Legal Opinion

Harrod v. Barretto

The Superior Court of New York City

Decided August 15, 1829PublishedCited by 6 opinions

This cause was formerly before the court, upon a demurrer to the defendants’plea. [vol. 1. p. 155.] Judgment having been given against the defendants, upon that issue, for the want of an averment in their plea, that they had never appeared in the suit, in which this judgment was obtained: the defendants, Barretto and Rowland, now amended their original plea, by adding thereto the words, “nor did they, or either of them, appear to the said process and suit.”

Read the full summary

This cause was formerly before the court, upon a demurrer to the defendants’plea. [vol. 1. p. 155.] Judgment having been given against the defendants, upon that issue, for the want of an averment in their plea, that they had never appeared in the suit, in which this judgment was obtained: the defendants, Barretto and Rowland, now amended their original plea, by adding thereto the words, “nor did they, or either of them, appear to the said process and suit.” In every other respect, the plea remained in its original form. To the plea thus amended, the plaintiff now replied, that the defendants…

1Opinion of the Court

Oakley J.

When this case was formerly before us, we considered it the settled doctrine of the Supreme Court, that when an action is brought on a judgment obtained in another state, the defendant may plead any fact which goes to show, that the court, rendering the judgment, had not jurisdiction of his person. As the case now presents itseltj the defendants have in their plea averred, *304that they were never residents or inhabitants of Massachusetts, and that they never appeared to the action commenced in that state. In answer to this plea, the plaintiff sets up, by way of estoppel, that it appears…

2Cited by6 opinions

  1. Hill v. MendenhallSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
  2. People v. DawellMichigan Supreme Court · 1872
  3. State v. MadoilSupreme Court of Florida · 1867
  4. Sumner v. MarcyU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maine · 1847
  5. Hoffheimer v. StiefelNew York Supreme Court · 1896

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API