W. Jersey Trust Co. v. Bigham

• Decision Date: 30 April 1937
• Docket Number: No. 14.,14.
• Citation: 191 A. 743
• Parties: WEST JERSEY TRUST CO. v. BIGHAM et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

191 A. 743

WEST JERSEY TRUST CO.

v. BIGHAM et al.

No. 14.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

April 30, 1937.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Where the court has jurisdiction of the subject-matter and has acquired jurisdiction over the defendants, and the judgment is complete and regular upon its face, it is not void.

2. An application to open a judgment regularly entered is a matter over which the court exercises jurisdiction of a discretionary and equitable character.

3. Where a court opens up a voidable judgment, it should not deprive a party

thereto of that to which he was equitably entitled.

Appeal from Supreme Court.

Action by the West Jersey Trust Company, trustee, against Oscar V. Bigham and another. Defendants' rule to show cause why a deficiency judgment entered against them in favor of plaintiff should not be vacated and canceled of record was made absolute by the Supreme Court (187 A. 561, 14 N.J.Misc. 752), and plaintiff appeals.

Reversed, with directions.

Charles A. Cogan and Louis B. LeDuc, both of Camden, for appellant. Bourgeois & Coulomb and William B. Hunter, all of Atlantic City, for respondents.

BODINE, Justice.

The appellant trust company foreclosed a mortgage made by the defendants and purchased the premises for $100. It then proceeded to enter in the Supreme Court a judgment for the deficiency. Later, the Court of Chancery opened its prior order confirming the sale of the premises and fixed the fair value in accordance with the practice of that court. Thereafter the trust company repurchased the premises at sheriff's sale for $4,500 and the sale was confirmed. The defendants thereafter petitioned the Supreme Court to cancel the deficiency judgment previously entered. This relief was granted. It was then too late for the trust company to proceed at law for the recovery of the existing deficiency upon the defendants' bond.

The canceled judgment was complete and regular upon its face. The Supreme Court had jurisdiction of the subject-matter and had acquired jurisdiction over the defendants. Such a judgment was not void. La Bell v. Quasdorf, 116 N.J.Law, 368, 184 A. 750. It stands until reversed on appeal, or vacated in a direct proceeding, and is not subject to collateral attack. Van Horn v. Hann, 39 N.J.Law, 207; In re Martin, 86 N.J.Eq. 265, 98 A. 510.

No inspection of the record before the entry of the judgment would have disclosed error. McLaughlin v. Cross, 68 N.J.Law, 599, 53 A. 703; Westfield Trust Co. v. Court of Common Pleas, 115 N.J. Law, 86, 178 A. 546.

"An application to open or vacate a judgment is an appeal to the equitable powers of the court, addressed to the discretion of the court, and is to be disposed of upon equitable principles so as to do justice to all persons concerned. Generally the discretion will not be favorably exercised unless the enforcement of the judgment would be unjust, oppressive, or inequitable, as to the moving party, who must be actually or prospectively injured or prejudiced by it, and be benefitted by its opening or vacation, nor unless the motion can be granted without material injustice or injury to the opposing party, or prejudice to the intervening rights of third persons." 34 Corpus Juris 371.

"It is settled that by the common law an application to open a...