Case Name: Cornelia Gilman, App'lt, v. Preble Tucker et al., Resp'ts
Court: New York Superior Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1889-12-05
Citations: 28 N.Y. St. Rep. 587
Docket Number: 
Parties: Cornelia Gilman, App’lt, v. Preble Tucker et al., Resp’ts.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 28
Pages: 587–590

Head Matter:
Cornelia Gilman, App’lt, v. Preble Tucker et al., Resp’ts.
(New York Superior Court, General Term,
Filed December 5, 1889.)
1. Judgment—Unauthorized appearance—Remedy.
A judgment against a defendant who was not served with process, and had no knowledge of the suit, but for whom an attorney appeared without authority, is not void, and is regular when entered. The appropriate relief from such judgment is by application to the court by which judgment was rendered. (Truax, J., dissenting.)
2. Same.
It seems that if relief could be given by action in another court, it should be no greater than could be obtained in the court in which the judgment was entered; that is, the party against whom the judgment was entered would have to show, in order to obtain relief, that he had a defense on the merits.
Appeal from a judgment dismissing the complaint, entered upon the report of a referee.
The facts appear fully in the opinion of Truax, J.
Charles F. Hughes, for app’lt; Charles J. Hardy, for resp’ts.

Opinion:
Sedgwick, Ch. J.
The case of Denton v. Noyes, 6 Johns., 296, has been approved by the highest court in the state, in particular by Brown v. Nichols, 42 N. Y., 26. Against such an approval the dissenting opinion in the latter case cited Robson v. Eaton, 1 Term, 62. This last case was an instance of a forged warrant of attorney, and Ferguson v. Crawford, 70 N. Y., 253, held that in such a case, no process having been served, the judgment was void.
In the present case, following Denton v. Noyes, the judgment was not void, and was regular when entered, and the appropriate relief for the unauthorized appearance is by an application to the court by which judgment was given, and the relief given by the court in its discretion, when the attorney appearing is insolvent, would be to allow the defendant to come in and plead. My opinion is that in this action the plaintiff could not be relieved of the judgment, as it was in the power alone of the court giving judgment to set aside the judgment. But if this proposition is not correct, the relief that should be given in the action should be no greater than could be obtained in the court that gave the judgment ; that is, the defendant in the judgment, to entitle herself to relief, should show that she has a defense on the merits.
In my opinion there should be an affirmance of the judgment appealed from, with costs.
Freedman, J.
I am of the opinion that the judgment should be affirmed, with costs, for the reasons assigned by the learned chief judge, and the further reason that the complaint in this action, on its face, shows no equitable cause of action.