Manger v. Golding

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Manger v. Golding

214 A.D. 786

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

DecidedJune 15, 1925

StatusPublished

This text of 214 A.D. 786 (Manger v. Golding) 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

214 A.D. 786, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manger-v-golding-nyappdiv-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack