Case ID: scl_32/html/0414-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Evans J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Bank of the State of So. Ca., v. Joab Mosely.
    The general rule is, that where there are several judgments for the same debt, as in the case of makers and indorsers of a promissory note, a payment by any one of the defendants will operate as a satisfaction of the judgments against all who are liable. Noonan v. Gray, 1 Bail., 436.
    The Court will not proceed in a summary way, by attachment, to coerce the sheriff to pay money to the assignee of a judgment, which has been satisfied by one of the defendants in the case, when it does not appear whether the assignee was the real purchaser from the plaintiff.
    Tried before Mr. Justice Richardson, at Barnwell, Spring Term, 1847.
    This was a rule on the Sheriff, N. G. W. Walker, requiring him to show cause why he had not paid over certain monies made by him on executions against the defendant, to Joseph Cosnahan, assignee of the plaintiffs. In addition to the sheriff’s return to the rule, the original note on which the judgment was entered up, was produced, by which it appeared that the note was made by William W. Williams, payable to Milledge Han-kinson or order, and indorsed by him, Joab Mosely and Charles Cosnahan, in the order their names are mentioned. The execution book of the late sheriff was also produced, by which it appeared that the bank had obtained judgments against the maker and all the indorsers at the same term, and thereupon issued executions, and on the margin of the book opposite the entry of the execution against Charles Cosnahan, is the following memorandum in pencil, “settled by defendant with sheriff; separate receipt given; case left open; W. C.” (the initials of Wilson Saunders, the clerk of the late sheriff) Copies of the sheriff’s return to the rule, and of the assignment under which Joseph Cosnahan claims the fund in dispute, with a statement of the entries made in the sheriff’s book in the case against Charles Cosnahan, by whom it is contended the executions were satisfied, are directed to be hereto annexed.
    It did not appear to the Court that satisfaction had been entered, or that the facts authorized the Court to order such entry to be made, and therefore the rule was made absolute.
    The sheriff appealed on the grounds annexed:
    
      1. Because it appeared from the sheriff’s books, and the evidence of Wilson Saunders, the deputy sheriff, that Charles Cosnahan, a co-indorser with the defendant, Mosely, had paid the sheriff’s predecessor, William J. Harley, the entire debt in this case long before the date of the assignment to Joseph Cos-nahan.
    2. Because the payment having been made by Charles Cos-nahan, who in law was bound by the execution, the presumption is, that he paid it in discharge of his own liability, and if a third party claims the pay ment as made by himself or for his benefit, upon him does it devolve to show that fact.
    3. Because it was manifest from the evidence, that whatever payment was made on the case, passed through the hands of the sheriff, and any money received by him from a defendant in execution is in law a satisfaction pro tanto, and the sheriff has no authority to make any arrangement with a defendant so as not to discharge the hen of an execution against a defendant.
    4. Because, if the fact be true as stated in the assignment, that there was a parol agreement between the bank and Joseph Cosnahan in September, 1843, that he'should pay the money and receive an assignment from the Bank, yet the assignment, not having been executed till December, 1846, long after the debt was paid, is a mere nullity; the bank had nothing to assign.
    5. Because the sheriff having in the case against Charles Cos-nahan, made an entry in regular form of the receipt of one hundred dollars from him, which he paid to the plaintiff’s attorney, and also made an additional memorandum in pencil in the case in these words, “settled by defendant with sheriff; separate receipt given; case left open; W. S.,” shows that the assignment to Joseph Cosnahan was an after thought; that the case was settled in full; and to show the contrary, Joseph Cos-nahan should have produced the receipt.
    6. Because, under the circumstances of the case, it is clear that the execution was satisfied, and the rule should have been discharged.
    Owens, for the motion.
    Bellinger, contra.
    
    
      
      Sheriff’s return.
    
    Bank of Soutii-Carolina, v. Mosely.
    N. G. W. Walker, Sheriff of Barnwell District, on whom a rule has been served to show cause why he has not paid over to Joseph Cosnahan, assignee of the plaintiff, the proceeds of the sale of the property of the defendant in the above stated case, shows the following cause.
    That it appears from the execution book of W. J. Harley, former sheriff, that there was obtained a judgment against W. W. Williams, Millcdge Hankinson, Charles Cosnahan and Joab Mosely, for the same debt, although the executions were entered up separately; and that it also appeared from said execution book, that Charles Cosnahan, one of the defendants, has paid the entire debt; but Joseph Cosnahan claims by his rule to be refunded out of the proceeds of the sale of Joab Mosely’s property, the amount so paid by Charles Cosnahan. This respondent has in his hands sufficient money to pay said debt, but is advised that the payment made by Charles Cosnahan, as aforesaid, has extinguished said execution, and that there are other creditors of Joab Mosely who claim the money now in hri hands, and when he has paid out all that he has, there will still remain unsatisfied executions against the said Joab Mosely. Sworn to this 24th March, 1847, ) N. G. W. Walker, S. B. D.
    W. A. Owens, Magistrate. ⅜
    Wilson Saunders, sworn, says that Charles Cosnahan paid the money to sheriff Harley, and that Charles Cosnahan said he was to have an assignment of the case, and requested the sheriff to leave it open.
    Sworn to 24th March, 1847, ) Wilson Saunders.
    W. A. Owens, Magistrate. $
    
      Assignment.
    
    The State of Soutii-Carolina.
    Know all men by these presents, that whereas there are separate judgments, each for the sum of five hundred and for<y-four dollars, ninety-two cents, on record in the Court of Common Pleas at Barnwell Court House, against William W. Williams, Milledge Hankinson, Joab Mosely and Charles Cosnahan, at the suit of the President and Directors of the Bank of the State of South Carolina, as by the records of the said Court doth appear, upon which executions have been issued forth. And whereas Joseph Cosnahan did, on the fifth day of September, one thousand eight hundred and forty-three, pay to the said President and Directors the sum of four hundred and ninety-two dollars, sixty-six cents, it was agreed by the said President and Directors that they would assign, transfer and set over unto the said Joseph Cosnahan all sum and sums of money that was or were then due on or by virtue of the said judgments, or that thereafter should or might be obtained or collected by reason or means of the same, or of executions issued, or to be issued thereupon, how, be it known that the said President and Directors of the Bank of ihe State of South Carolina have assigned, transiered and sot over, and by these presents do absolutely assign, transfer and set over unto the said Joseph Cosnahan, his executors, administrators and assigns, all sum and sums of money that was or were duo on or by virtue of the said judgments on the day and year aforesaid, or that may hereafter be obtained or collected by reason or means of the same, or of executions issued or to be issued thereupon. In witness whereof Franklin II. Elmore, President of said Bank, hath hereunto set his hand, and the corporate seal of the said Bank, this day of December, one thousand eight hundred and forty-six, but without recourse to the said President and Directors of the Bank of the State of South Carolina.
    F. II. Elmore, President Bank Slate So. Ca. [l.s.] Witness, C. M. Furman.
    Bank of the State, v. Charles Cosnahan.
    Judgment, $544 92
    Interest on $500 fr. 1st April, 1843, 14 99
    559 91
    Costs, 35 95
    Received, 7th July, 1843, from defendant, by the hands of A. J. Snelling, fifty dollars in this case. W. J. Harley,
    
      Per W. Saunders.
    
    Received, 5th August, 1843, Horn defendant, by L. W. O’Ban-non, fifty dollars. W. J. Harley,
    Per W. Saunders.
    
      Received, 25th October, 1843, from sheriff Harley, sixty-four dollars, five cents, in part oí debt, and fourteen dollars, attorneys cost and protest.
    Peronneau, Mazyck & Finley, Plaintiff’s Attorneys.
    
   Evans J.

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The general rule is, that where there are several judgments, for the same debt, as in the case of makers and indorsers of a promissory note, a payment by any one of the debts will operate as a satisfaction of the judgment against all who are liable. This was decided in the case of Noonan v. Gray, 1 Bailey, 436. In that case the judgment was paid by the indorser, who subsequently got an assignment from the plaintiff, but it was held that the judgment being extinguished by the payment, there was nothing for the assignment to operate upon. The payment of one of the several judgments extinguished that, and by operation of law, all other judgments for the same debt were extinguished also. There is no doubt this is the general rule, and the question is, does it apply to this case? From the sheriff’s return, it appears the judgment of the Bank against Charles Cosnahan was paid by him. lie requested it should be left open, and said he was to have an assignment of the case. Under these circumstances, if the assignment had been to him there is no doubt the case would come within the decision in Noonan v. Gray. But the assignment is to Joseph Cosnahan, and hence it is agreed the case is like the case of Carson v. Richardson, 3 M’Cord, 528. Now, if Joseph Cosnahan had paid his money to the bank, and the bank had, in consideration thereof, promised him an assignment of all the judgments for the same debt, then he would be a purchaser, and I apprehend would be entitled to the money. Or if he had paid the money to the attorney as a friend, with the stipulation that it was to be returned when the debtor’s property w'as sold, and that he should have an assignment if necessary; then it would be like the case of Carson v. Richardson, and in both these cases it would be immaterial when the assignment was made, so it was executed before the assignee demanded the money. But in the present case, it appears the money was paid by the debtor himself to the sheriff. This fact unexplained was a satisfaction of all the judgments, as well the judgment against Charles Cosnahan, as the judgments against the prior indorsers and the drawer, according to the case of Noonan v. Gray. His statement to the sheriff, at the time, that he was to have an assignment, can make no difference, as the satisfaction of his own judgment satisfied all the rest, as to whom, his being the last indorser, only placed him in the position of a simple contract creditor. I do not mean to say that Joseph Cosnahan may not be entitled to the money. If he had actually purchased the judgments from the bank, and there had been an agreement, that on his paying the money to the sheriff or the attorney, the bank would assign the judgments to him, he might stand in the position of assignee, but nothing of that appears satisfactorily; the recital in the assignment is inconsistent with the other facts of the case; and this Court will not proceed in the summary way by attachment to coerce the sheriff to pay money to one who has established no clear right to it.

The motion to reverse the decision of the Circuit Court is granted.