Manger v. Golding

214 A.D. 786

Opinion

Cropsey, J.:

Motions for leave to issue execution after the lapse of five years are within the court’s discretion. (Van Rensselaer v. Wright, 121 N. Y. 626, 630; Shuman v. Sfirauss, 52 id. 404.) The delay raises a presumption of payment or other release or discharge of the judgment. (Betts v. Garr, 26 N. Y. 383, 384.) Here it is claimed an agreement was made which was carried out. There is no denial of this. If it be so, execution should not issue. (Partridge v. Moynihan, 59 Mise. 234.) In any event the papers present a situation which makes it improper for the court to exercise its discretion. (See People v. Carlin, 191 App. Div. 258.) The creditor is not necessarily prejudiced, for he may seek leave to bring an action upon the judgment. (Partridge v. Moynihan, 59 Misc. 234, 238.) Motion denied; ten dollars costs.

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

Manger v. Golding, 214 A.D. 786 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1925).

214 A.D. 786 (Manger v. Golding) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Betts v. . Garr
26 N.Y. 383 (New York Court of Appeals, 1863)
Van Rensselaer v. . Wright
25 N.E. 3 (New York Court of Appeals, 1890)
People v. Carlin
191 A.D. 258 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1920)
Partridge v. Moynihan
59 Misc. 234 (New York Supreme Court, 1908)