
    John Storz, Plaintiff, v. Henry H. Boyce, Defendant.
    (Supreme Court, New York Trial Term,
    March, 1901.)
    Joint judgment — Extinguished and unassignable when paid in full by some of-the defendants.
    Where a joint foreign judgment against sureties has been paid in full by some of them it is extinguished, whatever may have been the intention of the parties, and, therefore, it cannot subsequently be assigned by the creditor to another surety (who paid nothing for it, and had paid no part of the debt) in order to enable his assignee to recover of still another surety, as upon a money demand and not for contribution, the whole sum named, in the, bond or judgment, against the principal.
    Henry H. Boyce, with several others, became bondsmen for the tax collector of Los Angeles county, California. The principal in the bond defaulted and judgment was entered against the sureties in California. Hpon an alleged assignment of that judgment action was brought in the county of Hew York against H. H. Boyce, one of the sureties, for the full amount of the judgment. The defense set up was that the defendant was not liable for the reason that-the action was brought for the full amount, and the further defense that there had been no assignment of the claim to plaintiff. The plaintiff introduced an assignment by the board of supervisors of the county of Los Angeles which assignment evidenced the fact that at the time of the assignment of the claim by the said board of supervisors the same had been paid; and the defendant contended that the rights thereunder, under the Laws of California, passed to the persons who had made payment, and the defendant’s counsel thereupon objected to the admission of said assignment as evidence.
    
      McKoon & Luckey, for plaintiff.
    Woodville Flemming, for defendant.
   MacLean, J.

One Hammond, sometime collector of taxes of Los Angeles county, California, defaulted. He and his bondsmen, among whom were the defendant herein and one Bosbyshell, were proceeded against by the State of California, which recovered, January 20, 1894, a judgment, in favor of the People of that State, against the defaulter and against the several bondsmen for the sums in which they respectively had become bounden, aggregating, with interest and costs, $18,559.89. Later the judgment was amended by adding, It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that the amount herein above adjudged and considered to be due from the defendants herein jointly or severally to the plaintiff herein is so due to said plaintiff in trust for the exclusive use and benefit of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, and that satisfaction of said judgment be made by payment- of said amount to said county of Los Angeles, or its lawful assigns.” Bringing this action as the assignee of Bosbyshell, this plaintiff, upon the trial, put in evidence an assignment from Bosbyshell to himself, and the roll of the above-mentioned judgment, to which was attached a paper running: For and in consideration of the sum of $21,168.30 to it in hand paid, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, the Board of Supervisors of Los Angeles county, California, by a resolution duly made and entered, has, and by these presents does assign and set over to "Win. F. Bosbyshell this judgment and all the rights, interests and remedies of the board of supervisors aforesaid or to the County of Los Angeles therein.” That resolution the plaintiff likewise produced and put in evidence, without qualification or reserve. Its first and supporting recital runs: Whereas certain of the defendants in the case of the People of the State of California against El. Hammond et al. * * * have paid to the County of Los Angeles the sum of $21,168.30 upon the judgment rendered in the said cause.” The sum thus acknowledged to have been paid was the whole amount of and interest (at 7 per cent.) upon the judgment for the benefit of and to be satisfied by payment to the county of Los Angeles. So the judgment was satisfied by certain of the defendants. It was not purchased by a third person, neither a party to the action, nor hound by its outcome. The board of supervisors had nothing to transfer to Bosbyshell when it resolved to assign. " Its assignment was void. Where one of several defendants against whom there is a joint judgment, pays to the other party the entire sum due, the judgment becomes thereby extinguished, whatever may be the intention of the parties to the transaction. It is not in their power, by any arrangement between them, to- keep the judgment on foot for the benefit of the party making the payment.” Harbeck v. Vanderbilt, 20 N. Y. 395, 397; Armitage v. Pulver, 37 id. 494.

The proof in this action is not to be eked out or altered by the suggestion that a joint surety often has a claim for contribution. The plaintiff has not brought this action for contribution, but as an assignee of an assignee (by request) of the cestui que trust he demands, with interest, the whole sum named against the defendant in the judgment or in the bond, alleging that no part thereof ($5,200.80) has been paid, although his principal only covenants that $2,200 are due. Some of the certain of the defendants ” may have paid more than their shares, some less, some just their aliquot parts. That Bosbyshell paid anything, either as surety or as defendant or as purchaser, does not appear. It does appear that the judgment was satisfied by the cosureties of Bosbyshell and Boyce.

Complaint dismissed.  