General
Adolf Prince, Appellant, v. Patrick W. Brett, Respondent
21 A.D. 190·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·1897·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
Adolf Prince, Appellant, v. Patrick W. Brett, Respondent.
Supplementary proceedings — contempt of court—moneys, received in his business by a saloon keeper, a/re not earnings from his personal services.
Moneys received by a saloon keeper in the conduct of his business, from the sale of his stock, cannot be regarded as earnings from his personal services, and where he pays out such moneys in defiance of an injunction, obtained in proceedings supplementary to execution which have been instituted against him, he is guilty of contempt.
Appeal by the plaintiff, Adolf Prince, a judgment creditor, from an order of the Supreme Court,'made at the Westchester Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Westchester on the 16th day of July, 1897, denying his motion to punish the defendant, a judgment debtor, for contempt, for disobedience of an order forbidding any transfer of his property.
Samuel D. Lasky, for the appellant.
William J. Marshall, for the respondent.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam :]
Per Curiam :
The defendant, a saloon keeper, admitted that, subsequent to the service upon him of the injunction order, he paid away moneys received by him in the conduct of his business from the sale of his stock. It is urged . that these moneys were not his own, but the property of the brewer whose agent, it is claimed, he was. The defendant’s examination fails to show that his relation to the brewer was that of agent to principal. On the contrary, .it distinctly appears that the relation between the parties was merely that of debtor and creditor. Money received by a saloon keeper in the conduct of his business cannot be regarded as earnings from his personal services. (Mulford v. Gibbs, 9 App. Div. 490.) The debtor violated the injunction, and the motion should have .been granted.
All concurred.
Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Motion granted, and proceedings remitted to Special Term to fix the amount of fine to be imposed on defendant.