Case Name: Gordon B. Bradley, Plaintiff, v. The Blue Ridge Hosiery Mill, Defendant
Court: New York City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1907-10
Citations: 56 Misc. 125
Docket Number: 
Parties: Gordon B. Bradley, Plaintiff, v. The Blue Ridge Hosiery Mill, Defendant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 56
Pages: 125–126

Head Matter:
Gordon B. Bradley, Plaintiff, v. The Blue Ridge Hosiery Mill, Defendant.
(City Court of New York, Special Term,
October, 1907.)
Sheriffs — Compensation — In general — On irregular execution.
Where defendant is entitled to recover of plaintiff money taken from its agent under an irregular execution, subsequently vacated, which was valid and regular on its face, the sheriff is entitled to his fees and poundage Which must be paid by the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s proceedings must be stayed until such payment is made.
Motion to compel either the plaintiff or the sheriff of Hew York county to refund certain moneys taken under an execution subsequently vacated.
J. C. Kadane, for plaintiff.
F. N. Orlando, for defendant.
Maurice B. Blumenthal, for sheriff.

Opinion:
Deleilanty, J.
Upon the conceded facts of this case I am of the opinion that the defendant is entitled to recover, primarily of plaintiff, the amount of money, with legal interest thereon, which was taken from its agent under the irregular execution issued and subsequently vacated herein. If there be any doubt about this an examination of the statutes and authorities applicable thereto will soon dispel it. (See the provisions of law regulating the fees of the sheriff of New York county, viz., Laws of 1890, chap. 523, as amd. by Laws of 1892, chap. 418, § 17, subd. 7; also Campbell v. Cothran, 56 N. Y. 279; Kidd v. Curry, 29 Hun, 215; and on the question of restriction, Hacbler v. Myers, 132 N. Y. 363.) The sheriff having actedmnder an execution valid and regular on its face, he is entitled, the service having been completed, to his poundage, notwithstanding the judgment and process were vacated. If so entitled to his fees, it follows they must be paid by plaintiff, the party upon whose initiative he made the levy, and it is no answer thereto to say that he is barred of his fees under the execution simply because the warrant of attachment herein is still standing. I conclude, therefore, that the order of August 9, Í 907, should be vacated and that an order be entered in lieu thereof directing and requiring the plaintiff, or his attorney, to pay over and deliver to W. M. Ailing, the person from whom the money was taken under the execution referred to,' the sum of $819.05, the. amount collected, with interest thereon from the date of such collection, together with $10 costs of this motion, plaintiff to be stayed in the action until compliance therewith.
Ordered accordingly.