Anderson ex rel. Butler v. Saylors
| Citation | 40 Tenn. 551 |
| Parties | GIDEON ANDERSON v. W. S. SAYLORS. |
| Decision Date | 31 December 1859 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Tennessee |
His honor, Judge Fite, quashed the execution, and Anderson appealed.
Colms, for Anderson; Sam'l Turney, for Saylors.
This was an application to quash an execution, on the ground that the judgment had been satisfied before its issuance.
It appears, that a joint judgment had been recovered before a justice, for $38.60, against Anderson and Saylors, in favor of one Crowder, in an action of trover. Sometime after judgment, by an arrangement between Crowder and Saylors, the latter fully satisfied said judgment, and, thereupon, procured the issuance of an execution thereon, for the purpose of collecting the amount of the judgment, for his own benefit, from his codefendant. Whether or not, in equity, Anderson ought to have been compelled to satisfy said judgment, and whether or not the judgment was improperly rendered against Saylors by the justice, are questions that cannot now be entertained. The judgment was acquiesced in, and remained in force, and cannot be collaterally impeached.
And it is too clear to admit of discussion, that its satisfaction, by one of the joint defendants, was an extinguishment of the judgment as to all the defendants, so that no execution could afterwards be issued. And it is equally clear, that the recovery against the defendants, being in damages, for a tort, no right of contribution could exist in favor of either; whatever may have been the nature of the case, or the apparent right of the one, on principles of natural justice, to have such contribution, or to throw the entire satisfaction of the judgment on the other party.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Charnock v. Taylor, 95.
...in Tennessee it still prevails, and was in force at the time of the occurrence on which this litigation is based. Anderson v. Saylors, 40 Tenn. 551, 3 Head 551; Rhea v. White, 40 Tenn. 121, 3 Head 121; Cohen v. Noel, 165 Tenn. 600, 56 S.W. 2d 744, 746. The effect of Section 618 of the Conso......
-
Charnock v. Taylor
...... occurrence on which this litigation is based. Anderson v. Saylors, 40 Tenn. 551, 3 Head 551; Rhea v. White, 40 Tenn. 121, 3 ......
-
Velsicol Chemical Corp. v. Rowe
...indicating that if the plaintiff had not been an Intentional tortfeasor he might have recovered. The same year, however, Anderson v. Saylors, 40 Tenn. 551 (1859), seemingly laid down a general rule against either contribution or indemnity among all joint Ever since the original rule was int......
-
Carter v. E. T. & W. N. C. Transp. Co.
...it is urged there can be no contribution between joint tort feasors. A broad statement to this effect is contained in Anderson v. Saylors, 40 Tenn. 551, wherein it was said: 'And it is equally clear, that recovery against the defendants, being in damages, for a tort, no right of contributio......