Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

2 Cai. Cas. 256

Bergen v. Boerum

New York Supreme Court

Decided November 15, 1804

New York Supreme Court · decided 1804-11-15

Evertson moved to set aside the execution issued in this cause, and to have satisfaction entered on the judgment upon an affidavit stating that the amount of the debt in the condition of the bond, on which judgment had been confessed, had, together with interest and costs, been paid to the sheriff, *who nevertheless threatened to go on and sell, in pursuance of the directions he had received, as the fi. fa. issued was on a judgment for the penalty, and the writ endorsed to…

Decided 1804-11-15

Per Ouriam.

¶1We have no doubt of our equitable jurisdiction. It would be attended with the most mischievous consequences to allow collecting more than is due on the condition. It would be trying the equity of the case in this way. It is against the very form of the contract, and liable to great abuse. It would be a deception on the world, for the condition which is to discharge the -judgment is on record. If, therefore, it was to reach to other demands, it would be impossible to know what would satisfy the debt. As to the two dollars, de minimis non curat lex. Take the effect of your motion, with the costs of this application and those of that to the judge for the order to stay proceedings.

¶2Motion granted.

¶3\*An objection was taken to the notice of motion, for being signed, simply, “Nicholas Evertson,” without the addition of “attorney for the defendant,” but the court paid no attention to it.

¶4N. B. — It was ruled in this cause, that an affidavit containing new matter, could not be read in support of a motion, though the facts in it were not known till the day of bringing it on. The party should have served copies, and moved the next day.

/2/caicas/256 · .json · Public domain