Case Name: William H. Browning, Respondent, v. Helen E. Chadwick, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1900-02
Citations: 30 Misc. 420
Docket Number: 
Parties: William H. Browning, Respondent, v. Helen E. Chadwick, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 30
Pages: 420–421

Head Matter:
William H. Browning, Respondent, v. Helen E. Chadwick, Appellant.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,
February, 1900.)
Supplementary proceeding — Contempt in disposition of property.
It is a contempt for a judgment debtor, under restraint in supplementary proceedings, to cause her subtenant to pay rent, due the judgment debtor, to the owner of the fee — the record failing to show that the subtenant made the payment on her own behalf, or for the protection of her possession.
Browning v. Chadwick, 29 Mise. Rep. 607, affirmed.
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the General Term of the City Court, affirming an order of the Special Term, adjudging the defendant guilty of contempt.
Howe & Hummel, for appellant.
Clarence E. Thornall, for respondent.

Opinion:
MacLean, J.
The defendant is in contempt for disposing of property while under inhibition in supplementary proceedings. At the time of the service of the order for her examination, she was the owner of a lease of certain premises, relet by her to another; with a right to receive the rent therefor and to re-enter in case of default. Kent to her was paid, and, during the period' of her restraint, the under-tenant came to pay the rent for one of the months of the term, hut the defendant had left word that payment he made to the superior landlord, the owner of the fee, and this was done. For this the defendant was properly adjudged in contempt, and the record failing to show that such payment was made by the under-tenant to the superior landlord on her own behalf or for the protection of her possession, hut merely in obedience to the directions of the defendant and on her behalf, the rule stated in Peck v. Ingersoll, 7 N. Y. 528, and now invoked by the appellant, has no application. The order must he affirmed.
Freedman, P. J., concurs; Leventritt, J., concurs in result.
Order affirmed, with costs.