Garvey v. Jarvis
New York Supreme Court
1YFTF plaintiff in this action alleged in his complaint that on or about the first day of November, 1861, James F. Malcolm, one of the defendants, recovered a judgment in the county of Kings against this plaintiff and one Peter Ziglio, for the sum of $2202.90, and a transcript thereof was on the first day of November, 1861, duly filed in the city and county of New York.
Read the full summary
1YFTF plaintiff in this action alleged in his complaint that on or about the first day of November, 1861, James F. Malcolm, one of the defendants, recovered a judgment in the county of Kings against this plaintiff and one Peter Ziglio, for the sum of $2202.90, and a transcript thereof was on the first day of November, 1861, duly filed in the city and county of New York. That during the month of January, 1867, the plaintiff being owner of certain houses in the city of New" York which were subject to certain mortgages and taxes that were unpaid, and upon which the said judgment was a lien after…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Clerke, P. J.
The finding of law, that Garvey had no legal or equitable right to have Malcolm’s judgment against him satisfied for a less sum than was actually due thereon, is clearly deducible from the findings of fact. Malcolm had not legally bound himself to Garvey to take less; indeed I doubt whether this could *184be done, by any species of executory agreement. A judgment, or any matter of record, like a specialty, cannot be discharged, even by what would be considered a good accord and satisfaction in other cases. Garvey, therefore, had no other interest, which could be enforced…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Glen & Hall Manufacturing Co. v. HallNew York Supreme Court · 1871