Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

8 How. Pr. 301

Malcom v. Baker

The Superior Court of New York City

Decided January 15, 1853

The Superior Court of New York City · decided 1853-01-15

<p>Where one of the defendants as principal, and the others as sureties, executed a bond under the act to abolish imprisonment for debt, and to punish fraudulent debtors, passed April 26, 1831, to stay the issuing by the county judge, of a warrant of commitment against the principal, and conditioned for an application for an assignment of all his property and for a discharge, &c. And upon an action brought by the plaintiffs for a breach of the conditions of the bond, and upon the trial, a verdict was found for the plaintiffs, which was affirmed on appeal at general term, but with leave to defendants to apply at the special term, upon notice, for leave to a mend their answer.</p> <p>Held, that the motion to amend the answer came entirely too late. It seems, the court have not the power to grant such relief after argument of the appeal, and final judgment of affirmance thereon.</p> <p>The judgment should first be set aside. And it is doubtful whether a motion to set aside a regular judgment rendered at general term, can be granted by the special term, for the purpose of allowing a party to amend his pleading.</p> <p>If, however, such a motion can be entertained, it must not only appear that the party has been misled or surprised after the exercise of ordinary care and skill, but that the amendment asked for is clearly required in order to promote the ends of justice.</p> <p>The court at general term refused to hear this proposition -argued on the ground that it was not within the issue joined in the action, and it not having been at any time previously raised or presented in the progress of the action.</p> <p>The argument of the appeal then proceeded upon other points, and the court at the close of the argument affirmed the judgment rendered at the circuit; and also, at the same time, made an order staying the plaintiffs’ proceedings thirty days, and giving the defendants leave to apply at special term, within that time, upon due notice, for leave to amend their answer. The motion is to put in an amended answer, so as to raise the question embraced in the above proposition.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently May 1924

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1853-01-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Welles, Justice.

¶1This motion cannot be granted. It comes entirely too late. I doubt very much the power of this court to give the relief sought for, after the argument of the appeal and final judgment of affirmance thereon, at the general term. It seems to me that the judgment must first be set aside, before the defendants can have leave to amend their answer. A motion to set aside a judgment of the general term, confessedly regular, cannot I think be granted by the special term, for the purpose of allowing a party to amend his pleading. But admitting this may be. done at special term, before I can consent to such a stretch of the power of amendment, it should not only appear that the party has been surprised or misled, after the exercise of ordinary care and skill, but that the amendment asked for is clearly required in order to promote the ends of justice.

¶2The papers on this motion show what the evidence was which was exhibited before the county judge when the application was first made before him, and in my judgment it clearly gave him jurisdiction to entertain the further proceedings which were had before him. The objection to this evidence is, that *304it consisted of facts stated in an affidavit, upon information and belief. After setting out the two judgments constituting the indebtedness of Baker to the plaintiffs, the executions, issued thereon, and the returns thereto by the sheriff, the affidavit proceeds as follows: “ The deponent further says that the said Abner Baker has assigned, removed,, and disposed of his property with the .intent to defraud his creditors, as this deponent has been informed and believes true.

¶3The facts and circumstances upon which such belief Is founded are as follows,” &c. The affidavit then proceeds to state positively and'without qualification, the facts and circumstances,.' which beyond doubt, were sufficient to give the county judge jurisdiction.

¶4Admitting that his decision to entertain jurisdiction would be held erroneous upon review on certiorari, it by no means follows that he acted without jurisdiction. I had occasion to-consider the authorities on a similar question In Sheldon agt. Wright, (7 Barb. S. C. R., pp. 41, 42.)

¶5If the county judge had jurisdiction, his. acts, though erroneous, were valid' and binding until reversed.

¶6Entertaining these views I cannot consent to grant the motion. I may be wrong; but I have no guide on such occasions-but my own convictions, and I should not feel justified in going contrary to them, in order to- grant the defendants an extraordinary favor, for the purpose of experimenting upon other minds with the same question.

¶7The motion is denied with $7 costs.

/8/howpr/301 · .json · Public domain