Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

3 Wend. 496

Sayre v. Austin

New York Supreme Court

Decided January 15, 1830

New York Supreme Court · decided 1830-01-15

This was an action of debt, tried at the New-York circuit in March, 1826, before the Hon. William A, Duer, then 0ne of the circuit judges. The declaration contained three counts: 1. On a judgment ™ assumPsih *n favor of the plaintiffs against the defendants, for $481,41, obtained in the term of August, 1804; 2. On another judgment in assumpsit, of the same term, for $461,-27; 3.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1830-01-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently November 1940

7 state decisions

30183018401850186018701880189019001910192019301940decided

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 →

¶1By the Court,

Sutherland, J.

¶2The act of 1813, (1 R. L. 506,) merely provides, that in all executions to be issued on judgments thereafter to be recovered upon contracts, it shall be lawful to direct the collection of the interest on the said judgments from the time of recovering the same until paid. It is not by virtue of this act that judgments carry interest; it only authorizes the collection of it upon execution.

¶3It cannot be contended, with any shew of reason or au-, thority, that a judgment is á debt not due until a demand of payment is made, after the original cause of action has not only been demanded, but has been prosecuted to judgment, the highest evidence of debt known to the law, and which authorizes the plaintiff immediately to issue an execution *498and seize either the property or the person of the defendant. It certainly savours somewhat of extravagance to maintain that the judgment is not a debt due in every possible sense of the term. It is a debt due, with interest from the time of its rendition, which, since the statute, may be collected upon the execution, and before the statute, could have been recovered by action of debt upon the judgment.

¶4It might have been recovered under the two first counts; and there beieg no evidence applicable to the third count, we "have a right to consider the verdict throughout as given upon those counts. • It is then unquestionably a demand in the nature :of a specialty, and the statute of limitations does .not apply.

¶5Judgment for plaintiffs.

/3/wend/496 · .json · Public domain