Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

6 Sandf. 639

Coddington v. Webb

The Superior Court of New York City · decided 1851-06-27

The defendant moved to open a default, by which the plaintiffs had taken an order for the appointment of a receiver. The motion was resisted on the ground that the defendant was in contempt for a violation of the ex parte injunction granted in the cause. It appeared that the injunction order was served on the defendant by delivering to him a copy of the same, but without showing to him the original order signed by the judge.

Decided 1851-06-27

¶1By the Court.

Sandford, J.

¶2-(All the justices of the court concurring.) — Under the former practice, the defendant would probably be adjudged to be in contempt, for disobeying the injunction. But injunctions are now by orders and not by writ, and all orders are similarly signed, and all must be served in the same mode. For the purpose of founding a proceeding for a contempt of court, it was necessary in the courts of law, under the old system, to show the original with the signature of the judge, at the time of delivering the copy. The code of procedure has made no change in the practice in this respect. The service in this case was defective, and although it may *640have been sufficient as a notice of the injunction to save the rights of the plaintiffs, it does not suffice to found a proceeding for a contempt of court. (The default was opened, and the order appointing a receiver affirmed on the merits.)

/6/sandf/639 · .json · Public domain