Stedman v. Ingraham

22 Vt. 346
Supreme Court of Vermont·Decided March 15, 1850·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Redfield, J.

The facts material to the determination of the present case are, that one Herrick Ingraham brought a suit against the plaintiff, for the prosecution of which the defendant became recognized. Herrick Ingraham died, and H. E. Stoughton was appointed his administrator, — and after two terms had elapsed, the plaintiff caused Stoughton to be cited to prosecute the suit. He made no appearance and the county court gave judgment against the estate, as of nonsuit.

The only question is, whether that judgment is to be regarded as so irregular, that it may be avoided by the conusor, by plea. Not to intimate any opinion, how far the administrator might have de[347] fended against the proceeding, — which is, in our opinion, somewhat questionable, — we feel no hesitation in saying, that the judgment, while it remains in force, must conclude every defence of this character. The defendant is to be regarded as so far privy to the judgment, that he cannot be allowed to attack it in this collateral manner. Judgment affirmed.

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

Stedman v. Ingraham, 22 Vt. 346 (Vt. 1850).

22 Vt. 346 (Stedman v. Ingraham) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Calhoun v. Gray
131 S.W. 478 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1910)
McClaskey v. Barr
79 F. 408 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern Ohio, 1897)
Thomas v. Platts
43 N.H. 629 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1862)
State Treasurer v. Wells
27 Vt. 276 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1855)
Mott v. Hazen
27 Vt. 208 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1855)