Case Name: Frederick J. Betts v. Andrew S. Garr
Court: New York Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1857-08
Citations: 1 Hilt. 411
Docket Number: 
Parties: Frederick J. Betts v. Andrew S. Garr.
Judges: INGRAHAM, E. J., concurred.
Reporter: Hilton's Common Pleas Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 411–414

Head Matter:
Frederick J. Betts v. Andrew S. Garr.
The court should not grant leave (under section 284 of the Code) to issue execution on a judgment after the lapse of five years from its rendition, where it appears that the judgment-debtor holds a judgment against the party making the apjáication greater in amount than that on which the application is based. (Bead*.X, dissenting.)
In such a case, the party applying for leave should be left to an action upon his judgment, in which action the debtor may avail himself of his equitable set-off.
Appeal by plaintiff from au order of the special term denying a motion for leave to issue execution. The facts disclosed by the affidavit on which the motion was based were as follows:— In 1842, the plaintiff recovered judgment in this court against the defendant for $77.58. In 1854, he assigned the judgment to John M. Martin, who now applied, in the name of the plaintiff, for leave to issue execution. On the day when the judgment was originally docketed, execution was issued, which was returned unsatisfied. No execution had been issued since that time. The affidavit also stated, that no part of the money had ever been paid to deponent (Martin), and that he was informed, and believed, none had ever been paid to the plaintiff.
In opposition to the motion, defendant showed that, prior to the assignment of the judgment in question to Martin, one Ka-nouse had recovered a judgment against Martin; that this judgment was exclusively for costs in an action wherein the defendant was attorney for Kanouse, and belonged to defendant as such attorney; and had, moreover, been assigned to him by Kanouse; and that no part of the judgment had been paid.
The motion was denied at special term, and plaintiff appealed.
John M. Martin, for tbe appellant.
The respondent in person.

Opinion:
Daly, J. —
This motion was denied upon the ground that the court should not allow an execution to issue, where it appeared that the defendant had a judgment against the assignee by whom tbe motion was made, greater in amount than the judgment in this court; but that, if Martin wanted to enforce this judgment, he should be put to his action upon it, in which- action Garr mi^pit avail himself of his equitable set-off; and I still adhere to the opinion that that is the proper disposition to make of such a case. It is unnecessary that Martin should be allowed to issue execution and levy upon the property of Garr, or that Garr should issue execution upon the judgment assigned to him, and levy upon the property of Martin, when, by putting Martin to his action upon the judgment, the rights of the parties could be equitably adjusted.
INGRAHAM, E. J., concurred.