Case ID: day_5/html/0527-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Swift, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Henry Haydock against Jeduthan Cobb.
    MOTION Mr a nr-w trial.
    This was an action of disseisin, for a parcel of land in Tol-land. The plea was the general issue; which, hy the agreement of llu; parlies, was closed to the court. The issue was found for the defendant.
    The facts disclosed on the trial la fore the Superior Court, were-as follows. In 1796, one Stephen Howard assigned to Henry Haydock & Son, a certain promissory note, executed to Mm by the defendant. In April, 1H09, Hairy Haydock, as the only surviving partner of (he firm of Henry llaydock & Son, in the name of Howard, obtained a judgment, against the defendant, in a suit upon the note, upon which execution was issued ; which execution, in August, 1809, was regularly levied on the demanded premises, and was fully satisfied by such levy. In September, 1310, the plaintiff, as surviving partner of the firm of Henry Haydock X' Son, brought a petition in chancery against Howard to the Superior Court, praying that the title acquired by the levy of the execution, might be vested in him : And in SipUmbrr, 1811, the prayer of the petition was granted, and by a decree of the couit, the tille of the land was accordingly vested in the plaintiff: Rut before the passing of the decree, Howard died.
    In the course of the trial, the defendant offered evidence to prove the fact of Howard’s death ; to the admission of ■which, the plaintiff objected; but the court overruled the objection, and admitted the evidence. Whereupon, the plaintiff moved for a new trial, on the ground that the court erred in admitting the evidence offered by the defendant ; which motion was reserved for the consideration and advice of the nine Judges.
    
      Jl. assigned a promissory note executed to him by ji , to a, in the name of .‘l, obtained a judgment and execution against li. in an action upon the note, and caused the execution to be levied on the land of B., in full satisfaction thereof. Afterwards, C. brought a petition in chancery against Jl., praying, that the title acquired by the levy of the execution, might be vested in him; and obtained a decree in his favour for this purpose; lint before the passing of the decree,.A died. In an action of disseisin, brought by C. against Jl. for the land, it was held, that evidence of the fact that Jl died before the pacing ot the decree, , an<j admissible. was relevant
    
      
      Daggett, in support oí' the motion,
    The evidence offered by the Jeieudani, was improperly admitted. The rule that the parlies must be before the court, ¡.palies only to decrees in personam. Here was no decree against the person. The plaintiff was, by the assignment of the debt by' Howard, and the levy of the execution, entitled to the fee of the land. The deciee merely transferred lilis equitable and subsisting right. Nothing was to be performed by Howard, or his representatives. (t was not decreeii that he should convey the laud. This is similar to a. decree of a court of admiralty. It is conclusive.
    At any rate, the application to set aside the decree, musí be made ex-- directo. Cobb cannot overthrow the decree, even if Howard’s representatives could do it. Cobb is a stranger to this decree. If this can be done, the inconvenience of having one valid judgment against another valid judgment, would exist. Pcnhallom v. Dome’s admnrs. 3 Dedl. t>4. Bac. Abr. lit. Error. A.
    
      Goddard and Peters, contra.
    A court of chancery cannot pass a decree which will be operative, unless the parlies are properly before the court. In this case, the decree being passed against a dead man, is void. Hay dock, therefore, gained no title by it.
    There is no analogy whatever between the proceedings of a court of chancery and a court of admiralty. In the latter, a decree is conclusive upon all mankind. In the former, a proceeding in ran can be effectual against those only, who are made parties to the bill.
    A void judgment may be reversed ; but the question here is, whether the party is bound to take this course ? Cobb was a stranger to the decree : and for this reason, he may invalidate it collaterally. The evidence was, therefore, relevant and admissible. See Randal’s case, 2 Mod. 308.
    Trumbull, J. The only question in this case, is, whether testimony that Howard was dead, at the time of passing the decree in chancery, on which the title of Haydock is founded, was relevant ami admissible on the trial ? Cobb was a s i ranger fo the record in chancery. He may, therefore, contest if, or shew if to be void, as obtained by collusion, or produce any evidence to prove Unit the plaintiff (hereby gained no rigid of action against him.
    In chancery, a decree cannot have any effect against a stranger, unless there be proper parties before the court in the cause : though it hath been determined, that an account settled in chancery, between parties, shall stand, notwithstanding the death of one, before the final decree, I ('him. ('as. 122, The case of Penhallom v. Doanc’s administrators, 3 Dallas, 54. was relied on in the argument at the bar; but that was a decision in the court of admiralty, in which notice is given to all mankind to appear and claim, and of course, all are parties.
    If Howard was dead at the time of the levy, he could gain no title by it against Cató, or any other person: But that question is not before us on this motion. If he was dead at the time of the decree, there was no party on whom the decree could operate. His heir, in whom, whatever title Howard might have acquired in his life, was, in law, vested on his decease, could not be devested of it, by a decree, which, as to him, was passed merely ex'-parte.
    
    I am of opinion, therefore, that the evidence was relevant, and admissible, and that no new trial ought to be granted.
    Mitchell, Cb. J., Reeve, Edmond, Smith and Baldwin, 3s., severally, concurred in this opinion.
   Swift, J.

Parties and privies to judgments or decrees, can never impeach them collaterally : They can question them only in due course of law, by writ of error, petition for new trial, or application in chancery. Strangers fo judgments or decress, can never question them directly ; but are permitted, when prejudiced by them, to shew that they were obtained by fraud or collusion. A decree void on the face of it, has no effect on parties or strangers.

The decrc*- in this case, is valid on the face of it. It irn-

ports the existence oí' Howard at ilu; time of passing it: an>. of course, such must have been the case, when the executici was levied. ■ ^ ... c

There is im pretence that the decree war obtained b\ fraud or collusion : Of course, it was incompetent for Cobb li. prove an extraneous fact repugnant to the decree, for the purpose of rendering it void.

Brainard and Inoersoll, Js., concurred in this opinion

New trial not advised.