Majority
Headnote
Execution—Leave to Issue—Judgment in Justice's Court.It was the duty of the justice of the peace to furnish a transcript of the judgment. Code Civ. Proc. § 3017. It was the duty of the county clerk of Wyoming county to file the same, and docket the judgment “as of the time of the receipt of the transcript, in the book kept by him for that purpose.” He performed that duty in pursuance of section 3017 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as it existed January 3, 1888. That section then provided, viz.: “Thenceforth the judgment is deemed a judgment of the county court of that county and must be enforced accordingly.” In 1894, section 3017 of the Code of Civil Procedure was amended so that the county clerk was authorized to file- the transcript and docket the judgment “if within six years after the rendition thereof.” It is to be observed that that limitation was not in the section at the time the transcript was filed and the judgment docketed, to wit, January 3, ,1888. It is further provided in section 3017 of the Code that after filing and docketing, viz.: “Thenceforth the judgment is deemed a judgment of the county court of that county and must be enforced accordingly. * *” Notwithstanding the
provision we have just quoted, it was held in Dieffenbaeh v. Boch, 112 N. Y. 621 , 20 N. E. 560 , thát an action may not be brought upon such a judgment after six years from the time of its rendition. It has been held in several cases that under the law as it was prior to the amendment of 1894 an application for leave to issue execution might be granted. See sections 1251, 2435, Code Civ. Proc.; In re Halloclc’s Estate (Sup.) 29 N. Y. Supp. 555 ; Waltermire v. Westover, 14 N. Y. 16 ; Johnson v. Railroad Co., 54 N. Y. 416 ; Kincaid v. Richardson, 25 Hun, 237 ; Herder v. Collyer (Com. Pl.) 6 N. Y. Supp. 513 ; Green v. Hauser (Super. Buff.) 9 N. Y. Supp. 660 ; Bolt v. Hauser (Co. Ct.) 10 N. Y. Supp. 397 , affirmed 57 Hun, 567 , 11 N. Y. Supp. 366 , 368; Brown v. Hyman (Co. Ct.) 27 N. Y. Supp. 436 ; Townsend v. Tolhurst, 57 Hun, 40 , 10 N. Y. Supp. 378 ; Bank v. Quackenbush (N. Y.) 38 N. E. 728 . Davidson v. Horn, 47 Hun, 51 , differs from the case in. hand, as the transcript was filed and the judgment docketed in the county court more than six years after the renditon of the judgment, and in the course of the opinion it was said:
“The right oí the judgment debtor to avail himseli of the statute of limitations as a bar became perfect before the transcript was filed with the clerk. And that right was a vested one, which could not be defeated even by subsequent legislation. * * .* And it is difficult to see how the defendant could be divested of such right by the act of filing the transcript and docketing the judgment at the instance of the judgment creditor, inasmuch as the statute does not declare that it may be done after the time such right has accrued to the-.-judgment debtor.”
Following the cases cited they lead to an affirmance of the order.
Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.
Cases cited
- Dieffenbach v. Roch 112 N. Y. 621 p. 816
- Waltermire v. Westover 14 N. Y. 16 p. 816
- Johnson v. Albany & Susquehanna Railroad 54 N. Y. 416 p. 816