Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

5 Day 527

Haydock v. Cobb

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided November 15, 1813

Supreme Court of Connecticut · decided 1813-11-15

MOTION Mr a nr-w trial. This was an action of disseisin, for a parcel of land in Tol-land. The plea was the general issue; which, hy the agreement of llu; parlies, was closed to the court. The issue was found for the defendant. The facts disclosed on the trial la fore the Superior Court, were-as follows. In 1796, one Stephen Howard assigned to Henry Haydock & Son, a certain promissory note, executed to Mm by the defendant.

Decided 1813-11-15

Swift, J.

¶1Parties and privies to judgments or decrees, can never impeach them collaterally : They can question them only in due course of law, by writ of error, petition for new trial, or application in chancery. Strangers fo judgments or decress, can never question them directly ; but are permitted, when prejudiced by them, to shew that they were obtained by fraud or collusion. A decree void on the face of it, has no effect on parties or strangers.

¶2The decrc*- in this case, is valid on the face of it. It irn-

¶3*530ports the existence oí' Howard at ilu; time of passing it: an>. of course, such must have been the case, when the executici was levied. ■ ^ ... c

¶4There is im pretence that the decree war obtained b\ fraud or collusion : Of course, it was incompetent for Cobb li. prove an extraneous fact repugnant to the decree, for the purpose of rendering it void.

Brainard and Inoersoll, Js., concurred in this opinion

¶5New trial not advised.

/5/day/527 · .json · Public domain