Lett v. Beacham

New York Supreme Court

Lett v. Beacham

18 N.Y.S. 748, 71 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 62, 46 N.Y. St. Rep. 51

DecidedApril 14, 1892

StatusPublished

This text of 18 N.Y.S. 748 (Lett v. Beacham) 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

Lett v. Beacham, 18 N.Y.S. 748, 71 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 62, 46 N.Y. St. Rep. 51 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Without disposing of the other questions raised upon this appeal as to the sufficiency of the affidavit,-there is one respect in which it appears to be fatally defective, and to require a reversal of the order. Section 2436 of the Code requires that, in order to obtain an order requiring the judgment debtor to be examined concerning his property in aid of the execution the judgment creditor must prove to the court that the judgment debtor has property which he unjustly refuses to apply towards the satisfaction of the judgment. Such proof must show that a-demand of the application of the property to the payment of the judgment has been made, otherwise no refusal can be established. This is the rule which has been laid down in the cases of Bank v. Wilson, 13 Hun, 232, and Hutson v. Weld, 38 Hun, 142. The-order should be reversed, and the order for the examination dismissed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

Without disposing of the other questions raised upon this appeal as to the sufficiency of the affidavit,-there is one respect in which it appears to be fatally defective, and to require a reversal of the order. Section 2436 of the Code requires that, in order to obtain an order requiring the judgment debtor to be examined concerning his property in aid of the execution the judgment creditor must prove to the court that the judgment debtor has property which he unjustly refuses to apply towards the satisfaction of the judgment. Such proof must show that a-demand of the application of the property to the payment of the judgment has been made, otherwise no refusal can be established. This is the rule which has been laid down in the cases of Bank v. Wilson, 13 Hun, 232, and Hutson v. Weld, 38 Hun, 142. The-order should be reversed, and the order for the examination dismissed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 N.Y.S. 748, 71 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 62, 46 N.Y. St. Rep. 51, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lett-v-beacham-nysupct-1892.