Case Name: Charles Carpy, Pl'ff and Resp't, v. Augustus H. Edlinger et al., Def'ts and App'lts
Court: New York City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1889-05-31
Citations: 25 N.Y. St. Rep. 861
Docket Number: 
Parties: Charles Carpy, Pl'ff and Resp’t, v. Augustus H. Edlinger et al., Def’ts and App’lts.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 25
Pages: 861–861

Head Matter:
Charles Carpy, Pl'ff and Resp’t, v. Augustus H. Edlinger et al., Def’ts and App’lts.
(City Court of New York, General Term,
Filed May 31, 1889.)
Execution—Clams by third parties.
Where the sheriff levies upon property as the property of the defendant in the execution, and the owner institutes suit for damages against the sheriff and his indemnitors, it is not sufficient for the defendant to show that the brother of the defendant in the execution had a qualified or conditional title in the property; and especially as he did not intervene as a claimant, nor ask to he made a party defendant, and does not complain of the verdict and judgment.
Appeal from judgment entered on verdict of the jury in favor of the plaintiff.
B. Leioison, for app’lts; Solomon, Kantrowitz & JSsberg,, for resp’t.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The defendants are indemnitors of judgment creditors of Frank Maurer, and the property claimed herein was levied upon by the sheriff, by virtue of an execution against one Frank Maurer. The sheriff was sued originally, and the defendants, as indemnitors, were substituted in his place.
The jury found that the title was not in the judgment debtor, and under the evidence, John Maurer, the brother of the judgment debtor, got but a qualified or conditional title, which was by force of the arrangement defeated when the sheriff seized the property. John Maurer did not intervene as a claimant, and did not ask to be made a party defendant, nor did the present defendants seek to join him as a party. He does not complain of the judgment, and as the jury found that Frank Maurer had no title, the defendants, as his judgment creditors, acquired no right to the property, and cannot seriously complain that the jury so found. Ho error was committed to their prejudice.
It follows that the judgment appealed from must be affirmed, with costs.