
    CATHERINE E. COLLINS, Respondent, v. CHARLES E. COLLINS, Appellant.
    
      Writ of ne exeat — was not abolished by the Code.
    
    Appeal from an order denying a motion to discharge a writ of ne exeat.
    
    The court at General Term said: “The remedy which was known in the practice which prevailed in the Court of Chancery as the writ of ne exeat was not abolished by the Code, as declared in two cases decided in the General Term of this department, namely, Breck v. Smith (54 Barb., 212); Viaderov. Viadero (7 Hun, 313). The same proposition was asserted in Forrest v. Forrest (10 Barb., 46); Neville v. Neville (22 How. Pr. Eep., 500); Bushnéll v. Bushnell (15 Barb., 399).
    “ It is true that in the Superior Court of this city the contrary view was expressed. (See Johnston v. Johnston, 1 Eobt., 642.) But we consider ourselves bound by the decisions of this court on this question.”
    
      Cephas Brainard. & James S. Stearns, for the appellant. A. Bell Malcolmson, Jr., for the respondent.
   Opinion

Per Curiam.

Present — Bbajdy, P. J., and Pottee, J.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.  