Jesup v. Jones

New York Supreme Court

Jesup v. Jones

32 How. Pr. 191

DecidedJune 15, 1864

StatusPublished

This text of 32 How. Pr. 191 (Jesup v. Jones) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jesup v. Jones, 32 How. Pr. 191 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1864).

Pincite

Opinion

Leonard, J.

held, that on the authority of the general term of this court in this district, in the case of Bingham agt. Disbrow (14 Abb. 251), it is immaterial where the debtor resides at the time the order for his examination is issued ; it is sufficient to confer jurisdiction, if it appear in respect to the residence of the judgment debtor, under the first subdivision of section 292 of the Code, that the execution was issued to the sheriff of the county where he then resided or had a place of business, &c., and as a matter of course it follows that the order must be made returnable before the judge at a time and place specified in the order, “ within the county to which the execution was issued.” The motion was denied, and defendant ordered to go on with his examination. (See also McEwan agt. Burgess, 25 How. 92.)

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

Leonard, J.

held, that on the authority of the general term of this court in this district, in the case of Bingham agt. Disbrow (14 Abb. 251), it is immaterial where the debtor resides at the time the order for his examination is issued ; it is sufficient to confer jurisdiction, if it appear in respect to the residence of the judgment debtor, under the first subdivision of section 292 of the Code, that the execution was issued to the sheriff of the county where he then resided or had a place of business, &c., and as a matter of course it follows that the order must be made returnable before the judge at a time and place specified in the order, “ within the county to which the execution was issued.” The motion was denied, and defendant ordered to go on with his examination. (See also McEwan agt. Burgess, 25 How. 92.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 How. Pr. 191, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jesup-v-jones-nysupct-1864.