In the Matter of the Application of Edward Van Ness, for the Examination of A. Edward Woodruff, in Proceedings Supplementary to Execution; A. Edward Woodruff, Appellant; Edward Van Ness, Respondent

In the Matter of the Application of Edward Van Ness, for the Examination of A. Edward Woodruff, in Proceedings Supplementary to Execution. A. Edward Woodruff, Appellant; Edward Van Ness, Respondent. Supplementa/ry proceedings—■ a judgds order directing the payment of money is not renewable in the first instance on appeal—nor is it, on an appeal from an order adjudging a person in contempt for not obeying it. A judge’s order, made in supplementary proceedings directing the judgment debtor to pay a certain sum of money to a sherifO to be applied upon the judgment creditor’s execution, can, under the provisions of section 2433 of the Code of Civil Procedure, be reviewed, in the first instance, only by the court out of which the execution was issued, upon a motion to vacate or modify it. Upon an appeal from an order adjudging the judgment debtor guilty of contempt in failing to obey such judge’s order, the Appellate Division cannot inquire whether the judge’s order was improvidently or erroneously granted. Appeal hy A. Edward Woodruff from an order of the Supreme Oourt, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 5th day of March, 1897, adjudging him guilty of contempt of court, with notice of an intention to bring up for review an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 1st day of February, 1897, directing him to pay a certain sum of money to the sheriff of the county of New York. A. Edward Woodruff, appellant, in person. Edward G. Eerhins, for the respondent. [MAJORITY — Parker, J.:] Parker, J.: The order appealed from adjudges Woodruff in contempt for failing to pay over to the sheriff $700, to he applied on an execution issued in favor of the respondent Edward Van Ness, as directed by an order made by Mr. Justice Beekman in proceedings supplementary to execution. The notice of appeal also contains a notice that the appellant “ will bring up for review the order entered herein, made on February 1st, 1897, directing the undersigned to pay over the money therein referred to, and from each and every' part of said order.”. ' ' . ' The order to which Such notice refers is a judge’s order in supplementary .proceedings,' and cannot be reviewed on an appeal to this court. ■ Such an order can only be rev-iewecl in the first instance by the court out -of which the execution was issued upon a motion to vacate or modify it. (Code Civ, Proc. § 2433-.) Nor-can the court, on the appeal from the order adjudging the appellant guilty of contempt in failing to obey the judge’s order directing him- to pay over certain moneys, inquire whether the latter order was' improvidently or erroneously granted.. The .Supreme Court justice who made the order had jurisdiction of the subject-matter and of the parties. Tlie order, therefore, was not void. If it was erroneous,. appellant’s remedy was by Way of a motion to vacate or'-modify it; but so long as it remained in force it was his duty to obey it .and the duty óf the court .to enforce obedience to it. (People ex. rel. Day v. Bergen, 53 N. Y. 404; People ex rel. Cauffman v. Van Buren, 136 id. 252; Daly v. Amberg, 126 id., 490.) - The order should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and printing-, disbursements. ' - Van Brunt, P. J., Rumsby, Williams and Patterson, JJ., concurred.' Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs-and disbursements.