
    SAINBERG v. WEINBERG.
    (City Court of New York, General Term.
    November 18, 1898.)
    Oontemft—Receivers.
    It is a contempt for a judgment debtor, after a receiver has been put in possession of his business, to interfere with the receiver in his possession of the property.
    Appeal from special term.
    Action by Louis Sainberg against Isidore Weinberg. From an order adjudging defendant and M. Angelo Elias in contempt, they appeal.
    Reversed in part.
    Argued before CORLAN and O’DWYER, JJ.
    A. S. Gilbert, for appellants.
    David Leventritt, for respondent.
   O’DWYER, J.

The record upon the appeal of the judgment debtor -discloses the fact that the receiver was in possession of the business, .given possession thereof by the judgment debtor; who was at the time in possession and control of said business, and that subsequently the judgment debtor interfered with that possession. This interference with the receiver in his possession of the property was a contempt, .and, after a careful examination of the proofs submitted to the court below, we are satisfied that the order was fully justified, the punishment imposed richly merited, and that the order, so far as it affects this appellant, Weinberg, should be affirmed, with costs.

A careful examination of the record upon the appeal of Mr. Elias •does not disclose to our satisfaction such an interference with the rights of the receiver as to amount to a contempt, and justify the order adjudging him guilty thereof. It follows that so much of the order appealed from as affects M. Angelo Elias should be reversed, with costs.

CONLAN, J., concurs.  