Case Name: Sarah E. Reese, Plaintiff, v. Thomas J. Reese, Defendant
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1899-10
Citations: 29 Misc. 249
Docket Number: 
Parties: Sarah E. Reese, Plaintiff, v. Thomas J. Reese, Defendant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 29
Pages: 249–250

Head Matter:
Sarah E. Reese, Plaintiff, v. Thomas J. Reese, Defendant.
(Supreme Court, New York Special Term,
October, 1899.)
Alimony — Contempt — Double imprisonment under Code Civ. Pro., § 111.
Section 111 of the Code of Civil Procedure, declaring that a prisoner in a civil action shall not be again imprisoned upon a like process issued in the same action .or arrested in any action upon any judgment under which the same may have been granted, does not pre elude the court from punishing by imprisonment a refusal, to pay alimony granted by a final judgment, of a defendant who • has already been imprisoned for three months for his failure to pay alimony under an interlocutory order, as the statute does not apply where the first commitment was founded upon mesne process and the second upon a final judgment rendered in the came action.
Motion to punish for a contempt.
House, Grossman & Yorhaus (Moses H. Grossman, of counsel), ■for motion.
George W. Dease, opposed.

Opinion:
Giegkebich, J.
To a motion to punish the defendant for contempt for his failure to make payment of alimony and to give an -undertaking to secure future payments, as directed by final decree, it is objected that he has heretofore been imprisoned for three months as the result of proceedings to enforce an interlocutory order for the payment of alimony in the action, and an exemption is claimed under section 111 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under the authorities, the inhibition of the statute, with regard to the successive terms of imprisonment, does not apply where the earlier commitment was founded upon mesne process, and a second commitment is ordered under final judgment in the same action. Levy v. Salomon, 12 Civ. Pro. 125; affd., 105 N. Y. 529; Warshauer v. Webb, 10 Civ. Pro. 169. The case of Winton v. Winton, 53 Hun, 4; affd., 117 N. Y. 623, cited for the respondent, involved the question only of the right to a second commitment under the same judgment, and; therefore, does not suggest a different rule. Ho opposition being presented upon the merits, the motion is granted.
Motion granted.