Case Name: Bartholomay Brewery Company, Respondent, v. Dennis O'Brien et al., Defendants. Hugh J. O'Brien, Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1917-01-30
Citations: 220 N.Y. 587
Docket Number: 
Parties: Bartholomay Brewery Company, Respondent, v. Dennis O’Brien et al., Defendants. Hugh J. O’Brien, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 220
Pages: 587–587

Head Matter:
Bartholomay Brewery Company, Respondent, v. Dennis O’Brien et al., Defendants. Hugh J. O’Brien, Appellant.
Bartholomay Brewery Co. v. O'Brien, 172 App. Div. 784, affirmed.
(Argued January 11, 1917;
decided January 30, 1917.)
Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered May 3, 1916, which affirmed an order of Special Term adjudging the appellant herein and the defendants guilty of contempt of court for unlawful interference with the carrying out of the judgment of the court. This action was brought for the foreclosure of the plaintiff’s lien upon a liquor tax certificate issued in the name of the defendant Dennis O’Brien. At the close of the trial the court announced its decision directing the foreclosure of the plaintiff’s lien and directing the delivery of the liquor tax certificate to a referee to sell to satisfy that lien. After the decision was announced, and before judgment could be entered the defendants under the advice and direction of their attorney, the appellant, procured the issuance to the defendant Carroll of a new liquor tax certificate for the same premises. The liquor tax certificate issued in the name of the defendant O’Brien was thus rendered valueless, except for the rebate of the tax, since it would be impossible for the purchaser at the foreclosure sale to avail himself of his purchase by transferring the certificate to other premises. The following question was certified: “Upon the facts disclosed by the record, was the Special Term authorized to, and justified in making the order adjudging the appellant Hugh J. O’Brien guilty of civil contempt ? ”
Hugh J. O'Brien for appellant.
Clarence P. Moser for respondent.

Opinion:
Order affirmed, with costs, and question certified answered in the affirmative; no opinion.
Concur: Hiscock, Oh. J., Chase, Collin, Cuddeback, Hogan, Oardozo and Pound, JJ.