Utica Insurance v. Power
New York Court of Chancery
The complainants being judgment creditors of the defendant, filed a bill in this court to reach his property, which could not be levied on by execution at law. The defendant having put in his answer, by his solicitor, Lynch, denying the existence of property, the complainants suffered the bill to be dismissed, with costs. The costs of the defendant were afterwards taxed at $53,30..
Read the full summary
The complainants being judgment creditors of the defendant, filed a bill in this court to reach his property, which could not be levied on by execution at law. The defendant having put in his answer, by his solicitor, Lynch, denying the existence of property, the complainants suffered the bill to be dismissed, with costs. The costs of the defendant were afterwards taxed at $53,30.. The complainants thereupon presented a petition stating these facts, and also that they were judgment creditors of Lynch, the solicitor, and had filed a bill against him in this court, to reach his property, and…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
If the defendant has been taken in execution and discharged by the consent of the complainants, their judgment is extinguished and can no longer be considered as a liquidated demand and the subject of an off set. And if the judgment has been assigned by them to a third person, their right of set off is gone. In the case of Taylor v. Waters, a short note of which is contained in Chitty’s cases of practice, (2 Chit. R. 303,) but is more fully reported by Maule and Sel-win, (5 Maule & Sel. R. 103,) it was decided by the court of king’s bench that a defendant could not, in a suit…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Stilwell v. CarpenterNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- Fillyau v. LavertySupreme Court of Florida · 1850
- Langston v. RobySupreme Court of Georgia · 1882
- Johnson v. RogersDistrict Court, N.D. New York · 1876
- Boynton v. RawsonNew York Court of Chancery · 1841
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.