Legal Opinion
Dunlop v. Mulry
New York Supreme Court
Decided February 15, 1903PublishedCited by 3 opinions
Motion to punish a purchaser at a foreclosure sale for contempt of court.
1Opinion of the CourtLeventritt, J.
This is a motion to punish a purchaser at a foreclosure sale for contempt of court for failure to comply with an order directing him to complete his purchase. Independently of the merits, the motion must be denied, for the papers are replete with defects.
In the first place the application is made on notice of motion instead of by order to show cause. This alone is fatal. Sandford v. Sandford, 40 Hun, 540; People v. Rice, 26 N. Y. Supp. 345; Code of Civil Procedure, § 2269. The defect is not cured by referring to the order to show cause on which the order directing the completion of the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Fischer v. . RaabNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
- Burton v. LinnAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1897
- Rowley v. FeldmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1901
- People ex rel. Platt v. RiceNew York Supreme Court · 1893
- Socialistic Co-operative Publishing Ass'n v. KuhnAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1900
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Johnson v. AckermanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1920
- Bridgman v. American Book Co.New York Supreme Court · 1958
- Sloan v. SloanNew York Supreme Court · 1968