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,…
1Opinion of the Court
Denio, Ch. J.
The question involved in this appeal is, whether the Supreme Court possesses power to authorize an amendment of the statement required to be signed and verified, upon the confession of a judgment, under sections 382, 383 and 384 of the Code. It has been plausibly argued, that the judgments contemplated by these provisions are statutory proceedings, as distinguished from judgments of courts, and that if a mistake be made, so that it could be said that the statute has not been substantially complied with, the proceeding is void and incapable of amendment, the courts having no more…
2Cited by21 opinions
- Steuben County Bank v. . AlbergerNew York Court of Appeals · 1879
- Cook v. . WhippleNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- The Union Bank v. . BushNew York Court of Appeals · 1867
- Wells v. GiesekeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1881
- Princeton Bank & Trust Co. v. BerleyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1977
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.