Case Name: Woodruff v. Johnston
Court: New York Superior Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1892-07-05
Citations: 19 N.Y.S. 861
Docket Number: 
Parties: Woodruff v. Johnston.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 19
Pages: 861–862

Head Matter:
Woodruff v. Johnston.
(Superior Court of New York City,
General Term.
July 5, 1892.)
Judgment—Vacation in Equity—False Testimony of Party.
A judgment at law in favor of either party cannot be annulled in equity at the-suit of the other party, on the ground that it was founded on the perjury of the-party in whose favor it was rendered.
Appeal from special term.
Action by Amos E. Woodruff against Alexander Johnston to vacate a judgment in favor of defendant on the ground that it was based on the false testimony of defendant. A demurrer to the c.omplaint was sustained, and plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
The opinion of Mr. Justice McAdam at special term was as follows: “The bill demurred to is in equity, to set aside, for fraud and perjury, a judgment had after a trial, in which the jury found for the defendant. The rule is that* where the remedy is ample at law, chancery will not interfere. 8 Gray & W. N. I. 1478. Where a party goes into equity to impeach the justice and equity of a verdict, it must be upon grounds which either could not be made available to him at law, or which he was. prevented from setting up by fraud, accident, or the wrongful act of the other party, without any negligence or fault on his part. Vilas v. Jones, 1 N. Y. 281, 282. The jurisdiction in one-court to vacate, in an independent proceeding, the judgment of another having power to render it, is in its nature so extraordinary as to demand a close-adherence to principles and precedents in exercising it. Courts do not exer cise it when there has been negligence on the part of the party seeking the relief. That a judgment is final and conclusive of the right or thing which is adjudicated by it is the rule, and judgments and decrees of a competent court will not be annulled for a suspicion of fraud, or because the party complaining may m fact have been unjustly cast in judgment. Smith v. Nelson, 62 N. Y., at page 288. It would impair the sanctity of judgments, and the faith we repose in them, if they could be set aside in equity upon grounds available upon mere motion, addressed to the courts which rendered them. Those courts should have the opportunity of vindicating their own honor and the integrity of their proceedings. Where they are powerless to do it, it is time enough for equity to tender its aid. It is settled law (with few exceptions, which do not apply here) that false testimony given by a party in an action at law is not ground for equitable relief in chancery. U. S. v; Throckmorton, 98 U. S. 61; Mayor v. Brady, 115 N. Y. 599, 22 N. E. Rep. 237; Smith v. Nelson, 62 N. Y. 286; Same v. Lowry, 1 Johns. Ch. 320. There must be a conviction before even a new trial on the ground of perjury will be granted, (Holtz v. Schmidt, 44 N. Y. Super. Ct. 327,) and no conviction has been had herei Judgments and decrees obtained by fraud or imposition may undoubtedly be annulled in equity, but not by parties to the record who were before the court and heard respecting the matters complained of. Though the plaintiff was not actually a party to the record, his assignee, with his knowledge and approval, was. The plaintiff and the defendant were witnesses, and disagreed as to the material facts, the former testifying one way, and the latter the other; and for this conflict (not unusual in the trial of a cause) the plaintiff seeks a new trial of the issues by a cancellation of the judgment, on the ground that his testimony was true, and that of the defendant false. As no reported case has gone to the extent of affording a disappointed suitor relief in equity on any such ground, it is unnecessary to discuss the special eases or peculiar circumstances under which equitable relief has sometimes been awarded, for they have no application to the case presented. The frauds in those cases were extrinsic or collateral to the matter tried. The issues here have been tried at law, and cannot be retried in equity. For these reasons, arid without considering 'the other grounds of demurrer, it is evident the complaint does not state a cause of action, and that the defendant is entitled to judgment on the demurrer, with costs.”
Argued before Freedman, Dugro, and Gildbrsleeve, JJ.
A. H. Woodruff, in pro, per. David Leventritt, for respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs, upon the opinion of the learned judge at special term.