TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Alderman v. Diament

Alderman, Bateman and Bateman ads. Diament

Alderman v. Diament, 7 N.J.L. 197 (1824)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of New Jersey · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 15, 1824
Judges
Kirkpatrick, Rossell
Citations
7 N.J.L. 197
Headnotes
A judgment on a. bond and warrant of attorney will be set aside on affidavit of a defence, and defendant permitted to plead to the merits; but not permitted to plead non est factum.
Summary
A judgment on a bond and warrant of attorney had been entered against Alderman, Bateman and Bateman, in favor of Diament, at the last term.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Kirkpatrick

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Kirkpatrick, O. J.

The practice of this court has been, in cases of this kind, to open the judgment and let the party go to trial upon the merits, and to plead any plea he thought proper, except a mere dilatory plea. I think, therefore, the defendants would be at liberty to plead non est factum, and, indeed, I think that these judgments entered upon bonds and warrants of attorney should, upon proper application, be very readily and widely opened, for the method in which they are entered is the loosest way of binding a man’s property that ever was devised in any civilized country.

Ford, J., thought that after the defendants had given a warrant of attorney to confess the bond that they could not plead non est factum.

*Rossell, J.

thought that by the present applies.-' tion and affidavit the defendant acknowledged the existence of the bond, and therefore ought not to be permitted to plead non est factum.

The court granted the following rule : “ It is ordered that the judgment in this case be opened, and the defendants allowed to plead and make defence on the merits; nevertheless the defendants are not at liberty to plead non est factum, and the j udgment and execution to stand as a security for the plaintiff.” *

Note — If fraud is suggested, or usury alleged in regard to a judgment entered upon a bond and warrant of attorney, the usual and proper way is, to let the judgment stand, and to award a feigned issue to try the fact. Machir v. Delaval, *241 Barn. notes. 277; Wardell v. Eden, 2 John. Ca. 258. As to other judgments, not entered on bonds and warrants of attorney, the court also, in some cases, upon an affidavit of merits, will set -them aside, though regular, if the plaintiff does not thereby lose a trial. 1 Coxe 201, Den ex dem. Lee v. Evans; Den. v. Ferin, 1 Halst. Rep. 431; 2 Ibid. 161; 2 Salk. 518; 1 Ibid. 402. And in the case of Abrams and Rolf v. Wood ( 1 South. 39 ,) the judgment was opened although the plaintiff had lost a trial. As it is wholly discretionary with the court to set aside a regular judgment or not, they will not do it in order to give the defendant an advantage of any nicety of pleading, (2 Str. 1242,) or to let him plead the statute of limitations, (1 W. Bl. 35,) or a special plea of questionable matter designed to draw the plaintiff to demur (2 Salk. 518,) or an irregular judgment after the defendant has given a cognovit (7 Term. Rep. 206,) but that defendant may plead his bankruptcy. See 1 Bos. df Ful. 52. When the court set aside a regular judgment, it is usually upon the terms of the defendant’s paying costs (1 Salic. 402,) pleading issuably instanter ( 1 Bur. 586 ,) taking short notice of trial (Barnes 242,) and in some cases they will order the defendant to bring the money into court. Barnes 243; 2 Arch. Frac. 11; Tidd’s Brae. 508. And the court will set aside a judgment in ejectment as well as in other actions. 1 Coxe 201; 1 Falst. 431; 2 Ibid. 161 ; 2 Str. 975; 4 Bur. 1996 .

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 13 cases

View all citing references →
1946: 11951: 11956: 21958: 11970: 11971: 11978: 11980: 11982: 11989: 12001: 12004: 119462026peak 1956 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. USA Jet Airlines, Inc v. Schick638 N.W.2d 112 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001)
  2. Ehnes v. King141 A.2d 62 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1958)
  3. Isbell v. County of Sonoma577 P.2d 188 (Cal. 1978)
  4. Tara Enterprises, Inc. v. Daribar Management Corp.848 A.2d 27 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2004)
  5. Friendly Consumer Discount Co. v. Foell121 A.2d 434 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1956)
  6. Rhoads v. Mitchell47 A.2d 174 (Del. Super. Ct. 1946)

Most recent

  1. Tara Enterprises, Inc. v. Daribar Management Corp.848 A.2d 27 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2004)
  2. USA Jet Airlines, Inc v. Schick638 N.W.2d 112 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001)
  3. FIRST NAT. STATE BANK v. Gray556 A.2d 1334 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1989)
  4. A.J. Spagnol Lumber Co. v. Trauger423 So. 2d 956 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)
  5. First Mutual Corp. v. Grammercy & Maine, Inc.423 A.2d 680 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1980)
  6. Isbell v. County of Sonoma577 P.2d 188 (Cal. 1978)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list