Case Name: In re DAWES; HODDICK et al. v. ELLIOTT
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1905-10-18
Citations: 96 N.Y.S. 52
Docket Number: 
Parties: In re DAWES. HODDICK et al. v. ELLIOTT.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 96
Pages: 52–56

Head Matter:
nos App. Div. 174)
In re DAWES. HODDICK et al. v. ELLIOTT.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
October 18, 1905.)
Execution—Supplemental Proceedings—Order—Service.
Code Civ. Proe. § 425, pertaining to the service of summons in an action, provides that it may be served by any person other than a party to the action. Section 433 provides that the provisions of the article relating to the service of a summons are applicable to the service of any process or other paper, whereby a special proceeding Is commenced, except where special provisions for the service are made. By section 2432, subd. 3. the examination of a person having property of a judgment debtor or indebted to him is a special proceeding. Section 2452 points out the manner in which the order must be served, but does not designate the person to make the service, and provides that the order must be exhibited to the person to be served and a copy thereof and of the affidavit must be delivered to him. Section 2520, providing for the service of process in proceedings in Surrogate’s Courts, expressly provides that it may be made by a party to the special proceeding, held, that a judgment creditor may not serve an order for the examination of a third person in supplemental proceedings.
McLennan, P. J., dissenting.
Appeal from Special Term, Erie County.
Action by Frederick C. J. Hoddick and another against Rachel E. Elliott. Appeal by plaintiffs from an order setting aside the service of an order for the examination of Charles S. a third
Affirmed.
Argued before McLENNAN, P. J./and SPRING, WILLIAMS, .and HISCOCK, JJ.
Arthur W. Hickman, for appellants.
Joel Russell, for respondent.

Opinion:
SPRING, J.
The plaintiffs in the action recovered a judgment against Rachel Elliott. present proceeding was commenced with the granting of an order by the county judge of Erie county, pursuant to subdivision 3, § 2432, Code Civ. Proc., for the examination of Dawes, upon an affidavit showing that he had property of the judgment debtor. The order was served on Dawes personally by one of the judgment creditors. Dawes did not appear, but subsequently upon his application the service was set aside by the county judge. The only question for review is whether the service of the order by the judgment creditor was proper.
Section 425 of the Code of Civil Procedure, pertaining to the service of a summons in an action, provides that it may be served "by person other than a party to the action." Section 433 is as follows:
"The provisions of this article, relating to the mode of service of a summons, apply likewise to the service of and process or other paper, whereby a special proceeding is commenced in a court, or before an officer, except where special provision for the service thereof is otherwise made by law."
This proceeding is a special proceeding. Section 2433, Code Civ. Proc. Section 2452 sets forth the manner in which the Order must be served, but does not designate the person who may or may not make the service. The éffect of the Code provisions, therefore, is that primarily the process by which an action or special proceeding is commenced cannot be served by a party to the action or proceeding, unless the Code otherwise directs. The prohibition is general, and in order to sustain service by a party some explicit authority should be found bringing the case within the excepted special provision.
Section 24152 does contain certain requirements essential to the valid service of an order in supplementary proceedings not applicable to the service of a summons. None of these provisions pertain to the person by whom the order may be served. The prohibition against the party in section 425 therefore obtains, because there is no provision "otherwise made by law," and which is necessary to create the exception. While the manner of service has been provided for, yet the clause just referred to seems fairly to imply that the distinct inhibition against a party making service in section 425 is applicable, unless the contrary explicitly appears. Some support for this construction may be found in the practice relating to the commencement of a proceeding in Surrogate's Court, which is a special proceeding commenced by a citation (section 2516), and to which title 1, containing the sections referred to relating to the service of summons, is applicable. Code Civ. Proc. § 2538.
Section 2520 provides for the manner of serving this process, but distinctly provides it may be made by a party to the special proceeding. If the fact that it designates the manner in which service is to be made destroys the effect of sections 425 and 433, prohibiting a party from serving process, it would be unnecessary to provide in terms that a party may serve a citation. There is full as much reason for inhibiting a party from making service of the order in supplementary proceedings as of the summons. There is no-complication in serving a summons, while certain additional requirements are necessary in serving an order for proceedings supplemental to execution. Section 2452.
Again, disobedience of the order is punishable "as for a contempt." Section 2457. In proceedings to punish for disobeying the order, if served by a party, the temptation to prevaricate would be extended, and unseemly controversies over the manner of service would be frequent. Public policy would seem to require fairly strict adherence to the general rule of prohibition, unless the given case is clearly within the exception mentioned, in section 433.
The order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur, except McLENNAN, P. J., who dissents in an opinion.