Hudson v. Sheafe
South Dakota Supreme Court
Appeal from Circuit Court, Codington County. Hon. Carr ■ G. Sherwood, Judge. Action by 'Charles Hudson, against Mark W. iSheafe, to recover upon a foreign judgment. Prom a judgment for 'defendant, and from an order denying a new trial, plaintiff appeals.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Circuit Court, Codington County. Hon. Carr ■ G. Sherwood, Judge. Action by 'Charles Hudson, against Mark W. iSheafe, to recover upon a foreign judgment. Prom a judgment for 'defendant, and from an order denying a new trial, plaintiff appeals. (4) To point four of the opinion, Appellant cited: Pico v. Cohn, 91 Cal. 129, 25 Pac. 970, 27 Pac. 537, 13 L. R. A. 336; Benton v. B-urgot, 10 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 240; 23 Cyc. 1099 1589, 1590. Respondent cited: Washington v. Sickles, 24 Howard 333, s. c., 65 U. 'S. 24, 16 R. Ed., ’650-653; Reynolds v. Stockton, 140 U. S., 254, 35 L. Ed. .464;…
1Concurrence · SmithSmith, P. J.
I concur in the result reached by xny majority Associates, for the reason that I am of the view that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the defense of extrinsic fraud in the proceeding by which the judgment sued on was procured in the Illinois court. The judgment, having been procured by extrinsic fraud, is void. The merits of the plaintiff’s cause of action ax-e not in issue in this action on the jud'gmexit. Nothing appears in the record before us to disclose whether the verdict was founded on the defense of fraud, or the defense of champerty. It appears to be the view of -the majority of…
Also in this document: Concurrence · McCOY.
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Moses v. . McDivittNew York Court of Appeals · 1882
- Verdelli v. Gray's Harbor Commercial Co.California Supreme Court · 1897
- Parker v. NaylorCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1912
- Big Three Mining & Milling Co. v. HamiltonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
- Crosett v. WhelanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.