Ward v. Quinlivin
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from. Buchanan Circuit Court. I. A judgment obtained by franc! is void, and it is snffi-eient in the answer to allege that it was so obtained without setting forth the particulars.
Read the full summary
Appeal from. Buchanan Circuit Court. I. A judgment obtained by franc! is void, and it is snffi-eient in the answer to allege that it was so obtained without setting forth the particulars. (See Montgomery vs. Tipton, 1 Mo., 446; Edgell vs. Sigorson, 20 Mo., 4-94; Marx vs. Fore, 51 Mo., 69; Rutherford vs. Williams, 42 Mo., 19 ; Callahan vs. Griswold, 9 Mo., 784 ; State vs. Little, 1 N. EL, 257.) . L The case of Marx vs. Fore, (51 Mo., 69) only decides that fraud going to the jurisdiction, may be shown to defeat the judgment; but when jurisdiction has attached, the unsuccessful party “must…
1Opinion of the Court
Adajis, Judge,
delivered tlie opinion of tbe court.
This was an action on a judgment rendered in the State of New York, in Supreme Court of Steuben County in that State, on the 17th day of October, 1871, for $586.50.
The defendant in his answer set up and relied on an equitable defense, to the effect that the judgment sued On was obtained against him by fraud, deceit and misrepresentation of plaintiff, his agents and attorneys,under the following circumstances: About April, 1870, the defendant was in the store room of plaintiff, in the town of Bixville, in the county of Steuben, in the State of…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Cross v. GouldMissouri Court of Appeals · 1908
- JR Watkins Company v. HubbardMissouri Court of Appeals · 1961
- Wonderly v. Lafayette CountySupreme Court of Missouri · 1899
- Fadler v. GabbertSupreme Court of Missouri · 1933
- Wagoner v. WagonerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1921
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.