Shults v. Andrews
New York Supreme Court
On the 27th of December, 1877, an order was granted by justice Hardin for the examination of the defendant before a referee in supplementary proceedings. That order was personally served, and the defendant was required to appear and be examined the next day. Subsequently, an order was granted by the same justice for the plaintiff to show cause why the first order made should not be set aside and vacated for irregularity.
Read the full summary
On the 27th of December, 1877, an order was granted by justice Hardin for the examination of the defendant before a referee in supplementary proceedings. That order was personally served, and the defendant was required to appear and be examined the next day. Subsequently, an order was granted by the same justice for the plaintiff to show cause why the first order made should not be set aside and vacated for irregularity. (1.) That there was no clause in the order specifying before whom subsequent proceedings were to be had. (2.) That the defendant was, at the time of the service of the order,…
1Opinion of the CourtHardin, J.
Section 292 of the Code provides that after an execution has been returned “the judgment creditor, at any time after such return made, is entitled to an order from a judge of the court.” Thus jurisdiction to grant an order *377is conferred. Then follows a further provision in respect to the practice in procuring orders. It is in these words : “ But, in case of an order made by a justice of the supreme court, all subsequent proceedings shall be had before some justice in the judicial district where the judgment debtor resides, to be specified in the order.” This clause contains a limitation in…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Lewis v. BeachNew York Supreme Court · 1908
- Peck v. BaldwinNew York Supreme Court · 1890
- Shane Bros. & Wilson Co. v. HenshawAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1916