Case ID: ny-sup-ct_10/html/0221-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CHARLES W. BARTLETT, Appellant, v. ALEXANDER McNEIL, Respondent.
    Appeal from two orders made at the Special Term, one allowing an amendment to the judgment roll in this action, and the other denying a motion to require the defendant to appear and be examined, under section 292 of the Code.
    The General Term held that the first order was proper, as it simply made the roll conform to the conceded tacts of the case, and that the second order was also correct, as-the judgment was not one in personam, and as it is only on such judgments that supplementary proceedings are authorized by the Code.
    
      John 11. Bergen, for the appellant.
    
      Beebe, Wilcox dc Hobbs, for the respondent.
   Opinion by Davis, P. J.

Daniels and Lawrence, JJ., concurred.

Both orders affirmed, with ten dollars costs on each appeal, together with disbursements.