Skip to main content
Supreme Court· 3/11/1907

Wetmore v. Karrick

Citations

  • 205 U.S. 141
  • 27 S. Ct. 434
  • 51 L. Ed. 745
  • 1907 U.S. LEXIS 1441

Syllabus

<p>Where an action is brought to recover upon a judgment the jurisdiction of the court rendering the judgment is open to inquiry; and the Constitutional requirement as to full faith and credit in each State to be given the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other State does not require the enforcement of a judgment rendered without jurisdiction or otherwise wanting in due process of law.</p> <p>A-judgment rendered in personam against a defendant without jurisdiction of his person is not only erroneous but void, and is not required to be enforced in other States under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution or the act of Congress passed in aid thereof, § 905, Rev. Stat.</p> <p>A court which has once rendered a judgment in favor of a defendant, dismissing the cause and discharging him from further attendance, cannot, after the term or at a subsequent term, without notice to the defendant, set that judgment aside and render a new judgment against the defendant; a judgment so entered -is void and not required to be enforced in another State under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution.</p> <p>In Massachusetts the rule day when a judgment becomes final is equivalent to the end of a term, and in that State the rule is that judgment is final unless set aside within the exceptions for mistake.</p> <p>Jurisdiction once lost can only be regained by some proper notice to the other party and where, as in this case, had notice been given of the motion to render a new judgment, defendant could have pleaded a discharge in bankruptcy, substantial rights are impaired, and the judgment so rendered without notice is void.</p> <p>Although a mistake in regard to a judgment may be a clerical one it can- , not be corrected after the term without notice, especially where the condition of the parties has changed in view of new rights acquired which render it prejudicial to enter a new judgment.</p> <p>Whatever remedies may exist as to the judgm

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that court cannot, consistent with due process, set aside judgment of dismissal and render a personal judgment against defendant without notice
  • “The general principle - 29 - is that judgments cannot be disturbed after the term at which they are rendered, and can only be corrected, if at all, by writ of error, or appeal, or relieved against in equity in certain cases.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Day, Brewer

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.