Legal Opinion
Millbury v. Heitzberg
New York Supreme Court
Decided July 15, 1898Published
Action by one Millbury against one Heitzberg on a judgment, charging fraud in contracting the original liability. The judgment sued on was rendered in Hew Jersey in an action for goods sold and delivered, a© fraud being alleged. Defendant moves to vacate the order for his arrest.
1Opinion of the CourtGiegerich, J.
The judgment rendered in the state of New Jersey is not, in my opinion, a bar to the maintenance of the action in its present form. The authority relied upon by the defendant (Pitt v. Freed [Sup.] 21 N. Y. Supp. 300) has been overruled by a subsequent decision in the same case (28 N. Y. Supp. 863). In the course of that decision, the court, through Dykman, J., said:
“The effect of the judgment in a court of a sister state is now defined by section 552 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which is new; and it was intended to settle the question, which was somewhat uncertain. That section provides…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Roberts v. . FisherNew York Court of Appeals · 1870
- Baxter v. . DrakeNew York Court of Appeals · 1881
- Leach v. LindeNew York Supreme Court · 1893
- Pitt v. FreedNew York Supreme Court · 1894
- Pitt v. FreedNew York Supreme Court · 1892
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.