Case Name: Zebina Cook versus Thomas Darling and Trustee
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1836-10-12
Citations: 18 Pick. 393
Docket Number: 
Parties: Zebina Cook versus Thomas Darling and Trustee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 35
Pages: 393–393

Head Matter:
Zebina Cook versus Thomas Darling and Trustee.
Oct. 11th.
Oct. 12th.
ín bd action of debt on a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, the judgment cannot be impeached or avoided as erroneous by plea j but the remedy is by writ of error.
This was an action of debt on a judgment recovered by the plaintiff in the Court of Common Pleas for the county of Bristol, on the second Monday of March, 1822, for the sum of $65" 13. In the original writ upon which such judgment was recovered, the defendant was styled of Bellingham, in the county of Norfolk. The defendant pleaded, that at the time of the supposed service of the original writ upon him, he was not, and never had been, an inhabitant of this Commonwealth, and was not then commorant in Bellingham, that he had no notice of such action and did not appear to defend the • same, and that he had no right or interest in the land attached therein.
The plaintiff demurred.
C. Allen, Thayer and Deane, for the plaintiff,
cited 2 Co. Inst. 470; Com. Dig. Pleader, 3 L 10; Allens v. Andrew, Cro. Eliz. 283; Bac. Abr. Scire Facias, E.
S. Allen, for the defendant,
cited Picquet v. Swan, 5 Mason, 35; Hall v. Williams, 6 Pick. 232.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The Court are of opinion that the plea in bar is bad, and that the judgment declared on, cannot thus be impeached collaterally, by plea- The judgment declared on, is a domestic judgment, of a court of common law jurisdiction, to which a writ of error lies, to reverse the judgment, if erroneous. But until reversed it must be taken to be conclusive.
A different rule may prevail in regard to decrees and adjudications oi inferior courts, not proceeding according to the course of the common law. If they exceed their jurisdiction, or proceed contrary to law, the proceeding is void, and this may be shown by plea ; but the principal reason is, because no writ of error lies to reverse such judgment. Smith v. Rice 11 Mass. R. 514.