Majority
Headnote
1 SUPPLEMENTARY PROCEEDINGS — INJUNCTION AGAINST DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY BY DEBTOR — PROPERTY ACQUIRED SUBSEQUENTLY NOT INCLUDED —Code Civ. Pro., §§ '2435, 2469.The plaintiff, a judgment creditor of the defendant, instituted supplementary proceedings against the latter, under Section 2435 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and ob
The plaintiff contended before the county judge, and now contends, that such payment was a violation of the injunction order, and rendered the defendant liable to be punished for a contempt. We think the county judge was right in deciding adversely to that contention. The money and the note were acquired subsequently to the service of the order, and not being owned by the debtor at that time, the order did not apply to them. This holding accords with numerous decisions under the old code. (Potter v. Low, 16 How. Pr. R., 549; Campbell v. Genet, 2 Hilt., 290; Graff v. Bonnett, 25 How. Pr. R., 470; Caton v. Southwell, 13 Barb., 335 .) We do not understand that the rule has been changed by the present code. (See. Sec. 2469, C. C. P., and Throop’s note to same.)
Furthermore, the injunction order in this case did not apply to the money and note in the hands of the judgment debtor, for the reason that they were the proceeds of property sold by him, which was exempt from execution, and the exemption attached to such proceeds, for a reasonable time. (Tillotson v. Wolcott, 48 N. Y., 188 .) The affidavit read in opposition to the plaintiff's motion, shows that the defendant had a family dependent' on him for support, and that the team of which the sorrel horse was one, was necessary to him in his business, The horse, consequently, was exempt. (Code C. P., § 1391.)
The order should be affirmed with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
All concur.
So ordered.