I. Where a Justice has jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action, his judgment, though erroneous, is binding on the parties till reversed on appeal, or declared void on writ of certiorari. (Dorente v. Sullivan, 7 Cal. 279; Emery v. Nelson, 9 S. & R. 12; Warburton v. Aiken, 1 McLean, 460; Swiggart v. Harber, 4 Scam. 364; Le Grange v. Ward, 11 Ohio, 257.)
II. The judgment is not void, but voidable only, and cannot be attacked collaterally. (Tarbox v. Hayes, 6 Watts, 398; Thompson v. O'Hanlan, 6 Id. 492; 3 McCord, 245; Dorente v. Sullivan, 7 Cal. 279; White v. Albertson, 3 Duer. 241; Williams v. Woodhouse, 3 Id. 257; Perryman v. State of Miss., 8 Miss. 208; Obert v. Hummel, 3 Harr. 73; Bannister v. Higginson, 3 Ship. 73. See also Tappan v. Nutting, Brayt. 137; Eastman v. Curtis, 4 Term, 616; Luckett v. Gwathmey, Litt. Sel. Cas. 121.)
If voidable only, the party had an adequate remedy by appeal, as the time for appeal had not run at the time of the commencement of this suit.
If absolutely void, the party has mistaken his remedy, for he has still an adequate remedy at law by a writ of certiorari, and Courts of Equity do not interfere in such cases. (Practice Act, sec. 456 et seq. )
JUDGES: On the motion to dismiss, Field, C. J. at the July term delivered the opinion of the Court. Cope, J. concurring.
OPINION
FIELD, Judge
This is a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to give security for costs after being required under sections five hundred and twelve and five hundred and fourteen of the Practice Act, he being a nonresident. Notice requiring such security was served on the twelfth of December, and the appeal was perfected on the nineteenth of January. No order staying proceedings accompanied the notice, and on the day following its service judgment was rendered in the action. It was too late to ask a dismissal of the action after judgment was rendered, and the undertaking on appeal furnishes sufficient security for the costs which may be subsequently incurred. Motion denied.
On the merits, Field, C. J. at the October term delivered the opinion of the Court--Baldwin, J. and Cope, J. concurring.
The plaintiff seeks to enjoin the sale of certain personal property under an execution issued upon a judgment recovered against him in a Justice's Court, and bases his claim for relief upon the ground that the Court never acquired any jurisdiction of his person. He avers that the summons issued in the action, in which the judgment was entered, was never served upon him. If this averment be true, he has an effectual remedy by motion to the Court to set the execution aside. The Justice possesses the power at all times to arrest process issued upon judgments entered in his docket which are void. If upon a proper presentation of the facts, the Justice should deny the motion, the plaintiff can appeal to the County Court from the judgment, if the time for that purpose has not elapsed, and raise by motion there the question as to the jurisdiction of the Justice. The appeal would be upon a question of law, and would of course be heard upon the papers in the action, or upon a statement prepared. (See sec. 625, Pr. Act, as amended in 1855.) But if the time to appeal has elapsed, the plaintiff can apply to the County Court for a writ of certiorari, and by that proceeding obtain a review of the action of the Justice in rendering the judgment, so far as the question of jurisdiction is concerned.
Judgment affirmed.