Peel v. Elliott
New York Supreme Court
The defendant renewed his motion to be discharged on his own affidavit, setting up a claim for extra services to his government, to an amount exceeding the plaintiff’s demand, and contending that the existence of this claim gave him the right to repay himself out of any moneys coming to his hands. The plaintiff’s affidavits negatived both the claim, and the right so alleged by the defendant.
Read the full summary
The defendant renewed his motion to be discharged on his own affidavit, setting up a claim for extra services to his government, to an amount exceeding the plaintiff’s demand, and contending that the existence of this claim gave him the right to repay himself out of any moneys coming to his hands. The plaintiff’s affidavits negatived both the claim, and the right so alleged by the defendant. Pending the reading of the affidavits, the judge suggested and counsel agreed, to reduce the statements of fact to the form of a proposition on which to argue the motion. The following is the proposition…
1Opinion of the Court
Davies, Justice.
If this suit be upon the extent and in*479quisition, and I am inclined to think it is, then the case in 17 Barbour, (Goodrich agt. Dunbar, 17 Barb. 644,) is applicable, and the defendant is not liable to arrest, if the proceedings in England are equivalent to a judgment. As this point seems to have been partially considered by one of my brethren, I do not feel at liberty to review that decision on this occasion; and as it is a novel and important question, I deem it most judicious to deny the motion to discharge Aom arrest, to the end that the judgment of the general term may be…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Goodrich v. DunbarNew York Supreme Court · 1854
3Cited by3 opinions
- Miller v. DeckerNew York Supreme Court · 1863
- Hill v. Board of Water & Sewer CommissionersNew York Supreme Court · 1894
- Bailey v. DaiglerNew York Supreme Court · 1889