Meyer v. Tully
Meyer v. Tully
Opinion of the Court
It is a matter of no concern to the defendants whether the beneficial owners of the judgment have been actually paid
Nor was it necessary to aver the insolvency of the defendant Pierson. Whatever interest he has in the judgment was taken by assignment, with full notice of the rights of the beneficial owners. If they are insolvent, as alleged, the judgment ought not to be collected, even though Pierson, who claims some interest in it, may not be insolvent.
The allegations of the complaint being true, the judgment ought to be satisfied of record, and until-that is done its execution ought to be restrained.
The judgment and order dissolving the injunction reversed and cause remanded, with directions to the Court below to overrule the demurrer.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- ADAM MEYER v. COLEMAN TULLY, EDWARD DURKIN, and WILLIAM M. PIERSON
- Cited By
- 3 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- When Judgment Ought Not to be EnfobcedI— If a judgment is rendered in favor of one person in trust for others, upon claims assigned to him by such other persons, without consideration, and the beneficial owners of the judgment acknowledge satisfaction of the judgment, the trustee, if insolvent, ought not to enforce collection of the judgment by execution, even if the beneficiaries have not been paid. The same is the rule with regard to an assignee of the judgment, if he took the assignment with notice of the rights of the beneficial owners. Enjoining Judgment.—If a person in whose favor a money judgment is rendered in trust for others undertakes to enforce it by execution, after the beneficial owners have acknowledged satisfaction of it, equity will restrain the collection of the judgment, even if the beneficial owners have not been paid.