Case Name: Teel v. Yost
Court: New York Superior Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1890-02-06
Citations: 8 N.Y.S. 552
Docket Number: 
Parties: Teel v. Yost.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 8
Pages: 552–554

Head Matter:
Teel v. Yost.
(Superior Court of New York City, General Term.
February 6, 1890.)
Foreign Judgment—Actions on.
An action is maintainable in the courts of New York on a judgment of a Pennsylvania court against one domiciled in that state, entered before maturity on a note containing a clause authorizing entry of judgment, where it is shown by extrinsic evidence that under the laws of Pennsylvania it is proper to enter such a judgment for the sake of the lien given, though no attempt was made to summon defendant to appear in court. Ingraham, J., dissenting.
Appeal from special term.
An action by Lewis M. Teel against Abraham Yost, to recover on a judgment he had obtained against the latter in a Pennsylvania court of common pleas. For former reports, see 5 N. Y. Supp. 5, 777.
Argued before Sedgwick, C. J., and Freedman and Ingraham, JJ.
Lemuel Skidmore, for appellant. Samuel B. Rogers, for respondent.

Opinion:
Freedman, J.
I am of the opinion that upon the trial, the proceedings of which we are now aslced to review, the plaintiff has cured the defect of proof for which upon the former appeal a new trial was ordered. The defendant was domiciled in the state of Pennsylvania at the time of the entry of the judgment in the court of common pleas of Northampton county of said state, and was therefore bound personally by the judgment, provided it was entered in accordance with the laws of that state. It has now been shown by extrinsic evidence that the judgment sued on, notwithstanding its apparently faulty form, is, under the laws of Pennsylvania, in every respect a valid, binding, personal, and sufficient judgment of a court of general jurisdiction; that, during the period the note had to run the judgment gave only a lien, but that on the maturity of the note it became absolute, and enforceable by execution; and that under the laws of Pennsylvania it is customary and proper to enter such a judgment at any time before the maturity of the note for the sake of the lien given, though it cannot be enforced by execution until after the maturity of the note. The judgment appealed from should be affirmed, with costs. Sedgwick, C. J., concurs.