Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

64 N.Y. 545

Swift v. . Prouty

New York Court of Appeals

Decided April 4, 1876

New York Court of Appeals · decided 1876-04-04

(Reported below, 6 Hun, 94.) It appeared by the opposing papers that, prior to the rendering of judgment herein, plaintiff assigned his claim to one Burt, his attorney in the action, and after the judgment was perfected assigned the judgment to said Burt. This court has power to set off a judgment of another court against one obtained in this court.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently October 1882

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1876-04-04

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Allen, J.

¶1 At the time of the assignment of the claim of Swift to Burt it was not in judgment, and therefore not the subject of a set-off against the judgment of Prouty against the assignor upon summary application to the court. The assignee of the Swift claim took it subject only to such equities in favor of Prouty as existed at the time of the assignment; and as there was then no right of set-off, upon motion the application was properly denied. When the judgment was perfected the claim was then, for the first time, the subject of a set-off, and could then only be set off by motion as the property of Smith. But he had parted with his right, and if Prouty had any equities, they could only be enforced by action, and could not be asserted by motion. This was decided in Graves v. Woodbury (4 Hill, 559), and reaffirmed in Spencer v. Barber (5 id., 568); Peckham v. Barcalow (H. & Den., 112), and Gay v. Gay (10 Paige, 369). It may be questionable whether on applications of this character, addressed to the discretion of the court, the order is appeal-able, but without considering that question, it may be affirmed upon the authorities cited.

¶2 The order must be affirmed.

¶3 All concur.

¶4 Order affirmed.

/64/ny/545 · .json · Public domain