Great Falls Manufacturing Co. v. Worster
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Debt on bond, for $350. The condition was to pay all such costs as said Company might recover against Susan M. "Worster in an action brought by her against said Company. The plea was the general issue under the general rule. The plaintiffs produced the bond declared on; the execution was held to be admitted under the general rule.
Read the full summary
Debt on bond, for $350. The condition was to pay all such costs as said Company might recover against Susan M. "Worster in an action brought by her against said Company. The plea was the general issue under the general rule. The plaintiffs produced the bond declared on; the execution was held to be admitted under the general rule. They also produced the record of the action, Susan M. Worster v. Great Falls Manufacturing Company, and a judgment in favor of said Company fortheir costs, taxed at $302.11. They proved a demand of said costs of the defendants, Oct. 14,1861. The action was…
1Opinion of the CourtBellows, J.
The defendants were not parties to the original suit, but merely sureties of the plaintiff, Susan M. Worster, for the costs that might be recovered against her.
By the judgment for costs, if fairly obtained, they would be bound; but upon well established principles, we think, they may in this proceeding impeach that judgment for fraud, by showing, for example, that by collusion between the parties to it and for the purpose of defrauding the sureties, (these defendants,) the judgment was rendered for more than the just amount.
That judgments, as well as other transactions, are vitiated by fraud,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Parkhurst v. SumnerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1851
- Ryon v. Bean's administratorCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1859