ments, decrees, or orders made by courts of compe-
tent jurisdiction, in all kinds of judicial proceed-
ings,35 such as, among others, contempt proceed-
ings,38 summary proceedings,37 tax proceedings,38
garnishment,39 judgments against political subdivi-
sions of a state,40 proceedings against partnerships
or partners,41 judgments in interpleader suits,42
mortgage foreclosures,43 or proceedings relating to
32. Tex.— Hill v. Lofton, Civ.App.,
165 S.W. 67.
34 C.J. p 514 note 53.
33. Cal. — Kaufmann v. California
Mining & Dredging Syndicate, 104
P.2d 1038, 16 Cal.2d 90.
G«L Neb.— Douglas County v. Fee-
nan, 18 N.W.2d 740, 146 Neb. 156.
35. CaL — Lieberman v. Superior
Court of California in and for
Orange County, 236 P. 570, T2 Cal.
App. 18.
Fla. — Kennedy v. Seville Holding Co.,
169 So. &60, 125 Fla. 415.
111. — Brown v. Jacobs, 12 N.E.2d 10,
267 111. 545— Murphy v. Murphy,
175 N.B. 378, 343 111. 254— -Union
Trust Co. v. <First Trust & Savings
Bank, 252 Ill.App. 337.
Mass.— McKay v. Polep, 42 N.E.2d
538, 311 Mass. 567.
Mo. — State ex rel. and to Use of
Conran v. Duncan, 63 S.W.2d 135,
3*33 Mo. 673.
X.J. — Lane v. Rushmore, 198 A. 872,
123 N.J.EQ. 531, affirmed 4 A.2d
55, 125 N.J.Eq. 310, certiorari de-
nied Rushmore v. Lane, 59 S.Ct.
1033, 307 U.S. 636, S3 L.Ed. 1518.
N.C. — Mclver Park, Inc., v. Brinn, 27
S.E.2d 548, 223 N.C. 502.
34 C.J. p :515 notes 58, 59.
Decrees in equity see Equity § 615.
Motions and orders see the C.J.S. ti-
tle Motions and Orders § 66, also
42 C.J. p 560 note 85 et seq.
Proceedings in rem see infra § 910.
Interlocutory orders
The rule against collateral attack
on judgments applies to protect in-
terlocutory orders and proceedings
as well as final judgments. — Daven-
port v. East Texas Refining Co., Tex.
Civ.App., 127 S.W.2d 312, error re-
fused—34 C.J. p 515 note 58 [cj.
Order directing' arbitration is not
assailable collaterally, unless void. —
Marchant v. Mead-Morrison Mfg. Co.,
169 N.E. 386, 25'2 N.T. 284, reargu-
ment denied 171 N.E. 770, 253 N.Y.
534, appeal dismissed Mead-Morrison
Mfg. Co. v. Marchant, 51 S.Ct. 104,
282 U.S. 808, 75 «L.Ed. 725.
BKtension of time for payment of
guaranty
Trial court's orders granting bank
deposit guarantors extension of time
for payment of guaranty were held
"judgments" which could not be col-
laterally attacked in action on guar-
anty, by bank's receiver, since there
was issue for judicial determination
in proceedings before trial court,
which issue was whether guarantors
were entitled to have time of pay-
ment of their guaranty extended and
bank's receiver enjoined from selling
collateral and bank's realty in mean-
time, which issue, in nature of things
court could not determine without
adjudging that guaranty was in
force. — Hopkins v. Woodside, 180 S.
E. 454, 176 S.C. 463.
36. Pa. — Hoskins v. Somerset Coal
Co., 68 A. 843, 219 Pa. 373, 123 Am.
S.R. 667.
37. Mich. — Hafner v. A. J. Stuart
Land Co., 224 N.W. 630, 246 Mich.
465.
Or. — Corpus Juris cited in National
Surety Corporation v. Smith, 123
P.2d 203, 218, 168 Or. 265.
34 C.J. p 515 note -63.
38. Wis. — State v. Baker, 286 N.W.
535, 232 Wis. 383, rehearing denied
287 N.W. 690, 232 Wis. 383, certio-
rari denied Baker v. State of Wis-
consin, 60 S.Ct. 582, 309 U,S. 662,
84 L.Ed 1010.
39. Mich* — Walden v. Crego's Es-
tate, 285 N.W. 457, 288 Mich. 564.
34 C.J. p 515 note 65.
40. Okl.— Mid-Continent Pipe Line
Co. v. Seminole County Excise
Board, 146 P.2d 996, 194 Okl. 40—
Standish Pipe Line Co. v. Okla-
homa County Excise Board, 102
P.2d 606, 187 Okl. 245— Sinclair
Prairie Pipe Line Co. v. Excise
Board of Tulsa County, 49 P.2fl
114, 173 Okl. 375— Excise Board of
Le Flore County v. Kansas City
Southern Ry. Co., 47 P.2d 580, 173
798
Okl. 238— Protest of Kansas City
Southern Ry. Co., 11 P.2d 500, 157
Okl. 246— Paught v. City of Sapul-
pa, 292 P. 15, 145 Okl. 164.
41. Ga. — Burson v. Shields, 129 S.E.
22, 160 Ga. 723.
47 C.J. p 1015 note 72.
42. Tex. — Texas-Pacific Coal & Oil
Co. v. Ames, Com. App., 292 S.W.
191.
43. U.S. — McCampbell v. Warrich
Corporation, C.C.A.I11., 109 F.2d
115, certiorari denied 60 S.Ct. 1077,
310 U.S. 631, 84 X,.Ed. 1401, rehear-
ing denied 61 S.Ct. 55, second case,
311 U.S. 612, !85 L.Ed. 388, and 61
S.Ct. 1089, '313 U.S. 599, 85 L.Ed.
1551 — In re 7000 South Shore Drive
Bldg. Corporation, C.C.A.I11., 86 P.
2d 499.
Ark.— Hobbs v. Lenon, 87 S.W.2d 6,
191 Ark. 509— Lambie v. W. T.
Rawleigh Co., 14 S.W.2d 245, 178
Ark. 1019.
Idaho. — Gerken v. Davidson Grocery
Co., 296 P. 192, 50 Idaho 315.
111.— Weber v. Kemper, 150 N.E. 339,
•320 111. 11.
Iowa, — 'Fremont Joint Stock Land
Bank of Premont, Neb., v. Poster,
247 N.W. 815, . 215 Iowa 1209—
Lyster v. Brown, 228 N.W. 3, 210
Iowa 317.
Mich.— Detroit Fidelity & Surety Co.
v. Donaldson, 237 N.W. 380, 255
Mich. 129.
Minn. — Brown v. Gallinger, 246 N.W.
473, 188 Minn. '22.
Mo. — Owen v. Long, 104 -S.W.2d 365,
•340 Mo. 539.
Okl.— Pappe v. -Law, tfo P.2d 941, 169
Okl. 15, 95 A.L.R. 939.
Tex. — Tanton v. State Nat. Bank of
El Paso, Civ.App.t 43 S.W.2d 857,
affirmed 79 S.W.2d 833, 125 Tex.
16, 97 A.L.R. 1093— Sederholm v.
City of Port Arthur, Civ.App., 3
S.W.2d 925, affirmed Tyner v. La
Coste, 13 S.W.2d 685 and Tyner v.
Keith, Com. App., 13 S.W.2d 687.
Wis. — Mason v. West Park Realty
, Co., 213 N.W. 286, 193 Wis. 14.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 402
realty,44 such as suits for partition45 or water
rights.46 The rule applies to orders or judgments
dismissing the cause ;4? vacating, modifying, or
setting aside former judgments,* 8 allowing amend-
ments;49 decrees of reformation of instruments,50
setting aside sales on execution ;51 distributing pro-
ceeds of execution sales;52 distributing assigned es-
tates;53 settling accounts;54 or authorizing a re-
ceiver to pay claims,55 to levy an assessment,56 or
to sue debtors.57 The rule also applies to nunc pro
tune judgments,58 judgments in actions on foreign
judgments subsequently reversed,5^ proceedings to
revive a judgment,60 judgments or orders for
costs61 or fixing attorney's fees,62 judgments for-
44. Pla. — State ex rel. Everette v.
Petteway, 179 So. 666, 131 'Pla. 516.
111. — Wyman v. Hageman, 148 N.E.
852, 318 111. 64.
S.C. — Cox v. American Oil Co., 191
S.E. 704, 18'3 -S.C. 519.
Tex. — Forrest v. Coppard, Civ.App.,
300 S.W. 959.
34 C.J. p 515 note 69.
Proceeding's to quiet title
U.S. — Bruun v. Hanson, C.C.A.Idaho,
103 F.2d 685, certlorari denied
Hanson v. Bruun, 60 S.Ct. 86, 308
U.S. 571, 84 L.Ed. 479,' mandate
conformed to Bruun v. Hanson, 30
F.Supp. 602.
Cal.— Hollyfleld v. Geibel, 66 P.2d
755, 20 Cal.App.2d 142— Alameda
County Title Ins. Co. v. U. S. Fi-
delity & Guaranty Co., 8 P.2d 912,
121 Cal.App. 73.
N.J. — Hoffmeyer v. Kieran, 14'3 A.
425, 103 N.J.Eq. 254.
Collateral attack on decree of regis-
tration of land title see the C.J.S.
title Registration of Land Titles
§ 20, also 53 C.J. p 1117 notes 20-
22.
45. U.S. — Dunscombe v. Loftin, C.C.
A.'Fla., 154 F.2d 963.
111.— Katz v. Berkos, 45 N.E.2d 566,
316 Ill.App. 569.
Mo.— Miller v. Proctor, 49 S.W.2d 84,
330 Mo. 43.
Tex. — 'Ferguson v. Ferguson, Civ.
App., 181 S.W.2d 601, error refused.
47 C.J. p 438 notes 85, 89.
Confirmation of sale
A judgment confirming partition
sale and impounding money share of
certain party was final and could not
be collaterally attacked, and hence
subsequent judgment quieting title
in such party and restraining sale of
his interest was not res judicata and
was ineffective, since title had passed
to purchaser at partition sale. —
Drake v. Morrow, 299 N.W. 545, 140
Neb. 258.
County court
Under Civ.Code Pract § 499, the
county court is made a court of gen-
eral jurisdiction for the partition of
lands among joint owners, and as
such its judgments in partition are
immune from collateral attack on
jurisdictional grounds as other judg-
ments of courts of general jurisdic-
tion, and are supported by the same
presumptions as support the judg-
ments of any other court of general
jurisdiction. — Morgan v. Big Woods
•Lumber Co., 249 S.W. 329, 198 Ky.
88.
Under special statute
It is immaterial that the partition
proceedings were had in a .court of
general jurisdiction under a special
statute.— Falkner v. Guild, 10 Wis.
563.
49. Idaho. — McLean v. Row, 57 P.2d
689, 56 Idaho -646.
34 C.J. p 515 note 70.
47. U.S. — Olsen v. Muskegon Piston
Ring Co., C.C.A.Mich., 117 F.2d 163
— O'Brien v. New York Edison Co.,
D.C.N.T., 26 'F.Supp. 290.
Ky.— Clark's Adm'x v. Callahan, 288
S.W. 301, 216 Ky. 674.
N.Y. — People v. Townsend, 233 N.Y.
S. -632, 133 Misc. -843.
34 C. J. p 515 note 71.
Dismissal on motion.
Dismissal of one defendant on mo-
tion of plaintiff cannot be collateral-
ly attacked.— Sharp v. Hall, Tex.Civ.
A-pp., 49 S.W.2d 523, error refused.
Dismissal on consent
Judgment of dismissal entered in
accordance with statute and with
consent of intervener was valid and
binding on intervener and not sub-
ject to collateral attack. — Dollert v.
Pratt-Hewit Oil Corporation, Tex.
Civ.App., 179 S.W.2d '346, error re-
fused, certiorari denied 65 S.Ct. 713,
324 U.S. 853, 89 L.Ed. 1412, rehearing
denied 65 S.Ct. 912, 324 U.S. 889, £9
L.Ed. 1437.
48. U.S.— Mootry v. Grayson, Idaho,
104 F. 613, 44 C.C.A. 83.
34 C.J, p 515 note 72—56 C.J. p 881
note 38.
Decree that default judgment is void
Where the trial court found that
an agreed judgment was entered on
theory that a default judgment was
void, decreed that default judgment
was void, and reinstated cause as a
pending cause, the decree was a final
decree not subject to collateral at-
tack.—Slattery v. Uvalde Rock As-
phalt Co., Tex.Civ.App., 140 S.W.2d
987, error refused.
Oertiorari
Judgment of the circuit court in
certiorari proceedings, quashing rec-
ord of civil service commission dis-
charging- relator, was a legal deter-
mination that relator was entitled to
be restored to his office, and cannot
be collaterally attacked until re-
versed or set aside. — People v.
Thompson, 146 N.B. 473, '316 111. 11.
49. Pa. — Maloney v. Simpson, 75 A.
675, 226 Pa. 479.
34 C.J. p 515 note 7-3.
799
60. Tex.— Peters v. Allen, Civ.App.,
296 S.W. 929.
61. Me. — International Wood Co. v.
National Assur. Co., 59 A, 544, 99
Me. 415, 105 Am.S.R. 288.
34 C.J. p 515 note 74.
62. Pa.— Noble v. Cope, 50 Pa. 17—
Appeal of Yerke, 8 Watts & S. 224.
53. Ohio. — Hellebush v. Rtchter, 37
Ohio St. 222.
Pa. — Commonwealth v. Steacy, 100
Pa. 613.
54. U.S.— Mattingly v. Nye, D.C., 8
Wall. 370, 19 L.Bd. 380.
55. N.M. — Union Trust Co. v. Atchi-
son, T. & S. F. R. Co., 42 P. 89,
'8 N.M. 159.
56. Md.— Mister v. Thomas, 89 A.
844, 122 Md. 445.
34 C.J. p 516 note 79.
57. Ga. — Graves v. Denny, 54 S.E.
187, 15 Ga.App. '718.
111.— Broch v. French, 116 IlLApp.
15.
58. Ind.— Miller v. Muir, 86 N.E.2d
496, 115 Ind.App. 335.
Mo.— Allen v. Bagley, 133 S.W.2d
1027, 234 Mo.App. 891.
Okl. — Corpus Juris quoted in In re
Cannon's Guardianship, 77 P.2d
64, 66, 182 Okl. 171.
34 C.J. p 516 note 81, p 82 note 14.
69. U.S. — Sanger Lumber Co. v.
Western Lumber Exchange, O.C.A.
Wash., 11 F.2d 489.
60. Ga. — Helms v. Marshall, 49 S.E.
733, 121 Ga. 769.
34 C.J. p 516 note 82.
81. Ky. — Commonwealth, for Use
and Benefit of Bouteiller, v. Ray,
122 S.W.2d 750. 275 Ky. 758.
34 C.J. p 516 note 83.
Confirmation of order of sale
Where circuit court confirmed or-
der of sales made by its master com-
missioner, which embodied taxation
of his costs, without exception being
filed thereto, the judgment became-
"final" and was not subject to collat-
eral attack by means of suit to re-
cover excessive costs allegedly taxed
by the master commissioner. — Com-
monwealth, for Use and Benefit of
Bouteiller, v. Ray, supra.
62. Ark.— Western Casualty & Sure-
ty €o. v. Independent Ice Co., 80-
S.W.2d 626, 190 Ark. 684.
La. — In re Phoenix Building & Home-
stead Ass'n, 14 So.2d.447, 203 La.
565.
34 C.J. p 516 note 84.
403
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
felting recognizances,68 or orders of restitution on
vacating or reversing judgments.64 Even conflict-
ing orders made by a court of superior jurisdiction
cannot be collaterally attacked in a court of in-
ferior jurisdiction.65
§ 403. By Confession or on Consent or
Offer
The rule against collateral attack applies to Judg-
ments on confession or by consent.
The rule against collateral attack applies to judg-
ments entered on confession,66 either in open court
or under warrants of attorney,67 and also to such as
are rendered by consent of parties, as the result of
a compromise or settlement.68 A stipulation for
judgment by a trustee in his individual capacity has
been held not to prevent his raising a question of
error therein in his capacity as trustee.69
§ 404.
By Default
A valid default judgment may not be attacked col-
laterally.
A judgment entered by default, the court having
jurisdiction, is as conclusive against collateral im-
lien
establishing attorney's
Evidence respecting contract be-
tween plaintiffs in execution and de-
fendant, and respecting services ren-
dered, was properly rejected as col-
lateral attack on judgment establish-
ing attorneys' lien.— Dyal v. Watson,
162 S.E. 682, 174 Ga. 3-30.
63. Ind.— Rubush v. State, 13 N.E.
877, 112 Ind. 107.
Ky. — Kelly v. Lank, 7 B.Mon. 220.
64. Ohio. — Hiler v. Hiler, 35 Ohio
St. 645.
Pa.— Breading v, Blocher, 29 Pa. 347.
65. CaL — Galvin v. Palmer, 66 P.
572, 134 Cal. 426.
N.Y.— Hennessey v. Sweeney, 57 N.
Y.S. 901, 28 N.Y.Civ.Proc. 332.
34C.J. p 516 note 37.
ee. 111.— Alton Banking & Trust Co.
v. Gray, 259 IlLApp. 20, affirmed
179 N.E. 469, 347 111. 99 — Stead v.
Craine, 256 IlLApp. 445.
ST.J.— 'Fidelity Realty Co. v. Fidelity
Corporation of New Jersey, 157
A. 154, 109 N.J.Eq. SSI.
Ohio. — State ex rel. Fulton v. Sol-
lars, 7 N.E.2d 818, 54 Ohio App.
450.
Pa. — Scheide v. Home Credit Co., 162
A. 321, 107 Pa. Super. 204 — Wayne
v. International Shoe Co., 18 Pa.
Dist. & Co. 521.
34 C.J. p 516 note -88.
Void Judgment
A challenge addressed to the Juris-
diction of the court to render judg-
ment may be advanced at any time
by any party, including the Judg-
ment debtor against whom a Judg-
ment by confession has been entered.
—American Cities Co. v. Stevenson,
60 N.Y.S.Sd 685.
617. Ohio.— McAllister v. Schlemmer
& Graber Co., 177 N.E. 841. 39 Ohio
App. 434.
34 C.J. p 516 note 89.
Payment 'before Judgment
Since a warrant of attorney to con-
' f ess judgment is founded on the fact
of a present indebtedness, on pay-
ment the warrant fails and a judg-
ment entered thereon would be void
and subject to collateral attack.
U.S.— First Nat. Bank v. Cunning-
ham, C.C.Ky., 48 P. 510.
111.— Rea v. Forrest, 88 111. 275.
Wash.— Cowen v. Culp, 166 P. 789,
97 Wash. 480.
68. U.S.— Coggeshall v. U. S., C.C.
A.S.C., 95 F.2d 986 — Rector v. Sun-
crest Lumber Co., C.C.A.N.C., 52
F.2d 946.
Ala.— A. B. C. Truck Lines v. Kene-
mer, 25 So.2d 511.
C. — Bloedorn v. Bloedorn, 76 F.2d
812, 64 App.D.C. 199, certiorari de-
nied 55 S.Ct 658, 295 U.S. 746, 79
L.E<L 1691.
Ga.— Valdosta Bank & Trust Co. v.
Davis, 122 S.E. 187, 157 Ga. 746.
. — Pulley v. Chicago, R, I. & P-
Ry. Co., 251 P. 1100, 122 Kan. 269.
Ky.— Haddix v. Walter, 266 S.W. 631,
205 Ky. 740.
LA.— Napoleonville Moss Mfg. Co. v.
Templet, 139 So. 546, 19 La.App.
61.
. — Warren v. Stanton County, 15
N.W.2d 757, 145 Neb. 220.
N.T. — People v. Townsend, 233 N.
T.S. 632, 133 Misc. 843.
N.C. — La Londe v. Hubbard, 164 S.
E. 359, 202 N.C. 771.
Ohio. — Sponseller v. Sponseller, 144
N.E. 48, 110 Ohio St 395.
Tex.— Logan v. Mauk, Civ.App., 126
S.W.2d 513, error dismissed— Per-
due v. Miller, Civ.App., 64 S.W.2d
1002, error refused— Posey v.
Plains Pipe Line Co., Civ.App., 39
S.W.2d 1100, error dismissed.
34 C.J. p 516 note 90.
An agreed Judgment fixing bound-
aries between certain lands was not
subject to collateral attack in an ac-
tion for alleged trespass. — Pierce v.
Huff. 143 S.W.2d 183, 283 Ky. 753.
m condemnation proceedings
Where a consent Judgment in con-
demnation suit recited that all par-
ties interested in tract of land had
been served with process and that
they had agreed on a purchase price
and that the United States should
hold title to the land free of all
claims and judgment was signed by
attorney representing landowners
the judgment was valid and not sub-
800
ject to collateral attack by those
owning interests in land who were
over twenty-one years of age at time
consent Judgment was entered. —
Watson v. U. S., D.C.N.C., «4 F.Supp.
777.
Consent decree, even though of
interlocutory nature, within purview
of pleadings and scope of Issues is
valid and binding on all parties con-
senting, and not open to collateral
attack. — Curry v. Curry, 79 F.2d 172,
65 App.D.C. 47.
Injunction decree entered by con-
sent is not subject to impeachment in
application to conditions then exist-
ing.—U. S. v. Swift & Co., App.D.C.,
52 S.Ot 460, 286 U.S. 106. 76 L.Ed.
999.
Judgment coram non Judioa
Where a court adjudicates a mat-
ter not embraced In issues as made
by pleadings, that part of judgment
is coram non Judice and void, and
fact that judgment is by consent of
all parties does not affect right of
any of them to dispute its validity.
— Texas Empire Pipe Line Co. v.
Stewart, App., 35 S.W.2d 627, re-
versed on other grounds 55 S.W.2d
283, 331 Mo. 525— Owens v. McCleary,
MO.APP., 273 S.W. 145.
A "Judgment in retraadt" can be
attacked on grounds of mental In-
capacity of plaintiff only by motion
in the cause. — Steele v. Beaty, 2 S.
E.2d 854, 215 N.C. 680— Gibson v.
Gordon, 197 S.E. 135, 213 N.C. 666.
The void contractual provisions of
an agreed judgment are subject to
collateral attack and if judgment en-
tered in state's suit to cancel oil
leases of university lands was an
agreed judgment and agreements ev-
idenced thereby were unenforceable
because of lack of authority of at-
torney general to bind state there-
by, it was immaterial whether at-
tack thereon was direct or collateral.
— State v. Reagan County Purchas-
ing Co., Tex.Civ.App., 18S S.W.2d 128,
error refused.
89. Conn. — Shaw v. Spelke, 147 A.
675, 110 Conn. 208.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
405
peachment as any other form of judgment.70 How-
ever, a default judgment, rendered by a court not
having jurisdiction, like any other void judgment,
is subject to collateral attack at any time when it is
sought to be made the basis of a right, where the
record itself in such case discloses the infirmity.71
§ 405. In Criminal Cases
As a general rule, the Judgment of a court having
Jurisdiction of an offense and of the party charged with
Its commission is not open to collateral attack.
As a general rule; the judgment of a court hav-
ing jurisdiction of an offense and of the party
charged with its commission is not open to collateral
attack.72 Where, however, the judgment is void,73
70. Ark. — Banks v. Qorning Bank &
Trust Co., 68 S.W.2d 452, 188 Ark.
341, certiorari denied 54 S.Ct. 863,
292 U.S. 653, 78 L.Ed. 1502.
Cal.— Gray v. Hall, 265 P. 246, 20'3
Cal. 306.
Colo.— Smith v. Smith, 230 P. 597, 76
Colo. 119.
Fla.— Ennis v. Giblin, 2 So,2d 382, 147
Fla. 113.
Idaho. — U. S. Building & Loan Ass'n
v. Soule, 68 P.2d 40, 57 Idaho 691.
Kan. — Pattison v. Kansas State
Bank, 247 P. 643, 121 Kan. 471.
Ky. — Perry Mercantile Co. v. Miller,
25 S.W.2d 35, 233 Ky. 148.
Neb.-rScheumann v. Prudential Ins.
Co. 'of America, 19 N.W.2d 48, 146
Neb. 173.
N.Y.— Pape v. Red Cab Mut. Casual-
ty Co., 219 N.Y.S. 135, 128 Misc.
456.
N.D. — Erker v. Delchert, 222 N.W.
615, 57 N.-D. 474.
34 C.J. p 516 note 91.
Default judgment against partners
Where partnership, as maker, and
firm members, as accommodation in-
dorsee or sureties, were sued joint-
ly on firm note, indorsed by members,
and where some members filed -pleas
and answers, but none were filed by
firm an<3t other accommodation in-
dorsers or sureties, and case was
marked in default as to firm and lat-
ter sureties, and where verdict and
judgment were rendered against
members filing no pleas or answers,
but no judgment was rendered
against firm, judgment against such
members was not void, and was not
subject to collateral attack by one of
defendants thereto, In petition to re-
strain sheriff and one claiming un-
der purchaser of his land under such
judgment from interfering with his
possession thereof. — Burson v.
Shields, 129 S.E. 22, 160 Ga. 723.
71* U.S. — Commonwealth of Ken-
tucky, for Use and Benefit of Kern
v. Maryland Casualty Co. of Balti-
more, Md., C.C.A.Ky., 112 F.2d 352.
34 C.J. p 516 note 92.
Becord in default oases
When defendant has defaulted the
judgment roll ordinarily includes the
complaint, summons, affidavit of
service, memorandum of defendant's
default indorsed on the complaint,
and the judgment — Petition of Fur-
ness, '218 P. 61, 62 Cal.App. 753.
72. U.S.— Bo wen v. Johnston, 59 S.
Ct 442, 306 U.S. 19, 83 L.Bd. 455—
49 O.J.S.— 51
Lucas v. Sanford, C.C.A.'G-a., 145
F.2d 229— Northwestern Oil Co. v.
Socony- Vacuum Oil Co., C.C.A.Wis.,
138 'F.2d 967, certiorari denied 64
S.Ct 790, 321 U.S. 792, 88 L.Ed.
1081 — Price v. Johnston, C.C.A.Cal.,
125 -F.2d 806, certiorari denied 62
•S.Ct 1106, 316 U.S. 677, 86 L.Ed.
1750, rehearing denied 62 S.Ct
1289, 316 U.S. 712, 86 L.Bd. 1777—
Forthoffer v. Swope, CLC.A.Wash.,
10'3 F.2d 707— In re Tinkoff, C.C.A.
111., 95 F.2d 651, certiorari denied
Ex parte Tinkoff, 58 S.Ct 1049, 304
U.S. 573, 82 L.Ed. 1538, rehearing
denied 59 S.Ct 249, 305 U.S. 675,
S3 L.Bd. 437— Aderhold v. Soileau,
C.C.A.Ga., 67 'F.2d 259— Bledsoe v.
Johnston, D.C.Cal., 58 'F.Supp. 129
— Barnsdall Refining Corporation
v. Birnamwood Oil Co., D.C.Wis.f
32 F.Supp. 308.
Ala.— State v. Riddle, 105 So. 259,
•213 Ala. 430— Grayson v. State, 182
So. 579, 28 Ala.App. 210— James v.
State, 181 So. 709, 28 Ala.App. 225.
Cal.— People v. Titus, 259 P. 465, 85
CaLApp. 41'3.
Colo.— Smith v. Phelps, 28 P.2d 1004,
94 Qolo. "33— Marchi v. People, 224
P. 1053, 75 Colo. 254.
D.C.— Bowles v. -Laws, 45 F:2d 669,
59 App.D.O. 399, certiorari denied
51 S.Ct 488, 283 U.S. 841, 75 L.Ed.
1452.
Ga, — Kinman v. Clark, 195 S.B. 166,
185 Ga. 338— Wells v. Pridgen, 114
S.B. 355, 154 Ga. 397.
111. — People ex rel. Kerner v. Hunter,
17 N.E.2d 29, 369 111. 427— People
v. Allen, 14 N.B.2d 397, '368 111. 368,
certiorari denied Allen v. People
of State of Illinois, -60 S.Ct 132,
308 U.S. 511, -84 L.Ed. 436— People
ex rel. Courtney v. Thompson, 192
N.E. 693, 358 111. 81.
Ind.— Kunkel v. Moneyhon, 17 N.E.Sd
82, 214 Ind. 606.
Kan. — Brockway v. Wagner, 268 P.
96, 126 Kan. 285.
Mich. — Kougoulas v. Sorlas, 233 N.W.
414, 252 Mich. 557— Turbessi v,
Oliver Iron Mining Co., 229 N.W.
454, 250 Mich. 110, 69 A.L.R. 1059.
Okl.— Morgan v. State, 90 P.2d 683,
66 OkLCr. "205.
Or. — Corpus Juris cited in Capos v.
Clatsop County, 25 P.2d,903, 907,
144 Or. 510, 90 A.L.R. 289.
Pa.— in re Moskowitz, 196 A. 498,
329 Pa. 183 — Commonwealth v,
Cauffiel, 148 A. -311, 298 Pa. 319.
Teac.— Pridemore v. San Angelo
801
Standard, .Qiv.APp., 164 S.W.2d 859,
error refused — Xiitchfleld v. State,
179 S.W.2d 507, 147 Tex.Cr. 201—
Lutz v. State, 176 S.W.2d 317, 146
Tex.Cr. 503 — Bx parte Brown, 165
•S.W.2d 718, 145 TexXJr. 39— Toone
V. State, 161 S.W.2d 90, 144 Tex.Cr.
98 — Ex parte Seymour, 1-28 S.W.
2d 46, 137 Tex.Cr. 103 — Ex parte
Butler, 31 S.W.2d 827, 116 Teac.Cr.
134.
Va.— Eagle, Star and British Domin-
ions Ins. Co. v. Heller, 140 S.E.
314, 149 Va. S2, 57 A.X..R. 490.
Wash.— State v. -Lindsey, 272 P. 72,
150 Wash. 121.
34 C.J. p 517 note 9'8.
Habeas corpus as collateral attack
see Habeas Corpus § 26.
Sentence on record of court control-
ling"
As against a claim of variance be-
tween a commitment and the sen-
tence as orally pronounced, the only
sentence known to law is the sen-
tence or judgment entered on rec-
ords of court, and, if entry Is inac-
curate, there is remedy by motion
to correct it, but judgment imports
verity when collaterally assailed. —
Hill v. U.,S. ex rel. Wampler, Pa,, 56
act. 760, 298 U.-S. 460, 80 L.Bd. 1283
— U. S. v. Rollnick, D.C.Pa., 'SS F.
Supp. 863.
Nolle prosequi
Record^ judgment docket in county
recorder's court showing a nolle
prosequi has been held not impeach-
able collaterally by parol evidence of
defendant's indictment and judge's
disposition of case therein on subse-
quent superior court trial for same
offense. — State v. Norris, 173 S.B. 14,
6 N.C. 191.
Suspension of sentence and probation
Where owner of vessel took vessel
from lien claimant and on complaint
of lien claimant was convicted of
grand theft, sentence for which was
suspended and (probation granted,
owner's subsequent action for declar-
atory relief to determine whether
such lien existed was not barred as
a "collateral attack" on a judgment
which had become final by reason of
failure to appeal, since on suspen-
sion of sentence and granting of pro-
bation there could be no final judg-
ment and an appeal was precluded. —
Balestreiri v. Arques, 122 P.2d 277,
49 €al.App.2d £64.
73. m. — People v. Buffo, 149 N.E,
271, 318 111. 380.
§ 406
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
or rendered tinder an unconstitutional statute74 ot
by a court wholly unauthorized by law,75 it is a
nuflity, and as such may be collaterally assailed.
A collateral attack may be made in a criminal case
when its purpose is to punish a crime committed by
means of the decree, judgment, or record collat-
erally attacked.76
§ 406. Judgments and Orders in Spe-
cial Proceedings
Judgments and orders in special proceedings are
within the rule prohibiting collateral attack.
The rule against collateral attack applies to or-
ders and judgments made by the courts in special
proceedings taken before them, although not in the
nature of contested actions, or purely ex parte, pro-
vided the matter involves a judicial determination
and carries the sanction of the court's authority.77
§ 407. Judgments of Particular Courts
or Tribunals
a. In general
b. Probate courts
c. Coordinate courts
d. Boards and officers acting judicially
a. In General
The rule against collateral attack applies to valid
Judgments of courts of limited or inferior jurisdiction.
A domestic judgment rendered by a court of in-
ferior jurisdiction is not open to collateral attack
when the facts requisite to confer jurisdiction ap-
pear affirmatively on the face of the proceeding,78
but if the facts do not so appear it may be attacked
collaterally.79 These rules apply to judgments ren-
dered by justices of the peace, as discussed in the
CJ.S. title Justices of the Peace § US, also 35 CJ.
p 684 note 33-p 687 note 67, or on appeal from,80 or
founded on,81 judgments of inferior courts. By
statute it is often provided that on the filing of a
transcript of a judgment of a magistrate or justice
of the peace, the judgment shall become a judgment
of the higher court, and in such a case it is not open
to collateral attack if valid on its face.82
Absence of provision for review. Some cases
hold that, when no appeal or other form of review
is provided for, the judgments of inferior courts
may be assailed collaterally ;83 but there is also au-
thority to the contrary.84
Pa.— In re Moskowitz, 196 A. 498, 329
Pa, 183.
Tex. — Ex parte /Brown, 165 S.W.2d
718, 145 Tex.Cr. 39.
34 C.J. p 517 note 99.
The judgment of a police court
convicting" a child under sixteen
years of age is open to collateral at-
tack for lack of jurisdiction and the
absence of jurisdiction may be shown
by extrinsic evidence.— Ex parte
Swehla, 220 P. 299, 114 Kan. 712.
74. N.J.— Ex parte Rose, 6 A.2d ESS,
122 N.J.Law 507, followed in Ex
parte Miller, 6 JL2d 389, 122 N.J.
Law 511 and Ex parte Sterling, 6
A.2d 390, 122 N.J.Law S10.
34 C. J. «p 517 note 1.
75. 'Fla. — McDonald v. Smith, 66 So.
430, 68 Fla. 77.
76. U.S.— U. S. v. Bradford, C.C.La.,
148 F. 413, affirmed 152 F. 616, 81
C.C.A. 606, certiorari denied 27 S.
Ct. 795, 208 U.S. 563, 51 L.Ed. 1190.
77. Cal. — Corpus Juris cited in Pe-
tition of Header, 89 P.2d 654, 656,
32 Cal.App.2d 309.
34 C.J. p 517 note 4.
Judgments or orders to which rule
has been applied
(1) Judgment appointing justice of
peace.
Ark. — Adams v. Van Buren County,
139 S.W.2d 9, 200 Ark. 269.
Mo. — state ex reL General Motors
Acceptance Corporation v. Brown,
48 S.W.-2d «57, 330 Mo. 220— Bul-
lock v. B. JL Electric Supply Co.,
60 S.W.2d 733, 227 Mo.App. 1010.
(2) Judgment in a mandamus case.
Mich.— Brachman v. Hyman, 299 N.
W. 101, 298 Mich. 344.
N.T. — Congregation Anshe Sefard of
Keap Street v. Title Guarantee &
Trust Co., 50 N.E.2d 534, 291 N.T.
35, 148 A.'L.R. 647, motion denied
51 N.E.2d 939, 291 N.T. 669.
(3) Other judgments or orders.
Ga. — Bradley v. Simpson, 2 S.E.2d
238, 59 Ga.App. 844, reversed on
other grounds -Sim-pson v. Bradley,
5 S.E.2d 893, 189 Ga. 316, mandate
conformed to Bradley v. Simpson,
6 S.E.2d 424, 61 Ga.App. 495, cer-
tiorari denied 60 S.Ct. 1105, 310 U.
S. 643, 84 L.Ed. 1410, rehearing de-
nied 61 S.Ct. 56, 311 U.S. 725, 85
L.Ed. 472.
Ky. — Lippold v. Hagner, 10 S.W.2d
619, 226 Ky. 103.
Mo. — State ex inf. Mansur v. Huff-
man, 2 S.W.2d 582, 318 Mo. 991.
Pa. — Edwards v. Prutzman, 165 A.
255, 108 Pa.Super. 184.
Tex. — Shaw v. Strong, 96 S.W.2d 27£,
128 Tex. 65— Trozzi v. McColl, Civ.
App., 276 S.W. 961.
34 C.J. p 517 note 4 [a].
78. FUu — Corpus Juris cited in,
Crosby v. Burleson, 195 So. 202,
142 Fla. 443.
N.J.— Mangani v. Hydro, Inc., 194 A.
264, 119 N^T.Law 71.
Or. — Corpus Juris cited in McLean
v. Sanders, 23 P.2d 321, 322, 143
Or. 524.
Va.— Kiser v. W. M. Ritter Lumber
Co., 18 S.B.2d 319,. 179 Va. 128.
802
W.Va. — State v. Thompson, 130 S.E.
456, 100 W.Va. 253.
34 C.J. p 517 note 5.
Particular courts within, rule
(1) United States district courts.
—Sells v. Jones, 9 So.2d 160, 151
Fla. 38.
(2) Land court.
Ky. — Givens v. U. S. Trust Co., 65
S.W.2d 682, 251 Ky. 587.
Mass.— Bell v. Eames, 39 N.E.2d 582,
310 Mass. 642.
Okl. — Pennington Grocery Co. v. Ortr
wein, 88 P.2d 331, 184 Okl. 501.
79. Colo. — In re Zupancis' Heirship,
111 P.2d 1063, 107 Colo. 323.
Fla,— Krivitsky v. Nye, 19 So.2d 563,
155 Fla. 45— State ex rel. Everette
v. Petteway, 179 So. 666, 131 Fla.
516.
34 C.J. p 518 note 6.
80. Cal.— Breeze v. Ayres, 49 Gal.
208.
34 C.J. p 518 note 8.
81. Cal'.— Moore v. Martin, 38 Cal.
428.
82. 111. — Toung v. Zacher, 80 N.E.
945, 226 111. 327.
B.C. — Love v. Dorman, ,74 S.E. 829,
91 S.C. 384.
83. N.T. — Wilcox v. Supreme Coun-
cil R. A., 136 N.T.S. 377, 151 App.
Div. 297, affirmed 104 N.E. 624, 210
N.T. 370, 52 L.R.A.,N.S., 806.
34 C.J. p 518 note 12.
84. Cal. — Lucey v. Municipal Court
of City of Los Angeles, 150 P.2d
549, 65 CaLApp.2d 228.
34 C.J. p 518 note 13,
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 407
b. Probate Courts
Orders and decrees of courts having probate Juris-
diction in any cas.e in which Jurisdiction has attached
generally are not open to contradiction or regxami nation
in any collateral proceeding.
Orders and decrees of courts having probate ju-
risdiction, in any case in which jurisdiction has at-
tached generally are not open to contradiction or
reexamination in any collateral proceeding,85 al-
85. U.S. — Harlan v. Sparks, C.C.A.
N.M., 125 P.2d 502— Stuart v. Tapp,
C.C.A.Okl., 81 F.2d 155— Palmer v.
Palmer, D.C.Conn,, 31 F.Supp. 861.
Ala. — Cassady v. Davis, 15 So.2d
909, 245 Ala. 93— Venable v. Tur-
ner, 183 So. 644, 236 Ala. 483—
Albright v. Creel, 182 So. 10, 236
Ala. 286 — Montgomery v. Ham-
mond, 153 So. 654, 228 Ala. 449—
Ex parte Wilkinson, 126 So. 102,
220 Ala. '529.
Ark.— Reed v. Putrall, 115 S.W.2d
542, 195 Ark. 1044— Levinson v.
Treadway, 78 S.W.2d 59, 190 Ark.
201 — Branch v. Veterans' Admin-
istration, 74 S.W.2d 800, 189 Ark.
662— Sewell v. Reed, 71 S.W.2d 191,
189 Ark. -50 — Sullivan v. Times
Pub. Co., 24 S.W.2d 865, 181 Ark.
27 — Sharum v. Meriwether, 246
S.W. 501, 156 Ark. 331.
CaL— In re Keet's Estate, 100 P.2d
1045, 15 Cal.2d 328— Texas Co. v.
Bank of America Nat Trust &
Savings Ass'n, 53 P.2d 127, 5 Cal.
2d 35— Wood v. Roach, 14 P.2d
170, 125 CaLApp. 631.
Fla. — Corpus Juris cited la Crosby
v. Burleson, 195 So. 202, 207, 142
Fla. 443.
Ga. — Beavers v. Williams, 23 S.B.2d
171, 194 Ga. 875— Zeagler v. Zeag-
ler, 15 S.B.2d 478, 192 Ga, 453—
Scarborough v. Long, 197 S.B. 796,
186 Ga. 412, certiorari denied 59
S.Ct 107, 305 U.S. 637, 83 L,Ed.
410 — Murphy v. Hunt, App., 37 S.
B.2d 823— Davis v. Tyson, 4 S.B.2d
704, 60 Ga.App. 714.
Idaho. — Horn v. Cornwall, 139 P.2d
757, 65 Idaho 115— Penn Mut. Life
Ins. Co. v. Beauchamp, 66 P.2d
1020, 57 Idaho 530— Short v.
Thompson, 55 P.2d 163, 56 Idaho
361 — Knowles v. Kasiska, 268 P.
3, 46 Idaho 379 — Larsen v. Larsen,
256 P. 369, 44 Idaho 211.
111.— Healea v. Verne, 175 N.B. 562,
343 111. 325.
Iowa. — Corpus Juris cited in Ander-
son v. Schwitzer, 20 N.W.2d 67, 71
— Atkin v. Westfall, 17 N.W.2d
532, 235 Iowa 618— Gibbs v. Beck-
ett, 295 N.W. 165, 229 Iowa 619—
Reidy v. Chicago, B. & Q. Ry, Co.,
249 N.W. 347, 216 Iowa 415.
Me.— In re Roukos' Bstate, 35 A.2d
861, 140 Me. 183— Neely v. Ha-
vana Electric Ry. Co., 10 A.2d 358,
136 Me. 352— Hines v. Ayotte, 189
A. 835, 135 Me. 103 — Chaplin v.
National Surety Corporation, 185
A. 516, 134 Me. 496— Goodwin v.
Boutin, 155 A. 738, 130 Me. 322.
Mass.— Wilbur v. Hallett, 26 N.E.2d
322, ,305 Mass. 554— Lee v. Wood,
181 N.E, 229, 279 Mass. 293—
Brackett v. Fuller, 180 N.B. 664,
279 Mass. 62 — Healy v. Granahan,
175 N.B. 735, 275 Mass. 338—
Judge v. National Sec. Bank of
Boston, 172 N.B. 76, 272 Mass. 286
— Farquhar v. New England Trust
Co., 158 N.B. 836, 261 Mass. 209.
Mich.— In re Ives, 23 N.W.2d 131,
314 Mich. 690— Dodge v. Detroit
Trust Co., 2 N.W.2d 509, 300 Mich.
575— Heap v. Heap, 242 N.W. 252,
258 Mich. 250— Dudex v. Sterling
Brick Co., 212 N.W. 92, 237 Mich.
470.
Minn. — Brotton v. Donovan, 224 N.
W. 270, 177 Minn. 34— De Wolf v.
Bricson, 220 N.W. 406, 175 Minn.
68 — State v. Freeman, 210 N.W.
14, 168 Minn. 374.
Mo. — In re Sheldon's Bstate, 189 S.
W.2d 235— Linville v. Ripley, 146
S.W.2d 581, 347 Mo. 95— Corpus
Juris cited in Blattel v. Stallings,
142 S.W.2d 9, 13, 346 Mo. 450—
Sheehan v. First Nat. Bank, 140
S.W.2d 1, 346 Mo. 227— Jones v.
Peterson, 72 S.W.2d 76, 335 Mo.
242— Hidden v. Edwards, 285 S.W.
462, 313 Mo. 642— Viehmann v.
Viehmann, 250 S.W. 565, 298 Mo.
356 — Citizens' Bank & Trust Co.
v. Moore, 263 S.W. 530, 215 Mo.
App. 21.
Neb.— Mead Co. v. Doerfler, 18 N.W.
2d 524, 146 Neb. 2— In re Robinson
Heirship, 228 N.W. 852, 119 Neb.
285, followed in In re Clark, 228
N.W. 858, 119 Neb. 306.
N.J. — The Ordinary of New Jersey v.
Webb, 170 A. 672, 112 N.J.Law 395
— Charles Wiener & Sons v. Fisch-
er, 179 A. 632, 118 N.J.Ba. 387.
N.M. — Ware v. Farmers' Nat. Bank
of Danville, 24 P.2d 269, 37 N.M.
415.
N.T.— Fisher v. Fisher, 170 N.B. 912,
253 N.T. 260, 69 A.L.R. 918.
Ohio. — State ex rel. Young v. Mor-
row, 2 N.E.2d 595, 131 Ohio St.
266— Gibbons v. Daykin, App., 37
N.B.2d 389— Reitz v. Smith, 10 N.
B.2d 150, 56 Ohio App. 72.
Okl. — Petroleum Auditors Ass'n v.
Landis, 77 P.2d 730, 182 Okl. 297—
Calkin v. Wolcott, 77 P.2d 96, 182
Okl. 278— Flynn v. Vanderslice, 44
P.2d 967, 172 Okl. 320— Baird v.
Patterson, 44 P.2d 90, 172 Okl.
158— Harrison v. Orwig, 299 P. 143,
149 Okl. 54— Stevens v. Dill, 285 P.
845, 142 Okl. 138— Dill v. Stevens,
284 P. 60, 141 OkL 24— Manuel v.
Kidd, 258 P. 732, 126 Okl. 71—
Dill v. Anderson, 256 P. 31, 124
Okl. 299— McNaughton v. Lewis,
254 P. 972, 124 Okl. 181— Cum-
mings v. Inman, 247 P. 379, 119
Okl. 9 — Johnson v. Petty, 246 P.
803
848, 118 Okl. 178— O'Neill v. Cun-
ningham, 244 P. 444, 119 Okl. 157
— Gallaghar v. Petree, 230 P. 477,
103 Okl. 295— Tiger v. Drumright,
217 P. 453, 95 Okl. 174, certiorari
denied 44 S.Ct 452, 264 U.S. 592,
68 L.Ed. 865, and error dismissed
45 S.Ct. 350, 267 U.S. 578, 69 L.Ed.
797— Bowling v. Merry, 217 P. 404,
91 Okl. 176— In re Green's Estate,
196 P. 128, 80 Okl. 256.
Or.— Wilson v. Hendricks, 102 P.2d
714, 164 Or. 486.
Pa. — In re Tourison's Estate, 184 A.
95, 321 Pa. 299— Swartz v. Crum,
167 A. 414, 110 Pa.Super. 102.
S.D.— Higgins v. Higgins, 20 N.W.2d
523 — In re ReQua's Estate, 18 N.
W.2d 791.
Tenn. — Shelby County v. Anderson,
10 Tenn.App. 437.
Teac.-rDallas Joint Stock Land Bank
of Dallas v. Forsyth, 109 S.W.2d
1046, 130 Tex. 563, rehearing de-
nied 112 S.W.2d 173, 130 Tex. 563—
Sloan v. Woods, Com.App., 25 S.W.
2d 309 — Hannon v. Henson, Com.
App., 15 S.W.2d 579— Moore v.
Wooten, Com.App., 280 S.W. 742,
rehearing denied 283 S.W. 153 —
Barker v. Graham, Civ. App., 149 S.
W.2d 316 — Lipscomb v. Lofland,
Civ.App., 141 S.W.2d 983, error dis-
missed, judgment correct — Loew-
enstein v. Watts, Civ.App., 119 S.
W.2d 176, affirmed 137 S.W.2d 2,
134 Tex 660, 128 A.L.R. 910—
White v. Baker, Civ.App., 118 S.W..
2d 319— McLeod v. Carroll, Civ.
App., 109 S.W.2d 316, affirmed Car-
roll v. McLeod, 130 S.W.2d 277,
133 Tex. 571— Reed v. Harlan, Civ,
App., 103 S.W.2d 236, error refused
— Rodden v. Smith, Civ.App., 95
S.W.2d 997 — Armstrong v. Ander-
son, Civ.App., 91 S.W.2d 775, re-
versed on other grounds Anderson
v. Armstrong, 120 S.W.2d 444, 132
Tex. 122, rehearing denied 132 S.
W.2d 393, 132 Tex. 122— Kreis v.
Kreis, Civ.App., 36 S.W.2d 821, er-
ror dismissed — Askey v. Power,
Civ.App., 58 S.W.2d 1041, affirmed
94 S.W.2d 13ff, 127 Tex. 335— Math-
ews v. Myers, Civ.App., 42 S.W.2d
1099— Dial v. Martin, Civ.App., 37
S.W.2d 166, reversed on other
grounds Martin v. Dial, Com.App.,
57 S.W.2d 75, 89 A.L.R. 571— Kreis
v. Kreis, Civ.App., 36 S.W.2d 821,
error dismissed — Tannery v. Pirtle,
Civ.App., 19 S.W.2d 862— Paschal
v. Hobby, Civ.App., 296 S.W. 336,
reversed in part on other grounds
and affirmed In part Smith v. Pas-
chal, Com. App., 1 S.W.2d 1086, re-
hearing denied 5 S.W.2d 135— Mc-
Grady v. Clary, Civ.App., 247 S.W.
1099.
§ 407
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
though their decrees have been held, in at least one
jurisdiction, not conclusive as to the fact of juris-
diction.8^ The general rule applies, for example, to
decrees of partition made by a probate court hav-
ing jurisdiction for that purpose,87 to an order of
sale,88 and to judgments determining inheritance
taxes.80 On the other hand, since the jurisdiction
of probate courts is confined to particular matters,
if it affirmatively appears that the jurisdictional
facts did not exist, their decrees are subject to col-
lateral attack.90 The general principle that decrees
of a probate court are not subject to collateral at-
tack should not be stretched to the extent of fur-
nishing a shield to one who, without actual or con-
structive notice to anyone in interest, fraudulently
obtains a decree for the purpose of swindling an
estate.91
c. Coordinate Courts
Decisions In courts of law may not be collaterally
attacked In courts of equity, and vice versa.
A judgment at law may not be impeached collat-
erally in a court of equity,02 nor can the validity of
a decree rendered by a court of equity be impeached
in a collateral action at law.03 The effect of state
judgments in federal courts and that of federal
judgments in state courts are discussed infra §§
900, 901,
d. Boards and Officers Acting Judicially
The rule against collateral attack applies to deci-
sions of state and county or municipal boards and offi-
cers acting judicially.
The rule against collateral impeachment of judi-
cial decisions applies to the determinations of state
and county officers or boards of officers, who, al-
though not constituting a court, are called on to
act judicially in matters of administration,94 such
Va, — Denny v. Searles, 143 S.R 484,
150 Va, 701.
Wash. — Federal Land Bank of Spo-
kane v. Schidleman, 75 P.2d 1010,
193 Wash. 435.
34 C.J. p S18 note 14—15 C.J. p 1021
note 82.
Statutory and limited Jurisdiction,
Where jurisdiction to set aside ex-
emptions to widow in the absence of
administration is statutory and lim-
ited, the probate court's judgments
and decrees in such a case ere un-
impeachable only where the court
proceeds to final decree in accord-
ance with provisions of statute. —
Dake v. Inglis, 194 So. 673, 239 Ala.
241.
Proceeding* in rem
Where petition was sufficient to
invoke statutory jurisdiction of pro-
bate court and proceeding was in
rem, no subsequent errors or irregu-
larities are available on collateral
attack.— Bedwell v. Dean, 132 So. 20,
222 Ala. 276.
Foreclosure
Probate court having acquired ju-
risdiction of decedent's estate, par-
ties, and subject matter, its order
authorizing executrix to mortgage
specified realty for expense of alter-
ation and repair could not be col-
laterally attacked by decedent's heirs
intervening in action to foreclose
mortgage, interveners' remedy being
by appeal from order, or by mo-
tion or other proceeding in probate
court to have order set aside. —
Walker Bank & Trust Co. v. Steely,
84 P.2d 56, 54 Idaho 591.
In suit for specific performance of
agreement to purchase realty, to
which plaintiff derived title under
residuary clause of will, it was not
open to defendant to object that
payments of unpaid balance of lega-
cy therein to deceased legatee's
heirs, as shown by executors' ac-
counts, allowed without objection by
probate court decrees not appealed
from or sought to be opened, were
not properly made in satisfaction
of such legacy. — Mahoney v. Noll-
man, 35 N.E.2d 265, 309 Mass. 522.
Suit for attorney's fee*
Order and judgment of probate
court, in which estate was being
probated, authorizing employment of
attorneys to protect interest of es-
tate could not be collaterally attack-
ed in attorney's suit for fees for
services rendered estate, on ground
that probate court did not have au-
thority prior to rendering of services
to determine whether services were
necessary.— Bearden v. McParlane,
Tex.Civ.App., 103 S.W.2d 392, error
dismissed.
86. Conn.— Lewis v. Klingberg, 123
A. 4, 100 Conn. 201.
United Jurisdiction,
Probate courts are courts of lim-
ited jurisdiction and on application
for writ of habeas corpus, regarding
custody of a minor, refusing an of-
fer of proof that minor was an il-
legitimate child, having a living
mother, that the decree of the pro-
bate court appointing respondent
guardian of minor's person was
made without notice to the mother
and without proceedings to remove
the mother as guardian, as required
by statute and that it was void for
want of jurisdiction, was error, since
the decree of the probate court was
not conclusive and could be attacked
collaterally.— Lewis v. Klingberg,
supra,
804
87. Mich. — Scripps Corp. v. Parkin*
son, 153 N.W. 29, 186 Mich. 663.
34 C.J. p 519 note 15 — 17 C,J. p 438
note 88.
88. Mo.— Linville v. Ripley, 146 S.
W.2d 581, 347 Mo. 95.
89. Wis.— Beck v. State, 219 N.W.
197, 196 Wis. 242 and Beck v. Mil-
waukee County, 219 NVW. 205, 196
Wis. 259, certiorari denied Beck v.
Milwaukee County, Wis., 49 S.Ct.
34, 278 U.S. 639, 73 L.Bd. 554.
OO. Idaho. — Moyes v. Moyes, 94 P.
2d 782, 60 Idaho 601.
Mo. — Viehmann v. Viehmann, 250 S.
W. 565, 298 Mo. 356— Corpus Juris
cited in, In re Main's Estate, App.,
152 S.W.2d 696, 700.
N.T. — Jones v. R. Toung Bros. Lum-
ber Co., 45 N.T.S.2d 308, 180 Misc.
565.
Tex.— Buss v. Smith, Civ.App., 125 S.
W.2d 712, affirmed Smith v. Buss,
144 S.W.2d 529, 135 Tex. 566— Cline
v. NIblo, 286 S.W. 298, reversed on
other grounds, Com.App., 292 S.W.
178, modified on other grounds 8
S.W.2d 633, 117 Tex. 474, 66 A.L.R.
916.
Vt. — Probate Court, District of La-
moile, v. American Fidelity Co.,
35 A.2d 495, 113 Vt. -418.
34 C.J. p 519 note 16.
91. Mass. — Commonwealth v. Aron-
son, 44 N.E.2d 679, 312 Mass. 347.
92. N.J.— Delling v. Bill, 108 A. 761,
91 NJT.Eq. 213.
34 C.J. p 519 note 17.
93. U.S.— Bryan v. Kennett, Mo.,
5 S.Ct. 407, 113 U.S. 179, 28 I*Ed.
908.
34 C.J. p 519 note 18.
94. Ala. — Corpus Juris cited in
Grayson v. Schwab, 179 So. 377,
380, 235 Ala. 398.
49 O.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
408
as statutory boards of claims95 or civil service com-
missions.96 The rule has also been held applica-
ble to the judicial acts of a referee in bankruptcy97
and to the quasi-judicial acts of an executive offi-
cer of the government.98 The rule does not apply,
however, to attack on an administrative act99 or to
a determination which the administrative body had
no jurisdiction to make.1
§ 408. What Constitutes Direct or Collateral
Attack
a. Direct attack
b. Collateral attack
a. Direct Attack
A direct attack on a Judgment Is an attempt to avoid,
correct, vacate, annul, review, cancel, or set aside the
'Judgment In a proceeding or manner provided by law
for such purpose. ;
The terms "direct" and "collateral/' as used with
reference to attacks on judgments, apply to the
purpose of, or method employed in, the attacks and
are not descriptive of the attack itself.2 A direct
attack on a judgment is an attempt to avoid or
correct it in some manner provided by law,3 in a
Ariz. — City of Phoenix v. "Wright,
150 P.2d 93, 61 Ariz. 458— City of
Phoenix v. Sanner, 95 P. 3d 987, !54
Ariz. 363.
Minn. — Corpus Juris cited in Martin
v. Wolfson, 16 N.W. 884, 888, 218
Minn. 557.
Mo. — Corpus Juris cited in Jefferson
City Bridge & Transit Co. v. Blas-
er, 300 S.W. 778, 780, 318 Mo. 373.
Tex. — Ashburn Bros. v. Edwards
County, Com,App.f 58 S.W.2d 71 —
Coryell County v. Fegette, Civ.
App., 68 S.W.2d 1066, error dis-
missed— Kirby Lumber Co. v.
Adams, Civ.App., 62 S.W.2d 366,
modified on other grounds 93 S.W.
2d 382, 127 Tex. 376.
Utah. — State Tax Commission of
Utah v. Katsis, 62 P.2d 120, 90
Utah 406, 107 A.L..R. 1477— Corpus
Juris cited in. State v. Cragun, 20
P.2d 247, 249, 81 Utah 457.
Wyo. — Corpus Juris cited in May v.
Penton, 16 P.2d 35, 36, 45 Wyo. 82.
34 C.J. p 519 note 22.
Effect of acts and adjudications of
authorities allotting land to In-
dians see Indians, § 486.
Secretary of interior
Where Indian left will disposing
of his property and will was ap-
proved by secretary of interior who
delivered restricted funds freed of
restrictions to testamentary benefi-
ciaries, the legal title, vested in the
beneficiaries through administrative
action of the secretary, was not open
to collateral attack. — Hanson v. Hoff-
man, C.C.A.OW., 113 F.2d 780.
Jurisdiction must appear
No presumption of regularity ac-
companies findings of tribunal of
limited Jurisdiction, such as work-
men's compensation commissioner, in
absence of evidence that such tribu-
nal found jurisdictional facts, which
cannot, as in case of courts of gen-
eral Jurisdiction, be inferred from
mere exercise of jurisdiction. — Hoff-
man v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co.,
C.C.A.N.Y., 74 F.2d 227, certiorari de-
nied New York. N. H. & H. R. Co.
v. Hoffman, 55 S.Ct. 513, 294 U.S.
715, 79 L.Ed. 1248, stating Connecti-
cut rule.
95. Pa. — Merchants' Warehouse Co. i
v. Gelder, 36 A.2d 444, 349 Pa. 1.
96. Ariz.— City of Phcenix v. San-
ner, 95 P.2d 987, 54 Ariz. 363.
Xn action to recover salary due
plaintiff as assistant chief of police
during certain period, city's offered
evidence to effect that plaintiff had
never qualified for appointment
claimed, and that no qualifying ex-
amination had ever been given, was
properly excluded as a collateral at-1
tack on decisions and certifications
of civil service board to effect that
plaintiff was assistant chief of po-
lice.—City of Phoenix v. Wright, 150
P.2d 93, 61 Ariz. 458.
97. U.S. — In re Fox West Coast
Theatres, B.C.Cal., 25 F.Supp. 250,
affirmed, C.C.A., 88 F.2d 212, cer-
tiorari denied Tally v. Fox Film
Corporation, 57 S.Ct. 944, 301 U.S.
710, 81 L.Ed. 1363, rehearing de-
nied 68 S.Ct. 7, 302 U.S. 772, 82
L.Ed. 598.
98. Tex. — Kirby Lumber Co. v.
Adams, Civ.App., 62 S.W.2d 366,
modified on other grounds 93 S.W.
2d 382, 127 Tex. 376.
99. Minn.— Martin v. Wolfson, 16
N.W.2d 884, 218 Minn. 557.
1. Wis. — Lakelands, Inc., v. Chippe-
wa & Flambeau Improvement Co.,
295 N.W. 919, 237 Wis. 326.
2. Utah.— Intermill v. Nash, 75 P.2d
157, 94 Utah 271.
3. Ala.— Williams v. Overcast, 155
So. 543, 229 Ala. 119.
,— Semis, v. Loftin, 173 So. 683,
127 Fla. 515.
Iowa, — Corpus Juris quoted in- An-
derson v. Schwitzer, 20 N.W.2d
67, 71 — Corpus Juris quoted in
Brown v. Tank, 297 N.W. 801, 803,
230 Iowa 370.
Ky.— White v. White, 172 S.W.2d 72,
294 Ky. 563— Ohio Oil Co. V. West,
145 S.W.2d 1035, 284 Ky. 796—
Commonwealth v. Miniard, 99 S.W.
2d 166, 266 Ky. 405 — Mussman v
Pepples, 22 S.W.2d 605, 232 Ky,
254 — Logsdon v. Logsdon, 263 S
W. 728, 204 Ky. 104.
Minn.— In re Melgaard's Will, 274 N
W. 641, 200 Minn. 493.
80S
N.C.— Oliver v. Hood, 183 S.E. 657, .
209 N.C. 291.
tt.D. — Corpus Juris quoted in Olson
v. Donnelly, 294 N.W. 666, 669,
70 N.D. 370.
Ohio.— In re Gingery's Estate, 134 N.
E. 449, 451, 103 Ohio St 559.
Okl.— Kauffman v. McLaughlin, 114
P.2d 929, 189 Okl. 194— Seekatz v.
Brandenburg, 300 P. 678, 150 Okl.
53— Cochran v. Barkus, 240 P. 321,
112 .Okl. 180 — Ward v. Thompson,
237 P. 509, 111 Okl. 52— Watkins
v. Jester, 229 P. 1085, 103 Okl. 201
— Ross v. Breene, 211 P. 417, 88
Okl. 37.
Or. — Corpus Juris quoted in In re
Armstrong's Estate, 82 P.2d 880,
884, 159 Or. 698.
Tenn.— Myers v. Wolf, 34 S.W.Sd 201,
162 Tenn. 42.
Tex..— Corpus Juris quoted in Sharp
v. Hall, Civ.App., 49 S.W.2d 623,
525 — Corpus Juris quoted in Mc-
Glothlin v. Scott, Civ.App., 6 S.
W.2d 129, 131.
Utah.— Intermill v. Nash, 75 P.2d
157, 94 Utah 271.
Va.— Broyhill v. Dawson, 191 S.E.
779, 168 Va. 321.
Wash.— Corpus Juris quoted in In re
Peterson's Estate, 123 P.2d 733,
751, 12 Wash.2d 686.
34 C.J. p 520 note 34.
General principles of law and equity
control
While distinctions in forms of
pleading have been abolished and
equitable and legal relief may be
sought in same action, substantive
principles of law and equity and
general rules of procedure govern-
ing such actions, in so far as form
and nature of relief are concerned,
still exist, and question of whether
action is direct proceeding to attack
a judgment, or one merely collateral,
must be determined by general prin-
ciples of law and equity. — Dockery
v. Central Arizona Light & Power
Co., 45 P.2d 656, 45 Ariz. 434.
Nature of relief
One of the primary tests of wheth-
er or not, a subsequent suit is a "di-
rect attack" on a former judgment
is nature of the relief sought. — Ram-
408
JUDGMENTS
49 O.J.S,
proceeding instituted for that very purpose,4 in the
same action and in the same court;5 and the fact
that other incidental relief is also asked is imma-
terial.6 Such is a motion or other proceeding to
vacate, annul, cancel, or set aside the judgment;7
sey v. McKamey, Civ.App., 138 S.W.
2d 167, reversed on other grounds
152 S.W.2d 322. 137 Tex. 91.
4. Ala. — -Williams v. Overcast, 155
So. 543, 229 Ala. 119— Knight v.
Garden. 71 So. 715, 716, 196 Ala.
516.
Ariz.— Hershey v. Banta, 99 P.2d
81, 55 Ariz. 93, followed in Hersh-
ey v. Republic Life Ins. Co., 99 P.
2d 85, 55 Ariz. 104.
Ark. — Brooks v. Baker, 187 S.W.2d
169, 208 Ark. 654— Wilder v. Har-
ris, 168 S.W.2d 804, 205 Ark. 341
— Sewell v. Reed, 71 S.W.2d 191,
189 Ark. 50.
111.— Corpus Juris cited in City of
Des Plaines v. Boeckenhauer, 50
N.E.2d 483, 486, 383 111. 475.
Iowa.— Corpus Juris quoted in An-
derson v. Schwltzer, 20 X.W.2d 67,
71 — corpus Juris cited in In re
Hall's Estate, 11 N.W.2d 379, 381,
233 Iowa 1148— Corpus Juris quot-
ed in Brown v. Tank, 297 N.W.
801, 803, 230 Iowa 370.
Ky.— Farmers' Bank of Salvisa v.
Riley, 272 S.W. 9, 209 Ky. 54.
Mo. — Ray v. Ray, 50 S.W.2d 142,
330 Mo. 530 — Reger v. Reger, 293
S.W. 414, 316 Mo. 1310.
Mont — Hanrahan v. Andersen, 90 P.
2d 494. 108 Mont. 218.
Okl.— Corpus Juris cited in Jones v.
Snyder, 249 P. 313, 121 Okl. 254—
Lucas v. Lucas, 163 P. 943, 65
OfcL 96.
Or.— Corpus Juris quoted in In re
Armstrong's Estate, 82 P.2d 880,
884, 159 Or. 698.
Tex. — Garza v. Kenedy, Com.App.,
299 S.W. 231 — Johnson v. Ortiz
Oil Co., Civ.App., 104 S.W.2d 543 —
Corpus Juris quoted in Sharp v.
Hall, Civ.App., 49 S.W.2d 523, 525
—Corpus juris quoted in McGloth-
lin v. Scott. Civ.App., 6 S.W.2d 129,
131.
Utah.— Intermill v. Nash, 75 P.2d
157, 94 Utah 271.
W.Va. — Nelson Transfer & Storage
Co. v. Jarrett, 157 S.E. 46, 110 W.
Va. 97.
34 C.J. p 520 note 35.
Bankruptcy proceeding
A bankrupt who included in sched-
ule of liability a judgment obtained
against him under alleged separation
agreement and who was discharged
in bankruptcy was not precluded
from seeking cancellation of the
Judgment on theory that by so doing
he sought to impeach the judgment
collaterally, since inclusion of such
judgment in schedule of liabilities
is not an attack on such judgment,
and, even if it is, such attack is
made in a proceeding provided by
law for such purpose. — In re Collis,
53 N.Y.S.2d 316. 184 Misc. 717.
Suit to set aside a judgment and to
obtain new judgment
Where plaintiff had in a previous
action recovered judgment on a note
against defendant a "first amended
original petition" filed under the
same docket number as that assign-
ed to the original action claiming
that the original judgment was in-
valid because of a defect in citation,
but that issuance thereof prevented
running of limitation statute and
that plaintiff was entitled to judg-
ment on the note was the institution
of a new suit and an attempted "di--
rect attack" upon the former judg-
ment.—Litton v. Waters, Tex.Civ.
App., 161 S.W.2d 1095, error refused.
Defective direct attack
When a suit is brought with a
view of directly attacking a judg-
ment and the suit fails for some
reason to meet all the requirements
of a direct attack, it will be disposed
of as a collateral attack.— "56" Pe-
troleum Corporation of Texas v.
Rodden, Tex.Civ.App., 98 S.W.2d 269.
Suit to engraft constructive trust on
property
Suit by deceased's heirs to engraft
constructive trust on legal title to
land on ground that executor indi-
rectly and fraudulently acquired title
to land was authorized under court's
equity powers as distinguished from
statutory action of trespass to try
title and as relief against extrane-
ous fraud, and was not collateral at-
tack on probate court's orders au-
thorizing and confirming sale. — Dil-
beck v. Blackwell, Tex.Civ.App., 126
S.W.2d 760, error refused.
5. Ark.— Wilder v. Harris, 168 S.W.
2d 804, 205 Ark. 341 — Turley v.
Owen, 69 S.W.2d 882, 188 Ark. 1067
—State v. Wilson, 27 S.W.2d 106,
181 Ark. 683.
Cal. — Rico v. Nasser Bros. Realty
Co., 137 P.2d 861, 58 Cal.App.2d
g7g_ Stevens v. Kelley, 134 P.2d
56, 57 Cal.App.2d 318.
Ga, — Corpus Juris cited in Hughes
v. Cobb, 23 S.B.2d 701, 704, 195 Ga.
213. •
111.— Corpus Juris cited in City of
0es Plaines v. Boeckenhauer, 50
N.E.2d 483, 486, 383 111. 475.
Iowa.— Corpus Juris quoted in An-
derson v. Schwitzer, 20 N.W.2d 67,
71 — corpus Juris quoted in Brown
v. Tank, 297 N.W. 801, 230 Iowa
370.
N.T. — James Mills Orchard Corpo-
ration v. Frank, 244 N.T.S. 473, 137
Misc. 407.
S.C.— Scott v. Newell, 144 S.E. 82,
146 S.C. 385.
S.D.— Porman v. Hall, 212 N.W. 866,
51 S.D. 144.
Tex.— Livingston v. Stubbs, Civ.App.,
806
151 S.W.2d 285, error dismissed,
judgment correct— Gann v. Put-
man, Civ.App., 141 S.W.2d 758, er-
ror dismissed, judgment correct —
Duncan Coffee Co. v. Wilson, Civ.
App., 139 S.W.2d 327, error dis-
missed— McLeod v. Carroll, Civ.
App., 109 S.W.2d 316, affirmed 130
S.W.2d 277, 133 Tex. 571— Corpus
Juris quoted in Sharp v. Hall, Civ.
App., 49 S.W.2d 523, 525— Corpus
Juris quoted in McGlothlin v.
Scott, Civ.App., 6 S.W.2d 129, 131.
Utah. — State Tax Commission v. Lar-
sen, 110 P.2d 558, 100 Utah 103.
34 C.J. p 520 note 36.
A petition lor rul* to show cause
why order admitting will to probate
in common form in Colleton County
should not be revoked was not a
"collateral attack" on the order, but
was a "direct attack," and therefore
latent defect that testatrix' residence
had been fixed in Charleston County
by her commitment therefrom to the
state hospital was properly asserted
as a ground for the petition.— Reed
v. Lemacks, 28 S.E.2d 441, 204 S.C.
26.
Attack regarded as motion in origi-
nal cause
In creditors' suit by mortgagee
bank, where bank attacked judg-
ments foreclosing other mortgages
executed by debtor in actions to
which bank was not a party, and all
parties to such foreclosure actions
were parties to creditors' suit, at-
tack on judgments could not be com-
plained of as improper collateral at-
tack, since judge in his discretion
could deem the proceeding to be a
motion in the original cause. — First
Carolinas Joint Stock Land Bank of
Columbia v. Knotts, 1 S.E.2d 797, 191
S.C. 384.
6. Iowa. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Anderson v. Schwitzer, 20 N.W.2d
69, 71— ^Corpus Juris quoted in
Brown v. Tank, 297 N.W. 801. 230
Iowa 370.
Tex. — Corpus Juris quoted in Mc-
Glothlin v. Scott, Civ.App., 6 S.W.
2d 129, 131.
34 C.J. p 520 note 37.
Trespass to try title
"Direct attack" does not require
sole purpose of suit to be to attack
original judgment, but it may be in-
cident to trespass to try title action.
— Griggs v. Montgomery, Tex.Civ.
App., 22 S.W.2d 688.
7. U.S.— Illinois Printing Co. v.
Electric Shovel Coal Corporation,
D.C.I1L, 20 P.Supp. 181.
Ala.— Snyder v. Woolf, 166 So. 803,
232 Ala. 87.
Ariz.— Bell v. Bell, 39 P.2d 629, 44
Ariz. 520.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 408
a direct action to impeach and avoid the judgment,8
or declare it void ab initio,9 as where it was entered
without notice;10 a motion in arrest of judgment,11
for a rehearing,12 or for a new trial j1^ or any
Ark. — Brookfleld v. Harrahan Via-
duct Improvement Disk, 54 S.W.
2d 689, 186 Ark. 599— Woods v.
Quarles, 13 S.W.2d 617, 178 Ark.
1158.
Cal. — Hollywood Garment Corpora-
tion v. J. Beckerman, Inc., 143 P.
2d 738, 61 Cal.App.2d 658— Gould v.
Richmond School Dist, 136 P.2d
864, 58 Cal.App.2d 497 — Stevens v.
Kelley, 134 P.2d 56, 57 Cal.App.
2d 318— Potts v. Whitson, 125 P.
2d 947, 52 Cal.App.2d 199— Shelley
v. Casa De Oro, Limited, 24 P.2d
900, 133 CaLApp. 720— Reichert v.
Rabun, 265 P. 260, 89 Cal.App.
375 — In re Dahnke's Estate and
Guardianship, 222 P. 381, 64 Cal.
App. 555 — Sharp v. Eagle Lake
Lumber Co., 212 P. 933, 60 Cal.
App. 386.
Fla. — Skipper v. Shumacher, 169 So.
58, 124 Fla, 384.
Idaho. — Baldwin v. Anderson, 8 P.
2d 461, 51 Idaho 614.
Kan. — Corpus Juris cited in Kansas
City Power & Light Co. v. City of
Elkhart, 31 P.2d 62, 64, 139 Kan.
374— Board of Com'rs of Crawford
County v. Radley, 8 P.2d 386, 134
Kan. 704.
Ky. — Gardner v. Lincoln Bank &
Trust Co., 64 S.W.2d 497, 251 Ky.
109 — Holcomb v. Creech, 56 S.W.
2d 998, 247 Ky. 199— May v. Pratt,
35 S.W.2d 642, 237 Ky. 369— Joseph
v. Bailey, 277 S.W. 466, 211 Ky,
394.
Mo. — State ex rel. Aquamsi Land
Co. v. Hostetter, 79 S.W.2d 463,
336 Mo. 391.
N.J.— Hinners v. Banville, 168 A. 618,
114 N.J.Ba. 348.
K.T. — Conyne v. McGibbon, 37 N.Y.
S.2d 590, 179 Misc. 54, transferred,
see 39 N.Y.S.2d 609, 265 App.Div.
976, affirmed 41 N.Y.S.Sd 189, 266
App.Div. 711.
Okl. — City of Clinton ex rel. Rich-
ardson v. Cornell, 132 P.2d 340,
191 Okl. 600— Roland Union Graded
School Dist. No. 1 of Sequoyah
County v. Thompson, 124 P.2d 400,
190 Okl. 416.
Tex.— Sharp v. Hall, Civ.App., 49 S.
W.2d 523, error refused — Bonner
v. Pearson, Civ.App., 7 S.W.2d 930
— Carl ton v. Hott, Civ.App., 292
S.W. 642 — Perez v. E. P. Lipscomb
& Co., Civ.App., 267 S.W. 748.
Utah.— Intermill v. Nash, 75 P.2d
157, 94 Utah 271.
34 C.J. p 520 note 38.
Parties
(1) Whether a proceeding to va-
cate or set aside a judgment is a
direct or collateral attack depends
on whether all the parties to be af-
fected are before the court; if they
are not, the attack is collateral. —
Hartel v. Dishman, 145 S.W.2d 865,
135 Tex 600 — Pure Oil Co. v. Reece,
78 S.W.2d 932, 124 Tex. 476— Han-
non v. Henson, Tex. Com. App., 15 S.
W.2d 579— Williams v. Coleman-Ful-
ton Pasture Co., Tex.Civ.App., 157
S.W.2d 995, error refused— Wixom v.
Bowers, Tex. Civ. App., 152 S.W.2d
896, error refused— Rhoads v. Daly
General Agency, Tex.Civ.App., 152
S.W.2d 461, error refused — Scott v.
Fort Worth Nat. Bank, Tex. Civ. App.,
125 S.W.2d 356, error dismissed—
McLeod v. Carroll, Civ.App., 109 S.
W.2d 316, affirmed Carroll v. McLeod,
130 S.W.2d 277, 133 Tex. 571— Moore
v. Evans, Tex.Civ.App., 103 S.W.2d
850 — Rodden v. Smith, Tex.Civ.App.,
95 S.W.2d 997 — Avant v. Broun, Tex.
Civ.App.f 91 S.W.2d 426, error dis-
missed— Perdue v. Miller, Tex.Civ.
App., 64 S.W.2d 1002, error refused —
Griggs v. Montgomery, Tex.Civ.App.,
22 S.W.2d 688— State Mortg. Corpo-
ration v. Garden, Tex.Civ.App., 11
S.W.2d 212 — Burton v. McGuire, Tex.
Civ.App., 3 S.W.2d 576, affirmed, Com.
App., 41 S.W.2d 238— Carlton v. Hoff,
Tex.Civ.App., 292 S.W. 642.
(2) Original parties being parties
to suit, nature of suit as direct at-
tack on judgment is not altered be-
cause others were made parties. —
Garza v. Kenedy, Tex.Com. App., 299
S.W. 231.
Seasonable motion
(1) A seasonable motion to vacate
judgment is a direct attack on the
judgment. — City of Los Angeles v.
Glassell, 262 P. 1084, 203 Cal. 44.
(2) An application to vacate a
judgment made to court that render-
ed it within thirty days after its en-
try is a "direct attack" on the judg-
ment, but if made after expiration of
thirty days it is a "collateral at-
tack."—Barnard v. Michael, 63 N.B.
2d 858, 392 111. 130, appeal transfer-
red, see 61 N.E.2d '578, 326 IlLApp.
69.
(3) A motion to vacate a judg-
ment, made after the expiration of
the period allowed by statute for
a motion to set aside default judg-
ment, is governed by the rules ap-
plicable to a collateral attack.— Wells
Fargo & Co. v. City and County of
San Francisco, 152 P.2d 625, 25 Cal.
2d 37—- City of Salinas v. Luke Kow
Lee, 18 P.2d 335, 217 Cal. 252— Peo-
ple v. Herod, 295 P. 383, 111 CaLApp.
246.
(4) After expiration of time for a
direct appeal a motion to quash
service of summons by publication
must be considered as a collateral
attack. — Butler v. McKey, C.C.A.Cal.,
138 F.2d 873, certiorari denied 64
S.Ct. 636, 321 U.S. 780, 88 L.Ed. 1073.
(5) Where district court's power
over its default judgment had ceased
with end of term at which judgment
807
was rendered, a proceeding on de-
fendant's motion at a subsequent
term to recall execution issued on
judgment and to vacate judgment
stood on same footing as a "collat-
eral attack" on a judgment. — Ridley
v. McCallum, 163 S.W.2d 833, 139
Tex. 540.
(6) Motion to vacate judgment, en-
tered some twenty months prior
thereto, against sureties on forth-
coming bond given after levy of ex-
ecution, and to cancel execution is-
sued on the judgment, was a "col-
lateral attack" and was improperly
sustained in absence of fraud or
collusion. — State ex rel. Fulton Bag
& Cotton Mills v. Burnside, 15 So.2d
324, 153 Fla. 599.
Proceeding1 to set aside default de-
cree
A proceeding by curator of minors*
estate and trustee under trust deed,
securing note for money loaned by
curator on minor's behalf, to set
aside default decree for cross com-
plainant, claiming title to mortgaged
land as purchaser at tax sale, in
foreclosure suit, on grounds of fraud
in obtaining decree, lack of notice
to or service on minor cross defend-
ants and valid defense to cross com-
plaint, is not collateral attack on
such decree. — Arkansas Trust Co. v.
Sims, 133 S.W.2d 854, 198 Ark. 1148.
Dissolution or setting1 aside of at-
tachment execution Judgment against
garnishee after discharge of original
judgment on which attachment pro-
ceeding is based would not constitute
"collateral attack" on attachment
Judgment or deprive original judg-
ment creditor of "vested right" in
attached property. — Sophia Wilkes
Building & Loan Ass'n, to Use of
Wiehe, v. Rudloff, 35 A.2d 278, 348
Pa. 477.
8. Mo. — Inter-River Drainage Dist.
of Missouri v. Henson, App., 99 S.
W.2d 865.
34 C.J. p 520 note 39.
9. Ark. — Brick v. Sovereign Grand
Lodge of Accepted Free Masons
of Arkansas, 117 S.W.2d 1060, 196
Ark. 372 — Morgan v. Leon, 12 S.W.
2d 404, 178 Ark. 768.
10. Ark. — Brick v. Sovereign Grand
Lodge of Accepted Free Masons of
Arkansas, 117 S.W.2d 1060, 196
Ark. 372.
11. Mo. — Robinson v. Robinson, 129
S.W. 725, 149 Mo. 733.
12. Tex. — Crawford v. McDonald, 33
S.W. 325, 88 Tex. 626.
34 C.J. p 520 note 41.
13. Tex. — Goodman v. Mayer, Civ.
App., 105 S.W.2d 281, reversed on
other grounds 128 S.W.2d 1156,
133 Tex 319.
34 C.J. p 520 note 42.
408
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
proceeding to review it in an appellate court, wheth-
er by appeal, error, or certiorari,14 action to re-
view,15 bill of review,16 writ of review," or, in
general, any statutory method for avoiding or cor-
recting a judgment.18
Under some circumstances, an action to quiet
title is a direct attack on the judgment;" under
others it is considered a collateral attack;20 but a
suit to quiet title, which attacks proceedings subse-
quent to the judgment has been held to be neither a
Timely filing essential
Where no motion for a new trial
was filed before expiration of a spec-
ified number of days from date of
judgment, a motion made after such
period to set aside judgment and
for judgment non obstante veredicto
was a collateral attack on Judgment
and court was unauthorized to set it
aside unless it was void. — Bridgman
v. Moore, 183 S.W.2d 705, 143 Tex.
250.
14. Ark.— Krumpen v. Taylor, 40 S.
W.2d 775, 183 Ark. 1046.
Cal.— Stevens v. Kelley, 134 P.2d 56,
57 Cal.App.2d 318.
pla, — Skipper v. Schumacher, 169 So.
58, 124 Fla. 384.
Mo. — State ex rel. Lane v. Corneli,
171 S.W.2d 687, 351 Mo. 1— State
ex rel. Aauamsi Land Co. v. Hos-
tetter. 79 S.W.2d 463, 336 Mo. 391.
N.J.— Ccffey v. Coffey, 14 A.2d 485,
125 N.J.Law 205.
Tex. — Stewart Oil Co. v. Lee, Civ.
App., 173 S.W.2d 791, error re-
fused—McKinley v. Salter, Civ.
App., 136 S.W.2d 615, error dis-
missed, Judgment correct, appeal
dismissed 61 S.Ct 734, 312 U.S.
659, 85 L.Ed. 1106.
34 C.J. p 520 note 43.
By bringing error in suits on Judg-
ments "based on Judgment taken by
default, plaintiff in error attacked
default Judgment directly, not col-
laterally.—Cheshire v. Palmer, Tex.
Civ.App., 44 S.W.2d 438.
Appeal from ruling on motion
Plaintiff's appeal to circuit court
from grant of defendants' motion
to require plaintiff to satisfy com-
mon pleas court Judgment for plain-
tiff held not collateral attack on
common pleas court judgment — Mc-
Carty v. Cook, 71 S.W.2d 1053, 189
Ark. 309.
Appeal from order allowing claims
under statute providing that on levy
of attachment, garnishment, or ex-
ecution, not founded on claim for
labor, any person who has performed
work for defendant within ninety
days prior to levy may file claim
not exceeding two hundred dollars
constituted a "direct attack," on the
order. — Driver v. International Air
Race Ass'n of America, 129 P.2d 771
54 Cal.App.2d 614.
Certiorari to review contempt con-
viction
A certiorari proceeding to review
relator's conviction for contempt 1
violating temporary injunction wa
a "collateral attack" on injunction
which, would fail unless injunction
was shown to be a nullity so that,
nder statute prohibiting issuance
f injunction in suit involving labor
ispute except after "findings of
act," where temporary injunction
was issued without "findings of fact"
whether court erred in determining
hat suit involved no labor dispute
ould not be determined on certiorari
o review conviction of contempt for
violation of injunction.— Reid v. In-
dependent Union of All Workers, 275
S".W. 300, 200 Minn. 599, 120 A.L.R.
97.
5. Ind. — Deputy v. Dollarhide, 86
N.E. 344, 42 Ind.App. 554.
16. Ala.--Johnson v. Pugh, 193 So.
317, 239 Ala. 12 — Midgley v. Rails,
176 So. 799, 234 Ala. 685— Corpus
Juris cited In Snyder v. Woolf,
166 So. 803, 804, 232 Ala, 87.
Tex. — Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n
v. Cashion, Civ. App., 130 S.W.2d
1112— Johnson v. Ortiz Oil Co., Civ.
App., 104 S.W.2d 543— City of Ty-
ler v. First Nat. Bank of Beau-
mont Civ.App., 46 S.W.2d 454,
error refused.
34 C.J. p 521 note 45.
Bill of review in equity as collateral
attack see Equity § 635.
In same court or action es-
sential
(1) A bill of review not filed in
the same court where the judgment
or order under attack was made is
a collateral attack.— Whitehurst v.
Estes. Tex.Civ.App., 185 S.W.2d 154,
error refused — Cheney v. Norton,
Tex.Civ.App., 181 S.W.2d 835, error
refused.
(2) Statutory bill of review is not
available to interested person to nul-
lify orders of probate court, such
as appointing a guardian authorizing
sale of land or approving report of
such sale, so as to create an estoppel
against purchasers in other actions
against them in the district courl
to try title to land, where the land
has actually been conveyed to per-
sons having no interest in such or-
ders save as they constitute links
in their 'chain of title, since such
orders are voidable only on a direct
attack and under the circumstances
the bill of review is not a direc
attack. — Johnson v. Ortiz Oil Co.
Tex.Civ.App., 104 S.W.2d 543.
17. Mont. — State ex rel. Haynes v
District Court, Sixteenth Judicia
District Custer County, 81 P.2
422, 106 Mont. 578.
34 C.J. p 521 note 46.
18. Tenn. — Clements v. Holmes
808
App., 120 S.W.2d 988, 22 Tenn.App.
230.
Action of nullity
Suit on same subject matter, by
same parties, not containing aver-
ment that former judgment is null,
is not action of nullity under stat-
ute.—-Smith v. Salmen Brick & Lum-
ber Co., 8 La.App. 75.
9. Ark. — Grayling Lumber Co. v.
Tillar, 258 S.W. 132, 162 Ark. 221.
Mo. — Shepard v. Shepard, 186 S.W.
2d 472, 353 Mo. 1057.
4 C.J. P 521 note 47.
20. Ala.— Corpus Juris cited in Pen-
ton v. Brown-Crummer Inv. Co.,
131 So. 14, 19, 222 Ala, 155.
Cal.— Swartfager v. Wells, 128 P.2d
128, 53 Cal.App.2d 522.
111.— Murch v. Epley, 52 N.E.2d 125,
385 111/138— Knaus v. Chicago Ti-
tle & Trust Co., 7 N.E.2d 298, 365
111. 588.
Mo.— Linville v. Ripley, 146 S.W.2d
581, 347 Mo. 95— Baker v. Lamar,
140 S.W.2d 31.
Mont.— Sanborn v. Lewis and Clark
County, 120 P.2d 567, 113 Mont 1
— E. J. Lander & Co. v. Brown,
99 P.2d 216, 110 Mont 128— Frisbee
v. Coburn, 52 P.2d 882, 101 Mont
58 — price v. Skylstead, 222 P. 1059,
69 Mont. 453.
Okl. — Porter v. Hansen, 124 P.2d 391,
190 Okl. 429— Collingsworth v.
Hutchison, 90 P.2d 416, 185 Okl.
101.
Or.— Morrill v. Morrill, 25 P. 362, 20
Or. 96, 23 Am.S.R. 95, 11 L.B.A.
155.
Te3C — Carroll v. McLeod, Com.App.,
130 S.W.2d 277, 133 Tex. 571.
Wash. — Zintheo v. B. F. Goodrich
Rubber Co., 239 P. 391, 136 Wash.
196.
34 C.J. p 521 note 48.
Declaratory Judgment action to quiet
title
Where adopted son, as only heir
at law of deceased to whom land
was allegedly conveyed for life with
remainder to his heirs, brought de-
claratory judgment action to have
title to such land quieted in him
against parties who were adjudged
owners in fee simple thereof in ac-
tion to settle estate of deceased be-
cause of conveyance to them by de-
ceased, and adopted son was made
party to such action, and such judg-
ment was not void, declaratory Judg^
ment action constituted a "collateral
attack" on prior judgment and would
not lie.— Eversole v. Smith, 178 S.W.
2d 970, 297 Ky. 53. •
49 C.XS.
JUDGMENTS
408
direct nor a collateral attack on the judgment.21
Where the element of fraud or mistake is in-
volved in the issue it is a general rule that the at-
tack is direct.22
Where a judgment is pleaded as a defense to
an action, plaintiff has a right to challenge and
have the court pass on the validity of the judgment
and the proceedings under which it was obtained.23
b. Collateral Attack
A collateral attack is an attempt to avoid, defeat,
or evade a Judgment, or to deny Its force and effect, in
some incidental proceeding not provided by law for the
express purpose of attacking it.
A collateral attack is an attempt to impeach the
judgment by matters dehors the record,24 before
a court other than the one in which it was ren-
dered,25 in an action other than that in which it
was rendered;26 an attempt to avoid, defeat, or
impeachment for fraud
(1) Under a bill to quiet title, any
attempted impeachment of probate
decree allotting: homestead exemp-
tion to widow, on ground that it was
infected with fraud, is a mere col-
lateral attack and unavailable.— Cog-
burn v. Callier, 104 So. 328, 213 Ala.
38.
(2) Where, in bill to quiet title, re-
spondents set up a homestead ex-
emption decree as their muniment of
title, and thereupon complainants
amended their original bill, and al-
leged fraud in procurement of such
decree, and -prayed that it be set
aside, such amendment constituted a
direct attack on decree, giving court
jurisdiction, and placing burden of
proof on complainants, and Anal de-
cree thereon is conclusive. — Cogburn
v. Callier, 104 So. '3'30, 213 Ala. 46—
Cogburn v. Callier, 104 So. 328, 213
Ala. 38.
(3) Complainants' averments of
fraud in procuring homestead allot-
ment decree, which were made in an-
swer to respondents' cross bill, and
not in their bill of complaint, con-
stituted but a collateral attack on
such decree, and is not available for
its impeachment. — Cogburn v. Cal-
lier, 104 So. 330, 213 Ala. 46.
21. Ky.— Newsome v. Hall, 161 S.
W.2d 629, 200 Ky. 486, 140 A.JUR.
818.
22. Cal.— Stevens v. Kelley, 134 P.
2d 66, 57 Cal.App.2d 318— Borg v.
Borg, 76 P.2d 218, 25 Cal,App.2d
25.
Okl.— Roland Union Graded School
Dlst. No. 1 of Sequoyah County v.
Thompson, 124 P.2d 400, 100 Okl.
416— Parker v. Board of Cpm'rs of
Okmulgee County, 102 P.2d 880,
187 Okl. 308, followed in Parker v.
Board of Com'rs of Okmulgee
County, 102 P.2d 833, 187 Okl. 311.
Tenn.— Corpus Juris cited in Kates v.
Anderson, Dulin, Varaell Co., 9
Tenn.App. 306, 401.
Tex. — Moyers v. Carter, Civ.Ajpp., 61
S.W.2d 1027, error refused.
Wyo. — Corpus Juris quoted in Rock
Springs & Mining Co. v. Black Dia-
mond Coal Co., 272 P. 12, 30 Wyo.
370.
34 C.J. p 520 note 40.
Application to vacate Enoch Azden
decree
An application of second husband
to vacate decree procured by his
present wife against her former hus-
band in a so-called Enoch Arden
proceeding for dissolution of mar-
riage on ground of former husband's
absence for five years on charge that
wife procured decree through fraud
was a "direct attack" and not a "col-
lateral attack" on the decree, and
therefore could be maintained, but
application would be denied where it
appeared that former husband was
living and had received no notice of
motion, since former husband was a
"party" to proceedings within con-
templation of the law. — Application
of Neiman, 28 N.Y.S.2d 100, 176 Misc.
552.
Action to cancel deed
In action to cancel for fraud a
deed to property registered under
Torrens Law, evidence that defend-
ant had purchased land and paid con-
sideration held not collateral attack
on judgment. — Whitham v. Whitham,
15 P.2d 1105, 127 CaLApp. 481.
23. Okl. — St. Louis-San Francisco
Ry. Co. v. Bayne, 40 P.2d 1104, 170
Okl. 542 — Southern Pine 'Lumber
Co. v. Ward, 85 P. 450, 16 Okl. 131.
24. U.S.— Corpus Juris quoted in
Trustees of Somerset Academy v,
Picher, C.C.A.M6., 90 'F.2d 741, 744.
Cal.— Stevens v. Kelley, 134 P.2d 56,
57 Cal.App.2d 318— Kirkpatrick v.
Harvey, 124 P.2d 367, 51 CaLApp.
2d 170— Hollyfleld v. <*eibel, 66 P.
2d 755, 20 Cal.App.2d 142— Nielsen
v. Emerson, 6 P.2d 281, 110 Cal.
App. 214.
Ga. — Hadden v. -Fuo.ua, 22 S.B.2d 377,
104 Ga, 621.
Ind.— Clark v. Clark, 172 N.B. 124,
202 Ind. 104.
Iowa. — Corpus Juris quoted in An-
derson v. Schwitzer, 20 N.W.2d 67,
71— Corpus Juris quoted in Brown
v. Tank, 207 N.W. -801, 503, '230
Iowa 370.
Kan. — Corpus Juris quoted in Board
of Commissioners of Crawford
County v. Radley, 8 P.2d 386, 388,
134 Kan. 704.
K.Y.— Collier v. Peninsular Fire Ins.
Co. of America, 263 S.W. 353, 204
Ky. 1.
809
N.T. — Corpus Juris quoted in In re
Collis, 53 N.T.S.2d 316, 318, 184
Misc. 717— James Mills Orchards
Corporation v. Frank, 244 N.Y.S.
4T3, 137 Misc. 407.
N.C.— Fowler v. 'Fowler, 130 S.E. 315,
100 N.C. 636.
S.C.— Tolbert v. Roark, 110 S.R 571,
126 S.C. 207.
Tex. — Agey v. Barnard, Civ.App., 123
S.W.2d 484, error dismissed, Judg-
ment correct — Smith v. Burns, Civ.
App., 107 S.W.2d 397— Corpus Juris
quoted in Sharp v. Hall, Civ.App.,
40 S.W.2d 523, 525— Lipscomb v.
Japhet, Civ.App., 18 S.W,2d 786,
error dismissed — Corpus Juris cit-
ed in Reeves v. Fuqua, Civ.App.,
277 S.W. 418, 423.
Wash.— Corpus Juris quoted in In re
Peterson's Estate, 123 P.2d 733,
12 Wash.2d 686— Corpus Juris:
quoted in Thompson v. Short, 106;
P.2d 720, 6 Wash.2d 71^-Corpu*
Juris cited in Hanna v. Allen, 279
P. 1008, 1101, 15'3 Wash. 485.
34 C.J. ? 521 note 50.
25. Tex. — McLeod v. Carroll, Civ.
App., 109 S.W.2d 316, affirmed Car-
roll v. McLeod, 130 S.W.2d 277, 133
Tex. 571— Perdue v. Miller, Oiv.
App., 64 S.W.2d 1002, error refused
— Reeves v. Fuqua, Civ.App., 277
S.W. 418.
Creation of new judicial district
Statute creating judicial district
was held not to supersede rule that
suit to vacate judgment must be
brought and tried in court which
rendered judgment, as against con-
tention that attack in 124th district
court of Gregg County on judgment
rendered by 71st district court could
not be deemed collateral attack. —
Snell v. Knowles, Tex.Civ.App., 87
S.W.2d 871, error dismissed.
26. U.S.— Warmsprings Irr. Dist. v.
May, C.C.A.Or., 117 F.2d ,8 0'2— Cor-
pus Juris quoted in Trustees of
Somerset Academy v. Picher, C.£
A.Me., 00 F.2d 741, 744.
Ariz.— Metcalf v. Phoenix Title &
Trust Co., 274 P. 632, 35 Ariz. 73.
Cal. — Rico v. Nasser Bros. Realty
Co., 137 P.2d -861, 58 Cal.App.2d
878 — Bank of America Nat. Trust
ft Savings Ass'n v. Hill, 71 P.2d
258, 0 CaUd 405— See v. Joughin,
-64 P.2d 140, 18 CaLApp.2d 414.
§ 408
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
evade it, or deny its force and effect, in some in- i press purpose of attacking it;27 any proceeding
cidental proceeding not provided by law for the ex- j which is not instituted for the express purpose of
111. — City of Des Plalnes v. Boecken
hauer, 50 N.E.2d 483, 383 111. 475-
Beckman v. Alberts, 178 N.E. 367
346 IlL 74.
Iowa. — Corpus Juris quoted In An
•derson v. Schwitzer, 20 N.W.2d 69
71 — Corpus Juris quoted in Brown
v. Tank, 297 N.W. 801, 803, 23i
Iowa 370.
Kan. — Goodman v. Cretcher, 294 P
868, 132 Kan. 142.
Ky.— May v. Sword, 33 S.W.2d 314
236 Ky. 412.
La. — Federal Securities Co. v
Swayze, 125 So. 518, 14 La.App
418.
Hontu — E. J. Lander & Co. v. Brown
99 P.2d 216, 110 Mont. 128.
N.Y. — James Mills Orchards Corpo
ration v. Frank, 244 N.T.S. 473
137 Misc. 407.
N.D.— Erker v. Deichert, 222 N.W
615, 57 N.D. 474.
S.C. — First Qarolinas Joint Stock
Land Bank of Columbia v. Knotts
1 S.K2d 797. 191 S.C. 384— Tolbert
v. Roark, 119 S.E. 571, 126 S.C
207.
Tenn. — Esch v. Wilcox, 178 S.W.2d
•770, 181 Tenn. 165.
Tex. — Security Trust Co. of Austin
v. Lipscomb County, ISO S.W.2d
151, 142 Tex 572— -Corpus Juris
cited in Empire Gas & Fuel Co. v.
Albright, 87 S.W.2d 1092, 126 Tex.
485 — Corpus Juris quoted in. Sharp
v. Hall, Civ.App., 49 S.W.2d 523,
525 — Corpus Juris cited in Reeves
v. 'Fuqua, Civ.App., 277 S.W. 418,
423.
Utah. — Intermill v. Nash, 75 P.2d
157, 94 Utah 271.
Wash. — Corpus Juris cited la Hanna
v. Allen, 279 P. 1098, 1101, 153
Wash. 485.
Wis.— In re Cawker's Estate, 290 N.
W. 281, 233 Wis. 648.
34 C.J. p 521 note 51—11 Q.J. P 960
note 21. .
Any attack in interpleader action
on an order made in a prior action,
was a "collateral attack" on the or-
der and was governed by the rules
pertaining to such attack. — Driver v.
International Air Race Ass'n of
America, 129 P.2d 771, 54 Cal.APp.2d
614.
Xa receivership suit, attack made
on orders entered in -prior receiver-
ship suit in same court involving
same corporations was a collateral
attack, requiring proof of want of
jurisdiction, where objections went
only to particular judge sitting at
hearing and to particular receivers,
and consolidation of the two pending
receivership suits in same court did
not render attack in subsequent suit,
"on orders entered in prior suit, di-
rect attack, which would reach mere
errors.— Johnson v. Manhattan Ry.
Co., N.Y., 53 S.Ct 721, 289 U.S. 479
77 L.Ed. 1'331.
Consolidated actions which were in
effect one action attempting to se
aside former judgment in order tha
plaintiff might attack a judgmen
rendered in another and distinct ac
tion constituted a "collateral attack*
on judgment in former action, an<
hence could be maintained only 1
former judgment was void on its
face. — Hershey v. Banta, 99 P.2d 81
55 Ariz. 93, followed in Hershey v
Republic Life Ins. Co., 99 P.2d
55 Ariz. 104.
Escheat proceedings
A decree determining that named
nationals and residents of Germany
were the only heirs of deceased was
conclusive, and could not be collat-
erally attacked in escheat proceed
ings subsequently brought by the
state. — In re Giebler's Estate, Mont.
162 P.2d 368.
Defense as collateral attack
(1) In mortgage foreclosure ac-
tion, affirmative defense that mort-
gagee agreed to transfer exclusive
patent license to mortgagor, and
that, by judgment in a prior action,
It was adjudged that mortgagor had
acquired exclusive license, and aver-
ring that mortgagor had since ascer-
tained existence of prior transfers
of licenses to third persons, was held
properly stricken out as collateral
attack on a final judgment. — Bank
of America Nat. Trust & Savings
Ass'n v. Harriscolor Films, 31 P.2d
189, 220 Cal. 383.
(2) In suit for fees which sheriff,
pursuant to judgments, collected for
attorney whom court appointed for
nonresidents in tax suits, plea that
attorney was not licensed attorney
was held objectionable as collateral
attack on judgments. — Turner v. Wil-
lacy County, Tex.Com.App., 58 S.W.
2d 12.
(3) Defense that trustee for bond-
xolders bid in property in name of
dummy at owner's direction, and that
no cash was received, was held not
objectionable as collateral attack on
foreclosure record showing cash sale,
n action by owner of bonds to re-
cover from trustee proceeds of fore-
closure sale.— White v. Central Trust
. of Illinois, 259 IlLApp. 68.
Cross complaint
Where defendant filed a cross com-
)laint to foreclose his Hen, claim by
rtaintiff that defendant's lien was
obtained by subrogation in action to
cancel deed for fraud, which court
had no right to do, was a collateral
ttack on a judgment of court of
ompetent jurisdiction, which could
not be set up.— Rooker v. Leary, 149
".E. 358, 84 Ind.App. 77.
810
27. U.S. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Trustees of Somerset Academy v.
Picher, C.C.A.Me., 90 F.2d 741, 744.
Ala. — Williams v. Overcast, 155 So.
543, 229 Ala. 119 — Florence Gin Co.
v. City of Florence, 147 So. 417, 226
Ala. 478, followed in 147 So. 420,
three cases, 226 Ala. 482, 147 So.
421, 226 Ala. 482, and 147 So. 421,
226 Ala. 483— Corpus Juris cited in
Warren v. Southall, 141 So. 632,
224 Ala. 653 — Penton v. Brown-
Crummer Inv. Co., 131 So. 14, 222
Ala. 155— Hill v. Hooper, 110 So.
323, 21 Ala.App. 584.
Ark.— Wilder v. Harris. 168 S.W.2d
804, 205 Ark. 341— Brick v. Sov-
ereign Grand Lodge of Accepted
Free Masons of Arkansas, 117 S.
W.2d 1060, 196 Ark. 372 — Sewell v.
Reed, 71 S.W.2d 191, 189 Ark. 50—
Turley v. Owen, 69 S.W.2d 882, 188
Ark. 1067— State v. Wilson, 27 S.
W.2d 106, 181 Ark. 683.
D.C. — Edward Thompson Co. v.
Thomas, 49 F.2d 500, 60 App.D.C.
118.
Fla,— Bemis v. Loftin, 173 So. 683,
127 Fla. 515 — Skipper v. Schu-
macher, 169 So. 58, 124 Fla. 384.
Iowa. — Corpus Juris quoted in An-
derson v. Schwitzer, 20 N.W.2d 69,
71 — Corpus Juris quoted in Brown
v. Tank, 297 N.W. '801, 803, 230
Iowa 370.
Ky. — Furlong v. Finneran, 4 S.W.2d
378, 223 Ky. 558— Woollums v.
Fowler, 269 S.W. 721, 207 Ky. 532.
Minn.— Brotton v. Donovan, 224 N.
W. 270, 177 Minn. 34.
Mo. — Sheehan v. First Nat. Bank,
140 S.W.2d 1, 346 Mo. 227— Reger
v. Reger, 293 S.W. 414, 316 Mo.
1310.
Mont.— State ex reL Delmoe v. Dis-
trict Court of Fifth Judicial Dist.,
46 P.2d 39, 100 Mont. 131.
Neb.— Douglas County v. Feenan, 18
N.W.2d 740, 146 Neb. 156— In re
Warner's Estate, 288 N.W. 39, 137
Neb. 25.
Nev.— State ex rel. Smith v. Sixth
Judicial Dist. Court, Humboldt
County, 167 P.2d 648.
N.J. — Sikora v. Smuc, 2$ A.2d 211,
132 N.J.EQ. 396.
Ohio.— State v. Marsh, 165 N.E. 843,
120 Ohio St. 222— Starr v. Weir,
172 N.E. 537, 35 Ohio App. '374, er-
ror dismissed Guaranty Trust Co.
of New York v. -Starr, 172 N.E.
381, 121 Ohio St. 626.
Okl. — Mid-Continent Pipe Line Qo. v.
Seminole County Excise Board, 146
P.2d 996, 194 Okl. 40— Shefts v.
Oklahoma Co., 137 P.2d 589, 192
OkL 483— Corpus Juris cited in
Porter v. Hansen, 124 P.2d 391, 190
Old. 429 — Kauffman v. McLaughlin,
114 P.2d 929, 189 Okl. 194 — May v.
Casker, 110 P.2d 287, 185 OkL 448
49 (J.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 408
annulling, correcting, or modifying such decree;28
an objection, incidentally raised in the course of the
proceeding, which presents an issue collateral to the
issues made by the pleadings.29
In other words, if the action or proceeding has
an independent purpose and contemplates some oth-
er relief or result, although the overturning of the
judgment may be important or even necessary to
its success, then the attack on the judgment is col-
lateral.30 This is the case where the proceeding is
— Robison v. Hamm, 64 P.2d 894,
179 Okl. 79— Wright v. Saltmarsh,
50 P.2d 694, 174 Okl. 226— Powers
v. Brown, 252 P. 27, 122 Okl. 40 —
Ward v. Thompson, 237 P. 569, 111
Okl. 52— Watkins v. Jester, 229 P.
1085, 103 Okl. 201~Tidal Refining
Co. v. Tivis, 217 P. 163, 164, 91
Okl. 189 — Ross v. Breene, 211 P.
417, 88 Okl. 37.
Tex. — Lipscomb v. Lofland, Civ.App.,
141 S.W.2d 'S3, error dismissed,
judgment ct . . ect — Smith v. Burns,
Civ.Ajp>p., 107 S.W.2d 397— Johnson
v. Ortiz Oil Co., Civ.App., 104 S.W.
2d 543 — 'Foster v. Christensen, Civ.
• App., 42 S.W.2d 460, reversed on
other grounds, Com.App., 67 S.W.
2d 246.
Utah.— Intermill v. Nash, 75 P.2d
157, 94 Utah 271.
Wash. — Globe Const. Co. v. Tost, 13
P.2d 433, 169 Wash. 319— Corpus
Juris cited in Hanna v. Allen, 279
P. 1098, 1101, 153 Wash. 485.
W.Va. — Nelson Transfer & Storage
Co. v. Jarrett, 157 S.E. 46, 110 W.
Va. 97 — Lough v. Taylor, 124 S.R
585, 97 W.Va. 180.
34 C.J. p S21 note 52.
A motion to quash service of sum-
mons after judgment and after term
on ground that service was not duly
made was properly dismissed as be-
ing an indirect attack on judgment
beyond authority of court to enter-
tain.—Hinman v. Executive Commit-
tee of Communistic Party of U. S.
A., 47 N.H.2d 820, 71 Ohio App. 76.
Proceeding before court of tax re-
view, wherein validity of judgment
against city rendered by state dis-
trict court is questioned constitutes
"collateral attack" on judgment
which must fail unless shown to be
void by judgment roll.— Protest of
St. Louis-San Francisco Hy. Co., 42
P.2d 537, 171 Okl. 180— Protest of
Gulf Pipe Line Co. of Oklahoma, 32
P.2d 42, 168 Okl. 136.
Attack by supplemental petition
held collateral attack, — Duke v. Gil-
breath, TexCiv.App., 2 S.W.2d 324,
error dismissed— Cockrell v. Steffens,
Tex.Civ.A'pp., 284 S.W. 608— -Texas
Pacific Coal & Oil Co. v. Ames, Tex.
Civ.App., 254 S.W. 315, reversed on
other grounds, ConxApp., 292 S.W.
191.
Appeal or motion after term
'^Collateral proceeding," within
rule that party may not deny validi-
ty of judgmen^ rendered at his in-
stance, is proceeding other than ap-
peal or motion during the term. —
Poston T. Delfelder, 273 P. 176, 39
Wyo. 163.
Suit on insurance policy was held
collateral attack on conviction for
burning identical property with in-
tent to injure insurer. — Eagle, Star
and British Dominions Ins. v Co. v.
Heller, 140 S.E. 314, 149 Va, 82, 57
A.L.R. 490.
A proceeding- to set aside two
mortgages executed by an adminis-
tratrix pursuant to authority granted
by the probate court was in the na-
ture of a collateral attack on the
judgment of the probate court, and
complainant could not -prevail unless
the judgments were void on the face
of the record, or unless the court
lacked jurisdiction of the subject
matter.— Reed v. Futrall, 115 S.W.2d
542, 195 Ark. 1044.
28. U.S.— <Jorpns Juris quoted in
Trustees of Somerset Academy v.
Picher, C.C.A.Me., 90 F.2d '741, 744.
Alaska.— ILynch v. Colllngs, 7 Alaska
84.
Ark. — Turley v. Owen, 69 S.W.2d 882,
188 Ark. 1067.
Or.— Gatt v. Hurlburt, 284 P. 172, 131
Or. 554, rehearing denied 286 P.
151, 132 Or. 415.
Tex. — Burton v. McGuire, Civ.App.,
3 S.W.2d 576, affirmed, Com. App.,
41 S.W.2d 238.
Utah.— Intel-mill v. Nash, 75 P.2d
157, 94 Utah 271.
Wash. — Corpus Juris cited in Hanna
v. Allen, 279 P. 1098, 1101, 153
Wash. 485.
34 C.J. p 521 note 53.
29. U.S.— -Corpus Juris quoted in
Trustees of Somerset Academy v.
Picher, C.C.A.Me., 90 F.2d 741, 744.
34 C. J. p 521 note 54.
Objection by way of evidence
In action against corporate direc-
tors as statutory trustees on judg-
ment obtained against corporation
before forfeiture of its charter, evi-
dence tending to show that indebted-
ness for which judgment against cor-
poration had been entered had been
paid prior to its entry was properly
excluded as a ''collateral attack" on
original judgment.~-Caxton Printers
v. Ulen, 86 P.2d 468, 59 Idaho 688.
30. U.S. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Trustees of Somerset Academy v.
Picher, •C.C.A.Me., 90 'F.2d 741, 744
— Murrell v. Stock Growers' Nat.
Bank of Qheyenne, C.C.A.Wyo., 74
F.2d 827 — Watts v. Alexander,
Morrison & Co., -D.C.N.Y., 34 F.2d
66, afllrmed, C.C.A., Watts v. Van-
derbilt, 45 F.2d 963.
811
Ariz.— Hershey v. Banta, 99 P.2d 81,
55 Ariz. 93, followed in Hershey v.
Republic Life Ins. Co., 99 P.2d 85,
55 Ariz. 104 — Dockery v. Central
Arizona Light & Power Co., 45 P.
2d 656, 45 Ariz. 434.
Ark. — Corpus Juris cited in' Brooks
v. Baker, 187 -S.W.2d 169, 208 Ark.
654 — Person v. Miller Levee Dist.
No. 2, 150 S.W.2d 950, 202 Ark. 173
— Bndsley v. Arkansas Power &
Light Co., 115 S.W.2d 1070, 196
Ark. 94— State Life Ins. Co. v.
Graue, 79 S.W.2d 268, 190 Ark.
460.
Cal. — Kaufmann v. California Mining
& Dredging Syndicate, 104 P.2d
1038, 16 Cal.2d 90.
Ga.— Marshall v. Marthin, 15 S.B.2d
861, 192 Ga. 613— Corpus Juris cit-
ed in Thomas v. Lambert, 1 S.B.2d
443, 444, 187 Ga. 616— Rosenberg
v. Phelps, 126 S.B. 788, 159 Ga.
607.
Idaho.— Moyes v. Moyes, 94 P.2d 782,
60 Idaho -601— Welch v. Morris, 291
P. 1048, 49 Idaho 781— Simonton v.
Simonton, 236 P. 863, 40 Idaho 751,
42 A.L.R. 1363.
Iowa. — Corpus Juris quoted in An-
derson v. Schwitzer, 20 N.W.2d 69,
71— Corpus Juris quoted in Brown
v. Tank, 297 N.W. 801, 80S, 230
Iowa 370 — Corpus Juris quoted in
Newcomber v. Newcomber, 201 N.
W. S79, 580, 199 Iowa 290.
Ky.— White v. White, 172 «S.W.2d 72,
294 Ky. 563 — Newsome v. Hall, 161
S.W.2d 629, 290 Ky. 486, 140 A.'L.R.
818 — Haas v. Kentucky Title Trust
Co., 98 S.W.2d 494, 266 Ky. 215 —
McFarland v. Hudson, 89 S.W.2d
1877, 262 Ky. 183— Hays v. Adams,
294 S.W. 1039, 220 Ky. 196.
Minn. — In re Melgaard's Will, 274
N.W. 641, 200 Minn. 49*3.
Mo. — Inter-River Drainage Dist. of
Missouri v. Henson, App.p 99 S.W.
2d 865.
Neb.— In re Ramp's Estate, 201 N.W.
676, 113 Neb. 3.
N.T.— Conyne v. McGibbon, 37 N.T.
S.2d 590, 179 Misc. 54, transferred,
see 39 N.T.S.2d 609, 265 App.Div.
976, affirmed 41 N.T.S.2d 189, 266
App.Div. 711.
Okl.— 'Fidelity & -Deposit Co. of
Maryland v. Clanton, 28 P.2d 566,
167 Okl. 106— Moffer v. Jones, 169
P. 652, 656, 67 Okl. 171.
S.D. — Adamson v. Minnehaha County,
293 N.W. 542, 67 S.D. 423.
Tex.— Griggs v. Montgomery, Civ.
App., 22 S.W.2d 688— Reitz v.
Mitchell, Civ.App., 256 <S.W. 697.
408
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
founded directly on the judgment in question, or
on any of its incidents or consequences as a judg-
ment,31 or where the judgment forms a part of
plaintiffs title or of the evidence by which his claim
is supported.32 Where no relief is sought against
a judgment,33 as, for instance, where the proceed-
Utah.— Intermill v. Nash, 75 P.2d
157, 94 Utah 271.
34 C.J. p 522 note 55.
In action to foreclose mortgage,
executed by heir of deceased owner
of mortgaged land as security for
note given administrator of dece-
dent's estate for money borrowed by
mortgagor, separate answer of mort-
gagor's grantee, alleging that such
instruments were void because of
administrator's acts In causing un-
lawful claims to be filed against es-
tate, «paying them without allowance
thereof by probate court, and procur-
ing probate judge's indorsement
thereof as allowed in furtherance of
scheme to induce mortgagor to bor-
row money on land, was not direct
proceeding in equity to set aside
probate court's Judgment, but col-
lateral proceeding, wherein question
of fraud invalidating such claims
could not be raised.— Nelson v. Gos-
sage, 107 P.2d 682, 152 Kan. 805.
31. Proceeding* founded on jndff.
meat or incidents or consequenc-
es thereof
(1) Where, pursuant to decree re-
forming statutory appeal bond and
determining amount due thereunder,
execution was levied on realty and
sheriffs sale was held pursuant to
writ of execution, motion to set aside
levy and sheriff's sale was in effect
a collateral attack on decree reform-
ing surety bond and was improper
where court had Jurisdiction of par-
ties and authority to reform bond. —
Life Ins. Co. of Detroit v. Burton,
10 N.W.2d 315, 308 Mich. 81.
(2) Other instances see 34 C.J. p
522 note 56 [a].
32. Ky.— Wells' Adm'x v. Heil, 47
S.W.2d 1041, 543 Ky. 282— Louis-
ville & N. R. Co. v. Bays' Adm'x,
295 S.W. 452, 220 Ky. 458— Tarter
v. Wilson, 269 S.W. 715, 207 Ky.
535— Decker v. Tyree, 264 S.W.
726, 204 Ky. 302.
Neb.— In re Warner's Estate, 288 N.
W. 39, 137 Neb. 25.
N.C. — Clark v. Carolina Homes, 128
S.E. 20, 189 N.C. 703.
34 C.J. p 522 note 57.
Trespa«s to try title
(1) In this action any attack on a
Judgment which forma the basis of
the title of one of the parties, or
enters into his title, will be consid-
ered, a collateral impeachment of
such judgment — Gamble v. Banney-
er, 151 S.W.2d 586, 137 Tex. 7— Per-
mian Oil. Co. v. Smith, 107 S.W.24
564, 129 Tex. 413, 111 A.L.R. 1152—
Stewart Oil Co. v. Lee, Tex.Civ.Apip.,
173 S.W.2d 791, error refused^-Don-
aldson v. Cleveland, Tex.Civ.App., 157
&W.2d 689, error refused— Smoot v.
Chambers, Tex.Civ.App., 156 S.W.2d
314, error refused— Dittmar v. St.
Louis Union Trust Co., Tex.Civ.App.,
155 S.W.2d 3SS, error refused— Clay-
ton v. Reamer, Tex.Civ.App., 153 S.
W.2d 1020, error refused— Livingston
v. Stubbs, Tex.Civ.App., 151 S.W.2d
285, error dismissed, Judgment cor-
rect— Gann v. Putman, Tex.Civ.App.,
141 S.W.2d 758, error dismissed,
Judgment correct — Mercer v. Rubey,
Tex.Clv.App., 108 S.W.2d 677, error
refused— Waitz v. Uvalde Rock As-
phalt Co., Tex.Civ.App., 58 S.W.2d
8 84 — Burton v. McGuire, Tex. Civ.
App., 3 S.W.2d 576, affirmed, Com.
App., 41 S.W.2d 238— Bonougli v.
Guerra, Tex.Civ.App., 286 S.W. '344
—34 C.J. p 522 note 56 [a],
(2) In suit to quiet title, where
complaint did not mention foreclo-
sure decree through which defend-
ant deraigned title and defendant
counterclaimed to quiet title without
referring to decree, answer to coun-
terclaim alleging that decree was en-
tered in foreclosure proceeding
wherein service was by publication
without any sufficient affidavit of
jurisdictional facts authorizing such
service constituted collateral attack
on foreclosure decree and did not au-
thorize introduction of evidence de-
hors record, such as the affidavit, to
show invalidity of decree. — Intermil-1
v. Nash, 75 P.2d 157, 94 Utah 271.
(3) Amended petition in trespass
to try title, alleging that property
had been sold under Judgment on
trust deed which had been executed
to secure Judgment against property,
that property was homestead of
judgment debtor and not subject to
debt and lien asserted, and that prop-
erty was sold for inadequate consid-
eration, was held not subject to spe-
cial exception as collateral attack on
Judgment — Milliken v. Coker, Civ.
App., 90 S.W.2d 902, modified on oth-
er grounds 115 S.W.2d 620, 132 Tex.
23.
(4) In trespass to try title to real-
ty which had been purchased with
money which heir had enabled pur-
chaser to borrow under agreement
with heir that purchaser would pur-
chase realty for heir's benefit and
then convey realty to the heir, testi-
mony showing lack of consideration
received by heir for sale of realty
was not inadmissible on ground that
it amounted to a collateral attack on
orders of probate court confirming
sale to purchaser where purchaser
held realty in trust for benefit of
the heir and evidence showing trust
relation did not amount to collateral
attack on order of probate court —
Berry v. Chadwick, Tex.Civ.App., 137
812
S.W.2d 859, error dismissed, Judg-
ment correct,
famishment
(1) The validity of a Judgment
cannot be questioned in garnishment
proceedings based thereon. — Aach v.
Pippart, Mo.Ap.p., 261 S.W. 929—34
C.J. p 522 note 57 [b].
(2) In garnishment proceedings
against bank having deposits for
benefit of several classes of claims
against mutual benefit society, mere
showing of nature of claim on which
Judgment against society was ren-
dered was held not collateral attack
on Judgment — Spain v. 'First State
Bank of Stamford, Tex.Civ.App., 39
S.W.2d 184, error dismissed.
33. U.S. — Strates v. Dimotsis, C.C.A.
Tex., 110 F.2d 374, certiorari denied
•61 S.Ct 24, '311 U.S. 666, *5 (L.Bd.
427— Pueblo De Taos v. Archuleta,
C.C.A.N.M., 64 F.2d 807.
Ark.— Newton v. Stewart, 148 S.W.
2d 1072, 202 Ark. 62— Wyatt v.
Beard, 15 S/W.2d 990, 179 Ark. 305
— Hicks v. Nors worthy, 4 S.W.2d
897, 176 Ark. 786.
111. — Leviton v. Board of Education
of City of Chicago, 53 N.B.2d 596,
385 ill. 599.
Kan.— Kirwin v. Mclntosh, 9* P.2d
160, 151 Kan. 289 — Farmers' State
Bank of Cunningham v. Crow, 267
P. 1100, 126 Kan. 395.
Ky. — Ballew v. Denny, 177 S.W.2d
152, 296 Ky. "368, 150 A.L.R. 770—
Sell v. Pierce, 140 S.W.2d 1027, 283
Ky. 143 — Maryland Casualty Co. v.
Huffaker's Adm'r, 13 S.W.2d 260,
227 Ky. 358.
Mass. — Mahoney v. Nollman, 35 N.
E.2d 265, '309 Mass. 522— City of
Boston v. Santosuosso, 30 N.E.2d
278, 307 Mass. 302.
Mo. — Boatmen's Nat. Bank of St.
Louis v. Cantwell, App., 161 8.W.
2d 431.
Mont. — Corpus Juris quoted lit Cas-
cade County v. Weaver, 90 P.2d
164, 169, 108 Mont. 1.
Nev.— Butzbach v. Siri, 5 P.2d 533,
53 Nev. 453.
N.J.— Ash v. Cohn, 194 A. 174, 119 N.
J.Law 54.
N.C. — Johnson v. (Futrell Bros. Luxn-
- ber Co., 35 S.E.2d -889, 225 N.C.
595— North Carolina Joint Stock
Land Bank of Durham v. Kerr, .175
S.B. 102, 206 N.C. 610.
Ohio.— Petitt v. Morton, 176 N.B. 494,
38 Ohio App. '348, affirmed Morton
v. Petitt, 177 N.E. 591, 124 Ohio
St 241 — Poehl v. Cincinnati Trac-
tion Co., 151 N.E.' 806, 20 Ohio
Ajvp. 145. '
Okl.— Gragg v. PrUitt, 65 P.2d 994,
179 Okl. 369.
S.D. — Salem Independent School
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§409
ing is for the purpose of construing the judgment,34
or determining its scope and effect35 or its nature,36
there is no infraction of the rule against collateral
attack.
The introduction of evidence to show the actual
owner of a judgment has been held not a collateral
attack on the judgment.37 Inquiry into the circum-
stances under which a judgment was obtained is
not necessarily a collateral attack.3^
§ 409. Proceedings
ment
to Enforce Judg-
A proceeding to enforce a judgment Is collateral to
the judgment, and therefore no inquiry into its reg-
ularity or validity can be permitted in such a proceed-
ing.
A proceeding to enforce a judgment is collateral
to the judgment, and therefore no inquiry into its
regularity or validity can be permitted in such a
proceeding, whether it is a direct action on the
judgment39 or on a note given in satisfaction of the
judgment,40 or a proceeding to revive the judg-
ment,41 or proceedings supplementary to execu-
tion,42 or a bill in equity in aid of execution or to
enforce the lien of the judgment,43 or a rule to
show cause why a writ of possession should not is-
sue,44 or an action or suit to set aside a convey-
ance and subject property to satisfaction of a judg-
ment45 The rule also applies whether the pro-
ceeding is for an injunction to protect rights ac-
quired by a judgment,48 or presentation of the
Dist No. 17 of McCook County v.
Circuit Court of McCook County
in Second Judicial Circuit 244 N.
W. 373, 60 S.D. 341.
Tex. — Jagoe Const Co. v. U. S. Fi-
delity & Guaranty Co., Civ.App.,
58 S.W.2d 503— Smith v. Gaines,
Civ.App., 243 S.W. 665— Chappel v.
State, 126 S.W.2d 984, 136 Tex.Cr.
528.
34 C.J. ,p 522 note 58.
34. Mont.— Corpus Juris Quoted in
Cascade County v. Weaver, 90 P.
2d 164, 169, 108 Mont. 1.
34 C.J. p 522 note 59.
35. Ind.— Au-lt v. Clark, 112 N.E.
843, 846, 62 Ind.App. 55.
Tex. — State v. Reagan County Pur-
chasing Co., Civ.App., 186 S.W.2d
128, error refused.
Admission of parol evidence to ex-
plain Justice's judgment entered on
docket for amount beyond his juris-
diction, so as to show judgment for
amount within his jurisdiction, does
not constitute collateral attack on
judgment, as purpose of such evi-
dence is not to destroy, but to vivi-
fy, an imperfect judgment. — Fleming
v. Kemp, Tenn.App.f 178 S.W.2d 397.
36. Mont — Corpus Juris quoted in
Cascade County v. Weaver, 90 P.
2d 164, 169, 108 Mont 1.
34 C.J. p 522 note 60.
Adjudication of nature
Decision holding judgment on bank
stockholder's statutory liability un-
enforceable by assignee was held not
collateral attack on judgment, but
adjudication of its nature. — Roe v.
King, 251 N.W, 81, 217 Iowa 213,
37. Md. — Green v. Green, 35 A.2d
238, 182 Md. 571.
38. Mass.— Harvey v. Waitt, 44 N.E.
2d 629, 312 Mass. 333.
.39. U.S. — Corpus Juris Quoted in
City of Wheeling v. John P. Casey
Co., 89 F.2d 308, 310.
Ala'.— Naftel Dry Goods Co. v. Mitch-
ell, 101 So. 653, 212 Ala. 32.
Mich. — Corpus Juris cited In Boeh-
mer v. Herlingf, 227 N.W. 755, 756,
248 Mich. 380— Corpus Juris cited
in Cook v. Casualty Ass'n of Amer-
ica, 224 N.W. 341, 342, 246 Mich.
278.
Miss. — Corpus Juris cited in Rawl-
ings v. American Oil Co., 161 So.
851, 853, 173 Miss. 68*.
N.J. — Henderson v. Weber, 28 A.2d
90, 129 N.J.Law 59.
N.Y. — Greenwich Sav. Bank v. Sam-
otaa, 17 N.Y.S.2d 772.
Or. — Corpus Juris cited in Travelers
Ins, Co. of Hartford, Conn., v. Stai-
ger, 69 P.2d 1069, 1071, 157 Or. 143.
Pa. — Secretary of Banking v. Miller,
Com.Pl., 40 (Lack.Jur. 17.
Tenn. — Robertson v. Johnson, 177 S.
W.2d 860, 27 Tenn.App. 59— Corpus
Juris quoted, in Clements v.
Holmes, 120 S.W.Sd 988, 991, 22
Tenn.App. 230.
Tex. — Hunt Production Co. v. Bur-
rage, Civ.App., 104 S.W.2d 84, er-
ror dismissed — Newman v. City of
Bl Paso, Civ.App., 77 S.W.2d 721,
error dismissed.
Wash.— Petition of City of Seattle,
138 P.2d 667, 18 Wash.2d 167.
34 C.J. p 523 note 61.
Defenses
In an action on a judgment the
rule forbidding contradiction of
judgment is not to be avoided by
calling the contradiction an eauita-
ble defense. — Bremner v. Hester, 155
N.B. 454, 258 Mass. 425.
40. Ind. — Citizens Loan & Trust Co.
v. Boyles, 1 N.B.2d 292, 102 Ind.
App. 157.
Tenn. — Corpus Juris quoted in Clem-
ents v. Holmes, 120 S.W.2d 988,
991, 22 Tenn.App. 230.
34 C.J. p 523 note -62.
41. Idaho.— Tingwall v. King Hill
Irr. Dist, 155 P.3d 605.
La. — Henry v. Roque, App., 18 So,2d
917.
Mo. — Coombs v. Benz, 114 S.W.2d
713, 232 MO.APP. 1011.
Tenn. — Corpus Juris guoted in Clem-
813
ents v. Holmes, 120 S.W.2d 988,
991, 22 Tenn.App. 230.
34 C.J. p 523 note -63.
42. Ind.— Draper v. Zebec, 37 N.B.
2d 952, 219 Ind. "362, rehearing de-
nied 38 N.E.2d 995, 219 Ind. 362.
Mo. — Row v. Cape Girardeau 'Foun-
dry Co., App., 141 S.W.2d 113.
Tenn. — Corpus Juris quoted in Clem-
ents v. Holmes, 120 S.W.2d ' 988,
991, 22 Tenn.App. 230.
'34 C.J. p £23 note 64.
43. Tenn. — Clements v. Holmes, 120
S.W.2d 988, 22 Tenn.App. 230.
Tex. — McGehee v. Brookins, Civ.
App., 140 S.W.2d 963, error dis-
missed, judgment correct
W.Va. — Lough v. Taylor, 124 S.B.
585, $7 W.Va. ISO.
34 C.J. p 52$ note 65.
44. La.— Maloney v. Wilkinson, 129
So. 374, 170 La. 868.
Default Judgment
Where default judgment had been
rendered determining that plaintiff
was entitled to peaceable and un-
disturbed possession of land which
was in defendant's possession, on
rule to show cause why plaintiff's as-
signee should not be put into posses-
sion of land, refusal to allow defend-
ant to seek to nullify the default
judgment was not error where de-
fendant failed to set up in her an-
swer any legal ground for annulling
the judgment rendered against her
more than five years before the rule
was issued. — Bodcaw -Lumber Co. of
•Louisiana v. Wallette, La, App., 19 So.
2d 663.
45. Ky.— Hopkins v. Cox, 174 S.W.
2d 418, 295 Ky. 286.
N.Y.— Collins v. Burr, 204 N.Y.S. 357,
209 AppJDiv. 116.
W.Va. — Crickmer v. Thomas, 200 S.
B. 353, 120 W.Va, 769.
46. Mont— Missoula Light & Water
Co. v. Hughes, 77 P.2d 1041, 10-6
Mont. 355.
§ 409
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
judgment to the probate court for classification as
a demand against the judgment debtor's estate,47
or an action of ejectment,48 or a proceeding by
mandamus to compel the payment of a judgment49
or award,50 or to compel the levy and collection
of a tax to provide funds for the payment of the
judgment, the debtor being a municipal corpora-
tion,51 or an action to enjoin the collection of a
tax levied to pay a judgment against a municipal
corporation.52 In a proceeding of this kind, it may
be shown that the judgment is absolutely void for
want of jurisdiction.53 In a suit on a judgment, a
contention that the judgment was not final is not a
collateral attack.54 In garnishment proceedings on
a judgment, a motion to dismiss which raises the
point that on the face of the proceeding there is
no judgment in existence and that it is conclusively
presumed to have been paid is not a collateral at-
tack on the judgment.55
Reversal of judgment. A final judgment revers-
ing a judgment can not be collaterally attacked by
mandamus proceedings to compel the clerk of court
to issue execution on the reversed judgment.56
§ 410. Proceedings to Prevent Enforce-
ment of Judgment
Proceedings to prevent the enforcement of a judg-
ment are direct or collateral attacks depending on the
circumstances of the case and the nature of the pro-
ceeding.
It has been broadly stated that a proceeding for
equitable relief from the effect of a judgment, or-
der, or decree is not a collateral attack.5? Accord-
ing to some decisions, and under some circumstanc-
es, a suit in equity to enjoin or set aside a judg-
ment constitutes a direct attack on it;58 according
to others, or under other circumstances, such a pro-
47. Mo. — Gunby v. Cooper, 164 S.
W. 152, 177 Mo.App. 354.
48. Ala.— Rosebrook v. Martin, 76
So. 950, 200 Ala. 592.
34 C.J. p 523 note 67.
40. U.S. — Corpus Juris quoted in
City of Wheeling v. John F. Casey
Co., C.C.A.W.VE., 89 F.2d 308, 310,
certiorarl denied 58 S.Ct. 15, 302
U.S. 697, 82 L.Ed. 538.
CaL — Johnson v. Fontana County
Fire Protection Dist., 101 P.2d
1092, 15 Cal.2d 380.
111. — People ex rel. Baird & Warner
v. Lindheimer, 19 N.E.2d 336, 370
111. 424— Wille v. Hodes, 1 N.E.2d
1015, 285 IlLA-pp. 331.
W.Va.— State v. Hall, 119 SJBL 166,
94 W.Va. 400.
34 C.J. p 523 note 68.
Where judgment not assailed
In mandamus proceedings to com-
pel city to pay balance on condemna-
tion judgment awards after relator
and city had entered into a binding
stipulation requiring relator to re-
move relator's buildings from con-
demned land at relator's expense, ad-
mitting the stipulation in evidence
did not constitute a collateral at-
tack on condemnation judgment, and
holding relator to performance of its
undertaking to remove buildings did
not modify or contradict judgment
either as to its amount or finality. —
People ex ret Moody Bible Institute
of Chicago v. City of Chicago, "37 N.
E.2d 895, 312 IlLApp. 126, error dis-
missed 46 N.E.2d 918, 382 111. 70, cer-
tiorari denied Moody Bible Institute
of Chicago v. City of Chicago, 64 S.
Ct. 37, '320 U.S. 705, -88 XuEd. 413.
50. Mich. — Detroit Trust Co. v. Van
Wagoner, 295 N.W. 222, 295 Mich.
449, followed in Judson Bradway
Co. v. Van Wagoner, 295 N.W. 224,
295 Mich. 455.
51. U.S.— City of Mohall v. 'First
Nat. Bank, C.C.A.X.D., 105 F.2d
315, certiorari denied City of Mo-
hall, North Dakota v. First Nat.
Bank, 60 S.Ct. 110, 308 U.S. 587,
S4 L.Ed. 491 — Corpus Juris quoted
in City of Wheeling v. John F.
Casey Co., C.C.A.W.Va., 89 F.2d
308, certiorari denied 58 S.Ct 15,
302 U.S. 697, 82 JJ.Ed. 538.
Alaska. — Dickinson v. Town of Pe-
tersburg, 6 Alaska 488.
•Fla. — Campbell v. State ex rel. Gar-
rett, 168 So. 33, 124 Fla. 244.
111. — Moore v. Town of Browning, 27
N.E.2d 533, 373 111. 583.
Wis. — Slama v. Young, 225 N.W. 830,
199 Wis. 82.
34 C.J. p 523 note 69.
52. Wyo. — Grand Island & N. W. R.
Co. v. Baker, 45 P. 494, 6 Wyo.
369, 71 Am.S.R. 926, 34 -L..R.A. 835.
53. 111. — Chambers v. City of Chica-
go, 270 IlLApp. 217.
Miss. — Schwartz Bros. & Qo. v. Staf-
ford, 148 So. 794, 166 Miss. 397.
Nev. — State ex rel. Smith v. Sixth
Judicial Dist. Court, Humboldt
County, 167 P.2d 648.
N.Y.— Finkelstein v. William H.
Block Co., 208 N.T.S. 401, 124 Misc.
610.
N.D. — Corpus Juris cited in Lyons v.
Otter Tail Power Co., 280 N.W.
192, 195, 68 N.D. 403.
34 C.J. p 523 note 71.
Want of service of process
(1) Where property after foreclo-
sure of trust deed was sold to pur-
chaser who refused to comply with
his bid, answer by purchaser in pro-
ceeding by commissioner to compel
purchaser to comply with bid that
decree of foreclosure was void on
ground that minor defendants had
never been served or represented con-
stituted a permissible direct attack
814
and not a collateral attack, notwith-
standing it was not made until after
expiration of the term at which the
decree was entered, where chancellor
had specifically retained control of
proceedings.— Fisher v. Wilkerson,
139 S.W.2d 689, 199 Ark. 31.
(2) In suit by mortgagee's as-
signee to Quiet title under sheriff's
deed procured on foreclosure where-
in mortgagor filed cross complaint
attacking default foreclosure decree
as void on ground that no process
had been served on mortgagor and
wife, cross complaint and answer
constituted a "direct attack" on the
foreclosure decree. — John Hancock
Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Gooley, 83 P.2d
221, 196 Wash. 357, 118 A.L.R. 1484.
Pleading an& proof
Parties purportedly making direct
attack on judgment in another case
were required to plead and prove
such facts as would show direct at-
tack thereon.— O'Quinn v. Tate, Tex.
Civ.App., 187 S.W.2d 241.
Proceeding to revive judgment
Where jurisdictional defects are
apparent on face of record, judgment
may be attacked collaterally in scire
facias proceeding, regardless of pur-
pose for which scire facias is issued.
—Woods v. Spoturno, 183 A. 319, 7
W.W.Harr., Del., 295, reversed on
other grounds Spoturno v. Woods,
192 A. 689, 8 W.W.Harr. 378.
54. Tex. — Gathings v. Robertson,
Com.App., 276 S.W. 218.
55. Ala.— Second Nat. Bank v. All-
good, 176 So. 363, 234 Ala. 654.
56. Mo. — State ex rel. McGrew Coal
Co. v. Ragland, 97 S.W.2d 113, 339
Mo. 452.
57. Cal.— Caldwell v. Taylor, 23 P.
2d 758, 218 Cal. 471, 88 A.L.R. 1194.
58. U.S.— Seay v. Hawkins, C.C.A.
OkL, 17 F.2d 710.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§410
cceding is collateral59 unless fraud is alleged;60
still others hold that a suit to set aside a judgment
is neither the one nor the other,6! but is properly
designated an indirect attack.62
Ala.— Martin v. State, 13 So.2d 206,
244 Ala. 323— 'Fowler v. Fowler,
122 So. 440, 219 Ala. 453.
Ark. — Brick v. Sovereign Grand
Lodge of Accepted Free Masons of
Arkansas, 117 S.W.2d 1060, 196
Ark. 372.
Cal. — Rico v. Nasser Bros. Realty
Co., 13'7 P.2d '?61, 58 Cal.App.2d
378— Wilson v. Wilson, 130 P.2d
782, 55 Cal.App.2d 421— Hammell
v. Britton, 119 P.2d 333, 19 Cal.
App.2d 72.
Ky._- Hill v. Walker, 180 S.W.2d 93,
297 Ky. 257, 154 A.L.R. 814— New-
some v. Hall, 161 S.W.2d -629, 290
Ky. 486, 140 A.L.R. 818.
Mich. — Grigg v. Hanna, 278 N.W.
125, 283 Mich. 443.
Mo. — Jefferson City Bridge & Transit
Co. v, Blaser, 300 S.W. 778, 318
Mo. 373.
X.J. — Giehrach v. Ruj>p, 164 A. 465,
112 N.J.Eq. 296.
N.Y. — Citizen's Bank of White Plains
v. Oglesby, 39 N.T.S.2d 500, 265
App.Div. 1062, appeal denied 41 N.
Y.S.2d 219, 266 App.Div. 682.
Okl. — Seekatz v. Brandenburg, 300 P.
678, 150 Okl. 53.
Or. — Dixie Meadows Independence
Mines Co. v. Kight, 45 P.2d 909,
150 Or. 395 — State Bank of Sheri-
dan v. Heider, 9 P.2d 117, 139 Or.
185.
Tenn.— Wood v. Elam, 4 Baxt. 341 —
Kates v. Anderson, Dulin, Varnell
Co., 9 Tenn.App. "396.
Wash. — McElroy v. Puget -Sound Nat.
Bank, 288 P. 241, 157 Wash. 43.
34 C.J. p 523 note 72.
Satisfaction of judgment
A suit to enjoin the enforcement of
a judgment on the ground that it
has been satisfied has been held not
to be a collateral attack. — Smith v.
Morrill, 55 P. 824, 12 Colo.App. 233.
Guardian's suit to enjoin enforce-
ment of alimony judgment against
insane ward for fraud in procuring
it was held not barred as collateral
attack on judgment granting defend-
ant divorce.— Crow v. Crow-Humph-
rey, 73 S.W.2d 807, 335 Mo. -636.
Injunction to restrain trespass on
land condemned
Where a county court condemned
land for highway purposes and dis-
allowed landowners' claims for com-
pensation because of insufficient
funds from which to -pay claims, a
subsequent injunction issued by a
chancery court of county wherein
land was located restraining persons
from trespassing upon land was not
a collateral attack on county court's
judgment.— Arkansas State Highway
Commission v. Hammock, 148 S.W.2d
a24, 201 Ark. 927.
In Texas
(1) Generally an action to enjoin
enforcement of a judgment, rendered
:>y the court in which the action is
brought, is considered a direct at-
tack, not a collateral attack, on the
Judgment. — Switzer v. Smith, Com.
App., *300 S.W. 31, 68 AJL..R. 377—
Willbanks v. Montgomery, Civ.App.,
189 S.W.2d 337— Bragdon v. Wright,
Civ.App., 142 S.W.2d 703, error dis-
missed—Settles v. Milano Furniture
Co., Civ.App., 51 S.W.2d 655, error
refused — Citizens' Bank v. Brandau,
Civ.App., 1 S.W.2d 466, error refused
— Carlton v. Hoff, Civ.App., 292 S.
W. 642.
(2) If brought in a court other
than the one in which the judgment
was rendered it is collateral. — Stew-
art v. Adams, Civ.App., 171 S.W.2d
180— Getting v. Mineral Wells
Crushed Stone Co., Civ.App., 262 S.
W. 93.
(3) Even though injunction suit to
restrain the enforcement of a judg-
ment constituted a collateral attack,
such suit was proper where the judg-
ment was void. — Lewis v. Terrell,
Civ.App., 154 S.W.2d 151, error re-
fused.
(4) A suit to enjoin judgment
creditors and sheriff from selling
realty under execution to satisfy
judgment, which was rendered
against plaintiff by court in which
suit was brought and grew out of
same case under same docket num-
ber, constituted direct attack, rather
than collateral attack, on judgment,
— Willbanks v. Montgomery, Civ.
App., 189 S.W.2d 337.
(5) Judgment rendered by court
without jurisdiction may be set aside
on direct attack by suit instituted
for such purpose. — Ezell v. Texas
Employers' Ins. Ass'n, Civ.App., 5
S.W.2d 594, reversed on other
grounds Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n
v. Ezell, Com.App., 14 S.W.2d 1018,
rehearing denied 16 S.W.2d 523.
(6) Suit to set aside judgment,
brought by one who was served and
defaulted, on ground that all neces-
sary parties were not joined, in-
volves collateral attack on voidable
judgment— State Mortg. Corporation
v. Garden, Civ.App., 11 S.W.2d 212.
(7) Judgment in judgment debt-
or's proceeding to set aside Judgment
could not be collaterally attacked in
suit to enjoin execution sale under
judgment. — Simmons v. Sikes, Civ
App., 56 S.W.2d 193, error dismissed
59. Ark.— Lambie v. W. T. Raw-
leighf Co., 14 S.W.2d 245, 178 Ark.
1019.
815
Fla.— Richart v. Roper, 25 So.2d 80
— Bemis v. Loftin, 173 So. 683, 127
Fla. 515.
Iowa.— Hawkeye Life Ins. Co. v.
Valley-Des Moines Co., 260 N.W.
669, 220 Iowa 556, 105 A.L.R. 1018.
Ky. — Breeding v. Commonwealth, 264
S.W. 1050, 204 Ky. 433.
Mich.— Sablain v. National Refining
Co., 2-86 N.W. 611, 289 Mich. 269.
N.D.— Olson v. Donnelly, 294 N.W.
666, 70 N.D. 370.
34 C.J. p 523 note 73.
As against innocent purchasers
A suit to set aside judgment fore-
closing vendor's liens in which there
was an admission that the owners
and holders of interests in the land
were innocent purchasers for value
without notice except the notice re-
flected by the record in the action,
the Judgment of which was sought
to be set aside, constituted a collat-
eral attack on the Judgment and
could be maintained only If the Judg-
ment was void on its face or cir-
cumstances surrounding its entry
would cause a prudent person to
make inquiry which, if pursued with
reasonable diligence, would reveal
the vice of the judgment. — Williams
v. Tooke, Tex.Civ.App., 116 -S.W.2d
1114, error dismissed.
Extraordinary equitaWe remedy
A collateral attack on a judgment
of a court having jurisdiction of par-
ties and subject matter is* an "extra-
ordinary equitable remedy" and is
closely circumscribed. — In re Gray's
Will, 8 N.Y.S.Sd 850, 169 Misc. 985.
Motion to set avide
In suit in equity to establish and
enforce a lien, a tenant's motion to
set aside order for writ of possession
to put landlord in possession of ten-
ant's house, purchased by landlord
under decree for sale thereof to en-
force landlord's statutory lien, was
collateral attack on such decree. —
Chandler v. Price, 15 So.Sd 462, 244
Ala. 667.
60. Ind.— 'Frankel v. Garrard, 6-6 N.
E. 687, 160 Ind. 209 — Graham v.
L,oh, 69 N.B. 474, 32 InoLAjpp. 153—
Greensburg v. Zoller, 60 N.E. 1007,
28 Ind.App. 126.
61. Tex. — Bray v. First Nat. Bank,
Civ.App., 10 S.W.2d 235, error dis-
missed.
34 C.J. p 524 note '75.
62. Cal.— Le Mesnager v. Variel, 77
P. 988, 144 Cal. 463, 103 Am.S.R.
91.
34 C.J. p 524 note 76.
§ 410
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
In some jurisdictions a distinction is made be-
tween a suit to enjoin, and a suit to set aside, a
judgment. If an injunction only is sought, the suit
has been held to be a collateral attack,63 but if
plaintiff seeks also to have the judgment set aside
and the case retried on the merits it has been held
to be a direct attack.64 It has also been held that
a suit to prevent an inequitable advantage being
taken of a judgment, by adjudging the guilty bene-
ficiary or his successor with notice a trustee for the
defrauded party, is a direct attack,65 but conceding
that the attack is collateral it is no objection to the
maintenance of a suit for that purpose that it in-
volves a collateral impeachment of the judgment,
provided the demand for relief is based on want of
jurisdiction, fraud, or some other distinctive ground
of equitable interference, although it is not permis-
sible in such an action to review mere errors or
overthrow the judgment for mere irregularities.66
An injunction to restrain enforcement of an ad-
ministrative order of a court has been held not
objectionable as a collateral attack on a judg-
ment67
An application for a writ of prohibition to forbid
the court to enforce its judgment is generally re-
garded as a collateral attack.68
A cross complaint** or cross bill™ seeking af-
firmative relief against a judgment is a direct, not
a collateral, attack on the judgment. Where in-
junction to stay enforcement of a judgment must
be in the court rendering the judgment, a cross
action in a suit to foreclose a judgment lien brought
in another court is a collateral attack.71
Motion to vacate. Where the action may prop-
erly be regarded as a motion to vacate the judg-
ment it has been held not to be a collateral attack
on the judgment72
A motion to annul a judgment of conviction in
a criminal case is a collateral attack.73
A writ of mandamus, as far as it seeks to avoid
the effect of a judgment or order of a court, is a
collateral attack.74
§ 411. Separate Action against Party or
Officer
The validity or correctness of a Judgment may not
be impeached in a subsequent action by the unsuccess-
ful party against the successful party involving the same
issues or seeking to avoid the effects of the Judgment.
The validity or correctness of a judgment cannot
be impeached in a subsequent action brought by the
unsuccessful party against the successful party, in-
volving the same issues,75 or in an action to recover
back the money paid under the judgment,76 or for
damages in obtaining a judgment because of no
proper service,77 or for fraud and conspiracy in ob-
taining the judgment.78 Also a judgment may not
03. Cal. — Gray v. Bybee, 141 P.2d
32, -60 Cal.App.2d 564.
34 C.J. p 524 note T7.
64. Tex. — Rowland v. Klepper, Com.
App., 227 S.W. 1096.
34 C.J. p 524 note 78.
65. Cal. — Campbell - Kawannanakoa
v. Campbell, 92 P. 184, 152 Cal. 201.
66. Idaho. — Swinehart v. Turner,
224 P. 74, 38 Idaho 602.
Okl.— Kauffman v. McLaughlin, 114
P.2d 929, 189 Okl. 194.
34 C.J. p 524 note 80.
e7B U.S.— Roth v. Hood, C.C.A.Ohio,
106 F.2d -616.
63. CaL— Tulare Irr. DIst. v. Superi-
or Court of California in and for
Tulare County, 242 P. 725, 197 CaL
649— McAllister v. Superior Court
In and For Alameda County, 82 P.
2d 4*62, 28 CaLAo>p.2d 160— Hogan
v. Superior Court of California in
and for City and County of San
Francisco, 241 P. 584, 74 CaLApp.
704 — Lieberman v. Superior Court
of California in and for Orange
County, 236 P. 570, 72 CaLApp. 18.
Ind. — State ex rel. Allman v. Superi-
or Court for Grant County, 19 N.E.
2d 467, 215 Ind. 249. '
Mo.— State ex rel. Compagnie G€n-
6rale Transatlantic;^ v. 'Falken-
hainer, 274 S.W. 758, 309 Mo. 224.
W.Va. — Newhart y. Pennybacker, 200
S.B. 350, 120 W.Va, 774, concurring
opinion 200 S.B. 754 — Nelson
Transfer & Storage Co. v. Jarrett,
157 S.B. 46, 110 W.Va, 97.
34 C.J. p 524 note 81.
Guardianship
Prohibition to prevent judge from
taking further cognizance of guard-
ianship matter is direct proceeding
attacking judgment appointing
guardian. — Davidson v. Hough, 65 S.
W. 731, 165 Mo. 561— State ex reL
Woolman Y. Guinotte, 282 S.W. 68,
221 Mo.App. 466.
a?. Cal. — Conlin v. Blanchard, 28 P.
2d 12, 219 Cal. 632.
Wash. — City of Tacoma v. Nyman,
281 P. 484, 154 Wash. 154— Renne-
bohm v. Rennebohm, 279 P. 402,
153 Wash. 102.
34 C.J. p 524 note 82.
70. Tex. — Chapman v. Clark, Civ.
A-pp., 262 -S.W. 161, affirmed, Com.
App., 276 S.W. 197.
Va. — Sutherland v. Rasnake, 192 S.
B. 695, 169 Va. 257.
34 C.J. p 524 note 83.
71. Tex. — Switzer v. Smith, Com.
App., 300 S.W. 31, 68 A.L.R, 377.
816
72. U.S.— Burke v. Morphy, C.C.A.
Vt., 109 F.2d 572, certiorari denied
Morphy v. Burke, 60 S.Ct. 1078, 310
U.S. 635, 84 L.Ed. 1404.
73. Cal.— People v. Spivey, 77 P.2d
247, 25 Cal.App.2d 279.
74. Cal. — Grivi v. Superior Court in
and for Los Angeles County, 45 P.
2d 181, 3 Cal.2d 463.
75. Ohio. — Corpus Juris quoted In.
Risman v. Krupar, 186 N.B. 830,
831, 4 Ohio App. 29.
Wash. — Corpus Jtuto cited in Hanna
v. Allen, 279 P. 1098, 1101, 153
Wash. 485.
34 C.J. p 524 note 86.
76. Ohio.— Corpus Juris quoted in
Risman v. Kru-par, 186 N.B. 830,
831, 4 Ohio App. 29.
Wash. — Corpus Juris cited in Hanna
v. Allen, 279 P, 1098, 1101, 153
Wash. 485.
34 C.J. p 524 note 87.
77. Wash. — Hanna v. Allen, 279 P.
1098, 153 Wash. 485.
78. CaL — Gerini v. Pacific Em-
ployees Ins. Co., 80 P.2d 499, 27
Cal.App.2d 52, followed in 80 P.2d
502, 27 Cal.App.2d 7-67.
Fla.— Kessler v. Townsley, 182 So.
232, 132 Fla, 744.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 413
be impeached in an action of replevin or trespass,79
or trover,80 or a suit against the officers concerned
in the entry of the judgment or its execution.81
§ 412. Parties Affected by Rule against Col-
' lateral Attack
The persons or parties affected by the rule against
collateral attack on a judgment or order are dis-
cussed infra §§ 413-415.
Examine Pocket Parts for later cases.
§ 413.
Parties and Privies
The rules against collateral attack apply to all par-
ties to the proceeding In which the judgment was ren-
dered and to their privies.
The rule forbidding the collateral impeachment
of judgments applies to all persons who were par-
ties to the action in which the judgment was ren-
dered82 and to all those who are in privity with
them.83 On the other hand, jurisdictional defects
which appear on the face of the proceedings may be
Ind.— Hermon v. Jobes, 198 N.B. 316,
209 Ind. 196.
Ohio. — Corpus Juris quoted in His-
man v. Krupar, 186 N.B. 830, 831,
4 Ohio App. 29.
34 C.J. P 524 note 88.
79. Kan. — Westenberger v. Wheat-
on, 8 Kan. 169.
34 C.J. p 524 note 89.
80- 111.— Gilmore v. Bidwell, 191 111.
App. 152.
81. Miss.— Vicksburg Grocery Co. v.
Brennan, 20 So. 845.
34 C.J. p 525 note 91.
82. U.S.— -Cohen v. Randall, C.C.A.
N.Y., 137 F.2d 441, certiorari de-
nied 64 S.Ct. 263, 320 U.S. 796r 88
L.Ed. 480— Prichard v. Nelson, C.C.
A.Va., 137 F.2d 312— Schodde v. U.
S., C.C.A.Idaho, 69 F.2d 866.
Ala. — Bond v. Avondale Baptist
Church, 194 So. 833, 239 Ala. 366—
Corpus Juris cited in Cobbs v. Nor-
ville, 151 So. 576, 579, 227 Ala. 621
—Harbin v. Burrow, 172 So. 910,
27 Ala.App. 381.
Cal. — Mitchell v. Automobile Owners
Indemnity Underwriters, 118 P. 3d
815, 19 Cal.2d 1, 137 A.L.R. 923—
Driver v. International Air Race
Ass'n of America, 129 P.2d 771,
54 Cal.App.2d 614— Liuzza v. Bell,
104 P.2d 1095, 40 Cal.App.2d 417.
D.C. — Peckham v. Union Finance Co.,
48 F.2d 1016, 60 App.D.C. 104.
111.— Sippel v. Wolff, 164 N.E. 678,
333 111. 284.
Ind.— Clark v. Clark, 172 N.B. 124,
202 Ind. 104.
Kan.— Poss v, Steiner, 236 P, 640,
118 Kan. 595.
Me.— Graney's Case, 124 A. 204, 123
Me. 571.
Mass. — "Long v. George, 195 N.B. 377,
290 Mass. 316.
Mo. — Kaufmann v. Annuity Realty
Co., 256 S.W. 792, 301 Mo. 638—
Corpus Juris cited in State v. Holt-
kamp, 51 S.W.2d 13, 17, 330 Mo.
608— Sisk v. Wilkinson, 265 S.W.
536, 305 Mo. 328— Hoken v. Allstate
Ins. Co., 147 S.W.2d 182, 235 Mo.
App. 991.
N.J.— In re Leupp, 153 A. 842, 108 N.
J.EQ. 49.
N.T. — Krause v. Krause, 26 N.B.2d
290, 282 N.T. 355— Brown v. Brown,
272 N.Y.S. 877, 242 App.Div. 33,
affirmed 195 N.B. 186, 266 N.T.
49 C.J.S.-S2
532— Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v.
Stephen Realty Co., 33 N.T.S.2d
146, 178 Misc. 53— In re Martin's
Adoption, 56 N.Y.S.2d 95— Mirsky
v. Mirsky, 35 N.T.S.2d 858— Hunt-
er v. Hunter, 24 JST.Y.S.2d 76—
Blume v. Blume, 6 N.Y.S.2d 516.
N.D.— Lamb v. King, 296 N.W. 185,
70 N.D. 469.
Okl. — Corpus Juris cited in Wilson-
Harris v. Southwest Telephone Co.,
141 P.2d 986, 990, 193 Okl. 194—
Hill v. Cole, 137 P.2d 579, 192
Okl. 476.
Pa. — Gordon v. Hartford Sterling Co.,
38 A.2d 229, 350 Pa. 277.
S.C. — Chamberlain v. First Nat Bank
of Greenville, 24 S.E.2d 158, 202
S.C. 115.
Tex. — Levy v. Roper, 256 S.W. 251,
113 Tex. 356 — Ramsey v. McKam-
ey, Civ.App., 138 S.W.Sd 167, re-
versed on other grounds 152 S.W.
2d 322, 137 Tex. 91— Hertzka v.
Van Rosen, Civ.App., 51 S.W.2d
1111— Kreis v. Kreis, Civ.App., 36
S.W.2d 821, error dismissed — Fra-
zier v. Hanlon Gasoline Co., Civ.
App., 29 S.W.2d 461, error refused.
Va. — Maryland Casualty Co. v. Cole,
158 S.B. 873, 156 Va. 707.
Wash. — France v. Freeze, 102 P.2d
687, 4 Wash.2d 120.
34 C.J. p 525 note 93.
Stakeholder
Corporation having paid to hus-
band dividends declared on stock
registered in the name of wife was
sufficiently connected with contro-
versy as to ownership of stock and
right to dividends thereon as to be
bound by the same rule relative to
collateral attack on judgment deter-
mining ownership of stock as that
applicable to parties to action in
which such judgment was entered,
and hence would have no greater
right than husband collaterally to
attack judgment in action between
husband and wife on ground that
it was based on wife's perjured tes-
timony.— Perkins v. Benguet ConsoL
Mining Co., 132 P.2d 70, 55 CaLApp.
2d 720, certiorari denied Benguet
Consol. Mining Co. v. Perkins, 63 S.
Ct. 1435, 319 U.S. 774, 87 L.Ed. 1721,
rehearing denied 64 S.Ct. 429, 320
U.S. 803, 815, 88 L.Ed. 485, reheard
141 P.2d 19, 60 Cal.App.2d 845, cer-
817
tiorari denied 64 S.Ct. 429, 320 U.
S. 803, 815, 88 L.Ed. 485.
Posthumous child
Judgment in death action for ben-
efit of unborn child, being binding
on him, was held not subject to col-
lateral attack in action by child. —
Brantley v. Boone, Tex.Civ.App., 34
S.W.2d 409.
Zxi partition proceedings
(1) Following the general rules, a
decree or judgment for partition is
not subject to collateral attack as
being erroneous by any of the par-
ties to it.— State v. Rogers, 31 N.
B. 199, 131 Ind. 458—47 C.J. p 438
note 91.
(2) However, where judgment was
null as to one defendant in partition
suit, any of other parties to suit
could avail themselves of such nul-
lity, although only interest such
defendant had in property was
through estate of mother which was
still under executorship. — Kelly v.
Kelleher, 171 So. 569, 186 La. 51.
Priority of lien
An adjudication that a person's
lien was subordinate to lien of an-
other may not be questioned by him
collaterally. — Pagano v. Arnstein, 55
N.E.2d 181, 292 N.Y. 326.
83. Ala. — Bond v. Avondale Baptist
Church, 194 So. 833, 239 Ala. 366—
Corpus Juris cited in Cobbs v.
Norville, 151 So. 576, 227 Ala. 621.
111.— Sippel v. Wolff, 164 N.B. «78,
333 111. 284.
Ind.— Niven v. Crawfordsville Trust
Co., 26 N.B.2d 58, 108 Ind.App. 272.
Mo.— (Corpus Juris cited in State v.
Holtkamp, 51 S.W.2d 13, 17, 330
Mo. 608 — Kaufmann v. Annuity
Realty Co., 256 S.W. 792, 301 Mo.
638— Hocken v. Allstate Ins. Co.,
147 S.W.2d 182, 235 Mo.App. 991.
N.J.— In re Leupp, 153 A. 842, 108
N.J.EQ. 49.
N.D.— Lamb v. King, 296 N.W. 185,
70 N.D. 469.
Okl. — Corpus Juris cited 191 Wilson-
Harris v. Southwest Telephone
-Co., 141 P.2d 986, 990, 193 Okl. 302
—Hill v. Cole, 137 P.2d 579, 192
Okl. 476.
Pa. — Gordon v. Hartford Sterling Co.,
38 A.2d 229, 350 Pa. 277.
S.D.— Deming v. Nelson, 210 N.W.
726, 50 S.D. 484.
§ 414
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
raised at any time between the parties, even in a
collateral proceeding.84 The term "parties," in the
sense of those concluded by a judgment, includes
all those who had the right to control or defend the
proceedings and appeal,85 while "privies" are those
who succeeded to the rights or property of parties
to the judgment86 If the judgment is void on its
face the right of parties or their privies to attack
it collaterally does not depend on any showing of
prejudice to their interests.87
§ 414. Third Persons in General
A stranger to the record may impeach a judgment
in a collateral proceeding where he has rights, claims,
or Interests which would be prejudiced or adversely af-
fected by its enforcement, and which accrued prior to
its rendition.
A stranger to the record, who was not a party
to the action in which the judgment was rendered or
in privity with a party is not prohibited from im-
peaching the validity of the judgment in a collat-
eral proceeding;88 but in order to do so he must
show that he has rights, claims, or interests which
would be prejudiced or injuriously affected by the
enforcement of the judgment,89 and which accrued
Tex. — Ramsey v. McKamey, Civ.App..
138 S.W.2d 167, reversed on other
grounds 152 S,W.2d 322, 137 Tex.
91.
Wash, — France v. Freeze, 102 P.2d
687, 4 Wash.2d 120.
34 O.J. p 525 note 94.
A grantee of plaintiff in whose
favor a judgment had been rendered
In prior qr»*et title action could de-
fend a subsequent action commenced
by a defendant against whom the
first judgment was rendered and al-
leging the invalidity of the first
judgment on the ground that the sec-
ond action constituted an unauthor-
ized collateral attack on the judg-
ment In the first action.— Warren v.
Stansbury, 126 P.2d 251, 190 OkL
554.
Insurer
Party issuing motor vehicle liabil-
ity policy pursuant to statute is a
party privy to judgment recovered
against insured, and may only at-
tack judgment for fraud by direct
proceeding to vacate, the judgment
and not collaterally in suit by party
recovering the Judgment to recover
the amount from the insurer. — Bosse
v. Wolverine Ins. Co., 190 A. 715, 88
N.H. 440.
Policy holder* of mutual insurance
company
A decree or order of circuit court
liquidating insolvent mutual insur-
ance corporation, formed under spec-
ified statutes, under direction of in-
surance commissioner and forming
basis of obligation of policy holders,
was final and binding on policy
holders and not subject to collateral
attack. — In re Whitman, 201 N.W.
812, 186 Wis. 434.
Stockholder
Default judgment recovered by
bank against corporation could not
be collaterally attacked in subse-
quent suit by . bankruptcy trustee of
sole stockholder against certain
claimants, mortgagees, and pledgees,
on theory that debt on which judg-
ment was based was that of sole
stockholder and not of corporation.
—Salmon v. Fitts, C.C.A.Ala., 67 F.
2d 681.
34. Mich.— In re Phillips, 122 N.W.
554, 158 Mich. 155.
34 C.J. p 526 note 95.
86. Tex.— Ferrell-Michael Abstract
& Title Co. v. McCormac, Civ.App.,
184 S.W. 1081.
86. Tex.— Ferrell-Michael Abstract
& Title Co. v. McCormac, supra.
34 C.J. p 526 note 97.
One claiming- interest in land
through party to former action can-
not impeach former decree collateral-
ly where no defects were disclosed
by face of that record and proceed-
ing rendering such decree void. —
Cobbs v. Norville, 151 So. 576, 227
Ala. 621.
87. Cal. — In re Hampton's Estate,
131 P.2d 565, 55 Cal.App.2d 543.
88. U.S.— Stubbs v. U. S., D.C.N.C.,
21 F.Supp. 1007.
Ala. — Brasher v. First Nat Bank,
163 So. 42, 232 Ala. 340.
Alaska. — Bowersox v. B. M. Behrends
Bank, 7 Alaska 476.
Cal. — Corpus Juris quoted in Con-
solidated Rock Products Co. v.
Higgins, 129 P.2d 929, 930, 54 Cal.
App.2d 779.
Colo. — Corpus Juris cited in Atchi-
son, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Board
of County Cozn'rs of Fremont, 37
P.2d 761, 769, 95 Colo. 435.
La. — Rosenthal Sloan Millinery Co.
v. Picone, App., 141 So. 494 — Ex-
change Nat. Bank v. Palace Car
Co., 1 La.App. 307.
Mo. — Hocken T. Allstate Ins. Co., 147
S.W.2d 182, 235 Mo.App. 991— Cor-
pus Juris quoted in McEwen v.
Sterling State Bank, 5 S.W.2d 702,
707, 222 Mo.App. 660.
N.J.— Oswald v. Seidler, 47 A.2d 437.
N.C.— Downing v. White, 188 S.B.
815, 211 N.C. 40.
Tex. — Urban v. Bagby, Com.App.,
291 S.W. 537— Edens v. Grogan
Cochran Lumber Co., Civ. App., 172
S.W.2d 730, error refused — Thomas
v. Farris, Civ.App., 132 S.W.2d 435,
error dismissed, judgment correct
— Corpus Juris quoted in National
Loan & Investment Co. v. L. W.
818
Pelphrey & Co., Civ. App., 39 S.W.
2d 926, 928— Cavers v. Sioux Oil &
Refining Co., Civ.App., 23 S.W.2d
421, reversed on other grounds,
Com. App., 39 S.W.2d 862, rehearing
denied 43 S.W.2d 578.
Wash. — France v. Freeze, 102 P.2d
687, 4 Wash.2d 120— Baskin v. Liv-
ers, 43 P.2d 42, 181 Wash. 370.
34 C.J. p 526 note 98.
Foreign judgment
Where, in partition suit in one
state, complainant was denied right
to litigate her claim of equitable
ownership of interest in the land,
and brought action in another state
against one of parties to partition
suit, claiming his share of proceeds,
such suit was held not a collateral
attack on decree of first court dis-
tributing proceeds of sale. — Horst v.
Barret, 104 So. 530, 213 Ala. 173.
Grantee in trust deed to secure a
loan, not party to suits foreclosing
paving liens, could question unrea-
sonableness of attorney's fees in col-
lateral proceeding, on ground that
foreclosure could have been accom-
plished by one suit — National Loan
& Investment Co. v. L. W. Pelphrey
& Co., Tex.Civ.App., 39 S.W.2d 92S.
89. U.S.— Meyer v. Meyer, C.C.A.S.
D., 79 F.2d 55— The W. Talbot
Dodge, D.C.N.Y., 15 F.2d 459.
Cal.— Mitchell v. Automobile Own-
ers Indemnity Underwriters, 118
P.2d 815, 19 CaL2d 1, 137 A.LJI.
923 — In re Hampton's Estate, 131
P.2d 565, 55 Cal.App.2d 543— Cor-
pus Juris quoted in Consolidated
Rock Products Co. v. Higgins, 129>
P.2d 929, 930, 54 CaI.App.2d 779.
Fla. — Tallentire v. Burkhart, 14 So.
2d 395, 153 Fla. 278— Beaty v. In-
let Beach, 9 So.2d 755, 151 Fla.
495, motion denied and opinion
modified on other grounds 10- So,
2d 807, 152 Fla. 276.
HI.— Espadron v. Davis, 48 KT.R2d
962, 380 111. 199— Grove T. Kerr,
149 N.E. 517, lift 111. 591.
Ky. — Middleton v. Commonwealth,
254 S.W. 754, 200 Ky. 237.
Mich.— Allen v. Merrill, Lynch & Cow
194 N.W. 131, 223 Mich. 467.
Minn.— Hurr v. Davis, 193 NJW. 943,
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 414
prior to its rendition,^ unless the judgment is ab-
solutely void.91 Thus situated he may attack the
judgment on the ground of want of jurisdiction^2
or for fraud98 or collusion;94 but he cannot object
to it because of mere errors or irregularities95 or
for any matters which might have been set up in
defense to the original action.96
155 Minn. 456, rehearing: denied
194 N.W. 379, 155 Minn. 456, cer-
tiorari denied 44 S.Ot. 36, 263 U.
S. 709, 68 L.Ed. 518, error dis-
missed -45 S.Ct. 227, 267 U.S. 572,
69 L.Ed. 794.
Mo.-— Hocken v. Allstate Ins. Co., 147
S.W.2d 182, 235 Mo.App. 991— Cor-
pus Juris quoted in McEwen v.
Sterling State Bank, 5 S.W.2d 702,
707, 222 Mo.App. 660.
N"ev. — In re Manse Spring and Its
Tributaries, Nye County, 108 P.
2d 311, 60 Nev. 280.
Okl. — Cook v. First Nat. Bank, 236
P. 883, 110 Okl. 111.
Tenn. — Corpus Juris cited in Magev-
ney v. Karsch, 65 S.W.2d 562, 568,
167 Tenn. 32, 92 A.L.R. 343.
Tex. — State Mortg. Corporation v.
Traylor, 36 S.W.2d 440, 120 Tex.
148 — Texas Soap Mfg. Corporation
v. McQueary, Civ.App., 172 S.W.2d
177 — Corpus Juris quoted in Na-
tional Loan & Investment Co. v.
L. W. Pelphrey & Co., Civ.App., 39
S.W.2d 926, 938— Weber v. Page,
Civ.App.t 38 S.W.2d 833— Sciraffa
v. Flores, Civ.App., 274 S.W. 260.
Wash. — France v. Freeze, 102 P.2d
687, 4 Wash.2d 120— Shoemaker v.
White-Dulaney Co., 230 P. 162, 131
Wash. 347, affirmed 232 P. 695, 131
Wash. 347, 132 Wash. 699.
34 C.J. p 526 note 99.
Judgment in partition
(1) A judgment in partition can-
not be attacked by a stranger who
shows no title to the property. —
Lair v. Hunsicker, 28 Pa. 115.
(2) Also it cannot be attacked
collaterally for fraud by a stranger
to it — Grassmeyer v. Beeson, 18 Tex.
753, 70 Am.D. 309.
(3) Nor may it be attacked by one
who subsequently acquired from the
person defrauded a mere naked, equi-
table, and uncertain interest. — Brace
v. Held, 3 Greene, Iowa, 422.
(4) Persons whose only title is
that derived from a partition pro-
ceeding may not attack collaterally
the validity of that proceeding on
the ground that the court had no
power to lay out or establish a road
on the land partitioned. — Turpin v.
Dennis, 28 N.B. 1065, 139 111. 274.
90. Cal. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Consolidated Rock Products Co. v.
Higgins, 129 P.2d 929, 930, 64 Cal.
App.2d 779.
Mo. — Corpus Juris quoted in McEwen
v. Sterling State Bank, 5 S.W.2d
702, 707, 222 Mo.App. 660.
Tenn.— Davis v. Mitchell, 178 S.W.
2d 889, 27 TennuApp. 182.
Tex. — Corpus Juris quoted in Na-
tional Loan & Investment Co. v.
L. W. Pelphrey & Co., Civ.App.,
39 S.W.2d 926, 928.
Wyo.— May v. Penton, 16 P.2d 35,
45 Wyo. 82.
34 C.J. p 526 note 1.
Successors to title by unrecorded
deed before suit against grantor
may collaterally attack validity of
judgment rendered therein. — Urban
v. Bagby, Tex.Com.App., 291 S.W.
537.
91. Cal. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Consolidated Rock Products Co.
v. Higgins, 129 P.2d 929, 930, 54
Cal.App.2d 779.
La. — Burt v. Watson Oil & Gas Co.,
App.t 150 So. 425.
Mo. — Corpus Juris quoted in McEw-
en v. Sterling State Bank, 5 S.W.
2d 702, 707, 222 Mo.App. 660.
Tex.— Corpus Juris quoted in Nation-
al Loan & Investment Co. v. L. W.
Pelphrey & Co., Civ.App., 39 S.W.
2d 926, 928.
34 C.J. p 526 note 2.
92. Cal.— Corpus Juris quoted in
Consolidated Rock Products Co. v.
Higgins, 129 P.2d 929, 930, 54 Cal.
App.2d 779.
Mo.— Corpus Juris quoted in McEw-
en v. Sterling State Bank, 5 S.W.
2d 702, 707, 222 Mo.App. 66Q.
34 C.J. p 526 note 3.
93. Cal. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Consolidated Rock Products Co. v.
Higgins, 129 P.2d 929, 930, 54 Cal.
App,2d 779— Associated Oil Co. v.
Mullin, 294 P. 421, 110 Cal.App.
385.
Fla. — Crosby v. Burleson, 195 So.
202, 142 Fla, 443.
Ga. — Ingram & Le Grand Lumber Co.
v. Burgin Lumber Co., 18 S.E.2d
774, 193 Ga. 404.
111. — Bernero v. Bernero, 2 N.E.2d
317, 363 111. 328 — Green v. Hutaon-
ville Tp. High School Dist. No. 201,
190 N.E. 267, 356 111. 216.
La. — Intercity Express Lines v.
Litchfleld, App., 174 So. 149.
Mo. — Corpus Juris quoted in McEw-
en v. Sterling State Bank, 5 S.W.
2d 702, 707, 222 Mo.App. 660.
Pa.— In re Vetter's Estate, 162 A.
303, 308 Pa. 447.
Tex. — Urban v. Bagby, Civ.App., 286
S.W. 519, affirmed, Com.App., 291 S.
W. 537.
34 C.J. p 527 note 4.
Partition suit by stranger to record
Suit in partition by heirs not par-
ties to probate proceedings against
other heirs who secured estate by
representing themselves only heirs
was held neither direct nor collater-
819
al attack on judgment, being equity
proceeding based on extrinsic fraud.
— Beatty v. Beatty, 242 P. 766, 114
Okl. 5.
94. Cal. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Consolidated Rock Products Co. v.
Higgins, 129 P.2d 929, 930, 54 Cal.
App.M 779— Associated Oil Co. v.
Mullin, 294 P. 421, 110 CaLApp.
385.
111. — Bernero v. Bernero, 2 N.E.2d
317, 363 111. 328— Green v. Hutson
Tp. High School Dist. No. 201, 190
N.E. 267, 356 111. 216.
Mo. — Corpus Juris quoted in McEw-
en v. Sterling State Bank, 5 S.W.
2d 702, 707, 222 Mo.App. 660.
34 C.J. p 527 note 5.
Judgment held not collusive
Judgment reciting that court heard
testimony, on which judgment for
plaintiff as father and guardian of
injured minor was rendered, was
held not void as collusive so as to
entitle minor's divorced mother to
recover proceeds of Judgment from
defendant in father's suit. — Swindle
v. Rogers, 66 S.W.2d 630, 188 Ark.
503.
95. Cal. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Consolidated Rock Products Co. v.
Higgins, 129 P.2d 929, 930, 54 Cal.
App.2d 779.
111.— Hoit v. Snodgrass, 146 N.E. 562,
315 111. 548.
Mo. — Corpus Juris quoted in McEw-
en v. Sterling State Bank, 5 S.W.
2d 702, 707. 222 Mo.App. 660.
Pa. — Home Sav. Fund v. King, 173
A. 891, 113 Pa.Super. 400.
Tex. — Davis v. West, Civ.App., 5 S.
W.2d 870, error refused.
34 C.J. p 527 note 6.
96. Cal.— Salter v. Ulrich, 138 P.2d
7, 22 Cal.2d 263, 146 A.L.R. 1344
— Corpus Juris quoted in Consol-
idated Rock Products Co. v. Hig-
gins, 129 P.2d 929, 930, 54 Cal.App.
2d 779.
Fla.— Lyle v. Hunter, 136 So. 633, 102
Fla. 972.
La. — Burt v. Watson Oil & Gas Co.,
App., 150 So. 425.
Mo. — Corpus Juris quoted in McEw-
en v. Sterling State Bank, 5 S.W.
2d 702, 707, 222 Mo.App. 660.
34 C.J. p 527 note 7.
Where right to intervention lost
Judgment, in action for account-
ing determining owners of, and their
respective interests in, corporation's
entire production, was held conclu-
sive on claimants not parties there-
to, absent fraud; hence orders pur-
porting to modify judgment were
void. — Selby v. Allen, 6 P.2d 285,
119 CaLApp. 257.
§ 415
§ 415. Creditors
A creditor whose rights or claims would be injuri-
ously affected by enforcement of a judgment against his
debtor may impeach it for fraud in a proper case..
It is always open to creditors, whose rights or
claims would be injuriously affected by the enforce-
ment of a judgment against their debtor, to impeach
its validity on the ground that it is fraudulent as
against them,97 but as the law favors the stability
and finality of judgments, a stranger who seeks in
a collateral action to impeach a judgment as a fraud
on his rights must show the fraud by clear and sat-
isfactory proof.98 The fraud which will justify
such an attack must be fraud designed to injure the
attacking creditor, or at least such as directly af-
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
fects his interests; fraud practiced on the debtor
is not sufficient.99 The privilege can be claimed
only by a party having rights which had vested or
accrued at the time the judgment was rendered,
and which would be impaired or prejudiced if it was
allowed full effect as against them.1 Subsequent
creditors generally cannot assail a prior judgment,2
but the rule is otherwise where such an attack is
permitted by statute.* An attack is to be regarded
as collateral where the petitioner, as a stranger to
the record, merely claims to have become inci-
dentally interested in the judgment after a termi-
nation of the case.* Where the objecting party
should have intervened and objected in the proceed-
ing in which the order or decree was rendered he
is thereafter barred from collaterally attacking it.5
B. GROUNDS
§ 416. Invalidity of Judgment Generally
A Judgment or decree has been heid not subject to
collateral attack merely because it is invalid, as where
it is based on an unconstitutional statute.
A judgment or decree has been held not subject
to collateral attack merely because it is invalid,6
as where it is based on an unconstitutional stat-
ute.7 However, it has been held that inquiry may
be made as to the validity of a warrant of attorney
to enter a judgment by confession.*
As a general rule a judgment may be collaterally
attacked only where it is void because of fraud in
obtaining it, as discussed infra § 434, or because
of lack of jurisdiction on the part of the court in
rendering the judgment, infra §§ 421-427.
§ 417. Insufficient or Illegal Cause of
Action
A judgment is not subject to collateral attack be-
cause of illegality or Insufficiency in the cause of ac-
tion on which it is based.
A judgment cannot be impeached collaterally be-
cause of any illegality or insufficiency in the cause
of action on which it is founded, this not being a
jurisdictional defect or sufficient to render the judg-
ment void.9 Under this rule it is not permissible
97. U.S.— Botz v. Helvering, C.C.A.,
134 F.2d 538.
Fla. — Ryan's Furniture Exchange v.
McNalr, 162 So. 483, 120 Fla. 109.
S.C. — First Carolinas Joint Stock
Land Bank of Columbia v. Knotts,
1 S.E.2d 797, 191 S.C. 384.
34 C.J. P 527 note 8.
98. U.S.— American Nat. Bank of
Denver v. Supplee, Pa., 115 F. 657,
52 C.C.A. 293.
S4 C.J. p 528 note 9.
99. U.S.— Safe-Deposit & Trust Co.
of Pittsburg v. Wright, Pa., 105
F. 155, 44 C.C.A. 421.
34 C.J. p 528 note 10.
Participation, "by debtor
It has been stated that fraud
which will authorize creditor to im-
peach Judgment must be fraud
against such creditor participated in
by the debtor. — Ryan's Furniture
Exchange v. McNair, 162 So. 483,
120 Fla. 109.
1. Ga.— BurkhaUer v. Virginia-Car-
olina Chemical Co., 15$ S.E. 272,
42 GsuApp. 312.
34 C.J. p 528 note 11.
2. Pa.— Zug v. Searight, 24 A. 746,
150 Pa. 506.
34 C.J. p 528 note 13.
3. Ind.— Feaster v. Woodflll, 23 Ind.
493.
4. Ga. — Martocello v. Martocello, 30
S.E.2d 108, 197 Ga. 629.
5. U.S. — Johnson v. Manhattan Ry.
Co., C.C.A.N.Y., 61 F.2d 934, af-
firmed In part 53 S.Ct 721, 289 U.
S. 479, 77 L.Ed. 1331.
6. Cal.— Liuzza v* Bell, 104 P.2d
1095, 40 CaLApp.2d 417.
La. — Hawthorne v. Jackson Parish
School Board, 5 La.App. 508.
Erroneous judgment where court has
jurisdiction see infra § 421 et seq.
Judgment based on invalid Judgment
A judgment, valid on its face and
affirmed on appeal, which decreed
realty was subject to lien in favor
of plaintiffs for payment of a judg-
ment in a tort action, could not be
collaterally attacked by administra-
tor of judgment debtor's estate by
showing some infirmity in judgment
obtained in tort action. — Liuzaa v.
Bell, 104 P.2d 1095, 40 Cal.App.2d
417.
820
7. Wis.— Beck v. State, 219 N.W.
197, 196 Wis. 242, followed in
Beck v. Milwaukee County, 219
N.W. 205, 196 Wis. 259, certiorari
denied Beck v. Milwaukee County,
Wis., 49 S.Ct 34, 278 U.S. 639,
73 L.Ed. 554.
Chancery decree, based on uncon-
stitutional statute, is not open to
collateral attack, since chancery
court's power to decide case includes
judicial power to decide that stat-
ute involved therein is valid. — In
re Newkirk, 154 So. 323, 114 Fla.
552.
8. U.S. — Bower v. Casanave, D.C.N.
T., 44 F.Supp. 501.
9. Cal.— In re Keet's Estate, 100 P.
2d 1045, 15 Cal.2d 328— Miller v.
Turner, 8 P.2d 1057, 121 CaLApp.
365.
La. — Harding v. Monjure. App., 1 So.
2d 116.
Mo. — Coombs v. Benz, 114 S.W.2d
713, 232 Mo.App. 1011.
Okl. — Warren v. Stansbury, 126 P.2d
251, 190 Okl. 554— Campbell v.
Wood; 278 P. 281, 137 Okl. 90.
Tex. — Coxpxui Juris cited in Tanton
v. State Nat. Bank of El Paso,
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
420
to collaterally attack the judgment on the ground
that the claim in suit had been paid or satisfied,10
or was not supported by a consideration,11 or was
not justly due,12 or was not yet due at the. time the
action was brought,13 or on the grounds that the
creditor, proceeding by attachment, had no such de-
mand as would entitle him to use that process,14
or on the ground that the cause of action was based
on a gambling transaction,15 or was in violation of
the Sunday laws,16 or was otherwise tainted with
illegality.17
§ 418.
Legal Disability of Parties
A judgment against a party under a legal disability
is generally not open to collateral attack.
A judgment against a party who is under a legal
disability is generally not subject to a collateral at-
tack for that reason,18 'as where the judgment is
against a person under the disability of coverture,
discussed in Husband and Wife § 456, infancy, dis-
cussed in Infants § 122 a, or of insanity, discussed
in Insane Persons § 151 d.
§ 419.
Death of Party before Judgment
' A judgment rendered for or against a party after
his death generally is not subject to a collateral attack,
except where the action was commenced after the party
had died.
Ordinarily, where jurisdiction of the parties to
an action has duly attached, the fact that one of
them died before the rendition of the judgment for
or against him does not make the judgment abso-
lutely yoid, as discussed supra § 29, and therefore
it is not open to impeachment in a collateral pro-
ceeding.19 According to some* decisions, however,
a judgment rendered under such circumstances is
absolutely void, as discussed supra § 29, and there-
fore is subject to collateral attack.20 Even where
the party was dead before the institution of the
suit, it has been held that this does not make the
judgment a mere nullity, within the meaning of
the rule against collateral impeachment,21 but it
generally has been held that a judgment rendered
in an action begun after the death of defendant
therein is null and void and may be attacked col-
laterally.22
§ 420.
Disqualification of Judge
A judgment rendered by a disqualified judge Is sub-
ject to collateral attack only where it is regarded as
void.
Where a judgment rendered by one who is dis-
qualified to sit as judge in the case is regarded as
void, in accordance with the principles discussed
supra § 17, it may be collaterally attacked.23
Where, however, such judgments are held to be
Civ.App., 4$ S.W.2d 957, 959— Cor-
pus Juris quoted In Sederholm v.
City of Port Arthur, Civ.App., 3
S.W.2d 925, 927, affirmed Tyner v.
La Coste, Com.App., 13 S.W.2d
685 and Tyner v. Keith, 13 S.W.2d
687.
34 C.J. p 554 note 53.
Defective statement of cause of ac-
tion in pleadings see infra § 43$.
Failure to state cause of action as
not rendering judgment void see
supra § 40.
Defective execution of mortgage
Where' judgment is entered on a
mortgage, it will conclusively es-
tablish the due execution of the
mortgage, although the latter may
have been in flact void; the mort-
gage is merged in the judgment,
which cannot be collaterally im-
peached unless for fraud. — Corpus
Juris quoted In Sederholm v. City of
Port Arthur, Tex.Civ.App., 3 S.W.2d
$25, 928, affirmed Tyner v. La Coste,
Com.App., 13 S.W.2d 685 and Tyner
v. Keith, 13 S.W.2d 687—34 C.J.
p 554 note 53 [b].
10. Tenn. — Hyder v. Smith, Ch.App.,
52 S.W. 884.
34 C.J. p 554 note 54.
11. Ind. — Watson v. Camper, 21 N.B.
323, 119 Ind. 60.
34 C.J. p 554 note 55.
12. N.Y.— Revere Copper Co. v. Di-
mock, 90 N.Y. 33, affirmed 6 S.Ct.
573, 117 U.S. 559, 29 L.Ed. 994.
13. Fla.— Lord v. F. M. Dowling Co.,
42 So. 585, 52 Fla. 313.
La. — Harding v. Monjure, App., 1
So.2d 116.
34 C.J. p 554 note 57.
14. 3ST.J. — Brantingham v. Branting-
ham, 12 N.J.EQ. 160.
N.C.— Harrison v. Fender, 44 N.C.
78, 57 Am.D. 573.
15. 111. — Chicago Driving Park v.
West, 35 111. App. 496, reversed on
other grounds 21 N.B. 782, 129 111.
249.
34 C.J. p 554 note 59.
Validity of judgment based on gam-
bling transaction generally see
Gaming § 23.
16. N.H. — Jenness v. Berry, 17 N.H.
549.
17. Ky. — Roberts v. Yancey, 21 S.
W. 1047, 94 Ky. 243, 15 Ky.L. 10,
42 Am.S.R. 357.
34 C.J. p 554 note 61.
18. Ark.— Kindrick v. Capps, 121 S.
W.2d 515, 196 Ark. 1169.
Collateral attack on judgment
against dissolved corporation see
Corporations § 1780.
Id. U.S.— Streeter v. Chicago Title
& Trust Co., B.C.I11., 14 F.2d 331.
Ark.— Black v. Burrell, 1 S.W.2d 805,
175 Ark. 1138.
Cal.— Liusza v. Bell, 104 P.2d 1095,
40 Cal.App.2d 417.
Colo. — Parsons v. Parsons, 198 P.
156, 70 Colo. 154.
Mass. — Noyes v. Bankers Indemnity
Ins. Co., 30 N.E.2d 867, 307 Mass.
567.
34 C.J. p 555 note 67—33 C.J. p 1107
note 68,
26. Kan. — Kager v. Vickery, 59 P.
628, 61 Kan. 342, 49 L.R.A. 153.
La. — Edwards v. Whited, 29 La. Ann.
647.
33 C.J. p 1107 notes 66, 67.
21. Ky. — Fuqua v. Mullen, 13 Bush
467.
W.Va.— McMillan v. Hickman, 14 S.
B. 227, 35 W.Va, 705.
22. Cal. — Garrison v. Blanchard, 16
P.2d 273, 127 CaLApp. 616.
Conn. — Corpus Juris cited in O'Leary
v. Waterbury Title Co., 166 A. 673,
676, 117 Conn. 39.
34 C.J. p 555 note 70.
23. Mich.— Bliss v. Caille Co., 113
N.W. 317, 149 Mich. 601, 12 Ann.
Gas. 513.
Tex.— Woodland v. State, 178 S.W.2d
528, 147 Tex.Cr. 84.
34 C.J. p 555 note 73.
Disqualification of judges see Judg-
es §S 72-97.
821
421
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S,
merely voidable, they are not liable to collateral at-
tack.2* The fact, however, that the regular judge
has improperly disqualified himself is not ground
for collaterally attacking a judgment entered by a
judge ad litem,^ particularly where the appoint-
ment of the latter judge was agreed to by counsel.26
§ 421. Jurisdictional Defects,
A judgment or decree which Is void for want of ju-
risdiction is open to contradiction or impeachment In
a collateral, as. well as a direct, proceeding. In order to
be collaterally attacked the want of jurisdiction must
affirmatively appear on the face of the record, and the
facts showing the vtent of jurisdiction must be alleged.
A judgment or decree void for want of juris-
diction is open to contradiction or impeachment in
a collateral proceeding,27 or it may be attacked di-
rectly.28 Moreover, in the absence of fraud, a
judgment may be collaterally attacked only where
24. Kan.— In re Hewes, 62 P. 673
62 Kan. 288.
34 C.J. p 555 note 74.
25. Fla.— U. S. Fidelity & Guarant.
Co. v. Tucker, 159 So. 7S7, US Pla.
430.
26. U.S.— U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty
Co. v. Tucker, supra.
27. U.S.— Nardi v. Poinsatte, D.C
Ind., 46 F.2d 347— Rheinberger T
Security Life Ins. Co. of America
D.C.I1L, 51 F.Supp. 1SS, cause re
manded on other grounds, C.C.A.
146 F.2d 680 — Petition of Taffel, D
C.N.Y., 49 F.Supp. 109 — In re Ost
lind Mfg. Co., D.C.Or., 19 F.Supp
836.
Ala- — Boyd v. Garrison, 19 So.2d 385
246 Ala. 132— Avery Freight Lines
v. White, 18 So.2d 394, 245 Ala.
618. 154 A.L.R. 732— Corpus Juris
cited In T. S. Faulk & Co. v. Bout-
well, 7 So.2d 490, 492, 242 Ala. 546
— Dawkins v. Hutto, 131 So. 228
222 Ala. 132.
Ariz. — Corpus Juris cited in Varnes
v. White, 12 P.2d 870, 871, 40 Ariz.
427.
CaL— Rico v. Nasser Bros. Realty
Co., 137 P.2d 861. 58 Cal.App.2d
878 — Stewart v. Stewart, 89 P.2d
404, 32 Cal.App.2d 148.
Colo.— Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co.
v. Board of Com'rs of Fremont
County, 37 P.2d 761, 95 Colo. 435.
Fla.— Krivitsky v. Nye, 19 So.2d 563,
155 Fla. 45— Beaty v. Inlet Beach,
9 So.2d 735, 151 Fla. 495, motion
denied and modified on other
grounds 10 So.2d 807, 152 Fla, 276.
Ga. — Montgomery v. Suttles, 13 S.B.
2d 781, 191 Ga. 781— Patten v.
Miller, 8 S.E.2d 757, 190 Ga. 123
—Drake v. Drake, 1 S.E.2d 573, 187
Ga. 423.
111. — Anderson v. Anderson, 44 N.E.
2d 54, 380 111. 435— People ex rel.
Lange v. Old Portage Park Dist.,
190 N.E. 664, 356 111. 340— Chi-
cago Title & Trust Co. v. Mack,
180 N.E. 412, 347 111. 480— People
v. Miller, 171 N.E. 672, 339 111.
573 — Monahan v. City of Wilming-
ton, 159 N.E, 199, 328 111. 242—
Howard v. Howard, 26 N,E.2d 421,
304 IU.APP. 637— Mclnness v. Os-
car F. Wilson Printing Co., 258 111.
App. 161 — Eddy v. Dodson, 242 I1L
App. 508.
Kan.— Starke v. St&rke, 125 P.2d 738,
second case, 155 Kan. 331 — Hoover
v. Roberts, 58 R2d 83, 144 Kan. 58
Ky. — Covington Trust Co. of Cov
ington v. Owens, 129 S.W.2d 186
278 Ky. 695 — Grooms v. Grooms,
S.W.2d 863, 225 Ky. 228.
Mich. — Attorney General ex re
O'Hara v. Montgomery, 267 N.W
550, 275 Mich. 504.
Mo.— Hankins v. Smarr, 137 S.W.2c
499, 345 Mo. 973— Corpus Juris cit-
ed in Kristanik v. Chevrolet Mo
tor Co., 70 S.W.2d 890, 894,
Mo. 60— Simplex Paper Corporation
v. Standard Corrugated Box Co,
97 S.W.2d 862, 231 Mo.App. 764
Mont — Scilley v. Red Lodge-Rosebu
Irr. Dist, 272 P. 543, 83 Mont. 282
N.J.— Riddle v. Cella, 15 A.2d 59
128 N.J.EQ. 4.
N.Y.— Shea v. Shea, 60 N.Y.S.2d 823
270 App.Div. 527, reversed on oth-
er grounds 63 N.E.2d 113, 294 N.Y
909 — MacAffer v. Boston & M. R
R., 273 N.Y.S. 679, 242 App.Div
140, affirmed 197 N.E. 328, 268 N
Y. 400— Copperfretti v. Shephard
271 N.Y.S. 284, 241 App.Div. 872—
Canton v. Killen, 5 N.Y.S.2d 796
167 Misc. 620— Morris v. Morris
289 N.Y.S. 636, 160 Misc. 59— Koz-
ba v. Kozba, 289 N.Y.S. 632, 160
Misc. 56.
Okl.— Tulsa Terminal, Storage &
Transfer Co. v. Thomas, 18 P.2d
891, 162 Okl. 5.
Pa. — Bricker v. Brougher, 14 Pa.Dist
& Co. 530 — Commonwealth v.
Phelps, Quar.Sess., 44 Lack.Jur.
85, 5 Monroe L.R. 40, 11 Som.Co.
264, affirmed Commonwealth ex
reL Phelps v. Phelps, 35 A.2d 530,
154 Pa.Super. 270.
Tex. — Employers' Indemnity Corpo-
ration v. Woods, Com.App., 243 S.
W. 1085 — Ferguson v. Ferguson,
Civ.App., 127 S.W.2d 1018, error
dismissed — Williams v. Tooke, Civ.
App., 116 S.W.2d 1114, error dis-
missed—Hicks v. Sias, Civ.App.,
102 S.W.2d 460, error refused-
Texas Gas Utilities Co. v. City of
Uvalde, Civ.App., 77 S.W.2d 750—
Salamy v» Bruce, Civ.App., 21 S.
W.2d 380— Taylor v. Masterson,
Civ.App., 259 S.W. 629— Reed v.
State, Cr., 187 S.W.2d 660.
"a. — Barnes v. American Fertilizer
Co., 130 S.E. 902, 144 Va. 692.
Wash.— France v. Freeze, 102 P.2d
687, 4 Wash.2d 120.
4 C.J. p 528 note 14,
822
, In personam or in rem
"If court in fact had no jurisdic-
tion of the subject matter, whether
the case be in rem or in personam.
or, in cases in personam, of the par-
ties, and there is no finding of court
that it had jurisdiction of the par-
ties, any judgment or order which
may be rendered, however regular
it may be in matter of form, is a
mere nullity, and may be so treated
in a collateral as well as in a direct
attack."— Wehrle v. Wehrle, 39 Ohio
St. 365, 366 — Terry v. Claypool, £5
N.E.2d 883, 887, 77 Ohio App. 77.
Court's lack of jurisdiction to is-
sue a foreign attachment where de-
fendant is not a nonresident can be
attacked collaterally. — Powers, to
Use of Finn, v. Slattery, 3 A.2d 780,
~3 Pa. 54.
A mortgage foreclosure judgment
or decree is subject to collateral at-
tack for jurisdictional defects.
Colo.— Paul v. Citizens' State Bank,
223 P. 758, 75 Colo. 14.
111.— Schnur v. Bernstein, 32 N.E.
2d 675, 309 Ill.App. 90.
42 C.J. p 172 note 56.
A judgment or decree for partition,
which is void for want of jurisdic-
tion, may be attacked in a collater-
al proceeding. — Gray v. Clement, 227
S.W. 111, 286 Mo. 100—34 C.J. p 531
note 20 [a]— 47 C.J. p 438 note 99.
%
2a Cal.— Gray v. Hall, 265 P. 246,
203 Cal. 306.
Colo. — Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co.
v. Board of Com'rs of Fremont
County, 37 P.2d 761, 95 Colo. 435.
Fla.— Malone v. Meres, 109 So. 677,
91 Fla. 709.
111.— Barnard v. Michael, 63 N.E.2d
858, 392 111. 130— Eddy v. Dodson,
242 IlLApp. 508.
Miss. — Paepcke-Leicht Lumber Co. v.
Savage, 101 So. 709, 137 Miss. 11.
N.Y.— Shea v. Shea, 60 N.Y.S.2d 823,
270 App.Div. 527, reversed on oth-
er grounds 63 N.E.2d 113, 294 N.Y.
909 — Battalico v. Knickerbocker
Fireprooflng Co., 294 N.Y.S. 481,
250 App.Div. 258— MacAffer v. Bos-
ton & M. R. R., 273 N.Y.S. 679,
242 App.Div. 140, affirmed 197 K.
E. 328, 268 N.Y. 400— Canton v.
Killen, 5 N.Y.S.2d 796, 167 Mis*,
620 — Morris v. Morris, 289 N.Y.S.
636, 160 Misc. 59— Kozba v. Kozba,
289 N.Y.S. 632, 160 Misc. 56.
>kl.— Tulsa Terminal, Storage *
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 421
it is void because of jurisdictional defects,29 and
accordingly the inquiry on a collateral attack is
generally confined to jurisdictional infirmities or de-
iects.30
By the weight of authority, in order that a judg-
ment may be collaterally attacked, such want of ju-
risdiction must affirmatively appear on the face of
the record,81 and generally cannot be established
Transfer Co. v. Thomas, 18 P.2d
891, 163 Okl. 5.
Tex. — Lewis v. Terrell, Civ.App., 154
S.W.2d 151, error refused.
"Va. — Barnes v. American Fertilizer
Co., 130 S.B. 902, 144 Va. 692.
Wash,-— King County v. Rea, 152 P.
2d 310, 21 Washed 593.
W.Va, — Hayhurst v. J. Kenny Trans-
fer Co., 158 S.EJ. 506, 110 W.Va.
395.
Appeal from judgment for want of
jurisdiction see Appeal and Error §
110.
Equitable relief against judgment
see supra §§ 341-400.
Opening and vacating judgment see
supra §§ 265-310.
29. U.S. — Iselin v. Lacoste, D.C.La.,
55 F.Supp. 977, affirmed, C.C.A.,
147 F.2d 791.
Ala. — Fife v. Pioneer Lumber Co,,
185 So. 759, 237 Ala, 92.
Ariz.— Lisitzky v. Brady, 300 P. 177,
38 Ariz. 337.
Cal. — Kirkpatrick v. Harvey, 124 P.
2d 367, 51 Cal.App.2d 170. ',
Idaho. — Harkness v. Utah Power &
Light Co., 291 P. 1051, 49 Idaho
756.
III.— Beckman v. Alberts, 178 N.E.
367, 346 111. 74.
•N'eb.— Selleck v. Miller, 264 N.W. 754,
130 Neb. 306 — Billiter v. Parriott,
258 N.W. 395, 128 Neb. 238.
jNT.j.— Moran v. Joyce, 11 A.2d 420,
124 N.J.Law 255.
Tex.— Stewart Oil Co. v. Lee, Civ.
App., 173 S.W.2d 791, error refused
— Williams v. Borcher, Civ.App.,
244 S.W. 1053.
-\Vyo.-Whitaker v. First Nat. Bank,
.231 P. 691, 32 Wyo. 288.
84 C.J. p 514 note 54.
Fraud as ground for collateral at-
tack generally see infra § 434.
30- Fla. — Norwich Union Indemnity
Co. V. Willis, 168 So. 418, 124 Fla.
137, 127 Fla. 238— Fisher v. Guidy,
142 So. 818, 106 Fla. 94— Fiehe v.
R. E. Householder Co., 125 So. 2,
98 Fla. 627.
IH.~City of Des Plaines v. Boecken-
hauer, 50 N.E.2d 483, 383 111. 475.
Ky.— Lowe v. Taylor, 29 S.W.2d 598,
235 Ky. 21.
Or. — Northwestern Clearance Co. v.
Jennings, 210 P. 884, 106 Or. 291.
Utah.— Intermill v. Nash, 75 P.2d
157, 94 Utah 271.
31. U.S.— Jelliffe v. Thaw, C.C.A.N.
Y., 67 F.2d 880 — Campbell v. Ader-
hold, C.C.A.Ga., 67 F.2d 246— Lane
v. Brown, D.C.Mich., 63 F.Supp.
684.
_Ala.— A. B. C. Truck Lines v. Kene-
mer, 25 So.2d 511 — Fife v. Pioneer
Lumber Co., 185 So. 759, 237 Ala.
92— Florence Gin Co. v. City of
Florence, 147 So. 417, 226 Ala. 478,
followed in 147 So. 420, three cas-
es, 226 Ala. 482, 147 So. 421, 226
Ala. 482, and 147 So. 421, 226
Ala. 483— Ex parte Kelly, 128 So.
443, 221 Ala. 339— Wise v. Miller,
111 So. 913, 215 Ala. 660.
Alaska. — Lynch v. Collings, 7 Alaska
84.
Ariz. — Latham v. McClenny, 285 P.
6S4, 36 Ariz. 337.
Ark. — Weeks v. Arkansas Club, 145
S.W.2d 738, 201 Ark. 423— Reed
v. Futrall, 115 S.W.2d 542, 195 Ark.
1044— Black v. Burrell, 1 S.W.2d
805, 175 Ark. 1138.
Cal.— Salter v. Ulrich, 138 P.2d 7,
22 Cal.2d 263 — Rico v. Nasser Bros.
Realty Co., 137 P.2d 861, 58 Cal.
App.2d 878— Stevens v. Kelley, 134
P.2d 56, 57 Cal.App.2d 318— Kirk-
patrick v. Harvey, 124 P.2d 367,
51 Cal. App. 2d 170— Olson v. Mary-
land Casualty Co., 44 P.2d 412, 6
Cal. App. 2d 421 — Johnson v. Superi-
or Court in and for Fresno County,
17 P.2d 1055, 128 CaLApp. ~S4—
Associated Oil Co. v. Mullin. 294
P. 421, 110 CaLApp. 385— Petition
of Furness, 218 P. 61, 62 Cal.App.
753.
Colo. — In re Zupancis' Heirship, 111
P.2d 1063, 107 Colo. 323— LaFitte
v. Salisbury, 126 P.2d 1104, 22
Colo. App. 641.
D.C. — Corpus Juris cited in. Bowles
v. Laws, 45 F.2d 669, 672, 59 App.
B.C. 399, certiorari denied 51 S.
Ct 488, 283 U.S. 841, 75 L.Bd.
1452.
HI.— Herb v. Pitcairn, 51 N.B.2d 277,
384 111. 237, reversed on other
grounds 65 S.Ct. 954, 325 U.S. 77,
89 L.Ed. 1483, rehearing denied 65
S.Ct. 1188, 325 U.S. 893, 89 L.Bd.
2005, and opinion supplemented 64
N.E.2d 318, 392 111. 151,
Ky. — Commonwealth ex rel. Dummit
v. Jefferson County, 189 S.W.2d
604, 300 Ky. 514 — Davis v. Tug-
gle's Adm'r, 178 S.W.2d 979, 297
Ky. 376— White v. White, 172 S.
W.2d 72, 294 Ky. 563— Warfield
Natural Gas Co. v. Ward, 149 S.
W.2d 705, 286 Ky. 73— Mussman
v. Pepples, 22 S.W.2d 605, 232 Ky.
254 — Dye Bros. v. Butler, 272 S.W.
426, 209 Ky. 199.
Mich.— Life Ins. Co. of Detroit v.
Burton, 10 N.W.2d 315, 306 Mich.
81.
Minn. — Martin v. Wolfson, 1-6 N.W.2d
884, 218 Minn. 557— Miller v. Ahne-
man, 235 N.W. 622, 183 Minn. 12—
In re Button's Estate, 201 N.W.
925, 161 Minn. 426.
Mo. — Coipus Juris cited in Kristanik
v. Chevrolet Motor Co., 70 S.W.2d
890, 894, 335 Mo. 60— Leahy v.
Mercantile Trust Co., 247 S.W. 396,
823
296 Mo. 561— Williams v. Luecke,
App., 152 S.W.2d 991— Inter-River
Drainage Dist of Missouri v. Hen-
son, App., 99 S.W.2d 865 — Hemp-
hill Lumber Co. v. Arcadia Timber
Co., App., 52 S.W.2d 750— Weil v.
Richardson, 24 S.W.2d 175, 224 Mo.
App. 990.
Nev. — Corpus Juris cited in Beck v.
Curti, 45 P.2d 601, 603, 56 Nev.
72.
K.J.— Weiner v. Wittman, 27 A.2d
866, 129 N.J.Law 35.
N.D. — Corpus Juris cited in Ras-
musson v. Schmalenberger, 235 N.
W. 496. 499, 60 N.D. 527.
Okl.— Sabin v. Levorsen, 145 P.2d
402, 193 Okl. 320, certiorari de-
nied 64 S.Ct. 205, 320 U.S. 792,
88 L.Ed. 477, rehearing denied 64
S.Ct. 368, 320 U.S. 815, 88 L.Ed.
492 — Reliance Clay Products Co.
v. Rooney, 10 P.2d 414, 157 Okl.
24 — Samuels v. Granite Sav. Bank
& Trust Co., 1 P.2d 145, 150 Okl.
174.
Or. — Laughlin v. Hughes, 89 P.2d
568, 161 Or. 295.
Pa. — Maxnlin v. Tener, 23 A.2d 90,
146 Pa.Super. 593 — Kimple v.
Standard Life Ins. Co., 53 Pa.Dist.
& Co. 174, 3 Lawrence L.J. 126.
S.C.— Chamberlain v. First Nat.
Bank of Greenville, 24 S.E.2d 158,
202 S.C. 115.
Tex. — Security Trust Co. of Austin
v. Lipscomb County, 180 S.W.2d
151, 142 Tex. 572-— White v. White,
179 S.W.2d 503, 142 Tex. 499—
Lewis v. Terrell, Civ.App., 154 S.
W.2d 151— Walton v. Stinson, Civ.
App., 140 S.W.2d 497, error refused
—Williams V. Tooke, Civ.App., 116
S.W.2d 1114 — Salamy v. Bruce, Civ.
App., 21 S.W.2d 380 — Texas Pa-
cific Coal & Oil Co. v. Ames, Civ.
App., 284 S.W. 315, reversed on
other grounds, Com.App., 292 S.W.
191.
Utah. — Corpus Juris cited in Salt
Lake City v. Industrial Commis-
sion. 22 P.2d 1046, 1048, 82 UtaTi
179.
W.Va.— Bell v. Brown, 182 S.B. 579,
116 W.Va. 484.
34 C.J. p 530 note 15.
What record includes
(1) The term "record" or "record
proper" or "complete record," as
variously used within this rule, gen-
erally includes the pleading, proc-
ess, verdict and judgment.
111. — Cullen v. Stevens, 58 N.B.2d 456,
389 111. 35.
. — Lipscomb County v. Security
Trust Co., Civ.App., 175 S.W.2d
723, reversed on other grounds Se-
curity Trust Co. of Austin v. Lips-
comb County, 180 S.W.2d 151, 142
8 -121
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
by extrinsic evidence,32 although there are decisions
to the contrary,^3 and extrinsic evidence has been
held admissible to contradict the record in this re-
spect, as considered infra § 426 b. Even though a
judgment is valid on its face, if the parties admit
facts which show that it is void, or if such facts
are established without objection, the case is sim-
ilar to one wherein the judgment is void on its
face and is subject to collateral attack.34
A judgment is subject to collateral attack where
the want of jurisdiction is with respect to the sub-
ject matter,35 or where, although the court has ju-
Tex. 572 — Bearden v. Texas Co.,
Civ.App., 41 S.W.2d 447, affirmed,
Com.App., 60 S.W.2d 1031.
(2) It does not include bill of ex-
ceptions or certificate of evidence,
particularly in view of failure of
Practice Act to require that a cer-
tificate of evidence be filed in sup-
port of decree. — Cullen v. Stevens,
58 N.E.2d 456, 389 111. 35.
Judgment roll has been held the
only record that may be considered.
Cal.— Stevens v. Kelley, 134 P.2d 56,
57 Cal.App.2d 318 — Burrows v.
Burrows, 52 P.2d 606, 10 CaLApp.
2d 749 — Fletcher v. Superior Court
of Sacramento County, 250 P. 195,
79 CaLApp. 468 — Ho&an v. Superior
Court of California in and for City
and County of San Francisco, 241
P. 584, 74 CaLApp. 704.
Mont. — State ex rel. Enochs v. Dis-
trict Court of Fourth Judicial Dist
in and for Missoula County, 123 P.
2d 971, 113 Mont. 227— Holt v.
Sather,- 264 P. 108, 81 Mont. 442.
Okl. — Fitzsixnmons v. Oklahoma City,
135 P.2d 340, 192 Okl. 248.
Judgment of conviction is always
subject to collateral attack where
want of jurisdiction is apparent on
face of judgment roll. — Lesser v.
Collins, 36 P.2d 411, 1 Cal.App.2d
161.
JL Judgment of foreclosure of a
mortgage generally may be collater-
ally attacked only where the want
of jurisdiction is apparent on the
face of the record. — Bryan v. Mc-
Caskill, Mo.. 175 S.W. 961—42 C.J.
p 172 note 57.
32. Cal.— Stevens v. Kelley, 134 P.2d
56, 57 Cal.App.2d 318.
Ky.— Davis v. Tuggle's Adm'r, 178
S.W.2d 979, 297 Ky. 376 — Warfield
Natural Gas Co. v. Ward, 149 S.
W.2d 705, 286 Ky. 73.
Mo.— Leichty v. Kansas City Bridge
Co., 190 S.W.2d 201, certiorari de-
nied Kansas City Bridge Co. v.
Leichty, 66 S.Ct 682.
Invalidity of prior Judgment quiet-
ing title cannot be established, on
collateral attack, by extrinsic evi-
dence.— Warfleld Natural Gas Co. v.
Ward. 149 S.W.2d 705, 286 Ky. 73.
33, U.S.— Campbell v. Aderhold, C.C.
A.Ga., 67 F.2d 246.
N.T. — O*Donoghue v. Boies, 53 N.E.
537, 159 N.Y. 87— Stevens v. Breen,
16 N.T.S.2d 909, 258 App.Div. 423,
affirmed 27 N.E.2d 987, 283 N.T.
196— Battalico v. Knickerbocker
Fir ep roc fins Co., 294 N.T.S. 481
250 App.Div. 258.
Clear and strong evidence
Where want of jurisdiction does
not appear on face of record, it may
be shown by evidence dehors the
record, provided the evidence is clear
and strong and the rights of third
persons have not intervened.— Espa-
dron v. Davis, 43 N.E.2d 962, 380
111. 199.
Extraneous matter may be exam-
ined for the purpose of determining
whether the court had jurisdiction
of the person or of the subject mat-
ter of the suit, and, where this is
found, other Questions affecting the
validity of the judgment must be de-
termined from the judgment record.
—State v. Wilson, 27 S.W.2d 106,
181 Ark. 683.
34. Cal.— Salter v. Ulrich, 138 P.2d
7, 22 Cal.2d 263, 146 A.L.R. 1344
— Akley v. Bassett, 209 P. 576, 18?
Cal. 625 — San Francisco Unified
School Dist v. City and County
of San Francisco, 128 P.2d 696, 54
Cal.App.2d 105 — Jones v. Walker,
118 P.2d 299, 47 Cal.App.2d 566.
Idaho.— Welch v. Morris, 291 P. 1048,
49 Idaho 781.
Tex. — Texas Pacific Coal & Oil Co. v.
Ames, Civ.App., 284 S.W. 315, re-
versed on other grounds, Com.App.,
292 S.W. 191.
If the party In favor of whom the
judgment runs admits facts showing
its invalidity, or, without objection
on his part, evidence is admitted
which clearly shows the existence
of such facts, it is court's duty to
declare the judgment void on col-
lateral. attack.— Marlenee v. Brown,
134 P.2<I 770, 21 Cal.2d 668— San
Francisco Unified School Dist. v.
City and County of San Francisco,
128 P.2d 696, 54 Cal.App.2d 105.
of service of process
(1) The rule that judgment may
be declared void on collateral attack
for admitted lack of jurisdiction of
party, although otherwise valid on
its lace, presupposes that party re-
sisting attack admits facts showing
that constructive or personal serv-
ice of summons was not made on
party attacking judgment and al-
lows introduction of evidence of such
fact without objection. — Security-
First Nat Bank of Los Angeles v.
Superior Court in and for Los An-
geles County, 37 P.2d 69, 1 Cal.2d
749,
(2) If lack of service is ^tipulated
824
to. the judgment must be read as-
though that fact appeared on the
face of the judgment, in which event
the judgment is then void on its
face and subject to collateral attack.
—Lake v. Bonynge, 118 P. 535, 540,
161 Cal. 120— In re Ivory's Estate,
98 P.2d 761, 37 Cal.App.2d 22.
35. U.S. — Tooley v. Commissioner of
Internal Revenue, C.C.A., 121 F.2d:
350 — Warmsprings Irr. Dist. v.
May, C.C.A.Or., 117 F.2d 802— Com-
monwealth of Kentucky, for Use
and Benefit of Kern v. Maryland;
Casualty Co. of Baltimore, Md..
C.C.A.Ky., 112 F.2d 352— Zimmer-
mann v. Scandrett, D.C.Wis., 57 F.
Supp. 799 — Iselin v. Lacoste, D.C.
La., 55 F.Supp. 977, affirmed, C.C..
A., 147 F.2d 791.
Ariz. — Hallford v. Industrial Com-
mission, 159 P.2d 305 — Hershey v.
Banta, 99 P.2d 81, 55 Ariz. 93—
Hershey v. Republic Life Ins. Co.,
99 P.2d 85, 55 Ariz. 104— Collins v.
Superior Court in and for Maricopa.
County, 62 P.2d 131, 48 Ariz. 381.
Ark.— Reed v. Futrall, 115 S.W.2d
542, 195 Ark. 1044.
Cal.— Ex parte Cohen, 290 P. 512,
107 CaLApp. 288.
Fla. — Horn v. City of Miami -Beach,
194 So. 620, 142 Fla. 178 — Malone
v. Meres, 109 So. 677, 91 Fla, 709.
Ga. — Thompson v. Continental Gin
Co., App., 37 S.E.2d 819.
HI.— Barnard v. Michael, 68 N.E.2d:
858, 392 111. 130— Martin v. Schillo,
60 N.E.2d 392, 389 111. 607, certio--
rari denied 65 S.Ct. 1572, 325 U.S..
880, 89 L.Ed. 1996— Herb v. Pit-
cairn, 51 N.E.2d 277, 384 111. 237..
reversed on other grounds 65 S.Ct.
954, 325 U.S. 77, 89 LuEd. 1483,,
rehearing denied 65 S.Ct. 1188, 325
U.S. 893, 89 L.Ed. 2005, and opin-
ion supplemented 64 N.E.2d 318,.
392 111. 151— Wood v. First Nat..
Bank of Woodlawn, 50 N.E.2d 830,
383 111. 515, certiorari denied 64 S..
Ct 521, 321 U.S. 765, 88 L.Ed. 1061
—Meyer v. Meyer, 66 N.E.2d 457,,
328 IlLApp. 408.
Ind. — Calumet Teaming & Trucking-
Co. v. Toung, 33 N.E.2d 109, 218:
Ind. 468, rehearing denied 33 N.E.
2d 583, 218 Ind. 468.
Ky. — Rollins v. Board of Drainage-
Com'rs of McCracken County for-
Mayfield Drainage Dist No. 1, 13 6<
S.W.2d 1094, 281 Ky. 771— Coving-,
ton Trust Co. of Covington v. Ow-
ens, 129 S.W.2d 186f 278 Ky. 695—
Dean v. Brown, 88 S.W.2d 298, 261
Ky. 593— Dye Bros. v. Butler, 272:
S.W. 42^, 209 Ky. 199.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 421
risdiction of the parties and subject matter, the
judgment is void for want of jurisdiction with re-
spect to the power of the court to render the par-
ticular judgment or decree,36 as where the court,
in entertaining jurisdiction and rendering judgment
in a particular case, exceeds the powers conferred
on it by constitutional or statutory provisions37 or
violates a provision which prohibits it from doing a
particular act or taking jurisdiction over particular
matters,38 or where the judicial determination is
.Md. — Corpus Juris quoted in. Fooks'
Ex'rs v. Ghingher, 192 A. 782, 786,
172 Md. 612, certiorari denied Phil-
lips v. Ghingher, 58 S.Ct. 47, 302
U.S. 726, 82 L.Ed. 561.
Mich. — Life Ins. Co. of Detroit v.
Burton, 10 N.W.2d 315, 30(5 Mich.
81— Adams v. Adams, 8 N.W.2d 70,
304 Mich. 290— Jackson City Bank
& Trust Co. v. Fredrick, 260 N.W.
DOS, 271 Mich. 538.
Mo. — United Cemeteries Co. v.
Strother, 119 S.W.2d 762, 342 Mo.
1155.
Mont. — Ex parte Lockhart, 232 P.
183, 72 Mont. 136.
N.J.— Coffey v. Coffey, 14 A.2d 485,
125 N.J.Law 205.
N.Y.— Universal Credit Co. v. Blind-
erman, 288 N.Y.S. 79, 158 Misc.
917— Shaul v. Fidelity & Deposit
Co. of Maryland, 227 N.Y.S. 163,
131 Misc. 401, affirmed 230 N.Y.S.
910, 224 App.Div. 773.
Ohto. — Terry v. Claypool, 65 N.E.2d
883, 77 Ohio App. 77.
Pa. — In re Patterson's Estate, 19 A.
2d 165, 341 Pa. 177— Mamlin v.
Tener, 23 A.2d 90, 146 PsuSuper.
593 — Commonwealth ex rel. How-
ard v. Howard, 10 A.2d 779, 138
Pa.Super. 505.
Tenn. — Lynch v. State ex rel. Kille-
brew, 166 S.W.2d 397, 179 Tenn.
339.
Tex. — Easterline v. Bean, 49 S.W.2d
. 427, 121 Tex. 327— Employers' In-
demnity Corporation v. Woods,
Com. App., 243 S.W. 1085 — Burrage
v. Hunt, Clv.App., 147 S.W.2d 532
— Walton v. Stinson, Civ.App., 140
JS.W.2d 497 — Harrison v. Barngrov-
er, Civ.App., 72 S.W.2d 971, error
refused, certiorari denied 55 S.
Ct. C39, 294 U.S. 731, 79 L.Ed. 1260
— Wilkinson v. Owens, Civ.App.,
72 S.W.2d 330— Bearden v. Texas
Co., Civ.App., 41 S.W.2d 447, af-
firmed, Com.App., 60 S.W.2d 1031.
Wash.— King County v. Rea, 152 P.
2d 310, 21 Wash.2d 593.
34 C.J. p 531 note 19.
«36. U.S. — Tooley v. Commissioner of
Internal Revenue, C.C.A., 121 F.2d
350 — Rheinberger v. Security Life
Ins. Co. of America, D.C.I11., 51 F.
Supp. 188, cause remanded on oth-
• er grounds, C.C.A., 146 F.2d 680
—Shields v. Shields, D.C.Mo., 26
F.Supp. 211.
Ariz.— Hallford v. Industrial Com-
mission, 159 P.2d 305 — Vargas v.
Qreer, 131 P.2d 818, 60 Ariz. 110
— Hershey v. Banta, 99 P.2d 81, 55
Ariz. 93, followed in Hershey v.
Republic Life Ins. Co., 99 P.2d 85,
55 Ariz. 104— Hill v. Favour, 84 P.
2d 575, 52 Ariz. 561— Co{iins v. Su-
perior Court in and for Maricopa
County, 62 P.2d 131, 48 Ariz. 381.
Cal. — Rico v. Nasser Bros. Realty
Co., 137 P.2d 861, 58 Cal.App.2d
878.
D.C. — Rapeer v. Colpoys, 85 F,2d 715,
66 App.D.C. 216— Scholl v. Tibbs,
Mun.App., 36 A.2d 352.
111.— Barnard v. Michael, 63 N.E.2d
858, 392 111. 130 — Mclnness v. Os-
car F. Wilson Printing Co., 258 111.
App. 161.
Ky.— Wells v. Miller, 190 S.W.2d 41,
300 Ky. 680.
Md. — Corpus Juris Quoted in Fooks'
Ex'rs v. Ghingher, 192 -A. 782, 786,
172 Md. 612, certiorari denied
Phillips v. Ghingher, 58 S.Ct. 47,
302 U.S. 726, 82 L.Ed. 561.
Mo.— In re Main's Estate, 152 S.W.
2d 696, 236 Mo.App. 88,
Mont. — Ex parte Lockhart, 232 P.
183, 72 Mont. 136.
N.J.— Maguire v. Van Meter, 1 A.2d
445, 121 N.J.Law 150— Ex parte
Hall, 118 A. 347, 94 N.J.Eq. 108. .
N.Y.— In re Chase Nat. Bank of City
Of New York, 28 N.E.2d 868, 283
N.Y. 350— Nervo v. Mealey, 25 N.Y.
S.2d 632, 175 Misc. 952— Sullivan
v. McFetridge, 55 N.Y.S.2d 511.
N.C. — Abernethy v. Burns, 188 S.E.
97, 210 N.C. 636.
Ohio. — Binns v. Isabel, 12 Ohio Supp.
113, affirmed 51 N.E.2d 501, 72
Ohio App. 222.
Okl.— Prudential Ins. Co. of America
v. Board of Com'rs of Garvin
County, 92 P.2d 359, 185 Okl. 362
— Cochran v. Norris, 51 P.2d 736,
175 Okl. 126— Protest of Kansas
City Southern Ry. Co., 11 P.2d
600, 157 Okl. 246— Glover v. War-
ner, 274 P. 867, 135 Okl. 177—
Lynch v. Collins, 233 P. 709, 106
Okl. 133— Roth v. Union Nat. Bank,
1GO P. 505, 58 Okl. 604.
Pa. — Kimple v. Standard Life Ins.
Co., 53 Pa.Dist. & Co. 174, 3 Law-
rence -L.J. 126.
Tenn. — Lynch v. State ex rel. Kille-
brew, 166 S.W.2d 397, 179 Tenn. 339
— Magevney v. Karsch, 65 S.W.2d
562, 167 Tenn, 32, 92 A.L.R. 343. .
Tex.— White v. White, 179 S.W.2d
503, 142 Tex. 499— Farmers' Nat.
Bank of Stephensville v. Daggett,
Com.App., 2 S.W.2d 834— Smith v.
Paschal, Com.App., 1 S.W.2d 108$,
rehearing denied 5 S.W.2d 135—
Walton v. Stinson, Civ.App., 140
S.W.2d 497 — Harrison v. Barngrov-
er, Civ.App., 72 S.W.2d 971, error
refused, certiorari denied 55 S.Ct.
639, 294 U.S. 731, 79 L.Ed. 12*0—
Bearden v. Texas Co., Civ.App., 41
S.W.2d 447, affirmed, Cora.App,, 60
825
S.W.2d 1031— L. E. Whitham & Co.
v. Hendrick, Civ.App., 1 S.W.2d 907,
error refused — Richardson v. Bean,
Civ.App., 246 S.W. 1096.
Wash. — Lally v. Anderson, 78 P.2d
603, 194 Wash. 536.
Wyo. — State v. District Court of
Eighth Judicial Dist. in and for
Natrona County, 238 P. 545, 33
Wyo. 281.
34 C.J. p 531 note 20.
"Jurisdiction" in. its fullest sense
is not restricted to the subject mat-
ter and the parties, but if the court
lacks jurisdiction to render or ex-
ceeds its jurisdiction in rendering
the particular judgment in particular
case the judgment is subject to col-
lateral attack even though the court
had juris. «.tion of the parties and
of the subject matter. — Nervo v.
Mealey, 25 N.Y.S.2d 632, 175 Misc.
952.
Exceeding Jurisdictiona! amount
N.J. — Novograd v. Kayne's, 199 A. 59,
16 N.J.Misc. 283.
34 C.J. p 531 note 20 [b].
37. U.S. — Corpus Juris quoted, in
McLellan v. Automobile Ins. Co.
of Hartford, Conn., C.C.A.Ariz., 80
<F.2d 344, 346— Robinson v. Edler,
C.C.A.Nev., 78 F.2d 817.
111. — Mclnness v. Oscar F. Wilson
Printing Co., 258 IlLApp. 1-61.
Mass.— Carroll v. Berger, 150 N.E.
870, 255 Mass. 132.
N.T. — 'Lynbrook Gardens v. Ullmann,
36 N.Y.S.2d 888, 179 Misc. 132, af-
firmed "37 N.Y.S.2d -671, 265 App.
Div. 859, reversed on other grounds
53 N.E.2d 353, 291 N.Y. 472, 152 A.
L.R. 959, certiorari denied 64 S.Ct.
1144, 322 U.S. 742, 83 L.Ed. 1575.
Okl. — Corpus Juris cited in Fitzsim-
mons v. City of Oklahoma, 135 P.
2d 340, 343, 192 Okl. 248— White-
head v. Bunch, 2-72 P. 878, 134 Okl.
63 — Dawkins v. People's Bank &
Trust Co., 245 P. 594, 117 Okl. 181.
Tex. — Nacogdoches County v. Jink-
ins, Civ.App., 140 S.W.2d 901, error
refused — Commander v. Bryan,
Civ.App., 12;3 S.W.2d 1008.
Wyo. — State v. District Court of
Eighth Judicial Dlst in and for
Natrona County, 238 P. 545, 33
Wyo. 281.
34 C.J. p 531 note 22.
38. Mo.— Smith v. Black, 132 S.W.
1129, 231 Mo. 681.
Tex. — Corpus Juris quoted in Grant
v. Ellis, Com.App., 50 S.W.2d 1093,
1094— Cline v. Niblo, Civ.App., 286
S.W. 398, reversed t on other
grounds, Com.App., 292 S.W. 178,
modified on other grounds 8 S.W.
§ 421
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
not within the issues presented by the pleadings and
evidence.39 On the other hand, if the court has
obtained jurisdiction of both the parties and the
subject matter, and has power to enter the judg-
ment, unless the record shows that such jurisdic-
tion was thereafter lost,40 the judgment is not sub-
ject to collateral attack because it is not in the form
required by statute41 or is contrary to the limita-
tions of such a statute,42 or resulted from an er-
roneous interpretation thereof43 or an erroneous
ruling as to the operative force of one of two stat-
utes, apparently conflicting;44 or because it is oth-
erwise defective or erroneous.45
A distinction is to be noted between those facts
which involve the jurisdiction of the court over the
parties and subject matter and those quasi-jurisdic-
tional facts without allegation of which the court
cannot properly proceed, and without proof of
which a decree should not be made, or, as other-
wise stated, between want of jurisdiction and er-
ror in the exercise of jurisdiction ; a judgment be-
ing void and assailable collaterally in the former
case, but not in the latter case.46
2d 683. 117 Tex. 474, 66 A.L.R.
916.
39. Ind.— Waugh v. Board of Com'rs
of Montgomery County, 115 N.E.
356, €4 Ind.App. 123.
Md. — Corpus Juris quoted in Fooks'
Ex'rs v. Ghingher, 192 A. 7-82, 786,
172 Md. -612, certiorari denied Phil-
lips v. Ghingher, 5S S.Ct. 47, 302
U.S. 726, -82 L.Ed. 561.
Mo. — Garrison v. Garrison, 188 S.W.
2d 644— Raymond v. Love, 180 S.
W. 1054, 192 Mo.App. 396.
KJ.— Riddle v. Cella, 15 A.2d 59, 128
N.J.EQ. 4.
N.D.— Schmidt v. 'First Nat. Bank,
232 N.W. 314, 60 N.D. 19.
34 C.J. P 531 note 21.
Court cannot consider evidence to
ascertain whether order or judgment
was supported thereby.— Cooke v.
Cooke, 248 P. 83, 67 Utah 371.
40. CaL — Hogan v. Superior Court
of California in and for City and
County of San Francisco, 241 P.
584, 74 CaLApp. 704.
41. CaL— Seaver v. Fitzgerald, 23
Cal. 85.
42. Mo. — Mississippi and Fox River
Drainage Dist. of Clark County v.
Ruddick, 64 S.W.2d 306, 228 Mo.
App. 1143.
34 C.J. *p 532 note 25.
43. 111. — Lord v. Board of Sup'rs of
Kane County, 41 N.E.2d 106, 314
IlLApp. 161.
34 C.J. p 532 note 26.
44. Cal. — Ex parte Henshaw, 15 P.
110, 73 CaL 486.
45* U.S. — Cole v. Blankenship, C.C.
A.W.Va., 30 F.2d 211— 'Fuller v.
Vanwagoner, D.C.Mlctu, 49 F.Supp.
281— Fleming v. Miller, D.C.Minn.,
47 F.Supp. 1004, modified on other
grounds, C.C.A., Walling v. Miller,
138 <F.2d 629, certiorari denied Mil-
ler v. Walling, 64 S.Ct. 781, 321
U.S. 784, 88 L.Ed. 733— E^sher v.
'Jordan, D.C.Tex., 32 F.Supp. 608,
reversed on other grounds, C.C.A.,
116 F.2d 183, certiorari denied Jor-
dan r. Fisher, 61 S.Ct 734, 312 U.
S. 697, 85 ILuEd. 1132— In re Amer-
ican (Fidelity Corporation, D.CCaL,
2S F.Supp. 462— In re Ostlind Mfg.
Co., D.C.Or., 19 F.Supp. 836.
Alaska.— Lynch v. Collings, 7 Alaska
84.
Ariz. — Brecht v. Haxnmons, 278 P.
381, 35 Ariz. 383.
Cal.— Shaw v. Palmer, 224 P. 106, -65
CaLApp. 441.
111.— Anderson v. Anderson, 44 N.E.
2d 54, 380 111. 435— Moore v. Town
of Browning, 27 N.E.2d 533, 373
111. 583 — Baker v. Brown, 23 N.E.
2d 710, 372 111. 336.
Iowa.— Watt v. Dunn, 17 N.W.2d 811.
Ky. — Commonwealth v. Miniard, 99
S.W.2d 166, 2£6 Ky. 405— Swift
Coal & Timber Co. v. Cornett, 61
S.W.2d 625, 249 Ky. 760— Mitchell
Machine & Electric Co. v. Sabin,
291 S.W. 381, 218 Ky. 289.
Mich.— Adams v. Adams, S N.W.2d
70, 304 Mich. 290— Walden v. Cre-
go's Estate, 285 N.W. 457, 288
Mich. 564— Attorney General ex
pel. O'Hara v. Montgomery, 267 N.
W. 550, 275 Mich. 504.
Mo.— Farrell v. Kingshighway
Bridge Co., App., 117 S.W.2d 693.
N.Y.— In re Albroza, 19 N.Y.S.2d 329,
173 Misc. 385.
Or. — Ulrich v. Lincoln Realty Co.,
153 P.2d 255, 175 Or. 296— State v.
Young, 257 P. 806, 122 Or. 257.
Tex. — Laney v. Cline, Civ.App., 150
S.W.2d 176, error dismissed, judg-
ment correct — Commander v. Bry-
an, Civ.App., 123 S.W.2d 1008—
Southern Ornamental Iron Works
v. Morrow, Civ.App., 101 S.W.2d
336 — Gathings v. Robertson, Civ.
App., 264 S.W. 173, reversed on
other grounds, Com.App., 276 S.W.
218 — Houston Nat. Exch. Bank v.
Chapman, Civ. App., 263 S.W. 929.
Wash.— Dare v. Hall, 250 P. 106, 141
Wash. 389.
Uncertainty
Although a judgment may be so
uncertain and incomplete as to be
void on its face and incapable of exe-
cution, that does not go to the juris-
diction of the court, and is not cause
for avoiding it on that ground in a
collateral proceeding. — Wood v. City
of Mobile. C.C.Ala,, 99 F. 615, af-
firmed 107 F. 846, 47 C.C.A. 9.
46. U.S. — Johnson v. Manhattan Ry.
826
Co., N.Y., 53 S-Ct 721, 289 U.S.
479, 77 L.Ed, 1331— National Ex-
change Bank of Tiffin v. Wiley.
Neb., 25 S.Ct 40, 195 U.S. 257, 49
L.Ed. 184— Thompson v. Whitman.
N.Y., 18 Wall. 457, 21 L.Ed. 897—
Rheinberger v. Security Life Ins.
Co. of America, D.C.I11., 51 F.Supp.
188, cause remanded on other
grounds, C.C.A., 146 F.2d 680— IT.
S. v. U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty
Co., D.C.Okl., 24 F.Su'pp. 961, mod-
ified on other grounds, C.C.A., 106
•F.2d 804, reversed on other
grounds 60 S.Ct. 653, 309 U.S. 506,
•S4 L.Ed. 894.
Ark.— Monks v. Duffle, 259 S.W. 735.
163 Ark. 118.
Cal. — Behrens v. Superior Court in
and for Yuba County, 23 P.2d 42$.
132 CaLApp. 704.
Colo. — Game well v. Strumpler, 271 P.
ISO, 84 Colo. 459.
D.C.— National Ben. Life Ins. Co. v.
Shaw-Walker Co., Ill F.2d 497, 71
App.D.C. 276, certiorari denied
Shaw-Walker Co. v. National Ben.
Life Ins. Co., «1 S.Ct. 35, 311 U.S.
673, 85 L.Ed. 432.
Fla. — Quigley v. Cremin, 113 So. 892,
194 Fla, 104.
I1L— Gunnell v. Palmer, 18 N.R2d
202, 370 111. 206, 120 A.L.R. 871.
Ind.— Pattison v. Hogston, 157 N.E.
450, 90 Ind. App. 59, rehearing de-
nied 158 N.E. 516, 90 Ind.App. 59.
Mich. — Rudell v. Union Guardian
Trust Co., 294 N.W. 132, 295 Mich.
157.
Miss. — Corpus Juris cited in Steph-
enson v. New Orleans & N. E. R.
Co., 177 So. 509, 516, 180 Miss. 147.
N.Y. — Jones v. R. Young Bros. Lum-
ber Co., 45 N.Y.S.2d 308, 180 Misc.
565.
Okl.— Noel v. Edwards, 260 P. 58, 127
Okl. 163— Kehlier v. Smith, 240 P.
708, 112 Okl. 183— Abraham v. Ho-
mer, 226 P. 45, 102 Okl. 12.
Or. — Ulrich v. Lincoln Realty Co.,
153 P.2d 255, 175 Or. 296.
S.D. — Steuerwald v. Steuerwald, 218
N.W. 597, 52 S.D. 448.
Tex. — Commander v. Bryan, Civ.
App., 123 S.W.2d 1008 — Sederholm
V. City of Port Arthur, Civ.App., 3
S.W.2d 925, affirmed Tyner v. La
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 421
Want of jurisdiction of person. Where the court
undertaking to try an action and render judgment
never acquired jurisdiction of the person of de-
fendant, a judgment against him is entirely void,
and may be so held in a collateral proceeding,47
unless defendant, by appearance in the action, has
waived the original want of jurisdiction.4 8 This
want of jurisdiction may be shown to establish the
invalidity of the judgment, even though the court
has jurisdiction of the subject matter.49
Pleading and proof of want of jurisdiction.
Where a collateral attack is made on a judgment
of a court of general jurisdiction, facts must be
alleged which show a want of jurisdiction50 and
Coste, Com.App., 13 S.W.2d 685 and
Tyner v. Keith, 18 S.W.2d 687.
34 C.J. p 532 note 28—33 C.J. P 1079
note '82.
Errors in the exercise of jurisdic-
tion, no matter how gross, cannot be
urged in a collateral proceeding* to
impeach a court's judgment or de-
cree.
U.S. — Commonwealth of Pennsyl-
vania v. Williams, Pa., 55 S.Ct.
380, 294 U.S. 176, 79 L.Ed. 841, 96
A.L.R. 1166— Iselin v. La Coste, C.
C.A.L8,, 147 F.2d 791— Murrell v.
Stock Growers' Nat Bank of Chey-
enne, C.C.A.Wyo., 74 »F.2d 82-7.
Cal.— • -Gray v. Hall, 265 P. 246, 203
Cal. 306.
D.C. — Suydam v. Ameli, Mun.App., 46
A.2d 763.
Mich. — Jackson City Bank & Trust
Co. v. Fredrick, 260 N.W. 908, 271
Mich. 538.
34 C.J. p 555 note 75 [a].
Scope of inquiry
(1) On collateral attack on Judg-
ment of court of record in the ab-
sence of fraud, the court cannot in-
quire into existence, in original ac-
tion, of "quasi jurisdictional facts"
or facts constituting cause of action,
even though it appears on the face
of the judgment itself that the court
had erred both in fact and in law
as to existence of such facts and the
right of the parties to the relief
granted. — Noel v. Edwards, 260 P.
58, 127 Okl. 163— Nolan v. Jackson,
231 P. 525, 107 Okl. 163— Abraham v.
Homer, 226 P. 45, 102 Okl. 12.
(2) The court may decide as
against a collateral attack both ques-
tions of law as well as of fact that
may arise in the particular case, un-
less the rendition of the judgment
clearly violates one of the rules for
the determination of jurisdictional
defects. — State v. District Court of
Eighth Judicial Dist in and for Na-
trona County, 238 P. 545, 33 Wyo.
281.
"Jurisdiction," as regards collater-
al attack on a judgment, is but the
power to hear and determine, and
does not depend, on the correctness
of the decision made. — Mueller v.
Elba Oil Co., WO P.2d 961, 21 Cal.2d
188— Gray v. Hall, 265 P. 246, 203
Cal. 306.
failure to allege quasi-Jurisdio-
-tional facts, without which court
cannot properly proceed, does not
render judgment void or assailable
collaterally.— Mai one v. Meres, 109
So. 677, 91 Fla, 709.
Jurisdiction of appellate court
judge serving in district other than
his residence cannot be challenged
for irregularity in procedure desig-
nating judge by collateral , attack on
judgment rendered. — State v. Marsh,
168 N.E. 473, 121 Ohio St. 321, de-
murrer sustained 169 N.E. 564, 121
Ohio St. 477.
Whether a judgment is correct on
facts or based, on a valid complaint
is a question of exercise of jurisdic-
tion, not of lack of jurisdiction. —
Schuster v. Schuster, 73 P.2d 1345,
51 Ariz. L
47. U.-S. — Warmsprings Irr. Dist v.
May, C.C.A.Or., 117 F.2d 802— Com-
monwealth of Kentucky, for Use
and Benefit of Kern v. Maryland
Casualty Co. of Baltimore, Md., C.
C.A.Ky., 112 «F.2d 352— Wyman v.
Newhouse, C.C.A.N.Y., 93 F.2d 313,
115 A.L.R. 4-60, certiorari denied 58
S.Ct. -831, 303 U.S. £64, 82 L.Ed.
1122.
Ala. — Corpus Juris cited in Bond v.
Avondale Baptist Church, 194 So.
833, 835, 239 Ala. 366.
Ariz. — Hallford v. Industrial Com-
mission, 159 P.2d 305 — Hershey v.
Banta, 99 P.2d '81, 55 Ariz. 93, fol-
lowed in Hershey v. Republic 'Life
Ins. Co., 99 P.2d 85, 55 Ariz. 104—
Collins v. Superior Court in and
for Maricopa County, 62 P.2d 131,
48 Ariz. 381.
Cal.— Bx parte Cohen, 290 P. 512, 107
CaLApp. 288.
Fla. — Horn v. City of Miami Beach,
194 So. 620, 142 Fla. 178— Malone
v. Meres, 109 So. 6'77, 91 Fla. 709.
Ga. — Thompson v. Continental Gin
Co., App., 37 S.E.2d 819.
111. — Barnard v. Michael, 6*3 N.E.2d
858, 392 111. 130— Wood v. 'First
Nat. Bank of Woodlawn, 50 N.E.2d
830, 383 111. 515, certiorari denied
64 S.Ct. 521, 321 U.S. 765, 88 L.Ed.
1061.
Ind.— Calumet Teaming & Trucking
Co. v. Young, 33 N.E.2d 109, 218
Ind. 46.8, rehearing denied 33 N.E.
2d 583, 218 Ind. 468.
Ky. — Rollins v. Board of Drainage
Com'rs of McCracken County for
Mayfield Drainage Dist. No. 1, 136
S.W.2d 1094, 281 Ky. -771— -Coving-
ton Trust Co. of Covington, v.
Owens, 129 S.W.2d 186, '278 Ky.
695 — Dean v. Brown, 88 S.W.2d
298, 261 Ky. 593.
827
Md. — Fooks' Ex'rs v. Ghingher, 192
A. 782, 786, 172 Md. 612, certiorari
denied Phillips v. Ghingher, 58 S.
Ct. 47, 302 U.S. 726, 82 L.Ed. 561.
Mich. — Life Ins. Co. of Detroit v.
Burton, 10 N.W.Sd 315, 306 Mich.
81— Adams v, Adams, 8 N.W.2d 70,
304 Mich. 290— Jackson City Bank
& Trust Co. v. Fredrick, 260 N.W.
908, 271 Mich. 538.
Mont — Ex parte Lockhart, 232 P.
133, 72 Mont. 136.
N.J.— Weiner v. Wittman, 27 A.2d
•86-6, 129 X.J.Law 35.
N.Y.— In re Rudgers, 294 N.Y.S. 142.
250 App.Div. 359 — Universal Credit
Co. v. BHnderman, 288 N.Y.S. 79,
158 Misc. 917.
Ohio.— Terry v. Claypool, -65 N.E.2d
883, 887, 77 Ohio App. 77.
Pa.— Mamlin v. Tener, 23 A.2d 90,
146 Pa.Super. 593 — Commonwealth
ex rel. Howard v. Howard, 10 A.
2d 779, 138 Pa.Super. 505— Klmple
v. Standard Life Ins. Co., Com.Pl.,
53 Pa.Dist. & Co. 174, 3 Lawrence
!L.J. 126.
Tenn. — Lynch v. State ex rel. Kille-
brew, 166 S.W.2d 397, 179 Tenn.
339.
Tex. — Burrage v. Hunt, Civ. App., 147
S.W.2d 532 — Walton v. Stinson,
Civ.App., 140 -S.W.2d 497, error re-
fused— Harrison v. Barngrover,
Civ.App., 72 S.W.2d 971, error re-
fused, certiorari denied 55 S.Ct.
639, 294 U.S. 731, 79 L.Ed. 1260—
Wilkinson v. Owens, Civ.App., 72
S.W.2d 330 — Bearden v. Texas Co.,
Civ.App., 41 S.W.2d 447, affirmed,
Com.App., 60 S.W.2d 1031.
34 C.J. p 532 note 35.
Necessity of jurisdiction of person
see supra $19.
4a U.S. — First Nat. Bank v. Cun-
ningham, C.C.Ky., 48 F. 510.
Okl.— Welch v. Ladd, 116 P. 573, 29
Okl. 93.
Appearance conferring jurisdiction
see supra § 26.
•Withdrawing motion, to vacate
fraudulent Judgment obtained In the
absence of defendant does not con-
stitute "appearance," and judgment
is impeachable collaterally. — Dyer v.
Johnson, Tex.Civ.App., 19 S.W.2d 421,
error dismissed.
49. Va.— Moore v. Smith, 15 S.B.2d
48, 177 Va. 621— Raub v. Otterback,
1-6 S.E. 933, 89 Va. 645.
50. Colo.— Lafltte v. -Salisbury, 126
P. 1104, 22 Colo.App. 641.
Okl. — In re Protest of St. Louis-San
§ 421
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S-
which will justify the trial court in determining
the matter.51 Any question as to jurisdiction or
as to the validity of the judgment which does not
show on the face of the record must be raised and
brought to the attention of the court by appropri-
ate pleadings.52 In jurisdictions in which the want
of jurisdiction must appear on the face of the rec-
ord, it is not sufficient merely to allege and prove
the absence of jurisdictional facts, but it must be
alleged and proved that the record affirmatively
shows the absence of such facts.53
Orders and decisions of administrative boards and
tribunals acting in a judicial or quasi- judicial ca-
pacity, with respect to which a direct or indirect
means of judicial review is available, cannot be
collaterally attacked except for jurisdictional de-
fects appearing on the face of the record.54
§ 422. Want of or Defects in Process or
Service
a. Want of process or service
b. Defects in process or service
c. Substituted or constructive service
a. Want of Process or Service
A failure to Issue process or to make service there-
of on defendant Is ground fop collateral attack, unless
such service Is waived by a voluntary appearance or
otherwise.
In a personal action the issuance of process and
the service thereof on defendant is necessary to
confer jurisdiction on the court, as discussed supra
§ 23, and if no process is issued,55 or if service is.
not made on defendant,56 the judgment will be sub-
ject to collateral attack unless service is waived by
voluntary appearance or otherwise.57 However, a,
judgment rendered in accordance with the require-
ments of statute, although without actual notice to
defendant of the pendency of the action, has been
held conclusive on the parties until set aside by
some direct proceeding for that purpose.58 A judg-
ment will not be set aside, on collateral attack, be-
cause of the want of service of a certified copy of
the complaint or bill, such service not being neces-
'Francisco Ry. Co., 11 P.2d 1S9, 157
Okl. 131— Wilson v. Hornecker, 249
P. 317, 119 Okl. 120.
84 C.J. p 532 note 31.
A judgment of a probate court can
be impeached on jurlsdictiona]
grounds only where party attacking
it alleges definite reasons why it is
void, a mere qualified general denial
of jurisdiction being insufficient. —
Winter v. Klein-Schultz, 76 P.2d
1051, 182 Okl. 231.
51. Fla. — Beaty v. Inlet Beach, 9 So.
2d 735, 151 Fla. 495, motion denied
and modified on other grounds 10
So.2d 807, 152 Fla. 266.
52. Utah.— Intermill v. Nash, 75 P.
2d 157, 94 Utah 271.
Jurisdiction not lost by factual rev-
elation*
Where diversity of citizenship ex-
isted and both parties in action in-
volving title to realty submitted to
jurisdiction of federal court in Mis-
sissippi and were in accord with
view that land was in Mississippi
rather than in Louisiana, and no
factual revelations in contrariety
with jurisdictional averments in
complaint were developed, federal
court in Mississippi retained juris-
diction and resulting judgment was
not void on its face and could not be
collaterally attacked In subsequent
proceeding in federal court in-Louisi-
ana involving identical land. — Iselin
v. La Coste, C.C.A.La., 147 F.2d 791.
53. -Fla. — Corpus Juris oited in
White v. Crandall, 143 So. 871, 580,
105 Fla. 70:
Ky.— White v. White, 172 S.W.2d 72,
294 Ky. 583— May v. Sword, 33 S. |
W.2d 314, 236 Kv. 412 — Mussman
v. Pepples, 22 S.W.2d 605, 232 Ky.
254.
Okl. — Mid-Continent Pipe Line Co. v.
Seminole County Excise Board, 146
P.2d 996, 194 Okl. 40— Protest of
Stanolind Pipe Line Co., 32 P.2d
869, 168 Okl. 2S1— Protest of Gulf
Pipe Line Co. of Oklahoma, 32 P.
2d 42, 168 Okl. 136.
34 C.J. p 532 note 32.
Want of notice
To impeach judgment collaterally
for want of notice to parties, com-
plaint must allege what record of
judgment discloses on subject of no-
tice.—Clark v. Clark, 172 N.B. 124,
202 Ind. 104.
54. Minn.— Martin v. Wolfson, 16 N.
W.2d 884, 218 Minn. 557.
Tex. — Nacogdoches County v. Jink-
ins, Civ.App., 140 S.W.2d 901.
Orders and decisions of administra-
tive boards as subject to collateral
attack see supra § 407.
65. Ala. — Guy v. Pridgen & Holman,
118 So. 229, 22 Ala.App. 595.
La.— Key v. Jones, App., 181 So. 831.
Miss. — Schwartz Bros. & Co. v. Staf-
ford, 148 So. 794, 166 Miss. 397.
34 C.J. p 533 note 38.
58. Cal. — Regoli v. Fancher, 34 P.
2d 477, 1 CaL2d 276— Gray v. Hall,
265 P. 246, 203 Cal. 306— McAllister
v. Superior Court In and For Ala-
meda County, 82 P.2d 462, 28 Cal.
App.2d 160.
Ky.— Ely v. U. S. Coal & Coke Co., 49
S.W.2d 1021, 243 Ky. 725.
La.— Key v. Jones, App., 181 So. -631.
Miss. — Paepcke-lLeicht Lumber Co.
828
v. Savage, 101 -So. 709, 1-37 Miss.
11.
Pa. — In re Komara's Estate, 166 A.
577, 311 Pa. 135.
Tex.— Lipscomb v. Japhet, Civ.App..
18 S.W.2d 786, error dismissed —
Cauble v. Cauble, Civ.App., 283 S-
W. 914.
W.Va.— Hayhurst v. J. Kenny Trans-
fer Co., 158 S.B. 506, 110 W.Va.
395.
34 C.J. p 533 note 39.
A partition Judgment or decree, en-
tered without service of process, is-,
subject to collateral attack.
La.— Spears v. Spears, 136 So. 614,
173 La. 294.
N.Y.— Stevens v. Breen, 16 N.Y.S.2o7
909, 258 App.Div. 423, affirmed 27
N.E.2d 987, 283 N.Y. 196.
57. Fla.— Baptist v. Baptist, 178 So.
846, 130 -Fla. 702.
Ind.— Sonken v. Gemmill, 151 N.E.
355, 94 IndApp. 114.
La.— Key v. Jones, App., 181 So. 631.
Okl.— Miller v. Madigan, 215 P. 742r
90 Okl. 17.
W.Va.— Hayhurst v. J. Kenny Trans-
fer Co., 158 S.E. 506, 110 W.Va. 395.
34 C.J. p 533 note 40.
^resumption
It will be presumed that, by waiv-
ing service of process and entry of
appearance, defendant consented to
confer jurisdiction on court render-
ing judgment, precluding collateral
attack. — Grand Lodge, Colored K. P.,
v. Kidd, Tex.Civ.App., 10 S.W.2d 420.
58. Conn. — Hurlbut v. Thomas, 10
A. 556, 55 Conn. 181, 3 Am,S.K. 43.
Pa. — Ferguson v. Yard, 30 A. 517, 1-6*
Pa. 586.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 422
sary to confer jurisdiction.59 A judgment correct-
ing a former entry by a nunc pro tune order cannot
be attacked collaterally by showing that notice was
not given
60
b. Defects in Process or Service
A defect in the form of the process, or in the man-
ner of service thereof, is ground for a collateral attack
only where the defect is such that the process amounts
to no process at all or the service does not constitute a
legal service.
A defect in the form or matter of the summons
or other process not absolutely destructive of its
validity,61 or an irregularity or defect in the serv-
ice of the process on defendant which, although ma-
terial and available on a direct attack, is sufficient
to give notice of the proceedings,62 does not de-
prive the court of jurisdiction and therefore does
not expose the judgment to collateral impeachment,
particularly where the defect or irregularity is
amendable, and is cured by a failure to object there-
to in time.63 Where, however, the defect in the
process is so radical that it amounts to no process
at all,64 as where it wholly fails to give the party
the information it is expected to convey,65 or where
the attempted service is so faulty that it does not
constitute a legal service on defendant or amounts
to no service at all,66 there is a want of jurisdic-
tion and the judgment will be impeachable collater-
ally.
59. Ariz. — Jeter v. Sapp, 55 P.2d 812, |
47 Ariz. 325.
Wash. — Munch v. McLaren, 38 P. 205.
9 Wash. 676.
34 C.J. p 534 note 44 [d].
In action against several defend-
ants, failure to deliver copy of peti-
tion to defendant first served as re-
quired by statute, does not subject
the judgment to collateral attack. —
Burkard v. Hahne, Mo.A-pp., 17 S.W.
2d 636.
GO. Ark. — Hall v. Castleberry, 161 S.
W.2d 948, 204 Ark. 200— Miller
Land & Lumber Co. v. Gurley, 208
S.W. 426, 137 Ark. 146— King v.
Clay, 34 Ark. 291.
61. Mo. — Corpus Juris quoted In
Zorn v. Farrel, 142 S.W.2d 879,
883, 235 Mo.App. 118— Corpus Juris
quoted in Burkard v. Hahne, App.,
17 S.W.Sd 636.
•34 C.J. p 534 note 43.
tmsigned writ
A writ commencing suit, if not
signed by court clerk, is voidable
only, and decree or proceeding based
.thereon is not subject to collateral
attack. — Nicholas Land Co. v. Crow-
der, W.Va., 32 S.R2d 563—34 C.J. P
534 note 43 [e].
Omission of seal
Tex. — Rhoads v. Daly General Agen-
cy, Civ.App., 152 S.W.2d 461, error
refused.
34 C.J. p 534 note 43 [f].
62. Fla.— State ex rel. Gore v. Chil-
llngworth, 171 So. -649, 126 Fla.
645.
Ky.-HFurlong v. Finneran, 4 S.W.2d
378, 223 Ky. 558.
Mo. — Corpus Juris quoted in Zorn v.
Farrel, 142 S.W.2d 879, 88'3, 235 Mo.
App. 118 — Corpus Juris cited in
Burkard v. Hahne, App., 17 S.W.2d
636.
N.C.— Nail v. McConnell, 190 S.B.
210, 211 N.C. 258.
Tex.— Weaver v. Garrietty, Civ.App.
84 S.W.2d 878— Oarlton v. Hoff,
Civ.App., 292 S.W. 642— Cockrell v.
Steffens, Civ.App., 284 S.W. 608.
Va.— Wood v, Kane, 129 S.E. 327, 143
Va. 281 — American Ry. Express Co.
v. F. S. Royster Guano Co., 126 S.
E. 678, 141 Va. 602, affirmed 47 S.
Ct. 355, 273 U.S. 274, 71 L.Bd. -642.
Wash.— Peha's University Food Shop
v. Stimpson Corporation, 31 P.2d
1023, 177 Wash. 406.
Wyo.— Whitaker v. First Nat. Bank,
231 P. 691, 32 Wyo. 288.
34 C.J. P 534 note 44.
_ summons
Default judgment may not be col-
laterally attacked merely because
alins summons was served on de-
fendant after plaintiff's death and
before revivor, — Adams v. Carson, 25
P.2d 653, 165 Okl. 161.
Service by an unauthorized, or dis-
qualified person has been held a mere
irregularity which does not expose
the judgment to collateral attack.—
Burke v. Interstate Savings & Loan
Ass'n, 64 P. 379, 25 Mont. 315—34 C.
J. p 534 note 44 [b].
Service on officer or agent of corpo-
ration held mere irregularity
— Mclntosh v. Munson Road
Machinery Co., 145 So. 731, 167
Miss. 546.
34 C.J. p 534 note 44 [c].
Service on nominal defendant
In a personal action, the service of
summons on a nominal defendant in
county where action is brought does
not authorize the issuance of sum-
mons to another county for real de-
fendant but such issue must be
raised directly where subject matter
of action is within jurisdiction of
court and is not available in a col-
lateral action. — Wistrom v. "Forsling,
14 N.W.2d 217, 144 Neb. 638.
Defect in acceptance of service
The omission of. the statement of
the place of acceptance of service of
summons in mortgage foreclosure
action in the written record of the
acceptance does not render the fore-
closure decree subject to collateral
attack by the mortgagor in proceed-
ings by him on a fire policy, wherein
829
he seeks to establish an insurable
interest in the property by proof
that the mortgage foreclosure pro-
ceeding was invalid. — Abraham v.
New York Underwriters Ins. Co., 196
S.B. 531, 187 -S.C. 70.
63. Miss.— Mclntosh v. Munson
Road Machinery Co., 145 So. '731,
167 Miss. 546.
Tex.— Smith v. Switzer, Civ.App., 293
S.W. 850, affirmed Switzer v.
Smith, Com.App., 300 S.W. 31, 68
A.L.R. 377.
34 C.J. p 535 note 43.
64. W.Va. — New Eagle Gas Coal Co.
v. Burgess, 111 S.B. 508, 90 W.
Va. 541.
34 C.J. p 535 note 45.
Warning order
In action against nonresident in-
fants, warning order attorney's let-
ter addressed to infants' father did
not satisfy statutory requirements
for notice, and therefore Judgment
could be collaterally attacked. — Ely
v. U. S. Coal & Coke Co., 49 S.W.2d
1021, 243 Ky. 725.
65. Mo.— Howell v. Sherwood, 112 S.
W. 50, 213 Mo. 5-65.
34 C.J. p 535 note 46.
66. Cal.— Gray v. Hall, 265 P. 246,
203 Cal. 306.
Mo. — Liechty v. Kansas City Bridge
Co., 162 S.W.2d 275.
Okl.— Lynch v. Qollins, 233 P. 709,
106 Okl. 133.
Pa.— Wood v. Kuhn, Com.Pl., 22 Brie
Co. 236.
34 C.J. p 535 note 47.
Service of process on an agent of
a corporation who was beneficially
interested in suit as an adversary
against corporation, was void, and
was subject to collateral attack in
case where it appeared from 'face of
record that such service was not
made in compliance with statute. —
Boston Acme Mines Development Co.
v. Clawson, 240 P, 165, 66 Utah 103.
Personal service out of state on a.
nonresident defendant in a personal
§ 422
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
c. Substituted or Constructive Service
A defect in substituted or constructive service is
ground for collateral attack where it constitutes a fail-
ure to comply with the statutory requirements In some
essential particular.
A judgment rendered on constructive service of
process, the requirements of the statute having been
complied with, is as much protected against collat-
eral impeachment as any other judgment,67 and it
cannot be shown collaterally that defendant was
•not in fact a nonresident as alleged,68 that he
had no property subject to the jurisdiction of the
court,69 or that the published notice did not in fact
come to the knowledge of defendant.70 A judg-
ment against a resident, however, is subject to col-
lateral attack where it is based on notice given in
conformity with a statutory provision for service
on a nonresident only by publication,71 unless an
appearance is made by or for the resident.72
Failure to comply strictly with the provisions of
the statute in some essential and vital particular
will deprive the court of jurisdiction, and so expose
the judgment to collateral impeachment,7 * as where
the published notice is wholly insufficient to warn
defendant of the action or to give him the informa-
tion he is entitled to expect from it,74 but a mere
defect or irregularity in making service by publi-
cation will not have this effect;75 nor will the judg-
ment be collaterally assailable although the affida-
vit on which the order of publication was based was
defective or insufficient,76 or false in fact,77 and
this is especially true where the court has judicially
considered or adjudicated its sufficiency.78 Where,
however, the affidavit fails in any jurisdictional par-
ticular, the judgment is void and subject to collat-
eral attack.79
§ 423. Defects in Return or Proof of
Service
Mere defects, irregularities, or informalities In the
return or proof of service of process do not constitute
grounds for collateral impeachment of the judgment.
A judgment cannot be impeached in a collateral
proceeding on the ground that the return or proof
of service of process was defective, irregular, or
informal ;80 nor, as has been held, can it be so im-
actlon for a money judgment, or to
bar the right of a beneficiary to col-
lect insurance policy, is void and
subject to collateral attack. — Royal
Neighbors of America v. Fletcher,
227 P. 426, 99 Okl. 297.
67. Ala. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Bond v. Avondale Baptist Church,
194 So. 833, 835, 239 Ala. 366.
Fia. — Cone Bros. Const. Co. v. Moore,
193 So. 288, 141 Pla. 420.
Kan. — Corpus Juris quoted in Bar-
rett v. Hurd, 18 P.2d 184, 185, 136
Kan. 799.
Neb. — Corpus Juris quoted in Doug-
las County v. Peenan, 18 N.W.2d
740, 743, 146 Neb. 156.
Tex. — Wilson v. Beck, Civ.App., 286
S.W. 315.
34 C.J. p 535 note 50.
Sufficiency of substituted or con-
structive service generally see su-
pra § 24.
68. Neb.-<k>xptts Juris quoted in
Douglas County v. 'Peenan, IS N.W.
2d 740, 743, 146 Neb. 156.
34 C.J. p 535 note 51.
69. Minn.— Stone v. Myers, 9 Minn.
303, 36 Am.D. 104.
S.D. — Bunker v. Taylor, 83 N.W. 555,
13 ELD. 433.
70. Colo.— Brown v. Whetstone, 138
P. -61, 25 Colo.App. 371.
gan, — Corpus Juris quoted in. Bar-
rett V. Hurd, 18 P.2d 184, 185, 136
Kan. 799.
71. Neb. — Coffin v. Maitland, 20 N.
W.2d 310, 146 Neb. 477.
34 C.J. p 535 note 54.
72. Neb. — Coffin v. Maitland, 20 N.
W.2d 310, 146 Neb. 477.
73. Mo. — Dent v. Investors' Sec.
Ass'n, 254 S.W. 1080, 300 Mo. 552—
Haake v. Union Bank & Trust Co.,
App., 54 S.W.2d 459.
N.Y. — Copperfretti v. Shephard, 271
N.Y.S. 2S4, 241 App.Div. 872.
34 C.J. p 535 note 55.
74. Ind. — Schissel v. Dickson, 28 N.
B. 540, 129 Ind. 139.
34 C.J. p 535 note 56.
75. Ariz. — Noonan v. Montgomery,
209 P. 302, 24 Ariz. 311, 25 A.OL..R.
1251.
Iowa.— State v. Smith, 188 N.W. 659.
Mo.— Williams v. Luecke, App., 152
S.W.2d 991.
34 C.J. p 535 note 57.
76. U.S. — Butler v. McKey, C.C.A.
CaL, 138 P.2d 373, certiorari denied
64 S.Ct. 636, 321 U.S. 780, 88 L.Ed.
1073 — Fisher v. Jordan, C.C.A.Tex.,
116 P.2d 183, certiorari denied Jor-
dan v. Fisher, 61 S.Ct. 734, 312 U.
S. 697, 85 L.Ed. 1132.
Ariz.— Hershey v. Banta, 99 P.2d -81,
55 Ariz. 93, followed in Hershey v.
Republic Life Ins. Co., 99 P.2d 85,
55 Ariz. 104 — Noonan v. Montgom-
ery, 209 P. 302, 24 Ariz. 311. 25 A.
L.R. 1251.
Kan. — Scott v. -Linn, 2-68 P. 84, 126
Kan. 195.
Okl. — Robins v. Lincoln Terrace
Christian Church, 75 P.2d 874, 181
Okl. 615.
Utah.— Intermill v. Nash, 75 P.2d
157, 94 Utah 271.
34 C.J. p 536 note 58.
Construction in support of Judgment
Idaho. — Harpold v. Doyle, 102 P. 158,
16 Idaho 671, 694.
830
77. Kan. — Marler v. Stewart QBVirm
Mortg. Co., 207 P. 823, 111 Kan.
488.
34 C.J. p 536 note 59.
78. Or. — George v. Nowlan, -64 P. 1,
38 Or. 537.
34 C.J. p 536 note 60.
Decision of court as to its own ju-
risdiction generally see infra §
427.
79. Okl. — Chaplin v. First Bank of
Hitchcock, 181 P. 497, 72 Okl. 293.
34 C.J. p 536 note 61.
Affidavit for warning1 order in ver-
ified petition, alleging that defendant
was nonresident and giving postofflce
address, but not alleging belief that
he was then absent from state, did
not warrant issuance of warning or-
der, and judgment rendered thereon
was subject to collateral attack. —
Leonard v. Williams, 265 S.W. -618,
205 Ky. 218.
80. Ariz. — Noonan v. Montgomery,
209 P. 302, 24 Ariz. 311, 25 A.L.R.
1251.
Cal. — City of Salinas v. Luke Kow
Lee, IS P.2d 335, 217 Cal. 252.
Idaho. — Blandy v. Modern Box Mfg.
Co., 232 P. 1095, 40 Idaho 356.
Mo. — McEwen v. Sterling State Bank,
5 S.W.2d 702, 222 Mo.App. 660.
Tex. — Carlton v. Hott, Civ.App., 292
S.W. 642.
Va. — Wood v. Kane, 129 S.B. 327, 143
Va. 2.81.
34 C.J. p 536 note 63.
Conclusiveness of return generally
see the C.J.S. title Process § 100,
also 50 C.J. p 574 note 94-p 577
note 17.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
425
peached on the ground that the return showing
service was false,81 particularly after the lapse of
a long period of time.82 A judgment, however, may
be collaterally impeached on the ground that there
was no return,83 that the return was made by the
wrong person,84 or that the return or proof wholly
failed to show the facts necessary to give the court
jurisdiction.85
§ 424.
Unauthorized Appearance
By the weight of authority, an attorney's unauthor-
ized appearance for a party against whom a judgment
is rendered is no ground for collaterally attacking the
judgment. This rule has been held not to apply in case
cf a judgment against a nonresident.
By the weight of authority, it is not permissible,
in any collateral proceeding, for a party to contest
the validity of a domestic judgment against him on
the ground that an attorney who appeared for him
in the action had no authority to do so.86 In some
states, however, the rule obtains that the authority
of the attorney may be controverted in such a
case.87
Nonresidents. In an action on a domestic judg-
ment against nonresidents, it has been held that it
may be shown that such judgment was rendered on
an unauthorized appearance for defendant, and
without service of process.88
§ 425. Presumptions as to Jurisdiction
a. Courts of general or superior jurisdic-
tion
b. Courts or tribunals of inferior or lim-
ited jurisdiction
c. Federal courts
d. Probate courts
a. Courts of General or Superior Jurisdiction
(1) In general
(2) Process and service
(3) Exercise of special statutory pow-
ers
(1) In General
In case of a collateral attack on a domestic Judg-
ment of a court of general jurisdiction, every reason-
able presumption will be indulged in support of the reg-
ularity and validity of the judgment; and, unless the
contrary affirmatively appears from the face of the rec-
ord, It generally will be presumed that the court had
jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the parties,
and that facts existed which were necessary to give the
court Jurisdiction or power to render the particular Judg-
ment.
As a general rule, a judgment rendered by a court
of competent jurisdiction is presumed to be regular
and valid until it is shown to be invalid by alle-
gations and proof .in a direct action or proceeding
instituted for that purpose.89 Accordingly, in case
81. Ala. — Smith v. G-aines, 97 So.
739, 210 Ala. 245.
:ST.J.— Fidelity Union Trust Co. v.
Gerber Bros. Realty Co., 199 A.
7, 123 N.J.EQ. 511— C. & D. Bldg.
Corporation v. Griffithes, 157 A.
137, 109 N.J.Eq. 319.
82. W.Va.— Hatfleld v. IT. S. Coal &
Coke Co., 1*1 S.R 572, 111 W.Va.
289.
83. Colo. — Munson v. Pawnee Cattle
Co., 126 P. 275, 53 Colo. 337.
84. Mo. — Stuckert v. Thompson, 164
S.W. 692, 181 Mo.App. 518.
34 C.J. p 537 note 65. »
86. Cal.— Regoli v. Bencher, -34 P.2d
477, 1 Cal.2d 27-6.
34 C.J. p 537 note 66.
Proof held insufficient
Where a Judgment is silent as to
notice, evidence of an application for,
and issuance of, citation to be served
by publication on a nonresident of
the state does not constitute such
proof as is required to show that the
judgment was rendered on notice by
publication alone, in the absence of
the sheriff's return on such citation,
or of any evidence as to what else
the record may show respecting
service thereof. — McCarthy v. Burtis,
22 S.W. 422, 3 Tex.Civ.App. 439.
86. Ala.— -Zorn v. Lowery, 181 So,
249, 236 Ala. 62.
Ind. — Holllnger v. Reeme, 36 N.E.
1114. 138 Ind. 363, 46 Am.S.R. 402,
24 L.R.A 46— Wiley v. Pratt, 23
Ind. 628 — Sherrard v. Nevius, 2
Ind. 241, 52 Am.D. 508— Hunter v.
Harrell, 193 N.E. 295, 88 Ind.App.
68.
Mass. — Long v. MacDougall, 173 N.E.
507, 273 Mass. 38$.
Mo. — Johnson v. Baumhoff, 18 S.W.
2d 13, 322 Mo. 1017— Stuart v.
Dickinson, 235 S.W. 446, 290 Mo.
•516 — Hemphill (Lumber Co. v. Ar-
cadia Timber Co., App., 52 S.W.2d
750.
34 C.J. p 537 note 68.
Impeachment of foreign judgment
for unauthorized appearance see
infra § 893.
Statute not applicable
A statute providing that court may
at any stage of proceedings relieve
party for whom attorney has as-
sumed to act without authority from
consequences of attorney's acts ap-
plies only where party challenges at-
torney's authority during progress
of suit, and does not apply to col-
lateral attack four years after ad-
verse decree was rendered. — Louth v.
Woodard, 236 P. 480, 114 Or. 603.
87. 111. — Weber v. Powers, 72 N.E.
1070, 213 111. 370, 68 L.R.A. -610.
34 C.J. p 537 note 69.
'Unauthorized appearance as fraud as
831
ground for collateral attack see in-
fra § 434.
88. N.T.— Vilas v. Plattsburgh & M.
R. Co., 25 N.B. 941, 123 N.Y. 440,
20 Am.S.R. 771, 9 (L.R.A. 844.
34 C.J. p 537 note 70.
89. Ala.— Hurt v. Knox, 126 So. 110,
220 Ala. 448.
Fla. — State ex rel. Everette v. Pette-
way, 179 So. 666, 131 'Fla. 51-6.
Ga.— Coclin v. Taylor, 137 S.E. 852,
36 Ga.App. 577.
La. — Navarrette v, Joseph Laughlin,
Inc., App., 20 So.2d 313, reversed
on other grounds Navarrette v.
Laughlin, 24 So.2d 672, 209 La. 417
— Bell v. Canal Bank & Trust Co.,
App., 184 So. 382, reheard 187 So.
295, affirmed 190 So. 359, 193 La,
142.
Miss. — Brotherhood of Railroad
Trainmen v. Agnew, 155 So. 205,
170 Miss. 604.
Mo. — Lewis v, Lewis, App., 176 'S.W.
2d 556.
N.J. — Henderson v. Weber, 28 A-2d
.90, 129 N.J.Law 59.
N.D.— Olson v. Donnelly, 294 NVW.
•666, 70 N.D. 370.
Okl. — Drum v. .SStna Casualty £
Surety Co., 116 P.2d 715, 189 Okl.
307.
Pa. — Moeller v. Washington County,
44 A.2d 252, 352 Pa. 640.
§ 425
JUDGMENTS
49 O.J.S.
of a collateral attack on a judgment of a domestic
court of general or superior jurisdiction, by a party
thereto, the judgment imports verity, and even- rea-
sonable presumption will be indulged in support of
its regularity and validity,90 and the burden is on
a party collaterally attacking a judgment to over-
Utah.— Intermill v. Nash, 75 P.2d
157, 94 Utah 271.
In proceeding for equitable relief see
supra § 393.
In proceeding" to vacate or set aside
see supra § 297.
Tile chief distinction between "col-
lateral" and "direct attacks" on a
judgment is that in the former the
record alone may be inspected, and
is conclusively presumed to be cor-
rect, while in the latter the facts
may be shown, and thus the judg-
ment itself on appeal may be re-
versed or modified.
Ala.— A. B. C. Truck Lines v. Kene-
mer, 25 So.2d oil—- Wise v. Miller,
111 So. 913, 215 Ala, 660.
Cal.— Gray v. Hall, 265 P. 246, 254,
203 Cal. 306— People ex rel. Pol-
lock v. Bogart 13S P.2d 360, 5S
Gal.App.2d 831— Application of
Behymer, 19 P.2d 829, 130 CaLApp.
200.
90. U.S.— Kalb v. Feuerstein, Wis.,
60 S.Ct. 343, 308 U.S. 433, 84 L.Ed.
370, mandate conformed to 291 N.
W. 840, 234 Wis. 507— Kalb v.
Luce, 60 S.Ct. 343, 308 U.S. 433, 34
iL.Ed. 370, mandate conformed to
291 N.W. 841, 234 Wis. 509— John-
son v. Zerbst, Ga,, 58 S.Ct. 1019,
304 U.S. 458, 82 LuEd. 1461— Mich-
ener v. Johnston, C.C.A.Cal., 141 P.
2d 171— Pen-Ken Gas & Oil Co. v.
Warfteld Natural Gas Co., C.C.A.
Ky., 13*7 P.2d 871, certiorari denied
64 -S.Ct. 431, 320 U.S. 800, 88 L.
Ed. 483, rehearing- denied 64 S.Ct
634, 321 U.S. -803, '88 L.Ed. 1089—
Mothershead v. King, C.C.A.MO.,
112 «F.2d 1004 — Franzeen v. Johns-
ton, C.C.A.CaL, 111 F.2d 817—
Thompson v. King, C.C.A.MO., 107
P.2d 307 — In re Maier Brewing Co.,
DC/CaL, 38 P.Supp. 80-6— Erwin v.
Sanford, D.C.Ga., 27 F.Supp. 892—
U. S. v. U. S. 'Fidelity & Guaranty
Co., D.C.Okl,, 24 F.Supp. 961, mod-
ified on other grounds 106 F.2d
S04, reversed on other grounds 60
S.Ct. 653, 309 U.S. 506, 84 L.Ed.
894.
Ala. — Anthony v. Anthony, 128 So.
440, 221 Ala. 221— Hurt v. Knox,
126 -So. 110, 220 Ala. 448.
Ark. — Adams v. Van Buren County,
139 S.W.2d 9, 200 Ark. 269— Kice
v. Moore, 109 S.W.2d 148, 194 Ark.
585 — Brown v. Arkebauer, 31 S.W.
2d 530, 182 Ark. 354— Hicks v.
Norsworthy, 4 S.W.2d 897, 176 Ark.
786 — Stumpff v. Louann Provision
Co., 292 S;W. 106, 173 Ark. 192—
Road Improvement Dist No. 4 of
Saline County v. Ball, 281 S.W. 5,
'170 Ark. 522.
Cal. — Wells Fargo & Co. v. City and
County of San -Francisco, 152 P.2d
625, 25 Cal.2d 37— Ex parte Bell,
122 P.2d 22, 9 Cal.2d 488— City of
Salinas v. Luke Kow -Lee, 18 P.2d
335, 217 Cal. 252— Hamblin v. Su-
perior Court of Los Angeles Coun-
ty, 233 P. 337, 195 Cal. 364, 43 A.
L.R. 1509 — Hosner T. Skelly, App.,
164 P.2d 573— Rico v. Nasser Bros.
Realty Co., 137 P.2d S'81, 5S Cal.
App.2d 878 — Marvin v. Marvin, 116
P.2d 151, 46 Cal.App.2d 551— Mc-
Allister v. Superior Court In and
For Alameda County, 82 P.2d 462,
28 Cal.App.2d 160— Greenwood v.
Greenwood, 297 P. 589, 112 Cal.
App. 691— Fletcher v. Superior
Court of Sacramento County, 250
P. 195, 79 CaLApp. 468— Hogan v.
Superior Court of California in and
for City and County of San Fran-
cisco, 241 P. 584, 74 QaLApp. 704.
Conn. — Doris v. McFarland, 156 A.
52, 113 Conn. 594.
Fla. — Horn v. City of Miami Beach,
194 So. 620, 142 Fla. 178— Sawyer
v. State, 113 So. 736, 94 'Fla. 60,
followed in Dwyer v. State, 116 So.
726, 95 Fla. 846.
Ga. — Chance v. Chance, 5 -S.E.2d 399,
60 Ga.App. 8S9 — Georgia Creosot-
ing Co. v. Moody, 154 S.E. 294, 41
Ga.App. 701.
Idaho. — State v. Mundell, 158 P.2d
818— State v. Miller. 10 P.2d 955,
52 Idaho 33 — Karlson v. National
Park Lumber Co., 269 P. 591, 46
Idaho 595 — Blandy v. Modern Box
Mfg. Co., 232 P. 1095, 40 Idaho 356.
I1L — People ex rel. Warner v. Lind-
helmer, 19 N.E.2d 336, 370 111. 424
— People v. Brewer, 160 N.E. 76,
328 111. 472.
Ind.— Clark v. Clark, 172 N.E. 124,
202 Ind. 104— Berry-Enright Lum-
ber Co. v. Gardner, 7 N.E.2d 523,
104 Ind.App. 9.
Iowa. — In re Haga's Estate, 294 N.W.
539, 229 Iowa 3 SO.
Ka.n. — Corpus Juris quoted la John
Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Van-
deventer, 44 P.2d 251, 254, 141 Kan.
767.
Ky.— Skldmore v. Napier, 166 S.W.2d
439, 292 Ky. 311— Corpus Juris
quoted in Goosling v. Varaey's
Trustee, 105 S.W.2d 178, 182, 268
Ky. 394 — McFarland v. Hudson, 89
S.W.2d 877, 2-62 Ky. 183— Dean v.
Brown, 88 S.W.2d 298, 261 Ky. 593
—Hall v. Bates, 77 S.W.2d 403, 257
Ky. 61 — Houston's Guardian (now
Luker) v. (Luker*s -Former Guard-
ian, 69 S.W.2d 1014, 253 'Ky. 602—
Well's Adm'x v. Hell, 47 S.W.2d
1041, 243 Ky. 282— Ramsey's Ex'r
v. Ramsey, 26 S.W.2d 37, 233 Ky.
507 — Wolverton v. Baynham, 10 S.
W.2d 837, 226 Ky. 214— Mitchell
Mill Remnant Corporation v. Long,
3 S,W.2d 639, "223 Ky. 242— Dye
832
Bros. v. Butler, 272 S.W. 426, 209
Ky. 199.
Me.— Bisbee v. Knight, 26 A.2d 637,
139 Me. 1.
Mich.— Life Ins. Co. of Detroit v.
Burton, 10 N.W.2d 315, 306 Mich.
81.
Mo.— State ex rel. Lane v. Cornell,
171 S.W.2d £87, 351 Mo. 1 — Thomp-
son v. Farmers' Exchange Bank,
62 S.W.2d 803, 333 Mo. 437— Ray
v. Ray, 50 S.W.2d 142, 330 Mo. 530
— Van Emelen v. Van Emelen,
App., 166 S.W.2d 802— Colorado
Milling & Elevator Co. v. Rolla
Wholesale Grocery Co., App., 102
S.W.2d 681.
Mont. — Coipng Juris quoted in West
v. Capital Trust & Savings Bank,
124 P.2d 572, 575, 113 Mont ISO-
State ex rel. Enochs v. District
Court of Fourth Judicial Dist. in
and for Missoula County, 123 P.2d
971, 113 Mont. 227— State .ex rel.
Delmoe v. District Court of Fifth
Judicial Dist., 46 P.2d 39, 100 Mont.
131.
Nev.— State Bar of Nevada v. Mc-
Cluskey, 71 P.2d 1046, J58 Nev. 114
—Pease v. Pease, 217 P. 239, 47
Nev. 124.
jj-.j. — Henderson v. Weber, 2-8 A.2d
90, 129 N.J.Law 59— McMahon v.
Amoroso, 154 A. 840, 108 N.J.Eq.
263, certiorari denied Diamond v.
McMahon, 52 S.Ct 31, 2.84 U.S. 652,
76 L.Ed. 553.
N.Y.— In re Wade's Will, 61 N.T.S.2d
16, 270 App.Div. 712, appeal grant-
ed 62 N.Y.S.2d 850, 270 App.Div.
982.
N.D. — Olson v. Donnelly, 294 -N.W.
666, 70 N.D. 370— Tuttle v. Tuttle,
181 N.W. 898, 48 N.D. 10.
Ohio. — Central Hyde Park Sav. &
Loan Co. v. Feck, 67 N.E.2d 44, 77
Ohio App. 343— P. A. Requarth Co.
v. Holland, App., 66 N.E.2d 329 —
Michigan State Industries v.
Fischer Hardware Co., 197 N.E.
785, 50 Ohio App. 153'.
Okl. — fFernow v. Gubser, 162 P.2d
529— Lee v. Harvey, 156 P.2d 134,
195 OkL 178— Mid-Continent Pipe
Line Co. v. Seminole County Excise
Board, 146 P.2d 996, 194 Okl. 40—
In re Crouch's Estate, 126 P.2d 994,
191 Okl. 74— Corpus Juris cited in
Warren vi Stansbury, 126 P.2d 251,
253, 190 OkL 554— Town of Waton-
ga v. Crane Co., 114 P.2d 941, 189
Okl. 184— Myers v. Carr, 47 P.2d
156, 173 Okl. 335— Protest of St.
Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co., 19
P.2d 162, 162 Okl. -62— Protest of
St Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co.,
11 P.2d 189, 157 OWL 131— Reliance
Clay Products Co. v. Rooney, 10
P.2d 414, 157 Okl. 24— Harris v.
Spurrier Lumber Co.* 26-5 P. 637,
49 C.J.S. JUDGMENTS §425
come such presumption and establish the invalidity I of the judgment91 by competent and convincing
130 Okl. 99 — Thomason v. Thomp-
son. 253 P. 99, 123 Okl. 218.
Or. — American Cent. Ins. Co. v. Wel-
ler, 212 P. 803, 106 Or. 494.
Pa. — Commonwealth ex rel. McGlinn
v. Smith. 24 A.2d 1, 344 Pa, 41—
Commonwealth ex rel. McClenach-
an v. Reading, 6 A.2d '776, 336 Pa.
165.
Tenn. — Page v. Turcott, 167 S.W.2d
350, 179 Tenn. 491— Redmond v.
Wardrep, 257 S.W. 394, 149 Tenn.
35.
Tex.— White v. White, 179 S.W.2d
503, 142 Tex. 499— Burton v. Mc-
Guire, Com.App., 41 S.W.2d 238—
Corpus Juris quoted in, Jackson v.
Slaughter, Civ.App., 185 S.W.2d
759, 761 — Burgess v. City and
County of Dallas Levee Imp. Dist.,
Civ.App., 155 S.W.2d 402, error re-
fused— Clark v. Pecos County State
Bank, Civ.App., 147 S.W.2d 917—
Hudson v. Norwood, Civ.App., 147
S.W.2d 826, error dismissed, judg-
ment correct — Gamble v. Banney-
er, Civ.App., 127 S.W.2d 955, af-
firmed 151 S.W.2d 586, 137 Tex. 7
— Straus v. Shamblin, Civ.App.,
120 S.W.2d 598, error dismissed —
Askew v. Rountree, Qiv.App., 120
S.W.2d 11'7— Williams v. Tooke,
Civ.App., 116 S.W.2d 1114— Husel-
by v. Allison, Civ.App., 25 S.W.2d
1108 — State Mortg. Corporation v.
Garden, Civ.App., 11 S.W.2d 212—
Bendy v. W. T. Carter & Bro., Civ.
App., 5 S.W.2d 579, affirmed, Com.
App., 14 S.W.2d 813— Cockrell v.
Steffens, Civ.App., 284 S.W. 608.
Utah.— Salt Lake City v. Industrial
Commission, 22 P.2d 1046, 1048, 82
Utah 179.
Vt. — Town of Manchester v. Town of
Townshend, 2 A.2d 207, 110 Vt. 136.
Va, — Cole v. Farrier, 22 S.E.2d 18,
180 Va. 231 — Mack v. Common-
wealth, 15 S.E.2d 62, 177 Va. 921—
Beck v. Semones' Adm'r, 134 &2B.
677, 145 Va. 429.
34 C.J. p 537 note 72.
Presumption of regularity and valid-
ity of judicial proceedings in gen-
eral see Evidence § 145.
"The presumption in favor of the
validity of a judgment arises from
the fact that the judgment was ren-
dered, and legal evidence of its ren-
dition has been preserved." — Hannon
r. Henson, Tex.Civ.App., 7 S.W.2d
613, 619, affirmed, Com. App., 15 S.W.
2d 579.
Courts within rule
(1) Circuit court
Ky.— Goodman v. Board of Drainage
Com'rs of McCracken- County,
Mayfleld Creek Drainage Dist No.
1, 16 S.W.2d 1036, 229 Ky. 189.
Mo.— Ray v. Ray, 50 S.W.2d 142, 330
Mo. 530 — Van Emelen v. Van Erne-
len, App,, 166 S.W.2d 802. .
49 C.J.S.-53
(2) County court
Ark. — Fisher v. Cowan, 170 S.W.2d
*03, 205 Ark. 722.
111. — People ex rel. Baird & Warner
v. Lindheimer, 19 N.E.2d 336, 370
111. 424.
Okl.— Vinson v. Cook. 184 P. 97, 76
Okl. 46.
(3) Superior Court. — Clark v.
Clark, 172 N.E. 124, 202 Ind. 104.
(4) Other courts within rule see
34 C.J. p 537 note 72 [b].
Collateral attack on judgment of
justice's court see Justices Of The
Peace § 115.
Particular judgments within rule
(1) A deficiency decree on foreclo-
sure.— Roebke v. Love, 191 So. 122,
186 Miss. 609.
(2) A judgment foreclosing a land
contract and awarding plaintiff ven-
dor one fourth of the grain crops. —
Sukut v. Sukut, 12 N.W.2d 536, 73
N.D. 154.
(3) A judgment forfeiting a land
patent for failure to list it for taxa-
tion.—'Flinn v. Blakeman, 71 -S.W.
2d 961, 254 Ky. 416.
(4) A judgment or decree in parti-
tion.
Ky. — Morgan v. Big Woods Lumber
Co., 249 S.W. 329, 198 Ky. -88.
Tex. — Smoot v. Qhambers, Civ.App.,
156 S.W.2d 314.'
47 C.J. p 439 note 1.
(5) A mortgage foreclosure judg-
ment.
Ark. — Games v. De Witt Bank &
Trust Co., 147 S.W.2d 1002, 201
Ark. 1037.
N.Y.— Lauder v. Meserole, 133 N.Y.S.
•340, 148 App.Div. 739.
Tex. — Flack v. Braman, 101 S.W. 537,
45 Tex.Civ.App. 47'3.
42 C.J. p 172 note 58.
Presumption for and, not against va-
lidity
(1) "Any . condition of facts con-
sistent with its validity, and not af-
firmatively contradicted by the judg-
ment roll, will be presumed to have
existed rather than one which will
defeat it."— Wells Fargo & Co. v.
City and County of San 'Francisco,
152 P.2d 625, 25 Cal.2d 37— Boren-
stein v. Borenstein, 125 P.2d 465, 46*6,
20 CaUd 379— -City of .Salinas v.
Luke Kow Lee, 18 P.2d 335, 217 Cal.
252.
(2) Facts to avoid judgment will
not be imported by way of inference,
unless invalidating inference is ob-
vious and reasonably inescapable. —
Scott County v. Dubois, 130 So. 106,
158 Miss. 245.
Resolving doubts
A court in considering whether a
decree of a court of coordinate juris-
diction is void should resolve every
833
doubt in favor of the validity of the
decree and of the authority of the
court otherwise having jurisdiction
to enter it. — St. Louis Amusement
Co. v. Paramount Pictures, D.C.Mo.,
61 -F.Supp. 854, appeal dismissed, C.
C.A., St. Louis Amusement Co. v.
Paramount Film Distributing Corp.,
156 F.2d 400.
91. U.S.— Hentschel v. -Fidelity &
Deposit Co. of Maryland, C.C.A.
Mo., 87 F.2d 833.
Iowa. — Yungclas r. Yungclas, 239 N.
W. 22, 213 Iowa 413.
Kan. — John Hancock Mut Life Ins.
Co. v. Vande venter, 44 P.2d 251,
254, 141 Kan. 767.
Ky. — Davis v. Tuggle's Adm'r, 178 S.
W.2d 979, 297 Ky. '376— Skidraore
v. Napier, 166 S.W.2d 439, 292 Ky.
311 — Goosling v. Varney's Trustee,
105 S.W.2d 178. 268 Ky. 394.
Mo.— Blattel v. Stallings, 142 S.W.2d
9, 346 Mo. 450— Colorado Milling &
Elevator Co. v. Rolla Wholesale
Grocery Co., App., 102 S.W.2d 681.
Mont. — Corpus Juris quoted in West
v. Capital Trust & Savings Bank,
124 P.2d 572, 675, 113 Mont. 130.
Neb.— Salistean v. -State, 215 N.W.
107, 115 Neb. 838, 53 A.L.R. 1057.
N.T.— Nankivel v. Omsk All Russian
Government, 197 N.Y.S. 4-67, 203
App.Div. "740, reversed on other
grounds 142 N.B. 569, 237 N.T. 150
— Hope v. Seaman, 119 N.Y.S. 713,
modified on other grounds Hope v.
Shevill, 122 N.Y.S. 127, 137 Aj?p.
Div. 86, affirmed Hope v. Seaman,
97 N.B. 1106, 204 N.Y. 563.
Pa. — Commonwealth ex rel. Mc-
Clenachan v. Reading, 6 A.2d 776,
336 Pa. 165.
Tex. — Corpus Juris auoted in. Jack-
son v. Slaughter, Civ.App., 185 S.
W.2d 759, 761, refused for want of
merit— Williams v. Tooke, Civ.
App., 116 S.W.2d 1114— Pennebaker
v. Thrash, Civ.App., 84 S.W.2d
1081, error dismissed — Tanton v.
State Nat. Bank of El Paso, Civ.
App., 43 S.W.2d 957, affirmed 79
S.W.2d 833, 126 Tex 16, 97 A.L.R.
1093 — Bendy v. W. T. Carter &
Bro., Civ.App., 5 S.W.2d 579, af-
firmed, Com.App., 14 S.W.2d 813.
Utah. — Corpus Juris cited in Salt
Lake City v. Industrial Commis-
sion, 22 P.2d 1046, 1048, 82 -Utah
179.
Va.— Howe v. Howe, 18 S.E.2d 294,
1'79 Va. 111.
34 C.J. p 538 note 73.
Where parties attacking- judgment
introduced no evidence, the presump-
tion attaching to judgment regular
on its face stands.— Yungclas v.
Yungclas, 239 N.W. 22, 213 Iowa 413.
§ 425
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
proof.92
It will be presumed, as against a collateral at-
tack, that the court had jurisdiction of the subject
matter and of the persons or parties,9^ and that all
the facts necessary to give the court jurisdiction or
power to render the particular judgment existed,
and were duly proved and found,94 unless the fact
of want of jurisdiction, and consequent invalidity
92. Ky. — Goosling v. Varney's Trus-
tee, 105 S.W.2d 178, 268 Ky. 394.
La. — Key v. Jones, App., 181 So. 631.
X.Y. — Xankivel v. Omsk All Russian
Government, 197 X.Y.S. 467, 2
App.Div. 740, reversed on other
grounds 142 X.E. 569, 237 X.Y. 150
— Hope v. Seaman. 119 X.Y.S. 713,
modified on other grounds Hope v.
Shevill, 122 X.Y.S. 127, 137 App.
Dlv. 86, affirmed Hope v. Seaman,
97 X.E. 1106, 204 X.Y. 563.
Tex. — Williams v. Tooke, Civ.App.,
116 S.W.2d 1114, error dismissed.
Contradicting recitals see infra §
426.
Mortgage foreclosure judgment is
within this rule. — Reedy v. Canfteld,
42 3ST.E. 833, 159 111. 254—42 C.J. P
172 note 58.
dear, satisfactory, and convincing
evidence, to the exclusion of every
fact that would support the Judg-
ment, has been held necessary. — Pen-
Ken Gas & Oil Corporation, v. War-
field Xatural Gas Co., C.C.A.Ky., 137
F.2d 871, certiorari denied 64 S.Ct
431, 320 U.S. 800, 88 L.Ed. 483, re-
hearing denied 64 S.Ct. 634, 321 U.S.
SOS, 83 L.Ed. 1089.
93. U.S.— Pen-Ken Gas & Oil Cor-
poration v. Warfleld Natural Gas
Co., C.C.A.Ky., 137 F.2d 5*71, cer-
tiorari denied 64 S.Ct. 431, 320 U.S.
800, 88 L.Ed. 483, rehearing denied
64 S.Ct. 634, 321 U.S. 803, 88 L.Ed.
1089 — McCampbell v. Warrich Cor-
poration, C.C.A.I1L, 109 F.2d 115,
certiorari denied -60 S.Ct. 1077, 310
U.S. 631, 84 L.Ed. 1401, rehearing
denied 61 S.Ct. 55, second case 311
U.S. 612, 85 L.Ed. 388, and 61 S.Ct
1089, -313 U.S. 599, 85 L.Ed. 1551 —
Montgomery v. Equitable -Life As-
sur Soc. of U. S., C.C.A.I11., 83 -F.
2d 758.
Cal.— Godfrey v. Godfrey, 86 P.2d
357, 30 Cal.App.2d 370— Fletcher v.
Superior Court of Sacramento
County, 250 P. 195, 79 CaLApp. 468
— Lieberman v. Superior Court of
California in and for Orange Coun-
ty, 236 P. 570, 72 CaLApp. 18.
D.C.— 'Fishel v. Kite, 101 F.2d 685,
69 App.D.C. 360, certiorari denied
59 S.Ct. 645, 30-6 U.S. 656, 83 L.Ed.
1054.
Fla. — Horn v. City of Miami Beach,
194 So. 620, 142 -Fla. 178 — Catlett v.
Chestnut, 146 So. 241, 107 Fla. 498,
91 A.L.R. 212— Seaboard All-Flori-
da By. v. Leavitt 141 So. 886, 105
Fla. -600.
111.— People v. Miller, 171 X.E. 672,
339 m. 57-3— Sharp v. Sharp, 164
X.E. 685, 333 111. 26*7.
Kan. — John Hancock Mut. Life Ins.
Co. v. Vandeventer, 44 P.2d 251,
254, 141 Kan. 767.
Ky. — Corpus Juris gtioted in Goos-
ling v. Varney's Trustee, 105 S.W.
2d 178, 1S2, 26S Ky. 394.
Me. — Corpus Juris quoted in Bis bee
V. Knight, 26 A.2d *37. 638, 139 Me.
1.
Mo. — Hemphill Lumber Co. v. Arca-
dia Timber Co., App., 52 S.W.2d
750.
Mont.— West v. Capital Trust & Sav-
ings Bank, 124 P.2d 572, 575, 113
Mont. 130— E. J. Lander & Co. v.
Brown, 99 P.2d 216, 110 Mont. 128
— Hanrahan v. Andersen, 90 P.2d
494, 108 Mont. 21S— Frisbee v. Co-
burn, 52 P.2d 882, 101 Mont 58—
Price v. Skylstead, 222 P. 1059, 69
Mont. 453.
N.Y.— In re Fine's Estate, 44 X.Y.S.
2d 62, 181 Misc. 261— Standish v.
Standish, 40 X.Y.S.2d 538, 179 Misc.
564.
X.C.— Corpus Juris cited la State v.
Adams, 195 S.E. 822, 823, 213 N.C.
243.
Term. — Corpus Juris quoted in. Kirk
v. Sumner County Bank & Trust
Co., 153 S.W. 139, 142, 25 Tenn.App.
150.
Tex. — Corpus Juris quoted in Jack-
son v. Slaughter, Civ.Ap-p., 185 S.
W.2d 759, 761 — Smoot v. Chambers,
Civ.App., 156 S.W.2d 314, error re-
fused.
Utah.— Intermill v. Nash, 75 P.2d
157, 94 Utah 271.
Wis. — Duel v. Ramar Baking Co., 18
X.W.2d 345, 246 Wis. 604.
34 C.J. p 438 note 74.
Presumptions as to jurisdiction of:
Courts generally see Courts §§96-
100.
Federal courts see Federal Courts
§ 8.
Jurisdiction, of parties
Where a court of general jurisdic-
tion has jurisdiction of the subject
matter of an action in which judg-
ment is pronounced, jurisdiction of
the parties will be presumed.
Mo. — Lewis v. Lewis, App., 176 S.
W.2d 55-6.
Tex. — Henry v. Beauchamp, Civ.App.,
39 S.W.2d -642, followed in Henry
v. Carter, 39 S.W.2d 645.
34 C.J. p 538 note 74 [a].
Objection, to court's Jurisdiction of
parties, even If made on trial, is not
available on collateral attack on
judgment— Road Improvement Dist.
No. 4 of Saline County v. Ball, 281
S.W. 6, 170 Ark. -522.
84. U.S.— Warmsprings Irr. Dist. v.
May, aC.A.Or., 117 <F.2d 802.
Ark.— Carnes v. De Witt Bank &
Trust Co., 147 S.W.2d 1002, 201
834
Ark. 1037— Sargent v. Citizens
Bank, 139 S.W.2d 44, 200 Ark. 121
— Dowell v. Slaughter, 50 S.W.2d
572, 185 Ark. 918 — Lambie v. W. T.
Rawleigh Co., 14 S.W.2d 245, 17S
Ark. 1019— Winfrey v. People's
Sav. Bank, 5 S.W.Sd 360, 176 Ark.
941.
Cal.— Hosner v. Skelly, App., 164 P.
2d 573— People v. Herod, 295 P.
383, 111 CaLApp. 246.
Ga.— Kaiser v. Kaiser, 173 S.E. 6SS.
178 Ga. 355 — Chance v. Chance, 5
S.E.2d 399, 60 Ga.App. 889.
111. — Oulvey v. Little, 233 Ill.App.
553.
Ind. — Grantham Realty Corporation
v. Bowers, 22 X.E.2d 832, 215 Ind.
672— State ex rel. Allman v. Su-
perior Court for Grant County, 19
X.E.2d 467, 215 Ind. 249 — Bowser
V. Tobin, 18 X.E.2d T73, 215 Ind. 99.
Iowa,— Watt v. Dunn, 17 X.W.2d 811.
Kan.— John Hancock Mut. Life Ins.
Co. v. Vandeventer, 44 P.2d 251,
254, 141 Kan. 767.
Ky. — Goosling v. Varney's Trustee,
105 S.W.2d 178, 268 Ky. 394.
Me.— Bisbee v. Knight, 2£ A.2d 637,
139 Me. 1.
Mass.— Jones v. Swift, 15 X.E.2d 274.
300 Mass. 177 — Durfee v. Durfee,
200 X.E. 3D5, 293 Mass. 472.
Miss. — Brotherhood of Railroad
Trainmen v. Agnew, 155 So. 205,
170 Miss. 604— Whitely v. Towle,
141 So. 571, 163 Miss. 418— Federal
Reserve Bank of St. Louis v. Wall,
103 So. 5, 138 Miss. 204.
Mo. — Thompson v. 'Farmers' Ex-
change Bank, 62 S.W.2d 803, 333
Mo. 437 — State ex rel. Townsend
v. Mueller, 51 S.W.2d S, 330 Mo. 641
— First Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of
King City v. Bowman, 15 S.W.2d
842, 322 Mo. 654— Lewis v. Lewis,
App., 176 S.W.2d 556.
Mont. — Corpus Juris quoted in, West
v. Capital Trust & Savings Bank,
124 P.2d 572, 113 Mont. 130— Thom-
son v. Xygaard, 41 P.2d 1, 98 Mont.
529 — State v. District Court of
Fourth Judicial Dist in and for
Missoula County, Department No.
2, 282 P. 1042, 86 Mont. 193— State
v. District Court of Tenth Judicial
Dist in and for Judith Basin
County, 227 P. 579, 71 Mont. S9.
X.J.— Mangani v. Hydro, Inc., 194 A.
264, 119 X.J.Law 71.
N.Y.— People v. Harmor, 57 N.Y.S.2d
402, 185 Misc. 596.
Okl.— Lee v. Harvay, 156 P.2d 134,
195 Okl. 178— Mid-Continent Pipe
Line Co, v. Seminole County Ex-
cise Board, 146 P.2d 99-6, 194 Okl.
40 — In re Crouch's Estate, 126 P.
2d 994, 191 Okl. 74— Town of Wa-
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 425
of the judgment, affirmatively appears on the face I ord,95 or is made to appear in some other permissi-
of the judgment, or of the judgment roll or rec- I ble manner.9* However, it has been held that,
tonga v. Crane Co., 114 P.2d 941,
189 Okl. 184 — Protest of -St. Louis-
San (Francisco Ry. Co., 42 P.2d 537,
171 Okl. 180— Protest of Standard
Pipe Line Co., 32 P.2d 869, 168 OkL
281— Protest of Gulf Pipe Line Co.
of Oklahoma, 32 P.2d 42, 168 Okl.
136 — Protest of St. Louis-San
Francisco Ry. Co., 19 P.2d 162, 162
Okl. 62— Protest of St. Louis-San
Francisco Ry. Co., 11 P.2d 189, 157
Okl. 131— Hawkins v. Bryan, 261
. P. 167, 128 Okl. 27— Orth v. Hajek,
259 P. 854. 127 Okl. 59— Miller v.
Madigan, 215 P. 742, 90 Okl. 1'7.
Tenn. — Bass v. Southern Surety Co.,
12 S.W.2d 714, 158 Tenn. 233-^Oor-
pus Juris quoted in Kirk v. Sum-
ner County Bank & Trust Co., 153
S.W.2d 139, 142, 25 Tenn.Apj>. 150.
Tex.— White v. White, 179 S.W.2d
503, 142 Tex. 499 — Smoot v. Cham-
bers, Civ.App., 156 S.W.2d "314—
Williams v. Tooke, Civ.App., 11-6
S.W.2d 1114, error dismissed — Mc-
Leod v. Carroll, Civ.App., 109 S.W.
2d 31-6, affirmed Carroll y. MoLeod,
130 S.W.Sd 277, 133 Tex. 571—
Jackson v. Slaughter, Civ.App., 185
S.W.2d 759 — Griggs v. Jefferson
Bank & Trust Co., Civ.App., 57 S.
W.2d 390, error dismissed.
Wash. — Thompson v. Short, 106 P.2d
720, 6 Wash.2d 71.
Wyo.— State v. Underwood, 86 P.2d
707, 54 Wyo. 1.
34 C.J. p 539 note 75.
It is not essential that every juris,
dictional fact appear on the face of
the record, and, if the petition sets
out facts sufficient to show a cause
of action within the general jurisdic-
tion of the court, and no facts ap-
pear on the face of the record estab-
lishing that no jurisdiction exists,
all presumptions are resolved in fa-
vor of the power of the court to act.
—In re Warner's Estate, 288 N.W. 39,
137 Neb. 25-— Brandeen v. Lau, 201
N.W. 605, 113 Neb. 686.
Particular facts presumed
(1) That the cause of action had
accrued at the time the suit was
brought. — Austin v. Austin, 43 111.
App. 4-88.
(2) That the parties were living
when the action was commenced, and
when the judgment was rendered. —
Hillyard v. Banchor, 118 P. 67, 85
Kan. 516.
(3) That an attorney was author-
ized to compromise the suit. — Hart-
ford Fire Ins. Co. v. King, 73 S.W.
71, 31 Tex.Civ.App. 636.
(4) That attorney was authorized
to stipulate for a change of venue. —
Hall v. Dickinson, 170 N.W. 646, 204
Mich. 545.
(5) That the necessary conditions
existed for holding an adjourned
term of court. — Haughton v. Order
of United Commercial Travelers, 93
S.E. 393, 108 S.C. 73.
95. U.S.— Hall v. Johnston, C.C.A.
Cal., 86 F.2d 820— Chase v. Hiatt,
D.C.Pa., 54 F.Supp. 270.
Ark.— Person v. Miller Levee Dist.
No. 2, 150 S.W.2d 950, 202 Ark.
173— Ladd v. Stubblefield, 111 S.
W.2d 555, 195 Ark. 261— Moffett v.
Texarkana Forest Park Paving,
Sewer, and Water Dist. No. 2, 26
S.W.2d 589, 181 Ark. 474— Road
Improvement Dist. No. 4 of Sa-
line County v. Ball, 281 S.W. 5,
170 Ark. 522.
Cal.— Godfrey v. Godfrey, 86 P.2d
357, 30 Cal.App.2d 370 — McMur-
ray v. Sivertsen, 83 P.2d 48, 28
Cal.App.2d 541— McAllister v. Su-
perior Court In and For Alameda
County, 82 P.2d 462, 28 Cal.App.
2d 160— Fletcher v. Superior Court
of Sacramento County, 250 P. 195,
79 CaLApp. 468— Hogan v. .Superior
Court of California in and for City
and County of San Francisco, 241
P. 584, 74 CaLApp. 704— Lieber-
man v. Superior Court of Califor-
nia in and for Orange County, 236
P. 570, 72 CaLApp. 18.
D.C.— Fishel v. Kite, 101 F.2d 685,
69 App.D.C. 360, certiorari denied
Kite v. Fishel, 59 S.Ct. 645, 306
U.S. 656, 83 L.Bd. 1054.
Fla. — Horn v. City of Miami Beach,
194 So. 620, 142 Fla. 178— Catlett
v. Chestnut, 146 So. 241, 107 Fla,
498, 91 A.L.R. 212— Seaboard All-
Florida Ry. v. Leavitt, 141 So. 886,
105 Fla. 600.
Idaho.— State v. Mundell, 158 P.2d
818 — State v. Miller, 10 P.2d 955,
52 Idaho 33.
111. — People ex rel. Baird & Warner
v. Lindheimer, 19 N.E.£d 336, 370
111. 424— People v. Miller, 171 N.
E, 672, 339 111. 573— People v.
Brewer, 160 N.E. 76, 328 111. 472.
Kan. — Corpus Juris quoted in John
Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Van-
deventer, 44 P.2d 251, 254, 141 Kan.
767.
Ky.— Newsome v. Hall, 161 S.W.2d
629, 290 Ky. 486, 140 A.L.R. 818—
Goosling v. Varney's Trustee, 105
S.W.2d 178, 268 Ky. 394— McFar-
land v. Hudson, 89 S.W.2d 877, 262
Ky. 183 — Dean v. Brown, 88 S.W.
2d 298, 261 Ky. 593— Wells' Adm'x
v. Heil, 47 S.W.2d 1041, 243 Ky.
282— May v. Sword, 33 S.W.2d 314,
236 Ky. 412.
Me. — Corpus Juris Quoted in Bisbee
v. Knight, 26 A.2d 637, 638, 139
Me. 1.
Miss. — Prudential Ins. Co. v. Glea-
son, 187 So. 229, 185 Miss. 243—
Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen
v. Agnew, 155 So. 205, 170 Miss.
604.
835
Mo. — Row v. Cape Girardeau Foun-
dry Co., App., 141 S.W.2d 113 —
Sanders v. Savage, 129 S.W.2d
1061, 234 Mo.App. 9— Rubber Tire
Supply Co. v. American Utilities
Co., App., 279 S.W. 751.
Mont.— West v. Capital Trust & Sav-
ings Bank, 124 P.2d 572, 113 Mont.
130 — State ex rel. Enochs v. Dis-
trict Court of Fourth Judicial Dist.
in and for Missoula County, 123 P.
2d 971, 113 Mont. 227.
Neb. — Salistean v. State, 215 N.W.
107, 115 Neb. 838, 53 A.L.R. 1057.
N.M.— State v. Patten, 69 P.2d 931,
41 N.M. 395.
OkL— Shefts v. Oklahoma Co., 137 P.
2d 589, 192 Okl. 483— Petroleum
Auditors Ass'n v. Landis, 77 P.2d
730, 182 Okl. 297— First Nat. Bank'
v. Darrough, 19 P.2d 551, 162 OkL
243 — Hawkins v. Bryan, 261 P. 167,
128 OkL 27— Bowling v. Merry, 217
P. 404, 91 Okl. 176.
Or. — Capos v. Clatsop County, 25 P.
2d 903, 144 Or. 510, 90 A.L.R. 289.
Tenn. — Kirk v. Sumner County Bank
& Trust Co., 153 S.W.2d 139, 25
Tenn. App. 150.
Tex.— State Mortg. Corporation v.
Ludwig, 48 S.W.2d 950, 121 Tex.
268 — Jackson v. Slaughter, Civ.
App., 185 S.W.2d 759, refused for
want of merit— Williams v. Tooke,
Civ.App., 116 S.W.2d 1114, error
dismissed— Huselby v. Allison, Civ.
App., 25 S.W.2d 1108,
Utah. — Intermill v. Nash, 75 P.2d
157, 94 Utah 271.
Va. — Mack v. Commonwealth, 15 S.
E.2d 62, 177 Va. 921.
Wash, — Thompson v. Short, 106 P.2d
720, 6 Wash.2d 71— Peha's Univers-
ity Food Shop v. Stimpson Corpo-
ration, 31 P.2d 1023, 177 Wash, 406.
Wyo. — State v. Underwood, 86 P.2d
707, 54 Wyo. 1.
34 C.J. p 540 note 76.
No presumption against record see
infra § 426.
Only manner of overcoming pre-
sumption
Presumption of Jurisdiction as
against collateral attack may be
overcome only by record affirmative-
ly showing want of jurisdiction. —
First Nat Bank & Trust Co. of King
City v. Bowman, 15 S.W.2d 842,
322 Mo. 654.
If the record in the former case is
not presented} the judgment or de-
cree therein cannot be held void, on
collateral attack, for want of juris-
diction.— Fisher v. Guidy, 142 So. 818,
106 Fla. 94.
96. 111.— Dickinson v. Belden, 108 N.
E. 1011, 268 111. 105.
y.— Potter v. Webb,. 216 S.W. 66,
186 Ky. 25.
§ 425
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
where the record purports to show what was done
for the purpose of acquiring jurisdiction, it will not
be presumed in aid of the court's action that any-
thing different or additional was done.97 In the ab-
sence of an}T affirmative showing to the contrary on
the face of the record, the presumption of juris-
diction will generally be regarded as conclusive,98
except where evidence aliunde may be introduced,
as discussed infra § 426.
These presumptions of regularity and validity,
and those as to jurisdiction, will be indulged where
the record, although failing to show jurisdiction af-
firmatively, does not distinctly show a want of ju-
risdiction,99 as where the record of a judgment of
a court of general jurisdiction is silent as to the
facts conferring jurisdiction,1 or is defective in con-
sequence of the omission of proper recitals,2 or the
loss or absence of parts of the record,3 as where
Wash. — Jorgenson v. Winter, 125 P.
957, 69 "Wash. 573.
34 C.J. p 540 note 76.
If the decree refers to the evidence
on which it is based, and an exami-
nation of such evidence discloses
that it is not sufficient to give the
court jurisdiction, the presumption
that the court had jurisdiction is
overcome. — Oulvey v. Little, 233 111.
App. 553.
Express allegation and claim to con-
trary
YTis. — Duel v. Ramar Baking Co., 18
N.W.2d 345. 246 Wis. 604.
97. Cal. — Lieberman v. Superior
Court of California in and for
Orange County, 236 P. 570, 72 Cal.
App. 18.
98. Ky. — Wolverton v. Baynham, 10
S.W.2d 837, 226 Ky. 214.
Hiss.— Whitley v. Towle, 141 So. 571,
163 Miss. 4 IS — Federal Reserve
Bank of St Louis v. Wall, 103
So. 5, 138 Miss. 204.
Mont. — E. J. Lander & Co. v. Brown,
99 P.2d 216, 110 Mont. 128— Hanra-
han v. Andersen, 90 P.2d 494, 108
Mont. 218— Frisbee v. Coburn, 52
P.2d 882, 101 Mont 58— State ex
rel. Delmoe -v. District Court of
Fifth Judicial Dist., 46 P.2d 39f
100 Mont. '31— Price v. Skylstead,
223 P. 1059, 69 Mont. 453.
Tex. — Security Trust Co. of Austin
v. Lipscomb County, 180 S.W.2d
151, 142 Tex. 592.
If record does not negative exist-
ence of facts authorizing court to
render judgment, law conclusively
presumes that such facts were es-
tablished before court when such
judgment was rendered, and evidence
dehors the record to the contrary
will not be received. — White v.
White, 179 S.W.2d 503, 142 Tex. 499.
99. Ga. — Chance v. Chance, 5 S.E.
2d 399, 60 Ga-App. 889.
Ky. — Corpus Juris quoted in Goos-
ling v. Varney's Trustee, 105 S.W.
2d 178, 182, 268 Ky. 394— Muss man
v. Pepples, 22 S.W.2d 605, 232 Ky.
254— Tarter v. Wilson, 269 S.W.
715, 207 Ky. 535.
Tenn. — Corpus Juris QLuoted in Kirk
v. Sumner County Bank & Trust
Co., 153 S.W.2d 139, 142, 25 Tenn.
App. 150.
34 C.J. p 540 note 77.
!• U.S. — In re Williams Supply Co.,
C.CJLN.Y., 77 F.2d 909, certiorari
denied Witt v. Berman, 56 S.Ct
131, 296 U.S. 612, SO L.Ed. 434—
Campbell v. Aderhold, C.C.A.Ga.,
67 F.2d 246.
Ark.— Fisher v. Cowan, 170 S.W.2d
603, 205 Irk. 722.
Ga. — Thomas v. Lambert, 1 S.E.2d
443, 187 Ga. 616.
Idaho. — Baldwin v. Anderson, 13 P.
2d 650, 52 Idaho 243— Knowles v.
Kasiska, 268 P. 3, 46 Idaho 379.
Ind.— Bowser v. Tobin, 18 N.E.2d
773, 215 Ind. 99.
Ky. — Goosling v. Varney's Trustee,
105 S.W.2d 178, 268 Ky. 394— Cor-
pus Juris cited in Dye Bros. v.
Butler, 272 S.W. 426, 427, 209 Ky.
199.
Miss. — Brotherhood of Railroad
Trainmen v. Agnew, 155 So. 205,
170 Miss. 604 — Federal Reserve
Bank of St. Louis v. Wall, 103 So.
5, 138 Miss. 204.
Mo.— Lewis v. Lewis, App., 176 S.W.
2d 556.
Mont. — Corpus Juris cited in West
v. Capital Trust & Savings Bank.
' 124 P.2d 572, 575, 113 Mont. 130.
Neb.— In re Warner's Estate, 288 N.
W. 39, 137 Neb. 25— Brandeen v.
Lau, 201 N.W. 665, 113 Neb. 34.
N.J. — Mangani v. Hydro, Inc., 194
A. 264, 119 N.J.Law 71— Stout v.
Sutphen, 29 A.2d 724, 132 N.J.Eq.
583.
Okl.— Lee v. Harvey, Okl., 156 P.2d
134, 195 Okl. 178— In re Crouch's
Estate, 126 P.2d 994, 191 Okl. 74—
Warren v. Stansbury, 126 P.2d 251,
190 Okl. 554 — Town of Watonga v.
Crane Co., 114 P.2d 941, 189 OkL
184— Dill v. Anderson, 256 P. 31,
124 Okl. 299 — Cummings v. Inman,
247 P. 379. 119 Okl. 9— Bowling v.
Merry, 217 P. 404, 91 Okl. 176.
Pa»-— Commonwealth ex rel. McClen-
achan v. Reading, 6 A.2d 776, 336
Pa. 165.
Tenn. — New York Casualty Co. v.
Lawson, 24 S.W.2d 881, 160 Tenn.
329 — Kirk v. Sumner County Bank
& Trust Co., 153 S.W.2d 139, 142,
25 Tenn. App. 150.
Tex.— White v. White, 179 S.W.2d
503, 142 Tex. 499— Williams v.
Tooke, Civ.App., 116 S.W.2d 1114.
Utah.— Intermill v. Nash, 75 P.2d
157, 94 Utah 271.
34 C.J. p 540 note 78.
Every fact not negatived by rec-
ord is presumed in support of a
judgment of a court of general juris-
836
diction, in absence of fraud extrinsic
to record. — Warren v. Stansbury. 126
P.2d 251, 190 Okl. 554— Petroleum
Auditors Ass'n v. Landis, 77 P.2d
730, 182 Okl. 297— Yahola Oil Co. v.
Causey, 72 P.2d 817, 181 Okl. 129—
First Nat. Bank v. Darrough, 19 P.
2d 551, 162 Okl. 243— Samuels v.
Granite Sav. Bank & Trust Co., 1 P.
2d 145, 150 Okl. 174— Hawkins v.
Bryan, 261 P. 167, 128 Okl. 27— Orth
v. Hajek, 259 P. 854, 127 Okl. 59—
Manuel v. Kidd, 258 P. 732, 126 Okl.
71— Bowl>-T v. Merry, 217 P. 404,
91 Okl. 178.
2. Idaho. — Baldwin v. Anderson, 13
P.2d 650, 52 Idaho 243.
Mont. — West v. Capital Trust & Sav-
ings Bank, 124 P.2d 572, 113 Mont.
130.
Neb. — In re Warner's Estate, 288 N.
W. 39, 137 Neb. 25.
Tenn. — Corpus Juris quoted in Kirk
v. Sumner County Bank & Trust
Co., 153 S.W.2d 139, 142, 25 Tenn.
App. 150.
Tex. — Southern Ornamental Iron
Works v. Morrow, Civ.App., 101 S.
W.2d 336.
34 C.J. p 540 note 79.
The omission in record of every
step in proceeding does not overcome
presumption of regularity. — Hall v.
Johnston, C.C.A.CaL, 86 F.2d 820.
Omission cured by proof
The omission of on allegation of
a jurisdictional fact, in a judgment
of a court of record, is cured by
proof of the existence of such fact.
— In re Warner's Estate, 288 N.W. 39,
137 Neb. 25— Brandeen v. Lau, 201
N.W. 665, 113 Neb. 34.
3. Mont. — Corpus Juris quoted in
West T. Capital Trust & Savings
Bank, 124 P.2d 572, 575, 113 Mont.
130.
Tenn. — Kirk v. Sumner County Bank
& Trust Co., 153 S.W.2d 139, 25
Tenn.App. 150.
34 C.J. p 541 note 80.
Absence from record of papers
which ought to have been included
within judgment roll is not enough
to make it appear affirmatively that
court had no jurisdiction. — State ex
rel. Delmoe v. District Court of
Fifth Judicial Dist., 46 P.2d 39, 100
Mont. 131.
The misplacement of papers in a
case cannot affect integrity of the
judgment and other entries in trial
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
425
the judgment roll is defective or incomplete.4 Ju-
risdiction also will be presumed where the bill col-
laterally attacking the judgment or decree contains
no disclosure as to whether the court had jurisdic-
tion of the subject matter and parties, or as to
whether there was fraud affecting the jurisdic-
tion.5
Long lapses of time greatly strengthen the pre-
sumptions in favor of the validity of judgments.6
Particular presumptions. It will be presumed, in
consonance with the presumptions of regularity and
validity, that plaintiff was entitled to maintain the
action;7 that all the proceedings were regular,8
and all jurisdictional steps were taken;9 that all
necessary parties were represented;10 that an ap-
pearance by an attorney was authorized;11 that the
judgment was supported by the pleadings and
proof;12 that all matters covered by the judgment
court's records, since pleadings and
exhibits become only evidential after
judgment is entered and are pre-
sumed to support the record. — ^War-
field Natural Gas Co. v. Ward, 149
S.W.2d 705, 286 Ky. 73— Wolverton
v. Baynham, 10 S.W.2d 837, 226 Ky.
214.
4. Cal. — Eccleston v. Roseberg, 199
P. 859, 53 Cal.App. 14.
34 C.J. p 541 note 80 [b].
Missing1 papers
The fact that papers which ought
to have been included in the judg-
ment roll are missing therefrom is
not enough to make it affirmatively
appear that the court had no juris-
diction.—Williams v. Tooke, Tex.Civ.
App., 116 S.W.2d 1114, error dis-
missed.
5. U.S.— McCampbell v. Warrich
Corporation, C.C.A.I11., 109 F.2d
115, certiorari denied 60 S.Ct, 1077,
310 U.S. 631, 84 L.Ed. 1401, rehear-
ing denied 61 S.Ct. 55, second case,
311 U.S. 612, 85 L.Bd. 388, and 61
S.Ct. 1089, 313 U.S. 599, 85 LJEd.
1551.
Pleading absence of Jurisdictional
fact generally, see supra § 421.
6. U.S.— Pen-Ken Gas & Oil Cor-
poration v. Warfield Natural Gas
Co., C.C.A.Ky., 137 F.2d 871, cer-
tiorari denied 64 S.Ct. 431, 320
U.S. 800, 88 L.Ed. 483, rehearing
denied 64 S.Ct. 634, 321 U.S. 803,
88 L.Ed. 1089-HCOrpus Juris cited
in Drummond v. Lynch, C.C.A.Tes.,
82 F.2d 806, 809.
Ark. — Corpus Juris quoted ^ can-
non v. Price, 150 S.W.2d 755, 757,
202 Ark. 464 — Corpus Juris quoted
in Parsley v. Ussery, 132 S.W.2d
1, 4, 198 Ark. 910.
Cal. — Corpus Juris quoted in In re
Wiechers' Estate, 250 P. 397, 398,
199 Cal. 523, certiorari denied Wie-
chers v. Wiechers, 47 S.Ct. 476, 273
U.S. 762, 71 L.Ed. 879.
Ky.— Davis v. Tuggle's Adm'r, 178 S.
W.2d 979, 297 Ky. 376— Steel v.
Stearns Coal & Lumber Co., 146
S.W. 721, 148 Ky. 429.
La. — Key v. Jones, App., 181 So.
631.
Tenn. — Wilcox v. Cannon, 1 Coldw.
369.
34 C.J. p 541 note 96.
Partition
(1) This rule applies to a partition
judgment on a collateral attack.
Ala.— Baker v. Prewitt, 64 Ala. 551.
111. — Lane v. Bommelmann, 17 111.
95.
(2) After the acquiescence and oc-
cupation under a partition by a
court of probate for a period of
twenty years, t£e proceedings must
be held to have been regular and
conclusive on the question of notice.
—Campbell v. Wallace, 12 N.H. 362,
37 Am.D. 219.
If the record is ancient and does
not affirmatively show all that was
done, presumption is that things not
shown to have been done that should
have been done were done, and on
collateral attack omissions will be
treated as erroneous but not void.
U.S. — Pen-Ken Gas & Oil Corpora-
tion v. Warfleld Natural Gas Co.,
C.C.A.Ky., 137 F.2d 871, certiorari
denied 64 S.Ct. 431, 320 U.S. 800,
88 L.Ed. 483, rehearing denied 64
S.Ct. 634, 321 U.S. 803, 88 L.Ed.
1089.
Ky. — Baker v. Baker, Eccles & Co.,
173 S.W. 109, 162 Ky. 683.
dear and convincing evidence to
contrary
Attack on judicial proceedings reg-
ular on records, first made many
years after party to them was no-
tified by suit of claim of his liabil-
ity, requires clear and convincing
evidence to sustain it. — August v.
Collins, 251 N.W. 565, 265 Mich. 389.
Where titles have passed and val-
uable improvements have been made
on the strength of a proceeding had
more than thirty years before, such
proceedings ought not to be upset in
partition proceeding except for com-
pelling reasons. — Perry v. Bassenger,
15 S.E.2d 365, 219 N.C. 838.
7. Me.— Bisbee v. Knight, 26 A*2d
637, 639, 139 Me. 1.
Mo.— Glidden-Felt Mfg. Co v. Rob-
inson, 143 S.W. 1111, 163 Mo.App.
488.
34 C.J. p 541 note 83.
8. U.S. — Pen-Ken Gas & Oil Cor-
poration v. Warfleld Natural Gas
Co., C.C.A.Ky., 137 F.2d 871, certio-
rari denied 64 S.Ct. 431, 320 U.S.
800, 88 L.Ed. 483, rehearing denied
64 S.Ct. 634, 321 U.S. 803, 88 L.Ed.
1089.
Cal.— People v. Bayne, 28 P.2d 1068,
136 Cal.App. 341.
837
Fla.— Dwyer v. State, 116 So. 726,
95 Fla. 846— Sawyer v. State, 113
So. 736, 94 Fla. 60.
Ky. — Leonard v. Williams, 265 S.
W. 618, 205 Ky. 218.
Compliance with statute
Trial court's compliance with stat-
utory provisions will be conclusively
presumed as against collateral attack
on judgment. — Pennington v. Com-
monwealth, 21 S.W.2d 808, 231 Ky.
494.
9. Mo. — Thompson v. Farmers' Ex-
change Bank, 62 S.W.2d 803, 333
Mo. 437— First Nat. Bank & Trust
Co. of King City v. Bowman, 15
S.W.2d 842, 322 Mo. 654.
1<X Tex. — Burton v. McGuire, Civ.
App., 3 S.W.2d 576, affirmed, Com.
App.f 41 S.W.2d 238.
11. Nev. — Deegan v. Deegan, 37 P.
360, 22 Nev. 185, 58 Am.R. 742.
Tenn. — Kirk v. Sumner County Bank
& Trust Co., 153 S.W.2d 139, 142,
25 Tenn.App. 150.
34 C.J. p 541 note 85.
12. Cal. — Hise v. Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, 134 P.2d 748,
21 Cal.2d 614— Hosner v. Skelly,
App., 164 P.2d 573.
111. — People ex rel. Baird & Warner
v. Lindheimer, 19 N.B.2d 336, 370
111. 424.
Ky. — Morgan v. Big Woods Lumber
Co., 249 S.W. 329, 198 Ky. 88.
Me.— Bisbee v. Knight, 26 A.2d 637,
139 Me. 1.
N.Y. — Holmes v. City of New York,
42 N.Y.S.2d 359, 180 Misc. 364.
Ohio. — Central Hyde Park Sav. &
Loan Co. v. Feck, 67 N.E.2d 44, 77
Ohio App. 343.
Okl. — Mclntosh v. V. & L. Inv. Co.,
162 P.2d 176— Lee v. Harv —, 156
P.2d 134, 195 Okl. 178— Mid-Conti-
nent Pipe Line Co. v. Seminole
County Excise Board, 146 P.2d 996,
194 Okl. 40 — Warren v. Stansbury,
126 P,2d 251, 190 OW. 554— Town
of Watonga v. Crane Co., 114 P.2d
941, 189 Okl. 184— Protest of St.
Louis-San Francisco By. Co., 42 P.
2d 537, 171 Okl. 180— Protest of
Stanolind Pipe Line Co., 32 P.2d
869, 168 Okl. 281— Protest of Gulf
Pipe Line Co. of Oklahoma, 32 P.
2d 42, 168 Okl. 136— Protest of St
Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co., 19
P.2d 162, 162 Okl. 62— Protest of
St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co.,
11 P.2d 189, 157 Okl. 131.
§ 425
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
were in fact litigated by the parties;13 that some
disposition was made of every defendant in the
case;14 and that the judgment was rendered at a
regular term of the court j1^ and that the land,
when land is the subject of the suit, was situated
within the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of
the court.16
Presumptions not applicable. A presumption of
jurisdiction will not be indulged where there is a
direct admission, in the collateral proceeding, that
it did not exist in the original action;17 nor will
such presumptions be indulged in favor of a judg-
ment entered by the clerk as attend a judgment en-
tered in pursuance of judicial action by the court.18
Moreover, jurisdiction of the person of a defend-
ant is presumed in support of the judgment only
when he is within the territorial limits of the court,
and, if he is not within such limits, the record must
show service on him.19 A presumption of juris-
diction as to one defendant will not attach to a
judgment on a new cause of action included in an-
other defendant's counterclaim;20 and, where the
judgment or decree attacked contains an affirma-
tive recital that defendants were summoned before
the cross complaint was filed, a presumption of ju-
risdiction under the cross complaint does not arise.21
It has been held that the presumption of regularity
and validity does not apply to a collateral attack by
a stranger, who may make such attack on the judg-
ment on any ground which could be urged against
it on direct attack;22 but that he cannot attack on
the ground that he was not a part}' to the action in
which the judgment was rendered, since the court,
not having required his presence, would be pre-
sumed to have had jurisdiction without him.23
(2) Process and Service
Generally, unless the contrary affirmatively appears
from the record, It will be presumed, In support of a
judgment, that legal and proper process was issued and
duly and regularly served and return made.
In support of the judgment of a court of gen-
eral jurisdiction, as against a collateral attack, it
will be presumed, unless expressly contrary to what
Tenn.— Sloan v. Sloan, 295 S.W. 62,
155 Tenn. 422.
Tex. — Dallas Joint Stock Land Bank
of Dallas v. Street, Civ.App., 76 S.
W.2d 780, error refused. Followed
Street v. Dallas Joint Stock Land
Bank of Dallas, 84 S.W.2d 1119.
34 C.J. p 541 note 88.
A recital that cause came on to "be
heard on petition therefor, and that
petition was considered, is conclusive
that petition was filed prior to rendi-
tion of decree. — Eastman-Gardner Co.
v. Leverett, 106 So. 106, 141 Miss.
96.
In. determining whether jurisdic-
tions! averments have "been made, on
collateral attack that construction
will be adopted that will support
the judgment, guarding: against the
supplying thereby of omitted essen-
tials.— Boyd v. Garrison, 19 So.2d
885, 246 Ala. 122— Sams v. Sams,
5 So.2d 774, 242 Ala. 240— Martin
v. Martin, 55 So. 633, 173 Ala. 106.
XTiuLO pro tune order
In absence of evidence to con-
trary, presumption obtained that
nunc pro tune orders correcting
Judgment were based on satisfactory
evidence or personal recollections of
chancellor as to court proceedings
in the foreclosure suit — Hall v. Cas-
tleberry, 161 S.W.2d 948, 204 Ark.
200.
Where the Judgment 10 beyond the
pleading1 and issues, the presump-
tions do not apply.
CaL — Morrow v. Morrow, 105 P.2d
129, 40 CaI.App.2d 474— Petition
of Furness, 218 P. 61, 62 Cal.App.
753.
Minn.— Sache v. Gillette, 112 N.W.
386, 101 Minn. 169, 118 Am.S.R.
612, 11 L.R.A.,N.S., 803, 11 Ann.
Cas. 348.
13. U.S. — U. S. v. Sommers, Mo.,
171 F. 57, 96 C.C.A. 299.
Ark. — Adams v. Van Buren County,
139 S.W.2d 9, 200 Ark. 269.
N.D.— Sukut v. Sukut, 12 X.W.2d 536,
73 N.D. 154.
Ohio. — Bennett v. Bennett, 15 Ohio
Supp. 16.
Tenn.— Kirk v. Sumner County Bank
& Trust Co., 153 S.W.Sd 139, 25
Tenn.App. 150.
14. Tex.— Conner v. McAfee, Civ.
App., 214 S.W. 646 — Dunn v. Tay-
lor, 93 S.W. 347, 42 Tex.Civ.App.
241.
15. Tex. — Baldridge v* Penland, 4 S.
W. 565, 68 Tex. 441.
16. U.S. — Foster v. Givens, Ky., 67
F. 684, 14 C.C.A. 625.
Land outride territorial Jurisdiction
The general rule is that a judg-
ment of a court purporting to ad-
judicate the title to land outside
the limits of its territorial juris-
diction is void for lack of jurisdic-
tion and will be treated as a nullity
wherever encountered. — Ferguson v.
Babcock Lumber & Land Co., N.C.,
252 F. 705, 164 C.C.A. 545, certiorari
denied 39 S.Ct 10, 248 U.S. 570, -63
L.Ed. 426, and appeal dismissed 39
S.Ct, 132, 248 U.S. 540, 63 L.Ed.
411.
17. Ind. — Doe v. Anderson, 5 Ind.
83.
18. Cal.— Shirran v. Dallas, 132 P.
454, 462, 21 Cal.App. 405.
838
13. U.S.— Galpin v. Page, 18 Wall.
350, 21 L.Ed. 959.
34 OJ. p 541 note 97.
Presumptions as to process and serv-
ice see infra subdivision a (2) of
this section.
20. Mont. — Hanrahan v. Andersen,
90 P.2d 494, 108 Mont. 218.
As to nonanswering1 defendant
Where judgment affirmatively show-
ed that it was entered after exam-
ination of the issues only as between
plaintiff and answering defendant,
and that nonanswering defendant
was not even considered an interest-
ed or necessary party for purposes
of counterclaim filed by one of de-
fendants, no presumption could be
indulged that court had jurisdiction
of nonanswering defendant as to
issue raised by counterclaim. — Han-
rahan v. Andersen, supra.
The presumption of jurisdiction of
a plaintiff against whom a defend-
ant's counterclaim was directed can-
not be accompanied by a further pre-
sumption of jurisdiction over an-
other defendant whose interests were
affected and who was, therefore, a
necessary party to a valid adjudica-
tion of the counterclaim, but against
whom it was not directed. — Hanra-
han v. Andersen, supra.
31. Ark.— Taylor v. Harris, 54 S.W.
2d 701, 186 Ark. 580.
22. Tex. — Turner v. Maury, Civ.
App., 224 S.W. 255.
Collateral attack by strangers eee
supra §§ 414, 415.
23. U.S.— Fidelity & Casualty Co. of
New York v. Geneva, C.C.A.Ohio,
90 F.2d 874.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
425
is affirmatively shown by the record,2* that all par-
ties to the action or proceeding were properly served
with notice or processes that legal and proper
process was issued in the action and that it was
duly and regularly served on defendant or defend-
ants^ or was waived ;27 and that return or proof
of service, when necessary, was regularly and prop-
erly made and filed.2" If the record is silent as to
service, the record of the cause may be examined
as to the validity of the presumed service,2^ but
extrinsic evidence may not be considered for this
purpose.30 The burden of proving lack of service
of process ordinarily is -on the party alleging the
invalidity of the judgment on that ground;31 but
where the record shows service of the complaint,
and not service of the summons, the burden is on
one seeking to sustain the judgment as against a
collateral attack to prove actual service thereof.32
Generally it will be presumed that constructive
24. Ark. — Parsley v. Ussery, 132 S
W.2d 1, 198 Ark. 910— Union Inv
Co. v. Hunt, 59 S.W.2d 1039, 18
Ark. 357.
Cal. — Westphal v. Westphal, 126 P.2d
105, 20 Cal.2d 393.
Ind.— Clark v. Clark, 172 N.E. 124
202 Ind. 104.
Ky. — Davis v. Tuggle's Adm'r, 17J
S.W.2d 979, 297 Ky. 376— Hall v
Bates, 77 S.W.2d 403, 257 Ky. 61
La. — Spears v. Spears, 136 So. 614
173 La. 294.
Ohio. — In re Frankenberg's Estate
47 N.B.2d 239, 70 Ohio App. 495.
Tex. — Weaver v. Garrietty, Civ. App.
84 S.W.2d 878, error refused —
Mariposa Mining: Co. v. Waters
Civ. App., 279 S.W. 576.
Utah.— Intermill v. Nash, 75 P.2d
157, 94 Utah 271.
Recitals showing want of Jurisdic-
tion generally see infra § 426.
25. Ark.— McLeod v. Mabry, 177 S,
W.2d 46, 206 Ark. 618— Dicus v,
Bright, 94 S.W. 925, 79 Ark. 16.
Cal.— Westphal v. Westphal, 126 P.
2d 105, 20 Cal.2d 393.
Ky. — Davis v. Tuggle's Adm'r, 178
S.W.2d 979, 297 Ky. 376.
S.C. — Clark v. Neves, 57 S.E. 614,
76 S.C. 484, 12 L.R.A..N.S., 298.
Tenn. — Kirk v. Sumner County Bank
& Trust Co., 153 S.W.2d 139, 25
Tenn. App. 150.
Partition
Where a court of general Jurisdic-
tion has rendered a Judgment of
partition, Jurisdiction of the parties
is presumed in collateral proceedings,
although the record of the court is
silent as to service.
Ga. — Mayer v. Hover, 7 S.B. 562,
81 Ga. 308.
111.— Nickrans v. Wilk, 43 N.E. 741,
161 111. 76.
Ind. — Crane v. Kimmer, 77 Ind. 215.
26. U.S. — Montgomery v. Equitable
Life Assur. Soc. of U. S., C.C.A.
111., 83 P.2d 758.
Ala. — Cox v. Thomas, 113 So. 261,
216 Ala. 282.
Fla.— Bemis v. Loftin, 173 So. 683,
127 Fla. 515,
Ind. — Grantham Realty Corporation
v. Bowers, 22 N.E.2d 882, 215 Ind.
672.
Iowa.— Voll v. Zelch, 201 N.W. 33,
198 Iowa 1338,
Ky.— Dye Bros. v. Butler, 272 S.W
426, 209 Ky. 199.
La. — Corpus Juris quoted in Log
wood v. Logwood, 168 So. 310, 185
La. 1— Breazeale v. Peters, 6 La
App. 676.
Mont.— State ex rel. Delmoe v. Dis-
trict Court of Fifth Judicial Dist.
46 P.2d 39, 100 Mont. 131.
Okl.— Shefts v. Oklahoma Co., 13.
P.2d 589. 192 Okl. 483— Myers v
Carr, 47 P.2d 156, 173 Okl. 335.
S.C. — Coogler v. Crosby, 72 S.E 149
89 S.C. 508.
Tex.— Bendy v. W. T. Carter &
Bro., Com.App., 14 S.W.2d 813—
Weaver v. Garrietty, Civ. A pp., 84
S.W.2d 878 — Dallas Joint Stock
Land Bank of Dallas v. Street,
Civ.App., 76 S.W.2d 780, error re-
fused, followed Street v. Dallas
Joint Stock Land Bank of Dallas,
84 S.W.2d 1119.
34 C.J. p 542 note 98.
Rule not confined to ancient rec-
ords
Ky. — Dye Bros. v. Butler, 272 S.W.
426, 209 Ky. 199.
Service of copy of petition presumed
Mo.— McEwen v. Sterling State Bank,
5 S.W.2d 702, 222 Mo.App. 660.
27. Tex.— Radford v. Radford, Civ.
App., 42 S.W.2d 1060.
Where Judgment contained recital
that defendant waived service of ci-
tation as required by law, presump-
tion existed that court duly ac-
quired Jurisdiction of defendant by
waiver of citation. — Radford v. Rad-
ford, supra.
28. Va.— Wood v. Kane, 129 S.E.
327, 143 Va. 281.
34 C.J. p 540 note 78 [a].
Necessity of return and proof of
service see the C.J.S. title Proc-
ess § 90, also 50 C.J. p 562 notes
92-97.
Clerk's testimony from memory
and dehors the record is incompe-
:ent to show that there was no re-
turn of service. — Dye Bros. v. But-
er, 272 S.W. 426, 209 Ky. 199.
Pact that return of service of
process is missing from record is
nsufflcient to warrant setting aside
lecree on collateral attack. — Whitley
v. Towle, 141 So. 571, 163 Miss. 418.
Where a return of service has not
>een filed with the clerk, but the
839
Judgment recites that service was
duly made, giving the date, it will
be presumed that the return was
exhibited in court. — Rhyne v. Mis-
souri State Life Ins. Co., Tex.Com.
App., 291 S.W. 845.
29. Tex.— Stockyards Nat Bank v.
Presnall, 194 S.W. 384, 109 Tex.
32— Cockrell v. Steffens, Civ.App.,
284 S.W. 608.
Original summons is evidentiary
and conclusive unless it bears an
affirmative showing of no service on
party attacking Judgment or unless
showing of service has been de-
stroyed by direct attack. — Davis v.
Tuggle's Adm'r, 178 S.W.2d 979, 297
Ky. 376.
Absence of original summons
In absence of original summons
from record, it is conclusively pre-
sumed that there was proper service
thereof on party attacking Judgment
for want of Jurisdiction and indorse-
ment on petition that summons was
issued is of value as secondary
evidence and entitled to more weight
than parol testimony to contrary,
although absolute verity is not to be
imported to such entry; and, in ab-
sence of clear and convincing evi-
dence of error or fraud, a docket en-
try showing service of process on
litigant is conclusive. — Davis v. Tug-
gle's Adm'r, supra.
30. Fla.— Bemis v. Loftin, 173 So.
683, 127 Fla. 515.
Extrinsic evidence in contradiction
of recitals see infra § 426.
31. Okl. — Carr v. Cobble, 232 P.
108, 107 Okl. 225.
Extent of burden
A defendant, attacking Judgment
by court of general Jurisdiction as
void for want of service, must not
only show affirmatively that he has
not been served, but that he has not
waived service by appearance, plead-
ng, or otherwise, unless there is a
recital in Judgment showing affirm-
atively that return of service made
by sheriff was the only basis of Ju-
risdiction of court over person of
defendant. — Green v. Spires, 7 S.B.2d
246, 189 Ga. 719.
32. Minn.— Brown v. Reinke, 199 N.
W. 235, 139 Minn. 458. 35 A.L.R.
413.
§ 425
JUDGMENTS
49 O.J.S.
service of process, such as by publication, was duly
and regularly made32 and that an affidavit for such
service was regularly and properly made and filed.34
Some of the decisions, however, are to the con-
trary in the case of constructive service by leaving
a copy of the writ, or by publication, or other form
of substituted service.35
Where the judgment is against a nonresident de-
fendant, and jurisdiction was acquired by publi-
cation of notice, some cases hold that the judgment
is not impeachable collaterally merely because the
record does not show compliance with all the re-
quirements of the statute authorizing that manner
of citation, as a full compliance will be presumed.36
Other cases, however, hold that a presumption of
jurisdiction does not arise in such a case, and that
to sustain a judgment the record must itself disclose
facts affirmatively indicating the several steps by
which jurisdiction has been acquired.87 If defend-
ant was a nonresident at the institution of the ac-
tion, but returned to the state a considerable period
of time before the entry of final judgment, it will
be presumed that he was served with notice.38
(3) Exercise of Special Statutory Powers
Where special statutory powers are exercised by
the court, a presumption of Jurisdiction will be indulged
In support of its judgment where it is rendered in the
usual course of common-law or chancery practice.
Where special statutory powers are to be exer-
cised by the usual common-law or chancery prac-
tice, the proceedings and judgments will have all
the characteristics of the proceedings and judgments
in other cases, including the presumption of juris-
diction,39 and this rule has been held to apply to a
judgment rendered in vacation by a judge acting
under constitutional authority.40 The rule has like-
wise been held to apply in attachment proceedings,41
but there is also authority to the contrary.42
Proceedings not according to course of common
law. Where a court of general jurisdiction pro-
ceeds in the exercise of special powers, wholly de-
rived from statute, and not exercised according to
the course of the common law, or not pertaining to
its general jurisdiction, its jurisdiction must appear
in the record, and cannot be presumed in a collat-
eral proceeding,4* although the court proceeds in
accordance with the course of the common law as
far as applicable to the proceedings.44 This rule
33. Ark. — Hobbs v. Lenon, 87 S.W.
2d 6, 191 Ark. 509.
Ga. — De Lay v. La timer, 117 S.E.
446, 155 Ga. 463.
Miss. — Brotherhood of Railroad
Trainmen v. Agnew, 155 So. 205,
170 Miss. 604.
Utah.— Intermill v. Nash, 75 P.2d
157, 94 Utah 271.
34 C. J. p 542 note 99.
34. Okl.— Core v. Smith, 102 P. 114,
23 Okl. 909.
Utah.— Intermill v. Nash, 75 P.2d
157, 94 Utah 271.
34 C.J. p 542 note 99 [a].
35. U.S. — Hartley v. Boynton, C.C.
Iowa, 17 P. 873, 5 McCrary, 453.
Fla. — Myakka Co. v. Edwards, 67
So. 217, 68 Fla. 372, Ann.Cas.l917B
201.
Iowa,— Hawk v. Bay, 126 'N.W. 955,
148 Iowa 47.
Neb. — Vandervort v. Pinnell, 148 N.
W. 332, 96 Neb. 515.
34 C.J. p 542 note 1.
38. I1L— Figge v. Rowlen, 57 N.E.
195, 185 111. 234.
34 C.J. p 542 note 2.
37. Or. — Furgeson v. Jones, 20 P.
842, 17 Or. 204, 11 Am.S.R. 808,
3 L.R.A. 620.
34 C.J. p 542 note 3.
38. Tex.— Bendy v. W. T. Carter &
Bro., Civ.App., 5 S.W.2d 579, af-
firmed. CoxxLApp., 14 S.W.2d 813.
39. Or. — Laughlin v. Hughes, 89 P.
2d 568, 161 Or. 295.
34 C.J. p 543 note 4.
40. Ga. — Southeastern Pipe Line Co.
v. Garrett ex rel. Le Sueur, 16 S.
B.2d 753, 192 Ga. 817.
Trader constitutional amendment
declaring that the judges of superior
court may, on reasonable notice to
the parties, at any time in vaca-
tion, at chambers, hear and deter-
mine by interlocutory or final judg-
ment any matter or issue where a
jury verdict is not required or may
be waived a judge in vacation will
act as a court of general jurisdic-
tion where previously his authority
or jurisdiction may have been lim-
ited, or conditional, and a necessary
corollary is that any judgment au-
thorized by the amendment may be
attended by a presumption of reg-
ularity, which could not be indulged
where the jurisdiction is special or
limited. — Southeastern Pipe Line Co.
v. Garrett ex rel. Le Sueur, supra.
41. Colo.— Burris v. Craig, 82 P. 944,
34 Colo. 383.
34 C.J. p 543 note 5 [b] (2).
Attack permissible
In ejectment action, wherein plain-
tiff offered sheriff's deed based on
judgment in attachment proceedings,
the rule respecting integrity of judg-
ments did not prevent attack by de-
fendant on the judgment and attach-
ment proceeding on ground that no-
tice of attachment was returnable
sixty-five days from the first publi-
cation.— Johnson v. Clark, 198 So.
842, 145 Fla, 258.
42. 111. — Star Brewery v. Otto, 63
IlLApp. 40.
34 C.J. p 543 note 5 [b] (1).
840
43. 111.—, Ashlock v. Ashlock, 195 N.
E. 657, 360 111. 115— Keal v. Rhyd-
derck, 148 -N.E. 53, 317 111. 231—
Payson v. People, 51 N.E. 588, 175
111. 267.
Me.— Bisbee v. Knight, 2$ A.2d 637,
139 Me. 1.
Or. — Laughlin v. Hughes, 89 P.2d
568, 161 Or. 295— Fishburn v. Lon-
dershausen, 92 P. 1060, 50 Or. 363,
14 L.R.A.,N.S., 1234, 15 Ann.Cas.
975.
Wash. — Corpus Jnris quoted in Jun-
kin v, Anderson, 123 P.2d 759, 12
Washed 58.
34 C.J. p 543 note 5.
Where it appears on the face of
tlie proceedings that the court has
active jurisdiction in a matter in
which it is exercising limited and
special statutory authority, the
court's action cannot be collaterally
attacked for error not appearing on
the face of the proceedings. — Farant
Inv. Corporation v. Francis, 122 S.
E. 141, 138 Va. 417.
{Finding of evidentiary facts
On collateral attack of a judgment
rendered by court of general juris-
diction pursuant to authority con-
ferred by statute, every reasonable
presumption will be indulged that
court in prior proceedings found evi-
dentiary facts after conferment of
jurisdiction, but not that court found
facts giving jurisdiction. — Bisbee v.
Knight, 26 A.2d 637, 139 Me. 1.
44. Mo. — Cooper v. Gunter, 114 S.
W. 943, 215 Mo. 558.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 425
has been held to apply to a judgment rendered in
a summary proceeding.45
"Judicial" and "ministerial" acts distinguished.
Where a court of general jurisdiction has conferred
on it special powers by special statutes, which are
exercised only ministerially and not judicially, no
presumption of jurisdiction will attend its judg-
ments, and the facts essential to the exercise of
special jurisdiction must appear on the face of the
record.46
b. Courts or Tribunals of Inferior or Limited
Jurisdiction
As a general rule, nothing Is presumed In favor of
the validity of the judgment of a court of inferior or
limited jurisdiction; but the usual presumptions apply
'in a case in which such court or tribunal has exclusive
or general jurisdiction.
Nothing is presumed in favor of the judgment of
a court of inferior or limited jurisdiction, as against
a collateral attack ; but the jurisdictional facts must
affirmatively appear either on the face of the rec-
ord,47 or, according to some authorities, by evi-
dence aliunde, except as to facts required to be
spread on the record,48 and, as a corollary to this
rule, it has been held that it is not necessary for
defendant to appear in such court and object to
its jurisdiction as a prerequisite to challenging such
jurisdiction in a subsequent suit.4^ This rule, how-
ever, applies -only to questions of jurisdiction as to
the subject matter, for where the jurisdiction has
once vested as to such matter, the rules which gov-
ern its exercise as to the person, with respect to
process, evidence, etc., are generally the same as
those applicable to courts of general jurisdiction.50
Although the court may be a limited or inferior tri-
Dunal, yet if it has general or exclusive jurisdic-
tion of any one subject, its proceedings and judg-
ments with respect to that subject will be sustained,,
against collateral attack by the same presumptions
which obtain in the case of superior courts.51
Where the records of inferior courts and tri-
bunals show either affirmatively or by necessary im-
plication that the court or tribunal had jurisdiction
of the parties and the subject matter, such juris-
diction cannot be avoided by adverse inferences
from the judgment or order rendered,52 and the
same presumptions will then be indulged as to the
regularity of the proceedings as are indulged in
proceedings of courts of general jurisdiction.53 A
pleading, in order to be sufficient to show such a
judgment subject to collateral attack, must set out
enough of the record to show that the court did
not, in fact, have jurisdiction.54
Administrative tribunal. The judgment or award
of an administrative tribunal purports jurisdiction,
as against collateral attack, unless the judgment or
award shows on its face that the tribunal did not
have jurisdiction,55
Wash. — Junkin v. Anderson, 12 3 P.
2d 759, 760, 12 Wash.2d 58.
45. Tenn. — Hamilton v. Burum, 3
Yerg. 355.
34 C.J. p 543 note 5 [a].
46. Va.— Bryan v. Nash, 66 S.B. 69,
110 Va. 329.
34 C.J. p 543 note 7.
47. U.S. — Warmsprings Irr. Dist. v.
May, C.C.A.Or., 117 F.2d 802.
Ala. — Corpus Juris cited in Chand-
ler v. Price, 15 So.2d 462, 463, 244
Ala. 667.
Fla.— Krivitsky v. Nye, 19 So.2d 563,
155 Fla. 45 — State ex rel. Bverette
v. Petteway, 179 So. 666, 131 Fla,
516.
Mo. — State ex rel. Lane v. Cornell,
171 S.W.2d 687, 351 Mo. 1.
N.J. — Mangani v. Hydro, Inc., 194
A. 264, 119 N.J.Law 71— Crawford
v. Lees, 93 A. 201, 84 N.J.Eq. 324.
Tenn. — New York Casualty Co. v.
Lawson, 24 S.W.2d 881, 160 Tenn.
329.
34 C.J. p 544 note 8.
Judgment of justice see the C.J.S.
title Justices of the Peace, $ 115,
also 35 C.J. p 686 note 48-p 687
note 57.
Verity and validity
A judgment of an inferior court
of limited jurisdiction is not open
to the presumption of verity and
validity accorded to judgments of
superior courts of general jurisdic-
tion.— Ex parte Swehla, 220 P. 299,
114 Kan. 712.
Pleading
When court is exercising special
or limited jurisdiction and complaint
does not allege jurisdictional mat-
ter, judgment for plaintiff is void
on collateral attack. — Chandler v.
Price, 15 So.2d 462, 244 Ala. 667.
48. Ark.— Albie v. Jones, 102 S.W.
222, 82 Ark. 414, 12 Ann.Cas. 433.
Va.— Moore v. Smith, 15 S.B.2d 48,
177 Va. 621.
3 4, C.J. p 545 note 9.
49. Ca].— Lowe v. Alexander, 15 Cal.
296 — Schuler-Knox Co. v. Smith,
144 P.2d 47, 62 Cal.App.2d 86.
50. Cal.— In re Sutro, 77 P. 402.
143 Cal. 487.
34 C.J. p 545 note 10.
51. 111. — Moore v. Sievers, 168 N.
E. 259, 336 111. 316.
Ky. — Decker v. Tyree, 264 S.W. 726,
204 Ky. 302.
N.T.— Daley v. Dennis, 242 N.Y.S.
408, 137 Misc. 1.
Wyo. — Corpus Juris quoted in Camp-
bell v. Wyoming Development Co.,
100 P.2d 124, 134, 55 Wyo. 347.
34 C.J. p 545 note 11.
841
Mayor's judgment convicting de-
fendant for speeding is presumed
valid until annulled by appeal to
circuit court, notwithstanding mayor
has pecuniary interest. — Brooks v.
Town of Potomac, 141 S.E. 249, 149
Va. 427.
52. Miss. — Scott County v. Dubois,
130 So. 106, 158 Miss. 245.
53. Ala,— -Ex parte Griffith, 95 So.
551, 209 Ala. 158— Bowden v. State,
97 So. 4G7, 19 Ala.App. 377.
Ark. — Austin Western Road Machin-
ery Co. v. Blair, 82 S.W.2d 528, 190
Ark. 996.
Va, — Kiser v. W. M. Rltter Lumber
Co., 18 S.E.2d 319, 179 Va. 128.
34 C.J. p 545 note 12.
Recitals in the decree of such a
court, of the requisite jurisdictional
facts are sufficient to show jurisdic-
tion at least prima facie when offer-
ed as evidence in a collateral pro-
ceeding.— Miller v. Thompson, 96 So.
481, 209 Ala. 469— Ex parte Griffith,
95 So. 551, 209 Ala, 158.
54. Ind. — Larimer v. Krau, 103 N.E.
1102, 57 Ind.App. 33, reheard 105 N.
E. 936, 57 Ind.App. 33.
55. Utah, — State Tax Commission v.
J. & W. Auto Service, 66 P.2d 141,
92 Utah 123.
§425
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
c. Federal Courts
A judgment or decree of a federal court will be pre-
sumed regular and valid on a collateral attack.
Courts of the United States, although of statu-
tory and limited jurisdiction, are regarded, within
their limitations as to subject matter, as courts of
general, rather than inferior, jurisdiction, as dis-
cussed in Federal Courts § 6, and therefore their
judgments and decrees stand on the same footing
as those of state courts of general jurisdiction, when
collaterally attacked, and, unless want of jurisdic-
tion affirmatively appears from the record,56 the
authority and jurisdiction of the court to render the
judgment or decree will be presumed,57 although
the facts conferring jurisdiction do not appear in
the record58 Accordingly, when a judgment ren-
dered by a federal court is collaterally attacked in
a state tribunal, the latter tribunal will presume that
the federal court had jurisdiction, unless the con-
trary appears on the face of the record.59 The
rule applies to a judgment of a federal court sit-
ting in another state.60 The rule that, unless the
contrary appears from the record, a cause is deemed
to be without the jurisdiction of a federal court, as
discussed in Federal Courts § 8, does not apply
where the judgment of such a court is collaterally
attacked.61
d. Probate Courts
The Judgment of a probate court within the limits
of its Jurisdiction ordinarily is entitled to the same
favorable presumptions, as against collateral attack, as
are accorded the Judgments of other courts of general
Jurisdiction.
Generally, although courts of probate are limited
in their sphere to matters pertaining to the set-
tlement of decedents' estates, their jurisdiction is not
special or inferior, but, with respect to matters to
which their powers extend, are usually regarded as
courts of general jurisdiction, as discussed in Courts
§ 298, and therefore the judgment of such a court
is entitled to the same presumptions as to jurisdic-
tion, regularity, and validity, as against collateral
attack, as are accorded the judgments of other
courts of general jurisdiction,62 unless it affirmative-
ly appears from the record that the court had no
jurisdiction in the matter;63 and the recitals in the
56. U.S.— Hatten v. Hudspeth, C.C.
A.Kan., 99 F.2d 501— Archer v.
Heath, C.C.A.Wash., 30 F.2d 932—
In re Ostlind Mfg. Co., P.C.Or.,
19 F.Supp. 836.
57. U.S. — Hatten v. Hudspeth, C.C.
A.Kan., 99 F.2d 501— Archer v.
Heath, C.C.A.Wash., 30 F.2d 932.
N.Y.— New Tork Institution for In-
struction of Deaf and Pumb v.
Crockett, 102 N.Y.S. 412, 117 App.
Piv. 269.
34 C.J. p 545 note 14.
Power to vacate Judgment of con-
viction
In absence of anything- to show
that federal district court was with-
out power to vacate judgment of
conviction against deputy sheriff, it
will be assumed, in proceeding to
oust deputy from office because of
conviction, that court had proceeded
within general scope of its powers
end that order vacating judgment
was given with authority. — Common-
wealth ex rel. McClenachan v. Head-
ing, -6 A.2d 776, 336 Pa. 165.
58. U.S.— Jenner v. Murray, C.C.A.
Fla., 32 F.2d 625.
34 C.J. p 545 note 14.
59. N.T. — Chemung Canal Bank v.
Judson, 8 N.Y. 254, Seld. p 49.
25 C.J, p 692 note 66.
'J60. Tex. — New Orleans Southern
Ins. Co. v. Woverton Hardware Co.,
19'S.W. 615.
61. U.S. — Hatten v. Hudspeth, C.C.
AJKCan., 99 F.2d 501.
€2. Cal.— In re Keel's Estate, 100 P.
2d 1045, 15 Cal.2d 328— Texas Co.
v. Bank of America Nat Trust &
Savings Ass'n, 53 P.2d 127, 5 Cal.
2d 35— Security-First Nat. Bank of
Los Angeles v. Superior Court in
and for Los Angeles County, 37 P.
2d 69, 1 Cal.2d 749— Wood v.
Roach, 14 P.2d 170, 125 CaLApp.
631.
Ga. — Morris v. Nicholson, 31 S.B.2d
786, 198 Ga, 450— Jones v. Smith,
48 S.B. 134, 120 Ga, 642— Camp-
bell v. Atlanta Coach Co., 200 S.
E. 203, 58 GteLApp. 824.
Idaho. — Knowles v. Kasiska, 268 P.
3, 46 Idaho 379.
Iowa. — Corpus Juris cited in Ander-
son v. Schwitzer, 20 N.W.2d 67,
71.
Mo.— Boss v. Pitcairn, 179 S.W.2d
35, 153 A.L.R. 215— Linville v.
Ripley, 146 S.W.2d 581, 347 Mo.
95— Blattel v. Stallings, 142 S.W.
2d 9, 346 Mo. 50 — Crohn v. Modern
Woodmen of America, 129 S.W.
1069, 145 Mo.App. 158— Hamilton
v. Henderson, 117 S.W,2d 379, 232
Mo. App. 1234.
N.J. — Assets Development Co. v.
Wall, 119 A. 10, 97 N.J.Law 468.
Okl. — Porter v. Hansen, 124 P.2d 391,
190 Okl. 429— Pill v. Anderson, 256
P. 31, 124 Okl. 299— Powers v.
Brown, 252 P. 27, 122 Okl. 40—
Cummings v. Inman, 247 P. 379,
119 Okl. 9— Adams v. Tidal Oil Co.,
237 P. 443, 113 Okl. 15— Jones v.
Snyder, 233 P. 744, superseded
249 P. 313, 121 Okl. 254— Galla-
ghar v. Petree, 230 P. 477, 103
Okl. 295— Bowling v. Merry, 217
P. 404, 91 Okl. 176.
Tex.— Pallas Joint Stock Land Bank
of Pallas v. Forsyth. 109 S.W.2d
842
1046, 130 Tex. 563— Goolsby v.
Bush, Civ. App., 172 S.W.2d 758—
Burton v. McGuire, Civ.App., 3
S.W.2d 576, affirmed, Com. App.,
41 S.W.2d 238— Tucker v. Imperial
Oil & Development Co., Civ.App.,
233 S.W. 339.
34 C.J. p 545 note 15.
Existence of necessary facts
Where record is silent as to the
existence of any fact necessary to
the validity of a county court's judg-
ment in probate matters, it will be
presumed on collateral attack that
the court inquired into and found
the existence of such fact
Mo.— Hidden v. Edwards, 285 S.W.
462, 313 Mo. 642.
Okl.— Porter v. Hansen, 124 P.2d 391,
190 Okl. 429.
Date of entry
As against collateral attack, it will
be presumed that order entered on
probate minutes was entered on its
date. — Burton v. McGuire, Tex.Civ.
App., 3 S.W.2d 576, affirmed, Com.
App., 41 S.W.2d 238.
Service of process will be presum-
ed when record of probate court
showing adjudication is silent. — Han-
non v. Henson, Tex.Civ.App., 7 S.W.
2d 613, affirmed, Com.App., 15 S.W.2d
579.
63. Cal. — Texas Co. v. Bank of
America Nat. Trust & Savings
Ass'n, 53 P.2d 127, 5 CaL2d 35.
Ga. — Campbell v. Atlanta Coach Co.,
200 S.E. 203, 58 Ga.App. 824.
Mo.— Linville v. Ripley, 146 S.W.2d
- 581, 347 Mo. 95.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 426
record as to jurisdiction may not be contradicted
by evidence of facts different from those appearing
on the record.64 There are some authorities, how-
ever, which hold that probate courts are courts of
special or limited jurisdiction, and that their or-
ders or decrees do not raise any presumption of
jurisdiction unless the jurisdictional facts appear on
the face of the proceeding.65
Special proceedings in probate court. With re-
gard to matters not within the Ordinary probate
jurisdiction, but involving the exercise of special
statutory powers, it has been held that the pre-
sumption of jurisdiction does not obtain, but the
court, as concerns such matters, is a court of spe-
cial jurisdiction ; and the rule is the same as where
a court of general jurisdiction exercises special stat-
utory powers.66
§ 426. Recitals of Jurisdictional Facts
a. In general
b. Contradicting recitals
c. Recitals showing want of jurisdiction
a. In General
Recitals as to jurisdictional facts, contained in a
judgment or judgment roll or record, are deemed to im-
port absolute verity, and are generally conclusive as
against a collateral attack unless they are contradicted
by other portions of the record or unless there is an
averment and proof of fraud.
In accordance with the rule that the judgment
roll, or record proper, is of such uncontrollable
credit and verity as to admit of no averment, plea,
or proof to the contrary, as discussed supra § 132,
where a judgment, or judgment roll or record, of a
domestic court of general jurisdiction contains re-
citals as to the jurisdictional facts, such recitals
generally are deemed to import absolute verity and
to be conclusive as against a collateral attack6? un-
less they are contradicted by other portions of the
Tex.— Goolsby v. Bush, Civ.App., 172
S.W.2d 758.
34 C.J. p 546 note 16.
64. Cal. — Marlenee v. Brown, 134 P.
2d 770, 21 Ckl.2d 668.
Contradicting: recitals generally see
infra § 426.
65. Alaska. — Sylvester v. Willson, 2
Alaska 325.
34 C.J. p 546 note 17.
66. Ala. — Ho well v. Hughes, 53 So.
105, 168 Ala, 460.
34 C.J. p 546 note 18.
Rule in case of exercise of special
statutory powers see supra sub-
division a (3) of this section.
67. U.S. — Merrell v. U. S,, C.C.A.
Okl., 140 P.2d 602.
Ala. — Ex parte Tanner, 121 So. 423,
219 Ala. 7, answer to certified
Question conformed to Tanner v.
State, 121 So. 424, 23 Ala.App. 61,
certiorari denied 121 So. 427, 219
Ala. 139.
Ark.— Kindrick v. Capps, 121 S.W.2d
515, 196 Ark. 1169— -Union Inv. Co.
v. Hunt, 59 S.W.2d 1039, 187 Ark.
357— Holt v. Manuel, 54 S.W.2d
66, 186 Ark. 435— State v. Wilson,
27 S.W.2d 106, 181 Ark. 683-- Avery
v. Avery, 255 S.W. 18, 160 Ark.
375.
Fla. — Newport v. Culbreath, 162 So.
340, 120 Fla. 152— Kroier v. Kro-
ier, 116 So. 753, 95 Fla. 865.
Idaho.— Weil v. Defenbach, 208 P.
1025, 36 Idaho 37.
111. — People ex rel. Baird & Warner
v. Lindheimer, 19 N.B.2d 336, 370
111. 424.
Ky. — Wolverton v. Baynham, 10 S.
W.2d 837, 226 Ky. 214.
La. — Scovell v, Levy, 30 So. 322, 106
La. 118.
Mich.— Burger v. Beste, 57 N.W. 99,
98 Mich. 156.
Miss. — Mclntosh v. Munson Road
Machinery Co., 145 So. 731, 167
Miss. 546 — Vicksburg Grocery Co.
v. Brennan, 20 So. 845.
Mo. — State ex rel. and to Use of
Bair v. Producers Gravel Co., Ill
S.W.2d 521, 341 Mo. 1106— State
ex rel. Spratley v. Maries County,
98 S.W.2d 623, 339 Mo. 577— Auf-
derheide v. Aufderhelde, App., 18
S.W.2d 119.
N.D. — Zimmerman v. Boynton, 229 N.
W. 3, 59 N.D. 112.
Okl. — Protest of Stanolind Pipe Line
Co,, 32 P.2d 569, 168 Okl. 281—
Protest of Gulf Pipe Line Co. of
Oklahoma, 32 P.2d 42, 168 Okl. 136
— Adams v. Carson, 25 P.2d 653,
165 Okl. 161— Protest of St. Louis-
San Francisco Ry. Co., 19 P.2d 162,
162 Okl. -62— Protest of St Louis-
San Francisco Ry. Co., 11 P.2d 189,
157 Okl. 131— Foster v. Wooley, 220
P. 938, 93 Okl. 53.
Tenn. — Page v. Turcott, 167 S.W.2d
350, 179 Tenn. 491 — Green v. Craig,
•51 S.W.2d 480, 164 Tenn. 445.
Tex. — Empire Gas & Fuel Co. v. Al-
bright, 87 S.W.2d 1092, 126 Tex.
485 — Brown v. Clippenger, 256 S.
W. 254, 113 Tex. 364— Levy v.
Roper, 256 S.W. 251, 113 Tex. 356
— Robins v. Sandford, Com. App., 29
S.W.2d 969 — Bemis v. Bayou De-
velopment Co., Civ.App., 184 S.W.
2d 645, error refused; certiorari
denied Bemis v. Humble Oil & Re-
fining Co., 66 S.Ct 43— Stewart
Oil Co. v. Lee, Civ.App., 173 S.W.
2d 791, error refused — Wixom v.
Bowers, Civ.App., 152 S.W.2d 896
— Kveton v. Farmers Royalty
Holding Co., Civ.App., 149 S.W.2d
998 — Gann v. Putman, Civ. App.,
843
141 S.W.2d 758, error dismissed,
judgment correct — Askew v. Roun-
tree, Civ.App., 120 S.W.2d 117, er-
ror dismissed — Longmire v. Taylor,
Civ.App., 109 S.W.2d 525, error dis-
missed— Mercer v. Rubey, Civ.App.,
108 S.W.2d 677, error refused —
Henry v. Beaucnamp, Civ.App., 39
S.W.2d 642, followed in Henry v.
Carter, 39 S.W.2d 645— Bonougli v.
Guerra, Civ.App., 286 S.W. 344.
Utah.— Pincock v. Ximball, 228 P.
221, 64 Utah 4.
Va. — Cole v. Farrier, 22 S.E3.2d 18,
180 Va. 231.
Wash.— Ex parte Gordon, 144 P.2d
238, 19 Wash.2d 714— Peha's Uni-
versity Food Shop v. Stimpson
Corporation. 31 P.2d 1023, 177
Wash. 406.
34 C.J. p 547 note 19.
Judgment by court having Jurisdic-
tion of parties and subject matter
as not open to collateral attack
generally see supra § 401.
Jurisdiction and power distinguished
Where question of validity of judg-
ment arises collaterally, recitation
therein of jurisdictional facts im-
ports absolute verity, while recita-
tion of power to execute deed which
is an ancient instrument imports
prima facie verity. — Loving County
v. Higginbotham, Tex.Civ.App., 115
S.W.2d 1110, error dismissed.
Diversity of citizenship
Where record in district court
foreclosure action affirmatively dis-
closed diversity of citizenship of
parties, validity of title acquired by
purchaser at foreclosure sale could
not be challenged by collateral at-
tack on jurisdiction of district
court in such foreclosure action. —
Bostwick v. Baldwin Drainage Dist.,
C.C.A.Fla., 133 F.2d 1, certiorari de-
§426
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
record68 or, according to some authorities, by ex-
trinsic evidence, as discussed infra subdivision b
of this section, or unless there is an averment and
proof of fraud.69
Where a judgment or decree of a domestic court
recites that proper notice of the action was given,
that process was duly served, or that the parties
were duly summoned or cited, such recital gener-
ally is conclusive on collateral attack,70 even though
there may have been defects in some of the docu-
ments constituting part of the judgment roll and re-
lating to the sen-ice of process;71 but it has been
nied 63 S.Ct 1030, 319 U.S. 742, 8
L.Ed. 1699.
Judgment "by agreement
Where judgment recited that it
was by agreement of the parties
it was presumed that all the par-
ties were present in open court and
entered into the agreement, and the
contention of any party that he did
not in fact agree to the judgment
must be made in a direct attack on
the Judgment; it could not be col-
laterally attacked in an action to re-
move clouds from title to realty on
the ground that all parties to prior
cause had not in fact agreed to the
judgment — Brennan v. Greene, Tex.
Civ.App., 154 S.W.2d 523, error re-
fused.
Partition
When the recitals in the record of
a statutory partition show the ju-
risdiction of the court and its com-
pliance with the statute, the order
appointing commissioners to make
partition is an adjudication of the
sufficiency of the application, which
cannot be questioned collaterally. —
Hall v. Law, Ind., 102 U.S. 461, 26
L.Ed. 217.
Bscitals as to trial at certain term
Tex. — Gann v. Putman, Civ.App., 141
S.W.2d 758, error dismissed, judg-
ment correct
68. U.S.— Merrell v. U. S., C.C.A.
OkL, 140 P.2d 602.
Ala. — Ex parte Tanner, 121 So. 423,
219 Ala. 7, answer to certified
Question conformed to Tanner v.
State, 121 So. 424, 23 Ala.App. 61,
certiorari denied 121 So. 427, 219
Ala. 139.
Ark.— Holt v. Manuel, 54 S.W.2d 66,
186 Ark. 435.
Fla. — Newport v. Culbreath, 162 So.
340, 120 FUsu 152.
Idaho.— Weil v. Defenbach, 208 P.
1025, 36 Idaho 37.
N.D. — Zimmerman v. Boynton, 229
N.W. 3, 59 N.D. 112.
34 C.J. p -547 note 20.
Recitals showing want of Jurisdic-
tion see infra subdivision c of this
section.
69. Ky. — Slier v. Carpenter, 160 S.
W. 186, 155 Ky. 640.
W.Va. — Plant v. Humphries, 66 S.B.
94, £6 W.Va. 88, 26 L.R.A.,N.S.,
558.
Fraud as ground for collateral at-
tack see infra 8 434.
70u CaL — fcaufmann v. California
Mining & Dredging Syndicate, 104
P.2d 1038, 16 Cal.2d 90— Sheehan v.
All Persons, etc., 252 P. 337, 80
CaLApp. 393.
Ind. — Grantham Realty Corporation
v. Bowers, 18 N.E.2d 929, affirmed
22 N.E.2d 832, 215 Ind. 672.
Ky.— Newhall v. Mahan, 54 S.W.2d
26, 245 Ky. 626.
N.J.— In re Leupp, 153 A. 842, 108
N.J.Eq. 49.
N.C.— Powell v. Turpin, 29 S.E.2d
26, 224 N.C. 67.
N.D.— Baird v. City of Williston, 226
N.W. 608, 58 N.D. 478.
Ohio. — Hinman v. Executive Com-
mittee of Communistic Party of
U. S. A., 47 X.E.2d S20, 71 Ohio
App. 76 — Zingale v. Integrity
Mortg. Co., 163 N.E. 214, 30 Ohio
App. 94 — Union Ice Corporation v.
City of Niles, 13 Ohio Supp. 115.
OkL— Jones v. Snyder, 233 P. 744,
superseded 249 P. 313, 121 Okl.
254.
Tex. — Switzer v. Smith, Com.App.,
300 S.W. 31, 68 A.L.R. 377— Bemis
v. Bayou Development Co., Civ.
App., 184 S.W.2d 645, error refused;
certiorari denied Bemis v. Humble
Oil & Refining Co., 66 S.Ct. 43 —
Edens v. Grogan Cochran Lumber
Co., Civ.App.. 172 S.W.2d 730, er-
ror refused — Stewart v. Adams,
Civ.App., 171 S.W.2d 180— Litton v.
Waters, Civ.App., 161 S.W.2d 1095,
error refused — TTixom v. Bowers,
Civ.App., 152 S.W.2d 896, error
refused — Jordan v. Texas Pac. Coal
& Oil Co., Civ.App.f 152 S.W.2d
875— Laney v. Cline, Civ. App., 150
S.W.2d 176 — Henry v. Beauchamp,
Civ.App., 39 S.W.3d 642, followed in
Henry v. Carter, 39 S.W.2d 645 —
Murchison Oil Co. v. Hampton,
Civ.App., 21 S.W.2d 59, error re-
fused— Barton v. Montex Corpo-
ration, Civ.App., 295 S.W. 950—
Reitz v. Mitchell, Civ.App., 256 S.
W. 697— Landa Cotton Oil Co. v.
Watkins, Civ.App., 255 S.W. 775 —
Borders v. Highsmith, Civ.App.,
252 S.W. 270.
34 C.J. p 547 note 23.
Particular service recited in Judg-
ment and found in record will, ac-
cording to its sufilciency or insuffi-
ciency, determine validity of judg-
ment— Henry v. Beauchamp, Tex.
Civ.App., 39 S.W.Sd 643, followed in
Henry v. Carter, 39 S.W.2d 645.
Partition
(1) A recital in the record of par-
tition proceedings that the parties
were duly cited is conclusive as
against collateral attack.
844
Mo. — Brawley v. Ranney, 67 Mo.
280.
Pa.— Vensel's Appeal, 77 Pa. 71.
Tex.— Bassett v. Sherrod, 35 S.W.
312, 13 Tex.Civ.App. 327.
(2) This rule applies where un-
known heirs were made parties. —
Bassett v. Sherrod, supra — Gillon v.
Wear, 28 S.W. 1014, 9 Tex.Civ.App.
44.
(3) Where the recitals in the rec-
ord show the jurisdiction of the
court and its compliance with the
statute, the order appointing com-
missioners to make partition is an
adjudication of the sufficiency of the
notice, which cannot be questioned
collaterally.— Hall v. Law, Ind., 102
U.S. 461, 26 L.Ed. 217.
Hscital in mortgage foreclosure
decree that cause came on regularly
to be heard on complaint taken as
confessed by defendant on whom
due and regular service of summons
and complaint was made must on
collateral attack be accepted as true,
particularly if judgment roll does
not affirmatively show that recital is
false. — West v. Capital Trust & Sav-
ings Bank, 124 P.2d 572, 113 Mont
130.
Recitals held insufficient
A recital in a judgment that more
than a specified number of days had
elapsed since the service of the sum-
mons and complaint falls short of a
finding that the summons and com-
plaint were served on defendant. —
Illinois Trust & Savings Bank v.
Town of Roscoe, 194 N.W. 649, 46
S.W. 477.
Prima facie proof
A recital that all parties to suit
had notice of hearing is prima facie
proof of that fact, not to be over-
thrown except by substantial evi-
dence.— Maryland Casualty Co. v.
Cox, C.C.A.Tenn., 104 F.2d 354.
71. Oal.— Kaufmann Y. California
Mining & Dredging Syndicate, 104
P.2d 1038, 16 Cal.2d 90.
Ohio. — Aldrich v. Friedman, 18 Ohio
App. 302.
Defects or omissions in record as
affecting presumptions generally
see supra § 425.
Service on wrong spouse
Fact that process intended for
husband was served on wife, and
that directed to wife was served on
husband, did not render default judg-
ment, reciting fact of due service,
subject to collateral attack as void.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 426
held that where the recital is a general one, of due
service of process, it is limited to process actually
found in the record, and the validity of the judg-
ment depends on the sufficiency of such process and
service.72 A similar presumption arises from a re-
cital that the defendant or parties appeared,73 al-
though it has been held that the recital of an ap-
pearance is never conclusive, and, where the ex-
pression is general, it is confined to those parties
who have been served with process.74
An ambiguous or imperfect recital in the judg-
ment will be so construed, if possible, as to make
it show jurisdiction.75 If however, the recital is
meaningless, it is void and affords no presumption
in favor of service.76
Service by publication. In the case of a judg-
ment against a nonresident defendant on service by
publication of the summons, if the judgment recites
that publication was "duly made," or was "in all
respects regular and according to law," or that de-
fendant was "duly notified," this is sufficient to sus-
tain the validity of the judgment on collateral at-
tack77 unless such recital conflicts with the record
proper, which shows a failure to comply with the
statutory requirements.78 The same effect has been
given a recital that a default judgment was regu-
— Switzer v. Smith, Tex.Com.App.
300 S.W. 81, 68 A.L.R. 377.
Judgment reciting1 personal serv-
ice, not contradicted by record, when
In reality there was no such service,
is not subject to collateral attack,
not being void. — Getting v. Mineral
Wells Crushed Stone Co., Tex.Civ.
App., 262 S.W. 93.
72. Okl.— Johnson v. Hood, 46 P.2d
533, 173 Okl. 108— Seal v. Banes,
35 P.2d 704, 168 Okl, 550.
73. Ala. — Ex parte Fidelity & De-
posit Co. of Maryland. 134 So. 861,
22? Ala. 98.
Cal.— Associated Oil Co. v. Mullin,
294 P. 421, 110 Cal.App. 385.
Fla.— Bemis v. Loftin, 17.3 So. 683,
127 Fla. 515.
Ky.— Newhall v. Mahan, 54 S.W.2d
26, 245 Ky. 626.
Tex. — Henry v. Beauchamp, Civ.App.,
39 S.W.2d 642, followed in Henry
v. Carter, 39 S.W.2d 645.
34 C.J. p 5(8 note 25.
"Come the parties"
(1) A 'recital that "now, at this
day, come the said parties, by their
respective attorneys," without any
further showing that the court ac-
quired jurisdiction against one of
defendants, has been held insuffi-
cient to support the judgment
against him in collateral attack. —
Bell v. Brinkmann, 27 S.W. 374, 123
Mo. 270, 275.
(2) Such a recital, however, has
been held prima facie sufficient to
render the Judgment or decree valid
as against a collateral attack. — Hunt
v. Allison, 32 Ala. 173—34 C.J. p 548
note 25 [a].
Piling1 answer
Where judgment recited that an
answer was filed, presumption arose
that answer was properly filed, as
respects whether sufficiency of de-
fendant's appearance could be ques-
tioned in a collateral proceeding. —
State ex rel. and to Use of Bair v.
Producers Gravel Co., Ill S.W.2d
521, 341 Mo. 1106.
Pailure to appear
A Judgment on a petition which
1 -tated a valid- cause of action for
personal judgment against one de-
fendant with foreclosure of asserted
lien, and which recited on its face
that the defendants, although duly
cited, failed to appear, was not void
and could not be collaterally attack-
ed.— Livingston v. Stubbs, Tex.Civ.
App., 151 S.W.2d 285, error dismiss-
ed, judgment correct.
Prima facie true
The recital in proceedings for par-
tition, and in the decree rendered
therein, that the heirs appeared
and consented thereto, is prlma facie
true.— Millican v. Millican, 24 Tex.
426.
Waiver
Where judgments recited that de-
fendants entered their appearance
and filed answers, question as to
whether a defendant was in court be-
cause of alleged insufficiency of
waiver of process and entry of ap-
pearance could not be raised in a
collateral attack on the judgment by
motion to quash execution and stay
sale. — State ex rel. and to Use of
Bair v. Producers Gravel Co., supra,
74. Cal.— Chester v. Miller, 13 Cal.
558.
Mo.— Bell v. Brinkman, 27 S.W. 374,
123 Mo. 270.
75. Ala. — Stephens v. International
Harvester Co., 80 So. 686, 16 Ala.
App. 612.
34 C.J. p 548 note 27.
76. Tex. — Perry v. Whiting, 121 S.
W. 903, 56 Tex.Clv.App. 550.
34 C.J. p 548 note 28.
77. Okl.— Smith v. Head, 134 P.2d
973, 192 Okl. 216— Washbum v,
Culbertson, 75 P.2d 190, 181 Okl.
476.
Tex. — State v. Humble Oil & Refining
Co., Civ.App., 187 S.W.2d 93, opin-
ion supplemented on other grounds
194 S.W.2d 811— Smith v. Walker,
Civ.App., 163 S.W.2d 857, error
refused — Underwood v. Pigman,
Civ.App., 21 S.W.2d 703, reversed
on other grounds, Com. App., 32 S.
W.2d 1102, modified on other
grounds 36 S.W.2d 1114— Mariposa
845
Mining Co. v. Waters, Civ.App., 279
S.W. 576.
34 C.J. p 548 note 30.
The record must toe treated as »
whole and as including affidavit for
citation by publication, in determin-
ing court's statutory jurisdiction to
render judgment against nonresident
on citation by publication. — Fisher
v. Jordan, D.C.Tex., 32 F.Supp. 608,
reversed on other grounds, C.C.A.,
116 F.2d 183, certiorari denied Jor-
dan v. Fisher, 61 S.Ct 734, 312 U.S.
697, 85 L,.Ed. 1132.
Beoitals held insufficient
(1) Recital in a judgment that an
attorney was appointed to represent
defendant on the suggestion of plain-
tiff's attorney that he had been cit-
ed by publication as required by law
was not such a recital of due serv-
ice as would preclude defendant from
collaterally attacking the Judgment
on the ground that he was not
served as required by law. — Shipley
v. Pershing, Tex. Civ. App., 5 S.W.2d
799, error dismissed.
(2) Recitals that defendant had
been cited to appear and answer by
a citation published in a newspaper
more than the time required by law
before the first day of the term was
not equivalent to a recital of due
service on a nonresident, precluding
attack on the judgment. — Reitz v.
Mitchell, Tex.Civ.App., 256 S.W. 697.
78, Fla. — Johnson v. Clark, 198 So.
842, 145 Fla. 258.
Okl.— Smith v. Head, 134 P.2d 973,
192 Okl. 216.
34 C.J. p 548 note 30.
Notice of attachment
Where default Judgment was based
on attachment proceedings, but rec-
ord showed that notice of attach-
ment was returnable a specified num-
ber of days from the first publication
so that court obtained no jurisdiction
over defendant's person, the judg-
ment was not immunized from col-
lateral attack by a recital of due
service of summons, such recital be-
ing a mere conclusion which con-
flicted with the record proper. — John-
5 426
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
larly entered according to law.79 In some jurisdic-
tions, however, statutes relating to constructive
service are strictly construed, and in order to sus-
tain the jurisdiction of a court based on such serv-
ice, the record must affirmatively show that the
statute has been complied with, and a formal recital
that service has been had does not change this prin-
ciple
$0
b. Contradicting Recitals
Recitals of jurisdictional facts In a judgment may
be contradicted by other parts of the record? but gen-
erally they cannot be contradicted or disproved by ex-
trinsic evidence, except for fraud.
In the case of a judgment of a domestic court of
general jurisdiction, the great majority of the de-
cisions sustain the rule that its recitals concerning
the service of process or the other facts on which
its jurisdiction is founded import absolute verity,
and that such recitals cannot be contradicted or dis-
proved, in a collateral proceeding, by any evidence
outside the record,81 except for fraud in procuring
son v. Clark, 198 So. 842, 145 Fla.
258.
A warning' order which states that
it was issued on verified petition,
but not alleging belief that nonresi-
dent defendant was then absent from
state, cannot be presumed on col-
lateral attack to have been made on
proper affidavit. — Leonard v. Wil-
liams, 265 S.W. 618, 205 Ky. 218.
79. Cal. — Sacramento Bank v. Mont-
gomery, 81 P. 138, 146 Cal. 745.
80. Neb.— Vandervort v. Finnell, 148
N.W. 332, 96 Neb. 515— Duval v.
Johnson, 133 N.W. 1125, 90 Xeb.
503, Ann.Cas.l913B 26.
34 C.J. p 549 note 32.
Presumptions as to process and serv-
ice see supra § 425.
81. U.S.— Bennett v. Hunter, C.C.A.
Kan., 155 F.2d 223— Thomas v.
Hunter, C.C.A.Kan., 153 F.2d S34
— Shields v. Shields, D.C.Mo., 26
F.Supp. 211.
Ala, — Watson v. Mobile & O. R. Co.,
173 So. 43, 233 Ala. 690.
Cal.— Marlenee v. Brown, 134 P.2d
770, 21 Cal.2d 668— Burrows v.
Burrows, 52 P.2d 606, 10 CaLApp.
2d 749 — Hogan v. Superior Court
of California in and for City and
County of San Francisco, 241 P.
584, 74 CaLApp. 704.
Fla. — Bemis v. Loftin, 173 So. 683,
127 Fla. 515.
Ga. — Hodges v. Stuart Lumber Co.,
79 S.E. 462, 140 Ga. 569.
111.— People ex rel. Baird & Warner
v. Lindheimer, 19 N.E.2d 336, 370
111. 424— People ex rel. Com'rs of
North Fork Outlet Drainage Dist.
v. Schwartz, 244 111. App. 137.
Ky.— Warfield Natural Gas Co. v.
Ward, 149 S.W.2d 705, 286 Ky. 73
— Ohio Oil Co. v. West, 145 S.W.2d
1035, 284 Ky. 796.
Mo.— Sisk v. Wilkinson, 265 S.W. 536,
305 Mo. 328 — Row v. Cape Girar-
deau Foundry Co., App., 141 S.W.
2d 113 — Inter-River Drainage Dist.
of Missouri v. Henson, App., 99 S.
W.2d 865 — State ex rel. Gregory v.
Henderson, 88 S.W.2d 893, 230 Mo.
App. 1 — Mississippi and Fox River
Drainage Dist. of Clark County v.
Ruddick, 64 S.W.2d 306, 228 Mo.
App. 1143.
Mont. — State ex rel. Enochs v. Dis-
trict Court of Fourth Judicial Dist
in and for Missoula County, 123 P.
2d 971, 113 Mont. 227.
Neb.— Exchange Elevator Co. v.
Marshall. 22 N.W.2d 403.
Tex. — Wixom v. Bowers, Civ.App.,
152 S.W.2d 896, error refused-
Jordan v. Texas Pac. Coal £ Oil
Co., Civ.App., 152 S.W.2d 875, error
refused — Laney v. Cline, Civ.App.,
150 S.W.2d 176— Childers v. John-
son, Civ.App., 143 S.W.2d 123—
Harvey v. Wichita Nat. Bank,
Civ.App., 113 S.W.2d 1022— Dallas
Joint Stock Land Bank of Dallas
v. Street, Civ.App., 76 S.W.2d 780,
error refused, followed Street v.
Dallas Joint Stock Land Bank of
Dallas, 84 S.W.2d 1119— Bearden
v. Texas Co., Civ.App., 41 S.W.2d
447, affirmed, Com. App., 60 S.W.2d
1031— Duke v. Gilbreath, Civ,App.,
2 S.W.Sd 324, error dismissed —
Cockrell v. Steffens, Civ.App., 284
S.W. 60S— Texas Pacific Coal & Oil
Co. v. Ames, Civ.App., 284 S.W.
315, reversed on other grounds.
Com.App., 292 S.W. 191.
Utah.— IntermiJl v. Xash, 75 P.2d
157, 94 Utah 271.
Wash. — Thompson v. Short, 106 P.
2d 720, 6 Washed 71— Globe Const.
Co. v. Tost, 13 P.2d 433, 169 Wash.
319.
Ya, — Broyhill v. Dawson, 191 S.E.
779, 168 Va. 321.
34 C.J. p 549 note 33.
Rules excluding extrinsic evidence
to impeach or contradict Judicial
record in general see Evidence §§
865-875.
Evidence without pleading- and
without su"bgtanoe is unavailing to
prove that docket entries showing
service on litigant of process in a
prior proceeding were irregular or
fraudulent so as to relieve' litigant
of binding effect of former judgment.
—Davis v. Tuggle's Adm'r, 178 S.W.
2d 979, 297 Ky. 376.
judgment in favor of employee for
damages sustained during employ-
ment cannot be collaterally attacked
on ground of lack of court's jurisdic-
tion by extraneous evidence, even
though such evidence might con-
ceivably have shown an injury com-
pensable under workmen's compen-
sation law. — Row v. Cape Girardeau
Foundry Co., Mo.App., 141 S.W.2d
113.
846
Nonresident
Where judgment foreclosing an
equitable lien against defendant's
interest in land recited that defend-
ant was personally served with non-
resident notice as prescribed by stat-
ute, that the sheriff's return on the
order of sale had been duly made,
and that a notice of such sale had
been mailed to defendant, defendant
could not go behind recitals in judg-
ment by attempting to prove in sub-
sequent trespass to try title suit
that he was a nonresident at time
of rendition of Judgment or that he
was not physically in the state on
that date or that the service speci-
fied in the judgment was not legal.
— Bemis v. Bayou Development Co..
Tex.Civ.App., 184 S.W.2d 645, error
refused. Certiorari denied Bemis v.
Humble Oil & Refining Co., 66 S.Ct.
43.
Personal Judgment against nonresi-
dent
Rule that, in collateral proceeding,
inquiry cannot be made into facts
dehors the record for purpose of
showing invalidity of Judgment has
been held not operative to support
personal judgment against nonresi-
dent of state which was rendered
without personal service within the
state.— Hicks v. Sias, Tex.Civ.App.,
102 S.W.2d 460, error refused.
Pleading and evidence
A judgment record which showed
that a matter was submitted to
court on pleadings and evidence
could not be impeached in a collat-
eral proceeding to enforce the judg-
ment by parol evidence that judg-
ment was taken without proof being
offered;— Exchange Elevator Co. v.
Marshall, Neb., 22 N.W.2d 403.
Entry on appearance docket
The presumption arising from a
recital in a decree that defendant
had been duly served with notice,
where supported only by an entry
on the appearance docket, no return
of service being found in the files,
is overcome by defendant's posi-
tive testimony that no notice was
served on him and the testimony
of the sheriff by whom the service
was supposed to have been made
that he had no recollection of mak-
ing it. — Shehan v. Stuart, 90 N.W.
614, 117 Iowa 207.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 426
it.82 Under this rule evidence aliunde is not ad-
missible for the purpose of showing lack of proper
service of process on defendant83 or as to any fact
on which the court must have passed in rendering
the judgment.84 By some decisions, however, it
has been held that a record does not import uncon-
trollable verity when want of jurisdiction is alleged,
and that it is permissible in a collateral proceeding
to controvert the recitals of the record on this point
by evidence aliunde,85 except where jurisdiction de-
pends on a litigated fact adjudged in favor of the
party averring jurisdiction.86
Contradiction by record. In accordance with the
rule precluding the consideration of extrinsic evi-
dence, the judgment itself together with other parts
of the record which affirmatively show want of ju-
risdiction are ordinarily the only matters of evi-
dence that may be considered to collaterally con-
tradict and impeach the judgment,87 and the col-
lateral attack will not be sustained where the only
part of the record offered in evidence shows noth-
ing to indicate the invalidity of the judgment.88
It is open to a party to contest the alleged jurisdic-
tion by producing other parts of the recorder judg-
ment roll, which contradict the recitals of service of
process or of other jurisdictional facts in the judg-
ment,89 as, by producing the original writ or the
return on it, which in case of conflict will control
the recitals- of the judgment,90 although the en-
deavor will always be made to reconcile apparent
82. U.S. — Bennett v. Hunter, C.C.A.
Kan., 155 P.2d 223 — Thomas v.
Hunter, C.C.A.Kan., 153 P.2d 834.
Mo. — Mississippi and Pox River
Drainage Dist. of Clark County v.
Ruddick, 64 S.W.2d 306, 228 Mo.
App. 1143 — Corpus Juris cited in
Aufderheide v. Aufderheide, App.,
18 S.W.2d 119, 120.
YT.Va.— Central District & Printing
Telegraph Co. v. Parkersburg &
O. V. B. R. Co., 85 S.B. 65, 76 W.
Va. 120.
Fraud as ground for collateral at-
tack generally see infra § 434.
83. Ark. — Weeks v. Arkansas Club,
145 S.W.2d 788, 201 Ark. 423.
Cal.— Peig v. Bank of Italy Nat.
Trust & Savings Ass'n, 21 P.2d
421, 218 Cal. 54.
Ky.— Hall v. Bates, 77 S.W.2d 403,
257 Ky. 61.
Mich. — Garey v. Morley Bros., 209
N.W. 116, 234 Mich. «75.
Minn. — Miller v. Ahneman, 235 N.W.
622, 183 Minn. 12.
Tex. — Rhoads v. Daly General Agen-
cy, Civ.App., 152 S.W.2d 461, error
refused — Childers v. Johnson, Civ.
App., 143 S.W.2d 123— Simms Oil
Co. v. Butcher, Civ.App., 55 S.W.2d
192, error dismissed — Bonougli v.
Guerra, Civ.App., 286 S.W. 344.
W.Va.— Williams v. Monico, 132 S.B.
652, 101 W.Va. 304.
34 C.J. p 549 note 33.
Citation not admissible
Where judgment recited that de-
fendant was personally served in
terms of law with citation command-
ing him to appear and answer, but
that he neither appeared nor filed an
answer, and wholly defaulted, reci-
tation of service of citation could not
be impeached in subsequent pro-
ceedings by the introduction of ci-
tation in evidence. — Williams v. Cole-
man-Pulton Pasture Co., Tex.Civ.
App., 157 S.W.2d 995, error refused.
84. Tex. — Crowley v. Redmond, 41 S.
W.2d 274, 123 Tex. 315 — Stewart
Oil Co. v. Lee, Civ.App., 173 S.W.
2d 791, error refused — Simms Oil
Co. v. Butcher, Civ.App., 55 S.W.2d
192, error dismissed — Kreis v.
Kreis, Civ.App., 36 S.W.2d 821. er-
ror dismissed.
Bnla not applicable
In suit to enforce judgment
against apparent surety on super-
sedeas bond, judgment could be col-
laterally attacked on ground that ap-
parent surety's signature to bond
was forged, and fact of forgery es-
tablished by evidence aliunde rec-
ord, since no inquiry was made as
to the genuineness of the signature,
and the matter of jurisdiction was
not adjudicated. — Simms Oil Co. v.
Butcher, Tex.Civ.App., 55 S.W.2d 192,
error dismissed.
85. N.Y.— Shea v. Shea. 60 N.Y.S.2d
823, 270 App.Div. 527. appeal
granted 62 N.Y.S.2d 618, 270 App.
Div. 906— MacAffer v. Boston & M.
R. R., 273 N.Y.S. 679, 242 App.Div.
140, affirmed 197 N.B. 328, 268
N.Y. 400 — Standish v. Standish, 40
N.Y.S.2d -538, 179 Misc. 564— Pin-
kelstein v. William H. Block Co.,
208 N.Y.S. 401, 124 Misc. 610.
34 C.J. p 547 note 21, p 550 note 35.
86. N.Y. — O'Donoghue v. Boies, 53
N.B. 537, 159 N.Y. 87— Shea v.
Shea, 60 N.Y.S.2d 823, 270 App.
Div. 527. appeal granted 62 N.Y.S.
2d 618, 270 App.Div. 906 — MacAffer
v. Boston & M. R. R., 273 N.Y.S.
679, 242 AppJMv. 140, affirmed 197
N.E. 328, 268 N.Y. 400.
Conclusiveness of decision of court
as to its own jurisdiction gener-
ally see infra § 427.
87. Cal. — Burrows v. Burrows, 52 P.
2d 606, 10 Cal.App.2d 749.
Mo.— Linville v. Ripley, 146 S.W.2d
581, 347 Mo. 95 — Sisk v. Wilkinson,
265 S.W. 536, 305 Mo. 328— Row v.
Cape Girardeau Foundry Co., App.,
141 S.W.2d 113— State ex rel. Na-
tional Lead Co. v. Smith, App., 134
S.W.2d 1061— Inter-River Drainage
Dist. of Missouri v. Hensoru App.,
99 S.W.2d 865.
847
Necessity of want of jurisdiction af-
firmatively appearing on face of
record generally see supra § 425 a
(1).
88. Utah.— Intermill v. Nash, 75 P.
2d 157, 94 Utah 291.
Entire record considered
In determining whether court had
jurisdiction, the whole record must
be inspected, and, if the judgment it-
self recites service but the return
found shows no service or a service
which is insufficient or unauthorized
by law, the judgment is void. Such
a recital in the judgment is deemed
to refer to the kind of service shown
in other parts of the record, and
must be read in connection with that
part of the record which sets forth
the proof of service; and It is pre-
sumed that the service found in the
record is the same and the only
service referred to in the general
recital in the judgment, and that the
court acted on the service appear-
ing in the record. — Powell v. Turpin,
29 S.B.2d 26, 224 N.C. 67.
89. Mo.— Linville v. Ripley, 146 S.
W.2d 581, 347 Mo. 95— Sisk v. Wil-
kinson, 265 S.W. 536, 305 Mo. 328—
Inter-River Drainage Dist. of Mis-
souri v. Henson, App., 99 S.W.2d
865 — General Motors Acceptance
Corporation v. Lyman, 78 S.W.2d
109, 229 Mo.App. 455.
N.Y.— Shea v. Shea, 60 N.Y.S.2d 823,
270 App.Div. 527, appeal granted
62 N.Y.S.2d 618, 270 App.Div. 906
—Standish v. Standish, 40 N.Y.S.
2d 538, 179 Misc. 564.
N.C.— Powell v. Turpin, 29 S.B.2d 26,
224 N.C. 67.
Ohio. — Hinman v. Executive Commit-
tee of Communistic Party of U. S.
A.. 47 N.B.2d 820, 71 Ohio App. 76
— In re Prankenberg*s Bstate, 47
N.E.2d 239, 70 Ohio App. 495.
34 C.J. p 550 note 36.
90. Colo. — Ernst v. Colburn, 268 P.
576, 84 Colo. 170.
III. — Town of Hutton v. Ingram, 255
IlLApp. 97 — People ex rel. Com'rs
§ 426
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
inconsistencies by construction, or by the aid of
presumptions.91 It has been held, however, that
i£ the judgment contains satisfactory recitals of ju-
risdictional facts such recitals are controlling on
the question of jurisdiction and the remainder of
the record may not be considered,92 and that it is
only when the judgment is silent or ambiguous as
to jurisdictional facts that other parts of the record
may be considered in determining whether the judg-
ment is void for want of jurisdiction.93
c. Recitals Showing Want of Jurisdiction
Where the facts recited in the record, on which the
court assumes Jurisdiction, are not such, as would in
law confer jurisdiction, the presumption of regularity
and validity does not apply and the Judgment may be
collaterally impeached.
Where the facts on which a court assumes juris-
diction are recited in the record, and appear by it
to have been such as would not in law confer ju-
risdiction, the judgment may be impeached collater-
ally, for in such a case there can be no presump-
tion, in aid of the regularity and validity of the
judgment, that the recitals of the record are incor-
rect or incomplete,94 or that something was done
which the record does not show to have been
done,95 the whole record being taken together for
this purpose.96 This rule applies where the rec-
ord affirmatively shows the absence of conditions
necessary to give the court jurisdiction97 or that
of North Fork Outlet Drainage
Dist. v. Schwartz, 244 IlLApp. 1ST.
34 C.J. p 550 note 37.
91. W.Va.— Point Pleasant v. Green-
lee, 60 S.B. 601, 63 W.Va. 207, 212,
129 Am.S.R, 971.
34 C.J. p 551 note 38.
92. Tex. — Watson v. Rochmill, 155
S.W.2d 783, 137 Tex. 565, 137 A.L.
R. 1032 — Martin v. Burns, 16 S.W.
1072, 80 Tex. 676 — Chapman v.
Kellogg. Com.App., 252 S.W. 151
— Smith v. Walker, Civ.App., 163
S.W.2d 857, error refused— Litton
v. Waters, Civ.App., 161 S.W.2d
1095, error refused — Williams v.
Colenmn-Fulton Pasture Co., Civ.
App., 157 S.W.2d 995, error refused
— Laney v. Cline, Civ.App., 150
S.W.2d 176, error dismissed, judg-
ment correct — Watson v. Rochmill,
Civ.App., 134 S.W.2d 710, modified
on other grounds 155 S.W.2d 783,
137 Tex. 565, 137 A.L.R. 1032 —
Smith v. Burns, Civ.App., 107 S.W.
2d 397 — Henry v. Beauchamp, Civ.
App., 39 S.W.2d 642.
Xesort may "be had to former
pleading's only when a judgment col-
laterally attacked is ambiguous and
not complete within itself. — Stewart
Oil Co. v. Lee, Tex.Civ.App., 173 S.
W.2d 791, error refused.
93. Tex.— Litton v. Waters, Civ.
App., 161 S.W.2d 1095, error re-
fused— Pumphrey v. Hunter, Civ.
App., 270 S.W. 237.
The "record" in such a case in-
cludes the pleadings of the parties
and the processes by which defend-
ant was brought into court. — Scruggs
v. Gribble, Tex.Civ.App., 41 S.W.2d
643.
9^ US.— Butler v. McKey, C.C.A.
Cal., 138 F.2d 373, certiorari de-
nied 64 S.CL 636, 321 U.S. 780,
88 L.Bd. 1073.
Ariz. — Brecht v. Hammons, 278 P.
381, 35 Ariz. 383.
Cal.— Rogers v. Cady, 38 P. 81, 104
CaL 288, 43 Am.S.R. 100 — In re
Prowenfeld, 40 P.2d 552. 3 CaLApp.
24 678.
Colo. — In re Zupancis' Heirship, 111
P.2d 1063, 107 Colo. 323— Kavanagh
v. Hamilton, 125 P. 512, 53 Colo.
157, Ann.Cas.l914B 76.
Fla.— Fisher v. Guidy, 142 So. 818,
106 Fla. 94.
111.— Sharp v. Sharp, 164 N.E. 685,
333 111. 267.
Miss. — Corpus Juris cited in P.mden-
tial Ins. Co. v. Gleason, 187 So.
229, 233.
Mo.— Ray v. Ray, 50 S.W.2d 142, 330
Mo. 530.
Mont. — Corpus Juris quoted in West
v. Capital Trust & Savings Bank,
124 P.2d 572, 575, 113 Mont. 130.
N.D. — Zimmerman v. Boynton, 229
N.W. 3, 59 N.D. 112.
Ohio.— Terry v. Claypool, 65 N.E.2d
883, 77 Ohio App. 77— Wainscott v.
Young. 59 N.E.2d 609, 74 Ohio App.
463 — Union Ice Corporation v. City
of Niles, 13 Ohio Supp. 115.
S.C. — Corpus Juris quoted in Cannon
v. Haverty Furniture Co., 183 S.B.
469, 477, 179 S.C. 1. '
Tex. — Bragdon v. Wright, Civ.App.,
142 S.W.2d 703, error dismissed —
Tire Finance Corporation v. Ilift,
Civ.App., 129 S.W.2d 1208— Scruggs
v. Gribble, Civ.App., 41 S.W.2d 643
— State Mortg. Corporation v. Af-
fleck, Civ.App., 27 S.W.2d 548, re-
versed on other grounds, Com.App.,
51 S.W.2d 274— Scruggs v. Gribble,
Civ.App., 17 S.W.2d 153 — Pumphrey
v. Hunter. Civ.App., 270 S.W. 237.
Utah.— Intermill v. Nash, 75 P.2d
157, 94 Utah 271.
34 C.J. p 551 note 39.
Not showing1 or negativing jurisdic-
tion
Where a judgment* undertaking to
recite process or facts on which
jurisdiction of court is based, does
not show jurisdiction or negative
it, judgment is void on its face. —
Pumphrey v. Hunter,. Tex.Civ.App.,
270 S.W. 237.
AM tantamount to proving Judgment
Where the- recitals in a judgment
and the record proper show a judg-
ment to be defective, showing the
848
judgment to be defective by intro-
ducing the judgment and the record
proper, this is tantamount only to
proving what the judgment itself
shows, and is not prohibited as a
collateral attack." — State ex rel.
National Lead Co. v. Smith, Mo.App.,
134 S.W.2d 1061.
Objection to record
If it affirmatively appears from
record of probate court itself, either
that court did not have jurisdiction
of subject matter or of person, in
case where such is required, or that
jurisdiction did not attach in a
particular case, jurisdictional ques-
tion can be raised on objection to
the record when offered in evidence
in another proceeding, and no affirm-
ative proceeding need be prosecuted
to vacate judgment. — Buss v. Smith,
Civ.App., 125 S.W.2d 712, affirmed
Smith v. Buss, 144 S.W.2d 529, 135
Tex. 566.
95. Mont.— West v. Capital Trust &
Savings Bank, 124 P.2d 572, 575,
113 Mont. 130.
Okl. — Gallaghar v. Petree, 230 P.
477, 103 Okl. 295.
S.C. — Corpus Juris quoted in Cannon
v. Haverty Furniture Co., 183 S.E.
469, 477, 179 S.C. 1.
34 C.J. p 551 note 40.
96. 111.— Sharp v. Sharp, 164 N.E.
685, 333 111. 267.
Mont.— West v. Capital Trust & Sav-
ings Bank, 124 P.2d 572, 575, 113
Mont. 130.
S.C. — Cannon v. Haverty Furniture
Co., 183 S.B. 469, 477, 179 S.C. 1.
Tex. — Henry v. Beauchamp, Civ.App.,
39 S.W.2d 642, followed in Henry
v. Carter, 39 S.W.2d 645.
34 C.J. p 551 note 41.
Petition, "bill, answer, and decree in-
cluded in record
I1L— Sharp v. Sharp, 164 N.B. 6S5,
333 111. 267.
97. Ohio. — Wainscott v. Toung, 59
N.B.2d 609, 74 Ohio App. 463.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 427
the court did not have authority to grant the par-
ticular judgment98 Although the judgment recites
that defendant was duly served with process, if
the record shows that no service was made," or
shows a service which is insufficient and unauthor-
ized by law,1 the judgment may be collaterally im-
peached.
§ 427. Decision of Court as to Its Own
Jurisdiction
The decision of a court, of either general or limited
jurisdiction, as to the fact of its Jurisdiction of a case
generally is not subject to collateral attack unless It is
in irreconcilable conflict with facts otherwise disclosed
by the record of the proceedings.
Where a court of general jurisdiction judicially
considers and adjudicates the question of its juris-
diction, and decides that the facts exist which are
necessary to give it jurisdiction of the case, the find-
ing is conclusive, as discussed in Courts §115, and
generally cannot be controverted in a collateral pro-
ceeding,2 even though the decision or finding as to
jurisdiction was erroneous,3 and although the
98. Mo. — State ex rel. National Lead
Co. v. Smith, App., 134 S.W.2d
1061.
Okl.— Sims v. Billings, 18 P.2d 1084,
162 Okl. 51— Appeal of Sims' Es-
tate, 18 P.2d 1077, 162 Okl. 35—
Cummings v. Inman, 247 P. 379,
119 Okl. 9— Dill v. Anderson, 256
P. 31, 124 Okl. 299.
Tex. — Milner v. Gatlin, Com. App., 261
S.W. 1003.
99. Ala. — Guy v. Pridgen & Holman,
118 So. 229, 22 Ala.App. 595.
Ark. — Union Inv. Co. v. Hunt, 59 S.
W.2d 1039, 187 Ark. 357.
Mont.— West v. Capital Trust & Sav-
ings Bank, 124 P.2d 572, 575, 113
Mont. 130.
N.C.— Dunn v. Wilson, 187 S.E. 802,
210 N.C. 493.
S.C. — Cannon v. Haverty Furniture
Co., 183 S.E. 469, 179 S.C. 1.
Wash. — Columbia Basin Land Co. v.
Peters C. Chalmers Co., 218 P. 217,
126 Wash. 307.
34 C.J. p 552 note 42.
Record in case of failure of judg-
ment to recite service must consti-
tute sole evidence, If any, of want
of service and consequent invalidity
of judgment. — Henry v. Beauchamp,
Tex.Civ.App., 39 S.W.2d 642, followed
in Henry v. Carter, 39 S.W.2d 645.
Copy of affidavit
Failure to serve on defendant copy
of plaintiffs controverting affidavit
to plea of privilege rendered judg-
ment void without reference to re-
citals in judgment. — Scruggs v. Grib-
ble, Tex.Civ.App., 41 S.W.2d 643.
1. Cal.— Steuri v. Junkin, 82 P.2d 34,
27 Cal.App.2d 758.
III.— Sharp v. Sharp, 164 N.B. 686,
333 HI. 267.
S,C. — Cannon v. Haverty Furniture
Co., 183 S.B. 469, 477, 179 S.C. 1.
S.D.— Illinois Trust & Savings Bank
v. Town of Roscoe, 194 N.W. 649,
46 S.D. 477.
34 C.J. p 552 note 43.
8. U.S. — Stoll v. Gottlieb, 111., 59
S.Ct. 134, 305 U.S. 165, 83 L.Ed.
104, rehearing denied 59 S.Ct 250,
305 U.S. 675, 83 L.Ed. 437— Bald-
win v, Iowa State Traveling Men's
Ass'n, Iowa, 51 S.Ct. 617, 283 U.
S. 522, 75 L.Ed. 1244— Davis v.
Johnston, C.C.A.GaL, 144 F.2d 862,
49C.J.S.-64
certiorari denied 65 S.Ct. 311, 323
U.S. 789, 89 L.Bd. 629, rehearing
denied 65 S.Ct. 558, 323 U.S. 819,
89 L.Bd. 650— Walling v. Miller,
C.C.A.Minn., 138 F.2d 629, certio-
rari denied 64 S.Ct. 781, 321 U.S.
784, 88 L.Bd. 1076— Burgess v.
Nail, C.C.A.I11., 103 F.2d 37— Rus-
sell v. U. S., C.C.A.Minn., 86 F.2d
389 — Greene v. Uniacke, C.C.A.Fla.,
46 F.2d 916, certiorari denied 51
S.Ct. 493, 283 U.S. 847, 75 L.Bd.
1455 — Corpus Juris quoted in Mc-
Combs v. West, D.C.Fla., 63 F.
Supp. 469, affirmed, C.C.A., 155 F.
2d 601 — Nicolson v. Citizens &
Southern Nat. Bank, D.C.Ga., 50 F.
Supp. 92.
Ariz. — Brecht v. Hammons, 278 P.
381, 35 Ariz. 383.
Cal. — Ex parte Tassey, 253 P. 948,
81 Cal. App. 287.
Ga. — Thomas v. Lambert, 1 S.B.2d
443, 187 Ga. 616.
Iowa.— Watt v. Dunn, 17 N.W.2d 811.
Ky. — Corpus Juris quoted in Pendle-
ton County Board of Education v.
Simpson, 91 S.W.2d 557, 560, 262
Ky. 844.
Miss. — Corpus Juris cited in Pruden-
tial Ins. Co. v. Gleason, 187 So.
nnn ooo
«Z9, loo.
Mo. — State, on Inf. Gentry, v. Toliv-
er, 287 S.W. 312, 315 Mo. 737—
'State ex rel. Compagnie Generale
Transatlantique y. Falkenhainer,
274 S.W. 758, 309 Mo. 224.
N.Y. — Battalico v. Knickerbocker
Fireprooflng Co., 294 N.Y.S. 481,
• 250 App.Div. 258— Nankivel v.
Omsk All Russian Government, 197
N.Y.S. 467, 203 App.Div. 740, re-
versed on other grounds 142 N.B.
569, 237 N.Y. 150— Keating v. Equi-
table Surety Co. of New York, 235
N.Y.S. 281, 134 Misc. 491— People
ex rel. Davis v. Jennings, 232 N.
Y.S. 603, 133 Misc. 538— Finkelstein
v. William H. Block Co., 208 N.Y.S.
401, 124 Misc. 610— Eastman Kodak
Co. v. Richards, 204 N.Y.S. 246, 123
Misc. 83 — People v. Harmor, 57 N.
Y.S.2d 402.
Ohio. — Busse & Borgmann Co. v. Up-
church, 21 N.B.2d 349, 60 Ohio App.
349.
Okl. — Corpus Juris cited in Fitzsim-
mons v. Oklahoma City, 135 P.2d
340, 342, 192 Okl. 248— Winter v.
849
Klein-Schultz, 76 P.2d 1051, 182
Okl. 231— Foshee v. Craig, 237 P.
78, 110 Okl. 189.
Pa. — Askew v. S; C. Loveland Co., 9
PaJDist. & Co. 635.
Tex. — Highland Farms Corporation
v. Fidelity Trust Co., of Houston,
82 S.W.2d 627, 125 Tex. 474— Man-
ry v. McCall, Civ.App., 22 S.W.2d
348.
Va. — Kiser v. W. M. Ritter Lumber
Co., 18 S.E.2d 319, 179 Va. 128.
W.Va. — Corpus Juris quoted in Bell
v. Brown, 182 S.E. 579, 580, 116 W.
Va. 484.
34 C.J. p 552 note 44.
Judgment against municipality with-
in rule
Okl.— Mid-Continent Pipe Line Co. v.
Seminole County Excise Board,
146 P.2d 996, 194 Okl. 40.
Consent to judgment
Judge's finding set out in judg-
ment, that consent was given to en-
ter judgment out of term and out of
district, is binding in absence of
fraud.— Killian v. Maiden Chair Co.,
161 S.B. 546, 202 N.C. 23.
Jurisdiction over subject matter
Where a court has jurisdiction
over the parties and determines that
it has jurisdiction over the subject
matter, parties cannot collaterally
attack judgment on ground that
court did not have jurisdiction over
subject matter. — Peri v. Groves, 50
N.Y.S.2d 300, 183 Misc. 579.
Where record shows evidence on
which court acted in determining
jurisdiction, no presumption of juris-
diction as to prior judgment can be
considered. — Sharp v. Sharp, 164 N.
E. 685, 333 111. 267.
3. U.S.— Nye v. U. S., C.C.A.N.C.,
137 F.2d 73, certiorari denied 64
S.Ct. 62, 320 U.S. 755, 88 L.Bd.
449— National park Bank v. Mc-
Kibben & Co., D.CGa., 43 F.2d
254.
N.Y. — People v. Harmor, 57 N.Y.S.
2d 402.
Tex. — Farmers' Nat. Bank of Ste-
phensville v. Daggett, Com.App., 2
S,W.2d 834.
Va.— Kiser v. W, M. Ritter Lum-
ber Co., 18 S.B.2d 319, 179 Va.
128.
§ 427
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
ground on which the decision was rested has sub-
sequently been overruled.4 A judgment is not sub-
ject to collateral attack, where it is rendered un-
der a decision of the court that it has jurisdiction,
based on a special as well as a general appearance,5
or on a writ or notice which, although defective, or
the service of which was irregular or informal, has
been adjudged sufficient,6 or on service of process
by publication.7 However, a collateral attack may
be made on such decision where it is in irreconcila-
ble conflict with facts otherwise disclosed by the
record of the proceedings,8 or where the facts are
admitted in the pleadings, or agreed on, and the
court's determination is based on an error of law
arising out of such state of facts.9
Where general jurisdiction over a particular class
of cases is conferred on a certain tribunal, its deci-
sion on the facts essential to its jurisdiction in a
case belonging to that class is generally not subject
to a collateral attack,10 as in the case of courts of
the United States11 and probate courts.12
Court or tribunal of inferior or limited jurisdic-
tion. The rule is not confined to courts of general
jurisdiction, but it has been held that if an inferior
court or one of limited jurisdiction is charged with
the ascertainment of a jurisdictional fact, and its
proceedings show that the fact was ascertained, the
finding cannot be collaterally attacked13 unless want
of jurisdiction is apparent on the face of the rec-
ord.1*
Error in exercise of jurisdiction see
supra § 19.
Error in determination of ques-
tions of law or fact on which the
court's jurisdiction in particular case
depends, the court having general
Jurisdiction of the cause and of the
person, is "error in exercise of juris-
diction" and affords no ground for
collateral attack. — Burgess v. Nail,
C.C.A.OU., 103 F.2d 37.
4. U.S.— Ripperger v. A. C. Allyn &
Co., C.C.A.N.Y., 113 F.2d 332, cer-
tiorari denied 61 S.Ct 136, 311 U.
S. 695, 85 L.Ed. 450.
5. N.Y.— Peri v. Groves, 50 N.Y.S.
2d 300. 183 Misc. 579.
6. U.S. — Pen-Ken Gas & Oil Corpo-
ration v. Warfleld Natural Gas
Co., C.C.A.Ky., 137 F.2d 871.
Iowa. — Giberson v. Henness, 258 N.
W. 708, 219 Iowa 859.
XT.— Keating v. Equitable Surety
Co. of New York, 235 N.Y.S. 281,
134 Misc. 491.
<U C.J. p 553 note 46.
Admissibility of evidence
Where a judgment determining
that court had jurisdiction of person
of foreign corporation is not subject
to collateral attack, evidence im-
peaching sheriff's return and contra-
dicting recitals in record is inad-
missible.— Ellis v. Starr Piano Co., 49
S.W.2d 1078, 226 Mo.App. 1209.
7. Fla.— Catlett v. Chestnut, 146 So.
241, 107 Fla. 498, 91 A.L.R. 212.
34 C.J. p 553 note 50.
& U.S. — Corpus Juris quoted in Mc-
Combs v. "West, D.C.Fla., 63 F.
Sujxp. 469, 471, affirmed, C.C.A., 155
F.2d 601.
Va. — Beck v. Semones' Adm'r, 134 S.
E. 677, 145 Va. 429.
W.Va. — Corpus Juris quoted in Bell
r. Brown, 182 S.E. 579, 580, 116 W.
Va. 484.
Wyo.— Boulter v. Cook, 236 P. 245, 32
Wyo. 461.
S4 C.J. p 553 note 45.
of necessary steps to confer
Jurisdiction affirmatively shown by
record. — Quigley v. Cremin, 109 So.
312, reheard 113 So. 892, 194 Fla. 104.
9. Ariz. — Brecht v. Hammons, 278
P. 381, 35 Ariz. 383.
Mo. — State ex rel. Compagnie Ge"n-
Srale Transatlantique r. -Falken-
hainer, 274 S.W. 758, 309 Mo. 224.
Tex. — Highland Farms Corporation v.
Fidelity Trust Co., of Houston, 82
S.W.2d 627, 125 Tex. 474.
10. Ind. — Delphi v. Startzman, 3 N.
E. 937, 104 Ind. 343.
34 C.J. p 553 note 47.
11. U.S. — Young Realty Co. v. Dar-
ling Stores Corporation, C.C.A.N.
Y., 128 F.2d 556 — Sorenson v. Suth-
erland, C.C.A.N.Y., 109 F.2d 714,
affirmed Jackson v. Irving Trust
Co., -61 S.Ct 326, 311 U.S. 494, «5
L.Ed. 297.
34 C.J. p 553 note 43.
Determination of jurisdiction by fed-
eral court see 'Federal Courts §
83 d.
The determinations of lower feder-
al courts regarding whether they
have jurisdiction to entertain cause
cannot be assailed collaterally. —
Chicot County Drainage Dist. v. Bax-
ter State Bank, Ark., -60 S.Ct. 317,
308 U.-S. 371, 84 L.Ed. 329, rehearing
denied 60 S.Ct 581, 309 U.S. 695, 84
L.Ed. 1035.
A collateral attack on district
court foreclosure judgment cannot
be sustained unless the record on
its face shows that requisite divers-
ity of citizenship to sustain federal
jurisdiction did not and could not ex-
ist and that court did not find and
adjudicate that it had jurisdiction.—
Bostwick v. Baldwin Drainage Dist.,
C.C.A.Fla., 133 F.2d 1, certiorari de-
nied 63 S.Ct. 1030, 319 U.S. 742, 87 L.
Ed. 1699.
12. Ala. — Gray son v. Schwab, 179
So. 377, 380, 235 Ala, 398.
Mo.— Baker v. Smith's Estate, 18 S.
W.2d 147, 223 Mo.App. 1234, 226
Mo.App. 510.
850
N.Y. — Lapiedra v. American Surety
Co., 159 N.E. 710, 247 App.Div. 25.
34 C.J. p 553 note 49.
Determination of jurisdiction by pro-
bate court see Courts § 305.
13. U.S. — Noble v. Union River Log-
ging Co., D.C., 13 S.Ct. 871, 147 U.
•S. 165, 37 L.Ed. 123.
Ala. — Corpus Juris cited in Grayson
r. Schwab, 179 So. 377, 380, 235
Ala, 398.
Fla. — State ex rel. Everette v. Pette-
way, 179 So. 666, 131 Fla. 516—
Corpus Juris quoted in 'Fiehe v. R.
E. Householder Co., 125 So. 2, 11,
98 Fla. 627.
Ind. — Ward v. Board of Com'rs of
Lake County, 157 N.E. 721, 199 Ind.
467— Delphi v. Startzman, 3 N.E.
937, 104 Ind. 343.
Ky.— Corpus Juris quoted in Pendle-
ton County Board of Education v.
Simpson, 91 S.W.2d 557, 560, 262
Ky. 844.
Miss. — Corpus Juris cited in Steph-
enson v. New Orleans & N. E. R.
Co., 177 So. 509, 516, 180 Miss. 147.
Mo. — State ex rel. Dew v. Trimble,
269 -S.W. 61'7, 306 Mo. 657.
N.Y.-— People r. Harxnor, 57 N.Y.S.
2d 402.
W.Va. — Corpus Juris quoted in Ohio
Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. Bal-
lard, 161 S.E. 445, 111 W.Va, 235—
Shank v. Town of Ravens wood, 27
S.B. 223, 43 W.Va. 242.
34 C.J. p 553 note 51.
An executive officer, respecting
rule against collateral attack, acts in
"q.uasi judicial capacity" when re-
quired to pass on facts and deter-
mine his action thereby. — Kirby
Lumber Co. v. Adams, Tex.Civ.App.,
62 S.W.2d 366, modified on other
grounds 93 S.W.2d 382, 127 Tex. 376.
14. Fla. — Corpus Juris guoted in
Fiehe v. R. E. Householder Co., 125
So. 3, 11, 98 Fla, -627.
Ind.— Ward v. Board of Com'rs of
Lake County, 157 N.E. 721, 199 Ind.
467— Baltimore & O. R. Co. v.
•Freeze, 82 N.E. 761, 169 Ind. 370.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 428
§ 428. Errors and Irregularities
A Judgment Is not subject to collateral attack for
errors and Irregularities which do not render the Judg-
ment void.
When jurisdiction has once attached, the court
has a right to decide every question arising in the
case, and errors of judgment or irregularities, how-
ever gross, which do not render the judgment ab-
solutely void, are not available on collateral at-
tack,1^ and, moreover, this rule as to the nonavail-
N.Y. — People v. Harmor, 57 N.T.S.
3d 402.
S.C. — State v. Scott, 17 S.C.L. 294.
W.Va. — Ohio Savings Bank & Trust
Co. v. Ballard, 161 S.E. 445, 111 W.
Va. 235 — Shank v. Town of Ra-
venswood, 27 S.E. 223, 43 W.Va.
242.
15. U.S. — Iselin v. OLa Qoste, C.C.A.
La., 147 F.2d 791— Kelling Nut Co.
v. National Nut Co. of Cal., C.C.
A., 145 F.2d 415, certiorari denied
65 S.Ct. 562, 323 U.S. 802, 89 L.Ed.
640— Walling v. Miller, C.C.A.
Minn., 138 F.2d 629, certiorari de-
nied 64 S.Ct 781, 321 U.S. 784, 88
L.Ed. 1076 — McCampbell v. War-
rich Corporation, C.C.A.I1L, 109 F.
2d 115, certiorari denied 60 <S.Ct.
1077, 310 U.S. 631, 84 Xj.Ed. 1401,
rehearing denied -61 S.Ct. -55, sec-
ond case, 311 U.S. 612, 85 L.Ed. 388,
and 61 S.Ct. 1089, 313 U.S. 599, 85
" L.Ed. 1551— Mudge v. New York
Trust Co., C.C.A.I1L, 103 «F.2d -625
— Corpus Juris cited in. Holley v.
General American 'Life Ins. Co.,
C.C.A.MO., 101 -F.2d 172, 174— In re
7000 South Shore Drive Bldg. Cor-
poration, C.C.A.I1L, 86 F.2d 499—
Seaboard Surety Co. v. U. S., for
Use and Benefit of Marshall-Wells
Co., C.C.A.Idaho, 84 F.2d 348—
State of Missouri ex rel. and to
Use of Stormfeltz v. Title Guaran-
ty & Surety Co., Q.C.A.MO., 72 F.2d
595, certiorari denied Title Guar-
anty & Surety Co. v. State of Mis-
souri ex rel. and to Use of Storm-
feltz, 55 S.Ct. 404, 294 U.S. 708, 79
UEd. 1242 — Schodde v. U. S., C.C.
A.Idaho, 69 F.2d 866 — Johnson v.
Manhattan Ry. Co., C.C.A.N.Y., 61
<F.2d 934, affirmed in part 53 S.Ct.
721, 289 U.S. 479, 77 L.Ed. 1331—
Owens v. Battenfleld, C.C.A.Okl., 33
F.2d 753, certiorari denied 50 S.Ct
88, 280 U.S. 605, 74 L.Ed. 649—
Lolita Holding Co. v. Aronson &
Co., C.C.A.Cal., 28 F.2d 869, certio-
rari denied 49 S.Ct 482, 279 U.S.
868, 73 L.Ed. 1005— Prichard v.
Nelson, D.C.Va., 55 F.Supp. 506 —
Rheinberger v. Security Life Ins.
Co. of America, D.C.I11., 51 'F.Supp.
188, cause remanded, C.C.A., 146 F.
2d 680 — U. S. v. U. S. Fidelity &
Guaranty Co., D.C.OkL, 24 F.Supp.
$61, modified on other grounds, C.
C.A., 106 F.2d 804, reversed on oth-
er grounds 60 S.Ct 653, 309 U.S.
506, 84 .L.Ed -394.
Ala.— Corpus Juris cited in Cobbs v.
Nonrille, 151 So. 576, 577, 227 Ala.
621— Hill v. Hooper, 110 -So. 323,
21 AUuApp. 584.
Ariz. — Wahl v. Hound Valley Bank,
300 P. 955, 38 Ariz. 411 — Corpus
Juris cited in Western 'Land &
Cattle Co. v. National Bank of Ari-
zona at Phoenix, 239 P. 299, 300,
29 Ariz. 51.
Ark.— Person v. Miller Levee Dist.,
No. 2, 150 S.W.M 950, 202 Ark. 173
—Allison v. Bush, 144 S.W.2d 10-87,
201 Ark. 315— Ex parte O'Neal, 87
S.W.2d 401, 191 Ark. 696.
Cal.— Wells -Fargo & Co. v. City and
County of San Francisco, 152 P.2d
625, 25 Cal.2d 37—San Diego Trust
& Savings Bank v. Young, 119 P.2d
133, 19 Cal.2d 98— In re Keet's Es-
tate, 100 P.2d 1045, 15 Cal.2d 328—
Gray v. Hall, 2-65 P. 246, 203 Cal.
306— Marvin v. Marvin, 116 P.2d
151, 46 Cal.App.2d 551— People v.
Spivey, 77 P.2d 247, 25 Cal.App.2d
279— Christy v. Dra-peau, 71 P.2d
940, 22 Cal.App.2d 582— Ex parte
Sargen, 27 P.2d 407, 135 CaLApp.
402— Associated Oil Co. v. Mullin,
294 P. 421, 110 CaLApp. 385.
D.C.— Hodge v. Huff, 140 F.2d 686,
78 U.S.App.D.C. 329, certiorari de-
nied 64 S.Ct. 946, 322 U.S. 733, 88
L.Ed. 1567— Fishel v. Kite, 101 F.
2d 685, 69 App.D.C. 360, certiorari
denied Kite v. 'Fishel, 59 -S.Ct. 645,
306 U.S. 656, 83 L.Ed. 1054— Scholl
V. Tibbs, Mun.App., 36 A.2d 352.
Fla. — Skipper v. Schumacher, 169 So.
58, 124 Fla. 384, appeal dismissed
and certiorari denied -57 S.Ct 39,
299 U.S. 507, 81 L.Ed. 376— Ryan's
Furniture Exchange v. McNair, 162
So. 433, 120 Fla. 109— Palm Beach
Estates, v. Croker, 152 So. 416, 111
•Fla. 671— Fidelity & Deposit Co. of
Maryland v. Hogan, 135 So. 825,
102 Fla. 196 — Cragin v. Ocean &
Lake Realty Co., 133 So. 569, 101
Fla. 1324, followed in Mabson v.
Christ, 134 So. 43, rehearing denied
140 So. 671, 104 Fla. 606, and af-
firmed Cragin v. Ocean & Lake
Realty Co., 135 So. 795, 101 Fla.
1324, appeal dismissed Girard
Trust Co. v. Ocean & Lake Realty
Co., 52 S.Ct. 494, 286 U.S. 523, 7-6
L.Bd. 126-7— Merchants' & Me-
chanics' Bank v. Sample, 125 So. 1.
98 'Fla. 759.
Ga.— Gray v. Riley, 170 S.E. 537, 47
Ga.App. 348.
Idaho. — U. S. Building & Loan Ass'n
v. Soule, 68 P.2d 40, 57 Idaho 691—
Peterson v. Hague, 4 P.2d 350, 51
Idaho 175.
HI.— Walton v. Albers, 44 N.B.2d 145,
380 111. 423— People ex rel. Court-
ney v. Fardy, 39 N.E.2d 7, 378 111.
501— Baker v. Brown, 23 N.E.2d
710, 372 111. 336— People ex rel,
Anderson v. Village of Bradley, 11*
851
N.E.2d 415, 367 111. 301— Knaus v.
Chicago Title & Trust Co., 7 N.E.
2d 298, 365 111. 588— Woodward v.
Ruel, 188 N.B. 911, 355 111. 163—
Chicago Title & Trust Co. v. Mack,
180 N.E. 412, 347 111. 480— Gens-
linger v. New Illinois Athletic Club
of Chicago, 163 N.E. 707, 332 111.
316, transferred, see, 252 IlLApp.
298, reversed on other grounds 171
N.E. 514, 339 111, 426— Eich v.
Czervonko, 161 N.E. 8-64, 330 111.
455, certiorari denied 49 S.Ct. 37,
278 U.S. 642, 73 L.Ed. 557— Grove
V. Kerr, 149 N.E. 517, 318 111. 591
— Wyman v. Hageman, 148 N.E.
852, 31-8 111. 64— East -St. Louis
Lumber Co. v. Schnipper, 141 N.E.
542, 310 111. 150— Finlen v, Skelly,
141 N.E. 388, 310 111. 170— Lem-
mons v. Sims, 61 N.E.2d 764, 326
IlLApp. 460— Davis v. Oliver, 25 N.
E.2d 905, 304 IlLApp. 71, trans-
ferred, see, 20 N.E.2d 582, 371 111.
287— Roy v. Upton, 234 Ill.App. 53
— People v. Mortenson, 224 IlLApp.
221.
Ind.— Olds v. Httzemann, 42 N.E.2d
35, 220 Ind. 300 — Grantham Realty
Corporation v. Bowers, 22 N.E.2d
832, 215 Ind. 672— State ex rel. Un-
employment Compensation Board
of Unemployment Compensation
Division v. Burton, 44 N.E.2d 506,
112 Ind.App. 268 — Niven v. Craw-
fordsville Trust Co., 26 N.E.24 58,
108 Ind.App. 272— Fidelity & Cas-
ualty Co. of New York v. State, 184
N.B. 916, 98 Ind.App. 485— Agness
v. Board of Com'rs of Grant Coun-
ty, 1-66 N.E. 30, 89 Ind.App. 537.
Iowa,— Mahaffa v. Mahaffa. 298 N.W.
916, 230 Iowa 679 — In re Haga's
Estate, 294 N.W. 589, '229 Iowa 380
— Reinsurance Life Co. of America
v. Houser, 227 N.W. 116, 208 Iowa
1226.
Kan. — Brockway v. Wagner, 26>8 P.
96, 126 Kan. 285.
Ky.— Commonwealth ex rel. Dummit
v. Jefferson County, 189 S.W.2d
604, 300 Ky. 514— Eversole v.
Smith, 178 S.W.2d 970, 297 Ky. 53
— Wolff v. Employers -Fire Ins. Co.,
140 S.W.2d 640, 282 Ky. 824, 130
AJL.R. 682 — Commonwealth v.
Miniard, 99 S.W.2d 166, 266 Ky.
405 — Corpus Juris q.uot*d in. Pen-
dleton County Board of Education
v. Simpson, 91 £.W.2d 557, 560, 262
Ky. 844 — Thompson v. Board of
Drainage Com'rs of Muhlenberg
County, 79 S.W.2d 381, 258 Ky. 68
— Bell County Board of Education
v. Taylor, 71 S.W.2d 1005, 254 Ky.
447 — Redwine v. Dorman, 70 S.W.
2d 933, 254 Ky. 348— Brooks v. Stu-
§ 428
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
ability on collateral attack has been held to be ap-
plicable even where such errors or irregularities
appear on the face of the record.16 This rule ap-
plies to the orders and judgments of probate
courts.17 A judgment cannot be collaterally im-
peached merely because it was based on a mistake
of fact18 or a mistake of law.19
art, 37 S.W.2d 56, 238 Ky. 235—
Lowe v. Taylor, 29 S.W.2d 598,
235 Ky. $1 — Perry Mercantile Co.
v. Miller, 25 S.W.2d 35, 233 Ky.
148— 'Furlong v. Finneran, 4 S.W.
2d 378, 223 Ky. 558— National Sure-
ty Co. v. Taylor's Guardian, 255 S.
W. 542, 200 Ky. 728.
La. — Gumbel v. New Orleans Termi-
nal Co., 183 -So. 212, 190 La. 904,
certiorari denied 59 S.Ct. 249, 305
U.S. 654, 83 L.Ed. 423— Howell v.
Kretz, 131 So. 204, 15 La.A«pp. 454—
Milliken & Farwell v. Taft Mer-
cantile Co., 7 La. App. 150.
Me. — Harvey v. Roberts, 122 A. 409,
123 Me. 174.
Md. — Rowan v. State, to Use of
Grove, 191 A. 244, 172 Md. 190.
Mass. — Elf man v. Glaser, 47 N.E.2d
925, 313 Mass. 370— -Long- v. Mac-
Dougall, 173 N.E. 507, 273 Mass.
3S6.
Miss. — Willisford v. Meyer-Kiser
Corporation, 104 So. 293, 139 Miss.
387.
Mo. — Troost Ave. Cemetery Co. v.
Kansas City, 154 S.W.2d 90, 34S
Mo. 561 — Row v. Cape Girardeau
' Foundry Co., App., 141 S.W.2d 113
— Mississippi and Fox River
Drainage Dist of Clark County v.
Ruddick, 64 S.W.2d 306, 228 Mo.
App. 1143 — Burns v. Ames Realty
Co., App., 31 S.W.2d 274.
Mont. — Coburn v. Coburn, 298 P. 349,
89 Mont 386— Scilley v. Red
Lodge-Rosebud Irr. Dist., 272 P.
543, 83 Mont. 282.
Neb.— McCormack v. Murray, 274 N.
W. 383, 133 Neb. 125— School Dist
D. of Dawes County v. School Dist
ISTo. 80 of Dawes County, 201 N.W.
964, 112 Neb. 867. '
Nev.— State ex rel. Smith v. Sixth
Judicial Dist Court, Humboldt
County, 167 P.2d 648.
N.J.— Ex parte Hall, 118 A. 347, 94
N.J.EQ. 108.
N.Y,— In re Chase Nat. Bank of City
of New York, 28 N.E.2d -868, 283
N.Y. 350 — Salerno v. Holden, 15 N.
Y.S.2d 549, 258 App.Div. 50, af-
firmed '31 N.B.2d 513, 284 N.Y. 759.
N.C. — Simms v. Sampson, '20 S.E.2d
. 554, 221 N.C. 3-79— King- v. North
Carolina R. Co., 115 S.B. 172, 184 N.
C. 442.
N.D.— Kelsch v. Dickson, 1 N.W.2d
347, 71 2ST.D. 430.
Ohio.— Huffer v. Prindle, 153 N.B.
527, 22 Ohio App. 241.
Okl.— Lee v. , Harvey, 156 P.2d 134,
195 Okl. 178— Mid-Continent Pipe
Line Co. v. Seminole County Ex-
cise Board, 146 P.2d 996, 194 Okl.
40 — Protest of Kansas City South-
ern Ry. Co., 11 P.2d 500, 157 Okl.
246— Matthews v. Morgan, 259 P.]
867, 127 Okl. 74, followed in Mat-
thews v. Morgan, 259 P. 868, 869,
127 Okl. 76— Miller v. Madigan, 215
P. 742, 90 Okl. 17.
Or.— Booth v. Herberlie, 2 P.2d 1108,
137 Or. 354— Hills v. Pierce, 231 P.
652, 113 Or. 386.
Pa.— In re Levi's Estate, 38 Pa.Dist
& Co. 251, 56 Montg.Co. 148.
&.C. — Gladden v. Chapman, 91 S.E.
796, 106 S.C. 486.
S.D.— In re ReQua's Estate, 18 N.W.
2d 791— Hall v. Carlson, 215 N.W.
494, 51 S.D. 513.
Tenn.— Myers v. Wolf, 34 S.W.2d
201, 162 Tenn. 42 — Covington v.
Bullefin, 1 Tenn. App. 603.
Tex. — Farmers' Nat. Bank of
Stephensville v. Daggett, Com.
App., 2 S.W.2d 834— Dittmar v. St.
Louis Union Trust Co., Civ. App.,
155 S.W.2d 38-8, error refused-
Sugg v. Sugg, Civ. App., 152 S.W.
2d 446, error dismissed — Wilson
V. King, Civ.App., 148 -S.W.2d 442
— Walton v. Stinson, Civ.App., 140
S.W.2d 497, error refused — Klier
v. Richter, Civ.App., 119 S.W.2d
100, error refused — Witt v. Uni-
versal Automobile Ins. Co., Civ.
App., 116 S.W.2d 1095, error dis-
missed— Mercer v. Rubey, Civ.
App., 108 S.W.2d 677, error refused
— Henderson v. Stone, Civ.A-pp., 95
S.W.2d 772, error dismissed— Snell
V. Knowles, Civ.App., 87 S.W.2d
871, error dismissed— Grant v. El-
lis, Civ.App., 35 S.W.2d 460, re-
versed on other grounds, Com.
App., 50 S.W.2d 1093— Coffman v.
National Motor Products Co., Civ.
App., 26. S.W.2d 921, error dis-
missed— Star Cash Grocery Co. v.
Retailers' 'Fire Ins. Co., Civ.App.,
12 S.W.2d -608— Sederholm v. City
of Port Arthur, Civ.App., 3 S.W.2d
925, affirmed Tyner v. La Coste,
Com.App., 13 S.W.2d 685 and Tyn-
er v. Keith, Qom.App., 13 S.W.2d
68-7— King v. King, Civ.App., 291 S.
W. 645 — Garza v. Kenedy, Civ.App.,
291 S.W. 615, reversed on other
grounds, Com. App., 239 S.W. 231 —
Wright v. Shipman, Civ. App., 279
S.W. 296.
Utah.— Intermill v. Nash, 75 P.2d 157,
94 Utah 271— Salt Lake City v. In-
dustrial Commission, 22 P.2d 1046,
82 Utah 179— Tracey v. Blood, 3
P.2d 263, 78 Utah 385.
W.Va. — Bailey v. Firemen's Ins. Co.,
150 S.E. 365, 108 W.Va. 75.
33 C.J. p 1079 note 82—34 C.J. p 555
note 75 — 42 C.J. p 172 note 59—47
C.J. p 439 notes 15, 17.
Brror in exercise of jurisdiction see
supra § 421.
Validity of erroneous and irregular
judgments see infra § 449.
852
16. U.S.— Iselin v. "La Coste, C.C.A.
La., 147 F.2d 791.
Cal.— Sontag Chain Stores Co. v. Su-
perior Court in and for Los An-
geles County, 113 P.2d 689, 18 Cal.
2d 92— Gray v. Hall, 265 P. 246,
203 Cal. 306— Union Oil Co. of Cali-
fornia v. Reconstruction Oil Co.,
135 P.2d 621, 58 CaLApp.2d 30.
Ky. — Collier v. Peninsular Fire Ins.
Co. of America, 363 S.W. 353, 204
Ky. 1.
Mo. — Central Paving & Construction
Co. v. Eighth & Morgan Garage &
Filling Station, 159 S.W.2d 660—
Abernathy v. Missouri Pac. R. Co.,
228 S.W. 486, 287 Mo. 30.
N.C.— King v. North Carolina R. Co.,
115 S.E. 172, 184 N.C. 442.
Okl.— Lee v. Harvey, 156 P.2d 134,
195 Okl. 178— Johnston v. Guy, 25
P.2d 625, 165 Okl. 156.
17. Ark.— Sewell v. Reed, 71 S.W.2d
191, 189 Ark. 50.
34 C.J. p 558 note 77 — 47 C.J. p 439
note 16.
ia Tex. — Jeff Davis County v. Da-
vis, Civ.App., 192 S.W. 291.
19. U.S. — Baltimore S. S. Co. v.
Phillips, N.Y*, 47 S.Ct 600, 274 U.
S. 316, 71 L.Ed. 1069— Montgomery
v. Eauitable Life Assur. Soc. of U.
S., C.C.A.I11., 83 «F.2d 758— U. S. v.
U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., D.
C.Okl., 24 F.Supp. 961, modified on
other grounds, C.C.A., 106 'F.2d 804,
reversed on other grounds -60 <S.Ct.
653, '309 U.S. 506, -84 L.Ed. 894.
Ariz.— Varnes v. White, 12 P.2d 870,
40 Ariz. 427.
Cal.— Sontag Chain Stores Co. v. Su-
perior Court in and for 'Los An-
geles County, 113 P.2d 689, 18 CaL
2d 92— Gray v. Hall, 265 P. 246,
203 CaL 306— Union Oil Co. of Cali-
fornia v. Reconstruction Oil Co.,
135 P.2d 621, 58 Cal.App.2d 30.
D.C.— Fishel v. Kite, 101 <F.2d 685,
•69 App.D.C. 360, certiorari denied
Kite v. Fishel, 59 S.Ct 645, 306
U.S. 656, 83 L.Ed. 1054— Edward
Thompson Co. v. Thomas, 49 F.2d
500, -60 App.D.C. 11-8.
La. — Gumbel v. New Orleans .Termi-
nal Co., 183 So. 212, 190 La. 904,
certiorari denied 59 S.Qt. 249, 305
U.S. 654, 83 L.Ed. 423.
Mo. — Freedy v. Trimble-Compton
Produce Co., 46 S.W.2d 822, 329 Mo.
879.
N.Y.— In re McCollough's Estate, 2
N.Y.S.2d 777, 166 Misc. 576.
Okl.— Lee v. Harvey, 156 P.2d 134,
195 Okl. 178— Strange v. Arm-
strong, 252 P. 1099, 123 Okl. 216—
Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Co-
operative Pub. Co., 247 P. 974, 119
OkL 76— Chicago, R. L & P. By.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
429
Where a judgment is void, and not merely ir-
regular and erroneous, because the court exceeded
its jurisdiction and rendered a particular judgment
which it was wholly unauthorized to render under
any circumstances, as considered supra § 19, the
rule against collateral attack does not apply.2^
Special and statutory proceedings. The rule
against collateral attack on the ground of mere er-
ror or irregularity applies not only in the case of
formal suits at law or in equity, but also to the ju-
dicial determinations of the courts in special pro-
ceedings, out of the course of the common law, or
founded wholly on statutes.21
Judgments of inferior courts. Although the va-
lidity of a judgment rendered by an inferior court
is not sustained by any presumptions as to juris-
-diction, when it is established that such a court had
jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter,
it will be presumed to have proceeded in due order,
and its judgment cannot be attacked in any collat-
eral proceeding for mere error or irregularity.22
§ 429. Defects and Objections as to
Parties
A judgment cannot be impeached in a collateral pro-
ceeding for some defects and objections as to parties,
such as an alleged mlsjolnder or nonjoinder of parties.
A judgment may not be impeached collaterally for
some defects and objections as to parties,25 such as
an alleged misjoinder or nonjoinder of parties,24
or a misnomer,25 or for objections to an amendment
adding new parties.26 In addition, the judgment
may not be collaterally impeached for any techni-
cal objection to plaintiffs capacity to sue,27 or be-
cause the judgment may be irregular or voidable as
against another person who was a joint plaintiff or
Co. v. Oklahoma State Bank of
Atoka, 247 P. 21, 118 Okl. 129.
Tex.— jPrazier v. Hanlon Gasoline
Co., Civ.App., 29 S.W.2d 461, error
refused.
Va. — Robertson v. Commonwealth,
25 S.E.2d 352, 181 Va. 520, 146 A.
L.R. 966.
34 C.J. p 558 note 79.
20. U.S. — Rheinberger v. Security
Life Ins. Co. of America, C.C.A.
111., 146 P.2d 680.
Cal.— Baar v. Smith, 255 P. S27, 201
Cal. 87 — Tonningsen v. Odd Pel-
lows' Cemetery Ass'n, 213 P. 710,
60 Cal.App. 568.
Colo. — People v. Burke, 212 P. 837,
72 Colo. 486, 30 A.'L.R. 1085.
Hawaii. — Wong Kwai Tong v. Choy
Yin, 31 Hawaii 603.
Mo.— Gray v. Clement, 246 S.W. 940,
296 Mo. 497 — Burns v. Ames Real-
ty Co., App,, 31 S.W.2d 274.
S.D.— Reddin v. Prick, 223 N.W. 50,
54 S.D. 277.
Va. — Buchanan v. Buchanan, 197 S.
E. 42-6, 170 Va. 458, 116 A.L..R. 68-8.
Wyo. — State v. District Court of
Eighth Judicial Dist. In and for
Natrona County, 23'8 P. 545, 33
Wyo. 281.
34 C.J. p 558 note 82.
Judgment beyond pleadings and is-
sues see infra $ 433.
21. U.S.— Briscoe v. Rudolph, D.C.,
31 S.Ct. 679, 221 U.S. 547, 55 L.Bd.
848.
34 C.J. p 559 note S3.
22. Fla, — 'Piehe v. R. B. Household-
er Co., 125 So. 2, 98 Pla. 627.
Me.— Harvey v. Roberts, 122 A, 409,
123 Me. 174.
«4 C.J. p 559 note 85.
23. U.S.— Schodde v. U. S.f C.C.A.
Idaho, 69 P.2d 866.
24. U.S. — Bruun v. Hanson, C.C.A.
Idaho, 103 F.2d 685, certiorari de-
nied Hanson v. Bruun, 60 S.Ct. 86,
308 U.S. 571, 84 L.Ed. 479, man-
date conformed to, D.C., Bruun v.
Hanson, 30 'P.Supp. 602 — Corpus
Juris quoted in Schodde v. U. S.,
C.C.A.Idaho, 69 P.2d 866, «871—
Rheinberger v. Security Life Ins.
Co. of America, D.C.I11., 51 P.
Supp. 188, cause remanded, C.C.A.,
146 P.2d 6'80.
Cal. — Sanderson v. Niemann, 110 P.
2d 1025, 17 Cal.2d 563, prior opin-
ion 100 P.2d 508.
Ind.— Corpus Juris cited in. Miller v.
Muir, 56 N.B.2d 496, 504.
Mo.:— Corpus Juris cited in. Brady v.
Kirby, 22 S.W.2d 52, 56, 224 Mo.
App. 184, certiorari quashed State
ex rel. Kirby v. Trimble, 23 S.W.2d
569, 326 Mo. 675.
N.M. — Cost ilia Estates Development
Co. v. Mascarenas, 267 P. 74, 33
N.M. 356.
Okl. — Corpus Juris cited in Moody v.
Branson, 136 P.2d 925, 928, 192 Okl.
327.
Tex — Williams v. Howard, 31 S.W.
835, 10 Tex.Civ.App. 527 — Grayson
v. Johnson, Civ.App., 181 S.W.2d
312 — Gathings v. Robertson, Civ.
App., 264 S.W. 173, reversed on
other grounds, Com.App., 27-6 S.W.
218.
W.Va. — Commonwealth Trust Co. of
Pittsburgh v. Citi2ens' Nat. Bank
of Connellsville, 128 S.E. 104, 99
W.Va. 166.
34 C.J. p 559 note 86—47 C.J. p 439
note 19.
Indispensable parties
Judgment of probate court au-
thorizing trustee to exchange stock
in national bank for stock in state
bank rendered in proceeding to
which beneficiaries of trust, some of
whom were minors and some of
whom were residents of state, were
not made parties was subject to col-
853
lateral attack in proceeding to re-
cover stockholder's liability for
debts of insolvent state bank. — Hood
v. Cannon, 182 S.E. 306, 178 S.C. 94.
As to one not a party to the suit
in which a judgment is rendered the
judgment is, in a sense, "void" and
subject to collateral attack. — Texas
Soap Mfg. Corporation v. McQueary,
Tex.Civ.A«pp.f 172 S.W.2d 177.
Judgment rendered against person
voluntarily appearing in action as
defendant is not collaterally assail-
able, although his name was not in-
serted in complaint. — Associated Oil
Co. v. Mullin, 294 P.. 421, 110 Cal.
App. 385.
Death
Record held to sustain finding
heirs not mentioned were dead at
time of judgment in partition. — Bur-
ton v. McGuire, Tex, Com. App., 41 S.
W.2d 238.
26. Tenn. — Magevney v. Karsch, 65
S.W.2d 562, 167 Tenn. 32, 92 A.X..
R. 343.
Tex. — Corpus Juris cited, in Otten-
house v. Abfernathy, Civ. App., 110
S.W.2d 968, 970.
34 C.J. p 559 note iS7.
26. Miss.— Alabama & V. R, Co. v.
Thomas, 38 So. 770, 86 Miss. 27.
27. Okl.— Corpus Juris cited in War-
ren v. Stanbury, 126 P.2d 251, 253,
190 Okl. 554.
34 C.J. p 559 note 89.
Legal disability of parties see supra
§ 418.
Real party in interest
It is no ground for collateral im-
peachment of a judgment that plain-
tiff was not the real party in inter-
est.— Hentschel v. Fidelity & Depos-
it Qo. of Maryland, C.C.A,Mo., 87
•P.2d' 833—34 C.J. p 559 note 89 \f\.
§ 430
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
defendant,28 or because the judgment was rendered
against a defendant personally instead of in the
representative capacity in which he was sued,29
or because minors or incompetents were not prop-
erly represented in the action.30
§ 430. Defects and Objections as to
Pleadings
A judgment may not be collaterally attacked be-
cause of defects In the pleadings which are amendable,
even though such pleadings are bad on general demur-
rer.
A judgment may not be impeached collaterally be-
cause of any defects in the pleadings31 which are
amendable,32 even though such pleadings are bad
on general demurrer.33 Thus the validity of a
judgment cannot be impugned by showing that a
wrong form of action was chosen,3* or that the
complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute
a cause of action35 or stated the cause of action
2& Ky.— Capper v. Short, 11 S.W.2d
71-7, 226 Ky. -689.
34 C.J. p 560 note 90.
29. Ky. — McConnell v. Halve, 1 S.
W. 582, 8 Ky.L. 343.
Miss. — Barringer v. Boyd, 27 Miss.
473.
30u Mo. — Spltcaufsky v. Hatten, 182
S.W.2d 86.
34 C.J. p 560 note 92.
Minors held sufficiently represented
Ark. — Thomas v. McCollum, 144 S.W.
2d 467, 201 Ark. 320.
31. Ariz.— Corpus Juris cited to*
Long v. Stratton, 72 P.2d 939, 941,
50 Ariz. 427 — Corpus Juris cited in
Llsitzsky v. Brady, 300 P. 177, 179,
3S Ariz. 337.
Cal.— Kelsey v. Miller, 263 P. 200,
203 Cal. 61.
I1L— Holt v. Snodgrass, 146 N.E. 562,
315 111. 548— Harris v. -Chicago
House-Wrecking Co., 145 tf.E. 666,
314 111. 500— Molner v. Arendt, 55
N.E.2d 407, 323 IlLApp. 289.
Ind. — Bowser v. Tobin, 18 N.E.2d 773,
215 Ind. 99.
Mo. — Dusenberg v. Rudolph, 30 S.W.
2d 94, 325 Mo. '881.
Okl. — Thompson v. General Outdoor
Advertising Co., 151 P.2d 379, 194
OkL 300— Corpus Juris cited in
State v. Douglas, 89 P.2d 298, 299.
185 Okl. 3.
Tex.— Hartel v. Dishman, 145 S.W.2d
865, 135 Tex 600— Corpus Juris
quoted in Permian Oil Co. v. Smith,
73 S.W.2d 490, 501, 129 Tex. 413,
111 A.L.R. 1152, rehearing denied
107 S.W.2d 564, 129 Tex. 413, 111
A.D.R, 1152— Jackson v. Slaugh-
ter. Civ.Ap«p., 185 S.W.2d 759, re-
fused for want of merit — Cheney
v. Norton. Civ.App., 168 S.W.2d
697 — Corpus Juris quoted in Ben-
son v. Mangum, Civ.App., 117 S.
W.2d 169, 172, error refused — Rea-
gan County Purchasing Co. v.
State, Civ.App., 65 S.W.2d 353—
Sederholm v. City of Port Arthur,
Civ.App., 3 S.W.'Sd 925, affirmed
Tyner v. La Coste, Com.App., 13
S.W.2d 685 and Tyner v. Keith, 13
S.W.2d 687.
W.Va. — Noder v. Alexander, 172 S.E.
613, 114 W.Va. 563.
34 C.J. p 560 note 94.
Court will give complaint such
construction as will uphold judg-
ment should the complaint be am
biguous. — Boyd v. Garrison, 19 So. 2*.
385, 246 Ala. 122.
Residence of parties
(1) Judgment defective only for
failure to allege residence of parties
giving jurisdiction must be attacked
in original cause or for fraud. — Cole
v. Blankenship, QC.A.W.Va., 30 P.
2d 211.
(2) Failure of petition to set forth
residences of parties did not subject
judgment to collateral attack where
such parties voluntarily appeared. —
Morgan v. Farned, "3 So. 798, 83 Ala.
367.
Allowance of substituted declara-
tion without notice was held not to
justify collateral attack on judg-
ment.— Savage v. Walshe, 140 N.B.
787, 24-6 Mass. 170.
32. Ariz. — Long v. Stratton, 72 P.2d
939, 50 Ariz. 427.
Utah. — Corpus Juris cited in State v.
Cragun, 20 P.2d 247, 249, 81 Utah
457.
34 C.J. p 560 note 95—47 C.J. p 439
note 24.
33. Idaho.— U. S. Nat. Bank of Port-
land v. Humphrey, 288 P. 416, 49
Idaho 363.
111.— Holt v. Snodgrass, 146 N.B. 562,
315 111. 548.
Tex. — Benson v. Mangum, Civ.App.,
117 S.W.2d 169, error refused —
Corpus Juris quoted in Sederholm
v. City of Port Arthur, Civ.App., "3
S.W.2d 925, 928, affirmed Tyner v.
La Coste, Com.App., 13 S.W.2d 6»S5
and Tyner v. Keith, 13 S.W.2d 687
—Hart v. Hunter, 114 S.W. SS2, 52
Tex.Civ.App. 75.
Unless deficiency is one which af-
fects or deprives court of jurisdic-
tion, fact that petition is subject to
general demurrer does not subject
judgment to col-lateral impeachment.
— Tanton v. State Nat. Bank of El
Paso, Civ.App., 43 S.W.2d 957, af-
firmed 79 -S.W.2d 833, 125 Tex. 16, 97
A.L.R. 1093.
34. Tex. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Benson v. Mangum, Civ.App., 117
S.W.2d 169, 172, error refused.
34 C.J. p 560 note 97.
35. Ariz. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Hawkins v. Leake, 22 P.2d 833,
835, 42 Ariz. 121.
854
7aL— In re Keet's Estate, 100 P.2d
1045, 15 Cal.2d 328— Moran v. Su-
perior Court in and for Sacramen-
to County, 96 P.2d 193, 35 CaLApp.
2d -629 — Ex parte Sargen, 27 P.2d
407, 135 CaLApp. 402.
Mo. — Dusenberg v. Rudolph, 30 S.
W.2d 94, 325 Mo. 881.
Mont. — State ex rel. Delmoe v. Dis-
trict Court of Fifth Judicial Dist.,
46 P.2d 39, 100 Mont 1'31.
Neb. — Wistrom v. Forsling, 14 N.W.
2d 217, 144 Neb. 638.
N.J. — Corpus Juris cited in Epstein
v. Bendersky, 21 A.2d 815, 818, 130
K.J.EQ, 180.
N.M.— In re Field's Estate, 60 P.2d
945, 40 N.M. 423.
Okl.— Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v.
Excise Board of Oklahoma County,
33 P.2d 1081, 168 OkL 428— Foster
v. Focht, 229 P. 444, 102 OkL 261.
Tenn. — Southern Ry. Co. v. Baskette,
133 S.W.2d 49*, 175 Tenn. 253.
Tex. — Rhoads v. Daly General Agen-
cy, Civ.App., 152 S.W.2d 461, error
refused — Benson v. Hangum, Civ.
A'pp,, 117 S.W.2d 169, error refused
— Lutz v. State, 176 S.W.2d 317,
146 Tex.Cr. 503.
Wyo. — Rock Springs Coal & Mining
Co. v. Black Diamond Coal Co.,
272 P. 12, 39 Wyo. 379.
34 C.J. p 560 note 98.
Insufficient or Illegal cause of action
as ground for attack in general see
supra § 417.
Unless it affirmatively appears
from petition that no valid cause of
action could be stated, judgment of
court having jurisdiction of subject
matter and of parties is not subject
to collateral attack on ground that
petition failed to state, or defective-
ly stated, cause of action.— Schmid
v. Farris, 37 P.2d 596, 1<69 OkL 446.
Default judgment is not void on
collateral attack, even though peti-
tion on which it was rendered did not
state a cause of action.
Cal.— Associated Oil Co. v. Mullin,
294 P. 421, 110 CaLApp. 385.
Kan. — Brunbaugh v. Wilson, 107 P.
792, 82 Kan. 53.
Sufficiency on direct attack
'Fact that complaint would be in-
sufficient to support judgment when
attacked directly does not necessar-
ily make complaint vulnerable to
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 431
defectively,36 if the complaint contained sufficient
matter to challenge the attention of the court as to
its merits.37 Even the absence of pleadings has
been held not to render a judgment void and sub-
ject to collateral attack,38 but there is authority for
holding that the judgment will be void and impeach-
able collaterally if not supported by any pleadings.39
It is not ground for collateral attack that the com-
plaint was not verified,40 or was defectively veri-
fied,41 that there was a misjoinder of causes of ac-
tion42 or a splitting of a cause of action,43 or that
the action appeared from the face of the papers to
have been barred by the statute of limitations.44
§ 431.
Irregularities in Procedure
Where the jurisdiction of the court has attached,
the judgment rendered ordinarily is not subject to col-
lateral attack for irregularities In procedure.
Where it is made to appear that the jurisdiction
of the court has attached, and that the court has
proceeded in the exercise of that jurisdiction, no
irregularity in the subsequent proceedings can avail
to avoid or annul the decree rendered on collateral
attack,45 especially if it would be subject to amend-
collateral attack. — State v. Cragun,
20 P.2d 247, 81 Utah 457.
Fact that court of record, errs in
holding petition sufficient, if it has
jurisdiction, does not render Judg-
ment subject to collateral attack. —
Wistrom v. Forsling, 14 N.W.2d 217,
144 Neb. 638— In re Warner's Estate,
288 N.W. 39, 137 Neb. 25— Brandeen
v. Lau, 201 N.W. 665, 113 Neb. 34.
Judgment on, cross petition,
•Okl. — Fowler v. Marguret Pillsbury
General Hospital, 229 P. -442, 102
Okl. 20'3 — Horstman v. Bowermas-
ter, 217 P. 167, 90 Okl. 262.
Tex. — Collins v. Jones, Civ.App., 79
S.W.2d 175, error refused.
Cause of action held stated
Ala.— Chandler v. Price, 15 So.2d 462,
244 Ala. 667.
Mo. — Bullock v. Peoples Bank of
Holcomb, 173 S.W.2d 753, 351 Mo.
587.
36. 111. — Baker v. Brown, 23 N.B.2d
710, 372 111. 336.
Okl.— Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v.
Excise Board of Oklahoma County,
33 P.2d 1081, 168 Okl. 428— Kan-
sas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Ex-
cise Board of Le Flore County, 33
P.2d 493, 168 Okl, 408— Protest of
Stanolind Pipe Line Co., 32 P.2d
869, 1-68 Okl. 2-81— -Lindeberg v.
Messman, 218 P. £44, 95 Okl. 64.
37. Cal.— Associated Oil Co. v. Mul-
lin, 294 P. 421, 110 Cal.App. 385.
Kan. — Eberhardt Lumber Co. v. Le-
cuyer, 110 P.2d 757, 153 Kan. 386—
Pattison v. Kansas State Bank, 247
P. 643, 121 Kan. 471.
Okl.— Ciesler v. Simpson, 105 P.2d
227, 187 Okl. 641, followed in Cies-
ler v. Sykes, 105 P.2d 229, 187 Okl.
643— Spence v. Yell, 71 P.2d 701,
180 Okl. 475— Goldsmith v. Owens,
68 P.2d 849, 180 Okl, 268— Horst-
man v, Bowermaster, 217 P. 167,
90 Okl. 262.
"Tex.— Benson v. Mangum, Civ.App.,
117 S.W.2d 1"69, error refused.
Wyo. — State v. District Court of
Eighth Judicial Dist in and for
Natrona County, 238 P. 545, 53
Wyo. 281.
24 C.J. p 561 note 99.
If initial pleading is so wanting
substance as not to be colorable or
amendable, or to justify relief, order
or judgment is subject to collateral
attack.
Mo. — Gunman v. Grothe, 142 S.W.2d
1, 346 Mo. 427 — Coombs v. Benz,
114 S.W.2d 713, 232 Mo.App. 1011.
Mont — Hanrahan v. Andersen, 90 P.
2d 494, 108 Mont 218.
Utah.— State v. Cragun, 20 P.2d 247,
81 Utah 457.
Default judgment, resting solely
on allegations of complaint, so de-
ficient in substance as conclusively
to negative cause of action at time
of its rendition may be successfully
assailed collaterally.
Mont. — State ex rel. Delmoe v. Dis-
trict Court of 'Fifth Judicial Dist,
46 P.2d 39, 100 Mont 131.
Wash. — Roche v. McDonald, 239 P.
1015, 136 Wash. 322, 44 A.L.R. 444,
reversed on other grounds 48 S.
Ct 142, 275 U.S. 449, 72 L.Ed. -365,
53 A.L.R. 1141.
sa N.Y.— Sutherland v. -St. Law-
rence County, «5 N.T.S. 696, 42
Misc. 38, reversed on other grounds
91 N.Y.S. 962, 101 App.Div. 299.
34 C.J. p 561 note 6.
Necessity of pleadings to support
judgment see supra § 40.
Parties may Tby consent dispense
with written pleadings entirely at
least to extent that they cannot at-
tack a judgment rendered in such a
case collaterally on ground of lack
of written pleadings. — State v. Un-
derwood, 86 P.2d 707, 54 Wyo. 1.
39. Tex.— Tanton v. State Nat.
Bank of El Paso, Civ.App., 43 S.
W.2d 957, affirmed 79 S.W.2d '833,
125 Tex. 16, 97 A.L.R. 1093.
34 C.J. p 5*61 note 7.
Partnership sued as corporation
Default judgment in action, where-
in partnership was sued as corpora-
tion, and in which neither partner
appeared or made defense, was sub-
ject to collateral attack by partners.
— McGeorge v. Danforth, Mo.App., 39
S.W.2d 565. |
855
40. Mo.— Gilkeson v. Knight, 71 Mo.
403.
Wash.T.— McCoy v. Ayres, 3 P. 273,
2 Wash.T. 203.
41. Fla. — Beverette v. Graham, 135
So. 847, 101 Fla. 566.
34 C.J. p 561 note 2.
42. N.M.— Costilla Estates Develop-
ment Co. v. Mascarenas, 267 P. 74,
33 N.M. 356.
Okl. — Thompson v. General Outdoor
Advertising Co., 151 P.2d 379.
34 C.J. p 561 note 3.
43. Okl.— Hardwicke-Etter Co. v.
Durant, 187 P. 484, 77 Okl. 202.
•44. U.S. — Herron v. Dater, Pa., 7 S.
Ct. 620, 120 U.S. 464, 30 L.Ed. 748.
34 C.J. p 561 note 5.
45. U.S.— Iselin v. La Coste, C.C.A.
La,, 147 F.2d 791— Read v. Elliott,
C.C.A.S.C., 94 F.2d 55— Bohenik v.
Delaware & H. Co., C.C.A.N.Y., 49
F.2d 722, certiorari denied 52 S.Ct
23, 284 U.S. 643, 76 L.Ed. 546—
Prichard v. Nelson, D.C.Va., -55 F.
Supp. 506.
Ark. — Lambie v. W. T. Rawleigh Co.,
14 S.W.2d 245, 178 Ark. 1019.
Cal. — Bank of America Nat Trust
& Savings Ass'n v. Hill, 71 P.2d
258, 9 Cal.2d 495.
Fla. — Polk v. Chase Nat Co., 162
So. 521, 120 Fla. 243— Catlett v.
Chestnut, 146 So. 241, 107 Fla. 498,
91 A.L.R. 212— Malone v. Meres,
109 So. 677, 91 Fla. 709.
Ga. — Campbell v. Atlanta Coach Co.,
200 S.E. 203, 58 Ga.App. 824.
Ind. — Shedd v. Northern Indiana
Public Service Co., 182 N.W. 278,
98 Ind.App. 42.
Kan. — Eberhardt Lumber Co. v. Le-
cuyer, 110 P.2d 757, 153 Kan. 386.
Mich. — Richardson v. Richardson, 15
N.W.2d 660, 809 Mich. 336, certio-
rari denied 65 S.Ct 912, 324 U.S.
864, 89 L.Ed. 1420— Walden v. Cre-
go's Estate, 285 N.W. 457, 288
Mich. 564.
Ohio.— Binns v. Isabel, 51 N.E.2d 501,
72 Ohio App. 222.
Okl.— Mid-Continent Pipe Line Co.
v. Seminole County Excise Board,
146 P.2d 996, 194 Okl. 40 — Strange
v. Armstrong, 252 P. 1099, 123 Okl.
§ 431
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
ment.46 Thus it is no ground of collateral objec-
tion that the action was tried by the court alone,
where it was properly triable by a jury, or vice ver-
sa,47 and the same rule applies to erroneous or ir-
regular action with regard to continuances or ad-
journments,48 dismissal,49 consolidation,50 amend-
ments,51 references,52 change of venue,53 security
for costs,54 or rulings on motions55 or on a demur-
rer.56
It has been stated, however, that the mode of
procedure, after jurisdiction of the person is ob-
tained, must be in accordance with law, and a clear
violation thereof, if fundamental, vitiates the judg-
ment, and subjects it to collateral attack, where the
violation is apparent on the face of the record prop-
er.57
§ 432. Objections to Evidence
A Judgment may not be collaterally attacked on
the ground that it was based on illegal, inadmissible,
or insufficient evidence.
A judgment of a court having jurisdiction cannot
be impeached collaterally by showing that the evi-
dence on which it was based was illegal,58 inadmis-
sible,59 or insufficient to sustain the judgment.60
Indeed, the courts have gone so far as to state that
a judgment entered in the absence of any evidence
is not subject to collateral attack.61
A judgment cannot be collaterally impeached be-
cause of the erroneous exclusion of evidence.62
216 — Schulte v. Board of Com'rs of
Pontotoc County, 250 P. 123, 119
Okl. 2S1.
Term. — Covington v. Bullefln, 1 Tenn.
App. 603.
Tex. — Fitzgerald v. Le Grande, Civ.
App., 187 S.W.2d 155 — Lipscomb v.
Lofland, Civ.App., 141 S.W.2d 983,
error dismissed, judgment correct.
Utah.— Redfield v. First Nat. Bank,
244 P. 210, 66 Utah 459.
34 C.J. p 561 note 8.
Judgment in partition
Mo.— Virgin v. Kennedy, 32 S.W.2d
91, 326 Mo. 400.
34 C.J. p 561 note 8 [d].
Where supreme court had Juris-
diction of appeal, its Judgment was
not subject to collateral attack for
errors committed by court in course
of proceedings, regardless of how
irregular proceedings might have
been.— State ex rel. McGrew Coal Co.
v. Ragland, 97 S.W.2d 113, 339 Mo.
452.
Particular irregularities
(1) Court's appointment of receiv-
er contrary to statute. — Spence v.
State Nat. Bank of £21 Paso, Tex.
Com.App., 5 S.W.2d 754.
(2) Failure of court to comply
with statute directing court not to
try a person for a crime while that
person is in a state of insanity. —
State ex rel. Novak v. Utecht, 281
N.W. 775, 203 Minn. 448.
(3) Inadequate presentation of
case at hearing. — Coughlin v. Cough-
lin, 45 N.E.2d 388, 312 Mass. 452.
(4) Lack of arraignment and plea.
— Brackeen v. State, 154 N.E. 10,
198 Ind. 480 — Pritchard v. State, 127
N.E. 545, 190 Ind. 49.
(5) Lack of petition and order ap-
pointing minor's next friend. — Nitti
v. Public Service By. Co., 139 A. 62,
104 N.J.Law 67.
(6) Violation of court rules as to
division of business among Judges.
— Johnson v. Manhattan By. Co., C.
CJLN.Y., 61 F.2d .934, affirmed in
part 53 S.Ct. 721, 2S9 U.S. 479, 77 L.
Ed. 1331.
(7) Other irregularities.
S.D.— Michels v. Kirfel, 6 N,W.2d
162.
Tex. — Livingston v. Stubbs, Civ.App.,
151 S.W.2d 285, error dismissed,
judgment correct — Wilson v. Beck,
Civ.App., 286 S.W. 315.
34 C.J. p 561 note 8 [b].
Irregularities in proceeding occur-
ring- between decree and sale there-
under are cured by confirmation or-
der, and decree may not be collater-
ally attacked where court had juris-
diction.
Ark. — Lambie v. W. T. Kawleigh Co.,
14 S.W.2d 245, 178 Ark. 1019.
Or. — Skinner v. Silver, 75 P.2d 21,
158 Or. 81.
46. Ga. — Chapman v. Taliaferro, 58
S.E. 128, 1 Ga~App. 235.
47. Conn. — Corpus Juris cited in
Halligan v. Carlson, 135 A. 39, 40,
105 Conn. 245.
111.— Wlckiser v. Powers, 57 N.E.2d
522, 324 IlLApp. 130.
Mich. — Peters v. Sturmer, 248 N.W.
875, 263 Mich. 494.
Tex. — Bearden v. Texas Co., Civ.App.,
41 S.W.2d 447, affirmed, Com.App.,
60 S.W.2d 1031.
34 C.J. p 562 note 10.
48. Neb.-— Steben v. Mehrens, 241 N.
W. 108, 122 Neb. 683.
34 C.J. p 562 note 11.
49. Va. — Pocahontas Wholesale Gro-
cery Co. v. Gillesple, 60 S.E. 597,
63 W.Va. 578.
34 C.J. p 562 note 12.
50. Nev. — Daly v. Lahontan Mines
Co., 151 P. 514, 39 Nev. 14, reheard
158 P. 285, 39 Nev. 14.
51. U.S. — Goodman v. Ft. Collins.
Colo., 164 F. 970, 91 C.C.A. 98.
Ohio. — Paulin v. Sparrow, 110 N.
E. 528, 91 Ohio St. 279.
52. Tex. — Youngstown Bridge Co. v.
North Galveston, H. & K. C. R.
Co., Civ.App., 31 S.W. 420.
856
53. Mo. — Bank of Kennett v. Cotton-
Exchange Bank, 72 S.W.2d 842, 228.
Mo.App. 859.
34 C.J. p 562 note 16.
54. W.Va.— State v. Fidelity & De-
posit Co., 112 S.E. 319, 91 W.Va,
191.
55. Okl. — Equitable Surety Co. v^
Oil Field Supply Co., 202 P. 293,.
84 Okl. 31.
56. N.C. — Brown v. Harding, 89 S.
E. 222, 171 N.C. 686, relaxation of
costs denied 90 S.E. 3, 172 N.C. 835.
57. Wyo. — State v. District Court of"
Eighth Judicial Dist. in and for-
Natrona County, 238 P. 545, 33
Wyo. 281.
58. N.T.— Herring v. New York, L.
E. £ W. R. Co., 12 N.E. 763, 105-
N.T, 340, 19 Abb.N.Cas. 340, 2T
N.Y.Wkly.Dig. 45.
Tex.— Odle v. Frost, 59, Tex. 684.
53. Mich. — Springett v. Circuit
Court Com'r for Jackson County,,
283 N.W. 857, 287 Mich, 271.
34 C.J. p 562 note 21.
60. Ky.— Starbird v. Blair. 12 S.W:.
2d 693, 227 Ky. 258.
Mich.— Heap v. Heap, 242 N.W. 252;.
258 Mich. 250.
34 C.J. p 562 note 22.
Existence or nonexistence of facts
authorizing1 judgment does not jus-
tify collateral attack. — Shaveland v.
Shaveland, 228 P. 1090, 112 Or. 173:.
61. N.Y. — Grieshaber v. KnoepfeU
198 N.Y.S. 302, 119 Misc. 827.
Tenn. — Globe & Republic Ins. Co. of:
America v. Shields, 96 S.W.2d 947,.
170 Tenn. 485.
34 C.J. p 563 -note 23 — 42 C.J. p 17*
note 59 [a].
Allowance of claims without proof
other than the agreement as to the-
amounts does not affect a decree
on collateral attack. — Missouri Pac^
R, Co. v. Sears, 265 S.W. 653, 16&
Ark. 104.
62. Wis.— Beck v. State, 219 N.W.
197, 196 Wis. 242, and Beck v.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
433
§ 433. Defects in Entry or Contents of
Judgment
Mere Irregularities in the rendition or entry of judg-
ments, including judgments by confession or consent,
are not grounds for collateral attack.
A decree rendered in advance of the period at
which the court may lawfully acquire jurisdiction
over defendant is subject to collateral attack.63
However, where no question of jurisdiction is
raised, a judgment or decree cannot be collaterally
impeached because it was prematurely rendered,64
or not rendered within the time required by stat-
ute,65 or entered in vacation without consent of the
parties,66 or because it was based on defective find-
ings by the court, or given without any findings at
all67 or is inconsistent with the findings or conclu-
sions of law.68
Also a judgment may not be attacked collaterally
because it appears from the record or the opinion
of the court that there was a mistake, and that the
judgment should have been different from that ac-
tually rendered,69 or because of any irregularity in
the entry, record, or docketing of the judgment,70
or for any informality or incompleteness in the
judgment itself, provided its defects or omissions
are not such as to render it absolutely unintelligible
and therefore void for uncertainty;71 neither can
it be urged against a judgment collaterally that it
was changed by way of amendment or correction
after its entry or after the expiration of the term.72
Judgment beyond pleadings and issues. Where
the court goes beyond and outside the pleadings and
issues and assumes to adjudicate a matter not with-
in the issues made up in the pleadings, and the
judgment is to that extent void, as considered su-
pra §§ 49, SO, the judgment may be attacked collat-
Milwaukee County, 219 N.W. 205,
196 Wis. 259, certiorari denied
Beck v. Milwaukee County, Wis.,
49 S.Ct 34, 278 U.S. 639, 73 L.
Ed. 554.
•63. D.C. — Morse v. U. S., 29 App.D.
C. 433.
Form, contents, rendition, entry, rec-
ord, and docketing1 of judgment
see supra §§ 62-86, 100-133.
64. Colo. — Netland v. Baughman,
162 P.2d 601, 114 Colo. 148.
Ind.— Agness v. Board of Com'rs
of Grant County, 166 N.E. 30, 89
Ind.App. 537.
Ky.— Flinn v. Blakeman, 71 S.W.2d
961, 254 Ky. 416.
Mont.— State v. District Court of
Fourth Judicial Dist. in and for
Missoula County Department No.
2, 282 P. 1042, 86 Mont. 193.
N.M.— Field v. Otero, 290 P. 1015,
35 N.M. 68.
Or.— Booth v. Herberlie, 2 .P.2d 1108,
137 Or. 354.
Tenn.— Davis v. Mitchell, 178 S.W.
2d 889, 27 Tenn.App. 182.
Wash. — Merchants' Collection Co. v.
Sherburne, 290 P. 991, 158 Wash.
426.
34 C.J. p 563 note 26.
65. S.D.— Barker v. Cowie, 173 N.W.
722, 42 S.D. 159.
66. Mo.— Bracken v. Milner, 73 S.
W. 225, 99 Mo.App. 187.
67. Ark.-nCorpus Juris cited in
Brooks v. Baker, 187 S.W.2d 169,
172, 208 Ark. 654.
Neb.— Cizek v. Cizek, 99 N.W. 28, 69
Neb. 797, -5 Ann.Cas. 464— State v.
Duncan, 56 N.W. 214, 37 Neb. 631,
N.T.— Shaul v. Fidelity & Deposit
Co. of Maryland, 227 N.T.S. 163,
131 Misc. 401, affirmed 230 N.Y.S:
910, 224 App.Div. 773.
Or. — Glickman v. Solomon, 12 P.2d
1017, 140 Or. 358, followed in Sol-
omon v. Glickman, 12 P.2d 1018,
140 Or. 364.
34 C.J. p 563 note 29.
Findings of fact cannot be used
for purpose of showing erroneous
judgment — Permian Oil Co. v. Smith,
73 S.W.2d 490, 129 Tex. 413, 111 A.L.
R. 1152, rehearing denied 107 S.W.2d
564, 129 Tex. 413, 111 A.L.R. 1152.
•Collateral attack on finding
Where court had jurisdiction in
foreclosure suit, Its finding as to
land covered by mortgage might not
be collaterally attacked.— Sederholra
v. City of Port Arthur, Tex.Civ.App.,
3 S.W.2d 925, affirmed Tyner v. La
Coste, Com.App., 13 S.W.2d 685, fol-
lowed in Tyner v. Keith, 13 S.W.2d
687.
68. Ark.— Brooks v. Baker, 187 S.W.
2d 169, 208 Ark. 654.
Cal.— Tulare Irr. Dist v. Superior
Court of California in and for
Tulare County, 242 P. 725, 197
Cal. 649— Wellborn v. Wellborn,
131 P.2d 48, 55 Oal.App.2d 516.
ex.i— Permian Oil Co. v. Smith, 73
S.W.2d 490, 129 Tex. 413, 111 A.L.
R. 1152, rehearing denied 107 S.
W.2d 564, 129 Tex, 413, 111 A.L.R.
1152.
69. U.S. — Iselin v. La Coste, C.C.A.
La., 147 F.2d 791.
Cal. — McAllister v. Superior Court
In and For Alameda County, 82
P.2d 462, 28 Cal.App.2d 160.
Miss. — Mclntosh v. Munson Road
Machinery Co., 145 So. 731, 167
Miss. 546.
34 C.J. p 563 note 30.
Whether decision is sound or un-
sound is immaterial on collateral at-
tack.—Eagle, Star and British Do-
minions Ins. Co. v. Heller, 140 S.E.
314, 149 Va. 82, 57 A.L.R. 490.
857
Judgment held correct
Evidence established that decree
of state court as entered approving
compromise and settlement of pro-
ceeding correctly reflected the judg-
ment of the court. — Butler v. Denton,
D.C.Okl., 57 F.Supp. 656, affirmed, C.
C.A., 150 F.2d 687.
70. Fla.— Corpus Juris cited in
State ex rel. McGuire v. Mayo, 175
So. 732, 733, 128 Fla. 699— Fiehe
v. R. E. Householder Co., 125 So.
2, 98 Fla. 627.
Neb.— School Dist D. of Dawes
County v. School Dist. No. 80 of
Dawes County, 201 N.W. 964, 112
Neb. 867.
Tenn. — Whitson v. Johnson, 123 S.W.
2d 1104, 22 Tenn.App. 427.
Utah.— Intermill v. Nash, 75 P.2d
157, 94 Utah 271— Farmers' & Mer-
chants' Sav. Bank v. Hudson, 218
P. 93, 62 Utah 131.
34 C.J. p 563 note 31.
71. U.S.— Prichard v. Nelson, C.C.A.
Va., 137 F.2d 312.
Fla. — State ex rel. Warren v. City
of Miami, 15 So.2d 449, 153 Fla.
644 — State ex rel. Fulton Bag &
Cotton Mills v. Burnside, 15 So.2d
324, 153 Fla. 599— Crosby v. Burle-
son, 195 So. 202, 142 Fla. 443—
Corpus Juris cited in State v.
Mayo, 175 So. 732, 733, 128 Fla.
699.
La. — Gumbel v. New Orleans Termi-
nal Co., 183 So. 212, 190 La. 904,
certiorari denied 59 S.Ct 249, 305
U.S. 654, 83 L.Ed. 423.
Tex. — Bridgman v. Moore, 183 S.W.
2d 705, 143 Tex. 250.
34 C.J. p 564 note 32.
72. U.S.— Groton Bridge & Mfg. Co.
v. Clark Pressed Brick Co., C.C.
Ark., 126 F. 552, affirmed 136 F.
27, 68 C.C.A. <577.
54 C.J. D 564 note 33.
§ 433
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
erally,7S at least in default cases.74 However, it
has been held that a judgment or order is not sub-
ject to collateral impeachment because it was not
warranted by the allegations of the pleadings.75 A
judgment relating to the subject of a proceeding, as
stated in the pleadings, is not subject to collateral
attack because the pleader has asked for other re-
lief than that which may properly be awarded.76
Excessive recovery or relief. Where a judgment
is merely erroneous, as considered supra § 54, be-
cause it is excessive,77 either as being greater than
the amount demanded,78 greater than the facts or
the evidence would justify,79 or as improperly in-
cluding interest,80 penalties,81 costs,82 or counsel
fees,83 or as allowing excessive interest84 or costs,85
it may not be impeached in a collateral proceeding.
Judgments by confession or consent. The rule
prohibiting the collateral impeachment of judgments
for mere errors or irregularities in their entry or
rendition applies equally to judgments by confes-
sion as to any others,86 and to judgments entered on
consent or agreement.87 On the other hand, a judg-
ment by confession may be attacked collaterally
where the attorney exceeded his authority,88 where
defendant was not bound by the warrant of attor-
ney,89 where the statement on which it is entered
is so essentially defective that the court acquired no
jurisdiction or authority to enter the judgment,90
or where the required affidavit of the execution of
the power of attorney is lacking.91
73. CaL— Baar v. Smith, 255 P. 827,
201 Cal. 87 — Petition of Furness,
218 P. 81. 62 CaLApp. 753.
Mo. — Weatherford v. Spiritual Chris-
tian Union Church, 163 S.W.2d
916 — Brandt v. Farmers Bank of
Chariton County. App.f 177 S.W.
2d 667, reversed on other grounds
182 S.W.2d 281, 353 Mo. 259— Dick-
ey v. Dickey, App., 132 S.W.2d 1026
— Burns v. Ames Realty Co., App.,
31 S.W.2d 274 — Raney v. Home
Ins. Co., 246 S.W. 57, 213 Mo.App.
1.
Neb. — Branz v. Hylton, 265 N.W. 16,
130 Neb. 385.
N.Y.— Coles v. Carroll, 6 N.E.2d
107, 273 N.Y. 86.
Ohio. — Binns v. Isabel, 12 Ohio
Supp. 113, affirmed 51 N.E.2d 501,
72 Ohio App. 222.
Tex.— Edinburg Irr. Co. v. Ledbetter,
Civ.App., 247 S.W. 335, modified
on other grounds, CoouApp., 286
S.W. 185,
33 C.J. p 1152 note 22, p 1168 note
33.
Presumption that judgment collat-
erally attacked was supported by
pleadings should not be indulged,
where complaint is before court. —
State v. District Court of Eighth
Judicial Dist., 284 P. 128, 86 Mont
387.
74. Wyo. — State v. District Court of
Eighth Judicial Dist. in and for
Natrona County, 238 P. 545, 33
Wyo. 281.
75. Mont.— State v. District Court
of Tenth Judicial Dist. in and for
Judith Basin County, 227 P. 579,
71 Mont. 89.
33 C.J. p 1153 note 24, p 1169 note
34.
76* Cal. — Luckey v. Superior Court
in and for Los Angeles County,
287 P. 450, 209 Cal. 360.
77. Or. — Linn County v. Rozelle, 162
P.2d 150.
78. Cal. — Wallace v. Wallace, 295
P. 1061, 111 CaLApp. 500.
Ga. — Corpus Juris cited in Hardin
v. Dodd, 167 S.E. 277, 279, 176 Ga.
119.
Mo.— Meierhoffer v. Kennedy, 263 S.
W. 416, 304 Mo. 261.
Or. — Corpus Juris quoted in Linn
County v. Rozelle, 162 P.2d 150,
165— Corpus Juris cited in Trav-
elers Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn.,
v. Staiger, 69 P.2d 1069, 1071, 157
Or. 143.
34 C.J. p 564 note 35.
Ztefanlt judgment for larger
amount than demanded in summons
and complaint cannot be attacked
collaterally. — Munson v. Bensel, 211
N.W. 838, 169 Minn. 434.
79. 111. — People ex rel. Anderson v.
Village of Bradley, 11 N.E.2d 415,
367 111. 301.
Mich.— Corpus Jurig cited in Morris
v. Barker, 235 N.W. 174, 175, 253
Mich. 334.
Or.— Linn County v. Rozelle, 162 P.2d
150.
R.L— McDufC Estate v. Kost, 158 A.
373, 52 R.I. 136.
34 C.J. p 564 note 36.
Failure to credit debtor with sums
paid
Mass. — Thompson v. Horgan, 157 N.
E. 599, 260 Mass. 589.
80. U.S. — Huddles ton v. Dwyer, C.C.
A.Okl., 145 F.2d 311.
Cal.— Wells Fargo & Co. v. City and
County of San Francisco, 152 P.
2d 625, 25 Cal.2d 37.
34 C.J. p 564 note 37.
81. U.S. — Huddleston v. Dwyer, C.
C.A.Okl., 145 F.2d 311.
82. Cal. — Wells Fargo & Co. v. City
and County of San Francisco, 152
P.2d 625, 25 Cal.2d 37.
Mont — Thompson v. Chicago, B. &
Q. R. Co., 253 P. 313, 78 Mont.
170.
Or. — Linn County v. Rozelle, 162 P.2d
150.
34 C.J. p 564 note 38.
83. Ga. — Van Dyke v. Van Dyke,
54 S.B. 537, 125 Ga. 491.
858
Utah. — Mary Jane Stevens Co. v,
Foley, 248 P. 815, 67 Utah 578.
84. Kan. — Dickson v. Patterson, 18*
P. 912, 106 Kan. 794.
34 C.J. p 564 note 40.
85. Or. — Corpus Juris cited in Na-
tional Surety Corporation v.
Smith, 123 P.2d 203, 221. 168 Or.
265.
34 C.J. p 564 note 41.
86. Fla.— Wilds v. State, 84 So. 664,
79 Fla. -575,
34 C.J. p 129 note 60, p 564 note 42.
87. Cal. — Nielsen v. Emerson, 6 P-
2d 281, 119 CaLApp. 214.
34 C.J. p 564 note 43.
Judgment for plaintiffs in amount
agreed on with defendant was not
subject to impeachment, qualifica-
tion, or modification by testimony, in
subsequent action against joint tort-
feasor, as to stipulation that satis-
faction of judgment would but par-
tially satisfy claim and reservation
of right to pursue joint tort-feasor
for further satisfaction. — Hunt v.
Ziegler, Teac.Civ.App., 271 S.W. 936,
affirmed Ziegler v. Hunt, Com.App.,
280 S.W. 546.
Judgment not in accordance with
agreement
Cal. — Nielsen v. Emerson, 6 P.2d 281,
119 CaLApp. 214.
34 C.J. p 564 note 43 [a].
88. 111. — Hughes v. First Acceptance
Corporation, 260 111. App. 176.
N.Y. — Hubbard v. Spencer, 15 Johns.
244.
Unauthorized appearance as ground
for collateral attack see supra §
424.
89. Colo. — Sproul v. Monteith, 185
P. 270, 66 Colo. 541.
90. N.Y. — Dunham v. Waterman, 17
N.T. 9, 72 Am.D. 406.
91. 111. — Gardner V. Bunn, 23 N.E.
1072, 132 111. 408, 7 L..R.A. 729.
N.J. — Cliver v. Applegate, 5 N.J.Law
479.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 434
§ 434. Fraud, Collusion, or Perjury
a. Fraud and duress
b. Collusion
c. False testimony or perjury
a. Fraud and Duress
A judgment may be collaterally attacked on the
ground of fraud where the fraud goes to the Jurisdic-
tion of the court.
Where the fraud alleged was inherent in the
cause of action, or in the character or procurement
of the instrument sued on, it does not furnish a le-
gitimate ground for impeaching the judgment in a
collateral proceeding^2 and there are many deci-
sions stating the broad general rule that, where the
court has jurisdiction, it is not permissible for a
party or privy to attack a judgment in a collateral
proceeding because of fraud,93 such a judgment be-
ing voidable only, and not void.94
A judgment obtained by fraud may, however, be
void under some circumstances, and subject to col-
lateral attack,95 as where such fraud appears on
92. U.S. — Phoenix Finance Corpora-
tion v. Iowa-Wisconsin Bridge Co.,
C.C.A.Iowa, 115 F.2d 1, 139 A.L.R.
1490, reversed on other grounds 62
S.Ct. 139, 314 U.S. 118, 86 L.Ed.
100, 137 A.L.R. 967.
Ariz.— Kendall v. Silver King of
Arizona Mining Co., 226 P. '540, 26
Ariz. 456.
Cal. — Mason v. Drug, Inc., 88 P.2d
929, 31 Cal.App.2d 697— Godfrey v.
Godfrey, 86 P.2d 357, 30 Cal.App.2d
370 — Sontag v. Denio, 73 P.2d 248,
23 Cal.App.2d 319 — Harvey v. Grif-
fiths, 23 P.2d €32, 133 CaLApp. 17—
Clavey v. Loney, 251 P. 232, 80
CaLApp. 20.
N.J. — Goodman v. Goodman, 194 A.
866, 15 N.J.Misc. 716.
34 C.J. p 565 note 49, p 567 note 67
[a] (3)— 42 OJ. p 173 notes -61,
62.
Equitable relief against judgments
on ground of fraud generally see
supra §§ 372-374.
Jurisdiction of federal courts with
respect to state court judgments
see Courts § 538.
Opening or vacating judgment for
fraud see supra § 269.
At least to the parties themselves
or their privies fraud inhering in
proceeding itself is not ordinarily
available as ground for collateral
attack.— Abbott v. Mtna, Casualty
& Surety Co., D.C.Md., 42 F.Supp.
793, affirmed, C.C.A., -S3tna Casualty
& Surety Co. v. Abbott, 130 F.2d 40.
Fraud must "be extrinsic
U.S.— Molfett v. Robbins, D.C.Kan.,
14 F.Supp. 602, affirmed, C.C.A.,
81 F.2d 431, certiorari denied 56
S.Ct. 940, 298 U.S. 675, 80 L.Ed.
1397.
Ark. — Fawcett v. Khyne, 63 S.W.2d
349, 187 Ark. 940.
Idaho. — Tingwall v. King Hill Irr.
Dist, 155 P.2d 605.
N.Y.— Arcuri v. Arcuri, 193 N.E. 174,
265 N.Y. 358.
Okl.— Steil v. Leverett, 272 P. 412,
133 Okl. 300.
Wash.— Ryan v. Plath, 140 P,2d 968,
18 Wash.2d 839.
93. U.S. — Iselin v. La Coste, C.C.A.
La., 147 F.2d 791 — Montgomery v.
Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U.
S., C.C.AJ11., 83 F.2d 758— Johnson
v. Mississippi Power Co., C.C.A.
Miss., 68 F.2d 545.
Ariz. — Schuster v. Schuster, 73 P.2d
1345, 51 Ariz. 1 — Herman v. Thom-
as, 19 P.2d 685, 41 Ariz. 457.
Ark. — Swindle v. Rogers, 66 S.W.2d
630, 188 Ark. 503— Lambie v. W. T.
Rawleigh Co., 14 S.W.2d 545, 178
Ark. 1019.
Cal. — Nielsen v. Emerson, 6 P.2d 281,
119 CaLApp. 214.
Colo.— Atchison, T, & S. F. Ry. Co.
v. Board of Com'rs of Fremont
County, 37 P.2d 761, 95 Colo. 435.
Fla.— Dr. P. Phillips Co. v. Billo, 147
So. 579, 109 Fla. 316.
Ga.— Wood v. Wood, 38 S.E.2d 545
—Marshall v. Marthin, 15 S.E.2d
861, 192 Ga. 613— Tuff v. Loh, 144
S.E. 670, 38 Ga.App. 526, followed
in Tuff v. Continental Trust Co.,
144 S.E. 671, 38 Ga.App. 529. •
Hawaii. — Corpus Juris cited in
Springer v. Rose, 31 Hawaii 443,
44-5.
Iowa. — Reidy v. Chicago, B. & Q. Ry.
Co., 249 N.W. 347, 216 Iowa 415.
La. — Caldwell v. Caldwell, 114 So.
96, 164 La. 458.
Minn. — Geo. Benz & Sons v. Hassie,
293 N.W. 133, 208 Minn. 118.
Neb. — Warren v. Stanton County,
15 N.W.2d 757, 145 Neb. 220.
N.Y.— People v, Townsend, 233 N.Y.
S. 632, 133 Misc. £43.
N.D.— Olson v. Donnelly, 294 N.W.
666, 70 N.D. 370.
Ba. — Greiner v. Brubaker, 30 A.2d
621, 151 Pa.Super. 515, certiorari
denied 64 S.Ct. 42, 320 U.S. 742,
88 L.Ed. 440, rehearing denied 64
S.Ct. 194, 320 U.S. 813, 88 L.Ed.
491, rehearing denied 64 S.Ct. 434,
320 U.S. 816, 88 L.Ed. 493.
S.C.— Stone v. Mincey, 185 S.B. 619,
180 S.C. 317— Bailey v. Cooley, 150
S.E. 473, 153 S.C. 78.
Tex. — Bragdon v. Wright, Civ.App.,
142 S.W.2d 703, error dismissed.
34 C.J. p 565 note 50 — 47 C.J. p 439
note 12.
Right of third persons and creditors
to assert fraud see supra §§ 414,
415.
Fraud not going" to the jurisdiction
is not ground for collateral attack
on domestic judgment by parties or
privies.— Hill v. Cole, 137 P.2d 579,
192 Okl. 476.
859
94. Colo.— Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry.
Co. v. Board of Com'rs of Fre-
mont County, 37 P.2d 761, 95 Colo.
435.
Ga.— Tuff v. Loh, 144 S.E. 670, 38
Ga.App. 526, followed in Tuff v.
Continental Trust Co., 144 S.E.
671, 38 Ga.App. 529.
Iowa. — Swartzendruber v. Polke, 218
N.W. 62, 205 Iowa 382— Montagne
v. Cherokee County, 205 N.W. 228,
200 Iowa 534 — Newcomer v. New-
comer, 201 N.W. 579, 199 Iowa 390.
Minn.— In re Melgaard's Will, 274 N.
W. 641, 200 Minn. 493.
Tex. — Johnston v. Stephens, Civ.App.,
300 S.W, 225, reversed on other
grounds 49 S.W.2d 431, 121 Tex.
374— Uvalde Paving Co. v. Crabb,
Civ.App., 7 S.W.2d 678, reversed
on other grounds Crabb v. Uvalde
Paving Co., Com.App., 23 S.W.2d
300 — Urban v. Bagby, Civ.App.,
286 S.W. 519, affirmed, Com.App.,
291 S.W. 537.
34 C.J. p 565 note €0, p 566 note 51.
95. U.S. — Bruun v. Hanson, C.CJL
Idaho, 103 F.2d 685, certiorari de-
nied Hanson v. Bruun, £0 S.Ct 86,
308 U.S. 571, 84 L.Ed. 479, mandate
conformed to Bruun v. Hanson, 30
F.Supp. 602— New York Life Ins.
Co. v. Gay, C.C.A.Ky., 36 F.2d 634
—Standard Steel Car Co. v. U. S.,
60 CtCl. 736.
Cal. — Crow v. Madsen, App., Ill P.
2d 7, rehearing granted 111 P.2d
663.
Fla. — State ex rel. Warren v. City of
Miami, 15 So.2d 449, 153 Fla. 644
— State ex rel. Fulton Bag & Cot-
ton Mills v. Burnside, 15 So.2d
324, 153 Fla. 599.
Gteu — Ingram & Le Grand Lumber
Co. v. Burgin Lumber Co., 18 S.E.
2d 774, 193 Ga. 404.
Idaho. — Harkness v. Utah Power &
Light Co., 291 P. 1051, 49 Idaho
756.
111.— Meyer v. Meyer, 39 N.E.2d 811,
379 111. 97, 140 A.L.R. 484— Moore
v. Sievers, 168 N.E. 259, 336 111.
316— Reisman v. Central Mfg. Dist.
Bank, 15 N.E.2d 903, 296 IlLApp.
61.
Ind. — Town of Woodruff Place v.
Gorman, 100 N.E. 296, 179 Ind. 1—
Guydon v. Taylor, 60 N.E.2d 750,
115 Ind.App. 685.
§434
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.8.
the face of the record96 or goes to the method of
acquiring jurisdiction.97 Likewise, the judgment
may be attacked collaterally where fraud has been
practiced in the very act of obtaining the judg-
ment,98 or on the party against whom the judg-
ment was rendered, so as to prevent him from hav-
Ky. — Houston's Guardian (now Lu
ker) v. Luker's Former Guardian
69 S.W.2d 1014, 253 Ky. 602.
La.— -Miller v. Miller, 100 So. 45
15$ La. 46.
Neb.— Mead Co. v. Doerfler, 18 N.W
2d 524, 146 Neb. 2.
N.Y. — Fisher v. Fisher, 237 N.Y.S
162, 227 App.Div. 160, reversed on
other grounds 170 N.E. 912, 25J
N.Y. 260, 69 A.L.R. 918— Oberlan
der v. Oberlander, 39 N.Y.S.2d 139
179 Misc. 459.
Ohio. — Dahms v. Swinburne, 167 N.E
486, 31 Ohio App. 512.
Okl. — Cochran v. Barkus, 240 P
321, 112 Okl. ISO.
Or.— May v. Roberts, 286 P. 546
133 Or. 643.
Pa. — In re Stetson's Estate, 155 A.
856, 305 Pa. 62 — Biddle v. Tomlin-
son, 8 A. 774, 115 Pa. 299, 20 Wkly
N.C. 74, 44 Leg.Int. 318— Moyer v
Meray, 25 A.2d 612, 148 Pa.Super
284.
S.C. — First Carolinas Joint Stock
Land Bank of Columbia v. Knotts,
1 S.E.2d 797, 191 S.C. 384.
Tex.— Benson v. Mangum, Civ.App.,
117 S.W.2d 169, error refused —
Urban v. Bagby, Civ.App., 286 S.
W. 519, affirmed, Com.App., 291
S.W. 537.
34 C.J. p 566 note 52.
There are two kinds of fraud to
be considered: First, the kind of
fraud which prevents the court
from acquiring jurisdiction or which
merely gives it colorable Jurisdiction;
second, that kind of fraud which oc-
curred in the proceedings of the court
after jurisdiction had been obtained,
such as perjury, concealment and
other chicanery. The first variety
of fraud will invalidate the judg-
ment while the second class has no
such legal effect. — Wood v. First
Nat. Bank of Woodlawn, 50 N.E.2d
830, 383 111. 515, certiorari denied 64
S.Ct 521, 321 U.S. 765, 88 L.Ed. 1061
—•People v. Sterling, 192 N.E. 229,
357 111. 354— Beck v. Lash, 136 N.E.
475, 303 111. 549— In re Goldberg's
Estate, 5 N.E.2d 863, 288 IlLApp.
203, certiorari denied Goldberg v.
Goldberg, 58 S.Ct 12, 302 U.S. 693, 82
L.Ed. 535.
Extrinsic fraud
(1) Judgments obtained by extrin-
sic fraud may be attacked collater-
ally.
U.S.— Griffith v. Bank of N. Y., C.C.A.
N.T., 147 F.2d 899, certiorari de-
nied Bank of New York v. Grif-
fith, 147 F.2d 899.
Okl. — Dill v. Stevens, 284 P. 60, 141
Okl. 24 — Stevens v. Dill, 285 P.
845, 142 Okl. 138— Schulte v. Board
of Com'rs of Pontotoc County, 250
P. 123, 119 Okl. 261. j
(2) Extrinsic fraud such as wil
render judgment subject to collatera
attack is fraud which, rather than
joing to merits of judgment, has
prevented cause from being full*
considered on its merits, as by pre-
venting party from attending hear-
ing or from presenting his cas<
fully.
Cal. — Howard v. Howard, 163 P.2d
439 — McLaughlin v. Security-Firs
Xat. Bank of Los Angeles, 67 P.2d
726, 20 Cal.App.2d 602.
N.J.— Wolff v. Wolff, 34 A.2d 150
134 N.J.Eq. 8.
(3) When a judgment is assailed
for fraud extraneous to the issues
it is immaterial whether it is denom-
inated a "direct attack" or a "collat-
eral attack." — Gray v. McKnight, 183
P. 489, 75 Okl.. 268— Griffin v. Culp,
174 P. 495, 68 Okl. 310.
Where fraud is regarded as hav-
ing been perpetrated on the court as
well as on the injured party, the
judgment is a mere nullity and may
be attacked and defeated because of
the fraud in any collateral proceed-
ing in the same court in which it
was rendered. — State ex rel. Hussey
v. Hemmert, Ohio App., 37 N.E.2d
668.
Judgment may be collaterally at-
tacked at subsequent term in court
rendering it.— Home v. Moorehead,
153 So. 668, 169 Miss. 362, overrul-
ing suggestion of error 152 So. 495,
169 Miss. 362.
By statute in some states any ju-
dicial record may be impeached on
ground of fraud in party offering
t — Stewart v. Stewart, 89 P.2d 404,
32 Cal.App.2d 148.
Ariz. — Hershey v. Banta, 99 P.
2d 81, 55 Ariz. 93, followed in
Hershey v. Republic Life Ins. Co.,
99 P.2d 85, 55 Ariz. 104— Dockery
v. Central Arizona Light & Power
Co., 45 P.2d 656, 45 Ariz. 434—
Grand International Brotherhood
of Locomotive Engineers v. Mills,
31 P.2d 971, 43 Ariz. 379— Bermon
v. Thomas, 19 P.2d 685, 41 Ariz.
457. .
daho.— Tingwall v. King Hill Irr.
Dist, 155 P.2d 605.
4 C.J. p 666 note 53.
Where fraud does not appear on
ace of record, collateral attack has
een held not available.
Ky.— Collier v. Peninsular Fire Ins.
Co. of America, 363 S.W. 353, 204
Ky. 1.
Wash. — Thompson v. Short, 106 P.2d
720, 6 Wash.2d 71.
97. Ariz. — G rand International
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engi-
neers v. Mills, 31 P.2d 971, 43 Ariz.
379. :
860
Colo.— Wilson v. Birt, 235 P. 563, 77"
Colo. 206.
Ind. — McKinney v. Bassett, 61 N.E.-
2d 79, 115 Ind.App. 614.
Iowa.— Watt v. Dunn, 17 N.W.2d
811.
Miss. — Lamar v. Houston, 184 So..
293, 183 Miss. 260.
Okl.— Oklahoma Stockyards Nat.,
Bank v. Pierce, 243 P. 144, 114 Okl.
25.
Tex. — Dyer v. Johnson, Civ. App., 19'
S.W.2d 421, error dismissed.
34 C.J. p 566 note 54 — 42 C.J. p 173:
note 60.
98. U.S.— Nardi v. Poinsatte, IXC..
Ind., 46 F.2d 347— McMurray v..
Chase Nat Bank of City of New-
York, D.CWyo., 10 F.Supp. 960—
Stephens Fuel Co. v. Bay Parkway
Nat. Bank of Brooklyn, D.CJST.Y.,.
10 F.Supp. 395.
Ariz. — Grand International Brother-
hood of Locomotive Engineers v:.
Mills, 31 P.2d 971, 43 Ariz. 379.
Ark. — Featherston v. Lamb, 178 Si.
W.2d 492, 206 Ark. 1078— Levinson
v. Treadway, 78 S.W.2d 59, 190
Ark. 201.
Cal.— Slater v. Shell Oil Co., 103 P-
2d 1043, 39 Cal.App.2d 535.
111. — Hughes v. First Acceptance-
Corporation, 260 IlLApp. 176.
Ky. — Houston's Guardian (now Lu-
ker) v. Luker's Former Guardian..
69 S.W.2d 1014, 253 Ky. 602— Com-
monwealth v. Smith, 46 S.W.2S 474V
242 Ky. 365.
Miss. — Carr v. Miller, 139 So. 851, 162'
Miss. 760.
Neb.— Warren v. Stanton County, lo".
N.W.2d 757, 145 Neb. 220.
Okl. — Cochran v. Barkus, 240 P. 321,.
112 Okl. 180.
Pa. — Gribben v. Carpenter, 185 A-
712, 323 Pa, 243.
C.J. p 566 note 55 — 42 C.J. p 173:
note 60.
Allegation that assignment of note
and mortgage by bank was illegal,
n that bank was insolvent at the-
time did not allege such fraud in.
procurement of judgment on note
and mortgage in favor of assignee-
would afford basis for a collat-
ral attack on such judgment — Had-
ey v. Mooresville Bldg. Savings &
Loan Ass'n, 47 N.E.2d 156, 113 Ind.
App. 1.43.
Attorney who makes one a party
ompZainant to suit without his;
knowledge or consent, and who, by
means of such unauthorized act,
causes judgment against such party,,
ommits a legal fraud, and judg-
ment may be enjoined or canceled
n equity where there is no element
f estoppel or acquiescence after no-
ice of such judgment. — Hirsch Bros.
& Co. v. R. E. Kennington Co., 124
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 434
ing a fair opportunity to present his case,99 or
where it gives an undue advantage to the prevailing
party,1 or where the judgment was obtained through
corruption of the judge, induced by the opposite
party,2 notwithstanding the court had jurisdiction
of the proceedings resulting in the judgment.3
Duress and coercion. Judgments obtained
through duress and coercion are not necessarily, and
in all cases, void and, as such, subject to collateral
attack.4
b. Collusion
A judgment ordinarily may not be impeached col-
laterally by a party or privy to the Judgment on the
ground that It was obtained by means of collusion be-
tween the other parties to the action or the attorneys.
A party or privy to a judgment ordinarily is not
permitted to impeach it collaterally on the ground
that it was obtained by means of collusion between
the other parties to the action or the attorneys in
the case,5 although, as considered supra § 414, this
may be done by a stranger to the proceeding, when
his rights or interests in a subsequent litigation are
threatened by the judgment. A judgment procured
through the collusion of plaintiff and the city and
its agents is subject to collateral attack by a tax-
payer whenever it comes into conflict with his
rights as a taxpayer,6 notwithstanding the rule that
the taxpayer is in privity with the city.7
When the only collusion is a union of the adverse
interests, and the facts are fully disclosed to the
court having full and complete jurisdiction, there is
no fraud and the judgment is binding on collateral
attack.8
c. False Testimony or Perjury
False testimony or perjury ordinarily Is not ground
for a collateral attack on the Judgment unless the falsity
goes, to the jurisdiction of the court.
It is no ground for impeaching a judgment col-
laterally that the testimony on which it was based
was false or perjured9 unless the fraud goes to the
So. 344, 155 Miss. 242, 88 A.L.R. 1
— Weems v. Vowell, 84 So. 249, 122
Hiss. 342.
Insufficiency of proof to sustain.
decree did not constitute "fraud in
the procurement of the decree"
which would authorize collateral at-
tack. — Bond v. Avondale Baptist
Church, 194 So. 833, 239 Ala. 366.
Evidence held lyffn
To show fraud.
U.S. — Bruun v. Hanson, C.C.A.Idaho,
103 F.2d 685, certiorari denied
Hanson v. Bruun, 60 S.Ct. 86, 308
U.S. 571, 84 L.Ed. 479, mandate
conformed to, D.C., Bruun v. Han-
son, 30 F.Supp. 602.
Ark. — Turley v. Owen, 69 S.W.2d 882,
188 Ark. 1067.
Cal.— McLaughlin v. Security-First
Nat. Bank of Los Angeles, 67 P.2d
726, 20 Cal.App.2d 602.
111. — Indiana Harbor Belt R. Co. v.
Calumet City; 63 N.B.2d 369— Wal-
ton v. Albers, 44 N.E.2d 145, 380
111. 423.
Mich. — Harden v, R. D. Baker Co.,
271 N.W. 712, 279 Mich. 145, cer-
tiorari denied R. D. Baker Co. v.
Rarden, 58 S.Ct 15, 302 U.S. 697,
82 L.Ed. 538.
Okl.— Warren v. Stansbury, 126 P.
2d 251, 190 Okl. 554— Jackson v.
Sadler, 44 P.2d 838, 172 Okl. 56.
Tex. — Hughes v. Wright, Civ.App.,
127 S.W.2d 215.
Wash. — Petition of City of Seattle,
138 P.2d 667, 18 Washed 167.
34 C.J, p 566 note 55 [b].
99. Cal.— McLaughlin v. Security-
First Nat. Bank of Los Angeles, 67
P.2d 726, 20 Cal.App.2d 602.
N.J.— -Wolff v. Wolff, 34 AJd 150, 134
N.XEq. 8, '
Okl. — Cochran v. Barkus, 240 P. 321,
112 Okl. 180.
34 C.J". p 566 note 56.
Public administrator's failure to
appear and defend on behalf of es-
tate in action to quiet title wherein
plaintiff's case rested on foreclosure
decree against testator and known
to be void by plaintiff and adminis-
trator was fraud on heirs against
whom decree rendered was of no
effect. — Conlin v. Blanchard, 28 P.2d
12, 219 Cal. 632.
Where party has been given prop-
er notice of action and has not been
prevented from full participation
therein and has had opportunity to
'protect himself from any fraud,
fraud perpetrated is intrinsic even
though unsuccessful party does not
avail himself of opportunity to ap-
pear before court, and he cannot at-
tack judgment once time has elapsed
for appeal or other direct attack. —
Howard v. Howard, Cal., 163 P.2d
439.
1. Mo. — Einstein v. Strother, App.,
182 S.W. 122.
2. Ga. — Lockett v. Gress Mfg. Co.,
70 S.B. 255, 8 Ga.App. 772.
3. Okl.— Sockey v. Winstock, 144 P.
372, 43 Okl. 758.
4. N.Y.— Finan v. Finan, 47 N.Y.S.
2d 429.
5. Neb. — Warren v. Stanton County,
15 N.W.2d 757, 145 Neb. 220.
34 C.J. p 566 note 60.
Bights of third persons
A judgment which has been en-
tered by collusion between the par-
ties will be disregarded as respects
rights and liens held by third per-
861
sons. — Krug v. John B. Toakum Co.,
80 P.2d 492, 27 Cal.App.2d 91.
6. Okl.— In re Gypsy Oil Co., 285
P. 67, 141 Okl. 291.
7. 111.— Indiana Harbor Belt R. Co.
v. Calumet City, 63 N.E.2d 369.
8. U.S. — Schmertz Wire Glass Co. v.
Western Glass Co., C.C.I1L, 178 F.
973.
34 C.J. p 566 note 62.
9. Ariz. — Corjpns Juris cited in
Grand International Brotherhood
of Locomotive Engineers v. Mills,
31 P.2d 971, 987, 43 Ariz. 379.
Cal. — Perkins v. Benguet Consol.
Mining Co., 132 P.2d 70, 55 CaLApp.
2d 720, certiorari denied Benquet
ConsoL Mining Co. v. Perkins, 63
S.Ct. 1435, 319 U.S. 774, 87 L.Bd.
1721, rehearing denied 64 S.Ct.
429, 320 U.S. 803, 815, 88 L.Ed 485
—Godfrey v. Godfrey, 86 P.2d 357,
30 Cal.App.2d 370.
D.C.— Hodge v. Huff, 140 F.2d 686,
78 U.S.App.D.C, 329, certiorari de-
nied 64 S.Ct. 946, 322 U.S. 733, 88
L.Bd. 1567— Fidelity Storage Co.
v. Urice, 12 F.2d 143, 56 App.D.C.
202.
Idaho.— Moyes v. Moyea, 94 P.2d 782,
60 Idaho 601.
Mass. — Coughlin v. Coughlln, 45 N.E.
2d 388, 312 Mass. 452.
Mich.— Moebius v. McCracken, 246
N.W. 163, 261 Mich. 409.
Mont. — Friedrichsen v. Cobb, 275 P.
267, 84 Mont. 238.
N.J.— Kantor v. Kessler, 40 A.2d 607,
132 N.J.Law 336.
N.T.— Arcuri v. Arcuri, 193 N.E.
174, 265 N.Y. 358.
Or. — Masterson v. Pacific Live Stock
Co., 24 P.2d 1046, 144 Or. 396.
Pa. — Greiner v. Brubaker, 30 A.2d
621, 151 Pa. Super. 515, certiorari
§ 435
jurisdiction of the court.10
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
§ 435. Defenses AvaUable in Original Action
A judgment may not be attacked collaterally by
setting up any matter which was, or might have been,
raised as a defense in the original action.
A judgment cannot be impeached collaterally by
setting up any matter which was or might have
been raised as a defense in the original action11
or on appeal.12 Thus, when proceedings in manda-
mus are instituted to compel the levy and collection
of a tax to pay a judgment against a municipal
corporation, the judgment is conclusive as to the
existence and validity of the debt, and cannot be
controverted as to those facts.18
2HL CONSTRUCTION AND OPEEATION OP JUDGMENT
A. CONSTRUCTION
436. In General
a. General rules of construction
b. Aids to construction
a. General Boles of Construction
An ambiguous judgment should be construed as a
whole so as, If possible, to give effect to all parts there-
of and to effectuate the intent and purpose of the court.
The legal operation and effect of a judgment
must be ascertained by a construction and interpre-
tation of its terms,14 and this presents a question
denied 64 S.Ct. 42. 320 U.S. 742,
88 L.Ed. 440, rehearing denied 64
S.Ct. 194, 320 U.S. 813, 88 L.Bd.
491, rehearing denied 64 S.Ct.
434, 320 U.S. 816, 88 L.Ed. 493.
Tex. — Glenn v. Dallas County Bois
D'Arc Island Levee Dist., 268 S.
W. 452, 114 Tex. 325, answer to
certified questions conformed to,
Civ.App., 275 S.W. 137, in which
judgment is reversed on rehearing
282 S.W. 339, which was reversed
Dallas County Bois D'Arc Island
Levee Dist. v. Glenn, Com.App.,
288 S.W. 165.
34 C.J. p 566 note 63.
Civil action against witness for per-
jury see the C.J.S. title Perjury §§
92-94, also 48 C.J. p 918 note 42
et seq.
10. Ariz. — G rand International
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engi-
neers v. Mills. 31 P.2d 971, 43
Ariz. 379.
34 C.J. p 567 note 64.
11. U.S.— Iselin v. La Coste, C.C.A.
La., 147 F.2d 791— Rheinberger v.
Security Life Ins. Co. of America,
D.C.I1L, 51 F.Supp. 188, cause re-
manded, C.C.A., 146 F.2d 680.
Ala,— Cobbs v. Norville, 151 So. 576,
227 Ala. 621.
Ark. — Carnes v. De <• Witt Bank &
Trust Co., 147 S.W.2d 1002, 201
Ark. 1037.
Cai. — Salter v. Ulrich, 138 P.2d 7, 22
Cal.2d 263, 146 A.L.R. 1344.
Conn. — Lehrman v. Prague, 162 A.
15, 115 Conn. 484.
111.— Mutual Ben. Life Ins. Co. v.
Lyons. 20 N.B.2d 784, 371 111. 341—
Lord v. Board of Sup'rs of Kane
County, 41 N.B.2d 106, 314 IlLApp.
161.
Ky.— Oliver v. Belcher, 265 S.W. 942,
205 Ky. 417.
Mass. — Bremmer v. Hester. 155 N.E.
454, 258 Mass. 425.
Mich. — Cook v. Casualty Ass'n of
America, 224 N.W. 341, 246 Mich.
278.
Minn. — Weber v. Arend, 222 N.W.
646, 176 Minn. 120.
Miss. — Schwartz Bros. & Co. v. Staf-
ford, 148 So. 794, 166 Miss. 397.
Mo. — Crary v. Standard Inv. Co.,
285 S.W. 459, 313 Mo. 448.
Neb. — Clayton v. Evans, 290 N.W.
447, 137 Neb. 574.
N.T.— Haacke v. Marx, 205 N.T.S.
487, 210 App.Div. 248, affirmed 148
N.B. 70S, 240 N.T. 568— Collins
v. Burr, 204 N.Y.S. 357, 209 App.
Div. 116.
N.D.— Sukut v. Sukut 12 N.W.2d
536, 73 N.D. 154.
Okl.— Campbell v. Wood, 278 P. 281,
137 Okl. 90.
Pa. — Graham Roller Bearing Corpo-
ration v. Stone, 126 A. 235, 281 Pa.
229— Sholtz v. Drone, Coxn.PL, 33
DeLCo. 551.
S.C.— Stone v. Mincey, 185 S.E. 619,
ISO S.C. 317.
Tex. — Texas-Pacific Coal & Oil Co.
v. Ames, Com. App., 292 S.W. 191 —
Gathings v. Robertson, Civ.App.,
264 S.W. 173, reversed on other
grounds, Com.App., 276 S.W. 218.
Wash.— Baskin v. Livers, 43 P.2d 42,
181 Wash. 370.
W.Va, — G. W. C. Land Co. v. Geb-
hardt, 35 S.E.2d 725.
34 C.J. p 567 note 67.
Matters concluded by judgment see
infra §§ 712-736.
Particular defenses
(1) Discharge in bankruptcy. —
Reining v. Nevison, 213 N.W. 609,
203 Iowa 995.
(2) Intrinsic fraud or collusion. —
Kendall v. Silver King of Arizona
Mining Co., 226 P. 540, 26 Ariz. 456
—34 C.J. p 567 note 67 [a] (3).
(3) Paramount or adverse title.
111.— Sielbeck v. Grothman, 94 N.E.
67, 248 111. .436, 21 Ann.Cas. 229.
Okl. — Ciesler v. Simpson, 105 P.2d
862
227, 187 Okl. 641, followed in Cies-
ler v. Sykes, 105 P.2d 229, 187 Okl.
643.
(4) Res Judicata. — Commonwealth
ex rel. Esenwein v. Esenwein, 33 A.
2d 675, 153 Pa.Super. 69, affirmed 35
A.2d 335, 348 Pa, 455, affirmed 65 S.
Ct. 1118, 157 A.L.R. 1396.
(5) Usury. — Dallas Trust & Sav-
ings Bank v. Brashear, Tex.Civ.App.,
39 S.W.2d 148, modified on other
grounds, Coxn.App., 65 S.W.2d 288.
(6) Other defenses.
Okl.— Davidson v. Whitfield, 99 P.2d
156, 186 Okl. 536.
S.C.— Stone v. Mincey, 185 S.E. 619,
180 S.C. 317.
34 C.J. p 567 note 67 [a].
12. N.D.— Fischer v. Dolwig, 166 N.
W. 793, 39 N.D. 161.
13. U.S. — State of Louisiana v. Po-
lice Jury of the Parish of St. Mar-
tin, La., 4 S.Ct. 648, 111 U.S. 716,
28 L.Ed. 574.
34 C.J. p 567 note 70.
14. Idaho. — Evans v. City of Ameri-
can Falls, 11 P.2d 363, 52 Idaho 7.
Ky.— Ratlitt v. Sinberg, 79 S.W.2d
717, 258 Ky. 203— Corpus Juris cit-
ed in Turner v. Begley, 39 S.W.2d
504, 506, 239 Ky. 281.
Mont. — Corpus Juris cited in Gans
& Klein Inv. Co. v. Sanford, 8 P.
2d 808, 811, 91 Mont 512.
Nev.— Corpus Juris quoted in Asel-
tine v. Second Judicial Dist Court
in and for Washoe County, De-
partment No. 1, 62 P.2d 701, 702,
57 Nev. 269.
N.T.— Inglehart v. Slauson, 292 N.T.
S. 325, 249 App.Div. 793.
Ohio.— HCoxpns Juris quoted in Hofer
v. Hofer, App., 42 N.B.2d 165.
Tex. — Corpus Juris quoted in Mag-
nolia Petroleum Co. v. Caswell,
Civ.App., 295 S.W. 653, 656, re-
versed on other grounds, Com.
App., 1 S.W.2d 597, rehearing de-
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
436
of law for the court.15 If the language used in a
judgment is ambiguous there is room for construc-
tion,16 but if the language employed is plain and
unambiguous there is no room for construction or
interpretation,1? and the effect thereof must be de-
clared in the light of the literal meaning of the
language used.18 A court will not construe a
judgment or decree in the absence of the assertion
of some claim or right to be litigated in a proceed-
ing which the court has jurisdiction to determine,
and in which the questioned meaning bears on the
question to be determined.19
The general rules of construction of written in-
struments have been held to apply to the construc-
tion of judgments.20 The intention of the court
must be determined21 from all parts of the instru-
ment,22 and words and clauses thereof should be
construed according to their natural and legal im-
port.23 The judgment must be read in its entire-
ty,24 and it must be construed as a whole25 so as to
nied 7 S.W.2d 867, certiorari de-
nied Caswell v. Magnolia Petrole-
um Co., 49 S.Ct. 34, 278 U.S. 640, 73
L.Ed. 555.
Challenge to validity is not in-
volved in the mere interpretation of
a judgment. — Ballew v. Denny, 177
S.W.2d 152, 296 Ky. 368, 150 A.L.R.
770.
Judgment in evidence
A judgment which has been ad-
mitted as evidence in another case
must be construed by the court the
same as other documents in evi-
dence.— Grasso v. Frattollllo, 149 A.
838, 111 Conn. 209.
15. Mo. — Charles v. St. Louis, M. &
S. B. R. Co., 101 S.W. 680, 124 Mo.
App. 293.
Nev. — Corpus Juris auoted in Asel-
tine v. Second Judicial Dist. Court
in and for Washoe County, Depart-
ment No. 1, 62 P.2d 701, 702, 57
Nev, 269.
Ohio. — Corpus Juris quoted in Hofer
v. Hofer, App., 42 N.B.2d 165, 167.
Tex. — Corpus Juris quoted in Mag-
nolia Petroleum Co. v. Caswell,
Civ.App., 295 S.W. 653, 656, re-
versed on other grounds, Com.App.,
1 S.W.2d 597, rehearing denied 7
S.W.2d 867, certiorari denied 49
S.Ct. 34, 278 U.S. 640, 73 L.Ed.
555.
Court's construction of own Judg-
ment
(1) A court has the right to con-
strue and clarify its own judg^
ment.— Hofer v. Hofer, Ohio App., 42
N.E.2d 165.
(2) Construction of own judgmen
by trial court held conclusive on ap-
peal.—Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Bank-
ers, etc., Tel. Co., 23 N.B. 173, 11J
N.T. 15— Hubbell v. Buhler, 21 N.B
176, 113 N.Y. 653.
16- Tex. — General Exchange Ins
Corporation v. Appling, Civ.App.
144 S.W.2d 699.
17. Tex. — Magnolia Petroleum Co. v
Caswell, Com.App., 1 S.W.2d 597
rehearing denied 7 S.W.2d 867, cer
tiorari denied Caswell v. Magnolia
Petroleum Co., 49 S.Ct. 34, 278 U
S. 640, 73 L.Ed. 555— General Bx
change Ins. Corporation v. Ap
pling, Oiv.App., 144 S.W.2d 699.
18. Tex.— General Exchange Ins,
Corporation v. Appling, supra.
Order following words, "It is by
he court ordered, adjudged and de-
reed," is final and controlling por-
on of judgment, and, if clear and
nambiguous, will be given effect. —
mo Oil & Gas Co. v. Charles E.
Knox Oil Co., 250 P. 117, 120 Okl. 13.
9. N.M.— Village of Springer v.
Springer Ditch Co., 144 P.2d 165, 47
N.M. 456.
20. Idaho. — Evans v. City of Ameri-
can Falls, 11 P.2d 363, 52 Idaho 7.
owa.— Whittier v. Whittier, 23 N.W.
2d 435.
Ky. — Toms v. Holmes, 171 S.W.2d
245, 294 Ky. 233 — Decker v. Tyree,
264 S.W. 726, 204 Ky. 302.
e. — Milo Water Co. v. Inhabitants
of Town of Milo, 7 A.2d 895, 136
Me. 228.
Miss. — Rayl v. Thurman, 125 So. 912,
156 Miss. 8.
Tex.— Permian Oil Co. v. Smith, 107
S.W.2d 564, 129 Tex. 413, 111 A.L.
R. 1152— Larrison v. Walker, Civ.
App., 149 S.W.2d 172, error re-
fused— In re Supples1 Estate, Civ.
App., 131 S.W.2d 13— Austin v.
Conaway, Civ.App., 283 S.W. 189.
Character of instrument
(1) Decrees are usually to be in-
terpreted in accordance with theii
true character without much regard
to their title.— Hays v. The Georgian
Inc., 181 N.B. 765, 280 Mass. 10, 85
A.L.R. 1251.
(2) Character of decree is deter-
mined by particular facts of case
and equitable rights of parties.—
Sanders v. Sheets, Mo.App., 287 S
W. 1069.
(3) The character of a particular
judgment has been determined by
construction of the judgment— Mills
Novelty Co. v. Spurdis, Tex.Civ.App
29 S.W.2d 893, error dismissed.
Ejusdem generis
(1) In construction of judgment
rule of "ejusdem generis" is applica
ble where enumeration of specifi
things is followed by some genera
word or phrase in which case such
general word or phrase is held t
refer to things of the same kind.—
Stevenson v. Record Pub. Co., Tex
Civ.App., 107 S.W.2d 462, error dis
missed.
(2) The rule is inapplicable wher
general words or phrase precede
peciflc words and when language
f judgment wholly fails to indicate
ntention to limit or qualify gen-
ral descriptive language. — Stevenson
Record Pub. Co., supra,
Meaning of undefined terms may
e ascertained. — Anderson v. Palla-
ine, 237 P. 758, 72 CaLApp. 433.
Relative terms, including word
said," generally refer to next pre-
eding antecedent, unless it is clear
rora the context that a different one
was intended. — Sharp v. Sharp, 164
685, 333 111. 267.
21. Iowa.— Whittier v. Whittier, 23
N.W.2d 435— Rank v. Kuhn, 20
N.W.2d 72— Weir & Russell Lum-
ber Co. v. Kempf, 12 N.W.2d 857,
234 Iowa 450— Button v. Schnack,
275 N.W. 870, 224 Iowa, 251.
Purpose of construction is to de-
ermine intention and meaning of
author of the judgment.— Cundy v.
Weber, 300 N.W. 17, 68 S.D. 214.
22. Iowa.— Whittier v. Whittier, 23
N.W.2d 435— Rank v. Kuhn, 20 N.-
•W.2d 72 — Weir & Russell Lumber
Co. v. Kempf, 12 N.W.2d 857, 234
Iowa 450.
Intention as expressed in Judgment
(1) Intention as expressed in
judgment governs. — Gila Valley Irr.
Dist. v. U. S., C.C.A.Ariz., 118 F.2d
507.
(2) The controlling intention of
court's judgment is that expressed
on its face and not an intention that
may be deduced from evidence that
court had before it.— Harrison v.
Manvel Oil Co., 180 S.W.2d 909, 142
Tex. 669.
23, Neb.— Whaley v. Matthews, 287
N.W. 205, 136 Neb. 767.
24. U.S.— National Surety Corpora-
tion v. Williams, C.C.A.Ark., 110 F.
2d 873, certiorari denied Williams
v. National Surety Corporation, 61
S.Ct. 40, 311 U.S. 674, 85 L.Bd. 433.
Conn. — Christiano v. Christiano, 41
A.2d 779, 131 Conn. 589.
Tex.— Campbell v. Schrock, Com.
App., 50 S.W.Sd 788— Texas Em-
ployers' Ins. Ass'n v. Ezell, Com.
App., 16 S.W.2d 523— Cook v.
Smith, Civ.App., 96 S.W.2d 318,
error dismissed— Shawver v. Mas-
terson, Civ.App., 81 S.W.2d 236, er-
ror refused.
26. U.S.— Corpus Juris cited in
§ 436
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
firing all of its parts into harmony as far as this
can be done by fair and reasonable interpretation26
and so as to give effect to every word and part, if
possible,27 and to effectuate the obvious intention28
and purpose29 of the court, consistent with the pro-
visions of the organic law.30
Judgments should be liberally construed31 so as
to make them serviceable instead of useless.32 Nec-
essary legal implications are included although not
expressed in terms.33 In construing a judgment,
however, the adjudication should not extend be-
Boundary County, Idaho, v. Wold-
son. C.C.A.Idaho, 144 F.2d 17, 20,
certiorari denied 65 S.Ct 678, 324
U.S. 843, 89 L.Ed. .
Ala. — Floyd v. Jackson, 164 So. 121,
26 Ala.App. 575.
Ark. — Young v. City of Gurdon, 275
S.W. 890, 169 Ark. 399.
Cal.— Ex parte Carr, 151 P.2d 164,
65 Cal.App.2d 681.
Ind. — Pottenger v. Bond, 142 N.E.
616, 81 Ind.App. 107.
Iowa. — Button v. Schnack, 275 N.
W. 870, 224 Iowa 251.
Ky.— Deboe v. Brown, 22 S.W.2d 111,
231 Ky. 682.
Mass.— Dondis v. Lash, 186 N.B.
549, 283 Mass. 353.
Miss. — Rayl v. Thurman, 125 So. 912,
156 Miss. 8.
Mo. — Corpus Juris cited in State ex
rel. Anderson Motor Service Co.
v. Public Service Commission, 134
S.W.2d 1069, 1075, 234 Mo.App.
470, transferred and opinion adopt-
ed 154 S.W.2d 777, 348 Mo. 613.
Neb.— Whaley v. Matthews, 287 N.
W. 205, 136 Neb. 767.
Ohio. — Corpus Juris quoted in Hof er
v. Hofer, App., 42 N.E.2d 165, 167.
Tex. — Larrison v. Walker, Civ.App.,
149 S.W.2d 172, error refused—
General Exchange Ins. Corpora-
tion v. Appling, Civ.App., 144 S.
W.2d 699— Corpus Juris quoted in
Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Caswell,
Civ. App:, 295 S.W. 653, 656, re-
versed on other grounds, Com.App.,
1 S.W.2d 597, rehearing denied 7
S.W.2d 867, certiorari denied Cas-
well v. Magnolia Petroleum Co., 49
S.Ct. 34, 278 U.S. 640, 73 L.Ed. 555.
Utah.— Salt Lake City v. Telluride
Power Co., 17 P.2d 281, 82 Utah
607, rehearing denied 26 P.2d 822,
82 Utah 622.
34 C.J. p 501 note 6.
Every phrase must "be read in con-
nection with the whole instrument.
— Milo Water Co. v. Inhabitants of
Town of Milo, 7 A.2d 895, 136 Me.
228.
26. Neb.— Whaley v. Matthews, 287
N.W. 205, 136 Neb. 767.
N.C. — Lamb v. Major & Loomis Co.,
60 S.E. 425, 146 N.C. 531.
Tex. — Larrison v. Walker, Civ.App.,
149 S.W.2d 172, error refused.
27. U.S. — Corpus Juris cited in
Boundary County, Idaho v. Wold-
son, C.C.AJdaho, 144 F.2d 17, 20,
certiorari denied 65 S.Ct 678, 324
U.S. 843, 89 LJBd. 1405.
Iowa.— Corpus Juris cited in Weir &
Russell Lumber Co. v. Kempf, 12
N.W.2d 857, 860, 234 Iowa 450*
Kan.— McHenry v. Smith, 119 P.2d
493, 154 Kan. 528.
Ky.— Toms v. Holmes, 171 S.W.2d
245, 294 Ky. 233.
La. — In re Clover Ridge Planting &
Manufacturing Co., 193 So. 468,
194 La. 77.
Miss.— Rayl v. Thurman, 125 So. 912,
156 Miss. 8.
Mont. — State v. District -Court of
First Judicial Dist. ill and for
Lewis & Clark County, 233 P. 957,
72 Mont. 374.
Neb.— Whaley v. Matthews, 287 N.W.
205, 136 Neb. 767— Burke v. Unique
Printing Co., 88 N.W. 488, 63 Neb.
264.
Ohio. — Corpus Juris quoted in Hofer
v. Hofer, App., 42 N.E.2d 165, 167.
Okl.— Pffle v. Sarkeys, SO P.2d 647,
183 Okl. 201— Gade v. Loffler, 42
P.Sd 815, 171 Okl. 313— McNeal v.
Baker, 274 P. 655, 135 Okl. 159.
Tex. — Larrison v. Walker, Civ.App.,
149 S.W.2d 172, error refused —
Corpus Juris quoted in Magnolia
Petroleum Co. v. Caswell, Civ.
App., 295 S.W. 653, 656, reversed
on other grounds, Com.App., 1 S.
W.2d 597, rehearing denied 7 S.W.
2d 867, certiorari denied Caswell
v. Magnolia Petroleum Co., 49 S.
Ct 34. 278 U.S. 640, 73 L.Ed. 555
— Austin v. Conaway, Civ.App., 283
S.W. 189.
Utah.— Salt Lake City v. Telluride
Power Co., 17 P.2d 281, 82 Utah
607, rehearing denied 26 P.2d 822,
82 Utah 622.
34 C.J. p 501 note 7.
"No particular part or clause in
the judgment is to be seized upon
and given the power to destroy the
remainder if such effect can be
avoided." — Larrison v. Walker, Tex.
Civ.App., 149 S.W.2d 172, 178, error
refused.
Weaning of words
In determining meaning of words,
courts must take into consideration
their conjunction with other words
and the purpose of their use. — Spil-
ler v. St Louis & S. F. R. Co., C.C.
A.Mo., 14 P.2d 284, affirmed in part
and reversed in part on other
grounds St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v.
Spiller, 274 U.S. 304, 47 S.Ct. 635,
71 L.Ed. 1060, motion denied 48 S.
Ct. 96. 275 U.S. 156, 72 L.Ed. 214.
28. Cal. — Lazar v. Superior Court in
and for City and County of San
Francisco, 107 P.2d 249, 16 Cal.2d
617— Ex parte Carr, 151 P.2d 164,
65 Cal.App.2d 681— Rinaldo v.
Board of Medical Examiners of
864
California, 12 P.2d 32, 123 Cal.
App. 712.
Fla. — City of Winter Haven v. A. M.
Klemm & Son, 181 So. 153, 132 Fla.
334, rehearing denied 182 So. 841,
133 Fla. 525.
Ky.— Clark v. McGrann, 117 S.W.2d
1021, 274 Ky. 1 — Decker v. Tyree,
264 S.W. 726, 204 Ky. 302.
Miss. — Rayl v. Thurman, 125 So. 912,
156 Miss. 8.
29. Ky. — Stearns Coal & Lumber
Co. v. Duncan, 113 S.W.2d 436, 271
Ky. 800.
30. Fla. — City of Winter Haven v.
A. M. Klemm & Son, 181 So. 153,
132 Fla. 334, rehearing denied 182
So. 841, 133 Fla. 525.
31. Mo. — Sanders v. Sheets, App.,
287 S.W. 1069.
Tex. — Lindsey v. Hart, Com. App., 276
S.W. 199— Middlebrook v. Texas
Indemnity Ins, Co., Civ. App., 112
S.W.2d 311, error dismissed Texas
Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Middlebrook,
114 S.W.2d 226, 131 Tex, 163.
Intention, of parties
A judgment which was ambiguous
in certain respects due to some over-
sight or inadvertence either on part
of court or counsel in drawing the
judgment was to be liberally con-
strued with a view to giving effect
to real intention of parties. — Bank
of America Nat. Trust & Savings
Ass'n v. Hill, 71 P.2d 258, 9 Cal.2d
495.
32. Tex. — Lindsey v. Hart, Com.
App., 276 S.W. 199— Middlebrook v.
Texas Indemnity Ins. Co., Civ.App.,
112 S.W.2d 311, error dismissed
Texas Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Mid-
dlebrook, 114 S.W.2d 226, 131 Tex.
163.
Xiiteral construction.
Tex. — In re Supples* Estate, Civ.App.,
131 S.W.2d 13.
3. Iowa.— Whittier v. Whittier, 23
N.W.2d 435— Rank v. Kuhn, 20 N.
W.2d 72— Corpus Juris cited in
Weir & Russell Lumber Co. v.
Kempf, 12 N.W.2d 857, 860, 234
Iowa 450.
Ky. — Toms v. Holmes, 171 S.W.2d
245, 294 Ky. 233.
La. — In re Clover Ridge Planting &
Manufacturing Co., 193 So. 468, 194
La. 77.
Mont. — State v. District Court of
First Judicial Dist. in and ,for
Lewis and Clark County, 233 P.
957, 72 Mont 374.
Neb.— Whaley v. Matthews, 287 N.
W. 205, 136 Neb. 767.
Nev. — Corpus Juris quoted in Asel-
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§436
yond that which the language used fairly war-
rants,34 since the purpose and function of construc-
tion is to give effect to that which is already latent
in the judgment,36 and the court may not by con-
struction add new provisions to a judgment which
were omitted or withheld in the first instance.36 In
construing judgments the legal effect, rather than
the mere language used, governs,37
Doubtful or ambiguous judgments are to have a
reasonable intendment38 to do justice and avoid
wrong.39 Where a judgment is susceptible of two
interpretations, that one will be adopted which ren-
ders it the more reasonable, effective, and conclu-
sive40 and which makes the judgment harmonize
with the facts and law of the case and be such as
tine v. Second Judicial Dist. Court
in and for Washoe County, De-
partment No. 1, 62 P.2d 701, 702,
57 Nev. 269.
Ohio. — Kosinski v. Rochowiak, 178
N.E. 591, 40 Ohio App. 299.
Okl.— - Pflle v. Sarkeysz SO P.2d 647,
183 Okl. 201— Gade v. Loffler, 42 P.
2d 815, 171 Okl. 313— -McNeal v.
Baker, 274 P. 655, 135 Okl. 159.
Tex. — Lindsey v. Hart, Com.App.,
276 S.W. 199— Middlebrook y. Tex-
as Indemnity Ins. Co., Civ.App.,
112 S.W.2d 811, error dismissed
Texas Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Mld-
dlebrook, 114 S.W.2d 226, 131 Tex.
163 — Corpus Juris cited in Keton
v. Clark, Civ.App., 67 %S.W.2d 437,
439 — Corpus Juris quoted in Mag-
nolia Petroleum Co. v. Caswell,
Civ.App., 295 S.W. 653, 656, re-
versed on other grounds, Com.App.,
1 S,W.2d 597, rehearing denied 7
S.W.2d 867, certiorari denied Cas-
well v. Magnolia Petrole'um Co., 49
S.Ct. 34, 278 U.S. 640, 73 L.Ed. 555.
34'C.J. p 502 note 9.
Judgment of dismissal
A judgment dismissing a complaint
or cross complaint is in effect a
judgment against the pleader on the
claim presented by his pleading.
Cal.— Peterson v. Gibbs, SI P. 121,
147 Cal. 1, 109 Am.S.R. 107.
Ind. — Dickerson v. Dickerson, 10 N.
E.2d 424, 104 Ind.App. 686, af-
firmed on rehearing 11 N.E.2d 514,
104 Ind.App. 686 — Smith v. Linton
Trust Co., 121 N.E. 92, 68 Ind.App.
691.
Silence
(1) Generally all claims not ex-
pressly disposed of are by implica-
tion disallowed by a judgment
against the party asserting such in-
terests or claims.
La. — Perot's Estate v. Perot, 148
So. 903, 177 La. 640— McMichael v.
'Thomas, 113 So. 828, 164 La. 233
—Williams v. Ralph R. Miller
Shows, App., 15 So.2d 249, adhered
• to 17 So.2d 67, amended 17 So.2d
389 — Rains v. Thomason & Cham-
pion, 135 So. 92, 17 La.App. 120.
Tex. — Texas Employers Ins, Ass'n v.
Shackelford, Civ.App., 158 S.W.2d
572, reversed on other grounds 164
S.W.2d 657, 139 Tex. 653.
34 C.J. p 502 note 9 [a] (1).
(2) If two causes of action are
alleged and put in .issue, and judg-
ment awards recovery on one but is
silent as to the other, judgment
49 0. J.S.-35
is prima facie an adjudication that
plaintiff was not entitled to recover
on the other cause. — Keystone Cop-
per Min. Ce. v. Miller, Ariz., 164 P.2d
003—34 C.J. p 502 note 9 [a] (6).
(3) Failure of judgment to allow
full amount of claim constitutes re-
j action of balance of claim, as much
as though decree expressly so pro-
vided.— Merrill v. Louisiana Mate-
rials Co., 174 So. 349, 187 La. 259.
(4) Where judgment, in suit
against owners of realty for judg-
ment for amount advanced and
paid for taxes by plaintiff and for
lien and privilege on realty resulting
from alleged tax subrogations, was
for plaintiff for amount advanced,
without any recognition being given
to lien and privilege, demands with
respect to the lien and privilege
must be deemed to have been re-
jected.— Lacaze v. Kardee, La. App.,
7 So.2d 719.
(5) However, judgment for debt
without mention of lien does not
constitute denial of fact that debt is
secured by lien, where no demand
was made for recognition of lien. —
Perot's Estate v. Perot, 148 So. 903,
177 La, 640. .
Time of payment
Where final decree did not fix time
for payment, the implication was
that payment was to be made forth-
with.—Boyer v. Bowles, 54 N.E.2d
925, 316 Mass. 90.
34, La.— Schultz v. Texas & P. Ry.
Co., 186 So. 49, 191 La. 624.
Pa. — Nether Providence Tp. v.
Young, Com.Pl., 33 Del. Co. 213.
34 C.J. p 502 note 10.
Absence of ambiguity
. Where language of judgment was
in the present tense and adjudged
that plaintiff's inheritable interest in
land "is found to be" an undivided
interest, judgment was a determina-
tion as to plaintiff's present interest
and not merely a determination that
at some past time plaintiff inherited
an interest therein, — Moore v. Harjo,
C.C.A.Okl., 144 F.2d 318.
36. U.S.— Butler v. Denton, C.C.A.
Okl., 150 F.2d 687.
36. U.S. — Butler v. Denton, supra.
37. Mo.— Corpus Juris cited in
State ex rel. Anderson Motor Serv-
ice Co. v. Public Service Commis-
sion, 134 S.W.2d 1069, 1076, 234 Mo.
App. 470, transferred and opinion
865
adopted 154 S.W.2d 777, 348 Mo.
613.
Mont. — Corpus Juris cited in, Gans
& Klein Inv. Co. v. Sanford, 8 P.
2d 808, 811, 91 Mont. 512.
Ohio. — Corpus Juris quoted in Hofer
v. Hofer, App., 42 N.B.2d 165, 167.
Tex. — Corpus Juris oited in Keton
v. Clark, Civ.App., 67 S.W.2d 437,
439, error refused — Corpus Juris
quoted in Magnolia Petroleum Co.
v. Caswell, Civ.App., 295 S.W. 653,
656, reversed on other grounds,
Com.App., 1 S.W.2d 597, rehearing
denied 7 S.W.2d 867, certiorari de-
nied Caswell v. Magnolia Petro-
leum Co., 49 S.Ct. 34, 278 U.S.
640, 73 L.Ed. 555.
34 C.J. p 502 note 11.
38. Cal. — Corpus Juris cited in
Treece v. Treece, 14 P.2d 95, 125
CaLApp. 726.
Ga. — Corpus Juris quoted in Jordan
v. Russell, 172 S.B. 469, 470, 48
Ga.App. 200.
Iowa.— Corpus Juris cited in Weir &
Russell Lumber Co. v. Kempf, 12
N.W.2d 857, 860, 234 Iowa 450.
Mo. — Corpus Juris cited in State ex
rel. Anderson Motor Service Co. v.
Public Service Commission, 134 S.
W.2d 1069, 1079, 234 Mo.App. 470,
transferred and opinion adopted
154 S.W.2d 777, 348 Mo. 613.
Mont. — Corpus Juris cited in Gans
& Klein Inv. Co. v. Sanford, 8
P.2d 808, 811, 91 Mont. 512.
Tex.— Wink v. Wink, Civ.App., 169
S.W.2d 721— In re Supples' Estate,
Civ.App., 131 S.W.2d 13— Corpus
Juris quoted in Magnolia Petro-
leum Co. v. Caswell, Civ.App., 295
S.W. 653, £56, reversed on other
grounds, Com. App., 1 S.W.2d 597,
rehearing denied 7 S.W.2d 867,
certiorari denied Caswell v. Mag-
nolia Petroleum Co., 48 S.Ct. 34,
278 U.S. 640, 73 L.Bd. 555.
34 C.J. p 502 note 13.
Common-sense construction will be
put on language as a whole. — In re
Supples' Estate, Tex.Civ.App., 131 S.
W.2d 13— Cook v. Smith, Tex.Civ.
App., 96 S.W.2d 318, error dismissed.
39. U.S.— Rothschild & Co. v. Mar-
shall, D.C.Wash., 47 F.2d 919, re-
versed on other grounds. C.C.A.,
51 F.2d 897.
Mont — Gans & Klein Inv. Co, v.
Sanford, 8 P.2d 808, 91 Mont. 512.
40. U.S. — Hendrie v. Lowmaster, C.
C.A.Mich., 152 F.2d 83— Pen-Ken
Gas & Oil Corporation v. Warfleld
§ 436
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
ought to have been rendered.41 If possible, that
construction will be adopted which will support the
judgment, rather than one which will destroy it.42
All presumptions are in support of the judgment;
nothing will be presumed against it.43
Natural Gas Co., C.C.A.Ky., 137 P.
2d 871, certiorari denied 64 S.Ct.
431, 320 U.S. 800, 88 L.Ed. 483,
rehearing denied 64 S.Ct. 634, 321
U.S. 803, 88 L.Ed. 1089.
Ga. — Corpus Juris quoted In Jordan
v. Russell, 172 S.E. 469, 470, 48 Ga.
App. 200.
Idaho. — Corpus Juris cited in Evans
Y. City of American Falls, 11 P.
2d 363, 368, 52 Idaho 7.
Kan. — McHenry v. Smith, 119 P.2d
493, 154 Kan. 528.
Ky. — Toms v. Holmes, 171 S.W.2d
245, 294 Ky. 233.
La. — Harrison v. Godbold, McG. p
178.
Mont. — Corpus Juris cited in Gans
& Klein Inv. Co. v. Sanford, 8
P.2d 808, 811, 91 Mont. 512.
N.C.— Seip v. Wright, 91 S.E. 359,
173 N.C. 14.
Tex. — Agey v. Barnard, Civ. App., 123
S.W.2d 484, error dismissed, judg-
ment correct — Corpus Juris cited
in Keton v. Clark, Civ. App., 67
S.W.2d 437, 439, error refused —
Corpus Juris quoted in Magnolia
Petroleum Co. v. Caswell, Civ.App.,
295 S.W. 653, £56, reversed on oth-
er grounds, Com.App., 1 S.W.2d
597, rehearing denied 7 S.W.2d
867, certiorari denied Caswell v.
Magnolia Petroleum Co., 49 S.Ct.
34, 278 U.S. 640, 73 L.Ed. 555.
W.Va. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Farmers of Greenbrier County v.
Greenbrier County Court, 143 S.E.
347, 105 W.Va. 567.
41. u.s. — Hendrie v. Lowmaster, C.
C.A.Mich., 152 P.2d 83— Pen-Ken
Gas & Oil Corporation v. Warfield
Natural Gas Co., C.C.A.Ky., 137 P.
2d 871, certiorari denied 64 S.Ct.
431, 320 U.S. 800, 88 L.Ed. 483,
rehearing denied 64 S.Ct. 634, 321
U.S. 803, 88 L.Ed. 1089— Corpus
Juris cited in Burton v. Equitable
Life Assur. Soc. of U. S., D.C.
Okl., 21 F.Supp. 62, 65.
Cal. — Treece v. Treece, 14 P.2d 95,
125 Cal-App. 726— McAlister v.
Dungan, 291 P. 419, 108 CaLApp.
185— Boyer v. Crichton, 279 P. 677,
100 CaLApp. 24.
Ga. — Corpus Juris quoted in Jordan
v. Russell, 172 S.E. 469, 470, 48
Ga.App. 200.
Idaho. — Corpus Juris cited in Evans
v. City of American Palls, 11 P.2d
363, 368, 52 Idaho 7.
Minn.— Parten v. Pirst Nat Bank
& Trust Co., 283 N.W. 408, 204
Minn. 200, 120 A.L.R. 962.
Mo. — State ex rel. Wilkerson v. Kel-
ly, 142 S.W.2d 27, 346 Mo. 416.
Mont— Quigley v. Mclntosh, 103 P.
2d 1067, 110 Mont. 495— Corpus
Juris cited in Gans & Klein Inv. 1
Co. v. Sanford, .8 P.2d 808, 811,
91 Mont. 512.
Xev. — Corpus Juris quoted in Asel-
tine v. Second Judicial Dist. Court
in and for Washoe County, De-
partment No. 1, 62 P.2d 701, 702,
57 Nev. 269.
N.C. — Berrier v. Board of Com'rs of
Davidson County, 120 S.E. 328,
186 N.C. 564.
Tex. — In re Supples* Estate, Civ.App.,
131 S.W.2d 13— Cook v. Smith, Civ.
App., 96 S.W.2d 318, error dismiss-
ed— Corpus Juris cited in Keton
v. Clark, Civ.App., 67 S.W.2d 437,
439, error refused — Corpus Juris
quoted in Magnolia Petroleum Co.
v. Caswell, CivJlpp., 295 S.W. 653,
656, reversed on other grounds,
Com.App., 1 S.W.2d 597, rehearing
denied 7 S.W.2d 867, certiorari
denied Caswell v. Magnolia Petro-
leum Co., 49 S.Ct. 34, 278 U.S.
640, 73 L.Ed. 555 — Austin v. Con-
away, Civ.App., 283 S.W. 189.
W.Va. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Farmers of Greenbrier County v.
Greenbrier County Court, 143 S.E.
347, 105 W.Va. 567.
34 C.J. p 502 note 15.
42. U.S. — Corpus Juris cited in Bur-
ton v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc.
of U. S., D.CXOkl., 21 P.Supp. 62,
65.
Cal.— Williams v. Williams, 56 P.2d
1253, 13 Cal.App.2d 433.
Ga. — Byrd v. Goodman, 25 S.E.2d
34, 195 Ga. 621— Corpus Juris cit-
ed in Chappell v. Small, 20 S.E.2d
916, 920, 194 Ga. 143.
Ky. — Decker v. Tyree,*264 S.W. 726,
204 Ky. 302.
Tex. — Jackson v. Slaughter, Civ.App.,
185 S.W.2d 759, refused for want
of merit — Corpus Juris cited in
Keton v. Clark, Civ.App., 67 S.W.
2d 437, 439, error refused — Corpus
Juris quoted in Magnolia Petro-
leum Co. v. Caswell, Civ.App., 295
S.W. 653, 656, reversed on other
grounds, Com.App., 1 S.W.2d 597,
rehearing denied 7 S.W.2d 867, cer-
tiorari denied Caswell v. Magnolia
Petroleum Co., 49 S.Ct. 34, 278 U.
S. 640, 73 L.Ed. 555— Austin v.
Conaway, Civ.App., 283 S.W. 189.
W.Va. — McClung v. Sewell Valley R.
Co., 159 S.E. 521, 110 W.Va. 621,
amended on other grounds State v.
Sharp, 160 S.E. 302, 111 W.Va.
39.
Wis.— In re Corse's Will, 217 N.W.
726, 195 Wis. 88.
34 C.J. p 502 note 16.
Conformity to pleadings
If decree is susceptible of more
than one construction, it must be
interpreted to conform to pleadings
and proceedings as -evidenced by rec-
ord.— Tilton v. Horton, 137 So. 801,
866
103 Pla. 497, rehearing denied 139
So. 142, 103 Pla. 497.
Correct application of law to facts
When language of decree is sus-
ceptible of two constructions, from
one of which it follows that law
has been correctly applied to facts
and from other that law has been in-
correctly applied, that construction
should be adopted which correctly
applies the law.
Ind. — In re Summers, 137 N.E. 291,
79 Ind.App. 108.
Tex. — Davis v. Pirst Nat. Bank of
Waco, Civ.App., 145 S.W.2d 707,
affirmed 161 S.W.2d 467, 139 Tex.
36, 144 A.L.R. 1— Robinson v.
Hays, Civ.App., 62 S.W.2d 1007.
"trt res tnagis valeat quam pereat"
In construing a judgment the max-
im, "Ut res magis valeat quam pe-
reat," has been employed. — Texas Co.
v. Martin, C.C.A.Tex., 109 P.2d 305.
"Ut res magis valeat quam pereat"
denned see 66 C.J. p 381 note 79.
43. Okl. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Pagras v. Marks, 43 P.2d 108, 109,
171 Okl. 413.
Tex. — Jackson v. Slaughter, Civ.App.,
185 S.W.2d 759, refused for want
of merit — Corpus Juris quoted in
Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Cas-
well, Civ.App.t 295 S.W. 653, 656,
reversed on other grounds, Com.
App., 1 S.W.2d 597, rehearing de-
nied 7 S.W.2d 867, certiorari denied
Caswell v. Magnolia Petroleum Co.,
49 S.Ct 34, 278 U.S. 640, 73 L.
Ed. 555.
34 C.J. p 503 note 19.
Grounds for Judgment
Where a general judgment may
have been based on two or more
grounds, one of which would be er-
roneous, and the others proper, it is
presumed that the judgment was
based on the proper ground. — West-
ern Paving Co. v. Board of Com'rs
of Lincoln County, 81 P.2d 652, 183
Okl. 281.
Judgments of other courts
(1) In construing the judgment
of another court of equal rank in the
same system, it will be presumed,
in the absence of clear expressions
to the contrary, that such other
court holds the same view of the
law on which the Judgment is based
as that held by the construing court.
— Adoue v. Wettermark, 68 S.W. 553,
28 Tex.Civ.App. 593.
(2) Courts in construing final
judgments of other courts of com-
petent jurisdiction will not go be-
hind them or question the wisdom
thereof. — Burton v. Equitable Life
Assur. Soc. of U. S., D.C.Oklv 21
P.Supp. 62. .
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
436
A judgment must be construed in light of the sit-
uation of the court,44 what was before it,45 and
the accompanying circumstances.46 In cases of am-
biguity or doubt the meaning of the judgment must
be determined by that which preceded it and that
which it was intended to execute.47
A construction adopted or acquiesced in by the
parties will not be changed without strong rea-
son.48
Abbreviations. In construing a judgment the
court may ascertain the meaning of abbreviations
used therein.49
Party preparing decree. Where a decree
is
agreed on in open court, the fact that one of the
parties prepared the decree does not require it to
be construed more strongly against such party.50
b. Aids to Construction
In case of doubt or ambiguity a Judgment may be
construed in the light of the entire Judgment roil OP
record.
As a general rule, the meaning, effect, and legal
consequences of a judgment must be ascertained
from its own provisions and language, if possible.51
If, however, the judgment is ambiguous or obscure,
or a satisfactory interpretation cannot be deter-
mined from the judgment itself,52 the entire judg-
(3) They must presume that court
rendering Judgment would render
proper Judgment within limitations
of statute fixing its Jurisdiction. —
Burton v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc.
of U. S., supra.
(4) Where effect of a Judgment of
another court is questioned and in
absence of clarity of such judgment,
a court should look to source of ju-
risdiction from which power to ren-
der judgment is derived. — Burton v.
Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U. S.,
supra.
44. Cal.— Rinaldo v. Board of Med-
ical Examiners of California, 12
P.2d 32, 123 CaLApp. 712.
45. U.S. — Pen-Ken Gas & Oil Cor-
poration v. Warfleld Natural Gas
Co., C.C.A.Ky., 137 F.2d 871, cer-
tiorari denied 64 S.Ct. 431, 320 U.S.
800, 88 L.Ed. 483, rehearing denied
64 S.Ct. -634, 321 U.S. 803, 88 L.
Ed. 1089*
Cal. — Newport v. Superior Court of
Stanislaus County, 230 P. 168, 192
Cal. D2.
Ky. — Toms v. Holmes, 171 S.W.2d
245, 294 Ky. 233— Hays v. Madi-
son County, 118 S.W.2d 197, 274
Ky. 116.
46. Cal. — Rinaldo v. Board of Medi-
cal Examiners of California, 12
P.2d 82, 123 CaLApp. 712.
Conn. — Christiaaao v. Christiano, 41
A.2d 779, 131 Conn. 589.
Idaho.— Evans v. City of American
Falls, 11 P.2d 363, 52 Idaho 7.
Iowa.— Hargrave v. City of Keokuk,
223 N.W. 274, 208 Iowa 559.
Tex.— In re Supples' Estate, Civ.App.,
131 S.W.2d 13— Corpus Juris quot-
ed in, Magnolia Petroleum Co. v.
Caswell, Civ.App., 295 S.W. 653,
656, reversed on other grounds,
Com.App., 1 S.W.2d 597, rehearing
denied 7 S.W.2d 867, certiorari de-
nied Caswell v. Magnolia Petro-
leum Co., 49 S.Ct 34, 278 U.S. 640,
73 L.Ed. 555.
34 C.J. p 506 note 58.
47. U.S.— Union Pacific R. Co. v.
Mason City & Fort Bodge B. Co.,
Neb., 32 S.Ct 86, 227 U.S. 237,
56 L.Ed. 180— Hendrie v. Lowmas- j
ter, C.C.A.Mich., 152 F.2d 83.
Ohio.— Silver v. McKnight App., 49
N.E.2d 89.
Pa.— Catanzaritti v. Bianco, 198- A.
806, 131 Pa.Super. 207.
Tex. — Royal Indemnity Co. v. Good-
bar & Page, Civ. App., 48 S.W.2d
1021 — Prince v. Frost- Johnson
Lumber Co., Civ. App., 250 S.W.
785.
{Purport and intent of action,
When the wording of a Judgment
is not clear, it should be construed
so as to carry out the evident pur-
port and intent of the action, rather
than defeat it — Gade v. Loffler, 42 P.
2d 815, 171 Okl. 313— McNeal v. Ba-
ker, 274 P. 655, 135 Okl. 159.
The situation to which the judg-
ment was to be applied and the
purpose sought to be accomplished
must be considered.
Okl.— Gade v. Loffler, 42 P.2d 815,
171 Okl. 313.
Tenn. — Southwestern Presbyterian
University v. City of Clarksville,
259 S.W. 550, 149 Tenn. 256.
48. Minn.— Parten v. First Nat
Bank & Trust Co., 283 N.W. 408,
204 Minn. 200, 120 A.L.R. 962.
Mont.— Corpus Juris cited in Wal-
lace v. Goldberg, 231 P. 56, 58, 72
Mont 234.
N.M.— Corpus Juris quoted in La Luz
Community Ditch Co. v. Town of
Alamogordo, 279 P. 72, 77, 34 N.M,
127.
Tex. — Corpus Juris quoted in Magno*
lia Petroleum Co. v. Caswell, Civ.
App,, 295 S.W. 653, 656, reversed
on other grounds, Com.App., 1 S.
W.2d 597, rehearing denied 7 S.W.
2d 867, certiorari denied Caswell v.
Magnolia Petroleum Co., 49 S.Ct.
34, 278 U.S. 640, 73 L.Ed. 555.
34 C.J. p 503 note 20.
49. "P*."
In suit on Swiss judgment court's
finding that abbreviation "fr." indi-
cated franc was held not error. — In-
dian Refining Co. v. Valvoline Oil
Co., C.C.A.I11., 75 F.2d 797.
867
50. Ark.— Gregory v. Bubel, 41 S.W.
2d 771, 184 Ark. 55.
Reason for rule
Who prepared the decree is im-
material because it would have to be
prepared in accordance with the find-
ing of the court. — Gregory v. Rubel,
supra.
51. N.J.— Parmly v. Parmly, 1 A.2d
646, 16 N.J.Misc. 447, affirmed 5 A.
2d 789, 125 N.J.Eq. 545.
Tex. — Agey v. Barnard, Civ.App.,
123 S.W.2d 484, error dismissed,
judgment correct.
Reference to extraneous factor*
(1) Judgment which is plain and
unambiguous may not be interpreted
in light of subsequent or prior state-
ments or acts of court evincing ju-
dicial intention when Judgment was
rendered, nor can Judgment be sus-
tained or -explained by reference to
understanding of parties, even
though entered pursuant to stipula-
tion.— Cook v. Smith, Tex.Civ.App.,
96 S.W.2d 318, error dismissed.
(2) Judgment may not be explain-
ed by understanding of parties al-
though entered by stipulation nor by
prior or subsequent statements of
the court — Austin v. Conaway, Tex.
Civ.App., 283 S.W. 189.
Xiaaguage of Judgment
(1) Legal effect of Judgment as
written must prevail, regardless of
what trial court had in mind, —
•Schrock v. Campbell, Tex.Civ.App.,
34 S.W.2d 324, modified on other
grounds Campbell v. Schrock, 50 S.
W.2d 788.
(2) Judgment that plaintiff is
owner of undivided one-fourth in-
terest to property is not adjudica-
tion of partnership. — James v. Hall,
264 P. 516, 88 CaLApp. 528.
52. U.S.— Moore v. Harjo, C.C.A.Okl.,
144 F.2d 318— Mueller v. Mueller,
C.C.A.Ark., 124 F.2d 644, certiorari
dismissed 62 S.Ct 1288, 316 U.S.
649, 86 L.Bd. 1732— Louisiana Land
& Exploration Co. v. Parish of
Jefferson, La., D.C.La., 69 F.Supp.
260.
§ 436
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.&
ment roll or record may be looked to, examined,
and considered for the purpose of interpreting the
judgment58 and determining its operation and ef-
fect.54
A judgment, plain and unambiguous in its terms,
may not be modified, enlarged, restricted, or demin-
ished by reference to the opinion or decision of the
court;55 but it is generally held that the opinion
Ala. — Taunton v. Dobbs, 199 So. 9,
240 Ala, 287.
Cal. — Vasiljevich v. Radanovich, 31
P.2d 802, 138 CaLApp. 97— ^line-
ban v. Silveria, 21 P.2d 617, 131
CaLApp. 317 — Boyer v. Crichton,
279 P. 677, 100 Cal.App. 24.
Fla. — McGregor v. Provident Trust
Co. of . Philadelphia, 162 So. 323,
119 Pla. 71S.
Ind. — State ex rel. Booth v. Beck
Jewelry Enterprises, Inc., 41 N.E.
2d 622, 220 Ind. 276, 141 A.L.R. 876.
Iowa. — Sutton v. Schnack, 275 N.W.
870, 224 Iowa 251.
Kan. — Shelley v. Sentinel Life Ins.
Co., 69 P.2d 737, 146 Kan. 227.
Ky.— Culton v. Couch, 20 S.W.2d 451,
230 Ky. 586.
Me. — Milo Water Co. v. Inhabitants
of Town of Milo, 7 A.2d 895, 136
Me. 22S.
Minn. — Parten v. First Nat. Bank &
Trust Co., 283 N.W. 408, 204 Minn.
200, 120 A.L.R. 962.
Mo. — Corpus Juris cited in State ex
reL Anderson Motor Service Co. v.
Public Service Commission, 134 S.
W.2d 1069, 234 Mo.App. 470, trans-
ferred and opinion adopted 154 S.
W.2d 777, 348 Mo, 613.
Mont. — Quigley v. Mclntosh, 103 P.
2d 1067, 110 Mont. 495.
Nev. — Corpus Juris guoted in Asel-
tine v. Second Judicial Dist. Court
in and for Washoe County, De-
partment No. 1, 62 P.2d 701, 702,
57 Nev. 269.
N.M. — Corpus Juris cited in La Luz
Community Ditch Co. v. Town of
Alamogordo, 279 P. 72, 77, 34 N.
M. 127.
N.Y. — People v. Shoemaker, 239 N.Y.
S. 71, 228 App.Div. 314— In re
Cullen's Estate, 297 N.Y.S. 280, 163
Misc. 410.
Ohio.— Corpus JUris quoted in Hof er
v. Hofer, App., 42 N.E.2d 165, 167.
Tenn. — Fleming v. Kemp, 178 S.W.
. 2d 397, 27 Tenn.App. 150.
Tex. — Campbell v. Schrock, Com.
App., 50 S.W.2d 788 — Walston v.
Price, Civ.App., 159 S.W.2d 548 —
General Exchange Ins. Corporation
v. Appling, Civ.App., 144 S.W.2d
699 — Agey v. Barnard, Civ.App.,
123 S.W.2d 484, error dismissed,
judgment correct — Shawver v. Mas-
terson, Civ.App., 81 S.W.2d 236,
error refused — Corpus Juris quoted
in Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Cas-
well, Civ.App., 295 S.W. 653, 656,
reversed on other grounds, Com.
App., 1 S.W.2d 597, rehearing- de-
nied 7 S.W.2d 867, certiorari de-
nied Caswell v. Magnolia Petro-
leum Co., 49 S.Ct. 34, 278 U.S. 640,
73 LJEd. -555— Banister v. Eades,
Civ.App.. 282 S.W. 851— -Prince v.
Frost-Johnson Lumber Co,, Civ.
App., 250 S.W. 785.
Wash. — Corpus Juris cited in Ta-
coma Savings & Loan Ass'n v.
Nadham, 128 P.2d 982, 990, 14
Wash.2d 576 — George v. Jenks, 85
P.2d 1083, 197 Wash. 551— Gollehon
v. Gollehon, 34 P.2d 1113, 178
Wash. 372.
Wis.— In re Kehl's Estate, 254 N.W.
639, 215 Wis. 353.
34 C.J. p 502 note 12.
Hatters considered
(1) In construing ambiguous Judg-
ment, court may look to entire rec-
ord, including such matters as the
citation, the pleadings, issues made,
testimony offered in support of
pleadings, trial court's charge to
jury, facts found by such court,
and other proceedings leading up to
judgment. — Lipsitz v. First Nat.
Bank, Tex.Civ.App., 293 S.W. 563,
modified on other grounds, Com.App.,
296 S.W. 490 — Wagner v. Hogan, Tex.
Civ. App., 161 S.W.2d 849 — In re Sup-
pies' Estate, Tex.Civ.App., 131 S.W.
2d 13 — Dagley v. Leeth, Tex.Civ.App.,
106 S.W.2d 730— Dearing v. City of
Port Neches, Tex.Civ.App., 65 S.W.2d
1105, error refused.
(2) The full scope and meaning of
a judgment is often determined by
an examination of the pleadings, ver-
dict, or findings. — Miller v. Madigan,
215 P. 742, 90 Okl. 17.
(3) In determining validity of
judgment, resort may be had to
judgment roll, or record, which in-
cludes the pleadings, and one is not
restricted to face of judgment alone.
Okl. — Kansas City Southern Ry. Co.
v. City of Heavener, 54 P.2d 165,
175 Okl. 517. .
Tex. — Jackson v. Slaughter, Civ.App.,
185 S.W.2d 759, refused for want
of merit.
(4) Matters outside the judgment
roll cannot be considered. — Kansas
City Southern Ry. Co. v. City of
Heavener, supra.
(5) A person whom it is sought
to bind by a judgment ia not re-
quired to seek beyond the judgment
roll or to indulge in surmise. — Peo-
ple v. Rio Nido Co., 85 P.2d 461, 29
Cal.App.2d 486.
53. U.S. — S(c)holtz for Use of Bar-
nett Nat. Bank of Jacksonville v.
Hartford Accident & Indemnity
Co., C.C.A.Fla., 88 F.2d 184.
La. — Snyder v. Davidson, 129 So.
185, 15 La.App. 695, reheard Snyder
v. Davis on, 131 So. 64, 15 La. App.
695, affirmed 134* So. 89, 172 La.
274.
Neb.— Whaley v. Matthews, 287 N.W.
205, 136 Neb. 767.
868
Tex. — Glasscock v. Bryant, Civ.App.,
185 S.W.2d 595, refused for want
of merit — Corpus Juris auoted in
Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Caswell,
Civ.App., 295 S.W. 653, 656, re-
versed on other grounds, Coni.App.,
1 S.W.2d 597, rehearing denied 7
S.W.2d 867, certiorari denied Cas-
well v. Magnolia Petroleum Co.,
49 S.Ct 34, 278 U.S. 640, 73 L.
Ed. 555.
34 C.J. p 502 note 8.
54. U.S. — Ferd Brenner Lumber Co.
. v. Davis, D.C.La., 9 F.2d 960.
Cal. — Downs v. Kroeger, 254 P. 1101,
200 Cal. 743.
Ind. — State ex reL Booth v. Beck
Jewelry Enterprises, Inc., 41 N.E.
2d 622, 220 Ind. 276, 141 A.L.R.
876.
Mont. — Brennan v. Jones, 55 P.2d
697, 101 Mont. 550— Wallace v.
Goldberg, 231 P. 56, 72 Mont 234.
55. U.S.— Rothschild &. Co. v. Mar-
shall, C.C.A.W;ash., 44 F.2d 546—
Wo Kee & Co. v. U. S., 28 C.C.
P. A. 272 — U. S. v. Penn Commer-
cial Corporation of America, 15 Ct.
Cust.App. 206 — Roessler & Hoss-
locher Chemical Co. v. U. S., 13
Ct.Cust.App. 451, Treas.Dec. 41347.
Cal. — Bank of America Nat. Trust
& Savings Ass'n v. Hill, 71 P.2d
258, 9 Cal.2d 495— Martin v. Board
of Trustees of Leland Stanford,
Jr. University, 99 P.2d 684, 37
Cal.App.2d 481— Magarian v. Mos-
er, 42 P.2d 385, 5 Cal.App.2d 208.
Colo. — City of Alamosa v. Holbert,
262 P. 87, 82 Colo. 582.
Ky. — Mason v. Thomas W. Briggs &
Co., 297 S.W. 1106, 221 Ky. 127.
Md.— Greif v. Teas, 144 A. 231, 156
Md. 284.
N.J. — J. J. Hockenjos Co. v. Lurie,
173 A. 913, 12 N.J.Misc. 545.
Wash. — North River Transp. Co. v.
Denney, 271 P. 589, 149 Wash. 489.
34 C.J. p 503 note 17.
Effect of conflict between judgment
and opinion see supra § 22.
Courts speak through judgment
and decrees, not opinions. — Boyle v.
Berg, 218 N.W. 757, 242 Mich. 225.
Scope of judgment cannot be de-
termined by opinion rendered. — Doyle
v. Hamilton Fish Corp., N.T., 234 F.
47, 148 C.C.A. 63, certiorari denied
37 S.Ct. 476, 243 U.S. 649, 61 LJBJd.
946.
Technical terms of a Judgment
cannot be limited or controlled by
the opinion of the court.
Mo. — Corpus Juris cited in State ex
rel. Anderson Motor Service Co. v.
Public Service Commission, 134 S.
W.2d 1069, 1079, 234 Mo.App. 470,
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 437
may be considered on the question of the construc-
tion and effect of the judgment,6^ and the judgment
may be construed in the light of the opinion,5? al-
though its intent and effect are not to be determined
from isolated passages in the opinion.6*
Statutes affecting a judgment at the time of its
issuance or entry become a part of such judgment
and must be read into it as though express provision
to that effect were inserted therein.59
§ 437. Recitals
Unless contradicted by the record, recitals, In a Judg-
ment are presumed to be true. An express adjudica-
tion, however, prevails over recitals.
Recitals in a judgment are presumed to be true
and correct60 unless contradicted by other parts of
the record.61 Unambiguous recitals have even been
held to be conclusive and controlling as to matters
which must appear in the judgment entry.^2 Re-
citals will be construed according to the legal im-
port of the terms used, considering the judgment
as a whole,63 but will not be extended by interpre-
tation beyond that which is expressed or follows by
transferred and opinion adopted
154 S.W.Sd 777, 348 Mo. 613.
Okl. — Corpus Juris quoted in Fagras
v. Marks, 43 P.2d 108, 109, 171 Okl.
* 413.
Tex. — Corpus Juris cited in Harrison
v.. Manvel Oil Co., 180 S.W.2d 909,
917, 142 Tex. 669.
34 C.J. p 503 note 17.
Status of Judgment
Opinion of trial judge and of coun-
sel as to status of judgment may
not change legal effect. — Security-
First Nat. Bank v. Superior Court of
California in and for San Diego
County, 23 P.2d 1055, 132 Cal.App.
683, remittitur recalled Security-
First Nat. Bank of Los Angeles v.
Superior Court in and for San Diego
County, 25 P.2d 234, 134 Cal.App.
195.
Formal Judgment as decision
Where a formal judgment is sign-
ed by the judge, it, rather than a
statement in an opinion or a docket
entry, is prima facie the decision or
judgment. — Bowles v. Rice, C.C.A.
Ky., 152 F.2d 543. 4
Further hearing not authorized
Opinion enjoining enforcement of
award and directing deputy commis-
sioner to proceed accordingly did
not warrant taking further testi-
mony, in absence of authority in de-
cree.— Rothschild & Co. v. Marshall,
C.C.A.Wash., 44 F.2d 546.
56. Okl. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Fagras v. Marks, 43 P.2d 108, 109,
171 Okl. 413.
Tex. — Corpus Juris quoted in Mag-
nolia Petroleum Co. v. Caswell,
Clv.App., 295 S.W. 653, 656, re-
versed on other grounds, Com.
App., 1 S.W.2d 597, rehearing de-
nied 7 S,W.2d 867, certiorarl denied
Caswell v. Magnolia Petroleum Co.,
49 S.Ct, 34, 278 U.S. 640, 73 L.Ed.
555 — Austin v. Conway, Civ. App.,
283 S.W. 189.
33 C.J. p 1105 note 42—34 C.J. p 503
note 18.
Reasons for judgment as part there-
of see supra § 22.
Judgment as final or interlocutory
Opinion of. trial judge and state-
ments of counsel as to status of
judgment may be considered in de-
termining whether judgment is in-
terlocutory or final. — Security-First
Nat. Bank v. Superior Court of Cal-
ifornia in and for San Diego Coun-
ty, 23 P.2d 1055, 132 Cal.App. 683,
remittitur recalled, Security-First
Nat. Bank of Los Angeles v. Su-
perior Court in and for San Diego
County, 25 P.2d 234, 134 Cal.App.
195.
57. U.S. — Great Lakes Dredge &
Dock Co. v. Huffman, La., 63 S.Ct.
1070, 319 U.S. 293, 87 L.Ed. 1407
— Fagin .v. Quinn, C.C.A.Tex., 24
F.2d 42, certiorari denied 48 S.Ct.
602, 277 U.S. 606, 72 L.Ed. 1012.
Md.~ Greif v. Teas, 144 A. 231, 156
Md. 284.
Or. — Emerick v. Emerick, 135 P.2d
802, 171 Or. 276.
58. U.S. — State of Oklahoma v.
State of Texas, 47 S.Ct. 9, 272 U.
S. 21, 71 L.Ed. 145— United Shoe
Machinery Corporation v. U. S.,
Mo., 42 S.Ct. 363, 258 U.S. 451,
66 L.Ed. 708, rehearing denied 42
S.Ct. 585, 259 U.S. 575, 66 L.Ed.
1071— Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v.
Board of Education of City of Chi-
cago, C.C.A.I1L, 114 F.2d 859.
59. U.S. — Blair v. Durham, C.C.A.
Tenn., 139 F,2d 260.
Statute in aid of judgment
(1) Ambiguity in judgment based
on statutory right is curable by
reading statute into judgment. —
State v. Wright, 145 So. 598, 107 Fla.
178.
(2) In statutory proceeding where
judgment is ambiguous, the statute
may be examined in aid of the
judgment. — Pen-Ken Gas & Oil Cor-
poration v. Warfleld Natural Gas
Co., C.C.A.Ky., 137 F,2d 871, certio-
rarl denied 64 S.-Ct. 431, 320 U.S.
800, 88 L.Ed. 483, rehearing denied
64 S.Ct. 634, 321 U.S. 803, 88 L.Ed.
1089.
60. Ariz.— Mosher v. Dye, 39 P.2d
639, 44 Ariz. 555.
Cal.— Woods v. Hyde, 222 P. 168,
64 Cal.App. 433.
Fla. — corpus Juris cited in Phillips
v. Phillips, 1 So.2d 186, 188,. 146
Fla. 311— Corpus Juris cited in
869
Beale, Inc. v. Hawley, 156 So.
529, 116 Fla. 445.
Ga. — Nolan v. Southland, 169 S.E.
370, 177 Ga. 59.
Iowa. — Martin Bros. Box Co. v. Fritz,
292 N.W. 143, 228 Iowa 482.
Okl. — Corpus Juris cited in Schu-
man's Inc. v. Missy Dress Co., 44
P.2d 862, 863, 172 Okl. 211.
34 C.JT. p 503 note 22.
Recitals as part of judgment see
supra § 71.
Judgment of court of general Juris-
diction
Ala. — Robertson v. State, 181 So.
705, 28 Ala.App. 95, certiorari de-
nied 181 So. 706, 236 Ala. 217.
61. Ala. — Robertson v. State, supra.
Fla. — Corpus Juris cited in. Phillips
v. Phillips, 1 So.2d 186, 188, 146
Fla. 311 — Corpus Juris cited in
Beale, Inc. v. Hawley, 156 So. 529,
116 Fla, 445.
Mont. — Corpus Juris cited in State
ex rel. Regis v. District Court of
Second Judicial Dist., Silver Bow
County, 55 P.2d 1295, 1300, 102
Mont. 74.
Okl. — Corpus Juris cited in Schu-
man's, Inc., v. Missy Dress Co.,
44 P.2d 882, 863, 172 Okl. 211.
Effect of conflict in record see in-
fra § 443. •
62. Ala. — State Tax Commission v.
Commercial Realty Co., 182 So. 31,
236 Ala. 358.
Verity and conclusiveness of record
see supra § 132.
Aacital as to hearing
Recital in judgment that on cer-
tain day when case came on to be
heard court sustained defendant's
general demurrer to amended peti-
tion is conclusive. — Starnes v. West-
ern Union Telegraph Co., Tex.Civ.
App., 27 S.W.2d 561.
63. Okl. — Corpus Juris cited in
Washburn v. Culbertson, 75 P.2d
190, 192, 181 Okl. 476.
34 C.J. p 503 .note 24.
An ambiguous or imperfect recital
concerning jurisdictions,! matters
will be construed, if possible, to
make it show Jurisdiction. — ^Wash-
bum v. Culbertson, 75 P.2d ISO, 131
Okl. 476.
438
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
necessary implication from the language em-
ployed.64 Since, as is discussed supra § 71, a judg-
ment rests on the mandatory parts thereof rather
than on the recitals therein, express adjudication
controls mere recitals.65
§ 438. Pleadings
In case of doubt or ambiguity the judgment may
Where the language of a judgment is ambiguous
or its meaning doubtful, reference may be had to
the pleadings in the case, and the judgment inter-
preted in the light which they throw on it.66 On
the other hand, if the meaning of the judgment is
clear and plain on its face, it cannot be changed,
be construed In the light of the pleadings.
Misita v. Inter-City Express Lines, S.C.— Jackson v. Johnson, 195 S.E.
Construction in light of pleadings
Ala. — State Tax Commission v. Com-
mercial Realty Co., 181 So. 31, 236
Ala. 358.
Particular recitals construed
(1) Judgment, sending legatees in-
to possession of decedent's estate
and declaring it was rendered with
inheritance tax collector's approval,
showed inheritance taxes were paid.
— Tridico v. Merenda, 120 So. 857, 167
La. 1063.
(2) A recital in a state court judg-
ment dismissing action on note in
accordance with stipulation referring
to stipulation of specified date was
merely descriptive of stipulation and
not an adjudication of the date when
it became effective.— Bair v. Bank of
America Nat. Trust & Savings Ass'n,
C.C.A.Mont, 106 F.2d 794.
64. Okl.— Corpus Juris cited in City
of Wagoner v. Block, 97 P.2d 11,
21, 186 Okl. 249.
34 C.J. p 503 note 25.
Suit at law or in equity
Recitals cannot convert a suit in
equity to an action or proceeding at
iaw. — state Tax Commission v. Com-
mercial Realty Co., 182 So. 31, 236
•Ala. "358.
65. Miss. — First Nat. Bank v. Bian-
ca, 158 So. 478, 171 Miss. 866.
Tex. — Magnolia Petroleum Co.
Caswell, Clv.App.. 1 S.W.2d 597;
rehearing denied, Com.App., 7 S.
W.2d 867, certiorari denied Caswell
v. Magnolia Petroleum Co., 49 S.Ct
*34, 278 U.S. -640, 73 L.Bd. 555.
34 C.J. p 503 note 26.
legal effect of judgment is deter-
mined from its substance, not re-
citals therein. — Jacobs v. Norwich
Union 'Fire Ins. Soc., 40 P.2d 899, 4
Cal.A-pp.2d 1.
Issues adjudicated
Since recitals of facts in judgment
are merely foundational so that error
with respect thereto will not vitiate
judgment, issues which have been
adjudicated must be determined from
mandatory portion of judgment, and
not recitals of fact— Blaser v. Clin-
ton Irr. Dist, 53 P.Sd 1141, 100 Mont
459.
»ecital as to evidence and law
Where the judgment declares the
evidence and law to be in favor of
plaintiff, but the decree favors de-
fendant the decree controls making
the judgment one for defendant —
La.App., 143 So. £77.
Recital as to finding's
If a finding recited in the judg-
ment is inconsistent with the judg-
ment proper or the decretal part
thereof the latter must control.—
Lackender v. Morrison, 2 N.W.2d 286,
231 Iowa 899— Leach v. State Sav.
Bank of -Logan, 209 N.W. 422, 202
Iowa 265.
86. Okl.— Moore v. Harjo, C.C.A.Okl.,
144 F.2d 318— Gila Valley Irr.
Dist. v. U. S., C.C.A.Ariz., 118 F.2d
507— Louisiana Land & Explora-
tion Co. v. Parish of Jefferson, B.C.
La., 59 F.Supp. 260.
Ala. — Taunton v. Dobbs, 199 So. 9,
240 Ala. 2S7— State Tax Commis-
sion v. Commercial Realty Co., 182
So. 31, 236 Ala. 35S — Floyd v. Jack-
son, 164 So. 121, 26 Ala.App. 575.
CaL— People v. Rio Nido Co., 85 P.2d
461, 29 Cal.App.2d 48-6.
Ga.— Bentley v. Still, 32 S.B.2d 814,
198 Ga, 743— Chappell v. Small, 20
S.B.2d 916, 194 Ga. 143— Stanfield
v. Downing Co., 199 S.E. 113, 186
Ga. 568.
Id$ho. — Corpus Juris cited In Evans
v. City of American Falls, 11 P.2d
363, 367, 52 Idaho 7.
Ind. — Trook v. Crouch, 137 N.E. 7-73,
82 Ind. App. 309.
Iowa.— Sutton v. Schuack, 275 N.W.
870, 224 Iowa "251.
Ky. — Toms v. Holmes, 171 S.W.2d
245, 294 Ky. 233— Sell v. Pierce,
140 S.W.2d 1027, 283 Ky. 148—
Oglesby v. Prudential Ins. Co. of
America, 82 S.W.2d 824, 259 Ky,
620— Ratliff v. Linberg, 79 S.W.2d
717, 258 Ky. 203 — Corpus Juris cit-
ed to Turner v. Begley, 39 S.W.2d
504, 506, 239 Ky. 281 — Reed v. Run-
yan, 10 S.W.2d 824, "226 Ky. 261.
La. — In re Clover Ridge Planting &
Manufacturing Co., 193 So. 46«8, 194
La, 77— Davis v. McCain, 132 So.
758, 171 La. 1011— Williams v. Wil-
liams, App., 17 So.2d 641— Blunson
v. Brocato, App., 172 So. 180, af-
firmed 175 So. 441, 187 lLa. 637—
Snyder v. Davidson, 129 So. 185, 15
La.App. 695, reheard Snyder v. Da-
vison, 131 So. 64, 15 La.App. 695
affirmed 134 So. 89, 172 La. 274.
Mo. — Sanders v. Sheets, App., 287
W. 1069 — Raney v. Home Ins. Co.
246 S.W. 57, 213 Mo.App. 1.
Mont.— Quigley v. Mclntosh, 103 P
2d 1067, 110 Mont 495.
870
239, 186 S.C. 155.
Tenn.— Southwestern Presbyterian
University v. City of Clarksville,
259 S.W. 550, 149 Tenn. 256.
Tex. — Sharp v. Womack, 125 S.W.2d
270, 132 Tex. 507— Lipsitz v. First
Nat. Bank, Com.App., 293 S.W. 563,
reheard 296 S.W. 490— Wagner v.
Hogan, Civ.App., 161 S.W.2d 849 —
Walston v. Price, Civ. App., 159 S.
W.2d 548 — In re Supples' Estate,
Civ.App., 131 S.W.2d 13— Agey v.
Barnard, Civ.App., 12-3 S.W.2d 484,
error dismissed, judgment correct
—Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Mary-
land v. Citizens Nat Bank of log-
book, Civ.App., 120 S.W.2d 113, er-
ror dismissed — Dagley v. Leeth,
Civ.App., 106 S.W.2d 730— Snell v.
Knowles, Civ.App., 87 S.W.2d 871,
error dismissed— Angelo v. Sted-
man Co., Civ.App., 77 S.W.2d 92*6 —
Dearing v. City of Port Neches,
Ciy.App., 65 S.W.2d 1105, error re-
fused—Royal Indemnity Co. v.
Goodbar & Page, Civ.App., 48 S.
W.2d 1021 — Corpus Juris quoted in.
Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Caswell,
Civ.App., 295 S.W. 653, 656, re-
versed on other grounds, Com.App.,
1 S.W.2d 597, rehearing denied 7 S.
W.2d 867, certiorari denied Caswell
v. Magnolia Petroleum Co., 49 S.Ct.
34, 273 U.S. 640, 73 'L.Ed. 555—
. Prince v. Frost-Johnson Lumber
Co., Civ.App., 250 S.W. 785.
Utah. — Corpus Juris cited in Salt
Lake City v. Telluride Power Co.,
17 P.2d 281, 2«S3, 82 Utah 607, re-
hearing denied 26 P.2d 822, '82
Utah 622.
Wash.— George v. Jenks, 85 P.2d
1083, 197 Wash. 551— Reed v. Na-
tional Grocery Co., 238 P. 990, 136
Wash. 7.
Wis.— In re Kahl's Estate, 254 N.W.
639, 215 Wis. -353.
34 C.J. p 503 note 28.
Conformity to pleadings see supra §§
47-54.
In determining- validity of judgment
Tex.— Jackson v. Slaughter, Civ.
App., 185 S.W.2d 759, refused for
want of merit
Pleadings as limiting1 judgment
On direct attack, judgments other
than judgments by agreement are
limited and controlled by the plead-
ings, irrespective of the nature or
contents of the judgments. — Downey
v. Downey, Tex.Civ.App., 117 S.W.2d
830.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 440
extended, or restricted by anything contained in the
pleadings.67
§ 439. Verdict or Findings
The judgment should be construed in the light of
the verdict of the Jury or the findings of the court.
Although it has been held that findings and con-
clusions of law in a case which are not carried into
the judgment therein may not serve .to limit the
judgment in effect,68 as a general rule, a judgment
should be interpreted with reference to, and in the
light of, the verdict of the jury69 or the findings of
fact and conclusions of law of the court or ref-
eree,70 and, if possible, so as to harmonize them.71
If the judgment is ambiguous or obscure, and fails
to express the final determination of the court with
clarity and accuracy, reference may be had to the
verdict and findings for the purpose of ascertain-
ing what was determined.72
The requirement that a judgment conform to the
verdict or findings in the case is considered supra
§§ 55-58.
§ 440. Parties
a. In general
b. Joint or several liability
c. Operation as between codefendants
a. In General
A judgment which is ambiguous or uncertain with
respect to the parties will be construed In the light of
the entire Judgment roil or record.
If there is ambiguity or uncertainty in a judg-
ment with respect to the' party for or against whom
it is rendered, or the capacity in which he recov-
ers or is held liable, the judgment will be read in
the light of the entire judgment roll or record.73
Thus, where there are two or more defendants in
the action, the pleadings, findings, and other parts
of the judgment roll or record may be considered,
in case of ambiguity or uncertainty, in determining
against which defendant the judgment is rendered.74
A plural designation will be read as singular, and
vice versa, if necessary to make the judgment agree
with the facts and law of the case.75 Where a
judgment provides for the payment of money to a
particular person, it means to such person or to
67. La. — A very v. Iberville Police
Jury, 15 La. Ann. 223.
34 C.J. p 504 note 29.
Reference to pleading- unnecessary
U.S. — Louisiana Land & Exploration
Co. v. Parish of Jefferson, La., D.
CJLa., 59 F.Supp. 260.
68. Cal. — Martin v. Board of Trus-
tees of Leland Stanford Jr. Uni-
versity, 99 P.'2d -684, 37 Cal.App.2d
481.
Oonolnsl9ns axe not part of Judg-
ment where not carried into the
judgment. — Neilsen v. Neilsen, !3 P.
2d 715, 216 Cal. 150.
69. Okl.— Miller v. Madigan, 215 P.
742, 90 Okl. 17.
Tex.— Dearing v. City of Port Nech-
es, Civ.App., 65 S.W.2d 1105, error
refused.
34 C.J. p 504 note 31.
Form, and language used in a ver-
dict assist in determination of scope
of judgment — Phipps v. Superior
Court In and for Alameda County, 89
P.2d 698, 32 Cal.App.2d 371.
70. U.S. — Great Lakes Dredge &
Dock Co. v. Huffman, La., 63 S.Ct.
1070, 319 U.S. 293, 87 L.Ed. 1407 —
Armstrong v. De Forest Radio
Telephone & Telegraph Co., C.C.A.
N.Y., 10 F.2d 727, certlorari denied
De Forest Radio Telephone & Tel-
egraph Co. v. Armstrong, 46 S.Ct.
471, 270 U.S. 663, 70 L.Bd. 787.
Cal. — Ampuero v. Luce, 157.P.23 899,
618 Cal.A-pp.2d 811.
Tex. — Corpus Juris cited la Permian
Oil Co. v. Smith, 117 S.W.2d 564,
578, 129 Tex. 413, 111 A.L.R. 1152
— Lipsltz v. First Nat. Bank, Com.
App., 293 S.W. 563, reheard 296 S.
W. 490 — In re Supples' Estate, Civ.
App., 131 S.W.2d 13— Durden v.
Roland, Civ.App., 269 S.W. 274—
Barnes v. Hobson, Civ. App., 250
S.W. 238.
Utah.— -Huber v. Newman, 145 P.2d
780, 106 Utah 363.
Wash. — George v. Jenks, 85 P. 3d
1083, 197 Wash. 551.
34 C.J. p 504 note 33.
Findings construed
In prior suit against lessor and
lessees, finding that lease had been
executed in bad faith did not effect
annulment, but lease remained val-
id.— Bennett v. Casavant, 150 A. '319,
129 Me. 123.
71. Kan. — Armel v. Lay ton, 29 Kan.
576.
72. U.S.— Moore v. Harjo, C.C.A.
Okl., 144 F.2d 318.
Cal. — Ramacciotti v. Ramacciotti, 20
P.2d 961, 131 CaLApp. 191.
Tex.— Wagner v. Hogan, Civ.App,, 161
S.W.2d 849 — In re Supples' Estate,
Civ.App., 131 S.W.2d 13.
Judgment and findings read together
N.T. — People v. Reinforced Paper
Bottle Corporation, 26 N.T.S.2d
251, 176 Misc. 464.
73. Ala.— CoryoM Juris cited in, Grif-
fin v. Proctor, 14 So.2d 116, 120,
244 Ala. 537.
La. — Glen Falls Indemnity _Qo. v.
Manning, App., 168 So. 787.
Tex. — State Mortg. Corporation v.
Traylor, 36 S.W.2d 440, 120 Tex.
148 — Bendy v. W. T. Carter & Bro.,
871
Com. App., 14 S.W.2d 813— Greene
v. Elerding, Civ.App., 291 S.W. 271.
Wash. — Corpus Juris quoted in Gol-
lehon v. Gpllehon, *34 P.2d 1113,
1114, 178 Wash. 372.
33 C.J. p 1198 note -81—34 C.J. p 504
note '37.
Requisites and sufficiency of designa-
tion of parties in judgment see su-
pra § 75.
Capacity in which party recovers or
is liable
The whole record may be consid-
ered in determining whether the
judgment is for or against a party
in his individual or representative
capacity or both.
HI. — Schmidt v. Kellner, 138 N.K.
•604, 507 111. 331.
Tex. — Banister v. Eades, Civ.App.,
282 S.W. 351.
33 C.J. p 1199 note 92.
Joint Judgment for three plaintiffs
on its face entitled each plaintiff to
one third of sum due. — State ex rel.
Bromschwig v. Hartman, 300 S.W.
1054, 221 Mo.App. 215.
74, Cal.— Minehan v. Silveria, 21 P.
2d 617, 131 CaLAnp. 317— Bradley
v. McDonald, 169 P. 427, '36 Cal.
Anp. 807..
34 C.J. p 504 note 40.
Judgment caption, not referred to,
cannot be considered in clarifying
uncertainty as to judgment debtors.
—Minehan v. Silveria, 21 P.2d 61'7,
131 CaLApp. 317.
75. Mich. — Barnes v. Michigan Air
Line R. Co., 20 N.W. 36, 54 Mich.
243.
34 C.J. P 504 note 38.
§440
JUDGMENTS
49 O.J.S.
anyone whom he may legally and properly author-
ize to act for him.76
In case of several defendants who are jointly
and severally liable, a judgment in favor of plaintiff
without indication of which defendant it is intended
to run against will be construed as being an award
against all the defendants.™ Also a judgment
against a named defendant "et al." or "et als." in-
cludes all defendants in the actionJS
A judgment will in general bind a party only in
the capacity in which he appears in the action and
is designated in the judgment,™ and even though he
is not described in the judgment in that capacity.80
However, a judgment against a named person, ad-
ministrator of a named deceased, is an individual
judgment against the former, where it does not ap-
pear that the judgment is to be satisfied out of the
estate of deceased.81 In a suit by an attorney in
fact, a judgment for defendant is a judgment
against the attorney in fact.82
Persons not parties are not affected by the judg-
ment83
b. Joint or Several Liability
In the absence of express directions to the contrary,
a judgment entered against two or more defendants
Jointly is a Joint and several obligation, available against
either of the judgment debtors separately.
In the absence of express directions to the con-
trary, a judgment entered against two or more de-
fendants jointly is a joint and several obligation,
available against either of the judgment debtors
separately.84 However, there is also authority that
in the absence of a contrary indication each of the
defendants is liable only for his proportionate share
of the judgment obligation.85 If a separate judg-
ment is rendered against each of the defendants for
a different amount, the judgments cannot be regard-
ed as imposing a joint and several liability.86
c. Operation as between Oodef endants
As a general rule a Judgment against two or more
defendants decides nothing as to their rights or liabil-
ities inter sese.
As a general rule a judgment against two or more
defendants decides nothing as to their rights or lia-
bilities inter sese, but only their liability to plain-
tiff.87
Relief between codefendants is considered supra
§37.
§ 441. Issues
A judgment Is to be construed in the light of the
issues raised in the case.
A judgment should be construed with reference
to the issues raised in the case88 and which are in-
76* N.Y.— Lythgoe v. Smith, 35 N.E.
646, 140 N.Y. 442.
77. TJ.S. — Oklahoma Natural Gas
Corporation v. Municipal Gas Co.
of Muskogee, C.C.A.OkL, 113 F.2d
80'S.
Tex. — International & G. N. Ry. Co.
v. Dawson, Civ.App., 193 S.W.2d
1145.
78. La. — Glen Falls Indemnity Co.
v. Manning:, App.r 168 So. 787.
Tenn.— Williams v. Williams, 156 S.
W.2d 363, 25 Tenn.App. 290.
79. S.D. — Green v. Mahoney, 13 N.
W.2d 806.
Effect of addition of designation de-
scriptio person® to party's name
see supra § 75.
Judgment against association
Judgment for loss on fire policy,
against unincorporated fire insurance
association paying losses by assess-
ments was held one against the as-
sociation as such, and not against
the officials named as defendants in-
dividually.—Marsden v. Williams,
App., 282 S.W. 478, certiorari
Quashed State ex ret Williams v.
Daues, 292 S.W. 58.
8a N.Y. — Graham v. -Lawyers' Title
Ins. Co., 46 N.Y.S. 1055, 20 Ajpp.
3>iv. 440, 4 N.Y.Ann.Cas. 379.
34 C.J. p 504 note 41.
Death of party pending proceedings
"Where an administrator ad litem
was appointed for cross complainant
on the latter's death before final de-
cree, a final decree, reciting that
complainant and cross complainant,
naming decedent, should he separate-
ly and severally denied the relief
prayed for in their bill and cross
bill, should be construed as denying
the relief to the administrator ad
litem. — Griffin v. Proctor, 14 So.2d
116, 244 Ala. '537.
81. W.Va. — Thomson v. Mann, 44 S.
E. 246, 53 W.Va, 432.
82. Ky.— -Herndon. v. Bartlett, 7 T.B.
Mon. 449.
83. Mo.— State v, Johnson, 239 S.W.
•844, 293 Mo. 302.
Propriety of judgment for or against
one not a party see supra § 28.
Recital in execution issued on
Judgment cannot extend scope of
judgment to parties not named there-
in.—Blenkiron v. Birkhauser, 282 P.
984, 102 CaLApp. 172.
84L Kan. — Richardson y. Painter,
102 P. 1099, .80 Kan. 574.
33.C.J. p 1126 note 20—34 C.J. p 505
note 44.
Requisites and sufficiency of Joint or
several Judgments see supra § 36.
Judgment against makers of note
bound each to payment of whole
872
thereof, with respect to Judgment
creditor.— Biggs v. Davis, 43 -S.W.2d
724, 184 Ark. 834.
85. Philippine. — De (Leon v. Nepo-
muceno, 37 Philippine ISO.
(1) It has been held that, unless
bound in solido by covenant or op-
eration of law, Judgment defendants
are Jointly bound and liable each for
proportionate share. — Barlow v. 'Fife,
133 So. 436, 172 La. 176— IT. S. v.
Hawkins' Heirs, 4 Mart.N.S., '317.
(2) It has also been held that a
Judgment against more than one de-
fendant, not Jointly and severally,
is a several Judgment. — Pemberton
v. Gross, 1 La. 30.
86. Tex.— Missouri, K. & T. R. Co.
v. .Lawson, 119 S.W. 921, 55 Tex.
Civ.App. 388.
87. N.C. — Gregg v. Wilmington, 70
S.E. 1070, 155 N.C. 18.
34 C. J. p 505 note 45.
88. Ark.— Pa wee tt v. Rhyne, 63 S.
W.2d 349, 187 Ark. 940— Nakdimen
v. Brazil, 208 S.W. 431, 137 Ark.
188.
Ky. — Toms v. Holmes, 171 S.W.2d
245, 294 Ky. 233.
Mo. — Savings Trust Co. of St. Louis
V. Beck, App., 73 S.W.2d 282.
Or.— Barnes v. Anderson, 217 P. 836,
10$ Or. 503*
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§442
tended to be decided,89 and the scope of the judg-
ment is not to be extended beyond the issues raised
in the case, or the state of facts and situation of
the parties existing at the time of the action.90 If
there is ambiguity in the judgment, the entire rec-
ord may be examined to determine the issues de-
cided.^1
A .judgment is to be construed as disposing of
all the issues and controversies raised in the case,92
unless questions are reserved or leave given to the
parties to take further proceedings, in which case
the unadjudicated matters are left entirely open,
except in so far as their determination in a par-
ticular way would be inconsistent with the general
tenor of the original judgment.93
§ 442. Recovery and Relief
A Judgment which U ambiguous with respect to the
amount of the recovery or the relief granted may be
construed in the light of the other parts of the record,
but it should not be construed as granting more than
prayed for In the complaint.
If the judgment is ambiguous or silent as to the
amount of the recovery or the relief granted, ref-
erence may be had to the pleadings, the verdict,
findings, and other parts of the record, and the judg-
ment will be presumed to be in accordance with
what they show to be due.94 It has been held, how-
Tex.— Lipsitz v. First Nat. Bank,
Com.App., "293 -S.W. 663, reheard
296 S.W. 490 — Wagner v. Hogan,
Civ.App., 161 S.W.2d 849— In re
Supples' Estate, Civ.App., 131 S.
W.2d 13.
89. U.S.— State of Oklahoma v.
State of Texas, 47 S.Ct. 9, 272 U.
S. 21. 71 L.Ed. 145— United Shoe
Machinery Corporation v. U. S.,
Mo., 42 S.Ct. 3-63, 258 U.S. 451, -66
L.Bd. 70S, rehearing denied 42 S.
Ct 585, 259 U.S. 575, 66 L.Ed.
1071 — City of Vicksburg v. Henson,
Miss., 34 S.Ct 95, 231 U.S. 219, 58
L.Ed. 209— Norfolk & W. Ry. Co.
v. Board of Education of City of
Chicago, C.C.A.I11., 114 F.2d 859—
Great Northern Ry, Co. v. General
Ry. Signal Co., C.C.A.Mlnn., 57 F.
2d 467— Graham v. Hollister, D,C.
Mich., 13 'F.2d $94.
111.— -Aloe v. Lowe, 131 N.B. 612, 298
111. 404— Yedor v. Chicago City
Bank & Trust Co., 54 N.B.2d 728,
323 Ill.App. 42.
Tex.— In re Supples' Estate, Civ.App.,
131 S.W.2d 13.
Intent of adjudication, must be de-
termined, not from isolated parts of
court's opinion, but from considera-
tion of all issues submitted and in-
tended to be disposed of, that is,
from what decree is really designed
to accomplish. — Norfolk & W. Ry.
Co. v. Board of Education of City of
Chicago, C.C.A.I11., 114 F.2d 859.
90. 111. — Yedor v. Chicago Qlty Bank
& Trust Co., 64 N.E.2d~ 728, 323
Ill.Ajyp. 42.
La. — Continental Land & Fur Co. v.
Lacoste, 188 So. 700, 192 'La. 561.
Pa. — Rosenheck v. Stape, 3 A.2d 678,
332 Pa. 287.
34 C.J. p 505 note 52.
Counterclaim
A judgment of no cause of action
in favor of defendant filing a coun-
terclaim determined only that plain-
tiff failed to establish his own. case,
where counterclaim was invalid. —
Central New York Coach Lines v.
Syracuse Herald Co., 13 N.K2d 598,
277 N.Y. 110.
Limitation to issues
If language of judgment is broad-
er than is required, it will be limit-
ed by construction so that its effect
will be such only as is needed for
purposes of case which has been
made and issues which have been de-
cided.— Aloe v. Lowe, 131 N.E. 612,
298 111. 404— Yedor v. Chicago City
Bank & Trust Co., 54 N.E.2d 72-8, 323
IlLApp. 42.
One of several issues
Judgment for plaintiff on only one
of several dependent causes of ac-
tion does not determine other causes
adversely to him. — Miller-Vidor
Lumber Co. v. Adams, Tex.Civ.App.,
16 S.W.2d 312, error dismissed.
91. Or. — Barnes v. Anderson, 217 P.
836, 10* Or. 503.
92. Wis.— Bakula v. Schwab, 168 N.
W. 378, 167 Wis. 546.
34 C.J. p 505 note 50.
General judgment
(1) Judgment for one party gen-
erally involves finding in his favor
on all issues. — In re Evans* Estate,
291 N.W. 460, 228 Iowa 908.
(2) Recital that issues are found
for plaintiff or defendant implies, in
absence of evidence to contrary, that
all issues 'are so found. — Sessa v.
Barney, 37 A.2d 233, 130 Qonn. 718.
issues raised by complaint
-In the absence of proof, it will be
assumed that a litigation involved
everything alleged in the complaint
and that an adjudication covered the
whole ground of the complaint. — In
re Straut, 27 N.E. 259, 12<6 N.Y. 201—
Jacob v. Oyster Bay, 96 N.Y.S. 626i
109 App.Div. 626.
Flea in abatement
A judgment in favor of plaintiff
in a case tried on the merits was
held to overrule a plea in abatement
which was by agreement heard with
the trial of the case on the merits.
— U. S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Adams, Tex.
Civ.App., 115 S.W.2d 788.
873
93. Minn. — Hollingsworth v. Camp-
bell, 8 N.W. 873, 28 Minn. 18.
Va.— Paup v. Mingo, 4 Leigh 163, 31
Va. 163.
94. Ky.— Sell v. Pierce, 140 S.W.2d
1027, 283 Ky. 143— Coffey v. Clark,
43 S.W.2d 1002, 241 Ky. 336.
N.Y. — People v. Reinforced Paper
Bottle Corporation, 26 N.Y.S. 2d
251, 176 Misc. 464.
Tex.— Fidelity & Deposit Co. of
Maryland v. Citizens Nat Bank of
Lubbock, Civ.App., 120 S.W.2d 113,
error dismissed — Kasprowicz v.
Tate, Civ.App., ** S.W.2d 435.
34 C.J. p 505 note -53.
Effect of silence as to particular de-
mands see supra § 436.
Determination, of amount
In suit by remaindermen to assert
right in land so-ld for taxes, judg-
ment for rents and certain other
amount for improvements, taxes, and
interest will be construed to require
rents to be deducted from the other
item to determine amount due from
plaintiffs. — Jones v. 'Fowler, 285 S.
W. 363, 171 Ark. 594.
Judgment general in form
Where first count of petition was
based on breach of contract and sec-
ond count on Quantum meruit for
services rendered, and plaintiff aban-
doned first count and submitted case
to jury on second count, judgment
for plaintiff, although general in
form, was deemed to have been based
on second count — Pemberton v. La-
due Realty & Construction Co., 180
S.W.2d 766, 237 Mo.App. 971.
Defendant's demands
(1) A judgment that cross com-
plainants take nothing by their cross
action was held not limited by a fur-
ther provision in the disjunctive that
.they take' nothing for reconvention
for damages. — Ware v. Jones, Tex.
Com.App., 250 S.W. 663.
(2) Where. a set-off is pleaded as a
defense to an action, a judgment for
defendant is in effect a judgment for
the amount of the set-off. — Shrlver v.
Bowen, 57 Ind. 266.
§442
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
ever, that, in order to determine the extent of the
relief awarded by a judgment, the judgment only
may be looked to, aided by other instruments to
which it refers,^5 and that the final judgment or
decree itself is the only measure of the obligation
of the defendants thereunder.96
The judgment should be construed, if possible, as
not awarding more or other relief than was prayed
for in the complaint,97 or as granting relief beyond
the power of the court to award.98 A decree di-
recting the sale of premises unless a specified sum
is paid within a limited time is not to be construed
as a personal decree for the payment of the money,
but as in the alternative.99 Where a judgment pro-
vides for periodical payments in the future, as long
as a given relation or state of affairs continues, the
amounts due from time to time may be fixed by
successive applications to the court1
§ 443. Conflict in Record
In general a conflict In the judgment record will be
resolved in favor of the validity of the judgment. Pro-
visions of the judgment itself usually prevail over other
parts of the record.
It has been broadly stated that any doubt or am-
biguity in the record should be resolved in favor of
the validity of the judgment or decree.2 In other
words, where there is a conflict or inconsistency be-
tween statements in different parts of a judgment
record, that one will govern which will sustain the
validity and correctness of the judgment, when it
is apparent from the face of the record that the
other statement is a clerical error.3 In case of
conflict between provisions of a judgment, the first
part thereof will be construed in the light of sub-
sequent provisions.4 Where there is a variance be-
tween an express provision of a judgment and the
prayer for judgment brought into the judgment by
reference, the former prevails.5
As between the judgment and other parts of the
record, the terms of the judgment prevail over en-
tries made by the clerk;6 a formal judgment en-
rolled in the minutes of the court prevails over
bench notes7 or the judge's trial docket;8 and ju-
risdictional recitals9 and other declarations in the
judgment10 prevail over file marks on papers in the
case. Jurisdictional recitals also prevail over a de-
Judgments construed together
(1) In order to determine what
has been decided in a cause, all of
the orders ajid judgments entered
therein must be construed together.
— Wilson v. Foster Creek Lumber &
Mfg. Qo., 99 So. 437, 134 Miss. &8<
(2) In determining whether pro-
bate court construed testator's will,
both homestead order and decree of
distribution, entered on same day as
the homestead order, would be re-
quired to be considered, since both
decrees were made at the same ses-
sion of the court, regarding the same
general subject matter and were in-
tended to and did operate to make
disposition of the estate as far as
could be done at any time prior to
the death of the testator's widow
who was bequeathed the income from
the testator's estate for life. — In re
Taylor's Estate, 2 A.2d 317, 110 Vt.
80.
(3) Decree in taxpayer's suit en-
Joining town from levying taxes or
expending moneys because of paving
contract or lien certificates and de-
cree In consolidated suit by town
whereby chancellor refused to enjoin
assignee of •paving contract from
suing thereon at law were required
to be construed together and to con-
fine such assignee to suing at law for
reasonable worth of paving. — Town
of Boca Baton v. Moore, 165 So. '279,
122 Fla. 350.
95. Tex. — Barrage v. Hunt Produc-
tion Co., Civ.App., 114 S.W.2d 1228,
error dismissed.
90. Mass. — Boyer v. Bowles, 54 NJ3,
2d 925. 316 Mass. 900.
97. Ky.— Ratliff v. Sinberg, 79 S.W.
2d 717, 258 Ky. 203.
Limitation of judgment to relief
sought by pleadings see supra §
49.
93. U.S.— Texas Co. v. Marlin, C.C.
A.Tex.f 109 F.2d 305.
Construction to uphold judgment see
supra § 33*6 a.
99. Ill— Arentz v. Reilly, -67 HLApp.
307.
1. La. — Smith v. Barkemeyer, McG.
139,
2. Ala. — Falkner v. Christian, 51
Ala. 495.
Kan. — State v. 'Frishman, 144 P. 994,
93 Kan. 595.
34 C.J. p 506 note 62.
Construction to uphold judgment see
supra § 436.
Effect of conflict between judgment
and opinion see supra § 22.
Verity and collusiveness of record
see su'pra § 132.
3. Ala.— King v. Martin, 67 Ala. 177.
Ark.— Thorn v. Delany, 6 Ark, 219.
34 C.J. ;p 506 note &3.
Tex.— In re -Supples* Estate, Civ.
App., 131 S.W.2d 13.
5. S.C.— In re Wilson, 139 S.B. 171,
141 S.C. 60.
Ariz.— Punk v. Fillman, 36 P.2d
574, 44 Ariz. 263.
Nev. — Corpus Juris cited in, Morti-
mer v. Pacific States Savings &
Loan Co., 145 P.2d 733, 73'6, -62 Nev.
147.
874
Wash.— Hanley v. Most, 115 P.2d 951,
9 Wash. 2 d 474, opinion adhered to
118 P.2d 946, 9 Wash.2d 474.
34 C.J. p 506 note 64.
TTnaaubignoiui order
A formal written order allowing
fees to a receiver's attorney and re-
serving to trial court the right to
consider any additional allowance
was not ambiguous so as to be gov-
erned by minute order allowing fees
for the calendar year and reserving
to trial court the right to fix future
fees for future services. — Mortimer
v. Pacific States Savings & Loan Co.,
145 P.2d 733, 62 Nev. 147.
7. Ala. — Lockwood v. Thompson, 73
So. 504, 198 Ala. 295.
Ind.— Pittsburgh, C. C. & St. (L. R.
Co. v. Johnson, 93 N.E. 683, 49 Ind.
App. 126, rehearing denied 95 N.E.
610, 49 Ind.App. 126.
Merger
Minute orders of. judge preceding
judgment are merged in, and con-
trolled by, judgment.— Prothero v.
Superior Court of • Orange County,
238 P. 357, 196 CaL 439.
8. Tex. — Stark v. Hardy, Com.App.,
29 S.W.2d 967 — Daniel v. Sharpe,
Civ.App., '69 S.W.2d 50-8.
9. Nev.— Blasdel v. Kean, $ Nev
305.
34 C.J. p 507 note 66.
Tex. — Sanger v. First Nat. Bank,
Civ.App., 170 S.W. 1087— Western
Union Tel. Co. v. Jackson, 46 S.W,
279, 19 Tex.Civ.App. -m,
Date of rendition
Where no minute entry appeared
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 444
fective proof of service filed with the judgment
roll,11 although a mere recital that the court has
jurisdiction contrary to what is shown by the rec-
ord is insufficient to confer jurisdiction.12 It has
also been held that, where a recital or statement in
a judgment constituting a mere conclusion directly
conflicts with the record proper, the latter pre-
vails.13 Accordingly a judgment reciting that de-
fendant admitted allegations in the complaint to be
true,14 or reciting the granting of a motion for
judgment on the pleadings,15 or purporting to have
been entered on the verdict of a jury,16 does not
prevail over a record which discloses that such was
not the case.
A recital in a judgment overruling a demurrer
that the demurrer came on regularly to be heard
has been held not to nullify an entry in the record
showing that the demurrer was not filed until sev-
eral terms after the pleading was opened to demur-
rer, the recital being considered as not in conflict
with the record entry.17 Similarly a recital in a
judgment that defendant filed his demurrer to the
complaint and that "said demurrers be and they are
hereby dismissed" has been held not to change the
fact shown by the record that the demurrer was
addressed to each count in the complaint separate-
ly, and not to the complaint as a whole.18 There
is no inconsistency between a formal judgment dis-
missing a cause with prejudice and a minute entry
reciting that the motion to dismiss is granted.19
Where the record contains two judgments, the
last in point of time must be treated as the true
and final judgment, and the other disregarded,20
although there is authority to the effect that, where
a judgment is entered and signed as of a certain
date, a second judgment entry will be vacated,
leaving the record of the case as originally authen-
ticated to stand.21
As between different- entries, an entry in the rec-
ord book22 or an entry in an appearance docket2S
has been held to prevail over an entry in the judg-
ment docket. As between an entry in an order
book and an original petition which is on file, the
entry in the order book is controlling.24
Matters not properly a part of the record do not
overthrow a judgment entry.25
B. OPERATION AND EFFECT
§ 444. In General
The operation and effect of a Judgment are purely
matters of law, and as a general rule a Judgment does
not directly affect the title to property.
The operation and effect of a judgment are pure-
ly matters of law2^ and are not affected by an un-
in record showing when Judgment
was rendered, statement in written
Judgment, signed by trial Judge, that
he rendered Judgment on a specified
date is accepted as true, notwith-
standing filing mark showed that
written Judgment was not filed until
a later date.— Mosher v. Dye, 39 P.2d
639, 44 Ariz. 555.
li« KY.— Maples v. Mackey, 89 N.
Y. 146.
34 C.J. p 507 note 68.
12: 111. — Sherman & Ellis v. Journal
of Qommerce and Commercial Bul-
letin, 259 Ill-App. 453.
Recital of appearance
Mere recital in Judgment that de-
fendant appeared is insufficient to
sustain Judgment against defendant
not served with summons. — Ameri-
can Cotton Oil Co. v. House, 118 So.
722, 153 Miss. 170, &8 A.L.B. 380.
13. »edtm as to service of procew
Fla. — Johnson v. Clark, 19'8 So. -842,
145 <Fla, 258,
Dr.— In re Stewart's Estate, 223 P.
727, 110 Or. 408.
14. Tex. — Tackett v. Middleton,
Com.ApOp., 280 S.W. 563, 44 A.L.R.
1143, motion overruled '281 8.W.
. 1047.
15. K.T.— Levey v. Allien, 25 N.T.S.
•352, 72 Hun 321.
10, U.S.— Moss v. City of Pittsburg,
Pa., 184 F. 325, 106 C.C.A. 348.
17. Ga.— Smith v. Aultman, 118 S.E.
459, 30 Ga.App. 507.
ia Ala.— Birmingham Ry., Light &
Power Co. v. Weathers, 51 So. 303,
164 Ala. 23.
19. Ariz. — Tootle - Campbell Dry
Goods Co. v. Knott, 29 P.2d 1066,
43 Ariz. 210.
Season for rule
Since a dismissal after a hearing
on the merits is presumed to be
with prejudice in the absence of an
express statement to the contrary,
the legal effect of each was the same.
—Tootle-Campbell Dry Goods Co. v.
Knott, supra.
20. Tex.— Witty v. Rose, Civ.App.,
148 S.W.2d 9'62, error dismissed.
yt -^Corpus Juris cited in Cootey v.
Remington, 189 A. 151, 153, 108 Vt
441.
34 C.J. P 507 note 71.
Operation and effect of conflicting
judgments see infra $ 445.
2L, Mich.— Wulff v. Bossier, 165 N.
W. 1048, 199 Mich. 70.
22. Iowa.— Case v. Plato, 6 N.W.
128, 54 Iowa 64.
Me. — Willard v. Whitney, 49 Me. 235.
34 C.J. P 507 note 73.
5. Pa.— Appeal of Hance, 1 Pa. 408
— Appeal of Nicholson, 11 A, 562,
8 Pa.Cas. 396.
34 C.J. ;p 507 note 74.
24. Ind.— Doe v. Smith, 1 Ind. 451.
25. Mo. — Missouri, K. & B. R. Co. v.
Holschlag, 45 S.W. 1101, 144 Mo.
253, 66 Am.S.R. 417.
26. N.H.— Burleigh v. Wong Sung
Leon, 1'39 A. 184, -83 N.H. 115.
A judgment cannot "be a mere recom-
.
U.S. — U. S. v. Carrollo, D.C.Mo., -30
•F.Supp. 3.
Final Judgment
(1) Use of term "Judgment" or-
dinarily implies a "final Judgment"
— Hazzard v. Alexander, 178 A. 873,
6 W.W.Harr.,Del., 512.
(2) Final and interlocutory Judgp-
ments distinguished see supra S 8.
"Adversary proceeding"
Proceeding instituted by order of
supreme court for purpose of en-
abling court to inform itself on qu3s-
tions arising under statute providing
for integration of state bar was not
875
§444
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
derstanding of the court or parties.27 Although a
judgment may in certain circumstances operate to
create a title to property, or to transfer the title,28
as a general rule judgments do not directly affect
the title to property.29 A money judgment does not
give the judgment creditor an estate or interest in
the judgment debtor's land,30 although it may give
him the right to have the land appropriated to the
satisfaction of the judgment.31 Every unsatisfied
judgment is necessarily a liability.32
The doctrine of res judicata is discussed infra §§
592-848.
§ 445. Conflicting Judgments
It is generally held that, of two conflicting judg-
ments on the same rights of the parties, the one which
is later in time will prevail.
Where there have been two former actions in
which the claim or demand, fact or matter sought
to be religated has been decided contrarily, the rule
that, where there is an estoppel against an estop-
pel, it "setteth the matter at large" has been applied
by some authorities, and in such case both parties
may assert their claims anew.33 Other authorities
have held that, of two conflicting judgments on the
same rights of the same parties, the one which is
later in time will prevail,34 although it has also been
held that the judgment prior in time will prevail.35
It has been held that a decision of a court of last
resort is binding on the parties, although afterward,
in another cause, a different principle was de-
clared.3*
"Contradictory judgment." In Louisiana this
term is used to designate a judgment given after
the parties have been heard, either in support of
their claims or in their defense, as distinguished
from a judgment by default.37
§ 446. Time of Taking Effect
A judgment generally takes effect on the rights and
titles of the parties, to the action as they exist at the
time of the rendition of the Judgment.
With respect to the rights and titles of the par-
ties to an action, it is generally held that a judgment
an "adversary proceeding:," and ef-
fect of Judgment Is limited by na-
ture of proceeding. — Integration of
the Bar Case, 12 N.W.2d 699, 244
Wis. 8, 151 A.1..R. 588.
Statutory judgments
It has been held that judgments1
are statutory creations and that
their effect is to be determined by
the statute creating them. — Sullivan
State Bank v. 'First Nat. Bank, 146
N.E. 403. 82 Ind.App. 419.
27. N.H.— Burleigh v. Wong Sung
Leon, 1-39 A. 184, 83 N.H. 115.
28. U.S.— McDaniel Nat. Bank v.
Bridwell, C.C.A.MO., »65 F.2d 428.
34 C.J, p 507 note 84.
Operation and effect of judgment in:
Hem see infra § 910.
Trover and conversion see the C.J.
S. title Trover and Conversion §
160, also 65 C.J. p 129 note 69-p
130 note 77.
Fixtures
Buildings and other articles af-
fixed to, or used in connection with,
realty so as to constitute appur-
tenances or fixtures pass as a matter
of course by the deed, devise, or
decree passing the title to the realty,
in the absence of a reservation there-
in, — Pickrell v. Pickrell, Tex.Civ.
., 134 S.W.2d 740.
29. N.Y.-^-Thurst v. West, 81 N.Y.
210.
34 C.J. P 507 note 86.
30. N.C. — Farrow v. American Eagle
• Fire Ins. Co. of New York. 134 S.
E. 427, 192 N.C. 148.
34 C.J. p 507 note 88—21 C.J. p 916
note 59.
31. 1ST. Y.— White's Bank v. -Farthing,
4 N.E. -734, 101 N.Y. '344, 9 N.Y.
Civ.Proc. 64.
N.C.— Farrow v. American Eagle Fire
"Ins. Co. of New York, 134 S.B. 427,
192 N.C. 148.
Lien of judgment see infra §§ 454-
511.
32. Cal.— Woehrle v. Canclini, 109 P.
£88, 15S Cal. 107.
33. U.S.— Kahl v. Chicago Title &
Trust Co., D.C.I1L, 299 F. 793.
34 C.J. p 749 note 7.
Merger of judgments see infra § 599.
Time of commencement of action as
affecting application of doctrine of
res judicata see infra § 602.
Waiver of estoppel or bar of res ju-
dicata see infra § 597.
34. u.S. — Donald v. J. J. White
Lumber Co., C.C.A.Miss., 68 F.2d
441.
Cal. — Maloney v. Massachusetts
Bonding. & Insurance Co., 123 P.2d
449, 20 Cal.2d 1 — Standard Oil Co.
of California v. John P. Mills Or-
ganization, 43 P.2d 797, 3 Cal.2d
128— California Bank v. Traeger, 10
P.2d 51, 215 Cal. 346— Nicholls v.
Anders, 56 P.2d 12S9, 13 Cal.App.2d
440— Wood v. Pendola, 35 P.2d 5S6,
1 CaLApp.2d 435.
Colo.— In re Water Rights in Water
Dist. No. 17, 277 P. 763, So Colo.
555.
Iowa. — Mornyer v. Cooper, 35 Iowa
257.
Ky. — Sipple v. Catron, 265 S.W. 491.
205 Ky. 81.
Mont. — Gans & Klein Inv. Co. v. San-
ford, 8 P.2d SDS, 91 Mont 512.
Ohio.— State ex rel. Young v. Mor-
row, 2 N.E.2d 595, 131 Ohio St. 266
876
— Clark v. Baranowski, 145 N.E.
760, 111 Ohio St. 436.
Vt.->-Cootey v. Remington, 189 A.
151, 108 Vt. 441.
Wash.— Watkins v. Siler Logging Co.,
116 P.2d 315, 9 Wash.2d 70*3— State
v. Barnes, 291 P. 710, 158 Wash.
648.
34 C.J. p 508 note 91, p 749 note 8.
Conflict in record see supra § 443.
Presumption of merger or vacation
Where two judgments of the same
purport are rendered in the same
case at the same term of court, it
will be presumed that the first judg-
ment merged in the second or was
constructively vacated by it, ctnd in
such case the first judgment will not
sustain a plea of res judicata. — John-
son v. Hesser, «5 N.W. 894, 61 Neb.
631.
35. Tex. — Witty v. Rose, Civ.App.,
148 S.W.26L 962, error dismissed.
Conflict "between final and interlocu-
tory judgment
Order made on exceptions, if in-
consistent with judgment on merits,
must give way thereto. — Wells v.
Stonerock, Tex.Civ.App., 1 S.W.2d
425, reversed on other grounds, Com.
App., 12 S.W.2d 961.
New trial
Where a record showed two in-
consistent verdicts and judgments
in the same case, a new trial having
been had without setting aside the
first verdict and judgment, it was
held that the proceedings subsequent
to the entry thereof should be re-
versed on error. — Conrad v. Commer-
cial Mut Ins. Co., 81* Pa. 66.
3S. S.C.— 'Frost v. Frost, 21 S.C. 501.
37. Black L..D.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 447
takes effect on them as they exist at the time of the
rendition thereof, and not as they existed at the
commencement of the suit or before that time.38 It
has been variously held that a judgment becomes
operative and effective when it is entered,39 or
when it is announced40 or signed,41 even though the
judgment is not entered until a later date.42 It has
been held that a judgment does not become final
until the end of the term during which it is ren-
dered.43
The presumption, discussed supra § 113, that a
judgment rendered during -a term is presumed to
have been rendered on the first day of the term will
not be applied so as to cut off intervening rights ac-
quired in good faith44 or where it will not promote
the ends of justice,45 and it is not to be allowed to
prevail over the substantial equities of third per-
sons.46
§ 447. Conditions and Alternative Provisions
The party claiming the benefit of a Judgment must
comply with any terms and conditions which It may
Impose on him.
The party who claims the benefit of a judgment
rendered in his favor must comply with any terms
or conditions which it may impose on him, and fail-
ure to do so will destroy the effect of the adjudi-
cation.47 Where the judgment is in the alternative,
granting defendant an option to do a specified act
or suffer judgment for a designated sum, his elec-
tion eliminates the alternative, and is binding on
both parties.48
38. Ala. — Autrey' v. Latta, t76 So.
457, 234 Ala, 662— Ex parte Lacy,
168 So. 554, 232 Ala, 525— Corpus
Juris cited in Wilson v. Coffey, $
P.2d 62, 64, 116 Cal.App. 635.
111.— Snook v. Shaw, 43 N.B.2d 417,
315 Ill.App. 594.
Iowa. — Andrew v. Winegarden, 219
N.W. 326, 205 Iowa 1180.
N.Y.— -Langrick v. Rowe, 212 N.Y.S.
240, 126 Misc. 2£6.
Ohio. — Friedman v. Brown, 172 N.E.
565, 35 Ohio App. 450.
Tex. — Cleburne Nat. Bank v. Bowers,
Civ. App., 113 S.W.2d 578 — Amason
v. Harrigan, Civ. App., 288 S.W. 566.
34 C.J. P 508 note 93.
Operation and effect of nunc pro tune
judgment see supra § 121.
Time of rendition and entry of judg-
ments generally see supra §§ 113-
116.
When equity decree takes effect see
Equity § 614.
Evidence of debt
Judgment, speaks from its date and
is not evidence of existence of the
debt prior thereto, and, in absence
of proof, debt must be considered
contracted as of date of judgment. —
Wiggins v. Stewart Bros., 109 So.
• 101, 215 Ala. 9.
Presumption is Judgment is pay-
able immediately, unless contrary
appears. — Barber v. Warland, 247 N.
•Y.S. 455, 139 Misc. -398.
Time for rehearing
<1) Generally judgments and de-
crees are effective from date of en-
try thereof for most purposes, but
such rule is inapplicable to judg-
ments and decrees of supreme court
of appeals during thirty-day period
within which petitions for rehearing
may be filed, particularly where or-
der or decree is self-executing in its
nature. — Shields v. Romtne, 14 S.B.
2d777, 123 W.Va. 21 S,
(2) -Under judgment ordering lum-
ber company to remove defective
house from homestead within thirty
days, thirty-day period did not start
running until after fifteen-day re-
hearing period following .affirmance
on appeal. — Davis v. Sloan Lumber
Co., Tex.Civ.App., 37 S.W.2d 225.
39. Cal. — Barstow-San Antonio Oil
Co. v. Whitney, 271 P. 477, 205 Cal.
420, certiorari denied 49 S.Ct 345,
279 U.S. 848, 73 L.Ed. 992— Wilson
v. Coffey, 3 P.2d 62, 116 Cal.App.
635.
A Judgment speaks as of the time of
its entry-
Ohio. — Magnolia Bldg. & Inv. Co. v.
Sulzman, 14 N.E.2d 623, 57 Ohio
A«pp. 431 — Steigert v. Steigert, 13
N.B.2d 583, 57 Ohio App. 255.
Statutory change between dates of
announcement and entry
In action to review order of state
department of social security deny-
ing applicant his claim for old age
assistance where trial court on ££br.
21, 1939, orally announced its deci-
sion in favor of claimant but did not
sign and enter judgment until Igarch
24, 19.39, and existing old age assist-
ance law was amended on Febr. 25,
i£39, the amending act became effec-
tive prior to entry of judgment and
hence was controlling of method and
amount of assistance.— Adams v.
Ernst, 95 P.2d 799, 1 Wash.2d 254.
Judgment is "entered" when it is
signed by the court and delivered to
the clerk for filing, and clerk's fail-
ure to perform the ministerial act of
entering the filing of the judgment
on the appearance docket or spread-
ing the judgment on the journal
would not affect the validity of the
judgment or invalidate sale there-
under.— Cinebar Coal & Coke Co. v,
Robinson, 97 P.2d 128, 1 Wash.2d 620.
49,, U.S.— Humphrey v. Bankers
Mortg. Co. of Topeka, C.C.A.Kan.,
79 F.2d 345.
I1L — People ex rel. McDonough* v.
Jarecki, 185 N.B. 570, 352 111. 207
— Wickiser v. Powers, 57 N.E.23
522, "324 IlLApp. 130.
Tex. — Cleburne Nat. Bank v. Bowers,
Civ.Ajppi, 113 S.W.2d 578.
Date announced, not date signed, is
the effective date of a judgment. —
•First Nat. Bank v. Fallon, 26 P.2d
232, 55 Nev. 102.
41. N.Y.— Langrick v. Rowe, 212 N.
T.S. 240, 126 Misc. 256.
Either in open court or in chambers
U.S. — Humphrey v. Bankers Mortg.
Co. of Topeka, C.C.A.Kan., 79 F.2d
345.
42. U.S.— Humphrey v. Bankers
Mortg. Co. of Topeka, supra.
111. — People ex rel. McDonough v.
Jarecki, 185 N.E. 570, 352 111. 207
— Wickiser v. Powers, 67 N.E.2d
522, 324 IlLApp. 130.
N.Y.— Langrick v, Rowe, 212 N.Y.S.
240, 126 Misc. 256.
Tex. — Cleburne Nat. Bank v. Bowers,
Civ.App., 113 S.W.2d 57-8.
43. Va. — Carney v. Poindexter, 1&5
S.E. 639, 170 Va. 233.
44. Ala. — Pope v. Brandon, 2 Stew.
401, 20 Am.D. 49.
Iowa. — Campbell v. Williams, 39
Iowa 646.
45. U.S.— Newhall v. Sanger, Cal., 92
U.S. 761, 23 L.Ed. 769.
46. Ala. — Powe v. McLeod, 76 Ala.
41-S.
47. Iowa. — Blankenhorn v. Edgar,
186 N.W. 893, 193 Iowa 184.
Tex. — Giraud v. Reserve Realty Co.,
Civ.App., 94 S.W.2d 198, error re-
fused.
34 C.J. p 508 note 94.
48. Utah. — Parish v. McConkie, 35
P.2d 1001, 84 Utah 396.
Wash.— State v. Smith, 167 P. *1,
98 Wash. 100, modified on other
grounds and petition denied 169 P.
468, 98 Wash. 100.
34 C.J. P 508 note 95.
Alternative judgments generally see
supra § 74.
877
§ MS
JUDGMENTS
49 O.J.S.
§ 448. Extraterritorial Operation
A judgment does not have extraterritorial effect.
Judgments of courts of a sister state or of a for-
eign country may be entitled to recognition by a
domestic court, but they have no extraterritorial
operation or effect as judgments.49 No court may
enforce its process beyond the limits of the sover-
eignty which ordained and established such court,50
§ 449. Void and Voidable Judgments
A void judgment is a nullity, but a voidable judg-
ment Is as operative as a valid Judgment until prop-
erly set aside.
A void judgment is one that has merely the sem-
blance of a judgment without some essential element
or elements on which its validity as such depends.51
It is only jurisdictional defects which render a judg-
ment void ; mere irregularities or errors in the ex-
ercise of jurisdiction may or may not render the
judgment reversibly erroneous, or voidable, but
they do not render it void.52 A judgment is void
on its face when that fact appears affirmatively
from inspection of the judgment roll,53 and it has
been held that a judgment is void only where the
invalidity appears on the face of the record.54
A judgment which is void, as distinguished from
one which is merely voidable, or liable to be vacated
Accounting by plaintiff
Under Judgment which provided
that on defendant's failure to pay a
certain sum within ninety days
plaintiff would be entitled to decree,
and which required an accounting- by
plaintiff as trustee, plaintiff was not
entitled to decree on ground that de-
fendant had not made an uncondi-
tional deposit to credit of plaintiff,
where plaintiff was not ready to ac-
count and where in accordance with
suggestion of plaintiffs attorney de-
fendant deposited amount required
in escrow and attorney was advised
of such deposit. — Adams v. Bloom,
142 P.2d 775, 61 Cal.App.2d 94.
49. U.S.— Corpus Juris cited in -Car-
penter v. Wabash Ry. Co., C.C.A.
Mo., 103 F.2d 996, 1000, vacated on
other grounds 60 S.Qt 416, 309 U.
S. 23, 84 L.Ed. 55S, rehearing de-
nied 60 S.Ct. 585, 309 U.S. 695, 84
L.Ed. 1035.
Mich.— Henkel v. Henkel, 276 N.W.
522, 282 Mich. 473.
N.Y.— Hutchison v. Ross, 187 N.EL
65, 262 N.Y. 381, 89 A.-L.R. 1007,
reargument denied 188 N.E. 102,
262 N.Y. 643, 89 A.L.R. 1023.
34 C.J. p 508 note 98.
Foreign judgments generally see in-
fra §§ 888-906.
60. U.S. — Baskin v, Montedonico, C.
C.A.Tenn., 115 F.2d 83-7.
N.J. — Elizabethtown Sav. lust. v.
Gerber, 34 N.J.Eq. 130, affirmed 35
N.J,Eq. 153.
Enforcement of judgments generally
see infra §§ 585-591.
51. U.S. — Corpus Juris cited In In re
Dixie Splint Coal Co., D.C.Va., 31
OF.Supp. 290, 295, reversed on other
grounds, C.C.A., Litton y. Pepper,
100 F.2d 830 reversed on other
grounds 60 S.Ct 238, 30-6 U.S. 295,
84 L.Ed. 281.
Kan. — Corpus Juris cited in Board
of Com'rs of Crawford- County v.
Radley, 8 P.2d 386, 387, 134 Kan.
704.
Neb.— -Corpus Jurii quoted in Drain-
age Dist. No. 1 v. Village of
Hershey, 296 N*W. 579, 882, 139
Neb. 205.
N.C.— City of Monroe v. Niven, 20
S.E.2d 311, 221 N.C. 362.
34 C.J. p 509 note 12.
52. Ala. — Ex parte Harper, 112 So.
96, 22 Ala.App. 60.
Ark. — Axley v. Hammock, 50 S.W.2d
60S, 185 Ark. 939.
Fla. — Malone v. Meres, 109 So. 677,
91 Fla, 709.
111.— Herb v. Pitcairn, 51 N.E.2d 277,
384 111. 237, reversed on other
grounds 65 S.Ct 954, 323 U.S. 77,
89 L.Ed 1483, rehearing denied -65
S.Ct. 1188. 325 U.S. 893, 89 L.Ed.
2005, opinion supplemented 64 N.
E.2d 318, 392 111. 151.
N.C. — Hinton v. Whitehurst 198 S.E.
579, 214 N.C. 99.
Tex. — Grayson v. Johnson, Civ.App.,
181 S.W.2d 312— Livingston v.
Stubbs, Civ.App., 151 S.W.2d 285,
error dismissed, judgment correct
—Sing v. Somer, Civ.App., 129 S.
W.2d 501, error dismissed, judg-
ment correct — Askew v. Rountree,
Civ-App., 120 S.W.2d 117, error dis-
missed— Corpus Juris quoted in
Dearing v. City of Port Neches,
Civ.App., 65 S.W.2d 1105, error re-
fused.
34 C.J. p 509 note 13.
Essentials of validity of judgment
see supra §§ 13-22.
Curable defects
Mere Irregularity is amendable
and is cured by judgment, and any-
thing which, if objected to, could
have been amended does not render
judgment void. — Gray v. Riley, 170
S.E. 53-7, 47 Ga.App. -34-8.
Judgment based on unconstitutional
statute
Where the unconstitutionality of a
statute goes only to the merits of
the cause of action and not to the
jurisdiction of the court, a judgment
In a civil suit based thereon is not a
"void judgment" but merely an "er-
roneous judgment" and remains ef-
fective until regularly set aside or
reversed. — Commonwealth of Massa-
chusetts v. Davis, 1-68 S.W.2d 21-6, 140
Tex. 398, certiorari denied Davis v.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 63
878
S.Ct 1447, 320 U.S. 210, 87 lL.Ed.
liS4S, rehearing denied 64 S.Ct 41,
320 U.S. 811, 88 L.Ed. 490.
Judgment violative of statute or con.
stitution
Where a judgment or any part
thereof clearly violates the plain
provisions of the constitution or
statutes, such judgment or the part
thereof that is in direct conflict
with the constitution or statutes is
to that extent void and cannot be en-
forced.— City of Norman -v. Van
Camp, 209 P. 925, 87 Okl. 182.
53. 111.— Herb v. Pitcairn, 51 N.E.2d
277, 384 111. 237, reversed on other
grounds 65 S.Ct. 954, 325 U.S. 77,
89 L.Ed. 1483, rehearing denied 65
S.Ct 1188, 325 U.S. 893, 89 L.Ed.
2005, opinion supplemented 64 2ST.E.
2d 318, 392 111. 151.
Okl.— Bradshaw v. Tinker, 264 P. 162,
129 Okl. 244.
34 C.J. p 510 note 23.
Recital of service of process
Where citation was served on de-
fendant in original suit, judgment
was not void on its face because it
did not recite service of process and
purported only to be judgment by
confession of attorney and petition
was not verified and no «power of at-
torney to confess judgment was filed
or its contents recited in judgment,
where record showed that citation to
defendant was duly issued and prop-
erly returned showing service, and
officer's return was not successfully
impeached— Johnson v. Cole, Tex,
Civ.App., 138 S.W.2d 910, error re-
fused.
54U Okl.— Femow v. Gubser, 162 P.
2d 529 — Harjo v. Johnston, 104 P.
2d 985, 187 Okl. 561— Bradshaw v*
Tinker, 264 P. 162, 129 Okl. 244 —
Smith v. Page. 246 P. 217, 117 Okl.
223.
Tenn. — Clemmons v. Haynes, 3 Tenn.
App. 20.
Tex. — O'Quinn v. Harrison, Civ.App.,
271 S.W. 137— A. B. Richards Med-
icine Co. v. Reeves, £iv.App., 2-6S
S.W. S94.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 449
or set aside for irregularity or other cause, or re-
versed for error, is a mere nullity55 and has no
force or effect.56 It is not binding on anyone;57
it raises no lien58 or estoppel;59 and it does not
impair or affect the rights of anyone.60 It confers
no rights on the party in whose favor it is given,
and affords no protection to persons acting under
it;61 and it does not even operate as a discontinu-
55. U.-S. — Corpus Juris cited in Kel-
leam v. Maryland Casualty Co. of
Baltimore, C.C.A.Okl., 112 'F.2d 940,
944, reversed on other grounds 61
S.Ct. 595, 312 U.S. 377, -85 L.Ed.
399 — Corpus Juris cited in In re
Pixie Splint Coal Co., D.C.Va., 31
F.Supp. 290, 295, reversed on other
grounds, C.C.A., Litton v. Pepper,
100 F.2d 830, reversed on other
grounds 60 S.Ct 238, 306 U.S. 295,
84 !L.Ed. 281 — In re American Fi-
delity Corporation, D.Q.Cal., 28 F.
Supp. 462.
Ark. — Taylor v. Bay St (Francis
Drainage Dist., 284 S.W. 770, 171
Ark. 285 — Axley v. Hammock, 50
S.W.2d 608, 185 Ark. 939.
Cal. — Corpus Juris cited in Casner v.
San Diego Trust & -Savings Bank,
94 P.2d 65, 76, 34 Cal.App.2d 524.
Idaho. — Corpus Juris cited in Union
Central Life Ins. Co. v. Albrethsen,
294 P. 842, 846, '50 Idaho 196.
HI.-— Herb v- Pitcairn, 51 N.E.2d 277,
384 111. 237, reversed on other
grounds 65 S.Ct. 954, 525 U.S. 77,
•89 GLuEd. 1483, rehearing denied -6-5
S.Ct 1188, 325 U.S. '893, 180 L.Ed.
2005, opinion supplemented 64 N.
B.2d 318, 392 111. 151.
Iowa.— S tier v. Iowa State Traveling
Men's Ass'n, 201 N.W. 328, 199
Iowa 118, 59 A.L.R. 1384.
Ky.— Hill v. Hill, 185 S.W.2d 245, 299
Ky. 351— Hill v. Walker, 180 S.W.
2d 93, 297 Ky. 257, 154 A.L.R. 814
— Soper v. Foster, 51 S.W.2d 927,
244. Ky. «658.
3L,a. — Ludeau v. Jacob, 185 -So. 458,
191 La, 427.
Mo.— Coombs v. Benz, 114 S.W.2d -713,
232 Mo.App. 1011.
3STeb.— Sedlak v. Duda, 13 N.W.2d 892,
144 Neb. 567, 154 AJL.R. 490—
Hassett v. Durbln, '271 N.W. -867,
132 Neb. 315.
N.C.— Moore v. Moore, 31 S.E.2d 690,
224 N.C. 552— Casey v. Barker, 14
S.B.2d 429, 219 N.C. 465— Clark v.
Carolina Homes, 128 S.R 20, T89
N.C. 703.
N.D.— State v. Board of Com'rs of
City of Fargo, 246 N.W. 243, 63 N
D. #5.
Okl. — Le -dair v. Calls Him, '233 P
1087, 106 Okl. 247.
•Tex. — Dollert v. Pratt-Hewit Oil Cor-
poration, Civ.App., 179 S.W.2d -346
error refused, certiorari denied -61
S.Ct. 713. 324 U.S. 853, i89 L.Ed.
1412, rehearing denied 65 S.Ct 912
324 U.S. 889, 89 L.Ed. 1437— Com
mander v. Bryan, Civ.App., 123 -S
W.2d 1008.
Utah, — Corpus Juris quoted in Stat
v. Lee -Lim, 7 P.2d 825, 827, 79
Utah 68.
4 C.J. p 509 note 14.
At all times
Judgment which is absolutely void
s at all times a nullity.— Fowler v.
Fowler, 130 S.E. 315, 190 N.C. 536.
For all purposes
A void Judgment is a nullity for
all purposes. — Texas Pacific Coal &
Oil Co. v. Ames, Tex. Civ.App., 284 S.
W. 315, reversed on other grounds,
Com.App., '292 S.W. 191.
A void Judgment of an appellate
court has no more validity than a
void Judgment of any other court. —
Faris v. City of Caruthersville, 1'62
S.W.2d 237, 349 Mo. 454— Ralph v.
Annuity Realty Co., 28 S.W.2d 662,
325 Mo. 410.
56. Ark. — Taylor v. Bay St. Francis
Drainage Dist, 284 S.W. 770, 171
Ark. 285.
Tex. — Commander v. Bryan, Civ.App.,
123 S.W.2d 1008.
34 C.J. p 509 note 14.
As though no Judgment entered
A void Judgment leaves the parties
in the same position as though no
Judgment had been entered. — Hill v.
Hill, 1-85 S.W.2d 245, 289 Ky. 351.
Basis or evidence of right
An absolutely void Judgment is a
nullity, can be neither a basis for,
nor evidence of, any right whatever,
and may be attacked anywhere, di-
rectly or collaterally, by parties or
strangers. — In re American Fidelity
Corporation, D.C,CaL, 28 F.Supp. 462.
57. Ark.— Axley v. Hammock, 50 S.
W.2d £08, 185 Ark. 939.
Idaho. — Corpus Juris cited in Union
Central Life Ins. Co. v. Albreth-
sen, 294 P. 842, 846, 50 Idaho 196.
Neb.— Sedlak v. Duda, 13 N.W.Sd
892, 144 Neb. 567, 154 A.L.R. 490
—Hassett v. Durbin, 271 N.W. 867,
132 Neb. 315.
Tex.— -Commander v. Bryan, Civ.App.,
123 S.W.2d 1008.
34 C.J. p 509 note 14.
Only by proceedings which direct-
ly bind a Judicial tribunal or judge
thereof may the parties to a con-
troversy pending before such tribu-
nal or Judge become bound. — New-
port v. Culbreath, 162 So. 340, 120
Fla. 152.
58. Neb.— Sedlak v. Duda, 13 N.W.2d
892, 144 Neb. 567, 154 A.L.R. 490
34 C.J. p 509 note 14.
59. Idaho. — Corpus Juris cited in.
Union Central Life Ins. Co. v. Al
brethsen, 294 P. 842, 846, 50 Idaho
196.
879
sreb. — Sedlak v. Duda, 13 N.W.2d
892, 144 Neb. 567, 154 A.L.R. 490.
4 C.J. p 509 note 14.
6O. Idaho. — Corpus Juris cited in
Union Central Life Ins. Co. v. Al-
brethsen, 294 P. 842, 846, 50 Idaho
196.
Mo. — Coombs v. Benz, 114 S.W.2d
713, 232 Mo.App. 1011.
Neb. — Sedlak v. Duda, 13 N.W.2d
892, 144 Neb. 567, 154 A.L.R. 490.
Tex.— Dollert v. Pratt-Hewit Oil Cor-
poration, Civ.App., 179 S.W.2d 346,
error refused, certiorari denied 65
S.Ct. 713, 324 U.S. 853, 89 L.Ed.
1412, rehearing denied 65 S.Ct. 912,
324 U.S. 889, 89 L.Ed. 1437.
34 C.J. p 509 note 14.
61- U.S. — Corpus Juris cited in Kel-
leam v. Maryland Casualty Co. of
Baltimore, C.C.A.Okl., 112 F.2d
940, 944, reversed on other grounds
61 S.Ct. 595, 312 U.S. 377, 85 L.Ed.
899.
y.— Hill v. Walker, 180 S.W.2d 93,
297 Ky. 257, 154 A.L.B. 814.
Mo. — Coombs v. Benz, 114 S.W.2d
713, 232 Mo.App. 1011.
Neb.— Sedlak v. Duda, 13 N.W.2d
892, 144 Neb. 567, 154 A.L.R. 567.
N.T.— Mirsky v. Mirsky, 35 N.T.S.2d
858.
N.C.— Casey v. Barker, 14 S.E.2d 429,
219 N.C. 465.
Tex. — Dollert v. Pratt-Hewit Oil Cor-
poration, Civ.App., 179 S.W.2d 346,
error refused, certiorari denied 65
S.Ct. 713, 324 U.S. 853, 89 L.Ed.
1412, rehearing denied 65 S.Ct. 912,
324 U.S. 889, 89 L.Ed. 1437 — Com-
mander v. Bryan, Civ.App., 123 S.
W.2d 1008.
34 C.J. p 510 note 16.
Trespassers
Parties attempting to enforce a
void Judgment are trespassers. — Le
Clair v. Calls Him, 233 P. 1087, 106
Okl. 247.
Title of one olaianing through void
Judgment fails with failing of such
Judgment. — San Lorenzo Title & Im-
provement Co. v. City Mortg. Co.,
Civ.App., 48 S,W.2d 310, affirmed 73
S.W.2d 513, 124 Tex. 513. followed
in San Lorenzo Title & Improvement
Co. v. Clardy, 73 S.W.2d 516, 124 Tex.
31, and San Lorenzo Title & Im-
provement Co. v. Caples, 78 S.W.2d
516, 124 Tex. 33.
Collateral or subsequent proceeding"
dependent on validity of a void Judg-
ment may be vacated on proper mo-
tion by person affected thereby. —
Hinkle v. Jones, 66 P.2d 1073, 180
Okl. 17.
§ 449
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S,
ance of the action.62 Such a judgment may be
attacked at any time by anyone,63 including the
party in whose favor it is given,64 and may be im-
peached in any action, direct or collateral.65 It is
not necessary to take any steps to vacate or avoid
a void judgment; it may simply be ignored.66 A
valid judgment may be entered subsequently in dis-
regard of the void judgment.67
Voidable judgments. As discussed supra § 191,
where the court has jurisdiction of the parties, of
the subject matter or cause of action, and of the
question determined or relief granted, that is, where
the court has jurisdiction to render the particular
judgment, mere errors or irregularities in the ex-
ercise of the jurisdiction, although sufficient to ren-
der the judgment erroneous, and subject to be re-
versed or set aside in a proper proceeding for that
purpose, do not render the judgment void, and un-
til so set aside it is valid and binding for all pur-
poses.68 Until set aside in a proper proceeding for
that purpose, a voidable judgment has the same
force and effect as though no error had been com-
mitted;69 it will support proceedings taken under
63. Tex.— Isbill v. Stovail, Civ.App.,
92 S.W.2d 1067.
Utah. — Corpus Juris Quoted in State
v. Lee Lim, 7 P.2d 825. 827, 79
Utah 68.
34 C.J. p 510 note 17.
Decision under advisement
Where a trial judge takes a case
under advisement and thereafter
purports to render a judgment which
is void, the status of the cause re-
mains as one continuing to be held
under advisement and not yet de-
cided or determined. — City of Clin-
ton ex rel. Richardson v. Keen, 138
P.2d 104, 192 Okl. S83.
63. La. — Ludeau v. Jacob, 185 So.
458, 191 La. 427.
yr.C. — Casey v. Barker, 14 S.E.2d 429,
219 N.C. 465.
Okl.— Lehman v. Tucker, 55 P.2d 62,
176 Okl. 286.
Tex. — Cheney v. Norton, Civ.App.,
126 S.W.2d 1011, reversed on oth-
er grounds Norton v. Cheney, 161
S.W.2d 73, 138 Tex. 622.
Enforcement of void judgment may
Toe enjoined
U.S.— North Pacific S. S. Co. v. In-
dustrial Accident Commission, D.
C.Cal., 23 F.2d 109.
64. La. — May v. Ball, 12 La.Ann.
416.
Utah. — Corpus Juris quoted in State
v. Lee Lim, 7 P.2d 825, 827, 79
Utah 68.
65. Neb. — Drainage Dist. No. 1 v.
Village of Hershey, 296 N.W. 879,
139 Neb. 205 — Hassett v. Durbin,
271 N.W. 867, 132 Neb. 315.
N".C. — Casey v. Barker, 14 S.E.2d 429,
219 N.C. 465.
Tex. — Cheney v. Norton, Civ.App.,
' 126 S.W.2d 1011, reversed on oth-
er grounds Norton v. Cheney, 161
S.W.2d 73, 138 Tex. 622.
Collateral attack see supra § 401 et
seq.
Opening or vacating judgment see
supra § 267.
66. Nev.— State ex rel. Smith v.
Sixth Judicial Dist. Court, Hum-
boldt County, 167 P.2d 648.
N.C. — Casey v. Barker, 14 S.E.2d
429, 219 N.C. 465.
Tex. — Cheney v. Norton, Civ.App.,
126 S.W.2d 1011, reversed on other
grounds Norton v. Cheney, 161 S.
W.2d 73, 138 Tex. 622.
34 C.J. p 510 note 19.
defendant need not take advantage
of any particular legal remedy at
risk of being precluded from at-
tacking void judgment in habeas cor-
pus proceeding. — State v. Branaman,
183 N.E. 653, 204 Ind. 238.
67. Utah.— First Nat. Bank v. Boley,
61 P.2d 621, 90 Utah 341, followed
in Boley v. District Court of Sec-
ond Judicial Dist. in and for Mor-
gan County, SI P.2d 624, 90 Utah
347 — Corpus Jnrts quoted in State
v. Lee Lim, 7 P.2d 825, 827, 79
Utah 68.
Wash.— Morrison v. Berlin, 79 P.
1114, 37 Wash. 600.
68. U.S.— Spencer v. Gypsy Oil Co.,
C.C.A.OkL, .142 F.2d 935, certiorari
denied 65 S.Ct. 439, 323 U.S. 798,
89 L.Ed. 636— Mclntosh v. Wiggins,
C.C.A.MO., 123 F.2d 316, certiorari
denied 62 S.Ct. 800, 315 U.S. 815,
86 L.Bd. 1213, rehearing denied 62
S.Ct. 914, 315 U.S. 831, 86 L.Ed.
1224.
Ala.— Farrell v. Farrell, 10 So.2d 153,
243 Ala. 389.
Ark.— Kirchoff v. Wilcox, 36 S.W.2d
667, 183 Ark. 460.
Cal. — Wells Fargo & Co. v. City and
County of San Francisco, 152 P.
2d 625, 25 Cal.2d 37 — Gray v. Hall,
265 P. 246, 203 CaL 306— Hogan v.
Horsfall, 266 P. 1002, 91 Cal.App.
37, followed in 266 P. 1005, 91 Cal.
App. 797.
D.C. — Swofford v. International Mer-
cantile Marine Co., 113 F.2d 179,
, 72 App.D.C. 225.
Fla. — State ex rel. Fulton Bag & Cot-
ton Mills v. Burnside, 15 So.2d 324,
153 Fla. 599— Malone v. Meres, 109
So. 677, 91 Fla. 709.
Ga.— Pope v. ' Shipp, 144 S.B. 345,
38 Ga.App. 483.
III. — Chicago Title & Trust Co. v.
Mack, 180 N.B. 412, 347 111. 480—
Petition of Volpe, 66 N.E.2d 146,
328 IlLApp. 311— Hampton v. Gris-
som, 4 N.B.2d 895, 287 IlLApp. 294.
Iowa. — Hansen v. McCoy & McCoy,
266 N.W. 1, 221 Iowa 523— Harris
v. Randolph, 23$ N.W. 51, 213 Iowa
772.
880
Ky. — Pruett v. Pruett's Adm'x, 192 S.
W.2d 722, 301 Ky. 568,
Me. — Mitchell v. Mitchell, 11 A.2d
898, 136 Me. 406.
Miss.— Todd v. Todd, 20 So.2d 827.
197 Miss. 819.
Mo. — Electrolytic Chlorine Co. v.
Wallace & Tiernan Co., 41 S.W.2d
1049, 328 Mo. 782, 78 A.L.R. 930
— Dickey v. Dickey, App., 132 S.W.
2d 1026.
N-.M.— In re Field's Estate, 60 P.2d
945, 40 N.M. 423.
Okl.— Mid-Continent Pipe Line Co. v.
Semtnole County Excise Board, 146
P.2d 996, 194 Okl. 40.
S.C. — Cathcart v. Jennings, 135 S.E.
55S, 137 S.C. 450.
Tex.— Easterline v. Bean, 49 S.W.2d
427, 121 Tex. 327 — Bearden v. Tex-
as Co., Com.App., 60 S.W.2d 1031
— Stewart Oil Co. v. Lee, Civ.App..
173 S.W.2d 791, error refused-
Wright v. Shipman, Civ.App., 279
S.W. 296.
Utah. — Plutus Mining Co. v. Orme.
289 P. 132, 76 Utah 286.
Vt. — Santerre v. Sylvester, 189 A*
159, 108 Vt. 435.
Va.— Mayes v, Mann, 180 S.E. 423,
164 Va. 584.
Wash. — Thomas v. Phelan, 289 P. 51.
157 Wash. 471.
34 C.J. p 508 note 7.
A court may misconstrue, misap-
ply, or disobey the law, in pronounc-
ing judgment; yet so long as its
judgment remains unreversed, it un-
alterably binds the parties. — Epstein
v. Bendersky, 21 A.2d 815, 130 N.
J.Eq. 180.
Judgments of courts of general Ju-
risdiction are never mere nullities. —
Malone v. Meres, 109 So. 677, 91 Fla.
709.
69. U.S. — Liken v. Shaffer, D.C.Iowa»
64 F.Supp. 432.
Miss. — Todd v. Todd, 20 So.2d 827*
197 Miss. 819.
N.M.— State v. Pattenj 69 B.2d 931, 41
N.M. 395.
N.C.— Ex parte Steele, 18 S.E.2d 132.
220 N.C. 685. certiorari denied
Steele v. State of North Carolina,,
62 S.Ct, 1275, 316 U.S. 686, 86 L.E6\
1758.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
450
it,70 and, as discussed supra §§ 42S-433, it is not
subject to collateral attack.
§450.
Partial Invalidity
A judgment is wholly void where It Is void in part
and the part which is. void is not separable, but it is
generally held that the fact that a Judgment is void in
part will not invalidate a separable remainder of the
judgment.
A judgment is wholly void where' it is void in
part and the part which is void is not separable and
divisible from the balance.71 It has been said that
a judgment must be either valid or void as a1
whole,72 and that a judgment cannot be bad in part
and good in part, but is wholly void if void in
part.73 On the other hand, it has generally been
held that a* judgment may be valid in part and void
in part74 where the parts which are valid and void
are separable;75 the fact that part of the judgment
is void does not necessarily invalidate the entire
judgment,76 nor does the fact that part of the judg-
ment is valid validate the portion of the judgment
that is void.77 The court may treat the void part
of the judgment as erroneous surplusage which may
be disregarded, leaving the remainder of the judg-
ment standing.78 Where a judgment declares a
personal liability, and also determines rights in
property, the judgment may be good as a personal
judgment, although bad in so far as it affects the
property,79 or it may be good as to the property in-
volved and void as a personal judgment.80 As to
jurisdiction of the subject matter, it seems that, al-
Ohio. — Frankenstein v. Behrendt, 21
N.B.2d 678, 60 Ohio App. 403,
34 C.J. p 509 note 8.
70. U.S. — Berthold-Jcnnings Lumber
Co. v. St. Louis, I. M, & S. Ry.
Co., C.C.A.MO,, 80 F.2d 32, 102. A.
L.R. 688, certtorari denied 56 S.Ct.
591, 207 U.S. 715, 80 L.Ed. 1001.
Ok!. — Griggs v. Brandon, 269 P. 1052,
132 Okl. 180.
34 C.J. p 509 note 9.
Tli Cal. — Capital Bond & Invest-
ment Co. v. Hood, 24 P.2d 765,
218 Oal. 729 — Reichert v. Rabun,
265 P. 260, 89 Cal.App. 375.
Okl.— Central Nat. Oil Co. v. Con-
tinental Supply Co., 249 P. 347,
119 Okl. 190.
Tex. — Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. Co.
of Texas v. Pluto, 156 S.W.2d 265,
138 Tex. 1 — Taylor v. Dinsmora.
Civ.App., 114 S.W.2d 269, error dis-
missed.
72. Me. — Consolidated Rendering Co.
v. Martin, 145 A. 896, 128 Me. 96,
64 A.L.R. 700.
.34 C.J. p 510 note 24.
Entirety of judgments see supra $
3.
73. Me. — Consolidated Rendering Co.
v. Martin, supra.
33 C.J. p 1051 note 26.
74. U.S. — In re Denney, 47 F.Supp.
36, affirmed, C.C.A., 135 F.2d 184,
certiorari denied Denney v. Fort
Recovery Banking Co., 64 S.Ct. 50,
320 U.S. 747, 88 L.Ed. 444, rehear-
ing denied 61 S.Ct. 155, 320 U.S.
812, 88 L.Ed. 49.1.
Colo. — French v. Commercial Credit
Co., 64 P.2d 127, 99 Colo. 447.
Kan. — Hoover v. Roberts, 74 P.£d
152, 146 Kan. 785, 115 A.L.R. 182.
Md. — Corpus Juris cited In Spencer
v. Franks, 195 A. 306, 173 Md. 73,
114 A.L.R. 263.
Nev. — State ex rel. Smith v. Sixth
Judicial Dist. Court, Humboldt
County, 167 P.2d 648.
N.C. — Lane v. Becton, 35 S.E.2d 334,
225 N.C. 457.
49 0. J.S.--56
Tex. — Bevill v. Young, Civ.App., 167
S.\V.2d-573, error refused — John-
son v. Stalcup, Civ.App., 74 S.W.
2d 751— Patton v. Mitchell, Civ.
App,, 13 S.W.2d 146— Automobile
Finance Co. v. Bryan, Civ.App., 3
S.W.2d 835.
33 C.J. p 1052 note 27.
75. Idaho.— Angel v. Mellen, 285 P.
461, 48 Idaho 750.
111. — Corpus Juris cited in People v.
Skarbaro, 54 N.E.2d 559, 563, 386
III. 581.
Md. — Corpus Juris cited in Spencer
v. Franks, 195 A. 306, 309, 173 Md.
73, 114 A.L.R. 263.
Tex.— Kubena v. Hatch, 193 S.W.2d
175 — Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. Co.
of Texas v. Pluto, 156 S.W.2d 265,
138 Tex. 1 — Taylor v. Dinsmore,
Civ.App., 114 S.W.2d 269, error
refused.
33 C.J. p 1052 note 28.
Independent and separable questions
or matters
A judgment or decree including a
decision of an independent and sepa-
rable subject matter or question
within, and an independent and sep-
arable subject matter or question
beyond, court's jurisdiction, is not
void in toto, but is .valid as to deci-
sion of matter within court's Juris-
diction, and a mere nullity as to
other matter. — Joseph v. Coffey, 85
P.2d 425, 184 Okl. 143— Askin v. Tay-
lor-Skinner Pub. Co., 56 P.2d 379,
176 Okl. 438— In re Jackson's Es-
tate, 245 P. 874, 117 Okl. 115.
76. Ariz. — Western Land & Cattle
Co. v. National Bank of Arizona
at Phoenix, 239 P. 299, 29 Ariz.
51.
Cal.— Liuzza v. Bell, 104 P.2d 1095,
40 Cfal.App.2d 417.
Okl. — In re Jackson's Estate, 245
P. 874, 117 Okl. 151.
Va.— Barnes v. American Fertilizer
Co., 130 S.E, 902, 144 Va, 692.
Wis.— State ex rel. Long v. Civil
881
Court of Milwaukee County, 280
N.W. 347, 228 Wis. 411.
77. Colo. — French v. Commercial
Credit Co., 64 P.2d 127, 99 Colo.
447.
Affirmative action required
"Where a part of a judgment is
valid, it will stand unless proper
steps have been taken by objection,
duly presented to the trial court, to
secure a modification or amendment
by amending or rejecting the part
which is wrong." — Fisher v. Rosan-
der, 151 N.E. 12, 13, 84 Ind.App. 694.
Fart of judgment that is beyond
court's Jurisdiction is void.
Mo. — State ex rel. Riggs v. Seehorn,
125 S.W.2d 851, 344 Mo. 186.
Wis.— State ex rel. Lang v. Civil
Court of Milwaukee County, 2-80
N.W. 347, 228 Wis. 411.
The Invalid divisible part may b*
treated as a nullity. — Lane v. Bec-
ton, 35 S,E.2d 334, $25 N.C. 457.
78. Colo. — French v. Commercial
Credit Co., 64 P.2d 127, -99 Colo.
447.'
Kan. — First Colored Baptist Church
v. Caldwell, 30 P.2d 144, 139 Kan.
45.
N.C.— Keen v. Parker, 8 S.E.2d 200,
217 N.C. 378.
33 C.J. p 1052 note 31.
Adoption decree
The invalidity of provision in
adoption decree giving leave to nat-
ural parents occasionally to see child
did not invalidate rest ,of decree. —
Spencer v. Franks, 195 A. 306, 173
Md. 73, 114 A.L.R. 263.
79. Tex.— Seguin v. Maverick, 24
Tex. 526, 76 Am.D. 117.
33 C.J. p 1052 note 29.
80. Ga. — Chastain v. Alford, 20 S.E.
2d 150, 67 Ga.App. 316.
Tex.— Reitz v. Mitchell, Civ.App., 256
S.W. 697.
33 C.J. p 1052 note 30.
§ 451
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
though the judgment may go beyond the issues and
grant relief not asked for, or not within the com-
petence of the court, yet it may be good for as much
as the court had power and authority to include in
it.81 It has been held that a judgment in excess of
the relief authorized is void only as to the excess.82
The validity of a judgment which is void as to
some of the parties is discussed supra §§ 31, 33.
§ 45L
Validating Void Judgment
Generally, a void Judgment cannot be validated and
made operative, even by legislative or Judicial action.
It has been held that the validity of a judgment
is to be determined as of the date of its rendition,
and, if void then, it remains so forever;83 it is
not validated and made operative by the lapse of
time,84 by subsequent proceedings based on the
judgment,85 by afterward supplying the elements
which were lacking to its validity,86 or by resulting
equities in favor of third persons.87 A void judg-
ment cannot be made valid and operative by judi-
cial action,88 such as its subsequent approval by the
judge,89 by his approval of a sale on execution held
under it,90 by a subsequent proceeding instituted
for that purpose,91 by citing the party against whoir;
-it was entered to show cause why it should not be
declared valid,92 by a revival of the judgment,93 or
81. Cal.— Liuzza v. Bell, 104 P.2d
1095, 40 Cal.App.2d 417.' *
Idaho. — Corpus Juris quoted in. Bean
v. State, 79 P.2d 540, 542, 5$ Idaho
797.
Ky. — Corpus Juris cited in Wayman
v. North Kentucky Fair, 162 S.W.
2d 228, 229, 290 Ky. 652.
Xeb. — State ex rel. Nebraska State
Bar Ass'n v. Merten, 7 N.W.2d
874, 142 Neb. 780.
OkL — Corpus Juris quoted in Fluke
v. Douglas, IS P.2d 210, 213, 158
Okl. 300— Arnold v. Willis. 232 P.
15, 105 Okl. 172.
34 CUT. p 510 note 27.*
Construction and reformation of
win
Portion of judgment which con-
strued will was valid, although por-
tion which reformed will was void
as beyond court's jurisdiction. —
Hoover v. Roberts, 74 P.2d 152, 146
Kan. 785, 115 A.L.R. 182.
Bec*ivership
The court having jurisdiction to
appoint a receiver for a corpora-
tion and place its assets in his hands
and order sale thereof by him, as
was done, such part. of the proceed-
ings were not Invalidated by any in-
validity in the part of the judg-
ment dissolving the corporation, as
being beyond the court's power un-
der the pleadings and facts. — Tount
v. Fagin, Tex.Civ.App., 244 S.W. 1036,
motion denied 289 S.W. 187.
Personal judgment
As much of a judgment of sepa-
ration against a nonresident served
by publication as decrees that, on
personal notice to defendant or on
such notice as the court shall direct,
plaintiff may apply for her alimony
and expenses payable out of his real
and personal property within the
state, must be reversed where no
jurisdiction of the property was ob-
tained by seizure before judgment
and the portion of the decree ap-
pointing a receiver of such property
and giving directions to him falls
with it—Matthews v. Matthews, 159
N.E. 713, 247 N.T. 32.
82. Tenn.— Gaylor v. Miller, 59 S.W.
2d 502, 166 Tenn. 45.
Tex. — State Mortg. Corporation v.
Ludwig, 48 S.W.2d 950, 121 Tex.
268.
Attorney's fees
Judgment on note separately stat-
ing amounts for principal, interest,
and attorney's fees was not rendered
entirely void by improper inclusion
of fees. — Fowler' v. Bank of Com-
merce, 143 S.E. 512, 38 Ga.App. 226
— Henderson v. Ellarbee, 131 S.E.
524, 35 Ga.App. 5.
Costs
Where cost bill was not filed in
time, inclusion in judgment of
amount claimed in bill rendered
judgment to that extent contrary to
law. — Openshaw v. Openshaw, 12 P.
2d 364, 80 Utah 9.
Interest
The entry of judgment by confes-
sion in the amount confessed, plus
interest from date of note set forth
in statement, was unauthorized, but
invalidated judgment only to the
extent of the amount of interest in-
cluded.— Keller v. Greenstone, 2 N.
Y.S.2d 977, 253 App.Div. -573.
Rescission
Judgment granting rescission and
other relief entered on vendor's pe-
tition seeking rescission of convey-
ance is not void as to rescission
because petition does- not support
other relief granted. — Albright v.
Collins. Civ.App., 64 S.W.2d 1096,
reversed on other grounds Empire
Gas & Fuel Co. v. Albright, 87 S.W.
2d 1092. 126 Tex. 485.
83. Vt— In re Hanrahan's Will, 194
A, 471, 109 Vt. 108.
84. Ala.— Anthony v. Anthony, 128
So. 440, 221 Ala, 221.
Nev.— State ex rel. Smith v. Sixth
Judicial Dist Court, Humboldt
County, 167 P.2d £48.
N.CX— City of Monroe v. Niven, 20
S.E.2d 311, 221 N.C. 362.
882
N.D.— Baird v. Ellison, 293 N.W. 794.
70 N.D. 561.
Pa.— Clineff v. Rubash, 190 A. 543.
126 Pa.Super. 82.
Tex. — Commander v. Bryan, Civ.App.,
123 S.W.2d 1008.
85. Ga. — Langston v. Nash, 15 S.E.
2d 481, 192 Ga, 427.
The issuance of execution on void
judgment will not give vitality to
such judgment. — Winn v. Armour &
Co., 193 S.E. 447, 184 Ga, 769.
Sale
Personal judgment wanting in ju-
risdiction cannot be validated by
fact that there has been sale under
it.— Wise v. Miller, 111 So. 913, 215
Ala. 660.
86. Iowa. — Hodson v. Tibbetts, IS
Iowa 97.
Mo. — Robinson v. Rinehart, App., 297
S.W. 439.
87. Mont — Scilley v. Red Lodge-
Rosebud Irr. Dist, 272 P. 543, 83
Mont 282.
88. Ind. — Zaring v. Zaring, 39 N.E.
2d 734, 219 Ind. 514.
Tex. — Commander v. Bryan, Civ.App.,
123 S.W.2d 1008.
A Judgment based on a void Judg-
ment is valueless. — Walton v. Albers,
40 N.E.2d 99, 313 IlLApp. 304, re-
versed on other grounds 44 N.E.2d
145, 380 111. 423.
89. Iowa. — Townsley v. Morehead, 9
Iowa 565.
90. Or. — Willamette Real Estate Co.
v. Hendrix, 42 P. '514, 28 Or. 485,
52 Am.S.R. 800.
91. Idaho. — Ray v. Ray, 1 Idaho
'566.
Ky.— Hill v. Hill, 185 S.W.2d 245, 298
Ky. 351.
98. Minn. — Jewett v. Iowa Land Co.,
•67 N.W. 639, 64 Minn. 531, 58 Am.
S.R. 555.
93L S.C.— Woods v. Bryan, 19 S.B.
218, 41 S.C. 74, 44 Am.S.R. 688.
34 CU. p 510 note 33.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 452
by the taking of an appeal from it, or even by an
affirmance on appeal.94 A void judgment cannot
be cured and validated by a subsequent legislative
enactment.95
§ 452. Ratification and Estoppel
While a void judgment cannot be validated by con-
sent, ratification, waiver, or estoppel, one may, by his
conduct, bar or estop himself from attacking the judg-
ment.
Generally, a void judgment cannot be made valid
by ratification, waiver, consent, or estoppel.96
However, one may by his conduct bar or estop him-
self from attacking a void judgment,97 and, as dis-
cussed infra § 453, one who accepts or shares in
the benefits of a void judgment may be estopped
from attacking it One. is estopped to attack as
void a judgment which he has set up as a bar or
defense to a subsequent action.98 He is also es-
topped by a compromise and satisfaction of his lia-
bility under the judgment.99 It has been held that
one who makes payments on a judgment with
knowledge of its defects cannot attack the judg-
ment.1
It has generally been held that one who with
full knowledge of the facts and after legal notice
fails to interpose timely objection to the rendition
of a judgment affecting his rights adversely will be
held to have acquiesced therein and to have waived
any right to object thereto unless the judgment is
void or the circumstances show fraud, mistake,
duress, or coercion.2 Mere acquiescence in a judg-
ment does not necessarily constitute a ratification
thereof,8 and still less can this result follow where
the party affected moves to set it aside or moves
for a new trial.4
Where a judgment is entered by mutual consent,
94. Okl. — O. C. Whifcaker, Inc., v.
Dillingham, 152 P.2d 371, 194 Okl.
421.
34 C.J. p 510 note 34.
Judgment of ftdBBLxfm&XLOo is void
where judgment appealed from is
void.
Mo. — State ex rel. Aquamsi Land Co.
v. Hostetter, 79 S.W.2d 463, 336
Mo. 391.
Tex. — "56" Petroleum Corporation v.
Hodden, Civ.App., 139 S.W.2d 218.
95. Mont. — Sciley v. Red Lodge-
Rosebud Irr. Dist., 272 P. 543, 83
Mont. 282.
Tex. — Engelman v. Anderson, Civ.
App., 244 S.W. 650.
34 C.J. p 510 note 36.
Although there is no "vested
rig-lit" in procedure, neither -can a
procedural change operate to confer
jurisdiction as of time of commence-
ment of an action where cause of
action has ripened into a judgment.
-—Prey v. Allard, 300 N.W. 13, 239
Wis. 151.
96. Del. — City Loan System of Del-
aware v. Nordquist, 165 A. 341, 5
W.W.Harr. 371.
111.— Herb v. Pitcairn, 51 N.E.2d 277,.
384 111. 237, reversed on other
grounds 65 S.Ct. 954, 325 U.S.
77, 89 L.Ed. 1483, rehearing denied
65 S.Ct. 1188, 325 U.S. 893, 89 L.
Ed. 2005, opinion supplemented 64
N.E.2d 318, 392 111. 151.
Kan. — Taylor v. Focks Drilling &
Manufacturing Corporation, 62 PJBd
903, 144 Kan. 626.
Tex. — Easterline v. Bean, 49 S.W.2d
427, 121 Tex. 327 — Commander v.
Bryan, Civ.App., 1^3 S.W.2d 1008.
Va. — Beck v. Sememes' Adm'r, 134
S.E. 677, 145 Va. 429— -Staunton
Perpetual Building & Loan Co. v.
Haden, 23 S.E. 285, 92 Va. 201.
34 C.J. p -510 note 38.
Appearance as curing lack of proc-
ess
(1) A general appearance to move
to vacate a- void Judgment does not
validate a judgment rendered with-
out service of process. — City of Mon-
roe v. Niven, 20 S.B.2d 311, 221 N.
C. 362.
(2) Nonresident judgment debtors'
ratification of levy and sale of their
personalty to satisfy judgment cured
jurisdictional defect in judgment
arising out of lack of personal serv-
ice of summons on debtors in the
state or their personal appearance,
and rendered valid the lien on the
personalty created by the levy. — Mc-
Dougald v. Swift & Co., 194 S.E. 899,
185 S.C. 537.
Negligence
Parties cannot by any acts, how-
ever negligent, lose right to assail
void judgment— White v. Hidalgo
County Water Improvement Dlst.
No. 2, Tex.Civ.App., 6 S.W.2d 790.
Ratification of unauthorized appear-
ance
Although an unauthorized appear-
ance will not confer jurisdiction over
a nonresident defendant so as to
make the judgment of the court
binding on him, the unauthorized act
may be affirmed and ratified so as
to validate that which would other-
wise be a void judgment. — Lafetra v.
Beveridge. 1 A.2d 68, 124 N.J.Eq.
184.
97. Del. — City Loan System of Del-
aware v. Nordquist, 165 A. 341, 5
W.W.Harr. 371.
Miss.— Peeler v. Peeler, 24 So.2d 338.
Vt.— -In re Hanrahan's Will, 194 A,
471, 109 Vt 108.
Va. — Eubank & Caldwell v. Fuller,
158 S.E. 884, 156 Va. 635.
34 C.J. p 510 note 39.
Compliance with order
Supervisor of permits failing to
883
appeal from order directing tempo-
rary permit and complying with or-
der by issuing permit could no'
thereafter question Jurisdiction to
make order. — Wynne v. Superior Mf g
Co., C.C.A.N.J., 54 F.2d 270.
Belay in attacking judgment
Where no application for reargu-
ment or review of water appropria-
tion rights decree had been made
within two years, and no suit to
set aside decree had been brought
within four years after rendition,
subsequent collateral attack even on
jurisdictional grounds will not be
considered except for fraud. — Hin-
derlider v. Town of Berthoud, 238 P.
64, 77 Colo. 504.
98. Mo, — Kennedy v. Bambrick, 20
Mo. App. 630.
34 C.J. p 511 note 41.
Where the judgment is voidable,
defendant's right to attack it is
waived by pleading it in bar of an
action on the original demand. —
Henderson v. Staniford, 105 Mass.
504, 7 Am.R. 561.
93. Ala.— Standif er v. McWhorter, 1
Stew. 532.
Or.-— Handley v. Jackson, 50 P. 915,
31 Or. 552, 65 Am.S.R. 839.
1. La.— Fullilove v. Central State
Bank, 107 So. 590, 160 La. 831.
2. Md. — Moss v. Annapolis Sav.
Inst, 8 A.2d 881, 177 Md. 135.
3. Tex. — Sneed v. Townsend, 2 Tex.
Unrep.Cas. 350.
34 C.J. p 511 note 44.
4. Minn.— Roberts v. Chicago, St. P.,
1C. & O. XL Co., 51 N.W. 478, 48
Minn. 521.
Tex.— Martin v. Cqbb, 14 S.W. 162, 77
Tex. -644.
§ 453
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
it may have validity as a contract, even though it
is void as a judgment.5
§ 453. Acceptance by Prevailing Party of
Part of Judgment
One may not attack a judgment as void where he
has accepted the benefits of the judgment.
It has been held that a party is barred or estopped
from attacking a judgment as void where he ac-
cepts or shares in the fruits or benefits of the judg-
ment6 A party who successfully opposes an ob-
jection made by the adverse party that the- court
has no jurisdiction cannot question the jurisdiction
after an adverse decision on appeal.?
XIV. LTPN OF JUDGMENT
§ 454. In General
A Judgment lien on real property does not exist at
common law and is a creature of statute.
At common law, in accordance with the policy of
the feudal law introduced into England after the
conquest,8 the lands of a debtor were not liable
to the satisfaction of a judgment against him, ex-
cept for debts due the king,9 and consequently no
lien thereon is acquired under a judgment.10 In
England this common-law rule continued in force
until the passage in 1285 of the Statute of Westmin-
ster II (13 Edward I), by which, in the interest of
trade and commerce, the writ of elegit was for the
first time provided for,11 and by construction of
the courts it was held under this act that the judg-
ment was a lien on such lands from the date of its
rendition on the first day of the term of the court
at which it was rendered.12 As a result of this
act,13 and also in some states as a result of the act
of parliament of 5 George II c 7, subjecting lands
in the colonies to execution as chattels in favor of
British merchants,14 the modern judgment lien has
been developed, the Statute of Westminster having
been substantially adopted in several jurisdictions in
the United States at an early date.16
The judgment lien as it exists to-day is a crea-
ture of statutes which in express terms or by nec-
essary implication give judgments such effect,16
5. Ga.— Bedenbaugh v. Burgin, 28
S.E.2d 652, 197 Ga, 175.
34 C.J. p 510 note 15.
6. U.S. — Wilson v. Union Electric
Light & Power Co., C.C.A.MO., 59
F.2d 5SO.
Cal.— People v. Rio Nido Co., 85 P.
2d 461, 29 Cal.App.2d 486.
Colo.— Fort v. Bietsch, 274 P. 812,
85 Colo. 176.
Okl. — Corpus Juris quoted in Harden
v. Harden, 77 P.2d 721, 728, 182
Okl. 364.
Tex. — Bearden v. Texas Co., Civ.App.,
41 S.W.2d 447, affirmed, Com.App.,
60 S.W.2d 1031.
34 C.J. p 510 note 40.
Exercise of functions of Judge un-
der void judgment
In an action by removed county
Judge against a county judge on de-
fendant's appointment to, and plain-
tiff's removal from, such office by
a judgment of district court, subse-
quently reversed, defendant was es-
topped to deny validity of the judg-
ment of district court, although the
latter was without jurisdiction of
the subject-matter, where that judg-
ment was the source of authority un-
der which defendant county judge
•executed the duties and enjoyed the
benefits of that office. — Lowe v.
Johnson, Tex.Civ.App., 259 S.W. 1004.
7. N.T.— Griggs v. Brooks, 29 K.Y.
3. 794, 79 Hun 394.
8. Mont. — McMillan v. Davenport,
118 P. 756, 44 Mont. 23, Ann.Cas.
1912D 984.
34 C.J. p 567 note 73.
9. Fla.— Protective Holding Corpo-
ration v. Cornwall Co., 173 So. 804,
127 Fla. 252.
34 C.J. p 568 note 74.
10. U.S.— U. S. v. Harpootlian, C.
C.A.N.Y., 24 F.2d 646— In re Schu-
neman, C.C.A.HL, 290 F. 200.
Cal. — Helvey v. Bank of America
Nat Trust & Savings >ss'n, m
P.2d 390, 43 Cal.App.2d 532.
Fla. — Protective Holding Corpora-
tion v. Cornwall Co., 173 So. 804,
127 Fla. 252.
Idaho. — Corpus Juris cited in Platts
v. Pacific Federal Savings & Loan
Ass'n of Tacoma, 111 P.2d 1093,
1095, 62 Idaho 340.
111.— Johnson v. Zahn, 44 N.E.2d 15,
380 111. 320 — Smith v. Toman, 14
N.B.2d 478, 368 111. 414, 118 A.L.
R. 924 — Holmes v. Fanyo, 63 N.B.
2d 627, 327 Ill.App. 1— Haugens v.
Holmes, 41 N.E.2d 109, 314 IlLApp.
166.
N.M. — Pugh v. Heating & Plumbing
Finance Corp., 161 P.2d 714, 49
N.M. 234— Kaseman v. Mapel, 195
P. 799, 26 N.M. 639.
N.Y. — Grygorewiez v. Domestic and
Foreign Discount Corporation, 40
N.T.S.2d 676, 179 Misc. 1017— Nle-
mi Bros. v. Rosenbluh, 263 N.T.S.
445, 147 Misc. 159.
Okl. — Long Bell Lumber Co. v. Et-
ter, 251 P. 997, 123 Okl. 54.
Tenn. — Fidelity & Deposit Co. of
Maryland v. Fulcher Brick Co., 30
S.W.2d 253, 161 Tenn. 298.
34 C.J. p 568 note 75.
UU N.T.— Hulbert v. Hulbert. Ill
884
N.B. 70, 216 N.T. 430, L.R.A.1916D
661, Ann.Cas.l917D 180.
34 C.J. p 568 note 76.
12. Tenn. — Stahlman v. Watson, Ch.
A., 39 S.W. 1055.
Commencement of lien of judgment
in general see infra § 466.
13. Puerto Rico. — Hernandez v. Me-
dina, 19 Puerto Rico 84.
14. U.S. — Tayloe v. Thomson's Les-
see, D.C., 5 Pet. 358, 8 L.Ed. 154.
34 C.J. p 568 note 79.
15. U.S. — Burton v. Smith, Va., 13
Pet. 464, 10 L.Ed. 248.
34 C.J. p 568 note 80.
16. U.S. — Corpus Juris cited in
Von Segerlund v. Dysart, C.C.A.
Cal., 137 F.2d 755, 757— In re Mich-
ael, D.C.Pa., 31 F.Supp. 41, apply-
ing law of Ohio— In re Staples, D.
C.Okl., 1 F.Supp. 620 — In re Schu-
neman, C.C.A.I11., 290 F. 200.
Ariz.— Tway v. Payne, -101 P.2d 455,
55 Ariz. 343.
Cal. — Evans v. Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, 124 P.2d 820, 20
Cal.App.2d 186 — Helvey v. Bank
of America Nat. Trust & Savings
Ass'n, 111 P.2d 390, 43 Cal,App.2d
532.
D.C. — Fidelity & Deposit Co. of
Maryland v. McQuade, 123 F.24
337, 74 App.D.C. 383.
Fla. — Protective Holding Corpora-
tion v. Cornwall Co., 173 So. 804,
127 Fla. 252 — Massey v. Pineap-
ple Orange Co., 100 So. 170, 87
Fla. 374.
Idaho. — Corpus Juris cited in Platts
v. Pacific First Federal Savings
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 455
and, in the absence of such a statute, a lien does
not arise as the result of a judgment before an exe-
cution has been delivered to an officer authorized
to execute it.17 Accordingly, the terms and legal
effect of the statute are controlling with respect to
the existence of a judgment lien18 and with respect
to the rights of the judgment creditor under such a
lien.19 Generally speaking, a statute making pro-
vision for a judgment lien is construed strictly.20
§ 455. Nature of Lien
The lien of a Judgment does not constitute or cre-
ate an estate. Interest, or right of property In real prop-
erty subject to the lien; usually the lien Is not a lien
on specific real property of the Judgment debtor, but Is
a general lien on all his real property.
It has been stated broadly that a judgment lien,
which is a matter of public record, has always been
regarded as the highest form of security to a credi-
tor.21 Usually, however, the lien of a judgment
does not constitute or create an estate, interest, or
right of property in the lands which may be bound
for its satisfaction; it gives merely a right to levy
on such lands to the exclusion of adverse interests
subsequent to the judgment ;22 and the rule applies
even where the judgment is declared a specific lien
on a particular piece of property.^ In the absence
of statutory provision to the contrary, until the real
property subject to the lien is actually seized,24 or,
in some jurisdictions, until sale under execution
and execution of the deed pursuant thereto,25 the
judgment debtor may continue in undisturbed pos-
session, with full power to use such real property,
and he may sell or otherwise dispose of it26 The
lien is not a conveyance within the meaning of the
& Loan Ass'n of Tacoma, 111 P.2d
1093, 1095, £2 Idaho 340.
HI. — Johnson v. Zahn, 44 N.E.2d 15,
380 111. 320— Smith v. Toman, 14
N.E,2d 478, 368 111. 414, 118 A.
L.R. 924— Holmes v. Fanyo, 63 N.
B.2d 627, 327 Ill.App. 1 — Haugens
v. Holmes, 41 N.B.2d 109, 314 111.
App. 166.
Ind.— Petrovitch v. Witholm, 152 N.
B. 849, 85 Ind.App. 144.
Mo.— Corpus Juris cited in Hage-
mann v. Pinska, 37 S.W.2d 463,
465, 225 Mo.App. 521.
N.J.— McLaughlin v. Whaland. 13 A.
2d 573, 127 N.J.EQ. 393.
KM.— Pugh v. Heating & Plumbing
Finance Corp., 161 P.2d 714, 49
N.M. 234— Kaseman v. Maple, 195
P. 799, 26 N.M. 639.
N.Y.— H. R. & C. Co. v. Smith, 151
N.B. 448, 242 N.Y. 267, 45 A.L.R.
554 — Grygorewicz v. Domestic and
Foreign Discount Corporation, 40
N.Y.S.2d 676, 179 Misc. 1017.
N.D.— Qroth v. Ness, 260 N.W. 700,
65 N.D. 580.
Ohio.— Waldock v. Bedell, 18 N.B.2d
828, 59 Ohio App. 520.
Okl. — Long Bell Lumber Co. v. Btter,
251 P. 997, 123 Okl. 54.
Puerto Rico. — Fernandez v. Bsmoris,
1 Puerto Rico Fed. 483.
Tenn. — Fidelity & Deposit Co. of
Maryland v. Fulcher Brick Co., 30
S.W.2d 253, 161 Tenn. 298.
Tex. — McGlothlin v. Coody, Com.
App., 69 S.W.2d 819— Askey v.
Power, Com. App., 36 S.W.2d 446
— Womabk v.' Paris Grocer Co.,
Civ.App., 166 S.W.2d 366, error re-
fused 168 S,W.2d 645, 140 Tex. 423
— Cheatham v. Mann, Civ.App., 133
S.W.2d 264, error refused — For-
dyce-Crossett Sales Co. v. Brwin,
Civ.App., 121 S.W.2d 491— Cham-
lee v. Chamlee, Civ.App., 113 S.W.
3d 290.
W-Va. — Robertson v. Campbell, 186
S.E. 310, UZ W.Va. 576.
34 C.J. p 568 note 81, p 569 notes
82, 84.
Lien of judgment of federal court
in general see Federal Courts §
144 i.
17. U.S.— Corpus Juris cited in
Von Segerlund v. Dysart, C.C.A.
Cal., 137 F.2d 755, 757.
N.M. — Corpus Juris cited in Otero v.
Dietz, 37 P.2d 1110, 1112, 39 N.
M. 1.
34 C.J. p 569 note 83.
Lien of execution in general see Ex-
ecutions §§ 123-164.
Necessity of issue of execution to
render lien operative in general
see infra § 468.
18. U.S. — In re Schuneman, C.C.A.
111., 290 F. 200.
Ariz. — Tway v. Payne, 101 P.2d 455,
55 Ariz. 343.
Fla. — Protective Holding Corporation
v. Cornwall Co., 173 So. 804, 127
Fla. 252.
19. Ind.— Petrovich v. Witholm, 152
N.E, 849, 85 Ind.App. 144.
Md.— O'Neill & Co. v. Schulze, 7 A.
2d 263, 177 Md. 64— Caltrider v.
Caples, 153 A. 445, 160 Md. 392, 87
A.L.R. 1500.
20. Tenn.— Fidelity & Deposit Co.
of Maryland v. Fulcher Brick Co.,
30 S.W.2d 253, 161 Tenn. 298.
21. Cal. — Corporation of America v.
Marks, 73 P.2d 1215, 10 Cal.2d 218,
114 A.L.R. 1162 — Morton v. Adams,
• 56 P. 1038, 124 Cal. 229, 71 Am.
S.R. 53.
22. Ala. — Hargett v. Hovater, 15 So.
2d 276, 244 Ala. 646.
Fia. — Corpus Juris cited in Smith v.
Pattishall, 176 So. -568, 574, 127
Fla. 474, 129 Fla. 498— Massey v.
Pineapple Orange Co., 100 So. 170,
87 Fla. 374.
111.— Bednarczyk v. Kudla, 18 N.B.
2d 449, 370 111. 204, transferred,
see 23 N.B.2d 199, 301 IlLApp. 610
8S5
—Quell v. Jachino, 17 N.B.2d 256,
297 IlLApp. 650.
Md.— Lee v. Keech, 133 A. 835, 151
Md. 34, 46 A.L.R. 1488.
N.C.— Byrd v. Pilot Fire Ins. Co.,
160 S.B. 458, 201 N.C. 407— Far-
row v. American Bagle Fire Ins.
Co. .of New York, 134 S.E. 427,
192 N.C. 148— Eaton v. Doub, 128
S.B. 494, 190 N.C. 14, 40 A.L.R.
273.
Va. — Corpus Juris quoted in Jones
v. Hall, J5 S.E.2d 108, 111. 177 Va.
658.
Wis. — Corpus Juris quoted in Musa
v. Segelke & Kohlhaus Co., 272
N.W. 657, 658, 224 Wis. 432, 111 A.
L.R. 168.
34 C.J. p 569 note 92.
lauds held Jointly or as tenants in
common
A person entitled to the benefit
of a judgment lien does not ac-
quire an estate in, or become a joint
owner of, lands held by the judg-
ment debtor and a third person as
joint owners or tenants in common.
— Hargett v. Hovater, 15 So.2d 276,
244 Ala. 646.
Rights of some description
Rights of some sort vest in judg-
ment creditor when his judgment
lien attaches to realty, legal title to
which is in judgment debtor, since
prima facie legal title is evidence of
beneficial interest also until contrary
is established.— Smith v. Pattishall,
176 So. 568, 127 Fla. 474, 129 Fla.
498.
23. N.C. — Farrow v. American Eagle
Fire Ins. Co. of New York, 134
S.E. 427, 192 N.C. 148.
24. Va.— James v. Hall, 15 S.E.2d
108, 177 Va. 658.
35. u.S. — Newberry v. Davlson
Chemical Co., C.C.A.N.C., 65 F.2d
724, certiorari denied 54 S.Ct. 75,
290 U.S. 660, 78 L.Ed. 571.
28. U.S. — Comard v. Atlantic Ins.
Co,, Pa., 1 Pet 386, 7 L.Ed. 189.
§455
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
recording acts,27 but it is an encumbrance for cer-
tain purposes.28
A judgment lien ordinarily is not a specific lien
01? any specific real property of the judgment debt-
or, but it is a general lien on all his real proper-
ty,2^ although it has been held that, where mort-
gaged premises have been sold under a judgment
junior to the mortgage and the time for redemp-
tion has not expired, the general lien of the judg-
ment is turned into a specific lien on the premises,
to the extent of the amount of the bid at the sher-
iff's sale and the interest thereon.80 It has also
been held that in a scire facias against the heir
and a terre-tenant, on a judgment against the an-
cestor, a judgment entered generally, without speci-
fying the lands which it is to affect, binds only the
lands of the ancestor in the hands of such heir
or terre-tenant,31 and, if a judgment against execu-
tors for a legacy charged on land is entered against
the land of certain only of the devisees, and the
land of another devisee is sold on execution issued
on such judgment, it will not pass by such sale.82
The lien of a judgment is merely an incident of
the judgment,83 and may not exist independently of
the judgment;34 nor does the loss of the lien nec-
essarily impair the validity of the judgment as a
personal security.35 The lien of a judgment credi-
tor on real property is a legal lien,86 and is a right
as distinguished from a remedy.37
The lien of a judgment is usually regarded as
arising from the right to sell property thereun-
der,38 and in general there is no lien where the
right to sell may not be exercised.39 In some ju-
risdictions, however, a judgment lien stands by it-
self and is not necessarily coextensive with the
remedy by execution in the sense that it lies when-
ever execution may issue.40 A judgment lien on
land attached in the suit in which the judgment was
rendered is not regarded as a mere continuance of
the attachment.41 The lien created by a mortgage
or deed of trust has been distinguished from a
judgment lien in that the former is confined to the
specific land described in the mortgage or deed of
trust, whereas a judgment lien covers every piece
or parcel of land owned by the judgment debtor,42
and the fact that a judgment lien is merely inci-
dental to the judgment has been regarded as im-
portant in distinguishing such a lien from the lien
of a mortgage.43 The term "judicial mortgage" is,
however, sometimes applied to a final or definite
judgment, when duly recorded.44
Lien of verdict. Under a statute providing that
a verdict may constitute a lien on real property and
directing the verdict to be entered in the judgment
docket, the Hen of a verdict partakes of the nature
of a judgment lien.45
Va,— James v. Hall, 15 S.E.2d 108, j
177 Va. 658.
34 C.J. P 570 note 93.
Transfer of property subject to judg-
ment lien see Infra 5 488.
S7. Cal.— Wilcoxson v. Miller, 49
CaL 193.
28. N.T. — Fuller v. Scribner, 78 N.
T. 190.
S.D.— Willsie v' JEtaPid Valley Horse-
Ranch Co., 63 N.W. 546, 7 S.D. 114.
29. CaL — Finch v. Finch, 228 P. 553,
68 CaLApp. 72.
G-a. — Bostwick v. Felder, App., 85 S.
E.2d 783.
Iowa. — Burns v. Burns, 11 N.W.2d
461, 283 Iowa 1092, 150 A.L.R.
306— Stiles v. Bailey, 219 N.W.
537, 205 Iowa 1385.
Md. — Messinger v. Eckenrode, 158 A.
357, 162 Md. 63 — Lee v. Keech, 133
A, 835, 151 Md. 34, 46 A.L.R. 1488.
Va. — Kidwell v. Henderson, 143 S.
B. 336, 150 Va. 829.
34 C.J. P 570 note 96.
A lien of Judgment on bond ac-
companying- mortgage, given to se-
cure purchase price of business, was
not required to be limited to realty
mentioned in agreement of sale,
where bond was unrestricted, and
there was no evidence that . restric-
tion was omitted from bond by
fraud, accident, or mistake.— ArrigM
to Use of First Nat. Bank v. Ren-
wick, 192 A. 655, 326 Pa. 508.
Effect of adjudication of want of in-
terest
Decree holding that Judgment
creditor has no right or interest in
certain property of Judgment debtor
is not inconsistent with existence of
judgment lien thereon, as Judgment
lien is not specific interest in the
property. — Grim v. Thompson, 229
P. 916, 112 Or. 399.
80. N.T.— Snyder v. Stafford, 11
Paige 71.
31- Pa.— Coyle v. Reynolds, 7 Serg.
& R. 328.
32. Pa,— Lapsley v. Lapsley, 9 Pa.
130.
K. Fla.— Gilpen v. Bower, 12 So.2d
884, 152 Fla. 733.
Iowa.— Beatty v. Cook, 185 N.W. 360,
192 Iowa 542.
34. Fla. — Gilpen v. Bower, 12 So.2d
884, 152 Fla. 733.
35. Pa.— Appeal of Esterly, 109 Pa.
222.
36. Va. — Savings & Loan Corpora-
tion v. Bear, 154 S.E. 587, 155
Va. 312, 75 A.L.R. 980— Flanary v,
Kane, 46 S.E. 312, 102 Va. 547, re-
hearing denied 46 S.B. 681, 102
Va. 547.
37. N.M.— Pugh v. Heating &
886
Plumbing Finance Corp., 161 P.2d
714, 49 N.M. 234.
38. 111.— Lehman v. Cottrell. 19 N.
E.2d 111, 298 Ill.App. 434.
39. 111.— Lehman v. Cottrell, supra.
Md.— Caltrider v. Caples, 153 A. 445,
160 Md. 392, 87 A.L.R. 1000.
40. Conn.— City Nat Bank v.
Stoeckel, 132 A. 20, 108 Conn. 732.
It is the Judgment itself and not
the execution that constitutes a lien
on realty. — City of St. Louis v. Wall,
124 S.W.2d 616, 235 Mo.App. 9.
Issuance of execution as condition
precedent to attachment of judg-
ment lien see infra § 468.
41. Conn. — Beardsley v. Beecher, 47
Conn. 408.
42. Fla. — Gilpen v. Bower, 12 So.2d
884, 152 Fla. 733.
Va.— Boggs v. Fatherly, 18 S.E.2d
298, 177 Va. 259.
43. Fla. — Gilpen v. Bower, 12 So.2d
884, 152 Fla. 733.
44. La. — ChafEe v. Walker, 1 So.
290, 39 La.Ann. 35.
34 C.J. P 1182 note 20.
45. Pa.— Fuellhart v. Blood, 21 Pa.
Co. 601.
49 O.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 458
§ 456. Control of Lien
Judgment liens, as creatures of statutes, are sub-
ject to the control of the legislature, but generally speak-
ing are not subject to control or regulation by the courts.
Since the lien of a judgment is entirely the crea-
ture of statute, as shown supra § 454, it may be
withheld or divested by the legislature at any time
before rights have become vested thereunder,46 and
its character and extent, the nature or identity of
the property to which it attaches, the steps neces-
sary to secure it, and the means of enforcement are
under the control of the legislature47 and usually
cannot be prescribed or regulated by the court pro-
nouncing or rendering the judgment,48 or by the
court which is called on to enforce the lien.49 So,
also, as a general rule, the nature or extent of the
lien or the property which shall be subject there-
to may not be regulated or prescribed by the agree-
ment of parties ;50 but it seems that the general lien
of a judgment may by agreement be limited to spe-
cific lands.51
§ 457. Amount of Lien
In general a judgment lien is for a definite amount,
unaffected by contingencies, or by changes in the value
of the property subject to the lien.
A judgment lien is for a definite amount, and
is not dependent on any contingency, or affected by
changes in the value of the property to which it
attaches.52 As a general rule, a judgment may op-
erate as a lien to the extent of the amount recov-
ered in the judgment,53 but not for a greater
amount.54 The interest accruing on a judgment
recovered, in the absence of a statute authorizing it
to be collected on execution, has been held not to
become a lien on land until it is included in a fresh
judgment;55 but under statutes in some jurisdic-
tions it has been held that the lien of a judgment
covers the interest which may accrue on the judg-
ment as well as on the principal debt.56
Costs. In some jurisdictions it has been held that
the costs of the proceedings are included in the
judgment lien.57
§ 458. What Judgments Create Lien
As a general rule, In order to create a judgment
Hen, there must be a judgment which Is final, valid, and
subsisting, rendered by a duly constituted court for the
payment of a definite and certain amount of money
which may be collected by execution on property of the
Judgment debtor.
It is essential to the creation of a judgment lien
that there shall be a judgment58 and it is essential,
46. Cal. — Evans v. Superior Court
of Los Angeles County, 124 P.2d
820, 20 Cal.2d 186.
Ind. — Snyder v. Thieme & Wagner
Brewing Co., App., 87 N.E. 155,
reversed on other grounds 90 N.
B. 814, 173 Ind. 659.
After lien, attached
Lien created by statute provid-
ing for automatic imposition of lien
on docketing of judgment was held
inseparably connected with judgment
And not subject to impairment by
legislature. — Jones v. Union Oil Co.
of California, 25 P.2d 6, 218 Cal. 775.
Constitutional restrictions on power
of legislature see Constitutional
Law §§ 233, 408.
-47. Mont. — McMillan v. Davenport,
118. P. 756, 44 Mont. 23, Ann.Cas.
1912D 984.
34 C.J. p 569 note 87.
•48. Cal.— Pinch v. Finch, 228 P. 553,
68 CaLApp. 72.
N.D. — Groth v. Ness, 260 N.W. 700,
65 N.D. 580.
Va. — Kidwell v. Henderson, 143 S.E.
336, 1-50 Va. 829.
.34 C.J. p 569 note 88.
Specific property
(1) A court cannot render a judg-
ment which would be a special lien
-or charge on specific property not
-described in the pleadings or judg-
ement.— Coombs v. Benz, 114 S.W.2d
T13, 232 Mo.App. 1011.
(2) Court was not authorized to
render . decree that judgment for
damages should be an equitable lien
on specific property and direct its
sale under execution to enforce such
lien.— Westervelt v. McCullough,
228 P. 734, 68 Cal.App. 198.
Creation T>y court
(1) A court cannot create a judg-
ment Hen, that being a prerogative
of the legislature. — Sullivan State
Bank v. First Nat Bank, 146 N.E.
403, 82 Ind.App. 419.
(2) The fact that a judgment for
plaintiff in an action against a rail-
road company for personal injuries
contained a provision for a lien on
defendant's property did not invali-
date the judgment where statutes
justified the lien.— Missouri Pac. R.
Co. v. Hancock, 114 S.W.2d 1076, 195
Ark. 911.
Imposition of lien by court of equity
see infra § 459.
49. Va.— Kidwell v. Henderson, 143
S.E. 336, 150 Va. 829.
50. Ind.— Wells v. Benton, 8 N.E.
444, 108 Ind. 585, rehearing de-
nied 9 N.E. 601, 108 Ind. 585.
34 C.J. p 569 note 89.
51. Pa. — Stan ton v. White, 32 Pa.
358.
34 C.J. p 569 note 90.
52. U.S.— Kelly v. Minor, Va.. 252
F. 115, 164 C.C.A. 227.
53. W.Va. — Bensimer v. Fell, 12 S.
B. 1078, 85 W.Va. 15, 29 Am.S.R.
774.
887
54. W.Va. — Bensimer v. Fell, 12 S.E.
1078, 35 W.Va. 15, 29 Am.S.R. 774.
Wis.— Fischbeck v. Mieleny, 154 N.
W. 701, 162 Wis. 12.
34 C.J. p 570 note 7.
55. N.T. — De La Vergne v. Evert-
son, 1 Paige 181, 19 Am.D. 411.
34 C.J. p 570 note 8.
56. Ohio. — Loomls v. Second Ger-
man Bldg. Ass'n, 37 Ohio St. 392.
34 C.J. p '570 note 9.
57. N.JV— Edmunds V. Smith, 27 A,
827, 52 N.J.EQ. 212.
34 C.J. p 570 note 10.
58. Cal.— Gordon v. Vucinich, 142 P.
2d 71, 61 OaLApp.2d 78.
Mo. — Corpus Juris quoted in Hage-
mann v. Pinska, 37 S.W.2d 463, 465,
225 Mo.App. 521.
OkL— Harriss v. Parks, 187 P. 470, 77
Okl. 197.
34 C.J. p 571 note 11.
Sufficiency
(1) An abstract of judgment which
named G W A as defendant created
a lien against land belonging to G
M A, when identity of parties was
fully established.— Mullins v. Al-
bertson, Tex.Civ.App., 136 S.W.2d
263, error refused.
(2) A judgment against J Me is
not a lien against property held in
name of J J Me. — Union Trust Co.
v. McCarthy, 10 Pa.Dist & Co. 243,
76 Pittsb.Leg.J. 262, 15 WestCo. 92.
C3) Judgment merely reciting
jury's findings that plaintiff was en-
§ 458
JUDGMENTS
49 O.J.S.
under the authorities, that the judgment be final,59
valid and subsisting,60 and rendered by a lawfully
and validly constituted court,61 for the payment
of a definite and certain sum of money,62 capable of
collection by execution against the debtor's prop-
erty.63 Where these conditions have been met, the
lien may arise from a judgment by confession or
consent as well as one rendered adversely,64 or
from a final judgment by default.65
The lien of a judgment against an executor or
administrator is discussed in Executors and Ad-
ministrators § 804, and the lien of a judgment
against an insane person in Insane Persons § 151 e.
Judgment for costs. A final judgment of a court
of record may be a lien on the debtor's land, even
though the money judgment is for costs only.66
§ 459. Decrees in Equity
A decree in equity may create a lien on lands.
A decree in chancery may create a lien on lands
equally with a judgment at law,67 where it is for
the payment of a definite and liquidated sum of
money.68 A decree merely setting aside a fraudu-
lent conveyance of land without more does not
give rise to a lien,69 and a decree of foreclosure of
a mortgage does not, like an ordinary judgment at
law, create a general lien on the lands of the mort-
gagor, as discussed in the CJ.S. title Mortgages §
701, also 42 CJ. p 164 note 2.
While, in some jurisdictions, the court of chan-
cery may not, in the absence of fraud or imposi-
tion, directly or indirectly impose the debt involved
in a general judgment as a lien on the real proper-
ty involved,70 according to some cases, equity may
create a lien directly by decree for that purpose71
on personalty as well as on realty,72 and all persons
having notice of such a lien are bound thereby.73
A decree providing that, if defendant does not in a
given time pay plaintiff a designated sum of money,
certain real and personal property of defendant, on
which plaintiff has a specific lien, shall be sold is
not a judgment which creates a lien on other real
estate of defendant74
titled to described personalty and
damages for its detention and di-
recting execution created no lien
thereon, in view of the fact that
actually there Tinas no judgment
against any party or parties, in fa-
vor of any party or parties. — Reed
v. Bank of Mulberry, 149 So. 609,
111 Fla. 577.
(4) Order approving borrowing by
administrator for benefit of dece-
dent's estate did not operate as a
judgment lien against which stat-
ute of limitations would run, but
simply determined amount due to
lender, as step in the orderly admin-
istration of the estate pending final
settlement and closing thereof. —
In re Marsh's Estate, 139 P.2d 284,
18 Wash.2d 308.
Judgments or decrees specifically
creating1 liens
Statute providing that Judgments
and decrees of courts of record shall
be liens on real property does not
apply to Judgments and decrees
which specifically create liens on
real property, but only to Judgments
in personam. — Rosensweig v. Fergu-
son, 158 S.W.2d 124, 348 Mo. 1144.
59. Mo. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Hagemann v. Pinska, 37 S.W.2d
463, 465, 225 Mo.App. 521.
34 C.J. p 571 note 12.
60. Mo. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Hagemann v. Pinska, 37 S.W.2d
463, 465, 225 Mo.App. 521.
Tftac. — Urban v. Bagby, Civ.App., 286
8.W. 519, affirmed, Com.App., 291
S.W. 537.
34 C.J. p 571 note 13.
A dormant Judgment is not a lien
on real estate. — Compagna v. Home
Owners' Loan Corporation, 3 N.W.
2d 750, 141 Neb. 429.
61. Mo. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Hagemann v. Pinska, 37 S.W.2d
463, 465, 225 Mo.App. 521.
Okl.— Harriss v. Parks, 187 P. 470,
77 Okl. 197.
34 C.J. p 571 note 14.
62. Fla. — Dlckenson v. Sharpe, 113
So. 638, 94 Fla. 25.
Mo.-^Corpus Juris cited in Kelly v.
City of Cape Girardeau, 89 S.W.2d
693, 698, 230 Mo.App. 137— Coitus
Juris quoted in Hagemann v. Pin-
ska, 37 S.W.2d 463, 465, 225 Mo.
App. 521.
34 C.J. p 571 note 15.
Installment payments for indefinite
period
Judgment for periodic installments
for an indefinite time was not a
lien on real property in the absence
of a provision in Judgment for a lien.
— Yager v. Yager, 60 P.2d 422, 7 Cal.
2d 213, 106 A.L.R. 664— Bird v.
Murphy, 256 P. 258, 82 CaLApp. 691,
certiorari denied Murphy v. Bird,
48 S.Ct. 38, 275 U.S. 487, 72 L.
Ed. 387, and motion denied 53 S.Ct.
114.
A mistake in the amount of a
Judgment does not render the lien
ineffective, and a correction does
not destroy the lien.— First State
Bank v. Jones, Civ.App., 171 S.W.
1057, reversed on other grounds 183
S.W. 874, 107 Tex. 623.
63. Mo.— Corpus Juris cited in Kel-
ly v. City of Cape Girardeau, 89 S.
W.2d 693, 698, 230 Mo.App. 137—
Corpus Juris quoted in Hagemann
v. Pinska, 37 S.W.2d 463, 465, 225
Mo.App. 521.
34 C.J. p 571 note 16.
64. N.C.— Keel v. Bailey, 198 S.E.
654, 214 N.C. 159— Farmers' Bank
of Clayton v. McCullers, 160 S.E.
494, 201 N.C. 440.
34 C.J. p 571 note 17.
65. Pa,— Sellers v. Burk, 47 Pa. 344.
34 C.J. p 571 note 18.
66. Ala.— Forrest v. Camp, 16 Ala.
642.
34 C.J. p 571 note 19.
67. Mont — Raymond v. Blancgrass,
93 P. 648, 38 Mont. 449, 15 L.R.A.,
N.S., 976.
34 C.J. p 572 note 21.
68. Fla. — Dickenson v. Sharpe, 113
So. 638, 94 Fla. 25.
34 C.J. p 572 note 21.
69. Neb.— State v. Chamberlain
Banking House, 100 N.W. 205, 72
Neb. 201.
N.Y.— New York Life Ins. Co. v.
Mayer, 14 Daly 318, affirmed 15
N.E. 444, 108 N.Y. 655.
70. N.J.— McKibbin v. Pekarsky, 143
A. 553, 103 N.J.EQ. 450— Cutter
v. Kline, 35 N.J.Eq. 534.
71. S.C.— Carmichael v. Abrahams, 1
S.C.Eq. 114.
72. Iowa,— Kithcart v. Kithcart, 124
N.W. 305, 145 Iowa 549, 30 L.R.A.,
N.S., 1062.
73. Iowa. — Kithcart v. Kithcart, su-
pra.
34 C.J. p 572 note 26.
74. W.Va.— Linn v. Patton, 10 W.
Va, 187.
JUDGMENTS
§ 462
Organization and Character of
Court
Judgments of a court of record may create a lien,
whether or not the court is one of original jurisdiction.
The incident of a lien commonly attaches to the
judgments of all courts of record,?5 whether or not'
the particular court is one of original jurisdiction.76
Judgments of inferior courts do not in the first in-
stance create liens under some statutes,77 but pro-
vision is frequently made by statute for the trans-
fer of such judgments by transcript to superior
courts for the purpose of constituting such judg-
ments liens, as discussed infra § 462, and under
some statutes judgments of inferior courts operate
as liens.78
§ 461. Statutory Requirements in General
There must be due compliance with statutory re-
quirements In order to create a judgment lien.
Since judgment liens are the creatures of stat-
utes, as discussed supra § 454, they can be obtained
only by complying with the requirements of the
statutes by which they are created,79 While in gen-
eral such statutes must be construed strictly,80 they
must be given full meaning that the language em-
ployed reasonably imports,81 and it has been held
necessary and sufficient to comply substantially with
the provisions of the statutes.82
§ 462. Transcript or Abstract
a. In general
b. Judgments of inferior courts
c. Fixing lien on property in another
county
d. Sufficiency
a. In General
Under some statutes a Judgment lien does not at-
tach unless a certified transcript, abstract, or certificate
of the Judgment is recorded or filed in a designated of-
flee.
Under some statutes the lien of a judgment does
not attach to any real property unless a transcript,
abstract, or certificate of the judgment or a tran-
script of th.e docket has been recorded83 or has been
75. Ala. — ^3Dtna Auto Finance, Inc.,
v. Kirby, 198 So. 356, 240 Ala. 228.
34 C.J. p 572 note 32.
Lien of judgments of federal courts
see Federal Courts § 144 i.
76. 111.— Durham v. Heaton, 28 111.
264, 81 Am.D. 275.
34 C.J. p 572 note 32.
77. N.C. — Ledbetter v. Osborne, 66
N.C. 379.
34 C.J. p 572 note 34 [a] (2), [b].
Judgment of justice of peace see
the C.J.S. title Justices of the
Peace § 118, also 35 C.J. p 687 note
69-p 688 note 75.
78. 111.— Kirk v. Vonberg, 34 111.
440.
34 C.J. p 572 note 34 [a] (1).
79. U.S. — In re Schuneman, C.C.A.
111., 290 F. 200— In re Staples, D.
C.Okl., 1 F.Supp. 620.
Neb. — Citizens' Bank v. Young, 110
N.W. 1003, 78 Neb. 312.
N.M. — Pugh v. Heating & Plumbing
Finance Corp., 161. P.2d 714, 49
N.M. 234— Breece v. Gregg, 13 P.
2d 421, 36 N.M. 246.
N.Y.— -H. R. & C. Co. v. Smith, 151
N.E. 448, 242 N.Y. 267, 45 A.L.R.
554 — Niemi Bros. v. Rosenbluh,
263 N.Y.S. 445. 147 Misc. 159.
N.D.— Groth v. Ness, 260 N.W. 700,
$5 N.D. 580.
Tex.— Barron v. Thompson, 45 Tex.
235— McGlothlin v. Coody, Com.
App., £9 S.W.2d 819— Cheatham v.
Mann, Civ.App., 133 S.W.2d 264,
error refused — Barton v. Parks,
Civ.App., 127 S.W.2d 376, error
refused — Hampton v. C. 0; Sham-
burger Lumber Co., Civ.App., 127
S.W.2d 245, error dismissed, judg-
ment correct — Chamlee v. Chamlee, (
Civ.App., 113 S.W.2d 290— Traweek
v. Simmons, Civ.App., 72 S.W.2d
349 — Burton Lingo Co. v. Warren,
Civ.App., 45 S.W.2d 750, error re-
fused.
Indexing writ of scire facias
(1) Under a statute regulating
scire facias to extend the lien of a
judgment to after-acquired real prop-
erty and providing that all such
writs shall be properly indexed in
the judgment docket, it was held
that the writ was not effective to
extend the lien to after-acquired
property where the writ was not in-
dexed.— Philadelphia Plumbing Sup-
ply Co. v. D'Appollo, 20 Pa.Dist. &
Co. 21.
(2) Where the scire facias was
duly indexed, it was held that the
lien was extended to after-acquired
real property which was conveyed
to a third person by the -judgment
debtor after the commencement of
the scire facias proceedings and
before judgment in such proceed-
ings.— Calhoon v. Newlon, 40 Pa,
Dist. & Co. 123.
80. Tenn. — Fidelity & Deposit Co.
of Maryland v. Fulcher Brick Co.,
30 S.W.2d 253, 161 Tenn. 298.
Tex. — Kingman Texas Impl. Co. v.
Borders, Civ.App., 156 S.W. 614.
81. Tex. — Kingman Texas Impl. Co.
v. Borders, supra.
82. N.M,— Breece v. Gregg, 13 P.2d
421, 36 N.M. 246.
Okl.— Richards v. Tynes, ,300 P. 297,
149 Okl. 235— Long Bell Lumber
Co. v. Etter, 251 P. 997, 123 Okl.
54.
Tex. — Askey v. Power, Com. App., 36
889
S.W.2d 446— Womack v. Paris Gro-
cer Co., Civ.App., 166 S.W.2d 366,
error refused 168 S.W.2d 645, 140
Tex 423— Fordyce-Crossett Salefc
Co. v. Brwin, Civ.App., 121 S.W.2d
491.
34 C.J. p 572 note 39.
83. U.S.— In re B. P. Lientz Mfg.
Co., D.C-Mo., 32 F.Supp. 233.
Tex.— Cheatham v. Mann, Civ.App.,
133 S.W.2d 264, error refused-
Hampton v. C. D. Shamburger
Lumber Co., Civ.App., 127 S.W.2d
245, error dismissed, judgment cor-
rect.
34 C.J. p 572 note 40, p 576 notes 68,
69.
Recording and docketing judgment
see infra §§ 463-465.
(Purpose and effect of statute
(1) The purpose of statutes pro-
viding for the creation of a lien
on real estate by recording a cer-
tified transcript of a judgment or
decree is to establish and attach
liens under judgments or decrees
in cases in which no specific statu-
tory or contract lien is the basis
of the judgment or decree, and not
to abrogate or destroy a lien which
has become merged in a judgment
or decree. — Nassau Realty Co. v. City
of Jacksonville, 198 So. 581, 144 Fla.
754.
(2) The requirement of such stat-
ute with respect to recording the
transcript does not apply to judg-
ments enforcing liens theretofore ex-
isting as against specific property,
such as decrees in foreclosure of
statutory or contract liens. — Nassau
Realty Co. v. City of Jacksonville,
supra.
§ 462
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
filed84 in the proper office, after being certified by
the clerk of the court wherein the judgment was
rendered,85 and some statutes require that the re-
corded abstract shall be indexed in order to create
a lien.86 On due compliance with statutory provi-
sions of this type, the lien attaches87 to property
in the county in which it is filed.88 The clerk's
certificate authenticating an abstract need not be re-
corded where the statute does not so require.89 It
has been held that a certificate of a judgment lien
is not invalid because it includes two distinct judg-
ments.90
Filing transcripts of judgments in other courts in
general is discussed supra § 129.
b. Judgments of Inferior Courts
Some statutes require the filing or recording In a
superior court of a transcript or abstract of a judgment
of an Inferior court In order to render such judgment
effective as a lien.
The filing, or filing and recording, in a superior
court of transcripts or abstracts of judgments ren-
dered by inferior courts are generally required in
order to render such judgments effective as liens.91
Where there has been due compliance with the stat-
(8) It has also been stated that
the object of the statutory proceed-
ing for abstract of judgment and
recordation thereof is to put subse-
quent purchasers or encumbrancers
of property sought to be charged on
notice of lien thereby created. — Citi-
zens State Bank of Clarinda, Iowa v.
Del-Tea: Inv. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 123
S.W.2d 450, error dismissed, judg-
ment correct.
Mere decision, or opinion.
Recording of a certified copy of
mere decision or opinion directing
entry of order allowing attorney's
fees against estate was held not to
create lien against realty.— Zagoren
v. Hall, 10 P.2d 202, 122 CaLApp.
460.
Proper comity
Registry of mortgagee's Judgment
against mortgagor in mortgage book
of another parish than that in which
land was situated according to
boundary line commonly recognized
for many years must be denied effect
and title from mortgagor, as subse-
quently recorded in proper parish,
given effect. — Commercial Bank v.
Meaux, La.App., 158 So. 688.
84. Ala.— Reuf v. Fulks, 122 So.
14, 219 Ala, 252.
N.M.— Pugh v. Heating & Plumbing
Finance Corp., 161 P.2d 714, 49
N.M. 234.
34 C.J. p 573 note 41, p 572 note 21
[c].
Xn prolate court
Such a statute was held not to
authorize the filing and recording of
judgments in the probate court but
authorizes a certificate of the clerk
or register of, the court by which
the judgment was rendered to be
filed and registered in the office of
the judge of probate. — Saenger The-
atres Corporation v. McDermott, 196
So. 265, 239 Ala. 629,
86. Tex. — Traweek v. Simmons, Civ.
App., 72 S.W.2d 349— Herring v.
Walker, 22 S.W. 819, 3 Tex.Civ.
App. 614.
County clerk
Until statutory change of consti-
tutional designation, transcript of
judgment may properly be certified
by county clerk as clerk of district
court. — Cannon v. First Nat. Bank,
291 P. 924, 35 N.M. 193.
Certification "by clerk of superior
court
Pa.— Commonwealth, ex pel. v. Thur-
kins, Com.Pl., 23 WestCo. 104.
Erroneous certification
The filing and recording of ab-
stract of judgment erroneously cer-
tifying that a judgment had been en-
tered in guardianship proceeding
against one ward in favor of anoth-
er, although it created a cloud on
first mentioned ward's interest in
guardianship realty, did not create
a lien thereon. — Gordon v. Vucinich,
142 P.2d 71, 61 CaLApp.2d 7>8.
86* Neb. — Metz v. Brownville State
Bank, 7 Neb. 165.
Tex. — McGlothlin v. Goody, Com.
App., 59 S.W.2d S19 — Cheatham -w.
Mann, Civ.App., 133 S.W.2d 264,
error refused — Barton v. Parks,
Cir.App., 127 S.W.2d 376, error re-
fused— Moore v. Ray, Civ. App., '282
S.W. 671 — Security Nat. Bank of
Wichita Falls' v. Allen, Civ.App.,
261 S.W. 1057— Whitaker v. Hill,
Civ.App., 179 S.W. 539.
34 C.J. p 577 note 88.
Indexing record of judgment see in-
fra §§ 463-4*65.
Purpose and effect of statute
(1) The object of statute requiring
that names of plaintiff and defendant
in judgment be indexed in their al-
phabetical order is that persons
searching the record to determine
the existence of judgment liens may
have the means of ascertaining, with
promptness and certainty, whether
such liens exist, without having to
search the entire record. — Womack
v. Paris Grocer Co., Civ.App., 166 S.
W.2d 366, error refused 168 S.W.2d
645, 140 Tex. 423.
(2) Recording and indexing ab-
stract of judgment, as required by
some statutes, do not merely give
notice of preexisting lien, but are
statutory means by which previously
nonexistent lien comes into being. —
Spence v. Brown, 25 S.W. 413, 86
Tex. 430 — Burton Lingo Co. v. War-
ren, Tex. Civ. App., 45 B.W.2d 750, er-
890
ror refused — McGlothlin v. Coody,
Tex. Civ. App., 39 S.W.2d 33, affirmed
Com.App., 59 S.W.2d 819— Wicker v.
Jenkins, 108 S.W. 188, 49 Tex.Civ.
App. 366.
Actual notice will not take the
place of the index. — Glasscock v.
Stringer, Tex.Civ.App., 32 S.W. 920 —
34 C.J. p 578 note 89.
87. Tex. — Simmons v. Sikes, Civ.
App., 56 S.W.2d 193, error dis-
missed.
Recording abstract pending- appeal
Appellant's creation of lien on re-
spondent's realty by recording ab-
stract of judgment appealed from
provided security for enforcement of
judgment if it should become final
on appeal. — Menges v. Robinson, 23
P.2d 526, 132 Cal.App. 647.
Several liens in same county
Under some statutes of the type
here considered, more than one lien
to secure same judgment may exist
in same county. — Burton Lingo Co. v.
Warren, Tex. Civ. App., 45 S.W.2d 750,
error refused.
88. Ala. — JEtna Auto Finance, Inc.,
v. Kirby, 198 So. 356, 240 Ala. 22<S
— Second Nat. Bank v. Allgood,
176 So. 363, 234 Ala. 654 — Reuf v.
Fulks, 122 So. 14, 219 Ala, 252 —
Morris v. Waldrop, 105 So. 172, 213
Ala. 435 — Birmingham News Co. v.
Barren G. Collier, Inc., 103 So. '839,
212 Ala. 655— Robinson v. Shearer,
99 So. 179, 211 Ala. 16.
89. Tex. — Spence v. Brown, 25 S.
W. 413, 86 Tex. 430— Wicker v.
Jenkins, 108 S.W. 188, 49 Tex.Civ.
App. 366.
Failure of record to *how seal
A clerk's certificate to abstract of
judgment need not be recorded, and
hence failure of the record to show
seal by clerk is immaterial as re-
spects validity of the lien created
thereby. — Texas Building & Mort-
gage Co. v. Morris, Tex.Oiv.App., 123
S.W.2d 365, error dismissed.
90. Conn. — Parmalee v. Bethlehem,
18 A, 94, 57 Conn. '270.
91. DeL— Weintraub v. Rudnick, 143
A. 456, 4 W.W.Harr. 111.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§462
utory requirements in this regard, the lien contem-
plated by the statute attaches to the property of the
judgment debtor.92 This requirement applies in
some jurisdictions to judgments of probate courts,93
but in other jurisdictions, in which probate courts
are courts of record, their judgments may consti-
tute Hens as in the case of any other court of rec-
ord.94
Under some statutes, where the transcript of the
judgment of the inferior court has been duly filed in
the proper superior court, the judgment becomes
substantially a judgment of such superior court for
purposes of a lien.95 Only such judgments or de-
crees as are contemplated by the statute may con-
stitute the basis for filing the transcript and impos-
ing the lien,96 and an invalid judgment of an in-
ferior court is not sufficient to support a lien, not-
withstanding the transcript or abstract is filed in
the superior court.97 The transcript must be cer-
tified and authenticated in accordance with the di-
rections of the statute,98 and under some statutes
an execution must have been issued and returned
nulla bona before the transcript may be made and
filed.99 Delay in filing the transcript until after the
judgment has become dormant defeats the right to
acquire a lien under some statutes.1
c. Fixing Lien on Property in Another County
Statutes frequently authorize the fixing of the Hen of
a judgment on real property of the Judgment debtor In
a county other than the county in which Judgment Is
rendered by recording, docketing, or filing a transcript
or abstract of the Judgment In such other county.
Various statutes authorize a transcript or abstract
of a judgment recovered in one county to be re-
corded, docketed,- or filed in another, for the pur-
pose of binding real property of the judgment debt-
or situated in the latter county,2 and, in order to
impose a lien on such real property, there must be
due compliance with the statutory requirements.3
Fla.-- JFerrell v. Reed, -53 So. 935, "60
Fla. -62.
Mo.— Bank of Qlever v. Cook, 24 -S.
W.2d 698, 223 Mo.App. 1092.
Or.— Yeaton v. Barnhart, 150 P. 742,
78 Or. 249, modified on other
grounds 152 P. 192, 78 Or. 249.
34 C.J. p 574 note 50.
92. Minn.— Keys v. Schultz, "2 N.W.
549, 212 Minn. 109.
Pa.— Commonwealth v. Thurkins,
Com.Pl., 23 WestCo. 104.
Tex. — Horton v. Gibson, Civ.App., 274
S.W. 292.
34 C.J. p 574 note 50.
93. Pa. — Catanzaritti v. Bianco, 198
A. 806, 131 PiuSuper. 207.
34 C.J. P 574 note 51.
94. MO.— Haeussler v. Scheilin, 9
Mo.App. 303.
34 C.J. p #74 note 53.
95. Del. — McCoy v. Hickman, 15 A.
2d 427, 1 Terry 687.
Minn.— Keys v. Schultz, 2 N.W.2d
549, "212 Minn. 109— Clark v. Butts,
76 N.W. 199, 73 Minn. 361.
Mo. — Mahen v. Tavern Rock, 37 S.
W.2d 562, 327 Mo. 391.
96. Pa.— Catanzaritti v. Bianco, 198
A. '806. 131 Pa.Super. 207— Wil-
liamson v. Hanmer, Com.Pl., 85
Pitteb.-Leg.J. 751.
Adjudication of orphan's court
The court of common pleas may
properly enter a judgment on a tran-
script of proceedings in an orphans'
court only on a transcript or extract
showing the amount appearing to be
due from or In the hands of any
fiduciary on the settlement of his ac-
counts in the orphans' court or by
virtue of a decree of the court. —
Catanzaritti v. Bianco, 19«8 A. 806
131 Pa.Super. 207.
97. Del.— McCoy v. Hickman, 15 A.
2d 427, 1 Terry 5S7— Weintraub v.1
Rudnick, 143 A. 456, 4 W.W.Harr.
111.
Mont. — Novack v. Pericich, 300 P.
240, 90 Mont 91.
Judgment not void
Pa.— Davies v. Lewis, 91 Pa.Super.
172.
98. Mo. — Bank of Clever v. Cook, 24
S.W.2d 698, 223 Mo.App. 1092.
99. 111.— Brockway v. Trinity M. E.
Church, 68 N.E. 749, 205 HI. 238.
34 C.J. p 574 note 5-6.
1. N.C.— Lowdermilk v. Butler, 109
S.E. 571, 182 N.C. 502.
2. U.S.— Reconstruction Finance
Corporation v. Maley, C.C.A.I1L,
125 F.2d 131.
HI. — Haugens v. Holmes, 41 N.B.2d
109, 314 IlLApjp. 166.
Ind.— Echelbarger v. (First Nat.
Bank, 5 N.E.2d 966, 211 Ind. 199.
Neb.— Talich v. Marvel, 212 N.W.
543, 115 Neb. 246, followed in 212
N.W. 544, 115 Neb. .250.
N.M,— Scheer v. Stolz, 72 P.2d 606,
41 N.M. 585.
Tex. — Texas Building & Mortgage
Co. v. Morris, Civ.App., 123 S.W.2d
365, error dismissed— Hicks v.
Price. Civ.App., 81 S.W.2d 116.
34 C.J. p '573 note 45, «p 574 note 53
[b], p 586 note 9.
Transcript of original docket or rec-
ord
(1) Where judgment roll is file<3
and judgment docketed in district
court clerk's office, judgment be-
comes lien on judgment debtor's
property in any county wherein
transcript of docket is filed.— Finch
Van Slyck & McConville v. Jackson
220 N.W. 130, 57 N.D. 17.
(2) The judgment of a court o:
common pleas may be transferred
891
from the county in which it is en-
lered to any other county of the com-
monwealth by filing of record in the
prothonotary's office of such other
county a certified copy of the whole
record in the case and docketing it
therein. — Shotts & Co. v. Agnew &
Barnett, 81 Pa.Super. 458.
Filing of copy of Judgment roll un-
necessary
Where a judgment is transcripted
and docketed in a county other than
the one in which judgment was ren-
dered, it is not necessary to file a
copy of the judgment roll in such
other county, in order to create a
Lien on real property in such other
county.— Brown v. Harding, 89 S.E.
222, 171 N.C. 686.
Necessity for creation of deficiency
judgment
Abstracting in another county a
judgment foreclosing a lien on prop-
erty described in such Judgment cre-
ates a lien on property in the other
county, irrespective of whether the
property, lien on which was fore-
closed, has been sold and deficiency
judgment created.— Texas Building &
Mortgage Co. v. Morris, Tex.Civ.App.,
123 S.W.2d 3«65, error dismissed.
property of married, woman
Foreign judgment at law rendered
in proceedings ex contractu against
married woman cannot be made ef-
fectual as lien on lands of such mar-
ried woman outside county in which
judgment was rendered by mere fil-
ing and recording of certified tran-
script of judgment in county where
her land lies.— Protective Holding
Corporation v. Cornwall Co., 173 So.
804, 127 'Fla. 252.
3. Ind.— Sullivan -State Bank . v.
(First Nat Bank, 146 N.B. 403, '82
Ind.App. 419.
§ 462
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
Under some statutes filing in another county of a
certificate of a judgment which has become dor-
mant does not create a lien on real property of
the judgment debtor in such other county,4 but, un-
der other statutes, a judgment may be transferred
to another county for the purpose of creating a lien
on real property in such other county, even though
it is not a lien on real property at the time of
transfer,5 or is not at that time immediately en-
forceable by execution,6 or even though at the time
of transfer the statutory period for the duration of
judgment liens has elapsed.7 Under the construc-
tion given some statutes, the transfer of a judg-
ment to another county creates a new lien,8 but,
under other statutes, the docketing of a transcript
in another county does not create a new lien, but
at most constitutes a transfer of the lien.9
Inferior court judgments. With respect to judg-
ments of inferior courts, under some statutes the
transcript must be filed in the proper court of the
county where the judgment was recovered, and can-
not in the first instance be filed in the court of an-
other county for the purpose of creating a lien on
real property in such other county.10
d. Sufficiency
(1) In general
(2) Recording and filing
(3) Indexing
*
(1) In General
There must be at least substantial compliance with
statutory requirements for the creation of liens by re-
cording or filing transcripts or abstracts of Judgments.
In general there must be at least substantial com-
pliance with statutory requirements for the crea-
tion of a lien by the recording or filing of a tran-
script or abstract of the judgment.11 The tran-
script, abstract, or certificate must satisfy 'the re-
quirements of the statute governing the creation of
a lien,12 and should contain all the essential par-
ticulars of the judgment, so as to give reasonably
certain and definite information to subsequent pur-
chasers or lienors.13 While the rule has been an-
nounced that a statute prescribing the contents of
a certificate of judgment is mandatory14 and that
there must be strict compliance with such statute
in order to create a lien,15 the provisions of some
statutes prescribing the contents of a transcript or
certificate have been regarded as directory rather
than mandatory so that compliance therewith is not
Iowa. — Harrington v. Clark, 202 N.
W. 84, 199 Iowa 340.
34 C.J. p 573 note 45, p 5S6 note 9.
Becordiug' of transcript required
Neb.— Rathbone Co. v. KImball, 220
N.W. 244, 117 Neb. 229, certiorari
denies Kimball v. Rathbone Co., 49
S.Ct 179, 27-8 U.S. 655, 73 L.Ed.
564.
4. Ohio.— -Kline v. Falbo, 56 N.B.2d
•701, 73 Ohio App. 417.
5. Pa — Shotts & Co. v. Agnew
Barnett, -81 Pa.Super. 45 S.
6. Pa. — Shotts & Co. v. Agnew &
Barnett, supra.
7. Pa. — Shotts & Co. v. Agnew &
Barnett, supra.
8. Pa, — Shotts & Co. v. Agnew &
Barnett, supra.
34 C.J. p 574 note 47.
Force and effect of lien
The new lien has the same force
and effect as though judgment had
originally been entered in the coun-
ty to which it was transferred. —
Shotts & Co. v. Agnew & Barnett,
supra.
Independent liens
Each abstract of same judgment
recorded in different counties creates
independent lien. — Burton Lingo Co.
v. Warren, Tex.Civ.App., 45 S.W.2d
750, error refused.
0. Ind.— Bradfleld v. Newby, 28 N.E.
619, 130 Ind. 59.
10. ArlL-rWinkler v. Baxter, 170 S.
W. 94, 114 Ark. 422.
34 C.J. p 574 note 57.
Xilen held to attach
Mo. — Mahen v. Tavern Rock, 37 -S.
W.2d 562, 327 Mo. 391.
11. Mo. — Bank of Clever v. Cook, 24
S.W.2d 698, 223 Mo.App. 1092.
12. Tex. — Barton v. Parks, Civ. App.,
127 S.W.2d 376, error refused —
Hampton v. C. D. Shamburger
Lumber Co., Civ.App., 127 S.W.2d
245, error dismissed, Judgment cor-
rect— Chamlee v. Chamlee, Civ.
App., 113 S.W.2d 290— Gordon-Se-
wall & Co. v. Walker, Civ.App., 258
S.W. 233.
34 C.J. p 575 notes 60, 61. p 578 note
92, p 579 note 8.
Strict compliance
In order to create a lien by filing
for registration a certificate of judg-
ment, the existence of a certificate
issued and registered in strict com-
pliance with the statute is essential,
since the provisions %are in deroga-
tion of the common law. — Hargett v.
Hovater, 15 So.2d 27-6, 244 Ala, 646 —
Morris v. Waldrop, 105 So. 172, 213
Ala. 435.
Transcript of docket
Under a statute requiring the
docketing of the judgment and mak-
ing the existence of a lien depend-
892
ent on the filing in a particular office
of a transcript of the docket of the
judgment, merely filing an abstract
of the ' judgment without docketing
the judgment is not suflacient. —
Breece v. Gregg, 13 P.2d 421, 36 N.
M. 246.
Jurisdiction of court rendering judg-
ment
The transcript of a judgment of a
justice's court filed in a superior
court must show the jurisdiction of
the justice's court with respect to
the residence of the parties. — Wein-
traub v. Kudnick, 143 A. 456, 4 W.W.
Harr.,Del., 111.
Transcript or abstract sufficient
Ind. — Chadwick v. (Louisville Joint
Stock Land Bank, 6 N.E.2d 741,
103 Ind.App. 224.
Tex. — Guaranty -State Bank of Donna
v. Marion Qounty Nat. Bank, Civ.
App., 293 S.W. 248— Fikes v. Buck-
holts State Bank, Civ.A'pp., 273 S..
W. 957.
13. Tex. — Traweek v. Simmons, Civ.
App., 72 S.W.2d 349.
34 C.J. P 575 note 61.
14. Ala. — Duncan v. Autauga Bank-
ing & Trust Co., 136 So. 733, 223
Ala. 434.
15. Ala. — Duncan v. Autauga Bank-
ing & Trust Co., supra — Roney v.
Dothan Produce Co., 117 So. -36,
217 Ala. 475.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
462
an essential element of the validity of the transcript
or certificate.16 A certificate or abstract is suffi-
cient if it can be rendered certain by the construc-
tion of its own terms and if within its terms it sup-
plies the information required by law without look-
ing elsewhere.17 An immaterial defect in the
clerk's certificate authenticating a transcript of a
judgment docket has been held not to nullify the
effect of such transcript where there has other-
wise been due compliance with statutory require-
ments.18 According to some cases the requirement
of an authenticated abstract of a judgment is ful-
filled by presenting an attested copy of the judgment
in lieu of an abstract,18 or by presenting an authen-
ticated instrument which contains a copy of the
judgment and also all matters of substance required
by the statute.20 Mere surplusage does not invali-
date an abstract or certificate.21
Parties. There must be due compliance with a
statutory requirement that the transcript, abstract,
or certificate shall show the name of the parties, in
order to create a lien,22 and an error in the name
of a party to the judgment may prevent the crea-
tion of a lien,23 but a slight and immaterial error
in describing a party does not necessarily prevent
the creation of a lien.24
Amount, interest, and costs. Some statutes re-
quire a statement of the' amount for which judg-
ment was rendered,25 and the balance or amount
due,26 and the rate of interest specified in the
18. N.M. — Cannon v. First Nat.
Bank, 291 P. 924, 35 N.M. 193.
Ohio. — Hower Corp. v. Vance, 59 N.B.
2d 377, 144 Ohio St. 443.
17. Ala.— Gunter v. Belser, 45 So.
582, 154 Ala. 489.
Tex.— Kinsman Texas Impl. Co. v.
Borders, Civ.App., 156 S.W. 614.
34 C.J. p 575 note 62.
Matters not rendering" abstract void
or insufficient
Use of abbreviations which were
in common use and easily under-
standable.— Weadon v. Shahen, 123
P.2d 88, 50 Cal.App.2d 254.
18. Or.— Budd v. Gallier, 89 P. 638,
50 Or. 42.
34 C.J. p 575 note -64 [a] (1).
19. W.Va.— Calwell v. Prindle, 19
W.Va. 604.
34 C.JT. p 575 note 63.
20. Cal. — Robbins Inv. Co. v. Rob-
bins, 122 P.2d 91, 49 Cal.App.2d
446.
21. Ala.— Reuf v. 'Fulks, 122 So. 14,
219 Ala. 252.
Cal. — Robbins Inv. Co. v. Robbins,
122 P.2d 91, 49 Cal.App.2d 446.
22. Ala.— Booth v. Bates, 112 So.
209, 215 Ala. 632.
Tex.— McGlothlin v. Goody, Com.App.,
59 S.W.2d 819— Cheatham v. Mann,
Civ.App., 133 S.W,2d 264, error re-
fused— Barton v. Parks, Civ.App.,
127 S.W.2d 37-6, error refused.
34 C.J. p 575 note 60 [a], [b], [d], p
5)80 note 24 [a].
Parties to Judgment
Some statutes refer to a state-
ment of the names of the parties to
the judgment or decree and not nec-
essarily to a statement of the names
of the parties to the cause..
Ala.— Reuf v. Fulks, 122 So. 14, 219
Ala. 252— Ladd v. Smith, 95 So
280, 209 Ala. 114.
Tex. — Womack v. Paris Grocer Co.
Civ.App., 166 S.W.2d 366, error re-
fused 168 S.W.2d 645, 140 Tex. 423.
XTames of all defendants
Where abstract did not contain
names of all defendants, it was not
sufficient, even though plaintiffs re-
covered no judgment for debt
against defendants whose names
were so omitted, but were allowed
costs against one of such defendants,
and another of such defendants was
allowed costs against plaintiffs. —
Shirey v. Trust Co. of Texas, Tex.
Civ.App., 98 S.W.2d 243— Shirey v.
Trust Co. of Texas, Tex.Civ.App., 69
S.W.2d 835, error refused.
Partnership as party
(1) Under a statute requiring the
certificate of judgment to show the
names of tall parties to the judgment,
a certificate which showed merely a
firm name of a partnership as the
name of a party was held insuffi-
cient.— Duncan v. Autauga Banking
& Trust Co., 136 So. 733, 223 Ala, 434
—Ladd v. Smith, 95 So. 280, 209 Ala.
114— Conn v. Sellers, 73 So. 961, 198
Ala. 606.
(2) Where, however, a 'partnership
may be sued in the firm name, fail-
ure to state, in a certificate of judg-
ment against defendant partnership,
the names of the individual partners
or whether defendant was a partner-
ship or corporation was held not to
render the certificate insufficient un-
der such statute.— Reuf v. Fulks, 122
So. 14, 219 Ala. 252.
Abstract or certificate held sufficient
Tex.— womack v. Paris Grocer Co.,
Civ.App., 166 S.W.2d 366, error re-
fused 168 S.W.2d 645, 140 Tex. 423.
84 C.J. p 575 note 62 [a] (3).
23. Tex.— Traweek v. -Simmons, Civ.
App., 72 S.W.2d 349.
Middle initial
An error in the middle initial of a
party to the Judgment may render
the abstract or certificate insuffi-
cient—Lnture v. Little, 60 So. 474, 6
Ala. App. 278—34 C.J. p 581 note 34.
24L Ala,— Reuf v. Fulks, 122 So. 14
219 Ala. 252.
893
25. Tex. — Lemons v. Bpley Hard-
ware Co., Civ.App., 197 S.W. 1118—
Glasscock v. Stringer, Civ.App., 32
S.W. 920.
34 C.J. p 575 note 60 [a].
Statute construed strictly
Tex. — Texas Building & Mortgage-
Co, v. Morris, Civ.App., 123 S.W.
2d 365, error dismissed.
Omission of dollar mark
(1) Such omission from statement
of amount of judgment is not neces-
sarily a fatal defect.
Cal.— Weadon v. Shahen, 123 P.2d 88",
50 Cal.App.2d 254.
Tex. — Texas Building & Mortgage-
Co, v. Morris, Civ.App., 123 S.W.26!
365, error dismissed.
34 C.J. p -575 note 60 £c].
(2) However, the use of mere nu-
merals in an abstract of judgment
without any indication that they
represent dollars or other denom- .
inations of money has been held not .
sufficient, and an omission in this
particular cannot be supplied by ref-
erence to the record of the judgment.
—Bush v. 'Farris, Tex., 71 P. 770, 18-
C.C.A. 315.
Abstract held sufficient
Tex.— Willis v. Somerville, 23 S.W.
781, 3 Tex.Civ.Ajpp. 509— First Nat.
Bam* v. Cloud, 21 S.W. 770, 2 Tex.
Civ.App. -627.
34 C.J. P 575 notes 60 [a], 62 [a].
20. Tex. — Cheatham v. Mann, Civ.
App., 133 S.W.2d 264, error refused.
34 C.J. p 575 note 60 [a],
Statute strictly construed
Tex. — Texas Building & Mortgage-
Co, v. Morris, Civ.App., 123 S.W.24
365, error dismissed.
Showing credits
(1) Under the statute described in
the text, failure to show credits on
the judgment may render the ab-
stract insufficient — Evans v. Frisbie,
19 S.W. 510, 84 Tex. $41 — 84 C.J. p
582 note 5£
§ 462
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
judgment27
In some jurisdictions a certificate of judgment is
insufficient if it fails to show the amount of costs
as required by statute,28 but failure of a tran-
script to show the amount of costs was held not
to prevent the creation of a lien where the tran-
script shows that costs were awarded and it was
not possible to determine the amount of costs at
the time of filing the transcript,29 and the only
effect of failure to state the amount of costs, as
required by some statutes, is to defeat the lien to
the extent of the costs.30
(2) Recording and Filing
The transcript, abstract, or certificate of judgment
must be properly recorded or filed In order to create a
Hen under some statutes.
In order to create a lien under some statutes, the
transcript, abstract, or certificate of judgment must
be properly recorded or filed,31 and a substantial er-
ror on the part of the clerk in recording will pre-
vent the creation of a lien,32 even though the ab-
stract itself is correct.33 It has been stated broadly,
however, that the true object of the statute is served
if the record is such as to charge third persons with
notice of the lien or to excite inquiry which, if rea-
sonably or diligently pursued, would disclose the
existence of the lien,34 and that slight irregularities
with respect to filing an abstract do not necessarily
prevent the creation of a lien.35
(3) Indexing
A recorded transcript or abstract of judgment must
be properly Indexed in order to create a Hen under aome
statutes.
In order to create a lien under some statutes,
there must be due compliance with statutory re-
quirements regarding the indexing of a recorded
transcript or abstract of judgment.36 Slight irreg-
(2) Where, however, a judgment
•was rendered for a certain amount
with Interest, tog-ether with foreclo-
sure of a Hen on certain property,
jfiven to secure payment of the judg-
ment debt, and the judgment creditor
purchased the property at foreclo-
sure sale, failure to show in the ab-
stract a credit for the amount bid by
the judgment creditor at such sale
did not render the abstract insuffi-
cient in view of the fact that the
sale was incomplete when the ab-
stract was filed. — Texas Building &
Mortgage Co. v. Morris, Tex.Civ.App.,
123 S.W.2d 365, error dismissed.
3FT* Tex. — Lemons v. Epley Hard-
ware Co., Civ.APp., 197 S.W. 1118.
34 C.J. p 575 note £0 [a].
^Erroneous Inclusion of interest
Where Judgment did not bear in-
terest, no lien was created by filing
in another county an abstract of
Judgment reciting that judgment
bore ten per cent interest and that
balance due thereon included inter-
est.— Midland County v. Tolivar's Es-
tate, 155 S.W.Sd 921, 137 Tex. 600.
.Abstract held sufficient
Omission from an abstract of
.judgment in another county of re-
cital that interest was to be calcu-
lated from the date of the judgment,
on the amount of the judgment, did
mot invalidate the abstract, since in-
terest was fixed by law. — Texas
Building & Mortgage Co. v. Morris,
Tex.Civ.App., 123 S.W.2d 365, error
•dismissed— -Willis v. Somerville, 22
£.W. 7*81. 3 Tex.Civ.App. 509— First
Nat Bank v. Cloud, 21 S.W. 770, 21
Tex.Civ.App. 627.
38. Ala. — Morris v. Waldrop, 105 So.
1*72, 213 Ala. 435.
3&. Ind. — Chadwick 7. 'Louisville
Joint Stock Land Bank, 6 N.E.2d
741, 103 Ind.-4pp. 224.
30. Wash. — Lamey v. Coffman, 39 P.
682, 11 Wash. 301.
31. Ind.— Sullivan State Bank y.
First Nat. Bank, 146 N.B. 403, 82
Ind.App. 419.
Tex. — Askey v. Power, Com. App., 36
S.W.2d 446 — Cheatham v. Mann,
Civ.App., 183 S.W.2d 264, error re-
fused.
34 C.J. p 572 note 40, p 573 notes 41,
45 [a], p 575 note 60 [a] (10), p
577 note 88 [c], «p 578 note 92, p
579 notes 97 [b], 8, p 580 note 15.
Recording' held sufficient
Hawaii. — Nichols v. Wan Qliong Sun,
28 Hawaii 395.
32. Tex. — Noble v. Earner, 55 S.W.
382, 22 Tex.Civ.App. 357.
Bntry as to credits
(1) In view of a statutory re-
quirement that the abstract shall
show the amount or balance due on
the judgment, the record of an ab-
stract was insuflftcient to create a
lien where the record erroneously
stated the date of a credit thereon,
so that a proper calculation of the
interest due on the judgment as re-
corded would not show the amount
actually due. — Noble v. Earner, su-
pra.
(2) Where clerk, in recording ab-
stract of judgment, placed amounts
totaling within eighteen cents of
amount of judgment in credit column
through mistake, which amounts ap-
parently should have been entered in
the column for rate of interest, the
record was insuftlcient to establish
judgment lien. — Askey v. Power, Tex.
Com.AppM 36 S.W.2d 446.
Error in name of party
The record of an abstract, in
894
which the surname of plaintiff who
recovered judgment was misspelled,
was held insufficient to create lien. —
Anthony v. Taylor, 4 S.W. 531, -63
Tex. 403.
33. Tex. — Noble v. Earner, 55 S.W.
382, 22 Tex.Civ.App. 357.
34. Tex. — Citizens State Bank of
Clarinda, Iowa. v. Del-Tex Inv. Co.,
Civ.App., 123 S.W.2d 450, error dis-
missed, judgment correct.
Misnomer of court
Record showing name of court by
which judgment was rendered as
"92d District Court of Hidalgo Coun-
ty" was sufficient to render lien op-
erative against subsequent purchas-
ers or encumbrancers where the
statute was otherwise complied with,
notwithstanding the judgment was
actually rendered by the ninety-
third district court of such county
and that fact was shown by the ab-
stract— Citizens State Bank of Clar-
inda, Iowa v. Del-Tex Inv. Co., supra.
35. Tex.— 'First State Bank of Mo-
bee tie v. Goodner, Civ.App., 168 S.
W.2d 941.
. Neb. — Metz v. Brownville State
Bank, 7 Neb. 165.
Tex. — McGlothlin v. Coody, Com.
App., 59 S.W.2d 819— Askey v.
Power, Com. App., 36 S.W.2d 446 —
Cheatham v. Mann, Civ.App., 133
S.W.2d 264, error refused — Barton
V. Parks, Civ.App., 127 S.W.2d 376,
error refused— Fordyce - Crossett
Sales Co. v. Erwin, Civ.App., 121 S.
W.2d 491 — Chamlee v. Chamlee,
Civ.App., 113 S.W.2d 290— McDan-
iel v. Milner, .Civ.Ajpp., 19 S.W.2d
426, affirmed Milner v. McDaniel,
36 S.W.2d 992, 120 Tex. 160 — Moore
v. Ray, Civ.App., 28-7 S.W. 671 —
Security Nat Bank of Wichita
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
462
ularities with respect to indexing do not, however,
necessarily prevent the creation of a lien.87 It is
the intent of some statutes that the index should
indicate merely the source from which full infor-
mation may be obtained,38 and it is not necessary
to include complete information concerning the ab-
stract.^
Parties. Under some statutes it is essential that
the index shall show the names of the parties to
the judgment,40 and that the designation of the
parties shall be accurate.41 The index should be
both direct and reverse, or, as sometimes stated,
there should be a cross index, with respect to the
names of the parties,42 and it is essential that the
index shall list the names of the parties in alpha-
betical order.43 It has been laid down broadly,
however, that a statute requiring the indexing of
the names of parties should not be construed so
technically as to impose unnecessary difficulties on
a judgment creditor seeking to secure a lien,44 and
that an entry which is substantially correct, should
be regarded as sufficient.45
Under some statutes, where there are several
parties plaintiff or parties defendant to the judg-
ment, the names of all parties to the judgment must
duly be indexed in order to create a lien,4^ and a
Falls v. Allen, Civ.App., 261 S.W.
1057.
34 C.J. p 575 note -60 [a] (10), p 577
note '88, p 579 notes 97 [c], 2, 8.
Number of pag-e of record
(1) Under some statutes the index
must show the number of the page
of the book on which the abstract is
recorded. — J. M. Radford Grocery Co.
v. Speck, Tex.Civ.App., 152 S.W.2d
7«87, error refused — 34 C.J. p 579 note
2.
(2) Where the index refers to the
wrong page, no lien is created. —
Fordyce-Crossett Sales -Co. v. Erwin,
Tex.Civ.App., 121 S.W.2d 491— Askey
v. Power, Tex.Civ.App., 21 S.W.2d
326, reversed on other grounds, Com.
App., 36 S.W.2d 446.
37. Tex. — First State Bank of Mo-
beet ie v. Goodner, Civ.App., 168 «S.
W.2d 041.
38. Tex. — Womack v. Paris Grocer
Co., Civ.App., 166 S.W.2d 366, error
refused 168 S.W.2d 645, 140 Tex.
423 — Carver v. Gray, Civ.App., 140
S.W.2d 227, error dismissed, judg-
ment correct.
39. Tex.— Womack v. Paris Grocer
Co., Civ.App., 166 S.W.2d 3-66, er-
ror refused 168 S.W.2d 645, 140
Tex. 423 — Carver v. Gray, Civ.App.,
140 S.W.2d 227, error dismissed,
judgment correct.
40- Tex.— McGlothlin v. Coody,
Com.App., 59 S.W.2d 819.
34 C.J. p 579 note S,
41. Tex.— McLarry v. Studebaker
Bros. Co., Civ.App., 146 -S.W. 676.
34 C.J. p 579 note 8, p 580 notes 15,
17, p 581 note 36.
Capacity
In indexing recorded abstract of
judgment obtained against party in
capacity as executor of will, statute
does not require index to show such
capacity.— Willis v. Smith, 17 S.W.
247, 66 Tex. 31 — Moseley v. Evangeli-
cal Theological College, Tex.Civ.App.,
34 <S.W.2d 638.
42. Xa Texas
(1) The rule stated in the text
has been announced. — McGlothlin v.
Coody, *Com.App., 59 S.W.2d 819— J.
M. Radford Grocery Co. v. Speck,
Civ.App., 152 S.W.2d 787, error re-
fused—San Antonio Loan & Trust
Co. v. Davis, Civ.App., 235 S.W. 612—
Central Coal & Qoke Co. v. Southern
Nat. Bank, 34 S.W. 383, 12 Tex.Civ.
App. 334.
(2) In some earlier cases, how-
ever, a contrary view was taken. —
Semple v. Bubanks, 35 -S.W. 509, 13
Tex.Civ.App. 418— Von Stein v. Trex-
ler, 23 S.W. 1047, 5 Tex.Civ.App. 299.
43. Tex.— J. M. Radford Grocery Co.
V. Slpeck, Civ.App., 152 S.W.2d 787,
error refused — Barton v. Parks,
Civ.App., 127 S.W.2d 37-6, error re-
fused—McGlothlin v. Coody, Civ.
App,, 39 S.W.2d 133, affirmed. Com.
App., 59 S.W.2d 819— Guaranty
State Bank of Donna v. Marion
County Nat Bank, Civ.App., 293
S.W. 248.
34 C.J. p 579 note «8, p «81 note 45.
Surname controlling1
The entry should be placed under
the letter which begins the surname
of a party to the judgment. — Avery
v. Texas Loan Agency, Tex.Civ.App.,
62 -S.W. 793—34 Q.J. p 580 note 19.
Names of both plaintiff and defend-
ant
(1) The abstract must be indexed
alphabetically in the names both of
plaintiff and defendant. — Guaranty
State Bank of Donna v. Marion Coun-
ty Nat. Bank, Tex.Civ.App., 293 S.
W. 248—34 C.J. p 579 note 8.
(2) Where an abstract of a judg-
ment was indexed in • the name of
each defendant against whom judg-
ment was taken but was not indexed
alphabetically in the name of any
plaintiff, no lien was created. — Guar-
anty State Bank of Donna v. Marion
County Nat. Bank, supra.
(3) In a comparatively early case,
however, the view was taken that the
index was sufficient to fix a lien on
defendant's property if his name is
correctly stated under the proper
letter, even though plaintilTs name
is Indexed under a wrong letter. —
Franke v. Lone Star Brewing Co., 42
S.W. 861, 17 Tex.Civ.App. 9.
895
Insufficient space under correct let-
ter
Even where the name of a party is-
entered under the wrong letter in the-
index because of want of space under
the correct letter, a lien is not creat-
ed.— Cocke v. Conquest, Civ.App., 2 S.
W.2d 992, afflrmed, Com.App., 13 S.W.
2d 348, afflrmed 35 S.W.2d £73, 120
Tex. 43 — Fairmont Creamery Co. v.
Minter, Tex.Civ.App., 274 S.W. 281.
Index held sufficient
Tex. — Womack v. Paris Grocer Co.,.
Civ.App., 166 S.W.2d 366, error re-
fused 168 S.W.2d 645, 140 Tex. 42$
— Carver v. Gray, Civ.App., 140 «S.
W.2d 227, error dismissed, judg-
ment correct — McDermott v. Steck
Co., Civ.App., 138 S.W.2d 1106, er-
ror refused.
34 C.J. p 579 note 8.
44. Tex. — Bradley v. Janssen, Civ.
App., 93 S.W. 506— Burnett v. Cock-
shatt '21 S.W. 950, 2 Tex.Civ.App.
304.
45. Tex.— Bradley r. Janssen, Civ..
App., 93 S.W. 506.
48. Tex. — McGlothlin v. Coody, Com..
App., 59 S.W.2d 819 — Cheatham v.
Mann, Civ.App., 133 S.W.2d 264, er-
ror refused— Barton v. Parks, Civ.
App., 127 S.W.2d 376, error refused..
34 C.J. p 581 note 36.
Separate listing- of copaxttes .
The statute requiring entry of ab-
stract of judgment on alphabetical
index showing the name of each
plaintiff and each defendant does not
require that in indexing under the
letter proper to one defendant, other
defendant's name be shown. — Texas
Building & Mortgage Co. v. Morris,
Tex.Civ.App., 123 S.W.2d 365, error
dismissed.
Index held insufficient
(1) Where abstract of judgment
did not contain names of. all defend-
ants and when recorded in another
.county was indexed only in names
appearing in abstract no lien was
created, notwithstanding plaintiffs*,
recovered no judgment for debt
against defendants whose names-
were so omitted, but were allowed
§ 462
JVDGMEXTS
49 C.J.S.
lien is not imposed on the property of a party whose
name has duly been indexed where the name of a
coparty in the judgment has not been indexed.47
\Vhere, however, the statute requires the indexing
of the parties in the judgment, it is not necessary
to index the name of a person who was made a
coparty to the action, where he is not a party to
the judgment48
\Yhere a partnership is a party to the judgment,
tinder a statutory provision for an alphabetical in-
dex showing the name of each plaintiff and of each
defendant, indexing in the firm name may be suf-
ficient if the firm name consists of the full name of
each of the partners,49 but the rule is otherwise
where the index does not show the names of the
individual partners in the case either of a judgment
in favor of a partnership,50 or against a partner-
ship.51 Where the individual names of the part-
ners are duly indexed, the index is not rendered in-
sufficient by the fact that the firm name is omitted
or is stated incorrectly.52
Where a corporation is a party to the judgment,
the index of the recorded abstract should show the
complete name of the corporation.53 If a corpo-
rate name is composed of a surname preceded by
initials, the name should be indexed under the first
letter of the surname,54 and, where the first word
of the corporate name is the article "The," the
name is properly indexed under the first letter of
another word which actually identifies the cor-
poration.55 Indexing in the name of a company,
which is actually a corporation, as judgment credi-
tor, is not fatally defective because the index fails
to show whether the judgment creditor is a corpo-
ration, joint stock company, or a partnership.56
Where a judgment is recovered by the receiver of
a corporation, it has been held not essential that
the index contain the name of the corporation.57
§ <63. Recording, Docketing, and Indexing
Judgment
Under various statutory provisions, It Is generally
held that the docketing or recording of a judgment cre-
ates a Hen on the property of the judgment debtor, and
that in the absence of due compliance with such statu-
tory provisions there is no lien.
While at common law a judgment did not create
a lien, as is discussed supra § 454, under many
statutes a judgment which is recorded or docketed
becomes a lien on the judgment debtor's realty.58
On the other hand, unless the statutory requirement
•costs against one of such defend-
ants, and another of such defendants
was allowed costs against plaintiffs.
— Shirey v. Trust CD. of Texas, Tex.
Civ.App., 98 S.W.2d 243— Shirey v.
Trust Co. of Texas, Tex.Civ.App., 69
S.W.2d 835, error refused.
(2) Where plaintiff recovered per-
sonal Judgment against defendant
landowner and judgment for foreclo-
sure of a vendor's lien against de-
fendant and codefendant, and where,
•on defendant's cross action against
codefendant, latter recovered judg-
ment for costs against defendant,
failure to index judgment in code-
fendant's name prevented lien from
arising in plaintiffs favor on defend-
ant's land, notwithstanding the in-
dexing complied with the statute in
•other respects.— McGlothlin v. Coody,
Tex.Com.App., 59 S.W.2d 819.
47. In Texas
(1) The rule stated in the text has
been applied or recognized. — Barton
v. Parks, Civ.App., 127 S.W.2d 376,
error refused — McGlothlin v. Coody,
Civ.App., 3d S.W.2d 133, affirmed,
Com.App., 59 S.W.2d 819.
(2) In an earlier case, however, In
which a similar statute was in-
volved* there were expressions appar-
ently contrary to the rule stated in
the text. — Blum v. Keyser, 2-8 S.W.
561, 8 Tex.Civ.App. 6?5.
48. Tex. — Womack v. Paris Grocer
Co., Civ.App., 166 S.W.2d 366, er-.
ror refused 168 S.W.2d 645, 140
Tex. 423.
49. Tex. — Oppenheimer v. Robinson,
27 S.W. 95, 87 Tex. 174.
34 C.J. p 581 note 40 [a].
59. Xn Texas
(1) The rule stated in the text has
been recognized or applied. — Pierce
v. Wimberly, 14 S.W. 454, 78 Tex. 1S7
— 34 C.J. p 581 note 40.
(2) In a case, however, in which
the applicability of the same Texas
statute was assumed, a contrary
view apparently was taken. — Cooke
v. Avery, Tex., 13 S.Ct 340, 147 U.-S.
375. 37 L.Ed. 209.
51. Tex. — G-ullett Gin Co. v. Oliver,
14 S.W. 451, 78 Tex. 182.
34 C.J. p 581 note 40.
52. Tex. — Willis v. Downes, ' Civ.
App., 46 S.W. 920 — Semple v. Eu-
banks, 35 S.W. 509, 13 Civ.App. 418.
53. Tex. — McLarry v. Studebaker
Bros. Co., Civ.App., 146 S.W. -676.
34 C.J. p 581 notes 42, 45 [a] (1).
Index held snflclent
Tex, — Texas Building & Mortgage
Co. v. Morris. -Civ.App., 123 S.W.2d
365, error dismissed.
54. Tex. — B. F. Avery & Sons v.
Texas Loan Agency, Civ.App., 62
S.W. 793.
34 C.J. p 581 note 43.
55. Tex. — McDermott v. Steck Co.,
Civ.App.f 138 S.W.2d 1106, error re-
fused.
34 C.J. p 581 note 43.
896
58. Tex.— Bradley v. Janssen, Civ.
App., 93 S.W. 506.
57. Tex. — Carver v. Gray, Civ.App.,
140 S.W.2d 227, error dismissed,
judgment correct.
58. U.S. — Newberry v. Davison
Chemical Co., C.C.A.N.C., 65 F.2d
724, certiorari denied 54 S.Ct 75,
two cases, 290 U.S. 660, 7'8 L.Ed.
571 — Bortman v. Urban Motion
Picture industries, O.C.A.N.Y., 4
F.2d 913.
111. — Haugens v. Holmes, 41 N.E.2d
109. 314 IlLApp. 1-66.
La. — Eacat v. Kraus, App., 141 So.
94". *
N.T.— Bartol v. Bennett, 56 N.Y.S.2d
314.
N.C.— Moore v. Jones, 86 S.E.2d 920
— Jones v. Currie, 129 S.E. 605, 190
N.C. 260.
N.D.—JFinch, Van Slyck & McCon-
ville v. Jackson, 220 N.W. 130, 57
N.D. 17.
19 C.J. p 381 note 77.
Docketing or recording transcript of
judgment see supra § 462.
Object of docketing
(1) The object of docketing is to
create a judgment lien on realty.
N.T.— Rosenthal v. Graves, 6 N.Y.S.
2d 766, 168 Misc. '845.
Or.— State ex .rel. Tolls v. Tolls, 85
P.2d 366, 160 Or. 317, 119 AO-.R.
1370.
(2) The true purpose of statutes
providing that where a judgment of
a specified inferior court is docketed-
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§463
of recording and docketing is complied with, the
judgment will not attach as a lien,5^ at least as
against third persons acting in good faith and with-
out actual notice,60 such as subsequent purchasers61
and subsequent attaching creditors,62 although it
may be otherwise as between the original parties,63
and under some provisions protection is afforded
only to purchasers but not to creditors.64
Under some statutes it is the duty of the judg-
ment creditor to see to it that his judgment is right-
ly and properly recorded or docketed, under penalty
of losing his lien,65 although the failure properly
to record or to docket the judgment is wholly the
fault of the clerk,66 the only remedy of the judg-
ment creditor in such cases being against the clerk
for any loss suffered.67 Under other statutes, the
lien of a judgment is not lost by the failure of the
clerk to docket the judgment,68 or by his delay in
docketing it,69 but he will be liable in damages to
any person injured by reason of his default.™
Where subsequent purchasers or encumbrancers
have actual notice of the judgment, they will be
bound thereby, this being equivalent to the con-
structive notice required to be given by entry on
the judgment docket.71 The docketing of a judg-
ment is constructive but conclusive notice to all the
world of the lien of such judgment,72 and has been
said substantially to effect a seizure of the judg-
ment debtor's land and to deposit it in custodia le-
gis,73 although it has been held that the docketing
does not in itself sequestrate any property.74
Where a court of equity decrees a lien on specified
land, such lien exists independently of statutes pro-
viding for the docketing of money judgments,75 and
such a lien is no more dependent on such statute
than a mechanic's lien or the lien created by a
mortgage.76
Judgments affirmed on appeal. Where a judgment
has been affirmed on appeal, it must be redocketed
in order to make it a lien for the damages and
costs in the appellate court,77 although without such
redocketing it remains a lien on real estate, by vir-
tue of the original docketing, for the amount of the
original judgment and accumulated interest.78
Cancellation of docket. The clerk is generally
authorized by statute to cancel and discharge the
docket of a judgment, on the filing with him of an
acknowledgment of satisfaction, signed by the party
in whose favor the judgment is obtained, and au-
thenticated in the prescribed manner ; without such
acknowledgment the act of the clerk in canceling
the docket is without jurisdiction, and is void as to
the parties whose rights are affected by it79
Place of docketing. A judgment has been held
in a specified superior court, it shall
become a judgment of the latter is to
provide for making the Judgment a
lien on real estate. — Paley v. Solo-
mon, D.C.D.C., 59 F.Supp. 887.
59. U.S. — In re Flushing* Queens -
boro Laundry, C.C.A.N.Y., 90 -F.2d
•601.
Ga. — Tanner v. Wilson, 19-2 S.B. 425,
184 Ga. 628.
Miss. — Johnson v. Cole Mfg. Co., 110
•So. 428, 144 Miss. 482.
Neb. — Pontiac Improvement Co. v.
Leisy, 14 N.W.2d 384, 144 Neb. 70-5.
N.M. — Corpus Juris cited in Breece
Y. Gregg, 13 P.2d 421, 422, 36 N.M.
246.
N.C. — Jones v. Currie, 129 S,E. 605,
190 N.C. 260.
S.C. — Powers v. Fidelity & Deposit
Co. of Maryland, 186 S.B. 523, 180
S.C. 601.
34 C.J. p 576 note 68.
60. Ga. — Roberson v. Roberson, 34
S.E:2d 836, 199 Ga, 627.
La. — Robin v. Harris Realty Co., 152
So. 573, 178 La. 946.
61- Okl.— Wilson v. (First. Nat
Bank, 8* P.2d '628, 184 Okl. 5*8—
Richards v. Tynes, 300 P. 297, 149
OkL 235.
34 C.J. p 576 note 69.
Title passing before enrollment
It is the enrollment of the judg-
ment which creates the lien, and ti-
49 0- J.S.-457
' tie passing from Judgment debtor to
third person for consideration before
enrollment of judgment is not af-
fected thereby- — Johnson v. Cole
Mfg. Co., 110 So. 428, 144 Miss. 482.
62. Mont.— Sklower v. Abbott, 47 P.
901, 19 Mont 228.
N.Y. — Buchan v. Sumner, 2 Barb.Ch.
165, 47 Am.D. 305.
63. W.Va. — Richardson v. White,
127 S.B. 636, 99 W.Va. 81.
34 C.J. p 577 note 71.
64. Va. — American Bank & Trust
Co. v. National Bank of Suffolk,
196 -S.B. 693, 170 Va. 169.
66. Pa. — Jaczyszyn v. Paslawski, 124
A.2d 116, 147 Pa,Super. 97.
34 a J. p 577 note 72.
66. Miss. — Planters' Bank v. Conger,
20 Miss. 527.
67. N.C.— Holman v. Miller, 9 S.E.
429, 103 N.C. 118.
34 C.J. p 577 note -74.
68. Ind. — Johnson v. Schloesser, 45
N.B. 702, 146 Ind. 509, 58 Am.S.R.
367, 36 L.R.A. 59.
69. Or.— Budd v. Gallier, 89 P. 638,
50 Or. 42.
70. Ind. — Johnson v. Schloesser, 45
N.E. 702, 143 Ind. 509, 58 Am.S.R.
367, 3-6 L.R.A. 59.
897
71. Pa. — Appeal of York Bank, 36
Pa. 458.
34 C.J. p 577 note 78.
Duty to inquire
While a purchaser may ordinarily
assume from an entry of satisfac-
tion in the judgment index that the
lien formerly existing has been dis-
charged, nevertheless, where record
discloses circumstance in addition to
entry of satisfaction of judgment
calculated to put purchaser on in-
quiry, he must make inquiry. — First
Nat. Bank v. Walker, 145 A. 804,
296 Pa. 192.
72. Pa.— Coral Gables v. Kerl, 6 A.
2d 275, 334 Pa. 441, 122 A.L.R. 903.
Va. — Citizens Nat Bank v. Manoni,
76 Va. 802.
73. N.T.— In re Guarneri's Will, 26«8
N.Y.-S. 244, 149 Misc. 759.
74. N.Y.— Koudelka v. Koudelka, 12
N.Y.S.2d 148, 171 Misc. 519,
75. , Minn.— Pye v. Magnuson, 227 N.
W. '895, 178 Minn. 531.
76. Minn. — Pye v. Magnuson, su-
pra.
77. CaL — Chapin v. Broder, 16 Cal.
403.
34 C.J. p 577 note 80.
78. Minn.-^Daniels v. Winslow, 4
Minn. 818.
79. N.Y.— Booth v. Farmers' & Me-
§464
JUDGMENTS
49 dJ.S.
not a lien on real estate unless it is docketed in the
county in which the land is situated.80 Where the
judgment does not affirmatively provide that it shall
be a lien on real property, it is essential under some
statutes that it be docketed in the county where
it was rendered in order to become a lien on real-
ty,81 and that the judgment be docketed first in the
county where it was rendered before it may be dock-
eted in another county.82
§ 464.
Indexing
The purpose of a judgment index is to afford con-
structive notice of the Judgment to interested third per-
sons, and under some statutes absence of such an in*
dex of the judgment precludes its attaching as a lien
as far as. concerns the rights of third persons lacking
actual notice of the judgment.
The object of a judgment index is to furnish no-
tice to purchasers, subsequent encumbrancers, and
other interested parties of the existence of the
judgment,83 and due indexing serves as constructive
notice of a judgment lien on the property in-
volved.84 Under the statutes of many states judg-
ments will not operate as liens, except as against
persons with actual notice,85 unless they are not
only docketed or recorded as discussed supra § 463,
but are also indexed.86 However, under a statute
requiring merely that the judgment must be "dock-
eted" before it can be binding as against a pur-
chaser for valuable consideration without notice,
indexing is not necessary even as against such a
purchaser.87 Under some statutes the judgment
must be properly cross-indexed.88
§ 465. Sufficiency to Create Lien
a. In general
b. Names and descriptions of parties
a. In General
The record and index of a Judgment should be suf-
ficiently accurate and complete to afford due notice to
the searcher of all essential facts, although minor in-
accuracies may not be fatal to the lien. Ordinarily the
entry should show the court in which the judgment was
rendered, the date of docketing, and the amount of the
Judgment.
For the purposes of a lien, the record or docket
of a judgment, and the index, should be sufficiently
full, accurate, and explicit to inform intending pur-
chasers or mortgagees of the facts which it is es-
sential for them to know, and such that a reasonably
careful search in the proper quarters will not fail
to disclose the judgment j8^ and since the lien of
a judgment is the creation of statute, it is necessary
to its existence that statutes requiring certain for-
malities of docketing and indexing should be fol-
lowed in all substantial particulars.90 The judg-
chanics' Nat. Bank, 4 Lans. 301,
reversed on other grounds 50 N.Y.
396.
80. Ind. — Pfeiffer Hardware Co. v.
Auburn State Bank of Auburn,
Ind., 8 N.E.2d 398, 104 Ino^App.
472.
Tex, — K'.nsey v. Button, Civ.App., 100
S."W.2d 1025, error dismissed.
34 C.J. p 577 note 82.
Territorial extent of lien of federal
court Judgments see Federal
Courts § 144 1
Strict compliance with statute
Statutory requirement that a judg-
ment .must be docketed in county
where realty is situated must be
strictly complied with for a lien to
be obtained on realty. — Southern
Dairies v. Banks, C.C.A.N.C., 92 F.2d
282, certiorari denied Banks v.
Southern Dairies, 58 S.Ct 368, 302
U.S. 761, 82 L.Ed. 590.
81. Or. — Mason v. Mason, 34 P.2d
328, 148 Or. 34.
82. N.C.—-Essex Inv. Co. v. Pickel-
simer, 137 S.E. '813, 210 N.C. 541.
83. Pa.— Coral Gables v. Kerl, 6 A,
2d 275, 334 Pa. 441, 122 A.L.R. 903.
Indexing transcript of judgment see
supra § 4<62.
84. Pa. — Lambert v. K-Y Transp.
Co., 172 A. 180, U3 Pa.Super. 82.
.86. Iowa. — State Savings Bank v.
Shinn. 109 N.W. 921, 130 Iowa 365,
114 Am.S.R. 424.
34 C.J. p 577 note 86.
88* Ind.— Sullivan State Bank v.
•First Nat Bank, 146 N.EJ. 403, 82
Ind.App. 419.
N.J.— Englese v. Hyde, 166 A. 468,
111 N.J.Law 1.
Okl.— Wilson v. First Nat. Bank, 88
P.2d 628, 184 Okl. 518— Long Bell
Lumber Co. v. Etter, 251 P. 997,
123 Okl. 54.
Pa.— Houser v. Childs, 196 A. 547,
129 Pa.Super. "565 — In re Tourison's
Estate, 22 Pa.Dist & Co. 704, re-
versed on other grounds 184 A. 95,
321 Pa, 299.
34 C.J. p 577 note '8-8.
87. Va. — Old Dominion Granite Co.
v. Clarke, 28 Gratt 617, 69 Va. $17.
W.Va. — Calwell v. Prindle, 19 W.Va.
604.
88. N.C. — Jones v. Currie, 129 S.B.
605, 190 N.C. 2-60.
34 C.J. p 578 note 91.
89. Pa.— Coral Gables v. Kerl, 6 A.
2d 275, 334 Pa. 441, 122 A.L.R. 903.
34 C.JT. p 5'78 note 92.
Degree of accuracy required
(1) "The law places a burden up-
on one who would establish a lien to
docket and index his judgment with
a degree of accuracy sufficient to
lead a reasonably careful searcher to
898
conclude that the lien is against the
object of his search, or to suggest
to the searcher the necessity of in-
quiry to ascertain the fact." — Tioga
Trust Co. v. Home Owners' Loan
Corp., 42 Pa.Dist. & Co. 165, 167.
(2) The law merely requires an
index that will naturally lead the
investigator to a discovery of the
judgment and the Identity of defend-
ant, and, if the index meets such re-
quirement, it has served its legal
purpose. — Coral Gables v. Kerl, 6 A.
2d 275, 334 Pa. 441, 122 A.L.R. 903.
Duty of inquiry
(1) Where indexing and docketing
of judgment contains sufficient in-
formation to put an ordinarily pru-
dent person upon guard, inquiry be-
comes a duty, and, if an investiga-
tion, reasonably pursued, would dis-
close identity of Judgment debtor,
subsequent lienor is bound by notice
of previous Judgments, even though
inaccurately recorded. — Coral Gables
v. Kerl, supra.
(2) A purchaser of land is affect-
ed with such notice as the judgment
docket and index entries afford, and
is under a duty to make such investi-
gation as the entries would suggest
to a prudent man. — Henry v. Sand-
ers, 193 S.B. 15, 212 N.C. 239.
90. Or.— Western Loan & Savings
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 465
ment should be entered in the proper book,9* and
in the proper county or district,92 and the record
should show, among other things, the court in which
the judgment was rendered,93 the date of docket-
ing,94 and the name of the judgment creditor or
owner of the judgment, and that of the debtor, as
discussed infra subdivision b of this section. Re-
quirements that the judgment docket show the na-
ture of the case, and the name of the attorney for
the creditor, have been held to be directory only.95
Immaterial inaccuracies are not fatal to the lien.96
If a judgment was by mistake rendered and en-
rolled against the wrong party, it cannot be correct-
ed except as between the real parties to the judg-
ment, and before the rights of bona fide purchasers
intervene.97 The recording of the judgment or or-
der of the court, and not of its mere opinion or di-
rection to enter an order, is required to create a
lien on real property.98
Amount of judgment. The entry should show
the amount of the judgment debt.99 This require-
ment involves the necessity of showing the kind of
money in which it is payable,1 and the amount or
rate of interest.2 Failure of the record of the judg-
ment to include the amount of the costs will de-
feat the lien only to the extent of the costs.8 The
use of numerals without a dollar sign or other in-
dication that the figures represent dollars in stating
the amount of the judgment is not fatal where, the
omission is supplied by an accompanying entry,
which is properly a descriptive part of the judg-
ment, showing that the figures refer to dollars;4
and it has been held that such an omission is not
fatal if the columns of figures are separated by a
vertical line marking off the cents from the dollars
according to the practice of bookkeepers.6
b. Names and Descriptions of Parties '
Generally, the docket and Index should name and
describe the parties to the Judgment with a degree of
accuracy sufficient to afford constructive notice of the
judgment, and the surname and Christian name of the
party should be given with substantial correctness, al-
though initials may sometimes be used for first and mid-
dle names.
As between the judgment creditor and judgment
debtor a judgment may afford a valid lien despite
inaccuracies or omissions in the docket or index in
respect of the names or descriptions of the parties.6
In order to make the lien of a judgment effective as
against third persons, however, it is ordinarily nec-
essary that the docket and index should disclose the
names of both parties, plaintiff as well as defend-
ant, and designate them with such a degree of .ac-
curacy as to charge persons searching such records
with notice of the judgment or to put them on in-
quiry.7 An entry substantially correct is sufficient
especially as against a person who has not been
misled thereby.8 Generally speaking* the question
Co. v. Currey, 65 P. 360, 39 Or. 407,<
87 Am.S.R. -660.
34 C.J. p 578 note 93.
91. Fla. — Curry v. Lehman, 49 So.
673, 57 Fla, 385.
34 C.J. p 579 note 94.
92. N.Y. — Lanning v. Carpenter, 48
N.Y. 408.
34 C.J. p 579 note 95.
Place of recording: generally see su-
pra § 463.
93. Or. — Western Loan & Savings
Co. v. Currey, <6£ P. 360, 39 Or. 407,
87 Am.S.R. 660.
34 C.J. p '579 note 96.
94. Pa,— Home Sav. Fund v. Bang,
173 A. 891, 113 Pa.Super. 400.
34 C.J. p 579 note 97.
Failure to enter hour not fatal
Pa. — Home Sav. Fund v. King, su-
pra.
95. N.M. — Cannon v. First Nat.
Bank, 291 P. 924, 35 N.M. 193.
9ft, ET.Y. — Sears v. Mack, -2 Bradf.
Surr. 394, affirmed 17 N.Y. 445.
34 C.J. P 579 note 3.
97. Miss. — Allen West Commn. Co.
v. Millstead, 46 So. 256, 92 Miss.
837, 131 Am.S.R. -556.
Judgment or amendment nunc pro
tune see infra § 469.
96. Cal.— Zagoren v. Hall, 10 P.2d
202, 122 CaLApp. 460.
99. La. — Lirette v. Carrane, 27 La.
Ann. 29*8.
34 C.J, p 532 note 49.
1. U.S.— In re Boyd, C.C.Or.f 3 'F.
Cas.No.1,746, 4 Sawy. 262.
34 C.J. p 532 note 50.
2. U.S.— In re Boyd, supra.
34 C.J. p 582 note 51.
3. Mo. — Green v. Meyers, 72 6.W.
128, 98 MO.AP-P. 438.
Wash.— ^Lamey v. Coffman, 39 P. 682,
11 Wash. 301.
4> U.S.— In re Boyd, C.C.Or., 3 F.
Cas.No.1,746, 4 Sawy. 262.
5. CaL — Dyke v. Orange Bank, 27 P.
•304, 90 Cal. 397.
6- U.S.— In re MacNulty, D.C.Pa.,
4 'F.Supp. 93.
7. N.C. — Jones v. Currie, 129 S.E.
605, 190 N.C. 260.
Pa.— Houser v. Childs, 196 A. 547, 129
Pa. Super. -565.
34 C.J. p 579 note 8.
Appearance in transcript insufficient
Where name of judgment creditor
did not appear in judgment entered
899
on docket of superior court of coun-
ty in which debtor's realty was sit-
uated, or in cross index of such
docket, Judgment was not valid lien
on such land, although judgment
creditor's name appeared in caption
and body of transcript from county
in which judgment was rendered. —
Jones v. Currie, 129 S.B. 605, 190 N.
C. '260.
Same name in which asset registered
If a judgment creditor desires to
bind a particular asset of the debtor
as against a future purchaser or a
mortgagee, the burden is on him to
see that his judgment is recorded
and indexed in the same name as
that in which the asset is registered.
— Tioga Trust Co., to Use of v. Home
Owners' Loan Corporation, 42 Pa.
I>ist & Co. 165.
Basis of judgment
Where a judgment is correctly in-
dexed in the name of the judgment
debtor* the indexing constitutes le-
gal notice of the lien of the judg-
ment, even though the latter was
rendered on a note signed by the
judgment debtor by an undeciphera-
ble, although genuine, signature. —
Ad>lson v. Kocher, 36 A.2d 737, 154
Pa* Super. 548.
8. Ind. — Day v. Worland, 92 Ind. 75.
§465
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
whether an error, omission, or variance in the dock-
et or index in respect of the names of the parties
is of such material or substantial character as to
render it ineffective as constructive notice of the
judgment is one on which it is difficult, if not im-
possible, to formulate a rule;* eaph case is depend-
ent on its peculiar facts, and the question whether
the name found in the index is such as to put the
searcher on inquiry is, as a rule, one of fact and
not of law.10
Alphabetical order. It has been held that a judg-
ment will not be deemed to have been indexed if
the names are not listed in alphabetical order;11
there is, however, authority to the contrary.12 The
surname should precede the Christian name and it
determines the alphabetical order.13
Joint plaintiffs or defendants; firm name. Where
there are several plaintiffs or defendants, the names
of all the parties should be indexed correctly,14 al-
though, if the names of all the defendants are not
indexed, the judgment has been held to operate as
a lien on the property of defendant against whom
the index is made.1* Where the judgment is
against a firm, the names of the individual partners
must be set out.16
Surnames. A misspelling of the surname has
been held to defeat the lien,1? although in other
cases such a misspelling may be immaterial because
of the application of the rule of idem sonans, where
the names would be pronounced alike," and the va-
riance to the eye is not substantial.1* While the
term "junior" or "senior" may be a means of dis-
tinguishing between a father and son who bear the
same name, it has been held no part^of either's
name, and hence not required to be included in
the docket entry of a judgment against either, al-
though the other bearing the same name resides in
the same county.20 There is, however, authority to
the effect that, if such term is used, it becomes mat-
ter of material description and will operate to post-
pone the lien of a judgment so entered and indexed
to judgments subsequently entered and indexed
without such suffix.21
Christian names. Although there is some author-
ity to the contrary,22 it is the general rule that the
index and docket must show the correct first or
Christian name23 or the first initial thereof.24 This
9. Iowa.— Gilbert v. Berry, 180 N. ,
W. 148, 190 Iowa 170.
10. Iowa.— Gilbert v. Berry, supra.
11. OkL — -Wilson v. First Nat.
Bank, 88 P.2d 628, 184 Okl. 518—
Long Bell Lumber Co. v. Etter,
251 P. 997, 123 Okl. 54.
34 C.J. p &81 note 45.
12. CaL— Hibberd v. Smith, 30 CaL
511.
13. CaL — Hibberd v. Smith, supra.
14. Va.— Richardson v. Gardner, 105
S.E. 225, 12-8 Va. -678.
34 C.J. p 581 note 36.
Bfo lieu as affaburt omitted defendant
Where a Judgment was obtained
against five defendants, but was en-
tered in Judgment dockets only once,
and was not repeated under name of
each defendant in alphabetical order,
as reauired by statute, the Judgment
not indexed under Judgment debtor's
name did not become a Hen on his
real estate located in such county, —
Sullivan State Bank v. First Nat.
Bank, 146 N.R 403, Sa.md.App. 419.
15. MfnT*. — Whitacre v. Martin, -53
N.W. 806, 51 Minn. 4'21.
Tex. — Blum v. Keyser, 28 S.W. 561,
8 Tex.Civ.App. 675.
16L Miss. — Hughes T. Lacock, 63
Miss. 112.
34 CXJ. p 581 note 40.
17. Iowa.— -SStna Life Ins. Co.
Hesser, 42 N.W. 825, 77 Iowa 381,
14 Am.S.R. 297, 4 L.K.A. 122.
34 <XJ. p 580 note 15.
Creditor's duty
A Judgment creditor must see that
the docket of the Judgment is in
debtor's correct name.— Berkowitz v.
Dam, 202 N.Y.S. 584, 122 Misc. 143,
affirmed 207 N.Y.S. 811, "212 ApP-Div.
836.
Particular namei misspelled
(1) Judgment recovered against
"Max Soicher," but docketed against
"Max SorcheT."-i-Berkowitz v. Dam,
supra,
(2) Judgment docketed against
"Weisner" was not lien on premises
purchased from "Wiesner." — Stark v.
Wiesner, 214 N.Y.S. 292, 12«6 Misc.
620.
ia Pa.— Myer v. -Fegaly, 39 Pa. 429,
80 Am.D. 534.
34 C.J. p 580 note 17.
Idem sonans see the C.J.S. title
Names § 14, also 45 C.J. «p 383 note
10-p 390 note 42.
19. Pa.— Appeal of Bergman, #8 Pa.
123.
34 C.J, p 5-80 note 18.
20. Minn. — Bidwell v. Coleman, 11
Minn. 7-8.
21. Pa. — Rusterholtz v. Brown, 10
PaJMst. 21.
22. Cal.— Hibberd v. Smith, 50 CaL
511.
34 C.J. p 580 note 22.
23. N.J.— Bnglese v. Hyde, 166 A-
468, 111 N.J.Law 1.
34 C.J. p 580 note 23.
OmiffvLoiL from docket
If the first, or Christian, name of
900
a defendant is not entered on Judg-
ment docket the Judgment, although
valid as between the parties, will not
affect subsequent purchasers or
udgment creditors. — Coral Gables v.
Kerl, -6 A.2d 275, 334 Pa. 441, 122 A.
L.R. 903.
Incorrect Christian name
(1) A Judgment recorded and in-
dexed in the name of "Mikola Borys"
did not constitute "constructive no-
tice" of a Judgment against "Nikolai
Borys."— Jaczyszyn v. Paslawski, 24
A.2d 116, 147 Pa.Super. 97.
(2) The indexing of a Judgment
against "Lucy" Christopher is not
constructive notice of a Judgment
against "Lucille" Christopher so as
to afford a lien against the land of
the latter. — Troffo v. Camlone, 16 Pa.
Dist & Co. 92, 79 Pittsb.Leg.J. SI,
21 DeLCo. 234, 45 York Leg.Bec. 83,
13 Erie Co. 25.
24. Pa. — Coral Gables v. Kerl, 6 A.
2d 275, 334 Pa, 441, 122 A.L.K. 903.
34 C.J. p 580 note 24.
Sufficiency of Initial
A Judgment indexed and docketed
against the Judgment debtor's cor-
rect surname and initial of Christian
name is sufficient to constitute con-
structive notice to subsequent en-
cumbrancers, at least where debtor
is well known by the shortened des-
ignation,, but, if initials are em-
ployed instead of Christian names,
errors therein are as fatal as in the
names themselves.— Coral Gables v.
Kerl, supra.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§465
rule, however, must have a reasonable construc-
tion.25 While the indexing of the Christian name
by which defendant is generally known is not, as a
general rule, sufficient,26 it is generally known that
certain first or Christian names are interchangeably
used, and the initial and dominant letters of each
are identical, indicating to the eye that they are
the same and giving the same sound and substance
to each, and the judgment index must be searched
for each;27 and it has been suggested that, where
two Christian names are in original derivation the
same, and are taken to be the same in common use,
although they differ in sound or spelling, a judg-
ment entered under one is notice of a lien against
property held under the other.28 Where the judg-
ment debtor has ceased to use the first of his two
Christian names, a judgment docketed against him
by the second of such names only has been held in-
sufficient, even though the judgment itself was ren-
dered in that form ;29 but it has been held otherwise
where it appeared that the person attacking the lien
knew that the judgment debtor's name was used in
several forms and it also appeared that he had not
been prejudiced by the fact that only the second of
the debtor's riames was used in docketing.80
Middle initial. The erroneous omission or intro-
duction of a middle initial in defendant's name, or a
mistake in such middle initial, has been held to pre-
vent the judgment from having effect as a lien,31 al-
though such an error or omission may be immate-
rial where the circumstances are such that the iden-
tification is sufficient,32 and some decisions follow
the view that middle initials are generally unimpor-
tant83
Married women. If defendant is a married wo-
man, the docket and index must show her own
Christian name, the use of that of her husband be-
ing insufficient,34 except as against a person who
knows her identity.35 A subsequent innocent pur-
chaser from a judgment debtor, conveying by her
married name property acquired under such mar-
ried name, takes title freed from the lien of a judg-
ment docketed against the debtor by her maiden
name,36 and it has been held that this is the rule,
even though the purchaser knew of her maiden
name,37 but it has also been held that such knowl-
edge permits the judgment to operate as a lien.38
The rule requiring use of a party's middle initial to
render the judgment effective as a lien has been ap-
plied to invalidate a claimed judgment lien against
property held by husband and wife as tenants by
the entirety where the husband's name was correct-
ly indexed in the judgment docket but the wife's
middle initial was omitted.39
25. Pa.— Burns v, Ross, 64 A. 526,
•215 Pa. 203, 7 L.R.A..N.S., 415, 114
Am.S.R. 963,
Letter perfect
In order to constitute 'constructive
notice, it is not necessary that the
name of the Judgment debtor as
docketed and indexed be letter per-
fect.—Coral Gables v. Kerl, 6 A.2d
275, 334 Pa. 441, 122 A.L.R. 903.
2Qt pa. — Burns v. Ross, 64 A. S26,
215 Pa. 293, 114 Am.S.R. 963, 7 L.
R.A..N.S., 415.
34 C.J. P 580 note 26.
27. Pa.— Burns v, Ross, supra.
•34 C.J. p 580 note 27.
A common variant of the first
name in indexing and docketing: a
judgment is unobjectionable. — Coral
Gables v. Kerl, 6 A.2d 275, 334 Pa.
441, 122 A.L.R. 903.
28. N.T.— H. R. & C. Co. v. Smith,
151 N.B. 448, 242 N.T. 267, 45 A.L.
R. 554.
Derivatives and corruptions of
names generally see the C.J.S. ti-
tle Names § 8, also 45 C.J. p 375
note 97-p 376 note 1.
Limitation of decision
The court offering this suggestion
was careful to limit its actual deci-
sion to a holding that "Bess" and
"Elizabeth" were so far the same as
to make docketing of a Judgment un-
der one, notice of a lien against
property listed under the other. —
H. R. & C. Co. v. Smith, supra.
. Ind.^Johnson v. Hess, 25 N.E.
445, 126 Ind. 298, 9 X..R.A. 471.
34 C. J. p 580 note 28.
3a N.J.— Tucker v. Morris, 9'8 A.
•259, 86 N.J.Eq. 131.
34 C.J. p 580 note 29.
31. N.D. — Turk v. Benson, 152 N.W.
354, '30 N.D. 200, L.R.A.1915D 1221.
Pa.— Arch St. Building & -Loan Ass'n
v. Sook, 158 A. 595, 104 Pa.Super.
269.
34 C.J. p 581 note 34.
l Pa.— Coral Gables v. Kerl, 6 A.
2d 273, 334 Pa. 441, 122 A.L.R. 903.
34 C.J. p 581 note 35.
TTnturoai name
A Judgment docketed and indexed
in the name of "Caroline Kerl" con-
stituted constructive notice of a
judgment against "Caroline^. Kerl,"
in view of fact that name was un-
usual and used by no other person
in the county and that debtor was
not more generally known by name
with initial than without it; and
hence Judgment creditor owning
judgment docketed in name of "Car-
oline Kerl". was entitled to a prior
lien on Judgment debtor's real estate
as against owner of a subsequently
acquired Judgment docketed against
Caroline C. Kerl."— Coral Gables .v
Kerl, supra.
901
33. N.T. — Grygorewicz v. Domestic
and Foreign Discount Corporation,
40 N.T.S.2d 676, 179 Misc. 1017.
34C.J. p'581 note 3 5.
t. Va.— Mulford v. Aiken, 39 S.E.
•231, 99 Va. 60-6, 86 Am.S.R. 914.
34 C.J. p 581 note 30.
35. Mont. — Poulos v. Lyman Bros.
Co., 208 P. 598, -63 Mont. 561.
34 C.J. p 581 note 31.
36. Cal. — Huff v. Sweetser, 97 P.
705, 8 CalJVpp. 689.
37. Cal. — Huff v. Sweetser, supra.
38. N.C.— Henry v. Sanders, 193 S.
B. 15, 212 N.C. 239.
ailure to inform title searcher
A Judgment entered against an un-
married woman in her name at that
time and docketed shortly after her
marriage and consequent change of
name constituted lien on her after-
acquired realty enforceable against
purchaser who had actual knowledge
of the vendor's name before her mar-
riage, notwithstanding purchaser did
not inform his attorney employed to
examine title of former name of ven-
dor.—Henry v. Sanders, supra,
39, pa.— Arch St Building & Loan
Ass'n v. Sook, 158 A. -595, 104 Pa.
Super. 269.
§ 466 JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
§ 466* Commencement of Lien
a. In general
b. Relation back
a. In General
The date when a judgment Hen commences is gen-
erally fixed by statute, and may attach on rendition, fil-
ing, or recording of the Judgment. A judgment lien ordi-
narily attaches to after- acquired property on the date
of its acquisition.
Statutes may validly fix the time of commence-
ment of a judgment lien,40 and, depending on the
provisions thereof, the lien of a judgment may com-
mence from the date of its actual rendition or pro-
nouncement,41 or entry,42 or from the time of filing
the judgment for record,43 or from the day on
which it is recorded, docketed, or registered,44 or
from the date of filing or recording of an abstract
of the judgment.45 Under some practice, where two
or more judgments are rendered against the same
person at the same term, the liens may be regard-
ed as concurrent and as commencing on the last day
of the term.46 Where two judgments rendered be-
tween the same parties at different times are entire-
ly distinct from one another and the Hen of the ear-
lier judgment has expired before the recovery of the
other, the latter judgment does not become a lien on
land subject to the earlier judgment but conveyed
prior to the entry of the later judgment.47
Fractions of day. Where justice so requires, the
law will take account of the fraction of a day in de-
termining when the lien of a judgment took effect.48
Judgments against nonresidents. The statutes of
some jurisdictions provide that in the case of judg-
ments rendered in a county other than that in which
the debtor resides the lien takes effect only from the
time when a certified copy of the judgment is 'reg-
istered in the county where he resides or, if he does
not reside in the state, in the county where the land
lies.49
The judgment of an appellate court does not be-
come a judgment of the court appealed from so as
to effect a lien in the jurisdiction of the lower court
until the judgment is adopted by the lower court
and entered on its minutes, the mere filing of the
40. 'Wash.— Seattle Brewing & Malt-
ing: Co. v. Donofrio, 109 P. 335,
59 Wash. 98.
Statute- construed.
Pa, — Calhoon v. Newton, 40 Pa.Dist.
& Co. 123.
41. U.S.— Whitaker & Co. v. Grable,
C.C.A.Ark., 109 F.2d 710— In re
Levinson, D.C.Wash., 5 F.2d 75.
111.— Rawlins v. Launer, 17 N.E.2d
330, 369 111. 494— Normal State
Bank v. Killian, 4-8 N.E.2d 212, 318
IlLApp. 637, reversed on other
grounds 54 IST.E.2d 539, 386 111. 449.
Neb. — Guaranty Fund Commission
v. Teichmeier, 229 N.W. 121, 119
Neb. 3S7.
Pa. — Moore v. Schell, 99 Pa.Super.
81 — Irwin' v. Zahniser, Com.PL, 21
Erie Co. 120.
Va.— Jones v. Hall, 15 S.E.2d 108, 177
Va. 658.
34 C.J. p 582 note 58.
Bate from which judgment lien is
computed for purposes of deter-
mining- its duration see infra §§
489-491.
Date of lien as affecting priorities
see infra §§ 483-485.
Statute held operative
Statute providing that judgments
bind defendant's property from date
thereof, except as otherwise provid-
ed in code, was not repealed by, or
did not conflict with, statute provid-
ing exception to rule thereof.-rCom-
mercial Credit Co. of Georgia v.
Jones Motor Co., 167 S.E. 7'68, 46 Ga.
App. 464.
42. Del. — In re Andrews' Estate, 34
A.2d 700, 3 Terry 376.
Md. — Messinger v. Eckenrode, 158 A.
357, 162 Hd. 63.
Wash.— Heath v. Dodson, 110 P.2d
845, 7 Wash.2d 667.
43. La. — Godchaux Sugars, Inc. v.
Leon Boudreaux & Bros., 96 So.
532, 153 La. 685.
Time of fll*ing rather than of record-
ing-
Under statute, judgments are ef-
fective against third persons from
the time of filing, and not from the
date of recording; mere deposit of
judgment with clerk to be recorded,
without being stamped with clerk's
filing mark, is not a "filing" as to
time of taking effect, especially when
deposit was made in court room, and
not in clerk's office. — Godchaux Su-
gars, Inc., v. Leon Boudreaux &
Bros., supra.
4ft. CaL— McGrath v. Kaelin, 225 P.
34, 66 CaLApp. 41.
La. — Henry v. Roque, App., 18 So.2d
917.
Minn. — Lowe v. Reierson, 276 N.W.
224, 201 Minn. 280.
N.C.— Jones v. Rhea, 151 S.E. 255,
198 N.C.,190.
Okl. — Walters Motor Co. v. Mus-
grove, 75 P.2d 471, Ml Okl. 540.
Wis.— R. F. Gehrke Sheet Metal
Works v. Mahl, 297 N.W. 373, 237
Wis. 414— C. Hennecke Co. v. Co-
lumbia Lodge, No. 11, K. P., 287 N.
W. 742, 233 Wis. 24.
34 C.J. p &S2 note 59.
Relation back of lien to date of ren-
dition of judgment after due en-
rollment see infra subdivision b of
this section.
902 .
Entry in docket rather than journal
Judgment is a lien from time of
entry in judgment docket, not jour-
nal, "judgment docket" and "jour-
nal" being different. — In re Staples,
D.C.Okl., 1 F.Supp. -620.
Docketing1 without entry in county
recorder's office
Under statute pr&viding that
judgment is lien on realty then own-
ed by judgment debtor or thereafter
acquired by him from the time the
judgment is docketed, lien of judg-
ment of district court exists from
the time of docketing judgment, even
though judgment is not carried into
records of county recorder. — Gaines
v. Van Demark, 74 P.2d 454, 106
Mont. 1.
45. U.S. — In re Levinson, D.C.
Wash., 5 F.2d 75.
Tex. — John F. Grant Lumber Co. v.
Hunnteutt, Civ. App., 143 S.W.2d
976 — Cheatham v. Mann, Civ. App.,
133 S.W.2d 264, error refused.
46. Mo. — Bradley v. Hefferman, 57
S.W. 763, 156 Mo. 653.
34 C.J. p 583 note 63 [a], [b].
47. CaL— Murphy v. Riecks, 180 P.
15, 40 CaLApp. 1.
48. 'N.J.— Gallagher v. True Ameri-
can Pub. Co., 71 A. 741, 75 N.J.Eo;.
171, 138 Am.S.R. 514.
Tenn. — Murfree v. Carmack, 4 Yerg.
270, 26 Am.D. 232.
49. Tenn. — Massachusetts Mut. Life
Ins. Co. v. Taylor Implement & Ve-
hicle Co., 195 S.W. 762, 138 Tenn.
28.
34 C.J. p 584 note 79.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
466
mandate to the lower court directing a decree be-
ing insufficient.50 Where an appellate court ren-
ders such judgment as the lower court should have
rendered, the lien, in some jurisdictions, dates from
the filing in the lower court of a special mandate
from the appellate court.51
Lien on after-acquired lands. Ordinarily, the lien
on after-acquired property attaches at the time of
the acquisition of the property, not as of the time
of docketing of the judgment52 The date of dock-
eting the judgment rather than the date of acquir-
ing the property may, however, be considered the
date of commencement for purposes of computing
the duration of the lien, as discussed infra § 489.
The lien of a judgment at law on an equitable in-
terest in land attaches only as of the date of filing a
bill in chancery.53
b. Relation Back
Under varying local practice, the Hen of a Judgment
may relate back and attach at some time previous to
the date of its rendition, entry, or enrollment, as where
a judgment rendered during the term becomes a lien as
of the fir sit day thereof; but exceptions to the rule of
relation back may be made where necessary for the pro-
tection of the intervening rights of innocent third per-
sons.
Under some practice, either by deduction from
the common-law rule that judgments of a court of
record, on whatever day of the term they may in
fact be rendered, relate to and are considered as
judgments of the first day of the term, or under
express statutory enactments, judgment liens relate
back to the first day of the term at which they were
rendered.54 Under other practice a judgment may
relate back to the date of its rendition on due en-
rollment within the time limited by statute,55 but,
where a judgment is enrolled after expiration of
the time limit, the lien of the judgment does not
relate back but dates only from the time of enroll-
ment.56 It has also been held that as between the
parties the effective date of a judgment rendered on
one day and entered on another may relate back to
the date of rendition by an order nunc pro tune, as
discussed infra § 469, and that, under particular
statutes and rules of court, judgment entered five
days after rendition is a lien from the date of ren-
dition notwithstanding an order giving plaintiff four
days in which to enter judgment.57 Where at the
time of the filing of an abstract of judgment the
judgment debtor no longer owns certain property,
the filing cannot relate back and make the judgment
a lien on the property theretofore owned by the
debtor.58
While as a rule the lien of a judgment does not
relate back to the time of the accrual of the cause
of action^ it may relate back to the time of a lien
obtained under another proceeding or transaction,
as in the case where there has been an attach-
ment,60 likewise as in the case where there has
50. Tenn. — Massachusetts Mut. Life
Ins. Co. v. Taylor Implement & Ve-
hicle Co., supra.
51- Neb. — Harvey v. Godding, 109 N.
W. 220, 7*7 Neb. 289, 124 Am.S.R.
841.
52. U.S. — Commercial Credit Co. v,
Davidson, C.C.A.Miss., 112 F.2d 54,
Ala.— W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. Patter-
son, 195 So. 729, '239 Ala. 309.
Cal.— Hertweck v. Fearon, 179 P. 190,
179 Cal. 71.
Fla.— B. A. Lott, Inc., v. Padgett, 14
So.2d 667, 153 Fla. 304. ,
Ind.— Peet v. Beers, 4 Ind. 4<6.
Tex.— Baker v. West, 36 S.W.2d -695,
120 Tex. 113.
34 C.J. p 591 note 49.
After-acquired property as subject to
judgment lien see infra § 477.
Property acqtilred "by inheritance
A recorded judgment against dece-
dent's daughter attached to daugh-
ter's interest in decedent's land eo
instante on decedent's death, and co-
incident with vesting of title to in-
heritance in daughter. — Coomes v.
Finegan, 7 N.W.2d 729, 233 Iowa 448.
An estate toy the entireties of a
husband and wife in a tract of land
ceased on wife's death and tract
vested in husband, whereupon lien of
judgment confessed by husband in
favor of wife -prior to her death, and
duly docketed by transcript in coun-
ty where tract was situate, immedi-
ately attached and took precedence
over lien created by deed of trust
executed by husband without joinder
of his wife subsequent to confession
of the judgment but prior to wife's
death.— Keel v. Bailey, 198 S.E. 454,
214 N.C. 169.
Order of rendition immaterial
All judgments which are in exist-
ence when the property is acquired
attach to it as of that instant, with-
out reference to the order of their
rendition.— Hulbert v. Hulbert, 111
N.BL 70, 216 N.Y. 430, L.R.A.1916D
661, Ann.Cas.l917D 180—34 C.J. P
591 note 51.
53. N.J.— McLaughlin v. Whaland,
13 A.2d 573, 127 N.J.Bq. 393.
54. Ohio.— Cleveland Ry. Co. v.
Williams, 155 N.E. 133, 115 Ohio
St. 584 — Casaro v. Humphrey, 162
N.B. 645, 28 Ohio App. 255.
34 C.J. p 583 note 61.
55. Miss.— Kalmia Realty '& Insur-
ance Co. v. Hopkins, 141 'So. 903,
163 Miss. 556.
56. Miss.— Kalmia Realty & Insur-
ance Co. v. Hopkins, supra.
903
57. B.C.— Gilfillin v. Rector, 126 S.
B. 761, 131 S.C. '84.
58. Tex. — Gamer v. Love, Civ.App.,
41 S.W.2d 356, error dismissed.
59. 111.— Heckmann v. Detlafl, 119
N.B. 639, 2-83 111. 505.
34 C.J. s> 583 note 64.
The mere bringing- of suit by cred-
itor does not create a lien on real es-
tate.—In re Michael, I>.C.Pa., '31 -P.
Supp. 41.
60. Fla. — McClellan v. Solomon, 2
So. -825, 23 OTa. 437.
34 C.J. p 583 note 65.
Finding- for defendant on attachment
If, after an issue on a traverse
to 'plaintiffs affidavit is found for
defendant, judgment is obtained on
merits, it does not date from time of
levy as provided by statute but takes
lien on property attached from date
of judgment only. — Blakely Milling &
Trading Co. v. Thompson, 128 S.E.
688, 34 Ga.App. 129.
Tardy filing
Where statute provides that, if a
judgment lien be placed on real es-
tate attached in the suit within four
months after, such judgment was
rendered, it shall hold as a lien from
the date of the attachment, filing of
a lien based on the judgment is too
§466
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
been a statutory lien,81 or mortgage,62 where a
judgment is rendered on a bond payable to the
state,6* on a forfeited writ of error bond,64 or on
a scire facias to revive an original judgment.65
Exceptions to the doctrine that a judgment re-
lates back may be made in the case of default judg-
ments,66 or judgments rendered prior to the statute
creating the lien.67 or where it is held that a judg-
ment could not relate back to the first day of the
term because the case was not then in condition for
judgment,68 or because the court was not then in
session,69 and, generally, the doctrine of relation
back may be held inapplicable where it is necessary
to protect the rights of an intervening purchaser
in good faith.70 A judgment by confession ordi-
narily becomes a lien from the date of confession,71
or from the date of the confirmation of the confes-
sion,72 and the rule that a judgment becomes a lien
as of the first day of the term at which it was en-
tered has been held inapplicable to a judgment by
confession on the theory that the date of signing
a confession judgment controls as the date on which
the lien attaches.73
§ 457. Lien of Transferred Judgment
The Hen of a transferred Judgment ordinarily at-
taches as of the date of transfer, provided there has
been due compliance with statutory requirements.
Where, in order to render the judgment a lien
on property in a county other than that in which
the judgment was rendered, a statute requires an
abstract or transcript of the judgment to be filed,
entered, or docketed in such other county, the lien
will not commence in such county until the statute
is complied with.74 It has been held that a trans-
ferred judgment becomes a lien in the county to
which it has been transferred as of the date of
transfer,75 even though the lien in the county
where the judgment was entered has expired from
lapse of time.76
§ 468. Necessity of Issue of Execution
Under many statutes a Judgment is a lien against
the debtor's realty, but not his personalty, irrespective
of the issuance of execution, but, where the Judgment
has not been duly filed or docketed, etc., in compliance
with statutory requirements, levy of execution may be
essential to subject realty to a lien.
Except in the few jurisdictions where a judgment
does not of itself bind land,77 it has generally been
late to relate back to the date of the
attachment where the filing: occurs
more than four months from the
date of the original trial court judg-
ment, even though within four
months of its affirmance by an appel-
late court. — Qity Nat Bank v.
Stoeckel, 132 A. 20, 103 Conn. 732.
81. Pa.— Moore v, Schell, 99 Pa.Su-
per. 81.
34 C.J. p 583 note 66.
Mechanic1* lien.
(1) While a fieri facias issued on
a special judgment would cover the
entire estate which an owner had in
lands at the time when building was
begun, or which he thereafter ac-
quired, .a general judgment cannot
relate back to the date of the statu-
tory mechanic's lien or become a lien
on the lands of the owner and de-
fendant prior to the date of entering
such judgment. — McKibbin v. Pekar-
sky, 143 A. 553, 103 N.J.Eq. 450.
(2) Where a laborer, mechanic, or
material furnisher files notice of
claim in the clerk's office, and judg-
ment is subsequently entered in an
action by him in his favor, but only
as a general creditor, his right to a
statutory lien being specifically de-
nied, the lien of such judgment does
not relate back to the date when the
notice of claim was filed, but the lien
attaches only from the date of the
judgment — Francisco v. Pine Clifte
Camp and Country Club* 139 S.E. 443,
194 N.C, 3-20.
82. Pa.— In re Moore, 3 A.2d 31, 133
Pa.Super. 419— Fisher, for Use of
Buck v. McFarland, 167 A. 877, 110
Pa.Super. 184 — Moore v. Schell,
Pa.Super. 81 — Hollenbach v.
Kuhns, Com.Pl., 18 LehjLuJ. 418.
34 C.J. p '583 note 67.
63. Ind. — Shane v. (Francis, 30 Ind.
92.
64. Tex.— Hickcock v. Bell, 46 Tex,
610 — Berry v. Shuler, 25 Tex.Su-ppL
140.
65. Pa. — Appeal of Beta, 1 Penr. &
W. 271.
66. Del. — Citizens' -Loan Ass'n v.
Martin, 40 A. 1108, 15 Pel. 213.
34 C.J. p 584 note 75.
67. D.C.— Ohio Nat Bank v. Berlin,
26 App. 218.
68. Va. — Tates v. Robertson, *0 Va.
475.
34 C.J. p 584 note 72.
Cross petition
Lien of judgment given holder of
second mortgage in foreclosure suit
was held not to date back to first day
of term where mortgagee filed cross
petition as to indebtedness secured
by second mortgage during term at
which judgment was rendered. — Ex-
change Nat Bank of Osborne v.
Warne, «7 P.2d 46, 143 Kan. 797.
69. Neb.-— Parrott v. Wolcott, 106
N.W. 607, 75 Neb. 530.
34 C.J. p 584 note 73.
70. N.C.— Fowle v. McLean, 84 S.E.
852, 168 N.C. 537.
34 C.J. -p 584 note 77.
904
71. Va. — American Bank & Trust
Co. v. National Bank of Suffolk,
196 S.E. 693, 170 Va. 169.
W.Va. — Hockman v. Hockman, 25 S.
E. 534, 93 Va. 45'5.
73. Miss.— Bass v. Estill, 50 Miss.
300.
73. Ohio.— Riddle v. Bryan, 5 Ohio
48.
74. Neb.— Rathbone Co. v. Kimball,
220 N.W. 244, 117 Neb. 229, certio-
rari denied Kimball v. Rathbone
Co., 49 S.Ct 179, 278 U.S. 655, 73
L.Ed. 564.
34 C.J. p 584 note 82.
Entry on judgment record
Transcript of judgment of district
court filed in another county is not
lien on property until entered on
latter county's judgment record. —
Rathbone Co. v. Kimball, 220 N.W.
244, 117 Neb. 229, certiorari denied
Kimball v. Rathbone Co., 49 S.Ct
179, '278 U.S. 655, 73 I/.Bd. 564.
75. Pa.— In re Higgins' Estate, 188
A. 831, 325 Fa. 106— Shotts & Co.
v. Agnew & Barnett, 'SI Pa. Super.
45<8.
76. Pa.— In re Higgins' Estate, Ii88
A. 831, 325 Pa. 106.
77. U.S. — Coxpn* Juris gaoted in
Von Segerlund v. Dysart, C.C.A.
CaL, 137 P.2d 755, 737.
•34 C.J. p 584 note 84.
Xa Cteoxgi*
(1) It is -provided that a judgment
shall not constitute a lien on the
property of defendant from the ren-
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
469
the rule under the statutes that a judgment attach-
es as a lien without, the use of any process,78 ex-
cept as to property which is not usually subject to
the lien of a judgment, but can be made so by the
levy of an execution, as trust property or person-
alty,79 or where the' lien is to be extended to the
property of a person other than the principal de-
fendant, such as a surety,80 or, in some jurisdic-
tions, against property in a foreign county.81
Where, however, there has been a failure to com-
ply with statutory requirements as to docketing or
filing the judgment or an abstract thereof, issuance
of execution, and in some instances levy thereof,
may become essential to creation of a lien even on
real property.82
As discussed supra § 454, in the absence of stat-
ute, no lien results from a judgment before issu-
ance of execution.
§ 469. Judgment or Amendment Nunc
Pro Tune
A judgment entered nunc pro tune may afford a
lien as of the earlier date as between the Immediate par-
ties;- but as respects the intervening rights of third
persons the lien will generally be held to run from the
later date, and an amendment of judgment will not as
a rule affect the rights of such persons.
As between the parties a judgment entered nunc
pro tune has the same force and effect as if en-
tered at the time the judgment was rendered,83
and the effective date of a judgment rendered one
day and entered on a later day may relate back to
dition thereof, as against third par-
ties acting- in good faith and with-
out notice, who may have acquired
a transfer of the property, unless the
execution shall have been entered on
the general execution docket of the
court within ten days from the time
the judgment was rendered. — Brad-
ley v. Booth, 9 S.E.2d 8*61, 62 GsuApp.
770—34 C.J. p 584 note 84 [a].
(2) Removal of a judgment debtor
from county of rendition of judg-
ment will not require entry of an
execution issued on such judgment
on general execution docket of coun-
ty to which judgment debtor has re-
moved, but if within ten days from
date of judgment execution is en-
tered on docket, in county of rendi-
tion, judgment lien attaches to all
judgment debtor's property in the
state, but, if such entry is postponed
beyond ten days, judgment lien at-
taches from date when entry of exe-
cution is actually made. — Bradley v.
Booth, supra.
(3) Judgment must be entered on
verdict within time required and ex-
ecution must be duly and properly
issued and recorded, since a verdict
In itself is not a lien on any proper-
ty of defendant against whom It is
returned. — Tanner v. Wilson, 102 S.
E. 425, 184 Ga. 628.
(4) Where judgment was followed
by execution duly issued thereon and
appropriate entries of nulla bona on
execution, each within seven years,
which were also entered on execution
docket, judgment was a lien from
its date on all property ^oWned by
judgment debtor or thereafter ac-
quired.— Howell v. Farmers Bank,
196 S.E. 387, 185 Ga. 768.
78. U.S. — Corpn* Juris quoted: in
Von Segerlund v. Dysart, C.C.A.
Cal., 137 F.2d 755, 757— In re 'Fell,
D.C.Pa., 18 F.Supp. 989.
Hawaii.— Nichols v. Wan Chong Sun,
28 Hawaii 395.
N.J.— Tuttle v. State Mut Liability
Ins. Co., 127 A. W2, 2 N.J.Misc.
973.
34 C.J. p '584 note '85.
79. U.S.— Corpus Juris quoted in
Von Segerlund v. Dysart, C.C.A.
Cal., 137 F.2d 755, 757— Bortman v.
Urban Motion Picture Industries,
C.C.A.N.Y., 4 F.2d 913— In re Fell,
D.C.Pa., 18 F.Supp. 989.
Ind.— Rothchild v. State, 165 N.B.
60, 200 Ind. 501.
Mo. — Brown v. Deal, App., 236 -S.W.
114.
Ohio. — Langel v. Moore, 168 N.E. 57,
32 Ohio App. 352, affirmed 164 N.
E. 118, 119 Ohio St. 299.
34 C.J. p 585 note 86.
Xdea from date of execution,
Under some practice the lien on
personalty dates not from the ob-
taining of the judgment, but from
the issuance or levy of the execu-
tion.
U.S. — Claude D. Reese, Inc., v. U. S.
ex rel. Collector of Internal Reve-
nue, C.C.A.Fla., 75 F.2d 9.
Pa.— Rush v. "First Nat Bank, 188 A.
164, 324 Pa. 285.
Bights of purchaser
Where no lien on personalty exists
until the levy of an execution, an In-
nocent purchaser's rights are not
subject to a prior judgment tinder
which no execution has been issued.
—Brown v. Deal, Mo. App., 256 S.W.
114.
Statutes affording lien without
oution.
Under a statute providing that
"where execution shall be stayed on
any judgment rendered by a justice
of the peace, such judgment shall be
a lien on all the personal property
subject to execution belonging to the
defendant at the time of the rendi-
tion of the judgment," on the giving
of a stay bond, whether or not exe-
cution had issued on the judgment,
it becomes a lien, but only for the
90S
term of six months, to which the
time of stay is limited.— McBride v.
Mullinlx, C.C.A.Ark., 299 F. 1S2.
80. Ky. — Johnson v. Catron, 57 S.
W. 13, 108 Ky. 568, 22 Ky.L. 27-5.
81. 111.— Todd-v. Todd, 214 IlLApp.
282— First Nat. Bank v. Wheeling,
Lake Brie & Pittsburg Coal Co., 11
Ohio Cir.Ct. 412, 5 Ohio Cir.Dec.
421.
82. U.S.— Southern Dairies v. Banks,
C.C.A.N.C., 92 F.2d 2«82, certiorari
denied Banks v. Southern Dairies,
5.8 S.Ct 368, 302 U.S. 761, 82 LJEd.
590.
Necessity of. execution to continue
lien see infra § 493.
Necessity of levy
(1) The rule that Issuance of exe-
cution and return thereof unsatisfied
create no lien on property In absence
of levy applies to realty as well as
to personalty, and becomes material
In case of realty where no lien has
been created by properly docketing
judgment. — Southern Dairies v.
Banks, C.C.A.N.C., 92 F.2d 282, cer-
tiorari denied Banks v. Southern
Dairies, 58 S.Ct 368, 302 U.S. 761, 82
L.Ed, 590.
(2) Generally, a judgment with ex-
ecution issued thereon, but not
levied on any property and not other-
wise satisfied and no abstracts of
which have been filed for record un-
der statute, does not constitute a
"lien" on any property real or per-
sonal.— C. L T. Corporation v. Hay-
nie, Tex.Civ.App., 135 S.W.2d 618.
83. Or.— Davidson v. Richardson,
89 P. 742, 50 Or. 323, 126 AnxS.R.
738, 17 L.R.A-,N.S., 319, reheard
91 P. 1080, SO Or. 323, 126 Am.3.R.
738, 17 «L,.R.A.,N.S., 319.
Tenn. — Southern Mortg. Guaranty
Corporation v. King, 77 S.W.2d
8-10, 168 Term, -809.
§ 469
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
the date of rendition by an order nunc pro tune.84
As far, however, as it affects intervening rights of
third parties a judgment entered nunc pro tune does
not relate back, for the purpose of a lien, to the
day as of which it is entered, but takes effect only
from the time of its actual entry-85 Under a stat-
ute providing that a judgment is a lien from the
first day of the term at which it is entered, a judg-
ment rendered nunc pro tune, at a term of court suc-
ceeding that at which the record was complete up
to and including verdict, is as operative, as between
the parties, as if it had been rendered at the pre-
vious term, but as to other parties, it is effective, as
a lien, only from the first day of the term at which
it was actually entered.8^
The amendment of a judgment will not as a rule
affect intervening rights of third parties,87 and a
judgment by confession, invalid for want of a suffi-
cient statement or for other defects, cannot be
amended nunc pro tune so as to make it effective
from its original date, as against intervening pur-
chasers or encumbrancers.88 Where, however, a
judgment as originally entered created a lien and,
taken together with the record, carried notice of the
right to the amended judgment, the amendment may
relate back to the date of the original judgment.89
I 470.
Effect of Stay of Execution
Ordinarily a stay of execution does not postpone or
destroy a judgment lien.
Since the lien. of a judgment on realty is not or-
dinarily dependent on the issuance of an execution
or other act of the judgment creditor, as discussed
supra § 468, the attachment of the lien is not post-
poned by a stay of execution ;90 nor is the lien of a
judgment destroyed by such a stay, as considered
infra § 503.
§ 471. Property Affected by Lien
The statutory lien of a judgment attaches only to
property against which the judgment can be enforced.
A judgment is a lien on all property of the debtor
subject thereto.91 Accordingly the statutory lien
of a judgment attaches only to property not exempt
from execution,92 and, under statutes providing that
the judgment shall be a lien on all property of de-
fendant which is subject to levy and sale under ex-
ecution, the lien applies to and covers only prop-
erty which is subject to levy and sale under exe-
cution.93
§ 472. Nature of Property
Under statute in some Jurisdictions the lien of the
judgment attaches to real property, but not to personal
property, of the judgment debtor.
Except as provided by statute, a mere judgment
is never a lien against the real estate of the judg-
ment debtor.9* Thus at common law land was not
subject to the lien of a judgment,95 but under the
statutes of most jurisdictions the lien attaches to
84. Term. — Southern Mortg. Guar-
anty Corporation v. King, supra.
Relation back of judgment lien gen-
erally see supra §46-6.
85. Ala.— Conn v. Sellers, 73 So.
961, 198 Ala. '606.
34 C.J. p 585 note 93.
88. N.C. — Pfeifer v. Love's Drug
Store. 88 S.R 342, 171 N.C. 214 —
Ferrell v. Hales, 25 S.E. 821, 119 N.
C. 19&.
87. Pa. — Union Trust Co. v. Mc-
Carthy, 10 Pa.Dlst & Co. 243, 76
Plttsb.Leg.J. 262, 15 WestCo. 92.
34 C.J. p 585 note &5.
88. Minn.— Auerbach v. Behnke, 41
N.W. 946, 40 Minn. 258.
34 C.J. p 585 note 96.
89. U.S.— Gunn v. Plant, Ga., 94 U.
S. 664, 24 KEd. 504.
34 C.J. p 585 note 97.
90. Conn. — Hobbs v. Simmonds, 23
A. 962. >61 Conn. 235.
34 C.J. p 585 note 99.
91. >Fla.— Gilpen v. Bower, 12 So.2d
854, 152 FUu 733.
OkL— Wagoner Oil & Gas Co. v. Mar-
low, 278 P. 294, 187 OkL 116.
Va.— Miller v. Kemp, 160 S.R 203,
157 Va. 178, 84 A.L.R. 930.
Shares of stock
In proceeding to enforce trust as
to fifteen thousand two hundred
ninety-nine of sixteen thousand
shares of stock held by defendants,
where state trial court decreed to
plaintiff title to seven thousand six
hundred forty-nine shares, and state
supreme court decreed to plaintiff ti-
tle to fifteen thousand two hundred
ninety-nine shares and directed
Judgment for dividends collected by
defendants, remaining seven hundred
one shares and dividends thereon
were subject to lien of such directed
judgment. — Sunshine Mining Co. v.
Treinies, I>.C.Idaho, 19 F.Supp." 587,
affirmed Treinies v. Sunshine Mining
Co., 99 >F.2d -651, affirmed 60 &Ct. 44,
308 U.S. 66, 84 L.Ed. 85, rehearing
denied 60 S.Ct. 464, 309 U.S. 693, 84
L.Ed. 1034.
No Judgment constitutes a Hen OIL
property against which it cannot be
enforced. — Hart v. Atwood, 119 So.
116, 96 Fla. 66-7.
92. CaL — Evans . v. Superior Court
of Los Angeles County, 124 P.2d
820, 20 CaX2d 186.
Iowa.— Starits v. Avery, 213 N.W.
769, 204 Iowa 401.
906
Neb.— Brownell v. Svoboda, 223 N.
W. 641, 118 Neb. 7=6.
93. Ala.— Hargett v. Hovater, 15 So.
2d 276, 244 Ala. 646— Ex parte
Scharnagel, 136 So. 834, 223 Ala.
4, certiorari denied 136 So. 835,
223 Ala. 487— Morris v. Waldrop,
105 So. 172, 213 Ala. 435.
Property subject to lien
Where Judgment for a certain sum
became money in hands of a stake-
holder, such money was property
subject to levy, and, when such judg-
ment became leviable property, the
lien of a recorded judgment obtained
against the judgment creditor fast-
ened itself on such money and sub-
jected it to payment of the Judg-
ment.— Huckabee v. Stephens, 195 So.
295, 29 Ala.Aftp. 259.
Property not subject to lien
Mortgage given to judgment debt-
or.—White v.. Gibson, 128 So. 734,
221 Ala. 279.
94. 111. — East St. Louis 'Lumber Co.
v. Schnipper, 141 N.E. -542, 3*10 m.
150.
N.Y.— H. B. & C. Co. v. Smith, 151
N.B. 448, 242 N.T. 267, 45 A.L.R.
554.
95. HI.— East St Louis Lumber Co.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 472
the land of the judgment debtor,9* with its inci-
dences and appurtenances,97 provided it is subject
to execution,9* but not to the rents, issues, and
w
profits of such land," although they may be sub-
jected to the lien in equity.1
The lien does not attach to personal property2
v. Schnipper, 141 N.E. S42, 310 111.
150 — Lehman v. Cottrell, 19 N.E.
2d 111, 298 Ill.App. 434.
Md. — Messinger v. Eckenrode, 15i8 A.
357, 162 Md. 63— Caltrider v. Ca-
ples, 153 A. 445, 160 Md. 392, «7
A.L.R. 1500.
Mont. — Gaines v. Van Remark, 74
P.2d 454, 106 Mont. 1.
S.C. — Ex parte Johnson, 145 -S.E. 113,
147 S.C. 259. .
34 C. J. p -568 note 81.
Judgment lien as creature of statute
generally see supra § 454.
98. 'U.S.— Ton Segerlund v. Dysart,
C.C.A.Cal., 137 F.2d 755— Ackroyd
v. Brady Irr. Co., D.CMont, 27 F.
Supp. 503, cause reversed and re-
manded on other grounds, C.C.A.,
Ackroyd v. Winston Bros. Co., 113
F.2d 657— -In re Day, D.CMd., 22
•F.Supp. 946.
Ariz. — Steinfeld v. Copper State Min-
ing Co., 290 P. 155, 37 Ariz. 151.
Cal. — Parsons v. Robinson, 274 P.
528, 206 Cal. 378 — Wellborn v.
Wellborn, 131 P.2d 48, 55 CaLApp.
2d 516 — Helvey v. Bank of Amer-
ica Nat. Trust & Savings Ass'n, 111
P.2d 390, 43 Cal.A-pp.2d 532.
Fla.— First Nat. Bank v. Peel, 145
So. 177, 107 Fla. 413.
111.— Logar v. O'Brien, 171 N.E. «629,
339 111. 628.
Kan.— Staker v. Gillen, 53 P.2fl 821,
143 Kan. 212.
Mont.— Siuru v. Sell, 91 P.2d 411, 108
Mont. 438, 123 A.L.R. 423— Gaines
v. Van Demark, 74 P.2d 454, 106
Mont. 1.
N.M.— National Mut Savings & .Loan
Ass'n v. Lake, 141 P.2d 188, 47 N.
M. 223.
U.C. — City of Durham v. Pollard, 14
S.E.2d 818, 219 N.C. 750— Thomp-
son v. Avery County, 5 S.B.2d 146,
216 N.C. 405.
N.D.— Aberle v. Merkel, 291 N.W.
913, 70 N.D. 89.
S.C.— Ex parte Johnson, 145 S.E. 113,
147 S.C. 259 — Weatherly v. Medlin,
139 -S.E. 633, 141 S.C. 290.
Tex. — Texas Building and Mortgage
Co. v. Morris, Civ.App., 123 S.W.2d
365, error dismissed.
Va.— Clones v. Hall, 15 S.E.2d 108,
177 Va. 658— Boggs v. .Fatherly, 13
S.E.2d '295, 177 Va. 259— Miller v.
Kemp, WO S.B. 203, 157 Va. 178,
84 A.L.R. 980— Kidwell v. Hender-
son, 143 S.B. 336, 150 Va. 829.
W.Va. — McFarland v. Fish, 12 S.E.
548, 34 W.Va. 548.
34 C.J. p 587 note 13.
97. u.S. — La Crosse & M. R. Co. v.
James, Wis., 6 WalL 750, 18 JlEd.
854.
34 C.J. p 587 note 14.
Timber
(1) Timber located on real estate
subject to the lien of a judgment was
included within the lien.
La. — Creston Lumber Co. v. Cocker-
ham's Estate, 2 La. App. 29.
Pa. — Havens v. Pearson, 6 A.2d 84,
334 Pa. 570, 122 A.L.R. 512.
(2) Judgment lien on land was a
lien on the timber thereon before
and after the timber was cut, and, in
equity, followed the proceeds of sale
thereof. — Stuart v. Picfcett, 10 So.2d
207, 193 Miss. 455.
(3) A contract whereby a judg-
ment debtor sold standing timber on
land and allowed purchaser twenty
years for removal did not create an
immediate severance and conversion
of the timber such as to withdraw
timber from lien of judgment cred-
itor, the standing timber continuing
to be realty as to the judgment not-
withstanding a sale of personalty
was intended as between judgment
debtor and purchaser; fiction of im-
mediate severance as between ven-
dor and vendee did not operate to
permit judgment debtor to remove
standing timber from judgment
creditor's lien against land by pur-
ported sale to third person. — Havens
v. Pearson, 6 A.2d 84, 334 Pa. €70,
122 A.L.R. 512.
Minerals on laud
An agreement by which landown-
ers "granted, bargained, sold, let and
leased" limestone under land, with
right of ingress to mine to remove
limestone, in consideration of royal-
ty for limestone mined, was a "sale
of limestone in place as land,"
and landowners retained interest in
limestone to which lien of judgment
against landowners attached. — Burke
v. Kerr, 19 A.2d 382, 341 Pa, 304.
Oil royalty interest
The recording and indexing of
judgment against grantor of oil
royalty interest, which is realty and
which was transferred to grantee by
conveyance that was not recorded
until after recording of the Judg-
ment, caused judgment lien to at-
tach to the royalty Interest under
statute providing that, when any
judgment has been recorded and in-
dexed, it shall, from date of such
record and index, operate as a lien
on all "realty" of defendant in the
county. — Munzeshelmer v. Leopold,
Tex.Civ.App., 163 S.W.2d 663, error
refused. - .
Judgment on. bond accompanying
mortgage acquires no higher right
against fixtures sold under condi-
tional sales contract than mortgage.
907
— Ridgway Dynamo & Engine Co. v.
Werder, 135 A. 216, 287 Pa. 358.
98: Ala.— Robinson v. Shearer, 99
•So. 179, 211 Ala. 16.
la. — First Nat. Bank v. Peel, .145
So. 1'77, 107 Fla. 413.
Mont.— Siuru v. Sell, 91 P.2d 411,
108 Mont. 43-8, 123 A.L.R. 423.
S.C. — Ex parte Johnson, 145 S.E. 113,
147 S.C. 259.
34 C.J. p 587 note 15.
Assignment of homestead as affect-
ing judgment lien see Homesteads
§ 149 a.
Homesteads as subject to judgment
liens see Homesteads § 109.
99. Pa.— Leedon v, Plymouth R. Co.,
5 Watts & S. 265.
34 C.J. p 587 note 16.
1. U.S.— tJ. S. v. Butler, C.C.N.T.,
25 F.Cas.No.14,696, 2 Blatchf. 201.
34 C.J. p 587 note 17.
2. U.S.— Corpus Juris quoted in Von
Segerlund v. Dysart, C.OA,Cal.,
137 F.2d 755, 757.
Ark. — Industrial Machinery Co. v.
Timbrook, 151 S.W.2d 665, 202 Ark.
609.
Kan.— Staker v. Gillen, 53 P.2d 821,
143 Kan. 212— Beren v. Marshall
Oil & Gas Corporation, 251 P. 192,
122 Kan. 134.
La.— Hankins v. Sallard, App., 188
So. 411.
N.C.— Moore v. Jones. 36 S.E.2d 920.
34 C.J. p 587 note 22.
Share of stock in corporation as
personal property see Corporations
§ 194 c (2).
Property not subject to lien
(1) Timber when cut and removed.
— Creston Lumber Co. v. Cocker-
ham's Estate, 2 La. App. 29.
(2) Vendor's lien notes on realty,
and unsatisfied judgment foreclosing
lien. — Sugg v. Mozoch, Tex.Civ.App.,
293 S.W. 907.
(3) Vendor's and mechanic's lien
notes and contractor's lien. — South
Texas Lumber Co. v. Nicoletti, Tex.
Civ.App., 54 S.W.2d 893, error dis-
missed.
(4) Other property see 34 C.J. p
587 note 22 [a].
DeTbt
(1) The lien of an enrolled Judg-
ment does not cover the right to re-
ceive or recover a debt due to the
judgment debtor. — Shuptrine v. Nat-
albany Lumber Co., 198 So. 24, 189
Miss. 409.
(2) Injured persons' judgments
against insured held not lien on in-
surer's indebtedness under automo-
bile liability policy. — Michel v. Amer-
ican Fire & Casualty Co., C.C.A.Fla,,
£2 F.2d 583.
472
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
except where a statute so provides,5* as where the
statute makes the judgment a lien on all property
of the judgment debtor which is subject to levy
and sale under execution,4 although it has been held
that a chancery decree may, in terms, establish liens
on personalty so as to bind all persons having no-
tice thereof.5 In jurisdictions where the lien does
attach to personal property, such property has been
held not subject to the lien unless it is also subject
to execution,6 and therefore that the lien does not
attach to choses in action,7 except as provided by
statute.8 The lien attaches to chattels real in some
jurisdictions,^ although not in others.10
Crops. Under some statutes the lien of a judg-
ment attaches to mature crops ready for harvest, but
not to growing crops.11
§.473.
Location of Property
The Hen of a Judgment extend* to property of the
Judgment debtor located in the county in which the judg-
ment Is entered, and under statutes generally In force
Is ordinarily confined to the limits of the county In which
it was rendered and docketed.
The lien of a judgment extends to property of
the judgment debtor located in the county in which
the judgment is entered or docketed12 and, although
under some statutes the lien may extend to all
property of the debtor in the state,1* under the stat-
utes generally in force the lien of a judgment is con-
fined to the limits of the particular county in which
it was rendered and docketed, and does not affect
lands of the judgment debtor lying in another coun-
ty,14 unless it be a judgment in favor of the state,15
or unless the land in such other county is seized in
execution,18 or, as considered supra § 462, unless it
is transferred to such other county by filing a tran-
script of the judgment there. Where, however, a
judgment lien attaches on lands in a certain county,
and afterward a new county is set off, within
which these lands or part of them fall, the lien does
not cease by reason of such new organization, but,
on the contrary, it holds during the full statutory
period without any further record.17 Where a
judgment is docketed in two counties it becomes a
lien on the land of the judgment debtor in both
counties.18
Judgment
Under decree allowing: solicitor's
fee for services in conducting par-
tition suit solicitor's right was in-
tangible property, and such decree
was not subject to lien of judg-
ment against solicitor. — Bank ol
Monticello v. L. D. Powell Co., 130
So. 292, 159 Miss. 183.
3. U.S. — Corpus {Taxis quoted in Yon
Segerlund v. Dysart, C.C.A.CaU
137 P.2d 755, 767.
Gsu— Bradley v. Booth, 9 S.K2d 861,
62 Ga.App. 770.
34 C.J. p 588 note 23.
Statute held not to provide for lie*
on personalty
Statute providing that any money
judgment shall be a lien on the debt-
or's realty from the date of filing a
transcript of the docket of such
judgment — Von Segerlund v. Dy-
sart, C.C.A.Cal., 137 F.2d 755.
4. Ala. — Birmingham News Co. v.
Barren G. Collier, Inc., 103 So.
839, 212 Ala. 655— Johnston v.
Bates, 95 So. 375, 209 Ala, IS.
34 C.J. p 588 note 23.
5. Iowa.— Kithcart v. Kithcart, 124
N.W. 305, 145 Iowa 549, 30 L.R.A.,
N.S., 1062.
6. Ala, — Gaston v. Marengo Impr.
Co., 36 So. 738, 139 Ala, 465.
34 C.J. p 588 note 25.
7. Ga. — Citizens' Bank & Trust Co.
v. Pendergrass Banking Co., 138
S.E. 223, 164 Ga, 302— Norris v. Ai-
kens, 117 S.E. 248, 155 Ga. 488.
34 C.J. p 588 note 26.
Share of stock in corporation as
chose in action see Corporations §
194 c (4),
8. Corporate stock
Under statutes lien of judgment
was held not to attach to shares of
corporate stock which are choses in
action on rendition of judgment, but
only after notice to the corporation
as prescribed by law. — Fourth Nat.
Bank v. Swift & Co., 127 S.B. 729,
160 Ga. 372.
34 C.J. p -588 note 26 [a] (2).
9. Ind.— Ball v. Barnett, 39 Ind.
53.
N.T.— Holland v. Grote, 86 N.E. 30,
195 N.T. 262.
Leasehold interest as subject to
judgment lien see infra § 482.
10. Tex. — Bourn v. Robinson, 107
S.W. 873, 49 Tex.Civ.App. 157.
11. Miss.— Harris v. Harris, 116 So,
731, 150 Miss. 729.
34 C.J. p 588 note 23 .[a].
12. Md. — Messinger v. Eckenrode,
158 A. 357, 162 Md. 63.
Mo.— Dano v. Sharpe, 152 S.W.2d
693, 236 Mo.App. 113.
Mont.— Siuru v. Sell, 91 P.2d 411,
108 Mont 438, 123 A.L.K. 423.
N.C.— Moore v. Jones, 36 S.E.2d 920
— City of Durham v. Pollard, 14
S.E.2d 818, 219 N.C. 750— Thomp-
son v. Avery County, 5 S.E.2d 146,
216 N.C. 405.
Okl. — White House Lumber Co. v.
Howard, 286 P. 327, 142 Okl. 163.
Tex. — John F. Grant Lumber Co. v.
Hunnicutt. Civ.App.f 143 S.W.2d
976.
34 C.J. p 586 note 7.
A decree entered in. United States
district court in Bade County, Flor-
ida, became a lien on real estate be-
longing to judgment debtor in that
908
county. — B. A. Lott, Inc., v. Padgett,
14 S6.2d 667, 153 Ma. 304.
13. Va. — Gatewood v. Goode, 23
Gratt, 880, 64 Va. 880.
34 C.J. p 586 note 9 [a], [f].
Judgment docketed in county of de-
fendant's residence
Where a statute provides that a
judgment obtained and properly
docketed in the county of defendant's
residence is a lien on all personal
property of the judgment debtor in
any county in the state, removal of
the debtor* from the county in which
the judgment is so docketed does not
affect the lien. — Bradley v. Booth, 9
S.E.2d 861, 62 Ga.App. 770.
14. Ala. — Morris v. Waldrop, 105
So. 172, 213 Ala, 435.
111. — Haugens v. Holmes, 41 N.E.2d
109, 314 ULApp. 166.
Iowa.— Bates v. Nichols, 274 N.W.
32, 223 Iowa 878.
34 C.J. p 586 note 7.
Lien of judgment against railroad
see Railroads § 260, also 51 C.J. p
809 notes 40-45.
Transfer of judgment by transcript
from one county to another gen-
erally see supra 8 129.
15. Miss. — Josselyn v. Stone, 28
Miss. 753.
16. Iowa. — Harrington v. Clark, 202
N.W. 84, 199 Iowa 340.
34 C.J. p 586 note 10.
Lien of execution see Executions $$
123-138.
17. Pa,— Clough v. Welsh, 78 A.
1000, 229 Pa, 386.
34 C.J. p 587 note 11.
18. N.D.— Aberle v. Merkel, 291 N.
W. 913, TO N.D. 89..
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 474
Lands in another state or country. A judgment
rendered in one state or country does not operate
extraterritorially so as to constitute a lien on lands
in another state or country.1^
Purchaser acknowledging lien. Where a judg-
ment debtor sells lands, both he and the purchaser
supposing them to be bound by the lien of the judg-
ment, and the purchaser undertaking to pay the
judgment as a part of the consideration, the lat-
ter cannot afterward refuse to pay the judgment
on discovering that it was never recorded in the
county where the lands lie.20
§ 474.
Property Previously Transferred
A judgment does not attach as a lien on property
which formerly belonged to the judgment debtor but
which, before rendition of the judgment, had been sold
or aliened in good faith.
A judgment does not attach as a lien on property
which before its rendition had been sold - or aliened
by the owner in good faith,21 or given away by him
under a valid donation,22 or, except as otherwise
provided in the decree for sale,23 sold at judicial
sale,24 or which -had passed under an assignment
for the benefit of his creditors,25 or which had been
transferred to liquidating trustees in accordance
with a plan of reorganization for the purpose of
liquidation,26 or which had come into the custody
or possession of the court in another proceeding;27
but a deed given as "collateral security" does not
divest the grantor of interest in the land so as to
prevent a subsequent judgment against him from
becoming a lien against it,28 nor does a void deed
to a dissolved corporation have this effect29
Generally the fact that the prior conveyance by
the judgment debtor was not recorded before the
entry of judgment does not make the judgment a
19. U.S. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Carpenter v. Wabash Ry. Co., C.C.
A.Mo., 103 F.2d 996, 1000, vacated
60 S.Ct. 416, 309 U.S. 23, 84 L.Ed.
558, rehearing denied 60 S.Ct 585,
309 U.S. 695, 84 L.Ed. 1035.
Mo. — Dano v. Sharpe, 152 S.W.2d
693, 236 Mo.App. 113.
$4 C.J. p 586 note 5.
Extraterritorial operation of judg-
ment generally see supra § 448.
30. N.Y.— -Haverly v. Becker, 4 N.Y.
169.
21. Ark. — Oliver v. Henry Quellmalz
Lumber & Mfg. Co., 282 S.W. 355,
170 Ark. 1029.
Cte. — S. T. & W. A. Dewees Co. v.
Paul B. Carter & Co., 8 S.E.2d 376,
190 Ga. 68.
111.— Schaeffer v. Potzel, 238 Ill.App.
335.
Iowa. — Nagl v. Hermsen, 257 N.W.
583, 219 Iowa 223.
Ky.— Gilbert v. Watts, Hitter & Co.,
60 S.W.2d 142, 249 Ky. 27— Oder
v. Jump, 108 S.W. 292, 32 Ky.L*.
1276.
N.J.— McLaughlin v. Whaland, 13 A.
2d 573, 127 N.J.EQ. 893.
Pa. — Corpus Juris quoted in Davis
v. Commonwealth Trust Co., 7
A.2d 3V 6, 335 Pa. 387— Schuler v.
. Kovatch, 28 Pa.Dist & Co. 485,
17 Lehigh CO.L..J. 147.
,Tex. — Fitzgerald v. Le Grande, Civ.
App., 187 S.W.2d 155— Steele v.
Harris, Civ.App., 2 S.W.2d 537.
V«u— Jones v. Hall, 15 S.E.2d 108,
177 Va. 658.
54 C.J. p 588 note 29.
Interests of parties to executory con-
. tract of sale see infra § 480.
Property fraudulently conveyed see
infra § 475:
Subsequent registration of convey-
ance to Judgment debtor
A judgment was not a lien on land;
which judgment debtor had conveyed
by deed duly registered more than
five years prior to entry and dock-
eting of judgment, notwithstanding
the deed by which judgment debtor
acquired the title thus conveyed was
not registered until after entry and
docketing of judgment and notwith-
standing- statute making unregistered
deed invalid to pass title as against
creditors of grantor until registered.
—City of Durham v. Pollard, 14 S.E.
2d 818, 219 N,C. 750.
Subcontract
Creditor who obtained judgment
against subcontractor after subcon-
tractor assigned subcontract was
held not entitled to balance due on
subcontract from principal contrac-
tor.— Albert Pipe Supply Co. v. Cal-
lanan, 283 N.Y.S. 716, 157 Misc. 136,
reversed on other grounds 288 N.Y.S.
307, 159 Misc. 547.
Foreclosure of vendor's Hen,
Filing abstract of judgment after
foreclosure of vendor's lien created
no lien. — Home Trading Co. v. Hicks,
Tex.Civ.App., 296 S.W. 627, reversed
on other grounds, Com. App., 11 S.W.
2d 292.
22. 111.— Snow v. Hogan, 38 N.E.2d
934, 312 Ill.App. 636.
34 C.J. p 588 note 30.
23. U.S.— Mills v. Smith, C.C.A.Ind.,
113 F.2d 404, certiorart denied
Smith v. Mills, 61 S.Ct 73, 311 U.
S. 692, 85 L.Ed. 447.
24. Del. — In re Republic Engineer-
ing Co., 130 A, 498, 3 W.W.Harr.
81.
34 C.J. p 588 note 31.
25. Pa. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Davis v. Commonwealth Trust .Co.,
7 A.2d 3; 6, 335 Pa* 387.
34 C.J. p 588 note 32.
909
26. Pa. — Davis v. Commonwealth
Trust Co., 7 A.2d 3, 335 Pa, 387.
27. U.S. — Davis v. Seneca Falls
Mfg. Co., D.C.N.Y., 8 F.2d 546,
modified on other grounds, C.CJU
17 F.2d 546.
Tex. — First Nat. Bank of Bowie v.
Cone, Civ.App., 170 S.W.2d 782, er-
ror refused.
34 C.J. p 595 note 4 [a].
Application, pending at time of filing
of abstract of Judgment
Record qf abstract of judgment
against corporation was ineffective
to secure to judgment creditor pref-
erence lien on corporation's land,
where corporation was insolvent long
before abstract of judgment was filed
for record, and at time of filing of
abstract application for general re-
ceiver of corporation on ground of
insolvency was pending and receiv-
er was afterwards appointed and
qualified, since appointment of re-
ceiver related back to presentation
of application. — Baylor University v.
Chester Sav. Bank, Tex.Civ.App., 82
S.W.2d 738, error refused.
After order of conversion by chan-
cery court, a judgment creditor can-
not acquire a lien on land as such,
and, where circuit court in partition
proceeding had previously ordered
land sold, judgment creditor of par-
ty interested in land obtained no lien
on the land or proceeds thereof by
filing in circuit clerk's office judg-
ment that had been obtained in dif-
ferent county. — P. Crigler & Son v.
Gire, 83 S.W.2d 529, 190 Ark. 1107.
28. N.T.— Graves El. Co. v. Seitz.
, 104 N.T.S. 852, 54 Misc. 652.
Attachment of judgment lien to
equity of grantor in security deed
see infra § 479 b.
29. Or.— Klorfine v. Cole, 254 P. 200,
121 Or. 76.
§ 474
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
lien on the land so conveyed,30 at least where the
grantee is in possession, thus affording notice,31
although the opposite view prevails in some juris-
dictions,82 and the lien has been held to attach
where the prior conveyance contained a wrong de-
scription of the property so that, at the time of the
judgment, the judgment debtor, rather than the
vendee, appeared on the record to be the owner.33
However, if the circumstances were such as to give
the judgment creditor notice of the conveyance not-
withstanding the misdescription, the judgment is in-
valid as a lien on the land.34 If real estate is trans-
ferred while a judgment is dormant, the lien of
the judgment cannot, on revivor thereof, be assert-
ed against such real estate.35 Where the lien of a
judgment did not originally attach to certain prop-
erty because it had been conveyed prior to the judg-
ment, revival of the judgment prior to a decree set-
ting aside the conveyance did not make the judg-
ment a lien upon the property.36
Effect of nunc pro tune entry of judgment. A
judgment entered nunc pro tune cannot create a
lien on the debtor's lands sold or mortgaged prior
to the date of its actual entry.37
§ 475. Property Fraudulently Conveyed
In some Jurisdictions, but not In others, a judgment
rendered after a fraudulent transfer becomes a Hen on
the property that has been fraudulently conveyed.
There is some dispute among the authorities as
to whether or not a judgment rendered after a
fraudulent transfer becomes a lien on the property
that has been fraudulently conveyed.3* Thus it has
been held in some jurisdictions that an after-ac-
quired judgment against the vendor attaches as a
lien on property fraudulently conveyed,39 and this is
the rule generally applied where, in accordance with
the principles discussed in Fraudulent Conveyances
§ 56, a conveyance in fraud of creditors is regarded
as void.40 In other jurisdictions, however, it has
been held that a judgment is not a lien on lands
fraudulently conveyed before rendition of the judg-
ment,41 particularly where such conveyance is re-
garded as merely voidable,42 although this rule does
not apply to a case where there is a secret trust and
the grantor is still the real owner.43 If a judgment
lien does exist against land held fraudulently it
ceases to operate when such land is transferred to a
bona fide purchaser.44
The lien of a judgment against the fraudulent
grantee attaches subject to the rights of the gran-
tor's creditors.45
§ 475. Lands Instantaneously Seized
Where a person parts with a freehold estate at the
same time and as a part of the same act or transaction
by which he acquires it, his seizin for an Instant does
not subject the estates conveyed to him to the lien of a
Judgment against him.
It results from the doctrine limiting the judgment
lien to the actual interest of the judgment debtor,
discussed infra § 478, that as a general rule, where
30. N.Y. — Trenton Banking Co. v.
Duncan, 86 N.Y. 221.
34 C.J. p 589 note 34.
Purpose of statutes
Tenn. — Jefferson County Bank v.
Hale, 280 S.W. 408. 152 Tenn. 648.
31. Tex.— Steele v. Harris, Civ.App.,
2 S.W.2d 537.
32. N.J. — Brink v. Flannagan, 101
A. 274, 87 N.J.Eq. 630.
jq-.C. — Eaton v. Doub, 128 S.E. 494,
190 N.C. 14, 40 A.L.R. 273.
34 C.J. p 589 note 35.
33. La. — Adams v. Smith, 6 La.App.
187.
34. N.J.— Charette v. Fruchtman,
159 A. 318, 110 N.J.EQ. 256.
35. Neb. — Campagna v. Home Own-
ers' Loan Corporation, 3 N.W.2d
750, 141 Neb. 429.
36. 111.— Snow v. Hogan, 38 N.E.2d
934, 312 Ill.App. €36.
37. N.C.— Perrell v. Hales. 25 S.B.
821, 119 N.C. 199.
34 C.J. p 589 note 36.
Commencement of lien of judgment
. entered or amended nunc pro tune
see supra I 469.
38. Wyo.— Corpus Juris cited in
Snyder v. Ryan, 270 P. 1072, 1075,
39 Wyo. 266. rehearing denied 275
P. 127, 39 Wyo. 266.
34 C.J. p 589 notes 38, 40.
39. Cal.— McGee v. Allen, 60 P.2d
1026, 7 Cal.2d 468— Liuzza v. Bell,
104 P.2d 1095, 40 CaLApp.2d 417.
D.C.— Reilly v. Sabin, 81 F.2d 259,
65 App.D.C. 125.
Mo.— Dano v. Sharpe, 152 S.W.2d
693, 236 Mo.App. 113.
Va. — Matney v. Combs, 198 S.E. 469,
171 Va. 244— Tucker v. Foster, 152
S.E. 376, 154 Va, 182, 69 A.L.R.
220.
W.Va. — Nicholas v. Huffman, 5 S.E.
2d 789, 121 W.Va. 615.
34 C.J. p 589 note 38.
Execution against property convey-
ed before judgment see Fraudu-
lent Conveyances § 308.
Remedies of creditor against fraud-
ulent conveyance see Fraudulent
Conveyances §§ 304-465.
40. N.J.— McLaughlin v. Whaland,
13 A.2d 573, 127 N.J.Eq. 393.
Ohio. — Ecker v. Switzer, 17 Ohio
App. 90.
34 C.J. p 589 note 38.
910
Intent known to grantee
Under statute making such con-
veyance void as to creditors, judg-
ments bind all property conveyed
by defendant prior to Judgment with
intent to defraud creditors, where
intent is known to grantee. — Coleman
v. Law, 154 S.E. 445, 170 Ga. 906,
74 A.L.R. 684.
41. Ark.— Leonard v. State, 278 S.
W. 654, 170 Ark. 41.
Ill,— De Martini v. De Martini, 52
N.E.2d 138, 385 111. 128— Cutler v.
Hicks, 268 Ill.App. 161.
34 C.J. p 589 note 40.
42. 111.— De Martini v. De Martini,
52 N.E.2d 138, 385 111. 128.
34 C.J. p 589 note 40.
43. 111.— Pease v. Frank, 105 NJ3.
299, 263 111. 500.
44. Wyo. — Corpus Juris cited in
Snyder v. Ryan, 270 P. 1072, 1075,
39 Wyo. 266, rehearing denied 275
P. 127, 39 Wyo. 266.
34 C.J. p 589 note 39.
45. Tex. — York v. Robins, CiY.App.,
240 S.W. 603,
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 477
a person parts with a freehold estate at the same
time and as a part of the same act or transaction
by which he acquires it, his seizin for an instant
does not subject the estates conveyed to him to the
lien of a judgment against him.4^ Thus, where a
third person is made a medium for the conveyance
by a husband to his wife, a judgment lien against
such third person does not attach to the property.47
§ 477.
After- Acquired Property
Although In a few jurisdictions the rule is otherwise,
generally the lien of a judgment attaches not only to
property owned by the debtor at the time of the judg-
ment, but also to all that he may subsequently acquire
during the life of the lien.
In a few jurisdictions a judgment is not a lien
on after-acquired property,48 but under the statutes
of most jurisdictions the lien of a judgment attach-
es, not only to property owned by the debtor at the
time of the rendition of the judgment, but also to
all that he may subsequently acquire during the life
of the lien.4^ The lien of a judgment does not at-
tach to property acquired by the judgment debtor
after the lien has ceased to be effective.5** The lien
has been held to attach to after-acquired real es-
tate although the instrument by which the title is
acquired is unrecorded,51 but there is also authority
holding that the lien attaches only after the debtor's
title is disclosed of record.52 The lien on after-ac-
quired property is superior to any equity which the
grantor could retain by a parol agreement or sub-
sequent recorded conveyance.58
Under the rule as to instantaneous seizin, dis-
cussed supra § 476, it has been held that if one
sells and conveys real estate to which he has no
title or an imperfect title at the time of the sale,
and subsequently acquires a perfect title, it inures
46. U.S. — Edwards v. Weil, Term., 99
P. 822, 40 C.C.A. 105.
Mont. — Corpus Juris cited in Johan-
nes v. Dwire, 23 P.2d 971, 972, 94
Mont. 590.
34 C.J. p 590 note 44.
Transitory seizin by judgment debt-
or in trust for another as not sub-
jecting lands to judgment lien see
infra § 481 a.
47. N.Y.— O'Donnell v. Kerr, 50
How.Pr. 334.
48. U.S. — In re Marcus, D.C.Pa., 32
F.2d 719— Corpns Juris cited in U.
S. v. Taft, D.G.Oal., 44 F.Supp. 564,
567, affirmed, C.C.A., Citizens Nat.
Trust & Savings Bank of Los An-
geles v. U. S., 135 P.2d 527.
Ariz. — Steinfeld v. Copper State Min-
'ing Co., 290 P. 155, 37 Ariz. 151.
Pa. — General Casmir Pulaski Build-
ing & Loan Ass'n v. Provident
Trust Co. of Philadelphia, 12 A.2d
336, 338 Pa. 198— Calhoon v. New-
Ion, 40 Pa.Dist. & Co. 123.
34 C.J. P 590 note 45.
Execution lien see Executions § 125.
49. U.S. — Commercial Credit Co. v.
Davidson, C.C.A.Miss,, 112 F.2d 54
—Corpus Juris cited in U. S. v.
Taft, D.C.Cal., 44 F.Supp. 564, 567,
affirmed, C.C.A., Citizens Nat.
Trust £ Savings Bank of Los An-
geles v. U.. S., 135 F.2d 527.
Ala.— W. T. Kawleigh Co. v. Pat-
terson, 195 So. 729, 239 Ala, 309.
Cal. — Parsons v. Robinson, 274 P.
528, 206 Cal. 378— Helvey v. Bank
of America Nat. Trust & Savings
Ass'n, 111 P.2d 390, 43 Cal.App.2d
532. v
Fla.— B. A. Lott, Inc. v. Padgett, 14
So.2d 667, 153 Fla. 304 — Porter-
Mallard Co. v. Bugger. 157 So, 429,
117 Fla. 137.
Ga.— Bostwick v. Felder, App., 35
S.E.2d 783— Bradley v. Booth, 9
S.B.2d 861, 62 Ga.App. 770.
IncL — Peet v. Beers, 4 Ind. 46.
Md. — Messinger v. Eckenrode, 158 A.
357, 162 Md. 63.
Minn. — Farmers' & Merchants' State
Bank of Thief River Rails v.
Stageberg, 201 N.W. 612, 161 Minn.
413.
Mont — Gaines v. Van Demark, 74 P.
2d 454, 106 Mont. 1— Corpus Juris
cited in Johannes v. Dwire, 23 P.
2d 971, 972, 94 Mont. 590 — Isom
v. Larson, 255 P. 1049, 78 Mont.
395.
N.C.— City of Durham v. Pollard, 14
S.B.2d 818, 219 N.C. 750— Thomp-
son v. Avery County, 5 S.E.2d 146,
216 N.C. 405— Keel v. Bailey, 198
S.E. 654, 214 N.C. 159.
N.D.— Aberle v. Merkel, 291 N.W.
913, 70 N.D. 89.
Okl.— Miller v. J. I. Case Threshing
Mach. Co., 300 P. 399, 149 Okl. 281.
Or.— Duke v. Low, 296 P. 45, 135 Or.
460— Budd v. Gallier, 89 P. 638,
50 Or. 42.
S.D.— Security Nat. Bank of Sioux
Falls v. Lowrie, 238 N.W. 304, 59
S.D. 102.
Va.— Jones v. Hall, 15 S.E.2d 108,
177 Va. 658— Miller v. Kemp, 160
S.E. 203, 157 Va. 178, 84 A.L.R. 980.
Wis.— Musa v. Segelke & Kohlhaus
Co., 272 N.W. 657, 224 Wis. 432,
111 A.L.R. 168.
34 C.J. p 590 note 47.
Commencement of judgment lien as
to after-acquired property see su-
pra § 466.
Property held not "acviired" "by
debtor on Ms death
Where, at time of recovery, dock-
eting, and recording of judgment
on debtor's separate indebtedness,
realty involved was community prop-
erty of debtor and his wife and
debtor died within five years after
911
the docketing of the judgment, the
lien of judgment did not attach on
debtor's separate interest in the
community realty on death of debtor
since when debtor passed away his
interest in the community which
during his lifetime was exempt from
the lien of judgment was not "later
acquired" by him within statute pro-
viding that, after recording, a judg-
ment shall become a lien for period
of five years on all real property of
the debtor whether the property is
then owned by debtor or is "later
acquired." — Tway v. Payne, 101 P.
2d 455, 55 Ariz. 343.
Joint tenancy
When a creditor has a judgment
lien against interest of one joint
tenant he can keep his lien alive and
wait until joint tenancy is terminat-
ed by death of one of joint tenants,
and, if judgment debtor survives,
judgment lien immediately attaches
to entire property. — Zeigler v. Bon-
nell, 126 P.2d 118, 52 Cal.App.2d 217.
50. U.S. — In re Schuneman, C.C.A.
111., 290 F. 200.
Mo. — Woods v. Wilson, 108 S.W.2d
12, 341 Mo. 479.
Duration' of lien see infra §§ 489-
491.
51. La.— Gallaugher v. Hebrew
Cong., 35 La. Ann. 829 — Logan v.
Herbert, 30 La.Ann. 727.
52. Mont. — Johannes v. Dwire, 23
P.2d 971, 94 Mont 590— Isom v.
Larson, 255 P. 1049, 78 Mont 395.
Every interest shown by record
Judgment lien reaches every in-
terest of judgment debtor in land
which record of title shows he had,
either before or after judgment was
docketed.— Miller v. Kemp, 160 S.E.
203, 157 Va. 178, 84 A.L.R. 980. »
53. N.C. — Colonial Trust Co. v. Ster-
chie, 85 S.B. 40, 169 N.C. 21.
§ 478
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
immediately to the benefit of the grantee, and, if
between the date of the conveyance and the acqui-
sition of the perfect title a judgment is rendered
against the grantor, the title of the grantee is supe-
rior to that of the judgment creditor, since there is
no moment of time at which the lien of the judg-
ment could attach;54 but there is some authority
to the contrary.55
§ 478. Estate or Interest Affected by Lien
. a. In general
b. Curtesy and dower
c. Interests derived from judicial sale
d. Interests of cotenants
e. Lands subject to power of appoint-
ment
f. Life estates
g. Property acquired by descent or de-
vise
h. Remainders and reversions
a. In General
Except as modified by registration laws, the (ten of
a judgment attaches to the precise Interest or estate
which the Judgment debtor has actually and effectively
in the property, and only to such interest.
The lien of a judgment attaches to the precise
interest or estate which the judgment debtor has
actually and effectively in the property, and only
to such interest; the lien cannot be made effectual
to bind or to convey any greater or other estate
than the debtor himself, in the exercise of his
rights, could voluntarily have transferred or alienat-
ed,56 except, according to the decisions on the
54. Mont. — Corpus Juris cited la
Johannes v. Dwire, 28 P.2d 971.
972, 94 Mont. 590.
34 C.J. p 591 note 53.
55. Kan. — Leslie v. Harrison Nat.
Bank, 154 P. 209, 97 Kan. 22—
Bliss v. Brown, 96 P. 945, 78 Kan.
467.
34 C.J. p 591 note 54.
56. U.S. — Commercial Credit Co. v.
Davidson, C.C.A.Miss., 112 F.2d 54
— Wiltshire v. Warburton, C.C.A.
Va., 59 F.2d 611— U. S. v. Certain
Lands in Borough of Brooklyn,
Kings County, N. T. (Parcel No.
$), D.C.N.Y., 44 F.Supp. 830.
Ala.— First Nat. Bank v. T. J. Per-
ry & Son, 140 So. 616, second case,
224 Ala. 420, certiorari dismissed
140 So. 616, first case, 224 Ala,
13.
Ark. — Snow Bros. Hardware Co. v.
Ellis, 21 S.W.2d 162, 180 Ark. 238.
Cal. — In re Bennett's Estate, 90 P.
2d 84, 13 Cal.2d 354, 126 A.L.R.
771— McGee v. Allen, 60 P.2d 1026,
7 Cal.2d 468 — Homeland Bid?. Co.
v. Reynolds, 121 P.2d 59, 49 Cal.
App.2d 176 — Spear v. Farwell, 42
P.2d 391, 5 Cal.App.2d 111— Davis
v. Perry, 8 P.2d 514. 120 CaLApp.
670— Iknoian v. Winter, 270 P. 999,
94 OaLApp. 223.
Fla. — Arundel Debenture Corporation
v. Le Blond, 190 So. 765, 139 Fla.
668— Smith v. Pattishall, 176 So.
568, 127 Fla, 474, 129 Fla. 498—
First Nat. Bank v. Peel, 145 So.
177, 107 Fla, 413.
Ga, — Hartsfield Loan & Savings Co.
v. Garner, 191 S.E. 119, 184 ' Go.
283.
111. — Mauri cau v. Haugen, 56 N.B.2d
367, 387 111. 186— Sturdyvin v.
Ward. 168 N.E. 666, 336 111. 594 —
Hooper v. Haas, 164 N.E. 23, 332
111. 561, 63 A.L.R. £58— East St.
Louis Lumber Co. v. Schnipper,
141 N.E. 542, 310 111. 150.
Ind. — Stroup v. Myers, 21 NJE.2d 75,
106 Ind.App. 538.
Iowa. — Johnson v. Smith, 231 N.W.
470, 210 Iowa 591— Stiles v. Bailey,
219 N.W. 537, 205 Iowa 1385—
Berg v. Shade, 214 N.W. 513, 203
Iowa 1352 — Lefebure v. Henry Le-
febure Sons Co., 208 N.W. 853, 202
Iowa 1053.
Md.— Union Trust Co. v. Biggs, 137
A. 509, 153 Md. 50— Kinsey v.
Drury, 126 A. 125, 146 Md. 227.
Minn. — Scott v. Marquette Nat Bank,
217 N.W. 136, 173 Minn. 225.
Miss. — Candler v. Cromwell, 57 So.
554, 101 Miss. 161.
Mont. — Corpus Juris cited in Clack
v. Clack, 41 P.2d 32, 37, 98 Mont.
552 — Corpus Juris cited in Johan-
nes v. Dwire, 23 P.2d 971, 972, 94
Mont. 590.
Neb.— Knaak v. Brown, 212 N.W. 431,
115 Neb. 260, 51 A.L.R. 237.
N.M. — Corpus Juris cited in Sylvanus
v. Pruett, 9 P.2d 142, 146, 36 N.M.
'112.
N.T.— Ptaszynski v. Flack, 31 N.T.S.
2d 599, 263 App.Div. 831— Newark
Fire Ins. Co. v. Brill, 7 N.Y.S.Sd
773.
N.C. — Thompson v. Avery County, 5
S.E.2d 146, 216 N.C. 405— Wadford
. v. Davis, 135 S.E. 353, 192 N.C.
484— Eaton v. Doub, 128 S.E. 494,
190 N.C. 14, 40 A.L.R. 273 — Spence
v. Foster Pottery Co., 117 S.E. 32,
185 N.C. 218.
Okl.— Harry v. Hertzler, 90 P.2d 656,
185 OkL 151— Kennedy v. Rolf, 61
P.2d 1041, 178 Okl. 71— Oklahoma
State Bank of Ada v. Crumley, 293
P. 218, 146 Okl. 12— Oil Well Sup-
ply Co. v. Cremin, 287 P. 414, 143
Okl. 67, 68 A.L.R. 1471— White
House Lumber Co. v. Howard, 286
P. 827, 142 Okl. 163.
Or.— Duke v. Low, 296 P. 45, 135
Or. 460.
Pa. — Schuler v. Kovatch, 28 Pa.Dist.
& Co. 485, 17 Lehigh Co.L.J. 147.
912
S.C.— Fallaw v. Oswald, 9 S.E.2d 793,
194 S.C. 387.
S.D.— Ruden v. Kirby, 241 N.W. 791,
59 S.D. 631 — In re Hornstra's Es-
tate, 226 N.W. 740, 55 S.D. 513.
Tex. — Payne v. Bracken, 115 S.W.2d
903, 131 Tex. 394— Berry v. Chad-
wick, Civ.App., 137 S.W.2d 859,
error dismissed, judgment correct
— South Texas Lumber Co. v. Nic-
oletti, Civ.App., 54 S.W.2d 893, er-
ror dismissed — Garrison v. Citi-
zens' Nat. Bank of Hillsboro, Civ.
App., 25 S.W.2d 231, error refused
— Steele v. Harris, Civ.App., 2 S.W.
2d 537 — Sugg v. Mozoch, Civ. App.,
293 S.W. 907.
Va.— Miller v. Kemp, 160 S.E. 203,
157 Va, 178, 84 A.L.R. 980— Sav-
ings & Loan Corporation v. Bear,
154 S.E. 587, 155 Va. 312, 75 A.
L.R. 980 — Holland Jones Co. v.
Smith, 148 S.E. 581, 152 Va. 707.
V7ash.— Heath v. Dodson, 110 P.2d
845, 7 Wasn.2d 667— Vandin v.
Henry McCleary Timber Co., 289
P. 1016, 157 Wash. 635.
W.Va. — Brown v. Hodgman, 19 S.E.
2d 910, 124 W.Va. 136— Guaranty
Co. of Maryland v. Hubbard, 187
S.E. 313, 117 W.Va. 563— Eagle v.
McKown, 142 S.E. 65, 105 W.Va.
270.
Wis.— Wenzel v. Roberts, 294 N.W.
871, 236 Wis. 315— Corpus Joris
quoted in. Musa v. Segelke & Kohl-
haus Co., 272 N.W. 657, 224 Wis.
432, 111 A.L.R. 168.
34 C.J. p 591 note 55 — il C.J. p 521
notes 42, 43.
Reason for rule
A judgment lien holder is not in
the same attitude as an innocent
purchaser for value without no*
ti<5e.
Iowa. — Richardson v. Estle, 243 N.W.
611, 214 Iowa 1007.
Minn. — Farmers' & Merchants' State
Bank of Thief River Falls v.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 478
question, as modified by registration laws,57 as
where, by reason of the language and construction
of the recording acts, a judgment creditor is put
substantially on the basis of a bona fide purchaser,
if without actual notice, and protected against such
unrecorded conveyances, encumbrances, and the like
as fall within the operation of the recording acts.58
Generally it is immaterial whether or not the judg-
ment debtor's interest appears of record; whatever
it is, it is bound by the lien.59 Under some statutes,
however, the judgment debtor's title must appear of
record, or the judgment Hen will not attach there-
to.60 The interest of a tenant in possession is not
bound by the lien of a judgment against the holder
of the legal title, because possession is notice of
the tenant's rights,61 but a judgment against the
tenant in possession attaches as a lien tq his inter-
est, whatever it may be.62 If the debtor's interest
is subject to any infirmity or condition by reason of
which it is eliminated or ceases to exist, the lien
attaching thereto ceases with it.63
After the death of the judgment debtor, the fil-
ing of a transcript of a judgment does not render
the judgment a lien on land belonging to the estate
of such debtor.64
Stageberg, 201 N.W. 612, 161 Minn.
413.
34 C.J. p 591 note 55 [a].
Judgement against vendee; legal title
in vendor
A vendor by expressly reserving
vendor's lien in deed retained legal
title to land and, where land was
reconveyed to vendor by vendee in
consideration of cancellation of pur-
chase money notes and vendor's lien,
title was never in vendee so as to
make land subject to lien of judg-
ment obtained against vendee. —
Mostyn v. Griffith, Tex.Civ.App., 130
S.W.2d 906, error dismissed, judg-
ment correct.
lands owned "by persons not parties
to Judgment
Judgment can attach only against
lands owned by judgment debtor and
not in first instance against lands
owned by parties who were not par-
ties to judgment. — Oakwood State
Bank of Oakwood v. Durham, Tex
Civ.App., 21 S.W.2d 586.
Affiliated corporations
Where one corporation acquired
controlling interest in other, judg-
ment against former did not become
lien on latter's property. — Steinfeld
v. Copper State Mining Co., 290 P.
155, 37 Ariz. 151.
Judgment against adininistrator
did not entitle Judgment creditor to
equitable lien as against proceeds of
insurance on real estate belonging
to deceased. — First Carollnas Joint
Stock Land Bank of Columbia v. Liv-
erpool & London & Globe Ins. Co.,
158 S.E. 273, 160 S.C. 164.
57. Tex. — South Texas Lumber Co.
v. Nicoletti, Civ.App., 54 S.W.2d
893, error dismissed — Garrison v.
Citizens' Nat. Bank of Hillsboro,
Civ.App., 25 S.W,2d 231, error re-
fused— Sugg v. Mozoch, Clv.App.,
293 S.W. 907.
34 C.J. p 592 note 56.
Deed wrongfully recorded
Third person extending credit in
reliance on borrower's record title to
realty and without any notice or
knowledge of defect in title occupies
49C.J.S.-58
position of innocent purchaser for
value, and by reducing claim to
judgment during borrower's record
ownership acquires valid judgment
lien thereon. So, where deed execut-
ed and deposited by grantor with
person of his own choice for deliv-
ery to grantee on grantor's death
was wrongfully recorded deed was
valid and absolute as to subsequent
judgment creditor of grantee who
extended credit in reliance on gran-
tee's record title to property. — Mick-
lethwait v. Fulton, 196 N.E. 166,
129 Ohio St. 488.
58. 111.— Thorpe v. Helmer, 113 N.
E. 954, 275 111. 86.
34 C.J. p 592 note 57.
59. Tex. — Steele v. Harris, Civ.App.,
2 S.W.2d 537.
34 C.J. p 593 note 58.
In Minnesota
(1) The text rule has been applied.
— Corpus Juris cited in Emerson-
Brantingham Implement Co. v. Cook,
206 N.W. 170, 171, 165 Minn. 198, 43
A.L.R. 41.
(2) Occasional language used in
some cases may suggest that there
is no lien unless record title is in
the judgment debtor. — Emerson-
Brantingham Implement Co. v. Cook,
206 N.W. 170, 165 Minn. 198, 43 A.L.
R. 41—34 C.J. p 593 note 59.
(3) Such language, however, must
be interpreted with the subject to
which it is used in view, — Emerson-
Brantingham Implement Co. v.
Cook, supra.
60. Mont. — McMillan v. Davenport,
118 P. 756, 44 Mont. 23, Ann.Oas.
1912D 984 — Isom v. Larson, 255
P. 1049, 78 Mont. 395— Piccolo v.
Tanaka, 253 P. 890, 78 Mont. 445.
Rule applied to after-acquired prop-
erty see supra § 477.
61. Neb.— Uhl v. May, 5 Neb. 157.
34 C.J. p 593 note 60.
62. N.T. — Jackson v. Town, 4 Cow.
599, 15 Am.D. 405.
63. Ark. — Snow Bros. Hardware Co.
v. Ellis, 21 S.W.2d 162, 180 Ark.
238.
913
Fla.— Smith v. Pattishall, 176 So.
568, 127 Fla. 474, 129 Fla. 498.
Iowa.— Stiles v. Bailey, 219 N.W. 537,
205 Iowa 1385.
Minn. — Peterson v. Siebrecht, 247 N.
W. 6, 188 Minn. 272.
Tex. — Thompson v. Mayhew Lumber
Co., Civ.App., 103 S.W.2d 1005.
Wis.— Corpus Juris quoted in Musa
v. Segelke & Kohlhaus Co., 272 N.
W. 657, 658, 224 Wis. 432, 111 A.
L.R. 168.
34 C.J. p 593 note 62.
Conveyance to Judgment debtor set
aside for fraud
111.— Waterman v. Hall, 270 IlLApp.
558.
Pa. — Lackawanna Thrift & Loan Cor-
poration v. Sanderson, 50 Pa.Dist.
& Co. 242.
Recording statute held inapplicable
Where intervener docketed judg-
ment which became a lien on de-
fendant's equitable title under land
contract, and plaintiff as holder of
legal title, to enable defendant to
obtain a loan wherewith to acquire
legal title, made and recorded deed
to defendant without consideration
whereby intervener's judgment be-
came an apparent lien on legal title
in defendant, but the loan failed, re-
cording statute did not apply and in-
tervener was not protected by it as
good faith lienor. — Farmers' & Mer-
chants' State Bank' of Thief River
Falls v. Stageberg, 201 N.W. 612, 161
Minn. 413.
64, N.T. — Henderson v. Brooks, 3
Thomps. & C. 445.
Tex. — Harms v. Ehlers, Civ.App., 179
S.W.2d 582, error refused — First
Nat, Bank of Bowie v. Cone, Civ.
App., 170 S.W.2d 782, error refused.
Reason for rule
The title to real property passed
Immediately on the death of dece-
dent under the terms of the will;
therefore the title to such real prop-
erty was not in decedent at the
time the transcript was filed. — In
re Wakefield's Estate, 260 N.T.S. 633,
146 Misc. 58.
I 478
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
Lien on lands. A judgment lien attaches only to
an estate in lands, not to a lien on lands.65
b. Cnrtesy and Dower
It has been held that a judgment against a husband
Is a lien on his, life Interest in the wife's lands; but
an unassigned dower or an inchoate right of dower has
been held not subject to the lien of a judgment against
a married woman.
A judgment against a husband is a lien on his
life interest in the wife's lands, although execution
is suspended until her death,66 but binds only the
tenant's actual interest, and therefore is liable to be
extinguished by the breach of a condition subse-
quent which divests the life estate67 or by the ex-
ercise of a power to sell.6* It has also been held,
however, that during the wife's lifetime the hus-
band has no interest in her lands to which the lien
of a judgment can attach.69
An unassigned dower70 or an inchoate right of
dower71 has been held not subject to the lien of k
judgment against a married woman ; and an answer
by the holder of an inchoate right of dower, in
proceedings to sell realty, waiving assignment of
such right by metes and bounds and asking that she
be awarded the same in money has been held not
to transfer a judgment lien to the purchase money
in favor of the judgment creditor.72
c. Interests Derived from Judicial Sale
The inchoate or inceptive title of a purchaser at a
judicial sale, in advance of its confirmation or before
issuance of a deed, is subject to the lien of a judgment
against him; but the judgment creditor of one who
has caused a sale pursuant to execution against a third
person has no lien against the fund so created.
The inchoate or inceptive title of a purchaser at
a judicial sale, in advance of its confirmation by the
court, or before the issuance of a deed, may be
bound by the lien of a judgment against him ;73 but
the judgment creditor of one who has caused a sher-
iffs sale to be held pursuant to execution against a
third person has been held to have no legal or eq-
uitable lien against the fund so created.74
d. Interests of Cotenants
A Judgment against a tenant in common is a Hen
on the Interest of the debtor in the land.
A judgment against a tenant in common is a lien
on the interest of the debtor in the land,75 but not
on that of the debtor's cotenant,76 and, in case of
partition, the lien will attach to the part allotted to
defendant,77 or, if the land is sold on partition, to
his share of the fund,78 the purchaser under a de-
cree for partition taking the land discharged of the
lien.79 According to some authority, however, the
lien does not attach while the debtor's title is un-
disclosed of record80 A voluntary partition made
by tenants in common will not prevail against the
lien of a judgment rendered against one of the co-
tenants prior to the partition.81
e. Lands Subject to Power of Appointment
Where a person has a general power of appoint-
ment, and executes the power, the property appointed
is deemed, in equity, part of his assets and subject to
the demands of his judgment creditors; but a Judgment
has been held, in equity, to be subordinate to a power
of appointment In a third person.
At common law, a judgment against a party hav-
ing a power of appointment, with the estate vested
in him until and in default of appointment, is de-
feated by the subsequent execution of the power ;82
but where a person has the general power of ap-
pointment, either by deed or will, and executes this
power, the property appointed is deemed, in equity,
part of his assets, and subject to the demands of his
65. Ark. — Snow Bros. Hardware Co.
v. Ellis, 21 S.W.2d 162, 180 Ark.
238.
Vendor's lien,
Even though defendant had ven-
dor's lien for balance grantee paid
for delivery of escrow deed, plain-
tiff's judgment lien did not attach,
since vendor's lien is not interest in
land subject to execution. — Snow
Bros. Hardware Co. v. Ellis, supra.
68. Pa. — Lancaster County Bank v.
Stauffer, 10 P*L. 898.
34 C.J. p 593 note 66.
67. N.Y.— Moore v. Pitts. 53 N.Y.
85.
68. N.J.— Leggett v. Doremus, 25 N.
J.Eq. 122.
69. Va. — Bankers' Loan & Invest-
ment Co. v. Blair, 39 S.E. 231. 99
Va. 606. 86 Am.S.K, 914.
70. Ohio.— Good v. Crist, 156 N.B.
146, 23 Ohio App. 484.
71. N.T. — Crawford v. Woods, 191
N.Y.S. 786, 117 Misc. 150, affirmed
196 N.Y.S. 922, 203 App.Div. 862.
Ohio. — Good v. Crist, 156 N.E. 146,
23 Ohio App. 484.
34 C.J. p 593 note 70.
72. Ohio. — Good v. Crist, supra.
73. Pa.— Holmes' Appeal, 108 Pa. 23.
34 C.J. p 593 note 63.
74. Pa.— McHugh v. Landherr, 52
Pa.Dist. & Co. 481, 46 Lack.Jur.
129.
7B. Ala.— Hargrett v. Hovater, 15 So.
2d 276, 244 Ala. 646.
Mont — Corpus JUris cited in Isom
v. Larson, 255 P. 1049, 1051, 78
Mont. 395.
34 C.J. p 598 note 27.
Property held as estate in entirety
914
as subject to judgment lien see
Husband and Wife § 34 e.
76. Okl.— Burke v. Marshall, 83 P.
2d 395, 183 Okl. 505.
Va. — Miller v. Kemp, 160 S.E. 203,
157 Va, 178, 84 A.L.R. 980.
77. Va.— Miller v. Kemp, supra.
34 C.J. p 598 note 28.
78. • Fla. — Eldridge v. Post, 20 Fla.
579.
S.C. — Garvin v. Garvin, 1 S.C. 55.
79. Ohio. — Cradlebaugh v. Pritchett
8 Ohio St. 646, 72 Am.D. 610.
S.C. — Burris v. Gooch, 39 S.C.L. 1.
80. Mont— Isom v. Larson, 255 P.
1049, 78 Mont 395.
81. N.J. — Emson v. Polhemus, 28 N*.
XEq. 439.
82. U.S.— Brandies v. Cochrane, HI.,
5 S.Ct 194, 112 U.S. 344, 28 L.
Ed. 760.
84 OJ. p 597 note 19.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§478
judgment creditors in preference to the claims of
his voluntary appointees or legatees,83 A judgment
has been held in equity to be subordinate to a power
of appointment in a third person, as, for instance, a
power of sale vested in executors by will;8* and
the same principle has been applied to a power of
appointment resting in the discretion of trustees,
qualified only by the necessity of obtaining the con-
sent of the judgment debtor to the exercise of that
discretion.85
f . Life Estates
A Judgment lien attaches on a verted life estate.
A judgment lien attaches on a vested estate for
life.8*
g. Property Acquired by Descent or Devise
The Interest of a Judgment debtor as heir or devisee
and legatee before distribution has been held subject to
the Hen of the Judgment, and, in case of sale of the
property before distribution, the right of the Judgment
creditor Is transferred from the property to the pro-
ceeds.
Before distribution, a creditor may obtain a judg-
ment lien on the interest of his debtor as heir or
devisee and legatee,87 but where the executor, to
pay debts of the testator, or pursuant to a power
contained in the will, sells realty devised to a judg-
ment debtor, such sale deprives the devisee of his
interest in the land, and also deprives the judgment
creditor of any right to proceed against the land
itself for satisfaction of the judgment.88 In the
case of sale of land under order of a probate court89
or under a testamentary power,90 the lien has been
held to be transferred from the land and to attach
to the interest of the judgment debtor in the pro-
ceeds. Under a statute providing that the surplus of
proceeds of such sale over and above the debts of
the deceased shall belong to the person owning the
premises at the time of the sale, the surplus must
83. U.S. — Brandies v. Cochrane, su-
pra.
N.Y.— Tallmadge v. Sill, 21 Barb. 34.
34 C.J. P 597 note 20.
84. N.J.— Wetmore v. Midmer, 21 N.
J.EQ. 242.
85. N.J.— Leggett v. Doremus, 25 N.
122.
86. N.Y.— Verdin v. Slocum, 71 N.T.
345.
34 C.J. p 693 note 65.
Restriction on use of principal
Where life tenant's use of princi-
pal of the estate was restricted to
use for her comfortable maintenance,
the estate could not be charged with
debts incurred for benefit of business
conducted by life tenant and her
husband and not for life tenant's
maintenance and support, and realty
which remained unconverted by sale
at death of life tenant could not be
subjected to lien of confession judg-
ment on such debt. — In re Stannert's
Estate, 15 A.2d 360, 339 Pa. 439.
Judgment confessed prior to acqui-
sition of status
Even though mother and daughter
as successive life tenants of father's
residuary estate had unlimited power
to consume principal, where judg-
ment by confession was entered
against daughter during mother's
lifetime and therefore before daugh-
ter had acquired status of life ten-
ant, daughter's confession of judg-
ment could not constitute a con-
sumption of principal by her so as to
subject realty contained in residuary
estate to judgment lien. — In re Stan-
nert's Estate, supra.
87. Oal.— Noble v. Beach, 180 P.2d
426, 21 Cal.2d 91— McGee y. Allen,
60 P.2d 1026, 7 CaL2d 468.
Del.— In re Harris' Estate, 44 A.2d
18.
| 111.— Wickiser v. Powers, 57 N.E.2d
522, 324 IlLApp. 130.
Iowa. — In re Duffy's Estate, 292 N.
W. 165, 228 Iowa 426, 128 A.L.R.
943— Chader v. Wilkins, 284 N.W.
183, 226 Iowa 417.
Elan. — Caple v. War burton, 264 P.
47, 125 Kan. 290.
Minn. — Rusch v. Lagerman, 261 N.W.
186, 194 Minn. 469.
Mont. — Gaines v. Van Demark, 74 P.
2d 454, 106 Mont. 1.
Tex.— Hart v. Bstelle, Civ.App., 34
S.W.2d 665, affirmed Estelle v.
Hart, Com.App., 55 S.W.2d 510 —
Fikes v. Buckholts State Bank,
Oiv.App., 273 S.W. 957.
Utah.— In re Miles' Estate, 223 P.
337, 63 Utah 144.
Wis.— Qualley v. Zimmerman, 285
N.W. 735, 231 Wis. 341.
i C.J. p 1249 notes 46-49.
Interest of debtor in testator's con-
tract to sell
Where vendor under contract for
deed had not executed deed at time
of death, lien of judgment against
devisee was held to attach to extent
of share of unpaid purchase money
on share of contract devised to dev-
isee by vendor.— Bauermeister v. Mc-
Donald.' 247 N.W. 424, 124 Neb. 142.
Additional acts necessary
(1) Judgment creditors held to
have no specific claim or lien against
fund due beneficiary under will pri-
or to establishment of lien by levy
or extension of receivership. — In re
Kaufman's Estate, 266 N.T.S. 890,
149 Misc. 287.
(2) Judgment creditors of a dev-
isee acquire no lien on the real
estate of the testator until the levy
of an execution, and even then, prior
to a sale and conveyance, they ac-
quire only a, lien and not title. —
Thompson's Ex'rs v. Stiltz, 96 S.W.
915
884, 29 Ky.L. 1075—69 C.J. p 1249
note 59.
(3) The lien of a judgment against
an heir to the real estate of an
intestate attaches only to that por-
tion of the real estate of the intes-
tate, if any, distributed by the coun-
ty court to the judgment debtor,
and, when any portion of such real
estate is so distributed, the lien of
the judgment relates back to the
time of its entry on the Judgment
docket — Oil Well Supply Co. v.
Cremin, 287 P. 414, 143 Okl. «7, 68
A.L.R. 1471— White House Lumber
Co. v. Howard, 286 P. 327, 142 Okl.
163.
88. Del.— In re .Harris' Estate, 44 A.
2d 18 — Brennan v. Wilmington
Trust Co., 126 A. 42, 2 W.W.Harr.
482.
N.Y.— New York Central E, Co. v.
First Nat. Bank, 133 N.E. 908, 232
N.Y. 330. ,
69 C.J. p 1249 note 51.
The heir has no title superior to
that of the administrator whenever
it becomes necessary for the admin-
istrator to sell the lands in the proc-
ess .of administration, and the lien
of a judgment against a legatee does
not attach to property passing un-
der a will either in- the hands of
an executor or of purchasers tinder
him at a valid sale. — Whatley v:
Musselwhite, 5 S.E.2d 227, 189 Ga,
91.
89. Del.— In re Harris' Estate, 44
A.2d 18.
Miss. — Stone v. Townsend, 1 So.2d
237, 190 Miss. 547.
34 C.J. p 587 note 18.
90. 111.— Wickiser v. Powers, 57 N,
E.2d 522, 324 IlLApp. 130.
34 C.J. p 587 note 19.
§ 478
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
be treated as real estate.91 Where, however, the
doctrine of equitable conversion is held to apply at
the instant of the testator's death, the interest pass-
es as personalty and is not subject to a lien against
the land,92 as where a sale of land is directed by the
will, expressly or by implication, at a specified time
in the future.93 The title of one heir to realty of
the deceased set off to him by the probate court is
not subject to the lien of a judgment against another
heir.9*
L Remainders and Reversions
Vested estates In reversion or remainder are sub-
ject to the lien of judgments against the reversioner
or remainderman or against the ancestor from whom the
estate Immediately descended, and In some states this
is true of contingent remainders.
Estates in reversion or remainder, if vested, are
legal estates subject to the lien of judgments against
the reversioner or remainderman95 or of judgments
against the ancestor from whom the estate immedi-
ately descended;96 and in some states this is true
of contingent remainders,97 although elsewhere
this is denied.98
§ 479. Equitable Interests in General
a. In general
b. Equity of redemption
a* In General
The lien of a Judgment ordinarily does not attach
to an equitable title or interest in real estate held by
the Judgment debtor, although In some states the rule
has been changed by statute or court decision.
The lien of a judgment ordinarily does not attach
to or bind an equitable title or interest in real
estate held by the judgment debtor,99 but attaches
only to real property in which the judgment debtor
has a vested legal interest.1 In several states, how-
ever, this rule has been changed by statute, or by
the decisions of the courts assimilating legal and
equitable remedies, so that an equitable estate is sub-
ject to the lien of a judgment;2 but in some of such
states it is held that a judgment is not a lien on an
equitable interest in such a sense as to affect a bona
fide purchaser without notice.3 It has always been
held by the courts of chancery that for their purpos-
es such an estate is just as much bound by the
judgment as any legal estate, and may be subjected
to its satisfaction through the process of equity.4
b. Equity of Redemption
In many Jurisdictions a Judgment debtor's equity of
redemption in encumbered property or his right to re-
deem property from Judicial sale or foreclosure of a
mortgage is subject to the Hen of a Judgment against
him.
91. Del. — In re Harris* Estate, 44
A.2d 18.
92. Iowa. — Krob T. Rothrock, 119
N.W. 131— Beaver v. Ross. 118 N.
W. 287, 140 Iowa 154, 20 L.R.A.,
. N.S., 65, 17 Ann.Cas. 640.
93. Minn. — Qreenman v. McVey, 147
N.W. 812, 126 Minn. 11. Ann.Cas.
1915D 430.
69 C.J. p 1249 note 52.
94. Okl.— Oil Well Supply Co. v.
Cremin, 287 P. 414, 143 OkL 57, 68
A.L.R. 1471.
95. Ga. — Pound v. Faulkner, 18 S.E.
2d 749, 193 Ga, 413.
Kan. — Caple v. Warburton, 264 P.
• 47, 125 Kan. 290.
Neb.— Fisher v. Kellogg, 258 N.W.
404, 128 Neb. 248.
N.J. — Corpus Juris cited in Cowan
v. Storms, 2 A.2d 183, 185, 121 N.
J.Law 336.
Wis. — Qualley v. Zimmerman, 285
N,W. 735, 231 Wis. 341.
34 C.J. p 593 note 72.
96. U.S.— Burton v. Smith, Va., 13
Pet. 464, 10 L.Ed 248.
97. 111. — Kenwood Trust & Savings
Bank v. Palmer, 209 IlLApp. 370.
Pa.— Ogden v. Knepler, 1 Pearson
145.
98.. N.Y.— Jackson v. Middleton, 52
Barb. 9.
34 C.J. p 593 note 75.
99. CaL — Homeland Bldg. Co. T. I
Reynolds, 121 P.2d 59, 49 Cal.App.
2d 176— Cook v. Huntley, 112 P.2d
889, 44 CaLApp.2d 635— Helvey v.
Bank of America Nat. Trust &
Savings Ass'n, 111 P.2d 390, 43
Cal.App.2d 532— Corpus Juris cited
in Oaks v. Kendall, 73 P.2d 1255,
1257, 23 Cal.App.2d 715— Poindex-
ter v. Los Angeles Stone Co., 214
P. 241, 60 CaLApp. 686.
Fla.— First Nat Bank v. Peel, 145
So. 177, 107 Fla. 413.
N.J. — Cowan v. Storms, 2 A.2d 183,
121 N.J.Law 336— McLaughlin v.
Whaland, 13 A.2d 573, 127 N.J.EO,
393.
N.M.— Corpus Juris cited in Sylvanus
v. Pruett, 9 P.2d 142, 146, 36 N.M.
112.
N.D. — Business Service Collection
Bureau v. Yegen, 269 N.W. 46, 67
N.D. 51.
Tex. — Adams v. Impey, Civ.App., 131
S.W.2d 288 — Gamer v. Love, Civ.
App., 41 S.W.2d 356, error dis-
missed.
34 C.J. p 594 note 79.
Mortgagee in possession
Statutory judgment lien does not
attach to interest of mortgagee in
possession who has foreclosed and
is entitled to sale if owner does not
pay. — Sugg v. Mozoch, Tex.Civ.App,,
293 S.W. 907.
1. CaL— Cook v. Huntley, 112 P.2d
889, 44 Cal.App.2d 635— Helvey v.
Bank of America Nat. Trust &
916
Savings Ass'n, 111 P.2d 390, 43
Cal.App.2d 532.
2. 111.— Johnson v. Watson, S3 NJE.
2d 130, 309 IlLApp. 440.
Iowa. — Johnson v. Smith, 231 N.W.
470, 210 Iowa 591 — Everist v. Car-
ter, 210 N.W. 559, 202 Iowa 498—
Shedenhelm v. Cafferty, 156 N.W.
340, 174 Iowa 195.
Minn. — Rusch v. Lagerman, 261 N.W.
186, 194 Minn. 469— Farmers' &
Merchants' State Bank of Thief
River Falls v. Stagjeberg, 201 N.W.
612, 161 Minn. 413.
Pa. — Department of Public Assist-
ance v. Spurio, Com.PL, 9 Fay.L.J.
18.
S.D.— Fridley v. Munson, 194 N.W.
840, 46 S.D. 532, 30 A.L.R. 501.
34 C.J. p -594 note 80.
Superiority
The legal lien of a Judgment
against the holder of the beneficial
or legal title, as disclosed by the
record chain of title, is superior to
the equities of third persons. — Miller
v. Kemp, 160 S.B. 203, 157 Va. 178, 84
A.L.R. 980.
3. 111.— Pease v. Frank. 105 N.B.
299, 263 111. 500.
34 C.J. p 594 note 81.
4. N.J.— McLaughlin v. Whaland, 13
A.2d 573, 127 N.J.EQ. 393.
Va.— Miller v. Kemp, 160 S.E. 203,
157 Va. 178, 84 A.L.R. 980.
34 C.J. p 595 note 82.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
479
Formerly at common law an equity of redemp-
tion, being regarded as a mere equitable interest,
was not an interest on which a judgment lien at-
tached,5 but in many jurisdictions, as a result either
of statutes making judgments liens on equitable in-
terests or of departures by statute or otherwise
from the common-law view as to the equitable na-
ture of the mortgagor's interest, the mortgagor's in-
terest is subject to the lien of a judgment,6 and the
lien cannot be cut off by a conveyance of the equity
to a prior mortgagee.? The judgment creditor has,
however, no lien on money paid by the mortgagor to
the assignee of the mortgage in excess of the
amount due on such mortgage,8 or on the proceeds
of the sale of the equity of redemption,9 although
the judgment has been held to be a lien on the pro-
ceeds of a judicial sale of the interests of both the
mortgagor and mortgagee.10 A judgment obtained
against the owner of an equity of redemption in
mortgaged premises, after a decree of foreclosure
but before the sale, has an equitable lien on the sur-
plus moneys produced by the sale ;11 it is otherwise
where the judgment was recovered after the prop-
erty had been struck off to the purchaser.12 Ordi-
narily, however, where land covered by a judgment
lien is sold, the lien remains on the land, and does
not attach to the fund received.1^ Even though the
equity is not subject to the lien, the land passes
under the lien when the title thereto is reinvested
in the mortgagor on payment of the mortgage
debt.1*
The lien attaches to the equity where the encum-
brance is created by a transaction lacking the essen-
tials of a mortgage at law, but treated in equity as
a mortgage,15 and also, it seems, where it is creat-
ed by a deed absolute in form, but intended by the
parties . merely as a security,16 although the last
mentioned transaction does not come within the rule
in jurisdictions where such a deed is held to pass
the legal title.17 The interest of a grantor in a
deed of trust to secure a debt is subject in some
jurisdictions to the lien of a judgment against
5. Miss.— Cantzon v. Dorr, 27 Miss. 7. 111.— Walters v. Defenbaugh, 90
251. 111. 241.
6. Ga.— Kidd v. Kidd, 124 S.E. 45,
158 Ga. 546, 36 A.L.R. 798.
Iowa. — Everist v. Carter, 210 N.W.
559, 202 Iowa 498.
N.J.— McLaughlin v. Whaland, 13 A.
2d 573, 127 N.JJSq. 393— Riverside
Building- & Loan Ass'n v. Bishop,
131 A. 78, 98 N.J.BQ. 508.
S.D. — American Nat. Bank v. Groft,
229 N.W. 376, 56 S.D. 460.
Va. — NefTs Adm'r v. Newman, 142
S.E. 389, 150 Va. 203.
34 C.J. p 595 note 84.
Gale of debtor's interest
Judgment created no lien on debt-
or's equity of redemption in cotton
for which negotiable warehouse re-
ceipts were in pledgee's hands until
Judgment creditor enjoined negotia-
tion thereof; and creditor's rights
in debtor's interest in price of cot-
ton were controlled by debtor's con-
tract to sell cotton, title to which
passed to buyers before creditor en-
Joined negotiation of warehouse re-
ceipts, as against contention that
value of debtor's interest should be
•determined by value of cotton when
debtor filed exemption claim or
amendment thereto, subsequent rise
in value being for buyers' benefit
Debtor's interest in price received
from buyers of cotton was exempt
from payment of creditor's Judg-
ment, notwithstanding debtor did not
file exemption claim until after cred-
itor began suit to enjoin negotiation
of warehouse receipts and to subject
cotton to payment of judgment —
Warrick v. Liddon, 160 So. 534, 230
Ala. 253.
8. Ala.— Raisin Fertilizer Co. v.
Bell, 18 So. 168, 107 Ala. 261.
9. Iowa.— Sullivan v. Leckie. 14 N.
W. 355, 60 Iowa 326.
34 C.J. p 595 note 87.
ia Md.— Brawner v. Watklns, 28
Md. 217.
N.C.— Edmonds v. Wood, 22 S.E.2d
237, 222 N.C. 118.
«
11. Mo.— McGuire v. Wilkinson, 72
Mo. 199.
N.Y.— Sweet v. Jacocks, 6 Paige 355,
31 Am.D. 252.
12. N.T,— Sweet v. Jacocks, supra.
Where the mortgagor's equity of
redemption ceases to exist as an in-
terest in the land after the day of
sale, a creditor of the mortgagor ob-
taining Judgment after the mort-
gage foreclosure sale acquires no lien
on the mortgagor's interest in the
mortgaged land or equity of redemp-
tion.—Union Trust Co. v. Biggs, 137
A. 509, 153 Md. 50.
13. Iowa.— Sullivan v. Leckie,. 14 N.
W. 355, 60 Iowa 326.
S.C.— Columbia Branch Bank v.
Black, 7 S.C.Eq. 344.
14. Tenn. — Wamble v. Gant 79 S.W.
801, 112 Tenn. 327.
IB. N.T.— Bowery Nat Bank v.
Duncan, 12 Hun 405.
Pa.— Kinports v. Boynton, 14 A. 135,
120 Pa. 306, 6 Am.S.R. 706.
16. S.D.— American Nat. Bank v.
Groft 229 N.W. 376, 56 S.D. 460.
34 C.J. p 595 note 91—41 C.J. p 366
notes 64, 65.
Judgment lien as not attaching to
property previously transferred
see supra § 474.
Lands received in exchange
Where landowner executed deeds,
in effect mortgages, his equitable
title was subject to lien of subse-
quent judgments, which attached al-
so to land received in exchange
therefor and to proceeds thereof
over amount secured by deeds. — Ev-
erist v. Carter, 210 N.W. 659, 202
Iowa 498.
In Georgia
(1) A judgment against the ven-
dor in a security deed after its ex-
ecution in favor of a third person
is a lien on his interest in the prop-
erty thereby conveyed. — Kidd v.
Kidd, 124 S.E. 45, 158 Ga. 546, 36
A.L.B. 798 — O'Connor v. Georgia R.
Bank, 48 S.E. 716, 121 Ga. 88— Shu-
mate v. McLendon, 48 S.E. 10, 120
Ga. 396.
(2) It has been held, however,
that as the grantor divested himself
of the legal title, he had no Interest
in the land which could be seized
on execution, and that a Judgment
rendered against the grantor sub-
sequent to the conveyance could not
be enforced while the legal title was
outstanding and unredeemed. — Phin-
zy v. Clark. 62 Ga. 623 — Gibson v.
Hough, 60 Ga. 588.
17. N.J.-— McLaughUn v. Whaland,
13 A.2d 573, 127 N.XBq. 393.
34 C.J. p 595 note 92.
917
§ 479
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
him,18 although not so subject in others,19 but, in
those jurisdictions where the lien of a judgment
does not attach to the reversionary or equitable in-
terest of the grantor in such a deed of trust, the
judgment creditor, by filing a bill in equity for that
purpose, may secure a quasi lien, which will give
him an interest in any surplus which may remain
from the estate after discharging the trusts and
which would result to the grantor's benefit, para-
mount to that of the latter.2** Where the trans-
action is an absolute conveyance with a conditional
agreement for reconveyance, the grantor retains no
present interest in the realty, and a judgment
against him cannot be a lien thereon,21 although in
such case the judgment creditor may acquire a lien
by having the amount necessary to pay for the re-
conveyance determined and paying or properly ten-
dering that amount22
A judgment lien will attach to the debtor's right
of redemption from a sale under a prior judg-
ment23 or execution,24 or, although some statutes
have been construed to require a contrary hold-
ing,2^ from a sale of the land for unpaid taxes.26
A judgment debtor's right of possession and right
to redeem after foreclosure of a mechanic's lien has
been held not subject to a judgment lien;27 and a
judgment rendered against the mortgagor after the
foreclosure sale is not in some states a lien on a
statutory right to redeem from such sale,28 but in
other states a contrary rule has been adopted.29
§ 480. Interests of Parties to Execu-
tory Contract of Sale
a. Vendor's legal title
b. Vendee's equitable title
a. Vendor's Legal Title
A Judgment recovered against a vendor of land after
the execution of a contract for its sale but before the
making and delivery of a deed generally is a lien on the
legal title remaining in him, and binds the land to the
extent of the unpaid purchase money; but, where all
the purchase money has. been paid at the date of the
judgment, the lien does not attach to the mere naked
legal title in the vendor.
While in a few jurisdictions when an owner of
land has entered into an executory contract of sale
no lien is acquired by his judgment creditors against
the land,30 especially where the vendee has entered
into possession,31 the rule generally followed is that
a judgment recovered against a vendor of land, aft-
er the execution of a contract for its sale, but be-
fore the making and delivery of a deed, is a lien
on the legal title remaining in him and binds the
land to the extent of the unpaid purchase money ;32
and on a sale under such judgment the sheriffs
18. Ga.— Kidd v. Kidd, 124 S.E. 45,
158 Ga, 546, 36 A.L.R. 798.
Iowa, — Everist v. Carter, 210 N.W.
559, 202 Iowa 498.
Minn. — Atwater v. Manchester Sav.
Bank, 48 N.W. 187, 45 Minn. 341,
12 L.R.A. 741.
Va.— NefTs Adm'r v. Newman, 142
S.B. 3&9, 150 Va. 203.
34 C.J. p 595 note 3.
Trust estates and legal titles as
affected by judgment lien see in-
fra § 481.
19. U.S. — Freedman's Savings &
Trust Co. v. Barle, D.C., 4 S.Ct
226. 110 U.S. 710, 28 L.Ed. 301.
34 C.J. p 595 note 4.
20. U.S. — Freedman's Savings &
Trust Co. v. Earle, D.C., 4 S.Ct.
226, 110 U.S. 710, 28 L.Ed. 301.
34 C.J. p 596 note 5.
21. S.D.— American Nat. Bank v.
Groft, 229 N.W. 376, 56 S.D. 460.
Heason for role
In such a transaction the judg-
ment debtor has merely a contract
right which may enable him, on the
making of certain payments, to ob-
tain an interest in the realty; and
while, perhaps, in a sense, he may
be said to have an equitable inter-
est, he stands substantially in the
position of the vendee of realty un-
der an executory contract who has
no such interest in realty as is
subject to the lien of a judgment
in favor of his creditors. — American
Nat Bank v. Groft, supra.
22. S.D. — American Nat Bank v.
Groft, supra.
23. Iowa.— Curtis v. Millard, 14
Iowa 128, 81 Am.D. 460.
24. CaL— Stetson v. Sheehan, 200 P.
387, 52 CaLApp. 353.
26. Cal.-— Helvey v. Bank of Ameri-
ca Nat Trust & Savings Ass'n,
111 P.2d 390. 43 Cal.App.2d 532.
26. W.Va.— Shipley v. Browning,
172 S.B. 149, 114 W.Va. 409, 91
A.L.R. 643.
34 C.J. p 595 note 94.
Sand forfeited pending creditor's
rait
Where land was forfeited to state
for delinquent taxes while creditors'
suit to subject land to judgment lien
was pending, right of redemption of
former owner remains before court
in creditors' suit. — Early v. Berry,
175 S.E. 331, 115 W.Va. 105.
27. Iowa. — Murray v. Kelroy, 275
N.W. 21, 223 Iowa 1331.
28. I1L — Commerce Vault Co. v.
Barrett, 78 N.E. 47, 222 111. 169,
113 Am.S.R. 382, 6 Ann.Cas. 652—
People v. Barrett, 165 IlLApp. 94.
29. Or.— Kaston v. Storey, 80 P. 209,
46 Or. 308, 114 Am.S.R. 871.
30. Iowa. — Johnson v. Smith, 231 N..
W. 470, 210 Iowa 591— Vander wilt
918
v. Broerman, 206 N.W. 959, 201
Iowa 1107.
Okl. — City Guaranty Bank of Hobart
v. Boxley, 270 P. 69, 132 Okl. 183.
34 C.J. p 598 note 32.
Reason for rule
A vendor's interest in land after
execution of unrecorded contract of
sale therefor is personal property,
and not real estate to which the lien
of the judgment will attach. — Cum- -
ming v. First Nat. Bank, 202 N.W.
556, 199 Iowa 667.
31. Ark. — State Bank v. Sanders,
170 S.W. 86, 114 Ark. 440.
111.— Lynch v. Eifler, 191 IlLApp. 344.
34 C.J. p 598 note 33.
32. Ala. — Robinson v. Shearer, 99
So. 179, 211 Ala. 16.
Colo.— Corpus Juris cited in Chain
O'Mines v. Williamson, 72 P.2d
265, 267, 101 Colo. 231.
Ga.— Latimer v. Tumlin, 74 Ga. 835.
Minn.— Corpus Juris cited In W. T.
Bailey Lumber Co. v. Hendrickson,
240 N.W. 666, 667, 185 Minn. 251.
Neb. — Bauermeister v. McDonald; 247
N.W. 424, 124 Neb. 142.
N.D.— Battersby v. Gillespie, 222 N.
W. 480. 57 N.D. 426.
Tex, — Corpus Juris quoted in Peve-
house v. Oliver Farm Equipment
Sales Co., Civ.App., 114 S.W.2d
658, 663.
Wash. — Corpus Juris cited in Heath
v. Dodson, 110 P.2d 845, 847, 7
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
480
vendee stands precisely in the situation of the orig-
inal vendor, and is entitled to the unpaid purchase
money.33
The mere docketing of the judgment, however, is
not notice of the lien to the purchaser in posses-
sion, and payments subsequently made by him to the
judgment debtor, pursuant to the contract, without
actual notice of the judgment, are valid as against
the lien on the land,34 although the rule has been
held to be otherwise where the vendee pays the bal-
ance of the purchase money to the vendor with ac-
tual notice of the judgment35 or with full knowledge
of the pendency of a suit against the vendor which
might result in judgment against him.36 The eq-
uitable right of the vendee to require a conveyance
on fulfilling his part of the contract is not cut out
or set aside by the attaching of the judgment lien,37
even though none of the purchase money has been
paid.38 In some states, however, a contract for the
sale of lands will not prevail against a subsequent
judgment lien unless recorded,39 although actual,
possession of the land, on the part of the vendee
under a valid contract, .will be sufficient to secure
his equitable rights as against the lien of the judg-
ment.40 It is not an unusual practice for courts of
equity to control the operation of a judgment ob-
tained against a vendor subsequent to a contract
for the sale of lands, and where the unpaid pur-
chase money is brought into court equity may, on
a proper showing, restrain proceedings to enforce
the judgment by execution sale of the land.41
WheVe all the purchase money has been paid at the
date of the judgment, there remains nothing but a
naked legal title in the vendor, to which the lien
does not attach.42
Wash.2d 4567 — Vandin v. Henry Mc-
Cleary Timber Co., 289 P. 1016,
157 Wash. 635.
34 C.J. p 598 note 34.
Vendor's interest as subject to at-
tachment or execution see the
C.J.S. title Vendor and Purchaser
§§ 307, 308, also 66 C.J. p 1064
note 66-p 1065 note 99.
33. Minn. — Corpus Juris cited in W.
T. Bailey Lumber Co. v. Hendrick-
son, 240 N.W. 666, 667, 185 Minn.
251.
N.C. — Tomlinson v. Blackburn, 37
N.C. 509.
N.D.— Battersby v/ Gillespie, 222 N.
W. 480, 57 N.D. 426.
Wash. — Corpus Juris cited in. Heath
v. Dodson, 110 P.2d 845, 847, 7
Wash.2d 667.
34 C.J. p 599 note 35.
34. Md. — Caltrider v. Caples, 153 A.
445, 160 Md. 392, 87 A.L.R. 1500.
34 C.J. p 599 note 36.
36. Wash.— Heath v. Dodson, 110 P.
2d 845, 7 Wash.2d 667.
36. Ohio. — Lefferson v. Dallas, 20
Ohio St. $8.
37, Md.— Caltrider v. Caples, 153 A.
445, 160 Md. 392, 87 A.L.R. 1500.
Tex. — Payne v. Bracken, 115 S.W.2d
903, 131 Tex, 394.
Wash. — Vandin v. Henry McCleary
Timber Co., 289 P. 1016, 157 Wash.
635.
:34 C.J. p 599 note 38.
Rights of vendee not displaced or
impaired by judgment lien against
vendor generally see infra § 485.
Parol contract
(1) "One who occupies under a pa-
rol contract of purchase cannot set
up as against the judgment-creditor
..of the parol vendor a title acquired
after the enrollment of the judg-
-ment, though made in pursuance of
.an antedating parol sale. The
: rights of the creditor are fixed by
the condition of affairs as they ex-
isted at the time of the inception
of his lien, and cannot be varied by
any subsequent conveyance which
the debtor could not have been coerc-
ed by the courts to make." — Niles v.
Davis, 60 Miss. 750, 753.
(2) It has been held that a pur-
chaser of land by parol contract,
which has been so far executed as to
vest in him the right to compel his
vendor to execute the contract in a
court of equity, has an equitable
right in the land which a court of
equity will fully protect as against
the lien of a subsequent judgment
creditor of the vendor. — Farmers'
Transp. Co. v. Swaney, 37 S.E. 692,
48 W.Va. 272— Snyder v. Botkin, 16
S.E. 591, 37 W.Va. 355—34 C.J. p 599
note 38 [a] (2).
(3) It has also been held that,
where one purchases land by parol
and is put in possession, he is not
protected to the extent of the pur-
chase money paid as to subsequent
judgments against the vendor until
he has acquired a perfect equitable
title by paying the entire price. —
Fulkerson v. Taylor, 46 S.E. 309,
102 Va. 314.
(4) An equitable title held by a
bona fide purchaser, although by pa-
rol contract, who has paid the en-
tire purchase money and received
possession, will be preferred in equi-
ty to the liens of judgment credi-
tors subsequently acquired against
the vendor, provided the parol con-
tract relied on is certain and definite
in its terms, and is sustained by sat-
isfactory proof. — Hurt's Adm'x v.
Prillaman, 79 Va. 257 — Trout's Adm'r
v. Warwick, 77 Va. 731 — Floyd v.
Harding, 28 Gratt. 401, 69 Va. 401.
•Unrecorded agreement
Agreement to convey land need not
be recorded to be binding between
parties and against judgment ao
919
quired after execution of agreement.
—Caltrider v. Caples, 153 A. 445, 160
Md. 392. 87 A.L.R. 1500.
Sufficiency of agreement
In absence of fraud, creditor of
vendor obtaining judgment after ex-
ecution of agreement to convey can-
not raise question of insufficiency of
agreement. — Caltrider v. Caples, su-
pra.
38. Md. — Hampson v. Edelen, 2
Harr. & J. 64, 3 Am.D. 530.
34 C.J. p 599 note 39.
39. Minn. — Ferguson v. Kumler, 11
Minn. 104.
34 C.J. p 599 note 40.
Notice of third party's claim tinder
unrecorded assignment of unrecord-
ed contract for sale was held of no
avail after judgment against ven-
dor in whom title appears of record.
— Battersby v. Gillespie, 222 N.W.
480, 57 N.D. 426.
40. Minn. — Baker v. Thompson, 31
N.W. 51, 36 Minn. 314.
34 C.J. p 599 note 41.
41. U.S.— Lane v. Ludlow, C.C., 14 F.
Cas.No.8,052, 2 Paine 591.
42. Cal.— Iknoian v. Winter, 270 P.
999, 94 Cal.App. 223.
Ind. — Vance v. Workman, 8 Blackf.
306.
Iowa. — Richardson v. Estle, 243 N.W.
611, 214 Iowa 1007.
Kan. — Elwell v. Hitchcock, 21 P.
109, 41 Kan. 130.
Neb.— Uhl v. May, 5 Neb. 157.
N.T.— Brown v. Grabb, 51 N.E. 306,
156 N.T. 447.
Pa. — Schuler v. Kovatch, 28 Pa,DisL
& Co. 485, 17 Lehigh Co.UJ. 147.
Wash. — Corpus Juris cited in Heath
v. Dodson, 110 P.2d 845, 847, 7
Wash.2d 667 — Lee v. Wrixon, 79 P.
489, 37 Wash. 47.
$4 C.J. p 599 note 43.
Trust estates and legal titles gen"
erally see infra § 481.
480
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
Notes for balance of purchase price. If a part of
the purchase money has been paid, and the pur-
chaser's note given for the balance, the lien of a
judgment will still attach to the vendor's interest;43
but if the note given for such balance of the price
is transferred before maturity to a bona fide holder
for value without notice, the real estate cannot be
subjected to the payment of a judgment rendered
against the vendor, retaining the legal title, after
such assignment,44 although it has been held oth-
erwise where the judgment was obtained by the
transferee of the notes.45 Where a deed reserving
a vendor's lien for a purchase-money note was re-
corded, and such lien assigned by an unrecorded
instrument, the original deed was notice to the ven-
dor's creditors only until the purchase-money note
was outlawed, and liens of judgments against the
vendor secured after the note was barred by the
statute of limitations are superior to the assignee's
rights under the vendor's lien.46
T). Vendee's Equitable Title
While It has been held in some Jurisdictions that the
Hen of a Judgment will not attacji to an interest in land
held by the debtor under a contract for its purchase
where no deed has been made, the rule is otherwise in
jurisdictions where a Judgment is a iien on an equitable
estate In iand.
In pursuance of the common-law rule, stated su-
pra § 479, that equitable estates are not subject to
the lien of judgments, it has been held in several
jurisdictions that the lien of a judgment cannot at-
tach to an interest in land held by the debtor un-
der a contract for its purchase, where no deed has
been made, although part of the purchase money
may have been paid, but that the only remedy of
the judgment creditor is in equity.47 In some ju-
risdictions, however, where by statute or otherwise
a judgment is a lien on an equitable estate in lands,
it is the rule that a vendee who holds under a con-
tract of purchase, but who has not received a con-
veyance, acquires an interest on which a judgment
will attach as a lien to the extent of such interest
as measured by the amount of his payments already
made and by his improvements on the premises,48
and this rule has been applied not only where the
whole or a part of the purchase money has been
paid,49 but also where no payment whatever has
been made.5** If the vendee, before completion of
the purchase, sells and assigns his interest under
his contract to a third person, the land will not be
bound in the hands of the latter by a judgment*
thereafter rendered against the assignor,51 at least
not where the contract of sale or assignment was
recorded.52 The lien created by entry of a judg-
ment against the vendor does not attach to the in-
terest created in the vendee by the prior contract to
purchase.53
Conditional sale of personalty. Where one makes
a conditional sale of personal property, retaining the
title in himself to secure the purchase money, a fail-
ure to record the contract as required by statute does
not render the property subject to a judgment ren-
dered in favor of a third person and against the
vendee of the personalty prior to the making of the
conditional sale.64
§ 481. Trust Estates and Legal Titles-
a. In general
b. Judgments against cestui que trust
43. Ga.— Bell v. McDuffle, 71 Ga.
264.
34 C.J. p 600 note 44.
4*. Ga.— McGregor v. Matthis, 32
Gte. 417.
34 C.J. p 600 note 45.
45. Ga. — Cooper v. Lynes, 111 S.E.
425, 153 Ga. 85.
34 C.J. p 600 note 46.
46. Tex.— Price v. Traders' Nat
Bank, Civ.App., 195 S.W. 934.
47. CaL — Graves v. Arizona Cent.
Bank, 272 P. 1063. 205 Cal. 715—
Oaks v.. Kendall. 73 P.2d 1255, 23
Cal.App.2d 715.
S.D. — American Nat. Bank v. Groft,
229 N.W. 376, 56 S.D. 460.
34 C.J. p 600 note 49.
Vendee's interest as subject to at-
tachment or execution see the O.
J.S. title Vendor and Purchaser §
315, also 66 C.J. p 1083 note 98-
p 1085 note 42.
48. Ga.— Sloan v. Loftis, 120 S.E.
781, 157 Ga. 93.
Minn. — Farmers' & Merchants' State
Bank of Thief River Falls v.
Stageberg, 201 N.W. 612, 161 Minn.
413.
Va. — Mize v. Pennington Gap Bank,
170 S.E. 594, 161 Va. 265.
34 C.J. p 600 note 50.
Vendee la possession, under con-
tract had interest subject to judg-
ment lien, and creditor attaching
property of purchaser under con-
tract had valid judgment lien en-
forceable to extent of interest debtor
had in premises after acquiring title
by deed. — Joseph v. Donovan, 157 A.
638, 114 Conn. 79.
In Pennsylvania
Apart from statute, a judgment
against the equitable estate which a
vendee holds under articles of agree-
ment for the stale and purchase of
land attaches to and binds the legal
estate the instant it vests in the
vendee, this doctrine being an excep-
tion to the general rule established
in Pennsylvania that the lien of a
Judgment does not affect a subse-
quently acquired interest of the
920
debtor by revival. — Brumbach v.
Pearson, 13 Pa.Dist. & Co. 762, 22*
Berks Co.L..J. 124, 44 York Leg.Rec.
21, 78 Pittsb.Leg.J. 451—34 C.J. p 600
note 50 [d],
49. Ga.— Ralston v. Field, 32 Ga..
453.
34 C.J. p -601 note 51.
50. Iowa. — Rand v. Garner, 39 NL
W. 515, 75 Iowa 311.
51. Ark. — Whittington v. Simmons,.
32 Ark. 377.
34 C.J. p 601 note 53.
52. Pa.— Russell's Appeal, 15 Pa..
319.
W.Va. — Damron v. Smith, 16 S.R.
807, 37 W.Va. 580.
53. Wash.— Heath v. Dodson, 110 P..
2d 845, 7 Wash.2d 667.
Rights of vendee not displaced or-
impaired by subsequent accruing
of judgment lien against vendor*
generally see infra § 485.
54. Ga. — Commercial Credit Co. of
Georgia v. Jones Motor Co., 167T
S.E. 768, 46 Ga.App. 464.
49 O.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 481
a. In General
As a general rule, the lien of a Judgment does not at-
tach to the mere legal title to property existing In the
judgment debtor when the equitable and beneficial title
is in another, at least in the absence of an estoppel.
The lien of a judgment does not attach to the
mere legal title to property existing in the judgment
debtor, when the equitable and beneficial title is in
another,55 as where land is conveyed to the judg-
ment debtor by a deed absolute in form, but intend-
ed merely as a security, or subject to a parol agree-
ment to reconvey,56 or where there is a mere transi-
tory seizin of lands by the judgment debtor in trust
for another,57 or where a third person pays the pur-
chase money, but the deed is taken in the name of
the judgment debtor,68 although a judgment lien on
lands cannot be defeated 'by the fact that the pur-
chase money for the lands was paid by a third per-
son subsequent to the vesting of title in the judg-
ment debtor, so that no resulting trust was creat-
ed.^
55. U.S.— TJ. S. v. Certain Lands in
Borough, of Brooklyn, Kings Coun-
ty, N. Y. (Parcel No. 6), D.C.N.Y.,
44 F.Supp. 830.
Cal.— McGee v. Allen, 60 P.2d 1026,
7 Cal.2d 468— Spear v. Farwell, 42
P.2d 391, 5 Cal.App.2d 111— Davis
v. Perry, 8 P.2d 514, 120 CaLApp.
670— Iknoian v. Winter, 270 P. 999,
94 CaLApp. 223.
E*la. — Arundel Debenture Corporation
v. Le Blond, 190 So. 765, 139 Fla.
668 — Laganke v. Sutter, 187 So.
586, 137 Fla. 71— Little v. Saffer,
148 So. 573, 110 Fla. 230— First
Nat. Bank v. Savarese, 134 So.
501, 101 Fla. 480.
111. — Mauricau v. Haugen, 56 N,B.
3d 367, 387 111. 186— Macaulay v.
Dorian, 147 N.B. 793, 317 111. 126.
N.Y.— In re O'Brien's Estate, 26 N.
Y.S.2d 519.
N.C. — Jackson v. Thompson, 200 S.B.
16, 214 N.C. 539.
Okl. — City Guaranty Bank of Ho-
bart v. Boxley, 270 P. 69, 132 Okl.
183.
Tex. — Berry v. Chadwick, Civ.App.,
137 S.W.2d 859, error dismissed,
judgment correct — Garrison v. Cit-
izens' Nat. Bank of Hillsboro, Civ.
App., 25 S.W.2d 231, error refused.
Va.— Miller v. Kemp, 160 S.B. 203,
157 Va.-178, 84 A.L.R. 980.
Wash. — Heath v. Dodson, 110 P.2d
845, 7 Washed 667.
34 C.J. p 596 note 6.
Interest of grantor in deed of trust
to secure a debt as subject to
judgment lien see supra § 479 b.
Personal property
Ala.— First Nat Bank v. T. J. Perry
& Son, 140 So. 614, 25 AUuApp. 6,
certiorari dismissed 140 So. 616,
first case, 224 Ala. 13, and cer-
tiorari denied 140 So. 616, second
case, 224 Ala. 420.
Registration, statutes
(1) An implied or resulting trust
is not within the registration stat-
utes.— In re Bosenberg, D.CXTex., 4
F.2d 581.
(2) Statute relating to the record-
ing ' of deeds, mortgages, etc., does
not require resulting trusts to be
recorded to be valid against subse-
quent judgment creditors. — East St.
Louis Lumber Co. v. Schnipper, 141
N.B. 542, 310 111. 150.
Beneficial interest in trustee
Where judgment debtor held title
to land as trustee, the lien of the
judgment against judgment debtor
individually attached only to his ac-
tual interest as a cestui que trust. —
Brown v. Hodgman, 19 S.B.2d 910,
124 W.Va. 136.
Transaction held to vest complete ti-
tle in detrbor
Wife to whom husband voluntarily
executed deed to qualify her as sure-
ty on bail bond had title to which
lien of judgment against her at-
tached, and not mere naked legal
title with equitable title remaining
in grantor, even though parties in-
tended deed was not to be recorded.
— Parsons v. Robinson, 274 P. 528,
206 Cal. 378.
Judgment against superintendent
of banking who has sued as receiver
of a particular bank would not be
lien on any land held by him as
receiver of some other bank. — Bates
v. Nichols, 274 N.W. 32, 223 Iowa
878.
Land deeded to avoid financial diffi-
culties
Judgment creditors of person to
whom land was deeded without con-
sideration and who held entire in-
terest therein as trustee for gran-
tor was not entitled to lien against
such land, notwithstanding land was
deeded to such person to avoid finan-
cial difficulty. — Kennedy v. Roff, 61
P.2d 1041, 178 Okl. 71.
In Pennsylvania
(1) Prior to the act of June 4,
1901, a judgment creditor was not
entitled to the protection of a pur-
chaser of the legal title against an
equitable owner. Such act changed
the law by providing that a result-
ing trust arising from payment of
purchase money by a person other
than the one taking the legal title
shall be void as to bona fide judg-
ment or other creditors; but such
act is not applicable to trusts aris-
ing where a conveyance is made
without any consideration and it
appears that the grantee was not in-
tended to take beneficially. — Lough-
ney v. Page, 182 A. 700, 320 Pa. 508
—34 C.J. p 596 note 6 [j].
(2) The statute has application
only to one particular type of trust,
921
that which arises by reason of a
payment of the purchase money by
one person and the taking of title
in the name of another. — Davis v.
Commonwealth Trust Co., 7 A.2d 3,
335 Pa. 387 — Loughney v. Page, su-
pra—34 C,J. p 596 note 6 [j],
(3) As to real estate to which the
debtor holds only the bare record
title, the judgment is no lien; and
a judgment creditor of a trust com-
pany could not secure a lien on real-
ty held by the trust company as
trustee for others. — Fortna v. Com-
monwealth Trust Co., 19 A.2d 57, 841
Pa. 138 — Eavis v. Commonwealth
Trust Co., 7 A.2d 3, 335 Pa. 387.
(4) So, where claim against trust
company for unlawful distraint was
nothing more than a common or
secondary claim against the assets
of the trust company in possession
of liquidating trustees, the securing
of a judgment on such claim could
not give the claim a higher status
than it primarily had. — Davis v.
Commonwealth Trust Co., supra.
(5)' Other cases. — Davis v. • Com-
monwealth Trust Co., Com.PL, 46
Dauph.Co. 297 — Gorniak v. Potter Ti-
tle & Trust Co., Com.PL, 91 Pittsb.
Leg.J. 279.
56. U.S. — U. S. v. Certain Lands in
Borough of Brooklyn, Kings Coun-
ty, N. T. (Parcel No. 6), D.C.N.Y.,
44 F.Supp. 830.
Tex. — Garrison v. Citizens' Nat. Bank
of HiUsboro, Civ.App., 25 S.W.2d
231, error refused.
34 C.J. p 596 note 7.
57. Minn. — Farmers' & Merchants*
State Bank of Thief River Falls v.
Stageberg, 201 N.W. 612, 161 Minn.
413.
34 C.J. p 596 note 8.
Lands instantaneously ^seized as not
subject to judgment' lien general-
ly see, supra § 476.
58. N.C. — Jackson v. Thompson, 200
S.E. 16, 214 N.C. 539.
Tex. — Garrison . v. Citizens' Nat.
Bank of Hillsboro, Civ.App., 25
S.W.2d 231, error refused.
34 C.J. p 597 note 9.
59. S.C.— Ex parte Trenholm, 19
S.C. 126.
34 C.J. p 597 note 10.
481
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
In some jurisdictions, however, it has been held
lat the "beneficial owner may be -estopped to assert
tie against the lien of a judgment obtained by one
rho extended credit to the holder of the legal title
ithout knowledge of the equities.60 When the
ttst does not extend to the entire interest in the
md, as where the title is taken in the name of the
iidgment debtor and part only of the purchase mon-
y is paid out of trust funds in his hands, the judg-
lent against him will be a lien on the land to the
xtent of his interest thereinl61 Where a trustee
olds the legal title, and that title is of record, a
idgment on default entered simply against the
rustor does not affect the right or title held by the
rustee or the beneficiary for whom the title is so
b. Judgments against Cestui Que Trust
It has been held that a judgment against a cestui
ue trust does not attach as a Hen on his equitable es-
ate, but under some circumstances such an Interest may
e subject to a judgment lien.
Under the rule denying to judgments the effect
>f liens on equitable estates, it has been held that a
udgment does not attach as a lien on the interest
>f a cestui que trust, as, for instance^ where land
ias been purchased with the money of a judgment
lebtor, but the title has been taken in the name of
. third person;63 and, in some jurisdictions where
i judgment is held to be a lien on both legal and
quitable estates, the judgment gives no lien on the
and so purchased if the transaction was i;i fraud
of creditors.64 However, a distinction has been
made between active and passive trusts, it being
held that where the legal title to lands is in trustees
for the purpose of serving the requirements of an
active trust, a judgment creditor of the cestui que
trust has no lien and can acquire none at law,65 al-
though he may obtain relief in equity, on a bill to
subject the beneficiary's interest to the satisfaction
of his judgment,66 but that the equitable estate or
interest of a cestui que trust may be subject to the
lien of a judgment against him where the trust is
merely a dry or passive one.67
Termination of trust. Where a trust provides for
the collection of income up to a certain time, and
then for the division of the property among the ben-
eficiaries, the trustee having no power to sell the
trust property, judgments which have been recov-
ered against the beneficiaries will become liens on
their interests in the property on the arrival of the
time of division.68
§ 482.
Leaseholds
Leasehold interests are bound by Judgment liens
where such Interests are treated as real estate, or where
statutes expressly so provide.
At common law a leasehold interest or estate in
land for years was regarded as only a chattel in-
terest, and therefore not subject to the lien of a
judgment, and this view is still held in some
states ;6d but in others leasehold interests are re-
garded and treated as real estate, and as such bound
by judgment liens.70 Judgments are also liens on
0. Fla. — Arundel Debenture Corpo-
ration v. Le Blond, 190 So. 765,
139 Fla. 668 — Laganke v. Sutter,
187 So. 586, 137 Fla. 71— Little v.
Saffer, 148 So. 573, 110 Fla. 230
—First Nat. Bank v. Savarese, 134
So. 501, 101 Fla. 480.
Ja.— First Nat. Bank v. Pounds, 136
S.E. 528, 163 Ga. 551.
nothing another with apparent title
to real property as creating estop-
pel generally see Estoppel § 105.
Creditor held not entitled to lien
A judgment creditor had no lien
.gainst land purchased by Judgment
Lebtor with proceeds of land de-
rised to Judgment debtor's daughters
>n .ground that judgment creditor
lad loaned to judgment debtor on
itrength of his holdings, where there
Kras no recorded deed to judgment
lebtor which might have gone into
m estimate of judgment debtor's
iolvency; and the judgment creditor
iould not urge lapse of time and
aches of daughters in not bringing
:heir affairs to an earlier settlement
md not having accounts filed and ap-
proved and proper conveyance of
Lands made to them, where there was
no evidence that judgment debtor
denied trust or refused to execute
it, and if he had, matter would still
be between parties to trust. — Jack-
son v. Thompson, 200 S.E. 16, 214 N.
C. 539.
61. Minn. — Martin v. Baldwin, 16 N.
W. 449, 30 Minn. -537.
62. Cal. — Schwartz v. Mead, 3 P.2d
48, 116 CaLApp. 606.
63. Pa. — Loughney v. Page, 23 Pa.
Dist & Co. 534, affirmed 182 A.
700, 320 Pa. 508.
34 C.J. p 597 note 12.
64. N.C.— Dixon v. Dixon, 81 N.C.
323.
34 C.J. p 597 note 13.
65. U.S. — Brandies v. Cochrane, I1L,
5 S.Ct. 194, 112 U.S. 344, 28 KEd.
• 760.
34 C.J. p 597 note 14.
66. U.S. — Freedman's Savings &
Trust Co. v. Earle, B.C., 4 S.Ct
226, 110 U.S. 710, 28 L.Ed. 301.
Va. — Coutts v. Walker, 2 Leigh 268,
29 Va. 268.
67. Del.— -Doe v. T«aTOc, 9 Del. 648.
34 C.J. p 597 note 16.
922
68. 111.— - Moll v. Gardner, 73 N.E.
442, 214 111. 248.
69. Cal.— Cook v. Huntley, 112 P.2d
889, 44 Cal.App.2d 635.
Okl.— Pauline Oil & Gas Co. v.
Fischer, 130 P.2d 305, 191 Okl. 346
—First Nat. Bank v. Dunlap, 254
P\ 729. 122 Okl. 288, 52 A.L.R.
126.
Pa. — Sheaffer v. Baeringer, 29 A.2d
697, 346 Pa. 32.
34 C.J. p 593 note 77.
Personal property as subject to Judg-
ment liens generally see supra §
472.
Incorporeal hereditament
Statutes making judgment lien on
real estate does not apply to ordi-
nary oil and gas lease which is an
incorporeal hereditament — Beren v.
Marshall Oil & Gas Corporation, 251
P. 192, 122 Kan. 134.
70. N.T. — Henderson v. Tomb, 8 N.
T.S.2d 612, 169 Misc. 737.
34 OJ. p 593 note 78.
Real property as subject to judg-
ment liens generally see supra I
472.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 484
leasehold interests where expressly made so by stat-
ute™
§ 483. Priority of Liens
A judgment creditor has a right to strengthen his
lien against the property of his debtor by purchasing
other claims, valid or invalid, which were asserted as
superior to the judgment lien.
A judgment creditor has a right to strengthen his
lien against the property of his debtor by purchas-
ing other claims, valid or invalid, which were as-
serted as superior to the judgment lien.72
The priority of liens as between judgments gen-
erally is considered infra § 484; as between judg-
ments and attachment liens in Attachment § 272;
as between judgments and garnishment liens in Gar-
nishment § 183 ; and as between judgments and oth-
er liens or conveyances generally infra § 485.
§ 484. — Between Judgments
a. In general
b. As against after-acquired property
c. Judgments entered on same day
d. Priority by superior diligence
e. Judgments for future advances
f. Judgments for purchase money
a. In General
In general the liens of different judgments, affecting
the same property take rank and priority according to
the dates, when they were respectively entered or
docketed.
In some jurisdictions, the docketing of a judg-
ment is necessary in order that the lien may attach
as against subsequent judgment creditors;73 in oth-
ers, a prior judgment, whether docketed or undock-
eted, has priority over a subsequent judgment.74 In
the absence of countervailing equities, or the es-
tablishment of a different rule by statute, and sub-
ject to the rules hereinafter stated, the liens of dif-
ferent judgments affecting the same property take
rank and priority according to the dates when they
were respectively entered or docketed, the elder be-
ing first entitled to satisfaction,75 without regard
to the. date of acquisition of the land to which they
attach,76 and the same rule of priority obtains as
between a judgment at law and a decree in equity
where the law requires both to be docketed or en-
rolled.77 In fixing this priority, the relative posi-
tion of the judgments on the docket, although rais-
ing a presumption as to their seniority, is not con-
trolling.78
Since the lien of a judgment is dependent on the *
condition of the record at the time of its entry, it
cannot be affected by a subsequent revival of an
earlier judgment, giving the holder thereof rights
which did not exist at the time of the entry of the
junior judgment.79 If the last of three or more
judgment liens in the order of their succession is
superior to the first, but inferior to the second, it
gains no practical advantage from its superiority,
because it could not be preferred to the first without
being preferred also to the second, to which it is
subsequent.80 In some jurisdictions it has been
held that a subsequent judgment creditor is entitled
to priority over an earlier judgment of which the
docket gives no notice,81 as where it fails to dis-
71. U.S.— In re Day, D.O.Md., 22 F.
Supp. 946.
34 O.J. p 593 note 78 [e].
72. Mo. — Essey v. Bushakra, 252 S.
W. 459, 299 Mo. 147.
73. La.— Robinson v. Cosner, 67 So.
468. '.36 La. 595.
N..1 —Merchants' & Mfrs.' Trust Co.
* Rollins, 141 A. 265, 102 N.J.EQ.
460.
34 C.J. p 601 note 55.
74. W.Va.— Amato v. Hall, 174 S.B.
686, 115 W.Va. 79.
34 C.J. p 601 note 56.
75. D.C.— Ginder v. Giuffrida, 62 F.
2d 877, 61 App.D.C. 338.
Ga.— Herndon v. Braddy, 146 S.B.
495, 39 Ga.App. 165.
Iowa. — Paulsen v. Jensen, 228 N.W.
357, 209 Iowa 453.
La.— State ex rel. Wall v. Coverdale,
App., 175 So. 492— Flaspoller Co.
v. Sless, 6 La.App. 827.
Md. — Messinger v. Bckenrode, 158 A.
357, 162 Md. 68.
Minn. — Lowe v. Reierson, 276 N.W.
224, 201 Minn. 280.
N.C. — Summers Hardware Co. v.
Jones, 23 S.E.2d 883, 222 N.C. 530
— Dillard v. Walker, 167 S.B. 632,
204 N.C. 67— Sugg v. Pollard, 115
S.E. 153, 184 N.C. 494.
34 C.J. p 601 note 57.
Statutory provisions construed and
compared
La. — Lederman v. McCailum, 1 La.
App. 552.
Notice of lis pendens
The absence of any filing of a no-
tice of lis pendens cannot be as-
serted to the benefit of judgments
obtained after the original judgment
was docketed. — Sugg v. Pollard, 115
S.B. 153, 184 N.C. 494.
Date of entry on judgment docket
controls
Pa.— Citizens Nat. Bank & Trust Co.
of Lehighton v. First Nat Bank,
20 PaJDist. & Co. 349, 15 Leh.L.J.
302, 6 Som.Co. 368, 47 York Leg.
Reo. 167.
76. MdWMessinger v. Bckenrode,
158 A. 357, 162 Md. 63.
77. Miss. — McKee v. Gayle, 46 Miss.
923
676— Briggs v. Planters' Bank,
Freem. 574.
78. Pa. — Glasgow v. Kann, 82 A.
1095, 171 Pa. 262.
34 C.J. p 602 note 59.
79. Pa. — Young v. Young, 20 Pa.Co.
45.
Tex. — Harrison v. First Nat. Bank,
Civ.App., 224 S.W. 269.
34 C.J. p 602 note 60.
80. Pa. — Dowling v. Vallett, 70 Pa.
Super. 481.
34 C.J. p 602 note 61.
81. U.S.— In re MacNulty, D.C.Pa.,
4 F.Supp. 93.
Pa. — Everett Bank v. Hall, 10 A.2d
115, 138 Pa.Super. 79.
Judgment against married woman
A judgment on a confession en-
tered of record against woman twice
married in her first married name,
entered several years after her mar-
riage to second husband, did not af-
ford such "constructive notice" in
public record as to give judgment
priority over a subsequent judgment
on a mortgage signed by woman in
§484
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
dose the Christian name of the debtor;82 but the
rule has been held not to apply to a junior judgment
holder who fails to search the judgment records and
hence was not misled.83 Actual notice of a defec-
tively entered judgment is as effective to give pri-
ority to such judgment over a subsequent judgment
as is the constructive notice given by the judgment
docket.8*
Judgments entered at same term. Where the doc-
trine of relation to the first or last day of the term,
as discussed supra § 113, prevails, or where so pro-
vided by statute, there is no priority between judg-
ments entered at the same term ;8& but even where
this rule has been given statutory form, it has been
held not to affect the priorities of transcripts of
judgments filed in a county other than that in which
the judgments were recovered.86 Where the doc-
trine of relation does not apply, and in the absence
of statute, the priority of judgments is not affected
by the fact that they were rendered at the same
term.8?
b. As against After-Acquired Property
As a general rule there Is no priority between Judg-
ments as to property acquired by the judgment debtor
after the judgments have been entered.
Although there is some authority to the con-
trary,88 it has generally been held that, if several
judgments are entered against the same debtor at
different times, and he afterward acquires the legal
title to real estate, the liens of the several judg-
ments attach together on the property at the same
instant, and there are therefore no priorities be-
tween them;89 nor can one judgment creditor ob-
tain priority by obtaining execution and sale of such
property.90
c. Judgments Entered on Same Day
As between judgments entered on the same day, In-
some Jurisdictions there is no priority of Hen. In others,
priority depends on priority of execution, while in stilt
others, fractional parts of the day may be considered.
In some jurisdictions, courts are bound to look
to the fractional parts of a day in order to deter-
mine the priority of judgment liens where several
are entered, filed, or registered against the same
debtor on the same da}'.91 In other jurisdictions,
the rule in respect of such judgments is that the
creditor who first takes out execution will have a
preference.92 In still other jurisdictions, there is
no priority of liens between judgments entered on
the same day, and, when the fund is insufficient to
discharge them all, they are to be paid pro rata,95
unless some one judgment creditor has a superior
equity.94
d. Priority by Superior Diligence
Under the statutes and decisions In some Jurisdic-
tions, and in a proper case, priority may be gained for
a judgment by a creditor exercising superior diligence
in obtaining execution.
Where several judgments are of equal rank or
date, it has been held, as discussed in Fraudulent
Conveyances § 451, that a priority is gained by that
creditor who exercises superior activity and dili-
gence, as where one is the first to discover and
avoid a fraudulent conveyance of property by the
common debtor; or to levy an attachment on the
property, as considered in Attachments § 272; and
one who by supplementary proceedings discovers
.surname of present husband. — South
Side Bank & Trust Co. v. Wright,
32 A.2d 918, 153 Pa.Super. 83.
82. U.S.— In re MacNulty* D.C.Pa.,
4 F.Supp. 93.
83. Md.— Messinger v. Eckenrode,
158 A. 857, 162 Md. 63.
84. Pa. — Coral Gables v. Kerl, 6 A.
2d 275, 334 Pa* 441, 122 A.L.R.
903.
85. Ga.— Bads v. Southern Surety
Co., 173 S.B. 163, 178 Ga. 348—
Herndbn v. Braddy, 146 S.B. 495,
39 Ga-App. 165.
34 C.J. p 602 note 64.
33. S.C.— Farmers' • & Merchants'
Bank v. Holliday, 93 S.E. 833, 108
S.C. 116.
87. -U.S.— Welsh v. Murray, Pa., 4
Dall. 320, 1 L.Ed. 850.
Md.— Anderson v. Tuck, 38 Md. 225.
88. Minn. — Lowe v. Reierson, 276 N.
W. 224, 201 Minn. 280.
34 C.J. p 602 note 68.
89. N.C. — Summers Hardware Co. v.
Jones. 23 S.B.2d 883, 222 N.C. 530.
N.D.— Corpus Juris cited in Zink v.
James River Nat Bank, 224 N.W.
901, 903, 58 N.D. 1, 67 A.L.R. 1294.
34 C.J. p 603 note 69.
90. N.D.— Zink v. James River Nat.
Bank, 224 N.W. 901, 58 N.D. 1. 67
A.L.R. 1294.
91. Neb. — Pontiac Improvement Co.
v. Leisy, 14 N.W.2d 384, 144 Neb.
705.
N.C. — Hood ex pel. People's Bank of
Burnsville v. Wilson, 179 S.B. 425,
208 N.C. 120.
34 C.J. p 603 note 70.
Consent judgments
Statutory provision that liens of
all Judgments rendered on same
Monday shall be of equal priority
does not apply to consent judgments
rendered on other days, rule, "qui
prior est in tempore, prior est in
jure/' applying to such judgments,
in Absence of contrary statutory
924
provisions. — Hood ex rel. People's
Bank of Burnsville v.. Wilson, supra.
Where order of rendering not shown
When it is not shown which of
three judgments rendered by default
on the same day was first filed by
the clerk, they should be treated as
filed simultaneously and must rank
concurrently in surplus proceeds on
foreclosure of mortgage. — Godchaux
Sugars, Inc./ v. Leon Boudreaux &
Bros., 96 So. 532, 153 La. 685—34 C.
J. p 603 note 70 [c].
93. Ind. — Hollcraft v. Douglass, 17
N.B. 275, 115 Ind. 13*9.
34 C.J. p 603 note 71.
93. U.S. — McLean' v. Rockey, C.C.
Ohio, 16 F.Cas.No.8,891, 3 McLean
235.
34 C.J. p 603 note 72.
94. Pa.— Appeal of Vierheller, 24
Pa. 105, 62 Am.D. 365.
34 C.J, p 603 note 73.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 484
property of the judgment debtor in the hands of
third persons has a legal preference enforceable in
a court of equity.95
Priority by prior levy. In some jurisdictions, par-
ticularly where the statutes so provide, priority is
given to judgments in the order in which execu-
tions are issued thereon,96 such priority being un-
disturbed by any subsequent judgment, levy of 'exe-
cution, or sale thereunder.97 In other jurisdictions,
however, the fact that an execution is first issued on
a junior judgment does not give the lien of such
judgment priority over that of a settlor judgment
against the same land;98 but priority for a junior
judgment may thus be gained where the land af-
fected was not subject to the lien of either judg-
ment.99 A statute requiring the recording of execu-
tions on the general execution docket, amended to
provide that the lien of a judgment shall date only
from the time the execution is so recorded, has
been held to have no .application in a contest be-
tween mere judgment liens, it being intended for
the protection of third persons.1
Although there is authority to the contrary,2
it has generally been held that, where liens of judg-
ment are equal, one judgment creditor may acquire
a priority over another by superior diligence in ex-
ecuting his judgment.3 Thus, where there is no
priority between the liens of judgments in favor
of different persons and against the same defend-
ant rendered or recorded on the same day, it has
been held that the judgment creditor first issuing
execution and levying on the debtor's property ac-
quires a prior right to satisfaction;4 and the same,
rule has been applied to judgments rendered at the
same term where such judgments are equal liens
on the defendant's real estate.5 So the rule has
been applied in a case where two liens on real es-
tate were created by the same decree.6 Commence-
ment of a suit to partition the property will not pre-
vent the holder of a judgment lien thereon from
obtaining priority over another judgment creditor
by causing execution to issue and levy to be made
after institution of the action, where the other cred-
itor failed to do so.7
'Priority between judgments as against equitable
interests. It has been held that, if several creditors
having judgments of different dates resort to a'
court of equity for satisfaction out of an equitable
interest of 'their debtor in real estate, they are to
have satisfaction out of the fund according to the
order of their judgments in point of time, the elder
being entitled to priority over the younger.8 On
the other hand, it has been held that the judgment
creditor who first files his bill to enforce an equita-
ble lien on land obtains a priority in relation to the
land named in his bill, and it is not necessary that
the action be prosecuted for the benefit of all the
creditors.9
e. Judgments for Future Advances
In some jurisdictions the Hen of a Judgment for fu-
ture advances Is superior to Hens attaching after the
judgment but before the advances; in others, it is supe-
rior only as to advances made before the subsequent
lien.
Some decisions hold that the lien of a judgment
given to secure advances to be made will be good
against intervening liens attaching after the judg-
ment but before the advances.10 Under other de-
95. S.C. — Ex parte Roddey, 172 S.E.
866, 171 S.C. .489, 92 A.L.R. 1430.
96. Fla. — Blackstone Holding- Co. v.
Lawrence, 192 So. 19-8, 140 Fla, 703.
N.J. — West Hudson County Trust Co.
v. Wichner, 187 A. 579, 121 N.J.Eq..
157— Swift & Co. v. First Nat.
Bank, 168 A. 827, 114 N.J.Eq. 417—
Riverside Building & Loan Ass'n v.
Bishop, 131 A. 78, 98 N.J.Eq. 508.
34 C.J. p 603 note 77.
Property fraudulently conveyed
Where a judgment is a lien on
property fraudulently conveyed, it
has been Intimated that a junior
creditor who first takes out an ex-
ecution on his judgment secures a
priority, and this, although a senior
creditor had previously filed his bill
in equity to remove the fraudulent
obstruction to the enforcement of his
lien. — Dunham v. Cox, 10 N.J.Eq.
437, 64 Am.D. 460.
, 97. N. J.— Swift & Co. v. First Nat
Bank, 168 A. 827, 114 N.J.EQ. 417.
98. Ga. — Eads v. Southern Surety
Co., 173 S.E. 163, 178 Ga. 348.
Md. — Messinger v. Eckenrode, 158
A. 357, 162 Md. 63.
Minn.— Lowe v. Reierson, 276 N.W.
224, 201 Minn. 280.
34 C.J. P 604 note 78.
99. Iowa. — Kisterson v. Tate, 68 N.
W. 350, 94 Iowa 665, 58 Am.S.R.
419.
N.J.— Lovejoy v. Lovejoy, 31 N.J.EQ.
55.
1. Ga. — Corley-Powell Produce Co.
v. Allen, 157 S.E. 251, 42 Ga.App.
641.
2. N.T.— Hulbert v. Hulbert, 111 N.
B. 70, 216 N.T. 430, ' L.R.A.1916D
661, Ann.Cas.l917D 180.
34 C.J. p 604 note 81.
3. Mo. — City of St. Louis v. Wall,
124 S.W.2d 616, 235 Mo.App. 9.
34 C.J. p. 604 note 82.
4. Iowa.— Wilson v. Baker, 8 N.W.
481, 52 Iowa 423.
34 C.J. p 604 note 83.
925
5. Mo. — Bradley v. Heffernan, «
W. 763, 156 Mo. 653.
34 C.J. p 604 note 84.
6. Mo. — Shirley v. Brown, 80
244.
Mo
7. Ohio. — Shafer v. Buckeye State-
Bldg. & Loan Co., App., 45 N.E.2dT
421.
8. Va.— Max Meadows Land & Im-
provement Co. v. McGavock, 36 S.
E. 490, 98 Va. 411— Haleys v. Wil-
liams, 1 Leigh 140, 28 Va. 140>
19 Am.D. 743.
34 C.J. p 604 note 86.
9. U.S. — Freednran's Savings &r
Trust Co. v. Earle, I>.C., 4 S.CL.
226, 110 U.S. 710, 28 L.Ed. 301.
34 C.J. p 604 note 87.
10. Md. — Joseph J. Robinson & Co.
v. Consolidated Real Estate & Fire-
Ins. Co., 55 Md. 105.
34 C.J. p 604 note 88.
§484
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
cisions, the lien of a judgment to secure advances
will be postponed to a subsequent bona fide lien,
except for such advances as have been made be-
fore the attaching of the subsequent lien,11 at least
where it was optional with the creditor to make
the advances or not, and he was not absolutely
bound to do so.12
f. Judgments for Purchase Money
The mere fact that a judgment is for purchase mon-
ey does not make it superior to judgments for other
debts.
The mere fact that a judgment is for purchase
money does not make it superior to judgments for
other debts;18 and a judgment recovered or con-
fessed for the purchase money of land has no pri-
ority over older judgments which attached as liens
on the same land at the time of its transfer to the
debtor,14 unless the execution and delivery of the
deed for the land and the giving of a judgment for
the purchase money were inseparably connected as
parts of the same continuous transaction.1^ The
judgment of a transferee of a bond for title to
land, although obtained subsequent to a general
judgment against the transferor of the bond, is
superior to the latter judgment, and has a superior
claim to the fund derived from the sale of the land
covered by the bond, where the transfer of the
bond antedated the latter judgment.1^ It has, how-
ever, an inferior claim to a fund derived from the
sale of land of the transferor not covered by the
bond for title.17
§ 485. Between Judgment and Convey-
ances and Other Liens
a. Prior conveyance or lien generally
b. Subsequent conveyance or lien
c. Contemporaneous judgment and con-
veyance or lien
d. Judgment for purchase money
e. Purchase-money mortgage
f. Contemporaneous mortgage to secure
other debts
g. Contracts of sale and vendor's lien
h. Government claims
a. Prior Conveyance or Lien Generally
(1) In general
(2) Prior conveyance or lien not record-
ed
(3) Effect of notice
(1) In General
Unless otherwise provided by statute, a Judgment
lien is subordinate to prior conveyances and encum-
brances, and all existing liens and equities In favor of
third persons.
Since, as discussed supra § 478, the lien of a
judgment attaches only to the actual interest of the
debtor in the land, the general rule is that the judg-
ment Hen is subordinate to prior conveyances and
encumbrances and all existing liens and equities in
favor of third persons,18 except in those cases
where, by the terms of a statutory provision, a judg-
11. Pa.— Appeal of Kerr, 92 Pa. 236."
34 C.J. p 604 note 89.
12. Pa. — Ter-Hoven v. Kerns, 2 Pa.
96.
S.C.— Walker v. Arthur, 30 S.C.EQ.
397.
13. Va. — Kidwell v. Henderson, 143
S.E. 336, 150 Va. 829.
14. Ga. — Graf ton v. Toombs, 58 Ga,
343.
34 C.J. p 605 note 91.
15. Pa. — Appeal of Snyder, 91 Pa.
477.
16. Ga.— Hardy v. Truitt, 93 S.B.
149, 20 GfeuApp. 529.
17. Ga. — Hardy v. Truitt, supra.
18. U.S.— Whitaker & Co. v. Grable,
C.C.A.Ark., 109 F.2d ' 710— North
Alabama Assets Co. v. Orman, C.
C.A.AUL, 15 P.2d 909— In re Ros-
enberg:, D.C.Tex., 4 P.2d 581— Will-
cox v. Goess, D.C.N.Y., 16 F.Supp.
350.
Ala.— Warrick v. Liddon, 160 So.
534, 230 Ala. 253.
Ark. — Holloway v. Bank of Atkins,
169 S.W.2d 868, 205 Ark. 598— Car-
roll v. Evans, 79 S.W.2d 425, 190
Ark, 611 — Snow Bros. Hardware
Co. v. Ellis, 21 S.W.2d 162, 180
Ark, 238 — Stallings v. Galloway-
Kennedy Co., 283 S.W. 41, 171 Ark.
24.
Ga. — Herre v. Root Mfg, Co., 159 S.E.
574, 173 Ga, 163— Western Union
Telegraph Co. v. Brown & Ran-
dolph Co., 114 S.E. 36, 154 Ga,
229.
111.— Cutler v. Hicks, 268 IlLApp. 161
— Commercial Trust & Savings
Bank of Springfield v. Murray, 246
IlLApp. 355.
Iowa, — Johnson v. Smith, 231 N.W.
470, 210 Iowa 591— Everist v. Car-
ter, 210 N.W. 559, 202 Iowa 498—
Gumming v. First Nat. Bank, 202
N.W. 556, 199 Iowa 667.
La. — Embry v. Embry, 127 So. 869,
170 La. 363— Aertker v. John W.
Ball, Inc., App., 17 So.2d 309—
Mitcham v. Mitcham, App., 195 So.
107.
Md. — White v. James Robertson Mfg.
Co., 187 A, 831, 170 Md. 691— Calt-
rider v. Caples, 153 A, 445, 160 Md.
392, 87 A.L.R. 1500.
Miss. — Johnson Hardware Co. v.
Ming, 113 So. 189, 147 Miss. 551—
Baldwin v. Little, 8 So. 168, 64
Misc. 126.
926
Mo. — Castorina v. Herrmann, 104 S.
W.2d 297, 340 Mo. 1026.
Mont. — Piccolo v. Tanaka, 253 P.
890, 78 Mont. 445.
N.J.— Rutherford Nat Bank v. H.
R. Bogle & Co.. 169 A. 180, 114
N.J.EQ. 571.
NT.T.— Moore v. Hushion, 284 N.Y.
S. 331, 246 App.Div. 771, 781.
N.C.— Helsabeck v. Vass, 146 S.E.
•576, 196 N.C. 603.
N.D. — Business Service Collection
Bureau v. Tegen, 269 N.W. 46, 67
N.D. 51— Smith v. Kornkven, 256
N.W. 210, 64 N.D. 789— McKenzie
County v. Casady, 214 N.W. 461,
55 N.D. 475.
Ohio.— Fulton v. Stump, 198 N.E. 47,
50 Ohio App. 295— -Williams y.
Johns, 170 N.E. 580, 34 Ohio App.
230— Miller v. Scott, 154 N.E. 368,
23 Ohio App. 50.
Okl.— Riddle v. Grayson, 105 P.2d
248, 187 Okl. 647.
Pa.— Rubinsky v. Kosh, 145 A. 836,
296 Pa. 285— First Nat. Bank of
Ashley v. Reily, Com.Pl.f 37 Luz.
Leg.Reg. 404 — Automobile Finance
Co. v. Anderson, Com.PL, 27 West.
Co. 227.
Tex. — Payne v. Bracken, 115 S.W.2d
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 485
ment is given priority.19 Where a lien is general,
it must be subordinated to the superior equity of a
prior specific lien,20 although this rule cannot avail
against a specific statute to the contrary.21 The
lien of a subsequent judgment has been held to take
priority over an alleged mortgage lien claimed by
one whose name has been substituted as a grantee
without authority of the original grantor for the
purpose of defraudirig creditors.22 A mortgagee
lending money for construction has been held en-
titled to priority over subsequent judgment creditors,
although the construction was on a lot not covered
by the mortgage.23 Where a deed is to a dissolved
corporation, which is incapable of receiving title,
a subsequent judgment has a lien prior to the in-
terest* of a grantee from the corporation.24
Where a mortgage given to secure a note mis-
takenly secures only a small portion of the amount
intended, judgment creditors obtaining judgments
after the mortgage is recorded have a lien on the
mortgaged land subject to the amount stated in the
903, 131 Tex. 394— -First Nat. Bank
of Amarillo v. Jones, 183 S.W. 874,
107 Tex. 623 — Texas Building &
Mortgage Co. v. Morris, Civ.App.,
123 S.W.2d 365, error dismissed —
Lusk v. Farmer, Civ.App., 114 S.
W.2d 677, error dismissed — Tinnin
v. Wilkirson, Civ.App., 40 S.W;2d
889, affirmed, Com.App., 58 S.W.2d
69' — Sugg v. Mozoch, Civ.App., 293
S.W, 907.
Va. — C. I. T. Corporation v. Guy, 195
S.E. 659, 170 Va, 16— Commercial
Savings & Loan Corporation v.
Kemp, 140 S.E. 113, 149 Va. 68—
New York Life Ins. Co. v. Ken-
nedy, 135 S.E. 882, 146 Va. 197.
W.Va. — Springston v. Powell, 169 S.
E. 459, 113 W.Va. 638.
Wis. — Lewis v. Wisconsin Banking
Corporation, 275 N.W. 429, 225 Wis.
606 — Whitney v. Traynor, 42 N.
W. 267, 74 Wis. 289.
34 C.J. p 605 note 4—40 C.J. p 286
note 81 — 41 C.J. p 518 note 26, p
519 note 30, p 520 note 33!
Equitable mortgage
(1) Equitable mortgages general-
ly prevail over liens of subsequent
judgments. — Reidy v. Collins, 26 P.
2d 712, 134 CaLApp. 713 — 41 C.J.
p 548 note 98.
(2) Instrument assigning and
transferring interest in estate, and
recorded in county where real prop-
erty was located, was held equitable
mortgage, entitled to priority over
judgment lien asserted against real-
ty.— Gamble v. Consolidated Nat.
Bank of Tucson, 262 P. 612, 33 Ariz.
117.
<3) Equitable mortgage created by
mortgage assignee's promise to ex-
ecute new mortgage to party, with
whom assignee had pledged mort-
gage as collateral security, if per-
mitted to purchase property at
mortgage foreclosure sale, was held
superior to lien of assignee's judg-
ment creditor acquired after fore-
closure sale, but before recordation
of new mortgage. — Rutherford Nat.
Bonk v. H. R. Bogle & Co., 169 A-
180, 114 N.J.Eq. 571.
Stipulation, fixing equitable lien
A judgment confirming a stipula-
tion, in partition suit, fixing equita-
ble lien on proceeds, established
existence of lien, although not its
priority against judgment lien, but
judgment creditor not showing that
judgment was docketed before stipu-
lation fixing equitable lien in parti-
tion suit, or that stipulation was
fraudulently entered into, is not en-
titled to priority. — Bennis v. Conley,
231 N.Y.S. 635.
A judgment on a note secured by
a second mortgage gives the judg-
ment creditor no better rights in re-
spect of the property than the judg-
ment debtor who fails to redeem
from foreclosure of the first mort-
gage, but amounts to merely a gen-
eral lien on the land of the debtor,
subject to prior liens, and gives the
judgment creditor the right to levy
on land to the exclusion of subse-
quent adverse interests only. — Stiles
v. Bailey, 219 N.W. 537, 205 Iowa
1385.
Transfer in escrow
Judgment lien did not attach to
land which defendant had before
judgment conveyed under deed in es-
crow which was delivered on per-
formance of condition, thereby elim-
inating interest. — Snow Bros. Hard-
ware Co. v. Ellis, 21 S.W.2d 162, 180
Ark. 238.
Oral contract for conveyance
Where parties made valid oral con-
tract for conveyances of real es-
tate in consideration of extinguish-
ment of existing indebtedness, obli-
gations of parties became fixed, and
grantors had ho interest subject to
subsequent judgment lien, regardless
of time of delivery of deed. — Rich-
ardson v. Estle, 243 N.W. 611, 214
Iowa 1007.
Defectively registered deed
Where notary public signed certifi-
cate of acknowledgment on original
deed but the signature was omitted
by register in recording deed, the
deed was entitled to registration and
had priority over subsequent judg-
ment and levies of execution against
the grantor of the land described in
the deed. — Tennessee Barium Corpo-
ration v. Williams, 133 S.W,2d 1015,
23 Tenn.App. 398.
Lien for rent
(1) A landlord's lien for rent is
ordinarily paramount to the lien of
927
a judgment. — Staber v. Collins, 10ft
N.W. 527, 124 Iowa 543—36 C.J. P
506 note 9.
(2) Landlord's lien for rent relates
back to levy of distress on landlord's
recovering judgment and takes pre-
cedence over common-law judgment
rendered after levy, but before judg-
ment for landlord. — Corley-Powelt
Produce Co. v. Allen, 157 S.E. 251,
42 Ga,App. 641.
Assessment liens
W.Va. — Horn v. Charleston, 112 S.E..
239, 91 W.Va. 73.
44 C.J. p 806 note 57.
Claims against decedents9 estates
111.— Hartley v. Hartley, 7 N.E.2d
906, 290 Ill.App. 92.
34 C.J. p 608 note 17 [e].
19. N.D. — Federal Farm Mortg. Cor-
poration v. Berzel, 291 N.W. 55 Or
69 N.D. 760.
34 C.J. p 605 note 2.
20. Iowa. — Burns v. Burns, 11 N.W,
2d 461, 233 Iowa 1092, 150 A.L.R.
306.
Md. — Garner v. Union Trust Co. of
Md., 45 A.2d 106 — Jackson v. Coun-
ty Trust Co. of Maryland, -6 A.2d
380, 176 Md. 505— Union Trust Cov
v. Biggs, 137 A. 509, 153 Md. 50—
Lee v. Keech, 133 A. 835, 151 Md.
34, 46 A.L..K. 1488.
41 C.J. p 520 note 41.
Where mortgagee was mot made a-
party to proceeding in which con-
tractor obtained judgment against
owner of house and lot with recogni-
tion of builder's and materialman's
lien and privilege with right to be
paid by preference and priority over
all other creditors, judgment did not
affect mortgagee's rights of prefer-
ence under the mortgage. — Officer v.'
Combre, La.App., 194 So. 441.
21. U.S.— In re Shapiro, D.C.Md., 34
F.Supp. 737, affirmed, C.C.A-, Schu-
macher & Seller v. Sandier, 118 F.
2d 348.
22. N.M.— Scheer v. Stolz, 72 P.2d
606, 41 N.M. 585.
23. Ohio. — Union Savings & Loan
Co. v. Gyro Const. Co., 163 N.E.
35, 29 Ohio App. 287.
24. Or.-r Klorfine v. Cole, 254 P. 200,
121 Or. 76,
§ 485
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
mortgage, with interest,25 but the owner of the
note has the right to credit payments made by the
makers on the unsecured amount as against the
judgment creditors.26 Where the true owner of
land is estopped to assert his title as against the
grantee in a deed made by a person having no title,
and a creditor of the true owner reduces his debt
to judgment, the lien thereof is superior to the
"equity of a third person having neither lien nor ti-
tle from the true owner.27 A judgment in a suit
for breach of a covenant in a deed does not relate
back to the date of the deed so as to take priority
over a mortgage executed subsequent to the deed.28
A judgment against a partner for an individual debt,
since it binds only his interest in the firm property,
is subordinate to junior judgment creditors of the
partnership;29 and the same rule applies as to
real estate of the firm, the legal title to which is
in the name of the partner against whom a judg-
ment is recovered for an individual debt.30
Lien for wages. Laborers' liens do not have pri-
ority over judgment liens of record at the time of
an employer's insolvency, where the statute express-
ly so provides,31 or where the statute gives laborers'
liens priority over purchasers and creditors with
notice,32 and even where the statute gives the la-
borer a lien and not merely a preference.33
Mechanics' liens. A judgment lien has been held
•superior to a prior mechanics' lien which, although
•enforceable under the doctrine of estoppel, is le-
gally defective.34 Violation of a building ordi-
nance has been held not to affect the validity of a
mechanics' lien so as to give a judgment creditor the
right to question its priority.35 Under some stat-
utory provisions the only judgment which can have
priority over a mechanics' lien is a judgment found-
ed on a claim based solely on materials furnished,
labor performed, or money advanced for improve-
ment of realty.36
Mortgages to secure -future advances. A mort-
gage to secure future advances takes priority over
a judgment obtained after the advances were
made,37 but, where a mortgagee makes optional ad-
vances after notice of a junior judgment lien, his
lien for such advances will be postponed to that of
the owner of the junior judgment lien.38 A gran-
tee in a deed intended as a mortgage for future ad-
vances has 'been held entitled to a priority over sub-
sequent judgment creditors of the grantor as to
future advances made after rendition of the judg-
ments but without actual notice of the judgments.39
The filing and entry of a judgment has been held
of itself insufficient notice to the judgment debtor's
mortgagee holding a mortgage for future advanc-
es, as respects the mortgagee's right of priority for
advances made after the filing of the judgment,40
but, where the mortgagee has actual notice of the
judgment, the latter will take preference over sub-
sequent advances, where the mortgage, while given
for a certain sum,- obligated the mortgagor only for
money actually advanced by the mortgagee.41 A
mortgagee holding a mortgage for advances on an
incompleted building advancing additional money
for its completion and taking a second mortgage
has been held to have a lien superior to that of a
subsequent judgment creditor as against a conten-
tion that the advances were made when the debtor
was insolvent.42
Receivers. A judgment against a receiver which
merely fixes the amount of the claim is not entitled
to priority over other creditors who have proved
their claims;43 nor is a judgment, obtained after
the appointment of a receiver in an action which
had been previously instituted, entitled to priority
25. N.C.— Lowery v. Wilson, 200 S.
E. 861, 214 N.C. 800. .
•28. N.C. — Lowery v. Wilson, supra.
•27. Ga. — Equitable Loan & Security
Co. v. Lewman, '52 S.E. 599, 124
Ga. 190, 3 L.R.A..N.S., 879.
38. Or. — Guild v. Wallis, 40 P.2d
737, 150 Or. 69, supplemented 41
P.2d 1119, 150 Or. 69, rehearing: de-
nied 42 P.2d 916, 150 Or. 69.
29. CaL—Whelan v. Shain, 47 P.
57, 115 Oal. 326.
47 C.J. p 1013 note 50.
30. Ga. — Westbrook v. Hays, 14 S.
E. 879, 89 Ga, 101.
47 C.J. p 1014 note 51.
31. U.S.— Pearsall v. Central Oil &
Gas Co. of America, D.CXPa,, 28
P.2d 716.
99 C.J. p 221 note 63.
32. Fla.— First Nat. Bank v. Kirkby,
32 So. 881, 43 Fla. 376.
39 C.J. p 221 note 64.
33. N.J. — Wright v. Wynockie Iron
Co., 21 A. 862, 48 N.J.Eq.. 29.
34. N.Y. — Fearing v. Siewers, 200
N.Y.S. 440, 120 Misc. 720.
35. Pa.— Kessler v. Handel, 40 A.
2d 926, 156 Pa.Super. 505.
36. N.T. — Corbin-Kellogg Agency v.
Tasker, 289 N.Y.S. 156, 248 App.
Div. 58.
Judgment for premium on work-
men's compensation, policy which
was docketed before liens for labor
and materials were filed was held
not entitled to priority of payment
out of moneys due contractor by
owner of dwelling which contractor
had remodeled. — Corbln-K e 1 1 o g g
Agency v. Tasker, supra.
928
Statutory provisions construed
N.Y.— -Corbin-Kellogg Agency v.
Tasker, supra.
37. Pa. — Batten v. Jurist, 158 A.
557, 306 Pa. 64, 81 A.L.R. 625.
38. Cal.— Reidy v. Collins, 26 P.2d
712, 134 CaLApp. 713.
39. Iowa. — Everist v. Carter, 210 N.
W. 559, 202 Iowa 498.
40. N.Y.— In re Harris' Estate, 282
N.Y.S. 571, 156 Misc. 805.
41. N.Y.— In re Harris* Estate, su-
pra,
42. N.J.— -Active Mortg. Co. v. Apex
Bldg. Co., 146 A. 353, 104 N.J.Eo;.
569, affirmed Active Mortg. Co. v.
Henry R. Isenberg Co., 151 A. 904,
106 N.J.EQ.. 279.
43. S.C. — National Bank of Augusta
v. Stillwell, 86 S.E. 21, 101 S.CI 4*53.
53 C.J. p 250 note 36.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§485
where, the estate being that of an insolvent, the
rights of creditors are fixed at the date of the ap-
pointment of the receiver.44 Where liens have at-
tached on commencement of the suit in which as-
sets have been impounded by a proceeding begun
before proceedings for a receivership, a judgment
obtained in such proceeding after the appointment
of the receiver does not, by reason of the receiver-
ship, lose its claim to priority.46
(2) Prior Conveyance or Lien Not Recorded
In the absence of a statute to the contrary a judg-
ment Hen is subordinate to prior conveyances and encum-
brances even where these are not recorded; but statu-
tory provisions generally require, expressly or by con-
struction, recording of such conveyances or encum-
brances if their priority is to be maintained.
The rule that a judgment lien is subordinate to-
prior conveyances and encumbrances and all exist-
ing liens and equities in favor of third persons ap-
plies, in the absence of a statute to the contrary,
even though the previous conveyance has not been
recorded.46 Some recording statutes expressly in-
clude judgment creditors among the persons as
against whom a prior conveyance will be void un-
less recorded;47 and, even where the statute is not
so specific but merely provides that no conveyance
shall be good or effective unless recorded,48 or un-
less recorded within a limited time,49 or that a deed
shall be invalid as against subsequent creditors, un-
less duly recorded,50 it has generally been held that
the lien of a judgment is to be preferred to a con-
veyance executed before the rendition of the judg-
ment but not recorded until afterward, provided the
judgment creditor was without notice of the con-
veyance, as discussed infra subdivision a (3) of thi?
section. Such rule, however, does not apply where
44. U.S. — E. C. Horn Sons v. Hoff-
man, CCJLPa,, 24 F.2d 162.
45. Mich. — Rickman v. Rickman, 146
N.W. 609, 180 Mich. 224, Ann.Cas.
1915C 1237.
N.J.— Ross v. Titsworth, 37 N.J.Eq.
333.
46. U.S.— U. S. v. Certain Lands in
Borough of Brooklyn, Kings Coun-
ty, N. Y., (Parcel No. 6), D.C.N.Y.,
44 F.Supp. 830.
Ark.— Carroll v. Evans, 79 S.W.2d
425, 190 Ark. $11.
Cal.— Davis v. Perry, 8 P.2d 514,
120 OaLApp. 670— Bank of Cotton-
wood v. Henriques, 266 P. 836, 91
Cal.App. 88.
Ga. — Moncrief Furnace Co. v. North-
west Atlanta Bank, 19 S.B.2d 155,
193 Ga. 440.
Okl.— Harry v. Hertzler, 90 P.2d 656,
185 Okl. 151.
34 C.J. p 607 note 12.
47. Ala.— Sutley v. Dothan Oil Mill
Co., 179 So. 819, 235 Ala. 475.
Cal. — Sepulveda v. Apablasa. 77 P.2d
530, 25 Cal.App. 2 d 390.
Colo. — Donahue v. Kohler-McLister
Paint Co., 254 P. 989, 81 Colo. 244.
Minn.— In re Juran, 226 N.W. 201,
178 Minn. 55 — Ferguson v. Kum-
ler, 11 Minn. 104.
N.D. — Agricultural Credit Corp. v.
State, 20 N.W.2d 78— Battersby v;
Gillespie, 222 N.W. 480, 67 N.D.
426.
34 C.J. p 607 note 8 [a].
lUtroactive effect
(1) Amendment to statute to pro-
tect judgment lien creditors against
unrecorded deed was held not re-
troactive.— Fulghum v. Madrid, 265
P. 454, 33 N.M. 303.
(2) An act making unrecorded
deeds invalid as against subsequent
judgment creditors was required to
be construed prospectively- since a
retrospective construction would de-
49C.J.S.-59
prive holders of unrecorded deeds of
vested rights in realty without due
process of law, since it did not give
holders of deeds theretofore execut-
ed a reasonable time to comply with
statute, and hence entry of Judg-
ment on Febr. 3, 1933, did not give
judgment creditor a lien against land
conveyed by Judgment debtor to
third person in 1928, notwithstanding
deeds were not recorded until 1934.
— Farmers Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of
Reading, to Use of Adams v. Berks
County Real Estate Co., 5 A.2d 94,
333 Pa. 390, 121 A.L.R. 905.
48. Ohio. — Jackson v. Luce, 14 Ohio
514 — Mayham v. Coombs, 14 Ohio
428.
49. U.S.— U. S. v. Devereux, N.C., 90
F. 183, 32 C.C.A. 564.
50. U.S. — Fooshee v. Snavely, D.C.
Va., 58 F.2d 772, affirmed, C.C.A.,
58 F.2d 774, certiorari denied 53
S.Ct 85, 287 U.S. 635, 77 L.Bd. 550.
111. — Commercial Trust & Savings
Bank of Springfield v. Murray, 246
Ill.App. 355.
Miss.— Sack v. Gilmer Dry Goods
Co., 115 So. 339, 149 Miss. 296.
N.C.— Baton v. Doub, 128 S.B. 494,
190 N.C. 14, 40 A.L.R. 273. -
Tex. — Estelle v. Hart, Com.App., 55
S.W.2d 510— Henderson v. Odessa
Building & Finance Co., Com.App.,
24 S.W.2d 393, rehearing denied 27
S.W.2d 144— Howard v. Leonard,
Civ.App.f 185 S.W.2d 490, refused
for want of merit — Segrest v.
Hale, Civ.App., 164 S.W.2d 793, er-
ror refused — Bova v. Wyatt, Civ.
App., 140 S.W.2d 601, error refused
— Brinkman v. Tinkler, Civ.App.,
117 S.W.2d 139, error refused-
Christian v. Sam R. Hill Lumber
Co., Civ.App., 113 S.W.2d.616.
Va.— Cox v. Williams, 31 S.B.2d 312,
183 Va. 152.
929
W.Va.— Harper v. McMillan, 188 S.B.
479, 117 W.Va. 822.
41 C.J. p 547 note 96.
Subsequent creditor
Under a statute requiring record-
ing of a conveyance within a certain
time, one who receives a note as a
renewal of a note executed prior to
the conveyance is not a. subsequent
creditor. — Little v. Mangum, C.C.A.
S.C., 17 F.2d 44.
An equitable title acquired inde-
pendently of the legal title is not
subject to the registration statute
so that the superiority of the equita-
ble title may be asserted against the
judgment creditor of the holder of
the legal title, even though the cred-
itor had no notice thereof at the
time of fixing the creditor's lien. —
Roeser & Pendleton v. Stanolind Oil
& Gas Co., Tex.Civ.App., 188 S.W.2d
25.0* error refused.
Priority over trust
(1) It has been held that a record-
ing statute does not preclude a ces-
tui que trust from asserting his su-
perior equity to land in the absence
of a showing that the trustee has
conveyed the legal -title to the cestui
que trust prior to the time that the
creditor fixed his lien. — Roeser &
Pendleton v. Stanolind Oil & Gas
Co., supra— 34 C.J. p 607 note 14 [a]
(2).
(2) Even though the legal title has
been transferred to the cestui que
trust if the deed is not of record
at the time the creditor fixes his
lien, the cestui que trust may assert
his original equity acquired inde-
pendently of the lien in a suit
against the creditor, as the statute
requires that such unrecorded deed
shall be treated as void. — Roeser &
Pendleton v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co..
supra.
§ 485
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
the judgment is obtained against a grantor whose
title is not recorded.51 A subsequent judgment lien
does not take priority where the statute merely pro-
vides that an unrecorded conveyance shall be void
as against "purchasers;"52 or that it shall be void
as against purchasers and encumbrancers who ac-
quire title by an "instrument" duly recorded;53 or
that it shall be void as against persons who in good
faith have acquired a transfer or lien binding the
property;54 or, according to some authorities, that
it shall be void as against third persons,55 although
other authorities hold that the term "third persons"
includes judgment creditors.56 Under a statute pro-
viding that deeds shall not take effect as to credi-
tors and subsequent purchasers until their delivery
for record and shall be void as to all creditors and
subsequent purchasers whose deeds and other in-
struments are first recorded, a prior unrecorded
deed will take precedence of a judgment lien un-
less a deed based on the judgment is recorded be-
fore such prior deed is recorded.57 Under other
statutes an unrecorded deed or mortgage takes pri-
ority as against a subsequent judgment lien if it is
recorded before the execution sale, and, if not filed
until after such sale, the purchaser at the execution
sale acquires title.58 Where land was sold to obtain
money to pay an outstanding mortgage, the deed
and mortgage release being executed before, but re-
corded together after, the vendor's creditors had
secured judgments against him, the purchaser's title
was held superior to such judgment liens.50
The fact that an assignment by a debtor of an eq-
uitable estate to an assignee holding legal title was
not recorded until after entry of a judgment against
the debtor does not result in the lien of the judg-
ment attaching to the title of the assignee where
the judgment debtor's interest could have been sub-
jected to the lien of the judgment only by proceed-
ings in the chancery court.60 A statute providing
that all deeds shall take effect on record as to cred-
itors' without notice means creditors of the grantor,
not of the grantee, and does not give prior judg-
ment creditors of the grantee the rights of bona fide
purchasers.61 Where property has been conveyed
to the judgment debtor by an unrecorded deed, and
thereafter, when the judgment creditor sought ex-
ecution on the property, the grantor conveyed the
premises to another who was not a bona fide pur-
chaser, the debtor's title under the unrecorded deed
was superior to the title of the second grantee as
respects the judgment creditor's rights.62 A statute
providing that the unrecorded conveyance of an
interest in land is void as against a judgment lien
has been held not to apply to the conveyance of
equities requiring the aid of a court of equity to
establish.63 Inscription of a judgment after sale of
land was filed for record but before the sale was
actually inscribed in the conveyance records does
not operate as a judicial mortgage so as to give the
judgment creditor a claim to the land prior to that
of the purchaser.64
Defective conveyance. Where the subsequent
judgment creditor is not misled or his rights im-
paired, a defective conveyance prior to the judg-
ment may be corrected thereafter, as where by mis-
take the land described in the original deed was
not that intended to be conveyed,65 especially where
the grantee went into immediate possession of the
property he intended to buy,66 and it has been held
that the latter rule should be applied where the
grantor corrects the mistake without the interven-
tion of equity.67
51. Minn. — Emerson - Brantingham
Implement Co. v. Cook, 206 N.W.
170, 165 Minn. 198, 43 A.L.R. 41.
34 C.J. p 603 note 19.
52. U.S.— U. S. v. Certain Lands in
Borough of Brooklyn, Kings Coun-
ty, N. Y. (Parcel No. 6), D.C.N.Y.,
44 P.Supp. 830 — U. S. v. Certain
Lands Located in Town of Hemp-
stead, Nassau County, N. Y., Dam-
age Parcel 211, D.C.N.Y., 41 F.
Supp. 636.
Iowa. — Brauch v. Preking, 258 N.W.
893. 219 Iowa 556 — Grant v. Cher-
ry, 201 N.W. 588, 199 Iowa 164.
Kan.— Bennett v. Christy, 20 P.2d
813, 137 Kan. 376.
N.Y.— Fox v. Sizeland, 9 N.Y.S.2d
350, 170 Misc. 390— Blum v.
Krampner, 28 N.Y.8.2d 62, affirmed
27 N.Y.S.2d 1000, 261 App.Biv.
989, reargument denied 28 N.Y.S.2d
707. 262 App.Div. 756. •
41 C.J. p 521 note 49.
53. Cal.— Wolfe v. Langford, 112 P.
203, 14 CaLApp. 359.
34 C.J. p 608 note 21.
54. U.S. — Webb v. United- American
Soda Fountain Co., C.C.A.Ga., 59 F.
2d 329.
34 C.J. p 609 note 22.
55. Okl. — Oklahoma State Bank v.
Burnett, U2 P. 1124, 65 Okl. 74.
34 C.J. p 609 note 23.
56. U.S.— McCoy v. Rhodes, La., 11
How. 131, 13 L.Ed. 634.
34 C.J. p 609 note 24.
57. Neb. — Omaha Loan & Bldg.
Ass'n v. Turk, 21 N.W.2d 865, 146
Neb. 859.
34 C.J. p 609 note 25.
58. Mo.— Rehm v. Alter, 199 S.W.
170, 272 Mo. 452.
34 C.J. p 609 note 27 — 41 C.J. p 547
note 96 [f].
930
59. Tenn. — Anderson v. Robertson,
192 S.W. 917, 137 Tenn. 182.
34 C.J. p 609 note 28.
60. N.J. — McLaughlin v. Whaland,
13 A.2d 573, 127 N.J.Ba. 393.
61. 111.— Sparrow v. Wilcox, 112 N.
E. 296, 272 111. 632.
62. R.I.— Sundlun v. Volpe, 9 A.2d
41, 63 R.I. 441.
63. Tex.— Sugg v. Mozoch, Civ.App.,
293 S.W. 907.
64. La. — Wood Preserving Corpora-
tion v. Mitchell Tie & Lumber Co.,
App., 167 So. 122.
65. Tex.— Hodges v. Moore, Civ.
App., 186 S.W. 415.
34 C.J. p 609 note 30.
S. Tex. — Gauss-Langenberg Hat
Co. v. Allums, Civ.App., 184 S.W.
288.
67. Idaho. — Feltham v. Blunck, 198
P. 763, 34 Idaho 1, 9.
34 C.J. p 609 note 32.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 485
Delivery to a stranger, for a third person, of an
intended deed, of which delivery such third person
is not informed, does not, by relation, when such
third person accepts the deed, operate to defeat a
right acquired under a judgment lien against the
grantor between the time of delivery to the stranger
and acceptance by the grantee.68
(3) Effect of Notice
A Judgment lien ordinarily Is subordinate to a prior
conveyance or encumbrance of which the judgment cred-
itor has notice, actual or constructive, even though such
conveyance or encumbrance has not been recorded.
The rule that a judgment lien is subordinate to
prior conveyances and encumbrances and all exist-
ing liens and equities in favor of third persons gen-
erally applies where the judgment creditor has actu-
al or constructive notice of such prior conveyance,
lien, encumbrance, or equity.69 The judgment cred-
itor is generally regarded as having such notice
where there is an actual, open, and notorious pos-
session of the premises on the part of the gran-
tee70 or his tenant;71 but the judgment creditor has
been held not chargeable with notice where a tenant
in possession at the time of the execution of the un-
recorded deed has not recognized the grantee as his
landlord,72 or, according to some authorities, even
where such tenant in possession has agreed to hold
under the grantee.7^ As against a third person in
possession the judgment creditor stands in the re-
lation of a subsequent purchaser as far as notice
of the rights of such person are concerned,74 but
such possession must be exclusive and unequivocal,
and does not constitute notice where the record
owner is also in possession.75
The judgment creditor will be charged with no-
tice of a previous unrecorded deed if he had knowl-
edge of such fact as would put a reasonable man
on inquiry, which, if diligently pursued, would have
led to knowledge of the fact that the land did not
belong to the judgment debtor.76 It has been held
that if a mortgage is recorded within the time pre-
scribed by law, although not recorded at the time
of recovery of a judgment, the lien of the judg-
ment is postponed to the rights of the prior mortga-
gee, without regard to the question of actual notice
of the mortgage.77
Although under the provisions of a statute an
unrecorded deed may be absolutely void as against
a subsequent judgment creditor whether or not
he has notice of it,78 statutes which make the lien
of a judgment creditor superior to the interest of
a grantee or mortgagee under a prior unrecorded
68. Cal.— Hibberd v. Smith. 4 P.
473, 67 Cal. 547, 56 Am.R. 726, re-
heard 8 P. 46; 67 Cal. 547, 56 Am.
R. 726.
69. 111. — Union Bank of Chicago v.
Gallup, 148 N.B. 2, 317 111. 184.
La, — Swan v. Moore, 14 La.Ann.
833.
34 C.JT. p 607 note 5.
Escrow agreement
Where mortgagor's escrow deed
conveying title to second mortgage
holder* and trustee's escrow satis-
faction of third mortgage were to
become absolute on failure to pay
second mortgage by date specified,
rights of second mortgage holder un-
der escrow instruments were held
superior to judgment lien of assignee
of note, originally secured by third
mortgage who took with knowledge
of facts.— Ruden v. Kirby, 241 N.W.
791, 59 S.D. -631.
Recitals' in, recorded deeds
(1) Where recorded deeds and
mortgage contained general descrip-
tion of land by reference to its ad-
Joining owners and to river which
bound land, which description was
sufficient to cover entire tract, but
contained reference to prior deeds
which did not embrace entire tract,
subsequent judgment creditor was
put on notice that entire tract was
intended to be covered and could
not levy execution on part of tract
not covered by prior deeds referred
to.— Phcenix Mut. Life Ins. Co. v.
Kingston Bank & Trust Co., 112 S.
W.2d 381, 172 Tenn. 335.
(2) Other recitals see 34 C.J. P
607 note -5 [a],
70. 111. — Mauricau v. Haugen, 56 N.
B.2d 367, 387 111. 186— Carnes v.
Whitfield, 185 N.B. 819, 352 111.
384— Doll v. Walter, 27 N.B.2d 231,
305 Ill.App. 188.
N.J.— Majewski v. Greenberg, 136 A.
749, 101 N.J.Bq. 134.
Or. — Thompson v. Hendricks, 245 P.
724, 118 Or. 39.
Tex. — Kelly-Springfield Tire Co. v.
Walker, Civ.App., 149 S.W.2d 195,
error dismissed, judgment correct
— Siuton State Bank of Sinton v.
Odem, Civ.App., 75 S.W.2d 895.
Va. — Floyd v. Harding, 28 Gratt. 401,
69 Va. 401.
34 C.J. p 607 note 6f p 610 oote 41.
71. Minn.— Wilkins v. Bevier, 45 N.
W. 157, 43 Minn. 213, 19 Am.S.R.
238.
34 C.J. p 611 note 42.
72. Minn. — Wilkins v. Bevier, supra.
34 C.J. p 611 note 43.
731 Ala.— Griffin v. Hall 22 So. 156,
115 Ala. -647.
34 C.J. p 611 note 44.
74. 111. — Union Bank of Chicago v.
Gallup, 148 N.E. 2, 317 111. 184. '
Possession sufficient to require in-
quiry
Possession under contract of pur-
931
chase, alleged to be fraudulent as
to creditors, was held sufficient to
put subsequent judgment creditor of
record owner on inquiry as to his
rights, even though prior to con-
tract he had been a tenant of record
owner, where thereafter his posses-
sion was exclusive, it being immate-
rial whether record owner claimed
to own property. — Union Bank of
Chicago v. Gallup, supra.
75. 111. — Union Bank of Chicago v.
Gallup, supra.
76. N.J. — Majewski v. Greenberg,
136 A. 749, 101 N.J.Eq. 134.
34 C.J. p 610 note 40.
77. Md.— Knell v. Green St. Bldg.
Ass'n, 34 Md. 67.
78. La. — State ex reL Hebert v. Re-
corder of Mortgages, 143 So. 15,
175 La. 94.
Tenn. — Washington's Lessee v.
Trousdale, Mart & Y. 385.
34 C.JT. p 610 notes 36, 38.
Priority determined by recording
Where third persons purchased
judgment debtor's realty Friday aft-
ernoon and deed was mailed to re*
corder's office on Saturday and ar-
rived there Monday morning when
it was filed for record, but the judg-
ment was filed for record Saturday
morning, purchaser took realty sub-
ject to judicial mortgage. — Robin v.
Harris Realty Co., 152 So. 573, 178
La. 946;
§485
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
conveyance usually contain the proviso that, in or-
der to be entitled to priority, the judgment creditor
shall be without notice of the unrecorded deed or
mortgage,79 and, even though such statutes do not
contain any express provision as to notice, it has
been held that the fact of such notice will prevent
the judgment creditor from obtaining priority.80
The burden of proving that the judgment creditor
had notice is on the party seeking to assert rights
as against him.81
Notice must be brought home to the judgment
creditor at or before the time the judgment was
rendered,82 or at or before the time his judgment
lien attaches, and his rights are not affected by the
fact that he acquires knowledge of the prior deed
after such time.83
Defective deed. Where by statute a judgment
creditor's lien is given precedence over an unrecord-
ed deed of which he has no notice, it has been held
that the equity of the grantee under a recorded
deed to have it reformed so as to include land omit-
ted from the description therein cannot displace the
lien of the judgment84 The fact that a mortgage
of which the judgment creditor has notice is defec-
tively acknowledged has been held not to affect its
superiority over a subsequent judgment,85 but,
where the recording of an improperly authenticat-
ed mortgage is regarded as no record, such a mort-
gage is postponed to a judgment lien ;86 and the re-
cording of a mortgage which is not only defective
but contrary to law will not make the mortgage a
lien superior to that of a subsequent judgment, as
against the contention that the subsequent creditor
had constructive notice by reason of the recording,
and could have learned the true situation by in-
quiry.87 It has been held that where a person makes
a conveyance of land, which is defective by reason
of a wrong description of the premises, the lien of
a judgment against the grantor subsequent to the
conveyance and prior to the reformation of the deed
will not attach to the lands.88 A judgment creditor
seeking to subject to his judgment lands conveyed
prior thereto, because of an alleged defect in the
deed, is chargeable with such information as was
contained in the deeds and furnished by the records
at the date when the judgment was obtained.89
Where a grantor's judgment creditor was not made
79. Colo. — Donahue v. Kohler-Mc-
Lister Paint Co.. 254 P. 989, 81
Colo. 244.
Tex. — Segrest v. Hale, Civ.App., 164
S.W.2d 793, error refused.
34 C.J. p 609 note 34.
Sufficiency of notice
(1) Whatever charges purchaser
with notice as to possession of land
charges judgment creditor with no-
tice.— Majewski v. Greenberg, 136 A,
749, 101 N.J.EQ. 134—34 C.J. p 609
note 34 [a] (1).
(2) A letter from the judgment
debtor to the judgment creditor dis-
closing the facts was sufficient to
give notice of debtor's unrecorded
deed, barring priority under record-
ing act. — Myers v. EBay den, 257 P.
351, 82 Colo. 98.
(3) Judgment debtors' recorded
deed, conveying tract of land to bank
receiver, who conveyed smaller
tracts to corporation in satisfaction
of its equity in former tract, which
receiver took in satisfaction of
bank's mortgages on smaller tracts,
did not give judgment creditor, sub-
sequently recording judgment, notice
of corporation's claim of right of
subrogation to such mortgages, rec-
ord of which was not notice that
corporation had contributed to sat-
isfaction thereof. — Sutley v. Dothan
Oil Mill Co., 179 So. 819, 235 Ala.
475.
(4) Where a judgment creditor re-
leased his judgment to enable the
judgment debtor to borrow money on
a mortgage, the judgment creditor
was chargeable with notice of such
mortgage and could not claim prior-
ity over it because it was not re-
corded before entry of his subse-
quent judgment. — Hutchinson v.
Bramhall, 7 A. 873, 42 N.J.Eq. 372.
(5) Other cases see 34 C.J. p «09
note 34 [a].
Notice "by reference in other convey-
ance
A judgment creditor must take no-
tice of what appears on face of deed
in chain of title to, or executed by
one having record interest in, land
on which execution is levied, but
is not bound to inquire into collater-
al circumstances growing out of con-
veyances of land not claimed by him.
—Sutley v. Dothan Oil Mill Co.,
179 So. 819, 235 Ala. 475.
Assignee of judgment
Where a judgment creditor as-
signs a prior judgment lien not hav-
ing notice of an unrecorded mort-
gage, his assignee, although having
notice of the mortgage, takes pri-
ority over it. — McCandless v. Klau-
ber, 155 S.B. 141, 158 S.E. 32.
8a Ark.— Carroll v. Evans, 79 S.W.
2d 425, 190 Ark. 511.
34 C.J. p 610 notes 35, 37.
81. N.J. — Majewski v. Greenberg,
136 A. 749, 101 N.J.Eq. 134.
Tex. — Barnett v. Squyres, 54 S.W.
241, 93 Tex. 193, 77 AmJ3.R. 854—
Segrest v. Hale, Civ.App.f 164 S.W.
2d 793, error refused.
34 C.J. p 610 note 39.
02. Ala,— Sutley v. Dothan Oil Mill
Co., 179 So. 819, 235 Ala. 475—
932
Teaford v. Moss, 179 So. 817, 235
Ala. 490.
83. Tex. — Bowles v. Belt, Civ.App.,
159 S.W. 885.
34 C.J. p 611 note 45.
84. Minn. — Wilcox v. Leominster
Nat. Bank, 45 N.W. 1136, 43 Minn.
541, 19 Am.S.R. 259.
Tex. — Henderson v. Odessa Building
& Finance Co., Com^App., 24 S.W.
2d 393, rehearing denied 27 S.W.2d
144.
86. Ark.— First Nat Bank v. Meri-
wether Sand & Gravel Co., 67 S.
W.2d 599, 188 Ark. 642.
86. U.S.— Webb v. United-American
Soda Fountain Co., C.C.A.Ga., -59
F.2d 329.
87. U.S.— In re Shapiro, D.CLMd., 34
F.Supp. 737.
88. Ind.— Wells v. Benton, 8 N.E.
444, 108 Ind. 585, rehearing de-
nied 9 N.E. 601, 108 Ind. 585.
34 C.J. p 607 note 7.
89. Va.— Blair v. Rorer's Adm'r, 116
S.B. 767, 135 Va. 1, motion denied
43 S.Ct 704, 262 U.S. 234, 67 L.Ed.
1206.
Description, of property
Va. — Blair v. Rorer's Adm'r, supra.
Notation, on. record
Under the statute authorizing and
requiring the clerk of the county
court to record deeds and contracts
for the sale of real estate, a no-
tation on the margin of the record
of & deed, signed by the grantor and
acknowledged before the clerk, and
purporting to correct a mistake in
the description, was an instrument
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 485
a party to a suit to reform and correct a deed, he
is not bound by such proceedings, and a commis-
sioner's deed correcting the mistake will be void as
to him when not admitted to record until after the
judgment was docketed.90
Defective recording. Notice to a subsequent judg-
ment creditor is not imparted by an illegal, unsuc-
cessful, or incomplete attempt to record a prior
deed,91 but a mere irregularity in recording a deed
will not affect its priority.92 Where, in order that
an instrument evidencing a lien on real estate shall
import constructive notice, it must be recorded in
the proper book as required by the recording act, an
instrument recorded in the wrong book does not
constitute constructive notice as to a subsequent
judgment creditor.93
Trusts. Judgment creditors have been held not
protected against trusts of which they have no no-
tice, or allowed in equity to hold against the cestui
que trust.9* Under a statute providing that result-
ing trusts of realty shall be void as to bona fide
purchasers, mortgagees, or creditors without notice
unless a written declaration of trust is recorded or
ejectment brought by the real owner, it has been
held that the words "without notice" are to be con-
strued with "judgment creditors" and hence the no-
tice contemplated is actual, and not constructive..95
b. Subsequent Conveyance or Lien
The lien of a Judgment ordinarily Is superior to atl
conveyances of, and liens on, the debtor's property which
are made or accrue after the Judgment lien has attached.
The lien of a judgment is superior to all convey-
ances of, and liens on, the debtor's property which
are made or accrue after the judgment lien has at-
tached,96 provided, however, the judgment will not
prevail against a subsequent sale or lien on the
entitled to be recorded, whether con-
sidered as a part of the deed or as
a contract describing the land con-
veyed by the deed, and constituted
constructive notice. — Blair v. Rorer's
Adm'r, supra.
Parol evidence held inadmissible
to show intent to convey property
other than as described in the deed.
— Blair v. Rorer's Adm'r, supra.
90. Va. — Blair v. Rorer's Adm'r, su-
pra.
91. Ga. — Andrews v. Mathews, 59
Ga. 466.
Va.— Horsley v. Garth, 2 Gratt 471,
43 Va. 471, 44 Am.D. 393.
34 CUT. p 611 note 46.
Recording under wrong name
The failure of register of deeds to
enter on grantor's side of index the
name of "J. Frank Crowell" and in-
stead indexing deed as if it were one
from "J. L. Crowell," who was the
grantor in more than one hundred
conveyances on the same page, did
not give notice to grantor's subse-
quent judgment creditor that title
to realty was no longer in him, and,
in absence of evidence that creditor
had knowledge or notice of trans-
fer of title otherwise than shown
by record, deed was not indexed and
registered with respect to him.—
Dorman v. Goodman, 196 S.E. 352,
213 N.C. 406.
92. Va. — Carper v. McDowell, $
Gratt. 212, 46 Va. 212.
34 C.J. p 611 note 47.
•Omission of recitals
The failure to comply with a stat-
ute requiring instruments offered for
registration to contain recital des-
ignating last registered instrument
relating to property embraced in
instrument offered for registration
and setting forth book and page
where appears last registered instru-
ment did not render registration in-
effective against subsequent judg-
ment creditor. — Phoenix Mut. Life
Ins. Co. v. Kingston Bank & Trust
Co., 112 S.W.2d 381, 172 Tenn. 335.
93. N.J.— Hadfleld v. Hadfield, 17
A.2d 169, 128 N.J.EQ. 510.
94. 111. — Leutenmyer v. McMahon,
168 IlLApp. 642.
Pa. — Shryock v. Waggoner, 28 Pa.
430.
95. Pa. — Rochester Trust Co. v.
White, 90 A. 127, 243 Pa. 469.
96. U.S.— Pen-Ken Gas & Oil Cor-
poration v. Warfield Natural Gas
Co., C.C.A,Ky., 137 F.2d 871, cer-
tiorari denied 64 S.Ct 431, 320 U.
S. 800, 88 L.Ed. 483, rehearing de-
nied 64 3.Ct. 634, 321 U.S. 803, 88
L.Bd. 1089— Commercial Credit Co.
v. Davidson, C.C.A.Miss., 112 F.2d
54— McAlpine v. Hedges, C.C.Ind.,
21 F. 689.
Cal. — Corporation of America v.
Marks, 73 P.2d 1215, 10 Cal.2d 218,
114 A.L.R. 1162— Richardson v. Ab-
ernathy,- 73 P.2d 1252, 23 Cal-App.
2d 629.
Colo. — Zigmond v. Cooper, 8 P.2d
268, 90 Colo. 222.
Del.— C. L. Pierce & Co. v. Security
Trust Co., 175, A, 770, 6 W.W.Harr.
348.
Fla. — Giddens v. McFarlan, 10 So.2d
807, 152 Fla. 281— Orr v. Dade De-
velopers, 190 So. 20, 138 Fla. 122.
Ga. — Ho well v. Farmers Bank, 196
S.E. 387, 185 Ga, 768.
Hawaii. — Nichols v. Wan Chong Sun,
28 Hawaii 395.
111. — Svalina v. Saravana, 173 N.E.
281, 341 111. 236, 87 A.L.R. 821.
Iowa.— Chader v. Wilkins, 284 N.W.
183, 226 Iowa 417— Rogers v. Ruth-
erford, 232 N.W. 720, 210 Iowa
1313.
La. — Es-at v. Kraus, App., 141 So.
94.
933
Mont. — Commercial Bank & Trust
Co. v. Jordan, 278 P. 832, 85 Mont
375, 65 A.L.R. 968 — Isom v. Larson,
255 P. 1049, 78 Mont 395.
N.M.— Sylvanus v. Pruett, 9 P.2d 142,
36 N.M. 112.
N.C.— Keel v. Bailey, 198 • S.E. 654,
214 N.C. 159— Byrd v. Pilot Fire
Ins. Co., 160 S.E. 458, 201 N.C. 407.
Pa. — Brumbach v. Pearson, 13 Pa.
Dist & Co. 762, 22 Berks Co. 124,
78 Pittsb.Leg.J. 451, 44 York Leg,
Rec. 21— First Nat Bank of Pitts-
ton v. McGovern, Com.Pl., 35 Luz.
Leg.Reg. 177.
Tex. — Collins v. Davenport, Civ.App.,
192 S.W.2d 291— John F. Grant
Lumber Co. v. Hunnicutt, Civ.App.,
143 S.W.2d 976— Williams v. Hed-
rick, Civ.App., 131 S.W.2d 187, er-
ror dismissed, judgment correct.
Wis. — Corpus Juris cited in R. F.
Gehrke Sheet Metal Works v.
Mahl, 297 N.W. 373, 376, 237 Wis.
414.
34 C.J. P 611 note 48 — 40 C.J. p 286
note 83 — 41 C.J. p 518 note 26, p
520 note 33—53 C.J. p 250 note
38.
Lien of defaulting Judgment lien
claimant was held subordinate to
valid liens of other claimants in me-
chanic's lien foreclosure suit except
certain attachment and judgment
lien.— Lorenz Co. v. Gray, 298 P.
222, 136 Or. 605, rehearing denied
and opinion adhered to Lorenz Co.
v. Day & Co., 300 P. 949, 136 Or.
605.
Bill of sale of personalty
A debtor's bill of sale of mules to
creditor in consideration of the pre-
existing debt did not give creditor
right to mules which was superior
to right of another creditor T7ho
obtained judgment against debtor
prior to bill of sale, where preexist-
ing debt was not a "valuable consid-
485
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
property unless it has been docketed, filed, regis-
tered, or otherwise made a matter of public rec-
ord, as the local statute may provide,97 even though
the purchaser has actual notice of the undocketed
judgment98
An innocent purchaser is protected against a
judgment erroneously recorded and indexed,99 and
a judgment docketed under the wrong name does not
constitute a lien on the property as against a gran-
tee who is a purchaser in good faith.1 If the judg-
ment is actually recorded, the fact that a party is
ignorant of it is due to his own negligence, against
the consequences of which a court of equity cannot
relieve him by interfering with the rights of others
who are without fault ;2 and under the rule in some
jurisdictions the purchaser of realty is bound to as-
certain at his peril whether there are judgments
against the debtor.3 It has been held that a judg-
ment, although docketed, will not have a prior lien
on a mere equitable interest in lands over a subse-
quent bona fide purchaser without actual notice
from the holder of the legal title.4
The fact that no execution was issued, or that no
levy was made after an execution was issued, has
been held not to affect the priority of the lien of a
judgment over subsequent deeds and mortgages,5
except in so far as failure to issue execution may
result in postponement of the lien, as discussed in-
fra § 486; but the rule is otherwise under statutory
provisions requiring the entry of execution in or-
der that the judgment shall have a lien attaching
to the property,6 and a partner who, for cash and
in good faith, buys and takes a transfer of his part-
ner's entire interest in the firm after a third person
has obtained a judgment against the selling partner
individually but before garnishment or other col-
lateral proceeding is taken to seize the selling part-
ner's interest has been held not charged with the
eration" for bill of sale and was in-
sufficient to constitute the creditor
a "bona fide purchaser," and mules
and other personal property convey-
ed by bill of sale amounted to much
more than the preexisting- debt. —
Duncan v. Jones, Tez.Civ.App., 153
S.W.2d 214.
A deed to secure borrowed money
paid for land is but a parol mort-
gage, and as such is inferior to a
judgment against the purchaser,
and a sheriff's sale under the Judg-
ment will pass a clear title and any
surplus left after satisfying the
judgment belongs to the purchaser,
and not to the lender. — Fredericks v.
Corcoran, 100 Pa, 413.
Judgment prior to sale by receiver
Where grantee obtained decrees re-
scinding land contracts one week be-
fore confirmation of sale of corpo-
rate grantor's realty in stockholder's
receivership suit, purchaser at re-
ceivership sale was held to take with
notice of liens of grantee's decrees
and subject to grantee's right to levy
execution, especially in absence of
publication of notice to creditors aft-
er liquidation of corporation was de-
termined.— Eppes v. Dade Develop-
ers, 170 So. 875, 126 Fla* 353— State
ex rel. Eppes v. Lehman, 147 So. 907,
109 Fla. 331.
Judgment prior to assessment lien
Pa.— Oil City Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v.
Shanfelter, 29 Pa,Super. 251.
Receivers' certificates
A valid and subsisting judgment
lien takes precedence over receiv-
ers* certificates issued for money to
be borrowed. — Lehman v. Trust Co.
of America, 49 So. 502, 57 Fla. 473
—63 O.J. 9 192 note 73.
Assigned of lea>6
A Judgment creditor's lien is fi'i-
perior to the rights of an assignee
of a lease where the assignment was
made after the judgment was dock-
eted,— Henderson v. Tomb, 8 K.Y.S,
2d 612, 169 Misc. 737.
97. Ohio. — Van Hoose v. French, 62
N.E.2d 259, 75 Ohio App. 342.
Wash. — Choukas v. Carras, 81 P.2d
841, 195 Wash. 659.
Wis. — Wisconsin Mortg. & Sec. Co.
v. Kriesel, 211 N.W. 795, 191 Wis.
602.
34 C.J. p 612 note 51—41 C.J. p 547
note 96—42 C.J. p 769 note 62.
Erroneous indexing
Where judgment against landown-
er was not indexed on judgment
docket under his name, rights of
bank which subsequently acquired
deed to the land without actual
knowledge of judgment were superi-
or to lien of judgment — Wilson v,
First Nat Bank, S8 P.2d 628, 184
Okl. 518.
Transcript held sufficient
Ind. — Chadwick v. Louisville Joint
Stock Land Bank, 6 N.EL2d 741, 103
Ind.App. 224.
Piling of transcript held insufficient
In absence of some step beyond
mere filing of transcript of judg-
ment, innocent bona fide purchasers
from record owner, not party to the
judgment, are protected. — Castorina
v. Herrmann, 104 S.W.2d 297, 340 Mo.
1026.
Purchaser charged with knowledge
Where judgment is entered in
name of judgment debtor, and ex-
ecution docket shows number of
cause and part of judgment debtors,
purchaser from judgment debtor is
charged with knowledge which in-
quiry would have disclosed. — Miller
\ J. I. Case Threshing Mach. Co.,
00 ?. 399, 149 Okl. 281.
934
98. Mont.— Sklower v. Abbott 47 P.
901, 19 Mont 228.
34 C.J. p 612 note 52.
99. Pa. — Jaczyszyn v. Paslawski, 24
A.2d 116, 147 Fa.Super. 97.
1. N.Y. — Grygorewicz v. Domestic
and Foreign Discount Corporation,
40 N.Y.S.2d 676, 179 Misc. 1017.
A Judgment is not docketed
against any particular property, but
solely against a name, and if that
name is incorrectly set forth, the
one to suffer should not be a pur-
chaser in good faith but rather
judgment creditor, who should see
to it that the docketing is in the
correct name of the debtor, so that
a judgment docketed against Mary
A. Fender did not constitute a lien
on real property of Alice Mary Pen-
der and it did not constitute con-
structive "notice" to purchaser, who
acted in good faith, in acquiring title
from Alice Mary Pender. — Grygore-
wicz v. Domestic and Foreign Dis-
count Corporation, supra.
2. Mo. — Bunn v. Lindsay, 7 S.W.
473, 95 Mo. 250, 6 Am.S.R. 48.
Pa. — Brumbach v. Pearson, 13 Pa.
Dist & Co. 762, 22 Berks Co. 124,
78 Pittsb.Leg.J. 451, 44 York Leg.
Rec. 21.
S. Wis.— R. F. Gehrke Sheet Metal
Works v. Mahl, 297 N.W. 373, 237
Wis. 414.
4. Kan.— Kirkwood v. Koester, 11
Kan. 471.
Miss.— Harper v. Bibb, 34 Miss. 472,
69 Am.D. 397.
Va. — Moore v. Sexton, 30 Gratt. 505,
71 Va. 505.
5. N.J. — Vansciver v. Bryan, 13 N.J.
a. 434.
6. Ga.— Swift v. Dowling, 107 S.B.
49, 151 Ga, 449.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 485
lien of such judgment.7 A mechanic's lien for work
commenced before a judgment was entered has^been
held entitled to priority even though filed after judg-
ment was rendered.8 Where the property against
which the judgment lien is sought to be enforced
did not stand in the name of the judgment debtor,
the judgment lien will be subordinate to the rights
of a subsequent purchaser under a contract for deed
entered into in good faith and for a valuable con-
sideration.9
A defect in a mortgage, in failing to name a
mortgagee, cannot be availed of by a subsequent
judgment creditor of the mortgagor before levy and
sale as against one who had contracted to furnish
the money for the payment of the mortgage debt in
consideration of his being subrogated to the rights
of the mortgagee.10
Conveyance in trust to secure specified debts. It
has been held that, where land is conveyed in trust
to secure certain specified debts, the beneficiaries of
such trust deed will have a lien on the land so con-
veyed superior to that of ordinary judgment credi-
tors.11 Where a deed of trust is executed to se-
cure certain debts, and thereafter a judgment is
rendered against the grantor who contracts with
a third person to advance the amount secured by
the deed of trust and gives him a mortgage as se-
curity, on payment of the debts secured by the deed
of trust it becomes inoperative and the mortgagee
cannot be subrogated to the rights of the cestui que
trust so as to gain priority over the judgment.12
c. Contemporaneous Judgment and Conveyance
or Lien
Where a Judgment and a conveyance OP encumbrance
are entered against the debtor on the same day, the
general rule Is that priority of right will be determined
by priority In time.
Where a conveyance or encumbrance and a judg-
ment against the grantor are entered on the same
day, some of the cases hold that the lien of the
judgment will begin from the earliest hour of that
day, and so override the conveyance;13 but the gen-
erally accepted doctrine is that fractions of the day
may be inquired into, and priority of right will be
determined by actual priority in time,14 and that, in
order to affect lands in the hands of a purchaser,
a judgment must have been not merely simultane-
ous with, but anterior to, the conveyance.15 The
precise time at which the judgment was entered may
be proved, according to some authorities, by evi-
dence dehors the record,1* although other authori-
ties have refused to adopt this rule.17
Where there is no proof of the actual time of
rendition or entry of the judgment, it has been held
by some authorities that the judgment will have pri-
ority over a conveyance on the same day, the pre-
sumption being that the judgment was rendered or
entered at the earliest hour of the day when an ac-
tual rendition or entry of a judgment may be made
in the usual course of business,18 although other au-
thorities hold that under such circumstances the
liens are equal.19 Under the rule that a judgment
lien relates back to the first day of the term at
which it was rendered, a judgment lien overreaches
all conveyances or encumbrances on the debtor's
lands executed on or after the first day of the term
during which the judgment was rendered.20 Where
a deed is received for recording on a certain day
but is not recorded because costs of registration did
not accompany it, and on the same day a judgment
is docketed, the judgment is entitled to priority.21
d. Judgment for Pnrcliase Money
A Judgment given or confessed for the purchase
money of land will have priority of lien on the land over
subsequent mortgages or other encumbrances, where the
giving of the judgment and the execution and delivery
of the deed for the land were simultaneous or parts of
the same continuous transaction, but not otherwise.
A judgment given or confessed for the purchase
money of land will have priority of lien on the land
over subsequent mortgages or other encumbrances
7. oa.— Ivey v. Gatlin, 20 S.B.2d
592, 194 Ga. 27.
8. pa.— Knoell v. Carey, 140 A. 522,
291 Pa. 531.
9. Minn.— Roberts v. Friedell, 15 N.
W.2d 496, 218 Minn. 88.
10. Iowa.— Watson v. Bowman, 119
N.W. 623, 142 Iowa 528.
41 C.J. p 521 note 44.
11. Tenn. — Buchanan v. Kimes, 2
Baxt 275.
41 C.J. p 519 note 29.
12. W.Va. — Hoffman v. Ryan, 21 W.
Via. 415.
13. Del.— Hollingsworth v. Thomp-
son, 5 Del. 432.
Va. — Hockman v. Hockman, 25 S.B.
634, 93 Va. 455, 57 Am.S.R/ 816.
41 C.J. P 548 note 99 [a].
14. U.S. — Fooshee v. Snavely, D.C.
Va., 58 F.2d 772, affirmed, C.C.A.,
58 F.2d 774, certiorari denied 53
S.Ct. 85, 287 U.S. 635, 77 LJEd. 550
—Cohen v. Schultz. C.C.A.N.J.,
43 F.2d 340.
34 C.J. p 612 note 60.
16. Pa,— Mechanics' Bank v. Gor-
man, 8 Watts & S. 304.
16. N.J.— Hunt v. Swayze, 25 A.
850, 55 N.J.Law 33.
Pa.__ Mechanics' Bank v. Gorman, 8
Watts & S. 304.
17. Tenn.— Berry v. Clements, 9
935
Humphr. 312— Murfree v. Carmack,
4 Yerg. 270, 26 Am.D. 232.
18. Pa.— In re Boyer, -51 Pa. 432,
91 Am.D. 129.
34 C.J. p 613 note 64.
19. pa,— Home Sav. Fund v. King,
173 A, 891, 113 Pa.Super. 400.
34 C.J. P 613 note 65—41 C.J. p 519
note 28, p 548 note 99 [b], [d].
20. W.Va.— Smith v. Parkersbur*
Co-Op. Assoc., 37 S.K 645, 48 W.
Va. 232.
34 C.J. p 583 note 62.
21. U.S.— Fooshee v. Snavely, C.C.
A.Va., 58 F.2d 774, certiorari de-
nied 53 S.CL 85, 287 U.S. 685, 77
550.
§485
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
where the giving of the judgment and the execution
and delivery of the deed for the land were simul-
taneous or parts of the same continuous transac-
tion, but not otherwise.22 However, a judgment
for the balance due on the purchase price of realty,
on which the judgment was declared to be a spe-
cific lien, gives the judgment creditor no lien prior
to that of a third person under a mortgage execut-
ed before entry of the judgment;23 and, although
the judgment debtor may not be permitted to claim
homestead as against a purchase-money judgment,
such fact does not affect the rights of a mortgagee
acquiring his interest in the property before the en-
try of the judgment.24
e. Purchase-Money Mortgage
A mortgage or trust deed given to secure the pur-
chase price of land and executed simultaneously with
the conveyance has priority of. Hen over judgments ob-
tained before the conveyance.
A mortgage25 or trust deed given to secure the
purchase price of land,26 and executed simultane-
ously with the conveyance,27 has priority of lien
over judgments obtained against the purchaser an-
terior to the conveyance, whether the mortgage is
given to the vendor himself or to a third person
who advances the purchase money for the vendee,28
and as well where part of the purchase money is
paid, and the mortgage given to secure the balance,
as when the mortgage is given for the whole pur-
chase money.29 Some authorities have held that
the mortgage will not be entitled to priority unless
it is recorded;30 others' that the mortgage takes
priority over a prior judgment, even though it is
not recorded immediately,31 or at all,32 but that this
rule has no application to a subsequent judgment,33
although even in the latter case some authorities
give priority to the unrecorded mortgage.34 The
fact that a portion of a mortgage to secure the pur-
chase price was given to secure the mortgagee
against liability on his indorsement of the judgment
debtor's note to the judgment creditor does not af-
fect his right to priority over the judgment creditor
for the full amount of the mortgage where, in a
suit by the judgment creditor to set aside as fraud-
ulent a conveyance by the judgment debtor, no per-
sonal judgment was asked against the mortgagee
and the mortgagee remained liable on his indorse-
ment.35
Mortgage not for purcJiase money. A mortgage
to an attorney, given to secure payment of the
amount due for legal services rendered, cannot be
considered as a purchase-money mortgage, as
against a prior judgment lien,36 nor can a mortgage
given to secure not only the balance of the purchase
price but also debts to third persons.87
f . Contemporaneous Mortgage to Secure Other
Debts
Where a Judgment debtor on acquiring property ex-
ecutes a mortgage to secure debts other than for the
purchase money of the property, a Judgment lien takes
precedence over the mortgage.
Where a judgment debtor at the same time he
acquires title to land executes a mortgage thereof to
a third person, to secure any debt other than for
the purchase money of the land, the judgment lien
will take precedence of the mortgage,38 but there
is authority to the contrary where such mortgage
was given as part of the one continuous transaction
by which title was acquired.39
g. Contracts of Sale and Vendor's Lieu
' In general, the rights of a vendee are not affected
22. Pa. — Appeal of Snyder, 91 Pa.
477.
34 OJ. p 613 note 68 — 40 C.J. p 286
note 85.
23. N.C.— Jarrett v. Holland. 196
S.E. 314, 213 N.C. 428.
24. N.C. — Jarrett v. Holland, supra.
25. Ind. — Peet v. Beers, 4 Ind. 46.
34 C.J. p 613 note 69—41 C.J. P 529
note 41.
Defective purchase-money mort-
gage* have been held superior to
judgment recovered before debtor ac-
quired title. — Groh v. Cohen, 149 A.
459, 158 Md. 638.
26. Ga. — Achey v. Coleman, 19 S.E.
710. 92 Ga, 745.
34 C.J. P 613 note 70.
27. Ark.— Western Tie & Timber Co.
v. Campbell, 169 S.W. 253, 113 Ark.
57$, 575, Ann.Cas.l916C 943.
34 CU. p 618 note 71.
28. Ark.— Western Tie & Timber Co.
v. Campbell, supra.
34 C.J. p 614 note 72.
29. Ga.— Protestant Episcopal
Church of Diocese of Georgia v. B.
E. Lowe Co., 63 S.E. 136, 131 G«u
666, 127 Am.S.R. 243.
34 C.J. p 614 note 73.
30. Pa. — Appeal of Foster, 8 Pa. 79.
31. Ga. — Courson v. Walker, 21 S.E.
287. 94 Ga, 175.
La, — Hochereau v. Colomb, 27 La.
Ann. 337.
32. 111.— Roane v. Baker, 11 N.E.
246, 120 111. 308.
Tex. — Masterson v. Burnett, 66 S.W.
90, 27 Tex.Civ.App. 370.
34 C.J. p 614 note 76.
33. IlL— Thorpe v. Helmer, 118 N.E.
954, 275 111. 86.
34 aX p 614 note 77.
936
34. va- — Cowardin v. Anderson, 78
Va. 88.
35. Ky. — Lyon v. Lemaster, 109 S.
W.2d 39, 270 Ky. 122.
36. Ind.— Yarlott v. Brown, 149 N.E.
921, 86 Ind.App. 479.
37. Conn. — Joseph v. Donovan, 164
A. 498, 116 Conn. 160.
111. — Gorham v. Farson, 10 N.B. 1,
119 111. 425.
38. N.C.— Weil v. Casey, 34 S.E. 506,
125 N.C. 356, 74 Am.S.R. 644.
34 C.J. p 613 note 66.
Mortgage for future advances
Lien of prior judgment against
vendee takes priority over mortgage
to secure future advances, given by
vendee when acquiring title. — Fideli-
ty Union Title & Mortgage Guaranty
Co. v. Magniflco, 151 A, 499, 106
N.J.EO. 559.
39. I1L— Christie v. Hale, 46 111. 117.
34 OJ. p 613 note 67.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 485,
by a Judgment recovered against the vendor subsequent
to the execution of the contract of sale, nor are the rights
of the vendor affected by a Judgment recovered against
the vendee.
The rights of the vendee under an executory con-
tract for the sale of land are not displaced or im-
paired by the subsequent accruing of a judgment
lien against the vendor,40 especially where the ven-
dee is in possession under such contract.41
The lien of a judgment creditor of the vendee is
inferior to a vendor's lien where a lien is expressly
reserved by the vendor in the deed or contract of
sale42 or is reserved under a statute,43 or where
the vendor has retained title until payment of the
purchase money,44 although the instrument reserv-
ing the lien is not recorded.45 It is also the general
rule that the vendor's implied lien is superior to that
of a judgment creditor,46 and this rule has been
followed by some courts where the judgment credi-
tor had no notice of the vendor's lien.47 It has been
held in some jurisdictions, either in compliance with
recording statutes or otherwise, that a vendor's im-
plied lien is inferior to that of a judgment creditor
without notice,48 and is superior to the lien of the
judgment creditor only where such creditor has no-
tice of the vendor's lien,4* and that a vendor's Hen
is inferior to a judgment lien prior in time and duly
recorded.50
It has been held that a lien stipulated for in a
separate instrument, both the deed of conveyance
and the instrument reserving the lien being re-
corded, will not give preference to the vendor's lien
over subsequent judgment creditors of the purchas-
er.51 In a jurisdiction where the vendor's implied
lien is not recognized until the vendor has filed a
bill to fix and enforce his claim on the land, it has
been held that any creditor of the purchaser may
attach or cause execution to be levied on the land
and prevail on the lien thereof over the vendor,52
and, although the land has been reconveyed to the
vendor by the purchaser, the vendor does not stand
in the same position as though he had brought an ac-
tion for the enforcement of his implied lien, and,
until the deed of reconveyance is recorded, the right
of a judgment creditor of the purchaser levying on
the land under an execution will be superior to that
of the vendor.53
Where a vendor's lien is prior to a judgment lien,
a subsequent taking of a deed of trust to secure the
vendor's lien notes, and foreclosure of such deed,
does not render the vendor's Hen a subsequent
lien.54 In a suit to foreclose a vendor's lien, a judg-
ment rendered previously but not recorded until
after the suit was commenced cannot be reHed on
to support rights claimed by the original vendor's
wife against plaintiff.55 The recording of an ab-
stract of judgment against the vendor and vendee of
an executory contract of sale of realty does not im-
40. Ga. — Burr v. Toomer, 29 S.B.
692, 103 Ga. 159.
Md.— Cattrider v. Caples, 153 A. 445,
160 Md. 392, 87 A.L.R. 1600— Kin-
sey v. Drury, 126 A. 125, 146 Md.
227.
Neb.— Wehn v. Fall, 76 N.W. 13, 55
Neb. 547, 70 Am.S.R. 344— Olander
v. Tighe, 61 N.W. 633, 43 Neb.
344.
N.J.-— Simonds v. Essex Pass. R. Co.,
41 A, 682, 57 N.J.Eq. 349.
Okl.— Scott-Baldwin Co. v. McAdams,
141 P. 770, 43 Okl. 161. ,
Or. — May v. Emerson, 96 P. 454,
52 Or. 262, 16 Ann.Cas. 1129, re-
hearing denied 96 P. 1065, 52 Or.
262, 16 Ann.Cas. 1129.
S.C.— Adickes v. Lowry, 12 S.C. 97
— Massey v. Mcllwain, 11 S.C.Eq.
421.
Tenn. — Moore v. Pinning, 13 S.W.2d
798, 158 Tenn. 374.
W.Va. — Donnally v. Parker, 5 W.Va.
301.
34 C.J. p 614 note 79.
Vendee's right to require conveyance
on fulfilling contract not defeated
by attaching of Judgment lien see
supra § 480.
Parol contract
Where a parol contract to convey
is afterward executed in good faith,
.the rights of the vendee are not
defeated by a judgment against the
vendor rendered after the making
of the contract but before execution
of the conveyance. — Minns v. Morse,
15 Ohio 568, 45 Am.D. 590.
41. N.Y.— Stillwell v. Hart, 57 N.T.
S. 639, 40 App.Div. 112.
34 C.J. p 614 note 80.
42. Ky. — Likens v. Pate, 169 S.W.
734, 160 Ky. 319.
66 C.J. p 1247 note 71.
Vendor's lieu reserved on face of
conveyance
Pa.— Miller v. Bucks, 92 Pa.Super.
263.
34 C.J. p $13 note 69 [o].
43. Tenn.— Vaughn v. yaughn, 12
Heisk. 472.
44. Ga.— American Law Book Co. v.
Brunswick Cross-Tie & Creosoting
Co., 77 S.E. 104, 12 Ga.App. 259.
Ind.— Lagow v. Badollet, 1 Blackf.
416, 12 Am.D. 258.
66 C.J. P 1247 note 73.
45. va.-- Snipe, Cloud & Co. v. Re-
pass, 28 Gratt 716, 69 Va. 716.
40. N.J.— Thatelbaum v. Neidorf,
135 A. 57, 100 N.J.EQ. 236.
Tex. — McKelvain v. Allen, 58 Tex.
383.
34 C.J. P 614 note 81—66 C.J. p 1247
note 76.
937
47. Ohio.— Miller v. Albright, 53 N.
E. 490, 60 Ohio St. 48.
66 C.J. p 1248 note 77.
48. Iowa. — Spindler v. Iowa & O. S.
L. Ry. Co., 155 N.W. 271, 173 Iowa
348.
34 C.J. p 614 note 82 — 66 C.J. P 1248
note 79.
Simulated purchaser's creditors ac-
quiring and recording Judicial m6rt-
gages against all his property with-
out actual knowledge of record of
simulated ' sale acquired title as
against simulated vendor holding
unrecorded counter letter.— State ex
rel. Hebert v. Recorder of Mort-.
gages, 143 So. 15, 175 La. 94.
49. Ky.— Morford v. Browning, 11
Ky.Op. 186.
50. Va. — Kidwell v. Henderson. 143
S.E. 336, 150 Va. 829.
51. Pa.— McLanahan v. Reeside, 9
Watts 508, 36 Am.D. 136.
52. Tenn. — Hood v. Hogue, 175 S.
W. 531, 131 Tenn. 421, AnnXJas.
1916D 383.
53. Tenn. — Hood v. Hogue, supra.
54. Tex. — Shaw v. Ball, Com.App.f
23 S.W.2d 291.
55. Tex. — Button v. Kinsey,
App., 124 S.W.2d 446.
Civ.
§ 485
JUDGMENTS
pair the right of a prior holder in due course for
valuable consideration before maturity of vendor's
lien notes to rescind the vendor's lien contract and
recover possession of the property.56 The lien of
a judgment creditor of a purchaser under a land
contract has been held subordinate to the title of
the grantor to whom the purchaser reconveyed in
consideration of cancellation of notes given for the
purchase price of the land.57
Rescission of the contract, after a judgment
against the vendee but before levy, has been held
not to affect the lien of the judgment creditor, where
the judgment lien has attached before the rescis-
sion.58 A judgment lien attaching to realty after a
vendor's lien has been barred by limitations is su-
perior to title acquired by the grantors from a deed
reconveying the property59 and to their title as un-
satisfied vendors in possession.60 A judgment in
favor of an original vendor establishing a vendor's
lien cuts off the claim of a subsequent mortgagee
named in a trust deed so that a purchaser at a sale
foreclosing the trust deed acquires no rights in the
realty.61 Where a grantor conveys property by
deed providing for revocation of the transfer on
breach of a condition subsequent, the rights of the
grantor on breach of the condition are superior to
the general lien of a judgment against the grantee.62
Creditor purchaser at trust sale. It has been held
that a Vendor's implied lien is inferior to the claim
of a creditor of the purchaser who acquired a spe-
cific lien on the property under a deed of trust and
who purchased the property at trust sale.63
It. Government Claims
In the absence of statute; ordinary debts due the
49 C.J.S.
not entitled to priority over a prior
government
judgment.
Ordinary debts due to a state government have no
priority over judgment liens previously attaching.64
As discussed in Bankruptcy § 453, the statutory pri-
ority in favor of claims of the United States in cases
of bankruptcy or insolvency does not cause such
claims to override judgment liens attaching to the
debtor's property before the insolvency or before the
institution of bankruptcy proceedings.
§ 486. Postponement of Lien
a. In general
b. Stay of execution; appeal
c. Entry of satisfaction without actual
satisfaction
d. Modification of judgment
a. In General
The lien of a Judgment may be postponed and made
subordinate to later liens by failure to keep the Judg-
ment alive as required by statute, or by conduct of the
judgment creditor amounting to fraud, waiver or estop-
pel.
Unless otherwise provided by statute,65 where a
judgment is a senior lien its priority is not lost by
mere delay in enforcing it, in the absence of cir-
cumstances warranting an inference of fraud,66 or
unless the delay amounts to gross negligence ;67 nor
will neglect to satisfy a judgment out of the debtor's
personal property subordinate the judgment lien on
the debtor's land to that of a junior judgment.68
However, the postponement of a judgment lien to
a junior lien will result from anything which in-
validates or destroys the judgment6^ or amounts to
a satisfaction of it,70 or from conduct on the judg-
ment creditor's part which amounts to fraud on the
rights or interests of junior lienors71 or estops him
56. Tex. — Goldenrod Finance Co. v.
Ware, Civ.App., 142 S.W.2d 614,
error dismissed* judgment correct.
57. Tex. — Thompson v. Mayhew
Lumber Co., Civ.App., 103 S.W.Sd
1005.
58. Ga,-— Stewart v. Berry, 10 S.B.
601, 84 Ga, 177.
59. Tex. — Tates v. Darby, 131 S.W.
2d 95, 133 Tex. 593.
Judgment filed "before vendor's lien
tarred
A judgment lien when filed attach-
ed to any interest of judgment debt-
or, in realty, and, when superior ven-
dor's lien became barred of record by
limitation, the judgment lien im-
mediately attached and became the
prior lien on the realty, notwith-
standing vendor's lien was not bar-
red of record at the time abstract
of judgment was filed. — Hughes v.
Hess, Civ.App., 166 S.W.2d 718, re-
formed in part 172 S.W.2d 301, 141
Tex. 511.
60. Tex.— -Yates v. Darby, 131 S.W.
2d 95. 133 Tex. 593.
61. Tex. — Glasscock v. Travelers
Ins. Co., Civ.App., 113 S.W.2d 1005,
error refused.
62. Ind. — Royal v. Aultman-Taylor
Co., 19 K.B. 202, 116 Ind. 424, 2
L.R.A. 526.
63. Tenn. — Fain v. Inman, 6 Helsk.
5, 19 Am.R. 577.
64. Md. — Hollingsworth v. Patten,
3 Harr. & M. 125.
Mo.— Pinley v. Caldwell, 1 Mo. 512.
65. Failure to issue execution
Under some statutes where a judg-
ment creditor allows more than &
year to elapse without taking out
execution on his judgment its lien
will become inferior to the liens of
other judgments which have been
938
kept alive. — Southern Mortg. Guar-
anty Corporation v. King, 77 S.W.2d
810, 168 Tenn. 309 — 34 C.J. p 604
note 80.
v. Campbell, 8
66. Miss.— Foute
Miss. 377.
67. Miss. — Robinson v. Green, 7
Miss. 223.
68. Ind. — Leonard v. Broughton, 22
N.E. 731, 120 Ind. 536, 16 Am.S.R.
347.
69. Tenn. — Porter v. Cocke, Peck p
30.
70. Ark. — Trapnall v. Richardson, 13
Ark. 543, 58 Am.D. 338.
Pa.— Moseby's Appeal, 8 A. 165, 3
Pa.Cas. 108.
71. GteL — Green v. Ingram, 16 Ga.
164.
Pa. — Kimmel's Appeal, 91 Pa. 471.
34 C.J. p 615 note 91.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 486
to assert his priority,72 or from his voluntary re-
lease of his lien or agreement to postpone it,73 or
from conduct constituting a waiver thereof.74
Under a statute authorizing a junior judgment
lienholder to give a senior judgment lienholder writ-
ten notice requiring him to execute his judgment,
and depriving him of his priority if he fails to do
so, failure to give such notice is deemed acquies-
cence in the delay,75 but, where such notice is giv-
en and execution is sued out and placed in the hands
of the proper officer, the senior judgment creditor
need not go further and point out property of the
debtor subject to the execution in order to pre-
serve his priority,76 and a junior lienor cannot gain
priority by finding and pointing out property sub-
ject to execution.77 Where the purchaser of land
fails to sue within the time required by statute for
bringing an action for specific performance of the
contract, a judgment against the vendor, acquired
after the contract was made, takes priority over the
rights of the purchaser.78
An injunction awarded at the instance of a stran-
ger to prevent the collection of a judgment by sale
of the property levied on does not impair the lien
of the judgment; on dissolution of the injunction
the judgment will be entitled to priority as against
judgments whose liens attached during the injunc-
tion.79 One who takes a mortgage on attached
property may rely on the failure of the attaching
creditor to file his judgment lien within the time
required by the statute.80 The fact that a judgment
creditor was not a party to foreclosure proceedings
has been held not to render his judgment superior
to a previously recorded mortgage.81 Where, after
a judgment is obtained, a mortgage is released of
record, the judgment creditor's right to a lien and
priority become fixed when the mortgage is released,
even though a new mortgage is recorded later.82
Where the holder of a trust deed forecloses, pur-
chases at the trustee's sale, and takes a purchase
certificate, and in the meanwhile a judgment lien
attaches to the property, when the holder surren-
ders the purchase certificate and accepts a new trust
deed the judgment lien becomes entitled to priority
since the new deed is not a continuation of the old
one.88 Where a mortgage given to secure valid
notes is set aside because of invalidity of the mort-
gage, this will not invalidate or affect the priority
of judgments taken on the notes secured.84 Where
a sale on an execution is set aside for irregularity,
and the land is ordered to be resold for the benefit
of the purchaser, the lien of the original judgment
continues in force as against the lien of any inter-
vening judgment.85 Where a mechanic does not
pursue his remedy by a lien but seeks a personal
judgment, such judgment will rank as any other
judgment rendered on a personal claim.86
Failure to revive. In jurisdictions where, as dis-
cussed infra § 494, the lien of a judgment will not
continue unless the judgment is periodically revived,
the lien of a judgment not revived within the stat-
utory time will be superseded by the lien of junior
judgments in full original life or which have been
duly revived,87 even though the senior judgment
was for purchase money.88 Priority may be lost by
a revival improperly accomplished.89
b. Stay of Execution; Appeal
A stay of execution has been held to have, and also
not to have, the effect of postponing a judgment Hen.
An appeal does not affect a postponement of the judg-
ment to judgments or liens attaching while the appeal
Is pending.
An extension of time for payment, or a stay of
execution on a judgment, whether by agreement of
parties, order of court, or injunction, for any time
short of the statutory period of limitations, has
72. Neb. — Stannard v. Orleans Flour
& Oatmeal Milling Co., 140 N.W.
636, 93 Neb. 389.
34 C.J. p 612 note 50.
73. N.Y. — Bronner v. Loomis, 17
Hun 439.
Pa. — Gardner's Appeal, 7 Watts & S.
295 — Quakertown Building & Loan
Assoc. v. Server, 11 Phila. 532.
74. B.C. — Gottschalk Co. v. Live Oak
Distillery Co., 7 App.D.C. 169,
34 C.J. p 615 note 93.
75. U.S.— In re Gulf port Furniture
Co., D.C.Miss., 1 F.Supp. 489.
76. Miss. — Scharff y. Zimmerman, 60
Miss. 760.
77. Miss. — ScharfC v. Zimmerman,
supra.
136
78. N.J.— Stack v. Sobocinski,
A. 333, 100 N.J.EQU 414.
79. Ala.— Bartlett v. Doe, 6 Ala. 305,
41 Am.D. 52.
80. Conn.— City Nat. Bank v.
Stoeckel, 132 A. 20, 103 Conn. 732.
81. Ind. — Hibben, Hollweg & Co. v.
Western & Southern Life Ins. Co.,
169 N.E. 693, 90 Ind.App. 683.
82. Tenn. — Fidelity & Deposit Co. of
Maryland v. Fulcher Brick Co., 30
S.W.2d 253, 161 Tenn. 298.
83. Colo. — Home Owners' Loan Cor-
poration v. Meyer, 136 P.2d 282,
110 Colo. 501.
84. U.S. — Lippincott v. Shaw Car-
riage Co., C.C.Ind., 25 F. 577.
85. 111.— McHany v. Schenk, 88 HI.
357.
939
86. Ga. — Love v. Cox, 68 Ga. 269.
87. Neb. — Glissmann v, Happy Hol-
low Club, 271 N.W. 431, 132 Neb.
223.
Pa. — Dime Bank of Lansford y. Sum-
mit Hill Trust Co., 19 A.2d 738,
341 Pa. 424.
34 C.J. p 615 note 99.
88. Fa.— Ruth's Appeal, 54 Ba. 173.
89. Pa.— First Nat. Bank & Trust
Co. v. Miller, 18S A. 87, 322 Pa.
473.
Bights of creditors asserting pri-
ority over irregular or ineffective re-
vivals of prior creditors are substan-
tive and do not depend on terre ten-
ant's approval or disapproval, action
or inaction. — First Nat. Bank &
Trust Co. v. Miller, supra.
§486
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
been held not to have the effect of postponing the
lien of the judgment to other and junior judgment
liens,90 although there is also authority to the con-
Appeal. An appeal from a judgment does not
discharge its lien, although it may stay its enforce-
ment; hence it does not postpone the judgment to
judgments or other liens attaching while the ap-
peal is pending.92 Where a plaintiff appeals from
an award in his favor, and recovers a judgment
more favorable to himself, the lien of such judg-
ment does not relate back to the date of the
award.93 A judgment in full force and effect at a
time when a subsequent mortgage is executed with
constructive and actual notice of the judgment does
not lose its priority by reason of a reversal by an
.intermediate court and the final affirmance of the
judgment by a higher court after reversal of the
intermediate court94
c. Entry of Satisfaction without Actual Satis-
faction
Entry of satisfaction without actual satisfaction may
operate to postpone a judgment lien.
A judgment creditor who enters satisfaction of
his judgment, or permits it to be done, although
without actual satisfaction, authorizes others to con-
sider the property as unencumbered, and will be
postponed to their rights -or liens.95 A subsequent
cancellation of the entry of satisfaction will restore
the judgment to full activity, but it will not re-
store its priority of lien as against purchasers or
encumbrancers whose rights attached after the en-
try of satisfaction and before its cancellation,9 *
although it seems that the priority of the senior
judgment may thus be regained as against junior
judgment creditors whose judgments were recov-
ered prior to the entry of satisfaction, and who were
not in any way misled by such entry.97
<L Modification of Judgment
Under statutes so providing, modification of the Judg-
ment will not affect the lien existing under it.
A statute which provides, that when a judgment
is modified all liens under it shall be preserved to
the modified judgment applies to judgment liens on
personalty as well as to those on real property,98
even though in form the old judgment was vacated
and a new one entered.99 If, on the revival of a
judgment, substantial additions are made thereto
the continuity of its lien has been held to be broken
in favor of other liens existing at the date of the
revival.1
§ 487. Proceedings for Determination of Pri-
ority
Conflicting claims to priority may be determined in
proceedings, brought for that purpose, or in various oth-
er proceedings In which the question may appropriately
be considered.
Conflicting claims to priority as between judg-
ments, mortgages, and other liens may be deter-
mined on a bill in equity for the purpose,2 or in an
action or suit for a decree declaring the conflicting
liens void3 or plaintiffs lien superior,4 or in an ac-
tion by one claimant against another to fix relative
rights,5 or in a suit to quiet title as against an ad-
90. Ark.— Cook v. Martin, 87 S.W.
625, 1024, 75 Ark. 40, 5 Ann.Cas.
204.
34 C.J. p 615 note 2.
91. TT.S.— Winchester-Simmons Co.
v. Phillips, C.C.A.Miss., 16 F.2d
109.
34 C.J. p 615 note 3.
92. HL— Curtis v. Root, 28 111. 367.
34 C.J. p 615 note 4.
93. Pa. — Lentz v. Lamplugh, 12 Pa.
344.
94. Ohio. — Maxwell v. Holmes, 1
Ohio N.P.,N.S., 13.
95. Ala.— Mobile Branch Bank Y.
Ford, 13 Ala, 431.
111.— Page v. Benson, 22 IU. 484.
Miss.' — Parks v. Person, Sm. & M.Ch.
76.
96. Fa. — Beaver Falls Building &
Loan Ass'n v. Frolmson, 30 Pa.
DisL & Co. 489.
34 C.J. p 616 note 7.
97. Pa. — McCiine v. McCune, 30 A.
577, 164 Pa. 611— In re McLane, 1
Pa.Com.Pl. 317.
W.Va.— Renick v. Ludington, 14 W.
Va. 367.
98. Wash.— Smith v. De Lanty, 39
P. 638, 11 Wash. 386.
99. Wash.— Smith v. De Lanty, su-
pra.
34 OJ. p 616 note 11.
1. Pa. — Early v. Zeiders, 7 Pa.Co.
569.
34 C.J. p 616 note 12.
2. Miss. — Howard v. Simmons, 43
Miss. 75.
Va. — Irvine v. Randolph Lumber
Corp., 69 S.B. 350, 111 Va. 408.
34 C.J. p 616 note 13.
Pleading's held sufficient
Ala. — Johnston v. Bates, 95 So. 375,
209 Ala. 16.
Petition held insufficient
Ga.— Ivey v. Gatlin. 20 S.B.2d 592,
194 Ga, 27.
3. Minn. — Powers v. Bunnell, 140 N.
W. 748, 121 Minn. 152.
34 C.J. p 616 note 14.
4. Ind.— Bible v. Voris, 40 NJJ. 670,
141 Ind. 569.
34 C.J. p 616 note 15.
940
Matters to be alleged and proved
Judgment creditor whose judgment
lien attached to property after ven-
dor's lien had been barred by limi-
tations held not required to allege
and prove right as purchaser for
value without notice as against ven-
dors to whom reconveyance was at-
tempted after attachment of judg-
ment lien, in attempt to revive ven-
dor's lien under original note. — Yates
v. Darby, Civ.App., 103 S.W.2d 1007,
affirmed 131 S.W.2d 95, 133 Tex. 593.
5. Colo. — Larson v. Ross, 50 P. 730,
10 Colo.App. 267.
Trespass to try title
Defendants, in trespass to try ti-
tle claiming as bona fide purchasers
without notice of judgment in favor
of plaintiff's predecessor in title, had
burden to show that they acquired
land for value, and without notice
of rendition of such judgment. — Per-
mian Oil Co. v. Smith, 73 S.W.2d 490,
129 Tex. 413, 111 A.L.R. 1152, re-
hearing denied 107 S.W.2d 564, 129
Tex. 413, 111 A.L.R, 1152.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
488
verse claimant,6 or on a rule to show cause why the
alleged conflicting lien should not be stricken off,?
.or an issue framed between judgment creditors to
test the validity and rank of their respective judg-
ments,8 or in receivership proceedings,9 or in pro-
ceedings to distribute the funds raised by execution
sale of the property affected.10 So a judgment cred-
itor, if made defendant to a mortgage foreclosure
suit, may set up the priority of his lien and have
it determined.11 It has been held that a judgment
creditor's right to assert priority over a prior judg-
ment can arise only on distribution of the funds
from the sale of the. land on which the lien is
claimed.12
As a general rule a question of this kind should
be determined from the records, and not left to a
jury to decide by extraneous evidence,13 but where
the issue is as to the priority of a judgment on a
note entered by confession, the note having author-
ized any attorney to confess judgment, it has been
held proper to permit the attorney who confessed
the judgment to testify that he possessed no au-
thority not contained in the note.14 Third persons
asserting title to the property affected by the judg-
ment under a conveyance thereof from the judg-
ment debtor have the burden of showing that they
are innocent purchasers without notice.15 In a suit
to establish the priority of a judgment lien over a
warranty deed, the burden is on the judgment cred-
itor to prove, affirmatively that the deed from the
debtor was not delivered before the transcript of
judgment was filed,16 and he must prove his case
by a preponderance of the evidence.17
§ 488. Transfer of Property Subject to Lien
a. In general
b. Successive or contemporaneous trans-
fers of different tracts
c. Subjection of vendor's remaining
property
a. In General
The lien of a Judgment is not affected by a trans-
fer of the property by the judgment debtor to a pur-
chaser having actual or constructive notice of the judg-
ment.
According to general principles and apart from
any statutory provisions to the contrary, when a
judgment lien has once attached to land it remains
until legally removed, and a purchaser from the
judgment debtor who has, actual or constructive no-
tice of the judgment lien will take the estate
charged therewith18 to the extent of the amount of
6. Colo.— Floyd v. Sellers, 44 P. 373,
7 Colo.App. 498.
34 C.J. p 616 note 17.
Sufficiency of evidence
In action to quiet title wherein
creditor claimed judgment lien, evi-
dence that party who obtained judg-
ment against landowners was credi-
tor's assignee for collection held not
to sustain finding that creditor did
not recover Judgment against land-
owners.— Weiner v. Luscombe, 66 P.
2d 151, 19 Cal.App.2d 668.
7. La.— Merricfc v. McCausland, 24
La. Ann. 256 — Larthet v. Hogan, 1
La. Ann. 330.
«. Peu— Duffy v. Duffy, 6 Pa.Co. 161
— Boyd v. Roberts, 2 Pa.Co. 535.
34 C.J. p 616 note 19.
9. Tex. — Murphy v. Argonaut Oil
Co., Com.App., 23 S.W.2d 339.
10. Ga. — Colemau y. Slade, 75 Ga.
61.
•S.C. — Blohme v. Lynch, 2 S.B. 136,
26 S.C. 300.
34 C.J. p 616 note 20.
11. Wash.— Book v. WUley, 35 P.
1098, 8 Wash. 267.
12. Pa.— First Nat. Bank & Trust
Co. y. Miller, 186 A. 87, 322 Pa.
473.
13. Miss.— Johnson v. Bdde, 58 Miss.
664— Burney y. Boyett, 2 Miss. 39.
Pa.— Polhemus' Appeal, 32 Pa. 328
—Adams y. Bete, 1 Watts 425, 26
Am.D. 79.
Adndsslbllity of judgment
As against strangers, a judgment
is admissible in evidence as show-
ing the fact and time of its rendi-
tion, when those facts become mate-
rial in fixing its rank in competi-
tion with other liens.
U.S. — Southern R. Co. v. Bouknight,
S.C., 70 P. 442, 17 C.C.A. 181, 30
L.R.A. 823.
N.J.— Naylor v. Mettter, Ch., 11 A.
859.
14. Ind.— Bible v. Voris, 40 N.E. 670,
141 Ind. 569.
15. Ga.— Ray v. Atlanta Trust &
Banking Co., 93 S.E. 418, 147 Ga.
265.
16. Iowa. — Richardson y. Estle, 243
NYW. 611, 214 Iowa 1007.
17. Iowa. — Richardson v. Estle, su-
. pra.
Evidence held sufficient
To show delivery by deposit of
deed In mail before transcript of
judgment was filed. — Richardson v.
Estle, supra.
18. Ga. — Carlton v. Reeves, 122 S.E.
320, 157 Ga. 602.
111.— Erlinger v. Freed, 180 N.B. 400,
347 111. 588.
La.— Wunderlich v. Palmisano, App.,
177 So. 843 — Thompson-Ritchie
Grocery Co. y. Gary, 135 So. 707, 17
La.App. 270.
Md.— Wilmer v. Light Street Savings
941
6 Building Ass'n of Baltimore
City, 122 A. 129, 143 Md. 272.
Miss.-^Gerlach-Barklow Co. v. El-
lett, 111 So. 92, 145 Miss. 60.
N.Y.— Newark Fire Ins. Co. v. Brill,
7 N.T.S.2d 773.
NT.C. — Osborne v. Board of Educa-
tion of Guilford County ex rel.
State, 177 S.E. 642, 207 N.C. SOS-
Moses v. Major, 160 S.E. 890, 201
N.C. 613.
Tex.— Baker v. West, 36 S.W.2d 695,
120 Tex 113.
34 C.J. p 616 note 25.
Priority between judgment and sub-
sequent conveyance see supra 5
485 b.
Discharge of lieu
Under some statutes any person
who has purchased real property,
in good faith and for a valuable
consideration, and has been in pos-
session of the same for four years,
holds it discharged from the lien
of any judgment against his gran-
tor.— Reynolds y. Hardin, 200 S.E.
119, 187 Ga, 40—34 C.J. p 616 note
25 [nl.
Sufficiency of notice
Generally the purchaser of realty
need not look beyond judgment dock-
et for liens thereon, unless it shows
something that should reasonably
put him on inquiry, which would
lead to knowledge of requisite facts;
but he id affected with notice of
whatever Judgment record reasona-
§ 488
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
the judgment as recorded at the time of his pur-
chase,19 although the amount of the judgment is
larger than was represented to the purchaser by the
judgment debtor at the time of the transfer,2** un-
less the judgment creditor will waive or release
his lien.21 However, the lien does not attach to
the fund received from the sale.22
Where a judgment creditor has made an election
to receive part of his debt out of the proceeds from
the sale of lands on which his judgment was a prior
lien, he cannot afterward enforce the lien against
the land,23 and, where a sale of the debtor's prop-
erty is effected by order of court, it is competent
to direct that it shall be sold free of encumbrances,
the liens being then transferred to the fund.24 A
purchaser at a sheriff* s sale under the judgment will
succeed to the rights of the judgment creditor in
these respects.25 The purchaser of property against
which a judgment lien has attached does not be-
come personally liable for the amount of the lien,26
even though the amount of the lien was considered
by him in fixing the price he was willing to pay.27
However, where the lien attaches to personalty, a
purchaser of the personalty who removes it from
the county where the lien attached may be liable to
the judgment creditor for thereby defeating the
lien.2* It is not within the power of the judgment
debtor to defeat or displace the judgment lien by
repudiating the title or attorning to a third per-
son,29 or otherwise transferring his interest, to
which the judgment lien has attached.30 A convey-
ance expressly subject to the lien of all mortgages,
attachments, and judgments of record is subject
only to such judgments of record at the time of
the transfer which are valid liens.81
Land held in trust. Under some statutes a judg-
ment against a debtor attaches to land conveyed
by him to another to be held in trust for him and
is superior to a mortgage subsequently executed by
the debtor.32
b. Successive or Contemporaneous Transfers of
Different Tracts
Where property subject to the lien of a Judgment
(s sold or encumbered by the debtor at different times
to different persons, the general rule Is that there is no
contribution among the successive purchasers and the
property is liable to the satisfaction of the Judgment In
the inverse order of alienation.
Although there are some decisions to the con-
trary,83 where lands subject to the lien of a judg-
ment have been sold or encumbered by the owner at
different times to different purchasers, the general
rules is that there is no contribution among the suc-
cessive purchasers, but the various tracts are liable
to the satisfaction of the judgment in the inverse
order of their alienation or encumbrance, the land
last sold being first chargeable,34 even though the
last purchaser secures a conveyance before the first
bly suggests, and notice naturally
leading investigator to discovery oJ
judgment and debtor's identity is
sufficient. — Lambert v. K-T Transp,
Co.. 172 A. 180, 182 Pa.Super. 82.
Assignment of interest in estate
A voluntary assignment by heir
to another heir of his interest in an
estate, prior to institution of probate
proceedings wherein estate was sub-
sequently probated and wherein in-
terest assigned was distributed to
assignee, did not exclude judgment
lien against interest of assignor in
property, obtained prior to assign-
ment.— Walters Motor Co. v. Mus-
grove, 75 P.2d 471, 181 Okl. 540.
Improvements fey purchaser
La.— Glass v. Ives, 126 So. 69, 169
La. 809.
34 aj. p 616 note 25 [k].
1*. N.T.— Haverly v. Becker, 4 N.Y.
169.
W.Va.— Bensimer v. Fell, 12 S.B.
1078. 35 W.Va. 15, 29 Am.S.R.
774,
20. N.Y.— Hfcverly v. Becker, 4 N.Y.
169.
21. Colo. — Freeman v. Brockway, 50
P. 32, 24 Colo. 441.
N.Y.— Davis v. Tiffany, 1 Hill 642.
34 C.J. p 617 note 28.
22. Va,— Jones v. Hall, 15 S.E.2d
108, 177 Va. 658.
34 C.J. p 617 note 29.
Sale of timber
Where judgment debtor sold tim-
ber which was cut and removed and
judgment creditor, although living
within about five hundred yards
of the timber, took no steps to pre-
vent its removal, and there was no
fraud or collusion by judgment debt-
or and purchaser of the timber, and
subsequently Judgment debtor's land
which was sold by other creditors
did not bring sufficient amount to
pay judgment creditor, the Judgment
creditor was not entitled to recover
from purchaser amount of proceeds
of the sale of timber which had
been paid by the purchaser to judg-
ment debtor. — Jones v. Hall, supra.
33. Va. — Effinger v. Kenney, 23 S.
B. 742, 92 Va. 245.
34 C.J. p 618 note SO.
24. Minn. — Nelson v. Jenks, 52 N.
W. 1081, 51 Minn. 108.
S.C.— Garvin v. Garvin, 1 S.C. 55.
25. S.C.— Hart v. Felder, 4 S.C.Bq.
202.
14 C.J. p 618 note 32.
942
26. Mo.— Vogelstein v. Athletic Min-
ing Co., App., 192 S.W. 760.
34 C.J. p 618 note 33.
27. Neb. — Lexington Bank v. Sal-
ling, 92 N.W. 318, 66 Neb. 180.
34 C.J. p 618 note 34.
28. Ala.— Haynes Mercantile Co. v.
Bell, 50 So. 311, 163 Ala. 326.
29. Ind.— Hawkins v. State, 25 N.B.
818, 125 Ind. 570.
34 C.J. p 618 note 36.
30. Ga.— Kidd v. Kidd, 124 S.B. 45,
158 Ga. 540, 36 A.L.R. 798— Fore-
man v. Pattison, 160 S.B. 662, 43
Ga.App. 819— Ritchie & Wells v.
Irvin, 139 S.B. 910, 37 Ga.App. 280.
Wash.— Heath v. Dodson, 110 P.2d
845, 7 Wash.2d 667.
31. Ariz. — Security Trust & Savings
Bank v. McClure, 241 P. 515, 29
Ariz. 325.
32. Ind. — Yarlott v. Brown, 149 N.B.
921, 86 Ind.App. 479.
33. Iowa,— Massie v. Wilson, 16
Iowa 390.
34 C.J. p 618 notes 37, 38.
34. Tex. — Nichols v. Cansler, Civ.
App.f 140 &W.2d 254, error dis-
missed, judgment correct.
34 C.J. p 618 note 39.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
488
purchaser,35 and although the lands conveyed were
acquired by the judgment debtor at different times
and from different sources,36 unless the order of
liability is affected by the conduct of a purchas-
er37 or is broken by a voluntary release by the judg-
ment creditor of one or more of the tracts.3^
It has been held that the release of the lien on a
portion subsequently conveyed will not discharge the
lien on a portion previously conveyed, unless the
judgment creditor is distinctly notified before the
release of the prior conveyance, and cautioned
against doing any act by which the rights of the
grantee in such prior conveyance will be dimin-
ished.39 A judgment creditor, having released or
by his conduct waived or lost his right to subject the
land first liable to satisfy his judgment, is not en-
titled to subject the lands next liable for the whole
amount of his judgment, but only for the balance
after crediting thereon the value of the land first
liable.40 Where the judgment creditor himself be-
comes the owner of one of the tracts of land liable
to the lien of his judgment, the other having been
sold to a third person, he cannot release his own
tract, with the effect of throwing the entire burden
of the judgment upon that held by such third per-
son.41
Where the different parcels of land are sold
contemporaneously, they must contribute pro rata
to the satisfaction of the judgment42
c. Subjection of Vendor's Remaining Property
While the sale of property to which a judgment lien
has attached does not divest the lien, ordinarily the Judg-
ment creditor must enforce his lien first against prop-
erty remaining In the hands of the debtor.
Although a judgment lien is not divested by the
subsequent sale or encumbrance of the land, where
only part of the judgment debtor's land has been
sold43 or mortgaged,44 the general rule is that eq-
uity will require the judgment creditor seeking to
enforce his lien to proceed first against that por-
tion remaining unsold or unencumbered, provided
this can be done without injustice to him and with-
out involving him in litigation or danger of loss,45
and the rule extends to a purchaser of the remain-
ing land from the debtor.4^ If there is not suffi-
cient land of the debtor remaining unsold to satisfy
the judgment entirely, the creditor is entitled in
equity to resort to the land of the purchaser or en-
cumbrancer to the extent only of his debt which
may remain unpaid after the estate of the debtor
has been exhausted.47
Where part of the land has been mortgaged and
part aliened in fee, the judgment creditor must first
proceed to sell the debtor's equity of redemption in
the mortgaged lands before coming on the property
conveyed in fee.4 8 One who purchases land charged
with the lien of a judgment, which is specifically
except ed from the covenants of warranty in the
deed, cannot insist that his grantor's chattels shall
be exhausted before such land is sold for the satis-
faction of an execution on the judgment.49 If a
judgment creditor voluntarily releases the debtor's
remaining property, of sufficient value to satisfy the
35. N.Y.— Northrup v. Metcalf, 11
Paige 570.
Va.— -Rodgers v. M'Cluer, 4 Gratt. 81,
45 Va. 81, 47 Am.D. 715.
36. Tenn. — Meek v. Thompson, 42
S.W. 685, 99 Tenn. 732.
37. Ind. — Jenkins v. Craig, 52 N.E.
423, 22 Ind.App. 192, rehearing de-
nied 53 N.E. 427, 22 Ind.App. 192.
34 C.J. p 619 note 42.
38. N.C.—- Brown v. HaMing, 83 S.
B. 1010, 170 N.C. 253, Ann.Cas.
1917C 548.
Pa. — Snyder v. Crawford, 98 Pa. 414
— Davis v. Wood, 1 Del. Co. 382.
39. Pa. — Snyder v. Crawford, 98 Pa.
414.
40. 111.— Hurd v. Baton, 28 111. 122.
N.T.-r-James v. Hubbard, 1 Paige
228.
Va.— Jones v. Myrick, 8 Gratt. 179,
49 Va. 179.
41. N.C. — Wilson v. Beaufort Coun-
ty Lumber Co., 42 S.B. 565, 131
N.C. 163.
43. Ga. — Bleishel v. House, 52 Ga.
60.
Va. — Harman v. Obercjprfer, S3 Gratt
497, 74 Va. 497.
43. La. — Crichton Co. v. Turner, 111
So. 261, 162 La. 864.
N.C. — Page Trust Co. v. Godwin,
130 S.B. 323, 190 N.C. 512.
34 C.J. p 619 note 49.
Duty of purchaser to protect him-
self
A judgment creditor owes no duty
to a terre-tenant of land bound by
his judgment to prosecute his judg-
ment against other lands. The terre-
tenant can protect himself either by
giving proper notice of demand that
the creditor proceed first against
other property of the debtor, or
by obtaining an assignment of the
judgment to himself. If the terre-
tenant does nothing to protect him-
self, he is not in position to object
when the creditor proceeds against
the lands which he holds. — Ruff v.
Barclay-Westmoreland Trust Co., 79
Pa. Super. 370.
44. N.C. — Brown v. Harding, 86 S.
943
B. 1010, 170 N.C. 253, Ann.Cas.
1917C 548.
34 C.J. p 619 note 50.
Conventional mortgage
Law requiring judgment creditor
to exhaust debtor's remaining prop-
erty before reverting to that con-
veyed is not applicable to conven-
tional mortgages. — Crichton Co. v.
Turner, 111 So. 261, 162 La. 864.
45. N.C. — Brown v. Harding, 86 S.
B. 1010, 170 N.C. 253, Ann.Cas.
1917C 548— Jackson v. Sloan, 76
N.C. 306.
S.C.— Clark v. Wright, 24 S.C. 526.
46. N.C. — Brown Y. Harding, 86 SJS.
1010, 170 N.C. 253, Ann.Cas.l917C
548.
47. Va. — Blakemore v. Wise, 28 S.B.
332, 95 Va. 269, 64 Am.S.R. 781.
34 C.J. p 619 note 53.
48. Va. — McClung v. Beirne, 10
Leigh 394, 87 Va. 394, 34 Am.D.
739.
0. Neb.— Wollam v. Brandt, 76 N.
W. 1081, 56 Neb. 527.
§ 489.
JUDGMENTS
49 CJ.S.
judgment, he cannot proceed against the portion
previously conveyed.50
§ 489. Duration of Lien
a. In general
b. Duration as against judgment debt-
or
a. In General
A judgment lien ordinarily ceases to exist after the
expiration of the time fixed by statute for its continu-
ance.
Where no period of time is provided by statute
for the continuance of the lien of a judgment, the
lien ceases when the right to sue out execution on
the judgment or to revive it by scire facias is barred
by the statute of limitations:51 In most jurisdic-
tions, however, the period during which a judgment
continues to be a lien is restricted by express stat-
ute to a fixed number of years after the rendition or
docketing of the judgment,52 and, unless the time
for the duration of the lien has been extended, as
considered infra §§ 492-498, the lien ceases to exist
after the lapse of the statutory period,5^ although
50. La. — Crichton Co. v. Turner, 111
So. 261, 162 La. 864.
51. N.M. — Pugh V. Heating &
Plumbing Finance Corp., 161 P.2d
714, 49 N.M. 234.
Tex. — Oakwood State Bank of Oak-
wood v. Durham, Civ.App., 21 S.W.
2d 586.
34 C.J. P 620 note 56.
Time:
For revival of Judgment see in-
fra § 542.
Within which execution may is-
sue see Executions § 66.
52. U.S. — Spurway v. Dyer, B.C.
Fla., 48 F.Supp. 255.
Ala.— McClintock v. McEachin, 20 So.
2d 711, 246 Ala, 412— W. T. Rsuw-
leigh Co. v. Patterson, 195 So. 729,
239 Ala. 309 — Second Nat. Bank v.
Allgood, 176 So. 363, 234 Ala, 654.
Gal. — Long v. Thompson, 113 P-2d
698, 45 Cal.App.2d 161.
Colo. — Davis Bros. Drug Co. v. Coun-
ter, 225 P. 245, 75 Colo. 239.
D.C. — Ginder v. Giuffrida, 62 F.2d
877, 61 AppJD.C. 338.
Fla.— B. A. Lott Inc. v. Padgett, 14
So.2d 667, 153 Fla, 304.
HL— Normal State Bank v. Killian,
48 N.B.2d 212, 318 IlLApp. 637, re-
versed on other grounds 54 N.E.
2d 539, 386 111. 449— Motel v. An-
dracki, 19 N.E.2d 832, 299 Ill.App.
166.
Ind. — Town of New Chicago v. First
State Bank of Hobart, 169 N.E.
56, 90 IndiApp. 643.
La.— State ex rel. Federal Land Bank
of New Orleans v. Bullock, App.,
145 So. 380.
Mo. — State ex rel. McGhee v. Bau-
mann, 160 S.W.2d 697. 349 Mo.
232.
K.C. — Sansom v. Johnson, 193 S.E.
272, 212 N.C. 383.
N.D.— Groth v. Ness, 260 N.W. 700,
65 N.D. 580 — Lenhart v. Lynn, 194
N.W. 937, 50 N.D. 87.
Pa. — First Nat. Bank & Trust Co. .v.
Miller, 186 A. 87, 322 Pa. 473—
Raub Supply Co. v. Brandt Com.
PL, '27 DeLCo. 507— First Nat
Bank v. Coll* Com. PL, 59 York Leg.
Rec, 44.
S.D. — McMahon v. Brown, 279 N.W.
538, 66 S.D. 134.
34 C.J. p 620 note 57.
tfot ordinary statute of limitations
U.S.— In re Levinson. I>.C.Wash.,
5 F.2d 75.
Idaho. — Platts v. Pacific First Feder-
al Savings & Loan Assfn of Ta-
coma, 111 P.2d 1093, 62 Idaho 340.
111.— Smith v. Toman, 14 N.B.2d 478,
368 111. 414, 118 A.L.R. 924.
Wash. — Roche v. McDonald, 239 P.
1015, 136 Wash. 322, 44 A.L.R.
444.
34 C.J. P 620 note 57 [a], p 624 note
83.
In Georgia
(1) Under Code § 110-511, and sim-
ilar statutes, where any person has
in good faith and for valuable con-
sideration purchased real or per-
sonal property, and has been in pos-
session of it for four years, the
property shall be discharged from
the lien of any judgment against the
person from whom he purchased. —
Page v. Jones, 198 S.B. 63, 186 Ga.
485 — 34 C.J. p 620 note 57 [e] (1).
(2) Statute is for benefit of buyer
and not vendor. — Calhoun v. Wil-
liamson, 18 S.B.2d 479, 193 Ga. 314.
(3) Conveyance in payment and
discharge of existing debt is "valu-
able consideration."— Calhoun v. Wil-
liamson, supra.
(4) Personal residence on the pur-
chased 'realty is not necessary.—
Page v. Jones, 198 S.E. 63, 186 Ga.
485.
(5) Possession by defendant in
fieri facias as tenant of the pur-
chaser will not per se prevent the
possession from being- that required
by the statute, but is merely a cir-
cumstance for the consideration of
the jury in determining bona fides of
the transaction or the possession. —
Page v. Jones, supra — 34 C.J. p 620
note 57 [e] (3).
(6) Where defendant in fieri fa-
cias was parent of claimant and
resided with claimant on premises,
whether possession was held joint-
ly by both or severally by either,
and, if severally, which of the two
had possession and exercised acts
944
of ownership over the property, was
for jury. — Page v. Jones, supra.
(7) Possession must be actual,
open, notorious, in good faith, and
exclusive, and to make possession
such as would displace lien of the
judgment some sort of notice of
adverse possession should appear,
or at least such circumstances • as
to put the plaintiff in fieri facias on
inquiry, such as visible signs of
dominion. — Page v. Jones, supra —
34 C.J. p 620 note 57 [el (4).
(8) SVicts that defendant in fieri
facias exercised acts of ownership
over premises, even though with
consent of claimant and that actual
holding by defendant was at least as
much for defendant as for claimant,
would not authorize finding of pos-
session required by statute.— Page v.
Jones, 198 S.B. 63, 186 Ga. 485.
(9) Lien of judgment was not di-
vested by four years of possession
where person in possession during
such time did not have title. — Games
v, American Agr. Chemical Co., 123
S.B. 18, 158 Ga. 188.
(10) Knowledge of existence of
judgment against grantor, did not,
standing alone, constitute prima fa-
cie evidence of mala fides on part
of grantee, if transaction was in
good faith, but such knowledge was
a circumstance which Jury should
consider along with other evidence
bearing on question of good faith;
statute places burden of proving
good faith on purchaser, but does
not encumber purchaser with further
burden of making such proof while
bearing badge of fraud solely be-
cause he purchased with knowledge
of existence of lien. — Hardin v.
Reynolds, 6 S.E.2d 913, 189 Ga. 589.
(11) Other cases see 34 C.J. p 620
note 57 [e].
53. Ariz. — Serasio v. Sears, 121 P.2d
639, 58 Ariz. 522.
Ark. — Lion Oil Refining Co. v. Rex
Oil Co.. 115 S.W.2d 556, 195 Ark*
1021.
Fla.— B. A. Lott, Inc., v. Padgett, 14
So.2d 667, 153 Fla. 304.
Md.— O'Neill & Co. v, Schulze, 7 A*
2d 263, 177 Md. 64.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
the duration of the lien is fixed at a period much
shorter than that barring action on the judgment it-
self.54 The time fixed by statute may not be short-
ened55 or prolonged56 by the courts, and, as con-
sidered infra § 510, the lien cannot be enforced
in equity after it has ceased to be enforceable at law
by the expiration of the statutory period.
A statute limiting the life of a judgment lien docs
not apply to a decree establishing a specific lien on
particular property or ordering its sale57 or to a
judgment or decree for the foreclosure of a mort-
gage.58
Application of statute to existing judgments. A
statute abridging the time for the duration of judg-
ment liens may constitutionally apply to existing
judgments, where a reasonable time is accorded to
the holders of such judgments in which to enforce
their liens.59 However, it has been held that such
a statute cannot apply to an existing judgment
where the whole of the new period of limitation
would have run before the passage of the act, so
that its lien would instantly be cut off.60
Judgments in -favor of state. Statutes limiting the
time during which a judgment lien shall continue
to exist have been held to be applicable to judg-
ments in favor of the state,61 although there is
some contrary authority.62
Transfer of judgment to another court or coun-
ty. Where a judgment is transferred from an in-
ferior to a superior court for purposes of lien, or
a transcript of it is filed in another county, it is the
rule in some states that the statutory period be-
gins to run against the lien of the judgment from
the date of such transfer or filing,6^ but in other
jurisdictions the lien runs from the date of the orig-
inal rendition or docketing of the judgment, nothing
being -added to its duration by the transfer.64
Laches as barring lien. It has been held that the
lien cannot be barred by the equitable doctrine of
laches.65
b. Duration as agains* Judgment Debtor
Under some statutes the Hen of a. judgment continues
against the judgment debtor although it may have ex-
pired as against subsequent purchasers or encum-
brancers.
Under some statutes it has been held that, al-
Mo.— Woods v. Wilson, 108 S.W.2d
12, 341 Mo. 479.
Mont. — Marlowe v. Missoula Gas Co.,
219 P. 1111, 68 Mont. 372.
Neb.— Rich v. Cooper, 286 N.W. 383,
136 Neb. 463.
N.C.— Cheshire v. Drake, 27 S.E.2d
627, 223 N.C. 577— Lupton v. Ed-
mundson, 16 S.E.2d 840, 220 N.C.
188 — Barnes v. Cherry, 130 S.E.
611, 190 N.C. 772.
Olcl. — Burton v. Grissom, 238 P. 451,
116 Okl. 46.
Or. — Corpus Juris quoted in Delsman
v. Wilcox, 237 P. 973, 115 Or. 501.
Pa.— Cusano v. Rubolino, 39 A.2d 906,
351 Pa. 41 — Sanner v. Unique
Lodge No. 3, Knights of Pythias
of Rockwood, 37 A.2d 576, 349 Pa,
523 — Lewis v. Puchy, 44 Pa.Dist. &
Co. 482, 90 Pittsb.Leg.J. 259, 56
York Leg.Rec. 69 — In re Becker's
Estate, 43 Pa.Dist & Co. 132, 58
Montg.Co. 95 — Klein v. Anderson,
39 Pa.Dist. & Co. 139 — Curtze v.
Ostrow, 40 Pa-Dist & Co. 697, 22
Erie Co. 256 — In re Jeffries' Estate,
35 Pa.Dist & Co. 11, 19 Wash.Co.
32 — Citizens Bank of Barnsboro v.
Variali, 18 Pa,Dist & Co. 315—
Bytheway v. Hill, Com.Pl., 24
West.Co.L.J. 36— First Nat. Bank
v. Coll, Com.PL, 59 Tork Leg.Rec.
44.
S.C.— Harvey v. Gibson, 2 S.E.2d 385,
190 S.C. 98.
Tenn. — Fidelity & Deposit Co. of
Maryland v. Fulcher Brick Co., 30
S,W.2d 253, 161 Tenn. 298.
Tex. — Jackson v. Wallace, ConxApp.,
49 C.J.S.-60
252 S.W. 745— Burton Lingo Co. v.
Warren, Civ.App., 45 S.W.2d 750,
error refused.
W.Va. — Robertson v. Campbell, 186
S.E. 310, 117 W.Va. 576.
34 C.J. p 620 note 57, p 622 note 75.
Date of acquisition of property
Judgment lien attaches when the
judgment is docketed and continues
for five years from such docketing,
and does not continue for five years
from the time of subsequently ac-
quiring land, under some statutes. —
McGrath v. Kaelin, 225 P. 34, 66 Cal.
App. 41.
54. Mont. — Marlowe v. Missoula Gas
Co., 219 P. 1111, 68 Mont. 372.
55. Colo. — Davis Bros. Drug Co. v.
Counter, 225 P. 245, 75 Colo. 239.
56. Ala. — I. Trager Co. v. Mixon, 157
So. 80, 229 Ala. 371.
Ind.— Petrovitch v. Witholm, 152 INT.
E. 849, 85 Ind.App. 144. ,
Or. — Corpus Juris quoted in, Dels-
man v. Wilcox, 237 P. 973, 115 Or.
. 501.
34 C.J. p 621 note 58.
57. Neb. — Stanton v. Stanton, 18 N.
• W.2d 654, 146 Neb. 71.
34 C.J. p 621 note 62.
Judgment perfecting mechanic's lien
Mo. — Rosenzweig v. Ferguson, 158
S.W.Sd 124, 348 Mo. 1144.
58. N.T. — Wing v. De la Rionda, 25
N.E. 1064, 125 N.T. 678.
59. S.C.— Henry v. Henry, 9 S.E.
726, 31 S.C. 1.
34 C.J. p 621 note 66.
945
Lien of judgment as vested right
see Constitutional Law S 271 b.
60. Va« — Merchants' Bank v. Ballou,
32 S.E. 481, 98 Va, 112, 81 Am.S.R.
715, 44 L.R.A. 306.
34 C.J. p 622 note 67.
Constitutionality of retrospective
laws affecting 'remedies generally
see Constitutional Law §§ 256-273,
418.
Impairment of obligation of contract
by laws relating to judgment liens
see Constitutional Law § 408.*
61. U.S:— II. S. v. Harpootlian, C.C.
A.N.Y., 24 P.2d 646.
111.— Smith v. Toman, 14 N.E.2d 478,
368 111. 414, 118 A.L.R. 924.
34 C.J. p 621 note 65.
62. Pa. — McKeehan v. Common-
wealth, 3 Pa. 151 — Commonwealth
v. Graziadei, Quar.Sess., 92 Pittsb.
Leg.J. 35.
34 C.J. p 621 note 64.
63. Iowa. — Rand v. Garner, 39 N.W.
515, 75 Iowa 311.
34 C.J. p 574 note 47, p 622 note 69.
64. Colo.— Davis Bros. Drug Co. v.
Counter, 225 P. 245, 75 Colo. 239.
N.J.— Twist v. Woerst, 127 A. 578,
101 N.J.Law 7.
34 C.J. p 574 note 48, p*622 note 70. .
65. W.Va. — Cunningham v. Birch
River Lumber Co., 109 S.B. 251,
89 W.Va. 326.
Laches in issuing execution see In-
fra § 493.
I 490
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
though the lien of a judgment may have expired as
against subsequent purchasers or encumbrancers, by
the lapse of the statutory period, it will still contin-
ue, the judgment remaining unsatisfied, for the pur-
pose of levying execution against the judgment debt-
or or his heirs or devisees,66 or a grantee without
valuable consideration.67 Other statutes confine the
execution, under such circumstances, to the person-
al property of the debtor.68
| 490. As against Junior Judgments
When the period of limitations has run against a
judgment lien, it yields to junior Judgments.
When the period of limitations has run against
the lien -of a judgment, without its revival, it 'gives
way to junior judgments, which thereupon succeed,
in their order, to its priority.69
§ 491. Death of Judgment Debtor
A judgment lien attaching to the lands of a judg-
ment debtor during his lifetime continues against such
lands for the same length of time as though he had re-
mained In life, unless some contrary provision is made
by statute.
A judgment lien obtained against a debtor during
his lifetime ordinarily continues against his lands in
the hands of his heirs or devisees for the same
length of time as though he had remained in life.70
In some jurisdictions, however, statutory provisions
have been enacted which extend or restrict the lien
after the death of the judgment debtor,71 such as a
provision that no lien on the realty of decedent shall
remain for more than a year after his death, unless
within such period an action for the recovery of
the debt shall be brought against the executor or
administrator of decedent and such action shall be
indexed, etc.,72 or a provision that all judgment
liens shall continue to bind the real estate of de-
cedent during the term of five years from his death,
and after the expiration of five years the judgments
shall not continue liens on decedent's realty, unless
revived by scire facias, or otherwise,73 or a provi-
sion that, when the judgment creditor is delayed be-
cause of the death of defendant either from issuing
execution or selling thereon, the time he is so de-
layed is not to be considered as a part of the stat-
utory period during which the lien continues.74 To
66. Pa.— -Klein v. Anderson, 39 Pa.
Dist. & Co. 139.
34 C.J. p 622 notes 71. 72.
67. N.Y.— Mohawk Bank v. Atwa-
ter, 2 Paige 54.
68. U.S.— Davis v. Davis, W.Va.,
174 F. 786, 98 C.C.A. 494.
Pa.— Miller v. Miller, 23 A. 841, 147
Pa. 545, 548.
Property subject to execution see
Executions §§ 18-55.
69. Iowa. — Corpus Juris quoted in.
Johnson v. Keir, 261 N.W. 792,
795, 220 Iowa 69.
34 CUT. p 622 note 77.
Decree canceling' Judgment operat-
ing as judicial mortgage because not
timely reinscribed was held too
broad, and should have been limited
to cancellation as far as judgment
operated as judgment on property
in which relator held mortgage. —
State ex rel. Federal Land Bank of
New Orleans v. Bullock, La.App.,
145 So. 380.
Expiration, of period after filing an-
Where junior judgment creditor
filed bill to enforce lien and senior
judgment creditor answered the bill
prior to expiration of the period of
limitations, the subsequent expira-
tion of the limitation period did not
subordinate the lien of the senior
judgment creditor. — Grinder v. Giuf-
frida, 62 P.2d 877, 61 App.D.C. 338.
70. Cal. — Corporation of America v.
Marks, 73 P.2d $215, 10 Cal.2d
218, 114 A.L.R. 1162.
Mo.— Grace v. Lee, 57 S.W.2d 1095,
227 Mo.App. 766 — King: v. Hayes, 9
S.W.2d 538, 223 Mo.App. 138.
Neb.— Coipns Juris cited in Rich v.
Cooper, 286 N.W. 383. 385, .136
Neb. 463.
34 C.J. p 622 note 78.
Judgment against:
Ancestor as lien on lands in hands
of heirs see Descent and Dis-
tribution § 125 c.
Executor or administrator as lien
see Executors and Administra-
tors § 804.
Presenting claim for allowance of
judg :ient against decedent see Ex-
ecutors and Administrators § 398 c.
71. Fla. — Gilpen v. Bower, 12 So.2d
884, 152 Fla. 733.
Pa. — In re Higgins' Estate, 188 A.
831, 325 Pa. 106.
34 C.J. p 623 note 79.
Scire facias
Bights of a judgment creditor
claiming a lien on realty in the
hands of a decedent's heirs can be
determined on a scire facias against
the heirs and such rights cannot
be summarily fixed by a proceeding
against the administrator. — In re
Goeckel's Estate, 198 A. 504, 131 Pa.
Super. 36.
Revival of lien in circuit court
Mo. — Wolford v. Scarbrough, 21 S.
W.2d 777, 224 Mo.App. 137.
73. Pa. — Curtze v. Ostrow, 40 Pa.
Dist. & Co. 697, 22 Erie Co. 256 —
Conwell v. Capuzzi, Com.PL, 21
WestCo.L,.J. 289.
Statutes requiring suit within pre-
scribed time after death of dece-
dent see Executors and Adminis-
trators § 732 b.
Where judgments were transferred
to county in which decedent owned
946 .
land, within year after decedent's
death, and were entered of record,
but decedent's administrator was not
substituted as party defendant, scire
facias, or other proceeding, was not
begun, and judgments were not in-
dexed against administrator, liens
expired at termination of one year
following decedent's death, and, on
subsequent sale of land, judgments
occupied same position as claims of
general creditors. — In re Higgins'
Estate, 188 A. 831, 325 Pa. 106.
Scire facias, entered in judgment
index within year after debtor's
death in suit by creditor against him
during lifetime, warning administra-
tor to become party defendant, re-
tained lien of creditor's claim
against land fraudulently conveyed.
— American Trust Co. v. Kaufman,
135 A. 210, 287 Pa. 461.
73. Pa. — Kefover v. Hustead, 144 A.
430, 294 Pa. 474— Simmons v. Sim-
mons, 28 A.2d 445, 150 Pa. Super.
393, affirmed 29 A.2d 677, 346 Pa.
52 — Raub Supply Co. v. Brandt,
Com.Pl., 27 Del.Co. 507.
Revival must be within five years
from death of decedent or lien is
irretrievably lost. — Shareff, to Use
of Olney Bank & Trust Co. v. Wolf,
182 A. 115, 120 Pa.Super. 227.
74. What constitutes delay
Judgment creditor, precluded from
Issuing execution against land by
death of judgment debtor for twelve-
month period is "delayed," notwith-
standing conveyance by debtor before
death. — Woods v. Primm, C.C.A.I1L,
13 F.2d 572.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 493
preserve the lien against decedent's estate there
must be a compliance with. the requirements of the
statute.75 '
Death of joint tenant. On the death of a joint
tenant the lien of a judgment against his interest is
extinguished.76
§ 492. Extending Lien
The life of a Judgment lien ordinarily may not be
extended except for the causes and in the manner pre-
scribed by statute.
In the absence of statutory authority the lien of
the judgment ordinarily may not be extended be-
yond the period of time fixed by statutory regula-
tions.77 In some jurisdictions the statutes specify
the causes for which the life of the judgment lien
shall be extended,78 and such statutes should be
strictly construed79 and the lien ordinarily may not
be extended except for the causes and in the man-
ner prescribed by the statute.80 A statutory pro-
vision that execution may be had on real estate
after the expiration of the statutory period for
which the lien continues by filing a notice, sub-
scribed by the sheriff, describing the judgment, the
execution, and the property levied on, does not ex-
tend the original lien of the judgment.81
Revival of judgment distinguished. The right to
revive a judgment is to be distinguished from the
right to keep the lien of the judgment in life in that
the former is a right of action while the latter is
not82
§ 493. Issue and Levy of Execution
Unless permitted by statute, a Judgment creditor
ordinarily cannot extend the Hen of a Judgment by the
issuance and levy of an execution.
In several states the statutes prescribe that after
the lapse of a certain time the lien of a judgment
shall be lost, unless within that time steps have been
taken to enforce it, as by the levy of an execution
on property of defendant.83 Some statutes which
prescribe a period for the continuance of the lien
also require execution to be taken out within a
certain shorter time, as, for instance, within one
year after the rendition of the judgment, in order
to keep the lien alive during the whole statutory
period.84 Under other statutes* failure to issue an
execution within such shorter period does not de-
75. Pa. — In re Higgins' Estate, 188
A. 831, 325 Pa. 106.
76. Cal.— Zeigler v. Bonnell, 126 P.
2d 118, 52 Cal.App.2d 217.
111. — People's Trust & Savings Bank
v. Haas, 160 N.E. 85, 328 111. 468
-— Spikings v. Ellis, 8 N.B.2d 962,
290 Ill.App. 585.
Wis. — Musa v. Segelke & Kohlhaus
Co., 272 N.W. 657, 224 Wis. 432,
111 A.L.R. 168.
Right of survivorship see Joint Ten-
ancy §§ 1-4.
77. Tex. — Burton Lingo Co. v. War-
ren, Civ.App., 45 S.W.2d 750, error
refused.
78. Ind. — Petrovitch v. Witholm, 152
N.E. 849, 85 Ind.App. 144.
N.C. — Lupton v. Edmundson, 16 S.E.
2d 840, 220 N.C. 188.
Tenn. — Fidelity & Deposit Co. of
Maryland v. Pulcher Brick Co.,
30 S.W.2d 253, 161 Tenn. 298.
79. N.C. — Cheshire v. Drake, 27 S.E.
2d 627, 223 N.C. 577.
80. Ariz. — Serasio v. Sears, 121 P.2d
639, 58 Ariz. 522.
Idaho. — Platts v. Pacific First Fed-
eral Savings & Loan Ass'n of Ta-
coma, 111 P.2d 1093, 62 Idaho 340.
N.C. — Cheshire v. Drake, 27 S.E.2d
627, -223 N.C. 577— Lupton v. Ed-
mnndsen, 16 S.E.2d 840, 220 N.C.
188.
Pa.— Citizens Bank of Barnsboro v.
Variali, 18 Pa.Dist. & Co. 315—
Merchants Banking Trust Co. now
to Use of Federal Deposit Ins.
Corp. v. Kaleda, Com.Pl., 41 Sch.
L.R. 176, 60 York Leg.Rec. 25.
34 C.J. p 625 note 90.
Courts cannot dispense with re-
quirements essential under statute
to continue judgment lien. — Groth v*
Ness, 260 N.W. 700, 65 N.D. 580.
Decree in. partition
Where interest of Judgment lien-
holder in share of one cotenant was
averred in complaint for partition
and found in decree, the decree in
the partition proceeding tolled the
running of the statute affecting the
limitation of 'the judgment lien. —
Wollschlaeger v. Erdmann, 61 N.E,
2d 53, 390. 111. 266.
•Where statutes provide for fixing
lien by filing abstract of judgment,
it was unnecessary for judgment
creditor to obtain new judgment on
judgment not dormant to obtain new
lien after termination of first lien.
— Burton Lingo Co. v. Warren, Tex.
Civ.App., 45 S.W.2d 750, error re-
fused.
81. N.T.—^loyd v. Clark, 17 N.Y.S.
848, 16 Daly 528.
82. Ga.— Tift v. Bank of Tifton, 4
S.E.2d 495, 60 Ga.App. 563.
Revival of .judgment generally see
infra §§ 533-549.
83. Fla.— Massey v. Pineapple
Orange Co., 100 So. 170, 87 Fla,
874.
,— Rich v. Cooper, -286 N.W. 383,
136 Neb. 463— Glissmann v. Happy
Hollow Club, 271 N.W. 431, 132
Neb. 223.
947
Okl.— Price v. Sanditen, 38 P.2d 533,
170 Okl. 75.
34 C.J. p 623 note 80.
Necessity of execution to create lien
see supra § 468.
84. 111.— Smith v. Toman, 14 N.R2d
478. 368 111. 414, 118 A.L.R. 924—
Svalina v. SarAvana., 173 N.E. 281,
341 111. 236, 87 A.L.R. 821— Meu-
sel v. Bock, 234 Ill.App. 455.
34 C.J. p 624 note 81, p 574 note 56
[a].
Where judgment transferred
A judgment lien created by filing
a transcript of the judgment in coun-
ty where realty is situated may be
extended beyond a year from the
time the judgment became a- lien
only by the issuance of an execu-
tion in the county where transcript
was filed, and such extension cannot
be accomplished by the issuance of
an execution from county where
judgment was originally entered di-
rected to county where transcript
was filed. — Reconstruction Finance
Corporation v. Maley, C.C.A.I11., 125
F.2d 131.
Failure to return execution within
ninety days as required by statute
was held not to affect a judgment
lien on real estate. — Davis Bros.
Drug Co. v. Counter, 225 P. '245, 75
Colo. 239.
.Pendency of "bank's mortgage fore-
closure action, filed within year after
entry of another bank's judgment
against , mortgagor, was sufficient,
under "lis pendens doctrine," to -cre-
ate equitable lien on mortgaged real-
§ 493
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
stroy the lien but subordinates it to other judg-
ment liens against the same judgment debtor.85
In the absence of statutory provision therefor, a
judgment creditor generally cannot extend his lien
by issuing and levying an execution, even during
the continuance of the lien, and if the sale does not
take place until after the expiration of the statutory
period the priority of lien and title is gone.86 How-
ever, a provision for so extending the life of the
lien is to be found in some statutes,87 and even in
the absence of express statute to that effect it has
been held that the levy of an execution during the
life of the lien has the effect of continuing the lien
beyond the statutory period of its existence and un-
til the writ is executed88 If the statute requires
no more than the issue of an execution, it is satis-
fied by that act, although the sole purpose of tak-
ing out the writ was to preserve the lien, and there
was no expectation of collecting the money.89
Laches in issuing execution. The creditor may
take all the time allowed him, and the lien of a
judgment which has not become dormant is not lost
or impaired by laches in issuing execution.90
§ 494. Revival of Judgment
The Hen of a judgment may be extended by a re-
vival of the judgment.
Provision is sometimes made by statute for the
extension of the statutory period for the continu-
ance of a judgment Ken as between the parties to
the judgment by a revival of the judgment by scire
facias or otherwise.91 Where such action is taken
before the expiration of the statutory period, the
lien of the judgment is continuous from the date of
its rendition or entry, and its priority, relative to
other Hens, is preserved;92 but where a period is
ty as far as Judgment creditor .was
concerned, and such judgment con-
stituted a lien, inferior to mortgage
lien, against realty, as against con-
tention that judgment lien was lost
by failure to have execution issued
within such year. — First Nat. Bank
of Marissa v. Heintz, 51 NJE.2d 333,
320 IU.App. 403.
la Texas
(1) Originally the statute required
that execution be issued within
twelve months after the date of the
judgment or the Judgment would be-
come dormant. — Jackson v. Wallace,
Com.App., 252 S.W. 745 — Moore v.
Ray, Civ.App., 282 S.W. 671 — Gordon-
Sewall & Co. v. Walker, Civ.App.,
258 S.W. 233—34 C.J. p 624 note 81.
(2) Under a later statute, execu-
tion may be issued on the judgment
at any time within ten years after
the date of the judgment. — Chris-
tian v. Sam B. Hill Lumber Co., Civ.
App., 113 S.W.2d 616.
85. U.S. — Jenkins Petroleum Process
Co. v. Credit Alliance Corporation,
C.C.A.Okl., 83 P.2d 532.
Ohio.— Waldock v. Bedell, 18 N.E.2d
828, 59 Ohio App. 520 — Bantell v.
Clark, 187 N.B. 781, 46 Ohio App.
131 — stone v. Equitable Mortg.
Co., 158 N.E. 275, 25 Ohio App. 382.
OKU — Harris T. Southwest Nat. Bank
of Dallas, Tex., 271 P. 683, 133 Okl.
152.
34 aj. p 624 note 82.
Statutes construed together
Ohio.— Waldock v. Bedell, 18 N.E.2d
828, 59 Ohio App. 520.
86. Ariz. — Ingraham v. Forman. 63
P.2d 998, 49 Ariz. 29.
m. — Holmes v. Fanyo, 63 N.E.2d 627,
327 fcLApp. JL
K.C.— Cheshire v. Brake, 27 S.EL2d
627, -223 N.C. 577— Lupton v. Ed-
mundsou, 16 S.E.2d 840, 220 N.C.
188 — Osborne v. Board of Educa-
tion of Guilford County ex rel.
State, 177 S.E. 642, 207 N.C. 503
.— Hyman v. Jones, 171 S.E. 103,
205 N.C. 266.
N.D. — Depositors' Holding Co. v.
Winschel, 232 N.W. 599. 60 NJX
71.
34 C.J. p 624 note 86.
87. U.S.— -Brockway v. Oswego Tp.,
C.C.Kan., 40 F. 612.
34 C.J. p 625 note 87.
88. Mo.— Wayland v. Kansas City,
12 S.W.2d 438. 321 Mo. 654.
34 C.J. p 625 note 88.
89. Ala.— McClarin v. Anderson, 16
So. 639, 104 Ala. 2^1.
Miss.— Murphy v. Klein, 15 So. 658,
71 Miss. 908.
90. Fla. — Massey v. Pineapple
Orange Co., 100 So. 170, 87 Fla.
374.
34 C.J. p 624 note 85.
91. Tex. — Commerce Trust Co. v.
Ramp, 138 S.W.2d 531, 135 Tex. 84.
34 C.J. p 625 note 92.
Revival of judgments see infra §§
533-549.
92. Ark.— Waldstein v. Williams,
142 S.W. 834, 101 Ark. 404, 37 L.
RJL.N.S., 1162.
Pa, — Cusano v. Rubolino, 39 A.2d
906, 351 Pa. 41— Kefover v. Hu-
stead, 144 A. 430, 294 Pa. 474—
Vaselenak v. Moxham Nat Bank,
28 Pa.Dist & Co. 253, 85 Pittsb.
Leg.J. 691.
34 C.J. p 625 note 93, p 684 note 60.
Lien continue* for additional pe-
riod of ten years, — Rayborn v. Reid,
138 S.E. 294, 139 S.C. 529.
Commencement of period on record-
ing of deed 1)y terre-teuaaxt
(1) Under .some statutes, when a
judgment had been regularly revived
between the original parties, the pe-
riod of five years, during which the
948
lien of the judgment continued, com-
menced to run in favor of the terre-
tenant from the time that he had
placed his deed on record unless the
terre-tenant was in actual possession
of the land bound by the judgment,
by himself or tenant. — Farmers Nat.
Bank & Trust Co.'v. Barrett 184 A.
128, 321 Pa. 273 — Kefover v. Hustead,
144 A. 430, 294 Pa. 474— Frank Di
Berardino Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Be
Gregoria, 45 A.2d 378, 158 Pa.Super.
516— Ellinger v. Krach, 28 A.2d 453,
150 Pa. Super. 384, affirmed Simmons
v. Simmons, 29 A.2d 677, 346 Pa. 52
—Petition of Miller, 28 A.2d 257,
149 Pa.Super. 142— First Nat Bank
v. Tomechek, 13 A.2d 126, 140 Pa.
Super. 101 — Everett Hardwood Lum-
ber Co. v. Calhoun, 183 A. 659, 121
Pa.Super. 451 — Miller Bros. v. Boy-
otz, 96 Pa.Super. 208— Lewis v.
Puchy, 44 Pa,Dist. & Co. 4S2, 90
Pittsb.Leg.J. 259, 56 York Leg.Rec.
69 — Klein v. Anderson, 39 Pa,Dist.
& Co. 139.
(2) Where land, subject to a val-
id judgment was conveyed by deed,
which was at once recorded, lien of
the judgment bound the land in pos-
session of terre-tenant for a period
of five years from date of recording
of deed, even though judgment was
not subsequently revived against
judgment debtor by scire facias
within five years of entry of judg-
ment— Simmons v. Simmons, 29 A.2d
677, 846 Pa. 52— Behler v. Loch, 36
A.2d 234, 154 Pa, Super. 399.
(3) A scire facias proceeding to
revive a judgment against terre-ten-
ants would be excepted from the op-
eration of the act of 1943 repealing
the act of 1849 imposing a limita-
tion of lien against terre-tenanta on
a revived judgment if the judgment
sought to be revived was a lien un-
der the act of 1849 when the scire
facias was issued. — Frank Di Berar-
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
496
prescribed for the continuance of the judgment lien,
and the right to enforce execution exists for a
shorter period unless such right is revived by scire
facias, the revivor of a judgment by scire facias
within the time prescribed for the continuance of
the lien will not extend the statutory period as
against purchasers or encumbrancers whose rights
accrued subsequent to the entry of the original judg-
ment.93
Revival after lien has expired. After a judgment
lien has expired, the period during which the lien
of a revived judgment exists is, it is usually held, to
be computed from the date of the judgment or or-
der of revivor, and not from the date of the writ
instituting the proceedings for its revival.94 Ordi-
narily the lien cannot be revived so as to overreach
conveyances or encumbrances subsequent to the en-
try of the original judgment and prior to its re-
vival,95 but it has been stated that a purchaser of
a judgment debtor's land at a time when the judg-
ment is dormant takes the land subject to the judg-
ment lien on its revival by scire facias.96 It has
been held to be immaterial that the purchase was
made or the encumbrance accepted with full knowl-
edge that the judgment remained unpaid,97 provided
the grantee gave valuable consideration98 and did
not collude with the debtor to deprive the judgment
creditor of his lien or take with a fraudulent inten-
tion toward such creditor.99 It has been held that
a dormant judgment does not, by revivor, become a
lien on land acquired by the debtor after its original
recovery, unless a levy is made thereon, either be-
fore it became dormant or after its revivor.1
§ 495. Suit to Enforce Lien or to Sub-
ject Property; Action on Judgment
The statutory life of a Judgment lien generally Is
not extended by the institution of action to enforce the
lien or by a creditor's bill.
Although there are some decisions to the con-
trary,2 as a general rule where a statute fixes a
definite limitation to the lien of a judgment it is1
not saved or extended by the bringing of an action
to enforce the lien,3 or by a creditor's bill, where
such action or bill remains undetermined when the
statutory period expires,4 especially where the stat-
ute expressly prohibits the bringing of a direct ac-
tion or proceeding for the purpose of prolonging the
lien.6
Under some statutes an action on a judgment is
the only means of extending the judgment lien;6
other statutes prohibit its extension by such means.7
§ 496.
Absence of Debtor from State
Unless extended by statute, the life of a Judgment
lien is not prolonged by the absence of the Judgment
debtor from the state.
In the absence of a statutory provision therefor,
the absence of the judgment debtor from, the state
will not extend the duration of a judgment lien.8
dino Bldg & Loan Ass'n v. De Gre-
goria, 45 A.2d 378, 158 Pa. Super. 516.
(4) Straw man to whom realty was
•conveyed after debtor paid for and
took title to realty in his wife's
name held not a "terre-tenant," and
scire facias issued to revive judg-
ment creditor's judgment against
debtor did not fasten record lien
upon realty, — Loughney v. Bage, 182
A. 700, 320 Pa. 508.
93. Fla. — Massey v. Pineapple
Orange Co., 100 So. 170, 87' Fla.
. 374.
Iowa. — Denegre v. Haun, 13 Iowa
240.
34 C.J. p 626 note 94.
94. Ga. — Carter v. Martin, 142 S.B.
277, 165 Ga. 890.
Neb.— Glissmann v. Happy Hollow
Club, 271 N.W. 431, 132 Neb. 223.
34 C.J. p 585 note 2, p 626 note 95.
New lien arises on revival of judg-
ment—Motel v. Andracki, 19 N.E.2d
832, 299 Ill.App. 166.
95. Md.— O'Neill & Co. ' v. Schulze,
7 A.2d 263, 177 Md. 64.
Neb. — Oampagna v. Home Owners*
Loan Corporation, 3 *N.W.2d 750,
141 Neb. 429.
N.M. — Pugh v. Heating & Plumbing
Finance Corp., 161 P.2d 714, 49
N.M. 234.
Pa. — Cusano v. Kubolino, 39 A.2d 906,
351 Pa. 41— First Nat. Bank &
Trust Co. v. Miller, 186 A, 87, 322
Pa. 473— Petition of Miller, 28 A.
2d 257, 149 Pa.Super. 142— Miller
Bros. v. Boyotz, 96 Pa.Super. 208.
34 C.J. p 585 note 4, p 626 note 95,
96. Fla. — Massey v. Pineapple
Orange Co., 100 So. 170, 87 Fla.
374.
97. N.Y.— Little v. Harvey, 9 Wend.
157.
98. Del. — Raymond v. Farrell, 93 A.
905, 28 Del. 394.
N.Y.— Mohawk Bank v. Atwater, 2
Paige 54.
99. N.Y.— Pettit v. Shepherd, 5
Paige 493, 28 Am.D. 437.
1. Ohio.— Smith v. Hogg, 40 N.B.
406, 52 Ohio St. 527.
2. U.S.— Ryan v. Kanawha Valley
Bank, W.Va., 71 F. 912, 18 C.C.A.
384.
34 C.J. p 626 note 3.
3. Ahu — I. Trager Co. v. Mixon, 157
So. 80, 229 Ala. 371— Corpus Juris
cited in First Nat Bank v. Powell,
155 So. 624, 626, 229 Ala. 178.
949
Neb.— Rich v. Cooper, 286 N.W. 383,
136 Neb. 463.
N.C. — Lupton v. Edmundson, 16 S.E.
2d 840, 220 N.C. 188.
34 C.J. p 626 note 4.
Enforcement of lien after expiration
of statutory period see infra § 511.
Any trickery in. obtaining1 continu-
ance of suit to enforce judgment*
lien did not estop defendants to as-
sert that judgment expired after
continuance was obtained. — King- v.
Hayes, 9 S.W.2d 538, 223 Mo.App.
138.
4. Ind.— McAfee v. Reynolds, 28 N.
E. 423, 130 Ind. 33, 30 Am.S.R.
194, 18 L.R.A. 211.
34 C.J. p 626 note 5.
Lien resulting from commencement
of creditors' suit see Creditors
Suits § 84.
5. Wash.— Meikle v. Cloquet, 87 P.
841, 44 Wash. 513.
6. Miss. — Grace v. Pierce, 90 So.
590, 127 Miss. 831.
34 C.J. p 626 note 8.
7. Wash.— Ball v. Bussell, 205 P.
423, 119 Wash. 206 — Meikle v. Clo-
quet, 87 P. 841, 44 Wash. 613.
8. N.C. — Osborne v. Board of Educa-
§ 497
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
Under some statutes, a debtor's departure from, and
residence out of, the state after judgment recovered
against him will suspend the running of the statute
and preserve the lien of the judgment, although its
enforcement has not been obstructed thereby and
although the wording of the statute is that, if by
departing from the state a person shall obstruct the
prosecution of a right which had accrued against
him, the time of such obstruction shall not be com-
puted as a part of the time within which the said
right might or ought to have been prosecuted.^
§ 497.
Agreement of Parties
The life of a judgment lien may not be prolonged
by agreement, unless an extension fn such manner Is
authorized by statute.
Except where a statute so provides,10 a judgment
lien cannot be extended beyond the statutory period
by an agreement between the judgment creditor and
his debtor,11
§ 498. Matters Preventing Enforce-
ment of Judgment
a. In general
b. Injunction, adverse proceeding, and
receivership
c. Effect of appeal
a. In G-eneral
A stay of execution or of further proceedings on a
judgment ordinarily extends the lien of the Judgment.
Although there are decisions which hold that a
stay of execution or of further proceedings on a
judgment does not suspend the running of the stat-
utes of limitations against it,12 if at least the stay
does not continue beyond the period fixed by the
statute,13 as a general rule such a stay does ex-
tend the lien, whether the stay is by order of the
court,14 or by specific provision included in the rec-
ord entry of the judgment,15 or by act of the leg-
islature,16 and whether the time of the stay of exe-
cution is less or more than the period fixed by stat-
ute for the expiration of the lien of judgments.17
The latter rule is sometimes expressly adopted by
statute.18
A state of war has been held not ground for ex-
tending the lien of a judgment beyond the time fixed
by law,19 at least where there is no proof that proc-
ess could not be issued or executed during the war.20
b. Injunction, Adverse Proceeding, and Beceiv-
ership
The lien of a Judgment ordinarily is extended by an
injunction restraining the issuance of execution, but the
appointment of a receiver does not continue the lien.
Although there are decisions to the contrary,21
as a general rule the fact that the creditor, at the
suit of the judgment debtor, is enjoined from issu-
ing execution, has the effect of prolonging the judg-
ment lien beyond the statutory period;22 and in
some jurisdictions it is expressly provided by statute
that the time covered by an injunction is to be ex-
cluded from the period limited by law for the dura-
tion of judgment liens.23
tlon of Guilford County ex rel.
State. 177 S.E. 642, 207 N.C. 503.
Wash. — Hemen v. Rinehart, 87 P.
953, 45 Wash. 1.
9. Va. — Lamon v. Gold. 79 S.E. 728,
72 W.Va. 619, 51 L.R.A.,N.S., 883.
34 C.J. p 627 note 13.
10. U.S.— Davis v. Davis, W.Va.,
174 F. 786, 98 C.C.A. 494.
34 C.J. p 628 note 29.
Fewer than all the debtors la a
judgment have the power to agree by
a clear and unambiguous paper to
the extension of the lien of the judg-
ment on the property of those con-
senting.— Second Nat. Bank of Al-
toona, for Use of Federal Reserve
Bank of Philadelphia v. Faber, 2 A.
2d 747, 332 Pa. 124.
11. Tenn. — Cardenhire v. King, 37 S.
W. 548, 97 Tenn. 585.
34 C.J. p 6*3 note 30.
Agreement creating new Indebted-
ness with, lien as security
The parties may by agreement,
supported by a valid consideration,
create a new indebtedness in lieu of
the Judgment debt and preserve the
judgment lien for the balance of
its statutory life as security for the
new debt.— Kandoll v. Penttila, 139
P.2d 616, 18 Wash.2d 434.
12. Mo. — Green v. Dougherty, 55
Mo.App. 217.
34 C.J. p 627 note 14.
13. Ark. — Beloate v. New England
Securities Co., 193 S.W. 795, 128
Ark. 215, 220.
34 C.J. .p 627 note 15.
14. Minn. — Wakefield v. Brown, 37
N.W. 788, 38 Minn. 361, 8 Am.S.R.
m.
34 C.J. p 627 note 16.
15. U.S. — Mercantile Trust -Co. v.
St Louis & S. F. Ry. Co., C.C.Ark.,
69 F. 193.
34 C.J. p 627 note 17.
16. Tex.— Hargrove v. De Lisle, 32
Tex. 170.
34 C.J. p 627 note 18.
Allotment of homestead
N.C. — Cleve v. Adams, 22 S.E.2d 567,
222 N.C. 211.
17. U.S. — Mercantile Trust Co. v.
St Louis & S. F. R. Co., C.C.Ark.,
69 F. 193.
950
18. Ind. — Applegate v. Edwards, 45
Ind. 329.
19. Tenn. — Swanson v. Tarkington,
7 Heisk. 612— Smart v. Mason, 2
Heisk. 223.
20. Tenn. — Smart v. Mason, supra.
21. Ohio.— Tucker v. Shade, 25 Ohio
St 355.
34 C.J. p 627 note 23.
22. Wash. — Hensen v. Peter, 164 P.
512, 95 Wash. 628, L.R.A.1918F
682.
34 C.J. p 627 note 24.
23. 111. — Holmes v. Fanyo, 63 N.E.
2d 249, 326 Ill.App. 624.
N.C. — Cheshire v. Drake, 27 S.B.2d
627, 223 N.C. 577— Lupton v. Ed-
mundson, 16 S.E.2d 840, 220 N.C.
188.
Tenn. — Sweetwater Bank & Trust Co.
v. Howard, 66 S.W.2d 225, 16 Tenn.
App. 91.
34 C.J. p 627 note 25.
Where Judgment creditor iff not
restrained by injunction, statute is
inapplicable. — Petrovitch v. Witholm,
152 N.E. 849, 85 Ind.App. 144.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 499
Adverse proceeding. In some jurisdictions the
life of the judgment lien is extended by an adverse
proceeding,24 provided the proceeding is adverse in
the sense of restraining the sale, by analogy to an
injunction.25
Appointment of receiver. The appointment of a
receiver does not continue the lien of the judgment
beyond the statutory period,26 although it has been
held that a statute providing that a judgment lien is
lost if execution is not taken out within a certain
time does not apply where, during such time, the
property of the judgment defendant is in the hands
of a receiver in another action.27
c. Effect of Appeal
An appeal or writ of error with a supersedeas gen-
erally extends the life of the Judgment lien.
Although there is some authority to the con-
trary,28 it has been held, sometimes by virtue of
statutory provisions, that an appeal or writ of er-
ror with a supersedeas prolongs the judgment lien
beyond the statutory period.29 Where there is no
supersedeas an appeal does not of itself prolong the
life of the lien;30 and it has been held that, where
a new judgment is rendered, it merges the original
judgment, and the lien dates only from such new
judgment31
§ 499. Loss, Release, or Extinguishment of
Lien
Various matters may destroy or extinguish the lien
of a judgment, such as a levy on personalty of the Judg-
ment debtor or the. merger of the lien, but ordinarily the
arrest of the debtor merely suspends the operation of
the lien.
As a general rule, a judgment creditor does not
lose his Hen unless it is by some act of his own,
either of omission or of commission.32 Neverthe-
less the lien of a judgment may under certain cir-
cumstances be subordinated, or entirely lost, by sale
under order of court free from liens,33 by the op-
eration of a statute divesting the lien,34 by the
termination of the estate or interest subject to the
lien, as in the case of an estate for life or a lease-
hold or other limited interest,3* by a foreclosure
of the lien in statutory proceedings for that pur-
pose,36 by a discharge of the debtor in bankruptcy,
as considered in Bankruptcy § S82 b (6) (b), or,
where a statute so provides, by the destruction of
24. Tenn.— Fidelity & Deposit Co. of 1
Maryland v. Fulcher Brick Co., 30
S.W.2d 253, 161 Tenn. 298.
25. Tenn.— Fidelity & Deposit Co.
of Maryland v. Fulcher Brick Co.,
supra.
Proceedings held not adverse
(1) Facts that judgment debtor
subsequently executed mortgage, and,
under chancellor's order, mortgaged
property was sold to others, disclos-
ed no "adverse proceeding." — Fidel-
ity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v.
Fulcher Brick Co., supra.
(2) Voluntary suit in equity by
judgment creditor for enforcement
of judgment will not extend lien.—
Bridges v. Cooper, 39 S.W. 723, 98
Tenn. 394 — Gardenhire v. King, 37
S.W. 548, 97 Tenn. 585.
26. U.S.— Savings & Trust Co. of
Cleveland, Ohio v. Bear Valley Ir-
rigation Co., C.C.Cal., 89 F. 32.
Pa. — Scott v. Waynesburg Brewing
Co., 100 A. 591, 256 Pa. 158.
27. Tex. — Semplo v. Eubanks, 35 S
W. 509, 13 Tex.Civ.App. 418.
28. Mo.— Christy v. Flanagan, 87
Mo. 670.
34 C.J. p 628 note 32.
29. Cal. — Dewey v. Latson, 6 Cal
130.
34 C.J. p 628 notes 83, 36.
Appeal as release or discharge ol
lien see infra § 509.
Statutes usually provide that
where the judgment creditor is pre
vented from enforcing his judg
ment by execution by the operation
f an appeal or writ of error, the
erm of the pendency of the appeal
>r writ of error cannot be treated
as a part of the statutory period
allowed for the continuance of the
udgment lien.— Adams v. Guy, 11
S.E. 535, 106 N.C. 275—34 C.J. P 628
note 37.
30. Neb. — Harvey v. Gooding, 109 N.
W. 220, 77 Neb. 289, 124 Am.S.JL
841.
34 C.J. p 628 note 34.
31. Iowa.— Swift v. Conboy, 12 Iowa
33. Iowa.— Beatty v. Cook, 185 N.W.
360, 192 Iowa 542.
Miss. — Lucas v. Stewart, 11 Miss.
231.
34 C.J. p 628 note 38.
Effect of division of old county into
new county see Counties § 34,
failure of Judgment creditor to
join terre-tenant when lie issues
scire facias does not merge and
extinguish lien existing by virtue
of original judgment— First Nat
Bank & Trust Co. v. Miller, 186 A.
87, 322 Pa. 473.
Issuance of general execution
Under a statute prescribing th
kinds of executions, and declaring
that the execution, if on a judg
ment to enforce a lien on specifl
real property, may direct a sale o
all the interest which defendant ha<
therein at the time the lien attached
the issuance of a general executioi
to enforce a judgment does not re
lease the specific lien decreed by th
951
udgment.— Schultz v. Schultz, 113
tf.W. 445, 133 Wis. 125, 126 Am.S.R.
34.
3. or.— Petke v. Pratt, 123 P.2d
797, 168 Or. 425.
4 C.J. p 629 note 40.
34. ina. — Houston v. Houston, 67
Ind. 276.
Lien held not destroyed by amend-
ment to statute
Caj. — Jones v. Union Oil Co. of Cal-
ifornia, 25 P.2d 5, 218 Cal. 775.
Ohio. — Cowen v. Wassman, 28 N.B.
2d 201, 64 Ohio App. 84.
35. Ark.— Snow Bros. Hardware Co.
y. Ellis, 21 S.W.2d 162, 180 Ark.
^38
Minn.— Farmers' & Merchants' State
Bank of Thief River Falls v.
Stageberg, 201 N.W. 612, 161 Minn.
413.
34 C.J. p 629 note 43.
Renunciation of rig-lit of inheritance
Where recorded judgment against
decedent's daughter and her husband
was obtained prior to decedent's
death, daughter's subsequent renun-
ciation of her right of inheritance
did not destroy judgment lien which
attached at time of death to her
interest in decedent's realty.—
Coomes v. Finegan, 7 N.W.2d 729,
233 Iowa 448.
38. Conn. — Ives v. Beecher, 54 A.
207, 75 Conn. 564.
Tex.— Ives v. Culton, Civ.App,, 197
S.W. 619.
Enforcement of lien see infra § 511.
499
JUDGMENTS
49 O.J.S.
the record of the judgment,37 Or, under some stat-
utes, by failure to redeem after redemption by a
junior judgment lienholder.88 The lien of a con-
tingent judgment against the land of a deceased's
guarantor of bonds has been held to be discharged
where the coguarantors, without the consent of the
owners of the land subject to the lien, secure an
extension of time for payment of the bonds.39
On the other hand, the lien is not destroyed by the
execution of a forthcoming bond, or a bond to try
the right of property,40 by the performance of an
unnecessary act by another creditor,41 by the with-
drawal from the records of the certificate of the
judgment on which the lien was founded,42 or by
any transfer of the property other than a sale free
from liens under order of the court.43
Arrest of debtor. The taking out of a body exe-
cution suspends the lien of the judgment on lands,44
but does not absolutely extinguish it; for if this
process fails to produce satisfaction, under circum-
stances which permit the creditor to resort to oth-
er remedies, the lien of the judgment on lands may
then be enforced, as against the judgment debtor
himself,45 although not as against the intervening
rights of third persons.46
Levy on personalty. As far as the rights of third
persons are concerned, a levy on personal property
sufficient to satisfy a fieri facias is an extinguish-
ment of the judgment on which it is issued, as con-
sidered infra § 573, and the judgment therefore
ceases to be a lien on real estate,4? even where the
creditor abandons or releases the levy, fails to make
the money, or applies it to other debts,4^ although
the rule is otherwise where the levy is insufficient
to satisfy the execution.49
Merger. It has been held that, where a creditor
has obtained a lien on real estate by judgment at
law, if he subsequently brings an action of debt
on hia judgment and recovers a new judgment, he
will lose his first lien,60 but there is also authority
to the contrary.51 The mere fact that the judgment
creditor purchases lands on which the judgment is
a lien will not merge the judgment lien and thereby
prevent it fram attaching to other lands of the judg-
ment debtor;52 but it has been held that, if a judg-
ment creditor becomes the owner of the land on
which the judgment is a lien, the lien as to that spe-
cific land in the hands of his grantee becomes ex-
tinct in the absence of an agreement or intention to
continue it manifested at the time he became own-
er,53 although, in equity, if it is for the interest
of the parties that the Hen shall be kept alive, it
will be regarded as still subsisting.54
Under a statute providing that if two estates in
the same property shall unite in the same person in
his individual capacity, the lesser estate shall be
merged in the greater, the acceptance by the holder
of a judgment lien of a bill of sale from the judg-
ment debtor conveying personalty as security for
a loan has been held not to merge the lien of the
judgment into the bill of sale.55
37. Fla. — Curry v. • Lehman, 47 So.
18, 55 Fla. 847.
34 C.J. P 629 note 46.
38. Ind.— "Warford v. Sullivan, 46 N.
E. 27, 147 Ind. 14.
33. wis.— In re lobby's Estate, 209
N.W. 593, 190 Wis. 592.
40. Ala. — Campbell v. Spence, 4 Ala.
543. 39 Am.D. 301.
Pa.— Taylor's Appeal, 1 Pa, 390.
41. N.Y.— Hulbert v. Hulbert, 111
N.E. 70, 216 N.T. 430, L.B.A.1916D
661, Ann.Cas.l917D 180.
Tex. — Powell v, Dallas County Levee
Imp. Dist. No. 6, Civ.App., 173
S.W.2d 552, error refused.
42. Ala.— Emrich v. Gilbert Mfg.
Co., 35 So. 322, 138 Ala. 316.
34 C.J. P 579 note «.
43. Or.— Petke v. Pratt, 123 P.2d
797, 168 Or. 425.
Pa. — Matter of Gump, 13 Phila. 495.
Transfer of property subject to lien
see supra 8 488.
lien, on property conveyed to delbtor
Where, in consummation of an ex-
change of real estate, a judgment
debtor conveyed real estate on which
the Judgment was a lien under a
contract whereby the grantee became
the principal debtor and the gran-
tor became surety without the
knowledge of the judgment creditor
who released, for a valuable con-
sideration, the lien of the judgment
but reserved his rights against the
judgment debtor, it was held that
the lien was not discharged as to
land conveyed to the judgment debt-
or.— Gatton v. Harmon, 275 P. 137,
127 Kan. 825.
Invalid proceeding of executor to
sell realty of devisee did not remove
lien of judgment on realty in hands
of devisee.— In re Syrcher*s Estate,
299 N.Y.S. 267, 164 Misc. 102.
44. Pa. — Freeman v. Huston, 4 Ball.
214, I L.Ed. 806.
34 C.J. p 633 note 42.
45. Ohio. — Douglas v. Wallace, 11
Ohio 42.
34 C.J. p 633 note 43.
46. TT.S.— Rockhtll v. Hanna, Ind.,
15 How. 189, 14 L.Ed. 656.
952
47. N.T. — Jackson v. Bowen, 7 Cow.
13 — Ex parte Lawrence, 4 Cow.
417, 15 Am,D. 886.
48. N.J.— Banta v. McClennan, 14.
N.J.EQ. 120.
34 C.J. p 631 note 83.
49. N.T.— Muir v. Leitch, 7 Barb.
341.
50. HI. — McDonald v. Culhane, 24 N~
E.2d 737, 303 Ill.App. 101.
34 C.J. p 632 note 21.
Extension of lien by action on judg-
ment see supra 8 495.
Merger of judgments see infra 8 561.
51. N.C.— Springs v. Pharr, 42 S.E..
590, 131 N.C. 191, 92 Am.S.R. 775..
34 C.J. p 632 note 22.
52. Ind.— Caley v. Morgan, 16 N.E..
790, 114 Ind. 350.
34 C.J. p 632 note 24.
53. Pa. — Koons v. Hartman, 7 Watts*
20.
34 C.J. p 632 note 25.
54. W.Va,— George v. Crim, 66 SJEL
526, 66 W.Va. 421.
55. Ga. — Bostwick v. Felder, App.,.
35 SJB.2d 783.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 501
§ 500. By Release
The lien of a Judgment may be released by the Judg-
ment creditor.
The holder of a judgment may release the lien of
the judgment,56 even by a parol release.57 An
agreement to release the lien of a judgment must
be of a precise and definite character, in which no
dement of the agreement is left to conjecture or
supposition.58 As between the debtor and creditor
a release by the creditor of part of the lands bound
by the judgment will not prevent its enforcement
against the rest;59 but the holder of a judgment
lien cannot release land of his debtor, taken on exe-
cution on a junior judgment, so as to preserve his
lien for its full amount against other land of the
debtor, where the debtor files a refusal to accept the
release.60
Where portions of the land have been sold to
different purchasers, or encumbered with subsequent
mortgages, the creditor cannot release his lien on
the lands primarily liable, or release or surrender
other securities primarily liable, without releasing
at the same time the lands in the hands of such pur-
chasers or encumbrancers, at least in proportion to
the value of the portion first liable;61 but this rule
is qualified by the requirement that the judgment
creditor shall have had notice of the subsequent
sale or mortgage, before making the release, and
the recording of a mortgage is not sufficient no-
tice.62
A release by an executor of a judgment which is
a lien on realty is valid, where it is supported' by a
sufficient consideration, and no fraud, collusion, or
wasting of the assets of the estate is shown.63
§ 501. Payment or Satisfaction of Judg-
ment
The Hen of a Judgment ordinarily Is discharged by
the satisfaction of the Judgment.
The lien of the judgment ordinarily is discharged
by the satisfaction of the judgment,64 as by payment
of the amount due under it,66 although not by a
mere unaccepted tender66 or an unperformed prom-
ise of payment.67 While the rule has been laid
down that, when once paid, the judgment lien can-
not be restored or continued by any mere agreement
of the parties,68 although equity may keep it alive
for the benefit of a surety who has made the pay-
56. Ala. — Kaplan v. Potera, 105 So.
177, 213 Ala. 334.
111.— Quell v. Jachino, 17 N.B.2d 256,
297 Ill.App. 650.
ET.J. — National Union Bank of Dover
v. Havens, 156 A. 645, 100 N.J.Eq.
218.
Pa, — Bryn Mawr Trust Co. v. Cole,
159 A. 445, 306 Pa. 274— Hair v.
Gerton, 18S A. 629, 124 Pa. Super.
350.
34 C.J. p 629 note 52, p 699 note 18.
Release of judgment see infra §§
563-565.
Effect of mistake
Where assignee of judgment, con-
stituting prior lien on land, executed
release under belief that if release
was executed title would be accepted
by government and proceeds would
be paid over to assignee without de-
lay, but government refused to ac-
cept deed and resorted to condem-
nation because assignor of judgment
asserted that cost item had not been
assigned, the release did not extin-
guish the assignee's claim to priority
and assignee was entitled to receive
payment from proceeds of land. —
U. S. v. 168.8 Acres of Land, Scot-
land County, D.C.N.C., 35 F.Supp.
734.
Release of right of Joint Judgment
debtor
College's Inability to pay sum ad-
vanced by citizens for its release
from judgment and judgment credi-
tor's extension of time for joint
judgment debtor to pay balance due
thereon was sufficient consideration
for joint judgment debtor's release
of claim of right to subject land to
payment of judgment over against
college. — Rutherford v. Watson, Tex.
Civ.App., 52 S.W.2d 85, error refused.
57. Iowa.— Dalby v. Cronkhite, 22
Iowa 222.
34 C.J. p 629 note 53.
58. Pa. — Everett Hardwood Lumber
Co. v. Calhoun, 183 A, 659, 121 Pa,
Super. 451.
59. N.Y.— Corpns Juris cited in In
-re James, 223 N.Y.S. 174, 183, 221
App.Div. 321, reversed on other
grounds In re James' Will, 161 N.
B. 201, 248 N.T. 1, reargument de-
nied 162 N.E. 550, 248 N.Y. 623.
34 C.J. p 629 note 54.
60. Pa.— Fisler v. Stewart, 43 A.
396, 191 Pa, 323, 71 Am.S.B. 769.
61. Va. — Jones v. Myrick, 8 Gratt
179, 49 Va. 179.
34 C.J. P 629 note 55.
62. Pa.— Roebuck's Appeal, 19 A.
310, 133 Pa. 27.
34 C.J. P 630 note 56.
63. Ind.— McCleary v. Chipman, 68
N.E. 320, 32 Ind.App. 489.
Release of liens by executor gener-
ally see Executors and Administra-
tor S 181 c.
64. Ala,— Harrison v. Carpenter, 142
So. 772, 225 Ala. 297.
Payment, satisfaction and discharge
of judgment see infra §§ 550^584.
Acceptance of mortgage in full sat-
isfaction
Pa.— First Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of
953
Ford City v. Stolar, 197 A. 499,
130 Pa.Super. 480.
Satisfaction by action of governor
In surety's action to enforce judg-
ment lien based on forfeiture of ap-
pearance bond, defendant could show
satisfaction of judgment by govern-
or's action in setting aside forfei-
ture.— Harrison v. Carpenter, 142 So.
772, 225 Ala, 297.
65. Gteu — Patterson v. Clark, 23 S.E.
496, 96 Ga. 494.
34 C.J. p 630 note 60.
Notation of partial payment
Judgment creditor did not lose its
lien by failing to make due notation
on the record of its abstracted judg-
ment of the amount received by it
from a sale of collateral under exe-
cution, the statutes being intended
for the benefit of the judgment debt-
or.— Gordon-Sewall & Co. v. Walker,
Tex.Civ.App., 258 S.W. 233,
66. N.Y.-— People v. Beebe, 1 Barb.
379.
34 C.J. P 630 note 61.
Where judgment was not docketed
until eight days after the tender
of heifers involved in replevin suit,
tender could not have discharged
lien of judgment — Levy v. Kurak, 52
N.Y.S.2d 304.
67. Pa.— Krebs v. Heckler, 2 Leg.
Rec. 363.
34 C.J. p 630 note 62.
68. La.— Adams v. Daunis, 29 La,
Ann. 315.
N.Y. — De la Vergne v. Evertson, 1
r.Y.— De la Vergne v. E\
Paige 181, 19 Am.D. 411.
501
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
ment,69 it has been held that as between the parties
themselves the lien may be kept alive by agreement
of the parties for the purpose of securing further
advances, provided the rights of third persons are
not affected.70
When a judgment creditor enters satisfaction of
his judgment or causes an execution to be returned
satisfied, a third person is justified in treating the
real estate of the judgment debtor as released from
the lien of the judgment;71 but a junior judgment
creditor will not gain priority over a senior judg-
ment creditor by the fact that there has been an
erroneous entry of satisfaction on the judgment of
the latter and a subsequent order of the court strik-
ing it off, in the absence of evidence that the junior
creditor has been misled to his injury.72 Where
an agreement between the judgment debtor and
creditor to have execution on the judgment returned
satisfied is procured by misrepresentations of the
judgment debtor, it will not operate as a release in
favor of a purchaser of part of the debtor's land,
who had no notice of the return.7^
Where a transcript of judgment 7ww been filed in
a county other than tliat of its rendition, the lien
in the county where the transcript was filed is dis-
charged by satisfaction in the county where it was
rendered, and not by the filing of a copy of the dock-
et of the clerk of that county.74
§ 502. Sale under Execution
The Hen of a judgment is discharged by a sale of
lands under execution for the full amount of the Judg-
ment.
A sale of lands under execution for the full
amount of a judgment extinguishes the lien of the
judgment on which the execution issued,75 and al-
though such sale is only in partial satisfaction of
the judgment it discharges the lien on the land sold
as against the execution purchaser.76 Where land
has been sold in part satisfaction of a judgment and
redeemed by the judgment debtor, the balance of the
judgment at once attaches as a lien on the property
in his hands,77 but when redemption is made by a
lienholder the land does not again become liable
for the unsatisfied judgment78 If a judgment cred-
itor exhausts all the real property of the debtor by
execution sale, and part of the judgment remains
unsatisfied, and the debtor afterward acquires other
real estate, the unsatisfied part of the judgment
attaches thereto as a lien.79
§ 503. Stay of Execution
A stay of execution ordinarily does not destroy or
suspend the Hen of the Judgment.
The fact that a judgment is rendered with a stay
of execution, or that a stay is aftenvard made by
order of court, does not destroy or suspend the lien
so as to give priority to intervening creditors or
purchasers,80 and, although there is authority to the
contrary,81 the rule has been applied even though
the stay was by the direction or with the consent
of the judgment creditor,82 as well as to a direc-
69. "Wis. — German-American
Sav.
Bank v. Fritz, 32 N.W. 123, 68 Wis.
390.
70. Pa.— Peirce v. Black, 105 Pa.
342, 346.
34 C.J. p 630 note 65.
71. CaJL — City Properties Co. v.
Fitzmaurice. 183 P. 267, 42 Cal.
App. 16.
34 C.J. p 630 note 68.
72. Pa. — McCune v. McCune, 30 A.
577, 164 Pa, 611.
73. W.Va. — Renick v. Ludington. 14
W.Va. 368, affirmed 20 W.Va. 511.
34 C.J. p 630 note 70.
74. Cal. — City Properties Co. v.
Fitzmaurice, 183 P. 267, 42 Cal.
App. 16.
75. U.S. — Pan American Life Ins.
Co. v. Mayfleld, D.C.S.C., 49 P.2d
900, affirmed, C.C.A., Mayfleld v.
Pan American Life Ins.* Co., 49 F.
2d 906.
34 C.J. p 630 note 72.
Effect of execution sale under:
Judgment against mortgaged lands
see Executions § 291 b.
Junior judgment see Executions §
291 b.
Judicial sale divests Judgment lien
U.S.— In re Westmoreland, D.C.Ga,,
4 F.2d 602.
Pa. — Borough of McDonald v. David-
son, 193 A. 472, 128 Pa.Super. 38.
Wbere execution sale is invalid
the lien of the Judgment is not af-
fected.
111.— Erlinger v. Freed, 180 N.E. 400,
347 111. 588.
Ind.— Touhey v. Touhey, 51 N.E. 919,
151 Ind. 460, 68 Am.S.R. 233.
76. N.T. — Hewson v. Deygert, 8
Johns. 333.
77. Iowa, — Peckenbaugh v. Cook, 16
N.W. 530, 61 Iowa 477.
34 C.J. p 630 note 74.
Lien attaching to after-acquired
property generally see supra §
477.
lien during- p«riod of redemption
(1) Under statute if any part of
original several Judgment remains
unsatisfied after first sale of land,
unsatisfied portion did not become
lien against judgment debtor's in-
terest in premises during period of
redemption, and one acquiring title,
Before expiration of period of re-
demption, from Judgment debtor, by j
954
making redemption original sale, took
land free from lien of original Judg-
ment under which it was sold. — Ev-
ans v. City of American Falls, li
P.2d 363, 52 Idaho 7.
(2) Unpaid portion of original
Judgment not being lien against land
sold under it during period of re-
demption, revival of such portion of
deficiency as had in interim been im-
providently satisfied was not lien.—
Evans v. City of American Falls, su-
pra.
78. Iowa.-— Hays v. Thode, 18 Iowa
51.
79. Iowa. — Peckenbaugh v. Cook, 16
N.W. 530. 61 Iowa 477.
80. Conn. — Hobbs v. Simmonds, 23
A. 962, 61 Conn. 235.
34 C.J. p 631 note 86.
Effect of stay of execution on com-
mencement of lien see supra § 470.
Operation of stay as extension of
lien see supra § 498 a.
81. Miss.— Virden v. Robinson, 59
Miss. 28.
34 C.J. p 631 note 88.
2. Ala. — Decatur Charcoal Chemi-
cal Works v. Moses, 7 So. 637,
89 Ala. 538.
34 C.J. p 631 note 87.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 507
tion or agreement to stay execution not entered of
record.88
§ 504. Injunction against Judgment
The Hen of a judgment is not destroyed by an In-
junction restraining the enforcement of the Judgment
unless, the injunction is made perpetual.
An injunction stops an execution, but the lien of
the judgment is not lost or suspended during the
continuance of the injunction,84 even though the
injunction was granted on the condition of the ex-
ecution of a bond furnishing the judgment creditor
additional security for his debt.85 A perpetual in-
junction against the collection of a judgment will
destroy its lien,86 but, where an injunction restrain-
ing the collection of a judgment is perpetuated as
to a part of it only, the Ken of the part not affect-
ed continues from the date of the judgment.87
§ 505. Receivership
The effect of the appointment of a receiver for
the judgment debtor on the lien of the judgment is
considered in the CJ.S. title Receivers § 135, also
34 Corpus Juris page 631 note 95 and 53 Corpus
Juris page 129 note 93.
Examine Pocket Parts for later cases.
§ 506.
Opening or Vacating Judgment
The vacation of a Judgment, absolutely and finally,
extinguishes the Judgment lien; but the lien is not de-
stroyed by the opening of the Judgment to permit a de-
fense.
The setting aside of a judgment and entering of
a new one will not destroy the lien of the first when
the new judgment is but a modification of the first.88
Opening a judgment merely to let in a defense does
not destroy its lien;89 and, where the judgment is
set aside for irregularity or error, the court may
order the lien retained for such amount as plain-
tiff may ultimately recover, or order the judgment
to stand as security.90
The lien is extinguished where the judgment is
vacated absolutely and finally,91 or canceled and
stricken off the record,92 or reversed on appeal, as
considered infra § 509, and in such cases the court
has no power to continue the lien so that it may
attach to such judgment as subsequently may be
rendered.93 When an order vacating a judgment
is set aside the lien is revived in all its pristine
vigor94 except as to the rights of third persons ac-
quired in the meantime.95
§ 507. Waiver and Estoppel
The lien of a judgment may be lost by waiver or
estoppel.
A judgment creditor may waive, or may be es-
topped to assert, the lien of his judgment.96 A
judgment creditor may waive or lose the benefit of
his lien by failing to comply with the conditions of
the judgment,97 or by such conduct or representa-
83. 111. — Marshall v. Moore, 36 111.
321.
34 C.J. p 631 note 89.
84. Miss.— Smith v. Everly, 5 Miss.
178.
34 C.J. p 631 note 91.
Operation of injunction as extension
of Hen see supra § 498 b.
85. Tenn.— Overton v. Perkins,
Mart. & Y. 367.
34 O.J. p 631 note 92.
86. W.Va.— Grafton & G. R. Co. v.
Davisson, 29 S.B. 1028, 45 W.Va.
12, 72 Am.S.R. 799.
87. W.Va.— Grafton & G. R. Co. v.
Davisson, supra.
88. Wash.— Smith v. De Lanty, 39
P. 638, 11 Wash. 386.
34 C.J. p 631 note 96.
89. Pa. — Giles v. Ryan, 176 A. 1,
317 Pa. 65— Salus v. Fogel, 153 A.
547, 302 Pa. 268— Markofski v.
Tanks, 146 A. 569, 297 Pa. 74.
34 C.J. p 631 note 97.
Default Judgment
N.J. — Paterson Stove Repair Co. v.
Ritzer, 8 A.2d 133, 123 N-J.Law
145.
90. Iowa.— Bryant v. Williams, 21
Iowa 329.
34 C.J. p 631 note 98.
Allowing: judgment to stand as se-
curity see supra § 303.
91. U.S.— In re Syleecau Mfg. Co..
D.C.S.C., 17 F.2d 503.
N.Y. — Abrams v. Thompson, 167 N.B.
178, 251 N.Y. 79.
Pa.— Giles v. Ryan, 176 A. 1, 317 Pa.
65— Brandt's Appeal, 16 Pa. 343.
34 C.J. p 631 note 99.
92. Iowa. — Polk County v. Kelson,
43 N.W. 80— Polk County v. Nel-
son, 36 N.W. 911, 75 Iowa 648.
93. Neb. — Farmers' Loan & Trust
Co. v. Killinger. 65 N.W. 790, 46
Neb. 677, 41 L.R.A. 222.
94. N.T.— Halpin v. Coleman, 73 N.
T.S. 233, 66 App.Div. 37.
34 C.J. p 633 note 37.
95. N.Y.— King v. Harris, 34 N.Y.
330— Halpin v. Coleman, 73 N.Y.S.
233, 66 App.Div. 37.
96. Ga. — Law v. Coleman, 159 S.E.
679, 173 Ga. 68.
Minn.— Roberts v. Friedell, 15 N.W.
2d 496, 218 Minn. 88.
Claimant to land levied on may
avail himself of waiver or release by
955
plaintiffs in execution of lien fixed
by decree on land. — Law v. Coleman,
159 S.E. 679, 173 Ga. 68.
Renunciation of privileges secured
by lien waives the lien. — Law v.
Coleman, supra.
Matters not constituting waiver or
estoppel
(1) Judgment creditor did not
waive or release judgment lien on
automobile by authorizing sheriff
to release first levy of execution. —
Gerlach-Barklow Co. v. Bllett, 111
So. 92, 145 Miss. 60.
(2) Defense of waiver of lien of
judgment as to personalty covered
by bill of sale by acceptance by
holder of judgment lien of bill of
sale from judgment debtor conveying
personalty as security for an inde-
pendent loan was not available to
judgment debtor. — Bostwick v. Fel-
der, Ga.App., 35 S.E.2d 783.
(3) Other matters. — B a n k e r s'
Home Building & Loan Ass'n v.
Wyatt, Civ.App., 153 S.W.2d 216,
reversed on other grounds 162 S.W.2d
694, 139 Tex. 173.
97. Colo. — Drake v. Gilpin Min. Co.,
27 P. 708, 16 Colo. 231.
507
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
tions to purchasers or subsequent encumbrancers as
induce the belief that he has no claim on the land,
or has abandoned his claim, so as to make it ineq-
uitable that he should thereafter set up his lien in
prejudice of their rights.98
On the other hand, the lien is not waived or
abandoned by the mere failure to enforce or to
attempt to enforce it for a period short of the
statutory bar," by the taking of a mortgage for
the same debt,1 by the creditor's acceptance of a
sum of money paid to him by the clerk of the court
to make good a fault or omission of his which was
supposed to have invalidated the judgment,2 by an
unsuccessful attempt to obtain payment from an-
other fund,3 by filing a claim against the estate of
a deceased debtor,4 from the fact that the creditor
brings suit in equity to avoid a fraudulent transfer
of the debtor's lands,5 or causes his judgment to be
docketed in another county,6 or because purchasers
of the land after judgment was entered have made
improvements, where such purchasers were bound
to know that such judgment was unsatisfied, and
that the tax deed under which they claim was not
duly recorded.7
§ 508. Destruction, Removal, or Con-
cealment of Property
A Judgment lien on personal property may be ex-
tinguished by the destruction, removal, or concealment
of the property.
A judgment lien on personal property may be
destroyed, so that it cannot be enforced against the
property by the lienholder, by a destruction of the
property itself,8 by removing it from the state,9 by
hiding or concealing it,10 by removing it to other
parts of the same county, city, or state, so" that a
creditor does not know where it is, although it is
not concealed,11 by selling to a bona fide purchas-
er,12 or by any other act of interference with the
property to such an extent that the lien on it is lost,
destroyed, or impaired, and cannot be enforced.13
§ 509. Appeal or Writ of Error
Unless contrary provisions are made by statute, the
lien of a Judgment ordinarily Is not discharged by the
pendency of an appeal or writ of error.
Except where provisions to the contrary are made
by statute,14 the general rule is that the lien of a
judgment is not discharged, but the right to enforce
the lien is merely suspended, by the pendency of
an appeal or writ of error, and on the affirmance
of the judgment the lien is restored with full force
so that no priority is acquired by a purchase or en-
cumbrance made while such appeal or writ of er-
ror is pending;15 and by statute in some states the
lien remains unimpaired until the judgment is re-
versed or modified by the appellate court16
Where a judgment is vacated or reversed on ap-
peal, the lien previously acquired is destroyed;17
but a simple judgment of affirmance does not dis-
turb the lien of the judgment from the time of its
entry below.18 Where a judgment is reversed in
part and affirmed as to the residue, the partial re-
versal will not affect the lien of as much of the
judgment as remains unreversed.19 The subsequent
rendition of another judgment in the same cause
will not revive the lien of a judgment reversed on
98. La. — Crichton Co. v. Turner, 111
So. 261, 162 La. 864.
Minn.— Roberts v. Priedell, 15 N.W.
2d 496; 218 Minn. 88.
34 C.J. p 632 note 6.
Fnroliase money
Where judgment creditor, obtain-
ing special lien on debtor's land,
sought to subject purchase money
due by purchaser from Judgment
debtor to payment of Judgment, cred-
itor thereby waived portion of orig-
inal decree fixing special and general
lien on land. — Law v. Coleman, 159
S.E. 679, 173 Ga. 68.
99. Ala. — Clark v. Johnson, 61 So.
84, 7 Ala.App. 507.
34 C.J. p 632 note 7.
Necessity of execution to preserve
lien see supra 5 468.
Statutory duration of lien see su-
pra § 489.
1. N.T.— Muir v. Leitch, 7 Barb. 841.
8. S.C.— Hardln v. Melton, 4 S.E.
805, 9 S.E, 423, 28 B.C. 38.
3. Pa,^— Connelly v. Withers, 9 Lane.
Bar 117*
4. Ind. — Green v. Stobo, 20 N.E. 850,
118 Ind. 332.
B. N.Y.— Wilkinson v. Paddock, 27
N.E. 407, 125 N.Y. 748.
6. N.C.— Isler v. Colgrove, 75 N.C.
334— Perry v. Morris, 65 N.C. 221.
7. U.S. — Hill v. Gordon, C.C.Fla.,
45 F. 276, appeal dismissed 13 S.
Ct. 1047, 149 U.S. 775, 37 L.Ed.
963.
a Ala. — Clark v. Johnson, 61 So. 84,
7 Ala.App. 507.
9. Ala.— Clark v. Johnson, supra.
10. Ala. — Clark v. Johnson, supra.
11. Ala. — Clark v. Johnson, supra.
34 C.J. p 632 note 18.
12. Ala. — Clark v. Johnson, supra.
13. Ala. — Clark v. Johnson, supra.
14. N.Y.— Wronkow v. Oakley, 31 N.
E. 521, 133 N.Y. 505, 28 Am.S.B.
661, 16 L.R.A, 209, 28 AbbJST.Cas.
409.
34 C.J. p 632 note .31.
Operation as extension of lien see
s.upra $ 498 c.
956
15. Cal. — Stetson v. Sheehan, 200 P.
387, 52 Cal.App. 353, hearing de-
nied 200 P. 392, 186 Cal. 334.
Okl.— Funk v. First Nat. Bank, 95
P.2d 589, 185 Okl. 604.
34 C.J. p 633 note 32—3 C.J. p 1262
note 76.
16. N.C.— Black v. Black, 1$ S.E.
412, 111 N.C. 300.
3 C.J. p 1262 note 78.
17. N.T. — Clinton v. South Shore
Natural Gas & Fuel Co., 113 N.Y.
S. 289, 61 Misc. 339.
34 C.J. p 633 note 33—3 C.J. p 1263
notes 81, 82.
18. Miss. — Montgomery v. McGimp-
sey, 15 Miss. 557.
34 C.J. p 633 note 34.
19. Va, — Thomson v. Chapman, 2 S.
E. 273, 83 Va. 215.
W.Va. — Grafton & G, K. Co. v. Da-
visson, 29 S.E. 1028* 45 W.Va, 12,
72 Am.S.H. 799.
34 C.J. p 633 note 35.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 511
appeal, so as to make it effective from the date of
the original judgment20
Appeal from justice's judgment. It has been held
that the lien created by filing or recording the
transcript of a justice's judgment is destroyed where
an appeal is entered within the time limited by law ;
the cause then goes to the higher court for new
trial and judgment, and the lien of that judgment
can date only from its rendition, and does not re-
late-back to the time of entry of the transcript of
the justice's judgment;21 but there is also authority
to the contrary.22
§ 510. Remedies of Creditor after Termina-
tion of Lien
After the lien of a judgment has. expired at law it
may not be enforced in equity, but the judgment itself,
if still operative, may be enforced, as by execution
against the property of the Judgment debtor.
After the lien of a judgment has expired at law it
may not be enforced in equity28 or made the basis
of a creditor's bill or a bill to subject property;24
nor can the lien be revived or continued by the
mere act of issuing an execution.25 Also such a
lien may not be enforced or foreclosed by action,26
at least as against an inferior lien.27 It has been
held that the lien may not be enforced after its ex-
piration even though the action was begun before
its expiration,28 although there is also authority
to the contrary.29
Unless by reason of statute the judgment becomes
inoperative coincident with the termination of the
lien, the judgment continues a valid claim against
the debtor,8** and, although it has no lien, it may
be filed as a claim against his estate after his
death81 or collected by means of an execution-
against property the title to which remains in the
judgment debtor;82 and it will entitle the creditor
to redeem from a sale under a junior judgment88"
or to take the money from the junior judgment
creditor where the senior lien was not enforceable
only because of possession by a bona fide purchaser
for value for the statutory period.84
Any wrongdoer in the chain of acts by which a
judgment lien is destroyed, whether his act results,
directly or indirectly in the destruction, is responsi-
ble to the lienholder.85 A cause of action for de-
stroying a judgment lien on personalty has been?
held not to be established by proof of mere con-
version.86
§ 511. Enforcement of Lien
a. In general
b. Proceedings to enforce lien
a. la General
Where authorized by statute, the Hen of a judg-
ment may be enforced by an action for foreclosure, and,,
in proper cases, the lien may be enforced in equity.
20. Neb.— Oliver v. Lansing, 77 N.
W. 802, 57 Neb. 352.
34 C.J. p 633 note 36.
21. Mo.— Earl v. Hart, 1 S.W. 238,
89 Mo. 263.
34 C.J. p 633 note 39.
22. 111. — Dawson v. Cunning, 50 111.
App. 286.
N.C. — Dysart v. Brandreth, 23 S.B.
966, 118 N.C. 968.
23. Ind.— Petrovitch v. Witholm, 152
N.B. 849,' 85 Ind.App. 144.
34 C.J. p 621 note 59, p 634 note 47.
Foreclosure after expiration of lien
see infra § 511 a.
Representation, of amount ad-
vanced under mortgage subsequent
to judgment lien afforded no ground
of equitable relief for lienor's fail-
ure to enforce lien within statutory
period. — Fidelity & Deposit Co. of
Maryland v. Fulcher Brick Co., 30
S.W.2d 253, 161 Tenn. 298,
Sale of Judgment debtor's subse-
quently mortgaged property to oth-
ers did not authorize equity to ex-
tend judgment lien beyond statutory
twelve months.— Fidelity & Deposit
Co. of Maryland v. Fulcher Brick
Co., supra.
"Unfounded donfcts regarding rights
will not warrant equity's interven-
tion to **tead judgment lien con-
trary to statute.— Fidelity & Deposit
Co. of Maryland v. Fulcher Brick
Co., supra/
24. Mo. — Lakenan v. Robards, 9 Mo.
App. 179, affirmed 81 Mo. 445.
34 C.J. p 634 note 48.
25. N.Y.— Roe v. Swart, 5 Cow. 294.
Pa. — Stephen's Appeal, 38 Pa. 9.
26. Ala. — Harrison v. Carpenter, 142
So. 772, 225 Ala. 297.
N.M.— Pugh v. Heating & Plumbing
Finance Corp., 161 P.2d 714, 49
N.M. 234.
Va.— Blair v. Rorer's Adm'r, 116 S.
B. 767, 135 Va. 1, motion for leave
to file petition for writ of error
denied 43 S.Ct. 704, 262 U.S. 234,
67 L.Ed. 1206.
34 C.J. p 636 note 65.
Remedies of creditor after termina-
tion of lien see supra § 510.
27. Ind.— McAfee v. Reynolds, 28 N.
E. 423, 130 Ind. 33, 30 Am.S.R. 194,
18 UR.A. 211.
34'OJ. p 636 note 66.
28. Okl.— McGinnis v. Seibert, 134
P. 396, 37 Okl. 272.
34 C.J. p 636 note 67.
Extension of lien by suit to enforce
see supra {495.
29. Tex,— Boyd v. Ghent, 64
929, 95 Tex. 46.
34 C.J. p 636 note 68.
957
sa Idaho.— Platts v. Pacific First
Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of
Tacoma, 111 P.2d 1093, 62 Idaho*
340.
N.T. — Domestic & Foreign Discount
Corp. v. Beuerlein, 54 N.Y.S.2d?
548.
34 C.J. p 634 note 50.
31. Ind.— Fisher
Ind. 89.
v. Freeman, 65-
32. Mo.—Steele v. Reid, 223 S.W..
881, 284 Mo. 269.
34 C.J. p 634 note -52.
Time for issuance of execution see
Executions § 66.
33. N.T. — Ex parte Peru Iron Co.,
7 Cow. 540.
34. Ga. — Jones v. Wright, 60 Ga~
364,
35. Ala. — Clark v. Johnson, 61 So-
34, 7 Ala.App. 507.
34 C.J. p 634 note 55.
Obstruction of legal remedies a»
tort generally see the C.J.S. title-
Torts § 45, also 62 C.J. p 1148
note 1 et seq.
36. Ala. — Clark v. Johnson, supra.
34 C.J. p 634 note 56.
Contra Teat v. Chapman, 56 So. 267,.
1 AUuApp 491—34 C.J. p 634 note-
57.
§ 511
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
In addition to a sale tinder execution of prop-
erty bound by the lien of a judgment, as considered
in Executions § 33, there exists in some jurisdic-
tions a statutory method for enforcing the lien by
an action for foreclosure.37 Under its jurisdiction
to enforce liens, as considered in Equity § 60, and
in the C.J.S. title Liens, § 20, also 21 Corpus Juris
page 118 note 36 et seq and 37 Corpus Juris page
340 note 39 et seq, equity may in proper cases en-
force judgment liens38 where the judgment credi-
tor has no adequate remedy at law,39 and statutory
jurisdiction to enforce judgment liens has some-
times been conferred on courts of equity.40 The
lien of a judgment may be enforced in equity where
it is not possible to issue an execution41 or, not-
withstanding the right to execution, the judgment
creditor is impeded from realizing thereon.4^
Redemption. A debtor who has sold his interest
in the realty has no right to redeem from the fore-
closure of the judgment lien.43
b. Proceedings to Enforce Lien
A suit to enforce a judgment lien against land is
not a suit to recover the land or a suit on the judg-
ment.
The suit of a judgment creditor to enforce his
judgment lien against the land is not a suit to re-
cover the land itself,44 nor is it a suit on the judg-
37. Conn. — Merchants' Bank
Trust Co. v. Pettison, 153 A. 789,
112 Conn, 652.
La, — Henry v. Roque, App., 18 So.2d
917.
N.M. — Pugh v. Heating: & Plumbing
Finance Corp., 161 P.2d 714, 49
N.M. 234.
34 C.J. p 635 note 63.
Absence of ordinary means
Right to statutory foreclosure of
lien does not necessarily exist as
long AS judgment is enforceable by
ordinary means. — Pugh v. Heating &
PluijcMng Finance Corp., supra.
78. Via.— Smith v. Pattishall, 176
So- 568, 127 Fla, 474, 129 Fla. 498.
Te*— Baker v. West, 36 S.W.2d 695,
120 Tex. 113— Mullins v. Albertson,
Civ.App., 136 S.W.2d 263, error re-
fused— Corpus Juris cited in. Fikes
r. Buckholts State Bank, Civ.App.,
*.73 S.W. 957, 961.
Enforcement of judgments In equity
see infra § 587.
Acceleration, of lien on default in
payment of taxes
Where judgment giving* plaintiff
a lien on mining claims provided
that failure of corporate defendant
owner to pay taxes assessed against
property before they became delin-
quent should accelerate lien and
make it foreclosable as a mortgage,
plaintiff had right, on defendant's de-
fault in paying taxes, to foreclose
lien, and such foreclosure would not
be unconscionable as working a for-
feiture in view of defendant's avail-
able remedies. — Sparks v. Kowley
Mines, 149 P.2d 673, 61 Ariz. 370.
Effect of fraud in inducing execu-
tion, of another instrument
Where agreed judgment awarded
attorney's fee, secured by lien on
property of client, who subsequently
executed notes therefor, attorney's
alleged fraud in inducing execution
of trust deed securing notes did not
prevent foreclosure of judgment lien
by attorney's transferees, including
associate counsel aiding in obtaining
judgment. — Keels v. First Nat. Bank,
Tex.Civ.App., 71 S.W.2d 372.
39. Neb.— Rich v. Cooper, 286 N.W.
383, 136 Neb. 463.
Where Judgment creditor has legal
lien on land held by equitable title,
creditor must seek aid of court of
equity to uncover equitable title.-
Miller v. Kemp, 160 S.E. 203, 157
Va, 178, 84 A.L.R. 980.
40. Ala.— First Nat. Bank v. Powell,
155 So. 624, 229 Ala, 178.
Va. — Sutherland v. Rasnake, 192 S.E.
695, 169 Va. 257— McClanahan's
Adm'r v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 96
S.B. 453, 122 Va, 705.
34 C.J. p 635 note 64, p 634 note 60
m.
Jurisdiction extends only as far as
may be necessary to satisfy lien.—
Tackett v. Boiling, 1 S.B.2d 285, 172
Va, 326.
living- debtor
Statute applies to suit brought to
subject land of living debtor to lien
of judgment thereon, and has no
application to suit in equity to sub-
ject lands of decedent to payment of
his debts. — Morrison v. Morrison, 14
S.K.2d 322, 177 Va, 417.
Effect of death of Judgment debtor
pending" suit
After death of judgment debtor
against whom suit for enforcement
of judgment lien on his real estate
was pending at his death, it is prop-
er and necessary to require a settle-
ment of his estate in such suit, if
he left any personal property ap-
plicable to the payment of his debts,
but such settlement is merely inci-
dental to the accomplishment of the
purpose of the suit, and does not al-
ter its character, although it is
susceptible of enlargement and ex-
tension to a purpose not strictly
within its original scope, namely,
sale of real estate to satisfy unse-
cured indebtedness. — First Nat. Bank
v. De Berriz, 105 S.B. 900, 87 W.Va,
477, j
958
Statutory remedy merely cumulative
Ala, — Ashley v. Thrasher, 146 So.
807, 226 Ala. 313— Griffith v. First
Nat. Bank, 128 So. 595, 221 Ala, 311
— Johnston v. Bates, 95 So. 375,
209 Ala, 16—34 C.J. p 635 note 62
[a].
41. Cal.— Wellborn v. Wellborn, 131
P.2d 48, 55 Cal.App,2d 516.
34 C.J. p 634 note 60.«
Mo money judgment
Where judgment expressly creat-
ed lien on particular property but
no money judgment was entered in
favor of lienholder, and no require-
ment made for sale of the property,
execution would not lie for enforce-
ment of lien, but an equitable action
was required to enforce it.— Wellborn
v. Wellborn, supra.
Znf oroement in probate court after
death
Where judgment debtor conveyed
to another all his title in certain
land prior to his death, nothing re-
mained in his estate relative to land
subject to orders of probate court,
and hence judgment creditor seeking
to enforce his judgment lien against
land did not have to seek relief
through probate court — W. T. Raw-
leigh Co. v. Childers, Tex.Civ.App.,
132 S.W.2d 434.
Where execution may issue, an
equitable action is unnecessary. —
Corporation of America v. Marks, 73
P.2d 1215, 10 Oal.2d 218, 114 A.L.R.
1162—34 C.J. p 634 note 60.
42. Tex.— Hull v. Naumberg, 20 S.
W. 1125, 1 Tex.Civ.App. 132.
; C.J. p 634 note 61.
Remedies in equity against fraudu-
lent conveyance see Fraudulent
Conveyances §§ 319-325.
43. Conn. — Meister v. Gale, 139 A.
700, 107 Conn. 52.
44. Va, — McClanahan's Adm'r v.
Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 96 S.B. 453,
122 Va, 705.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 511
ment.45 A judgment creditor who comes into a
court of equity to enforce his lien on land is not
asserting an equitable right or seeking equitable re-
lief; his judgment is a legal lien.46 After the
death of the judgment debtor the lien may be en-
forced in equity without revival of the judgment47
The tender to the senior mortgagee of the amount
of the mortgage debt is not a prerequisite to the
foreclosure of a junior judgment lien.48
The suit must be brought within the time limited
by statute ;49 and laches in instituting the suit may
bar relief.50 Such notice must be given to the judg-
ment debtor as is prescribed by statute.61 Thus,
where required by statute, the judgment creditor in
advance of suit must give the specified notice that
suit will be instituted.52 In the absence of special
statutory regulations, the general rules control as
to parties53 and pleadings.54 In accordance with
45. Tex. — Nichols v. Causler, Civ.
App., 140 S.W.2d 254, error dis-
missed, Judgment correct.
46. Va. — Savings & Loan Corpora-
tion v. Bear, 154 S.E. 587, 155 Va.
312, 75 A.L.R. 980— Planary v.
Kane, 46 S.R 312, 102 Va. 547, re-
hearing denied 46 S.E. 681, 102 Va.
547.
47. Neb. — Corpus Juris olted in Rich
v. Cooper, 286 N.W. 383, 385, 136
Neb. 463.
W.Va.— Maxwell v. Leeson, 40 S.E.
420, 50 W.Va. 361, 88 Am.S.R. 875.
48. Tex. — Bstelle v. Hart. Com.App.,
55 S.W..2d 510.
49. Wash.— Castanier v. Mottet, 128
P.2d 974, 14 Wash.2d 615.
Statute inapplicable
Statute providing that no action
shall be brought on any judgment
against a defendant within nine
years after rendition thereof without
leave of court applies to the exten-
sion or renewal of a judgment, and
not to an action to enforce a lien
established thereby. — Lackender v.
Morrison, 2 N.W.2d 286, 231 Iowa
899.
Where decree of distribution of
decedent's estate created lien in fa-
vor of decedent's widow against in-
terests of other distributees, and
within six years after entry of the
decree a partition suit was institut-
ed wherein, after defining interests
of respective parties and confirming
widow's lien, all lands were directed
to be sold at public auction, parti-
tion decree initiated new rights in
favor of widow as regards time in
which she was required to brin.g ac-
tion to enforce her lien, as against
contention that partition decree
merely constituted a recognition of
the subsistence of a lien at such
time.— Castanier v. Mottet, 128 P.2d
974, 14 Wash.2d 615.
50. Cal. — Christerson v. Chase, 257
P. 889, 84 Cal.App. 165.
Plaintiff held not guilty of laches
U.S.— Mills v. Smith, C.C.AJnd., 113
F.2d 404, certiorari denied Smith
v. Mills, 61 S.Ct. 73, 311 U.S. 692,
85 L.Bd. 447.
Md.— Wilmer v. Light Street Savings
& Building Ass'n of Baltimore
City, 122 A. 129, 143 Md. 272.
51. Va.— Sutherland v. Rasnake, 192
S.B. 695, 169 Va, 257.
Serving copy of petition to sub-
ject real estate to judgment lien on
defendants is material only in de-
termining priority in creditors'
•ights. — Lawrence v. Stan ton, 237 N.
W. 512, 212 Iowa 949.
52. Va. — Sutherland v. Rasnake, 192
S.B. 695, 169 Va. 257.
Purpose of statute providing that
no bill to enforce lien of judgment
not exceeding twenty dollars shall
be entertained unless judgment debt-
or has been given thirty days' notice
that suit would be instituted is to
spare judgment debtor expense of
suit brought to enforce lien of judg-
ment in such a small amount until
he shall have been given a final
opportunity to pay claim. — Suther-
land v. Rasnake, supra.
53. N.C.— -Brown v. Harding, 89 S.
EL 222, 171 N.C. 686.
34 C.J. p 634 notes 60 [b], 61 [a],
p 635 note 62 [b].
Necessary parties
(1) Where land had been convey-
ed by judgment debtor, the only
necessary parties to action for fore-
closure of lien were judgment cred-
itor and grantee of judgment debtor.
N.C.— Flynn v. Rumley, 192 S.B. 868,
212 N.C. 25.
Tex. — Citizens' Bank v. Brandau, Civ.
App.. 1 S.W.2d 466, error refused.
(2) Where judgment, in awarding
divorce and certain property to
wife, imposed lien thereon to se-
cure attorney's fee, and wife subse-
quently executed notes therefor se-
cured by trust deed, children, al-
though living with wife on property
as homestead, were not necessary
parties to suit to foreclose liens. —
Keels v. First Nat. Bank, Tex.Civ.
App., 71 S.W.2d 372.
(3) Other cases.— White v. Glenn,
Tex.Civ.App., 138 S.W.2d 914, error
dismissed, judgment correct — 34 C.
J. p 634 note 61 [a], p 635 notes 62
[b], 64 [b] (3), <5)-<7), (16).
Proper parties
(1) Fact that creditor's bill to
subject property to lien of recorded
judgment prayed discovery separat-
ing debtor's interest from coUwners
authorized joining them as defend-
ants.—Griffith v. First Nat Bank,
128 So. 595, 221 Ala. 311.
(2) Judgment creditor seeking to
enforce lien against debtor's undivid-
959
ed interest in land was not entitled
to have land sold for division among
loint owners, and the joint owners,,
other than debtor, were not "prop-
er parties" to bill. — Hargett v. Hova-
ter, 15 So.2d 276, 244 Ala. 646.
(3) Other cases. — Decker v. Gil-
bert, 80 Ind. 107—34 C.J. p 634 note
60 [b], p 635 note 62 [b].
Intervention, of interested persons
(1) Persons beneficially interested
in judgments, not already parties to
actions to enforce them, may come
in by leave of court, making them-
selves parties. — Brown v. Harding,
89 S.E. 222, 171 N.C. 686.
(2) In suit to enforce judgment
lien against lands, on behalf of
plaintiff and all other lien creditors
of defendant who will make them-
selves parties on the usual terms,
one has a right to file his petition,
and become a party plaintiff, with-
out maintaining a separate suit to
mature his bill, since, having ac-
quired jurisdiction of the cause on
equitable grounds, the court may go
on to a complete adjudication of the
rights of the various parties. — Kane
v. Mann, 24 S.B. 938, 93 Va. 239.
Where mortgagor's rights had
been cut off by mortgage foreclosure
suit, he was not entitled to law day
in subsequent action to foreclose
prior judgment lien. — Joseph v. Don-
ovan, 164 A. 498, 116 Conn. 160.
54. N.C.— Adams v. Cleve, 10 S.E.
2d 911, 218 N.C. 302.
34 OJ. p 635 note 63 [a] (1).'
Petition, or complaint
(1) The existence of the lien must
be pleaded.— Roney v. Dothan Pro-
duce Co., 117 So. 36, 217 Ala. 475.
(2) Allegation that rents and prof-
its will not discharge judgment
within five years is not required. —
Central Trust Co. v. Feamster, 14 S-
B.2d 619, 123 W.Va. 250 — Handly v.
Sydenstricker, 4 W.Va, 605.
(3) Petition construed as one to
enforce existing judgment lien and
not to establish lien. — Stephenson v.
Lichtenstein, 160 P. 1170, 24 Wyo.
417.
(4) Bill alleging, and seeking en-
forcement of, paramount lien on
property under recorded judgments
assigned to complainant was good as
bill to enforce judgment liens. — Me-
§ 511
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
the general rules of evidence which usually apply
in proceedings to enforce a judgment lien,55 where
a third person claims ownership of the property on
which the judgment creditor seeks a foreclosure of
the judgment lien/ such third person may not show
title to the property in a stranger unless he con-
nects himself with such title.66
Trial or Jtearing. General rules ordinarily apply
to the trial or hearing of an action or suit to en-
force the lien of a judgment.57 The merits of the
cause in which the original judgment was ren-
dered will not be considered;58 nor may the va-
lidity of the original judgment be questioned59 un-
less it is void.60
Judgment or decree. General rules usually are
applicable to the judgment or decree in an action or
suit to enforce a judgment lien.61 A sale of land
for the payment of the lien should not be decreed
until there has first been an account of all the
liens on the land and their relative priorities, if
any.62 A sale may be ordered without reference to
a contingent right of dower.6^ Where the statute
Fry v. Stewart 121 So. 517, 219 Ala.
216.
(5) Abstract of judgment, the
judgment, and an assignment there-
of were sufficiently described in the
petition to Inform the court and de-
fendants of the nature of the instru-
ments and to warrant introduction
of such instruments in evidence, and
abstract of judgment was not re-
quired to be attached to the petition.
— Carver v. Gray, Tex.Civ.App., 140
S.W.2d 227, error dismissed, judg-
ment correct.
(6) Held insufficient — Citizens' &
Southern Nat Bank v. Georgia Rail-
road Bank, 159 S.E. 287, 43 Ga.App.
387.
N.C.— Adams v. Cleve, 10 S.E.2d 911,
218 N.C. 302.
Issues, proof, and variance
(1) Defendant could, under gener-
al denial, prove any matter tending
to show that plaintiff had no en-
forceable lien. — Payne v. Bracken,
115 S.W.2d 903, 131 Tex. 394.
(2) In suit to enforce judgment
lien against grantor of realty and
corporation to which realty was
conveyed and its vendee, equities in
favor of corporation and its vendee
could be established under general
denial without pleading facts out of
which they arose, notwithstanding
equities consisted in part of right
to assert estoppel as against grantor,
since land was subject to equitable
rights of corporation and its vendee.
— Payne v. Bracken, supra.
(3) Where defendants pleaded that
land was their homestead on and af t-
•er a specified date, and abstract of
judgment had been filed and record-
ed over a year previously, plea lim-
ited the defensive issue and admis-
sion of testimony tending to show
that the homestead status was fixed
and attached to the land prior to
and on date of filing of the ab-
stract of judgment was error. — Ste-
venson v. Wilson, Tex.Civ.App., 163
S.W.2d 1063.
(4) Other cases see 34 C.J. p 634
note 61 [b] (1), (2), p 635 note 63
lal (fc;.
55. N.C.— Metcalf v. Ratcliff, 4 S.B.
3d 515, 216 N.C. 216.
Tex. — Estelle v. Hart, Com.App., 55
S.W.2d 510 — Carver v. Gray, Civ.
App., 140 S.W.2d 227, error dis-
missed, judgment correct— Dallas
Land & Loan Co. v. Sugg, Civ.App.,
237 S.W. 955.
34 C.J. p 634 note 60 [d], p 634 note
61 [D] <3)-(8).
Presumptions
(1) It will be presumed that the
court properly set aside its dis-
missal in the original action. — Hal-
lam v. Finch, 195 N.W. 352, 197 Iowa
224.
(2) Any presumption of regularity
is not sufficient to dispense with af-
firmative proof of compliance with
statutory requirements as to creation
of the lien. — Chamlee v. Chamlee,
Tex.Qiv.App., 113 S.W.2d 290.
Burden of proof
(1) In general. — Estelte v. Hart
Tex.Com.App., 55 S.W.2d 510—34 C.
J. p 635 note 63 [a] (3), (4).
(2) Judgment creditor has burden
of showing that lien is a subsisting
lien.
Ala. — Roney v. Dothan Produce Co.,
117 So. 36, 217 Ala. 475.
Tex, — Nichols v. Cansler, Civ.App.,
140 S.W.2d 254, error dismissed.
Judgment correct
(3) Burden of proof is on judg-
ment creditor to sustain allegations
as to debtor's ownership of prop-
erty on which lien allegedly exist-
ed.— Horton v. Spears, 191 So. 622,
238 Ala. 464.
(4) Where judgment creditor es-
tablishes prima facie case of owner-
ship by Judgment debtor of prop-
erty, a third person claimant of
the property has the burden of go-
ing forward with the evidence to re-
but the prima facie case. — Horton v.
Spears, supra.
Sufficiency of evidence
(1) Evidence held sufficient
Ala. — Horton v. Spears, supra.
Tex. — Carver v. Gray, Civ. App., 140
S.W.2d 227, error dismissed, judg-
ment correct
(2) Evidence held insufficient — J.
M. Radford Grocery Co. v. Speck,
960
Tex.Civ.App., 152 S.W.2d 787, error
refused.
56. Ala. — Horton v. Spears, 191 So.
622, 238 Ala. 464.
57. N.C.— Metcalf v. Ratcliff, 4 S.E.
2d 515, 216 N.C. 216.
34 C.J. p 635 note 63 [a] (5), (6).
Questions of law and fact
In action to subject certain land
to payment of judgment, evidence
that one of defendants was in pos-
session of property and claiming
some iaterest therein presented jury
question which defeated motion for
nonsuit as to such defendant — Met-
calf v. Ratcliff, 4 S.B.2d 515, 216
N.C. 216.
58. Iowa.— Hallam v. Finch, 195 N.
W. 352, 197 Iowa 224.
59. Kan.— Baldwin v. Baldwin, 96 P.
2d 614, 150 Kan. 807.
Tex. — McGehee v. Brookins, Civ.
App., 140 S.W.2d 963, error dis-
missed, judgment correct — Klier v.
Richter, Civ.App., 119 S.W.2d 100,
error refused.
Variance 'between pleadings in orig-
inal suit and judgment
Judgment denying foreclosure of
abstract of judgment lien on ground
that there was variance between
pleadings in original suit where
judgment was obtained and terms of
judgment that was rendered thereon
was error, where pleadings in«origi-
nal suit could not be found either in
transcript or statement of facts in
action to foreclose lien, and were
not before trial court. — John F.
Grant Lumber Co. v. Hunnicutt Tex.
Civ.App., 143 S.W.2d 976.'
60. Tex. — Klter v. Richter, Civ.App.,
119 S.W.2d 100, error refused.
Collateral attack for want of juris-
diction generally see supra §§ 421-
427.
Judgment void for want of process
N.C.— Adams v. Cleve, 10 S.B.2d 911,
281 N.C. 302.
61. Description of land in judgment
Tex. — White v. Glenn, Civ. App., 138
S.W.2d 914, error dismissed, Judg-
ment correct
62. Va. — Gemmell v. Powers, 195 S.
E. 501, 170 Va. 43.
63. Va.— Gemmell v. Powers, supra.
49 O.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 512
so requires, before ordering the sale of the land
to satisfy the judgment, it must appear to the court
that the rents and profits of the real estate will not
satisfy the judgment within five years;64 but an in-
quiry as to rental value is not necessary where the
bill charges that the judgment lien cannot be paid
within five years from rental proceeds and that
charge is not denied.65
Where the land is subject to a deed of trust sub-
ordinate to the lien of the judgment, the judgment
foreclosing the lien and ordering sale should fix the
right of the holder of the deed of trust to satisfy
the encumbrances and retain the land.66 Under
some statutes where the judgment creditor holds a
mortgage on realty as security for the debt that
has gone into the judgment, which mortgage is a
first charge on the property mortgaged, the court
shall order such mortgaged property to be first ap-
plied to the debt secured by it and a foreclosure of
the judgment lien shall be granted only as to the
portion of said judgment that shall remain unsatis-
fied.^
Sale. A sale is not void because of a defective
description of the land in the judgment of fore-
closure and in the sheriff's deed under the foreclo-
sure sale ;68 nor, in the absence of fraud or irreg-
ularity in the conduct of the sale, is the sale void
because the price was grossly inadequate.69 When
real estate, divisible in parcels, or owned in sev-
eralty, is sold to satisfy a judgment lien, authority
to sell additional parcels is exhausted when a suf-
ficient amount has already been realized to satisfy
the lien and the costs of the proceeding.70
XV. ASSIGNMENT OP JUDGMENTS
§ 512* Assignability of Judgments
a. In general
b. Particular judgments
a. In General
As a genera! rule, a Judgment Is as assignable as
any other chose in action. While under the common taw
a judgment is not assignable so as to pass the legal ti-
tle to the assigneef such an assignment is permissible
by virtue of statute in many Jurisdictions.
A judgment has been said to have the assign-
able quality of a chose in action,71 deriving its as-
signability from the fact that it constitutes a debt
or property right made of record in favor of the
party who obtains the judgment against his adver-
sary.72 At common law, and in the absence of stat-
ute changing the rule, a judgment is not assignable
so as to vest the legal title in the assignee;73 but
such an assignment operates to vest an equitable in-
terest in the assignee which the law will protect,74
if it is made in good faith75 and, as discussed in-
fra § 517, for a valuable consideration.
While judgments have been spoken of in general
language as being assignable, apart from or without
Decree of sale should note the pos-
sibilities of a contingent right of
dower. — Qemmell v. Powers, supra,
64. Va.— Morris v. Gates, 20 S.E.2d
118, 124 W.Va. 275.
W.Va. — Abney-Barnes Co. v. Davy-
Pocahontas Coal Co., 98 S.E. 298,
83' W.Va. 292.
Report of commissioner •
Va. — Gemmell v. Powers, 195 S.E.
501, 170 Va. 43.
6& Va. — Gemmell v. Powers, supra.
66. Tex.— Williams v. Hedrick, Civ.
App., 131 S.W.2d 187, error dis-
missed, judgment correct
67. Conn. — Merchants' Bank &
Trust Co. v. Pettison, 153 A. 789,
112 Conn. 652.
68. Tex. — Brinkman v. Tinkler, Civ.
App., 117 S.W.2d 139, error re-
fused.
69. Tex. — Brinkman r. Tinkler, su-
pra.
70. Va. — Peatress v. Gray, 27 S.E.2d
203, 181 Va. 847.
Rule not applicable
The rule does not apply vn«n real-
49 C.J.S.-61
ty involved is not divisible in kind
and sale of the whole is necessary
to provide sufficient funds. — Tackett
v. Boiling, 1 S.E.2d 285, 172 Va. 326.
Questions of subrogation or pro-
portionate liability of owners in sev-
eralty of realty Against which jiifcF"
cial proceedings have been brought
to satisfy lien are to be settled be-
tween parties, in absence of an
agreement between them or an ad-
judication by court having jurisdic-
tion over subject matter and parties.
— Tackett v. Boiling, supra.
71. Minn. — Brown v. Reinke, 199 N.
W. 235, 139 Minn. 458, 35 A.L.R.
413.
Tex.— Blanks v. Radford, Civ.App.,
188 S.W.2d 879, error refused-
McMillan v. Rutherford, Civ.App.,
14 S.W.2d 132.
Assignment as extinguishment of
judgment see infra § 562.
72. Mo. — Popsicle Corporation of U.
S. v. Pearlstein, App., 168 S.W.fcd
105.
73. U.S. — Corpus Juris cited in In
re Dodge, D.C.N.Y., 9 F.Supp. 540,
542.
961
111. — Stombaugh v. Morey, 58 N.B.2d
545, 388 111. 392, 157 A.L.R. 254.
Mo. — Popsicle Corporation of XT. S.
v. Pearlstein, App., 168 S.W.2d 105.
34 C.J. p 636 note 70.
74. U.S. — Corpus Juris cited in In
re Dodge, D.C.N.T., 9 P.Supp. 540,
542.
Ky. — Turner v. Gambill, 121 S.W.2d
705, 275 Ky. 330.
Mo.— Boyd v. Sloan, 71 S.W.2d 1065,
335 Mo. 163 — Popsicle Corporation
of U. S. v. Pearlstein, App., 168
S.W.2d 105.
Okl. — Owen v. Interstate Mortg.
Trust Co., 211 P. 87, 88 Okl. 10, 30
A.L.R. 816.
34 C.J. p 636 note 71.
"Judgment is ... a chose in
action subject to sale and equitable
assignment" — Shaw v. McKnight-
Keaton Grocery Co., 21 S.W.2d 269,
271, '231 Ky. 223.
75. Sanity disregards common-law
rule and enforces such assignments
if they are made in good faith and
for a valuable consideration. — Stom-
baugh v. Morey, 58 N.E.2d 545, 388
111. 392, 157 AX.R. 254.
§ 512
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
reference to any statute,76 under statutes which are
now in force in practically all jurisdictions, a judg-
ment, provided it is final,77 may be assigned so as
to pass the legal title78 and, as discussed infra § 522,
give the assignee the right to enforce it in his own
name, although even now the assignment may be
such that the assignor remains the equitable own-
er.79
An assignment of a judgment may be made at
any time after its entry in the trial court,80 even
pending an appeal,81 although, as discussed infra §
522, it cannot be enforced, unless and until the ap-
pellate procedure is finally terminated in favor of
the judgment.
b. Particular Judgments
In the absence of a statute t<J the contrary, a judg-
ment which does not survive to the personal representa-
tive of the beneficial owner, or which does not con-
stitute a debt or right in property capable of being re-
duced to possession, is not assignable.
In accordance with the general rule discussed in
Assignments §§ 5, 30, which sets up as a test of as-
signability of a chose in action the survivability of
the chose in action, in the absence of statutory au-
thority therefor, a judgment which does not sur-
vive to the personal representative of the bene-
ficial owner is not assignable.82 Where a judgment
is considered as deriving its assignability from the
fact that it constitutes a debt or property right, as
discussed supra subdivision a of this section, a de-
cree which in no sense represents a debt or which
creates no property right in anything capable of
being reduced to possession is not assignable.83
A decree in equity, although not assignable at
law, may be transferred for a valuable considera-
tion, and the transfer will be supported by a court
of chancery.84
Satisfied judgments. A judgment once fully paid
off and satisfied is not thereafter capable of assign-
ment.85
Judgments for torts. While, as discussed in As-
signments § 32, a cause of action for a tort, which
dies with the party and does not survive to his per-
sonal representatives, is generally not capable of
passing by assignment, after such cause of action
has been merged into a judgment it assumes a dif-
ferent footing, and such judgment, sometimes by
reason of express statutory provision, may be as-
signed,86 and, according to the decisions on the
76. Fla. — Kahn v. American Surety
Co. of New York, 162 So. 335, 120
Fla. 50.
Tenn. — State ex rel. McConnell v.
Peoples Bank £ Trust Co., 12
Tenn.App. 242.
Judgment is property capable of
transfer. — Anglo-California Trust
Co. v. Oakland Rys., 225 P. 452, 193
Cal. 451.
Decree in, partition suit allowing*
solicitor's fee for services in con-
ducting proceeding was subject to
assignment by solicitor. — Bank of
Monticello v. L. D. Powell Co., 130
So. 292, 159 Miss. 183.
77. Mo.— Deck v. Wright, 116 S.W.
31, 135 Mp.App. 536.
78- Mont. — Genzberger v. Adams,
205 P. 658, 62 Mont. 430.
34 C.J. p 636 note 73.
Common-law rule bag "been re-
pealed with respect to judgments. —
Boyd v. Sloan, 71 S.W.2d 1065, 335
Mo. 163.
Judgment for recovery of money
Mo. — Popsicle Corporation of U. S.
v. Pearlstein, App., 168 S.W.2d 105.
negotiability
(1) Under some statutes judg-
ments are transferable by indorse-
ment or written assignment in same
manner as bills of exchange and
promissory notes. — WInn v. Armour
& Co., 193 S.E. 447, 184 Ga, 769 —
Franklin v. Mobley, for Use of Pat-
rick, Oa.App., 36 SJE.2d 173.
(2) However, they are not negotia-
ble in a strict commercial sense. —
Winn v. Armour & Co., supra.
79. N".J. — Combes v. Hoffman, 99
A. 607, 87 N.J.BQ. 148.
80. Cal. — Bias v. Ohio Farmers In-
demnity Co., 81 P.2d 1057, 28 Cal.
App.2d 14.
81. N.J. — National Surety Co. v.
. Mulligan, 146 A. 372, 105 N.J.Law
336.
Tenn. — State ex rel. McConnell v.
Peoples Bank & Trust Co., 12
Tenn,App. 242.
Validity of assignment is not af-
fected by pendency of appeal, where
enforced after affirmance. — Bias v.
Ohio Farmers Indemnity Co., 81 P.2d
1057, 28 Cal.App.2d 14.
82. Judgment for taxes due on land
would not survive to the personal
representative either of the original
county collector of revenue or of his
successor, and hence is not assign-
able in absence of statutory author-
ity.— State ex rel. Gilkison v. An-
drews, Mo.App., 133 S.W.2d 695.
83. Mo.— Popsicle Corporation of U.
S. v. Pearlstein, App., 168 S.W.2d
105.
Injunction
A decree, enjoining manufacture
and sale of frozen suckers, except
under license from owner of patents
thereon, was of such personal nature
as to be incapable of assignment by
such owner to assignee of patents.—1
Popsicle Corporation of U» S. v.
Pearlstein, supra.
962
84. U.S.— Coates v. Muse, C.C.Va.,
5 F.Cas.No.2,918, 1 Brock. 551.
85. Miss. — Cook v. Armstrong, 25
Miss. 63.
N.Y.— Conor v. Hernstein, 29 N.Y.
Super. 552.
Pa. — Waters v. Largy, 5 Rawle 131.
86. Cal. — Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
v. Nakano, 87 P.2d 700, 12 CaL2d
711, 121 A.L.R. 417— Salter v. Lom-
bard!, 3 P.2d 38, 116 CaLApp. 602.
Mo. — Corpus Juris cited in State ex
rel. Emerson v. City of Mound
City, 73 S.W.2d 1017, 1022, 335 Mo.
702.
34 C.J. p 637 note 79.
Power of state
"The state can, in the absence of
constitutional prohibition, continue
the common-law bar to the assign-
ment of such personal tort causes
of action, and remove the common-
law bar against the assignment of
judgments recovered therein, and can
as a condition of assignment stamp
upon the assigned judgment such
character as it sees fit, including the
character of an ordinary money
judgment free of tort characteristics,
and as if the judgment had been re-
covered in an action of debt." — la re
Dodge, D.C.N.T., 9 F.Supp. 540, 544.
Fraud and deceit
U.S. — Hastings v. Osborne, C.C.A.
Mich., 131 F.2d 396, certiorari de-
nied Osborne v. Hastings, 63 S.Ct
982, 318 U.S. 785, 87 L.Bd. 1162.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 514
question, at least in equity,87 in the same manner
as any other judgment, provided the judgment has
become final in the sense that the action in which
it is recovered is no longer pending or in the sense
that it finally determines the rights of the parties
to such action;88
Statutory prohibition. The legislature, pursuant
to a scheme of remedial legislation, may prohibit
the assignment of a judgment which is ordinarily
assignable.89
§ 513.
Future Judgments
An assignment may be made of a judgment to be
recovered in the future if the cause of action Itself is
assignable. Such an assignment becomes operative when
the judgment Is recovered.
Where the cause of action is of an assignable
character, as in the case of actions ex contractu,
a valid assignment may be made before the rendi-
tion of the judgment which will become operative
as soon as the judgment is recovered.90 Where,
however, the cause of action is in tort, there can
be no assignment until the claim has been merged
in an actual judgment, even though a verdict has
been given for plaintiff, as discussed in Assign-
ments §§ 33, 36, and an interest in a judgment to be
recovered in such a case is not assignable,91 al-
though it has been held in some cases that such as-
signment before judgment gives to the assignee an
interest in the judgment, when perfected, which may
be enforced in equity,92 on the principle that in eq-
uity that which is agreed to be done will be consid-
ered as done.98 The assignment of the verdict and
judgment to be recovered in a pending action for
tort has also been supported as not an assignment
of a mere right of action, but of property having a
potential existence, that is to come into existence in
the future.94
§ 514. Persons Who May Assign or Pur-
chase
a. Who may assign
b. Who may take assignment
a. Who May Assign
As a general rule a Judgment may be assigned only
by the beneficial owner thereof or by his duly authorized
agent.
As a general rule, a valid assignment of a judg-
ment can be made only by a person having a bene-
ficial interest in such judgment,9^ or by his duly
authorized agent.96 If regulated by statute, only
the person authorized by the statute may make an
assignment97 Authority to assign a judgment may
Personal Injuries
U.S. — American Surety Co. of New
York v. Wabash Ry. Co., C.C.A.MO.,
107 F.2d 685, stating Illinois law.
N.J.— Roth v. General Casualty &
Surety Co., 146 A. 202, 106 N.J.Law
516.
N.Y.— Richard v. National Transp.
Co., 285 N.Y.S. 870, 158 Misc. 324.
87. Mass.-— Brazill v. Green, 127 N.
E. 535, 236 Mass. 93.
88. CaL— Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
v. Nakano, 87 P.2d 700, 12 CaL2d
711, 121 A.L.R. 417. t
Assignment of judgment to be recov-
ered in tort action see infra § 513.
Effect of pendency of appeal
• (1) A judgment in a tort action
cannot be assigned during the pend-
ency of an appeal therefrom. — Mil-
ler v. Newell, 20 S.C. 123, 47 Am.R.
833.
(2) Such an assignment is invalid,
since the judgment, pending appeal,
is not "final*' in sense that it deter-
mines rights of parties to the action.
—Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Na-
kano, 87 P.2d 700, 12 Cal.2d 711, 121
A.L..R. 417.
89. Tenn. — Prime v. Dunaway, 50 S.
W.2d 223, 164 Tenn. 396.
Assignability of -compensation award
or judgment see the C.J.S. title
Workmen's Compensation Acts §
388, also 71 C.J. p 924 notes 68-80.
90. Mich.— Corpus Juris cited in
Cook v. Casualty Ass'n of America,
224 N.W. 341, 842, 246 Mich. 278.
34 C.J. p 637 note 81.
91. N.J.— Seaman v. Mann, 168 A.
833, 114 N.J.Ed. 408.
Bights of creditors
Assignment of moneys to become
due when assignor's personal injury
claim was reduced to judgment was
held void, with respect to right of
assignor's judgment creditor to levy
on such moneys. — Goldfarb v. Reich-
er, 171 A. 149, 112 N.J.Law 413, af-
firmed 174 A. 507, 113 N.J.Law 399—
34 C.J. p -637 note 84 [b].
92. N.Y.— Richard v. National
Transp. Co., 285 N.Y.S. 570, 158
Misc. 324.
34 C.J. p 637 note 84.
93. 111.— North Chicago St R. Co. v.
Ackley, 58 Ill.App. 572, reversed
on other grounds 49 N.E. 222, 171
111. 100, 44 L.R.A. 177.
94. N.Y.— -Richard v. National
Transp. Co., 285 N.Y.S. 870, 158
Misc. 324.
5 C.J. p 893 note 6.
Agreement to assign
Such an agreement has been en-
forced as an agreement to assign. —
In re Modell, C.C.A.N.Y., 71 F.2d
148.
Public policy is not violated by
such am assignment — Richard v. Na-
963
tional Transp. Co., 285 N.Y.S. 870,
158 Misc. 324.
95. Ark. — Brice v. Taylor, 9 S.W.
854, 51 Ark. 75.
34 C.J. p 637 note 86.
Tax collector
A county collector of revenue has
no beneficial interest in a judgment
for taxes, and cannot make a. valid
assignment of such judgment. — State
ex rel. Gilkison v. Andrews, Mo.App.,
133 S.W.2d 695.
Reassignment for purpose of suit
A reassignment of a contract by
the assignee to the assignor merely
for the purpose of suit thereon, con-
veying to the assignor no beneficial
interest in the proceeds of the liti-
gation, obligates the assignor to re-
assign to the obligee the judgment
recovered. — In re Campbell's Estate,
299 N.Y.S. 442, 164 Misc. 632.
96. Mo. — Emory v. Joice, 70 Mo.
537.
34 C.J. p 637 note 87.
97. Plaintiff or his assignee
(1) One who was county collector
of revenue at time of rendition of
judgment for taxes, in suit brought
by the state at his relation, but who
had gone out of office at the time
of assignment of such judgment to
third person, had no control over
enforcement or collection of the
judgment, and hence was not a
"plaintiff" within terms of statute
§ 514
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
be conferred by power of attorney,98 which need not
be recorded in order to render the assignment effec-
tive as between the parties, the recording of such
power being material only where notice to third per-
sons is necessary.99 Where a contract is made with
an agent in his own name for the benefit of his
principal, he is the real owner of a judgment re-
covered thereon in an action brought by him in
his own name, and has power to dispose of it for
the benefit of his principal.1
Subject to the rule as to the necessity of a bene-
ficial interest, any person who is the actual owner
of the judgment,2 or who has the right to enforce
and collect it,$ may make an assignment thereof.
Thus an assignment may be made by an adminis-
trator or executor,4 a bank,5 a corporation^ or its
receiver,7 or a municipality.8 A partner may as-
sign in the name of the firm a judgment rendered
in favor of the firm,9 and a joint owner of a judg-
ment may assign his undivided interest therein.10
As discussed in Attorney and Client, § 93 c, an
attorney at law has no implied authority as such
to assign a judgment recovered in favor of his cli-
ent
b. Who May Take Assignment
As a general rule any person, natural or artificial,
may become the assignee of a judgment.
As a general rule, any person; natural or artifi-
cial, may become the assignee of a judgment.11
While ordinarily the payment of a judgment by one
primarily liable on it is an absolute satisfaction, al-
though the judgment is assigned to him,12 a surety
on the debt for which the judgment was recovered
may hold the. judgment under an assignment, after
paying its amount, if his intention not to satisfy the
judgment is clear,13 and the same rule applies to
a surety on an obligation given in payment of the
judgment.14
§ 515. Mode and Sufficiency of Assignment
a. In general
b. Statutory requirements
authorizing assignment by plaintiff
or his assignee. — State ex rel. Gilki-
son v. Andrews, Mo.App., 133 S.W.2d
695.
(2) Likewise, one who was county
collector of revenue at time of as-
signment of tax judgment, but was
not such collector when suit result-
ing in such judgment was institut-
ed, was not a "party" to such suit,
and hence could not assign the judg-
ment under such a statute. — State ex
rel. Gilkison v. Andrews, supra.
98. Ind. — Caley v. Morgan, 16 N.E.
790, 114 Ind. 350.
99. Ind. — Boos v. Morgan, 30 N.E.
141, 130 Ind. 305, 30 Ara.S.R. 237—
Caley v. Morgan, 16 N.E. 790, 114
Ind. 350.
I. N.T. — Seymour v. Smith, 21 N.E.
1042, 114 N.Y. 481, 11 Am.S.R. 683.
2. Change of
Where the judgment creditor has
changed its name, an assignment
by it in its new name has been sus-
tained.— Leland v. Heiberg, 194 N.W.
93, 156 Minn, 30.
3. Mo. — Garland v. H<arrison, 17 Mo.
282.
34 C.J. p 637 note 93.
4. CaL — Low v. Burrows, 12 Cal.
181.
Me.— Manson v. Peaks, 69 A. 690,
103 Me. 430, 125 Am.S.R. 311.
Joint judgment
Title to judgment and execution
in names of executors vested in them
jointly, and transfer, without consid-
eration, by one in representative ca-
pacity to herself in individual ca-
pacity did not divest interest of oth-
er joint owner. — Cox v. Staten, 147 S.
E. 137, 39 Ga.App. 294.
5. Mont — Genzberger v. Adams, 205
P. 658, 62 Mont. 430.
34 C.J. p 637 note 97.
Proof of authority
(1) The official character of the
persons making the assignment, or
the fact that they were authorized
to execute it in the name of the
bank, must be shown. Merely desig-
nating them as officers is not suffi-
cient to establish their official char-
acter.— Klemme v. McLay, 26 N.W.
53, 68 Iowa 158.
(2) Purported assignment of judg-
ment to plaintiff as receiver of a
bank by individual signing assign-
ment as "president" was incompe-
tent to prove assignment, even if it
could be presumed that individual
was president of assignor bank and
acting as such at time of purported
assignment, where there was no
proof that Individual had authority
to make assignment — Cumberland
Bank & Trust Co. v. Buchanan, 164
S.W.2d 473, 291 Ky. 300.
6. Iowa.— Miller v. Cousins, 90 N.
' W. 814.
34 C.J. p 637 note 95.
Foreign corporation
Foreign corporation having capaci-
ty to sue in state and recover val-
id judgment could assign judgment
in such state.— Cook v. " Casualty
Ass'n of America, 224 N.W. 341, 246
Mich. 278.
7. HL— Rogers v. Dimon, 106 HI.
App. 201, reversed ' on other
grounds -67 N.B. 968, 203 HI. 464.
964
8. Miss.— Wilkinson v. Hutto, 12S
So. 93, 157 Miss. 358.
9. N.Y.— Allen v. Clark, 21 N.Y.S.
338, affirmed 36 N.B. 345, 141 N.T.
584.
10. Minn. — Hunter v. Mauseau, 97
N.W. 651, 91 Minn. 124.
34 C.J. p 638 note 99.
11. Conn. — Rogers v. Hendrick, 82
A. 586, 85 Conn. 260.
34C.J. p 638 note 2.
Purchase by attorney as not cham-
pertous see Champerty and Main-
tenance § 14.
Municipal Judgment
It is not contrary to public policy
for sheriff to purchase execution and
judgment in favor of a municipal-
ity when motion is made against him
for failure to execute it — Wilkinson
v. Hutto, 128 So. 93, 157 Miss. 358.
Relatives
A son's purchase of judgment
against his father is not ipso facto *
fraudulent. — Bell v. Kates, 18 A.23
556, 126 N.J.Law 90.
12. Ind. — Zimmermann v. Gaumer,
53 N.B. 829, 152 Ind. 552.
34 C.J. p 638 note 3.
Payment by joint debtor see infra
§ 555.
Satisfaction of judgment by assign-
ment to debtor see infra § 562.
13. Iowa. — Anglo-American Land,
Mortgage & Agency Co. v. Bush, 50
N.W. 1063, 84 Iowa 272.
34 C.J. p 638 note 4.
Effect of payment by surety see in-
fra § 555.
14. N.Y.— Harbeck v. VandwWlt, 20
N.Y. 395.
34 C.J. p 638 note 5.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 515
a. In General
In the absence of a statute to the contrary, no par*
ticular mode or form is required to give effect to the
assignment of a judgment.
It has been said that a judgment may be assigned
by any method competent and sufficient for the as-
signment of any other chose in action.1^ Accord-
ingly, in the absence of statutory directions as to
the mode of assigning a judgment, no particular
form of assignment is necessary to give effect to
such an assignment,16 as long as the assignment is
definite and absolute.17
The assignment may be accomplished by a writ-
ing,18 as by an indorsement on the record,19 or by
a separate written instrument20 which need not be
under seal21 or, as discussed infra § 518, recorded.
The. assignment may be executed under a power of
attorney.2* In all such cases, however, there must
be a delivery of the instrument of assignment to
the assignee or some one authorized by him to ac-
cept it,23 except where an assignment is not de-
nied.2*
A written assignment will not be vitiated by mis-
takes in the description of the judgment or in other
particulars if it is capable o'f being made certain,25
and, if an entry of record is so ambiguous as not
to show whether an assignment or a satisfaction was
intended, it may be explained by parol.2 6
A judgment may be assigned by parol27 provided
15. Tex. — Blanks v. Radford, Civ.
App., 188 S.W.2d 879, error re-
fused— McMillan v. Rutherford,
Civ.App., 14 S.W.2d 132.
Requisites, modes, and validity of
assignments generally see Assign-
ments §§ 41-81.
16. No formal deed of assignment
is necessary. — Owen v. Interstate
Mortg. Trust Co., 211 P. 87, 88 Okl.
10, 30 A.L.R. 816.
Transfer of transcript
Where a transcript or certificate
of the judgment is filed in a higher
court for the purpose of creating a
lien on real estate, it is not neces-
sary to transfer such transcript or
certificate in order to effect an as-
signment of the judgment — Travis
v. Rhodes, 37 So. 804, 142 Ala. 189.
17. Ala.— Pike v. Bright, 29 Ala. 332
— Bain v. J. A. Lusk & Son, 109
So. 187, 21 Ala.App. 442.
Acknowledgment of indebtedness
Where printing firm executed ac-
knowledgment cf indebtedness to
corporation's Judgment creditor,
which allegedly "represented and
evidenced" corporation's judgment
indebtedness, judgment creditor's as-
signment of such instrument to his
wife and wife's similar assignment
thereof to son did not carry with it
the corporation's judgment indebted-
ness or right to collect such indebt-
edness from estate of corporations
sole stockholder, notwithstanding
alleged intent with which assign-
ments were made. — Allen v. National
Bank of Commerce & Trust Co. of
Providence, 19 A.2d 311, 66 RJ. 373.
, 18. Okl. — Owen v. Interstate Mortg.
Trust Co., 211 P. 87, 88 Okl. 10, 30
A.L.R. 816.
Xiegal or egnitable Judgments
Tex. — Blanks v. Radford, Civ.App.,
188 S.W.2d 879, .error refused.
19. U.S. — Cavender v. Grove, C.C.
Ind., 5 F.Cas.No.2,530, 4 Biss. 269.
Pa, — Coon v. Reed* 79 Pa. 240.
34 C.J. p 638 note 7.
20. U.S. — Rufe v. Lynchburg Com-
mercial Bank, Va,, 99 F. 650, 40 C.
C.A. 27.
34 C.J. p 638 note 8.
Assignment before signing1 of Judg-
ment
Where, after hearing on a con-
tested garnishment and announce-
ment by the court of a finding for
plaintiff, plaintiff assigned "the
amount recovered by me this day
in the case of G. P. v. C. and W., be-
ing cause 145480," etc., he intended
to and did assign the final judgment
and not a chose in action, nothing
remaining to be done but to pre-
sent such Judgment for signature,
although appeal was thereafter tak-
en.— Premier Wrench Co. v. Pearson,
225 P. 49, 129 Wash. 326.
Judgment as included in sale of
property
(1) It is not necessary specifically
to include a judgment in bill of sale
of a business or all of the assets
thereof, where Judgment was part of
such business or assets.
Colo.— Bright v. Schmitt, 231 P. 159,
76 Colo. 320.
Tex.— -Kahn v. Ilitzky, Civ.App., 107
S.W.2d 1015, error refused.
(2) Writing reciting "sale" of
realty by one having only a judg-
ment lien thereon to judgment debt-
or was held sufficient to transfer
Judgment lien. — Sowards v. Sowards,
61 S.W.2d 609, 249 Ky. 742.
Partial assignment
Kan. — Tharp v. Langford, 222 P.
135, 115 Kan. 135.
Proof of assignment
Where a written assignment,
claimed to include both of two judg-
ments recovered by the Judgment
creditor, refers to but one of them,
it was held that the presumption
that an instrument correctly express-
es parties; intention was sufficient
to support implied finding that as-
signment did not include the other
Judgment — Welk y. Conner, 282 P.
963, 102 Oal.App. 286.
21. Me.— Hayes v. Rich, 64 A. 659,
101 Me. 314, 115 Am.S.R. 314.
34 .C.J. p 638 note 9.
22. Ind. — Boos v. Morgan, 30 N.E.
141, 130 Ind. 305, 30 Am.S.R. 237.
34 C.J. p 638 note 11.
Authority to assign under power of
attorney see supra § 514.
23. 111. — Williams v. West Chicago
St R. Co., 85 IlLApp. 305.
Presumption as to delivery
Where Judgment creditor executed
a written assignment of judgment
in blank and transmitted it to its
attorney to be filled out and deliv-
ered on receipt of money, possession -
of assignment by a third person
raised presumption that assignment
was properly delivered according to
instructions. — Power Mfg. Co. v.
Tindall, C.C.A.Ark., 100 F.2d 463.
24. N.T.— Baker v. Secor. 7 N.Y.S.
803, 4 Silv.Sup. 516.
25. Minn.— Willis v. Jelineck, 6 N.
W. 373, 27 Minn. 18.
34 C.J. p 638 note 15.
Judgment sufficiently described
Tex. — Taylor v. American Trust &
Savings Bank of El Paso, Civ.App.,
265 S.W. 727.
28. Mo. — Emory v. Joice, 70 Mo.
537.
27. La. — Elgutter v. McCarty, App.,
167 So. 461.
N.Y. — Manufacturers' Trust Co. v.
Rechtman, 268 N.Y.S. 104, 239 App.
Div. 517, affirmed 191 N.E. 603, 264
NVT. 639.
Okl. — Owen v. Interstate Mortg.
Trust Co., 211 P. 87, 88 Okl. 10, 30
A.Li.R. 816.
34 C.J. p 639 note 18.
Xiegal or equitable Judgments
Tex. — Blanks v. Radford, Clv.App.,
188 S.W.2d 879, error refused.
Manual delivery
While a judgment may not be
manually delivered, it . may be as-
signed by parol. — Kahn v. Ilitzky,
Tex.Civ.App., 107 S.W.2d 1015, error
dismissed.
§ 515
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
the intention to assign and the terms are clearly
shown,28 unless the statute under which the assign-
ment is made prohibits a parol assignment,29 or
requires the assignment to be in writing.30 It has
been held, however, that a judgment on a written
contract must be assigned in writing in order to
constitute a valid assignment, so that the judgment,
when satisfied by defendant, will operate as a bar
to another action on the contract against defend-
ant31
An assignment by delivery merely has been held
insufficient to pass even an equitable title,32 al-
though there is also authority to the contrary,33 and
it has also been held that the delivery of an exe-
cution with intent to transfer the debt for a val-
uable consideration is a sufficient assignment of the
judgment34
In ordsr to constitute an assignment there must
be enough done or said to indicate an intention to
make a present transfer, as distinguished from a
mere offer or purpose to do so.35 An assignment
is not constituted by a mere authority to collect the
judgment36 or by an order to pay the amount there-
of to a named person.37
Acceptance by assignee. The assignment of a
judgment is not effective unless accepted by the
.assignee,38 although subsequent ratification or af-
firmance thereof is sufficient where the assignee
was ignorant of the assignment at the time it was
made.39
Notice. In the absence of a statute to the con-
trary, a valid assignment of a judgment may be
made without notice to any party thereto,40 or to
any other person;41 but it has been held that an
assignment without such a notice vests in the as-
signee the beneficial interest in the judgment, the
legal title remaining in the assignor in the nature
of a trust for the benefit of the assignee.42
Effect of mistake of law. Since, as discussed in
Contracts § 145, a mistake of law does not relieve
the parties to a contract from their obligations
thereunder unless an unconscionable advantage is
gained1 by one party over the other, a mistake by
an assignee of a judgment with respect to the pro-
spective action of the court on the judgment in a
pending proceeding seeking the enforcement there-
of does not invalidate the assignment where the
assignor acquired no unconscionable advantage
thereby.43
Agreements to assign. The operation and effect
of an agreement to assign a judgment are governed
by the general rules relating to contracts.44 An
executory agreement to assign a judgment for a
specified price, which agreement is never performed
by either party, does not amount to an assignment,45
and does not vest any title in the assignee.46 On
breach of an agreement to assign the aggrieved
Performance of contract
An assignment is completed and
becomes effective on compliance by
the assignee with the terms of the
agreement for the assignment and
notification of the Judgment debtor,
notwithstanding the nonexecution of
a written assignment — Elgutter v.
McCarty. La.App., 167 So. 461.
28. Ky. — Thomas v. Sorter, 3 Bush
177.
29. Ga. — Dugas v. Mathews, 9 Ga.
510, 54 AmJ>. 881.
Utah.— Snow v. West, 110 P. 52, 37
TJtah 528. .
30. Ky.— Fidelity & Deposit Co. v.
Sousley, 151 S.W. 353, 151 Ky. 39.
Ga. — Franklin v. Mobley, for Use of
Patrick, App., 36 SJJ.2d 173.
31. Okl. — Automobile Ins. Co. of
Hartford, Conn., v. Lewis, 220 P.
639. 93 OkL 280, 35 A.L.R. 1463.
32. Miss. — Parker v. Bacon, 26 Miss.
425.
33. Ga.— Franklin v. Mobley, .for
Use of Patrick, App., 36 S.B.2d 173.
34. Mass. — Dunn v. Snell, 15 Mass.
481.
35- Ala. — Bain v. J. A. Lusk & Son,
109 So. 187, 188, 21 AUuApp. 442.
"The owner must do or say some-
thing which would indicate a trans-
fer of his claim or right to another."
— Bain v. J. A. Lusk & Son, supra.
36. Va.— Green v. Ashby, 6 Leigh
135, 33 Va. 135.
37. Ky. — Thomas v. porter, 3 Bush
177.
38. Ill.-r*Congregation of Resurrec-
tion v. Laibe, 152 IlLApp. 417.
34 C.J. p 63S note 14.
39. N.Y.— Harbeck v. Vanderbilt, 20
N.Y. 395.
40. 111.— Knight v. Griffey, 43 N.E.
727, 161 111. 85.
Okl.— Corpus Juris cited in Robbins
v. Mid-West Creamery Co., 162 P.
2d 541, 543 — Owen v. Interstate
Mortg. Trust Co., 211 P. 87, 88 Okl.
10, 30 A.L.R. 816.
Tenn. — Corpus Juris cited in Wil-
liams v. Cantrell, 124 S.W.2d 29, 22
Tenn.App. 443 — State ex rel. Mc-
Connell v. Peoples Bank & Trust
Co., 12 Tenn.App. 242.
34 C.J. p 645 note 16.
In absence of bad faith the text
rule is to be followed. — Ciezynski v.
New Britain Transp. Co., 182 A. 661,
121 Conn. 36.
966
Neither statute nor equity requires
notice of assignment of a judgment
to be given to any particular person
in any particular manner. — Robbins
v. Mid-West Creamery Co., OkL, 162
P.2d 541.
41. Okl. — Owen v. Interstate Mortg.
Trust Co., 211 P. 87, 88 Okl. 10,
30 A.L.R. 816.
42. Conn. — Ciezynski v. New Britain
Transp. Co., 182 A. 661, 121 Conn.
36.
Effect of notice to Judgment debtor
see infra § 523.
43. Idaho. — Federal Reserve Bank
of San Francisco v. Hansborough,
292 P. 222, 49 Idaho 747.
44. La. — Continental Supply Co. v.
Browder, 124 So. 580, 11 La.App.
631.
Pa. — Penn Discount Corporation v.
Sharp, 189 A. 749. 125 Pa.Super.
171.
45. U.S. — Rufe v. Lynchburg Com-
mercial Bank, Va., 99 F. 650, 40
C.C.A. 27.
34 C.J. p 640 note 40.
46. N.T. — Ithaca Agricultural Works
v. Eggleston, 4 N.Y.S. 933.
34 C.J. p 639 note 24.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 516
party is entitled to recover the resulting damages,47
provided he has performed, or is ready, willing and
able to perform, on his own part48 One agreeing
to purchase a judgment at a specified sum is not
entitled to an assignment if he has defaulted under
the agreement.49 The mere issuance of an execu-
tion at request of the judgment creditor,50 or an
execution sale thereunder to one refusing to accept
title to the seized property,51 does not constitute a
breach of an agreement to assign a judgment.
What law governs. The validity of an assignment
of a judgment is determined by the law of the
state in which the judgment is recovered.52 Hence,
an assignment of a judgment made in conformity
to the laws of the state where the judgment was
rendered is valid everywhere.55
b. Statutory Requirements
Where the statute authorizing the assignment of a
Judgment provides a mode of assignment, its require-
ments must be followed in order to pass the legal title
and secure to the assignee any rights which depend solely
on the statute.
Where the statute authorizing the assignment of
a judgment provides a mode of assignment, its re-
quirements must be followed in order to pass the
legal title and secure to the assignee any rights
which depend solely on the statute.54 Where, how-
ever, such a statute does not expressly exclude oth-
er modes, it is regarded as cumulative merely, and
does not prevent the making of an assignment in
any other .way which is recognized as sufficient in
equity.55
§ 516. Equitable Assignments
No particular form Is necessary to constitute an
equitable assignment of a judgment.
In order to constitute an equitable assignment of
a judgment, no particular form is necessary,56 it
being sufficient that the assignee has such evidence
of title as, although it does not pass a legal title
to enforce the judgment in his own name, authorizes
him to receive the proceeds thereof, and protects
the judgment debtor in making payment to him.57
Thus, provided the intent to assign is clear and
some act is done between the parties amounting to
an appropriation, or a constructive delivery,5* an
equitable assignment of a judgment may be made
by a writing,5^ or by parol,60 even though a statute
requires a writing to effect a legal assignment of
a judgment.61 Where an attempted assignment of
a judgment, made in good faith, fails of its legal
effect because of some irregularity or informality,
it may be given effect in equity where it amounts to
an equitable assignment,62 and, even where there
47. Measure of damages
Judgment creditor who was ready,
on payment of consideration, to as-
sign Judgment to defendants who
had agreed by written instrument
to pay fixed sum therefor, was enti-
tled to damages for breach of agree-
ment equal to stipulated contract
price, and not excess of contract
price over market value at time ac-
tual delivery was to be made.— Penn
Discount Corporation v. Sharp, 189
A. 749, 125 Pa.Super. 171.
48. Pa. — Penn Discount Corporation
v. Sharp, supra.
Tender and refusal are essential. —
Continental Supply Co. v. Browder,
124 So. 580, 11 La.App. 631.
49. Pa. — Penn Discount Corporation
v. Sharp, 189 A. 749, 125 Pa.Super.
171.
50. La. — Continental Supply Co. v.
Browder, 124 So. 580, 11 La.App.
631.
51. La. — Continental Supply Co. v.
Browder, supra.
52. Mich. — Cook v. Casualty Ass'n
of America, 224 N.W. 341," 246
Mich. 278.
53. Cal. — Tornauist v. Johnson, 13
P.2d 405, 124 Cal.App. 634.
Mich. — Corpus Jurig cited in Cook v.
Casualty Ass'n of America, 224 N.
W. 341, 246 Mich. 278.
34 C.J. p 639 note 29.
54. Wis. — Cowie v. Waukesha Nat.
Bxch. Bank, 132 N.W. 900, 147 Wis.
124.
34 C.J. p 640 note 52.
Rights and liabilities of third per-
sons see infra § 526.
Strict compliance with the statute
is essential. — Donham v. Davis, 187
S.W.2d 722, 208 Ark. 824— McKim v.
Highway Iron Products Co., 29 S.W.
2d 682, 181 Ark. 1121.
Statutes held inapplicable
Pa.— Citizens Nat. Bank of LeMgh-
ton v. Kupres, 18 Pa.Dist. & Co.
692, affirmed 161 A. 466, 106 Pa.
Super. 164.
55. Ark.— Davis v. Oaks, 60 S.W.2d
922, 187 Ark. 601.
Cal. — Corpus Juris Quoted in Torn-
duist v. Johnson, 13 P.2d 405, 124
Cal.App, 634.
Minn.— Brown v. Reinke, 199 N.W.
235, 139 Minn. 458, 35 A.L.B. 413.
Mo. — Popsicle Corporation of XT. S.
v. Pearlstein, App., 168 S.W.2d 105
— Helstein v. Schmidt, 78 S.W.2d
132, 229 Mo.App. 275.
34 C.J. p 641 note 53.
Furpofe of statute providing for
acknowledgment of assignment of
judgment or cause of action and fil-
ing and entry thereof with papers
of cause is not to create rule of evi-
dence, but one of registration for
purposes of notice, and is not in-
tended to prevent acquisition of ti-
967
tie to Judgment, either legal or equi-
table, in any other lawful manner.
— Hunter v. B. E. Porter, Inc., Tex.
Civ.App., 81 S.W.2d 774.
Statutory method held not exclusive
Mo.— Boyd v. Sloan, 71 S.W.2d 1065,
335 Mo. 163.
56. Ark. — Moore v. Robinson, 35
Ark. 293.
34 C.J. p 639 note 30.
57. Miss. — Parker v. Bacon, 26 Miss.
425.
34 C.J. p 639 note 31.
58. N.C. — Winberry v. Koonce, .83
N.C. 351.
34 C.J. p £39 note 33.
59. Ky.— Shaw v. McKnight-Keaton
Grocery Co., 21 S.W.2d 269, 231
Ky. 223.
60. Ark.— Davis v. Oaks, 60 S.W.2d
922, 187 Ark. 501.
Ky. — Turner v. Gambill, 121 S.W.2d
705, 275 Ky. 330— Shaw v. Mc-
Knight-Keaton Grocery Co., 21 8.
W.2d 269, 231 Ky. 223.
34 C.J. p 639 note 32.
61. Ga. — Franklin v. Mobley, for
Use of Patrick, App., 36 S.B.2d 173.
62. Minn. — Brown v. Reinke, 199
N.W. 235, 139 Minn. 458, 35 AJUH.
413.
34 C.J. p 639 note 35.
Koncompliance with statute
(1) An assignment of a judgment
§ 516
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
bas been no attempt to effect an assignment, equity
will sometimes give effect to the transaction as an
assignment in order to protect the rights of the
assignee.63 An order from the judgment creditor
to his attorney to pay to a third party the money
collected on the judgment creates, when delivered to
the attorney, an equitable assignment of, and a
lien on, the proceeds of the judgment,64 even though
it is not accepted by the attorney.65 On the other
hand, an order on a court clerk to pay to a third
person the amount due on a judgment does not
amount to an assignment, since such order cannot
operate until the judgment has been extinguished
by payment66
An assignment may be presumed to have been
executed on the day of its date.67
Proof of assignment. While no formality is re-
quired in an equitable assignment of a judgment,
when the fact of the assignment is called in ques-
tion, sufficient evidence of title must be produced
to protect the judgment debtor in making payment
to the assignee as against the assignor,6® and evi-
dence of delivery merely has been held insuffi-
cient.^ The fact that the assignment has been
filed of record with the papers will not dispense
with the necessity of calling the subscribing wit-
ness to prove it70
§ 517. Consideration
As a genera! rule, aa between the assignor and the
assignee, a valuable consideration Is essential to support
an assignment of a judgment.
In the absence of a statute to the contrary,71 as
between the assignor and the assignee, or persons
claiming under them, a valuable consideration is
essential to support an assignment of a judgment72
Any consideration sufficient to support a contract
will suffice to support such an assignment,™ and
the rights of the assignee to payment, as discussed
in any form passes an equity which
the courts will recognize and pro-
tect notwithstanding it fails to com-
ply with statute.— Brown v. Reinke,
supra.
(2) An assignment of a judgment
without compliance with statute
passes the equitable, but not the le-
gal, title. — In re Hutcherson, C.C.A.
Ind., 133 F.2d 959.
63. S.C.— Sutton v. Button, 1 S.E.
19, 26 S.C. 33.
34 OJ. p 640 note 36.
Compelling1 assignment
Where purchaser at tax sale re-
covered judgments against tenant in
possession for use and occupation of
premises and owner thereafter sold
premises to purchaser, crediting him
with all he was entitled to under the
tax sale, purchaser was not there-
after entitled to hold judgments
against tenant and would be directed
to assign them to the owner. — Pyle
v. Altshul, 4 A.2d 377. 125 N.J.EQ.
143.
On avoidance of execution sale
Where deed under void execution
sale is set aside, an equitable as-
signment of the judgment to pur-
chaser's vendee results. — Jeffreys v.
Hocutt 142 SJB. 226, 195 N.C. 339.
54. Qa. — Stanford v. Connery, 11 S.
B. 507, 84 Ga> 731.
N.Y.— Hussey v. Culver, 6 N.T.S.
466, 3 Silv.Sup. 126.
65. N.Y.— Hussey v. Culver, supra.
86. Ind.— Teetor v. Abden, 2 Ind.
183.
67. Iowa.— Weire v. Dayenport, 11
Iowa 49, 77 Am.D. 132.
68. Cal. — Spencer v. California Nat.
Bank of Long Beach, 36 P.2d 1073,
1 Cal.2d 681.
84 C.J. p 640 note 42.
69. Miss. — Parker v. Bacon, 26 Miss.
425.
70. Pa. — Himes v. Barnitz, 8 Watts
39.
71. OaL — Curtin v. Kowalsky, 78 P.
962, 145 Cal. 431.
34 C.J. p 640 note 45 [c].
. Ala.— Bain v. J. Al Lusk & Son,
109 So. 187, 21 Ala,App. 442.
Okl. — Martin v. North American Car
Corporation, 35 P.2d 460, 168 Okl.
599.
Assignment "by municipality
Municipality may assign judgment
recovered on bail bond for fair and
full value. — Wilkinson v. Hutto, 128
So. 93, 157 Hiss. 358.
Consideration held insufficient
Transfer, of judgment to clerk and
sheriff to secure costs in other oas-
es was held void, as without consid-
eration or promise of service not
their duty to perform. — Bain v. J. A.
Lusk & Son, 109 So. 187, 21 AUuApp.
442.
73. La. — Kentwood $ank v. McClen-
don, 93 So. 748, 152 La. 489.
34 C.J. P 640 note 45.
Assignment as security or collateral
(1) An assignment given as col-
lateral or security for a loan is bas-
ed on a sufficient consideration. —
State ex rel. McConneU v. Peoples
Bank & Trust Co., 12 Tenn.App. 242.
(2) It Is a sufficient consideration,
even though given to secure a pre-
existing debt— McMillan v. Ruther-
ford, Tex.Civ.App., 14 S.W.2d 132—
34 C.J. p 640 note 45 [a] (3).
(3) Because of this it was unnec-
essary to a valid assignment of
judgment to pay notes held by as-
signee that they be marked paid and
delivered to assignor to constitute
968
consideration.— McMillan v. Ruther-
'ord, supra.
Executed contract
Landowners' assignment of a pro-
portional interest in judgment recov-
ered in condemnation action as se-
curity for payment of plaintiffs
services in the condemnation action
was an "executed contract" requiring
no consideration. — Rowe v. Holmes,
146 P.2d 45, 63 Cal.App.2d 46.
Failure of consideration
Where assignment of judgment
was consideration for cancellation of
mortgage, reversal of judgment
merely for modification, leaving judg-
ment as valuable as before, was not
a failure of consideration. — Federal
Reserve Bank of San Francisco v.
Hansbrough, 292 P. 222, 49 Idaho
747.
Fast consideration
Debtor's antecedent obligation to
his assignee was held not to con-
stitute a valuable consideration for
the assignment of a judgment ob-
tained by debtor. — London & Lan-
cashire Indemnity Co. of America v.
Cromwell, 190 S.B. 337, 118 W.Va.
318.
Proof as to consideration
(1) Any evidence which impeaches
the bona fides of the assignment
puts the assignee to full proof of
consideration.— Rettig v. Becker, 11
Pa. Super. 395.
(2) Burden is on assignee to prove
payment for assignment. — Power
Mfg. Co. v. Tindall, C.C.A^rk., 100
F.2d 463.
(3) Where Judgment creditor ex-
ecuted a written assignment in blank
and transmitted it to its attorney
with instructions to deliver, on re-
ceipt of certain sum, possession of
assignment by third party, created
49 C.J S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 519
infra § 522, or otherwise, are not affected by the
fact that the consideration was less than the face
of the judgment74
§ 518. Recording
In the absence of a statute to the contrary, as be-
tween the assignor and assignee, filing or recording Is
not essential to the validity of an assignment of a Judg-
ment.
In the absence of a statute so requiring,75 as be-
tween the assignor and the assignee, filing or re-
cording is not essential to the validity of an assign-
ment of a judgment.76 Thus, while it may be de-
sirable that the assignment of a judgment appear
of record, an entry thereof on the records of the
court rendering it is not usually necessary to com-
plete the assignment,77 the mere filing thereof
among the papers in the case being sufficient,78 al-
though under some statutes recording is necessary
as against third persons.79 A statute requiring as-
signments to be recorded refers only to domestic
judgments, and does not affect the proof of an as-
signment of a foreign judgment.80
§ 519. Operation and Effect
a. In general
b. Assignment as security or for collec-
tion
c. Effect of fraud
a. In General
A valid assignment of a Judgment transfers to the
assignee all of the rights of the assignor therein, but the
assignee stands in no better position than his assignor
In relation thereto.
On a valid assignment of a judgment, the assignee
succeeds to the ownership of the judgment and all
the rights, interests, and authority of his assignor
therein,81 including the debt or claim on which the
judgment is based82 and any security therefor,83
presumption that such sum had been
paid. — Power Mfg. Co. v. Tindall,
supra.
(4) In such a case the assignee's
burden of proving payment was sus-
tained by production of assignment
in his possession and recital in as-
signment acknowledging receipt of
consideration of one dollar and other
good and valuable consideration paid
to the Judgment creditor by the as-
signee.— Power Mfg. Co. v. Tindall,
supra.
Payment "by accommodation, iudorser
Accommodation indorser of note,
who paid judgment entered on note
against himself and makers and who
took an assignment of judgment
from judgment creditor was owner
of judgment as an assignee 'for val-
ue.—Cox v. Williams, 31 S.B.2d 312,
183 Va. 152.
74. Minn.— Dalby v. Lauritzen, 107
N.W. 826, 98 Minn. 75.
34 C.J. p 640 note 47.
75. Ark.— St. Louis, I. M. & S. R.
Co. v. Hambright, 112 S.W. 876, 87
Ark. 242.
Chattel mortgage recording act
An assignment of an interest in
a judgment to secure and pay an in-
debtedness of a judgment creditor is
not a chattel mortgage within mean-
ing of recording statute. — Robbins v.
Mid-West Creamery Co., Okl., 162 P.
2d 541.
76. Minn. — Barnes v. Verry, 191 N.
W. 589, 154 Minn. 252, 31 A.L.R.
707.
N.C.— In re Wallace, 193 S.E. 819,
212 K.C, 490.
Statute bald inapplicable
A statute regulating assignments
of causes of action, after suit and
before judgment did not apply to as-
signment of judgment terminating
cause of action. — Pigford Grocery
Co. v. Wilder, 76 So. 745, 116 Miss.
233.
77. Ky.— Fidelity & Deposit Co. v.
Sousley, 151 S.W. 353, 151 Ky.
39.
34 C.J. p 640 note 48.
78. Mo. — Tutt v. Couzlns, 50 Mo.
152.
34 C.J. p 640 note 49.
Court record
Transfer of a judgment becomes
a court record by being filed with
the papers in the suit in which it
was rendered, and noted on the mar-
gin of the proper minutes. — Surge v.
Broussard, Tex.Clv.App., 258 S.W.
502.
79. Wash. — Premier Wrench Co. v.
Pearson, 225 P. 49, 129 Wash. 326.
34 C.J. p 640 note 50.
80. Mo. — Baker v. Stonebraker, 34
Mo. 172.
81. Cal.— Richey v. Ziegler, 264 P.
293, 89 Cal.App. 35.
111. — Corpus Juris cited in Painter v.
Merchants & Manufacturers Bank
of Milwaukee, 277 IlLApp. 208, 246.
Miss. — Humphreys County v. Cashin,
101 So. 571, 136 Miss. 476.
N.C. — Jones v. T. S. Franklin Es-
tate, 183 S.B. 732, 209 N.C. 585.
Pa. — Marsh v. Bowen, 6 A.2d 783,
335 Pa. 314.
S.C.— Watts v. Copeland, 170 S.E.
780, 170 S.C. 449.
Tex. — Casray Oil Corporation v. Roy-
al Indemnity Co., CIv.App., 165 S,
W.2d 244, affirmed 169 S.W.2d 955,
141 Tex 33.
W.Va. — Hines v. Fulton, 140 S.B.
537, 104 W.Va. 561: ,
34 C.J. p 650 note 87.
Declaration of right*
(1) If the judgment is one which
is merely declaratory of a status,
969
the assignee thereof acquires no in-
terest in the property in respect of
which the judgment was rendered. —
Cucullu v. Bilgery, 20 So. 662, 48 La.
Ann. 1245.
(2) Thus an assignment of a judg-
ment which, in addition to awarding
a money recovery, declared the sta-
tus of the assignor's title to certain
property which had theretofore pass-
ed to him under a will transferred
the money judgment, but did not
transfer the assignor's title to the
property. — Ingram v. Jones, C.C.A.
Okl., 47 R2d 135.
82. Cal.— North v. Evans, 36 P.2d
133, 1 Cal.App.2d 64.
111. — Corpus Juris cited in, Painter v.
Merchants & Manufacturers Bank,
277 IlLApp. 208, 246.
Miss. — Corpus Juris cited in Hum-
phreys County v. Cashin, 101 So.
571, 573, 136 Miss. 476.
N-.T.— Thomas v. Hubbell, 36 IT.Y.
120— Rose v. Baker, 13 Barb. 230.
S.C.— Watts v. Copeland, 170 S.B.
780, 170 S.C. 449.
Tex. — Casray Oil Corporation v. Roy-
al Indemnity Co., Civ.App., 165 £l.
W.2d 244, affirmed 169 S.W.2d 955,
141 Tex. 33.
34 C.J. p 650 note 88 — 5 C.J. p 951
note 14. .
Effect of vacation, of judgment
If an assignment of a judgment
assigned the claim on which it rest-
ed, notwithstanding subsequent va-
cation of judgment on appeal, the
assignor could not complain of a
levy of execution against the claim,
since the only person interested un-
der such circumstances would be the
owner or assignee. — Johnson v. Dahl-
quist, 225 P. 817, 130 Wash. 29.
83. N.Y.— Pattison r. Hull, 9 Cow.
747.
519
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
provided the claim is assignable.8* The effect of
such an assignment is to divest the assignor of all
interest in, and all control over, the judgment,85
even though the assignment is a fraud on credi-
tors,86 and the assignor cannot thereafter pass title
to it by any subsequent assignment.87 The death of
the assignor does not impair the rights of the as-
signee.88 The assignment of a decree will not ne-
cessitate making the assignee a party to further
proceedings.89
An assignment, however, does not confer on the
assignee any greater right, interest, or equity than
the assignor had,90 and the assignee stands in no
better position that his assignor stood at the time
of the assignment.91 Hence, if the latter has no
title to the judgment, he can convey none to the
assignee92 whether or not the assignee had no-
tice.93 It has been held that, if the judgment is
void in the hands of the judgment creditor, it is
void and without effect in the hands of an assignee
for value.94 However, it has also been held that,
if the judgment is void, the assignment neverthe-
less transfers the original debt or claim on which
the judgment was based.95
Caveat emptor. An assignment of a judgment
has been held to be subject to the rule of caveat
emptor.96
As satisfaction of judgment. Irrespective of
how often a judgment may be transferred, it does
not become functus officio, where the intention of
the parties to the transfers is evidently to keep it
alive.97 If, however, as discussed infra § 562, a
judgment is assigned to the judgment debtor him-
self, or to a stranger for his benefit, the judgment
is satisfied. It is otherwise where the judgment
debtor causes an assignment to be made to a third
person who advances the funds necessary to pay
the judgment under circumstances showing the ab-
sence of any intent to satisfy the judgment.98
b. Assignment as Security or for Collection
The assignment of a Judgment as security for a debt
confers on the assignee the right to control and enforce
the Judgment and satisfy his claim out of the proceeds.
An assignee for collection obtains no vested right In the
Judgment.
A third person taking an assignment of a judg-
ment as collateral security for a debt acquires the
right to control and enforce the judgment,99 and to
satisfy his claims out of the proceeds.1 However,
where a judgment is assigned to secure advances,
84. N.Y.— Pulver v. Harris, 52 N.Y.
73.
85. W.Va.— Corpus Juris cited 1*
Hines v. Fulton, 140 S.E. 537, 540,
104 W.Va. -561.
34 C.J. p 641 note 54.
Bights affalaurt debtor
Judgment creditor who assigned
judgment for value could not at-
tach fund which judgment debtor
claimed, on ground that assignee al-
legedly settled Judgment with judg-
ment debtor for sum less than face
value of judgment. — Posey v. Cocke,
92 S.W.2d 4, 283 Ky. 177.
86. Tex. — Ford v. Rosenthal, 11 S.
W. 28, 74 Tex 28.
87. CaL— Curtin v. Kowalsky, 78 P.
962, 145 Cal. 431.
34 C.J. p 641 note 56.
Priorities between assignees see in-
fra § 529.
88. Conn.— Hamilton v. New Haven,
73 A. 1, 82 Conn. 208.
89. 111. — Bonner v. Illinois Land &
Loan Co., 96 111. 546.
90. U.S. — Christmas v. City of As-
bury Park, D.C.N.J., 53 F.Supp. 64
— Turner v. Dickey, D.C.Tenn., 3
F.Supp. 360, affirmed, C1C.A., Dick-
ey v. Turner, 64 F.2d 1012.
Cal. — Parker v. Howe, 299 P. 553,
114 CaLApp. 166— Arp v. Blake, 218
P. 773, 63 CaLApp. 362.
Iowa.— Mutual Surety Co. of Iowa v.
Bailey, 3 N.W*2d 627, 231 Iowa
1238 — Roe v. King, 251 N.W. 81,
217 Iowa 213.
Tex.— Pegues v. Moss, Civ.App.f 140
S.W.2d 461, error dismissed— Dal-
las Joint Stock Land Bank of Dal-
las v. Lancaster, Civ.App., 122 S.
W.2d 659, error dismissed.
Wash.— Associated Indemnity Corpo-
ration v. Wachsmith, 99 P.2d 420,
2 Wash.2d 679, 127 A.L.R. 531.
Judgment to use of third person
Where a judgment is marked to
the use- of a third person, the use-
plaintiff is merely an assignee whose
rights are no greater than those of
the judgment creditor. — Sophia
Wilks Building & Loan Ass'n, to Use
of v. Rudloff, 46 Pa.Dist & Co. 535,
affirmed Sophia Wilkes Building &
Loan Ass'n, to Use of Wiehe v. Rud-
loff, 35 A.2d 278, 348 Bsu 477.
91. Cal. — Clark v. Tompkins, 270 P.
946, 205 Cal. 373.
N\ J.— Corpus Juris cited in, Manowitz
v. Kanov, 154 A. 326, 327, 107 N.J.
Law 523, 75 A.L.R. 1464.
Pa.-^Sophia Wilks Building & Loan
Ass'n to Use of v. Rudloff, 46 D. &
C. 535, affirmed Sophia Wilkes
Building & Loan Ass'n, to Use of
Wiehe v. Rudloff, 35 A.2d 278, 348
Pa. 477.
34 C.J. p 641 note 58.
Where a judgment hag "been paid
in part before its assignment, the
assignment transfers to the assignee
the judgment creditor's interest in
the amount unpaid. — Cutting v. Mul-
la«ey, 181 N.W. 466, 191 Iowa 800.
92. CaL— Anglo-California Trust Co.
970
v. Oakland Rys. 225 P. 452, 193
Cal. 451.
34 C.J. p 641 note 59.
93. Cal. — Anglo-California Trust Co.
v. Oakland Rys., supra.
94. Ga. — Winn v. Armour & Co., 193
S.B. 447, 184 Ga, 769.
95. Cal. — Brown v. Scott, 25 Cal.
189.
96. Cal. — Anglo-California Trust Co.
v. Oakland Rys., 225 P. 452, 193
Cal. 451.
Pa. — Berger v. Roberts, Com.Pl., 93
Pittsb.Ler.J. 105.
97. N.Yi— Carpenter v. Andrews, 9
N.Y.St. 427.
Assignment on payment by joint
debtor see infra § 555.
98. Kan. — Benson v. Altenburg, 259
P. 791, 124 Kan. 296, modified on
other grounds 261 P. 589, 124 Kan.
571.
99. Pa. — Beale v. Mechanics' Bank,
5 Watts 529.
34 C.J. p 642 note 63.
Right of assignee generally to en-
force judgment against debtor see
infra § 522.
1. U.S. — Varnum v. Milford, C.C.
Ind., 28 F.Cas.No.16,891, 4 McLean
93.
34 C.J. p 642 note 64.
Assignment to surety on appeal bond
Appellant's assignment to sureties
on his appeal bond, of judgment in
his favor in another action au-
thorizing sureties "to collect same
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
520
the assignee cannot include within the lien other
advances made to the assignor, as to which there
was no agreement on making the assignment.2 The
assignee obtains no better rights than his assignor
had, and takes the judgment subject to any equi-
ties or disabilities effective against it in the tetter's
hands.3 If he in turn sells or assigns the judg-
ment, his assignee must hold it subject to the right
of the original owner to redeem it on paying the
amount for which it was pledged as security.4 On
the payment or release of the debt for which the
judgment was pledged, the assignee's rights termi-
nate by operation of law, and the judgment reverts
to the original owner without a reassignment.6
One taking an assignment of a judgment merely
under an authority or as a power to collect it for
the assignor has no vested right in it other than as
the assignor's agent, in whom the ownership re-
mains.6 On the other hand, a written assignment
giving the assignee full authority to collect and dis-
charge the judgment and binding the assignor not
to do so is a valid assignment.7
An assignment to an attorney for the purpose of,
inter alia, paying his own fees gives him an inter-
est in the judgment.8
c. Effect of Fraud
Fraud vitiates an assignment of a Judgment as be-
tween the parties to the assignment.
As between the parties to it an assignment of a
judgment may be vitiated by fraud or bad faith,9
but the judgment debtor cannot impeach the as-
signment for fraud unless he can show that he was
injured by the fraud.10
§ 520.
Partial Assignments
A$ a general rule a partial assignment of a Judg-
ment, while valid as between the parties, is of no effect
against the Judgment debtor unless he consents thereto
or ratifies it.
While, as between the assignor and the assignee,
the assignment of a part of a judgment is valid and
binding, even when made without the judgment
debtor's consent,11 as against the debtor a judgment
cannot be partially assigned without the debtor's
consent,12 such an assignment without the consent
of the debtor having no effect against the debtor,18
unless it is subsequently ratified by him.14
In accordance with the general rule governing
partial assignments of choses in action, as discussed
in Assignments § 39, a partial assignment will not
change the legal title to the judgment15 and, except
in event said decree be affirmed,1
entitled sureties to collect judgment
In full before expending money as
sureties, and to account merely for
any excess. — Humphreys County v.
Cashin, 101 So. 571, 136 Miss. 476.
2- S.C.— Miller v. Klugh, 7 S.B. £7,
29 S.C. 124.
3. Pa.— Appeal of Datesman, 77 Pa.
243.
4. N.Y. — Gray v. Green, 12 Hun 598,
reversed on other grounds 77 N.Y.
615.
Pa. — Poe v. Foster, 4 Watts & S.
351.
5. U.S.— Taggart's Case, 17 CtCL
322.
111. — Hossack v. Underwood, 55 111.
123.
6. 111.— Gallagher v. Schmidt, 144 N.
E. 319, 313 111. 40.
Neb. — Reed v. Occidental Building &
Loan Ass'n, 241 N.W. 769, 122 Neb.
817, certiorari denied 53 S.Ct 93,
287 U.S. 623, 77 L.Ed. 640»
34 C.J. p 642 note 69.
7. Tex.— McMillan v. Rutherford,
Civ.App.,.14 S.W.2d 132.
8. U.S. — Rufe v. Lynchburg Com-
mercial Bank, Va., 99 F. 650, 40 C.
C.A. 27.
Bight of. a««ignor to defeat right*
Landowners who recovered judg-
ment for large amount in eminent
domain action, from which appeal
was pending for several years* could
not, by settling case and stipulating
to amount of final judgment, defeat
plaintiffs right under landowners'
assignment of proportional interest
in the Judgment as security for pay-
ment of plaintiff's fee for services in
the condemnation action. — Howe v.
Holmes, 146 P.2d 45, 63 Cal.App.2d
46.
9. Colo. — Empire Land & Canal Co.
v. Engley, 33 P. 153, 18 Colo. 388.
N.Y. — Thompson v. Jones, 8 N.Y.S.
373, 55 Hun 268.
34 C.J. p 642 note 71.
Fraud as ground for rescinding or
setting aside assignment see infra
§ 530.
Dual agency
The fact that the attorney who,
drew the assignment represented
both the assignor and the assignee
did not vitiate the assignment. —
Painter v. Merchants & Manufactur-
ers Bank of Milwaukee, 277 IlLApp.
208.
Evidence held insufficient to show
fraud. — Holley v. Shaw, 196 So. 863,
143 Fla. 445.
Purchaae on behalf of debtor
Mere failure of a judgment debt-
or's agent to inform judgment credi-
tor >that agent, in purchasing judg-
ment is acting in behalf of judg-
ment debtor, is not "fraud." — D&vis
v. Pennsylvania Co. for Insurance on
Lives & Granting Annuities, 103 P.
2d 380, 187 OkL 436.
971
10. La. — Long v. Klein, 35 La.Ann.
384.
34 C.J. p 642 note 72.
11. Okl.— Holiday Oil Co. v. Fidelity
& Deposit Co. of Maryland, 19 P.2d
335, 162 Okl. 192.
34 C.J. p 643 note 83.
Extent of interest
Court presumes that assignment
of one half of judgment for damag-
es from wrongful sequestration car-
ried with it one half of every dol-
lar recovered, including one half of
portion recovered for exemplary
damages.— Dallas Joint Stock Land
Bank of Dallas v. Lancaster, Tex.
Civ.App., 122 S.W.2d 659, error dis-
missed.
12. La.— Salter v. Walsworth, App.,
167 So. 494.
13. Cal. — Buckeye Refining Co. v.
Kelly, 124 P. 536, 163 Cal. 8, Ann.
Cas.l913E 840— Ellis v. Superior
Court in and for Riverside County,
33 P.2d 60, 138 Cal.App. 552.
14. Cal. — Buckeye Refining Co. v.
Kelly, 124 P. 536, 163 Cal. 8, Ann.
Oas.l913E 840— Ellis v. Superior
Court in and for Riverside County,
33 P.2d 60, 138 Cal.App. 552.
15. Hawaii.— Arnold v. Bell, 27 Ha-
waii 442.
La. — Coxpua Juris quoted in Salter
v. Walsworth, App., 167 So. 494,
496.
§ 520
JUDGMENTS
0. J. S.
as otherwise provided by statute,16 cannot be en-
forced "at law unless the judgment debtor consents
thereto17 or unless the assignment is ratified by
him.18 Thus the assignee cannot obtain a separate
process to enforce payment of the part assigned,19
unless the judgment debtor has ratified the assign-
ment, as by voluntarily paying the portion of the
judgment retained by the judgment creditor.20 The
fact, however, that a judgment creditor has agreed
to pay, or has assigned, part of the judgment to
a third person, is no reason why the judgment
debtor should not be compelled to pay the judg-
ment;21 and, if the debtor refuses to consent to the
assignment, the judgment creditor may maintain an
action at law on the judgment for the full amount
thereof.22
A partial assignment to which the judgment debt-
or has assented creates a distinct and separate in-
terest in the assignee, which the debtor is bound to
recognize,23 and which cannot be destroyed by acts
of the assignor or debtor, or both ;24 it is not a joint
obligation extinguishable by performance rendered
to either the assignor or the assignee.25
The rule against partial assignments applies
where the judgment is in favor of joint plaintiffs26
or against joint defendants.27 However, where
judgments against two or more defendants are sev-
eral and not joint, they may be separately assigned28
where no question of payment by either debtor has
arisen.29
In equity. It has generally been held that a par-
tial assignment constitutes an equitable assignment
pro tanto30 which conveys to the assignee an eq-
uitable interest in the judgment31 enforceable in
equity,82 although the doctrine has been laid down
that the assignment of part of a judgment without
consent of the debtor is no more enforceable in eq-
uity than at law.83
§ 521. Rights and Liabilities of Parties
An assignee's rights with respect to the Judgment
are governed by any conditions or reservations contained
in the assignment.
The rights of the assignee with respect to the
judgment are governed and controlled by any con-
ditions or reservations contained in the assign-
ment.84
§ 522. As to Judgment Debtor in Gen-
eral
a. In general
b. Right to enforce judgment
a. In General
As, a general rule the unrestricted assignment of a
Pa.— Allegheny County v. Simon,
Com.PL, 89 Pittsb.Leg.J. 131.
34 C.J. p 642 note 74.
16. Recording1
(1) In some jurisdictions a partial
assignment of a judgment is valid
if placed on the record as provided
by statute. — Wheaton v. Spooner, 54
N.W. 372, 52 Minn. 417.
(2) Such tan assignment is not
valid as against creditors levying
thereon, unless the assignment is
placed on record as provided by stat-
ute.— Wheaton v. Spooner, supra,
(3) Necessity for filing or record-
ing assignment of Judgment gener-
ally see supra § 518.
17. Hawaii— Arnold v. Bell, 27 Ha-
waii 642.
La. — Corpus Juris quoted in. Salter
v. Walsworth, App.f 167 So. 494,
496.
Pa. — Allegheny County v. Simon,
Com.PL, 89 Pittsb.Leg.J. 131.
34 C.J. p 642 note 75.
Right to split cause of action on
partial assignment thereof see Ac-
tions § 102 k.
Season for rule
The judgment debtor should not be
obliged and forced to withstand
numerous vexations and expensive
proceedings brought at various times
•by different persons under one judg-
ment.
Colo.— McMurray v. Marsh, 54 P. 852,
12 Colo.App. 95.
La. — Salter v. Walsworth, App., 167
So. 494.
18- La. — Corpus Juris auoted in
Salter v. Walsworth, App., 167 So.
494, 496.
34 C.J. p 642 note 76.
19. Pa.— Hopkins v. Stockdale, 11 A.
368, 117 Pa. 365— Appeal of Die-
trich, 107 Pa. 174.
Revival of judgment by assignee
see infra § 537.
20. Okl.— Holiday Oil Co. v. Fi-
delity & Deposit Co. of Maryland,
19 P.2d 335, 336, 162 Okl. 192.
"Judgment debtors, having volun-
tarily paid £hat portion of the judg-
ment retained by the assignors
. . . cannot be heard to complain
of the partial assignment thereof. —
Holiday Oil Co. v. Fidelity & Deposit
Co. of Maryland, supra.
21. U.S. — Aspen Mining & Smelting
Co. v. Wood, Colo., 84 F. 48, 28 C.
C.A. 276.
22. Hawaii.— Arnold v. Bell, 27 Ha-
waii 642.
23. Cal.— McGown v. Dalzell, 236 P.
941, 72 CaLApp. 197.
24. Cal. — 'McGown v. Dalzell, supra.
25. Cal. — McGown v. Dalzell, supra.
26. Ark.— Hanks v. Harris, 29 Ark,
323.
27. N.Y. — Whittemore v. Judd Lin-
seed & Sperm Oil Co., 27 N.E. 244,
124 N.Y. 565, 21 Am.S.R. 708.
28. N.Y.— Whittemore v. Judd Lin-
seed & Sperm Oil Co., supra.
29. N.Y. — Whittemore v. Judd Lin-
seed & Sperm Oil Co., supra.
30u Ind.— Wood v. Wallace. 24 Ind.
226.
34 OJ. p 643 note 87.
31. Ark.— Gebhardt v. Merchant, 105
S.W. 1036, 84 Ark. 426.
Ohio. — Pittsburg, a, C. & St. L. R.
Co. v. Volkert, 50 N.E. 924, 58
Ohio St. 362.
32. Ark.— Gebhart v. Merchant, 105
S.W. 1036, 84 Ark. 426.
34 C.J. p 643 note 89.
33. Mo. — Loomls v. Robinson, 76
Mo. 488.
34 C.J. p 643 note 90.
34. Provisions as to interest
Landowners' assignment of pro-
portional interest in judgment recov-
ered in condemnation action as se-
curity for payment of plaintiff's fee
for services in such action, provid-
ing for interest from entry of judg-
ment at same rate finally awarded
landowners on their judgment, was
not conditioned on receipt of interest
by landowners. — Rowe v. Holmes,
146 P.2d 45, 63 Cal. App. 2 d 46.
972
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
522
Judgment entitles the assignee to demand and receive
payment thereof.
As a general rule a judgment debtor is in no po-
sition to complain of an assignment of a judgment
against him,35 unless the assignment was taken for
his benefit or paid for with funds advanced by him
for that purpose,3^ although, as discussed infra §
524, the assignee's rights under the assignment
may be subject to equities, defenses, and agree-
ments between the parties to the judgment.
The assignment of a judgment transfers to the
assignee the right to demand and receive payment
of the judgment,37 to the exclusion of all other per-
sons,38 including the assignor,39 unless the assign-
ment is subject to a reservation.40 The assignee's
right to receive the full amount remaining unpaid
on the judgment is not affected by the amount he
paid for the assignment,41 unless he. occupies a
fiduciary relation to the judgment debtor42 or has
become the assignee at the debtor's request and
for his benefit,43 or purchases a compromised judg-
ment at the amount agreed on in the compromise,44
in which cases he cannot recover more than the
amount paid for the assignment with interest
Where a surety for the judgment debtor buys the
judgment from the judgment creditor and assigns
all of his claim against the debtor, his assignee
suing as plaintiff in interest is entitled to recover
on the judgment all that is still due thereon as
between the principal and the surety.45 The as-
signee of a judgment which was paid in part before
the assignment is entitled to demand and receive
payment of the unpaid balance only,46 since in such
a case, as discussed supra § 519, the effect of the
assignment is to transfer to the assignee the judg-
ment creditor's interest in the unpaid balance.
b. Eight to Enforce Judgment
Although at common law the assignee of SL Judg-
ment may not enforce the Judgment at law In his own
name, he may use the name of the Judgment creditor
for such purpose. An assignee of a Judgment is usually
permitted by statute to enforce the judgment in his own
name.
It has been stated generally that an assignment
of a judgment passes to the assignee all rights and
remedies for collection of the judgment which the
assignor possesses.47 At common law, since the
assignment of a judgment does not pass the legal
35. La. — Kentwood Bank v. McClen-
don, 93 So. 748, 152 La. 489.
Bights of intermediate assignees
Where judgment recovered by a
bank had been transferred from bank
to a trustee and assigned by trustee
to a second person as trustee for a
third person, in action on judgment
for renewal thereof defendants could
not complain if transfer from bank
to second person, as trustee for third
person, was invalid, where bank and
second person were parties plaintiff.
— Bank of Blowing Hock v. Mclver,
9 S.E.2d 25, 217 N.C. 623.
36. Mo. — Argeropoulos v. Kansas
City R. Co., 212 S.W. 369, 201 Mo.
A pp. 287.
37. 111. — People ex rel. Farwell v.
Kelly, 12 N.E.2d 612, 367 111. 616.
Pa. — Allegheny County v. Simon,
Com.Pl., 89 Pittsb.Leg.J. 131.
34 C.J. p 643 note. 91.
Assignee hag collectable interest
in judgment. — Troendle v. Clinch,
CaLApp., 169 P.2d 55.
Protection of debtor
Assignment of judgment to third
person cannot embarrass judgment
debtor or subject him to hazard of
another obligation on account of
judgment; he can protect himself
by applying to the court in which
the judgment was obtained for a dis-
charge on payment of the debt into
court. — Jax Ice & Cold Storage Co.
v. South Florida Farms Co., 109 So.
212, 91 Fla. 593, 48 A.L.R. 957, fol-
lowed in Central Farmers' Trust Co.
v. Davis, 132 So. 695, 101 Fla. 832.
38. Pa. — Reynolds v. Reynolds Lum-
ber Co., 34 A. 791, 175 Pa. 437.
34 C.J. p 643 note 91.
39. N.C.— Hewett v. Outland, 37 N.C.
438.
34 C.J. p 643 note 92.
40. N.J.— Hudson Mfg. Co. v. El-
mendorf, 9 N.J.Eq. 478.
34 C.J. p 643 note 93.
41. Minn. — Dalby v. Lauritzen, 107
N.W. 826, 98 Minn. 75.
34 C.J. p 643 note 94.
Adequacy of consideration cannot
be questioned by the judgment debt-
or.— Johnson v. Bearden Plumbing &
Heating Co., 71 P.2d 715, 180 Okl.
586.
42. N.Y.— Peck v. Peck, 17 N.H. 383,
110 N.Y. 64.
34 C.J. p 643 note 95.
43. 111. — Campion v. Friedberg, 55
IlLApp. 450.
34 C.J. p 643 note 96:
44. S.C.— Sutton v. *Sutton, 1 S.E.
19, 26 S.C. 33.
45. N.H.— Stavrelis v. Zacharias, 106
A. 306, 79 N.H. 146.
46. Iowa. — Cutting v. Mullaney, 181
N.W. 466, 191 Iowa 800.
47. Cal.— Michal v. Adair, 152 P.2d
490, 66 Oal.App.2d 382.
111.— Stombaugh v. Morey, 58 N.E.2d
545, 388 111. 392, 157 A.L.R. 254.
N.J.— Roth v, General Casualty &
Surety Co., 146 A. 202, 106 N.J.
Law 516.
N.C. — Jones v. T. S. Franklin Estate,
183 S.B, 732, 209 N.C. 585.
973
Ohio. — Pennsylvania Co. v. West
Penn Rys. Co., 144 N.B. 51, 110
Ohio St. 51'6.
Defenses not available against cred-
itor
A mortgagor was not entitled to
raise, as against assignee of deficien-
cy Judgment on foreclosure of mort-
gaged property, the question of in-
adequacy of price for which property
was sold at foreclosure sale, since
mortgagee could have enforced den>
ciency judgment against mortgagor
to full extent of deficiency, and there
was no reason for denying his as-
signee the same right. — Marsh v.
Bowen, 6 A.2d 783, 235 Pa. 314.
lien decree
Surety on building contractor's
bond as assignee of materialxnan's
lien decree against property owner
was held entitled to enforce decree
with like effect as materialman, un-
less some special equity existed,
which was not theretofore capable
of being put in issue, and which
would entitle property owner to re-
lief by way of equitable set-off or
counterclaim against surety's mon-
ey demand. — Bear v. Standard Acci-
dent Ins. Co., 168 So. 18, 124 Fla.
9.
Person secondarily liable
Where decree was rendered against
individual defendant primarily and
banking company secondarily and
trust company, assuming liabilities
of banking company, paid judgment
and took assignment thereof, the
trust company was not precluded
522
JUDGMENTS
49 O.J.S.
title, the assignee may not sue on the judgment,
in his own name and behalf,48 except in equity,49
and even in equity it has been held that the assignor
in whose name the judgment or decree was recov-
ered must be made a party to the suit.50 The as-
signment, nevertheless, generally vests in the as-
signee the exclusive right to control the judgment
and to use the name of the assignor, independently
of the latter's consent, for the purpose of enforc-
ing his rights,51 as in the issuance of process to
collect the judgment,52 or in an original suit there-
on.53 Where the assignee may use the name of the
judgment creditor to enforce the judgment, he may
also use the name of the creditor's personal repre-
sentative after the latter's death.54 It has been held
that, if the assignee may sue at law in the name of
the judgment creditor, he has an adequate remedy
at law which, in the absence of other equitable
factors, bars him from proceeding in equity.56
An agreement between the assignor and other
Creditors of the debtor not to enforce the judg-
ment is binding on an assignee of the judgment with
notice.56
Under statutes. Under statutes of various types
the assignee of a judgment is usually permitted
to sue on the judgment in his own name,57 regard-
less, under some statutes, of whether or not a legal
title has passed to the assignee.58 Under such stat-
utes, after an assignment which transfers the legal
title, the assignor may not sue thereon,59 and the
assignor's death does not deprive the assignee of
the right to sue in his own name.60 If the statute
makes no exception in case the assignee is an at-
torney at law, an attorney may sue in his own name
as assignee,61 at least where the assignor was not
his client.62 A statute permitting the assignee to
sue in his own name has been held not to preclude
him from suing in the name of his assignor, if he
so elects,63 and the rule does not mean that the
name of the action shall be changed, but it does
mean that the proceedings and pleadings subsequent
to the assignment shall be carried on in the name
of, or at least by, the real party in interest.64 Un-
der a statute providing that the trustee of an ex-
press trust may sue without joining with him the
person for whose benefit the action is prosecuted,
the assignor of a judgment may sue as trustee for
the assignee without joining the assignee.65
Assignment pending appeal. An assignment of
a judgment pending an appeal therefrom may not
be enforced unless and until the appeal is finally
terminated in favor of the judgment.66
from obtaining judgment over
against individual defendant on the-
ory that it was a "volunteer." — Wil-
liams v. Cantrell, 124 S.W.2d 29, 22
Tenn.App. 443.
48. N.H.— Stavrelis v. Zacharias, 106
A. 306, 79 N.H. 146.
34 C.J. p 643 note 3.
Right to sue out scire facias see in-
fra § 548.
not in statutory form
(1) Where an assignment of a
Judgment is not in the form re-
quired by a statute permitting the
assignee to sue in his own name,
he may not be permitted to bring
suit on the judgment in his own
name. — Gambill v. Greenwood, Ala.,
22 So.2d 903.
(2) Under such circumstances an
amendment substituting the Judg-
ment creditor as plaintiff may be
allowed.— Heard v. Turner, 125 N.B.
596, 234 Mass. 526.
49. Ala. — Moorer v. Moorer, 6 So.
289, 87 Ala. 545.
34 C.J. p 644 note 4.
50. Ky. — Shaw v. McKnight-Keaton
Grocery Co., 21 S.W.2d 269, 231
Ky. 223.
34 C.J. p 644 note 5.
51. Ga. — Franklin v. 'Mobley, for
Use of Patrick, App., 38 S.BL2d
173.
Substitution of parties
Since substitution of a purchaser
of a judgment which passed to
on purchase of decedent's business
was unnecessary! notice of motion
for substitution was not required,
especially as judgment was by de-
fault for want of appearance. — i
Bright v. Schmitt, 231 P. 159, 76
Colo. 329.
52. Tex. — Corpus Juris cited in De
Zavala v. Scanlan, Com. App., 65
S.W.2d 489, 492.
34 C.J. p 644 note 6.
53. Ala. — Gambill v. Greenwood, 22
So.2d 903.
34 C.J. p 644 note 7.
54. Ala. — Gambill v. Greenwood, su-
pra.
55. Ala. — Gambill v. Greenwood, su-
pra.
Right of assignee of chose in ac-
tion generally to sue in equity see
Assignments § 125 b.
56. La. — Cusachs v. Dugue, 4 La.A.
(Orleans) 132.
57. Conn. — Newman, v. Gaul, 129 A.
221, 102 Conn. 425.
111.— Johnson v. Watson, 33 N.B.2d
130, 309 IlLApp. 440.
Neb. — Exchange Elevator Co. v. Mar-
shall, 22 N.W.2d 403.
34 C.J. p 636 note 73 [c], P 644 note
. 8.
Right of assignee to issue execution:
Against property see Executions
§ 14 b.
Against person see Executions §
418.
Right of assignee to revive judg-
974
ment in his own name see infra
§ 537.
Right of assignee to sue on foreign
judgment see Infra § 878.
58. Bight to sue in assignor's name
conferred on assignee by a power of
attorney provision in an absolute as-
signment does not prevent assignee
from suing in his own name. — Rog-
ers v. Garde, 264 P. 951, 33 N.M. 245.
59. Okl. — Stein v. Scanlan, 127 P.
483, 34 Okl. 801, 42 L.R.A.,N.S.,
895.
6a Conn. — Hamilton v. New Haven,
73 A. 1, 82 Conn. 208.
Substitution as party pendente lite
An attorney who takes an assign-
ment to himself of the judgment in
favor of his client may properly be
substituted in his client's place after
the latter's death. — Potts v. Paxton,
153 P. 957, 171 Cal. 493.
61. Conn. — Rogers v. Hendricfc, 82
A. 586, 85 Conn. 260.
62. Conn. — Rogers v. Hendrick, su-
pra,
63. Conn. — Newman v. Gaul, 129 A.
221, 102 Conn. 425.
v. Scanlan, 127 P.
801, 42 L.R.A..N.S.,
64. Okl.— -Stein
483, 34 Okl.
895.
65. N.C.— Chatham v. Mecklenburg
Realty Co. 105 S.E. 329, 180 N.C.
500.
66. N.J. — National Surety Co. v.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 523
§ 523. As Affected by Notice to Debtor
a. Necessity for notice
b. Form of notice
c. Effect of notice
a. Necessity for Notice
The Judgment debtor Is protected by payments he
may make on the Judgment to the Judgment creditor
before he has notice of the assignment of the Judg-
ment.
Although, as discussed supra § 515, as between
the parties thereto notice is not essential to an as-
signment, notice to the judgment debtor is neces-
sary to effectuate the assignment,67 and until such
notice is given a perfect and indefeasible title to the
judgment does not vest in the assignee.68 Unless
and until such notice is given, the judgment debtor
is not bound by the assignment,69 and will be pro-
tected, as against the assignee, with respect to any
payments he may make to plaintiff in the judg-
ment,70 or with respect to any release or satisfac-
tion the judgment debtor may procure from the
judgment creditor before receiving such notice,71
irrespective of whether or not the assignment is sub-
sequently filed or recorded.72 However, a failure
to notify the debtor will not subject the assignee to
merely equitable claims of the debtor which accrue
after the assignment and do not attach to the judg-
ment itself.73
Payment to third persons. The protection extend-
ed to a judgment debtor who makes payment before
notice of the assignment applies only where the pay-
ment is made to the judgment creditor; when the
debtor voluntarily makes payment to a person other
than the holder of the legal title, he must see to it
that he pays the one to whom he is really indebted,
and payment to a third person will not be valid as
against the assignee,74 even though such third per-
son is in equity entitled to require the judgment
creditor to account to him, as his agent, for the pro-
ceeds of the judgment.75
b. Form of Notice
In the absence of a statute providing how notice of
an assignment of a Judgment shall be given, notice of
such an assignment need not be in any particular form,
provided it is sufficient to Inform the debtor that the
Judgment creditor Is no longer -the owner of the Judg-
ment.
Unless a statute provides how notice of the as-
signment shall be given,76 the notice need not be
in any particular form ; it is sufficient if it advises
the debtor that the person who recovered the judg-
ment is no longer the owner of it or entitled to col-
lect it,77 or if the information is given under cir-
cumstances and in terms calculated to arrest the
attention of the debtor and put him on notice.78
Direct notice of the assignment is unnecessary if
the assignee can bring home to the debtor knowl-
edge of such facts as should have put him on in-
quiry,79 Notice may be served on the debtor like
ordinary civil process.80
The requirement of notice imports notice by
some person entitled to give it to some other per-
son entitled to receive it.81
Mulligan, 146 A. 372, 105 N.J.Law
336.
67. Tenn.— State ex rel. McConnell
v. Peoples Bank & Trust Co., 12
Tenn.App. 242.
aa. Mo.— Boyd v. Sloan, 71 S.W.2d
1065, 335 Mo. 163— Overlander v.
Withers, App., 148 S.W.2d 88—
Price v. Clevenger, 74 S.W. 894, 99
Mo.App. 636.
Tenn. — State ex rel. McConnell v.
Peoples Bank & Trust Co., 12
Tenn. App. 242.
Title becomes indefeasible on no-
tice to judgment debtor. — Popsicle
Corporation of XT. S. v. Pearlstein,
Mo.App., 168 S.W.2d 105.
KTonstatutory assignment
Assignee was held to have inde-
feasible interest in, judgment as
against the judgment debtor who had
notice of the assignment of the judg-
ment, although the assignment was
not attested as required by statute.
— Boyd v. Sloan, 71 S.W.2d 1065,
935 Mo. 163.
453. Mo.— Helstein v. Schmidt, 78 S.
W.2d 132, 229 Mo.App. 275.
Tenn. — State ex rel. McConnell v.
Peoples Bank & Trust Co., 12
Tenn.App. 242.
34 C.J. p 646 note 29.
70. Idaho.— Houtz v. Daniels, 211 P.
1088, 36 Idaho 544, 32 A.L.R. 1016.
Mo.— Boyd v. Sloan. 71 S.W.2d 1065,
335 Mo. 163.
W.Va. — Corpus Juris cited in Hines
v. Fulton, 140 S.B. 537, 542, 104
W.Va. 561.
34 C.J. p 645 note 17.
Presumption is that plaintiff in a
judgment is the owner of it and the
burden is on the one who alleges the
contrary. — McLamb v. Adams, 24 S.
B.2d -524, 222 N.C. 714— Brown v.
Harding, 86 S.E. 1010, 170 N.C. 253,
Ann.Cas.l917C 548.
71. Gal. — Spencer v. California Nat
Bank of Long Beach, 36 P.24 1073,
1 Cal.2d 681.
34 C.J. p 645 note 18.
72. N.C. — McLamb v. Adams, 24 S.E.
2d 524, 222 N.C. 714.
Or. — Windsor v. Mourer, 147 P. 533,
76 Or. 281, rehearing denied 147
• P. 1190, 76 Or. 281.
73. N.J.— Terney v. Wilson, 45 N.J.
Law 282.
975
74u N.Y. — Seymour v. Smith, 17
Abb.N.Cas. 387, affirmed 21 N.E.
1042, 114 N.T. 481, 11 Am.S.R. 683.
34 C.J. p 646 note 31.
Effect of payment by garnishee with-
out notice of assignment:
Payment before judgment see Gar-
nishment § 297.
Payment after judgment see Gar-
nishment § 294 b.
76. N.T. — Seymour v. Smith, supra.
76. Statutory provisions control
Wash.— Mottet v. Stafford, 162 P.
1001, 94 Wash. 572.
77. La. — Succession of Delassize, 8
Bob. 259.
78. Pa.— Guthrie v. Bashline, 25 Pa.
80.
34 C.J. p 645 note 23.
79. Ohio. — Clark v. Baltimore & O.
R. Co., 4 Ohio S. & C.P. 173, 7 Ohio
N.P. 647.
34 C.J. p 645 note 24.
80. La.— Aufeukolk v. Montegut, 29
La. Ann. 257 — Blondin v. Chris to*
phe, 13 La.Ann. 324.
81. Conn. — Ciezynski v. New Britain
Transp. Co., 1-82 A. 661, 121 Conn.
36.
§ 523
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
Assignment on record. Although there are ju-
risdictions in which the rule does not prevail,82 the
general rule is that entering the assignment on the
judgment record or appearance docket, or filing it
among the papers in the case, is not constructive
notice to the debtor, as he is under no obligation to
search the records,83 even though a statute pro-
vides that, when an assignment is filed, the clerk
shall make a record of the assignment.84
c. Effect of Notice
After the Judgment debtor has received notice of
the assignment, the assignee will be protected in equity
against any and all acts of the parties.
After the judgment debtor has received notice of
the assignment, the assignee will be protected in
equity against any and all acts of the parties.85
Thus the debtor's liability to the assignee will not
be discharged by a subsequent pa}Tnent made to the
judgment creditor,86 or by a subsequent release giv-
en him by the judgment creditor,87 and the judg-
ment debtor cannot compromise thereafter with the
assignor and thus defeat the claim of the assignee,88
although, where an assignment was made for the
convenience and benefit of the assignor, it was held
that a subsequent settlement between him and the
judgment debtor was valid as against the as-
signee.8& If a satisfaction of the judgment has
been entered after notice of the assignment, equity
will set it aside as fraudulent at the suit of the
assignee,
90
§ 524. As Affected by Equities, Defens-
es, and Agreements between Orig-
inal Parties
Generally the assignee of a judgment takes subject
to equities and defenses existing between the judgment
creditor and the judgment debtor at the time of the
assignment.
In accordance with the rule governing assign-
ments of choses in action generally, as discussed in
Assignments § 114, and in the absence of any es-
toppel,91 the assignee of a judgment takes it sub-
ject to all the equities, defenses, and agreements
existing between the original parties,92 at the time
STotlce "by telephone
In order to establish notice by
telephone that judgment has been
assigned, person relying on such no-
tice must prove identity of person
receiving communication and that it
reached person sought to be charged.
— Ciezynski v. New Britain Transp.
Co., supra.
82. Mo.— Helstein v. Schmidt. 78 3.
W.2d 132, 229 Mo.App. 275.
34 C.J. p 645 note 26.
Statutory assignment
(1) Statutory assignment of judg-
ment imparts notice when attach-
ed to judgment, or on indorsement
thereof on margin of record. — Tutt
v. Couzins, 50 Mo. 152 — Weaver v.
Mitchell, Mo.App., 107 S.W.2d 945.
(2) Where filed assignment of an
interest in a Judgment, potation of
which was made on Judgment record,
merely stated it was "subscribed and
sworn to" before county clerk, with-
out a statement that judgment credi-
tor had executed the assignment "for
the consideration and purpose therein
mentioned" as required by statute,
assignment was not properly ac-
knowledged, and did not constitute
notice to judgment debtor so as to
make it liable to assignee after debt-
or paid judgment to judgment credi-
tor.—Donham v. Davis, 187 S.W.2d
722, 208 Ark. 824.
83. Idaho. — Houtz v. Daniels, 211 P.
1088, 36 Idaho 544, 32 A.L.R. 1016.
JIL — Tarjan, for Use of Lefkow v.
National Surety Co., 268 IlLApp.
232.
Iowa.— Miller v. Greenfield Sav.
Bank, 203 N.W. 236, 199 Iowa 1039.
34 C.J. p 645 note 27.
84. N.T. — Boyd v. Buffalo Steam
Roller Co., 149 N.T.S. 1050, 87
Misc. 20, affirmed 152 N.T.S. 1099,
167 AppJDiv. 959.
85. W.Va. — Corpus Juris cited in
Hines v. Fulton, 140 S.E. 537, 542,
104 W.Va. 561.
34 C.J. p 646 note 35.
86. Miss. — Moore v. Bed, 22 So.
948.
34 C.J. p 646 note 36.
87. Colo.-— La Fitte v. Salisbury, 95
P. 1065, 43 Colo. 248.
34 QJ. p 646 note 37.
88. W.Va.— Hines v. Fulton, 140 S.
E. 537, 104 W.Va. '561.
34 C.J. p 646 note 38.
89. N.T.— Baker v. Secor, 7 N.T.S.
803, 4 Silv.Sup. 516.
90. W.Va.— Hines v. Fulton, 140 S.
E. 537, 104 W.Va. 561.
Suit continued for benefit of as-
signee
Collusive entry of satisfaction of
judgment or decree after assignment
will be set aside at suit of assignee
and suit prosecuted in his name for
his benefit, regardless of whether
judgment or decree is in rem, in
personam, or both. — Hines v. Ful-
ton, supra.
91. N.T*— Thompson v. Noble. 8 N.
T.S. 373, 55 Hun 268.
34 C.J. p 646 note 41.
Estoppel as affirmative defense
Title by estoppel to judgment,
based on ignorance of claim to equi-
table set-off against judgment, was
976
an affirmative defense required to
be proved by assignee sought to be
enjoined from executing judgment. —
Jegglin v. Orr, 29 S.W.2d 721, 224
Mo.App. 773.
Estoppel by express agreement
Pa.— Appeal of Scott, 16 A. 430, 123
Pa. 155.
34 C.J. p 647 note 48.
Failure to take advantage of de-
fense in due time
Md.— Doub v. Mason, 2 Md. 380.
N.C. — Le Due v. Slocomb, 32 S.E.
726, 124 N.C. 347.
34 C.J. p 647 note 49.
Prand in allowing judgment to toe
obtained
Ohio:— Wright v. Snell, 22 Ohio Clr.
Ct 86, 12 Ohio Cir.Dec. 308.
Caches in permitting judgment to
remain of record
Ohio. — Wright v. Snell, supra.
92. U.S. — Turner v. Dickey, D.C.
Tenn., 3 F.Supp. 360, affirmed, C.
C.A., Dickey v. Turner, 64 F.2d
1012.
Cal. — Parker v. Howe, 299 P. 553,
114 CaLApp. 166.
Fla. — Bear v. Standard Accident Ins.
Co., 168 So. 18, 124 Fla, 9.
Ky.— Lemons v. Wilson, 172 S.W.2d
67, 294 Ky. 439.
N.J. — Corpus Juris cited in Manowitz
v. Kanov, 154 A. 326, 327, 107 N.J.
Law 523, 75 A.L.R. 1464.
N:T.— Kelly v. O'Brien, 196 N.T.S.
705.
Or.— Parker* v. Reid, 273 P. 334, 127
Or. 578.
Tex.— Dallas Joint Stock Land Bank
49 C. J. S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 525
of the assignment,93 whether or not he had notice
of them,94 unless they arise from other and inde-
pendent transactions.95 Thus, as discussed infra §
568, he takes the judgment subject to any right of
set-off which existed in the judgment debtor before
the assignment. However, the assignee is not af-
fected by any equities 'which would not affect his
assignor,06 and issues which became res judicata
by rendition of the judgment may not be raised
again against the assignee of the judgment97
Assignment as collateral: An exception to the
general rule that the assignee takes subject to equi-
ties and defenses has been made in the case of an
assignee of a judgment taken as collateral security
for a promissory note, who has been held to take
the judgment free from all defenses except those
which might be set up against the promissory note.98
§ 525. As between Assignor and As-
signee
The assignee of a Judgment, as a general rule, may
hold the assignor liable for subsequently receiving pay-
ment or entering satisfaction of the assigned Judgment,
or for breach of an implied warranty of title or validity.
The rule generally followed is that, except as to
defects known to the purchaser,99 there is an im-
plied warranty on the part of the assignor of a
judgment that such judgment is a valid, subsisting
obligation against the debtor for the amount speci-
fied therein,1 that the assignor is the owner of it,2
and that no payments have been made on it other
than such as he discloses at the time,3 although in
some jurisdictions the implied warranty does not
extend to the validity of the judgment, or its free-
dom from error or irregularity,4 especially where
it is agreed that the assignor is in no event to be
liable on the assignment.5 No implied warranty
arises as to the solvency of the judgment debtor,5
and, in the absence of fraud or express agreement
the assignee cannot come back on the assignor be-
cause of his failure to make the amount on the
judgment.7
Where the assignment is by the judgment credi-
tor, he cannot, without express agreement, limit his
liability on the implied warranty merely by assign-
ing "without recourse."8 Where, however, an as-
signee of a judgment, without knowledge of any
defect therein or defense thereto, transfers simply
his "right, title, and interest, without recourse," he
will not be held liable on such implied warranty.9
The implied warranty that the judgment assigned
is valid is broken by the transfer of a voidable judg-
ment;10 hence, as discussed infra § 528, where the
judgment is afterward reversed, vacated, or set
aside, the purchaser may recover back the price
paid for the assignment. A bona fide purchaser of
of Dallas v. Lancaster, Civ.App.,
122 S.W.2d 659, error dismissed.
34 C.J. p 646 note 42.
Failure to otrtain modification
Where party to action took no
steps to have modified a judgment
finding that codefendant had an in-
terest in property, he as assignee of
such judgment cannot impeach it in
suit thereon.— McDaniel v. Belt, Tex.
Civ.App., 54 S.W.2d 592.
Inchoate rights
Assignee of a judgment does not
take subject to mere inchoate rights
of contribution and subrogation,
which have not become complete by
payment before the assignment.— Arp
v. Blake, 218 P. 773, 63 Cal.App. 362.
93. N.C.— In re Wallace, 193 S.B.
819, 212 N.C. 490.
Pa.— Marsh v. Bowen, 6 A.2d 783, 335
Pa. 314.
94. N,J.— Corpus Juris olted In
Manowitz v. Kanov, 154 A. 326,
327, 107 N.J.Law 523, 75 A.L.R.
1464.
34 C.J. p 647 note 43.
95. -Iowa.— Isett v. Lucas, 17 Iowa
503, 85 Am.D. 572.
34 C.J. p 647 note 44.
Liability of assignee as surety
Surety on property owner's lien
release and supersedeaa bonds, sued
49C.J.S.-62
on by surety on building contrac- 1
tor's bond as assignee of material-
man's judgment against owner, could
not set up equitable defense based on
plaintiffs liability as surety.— Bear
v. Duval Lumber Co., for Use and
Benefit of Standard Accident Ins. Co.,
150 So. 614, 112 Fla. 240.
96. 111. — Thorpe v. Helmer, 113 N.B.
954, 275 111. 86.
97. General judgment
When issues on liability of as-
sets of a mutual insurance corpora-
tion and those of one group of pol-
icyholders for payment of benefits
due members of other classes had
become res judicata by a general
judgment against the company, an
assignee of the judgment who had
obtained a Judgment of revivor on it
could look to all assets of the com-
pany to liquidate his judgment— Bai-
ley v. American Casualty Co., Tex.
Civ.App., 119 S.W.2d 697.
98. Pa.— Levy v. Gilligan, 90 A. 647,
244 Pa. 272. .
34 C.J. p 647 note 47.
99. N.Y.— Furniss v. Ferguson, 34
N%Y. 485— Furniss v. Ferguson, 1'5
N.T. 437.
34 C.J. p 647 note 52.
1. La.— Collins v. Jones, App., 152
So. 802. .
34 C.J. P 647 note 55.
977
2. N.Y. — Furniss v. Ferguson, 34 N.
T. 485.
34 C.J. p 647 note 54.
3. N.C.— Camp Mfg. Co. v. Durham
Fertilizer Co., 64 S.B. 188, 150 N.
C. 417.
34 C.J. p 647 note 55.
4. in. — Hinkley v. Champaign N«,t.
Bank, 75 N.E. 210, 216 111. 559.
34 C.J. p 648 note 56.
5. Tenn. — Gore v. Poteet 50 S.W.
754, 101 Tenn. 608.
6. Ky.— Anderson v. Bradford, 5
J.J.Marsh. 69.
Wash.— Hall v. Mathewson, 74 P.2d
209, 192 Wash. 651.
34 C,J. p 648 note 58.
7. Ky. — Anderson v. Bradford, 5 J.J.
Marsh. 69.
Wash.— Hall v. Mathewson, 74 P.2d
209, 192 Wash. 651.
34 C.J. p 648 note 59.
a Mich.— Lillibridge v. Tregent, 30
Mich. 105.
34 C.J. P 648 note 60.
9. Iowa,— Miller v. Dugan, 86 Iowa
433— Schofleld v. Moore, 31 Iowa
241.
10. Mo. — Emerson v. Knapp, 75 Mo.
' App. 92.
Va.— Arnold v. Hickman, 6 Munf. 15,
20 Va. 15.
§ 525
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
a judgment from an assignee takes it subject to any
equities between the judgment creditor and his as-
signee.11
The assignor is liable in damages to the assignee
if the assignor does not in fact own the judgment,
or if it has been extinguished wholly or partially
before the assignment,12 or if he afterward receives
payment of the judgment or enters satisfaction of
it,13 or if it is reversed or set aside after the as-
signment.14 The rule as to the damages recoverable
in case of breach of warranties in the sale of chat-
tels applies to breach of a covenant contained in the
assignment of a judgment,15 and, therefore, the as-
signee is entitled to recover the difference between
the value of the judgment as it was and its value if
the covenant had not been broken,16 or, if the judg-
ment is entirely lost to him, the amount which he
paid for it,17 together with the costs, if any, paid
by him in defending the judgment.18 The assignee
of part of a judgment is entitled to recover the
amount due to him from the assignor who has re-
ceived a conveyance of property in satisfaction of
the judgment debt19
Instead of suing the assignor for damages be-
cause of the reversal or setting aside of the as-
signed judgment, the assignee may continue the
original action to a final decision if, notwithstand-
ing such reversal or vacation, the original action is
still pending.20
Liability of assignee. A person who takes in form
an assignment of a judgment other than the one
contemplated between him and the assignor has no
right to it, and becomes at once a trustee for the
person entitled thereto, and, his trust being a naked
one, a court of equity will require him. at once to
reconvey.21
§ 526. As to Third Persons
It is generally held that an assignee of a Judgment
takes It free from latent equities of third persons of
which he has no notice at the time of the assignment.
In accordance with the rule supported by the
weight of authority with respect to assignments of
choses in action generally, discussed in Assignments
§ 118, many authorities hold that the assignee of a
judgment takes it free from latent equities of third
persons, not parties to the judgment, of which he
has no notice at the time of the assignment.22 Un-
der this rule an assignee who has no notice that his
assignor has notice of an unrecorded conveyance
made before the rendition of the judgment is not
affected by the notice of his assignor.23 An as-
signee is not bound by an agreement of which he
has no notice between a stranger to the judgment
and the judgment creditor24 or judgment debtor,25
and an innocent assignee of a judgment, without
notice, actual or constructive, of an injunction not
yet served against its assignment, has been held to
be entitled to retain the judgment.26 To protect
himself against such equities the assignee must also
show that he is a purchaser in good faith and for
a valuable consideration27 and that he paid the pur-
chase money before the adverse equity was assert-
ed.2*
11. N.Y.— Cutts v. Guild, 57 N.Y.
229.
34 C.J. p 649 note 63.
12. La. — Johnson v. Boice, 4 So.
163, 40 LsuAnn. 273, 8 Am.S.R. 528.
Mo. — Emerson v. Knapp, 75 Mo.App.
92.
13. N.Y.— Booth v. Farmers' & Me-
chanics' Nat. Bank, 50 N.T. 396—
Hochberg v. Montrose Investment
& Loan Corporation, 23 N.Y.S.2d
387.
34 C.J. p 649 note 65.
14. Or.— King v. Miller, 97 P. 542,
. 53 Or. 53. affirmed 32 S.Ct 243,
223 U.S. 505, 56 L.Ed, 528.
Effect of reversal of judgment after
assignment see infra § 528.
15. N.T.— Bennett v. Buchan, 61 N.
T. 222 — Furniss v. Ferguson, 34 N.
T. 485.
16. N.T.— Bennett v. Buchan, 61 N.
Y.-222.
34 C.J. p 649 notes 69, 70 [a].
17. La.— Corcoran v. Riddell, 7 La.
Ann. 268.
34 C.J. p 649 note 70.
18. La. — Corcoran v. Riddell, supra.
19. Colo. — Barnum v. Green, 57 P.
757, 13 Colo.App. 254.
20. Or.— King v. Miller, 97 P. 542,
53 Or. 53, afflrmed 32 S.Ct. 243,
223 U.S. 505, 56 L.Ed. 528.
21. N.Y.— Cutts v. Guild, 57 N.Y.
229.
22. Ala. — Bain v. J. A. Lusk & Son,
109 So. 187, 21 AUuApp. 442.
Okl. — Corpus Juris cited in Bourquin
v. Feland, 117 P.2d 789, 791, 189
Okl. 498— Corpus Juris cited in
State ex rel. Barnett v. Wood, 43
P.2d 136, 138, 171 Okl, 341.
34 C.J. p 649 note 76.
Attorneys' fee*
Where city paid into court sum
awarded to defendants as attorneys'
fees on abandonment of condemna-
tion suit, assignment by defendants
to one attorney could operate on
balance remaining after distribution
without prejudice to rights of other
attorneys, who asserted no claim to
balance, with respect to validity
and fairness of assignment — City of
Los Angeles v. Knapp, 60 P.2d 127,
7 Cal.2d 168.
978
23. Hiss.— Clark v. Duke, 59 Miss.
575.
24. Pa. — Appeal of Hendrickson, 24
Pa. 363.
34 CLJ. p 649 note 78.
25. N.J.— Starr v. Haskins, 26 N.J.
EQL 414.
26. S.C. — Robertson v. Segler, 24 S.
C. 387.
27. W.Va. — London & Lancashire
Indemnity Co. of America v. Crom-
well, 190 S.B. 337, 118 W.Va. 318.
34 C.J. p 650 note 34.
Creditors of Judgment creditor
As between several creditors of a
common debtor, who had' obtained a
judgment, the proceeds of which
were in the hands of a receiver, one
creditor, who took an assignment of
part of the judgment without notice
to the other creditors, and for a pre-
existing debt and as mere collater-
al therefor, acquired no right of pri-
ority over the other creditors. — Zane
v. Brown, 8 A.2d 367, 126 N.JJSo;.
200.
28. N.T.— Christie v. Bishop, 1 Barb.
Ch. 105.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 527
On the other hand, in some jurisdictions the doc-
trine of caveat emptor has been applied, and it has
been held that the assignee occupies no better po-
sition in this respect than his assignor.2^ In any
event, the assignee is chargeable with equities of
third persons of which he has actual notice,3^ or
such constructive notice as may be obtained from
an inspection of the record of the judgment31
As affected by statute. Since a statute regulating
the assignment of a judgment is in derogation- of
the common law, it has been held that it must be
strictly complied with if the assignee is to obtain
protection against third persons subsequently ac-
quiring an interest in the judgment32
Notice to judgment debtor. It has been held that
the assignee does not take title as against a creditor
of the assignor where the assignee fails to give no-
tice of the assignment to the judgment debtor,33
and in some jurisdictions there are statutes which
require notice to be given to the debtor to make the
assignment effective against third persons.34 Un-
der such a statute the giving of notice to the debtor
renders it effective as against a creditor of the as-
signor notwithstanding the assignee fails to have it
recorded or judicially recognized.35
§ 527. Rights Incidental to Assignment
In general a valid assignment of a Judgment carries
with It all Incidental or collateral rights, remedies, and
advantages existing and available to the judgment cred-
itor as such at the time of the assignment.
A bona fide purchaser of a judgment stands in
the judgment creditor's shoes.36 Hence on a valid
assignment, in addition to succeeding to the owner,
ship of the judgment and all rights and interest
therein, as discussed supra § 519 a, the assignee al-
so succeeds to all incidental or collateral rights, rem-
edies, and advantages existing at the time of the as-
signment and then available to the judgment credi-
tor,37 even though the parties to the assignment
29. Minn. — Gill v. Truelsen, 40 N.W.
254, 39 Minn. 373.
34 C.J. p 650 note 81.
30. N.J. — Boice v. Conover, 61 A.
159, 69 N.J.Eq. 580, affirmed 65 A.
191, 71 N.J.EQ. 269.
N.Y. — Johnston v. A. L. Erlanger
Realty Corporation, 296 N.Y.S. 89,
162 Misc. 881.
34 C.J. p 650 note 82.
Lien of person, furnishing1 consider-
ation
Evidence in suit involving- owner-
shij of judgment was held to sus-
tain court's conclusion that sale and
transfer of judgment was to assignee
named in assignment thereof, not-
withstanding claim that judgment
was bought with money furnished by
assignee's son, and that assignment
to assignee on margin of judgment
book was by mistake; hence chancel-
lor properly awarded assignees' son
a mere lien on the judgment — Lem-
ons v. Wilson, 172 S.W.2d 67, 294 Ky.
439.
Prior sale of debtor's realty
Assignee of judgment with notice
of sale of debtor's land prior to
judgment was not bona fide purchas-
er with right to enforce judgment
against land. — Johnson Hardware Co.
v. Ming, 113 So. 189, 147 Miss. 551.
31. Cal.— Hobbs v. Duff, 23 Cal.
596.
34 C.J. p 650 note 83.
33. Ark. — Donham v. Davis, 187 S.
W.2d 722, 208 Ark. 824— McKim v.
Highway Iron Products Co., 29
S.W.2d 682, 181 Ark. 1121.
33. Tenn. — State ex rel. McConnell
v. Peoples Bank & Trust Co., 12
Tenn.App. 242. j
34. La.— Folse v. Dale, 2 So.2d 6,
197 La. 511.
35. La. — Folse v. Dale, supra.
36. N.J.— Bell v. Kates, 18 A.2d 556,
126 aUT.Law 90.
37. Cal.— Arp v. Blake, 218 P. 773,
63 CaLApp. 362.
111. — Stombaugh v. Morey, 58 N.E.2d
545, 388 111. 392, 157 A.L.R. 254—
People ex rel. Farwell v. Kelly, 12
N.E.2d 612, 367 111. 616— Eagle In-
demnity Co. v. Haaker, 33 N.E.2d
154, 309 Ill.App. 406— Corpus Juris
cited in Painter v. Merchants &
Manufacturers Bank of Milwaukee,
277 IlLApp. 208, 246.
Ky. — Lemons v. Wilson, 172 S.W.Sd
67, 294 Ky. 439.
Miss. — Corpus Juris cited in Hum-
phreys County v. Cashin, 101 So.
571, 573, 136 Miss. 476.
N.J.— Bell v. Kates, 18 A.2d 556,
126 N.J.Law 90— Roth v. General
Casualty & Surety Co., 146 A. 202,
106 N.J.Law 516.
N.Y. — People ex rel. Hirsch v. Weiss-
brod, 33 N.Y.S.2d 580, 178 Misc.
177.
N.C. — Jones v. T, S. Franklin Estate,
183 S.E. 732, 209 N.C. 585.
Ohio. — Pennsylvania Co. v. West
Penn Rys. Co., 144 N.E. 51, 110
Ohio St. 516.
Okl.-=-Gupton v. Western Kennel
Club, 145 P.2d 179, 193 Okl. 462.
S.C. — Corpus Juris quoted in Watts
v. Copeland, 170 S.E. 780, 781, 170
S.C. 449.
Tex. — Casray Oil Corporation v. Roy-
al Indemnity Co., Civ.App., 165 S.
W.2d 244, affirmed 169 S.W.2d 955,
141 Tex. 33.
W.Va.— Hines v. Fulton, 140 S.B.
537, 104 W.Va. 561.
34 C.J. p 650 note 90—5 C.J. p 951
note 14.
979
Right to:
Body execution see Executions §
418
Invoke garnishment see Garnish-
ment § 21 b.
Issue execution:
Generally see Executions § 14 b.
After death of assignor see Ex-
ecutions § 65 a..
Maintain supplementary proceed-
ings see Executions § 347.
Benefit of appeal or supergedeas
bond
(1) Right to sue on supersedeas
bond passes as incident to assign-
ment of judgment, although no ref-
erence is made to bond in assign-
ment.— Cope v. Johnson, 251 P. 985,
123 Okl. 43—34 C.J. p 650 note 90
[a] (1).
(2) This is true although the as-
signment was made and filed before
the appeal was taken and the bond
executed.
Fla. — Kahn v. American Surety Co.
of New York, 162 So. 335, 120 Fla.
50.
Tex. — De Zavala v. Scanlan, Com.
App., 65 S.W.2d 489.
Wash.— Wright v. Seattle Grocery
Co., 172 P. 345, 101 Wash, 266.
(3) The filing of supersedeas bond
by garnishor, appealing from judg-
ment for garnishee, after garnishee's
assignment of portion of judgment
awarding it attorneys' fees to one
of its attorneys in trust, deprived
assignee of right to Issue execution
on judgment pending appeal, but
gave him right to proceed against
garnishor and surety on bond, if
appeal were not prosecuted, with ef-
fect.— Oasray Oil Corporation v.
Royal Indemnity Co., Civ.App., 165
S.W.2d 244, affirmed 169 S.W.2d 955,
141 'Tex. 33.
§ 527
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J,S.
may have agreed otherwise between themselves,38
including the lien or security of the judgment on
specific property,39 the right of proceeding with an
attachment already issued,40 and the right where the
judgment is for money wrongfully appropriated to
have the judgment debtor arrested.41 However, in-
dependent and personal rights of the assignor not
incidental to his status as judgment creditor in the
particular judgment assigned do not so pass unless
expressly included by the assignment.42 Thus it
does not confer on the assignee, unless expressly
provided for, the additional right to subject to lia-
bility on the judgment others who were not parties
to the original action, although the assignor might
have had a cause of action against them but fore-
bore to pursue it.43
The assignee can acquire no other or superior
rights than those vested in his assignor;44 and, if
(4) Bight of assignee to sue on
appeal bond in his own name see
Appeal and Error § 2083 a (2).
Uoad to discharge garnishment
The right to bring suit on a bond
given to discharge a garnishment
•which is conditioned that the bonds-
men will pay the money judgment
rendered in the main action passes as
fin incident to the assignment of
the judgment, although no reference
is made to the bond in the assign-
ment.— Conpway v. Carnall, 224 P.
323, 101 Okl. 172.
Decree in rem
Assignment of decree in rem car-
ries with it the money decree therein
as well as the assignor's right to
the lien created by an attachment
sued out and levied on the lands de-
creed to be sold and the right to
enforce this attachment. — Hines v.
Fulton, 140 S.E. 537. 104 W.Va. 561.
Indemnity policy
Cal. — Bias v. Ohio Farmers Indem-
nity Co., 81 P.2d 1057, 28 GaLApp.
2d 14.
.Xien release "bond
Fla. — Bear v. Duval Lumber Co., for
Use and Benefit of Standard Ac-
cident Ins. Co., 150 So. S14, 112 Fla,
240.
iBiffhts against attorney for assignor
Where attorney of judgment cred-
itor collects judgment and reduces
the fruits of the judgment to his
possession, an assignee of the judg-
ment has all rights and remedies as
against the attorney that the assign-
or had, although the relationship of
.attorney and client is not an ftssign-
.able incident of a judgment. — Ar-
mour & Co. v. Lambdin, 16 So.2d 805,
154 Fla. 86.
.Sight to set aside fraudulent con-
veyanoe by debtor
Cal.— Michal v. Adair, 152 P.2d 490,
66 Cal.App.2d 382.
Stockholder's statutory liability
Assignment of a judgment against
A bank gave to assignee a right of
action against stockholder to en-
force constitutional and statutory
liability. — Eagle Indemnity Co. v.
Haaker, 33 N.E.2d 154, 309 Ill.App.
406.
3& Wash.— Lewis v. Third St & S.
R. Co., 66 P. 150, 26 Wash, 28.
44 C.J. p 651 note ftL
39. N.C.— Little v. Steele, 199 S.E.
282, 214 N.C. 343.
Tex. — Casray Oil Corporation v.
Royal Indemnity Co., Civ.App., 165
S.W.2d 244, affirmed 169 S.W.2d 955,
141 Tex. 33.
34 C.J. p 651 note 92.
Bight to enforce or foreclose lien
Conn. — Joseph v. Donovan, 157 A.
638, 114 Conn. 79.
Tex.— Hicks v. Price, Civ.App., 81 S.
W.2d 116.
40. U.S. — Nelson v. Century In-
demnity Co.. C.C.A.Cal., 65 F.2d
765, certiorari denied Century In-
demnity Co. v. Nelson, 54 S.Ct 120,
290 U.S. 683, 78 L.Ed. 588.
W.Va.— Hines v. Pulton, 140 S.E.
537, 104 W.Va. 561.
37 C.J. p 651 note 93.
attachment bond
(1) Assignee of judgment may en-
force bond given to release attach-
ed property if property is not rede-
livered to sheriff for sale to satisfy
judgment — Nelson v. Century In-
demnity Co., C.C.A.Cal,, 65 F.2d 765,
certiorari denied Century Indemnity
Co. v. Nelson, 54 S.Ct. 120, 290 U.S.
6S3, 78 L.Ed. 5SS— 34 C.J. p 651 note
93 Ea].
(2) Where property of principal
debtor was attached, assignee of
judgment in trust for surety on bond
given to release attachment by one
secondarily liable for debt should re-
sort to principal debtor's property
before resorting to property of prin-
cipal in attachment bond or property
of others secondarily liable for orig-
inal debt, although principal debtor
was only a cojudgment debtor on
face of judgment. — Nelson v. Century
Indemnity Co., C.CA.Cal., 65 F.2d
765, certiorari denied Century Indem-
nity Co. v. Nelson, 54 S.Ct 120, 290
U.S. 683, 78 L.Ed. 588.
Collusive entry of Judgment on at-
tachment
Where the claim of the assignor,
carried into a decree in rem against
the property attached after the as-
signment, has been thereafter fraud-
ulently compromised between the
debtor and -creditor for much less
than the amount decreed in rem
against the property, and the sum
agreed on fraudulently paid over to
the assignor, the amount to which
the assignee is entitled may, in his
suit to set aside the collusive de-
980
cree, be corrected on the record of
the original decree in the cause, and
decreed accordingly. — Hines v. Ful-
ton, 140 S.B. 537, 104 W.Va, 561.
41. 111.— Lasher v. Carey, 182 111.
App. 147.
42. N.C.— Jones v. T. S. Franklin
Estate, 183 S.E. 732, 209 N.C. 585.
43. N.C.— Hood ex rel. United Bank
& Trust Co. v. Richardson Realty,
191 S.E. 410, 211 N.C. -582— Fidelity
Security Co. v. Hight, 189 S.E. 174,
211 N.C. 117— Jones v. T. S. Frank-
lin Estate, 183 S.E. 732, 209 N.C.
585.
Judgment for stockholder's statutory
liability
(1) Assignee of judgment against
estate for amount of a bank stock
assessment could not in a subsequent
proceeding bring in as defendants ex-
ecutor of estate in his capacities as
an individual and a trustee, even if
assignor could have sued them orig-
inally, where any rights of assignor
as against executor in such capaci-
ties were not expressly included in
assignment. — Jones v. T. S. Franklin
Estate, supra,
(2) The assignment of a judgment
against holder of bank stock which
was procured under statute creating
additional stockholder's liability, as
part of assets of insolvent bank
transferred to newly organized bank
in consideration for discharge of all
debts of insolvent bank, did not con-
fer on assignee right to subject an-
other to liability on judgment as
alleged real owner of stock. — Hood ex
rel. United Bank & Trust Co. v.
Richardson Realty, 191 S.E. 410, 211
N.C. 582.
(3) Assignee of judgment for bank
stock assessment was held hot enti-
tled to reformation of judgment so
as to hold defendants liable therefor
as real owners of bank stock at
time of assessment, in view of enact-
ment of statute after assessment re-
lieving holders of bank stock of their
double liability.— Fidelity Security
Co. v. Hight, 189 S.E. 174, 211 N.C.
117.
44. Kan.— Corpus Juris cited in Pe-
tersime Incubator Co. v. Ferguson
103 P.2d 822, 825, 152 Kan. 259.
N.J. — Corpus Juris cited in Mano-
witz v. Kanov, 154 A, 326, 327, 107
N.J.Law 523, 75 A.L.R. 1464.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 528
the judgment was fraudulently or wrongfully en-
tered or obtained, he will take nothing under it.45
The distinction as to what does and what does not
pass as incidental to the assignment is in some in-
stances difficult to draw.4$ Thus it has been held
that the mere assignment of a judgment* obtained
Tjy an indorsee against the maker of a promissory
note does not transfer to the assignee of such judg-
ment the cause of action theretofore existing against
the indorsers,47 and it has been held that, in order
for a right to pass as an incident, it must in a legal
sense constitute a security for the debt,48 and not
l)e a mere litigious right against a third person to
recover damages for an injury which accrued prior
to the assignment,49 although on the last point the
•contrary view has been upheld,50 or a right of ac-
tion for a fraud of the judgment debtor with re-
spect to an agreement in pursuance of which the
judgment was entered.51
Money previously collected on judgment. While
it has been held that the assignment does not pass
any interest in money which the sheriff had previ-
ously collected on the judgment,52 it has also been
held that if at the time of the assignment the sheriff
holds an execution on the judgment, or the proceeds
of an execution, the assignee is entitled to receive
the proceeds on notifying the sheriff of his rights
in the premises.53 If the assignee permits the at-
torneys who recovered the judgment to issue and
control an execution on it he is bound by the act of
the sheriff in paying over to such attorneys the mon-
ey realized on the execution.54
§ 528. Effect of Reversal or Vacation after
Assignment
Reversal or vacation of an assigned judgment de-
feats the assignee's rights therein, and entitles him to
a return of the consideration paid for the assignment,
unless he has assumed ail risks, of collection. At least
In equity, he becomes entitled to the proceeds of a sec-
ond Judgment entered in the case in favor of the as-
signor after reversal of the assigned judgment.
The general rule, discussed in Appeal and Error §
1950, that on the reversal or vacation of a judg-
ment the parties to the suit are restored to their
original rights and liabilities is not affected by the
fact that the judgment is in the hands of an assignee
for value.55 The assignee stands in no better po-
sition than the original plaintiff, and the judgment
may be reversed, vacated, set aside, or enjoined in
the assignee's hands for the same reasons which
would justify such action if it remained in the hands
of the original plaintiff,56 and on a reversal or va-
cation the assignee's interests are defeated,57 except
where they are protected as against the assignor
by the peculiar terms of the assignment.58
N.T. — Corpus Juris cited in Niagara
County Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v.
La Port, 251 N*.T.S. 759.
Pa.— Sophia Wilks Building & Loan
Ass'n to Use of v. Rudloff, 46 Pa.
Dist. & Co. 535, affirmed Sophia
Wilkes Building & -Loan Ass'n to
Use of Wiehe v. Rudloff, 35 A.2d
278, 348 Pa. 477.
S.C. — Corpus Juris quoted in Watts
v. Copeland, 170 S.B. 780, 782, 170
S.C. 449.
Wash. — Associated Indemnity Corpo-
ration v. Wachsmith, 99 P.2d 420, 2
Wash.2d 679, 127 A.L.R. 531.
34 C.J. p 651 note 96.
45. S.C.— nCorpns Juris quoted in.
Watts v. Copeland, 170 S.B. 780,
782, 170 S.C. 449.
34 C.J. p 651 note 97.
46. Va. — Commonwealth v. Warap-
ler, 51 S.B. 737, 104 Va. 337, 113
Am.S.R. 1039, 1 L.R.A.,N.S., 149,
7 Ann.Cas. 422.
47. Ind.— Cole v. Matchett, 78 Ind.
601— Kelsey v. McLaughlin, 76 Ind.
379— Ward v. Haggard, 75 Ind. 381.
Effect of judgment on note on its
negotiability see Bills and Notes §
20.
48. Va. — Commonwealth v. Wamp-
ler, 51 S.B. 737. 104 Va. 337, 113
Am.S.^l. 1039, 1 L.R.A.,N.S., 140,
7 Ann.Cas. 422.
Wyo- — Heyer v. Kaufenberg, 277 P.
711, 40 Wyo. 367, 63 A.L.R. 285.
Independent obligation
Where the assignee of a purchase-
money note, which is a first lien on
the land, who is also the holder
of a mechanic's lien judgment which
is inferior to the title of the pur-
chaser, assigns such judgment with-
out covenant of warranty, the as-
signment does not carry with it the
legal title represented by the pur-
chase-money note. — Davis v. flert-
man, 48 S.W. 50, 19 Tex.Civ.App. 442,
error refused.
49. Wyo. — Heyer v. Eaufenberg,
277 P. 711. 40 Wyo. 367, 63 A.L.R.
285.
Va. — Commonwealth v. Wampler, 51
S.B. 737, 104 Va. 337, 113 Am.S.R.
1039, 1 L.R.A.,N.S., 149, 7 Ann.Cas.
422. • .
34 C.J. p 651 note 2.
Expenses
Judgment creditor's cause of ac-
tion under injunction bond for ex-
penses incurred in securing dissolu-
tion of order restraining execution
sale did not pass under subsequent
assignment of judgments. — Heyer v.
Kaufenberg, 277 P. 711, 40 Wyo. 367,
63 A.L.R. 285.
50. Iowa. — Citizens' Nat. Bank v.
Loomis, 69 N.W, 443, 100 Iowa 266,
62 Am.S.R. 571.
34 C.J. p 651 note 3. .
51. N.Y. — Borst v. Baldwin, 30 Barb.
180, 8 Abb.Pr. 351, 17 How.Pr. 585.
.981
52. Ga. — Robinson v. Towns, 30 Ga.
818.
53. 111.— Bryant v. Dana, 8 III. 343.
N.T. — Robinson v. Brennan* 11 Hun
368— Muir v. Leitch, 7 Barb. 341.
54. Minn.— Gill v. Truelsen, 40 N.
W. 254, 39 Minn. 373.
55. Conn. — Vila v. Weston, 33 Conn.
42.
34 C.J. p 652 note 7.
Assignment as inoperative
N.Y.— White v. Hardy, 39 N.T.S.2d
911, 180 Misc. 63, affirmed 41 N.T.
S.2d 210, 266 App.Div. 660.
34 C.J. p 652 note 7 Ca].
56. Or.— King v. Miller, 97 P. 542,
53 Or. 53, affirmed 32 S.Ct. 243, 223
U.S. 505, 56 L.Ed. 528.
34 C.J. p 652 note 8.
Right of assignee to prevent, open-
ing or vacating of judgment see
supra § 285.
57. S.C. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Watts v. Copeland, 170 S.B3. 780,
782, 170 S.C. 449.
34 C.J. p 652 note 9.
Assignment of future judgment
N.T. — Van der Stegen v. Neuss,
Hesslein & Co., 276 N.-Y.S. 624, 243
App.Div. 122.
58. S.C. — Corpus Juris auoted in
Watts v. Copeland, 170 S.E. 780,
782, 170 S.C. 449.
34 C.J. p 652 note 10.
§ 528
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
It has been held that the assignee seeking to en-
force the judgment is the only necessary party to
an action by the judgment debtor to enjoin its col-
lection, the assignor not being a proper or neces-
sary part>% as he no longer has an interest in the
judgment.59
Since, as discussed supra § 519, the assignment
of a judgment confers on the assignee all rights of
the assignor, including the claim or cause of action
on which the judgment was based, the assignee be-
comes entitled, at least in equity, to the proceeds of
a second judgment entered in favor of the assignor
after reversal of the assigned judgment60
Recovery of consideration. Where the judgment
is reversed or vacated after assignment, the assignee
is entitled to recover the price paid therefor on the
ground of failure of consideration or breach of im-
plied warranty61 except where he has undertaken
to assume all risks of collection.62
§ 529. Priority of Assignments
Priority between successive assignees for value and
without notice is, by some authority, determined by the
order of the assignments, the first in time being first
in right; but other authorities accord priority in the
order in which notice of the assignments is given to the
judgment debtor.
Where a judgment is regularly assigned for value,
the rights of the assignee are paramount to those of
a subsequent attachment or execution creditor of the
assignor,63 and the rightful assignee may enjoin
the collection of the judgment by one who claims
under a simulated assignment64
In so far as notice to the judgment debtor is not
necessary to the validity of the assignment, as dis-
cussed supra § 515 a, such assignments take priority
in the order in which they are made, the first as-
signee in point of time taking priority in point of
right,65 regardless of the order in which such no-
tice is given or the fact that the prior assignee has
failed to give notice while the subsequent assignee
has,66 and notwithstanding the later assignment was
first recorded on the judgment docket,67 unless the
first assignment is tainted with fraud.68 According
to some authority, however, priority as between
successive bona fide assignees for value of the
same judgment is determined by the order in which
notice of the assignments is given to the judgment
debtor, so that an assignee first giving notice to the
debtor may take priority over another assignee
whose assignment is first in the point of time.6*
Under this rule, if the subsequent assignee or the
creditor has not perfected his right by notice to the
debtor, it is a contest between equities and the first
assignee must prevail, on the maxim that he who
is first in time is first in right.™
Priorities a"s between assignees generally are con-
sidered in Assignments § 91.
Partial assignments. As between successive as-
signees of portions of a judgment, their rights, if
conflicting, will depend on priority of assignment,
subject to their compliance with the directions of
the statute as to making the assignment effectual.71
Where the proceeds of the property bound by the
judgment are insufficient to pay all the assignees, it
has been held that they take pro rata and not by pri-
ority.72 An assignment of a judgment which ex-
cepts therefrom a specific portion thereof previous-
ly assigned to another as security for a debt is not
equivalent to an assignment subject to the interest
of the first assignee.78 Where a judgment is as-
signed as security for an obligation to the assignee,
v. Kerr, Civ.App.,
59. Tex. — Ellis
23 S.W. 1050.
60. Miss. — Humphreys County v.
Cashin, 101 So. 571, 136 Miss. 476.
61. Or. — Cooper v. Sagert, 223 P.
943, 111 Or. 27.
34 C.J. p 648 note 62, p 652 note 12.
62. N.Y.— Corpus Jmis cited in
White v. Hardy, 39 N.Y.S. 911, 915,
180 Misc. 63, affirmed 41 N.Y.S.
2d 210, 266 AppJDiv. 660.
Tenn. — Gore v. Poteet, 50 S.W. 754,
101 Tenn. 608.
63. N.J.— Bell v. Kates, 18 A.2d 556,
126 N.J.Law 90.
Ohio.— Bailey v. Neale, App., 49 N.E.
2d 103, second case.
34 C.J. p 652 note 15.
As against prior Judgment creditor
A son, purchasing and taking as-
signment of judgment against his
father and order for execution
against father's wages in son's true
name, and informing father's prior
Judgment creditor of full circum-
stances and details of purchase,
which was made without father's
knowledge, is entitled to whatever
gain he reaped from bargain as
against contention that he was not
"bona fide purchaser" because of con-
structive fraud arising from relation-
ship of father and son.— Bell v.
Kates, 18 A.2d 556, 126 N.J.Law 90.
6fc La.— Klein v. Dennis, 36 La.
Ann. 284.
Piotitious claim of holder of legal
title
I1L — Painter v. Merchants & Manu-
facturers Bank of Milwaukee, 277
HLApp. 208.
65. N.Y.— Wappler v. Woodbury Co.,
158 N.B. 56, 246 N.Y. 152.
34 C.J. p 652 note 17.
«. K.C.— -In re Wallace, 193
819, 212 N.C. 490.
982
S.E.
67. N,C. — In re Wallace, supra.
68. N.C.— In re Wallace, supra.
69. Cal.— City of Los Angeles v.
Knapp, 60 P.2d 127, 7 Cal.2d 168.
Okl.— Conms Juris quoted in Board
of Com'rs of Roger Mills County v.
King, 294 P. 101, 103, 147 Okl. 34.
Pa.— -Allegheny County -v. Simon,.
Com.Pl., 89 PittsbXeg.J. 131.
34 C.J. p 652 note 18.
a Tenn.— Dinsmore
689.
. Boyd, 6 I*ea
71. Pa.— Fisher v. Knox, 13 Pa. 622.
53 Am.D. 503.
34 C.J. p 643 note 84.
72. Pa.— In re Barkley, 112 A. 113,
268 Pa. 370— Moore's Appeal, 9£
Pa. 309.
73. Neb.— Cahn v. Carpless Co., 85
N.W. 538, 61 Neb. 512.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§531
the assignee may in good faith compromise and set-
tle the judgment for less than the face amount
thereof as against a subsequent assignee of the
judgment creditor whose assignment provides that
the prior assignee is to pay such assignee out of the
proceeds of the judgment if the full amount of the
judgment is collected.74
§ 530. Setting Aside Assignment
The assignment of a judgment may be set asjde in
an appropriate proceeding if proper grounds therefor
appear.
An action will lie to cancel or set aside an as-
signment of a judgment if proper grounds therefor
appear.75 Such an action will lie where the as-
signment was made by a person having no right or
authority to sell the judgment,76 or was procured by
false and fraudulent representations with respect to
the validity of the judgment, the amount due on it,
or the property available for its satisfaction, made
by either party to the other,77 or where it was
fraudulently procured for an inadequate consider-
ation,78 or where it was made with a view to de-
fraud creditors of the assignor.79
Mere inadequacy of consideration is not alone
sufficient to warrant vacating or setting aside the as-
signment ;80 but the amount of consideration is im-
portant in determining whether a purchaser from
the original assignee paid value so as to come with-
in the rule in favor of purchasers in good faith for
value and without notice,81 and it is also important
on the question of notice and good faith,82 unless
the assignee has waived his right to have the as-
signment set aside.83
Vknue. It has been held that an action to set
aside an assignment of a judgment to the grantee
of land of the judgment debtor, and to. reinstate the
lien of the judgment, must be brought in the county
where the land lies,84 but, on the other hand, it has
been held that an action to set aside a docketed
judgment is not one for the recovery of an interest
in land, within the meaning of a statute which pro-
vides that such an action shall be brought in the
county in which the subject matter thereof is situ-
ated.85
Parties. In accordance with the general rule dis-
cussed in Fraudulent Conveyances § 331 a, a mere
creditor of the assignor, not an attachment or judg-
ment creditor, has no standing to maintain an ac-
tion to set aside the assignment as a fraudulent
conveyance.86 The assignee must be made a party
to any action87 or motion88 to set aside an assign-
ment.
Evidence. As in actions generally, only proper
evidence should be admitted in actions or proceed-
ings to cancel or set aside assignments of judg-
ments.89
XVI. SUSPENSION AND BEVIVAL OF JUDGMENT
A. IN GENERAL
§531. Suspension or Stay of Proceedings
a. In general
b.. Time for making order
a. In General
In a proper case the enforcement of a Judgment
may be suspended or stayed.
74. Okl. — Exchange Nat Bank of
Tulsa v. Rogers, 268 P. 293, 131
Okl. 129.
75. N.Y. — Seymour v. Smith, 21 N.B.
1042, 114 N.Y. 481, 11 Am.S.R. 683.
Pa. — Socks v. Socks, 1 Del.Co. 490.
•76. 111.— Fadfleld v. Green, 85 111.
529.
.S.C.— Mayer v. Blease, 4 S.C. 10.
34 C.J. p 653 note 21.
AV> unauthorized assignment "by an
.-attorney of a client's judgment for
full value is not void, but only void-
able at the instance of the client
Alone.— McFry v. Stewart, 121 So.
517, 219 Ala. 216.
'77. Mo.— Gottschalk v. ^ircher, 17
S.W. 905, 109 Mo. 170.
34 C.J. p 653 note 22.
:Praud must be proved
Neb.— Krelle v. Bowen, 259 N.W. 48,
128 Neb. 418.
78. U.S. — Baker v. Wood, Colo., 15 S.
Ct. 577, 157 U.S. 212, 39 L.Ed.
677 — Lee Line Steamers v. Robin-
son, Tenn., 232 F. 417, 146 C.C.A.
411.
79. Ga.— Taylor v. Jordan, 195 S.E.
186, 185 Ga. 325.
Fraud held lacking
Ga. — Taylor v. Jordan, 195 S.B. 186,.
185 Ga. 325.
80. U.S. — Lee Line Steamers v. Rob-
inson, Tenn., 232 P. 417, 146 C.C.A.
411.
83- U.S.— Baker v. Wood, Colo., 15 S.
Ct. 577, 157 U.S. 212, 39 LJEd. 677.
82. U.S. — Baker v. Wood, supra.
34 C.J. p 653 note 26.
83. Tex.— Hume v. John B. Hood
Camp Confederate Veterans, Civ.
App., 69 S.W. 643.
34 C.J. p 653 note 27.
84. N.Y. — Mahoney v. Mahoney, 23
N.Y.S. 1097, 70 Hun 78.
983
85. N.C. — Baruch v. Long, 23 S.B.
447, 117 N.C. 509, 511.
34 C.J. p 653 note 29.
88. Mo. — Haynes v. Tyler, App., 123
S.W.2d 609.
Statute inapplicable
The statute relating to actions on
assigned accounts did not apply to
suit to set aside assignment of judg-
ment against plaintiff on ground that
assignment was scheme to prevent
plaintiff from crediting Judgment on
judgment he might obtain against as-
signor.— Haynes v. Tyler, supra.
87. Ohio. — Mosholder v. Culbertson,
134 N.B. 654r 103 Ohio St. 489.
88. N.Y.— Avery v. Ackart, 46 N.Y.
S. 1085, 20 Misc. 631.
89. Evidence as to matters not in
issue should not be admitted. —
Haynes v. Tyler, Mo.App., 123 S.W.2d
609.
§ 531
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
In the absence of statutory prohibition90 the en-
forcement of a judgment may generally be suspend-
ed or stayed by the operation of subsequent proceed-
ings taken in the case,91 by an agreement with the
creditor obtained fairly and in good faith,92 by the
death of plaintiff,93 or by an order of the court, un-
der statutory authority or in the exercise of its dis-
cretionary power, when justified by the circum-
stances of the particular case and necessary to do
justice between the parties.94
Where the enforcement of a judgment is suspend-
ed or stayed by order of the court, the order may
be made conditional or on terms,95 which must be
complied with to render the stay effective.96 If
necessary, the stay may be made final and perpetu-
al, as •where the judgment debt has been paid in
full.97 The order of suspension may give leave to
apply for a further suspension,98 and under such
circumstances the granting of a second extension
does not constitute an amendment of the judgment99
but serves only to regulate the manner in which
the rights fixed by the judgment shall be enforced.1
Where a judgment is suspended for a definite period
with the right to apply to the court for an extension
thereof, the court cannot grant the extension unless
the application therefor is made before the expira-
tion of the time of the original suspension:2
Moratorium. A judgment debtor, granted a mor-
atorium subject to the fulfillment of certain condi-
tions precedent, may not stay the enforcement of
the judgment if he refuses to fulfill such condi-
tions.3
b. Time for Making Order
In the absence of a statute otherwise providing, a
court usually cannot order the suspension of a judg-
ment after the close of the term at which it was ren-
dered unless it expressly reserves the power to do so in
the entry of the judgment or retains jurisdiction of the
case.
Usually the suspension of a judgment cannot be
ordered after the close of the term in which it was
rendered4 unless the power to do so is expressly re-
served in the entry of the judgment5 or unless the
court still retains jurisdiction of the case.6 By vir-
tue of statute, however, a court may be authorized
to order the suspension of a judgment at any time
within a specified period after the end of the term,7
and, where the court does so, the order of suspen-
sion, entered within such period, has the same force
and effect as though it had been entered during the
term.8
§ 532. Dormant Judgments
a. In general
b. Construction and operation of statutes
c. Issuance of execution
d. Return or entry on execution and rec-
ord thereof
90. Ark. — Fernwood Min. Co. v.
Pluna, 213 S.W. 397, 138 Ark. 459.
34 C.J. p 655 note 55.
91. Ohio. — Commercial Credit Corp.
v. Wasson, 63 N.E.2d 560, 76 Ohio
App. 181.
34 C.J. p 653 note 35.
Application for new trial as effecting
suspension or stay of entry or en-
forcement of judgment see the
C.J.S. title New Trial $ 128, also
34 C.J. p 68 note 5, 46 C.J. p 304
notes 5-10.
Stay of:
Execution:
Generally see Executions §5 139—
141.
On judgment in justice's court
see the C.J.S. title Justices of
the Peace § 123, also 35 C.J.
p 702 note 72-p 704 note 92.
Proceedings in actions generally
see Actions §5 131-137.
Supersedeas or stay of proceedings
by or pending appeal see Appeal
and Error §§ 625-679.
92. U.S.— Milmine v. Bass, C.C.Ind.,
29 F. 632, affirmed 10 S.Ct. 1065,
136 TJ.S. 630, 34 LuEd. 553.
34 C.J. p 653 note 36.
93. Xy.— Ritchey v. Buricke, 54 S.W.
173, 21 KyJU 1120.
34 C.J. p 653 note 37*
Death of party:
As abatement of action see Abate-
ment and Revival § 114 et seq.
As causing dormancy of judgment
see infra § 532.
Survival of Judgment on see infra
§ 534.
94. U.S.— Fowler v. Peet, C.C.Pa.,
170 F. 620.
34 C.J. p 653 note 38.
Equitable relief against judgment
see supra S§ 341-400.
95. N.Y.— Potter v. Rossiter, 95 N.
T.S. 1039, 109 AppJMv. 37.
34 C.J. p 654 note 39.
96. N.Y.— State Bank v. Wilchinsky,
119 N.Y.S. 131, 65 Misc. 162.
34 C.J. p 654 note 40.
97. Md. — Kendrick v. Warren Bros.
Co., 72 A. 461, 110 Md. 47.
34 C.J. p 654 note 41.
98. N.Y. — Sponenburgh v. Glovers-
ville, 87 N.Y.S. 602, 42 Misc. 563,
affirmed 89 N.Y.S. 19, 96 App.Div.
157.
Ohio. — Cincinnati R. Co. v. Cincinnati
Inclined Plane R. Co., 47 N.E. 560,
56 Ohio St 675.
99. N.Y. — Sponenburgh T. Glovers-
ville, 87 N.Y.S. 602, 42 Misc. 563,
affirmed 89 N.Y.S. 19, 96 App.Div.
157,
984
!• N.Y. — Sponenburgh
ville, supra.
Glovers-
2. Ohio. — Cincinnati R. Co. v. Cin-
cinnati Inclined Plane R. Co., 47
N.E. 560, 56 Ohio St 675.
3. La. — Italian Strawberry Ass'n v.
Rusciano, 169 So. 525, 185 La. 500.
4. Colo.— Nordloh v. Packard, 101
P. 787, 45 Colo. 515.
Ohio. — Cincinnati R. Co. v. Cincin-
nati Inclined Plane R. Co., 47 N.K
560, 56 Ohio St 675.
Amending, correcting, reviewing,
opening, and vacating judgment
after expiration of term see su-
pra S 230.
5. Ohio.— Cincinnati R. Co. v. Cin-
cinnati Inclined Plane R. Co., su-
pra.
6. Tex. — U. S. & Mexican Trust Co.
v. Young, 101 S.W. 1045, 46 Tex.
CivJLpp. 117.
34 C.J. p 655 note 54.
7. Ya, — -ffitna Casualty & Surety
Co. of Hartford, Conn. v. Board
of Sup'rs of Warren County, 168
S.B. 617, 160 Va. 11.
8. Va. — ^Btna Casualty & Surety Co.
of ' Hartford, Conn. v. Board of
Sup'rs of Warren County, supra.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
532
e. Acknowledgment or agreement be-
tween parties
f. Death of party or assignee
a. In General
. Although a dormant judgment Is temporarily in-
operative for purposes of execution, it Is a valid obliga-
tion of the judgment debtor.
A judgment not satisfied or barred by lapse of
time, but temporarily inoperative as far as the right
to issue execution is concerned, is usually called a
dormant judgment.9 Such a judgment has validi-
ty10 as a still subsisting debt of the judgment debt-
or.
11
b. Construction and Operation of Statutes
Dormant Judgment statutes are to be strictly con-
strued and generally they apply only to final Judgments
for money which are enforceable by execution.
The dormant judgment statutes which exist in the
various jurisdictions are to be strictly construed and
the courts generally refuse to engraft exceptions to
them other than those contained in the statutes
themselves.12 The statutes are to be considered
procedural and binding on all judgment creditors.13
These statutes, however, generally do not impose a
limitation on the enforcement of judgments or de-
crees which are not for the payment of money14
or which are not enforceable by execution,1^ and
they do not apply where a lien exists independent of
the judgment and is not created by it.16
Such statute will not run against a judgment
where the failure to comply with the statute is jus-
tified17 or where collection is prevented without
fault,18 nor will it run against a judgment during
an}' time when it is impossible to enforce it by final
process19 or until the judgment becomes final.20
9. Cal. — Corpus Juris quoted in Da
Arauje v. Rodriques, 123 P.2d 154,
156, 50 Cal.App.2d 425.
Okl. — Corpus Juris quoted la. Perry
v. Lebel, 76 P.2d 261, 263. 182 Okl.
128. '
34 C.J. p 655 note 58.
Effect of dormant judgment on rights
of intervening lienors see supra §
490.
Issuance of execution on dormant
judgment:
Generally see Executions § 7 b.
As justification to sheriff see Ex-
ecutions § 66 b.
Revival of dormant judgment:
As condition precedent to credi-
tors' suits see Creditors' Suits
§ 46 a.
Mode of see infra §§ 543-548.
Necessity for generally see infra
§ 533.
Time for, and limitation on, see
infra § 542.
Presumption of payment from lapse
of time see infra § 559.
10. Neb. — Purer v. Holmes, 102 N.
W. 764, 73 Neb. 393.
34 C.J. p 658 note 3.
11. Okl. — Corpus Juris cited in
Shefts v. Oklahoma .Co., 137 P.2d
589, 591, 192 Okl. 483.
34 C.J. p 658 note 4.
Evidence of indebtedness
A dormant judgment is evidence of
indebtedness.
Qa. — Groves v. Williams, 68 Ga. 598
— James v. Roberts, 191 S.E. 801,
55 Ga.App; 755.
Kan. — Douglass v. Loftus, 119 P. 74,
85 Kan. 720, Ann.Cas.m3A 378,
L.R.A.191iB 797.
13. OkL — Thomas v. Murray, 49 P.2d
1080, 174 Okl. 86, 104 A.L.R. 209.
Construction with other statutes
The statute relating to dormancy
of judgment and execution thereon is
not in pari materia with statute au-
thorizing revival of a judgment. —
Gillam v. Matthews, Tex.Civ.App.,
122 S.W.2d 348, error dismissed.
13. Okl. — State ex rel. State Com'rs
of Land Office v. Weems, 16S P.
2d 629.
14. Ga.— Brown v. Parks, 9 S.E.2d
897, 190 Ga. 540— Hall v. Findley, 4
S.E.2d 211, 188 Ga. 487.
Neb. — Stanton v. Stanton, 18 N.W.2d
654, 146 Neb. 71.
34 C.J. p 656 note 64.
15. Ga. — Cleveland v. Cleveland, 30
S.E.2d 605. 197 Ga. 746.
34 C.J. p 656 notes 65-68.
16. Ga. — Collier v. Bank of Tupelo,
10 S.E.2d 62, 190 Ga. 598.
Lien, created by contract
If a lien is created by contract and
no judgment is necessary to make
good or establish it, the statute as to
dormant judgments does not apply. —
Carter-Moss Lumber Co. v. Short,
18 S.E.2d 61, 66 Ga.App. 330,
17. Tex. — Grissom v. F. W. Heit-
mann Co., Civ.App., 130 S.W.2d
1054, error refused.
18. Ga. — Oliver v. Boynton, 138 S.E.
795, 37 Ga.App. 13.
19. Neb. — State v. Royse, 91 N.W.
559, 8 Neb., Unoff., 262.
34 C.J. p 656 note 72.
An injunction against enforcing a
judgment suspends the running of
the statute. — Morgan v. Massillon
Engine & Thresher Co., Civ.App., 274
S.W. 255, error denied 277 S.W. 78,
115 Tex. 146.
20. Okl.— Price v. Sanditen. 88 P.
2d 53$, 170 Okl. 75.
34 C.J. p 656 note 72 [a].
Appeal from Judgment or order in
separate cause of action
(1) Where only one party appeals
from a judgment on separate causes
of action, such judgment becomes
985
final as to the parties not appealing,
within the rule as to the issuance of
execution to prevent a judgment
from becoming dormant. — Noble v.
Empire Gas & Fuel Co., Tex.Civ.App.,
20 S.W.2d 849, affirmed Empire Gas
& Fuel Co. v. Noble, Com.App., 36 S.
W.2d 451.
(2) Similarly, the statute is not
tolled by an appeal from a final
order, or judgment rendered subse-
quent to the principal judgment and
on issues ancillary to the issues of
the principal judgment. — Hoskins v.
Peak, 228 P. 478, 100 Okl. 124.
(3) However, where recovery in a
cross action depends on recovery in
the main action, the judgment in the
cross action does not become dor-
mant by the failure to issue execu-
tion until after the disposition of
the appeal in the principal action.
— Noble v. Empire Gas & Fuel Co.,
Tex.Civ.App., 20 S.W.2d 849, affirmed
Empire Gas & Fuel Co. v. Noble,
Com.App., 36 S.W.2d 45,1.
Motion for new trial
The statute begins to run from
the date a motion for a new trial is
overruled and not from the date
of a Judgment entered before the
overruling of such motion. — Price
v. Sanditen, 38 P.2d 533, 170 Okl.
75.
Grant of writ of error
A judgment does not become final
so as to start the statute running,
where a writ of error is granted, al-
though the application for such writ
is not made within the statutory
time allotted therefor and although
the lower court renders judgment de-
claring that such writ was improvi-
dently granted and that the higher
.court was without jurisdiction to
do so. — Long v. Martin, Civ.App., 260
S.W. 327, error dismissed 278 S.W.
1115, 114 Tex. 581.
§ 532
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
It has been held, however, that a party by delay in
taking out a mandate from an appellate court, when
he is entitled to it after the judgment has become
final, cannot prevent the judgment from becoming
dormant within the statutory period.21
c. Issuance of Execution
Under some statutes a judgment becomes dormant
when a specified period of time elapses without the Is-
suance of an execution or without the. issuance of a sub-
sequent execution when a former execution remains un-
satisfied.
While at common law a judgment lost its force
as a lien on the judgment debtor's realty, and no
execution could be issued thereon when it had lain
dormant for a year and a day,22 under the statutes
in many jurisdictions, judgments become "dormant,"
that is, incapable of execution by ordinary process,
if a specified length of time, generally Considerably
greater than the common-law period, is allowed to
elapse without the issuance of an execution, or with-
out the issuance of a subsequent execution when a
former execution remains unsatisfied.23 The proper
issuance of an execution or of successive executions
is usually sufficient to arrest the running of the stat-
ute and to prevent the judgment from becoming
dormant2* and may keep the judgment alive indef-
initely25 or, as discussed infra § 854, until it is
barred by the statute of limitations. This is true
even though the execution is returned without a
levy,26 or although the sheriff merely makes a levy
21. Tex. — Long v. Martin, supra.
22. Cal. — Corpus Juris quoted in. Da
Arauje v. Rodriques. 123 P.2d 154,
156, 50 Cal.App.2d 425.
Del.— First Nat. Bank v. Crook, 174
A. 369, 6 W.W.Harr. 281.
N.M.— Otero v. Dietz, 37 P.2d 1110,
39 N.M. 1.
Okl. — Corpus Juris quoted in Perry
v. Lebel, 76 P.2d 261, 263, 182 Okl.
128.
34 C.J. p 655 note 59.
23.- Ala. — McClintock v. McEachin,
20 So.2d 711, 246 Ala. 412.
Cal. — Corpus Juris quoted in Da
Arauje v. Rodriques, 123 P.2d 154,
156, 50 Cal.App.2d 425.
Kan. — Rodgers v. Smith, 58 P.2d
1092, 144 Kan. 212— Butler v. Rum-
beck, 56 P.2d 80, 143 Kan. 708.
Neb.— Rich v. Cooper, 286 N.W. 383,
136 Neb. 463— Glissman v. Happy
Hollow Club, 271 N.W. 431, 132
Neb. 223.
N.M.— Otero r. Dietz, 37 P.2d 1110, 39
N.M. 1.
Okl.— Bartlett Mortgage Co. v. Morri-
son, 81 P.2d 318, 183 Okl. 214.
34 C.J. p 655 note 63.
The purpose of the statute is to
clear real estate of liens within what
has been construed by the legisla-
ture as a reasonable time for a judg-
ment to remain a lien on such prop-
erty, and such statute is not a stat-
ute of limitations which must be
pleaded before advantage can be tak-
en of it. — Kline v. Falbo, 56 N.E.2d
701, 73 Ohio App. 417.
Under Plorida lav, a judgment is
not "dormant" after three years. —
Spurway v. Dyer, D.C.Fla., 48 F.Supp.
255.
In Texas
(1) If no execution is issued with-
in ten years after the rendition of
a judgment the judgment becomes
dormant, but if the first execution is
issued within the ten-year period, the
judgment does not become dormant,
unless ten years elapse between the
issuance of executions thereon and
execution may issue at any time
within ten years after the issuance
of the preceding execution. — Gartin
v. Furgeson, Civ.App., 144 S.W.2d
1114.
(2) Under the prior statute, the
first execution had to be issued with-
in twelve months after the rendition
of the judgment, but the provisions
as to the issuance of successive ex-
ecutions thereafter were similar to
the present statute. — Commerce
Trust Co. v. Ramp, 138 S.W.2d 531,
135 Tex. 84 — Grissom v. P. W. Heit-
mann Co., Civ.App., 130 S.W.2d 1054,
error refused— McClaflin v. Winfield,
Civ.App., 279 S.W. 877— Long v. Mar-
tin, Civ.App., 260 S.W. 327, error dis-
missed 278 S.W. 1115, 114 Tex. 581—
34 C.J. p 655 note 63 [e].
24. Neb.— Filley v. Mancuso, 20 N.
W.2d 318, 146 Neb. 493.
N.M.— Otero v. Dietz, 37 P.2d 1110,
39 N.M. 1.
Okl. — Guarantee Inv. Corporation v.
Killian. 67 P.2d 939. 180 Okl. 74—
Lowrey v. Bolinger, 9 P.2d 20, 155
Okl. 245— Ashur v. McCreery, 300
P. 767/150 Okl. 111.
Tex. — Blanks v. Radford, Civ.App,
188 S.W.2d 879, error refused— Gar-
tin v. Furgeson, Civ. App., 144 S.
W.2d 1114— Grissom v. F. W. Heit-
mann Co., Civ.App., 130 S.W.2d
1054, error refused.
34 C.J. p 657 note 80.
A single execution issued against
a codefendant has been held to be
sufllcient to keep a judgment alive as
against each judgment debtor where
the judgment is predicated on the
joint liability of the defendants. —
Korber v. Willis, 274 P. 239, 127 Kan.
587.
Inaccuracies in writ
(1) Since mistakes in its recitals
will not vitiate a writ of execution,
as long as the judgment can be
identified, the issuance of execution
inaccurately reciting the date of the
judgment, without misleading the
parties, and the failure of the wril
to recite a partial payment on behalf
of the judgment debtors, will not
986
render the execution ineffective to
keep the judgment alive.— Korber v.
Willis, supra.
(2) Recital ' and description of
udgment in execution generally see
Executions § 73.
A statute providing a method of
reviving1 a judgment by scire facias
does not pertain to a judgment cred-
itor's right of enforcement or the
matter of keeping his judgment alive
by merely having executions issued
as provided by statute. — Commerce
Trust Co. v. Ramp, 138 S.W.2d 531,
135 Tex. 84.
Assignee
The issuance of execution or of
successive executions on a judgment
by one having an interest therein
as assignee prevents such judgment
from becoming dormant. — Rodgers v.
Smith, 58 P.2d 1092, 144 Kan. 212—
Tharp v. Langford, 222 P. 135, 115
Kan. 135.
Voidable execution
(1) An execution irregularly is-
sued, which 'is voidable but not void,
is sufficient to prevent the judgment
from becoming dormant. — Cabell v.
Orient Ins. Co., 55 S.W. 610, 22 Tex.
Civ.App. 635.
(2) However, a voidable execution
will not, as against a direct attack,
prevent a judgment from becoming
dormant. — Patton v. Crisp & White,
Tex.Civ.App., 11 S.W.2d 826, error
dismissed.
Order of sale
Although an order of sale is usual-
ly considered an execution within the
statute, the force of an execution
cannot be attributed to it, if both
the judgment and the order of sale
provide otherwise. — Carlton v. Hoff,
Tex.Civ.App., 292 S.W. 642.
25. Tex. — Commerce Trust Co. v.
Ramp, 138 S.W.2d 531, 135 Tex.
84.
34 C.J. p 657 notes 80, 86.
26. Tex— Riddle v. Bush, 27 Tex.
675.
49 0. J. S.
JUDGMENTS
532
and advertises,27 or although the writ is afterward
quashed,28 or although the execution is levied on de-
fendant's homestead.29 However the mere com-
mencement of garnishment proceedings within the
statutory period does not toll the running of the
statute, where during the pendency of such proceed-
ing and before service of the writ the statutory pe-
riod expires.30 Similarly ancillary proceedings oc-
curring prior to the dormancy of a judgment do not
prolong its life, in the absence of the issuance in
connection therewith of an execution or some equiv-
alent writ, seeking to enforce the judgment, within
the statutory time.31
Delivery of writ for enforcement to proper offi-
cer. The general rule, discussed in Executions § 67,
that the writ of execution must be actually or con-
structively delivered to the sheriff or other proper
officer before it can properly be said to have been
issued applies to the issuance of the execution with-
in the meaning of the dormant judgment statutes.32
Thus, in order to prevent a judgment from becom-
ing dormant, there must be an unconditional deliv-
ery of the execution to an officer for enforcement in
the manner provided by law,33 and merely showing
that an execution was sent to the sheriff, without
showing how it was sent, by whom it was sent, or
whether or not it was received by the sheriff, does
not prevent the judgment from becoming dormant34
d. Return or Entry on Execution and Record
Thereof
Where the statute so requires, entries on the execu-
tion must be properly made and recorded within the
statutory time to prevent the dormancy of the judg-
ment.
In the absence of a statute so requiring it is not
necessary, in order to prevent a judgment from be-
coming dormant, to have the execution recorded or
the return thereof entered.35 Under some statutes,
however, the mere issuance of an execution will not
suffice to keep a judgment alive; but it becomes
dormant if seven years elapsed from the time of the
last entry on the execution by an authorized officer
and the recording of such entry on the execution
docket.36 This requires the entry and recording of
a sufficient indorsement on the execution at least as
often as once in every seven years37 unless the
statute has been arrested by the active conduct of
proceedings to vacate or enjoin the judgment38
The entry which will avail to keep the judgment in
force may be a written and signed statement of the
officer that the writ is placed in his hands with or-
ders to collect the money, or a return or other prop-
er indorsement, of a character to show that the cred-
itor is still endeavoring to enforce it,39 but it must
in all cases be made by an officer authorized to levy
27. Tex. — McClaflin v. Winfleld, Civ.
App., 279 S.W. 877.
28. Miss. — Nye v. Cleveland, Si
Miss. 440.
29. Ala,— McClarin v. Anderson, 16
So. C39, 104 Ala. 201.
30. 111.— Ring: v. Palmer, 32 N.E.2d
956, 309 Ill.App. 333.
31. Kan.— First Nat. Bank of Nor-
ton v. Harper, 169 P.2d 844, 161
Kan. 536.
32. Tex. — Parlin & Orendorff Imple-
ment Co. v. Chadwick, Civ.App.,
4 S.W.2d 133.
34 C.J. p 657 note 79.
Beason for mle
The term "issue," within the mean-
ing of the statute, means more than
the mere clerical preparation and
attestation of the writ, and requires
that it should be delivered to an
officer for enforcement. — Schneider
v. Dorsey, 74 S.W. 526, 96 Tex. 544 —
Cotten v. Stanford, Tex.Civ.App., 147
S.W.2d 930.
33. Tex. — Harrison v. Orr, Com.
App., 296 S.W. 871, modified on oth-
er grounds 10 S.W.2d 381.
Instructions to hold and return writ
without levy
(1) The issuance of an execution
to the sheriff with instructions to
hold and return it without making
a levy usually will not prevent the
judgment from becoming dormant. —
Commerce Trust Co. v. Ramp, 138
S.W.2d 531, 135 Tex. 84— Harrison v.
Orr, Tex.Com. App., 296 S.W. $71,
modified on other grounds 10 S.W.2d
381.
(2) However, if the sheriff cannot
find any property of defendants sub-
ject to the writ, such instructions
will not have such effect, and the
issuance of the execution will pre-
vent the Judgment from becoming
dormant. — R. B. Spencer & Co. v.
Harris, Tex.Civ.App., 171 S.W.2d 393.
34. Tex. — Cotten v. Stanford, Civ.
App., 147 S.W.2d 930.
35. Okl.— Guarantee Inv. Corpora-
tion v. Killian, 67 P.2d 939, 180
Okl. 74 — Dodson v. Continental
Supply Co., 63 P.2d 582, 175 Okl.
587 — Miller v. J. I. Case Thresh-
ing Machine Co., 300 P. 399, 149
Okl. 281.
23 C.J. p 377 note 92.
36. Ga.--Citizens' Bank of Plains v.
Hagerson, 140 S.E. 48, 37 Ga.App.
282 — English v. Williams, 116 S.E.
40, 29 Ga.App. 467.
34. C,J. p 657 note 88.
37. Qa, — Booth v. Williams, 2 Ga.
252— English v. Williams, 116 S.E,
40, 29 Ga.App. 467— Neely v. Ward,
107 S.E. 79, 26 Ga.App. 588.
QB7
Absence from state
A statute providing that in certain
cases, the time of defendant's ab-
sence from the state shall not be
counted in his favor does not refer
to the period of time in which a
judgment becomes dormant when not
sept in life in any manner specified
by law, since his removal from the
state does not prevent a Judgment
creditor from keeping the Judgment
in life.— Tift v. Bank of Tifton, 4
S.E.2d 495, 60 Ga.App. 563.
Judgments held dormant
Ga, — A. B. Farquhar Co. v. Myers, 21
S.E.2d 432, 194 Ga. 220 — Latham
& Sons v. Hester, 181 S.E. 573, 181
Ga. 100 — Odum v. Peterson, 153 S.
B. 757, 170 Ga. 666— Bryant v.
Freeman, 16 S.E.2d 113, 65 Ga,
App. -590 — James v. Roberts, 191 S.
E. 301, 55 Ga.App. 755 — Minter v.
Felder, 190 S.E. 273, 55 Ga.App.
785.'
Judgments held not dormant
Ga. — Pope v. XJ. S. Fidelity & Guar-
anty Co., 35 S.E.2d 899— Page v.
Jones, 198 S.E. 63, 186 Ga. 485 —
Franklin v. Mobley, for Use of
Patrick, App., 36 S.B.2d 173.
38. Ga.— Eagle & Phenix Mfg. Co. v.
Bradford, 59 Ga. 385.
39. Ga. — prendergast v. Wiseman, 7
S.E. 228, 80 Ga. 419.
34 C.J. p 658 note 91.
§ 532
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
and return the execution.40 Where the entries are
regularly made they are sufficient to prevent the
judgment from becoming dormant although the
execution is voidable but not void,41 or although
the writ is afterward quashed42 or levied on prop-
erty not then owned by defendant,4 3 or although the
levy is dismissed by the court.44 The time when
the record on the execution docket was made by the
clerk must appear from an inspection of such dock-
If there is no compliance with the statute as
to recording entries on the execution dockets, the
recordation of facts on the public dockets of the
courts, showing a bona fide public effort to collect
the debt, may prevent the judgment from becom-
ing dormant.46
e. Acknowledgment or Agreement between Par-
ties
The running of a dormancy statute may be arrested
by an acknowledgment of the Judgment and promise
to pay it, or by an agreement of the parties as to the
issuance of execution.
The running of a dormancy statute against a.
judgment may be arrested by an acknowledgment
of the judgment and a promise to pay it, or by aa
agreement of the parties as to the issuance of exe-
cution.47 In the absence of a statute to the con-
trary, however, a mere partial payment48 or a pay-
ment of the costs of the action to the clerk49 will
not prevent the statute from running. An agree-
ment to stay execution on a final judgment does not
prevent the judgment from becoming dormant if
execution is not issued within the statutory peri-
od.™
f . Death of Party or Assignee
Usually a Judgment -becomes dormant on the death-
of a party, although the death of an assignee or of a
party acting In a representative capacity does not have-
this effect.
Usually a judgment becomes dormant on the
death of a party thereto,61 so that ordinarily the
death of a judgment creditor will have this effect,52"
even though the deceased creditor is one of two or
40. Ga. — Oliver * v. James, 62 S.E.
73, 131 Ga. 182.
34 C.J. p 658 note 92.
41. Ga,— Smith v. Rust, 5 S.E. 250,
T9 Ga, 519.
42. Ga, — Westbrook v. Hays, 14 S.
B. 879, 89 Ga. 101.
43. Ga.— Long v, •Wight, 9 S.E. 535,
82 Ga. 431.
44. Ga.— Banks v. Zellner, 3 S.E.
304, 77 Ga, 424.
45. Ga.— Oliver v. James, 62 S.E. 73,
131 Ga. 182.
46. Ga, — Ryals v. "Widencamp, 190
S.E. 353, 184 Ga. 190— Citizens'
Bank of Plains v. Hagerson, 140
S.E. 48, 37 Ga.App. 282.
An unrecorded levy and sale do not
prevent the dormant judgment act
from running, although the funds
arising from the sale were retained
by the sheriff on another execution
against the same party and paid
over to the holder of the other exe-
cution, if the funds were not so
applied by an order of the court
appearing on its public dockets. —
Citizens' Bank of Plains v. Hager-
son, supra.
Effort to enforce execution
(1) If there is a bona fide effort to
enforce execution made within the
statutory time, the judgment does
not become dormant, although such
enforcement is prevented by court
proceedings. — Pie v. Hardin, 195 S.E.
165, ' 185 Ga. 331 — Ryals v. Widen-
camp, 190 S.E. 353, 184 Ga. 190 —
Towers v. City Land Co., 121 S.E.
701, 31 Ga.App. 612.
<2) If the legality of a levy of
execution is duly contested and
no action in opposition to such con-
test is taken until the statutory pe-
riod expires, there is no such bona
fide public effort to enforce collec-
tion in the court, so as to toll the
statute and prevent dormancy. — A. B.
Farquhar Co. v. Myers, 21 S.E.2d
432, 194 Ga. 220.
(3) A con test -of the legality of a
levy of execution as against one par-
ty does not prevent the dormancy of
the judgment as against those who
are not parties to the contest, even
though the pendency of the contest
may keep the judgment from becom-
ing dormant as against the "contest-
ing party. — Rogers v. Jordan, 132 S.
E. 233, 35 Ga.App. 131.
(4) The filing of an equity suit
in aid of execution does not prevent
the statute from running where the
suit is abandoned pursuant to a
compromise agreement, since the rule
that statutes of limitations will not
be suspended by the commencement
of a suit that is voluntarily aban-
doned, discontinued, dismissed, or
not proceeded with for a considera-
ble period of time, is applicable to
such statute. — General Discount Cor-
poration v. Chunn, 3 S.E.2d 65, 188
Ga. 128.
The payment of costs and the is-
suance of execution to the* levying
officer after the rendition of judg-
ment, in the absence of anything fur-
ther, are not bona fide public efforts
to enforce execution so as to prevent
the judgment from becoming dor-
mant.— U-Driv-It System of Macon
v. Lyles, 30 S.E.2d 111, 71 Ga,App. 70,
followed in 30 S.E.2d 114, 71 Ga.
App. 74.
988
47. U.S. — Beadles v. Smyser, Okl.»
28 S.Ct. 522, 209 U.S. 393, 52 L.Ed.
849.
34 C.J. p $58 note 96.
Amicable scire facias see infra §>
548.
48. Ga.— Blue v. Collins, 34 S.E. 598,,
109 Ga, 341.
34 C.J. p 658 note 97, p 624 note 83.
49. Ga,— Lewis v. Smith, 27 S.E. 162,
99 Ga, 603.
50. Tex. — Commerce Farm Credit
Co. v. Ramp, Civ.App., 116 S.W.23
1144, afilrmed Commerce Trust Co-
v. Ramp, 138 S.W.2d 531, 135 Tex.
84.
Season, for role
An agreement' to stay "execution on
a final judgment for a- specified time
constitutes an agreement to forego-
such portion of the statutory period
within which execution may issue. —
Commerce Farm Credit Co. v. Ramp,
Civ. App., 116 S.W.2d 1144, affirmed
Commerce Trust Co. v. Ramp, 138 S.
W.2d 531, 135 Tex. 84.
51. Kan. — Manley v. Mayer, 75 P.
550, 68 Kan. 377— Ballinger v. Red-
head, 40 P. 828, 1 Kan.App. 434.
Okl.— Jersak v. Risen, 152 P.2d 374,
194 Okl. 423.
Death of party as suspending judg-
ment see supra § 531.
Survival of judgment see infra §
534 a.
52. Kan.— Johnsson v. Erickson, 196
P. 435, 108 Kan. 580 — Gilmore v.
Harpster, 133 P. 726, 90 Kan. 405
— Updegraff v. Lucas, 93 P. 630,
76 Kan. 466— Newhouse v. Heil-
brun, 86 P. 145, 74 Kan. 282, 10
AnruCas. 955.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 534
more judgment creditors under a joint judgment.53
However, a judgment obtained by a party acting in
a representative capacity does not become dormant
on his death.54 Moreover, judgments may be pre-
vented from becoming dormant by the issuance of
executions at the instance of one having an interest
in them as assignee, even though a judgment credi-
tor dies.55 Also a judgment debtor's death will
usually render the judgment dormant,66 and, al-
though it has been held that where a judgment debt-
or, under a joint and several judgment, dies such
judgment is not ipso facto dormant,57 it has been
held that such judgment does become dormant on
the death of such debtor.58
Death of assignee. An assigned judgment will
not become dormant on the death of the assignee.5^
B. REVIVAL OP JUDGMENTS
§ 533. Necessity
When a judgment has become dormant, it cannot be
enforced7 until it has been duly revived.
When a judgment has once become dormant, it
cannot be enforced until it has been duly revived, as
provided by the statute.60 Generally speaking, the
necessity for reviving a judgment arises only where
the judgment creditor seeks to extend the lien of
the judgment61 or to issue execution thereon.62 As
discussed infra § 849, the fact that a judgment has
not been revived, and so has become dormant, does
not prevent the maintenance of an action on it
where plaintiff does not seek to maintain its lien,
and is no obstacle to writ of inquiry68 or to an
amendment of the judgment nunc pro tune.64
A judgment which is not dormant needs no reviv-
al.65 Accordingly a revival is unnecessary as long
as a judgment is kept from becoming dormant by
the timely issuance of executions, as discussed su-
pra § 532, and there has been no change of par-
ties,66 and the right to enforce the. executions is en-
tirely unobstructed.67
§ 534. Death of Party
a. Survival of judgment
b. Revival of judgment
53. Okl.— Drew v. Thurlwell, 48 P.
2d 106G, 173 Okl. 405, 100 A«L.R.
806— Jones v. Nye, 156 P. 332,
56 Okl. 578.
54. Okl.— Perry v. Lebel, 76 P.2d
261, 182 Okl. 128.
Action, for wrongful death.
• A judgment obtained by deceased's
administratrix in favor of the estate
in an action for wrongful death does
not become dormant on death of the
administratrix. — Perry v. Lebel, su-
pra.
55. Kan. — Thorp v. Langford, 222 P.
135, 115 Kan. 135.
56. Tenn. — Anderson v. Stribling, 15
Tenn.App. 267.
57. Okl.— Tucker v. Gautier, 164 P.
2d 613.
58. Kan. — Masheter v. 'Lanning, 100
P.2d 682, 151 Kan. 604.
,59. Okl.— Sanditen v. Williams, 49
P.2d 224, 173 Okl. 330.
60. U.S.— Atlantic Trust Co. v.
Dana, C.C. A.Kan., 128 F. 209.
Ala.— Second Nat. Bank v. Allgood,
176 So. 363, 234 Ala. 654.
Ga. — U-Driv-It System of Macon v.
Lyles, 30 S.E.2d 111, 71 Ga.App.
70, followed in 30 S.E.2d 114, 71
Ga.App. 74.
Kan. — First Nat Bank of Norton v.
Harper, 169 P.2d 844, 161 Kan.
536.
Pa.— Union Nat. Bank of Jersey
'Shore v. Budd, 33 PaJMst. & Co.
140.
Tex. — Commerce Farm Credit Co. v.
Ramp, Civ.App.f 116 S.W.2d 1144,
affirmed Commerce Trust Co. v.
Ramp, 138 S.W.2d 531, 135 Tex.
84.
34 C.JT. p 655 note 58 [a] (1), p 658
notes 3 [b], 4 [b] (c), 6.
Writ of attachment sur judgment
not being a writ of execution was
not within statute authorizing exe-
cutions on judgments' for selling per-
sonalty within five years from entry
of Judgment without reviving it. —
Croskey v. Crosk«y, 160 A. 103, 306
Pa. 423.
61. Ga,— Fowler v. Bank of Ameri-
cus, 40 S.B. 248, 114 Ga. 417.
Pa, — Sanner v. Unique Lodge No. 3,
Knights of Pythias of Rockwood,
37 A.2d 576, 349 Pa. 523— Second
Nat. Bank of Altoona, for Use of
Federal Reserve Bank of Philadel-
phia v. Faber, 2 A.2d 747, 332 Pa.
124.
Duration of lien see supra §§ 489-
498.
62. Ala. — Second Nat Bank v. All-
good, 176 So. 363, 234 Ala, 654.
Ga, — Palm«r v. Imnan, 55 S.B. 229,
126 Ga. 519.
Okl. — Shefts v. Oklahoma Co., 137 P.
2d 589, 192 Okl. 483.
Issuance of execution on dormant
Judgments see Executions § 7.
Bevival on judgment debtor's impris-
onment
Where a judgment debtor was con-
victed of murder and confined in the
penitentiary, the conviction deprived
him of all civil rights, and, before
an execution could be issued thereon,
989
the judgment would have to be re-
vived.— Ashmore v. McDonnell, 16
P. 687, reheard 18 P. 821, 39 Kan.
669.
63. Pa, — Cookson v. Turner, 8 BInn.
416.
34 C.J. p 659 note 10.
. Ala.— Allen v. Bradford, 3 Ala.
281, 37 Am.D. 689.
Ga.— Williams v. Merritt, !34 S.E.
1013, 109 Ga, 217.
65. La,— State ex rel. Brock v. Clan-
cy, 152 So. 331, 178 La. 687, cer-
tiorari denied Brock v. Wainer, 54
S.Ct. 773, 292 U.S. 640, 78 LJBd.
1492 — Hassler v. Brinker, App., 142
So. 730.
Mo.— Kelly v. City of Cape Girar-
deau, 89 S.W.2d 693, 230 Mo.App.
137.
Okl.— Sanditen v. Williams, 49 P.2d
224, 173 Okl. 330.
34 C.J. p 658 note 2.
Judgment in petttory action
Under statute providing that all
Judgments for money shall be pre-
scribed within ten years from their
rendition, but that any person in-
terested may have them revived be-
fore they are prescribed, a Judgment
in a petitory action recognizing and
confirming title to land need not be
revived and reinscribed. — Roussel v.
New Orleans Ry. & Light Co., 93 So.
758, 152 La. 517. *
66. Miss,— Locke v. Brady, 30
21.
34 C.J. p 659 note 13,
67. Miss. — Locke v. Brady, supra.
§ 534
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
a. Survival of Judgment
Generally a judgment does not abate on the death
of a party but survives in favor of or against the rep-
resentatives of the deceased.
While it has been said that at common law a
judgment does not survive a defendant against
whom it is rendered,68 it is the general rule, some-
times by virtue of express statutory provision, that
a judgment does not abate on the death of a party
and that such judgment survives in favor of or
against the representatives of the deceased.69 In
the absence of a provision therein to the contrary, a
statute providing for survival of a judgment after
death of a party applies to all judgments without re-
gard to the character of the action on which they
are founded.70
b, Revival of Judgment
Revival of a judgment is necessary where It be-
comes dormant as a result of death of a party, but re-
vival is not required If the judgment does not become
dormant.
Ordinarily, where a judgment does not become
dormant on the death of a party, no revivor thereof
is necessary to render it enforceable.71 On the oth-
er hand, if the judgment becomes dormant by rea-
son of death of one of the parties, it must be re-
vived within the time prescribed in the revivor stat-
utes,72 and it has been held that a dormant judg-
ment, which is not revived or renewed pursuant to
statute, dies,73 although it has also been held that
the statutory method of revivor is not indispensable
and that the judgment may be renewed by an ac-
tion to recover a second judgment thereon com-
menced within the time in which revivor may be
had.74
Without reference to whether or not a judg-
ment becomes dormant, it has been held under some
statutes that the death of plaintiff after affirmance
of judgment on appeal does not make revival neces-
sary.75 A judgment that has been revived against
the personal representative of a deceased defendant
need not again be revived on the death of such rep-
resentative.76 It has also been held that, where
the judgment debtor dies during pendency of a suit
to enforce the judgment, it is unnecessary to revive
the judgment against the heirs or personal repre-
sentatives of deceased in order to prosecute the
suit.77 While it is the rule, apart from statute, that
execution may not issue after the death of a party
to the judgment without first reviving the judgment,
as discussed in Executions § 65, the lien of a judg-
ment continues after the death of the judgment
debtor, as discussed infra § 491, and may be en-
forced in equity without revival of the judgment, as
considered supra § 511.
Joint parties. The interest and rights of joint
plaintiffs are joint and not several, and on the death
of one the judgment becomes dormant and cannot
be enforced at the instance of the living plaintiff or
plaintiffs without a revival of the judgment.78
Where, however, a judgment is obtained against
joint debtors, and one of such debtors dies, it is un-
necessary for the judgment creditor to revive the
judgment in order to enforce it against the remain-
«8. Tenn. — Pickens v. Scarbrough, 46
S.W.2d 58, 164 Tenn. 75.
Effect of death of party on cause of
action after final -Judgment and
pending appeal or other proceeding
for review see Abatement and Re-
vival §§ 127, 128.
€9. Colo. — Ahearn v. Goble, 7 P.2d
409, 90 Colo. 173.
Mo. — Lyon v. Lyon, 12 S.W.Sd 768,
223 Mo.App. 452.
Tenn. — Anderson v. Stribling, 15
Tenn.App. 267.
1 C.J. p 169 note 65.
3>eath pending appeal
La. — Castelluccio v. Cloverland Dairy
Products Co., 115 So. 796, 165 La.
606, conformed to 8 La. App. 723
— -Williams v. Campbell, App., 185
So. 683.
Tex. — Wootton v. Jones, Civ. App., 286
S.W. 680.
Heath after affirmance
Mo.— Vitale v. Duerbecfc, 92 S.W.
2d 691, 338 Mo. 556.
70. Tenn. — Pickens v. Scarbrough,
46 S.W.2d 58, 164 Tenn. 75.
71. Okl.— Tucker v. Gautier, 164 P,
2d 613.
Death of party as rendering judg-
ment dormant see supra § 532 f.
Judgment obtained by personal rep-
resentative
Judgment obtained by deceased's
administratrix in favor of the es-
tate did not become dormant on
death of administratrix: and did not
have to be revived. — Perry v. Lebel,
76 P.2d 561, 181 Okl. 128. .
72. Kan. — Masheter v. Lanning, 100
P.2d 682, 151 Kan. 604.
Okl.— Jersak v. Risen, 152 P.2d 374,
194 Okl. 423— Drew v. Thurlwell,
48 P.2d 1066, 73 Okl. 405, 100 A.L.
R. 806— Jones v* Nye, 156 P. 332,
56 Okl. 578.
Death of a party as ground for re-
vival see infra § 536.
Pending appeal
Where Judgment is recovered in
the lower -court and, pending appeal,
plaintiff dies, although the judg-
ment does not abate it must be re-
vived within the time prescribed by
statute, and unless revived the Judg-
'990
ment dies. If the statutory period
for revival of a judgment expires,
the appeal will be dismissed.— Atch-
ison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Fenton, 153
P. 1130, 54 Okl. 240.
73. Kan. — Masheter v. Lanning, 100
P.2d 682, 151 Kan. 604.
Okl.— Drew v. Thurlwell, 48 P.2d
1066, 73 Okl. 405, 100 A.L.R. 806
— Jones v. Nye, 156 P. 332, 56 Okl.
'578.
74. Okl.— Drew v. Thurlwell, 48 P.
2d 1066, 173 Okl. 405, 100 A.L.R.
806 — Phillips v. Western Electric
Co., 236 P. 425, 108 Okl. 274— Jones
v. Nye, 156 P. 332, 56 Okl. 578.
75. Mo.— Vitale v. Duerbeck, 92 S.
W.2d 691, 338 Mo. 556.
76. Kan. — Postlethwaite v. Bdson,
187 P. 688, 106 Kan. 354.
77. Tenn. — Anderson v. Stribling, 15
Tenn. App. 267.
78. Okl. — Drew v. Thurlwell, 48 P.
2d 1066, 173 Okl.' 405, 100 A.L.R.
806.
34 C.J. p 660 note 62 [b].
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
537
ing defendant or defendants, since the liability is
both joint and several.79
§ 535. Right to Revive
In the absence of a statute providing otherwise, a
dormant judgment may be revived as a matter of right.
Since, as discussed supra § 532, a dormant judg-
ment is a valid obligation of the judgment debtor,
ordinarily it may be revived in a proper case,80 at
least under statutes expressly providing therefor.81
In the absence of statutory inhibition, a dormant
judgment may be renewed as a matter of right82
by appropriate proceedings, such as scire facias,
as discussed infra § 548, or suit, as considered infra
§§ 849-887. However, the revival of a judgment so
as to prolong its life is sometimes expressly pro-
hibited by statute.83
§ 536. Grounds for Revival
The general ground for revival of a Judgment is that
it has become dormant without being satisfied.
The general ground for revival of a judgment is
that it has become dormant without being satisfied.84
It is sufficient ground for proceedings to revive a
judgment that there has been a change of parties by
death, as discussed supra § 534, that the lien of the
judgment has expired or is about to expire,85 that
an execution issued and levied under the judgment
failed to produce satisfaction because the proper-
ty seized did not belong to the judgment debtor, or
was not subject to execution, or because the exe-
cution purchaser failed to get possession,86 or that
the judgment debtor has wrongfully caused the exe-
cution to be returned satisfied.87
§ 537.
Who May Revive
Proceedings for revival of a Judgment ordinarily
should be brought in the name of the plaintiff in the
original Judgment, although an assignee may aue in hi*
own name if the statute so permits.
Proceedings to revive a judgment ordinarily
should be brought in the name of plaintiff in the
original judgment88 or in the name of the person
for whose use the judgment was entered,8^ although
even in the latter case it has been held that the pro-
ceedings must be in the name of the nominal plain-
tiff.90 If the revival is in the name of a nominal
plaintiff, the usee may be deemed the real plaintiff
and treated as such.91
It has been held that the owner of a judgment has
the right to invoke the process of revivor.92 Pro-
ceedings for revival may also be maintained by sure-
ties, or a joint defendant, on paying the judgment
debt,93 by the original plaintiffs trustee in bank-
79. Okl.— Harber v. McKeown, 169
P.2d 759.
34 C.J. p 660 note 62.
Revival against Joint defendants see
infra § 538.
Proceeding1 against estate
Actions, instituted within statutory
time, against deceased judgment
debtors' estates on rejected claims,
filed with administrators within time
given by notice, for amount of joint
and several judgment for money
only, were proper and not subjact to
dismissal on ground that one Judg-
ment debtor's death rendered judg-
ment dormant and that failure to
revive it within year thereafter ex-
tinguished judgment and lien thereof.
—Tucker v. Gautier, Okl., 164 P.2d
613.
80. Okl, — Aaron v. Morrow, 50 P.2d
674, 174 Okl. 452.
34 C.J. p 658 note 5.
81. Okl.— -Aaron v. Morrow, supra.
Tex.— White v. Stewart, Civ.App., 19
S.W.2d 795, error refused.
82. Ga.— Hagins v. Blitch, 65 S.E.
1082, 6 Ga.App. 839.
83. Iowa.— Equitable Life Ins. Co.
of Iowa v. Condon, 10 N.W.2d 78,
233 Iowa 567.
Time of operation of statute
(1) Such a statute has been held
not to apply to a judgment on a
contract made before its enactment.
—Kelleher v. Wells, 151 P. 823, 87
Wash. 323 — 34 C.J. p 659 note 21.
(2) This rule applies even though
the judgment is not rendered until
after the passage of the statute. —
Foley v. Kelleher 158 P. 982, 92
Wash. 314— Fischer v. Kittinger, 81
P. 551, 39 Wash. 174.
84. Okl. — Aaron v. Morrow, 50 P.2d
674, 174 Okl. 452.
Tex.— White v. Stewart, Civ.App., 19
S.W.2d 795, error refused.
85. Tex. — Masterson v. Cundiff, 58
Tex, 472— De Witt v. Jones, 17 Tex.
620.
86. Cal.— Thompson v. Cook, 143 P.
2d 107, 61 Cal.App.2d 485.
34 C.J. p 659 note 30.
87. Mich.— McRoberts v. Lyon, 44
NVW. 160, 79 Mich. 25.
3. Ala. — Casey v. Co'oledge, 175 So.
557, 234 Ala. 499.
34 C.J. p 659 notes 35, 36, p 660 notes
42, 43.
Parties plaintiff in particular actions
or proceedings see infra §§ 543-
548.
Defunct corporate plaintiff
A special statutory proceeding to
revive a dormant judgment could be
maintained in the name of the orig-
inal plaintiff, notwithstanding corpo-
rate functions of such plaintiff had
meantime lapsed, because revivor of
judgment in name of defunct corpo-
991
ration would not prejudice judgment
debtor.— Foster Screen Co. v. Brigel,
Ohio App., 31 N.E.2d 699.
TTnited States having recovered
judgment against lessees of public
Land under lease for benefit of irri-
gation district was proper party to
sue for renewal of judgment, espe-
cially where there was no allegation
that there were any net profits for
distribution to water users. — Schodde-
V. U. S., aC.A.Idaho, 69 F.2d 866.
Md.— Clark v. Digges, 5 Gill 109.
34 C.J. p 659 note 34.
90. Me.— Calais v. Bradford 51 Me.
414.
34 C.J. p 659 note 35.
91. Mo.— Seattle Mfg. Co. v. Gerardt.
214 S.W. 189.
34 C.J. P 659 note 36.
92. Kan.— Rodgers v. Smith, 58 P.2d
1092, 144 Kan. 212.
Ownership established
Administrator who was also parent
and trustee of residuary legatees had'
sufficient ownership of judgment re-
covered by administrators to insti-
tute revivor proceeding after his
discharge as administrator, where*
all other interested parties assigned
their interests to him.— Rodgers v.
Smith, supra.
93. 111. — Bogden v. Milauckas, 40 N.
B.2d 91, 313 IlLApp. 311.
34 C.J. P 659 note 87.
§ 537
JUDGMENTS
O.J.S.
ruptcy,94 or by the personal representatives,95 heirs,
or devisees96 of a deceased judgment creditor.
In some states a judgment in favor of personal
representatives may be revived by their successors
in office.97 A proceeding to revive a judgment en-
tered in favor of a partnership should, after the
death of one partner, be brought in the name of the
surviving partner alone.98 Where the judgment
was obtained by a surviving partner as such, he
alone may revive it.99 A married woman may re-
vive a judgment against her husband which was en-
tered in her favor before they were married.1
Assignees. While equitable title alone may not
permit an assignee to procure the revival of a judg-
ment,2 the subsequent acquisition of legal title may
give him such right,3 but in case of partial assign-
ment of a judgment the assignee may not obtain a
separate process to revive the part assigned.4
As a general rule, proceedings to revive a judg-
ment which has been assigned must be brought
in the name of the original plaintiff,5 except where
a statute provides otherwise,6 as where the statute
authorizes such proceedings to be maintained in the
name of the real party in interest,? in which case
it may be revived in the name of the original cred-
itor if living8 or in the name of the assignee.9
Even though a statute provides that the revival
should be in the name of the original plaintiff suing
for the use of the assignee, a judgment obtained by
revival in the name of the assignee will not be treat-
ed as void where the court rendering it has juris-
diction.^ It has been held, independently of statu-
tory authorization, that proceedings to revive a
judgment may be maintained in the name of the as-
signee of a judgment creditor where such creditor
has gone out of business.11
§ 538, Against Whom Revival May Be
Had
a. In general
b. Joint defendants
a. In General
AH parties to the original Judgment must be made
parties to a proceeding to revive It, and, If the original
judgment debtor Is dead, the representatives whose prop-
erty rights will be affected must be joined.
All parties to the original judgment must be made
parties to a proceeding to revive it,12 and, in par-
ticular, the original judgment debtor, if living, must
be made a defendant13 Under statute, it has been
held that a dormant judgment may be revived
against a defunct corporate defendant.14 A judg-
ment debtor who has paid a judgment may not re-
vive it against a mortgagee or judgment creditor
who had a lien at the time of payment, or prior to
the act by which it is sought to affect the lien.15
34. U.S. — Brown v. Wygant, App.D.
C., 16 S.Ct 1159, 163 U.S. 618, 41
L.Ed. 284.
Ala. — Casey v. Cooledge, 175 So. 557,
234 Ala. 499.
93. Ala.— Casey v. Cooledge, supra.
Kan. — JSourman v. Bourman, 127 P.
2d 464, 155 Kan. 602.
OkL-r-Jersafc v. Risen, 152 P.2d 374,
194 Okl. 423.
34 C.J. p 659 notes 39, 40.
96. U.S.— Fordson Coal Co. v. Jack-
son, C.C.A.Ky.. 2 F.2d 466.
"Successor"
Statute authorizing the revival of
a judgment by the "successor*' of a
deceased plaintiff applies only to the
enforcement of the Judgment for the
direct benefit of the estate of the de-
cedent or his devisees. — Fordson Coal
Co. v. Jackson, supra.
97. Miss. — Brown v. Bonner, 45
Miss. 10.
24 C.J. P 896 note 78.
98. 111. — Linn v. Downing, 74 N.B.
729, 216 111. 64.
34 C.J. p 660 note 41.
99. Miss. — Copes v. Fultz, 9 Miss.
623.
3* Pa.— Kincade v. Cunningham, 12
A. 410, 118 Pa. 501.
2. HI.— Central Illinois Co. v. Swan-
son, 8 N.E.2d 371, 290 ULApp. 165.
3. 111.— Central Illinois Co. v. Swan-
son, supra.
Rights of parties under assignment
of Judgment see supra §§ 521, 522.
4. Pa.— Hopkins v. Stockdale, 11 A.
368, 117 Pa. 365— Appeal of Die-
trich, 107 Pa. 174.
5. Ala. — My rick v. Womack, 120 So.
300, 23 Ala.App. 32.
Fla.— McCallum v. Gornto, 174 So.
24, 127 Fla. 792.
34 C.J. p 660 note 44.
6. Ala. — My rick v. Womack, 120 So.
300, 23 Ala.App. 32.
34 C.J. p 644 note 8.
Indorsement of assignment
(1) Under some statutory provi-
sions, a dormant judgment may be
revived in the name of an assignee
when assignment is in writing, not-
withstanding assignment is not in-
dorsed on execution docket or on
margin of record of Judgment and
attested by clerk. — Gambill v. Cas-
simus, 22 So.2d 909, 247 Ala. 176.
(2) Under other provisions, an as-
signee may not revive judgment in
his name where he has failed to
comply with a requirement that, on
transfer of judgment, the transfer
be indorsed on the execution docket
or on margin of the record of the
judgment in the court where judg-
ment was rendered or in the office
992
of the probate judge where a certifi-
cate of the judgment was recorded. —
Myrick v. Womack, 120 So. 300, 23
Ala.App. 32.
7. Ala. — Myrick v. Womack, supra.
34 C.J. p 660 note 46.
8. Neb.— -Vogt v; Binder, 107 N.W.
383. 76 Neb. 361.
34 C.J. p 660 note 47.
9. Neb.— Moline Milburn & Stoddart
Co. v. Van Boskirk, 111 N.W. 605,
78 Neb. 728.
34 C.J. p 660 note 48.
10. Ga. — Chapman v. Taliaferro, 58
S.E. 128, 1 Ga.App. 235.
11. Tex. — Mayhew Lumber Co. v.
Nash, Civ.App., 268 S.W. 1050.
12. Ga. — Funderburk v. Smith, 74
Ga. 515.
34 C.J. p 660 note 51.
Parties defendant in particular ac-
tions or proceedings see infra §§
543-548.
13. Pa.— Righter y, Rittenhouse, 3
Rawle 273.
14. Tex. — Simmons v. Zimmerman
Land & Irrigation Co., Civ.App.,
292 S,W. 973.
15.
N.J.— Stout v. Vankirk, 10
a. 78.
N.J.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 538
Terre-tenants may and should be joined as defend-
ants.16
' After death of judgment debtor. As a general
rule, on the death of a judgment debtor, the judg-
ment should be revived against the representatives
whose property rights will be affected by revivor.1?
If the revivor would affect only personal property,
the proceedings should be taken against the de-
ceased debtor's personal representatives,1* but if
the revivor is intended to affect real property which
passed, on the death of the judgment debtor, to his
heirs or devisees, then it should be revived against
such heirs or devisees,19 even though their estate
vested after the lien of the judgment was lost or in-
terrupted.20 Where the judgment is ,to affect, or
does affect, both personalty and real estate, it should
be revived against both the personal representatives
and the heirs.21 A judgment against personal rep-
resentatives may be revived against their successors
in office,22 but a judgment against an executor or
administrator cannot be revived after his death
against his own personal representative23 unless
such judgment was binding on him in his individual
capacity.24
1). Joint Defendants
A judgment may be revived against all the Judgment
debtors In the original judgment; but there is a con-
flict of opinion as to whether or not It may be revived
against one of several joint debtors without joining the
others.
A judgment creditor is entitled to revive his judg-
ment against all the judgment debtors in the orig-
inal judgment as it appears of record.25 According
to some decisions, where the judgment was recov-
ered against two or more defendants jointly, pro-
ceedings for its revival must be against them all, if
living.26 However, on the ground, as discussed su-
pra § 440, that a judgment against joint defendants
is the joint and several obligation of each and not
merely a joint obligation, it has been held that a
judgment may be revived and enforced against one
of several judgment debtors without bringing in or
giving any attention to the others.27 Under either
rule where one defendant pleads such matter as
16. Ind.-- Hill v. Button, 47 Ind. 592.
Pa. — Pursht v. Overdeer, 3 Watts &
S. 470.
Wife as terro-tenant
Where wife's property is acquired
before creditor obtains judgment
against husband, then wife is not
"terre-tenant" under statute. — South
Central Building & Loan Ass'n v. Mi-
lani, 150 A. 586, 300 Pa. 250.
17. Neb.— Dougherty v. White, 200
N.W. 884, 112 Neb. 675, 36 A.L.R.
425.
34 C.J. p 660 notes 53, 54.
Ho administrator appointed
Under some statutes, a judgment
may be revived against administrator
or heirs if there is no administra-
tion.— Pickens v. Scarbrough, 46 S.
W.2d 58, 164 Tenn. 75.
18. Neb. — Dougherty v. White, 200
N.W. 884, 112 Neb. 675, 36 A.L.R.
425.
34 C.J. p 660 note 53.
Final decree for maintenance or
alimony could be revived against the
representatives of deceased.— Angllm
v. Anglim, 299 N.W. 346, 140 Neb.
133.
Ho revival against heirs
Under some statutes, a judgment
in personam, under which no specific
lien on real estate was acquired
during the lifetime of the judgment
debtor, cannot be revived and en-
forced against the heirs. — Miller v.
Taylor, 29 Ohio St. 257-^Tones v.
Kampman, 15 Ohio Oir.Ct.,N.S., 395,
34 Ohio Cir.Ct 569.
19. Neb.— Dougherty v. White, 200
49 C. J.S.-63
N.W. 884, 112 Neb. 675, 36 A.L.R.
425.
34 C.J. p 660 note 54.
20. Del. — Raymond v. Farrell, 93 A.
905, 28 Del. 394.
21. Neb. — Dougherty v. White, 200
N.W. 884, 112 Neb. 675, 36 A.L.R.
425.
22. Miss. — Brown v. Bonnerr 45
Miss. 10.
24 C.J. p 896 note 78.
Invalid appointment
Where an administrator de bpnis
non was appointed by a court having
no jurisdiction to make such ap-
pointment, a revivor against such
administrator is Absolutely void. —
Paul v. Butler, 282 P. 732, 129 Kan.
244.
In Alabama
(1) Under statute, decree against
personal representative of deceased
administratrix for settlement of for-
mer administration may be revived
against administratrix de bonis non
of deceased administratrix. — Cowan
v. Perkins, 107 So. *6, 214 Ala. 158.
(2) Prior to enactment of the stat-
ute, it was held that a judgment
against an administrator could not
be revived against the administrator
de bonis non, since there was no
privity between the two. — Brothers v*
Gunnels, 18 So. 3, 110 Ala. 436—
Bobo v. Gunnels, 8 So. 797, 92 Ala.
601.
23. Kan. — Mendenhall v. Robinson,
44 P. 610, 56 Kan. 633.
24. U.S.— -Coates v. Muse, C.C.Va.,
5 F.Cas.Ne.2,916, 1 Brock 529.
24 C.J. p 896 note 84.
993
25. Tex. — Gerlach v. Du Boae, Civ.
App., 210 S.W. 742.
26. I1L — Columbia Hardwood Lum-
ber Co. v. B. Kopriwa Co., 62 N.B.
2d 23, 326 Ill.App. 423.
34 C.J. p 660 note >60.
Corporation and individual
In action to revive a joint Judg-
ment against corporation and an in-
dividual, wherein only the individual
defendant was served with process
and answered averring that plaintiff
did not seek to revive Judgment
against the corporation and no an-
swer was made to such allegation
showing that corporation had been
dissolved or other matters that
would preclude revival against the
corporation, a Judgment reviving
the judgment against the individual
defendant only was erroneous.— Co-
lumbia, Hardwood Lumber Co. v. B.
Kopriwa Co., supra.
27. Kan. — Richardson v. Painter, 102
P. 1099, 80 Kan. 574, 133 Am.S.B.
224.
34 C.J. p 660 note 62.
judgment In solldo
Where assignee of judgment in
solido sought to revive the judgment
only against one party and not
against remaining in solido obligors,
mere failure to revive judgment as
against the other judgment debtors
could not be construed as a conven-
tional or tacit discharge of .the Judg-
ment debtor sued, since Instrument
seeking to revive the judgment oper-
ated as ah express reservation by
plaintiff of his rights against such,
debtor. — Converse v. Victor & Pre-
vost, 22 So.2d 737, 208 La. 47.
34 C.J. p 660 note 62 [c].
§ 538
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
constitutes a bar to the action against himself only,
and of which his codefendants could not take ad-
vantage, such a defendant may be discharged and
the judgment revived against the other defendant
or defendants.28
If one of two or more joint judgment debtors are
dead, the judgment may be revived against the sur-
viving judgment debtor or debtors,29 or against both
the surviving debtor and the personal representa-
tive of the deceased debtor,30 or against the per-
sonal representative of the deceased debtor with-
out joining the other defendant,31 although it has
been said that at common law it cannot be revived
against the personal representative.32
§ 539. Judgments Which May Be Re-
vived
All Judgments within the terms of statutes authoriz-
ing revival may be revived, and ordinarily it is required
that the Judgment be valid, final, and for a definite sum
which has not been fully paid or satisfied.
All judgments within the terms of a statute pro-
viding for revival may be made the subject of a
proceeding for that purpose.33 Ordinarily, in order
to be subject to revival, a judgment must be in the
nature of a final judgment34 for a definite sum,35
and in some jurisdictions,36 although not in oth-
ers,37 the judgment must originally have been capa-
ble of enforcement by execution. It must also be a
valid judgment38 which has not been fully paid or
satisfied,39 or barred by the statute of limitations,40
or reversed.41
Subject to these conditions, there may be a re-
vival of a judgment which is merely erroneous42 or
which has been suspended by injunction,43 or to re-
view which a writ of error is pending44 or the lien
of which has expired.45 Also, in a proper case, pro-
ceedings may be brought to revive a default judg-
ment,46 a delivery bond judgment,47 a stay bond
28. I1L — Columbia Hardwood . Lum-
ber Co. v. E. Kopriwa Co., 62 N.E.
2d 23, 326 Ill,App. 423.
34 C.J. p 661 note £3.
29. Mo. — Gierster v. Stephens, App.,
74 S.W.2d 88.
34 C.J. p 661 note 64.
Necessity of revival on death of one
of several joint debtors see supra
§ 534 b.
Estate insolvent or nonexistent
Where one of defendants ia dor-
mant judgment is dead, leaving no
estate, or his estate is insolvent
Judgment may be revived as to sur-
viving defendants only. — Rogers v.
Jordan, 132 S.E. 233, 35 Ga.App. 131.
30. Pa. — Dowling v. McGregor, 91
Pa. 410 — Stoner v. Stroman, 9
Watts & S. 85.
31. U.S. — U. S. v. Houston, D.C.Kan.,
48 P. 207.
34 C.J. p 661 note 66.
32. W.Va. — Greathouse v. Morrison,
70 S.B. 710, 68 W.Va. 714.
33. Ariz.— McBride v. McDonald, 215
P. 166, 25 Ariz. 207.
Judgment of territorial court
Under statute authorizing the re-
newal by affidavit of any Judgment
directing the payment of money,
which has heretofore, or may here-
after, be duly docketed in the office
of the clerk of any superior court
of the state, a Judgment entered and
docketed in the district court of a
territory prior to statehood may be
so renewed. — McBride v. McDonald,
supra.
34. Va. — Series v. Cromer, 13 S.B.
859, 88 Va. 426.
34 C.J. p 661 note 69.
35. HI.— Chestnut v. Chestnut, 77
I1L 346.
34 C.J. p 661 note 70. i
Judgment payable in installments
The fact that a lump-sum judg-
ment awarded a divorced wife was
payable in installments did not take
from it the character of finality.
Kan. — Bourman v. Bourman, 127 P.
2d 464, 155 Kan. 602.
Neb.— Anglim v. Anglim, 299 N.W.
346, 140 Neb. 133.
36. Tex. — Farmers' Nat. Bank v.
Crumley, CivJLpp., 204 S.W. 358.
34 C.J. p 661 note 72.
37. U.S. — Lafayette County v. Won-
derly, Mo., 92 P. 313, 34 C.C.A. 360.
34 C.J. p 661 note 71.
38. Mo.— Coombs v. Benz, 114 S.W.
2d 713, 232 Mo.App. 1011.
34 C.J. p 661 note 73.
The repeal of statute permitting
recovery of deficiency Judgment did
not preclude revivor of dormant de-
ficiency Judgment regularly obtained
many years prior thereto.— McCor-
mack v. Murray, 274 N.W. 383, 133
Neb. 125.
39. N.J.— Schneider v. Schmidt, 136
A. 740, 101 N.J.EQ. 140.
34 C.J. p 661 note 74.
Judgments held not satisfied
(1) Revivor could not be resisted
on ground that Judgment had been
satisfied by a levy where levy yielded
payment of only small part of Judg-
ment— Schneider v. Schmidt, supra.
(2) Where, after tort Judgment
was affirmed, judgment creditor in-
stituted action of debt on the appeal
bond against Judgment debtor and
his surety, and obtained a debt Judg-
ment against debtor and his surety,
and, after execution . was issued on
debt Judgment, surety paid the debt
udgment and obtained assignment of
tort Judgment, the satisfaction of
debt Judgment did not extinguish the
994
tort Judgment so as to preclude sure-
ty as assignee from reviving such
Judgment on theory that surety re-
ceived nothing by the assignment. —
Bogden v. Milauckas, 40 N.E.2d 91,
313 IlLApp. 311.
4Q. N.M. — Browne & Manzanarea Co.
v. Chavez, 54 P. 234, 9 N.M. 316.
Judgment held not barred so as to
preclude revivor. — Rayborn v. Reid,
138 S.E. 294, 139 S.C. 529.
41. Ind.— Mills v. Conner, 1 Blackf.
7.
42. Neb. — McCormack v. Murray,
274 N.W. 383, 133 Neb. 125.
34 C.J. p 662 note 78.
43. Va. — Richardson v. Prince
George Justices, 11 Gratt 190, 52
Va. 190.
34 C.J. p £62 note 79.
44. Pa.— Boyer v. Rees, 4 Watts
201.
45. Pa.— Cusano v. Rubolino, 39 A.
2d 906, 351 Pa. 41.
34 C.J. p 662 note 81.
Under validating statute
A statute authorizing the reinstate-
ment of liens and Judgments on tax
and municipal claims which have lost
their lien is in the nature of a ''val-
idating statute" and hence must be
restricted to claims and Judgments
which have lost their lien at the date
when the statute takes effect, and it
cannot be extended to claims and
Judgments the liens of which are
thereafter lost by inaction and neg-
lect—Petition of Miller, 28 A.2d 257,
149 Pa.Super. 142.
46. S.C. — State Bank v. McRa, 29 S.
C.L. 639.
47. Ark.— Eddins v. Graddy, 28 Ark.
500.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 540
judgment,48 a tort judgment,49 or a judgment which
has been transferred from one county to another
county.50 A judgment or decree in a case of equi-
table cognizance is deemed to be within a statute
authorizing a revivor of judgments.61 A probate
judgment or decree may be revived in some juris-
dictions52 but not in others.53 It has been held that
a judgment of revivor cannot be revived.54
§ 540. Defenses or Grounds of Opposition
a. In general
b. Payment, release, satisfaction, dis-
charge, and set-off
c. Existence and validity of judgment
d. Defenses by heirs, executors, admin-
istrators, and terre-tenants
a. In General
In proceedings to revive a Judgment, no Inquiry in-
to the merits Is permitted, and defenses are generally
limited to matters arising after the entry of the Judg-
ment.
As a rule, in a proceeding to revive a judgment,
no inquiry into the merits is permitted,55 and no
matter may be pleaded in defense which was,56 or
might have been,57 set up in defense to the original
action, or which might have been interposed as a de-
fense to a prior proceeding to revive the same judg-
ment.58 In other words, defenses as to matters
arising prior to entry of judgment ordinarily are not
available in a proceeding for revival.59
On the other hand, proper and sufficient matters
of defense, arising after the entry of judgment, may
be urged,60 and, as considered infra subdivisions b
48. Neb.— Baker Steel & Machinery
Co. v. Ferguson, 290 N.W. 449, 137
Neb. 578, 131 A.L.R. 798.
49. Mich. — Nathan v. Rupcic, 6 N.W.
2d 484, 303 Mich. 201.
Statute retroactive
The statute providing that any
judgment in tort heretofore Or here-
after rendered and of record in any
court of record in state may be sued
on and renewed within the time and
as provided by law applies to judg-
ment recorded prior to its effective
date as well as. after its effective
date. — Nathan v. Rupcic, supra,
50. Pa.— Shotts & Co. v. Agnew &
Barnett, 81 Pa.Super. 458.
51. Ky. — Hughes v. Shreve, 3 Mete.
547.
Miss.— McCoy v. Nichols, 5 Miss. 31.
Revivor of decrees in equity general-
ly see Equity § 621.
52. Ala. — Sharp v. Herrln, 32 Ala,
502.
34 C.J. p 662 note 86.
53. Ark. — Rose v. Thompson, 36 Ark.
254.
54. Mo. — Gregory Grocery Co. v.
Link, 25 S.W.2d 575, 224 Mo.App.
407.
55. Al«u— Quill v. Carolina Portland
Cement Co., 124 So. 305, 220 Ala.
134.
Ga.— McRae v. Boykin, App., 35 S.E.
2d 548, certibrari denied 66 S.Ct.
1024— Fielding v. M. Rich & Bros.
Co., 169 S.E. 383, 46 Ga.App. 785.
Neb.— Krause v. Long, 192 N.W. 729,
109 Neb. 846.
Pa.— First Nat Bank & Trust Co. of
Bethlehem v. Laubach, 5 A.2d 139,
333 Pa, 844 — Stanton v. Hum-
phreys, Com.PL. 27 DeLCo. 694 —
Davis v. Tate, Com.Pl., 26 Brie Co.
141 — Jacobson v. McCormicfc, Com.
PI., 38 Luz.Leg.Reg. 355— Gorniak
v. Potter Title & Trust Co., Com.
PI., 91 Pittsb.Leg.J. 279— Com.
Dept. of Public Assistance v. Mik-
lish, Com.PL, 27 West.Co. 237—
Uhlinger v. Burin, Com.Pl., 22
WesLCo. 146.
34 C.J. p 662 note 89.
Bight to execution
Only defenses against scire facias
are matters involving right to have
judgment executed. — In re Rubin, C.
C.A.I1L, 24 F.2d 289, certiorari de-
nied Rubin v. Midlinsky, 49 S.Ct.
13, 278 U.S. 609, 73 L.Bd. 535.
Waiver of objection
After trial conducted throughout
by both plaintiff and defendant on
theory that merits may be inquired
into, it is too late to raise objection
that merits cannot be inquired into.
— Frick Co. v. Nickler, 23 Pa.Dist.
44.
56. Ariz.— Miller Rubber Co. of New
Tork v. Peggs, 132 P.2d 439, 60
Ariz. 157.
Del. — Corpus Juris cited in Woods v.
Spoturno, 183 A. 319, 323, 7 W.W.
Harr. 295, reversed on other
grounds Spoturno v. Woods, 192 A.
689, 8 W.W.Harr. 378.
Pa.— Wilcox v. Du Bree, 8 Pa.Dist
& Co. 591.
34 C.J. p £62 note 89.
57. Del.— Corpus Juris cited in
Woods v. Spoturno, 183 A. 319,
323, 7 W.W.Horr. 295, reversed on
other grounds Spoturno v. Woods,
192 A. 689, 8 W.W.Harr. 378.
Ohio.— McAllister v. Schlemmer &
Graber Co., 177 N.B. 841, 39 Ohio
App. 434.
Pa. — Jacobson v. McCormick, Com.
PL, 38 Luz.Leg.Reg. 355.
34 C.J. p 662 note 89 — 24 C.J. P 895
note 69.
Question of jurisdiction cannot be
litigated on scire facias to revive
judgment— Ruth v. Durando, 170 A.
582, 166 Md/83.
Lack of jury trial
Defendant will not be allowed to
defend on the ground that a jury
995
trial was not granted in the orig-
inal action. — Nathan v. Rupcic, 6
N.W.2d 484, 303 Mich. 201.
58. Pa.— Moll v. Lafferty, 153 A. 657,
302 Pa, 354.
Payment
Payment before a previous Judg-
ment of revival cannot be shown. —
Trader v. Lawrence, 37 A. 812, 182
Pa. 233— Merchants Oil Co. v. Herb,
Pa.Com.PL, 14 Northumb.Leg.J. 295.
59. Pa.— First Nat. Bank & Trust
Co. of Bethlehem v. Laubach, 5 A.
2d 139, 333 Ba, 344.
60. Pa. — Cusano v. Rubolino, 39 A.
2d 906, 351 Pa. 41— Smith v. Bald
Hill Coal Co., 23 A.2d 466, 343
Pa. 899, 138 A.L.R. 859— Biffert v.
Giessen, 14 A.2d 130. 339 Pa, 60—
First Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of
Bethlehem v. Laubach, 5 A.2d 139,
333 P«u 344— Brusko v. Olshefski,
13 A.2d 916, 140 Pa.Super. 485 —
Miller Bros. v. Keenan, 90 Pa.Su-
per. 470 — Bell v. Fitzgerald, Com.
PL, 31 DeLCo. 3— Davis v. Tate,
Com.PL, 26 Brie Co. 141-^Tacob-
son v. McCormick, Com. PI., 38 Luz.
Leg.Reg. 355 — Kasperunas v. Kas-
per, Com.PL, 84 Luz.Leg.Reg. 303
— Krzykwa v. Krzykwa, Com.PL, 15
Northumb.Leg.J. 117— Merchants
Oil Co. v. Herb, ConouPL, 14 North-
umb.L.J. 295— Merchants Oil Co. v.
Herb, Com.PL, 14 Northumb.L.J.
266— Sausage Mfg. Co. v. Rometo,
Com.PL, 86 Pittsb.Leg.J. 105—
Leonard v. Rutan, ConuPL, 18
Wash.Co. 40,
Failure to serve process in revivor
proceeding
Ga.— American Nat. Bank v. Hodges,
154 S.B. 653, 41 Ga,App. 717.
On scire facias to revive a revived
Judgment, the only defenses available
are matters arising since its entry.
—O'Connor v. Flick, 118 A. 431. 274
Pa, 521.
§ 540
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
and c of this section, the nonexistence or invalidity
of the judgment sought to be revived, or its pay-
ment, release, satisfaction, or discharge may con-
stitute good defenses.
Particular defenses permitted. Defendant may
show that his position with respect to the judg-
ment is that of a surety only,61 or that the proceed-
ings are prematurely brought,62 and, as discussed
infra § 542, the statute of limitations may also be
used as a defense. Persons made defendant to a
scire facias, founded on a judgment against a cor-
poration, on the allegation that they are stockhold-
ers and personally liable for its debts, may show
that they are not stockholders, or that the debt on
which the judgment was recovered was not of the
kind for which stockholders are liable.63 It is also
permissible to plead specially the incapacity of
plaintiff to maintain the proceeding.64
Particular defenses not available. Numerous par-
ticular defenses urged in proceedings for revival of
a judgment have been held unavailable.65 A gen-
eral denial of each and every allegation of the writ
not admitted in the answer is not a form of defense
permitted in such a proceeding.66 It is not per-
missible to show in defense want of considera-
tion,67 coverture of defendant,68 usury,6* fraud in
procuring the original judgment,70 duress in the
procuring of a prior revival of the judgment,71 or
recovery of another judgment on the same debt72
Other matters disallowed as defenses include the
pendency of an action of debt on the judgment,73
or of probate court proceedings incidental to a claim
based on the judgment,74 or the pendency of an ap-
peal in a suit to enjoin enforcement of the judg-
ment75 or of an appeal by plaintiff from judgment
in his favor.76 The assignment of the judgment to
a third person,77 the existence of liens on a judg-
ment,78 and adverse possession79 are other unavail-
able pleas. Where the motion for revival is
brought promptly, under all the circumstances of
the case, the daim of laches may be disallowed.80
Except in some jurisdictions,81 it is not a valid
objection to a proceeding to revive that at the time
of its commencement plaintiff could have proceed-
ed by execution.82 The unauthorized discharge of
the judgment debtor from arrest under an execu-
tion is not a defense to an action to revive the
judgment on which the execution was issued.83
fc. Payment, Eelease, Satisfaction, Discharge,
and Set-Off
In defense to a proceeding to revive a Judgment,
it may be shown that the judgment was paid, released,
satisfied, or discharged, but, in the absence of a statute
to the contrary, it is not proper to Interpose a set-off
or counterclaim.
Defense, rejected
Defendant, obtaining judgment on
plea that former judgment against
him was res adjudieata, cannot set
up second judgment as defense in
suit to revive former judgment —
Polk v. 8. H. Churchill & Co., Tex.
CivJLpp., 286 S.W. 900.
61. Ohio. — Nestlerode v. Foster, 8
Ohio Cir.Ct 70, 4 Ohio Cir.Dec. 385.
62. Wash. — Tacoma Nat Bank v.
Sprague, 74 P. 393, 33 Wash. 285.
63. Pa. — Wilson, McBlroy & Co. v.
Pittsburgh & Toughiogheny Coal
Co., 43 Pa. 424.
64. Mo.— Seattle Mfg. Co. V. Ger-
ardi, 214 S.W. 189.
34 C.J. p 679 note 58.
65. Ga. — McRae v. Boykin, App., 35
S.E.2d 548, certiorari denied 66 S.
Ct 1024.
Pa. — Bank of Wesleyville v. Wagner,
Com.Pl.f 21 Brie Co. 175.
The unauthorized removal of a
phllfl to a foreign country, with the
knowledge and consent of the ex-
ecutor of the mother's estate, is not
a sufficient ground for refusing the
executor's application to revive a di-
vorce judgment awarding alimony
and adjusting property rights of the
deceased mother. — Ghumos v* Chu-
mos, 146 P. 420, 93 'g*". 83.
66. U.S. — Wonderly v. Lafayette
County, C.C.MO., 77 F. 665, affirmed
Lafayette County v. Wonderly, 92
F. 313, 34 C.C.A. 360.
67. Pa. — Kincade v. Cunningham, 12
A. 410, 118 Pa. 501— Mulligan v.
Devlin, 12 Pa.Co. 465 — Krzykwa v.
Krzykwa, Com.PL, 15 Northumb.
Leg.J. 117.
68. Pa. — Eiffert v. Giessen, 14 A.
2d 130, 339 Pa. 60 — Sausage Mfg.
Co. v. Rometo, Com.PL, 86 Pittsb.
Leg.J. 105.
34 C.J. p 662 note 94.
69. Pa. — Lysle v. Williams, 15 Serg.
& R. 135— Bickel v. Cleaver, 13 Pa.
Co. 314.
70. Neb.— -Krause v. Long, 192 N.W.
729, 109 Neb. 846.
34 C.J. p 664 note 25 [a].
71. Pa. — Trader v. Lawrence, 37 A.
812, 182 Pa. 233.
72. N.C.— McLean v. McLean, 90 N.
C. 530.
73. U.S. — Lafayette County v. Won-
derly, Mo., 92 F. 313, 34 C.C.A.
360.
74. Kan. — Rodgers v. Smith, 68 P.2d
1092, 144 Kan. 212.
75. Wash. — Foley v. Kelleher, 158 P.
982, 92 Wash. 314.
76. La.— Weiller v. Blanks, 1 McG.
296.
77. 111. — Greene v. Schwing, 187 HL
App. 635.
996
Ohio. — Foster Screen Co. T. Brigel,
App., 31 N.E.2d 699.
Assignor as proper person to in-
stitute revival proceedings see su-
pra § 537.
78. Ohio. — Foster Screen Co. v. Bri-
gel, supra.
79. 111.— Smith v. Stevens, 24 N.E.
511, 133 111. 183.
80. Cal. — Thompson v. Cook, 143 P.
2d 107, 61 Cal.App.2d 485.
81. N.T. — Harmon v. Dedrick, 3
Barb. 192.
Tex.— White v. Stewart, Civ.App., 19
S.W.2d 795, error refused.
Action Blmilar to revival
Generally, suit on judgment by
scire facias proceedings or action of
debt will not lie, unless judgment
has become dormant because of fail-
ure to have execution issued, but
action similar to revival may be
brought on judgment which is not
dormant, when it wauld give holder
of Judgment additional advantage to
which he is legally entitled under
circumstances. — Elliott v. San Benito
Bank & Trust Co., Tex.Civ.App., 137
S.W.2d 1070.
82. Md.— Lambson v. Moftett, 61
Md. 426.
34 C.JT. p 663 note 4.
83. N.C.— Ballard v. Averitt, 1 N.C.
69.
34 C.J. p 663 note 20*
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 540
In defense to a proceeding to revive a judgment,
defendant may plead that it has been paid84 wholly
or in part,86 or he may plead the presumption of
payment arising from lapse of time,8^ or both pay-
ment and presumption of payment.87
Release,88 such as a voluntary release of the
judgment without full payment,89 discharge,90 sat-
isfaction,91 and accord and satisfaction92 may also
be pleaded.
Set-off or counterclaim. Ordinarily, in a pro-
ceeding for revival of a judgment, a set-off93 or a
counterclaim94 is not a proper defense, unless it is
proved that the item offered as a set-off was ac-
cepted and acknowledged by plaintiff as a credit on
the judgment in suit;95 but under some statutes
proceedings to revive a judgment are subject to a
counterclaim based on contract.96
c. Existence and Validity of Judgment
In defense to a proceeding for revival of a Judgment,
it Is proper to plead nul tiel record or to deny the exist-
ence of the Judgment or to show that it is absolutely
void.
As a general rule, in defense to a proceeding for
revival of a judgment, the plea of nul tiel record,
or the denial of the existence of the judgment,97
84. 111. — Blakeslee's Storage Ware-
houses v. City of Chicago, 11 N.B.
2d 42, 292 Ill.App. 288, affirmed 17
N.E.2d 1, 369 111. 480, 120 A.L.R.
715— Dulsky v. Lerner, 223 Ill.App.
228.
Md.— O'Neill & Co. v. Schulze, 7 A.
2d 263, 177 Md. 64.
Neb.— Baker Steel & Machinery Co.
v. Ferguson, 290 N.W. 449, 137 Neb.
578, 131 A.L.R. 798.
Okl.— Corpus Juris cited ia Shefts v.
Oklahoma Co., 137 P.2d 589, 592,
192 Okl. 483.
Or. — Corpus Juris cited in Stephens
v. Stephens, 132 P.2d 992, 993, 170
Or. 363.
Pa,— Smith v. Bald Hill Coal Co., 23
A.2d 466, 343 Pa. 399, 138 A.L.R.
859— Eiffert v. Oiessen, 14 A.2d 130,
339 Pa. 60— City Nat. Bank of
Wichita Palls, Tex., now for Use
of Newhams v. Atkinson, 175 A.
507, 316 Pa. 526— Moll v. Latterly,
153 A. 557, 302 Pa. 354— Shelinski
v. Obrekes, 97 Pa-Super. 340— Tay-
lor v. Tudor, 83 Pa.Super. 459— Mc-
Mahon v. Pietro, Com.Pl., 42 Lack.
Jur. 162— Merchants Oil Co. v.
Herb, 14 Northumb.Leg.J. 295—
Merchants Oil Co. v. Herb, 14
Northumb.Leg.J. 266— S a u s a g e
Mfg. Co. v. Rometo, Com.Pl., 86
Pittsb.Leg.J. 105— Leonard v. Ru-
tan, Com.PL, 18 Wash.Co. 40.
34 C.J. p 662 note 91, p 663 notes 11,
12.
85. Or. — Corpus Juris cited in Ste-
phens v. Stephens, 132 P.2d 992,
993, 170 Or. 363.
S.C. — Anderson v. Gage, 23 S.C.L. 319.
86. Pa,— Camp v. John, 102 A. 285,
259 Pa. 38.
84 C.J. p 663 note 13, p 666 note 49.
87. Del. — De Ford v. Green, 40 A.
1120, 15 Del. 316.
88. 111.— Albert Pick Co. v. Valos,
64 N.E.2d 319, 327 IlLApp. 404—
Blakeslee's Storage Warehouses v.
City of Chicago, 11 N.B.2d 42,
292 IlLApp. 288, affirmed 17 N.E.2d
1, 369 111. 480, 120 A.L.R. 715—
Dulsky v. Lerner, 223 IlLApp. 228.
Md.— O'Neill & Co. v. Schulze, 7 A.
2d 263, 177 Md. 64.
Pa. — Leonard v. Rutan, Com.PL, 18
Wash.Co. 40.
34 C.J. p 662 note 91.
89. N.C.— Salisbury First Nat Bank
v. Swink, 39 S.B. 962, 129 N.C. 255.
34 C.J. p 663 note 15.
90. 111.— Bank of Edwardsville v.
Raffaelle, 45 N.E.2d 651, 381 111.
486, 144 A.L.R. 401— Albert Pick
Co. v. Valos, 64 N.B.2d 319, 327
IlLApp. 404— U. S. Brewing Co. of
Chicago v. Epp, 247 Ill.App. 315.
Neb.— Baker Steel & Machinery Co.
v. Ferguson, 290 N.W. 449, 137 Neb.
578, 131 A.L.R. 798.
Ba.— Cusano v. Rubolino, 39 A.2d
906, 351 Pa, 41— Smith v. Bald
Hill Coal Co., 23 A.2d 466, 343 Pa,
399, 138 A.L.R. 859— Adelson v.
Kocher, 36 A.2d 737, 154 Pa.Super.
548— First Nat Bank & Trust Co.
of Ford City v. Stolar, 197 A. 499,
130 Pa.Super. 480— Shelinski v.
Obrekes, 97 Pa.Super. 340— Taylor
v. Tudor, 83 Pa, Super. 459 — Bell v.
Klein, Com.PL, 35 Luz.Leg.Reg. 72
— Merchants Oil Co. v. Herb, Com.
PL, 14 Northumb.Leg.J. 266— Stan-
ton v. Humphreys, Com.PL, 27 Del.
Co. 594.
34 OJ. p 662 note 91.
Effect of discharge in bankruptcy on
Judgments see Bankruptcy § 563.
91. 111.— Bank of Edwardsville v.
Raffaelle, 45 N.E.2d 651. 381 111.
486, 144 A.L.R. 401— Albert Pick
Co. v. Valos, 64 N.E.2d 319, 327 111.
App. 404— U. S. Brewing Co. of
Chicago v. Epp, 247 IlLApp. 315.
Okl.— Corpus Juris cited in, Shefts v.
Oklahoma Co., 137 P.2d 589, 592,
192 Okl. 483.
Pa. — Adelson v. Kocher, 36 A.2d 737,
154 Pa,Super. 548— First Nat Bank
& Trust Co. of Ford City v. Stolar,
197 A. 499, 130 Pa,Super, 480— Tay-
lor v. Tudor, 83 Pa.Super. 459 —
Stan ton v. Humphreys, Com.PL, 27
DeLCo. 594— Bell v. Klein, Com.PL,
36 Luz.Leg.Reg. 72— Merchants Oil
Co. v. Herb, Com.PL, 14 North-
umb.Leg.J. 266.
34 C,J. p 662 note 91.
Tail-ore to complete purchase
With respect to satisfaction of
997
judgment, defendants could not urge,
after twenty years, liability against
complainants for failure to complete
purchase at sheriff's sale of property
Levied on. — Schneider v. Schmidt 136
A. 740, 101 N.J.EQ. 140.
92. 111.— Albert Pick Co. v. Valos,
64 N.E.2d 319, 327 IlLApp. 404—
Blakeslee's Storage Warehouses v.
City of Chicago, 11 N.E.2d 42, 292
IlLApp. 288, affirmed 17 N.E.2d 1,
369 111. 480, 120 A.L.R. 715— Dul-
sky v. Lerner, 223 IlLApp. 228.
Md.— O'Neill & Co. v. Schulze, 7 A.
2d 263, 177 Md. 64.
34 C.J. p 663 note 17.
93. Neb.— Baker Steel & Machinery
Co. v. Ferguson, 290 N.W. 449, 137
Neb. 578, 131 A.L.R. 798.
Pa. — Wilcoac v. Du Bree, 8 Pa.Dist
& Co. 591.
34 C.J. p 663 note 18.
94. Neb.— Baker Steel & Machinery
Co. v. Ferguson, 290 N.W. 449, 137
Neb. 578, 131 A.L.R. 798.
34 C.J. p 663 note 18.
Adjudicated claim
Pa.— Moll v. Lafferty, 153 A. 557, 302
Pa, 354.
95. Pa,— Bishop v, Goodhart 19 A.
1026, 135 Pa, 374— Wilcox v. Du
Bree, 8 Pa.Dist & Co. 591.
Effect of agreement
"Set-off or counterclaim is not a
defense to a proceeding to revive a
dormant Judgment unless there has
been an agreement to apply it, in
which event it is treated as a pay-
ment"— Baker Steel & Machinery Co.
v. Ferguson, 290 N.W. 449, 451, 137
Neb. 578, 131 A.L.R. 798.
96. N.M.— Bailey v. Great Western
Oil Co., 259 P. 614, 32 N.M. 478, 55
A.L.R. 467.
97. 111. — Bank of Edwardsville v.
Raffaelle, 45 N.E.2d 651, 381 III
486, 144 A.L.R. 401— Albert Pick
Co. v. Valos, 64 N.E.2d 319, 327 111.
App. 404 — Blakeslee's Storage
Warehouses v. City of Chicago, 11
N.E.2d 42, 292 IlLApp. 288, af-
firmed 17 N.E.2d 1, 3-69 111. 480, 120
A.L.R. 715— U. S. Brewing Co. of
§ 540
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
tinder which defendant may show the judgment's
invalidity,98 is permissible. It is also a good de-
fense that the judgment is absolutely void," as for
want of jurisdiction,1 or because of the invalidity
of the statute on which it was based,2 provided, in
some jurisdictions, the judgment record shows af-
firmatively that it is void,8 although in other juris-
dictions, die record may be impeached in the revival
proceedings,4 at least with respect to the return of
an officer to the service of a summons.6 On the
other hand, it is not a good defense that the judg-
ment was irregular5 or erroneous.7
d. Defenses by Heirs, Executors, Administra-
tors, and Terre-Tenants
Generally, any defenses which would have been open
to the original defendant may be pleaded by heirs, ex-
ecutors, administrators, or terre-tenants in a proceed-
ing against them to revive a Judgment.
As a general rule, heirs, executors, administra-
tors,8 or terre-tenants9 may plead any defenses
which would have been open to the original defend-
ant Such defendants may deny the character in
which they are sued.10 Except in some jurisdic-
Chicago v. Epp, 247 ULApp. 315 —
Dulsky v. Lerner, 223 ULApp. 228
Md.— O'Neill & Co. v. Schulze, 7 A.
2d 263. 177 Md. 64.
Neb.— Baker Steel & Machinery Co
v. Ferguson, 290 N.W. 449, 137 Neb,
578, 131 A.L.R. 798.
Okl. — Corpus Juris cited in Shefts v.
Oklahoma Co., 137 P.2d 589, 592
192 Okl. 483.
Pa. — Cusano v. Rubolino, 39 A.2d
906, 351 Pa. 41— City Nat Bank
of Wichita Falls, Tex., now for
Use of Newhams, v. Atkinson, 175
A. 507, 316 Pa. 526— Adelson v,
Kocher, 36 A.2d 737, 154 Pa. Super.
548— First Nat Bank & Trust Co.
of Ford City v. Stolar, 197 A. 499,
130 Pa.Super. 480— Shelinski v.
Obrekes, 97 Pa. Super. 340 — Taylor
v. Tudor, 83 Pa.Super. 459 — Barn-
hart v. Herring, Com.PL, 54 Pa.
Dist & Co, 526 — Stanton v. Hum-
phreys, Com.Pl., 27 Del.Co. 594 —
McMahon v. Pletro, Com.PL, 42
Lack. Jur. 162 — Bell v. Klein, Com.
PL, 35 Luz.Leg.Reg. 72 — Merchants
Oil Co. v. Herb, Com.Pl., 14 North-
umb.Leg.J. 266 — Sausage Mfg. Co.
v. Rometo, Com.PL, 86 Pittsb.Leg.
J. 105.
34 OJ. p 662 note 91—53 C.J. p 639
note 59 [a].
98. Neb.— Lashmett v. Prall, 120 N.
W. 206, 83 Neb. 732.
34 C.J. p 662 note 91.
99. Neb. — Baker Steel & Machinery
Co. v. Ferguson, 290 N.W. 449, 137
Neb. 578, 181 A.L.R. 798.
34 C.J. p 663 note 21.
of validity
Validity of a judgment, which was
attacked by an answer to a scire fa-
cias proceeding to revive It could
be settled by such proceeding in
court which rendered original judg-
ment— Carson v. Taylor, Tex.Civ.
App., 261 S.W. 824.
1. Wash.— Waterman v. Bash, 89 P.
656, 46 Wash. 212.
33 C.J. p 663 note 21.
Jurisdiction, over person
(1) Defendant may defend on
ground that he was not served and
did not appear in original suit. — Mc-
Rae v. Boykin, GfeuApp., 35 S.B.2d 548,
certiorari denied 66 S.Ct 1024.
(2) Testimony of plaintiff and re-
turn of 'constable were sufficient to
sustain Judgment of revlvor, as
against contention that original judg-
ment was void for want of Jurisdic-
tion.— Kinyoun v. Reinsh, 289 N.W.
382, 137 Neb. 325.
2. U.S. — Board of Com'rs of Hert-
ford County v. Tome, N.C., 153 F.
81, 82 C.C.A. 215.
3. Okl.— Corpus Juris died in Shefts
v. Oklahoma Co., 137 P.2d 589, 592,
192 Okl. 483.
34 C.J. p 664 note 23.
Service of process
Record of return of officer who ef-
fected service of process in original
suit held not subject to contradiction.
111.— Albert Pick Co. v. Valos, 64 N.
E.2d 319, 327 ULApp. 404.
Pa. — Taylor v. Tudor, 83 Pa.Super.
459.
4. Neb. — Johnson v. Carpenter, 108
N.W. 161, 77 Neb. 49.
34 C.J. p 664 note 24.
5. Neb.— Haynes v. Aultman, 54 N.
W. 511, 36 Neb. 257.
34 C.J. p 664 note 24 [a].
Ariz.— Miller Rubber Co. of New
York v. Peggs, 132 P,2d 439, 60
Ariz. 157.
Pa.— Smith v. Bald Hill Coal Co., 23
A.2d 466, 343 Pa. 399, 138 A.L.R.
859 — Jacobson v. McCormlck, Com.
PL, 38 Luz.Leg.Reg. 355.
34 C.J. p 664 note 25.
Particular irregularities disregarded
(1) Failure to file affidavit re-
quired by rule of court on entry
of original Judgment and fact that
one of several parties plaintiff was
deceased at time of such entry, are
not available as defenses in scire
facias proceeding. — Smith v. Bald
Hill Coal Co., 23 A.2d 466, 343 Pa,
399, 138 A.L.R. 859.
(2) Fact that record of Judgment
against two defendants referred to
[udgment against "defendant" was
held not to prevent revivor of Judg-
ment—Van Home v. Harford, 6 N.
B.2d 887, 289 ULApp. 121.
Tex. — Ulmer v. Frankland, Civ.
App., 27 S.W. 766.
34 C.J, p 664 note 25. • i
998
8. U.S.— McKnight v. Craig's Adm'r,
B.C., 6 Cranch 183, 3 L.Ed. 193.
34 C.J. p 664 note 27.
Disoliarge
Since allegation that Judgment was
destroyed is equivalent to allegation
of discharge, if probate proceedings
allowing judgment as claimed
against estate destroyed judgment,
that defense could be interposed in
proceeding against heirs to revive
Judgment— Wolford v. Scarbrough,
21 S.W.2d 777, 224 Mo.App. 137.
Payment
Where estate had no means of pay-
ing judgment against it, and one of
two executors bought judgment with
own money and had it assigned to
third person who issued scire facias
thereon, naming both executors and
also heirs as defendants, plea of pay-
ment by the executors did not estop
the executor who had bought the
judgment from showing that it was
in fact paid but that it was intended
to be kept alive for his use. — McKer-
rahan v. Crawford, 59 Pa. 390.
9. Pa. — Roberts v. Williams, 5
Whart 170, 34 Am.D. 549.
34 C.J. p 664 note 27.
Pleading* to merits by terre-tenant
in scire facias to revive judgment
is not permitted. — South Central
Building & Loan Ass'n v. Milani, 150
A. 586, 300 Pa. 250— Bell v. Yontos,
46 Pa.Dist. & Co. 636, 44 Lack.Jur.
83, 57 Tork Leg.Rec. 53.
Validity of original Judgment
(1) In scire facias to revive a
judgment a terre-tenant may moke
no inquiry, into the validity of the
original judgment, as long as the
original judgment stands unimpeach-
ed.7-Smith v. Bald Hill Coal Co., 23
A.2d 466, 343 Pa. 399, 138 A.L.R. 859.
(2) Terre-tenants could set up no
defense attacking validity of original
judgment which appeared to be reg-
ular on Its face. — Adelson v. Kocher,
36 A.2d 737, 154 Pa.Super. 548.
1C. Ky. — White v. Brown, 1 Dana
104.
Pa. — Miners Nat Bank of Wilkes-
Barre v. Dukas, Com.Pl., 32 Luz.
Leg.Reg. 229.
34 C.J. p 664 note 28.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 542
tions,11 an heir or administrator may plead want of
assets or "nothing by descent."12
A plene administravit, when supported by the
facts, may be sufficient in a proceeding to revive a
judgment against a personal representative,1^ bnt
such a plea is bad on demurrer where it appears
that there is real estate which might be sold to pay
debts, since the administrator is bound to sell such
real estate for that purpose.14 To a scire facias to
revive a judgment against a testator, executors may
not plead that they have not accounted to the sur-
rogate,16 although such a plea has been considered
good as against a scire facias issued on a judgment
against the executors themselves.16 Personal rep-
resentatives may not defend on the ground that a
note, on which the judgment is based, was signed
by deceased as an accommodation maker.17
A terrertenant may plead that the judgment was
never a lien on his land,18 or that the judgment
debtor had parted with title to the realty before
the entry of the judgment,19 or that the lien has
been extinguished.20
§ 541. Jurisdiction and Venue
At a general rule, proceedings to revive a Judgment
should be brought In the court In which the Judgment
was rendered.
A proceeding to revive a judgment must be
brought in the court21 and county22 wherein it was
rendered. The rule applies even where, under stat-
utory authority, a transcript of the judgment is filed
in a court of another county,28 or in another court
of the same county,24 or where a transcript of a
judgment of • a federal court is filed in a state
court,25 unless the statute providing for the trans-
fer authorizes a revivor in the court to which the
transfer is made.26 However, in the case of judg-
ments of inferior courts removed by transcript to a
superior court,- jurisdiction to revive the judgment
has been held to reside in the latter court27
§ 542. Time for Revival
a. In general
b. Computation of period of limitation
a. In General
A Judgment may and should be revived within the
time limited by law.
As a general rule, a judgment may and should be
revived within the time limited by law.28 As dis-
cussed in the C.J.S. title Limitations of Actions §
102, also 34 CJ. p 665 notes 41, 42, the general law
as to the limitation of actions does not apply to pro-
ceedings to revive a dormant judgment, except in a
few jurisdictions. Such proceedings are governed
only by the special statutory provisions, if any, ap-
plicable to proceedings of that character,^ Such
11. Miss. — Commercial Bank v. Ken-
dall, 21 Miss. 278.
34 C.J. p 664 note 29.
12. Ga. — Fulcher v. Mandell, 10 S.E.
582, 83 Ga. 715.
34 C.J. p 664 note 80 — 24 C.J. p 896
note 71.
Application of executor to orphans'
court, representing1 that property of
decedent is insufficient to pay debts,
will not bar scire facias to revive a
judgment entered before application
was made. — Howell v. Potts, 20 N.J.
Law 1.
13- Tenn. — Cox v. Cox, 2 Yerg. 305.
24 C.J. p 896 note 71 [b].
14. vt.— Bates v. Kimball, 1 Aik.
95. ,
15. N.Y. — Clark v. Sexton, 23 Wend.
477.
16. N.Y. — Clark v. Sexton, 23 Wend.
477.
17. Pa.— Eiftert v. Giessen, 14 A.2d
130, 339 Pa. 60.
18. Pa. — Cusano v. RuboUno, 39 A,
2d 906, 351 Pan 41— Bell v. Tontos,
46 PaJDist. & Co. -636, 44 Lack.Jur.
83, 57 York Leg.Rec. 53.
34 C.J. p 664 note 32.
19. Pa, — Cusano v. Rubolino, 39 A,
2d 90$, 351 Pa. 41.
20. Pa, — Cusano v. Rubolino, supra.
34 C.JT. p 664 note 32.
21. ill. — Corpus Juris cited in. Van
Home y. Harford, 280 Ill.App,
576, 579.
Kan. — Corpus Juris Quoted in Rodg-
ers v. Smith, 58 P.2d 1092, 1096,
144 Kan. 212.
34 OJ. p 664 note 34.
Action of debt held not within rule.
— Koenig v. Marti. Tex.Civ.App., 103
S.W.2d 1023, error dismissed — Burge
y. Broussard, Tex.Civ.App., 258 S.
W. 502.
22. Neb. — Case Threshing* Mach. Co.
v. Bdmisten, 122 N.W. 891, 85 Neb.
272.
23. 111.— Corpus Juris cited in Van
Home v. Harford, 280 Ill.App. 576,
579.
34 C.J. p 665 note 36.
24. 111.*— Van Home v. Harford, 280
IlLApp. 576.
25. Neb. — Holmes v. Webster, 152 N.
W. 312, 98 Neb. 105.
26. 111. — Corpus Juris cited in Van
Home v. Harford, 280 Ill.App. 576,
579.
34 C.J. p 665 note 38.
27. Neb. — Garrison v. Aultman, 30
N.W. 61, 20 Neb. 311.
34 C.J. p 665 note 39
999
Revival of judgments in justice of
the peace courts see the C.J.S. ti-
tle Justices of the Peace § 120, al-
so 34 C.J. p 665 note 39; 35 C.J.
p 689 note 93 et seq.
28. Ala.— -Quill y. Carolina Portland
Cement Co., 124 So. 305, 220 Ala.
134.
Cal. — Betty v. Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, 116 P.2d 947, 18
Oal.2d 619— Pacific Gas So Electric
Co. v. Elks Duck Club, 103 P.2d
1030, 39 Cal.App.2d 562.
Ga. — James v. Roberts, 191 S.B. 301,
55 Ga.App. 755.
La, — Fritz Jahncke, Inc., v. Fidelity
Deposit Co. of Maryland, 135 So.
32, 172 La, 704.
Mo. — Excelsior Steel Furnace Co. v.
Smith, App., 17 S.W.2d 378.
Pa,— Petition of Miller, 28 A.2d 257,
149 Pa. Super. 142 — Lukac v. Morris,
Com.PL, 7 Sch.Reg. 241.
Tex. — Zummo Packing Co. v. Cotham,
Civ.App., .135 S.W.2d 177, affirmed
155 S.W.2d 600, 137 Tex. 517— Min-
gus v. Kadane, Civ.App., 125 S.W.
2d 630, error dismissed, judgment
correct.
34 C.J. p £63 note 7.
29. U.S. — Spurway v. Dyer, D.C.FUu,
48 F.Supp. 255.
Ala. — Quill v. Carolina Portland Ce-
§ 542
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
special statutory provisions are valid80 and may be
given a retrospective operation.81
Motions to revive. In some jurisdictions, the
statute of limitations applicable to an action or writ
of scire facias to revive a judgment will also bar a
motion for the same purpose.82 Where there is a
special statute applicable to such motions, the mo-
tion must be made within the time limited,38 but it
has been held that, where the motion to revive is
under a statute which imposes no restriction as to
time, the court has no authority to insert such a re-
striction.84
b. Computation of Period of Limitation
The period of limitation for revival of a Judgment
ordinarily begins to run from the rendition of the judg-
ment or other time specified by statute, and, in the ab-
sence of a provision to the contrary, proceedings must
be begun before the last day of the period unless the
running of the statute has. been toiled.
As a general rule, the limitation of the time of
bringing proceedings for the revival of a judg-
ment begins to run from the rendition of the judg-
ment,85 or other time specified by statute,86 such as
from the time when the judgment first becomes
dormant,87 or an execution might first be issued on
ment Co., 124 So. 805, 220 Ala.
134.
Idaho.— Tingrwall v. King Hill Irr.
Dist, 155 P.2d 605.
La.— Mulling v. Jones, 114 So. 725,
164 La. 894.
Mich.— Nathan v. Rupcic, 6 N.W.2d
484, 303 Mich. 201.
N.J. — Trustees for Support of Public
Schools v. Ott & Brewer Co., 37
A.2d 832, 135 N.J.Eq. 174.
N.C.— Hetcalf v. Ratcliff, 1 S.E.2d
565, 215 N.C. 243.
Okl. — Thomas v. Murray, 49 P.2d
1080, 174 Okl. 36, 104 A.L.R. 209.
Pa. — Stanton v. Humphreys, Com.Pl.,
27 DeLCo. 594.
34 C.JT. p 665 note 43.
Statutes not in par! materia
The statute relating to dormancy
of judgment and execution thareon
is not in par! materia with statute
authorizing revival of a judgment,
so that provision that a Judgment on
which no execution is issued does
not become dormant until ten years
after its rendition does not render
nugatory provision that an action to
revive or for debt must be brought
on the judgment within ten years
after date of rendition and both pro-
visions must be given effect — Gillam
v. Matthews, Tex.Civ.App., 122 S.W.
2d 348, error dismissed.
Type of Judgment affected
(1) Generally, statutes relating to
revival of judgments have reference
to money judgments capable of en-
forcement by execution, and are not
generally regarded as imposing time
limitation on enforcement of judg-
ments which are not for payment of
money or which are not enforceable
by execution. — Kelly v. City of Cape
Girardeau, 89 S.W.2d 693, 230 Mo.
App. 137.
(2) Judgment in mandamus pro-
ceeding to enforce collection of acre-
age tax for drainage district bonds
was a "money judgment" within pre-
scription of ten years. — Perkins v.
Clancy, 146 So. 748, 176 La. 787.
Particular limitations lield applica-
ble
(1) Generally. — SharefC, to Use of
Olney Bank & Trust Co. v. Wolf, 182
A. 115, 120 Pa.Super, 227.
(2) The limitation of one year for
revivor of actions has no applica-
tion to revivor of dormant judg-
ment.— Rich v. Cooper, 286 N.W. 383,
136 Neb. 463.
(3) Suit to revive judgment which
gave incorrect middle initial of judg-
ment debtor and to have person nam-
ed in original judgment and revived
judgment decreed to be the same per-
son, was governed by ten-year stat-
ute of limitations and not by five-
year statute which applies to action
to reform an instrument — Jaubert
Bros. v. Landry* La.App., 15 So.2d
158.
The term "issue" of execution in
statute of limitations for revival of
judgments means more than the
mere clerical preparation and attes-
tation of the writ and requires that
it should be delivered to an officer
for enforcement — Gotten v. Stanford,
Tex.Civ.App., 147 S.W.2d 930.
30. Idaho.— Bashor v. Beloit, 119 P.
55, 20 Idaho 592.
31. Neb.— Atkinson v. Uttley, 154 N.
W. 247, 98 Neb. 722.
34 C.J. p 666 note 45.
38. Ohio.— Bartol v. Bckert, 33 N.E.
294, 50 Ohio St 31.
34 C.J. p 666 note 46.
33. Kan. — Kansas & Texas Coal Co.
v. Carey, 70 P. 589, 65 Kan. 639.
34 C.J. p 666 note 47.
34. Neb.— Hunter v. Leahy, 24 N.W.
680, 18 Neb. 80.
34 C.J. p 666 notes 48, 49.
35. U.S.— Terby v. Kerr, C.C.A.Tex.,
143 F.2d 58.
Ark. — Cabler v. Anderson, 16 S.W.2d
179, 179 Ark. 364.
111.— Motel v. Andraeki, 19 N.E.2d
832, 299 IU.App. 166.
Iowa. — Lacfcender v. Morrison, "2 N.
W.2d 286, 231 Iowa 899.
La,— Perkins v. Clancy, 146 So. 748,
176 La, 787— Fritz Jahncke, Inc.,
v. Fidelity Deposit Co. of Mary-
land, 135 So. 32, 172 La, 704— Bai-
ley v. Louisiana & N. W. R. Co.,
105 So. 626, 159 La, 576.
Md.— O'Neill & Co. v. Schulze, 7
A.2d 263, 177 Md. *4.
Mo. — In re Jackman's Estate, 124 S.
W.2d 1189, 344 Mo. 49— Kelly v.
1000
City of Cape Girardeau, 89 S.W.2d
693, 230 Mo.App. 137— Longlett v.
Eisenberg, TO S.W.2d 317, 222 Mo.
App. 805.
Mont — State v. Hart Refineries, 92 P.
2d 76fl, 109 Mont 140, 123 A.L.R.
655.
Pa. — Szusta v. Krawiec, 36 Luz.Leg.
Reg. 183.
Tex. — Zummo v. Cotham, 155 S.W.2d
600, 137 Tex. 517— Gillam v. Mat-
thews, Civ.App., 122 S.W.2d 348,
error dismissed.
34 C.J. p 666 note 50.
Strict construction of statute
Tex. — Commerce Trust Co. v. Ramp,
138 S.W.2d 531, 135 Tex. 84.
Reversal
Statute prescribing money judg-
ments ten years after rendition runs
from date of rendition in tried court,
or in appellate court after reversal.
— Carlile v. Huckaby, La, App., 154
So. 462.
Signing of Judgement
Suit to revive judgment which was
commenced more than ten years after
judgment was given, but within ten
years after judgment was signed,
was not prescribed, since signing of
judgment constitutes "rendition of
the Judgment", within statute pro-
viding for prescription of judgments
by lapse of ten years from rendition
thereof.— Viator v. Heintz, 10 So.2d
690, 201 La. 884.
36. Ga. — James v. Roberts, 191 S.E.
301, 55 GcuApp. 755.
Tex. — Mingus v. Kadane, Civ.App.f
125 S.W.2d 630, error dismissed,
judgment correct
34 C.J. p 666 note 51.
37. Ga, — James v. Roberts, 191 S.E.
301, 55 Ga.App. 755.
Kan. — Butler v. Rumbeck, 56 P.2d
80, 143 Kan. 708.
Neb.— Baker Steel & Machinery Co.
v. Ferguson, 290 N.W. 449, 137
Neb. 578, 131 A.L.R. 798.
Okl.— Thomas v. Murray, 49 P.2d
1080, 174 Okl. 86, 104 A.L.R. 209.
Dormant judgments generally see
supra § 532.
Effect of appeal
Under a statute which permits re-
vivor within one year after a judg-
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
542
the judgment,88 or from the time of issuance of the
last execution on the judgment.89 Under some
statutes, where the judgment has once been re-
vived, the limitation period runs from the date of
the revival,40 but other statutes bar a revival after
lapse of the prescribed period commencing from the
date of rendition of the judgment notwithstanding
the judgment has once been revived within the pe-
riod.41 In a case where a terre-tenant is involved,
the period of limitations commences from the date
of the recording of the terre-tenant^ deed42 or from
the time of taking of possession of the land by the
terre-tenant.48
While the running of the statute ^of limitations
for revival of a judgment may be interrupted by
some sufficient cause,44 in the absence of such inter-
ruption, the right to institute the proceeding will
expire on the last day of the statutory period,45
or, if that day is dies non, on the next succeeding
business day.46 Ordinarily, the statute is saved by
beginning the proceedings within the limited time,47
although the judgment of fevivor does not follow
ment becomes dormant, where a
judgment has been appealed, the lim-
itation on a motion for revivor does
not begin to run until the mandate
has come down from the appellate to
the trial court. — Aaron v. Morrow, 50
P.2d 674, 174 Okl. 452.
38. D.C. — Brown v. Allan B. Wolker-
& Co., 26 F.2d 545, 58 App.D.C. 173.
Docketing Judgment in superior court
Where municipal court Judgment
was docketed in supreme court, pe-
riod within which revival could be
had began with the docketing in
the supreme court-— Brown v. Allan
E. Walker & Co., supra.
39. Tex. — Gartin v. Furgeson, Civ.
App., 144 S,W.2d 1114— Mingus v.
Kadane, Civ.App., 125 S.W.2d 630,
error dismissed, Judgment correct.
34 C.J. p 666 note 51 [b]— 24 C.J. P
896 note 78 [e].
Action, similar to revival, such as
action against decedent's heirs to
subject property formerly owned by
decedent to payment of Judgment
against him, is not barred by limita-
tions until lapse of ten years from
issuance of last execution on Judg-
ment—Elliott v. San Benito Bank
& Trust Co., Tex.Civ.App., 137 S.W.
2d 1070.
40. D.C, — Brown v. Allan B. Walker
£ Co., 26 F.2d 545, 58 App.P-C.
178.
La.— Interstate Electric Co. v. Smith,
App., 180 So. 178, overruling Mitch-
ell v. Brodnax, App., 164 So. 426,
and McDaniel v. Smith, 127 So. 108,
13 La.App. 61.
Mo.— Gregory Grocery Co. v. Link, 25
S.W.2d 575, 224 Mo.App. 407.
34 C.J. p 666 note 51 [a].
41. Ala,— Mobile Drug Co. v. Mc-
Cullough, 112 So. 238, 215 Ala. 682.
42. Pa,— First N*t. Bank & Trust
Co. v. Miller, 186 A. 87, 822 Pa.
473— Kefover v. Hustead, 144 A.
430, 294 Pa. 474— EUinger v> Krach,
28 A.2d 453, 1W Pa.Super. 3*4,
affirmed Simrions v. Simmons, 29
A.2d 677, 346 Pa. 52— Simmons v.
Simmons, 28 A.2d 445, 150 Fa-Su-
per. 393, affirmed 29 A.2d 677, 346
Pa. 52— First Nat Bank v. Torai-
chek, IS A.2d 126, 140 Pa.Super.
101— Freeman v. Jones, Com.Pl.,
26 WestCo. 195.
Extending lien by revival of Judg-
ment see supra § 494.
Failure to name terre-tenant as par-
ty
Judgment creditor had five years
from time of recording of terre-ten-
ant's deed to revive as against terre-
tenant, notwithstanding revival
against Judgment debtor failed to in-
clude terre-tenant whose deed was
on record at time of such revival. —
Farmers Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of
Reading, to Use of Nolan, v. Barrett,
184 A. 128, 321 Pa, 273.
43. Pa.— First Nat. Bank & Trust
Co. v. Miller, 186 A. 87, 322 Pa.
473 — Everett Hardwood Lumber
Co. v. Calhoun, 183 A. 659, 121 Pa.
Super. 451.
44. U.S. — Bingham v. Fordson Coal
Co., C.C.A.Ky., 26 F.2d 346.
La. — Brock v. Edwards, App., 159
So. 607.
34 C.J. P 666 note 52.
Causes held insufficient
(1) Seizure of property under scire
facias did not suspend prescriptive
period against Judgment, statutory
revival being exclusive. — McDaniel v.
Smith, 127 So. 108, 13 La.App. 61.
(2) Order of referee in bankruptcy,
which could not be construed as ad-
judication that Judgment be paid,
did not interrupt running of limita-
tion statute.— Yerby v. Kerr, C.C.A.
Tex., 143 F.2d 58.
(3) Fraudulent concealment of
property and false representations
made to Judgment creditor by Judg-
ment debtor as to extent of his prop-
erty, whereby Judgment creditor fail-
ed to issue executions or to revive
Judgment did not toll limitations on
Judgment where no proceedings were
had in aid of execution.— Thomas v.
Murray, 49 P.2d 1080, 174 OkL 36,
104 A.L.R. 209.
(4) Neither an appeal nor superse-
deas bond filed on appeal to-lied stat-
ute of limitations.— State v. Hart Re-
fineries, 92 P.2d 766, 109 Mont 140,
123 A.L.B. 555—34 C.J. P 666 note 52
ra. •
1001
Injunction
(1) It has been held that issuance
of temporary injunction, preventing
levy and sale under execution issued
on dormant Judgment, does not inter-
rupt running of limitations on Judg-
ment—Commerce Trust Co. v. Ramp,
138 S.W.2d 531, 135 Tex. 84.
(2) However, it has also been held
that injunction against the enforce-
ment of the Judgment stays the run-
ning of the statute against it. — Hut-
sonpiller v. Stover, 12 Gratt 579,
53 Va. 579—34 C.J. P 666 note 52 Id].
45. Pa.— Appeal of Lutz, 16 A. 858,
124 Pa. 273.
g.C. — Blohme v. Schmancke, 61 S.E.
1060, 81 S.C. 81.
43. pa. — Appeal of Lutz, 16 A. 858,
124 Ba. 273.
47. Mo.— City of St. Louis v. Miller,
App., 155 S.W.2d 565.
34 C.J. p 666 note 56.
Filing petition
(1) Where time limitation within
which petition must have been filed
had not expired on date of filing of
petition but had expired before date
of filing of motion made by plaintiff
at subsequent term of court to
amend writ of scire facias and for
order directing perfection of personal
service on defendant court had Juris-
diction to amend writ and order
service perfected.— Stahle v. Jones,
3 S.E.2d 861, 60 Ga.App. 397.
(2) Where petition for writ of
scire fiacias to revive Judgment was
filed and court order directing that
the writ issue was obtained within
limitation period, right to revival
of Judgment was not barred merely
because of clerk's failure to issue
writ within period.— City of St. Lou-
is v. Miller, Mo.App., 155 S.W.2d 565
—City of St Louis v. Miller, 145 S.
W.2d 504, 285 Mo.App. 987.
Suing1 out or issuance of writ
Where prsecipe was filed with pro-
thonotary who prepared writ and de-
livered it within five-year period to
plaintiff's attorney, to procure serv-
ice by acceptance, writ was "sued
out" or "issued" within statute re-
quiring scire facias to be "sued out"
or "issued" within five years, al-
though acceptance of service was
542
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
until after the expiration of the statutory period,48
but in some jurisdictions the statutes expressly lim-
it the time for making or rendering the order or
judgment of revivor, as distinguished from the com-
mencement of the proceedings.49
Death of party. In some states the death of a
judgment defendant starts the running of a new
period of limitations, and proceedings to revive the
judgment must be brought within a limited time
after that event,50 at least where the revival is with-
out the consent of the representatives of defend-
ant.51 In other states the death of the judgment de-
fendant does not interrupt the statute, but the re-
vival proceedings must be instituted within the pe-
riod originally limited after the rendition of the
judgment52 Under some statutes, the death of a
judgment plaintiff introduces a new limitation pe-
riod within which his representatives may revive a
judgment without the consent of the judgment debt-
or.^
§ 543. Mode of Revival
The mode of revival of a judgment fs sometimes pro-
vided for by statute, and generally revival must be ac-
complished by means of a Judicial proceeding involving
notice and an opportunity to be heard.
The mode of reviving a judgment is sometimes
provided for by statute,54 and in some jurisdictions
it has been held that the prescribed methods are ex-
clusive,55 but in other jurisdictions the statutory
procedure is merely cumulative and not mandatory
or exclusive.56 Informal methods of revival have
not returned until after five-year pe-
riod— Luzerne Nat. Bank v. Gosart,
185 A. 640, 322 Pa, 446.
48. Mo.— In re Jackman's Estate,
124 S.W.2d 1189, 344 Mo. 49.
34 C.J. P 666 note 56.
49. OkL— Bartlett Mortgage Co. v.
Morrison, 81 P.2d 318, 183 Okl. 214
— Edward Thompson Co. v. Bris-
tow. 244 P. 429, 116 Okl. 243.
34 C.J. p 666 note 55.
50. Va. — Cox v. Caskie, 82 8.E. 118,
116 Va, 388.
34 C.J. p 666 note 57.
Za Pennsylvania
(1) Where judgment debtor, owner
in fee of lot died in 1936, and deed
conveying lot was recorded in 1938,
scire facias proceeding in 1943 to re-
vive judgment against grantees as
terre-tenants, brought more than sev-
en years after death of judgment
debtor but within five years of re-
cording of deed, was too late, since,
under Fiduciaries Act which was ap-
plicable and not act of 1849, lien was
lost in 1941 from failure to revive it
within five-year period of the debt-
or's death. — Frank Di Berardino
Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. De Gregoria,
45 A.2d 378, 158 Pa. Super. 516.
(2) Under statute providing that
unless revived within five years from
death of judgment debtor judgment
should not constitute lien against
real estate, judgment may be revived
after five years from death of judg-
ment debtor, although thereafter it
will not constitute lien against real
estate. — Shareff, to Use of Olney
Bank & Trust Co. v. Wolf, 182 A.
115, 120 Pa.Super. 227.
51. Okl.— Jackson v. Scott 173 P.
70, 70 Okl. 85.
52. Va, — Barley v. Duncan, 13 S.B.2d
294, 177 Va. 192.
34 C.J. P 667 note 59.
General statute inapplicable
General statute, providing for ex-
clusion of period of one year from
death of any party, from computa-
tion of time within which proceeding,
to preserve any right or remedy,
must be commenced, was held not to
modify statute of limitations rela-
tive to the bringing of scire facias
on a judgment — Barley v. Duncan, 13
S.E.2d 298, 177 Va, 202— Barley v.
Duncan, 13 S.E.2d 294, 177 Va, 192.
53. Okl.— Jersak v. Risen, 152 P.2d
374, 194 OkL 423.
Appointment of executrix
Mere fact that special administra-
tor of deceased plaintiff's estate
could have been appointed and ob-
tained revivor of dormant judgment
within year after plaintiff's death
was insufficient reason for holding
invalid the revivor thereof within
year after appointment of executrix
of plaintiff's will.— Jersak v. Risen,
supra.
54. Kan. — Bourman v. Bourman, 127
P.2d 464, 155 Kan. 602.
Okl.— Jersak v. Risen, 152 P.2d 374,
194 Okl. 423.
Reference to procedure
Statute providing that dormant
judgments may be revived in same
manner as is prescribed for reviving
actions before judgment refers to
procedure rather than to the substan-
tive right of revivor. — Bourman v.
Bourman, 127 P.2d 464, 155 Kan. 602.
Belief provided by common-law writ
Statute requiring revival of origi-
nal judgment where execution sale is
irregular and purchaser fails to ob-
tain possession, judgment so revived
to have same effect as would original
judgment of date of revival, is in-
tended to afford relief provided for
by common-law writ of scire facias
pertaining to revival of judgments. —
Continental Nat Bank & Trust Co. of
Salt Lake City v. John H. Seely &
Sons Co., 77 P.2d 355, 94 Utah 357,
115 A.L.R. 543.
55. Ala.— Gant v. Gilmer, 18 So.2d
542, 245 Ala. 686.
1002
Kan. — Denny v. Ross, 79 P. 502, 70
Kan. 720.
Ohio.— Kline v. Falbo, 56 N.B.2d 701,
73 Ohio App. 417.
S.D.— McMahon v. Brown, 279 N.W.
538, 66 S.D. 134.
Tex. — White v. Stewart, Civ.App., 19
S.W.2d 795, error refused.
Other methods held ineffective
(1) Action for fraud and deceit —
Thomas v. Murray, 49 P2d 1080, 174
Okl. 36, 104 A.L.R. 209.
(2) Issuing writs of execution.
Ga. — U-Driv-It System of Macon
v. Lyles. 30 S.B.2d 111, 71 Ga.
App. 70, followed in 30 S.E.2d 114,
71 Ga.App. 74.
La. — Park v. Markley, App., 17 So.
2d 459, rehearing denied 18 So.2d
73.
Tex. — Commerce Farm Credit Co. v.
Ramp, Civ.App., 116 S.W.2d 1144,
affirmed Commerce Trust Co. v.
Ramp, 138 S.W.2d 531, 135 Tex.
84.
(3) Order granting leave to issue
execution on judgment — M^Mahon v.
Brown, 279 N.W. 538, '66 S.D. 134.
(4) Filing judgment in court of
another county. — Kline v. Falbo, 56
N.E.2d 701, 73 Ohio App. 417.
(5) Ex parte orders. — Park v.
Markley, La.App., 17 So.2d 459, re-
hearing refused 18 So.2d 73.
(6) Statutory procedure for con-
testing claim against decedent's es-
tate.—Gant v. Gilmer, 18 So.2d 542,
245 Ala. 686.
(7) Chancery decree declaring law
judgments valid and payable by debt-
or's administrator, and establishing
judgments as liens on debtor's estate.
— Blair v. Rorer*s Adm'r, 116 S.B.
767, 135 Va, 1, motion denied 43 S.
Ct 704, 262 U.S. 234, 67 L.Ed. 1206.
56. Okl.— Tucker v. Gautier, 164 P.
2d 613.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 544
been permitted in some cases without reference to
statute.57
Generally a revival of a judgment is deemed to be
a judicial act, in the sense that it requires the ac-
tion of the court in some form of proceeding in-
volving notice to the adverse party and an oppor-
tunity to contest the application,58 and a judgment
cannot be revived by a mere parol promise to pay
it.5& The revival of a judgment by a written agree-
ment of the parties properly filed and entered of
record, as discussed infra § 548, is authorized by
some statutes. Where requirements as to notice
and opportunity to be heard are complied with, a
revival may be brought about in a collateral ac-
tion ;60 but a judgment will not be kept alive by
supplementary proceedings thereon61 or by the
amendment of the judgment nunc pro tune.62
Ordinarily relief by way of revivor may be
awarded only on personal service,63 although, under
statute, it has been held that in reviving a judg-
ment against a nonresident defendant the law is
satisfied by service by publication,6* and does not
require, nor can the courts insist on, actual notice
to local counsel.65 A judgment of revival may be
entered on default.66
It has been held that a proceeding to revive a
money judgment is not a new suit, but is a part of
the original action.67
§ 544.
Action to Revive
In some jurisdictions a judgment may be revived
by a formal action brought for thajt purpose.
In a number of jurisdictions a judgment may be
revived by a formal suit or action brought for that
purpose,68 and such an action may be brought even
where a summary method of revival has been pro-
vided by statute.69 Some statutes providing a rem-
edy by action of revivor have been held to supersede
the remedy of scire facias70 and to furnish die only
permissible means of reviving a judgment.71
In an action to revive a judgment, it is sufficient
and necessary that the proper persons are made par-
ties,72 that process is properly served,78 and that
57. Kan. — Burris v. Reinhardt 242
P. 143, 120 Kan. 32.
Action, similar to revival lies
against decedent's heirs to subject
property formerly owned by decedent
to payment of judgment against him.
— Elliott v. San Benito Bank & Trust
Co., Tex.Civ.App., 137 S.W.2S 1070.
58. 111.— -Industrial Nat Bank of
Chicago v. Altenberg, 64 N.E.2d
219, 327 I11.APP. 337.
N.M.— Bell v. Kyle, 274 P. 1068, 33
N.M. 656.
Tex. — Schluter v. Sell, Civ.App., 194
S.W.2d 125.
34 C.J. p 667 note 62.
Mode of revival of equity decrees see
Equity § 621.
. Mortgagee is not entitled to notice
of proceedings to revive judgment
against mortgagor. — Fox v. Seal, Pa.,
22 Wall. 424, 22 L.Ed. 774.
59. 111.— Ludwig v. Huck, 45 111.
App., 651.
60. Kan. — Kothman v. Skaggs, 29
Kan. 5.
34 OJ. p 667 note 63.
61. N.D. — Merchants' Nat Bank v.
Braithwaite, 75 N.W. 244, 7 N.D.
358, 66 Am.S.R. 653.
62. Ala.-— Allen v. Bradford, 3 Ala.
281, 37 Am.D. 689 — State v. Ham,
69 So. 253, 13 AfcuApp. 648.
34 C.J. p 667 note 65.
63. Iowa. — Mudge v. Livermore, 123
N.W. 199, 148 Iowa 472.
In rem proceeding
Statutory proceeding to revive dor-
mant judgment is not one "in per*
sonam" and hence service of notice
of proceeding to revive may be made
outside the state. — Shefts v. Okla-
homa Co., 137 P.2d 589, 192 Okl. 483.
64. Ohio. — Sears v. Weimer, 55 N.B.
2d 413, 143 Ohio St. 312.
34 C.J. p 667 note 67.
Personal service in original action
Revivor of judgment may be made
on service by publication only where
personal service originally was made
on judgment debtor. — Sears v. Wei-
mer, supra.
65. Kan.—Hartz v. Fitts, 132 P.
1187, 89 Kan. 751.
66. Pa.— Middleton v. Middleton, 106
Pa. 252.
67. La. — Jaubert Bros. v. Landry,
App., 15 So.2d 158.
Defunct corporation
Proceeding to revive dormant judg-
ment was not such a "new action"
that right to maintain such proceed-
ing would be affected by fact that
functions of judgment creditor as a
corporation had meantime lapsed.
— Foster Screen Co. v. Brigel, Ohio
App., 31 N.E.2d 699.
Scope of proceeding-
Validity of assignment of dormant
judgment could not be adjudicated
in proceeding to revive it — Baker
Steel & Machinery Co. v. Ferguson,
290 N.W. 449, 137 Neb. 578, 131 A.
L.R. 798.
68. N.M. — Bailey v. Great Western
Oil Co., 259 P. 614, 32 N.M. 478,
55 A.L.R. 467.
34 O.J. p 667 note 71.
ZTatare of action
Action for revivor under statute
is not new action, but proceeding in
aid of execution on old judgment —
1003
Evans v. City of American Falls, 11
P.2d 363, 52 Idaho 7.
Cross action could be regarded as
an action to revive dormant judg-
ment— Commerce Trust Co. v. Ramp,
138 S.W.2d 531, 135 Tex. 84.
69. Neb.— Keith v. Bruder, 109 N.
W. 172, 77 Neb. 215— Hayden v.
Huff, 87 N.W. 184, 62 Neb. 375.
70L Idaho. — Evans v. City of Ameri-
can Falls, 11 P.2d 363, 52 Idaho 7.
34 C.J. p 668 note 77.
Scire facias to revive judgments see
, infra § 548.
71. Idaho.— Tingwall v. King Hill
Irr. Dist, 155 P.2d 605.
La. — Park v. Markley, App., 17 So.
2d 459, rehearing refused 18 So.2d
73.
72. Pa, — Szusta v. Krawlec, Com.Pl.,
36 liuz.Leg.Heg. 183.
Utah.— Campbell v. Peter, 162 P.2d
754.
34 C.J. p 668 note 72.
Assignee of judgment obtained by
assignee of note against maker was
"real party in interest" entitled to
maintain action to renew judgment,
although payee of note testified that
any money collected on judgment
would belong to him. — Campbell v.
Peter, supra.
Several defendants
In action for revivor, whole judg-
ment must be revived in entirety
against all the several defendants.
— Bvans v. City, of American Falls,
11 P.2d 363, €2 Idaho 7.
73. Iowa. — Mudge v. Liverxnore, 123
N.W. 199, 148 Iowa 472.
34 C.J. p 668 note 73.
§ 545
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
the pleadings are sufficient.74 The general rules
concerning evidence in civil actions are to be ob-
served.75 Reviver in such an action may be based
on the consent given in open court by counsel for
defendant76 The judgment of revival should be in
proper form.77 Costs are not enforceable against
defendant as a personal obligation where the judg-
ment revived is one in rem.78
§ 545.
Action of Debt
Revival of a Judgment usually may be accomplished
by an action of debt on the judgment.
An action of debt on a judgment. is usually a
proper form of proceeding effectually reviving the
judgment,79 even where a special remedy for the
revival of judgments is provided by statute.80 A
judgment in such an action is not rendered void by
the joinder81 or nonjoinder82 of unnecessary par-
ties.
§ 546.
Motion to Revive
In some jurisdictions the revival of « Judgment may
be ordered on motion, application, or affidavit, provided
the Judgment debtor, or person against whom revival is.
sought, Is given due and sufficient notice of such mo-
tion or application and an opportunity to contest It.
In some,83 but not all,84 jurisdictions the revival
of a judgment may be ordered on motion, applica-
tion, or affidavit, provided the judgment debtor, or
person against whom the revival is sought, is given
due and sufficient notice of ,such a motion or appli-
cation and an opportunity to contest it86 As a gen-
eral rule this remedy is not a substitute for* but is
74. Ind. — Flynn v. Northam, 89 N.
E. 326, 44 Ind.App. 833.
34 C.J. p 668 note 74.
Demurrer to affirmative defense
sustained because of absence of ma-
terial allegations. — Campbell v. Pe-
ter. Utah, 162 P.2d 754.
75. La. — Brock v. Edwards, App., 159
So. £07.
34 C.J. p 668 note 75.
Burden of proof
In a suit by assignee to revive
dormant judgment, which was de-
fended on ground that plaintiff
agreed to pay it as part of consider-
ation for conveyance of land to him,
burden was on defendants to prove
such defense. — Whitehead v. Weldon,
Tex.Civ.App.. 264 S.W. 958.
Evidence held admissible
La. — Brock v. Edwards, App., 159
So. 607.
Evidence held sufficient
111. — Layne v. Colegrove, 63 N.E.
2d 530, 327 IlLApp. 204.
Variance between pleadings and
proof held not shown. — Wilson v.
Walters, 151 P.2d 685, 66 Cal.App.
2d 1.
76. Tex. — Teel v. Brown. Civ.App.,
185 S.W. 319.
77. I1L — Bismarck Hotel Co. v. Tyr-
rell, 47 N.E.2d 544, 318 IlLApp. 230.
Omission, of certain debtors
Where order of revivor contains no
decretal language against certain
Judgment debtor, only inference
which can be drawn from omission
is that of payment and. consequent
presumption of discharge and re-
lease.— Evans v. City of American
Fails, 11 P.2d 363, 52 Idaho 7.
78. La. — Henry v. Roaue, App., 18
So.2d 917.
79. Mo* — Excelsior Steel Furnace
Co. Y. Smith, App., 17 S.W.2d 378.
Tex. — Austin v, Conaway, Civ.App.,
283 S.W. 189— Surge v. Broussard,
Civ.App., 258 S.W. 502.
34 C.J. p 655 note 60, p 668 note 80
—24 C.J. p 896 note 78 [c] (2).
Actions on judgments generally see
infra § 849.
80. Idaho.— Bashor v. Beloit, 119 P.
55, 20 Idaho 592.
34 C.J. p 668 note 80.
81. Tex. — Burge v. Broussard, Civ.
App., 258 S.W. 502.
82. Tex. — Burge v. Broussard, supra.
83. Okl. — Shefts v. Oklahoma Co.,
137 P.2d 589, 192 Okl. 483.
34 O.J. p 668 note 81.
Partial revival
Where assignee is entitled to re-
vival of unpaid judgment it should
be revived in its entirety. — Orchard
& Wilhelm Co. v. Sexson, 229 N.W.
17, 119 Neb. 370, followed in Askew
v. Sexson. 229 N.W. 19, 119 Neb.
369.
Bsmedy for void execution sale
Purpose of statute providing that,
under stated circumstances, the court
must, on motion, revive a judgment
is to restore a creditor, whose judg-
ment has been satisfied of record
because of error of law which has
deprived him of the property applied
to its payment, to the position he
occupied before void execution sale.
— Betty v. Superior Court of Los An-
geles County, 116 P.2d 947, 18 Cal.2d
619.
Simultaneous use of soire facias
and motion for revival is unneces-
sary.— Cabler v. Anderson, 16 S.W.
2d 170, 179 Ark. 364.
S4. Tenn.— Fogg v. G-ibbs, 8 Baxt
464.
Wis. — Ingraham v. Champion, 54 N.
W. 398, 84 Wis. 235.
85. Gal. — Thompson v. Cook, 127 P.
2d 909, 20 Cal.2d 564.
Ky.— Baker v. Davis Adm'r, 299 S.W.
172, 22-1 Ky. 524.
1004
Okl. — Richardson v. Barnhart, 162 P.
2d 1021— Dunlap v. Bull Head Oil
Co., 29 P.2d 108, 167 Okl. 277.
34 C.J. p 6*9 note 83.
Affidavit unnecessary
Notice of hearing of motion to re-
vive a dormant judgment, served per-
sonally on judgment debtor in anoth-
er state, was not void on ground that
no affidavit to obtain such service
was filed as in case of service by
publication. — Richardson v. Barnhart,
Okl., 162 P.2d 1&21— Shefts v. Okla-
homa Co., 137 P.2d 589, 192 Okl. 483.
Effect of appearance
A judgment debtor, who received
notice of motion to revive dormant
judgment two days before hearing,
could not complain that he was not
given a "reasonable time" where he
appeared in person and asked no con-
tinuance.— Shefts v. Oklahoma Co.,
supra.
Form of notice
Notice for revival of judgment is
not such "writ" or "process" as is
required by constitution and statute
to run in name of state. — Dunlap v.
Bull Head Oil Co., 29 P.2d 108, 167
Okl. 277.
Irregular issuance of notice
(1) Where notice of application for
revivor of judgment was signed and
delivered to sheriff by attorney for
judgment creditor instead of by a
clerk of district court as required by
statute, motion to quash service was
improperly overruled, and judgment
should not have been revived. — Kle-
ma v. Neuvert, 135 P.2d 557, 156 Kan.
633.
(2) Quashing of service of appli-
cation to revive dormant judgment
was not error, where notice waCs not
issued by clerk as a summons would
be Issued and delivered to sheriff
and served as prescribed by statute.
— Smith v. Henry, 1*24 P.2d 448. 155
Kan. 289.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 548
in addition to, an action on the judgment86 or bill
of revivor,87 and has been regarded as a continua-
tion of the original suit88 A motion to revive a
judgment is to be distinguished from one to obtain
leave to issue execution, as stated in Executions §
59 b (2) (a).
General rules of procedure on motions,89 such as
with respect to the determination of the application
and issuance of orders thereon,90 usually apply to
motions to revive a judgment
In a proceeding brought under a statute the stat-
utory procedure should be strictly followed,91 but
minor irregularities will not affect the validity of
the proceeding.92
Revival after death of debtor or creditor. It has
been held that if revival is sought against the heirs
of a deceased judgment debtor, plenary proceedings
must be brought, and it is not permissible to pro-
ceed by motion or rule.93 Under some statutes,
however, on the death of the judgment creditor the
judgment may be revived on motion.94
§ 547. — - Summons to Show Cause
Under some statutes revivor of judgment may be
had by means of a proceeding commenced by a sum-
mons to show cause why the Judgment should not be
revived.
The proceeding prescribed by some statutes for
reviving a judgment partakes both of the nature of
a formal action and of a scire facias, since it is be-
gun by a summons, but requires defendant to show
cause why the judgment should not be revived or
enforced, as the case may be.96
§ 548. Scire Facias
* a. In general
b. When remedy lies
c. Necessity for, and requisites of, writ
d. Application and affidavit
e. Service and return
f. Amending and quashing or vacating
writ
g. Parties
h. Pleading
i. Evidence
j. Trial
k. Judgment
I. Execution
m. Amicable scire facias
a. In General
In some Jurisdictions, although not in others, a judg-
ment may be revived by means of a writ of scire facias
which Is a Judicial writ to afd in the recovery of a judg-
ment debt, and the proceeding is most widely regarded
as a continuation of the suit In which the Judgment was
obtained rather than as an original action.
At common law the remedy by scire facias was
confined to judgments recovered in real actions.96
86. Mont— Haupt v. Burton, 55 P.
110, 21 Mont 572, 69 Ara.S.R. 698.
34 C.J. p 669 note 84.
87. Neb.— Keith v. Brudder, 109 N.
W. 172, 77 Neb. 215.
88. Tenn.— Williams v. Cantrell, 124
S.W.2d 29, 22 Tenn.App. 443.
89. Idaho. — Evans v. Humphrey, 5
P.2d 545, 51 Idaho 268.
34 C.J. p 668 note 81 [a], [b].
Piling*
Failure to file affidavit and motion
for revival of Judgment was waived,
in absence of seasonable objection. —
Evans v. Humphrey, 5 P.2d 545. 51
Idaho 268.
90. Idaho. — Evans v. Humphrey, su-
pra.
Okl.— Richardson v. Barnhart, 162 P.
2d 1021.
Evidence
(1) Evidence held admissible.-—
Casey v. Cooledge, 175 So. 557, 234
Ala. 499.
(2) Evidence held sufficient — Holi-
day Oil Co. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co.
of Maryland, 19 P.2d 335, 162 OkL
192.
Appeal from ruling of clerk of court
Where the motion is properly be-
fore a judge on appeal from a re-
fusal of clerk of court to revive the
judgment, the judge may grant the
motion, or may reverse and remand
the case with directions.— Martin v.
Briscoe, 55 S.E. 782, 143 N.C. 353.
Description of parties
Order of revival of Judgment giv-
ing name of plaintiff in caption and
defendants sufficiently described par-
ties.— Evans v. Humphrey, 5 . P.2d
545, 51 Idaho 268.
Service on attorney
Service of notice of revivor of
Judgment on attorney for party
against whom revivor is sought is
sufficient to give trial court juris-
diction.— Richardson v. Barnhart,
Okl., 162 P.2d 1021.
91. Ariz,— Fay v. Harris, 164 P.2d
860.
Compliance held sufficient
Ariz. — Fay v. Harris, supra— McBride
v. McDonald, 215 P. 166, 25 Ariz.
207.
92. Ariz.— Fay v. Harris. 164 P.2d
860.
Erroneous statement of balance
due on judgment, easily corrected
from data set forth in affidavit, and
trifling error in computation of in-
terest did not render affidavit insuffi-
cient— Fay v. Harris, supra.
1005
failure to verify
An affidavit of renewal, subscribed
and sworn to before proper notary,
was sufficient, even though not con-
firmed in a separate affidavit, verified
positively by the person making it.
—McBride v. McDonald, 215 P. 166,
25 Ariz. 207.
93. Ind. — Faulkner v. Larrabee, 76
Ind. 154.
La. — Reynolds v. Horn, 4 La.Ann.
187.
94. Okl.— Holden v. Barringer, 144
P.2d 964, 193 OkL 411.
34 C.J. p 668 note 81 [c], p 669 note
93.
Payment of tax on Judgment
Motion to revive judgment in name
of deceased judgment creditor's sole
legatee is merely special statutory
proceeding to give life to dormant
judgment, and is not an "action or
suit for the collection" of judgment
within statute requiring prior pay-
ment of intangible taxes, and hence
order of revivor prior to such pay-
ment was proper.— Holden v. Barrin-
ger, supra.
95. B.C. — Cberaw & C. R. Co. v.
Marshall, 18 S.E. 247, 40 B.C. 69.
34 C.J. p 669 notes 94, 96.
86. Iowa.— Von Puhl y. Rucker, 6
Iowa 187.
§ 548
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
The writ of scire facias was first permitted to re-
vive a personal judgment by the Statute of West-
minster II,97 which authorized and required a scire
facias in all cases where plaintiff desired to sue out
an execution on his judgment after the expiration
of a year and a day from its final recovery.98 In
many states the provisions of this statute have been
adopted as a part of their common law, or incorpo-
rated in their statutes, so that the proper method of
obtaining a revival is by a proceeding begun by
the issue of a scire facias requiring defendant to
show cause why the judgment should not be re-
vived and its lien continued,99 although, as dis-
cussed in Executions § 66, the new acts have gen-
erally extended the time within which execution
may issue without revival by scire facias.
In some jurisdictions it has been held that scire
facias is the only mode of reviving a judgment.1
In other jurisdictions, however, the writ has been
abolished by code or statute, either expressly2 or
impliedly, as by providing for one form of action
and not authorizing scire facias.3
Nature and scope of proceeding. A scire facias
to revive a judgment is a judicial,4 but not an orig-
inal,6 writ. Although it is in the nature of an ac-
tion because defendant may plead to it,6 and has
been held to come within the meaning of "action"
in statutory provisions relating to actions,7 and in
some cases has been classified in substance as a new
action,8 it is more widely held that a proceeding by
scire facias to revive a judgment is not an original
proceeding, but a mere continuation of the former
suit,9 or, in other words, it is merely a supplemen-
tary remedy to aid in the recovery of the debt evi-
denced by the original judgment.10 It has been
stated that in a scire facias proceeding to revive
Pa. — Stewart v. Peterson, 63 Pa,
230.
Scire facias:
Nature of writ generally see the
C.J.S. title Scire Facias § 3, also
56 C.J. p 867 note 10-p 869 note
33.
To enforce:
Alimony decree see Divorce §
271.
Judgments generally see infra §
588.
To obtain leave to issue execution
see Executions § 59 b.
Deceased Judgment debtor
At common law Judgment became
unenforceable by execution on death
of Judgment debtor, but Judgment
could be revived by scire facias di-
rected to heirs and enforced against
realty owned by Judgment debtor at
time of his death. — Coats v. Veeders-
burg State Bank, 38 N.E.2d 243, 219
Ind. 675.
97. U.S.— Spurway v. Dyer, D.C.Fla.,
48 F.Supp. 255.
34 O.J. p 655 note 60, p 669 note 99.
98. U.S. — Spurway v. Dyer, supra.
Del.— First Nat. Bank v. Crook, 174
A. 369, 6 W.W.Harr. 281.
3.4 C.J. p 669 note 1.
99. U.S. — Spurway v. Dyer, D.C.Fla.,
48 F.Supp. 255.
Pa, — Wilcox v. Du Bree, 8 Pa.Dist
& Co. 591.
Utah.— Continental Nat Bank &
Trust Co. of Salt Lake City v. John
H. Seely & Sons, 77 P.2d 355, 94
Utah 357, 115 A.L.R. 543.
34 C.J. p 669 note 2.
Statute held applicable to Judgments
on tax trod.
Pa.— Petition of Miller, 28 A.2d 257,
149 PtuSuper. 142.
1. Mo.— Bick v. Dixon, 129 S.W. 254,
148 Mo. 703 — Armstrong v. Crooks,
83 Mo.App. 141.
2. Idaho.— Bashor v. Beloit 119 P.
55, 20 Idaho 592.
3. N.M.— De Baca v. Wilcox, 68 P,
922, 11 N.M. 346.
34 C.J. p 670 note 6.
4. Md. — Brooks v. Preston, 68 A.
294, 106 Md. 693.
34 OJ. p 670 note 7.
5. Pa. — Cusano v. Rubolino, 89 A.
2d 906, 351 Pa, 41.
Utah.— Continental Nat Bank &
Trust Co. of Salt Lake City v. John
H. Seely & Sons Co., 77 P.2d 355, 94
Utah 357, 115 A.L.R. 543
34 C.J. p 670 note 8.
6. D.C.— McMullen v. Waters, 295 F.
1008, 54 APP.D.C. 187.
34 C.J. p 670 note 9.
7. U.S. — Browne v. Chavez, N.M.,
21 S.Ct 514, 181 U.S. 68, 45 LJBd.
752.
34 C.J. p 670 note 10.
8. Mass. — Perkins v. Bangs, 92 N.B.
623, 206 Mass. 408.
34 C.J. p 670 note 11.
9. Ala.— Quill v. Carolina Portland
Cement Co., 124 So. 305, 220 Ala.
134.
Fla.— B. A. Lott Inc., v. Padgett 14
So.2d 667, 153 Fla. 304— Massey v.
Pineapple Orange Co., 100 So. 170,
87 Fla. 374.
Ga, — Fielding v. M. Rich & Bros. Co.,
169 S.E. 383, 46 Ga.App. 785.
Mo. — State ex reL Buder v. Hughes,
166 S.W.2d 516, 350 Mo. 547— In re
Jackman's Estate, 124 S.W.2d 1189,
344 Mo. 49— City of St Louis v.
Miller, . 145 S.W.2d 504, 235 Mo.
App. 987.
Pa.— Harr v. Deeter, 31 Pa.Dlst &
Co. 702, 5 Sch.Reg. 205— Bell v.
Borys, Com.Pl., 44 1/ack.Jur. 44,
56 York Leg.Rec. 202.
1006
Utah.— Continental Nat Bank &
Trust Co. of Salt Lake City v.
John H. Seely & Sons Co., 77 P.
2d 355, 94 Utah 357, 115 A.L.R.
&43.
Va. — American Ry. Express Co. v. F.
S. Royster Guano Co., 126 S.E.
678, 141 Va. 602, affirmed 47 S.Ct.
355, 273 U.S. 274, 71 L.Ed. 642.
34 C.J. p 670 note 12.
Where scire facias is used after
death of defendant in judgment to
charge person not party to Judgment
with payment of it by execution to
be issued thereon, scire facias, al-
though it usually partakes of the
nature of an action, is continuation
of proceeding already begun, and is
in nature of rule to show cause why
execution should not issue. — First
Nat. Bank v. Crook, 174 A. 369, 6 W.
W.Harr., Del., 281.
10. Ala.— Quill v. Carolina Portland
Cement Co., 124 So. 305, 220 Ala.
134.
111. — Bank of Edwardsville v. Raf-
faelle, 45 N.E.2d 651, 381 111. 486,
144 A.L.R. 401.
Pa. — Cusano v. Rubolino, 39 A.2d
906, 351 Pa. 41.
Utah.— Continental Nat Bank &
Trust Co. of Salt Lake City v.
John H. Seely & Sons Co., 77 P.2d
355, 94 Utah 357, 115 A.L.R. 548.
34 C.J. p 671 note 13.
statements
(1) Scire facias is a writ for re-
vival of a Judgment which has come
to enjoy the dignity of a lien on
realty so that execution may issue on
revived Judgment — Spurway v. Dyer,
D.C.Fla., 48 F.Supp. 255.
(2) Scire facias is only a step in
the original cause of a remedial na-
ture to effectuate the lien already in
existence. — B. A. Lott Inc., v. Pad-
gett 14 So.2d 667, 153 Fla. 304.
49 O.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 548
a judgment the only question to be determined is
whether or not plaintiff has a right, as against de-
fendant, to have the judgment executed.11
b. When Remedy Lies
The remedy of sclre facias lies to revive dormant
judgments and may be pursued even though there is a
present right to issue execution on the judgment or
there is available another means of rendering the judg-
ment effective.
The remedy of scire facias to revive a judgment
lies where the judgment has become dormant,12 as
for failure to issue execution within the time speci-
fied by statute.13 The judgment creditor may pur-
sue the remedy, however, even though he has a
present and immediate right to issue execution on
the judgment,14 and in some jurisdictions,16 al-
though not in others,15 it may be resorted to al-
though an execution has already been issued, pro-
vided it has not resulted in full satisfaction of the
judgment When an execution has issued under
which property of defendant has been levied on,
and there is not sufficient to discharge the debt, a
scire facias issued afterward should be special quoad
residuum.17
A judgment against one who dies subsequent to
its rendition may be revived against his personal
representative by scire facias,18 and it has been
held that this is the only mode in which the judg-
ment may be enforced against the estate.19
The remedy by scire facias is not rendered un-
available by the existence of other remedies or
means of making the judgment effective,20 but may
be pursued concurrently with them,21 although, as
discussed supra § 544, some statutes providing for
revivor of judgment by action have been held to
supersede the proceeding by scire facias. In the
few jurisdictions where, as discussed infra subdivi-
sion k (1) of this section, a judgment of revival
is deemed to be a new judgment, and where, as fur-
ther discussed infra § 549, such new judgment bars
recovery on the original judgment, each successive
writ of scire facias must be founded on the judg-
ment which immediately preceded it.22 In other
jurisdictions it has been held that a judgment of
revivor cannot be revived by scire facias,23
A scire facias has been held not to lie to revive
a judgment which has been fully satisfied as to
principal, for the purpose of aiding in the collec-
tion of interest claimed to be due.24 A scire facias
against the heirs and terre-tenants of the judg-
ment debtor will not reach property never owned
by the latter, but inherited by his children after his
death from a third person.25 It has also been held
that judgments entered by confession under a war-
rant of attorney cannot be revived by scire facias.26
Consolidation of judgments. In a proceeding by
scire facias several judgments may be consolidated,
where all of them are for the use of plaintiff, al-
though some of them were obtained in the names of
other persons,27 or where the judgments are all
against the same defendant, although one of them
is also against another person:28
11. 111. — Smith v. Stevens, 24 N.B. •
511, 133 111. 183— Blakeslee's Stor-
age Warehouses v. City of Chicago,
11 N.E.2d 42, 292 IlLApp. 288, af-
firmed 17 N.E.2d 1, 369 111. 480, 120
A.L.R. 715.
Pa. — Bell v. Yontos, 46 Pa.Dist. & Co.
636, 44 Lack.Jur. 83, 57 York Leg.
Bee. 53— Cameron v. Wallace, 24
Pa.Dist & Co. 42, 44 Lanc.L.Rev.
597, 49 York Leg,Rec. 78.
Error in classifying- judgment to
prouate court cannot be corrected in
proceedings against heirs of judg-
ment debtor to revive judgment.—
Wolford v. Scarbrough, 21 S.W.2d
777, 224 Mo.App. 137.
la. Fla.— Massey v. Pineapple
Orange Co., 100 So. 170, 87 Fla.
374.
•Ga.— Fielding v. M. Rich & Bros. Co.,
169 S.E. 383, 46 Ga.App. 785.
13. U.S. — Spurway v. Dyer, D.CFla.,
48 F.Supp. 265.
14, U.S.— Brown
Ohio Canal Co.
4 Hughes 584.
34 C.J. p 671 note 14.
v. Chesapeake &
C.C.Md., 4 F. 770,
Correction of record
Where, from examination of rec-
ord, plaintiff's right to execution
seems to be extinguished, but in fact
it is not, plaintiff may, by scire fa-
cias, bring defendant before court,
and, on proper showing, have entry
on record vacated or made to con-
form to the facts, and obtain ex-
ecution on original judgment. — Conti-
nental Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of
Salt Lake City v. John H; Seely &
Sons Co., 77 P.2d 355, 94 Utah 357,
115 A.L.R. 543.
15. Ark.— Trapnall v. Richardson, 13
Ark. 543, 58 Am.D. 338.
34 C.J. p 671 note 15.
16. Miss. — Buckner v. Pipes, 56
Miss. 366— Locke v. Brady, 30
Miss. 21.
17. N.J.— StUle r. Wood, 1 N.J.Law
139.
18. Ark.— -Brearly v. Peay, 23 Ark.
172.
24 C.J. p 895 note 66.
Personal representative as proper
or. necessary party see infra sub-
division g (2) of this section.
1007
19. Tenn. — Gwin v. Latimer, 4 Yerg.
22.
24 C.J. p 895 note 67.
20. 111.— First Nat. Bank of Chicago
v. Craig, 31 N.E.2d 810, 308 IlLApp.
377.
21. U.S. — Lafayette County v. Won-
derly, Mo., 92 F. 313, 34 C.C.A. 360.
34 C.J. p 671 note 19.
22. Pa. — Custer v. Detterer, 3 Watts
& S. 28 — Collingwood v. Carson, 2
Watts & S. 220-i-Calhoon v. New-
Ion, 40 Pa.Dist & Co. 123.
23. Mo. — Gregory Grocery Co. v.
Link, 25 S.W.2d 575, 224 Mo.App.
407.
24k 111.— Blakeslee's Storage Ware-
houses v. City of Chicago, 11 N.E.
2d 42, 292 IlLApp. 288, affirmed 17
N.E.2d 1, 369 111. 480, 120 A.L.R.
715.
25. Md.— Adams v. Stake, 10 A. 444,
67 Md. 447.
26. Pa.— Jones v. Dillworth, 63 Fa.
447.
27. Pa.— Appeal of Reed, 7 Pa. 65.
28. Pa,— Appeal of
, 137, 129 Pa. 268.
Yeager, 18 A.
§ 548
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
c. Necessity for, and Requisites of, Writ
(1) In general
(2) Recital and identification of original
judgment
(1) In General
In a scire facias proceeding, it fa essential to the
revival of the judgment that a writ be issued setting
forth ail the facts on which the right of revivor de-
pends, and calling 'on the defendant to show cause why
execution should not be issued against him; but irreg-
ularities not going to the Jurisdiction will be waived If
an objection Is not seasonably made. An alias or pluries
scire facias may issue in a proper case.
In a proceeding by scire facias to revive a judg-
ment the issuance of a writ of scire facias is essen-
tial to the validity of the judgment of revival.29
As discussed infra subdivision h (1) of this section,
the writ takes the place and performs the office of
a declaration. Although it has been held that the
same particularity is not required in the writ as in
stating a cause of action in the original complaint,30
it is well settled that the writ should set forth, at
least in substance, any fact on which plaintiffs right
to have his judgment revived depends.31 Accord-
ingly it should show the legal title of plaintiff to
have execution on-the judgment,32 and name or cor-
rectly describe the parties to be charged,33 the court
from which it issues and to which it is returnable,34
and, as discussed infra subdivision c (2) of this sec-
tion, the judgment on which it is founded.
The writ must also state the purpose for which
it is issued, or the demand against which defendant
is required to show cause,35 and the amount for
which it is issued,36 and should, in conclusion, call
on defendant to show cause why execution should
not issue against him.37 On the other hand, the
writ need not aver the performance of all things
essential to the validity of the judgment,38 or nega-
tive matters of defense,3^ or allege that execution
had not been issued within a year and a day or the
statutory period, if any, substituted therefor.40
Death of defendant and survivorship. A scire
facias against one of the three defendants in a judg-
ment, which does not aver the death of the others
and the survivorship of the one pursued, is bad on
demurrer.41 A scire facias against an executor to
revive a judgment against the testator should con-
tain a suggestion of the death of the judgment debt-
or,42 and also show the appointment of defendant as
his executor.43 A scire facias against the adminis-
trator of a joint debtor who survived the other
debtors should aver the survivorship.44
Where heirs or terre-tenants involved. It has
been held that the terre-tenants ought to be named,
and, if all are not named in the writ, it may be
pleaded in abatement,46 but it has also been held
that a scire facias against terre-tenants may be ei-
ther general against all the terre-tenants, or against
certain named parties as terre-tenants, and al-
though it is necessary that all be summoned, it is
not necessary that they be named in the scire
facias.46 It has also been held that a scire facias
which issues against the heirs and devisees of one
deceased and does not name them, but only de-
scribes them, is not bad on that account.47 In the
case of heirs or terre-tenants the writ should specif-
ically describe the lands sought to be charged,48
29. Mo.— Longlett v. Eisenherg, 10
S.W.2d 317, 222 Mo.App. 805— Arm-
strong v. Crooks, 83 Mo.App. 141.
Pa. — Brooks v. Caruthers' Estate,
Com.PL, 23 WestXJo. 138.
30. Tex. — Delaune v. Beaumont Irr.
Co., Civ.App.. 136 S.W. $18.
31. Pa. — Andrews v. Sullenberger,
Com.PL, 25 WestCo. 93.
Va. — American Ry. Express Co. v. F.
3. Royster Guano Co., 126 S.B.
678, 141 Va. 602, affirmed 47 S.Ct
355, 273 U.S. 274, 71 L.Ed. 642—
White v. Palmer, 66 S.E. 44, 110
Va. 490.
34 C.J. p 672 note 33.
Nonpayment
HI.— Jacobs v. Lucas, 270 ULApp.
123.
32. 111.— Smith v. Stevens, 24 N.E.
511, 133 111. 183.
34 C.J. p 672 note 34.
Capacity of use-plaintiff
Where, on scire facias to revive
judgment it appeared that one of
defendants paid judgment and took
assignment in name of another,
who was use-plaintiff, fact that use-
plaintiff did not appear as trustee
was immaterial, where it was ad-
mitted that he was merely agent or
trustee of defendant who paid judg-
ment.—City Nat. Bank of Wichita
Falls, Tex., now for Use of Newhams
v. Atkinson, 175 A. 507, 316 Pa. 526.
33. Miss.— Pickett v. Pickett, 2
Miss. 267.
Tenn.— Dougherty v. Hurt, 6
Humphr. 430.
34. Ark.— Anthony v. Humphries, 9
Ark. 176.
35. Pa. — In re Cake, 40 A. 568, 186
Pa. 412.
34 C.J. p 672 note 41.
36. Md.— McKnew v. Duvall, 45 Md.
501.
34 COT. p 672 note 42.
37. Ind.— Davidson v. Alvord, 3 Ind.
34 C.J. p 672 note 4'3.
L Miss.— Commercial Bank v. Ken-
dall, 21 Miss. 278.
34 CJT. p 672 note 38.
1008
39. D.C.— Starkweather v. West End
Nat Bank, 21 App.D.C. 281.
34 C.J. p 672 note 39.
40- HL— Albin v. People, 46 111. 372.
Ohio. — Weaver v. Reese, 6 Ohio 418.
41. Ind. — Graham v. Smith, 1 Blackf.
414.
42. Ind.— Walker v. Hood, 5 Blackf.
266.
34 C.J. p 672 note 45.
43. Ind. — Walker v. Hood, supra.
34 C.J. p 673 note 46.
44. Ind, — Graham v. Smith, 1
Blackf. 414.
45. Md. — Thomas v. Farmers' Bank
of Maryland, 46 Md. 43.
43. Miss.— Hughes v. Wilkinson, 28
Miss. 600.
47. Tenn. — Seawell v. Williams, 5
Hayw. 280.
34 CJ. p 673 note 50.
48. Md.— Lang v. Wilmer, 101 A.
706, 131 Md. 215, 2 A.L.R. 1698.
34 C.J. p 673 note 51.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
548
an3 show when the terre-tenant's title to the land
vested49 or that the heir is in possession of lands of
which his ancestor died seized,50 but it need not
allege proceedings taken ineffectually against the
personal representatives.51 Where heirs are only
liable jointly with the personal representative, un-
less the ancestor has been dead a year without the
appointment of such representative, a failure to al-
lege that a year has passed without such appoint-
ment renders a writ, brought against the heirs alone,
fatally defective on demurrer.52
Informalities in the writ or irregularities not go-
ing to the jurisdiction may be cured by the statute of
jeofails,53 or, in the absence of seasonable objec-
tion, will be deemed to be waived.54 They cannot
be taken advantage of by a stranger to the judg-
ment.55
Alias and pluries writs. An alias or pluries scire
facias may issue where service of the first writ was
not effected,56 where it was served on some of the
joint defendants and returned not served as to the
others,57 or where plaintiff desires to proceed
against an additional party, such as terre-tenant,58
executor,59 or administrator.60 An alias or pluries
scire facias may also issue where plaintiff is non-
suited on the first scire facias.61
(2) Recital and Identification of Original
Judgment
A writ of scire facias should completely and cor-
rectly describe the judgment sought to be revived; but
only a material variance in the description wilt render
the writ vulnerable to a plea of nul tiel record.
As a general rule it is necessary that the scire
facias shall correctly set forth and describe the
original judgment on which it is founded,62 and this
requirement is applicable to an amicable scire facias
as well as to other scire facias to revive a judg-
ment.63 Thus the judgment must be described with
respect to the amount of the recovery,6* the date
of the judgment,65 the parties plaintiff and defend-
ant,66 and the court in which it was entered;67 but
it is sufficient that the original judgment is substan-
tially described68 with such certainty that defendant
must know what judgment is meant.69
A mere immaterial variance or irregularity in the
description of the judgment, which does not tend
to mislead, will not avoid the scire facias;70 but
where the variance between the original judgment
and the writ is material it will be fatal on a plea
of nul tiel record71 and will break the continuity of
the lien.72
d. Application and Affidavit
Application for a writ of scire facias, although gen-
erally unnecessary, is not Improper, and may be re*
quired after the lapse of a designated period of time
from the rendition of the judgment.
While generally the writ of scire facias may issue
without any application to the court,78 it is entirely
proper that a petition, motion, prsecipe, or other ap-
49. Md.— Warfield v. Brewer, 4 Gill
265.
50. S.C.— Whiting v. Pritchard, 30 S.
C.L. 304.
51. Va. — Rogers v. Denham, 2 Gratt
200, 43 Va. 200.
52. Ky. — Huey v. Redden, 3 Dana
4S8.
53. Miss.— Locke v. Brady, 30 Miss.
21.
34 C.J. p 673 note 56.
54. Pa.— Pyles v. Bosler, 22 Pa.Dist.
& Co. 10.
34 C.J. p 673 note 56.
55. Pa. — In re Dougherty, 9 Watts &
S. 189, 42 Am.D. 326.
34 C.J. p 673 note 57.
56. Ga.— Ellis v. McCrary, 183 S.E.
823, 52 Ga.App. 583.
34 C.J. p 674 note 69.
57. U.S. — Baker v. French, D. C., 2
P.Cas.No.767, 2 Cranch C.C. 539.
34 C.J. p 674 note 70.
58. Pa.— Simmons v. Simmons, 28
A.2d 445, 150 Pa.Super. 393, af-
firmed 29 A.2d 677, 346 Pa. 52.
34 C.J. p 674 note 72.
59. N.C.— Borden v. Thorpe, 35 N.C.
298.
34 C.J. p 674 note 73 [a] (1).
49 C J.S.-64
60. Pa.— -Boy v. Patton, 18 Pa.Dist.
52.
34 C.J. p 674 note 73 [a] (2).
61. N.C.— Trice v. Turrentine, 35 N.
C. 212.
62. Okl.— Noyes v. French, 94 P. 546,
20 Okl. 515.
34 C.J. p 673 note 59.
63. Pa. — Appeal of Worman, 20 A.
415, 110 P*u 25.
34 C.J. p 673 note 59 [a].
Amicable scire facias generally see
infra subdivision m of this section.
64. Pa. — Swank v. Dickson, Com.Pl.,
9 Som.Co. 72.
Va. — American Ry. Express Co. v. F.
S. Royster Guano Co., 126 S.B. 678,
141 Va. 602, affirmed 47 S.Ct. 355,
273 U.S. 274, 71 L.Ed. 642.
34 C.J. p 673 note 60.
65. Ark. — Bolinger v. Fowler, 14
Ark. 27.
Pa. — Swank v. Dickson, Com.Pl., 9
Som.Co. 72.
Va. — American Ry. Express Co. v. F.
S. Royster Guano Co., 126 S.E. 678,
141 Va. 602, affirmed 47 S.Ct 355,
273 U.S. 274, 71 L.Ed. 642.
66. Pa. — Swank v. Dickson, Com.Pl.,
9 Som.Co. 72.
Va. — American Ry. Express Co. v.
1009
F. S. Royster Guano Co., 126 S.E.
678, 141 Va, 602, affirmed 47 S.Ct.
355, 273 U.S. 274, 71 L.Ed. 642.
34 C.J. p 673 note 62.
67. Ky. — Coleman v. Edwards, 4
Bibb 347.
34 C.J. p 673 note €3.
68. Pa. — Landon v. Brown, 28 A.
921, 160 Pa. 538.
34 C.J. p 673 note 64.
69. Mo. — Andrews v. Buckbee, 77
Mo. 428.
34 C.J. p 673 note 65.
70. Pa. — Landon v. Brown, 28 A. 921,
160 Pa. 538.
34 C.J. p 673 note 66.
71. Md. — Moore v. Garrettson, $ Md.
444.
34 C.J. p 674 note 67.
Variance "between writ and prwcipe
Pa. — Klein v. Anderson, 39 Pa.Dist,
& Co. 139.
72. Pa. — In re Dougherty, 9 Watts &
S. 189, 42 Am.D. 326.
73. Mo.— City of St. Louts v. Miller,
145 S.W.2d 504, 235 Mo.App. 987—
Longett v. Eisenbergr, 10 S.W.Sd
317, 222 Mo.App. 805.
34 C.J. p 674 note 81.
§ 548
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
plication should be filed,74 and, in some jurisdic-
tions, the writ cannot issue to revive a judgment
after the lapse of a designated time from its rendi-
tion except on leave of court first obtained on a mo-
tion or other application supported by an affidavit
that the judgment remains in force and unsatis-
fied.™ Where the allegations of the affidavit are
sufficient to repel the presumption of payment aris-
ing from lapse of time, the scire facias may be or-
dered as a matter of right,76 although it has been
held that, after the lapse of twenty years, defendant
must have notice of the motion and affidavit,77 and
the court may exercise its discretion, and allow or
refuse the motion, as may seem proper in the case.78
Although an affidavit is required, an objection on
the ground of its omission79 or that the affidavit is
defective80 should be made in limine, or it will be
held to have been waived.
e. Service and Return
As a general rule, there can be no valid judgment
on a scire facias to revive a judgment unless the writ
was served on the persons sought to be bound by the
revived judgment.
As a general rule there can be no valid judg-
ment on a scire facias to revive a judgment unless
the writ was served on defendants81 and on heirs,
terre-tenants, or other persons sought to be bound.82
If defendant is within the jurisdiction, the service
must be personal,83 and after the manner of serv-
ing a writ of summons,84 but constructive service
may be sufficient where defendant cannot be
found.85 Where the judgment to be revived is
against two defendants jointly, the scire facias must
be served on both.86 Defendant may waive a defect
or failure in the service of process by conduct
which indicates submission to the court's jurisdic-
tion.87
Service on nonresidents. Where, as dis.cussed su-
pra subdivision a of this section, the proceeding by
scire facias for reviving a personal judgment is
treated as merely a continuance of the original suit,
jurisdiction duly obtained in the original suit over
the person of defendant will endure for the revival
of the judgment,88 and if defendant is a nonresi-
dent the service may be constructive.89 If, how-
ever, the scire facias to revive a judgment is treat-
ed as a new action for debt on the judgment and
there is no appearance by the judgment debtor and
he resides in another state, service on him in such
other state does not give the court jurisdiction to
render a judgment of revivor,90 even though the re-
vival is sought in a court in the state in which the
judgment was rendered at a time when the defend-
74. Mo.— City of St Louis v. Miller,
145 S.W.2d 504, £35 Mo.App. 987.
34 C.J. p 675 note 82.
Applications held sufficient
(1) Generally.
U.S. — Brooks v. Oaruthers, D.C.Pa.,
25 F.Supp. 413.
111.— Hemphill v. Trgovic, 80 N.E.2d
121, 225 IlLApp. 310.
34 C.J. p 675 note 82 [a].
(2) Petition held sufficient despite
failure to set out original judgment
in h«c verba or to allege date of
entry of forfeiture of defunct cor-
porate defendant's right to do busi-
ness.—Simmons v. Zimmerman Land
& Irrigation Co., Tez.Civ.App., 292 3.
W. 973.
75. Tenn.— Keith v. Metcalf, 2 Swan
74.
34 C.J. p 675 note 83.
76. Tenn.— Keith v. Metcalf, supra.
77. Tenn. — Keith v. Metcalf, supra.
78. Tenn. — Keith v. Metcalf, supra.
79. Tenn. — Fogg v. Gibbs, 8 Baxt.
464.
34 C.J. p 675 note 87.
80. 111.— Hemphill v. Trgovic, <60 N.
BL2d 121, 325 Ill.App. 310.
34 CU. p 675 note 87.
81. 111. — First Nat Bank of Chicago
v. Craig, 31 N.E.2d 810, 308 IlLApp.
377.
Pa. — Szusta v. Krawiec, Com.Pl., 36 1 der service defective. — City of St,
Luz.Leg.Keg. 183.
34 C.J. p 675 note 88.
"Defendant," as used in statute, re-
fers to the defendant in the original
suit against whom the Judgment was
rendered. — State ex rel. Buder v.
Hughes, 166 S.W.2d 516, 350 Mo. 547.
Time of service
Some statutes prescribe that serv-
ice of the writ be made a specified
number of days prior to the com-
mencement of the term of court dur-
ing which the writ is- returnable. —
Fielding v. M. Rich & Bros. Co., 169
S.E. 383, 46 Ga.App. 785.
82. Mo. — State ex rel. Buder v.
Hughes, 166 S.W.2d 516, 350 Mo.
547.
Pa. — Klein v. Anderson, 39 Pa.Dist &
Co. 139.
34 C.J. p 375 note 89.
A. purchaser of timber rights from
Judgment debtor was not a terre-
tenant and hence was not entitled
to service on revival of judgment In
scire facias proceeding. — Havens v.
Pearson, 6 A.2d 84, 334 Pa. 570, 122
A.L.R. 512.
The purchaser of deed of trust on
property against which benefits were
assessed in condemnation proceeding
was not owner of title to property,
and failure to serve purchaser with
writ of scire facias to revive judge-
ment assessing benefits did not ren-
Louis v. Koch, Mo.App., 156 S.W.2d
1.
83. Ga. — Stable v. Jones, 3 S.R2d
861, 60 Ga.App. 397— Fielding v. M.
Rich & Bros. Co., 169 S.E. 383, 46
Ga,App. 785.
I1L — U. S. Brewing Co. of Chicago v.
Epp, 247 IlLApp. 315.
34 C.J. p 675 note 90.
Service held accepted by defendant
Pa.— Luzerne Nat. Bank v. Gosart,
185 A. 640, 322 Pa. 446.
84. Mo. — Andrews v. Buckbee, 77
Mo. 428.
34 C.J. p 675 note 91.
S3. Ark.— Waldstein v. Williams,
142 S.W. 834, 101 Ark. 404, 37 L.R.
A..N.S., 1162.
34 C.J. p 675 note 99.
86. D.C.— Lyon v. Ford, 20 B.C. 530.
87. 111.— Albers v. Martin, 45 N.E.2d
102, 316 IlLApp. 446— U. S. Brew-
ing Co. of Chicago v. Epp, 247 ILL
App. 315.
88. Tex.— Collin County Nat Bank
V. Hughes, 220 S.W. 767, 110 Tex.
362.
89. 111. — Bank of Edwardsville v.
Raffaelle, 45 N.E.2d 651, 381 111.
486, 144 A.L.R. 401.
34 C.J. p 675 note 99.
90. Tex.— Collin County Nat. Bank
v. Hughes, 220 S.W. 767, 110 Tex.
362.
1010
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
548
ant was resident therein,91 and it is immaterial that
the court which rendered the judgment and in
which the revival is sought was a federal court92
A revival of a judgment for purposes of execution
by scire facias without service of the scire facias
on, or appearance by, defendant, who was outside
the state, cannot operate to remove the statutory
bar of the law of another state, in which he resides,
and in which the action on the judgment is
brought.93
Return of service. The officer's return should set
forth correctly the facts of the service,94 but may
be aided by reasonable intendments.95 In a proper
case the return may be corrected or amended.96
f . Amending and Quashing or Vacating Writ
A writ of scire facias for the purpose of reviving a
Judgment may be amended for the purpose of correcting
irregularities, but amendments which will deprive an ad-
verse party of some substantial right will not be al-
lowed. An Insufficient writ may be quashed.
A writ of scire facias for the purpose of reviving
a judgment may be amended as in the case of other
such writs, and its amendment is governed by simi-
lar rules.9? Amendments are not permitted, how-
ever, which prejudice the opposite party or deprive
him of some substantial right,9* such as the defense
afforded by a statute of limitations.99 The writ
may be amended with respect to informalities or ir-
regularities1 or to make it conform to the record of
the judgment,2 but not as against parties not served
with the writ.* An amendment alleging that a judg-
ment which was not dormant at the time the scire
facias was sued out has become dormant pending
the scire facias will not prevent the dismissal of
the scire facias.4
Quashing or vacating writ. The writ of scire
facias may be quashed on motion for failure to state
a legal cause of action;5 for want of the support-
ing affidavit of nonpayment of the judgment,6 when
that is required by law, as discussed supra subdivi-
sion d of this section; for disability or defect of
parties;7 or, under statute; where it was issued
against a person in military service.8 While the
merits of plaintiffs claim will not be decided on a
motion to quash the writ on jurisdictional grounds,9
if a scire facias has been improperly issued and a
judgment rendered thereon, it is still competent for
the court to review both on motion.10
g. Parties
(1) Parties plaintiff
(2) Parties defendant
(1) Parties Plaintiff
Generally the plaintiff named In the original Judg-
ment, or his legal representative or successor, should
be the plaintiff in a scire facias proceeding to revive
the Judgment; but, where statutes authorize assignees
or real parties in Interest to sue, an assignee of a Judg-
ment may Institute the proceeding In his own name.
As a general rule, plaintiff in a proceeding by
scire facias to revive a judgment should be the
same person who was plaintiff in the original- judg-
91. Tex — Collin County Fat Bank
v. Hughes, supra, I
92. Tex^— -Collln County Nat Bank
v. Hughes, supra,
93. U.S.— Owens v. McCloskey, La.,
18 S.Ct. 693, 161 U.S. 642, 40 L.Ed.
837
Ga.— Frank v. Wolf, 87 S.B. 697, 17
Ga.App. 468.
94. pa,— Chahoon v. HoUenback, 16
Serg. & R. 425, 16 Am.D. 587.
34 C.J. p 675 note 94.
95. Tex.— Polnao v. State, 80 S.W.
381, 46 Teac.Cr. 70.
All presumptions are in favor of
the sheriffs return on the writ of
scire facias.— O'Neill & Co. v.
Schulze, 7 A.2d 263, 177 Md. 64.
96. U.S.— Mandeville v. McDonald,
D.C., 16 F.Cas.No.9,013, 3 Cranch C.
C. 631.
Md.— Berry v. Griffith, 2 Harr. & G.
337, 18 AmuD. 309*
97- pa.— Salberg v. Duffee. 21 Pa.
Dist & Co. 144.
34 C.J. P 674 note 76.
Amendment of scire facias generally
see the C.J.S. title Scire Facias §
9, also 56 C.J. p 873 nptes 14-31.
Amendment as to time of return,
Where it appears that service
of the original writ was not per-
fected, it is amendable in order to
make it returnable to a subsequent
term.— Stahle v. Jones, 3 S.B.2d 861,
60 Ga.App. 397— Fielding v. M. Rich
& Bros. Co., 169 S.B. 383, 46 Ga.App.
785.
98. Pa.— First Nat Bank v. Tomi-
chek, 13 A.2d 126, 140 Pa.Super.
101.
99. D.C.— Lyon v. Ford, 20 D.C. 530.
Pa.-— First Nat Bank v. Tomichek,
13 A.2d 126, 140 Pa.Super. 101.
1. Md. — Garey v. Sangston, 20 A.
1034, 64 Md. 31.
34 C.J. p 674 note 77.
2. pa. — Salberg v. Dufltee, 21 Pa.
Dist & Co. 144— Miners Nat Bank
v. Butler, Com.Pl., 37 Luz.Leg.Reg,
314.
34 C.J. P 674 note 78.
8. D.C.— Lyon v. Ford, 20 D.C. 530,
4i Ga. — Shepherd T. Ryan, 53 Ga.
5. va. — Evans v. Freeland, 3 Munf.
119, 17 Va. 119.
34 C.J. p 683 note 43.
-Lansing v. Lyons, 9 Johns.
563.
84.
N.C.— Hintoa v. Oliver, 19 N.C. -519.
7. Pa.— McCabe v. U. S., 4 Watts
325.
34 C.J. P 683 note 46.
8. Pa. — Moyer v. McNulty, 22 Pa.Co.
153.
9. u.S. — Brooks v. Caruthers, D.C.
Pa., 25 F.Supp. 413.
1C. Miss.— Locke v. Brady, 30 Miss.
21.
34 C.J. p 683 note 48.
ranting appropriate reltef
On petition to strike scire facias
from record on ground that proceed-
ing had not been commenced within
five years from death of Judgment
debtor, court had Inherent power to
order that revival should not create
lien against real estate although pe-
titioner did not so pray. — Shareff, to
Use of Olney Bank & Trust Co. v.
Wolf, 182 A, 115. 120 Pa.Super. 227.
1011
§ 548
JUDGMENTS
49 O.J.S.
mcnt11 or his legal representative.12 Where one of
a firm of partners has died after the rendition of a
judgment in favor of the firm, scire facias to revive
the judgment is properly brought by the surviving
partner and not by the surviving partner and the
personal representative of the deceased partner.13
A judgment rendered in favor of a public trustee
may be revived by scire facias in the name of his
successor when appointed.14 Where the disability
of coverture exists, the husband must join with the
wife although she recovered judgment before the
marriage
15
After assignment of judgment. Where a statute
provides that assignees may bring actions in their
own names, assignees of a judgment may sue out
scire facias for its revival.16 In those code states
where scire facias to revive a judgment is still in
use, it seems that the assignee may sue out the writ
in his own name under the code provision as to the
maintenance of actions by the real party in inter-
est.17 In the absence of such statutory authoriza-
tion, scire facias to revive an assigned judgment
should be prosecuted in the name of the assignor.18
(2) Parties Defendant
(a) In general
(b) Joint defendants
(a) In General
Persons who are not parties to the Judgment and
who are not beneficially interested in the property in-
volved are not necessary parties to a scire facias to
revive the Judgment.
Persons who are not parties to the judgment and
who are without beneficial interest in the property
involved need not be made parties defendant to a
scire facias to revive the judgment;19 but persons
whose interests may be adversely affected by the
proceedings are necessary parties.20
Death of judgment debtor. Where the judgment
debtor dies, and it is sought by the proceeding to
reach personalty only, it is generally held proper to
bring scire facias against the executor or adminis-
trator alone, without joining the heirs or devisees.21
Where real property only is involved, it is proper
in some jurisdictions to bring scire facias against
the heirs or devisees and terre-tenants alone, with-
out joining the executor or administrator.22 In oth-
er jurisdictions the scire facias is properly brought
against the personal representatives alone, notwith-
standing the judgment binds only land, and the
heirs, devisees and terre-tenants are not necessary
parties,28 although they may be proper parties;24
but according to some authority, if it is sought to
revive a personal judgment against the land of the
deceased debtor, the heirs and terre-tenants must be
joined with the personal representative.25 In a few
jurisdictions it has been broadly held that it is not
11. Pa.— McKinney v. Mehaffey, 7
Watts & S. 276.
34 C.J. P 676 note 6.
Persons who may revive generally
see supra § 537.
12. Ala. — Birmingham Ry., Light &
Power Co. v. Cunningham. 37 So.
689, 141 Ala. 470.
34 C.J. p 676 note 7.
13. 111. — Linn v. Downing, 74 N.E.
729, 216 111. 64.
14. Miss. — Mathews v. Mosby, 21
Miss. 422.
15. N.Y. — Johnson v. Parmely, 17
Johns. 271.
34 C.J. p 676 note 10.
16. Mo.— Reyburn v. Handlan, 147 S.
W. 846, 165 Mo.App. 412.
•34 C.J. p 676 note 11.
Sufficiency of record
Record was sufficient to show that
assignee of judgment was actual
"bona fide owner of Judgment when
assignee commenced scire facias
proceeding to revive the Judgment —
Molner v. Arendt, 55 N.E.2d 407, 8""
Ill.App. 289.
In MUBOuri
(1) After the death of an assignor
of a Judgment a scire facias to re-
vive may not be maintained in his
name to the use of the assignee, un- i
der the statutes.— Goddard v. Delan-
ey, 80 S.W. 886, 181 Mo. 564.
(2) However, the personal repre-
sentatives of the assignee suing in
the name of the assignor may be
deemed the "parties" plaintiff and
their capacity to sue and their in-
terest in the subject matter of the
action challenged in the same manner
as that of other plaintiffs. — Beattie
Mfg. Co. v. Gerardi, Mo., 214 S.W.
189.
17. U.S.— Wonderly v. Lafayette
County, C.C.MO., 74 F. 702.
Tex.— Henry v. Red Water Lumber
Co., 102 S.W. 749, 46 Tex.Civ.App.,
179.
18. W.Va.— Wells v. Graham, 20 S.B.
576, 39 W.Va. 605.
34 C.J. p 643 note 3, p 676 note 13.
19. Mo.— City of St. Louis v. Koch,
App., 156 S.W.2d 1.
34 C.J. P 676 note 15.
Persons against whom Judgment may
be revived generally see supra §
638.
20. D.C.— McMullen v. Waters, 295
F. 1008, 54 App.D.C. 187.
Innocent purchaser
Before real ectate, subject to Judg-
ment lien, which has passed into
1012
ownership and possession of innocent
purchaser, can be subjected to ex-
ecution issued in scire facias pro-
ceeding, purchaser must have been
made party to that proceeding. — Mc-
Mullen v. Waters, supra.
21. Mo.— MoMey v. Wade, 178 S.W.
504, 192 Mo.App. 26— Stewart v.
Gibson, 71 Mo.App. 232.
Death of one of several Joint tenants
see infra subdivision g (2) (b) of
this section.
22. U.S. — Walden v. Craig. Ky.f 14
Pet. 147, 10 L.Bd. 393.
34 C.J. p 677 note 16.
23. Del.— First Nat. Bank v. Crook,
174 A. 369, 6 W.W.Harr. 281.
34 C.J. p 677 note 18.
24. Del.— First Nat Bank v. Crook,
supra.
25. Md. — Lang v. Wilxner, 101 A.
706, 131 Md. 215, 2 AJL.R. 1698.
34 C.J. p 677 note 19.
TT&der the English practice where
a judgment had been entered in a
personal action against a single de-
fendant who had die* before execu-
tion issued, the scire facias was first
issued against the executor or ad-
ministrator of deceased defendant,
and* where it was sought to subject
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
548
permissible to join personal representatives and
heirs as parties defendant to a scire facias to revive
a judgment,26 while in other jurisdictions the per-
sonal representative, heirs, and terre-tenants may
and should all be joined in the action, where their
respective interests are involved.27
Terre-tenants. It has frequently been held that,
in order to revive the lien of a judgment as against
land which is in the possession of a terre-tenant, he
must be made a party to the scire facias.28 Accord-
ing to other decisions, however, where a judgment
is revived by scire facias against the original de-
fendant, it is not necessary to include as parties
terre-tenants or persons of similar status;29 but
where the original defendant is dead the terre-ten-
ant must be made a party to the scire facias to re-
vive,30 although it has also been held that he need
not be made a party even in the latter case.31
Within the meaning of the foregoing rules a
terre-tenant is one who has an estate in the land,
coupled with the actual possession, which he de-
rived mediately or immediately from the judgment
debtor while the land was bound by the lien.32
(b) Joint Defendants
A scire facias to revive a Joint Judgment must be
brought against all of the Joint defendants who are
alive, and, except as otherwise provided by statute,
where one Joint defendant Is dead the writ should be
brought against the surviving defendants and the heirs
or presonal representatives of the deceased.
A scire facias to revive a judgment against two
or more defendants must go against them all, if
living,33 at least where the judgment is joint,84
although it has been held that, where the judgment
is joint and several, plaintiff may elect as to which
of the defendants he will have it revived.35 Ex-
cept in some jurisdictions,36 and except where one
judgment debtor has been discharged from further
liability on the judgment,37 plaintiff cannot drop one
defendant and proceed against the others,38 and if
he discontinues his scire facias as to any of the par-
ties it operates as a discontinuance of the whole
proceeding.39 If plaintiff desires to revive a judg-
ment against one or more defendants without join-
ing all, his remedy is by an action of debt on the
judgment, not a scire facias.40 Where a judgment
was rendered against a f emme sole who later mar-
ried, it has been held that the writ of scire facias
must be sued out against both husband and wife.41
After death of one defendant. The common-law
rule that if one joint defendant had died the writ
should be against the survivors and the heirs or per-
sonal representatives of deceased42 still prevails in
many jurisdictions,43 but under some statutes scire
lands to execution process, although
the scire facias also issued against
heirs and terre-tenants of deceased
defendant, it could not issue against
them until after a return of nihil
against personal representative of
deceased defendant — First Nat.
Bank v. Crook, 174 A. 369, 6 W.W.
Harr., Del., 281.
86. Miss. — Barnes v. McLemore, 20
Miss. 316.
N.Y.— Strong v. Lee, 44 How.Pr. €0,
affirmed 2 Thorn ps. & C. 441.
S7. 111. — Reynolds v. Henderson, 7
111. 110.
34 C.J. p 677 note 21.
38. D.C.— -McMullen v. Waters, 295
P. 1008, 54 App.D.0. 187.
Pa. — First Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v.
Miller, 186 A. 87, 322 Pa. 473—
Simmons v. Simmons, 28 A.2d 445,
150 Pa. Super. 393, affirmed 29 A.
2d 677, 346 Pa. 52.
34 C.J. p 678 note 39.
Extending lien of judgment by re-
vival generally see supra § 494.
Praudulant grantee is not necessary
party
N.C.— Lee v. Eure, 93 N.C. 5.
Pa. — Lyon v. Cleveland, 33 A. 143,
170 Pa. 611, '60 Am.S.R. 782, 30 L.
R.A, 400— Raub Supply Co. v.
Brandt, Com.Pl., 27 DeLCo. 507.
>. -Fla.— B. A. Lott, Inc., v. Pad-
gett, 14 So.2d *67, 153 Fla. 304.
34 C.J. p 678 note 40.
30. Iowa.— Von Puhl v. Rucker, 6
Iowa 187.
34 C.J. p 679 note 41.
31. Ky. — Griffith v. Wilson, 1 J.J.
Marsh. 209.
34 C.J. p 679 note 42.
5. Tenn.— Carney v. Carney, 200 S.
W. 517, 138 Tenn. -647.
34 C.J. p 679 note 43—62 C.J. p 737
notes 34, 36-38.
"Terre-tenant" defined generally see
Estates § 1 c.
\. Colo.— Allen v. Patterson, 194 P.
934, 69 Colo. 302.
34 C.J. p 677 note 24.
34. D.C. — Lyon v. Ford, 20 D.C. 530.
34 C.J. p 677 note 25.
35. N.C.— Patterson v. Walton, 26
S.E. 43. 119 N.C. 500.
36. Ala.— Hanson v. Jacks, 22 Ala.
549.
Ind. — Davidson v. Alvord, 3 Ind. 1.
37. Mo. — Long v. Thormond, £3 Mo.
App. -227.
38. Ark.— Greer v. State Bank, 10
Ark. 455.
34 C.J. p 677 note 30.
Judgment of revival against part of
defendants see infra subdivision k
(1) of this section.
1013
39. D.C. — Crumbaugh v. Otterback,
20 D.C. 434.
34 C.J. p 678 note 31.
4a Colo.— Allen v. Patterson, 194 P.
934, 69 Colo. 302.
34 C.J. p 678 note 32.
41. Ind. — Campbell v. Baldwin, <5
Blackf. 364.
Mass.-— Haines v. Corliss, 4 Mass.
659.
42. XT.S.—U. S. v. Houston, D.C.Kan.,
48 F. 207.
34 C.J. p 678 note 34.
Revival of realty judgment
Under old English practice, where
(plaintiff sought to subject decedent's
real estate to execution process, scire
facias Issued against surviving de-
fendant and heirs and terre-tenants
of deceased defendant, surviving de-
fendant was required to show cause
why his personal property and half
of his real estate should not be sub-
jected to execution process, and heirs
and terre-tenants were required to
show cause why half of deceased's
land should not be subjected there-
to; but deceased defendant's person-
al representative was not proper par-
ty.—-First Nat. Bank v. Crook, 174 A.
369, 6 W.W.Harr. Del., £81.
43. Tex. — Rowland v. Harris, Civ.
App., 34 S.W. 295.
34 C.J. P 67«6 note 35.
§ 548
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
facias may be brought against either the surviving
judgment debtors or the personal representatives of
the deceased judgment debtor alone.44
k Pleading
(1) In general
(2) Issues, proof, and variance
(1) In General
Since a writ of sdre facias serves as both summons
and declaration, the filing of a petition is unnecessary;
the defendant should demur to the writ or plead mat-
ters of defense available to him.
A scire facias performs the double function of a
summons and a pleading;45 the writ takes the place
and performs the office of a declaration,46 and there-
fore it is not necessary for plaintiff to file with it a
declaration or petition or rule defendant to plead,47
although it is entirely proper that a petition should
be filed, as is discussed supra subdivision d of this
section. A good plea or answer on the part of de-
fendant must be met by a proper replication,48 but
an insufficient answer is vulnerable to plaintiffs de-
murrer.49
Defendant's pleading. As is discussed supra sub-
division a of this section, a scire facias to revive a
judgment is an action in the sense that defendant
may plead to the writ ; and he may and should de-
mur50 or plead all matters of defense that he has,51
as in an ordinary suit52 The plea to a writ of
scire facias, sued out to revive a judgment, is to
the writ, and not to the petition, if any, filed there-
with.53
In some states an affidavit of defense is required
in a proceeding of this character.54 Such affidavit
should contain a complete statement of material al-
legations sufficient to constitute a valid defense;55
Persons to "be Joined with survivor
On death of one of two joint de-
fendants in a judgment binding- land,
scire facias was properly brought
against surviving defendant in the
judgment and personal representa-
tive of deceased defendant, and,
while deceased defendant's heir
might also have been made a defend-
ant in such proceeding, she was not a
necessary party; where executor or
administrator of such deceased de-
fendant was sole -party defendant,
his duty was to notify heirs or dev-
isees or terre-tenants claiming under
him of proceedings, and they, on ap-
plication, should be permitted to ap-
pear and defend. — First Nat. Bank v.
Crook, 174 A. 869, 6 W.W.Harr. DeL,
281.
Insolvency of deceased's estate
In scire facias to revive alleged
dormant judgment against all de-
fendants except one, who had died,
and whose estate was insolvent,
court did not err in overruling de-
murrer to petition because it did not
seek judgment as against all defend-
ants, especially where judgment was
not dormant as to deceased defend-
ant.— Rogers v. Jordan, 182 S.EL 233,
35 Ga.App. 131.
Husbaad and wife
Where judgment was against hus-
band and wife for her antenuptial
debt on death of husband scire fa-
cias might be issued against his
executor. — Burton v. Rodney, 5 Del.
441.
44. Va,— Greathouse v. Morrison, 70
S.BL 710, 68 W.Va. 714.
45. 111. — Van Home v. Harford, 280
IlLApp. 57S.
Mo.— City of SL Louis v. Miller, 145
S.W.2d 504, 235 Mo.App. 987.
3* C.J. p £79 notes 44, 45.
46. Mo.— City of St Louis v. Miller,
supra.
34 C.J. p 679 note 45.
Contents of writ see supra subdivi-
sion c of this section.
47. Tex. — Simmons v. Zimmerman
Land & Irrigation Co., Civ.App., 292
S.W. 973.
34 C.J. p 679 note 46.
48. Ark.— Humphries v. Anthony, 12
Ark. 136.
34 C.J. p 679 note 48.
Implication held properly stricken
Pa. — cusano v. Rubolino, 39 A.2cl 90«,
351 Pa. 41.
49. Qa. — McRae v. Boykin, App., 35
S.E.2d 548, certiorari denied 66 S.
Ct 1024.
50. Pa.— Bell v. Borys, 45 Pa.Dist. &
Co. 197— Bell v. Borys, Com.Pl.,
44 Lack.Jur. 44, 56 York Leg.Rec.
202.
34 CJ. p 679 note 51.
Motion to quash see supra subdivi-
sion f of this section.
51. D.C.— McMullen v. Waters, 295
F. 1008, 54 App.D.C. 187.
Pa, — Bell v. Tontos, 46 Pa.Dist &
Co. 636, 44 LaclLjur. 83, 57 York
iLeg.Rec. 53 — Harr v. Deeter, 31 Pa.
Dist. & Co. 702, 5 Sch.Reg. 205—
Miners Nat Bank of Wilkes-Barre
v. Dukas, Coxn.Pl.. 32 Luz.-Leg.Reg.
229.
34 C.J. p 679 note 52.
Defenses to revival proceedings gen-
erally see supra § 540.
Answer held insufficient
(1) Generally. — Marsh v. Bowen, 6
A.2d 783, 335 Pa* 314.
(2) Statement in certificate of
original trial Judge to bill of ex-
ceptions cannot be corrected by way
of answer to scire facias proceeding
to revive dormant judgment. — Mc-
Rae v. Boykin, Ga.App., 35 fl.B.2d
54<8, certiorari denied 66 S.Ct 1024.
1014
52. Ark.— Ward v. Sturdivant, 132 S.
W. 204, 96 Ark. 434.
53. Mo.— Glidden-Felt Mfg. Co. v.
Robinson, 143 S.W. 1111, 1"63* Mo.
App. 488.
54. Pa. — Cusano v. Rubolino, 39 A.
2d 906, 351 Pa. 41 — Stanton v.
Humphreys, Com.Pl., 27 Del. 594r-
First Nat. Bank of Scranton v.
Brown, Com.PL, 45 Lack.Jur. 267—
Miners Nat. Bank v. Butler, Com.
PI., 37 Luz.Leg.Reg. 814.
CJ. p 679 note 55.
Torre-tenants
(1) In scire facias to revive a
judgment, Judgment may be entered
against terre-tenant as against de-
fendant for want of a sufficient affi-
davit of defense. — Cusano v. Ruboli-
no, 39 A.2d 906, 351 Pa. 41.
(2) However, some inferior court
decisions apparently have held that
it is not necessary for a terre-ten-
ant to file an affidavit of defense to
prevent judgment being rendered
against lands held by him. — Salberg
v. Duflee, 21 Pa.Dist & Co. 144—
Bell v. Yontos, 46 Pa.Dist & Co. 633,
44 Lack.Jur. 83, 57 York Leg.Rec. 53
— Harr v. Deeter, 31 Pa.Dist. & C|o.
702, 5 Sch.Reg. 205.
(3) Affidavit of defense admitting
conveyance to defendants of interest
in the real estate of original de-
fendant after date of original Judg-
ment showed that defendants were
terre-tenants.— Adelson v. Kocher, 36
A.2d 737, 154 PsuSuper. 548.
55. Pa. — O'Connor v. Flick, 118 A.
431, 274 Pa. £21— Howells v. How-
ells, 26 Pa.Dist & Co. 423, 84
Pittsb.Leg.J. 170, 35 Sch.L.R. 163,
2 Sch.Reg. 229 — Bank of Wesley-
ville v. Wagner, Com.PL, 21 Erie
Co. 175— 'First Nat Bank of Scran-
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 548
but the insertion of matter raising only questions
of law is erroneous.56
As discussed supra § 540, proper forms of the
general issue are nul tiel record and payment; and,
as considered supra § 542, the statute of limitations
may also be pleaded in defense.
(2) Issues, Proof, and Variance
Under the plea of nul tiel record, which questions
the existence and validity of the Judgment, the only
proof permitted is that afforded by an inspection of the
record, while the plea of payment confines proof to
matters concerning the satisfaction, release, or dis-
charge of the judgment.
While the plea of nul tiel record is said to raise
but one question, namely, whether there is such a
record of the judgment as that set out in the writ,57
and this question is to be determined on an inspec-
tion and examination of the record58 without the
aid of evidence aliunde,69 yet it has also been held
that under this plea defendant may show the judg-
ment to be void for want of jurisdiction, where this
is manifest from an inspection of the record,60 and
may take advantage of a failure to describe the
judgment properly, or of a wrong statement as- to
the court in which it was rendered;61 but mere
errors or irregularities cannot be taken advantage
of under this plea.62
Where the liability of terre-tenants is involved,
under the strict construction given some statutes
nothing may be tried except the questions whether
the land was bound by the judgment, and, if at one
time the land had been bound, whether the lien had
been lost;63 the question of adverse title may not
be introduced at the trial.64
Plea of payment. Under the plea of payment the
evidence* must be confined to matters going in sat-
isfaction, release, or discharge of the judgment65
Under such a plea defendant may prove any form
of satisfaction or release of the judgment,66 as well
as an accord and satisfaction ;67 he may show a pri-
or agreement as to the mode of discharging the
judgment,68 or an agreement to cancel it on an
event which has since occurred69 or to restrict its
lien,70 but not a mere voluntary promise on the
part of plaintiff to forbear enforcing the judg-
ment.71
i. Evidence
On a sclre facias satisfactory proof may and should
be offered concerning the existence and validity of the
original Judgment, and the liability of heirs or terre-
tenants; payment or release may be shown by competent
evidence.
On a scire facias proof of the original judgment
is proper and necessary;72 but, where this proof
is made, the judgment will be sustained, with re-
spect to its regularity and validity, by the ordi-
ton v. Brown, Com.Pl., 45 Lack.
Jur. 267.
34 C.J. p $79 note 55 [b].
Affidavits bold sufficient
111. — Jacobs v. Lucas, 270 Ill.App.
123.
Pa.— Masters v. Masters, Com.PL, 27
WestCo.L.J. 107.
Affidavits held insufficient
Pa. — Cusano v. Rubolino, 39 A.2d
906, 361 Pa. 4 I—O'Connor v. Flick,
118 A. 431, 274 Pa. 521— Brusko v.
Olshefski, 13 A.2d 916, 140 Pa, Su-
per. 485 — Miller Bros. v. Keenan,
50 Pa. Super. 470 — Security-Peoples
Trust Co. v. Polaszewski, Com.Pl.,
47 Brie Co. '20— McMahon v. Pietro,
•Com.Pl,, 42 Lack.Jur. 162 — Jacob-
:son v. McCormick, Com.Pl., 38 Luz.
Leg.Reg. '355 — Miners Nat Bank
..of Wilkes-Barre v. Dukas, Com.PL,
32 Luz.Leg.Reg. 229 — Sausage Mfg.
Co. v. Roraeto, Com.Pl., 86 Pittsb.
Leg.J. 105— Uhlinger v. Bur\n,
Com.Pl., 22 West.Co.L.J. 146.
56. Pa. — Cusano v, Rubolino, 39
2d 906, 351 Pa. 41— Meyers
Stern, 54 Pa.Dist & Co. 657.
*7. 111.— Waterbury Nat Bank
Reed, 83 N.E. 188, 231 IlL 246.
34 C.J. p 680 note 60.
*58. Md. — Hager Y. Cochran, 7
462, 66 Md 253.
.34 C.J. p 680 note 61.
Determination by court see infra
subdivision j of this section.
Sufficiency of record
Judgment was properly revived, as
against plea of nul tiel record, on
evidence consisting of excerpts from
judge's common-law docket and law
record showing existence of judg-
ment notwithstanding judgment
docket contained no record of judg-
ment.— Van Home v. Harford, 6 N.B.
2d 887, 289 Ill.App. 121.
59. TJ.S.— King v. Davis, CC.Va,,
13-7 F. 198, affirmed 157 F. 67$, $5
C.C.A. -348.
34 CJ. p 680 note 62.
60. Del.— Frankel v. Satterfield, 19
A. 898, 14 Del. 201. '
34 C.J. p 680 note 63.
Joint liability
Under contention in affidavit of
merits that original court had no
jurisdiction to enter judgment jthat
was several, defendant was permit-
ted to show that power or warrant of
attorney under which judgment was
confessed was joint, while the judg-
ment entered pursuant to it was sev-
eral.— Dulsky v. Lerner, 223 IlLApp.
228.
61. Ala.— Barrow v. Pagles, 6 Ala.
462.
34 C.J. p 680 note 64.
1015
62. Pa. — Barber v. Chandler, 17 Pa.
48, 55 Am.D. 533.
34 C.J. p 650 note 85.
63. Pa. — South Central Building &
Loan Ass'n v. Milan!, 150 A. 586,
300 Pa. 250.
64. Pa.— South Central Building &
Loan Ass'n v. Milani, supra.
65. N.J.— Barle v. Earle, 20 N.J.Law
'347.
34 C.J. p &80 note 6$.
68. Pa.— Smith v. Coray, 46 A> «55,
196 Pa. 602.
34 C.J. p 680 note 67.
67. Md.— McCullough v. (Franklin
Coal Co., -21 Md. 25$.
Pa. — Steltzer v. Steltzer, 10 Pa.Su-
per. 310.
68. Md. — Downey v. Forrester, 8-5
Md. 117.
69. Pa,— Hartzell v. Reiss, I Binn.
289.
70. Pa.— Sankey v. Reed, 12 Pa. 95.
71. Pa.— Codding v. Wood, 3 A. 455,
112 Pa. 371— Ladd v. Church, 6
Phila, 591.
72. Ga.— Hagins v. Blitch, 65 S.E.
1082, 6 Ga.App. 839.
3* C.J. (p 680 note 73.
§ 548
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
nary presumptions,73 and the revival ordinarily will
be ordered unless good cause to the contrary is
shown.74 However, as against heirs it is error to
render judgment without proof that they inherited
assets.75 Also the establishment of the liability of
a party as a terre-tenant requires proof of facts
outside the record,76 such as his acquisition of title
to the land after the rendition of the judgment and
while the judgment was a lien on it,77 and such a
party may show a release or restriction of the lien
of the judgment.78 Payment or release may be
shown by any competent evidence,79 and to disprove
a plea of payment a sheriff's return on an execu-
tion showing satisfaction in full may be contra-
dicted.80
The court will take into consideration a pre-
sumption of payment which, in some states, arises
merely after the lapse of a certain number of
years,81 and in others after the passage of a pe-
riod, prescribed by statute, without the issuance of
an execution.82 The judgment creditor has the
burden of overcoming such presumption,83 and the
judgment debtor may introduce competent evidence
to meet the judgment creditor's attempt to rebut
the presumption.84
j. Trial
The question raised by a plea of nul tiel record Is
tried by the court whereas the plea of payment entitles
the parties to a Jury trial.
The question raised by a plea of nul tiel record
is to be determined by the court;85 and, as consid-
ered supra subdivision h (2) of this section, the de-
cision is made on the basis of what is ascertained
from an inspection and examination of the record.
Defendant is not entitled to a jury trial under his
plea of nul tiel record,86 but the plea of payment
raises a question of fact which ordinarily must be
submitted to the jury.87 The court may withhold
determination of a motion for judgment for want
of a sufficient defense until adjudication of defend-
ant's rule to open the judgment sought to be re-
vived.88 In a proper case, the court may direct a
verdict89 or set aside a verdict returned by the
k. Judgment
(1) In general
(2) By confession or default
opening, or vacating
73. Mo.— Glidden-Felt Mfg. Co. v.
Robinson* 143 S.W. 1111, 163 Mo.
App. 488.
34 C.J. p 680 note 74.
74. Pa,— In re Miller. 90 A. T7, 243
Pa, 328.
34 C.J. p 680 note 75.
75. Tex.— Schxnidtke v. Miller, 8 S.
W. 638, 71 Tex. 103.
76. Pa. — Kinports v. Kinports, 1 Pa,
Co. 610— Miners Nat. Bank of
Wilkes-Barre v. -Dukas, Com.Pl., 32
Luz.Leg.Reg. '229.
77. Pa. — Klnports v. Boynton, 14 A.
135, 120 Pa, 306, 6 Am.S.R. 706.
34 C.J. p 680 note 78.
78. Pa. — Silverthorn v. Townsend,
37 Pa. 263— Sankey v. Reed, 12 Pa,
95. '
79. Pa.— McKee v. Russell, 112 A.
151, 269 Pa. 45— Earnhardt v. Her-
ring, -54 Pa.Dist & Co. $26.
34 C.J. p £80 note 80.
80. Mich.— McRoberts v. Lyon, 44
N.W. 160, 7$ Mich. 25.
81. Pa. — First Nat Bank v. Bank of
Pittsburg, 99 Pa,Super. 600^-Cole-
man & Stahl v. Weimer, 86 Pa.Su-
per. 303— Coleman & -Stanl v. Wei-
mer, 83 Pa.Super. 252.
Presumption of payment of judg-
ments generally see infra § 659.
82. Ala.— Quill v. Carolina Portland
Cement Co., 124 So. 305, 220 Ala.
134.
83. Ala, — Quill v. Carolina Portland
Cement Co., supra,
Degree of proof for rebuttal
Presumption of payment of judg-
ment unclaimed for twenty years
must be overcome by clear and sat-
isfactory proof in scire facias sur
judgment to collect it.— First Nat
Bank v. Bank of Pittsburgh, 99 Pa.
Super. 600 — Coleman & Stahl v. Wei-
mer, 86 Pa. Super. 303 — Coleman' &
Stahl v. Weimer, 83 Pa-Super. 252.
84. Pa. — Coleman & Stahl v. Wei-
mer, 8*6 Pa.Super. 303.
85. IlL— Waterbury Nat Bank v.
Reed, 83 N.E. 188, 231 111. 246.
84 C.J. p 680 note 82.
88. HI.— Eau Claire Bank v. Reed,
(83 N.E. 820, 232 111. 238, 122 Am.
S.R. 66.
87. Pa. — Rosenthal v. Grlmlisk, 84
Pa,Super. 426 — Coleman & Stahl v.
Weimer, £3 Pa. Super. 252— Calvey
Motor Co. v. Brogan, Com.PL, 33
Luz.Leg.Reg. 333.
34 C.J. p 680 note 85.
Agreement of partieg
Whether rights of judgment credi-
tor depended on alleged oral agree-]
1016
(3) Amending,
judgment
(1) In General
Ordinarily the Judgment on scire facias Is that the
original Judgment be revived and that the plaintiff have
execution thereof, although in some Jurisdictions a new
Judgment Is rendered for the amount due.
Ordinarily, on determining the issues in a scire
facias proceeding to revive a judgment, the court
may and should enter final judgmental but if the
ment that Judgment should remain of
record as security for judgment
debtor's obligation or on understand-
ing of parties at time judgment was
revived by prior amicable scire fa-
cias was for jury. — Security Trust
Co. of Pottstown T. Stapp, X A.2d
236, 382 Pa, 9.
Evidence sufficient for jury
Pa,— Brady v. Tarr, 21 A.2J 131, 145
Pa.Super. 316.
Pa, — Mifflin Motor Co, v. Peffer,
18 Pa-Dist. & Co. 66.
89. Ga, — Rogers v. Jordan, 132 S.E.
233, 35 Ga.App. 131.
90. Pa,— Wilson v. Wilson, 20 A.
•644, 137 Pa, 269.
Judgment non obataate veredicto
was justified where evidence of
agreement to release lien of judg-
ment was so indefinite that it would
be pure conjecture to state that an
agreement had been reached. — Ever-
ett Hardwood (Lumber Co. v. Cal-
houn, 133 A. 659, 121 Pa.£uper. 451. -
Verdict held supported by evidence
Pa.— Brady v. Tarr, 21 A.2d 131, 145
Pa,Super. 316.
91. m&.— McCallum v. Gornto, 174
So. 24, 1*7 Fla. 792.
Pa. — Brooks v. Caruthers* Estate,
Com.Pl., 23 WestCo.UJ. 138.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
548
judgment oh which the scire facias was issued is a
nullity no final judgment may be based thereon and
the proceeding should be dismissed.92
Since in most jurisdictions a scire facias to re-
vive a judgment is only the continuation of an ac-
tion, as discussed supra subdivision a of this sec-
tion, and the object and effect of the judgment on
the scire facias are to revive the judgment as it
formerly existed and to reinvest it with the same
attributes and conditions which originally belonged
to it, as considered infra § 549, the proper form of
judgment, in such jurisdictions, is that the original
judgment be revived93 and that plaintiff have exe-
cution thereof,94 with costs in both the original ac-
tion and the proceeding to revive.95 In many juris-
dictions it is improper to render a new judgment for
recovery of a specific sum;96 nor is plaintiff enti-
tled to damages for delay in execution;97 but,
where the judgment contains the proper statements,
additional words adding nothing to its effectiveness
may be treated as surplusage.98 In a few states,
however, the practice is to enter a new judgment,
quod recuperet, for the amount then due, includ-
ing the principal and accrued interest on the original
judgment.99
In order to be valid, the judgment on scire facias
must closely follow the original judgment,1 particu-
larly as to the names and descriptions of the par-
ties,2 unless, by reason of an assignment of the
judgment3 or the death of one of the parties,4 the
parties to the scire facias differ from those to the
original judgment, it being necessary that the judg-
ment contain proper restrictions or limitations when
given against other persons than the original de-
fendant, as heirs or terre-tenants.5 The entire
judgment, and not merely a part thereof, must be
revived.6
Where scire facias remains merely a judicial writ,
by reason of its not having been converted into an
action by appearance and plea of defendant, a fail-
Quashing or vacating writ generally
see supra subdivision f of this
section.
Objection as to time of entry held
waived
111.— Albers v. Martin, 45 N.E.2d 102,
316 111. A pp. 446.
92. U.S.— -U. S. v. Ewing, D.C.Miss.,
19 F.2d 378.
93. Md.— Ruth v. Durendo, 170 A.
582, 166 Md. 83.
34 O.J. p 680 note 90.
94. u.S. — Brown v. Chesapeake & O.
Canal Co., C.C.Md., 4 F. 770, 4
Hughes 584.
D.C.— McMullen v. Waters, 295 F.
1008, -54 App.D.C. 187.
Pla.— MeCallum v. Gornto, 174 So.
24, 127 Fla. 792— Massey v. Pine-
apple Orange Co., 100 So. 170, 87
Fla. 374.
34 C.J. p 681 note 91.
95. U.S.— Brown v. Qhesapeake & O.
Canal Co., C.C.Md., 4 F. 770, 4
Hughes 584.
•Fla.— MeCallum v. Gornto, 174 So.
24, 127 'Fla. 792— Massey v. Pine-
apple Orange Co., 100 So. 170, 87
Fla. 374.
34 C.J. p 681 note 92.
96. 111.— Eau Claire Bank v. Reed,
83 N.E. 820, 232 HI. 258, 122 Am.
S.R. 66.
34 C.J. p 681 note 93.
97. Iowa. — Vredenburgh v. Qnyder, 6
Iowa 39.
98. Mo.— Gregory -Grocery Co. v
Link, 25 S.W.2d 575, 224 Mo.App
407. ' .
84 C.J. p 681 note 96.
Surplusage in judgments generally
see supra § 84.
99. Pa.— Fehr v. Worden, 19 Pa
Dist. & Co. 631, 37 Dauph.Co. 381 1
—Commonwealth Trust Co. of
Harrisburg now to Use of Baker
v. MacDonald, Oom.Pl., 51 Dauph.
Co. 22.
14 C.J. P 681 note 97.
Compounding interest
(1) Judgment creditor has right,
n entering revival judgment, to
charge interest on aggregate amount
of principal and interest embodied in
previous judgment— Bailey v. Bai-
ley, 12 A.2d 577, 338 Pa. 221.
(2) On revival, prior to maturity
of debt, of judgment confessed on
bond calling for payment of interest
at time of principal, interest could
not be included so as to become part
of principal and bear interest.— Moll
v. Laffierty, 153 A. '557, '302 Pa. 354.
(3) Compounding interest on Judg-
ments generally see Interest § 68.
Joint debtors
On scire facias to revive judgment,
judgment must be modified in
amount to conform to amount paid
by one of original defendants as con-
sideration for assignment of Judg-
ment, since original defendant who
paid judgment must not be reim-
bursed in greater amount than he
was reauired to pay.— City Nat. Bank
of Wichita Falls, Tex., now for Use
of Newhams, v. Atkinson, 175 A, 507
316 Pa. 526.
In. Vermont
(1) Rendition of a new Judgmen'
together with interest is provided
for by statute.— Slayton v. Smilie,
2* A, 871, 66 Vt 197—34 C.J. p -681
note 97 [a],
(2) Prior to the statute interes
could not be recovered. — Hall v. Hall
8 Vt 156—34 C.J. p 681 note 95.
1017
. Pa,— Worman's Appeal, 20 A, 415,
110 Pa. 25.
4 O.J. p 681 note 98.
Mare errors and irregularities in
udgment of revival and in writ of
cire facias and supporting motion
papers did not affect validity of such
udgment. — Cabler v. Anderson, 16 S. •
W.2d 179, 179 Ark. 364.
2. W.Va. — Zumbro v. Stump, IS S.
B. 443, 38 W.Va. 325.
34 C.J. p 681 note 99.
3. Mo. — Reyburn v. Handlan, 147 S.
W. 846, 165 Mo.App. 412.
34 C.J. p 681 note 1 [a],
4. N.C.— Roberson v. WooUard, 28
N.C. 90.
34 C.J. p 681 note 1 [b].
5. Pa. — Baumgardner v. Baumgrard-
ner, 9 Pa.Dist. & Co. 243.
24 O.J. P 89-6 note 76—34 C.J. p 682
note 2.
la rem Judgment
Judgment against terre-tenant is
not against him personally but mere-
ly against realty owned or held by
as terre-tenant. — Cusano v. Ru-
bolino, 39 A.2d 906, 351 Pa, 41— Adel-
son v. Kocher, 36 A.2d Y37, 154 Pa,
Super. 548—34 €.J. p 682 note 2 [a]
(1).
a Idaho. — Evans v. City of Ameri-
can Bfclls, 11 P.2d S63, «2 Idaho 7.
34 C.J. «p 6*77 note 27.
Several defendants
The whole judgment must be re-
vived in its entirety, against all of
the several Defendants. If a judg-
ment creditor desires to pursue one
ef several defendants separately, he
must do so by suit. — Evens v. City of
American Falls, supra.
§ 548
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
ure to enter a fiat thereon within a year and a day
after its issuance operates as a discontinuance,7
and an order of fiat cannot be subsequently made
except on a new writ,8 which, as discussed supra §
542, should be sued out within the statutory period
after the last renewal of the life of the judgment.
Joint defendants. As discussed supra subdivision
e of this section, judgment in a scire facias proceed-
ing is not valid without service on defendant or
proper notice to him; and in case of joint defend-
ants, some of whom are not served, it is error to
render judgment against all or against those
served,9 or some of those served.10 It has been
held that, on scire facias to revive a judgment
against two persons jointly, it is erroneous to enter
final judgment against one before plaintiff has ma-
tured the case against the other also, so that a joint
judgment may be entered against both;11 but it has
also been held that a joint scire facias to revive a
judgment does not necessarily require a joint judg-
ment, but that the judgment that plaintiff have exe-
cution may be several, against each,12 and in fact
should be so where one is liable individually and the
other in a representative character.13
(2) By Confession or Default
In a proceeding by scire facias to revive, judgments
may be entered against the defendant on his confession
or default.
In a proceeding by scire facias to revive, judg-
ment may be entered against defendant on his con-
fession14 or default.15 Plaintiff, moreover, has been
held entitled to costs, even though he allowed the
judgment to become dormant and defendant did not
contest the proceeding.16
Except in some jurisdictions,17 the rule, both at
common law and under some statutes, is that two
returns of nihil to a writ of scire facias are equiva-
lent to a return of scire feci; that is, the court
thereupon acquires jurisdiction of defendant, and
may proceed to give judgment by default.18 In such
case, however, as well as in the case of other re-
vivals by default, or by confession, the judgment
may, on good cause shown, be opened to enable de-
fendant to present his defense, as discussed infra
subdivision k (3) of this section. The operation
and effect of a revival on two returns of nihil are
discussed infra § 549.
(3) Amending, Opening, dr Vacating Judg-
ment
A judgment of revival secured In a proceeding by
scire facias may, In a proper case, be amended, opened,
or vacated.
In a proper case the judgment of revival may
be amended,19 but, except in some jurisdictions,20
the original judgment cannot be amended or cor-
rected in scire facias proceedings to revive it.21
Opening or vacating judgment. A judgment on a
scire facias will be opened, vacated, or set aside
only where legally sufficient grounds therefor are
established.22 Judgments of revival entered amica-
bly,23 or by confession24 or default,25 may be
opened for cause shown to let in a defense, and, un-
der some circumstances, may be stricken from the
7. D.C. — Collins v. McBlair, 29 App.
D.C. 354.
Scire facias as judicial writ see su-
pra subdivision a of this section.
8. D.C — Collins v. McBlair, supra,
9. Va. — Early v. Clarkson, 7 Leigh
85, 34 Va, «3.
34 C.J. p 682 note 4.
ia McL— WHkln Mfg. Co. v. Melvin,
81 A. 879, 116 Md. 97.
34 C.J. p 632 note 5.
11. Va.— Early r. Clarkson, 7 Leigh
83, 34 Va. 83.
Ifl. Ky.— <Jray v. McDowell, S T.B.
Mon. 501.
13. Ky. — Gray v. McDowell, supra.
14. Pa.— McPherson v. CJole, 87 A.
708, 240 Pa. 444.
34 C.J. p 682 note 13.
15. Fla. — McOaltam v. Gornto, 174
So. 24, 127 Fla. 792.
Pa. — Stanton v. Humphreys, Com.
PL, 27 DeLCo. 594— Nuss v. Kern-
merer, Com.Pl., 17 -Leh.L.J. 379, 52
York Leg.Rec. 16 — Gornlak v. Pot-
ter Title & Trust Co., Com.Pl., 91
Pittsb.Leg.J. 279.
Vt.— Balthel v. Hall, 135 A. 3, 100
Vt. 109.
34 €.J. p 682 note 14.
Terra-tenant
Pa. — Cusano v. Rubolino, 39 A.2d 906,
351 Pa. 41.
16. -Fla.— McCallum Y. Gornto, 174
So. 24, 127 Fla. 792.
17. Tenn. — Boyd v. Armstrong, 1
Terg. 40.
18. 'U.S. — Brown v. Wygant, App.D.
C., 1-6 S.Ct 1159, 163 U.S. 618, 41
L.Ei 284.
34 C.J. p 682 note 18.
19. Mo. — City of St. Louis v. Koch,
App., 156 S.W.2d 1.
34 C.J. p 683 note 25.
Amendment of Judgments generally
see supra "5 236.
Mo. — City of St Louis v. Koch, su-
pra.
20, Pa. — Maus v. Maus, 6 Watts
31-5.
34 C.J. p 6*3 note 26.
21. Md.— Clark v. Dlgges, 5 GUI 109.
34 C.J. p 683 note 27.
1018
22. 111. — Hemphill v. Trgovic, 60 N.
E.2d 121, 325 IlLApp. 310.
Pa.— Eiffert v. Giessen, 14 A.2d 130,
339 Pa. 60 — Greensburg Building &
Loan Ass'n v. Dell, Oom.Pl., 22
WestCo.L.J. 299. .
Opening and vacating judgments
generally see supra § 265.
23- Pa. — Oozpns Juris quoted in.
Second National Bank of Altoona,
for Use of -Federal Reserve Bank
of Philadelphia v. Faber, 2 A.2d
747, 749, 322 Pa. 124.
34 C. J. p ft84 note 52.
Amicable scire facias generally see
Infra subdivision m of this sec-
tion.
Xnsnlflcieiifc evidence of fraud
Pa. — Keystone Nat. Bank of Man-
helm, now to Use of Balmer v.
Deamer, 18 A.2d 510, 144 Pa.Su-
per. J52.
24. Pa.— McPherson v. Cole, -87 A.
708, 240 Pa, 444.
34 C.J. p 652 note 15.
26. Md. — Jones v. George, $0 A.
635, 80 Md. 294.
34 C.J. p 682 note IS.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 549
record.26 Where a default judgment may be en-
tered after two returns of nihil to the writ of scire
facias, as is considered supra subdivision k (2) of
this section, defendant may afterward, by audita
querela,27 or, under the modern practice, by mo-
tion,28 open the judgment and present his defense.29
L Execution
The court may control the Issuance of execution on
a revived Judgment to the extent necessary to do Jus-
tice to the parties.
The trial court has the power to control the is-
suance of any execution on a revived judgment to
the extent that may be necessary to do justice to
the parties.30 Ordinarily the execution may be
levied on the same property bound originally by the
judgment,31 but, where the revival is had against
the administrator of a deceased defendant, the exe-
cution is leviable on the assets in his hands.32 A
waiver of inquisition given on the original confes-
sion of judgment will be available on execution aft-
er the revival.33 Plaintiffs failure to serve one of
two defendants with the writ of scire facias cannot
be alleged, in an affidavit of illegality interposed
to the levy of execution, by the party served.34
m. Amicable Scire Facias
An amicable scire facias to revive a Judgment is
a written agreement, signed by the Judgment debtor or
person to be bound by the revival, In the nature of a
writ of scire facias with a confession of Judgment there-
on.
Under the practice in at least one state, an amica-
ble scire facias to revive a judgment is a written
agreement, signed by the judgment debtor or person
to be bound by the revival,35 in the nature of a writ
of scire facias with a confession of judgment there-
on, which must be duly docketed,36 but which re-
quires no judicial action on the part of the court.37
When such an agreement is duly made and entered,
it has all the force and effect of a judgment ren-
dered on an adverse or contested writ of scire facias,
as considered infra § 549, although, as discussed
supra subdivision k (3) of this section, it may be
opened, for cause shown, to permit defendant to
enter a defense. Several judgments against the
same person, owned by the same creditor, may be
consolidated and revived in one amicable action of
scire facias.38 Where a judgment against decedent
has ceased to be a lien on his land by reason of
lapse of time, it cannot be renewed against the ad-
ministrator by acquiescence of the latter.39
§ 549. Operation and Effect of Revival
A Judgment of revival is binding until set aside,
and in most Jurisdictions Is invested with the same
force and effect as the original Judgment.
A judgment rendered on a scire facias to revive
a judgment is binding until properly set aside.40 It
26. Pa.— Handel & Hayden Building
& (Loan Assoc. v. Elleford, 101 A.
951, 258 Pa. 143.
34 C.J. p 682 note 16.
Signature to agreement
Where only two of a number of
Joint judgment debtors signed agree-
ment to revive judgment amicably,
and had expected remaining judg-
ment debtors to sign also, but such
others did not sign, judgment was
properly stricken on petition of one
of those who signed. — Second Nat
Bank of Altoona, for Use of Federal
Reserve Bank of Philadelphia v. -Fa-
ber, '2 A.2d 747, 332 Pa. 124.
27. Hd. — Jones v. George, 30 A. -635,
80 Md. 294.
34 C.J. p 68.3 note 19.
28. Md. — Jones v. George, supra.
34 C.J. p 683 note 20.
29. Fla. — Barrow v. Bailey, '5 (Fla.
9.
Pa. — Maltland v. Landis, 1 Pa.Co.
144.
30. Pa.— Marsh v. Bowen, 6 A.24
783, 335 Pa. 314.
Revival judgment as basis for writ
of execution generally see Execu-
tions §7e.
31. Ga. — Seals v. Benson, 6 S.E. 182,
81 Ga. 44.
34 C.J. p '6-83 note 35.
Property subject to execution gener-
ally see Executions § 18.
Belay in entering Judgment
Where judgment was entered on
scire facias nearly nineteen years
after issuance of writ, court improp-
erly dissolved attachment sur judg-
ment on ground that delay was con-
trary to convenience and public pol-
icy.—Croskey v. Croskey, 160 A. 103,
306 Pa. 423.
32. Md. — CWllmer v. Trumbo, <88 A.
259, 121 Md. 44-5.
34 C.J. p -683 note 36.
33. Pa. — Building & 'Loan Assoc. v.
Flanagan, 1 Pa, Com. PL 122.
34 Ga. — American Nat Bank, v.
Hodges, 154 S.E. 653, 41 Ga.App.
•717.
Affidavits of illegality generally see
Executions §5 147-150.
35. Pa. — Corpus Juris auoted In
Second Nat Bank of Altoona, for
Use of Federal Reserve Bank of
Philadelphia v. 'Faber, 2 A..24 747,
749, 332 Pa. 124 — Schmidt v. Zaj-
kiewicz, Com.Pl., 38 Luz.Leg.Reg.
1019-
342 — Krzykwa v. Krzykwa, Com.
PI., 15 Northumb.Leg.J. 117.
34 C.J. p 684 note 49.
Bevival against terra-tenants
Pa. — Merchants Banking Trust Co.
now to Use of 'Federal Deposit Ins.
Corp. v. Kaleda, Com.Pl., 41 Sch,
L.R. 176, 60 York OL.eg.Rec. 25.
36. Pa. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Second Nat Bank of Altoona, for
Use of Federal Reserve Bank of
Philadelphia v. Faber, 2 A.2d 747,
•749, 332 Pa. 124.
34 C.J. p 684 note 50.
37. pa. — Corpus Juris quoted In
Second Nat. Bank of Altoona, for
Use of Federal Reserve Bank of
Philadelphia v. 'Faber, 2 A,'2d 747,
749, 332 Pa. 124.
34 C.J. p 684 note 51.
38. Pa. — Corpus Juris quoted In
Second Nat Bank of Altoona, for
Use of 'Federal Reserve Bank of
Philadelphia v. Faber, 3 A.24 747,
•749, 332 Pa. 124.
34 C.J. p 6S4 note 53.
39. S.C.— Brantley v. Brittle, 51 S.EL
5-61, 72 S.C. 179.
40. Pa.— Moll v. Lafferty, 153 A. 557,
302 Pa. 354.
34 C.J. p 684 note £4.
§ 549
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
is not subject to collateral attack,41 except on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction,42 it being a nullity
when rendered by a court or judge without juris-
diction.43 It is conclusive of all matters which were
or might have been pleaded in the revival proceed-
ings.44
The revival of a judgment by regular proceed-
ings reinvests it with all the effect and conditions
which originally belonged to it, and which have
been wholly or partly suspended by lapse of time,
'change of parties, or other cause,45 and, as consid-
ered supra § 494, it continues the lien of the judg-
ment on real property beyond the period when, by
statute, without such revival, it would expire. The
revival, however, adds nothing whatever to the va-
lidity or effect of the judgment,46 and cannot be
invoked as curing any fault or defect which is of
such a nature as to render it void,47 although it
cuts off defenses which might have been made to
the original judgment before the revival.48 The
judgment on the scire facias to revive is no bar to
an action of debt on the original judgment,49 and a
judgment for defendant on an insufficient and de-
fective scire facias is no bar to another for the same
cause.50
However, in the few jurisdictions where, as con-
sidered supra § 548 k (1), a new judgment is ren-
dered on a scire facias to revive .a judgment, an ef-
fect somewhat different from that given the original
judgment is sometimes accorded a judgment of re-
vival.51 In such jurisdictions it has sometimes been
held that the new judgment may be valid and en-
forceable, even though the original judgment was
void;52 and a recovery on the scire facias is a bar
to a subsequent recovery against defendant on the
original judgment,53 except where the original de-
41. Ark. — Cabler v. Anderson, 16 S.
W.2d 179, 179 Ark. 364.
Pa. — Kasperunas v. Kasper, Com.Pl.,
'34 IjUz.Leg-.Reg-. $03.
34 C.J. p 684 note 55.
42. Colo.— Salisbury v. La Fitte, 123
P. 124, 22 Colo.A. 90.
Va.— White v. Palmer, 66 S.R 44, 110
Va. 490.
43. Ky. — Baker v. Davis* Adm'r,
299 S.W. 172. 221 Ky. 524.
34 C.T. p 684 note 57.
44i Pa. — Quaker City Chocolate &
Confectionery Co. v. Warnock Bldg.
Ass'n, 32 A.2d 5, 347 Pa. 186.
*4 C.J. p 684 note 58.
45. Fla. — Tedder v. Morrow; 131 So.
387, 100 Fla. 14-86.
111.— Motel v. Andracki. 19 N.E.2d
832, 299 IlLApp. 166.
Pa. — Corpus Juris quoted in Second
Nat. Bank of Altoona, for Use of
Federal Reserve . Bank of Phila-
delphia v. Faber, 2 A.2d 747, 749,
332 Pa. 124 — Corpus Juris quoted
in Peoples Nat Bank of Ellwood
City v. Weingartner, 33 A.2d 469,
471, 153 Pa.Super. 40— Miller Bros,
v. Boyotz, 96 Pa. Super. 208 —
Brooks v. Caruthers' Estate, Com,
PL, 23 WestCo.L.J. 138.
34 C.J. p 684 note 59.
Effect of statute
(1) Statute according same force
and effect to revival judgment as
that of original judgment is to be
liberally construed. — Betty v. Superi-
or Court of Los Angeles County, 116
P.2d 947, 18 Cal.2d -619— Hitchcock v.
Caruthers, 34 P. 627, 100 Cal. 100 —
Thompson v. Cook, 143 P.2d 107, 61
Cal.App.2d 485.
(2) 'Under such a statute, creditor
on revival of judgment was entitled
to writ of execution within five years
thereafter as matter of right — Bet-
ty v. Superior Court of Los Angeles
County, supra.
(3) Statute requiring revival of
original judgment where execution
sale is irregular and purchaser fails
to obtain possession contemplates
that original judgment shall be ren-
dered operative, rather than that any
new judgment shall arise, and that
execution shall issue on original
judgment — Continental Nat. Bank &
Trust Co. of Salt -Lake Qity v. John
H. Seely & Sons Co., 77 P.2d 355, 94
Utah '357.
Death of party
Bevivor of judgment becoming
dormant on death of party thereto
restores judgment to full force and
gives it effect for ensuing five years,
without execution, to same extent as
revivor of judgment which has be-
come dormant for want of execu-
tion.— Jersak v. Risen, 152 P.2d 374,
194 Okl. 423.
Objectives and effects of
by scire facias and action on judg-
ment are wholly different — Second
Nat Bank v. Allgood, 176 So. 363,
234 Ala. 654.
Judgment debtor's obligation.
If at time of judgment debtor's
conveyance, lien of judgment has al-
ready expired against him, no reviv-
al proceedings on original judgment
can operate so as to bind land in
hands of purchaser, although person-
al obligation of judgment debtor re-
mains unimpaired. — Ellinger v.
Krach, 28 A.2d 453, 150 Pa.Super.
384, affirmed Simmons v. Simmons,
29 A.2d 677, 346 Pa. 52.
' Fla. — Tedder v. Morrow, 131 So.
887, 100 Fla, 1486.
Pa. — Davis v. Tate, Com.PL, 26 Brie
Co. 141.
34 C.J. p 685 note 61. j
1020
Mere right to execution given
Ala.— Mobile Drug Co. v. McCul-
lough, 112 So. 238, 215 Ala. -682.
In rem judgment cannot be
changed into a personal one by re-
vival.— Franek v. Turner, 114 So. 148,
164 La. 532.
Amount
Where a judgment valid in its
origin is fraudulently renewed for
more than the balance unpaid on it,
it will still be valid for the amount
actually due. — Arnold v. House, 12 S.
C. 600.
47. U.S. — U. S. Y. Bwing, D.C-Miss.,
19 »F.2d 378.
Mo. — Coombs v. Benz, 114 €.W.2d
713, 232 Mo.App. 1011.
Ohio. — Porter v. Toops, App., 62 N.B.
2d 769.
34 C.J. p 685 note 61.
A nullity revived is still a nullity.
—Peoples Nat Bank of Ellwood City
v. Weingartner, 33 A.2d 469, 153 Pa.
Super. 40.
4& Md.— Doub v. Mason, 2 Md. 380.
Pa. — Stanton v. Humphreys, Com.Pl.,
27 Del.Co. 594.
Philippine. — Compania Gen. de Taba-
cos v. Martinez, 29 Philippine 51'5.
49. U.S.— ^Lafayette CJounty v. Won-
derly, Mo., 92 F. '313*, 34 C.C.A. 360.
34 C.J. p '685 note 64.
50. Ky. — Huey v. Redden, 3 Dana
488.
Philippine. — Compania Gen. de Taba-
cos v. Martinez, 29 Philippine 515.
51. Pa. — Lyons v. Burns, '20 Phila.
412 — In re Sivak's Estate, Orph.,
94 Pittsb.Leg.J. 235.
34 C.J. p 685 notes 67-69.
52. Pa. — Mayer Furniture Co. v.
Putt 3 PaJDist & Co. 542.
34 C.J. p 685 note 68.
53. Pa.— Le Bar v. Patterson, 187
A. 278, 123 Pa.Super. 491.
34 C.J. p 685 note £9.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
550
fendant is not a party to the proceeding.64 It has
also been held that a scire facias may issue on the
original judgment against a terre-tenant who is not
a party to the former judgment of revivor.55
An amicable scire facias, duly made and entered,
has all the force and effect of a judgment rendered
on an adverse or contested writ of scire facias.56
A revival on two returns of nihil, which, as dis-
cussed supra § 548 k (2), is a form of revival by de-
fault, does not stop the running of the statute of
limitations in another state, where defendant re-
sides, or support a new action against him in an-
other state.57
XVTL PAYMENT, SATISPAOTION, AND DISCHARGE OP JUDGMENT
§ 550.
Persons to Whom Payment May Be
Made
As a general rule, payment of a Judgment must be
made to the plaintiff of record or to his duly authorized
agent, and, where there are several Judgment creditors,
payment may be made to any one of them.
As a general rule, payment of a judgment may
and must be made to plaintiff of record,58 or to his
duly authorized agent,59 or attorney as discussed in
Attorney and Client § 99. However, when a judg-
ment is recovered by one person for the use of an-
other, payment may be made to the beneficial own-
er,60 and it is in fact the duty of the judgment debt-
or to make payment to him where the debtor has
notice that the judgment belongs to him,61 al-
though, on the other hand, it has been held that, if
the debtor pays it to a third person who he assumes
is beneficially entitled to receive it, he acts at his
own peril.62 If the person for whose use the judg-
ment is recovered is a fictitious person, then the
debtor is justified in treating the nominal plaintiff
as the real owner and proceeding to settle the de-
mand with him,63 Where the court directs pay-
ment of the judgment to plaintiff only on the debtor
obtaining indemnification against the claims of oth-
ers interested in the fund, the debtor is not protect-
ed by such payment if he fails to secure such indem-
nification.64
Where the judgment has been assigned to a third!
person, the debtor, after notice of the assignment,
must pay to the assignee;65 but a judgment debtor
who learns that the judgment has been assigned
acts at his peril in the payment thereof to any par-
ty as assignee without ascertaining the facts,66 and
he cannot rely on the statement of the attorney for
the original judgment creditor.67 Where a judg-
ment is recovered by one not the record owner of
realty for injury thereto, the judgment debtor, be-
fore payment of the judgment, may demand proper
releases from all persons who may have an interest
in the realty.68 Payment of the amount of the
judgment to a creditor of the judgment plaintiff,
under process of garnishment, will discharge -it pro
tanto, as discussed in Garnishment § 294.
// there are several judgment creditors, payment
may be made to one, with the effect of discharging
the whole obligation,69 unless notice is given the
54. Pa. — Le Bar v. Patterson, supra.
55. Pa, — Zerns v. Watson, 11 Pa,
260.
34 C.J. p £85 note 70.
56. Pa. — Corpus Juris quoted la
Second Nat. Bank of Altoona, for
Use of Federal Reserve Bank of
Philadelphia v. Faber, 2 A.2d 747,
749, 332 Pa. 124— Doran & Ely v.
Hohn, 22 Pa.Dist. & Co. 719.
34 C.J. p 684 note 51.
Accord and satisfaction.
'Fact that judgments entered by
confession had been amicably re-
vived did not estop party to revival
from seeking to open confessed judg-
ments which had been discharged in
fact by accord and satisfaction. —
Peoples Nat. Bank of Bllwood City
v. Weingartner, 33 A12d 469, 153 Pa.
Super. 40.
57. U.S. — Owens v. McCloskey, iLa.,
1-6 S.Qt. 693, 161 U.S. 642, 40 L.
Ed. 837.
34 C.J. p 683 note 23.
B8. Cal.— Hogan r. Superior Court
of California in and for City and
County of San Francisco, 241 P.
584, 74 Cal.App. 704.
Pa. — Dotterer v. Nothstein, Com.Pl.,
20 Leh.X..J. 188.
34 C.J. p 6'S5 note 72.
Payment of judgment where judg-
ment creditor is infant see In-
fants § 124.
Payment to lienor
Where judgment debtor paid a
portion of judgment to one asserting
a lien thereon who was entitled to
no part of the judgment, judgment
creditor could elect to sue either the
party to whom payment was im-
properly made or the judgment debt-
or.— Schreiber v. American Employ-
ers' Ins. Co., 38 N.T.S.2d 250, 265
App.Div. 167, affirmed 49 N.E.2d 627,
290 N.T. 678.
59. Idaho. — Vermont Loan & Trust
Co. v. McGregor, 58 P. 399, 6 Ida-
ho 134.
34 C.J. p 685 note 74.
1021
60. Ga.— Dyal v. Dyal, 16 S.E.2d S3,
&5 Ga,App. 359.
34 C.J. j> 68<6 note 75.
61. Cal. — Weiner V* Luscombe, 66 P.
2d 151, 19 Cal.App.2d 668.
34 C.J. p 686 note 76.
62. Ala.— Mervine v. Parker, 18 Ala.
241.
63. Ala,— McGehee v. Ginidrat, 20
Ala, 95.
64. Tex.— Trujlllo v. Piarote, S3 S-
W.2d 466, 122 Tex. 173.
65. Miss.— Moore v. Bed, 22 So. 948.
34 C.J. p 686 note 79.
66. S.D.— La Penotiere v. Kellar, 1ST
N.W. 382, 29 S.D. 496.
34 C.J. p 686 note 80.
67. S.D.-r-La Penotiere v. Kellar, su-
pra.
68. Utah. — Ludlow v. Colorado Ani-
mal By-Products Co., 137 P.2d $47,
104 Utah 221.
69. Neb. — American Fire Ins. Co. r.
§ 550
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
debtor by one of such creditors not to pay the other
more than his proportion of the judgment70 One
of the creditors may compound or compromise with
the debtor his own interest in the judgment without
the consent of the others,71 but cannot accept less
than the whole amount in full satisfaction of the
judgment.72 Where two causes of action by differ-
ent plaintiffs against the same defendant are im-
properly joined and a verdict for one sum is ren-
dered in favor of both plaintiffs, its payment to the
parties jointly or to their attorney of record will
discharge defendant from liability to both on ac-
count of all matters alleged in the petition.73
Payment into court may satisfy the judgment
where it is so provided in the judgment itself,74 or,
as discussed infra § 552, where the payment is made
at the instance of, or is accepted by, the judgment
creditor.
§ 551.
Clerk of Court or Other Officer
In the absence of special authority, the clerk of the
court has no right to receive money from the Judgment
debtor in satisfaction of a judgment. Where a sheriff
or other ministerial officer holds a writ for the collec-
tion of a judgment, the amount may be properly paid
to such officer.
It is a general rule that the clerk of the court in
which a judgment has been rendered has no right
to receive money from the judgment debtor in sat-
isfaction of the judgment without special author-
ity,75 such as authority conferred expressly76 or im-
pliedly77-by statute.
Sheriff or other officer. The amount due on a
judgment may properly be paid to a sheriff or other
ministerial officer who holds a writ for the collec-
tion of such judgment,78 and the judgment debtor
will be protected in such payment, even though the
money may never come to the hands of his credi-
tor.79 An effectual payment cannot be made to the
sheriff when he has no writ in his hands,80 or when
the return day of the writ has expired,81 unless
such payment is ratified or accepted by the credi-
tor.82 The resignation and subsequent insolvency
of one of the plaintiffs who was a party to a judg-
ment as sheriff furnish no excuse for defendant to
withhold payment of the judgment to his successor
in office.83
§ 552. Mode, Medium, and Sufficiency of Pay-
ment
As a general rule, a judgment for the payment of
money can be satisfied only in money, unless the judg-
ment provides for, or the owner of the judgment agrees
to, some other mode of payment.
Except where a judgment by its own terms pro-
vides otherwise,84 a judgment for the payment of
money can be satisfied only in money,85 unless the
Landfare, 7* N.W. 1068, 56 Neb,
482.
34 C.J. p 686 note 83.
70. Tenn.— Brwin v. .Rutherford, 1
Yerg. 169.
34 C.J. p 686 note £4.
71. Ala. — Penn v. Edwards, 50 Ala.
63.
72. CaL — Haggin v. Clark, 61 CaL 1.
73. Ga. — Georgia R. & Banking Co.
v. Tice, 52 S.B. 916, 124 Ga. 459, 4
Ann.Cas. 200.
74. Mo. — Bucknam v. Bucknam, 151
S.W.2d 1097, 347 Mo. 1039.
34 C.J. p 686 note 88.
75. Ga. — Bank of Georgetown v.
Ault 31 Ga. 359— Wilcher v. Wil-
liams, 127 S.E. 795, 33 Ga.App. 797.
Mont — Corpus Jurig cited in Paulich
. v. Republic Coal <Qo., 33 P.2d 514,
515, 97 Mont. 224.
34 C.J. p 68*6 note 91.
Powers and duties of clerks of courts
with respect to receipt of money
generally see Clerks of Courts §§
40-42.
the clerk of court in made
•the agent of the judgment creditor to
receive money due on the judgment,
-a payment thereof to the clerk is
not a satisfaction of the judgment.
—Rushing v. Thomas, Tex.Civ.App.,
<3 S.W.2d 323— Whitesboro v. Dia-
mond, Tex.Civ.App., 75 S.W. S40. |
76. Ala. — Commonwealth Ins. Co. of
New Tork v. Terry, 159 So. 822,
230 Ala. 125 — Hayes v. Waldrop,
108 So. 333, 214 Ala. 534.
34 C. J. p 686 note 92.
Statutory agent of judgment creditor
N.C.— Dalton v. Strickland, 179 S.E.
20, 208 N.C. 21.
Court order
Although defendant was held au-
thorized by statute to pay the
amount of a judgment into court,
an order for payment of money into
court in satisfaction of judgment en-
tered during previous term was not
without court's jurisdiction as mod-
ification of original judgment.-
Blake v. Cuneo, 111 P.2d 4*5, 188 OkL
533.
77. Neb.— McDonald v. Atkins, 14 N.
W. 532, 13 Neb. 568.
34 C.J. p 687 note 93.
73. N.C.— Bailey v. Hester, 8 S.E.
164, 101 N.C. 538.
34 C.J. p 6i87 note 94.
79. Ind.— Beard v. Mm 1k an, 68 Ind.
231.
80. N.C.— Bailey v. Hester, 8 S.B.
164, 101 N.C. 538.
34 C.J. p 687 note 9*6.
8L Va.— Chapman v. Harrison, 4
Rand. -336, 25 Va. 33*.
34 C.J. p 687 note 97.
1022
82. Ala. — Henderson v. Planters'
& Merchants' Bank of Ozark, 59
So. 493, 178 Ala. 420— Chapman v.
Cowles, 41 Ala. 103, 91 Am.D. 508.
83. -La. — State v. Judge Dist Ct.,
13 La. 542.
84. U.S.— Wheeler v. Taft, C.C.A.
La., 279 F. 415.
Alternative judgment
An offer to return logs to their
owner while still on his land from
which they were cut, and his subse-
quent treatment of them as his own,
were sufficient to satisfy a judg-
ment for recovery of the logs or the
value, thereof, although no tender
with the logs present was shown. —
Less v. Grismore-Hyman Co., 251 B.
W. 673, 158 Ark. 1.
Delivery of stock
Where defendants made no reason-
able effort to obey judgment ordering
delivery of stock to plaintiff within
ten days, they could not take advan-
tage of plaintiff's effort to secure the
stock as excuse for noncompliance,
especially where they had withheld
the stock from plaintiff for approx-
imately five years.— Haggott v.
Plains Iron Works Co., 218 P. 909,
74 Colo. 37.
, 'La. — State v. Johnson, 60 So.
702, 132 La.- 11.
34 C.J. jp 68*7 note 2.
49 O.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 552
owner of the judgment chooses to accept property,
securities, or some other thing of value,8^ such as
real87 or personal88 property, a mortgage on the
debtor's property,8* an assignment of the debtor's
property in trust,90 the debtor's bond,91 a claim on
a third person,92 the performance of certain condi-
tions by the debtor,9^ or the payment by the debtor
of other claims or obligations on behalf of plain-
tiff.**
In order that the acceptance of something other
than money may operate as a satisfaction, there
must be a positive and express agreement to accept
the substitute for direct payment of the judgment.96
The mere fact that the judgment creditor possesses
assets of the debtor does not require him to. apply
them in satisfaction of the judgment,96 although if
he does so apply them the judgment will be extin-
guished pro tanto.97 A judgment plaintiff in lawful
possession of lands on which his judgment is a lien
has not the right to apply the rents and profits
therefrom to the satisfaction of his judgment, as
against the owner, who is not a judgment defend-
ant98
As a rule, no satisfaction of the judgment arises
from the acceptance of collateral security for its
payment99 except where the Judgment creditor cov-
enants and agrees never to enforce the judgment.1
Thus a judgment ordinarily is not satisfied by the
giving of a promissory note or other negotiable in-
strument,2 or renewal thereof,3 even though the in-
strument is that of a third person,4 unless it is paid5
or there is an agreement that its acceptance is to
operate as absolute payment,6 or unless the judg-
ment is on an obligation payable in notes.7
Where a judgment plaintiff has secured the pay-
ment into court of money belonging to defendant
sufficient to satisfy the judgment, it is error to re-
quire payment into court of further sums owing to
Bank notes
(1) Bank notes are not cash, and
cannot be brought into court as such
in payment of a Judgment, although
the bank issuing the notes be the
holder of the Judgment. — State Bank
at Trenton v. Qoxe, « N.J.Law 172, 14
Am.D. 417.
(2) A statute of one state requir-
ing a bank recovering a judgment to
accept its bank notes in payment
thereof is inapplicable in another
state where execution of the judg-
ment is sought, and the sheriff may
refuse to receive such bank notes
in payment of the Judgment. — Wood-
son v. Bank of Gallipolls, 4 B.Moru,
Ky., 203.
Payment by check was insufficient
to constitute "payment" within stat-
ute providing for giving of satisfac-
tion piece on payment of Judgment. —
Altenau v. Masterson, 292 N.Y.S. 299,
161 Misc. 433. . '
86. Mo. — Corpus Juris cited in
Osage Land Co. v. Kansas City,
187 S.W.2d 193, 197, '353 Mo. 1196.
34 O.J. p 687 note 3.
87. Cal. — Musser v. Gray, 31 P. 56'8,
3 Cal.Unrep.Cas. '639.
34 <XJ. p 687 note 4.
88. Mo. — Osage Land Co. y. Kansas
City, 187 S.W.2d 193, 353 Mo. 119-6.
'34 C.J. p 687 note 4.
89. Minn.— Walker v. Crosby, 35 N.
W. 475, 38 Minn. 34.
Assignment of mortgage
Where payee of notes took an as-
signment of mortgage and satisfied
the notes on Its books, the satisfac-
tion of the notes extinguished judg-
ments confessed on the notes as val-
id obligations and amicable revivals
of the judgments did not render
them enforceable. — Peoples Nat.
Bank of Bllwood City v. Weingart-
ner, 33 A.2d 469, 153 Pa. Super. 40.
90. N.Y.— Hawley v. Mancius, 7
Johns.Ch. 174.
91. 111.— Cox v. Reed, 27 111. 433,
34 C.J. p 687 note 7.
The execution, of a replevin "bond
is not a satisfaction of the judgment.
Ind.— Sheets v. Roe, 2 Blackf. 195.
Ky.—Williams v. Isaacs, 256 S.W.
19, '201 Ky. 158. .
92. Ala. — Pharis y. Leachman, 20
Ala. 662.
93. Pa.— Potter v. Hartnett, 23 A.
1007, 148 Pa. 15.
34 C.J. p 687 note 9.
mstaUment payments
(1) Inasmuch as time is clearly
made the essence of a stipulation
providing that, if installment pay-
ments on a judgment should not be
made when due, the creditor should
be at liberty to enforce payment of
the full amount remaining due, the
court is without power to compel
him to accept payment of an install-
ment after Its due date. — 'Friedman v.
Such, 220 N.Y.S. 855, 219 App.Div.
'330.
(2) When defendants breached
agreements to make monthly pay-
ments to be applied on judgment,
plaintiff had right to return security
given for agreement and look to
judgment alone. — Armstrong- y. Van
Dyke, 198 N.W. 915, 227 Mich. *0&
94. U.S. — Medford y. Dorsey, CC.
Pa., 16 !F.Cas.No.9,390, 2 Wash.CC.
467.
34O.J. p, 687 note 10.
95. Pa.— Olyphant Bank r. Borys,
3* A-2d '823, 155 Pa, Super. 49.
34 C.J. p 687 note 11.
1023
96. Ala. — Garrett v. Mayfleld Wool-
en Mills, 44 So. 1026, 153 Ala, 602.
97. S.D.— Custer City First Nat.
Bank v. Calkins, 81 N.W. 732, 12
S.D. 411.
'34 C.J. p 687 note 13.
96. Iowa. — Boggs y. Douglass, 75 N.
W. 185, 105 Iowa -344.
99. Mich. — Armstrong v. Tan Dyke,
198 N.W. 915, 227 Mich. 308.
34 C.J. p 688 note 15.
1. Ga.— -Chambers y. McDowell, 4
Ga. 185.
a. N.Y.— Altenau v. Masterson, 292"
N.Y.S. 299, 161 Misc. 433.
Pa. — Olyphant Bank v. Borys, 36 A-
2d 823, 155 Pa. Super. 49.
Va. — Gemmell v. Powers, 195 8.SL.
501, 170 Va. 43.
34 C.J. -p 688 note 16.
3. Va. — Gemmell v. Powers, supra,
34 C.J. p 6-88 note 17.
4. W.Va. — Sullivan y. Saunders, 6$
S.B. 497, 66 W.Va, 350, 42 L.R.A.,
N.S., 1010, 19 Ann.Cas. 480.
5- Ind.— Phillips v. Bast, IB Ind..
254.
34 C.J. p 6&8 note 19.
6. W.Va. — Sullivan y. Saunders, 6fr
S.B. 497, 66 W.Va. 350, 42 L.R.X,.
N.S., 1010, 19 Ann.Cas. 480.
34 C.J. p 688 note 20.
Note and deed of trust
When holder of judgment based on*
foreclosure of note and deed of trust
accepted new note and deed of trust
on the same premises, the Judgment
was paid and Judgment debt was
merged into the new note. — Krausa
v. West, Tex.Civ.App., 123 S«W.2d
946, error dismissed, judgment cor*
rect
7. La.— Roberts y. Stark, 3 (La. Ann.
71.
§ 552
JUDQMENTS
49 O.J.S.
defendant from third persons;8 and, where the
whole amount of the judgment is paid into court
and accepted by the judgment creditor, he cannot
afterward return it to the clerk on the ground that
there is more due him.9 A deposit made with
plaintiff as a security on which defendant's right of
appeal is conditioned under a stipulation for its re-
payment in case of the appeal going in favor of de-
fendant does not constitute payment of the judg-
ment.10 An application of payments to a judgment
cannot be changed when it will affect the rights
and interests of third persons.11
Interest and costs. There can be no complete
satisfaction of a judgment "by payment unless the
payment covers interest, if any,12 and the costs
chargeable against defendant,18 even though the
amount of the costs is not inserted in the judg-
ment14 Under some statutes, however, it has been
held that a judgment creditor's acceptance of pay-
ment of a judgment, without protest or reservation
as to interest not given, operates as a release there-
of.15
Payment with borrowed tnoney. Ordinarily,
where a judgment debtor borrows money with which
to pay off a judgment against him, and uses the
money for this purpose, the judgment becomes satis-
fied,16 but, except in some jurisdictions,17 a judg-
ment debtor may agree with one who lends him
money for such a purpose that the judgment shall
not be satisfied by payment to the holder thereof, but
shall be transferred to the lender as security for
the loan,18 and a similar arrangement may be made
for the protection of one who, by becoming surety
for a debtor, aids the latter in procuring money with
which to pay a judgment creditor.19
Place of payment. The fact that the payment in
satisfaction of a judgment is made in a county oth-
er than that in which the judgment was rendered
will not alter the effect of the payment.20
Payment to attorney or officer. The right to ac-
cept anything else as a substitute for money in sat-
isfaction of the judgment is confined to the owner
himself, and does not belong to his attorney, as dis-
cussed in Attorney and Client § 106, or to the clerk
of the court,21 or to a sheriff or other officer holding
process for its collection.22 The handing of money
by a junior judgment creditor to the sheriff for the
purpose of purchasing a senior judgment and of
preventing a sale thereunder, and not for the pur-
pose of paying the judgment, does not operate as a
satisfaction.28 Where a receiver is appointed in
proceedings to collect a judgment, only the amount
remaining after deduction of his expenses and fees
from the amount received by him is applicable as
payment on the judgment24
§ 553. Tender
An unaccepted tender of the amount due on a Judg-
ment is not of itself a satisfaction of the judgment.
An unaccepted tender of the amount due on a
judgment is not of itself a satisfaction of the judg-
ment or a discharge of its lien;25 but it gives the
debtor, on paying the money into court, a right to
apply to the court to restrain execution and enter
8. Neb. — Montgomery y. Dresher,
149 N.W. 311, 97 Neb. 104.
9. Or. — Portland Constr. Co.
O'Neil, 32 P. 764, 24 Or. 54.
10. N.T. — Persons v. Gardner, 106
N.Y.S. 316, 122 App.Div. 167.
11. Pa.— Chancellor v. -Schott, 2$
Pa* 68.
12. 111. — Feldman v. City of Chica-
go, 2 N.E.2d 102, 8$3 111. 247— COIN
pus Juris quoted in Tracey v.
Shanley, 3$ NJBJ.2d 753, 756, 311
HLApp. 529.
La.— Breeland v. Kenner, App., 174
So. 678.
Mo.— Corpus Juris cited in City of
S.t -Louis v. Senter Commission
Co., 124 S.W.2d 1180, 1184, 343 Mo.
107-5.
34 C.J. p 688 note 30.
13. La,— Breeland v. Kenner, App.,
174 So. 678.
Mo.— City of St Louis v. Senter
Commission Co., 124 S.W.2d 1180,
343 Mo. 1075.
31 C.J. p 688 note 31.
Waiver
By discharging judgment of rec-
ord on payment of principal sum and
costs, except fee for execution of
writs outstanding, judgment credi-
tor waived payment of that item. —
Stebbins v. Friend, Crosby & Co.,
241 N.W. 315, 1-85 Minn. 33'6.
14. S.D.— Stakke v. Chapman, S3 N.
W. 261, 13 S.D. '269.
Costs of appeal
The satisfaction of a judgment en-
tered on a verdict prior to the taxing
of costs of appeal granted to abide
the event does not deprive plaintiff
of the right to recover such costs. —
Greenberg v. Strauss, 221 N.T.S. «29,
220 App.Div. 736.
15. La. — Grennon v. New Orleans
Public Service, 136 So. 309, 17 'La.
App. 700.
8. Ga.— Patterson v. Clark, 23 S.E.
496, 96 Ga. 494.
17. Ohio.— Unger v. iLeiter, 32 Ohio
St. 210.
18. Ga.— Patterson v, Clark, 23 S.E.
496, 96 Ga. 494.
Wash. — Lachner v. Myers,
109'5, 121 Wash. 172.
208 P.
19. Ga. — Patterson v. Clark, 23 S.E.
496, 96 Ga. 494.
20. Ky.— Allen v. Burks, 7 Ky.Op.
444.
21. Ala.— Aicardi v. Bobbins, 41
Ala. 541, 94 Am.D. 614.
34 C.J. -p 688 note 38.
22. U.S. — McFarland v. Gwin, Miss.,
3 How. 717, 11 L.Ed. 799.
34 C.J. p 689 note 39—57 C.J. p 787
notes 60, 61.
Bule applied to bank notes
Ky.— Woodson v. Bank of Galllpolis,
4 B.Mon. 203.
34 C.J. p -689 note «9 [a]— 57 g.J. p
787 note $0.
23. Ind. — Strange v. Donohue, 4 Ind.
327.
24. N.T.— Binswanger v. Hewitt, 140
N.T.S. 143, 79 Misc. 425.
25. N.T. — Jackson v. Law, 5 Cow.
248, affirmed 9 Cow. 641.
34 C.J. p 689 note 42.
1024
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
555
satisfaction of the judgment.26 In order that the
rules relating to tender may be available, there must
be a legal tender27 of the full amount due.28 It
has been said that an offer to pay a judgment is not
an admission of liability and is not a tender except
in the limited sense of a step in compelling the
satisfaction of a judgment.29
§ 554. Payment by Joint Party or Third Per-
son
Whether or not payment by a joint debtor, surety,
stranger, or officer operates as a satisfaction and ex-
tinguishment of a judgment as to all concerned is
discussed infra §§ 555-558.
Examine Pocket Parts for later cases.
§ 555. Payment by Joint Debtor
a. In general
b. Assignment of judgment
a. In General
Generally the payment of a Judgment by one of two
or more joint defendants extinguishes the Judgment as
to all.
Payment of a judgment by one of two or more
joint defendants usually operates as a satisfaction
and extinguishment of the judgment as to all,30 re-
gardless of the intention of the parties to the trans-
action,31 and even where the judgment is against
joint tort-feasors ;32 and there are authorities hold-
ing that the rule applies to judgments on negotiable
paper.33
26. Okl. — Richardson v. Marrs, 110
P.2d 606, 188 Okl. 451.
34 C.J. p 6S9 note 43.
27. Cal. — Rauer's Law & Collection
Co. v. Sheridan Proctor Co., 181 P.
71, 40 Cal.App. 524.
34 C.J. p O'SO note 44.
28. 111.— Tracey v. Shanley, 3-6 N.E.
2d 753, 311 I11.A.PP. 529.
Mo. — Corpus Juris cited in, City of
St. Louis v. Senter Commission
Co., 124 S.W.2.d ll'SO, 1184, 343 Mo.
1075.
34 C.J. p 689 note 45.
poll amount not ascertainafcle
A plaintiff in judgment is not re-
quired to accept a certain sum in
full payment of judgment and costs
when he does not know, and cannot
know by the exercise of ordinary
care before the sheriff's sale, that
the sum is sufficient for full 'pay-
ment.— Parker v. Holstead, Tex.Com.
App., 25."> S.W. 724.
29. Pa. — Bt'rgen v. Lit Bros., 45 A.
2d 373, 15S Pa.Super. 469, affirmed
47 A.2d 671, 354 Pa. '535.
Tender as admission of liability gen-
erally see the C.J.S. title Tender §
51, also 62 C.J. P 684 note 77-p 685
note 90.
30. U.S. — Apple v. Owens, C.C.A.
Tex., 48 F.2d 807.
Ga. — Register v. Southern States
Phosphate & Fertilizer Co., 122 S.
E. 323, 157 Ga. 561, answers to
certified questions conformed to
122 S.E. 652, 32 Ga.App. 86.
Mo.— PHelps v. Scott, 30 S.W.2d 71,
•325 Mo. 711, 71 A.«L.R. 2,90—
Schuchman v. Roberts, 133 S.W.Sd
1030, 234 Mo.App. 509.
N.C.— Hoft v. Mohn, 2 S.E.2d 23, 215
N.C. 397.
Okl. — Martin v. North American Car
Corporation, 35 P.2d 460, 168 Okl.
599.
Tex. — Hadad v. Ellison, Civ. App., 283
S.W. 193.
40 C.J.S.-35
Va. — Grizzle v. Fletcher, 105 S.E.
457, 127 Va, 663.
W.Va. — Greenbrier Valley Bank v.
Holt, 171 S.E. 906, 114 W.Va. 363.
34 C.J. p 689 note 47.
Contribution between joint debtors
generally see Contribution § 9.
Payment of debt by joint debtor as
affecting his right to collect it
from his codebtors by execution
see Executions § 11.
Release or discharge of joint debtor
on partial payment see infra §
564.
Satisfaction of one of several judg-
ments on same cause of action
against different persons see infra
§ 576.
Subrogation of joint judgment debt-
ors generally see the C.J.S. title
Subrogation § 19, also 60 C.J. p
732 note 39-p 733 note 42.
31. Tex.— Walston v. Price, Civ.
App., 159 S.W.2d 548— Williams v.
Hedrick, Civ.App., 131 S.W.2d 187,
error dismissed, judgment correct.
34 C.J. p &89 note 48.
32. Cal. — Games v. Pacific Gas &
Electric Co., 69 P.2d 99-8, 21 CaL
App.2d 568, rehearing denied 70 P.
2d 717, 21 Cal.App.2d S6'8— Salter v.
Lombard!, 3 P.2d 38, 116 CaLApp.
602.
N.J.— Manowitz v. Kanov, 154 A.
326, 107 N.J.Law 523, 75 A.L.R.
14*4.
N.Y. — Farber v. Demino, 173 N.B.
223, 254 N.Y. 363, followed in G. A.
Baker & Co. v. Polygraphic Co. of
America, 193 N.E. 265, 265 N.Y.
447, reargument denied 193 N.E.
294, 265 N.Y. 508.
Pa. — Bergen v. Lit Bros., 47 A.2d 371
— Anstine v. Pennsylvania R. Co.,
43 A.2d 109, 352 Pa. 547— McShea
v. McKenna, 95 Pa.Super. 338.
Tex.— Callihan v. White, Civ.App
139 S.W.2d 129.
1025
Va.— McLaughlin v. Slegel, 185 S.E.
873, 166 Va. 374.
34 C.J. -p 689 note 49.
Release of joint tort-feasor as re •
lease of others see the -C.J.S. titlo
Release § 50, also 53 C.J. p 125:;
note 20-p 1266 note 5.
Satisfaction of judgment against one
tort-feasor as discharging other
joint tort-feasors see infra § 761.
Rule is grounded on principle that
for a single injury there can be but
one recompense.
U.S. — Eberle v. Sinclair Prairie Oil
Co., C.C.A.Okl., 120 'F.2d 746, 135
A.L.R. 1494.
Mo. — Hunter -Land & Development
Co. v. Caruthersvllle Stave & Head-
ing Co., 9 S.W.2d 531, 223 Mo.App.
132.
N.Y.— Collins v. Smith, 8 N.Y.S.2d
794, 255 App.Div. '665.
Ohio.— Smith v. Fisher, App., 32 N.
E.2d 561.
A payment into court, if not collu-
sive, by one of several joint tort
feasors, of the amount of the judg-
ment recovered against them, will
discharge the remaining tort feasor.
—Collins v. Smith, 8 N.Y.S.2d 794,
255 App.Div. 665.
Defendants not in par! delicto
If defendants jointly liable on a
tort judgment are not in pari delicto,
they are not joint tort-feasors with-
in the rule, so that, if the parties in-
tend to keep the judgment alive, pay-
ment by one of them will not extin-
guish it. — Central Bank & Trust Co.
v. Cohn, 264 S.W. 641, 150 Tenn. 375.
33. Tex. — Cauble v. Cauble, Qiv.
App., 283 S.W. 914.
34 O.J. p 690 note 50.
Payment of:
Judgment on bill or note by In-
dorser see Bills and Notes § 472
e (3).
Note by one joint maker s«e Bills
and Notes * 449 b (2),
§ 555
b. Assignment of Judgment
Generally, in the absence of a statute to the con-
trary, a joint defendant on paying the Judgment may
not take an assignment of it to himself or to a third
person for his benefit so as to wield it against his co-
defendant.
As a general rule, in the absence of a statute to
the contrary, it is not competent for one of the joint
defendants on paying the judgment to take an as-
signment of it to himself,34 or, unless under special
circumstances, to a third person for his benefit,35
so as to wield it against his codefendant, and it is
none the less extinguished by the payment, al-
though such an assignment is made,36 unless, ac-
cording to some authorities, the payment was not
intended to have that effect.37 This general rule is
not, however, applicable to judgments against the
maker and indorser of a negotiable instrument, as
discussed in Bills and Notes § 472 e (3), or against
a principal and surety generally, as discussed in the
C.J.S. title Subrogation § SO, also 34 CJ. p 690 note
7 1-p 691 note 76, and 60 CJ. p 749 notes 63-65.
Notwithstanding the general rule, it has been held
that, where a judgment is paid by one of the de-
fendants and is assigned for his benefit, he acquires
the right to use the judgment as a security for the
payment of the amounts properly due from the oth-
er judgment debtors,38 such right to be exercised
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
only after an affirmative showing to the court and a
determination of the indebtedness of the other de-
fendants.39 The order in which the money was paid
and the assignment executed does not control, if
they constituted one transaction and the intent was
to constitute an assignment;40 and the mere fact
that an attorney for a joint judgment debtor pays
the judgment, without the knowledge of his client,
and obtains an assignment to a third person, is not
proof that satisfaction was intended.41
In some jurisdictions the extinguishment of a
judgment paid by one joint and several debtor may
be prevented by a substantial compliance with a
statute providing for an assignment of such judg-
ment to a trustee for such debtor's benefit.42 In
other jurisdictions, by virtue of statute, where a Co-
defendant in a judgment on an obligation on which
all are liable as principals pays the judgment in full
and takes a written assignment thereof, reciting
that he has paid the judgment in full and authoriz-
ing the clerk to cancel the judgment of record as
to the defendant paying it, the codefendant is not
released;43 but, if a codefendant pays a judgment
with the money or funds of both defendants, it is an
extinguishment of the judgment as to all, so that,
where such codefendant takes an assignment of the
judgment to himself, he or any subsequent trans-
feree can be prevented from enforcing it.44
34. Mo.— -Phelps v. Scott 30 S.W.2d
71, 325 Mo. 711, 71 A.L.R. 290.
XC.— Hoft v. Mohn, 2 S.E.2d 23, 215
N.C. 397.
Tex.— Hadad v. Ellison, Civ.App., 2S3
S.W. 193.
34 C.J. P 690 note 54.
Assignment of Judgment:
Generally see supra §§ 512-530.
To Judgment debtor as effecting
satisfaction see infra § 562.
Contribution between Joint tort-feas-
ors generally see Contribution § 11.
Reason for role
A creditor's right to Have its debt
paid by any or all of those Joint-
ly and severally liable, without re-
gard to the equities between them,
is merged in the Judgment obtained
by the creditor and ought not in
equity to be acquired by any one or
more of the judgment debtors for en-
forcement against the others. — Hoft
v. Mohn, 2 S.B.2d 23, 215 N.C. 397.
35. OkL — Martin v. North American
Car Corporation, 35 P.2d 460, 168
Okl. 599.
34 C.J. p 690 note 55.
36. Mo.— Phelps v. Scott, 30 S.W.2d
71, 325 Mo. 711, 71 A.L.R. 290.
N.Y. — Harvey v. Harvey, 48 N.Y.S.2d
238, 183 Misc. 475.
34 C.J. p 690 notes 54, 55.
87. Neb.— Ohio Nat. Lif e Ins. Co. v.
Baxter, 2&* N.W. 530, 139 Neb. 648.
N.J. — Brown v. White, 29 N.J.Law
514.
38. Cal.— National Bank of Califor-
nia v. Los Angeles Iron & Steel
Co., -84 P. 466, 468, 2 CaLApp. £59.
Neb. — Exchange Elevator Co. v. Mar-
shall, 22 N.W.2d 403.
Failure to take assignment
Where a Joint Judgment debtor
pays the entire indebtedness, and
neither takes an assignment from
the creditor, nor proceeds under stat-
ute relating to contribution in such a
case, the payment constitutes satis-
faction not only as to such debtor,
but also as between him and his co-
obligors. — Tucker v. Nicholson, 84 P.
2d 1045, 12 Cal.2d 427.
39. Cal.— National Bank of Califor-
nia v. Los Angeles Iron & Steel
Co., 84 P. 466, 468, 2 Cal.App. 659.
34 C.J. p 690 note 60.
40. Cal. — Adams v. White Bus Line,
195 P. 389, 184 Cal. 710.
41. N.T.— International R. Co. v.
Pickarski, 186 N.Y.S. 319, 114 Misc.
349, affirmed 191 N.T.S. 932, 199
App.Div. 953.
42. N.C.— Scales v. Scales, 11 S.E.2d
'5-69, 218 N.C. 553.
New right and exclusive remedy
The statute providing a method
by which a Judgment paid by one. or
more Judgment debtors Jointly and
1026
severally liable may be kept alive
creates a new right and provides an
exclusive remedy. — Hoft v. Mohn, 2
S.E.2d 23, 215 N.C. 397.
What constitute* substantial compli-
ance
(1) A Joint obligor must pay the
entire debt or more than a propor-
tionate part before he may demand
of the Judgment creditor the trans-
fer of the Judgment to a trustee. —
Jones v. Rhea, 151 S.E. 255, 198 N.C.
190.
(2) However, the fact that the Co-
defendant pays a sum smaller than
the amount of the Judgment in full
satisfaction thereof does not deprive
him of the statutory method of keep-
ing the Judgment alive as against the
nonpaying debtors. — Scales v., Scales,
11 S.E.2d 569, 218 N.O. 553.
(3) An assignment which, in effect,
is to the paying codefendant itself,
is insufficient to keep the Judgment
alive.— Hoft v. Mohn, 2 S.E.2d 23,
215 N.C. 397.
43. Ga, — Register v. Southern
States Phosphate & Fertilizer Co.,
122 S.E. 323, 15'7 Ga, 561, answers
to certified questions conformed to
122 S.E. 652, 32 Ga.App. 86.
44. Ga. — Register v. Southern
States Phosphate & 'Fertilizer Co.,
supra,
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 557
§ 556. Payment by Surety
Usually payment of a judgment by a surety ex-
tinguishes it at law.
Ordinarily a payment of the judgment by a sure-
ty will extinguish it at law,4^ unless the judgment is
preserved for his benefit by statute;46 but if the
judgment is rendered against both principal and
surety payment by the surety does not necessarily
extinguish it.47
§ 557. Payment by Stranger
Generally a judgment creditor .need not accept pay-
ment from a stranger not having an interest in the judg-
ment, yet, if he does, the Judgment is kept alive for
the benefit of the stranger and is not extinguished where
there is an understanding to that effect.
Although a judgment creditor is not bound to
accept payment from a stranger 4$ unless the stran-
ger has an interest in property seized in satisfac-
tion of the judgment,49 yet, where he does accept
such payment, he is precluded from further recov-
ery,50 and the judgment will be kept alive for the
stranger's benefit, rather than extinguished, when,51
and only when,52 there is an intention and agree-
ment or understanding to this effect.
It has been held, in this connection, that it is not
necessary that this intention and agreement should
be evidenced by a formal and valid assignment of
the judgment,53 although there is some authority
to the contrary.54 On the other hand, the taking
of an assignment affords unequivocal evidence of an
intention not to satisfy the judgment55 unless it is
taken so long after the payment as to evidence the
fact that it was only an afterthought.5 • Such an
assignment is valid and the judgment remains unex-
tinguished in favor of a person in whose behalf it is
obtained, as well where his credit is accepted as the
consideration of the assignment as where it is for a
payment in cash made by him.57
The assignment may be taken in the name of a
third person,58 and where this is done, in the ab-
sence of injury the judgment will not be declared
paid because of simulation.59 If the debtor joins
with a stranger in paying off the judgment, taking
an assignment to his attorney, the assignment will
be valid as to the stranger, although void as to the
debtor.60 Where the judgment is against a stran-
ger to a cause of action ex delicto, its satisfaction
by such stranger is not an extinguishment of such
cause of action.61
Who is stranger. A judgment is deemed to be
paid by the judgment debtor himself, rather than
by a stranger, and hence to be satisfied, rather than
kept alive, where it is paid by another person with
money furnished by the judgment debtor,62 or
45. Ark. — Chollar v. Temple, '30 Ark.
238.
Ohio. — Commercial Casualty Ins. Co.
v. Knutsen Motor Trucking Co.,
173 N.B. 241, 36 Ohio App. 241.
l»a.~ ^Fidelity Deposit Bank of Derry
v. Stewart, 48 Pa.Dist. & Co. 618,
25 West.Co.'L..T. 143— Grunt v.
Grant, Com.Pl., 20 Brie Co. 244.
Tex, — Key v. Oales, Civ.App., 280 S.
W. 2i86.
34 C.J. p 690 note 69.
Subrogation of sureties to rights of
creditor generally see the Q.J.S. ti-
tle Subrogation §§ 47-56, also 60
C.J. p 740 note 5-p 770 note 08,
and 34 C.J. p 690 note 71-p 691
note 76.
Pro tanto satisfaction.
Ark. — Carroll v. Swicord, 9 S.W.2d
783, 177 Ark. 1193.
Cal. — Kane v. Mendenhall, 56 P.2d
49-8, 6 Cal.2d 749.
46. Idaho.— -Agren v. Staker, 267 P.
460, 46 Idaho 36.
34 C.J. p 690 note 70.
47. Mo. — Schuchman v. Rdberts, 133
S.W.2d 1030, 234 Mo.App. 509.
48. N.-C. — James v. Markham, 38 S.
E. 917, 128 N.C. 380.
34 C.J. p 691 note 77.
49. Tex. — Holstead v. Parker, Civ.
App., 238 S.W. 287.
34 C.J. -p 691 note 78.
50. Va.— Forbes v. Wyatt, 129 S.E.
491, 143 Va. 802.
51. Cal.~Salter v. Lombard!, 3 P.2d
3S, 116 CaLApp. -602.
Tex.— Williams v. Hedrick, Civ.App.,
131 S.W.2d 187, error dismissed,
judgment correct
34 C.J. p 691 note 79,
Right of: •
Assignee of judgment to issue ex-
ecution see Executions § 14.
Stranger to be surrogated to rights
of creditor on paying judgment
see the C.J.S. title Subrogation
§ 38, also 34 C.J. p 691 notes 79,
80, and -60 C.J. p 907 note 79-p
820 note 52.
Tfce intention, of t&« payor controls
as to whether a judgment is extin-
guished by payment of the amount
of the judgment and costs by a
stranger to the action. — Hughes v.
McElwee, 185 S.E. 6--8S, 117 W.Va.
410.
52. Okl.— Bobier v. Horn, 222 P. 238,
95 Okl. -8.
Pa. — Seligman & Co. v. Kearns, 81
Pa. Super. 413.
Tex. — Williams v. Hedrick, Civ.App.,
131 .S.W.2d 187, error dismissed,
judgment correct.
34 C.J. P 691 note 80.
53. S.C. — Sutton v. Button, 1 S.E.
'19, 26 S.C. 33.
34 C.J. p 692 note 81.
1027
5* Mo.— St. Francis Mill Co. v.
Sugg, 83 Mo. 476.
55- Cal. — Salter v. Lombard!, 3 P.2d
38, 116 CaLApp. 602.
34 C.J. p 692 note 83.
Written assignment
The 'purchase of a judgment by a
stranger to it does not extinguish
it where the purchaser takes a writ-
ten assignment stating that the
judgment should continue in effect
and promptly asserts his rights as
judgment creditor. — Williams v. Hed-
rick, Tex.Civ.App., 131 S.W.2d 187,
error dismissed, judgment correct.
56. N.Y.— Dowling v. Hastings, 105
N.B. 194, 211 N.Y. 199.
34 C.J. p 692 note 84.
57. N.Y.— Harbeck v. Vanderbilt, 20
N.Y. 395.
58. La. — Hunter v. Chicago Lumber
& Coal Co., 100 So. 35, 156 La. 19.
59. La. — Hunter v. Chicago Lumber
& Coal Co., supra.
60. N.Y.— Harbeck v. Vanderbilt. 20
N.Y. 395.
61. N.Y.— Atlantic Dock Co. v. New-
York, 53 N.Y. 64.
34 C.J. p 692 note 87.
82. Ala. — Hogan v. Reynolds, 21
Ala. 56, 56 Am.D. 236.
34C.J. p 69 2 note 88.
558
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
where the person making the payment is acting as
the agent,63 attorney,64 or trustee65 of the judg-
ment debtor, even though the agency is undisclosed
and the person making the payment is ostensibly a
stranger.66
§ 558.
Payment by Officer
Ordinarily payment of a judgment by an officer with-
out legal compulsion or request by the judgment debtor
operates to extinguish It, unless there is an assignment
of the judgment to the officer or the debtor waives the
benefit of the payment as. satisfaction.
Where the amount of a judgment is paid by a
sheriff or other officer without any demand or re-
quest on the part of the judgment debtor, the judg-
ment is extinguished, and such officer cannot keep
it alive for his own reimbursement67 unless he takes
an assignment of the judgment in his own name, or
to a third person in trust for himself,68 or the debt-
or waives the benefit of the payment as satisfac-
tion.69 However it has been held that the judg-
ment is not extinguished where the sheriff or other
officer is compelled to pay it by legal proceedings,70
or where he pays a judgment recovered against
himself for his failure to enforce the first judg-
ment,71 unless defendant adopts the payment and
insists on it as a satisfaction.72
§ 559. Evidence of Payment
a. Presumptions and burden of proof
b. Admissibility
c. Weight and sufficiency
a. Presumptions and Burden of Proof
(1) Presumptions
(2) Burden of proof
(1) Presumptions
(a) In general
(b) From lapse of time
(a) In General
In the absence of other proof It will be presumed
that a judgment has not been paid.
It will be presumed that a judgment has not been
paid, in the absence of other proof73 and in the
absence of lapse of time sufficient to raise a pre-
sumption of payment, as discussed infra subdivision
a (1) (b) of this section. However, payment or sat-
isfaction may be presumed from the conduct of the
judgment creditor.74 Where a satisfaction piece
was given, the presumption arises that it was given
on payment of the judgment75 Some statutes pro-
viding that a presumption of payment of the judg-
ment shall arise from the fact that the execution
has not been returned according to law apply only
in a proceeding against the sheriff or his sureties.76
(b) From Lapse of Time
aa. In general
bb. Computation of time
aa. In General
In the absence of a statute providing otherwise, It
Is generally held that, where twenty years have elapsed
since the rendition of a Judgment, without any acknowl-
edgment of It or attempt to enforce it, SL presumption
of law arises that the judgment has been paid.
At common law, where twenty years have elapsed
since the rendition of a judgment, without any proc-
ess on it, or any acknowledgment of it or attempt to
enforce it, there is .a presumption of law that it has
been paid.77 A similar rule has been enacted by
Direct payment by judgment credi-
tor with borrowed money see su-
pra § 552.
63. Tex. — Corpus Juris cited in
Hart v. Harrell, Oiv.App., 17 S.W.
2d 1093, 1094.
34 C.J. p *692 note 89.
64. Mich.— Rogers v. Welte, 2S N.
W. 86, 61 Mich. 258.
N.T.— Gotthelf v. Krulewitch. 138 N.
Y.S. 75$, 153 App.Div. 746.
65. Pa.— Keller v. Leib, 1 Penr. &
W. 220.
Tex.— Williams v. Hedrick, Civ.App.,
131 S.W.2d 187, error dismissed,
judgment correct.
98. U.S.— Lillie v. Dennert, Mich.,
232 F. 104, 146 C.C.A. 296.
67. Tenn.— liintz v. Thompson, 1
Head 456, 73 Am.D. 182.
34 C.J. p -692 note 93.
68. N.C.— Heilig v. Lemly, 74 N.C.
. 250, 21 Am.R. 489.
34 C.J. p 692 note 94.
69. Ala. — Mooney v. Parker, 18 Ala.
708.
TO. Ind. — Burbank v. Slinkard, 53
Ind. 493.
Mass. — Allen v. Holden, 9 Mass. 133,
6 Am.D. 46.
71. N.H.— Cheever v. Mirrick, 2 N.
H. 376.
34 C.J. p 692 note 97.
72. Ala.— Poe r. Dorrah, 20 Ala. 288,
56 Am.D. 196.
73. U.S. — Campbell v. American &
Zell Co., 129 F. 491, affirmed 138 'F.
531, '71 C.C.A. 55, certiorari denied
26 S.Ct. 747, 199 U.S. 607, '50 L.Ed.
331.
Presumption of payment generally
see the C.J.S. title Payment § 98,
also 48 C.J. p 687 note 7 et seq.
74. La.— Bethany v. His Creditors. 7
Rob. *1— Abat v. Buisson, 9 La.
417.
The making- of an award for dam.
ages in receivership proceeding did
1028
not raise presumption that award
was paid in full. — Mathewson v. Col-
pitts. 188 K.B. 601, 2:84 Mass. 581.
75. N.T. — Booth v. Farmers' & Me-
chanics' Nat. Bank, 50 N.Y. 396.
76. Va. — Paxton v. Rich, 7 S.B. 531,
85 Va. 378, 1 L.R.A. -639.
77. Pa.— Ott v. Ott, 166 A. 556, ail
Pa. 130 — Brady v. Tarr, 21 A.2d
131, 145 Pa.Super. 316— First Nat.
Bank v. Bank of Pittsburgh, 99 Pa.
Super. 600 — Coleman & Stahl v.
Weimer, 86 Pa. Super. 303 — Krzyk-
wa v. Krzykwa, Com.Pl., 15 North-
umb.L.J. 230.
34 C.J. p 692 note 6.
Presumption of payment from lapse
of time generally see the C.J.S.
title Payment § 101, also 48 C.J. p
•690 note 56-p 600 note 65.
Basis of rule
This presumption is based on the
common sense theory that the judg-
ment creditor would have normally
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 559
statute in several of the states,™ although, under
some of the statutes, the presumption of payment
arises after the lapse of only ten years.79 Such
5tatutes are not retrospective,8^ and, where they so •
provide they do not apply to judgments other than
those of courts of record.81
Ordinarily, the presumption of payment applies as
well between the parties to the judgment as be-
tween plaintiff and subsequent creditors,82 but it
applies only to judgments for the payment of mon-
ey,83 including judgments for a contingent liabil-
taken steps to proceed against the
debtor for the collection of the Judg-
ment before such a period of time
had been permitted to elapse; if the
judgment has not in fact been paid,
it is only reasonable and fair to put
the burden of the explanation on
him who was entitled to the money.
— Roemer now to Use of Kendig v.
•Lancaster County, 190 A. 347, 126 Pa.
Super. 11 — 34 C.J. p 692 note 6 [a].
Strength of presumption
(1) Presumption of payment after
twenty years is very strong and is
favored in law as tending to the re-
pose of society and discouragement
of stale claims. — In re Lief over's Es-
tate, 122 A. 273, 278 Pa. 196— Krzyk-
wa r. Krzykwa, Pa.Com.PL, 15 North-
umb.L.J. 230.
(2) This presumption is strength-
ened as time passes on. — In re Lefev-
er's Estate, supra— Krzykwa v.
Krzykwa, supra.
(3) Conclusiveness of presumption
generally see infra subdivision c of
this section.
Presumption not abandoned
Defendant testifying to payment
of indebtedness did not abandon pre-
sumption of payment by virtue of
lapse of over twenty years since en-
try of Judgment— Ott v. Ott, 166 A,
556, 311 Pa. 130.
78. N.Y. — In re Murray's Estate,
288 N.Y.S. 346, 248 App.Div. 167,
reversed on other grounds 5 N.E.
2d 717, 272 N.Y. 22-8— In re Walton
Ave., New York City, 276 N.Y.S.
809, 243 App.Div. 587 — Sanchez v,
Spitzka, 48 N.Y.S.2d 184, 1-33 Misc.
413 — In re Ballenzweig's Estate,
22 N.Y.S.2d 541, 174 Misc. 1109—
Mo ran Towing- & Transp. Co. v.
Fleming, 2*5 N.Y.S.2d 41, affirmed
27 N.Y.S.2d 431, 261 App.Div. 978,
affirmed 38 N.E.2d 231, 2-S7 N.Y.
571.
84 C.J. p 693 note 7.
Statute applies to foreign judg-
ments as well as to Judgments ren-
dered within state. — Baio v. Man-
gano, '6 N.Y.S.Sd 763, 169 Misc. 155,
reversed on other grounds 9 N.Y.S.
2d 276, 256 App.Div. 831, reargument
denied 10 N.Y.S.2d 676, 256 App.Div,
930.
City
(1) Statute establishing conclusive
presumption of payment of Judgment
after twenty years was held applica-
ble to a city, in its governmental ca-
pacity.—Gewertz v. Berry, 180 N.E.
251, 258 N.Y. 505.
(2) City and its officers could not
waive the provisions of the statute
— Application of -Long Island R. Co.
22 N.Y.S.2d 706, 174 Misc. 1037, af-
firmed 25 N.Y.S.2d 1005, 261 App.Div
914, reargument denied 27 N.Y.S.2d
441, 261 App.Div. 987.
Subsisting obligation
Notwithstanding statute declaring
that every Judgment shall be deemed
satisfied after the expiration of
twenty years, such a Judgment, if in
fact unsatisfied, is a subsisting obli-
gation.— Pensinger v. Jarecki Mfg.
Co., 136 N.E. 641, 78 Ind.App. 569.
79. MO.— Mayes v. Mayes, 116 S.W.
2d 1, 342 Mo. 401— Kansas City v.
Field, 194 S.W. 39, 270 Mo. 500—
Hedges v. McKittrick, App., 153 S.
W.2d 790— City of St. Louis v. Die-
tering, App., 27 S.W.2d 711.
In Alabama
(1) A Judgment is presumed to be
paid after ten years without execu-
tion taken thereon, but the presump-
tion does not become conclusive until
after twenty years. — Gilmer v. Gant,
24 So.2d 414, 247 Ala. 347— McClin-
tock v. McEachin, 20 So.2d 711, 246
Ala. 412— Hays v. McCarty, 195 So.
241, 239 Ala. 400.
(2) The presumption is a substan-
tial statutory right accorded to debt-
or in a stale Judgment as a shield
to defeat recovery, rather than mere-
ly an administrative presumption
having only the office of shifting
burden of proceeding with the evi-
dence.— Gambill v. Qassimus, 22 So.
2d 909, 247 Ala. 176.
(3) Unless the statutory presump-
tion of satisfaction Is overcome by
proof that payment or satisfaction
has not been made the Judgment is
functus offlcio. — Gilmer v. Gant, su-
pra.
80. Colo.— Jones v. Stockgrowers*
Nat. Bank, 67 P. 177, 17 Colo. App.
79.
34 C.J. p 693 note 8.
81. N.Y. — Dieffenbach v. Roch, 20
N.E. 560, 112 N.Y. 621, 2 JUR.A.
829, 16 N.Y.Civ.Proc. 172.
Judgment of inferior court
The statute does not apply to Judg-
ment of inferior court, unless tran-
scripted. — Jennings v. Loucks, 297 N.
Y.S. £93, 163 Misc. 791.
82. Pa. — Van Loon v. Smith, 103 Pa.
238.
Third persons
Statutory presumption of payment
of Judgment from failure to issue
1029
execution for ten years from rendi-
tion of Judgment or date of last exe-
cution issued protects third persons
oven against revived Judgment or
judgment renewed by action thereon,
—Second Nat. Bank v. Allgood, 176
So. 363, 234 Ala. 654.
Only as to third persons
In some Jurisdictions during the
period of dormancy of a judgment,
there is no presumption, ii* favor of
defendant, that the Judgment has
been paid, but such presumption ex-
ists only as to third persons. — Hag-
ins v. Blitch, 6'5 S.B. 10:82, £ Ga.App.
839—34 C.J. p 658 note 94.
83. Mo. — Mayes v. Mayes, App., 104
S.W.2d 1019, reversed on other
grounds 116 S.W.2d 1, 342 Mo. 401.
N.Y.— In re Walton Ave., New York
City, 278 N.Y.S. 204, 244 App. 125,
affirmed In re Opening of Walton
Ave. from Bast One Hundred and
Sixty-Seventh Street to Tremont
Ave. in Borough of Bronx, City of
New York, 200 N.E. 295, 270 N.Y,
513— Baio v. Mangono, 6 N.Y.S.2<1
763, 169 Misc. 155, reversed on oth-
er grounds 9 N.Y.S.2d 276, 256 A'pp*
Div. 831, reargument deniejl 10 N.
Y.S.2d 676, 256 App.Div. 930.
34 C.J. p 693 note 10.
Orders allowing1 certain amounts
as fees of attorneys who represented
trustees in suit for authorization for
sale of trust property, and ordering
that such amounts be paid from pro-
ceeds of sale, were orders for the
payment of money with respect to
text rule.— Hedges v. McKittrick,
Mo. App., 153 S.W.2d 790.
Statutory presumption held inappli-
cable
(1) To so-called Judgment in pro-
ceedings commenced by surviving
trustees to compel an accounting by
a deceased trustee's administratrix
for deceased's acts and for a con-
struction of a will. — In re* Van Nos-
trand's Will, 29 N.Y.S.2d 857, 177
Misc. 1.
(2) To final order in habeas cor-
pus -proceedings in supreme court,
where such final order was not dock-
eted.—Warren v. Garlipp, 216 N.Y.S.
466, 217 App.Div. 55.
(3) To moneys paid by city into
court in condemnation proceedings
on awards to unknown owners, such
moneys being trust funds. — In re
Rochester Ave. in City of New York,
268 N.Y.S. 736, 241 App.Div. 614, af-
firmed 191 N.E. 587, 264 N.Y. 607, re-
559
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
ity,84 and is, therefore, not applicable to judgments
in rem,85 or to judgments awarding the possession
of property,86 foreclosing a mortgage,87 declaring a
vendor's lien on land,88 or foreclosing a tax lien,89
without the adjudication of personal liability. Like-
wise, the presumption is inapplicable to a judg-
ment which by its terms is not collectable,90 or, it
seems, to a judgment allowing a claim by an as-
signee,91 or to an order of court, made in proceed-
ings to sell land of an habitual drunkard, which
finds that he is indebted to a certain person in a
named sum.92
As a general rule, the lapse of any number of
years fewer than twenty, or other number fixed by
the statute, will not raise a presumption of law that
the judgment has been paid;93 but the ruaning of a
shorter period of time, when accompanied by cor-
roborative or persuasive circumstances, may be sub-
mitted to a jury as ground for a presumption of
fact94 In some jurisdictions a presumption of pay-
ment arises after the time when the judgment has
become dormant, even though such time is less than
twenty years,95 and it has also been held, without
reference to provisions specifically fixing the time
after which the presumption of payment arises, that
a rebuttable presumption of payment may take ef-
fect when no execution has issued within the peri-
od when an execution may issue without leave of
court96
bb. Computation of Time
The period after which a judgment is presumed to
have been paid begins to run from the time Judgment
is entered or other time fixed by the statute, and may
be extended by various, acts tolling the period, such as
commencement of proceedings to collect the Judgment.
The period after which a judgment is presumed to
have been paid begins to run from the time the
judgment is entered up,97 or, under some statutes,
from the date of original rendition of the judg-
ment,98 or from the time when the judgment credi-
tor is first entitled to a mandate to enforce it;99
but, where a judgment by its terms is not immedi-
ately collectable, the period begins to run from the
time that it becomes collectable.1
Although there is authority to the contrary,2
it has been held that a statute declaring that a judg-
ment shall be presumed to be paid after the lapse
of a certain time is a statute of limitations.3 In
argument denied 193 N.E. 291, 285 X.
T. 503.
(4) To renewal of note, given by
defendant to plaintiff to secure re-
lease of defendant from such judg-
ment 'against him and another. —
Night & Day Bank of St. Louis v.
Hill, Mo.App.. 2-74 S.W. 491.
84. Mo.— Hedges v. McKittriek,
App., 153 S.W.2d 790.
Pa.— Camp v. John, 102 A. 285, 259
Pa, 38.
85. N.Y. — In re Van Xostrand's
Will, 29 X.Y.S.2d 857, 1T7 Misc. 1.
86. N.T. — Van Rensselaer v.
Wright 25 N.E. 3, 121 N.Y. 626.
87. N.Y. — Barnard v. Onderdonk, 98
N.Y. 158.
88. Ala.— Moore v. Williams, 29 So.
795, 129 Ala. 329.
89. N.Y.— In re Walton Ave., New
York City, 27S N.Y.S. 204, 244 App.
Div. 125, affirmed In re Opening of
Walton Are. from East One Hun-
dred and Sixty-Seventh St. to Tre-
raont Ave. in Borough of Bronx,
City of New York, 200 N.B. 295, 270
N.Y. 513.
90. Pa. — Roemer, now to Use of
Kendig v. Lancaster County, 190
A. 347, 126 Pa.Super. 11.
In action in 1936 to revive 1901
judgment for damages to land from
laying out of street not actually
opened until 1933, where statute gov-
erning condemnation proceedings
provided . that damages awarded
should not be paid until streets were
actually opened, rule that judgment
is presumed to have been paid after
twenty years was inapplicable. — Roe-
mer, now to Use of Kendig v. Lan-
caster County, supra.
91. Mo. — Elsea v. Pryor, 87 Mo.App.
157.
92. N.Y.— Sheldon v. Mirick, 39 N.E.
647, 144 N.Y. 498.
93. N.Y. — In re Murray's Estate, 5
X.E.2d 717, 2*72 N.Y. 228.
Pa. — Roemer, now to Use of Kendig,
v. Lancaster County, 190 A. 347,
126 Pa. Super. 11.
34 C.J. p 693 notes 19, 21.
94. U.S.— Renwick v. Wheeler, C.C.
Iowa, 4S P. 431.
34 C.J. p 693 note 22.
95. Neb.— Wright v. Sweet, 4 N.W.
1043, 10 Neb. 190.
34 C.J. p 693 notes 17, 20.
93. N.Y. — Manger v. Golding, 210 X.
Y.S. 703, 214 App.Div. 786— Part-
ridge v. Moynihan, 110 N.Y.S. 539,
59 Misc. 234, 20 N.Y.Ann.Cas. 272.
Leave of court for issuance of exe-
cution after lapse of time general-
ly see Executions § 59 a (2).
97. Pa.— Ott v. Ott, 166 A. 556, 311
Pa. 130.
34 C.J. p 694 note 23.
98. Mo. — Mayes v. Hayes, 116 S.W.
2d 1, 342 Mo. 401— Hedges v. Mc-
Kittrick, App., 153 S.W.2d 790—
City of St. Louis v. Dietering,
App., 27 S.W.2d 711.
Bight to reject terms
Fact that city reserved right to
reject terms fixed by condemnation
judgment did not stay running of
period from date of rendition of
judgment.— City of St. Louis v. Die-
tering, supra.
99. N.Y.— In re Elm St in City of
New York, 14-6 N.E. 342, 239 N.Y.
220 — Application of Long Island R.
Co., 22 X.Y.S.2d 706, 174 Misc. 1037,
affirmed 25 N.Y.S.2d 1005, 261 App.
Div. 914, reargument denied 27 N.
Y.S.2d 441, 261 App.Div. 987.
34 C.J. p 694 note 24.
The words "mandate to enforce it,11
as used in the statute, refer to an
execution issued to a sheriff, or a
like command to one in a ministerial
office. — In re McEnery's Estate, 279
X.Y.S. 187, 155 Misc. 337.
1. Pa. — Roemer, now to Use of Ken-
dig v. Lancaster County, 190 A.
347, 126 Pa.Super. 11.
2. Mo. — Mayes v. Mayes, App., 104
S.W.2d 1019, reversed on other
grounds, 116 S.W.2d 1, 342 Mo. 401
— Chiles v. Buckner School Dist.,
77 S.W. 82, 103 Mo.App. 240.
Mere rule of evidence
Presumption of payment arising
from fact that judgment was more
than twenty years old does not bar
the debt as does the statute of limi-
tations, but it is merely a rule of
evidence affecting the burden of
proof. — In re Grenet's Estate, 2 A.2d
707, 332 Pa. Ill— Brady v. Tarr, 21
A.2d 131, 145 PsuSuper. 316.
3. N.Y. — In re Murray's Estate, 5 N.
E.2d 717, 272 N.Y. 228— Baio v.
1030
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 559
this view the running of the statute, or of the com-
mon-law period of twenty years, may be interrupt-
ed by a stay of execution,4 by an injunction re-
straining the collection of the judgment,5 by the
disability of the party from infancy,6 by the in-
stitution of special or collateral proceedings to col-
lect the judgment, or uncover property subject
to it,7 by the issuance of scire facias or other proc-
ess to revive the judgment,8 or by the judgment
debtor's payment on account of the judgment or
acknowledgment of the debt9
It has also been held that the running of the
period necessary to create the presumption of pay-
ment may be tolled by the debtor's absence from
the state,10 although, where the statutory presump-
tion of payment is conclusive, it has been held that
the period will not be extended by such absence,11
notwithstanding another statute which provides that
the time limited for the commencement of an action
shall not include the time during which such person
is absent from the state;12 and, in any case, the
absence of the judgment creditor does not affect the
running of the statutory period.13 The period is not
stayed by the mere filing of a claim against the debt-
or's estate,14 or by the operation of a statute ex-
tending the time for commencement of an action
for a certain period after the death of the person
against whom the cause of action exists.15
(2) Burden of Proof
As a general rule, the burden of proving payment
of a judgment rests on the person claiming payment.
As a general rule, the burden of proving payment
of a judgment rests on defendant or other person
claiming payment,16 except where a prima facie
case of payment has been made,17 where the judg-
ment is dormant,18 or where such a period of time
has elapsed as to raise a presumption of payment,1^
in which case the burden of proving nonpayment,
or of overcoming the presumption of payment, rests
on plaintiff or the person seeking to enforce the
judgment.
b. Admissibility
(1) In general
(2) To support or rebut presumption of
payment
Mangano, 6 N.Y.S.2d 763, 169 Misc.
155, reversed on other grounds 9 N.
Y.S.2d 276, 256 App.Div. 831. reur-
gument denied 10 N.Y.S.2d 676, 256
App.Div. 930.
34 C.J. p 694 note 26.
4. S.C.~
483.
-Klnsler v. Holmes, 2 B.C.
5. Va. — Hutsonpiller v. Stover, 12
Oratt. 579, 53 Va. 579.
0. S.C. — McQueen v. Fletcher, 25 S.
C.Eq. 1'52.
7. N.Y. — In re Murray's Estate, 5 N.
E.2d 717, 272 N.Y. 228.
Pa. — Pennsylvania Co. for Insuranc-
es on Lives and Granting Annui-
ties v. Youngman, 171 A. 594, 314
Pa, 277.
34 C.J. p 694 note 30.
Time to sue and limitations in ac-
tion on judgment generally see in-
fra § 854.
Acquisition of jurisdiction
Recovery on surrogate's decree for
costs against decedent was barred
by limitations, where twenty years
elapsed before surrogate's court ac-
quired jurisdiction in proceedings for
enforcement of decree. — In re McESn-
ery's Estate, 279 N.Y.S. 187, 155
Misc. 337.
3. Pa. — Croskey v. Croskey, 160 A.
103, 306 Pa. 423.
9. N.Y.— -In re Murray's Estate, 288
N.Y.S. 346, 24-8 App.Div. 167, re-
versed on other grounds 5 N.B.2d
71'7, 272 N.Y. 228— Arizona 'Fire
Ins. Co. v. King, 14 N.Y.S.2d 783,
172 Misc. 165.
Garaishee execution
Where payments were made under
garnishee execution out of funds be-
longing to the debtor on account of
creditor's judgment, statutory pre-
sumption of payment of judgment by
the expiration of twenty years was
not applicable. — Moran Towing £
Transp. Co. v. Fleming, 25 N.Y.S.2d
41, affirmed 27 N.Y.S.2d 431, 261 A*pp.
Div. 978, affirmed 38 N.E.2d 231, 287
N.Y. 571.
10. S.C. — Latimer v. Townbridge, 29
S.E. 634, 52 S.C. 193, 68 Am.S.R.
893.
11. Mo. — Mayes v. Mayes, 11-6 S.W.
2d 1, 342 Mo. 401.
12. N.Y.— Brinkman v. Cram, 161 N.
Y.S. 965, 175 App.Div. 372, af-
firmed 122 N.E. 877, 225 N.Y. 720.
13. Mo.— Mayes v. Mayes, App., 104
S.W.2d 1019, reversed on other
grounds 116 S.W.2d 1, 342 Mo. 401.
14. N.Y. — In re Ballenzweig's Es-
tate, 22 N.Y.S.2d 541, 174 Misc.
1109 — In re McEnery's Estate, 279
N.Y.S. 187, 155 Misc. 337— In re
Amarante's Estate, 266 N.Y.S. 559,
148 Misc. 825.
34 C.J. p 694 note 33 [b].
15- N.Y.— Matter of Hoes, 170 N.Y.
S. 543, 183 App.Div. 38.
33 C.J. p 694 note 33.
15. Ala. — Grayson v. Schwab, 179
So. 377, 235 Ala. 398.
La. — State ex rel. Leary v. Hughes,
App., 185 So. 69.
TJtah.-^Corpus Juris cited in Marks
v. Marks, 100 P.2d 207, 210, 98
Utah 400.
34 C.J. p 694 note 34.
Burden of proof with respect to pay-
ments generally see the C.J.S. ti-
tle Payment § 93, also 48 C.J. p
680 note 20-p 683 note 69.
Within period of twenty years aft-
er recovery of judgment, the burden
of proving payment is on the debtor
after which period: the burden rests
on the creditor.— Brady v. Tarr, 21 A.
2d 131, 145 Pa.Super. 316.
Defendant* claiming payment in
personalty, must prove not only de-
livery to plaintiff, but also the lat-
ter's consent to accept it as payment
of the judgment. — Bauman-George
Piano Co. v. Matthews, 4 La. App. 334.
17. La. — State ex rel. Leary v.
Hughes, App., 185 So. 59.
18. Neb.— Hill v. Feeny, 134 N.W,
921, 90 Neb. 791.
19. Ala.— Gilmer v. Gant, 24 So,2d
414, 247 Ala. 347— Gambill v. Cas-
simus, 22 So.2d 909, 247 Ala. 176 —
Hays y. McCarty, 195 So. 241, 239
Ala. 400— Second Nat. Bank v. All-
good, 176 So. 363, 234 Ala. 654.
La.— State ex rel. Leary v. Hughes,
App., 185 So. 69.
Pa. — In re Lefever's Estate, 122 A.
273, 278 Pa, 196— Gilmore v. Alex-
ander, 112 A. 9, 268 Pa, 415— Brady
v. Tarr, 21 A.2d 131, 145 Pa,Super4
316.
34 C.J.p694note36.
1031
§ 559
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
(1) In General
Competent and relevant evidence may be received
to prove payment of a Judgment.
As a general rule, all competent and relevant evi-
dence may be received to prove payment of a judg-
ment.20 The evidence admissible to prove payment
includes parol evidence,21 a written receipt or other
paper passing between the parties,22 an entry on the
records of the court,23 and the return and receipts
on the execution,24 but not evidence of the acts of
the parties prior to the rendition of the judgment,25
although it has been held that an agreement en-
tered into prior to the date of a judgment, as to the
mode of its discharge, but which was not to be exe-
cuted until afterward, and all payments made in
pursuance of such agreement, are admissible in ev-
idence in support of a plea of payment.26 . The fact
that a mortgagor was permitted to occupy the prem-
ises as a tenant after foreclosure, and that at his
death he left considerable property, does not tend
to show payment of the deficiency judgment.27
Evidence that the judgment has not been paid,28
including evidence contradicting or explaining a
written receipt,29 ordinarily is admissible, but an.
account book of a deceased attorney is not of it-
self competent evidence of the fact that such attor-
ney did not receive a payment on the judgment.30
In some jurisdictions, however, where through lapse
of time a conclusive presumption of payment is cre-
ated, evidence to prove nonpayment is inadmis-
sible.31 At least in connection with other circum-
stances, evidence that no execution was issued,32
or that one issued was not returned,33 is admissible
on the question of payment
(2) To Support or Rebut Presumption of
Payment
Generally, any competent evidence which tends to
support or rebut the presumption of payment of a judg-
ment is admissible on an issue of payment, but in some
jurisdictions the evidence admissible for this purpose is
prescribed by statute.
In some jurisdictions, the evidence which may be
relied on to rebut the presumption of payment aris-
ing from lapse of time is prescribed by statute,34
and, if the presumption is declared by the statute
to be conclusive, only its existence may be attacked,
and it may not be shown in rebuttal of the presump-
tion that the judgment was not actually paid.35 On
the other hand, where the presumption of payment
is not conclusive, it may be rebutted by any compe-
tent and satisfactory evidence that there has been
no payment in fact.36
To repel the presumption of payment there may
be shown the pursuit of a continued course of legal
proceedings to enforce the judgment,37 such as the
issue and return of an execution unsatisfied within
the time limited,38 the revival of the judgment39 or
20. Pa.— First Nat Bank v. Bank of
Pittsburgh, 99 Pa.Super. 600.
21. Cal. — Can trail v. "Waterman, 232
P. 997, 70 Cal.App. 184.
Ky. — First Nat Bank of Jackson v.
Reynolds, 143 S.W.2d 721, 283 Ky.
837.
34 C.J. p 694 note 37.
Admissibility of evidence of pay-
ments generally see the C.J.S. ti-
tle Payment §§ 112-119, also 48 C.
J. p 717 note 90-p 725 note 41.
22. Tex.— Citizens State Bank of
Clarinda, Iowa, v. Del-Tex Inv. Co.,
Civ.App., 123 S.W.2d 450, error dis-
missed, judgment correct.
34 CJ. p 694 note 38.
23. Mass.— Cote v. New England
Nav. Co., 99 N.E. 972, 213 Mass.
177.
34 C.J. p 694 note 39.
Entry of satisfaction as evidence
generally see infra § 583.
24. Iowa. — Singer v. Given, IS N.W.
S58, 61 Iowa 93.
34 C.J. p 695 note 40.
Return on execution as evidence of
satisfaction generally see infra §
573.
25. Del. — Lofland v. McDaniel, 41 A.
«882, 17 Del. 416.
Me.— Bird v. Smith, 84 Me. 63, 56 Am.
D. 635.
26. Md. — Downey v. (Forrester, 35
Md. 117.
27. N.Y. — Seaman v. Clarke, 78 N.T.
S. 171, 75 App.Div. 345.
28. Tex. — James v. Midland Grocery
& Dry Goods Co., Civ.App., 146 S.
W. 1073, error denied, Sup., 147 S.
W. xv.
34 C.J. p 695 note 44.
29. Md. — Hughes v. O'Donnell, 2
Harr. & J. 324.
N.J.— Earle v. Earle, 16 N.J.Law 273.
SO. Iowa. — Shaffer v. McCrackin, 5'8
N.W. 910, 90 Iowa 578, 48 Am.S.R.
465.
31. N.Y.— In re Elm St. in City of
New York, 146 N.E. 342, 239 N.Y.
220. .
32. N.Y. — Jacoby v. Stephenson Sil-
ver Min. Co., 6 N.Y.S.- 371, 3 Silv.
Sup. 130.
33. N.Y. — Gassner v. Sandford, 4 N.
Y.Super. 440.
34. Mo.— Hedges v. McKittrick,
A-pp., 153 S.W.2d 790.
34 C.J. p 695 note 49.
35. N.Y.— In re Elm St in City of
New York, 146 N.E. 342, 239 N.Y.
220.
Conclusiveness of presumption gen-
1032
erally see infra subdivision c of
this section.
sa Ala. — Gambill v. Cassimus, 22
So.2d 909, 247 Ala. 176.
Pa. — Pennsylvania Co. for Insuranc-
es on Lives and Granting Annui-
ties v. Youngman, 171 A. 594, 314
Pa, 277— First Nat. Bank v. Bank
of Pittsburgh, 99 Pa.-Super. 600.
34 C.J. p 69'5 note 50.
37. Pa. — Pennsylvania Co. for In-
surances on Lives and Granting
Annuities v. Youngman, 171 A.
594, 314 Pa. 277.
Service of interrogatories
As regards presumption of pay-
ment of judgment entered in 1910,
and on which suit was brought in
1931, attachment issued in 1910 must
be treated as though issued in 1913,
when interrogatories were served,
and as having same evidential effect
as if existing writ had been discon-
tinued and new writ issued. — Penn-
sylvania Co. for Insurances on Lives
and Granting Annuities v. Young-
man, supra.
38. Tenn. — Black v. Carpenter, &
Baxt. 350.
39. Ark, — Brearly v. Peay, 23 Ark.
172.
N.Y.— Mower v. Kip, 2 Eclw. 165, re-
49 C.J.S,
JUDGMENTS
§ 559
attempt to revive it40 by scire facias or other proc-
ess,41 and other evidence which satisfactorily ac-
counts for the delay of the creditor in enforcing
payment,42 such as proof of the impossibility of
proceeding for its collection by reason of the clos-
ing of the courts,43 the poverty of the judgment
debtor,44 or his absence from the state.45
The existence of the presumption of payment may
also be attacked by evidence of the making within
the twenty years or other statutory period of par-
tial payments46 or of a* distinct acknowledgment of
the judgment as an existing debt,47 made to the
creditor,48 his agent or attorney,49 or even to a
stranger,50 provided it is intended to be communi-
cated to or to influence the conduct of the credi-
tor,51 although an admission will not be as readily
implied from language casually addressed to a stran-
ger as when addressed to the creditor in reply to a
versed on other grounds -6 Paige
88.
Pa. — James v. Jarrett, 17 Pa. 370.
40. Pa.— In re Miller, 90 A. 77, 243
Pa. 328.
41. Pa. — Croskey v. Croskey, 160 A.
103, 306 Pa, 423.
Circumstance to "be considered
In scire facias proceeding to re-
vive and continue the lien of a judg-
ment, the issuance of prior writ of
scire facias to revive Judgment was
a circumstance to be considered with
other evidence in rebutting presump-
tion of payment arising from fact
that judgment was more than twen-
ty years old. — Brady v. Tarr, 21 A.2d
131, 145 Pa.Super. 316.
42. Conn. — Judson v. Phelps, 89 A.
161, 87 Conn. 495, 1 A.L.R. 768.
Pa. — Pennsylvania Co. for Insuranc-
es on Lives and Granting Annui-
ties v. Youngman, 171 A. 59-1, 314
Pa. 277.
43. Ark.— Woodruff v. Sanders, 15
Ark. 143.
44. N.Y.— Boyd v. Boyd, 29 N.Y.S.
7, 9 Misc. 161.
45. N.Y.— -Brinkman v. Cram, 161 N.
Y.S. 965, 175 App.DJv. 372, affirmed
122 N.B. 877, 22-5 N.Y. 720.
Pa.— Pennsylvania Co. for Insuranc-
es on Lives and Granting Annui-
ties v. Youngman, 171 A. 594, 314
Pa. 277.
46. N.Y. — In re Murray's Estate, 288
N.Y.S. 346, 248 App.Div. 167, re-
versed on other grounds, 5 N.E.2d
717, 272 N.Y. 228.
Pa.— Ott v. Ott, 16-6 A, 556, 311 Pa.
130.
34 C.J. p 695 note 57.
Voluntary or involuntary payment
(1) It has been held that the rule
is not restricted to a voluntary pay-
ment but includes payments on judg-
ment by virtue of garnishment —
Moran Towing & Transp. Co. v.
Fleming, 2-5 N.Y.S.2d 41, affirmed 27
N.Y.S.2d 431, 261 App.Div. 978, af-
firmed 38 N.E.2d 231, 287 N.Y. 571.
(2) It has also been held, however,
that a payment through legal coer-
cion will not rebut the presumption,
although a voluntary payment will
do so. — Arizona Fire Ins. Co. v. King,
14 N.Y.S.2d 7-83, 172 Misc. 165.
47. N.Y. — Arizona Fire Ins. Qo. v.
King, supra.
34 C.J. p 695 note 58.
Nature of acknowledgment required
Acknowledgment of judgment debt
within exception in statute creating
presumption of satisfaction of judg-
ment after twenty years . is distin-
guished from that necessary to con-
stitute . new or continuing contract
under statute of limitations. — Ari-
zona <Fire Ins. Co. v. King, supra.
34 C.J. p 695 note 58 [a].
48. Pa. — Gregory v. Commonwealth,
15 A. 452, 121 Pa. 611, 6 Am.S.R.
804— Bby v. Bby, 5 Pa. 435.
49. N.Y. — Arizona Fire Ins. Co. v.
King, 14 N.Y.S.2d 783, 172 Misc.
165.
Pa. — Gregory v. Commonwealth, 15
A. 452, 121 Pa, -611, 6 Am.S.R. 804.
50. Pa. — Gregory v. Commonwealth,
supra.
51. N.Y.— In re Kendrick, 13 N.B.
762, 107 N.Y. 104.
52. Pa. — Gregory v. Commonwealth,
15 A. 4'52, 121 Pa, -611, 6 Am.S.R.
804— Appeal of Bentley. 99 Pa. 500.
53. N.Y. — Arizona Fire Ins. Co. v.
King, 14 N.Y.S.2d 783, 172 Misc.
165.
34 C.J. p 695 note 64.
54. N.Y.— Arizona Fire Ins. Co. v.
King, supra.
55. Pa. — Gregory v. Commonwealth,
1033
demand for the debt.52 The acknowledgment or ad-
mission need not be accompanied by a promise to
pay ;53 nor need it specify the amount or character
of the judgment debt,54 and in some jurisdictions,55
although not in others,56 it is of no consequence that
it is accompanied by a refusal to pay. Evidence
tending to support the presumption of payment, or
to explain and contradict evidence given in rebut-
tal of such presumption, should be admitted.67
c. Weight and Sufficiency
The fact of payment or nonpayment of a Judgment
should be established by a fair preponderance of the
evidence, but, where there is a presumption of payment
from lapse of time, evidence in rebuttal thereof should
be particularly strong and convincing.
Ordinarily a fair preponderance of the evidence
is sufficient to establish or disprove, as the case may
be, payment of a judgment.58 The mere fact that
15 A. 452, 121 Pa, 611, 6 Am.S.R.
804.
50. S.C. — Stover v. Duren, 34 S.C.L.
448, 51 Am.D. 634 — McQueen v.
Fletcher, 34 S.C.Eq. 152. .
57. N.Y. — Jacoby v. Stephenson Sil-
ver Min. Co., 6 N.Y.S. 371, 3 Silv.
Sup. 130.
Pa. — Van Loon v. Smith, 103 Pa. 238.
58. La. — Bauman-George Piano Co.
v. Matthews, 4 La.App. 334.
Pa. — Coleman & Stahl v. Weimer, 86
Pa. Super. 303— Krzykwa v. Krzyk-
wa, Com.Pl., 15 Northumb.L.J. 230.
34 C.J. p 696 note 68.
i TM <»t ftntiftl or presumptive evi-
dence
The extinguishment of a judgment
by payment may be established by
presumptive or circumstantial evi-
dence as well as by positive proof. —
State ex rel. Leary v. Hughes, La.
App., 1'85 So. -69.
Evidence of payment held snfflcieut
(1) Generally.
Ala. — Gambill v. Cassimus, 22 So.2d
909, 247 Ala. 176.
Ark. — Less v. Grlsmore-Hyman Co.,
2-51 S.W. 673, 158 Ark. 1.
Cal. — Cantrall- v. Waterman, 232 P.
997, 70 CaLApp. 184.
Ky.— 'First Nat. Bank of Jackson v.
Reynolds, 143 S.W.2d 721, 2-83 Ky.
837.
Pa. — Coleman & Stahl v. Weimer, 86
Pa. Super. 303.
34 C.J. p 696 note 68 [a], [d].
(2) To establish a prima facie
case. — State ex rel. Leary v. Hughes,
•La.App., 185 So. 69.
(3) To show that part payment
was not voluntary. — Sanchez v.
Spitzka, 48 N.Y.S.2d 184, 183 Misc.
413 — Arizona -Eire Ins. Co. v. King,
14 N.Y.S.2d 783, 172 Misc. 165.
Evidence of payment held insufficient
(1) Generally. — Exchange Elevator
§ 559
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
a judgment is of record and appears unsatisfied is
not conclusive evidence that it is unpaid.59
To rebut presumption of payment. In the absence
of a statute to the contrary,60 the presumption of
payment of a judgment from the lapse of time, un-
der statute or apart therefrom, is not conclusive,61
but may be rebutted by any competent and satisfac-
tory evidence, as discussed supra subdivision b (2)
of this section. However, the evidence to rebut
the presumption must be strong and convincing,62
particularly after the death of the debtor ;63 and the
party alleging nonpayment must bring forward evi-
dence sufficient to produce a reasonable conviction
that the judgment has not been paid,64 or establish
facts from which nonpayment may be clearly in-
ferred,65 although, if such evidence is introduced,
it is sufficient to rebut the presumption, even though
it would be of no avail against the general statute
of limitations.66 A mere showing of poverty or
failure in business on the part of the judgment debt-
or will not alone rebut the presumption of satisfac-
tion,67 but proof of his insolvency or entire inabil-
ity to pay during the whole period is sufficient evi-
dence in rebuttal.68 At common law, the absence of
a judgment debtor from the state in which the
judgment was rendered is a circumstance to be
weighed with other evidence in determining wheth-
er or not the presumption of payment from lapse
of time is rebutted,69 although it is not of itself suf-
ficient to repel the presumption,70 but such absence
will not rebut the presumption where it is not in-
cluded in the exceptions to a statute raising a con-
clusive presumption of payment after the lapse of
a prescribed period.71
§ 560. Payment as Question of Law or Fact
Where there is conflicting evidence on the question
of payment of a judgment, the; issue Is. one of fact to
be submitted to a jury; but, where sufficient time has
elapsed to raise a presumption of payment, the court
must determine whether matters relied on to rebut the
presumption are of sufficient force to accomplish that
purpose if established.
Where there is conflicting evidence on the ques-
tion of payment of a judgment, the issue is one of
fact to be submitted to a jury.72 However, where
Co. v. Marshall, Neb., 22 N.W.2d 403
—34 C.J. p 696 note 68 [b], [e], [fj.
(2) To show full satisfaction of
judgment debt.
Mass. — Matthewson v. Colpitts, 188
N.E. 601, 284 Mass. 581.
pa. — Olyphant Bank v. Borys, 3$ A.
2d 823, 155 Pa.Super. 49.
59. Ind. — Kiefer Drug Co. v. De
Lay, 115 N.E. 71, 63 Ind.App. 639.
60. Mo.— Mayes v. Mayes, 116 S.W.
2d 1, 342 Mo. 401— Hedges v. Mc-
Kittrick, App., 153 S.W.2d 790.
N.T. — Gerwitz v. Berry, 180 N.B.
251, 258 N.T. 505— In re Elm St In
City of New York, 146 N.E. 342,
239 N.T. 220— In re Murray's Es-
tate, 288 N.T.S. -346, 248 App.Div.
167, reversed on other grounds 5
N.E.2d 717, 272 N.T. 228— In re
Matter of Hoes, 170 N.T.S. 543, 183
App.Div. 38 — Sanchez v. Spitzka, 48
N.T.S.2d 184, 183 Misc. 413— Ap-
plication of Long Island R. Co., 22,
N.T.S.2d 706, 174 Misc. 1037, af-
firmed 25 N.T.S.2d 1005, 261 App.
Div. 914, reargument denied 27 N.
T.S.2d 441, 261 App.Div. 987— Mor-
an Towing & Transportation Co. v.
Fleming, 25 N.T.S.2d 41, affirmed
2-7 N.T.S.2d 431, 261 App.Div. 978,
affirmed 38 N.E.2d 231, 287 N.T.
571.
34 C.J. p 696 note 69.
In Alatema
Lapse of ten years without issu-
ance of execution on judgment raises
rebuttable presumption of payment,
but this presumption becomes con-
clusive after twenty years. — Gambill
v. Cassimus, 22 So.2d 909, 247 Ala.
176— Hays v. McCarty, 195 So. 241,
239 Ala. 400 — Patterson v. Weaver,
114 So. 301, 216 Ala. 686.
61. Ind. — Pensinger v. Jarecki Mfg.
Co., 136 N.E. 641, 78 Ind.App. 569.
Pa. — in re Lefever's Estate, 122 A.
273, 278 Pa. 196.
34 C.J. p 696 note 69 [a], [b].
62. Ala.— Corpus Juris cited in
Gambill v. Cassimus. 22 So. 909,
910, 247 Ala, 176.
Pa, — Gregory v. Commonwealth, 15
A. 452, 121 Pa, 611, 6 Am.S.R. 504
—First Nat Bank v. Bank of Pitts-
burgh, 99 Pa.Super. 600— Coleman
& Stahl v. Weimer, 86 Pa. Super.
303.
Requisites and sufficiency of proof
(1) Presumption of payment is
equivalent to direct proof of pay-
ment and prima facie obliterates the
debt, and is so strong that it will
prevail unless overcome by clear and
decisive proof to the contrary. —
Gambill v. Cassimus, 22 So.2d 909,
247 Ala, 176.
(2) Presumption of payment is
alona sufficient to defeat recovery if
no promise to pay or no payment on
account has been made within twen-
ty years.— Ott v. Ott, 166 A. 556, 311
Pa, 130.
(') Presumption may be overcome
by affirmative proof that judgment
has not been. paid. — In re Lefever's
Estate, 122 A. 273, 278 Pa, 196-^First
Nat. Bank v. Bank of Pittsburgh, 99
Pa,Super. 600—34 Q.J. p 696 note 71
[a] (3).
(4) Other statements of rule. —
Pennsylvania Co. for Insurances on
Lives and Granting Annuities v.
1034
Toungman, 171 A. 594, 314 Pa. 277—
34 C.J. p 696 note 71 [a].
S3. Pa.— First Nat. Bank v. Bank of
Pittsburgh, 99 Pa,Super. 600.
64. Ala,— Gambill v. Cassimus, 22
So.2d 909, 247 Ala. 176.
Evidence held insufficient to over-
come presumption
Ala. — Gambill v. Cassimus, supra.
Pa. — In re Lefever's Estate, 122 A.
273, 27-8 Pa. 196.
34 C.J. p 696 note 71 [b]-[d].
65. Ala.— Gambill v. Cassimus, 22
So.2d 909, 247 Ala. 176.
66. Pa. — Gregory v. Commonwealth,
15 A. 452; 121 Pa, 611, 6 Am.S.R.
S04.
34 C.J. p 696 note 72.
67. Me. — Jackson v. Nason, 38 Me.
85.
34 C.J. p 696 note 73.
68. Or. — Beekman y. Hamlin, 31 P.
707, 23 Or. 313.
34 C.J. p 696 note 74.
69. Mo. — Cobb v. Houston, 94 S.W.
299, 117 Mo.App. 645.
70. Mo. — Cobb v. Houston, supra,
71. Mo. — Cobb v. Houston, supra.
N.T.— Brinkman v. Cram, 161 N.T.S.
965, 175 App.Div. 372, affirmed 122
N.E. 877, 225 N.T. 720.
72. Pa. — Pennsylvania Co. for Insur-
ances on Lives and Granting An-
nuities v. Toungman, 171 A. 594,
314 Pa, 277— Ott v. Ott, 166 A. 5'56,
311 Pa. 130.
34 C.J. p 696 note 78.
Payment as question of law or fact
generally see the C.J.S. title Pay-
ment § 125, also 48 C.J. p 729 note
8S-p 732 note 39.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 561
sufficient time has elapsed to raise a presumption of
payment, as discussed supra § 559 a (1) (b), and
there is no proof of circumstances accounting for
the delay, the question is not an open one for the
jury,78 it being a preliminary question of law for
the court to determine whether matters relied on to
rebut the presumption are of sufficient force to ac-
complish that purpose if established.74
§ 561. Merger of Judgments
a. In general
b. Cumulative judgments
a. In General
Under some circumstances, a judgment may be dis-
charged or extinguished by merger of title with the
property against which it constitutes a lien, but the in-
terest of the creditor to keep the Hen alive may pre-
vent such merger.
Where a judgment debtor buys in the title ac-
quired on an execution sale under the judgment, the
judgment is discharged,75 and a junior judgment
will succeed to its priority of lien.76 Similarly,
where the judgment creditor acquires title to prop-
erty against which the judgment constitutes a lien,
the judgment ordinarily is regarded as merged in
the title, at least with respect to such property,77
although since a judgment is a general lien on all
the debtor's real estate, as discussed supra § 455,
it does not merge when the creditor acquires title
to a particular portion of the lands subject to the
judgment, but may ordinarily be enforced against
the remaining lands.78 The rule as to merger does
not apply, however, where it is to the interest of the
creditor to keep the lien alive, and in such case his
intention to prevent a merger may be presumed.™
There is ordinarily no merger of a judgment when
additional security for the same debt is given, such
as a mortgage,80 or bill of sale,81 or where a bond
for payment is given on an execution sale.82 How-
ever, where the creditor takes an assignment of
property in trust to pay his own debt and those of
certain other creditors and enters on the execution
of the trust and pays a portion of the debts,88 or
where he accepts a deed of property, not as security,
but as a conveyance,84 he cannot afterward proceed
to enforce the judgment.
b. Cumulative Judgments
There is a conflict of opinion whether or not a Judg-
ment used as a cause of action for the recovery of an-
other judgment is merged in the subsequent judgment.
When a judgment is used as a cause of action for
the recovery of another judgment, the question
whether or not the first judgment is merged in the
subsequent judgment is one on which it has been
acknowledged that there is much conflict of opin-
ion.85 Some decisions hold that ordinarily merger
is effected,86 but, under some decisions on the
73. Iowa. — Hendricks v. Wall is, 7
Iowa 224.
Pa. — Cope v. Humphreys, 14 Serg. &
R. 15.
74. Pa.— In re tLefever's Estate, 122
A. 273, 278 Pa. 196— Krzykwa v.
Krzykwa, Com.Pl.? 15 Nor thumb. L.
J. 230.
34 O.J. p 697 note 81.
Where the question of credibility
is not in issue, whether plaintiff's
evidence is sufficient to overcome the
presumption that a twenty-year-old
judgment has been paid is for the
court. — In re Lefever's Estate, 122
A. 273, 278 Pa. 196.
75. Cal. — MeCarty v. Christie, 13
Cal. 79.
'Effect of execution sale on liens gen-
erally see supra § 502.
70. Cal. — MeCarty v. Christie, su-
pra.
TV. S.C.— Gardner v. Coker, 192 S.E.
151, 184 S.C. 190.
34 C.J. p 697 note 86.
Merger of estates generally see Es-
tates § 123.
78. Ind.— Caley v. Morgan, 16 N.E.
790, 114 Ind. 350.
34 C.J. p 69'7 note 85.
Extinguishment of liens generally
see supra § 499.
79. Ind. — Hancock v. Fleming, 3 N.
E. 254, 103 Ind. 533.
34 C.J. p 697 note 87.
Title held in different capacities
Where a partnership buys a judg-
ment against certain real estate,
which thereafter is conveyed to the
partners as tenants in common, the
judgment is not merged in the title
so as to release a subsequent in-
dorser on the note, which formc-a
the basis of the judgment, from lia-
bility on a judgment against himself,
without some evidence that such a
merger was intended. — Lazaran v.
Semans, 79 Pa. Super. 356.
80. Md. — Johnson v. Hines, 61 Md.
122.
Minn. — Presley v. Lowry, 2 N.W.
61, 26 Minn. 158.
34 C.J. p 697 note 88.
Acceptance of collateral security as
payment see supra § 552.
81. Ga. — Bostwick v. Felder, App.,
35 S.E.2d 783.'
82. Ky. — Green v. Farmers State
Bank, 121 S,W.2d 685, 275 Ky. 270.
83. N.Y. — Hawley v. Mancius, 7
Johns. Ch. 174.
84. N.Y.-^Matter of 'Fourth Avenue,
11 Abb.Pr. 189.
Pa.— -Fidelity Deposit Bank of Der-
ry v. Stewart, 48 Pa.Dist & Co.
618, 25 WestCo. 143.
85. 111.— Corpus Juris quoted in Mc-
Donald v. Culhane, 24 N.B.2d 737,
73S, 303 IlLApp. 101.
Ind.— Gilchrist v. Cotton, 14«8 N.R
435, S3 Ind.App. 415, rehearing de-
nied 148 N.E. 92*8, 83 Ind.App. 415.
Utah.— Adams v. Davies, 156 P.2d
207, 10'7 Utah 579.
34 C.J. p 697 note 93.
Merger by affirmance of judgment
see Appeal and Error § 1857.
86. 111. — Corpus Juris gooted in Mc-
Donald v. Culhane, 24 N,E.2d 737,
738, 303 IlLApp. 101.
Tex. — Myers v. Southard, Civ. App.,
110 S.W.2d 1185.
34 C.J. p 697 note 94.
Merger of causes of action generally
see infra § 599.
Effect of merger
Under the doctrine of "merger of
judgment," in a second judgment, the
cause of action changes Its nature
when reduced to judgment, ceases to
exist as an independent liability, and
is transferred into obligations cre-
ated by the judgment thereon; the
lesser security is absorbed by the
greater security and the lesser -ceas-
es to exist, but the greater is not in-
103$
§ 561
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
question the foregoing rule is not inflexible,87
and its application depends on the intention of
the parties and the circumstances of the particular
case.88 So it has been held that the rule of merger
will be applied only where the ends of justice re-
quire its application,^ and where an inferior secur-
ity or indebtedness passes into one of superior de-
gree,90 and, even if the judgments are considered
as merged, the doctrine will not be allowed to im-
pair the security of judgments as liens.91
Other decisions hold that the doctrine of merger
does not apply to a judgment on which a new judg-
ment is recovered, and that the first judgment is not
extinguished without satisfaction of the second,92
especially where the judgments are recovered in
different states,93 or where the second judgment is
auxiliary or collateral to the first.94
Whichever may be the correct rule, as applied by
courts of law, judgments will,95 or will not96 be
treated by a court of equity as merged where this is
necessary to protect the rights of the litigants.
Judgment against administrator. The lien of a
judgment is not released or divested by the recovery
of a judgment against the administrator of the de-
ceased judgment debtor.97 Where plaintiff recovers
a personal judgment against an administrator, and
then recovers on such judgment a judgment on his
bond, the judgments are not merged.98
Forfeiture of forthcoming or delivery bond. In
several states, where by statute the forfeiture of a
forthcoming bond, or bond for the delivery of prop-
erty under levy, creates per se a new judgment on
creased. — Adams v. Davles, 156 P.2d
207, 107 Utah 579.
Cause of action as basis for judg-
ment
The rule that one Judgment may
merge in another is applicable, if at
all, to cases in which one judgmen
is used as a cause of action on which
another Judgment is obtained.
111.— Doerr r. Schmitt, 31 N.B.2d 971
375 III. 470.
Utah. — Adams v. Davies, 156 P.2d
207, 107 Utah 579.
Judgment by confession on note
was merged in deficiency judgment
subsequently obtained against mak-
er in proceeding to foreclose mort-
gage securing notes given as collat-
eral for the original note. — McDonald
v. Culhane, 24 N.K2d 737, 303 IlLApp.
101.
Garnishment Judgment
Judgment that plaintiff was al-
lowed a stipulated sum in full pay-
ment of any claims against associa-
tion in receivership extinguished a
garnishment Judgment and any lien
incident thereto which plaintiff had
theretofore obtained, since Judgment
previously obtained in main suit
against insurance association was
merged in judgment of Instant suit
and the garnishment Judgment was
extinguished by payment of the main
Judgment. — Myers v. Southard, Tex.
Civ.App., 110 S.W.2d 1185.
87. Utah.— Adams v. Davies, 156 P.
2d 207, 107 Utah 579.
34 C.J. p 697 note 95.
Judgment as creating new debt or
old debt in new form see infra §
600.
Necessity of more than, one Judg-
ment
Generally, one Judgment is suffi-
cient, but courts will not go beyond
reason of -rule to hold that Judg-
ment is merged in subsequent Judg-
ment obtained thereon, if more than
one is necessary. Wolford v.* Scar-
brough, 21 S.W.2d 777, 224 Mo.App
137.
88. Utah.— Adams v. Davies, 156 P.
2d 207, 107 Utah 579.
89. Ind.— Gilchrist v. Cotton, 148 N.
E. 435, 83 Ind.App. 415, rehearing
denied 148 N.E. 928, 83 Ind.App.
415.
Utah. — Adams v. Davies, 156 P.2d
207, 107 Utah 579.
90. Ind. — Gilchrist v. Cotton, 148 N.
E. 435, 83 Ind.App. ,415. rehearing
denied 148 N.EL 928. 83 Ind.App.
415.
Utah.— Adams v. Davies. 156 P.2d
207, 107 Utah 579.
91. Utah. — Adams v. Davies, supra.
92. N.C.— Springs v. Pharr, 42 S.E.
590. 131 N.C. 191, 92 Am.S.R. 775.
34 C.J. p 697 note 96—15 C.J. p 1395
note 52.
93. Cal. — Ballentlne v. Superior
Court in and for San Mateo Coun-
ty, 158 P.2d 14, 26 Cal.2d 254.
Mass. — Moore v. Justices of Munici-
pal Court of City of Boston, 197
N.E. 487, 291 Mass. 504.
Mo. — Wolford v. Scarbrough, 21 S.W.
2d 777, 224 Mo.App. 137.
34 C.J. p 697 note 97—15 C.J. p 1395
note 53.
Satisfaction of one of several judg-
ments on same cause of action see
infra § 575.
94. Mo.— Wolford v. Scarbrough, 21
S.W.2d 777, 224 Mo.App. 137.
34 C.J. p 698 note 98.
Probate court Judgment allowing
Judgment as claim against estate
was in aid of former judgment and
did not destroy its vitality.— Wol-
ford v. Scarbrough, supra.
96. 111. — McDonald v. Culhane, 24 N.
B.2d 737, 303 IlLApp. 101.
Estoppel
One holding Judgment by confes-
sion on note, who subsequently fore-
closed mortgage securing collateral
1036
notes given to secure the original
note, obtained deficiency judgment
against maker, and obtained issuance
of execution on such deficiency judg-
ment, was estopped from insisting
that the judgment by confession was
not merged in the subsequent defi-
ciency Judgment. — McDonald v. Cul-
hane, supra.
Where declaratory Judgment, estab-
lishing husband's obligation and ef-
fecting property settlement was
adopted by subsequently entered di-
vorce decree as part of the decree,
the declaratory Judgment became
merged in divorce decree, and did not
continue as a separate judgment
which would support supplementary
proceedings for an accounting and
enforcement of declaratory Judgment.
—Turner v. Ewald, 174 S.W.2d 431,
295 Ky. 764.
96. 111. — Corpus Juris quoted in Mc-
Donald v. Culhane, 24 N".E.2d 737,
738, 303 IlLApp. 101.
Utah.— Adams v. Davies, 156 P.2d
207, 107 Utah 579.
W.Va.— Batten v. Lowther, 81 S.B.
821, 74 W.Va. 167.
34 C.J. p 698 note 99.
Purpose of second suit
Prior judgment is not merged in
subsequent decree based on judg-
ment in suit brought for purpose of
collecting judgment. — Wolford v.
Scarbrough. 21 S.W.2d 777, 224 Mo.
App. 137—34 C.J. p 697 note 95 [b].
97. Oal.— In re Wiley, 71 P. 441, 138
Cal. 301.
Mo. — Wolford v. Scarbrough, 21 S.W.
2d 777, 224 Mo.App. 137.
Operation and effect of judgment
against administrator or executor
generally see Bxecutors and Ad-
ministrators 8 800.
98. N.T. — Townsend v. Whitney, 75
N.Y. 425.
N.C.— McLean v. McLean, 90 N.C.
530.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 563
the bond, it has been held that the original judgment
is merged in such statutory judgment and thereby
satisfied," unless such bond is unauthorized.1
However, in jurisdictions where the forfeiture of
such a bond gives a right to take or enter a new
judgment, but does not of itself amount to a judg-
ment, there is no merger of the original judgment
on the mere forfeiture of the bond, but only on the
entry of the new judgment.2
§ 562. Assignment as Extinguishment
As a general rule, a judgment Is extinguished by
its assignment to the Judgment debtor, or to a stranger
for his benefit.
As a general rule, a judgment is satisfied by its
assignment to the judgment debtor,3 or to a stranger
for his benefit,4 unless the debtor waives his right
to have it canceled,5 or manifests an intention that
the lien of the judgment shall continue for the ben-
efit of another.6 However, the judgment is not sat-
isfied by an assignment to a person who, although
liable for the debt evidenced by the judgment, is not
a party to the judgment,7 or who occupies the posi-
tion of a surety only,8 or who is an officer of a cor-
poration which is the judgment debtor.9 An unper-
formed agreement to assign a judgment is not a sat-
isfaction thereof.10
§ 563. Release or Discharge
a. In general
b. Necessity and sufficiency of considera-
tion
a. In General
A Judgment creditor may ordinarily abandon or re-
nounce his Judgment, or reiease and discharge it; but
he cannot, by so doing, affect the interest of other judg-
ment creditors without their consent.
A judgment creditor ordinarily may abandon or
renounce his judgment,11 or release and discharge
it.12 The release may be made by the equitable
owner of the judgment,13 or by one of several joint
owners, as far as affects his interest;14 but in the
latter case the release does not affect the share or
interest of other parties in whose name judgment
was recovered,15 unless they have expressly author-
ized it.16
The release of a judgment may be avoided for
fraud or deceit practiced in obtaining it.17
99. U.S. — Brown v. Clarke, Miss., 4
How. 4, 11 L.Ed. 850. •
34 C.J. p 608 note 4.
Effect of forfeiture of forthcoming
or delivery bond generally see Ex-
ecutions § 116 b.
1. Ky.— Tanner v. Grant, 10 Bush
362.
Miss. — Ben ton v. Crowder, 15 Miss.
185.
2. Va.— -Rhea v. Preston, 75 Va. 757.
34 C.J. p 698 note 6.
3. N.Y, — Harvey v. Harvey, 48 N.T.
S.2d 238, 183 Misc. 475.
Pa.— Fidelity Deposit Bank of Derry
v. Stewart, 48 PaJDist. & Co. 618,
25 West.Co. 143.
Tex.— Huffffins v. Johnston, Civ.App.,
3 S.W.2d 937, affirmed 35 S.W.2d
688, 120 Tex. 21 — Hadad v. Ellison,
Civ.App., 283 S.W. 193.
34 C.J. p 698 note 8.
Assignment of judgments:
Generally see supra §§ 512-530.
To persons paying judgments see
supra §§ 555-558.
4. S.C.— Owings v. Graham, 113 S,E.
279, 120 S.C. 408.
34 C.J. p 698 note 9.
Assignment as security
Where a tenant in common of
land executed a note to bank and
tenant at the same time agreed with
bank that he would use a portion of
the proceeds of the note to procure
an assignment to the bank of a judg-
ment which was a lien on the land
as collateral security for the note,
assignment when so procured operat-
ed to satisfy the judgment and no
execution could be issued thereon.
— Edmonds v. Wood, 22 S.E.2d 237,
222 N.C. 118.
B. Md.— McGraw v. Union Trust &
Deposit Co., 104 A, 286, 132 Md.
502.
6. Wash.— Lachner v. Myers, 208 P.
1095, 121 Wash. 172.
7. 111. — Thomas v. Home Mut. Bldg.
Loan Ass'n, 90 N.E. 1081, 243 111.
550.
34 C.J. p 698 note 11.
8. W.Va,— O'Keefe v. Eclipse Poca-
hontas Coal Co., 115 S.E. 579, 92
W.Va. 519.
34 C.J. p 698 note 12.
Effect of payment by surety gener-
ally see supra § 556.
9. 111.— O'Keefe v. Eclipse Pocahon-
tas Coal Co., supra.
34 C.J. p 698 note 13.
10. Colo. — Crotser v. Lament, 70 P.
695, 18 Colo.App. 167.
11. Ky.— Ramage v. Clements, 4
Bush 161.
34 C.J. p 699 note 16.
12. Cal. — In te McLellan's Estate,
94 P.2d 408, 35 Cal.App.2d 18.
Mo. — City of St. Louis v. S enter
Commission Co., 124 S.W.,1180, 343
Mo. 1075. 'feJ
34 C.J. p 699 note 17. *^
Authority of attorney to satisfy or
discharge judgment see Attorney
and Client $ 99.
Release of judgment lien see supra
§ 500.
1037
A Judgment on a sealed instrument
cannot be released except by a seal-
ed instrument. — Shriver v. Oarlin &
Fulton Co., 141 A. 434, 155 Md. 51,
58 A.L.R. 767.
Attorney's fees
Where judgment was entered in
favor of plaintiff's attorneys for at-
torney's fees as part of costs, al-
though not provided for in note sued
on, voluntary release by attorneys
satisfied judgment for fees.— Koontz
v. Clark Bros., *227 N.W. 584, 209
Iowa 62.
What law governs
A release of a judgment is govern-
ed by the law of the state where
it is executed and delivered, al-
though the judgment was rendered
in another state. — Beam v. Barnum,
21 Conn. 200.
13. 111. — Pease v. Sanderson, 59 N.E.
425, 188 111. 597.
34 C.J. p 699 note 22.
14. Ala. — Penn v. Edwards, 50 Ala.
63.
34 C.J. p 699 note 23.
15. Puerto Rico. — Rivera v. Sun Life
Assur. Co., 10 Puerto Rico Fed.
89.
16. Okl. — Gasper v. Mayer, 43 P.2d
467, 171 Okl. 457.
17. Ind. — Wray v. Chandler, 64 Ind.
146.
34 C.J. P 699 note 21.
legal or constructive fraud is
sufficient to avoid a release of a,
judgment, so that it 'is unnecessary
§ 563
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
Issuance of execution. If an execution is issued
for the full amount of the judgment, a levy errone-
ously made thereunder for a lesser sum does not
constitute a release of part of the judgment18
Absolute or conditional release. An instrument
cannot properly be construed to be an absolute re-
lease where its terms show that the judgment is to
be kept alive and in force for certain purposes.19
Where a judgment debtor obtains possession of a
discharge of the judgment, without complying with
the conditions on which it was to be delivered, and
the discharge is not filed with the clerk, or satisfac-
tion entered on the record, the judgment remains in
full forced
Release as condition to payment. A judgment
debtor, under a judgment in an action brought by
the holders of outstanding unrecorded instruments,
is entitled to have such releases from the spouse of
a holder,21 or from the holder of record title,22 as
shall be necessary to prevent payment for a second
time, before he is required to pay over the money
due under the judgment.
b. Necessity and Sufficiency of Consideration
Th? release of a judgment must be supported by
a consideration. The authorities are not uniform as to
whether or not a judgment may be discharged by part
payment.
The release of a judgment must be supported by j
a consideration,23 and, where there is a valid con-
sideration, the release is binding.24
In accordance with the general rule, and the ex-
ceptions thereto, as to the effect of partial payment
of a debt or demand which is liquidated or certain
and which is due, as discussed in Accord and Satis-
faction §§ 26-35, it has been held that, in the ab-
sence of a statute providing otherwise,25 a judg-
'ment is not discharged by a part payment under a
parol agreement that such payment shall be accept-
ed in full satisfaction,26 or by a part payment and
an ordinary written receipt "in full/'27 and that the
release of a judgment for less than the amount due
is without consideration as to the balance and should
be set aside pro tanto.28 . It has also been- held,
however, that a judgment is discharged on part pay-
ment under a lawful agreement that it shall be ac- •
cepted in full satisfaction,29 at least if the agree-
ment is evidenced by a sealed instrument acknowl-
edging satisfaction,30 or if the partial payment is
accompanied by an additional consideration, either
in the shape of a thing of value or of some act bur-
densome or inconvenient to the debtor and possibly
beneficial to the creditor.31 Where the debtor can-
not pay the judgment in full and the creditor is un-
able to enforce collection, the acceptance by the
creditor of a sum less than the amount due under
:he judgment in full settlement thereof has been
held to be binding on him.32 If the part payment
that actual or positive fraud be pres
ent. — Purcell v. Robertson, 8 S.E.2
$81, 122 W.Va. 2S7.
Fraud held not shown
Okl. — Davis v. Pennsylvania Co. for
Insurance on Lives & Granting An-
nuities, 103 P.2d 3SO, 1S7 Okl. 436
la Cal.— Hogan v. Paddon, 267 P,
392, 91 CaLApp. 606.
What constitutes discharge of Judg-
ment whereby execution thereon
is rendered nullity see Executions
§ 11 c (3).
19. Mo. — Hempstead v. Hempstead,
32 Mo. 134.
20. N.Y. — Crosby v. Wood, 6 N.Y.
369.
21. Utah. — Ludlow v. Colorado Ani-
mal By-Products Co., 137 P.2d 347,
104 Utah 221.
Belease as condition of payment gen-
erally
Pa.— Dotterer v. Nothstein, Com.Pl.,
20 Leh.L.J. 188.
22. Utah.— Ludlow v. Colorado Ani-
mal By-Products Co., 137 P.2d 347,
104 Utah 221.
23. Ind.— Plunkett v. Black, 19 N.B.
537, 117 IncL 14.
34 C.J. p 699 note 20.
Consideration for agreement to re-
lease see infra § 565.
Tne release of a claim that has
no legal value is not consideration
for the exoneration of a judgment. —
Huntingdon County v. Spyker, 118 A.
501, 274 Pa. 570.
24. U.S.— Eagle Oil Co. v. Sinclair
Prairie Oil Co., D.C.Okl., 24 F.
Supp. 612, affirmed, C.C.A., 105 F.
2d 710.
Iowa,— Warman v. Hat Creek Ranch
Co., 207 N.W. 532, 202 Iowa 198.
Tenn. — Going v. Going, 8 Tenn.App.
690.
An acknowledgment of indebted-
ness given by a third person to a
ludgment creditor in consideration of
the release of those liable under the
judgment binds the assignees of
such acknowledgment so that they
cannot recover on the judgment. —
Allen v. National Bank of Commerce
& Trust Co. of Providence, 19 A.2d
311, 66 R.I. 373.
85. N.C.— Boykin v. Buie, 13 S.E.
879, 109 N.C. 501, 503.
34 C.J. p 699 note 29.
26. Mass. — Smith v. Johnson, 112 N
E. 644, 224 Mass. 50.
:4 C.J. p. 6 99 note 30.
27. Colo. — Madeley v. White, 31 P.
181, 2 Colo.App. 408.
Me.— Bailey v. Day, 26 Me. 88. |
1038
2a Mo. — Kelley v. Kelley, App., 290
S.W. 624.
X.J. — Gillman v. Sorventino, 130 A.
442, 101 N.J.Law 447, affirmed 133
A. 919, 102 N.J.Law 715— Berry
Bros. v. Paul, 134 A. 119, 99 N.J.
Eq. 558.
Tex, — Oviett v. Warner, Com.App.,
288 S.W. 434.
Release by one of joint creditors
Such release given by one of
several joint " judgment creditors
does not constitute a release or sat-
isfaction of the Judgment except as
to the amount paid therefor. — Rice v.
Barkman, 249 Ill.App. 127.
>. Mo.— City of St. Louis v. Sen-
ter Commission Co., 124 S.W.2d
1180, 343 Mo. 1075.
f- Pa- — Hendrick v. Thomas, 106
Pa. 327.
34 C.J. p 700 note 32.
31. Iowa. — Stoutenberg v. Huisman.
61 N.W. 917, 93 Iowa 213.
34 C.J. p 700 note 33.
32. La.— Reinecke v. Pelham, App.,
199 So. 521.
Finality of judgment
Statutes providing that an agree-
ment to compromise, sell, or cancel
final judgment for less than the
amount thereof is void if the par-
ties are unaware that the judgment
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 564
is made by a third person,33 or if it is in pursuance
of a compromise of a dispute respecting the effect
of the judgment,34 such payment has been held to
discharge the judgment.
§ 564.
Joint Debtors
At common law a release given to one of several
joint Judgment debtors on his. paying his proportionate
share of the Judgment or on other consideration re-
leases the Judgment as to all.
At common law a release given to one of several
joint judgment debtors on his paying his proportion-
ate share of the judgment or on other considera-
tion,36 or under seal,36 releases the judgment as to
all, unless the other joint debtors consent to such
separate release.37 In some jurisdictions, however,
either by force of statute or the settled rulings of
the courts, it is competent for the creditor to hold
the other defendants liable on the judgment after
having released one.38
In the absence of a clear indication of a contrary
intention such a statute will not be held to be retro-
spective,39 and therefore does not apply to judg-
ments rendered before it became effective;40 but
such a statute has been held to apply to judgments
rendered subsequent to the statute on obligations in-
curred prior thereto.41 Under some statutes, a re-
lease or discharge in favor of one of several codebt-
ors in solido discharges the others, unless the credi-
tor expressly reserves his rights against the latter,
but, where the creditor does make such reservation,
he cannot recover from the remaining debtors more
than their proportionate share.42
It has been stated that the judgment creditor may
release the judgment as to one or all of the judg-
ment debtors, as he sees fit,43 and that the question
whether or not a release of a judgment given to one
of several joint debtors will release the judgment as
to the others depends on the intention of the par-
ties as shown in the release.44 Thus, where the in-
strument shows an intention to limit the release to
one or more of the joint judgment debtors and to
proceed for the balance against the others,45 as
where the instrument releases one debtor from all
liability or liens "so far as he is concerned/'46 or
where the creditor expressly reserves the right to
enforce the judgment as to the others,47 it has been
held that the judgment is not released as to the re-
maining judgment debtors; but according to some
authorities such a reservation is without effect48
In some jurisdictions,49 but not in other jurisdio
has become final do not invalidate
an agreement under which a judg-
ment creditor accepts a sum less
than the amount due under the judg-
ment in full settlement thereof,
where both parties know that the
Judgment is final. — Reinecke v. Pel-
ham, supra.
33. Pa.— Fowler v. Smith, 25 A. 744,
153 Pa. 639.
34 C.J. p 700 note 34.
34. Pa. — Hendrick v. Thomas, 106
Pa. 327.
34 C.J. p 700 note 35.
35. U.S.— Barnett v. Conklin, C.C.A.
Mo., 268 F. 177.
34 C.JT. p 700 note 36.
Where the Judgment is not a joint
judgment, the rule is inapplicable. —
Whaley v. Matthews, 287 N.W. 205,
136 Neb. 767.
36. Mass.— Brooks v. Neal, 112 N.B.
78, 223 Mass. 467.
37. Ga. — Powell v. Davis, 60 Ga. 70.
38. Wash. — Corpus Juris quoted in.
Johnson v. Stewart, 96 P.2d 473,
476, 1 Wash.2d 439.
34 C.J. p 701 note 44.
Agreement to release see infra § 565.
33. Colo. — Ducey v. Patterson, 86 P.
109, 37 Colo. 216, 119 Am.S.R. 284,
9 L.R.A.,N.S., 1066, 11 Ann.Cas.
393.
34 C.J. p 701 note 45.
40. Colo. — Ducey v. Patterson, su-
pra.
41. D.C.— Bunch v. U. S., 40 App.D.C. |
156.
42. Louisiana statute construed
N.T. — Moore v. Hanover Nat. Bank,
80 N.T.S. 448, 80 App.Div. 67.
34 C.J. p 700 note 39 [b].
43. Wash.— Robertson v. Wise, 279
P. 106, 152 Wash. 624.
44. Tex.— Pennington v. Bevering,
Civ.App., 9 S.W.2d 401, affirmed,
Com.App., 17 S.W.2d 772. '
A release of a defendant not a
Judgment debtor, expressly providing
that those defendants who are Judg-
ment debtors are not thereby re-
leased, does not discharge the lat-
ter from all liability, where the
amount paid by the former is less
than the amount of the judgment,
.since the intent of the parties must
be given effect. — Kirby v. Fitzgerald,
89 S.W.2d 408, 126 Tex. 411.
45. Tex.— Pennington v. Bevering,
Com.App., 17 S.W.2d 772— Pegues
v. Moss, Civ.App., 140 S.W.Sd 461,
' error dismissed.
Wash.— Johnson v. Stewart, 96 P.2d
473, 1 Wash.2d 439.
intent shown
A release as to particular defend-
ants, under a Joint and several judg-
ment, reciting that the judgment is
satisfied and should be discharged
as against the named defendants,
shows an intention to release only
such defendants, without relinquish-
ing the rights and lien as against
1039
the other defendants, which Inten-
tion should be given effect, so that
the release should not be extended
for the benefit of a third party. —
Johnson v. Stewart, supra.
46. Tex. — Pennington v. Bevering,
Com.App., 17 S.W.2d 772.
47. 111.— Van Meter v. Gurney, 251
IlLApp. 184. •
Tex. — Warner v. Northwestern Fire
& Marine Ins. Co., Civ.App., 281
S.W. 1113, reversed on other
grounds Oviett v. Warner, Com.
App., 288 S.W. 434.
34 C.J. p 700 note 39.
48. Colo. — Ducey v. Patterson, 86
P. 109, 37 Colo. 216, 109 Am.S.R.
284, 9 L.R.A.,N.S., 1066, 11 Ann.
Cas. 393.
34 C.J. p 700 note 40.
49. U.S.— Barnett v. Conklin, C.C.A.
Mo., 268 F. 177, certiorari denied
41 S.Ct. 375, 255 U.S. 570, 65 L.
Ed. 791.
Colo. — Ducey v. Patterson, 86 P.
109, 37 Colo. 216, 119 Am.S.R. 284,
9 L.R.A.,N.S., 1066, 11 Ann.Cas.
393.
Becelpt of sum less than amount of
Judgment
The satisfaction of a claim against
several joint tort-fesasors for a sum
less than the amount of the judg-
ment thereafter recovered against
all has been held not to discharge the
remaining tort-feasor under such
judgment— Gillespie v. Brewer,
, 10 So.2d 197.
565
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
tions,50 the rule expressed in the foregoing par-
agraph as to the effect of the release of one joint
judgment debtor as a release of all has been held
applicable where the judgment was rendered in an
action sounding in tort. The release of the other
joint judgment debtors also results where one of
the debtors is released by operation of law, as in
the case of a surety relieved from liability by an
unauthorized extension of time to his principal.51
§ 565. Agreement to Release or Satisfy
A judgment creditor may make a valid and bind-
ing agreement to release and satisfy the judgment on
terms other than receiving payment of its amount, pro-
vided there is consideration. If the contract is execu-
tory, the Judgment is not released until the contract is
performed.
Provided there is consideration,52 a judgment
creditor may make a valid and binding agreement,
either at the time the judgment is entered,53 or sub-
sequently, to release and satisfy it on other terms
than receiving payment of its amount, as where he
agrees to accept real or personal property, services,
the transfer of another debt, or an exchange of se-
curities.54 If the consideration is already vested,
the agreement itself operates in law as a satisfaction
of the judgments;55 but, if the contract is execu-
tory, there is no release of the judgment until it is
performed,56 and, while the creditor cannot rescind
it without good cause,57 the debtor is bound to per-
form its conditions punctually and fully, in default
of which the creditor is remitted to his original
rights under the judgment,58 unless punctual per-
formance is waived.59
It has further been held that, while an agreement,
whereby defendant promises to discontinue the de-
fense of a cause and plaintiff promises to accept a
designated amount in full satisfaction of any judg-
ment thereafter to be rendered, is supported by suf-
Tort-feasor's payment as reducing1
judgment against other
Joint tort-feasor is entitled to have
judgment rendered against him re-
duced by amount paid by cotort-
feasor for his own acquittance. —
Black v. Martin, 292 P. 577, 88 Mont.
256.
50. Ky.— Brown v. Little, 170 S.W.
168, 160 Ky. 765.
51. Ind. — Gipson v. Ogden, 100 Ind.
20.
Va.— Baird v. Rice, 1 Call. 18, 5* Va.
18, 1 Am.D. 197.
52. Okl. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Grant v. Reeves, 158 P.2d 479, 481,
195 Okl. 414— Corpus Juris cited in
Home Owners* Loan Corporation v.
Thornburgh, 106 P.2d 511, 512, 187
Okl. 699.
34 C.J. p 701 note 48.
Consideration for release or dis-
charge see supra § 563 b.
Release of judgment on partial pay-
ment see supra § 563 b.
An actual forbearance by a judg-
ment debtor to prosecute an unen-
forceable claim against the judg-
ment creditor is not consideration for
the latter's agreement to satisfy
the judgment.— Corcanges v. Chil-
dress, Tex.Civ.App., 280 S.W. 892.
Consideration held ifig^fflffiftnt
OkL — Home Owners' Loan Corpora-
tion v. Thornburgh, 106 P.2d 511,
187 Okl. 699.
Tex.— Corcanges v. Childress, Civ.
App., 280 S.W. 892.
34 C.J. p 701 note 48 [b],
53. N.C.— Haatfy v. Reynolds, 69 N.
C. 5.
Okl.— Corpus Juris quoted in Grant
,v. Reeves, 158 P.2d 479, 481, 195
Okl. 414.
54. Okl.— Corpus Juris Quoted in
Grant v. Reeves, 158 P.2d 479, 481,
195 Okl. 414.
34 C.J. p 701 note 50.
Acceptance of substitute for money
as payment see supra § 552.
federal agricultural conservation
payments received by a judgment
debtor do not constitute rent with-
in a contract whereby the judgment
debtor agrees with his judgment
creditor to convey to the latter cer-
tain realty and rents due him in con-
sideration of the creditor's undertak-
ing to release and satisfy the judg-
ment, so that the judgment creditor
is not entitled to such payments. —
Cooke v. Harrington, 287 N.W. 837,
227 Iowa 145.
55. Idaho. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Woods v. Locke, 289 P. 610, 612, 49
Idaho 486.
Okl. — Corpus Juris quoted in Grant
v. Reeves, 158 P.2d 479, 481, 195
Okl. 414.
34 C.J. p 701 note. 51.
56. Conn. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Kranke v. American Fabrics Co.,
151 A. 312, 314, 112 Conn. 58.
Idaho, — Corpus Juris quoted in
Woods v. Locke, 289 P. 610, 612, 49
Idaho 486.
OkL — Corpus Juris quoted in Grant
v. Reeves, 158 P.2d 479, 481, 195
Okl. 414.
34 C.J. p 701 note 52.
A judgment is an "obligation;"
within the meaning of a statute de-
fining an executory accord as an
agreement embodying- a promise to
accept at some future time a stip-
ulated performance in satisfaction of
any claim, cause of action, contract,
or obligation, etc., so that, where a
udgment creditor and a judgment
debtor enter into such . agreement to
satisfy the judgment and the debt-
or performs his part of the contract,
1040
the creditor is bound thereby and
cannot recover on the judgment. —
Kingman Hardware Co. v. Connors,
58 N.Y.S.2d 700, 186 Misc. 90.
Compelling- release
TKe court should compel the judg-
ment creditor to release or satisfy
the judgment, including attorney's
fees and costs, where the judgment
debtor has performed his part of
an agreement with such creditor for
the release and satisfaction of the
judgment. — Cooke v. Harrington, 287
N.W. 837, 227 Iowa 145.
57. Conn. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Kranke v. American Fabrics Co.,
151 A. 312, 314, 112 Conn. 58.
Okl. — Corpus Juris quoted in Grant
v. Reeves, 158 P.2d 479, 481, 195
Okl. 414.
34 C.J. p 701 note 53.
58. Conn. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Kranke v. American Fabrics Co.,
151 A. 312, 314, 112 Conn. 58.
Idaho. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Woods v. Locke, 289 P. 610, 612, 49
Idaho 486.
Okl.— Corpus Juris quoted in Grant
v. Reeves, 158 P.2d 479, 481, 195
Okl. 414.
34 C.J. p 701 note 54.
Payment in installments
(1) A judgment debtor's default
under an installment contract com-
promising the judgment restores the
Judgment to its original condition
as a present , obligation less the
amount paid. — Kranke v. American
Fabrics Co., 151 A. 312, 112 Conn. 58.
(2) Other holdings see 34 C.J. p
701 note 54 [a].
59. Mo. — Schwiete v. Guerre, 15 &
S.W. 402, 175 Mo.App. 687.
Okl.-H0orpus Jnris quoted in Grant
v. Reeves, 158 P.2d 479, 481, 195-
Okl. 414.
49 C.J.J3.
JUDGMENTS
566
ficient consideration, if the other elements of accord
and satisfaction are present,60 and is enforceable
when fully executed, even though it is made prior to
the rendition of judgment,61 such agreement, while
executory, cannot be enforced.62 The successors of
a judgment creditor need not secure the consent of
the judgment creditor's attorneys before consummat-
ing an agreement for the satisfaction of the judg-
ment, even though they know of the inclusion of the
attorney's fees in the judgment.63
Joint judgment debtors. A valid agreement be-
tween a judgment creditor and one of several joint
judgment debtors calling for the satisfaction of the
judgment as to all debtors is binding,64 and a debt-
or, not a party to the agreement, may rely thereon,
although such agreement is a contract under seal;65
but the minds of the parties must meet as to the re-
lease of all the debtors.66 However, an agreement
by one joint judgment debtor to satisfy a judgment,
if executory, does not release the remaining debtor
until it is fully performed.67
§ 566. Set-Off of Judgment against Judgment
a. In general
b. Power of court
c. Discretion of court
one judgment may be set off
a. In General
As a general rule,
against another.
As a general rule, one judgment may be set off
against another,68 since a party should not be per-
mitted to collect a judgment in his favor leaving
unpaid a judgment against him.69
b. Power of Court
Courts. have inherent power to order the set-off of
mutual judgments.
The courts have power to order the set-off of mu-
tual judgments.70 This power formerly belonged
exclusively to courts of equity,71 and, of course, still
continues in them;72 but it has long been recog-
nized as one which may be exercised equally by
courts of law, proceeding on equitable principles.73
Although in some jurisdictions a set-off of judg-
60. Ala. — Zorn v. Lowery, 181 So.
249, 236 Ala. 62.
61. Ala. — Zorn v. Lowery, supra.
62. Ala. — Zorn v. Lowery, supra.
63. Ind. — Berry v. State Bank of Ot-
terbein, 103 N.E. 922, 99 Ind.App.
655.
64. D.G. — Fowler v. Washington
Loan & Trust Co., 289 F. 622, 53
App.D.C. 224.
Release or discharge ' of joint judg-
ment debtors see supra § 564.
Agreement for settlement construed
An agreement between a judgment
creditor and one of several joint
judgment debtors, reciting a settle-
ment of the judgment, and contain-
ing an agreement by the creditor to
have satisfaction entered, shows that
the settlement satisfied the judgment
as a matter of fact against all de-
fendants, and not only as against the
defendant who was a party to the
settlement. — Fowler v. Washington
Loan & Trust Co., supra.
65. D.C. — Fowler y. Washington
Loan & 'Trust Co., supra.
66. Tex. — Mesa Production Co. v/
SafCel, 37 S.W.2d 191.
67. Okl.— Grant v. Reeves, 158 P.2d
479, 105 Okl. 414.
68. Neb.— Vanderlip v. Barnes, 163
N.W. 856, 101 Neb. 573.
N.T. — Neenan v, Woodside Astoria
Transp. Co., 184 N.B. 744, 261 N.
T. 159 — D'Aprile v. Turner-Looker
49O.J.S.-66
Co., 204 N.Y.S. 566, 209 App.Div.
223, reversed on other grounds
147 N.B. 15, 239 N.T. 427, 38 A.L.R.
1426.
Set-off of judgments in favor of or
against executor or administrator
see Executors and Administrators
§ 805.
The doctrine of equitable set-off
is recognized as between judgments.
— Montalto v. Teckley, 54 N.B.2d 421,
143 Ohio St. 181.
Offsetting judgments is one mode
of satisfaction. — Clancy v. Reid-Ward
Motor Co., 170 S.W.2d 161, 237 Mo.
App. 1000.
Fro tanto
Where in the same judgment the
parties are condemned to pay each
other money, the two judgments
should be made to offset pro tanto.
— Luderbach Plumbing Co. .v. Its
Creditors, 46 So. 359, 121 La. 371.
69. U.S. — Taylor v. Calmar S. S. Co.,
D.C. Pa., 35 F.Supp. 335.
70. Mich. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Franklin Co. v. Buhl Land Co., 250
N.W. 299, 300, 264 Mich. 531.
Mo. — Corpus Juris cited in Clancy v.
Reid-Ward Motor Co., 170 S.W.2d
161, 164, 237 *Mo. App. 1000.
Okl.— Johnson v. Noble, 65 P.2d 502,
179 Okl. 256, 121 A.L.R. 474—
State ex rel. Barnett v. Wood, 43 P.
2d 136, 171 Okl. 341.
Tex. — Citizens Industrial Bank of
Austin v. Oppenheim, Civ.App., 118
S.W.2d 820, error dismissed.
Wis. — Black v. Whitewater Commer-
cial & Savings Bank, 205 N.W. 404,
188 Wis. 24.
34 C.J. p 701 note 57.
1041
71. Ala. — Corpus Juris quoted in Ex
parte Cooper, 103 So. 474, 212 Ala.
501.
Mich. — Corpus Juris quoted in Frank-
lin Co. v. Buhl Land Co., 250 N.W.
299, 300, 264 Mich. 531.
34 C.J. p 702 note 58.
72. U.S.— Shinholt v. Angle, C.C.A.
Tex., 90 F.2d 297.
Ala.-7-Corpus Juris quoted in Bx
parte Cooper, 103 So. 474, 212 Ala,
501.
Mich. — Corpus Juris quoted in Frank-
lin Co. v. Buhl Land Co., 250 N.W.
299, 300, 264 Mich. 581.
Mo.— Helsteln v. Schmidt, 78 S.W.2d
132, 229 Mo.App. 275.
Ohio.— Montalto v. Yeckley, 54 N.B.
2d 421, 143 Ohio St. 181.
34 C.J. p 702 note 59. *
73. Ala. — Corpus Juris quoted in Ex
parte Cooper, 103 So. 474, 212 'Ala.
501.
Cal. — California Cotton Credit Cor-
poration v. Superior Court in and
for Madera County, 15 P.2d 110 S,
127 CaLApp. 472.
Mich.— Corpus Juris quoted in Frank-
lin Co. v. Buhl Land Co., 250 N.W.
299, 300, 264 Mich. 631.
N.J.— Kristeller v. First Nat. Bank,
197 A. 17, 119 NJT.Law 570.
Pa. — Pierce, to Use of Snipes, v.
Kaseman, 192 A. 105, 326 Pa, 280—
Keystone Nat Bank to Use of Bal-
mer v. Deamer, Com.PL, 32 Berks
Co.L.J. 124, affirmed Keystone Nat
Bank of Manheim, now to Use of
Balmer v. Deamer, 18 A.2d 540, 144
Pa, Super. 52.
34 C.J. p 702 note 60.
§ 566
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
ments is authorized by statute,74 the power to or-
der it does not fundamentally depend on statutes,
but is independent of them;75 it rests on the general
and inherent jurisdiction and control of courts over
their judgments, process, and suitors.76
The recognized remedy at law by motion is so
convenient, speedy, and inexpensive, that the courts
have shown no disposition to restrict unnecessarily
the exercise of this power.77 In difficult or com-
plicated cases, however, a court of law will not act,
but will remit the parties to equity,78 the jurisdic-
tion of a court of equity with relation to set-offs be-
ing more extensive than that of common-law
courts.™
Staying proceedings until recovery of judgment.
When the party claiming the benefit of a set-off can-
not avail himself of the right in the trial of the ac-
tion, the cause may be continued or execution stayed,
if justice so requires, until the claimant obtains
judgment, which may then be set off against the
other.**
c. Discretion of Court
In the absence of a statute providing otherwise, the
set-off of mutual Judgments Is not demandable as of
right, but rests In the discretion of the court.
Although it has been said that, while a court of
law allows the setting off of judgments ex gratia,81
a party applying to a court of equity is entitled to it
as a matter of right,82 or that in every proper case
a set-off should be granted as of right83 without re-
gard to any distinction between the powers of courts
of law and courts of equity,84 the rule generally fol-
lowed is that the set-off of judgment against judg-
ment, unless given by statute as a matter of right,85
is not demandable as of course, but rests in the dis-
cretion of the court,86 regardless of the procedure
adopted by the party seeking the relief.87
Such discretion is not an arbitrary one, but is
controlled by established principles of equity.88
74. Ga. — Odom v. Attaway, 162 S.E.
279, 173 Ga. 883.
^0. — Helstein v. Schmidt, 78 S.W.2d
132, 229 Mo.App. 275.
Tenn. — Mack v. Hugger Bros. Const.
Co., 10 Tenn.App. 402.
34 C.J. p 703 note 61.
75. Mich. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Franklin Co. v. Buhl Land Co., 250
N.W. 299, 300, 264 Mich. 531.
Mo.— Helstein v. Schmidt, 78 S.W.2d
132, 229 Mo.App. 275.
Tex. — Citizens Industrial Bank of
Austin v. Oppenheim, Civ.App., 118
S.W.2d 820, error ' dismissed.
\Vis. — Black v. Whitewater Commer-
cial Savings Bank, 205 N.W. 404,
188 Wis. 24.
34 C.J. p 703 note 62.
"The power of the court to order a
set-off 'of judgments does not rest
upon statutes; it rests upon the
common law." — Goldman v. Noxon
Chemical Products Co., 175 N.B. 67,
68, 274 Mass. 526.
Chancery court
Jurisdiction to set off judgments
against each other exists in chancery
court independent of statute and is
inherent in the court, but the power
exists to apply the statutes in proper
cases. — Montalto v. Yeckley, 54 N.E.
2d 421, 143 Ohio St 181, affirming 57
N.E.2d 144, 73 Ohio App. 480.
76. Mich. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Franklin Co. v. Buhl Land Co., 250
N.W. 299, 300, 264 Mich. 531.
Neb.— Boyer v. Clark, 3 Neb. 161,
modified on other grounds 10 N.W.
709, 12 Neb. 215, 41 Am.Il. 763.
N.J.— -Kristeller v. First Nat. Bank,
197 A. 17, 119 N.J.Law 570.
34 C.J. p 703 note 63.
77. Mich. — Corpus Juris quoted In
Franklin Co. v. Buhl Land Co., 250
N.W. 299, 300, 264 Mich, 531.
Minn. — Temple v. Scott, 3 Minn. 419.
Procedure to compel set-off see infra
§ 569.
7a W.Va.— Walker v. Gamble, 82 S.
E. 1014, 74 W.Va. 706.
34 C.J. p 704 note 66.
79. Cal.— Hobbs v. Duff, 23 Gal. 596.
34 C.J. p 704 note 67.
80. N.H.— Hovey v. Morrill, 61 N.H.
9, 60 Am.R. 315.
34 C.J. p 704 note 68.
81. Ala.— -Scott v. Rivers, 1 Stew. &
P. 24, 21 Am.D. 646.
N.Y. — Simson v. Hart, 14 Johns. 63.
82. Cal.— California Cotton Credit
Corporation v. Superior Court in
and for Madera County, 15 P.2d
1108, 127 CaLApp. 472.
34 C.J. p 704 note 70.
83. Cal. — Haskins v. Jordan, 55 P.
786, 123 Cal. 157.
84. Cal. — Haskins v. Jordan, supra.
85. Ala. — Ex parte Cooper, 103 So.
474, 212 Ala. 501.
80. Kan. — Heston v. Finley, 236 P.
841, 118 Kan. 717.
Mass. — Old Colony Trust Co. v. Na-
tional Non-Theatrical Motion Pic-
ture Bureau, 174 N.E. 723, 274
Mass. 377.
Mo.— Helstein v. Schmidt, 78 S.W.
2d 132, 229 Mo.App. 275.
Neb.— Boyer v.' Clark, 3 Neb. 161,
modified on other grounds 10 N.W.
709, 12 Neb. 215, 41 Am.R. 763.
N.J.— Needles v. Dougherty, 34 A.2d
396, 124 N.J.Bq. 108.
N.T. — Neenan v. Woodside Astoria
Transp. Co., 184 N.E. 744, 261 N.
Y. 159.
Ohio.— Montalto v. Yeckley, 54 N.E.2d
421, 143 Ohio St. 181.
OkL— Wldick v. Phillips Petroleum
Co., 70 P.2d 474, 180 OkL 432—
1042
Johnson v. Noble, 65 P.2d 502.
179 Okl. 256, 121 A.L.R. 474— State
ex rel. Barnett v. Wood, 43 P.2d
136, 171 OkL 341.
Pa.— Kisthardt, to Use of Puhak v.
Betts, 183 A. 923, 321 Pa. 270.
Wash. — Spokane Sec. Finance Co. v.
Bevan, 20 P.2d 31, 172 Wash. 418.
34 C.J. p 704 note 74.
Judicial policy
Judgments are set off as a matter
of judicial policy, and not as a mat-
ter of right. — Black v. Whitewater
Commercial & Savings Bank, 205 N.
W. 404, 188 Wis. 24.
No absolute right to set off judg-
ments exists, but is a matter of
grace, and whether set-off should be
decreed rests in sound discretion of
court to which application is made.
— Black v. Whitewater Commercial &
Savings Bank, supra.
"Relief in equity by setting off one
judgment against another is granted,
not of right, but in the exercise of
discretion." — Beecher v. Peter A.
Vogt Mfg. Co., 125 N.E, 831, 833, 227
N.Y. 468— National Chautauqua
County Bank of Jamestown v. Reyn-
olds, 299 N.Y.S. 263, 265, 164 Misc.
653, affirmed 4 N.Y.S.2d 176, 254 App.
Div. 646.
87. N.Y. — De Camp v. Thomson, 54
N.E. 11, 159 N.Y. 444, 70 Am.S.R.
570.
34 C.J. p 705 note 75.
Procedure to obtain set-off see in-
fra § 569.
88. N.J.— Kristeller v. First Nat.
Bank, 197 A. 17, 119 N.J.Law 570
— Needles v. Dougherty, 34 A.2d
396, 134 KJ.EQ. 108.
N.Y. — National Chautauqua County
Bank of Jamestown v. Reynolds,
299 N.Y.S. 263, 164 Misc. .653, af-
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 568
Therefore a set-off should be allowed only when,
in view of all the circumstances, equity and good
conscience require it to be made,89 substantial jus-
tice will be promoted thereby,90 and the rights and
interests of third persons will not be infringed91
Thus even when the set-off may legally be made, if
the court sees that injustice will be done by granting
the order of set-off, it will be refused,92 as where a
third person is the equitable owner of the judgment
which would be diminished thereby,93 or where it
would infringe on any other right of equal grade,94
or where it would prejudice the rights of a bona fide
assignee of the judgment95 or of the demand on
which one of the judgments was rendered.96 %
§ 567.
Persons Entitled to
To entitle a person to have one Judgment set off
against another, he must be the real and beneficial
owner of the judgment.
To entitle a person to have one judgment set off
against another, he must be the real and beneficial
owner of the judgment;97 it is not enough that it
stands in his name, if it is for the use of another.98
On the other hand, equitable owners of judgments
may set them off, although other parties appear as
the nominal plaintiffs or defendants.99
§ 568. Judgments Subject to
a. In general
b. Judgments of different courts
c. Judgments between different parties
d. Judgments for costs
e. Assigned judgments
firmed 4 N.Y.S.2d 176, 254 App.Div.
646.
Okl. — Widick v. Phillips Petroleum
Co., 70 P.2d 474, 180 Okl. 432—
Johnson v. Noble, 65 P.2d 502, 179
Okl. 256, 121 A.L.R. 474— State ex
rel. Barnett v. Wood, 43 P.2d 136,
171 Okl. 341.
ra.— Kisthardt, to Use of Puhak v.
Betts, 183 A. 923, 321 Pa, 270.
34 C.J. p 705 note 76.
Other statements
(1) Setting off of judgments is
governed by equitable considerations.
— Heston v. Finley, 236 P. 841, 118
Kan. 717.
(2) Power to order set-off of Judg-
ments must be exercised in accord-
ance with general principles of jus-
tice and equity. — Goldman v. Noxon
Chemical Products Co., 175 N.B. 67,
274 Mass. 526.
(3) Court's discretion must be ex-
ercised in accordance with sound
principles of equity jurisprudence.
— Montalto v. Yeckley, 54 N.B.2d
421, 143 Ohio St. 181.
(4) Matter of set-off of mutual
Judgments is question of equitable
remedy addressed to sound discre-
tion of trial court. — Citizens Indus-
trial Bank of Austin v. Oppenheim,
Tex.Civ.App., 118 S.W.2d 820, error
dismissed.
89. pa. — Pierce, to Use of Snipes, v.
Kaseman, 192 A. 105, 326 Pa. 280—
Dahl v. Auberle, 4 Pa.Super. 627,
40 Wkly.N.C. 386.
Tex. — Citizens Industrial Bank of
Austin v. Oppenheim, Civ.App., 118
S.W.2d 820, error dismissed.
34 C.J. p 705 note 77.
Effect of constitution, or statutes
A set-off should be allowed, when
justice requires it, unless the court
is compelled to refuse it in obedi-
ence to some provision of the consti-
tution or statutes. — Rookard v. At-
lanta & C. Air Line R. Co., 71 S.B.
992, 89 S.C. 371.
Equities existing1 at time of appli-
cation
Generally countervailing equities
to be considered should be equities
existing at time application for set-
off of judgment is made. — Black v.
Whitewater Commercial & Savings
Bank, 205 N.W. 404, 188 Wis. 24.
Intention to appeal
It has been held that it is no
cause for refusing a set-off that one
party intends to appeal from the
judgment against him. — Sowles v.
Witters, C.C.Vt., 40 P. 413.
90. N.J. — Needles v. Dougherty, 34
A.2d 396, 134 N.J.Eq. 198.
Okl.— Widick v. Phillips Petroleum
Co., 70 P.2d 474, 180 Okl. 432.
Pa.— State Mutual Benefit Society v.
Jackson, 13 Pa.Dist. & Co. 167,
20 DeLCo. 192, 78 Pittsb.Leg.J.
159.
S.C.— Rookard v. Atlanta & C. Air
Line R. Co., 71 S.B. 992, 89 S.C.
371.
34 C.J. p 705 note 78.
91. Kan.— -Heston v. Finley, 236 P.
841, US Kan. 717.
Tex, — Citizens Industrial Bank of
Austin v. Oppenheim, Civ.App., 118
S.W.2d 820,- error dismissed.
34 C.J. p 705 note 79.
92. N.J. — Needles v. Dougherty, 34
A.2d 396, 134 N.J.Bq. 108.
Okl.— Widick v, Phillips Petroleum
Co., 70 P.2d 474, 180 Okl. 432.
pa. — state Mutual Benefit Soc. v.
Jackson, 13 Papist. & Co. 167,
20 DeLCo, 192, 78 Pittsb.Leg.J.
159.
S.C.— Rookard v. Atlanta & C. Air
Line R. Co., 71 S.B. 992, 89 S.C.
371.
Tex. — Cocke v. Wright, Com.App., 39
S.W.2d 590.
TKfts, — Black v. Whitewater Commer-
cial & Savings Bank, 205 N.W. 404
188 Wis, 24.
34 C.J. p 706 note 80.
External facts
The right of set-off will be denied
where facts, external to the judg-
ments themselves, make a set-off in-
equitable.— Citizens Industrial Bank
of Austin v. Oppenheim, Tex.Civ.-
App., 118 S.W.2d 820, error dismissed
— Cocke v. Wright, Tex.Civ.App., 23
S.W.2d 449, affirmed, Com. App., 39
S.W.2d 590.
93. S.C.— Meador v. Rhyne, 45 S.C.
L. 631.
94. Okl.— Widick v. Phillips Petro-
leum Co., 70 P.2d 474, 180 Okl. 432.
Tex. — Citizens Industrial Bank of
Austin v. Oppenheim, Civ.App., 118
S.W.2d 820, error dismissed.
34 C.J. p 706 note 82.
Bffect of attorney's lien on right to
set-off see Attorney and Client §
232.
Judgment against township
Bank's judgment on counterclaim
on township's overdue improvement
note could not be set off against
judgment against bank for amount of
township's general deposit account.
•Township Committee of Piscata-
way Tp. v. First Nat. Bank, 168 A.
757, 111 N.J.Law 412, 90 A.L.R. 423.
95. Okl. — State ex rel. Barnett v.
Wood, 43 P.2d 136, 171 Okl. 341.
34 C.J. p 706 note 84.
96. Mass. — Makepeace v. Coates, 8
Mass. 451.
S.C.— Meador v. Rhyne, 45 S.C.L. 631.
97. Cal.— Harrison v. Adams, 128 P.
2d 9, 20 Cal.2d 646.
KT.j. — Needles v. Dougherty, 34 A.2d
396, 134 N.J.Bq. 108.
34 C.J. p 706 note 93.
98. S.C.— Meador v. Rhyne, 45 S.C.L.
631.
99. Cal. — Harrison v. Adams, 128 P.
2d 9, 20 Cal.2d 646.
Ga. — Corpus Juris cited in Sheffield
v. Preacher, 165 S.B. 742, 743, 175
Ga, 719, 84 A.L.R. 1159.
34 C.J. p 706 note 95.
1043
§ 568
a. In General
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
In order that a Judgment may be set off against
another judgment, it must be a valid, subsisting, and
enforceable Judgment, consisting of a final adjudication
for the payment of money.
In order that a judgment may be set off against
another judgment, it must be a valid,1 subsisting,2
and enforceable3 judgment, consisting of a final ad-
judication4 for the payment of money.5 If -the two
judgments meet these requirements, the nature of
the respective claims on which they were recov-
ered,6 the question whether such claims could have
been set off,7 and the manner in which the judg-
ments were recovered8 are immaterial, as is also,
except in certain cases,9 the fact that an execution
has been issued. on one or both of the judgments.10
Judgments in tort. Two judgments recovered in
actions of tort may be set off.11 Also there may
be a set-off of a judgment recovered in an action ex
contractu and one recovered in an action ex de-
licto.12 The set-off may be refused, however, if it
is equitable to do so,18 as where the party asking
the set-off is the tort-feasor and the tort, for which
judgment was recovered, is of a character which
implies an intent to injure,14 or where the exemp-
tion laws would be defeated.15
b. Judgments of Different Courts
As a general rule, where the party seeking the set-
off moves for it in the court where the Judgment r gainst
himself subsists, such court has power to order the
Judgment of another court set off against its own.
As a general rule, where the party seeking the
set-off moves for it in the court where the judg-
ment against himself subsists, such court has power
to order the judgment of another court set off
against its own,16 even though it was recovered in
1. Utah. — Cox v. Dixie Power Co.,
18 P.2d 916, 81 Utah 94.
34 C.J. p 706 note 96.
2. S.D.— Citizens' State Bank of Ar-
lington v. Security Inv. Co., 246 N.
TV. 652, 61 S.D. 159.
34 C.J. p 707 note 97.
3. Mich. — Franklin Co. v. Buhl Land
Co., 250 N.W. 299, 264 Mich. 531.
Wash. — Reichlin v. First Nat. Bank,
51 P.2d 380, 184 Wash. 304.
34 C.J. p 707 note 98.
Failure to issue execution
The fact that execution had not
been issued within one year on judg-
ments rendered against present de-
fendant as garnishee in former suit
did not prevent their allowance as
offsets. — Watts v. Gibson, Tex.Civ.
App., 33 S.W.2d 777.
4. s.D. — Lee v. Sioux Palls Motor
Co., 274 N.W. 614, 65 S.D. 401.
Wash.— Reichlin v. First Nat. Bank,
51 P.2d 380, 184 Wash.. 304— Spo-
kane Sec. Finance Co. v. Bevan,
20 P.2d 31, 172 Wash. 418.
34 C.J. p 707 note .99.
Time for appeal
A judgment on which execution
has been issued, without being stay-
ed, and from which no appeal has
been taken, although time therefor
has not yet expired, may be set off
against another Judgment. — Haskins
v. Jordan, 55 P, 786, 123 Cal. 157.
5. Mich.— Franklin Co. v. Buhl Land
Co., 250 N.W. 299, 264 Mich. 531.
Wash. — Reichlin v. First Nat. Bank,
51 P.2d 380, 184 Wash. 304.
34 C.J. p 707 note 1.
6. N.H.— Shapley v. Bellows, 4 N.H.
347.
34 C.J. p 707 note 2.
Set-off of alimony judgment see
Divorce § 251 c (2) (f).
7. Mich.— Franklin Co. v. Buhl Land
Co., 250 N.W. 299, 264 Mich. 531.
Wash.— Reichlin v. First Nat Bank,
51 P.2d 380, 184 Wash. 304.
34 C.J. p 707 note 3.
8. Ala. — Haskins v. Jordan, 55 P.
7£6, 123 Cal. 157.
34 C.J. p 707 note 4.
9. R.I. — Hopkins v. Drowne, 41 A.
1010, 21 R.I. 80.
34 C.J. p 707 note 5.
10. Wis. — Torton v. Milwaukee, L.
S. & W. R. Co., 21 N.W. 516, 23 N.
W. 401. 62 Wis. 367.
34 C.J. p 707 note 6.
11. N.T. — Neenan v. Woodside As-
toria Transp. Co., 184 N.E. 744,
261 N.T. 159 — Simson v. Hart, 14
Johns. 63.
12. U.S.— Turner v. Dickey, D.C.
Tenn., 3 F.Supp. 360, affirmed, C.C.
A., Dickey v. Turner, 64 F.2d 1012.
111.— State Bank of St Charles v.
Burr, 14 N.B.2d 611, 295 IlLApp.
15.
Mich.— Franklin Co. v. Buhl Land
Co., 250 N.W. 299, 264 Mich. 531.
Pa. — Pierce, to Use of Snipes, v.
Kaseman, 192 A. 105, 326 Pa. 280.
Wash.— Reichlin v. First Nat Bank,
51 P.2d 380, 184 Wash. 304— Spo-
kane Sec. Finance Co. v. Bevan, 20
P.2d 31, 172 Wash. 418.
Wis. — Black v. Whitewater Commer-
cial & Savings Bank, 205 N.W. 404,
188 Wis. 24.
34 C.J. p 708 note 9.
Judgments arising from same sub-
ject matter may be set off, even
though one is based on contract and
the other on tort. — Dalton State
Bank v. Bckert, 282 N.W. 490, 135
Neb. 500.
Particular judgments
(1) Liability on money judgment
for criminal conversation and alien-
ation of affections may be set off
against liability on judgment for
money due under notes. — Turner v.
1044
Dickey, D.C.Tenn., 3 F.Supp. 360,
affirmed, C.C.A., Dickey v. Turner, 64
F.2d 1012.
(2) Judgment for landlord for rent
may be set off against judgment of
tenant for conversion of fixtures by
landlord. — Franklin Co. v. Buhl Land
Co., 250 N.W. 299, 264 Mich. 531.
(3) Set-off of judgment in con-
tract against judgment in tort for
negligence not involving willful in-
jury is generally allowed. — Pierce, to
Use of Snipes, v. Kaseman, 192 A.
105, 326 Pa. 280.
13. U.S.— Reed v. Smith, C.C.N.J.,
158 F. 889, 891.
Wis. — Black v. Whitewater Commer-
cial & Savings Bank, 205 N.W. 404,
188 Wis. 24.
14. Pa. — Leitz v. Hohman, 56 A.
868, 207 Pa. 289, 99 Am.S.R. 791—
Ream v. Nickolls, Com.PL, 85
Pittsb.Leg.J. 813.
34 C.J. p 708 note 11.
15. Cal.— California Cotton Credit
Corporation v. Superior Court in
and for Madera County, 15 P.2d
1108, 127 CaLApp. 472.
Kan. — Treat v. Wilson, 70 P. 892,
65 Kan. 819.
Tex. — Dallas Joint Stock Land Bank
of Dallas v. Lancaster, Civ.App.,
122 S.W.2d 659, error dismissed.
34 C.J. p 708 note 12.
Judgment for seizure of exempt prop-
erty
Judgment based on ordinary debt
cannot be set off against judgment
obtained for value of exempt person-
al property wrongfully seized and
sold on execution or attachment,
since the latter judgment takes the
place of the exempt property. —
Whiteday v. Roberts, 43 P.2d 422,
171 Okl. 466.
16. .Ga. — Piedmont Sav. Co. v. Da-
vis, 190 S.B. 386, 55 Ga.App. 386.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 568
an inferior court17 or in another state,18 or even
though one judgment is in a state court and the
other in a federal court.19 In some jurisdictions
resort to equity is necessary to obtain a set-off of
judgments which have been recovered in different
courts.20
c. Judgments "between Different Parties
In order that one Judgment may properly be set
off against another, it is. necessary that there should be
mutuality of parties, unless there are circumstances
making it equitable to set off judgments in which the
parties are not the same.
In order that one judgment may properly be set
off against another, it is necessary that' there should
be mutuality of parties,21 unless there are peculiar
circumstances making it equitable to set off judg-
ments in which the parties are not the same,22 as
when the difference in parties is with respect to the
nominal parties, and not the real parties in inter-
est.23 If there are joint plaintiffs or defendants in
one of the judgments, it cannot ordinarily be set off
against a judgment in which only one of them is
concerned,24 without the consent of the persons who
arc parties to only one of the judgments,25 although
some of the authorities permit it where each of the
joint defendants is liable for the whole amount of
the judgment;26 and the set-off is proper where one
of them is liable only in the character of a surety,27
or is a nominal or formal party,28 or where the
owner of the judgment held singly is insolvent,29
or even where one of the owners of the joint judg-
ment is insolvent,30 provided there is an apportion-
ment of interest between him and the other own-
er.31
Judgments in individual and representative capac-
ities. A judgment against a person in his individual
capacity will not, as a general rule, be set off
against a judgment in his favor in his representa-
tive capacity;32 but a judgment in favor of the
applicant against a cestui que trust has been set off
against a judgment recovered by the trustee against
such applicant.33
d. Judgments for Costs
A judgment for costs may be set off against a Judg:
ment recovered by the adverse party.
A judgment for costs may be set off against a
judgment recovered by the adverse party,34 pro-
vided the costs are liquidated or taxed at the time,35
they belong to the party seeking the set-off,36 he
Pa. — Pierce, to Use of Snipes v.
Kaseman, 192 A. 105, 326 Pa. 280.
34 C.J. p 7u8 note 18.
Judgment transferred from another
county
Set-off being merely form of sat-
isfaction, judgment may be set oft
against judgment transferred from
another county, satisfaction of judg-
ments, as distinguished from ques-
tions of their validity, being within
control of court of county to which
judgment was transferred. — Pierce,
to Use of Snipes v. Kaseman, supra.
17. N.Y.— Kimball v. Hunger, 2 Hill
364.
34 C.J. p 708 note 19.
18. Minn.— Barnes v. Verry, 191 N.
W. 589, 154 Minn. 252.
34 C.J. p 708 note 20.
19. U.S.— Reed v. Smith, C.C.N.J.,
158 F. 889, 890.
34 C.J. p 709 note 21.
20. Ark. — Weast v. Wickersham,
195 S,W. 685, 136 Ark. 541.
34 C.J. p 709 notes 22, 23.
21. U.S. — U. S. ex rel. Johnson v.
Morley Const. Co., C.C.A.N.Y., 98
F.2d 781, certiorari denied Mary-
land Casualty Co. v. U. S. for Use
and Benefit of Harrington, 59 S.Ct
244, 305 U.S. 651, 83 L.Ed 421.
Ala.— Louisville & N. R. Co. v.
Echols, 105 So. 651, 213 Ala, 490.
Kan.— Heston v. Finley, 236 P. 841,
118 Kan. 717.
Neb.— Boyer v. Clark, 3 Neb. 161,
modified on - other grounds 10 N.
W. 709, 12 Neb. 215, 41 Am.R. 763.
N.H.— -Rowe v. Langley, 48 N.H. 391.
N.Y.— Hamilton v. Royal Indemnity
Co., 209 N.Y.S. 670, 124 Misc. 744—
Broadway Bookbindery v. Oulfree
Printing Corporation, 199 N.Y.S.
194.
Okl — Johnson v. Noble, 65 P.2d 502,
179 Okl. 256, 121 A.L..R. 474— Cor-
pus Juris cited in State ex rel.
Barnett v. Wood, 43 P.2d 136, 17
Okl. 341.
34 C.J. p 709 note 25.
22. Idaho. — Richards v. Jarvis, 2*58
P. 370, 44 Idaho 403.
34 C.J. p 709 note 26.
23. Me.— Collins v. Campbell, 53 A,
S37, 97 Me. 23, 94 Axn.S.R. 458.
34 C.J. p 709 note 27.
24. Mass. — Simmons v. Shaw, 52 N.
E. 1087, 172 Mass. 516.
34 C.J. p 709 note 28.
25. Cal.— Corwin v. Ward, 35 Cal.
195, 95 Am,D. 93.
Me. — Collins v. Campbell, 53 A. £37,
97 Me. 23, 94 AmS.R. 458.
26. S.D. — Sweeney v. Bailey, 64 N.
. W, 1&8, 7 S.D. 404.
34C.J; p ,709 note 30.
27. Mich.— Bennett v. Hanley, 51 N.
W. 88-5, 91 Mich. 143.
34 C.J. p 709 note 31.
28. Ohio.— Pike v. Sheve, 11 Ohio
Dec. (Reprint) 891, 30 Cinc.L.Bul.
305.
Tenn. — Rutherford v. Qrabb, 5 Yerg.
112..
1045
29. Minn.— Hunt v. Conrad, 50 N.W.
614, 47 Minn. 557, 14 L.R.A. '512.
N.Y.— Simson v. Hart, 14 Johns. 63.
30. Mo. — Fulkerson v. Davenport, 70
Mo. 541.
31. Mo. — Fulkerson v. Davenport,
supra.
32. Ga.— Daniel v. Bush, 4 S.E. 271,
80 Ga. 218.
34 C.J. p 709 note 36.
33. Cal.— Hobbs v. Duff, $3 Cal. 696.
34. Ark.— Sims v. Miller, 236 S.W.
828, 151 Ark. 577.
Colo. — Wallace Plumbing Co. v. Dil-
lon, 213 P. 130, 73 Colo. 10.
Mich.— Jones v. O'Donnell, 290 N.W.
375, 292 Mich. 189.
N.Y.— Prindle v. Rockland Transit
Corporation, 32 N.Y.S.2d 156, 263
Ap-p.Div. 873, appeal denied 94 N*
Y.S.2d 411, 263 Aj>p.Div. 1010—
Braum v. Finger, 113 N.Y.S. 573.
Utah. — Morgan v. 'Fourth Judicial
District Court of Wasatch County,
141 P.2d 886, 105 Utah 140.
3*4 C.J. p 710 note 39.
Set-off of costs generally see Costs
§§ 431-434.
35. Ind.— George v. Williams, 37 N.
E.2d 21, 109 Ind.App. 623.
31 C.J. p 710 note 40.
38. Ala.— Hamrick v. Town of Al-
bertville, 155 So. 87, 228 Ala. 666.
Ga. — Hollomon v. Humber, 179 S.E.
365, 180 Ga. 470.
34 C.J. p 710 note 41.
568
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
appears in the same capacity in the two judgments,37
the debts are mutual,38 and the judgment recovered
by the adverse party is not exempt from attach-
ment, levy, and sale.39 A set-off of a judgment for
costs against another judgment may be refused
where it would be inequitable.40 A set-off of a
judgment for costs has been refused against a judg-
ment obtained in another court and assigned to a
third person, in the absence of pleading and proof
of equitable grounds for such relief.41 Where a
creditor's bill is dismissed with costs, such costs
cannot be set off against the judgment on which
the bill was founded.42
e. Assigned Judgments
(1) Set-off of assigned judgment
(2) Set-off against assigned judgment
(1) Set-Off of Assigned Judgment
Where a Judgment debtor becomes the assignee of
a judgment against his. creditor, he may have it set off
against the Judgment against himself, unless such a set-
off is inequitable.
Where a judgment debtor becomes the assignee
of a judgment against his creditor, he may have it
set off against the judgment against himself,43
unless there are special circumstances in the case
rendering the set-off inequitable.44 A judgment
debtor may purchase a judgment against his judg-
ment creditor for the particular purpose of using it
as a set-off45 provided the purchase of judgment
Protection of attorney's lien in case
of set-off of judgment for costs
see Attorney and Client § 232.
Payment by third person
It has been held that the payment
of costs by a third person does not
defeat the rfght to set off a judgment
for costs. — Morgan v. Fourth Judi-
cial District Court of TVasatch Coun-
ty, 141 P.2d 8-86, 105 Utah 140.
37. Ala.— Louisville & N. R. Co. v.
Perkins, 56 So. 105, 1 Ala.App. 376.
Md.— Willis v. Jones, 57 Md. 362.
SS. Ala.— Louisville & N. R. Co. v.
Perkins, '56 So. 105, 1 Ala.App. 376.
Pa. — Melloy v. Burtis, 4 Pa.Co. 613.
39. S.C.— Rookard v. Atlanta & C.
Air Line R. Co., 71 S.E. 992, SO S.C.
371.
34 C.J. P 710 note 44.
40. U.S. — Cornell v. Gulf Oil Corpo-
ration, D.C.Pa., 35 P.Supp. 448.
Seaman's Judgment for maintenance
and cure
Shipowner was not entitled to set
off its judgment for costs allowed on
appeal to supreme court against sea-
man's judgment for cure and mainte-
nance.— Taylor v. Calmar S. S. Co.,
D.C.Pa., 35 F.Supp. 335.
41. Tex. — Missouri, K. & T. R. Co.
of Texas v. Cassinoba,-99 S.\V. 888,
44 Tex.Civ.App. 625.
42. N.J. — Brisley v. Jones, 5 N.J.Eq.
512.
N.Y.— Mickles v. Bray ton, 10 Paige
138.
43. Cal. — Harrison v. Adams, 128 P.
2d 9, 20 Cal.2d 646.
Ga. — Piedmont Sav. Co. v. Davis, 190
S.E. 386, 55 Ga.App. 386.
111. — Silverman v. City Engineering &
Construction Co., 252 IlLApp. 275,
affirmed 170 N.E. 250, 338 111. 15i—
Young v. Young, -32 IlLApp. 109
N.Y. — National Chautauqua County
Bank of Jamestown v. Reynolds,
299 N.Y.S. 263, 164 Misc. 653, af-
firmed 4 N.Y.S.2d 176, 254 App.Div.
646 — (Ford v. Stuart, 19 Johns. 342.
Okl.— Johnson v. Noble, -65 P.2d 502,
179 Okl. 256, 121 A.L.R. 474.
Pa. — Pierce, to Use of Snipes v.
Kaseman, 192 A. 10'5, 326 Pa. 280—
Welliver v. Fox, 4 Pa,Dist. 197.
S.D.— Lee v. Sioux Falls Motor Co.,
274 N.W. 614, 65 S.D. 401.
34 C.J. p 710 note 50.
Sound discretion of court
A judgment obtained by assignee
by purchase may be set off against
judgment against assignee in sound
discretion of court— Montalto v.
Yeckley, 54 N.E.2d 421, 143 Ohio St.
181.
Mutuality
(1) In order for an assignee of a
judgment to use It as a set-off
against a judgment against him, mu-
tuality is essential, that is, the judg-
ments must be between the same
parties in the same right — Harrison
v. Adams, 128 P.2d 9, 20 Cal.2d 646.
(2) In determining whether de-
mand of assignee of a judgment
against assignee's creditor, and the
creditor's judgment against assignee
are "mutual" so that they may be
set off against each other, equity
will look to the real parties in inter-
est.— Harrison v. Adams, supra.
44. Kan.— Bouchey v. Gillllan, 26 P.
2d 451, 138 Kan. 404.
Tex. — Citizens Industrial Bank of
Austin v. Oppenheim, Civ.App., 118
S.W.2d 820, error dismissed.
34 C.J. p 710 note 51.
Lien
The court will not except the
amount claimed as a lien on the as-
signed judgment where the assignee
had no notice thereof. — Hill v. Brink-
ley, 10 Ind. 102.
Particular circumstances
(1) Where judgments were ob-
tained against widow on notes exe-
cuted by her as accommodation mak-
er for her husband and, after settle-
ment of judgments had been made
by husband's estate, husband's heirs
1046
obtained assignments of judgments
against widow for purpose of defeat-
ing widow's claim to unpaid dower,
the right to set off such judgments
against dower would be denied. —
Needles v. Dougherty, 34 A.2d 396,
134 N.J.Eq. 108.
(2) The assignee of a judgment
cannot use it as a set-off to defeat
the debtor's exemption. — State Mutu-
al Benefit Soc. v. Jackson, 13 Pa.Dist.
& Co. 167, 20 DeLCo. 192, 78 Pittsb.
Leg^J. 159.
(3) A trustee against which a di-
vorced wife recovered judgment for
past-due alimony after trustee had
failed to comply with divorce decree
ordering alimony to be paid out of
income of trust funds payable to
husband could not have deficiency
judgment against husband and wife,
purchased by trustee, set off against
wife's judgment, especially where
trustee purchased judgment at a
time when it knew it was uncollecta-
ble, and wife had been compelled for
years to be an object of charity,
since wife's judgment dedicated a
fund for her support, and it was en-
titled to the same protection as if it
had been awarded against husband.
—National Chautauqua County Bank
of Jamestown v. Reynolds, 299 N.Y.
S. 263. 164 Misc. -653, affirrne.d 4 N.
Y.S.2d 176, 254 App.Div. 646.
45. Minn. — Barnes v. Verry, 191 N.
W. 589, 154 Minn. 252, 31 A.L.R.
707. !
Okl.— Johnson v. Noble, 65 P.2d 502,
179 Okl. 256, 121 A.L.R. 474.
34 O.J. p 711 note 53.
Time of purchase
The fact that judgment against
plaintiff was purchased by defend-
ant during pendency of suit in na-
ture of creditor's bill brought by
plaintiff as judgment creditor, to en-
force collection of his judgment
against defendant, did not preclude
court in its sound discretion from
permitting set-off of judgment pur-
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
568
against his judgment creditor is bona fide.46 The
ussignee of the judgment to be used as a set-off
must, however, be the absolute and beneficial owner
vf the judgment in order to enable him to use it as
a set-off.47 After a person has assigned a judg-
ment recovered by him, he cannot use such judg-
ment as a set-off against a judgment recovered
iigainst him48 unless his judgment has been reas-
.signed to him.49
(2) Set-Off against Assigned Judgment
As a general rule, one judgment may be set off
against another although the latter Judgment has been
assigned to a third person for value, except where the
assignee's equities, are prior or superior.
On the principle that the assignee of a judgment
takes it subject to all equities between the original
parties, one judgment may be set off against anoth-
er, as a general rule, although the latter judgment
has been assigned to a third person for value,50
especially where, because of the insolvency of the
assignor at the time of the assignment, the party
claiming the right of set-off had no other means of
collecting his debt,51 or where, in anticipation of an
application to make the set-off, the assignment was
made for the purpose of defeating the right.52 Al-
though it has been held that the right of set-off
against the assignee is not defeated because he took
without knowledge of such right,53 there is no doubt
that the position of the party seeking the set-off is
much stronger where the assignee has notice of a
judgment against his assignor such as may be set
off against the assigned judgment54 or where such
person has no notice or knowledge of a prior assign-
ment of the judgment against himself.55
The right of set-off must have existed at the time
of the assignment;56 there can be no right of set-off
chased by defendant against plain-
tiff's judgment a.gainst defendant. —
Montalto v. Yeckley, 54 N.E.2d 421,
143 Ohio St. 181.
46. N.J. — Needles v. Dougherty, 34
A.2d 396, 134 N.J.Bq. 108.
Ohio.— Montalto v. Yeckley, '54 N.E.
2d 421, 143 Ohio St. 181.
Okl. — Johnson v. Noble, 6-5 P.2d 502,
179 Okl. 256, 121 A.L.R. 474.
Conditional purchase
(1) It has been held that the judg-
ment cannot be set off, where it was
purchased with the sole purpose of
being used as a set-off and with an
agreement to reassign it if a motion
for such set-off should be refused. —
Cornell v. Donovan, 13 N.Y.St. 704,
affirmed 13 N.Y.St. 741—34 C.J. p
711 note 64.
(2) It has al«o been held that the
fact that payment for the assigned
judgment is made conditional on the
assignee's ability to set it .off does
not deprive him of the right to the
set-off. — Brown v. Lapp, 89 S.W. 304,
28 Ky.L. 409 — McBrayer v. Dean, 3S
S.W. 508, 100 Ky. 398, 18 Ky,L. 847.
Consideration
(1) An insolvent debtor cannot ob-
ject to want of consideration for the
assignment of a judgment obtained
against him which the assignee has
obtained for purposes of set-off. —
People v. New York Ct of C. PI., 13
Wend., N.Y., 649, 28 Am.D. 495.
(2) The fact that defendant pur-
chased judgment against plaintiff far
below its face amount did not pre-
clude court from permitting set-off
of such judgment against plaintiff's
Judgment against defendant, but the
low price was a fact which trial
court could take into consideration in
exercising its discretion. — Montalto
v. Yeckley, 54 N.E.2d 421, 143 Ohio
St. 181.
47. Cal. — Harrison v. Adams, 128 P. |
2d 9, 20 Cal.2d 646.
Kan.— Bouchey v. Gillilan, 26 P.2d
451, 138 Kan. 404.
'.J. — Needles v. Dougherty, 34 A.2d
396, 134 N.J.Eq. 108.
N.Y.— Porter v. Davis, 2 How.Pr.
30.
Ohio.— Montalto v. Yeckley, 54 N.E.
2d 421, 143 Ohio St. 181.
34 C.J. p 711 note 56.
Necessity of beneficial ownership
generally see supra § &67.
48. N.Y.— Swift v. Prouty, 64 N.Y.
545.
Vt.— Day v. Abbott, 15 Vt. 632.
Where an interest assigned
Where defendant In action for re-
covery of possession of realty recov-
ered money judgment against plain-
tiff under occupying claimants act,
and assigned an interest in that
judgment to third persons, and plain-
tiff brought action on supersedeas
bond given by defendant to stay exe-
cution of judgment for possession,
the judgment under the occupying
claimants act could be offset by de-
fendant against judgment in flavor of
plaintiff on supersedeas bond only to
extent of defendant's interest in the
judgment under the occupying claim-
ants act. — Amber? v. Claussen, 98 P.
2d 927, 186 Okl. 482.
49. Kan. — Turner v. Crawford, 14
Kan. 499.
Pa. — Jacoby v. Guier, 6 Serg. & B.
448.
50. U.S.— Turner v. Dickey, D.C.
Tenn., 3 F.Supp. 360, affirmed, C.C.
A., Dickey v. Turner, 64 P.2d 1012.
Cal_- Arp v. Blake, 21-8 P. 773, 63 Cal.
App. 362.
Ga.— -Sheffield v. Preacher, 165 S.E.
742, 743, 1'75 Ga. 719, 84 A.L..R
1159 — Odom v. Attaway, 162 S.E.
279, 173 Ga. 883.
111. — Silverman v. City Engineering
1047
Const. Co., 170 N.E. 250, 338 111.
154.
Kan. — Petersime Incubator Co. v.
•Ferguson, 103 P.2d 822, 152 Kan.
259.
Mass. — -Goldman v. Noxon Chemical
Products Co., 175 N.E. 67, 274
Mass. 526.
Pa. — Kisthardt, to Use of Pubok v.
Betts, 183 A. 923, 321 Pa. 270.
Wash. — Spokane Sec. Finance Co. v.
Sevan, 20 P.2d 31, 172 Wash. 418.
34 C.J. p 711 note 60.
Portion of Judgment
Portion of judgment for exemplary
damages from wrongful sequestra-
tion was subject to offset by deficien-
cy judgment while judgment for
damages was in mortgagor's hands
and remained subject to offset in
hands of assignee who purchased the
judgment subsequent to rendition of
deficiency judgment against mortga-
gor.—Dallas Joint Stock Land Bank
of Dallas v. Lancaster, Tex.Civ.App.,
122 S.W.2d 659, error dismissed.
51. Cal.— Arp v. Blake, 218 P. 773,
63 CaLApp. 362.
111. — Silverman v. City Engineering
& Construction Co., 252 111. App.
275, affirmed 170 N.E. 250, 338 111.
154.
Neb. — Sherwood v. Salisbury, 299 N.
W. 185, 139 Neb. $38.
34 C.J. p 711 note 61.
52. Iowa. — Hurst v. Sheets, 14 Iowa
322.
34 C.J. p 711 note 62.
53. N.J. — Hendrickson v. Brown, 39
N.J.Law 239.
54. Cal. — Coonan v. Loewenthal, 81
P. 527, 147 Cal. 218.'
34 C.J. p 711 note 64.
55. Ariz. — Martin v. Wells, 28 P.
958, 3 Ariz/ 355.
Mich.— Finn v. Corbitt, 36 Mich. 318.
50, Qa. — Corpus Jtuis cited In
568
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
of the judgments until both exist ;57 and the court
will refuse to allow a set-off to the prejudice of an
assignee for value and in good faith whose equities
are prior or superior to those of the part}' seeking
the set-off.58 It has been held that an assignment
of a demand before the entry of judgment on it
gives to the assignee a superior equity to that of a
party claiming a right to set off a judgment previ-
ously recovered against the assignor, and prevents
the right of set-off from accruing,59 and this has
also been held to be true where a judgment was as-
signed before the recovery by the judgment debtor
of a judgment in another action against the former
judgment creditor.60 However, these rules are
sometimes relaxed and a set-off allowed where the
circumstances render it equitable to do so,61 as
where the assignee took with notice of the exist-
ence of the judgment62 or pendency of the action,63
as the case may be, or delayed filing his assignment
or making himself a party to the record.64 Where
a judgment is rendered in favor of two judgment
creditors, and one of them, in good faith and for
value assigns his interest to the other, the judgment
debtor has no right to set off, as against the as-
signee, a judgment against the assignor purchased
from a third person before the assignment.65
The purchase by a judgment creditor of another
judgment owned by his debtor and sold on execu-
tion on the former judgment does not extinguish
both judgments, but makes the purchaser the judg-
ment creditor with respect to the judgment so sold.65
Effect of special fund for payment. A party en-
titled to set-off of judgments against each other,
having subject to his control a special fund primari-
ly applicable to the satisfaction of his judgment or
decree, will not be permitted to avail himself of his
right to set-off against the assignee of the judgment
or decree against him until such special fund is ex-
hausted,67 and then only for any balance of his de-
mand which may remain unsatisfied.68
§ 569. Proceedings to Obtain
As a general rule, a person seeking a set-off of Judg-
ment against Judgment should apply to the court in
which the judgment against himself was recovered.
While the application for a set-off ordinarily may be
made by motion, a set-off may also be obtained in ar>
ordinary civil action or suit in equity.
A person seeking a set-off of judgment against
judgment should apply to the court69 in which the
judgment against himself was recovered,70 although
it has been held that judgments in cross actions
may be set off, when the parties in interest are the
same, by the court in which one or both of the ac-
tions are pending,71 and that a court of equity has
jurisdiction to set off mutual judgments without re-
gard to the courts in which the judgments were
rendered.72
The application for a set-off ordinarily may be
Sheffield v. Preacher, 135 S.B. 742,
743, 175 Ga. 719, '84 A.-L.R. 1159.
Miss. — Turnage v. Riley, 158 So. 785,
172 Miss. 83.
Mo.— Helstein v. Schmidt, 78 S.W.Sd
132, 229 Mo.App. 275.
34 C.J. p 712 note 66.
57. Wash. — Corpus Juris cited in
Spokane Security Finance Co. v.
Sevan, 20 P.2d 31, 32, 172 Wash.
418.
34 C.J. p 712 note 67.
58. Cat— Murphy v. Davids, 215 P.
1040, '62 CaLApp. 63.
Ga. — Sheffield v. Preacher, 165 S.E.
742, 175 Ga. 719, £4 A.L.R, 1159.
Kan.— Heston v. Finley, 236 P. 841,
118 Kan. 717.
Miss.— Turnage v. Riley, 158 So. 7iS'5,
172 Miss. -83.
34 CJ. p 712 note 68.
Assignee without notice
Where assignee acquires judgment
for valuable consideration without
notice of existence of judgment
against assignor, a set-off against
judgment held by assignee may be
denied. — State ex rel. Barnett v.
Wood, 43 P.2d 136, 171 Okl. 341.
59. Miss.— Turnage v. Riley. 158 So.
785, 172 Miss. 83.
Wash. — Corpus Juris cited in Spo-
kane Sec. 'Finance Co. v. Sevan, 20
P.2d 31, 32, 172 Wash. 418.
34 C.J. p 712 note 69.
60. N.Y.— Kelly v. City of Yonkers,
274 N.T.S. 7'81. 242 App.Div. 798.
34 C.J. P 712 note 70.
Statute providing that cross judg-
ments may be offset against each
other was inapplicable where one of
judgments was assigned two years
before the other was rendered. — Hel-
stein v. Schmidt 78 S.W.2d 132, 229
Mo.App. 275.
61. Mo. — Ford v. Stevens Motor Car
Co., 232 S.W. 222, 209 Mo.App. 144.
34 C.J. p 712 note 71.
62. Ind. — Lammers v. Goodman, 69
Ind. 76.
63. Mo. — Ford v. Stevens Motor Car
Co., 232 S.W. 222, 209 Mo.App. 144.
64. Pa. — Skinner v. Chase, $ Pa.Su-
per. 279.
65. Iowa. — Schultz v. Sylvester, 169
N.W. 179, 184 Iowa 859.
66. La. — Kentwood Bank v. McClen-
don, 93 So. 748, 152 La, 489.
67. W.Va. — Payne v. Webb, 2 S.B.
330, 29 W.Va. 627.
68L W.Va. — Payne v. Webb, supra.
69. Tex. — Harris v. Ware, Civ.App.,
144 S.W.2d -647.
Intervention of court necessary
A judgment debtor cannot, without
intervention of the court, set off the
judgment of his creditor with a judg-
ment in debtor's favor against the
creditor, such intervention being nec-
essary in order that there may be an
adjudication of question of mutual
liability and other equitable rights
involved. — Harris v. Ware, supra.
Character of proceeding
A proceeding to set off judgments,
whether by motion or action, is equi-
table in character.— Bouchey v. Gilli-
lan, 26 P.2d 451, 138 Kan. 404.
70. Cal.— Harrison v. Adams, 128 P.
2d 9, 20 Cal.2d 646.
Minn.— Barnes v. Verry, 191 3ST.W.
5-S9, 154 Minn. 252, 31 AJL.R. 707.
N.J.— Kristeller v. First Nat. Bank,
197 A. 17, 119 N.J.Law J570.
34 C.J. p 713 note 79.
71. Me.— Peirce v. Bent, 69 Me. -381.
N.M.— Scholle v. Pino, 54 P. -335, 9 N.
M. 393.
72. Mich. — Robinson v. Kunkleman,
75 N.W. 451, 117 Mich. 193.
34 C.J. p 713 note 81.
1048
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
569
made by motion,73 and notice given to the opposite
party74 and all other parties whose rights and in-
terests are affected.75 On such motion no formal
pleadings are necessary.™ The right to set off one
judgment or decree against another on motion or
summary application exists only in those cases
where the debts on both sides have been finally
liquidated by judgment or decree.77
In addition to the remedy by motion, a set-off of
judgments may also be obtained in an ordinary civil
action78 or suit in equity.79 A formal action or a
bill in equity is proper where the rights of the par-
ties are complicated or not definitely fixed, or where
there are intervening equities,80 and in such a case
the court may meanwhile protect the rights of the
parties by enjoining the collection of one or both
of the judgments or otherwise.81
The denial of a motion to set off judgments is not
a bar to an action82 or suit in equity83 to compel
such set-off. In a proceeding to set off judgments
the court may not impose conditions affecting the
amount of 'either judgment,84 although, where a
portion of a judgment has been assigned under cir-
cumstances giving the assignment precedence over
the set-off, the rights of the assignee will be pro-
tected.85 ,
Time of application. An application to have
judgments set off should be made at the earliest
practicable opportunity, and, if delayed until the in-
terests of third persons have intervened, the set-off
may properly be denied,86 but it would appear that,
73. Ga. — Odom v. Attaway, 162 S.B.
279, 173 Ga. 883— Piedmont Sav. Co.
v. Davis, 190 S.B. 386, '55 Ga.App.
386.
Mo. — Corpus Juris cited In Helstein
v. Schmidt, 78 S.W.2d 132, 136, 229
Mo.App. 275.
N.Y.— Neenan v. Woodside Astoria
Transp. Co., 184 N.E. 744, 261 N.
Y. 159.*
Okl. — Johnson v. Noble, 65 P.2d 502,
179 Okl. 256, 121 A.L.R. 474.
S.D.— Lee v. Sioux Palls Motor Co.,
274 N.W. 614, 65 S.D. 401.
Tenn. — Mack v. Hugger Bros. Const.
Co., 10 Tenn.App. 402.
34 C.J. p 713 note -82.
Special motion
Motion for set-off of cross Judg-
ments against each other is to be re-
garded as special motion, and one
made in summary proceeding. — Hel-
stein v. Schmidt, 78 S.W.2d 132, 229
Mo.App. 275.
74. Ga. — Odom v. Attaway, 162 S.E.
279, 170 Ga, 883.
Mo.— Corpus Juris cited in Helstein
v. Schmidt, 78 S.W.2d 132, 136, 229
Mo.App. 275.
S.D. — Lee v. Sioux 'Palls Motor Co.,
274 N.W. 614, 65 S.D. 401.
34 C.J. p 713 note 83.
75. Mo.— Hclstcln v. Schmidt, 78 S.
W.2d 132, 229 Mo.App. 275.
Notice to assignee
It has been held that the fact that
one asking sot-oft of cross Judgments
against himself and another had no
knowledge of assignment of Judg-
ment against him by such other or of
assignee thereof did not affect right
to notice of assignee in absence of
estoppel.— Helstein v. Schmidt, su-
pra,
76. Jnd. — Quick v. Durham, 16 N.E.
601, 115 Ind. 302.
34 C.J. p 714 note 84.
77. Ohio. — Barbour v. National
Bxch. Bank, 33 KB. 542, 50 Ohio
St. 90, 20 L.R.A. 192.
34 C.J. p 714 note 85.
78. Minn. — Lindholm v. Itasca Lum-
ber Co., 65 N.W. 931, 64 Minn. 46.
34 C.J. p 714 note 8-7.
Pleading1
Averments in supplementary an-
swer to petition for leave to set off
Judgment on note against judgment
for maker that consideration for note
failed, as petitioner knew when he
took it from payee, were held not to
warrant opening of former Judg-
ment, where no testimony was of-
fered in support thereof and they
were denied and explained in peti-
tioner's replication.— Pierce, to -Use
of Snipes v. Kaseman, 192 A. 105,
326 Pa. 280.
79. Okl.— Johnson v. Noble, 65 P.2d
502, 179 Okl. 256, 121 A.L.R. 474.
34 C.J. p 714 note 88.
"The determination of the matter
of the set-off of one judgment
against another pertains to a court
of equity." — Spokane Sec. Finance
Co. v. Bevan, 20 P.2d 31, 32, 172
Wash. 418.
A reference to a master to try
questions of fact may be made on a
bill to set off judgments. — Hackett
v. Connett, 2 Bdw.,N.Y., 73.
Election to pay court officers
In suit to set off judgment, peti-
tioner's election to pay amount due
court officers has been held not to
prevent set-off of Judgment as
against other parties. — Odom v. At-
taway, 162 S.B. 279, 173 Ga. 883.
Sufficiency of evidence
(1) Evidence held sufficient. — Mc-
Intosh v. Mclntosh, 234 N.W. 234, 211
Iowa 750.
(2) Bvidence held insufficient.
Ala. — Andrews v. Sessoms Grocery
Co., 193 So. 104, 238 Ala. 640.
1049
Ga. — Taylor v. Jordan, 195 S.B. 186,
185 Ga. 325.
80. N.Y.— Neenan v. WoodsJde As-
toria Transp. Co., 184 N.B. 744,
261 N.Y. 159.
34 C.J. p 714 note 89.
81. U.S.— Frye-Bruhn Co. v. Meyer,
Alaska, 121 F. 533, 58 C.C.A. 529.
Set-off as ground of equitable relief
against judgment generally see su-
pra § 370.
Staying collection of one judgment
until recovery of another see su-
pra § 566 b.
88. N.Y.— Pignolet v. Geer, 24 N.Y.
Super. 626, 19 Abb.Pr. 264.
83. Ala.— Scott v. Rivers, 1 Stew. &
P. 24, 21 Am.D. 646.
34 C.J. p 714 note 92.
84. U.S. — Owens Co. v. Officer,
Minn., 244 F. 47, 156 C.C.A. 475.
34 C.J. p 714 note 93.
86. U.S. — Owens Co. v. Officer, su-
pra.
S.C.— Ex parte Wells, 21 S.E. 334, 43
S.C. 477,
96. Kan.— Heston r. 'FJnley, 236 P.
841, 118 Kan. 717.
34 C.J. p 714 note 95.
Delay held not to bar suit
111. — Silverman v. City Engineering
& Construction Co., 252 IlLApp.
275, affirmed 170 N.B. 250, 338 111.
154. •
Application prior to Judgment
The trial court was authorized to
determine defendant's right to set off
a judgment at a hearing held after
judgment in instant case had been
entered, notwithstanding defendant's
•application for order to show cause
pursuant to which the hearing was
held, was made prior to judgment,
before the right of set-off had ac-
crued under statute.— Lee v. -Sioux
Falls Motor Co., 274 N.W. 614, 65 S.
D. 401,
§ 569
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
if no such interests intervene, the application may
be granted at any time while the judgments remain
valid and enforceable demands.87 A set-off of a
judgment on motion will not be refused merely be-
cause the party has neglected an opportunity to set
off the subject of the judgment, or the judgment it-
self, on the trial,88 although it has been held other-
wise where it is attempted to enforce the set-off in
equity89 or by pleading it as such in an action on
the other judgment.90
Tender or payment of difference. A judgment
creditor may have a lesser judgment held by him
set off against a larger judgment against him with-
out a tender or payment of the difference.91
Intervention is sometimes allowed in a proceeding
to set off judgments.92
Order or judgment. Adverse judgments between
the same parties are extinguished only by an order
of the court, by some act of the parties themselves,
or some action of the officer having both executions
for collection.93 A set-off judgment may be modi-
fied by the court in a proper case.94
§ 570.
Operation and Effect
The allowance of a set-off cf judgment acafnst judg-
ment extinguishes them both if they are equal fn
amount, or satisfies the smaller judgment in full and
the larger proportionately.
The allowance of a set-off of judgment against
judgment extinguishes them both if they are equal
in amount, or satisfies the smaller judgment in full
and the larger proportionately.95 If the set-off is
refused, it leaves the rights of the parties as be-
fore96 and does not prejudice the right of one of
them to require the sheriff to set off executions in
his hands on the two judgments.97 Where a judg-
ment recovered against a principal is allowed in set-
off against a judgment in favor of the surety, it is
not thereby extinguished,98 but the transaction,
amounts to an assignment of it to the surety.99
Remittitur and release. The party holding the
larger judgment may be ordered to enter a remit-
titur on his judgment for the amount of the smaller
judgment,1 and the party moving for the set-off may
be required to execute a release.2
§ 571. Set-Off of Judgment against Claim
a. In general
b. Assigned judgments and claims
a. In General
Subject to some exceptions, a Judgment may be
pleaded as a set-off in an action between the same par-
ties on a different claim or demand, provided it is valid,
in force, and unsatisfied.
Subject to some exceptions,3 a judgment may be
pleaded as a set-off in an action between the same
parties on a different claim or demand,* provided it
87. Cal.— Hobbs v. Duff, 23 CaL 596.
34 C.J. p 714 note 96.
88. Pa, — Kisthardt, to Use of Puhak
v. Betts, l'S3 A. 923, 321 Pa, 270.
34 C.J, p 715 note 97.
89. U.S. — Anglo-American Provision
do. v. Davis Provision Co., C.C.N.
Y., 112 F. 5'74, appeal dismissed 24
S.Ct. 93, 191 U.S. 376, 48 -L.Ed. 228.
Tex. — Cocke v. Wright, Com.App., "39
S.W.2d 590.
93. Ind.— Ault v. Zehering, 38 Ind.
429.
91. Cal.— Nash v. Kreling, 69 P. 418,
136 Cal. 627.
Ind.— Shirts v. Irons, 54 Ind. 13.
92. U.S. — Cathay Trust v. Brooks,
China, 193 P. 973, 114 C.C.A. 125.
34 C.J. p 715 note 2.
93. Me.— Herrick v. Bean, 20 Me. 51.
94. Ga. — Hollomon v. Humber, 179
S.R 365, 180 Ga. 470.
95. Me. — Peirce v. Bent 69 Me. 381.
34 C.J. p 715 note 5.
96. Me.— Gould v. Parlin, 7 Me. 82.
97. Me. — Gould v. Parlin, supra.
Set-off of executions generally see
Executions § 335.
98. Me.— Herrick v. Bean, 20 Me. 51.
99. Me. — Herrick v. Bean, supra.
i; Ala. — Scott v. Rivers, 1 Stew. &
P. 24, 21 Am.D. 646.
2. N.J. — Schautz v. Kearney, 47 N.
J.Law 56.
3. La. — Perrara v. Polito, App., 167
•So. 120.
34 C.J. p 715 note 13.
Suit for wrongful attachment or exe-
cution
(1) In mortgagor's suit against
mortgagee for damages for wrong-
ful sale of horse and wagon under
execution on mortgage which had
been 'paid, mortgagee was held not
entitled to set off against such claim
amount of judgment previously ob-
tained by mortgagee against mort-
gagor.— -Ferrara v. Polito, supra.
(2) A judgment obtained in a suit
other than the attachment suit can-
not be set off against damages
claimed for a wrongful attachment.
—Imperial Roller Milling Co. v.
Cleburne First Nat Bank, 27 S.W.
49, 5 Tex.Civ.App. 686.
Suit by municipality
It has been held that in a suit by
a municipality the sureties on the
bond of an insolvent defaulting sher-
iff cannot set off against his indebt-
1050
edness to a municipality the amount
of a judgment held by them against
the municipality. — Schmidt v. City
of New Orleans, 33 La.Ann. 17.
4. Ark. — Strauss v. Missouri State
Life Ins. Co., 66 S.W.2d 999, 1S£
Ark. 286.
111.— State Bank of St. Charles v.
Burr, 22 N.E.2d 941, 372 111. 114.
Iowa. — Kramer v. Hofman, 257 N.W.
361, 218 Iowa 1269.
Kan. — Read v. Jeffries, 16 Kan. 534.
N.Y.— Jung v. Allison, 276 N.Y.S.
361, 154 Misc. 79— Godfrey-Keeler
Co. v. Regent Laundry & Dry
Cleaning Corporation, 9 N.Y.S.2d
£40.
N.C.— McClure v. Fulbright, 146 S.B.
74, 196 N.C. 450.
Wash.— Reichlin v. First Nat. Bank,
51 P.2d 380, 184 Wash. 304.
34 C.J. p 715 note 12.
Claim on contract
A judgment may be set off against
a claim on a contract. — Vanderlip v.
Barnes, 163 N.W. '856, 101 Neb. 573.
A judgment for costs may be
pleaded against a claim.
W.Va.— York v. Meek, 123 S.B. 225,
96 W.Va. 427.
Wis.— Kuchera v. Kuchera, 196 N.W.
828, 182 Wis. 457.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 571
is valid,6 in force, and unsatisfied.6 Where a judg-
ment is so pleaded, a recovery by plaintiff will ei-
ther extinguish the judgment or satisfy it pro tanto
according to its amount with relation to plaintiff's
claim;7 but where a party offers a judgment to-
gether with certain notes and accounts under a plea
of payment, all of which are allowed, and the notes
and accounts alone amount to a larger sum thafl
the claim against him, the judgment remains in full
force.8
Setting up opponent's right to set-off. Regard-
loss of whether or not a party has the right to plead
the set-off of his opponent,9 there is no rule of law
prohibiting him from setting up his opponent's judg-
ment and asking that it be credited against his
claim.**
Judgment between different parties. The s£t-off
of a judgment against a claim cannot be allowed un-
less there is a substantial identity of the parties.11
A joint judgment debt cannot be set off against a
separate debt,12 nor can a separate judgment debt be
set off against a joint debt;13 but a judgment
against two parties, each of whom is severally lia-
ble for it, may be set off against the individual
claim of one of them,14 and a judgment for one par-
ty may be set off against a claim against two par-
ties, for which each is severally liable.15
b. Assigned Judgments and Claims
The assignee of a judgment may use it by way of
set-off In an action brought against him by the debtor
in the judgment, provided, in some jurisdictions, he
acquired the judgment before the commencement of the
action.
The assignee of a judgment may use it by way of
set-off in an action brought against him by the debt-
or in the judgment,16 provided, in some jurisdic-
tions,17 but not in others,18 he acquired the judg-
ment before the commencement of such action, and
provided also, in some jurisdictions, the assignment
is in writing so that it is a legal, rather than a mere
equitable, assignment.19
In an action by the assignee of a claim, a judg-
ment recovered by defendant against the assignor
after the assignment may not be relied on as a set-
off or counterclaim20 unless there are circumstances
5. Ark. — Strauss v. Missouri State
Life Ins. Co., 66 S.W.2d 299, 188
Ark. 286.
Presumption of validity
In action on life policies, where
insurer claimed set-off of judgment
rendered against beneficiary in fed-
eral court in foreclosure suit, such
judgment was presumed to be valid
under Federal Equity Rule and be-
cause court was of superior jurisdic-
tion.— Strauss v. Missouri State Life
Ins. Co., supra.
Valid underlying- indebtedness
Party invoking judgment regular
on its face as set-off against claim
need not show valid underlying in-
debtedness, in absence of clear and
satisfactory proof by defendant of
fraud.— Yungclas v. Yungclas, 239 N.
\V. 22, 213 Iowa 413.
e. Ala.— Dempsey, for Use of Ste-
verson v. Gay, 148 So. 438, 227 Ala.
20.
N.Y.— City of Tonkers v. Maryland
Casualty Co., 293 N.Y.S. 69, 250
App.Div. 71S.
34 C.J. p 715 note 14.
Appeal
(1) A judgment may be a valid
counterclaim, although an appeal
from it is pending. — Dowdell v. Car-
py, 70 P. 167, 137 Cal. 333—34 C.J. P
715 note 14 [a].
(2) It has been held that a judg-
ment from which devolutive appeal
has been taken may be pleaded in
compensation. — 'First State Bank &
Trust Co. v. Oraziano, 120 So. 223, 9
La, App. 726.
Satisfaction, of record
The fact that plaintiff refused, aft-
er suit was instituted, to satisfy of
record judgment which had been
paid, has been held not to sustain
plea of set-off or recoupment. —
Denxpsey, for Use of Steverson v.
Gay, 148 So. 438, 227 Ala. 20.
7. N.Y. — Compound & Pyrono Door
Co. v. Keil, 268 N.Y.S. 1'54, 240 App.
Div. 908.
34 C.J. p 716 note 15.
a Ohio.— Piatt v. St. Clair, 6 Ohio
227.
9. Tex. — Brady-Neely Grocer Co. v.
De Foe, Civ.App., 169 S.W. 1135.
34 C.J. p 716 note 17.
10. Tex. — Brady-Neely Grocer Co. v.
De Foe, supra.
11. Utah.— Reeve v. Blatchley, 147
P.2d 861.
34 C.J. p,716 note 19.
12. N.Y. — Lush v. Adams, 10 N.Y.
Civ.Proc. 60.
13. N.Y. — Lush v. Adams, supra.
14. Kan.— Read v. Jeffries, 15 Kan.
534.
Tex.— Patten v. Hill County, Civ.
App., 297 S.W. 918.
34 C.J. p 716 note 22.
Judgment for tort
County not assenting to partner-
ship's assignment of claim against
it to one partner has been held enti-
tled to set off judgment for tort
against partner and partnership. —
Patten v. Hill County, supra.
Lack of personal liability as 'to some
items
In action for breach of agreement
1051
to enter into partnership and for
damages for conversion of property,
plaintiff has been held not entitled
to complain of entry of judgment in
favor of defendant in sum estab-
lished by prior judgment as debt
owed defendant by plaintiff and an-
other jointly, because such amount
contained items for which plaintiff
was not personally liable, where
plaintiff made no attempt to have ju-
ry find sum for which he was per-
sonally liable, and had made no ef-
fort to modify judgment in prior ac-
tion.— Sanders v. O'Connor, Tex.Civ.
App., 98 S.W.2d 401, error dismissed.
15. Ill, — State Bank of St. Charles
v. Burr, 22 N.B.2d 941, 372 111. 114.
16. Pa. — Keagy v. Commonwealth,
43 Pa. 70.
34 C.J. |p 716 note 23.
17. Neb. — Simpson v. Jennings, 19
N.W. 473, 15 Neb. -671.
34 C.J. p 716 note 24.
18. Tex. — Parrott v. Underwood, 10
Tex. 48.
19. S.C.— Harrel v. Petty, 45 S.C.L.
373.
20. N.Y. — Jacobs v. Tannenbaum,
274 N.Y.S. 772, 242 App.Div. 833,
appeal dismissed 198 N.E. 567, 268
N.Y. 705.
34 C.J. p 716 note 27.
Mortgage foreclosure proceeding*
Mortgagors have been held not en-
titled to use their foreign judgment
against mortgagee for fraud in ex-
change of land for mortgaged land
as counterclaim in foreclosure pro-
ceeding by assignee of mortgage. —
§ 572
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J,S.
calling for a relaxation of the rule,21 as where the
assignor is insolvent and the judgment was recov-
ered without knowledge of the assignment.22
Where the assignee of a claim is not the beneficial
owner thereof, defendant may set off a judgment
against his assignor.28 In an action by assignees
for the benefit of creditors in their own right on an
indemnity contract for an employee's defalcation,
judgments rendered against the assignor have been
held not pleadable as offsets.24
§ 572. Set-Off of Claim against Judgment
a. In general
b. Against assigned judgments
a. In General
Subject to some exceptions, In an action or other
proceeding to collect a judgment the debtor may set
off any legal demands against the plaintiff wh'ch he
owned at the time of the bringing of the suit, and on.
which he could have brought a suit in his own name.
Although in some jurisdictions it has been held
that, in the absence of an agreement therefor,2* a
claim not reduced to judgment may not be set off
against a judgment,26 it is generally held that, in
an action or other proceeding to collect a judgment,,
the debtor may set off any legal demands against
plaintiff which he owned at the time of the bringing
of the suit, and on which he could have brought a
suit in his own name,27 unless the claim proposed
Moore T. Southwell, 156 So. 631, 116
Fla. 700.
21. Mich.— Bacon v. Reich, 80 N.TV.
278, 121 Mich. 480, 49 L.R.A. 311.
22. Mich. — Bacon v. Reich, supra.
23. Tex. — Koudsi v. Mathiwos, Civ.
App., 147 S.W.2d 585.
Vendor's lien notes
In action on vendor's lien notes by
assignee who was not beneficial own-
er thereof, maker was entitled to off-
set a judgment obtained against
maker as surety on supersedeas bond
of payee-assignor. — Koudsi v. Mathi-
wos, supra.
24. Wis. — John v. Maryland Casual-
ty Co., 242 N.W..201, 207 Wis. 589.
Different liability
Judgments were not pleadable as
offsets, since the subject matter of
the action brought by plaintiffs was
the liability of defendant to plaintiffs
by virtue of its indemnity contract
issued to plaintiffs, and the liability
sought to be set off was that owing
by defendant to plaintiffs as succes-
sors of their assignor. — John v.
Maryland Casualty Co., supra.
25. W.Va.— Lilly v. £ox, 56 S.E. 900,
61 W.Va. 547.
2& Pa. — Keystone Nat Bank of
Manheim, now to Use of Balmer
v. Deamer, 18 A.2d 540, 144 Pa.Su-
j>er. '52 — Kramer v. Moss, 90 Pa.
Super. 550 — Continental Mining &
Smelting Corp. v. Duncan, Com.Pl.,
9 Fay.LuJ. 95 — Latrobe Coal & Coke
Co. v. Kahley, Com.Pl., 6 «Fay.L.J.
242 — Dickel v. Tyson, Com.Pl., 50
Lane. Rev. • 163 — Heyer - Kemner,
Inc., v. Sachs, Com.Pl., 57 Montg.
Co. 73 — Neff v. -Schmier, Com.Pl.,
27 North.Co. 131— Sanders v. Krat-
er, Com.PL, 57 York Leg.Rec. 33 —
Hubler v. Drescher, Com.Pl., 55
York Leg.Rec. 133.
34 C.J. p 716 note 32.
Ordinarily demand must be re-
duced to judgment before It can be
set off against judgment. — Parker v.
Reid, 273 P. 334, 137 Or, 578.
27. U.S. — Coffey v. Lawman, C.C.A.
Tenn., 99 P.2d 245 — Atlantic Refin-
ing Co. v. U. S., Ct.CL, 42 F.2d 342,
certiorari denied 51 S.Ct. 34, 2"
U.S. 859, 75 L,Ed. 760.
Ark.— Parker v. Baker, 114 S.W.2d
23, 195 Ark. 761.
CaL— Harrison v. Adams, 128 P.2d
9, 20 Cal.2d 646 — Machado v. Borg-
es, 150 P. 351, 170 Cal. 501.
111.— State Bank of St. Charles v.
Burr, 22 KE.2d 941, 372 111. 114.
Ind.— Brower v. Nellis, 33 N.E. 672,
6 Ind.App. 323.
Ky. — Congoleum-Nairn, Inc., v. M.
Livingston & Co., 78 S.W.2d 781,
257 Ky. 573.
La.— Hart v. Polizzotto, 131 So. 574,
171 La. 493, answers conformed to
136 So. 598, 16 La.App. 444— Meri-
wether v. Dorrity, 104 -So. 1'87, 158
La. 405— Sliman v: Mahtook, 136
So. 749, 17 La.App. 635.
Miss. — Bettman-Dunlap Co. v. Gertz,
116 So. 299, 149 Miss. 892.
N.M.— Bailey v. Great Western Oil
Co., 259 P. 614, 32 N.M. 478, 55 A.
L.R. 467.
Tex. — Harris v. Ware, Civ.App., 144
S.W.2d 647.
Va. — Dickenson v. Charles, 4 S.B.2d
351, 173 Va. 393.
34C.J. p 716 note 33.
Right of judgment debtor to set off
claim as ground for injunction
against execution of judgment see
supra § 370.
Claim changed into judgment
, Fact that form of claim filed as
set-off changed into judgment during
pendency of action did not prevent
set-off. — Gill v. Richmond Co-op.
Ass'n, 34 N.E.2d 509, 309 Mass. 73.
Commnnity property
Judgment for wife has been held
not community property, subject to
offset of husband's debts to judgment
debtors. — Douglas v. Smith, Tex.Civ.
App., 297 S.W. 767.
Discharge in bankruptcy
Where judgment creditor had ob-
tained discharge in bankruptcy,
1052
judgment debtor, assignee of judg-
ment creditor's notes, could not set
off notes against judgment which:
had been assigned. — Bacher v. Lord,
296 P. 1109, 88 Colo. 443.
In proceeding in aid of execution,.
judgment debtor could obtain an
e Quit able set-off of any financial ob-
ligation due from judgment creditor
arising subsequent to the action and'
presently capable of ascertainment
and judicial determination by the
court — Southern Surety Co. of New
York r. Maney, 121 P.2d 295, 190 OkL
129.
Judgment debtor held not owner
of claim asserted as set-off. — Ran-
dolph Junior College v. Isaacks, Tex.
Civ.App., 140 S.W.2d 459.
Partnership indebtedness not aris-
ing from, or connected with, transac-
tion in which note was given cannot
be set off against judgment thereon.
— Porter v. Kahl, Tex.Civ.App., 12 S.
W.2d 674.
Pleading and proof
In action by passenger for injuries,
court properly refused to credit judg-
ment against bus company with sum
paid on passenger's hospital fees,
where pleading and proof were not
sufficiently specific. — South Plains
Coaches v. Behringer, Tex.Civ.App.,
32 S.W.2d 959, error dismissed.
Time of application
An automobile dealer, attempting
to defeat finance company's right to
apply amount of "dealer's reserve,"
held by such company as additional
security against loss on automobile
mortgages taken over by it from
dealer, to reduction of dealer's obli-
gations to company, has been held
not entitled to application thereof as
credit on principal amount of judg-
ment recovered by company in its ac-
tion against dealer for amount due
on such mortgages, before addition
of interest or attorney's fees — Franz-
en v. Universal Credit Co., Tex. Civ.
p., 132 S.W.2d 148, error dismissed,
judgment correct.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 572
to be set off is unliquidated or disputed,28 or is a
joint claim where the judgment is several or vice
versa,29 or the right of set-off has been concluded by
a former judgment,30 or the effect of the set-off
would be to attack and impair a judgment regularly
entered in another action,31 or unless, except under
the statutes of some jurisdictions,32 it could have
been pleaded in defense to the action in which the
judgment was rendered.33 The dismissal of a cred-
itor's suit on the ground that the judgment creditor
is indebted to the judgment debtor on a note in an
amount equal or greater than the amount of the
judgment does not satisfy the judgment.34
Assigned claim. It has been held that a judg-
ment debtor may set off claims against the creditor
which were acquired after assignment of the judg-
ment to a third person but prior to notice to the
debtor of the assignment.35 In order for an as-
signee of a claim to use it as a set-off against a
judgment against him, the assignee must be the
beneficial owner of the claim.36
Claim of federal government. Under the federal
- statute, 31 U.S.C.A. § 227, it has been held that the
federal government is required to reduce to judg-
ment a claim sought to be set off against a judgment
debt due by it whenever the judgment creditor de-
nies the claim or refuses to consent to the set-off.37
Claim of municipal corporation. Under some
statutes a municipal corporation may compel the set-
off of its claim against a judgment creditor as
against the judgment debt due by it, where the judg-
ment creditor fails to authorize a set-off.38
b. Against Assigned Judgments
As a general rule the assignee of a Judgment takes
it subject to the right of the defendant to set off against
it any valid claims which he has against the assignor,
and which would be good as a set-off against the judg-
ment in the assignor's hands.
As a general rule the assignee of a judgment
takes it subject to the right of the debtor to set off
against it any valid claims which he has against the
assignor, and which would be good as a set-off
against the judgment in the assignor's hands,39 al-
though it has been held that the assignee will be
protected if he had no notice of the judgment debt-
or's right to a set-off.40 According to some cases
the judgment debtor can set off only such claims or
demands as accrued to him or were acquired by him
before receiving notice of the assignment of the
judgment,41 and not those accruing or acquired with
28. La. — Zibilich v. Rouseo, 103 So.
260, 157 La. 936.
Tex. — Dallas Joint Stock Land Bank
of Dallas v. Lancaster, Civ.App.,
122 S.W.Sd -659, error dismissed.
34 C,J. p 716 note 34.
29. U.S.— Cobb v. Haydock, C.C.
Conn., 6 F.Cas.No.2,923, Brunn.
ColLCas. 91, 4 Day 472.
30. Ark. — Turley v. Gorman, 202 S.
W. 822, 133 Ark. 473.
Ky. — Campbell v, Mayhugh, 15 B.
Mon. 142.
31. Mass. — Carter v. Exchange
Trust Co., 10-S N.E. 359, 220 Mass.
543.
34 C.J. p 717 note 37.
32. Ky.— Bishop v. Bishop, 173 S.W.
130, 162 Ky. 769.
34 C.J. p 717 note 38.
33. 111. — Tegrtmeyer v. Tegrtmeyer,
53 N.E.2d 487, 321 Ill.App. 573.
Or.— Parker v. Reid, 273 P. 334, 127
Or. 578.
Tex. — Porter v. Kahl, Civ.App.,. 12 S.
W.2d 674.
34 C.J. P 717 note 39.
34. Neb.— 'Lashmett v. Prall. 120 N.
W. 206, 83 Neb. 732.
35. Cal. — Harrison v. Adams, 128 P.
2d 9, 20 Cal.2d 646.
Claims against assigned judgments
see infra subdivision b of this sec-
tion,
36. Cal. — Harrison v. Adams, supra.
Claim, assigned for collection
Allowing a judgment debtor to set
off against judgment creditor's claim,
a claim assigned to the judgment
debtor for collection would violate
rule requiring mutuality of parties
in order to authorize set-oft. — Harri-
son v. Adams, sirpra.
37. D.C.— Hines v. U. S. ex rel.
Marsh, 105 P.2d 85, 70 App.D.C.
206..
Insurance judgments
(1) It has been held that statutes
giving administrator of veterans' af-
fairs discretionary power to deter-
mine questions regarding insurance
benefits due veterans does not au-
thorize set-off by administrator
against insurance judgments and
does not take them out of operation
of statute relating to set-off. — Hines
v. U. S. ex rel. Marsh, supra.
(2) It has also been held that
where comptroller general of the
United States had three distinct op-
portunities to reduce claim against
veteran to judgment so as to obtain
set-off against insurance judgment
in favor of veteran but failed to ex-
ercise opportunity, the court would
not grant another opportunity to
have the court determine the ques-
tion.—Hines v. U. S. ex rel. Marsh,
supra.
3a Pa.— City of Pittsburgh v. Grib-
bin, 51 Pa.Dist. & Co. 587, 92
Pittsb.Leg.J. 433.
Claim for taxes
A rule by a city to show cause why
a judgment awarded as damages for
property taken in a street improve-
1053
merit should not be a set-off against
a claim for delinquent city taxes and
costs was made absolute, where the
unpaid taxes included taxes on real
estate other than that involved in
the viewers' report— -City of Pitts-
burgh v. Gribbin, supra.
'. Cal. — Harrison v. Adams, 128 P.
2d 9, 20 Cal.2d 646— Arp v. Blake,
24-8 P. 750, 78 CaLApp. 713.
N.Y.— Keon v. Saxton & Co., 178 N.
E. 679, 257 N.Y. 412, reargument
denied ISO N.E. 340, 258 N.Y. 578.
34 C.J. p 717 note 41.
Counterclaim against assignee of
judgment does not permit of recov-
ery of more than assignee's claim. —
Keon v. Saxton & Co., supra.
TTnliquidatedl
(1) It has been held, in a suit on a
judgment by an assignee, that an
unliquidated claim against the as-
signer for breach of contract was not
allowable as a statutory set-off. —
Hall v. Wilder Mfg. Co., 293 S.W.
7-60, 316 Mo. 812, -52 A.L.R. 723.
(2) It was also held, however,.
that, where a nonresident assignor
was real party in interest, defendant
might be permitted to show right to-
equitable set-off for unliquidated
claim.— Hall v. Wilder Mfg. Co., su-
pra.
40. Tex. — Porter v. Kahl, Civ.App.,.
12 S.W.2d 674.
34 C.J. p 717 note 42.
41. I1L— Himrod v. Baugh, 85 111-
435.
§ 573
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
knowledge of the assignment.42 It has also been
held, however, that when the judgment creditor is
insolvent a court of equity will allow the set-off in
cases where, although the right thereto had not
actually accrued at the time of the assignment, yet
a liability then existed under which a right of set-
off against the insolvent subsequently accrued.43
It has also been held that in an action on a judg-
ment in the name of a judgment creditor, for the
benefit of an assignee of the judgment, defendant
cannot set off a debt due to him from the assignee.44
§ 573. Satisfaction by Execution or Enforce-
ment
a. Levy of execution
b. Sale on execution
c. Payment of execution
d. Return of execution
e. Arrest of defendant on capias or exe-
cution
a. Levy of Execution
The levy of an execution on sufficient personal prop-
erty of the judgment debtor to pay the Judgment amounts
prima facie, and as long as the levy continues, in force,
to a satisfaction of the judgment, as. between the par-
ties thereto. A levy of execution on real estate, as a
general rule, does not amount even prima facie to a
satisfaction of the judgment.
The levy of an execution on sufficient personal
property of the judgment debtor to pay the judg-
ment amounts prima facie, and as long as the levy
continues in force, to a satisfaction of the judgment,
as between the parties thereto.45 If the judgment
creditor denies the actual satisfaction of the judg-
ment, the burden is on him to prove that the execu-
tion and levy for some sufficient reason failed to
result in payment of the judgment.46 Since a levy
of execution on real estate of the judgment debtor
does not interfere with the title or possession of
the debtor, it does not amount even prima facie to a
satisfaction of the judgment.*? It is otherwise if
the creditor takes and retains possession of the
land,48 or if it is set off and delivered to him under
an elegit or otherwise.49
The presumption of satisfaction of a judgment
from levy on personal property is rebutted by proof
that defendant was not in fact deprived of his prop-
erty as the result of the levy;50 that he tortiously
or fraudulently recovered it from the possession of
the officer;51 that it was taken under a senior exe-
cution or other prior lien52 or otherwise removed
from the possession of plaintiff or the officer by
process of law;53 that the property levied on did
not in fact belong to defendant54 or was insufficient
to satisfy the judgment,55 or generally that the
property could not be made available for the satis-
faction of plaintiff's claims,56 without any fault or
negligence on his part,57 although if it is lost or
wasted by the fault or neglect of the sheriff, the
rule, except in some jurisdictions,58 is that the
judgment is satisfied.59 A levy on real property
cannot be deemed a satisfaction where its enforce-
ment is prohibited by a decree of court.60
Release or surrender of levy. If property levied
on under execution is abandoned or surrendered or
restored to the judgment debtor, either on his giv-
ing collateral security or voluntarily by the creditor,
so that the latter derives no benefit from his execu-
tion, there is no satisfaction of the judgment,61
Tex. — Townsend v. Quinan, 47 Tex.
1.
42. Md. — Berry v. Protestant Epis-
copal Church Convention, 7 Md.
564.
Mass.— Avery v. Russell, 125 Mass.
S71.
43. Cal. — Coonan v. Loewenthal, 18!
P. 527, 147 Cal. 218, 109 Am.S.R.
128.
Tex.— Ellis v. Kerr, Civ.App., 23 S.
W. 1050.
44. N.Y. — Raymond v. Wheeler, 9
Cow. 295.
45. N.J.— Corpus Jnris cited in
Schneider v. Schmidt, 136 A. 740,
741, 101 N.J.Eq. 140.
34 C.J. p 717 note 48.
Levy as satisfaction of execution see
Executions § 336.
"A levy on personal property under
an execution is not an absolute sat-
isfaction of the judgment." — Schnei-
der v. Schmidt, 136 A. 740, 741. 101 N.
J.EQ. 140.
46. Ga.— Dowdell v. Neal, 10 Ga. 14S
— Newsom v. McLendon, 6 Ga. 392.
47. Colo. — Xew Zealand Ins. Co. v.
Maaz, 59 P. 213, 13 Colo.App. 493.
Mich.— Ackerman v. Pfent, 108 N.W.
1084, 145 Mich. 710.
34 C.J. p 718 note 51.
48. Vt.— Moore v. McMillan, 54 Vt.
27.
34 C.J. p 718 note 52.
49. Del. — Hinesly v. Hunn, 5 Del.
236.
N.H.— Thomas v. Platts, 43 N.H. 629.
Ba N.J.— Schneider v. Schmidt, 136
A. 740, 101 N.J.Eq. 140.
34 C. J. p 718 note 54.
51. 111.— Nelson v. Rockwell, 14 111.
375.
N.Y.— Mickles v. Haskin, 11 Wend.
12-5.
52. N.J.— Schneider v. Schmidt, 136
A. 740, 101 N.J.EQ. 140.
34 C.J. p 718 note 56.
53. 111. — Peoria Savings, Loan &
1054
Trust Co. v. Elder, 45 N.E. 1083,
165 111. 55.
34 C.J. p 718 note 57.
54. Cal. — Scherr v. Himmelmann, 53
Cal. 312.
55. 111.— Chandler v. Higgins, 109
111. 602.
34 C.J. p 718 note 59.
56. N.H.— Whittemore v. Carkin, 58
N.H. 576.
34 C.J. p 718 note -60.
57. Va. — Saunders v. Prunty, 17 S.
E. 231, 89 Va. 921.
34 C.J. p 71i8 note 61.
5a N.J.— Banta v. McClennan, 14 N.
J.Ed. 120.
59. 111.— Harris v. Evans, 81 111. 419.
34 C.J. p 718 note 63.
60. Ind. — Johnson v. State, 80 Ind.
220.
61. N.T.— Schneider v. Schmidt, 136
A. '740, 101 N.J.BQ. 140.
34 C.J. p 718 note 66.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 573
at least as between the parties, although it is said to
be otherwise as against other creditors of the judg-
ment defendant.62
Levy on property of person jointly liable. Ex-
cept in some jurisdictions,63 a joint judgment
against two defendants is prima facie satisfied by
levy of execution on the property of one of them;64
but there is no absolute satisfaction if the levy
proves unproductive or the property is released or
restored to the debtor,65 unless the other defendant
occupies the position of a mere surety,66 and not
even then, according to some decisions.67 It has
been held that a plaintiff who has recovered sep-
arate judgments against joint trespassers and tak-
en out execution on one of them, without obtaining
satisfaction, cannot maintain an action on any of
the other judgments.68
b. Sale on Execution .
(1) In general
(2) Void or irregular sale
(1) In General
Ordinarily, where property of the debtor Is sold on
execution, and the sale stands, the judgment Is satis-
fled to the extent of the net proceeds of the sale.
Ordinarily, where property of the debtor is sold
on execution, and the sale stands, the judgment is
satisfied to the extent of the net proceeds of the
sale.69 The judgment under which the sale is made,
as distinguished from some other judgment,70 is ex-
tinguished by the sale on execution and the pay-
ment of the amount bid when sufficient to cover
the amount due and costs.71 It is sufficient for this
purpose if the money is actually collected by the
sheriff or paid into court.72 Also the judgment is
satisfied where plaintiff receipts the execution, even
though as a matter of fact he gives credit and the
purchaser does not perform his obligation.7^ Usual-
ly, if the judgment creditor himself becomes the
purchaser at the sale, the judgment is satisfied in
full if he bids the whole amount due him, otherwise
pro tanto,74 provided, in jurisdictions where this is
necessary, the sale is reported to, and confirmed by,
the court,75 and the sheriff's deed is executed to
the judgment creditor.76 In the absence of a statute
to the contrary,77 it has been' held that the fact that
the value of the property purchased by the judg-
ment creditor exceeds the amount of the judgment
does not render such purchase a satisfaction of the
judgment where the purchase price was less than
the amount of the judgment.78 It has also been
held that a redemption from a sheriffs sale under a
prior judgment is not a satisfaction of the junior
judgment of the redeeming creditor.™
Mortgaged property. The facts that plaintiff
causes an execution to be levied on defendant's
property and at the sale thereunder bids a sum suf-
ficient to pay his judgment and costs do not op-
erate as a payment of his judgment where the prop-
erty is covered by a mortgage and is subsequently
62. Ga. — Newsom v. McLendon, -6
Ga. 392.
34 C.J, p 719 note 67.
63. Ark.— Walker v. Bradley, 2 Ark.
578.
64. Miss.— Kershaw v. Merchants'
Bank, 8 Miss. 386, 40 Am.D. 70.
S.C.— Davis v. Barkley, 17 S.C.L,. 140.
34 C.J. p 719 note 69.
65. Pa.— Slater's Appeal, 28 Pa. 169.
Wis.— -Hyde v. Rogers, 17 N.W. 127,
59 Wis. 154.
66. Cal,— Mulford v. Estudillo, 23
Cal. 94.
34 C.J. p 719 note 71.
67. Wash.— Murray v. Meade, 32 P.
780, 5 Wash. 693.
68. Mich. — Boardman v. Acer, 13
Mich. 77, 87 Am.D. 736.
69. 111. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Benj. Harris & Co. v. Western
Smelting & Refining Co., 54 N.B.2d
900, 914, 322 Ill.Ap>p. $09.
Ind. — Richmond v. Marston, 15 Ind.
134.
34 C.J. p 719 note 74.
70. 111. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Benj. Harris & Co. v. Western
Smelting & Refining Co., 54 N.B.2d
900, 914, 322 IlLApp. 609.
Pa.— State Bank v. Winger, 1 Rawle
295, 18 Am.D. 633.
71. 111. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Benj. Harris & Co. v. Western
Smelting & Refining Co., 54 N.E.2d
900, 914, 322 IlLApp. 609. •
34 C.J. p 719 note 76.
72. 111.— Corpus Juris quoted in
Benj. Harris & Co. v. Western
Smelting & Refining Co., 54 N.E.2d
900, 914, 322 IlLApp. 609.
34 C.J. p 719 notes 77, 78.
73. N.Y.— Briggs v. Simson, 60 N.Y.
641.
74. 111.— Corpus JurU quoted to
Benj. Harris & Co. v. Western
Smelting & Refining Co., 54 N.E.2d
900, 914, 322 IlLApp. 609.
34 C.J. P 719 note 80.
75. Ala.— McGaugh v. Frankfort
Deposit. Bank, 38 So. 181, 141 Ala.
434.
76. Mo. — Chaonia State Bank v. Sol-
lars, 176 -S.W. 263, 190 Mo.App.
2*84.
34 C.J. p 719 note 83.
77. Pa.— Union Trust Co. of New
1055
Castle v. Tutino, 44 A.2d -556, 353
Pa, 145.
The intent of the legislature in en-
acting the Deficiency Judgment Act
was to protect judgment debtors
whose real estate is sold in execu-
tion, by requiring plaintiff to give
credit for value of property he pur-
chased at his execution and not
merely to credit the price at which
it was sold. — Union Trust Co. of New
Castle v. Tutino, supra.
Redemption statute
Where property is redeemed under
redemption statute by judgment
creditor and the value of the prop-
erty exceeds the amount of judg-
ment, and the sum' paid for redemp-
tion, the judgment on which the
right of redemption is based is satis-
fied • and discharged. — Hughes v.
Young, 120 P.2d 396, 58 Ariz. 349, 13S
A.L.R. 943.
78. Mo. — Sulzer v. Sulzer, 193 S.W.
572.
79. N.T. — Van Home v. McLaren, 8
- Paige 285, 35 Am.D. 685.
Redemption by Judgment creditor as
satisfaction of judgment generally
see Executions § 263 b.
§ 573
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
taken thereunder so that plaintiff realizes nothing
on his judgment.80
(2) Void or Irregular Sale
If a sale on execution Is set aside or held to be
Invalid by reason of any defects or irregularities, the
judgment is not discharged. The authorities are divided
on the question as to whether the purchaser's bid is a
satisfaction of the judgment to the extent of the sum
bid, where the sale was invalid because the debtor had
no title to the property sold.
If a sale on execution is set aside or held to be
invalid by reason of any defects or irregularities,
the judgment is not discharged81 although the pur-
chaser paid the amount bid82 and the judgment cred-
itor's attorneys signed a receipt acknowledging that
judgment was satisfied.83 It has been held that,
notwithstanding the invalidity of the sale and its
failure to satisfy the judgment, the debtor may
show that the purchase price was received by agree-
ment in satisfaction of the judgment84
Where the sale was invalid because the debtor
had no title to the property sold, the question
whether the purchaser's bid is a satisfaction of the
judgment to the extent of the sum bid is one on
which the authorities are divided.85 In some juris-
dictions the judgment is held to be satisfied,86 espe-
cially where the judgment creditor himself was the
purchaser.87 In other jurisdictions there is no sat-
isfaction of the judgment under such circumstanc-
es,88 and a creditor who has himself purchased the
property may obtain relief in a court of equity;8^
but a remedy in equity does not exist when the title
acquired is good so far as it goes but does not con-
fer the quantum of estate which the purchaser ex-
pected to get under his purchase.90 The jurisdic-
tion in equity is not taken away by the creation of
a remedy by statute.91 Where a statutory remedy
exists92 it should be liberally construed.93
A sale of exempt property is a satisfaction ac-
cording to some authorities,94 but not according
to other authorities.95
c. Payment of Execution
A judgment is satisfied where the sheriff or other
officer holding an execution on the judgment and au-
thorized to receive payment receives a sufficient amount
of lawful money in payment.
A judgment is satisfied where the sheriff or other
officer holding an execution on the judgment,96 and
authorized to receive payment,97 receives a suffi-
cient amount in lawful money in payment,98 wheth-
er the payment is lent or advanced to him;99 but
where money is paid by a third person to a sheriff
who has in his hands an execution, with the ex-
•pectation and intention that the judgment creditor
shall assign to him the judgment on which the exe-
cution was issued, which the judgment creditor
does, the transaction is a purchase, and not a pay-
ment of the judgment.1
d. Return of Execution
A satisfaction of a judgment may be shown by an
officer's return of execution certified in a manner pre-
scribed by law.
A satisfaction of a judgment may be shown by
an officer's return of execution certified in the man-
ner prescribed by law.2 The return of an execu-
tion "satisfied" is presumptive,3 or, according to
some of the cases, conclusive,4 evidence of the sat-
isfaction of the judgment, except where it recites
an irregular or unauthorized act on the part of the
80. Mo. — Schneider v. Johnson, 147
S.W. 538, 164-Mo.App. 639.
SI. U.S.— Favour v. Hill, C.C.A.Ariz.,
123 'F.2d 77, directive order denied
136 F.2d 489.
34 C.J. p 719 note 86.
Void or irregular sale as ground for
vacation of entry of satisfaction
see infra § 584.
82. U.S. — Favour v. Hill, supra.
33. U.S. — Favour v. Hill, supra.
34. Minn.— Shelley v. Lash, 14 Minn.
498.
€5. Ark.— Sturdivant v. Ward, 119
S.W. 247, 90 Ark. 321, 134 Am,S.R.
32.
34 C.J. p 720 note 30.
86. Pa.— Tonge v. Kadford, 156 A.
814, 103 Pa.Super. 131.
34 C.J. p 720 note 91.
87. Ala. — Thomas v. Glazener, 8 So.
15S, 90 Ala. 537, 34 Am.S.R. 830.
34 O.J. p 720 note 91.
88. Ark.— Sturdivant v. Ward, 119 S.
W. 247, 90 Ark. 321, 134 Am.S.R.
32.
34 C.J. p 720 note 92.
83. 111.— Bressler v. Martin, 24 N.B.
518, 133 111. 278.
34 C.J. p 720 note 93.
90. Tenn. — Gonce v. McCoy, 49 S.W.
754, 101 Tenn. 587, 70 Am.S.R. 714.
34 C.J. p 720 note 94.
91. Tenn. — Smith v. Taylor, 11 -Lea
738.
34 C.J. p 720 note 95.
98. Cal. — Hitchcock v. Caruthers, 34
P. '627, 100 Cal. 100.
34 C.J. p '720 note 96.
93. Cal. — Hitchcock v. Caruthers,
supra — Cross v. Zane, 47 Cal. -602.
94. Ala. — Johnson v. Motlow, 47 So.
568, 157 Ala. 405.
95. Wash. — Calhoun v. Quinlan, 150
P. 1132, 86 Wash. 547.
96. Okl. — Southern Pine Lumber
Co. v. Ward, 85 P. 459, 16 Okl. 131,
1056
affirmed 28 S.Ct. 239, 208 U.S. 126,
52 L.Ed. 420.
34 C.J. p 720 note 4.
97. Ala.— Chapman v. Cowles, 41
Ala. 103, 91 Am.D, 508.
34 C.J. P 720 note 5.
9a N.C.— Motz v. Stowe, -83 N.C.
434.
34 C.J. p 720 notes 4, 7.
99. Ala. — Thompson v. Wallace, 3
Ala. 132:
34 C.J. p 720 note 8.
1. N.Y.— Smith v. Miller, 25 N.Y.
619.
2. Tex.— Citizens State Bank of
Clarinda, Iowa, v. Del-Tex Inv. Co.,
Civ.App., 123 S.W.2d 450, error dis-
missed.
3. Md.— Parker v. Sedgwick, 5 Md.
2-S1.
34 C.J. p 720 note 10.
4. N.a— Walters v. Moore, $0 N.C.
41.
34 C. J. p 720 note 11.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
575
officer.5 Where the officer actually received satis-
faction of the execution, the judgment is dis-
charged, although he makes no return on the exe-
cution or makes a false return,6 but, on the other
hand, no satisfaction is shown from the mere fact
that an execution was issued and never returned.7
e. Arrest of Defendant on Capias or Execution
The arrest and Imprisonment of a Judgment debtor
on an execution or a capias ad satisfaciendum do not
work an absolute discharge or extinguishment of the
judgment.
In the absence of a statute providing otherwise,8
the arrest and imprisonment of a judgment debtor
on an execution or a capias ad satisfaciendum con-
stitute a satisfaction of the judgment in such sense
that, while the imprisonment lasts, no proceedings
may be taken against his property,9 and no incon-
sistent remedy may be maintained by the judgment
creditor against a third person,10 but they do not
work an absolute discharge or extinguishment of the
judgment11
Release or escape of debtor. At common law the
discharge of defendant from custody under a capias,
by the voluntary act of plaintiff, operated as an ab-
solute satisfaction of the judgment,12 but in a num-
ber of jurisdictions this rule has been changed by
statutes which preserve the right of the creditor if
the debtor is voluntarily discharged.13 Further
proceedings on the judgment are not precluded if
defendant regains his liberty by an escape14 or by
operation of the law.15
Release of joint debtor. In the absence of a stat-
ute providing otherwise,16 the release or escape of
one joint defendant who is imprisoned discharges
the judgment as to all defendants.17
§ 574. Other Means of Satisfaction
A decree against an administrator may be satisfied
by the distribution of the estate according to law.
A decree against an administrator may be satis-
fied by the distribution of the estate according to
law.18 A sale by a creditor to a debtor of an exe-
cution issued on a judgment satisfies the claim of
plaintiff.19
Purchase by creditor at foreclosure sale. Where
plaintiff lent money to defendant, taking a deed to
land subject to a contract to convey to a third per-
son on payment by such person of an amount equal
to the sum lent defendant, and on default of defend-
ant obtained a judgment against him for such
amount and foreclosed the land contract and bought
at the sale, bidding an amount equal to the judg-
ment against defendant, the judgment was thereby *
satisfied, the creditor's position being the same as
that of a mortgagee buying at a foreclosure sale.20
§ 575. Satisfaction of One of Several Judg-
ments on Same Cause of Action
Where two judgments are recovered on the same
5. Iowa. — Hawkeye Ins. Co. v. Luck-
ow, 39 NVW, 923, 76 Iowa 21.
34 C.J. p 721 note 12,
6. Ind. — State v. Salyers, 19 Ind.
432.
34 C. J. p 721 note 13.
7. N.J. — Runyan v. Weir, -8 N.J.Law
286.
& Mass. — Crawford-Plummer Co. v.
McCarthy, 116 N.E. 576, 227 Mass.
350— Twining v. Foot, S Cush. 512.
9. Mich.— Baehr v. Decker, 274 N.W.
339, 2SO Mich. 590.
N.Y.— Parascandola v. Auditore, 213
X.Y.S. 463, 215 App.Div. 277, ap-
peal dismissed 152 N.E. 432, 242
N.Y. 671.
34 C.J. p 721 note 16.
10. N.Y.— Beloit Bank v. Beale, 34
N.Y. 473.
34 C.J. p 721 note 17.
11. N.Y. — Parascandola v. Auditore,
213 N.Y.S. 463, 215 App.Div. 277,
appeal dismissed 152 N.E. 432, 242
N.Y. 571.
34 C.J. p 721 note 18.
12. Me: — Vesanen v. Pohjola, 36 A.
2d 575, 140 Me. 216.
34 C.J. p 721 note 19.
13. Me. — Vesanen v. Pohjola, supra.
34 C.J. p 721 note 20.
49C.J.S.-67
Release on oral direction
It has been held that, where an
execution debtor, on his promise to
•pay weekly installments, was re-
leased from imprisonment on the
creditor's oral direction to the jailer,
the judgment was not satisfied, or
the debt discharged, although the
statute provides for the debtor's re-
lease by written permission. — Vesan-
en v. Pohjola, supra,
14. S.C.— Saunders v. McCool, 32 S.
C.L. 22.
34 C.J. p 721 note 21.
15. Mich.-— Baehr v. Decker, 274 N.
W. 339, 280 Mich. 590.
34 C.J. p 721 note 22.
Discharge for refusal to pay fees
The discharge of debtor from pris-
on on refusal of creditor to pay pris-
on fees does not discharge judgment.
— Baehr v. Decker, supra — 34 C.J. p
721 note 22 [d].
Insolvent debtor's act
A judgment against defendant who
is in custody under writ of capias ad
satisfaciendum is not satisfied by de-
fendant's discharge under insolvent
debtor's act — Baehr v. Decker, su-
pra.
Invalid process
A discharge of -defendant by order
1057
of the court, because the process un-
der which he was detained is of no
validity, does not satisfy the judg-
ment.— Porrett v. Lauer's Estate, 1*51
N.W. 619, 184 Mich. 497—5 C.J. p 517
note 86.
18L UJ3.— Hunter v. U. S., R.I., 5
Pet 173, 8 L.Ed. 86— U. S. v. Stans-
bury, Md., 1 Pet. 573, 7 lL.Ed. 267.
Mass. — Raymond v. Butterworth, 1
N.E. 126, 139 Mass. 471.
17. Mich.— Seitovitz v. London, 229
N.W. '590, 249 Mich. 567.
34 C.J. p 722 note 24.
Beiease with plaintiff's consent
At common law, release with
plaintiff's consent of joint defendant
taken under capias ad satisfacien-
dum, amounts to satisfaction of
judgment — Seitovitz v. London, su-
pra.
18. Mich. — Brown v. "Fletcher's Es-
tate, 109 N.W. 68-6, 146 Mich. 401,
15 L.R.A.,N,S., 632, 123 Am.S.R.
632, affirmed 28 S.Ct 702, 210 U.S.
82, £2 L.Ed. 966.
19. Ga.— Walker v. O'Neill Mfg. Co.,
58 S.B. 475, 128 Ga. 831.
20. Wash. — Magnoni v. Bono, 180 P.
'888, 106 Wash. 600.
§ 575
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
cause of action against the same defendant, there can
be but one satisfaction, and, therefore, the payment or
discharge of either judgment satisfies the other, except
as to costs.
Where two judgments are recovered on the same
cause of action against the same defendant, there
can be but one satisfaction, and, therefore, the pay-
ment or discharge of either judgment satisfies the
other,21 except as to costs.22 Where a judgment is
rendered on the judgment of a court of another
state, a payment of either judgment discharges the
obligation of the other. judgment.23
Where one of the judgments is for a smaller
amount than the other, it has been held that the sat-
isfaction of the smaller does not satisfy the larger
in full,24 although other authorities hold that it
does,25 notwithstanding an agreement between the
creditor and the debtor that the payment of the
smaller judgment shall be only a pro tanto satis-
faction of the larger judgment;26 but the creditor
cannot be deprived of his right to elect to refuse
satisfaction of the smaller judgment.27
§ 575. Against Different Persons
in the absence of a statute to the contrary, where
several judgments are rendered against different per-
sons for the same cause of action, payment of one
of the judgments is a satisfaction of all, except as to
costs.
In the absence of a statute to the contrary,2*
where several judgments are rendered against dif-
ferent persons for the same cause of action, pay-
ment of one of the judgments is a satisfaction of
all,29 except as to costs,30 which may be collected
on all the judgments,31 unless a statute provides
otherwise;32 but where several persons are liable
on the same cause of action, and are sued in the
same action, and separate judgments are rendered
against each, the replevy of one of the judgments
is not a merger and satisfaction of the others.33
§ 577. Operation and Effect of Satisfaction
The satisfaction of a Judgment by one primarily li-
able thereon operates to extinguish it for all purposes,
and also to extinguish the original debt or claim.
The satisfaction of a judgment by one primarily
liable thereon operates to extinguish it for all pur-
poses,34 notwithstanding its assignment to him or to
21. Ky. — Webber v. Commonwealth,
07 S.W.2d 422, 265 Ky. 696.
Xeb.— -Luikart v. Mains, 267 N.W.
168, 130 Neb. 907.
X".Y. — Rossbach v. Rosenblum, 20 N.
T.S.2d 725, 2SO App.Div. 206, af-
firmed 31 N.B.2d 509, 284 N.Y. 745
—In re James, 220 N.Y.S. 177, 128
Misc. 528.
Or. — Smith v. Rose, 265 P. 800, 125
Or. 56 — Harju v. Anderson, 225 P.
1100, 111 Or. 414.
Pa.— Grant v. Plotts, 17 Pa.Dist. &
Co. 408, 22 Del.Co. 277, 46 York
Leg.Rec. 151 — Lutz v. Helm, Com.
.PL, 5 Sch.Reg. 190.
Tenn. — Schoenlau-Steiner Trunk Top
& Veneer Co. v. Hilderbrand, 274
S.W. 544, 152 Tenn. 166.
34 C.J. p 722 note 30.
"Although a person may pursue
one or all of his remedies, ho can
have but one satisfaction." — Davis v.
Lawhon, 52 S.W.2d 887, 889, 186 Ark.
51.
of foreign Judgment
The rule stated in the text has
been applied where the judgment
paid was a foreign judgment — In re
James, 220 N.Y.S. 177, 128 Misc. .528.
22. Pa.— Grant v. Plotts, 17 Pa.Dist
& Co. 408, 22 Bel.Qo. 277, 46 York
Leg.Rec. 151.
34 C.J. p 722 note -31.
Payment of one judgment and all
costs
Where receiver of insolvent bank
recovered judgment in each of three
separate actions on different sure-
ty bonds of executive officers of bank
for identical losses, surety being
same on each "bond, payment of judg-
ment in one case and payment of
costs in all cases satisfied judgments
in all.— Luikart v. Mains, 267 N.W.
16-8, 130 Neb. 907.
23. Cal. — Ballentine v. Superior
Court in and for San Mateo Coun-
ty, 158 P.2a 14, 26 Cal.2d 254.
24. U.S.— Jos. Riedel Glass Works
v. Keegan, D.C.Me., 43 •F.-Supp. 153.
Conn. — Burkhardt v. Armour & Co.,
161 A. 385, 115 Conn. 249, 90 A.L.
R. 1260.
34 C.J. p 722 note 32.
25. Ky.— Thomas v. Maysville St. R.
& Transfer Co., 124 S.W. 398, 136
Ky. 446, 136 Am.S.R. 267.
34 C.J. «p 722 note 33.
26. Wash. — Larson v. Anderson, 182
P. 957, 108 Wash. 157.
27. Conn. — Corpus Juris cited in.
Burkhardt v. Armour & Co., 161
A. 385, 115 Conn. 249, 90 'A.L.R.
1260.
34 C.J. ,p 722 note 35.
28. N.J. — McKenna v. Corcoran, 61
A, 1026, 70 N.J.Eq. 627, affirmed
71 A. 1134, 71 N.J.Eq. 303.
34 C.J. p 722 note 56.
29. Cal.— Black v. Bringhurst, 46 P.
2d 993, 7 Cal.App.2d 711.
Conn.— Corpus Juris cited in Burk-
hardt v. Arniour & Co., 161 A. 385,
388, 115 Conn. 249, 90 A.L.R. 1260.
N.Y. — Sarine v. American (Lumber-
men's Mut Casualty Co. of Il-
linois, 17 N.Y.S.2d 754, 2S8 App.
Div. 653.
Ohio. — Gholson v. Savin, 31 N.E.2d
858, 137 Ohio St. &51, 139 A.L.R.
1058
75— Kuhnell v. Harvle, 27 Ohio N.
P..N.S., 465.
Or. — Cooper v. Sagert, 223 P. 943, 111
Or. 27.
Pa. — McShea v. McKenna, 95 Pa.Su-
per. 338.
W.Va. — Chewning v. Tomlinson, 141
S.E. 532, 105 W.Va. 76.
34 C. J. p 722 note 37.
30. Conn. — Burkhardt v. Armour &
Co., 161 A. 385, 115 Conn. 249, 90
A.L.R. 1260.
W.Va. — Chewning v. Tomlinson, 141
S.B. 532, 105 W.Va. 76.
34 C.J. p 723 note 38.
31. Mass.— Ryan v. Annelin, 118 N.
E. 257, 228 Mass. 591.
34 C.J. p 723 note 58.
32. Wash. — Larson v. Anderson, 182
P. 957, 108 Wash. 157, 159, 6 A.L.R.
621.
34 C.J. p 7*3 note 39.
33. Ky.— Monticello Nat. Bank v.
Bryant, 13 Bush 419.
34. U.S.— Sandlin v. G*agg, C.C.A.
Okl,, 133 P.2d 114, certiorari de-
nied 63 S.Ct. 983, 318 -U.S. 785, 87
L.Bd. 1153.
Cal. — Salveter v. Salveter, 53 P.2d
381, 11 Cal.App.2d 335.
•La. — Sweeney v. Black River Lum-
ber Co., 4 La.App. 244.
Ohio. — State ex rel. Faulkner v.
Kreinbihl, 14 Ohio Sup-p. 49.
Okl. — Corpus Juris cited in Martin v.'
North American Car Corporation,
35 P.2d 460, 462, 168 Okl. 599.
Tex. — Myers v. -Southard, Civ.App.,
110 S.W.2d 1185.
34 C.J. p '723 note 43.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 579
another for him,35 although it has been held other-
wise where the assignment is to a third person for
such person's benefit36 Although there is author-
ity to the contrary,37 a judgment once satisfied can-
not afterward be restored or kept alive by the
agreement of the parties that it shall stand as se-
curity for other debts or liabilities, whether to the
same or another plaintiff.38
Satisfaction by one primarily liable also extin-
guishes the original debt or claim,39 and in an ac-
tion for the price of goods sold will operate as a
transfer of title thereto,40 but in a second action
which is not between the same parties, or does not
relate to exactly the same claim or demand, the ef-
fect of the satisfaction can extend no further than
the issues in fact litigated and determined in the
action wherein the judgment was recovered.41 By
accepting payment of a judgment and acknowledg-
ing satisfaction thereof, a person has been held to
admit only the finality and conclusiveness of the
judgment as between the parties thereto.42
§ 578. Recovery of Payments
The recovery of money paid on a judgment or
execution in general is considered in the GJ.S. ti-
tle Payment § 143, also 48 C.J. p 740 notes 78, 79,
p 741 notes 80-84. The restitution of money paid
where a judgment is reversed is considered in the
title Appeal and-Error §§ 1980-1985.
Examine Pocket Parts for later cases.
§ 579. Entry of Satisfaction
According to the usual practice, when a Judgment
Is satisfied, an entry acknowledging or certifying that
fact should be made on the record or Judgment docket,
although it has been held that such entry Is not essen-
tial to a satisfaction.
According to the usual practice, when a judg-
ment is satisfied, an entry acknowledging or certi-
fying that fact should be made on the record or
judgment docket,43 although it has been held that
such entry is not essential to a satisfaction.44 The
entry may be made by the clerk of the court on di-
rection of plaintiff or the owner of the judgment45
or his attorney of record,46 or on the return of an
execution "satisfied,"47 or proper evidence of re-
lease,48 or, under statute,49 but not at common
law,50 on receipt by the clerk of payment. The
entry of satisfaction by the clerk is a mere minis-
Mltect of payment by joint party or
third person see supra §§ 554-558.
"The general principle is well set-
tled that a satisfaction of Judgment
is the last act and end of the pro-
ceeding."—Broohier v. Brochier, 112
l\2d '60S, -604, 17 Cal.2d 822.
An executed compromise and 'sat-
isfaction of judgment through au-
thorized agent of judgment creditor's
assignee was binding on assignee. —
Sandlin v, Gragg, C.C.A.pkl., 133 F.
2d 114, certiorari denied 63 S.Ct. 983,
318 U.S. 785, 87 L.Ed. 1153.
Dormant Judgment
Payment or satisfaction destroys
integrity of a dormant judgment —
Gilmer v. Gant 24 So.2d 414, 247 Ala.
34'7.
Error regarding amount
Any orror regarding amount of
judgment is cured when it is paid
off and satisfied. — Clancy v. Reid-
Ward Motor Co., 170 S.W.2d 161, 237
Mo.App.f 1000.
judgment adjudicating- title to land
It has been held that the satisfac-
tion of a money judgment can have
no effect on another part of the judg-
ment adjudicating title to land.—
Johnstone v. Stondall Land & Invest-
ment Co., C.C.A.N.D., 298 «F. 919.
Payment or valuable benefit
Satisfaction of judgment implies
payment or valuable benefit — In re
James, 223 N.Y.S. 174, 221 App.£>iv.
321, reversed on other grounds In re
James* Will, 1«1 N.B. 201, 248 N.I.
1, reargument denied 162 N.E. 550,
248 N.Y. 623.
35. Okl. — Martin v. North American
Car Corporation, 35 P.2d 460, 168
Okl. 599.
34 C.J. p 724 note 44.
36. Wash.— Lachner v. Myers, 2&8
P. 1095, 121 Wash. 172.
34C.J. p 724 note- 45.
37. Pa. — Merchants' Nat Bank v.
Mosser, 29 A. 1, 161 Pa. 469.
34 C.J. p 724 note 46.
38. Neb.— Ebel v. Stringer, 102 N.
W. 4-66, 73 Neb. 249.
34 C.J. p '724 note 47.
39. La.— Sweeney v. Black Biver
Lumber Co., 4 La. App. 244.
34 C.J. p 724 note 48.
Notes
The satisfaction of a judgment on
a note operates to extinguish the
note. — Pappas v. Cappell, 17 N.E.2d
S537, 297 I11.APP. 301—34 C.J. p 724
note 48 [a].
Tax debt
Minn.— Walton v. Investment Hold-
ing Co., 274 N.W. 239, 200 Minn.
337.
40. jq-.Y. — pacific Coast Borax Co, v.
Waring, 112 N.Y.S. 458, 128 App.
Div. 66.
41. Mass.— Cote v. New England
Nav. Co., 99 N.E. 972, 213 Mass.
177.
34 C.J. p 724 note 50.
4ft. Mo. — Bennett v. General Acci-
dent, -Fire & (Life Assur. Corp., 2,55
S.W. 1076, 213 Mo.APp. 421.
1059
43. N.Y. — Sarine v. American Lum-
bermen's Mut. Casualty Co. of Il-
linois, 17 N.Y.S.2d 754, 258 App.
Div. 653.
34 C.J. p 724 note 57.
44. U.S.— Corpus Juris cited in
Sandlin v. Gragg, C.C.A.Okl., 133
F.2d 114, 119. certiorari denied $3
S.Ct. 983, 318 U.S. 785, 87 L.Bd.
1153.
34 C.J. p725 note 58.
45. Md.— Waters v. Engle, 63 Md.
179.
34 C.J. p 725 note 59.
Entry on order of court see infra §
581.
46. N.Y.— Wood v. New York, 60 N.
Y.S. 7-59, 44 App.Div. 299.
34 C.J. p 725 note £0.
47. N.D.— Milburn-Stoddard ' Co. v.
Stickney, 103 N.W. 752, 14 N.D.
282.
34 C.J. p 725 note 62.
48. Mich.— Beekman v. Sylvester, -66
N.W. 1093, 109 Mich. Ii83.
49. Ala. — Aicardi v. Bobbins, 41 AJa,
541, 94 Am.D. -614.
N.C.— Dalton v. Strickland, 179 S.BL
20, 208 N.C. 27.
Authority of clerk to accept pay-
ment see supra § 551.
50. nL— Seymour v. Haines, 104 I1L
557.
ND. — Milburn-Stoddard Co. v. Stick-
ney, 103 N.W. 752, 14 N.D. 282.
§ 579
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
terial act,51 although where such an entry is relied
on as a defense it has been held that strict compli-
ance with the statutory provisions is required.52
Payment of costs may be made a condition to en-
try of satisfaction.53
Satisfaction pending appeal. The fact that de-
fendant has taken an appeal is not a ground for ob-
jecting to the entry of satisfaction where the judg-
ment is satisfied pending the appeal.54
Partial payments on a judgment should be credit-
ed of record.55
§ 580.
Satisfaction Piece
A satisfaction piece is a written memorandum ac-
knowledging satisfaction of the judgment and author-
izing the clerk to make entry thereof on the roll.
A satisfaction piece is a written memorandum ac-
knowledging satisfaction of the judgment56 and au-
thorizing the clerk to make entry thereof on the
roll.57 It must identify and describe the judg-
ment,58 be duly executed by the judgment creditor59
or his attorney,60 on the request of the judgment
debtor or other person who was liable to pay, and
has paid, the judgment,61 be witnessed or otherwise
proved,62 delivered to the judgment debtor,63 and
entered on the judgment roll.64 Execution and ac-
knowledgment of a satisfaction are acts of equal
deliberation and solemnity with execution of an in-
strument under seal65 and discharge the judg-
ment,66 although the consideration therefor is less
than the judgment67
Construction. A written instrument filed pursu-
ant to statute governing satisfaction of judgments
ordinarily should not be extended beyond its ex-
press terms, unless such a construction is required
by some well-recognized rule of law.68
§ 581. Proceedings to Compel
a. In general
b. Form of proceeding
c. Parties and notice
d. Pleading and evidence
e. Trial or hearing
f. Determination and order
g. Appeal and costs
a. In General
Where a Judgment creditor has received actual pay-
ment of the judgment or any equivalent thereof, or the
obligation of the judgment Is otherwise discharged, but
he refuses to acknowledge or enter satisfaction, the
court having control of the judgment may compel him
to satisfy It, or may order satisfaction to be entered
officially.
Where a judgment creditor has received actual
payment of the judgment or any equivalent there-
for, or the obligation of the judgment is otherwise
discharged, but he refuses to acknowledge or enter
satisfaction, the court having control of the judg-
ment may compel him to satisfy it, or may order
satisfaction to be entered officially.69 Such action
51. U.S.— Cambers v. First Nat
Bank, C.C.Or., 144 F. 717, affirmed
156 'F. 482, 84 C.C.A. 292.
34 C.J. p 72-5 note 68.
62. Md.— Campbell v. Booth, 8 Md.
107.
53. U.S.— Naretti v. Scully, D.C.Pa.,
135 F. 828, affirmed, C.C.A., 139 F.
118.
54. Cal. — Buckeye Refining Co. v.
Kelly, 124 P. 536, 163 Cal. 8, Ann.
€as.!913E 840.
55. Minn. — Wolford v. Bo wen, 59 N.
W. 195, 57 Minn. 267.
34 C.J. p 725 note 72.
56. N.Y. — Booth v. Farmers' & Me-
chanics' Nat Bank, 50 N.Y. 396.
34 C.J. p 725 note 73.
Receipt
A satisfaction piece is a receipt. —
Becker Steel Co. of America v. Cum-
mings, D.C.N.T., 16 F.Supp. 601.
57. N.T. — Beers v. Hendrickson, 29
N.T. Super. 53, modified on other
grounds 45 N.T. 665.
58. N.Y.— Booth v. 'Farmers' & Me-
chanics' Nat. Bank, 50 N.Y. 39-6.
59. N.Y.— Altenau v. Masterson, 292
N.Y.S. 299, 161 Misc. 433.
34 C.J. p 725 note 76.
60. N.Y. — Altenau v. Masterson, su-
pra.
34 C.J. p 725 note 77.
81. N.Y. — Lindenborn v. Vogel, 115
N.Y.S. 962, 131 App.Div. 75.
34 C.J. p 72-5 note 78.
Preparation and costs
(1) A judgment debtor demanding
a satisfaction piece is bound to offer
the instrument to be executed to the
creditor, and to offer to pay the ex-
pense of its execution. — Pettengill v.
Mather, 16 Abb.Pr.,N.Y., 399.
(2) Under a statute providing for
the execution of a satisfaction piece
at the request of the Judgment debt-
or, it has been held that the judg-
ment creditor's attorney cannot be
compelled to issue an executed sat-
isfaction of judgment where the
judgment debtor did not present a
satisfaction piece, pay judgment In
money, or pay fees allowed by law
for taking acknowledgment. — Alte-
nau v. Masterson, 092 N.Y.S. 299,
161 Misc. 433.
62. N.Y.— Barley v. St Patrick's
Church Soc., 30 N.Y.S. 979, 81 Hun
369.
34 C.J. p 725 note 79.
1060
63. N.Y.— Barley v. St Patrick's
Church Soc., supra.
84. N.Y. — Beers v. Hendrickson, 29
N.Y.Super. 53, modified on other
grounds 45 N.Y. «665.
.34 C.J. p 725 note 81.
85. N.Y.— People v. Devlin, 118 N.
Y.S. 478, 63 Misc. 363.
66. N.Y. — People v. Devlin, supra.
67. N.Y. — People v. Devlin, supra.
68. Wash. — Johnson v. Stewart, 96
P.2d 473, 1 Wash.2d 439.
69. Ala.-— Bradley v. Bentley, 1-67 So.
294, 232 Ala. 114.
111. — Louis B. Bower, Inc., v. Silver-
stein, 18 N.E.2d 385, 298 IlLApp.
145.
Mo.— B. F. Goodrich Rubber Co. v.
Bennett, 281 -S.WV 75, 222 Mo.App.
•510.
Neb.— In re Mathews' Estate, 279 N.
W. 301, 134 Neb. 607.
N.J.— Morss v. Allen, 199 A. 414, 120
N.J.Law 203~-Corpns Juris cited in
•Luparelli v. U. -S. Fire Ins. Co., 188 .
A. 451, 452, 117 N.J.'Law 342, af-
firmed 194 A. 185, 118 N.J.Law 565.
N.Y.— Haubrich v. Haubfich, 40 N.Y.
S.2d 954, 180 Misc. 73$, appeal dis-
missed 46 N.Y.S.2d £06, 267 App.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
581
can be based only on matter arising subsequent to
the judgment, not for causes accruing prior to its
rendition or which might have been set up in de-
fense to the action70 or which were litigated and
decided on a previous motion or other proceed-
ing,71 and, on the other hand, a motion to compel
satisfaction may not be resisted on any ground
which existed at the time the judgment was ren-
dered, and which might have been urged at the tri-
al72
The duty to satisfy of record a judgment or de-
cree, on full performance by the party bound there-
by, follows as a necessary incident of the power
of the court to enforce its orders73 and prevent an
abuse of its process,74 and, therefore, in ordering
satisfaction on an application therefor, the court
acts judicially.75
Where the court's power to order a judgment
to be marked satisfied is entirely statutory,76 and
the statute conferring it is in derogation of the
common law and deprives a party of trial by ju-
ry, it must be strictly construed77 and restricted
to cases of actual payment in full,78 wherein there
is no substantial dispute about the facts.79 Inde-
pendently of such statute, however, and in all
cases where the statute does not apply, the court
has power to order an issue to try whether or not
the judgment has been paid or discharged, and if
the jury find that it has, the court may order a
perpetual stay of execution80 and defendant may
then compel plaintiff to enter satisfaction.81
Satisfaction as to all. The court should never
entertain jurisdiction of a motion to enter satisfac-
tion as to any of the parties to the judgment, unless
it is to be a satisfaction entirely and as to all.82
Credit of partial payments. The court will order
partial payments on a judgment to be credited of
record on proper proceedings for that purpose,83
brought by a person entitled to such relief.84
Div.. 872 — Brinn v. Wooding, 298
N.Y.S. 971, 164 Misc. 850— Broun-
Green Co. v. Powell Vocational
Corporation, 28 N.Y.S.2d 836.
N.C.— Dalton v. Strickland, 179 S.B.
20, 208 N.C. 27.
Ohio. — Mosher v. Goss, Ohio App., 60
N.B.2d 730.
Okl. — Corpus Juris quoted in Gupton
v. Western Kennel Club, 145 P.2d
179, 1'80, 193 Okl. 462.
34 C.J. p 725 note 85.
Trader statute
Where petition to have Judgment
marked satisfied on theory of pay-
ment was under statute providing for
correction of errors and securing
parties against abuse of process,
such statute was consfdered with
statute relating to satisfaction of
Judgment. — Bradley v. Bentley, 167
So. 294, 232 Ala. 114.
70u Cal. — Irvin v. Superior Court in
and for Los Angeles County, 3.5 P.
2d 642, 140 Cal.App. 622.
111. — Burket v. Reliance Bank &
Trust Co., 29 N.B.2d 297, 306 111.
App. 663.
34 C.J. p 726 note 86.
71. Ind. — Palmer v. Hays, 13 N.B.
882, 112 Ind. 289.
34 C.J. p 72-6 note 87.
72. Cal.— Haggin v. Clark, 12 P.
478, 71 Cal. 444.
111.— Frankel v. Stern, 50 Ill.Apj?. 54.
73. Okl. — Corpus Juris Quoted in
Gupton v. Western Kennel Club,
145 P.2d 179, 180, 193 Okl. 462.
84 C.J. p 726 note 89.
74.' Okl. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Gupton v. Western Kennel Club,
145 P.2d 179, 180, 193 Okl. 462.
24 C.J. p 726 note 90.
75. Okl. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Gupton v. Western Kennel Club,
145 P.2d 179, 180, 193 Okl. 462.
Or.— Herrick v. Wallace, 236 P. 471,
114 Or. 520.
34 C.J. p 726 note 91.
76. Pa.— Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
v. Krivitsky, Com.Pl., 46 Pa,Dist. &
Co. 641 — Bridesburg Bldg. Ass'n v.
Bailey, 40 Pa.Dist & Co. 211—
Metropolitan !Life Ins. Co. v. Dris-
coll, Com.Pl., 32 Del.Co. 53—
Schantz v. Clemmer, Com.Pl., 21
Leh.L.J. 394.
34 C.J. p 726 note 93.
77. Pa.— Hazleton Thrift & Loan
Corporation v. Kepping, 17 Pa.
Dist. & Co. 6-66, 26 Luz.Leg.Reg.
417.
34 C.J. P 726 notes 94, 9'5.
78. Pa. — Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
v. Krivitsky, 46 Pa.DIst & Co. -641
— American Bankers Finance Co.
v. Majeski, 17 Pa.Dist. & Co. 668,
22 r>el.Co. 433— Hazleton Thrift &
Loan Corporation v. Kepping, 17
Pa.Dist. & Co. 666, 26 Luz.Leg.Reg*
417 — Koch, to Use of Witman v.
Ernesto, Com.Pl., -34 Berks Co. 13,
5-5 York Leg.Rec. 141.
34 C.J. p 726 note 96.
Discharge in bankruptcy
It has been held that, where a
Judgment is automatically dis-
charged in bankruptcy, the judgment
will not be marked satisfied, but a
rule to mark the Judgment dis-
charged will be made absolute.—
Claster v. Krauss Bros., 17 Pa.Dist.
& Co. 483, 35 DauphuCo. 362.
79. Pa.— Henry v. Henry, Com.Pl.,
1061
,28 Brie Co. 149— Aponikas v.
Skrypkun, Com.PL, 5 Sen. Reg. 1.
34 C.J. p 726 jiote 97.
80. Pa. — Reynolds v. Barnes, 76 Pa.
427.
34 C.J. p 727 note 98.
81. Pa. — Reynolds v. Barnes, 76 Pa.
427 — Homer v. Hower, 39 Pa. 126.
82. Cal. — Barnum v. Cochrane, 73 P.
242, 139 Cal. 494.
Miss.— Long v. Shackleford, 25 Miss.
559.
83. Utah. — Cox v. Dixie Power Co.,
16 P.2d 916, 81 Utah 94.
34 C.J. p 727 note 1.
Moneys collected on execution
Where plaintiff, after first trial,
collected moneys on execution, but
new trials were granted, defendant
was entitled to credit on Judgment
finally rendered for amount so col-
lected.— Cox y. Dixie Power Co., su-
pra.
Judgment on mortgage note
Where mortgagee released pur-
chaser of mortgaged realty from all
liability by reason of assumption of
and agreement to pay mortgage,
original mortgagors have been held
entitled to credit on judgment taken
against them on mortgage note to
extent of amount paid by purchaser
for such release. — Mosher v. Gross,
Ohio App., 60 N.E.2d 730.
An entry of credit on a Judgment
by order of court, after the court has
adjourned, has not the same effect
as a remittitur. — Rowan v. People,
IS 111. 159.
84. Ark.— Whiting v. Beebe, 12 Ark.
421.
34 C.J. p 727 note 2.
§ 581
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
b. Form of Proceeding
(1) Motion or rule to show cause
(2) Civil action or bill in equity
(1) Motion or Rule to Show Cause
As a general rule, an application to compel entry
.of satisfaction of a Judgment should be In the form of
a motion In the court which rendered the Judgment.
As a general rule, an application to the court to
compel the entry of satisfaction of a judgment
should be in the form of a motion,85 in the court
which rendered the judgment,86 and entitled as of
the original action.87 Also, sometimes by virtue
of statutory provision,88 a motion is the proper
remedy for obtaining credit, or satisfaction pro
tanto, of record for partial payments.89 However,
a remedy by motion provided by statute in cases
where any payment has been made is not available
when defendant has not made any payment,90 but
seeks rather to enforce a parol contract for the sale
of land to plaintiff on condition that the judgment
should be satisfied as part of the purchase price.91
A motion to have satisfaction of a judgment en-
tered of record on the ground of payment since its
rendition is merely a motion in a cause .still pend-
ing, and is neither a special proceeding nor a civil
action.92 While it has been held to be a legal and
not an equitable proceeding,93 it has also been held
to be a proceeding equitable in nature.94
The motion should be to set aside the execution
and enter satisfaction, and not to set aside the exe-
cution and cancel the judgment.95 Sometimes the
motion is in the form of a regular complaint;96
and the fact that it is denominated a "supplemental
petition," instead of a motion, is not fatal.97
Rule to show cause. Under some statutes the
remedy is by application for a rule to show cause
why the judgment should not be marked satisfied of
record.98 Also the proper mode of obtaining cred-
it on a judgment for a partial payment has been
held to be a rule to show cause.99
Audita querela. Formerly relief was granted on
audita querela,1 and perhaps resort may be had to
this remedy,2 notwithstanding the existence of a
remedy by motion,3 but in most jurisdictions the
remedy by audita querela has fallen into disuse and
is now obsolete, the more convenient and less ex-
pensive remedy by motion having taken its place.4
(2) Civil Action or Bill in Equity
In some Jurisdictions an ordinary civil action may
be brought to have a Judgment declared satisfied.
In some code states, a judgment may be declared
paid and satisfied in an ordinary civil action brought
for that purpose, without regard to whether the
proceeding is at law or in equity,5 and such an ac-
tion and a motion to obtain a satisfaction of record
85. Cal.-<!ohn v. Cohn, 59 P.2d 969,
7 CaL2d 1.
111. — Burket v. Reliance Bank &
Trust Co., 29 N.E.2d 297, 306 111.
App. 563 — Louis ES. Bower, Inc. v.
Silverstein, 18 N.E.2d 38'5, 298 111.
App. 145 — Handel v. Curry, 254 111.
App. 36.
Neb.— In re Mathews' Estate, 279 N.
W. 301, 134 Neb. 607.
K.Y.— -Haubrich v. Haubrlch, 40 N.T.
S. 954, 180 Misc. 735, appeal dis-
missed 4-6 N.Y.S.2d 506, 267 App.
Dlv. 872.
Or.— Herrick v. Wallace, 236 P. 471,
114 Or. '520.
34 C.J. p 727 note 4.
At common, law defendant could on
motion in court have satisfaction of
judgment entered of record. — Com-
monwealth, for Use and Benefit of
Bates, v. Hall, 64 S.W.2d £85, 251
Ky. 280.
Petition or motion
A proceeding: under statute to com-
pel satisfaction of a paid judgment
may be instituted by petition or mo-
tion.— B. F. Goodrich Rubber Co. v.
Bennett 281 S.W. 75, 222 Mo.App.
"110.
88. Neb. — In re Mathews' Estate,
279 N.W. .301, 134 Neb. 607.
14 C.J. p 727 note 6.
Time
A motion to cause satisfaction of
the judgment to be entered may be
made without waiting for execution
to be issued. — Childs v. Franklin, 10
Ala. 79.
87. Iowa. — Dunton v. McCook, 94
N.W. 942, 120 Iowa 444.
34 C.J. p 727 note 7.
88. Ind. — Lapping v. Duffy, 65 Ind.
229.
N.C. — Brown v. Hobbs, 70 S.B. 906,
154 N.C. 544.
89. Ala. — Saltmarsh v. Bower, 34
Ala. 613— Mobile Branch Bank v.
Coleman, 20 Ala. 140.
90. N.C. — Brown v. Hobbs, 70 S.E.
906. 154 N.C. 544.
91. N.C. — Brown
92. Mo. — Corpus
B. F. Goodrich
nett, 281 S.W.
•510.
N.C. — Foreman v.
93. Mo. — Corpus
B. F. Goodrich
nett, 281 S.W.
510.
34 C.J. p 727 note
y. Hobbs, supra.
Juris quoted in
Rubber Co. v. Ben-
75, 77, 222 Mo.App.
Bibb. 65 N.C. 128.
Juris quoted in.
Rubber Co. v. Ben-
75, 77, 222 Mo.App.
13.
34. Ala. — Tennessee-Hermitage Nat.
Bank v. Hagan, 119 So. 4, 218 Ala.
390.
1062
95. I1L— Dibble v. Briggs, 28 111. 48.
34 C.J. p 727 note 14.
96. Ind. — Reeves v. Plough, 46 Ind.
350.
97. Iowa. — Dunton v. McCook, 94 N.
W. 942, 120 Iowa 444.
96. Pa. — O'Connor v. {Flick, 107 A.
139, ,2*65 Pa. 49.
34 C.J. p 7.28 note 17.
99. Md. — Grorsuch v. Thomas, 57 Md.
334.
34 C.J. p 728 note 18.
1. Or. — Herrick v. Wallace, 236 P.
471, 114 Or. 520.
34 C.J. p 728 note 20.
2. Mass. — Radclyffe v. Barton, 37
N.E. 373, 161 Mass. 327.
34 C.J. p 728 note 21.
3. Mass. — Lovejoy v. Webber, 10
Mass. 101.
N.Y. — Baker v. Judges Ulster Com-
mon Pleas, 4 Johns. 191.
4. Or.— Herrick v. Wallace, 236 P,
471, 114 Or. 520.
34 C.J. p 728 note 23.
5. NrD. — Peterson v. First & Secur-
ity State Bank of Crosby, 236 N.
W. 722, 61 N.D. 1.
Okl. — Thompson v. liindley, 101 P.
2d 848,' 1-87 Okl. 175.
34 C.J. p 728 note 24.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 581
have been held concurrent remedies;6 but if the
facts are so controverted and the rights of third
persons so involved that the court declines to deter-
mine the matter on motion an action is the only
proper remedy.7
Bill in equity. Relief usually is not obtainable
on a bill in equity alleging satisfaction, since the
parties have a full and complete remedy at law,8
although in some jurisdictions the remedy by mo-
tion and that by bill have been held concurrent,9
and a bill will lie where equitable relief is also asked
which cannot be had on motion in a court of law,10
or where complicated and difficult questions are in-
volved, in which cases a bill in equity is deemed
the most appropriate remedy.11
c. Parties and Notice
Either party to the judgment, or a person having
some legal or equitable interest in the satisfaction there-
of, is entitled to have it satisfied of record. Notice of
motion or rule to compel entry of satisfaction should
be given plaintiff or the party adversely interested.
Either party to the judgment,12 or a person hav-
ing some legal or equitable interest in the satisfac-
tion thereof,13 is entitled to apply to the court in
which it has been recovered to have it satisfied of
record. Notice of a motion or rule to compel en-
try of satisfaction of a judgment should be given
plaintiff or the party adversely interested.14 The
court will not order satisfaction of a judgment to be
entered unless all the parties interested therein are
brought before it and have an opportunity to be
heard,15 and an order made without notice to a
party in interest will be void.16 The person owning
the judgment is a necessary party to a proceeding
to have satisfaction thereof entered.17 An action
to obtain satisfaction may be brought directly
against an assignee,18 joining the assignor19 and the
sheriff holding an execution20 as parties defendant;
but where the proceeding is by motion or rule, it
must be solely between the original parties to the
judgment, and no stranger may be brought in or
intervene.21
d. Pleading and Evidence
General rules as to pleading and evidence are ap-
plicable in proceedings to compel satisfaction of judg-
ment.
In an action to have a judgment declared satisfied,
the petition or complaint must clearly allege the
fact of payment or the other circumstances relied
on as discharging the judgment,22 but it need not
allege that the person in whose favor the judgment
was obtained was the legal owner thereof at the
time of the alleged payment.23 A reply must not
depart from the complaint.24 In a suit for an ac-
counting on a judgment, it has been held that the
judgment creditor could, without pleading it, deny
that he received the consideration expressed on the
face of a release.25
The burden of proving payment is on the party
The statute of limitations has been
held not a defense in an action to
compel entry of satisfaction. — Wil-
son v. Brookshire, 25 N.B. 131, 126
Ind. 497, 9 L.R.A. 792— Palmer v.
Hayes, 13 N.B. 882, 112 Ind. 289.
6. Neb.— Manker v. Sine, £6 N.W.
840, 47 Neb. 738.
7. Kan. — Mayer v. Sparks, 45 P. 249,
3 Kan.App. 602.
8. Mo. — Corpus Juris quoted in
B. F. Goodrich Rubber Co. v. Ben-
nett, 281 S.W. 76, 77, 222 Mo.App.
510.
X.Y. — Allgeler v. Gordon & Co., 9 N.
Y.S.2d 848, 170 Misc. 607.
31 C.J. p 728 note 28.
9. Ind.— McOuat v. Cathcart, 84 Ind.
567.
10. N.Y.— -Allgeier v. Gordon & Co.,
9 N.Y.S.2d 848, 1*70 Misc. 607.
34 C.J. p 729 note 30.
Enjoining collection of paid or satis-
fled judgment see supra § 355.
11. Fla. — Dr. P. Phillips Co. v. Bil-
lo, 147 So. 579, 109 Fla. 316.
Pa. — Banks v. Jackson, Oom.Pl., 49
Dauph.Co. 107.
34 aJ. p 729 note 31.
12. Ala.— Childs v. Franklin, 10 Ala.
79.
13. N.Y.— Matter of Beers, 28 N.Y.
Super. 643.
34 C.J. p 729 note 35.
Subsequent judgment creditor
It has been held that a subsequent
judgment creditor of defendant is
not entitled to make application un-
der a statute providing that persons
concerned in interest may make ap-
plication to have Judgment satisfied
of record. — Heidelbaugh v. Thomas,
10 Wkly.N.C.,Pa., 141.
!4. or. — Herrick v. Wallace, 236 P.
471, 114 Or. 520.
34C.J. p 729 note '37.
15. N.Y.— Matter of Beers, 2S N.Y.
•Super. 643.
34 C.J. p 729 note 38.
Assignee of Judgment
Where plaintiff, against whom de-
fendant recovered judgment for costs
on appeal, paid judgment pursuant to
garnishment and moved to have
judgment satisfied of record, conten-
tion that judgment, having been as-
signed, could not be ordered satisfied
in absence of assignee's being a par-
ty to proceeding, could be raised, if
at all, only by assignee. — Mutual
1063
Building & Loan Ass'n of Long
Beach v. Corum, 60 P.2d 316, 16 Cal.
App.2d 212.
16. N.Y. — Wheeler v. Bmmeluth, 24
N.B. 285, 121 N.Y. 241.
34 C.J. p 729 note 39.
17. Ind. — Nelson v. Brown, 20 Ind.
74.
18. Ind.— Shields v. Moore, 84 Ind.
440.
Okl. — Gupton v. Western Kennel
Club, 145 P.2d 179, 193 Okl. 462.
19. Ind.— Shields v. Moore, 84 Ind.
440.
20. Ind. — Shields v. Moore, supra.
21. Del. — Budd v. Union Bank, 6
Del. 4*55.
34 C.J. p 729 note 44.
22. Ind.— Holliday v. Thomas, SO
Ind. 398.
34 C.J. p 729 note 46.
23. S.C.— Kittles v. Williams, 41 S.
E. 975, -64 S.C. 229.
34 C.J. p 730 note 47.
24. Ind. — Palmer v. Hayes, 13 N.B.
S82, 112 Ind. 289.
34 C.J. p 730 note 48.
25. Or. — CockerhaTm v. First Nat
Bank, 297 P. 363, 136 Or. 176.
§ 581
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
asserting it;26 and the burden of proving any
ground relied on affirmatively in opposition to the
motion falls on the judgment creditor.27 The court
will not compel entry of satisfaction unless the
evidence in support of it is entirely clear, certain,28
and uncontradicted.29 Likewise a credit of partial
payments will not be ordered unless the evidence is
clear and satisfactory.30 Under some statutes the
court may order entry of satisfaction without the
formal showing necessary to justify the clerk of
court in entering satisfaction.31
e. Trial or Hearing
A motion to enter satisfaction of a Judgment should
not be decided in a summary manner if the facts re-
lied on are seriously disputed and controverted.
Since a motion to enter satisfaction of a judg-
ment is a substitute for the ancient writ of attdita
querela, if the facts relied on are seriously dis-
puted and controverted, the court should not under-
take to decide the question in a summary manner,
but should direct an issue to be tried by a jury,32
or order a reference to ascertain the facts,33 un-
less the parties, without asking for a jury or refer-
ence, submit the issues to the court alone for trial.34
In some jurisdictions the court may hear and de-
termine the issue on affidavits and counter-affida-
vits,35 provided they are not in contradiction of the
record.36
f . Determination and Order
Where the court is satisfied that the judgment has
been fully paid or satisfied, it enters an order direct-
ing the clerk to enter satisfaction.
Where the court is satisfied that the judgment has
been fully paid or satisfied, it enters an order direct-
ing the clerk to enter satisfaction,37 and such an
order and entry are a matter of strict right.38 Re-
lief not within the scope of the motion or original
order to show cause may not be granted.39 It is not
26. Pa. — Fuhrman y. Fuhrman, 13
Lanc.Bar 123.
27. Cal.— Wood v. Currey, 49 Cal
359.
34 C.J. p 730 note 54.
28. Pa. — Hazleton Thrift & Loan
Corporation v. Kepping, 17 Pa.Dist
& Co. 666, 26 Luz.Leg.Reg. 417.
34 C.J. p 730 note 49.
Full and satisfactory
Court will not order satisfaction of
judgment to be entered, unless proof
of payment thereof is full and satis-
factory.— Megaro v. Cordasco, 161 A.
356, 10 N.J.Misc. £08.
AdmisoilJility
Where surety on bond to stay
judgment paid personal injury judg-
ment affirmed on appeal and took
satisfaction and assignment of judg-
ment, bond by which surety indem-
nified defendants against liability for
personal injuries was held admissible
on motion to compel entry of satis-
faction of judgment notwithstanding
movant was not party to indemnity
bond and surety paid judgment un-
der stay bond. — Smith v. 'Flail River
Joint Union High School Dist, 34
P.2d 994, 1 Cal.2d 331.
Sufficiency
(1) Evidence held . sufficient to
warrant that judgment be satisfied
of record.
Cal. — Mutual Building & Loan Ass'n
of Long Beach v. Corum, 60 P.2d
316, 1-6 €aLAjpp.2d 212.
Iowa. — Taylor v. Helny, 232 N.W.
695, 210 Iowa .1320.
La. — Ferris v. L. J. Patenotte & Son,
App., 12 So.2d 498.
N.J. — Gttllman v. -Sorventino, 130 A.
442, 101 N.J.Law 447, affirmed 133
A. 919, 102 N.J.Law 715. '
N.Y. — Brinn v. Wooding, 298 N.Y.S.
971, 164 Misc. 850.
(2) Proof of payment held not suf-
ficient to justify entry of satisfac-
tion of judgment. — Megaro v. Cord-
asco, 161 A. 3'56, 10 N.J.Misc. 908.
(3) Evidence held sufficient to
show particular matters. — Thompson
V. Lindley, 101 P.2d 84:8, 187 Okl. 175.
(4) Evidence held insufficient to
show particular matters. — Federal
Land Bank v. Heath, 164 P.2d 125,
160 Kan. 645.
29. N.Y.— Barker v. Crawford, 11 N.
Y.S. 337.
34 C.J.p 730 note 50.
tTncontradictea affidavit
(1) It has been held that the court
may not declare judgment satisfied
on uncontradicted affidavit of judg-
ment debtor that judgment was paid.
— Welk v. Conner, 282 P. 963, 102 Cal.
App. 386.
(2) An uncontradicted affidavit of
payment, however, has been held suf-
ficient to justify the relief asked. —
Bartikowski v. Lambert, 9 Kulp., Pa.,
493—34 C.J. p 730 note 50 [a].
30. Or. — Cockerham v. First Nat.
Bank, 297 P. 363, 136 Or. 176.
Pa.— Bishop v. Good&art, 19 A. 1026,
135 Pa. 374.
In suit for accounting, under evi-
dence, judgment debtor was held not
entitled to credit allegedly arising
from execution sale and resale to
debtor. — Cockerham v. First Nat
Bank, 297 P. 363, 136 Or. 176.
31. Idaho. — Tanner v. Wood, 90 P.
733, 13 Idaho 486.
32. 111. — Louis B. Bower, Inc. v.
Silverstein, 18 N.E.2d 385, 298 111.
App. 145 — Handley v. Moburg, 266
IlLApp. &56 — Handel v. Curry, 254
IlLApp. 36.
Pa. — Koch, to Use of Whitman v.
Ernesto, Com.PL, 34 Berks.Co. 13, J
1064
. 55 York Leg.Rec. 141— Henry r.
Henry, Com.Pl., 28 Erie Co. 149—
Henshaw v. Brown, Com.Pl., 87
Pittsb.'Leg.J. 10, 2 -Fay.L.J. 50.
34 C.J. p 730 note 56.
33. N.T.— Haubrich v. Haubrich, 40
N.Y.S.2d 954, 180 Misc. 73'5, appeal
dismissed 46 N.Y.S.Sd 506, 267 App.
Div. 872.
34 C.J. p 730 note 57.
34L Cal. — Cohn v. Cohn, 59 P.2d 969,
7 Cal.2d 1.
34 C.J. p 730 note 58.
35. Cal.— Cohn v. Cohn, 59 P.2d 969,
7 Cal.2d 1.
Or.— Herrick v. Wallace, 236 P. 471,
114 Or. 520.
34 C.J. p 730 note 59.
Affidavit used to obtain rule to
show cause why judgment should not
be satisfied of record cannot be used
to sustain entry of satisfaction of
judgment. — Megaro v. Cordasco, 161
A. 356, 10 N.J.Misc. 908.
36. Cal.— Haggin v. Clark, 12 P. 478,
71 Cal. 444.
34 C.J. p 730 note 60.
37. Ark. — Davis v. Oaks, 60 S.W.2d
922, 187 Ark. .501.
Cal. — Irvin v. Superior Court in and
for Los Angeles County, 35 P.2d
642, 140 CaLApp. 622.
N.Y. — Brinn v. Wooding, 298 N.Y.S.
971, 164 Misc. 850.
Pa.— Union Trust Co. of New Castle
v. Tutino, 44 A.2d 556, 353 Pa. 145
— Sadow v. Brandwene, Com.Pl., 46
Lack.Jur. 2-85.
34 C.J. p 730 note 61.
38. N.J. — Lawrence v. Dickey, 12 N.
J.Law 368.
39. Mo. — Schneider v. Meyer, 56 Mo.
475.
Wash.— Hawks v. Votaw, 23 P, 442,
1 Wash. 70.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 582
proper to cancel or strike off the judgment;40 but
a perpetual stay of proceedings may be granted.41
An order of court, made on due application and
hearing, requiring satisfaction to be entered, is a
judicial act, and entitled to all the respect due to a
record,42 although it may be impeached for fraud
or collusion.43 Where there is a serious contro-
versy as to the facts, the motion may be dismissed
and the parties remitted to a regular action.44
Where the court declines to take jurisdiction, its
overruling of the motion is not a bar to an applica-
tion for relief in equity;45 but where it denies the
motion after a hearing the determination is conclu-
sive, as to all matters litigated and adjudicated, in a
subsequent proceeding to revive the judgment.46
g. Appeal and Costs
An order entered op a motion to compel satisfac-
tion of a judgment is appealable. Costs and expenses
of a successful application may be charged to the party
who wrongfully refuses to satisfy the judgment.
An order entered on a motion to compel satisfac-
tion of a judgment is appealable,47 and, at lease in
some jurisdictions, may be reviewed by certiorari.48
An intermediate court will not take "jurisdiction of
an appeal while an appeal to a higher court is pend-
ing.49 The costs and expenses of a successful ap-
plication for satisfaction may be charged to the par-
ty who wrongfully refuses to satisfy the judg-
ment.60
§ 532. Actions and Penalties for Failure
to Satisfy
Under some statutes an action may be maintained
to recover a penalty or damages against a Judgment
creditor for neglect or refusal to satisfy a judgment of
record when it has been* paid.
Under some statutes penalties are provided
against a judgment creditor who, within a certain
period after being requested to do so, neglects or
refuses to satisfy a judgment of record when the
judgment has been- paid.51 Such a statute is penal
and, therefore, according to the familiar rule for
the construction of such statutes, is not to be ex-
tended beyond its plain terms.52 To sustain an ac-
tion on the statute plaintiff must be a party ag-
grieved by the refusal to enter satisfaction,^ the
refusal must be willful, and not based on an honest
contention that the judgment has not been paid,54
and the failure to enter satisfaction must be due
to the creditor's own fault or neglect, not to that
of an officer over whom he has no control.65 The
action is justified where there has not been a formal
entry of satisfaction,56 although it will not be sup-
ported by an allegation of. payment before entry
of judgment.57 The form of action may be either
debt or assumpsit.58
If the statute awards damages instead of a fixed
penalty, the jury are at liberty to consider all the
circumstances by which the debtor suffered vexation
and inconvenience,59 but it is not necessary to plead
or prove actual damage resulting from the refusal
to enter satisfaction.60 The remedy thus provided
is exclusive ;61 but in the absence of such a statute
an action for damages will lie for the same pur-
pose.62
Action on the case. In some jurisdictions an ac-
tion on the case for failure to satisfy a judgment
40. 111.— Dibble v. Briggs, 28 111. 48.
pa. — Reynolds v. Barnes, 76 Pa- 427.
41. Mich.-— Whitney v. McConnell,
30 Mich. 421.
N.Y. — Hamlin v. Boughton, 4 Cow.
65.
42. Ark.— State v. Martin, 20 Ark.
629.
Pa. — Coyne v. Souther, 61 Pa. 455.
34 C.J. p 731 note 66.
Judgment at law
An order of entry of satisfaction
of Judgment, on application therefor,
has the Qualities of a judgment at
law.--Herrick v. Wallace, 236 P. 471,
114 Or. '520.
43.. N.T. — Mandeville v. Reynolds, 68
N.Y. 52$.
44. Minn.— Woodford v. Reynolds,
30 N.W. 757, 36 Minn. 155.
34 C.J. P 731 note «68.
45. Miss. — Long v. Shackleford, 25
Miss. 559.
46. Neb. — Broadwater v. Foxworthy,
77 N.W. 1103, 57 Neb. 406.
47. Or.— Corpus Juris cited in
Herrick v. Wallace, 236 P. 4'71, 473,
114 Or. 520.
34 C.J. -p 731 note 71.
48. N.J.— Lawrence v. Dickey, 12 N.
J.Law 368.
49. Mo. — Rosenberger v. Jones, 48
Mo.App. 606.
50. N.Y. — Briggs v. Thompson, 20
Johns. 294.
34 C.J. p 731 note "74.
51. Wis. — Johnson v. Huber, 93 N.
W. 826, 117 Wis. 58.
34 C.J. p 731 note 75.
52. Pa.— Marston v. Tryon, 17 Phila.
245, affirmed 108 Pa. 270.
34 C.J. p 731 note 76.
53. Pa.— Henry v. Sims, 1 Whart.
187— Pierce v. Potter, 7 Watts 475.
54. Wis.— Johnson v. Huber, 03 N,
W. 836, 11'7 Wis. 58.
55. Pa.— Bratton v. Leyrer, 12 Pa.
Co. 651.
1065
56. Pa.— Allen v. Conrad, 51 Pa. 4S7.
34 C.J. p 731 note«80.
57. Pa.— Lee v. Conrad, 1 Whart.
108 — Braddee v. Brownfleld, 4
Watts 474.
5ft. Pa.— Allen v. Conrad, 51 Pa. 487.
34 C.J. p 731 note 82.
59. Pa.— Allen v. Conrad, supra.
00. Pa. — Henry v. Sims, 1 Whart.
187.
34 C.J. p 731 note 84.
61. Pa. — Oberholtzer v. Hunsberger,
1 Mona. 543,
62. N.D. — Corpus Juris cited in Pe-
terson v. First & Security State
Bank of Crosby, 236 N.W. 722, 724,
61 N.D. 1.
34 C.J. P 731 note 86.
Proof aft to amount
Damages could not be allowed for
failure to satisfy Judgments of rec-
ord "without proof as to amount of
damages.— Taylor v. Heiny, 232 N.W.
695, 210 Iowa 1320.
583
JUDGMENTS
49 O.J.S.
is authorized and regulated by statute.63 The dec-
laration may describe the judgment as being for a
certain sum "with costs," without specifying the
amount of co-*s,64 but a variance between the
amount of the judgment alleged and the amount
proved is fatal.65
§ 583. Effect
Ordinarily a satisfaction of a Judgment, entered of
record by the act of the parties, Is prlma facie evidence
that the creditor has received payment of the amount
of the Judgment or its equivalent, and operates as an
extinguishment of the debt.
A satisfaction of a judgment, entered of record
by the act of the parties, is prima facie evidence
that the creditor has received payment of the
amount of the judgment or its equivalent,66 and
operates as an extinguishment of the debt67 and a
bar to further proceedings which continue on the
theory that the judgment remains a subsisting ob-
ligation,68 except where the satisfaction was pro-
cured by fraud69 or duress,70 or without considera-
tion,71 or on a condition which has not been per-
formed,72 or was entered by the clerk without au-
thority to do so.73 Thus, unless the case comes
within such exceptions, no action lies on a satisfied
judgment,74 and no further execution may issue,
even with the consent of the parties,75 until the sat-
isfaction is vacated and a new execution awarded
by an order of the court in which the judgment was
rendered.76 It has been held that the entry can-
not be impeached or inquired into collaterally.7^
Parties to an action cannot defeat a master's fees
included in a decree by filing satisfaction papers,
\vhere the master is not represented or consenting
in any way thereto.78
Entry without notice. An entry of payment or
satisfaction of a final judgment or decree, made at
a term subsequent to its rendition, is not binding
on a party in interest, nor is it evidence against him,
when made without notice to him.79
Entry of satisfaction as to one of two judgment
debtors. While it has been held that the entry of
satisfaction of judgment as to one of two judgment
debtors satisfies judgment as to both,80 regardless
of intent,81 it has also been held that the filing of
an instrument purporting to satisfy judgment
against only one of two judgment debtors does not
operate to satisfy the judgment as to the debtor
not released by its terms.82
§ 584. Vacation or Correction
a. Power of court or clerk
b. Grounds
c. Proceedings
d. Effect .
a. Power of Court or Clerk
A court of taw, by virtue of its control over its own
records, has inherent power on proper application to
vacate an entry of satisfaction, or to reverse an er-
roneous entry and make a correct entry nunc pro tune.
63. Del. — Silver v. Bhodes, 2 Del.
369 — Hendrixen v. Huey, 2 Del.
301.
Grounds of action in actions on case
generally see Case, Action on, § 5.
64. Del. — Silver v. Rhodes, 2 Del.
369.
65. DeL— Lofland v. Cade, 8 Del. 222
—Silver v. Rhodes, 2 Del. 369.
66. Pa. — City Deposit Bank & Trust
Co. v. Zoppa, 9 A.2d 361, 336 Pa.
379 — Bean v. Cement Nat. Bank of
Siegfried, 3 A.2d 1003, 134 Pa. Su-
per. 281.
34 C.J. p 732 note 90.
Not conclusive
Satisfaction of Judgment, such as
judgment entered on collateral judg-
ment note, is not conclusive of pay-
ment of primary obligation. — Win-
ters v. Wolfskill, 190 A. 395, 126 Pa.
Super. 168.
67. Tnd. — Kennedy v. Eder, 139 N.E.
372, 79 Ind.App. 644.
Ohio.— Gholson v., Savin, 31 N.E.2d
858, 137 Ohio St. 551, 139 A.L.R.
75. •
Pa. — Bean' v. Cement Nat. Bank of
Siegfried, 3 A,2d 1003, 134 Pa.
Super. 281.
34 C.J. p 732 note 91.
Intention, of parties is controlling.
—Winters v. Wolfskill, 190 A. 395,
126 Pa.Super. 168.
Judgment of condemnation
Recorded satisfaction of judgment
of condemnation reciting payment in
full for property condemned, al-
though satisfaction had obviously
been altered, required finding that
full payment for land taken had been
made, in . absence of proof that any
alteration was made after execution
of satisfaction almost twenty years
before petition to vacate judgment
was filed. — Village of Palatine v.
Dahle, 53 N.E.2d 608, 385 111. 621.
68. Ky. — Brown v. Vancleave, 6 S.W.
25, 86 Ky. 881, 9 Ky.L. 593.
Md. — Shriver v. Carlin & Fulton Co.,
141 A. 434, 155 Md. 51, 58 A.L.R.
767.
69. Ind. — Kennedy v. Eder, 139 N.E.
372, 79 IndLApp. 644.
34 C.J. p 732 note 93.
70. U.S. — Becker Steel Co. of Ameri-
ca v. Cummings, D.C.N.T., 16 F.
Supp. 601.
71. Mo. — Boynton v. Boynton, 172 S.
W. 1175, 186 Mo.App. 713.
72. N.T. — Anderson v. Nicholas, 27
N.Y.Super. 630.
1066
73. 111. — Seymour v. Haines, 104 111.
557.
74. Neb.— Ebel v. Stringer, 102 N.W.
466, 73 Neb. 249.
34 C.J. p 732 note 98.
75. Tenn. — Trevathan v. Caldwell, 4
Heisk. 535 — Bynum v. Murrell,, 8
Humphr. 701.
76. Or. — Snipes v. Beezley, 5 Or.
420.
34 C.J. p 732 note 1.
77. Md.— Tabler v. Castle, 22 Md.
94.
34 C.J. p 732 note 5.
78. 111. — German-A m e r i c <a n Sav.
Loan & Bldg. Ass'n v. Trainor, 127
N.E. 719, 293 111. 483.
79. Ala. — Armstrong v. Harper, 65
Ala. 523.
80. Ark.— Biggs v. Davis, 43 S.W.2d
724, 184 Ark. 834.
Mo.— Weston v. Clark, 37 Mo. 568.
Pa. — McShea v. McKenna, 95 Pa. Su-
per. 338.
81. Ark.— Biggs v. Davis, 43 S.W.
2d 724, 184 Ark. 834.
82. Cal. — Bank of America, Nat
Trust & Savings Ass'n v. Duer,
117 P.2d 405, 47 CXl.App.3d 100—
Sun Realty Co. v. Rosenstein, 290
P. 1053, 107 OaLApp. 484.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 584
A court of law, by virtue of its control over its
own records,83 has inherent84 power on proper ap-
plication to vacate an entry- of satisfaction,^ or to
reverse an erroneous entry and make a correct en-
try nunc pro tune;86 and it is not necessary to re-
sort to equity in order to obtain relief.87
A court of equity has jurisdiction to vacate an
entry of satisfaction,88 but it sometimes declines to
exercise jurisdiction on the ground that an adequate
remedy at law exists.89
Authority of clerk. Since the duties of a clerk
are ministerial and -not judicial, he has no author-
ity to vacate an entry of satisfaction of a judg-
ment,90 this being a judicial act.91
b. Grounds
The court will vacate or set aside an entry of sat-
isfaction of a Judgment for proper cause where the
rights of third persons have not intervened. The entry
of satisfaction may be vacated on such grounds as mis-
take, fraud, duress, undue influence, and the lack or
failure of consideration therefor.
The court will vacate or set aside an entry of sat-
isfaction for proper cause92 where the rights of
third persons have not intervened.93 Particularly
the court will vacate an entry of satisfaction of a
judgment in pursuance of an agreement of the par-
ties to that effect,94 or where it was entered by mis-
take of the clerk or plaintiff,95 or procured by mis-
representation, fraud,96 duress,97 or undue influ-
ence,98 or where it appears to have been irregularly
or improperly entered99 or that it will operate to the
83. Ky. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Commonwealth, for Use and Bene-
fit of Bates v. Hall, 64 S.W.2d
585, 586, 251 Ky. 280.
"34 C.J. p 732 note 8.
County courts
Statute requiring county courts to
keep record showing dates of judg-
ment and satisfaction thereof vested
such courts with all powers neces-
sary to proper and complete exercise
of supervision and control, including
power to purge record of error. —
Commonwealth, for Use and Benefit
of Bates v. Hall, supra.
A municipal court has been held to
be without power to vacate a satis-
faction piece. — People v. Fitzpatrick,
71 N.Y.S. 191, 35 Misc. 45G.
C4. Ky.— Corpus Juris quoted in
Commonwealth, for Use and Ben-
efit of Bates v. Hall, 64 S.W.2d 585,
586, 251 Ky. 280.
3i C.J. p 732 note 9.
85- 111.— -Benik v. Benik, 5 N.B.2d
620, 287 Ill.App. 631.
Ky.— Corpus Juris quoted in Com-
monwealth, for Use and Benefit of
Bates v. Hall, 64 S.W.2d 585, 586,
251 Ky. 280.
3£d. — ijegrum v. Farmers Nat. Bank
of Annapolis, 24 A.2d 281, 180 Md.
356.
Mo.— Kelley v. Kelley, App., 290 S.W.
624.
Utah^George Thatcher Corp. v. Bul-
len, 153 P.2d 655, 107 Utah 310.
34 C.J. p 732 note 10.
86. Ky. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Commonwealth, for Wse and Ben-
efit of Bates v. Hall, 64 S.W.2d
585, 586, 251 Ky. 280.
34 C.J. P 733 note 11.
87. Ky. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Commonwealth, for Use and Ben-
efit of Bates v. Hall, 64 S.W.2d 585,
586, 251 Ky. $80.
j^d. — Legum v. Farmers Nat. Bank
of Annapolis, 24 A.2d 281, 180 Md.
356.
34 C.J. p 733 note 12.
88. S.D. — Piano Mfg. Co. v. Thomp-
son, 112 N.W. 149, 21 S.D. 300, 11
L.R.A.,N.S., 396r 130 Am.S.R. 722.
= C.J. p 733 note 13.
89. 111.— Hubbard v. National
Stamping & Electric Works, 213
HLApp. 235.
Mo. — Boynton v. Boynton, 172 S.W.
1175, 186 Mo.App. 713.
90. 111. — Hughes v. Streeter, 24 HI.
647, 76 Am.D. 777.
91. 111. — Hughes v. Streeter, supra.
Okl.— Lambert v. Hill, 73 P.2d 124,
181 Okl. 225.
92. U.S. — Becker Steel Co. of Amer-
ica v. Cummings, D.C.N.Y., 16 F.
Supp. 601.
Cal. — Brochier v. Brochier, 112 P.2d
602, 17 Cal.2d 822.
Satisfaction of Judgment may "be
avoided for any cause rendering it
inequitable for defendant to avail
himself of the entry of satisfaction.
— Knaak v. Brown, 212 N.W. 431, 115
Neb. 260, 51 A.L.R. 237.
93. U.S. — Becker Steel Co. of Ameri-
ca v. Cummings, D.C.N.Y., 16 F.
Supp. 601.
94. Ky. — Corpus Juris quoted in-
Common wealth for Use and Bene-
fit of Bates v. Hall, 64 S.W.2d 585,
586, 251 Ky. 280.
N.Y.— Berdell v. Parkhurst, 6 N.Y.St.
12.
95. Cal. — Kinnison v. Guaranty Liq-
uidating Corporation, 115 P.2d 450,
18 Cal.2d 256.
Ky. — Corpus Juris quoted in Com-
monwealth for Use and Benefit of
Bates v. Hall, 64 S.W.2d 585, 586,
251 Ky. 280.
Md. — Legum v. Farmers Nat. Bank
of Annapolis, 24 A.2d 281, 180 Md.
356.
Pa. — Personal Finance Co. v. Staf-
ford, Com.Pl., 28 Brie Co. 143.
34 C.J. p 733 note 21.
96. III.— Paul v. Shukes, 56 N.B.2d
141, 323 HLApp. 527— Benik v. Be-
nik, 5 N.B.2d 620, 287 HLApp. 631.
Ky. — Corpus Corpus quoted in Com-
1067
monwealth, for Use and Benefit of
Bates v. Hall, 64 S.W.2d 585, 586,
251 Ky. 280.
Neb.— Marshall v. Howe. 230 N.W.
446, 119 Neb. 591.
34 C.J. p 733 note 22.
Constructive fraud
Creditor, basing settlement of
judgment for less than face amount
thereof on debtor's ability to pay
and on representation that there
had been full disclosure regarding
indemnity insurance, could have set-
tlement vacated on subsequent dis-
covery of undisclosed insurance, fail-
ure to disclose such insurance con-
stituting, in equity, constructive
fraud. — Hernig v. Harris, 175 A, 169,
117 N.J.Bq. 146.
Evidence held sufficient to show
fraud
Mo. — Hunter v. Wabash R. Co., 140
S.W. 930, 160 Mo.App. 601.
Wis. — Simon v. Lecker, 285 N.W. 406,
231 Wis. 106.
Evidence held insufltoient to show
fraud
Mo.— Kelley v. Kelley, App., 290 S.
W. 624.
S.D.— Murdy v. Murdy, 276 N.W. 728,
65 S.D. 586.
34 C.J. p 733 note 22 [c],
97. U.S.— Becker Steel Co. of Ameri-
ca v. Cummings, D.C.N.T., 16 F.
. Supp. 601.
Ind.— Stewart v. Annel, 62 Ind. 593.
Ky. — Corpus Juris quoted in Com-
monwealth, for Use and Benefit of
Bates v. Hall, 64 S.W.2d 5C5, 586,
251 Ky. 280.
98- Ky. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Commonwealth, for Use and Bene-
fit of Bates v. Hall, 64 S.W.2d 585,
586, 251 Ky. 280.
N.T. — Bergheim v. Hofstatter, 276 N.
Y.S. 188, 243 App.Div. 568.
34 C.J. p 733 note 24.
99. Ky. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Commonwealth, for Use and Bene-
fit &f Bates v. Hall, 64 S.W.2d 585,
586, 251 Ky. 280.
34 C.J. p 733 note 25.
§584
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S,
disadvantage of a third person having a lien on the
judgment or entitled to be protected or secured by
it*
Likewise, the court will vacate an entry of satis-
faction where there has been a lack or failure of
consideration therefor,2 or where there has been a
failure to perform the conditions of a settlement
between the parties on which the satisfaction was
based.3 Further, the court may vacate the entry
where there was a want of authority under the cir-
cumstances to make it,4 as, for instance, where an
unauthorized entry of satisfaction is made by plain-
tiff's attorney,6 the clerk of the court,6 sheriff,7 or
one of two joint judgment creditors.8 Also a false
or mistaken entry of a credit may be ordered cor-
rected or vacated.9
Void or irregular sale. Where property is sold
under execution on a judgment and bought in by
the judgment creditor, or the proceeds collected
from the purchaser, and satisfaction entered, but
the sale proves to be invalid or is afterward vacat-
ed, the entry of satisfaction will be stricken off on*
the application of the creditor.10
Absence of leviable interest in property sold*
Where the execution, judgment, and sale are all
regular, but defendant has no interest in the prop-
erty sold, according to some authorities, plaintiff
may have such apparent satisfaction vacated,11 un-
der the power of the court to correct its own rec-
ords,12 provided plaintiff acts within a reasonable.
time13 and the rights of third persons more deserv-.
ing of protection have not intervened.14 A direct-,
ly contrary view, however, has been taken by other
authorities,15 based on the doctrine that there is no
warranty of title in execution sales,16 and it has
been held that a mistake by the judgment creditor
who purchases land under an execution as to the
Order without notice
(1) Where satisfaction of a Judg-
ment is entered on motion of de-
fendant without notice to the Judg-
ment creditor, the latter has his rem-
edy by motion to set aside the or-
der and entry of satisfaction.— Thom-
as v. Rock Island Gold & Silver Min-
ing Co., 54 Cal. 578.
(2) An order of satisfaction of
Judgment on stipulation of judgment
debtor and strangers to suit, without
notice to Judgment creditor or his
attorneys may be set aside. — Shank
v. Lippman. 227 N.W. 710, 249 Mich.
22.
1. 111.— Paul v. Shukes, 56 N.E.2d
141, 323 IlLApp. 527.
Pa.— Peckville Nat. Bank y. Anthra-
cite Trust Co., 17 Pa.Dist. & Co.
15, 32 Lack.Jur. 138.
34 C.J. p 734 note 26.
2. Cal.— Argue v. Wilson, 40 P.2d
297, 3 CaLApp.2d 645.
Mo.— Kelley v. Kelley, App., 290 S.
W. 624.
Neb.— Knaak v. Brown, 212 N.W. 431,
115 Neb. 260, 51 A.L.R. 237.
Pa. — Steelton Finance Co. v. Kireta,«
Com.Pl., 46 Dauph.Co. 426.
S.D.— Smith v. Blackford, 228 N.W.
466, 56 S.D. 360.
Utah. — George Thatcher Corp. v.
Sullen, 153 P.2d 655, 107 Utah 310.
34 C.J. p 734 note 27.
Attachment set aside
Satisfaction ,by assignee of mort-
gage of its Judgment against guar-
antor on notes did not constitute ir-
revocable .payment of notes, prevent-
ing subsequent foreclosure suit and
was properly vacated where bank-
ruptcy court set.. aside attachment
under which judgment was satisfied.
—Smith v. Blackford, 228 N.W. 466,
56 S.D. 360.
Evidence held sufficient to show lack
of consideration
Okl.— Owens v. Lynch, 297 P. 223,
147 Okl. 298.
Wis.— Simon v. Lecker, 285 N<W.
406, 231 Wis. 106.
Evidence held insufficient to snow
lack of consideration
S.D.— Murdy v. Murdy, 276 N.W. 728,
65 S.D. 586.
3. Md.— Waters v. Engle, 53 Md. 179.
Pa. — Steelton Finance Co. v. Kireta,
Com.Pl., 46 Dauph.Co. 426.
34 C.J. p 734 note 28.
4. Mo. — Ekonomou. v. Greek Ortho-
dox Church St. Nicholas, App., 280
S.W. 57.
34 C.J. p 734 note 29.
TTnconstitutional statute
A satisfaction of Judgment en-
tered pursuant to an unconstitutional
statute will be stricken oft. — Brides-
burg Bldg. Ass'n v. Bailey, 40 Pa.
Dist & Co. 211— Second Nat. Bank
to Use of Security-Peoples Trust Co.
v. Jiuliante, Pa.Com.Pl., 19 Erie Co.
518.
5. La. — People's Homestead & Sav-
ings Ass'n v. Worley, 185 So. 880,
191 La. 453.
N.D.— Business Service Collection
Bureau v. Tegen, 269 N.W. 46, 67
N.D. 51.
34 C.J. p 734 note 30.
Authority of attorney to give satisr
faction see Attorney and Client §
99.
Presumption of authority held not
rebntted
Pa. — Trostle v. Harbaugh, 16 Pa.Dist.
& Co. 18.
6. Ala.— Aicardi v. Bobbins, 41 Ala.
541, 94 Am.D. 614.
34 C.J. p 734 note 31.
7. Ala.— Cook v, Bloodgood, 7 Ala.
683.
1068
Okl.— U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
v. Collier, 24 P.2d 651, 165 Okl. 35..
8. Cal.— Haggin v. Clark, 61 Cal. 1..
Mich.— Potter v. Hunt, 36 N.W. 58, 6S;
Mich. 242.
9. Ind. — Brunner v. Brennan, 49 Ind;
98.
Iowa. — Indiana State Bank v. Har-.
row, 26 Iowa 426.
10. Ky. — Corpus Juris quoted ln^
Lucas' Adm'r v. Stanley, 300 S.W.
889, 890, 222 Ky. 374.
34 C.J. p 734 note 40.
11. Minn. — Ridgway v. Mirkovich,
260 N.W. 303, 194 Minn. 216.
Wis.— Hermance v. Braun, 285 N.W:
733, 231 Wis. 357.
34 C.J. p 735 note 41.
Subsequent foreclosure of mortgage*
It has been held that execution
sale and resulting satisfaction of"
Judgment could not be vacated on,
ground of mistake because, realty*
mortgage, subject to which property-
was purchased at execution sale, was.
thereafter foreclosed and property-
lost to purchaser at execution sale,
because of failure to exercise right
of redemption. — Ridgway y. -Mirko-^
vich, 260 N.W. 303, 194 Minn. 216:.
12. Vt.— Tudor v. Taylor, 26 Vt 444.
13. Wis. — Hermance v. Braun, 285;
N.W. 733, 231 Wis. 357.
14. Wis. — Hermance v. Bwm, su^
pra.
15. Ohio.— Vattier v. Lytle, 6 Ohio,
477.
34 C.J. p 735 note 43.
16. Pa. — Freeman y. CaJ.dw.ell, VH
Watts 9.
34 C.J. p 735 note 44,
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 584
extent of the debtor's interest is not ground for
setting aside the satisfaction after the sale and is-
suance of the sheriffs deed.17 Some statutes pro-
vide that the sale and satisfaction may be set aside
-when the judgment on which the execution issued
was not a lien on the property sold,18 as where prop-
erty sold is a homestead;19 and, independently of
statute, a satisfaction may be vacated where it re-
sulted from the sale of a homestead.20
c. Proceedings
(1) In general
(2) Parties and notice
(3) Hearing and determination
(1) In General
An application to set aside a satisfaction of judg-
ment ordinarily is made by mption in the original ac-
tion for an order canceling the entry or return of satis-
faction, and directing execution to issue for so much of
the judgment as remains unpaid.
While a satisfaction of a judgment may be set.
aside by an action21 or suit in equity22 brought for
that purpose, and sometimes scire facias23 or an ac-
tion on the judgment24 is deemed an appropriate
remedy, yet ordinarily the application to set aside is
by motion in the original action for an order can-
celing the entry or return of satisfaction, and di-
recting execution to issue for as much of the judg-
ment as remains unpaid.25 A motion to set aside
the satisfaction is properly made in the court in
which- the judgment is of record;26 but, except in
some jurisdictions,27 an action or suit for this pur-
pose may be brought in another court.28
Time of application. The application must be sea-
sonably made, so as to clear plaintiff of any imputa-
tion of laches29 and to be wifliin the time limited by
statute therefor.30
. (2) Parties and Notice
Proceedings to vacate an entry of satisfaction may
be maintained by a party to the record, or by an as-
signee of the judgment. Notice of application to strike
off a satisfaction must be given to parties interested
unless they have appeared.
Proceedings to vacate an entry of satisfaction
may be maintained by a party to the record,31 or
by an assignee of the judgment,32 but not by a
!7, or. — Poppleton v. Bryan, 58 P.
767, 36 Or. 69.
34 C.J. P 735 note 45.
18. Iowa. — Holtzinger v. Edwards,
1 N.W. 600, 51 Iowa 383.
19. Iowa, — Jones v. Blumenstein, 42
N.W. 321, 77 Iowa 361.
20. 111.— Hubbell v. Canady, 58 111.
425.
34 C.J. p 735 note 48.
'21. Ky. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Commonwealth, for Use and Ben-
efit of Bates v. Hall, 64 S.W.2d 585,
586, 251 Ky. 280.
•34 C.J. p 735 note 53.
Exclusion of testimony held errone-
ous
In action to annul judgment settle-
ment, exclusion of testimony con-
cerning attorney's false representa-
tions as to debtor's residence and
iftnancial responsibility, was held er-
roneous.— Deutsch v. Roy, 250 N.Y.
;S. 664, 232 App.Div. 543, followed in
250 N.Y.S. 669, 232 App.Div. 549.
£2. Col. — Kinnison v. Guaranty Liq-
uidating Corporation, 115 P.2d 450,
18 Cal.2d 108.
Ky. — Corpus Juris o,uot?d in Com-
monwealth, for Use and Benefit
of Bates v. Hall, 64 S.W.2d 585,
586, 251 Ky. 280.
Mo.— Kelley v. Kelley, App.f 290 S.
W. 624.
34 C.J. p 735 note 54.
(Conditions precedent
Creditor settling judgment for less
than amount due by reason of con-
cealment of debtor's assets need not
return, or offer to return, amount
accepted to maintain bill to vacate
settlement.— Hernig v. Harris, 175 A.
169, 117 N.J.E<i. 146.
Pleading
Execution creditor, suing debtor in
equity on loss of property purchased
to correct record showing credit on
[udgment, was not required to plead
that judgment was still in force. —
Lucas' Adm'r v. Stanley, 300 S.W.
889, 222 Ky. 374.
23. Conn.— Cowles v. Bacon, 21
Conn. 451, 56 Am.D. 371.
34 C.J. P 735 note 55.
24. Iowa. — Darrow v. Darrow, 43
Iowa 411.
34 C.J. p 735 note 56.
25. Cal. — Kinnison v. Guaranty Liq-
uidating Corporation, 115 P.2d 450,
18 Cal.2d 256 — Argue v. Wilson, 40
P.2d 297, 3 Cal.App.2d 645.
Ky.— Corpus Juris quoted in Com-
monwealth, for Use and Benefit of
Bates v. Hall, 64 S.W.2d 585, 586,
251 Ky. 280.
Md. — Legum v. Farmers Nat Bank
of Annapolis, 24 A.2d 281, 180
Md. 356.
Mo.— Kelley v. Kelley, App., 290 S.
W. 624.
Neb.— Knaak v. Brown, 212 N.W. 431,
115 Neb. 260, 51 A.L.R. 237.
34 C.J. p 736 note 57.
26. Ky.— Corpus Juris quoted in
Commonwealth, for Use and Ben-
efit of Bates v. Hall, 64 S.W.2d
585, 586, 251 Ky. 280.
Neb.— Marshall v. Howe, 230 N.W.
446, 119 Neb. 591.
34 C.J. p 736 note 64.
27. in. — Burney v. Hunter, 32 111
App. 441.
1069
28. U.S. — Miller v. Williams, Va.,
258 F. 216, 169 C.C.A. 284.
Iowa. — Darrow v. Darrow, 43 Iowa
411.
. Md.— Wilmer v. Brice, 46 A. 322.
91 Md. 71.
pa. — city Deposit Bank & Trust Co.
v. Zoppa, 9 A.2d 361, 336 Pa. 379—
Bridesburg Bldg. Ass'n v. Bailey,
40 Pa.Dist. & Co. 211— First Nat,
Bank & Trust Co. for Use of, v.
Bernstein, Com.Pl., 22 WestCo.
229.
34 C.J. p 736 note 67.
30. *Pa. — Bell v. Gluckman, 39 Pa.
Disk & Co. 165 — Niessen v. Loewe,
30 Pa.Dist. & Co. 605.
Wash.— Seattle v. Krutz, 139 P. 498,
78 Wash. 553.
34 C.J. p 736 note 68.
31. Cal.— Clark v. Johnston, 193 P.
864, 49 Cal.App. 315.
34 C.J. P 737 note 73.
Attorney
(1) Where satisfaction of amount
due under. mechanic's lien decree was
executed by plaintiff and filed in of-
fice of clerk of superior court, plain-
tiff's attorney, not being a party to
suit, was without standing to pre-
sent petition that satisfaction should
be set aside.— PauJ v. Shukes, 56 N.
E.2d 141, 323 I11.APP. 527.
(2) Motion by attorney to vacate,
where satisfaction is in fraud of
his lien see Attorney and Client §
231. b (2).
32. Cal. — Brown v. Brown, 3 P.2d
580, 117 Cal.App.2d 205.
34 C.J. p 737 note,* 74.
§ 584
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
stranger to the record,33 except where he was the
real party in interest and the satisfaction was a
fraud on him.34 All parties affected by the judg-
ment or claiming under or in relation to it must be
made parties to the proceeding to set aside.85 Also
notice of an application to strike off a satisfaction
must be given to the parties interested36 unless they
have appeared.37
(3) Hearing and Determination
A motion to vacate an entry of satisfaction of Judg-
ment may be determined on affidavits or depositions,
unless the evidence is conflicting on material questions
of fact. Where the evidence Is conflicting, the party
seeking relief should be remitted to an action, a court
of equity, or an issue should be directed for a jury.
A motion to vacate an entry of satisfaction may
be heard and determined on affidavits38 or deposi-
tions,39 if the court in the exercise of its discretion
chooses to do so.40 Where, however, the evidence
is conflicting on the material questions of fact aris-
ing on the motion, the party seeking relief should
be remitted to an action,41 or to a court of equity,42
or an issue should be directed for a jury.43
Regardless of the mode of procedure pursued, to
vacate an entry of a satisfaction of a judgment, the
remedy sought is governed by equitable rules,44
involving the exercise of sound discretion by the
court,45 the ultimate question being whether it is
inequitable to set aside, or refuse to set aside, the
entry of satisfaction.46 The entry of satisfaction
will not be vacated because of any matters antedat-
ing the judgment or affecting the original transac-
tion,47 or where the rights of third persons are prej-
udiced,48 such as a bona fide purchaser of property
33. Pa.— Appeal of Long, 19 A. 806,
134 Pa. 641.
34 C.J. p 737 note 76.
34. Cal. — Clark v. Johnston, 193 P.
864, 49 CaLApp. 315.
34 C.J. p 737 note 77.
35. Cal. — Kinnison v. Guaranty Liq-
uidating: Corporation, 115 P.2d 450,
18 Cal.2d 256.
Tenn. — Blackburn v. Clarke, 3 S.W.
505, 85 Tenn. 506.
34 C.J. p 737 note 78.
All judgment defendants
In a suit to set aside satisfaction
of a judgment, all the judgment de-
fendants are necessary parties, be-
cause If one was not joined the sat-
isfaction would remain valid as to
him and hence would operate as re-
lease as to all, and plaintiff's decree
would thus be a nullity. — Humberd
v. Kerr, 8 Baxt., Tenn., 291.
36. Cal. — Thompson v. Cook, 127 P.
2d 909, 20 Cal.2d 564— Spencer v.
Barnes, 43 P.2d 847, 6 Cal.App.2d
35 — Brown v. Brown, 3 P.2d 580,
117 CaLApp. 205.
Ky. — Commonwealth, for Use and
Benefit of Bates, v. Hall, 64 S.W.
2d 585, 251 Ky. 280.
34 C.J. p 737 note 79.
Assignee
To set aside second assignee's sat-
isfaction of judgment, on ground
that judgment had been previously
assigned to another, notice must be
given second assignee. — Brown v.
Brown, 3 P.2d 580, 117 CaLApp. 205.
Attorney
(1) It has been held that, where
an attorney is retained, service of
notice of a, motion to vacate a satis-
* faction must be made on him, and
not on the party, although he was
only constituted attorney to confess
judgment — Warden v. Eden, 2 Johns.
Gas., N.T., 121, CoL & C.Cas. 137.
(2) Service of notice of motion to
set aside satisfaction of judgment
and issue execution on attorney not
shown to be judgment debtor's attor-
ney of record was not notice to judg-
ment debtor. — Spencer v. Barnes, 43
P.2d 847, 6 Cal.App.2d 35.
(3) Testimony that certain person
said he was attorney for defendant
and another and had appeared in pro-
ceeding before court in pending ac-
tion as attorney for such parties has
been held not competent to show
that he was defendant's attorney on
whom notice of motion to set aside
satisfaction of judgment against de-
fendant might be served. — Spencer v.
Barnes, supra.
Opportunity to answer and be heard
Where assignee of rights of plain-
tiff in mechanic's lien proceeding
filed petition to set aside satisfac-
tion of judgment in the proceeding,
court, in passing on another peti-
tion to set aside the satisfaction,
should not have considered as-
signee's petition until defendant had
had opportunity to answer and be
heard concerning merits thereof. —
Paul v. .Shukes, 56 N.E.2d 141, 323
IlLApp. 527.
37. Cal. — Spencer v. Barnes, 43 P.2d
847, 6 Cal.App.2d 35.
Tenn. — Wilburn v. McCollom, 7
Heisk. 267.
38. N.D. — Acme Harvester Co. v.
Magill, 106 N.W. 563, 15 N.D. 116.
34 C.J. p 736 note 58.
39. Cal.— Haggin v. Clark, 61 Cal.
1.
40. N.Y.— Concklin v. Taylor, 68 N.
Y. 221.
41. Ky.— Corpus Juris guoted in
Commonwealth, for Use and Bene-
fit of Bates v. Hall, 64 S.W.2d 585,
586, 251 Ky. 280.
34 C.J. p 736 note 61.
42. Ky.— Corpus Juris quoted in
Commonwealth, for Use and Ben-
efit of Bates v. Hall, $4 S.W.2d 585,
586, 251 Ky/280.
1070
N.Y.— Greenfield v. Stern, 214 N.T.S.
37, 126 Misc. 561.
34 C.J. p 736 note 62.
43. Ky. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Commonwealth, for Use and Ben-
efit of Bates v. Hall, 64 S.W.2d
585, 586, 251 Ky. 280.
34 C.J. p 736 note 63.
44. Neb. — Marshall v. Rowe, 230 K.
W. 446, 119 Neb. 591.
Okl. — Lambert v. Hill, 73 P.2d 124,
181 Okl. 225.
Pa. — City Deposit Bank & Trust Co.
v. Zoppa, 9 A.2d 361, 336 Pa. 37fr
— Steel ton Finance Co. v. Kireta.
Com.Pl.1, 46 Dauph.Co. 426.
S.D.— Piano Mfg. Co. v. Thompson.
112 N.W. 149, 21 S.D. 300, 11 L.R.
A.,N.S., 396, 130 Am.S.R. 722.
Utah. — George Thatcher Corp. v.
Bullen, 162 P.2d 421.
Wis. — Corpus Juris cited in Her-
mance v. Braun, 285 N.W. 733, 734,
231 Wis. 357.
45. Okl.— Lambert v. Hill. 73 P.2<J
124, 181 Okl. 225.
Ba. — Steelton Finance Co. v. Kireta,
Com.PL, 46 Dauph.Co. 426.
Discretion held not abused
Cal. — Coviello v. Moco Fruit Co., 10P
P.2d 76'5f 42 Cal.App.2d 637.
46. Neb.— Marshall v. Rowe, 230 N.
W. 446, 119 Neb. 591.
Okl. — Lambert v. Hill, 73 P.2d 124,
181 Okl. 225.
Wis. — Hermance v. Braun, 285 N.W.
733, 231 Wis. 557.
34 C.J. p* 734 note 3-7.
47. Pa.— Appeal of Read, 17 A. £21,
126 Pa, 415.
34 C.J. p 734 note 38.
48. Neb. — Knaak v. Brown, 212 N.
W. 431, 115 Neb. 260, 51 A.L.R. 237.
Xntervener, not having changed po-
sition in reliance on entry of satis-
faction, could not prevent vacation
of entry and reinstatement of decree
of foreclosure. — Knaak v. Brown, »u-
pra,
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
385
who became such while the judgment appeared by
the record to be satisfied and discharged.49 The
entry of satisfaction will ndt be set aside where it
would be futile.50
An order denying a motion to vacate a satisfac-
tion of judgment has been held to bar further at-
tack on the validity of the satisfaction.51
Conditions of relief. As a condition to vacation
of satisfaction, plaintiff will usually be required to
place defendant in statu quo,52 but plaintiff is not
required to restore what in any event he would be
entitled to retain,53 it being sufficient to credit such
sums on the judgment54
Order. The court will direct the entry of an or-
der vacating the satisfaction of judgment where
proper cause is shown.55
Review. It has been held that the decision of
the court on a summary motion to strike off an im-
proper satisfaction is the decision of a matter of
fact, which is not subject to review on writ of er-
ror,56 and can be reviewed only by proceedings in
the nature of a writ of certiorari.57
Costs. In an action to set aside a satisfaction,
plaintiff has been held entitled only to statutory
costs.58 An assignee with notice of prior equities,
who enters satisfaction, will be charged with the
costs of a motion to vacate the entry of satisfac-
tion.59 The allowance of disbursements is not au-
thorized by some statutes.60
d. Effect
When an entry of satisfaction Is vacated the Judg-
ment Is again in force.
When an entry of satisfaction is vacated, the
judgment is again in force.61
XVITE. ENFORCEMENT OP JUDGMENTS
§ 585. In General
AS a general rule, a party recovering judgment has
the right to proceed to enforce it, and the court render-
ing judgment has inherent power to enforce it and to
make such orders and issue such process as may be
necessary to render it effective.
As a general rule, a party recovering a judg-
ment-has a right to proceed to enforce it62 Al-
though it has been held that the judicial function of
the court ceases when the judgment becomes final
and that the duty of enforcement devolves on the
executive department,63 the generally accepted rule
is that every court has inherent power to enforce
its judgments and decrees,64 and to make such or-
49. Neb. — Knaak v. Brown, supra.
34 C.J. p 734 note 39.
50- Cal.— Lidberg v. E. T. Letter &
Son, 2 P.2d 526, 116 CaLApp. 312.
51. Or. — Herri ck v. Wallace, 236 P.
471, 114 Or. 520.
52. Md. — Legum v. 'Farmers Nat.
Bank of Annapolis, 24 A.2d 281, 180
Md. 3.56.
S.D. — 'Lovely v. Wangsness, 264 N.W.
195, *64 S.D. 43.
34 C.J. p 735 note 50.
Where the status guo ante cannot
be restored, it is error for the court
having jurisdiction of the suit to
sustain a motion to set aside the
satisfaction and cancellation and re-
store the judgment to its original
force. — Davis v. McCullers, 97 So. 8,
132 Miss. 572.
53. Gal. — Gil son Quartz Mining Co.
v. Gilson, 47 CaL 597.
34 C.J. p 735 note 51.
54. Neb. — Grunden v. Skiles, 145 N.
W. 341, 95 Neb. 124— Pox v. State,
88 N.W. 176, 63 Neb. 185. .
55. Wia. — Simon v. Lecker, 285 N.W.
406, 231 Wis. 106.
Order held not entirely erroneous
Wis. — Simon v. Lecker, 2>85 N.W. 406,
231 Wis. 106,
56. Pa. — Appeal of Long, 19 A. 806,
134. Pa. 641— Murphy v. Flood, 2
Grant 411.
57. Pa.— Rand v. King, 19 A. 806,
134 Pa. 641.
34 C.J. p 737 note 72.
sa N.D. — Business -Service Collec-
tion Bureau v. Tegen, 269 N.W. 4-6,
67 N.D. 51.
59. Cal.— Cramer v. Tittle, 21 P. 750,
79 Cal. 332.
ea N.Y.— Concklin v. Taylor, 68 N.
T. 221.
61. Ind. — Kennedy v. Elder, 139 N.B.
372, 79 Ind.App. -644.
34 C.J. p 737 note 82.
62. Pa. — Randall v. Fenton Storage
Co., 182 A. 767, 121 Pa.Super. 62.
All means given by law
As long as judgment debt remains
unsatisfied, all means given by law
to enforce it are open to creditor.—
Edwards v. Perrault, 129 So. 619, 170
•La. 1011.
erroneous decree may be enforced
Ark.— Griffin v. Mitchell, 127 S.W.2d
640, 197 Ark. 1175.
Election
Plaintiff recovering separate un-
equal judgments against corporation
and its officer for malicious prosecu-
tion was entitled to elect to proceed
on judgment most favorable to him,
regardless of whether defendants
were joint tort-feasors. — Randall v.
Fenton Storage Co., 182 A. '767, 121
Pa.Super. '62.
Pendency of appeal
In action by landowner for oil roy-
alties where oil company admitted
that royalty owner had unencum-
bered title, previous objections to
which had been removed by judg-
ment from which no suspensive ap-
peal had been taken, oil company
could not resist payment of royalties
on ground that time for a devolutive
appeal had not expired and that, if
such appeal were taken, the judg-
ment might be reversed. — Irion v.
Standard Oil Co. of .Louisiana, 6 So.
2d 143, 199 La. 36-3.
63. Ohio. — Long & Allstatter Co. v-
Willis, 3 N.B.2d 910, 52 Ohio App.
299, appeal dismissed Willis v.
Long & Allstatter Co., 2 N.B.2d 600,
131 Ohio St. 287.
Loss of court's jurisdiction by final
disposition of cause generally see .
Courts § 94.
64. U.S. — 'Florida Guaranteed Secur-
ities v. McAllister, D.C.Fla., 47 IF.
2d 762.
Ala. — Jones v. Clity o.f Opelika, 4 So,
2d 509, 242 Ala. 24, followed in 4
So.2d 513, second case, 242 Ala. 24
and 4 So.2d 514, 242 Ala. 29.,
1071
§ 585
JUDGMENTS
ders65 and issue such process66 as may be necessary
to render them effective, and this power is not af-
fected by the fact that the decree is final.6? This
power lies in the court itself to be exercised with-
out the aid of a fact-finding body.68 The rule with
reference to the court's loss of jurisdiction over its
judgments after the expiration of the term, as dis-
cussed supra § 230, merely bars the court's right to
alter, modify, or change them but does not preclude
their enforcement as originally rendered.69
Ordinarily it is not necessary that a judgment be
served on any party to the cause after it is entered
or filed ;70 but under some statutes a judgment oth-
er than a judgment for money or for the possession
or sale of property is enforceable by service of a
certified copy;71 and, as discussed infra § 586,
where it is sought to enforce the judgment by con-
tempt proceedings, a copy of the judgment should
first be served on defendant. A joint and several
judgment may be enforced by the judgment creditor
against either or both of the judgment debtors.72
It has been held that a judgment may not be en-
forced in favor of a person other than the one in
whose favor it is rendered unless it has been trans-
ferred in writing to such person.73
§ 586. Enforcement at Law
a. In general
b. Auxiliary remedies
a. In General
Proceedings for the enforcement of a Judgment are
governed by the law of the jurisdiction in which they
are brought and by the law in force at the time such
proceedings are had; and the usual method of enforce-
ment, where the Judgment is for a sum of money, is by
execution.
Proceedings for the enforcement of a judgment
are governed by the law of the state or country in
which they are brought,74 and by the law in force
at the time such proceedings are had.75 As such
laws refer only to the remedy, all judgments and
decrees are taken subject to such changes, before
execution thereof, as the legislature may make in
the procedure for their enforcement.76 Jurisdiction
to enforce a judgment does not exist in another
court of equal rank with that in which the judg-
ment originated, unless authorized by statute;77
Ark. — Husband v. Crockett. 115 §.W.
2d 882, 195 Ark. 1031.
Cal. — Corpus Juris quoted la Securi-
ty Trust & Savings Bank v. South-
ern Pac. R Co., 4'5 P.2d 268, 270, 6
Cal.App.2d 585.
Ga. — Lewis v. Grovas, 9 S.E.2d 282,
62 Ga.App. 625.
Idaho. — Oatman v. Hampton, 256 P.
529, 43 Idaho 67,5.
Ky. — Commonwealth ex rel. Attorney
General v. Furste, 157 S.W.2d 59,
288 Ky. -631.
Mass. — Commonwealth v. Town of
Hudson, 52 N.E.2d 566, 3 To Mass.
535.
Okl.— Wolfe v. Smith, 148 P.2d 161,
194 Okl. 201.
Pa. — Commissioners of Sinking- Fund
of City of Philadelphia v. City of
Philadelphia, IS 8 A. 314, 324 Pa.
129, 113 A.L.R 202.
Tex, — Grand International Brother-
hood of Locomotive Engineers v.
Marshall, Civ.App., 157 S.W.2d 676
— Porter v. Tolbert, Civ.App., 116
S.W.2d 1158 — Burrage v. Hunt Pro-
duction Co., Civ.App., 114 S.W.2d
1228, error dismissed — Hunt Pro-
duction Co. v. Burrage, Civ.App.,
104 S.W.2d 84, error, dismissed.
34 C.J. p 737 note 83.
66. Ala. — Jones v. City of Opelika, .4
So.Sd 509, 242 Ala. 24, followed in
4 So.2d 513, second case, 242 Ala.
28 and 4 So.2d €14, 242 Ala, 29.
Ark. — Husband v. Crockett, 115 S.W.
2d 882, 195 Ark. 1031.
Cal. — Corpus Juris quoted in. Secur-
ity .Trust & Savings Bank v. South-
ern Pac. R Co., 45 P.2d 268, 270, 6
Cal.A'pp.2d 58-5.
Ind. — Dissette v. Dissette, 196 N.E.
684, 208 Ind. 567.
Tex. — International Brotherhood of
Locomotive Engineers v. Marshall,
Civ.App., 157 S.W.2d -676— Porter v.
Tolbert, Civ.App., 116 S.W.2d 1158.
34 C. J. p 737 note '84.
66. Cal. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Security Trust & Savings Bank v.
Southern Pac. R. Co.. 4'5 P.2d 268,
270, -6 Cal.App.2d 585.
Ind. — Dissette v. Dissette, 196 N.E.
684, 208 Ind. 567.
Tex. — International Brotherhood- of
Locomotive Engineers v. Marshall,
Civ.App., 157 S.W.2d 676.
34 C.J. p 73-8 note 85.
The express power of a court of
record to enforce its judgments by
proper process should not be
abridged by courts in absence of ex-
press or necessarily implied statu-
tory authority. — -Wolfe v. Smith, 148
P.2d 161, 194 Okl. 201.
67. Cal. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Security Trust & Savings Bank v.
Southern Pac. R. Co., 45 P.2d 2-68,
270, 6 CaLA'pp.2d £S5.
"Wash. — De Stoop v. Department of
•Labor and Industries of Washing-
ton, 84 P.2d 706, 197 Wash. 140.
34 C.J. p 738 note 86.
68. Tex. — Burrage v. Hunt Produc-
tion Co.. Civ.App., 114 S.W.2d 1228,
error dismissed.
69. Ky. — Lincoln Building & Loan
Ass'n v. Humphreys, 118 S.W.2d
736, 274 Ky. 359.
1072
70. Wash. — Western Security Co. v.
Lafleur, 49 P. 1061, 17 Wash. 406.
Notice of entry see supra § 112.
71. Mont — Nepstad v. East Chicago
Oil Ass'n, 29 P.2d 643, 96 Mont.
183.
Directing codefeudant to pay defend-
ant
Judgment directing codefendant to
pay royalty moneys over to defend-
ant is enforceable by service of cer-
tified copy of judgment and not 'by
general execution. — Nepstad v. East
Chicago Oil Ass'n, supra,
72. Kan. — Sloan v. Sheridan, 168 P.
2d 545, 161 Kan. 425.
Okl. — Tucker v. Gautier, 164 P.2d
613.
73. Ga. — Franklin v. Mobley, for
Use of Patrick, App., 36 &E.2d 173
— Arnold v. Citizens' & Southern
Nat. Bank, 170 S.E. 316, 47 Ga.App.
2.54.
Mode and sufficiency of assignment
of judgment see supra §§ 515-518.
74. Ark.— Husband v. Crockett, 115
S.W.2d 882, 19-5 Ark. 1031.
34 C.J. p 738 note 90.
What law governs validity of judg-
ment see supra $ 14.
75. Cal. — Weldon v. Rogers, 90 P.
1062, 151 CaL 432.
34 C.J. p 738 note 91.
76. 111.— Williams v. Waldo, 4 111.
264.
77. Pa. — Confmonwealth v. Shecter,
95 A, 468, 250 Pa. 2-82.
Jurisdictions of courts generally
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
586
and, where a judgment is recovered in one capacity,
proceedings to enforce it must be brought in the.
same capacity.78
Where the judgment is for the payment of mon-
ey, the usual process of execution will ordinarily
be the appropriate method of collecting it,79 unless
the right to issue this process has been limited or
deferred by an agreement of the parties;80 but the
right to enforce the judgment by execution is sub-
ject to the condition thatv the judgment must be
final, and that the amount, if uncertain, must be as-
certained in a proper proceeding before the writ
may issue, as discussed in Executions § 6. If the
judgment is rendered in pursuance of an agreement
of the parties which directs a particular mode of
satisfying it, it cannot be enforced in any way in-
consistent with the agreement.81 While service of
notice on defendant is necessary in an independent
action to enforce a judgment, no service is required
when the proceeding is in the form of a motion to
enforce.82 A demurrer to a petition to enforce a
void judgment is properly sustained.83
Time for enforcement. Generally, a judgment
may and should be enforced within the time limited
by statute, if any,84 and an exception to the limita-
tion period must be found in the statutes themselves
and cognate sections.85 Under some statutes, a.
procedure is established whereby action may be tak-
en to enforce a judgment notwithstanding the lapse
of the normal period of limitations.86 Such procer-
dure is regarded as a subsequent step in an action
already commenced and not a separate proceed-
ing.87 It has been held that the question whether
or not a dormant judgment shall be enforced is a
matter within the sound discretion of the trial
court.88
b. Auxiliary Remedies
In addition to the remedy by writ of execution
various other collateral or auxiliary remedies for the
enforcement of Judgments are recognized or established
by statute in various jurisdictions.
In addition to the remedy by writ of execution,
various other collateral or auxiliary remedies for
the enforcement of judgments are recognized or es-
tablished by statute in various jurisdictions,89 such
as attachment, as discussed in Attachment § 12, gar-
nishment, as discussed in Garnishment §§ 5, 12, and
supplementary proceedings as considered in Execu-
tions §§ 345-402. However, a court of one state
cannot give effect to the judgment of a court of an-
other state by enforcing any of the collateral rem-
edies provided in the state where the judgment was
rendered,90 or by enforcing remedies provided by
over Judgments of another court
see Courts § 496.
78. N.T. — Rodee v. Osrdensburg, 148
N.Y.S. 826, 86 Misc. 229, modified
on other grounds 151 N.Y.S. 349,
165 App.Div. 651.
79. Va. — Buchanan v. Buchanan, 197
S.E. 426, 170 Va. 458, 116 A.L.R.
68S.
34 C.J. p 738 note 95.
Enforcement of judgment by execu-
tion generally see Executions §§ 1-
1-2.
Only method
It has been held that district court
on its law side can enforce judg-
ment only by execution through its
ministerial officers. — McNary v.
Guaranty Trust Co. of New York, D.
C.Ohio, 6 F.Supp. 616.
Interest in partnership property
Holder of judgment against a part-
ner individually may by proper pro-
cedure reach judgment debtor's in-
terest in partnership property with-
out resorting to statute making judg-
ment against partnership on service
of summons on individual partner
enforceable against partnership prop-
erty.—J. C. H. Service Stations v.
Patrikes, 46 N.Y.S.M 228, 181 Misc.
401.
80. Ind. — Root v. Burton, 17 N.E.
194, 115 Ind. 495.
34 C.J. p 738 note 96.
49 O.J.S.-68
81. N.Y. — Potter v. Rossiter, 95 N.
Y.S. 1037, 109 App.Div. 32.
34 C.J. p 738 note 99.
82. Tex. — Burrage v. Hunt Produc-
tion Co., Civ.App., 114 S.W.2d 1228,
error dismissed.
5. Qa. — Thompson v. Allen, 128 S.
E. 773, 160 Ga. .535.
94. Cal. — Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
v. Elks Duck Club, 103 P.2d 1030,
39 Cal.App.2d 562.
Time to sue and limitations in action
on judgment generally see infra §
854.
Limitations in suit in equity to en-
force judgment see infra § 587.
85. Va.— Barley v. Duncan, 13 S.E.
2d 298, 177 Va. 202.
88. Cal.— Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
v. Elks Duck Club, 103 P.2d 1030,
39 Cal.A-pp.2d 562— Tolle v. Doak,
55 P.2d 542, 12 Cal.App.2d 195—
Palace Hotel Co. v. Crist, 45 P.
2d 415, 6 Cal.App.2d 690.
Discretion of court
Judgment creditor was not entitled
as matter of right to order for issu-
ance of writ of execution on showing
that prior execution was issued with-
in five years after judgment, where
twenty-one years had elapsed since
judgment was rendered; refusing to
issue execution was not abuse of dis-
cretion under circumstances. — Wil-
liams v. Goodin, «61 P.2d 507, 17 Cal.
App.2d 62.
87. Cal. — Paias v. Superior Court in
and for Alameda County, 24 P.2d
<567, 133 CaLApp. 525.
Wot action or special proceeding1
Procedure authorized by statute
for enforcement of judgment after
five years constitutes neither "ac-
tion" nor "special proceeding" of
civil nature, but is mere subsequent
step in action or special proceeding
already commenced which is- gov-
erned so far as time within which
step may be taken is concerned, by
•provisions of statute specially relat-
ing thereto — Tolle v. Doak, 55 P.2d
.542, 12 Cal.App.2d 195.
86. Cal.— Bank of America N. T. &
S. A. v. Katz, 113 P.2d 759, 45 Cal.
App.2d 138 — Williams v. Goodin,
61 P.2d '507, 17 Cal.App.2d 62—
Faias v. Superior Court in and for
Alameda County, 2*4 P.2d 567, 133
Cal.App. 525.
Dormant judgments generally see su-
pra 8 532.
89. N.Y.— Mills v. Thursby, 2 Abb.
Pr. 432, 12 How.Pr. 3'85.
34 C.J. p 669 note 96, p 738 note 1.
Enforcement by mandamus see the C.
J.S. title Mandamus § 97, also 38
C.J. p 638 note 3-p 639 note 15, p
641 notes 55-63.
90. Vt — Sullivan County Frob.
1073
586
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
statute in the state where enforcement is sought,
•where such remedies are limited by statute to
domestic judgments.91
« Contempt proceedings. As a general rule, as dis-
cussed in Contempt § 13, mere nonpayment of a
money judgment or decree does not constitute con-
tempt of court, and payment cannot be enforced by
proceedings and imprisonment for contempt.
Where, however, a jtu'^ment requires of a party
the performance of any act other than the payment
of money or delivery of real or personal property,
a performance of such act may be enforced by pro-
ceedings as for contempt;92 but, as in contempt
cases generally, as considered in Contempt § 57, an
application to punish for contempt is addressed to
the discretion of the court,93 and, under some cir-
cumstances, should be denied.94
§ 587. Enforcement in Equity
Although it Is presumed ordinarily that the court
•which renders a judgment is competent to enforce it
•without the aid of equity, the rule is subject to numerous
exceptions under which the power cf a court of equity
may properly be invoked where the legal remedy is un-
availing.
Ordinarily it is presumed that the court which
renders a judgment is competent to enforce it, and
equity cannot be invoked to obtain satisfaction.9^
This rule, however, is subject to numerous excep-
tions under which the power of a court of equity
may properly be invoked,96 as where the object is
to reach equitable interests in land, not subject to
execution,97 or other property of defendant which
cannot be made available in the ordinary way,98
or, except in some jurisdictions,99 where the judg-
ment debtor is dead and recourse cannot be had
against his estate without the aid of chancery.1
Before equity will grant relief, it must first ap-
pear that complainant has recovered a judgment at
law,2 and that he has no adequate remedy at law,3
or that his legal remedy has been lost without any
fault or laches on his part,4 or has been exhausted
without avail.5 On such a proceeding the regular-
ity of the judgment will not be inquired into,6 al-
though the nature of the original cause of action
may be investigated if its character would have any
influence on the action of a court of equity in the
premises.7 Complainant must of course show him-
self equitably entitled to the relief which he asks,8
and his petition will be defeated by anything show-
ing that it would be unjust or unfair to grant it.9
Jurisdiction. In order to sustain a bill in equity
for the enforcement of a judgment at law, it is nec-
essary that defendant should be subject to the juris-
diction of the court,1** or, if he is a nonresident,
Judge v. Hibbard, 44 Vt. 597, 8 Am.
B. 396.
34 C.J. p 739 note 5.
Enforcement of foreign Judgments
generally see infra § 892.
91. N.T.— Wood v. Wood, 28 N.Y.S.
T54, 7 Misc. 579, 31 Abb.N.Cas. 235.
34 C.J. p 739 note 6.
32. Tex. — Corpus Juris quoted in
Kimbrough v. State, Civ.App., 139
•S.W.2d 165, 168.
34 C.J. p 739 note 8.
93. N.Y. — Cochrane v. Ingersoll, 73
N.Y, 613, dismissing appeal 13 Hun
368,
34 C.J. p 739 note 10.
94. N.Y.— Potter v. Rossi ter, 95 N.
Y.S. 1037, 109 App.Div. 32.
34 C.J. p 739 note 11.
95. Ala. — Henderson v. Hall, 32 So.
840, 134 Ala. 455, 63 L.R.A. 673.
34 C.J. p 739 note 12.
9a tr.S. — McClaskey v. Harbison-
Walker Refractories Co., JD.C.Pa.f
46 P.Supp. 937, reversed on other
grounds, C.C.A., 138 P.2d 493.
•Fla. — Corpus Juris cited in Smith v.
Pattishall, 176 So. 568, 574, 127
Fla, 474, 129 Fla. 498.
Tex. — Hunt Production Co. v. Bur-
rage, Civ.App., 104 S.W.2d 84, er-
ror dismissed.
34 C.J. p 739 note 13.
Creditors' suits see Creditors' Suits
§§ 1-87.
Enforcement of lien see supra § 511.
97. Miss. — Ferguson v. Crowson, 25
Miss. 430.
34 C.J. p'739 note 14.
93. Ky. — Slaughter v. Mattingly, 159
S.W. 980, 155 Ky. 407.
34 C.J. p 739 note 15.
99. Ark. — Branch v. Horner, 28 Ark.
341.
34 C.J. p 739 note 16.
1. Mo. — King v. Hayes, 9 S.W.2d
538. 223 MO.A-PP. 138.
34 CJ. p 739 note 17.
2. Iowa.— Ware v. Delahaye, -64 N.
W. 640, 95 Iowa 667.
34 C.J. p 739 note 18.
Recovery of judgment as condition
precedent to creditors' suit see
Creditors' Suits § 42.
3. Iowa,— Mudge v. Livermore, 123
N.W. 199, 148 Iowa 472.
34 C.J. p 739 note 19.
4. S.C. — Solomons v. Shaw, 25 S.C.
112.
5. Ky.— Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v.
Green, 138 S.W.2d 933, 2#2 Ky. 466
—Shaw v. McKnight-Keaton Gro-
cery Co., 21 S.W.2d 269, 231 Ky.
223.
34 C.J, p 740 note 21.
1074
6. Ga. — Schl^v v. Dixon, 24 Ga. 273,
71 Am.D. 121.
34 C.J. p 740 note 22.
7. U.S.— Hassall v. Wilcox, Tex., 9
S.Ct. -590, 130 U.S. 493, 32 LEd
1001.
34 C.J. p 740 note 23.
8. U.S. — Rhodes v. Farmer, Miss.,
17 How. 464, 15 L.Bd. 152.
34 C.J. p 740 note 24.
Evidence held insufficient
In an equitable action to enforce
satisfaction of Judgment, evidence
was held not to warrant judgment
against judgment debtor's sales
agent on theory that it owed judg-
ment debtor certain sum. — Rowan
County Lumber Co. v. Kautz, 56 S.
W.2d 1, 246 Ky. 732.
Where city complied with decree
requiring it to maintain a certain
flow over a weir to compensate for
water diverted, fact that it thereaft-
er increased diversion did not de-
prive it of benefits of decree, but
rendered it liable for excess diver-
sion.— Adirondack Power & Light
Corporation v. Qity of Little Falls,
265 N.Y.S. 567, 148 Misc. 191.
9. Va. — Snoad- v. Atkinson, 92 S.B.
835, 121 Va. 182.
34 C.J. p 740 note 25.
1<X Ky. — Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v.
Green, 138 S.W.2d 933, 282 Ky. 4-66.
34 C.J. p 740 note 26.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 587
that the particular property sought to be subjected
to the judgment should be found within the state.11
Under some statutes, where a court of equity has
once acquired jurisdiction, it may decree the sale
of land in any county.12
Limitations. Equity will not entertain a bill to
enforce a judgment after the statute of limitations
has run against the judgment at law.13 Converse-
ly, equity may entertain a bill or petition to enforce
a judgment prior to the expiration of the time limit-
ed by the statute.14
Process and parties. The proceeding in equity is
an action independent of that, in which the judgment
was rendered, and further process is necessary.16
An assignee of a judgment may file a bill to en-
force it,16 or he may file a motion for a decree over
against defendant.17 All persons having interests
in the particular property sought to be subjected
should be joined as parties.18
Pleadings and evidence. In some jurisdictions
the bill or petition must allege that plaintiff has re-
covered a judgment against defendant,19 that exe-
cution has issued, directed to the county in which
the judgment was rendered or in which defendant
resided and was placed in the -hands of an officer
authorized to execute it,20 who has made a return of
no property found.21 The bill must set forth fully
the judgment on which it is based,22 but plead-
ing the judgment in general terms,23 or alleging, hi
pleading a judgment of a court of general jurisdic-
tion, that it was recovered in a named court, in a
designated action,24 or equivalent averments,25 have
been held sufficient. The bill should also allege the
assignment of the judgment, if any, to complain-
ant;26 show the liability of respondent to satisfy
it;27 and negative the existence of an adequate
remedy at law.28 The evidence must clearly, estab-
lish complainant's right to the relief prayed.29
Decree and relief. If the proceeding is merely
to enforce the lien of the judgment, a personal de-
cree for the payment of its amount will not be
proper ;30 but otherwise the. decree may be for the
aggregate amount of the original judgment with in-
terest and costs,31 although this relief may not be
given against defendants who are joined merely as-
claiming under alleged fraudulent conveyances from
the judgment defendant.32 The decree should gen-
erally give the debtor time to redeem from the sale
ordered, although this is not indispensable ;33 but it
should not undertake to adjust equities or settle
partnership accounts between defendants.34 Com-
11. Ky. — Trabue v. Conners, 1 S.W.
470, 84 Ky. 283, 8 Ky.L. 288— De
Wolf v. Mallett, 3 Dana. 214.
12. W.Va.— -Laidley v. Reynolds, 52
S.R 405, 58 W.Va. 418.
13. Minn.— Dole v. Wilson, 40 N.W.
161, 39 Minn. 330.
34 C.J, p 740 note 29.
14. Tenn.-- Williams v. Cantrell, 124
S.W.2d 20, 22 Tenn.App. 443.
15. Ky. — Dameron v. Osenton, 12
Ky.Op. 723.
16. Tenn.— Williams v., Cantrell, 124
S.W.2d 29, 22 Tenn.App. 443.
Prior assignee
Assignee of judgment, who was
entitled to priority over second as-
signee, was a necessary party to suit
to enforce judgment brought by sec-
ond assignee. — Wappler v. Woodbury
Co., 158 N.BL 56, 246 N.Y. 152.
17. Tenn.— Williams v. Cantrell, 124
S.W.2d 29, 22 Tenn.App. 443.
18. Kv. — Garrison v. Clark, 152 -S.
W. 681, 151 Ky. '565. ,
34 C.J. p 740 note 31.
19. Ky. — Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v.
Green, 138 S.W.2d 933, 282 Ky.
466— Shaw v. McKnight-Keaton
Grocery Co., 21 S.W.2d 269, 231 Ky.
223.
20. Ky. — Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v.
Green, 138 S.W.2d 933, 282 Ky. 466
— Shaw v. McKnight-Keaton Gro-
cery Co., 21 S.W.2d 369, 231 Ky.
223.
Petition held sufficiently specific to
disclose that judgment was rendered
in county wherein execution was is-
sued.— Dade Park Jockey Club v.
Commonwealth, by Auditor of Pub-
lic Accounts, 69 S.W.2d 363, 253 Ky.
314.
21. Ky. — Shaw v. McKnight-Keaton
Grocery Co., 21 S.W.2d 269, 231 Ky.
223.
Allegations held sufficient
A bill in equity seeking to enforce
a judgment and set aside alleged
fraudulent transfers on property
need not allege facts showing excuse
for delay in filing the bill after the
elapse of ten years from the date of
the last execution, it being sufficient
simply to allege that the judgment
remains unsatisfied. — Fleming v.
Fowlkes & Myatt Co., 85 So. 690,
204 Ala. 284.
Valid return
Statute requiring bill to enforce
judgment lien to state that writ of
fieri facias has been returned "no
property found" contemplates valid
return. — Lopinsky v. Preferred Real-
ty Co., 163 S.E. 1, 111 W.Va. 553.
22. Ind. — Brookshire v. Lomax, 20
Ind. 512.
W.Va, — Dickinson v. Chesapeake & O.
R. Co., 7 W.Va. 390.
23. Ky. — Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v.
Green, 138 S.W.2d 933, 282 Ky. 466
— Shaw v. McKnight-Keaton Gro-
1075
eery Co., 21 S.W.2d 269, 231 Ky..
223.
24. Cal.— Blake v. Blake, 260 P. 937,
86 Cal.App. 377.
25. Cal. — Blake v. Blake, supra.
26. Ky. — Shaw v. McKnight-Keaton.
Grocery Co., 21 S.W.Sd 269, 231 Ky.
223.
34 C.J. p 740 note 33.
27. N.Y.— Smith v. Ballantyne, 10
Paige 101.
28. U.S. — Knox v. Smith, Tenn., 4-
How. 298, 11 L.Ed. 983.
29. 111.— Turner v. Jenkins, 79 111-
228.
30. Ky.— Peck v. Trail, 65 S.W.2d
83, 251 Ky. 377— Shaw v. Me-
Knight-Keaton Grocery Co., 21 S..
W.2d 269, 231 Ky. 223— Smith v.
Belmont, 11 Bush 390 — Fanrier v.
Porch, 12 Ky.Op. "633, 5 Ky.L, 933.
34 C.J. p 740 note 37.
Enforcement of lien generally see-
supra § 511.
31. W.Va. — Douglass v. McCoy, 24
W.Va. 722. .
34 C.J. p 741 note 38.
32. Ala. — Lang v. Brown, 21 Ala.
179, 56 Am.D. 244.
•Fla. — Roper v. Hackney, 15 Fla. 323.
33. Va.— Crawford v. Weller, 2 a
Gratt. 835, 64 Va. 835.
34. W.Va.— Kent v. Chapman, 18 W-
Va. 485.
588
JUDGMENTS
49 C.J.S.
plainant cannot, by a petition to enforce a judg-
ment in his favor dismissing an action for an in-
junction and an accounting and awarding him costs,
"have an issue adjudicated where he failed to ask
for any affirmative relief and none was granted
liim by the judgment.35
§ 588. Scire Facias to Enforce
Scire facias may be used as a process for obtaining
the enforcement of a judgment when authorized by
statute or In special cases.
Scire facias may be * employed as a process for
obtaining the enforcement of the judgment when
authorized by statute, or in special cases,36 as where
the judgment includes installments of a debt subse-
quently to accrue,37 or where it embodies an ex-
press condition or is to be released on performance
of an act in pais.38 In a proper case, the writ is
available to the assignee of a judgment.39
Since scire facias is a judicial, and not an origi-
nal, writ, it should issue from, and be returned to,
the court which rendered judgment and has posses-
sion of the record.40 Generally issues which were
or might have, been raised prior to entry of judg-
ment will not be considered on scire facias there-
on;41 but this rule is inapplicable if the invalidity
of the judgment clearly appears from the record.42
The question whether or not a judgment is void
on its face may be properly considered on a mo-
tion to dismiss and quash service of the writ;43
but the question whether or not the allegations of
the writ comply with statutory regulations thereto
should be raised by demurrer and not on motion to
•quash.44 Scire facias is of course not available in
jurisdictions where it has been abolished by stat-
ute.45
Scire facias addressed to the devisees of a judg-
ment debtor is in the nature of a proceeding in
rem.46 The writ must allege that the debtor was
dead at the time it was issued, that he left a will
under which the addressees succeeded to his realty
as his sole devisees, and describe the realty.47
§ 589. Scire Facias to Obtain New Execution
Scire facias to obtain new execution is discussed
in Executions § 85, and scire facias to revive a
dormant judgment supra § 548.
Examine Pocket Parts -for later cases.
§ 590. Proceedings to Make Parties
Joint debtors not originally summoned may be made
liable to a Judgment by being summoned in accordance
with statutes providing therefor, or by means of scire
facias, where the common -law practice prevails, re-
quiring them to show cause why the judgment should
not be effective against them.
Where judgment has been recovered against one
or more of several persons jointly indebted on a
contract, the others not having been served, it is
sometimes provided by statute that the judgment
may be made effective against those defendants not
originally served, by summoning them afterward to
show cause why they should not be bound by the
judgment.48 Such proceeding is not an action on
the judgment,49 or one to enforce such judgment ;50
nor, strictly speaking, is it an action on the original
liability.51 It is a statutory proceeding based partly
on the former judgment and partly on the original
35. Ind. — Wagner v. McFadden, 31
NJS.2d 628, 218 Ind. 400.
"36. Tenn. — Corpus Juris cited in.
Williams v. Cantrell, 124 S.W.2d
29, 32, 22 Tenn.App. 443.
34 C.J. p 741 note 44.
.Necessity of scire facias or other
proceedings before issuing execu-
tion after:
Death of party see Executions $
85.
Lapse of time see Executions § 59.
.Scire facias generally see the C.J.S.
title Scire Facias §§ 1-20, also 56
C.J. p 866 note 1 et seq.
.Scire facias to revive judgment see
supra § 548.
37. Ky.— Outen v. Mitchels, 1 Bibb
360.
34 C.J. p 741 note 45.
.38. Pa. — Temjpleton v. Shakley, 107
Pa. 370 — Montelius v. Montelius, 5
PaX.J. 88.
39. Tenn.— Williams v. Cantrell, 124
, S.W.2d 29, 22 TenruApp. 443.
40. U.S. — Green v. Langnes, C.CJL
Wash., -82 F.2d 926.
34 C.J. p 741 note 47.
Jurisdiction and authority to issue
writ generally see the C.J.S. title
Scire Facias § 8, also 56 C..J. p 871
notes 72-78.
41. Del.— Woods v. .Spoturno, 183 A.
319, 7 W.W.Harr. 595, reversed on
other grounds Spoturno v. Woods,
192 A. 689, 8 W.W.Harr. 378.
Pa. — Calvey Motor Co. v. Brogan, 33
LuzXieg.Eeg. 272.
42. Del.— Woods v. Spoturno, 183 A.
319, 7 W.W.Harr. 295, reversed on
other grounds Spoturno v. Woods,
192 A. =689, 8 W.W.Harr. 378.
43. Del— Woods v. Spoturno, 183 A.
319, 7 W.W.Harr. 295, reversed on
other grounds Spoturno v. Woods,
192 A. 689, 8 W.W.Harr. 378.
44. Del.— Woods v. Spoturno, 183 A.
319, 7 W.W.Harr. 295, reversed on*
other grounds Spoturno v. Woods,
192 A. 689, 8 W.W.Harr. 378.
1076
45. Idaho.— Bashor v. Beloit, 119 P.
55, 20 Idaho 592.
40. D.C. — Waters v. Taylor, 584 OF.
639, 52 App.D.C. 135,
47. D.C.— Waters v. Taylor, supra.
48. Cal. — Carson v. Lampton, 73 P.
2d 629, 23 Cal.App.2d 535.
34 C.J. p 741 note 50—33 C.J. <p 1123
notes 84, 85.
Subsequent proceeding to charge
partners not served see the C.J.S.
title Partnership § 235, also 47 C.
J. p 1013 notes 32-38.
49. N.Y.— Hofferberth y. Nash, 120
N.Y.S. 317, 117 App.Div. 284, af-
firmed 84 N.E. 400, 191 N.T. 446.
33 C.J. p 1123 note 87.
Action on statutory joint judgment
see supra § 33.
50. N.Y.— Morey v. Tracey, 92 N.T.
581.
33 C.J. p 1124 note $8.
51. Wis.— Dill v. White, 9 N.W. 404,
52 Wis. 456.
! C.J. p 1124 note 89.
49 C.J.S.
JUDGMENTS
§ 591
liability.52 While the statutory proceeding to bind
the absent debtor has been held to be exclusive,58
it has also been held to be merely cumulative, and
not exclusive of other remedies,54 and that, there-
fore, a second action may be maintained against all
the defendants to the original action, on the original
cause of action ;55 such second action is not an ac-
tion on the original judgment.56 Such statutes fre-
quently contain provisions limiting the time within
which the new parties may be summoned.57
Joint debtors not originally summoned may also
be made liable to the judgment in those states where
the common-law practice prevails by means of a
scire facias requiring them to show cause why they
should not be so bound.58 This writ i's also an ap-
propriate common-law process for making a person
a party defendant to the judgment, who, since its
rendition, has become chargeable to an execution
thereon, or in some way accountable for the assets
of the original defendant, as in the case of subse-
quent purchasers, heirs, and devisees.59 Where a
scire facias issues to make one a party to a judg-
ment, the trial as to him should be conducted as if
no judgment has been rendered against his code-
fendant, and such defendant has a right to make
every defense which he might have made had he
been served with summons and a hearing had as to
him at the same time that the cause was heard as to
his codefcndant.60
§ 591. Scire Facias on Justice's Transcript
Where a transcript of a Justice's Judgment Is en-
tered In a court of record for purposes of lien and ex-
ecution, a scire facias either to revive it or to obtain
an execution against lands must issue from the superior
court.
Where a transcript of a justice's judgment is en-
tered in a court of record for purposes of lien and
execution as discussed supra § 129, a scire facias
either to revive it or to obtain an execution against
lands must issue from the superior court61 In such
a proceeding the merits and the validity of the jus-
tice's judgment cannot be inquired into, if want of
jurisdiction is not apparent.-62 The writ should be
correctly entitled in the names of the parties to the
original judgment,6^ and should show the rendition
of a valid judgment by the justice,64 the amount due
on it,65 the issue and rettrn of execution on it, if
any,66 and that the transcript was duly certified by
the justice67 and filed or recorded in the superior
court.68 If the scire facias appears on its face to be
valid, a motion to quash it will be overruled.69
Defendant may deny the existence of the judg-
ment or transcript,70 allege its alteration in a ma-
terial particular,71 or deny its filing in the superior
court.72 The allegation that he has lands within
the county which are subject to execution must be
proved,73 unless he appears and suffers judgment
by nil dicit.74 The issue and return of execution
from the justice's court is provable by producing the
original execution or a certified or sworn copy.76
52. Cal. — Cooper v. Burch, 74 P. 37,
140 Cal. 548.
N.Y.— Hofferberth v. Nash, 102 N.T.
S. 317, 117 App.Div. 284, affirmed
84 N.E. 400, 191 N.T. 446.
53. Cal. — Cooper v. Burch, 74 P. 37,
140 Cal. 548— Tay v. Hawley, 39
Cal. D3.
54. N.Y.— Lane v. Salter, 51 N.Y. 1.
33 C.J. P 1124 note 92.
55. N.Y. — Oneida County Bank v.
Bonney, 4 N.JE. 332, 101 N.Y. 173.
33 C.J. p 1124 note 93.
58. N.Y.— Dean v. Eldridge, 29 How.
Pr. 218.
57. Cal.— Christina v. Baker, 82 P.
2d 722, 28 Cal.App.2d 412— Carson
v. Lam'pton, 73 P.2d 629, 23 Cal.
App.2d 535.
58, Mont. — Kleinschmidt v. Free-
man, 2 P. 27-5, 4 Mont 400.
34 C.J. p 741 note 51.
59- Tenn.— Carney v. qarney, 200 S.
W. 517, 138 Tenn. 647.
34 C.J. p 742 note 52.
60. 111.— Lasman v. Harts, 112 111.
App. 82.
Evidence held insufficient to sus-
tain judgrment against party. — Arm-
strong v. Quill, 153 IlLApp. 81.
61. Ind.— Miller v. Shearer, 6 Ind.
50.
34 C.J. p 742 note 54.
62. Del.— Hill v. Brown, 4 Del. 519.
34 C.J. p 742 note 55.
63. Ind. — Codding1
Blackf. 601.
34 C.J. p 742 note £6.
v. Moore, 5
64. Ind.— Roller v. Custer, '6 Blackf.
433.
34 C.J. p 742 note 57.
65. InO.— Orput v. Hardy, 6 Blackf.
456.
66. Ind. — Shiel v. Ferriter, 7 Blackf.
574,
34 C.J. p 742 note 59.
67. Ind.— Nevils v. Campbell, 7
Blackf. 325.
68. Ind. — Nowland v. Jackson, 1
Ind. 162.
34 C.J. p 742 note 61.
69. Ind. — Hoover v. Davenport, 5
Blaokf. 230.
70. Ind.— Scott v. "Williams, 7
Blackf. 370.
71. Ind. — Roller v. Custer, 6 Blackf.
433.
72. Ind. — Bennett v. Jones, 7 Blackf.
110.
73. Ind. — Shiel v. -Ferriter, 7 Blackf.
574— Roller v. Custer, -6 Blackf.
433.
74. * Ind. — Groves
Blackf. 33.
75. Ind.— Henkle
Blackf, 423.
y. McCabe, 8
y. German, 6
See Vol. 50 for §§ 592 to End
1077
INDEX TO
JUDGMENTS
See Volume Containing End o£ Text
For Complete Index
OF VOLUME
1079
1O7 146
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11