Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year eighteen hundred and sixty-two, BY NATHAN HOWARD, JR., In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the Southern District of New York. Rec Nov 22.1862 281 Imbert agt. Hallock.... 456 Chatham Bank agt. Betts................... 476 In the matter of Geo. W. Cavanagh, 358 Clapp agt. Lathrop.. 423 Connecticut Mutual Life Assurance Co. agt. Cleveland, &c. R. R. Co. Crounse agt. Fitch.... 180 In the matter of Sam'l D. Babcock, 118 350 Morris agt. Third Avenue R. R. Co. 345 Staats agt. Hudson River R. R. Co. 463 Mullins agt. People. ...... 484 Smith agt. Smith... 331 Springstead agt. Lawson 289 Stewart agt. Ranney 134 410 Stoddard agt. Graham ... 314 ...... 93 People agt. Wilcox.. .............. 452 109 PRACTICE REPORTS. SUPREME COURT. JOHN D. LIVINGSTON agt. JAMES SWIFT. An order of a judge in supplementary proceedings discharging a defendant from an order to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt, is appealable. Where the defendant in supplementary proceedings has knowledge of an injunction, information of its contents, and was present in court when it was made, it is sufficient to impose upon him the duty of obeying it, at least so far as the pecuniary rights of the plaintiff are concerned, although in making service upon the defendant the original injunction order was not exhibited to him. Albany General Term, December, 1861. GOULD, HOGEBOOM and PECKHAM, Justices. APPEAL from an order made by the Albany county judge on proceedings supplementary to execution and discharging defendant from an order to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt. The leading facts are as follows: An order was made in this action, on an affidavit on behalf of plaintiff's assignor, by which the judge appointed E. Newcomb, Esq. to take the examination of defendant and return the same to the judge. The order contained the usual restraining clause forbidding a transfer or other disposition of the property of the judgment debtor not exempt from execution, and any interference therewith. (Code, § 298.) The order was served upon defendant, and the affidavit set forth that a copy of the same had been served upon defendant, and the original at the same time had been exhibited to him. On VOL. XXIII. 1 |