Case ID: ny_73/html/0613-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

George Cochrane’s Executor, etc., et al., Appellants, v. Oliver B. Ingersoll, Impleaded, etc., Respondent.
    The provision of the New Code (§ 1241), declaring that “a judgment may be enforced ” in certain specified cases by punishing the judgment-debtor for a contempt, is not imperative; the judgment-creditor has no claim de jure that the power should be exercised. Its exercise is in the discretion of the court to which application is made; and that discretion, when fairly exercised, is not re viewable here.
    (Argued April 9, 1878;
    decided April 16, 1878.)
    This was an appeal from an order of General Term, affirming an order of Special Term, denying a motion for an attachment against defendant Ingersoll as for a contempt. The application was made under section 1241 of the Civil Code, because of alleged refusal on the part of Ingersoll to obey a judgment. Held, as above ; and that, as the discretion of the court below seemed to have been fairly exercised, the order was not appealable.
    P. V. R. Stanton for appellants.
    
      Winchester Britton for respondent.
   Per Curiam

opinion for dismissal of appeal

All concur.

Appeal dismissed.