239 N.Y. 269 (1925)
A judgment docketed against a person using a commonly recognized diminutive of their legal first name (e.g., ‘Bess’ for ‘Elizabeth’) is a valid lien against the real property of that person.
Summary
This case addresses whether a judgment docketed under a commonly used diminutive of a person’s given name creates a valid lien on that person’s real property. A creditor obtained a judgment against “Bess Hedges.” The property was subsequently transferred, and the question became whether the judgment against “Bess Hedges” created a lien on the property formerly owned by Elizabeth Hedges. The New York Court of Appeals held that it did, reasoning that “Bess” is a commonly recognized diminutive of “Elizabeth,” and therefore, the judgment was properly docketed and created a valid lien. This decision clarifies the requirements for judgment liens and the use of commonly recognized name variations.
Facts
Mrs. Hedges, whose given name was Mary Elizabeth, conducted business as “Elizabeth” and “Bess Hedges,” preferring to drop the name “Mary.” A creditor obtained a judgment against “Bess Hedges,” and it was docketed under that name in Kings County. Appellants acquired title to Mrs. Hedges’ property through foreclosure of a mortgage predating the judgment, but the judgment creditor was not a party to the foreclosure. The appellants argued that the judgment against “Bess Hedges” did not constitute a valid lien on the property previously owned by Elizabeth Hedges.
Procedural History
The case originated in a lower court where it was determined that the judgment against “Bess Hedges” was a valid lien on the property. The appellate division affirmed this decision. The case then went to the New York Court of Appeals, which also affirmed the lower court’s decision.
Issue(s)
Whether a judgment docketed against “Bess Hedges” constitutes a valid lien on the real property of “Elizabeth Hedges.”
Holding
Yes, because “Bess” is a commonly recognized diminutive of “Elizabeth,” and therefore, the judgment docketed against “Bess Hedges” created a valid lien on the property of Elizabeth Hedges.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals focused on whether “Bess Hedges” was legally equivalent to “Elizabeth Hedges” for the purpose of establishing a judgment lien. The court reviewed the history of judgment lien statutes in New York, noting that the purpose of requiring the debtor’s name on the docket was to ensure certainty in determining whether real property was encumbered. The court distinguished between nicknames or less commonly known abbreviations and diminutives that are widely recognized as equivalents of formal names.
The court stated, “If two names are in original derivation the same, and are taken promiscuously to be the same in common use, though they differ in sound yet there is no variance.” The court found that “Bess” for “Elizabeth” fell into the category of names considered equivalents due to immemorial usage.
Referencing numerous cases from other jurisdictions, the court acknowledged a split of authority on similar issues, but found the weight of authority supported its conclusion. The court reasoned that someone searching the records under “Hedges, Bess” would reasonably be expected to take notice when looking for liens against property owned by “Hedges, Elizabeth.” The court carefully limited its holding to the specific diminutive “Bess” for “Elizabeth,” leaving open the question of how other nicknames or abbreviations might be treated.