Ryan v. Parr

16 N.Y.S. 829, 40 N.Y. St. Rep. 946, 61 Hun 624, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2271
New York Supreme Court·Decided October 23, 1891·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The order appealed from should be affirmed. The judgment which the execution was issued to collect was the judgment of the county court of Monroe etiunty. The Code makes no distinction in respect to the judgment between an appeal for a new trial and an appeal on questions of law. In either case it is a judgment of the county court. Sections 30631 and 30712 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 1319 3 of the Code does not apply to appeals from a justice’s court to the county court. Chapter 12, of which that section is a part, relates only to appeals to superior city courts, the supreme court, and the court of appeals. It is so stated in the title of the chapter. The signature of the county clerk to the executions was unnecessary, and may be treated as surplusage. They were signed by the attorney, as they should be. The execution was not issued by a county clerk on a transcript of a judgment recovered before a justice of the peace, as provided by section 3033 4 of the Code, and hence the appellant was not entitled to his discharge by delivering to the sheriff an affidavit under section 8034.5 The order appealed from should be affirmed, with $10 costs and the disbursements of the appeal against the appellant.

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

Ryan v. Parr, 16 N.Y.S. 829, 40 N.Y. St. Rep. 946, 61 Hun 624, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2271 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1891).

16 N.Y.S. 829 (Ryan v. Parr) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Winton v. Knott
63 N.W. 783 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1895)
Richardson v. Levi
22 N.Y.S. 352 (New York Supreme Court, 1893)