Lawless v. Hackett
New York Supreme Court
Slosson, in behalf of David R. Lambert, a judgment creditor of the defendant, moved to set aside the judgment entered up in this cause, and the execution which had been issued thereon.
Read the full summary
Slosson, in behalf of David R. Lambert, a judgment creditor of the defendant, moved to set aside the judgment entered up in this cause, and the execution which had been issued thereon. It appeared, that the judgment had been entered up on the 4th of May, 1819, by virtue of a warrant of attorney, to confess judgment on a bond dated the v ° ° 20th of April last, conditioned to pay 1,703 dollars, 93 . , „ .. f J cents; and that the specification of the nature and conside- ration of the debt on which the judgment ■ was entered, filed, according to the direction of the act passed. 21st of April,…
1Per curiam
The object of the act was to prevent abuse and fraud in the entry of judgments by confession on warrants of attorney. The specification ought to be so particular and precise as to apprise all persons interested of the nature and consideration of the debt. A statement as general as the common counts in a declaration is not sufficient. It ought to be as special and precise, at least, as a bill of particulars. If, for example, the consideration was for goods sold, the specification ought to state the kind, quantity, and price of the goods, and the time of sale, as in a bill of parcels. If the…
2Cited by20 opinions
- James v. MoreyCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1823
- Dunham v. . WatermanNew York Court of Appeals · 1858
- Chappel v. . ChappelNew York Court of Appeals · 1855
- Bernard & Co. v. Douglas & WatsonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1860
- Gandal v. FinnNew York Supreme Court · 1856
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.