Court Opinion

ID: 5459696
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-09 19:31:14.208058+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:32:49.510692
License: Public Domain

E. Darwin Smith, J.
The first error complained of in the decision of the referee on the trial of this action was committed, as is claimed, in overruling the objection of the appellants to the proof of the plaintiff’s judgment. This judgment was entered upon a confession, pursuant to sections 382 and 383 of the code.
The statement signed by the defendant showing the consideration for the judgment was clearly defective, according to the decisions in the case of Chappel v. Chappel, (2 *122Kernan, 211,) and in 12 Howard, 141 and 410, and numerous other cases in this court. The counsel for the defendants Denton claims that the judgment for this reason is absolutely void as against the appellants, they having a specific lien upon the surplus moneys in the hands of the defendant Welles. The judgment is doubtless valid and amendable between the parties, reserving the rights of existing creditors. It has been held in repeated cases, that such a judgment may be set aside on motion, at the instance of other judgment creditors. The plaintiff's counsel contends that' none but judgment creditors can attack the judgment, and that while it is permitted to stand it is a valid and conclusive lien upon the surplus moneys which are the subject of contest in this action. I can see no reason why the right to set aside or attack a void judgment like this, entered up by confession upon a defective statement, should be limited to judgment creditors. It is held in Chappel v. Chappel, and in other cases, that the object and policy of the statute is the same as that of the act of 1818, regulating confessions of judgment. In that act it was expressly declared, that such judgments should be deemed and adjudged fraudulent in respect to bona fide judgment creditors, and bona fide purchasers for a valuable consideration, of any land bound or affected by such judgment. In the recent case of Dunham v. Waterman, in the court of appeals, (17 New York Rep. 9,) Judge Selden says of the present statute, that considering the object in view, it is plain that its meaning is the same as that of the act of 1818. It must therefore be considered as settled by the highest court in the state, that a judgment confessed without full compliance with the provisions of the code, is to be deemed fraudulent and void as against the creditors of the judgment debtor. In a note at the end of this case, by the reporter, it is stated that all the judges agreed that the judgment was void. Strong and Roosevelt deemed it valid as to the parties, though fraudulent as to creditors. The defect is one of substance and not of mere form, and affects sub*123stantial rights. If it were a mere question of regularity, then this court would have exclusive control over the judgment, and could amend it in its discretion, as against any creditors, and the judgment could not be attacked except in this court, and by a motion directly to set it aside. But the defectiveness of the statement being regarded as matter of substance is conclusive evidence, upon the face of the record, as against any creditors whose rights are affected by such judgment. A grantee or mortgagee of premises upon which such judgment is a lien, must have the same right to attack it as a judgment creditor. Judgment creditors may move to set it aside, or commence a suit for that purpose in equity. The case of Chappel v. Chappel, as Judge Selden says in Dunham v. Waterman, merely affirmed the power of this court to set aside such judgment upon motion. “ That the same end might be attained by an original suit,” he says, “is clear.” (17 N. Y. Rep. 15.) But if grantees and mortgagees cannot move to set aside such judgment because they have no place in court, which I do not think to be the law, though so held in some cases, they certainly can commence a suit for that purpose, and may also, with equal reason, propriety and right, attack and resist in defense of any action to which they are- parties, any such judgment where the same is sought to be enforced by suit upon the judgment, by the plaintiff. Such is the present case. The appellants set up their defense to this judgment in their answer, and allege that it is fraudulent and wholly void as against the creditors of Horace Wood, and as against them, the appellants, as such creditors, by reason of the very defects in the statement apparent on the face of the record, and that such confession was not made in manner and form according to the requirements of the statute. It is a mistake to consider this an attack upon the judgment collaterally. It is as direct an attack upon the judgment under the present system of pleading and proceeding as if the defendants had commenced the suit, setting up the same matter and asking to set aside -the *124judgment; and the judgment roll, when produced, disclosed these defects, and was duly objected to by the appellants, and such objection overruled. The decision of the referee upon this question was clearly erroneous. The judgment was absolutely void as against the defendants, the Dentons, for fraud, upon the face of the record, and their defense to the plaintiff's action was completely established by the judgmént record itself. The plaintiff having no valid judgment, the appellants were clearly entitled to a judgment declaring their right to receive the surplus money in the hands of the defendant Welles. As the decision of the exception disposes of the whole action, it is unnecessary to consider the other question presented in the case. There should be a new trial, with, costs to abide the event.
[Monroe General Term,
September 5, 1859.
T. E. Strong, J., concurred.
Johnson, J., dissented. blew trial granted.
T. R. Strong, Smith and Johnson, Justices.]