Case ID: ny-city-ct-rep_2/html/0298-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "McAdam, Ch. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

City Court.
    
      Special Term
    
    May, 1886.
    VREDENBERGH et al against BEUMONT.
    Where an order to examine a debtor is founded on the fact that he resides in this county, and the debtor moves to vacate it on the ground that he resides in another State,.—Seld, that, as in either case the plaintiff was entitled to the order, the motion must be denied.
   McAdam, Ch. J.

Plaintiff's affidavit in supplementary proceedings charges that the • defendant resides in New York, and does business in that county. The defendant moves to vacate the order, on the ground that he does not reside or do business in ¡New York, but resides in Pennsylvania. In either case, the order for examination is proper {Code, § 2458), andas the affidavits on either side establish the right to the order, though' on different grounds, it cannot be vacated.

The examination, must, therefore, proceed.