
    The People ex rel. George W. Pond v. Edward J. H. Tamsen, as Sheriff.
    (Supreme Court—New York Special Term,
    December, 1895.)
    1. Contempt — Attachment.
    A warrant of attachment for contempt, need not recite the contempt nor any of the proceedings upon which the warrant rests.
    0. Same. -
    Disobedience of ’an order requiring the payment of money into court, or, to an officer thereof, except where it is due upon contract, or-for a breach thereof, may be punished as for a contempt, although the amount thereof could be collected upon execution. -
    3. Same—Habeas oobpüS: '' • . . '
    • Where there is no jurisdictional defect the court will refuse to review the mandate of another court of general jurisdiction on habeas corpus.
    Habeas, oobphs to procure discharge of the relator'.from arrest’ under a warrant of attachment' in proceedings for contempt.
    In an action brought by the firm of Benjamin Moore & Co. to set aside an- alleged fraudulent transfer of., .goods -by the firm of'Corridon & Meyer to the relator judgment, was rendered in.favor of the plaintiffs and a receiver appointed, to whom the relator was directed to pay the sum of $20,000, the value of the goods, within ten days after service of a copy of the. judgment. Demand for such payment was_ made by the receiver, but relator failed to make the same, and'a wairrant was thereupon issued to have him brought before the coiirt to show' cause-why he should not be punished for contempt; Relator was arrested Upon said warrant by the sheriff;' who was directed to .'hold him until interrogatories could he; filed and the matter decided; whereupon this writ-was sued out: ■
    
      
      John Fennel, for relator.
    
      Jacob H. Shaffer, for Moore & Co.
    
      John R. Abney, for receiver.
   Beekman, J.

The Court of Common Pleas had jurisdiction to issue the" warrant of attachment under which the relator is ' held to answer for an alleged contempt. The objection to the form of the" attachment, that it does not recite the contempt or any of the proceedings upon which the warrant rests, is untenable. The relator, it must be assumed, for it is not denied, was served with a copy of the affidavit upon which the warrant was issued, and he was, therefore, sufficiently apprised of the nature of the charge made against him. The cases cited by counsel for the relator are not applicable." They relate to final commitments. Seaman v. Duryea, 11 N. Y. 324; Dunford v. Weaver, 84 id. 452. The warrant in quéstion is merely process by which the relator is brought into court to answer a charge. He is then fully apprised of- the charge and admitted to make a defense, if he has any. Code Civ. Proc. §. 2280. There is nothing in the Code which requires any recitals in the warrant, nor is it understood to be the practice to insert them in such cases. At best it'was nota jui’isdictional defect, and for that reason, if there were no other, the court will refuse to" review the mandate of another court of general jurisdiction on habeas corpus. Park v. Park, 80 N. Y. 156. A further objection made by the relator is that the judgment.he is accused of disobeying can be enforced by execution, and that, under subdivision '3 of section -14 of the Code, he cannot, therefore, be held to answer for a contempt. This should be addressed to the court of Common Pleas. The answer, however, is complete. Section 1241 of the Code,'sub-, division 4, provides that a person disobeying a judgment of the court which requires the payment of money into court] or to an officer of the court, except -where itis due upon contract, express or implied, or as damages for nonperformance of a contract, may be punished- for a contempt. The case before me comes within the section, and is not one of • the excepted cases. Gildersleeve v. Lester, 68 Hun, 535; 139 N. Y. 608. The writ of habeas corpus is, therefore; dismissed, and the relator remanded to the custody of the sheriff.

Writ dismissed and relator remanded.  