Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

1 Edw. Ch. 509

Wakeman v. Russel

New York Court of Chancery

Decided January 8, 1833

New York Court of Chancery · decided 1833-01-08

This was a bill in the nature of a judgment creditor’s bill. The judgment at law for seven hundred and seventy-eight dollars and sixty-five cents, had been recovered by the Frank•lin Bank against the defendant John Russel. That insti■tution became insolvent and got into the court of chancery ; ■and James Kent, Esquire, was appointed the receiver of its estate and effects. A writ oí fieri facias had been issued on the part of the bank; which was returned unsatisfied.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently April 1877

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1833-01-08

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

The Vice-Chancellor.

¶1In this case the judgment has been assigned; and the assignor files, what is called, a creditor’s bill.

¶2The strongest doubt in my mind arises upon the fact of the complainant’s not having issued any execution. He relies up-_ •n the unsatisfied fieri facias issued by the original plaintiffs1 in the action. On looking at the statute it does appear that the party suing out the execution should file the bill: 2. R. S. 173, §. 38. It would seem to follow that the purchaser of a judgment who files a bill in his own name, should have first issued an execution. I am satisfied this is not arcase in which the' the court ought to interfere. Even laying aside the smallness of the amount for which the judgment was assigned, I think ' the statute sufficiently clear, that the party who sues out the execution shall be the person to file the bill. Here, three years have passed since execution was issued by the original parties ; and the complainant, the assignee, has taken out no fresh process. He has not, consequently, exhausted his legal reiri-f edies.

¶3I shall refuse the motion, with costs.

/1/edwch/509 · .json · Public domain