Summary
In Browning v. Chadwick (30 Misc. 420, Appellate Term, First Department, 1900) Peck v. Ingersoll is cited with approval, but the facts in that case are distinguished from those in Peck v. Ingersoll.
Summary of this case from Sokolow v. MeyerOpinion
February, 1900.
Howe Hummel, for appellant.
Clarence E. Thornall, for respondent.
The defendant is in contempt for disposing of property while under inhibition in supplementary proceedings. At the time of the service of the order for her examination, she was the owner of a lease of certain premises, relet by her to another, with a right to receive the rent therefor and to re-enter in case of default. Rent to her was paid, and, during the period of her restraint, the under-tenant came to pay the rent for one of the months of the term, but the defendant had left word that payment be made to the superior landlord, the owner of the fee, and this was done. For this the defendant was properly adjudged in contempt, and the record failing to show that such payment was made by the under-tenant to the superior landlord on her own behalf or for the protection of her possession, but merely in obedience to the directions of the defendant and on her behalf, the rule stated in Peck v. Ingersoll, 7 N.Y. 528, and now invoked by the appellant, has no application. The order must be affirmed.
FREEDMAN, P.J., concurs; LEVENTRITT, J., concurs in result.
Order affirmed, with costs.