Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
In the Matter of the Application to Punish Frances A. Backus, Respondent, for a Contempt of Court. Henry D. Merchant, Appellant, 1904 — 179 N.Y. 571 · caselaw · US
General
In the Matter of the Application to Punish Frances A. Backus, Respondent, for a Contempt of Court. Henry D. Merchant, Appellant
179 N.Y. 571·New York Court of Appeals·1904·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
In the Matter of the Application to Punish Frances A. Backus, Respondent, for a Contempt of Court. Henry D. Merchant, Appellant.
Matter of Backus, 91 App. Div. 266, affirmed.
(Argued October 5, 1904;
decided October 25, 1904.)
Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered February 24, 1904, which reversed an order of Special Term granting a motion to punish the respondent herein for a contempt of court.
The following question was certified :
“ Has the Supreme Court, at a Special Term held in the county of Hew York, jurisdiction to punish a judgment debtor as for a contempt in refusing to answer questions and to obey the direction of a referee appointed in proceedings supplementary to execution instituted before a county judge of Rensselaer county, the judgment having been docketed in such county, and an execution having been issued to the sheriff of such county and returned unsatisfied, and the referee having been appointed by the county judge before whom the special proceeding was pending and the reference proceeding in the county in which the referee was appointed; the judgment having been rendered by the Supreme Court at Hew York county ? ”
Abel Merohemt, Jr., and Henry D. Merchant, in person, for appellant.
Thomas O'Connor and John L. Hill for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Order affirmed, with costs, on prevailing opinion below, and question certified answered in the negative.
Concur: Cullen, Cli. J., O’Brien, Martin, Vann and Werner, JJ. Absent: Gray and Haight, JJ.