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.
George Cochrane's Executor, etc., et al., Appellants, v. Oliver B. Ingersoll, Impleaded, etc., Respondent, 1878 — 73 N.Y. 613 · caselaw · US
General
George Cochrane's Executor, etc., et al., Appellants, v. Oliver B. Ingersoll, Impleaded, etc., Respondent
73 N.Y. 613·New York Court of Appeals·1878·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
George Cochrane’s Executor, etc., et al., Appellants, v. Oliver B. Ingersoll, Impleaded, etc., Respondent.
The provision of the New Code (§ 1241), declaring that “a judgment may be enforced ” in certain specified cases by punishing the judgment-debtor for a contempt, is not imperative; the judgment-creditor has no claim de jure that the power should be exercised. Its exercise is in the discretion of the court to which application is made; and that discretion, when fairly exercised, is not re viewable here.
(Argued April 9, 1878;
decided April 16, 1878.)
This was an appeal from an order of General Term, affirming an order of Special Term, denying a motion for an attachment against defendant Ingersoll as for a contempt. The application was made under section 1241 of the Civil Code, because of alleged refusal on the part of Ingersoll to obey a judgment. Held, as above ; and that, as the discretion of the court below seemed to have been fairly exercised, the order was not appealable.
P. V. R. Stanton for appellants.
Winchester Britton for respondent.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam]
Per Curiam
opinion for dismissal of appeal
All concur.
Appeal dismissed.