Case ID: nys_92/html/0238-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SIEGEL et al. v. SOLOMON et al.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    February 23, 1905.)
    Contempt of Court—Appeal—Final Order.
    On motion to punish.a third party for contempt for falling to appear and submit to an examination pursuant to an order of a justice, an order requiring such party to appear and submit to an examination, otherwise the commitment to issue, was not a final order, and no appeal therefrom would; lie.
    [Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 10, Cent. Dig. Contempt, § 224.]
    Appeal from City, Court of New York, Special Term.
    Proceedings by Moses I. Siegel and another against Oscar L. Solomon, in which there was an order directing the examination of Morris W. Solomon. From an order directing that unless said Morris W. Solomon submit to an examination a commitment would issue for contempt of court, he appeals. Dismissed.
    Argued before SCOTT, GIEGERICH, and McCALL, JJ.
    Alfred B. Jaworower, for appellant.
    Julius G. Kremer, for respondents.
   PER CURIAM.

This appeal is premature. The order is not final, but merely interlocutory and conditional. It does not adjudge the appellant guilty of contempt, and for lack of proper adjudication it is obvious that no commitment can issue upon it. Before the appellant can be committed, another order must be made, and from that an appeal will lie. Non constat that on an application for such an order something may appear to the court which will cause it to withhold the order. Brinkley v. Brinkley, 47 N. Y. 40; Greite v. Hendricks (Sup.) 24 N. Y. Supp. 546.

The appeal must be dismissed, with $10 costs and disbursements.