Milliken v. Thomson

22 Jones & S. 393, 8 N.Y. St. Rep. 106
CourtThe Superior Court of New York City
DecidedMay 2, 1887
StatusPublished

This text of 22 Jones & S. 393 (Milliken v. Thomson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of New York City primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Milliken v. Thomson, 22 Jones & S. 393, 8 N.Y. St. Rep. 106 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1887).

Opinion

By the Court.—Sedgwick, Ch. J.

The appeal should be dismissed. The order is not appealable. It affected no substantial right of defendant. He was called upon by it to do no more than give a name in answer to the question. This affected no interest of his except upon the supposition that the answer might lead to the making of an order that would competently require the application of property of defendant, to payment of the judgment.

It is not necessary to examine the questions that would arise if the order were appealable. It may be further said, however, that proceedings supplementary to execution are not a part of an action and the order should not have been entitled in the action.

Appeal dismissed with $10 costs.

O’Gorman, J., concurred.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
22 Jones & S. 393, 8 N.Y. St. Rep. 106, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/milliken-v-thomson-nysuperctnyc-1887.