Hale v. Angel

20 Johns. 342
New York Supreme Court·Decided January 15, 1823·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The 11th section of the act (1 N. R. L 387. sess. 36. ch. 53.) directs the Justice to issue execution on his judgment, and provides, that if the execution be returned, unsatisfied, it may be renewed, or the party recovering the judgment may bring an action of debt thereon, &c. There are no negative words, that the party shall not sue on the judgment until the execution has been returned. The common law right of bringing an action of debt, as soon as a judgment is recovered, remains unimpaired. The statute does not give the action of debt, but is merely explanatory of the common law right. We are, therefore, of opinion, that the judgment of the Court below ought to be reversed.

Judgment of reversal.

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

Hale v. Angel, 20 Johns. 342 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1823).

20 Johns. 342 (Hale v. Angel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Crawford-Plummer Co. v. McCarthy
227 Mass. 350 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1917)
Tettamauzi v. Zeno
24 P.R. 724 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1917)
Citizens' National Bank v. Lucas
56 L.R.A. 812 (Washington Supreme Court, 1901)
Harris v. Steiner
30 Misc. 624 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1900)
Schuyler County Bank v. Bradbury
43 P. 254 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1896)
Morse v. Pearl
36 A. 255 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1892)
Hummer v. Lamphear
32 Kan. 439 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1884)
Bonnifield v. Price
1 Wyo. 223 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1875)
Pitzer v. Russel
4 Or. 124 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1871)
Stewart v. Peterson's Executors
63 Pa. 230 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1870)
Kingsland & Co. v. Forrest
18 Ala. 519 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1850)
Smith v. Mumford
9 Cow. 26 (New York Supreme Court, 1828)