Foran v. Johnson

Stone, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an appeal from the refusal of the Baltimore City Court, to strike out a judgment of condemnation on an attachment. Two reasons were assigned by the appellant on his motion. 1st. That the judgment was procured and obtained by fraud, deceit and bad faith. 2nd.

That the affidavit upon which the warrant was issued, does not contain a sufficient averment of the non-residence of the defendants. The second of these reasons relies upon a defect, apparent upon the face of the proceedings, and will first be considered. The alleged defect will be found in the latter part of the affidavit, and consists in the use of the words, “that the said James & Company are not citizens, &c.,” instead of “James .Foran & Company.” In the former part of the affidavit, the full name of each individual, composing the firm of James Foran & Company were given, and they were described as “not being citizens of the State of Maryland, and not residing therein.” After the names of the persons composing the firm were once clearly set out, it was not necessary to repeat them every time the firm was referred to. Taking the whole of the affidavit together, it is impossible to doubt that the term, “the said James & Company” referred to James Foran & ¹⁴⁶ Company, and is a substantial compliance with the law; and we do not deem the objection so made to the affidavit a fatal one.

The other reason assigned for striking out the judgment is, for defects not appearing upon the face of the proceedings, and which depend upon proof to be taken in the case. The proper manner of bringing such proof into the case, is an important question to be settled, before it will be necessary to advert to the testimony appearing in the record. Courts are always reluctant to interfere with judgments after the lapse of the term at which they are entered, and they should be interfered with, with great circumspection. The power to do so is undoubted, but that power should only be exercised after the most careful consideration of the facts, which should be brought before the Court in the mode best adapted to the ascertainment of their truth.

In the case of Montgomery vs. Murphy, 19 Md., 581 , this Court said: “The judgment records of the State are presumed to have been made, up after the most careful deliberation, and to permit them to he altered or amended without the most solemn forms of proceeding, would be contrary to law and good policy.” And in Kemp & Buckey vs. Cook, et al., 18 Md., 139 , they say: “The judgment records of the State are the highest evidences of debt known to the law; they are presumed to have been made up after