Joyce v. Thompson
| Decision Date | 04 January 1918 |
| Citation | 118 N.E. 184,229 Mass. 106 |
| Parties | JOYCE v. THOMPSON. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Superior Court, Essex County.
Suit by Thomas F. Joyce against Charles H. R. Thompson, administrator. From a decree dismissing the bill, plaintiff appeals. Decree ordered affirmed.
Cregg & Cregg, of Lawrence, for appellant.
Samuel H. Hollis, of Lynn, for appellee.
This is a bill in equity brought to restrain the defendant from maintaining an action on a judgment rendered, in the superior court for the county of Essex, more than twenty years ago. The bill alleges that no personal service of the writ in the original action was ever made upon this plaintiff, that he had no knowledge of the action, and that judgment was obtained against him upon a default. The bill further alleges that the action was brought upon three promissory notes given by this plaintiff to the defendant's intestate; that all of the notes were executed on Sunday, and that one of the notes ‘was outlawed,’ and that the plaintiff did not learn of the action until the twenty-seventh day of September, A. D. 1915.
It has long been settled in this commonwealth that a domestic judgment rendered by a court of common-law jurisdiction is valid as between the parties until reversed. Such a judgment cannot be impeached collaterally by the parties to it, the reason therefor being, not because of an apparent authority in the court to render the judgment, but because the remedy by review, or writ of error, is held to be more appropriate. Hendrick v. Whittemore, 105 Mass. 23;Bishop v. Donnell, 171 Mass. 563, 51 N. E. 170. The only remedy of a party who has been injured by a judgment erroneously rendered ‘is by review or by a proceeding to reverse the same upon a writ of error.’ Fogel v. Dussault, 141 Mass. 154, 157, 7 N. E. 17;Chicago Title & Trust Co. v. Smith, 185 Mass. 363, 365, 70 N. E. 426,102 Am. St. Rep. 350. That a party to a judgment cannot impeach it collaterally is well established in equity as well as at law. Boston & Worcester Railroad v. Sparhawk, 1 Allen, 448, 79 Am. Dec. 750; William Gorman's Case, 124 Mass. 190.
It is the contention of the plaintiff that, as the bill alleges the notes to have been executed on Sunday and the demurrer admits the truth of this allegation, the judgment is tainted with illegality and therefore void. The answer to this contention is that the judgment stands until it is reversed or set aside by appropriate proceedings at law.
This court has held in certain cases that a judgment may be set aside and reversed in equity for fraud; it has been held that, where the fraud was of such a character as to induce the court to assume a jurisdiction which it could not have exercised had the truth been known, and by reason of which the adverse party was prevented from appearing and asserting her legal rights, a judgment so obtained will be set aside. Sampson v. Sampson, 223 Mass. 451, 112 N. E. 84;Keyes v. Brackett, 187 Mass....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Boston v. Santosuosso
...N.S., 110. And this suit is not an attempt, as between these parties, to impeach the judgment collaterally. Compare Joyce v. Thompson, 229 Mass. 106, 118 N.E. 184. Moreover, this suit is not governed by the decision in Commonwealth v. Harkins, 128 Mass. 79, relied on by the defendants. It w......
-
Savage v. Walshe
...by review or writ of error is held to be more appropriate, and therefore exclusive. Hendrick v. Whittemore, 105 Mass. 23;Joyce v. Thompson, 229 Mass. 106, 118 N. E. 184;Heard v. Calkins, 234 Mass. 526, 125 N. E. 596. It follows from this principle that neither of the defendants in the earli......
-
Farquhar v. New England Trust Co.
...Ann. Cas. 1912A, 982;Allen v. Hunt, 213 Mass. 276, 279, 100 N. E. 552;Taylor v. Badger, 226 Mass. 258, 115 N. E. 405;Joyce v. Thompson, 229 Mass. 106, 118 N. E. 184;Woodard v. Snow, 233 Mass. 267, 124 N. E. 35, 5 A. L. R. 1381;Hanscom v. Malden & Melrose Gas Light Co., 234 Mass. 374, 125 N.......
-
Hyde Park Sav. Bank v. Davankoskas
...93;Johnson v. Waters, 111 U.S. 640, 4 S.Ct. 619, 28 L.Ed. 547;Nesson v. Gilson, 224 Mass. 212, 214, 112 N.E. 870;Joyce v. Thompson, 229 Mass. 106, 107, 108118 N.E. 184. Cases of accident or mistake whereby a party failed, at one stage of the proceedings or another, to obtain his day in cour......