Case ID: scl_18/html/0337-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Harper, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The State v. Samuel Fife.
    A judgment fraudulently confessed, in order to evade payment of a fine to the State, which might afterwards be imposed for an offence already committed, may be avoided by the State, vide Pauncefoot’s case, cited 3 Rep. 82 a.
    Tried before Mr. Justice Earle, at Fairfield, Spring Term, 1831.
    This was a suggestion to try the right to a sum of money, in the hands of the sheriff, made by him under executions against James Fife, at the several suits of the present defendant, and of the State.
    James Fife had been prosecuted for two distinct acts of trading with slaves; and on the 1st June, 1827, entered into recognizances to appear and answer to the said prosecutions. On the 5th June, 1827, he confessed judgment to the present defendant for three hundred and twenty-two dollars, debt, besides interest and costs ; and execution upon the judgment was immediately sued out and lodged. James Fife was subsequently indicted for the offences for which he had entered into recognizances ; and at Spring Term, 1829, was convicted, and sentenced to pay a fine to the State of two hundred dollars in each case. Executions were soon after sued out and lodged, for the collection of these fines.
    The execution of the defendant was the older, but it was contended, for the State, that the judgment was fraudulent, and confessed to evade the fine which might be imposed upon James Fife, for the offences in which he had béen detected, and therefore void. Much testimony was introduced relative to the fairness of defendant’s judgment. The presiding Judge charged the jury, that if they believed, that the judgment had been confessed, with a view to avoid the payment of the fine, afterwards imposed on James Fife, it was sufficient to authorize them to declare it void.
    The jury found for the State; and the defendant now moved to set aside their verdict, and for a new trial, on the ground of misdirection, and that the verdict was contrary to law and the evidence.
    Clarke, for the motion.
    Peareson, Solicitor, contra.
    
   Harper, J.

delivered the opinion of the Court.

No exception is taken to the form of the proceeding. The ground chiefly relied on, is, that James Fife was not indebted at the time of confessing the judgment to defendant; and that the case does not come within the decisions which have been made upon the statute of 13 Eliz. c. 5. We think however, that the jury might very well have concluded, that it was confessed with a view to a future debt, and if the judgment was fraudulently confessed, it was void independently of the statute of Elizabeth.

Motion refused.