Case Name: UNION SURETY & GUARANTY CO. v. SIRE
Court: New York City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1901-02-28
Citations: 68 N.Y.S. 943
Docket Number: 
Parties: UNION SURETY & GUARANTY CO. v. SIRE.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 68
Pages: 943–944

Head Matter:
(34 Misc. Rep. 221.)
UNION SURETY & GUARANTY CO. v. SIRE.
(City Court of New York, General Term.
February 28, 1901.)
Supplemental Proceedings—Application of Payments—Dismissal of Proceedings.
Where defendant in supplemental proceedings moved to dismiss the same on the ground that payments made to plaintiff had satisfied the judgment, and plaintiff contended that it had been agreed that the payments should be otherwise applied, it was error to direct a satisfaction of the judgment, and to dismiss the supplemental proceedings, since defendant should obtain his relief in some appropriate action therefor.
Appeal from special term.
Action by the Union Surety & Guaranty Company against Leander S. Sire. From an order directing a satisfaction of the judgment in favor of plaintiff, and dismissing proceedings supplementary to execution, plaintiff appeals.
Reversed.
Argued before FITZSIMONS, C. J., and CONLAN and O’DWYER, JJ.
Van Schaick, Norton & Quinby, for appellant.
John J. Buckley, for respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The defendant claimed that the payments made during the pendency of the motion for a receiver in the action in the supreme court should be applied in discharge of the claim upon which the judgment herein was recovered, and, as very much more than enough to satisfy the amount of that judgment, with interest and costs, has been paid, that the same should be satisfied of record, and the proceedings supplementary to execution had thereon dismissed. In opposing the motion, the attorney for plaintiff, who has had charge of the several matters between the plaintiff and defendant, states positively in his affidavit that the several payments made by the defendant were so made upon the express agreement that the same be first applied upon the extinguishment of claims other than the claims involved in the sequestration suit (i. e. the claim upon which the judgment herein was recovered was involved in the sequestration suit); that the moneys received have been so applied, and that the whole of the judgment herein remains unpaid. It thus appears that a very serious conflict exists between the parties upon the application of the moneys paid, and the question of payment of the judgment herein remains in doubt and uncertainty. Under like circumstances it has been decided that the party seeking the relief should be left to his action therefor, provided relief can be had in that form (Hill v. Hermans, 59 N. Y. 396; Van Etten v. Hasbrouck, 4 N. Y. St. Rep. 803); and, after a very careful examination of the record on this appeal, we are of opinion that the special term should have remitted the defendant to his action.
Order appealed from reversed, and motion denied, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order for examination of defendant in proceedings supplementary to execution reinstated, and defendant directed to appear thereunder upon a day to be named in the order entered thereon. Leave is granted to the defendant to apply, if so advised, for a stay of proceedings supplementary to execution pending the determination of any action he may institute to have the judgment adjudged paid.