Bishop v. Garcia
The Superior Court of New York City
Bishop and Rhien sued Mrs. (Jarcia for goods sold, and recovered judgment on failure to answer. The judgment remaining unpaid, the plaintiffs ascertained that defendant had recovered a judgment in her own favor against one James Clute.
Read the full summary
Bishop and Rhien sued Mrs. (Jarcia for goods sold, and recovered judgment on failure to answer. The judgment remaining unpaid, the plaintiffs ascertained that defendant had recovered a judgment in her own favor against one James Clute. They accordingly instituted proceedings supplementary to judgment and execution, under section 394 of the Code of Procedure, and obtained an order requiring Clute to pay over to plaintiffs the amount of the judgment in defendant’s favor. 3STo notice of the proceeding’ was given to the defendant Garcia. Pursuant to the order, Clute paid the amount of the…
1Opinion of the CourtVan Vorst, J.
[After disposing of the motion to open the judgment, as being too late, and unsupported by any sufficient affidavit.]—Before recovering the judgment against Clute the defendant had assigned her cause of action to her attorney, and after its recovery the judgment itself. The assignment purports to have been made and given to the attorney, in lieu of all fees and disbursements of the attorney, or those assisting him on the trial or prosecution of the action in favor of defendant against Clute. Before the payment to the plaintiffs of the moneys collected from Clute in the proceedings under…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Martin v. HawksNew York Supreme Court · 1818
- Ackerman v. AckermanNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1862
3Cited by1 opinion
- United States Net & Twine Co. v. AlexanderCity of New York Municipal Court · 1891