Wilder v. Fondey
Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors
Error from the supreme court. Wilder and Hastings sued Fondey and Winne in the supreme court in a qui tam action, to recover the penalty given by the fourth section of the statute of frauds, (1 R. L. 76.) The declaration contained two counts.
Read the full summary
Error from the supreme court. Wilder and Hastings sued Fondey and Winne in the supreme court in a qui tam action, to recover the penalty given by the fourth section of the statute of frauds, (1 R. L. 76.) The declaration contained two counts. In the first the defendants were charged with having obtained a judgment against one Stephen Fondey, by fraud and collusion with him, with the intent to delay, hinder and defraud the plaintiffs of their just and lawful action, demand and damages, which on the 23d January, 1824, they put in use, as true and simple, and had Iona fide and upon good…
1Opinion of the Court
The following opinions were delivered;
By the Chancellor.
The bond and warrant of attorney on which the judgment of the defendants was entered were dated in 1821, long before the plaintiffs debt was contracted. If any thing was due at the time the judgment was entered, the defendants had a lawful right to enter up judgment and take out execution for what was then due, and they cannot be made liable for the penalty prescribed in the statute for such an act; but if they had taken a judgment for a larger amount than was due, for the purpose of defeating the plaintiffs’ recovery, they would have…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Hoffman, Burneston & Co. v. MackallOhio Supreme Court · 1855
- Taaffe v. JosephsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1857
- Rochester v. SullivanArizona Supreme Court · 1886
- Platt v. SchreyerU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1885
- Nicholson v. LeavittThe Superior Court of New York City · 1850