City of New York Municipal Court, 1888

Hatfield v. Hatfield

Hatfield v. Hatfield
City of New York Municipal Court · Decided May 15, 1888 · Adam
15 N.Y. St. Rep. 788

Counsel

James Henderson, for motion; Cochran & Clark, opposed.

Hatfield v. Hatfield

Opinion of the Court

Me Adam, Oh. J.

—If execution be returned satisfied, the plaintiff may proceed against the sheriff by rule of court— i. e., attachment—or by action. Tidd’s Pr. (Am. Notes), 1019; Graham’s Pr. (2d ed.), 366; Crocker on Sheriffs, § 424. It is a necessary part of the return that the sum realized (unless paid to the judgment creditor or his attorney) be brought into court. Adams v. Bowe, 3 Civ. Pro. R., 194, 195; Crocker on Sheriffs, § 424.

Motion for attachment granted, unless within ten days the sum of $383.74, with interest from the time of the return—to wit, April 14, 1888-—is paid into court.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.