Gerhard Mennen Chemical Co. v. Dressner

City of New York Municipal Court

Gerhard Mennen Chemical Co. v. Dressner

53 Misc. 370, 104 N.Y.S. 749

CourtCity of New York Municipal Court

DecidedMarch 15, 1907

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 53 Misc. 370 (Gerhard Mennen Chemical Co. v. Dressner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering City of New York Municipal Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gerhard Mennen Chemical Co. v. Dressner, 53 Misc. 370, 104 N.Y.S. 749 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

O’Dwyer, C. J.

Proof of the facts necessary for the order directing the judgment-debtor to appear for examination was presented to the judge granting the same. The debtor has appeared pursuant thereto and submitted to examination thereunder, and at the end of that examination, upon motion wherein she has appeared by counsel, a receiver of her property has been appointed. It is now sought to vacate the order for her examination upon the ground that the judgment is not properly entered. It is too late to question the regularity of this proceeding, and the irregularity in the entry of the judgment may not now be questioned. Motion denied, with ten dollars costs. See Curtois v. Harrison, 3 Abb. Pr. 96.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.

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

O’Dwyer, C. J.

Proof of the facts necessary for the order directing the judgment-debtor to appear for examination was presented to the judge granting the same. The debtor has appeared pursuant thereto and submitted to examination thereunder, and at the end of that examination, upon motion wherein she has appeared by counsel, a receiver of her property has been appointed. It is now sought to vacate the order for her examination upon the ground that the judgment is not properly entered. It is too late to question the regularity of this proceeding, and the irregularity in the entry of the judgment may not now be questioned. Motion denied, with ten dollars costs. See Curtois v. Harrison, 3 Abb. Pr. 96.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 Misc. 370, 104 N.Y.S. 749, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gerhard-mennen-chemical-co-v-dressner-nynyccityct-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack