Ross v. Hicks
New York Supreme Court
Motion by Ross to set off two judgments against each other, originally recovered in a justice’s court. Ross had a judgment against Hicks, on which a horse had been sold. Hicks sued Ross for the horse and recovered, on the ground that it was exempt from levy and sale. The following is the substance of the affidavits. On the part of Ross, two of the jurors in Hicks v. Ross swore they gave a verdict for the value of the horse.
Read the full summary
Motion by Ross to set off two judgments against each other, originally recovered in a justice’s court. Ross had a judgment against Hicks, on which a horse had been sold. Hicks sued Ross for the horse and recovered, on the ground that it was exempt from levy and sale. The following is the substance of the affidavits. On the part of Ross, two of the jurors in Hicks v. Ross swore they gave a verdict for the value of the horse. That it appeared the horse was part of Hicks’ team; and that the officer had tendered the surplus, after paying execution, which Hicks had refused. One Vaughn swore he was…
1Opinion of the Court
Hand J.
There is no doubt as to the equity in this case. Hicks turned out the horse upon which the constable made tho levy. He could not afterwards take the horse from the officer, by pretending he was mistaken as to the law. But that is not important now, for he sued Ross notwithstanding, and got judgment for about $60, which is conclusive as to the right. He then immediately went to the depositary and got the overplus of the money before tendered to him, and which was raised by the sale of the same property. This he says he did by the advice of counsel and “ as a matter of prudence and now…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- People ex rel. Manning v. New York C. P.New York Supreme Court · 1835
- Piper v. ElwoodNew York Supreme Court · 1847
- Brewerton v. HarrisNew York Supreme Court · 1806
- Schermerhorn v. SchermerhornNew York Supreme Court · 1805
- Story v. PattenNew York Supreme Court · 1829
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Mallory v. Norton & ScottNew York Supreme Court · 1856