Graff v. Kip

1 Edw. Ch. 619
New York Court of Chancery·Decided April 30, 1833·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

The Vice-Chancellor.

The case of Ex parte Peru Iron Company , 7 Cowen, 540, settles this question. The observations there made by Chief Justice Savage at page 553 are to be taken as more than a mere dictum. I have had a conversation with the Chief Justice; and I find the court intended to decide, that a revival of a judgment by scire facias creates no new lien. The effect of it is merely to make the issuing of an execution regular ; and not to extend or change the nature of the lien as to the judgment itself. A plaintiff must take care to sell the lands of the defendant before the expiration of the ten years, in order to avoid the danger of other incumbrances intervening : or if he wishes to continue a lien without a sale, then he must have a fresh judgment dockctted before other creditors come in and obtain judgments. Little v. Harvey, 9 Wend. 157.

In this case, the judgment obtained by Mr. Fish has lost its preference over the Kip judgment, notwithstanding the revival by scire facias,

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

Graff v. Kip, 1 Edw. Ch. 619 (N.Y. 1833).

1 Edw. Ch. 619 (Graff v. Kip) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ritz v. Rea
135 N.W. 645 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1912)
Brier v. Traders' National Bank
64 P. 831 (Washington Supreme Court, 1901)
Savings & Trust Co. of Cleveland v. Bear Valley Irr. Co.
89 F. 32 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern California, 1898)
Lakin v. C. H. McCormick & Bro.
46 N.W. 1061 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1890)
Newell v. Dart
9 N.W. 732 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1881)
Bagley v. Ward
37 Cal. 121 (California Supreme Court, 1869)
Lawson v. Jordan
19 Ark. 297 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1858)