Arctic Fire Insurance v. Hicks
New York Supreme Court
Appeal from an order granting an attachment for contempt. On the 4th of March, 1858, Mr. Justice Ingraham granted an order for the examination of the defendant as a judgment debtor on supplementary proceedings. It was made returnable on the 14th of the same month, but plaintiff discovering that it was returnable on Sunday, had it altered to the 15th, and gave defendant verbal notice of the alteration. On the 15th the defendant was not present.
Read the full summary
Appeal from an order granting an attachment for contempt. On the 4th of March, 1858, Mr. Justice Ingraham granted an order for the examination of the defendant as a judgment debtor on supplementary proceedings. It was made returnable on the 14th of the same month, but plaintiff discovering that it was returnable on Sunday, had it altered to the 15th, and gave defendant verbal notice of the alteration. On the 15th the defendant was not present. Upon application of plaintiff’s counsel, Mr. Justice Gierke granted a certificate, and a further order for defendant to appear on the 19th of March,…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.*—Ingraham, J.
—If the order for the debtor to appear in the supplementary proceedings was returnable on Sunday, it was not a contempt on his part not to appear on Monday: the order was a nullity. The objection that the affidavit was not served with the order should have been taken on *205the return of the order. He had no right to disobey the order for that cause. The next order, for the 19th, made by Judge Clerke, appears to have been founded on the previously served affidavits. The defendant was in contempt for disobeying it. Even if it was erroneous, he had no right to disregard…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Kinney v. EmeryNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1883
- Wilcox v. Harris, New York County Courts1880
- State Bank v. SpenceCity of New York Municipal Court · 1902
- State Bank v. SpenceCity of New York Municipal Court · 1902