Case Name: Fred Baker, Resp't, v. Edward Brundage, Def't; Charles Collins, App'lt, v. Same, Def't
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1894-06-18
Citations: 61 N.Y. St. Rep. 498
Docket Number: 
Parties: Fred Baker, Resp’t, v. Edward Brundage, Def’t. Charles Collins, App’lt, v. Same, Def’t.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 61
Pages: 498–499

Head Matter:
Fred Baker, Resp’t, v. Edward Brundage, Def’t. Charles Collins, App’lt, v. Same, Def’t.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
Filed June 18, 1894.)
Supplementary proceedings—Irregularities—Who can object.
The judgment debtor alone, and not another judgment creditor, can object to irregularities in the appointment of a receiver.
Appeal from an order denying a motion by plaintiff in second action to vacate supplementary proceedings had by plaintiff in first action.
L. S. Sterritt, for app’lt; A. H. F. Seeger, for resp’t.

Opinion:
Dykman, J.
—The plaintiff in the first of these actions obtained a judgment against the defendant therein, on the 16th day of January, 1893, for $1,145.90, and an execution was issued thereon to the sheriff of Orange county on the same day. On the 27th day of July, 1893, proceedings supplementary to execution were instituted upon the judgment. The affidavit upon which such proceedings were based stated that the execution upon the judgment had been returned unsatisfied, but the fact was otherwise. The judgment-debtor was examined under the proceedings, and a receiver was appointed by his consent. On the 20th day of November, 1893, the plaintiff in the second action obtained a judgment against the defendant, for $493, and execution thereon was issued to the sheriff of Orange county, which was returned unsatisfied on the same day. Thereafter, on the 8th day of February, 1894, proceedings supplementary to execution were instituted upon that judgment, which were adjourned to afford time for a motion on behalf of Collins, the plaintiff in the second judgment, to set aside the order appointing a receiver in the first action, upon the ground that the execution issued upon the judg ment therein had not been returned at the time when the proceedings were commenced. The motion was denied, and an appeal has been taken from the order of denial. It is unnessary to examine the irregularities set up by the appellant, because none but the judgment-debtor can take advantage of them. Underwood v. Sutcliffe, 10 Hun, 453, and cases cited. The defendant himself has waived all irregularities by consenting to the appointment of the receiver in the first action.
The order should be affirmed, with §10 costs and disbursements.