
    Richard Deyo, Resp’t, v. John Borley, App’lt.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department,
    
    
      Filed March 15, 1892.)
    
    Execution—Endorsement.
    An execution was issued by the county clerk on the request of executors upon a judgment recovered by their testator in a justice’s court, and upon its return supplementary proceedings were instituted and a receiver appointed. The execution was in the usual form, but had no endorsement as having been issued by personal representatives. Held, that the omission of such an endorsement, if an error, did not render the execution void, but was a curable irregularity.
    Appeal from order of the county judge of Ulster county, denying motion to vacate and set aside proceedings supplementary to execution, and from order appointing a receiver.
    On April 15, 1887, Richard Deyo recovered a judgment in justice’s court against John Borley for $58.40, of which judgment a transcript was duly filed, and which judgment was duly entered ■and docketed by the clerk of Ulster county, in his office, on August 25, 1887.
    Richard Deyo died in the year 1888, and in the same year letters testamentary upon his estate were duly issued to Catharine Deyo and Elvin Deyo.
    ' In the year 1890, the county clerk at the executors’ request, issued an execution on said judgment, which was duly returned wholly unsatisfied; and thereafter the usual affidavit and order for an examination in supplementary proceedings were served on Mr. Borley, who appeared before the county judge and submitted to an examination and the appointment of a receiver without making any objection whatever. The receiver duly qualified and on December 81, 1890, served on Mr. Adams, Mr. Borley’s attorney, a certified copy of the order appointing him receiver. Thereafter Mr. Borley, by G. R. Adams, his attorney, began an action to recover money alleged to be due Mr. Borley and the receiver has been substituted as defendant in that action, which is still pending. Thereafter an order to show cause why the order appointing the receiver- should not be vacated was obtained and served.
    
      G. B. Adams, for app’lt; Be Witt Boosa (John B. Eckert, of ■counsel), for resp’t.
   Herrick, J.

The executors of the plaintiff, Richard Deyo, were entitled to enforce the unpaid judgment against the defendant, John Borley.

They authorized the issuing of execution upon the judgment, and the commencement of proceedings supplementary to execution against the defendant

The execution issued was in proper form; the only criticism that is passed upon it is that it was not properly endorsed as having been issued by the personal representatives of the deceased plainiff; and the whole objection to the regularity of the proceedings is based upon the lack of such endorsement of the execution.

No substantial right of the defendant has been infringed upon; the executors of Eichard Deyo were entitled to have an execution, issued against the defendant

The error alleged, if it is one, did not render the execution . void. It was a curable irregularity. Hill v. Haynes, 54 N. Y., 156; Douglas v. Haberstro, 88 id., 611; Wright v. Nostrand, 94 id., 48.

Ho objection was made by the defendant Borley at or prior to his examination or to the appointment'of the receiver, to the regularity of the proceedings; such objections should have been made then. Wright v. Nostrand, 94 N. Y., 45.

The order appealed from should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and printing disbursements to the respondent.

Putnam, J., concurs; Mayham, P. J., not sitting.  