
    THE KINGSTON BANK, Appellant, v. ROELIFF ELTINGE, President, etc., Respondent.
    Appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendant, entered upon the report of a referee. The .judgment from which this appeal was taken, was entered after a new trial ordered by the Court of Appeals; the opinion of that court being reported in 40 New York, 391.
    The General Term held, that the case now presented differed from that upon which the Court of Appeals passed, in two respects: First. Upon the former hearing it was established as a matter of fact, by the finding of the trial court, that the payments to the defendant were made from the proceeds of the sale of the Alida ; while upon the second trial the referee found, as a matter of fact, that the payments were not made from the proceeds of such sale. Second. Upon the former appeal the Court of Appeals decided that the mere fact that the defendants had satisfied their judgments, did not prevent a recovery by the plaintiff, saying that the Supreme Court might vacate the satisfaction. They declined, however, to consider what the effect might be, if rights of third parties to the real estate had intervened. The referee now found, as matter of fact, that after the satisfaction of the defendant’s judgments, land upon which they were liens had been sold to satisfy executions issued on subsequent judgments, and that the plaintiffs had received the benefit thereof.
    The General Term were of the opinion that the present findings of fact were authorized by the evidence, and that the referee rightly found, as a matter of law from them, that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover.
    
      Samuel Hcmd, for appellant. Frcmeis Kerncm, for respondent.
   Opinion by

LearNBD, P. J.

Present — Learned, P. J., Boardman and Bocees, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.  