Fobes v. Meeker
New York Court of Chancery
This was a judgment creditors suit; and the defendant appeared before a master, on a reference to appoint a receiver. Questions were asked him, which he, under advice of counsel, refused to answer. The master was not required to pass upon the questions or to decide whether the defendant must answer them or not. Motion made for an attachment against the defendant.
1Opinion of the Court
The Vice-Chancellor
decided, that the master should express his opinion upon the propriety of the questions objected to and require the defendant to answer such of them as were proper; and then if he refused and did not appeal from the master’s decision, the proper.course was to move for an attachment ; but that it was not correct to move for an attachment *453against a party or a witness where it did not appear that the master had decided upon the question and required it to be answered.
Mr. Silliman, for the motion.
Mr. Charles Edwards, contra.
2Cited by3 opinions
- East River Bank v. DeLacyAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1902
- East River Bank v. De LacyAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1902
- Reis v. RohdeNew York Supreme Court · 1884