Case Name: OLIVER W. BUCKINGHAM and LEONARD PURDSON, Jr., Appellants, v. EDWARD WHITE and Others, Defendants, and CHARLES G. KEYS, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1881-10
Citations: 32 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 441
Docket Number: 
Parties: OLIVER W. BUCKINGHAM and LEONARD PURDSON, Jr., Appellants, v. EDWARD WHITE and Others, Defendants, and CHARLES G. KEYS, Respondent.
Judges: Present — Davis, P. J., Brady and Daniels, JJ.
Reporter: Supreme Court Reports (Hun)
Volume: 32
Pages: 441–441

Head Matter:
OLIVER W. BUCKINGHAM and LEONARD PURDSON, Jr., Appellants, v. EDWARD WHITE and Others, Defendants, and CHARLES G. KEYS, Respondent.
Attachment — examination of apa/rty refusing to give a certificate of the property of the debtor held by hvm — what proceedings may be taken against him — Oode of Oml Procedure, secs. 650, 651.
Appeal by the plaintiffs from an order denying an application made on their behalf, for an order requiring Charles G. Keys to furnish a certificate or statement of the property of the defendants, alleged to have been seized under an attachment.
The court at General Term said: “ It was made to appear that Keys had been requested and had refused to make the certificate specified in section 650 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Because of that refusal he was required to appear and submit to an examination under oath, and that examination appears by the recital in the order to have taken place. After that there seems to have been no authority which the court could have been required to exercise for the purpose of obliging the respondent to make and deliver the certificate. The remedy of the plaintiffs, on the contrary, was precisely that which was adopted by them of examining him under oath as to the facts and circumstances, which they were entitled to have discovered under the authority of section 651 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
That remedy they have taken, and it was a consummation of all that the Code had prescribed concerning such a proceeding. The respondent could not after that be ordered to make the certificate which he had previously refused to give, and as a consequence thereof had been subjected to an examination under oath on the application of the plaintiffs.”
John J. Adams, for the appellants.
Francis S. Bangs for Keys, respondent.
See post, page 577.

Opinion:
Opinion
Per Curiam.
Present — Davis, P. J., Brady and Daniels, JJ.
Order affirmed.