Hyperlawhypertext legal database Culliford v. Walzer 70 N.Y. St. Rep. 173

← Cases

Culliford v. Walzer

70 N.Y. St. Rep. 173 Court N.Y. Sup. Ct. English

Delivered by Gaynor, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 173
Elizabeth A. Culliford, Pl’ff, v. Theodore A. Walzer et al., Def’ts.
(Supreme Court, Circuit, Rockland County,
Filed July, 1895.)

Headnote

Party—Bail bond.
Where, after the defendant has procured his release from arrest in a civil action by giving bail, judgment is rendered against him and affirmed at general term, but the appeal to the court of appeals is dismissed, and undertaking cancelled, and the sureties in the undertaking on appeal to the general term pay the amount of the original and appeal judgments, the plaintiff in the bail bond, who obtains a judgment of affirmance on a subsequent appeal to the court of appeals, is entitled to be deemed the real party in interest to bring an action on the bail bond for himself and as trustee for the sureties in the general term appeal undertaking, insterd of each bringing a separate action thereon.
Action on bail bond.
Spiegelberg & Wise, for pl’ff; John A. Grow, for def’ts.

In an action by this plaintiff against one Gad in the superior court of New York City, the said defendant therein was taken under an order of arrest, and released on $1,000 bail. Thereafter judgment was obtained against him therein for $1,338.90. On appeal therefrom to the general term, he gave an undertaking staying execution. Judgment of affirmance and for $105.68 costs followed. Culliford v. Gad, 44 St. Rep. 222 . An appeal was taken to the court of appeals, and execution was stayed thereon until April 1, 1892, when the undertaking affecting the stay was canceled for fraud in the giving thereof, by an order of the superior court; and, on April 23d following, the appeal was dismissed by the court of appeals, and a judgment for $38.18 costs entered thereon. Meanwhile, on April 19th, executions against property had been issued upon the said first two judgments, and on April 25th a like execution was issued on the third, judgment. On April 29th all of these executions were returned unsatisfied. The said defendant perfected a new appeal to the court of appeals thereafter, viz. May 11, 1892, by service of a new notice of appeal and undertaking to stay execution of the judgments. But on May 10th the plaintiff had begun an action on the undertaking given on the appeal to the general term. Only one of the sureties was served, and on June 1st judgment was taken against him on default for the amount of the said two first judgments and costs, viz. $1,573.64. Execution thereon was at once issued, but it was withdrawn after the sheriff had advertised property for sale, and the amount of the judgment was paid on or about August 30,1892. • At the time this judgment was entered, and the execution was issued, and the money paid, the' stay on the said second appeal to the court of appeals was operative. This second appeal to the court of appeals resulted,r on October 6, 1893, in a judgment of affirmance and for $110.34 costs. Execution thereon was issued and returned unsatisfied, and then, on March 11, 1893, executions against the person on all four judgments were issued, and théy were returned “Defendant not

p. 174
found,” on March 30th. Thereupon this action was begun by the plaintiff in the said action against Grad against the surieties in the bail undertaking to recover the $1,000 bail. The said undertaking covers not merely the principal judgment in that action, but also the said three succeeding judgments for costs on the several appeals. Appleby v. Robinson, 44 Barb. 316 . It follows that the plaintiff is entitled, at all events, to recover herein the amount of the last two judgments, viz. one for $38.18, and the other for $110.34; for these were not included in his action upon the undertaking on appeal to the general term, and remain unpaid. In respect of the other two judgments, they were embraced in the said action. The surety against whom the judgment therein was obtained became vested, upon payment thereof, with the right of subrogation-to the rights of this plaintiff under the said two judgments, to look for indemnity to the said* bail undertaking of these defendants. But, in place of so subrogating himself, he consented that the said judgments should stand in the name of the plaintiff, and that the rights and remedies thereunder, and also common to the plaintiff’s two later judgments, should be enforced by the plaintiff. I think this may be done, and that the plaintiff is to be deemed herein the real party in interest to bring fhis action upon the said bail undertaking in whole, the proceeds to be received partly as his, and partly as trustee for the said surety on the appeal undertaking, instead of each bringing a' separate action thereon. Madison Square Bank v. Pierce, 137 N. Y. 444 ; 51 St. Rep. 175 . The bail are primarily answerable to the plaintiff for $1,000 upon their undertaking, and the equities between him and the said surety on the appeal undertaking do not concern them.

I see nothing in the contention that the sureties on appeal in such a case are primarily liable,- and not entitled to subrogation to the rights of the plaintiff under the first j udgment to recover of the bail. The primary liability is upon the defendant in such a case, and then upon his bail if their undertaking be broken; and the sureties upon appeal, by paying the amount of their liability, are equitably subrogated to the plaintiff’s right to enforce the liability of t.he bail.

Nor may the defendants herein object that the judgment was entered and the execution issued against the said surety on the appeal undertaking while the execution of the judgments against Grad was stayed by the second perfected appeal to the court of appeals, for that is no concern of theirs.

Judgment for plaintiff for $1,000.

. Ordered accordingly.

Cases cited