Majority
p. 106Robert Milliken et al., Resp’ts, v. Andrew L. Thomson, App’lt. (New York Superior Court, General Term, Filed May 2, 1887.)
Headnote
1. Supplementary proceedings—Order to answer question not appeal-able.Defendant herein appealed from an order requiring him to answer a question propounded to him while under examination in proceedings supplementary to execution. Held, that the order was not appealable.
2. Same—Practice—Entitling order.
Held, that proceedings supplementary to execution are not a part of an action, and the order should not have been entitled in the action.
Appeal by defendant from order requiring him to answer a question propounded to him when under examination in proceedings supplementary to execution,’ etc.
Sidney J. Cowen, for app’lt; David Milliken, Jr., for resp’t
The appea. should be dismissed. The order is not appealable. It affected no substantial right of defendant. He was called upon by it to do no more than give a name in answer to the question. This affected no interest of his, except upon fhe supposition that the answer might lead to the making of an order that would competently require the application of property of defendant to payment of the judgment.
It is not necessary to examine the questions that would arise if the order were appealable. It may be further said, however, that proceedings supplementary to execution are not a part of an action, and the order should not have been entitled in the action.
Appeal dismissed, with ten dollars costs.
O’Gorman, J., concurs.