Case ID: ny-st-rep_15/html/0864-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Dykman, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Thomas M. King et al., Resp’ts, v. William C. Carpenter et al., App’lts.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
    
    
      Filed May 14, 1888.)
    
    Contempt oe court—What punished as.
    The intentional neglect of an order of court directing a party to perform certain acts will be punished as a contempt of court.
    Appeal from those parts of an order made by a special term in Dutchess county, which adjudge the defendants in contempt and punish them therefor.
    
      John H. Post, for app’lts; McFarland, Boardman & Platt, for resp’ts.
   Dykman, J.

-—This is an appeal from an order inflicting punishment for - contempt upon certain defendants in this action.

The cause has been before the court at different times (see 12 N. Y. State Rep., 642; 11 id., 885; 10 id., 870), and all the questions involved have been decided in favor of the plaintiffs, and these appealing defendants, with others, were ordered to do certain acts, which they neglected to perform, and for such neglect the order from which this appeal is taken, was made for their punishment.

No new question is presented now, and the defendants were clearly in contempt for failing to comply with the directions of the court.

The appellants claim that the affidavit, upon which the order appealed from was based, was insufficient for its support, but the claim is unfounded. The facts stated are ample to show an intentional neglect to obey the court and a refusal to grant the order appealed from would have been tantamount to a refusal to execute the judgment and vindicate the order of the court.

The order should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Pratt, J., concurs.