Peck v. Woodbridge

Decided July 1, 1808

WRIT of error. This was an action on the case for a fraud, practised by Peck, in obtaining a decree in chancery against Wood-bridge. The declaration stated, that Woodbridge, on the 1st of January, 1773, became vested with the title to a certain piece of land, subject to a right of redemption by Noah Rust, and Elizabeth, the wife of Peck, children, and only heirs of Noah Rust, deceased, by whom the land was originally mortgaged.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1808-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 1906

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

By the Court, Mitchell, Ch. J. Reeve, J. and Edmond, J.

¶1dissenting.

¶2It is a principle of the common law, that a man cannot collaterally impeach, or call in question, a judgment of a court of law, or decree in equity, to which he is a party. It can only be done directly, by writ of error, petition for a new trial, or bill in chancery.

¶3In this case, the plaintiff complains that the defendant obtained a decree in his favour, against the plaintiff, which is still in force, by false and forged evidence. This collaterally impeaches such decree, by not only showing it to be wrongfully obtained, but to be wrong in itself: o,f course, Such action cannot be sustained.

¶4Judgment reversed.