Case Name: In the Matter of Proceedings Supplementary to Execution: Arthur Wilson and Francis M. Neale, Respondents, v. Thomas Bracken, Appellant; Impleaded with Layton J. McGhie, Defendant; In the Matter of Proceedings Supplementary to Execution: Arthur Wilson and Francis M. Neale, Respondents, v. Thomas Bracken, Appellant, Impleaded with Layton J. McGhie, Defendant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1912-05-17
Citations: 150 A.D. 577
Docket Number: No. 1; No. 2
Parties: In the Matter of Proceedings Supplementary to Execution: Arthur Wilson and Francis M. Neale, Respondents, v. Thomas Bracken, Appellant; Impleaded with Layton J. McGhie, Defendant. In the Matter of Proceedings Supplementary to Execution: Arthur Wilson and Francis M. Neale, Respondents, v. Thomas Bracken, Appellant, Impleaded with Layton J. McGhie, Defendant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 150
Pages: 577–580

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Proceedings Supplementary to Execution: Arthur Wilson and Francis M. Neale, Respondents, v. Thomas Bracken, Appellant; Impleaded with Layton J. McGhie, Defendant. In the Matter of Proceedings Supplementary to Execution: Arthur Wilson and Francis M. Neale, Respondents, v. Thomas Bracken, Appellant, Impleaded with Layton J. McGhie, Defendant.
(No. 1.)
(No. 2.)
First Department,
May 17, 1912.
Supplementary proceedings — failure to take adjournment — revocation of subpoenas — issuance of subpoenas — when proceeding may be revived — continuing proceeding before another judge—when execution of promissory note may stay proceeding.
An order for the examination of a judgment debtor in a proceeding supplementary to execution was issued on February 7, 1912. The examination after several adjournments was closed on February twenty-sixth and a motion made for the appointment of a receiver, but the, justice declined to pass upon the motion until he had had an opportunity to read the testimony and the matter was adjourned to March first, when the judgment debtor appeared and signed and swore to his testimony. Nothing further was done on that date and no formal adjournment was taken. On March fourth subpoenas were issued to witnesses on the authority of another justice requiring them to appear for examination on March sixth. On March fifth this same justice signed an order adjourning the proceedings from March first to March sixth.
Held, that a motion by the judgment debtor to stay the examination of the witnesses and to vacate the subpoenas upon the ground that the proceeding lapsed on March first should be granted:
That a subpoena must be issued under the hand of the judge or referee before whom the proceeding is pending;
That the proceeding cannot be revived at least without notice to the judgment debtor.
Proceedings supplementary to execution are proceedings before a judge and not before the court, and while a proceeding commenced before one judge may be continued before another, yet it is essential to preserve its continuity by adjournment from time to time.
It seems, that where a judgment creditor has accepted from the debtor a sum in cash and a number of promissory notes for the balance of a judgment, the acceptance of the notes, while not amounting to an actual present satisfaction, may operate to suspend the right of the creditor to continue supplementary proceedings for the collection of the judgment.
Appeal by the defendant, Thomas Bracken, judgment debtor, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 8th day of March, 1912, denying said defendant’s motion to stay the examination of certain witnesses in supplementary proceedings and to vacate subpoenas.
Also, an appeal by the defendant, Thomas Bracken, judgment debtor, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 5th day of April,' 1912, denying the said defendant’s motion to stay the examination of witnesses and to dismiss the proceedings.
Delos McCurdy for the appellant.
John S. Wise, Jr., for the respondents.

Opinion:
Scott, J. :
In this proceeding supplementary to execution the judgment debtor appeals from two orders, each of which denies a motion by him that the - examination of certain witnesses be stayed and the subpoenas issued to compel their attendance vacated-.
The proceeding was instituted by an order for the appellant's examination issued on February 7, 1912. The examination went on from time to time, by virtue of successive adjournments, until February twenty-sixth, when the appellant's examination was closed, and a motion made to Mr. Justice' Davis, before whom the matter was then pending, for the appointment of a receiver. The justice declined to pass upon the motion until he had had an opportunity to read the testimony, and the matter was adjourned to March first, in Order that the testimony might be written out and signed. On March first the appellant appeared before Mr. Justice Davts and signed and swore to his testimony. Nothing further was done on that date and no formal adjournment of the proceedings made. On March fourth subpoenas were issued to two witnesses requiring them to appear and be examined on March sixth. These subpoenas bear the name of Mr. Justice Hendrick and-seem-to have been issued by his authority. ' On March fifth Mr. Justice Hendrick signed an order or memorandum adjourning the proceedings from March first to March sixth, and on March sixth signed another order or memorandum adjourning the proceedings to March twelfth. On this state of facts the first motion was made to vacate the subpoenas upon the ground that the special proceeding had been terminated on March first. We are of opinion that this motion should have been granted. Proceedings supplementary to execution are proceedings before a judge and not before the court, and while a proceeding commenced before one judge may be continued before another (Code Civ. Proc. § 26, 2462), yet it is essential to preserve the .continuity of the proceeding by adjournment from time to time. If this be not done, and the proceedings are allowed to lapse they cannot be revived, at least without notice to the judgment debtor. (Ammidon v. Wolcott, 15 Abb. Pr. 314; Thomas v. Kircher, 15 Abb. Pr. [N. S.] 342.) When Mr. Justice Hendrick issued the subpoenas the proceeding had lapsed and was pending before no judge, and there was consequently no judge competent to issue a subpoena, for such a subpoena must be issued under the hand of the judge or referee before whom the proceeding is pending. (Lowther v. Lowther, 115 App. Div. 307.) It is not necessary to determine whether an order under section 2454 of the Code of Civil Procedure is necessary in order to discontinue a proceeding of this nature. It is sufficient for the purposes of this appeal that the proceeding had clearly lapsed and could be revived only upon • notice to the judgment creditor. Any other rule might work grave injustice. The subpoenas, therefore, were issued without authority and should have been set aside. The appellant's second motion was based upon a showing that he had settled with the judgment creditor, who had executed a satisfaction of the judgment. The exact facts were, as shown by the affidavit of the judgment creditor, that he had accepted from the debtor a sum in cash, and a number of promissory notes for the amount of the judgment, which notes were payable at monthly intervals. The creditor had executed a satisfaction of the judgment which he had placed in the hands of a third person, to be delivered to the debtor when all of the notes were paid. This of course did not amount to an actual, present satisfaction of the judgment, but there is much ground for the appellant's contention that the acceptance of the notes operated to suspend the right of the creditor to continue these proceedings for the collection of the judgment. (Martens-Turner Co. v. Mackintosh, 11 App. Div. 419.) It is unnecessary, however, to discuss that question since the subpoenas were irregular and unauthorized for the reasons already stated.
It follows that both of the orders appealed from must be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements upon each appeal, and the motion to vacate and set aside the subpoenas granted.
Ingraham, P. J., Laughlin, Clarke: and Miller, JJ., concurred.
Orders reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motions granted.