
    Henry H. Meyer, Resp't, v. Adolphe Dreyspring, App'lt.
    
      (City Court of New York, General Term,
    
    
      Filed May 9, 1893.)
    
    1. Contempt—Supplementary proceedings.
    The violation of the injunction complained of was the parting with the sum of $60. Held, that the fine should not exceed that sum.
    2. Same—Prior transfers.
    A provision in an order .adjudging a debtor in contempt in such a case which requires him to obtain a reassignment of certain rights transferred prior to the judgment is unauthorized; such transfer can only be attacked by a creditor’s bill.
    Appeal by defendant from order adjudging him guilty of contempt of an order made in supplementary proceedings.
    
      J. Edward Weld, for appl’t; Harold Nathan, for resp’t.
   Ehrlich, Ch. J.

The defendant- having parted with sixty dollars in violation of the injunction order was subject to a fine for this amount. But beyond this the order made below was unauthorized.

The defendant did not have a family depending on him for support within the meaning of the statutory provision exempting earnings of a judgment debtor, and that feature of the case requires no serious consideration.

There was nothing in the case warranting a higher fine than the sixty dollars, wrongfully parted with to the prejudice of the judgment creditor.

The provision requiring the debtor to obtain a re-assignment of the rights transferred to his son was unauthorized.

The transfer had been made prior to the recovery of the judgment, and could be attacked by a creditor’s bill only.

It follows, that the order appealed from must be modified by reducing the fine to sixty dollars, and by eliminating the part in respect to the re-assignment, and as modified the order must be affirmed, without costs. See opinion, in Luedeke v. Coarsen, ante, 516.

Newburger, J., concurs.  