Case ID: ny-super-ct_6/html/0640-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Duer, J., Oakley, Ch. J.)", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The People v. Norton.
    To warrant the examination of a party alleged to have in his possession-property of a judgment debtor, it is not necessary that the execution should issue to the county where such debtor resides.
    It suffices that the execution is to the county where the property is expected to he found, and where the person resides who is charged with having it in his possession.
    August 26, 1851.
    An execution upon the judgment in this oase had been issued to the sheriff of the- city and county of New York, and upon the usual affidavit an order had been granted for the examination of A. B., who was alleged to have property of the debtor in his possession. A. B. attended, but-objected to being examined upon the ground that to give jurisdiction to the court, the execution ought to have been issued to Kings County, in which it was admitted that the debtor resided.
    
      W. Watson, for the plaintiffs.
    
      Q. Clark, for the party summoned.
   Duer, J.,

(with the concurrence of

Oakley, Ch. J.)

To warrant the examination of the judgment debtor himself, after the execution has been returned, it 'must appear that it was issued to the county in which the debtor resided. But section 249 of the code, (§ 292 Amend. Code,) under which this order was granted, imposes no such condition. The object of an ex-animation before the return of tbe execution is the discovery of property upon which it may be levied, and it is therefore properly issued to the county in which such property is expected to be found, and where the agent or trustee of the debtor, who is alleged to have it in possession, is known to reside. The examination must proceed.