Case Name: Edwin M. Jackson and Robert G. Jackson, Respondents, v. Catherine Murray, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1898-01
Citations: 25 A.D. 140
Docket Number: 
Parties: Edwin M. Jackson and Robert G. Jackson, Respondents, v. Catherine Murray, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 25
Pages: 140–141

Head Matter:
Edwin M. Jackson and Robert G. Jackson, Respondents, v. Catherine Murray, Appellant.
Injunction order in supplementwry proceedings—drawing money, standing in the name of the drawer in trust for another, in a savings hank — when it is a contempt of court.
The withdrawal from a savings hank of money deposited in the name of “ Catherine Murray, in trust for Julia Murray,” if made hy Catherine Murray, after she has been served with an injunction order in proceedings supplementary to. execution, renders her guilty of a.conteinpt of court.
Appeal by the defendant, Catherine Murray, from an order of the City Court of Yofficers, entered in the office of the clerk of said court on the 13th day of October, 1897, adjudging the defendant guilty of contempt of court in violating an injunction order issued in proceedings supplementary to execution.
Adrian M. Potter, for the appellant.
F. F. Donoghue, for the respondents.

Opinion:
Hatch, J.:
The defendant has been adjudged guilty of contempt for causing to be drawn out a sum of money, which was deposited in the People's Savings Bank of Yonkers, after the service upon her of the injunction order herein. The money was deposited in the bank in the name of " Catherine Murray, in trust for Julia Murray." It may be true that the equitable title to the money was in the cestui que trust. (Cunningham v. Davenport, 147 N. Y. 43.) It is equally true that a court would lie authorized to find upon the evidence, in a proper action, that the money was in fact the property of Catherine Murray. But however this may be, she was invested with the legal title of the money when the order was served and when the same was drawn out. Her act in transferring the fund was, therefore, a violation of the order within the authority of People v. Kingsland (3 Keyes, 325), and authorized the order which was made.
The. order should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
All concurred.
Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.