Day v. Rice

Decided March 15, 1839

New York Supreme Court · decided 1839-03-15

Motion to set aside a ji. fa. for irregularity. The judgment was recovered November 5, 1838. On the 9th November a fi. fa. was issued to the sheriff of Seneca county, where Henry Woolsey, one of the defendants, lived.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently May 1882

1 state decisions

Relies on Stymets v. Brook · Nichols v. Chapman

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1839-03-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1By the Court,

Bronson, J.

¶2The second execution was regularly tested of a time when all the defendants were alive; and the plaintiffs did not seek to reach the property of Woolsey, but of the surviving defendants. There can be no doubt that this proceeding was regular at the common law; and I think the statute only applies to the case of a sole defendant, who dies after judgment, and before execution, or where the plaintiff attempts to take the property of a deceased defendant. See Nichols v. Chapman, 9 Wend. 452, Stymets v. Brooks, 10 Wend. 206.

¶3Motion denied.