Schmelze v. Mackey

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Schmelze v. Mackey

144 Misc. 67, 258 N.Y.S. 38, 1932 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1160

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 17, 1932

StatusPublished

This text of 144 Misc. 67 (Schmelze v. Mackey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Schmelze v. Mackey, 144 Misc. 67, 258 N.Y.S. 38, 1932 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1160 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The court had no power under section 793 of the Civil Practice Act to direct the judgment debtor to turn over property, the ownership of which was in dispute. (Rodman v. Henry, 17 N. Y. 482.) Nor was the judgment debtor in contempt by reason of a transfer which is not shown to have been made after the restraining order and which is affirmatively shown to have been made before the restraining order was served.

Order modified by granting only so much of the motion as asks for the delivery of the certificate of ownership of a seat on the California Stock Exchange, and as modified affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to appellant, to be set off against the judgment.

All concur; present, Levy, Callahan and Untermyer, JJ.

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

Per Curiam.

The court had no power under section 793 of the Civil Practice Act to direct the judgment debtor to turn over property, the ownership of which was in dispute. (Rodman v. Henry, 17 N. Y. 482.) Nor was the judgment debtor in contempt by reason of a transfer which is not shown to have been made after the restraining order and which is affirmatively shown to have been made before the restraining order was served.

Order modified by granting only so much of the motion as asks for the delivery of the certificate of ownership of a seat on the California Stock Exchange, and as modified affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to appellant, to be set off against the judgment.

All concur; present, Levy, Callahan and Untermyer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 Misc. 67, 258 N.Y.S. 38, 1932 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schmelze-v-mackey-nyappterm-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack