Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

rogated to the rights of the creditor under the judgment, where such is the intention at the time the payment is made. The same rule applies to an endorser of negotiable paper.? Where an officer has become liable to a judgment creditor for neglecting to execute process under the judgment he cannot entitle himself to be subrogated to the rights of the creditor by voluntarily paying the judgment without taking an assignment of it ;3 but according to authorities, if he waits until he is compelled to pay the amount of the judgment he will be entitled to such subrogation.4 It seems to be the prevailing opinion that one of several joint judgment debtors who pays a judgment cannot take an assignment of it or have it kept alive for his benefit.5

A levy under execution upon sufficient personal property oper

Even where the payment of a judg- paid the debt and took an assignment of foreclosure may operate as an ment of the sheriff's certificate, and equitable assignment of the judgment, afterwards caused a sheriff's deed to be the lien will not be kept alive to the executed to his wife. It was held that prejudice of a subsequent bona fide the wife took no title, the payment purchaser without notice, the judgment made having extinguished the judgappearing of record to have been satis- ment. Klippel v. Shields, go Ind. 81. fied and discharged. Persons

2. Eno v. Crooke, 10 N. Y. 66; Shaeffer, 65 Cal. 79.

Corey v. White, 3 Barb. (N. Y.) 12. A judgment is not extinguished by 3. Arnett v. Cloud, 2 Ga. 53; Garth cancellation in part of the judicial 7. Campbell, 10 Mo. 154; Lintz v. mortgage securing it to certain real es- Thompson, í Head (Tenn.) 456; Hall tate. Beall v. Elder, 35 La. An. 1022. v. Taylor, 18 W. Va. 544.

Assignment to Creditor.-If the pur- 4. Allen v. Holden, 9 Mass. 133; s. chaser of property subject to several c., 6 Am. Dec. 46; Chester v. Plaistow, attachments takes an assignment of 43 N. H. 545; Smith v. Alexander, 4 one of the judgments, such an assign- Sneed (Tenn.) 482. Compare Carpenment is payment, and leaves the prop- ter v. Stilwell, II N. Y.61; Sherman erty subject to the remaining attach- v. Boyce, 15 Johns. (N. Y.) 443; Simpments. Douk v. St. Louis etc. Co., 17 son v. Mercer, 144 Mass. 413. Ill. App. 369.

An officer may purchase a judgment 1. Barringer v. Boyden, 7 Jones L. and take an assignment of it. Allen v. (N. Car.) 187; Sanford v. McLean, 3 lolden, 9 Mass. 133; s. C., 6 Am. Dec. Pai. (N. Y.) 117; S. C., 23 Am. Dec. 773; 46; Dunn v. Snell, 15 Mass. 481; Heilig Hayes v. Ward, 4 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) v. Lemby, 74 N. Car. 98; s. C., 21 Am. 123; s. C., 8 Am. Dec. 554; Dempsey v. Rep. 489; Cheever v. Mirrick, 2 N. H. Bush, 18 Ohio St. 376; Peters v. Mc. 376; Rhea v. Preston, 75 Va. 757. Williams, 36 Ohio St. 155; Cottrell's Compare Bigelow v. Prevost, 5 Hill Appeal, 20 Pa. St. 294; McClung v. (N. Y.) 566. Beirne, 10 Leigh (Va.) 394. See also 5. Preslar v. Stallworth, 37 Ala. 405; Evans v. Burns, 67 Iowa 179.

Montgomery v. Vickery, 110 Ind. 211; And it makes no difference that satis- Hammatt v. Wy

yman, 9

Mass. 138; faction of the judgment has been en- Booth v. Bank, 74 N. Y. 228; Towe v. tered without the surety's knowledge. Felton, 7 Jones (N. Car.) 216; Hinton Bailey v. Brownfield, 20 Pa. St. 41. v. Odenheimer, 4 Jones Eq. (N. Car.)

Payment of a judgment by one pri- 406; Sager v. May, 15 R. I. 528. Commarily liable is an absolute satisfaction pare Coffee v. Tevis, 17 Cal. 239; of it, notwithstanding an assignment to Wheeler's Estate, i Md. Ch. 80; Brown the payor and an agreement that the v. White, 5 Dutch. (N. J.) 516; Durand judgment shall be kept alive for his v. Trusdeli, 44 N. J. L. 597; Huckaby v. benefit. Montgomery v. Vickery, 110 Sasser, 69 Ga. 603; Campbell v. Pope, Ind. 211.

96 Mo. 468. The land of one of two joint judgment 6. If the property taken is not suffidebtors, both principals, was bid in by cient to satisfy the judgment, the credthe plaintiff, whereupon the other debtor itor may proceed to collect the part reates as a suspension of the judgment, but not as a satisfaction

es

Mass. 402;

maining unpaid. Barret v. Thompson, Thomas v. Cleveland, 33 Mo. 126; 5 Ind. 457; French 7. Snyder, 30 III. Smith 7'. Hughes, 24 Ill. 270; Holbrook 343; Curtis 7'. Root, 28 Ili. 367; Tren- v. Champlin, Hoffin. Ch. (N. Y.) 148; ary 1'. Cheever, 48 III. 28; Ambrose v. Ostrander 7. Walters, 2 Hill (N. Y.) Weed, 11 IIl. 488; Banta v. McClennan, 329; Voorhees v. Gros, 3 How. Pr. (N. 1 McCarter (N. J.) 120; Mickles v. Y.) 262; Binford v'. Alston, 4 Dev. L. Haskin, 11 Wend. (N.Y.) 125; Voorhees (N. Car.) 351; In re King, 2 Dev. L. v. Gros, 3 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 262; Hoard (N. Car.) 341; Churchill v. Warren, 2 7. Wilcox, 47 Pa. St. 51; Candle v. N. H. 298; s. c., 9 Am. Dec. 73; Wright Dare, 7 Ark. 46; Newsom v. McLen- 7. Young, 6 Oreg. 87; Cummin's Apdon, 6 Ga. 392; Mody v'. Harper, 28 peal, 9 W. & S. (Pa.) 73; Stone v. Miss. 615; Brown v. Kidd, 34 Miss. Tucker, 2 Bail. (S. Car.) 495; Cornelius 291.

v. Bursord, 28 Tex. 202; Williams v. The judgment creditor is not Bowdon, i Swan (Tenn.) 282; Carns v. topped by the return of the sheriff Pickett, 2 Sneed (Tenn.) 655; Charlton alleging the sufficiency of the property 7'. Lay, 5 Humph. (Tenn.) 496; United seized to satisfy the judgment. Cravens States v. Dashiel, 3 Wall. (U. S.) 148. 7'. Wilson, 35 Tex. 52. Compare See also title ExECUTIONS, vol. 7, p. Campbell z. Pope, Hempst. 271.

157 If sufficient property is taken, but But the release of a levy does not rethrough neglect of the officer it is lost, it vive a judgment as. against a surety. will amount to a satisfaction of the judg. Mulford z'. Estudillo, 23 Cal. 94; Howment. Ladd v. Blunt,

erton v. Sprague, 64 N. Car. 451; Hyde Pickens v. Marlow, 2 S. & M. (Miss.) 7'. Rogers, 59 Wis. 154. 428. See title EXECUTIONS, vol. 7, p. As against third persons a levy on 157

personalty is a satisfaction of the judg1. Whiting 7. Beebe, 7 Eng. (Ark.) ment pro tanto. Hunt z'. Breading, 12 421; Allen v. Johnson, 4 J. J. Marsh. S. & R. (Pa.) 37; S. C., 14 Am. Dec. 665; (Ky.) 235; Morrow v. Hart, i A. K. Lyon v. Hampton, 20 Pa. St. 46. Marsh. (Ky.) 291; Bingamon v. Hyatt, A levy upon sufficient personalty is Sm. & M. Ch. (Miss.) 437; Ferriday v. frequently spoken of as a satisfaction of Selcer, 1 Freem Ch. (Miss.) 258; the judgment. People v. Chisholm, 8 Hoyt v. Hudson, 12 Johns. (N. Y.) 207; Cal. 29; Barber v'. Reynolds, 44 Cal. People v. Hopson, i Den. (N. Y.) 421. 520; Car v. Weld, 19 N: J. Eq. 319; See title EXECUTIONS, vol. 7, p. 157. s.c., 15 Am. Dec. 386; Hoyt v. Hudson,

The plaintiff can take no other step 12 Johns. (N. Y.) 207; Troup v. Wood, to enforce his judgment until the levy 4 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 228; Shepard v. is exhausted. First Nat. Bank 7'. Rowe, 14 Wend. (N. Y.) 260; Martin Rogers, 13 Minn. 407; S. C., 15 Minn. v. Carter, 27 Ill. 294; Smith v. Hughes, 381; Green v. Burke, 23 Wend. (N. Y.) 24 Ill. 270; Franc v. Brasket, 44 Ind. 501; McIntosh v. Chew, 1 Blackf. (Ind.) 92; Burr v. Mendenhall, So Ind. 49; 289; Maxwell v. Stewart, 22 Wall. (U. Blair v. Caldwell, 3 Mo. 353; Trigg v.

Harris, 49 Mo. 176; Case v. Adams, 3 He cannot change the levy without Ohio 223; Hunt v. Breading, 12 S. & R. defendant's consent. Smith v. Hughes, (Pa.) 37; s. C., 14 Am. Dec. 665; Hogs24 III. 270. See also Trigg v. Harris, head v. Caruth, 5 Yerg. (Tenn.) 227; 49 Mo. 176.

Pigg v. Sparrow, 3 Hayw. (Tenn.) 144; A release of the levy by order of the Campbell v. Pope, Hempst. (U. S.) 271. court remits the creditor to his rights Other cases hold that a levy upon upon the judgment. Mulford v. Estu- sufficient personal property is a satisdillo, 32 Čal. 131. As does a restoration faction of the judgment where the of the property upon request of the de- property is taken from the debtor's posfendant, so far as the latter is concerned. session. Walker V. Bradley, 2 Ark. Morrow v. Hart, i A. K. Marsh. (Ky.) 578; Collier v. Bank, 2 Dev. Eq. (N. 291; Wade v.Watt, 41 Miss. 248; Morton Car.) 525; Shepard v. Rowe, 14 Wend. v. Walker, 7 How. (Miss.) 554; Ferriday (N. Y.) 260: Cravens v. Wilson, 48 v.Selcer, i Freem.Ch.(Miss.) 258; Sass- Tex. 324; Cornelius v. Burford, 28 Tex. cer 24. Walker, 5 Gill & J. (Md.) 102; See also Campbell v. Carey, 5 Warrensburg v. Simpson, 22 Mo. App. Harr. (Del.) 427. But the weight of 695; Blackburn v. Jackson, 26 Mo. 308; authority sustains the principle an

S.) 77

202.

no

of it.1 Neither does the mere levy of an execution on real property satisfy the judgment. A sale of real or personal property under execution which has not been set aside is a satisfaction of the judgment to the extent of the net amount realized by the sale.3 nounced in the text. See following nan, 14 N. J. Eq. 120; Carr v. Weld, 19 note.

N. J. Eq. 319; Hanness v. Bonnell, 23 Where the levy is defeated by prior N. J. L. 159; In re King, 2 Dev. L. liens, there is no satisfaction of the (N. Car.) 341; McElwee v. Jeffries, 7 judgment. Newsom v. McLendon, 6 S. Car. 228; Mayson v'. Irby, i Rich. L. Ga. 392; Hanness v. Bonnell, 23 N. J. (S. Car.) 435; Peay v. Fleming, 2 Hill L. 159; People v. Hopson, i Den. (N. Ch. (S. Car.) 97; Charlton v. Lay, 5 Y.) 574; Peay v. Fleming, 2 Hill Ch. Humph. (Tenn.) 496; United States v. (S. Car.) 97; Cornelius v. Burford, 28 Dashiel, 3 Wall. (Ú. S.) 688. Tex. 202.

See also Horn v. Ross, 20 2. Deloach v. Myrick, 6 Ga. 410; Ga. 210.

Ladd v. Blunt, 4 Mass. 402; Spafford v. A levy on sufficient personal property Beach, 2 Doug. (Mich.) 150; Shepard v. produces satisfaction when the Rowe, 14 Wend. (N. Y.) 260; Beazley debtor regains the property by fraud or v. Prentiss, 13 S. & M. (Miss.) 97, it is taken from the sherif's possession Reynolds v. Řogers, 5 Ohio 169; Patthrough his connivance.

Webb v.

terson v. Swan, 9 S. & R. (Pa.) 16. Bumpass, 9 Port. :(Ala.) 201; s. C., 33 But see Trapnall v. Richardson, 13 Am. Dec. 310; Trenary v. Cheever, 48 Ark. 543; M’Cabe v. Goodwine, 65 Ind. Ill. 28; Hanness v. Bonnell, 23 N. J. L. 288. 159; Wood v. Torrey, 6 Wend. (N. Y.) In Missouri, one who has failed to 562; Mickles v. Haskin, 11 Wend. (N. attach enough of the estate of a married Y.) 125; In re King, 2 Dev. L. (N. woman to satisfy his judgment cannot Car.) 341; Cornelius v. Burford, 28 bring another action to charge more. Tex. 202. Or where the property is Laine r. Francis, 15 Mo. App. 107. left in his possession and he converts it 3. Halcombe v. Loudermilk, 3 Jones to his own use. Cooley v. Harper, 4 (N. Car.) 491. Where, on account of

void process, the plaintiff is compelled Where personal property levied on is to restore to the debtor the property removed from plaintiff's possession by taken or its proceeds, he may have the legal process without his act, the judg- satisfaction of the judgment set aside ment is not satisfied. Banks v. Evans, and a new execution. Smith v. Reed, 10 Sm. & M. (Miss.) 35; S. C., 48 Am. 52 Cal. 345; Stozel v. Cady, 4 Day Dec. 734; Alexander v. Polk, 39 Miss. (Conn.) 225; Gooch v. Atkins, 14 Mass. 737. In re King, 2 Dev. L. (N. Car.), 379; Arnold v. Fuller, 1 Ohio 466; 341.

Townsend v. Smith, 20 Tex. 465. See A levy is not a satisfaction of a judg. also Farmer v. Sassen, 63 Iowa 11o. ment, if the sheriff is prevented from If the proceedings are entirely reguselling by an interpleader suit. Bean lar, but the defendant has no interest in v. Seyfert, 12 Phila. (Pa.) 224; Rice v. the property sold and the plaintiff beGroff, 58 Pa. St. 116.

comes the purchaser, a satisfaction of 1. Overby v. Hart, 68 Ga. 493; Oli- the judgment is produced which, it is ver v. State, 64 Ga. 480; Chisholm v. said, may be vacated. Cross. v. Zane, Chittenden, 45 Ga. 213; Williams v. 47 Cal. 602; Scherr v. Himmelman, 53 Gartrell, 4 G. Greene (Iowa) 287; Tre- Cal. 312; Ritter v. Henshaw, 7 Iowa 98; nary v. Cheever, 48 Ill. 28; Curtis v. Adams v. Smith, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 280; Root, 28 III. 367; French v. Snyder, 30 Tudor v. Taylor, 2ố Vt. 444. Compare Ill. 343; McGinnis v. Lillard, 4 Bibb Salmond v. Price, 13 Ohio 383; Hollis(Ky.) 490; First Nat. Bank v. Rogers, ter v. Dillon, 4 Ohio St. 205; Halcombe 15 Minn. 381; Bennett v. McGrade, 15 v. Loudermilk, 3 Jones L. (N. Car.) Minn. 132; Wade v. Watt, 41 Miss. 248; 491; Freeman v. Caldwell, 10 Watts Alexander v. Polk, 39 Miss. 737; Brown (Pa.) 10; Smith v. Painter, 5-S. & R. v. Kidd, 34 Miss. 291; Green v. Burke, (Pa.) 225; Lansing v. Quackenbush, 5 23 Wend. (N. Y.) 490; Taylor v. Ran- Cow. (N. Y.) 38. The sale will not be ney, 4 Hill (N. Y.) 621; Voorhees v. set aside when the judgment debtor has Gros, 3 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 262; Denvrey any interest whatever in the property. 1. Fox, 22 Barb. (N. Y.) 522; Folsom 1. Holtzinger c. Edwards, I Iowa 383. Chesley, 2 N. H. 432; Banta v. M'Clen- At all events, relief from the satisfac

Ind. 454.

A return of “lands delivered ” under an cligit satisfies the judgment. 1

At common law, the taking of the person of the debtor under execution suspended the judgment, except that where there were joint judgment debtors the taking of one did not prevent the subsequent taking of others. The discharge by plaintiff's consent of a debtor taken under execution satisfied the judgment.4 A release of one of joint judgment debtors discharged all.5

A sale of property under a judgment which has been satisfied is void.6

Am. Dec. 734.

tion of a judgment occasioned by the and subsequent release from arrest of plaintiff's purchase at a sale under exe- one of the debtors, but remains in full cution of property in which the debtor force against both. Raymond v. Butterhad no interest may be had in equity. worth, 139 Mass. 471. Warner v. Helm, 1 Gilm. (I11.) 220; 4. State ?". Richardson, 18 Ala. 109; Muir v. Craig, 3 Blackf. (Ind.) 293; King v. Goodwin, 16 Mass. 63. The Price v. Boyd, i Dana (Ky.) 436; Henry debtor could not be retaken by virtue 2. Keys, 5 Sneed (Tenn.) 489.

of any agreement made at the time of Where the proceeds of a sale are ap- his discharge, not amounting to fraud. plied to satisfy junior executions with Coburn 7'. Palmer, 1o Cush. (Mass.) the debtor's consent, the judgment is 273; Blackburn 7'. Stupart, 2 East 243. not satisfied as to him. Barber v. Rey. By statute the debtor might be retaken nolds, 4 Cal. 520.

if he had escaped from prison. FreeThe doctrine that the misapplication man on Judg. (31d. ed.), $ 476; Coburn of money made under an execution by v. Palmer, 10 Cush. (Mass.) 273. a sheriff is a satisfaction of the judg. A discharge of a defendant from cusment entitled thereto does not apply tody under an act for the benefit of inwhere all the executions have not been solvent debtors does not satisfy the levied on the property sold. Banks v. judgment. Strode v. Broadwell, 36 III. Evans, 10 Sm. & M. (Miss.) 35; s. C., 48 419; Owen v. Glover, 2 Cranch (L. S.)

578. Nor does a discharge for plaintiff's Where the levy was so defective that failure to pay prison fees. Prentiss v. no title to the property has passed, or Hinton, 6 Blackf. (Ind.) 35; Hidden v. where no return of the levy has been Saunders, 2 R. I. 391; Stover v. Dunn, made, or it has been abandoned without 3 Strobh. (S. Car.) 448. fault of the judgment creditor, or the The release of a debtor imprisoned for appraisement was defective, there judg- a fine is not a discharge thereof. State ment is not satisfied. Tate v. Ander- v. Richardson, 18 Ala. 109. Nor is a son, 9 Mass. 92; Williams v. Amory, discharge under a void recognizance a 14 Mass. 19; Lawrence v. Pond, 17 satisfaction of the judgment. Brown v. Mass. 433; Wade v. Watt, 41 Miss. 248; Kendall, 8 Allen (Mass.) 209. Greene v. Burke, 23 Wend. (N. Y.) 6. Lovejoy 2'. Murray, 3 W'all. (C.S.) 489; McElwee v. Jeffries, 7 S. Car. 228. 1; Whiting v. Beebe, 7 Eng. (Ark.) 421.

1. Hinesly v. Hunn, 5 Harr. (Del.) So of the discharge of a defendant in 236; Thomas v. Platts, 43 N. H.629; one of several actions prosecuted against Pratt v. Jones, 22 Vt. 341.

different persons for the same trespass. 2. Bank v. Beale, 7 Bosw. (N. Y.) Kasson v. People, 44 Barb. (N. Y.) 347. 611; Fassett v. Tallmadge, 15 Abb. Pr. By statute in some States a joint judg. (N. Y.) 205. But it is not discharged. ment debtor may make a separate comWarrensburg v. Simpson, 22 Mo. App. position with his creditor to release 695.

himself only and other debtors. 3. Penn v. Remsen, 24 How. Pr. (N. Marx v. Jones, 36 Hun (N. Y.) 290. Y.) 303. But no action can be main- 6. Even though the satisíaction does tained on the judgment against the oth- not appear of record and the purchaser ers. Kasson v. People, 44 Barb. (N. Y.) has no knowledge of it. State v. Sal347; Chapman v. Hatt, 11 Wend. (N. yers, 19 Ind. 432; Laval v. Rowley, 17 Y.) 41. More recently it was held that Ind. 36; Cratt v. Merrill, 14 N. Y. 456; a judgment against two debtors jointly Swan v. Saddlemire, 8 Wend. (N. Y.) is not discharged by the commitment 676; Wood v. Colvin, 2 Hill (N. Y.)

not

An entry of the satisfaction of judgment which has been fraudulently obtained may be set aside upon the application of the party injured.1

XVII. REVIVAL OF JUDGMENTS(See also SCIRE FACIAS).- When the time within which an execution may issue has expired, or where, by the death of the judgment debtor, the right to levy an execution upon his property has been suspended, the judgment and right to execution may be revived by scire facias.2 According to some authorities, land held by terre tenants cannot be

V.

566; Carpenter v. Stilwell, 11 N. Y.61; awarding an issue. McCutcheon Hammatt v. Wyman, 9 Mass. 138. Allen, 96 Pa. St. 319. Compare Doe v. Ingersoll, i $. & M. 2. Freeman on Judg. (3rd. ed.), Ø 443; (Miss.) 249; Banks v. Evans, 10 S. & Fowler v. Thurmond, 13 Ark. 259; M. (Miss.) 35.

State Bank v. Terry, 13 Ark. 389; Shel1. Armstrong v. Harper, 65 Ala. 523; ley v. Graves, 29 Ala. 385; Walker v. Ackerman v. Ackerman, 44 N. J. L. Wells, 17 Ga. 547; Osgood v. Thurston, 173; Russell v. Nelson, 99 N. Y. 119; 23 Pick. (Mass.) 110; Vallance v. SawState v. Young, 32 Kan. 292; Bogle v. yer, 4 Greenl. (Me.) 62; Wilson v. Bloom, 36 Kan. 512. But see Maclary Tierman, 3 Mo. 757; Mitchell 2». Chestv. Reznor, 3 Del. Ch. 445. It was held nut, 31 Md. 521; Tindall v. Carson, i in Kansas that the district courts have Har. (N. J.) 94; Carlton v. Young, i the power to grant relief by summary Aik. (Vt.) 332; Grimke v. Mayrant, 2 application, upon a motion to set aside Brev. (S. Car.) 202; De Witt v. Jones, an entry of satisfaction of a judgment 17 Tex. 620; Masterson v. Cundiff, 58 where such satisfaction has been fraudu- Tex. 472; Handley v. Fitzhugh, 3 A. K. lently obtained; but if the evidence is Marsh. (Kr.) 562; Coombs v. Jordan, 3 conflicting upon the material questions Bland (Md.) 284; s. C., 22 Am. Dec. of fact arising upon the motion, the 236. See also Elliott v. Knott, 14 Md. party seeking relief should be left to an 121; s. C., 74 Am. Dec. 519; Dibble v. action, rather than have the court de Taylor, 2 Spear (S. Car.) 308; s. C., termine the questions upon ex parte affi- 42 Am. Dec. 368. davits. Chapman v. Blakeman, 31 Kan. At common law if execution was not 684. See also Yeates v. Mead, 65 Miss. issued within a year and a day it was 89.

necessary to revive the judgment by Under the Tennessee statute, which scire facias. Elliott v. Mayfield, 3 Ala. authorizes the setting aside of the satis- 223; Thompson v. Dougherty, 3 J. J. faction of a judgment by scire facias Marsh. (Ky.) 564; Manufacturers' Bank upon the ground of the want of title of v. Frederickson, 2 Miles (Pa.) 70; the judgment debtor to the property at Clegg v. Varnell, 18 Tex. 294. See also the date of the execution sale, if the Phillips v. Lesser, 32 Tex.741; Vanderscire facias be good in form and sub- heyden v. Gardenier, 9 Johns (N. Y.) 79. stance, and the defendant makes no de- İf execution had issued within proper fence thereto, the plaintiff will be en- time the writ would not lie. Locke titled to final judgment, setting aside v. Brady, 30 Miss. 21; Harmon v. Dedthe satisfaction of and reviving the rick, 3 Barb. (N. Y.) 192; Shaw v. judgment. Hayes v. Cartwright, 6 Lea Richards, 2 Miles (Pa.) 103. Compare (Tenn.) 139. See further Hav v. Wash- Lambson v. Moffett, 61 Md. 426. ington etc. R., 4 Hughes (U. S.) 327. A judgment against the successor of

Where the judgment creditor wrong. an extinct municipal corporation has fully applied funds realized from collat- been revived by a mere suggestion of eral security to the payment of his judg- record without a scire facias. Deverment, the entry of satisfaction eaux v. Brownsville, 29 Fed. Rep: 743. stricken off and the defendant admitted For preventing dormancy of judg. to a defence. Guthrie v. Reid, 107 Pa. ment by execution etc., see Powell v.

Perry, 63 Ga. 417. Courts cannot compel the satisfaction Parties Defendant.If one of several of a judgment regular on its face when joint defendants in a judgment dies, the the facts controverted without scire facias should issue against the

was

St. 251.

are

« ZurückWeiter »