Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

4 Cow. 420

Ex parte Board

New York Supreme Court

Decided May 15, 1825

New York Supreme Court · decided 1825-05-15

M. Denton récovered against A. Stickney $360, in the Orange Common Pleas ; and the judgment was docketed April 23d, 1822, and on the 1st December, 1823, assign- ed to D. Denton, H. Seely &. D. Roe. P. Board then recovered against the same Stickney $316 68 in the same Court; and the judgment was docketed September, 1823; and in February following assigned to C. Board.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently October 1864

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1825-05-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Curia.

¶1It is clear from the statute, (nor has it ever been doubted in the great number of cases which have been before iis involving the .question,) that the sheriff may receive the money. The statute leaves it optional with the one who comes to redeem, to pay the money to either the sheriff or the judgment creditor.

¶2The sheriff is not merely a naked agent, subject to the absolute control of the creditor as to his conduct. He had. a'discretion, as he would have on a sale upon execution, though in both cases he is quasi agent; and he was right in -receiving the current bank bills of the country, (a)

¶3-He was also right in trusting, (though this was also in his discretion,) as to the fact, that the one who came to redeem was a regular assignee, and as such, entitled to redeem. He may receive the money, de bene esse, and satisfy himself afterwards of ’the truth. It now appears-that:there is a -subsisting judgment which has been regularly assigned. This is enough. The motion must b« denied.

¶4Motion denied.

¶5Vid. M'Donald y. Nelson, (2 Cowen’s Rep. 139.)

/4/cow/420 · .json · Public domain