Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

10 N.Y. St. Rep. 702

Johnstone v. Conner

City of New York Municipal Court

Decided September 15, 1887

City of New York Municipal Court · decided 1887-09-15

<p>Appeal—Undertaking—Oosts—Effect of part reversal of judgment ON SURETIES ON APPEAL.</p> <p>The complaint in a supreme court action was dismissed as to two defendants who appeared by the same attorney, with costs. The judgment-was affirmed by the general term, with costs, and on further appeal to the court of appeals, the judgment was affirmed as to one of said defendants, and a new trial ordered as to the other. Held, that the defendant ultimately successful became entitled to all of said costs from the judgment debtors or their sureties on the appeal.</p>

Decided 1887-09-15

Per Curiam.

¶1The points urged by the appellants against the decision appealed from are fully answered by the opinion of the court below. The decision by the court of appeals in the action pending there, deprived Keese of any proprietory interest in the judgments recovered in the joint names of Keese and Johnstone, and as the judgments were in all things affirmed as to Johnstone it left him the sole owner thereof. The judgments are unpaid and the sureties upon the appeal to the court of appeals, by the fair interpretation of their undertaking must be held to have agreed to pay them in case of their affirmance by the appellate court. The form of the affirmance is of no consequence so long as the adjudication was absolute and *704final in favor of Johnstone, and conclusive against their principal. The contingency that has happened is one which the nature of the appeal made possible, and is, therefore, within the contemplation of the sureties when they voluntarily executed their undertaking.

¶2The judgment and order must be affirmed, with costs.

/10/nystrep/702 · .json · Public domain