Hazel v. Jacobs

Decision Date28 February 1910
Citation75 A. 903,78 N.J.L. 459
CourtNew Jersey Supreme Court
PartiesWILLIAM B. HAZEL, ASSIGNEE OF FRANK MONCUR, PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. GEORGE W. JACOBS, DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR

Error to Circuit Court, Cumberland County.

Action by William B. Hazel, assignee, against George W. Jacobs.Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.Affirmed.

See, also, 74 Atl. 510.

Herbert C. Bartlett, for plaintiff in error.

William A. Logue, for defendant in error.

REED, J.This writ brings up a judgment entered upon a finding of the judge sitting without a jury.The action was brought in Cumberland county circuit court and resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff.The action below was brought to recover the amount of a judgment entered upon a promissory note before a justice of the peace in the state of Delaware, which judgment was duly docketed in the Superior Court of said state at Dover, in the county of Kent.

The note upon which the judgment was entered was given to one Frank Moncur, and by him assigned to William B. Hazel, who caused the judgment below to be thereafter entered.The judgment was entered by virtue of a warrant of attorney, and the following is a copy of the note and the warrant: "I, George W. Jacobs, promise and oblige myself, my heirs, executors or administrators, to pay Frank Moncur, his executors, administrators, or assigns, the sum of seventy dollars ($70.00) lawful money of the state of Delaware with lawful interest, for value received, on or before the first day of November, A.D. 1889.And further I do hereby authorize and empower any justice of the peace within the state of Delaware or elsewhere to enter judgment on the above obligation without process, against me, my heirs, executors or administrators, at the suit of the said Frank Moncur, his executors, administrators or assigns, at any time after the date hereof, with stay of execution till the first day of November, A.D. 1889, and I do hereby release all and all manner of error or errors in any such judgment and in the execution to be issued thereon.In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this first day of May, A. D. one thousand eight hundred and eighty-nine.George W. Jacobs.[Seal].Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of George N. Donnelly."

The entry of judgment is in the following form: "Jan. 31, 1901. 459.William B. Hazel, Assignee of Frank Moncur, v. George W. Jacobs.Action of debt on specialty with warrant of attorney to enter judgment against this defendant without process and release of error for $70.00, int. from Nov. 1, 1889.And now, to wit, this 31st day of January, A.D. 1901, the note with warrant of attorney is received and filed and thereupon judgment is hereby given in favor of said plaintiff, and against George W. Jacobs, defendant, for seventy dollars with interest from November 1, A. D. 1889, and fifty cents costs.John B. Hutton, J. P."

To the declaration upon this judgment the defendant pleaded payment of the judgment.He also pleaded that he was never served with any process in the state in which the said judgment was obtained; and that he did not appear to the said suit in person or by attorney; and that he was not resident nor present within the jurisdiction of the said court in which said judgment was rendered; and that John B. Hutton, justice of the peace, and one J. H. Hughes, attorney at law, appeared for the defendant in the said suit and entered judgment against the defendant; but that neither was authorized by the defendant so to do.

Upon the trial of the present action, an exemplified copy of the Delaware judgment was put in evidence, also a copy of the statute of Delaware permitting the entry of such a judgment by a justice of the peace upon warrant of attorney.It was also proved that Hazel was the holder by assignment of the note in question.

Respecting the plea of payment, the defendant testified that the note was given in payment for a horse purchased by him from the payee, Moncur; that in exchange for the horse so purchased Moncur gave him another horse; that defendant returned the second animal to Moncur in satisfaction of the note; and that the horse was so accepted by Moncur.The defendant says that he had the last horse two or three weeks, maybe a little longer.It appears that, soon after, Jacobs moved from his then residence.The promissory note was purchased by Hazel, the present plaintiff, from Moncur at the request of Jacobs, before the judgment was entered and after Jacobs had moved away...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
15 cases
  • United Pac. Ins. Co. v. Lamanna's Estate
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court
    • May 1, 1981
    ...have long recognized foreign judgments by confession and have held that they are entitled to full faith and credit. Hazel v. Jacobs, 78 N.J.L. 459, 75 A. 903 (E&A 1910). In Gotham Credit Corporation v. Powell, 22 N.J.Misc. 301, 38 A.2d 700 (Dist.Ct. 1944), a judgment by confession was given......
  • Battle v. General Cellulose Co.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • March 11, 1957
    ...and if the terms of the consent are met, the judgment is binding and entitled to full faith and credit. Hazel v. Jacobs, 78 N.J.L. 459, 75 A. 903, 27 L.R.A.,N.S., 1066 (E. & A.1910); Grover & Baker Sewing Machine Co. v. Radcliffe, 137 U.S. 287, 11 S.Ct. 92, 34 L.Ed. 670 (1890); Wilson v. Se......
  • Picking v. Local Loan Co.
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • November 30, 1945
    ...matter, its judgment was not open to collateral attack. Moreover, the note was merged in the judgment. Hazel v. Jacobs, 78 N.J.L. 459, 75 A. 903, 27 L.R.A.,N.S., 1066, 20 Ann.Cas. 260; Bower v. Casanave, D.C., 44 F.Supp. 501. Full faith and credit extends to a judgment, regardless of the va......
  • Ferranti v. Lewis
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • April 17, 1930
    ...Chitty, Gen. Prac. 334; 3 Chitty, Gen. Prac. 669; 1 Tidd's Prac. 545 to 556; Moe v. Shaffer, supra; Hazel v. Jacobs, 78 N. J. Law, 459, 75 A. 903,27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1066,20 Ann. Cas. 260; H. S. Burr & Co. v. Frank Mathers & Co., 51 Mo. App. 470;Varnum v. Runion, Phrais & Bond, Fed. Cas. No......
  • Get Started for Free