Oakley v. Becker
New York Supreme Court
Judgment for the plaintiff in each cause. A ji. fa. in favor of Peckham was delivered to the Sheriff April 29th, 1823, for $1000 debt and $15 25 costs : and afterwards the Sheriff received another ft. fa. in favor of Oakley, for $1454, debt, and $16 34 costs. The Sheriff having sold the personal property of the defendant, and that not being sufficient to satisfy the executions.
1Opinion of the Court
[Sutherland, J.
But can a third person avail himself of this irregularity ?
Woodworth, J.
If the Sheriff had sold without any alteration, we should have amended thefi. fa. on the plaintiff’s application.]
Yanderpoel. True, if this had been a mere mistake, but it is not so. The variance is owing to the party’s own culpable precipitancy.
[Woodworth, J.
I do not see how this variance can work any injury to you.]
*456Vanderpoel. I \ra not aware that the Court have ever gone so far as to st y that a third person cannot take advan tage of such an irregularity.
[Sutherland, J.
It seems to me the defendant had a…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Wright v. . NostrandNew York Court of Appeals · 1883
- Christal v. . KellyNew York Court of Appeals · 1882