Mitchell v. . Van Buren
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Supreme Court. On the 11th of October, 1856, John M. Olmstead and Horace Hanford recovered a judgment against Harmon Van Burén, for $337.77, and Levi Olmstead another judgment against the same defendant, for $406.50. Both these judgments were upon confession, and they were duly docketed in Delaware county.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Supreme Court. On the 11th of October, 1856, John M. Olmstead and Horace Hanford recovered a judgment against Harmon Van Burén, for $337.77, and Levi Olmstead another judgment against the same defendant, for $406.50. Both these judgments were upon confession, and they were duly docketed in Delaware county. In March, 1860, Harmon Mitchell recovered a judgment against Van Burén in an action; the particulars of this judgment are not stated, but it was docketed in the same county. • In February, 1862, Mitchel made a motion to set aside the judgments of the Olmsteads and Hanford,…
1DissentEmott, J.
The character and effect of sections 382 and 383 of the Code, relative to judgments by confession have been too well settled by the authority of the Supreme Court and of this court to be any longer open to question. The requisitions of the Code in regard to the confession of judgments, are not precisely conditions precedent, which must be complied with, or there is no judgment. A judgment by confession, which does not conform to what the Code prescribes, in respect to the particularity of the statement of the debt, or satisfy its requirements in any and every respect, is not utterly void as…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Dunham v. . WatermanNew York Court of Appeals · 1858
- Miller v. . EarleNew York Court of Appeals · 1861
- Sheldon v. StrykerNew York Supreme Court · 1861