Case Name: In the Matter of the Supplementary Proceedings of Clifford W. Higley and Lewis T. Barber, Judgment Creditors, Respondents, v. William Novark and Ida Novark, Judgment Debtors, Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1911-05-16
Citations: 145 A.D. 7
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Supplementary Proceedings of Clifford W. Higley and Lewis T. Barber, Judgment Creditors, Respondents, v. William Novark and Ida Novark, Judgment Debtors, Appellants.
Judges: All concurred.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 145
Pages: 7–8

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Supplementary Proceedings of Clifford W. Higley and Lewis T. Barber, Judgment Creditors, Respondents, v. William Novark and Ida Novark, Judgment Debtors, Appellants.
Third Department,
May 16, 1911.
Supplementary proceedings — when referee disqualified.
An attorney at law holding an unsatisfied judgment against a debtor should not be appointed a referee to take evidence in supplementary proceedings brought against the debtor by another creditor. '
Appeal by the defendants, William Hovark and another, from an order of the County Court of Warren county, entered in the office of the clerk of said county on the 9 th day of March, 1911, denying the defendants’ motion to change the referee appointed to take evidence in proceedings supplementary to execution against said defendants upon the ground that said referee as attorney had recovered a judgment against them which.remained unpaid and was in his hands for collection.
Henry W. Williams, for the appellants.
Rogers & Sawyer, for the respondents.

Opinion:
Per Curiam:
Rule 79 of the General Rules of Practice prohibits, except as therein mentioned, the appointment of any person as referee for any purpose in an action unless he ⅛ an attorney, and he must not be a partner or clerk of the attorney or counsel of the party in whose behalf such application is made or in any way connected in business with or occupy the same office with such attorney or counsel.'
This case is not within the express language of that rule, but is fairly within its spirit. The object of the rule is- to obtain a referee who is competent and who has no interest adverse to the party brought before' him: It is true, as alleged, that the referee in these proceedings has but very little to do,- but it is unseemly that a creditor should be brought before an officer of the court for examination at the instance of a party seeking to collect a claim when that officer is also seeking to collect a claim from him. It is unnecessary to consider in what respect the interest of the referee might prejudice the; defendant. It is sufficient to say that such an appointment is hot in the interest of. the due administration of justice. The order appealed from is, therefore, reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to be credited on judgment, and the matter remitted to the county judge to name a disinterested person as referee. '
All concurred.
Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, to. be credited on judgment, and the matter .remitted to the county judge to name a disinterested person as referee.