Case ID: tenn_22/html/0536-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "TtjRLey, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Dilliard vs. Askew & Lancaster.
    T. A. Lancaster recovered a judgment for $62 50, on the 19th day of September, 1840, against W» H. Alsup and H. H. Alsup before a justice of the peace. Dilliard addressed this letter to the justice: “You may enter me as stay of a judgment that T. H. Lancaster recovered against W. H. Alsup, on the 19th day of September, for the sum of $62 SO; this 21st day of September, 1840.” iSfo other judgment was rendered against W. H. Alsup by Lancaster on that day: Held, that it was sufficiently apparent, that Dilliard intended to communicate authority to stay the execution in that case, and that the authority was sufficient to authorize the entry of Dilliard’s name as security for stay of execution.
    An action-of trover in the circuit court of Smith county, by Dilliard against T. Lancaster and T. B. Askew, for the value of a wagon and horse. The defendants pleaded not guilty, and issue was taken thereon. It was submitted to a jury at the April term, 1842, Caruthers, judge, presiding. It appeared, that on the 19th day of September, 1840, W. H. Alsup and H. H. Alsup confessed judgment before a justice of the peace, for $62 50 cents, in favor of T. A. Lancaster. Dilliard addressed a letter to John Lancaster, the justice, in which he said, “You may enter me as stay of a judgment that T. A. Lancaster recovered against W. H. Alsup on the 19th September, for sixty two dollars and fifty cents, this 21st of September 1840.” There was no other judgment rendered against W. H. Alsup on that day. The justice made the entry accordingly. At the expiration of the stay a fi-fa. was issued and levied on a wagon and horse, the property of Dilliard. The property was sold, and this action was. instituted by Dilliard against the plaintiff, Lancaster, and the constable, Askew, for the value of the property sold.
    The court charged the jury, that the authority to enter plaintiff as stay was sufficient, and the judgment valid. A verdict was rendered in favor of the defendants and judgment rendered accordingly. The plaintiff appealed in error.
    
      McDonald, for the plaintiff
    
      Stokes, for the defendants.
   TtjRLey, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

On the 19th day of September, 1840, Wm. H. Alsup and H. H. Alsup confessed a judgment, for the sum of $62 50, in favor of T. A. Lancaster. On the21st September, 1840, Alexander Dilliard, by a written authority, directed the justice who rendered the judgment to enter his name as stay on a judgment that T. A. Lancaster recovered against Wm. H. Alsup, on the 19th of September, 1840, for $62 50. On the 19th September this was done. When the time of stay expired, an execution was issued on the judgment against Wm. H. Alsup, H. H. Al-sup, and Alexander Dilliard the stayor; the latter of whose property was sold by Thomas B. Askew, the constable and one of the defendants, to pay the debt; and this action is brought to recover the value thereof.

The question for consideration is, whether the authority as worded was sufficient to warrant the justice to enter the name of Dilliard as security for the stay of execution; the circuit judge held that it was; and we think correctly. The proof shews that there was no other judgment rendered against Wm. H. Alsup on that day. The name of the plaintiff in the judgment, and the authority correspond. The amount and the date are the same, This shews with sufficient certainty, that this was the judgment which Dilliard intended to stay.

The fact that the judgment was also against H. H. Alsup cannot vitiate the proceeding; One party to a judgment may stay it. Dilliard was bound for Wm. H. Alsup, and the debt not being paid at the expiration of the stay, Wm. H. Alsup was liable and of course his security. Judgment affirmed.