¶1At the time of the sale of Heth's property, and the payment of the proceeds over to the defendants in this action, it does not appear that these plaintiffs were in a position to challenge or object to that sale and payment. If Heth chose to adopt this form of paying the defendants the amount he owed them, it is not perceived that any objection can be taken by these plaintiffs to such payment. Heth certainly would be estopped from alleging or setting up that the judgment was not valid, or, in other words, was not a judgment, and after he stood by and saw his property sold under an execution issued upon it, and the proceeds paid over to the defendants, he would be estopped from recalling such payment. The plaintiffs are certainly in no better position than that occupied by Heth, and as the transaction was completed before *112 the recovery of the plaintiffs' judgment, they are not in a position to impeach it. The judgment appealed from should be affirmed.
24 N.Y. 110
Miller v. . Earle
Decided December 5, 1861
New York Court of Appeals · decided 1861-12-05
The complaint stated a judgment by confession against James Heth, on the 23d of August, 1855, in favor of the defendants in this action, upon which execution was issued, and Heth’s property sold by the sheriff, and the proceeds of sale paid over to the defendants. That on the 8th of November, 1855, the plaintiffs recovered a judgment against Heth, and issued execution thereon, which was returned unsatisfied.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1861-12-05
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently April 1954
1 district · 15 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 →