Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

58 N.Y. 475

Koenig v. . Steckel

New York Court of Appeals

Decided October 6, 1874

New York Court of Appeals · decided 1874-10-06

This action was brought upon a joint and several bond executed by defendants and-one Sebastian Banzer, upon the removal of an action brought by plaintiff against said Banzer from the Fourth District Court of the city of New York to the Court of Common Fleas, under the provisions of the act of 1857, in reference to the District Courts of the city of New York.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1874-10-06

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently December 1949

1 district · 7 state decisions

2018741880189019001910192019301940decided

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 →

Andrews, J.

¶1 The taking of the body of Banzer in the execution was in law a satisfaction of the judgment so long as the imprisonment continued. The judgment was not thereby absolutely extinguished, but the imprisonment barred the creditor from all other remedy for the collection of the debt while the debtor was in custody. The statute in certain cases, after the imprisonment is at an end, revives the remedy of the creditor against the property of the judgment debtor, but while it continues no other or different satisfaction can he obtained. The imprisonment suspends the lien of the judgment upon the real estate of the defendant, and the- plaintiff meanwhile can neither bring an action on the judgment nor enforce collateral securities for its payment. The same consequences follow for the time being as from an actual satisfaction. In this case the bond, given by the *477 defendants was conditioned to pay the judgment which might be recovered in the action against Banzer. The defendants stood in the position of sureties for the payment of the debt, and if it could not be enforced against the principal, it cannot be against the defendants. It was shown on the trial that Banzer was taken in execution upon the judgment, , and as it did not appear that he had been discharged from imprisonment, the presumption is that it continued to the time of the commencement of the action. The authorities are decisive against the right of the plaintiff to maintain this action. (Jackson v. Benedict, 13 J. R., 533; Cooper v. Bigalow, 1 Cow., 56; Sunderland v. Loder, 5 Wend., 58; Wakeman v. Lyon, 9 id., 241; Thompson v. Parish, 94 Eng. C. L., 683.)

¶2 The judgment should be affirmed.

¶3 All concur.

¶4 Judgment affirmed.

/58/ny/475 · .json · Public domain