The following excerpt is from Ullman v. Cameron, 186 N.Y. 339, 78 N.E. 1074 (N.Y. 1906):
payment of the plaintiffs' debt, still he had no right to the lien of the plaintiffs' judgment on the real estate, and hence they had a cause of action, which never vested in him. He could acquire a lien by filing a bill in equity, while they already had one but needed equitable aid to enable them to enforce it. They could sell under execution and sue afterwards to clear the [186 N.Y. 345]title, but he could not. The parties named had different rights as to the real estate, and were entitled to separate remedies. Gere v. Dibble, 17 How. Prac. 31;Bennett v. McGuire, 58 Barb. 635.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.