SAUNDERS a. HALL

SAUNDERS a. HALL. New York Common Pleas; General Term, February, 1856. SupplemeNtaky PeooeediNgs. — IeREGulaeities IN Judgment. Irregularities in the rendering of judgment in the Marine Court will not be reviewed or remedied in the Common Picas on motion made in answer to supplementary proceedings instituted in the latter court. The defendant’s remedy for such irregularities is by motion in the court below, or by appeal from the judgment. Motion to vacate a judgment for irregularity. The plaintiff in this action commenced proceedings supplementary to execution, based upon the usual affidavit showing the recovery of judgment by him against the defendant in the New York Marine Court, for $162 41, the filing of a transcript, the issue of execution and the return of the same unsatisfied. As an answer to the proceedings, the defendant moved to vacate the judgment for irregularity. The motion was denied, and the defendant appealed. T. Sayre, for the motion. T. B. Barnaby, opposed. [MAJORITY — Ingeaham, F., J.] Ingeaham, F., J. I see nothing in the papers submitted to us on this appeal, warranting the court in reversing the order made by Judge Daly on the 19th of November. The supposed irregularities in the court below will not be reviewed or remedied by this court on supplementary proceedings. So long as the judgment remains undischarged in the court below, and the transcript is properly filed in this court, we treat the judgment as a valid judgment in this court, and proceedings taken upon it will be sustained. The defendant’s remedy is either by motion to the court below, or by appeal to this court upon the judgment. If he suffer that to remain in force, he cannot escape the consequences by an attempt to do collaterally what he should do directly. The order appealed from is affirmed, with ten dollars costs.