Case Name: In the Matter of the Application of Henry V. Clark, as Sheriff of Orange County, to Vacate the Return of a Certain Execution to the Office of the County Clerk of Orange County Satisfying a Judgment Recovered by Pennsylvania-Dixie Cement Corporation against John L. Dugan, Incorporated, John L. Dugan and John L. Sloan. Henby V. Clark, as Sheriff of Orange County, Respondent; Pennsylvania-Dixie Cement Corporation, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1937-04-26
Citations: 250 A.D. 871
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Application of Henry V. Clark, as Sheriff of Orange County, to Vacate the Return of a Certain Execution to the Office of the County Clerk of Orange County Satisfying a Judgment Recovered by Pennsylvania-Dixie Cement Corporation against John L. Dugan, Incorporated, John L. Dugan and John L. Sloan. Henby V. Clark, as Sheriff of Orange County, Respondent; Pennsylvania-Dixie Cement Corporation, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 250
Pages: 871–871

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Application of Henry V. Clark, as Sheriff of Orange County, to Vacate the Return of a Certain Execution to the Office of the County Clerk of Orange County Satisfying a Judgment Recovered by Pennsylvania-Dixie Cement Corporation against John L. Dugan, Incorporated, John L. Dugan and John L. Sloan. Henby V. Clark, as Sheriff of Orange County, Respondent; Pennsylvania-Dixie Cement Corporation, Appellant.

Opinion:
Order amending sheriff's return erroneously returned as satisfied, to show that it was satisfied only to the extent of $81.13 to conform to the facts, and directing the county clerk to make correction of the record, affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. The power of the court to correct and amend a return made by mistake or error is implicit where such discretion is exercised in the furtherance of justice. (Williams v. Rogers, 5 Johns. 163; Barker v. Binninger, 14 N. Y. 270; James v. Gurley, 48 id. 163; 23 C. J. 798 et seg. and cases cited; 14 Halsbury, Laws of England, § 14 [59], pp. 26-27.) It does not appear from this record that such amendment works an injustice on any other party interested. The procedure adopted was sufficient to give notice to interested parties. Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Davis, Johnston and Close, JJ., concur.