Watson v. Fitzsimmons
The Superior Court of New York City
The plaintiff, a judgment creditor of the defendant, obtained an order supplementary to execution, in the usual form, dated the 18th of October, 1854. The defendant appeared and was examined, and on the 15th of February, 1855, a receiver of his property was appointed.
Read the full summary
The plaintiff, a judgment creditor of the defendant, obtained an order supplementary to execution, in the usual form, dated the 18th of October, 1854. The defendant appeared and was examined, and on the 15th of February, 1855, a receiver of his property was appointed. On the 22d of October, 1855, an order was made on the papers annexed to it, that defendant show cause “why he should not be punished for the alleged misconduct,” which was, that he had refused to deliver his property to the receiver, or why such further order, as was proper, should not be made. Mo order existed requiring him to…
1Opinion of the Court
Bosworth, J.,
held, that 2d R. S. 536, § 5, prescribes two modes of proceeding: one, an order to show cause why the defendant “ should not be punished for the alleged contemptthe other, “ an attachment to arrest such party, and to bring him before such court to answer for the alleged contempt.” The statute is silent, when the mode first named is adopted, as to the course to be thereafter pursued, whether the defendant appears or fails to appear. It may, therefore, be such as conforms to the general practice of the court upon any order to show cause why relief should not be granted.
Section 19,…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Pitt v. . DavisonNew York Court of Appeals · 1867
- Witter v. LyonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1874
- McKelsey v. LewisThe Superior Court of New York City · 1877
- Fromme v. JareckyAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1897
- Pitt v. DavisonNew York Court of Appeals · 1867
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.