Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

21 A.D. 609

Burton v. Linn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · decided 1897-11-15

Appeal by the plaintiff, Edward Y. Burton, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 20th day of September, 1897, denying the plaintiff’s motion to punish Nora O’Connell, a purchaser on the sale had in this action, for contempt of court.

Decided 1897-11-15

Ingraham, J. (dissenting) :

¶1The respondent, being the purchaser of property -sold under a judgment of foreclosure and sale, was ordered by the court to com*613píete her purchase of' the premises that had been struck down to her upon the sale, within five days- after a service of the copy of the order upon her. That order not having been complied with, the plaintiff made a motion to punish her for contempt. The affidavit upon which this application is made does not show that the property purchased was worth less than that bid by the respondent, or that either the plaintiff, or any other party to the action, has suffered any damage by the failure of the respondent to comply with this order. There is no doubt but that the order requiring the purchaser- to complete her purchase was a valid order, and I think that a failure to comply with such order is within subdivision 3 of section li of the Code. In a case to punish under this section, however, it must appear that a right or remedy of a party to a civil - proceeding has been defeated, impaired, impeded or prejudiced by such disobedience. There are no facts here to show that any party has been injured by the refusal of the respondent to comply with the order of the court. She had paid ten per cent of her bid, at the time of sale, to the referee, and it does not appear that, upon a resale of the property, it cannot be sold for such a price as will indemnify the parties to the action for any loss that may have been sustained in consequence of the failure of this respondent to complete the purchase.

¶2The application was addressed to the discretion of .the court below, and unless some right or interest of one of the parties to the action was prejudiced by the refusal of the court to punish for contempt, I do not think that the court should, in a case of this kind, reverse the order. . • . ,

¶3Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements,. and motion granted, with ten dollars costs. ■

/21/ad/609 · .json · Public domain