Court Opinion

ID: 5543749
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-10 18:54:41.101022+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:34:52.689193
License: Public Domain

Larremore, C. J.
Appellants could not succeed in this action without being allowed to occupy two absolutely inconsistent positions. They had formerly indemnified the sheriff, and he, relying upon their bond and those of other judgment creditors, sold the property which he had before levied on, and collected and paid over to them the amount of their claim. But, at the time *466of giving such bond, defendants allege that they represented to the sheriff that they were preferred as creditors in an assignment which by that time had been made by the judgment debtors, and that they did not wish to attack such assignment. They also aver that later, when the action, was brought by the assignee against the sheriff to recover damages for the wrongful conversion of the very property which defendants had indemnified the sheriff to sell, they notified the sheriff that they did not wish such action defended. These matters they seek to set up as defenses in the present action to recover from them, under their bond of indemnity, their proportionate share of the expense incurred by the sheriff in defending such action. A mere statement of their position is sufficient to make it plain that no court could sanction such a double-face policy on the part of any litigant. Defendants desired to have the benefit of the sale under execution, in order to secure prompt payment of their claim. On the other hand, as the ultimate payment thereof was secured by the preference in the assignment, they propose to escape reimbursing the sheriff for the liabilities and expenses incurred in carrying through the execution sale and defending himself from the consequences thereof. The legal status of the matter is simply that, in the face of the bond of indemnity, their oral notices were meaningless and nugatory. By indemnifying the sheriff, they elected to collect the debt by execution, and this action on their part necessarily contemplated the incurring of every liability legitimately arising out of the pursuit of that remedy. In company with the other judgment creditors they put upon the sheriff the obligation to perform certain acts involving personal risks, and, after he had started upon such course, he could not withdraw. The sheriff having sold the property- relying upon his bonds, the defending of the action brought by the assignee was something which he could not avoid. The expense incurred in such defense was one of the charges fairly covered by said bonds, and defendants are very properly compelled to pay their proportionate share thereof.
For the reason stated in the opinion of Mc Adam, C. J., (7 N. Y. Supp. 129,) at the general term of the city court, we think there was sufficient in the case to support the finding by the trial judge as to the reasonable value of the services rendered. The judgment appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.