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.
General
Charles Pardee, Respondent, v. David Tilton et al., Appellants
83 N.Y. 623·New York Court of Appeals·1881·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
Charles Pardee, Respondent, v. David Tilton et al., Appellants.
(Argued January 18, 1881;
decided January 25, 1881.)
Plaintiff obtained judgment in this action, the venue in which was laid, and judgment-roll filed, in Onondaga county. The defendants resided in the city of New York. In supplementary proceedings an order was granted by a justice of the fifth judicial district, appointing a referee, residing in the city of New York, to take the examination of the defendants, and directing all further proceedings to be had before Judge Donohue in the first judicial district. The defendants failed to appear before the referee as required by the order. An order was thereupon granted by Judge Donohue, requiring defendants to show cause why they should not be punished as for contempt. On the return day defendants appeared by counsel. The judge made an order substituting another referee in place of the one named in the original order, and directing the defendants to appear and answer before said referee at a time stated, and directing the contempt proceedings to stand over until after such examination. To review this order this appeal was brought.
The court say: “ Judge Donohue had power to make the order appealed from. Whether he should exercise this power rested in his discretion, and the order is not, therefore, reviewable here.”
Samuel J. Crooks for appellants.
Edward T. Bartlett for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Per curiam opinion for dismissal of appeal.
All concur.
Appeal dismissed.