¶1We think the court below correctly held this case to be controlled by McCaulay v. Palmer, 40 Hun, 38. It follows that the order appealed from must be affirmed. After an attorney has appeared in an action, it may well be that a service upon him should be sufficient upon which to base proceedings for contempt against the client. But such change in the practice must be made by the legislature. Order affirmed, without costs.
16 N.Y.S. 685
Haynes v. Hatch
Decided December 14, 1891
New York Supreme Court · decided 1891-12-14
Action by Edward Haynes against Edward Hatch. Plaintiff appeals from an order denying his motion to punish defendant for contempt for failing to appear for examination before trial. Affirmed. The order requiring defendant to appear for examination (see 15 H. T. tiupp. 615) before trial was not served upon him personally, but upon the attorney who had appeared for him in the action.
Decided 1891-12-14