Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

64 N.H. 547

15 A 148

McDonald v. Drew

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided June 5, 1888

Supreme Court of New Hampshire · decided 1888-06-05

Debt, on a New York judgment. Plea, nul tiel record, with a brief statement “ that the said judgment . . . was had and obtained by the fraud and covin, and by the false and fraudulent testimony of the plaintiff, and with the intent to defraud the defendant of the amount of the said judgment.” The plaintiff moved to reject the brief statement. Motion granted, and the defendant excepted.

Relies on Metcalf v. Gilmore

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1888-06-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently May 1987

7 state decisions

2018881890190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 →

Allen, J.

¶1 The judgment upon which the action is brought, and upon which the plaintiff relies if the court where the judgment was rendered had jurisdiction, is conclusive between the parties, and cannot be reversed, set aside, or impeached, for fraud in obtaining it, in this suit. It can be reversed only by a direct proceeding for that purpose in the court where it was rendered. The defence of fraud in obtaining the judgment cannot in this mode be made, °and the brief statement of defence was properly rejected. Metcalf v. Gilmore, 59 N. H. 417.

¶2 Exception overruled.

Smith, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
/64/nh/547 · .json · Public domain