Case Name: George W. Martin et al., Resp'ts, v. Samuel C. Freed, App'lt
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1892-12-12
Citations: 50 N.Y. St. Rep. 854
Docket Number: 
Parties: George W. Martin et al., Resp'ts, v. Samuel C. Freed, App'lt.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 50
Pages: 854–855

Head Matter:
George W. Martin et al., Resp'ts, v. Samuel C. Freed, App'lt.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
Filed December 12, 1892.)
Arrest—Bar.
. Defendant, who was a resident of Pennsylvania, procured goods from plaintiffs by false representations. Thereafter a judgment for the amount of the goods was entered in Pennsylvania on a confession note without plaintiffs’ knowledge, and they repudiated it immediately upon learning of its entry. Held, that as no connection was shown between plaintiffs and "the confession note, an order of arrest granted in an action for the fraud in this state should not be set aside on account of the entry of such judgment.
Appeal from order denying motion to vacate an order of arrest.
Defendant was a resident of Pennsylvania, and purchased goods from plaintiffs on credit through fraudulent representations as to his financial standing. Said goods were almost immediately seized upon judgments against him. The action in which the order of arrest was granted was brought to recover for the fraud, and defendant was arrested while attempting to leave the country in disguise.
The application to vacate is made in part on the ground that a judgment in favor of plaintiffs was entered in Pennsylvania on a confession note.
Isaac N. Miller, for app’lt;
J. Stewart Ross, for resp’tS.

Opinion:
Barnard, P. J.
The defendant contracted a large debt to the plaintiffs by fraudulent representation. He was a resident of Pennsylvania, and the plaintiffs are alleged to have obtained a judgment against him in that state, as upon a contract. This judgment was obtained upon a confession note for the debt, and it was repudiated by the plaintiffs when they were informed of the entry of the judgment. No connection is proven between the plaintiffs and the confession note. The Pennsylvania judgment will bind no one unless it was entered so as to bind the plaintiffs. The point argued, whether a judgment recovered in a foreign state upon a fraud merged the original consideration so that an order of arrest in this state can neither be granted on the original fraud or on the judgment obtained for the fraud, is not presented. If the defendant pleads a judgment the plaintiffs can deny it, and the question will be tried as in other cases of a dispute as to facts.
Order affirmed, with costs and disbursements.
Dykman and Pratt, JJ., concur.