Goldstein v. Steele

Superior Court of Delaware

Goldstein v. Steele

80 A. 522, 26 Del. 125, 3 Boyce 125, 1911 Del. LEXIS 23

CourtSuperior Court of Delaware

DecidedJune 6, 1911

DocketNo. 477

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 80 A. 522 (Goldstein v. Steele) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Goldstein v. Steele, 80 A. 522, 26 Del. 125, 3 Boyce 125, 1911 Del. LEXIS 23 (Del. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

Rice, J.,

delivering the opinion of the court:

This was an argument on rule to show cause why a judgment should not be stricken from the records of this court and vacated.

The transcript from the justice of the peace, upon which the judgment in this court was entered, sets forth that the “attorney for Rebecca Goldstein, the plaintiff in this action, makes and files an affidavit to the demand and that there is danger of said plaintiff losing the benefit of process by-delay.” Upon this affidavit the justice of the peace on the twenty-seventh day of February, A. D. 1911, issued summons to the constable, returnable forthwith. The constable made return of “Summoned personally,” the same being verified by his oath in writing, and on the same day the defendants failing to appear, the justice of the peace gave judgment by default in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants. On the same day execution on the judgment was issued to the constable returnable on Saturday, June 3, 1911, and on this execution the constable made return of “No goods” on March 2, 1911. The next day, March 3, 1911, a certified transcript of the docket entries of the judgment and execution thereon, was filed in the prothonotary’s office in this county.

The petitioners in the rule, being.the defendants in the judgment, pray' that the judgment be stricken from the records of this court and vacated, claiming that the judgment is illegal, irregular and void, because the attorney for the plaintiff made and filed the affidavit, and not the plaintiff as required by the statutes of this state. Counsel for the plaintiff admits that the affidavit filed did not comply with the provisions of the statutes, but claims that the judgment should not be stricken from the records and vacated, for the reason that this is not the proper procedure to take, until the judgment below has been reversed by other proceedings.

The court are of the opinion that as the justice’s transcript of the docket entries of the judgment, filed in this court, clearly [127]*127discloses the fact that the affidavit was not taken by the plaintiff as required by the statutes, the justice of the peace did not have authority or jurisdiction to enter the judgment. Gray v. Vandyke, 5 Houst. 134; Dickerson v. Legore, 6 Penn. 462, 69 Atl. 1004.

As the authority or jursidiction was lacking in the justice, then the judgment and all proceedings therein are void.

We therefore make the rule absolute and order that the judgment be stricken from the records of this court and vacated.

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

Rice, J.,

delivering the opinion of the court:

This was an argument on rule to show cause why a judgment should not be stricken from the records of this court and vacated.

The transcript from the justice of the peace, upon which the judgment in this court was entered, sets forth that the “attorney for Rebecca Goldstein, the plaintiff in this action, makes and files an affidavit to the demand and that there is danger of said plaintiff losing the benefit of process by-delay.” Upon this affidavit the justice of the peace on the twenty-seventh day of February, A. D. 1911, issued summons to the constable, returnable forthwith. The constable made return of “Summoned personally,” the same being verified by his oath in writing, and on the same day the defendants failing to appear, the justice of the peace gave judgment by default in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants. On the same day execution on the judgment was issued to the constable returnable on Saturday, June 3, 1911, and on this execution the constable made return of “No goods” on March 2, 1911. The next day, March 3, 1911, a certified transcript of the docket entries of the judgment and execution thereon, was filed in the prothonotary’s office in this county.

The petitioners in the rule, being.the defendants in the judgment, pray' that the judgment be stricken from the records of this court and vacated, claiming that the judgment is illegal, irregular and void, because the attorney for the plaintiff made and filed the affidavit, and not the plaintiff as required by the statutes of this state. Counsel for the plaintiff admits that the affidavit filed did not comply with the provisions of the statutes, but claims that the judgment should not be stricken from the records and vacated, for the reason that this is not the proper procedure to take, until the judgment below has been reversed by other proceedings.

The court are of the opinion that as the justice’s transcript of the docket entries of the judgment, filed in this court, clearly [127]*127discloses the fact that the affidavit was not taken by the plaintiff as required by the statutes, the justice of the peace did not have authority or jurisdiction to enter the judgment. Gray v. Vandyke, 5 Houst. 134; Dickerson v. Legore, 6 Penn. 462, 69 Atl. 1004.

As the authority or jursidiction was lacking in the justice, then the judgment and all proceedings therein are void.

We therefore make the rule absolute and order that the judgment be stricken from the records of this court and vacated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 A. 522, 26 Del. 125, 3 Boyce 125, 1911 Del. LEXIS 23, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldstein-v-steele-delsuperct-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack