Opinion ID: 1716032
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Consideration of the merits of the complaint.

Text: Clearly the judgment has not been satisfied. As a general rule, a judgment for the payment of money can be satisfied only in money, unless the judgment provides for, or the owner of the judgment agrees to, some other mode of payment. Except where a judgment by its own terms provides otherwise, a judgment for the payment of money can be satisfied only in money, unless the owner of the judgment chooses to accept property, securities, or some other thing of value, . . . In order that the acceptance of something other than money may operate as a satisfaction, there must be a positive and express agreement to accept the substitute for direct payment of the judgment. . . . [8] The judgment itself may, under proper circumstances, provide for the medium in which it is to be paid. But, subject to such a provision, it is ordinarily payable only in lawful money the same as any other legal obligations, that is, in whatever is legal tender at the time, and place where payment is made, unless plaintiff authorizes or accepts payment in some other medium or manner. [9] We view the alleged acts of Ada as an attempt unilaterally to substitute performance of its choice for the fulfilment of the judgment. The issues between Ada and the Thompsons arising out of the excavation along the property line were litigated and resolved by a judgment that Ada must pay money. Had Ada previously made an adequate repair, as it now claims to have done, the action, if brought at all, would have produced a different judgment. Ada's attempt to force acceptance of a different requital for its wrong, notwithstanding the judgment, is, in essence, an attempt to reopen and to relitigate the controversy. There is an allegation that if the judgment be collected, an unjust enrichment will occur. It may well be true that if the new embankment adequately protects the Thompson property, collection of the judgment may constitute a windfall to some extent. But judicial policy is and should be so strongly against continuing the litigation of controversies once adjudicated that Ada should not now be permitted to seek, in effect, a reopening or modification of the judgment by litigating the adequacy of the repair or the extent of the windfall Ada's own acts may have conferred on the Thompsons. We take note of the allegation that the Thompsons knew of the construction of the new embankment and did not object. It is also alleged that the new embankment is located entirely on Ada's property. The mere lack of objection under these circumstances is insufficient to constitute an acceptance of the construction of the embankment in satisfaction of the judgment. Neither, in our opinion, did it amount to conduct on the part of the Thompsons which would render their collection of the judgment inequitable or unconscionable on any other theory. By the Court. Order reversed, cause remanded with directions to sustain the general demurrer and enter judgment dismissing the complaint upon the merits, with costs.