Wilson v. Coolidge
| Decision Date | 30 October 1879 |
| Citation | 3 N.W. 285,42 Mich. 112 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | AMANDA E. WILSON v. ORVILLE W. COOLIDGE. |
Where a justice had jurisdiction in a case, irregularities and errors in the course of his proceedings cannot be reviewed by a bill in chancery, to set aside the judgment entered upon a transcript from such justice. Where a married woman is sued upon a note or obligation to which she might interpose her coverture as a defence, and she neglects so to do, and permits judgment to go against her, she will be bound by such judgment.
Appeal from Berrien.
Edward Bacon, for complainant.
O.W Coolidge, for defendant.
The object of this bill is to avoid a judgment entered upon a transcript from a justice of the peace, and to set aside the execution thereon, and a levy of the same on complainant's land.
The cause of action before the justice was a promissory note signed by complainant, and Nathaniel Wilson and William Parton as co-makers, and the judgment was recovered in 1875 after personal service against all. The complainant did not appear.
In November, 1877, judgment was entered in the circuit court on a transcript from the justice, and the defendant, Coolidge procured an execution, which the sheriff levied on complainant's premises.
In February, 1878, the sheriff advertised a sale on the execution, and complainant filed this bill. The court below dismissed it and she appealed. Her counsel urged several objections to the law proceedings, but none of them go to the jurisdiction, and the court of chancery has no authority to sit as a court of error, to examine the regularity of the proceedings in a court of law.
If the justice had jurisdiction, but made mistakes of law, however serious, we cannot inquire into them here. They should have been investigated in a proceeding instituted for the purpose. At the time the note put in judgment was made, the complainant was the wife of Nathaniel Wilson, one of the co-makers, and the relation has continued and still exists. It is not claimed that this appeared on the face of the note, or was objected to in the action before the justice. But her coverture is now admitted, and it is admitted further that she signed exclusively as surety for her husband.
The only question is whether, in consequence of her coverture and of the fact that she signed as surety, as now admitted, the judgment and other proceedings are caused to be void as...
To continue reading
Request your trial