Case ID: ohio_3/html/0059-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Court :", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Urbana Bank v. Josiah Baldwin.
    Judgment confessed during the return term, upon process issued on the first day of the term, is a lien from the commencement of the term.
    This cause came before the court upon a motion made by purchasers under Baldwin, to set aside a levy upon real estate, conveyed by Baldwin to them, and levied on, as liable to the judgment of the plaintiff. It came up on an agreed case before the court of common pleas of Clark county, and was brought by appeal to the Supreme Court, and adjourned here for decision. The facts were as follow:
    Baldwin was indebted to C. and E. B. Cavalier, and they had commenced suit against him to August term, 1820. After the commencement of the November term, Baldwin compromised with the Cavaliers, and conveyed them the estate in question, in payment of the debt, and their suit was dismissed. The deed bore date November 21,1820. The term commenced upon the 20th of that month, on which day the Urbana Bank commenced suit against Baldwin and others, by summons returnable forthwith. This Summons was returned served, as to Baldwin and one other defendant, on the 25th, and not served as to the others. On the same day declaration was filed, and judgment confessed by Baldwin and the other party summoned. The suit was prosecuted to judgment against the other defendants, and various process issued, the particulars of which it is not material to state. On September 4, 1826, a fi.'fa. et. lev. fa. was levied upon the real property conveyed to the Cavaliers, and the motion was made to set asido the levy by the Cavaliers, as parties interested.
    Alexander, in support of the motion.
    Anthonv, against it.
   By the Court :

The case may be a hard one, but the law is clear in favor of the plaintiff’s lien. The suit was pending on the first day of the term, and when that is the case the judgment relates back to that day, no matter on what day oí the term it was confessed. There can be no reason for the court to restrain the words of the statute in this case that would not apply to every other. It does not follow that the lien must extend to the first day of the term if no process was then pending. It is sufficient, however, to decide that case when it comes up for decision.

The motion must be overruled.