First National Bank of Brooklyn v. Wallis

Supreme Court of New Jersey

First National Bank of Brooklyn v. Wallis

34 A. 983, 59 N.J.L. 46, 30 Vroom 46, 1896 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 77

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedJune 15, 1896

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 34 A. 983 (First National Bank of Brooklyn v. Wallis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

First National Bank of Brooklyn v. Wallis, 34 A. 983, 59 N.J.L. 46, 30 Vroom 46, 1896 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 77 (N.J. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Magie, J.

If the matters set up in the plea demurred to availed as a defence against the notes whereon the judgment now sued on was recovered, it is obvious that they could have been interposed as a defence in that action. That fact is decisive of the question raised by this demurrer. For nothing is better settled than that the validity of judgments cannot be impeached for any supposed defect or irregularity in the ■transaction on which they were founded, and therefore no •defence can be interposed to an action on a judgment upon [48]*48matters existing before its recovery. That this doctrine is applicable to all judgments recovered in the same state or in any other state of the Union has never been questioned. Chit. Pl. 320, 427; Rock v. Leighton, Salk. 310; Erving v. Peters, 3 T. R. 686; Freem. Judg., § 249, and cases; Biddle v. Wilkins, 1 Pet. 686; Dimock v. Revere Copper Co., 117 U. S. 559; Boynton v. Ball, 121 Id. 457; Cromwell v. County of Sac, 94 Id. 351; Pringle v. Woolworth, 90 N. Y. 502; Weir v. Vail, 65 Cal. 466 ; McAllister v. Singer Manufacturing Co., 64 Ga. 622; Lawrence v. Stevens, 46 Iowa 429.

Plaintiff is entitled to judgment on the demurrer.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Magie, J.

If the matters set up in the plea demurred to availed as a defence against the notes whereon the judgment now sued on was recovered, it is obvious that they could have been interposed as a defence in that action. That fact is decisive of the question raised by this demurrer. For nothing is better settled than that the validity of judgments cannot be impeached for any supposed defect or irregularity in the ■transaction on which they were founded, and therefore no •defence can be interposed to an action on a judgment upon [48]*48matters existing before its recovery. That this doctrine is applicable to all judgments recovered in the same state or in any other state of the Union has never been questioned. Chit. Pl. 320, 427; Rock v. Leighton, Salk. 310; Erving v. Peters, 3 T. R. 686; Freem. Judg., § 249, and cases; Biddle v. Wilkins, 1 Pet. 686; Dimock v. Revere Copper Co., 117 U. S. 559; Boynton v. Ball, 121 Id. 457; Cromwell v. County of Sac, 94 Id. 351; Pringle v. Woolworth, 90 N. Y. 502; Weir v. Vail, 65 Cal. 466 ; McAllister v. Singer Manufacturing Co., 64 Ga. 622; Lawrence v. Stevens, 46 Iowa 429.

Plaintiff is entitled to judgment on the demurrer.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A. 983, 59 N.J.L. 46, 30 Vroom 46, 1896 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 77, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/first-national-bank-of-brooklyn-v-wallis-nj-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack