Mossein v. Empire State Surety Co.

The suit was begun against Manning, this plaintiff's predecessor; but, to avoid confusion, I shall speak of ■ Manning as Mossein.

I think that this judgment is erroneous. The defendant was a surety. Johnson secured a judgment in a municipal court against Mossein as president, etc., by default. After a deal of practice between

“Whereas, on the 3d day of April, 1902, in the Supreme Court, at a Special Term thereof, the above-named John J. Manning, as president, etc., defendant and respondent, obtained an order against the above-named Christina Johnson, plaintiff and appellant, directing the plaintiff herein and her attorney, George Gru, to make restitution of the sum of two hundred and ninety-six if/ioo ($206.17) dollars to the defendant herein by depositing the said $296.17 with the Germania Savings Bank to the credit of said defendant association, and the appellant, feeling aggrieved thereby, intends to appeal therefrom to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, Second Department: Now, therefore, the Empire State Surety Company, having an office and place of business at No. 375 Fulton street, in the borough of Brooklyn, city of New York, does hereby, pursuant to the statute in such case made and provided, undertake that the appellant will pay all costs and ddmages which may be awarded against the appellant on said appeal, not exceeding five hundred dollars, and does also undertake that if the judgment or order so appealed from, or any part thereof, is affirmed, or the appeal is dismissed, the appellant will pay the sum recovered or directed to be paid by the judgment or order, or the part thereof as to which said judgment or order shall be affirmed.”

This action is based upon the fact that the restitution was never made. It is quite clear that the sole purpose of the order for restitution was to restore the deposit in the' event that Mossein might ultimately relieve himself from the judgment obtained upon default, either by setting aside the service of the summons and complaint or by opening the default. The power to make the order requiring such restitution was challenged on this trial, but we have already affirmed it. I think that our affirmance was right.

In Granger v. Craig, 85 N. Y. 619 , it is said:

“The Code, however, does not abridge the power that the Supreme Court has always had over its own judgments, to correct mistakes in them, to vacate them for irregularity, to stay proceedings on them for such time a^id on such terms as to the court seem proper.”

See, too, Genet v. President, etc., 113 N. Y. 472 , 474, 21 N. E. 390 ; section 217, Code Civ. Proc.

In Graham’s Practice, p. 367, it is said:

“So also, where a writ of error is brought, and bail in error put in within four days after judgment, if the execution have been levied, the court will direct restitution of the amount collected, or of premises of which the party has been turned out of possession under it. Jackson v. Schanber, 7 Cow. (N. Y.) 417; People v. Judges of New York Common Pleas, 1 Wend. (N. Y.) 81 ; Mitchell v. Thorp, 5 Wend. (N. Y.) 288 .”

In Bank v. Elliott, 60 Kan. 172 , 55 Pac. 880 , it was contended that an order of restitution made in the action was unauthorized as not positively afforded by the Code. The court said (page 175 of 60 Kan., page 881 of 55 Pac.):

“There is no difficulty there. The motion and order were only steps in a pending action. The parties being before the court, and the matter of restoration. being incidental to the action, there can be no question of the power or duty of the court to enforce restoration in that proceeding. Instead of multiplying cases, it is the policy of our Code that the rights of the parties be determined as far as practicable in a single litigation, and we think the court was warranted in enforcing restitution in a summary manner upon the motion of the defendant.”

But the defendant’s liability “is limited to the express terms of the contract, and his obligation should be construed strictly and favorably to the surety so far as is warranted by the terms employed.” Ward v. Stahl, 81 N. Y., at 409. That contract is that restitution will be made by depositing the sum with the Germania Bank to the credit of the said defendant association, and this is all that should be required of the defendant with respect to that sum.

It may be entirely true that as to third parties it is' immaterial whetiT • er a person receive money or whether it be redeposited to his credit, and that there is no complication -in this case which makes one disposition or the other of consequence to the surety, so long as it is protected by a judgment. But Johnson, the principal of the defendant, as the plaintiff in the action which proceeded to judgment in her favor, is entitled to the strict construction of the undertaking, to the end that there should be a redeposit of the money. She docketed her judgment and issued execution thereon to the sheriff. Upon return of execution unsatisfied, proceedings supplementary were taken which revealed this deposit, and it was applied on the judgment. We modified the order which denied a motion made to set aside the judgment and subsequent proceedings taken pursuant thereon,- by staying all proceedings in enforcement of the judgment so docketed until the hearing and disposition of proceedings which Mossein might be advised to take and promptly might take toward relief from said default. Johnson v. Manning, 75 App. Div. 285 , 78 N. Y. Supp. 96 . We did not set aside the proceedings, but held them in abeyance, and it may well be that Johnson had proceeded so far and so well as to sequester that sum, subject to her right of specific appropriation to her judgment in the event that she finally held that judgment.

The plaintiff read in evidence the transcript of the judgment which Johnson had recovered, and it appears by the uncontradicted evidence of the defendant that such judgment had never been reversed or set aside. It is obvious, then, that Johnson being only required to redeposit the money, and the surety having only undertaken that this should be done, Mossein should not have judgment upon that undertaking that the sum should be paid to him as president outright,, if by any possibility such a variance might prejudice Johnson. Moreover, it appears that Johnson -could not enforce her judgment by execution, but was put to proceedings supplementary, whereupon this deposit was revealed. If, then, instead of redeposit, there is direct payment, the judgment creditor has no assurance in fact that she may collect her judgment. I think, however, that the error in the judgment may be corrected here. Outwater v. Moore, 124 N. Y. 66 , 26 N.

As to the point made that the case was not properly moved for trial, in that no notice had been served by the plaintiff, and the case, therefore, was not properly upon the calendar, it appears that the Special Term, in allowing the amendment to the complaint, provided:

“Service of said amended complaint shall be without prejudice to the position of the case on the general Trial Term calendar o£ this court, and that the said case retain its said place upon said calendar.”

This provision was within the power of the court. Myers v. Metropolitan EL R. Co., 12 N. Y. Supp. 2 , citing cases. The court denied the application that the case be not tried on the ground that:

“Under the rules of the court all applications for postponement are made In part 1 and cases are sent from part I to the various trial parts for disposition. I deny this application to adjourn on the ground that all such applications must be made in part 1, and, the case being sent here, I must assume that the court in part 1 has passed upon this application and denied it.”

I think that the learned court was correct. Rule 83, Calendar Rules of Trial Term, Kings County. In any event the appellant has not pursued the correct practice to raise the question. Martin v. Hicks, 6 Hun, 74 .

The judgment must be modified as indicated, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs. All concur.