Ex parte Board
New York Supreme Court
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.
Read the full summary
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. J. Steward then recovered against Stickney $50 74 cents, before a Justice of Orange county; and the transcript was filed in the clerk’s office of Orange the 17th of October, 1823; and on the 15th January, 1824, he assigned to D.…
1Opinion of the Court
Curia.
It 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.
The 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,…
2Cited by2 opinions
- People ex rel. Mulford v. MayhewCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
- Webb v. WatsonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1865