Case Name: Lewis M. Teel, Resp't, v. Abraham Yost, App'lt
Court: New York Superior Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1890-02-06
Citations: 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 272
Docket Number: 
Parties: Lewis M. Teel, Resp’t, v. Abraham Yost, App’lt.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 29
Pages: 272–274

Head Matter:
Lewis M. Teel, Resp’t, v. Abraham Yost, App’lt.
(New York Superior Court, General Term,
Filed February 6, 1890.)
Judgment—Action on fobeign—Judgment note.
In an action on a judgment entered in Pennsylvania, while defendant was a resident thereof, it appeared that defendant was not served with process; hut it also appeared that the judgment was upon a judgment note, and that according to the law of that state judgment could be entered before maturity, which gave a lien but could not he enforced by execution until after maturity of the note, and that such judgment was-valid and binding under the laws of that state. Held, that such judgment was personally binding on defendant and that an action could be maintained thereon.
(Ingraham, J., dissents.)
Appeal from judgment entered upon .the decision of a judge at special term.
For opinion on former appeal see 22 N Y. State Bep., 415.
Lemuel Skidmore, for appl’t; Samuel B. Rogers, for resp’t.

Opinion:
Freedman", J.
I am of the opinion that upon the trial the proceedings of which we are now asked 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, Oh. J., concurs.