Becker v. Porter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Becker v. Porter

17 A.D. 183, 45 N.Y.S. 296

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJuly 1, 1897

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 17 A.D. 183 (Becker v. Porter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Becker v. Porter, 17 A.D. 183, 45 N.Y.S. 296 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

Herriok, J.:

- Under - section 1377- of the Code of Civil Procedure, the .court may grant, leave, -to issue, an. execution upon a judgment after the expiration of five years from its rendition.

This appeal must be determined under the provisions of the-Code as they existed prior to the amendments to - sections '382 and' 3017 by chapter. 307 of the Laws of 1894. Under the law as.it. then was^. no action could - be brought upon a judgment of a Justice’s Court after the expiration of six years from its rendition by, the- -justice. (Dieffenbach v. Roch, 112 N. Y. 6.21.)

' The appellant contends that the Statute of Limitations having run against said judgment so as to prevent the commencement of an action thereupon, that the judgment has become dead, and ineffective, and that there is no* authority to issue an execution thereon.

It has heretofore been -held that the Statute -of Limitations acts-simply upon the remedy, but does not impair the obligation. (Waltermire v. Westover, 14 N. Y. 16; Johnson v. A. & S. R. R. Co., 54 id. 416-424.)

It follows from that that the Statute of Limitations prohibiting the commencement of an action upon such a judgment after the expiration of six' years does not impair the obligation of the judgment, and is only, effectual to' cut off that remedy, and, does not interfere with any other remedy to enforce the obligation thereof. [185]*185Accordingly, it has been repeatedly, held that courts may by an order permit an execution to be issued upon the judgments of courts, not of record, after the expiration of six years from their rendition. (Townsend v. Tolhurst, 57 Hun, 40; Bolt v. Hauser, 57 id. 567; Anderson v. Porter, 58 N. Y. St. Repr. 572; Agar v. Curtiss, 8 App. Div. 337, and cases cited.)

.' This practice has been too long settled by the courts to warrant our interfering with it now, and the order appealed from must be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

' All concurred.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Herriok, J.:

- Under - section 1377- of the Code of Civil Procedure, the .court may grant, leave, -to issue, an. execution upon a judgment after the expiration of five years from its rendition.

This appeal must be determined under the provisions of the-Code as they existed prior to the amendments to - sections '382 and' 3017 by chapter. 307 of the Laws of 1894. Under the law as.it. then was^. no action could - be brought upon a judgment of a Justice’s Court after the expiration of six years from its rendition by, the- -justice. (Dieffenbach v. Roch, 112 N. Y. 6.21.)

' The appellant contends that the Statute of Limitations having run against said judgment so as to prevent the commencement of an action thereupon, that the judgment has become dead, and ineffective, and that there is no* authority to issue an execution thereon.

It has heretofore been -held that the Statute -of Limitations acts-simply upon the remedy, but does not impair the obligation. (Waltermire v. Westover, 14 N. Y. 16; Johnson v. A. & S. R. R. Co., 54 id. 416-424.)

It follows from that that the Statute of Limitations prohibiting the commencement of an action upon such a judgment after the expiration of six' years does not impair the obligation of the judgment, and is only, effectual to' cut off that remedy, and, does not interfere with any other remedy to enforce the obligation thereof. [185]*185Accordingly, it has been repeatedly, held that courts may by an order permit an execution to be issued upon the judgments of courts, not of record, after the expiration of six years from their rendition. (Townsend v. Tolhurst, 57 Hun, 40; Bolt v. Hauser, 57 id. 567; Anderson v. Porter, 58 N. Y. St. Repr. 572; Agar v. Curtiss, 8 App. Div. 337, and cases cited.)

.' This practice has been too long settled by the courts to warrant our interfering with it now, and the order appealed from must be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

' All concurred.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D. 183, 45 N.Y.S. 296, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/becker-v-porter-nyappdiv-1897.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack