Freligh v. . Brink
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at general term, reversing, on appeal, an order at special term setting aside the judgment entered by confession in this action, on account of a supposed defect in the statement required by the 883d section of the Code.
Read the full summary
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at general term, reversing, on appeal, an order at special term setting aside the judgment entered by confession in this action, on account of a supposed defect in the statement required by the 883d section of the Code. The statement was duly sworn to, and was in the following words: “ James D. Brink and ¡Noah Snyder, defendants, hereby confess themselves indebted to Valentine Freligh, plaintiff, in the sum of eight hundred and sixty-two dollars and forty-eight cents, and hereby authorize him, or his executors, administrators, attorneys or assigns, to…
1Opinion of the CourtDenio, J.
The Code requires these statements, where the judgment is for money already due, “ to state concisely the facts out of which ” the debt “ arose,” and to show that the sum for which the judgment was confessed is justly due. (§ 383.) The cases which have been decided here, upon this section, establish that it is not sufficient merely to set out a promissory note given by the debtor to the creditor, with an allegation that the amount of it is justly due (Chappel v. Chappel, 2 Kern., 215); that it is no better if, besides setting out a note, it add that it was given upon a settlement between the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Dunham v. . WatermanNew York Court of Appeals · 1858
3Cited by21 opinions
- Harrison v. . GibbonsNew York Court of Appeals · 1877
- The Union Bank v. . BushNew York Court of Appeals · 1867
- Critten v. . VredenburghNew York Court of Appeals · 1897
- Hard v. FosterSupreme Court of Missouri · 1889
- Claflin & Co. v. DodsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1892
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.