Hubbell v. Coudrey

Decided November 15, 1809

New York Supreme Court · decided 1809-11-15

THIS was an action of debt. The declaration stated, that at a county court, held at Danbury, in the state of Connecticut, on the third Tuesday of November, 1799, the plaintiff as survivor of, Etc. recovered against the defendant, 1617 dollars and 19 cents, of debt, and 14 dollars and 50 cents, of costs, as by the record thereof appears, and that the judgment remained in full force, See, whereby an action had accrued, Etc. The defendant pleaded, 1. Nil debet. 2.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1809-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 1902

4 state decisions

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 →

Per Curiam.

¶1The statute of limitations may be plead- . ■ed to all actions of debt, upon simple contract; and the judgment upon which the suit is brought, cannot, according to the settled doctrine in this court, be viewed in any higher light. In Walker v. Witter, (Doug. 1.) it was held, that an action of debt or assumpsit, would lie upon a foreign judgment; and Lord Mansfield observed, in that case, that a judgment was not a specialty, but the debt only a simple contract debt. In Duplein v. De Rover, (2 Vern. 540.) the very point arose. The statute of limitations was pleaded to a suit in chancery, on a judgment, in France; and Lord Chief Justice Cozvper admitted the plea, and said that a judgment in France must be considered in England, as a debt by simple contract. The demurrer is therefore not well taken, but the plaintiff, according to his prayer, may have leave to withdraw it stud reply, upon payment of costs.

¶2Judgment for the defendant.