De Witt v. Gunn

Superior Court of New York

De Witt v. Gunn

34 N.Y.S. 879

CourtThe Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo

DecidedMay 15, 1895

StatusPublished

This text of 34 N.Y.S. 879 (De Witt v. Gunn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

De Witt v. Gunn, 34 N.Y.S. 879 (superctny 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

McADAM, J.

The application is to punish the defendant for contempt in not appearing and submitting to an examination pursuant to an adjournment had in supplementary proceedings. The proposed order fines the defendant the entire amount of the judgment ($512.50), and directs his imprisonment till the payment of the fine. Section 2285 of the Code provides that, “where the misconduct proved consists of an omission to perform an act or duty which it is yet in the power of the defendant to perform, he shall be imprisoned only until he has performed it,” and the fine is limited to the actual injury. Fenlon v. Dempsey, 7 N. Y. Supp. 435; Id., 50 Hun, 131, 2 N. Y. Supp. 763. Counsel will therefore amend the order by fining the defendant $30, the costs of the supplementary proceedings, and directing his imprisonment until he pays said fine and submits to the required -examination.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

McADAM, J.

The application is to punish the defendant for contempt in not appearing and submitting to an examination pursuant to an adjournment had in supplementary proceedings. The proposed order fines the defendant the entire amount of the judgment ($512.50), and directs his imprisonment till the payment of the fine. Section 2285 of the Code provides that, “where the misconduct proved consists of an omission to perform an act or duty which it is yet in the power of the defendant to perform, he shall be imprisoned only until he has performed it,” and the fine is limited to the actual injury. Fenlon v. Dempsey, 7 N. Y. Supp. 435; Id., 50 Hun, 131, 2 N. Y. Supp. 763. Counsel will therefore amend the order by fining the defendant $30, the costs of the supplementary proceedings, and directing his imprisonment until he pays said fine and submits to the required -examination.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 N.Y.S. 879, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-witt-v-gunn-superctny-1895.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack