Goldstein v. Siniscalco

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Goldstein v. Siniscalco

136 A. 593, 5 N.J. Misc. 382, 1927 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 230

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedMarch 18, 1927

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 136 A. 593 (Goldstein v. Siniscalco) 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

Goldstein v. Siniscalco, 136 A. 593, 5 N.J. Misc. 382, 1927 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 230 (N.J. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This suit was brought in the Hudson County Court of Common Pleas to recover the amount of a judgment, $805 damages and $46.12 costs, entered in the Superior Court of Pairfield county, at Bridgeport, in the State of Connecticut.

Upon notice and affidavits attached, the answer was stricken out, the damages assessed at $873.18 and judgment final was entered in that court for $873.81. The defendant appeals and filed seven grounds of appeal, after which, three additional grounds of appeal were filed. These various grounds of appeal call for no extended discussion. They are all without legal merit. Our Evidence act (2 Comp. Stat., p. 2225, § 16) provides suits on a foreign judgment, the defendant may show that the defendant therein was not summoned, did not appear, or was not within the jurisdiction of the foreign court. These facts all appear in the record and are not denied. This topic, suits on foreign judgments, was examined by Chief Justice Beasley in the leading case of Jardine v. [383]*383Reichert, 39 N. J. L. 165, which, leaves nothing to be added, and which ever since it was promulgated has been the accepted law of the state. That case holds, a judgment rendered in another state, when sued on here, can be impeached only on the ground that the adjudging court did not have jurisdiction over the person of the defendant or the subject-matter. If the defendant was present in the foreign state, when the proceedings were begun, and process was served upon him, no irregularity in such service, unless such as deprived it of all citatory effect, can be set up against the judgment ensuing thereon, in a suit on such judgment, in this state. To the same effect are the cases Patterson v. Taylor, 78 Id. 10; Hazel v. Jacobs, Id. 459; Smith v. Swart, 134 Atl. Rep. 755.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment of the Hudson County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

This suit was brought in the Hudson County Court of Common Pleas to recover the amount of a judgment, $805 damages and $46.12 costs, entered in the Superior Court of Pairfield county, at Bridgeport, in the State of Connecticut.

Upon notice and affidavits attached, the answer was stricken out, the damages assessed at $873.18 and judgment final was entered in that court for $873.81. The defendant appeals and filed seven grounds of appeal, after which, three additional grounds of appeal were filed. These various grounds of appeal call for no extended discussion. They are all without legal merit. Our Evidence act (2 Comp. Stat., p. 2225, § 16) provides suits on a foreign judgment, the defendant may show that the defendant therein was not summoned, did not appear, or was not within the jurisdiction of the foreign court. These facts all appear in the record and are not denied. This topic, suits on foreign judgments, was examined by Chief Justice Beasley in the leading case of Jardine v. [383]*383Reichert, 39 N. J. L. 165, which, leaves nothing to be added, and which ever since it was promulgated has been the accepted law of the state. That case holds, a judgment rendered in another state, when sued on here, can be impeached only on the ground that the adjudging court did not have jurisdiction over the person of the defendant or the subject-matter. If the defendant was present in the foreign state, when the proceedings were begun, and process was served upon him, no irregularity in such service, unless such as deprived it of all citatory effect, can be set up against the judgment ensuing thereon, in a suit on such judgment, in this state. To the same effect are the cases Patterson v. Taylor, 78 Id. 10; Hazel v. Jacobs, Id. 459; Smith v. Swart, 134 Atl. Rep. 755.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment of the Hudson County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 A. 593, 5 N.J. Misc. 382, 1927 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 230, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldstein-v-siniscalco-nj-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack