Case Name: James Potts, judgment plaintiff, agt. Alexander V. Davidson, as sheriff, &c., judgment defendant
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1885-01
Citations: 1 How. Pr. (n.s.) 216
Docket Number: 
Parties: James Potts, judgment plaintiff, agt. Alexander V. Davidson, as sheriff, &c., judgment defendant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Howard's Practice Reports
Volume: 3
Pages: 216–217

Head Matter:
SUPREME COURT.
James Potts, judgment plaintiff, agt. Alexander V. Davidson, as sheriff, &c., judgment defendant.
Practice — Supplementary proceedings against the sheriff when he is a judgment debtor— Third party order, what should contain— Code of Civil Procedure, section 2441.
A third party order, before the return of execution need not contain the matters requisite to an affidavit and order to examine the judgment debtor himself before the return of an execution. It seems that supplementary proceedings can be maintained against the sheriff when he is a judgment debtor.
Special Term, January, 1885.
Judgment plaintiff took out a third party order to examine the Bowery National Bank, claiming simply that said bank was indebted to the judgment defendant, who was sheriff of New York county, in a sum exceeding ten dollars. The execution was in the coroner’s hands and had not been returned. Counsel for defendant moved to set aside the order on the ground that the demand and other requirements -on an order to examine the judgment debtor in aid of execu tion as held in Saolcett agt. Newton, are also indispensable in a third party order which is taken out before the return of execution. The judgment creditor maintained that his affidavit and order were sufficient although they did not contain an allegation of demand or a description of the indebtedness, citing Davis agt. Herrig (65 How. Pr., 290); Miller agt. Adams (52 N. Y., 410); Foster agt. Primee (18 How. Pr,, 258), and forms and affidavits in Seeley agt. Garrison (10 All., 462, 2 Till. & S.’s Pr., 865).
F. J. Cramer, for bank.
W. G. Peokham, for judgment plaintiff.
In a previous order to examine the sheriff himself in aid of execution IiAwbence, J., held the order to examine the sheriff defective, for not stating the points required in Sackett agt. Newton, viz., demand, nature of - property, &c. It seemed to be agreed in both proceedings, that supplementary proceedings could- be maintained against the sheriff or 'against the debtor of the sheriff, a third party.

Opinion:
Andrews, J., overruled the objections.