Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

5 Thomp. & Cook 271

Beebe v. Kenyon

New York Supreme Court

Decided January 15, 1875

New York Supreme Court · decided 1875-01-15

Appeal by Newton S. Briggs from an order at the special term adjudging appellant to be in contempt, and from an order denying a motion to vacate an order of Mr. Justice Lawreece. The orders were made in supplementary proceedings, instituted by Allen H. Beebe and another against John S. Kenyon, upon a judgment in favor of said plaintiffs and against said defendant.

Relies on Barnard v. . Kobbe

Decided 1875-01-15

Lawrence, J.

¶1At the time that the order was made directing Briggs to pay over to the plaintiffs the sum of 1275.44, it appeared from his examination that he admitted that he was indebted to the judgment debtors in that amount. The order was therefore proper when made.

¶2When the motion to punish for contempt came on to be heard, it appeared that long prior to the mating of the order for the violation of which it was sought to punish Briggs, the defendant had absolutely assigned all his interest in his claim against him. Briggs at the hearing on. the motion to punish for contempt, ■ moved, on the affidavits read in opposition to that motion, as I infer from the recitals in the order appealed from, to vacate the original order directing him to pay over. This was denied and an attachment was directed to issue.

¶3It seems to me that the motion of Briggs to vacate the order to pay over should have been granted. The defendant having assigned the claim against Briggs long prior to the proceedings against him, on which the order was based, there was no indebtedness to the defendant on the part of Briggs. The indebtedness was to the defendant’s assignees. The order to pay over will be of no avail in any action which may be brought by the assignees of the defendant against Briggs. It will be no defense to him. Under these circumstances, Briggs having disclaimed any intentional disrespect to, or disobedience of the order of the court, directing him to pay over, it would be harsh in the extreme to enforce the original order and to impose a fine upon him.

¶4We cannot, on this motion, try the question of the validity and good faith of the alleged assignment by the defendant. That can only be done by a receiver. For the purposes of this motion the assignment must be deemed to be valid. Barnard v. Kobbe, 54 N. Y. 516; Rodman v. Henry, 17 id. 482.

¶5The order appealed from should be reversed, without costs, and the order directing the payment over by Briggs should be vacated, the plaintiff to be at liberty to apply for the appointment of a receiver at the chambers of the court.

¶6Ordered accordingly.

/5/thompcook/271 · .json · Public domain