Case ID: nc_29/html/0424-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Nash, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

N. E. AND J. LUDWICK vs. SOLOMON FAIR AND ADELINE HIS WIFE.
    A defendant, who is sued upon a judgment, obtained before a Justice of the Peace, has no right to plead that he was an infant, when that judgment was rendered.
    A judgment by a Justice of the Peace, though' not a matter of record, determines, between the parties, their respective rights in the matter of controversy. Neither party can, in a subsequent proceeding to inforce it, deny or contest the matters of fact, ascertained by it.
    Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Cabarrus County, at the Fall Term. 1846. his Honor Judge Dick presiding.
    The plaintiffs had obtained a judgment against the defendant, Adeline, before her intermarriage with the other defendant. That judgment lay dormant for 12 months and more, when the warrant in the present case, on the former judgment, was issued against both the defendants. The case was taken to the County Court by appeal, when the defendants pleaded, the general issue and former judgment. In the Superior Court, to which the case was carried, it was tried on the same pleas as in the County Court. On the trial, the defendants alleged and were allowed to prove, that the defendant, Adeline, was, at the time of the rendition of the first judgment, and then was, an infant. The Court held, that the defence could not avail the defendants in this action. A verdict being rendered for the plaintiff and judgment rendered thereon, the defendants appealed.
    
      Thompson, for the plaintiff.
    No counsel for the defendants.
   Nash, J.

In the opinion of his Honor belowwe concur. The judgment of a Justice is not a matter of record, but to many purposes, it has the qualities -of one. . It determines, between the parties, their respective rights in the matter hi controversy. Neither party can, in a subsequent proceeding to enforce it, deny.or contest the matter of fact ascertained by it. In an. action of debt upon it, as this is, its validity cannot, in pleading, be impeached or affected by any supposed defect or illegality in the transaction, on which it is founded ; and, consequently, it is not necessary to state the circumstances or consideration, on which it is founded. 1 Chit. PL 354. It is well settled, that, in pleading to a scieri facias to revive a judgment- or to an action of debt upon it, no matter of defence can be pleaded, which existed anterior to the recovery of the judgment. 3 East 258. A East 311. The infancy of the defendant, Adeline, at the time the first or original judgment was obtained, might have been a good defence. She either did make it on that trial or she did not. If she did, it is then res adjudicata, and she is concluded by it, as the judgment is in full force. If she did not, then she is, by the principle before stated, excluded from making’it now. That judgment not only ascertained the amount due to the plaintiff, but that she was in Jaw bound to pay it. But an effectual answer in this case is, that the plea of infancy was not tendered by the defendants. When she married the other defendant, Solomon Pair, it was an existing debt of hers, and in this action the plaintiff has a clear right to recover it.

PeR Cueiam. Judgment accordingly.