Legal Opinion

Porter v. Hammitt

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided September 14, 1925No. 10,959PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Denison

Plaintiffs in error brought this action on a Kansas judgment and were defeated on the ground that said judgment was obtained by fraud.

They now claim that such a judgment can be attacked collaterally for want of jurisdiction only and not for fraud. It has been so held. Hanley v. Donoghue, 116 U. S. 1, 6 Sup. Ct. 242, 29 L. Ed. 535; Thompson v. Whitman, 18 Wall. 457, 21 L. Ed. 897; Christmas v. Russell, 5 Wall. 290, 305, 18 L. Ed. 475. Though there are decisions to the contrary we are inclined to think the claim is right. Be that as it may, however, neither lack of jurisdiction nor fraud is…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Thompson v. WhitmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
  2. Cole v. CunninghamSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
  3. McElmoyle Ex Rel. Bailey v. CohenSupreme Court of the United States · 1839
  4. Mills v. DuryeeSupreme Court of the United States · 1813
  5. Case of Broderick's WillSupreme Court of the United States · 1875

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Allen v. BaileySupreme Court of Colorado · 1932
  2. Gobin v. Citizens State BankSupreme Court of Colorado · 1933
  3. Gobin v. Citizens State BankSupreme Court of Colorado · 1933
  4. Towne v. TowneConnecticut Superior Court · 1940

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

Powered by the Exa API