Hale v. Angel

Decided January 15, 1823

New York Supreme Court · decided 1823-01-15

IN ERROR, on certiorari to a Justice’s Court. Hale brought an action of debt, in the Court below, on a judgment obtained in a Justice’s Court, the 16th of April, 1816, for 10 dollars and 73 cents. Execution had been issued on the judgment the 3d of August, 1816; but the constable absconded, and it was never returned.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““There are no negative words that a party shall not sue on a judgment until the execution has been returned. The common-law right of bringing an action of debt as soon as a judgment is recovered remains unimpaired. The statute does not give the action of debt, but is merely explanatory of the common-law right.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Hummer v. Lamphear

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1823-01-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently June 1917

9 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1The 11th section of the act (1 N. R. L 387. sess. 36. ch. 53.) directs the Justice to issue execution on his judgment, and provides, that if the execution be returned, unsatisfied, it may be renewed, or the party recovering the judgment may bring an action of debt thereon, &c. There are no negative words, that the party shall not sue on the judgment until the execution has been returned. The common law right of bringing an action of debt, as soon as a judgment is recovered, remains unimpaired. The statute does not give the action of debt, but is merely explanatory of the common law right. We are, therefore, of opinion, that the judgment of the Court below ought to be reversed.

¶2Judgment of reversal.