Gifford v. Rising

New York Supreme Court

Gifford v. Rising

12 N.Y.S. 430, 35 N.Y. St. Rep. 849, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1785

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 24, 1891

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 12 N.Y.S. 430 (Gifford v. Rising) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gifford v. Rising, 12 N.Y.S. 430, 35 N.Y. St. Rep. 849, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1785 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Corlett, J.

On the 13th day of July, 1889, the appellant recovered judgment against the defendant for nearly $600, besides costs. The defendant appealed from the judgment to this court, and an undertaking was executed to stay execution upon appeal, by Ely C. and Lodema C. Rising as sureties. Before this undertaking was made, execution had been issued upon the judgment, and personal property levied upon to the amount of nearly $600. The judgment was affirmed on appeal, and the whole judgment, when finally entered, was $1,092.33. With the consent of the sureties, $400 of the personal property was lost, and the balance was applied on the judgment. Deducting the loss, and the amount paid, there remained unpaid $584, with interest. The sureties paid the judgment, and applied to be subrogated. The special term granted this application to the extent of the amount paid, less the loss. The plaintiff appealed to this court from the order as made. Ordinarily, sureties, upon the payment of a judgment, are entitled to be subrogated. Bank v. Wood, 9 N. Y. Supp. 351. No reason is seen why the sureties in the present case should not be subrogated to the extent allowed by the special term. The order appealed from must be affirmed. All concur.

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

Corlett, J.

On the 13th day of July, 1889, the appellant recovered judgment against the defendant for nearly $600, besides costs. The defendant appealed from the judgment to this court, and an undertaking was executed to stay execution upon appeal, by Ely C. and Lodema C. Rising as sureties. Before this undertaking was made, execution had been issued upon the judgment, and personal property levied upon to the amount of nearly $600. The judgment was affirmed on appeal, and the whole judgment, when finally entered, was $1,092.33. With the consent of the sureties, $400 of the personal property was lost, and the balance was applied on the judgment. Deducting the loss, and the amount paid, there remained unpaid $584, with interest. The sureties paid the judgment, and applied to be subrogated. The special term granted this application to the extent of the amount paid, less the loss. The plaintiff appealed to this court from the order as made. Ordinarily, sureties, upon the payment of a judgment, are entitled to be subrogated. Bank v. Wood, 9 N. Y. Supp. 351. No reason is seen why the sureties in the present case should not be subrogated to the extent allowed by the special term. The order appealed from must be affirmed. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 N.Y.S. 430, 35 N.Y. St. Rep. 849, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1785, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gifford-v-rising-nysupct-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack