
    Philip J. Bennett, Plaintiff, v. The Complete Electric Construction Company, Defendant. Charles Haldane Johnson, Receiver, of The Complete Electric Construction Company, Appellant; James H. Warner, Respondent.
    
      Contempt—attachment against a corporation — it has priority over the title of a receiver subsequently appointed.
    
    Where a creditor of a corporation, procures an attachment and its levy, before the appointment of a receiver of the corporation, the property passes to the receiver subject to the lien of the attachment, and the possession is in the sheriff and not in the receiver.
    Where the order appointing the receiver does not restrain the judgment creditor from prosecuting his action against the corporation, his issue of an execution in such an action and a levy under it are proper acts and cannot be construed, to be a contempt of court.
    Appeal by Charles Haldane Johnson, as receiver of the Complete Electric Construction Company, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 8th day of June 1896, denying Ms motion to punish James H. Warner for contempt, of court.
    
      
      Willis B. Dowd, for the appellant.
    
      James H. Warner, respondent, in person.
   Per Curiam :

Warner began his action against the defendant corporation on the 19th day of March, 1896, and procured an attachment, which was levied by the sheriff on the next day. The receiver was appointed by the New Jersey court on the 24th day of March, and the ancillary receiver in this State was appointed on the twenty-fifth day of March. As the attachment j.iad been levied by the sheriff upon the defendant’s property in this State at the time when the receiver was appointed, the receiver took the property subject to the lien of this attachment (High on Receivers, § 138), and the sheriff, who had levied upon it, had the possession of the property and not the receiver. (Varnum v. Hart, 119 N. Y. 101.) The order appointing the receiver contained no injunction against the prosecution of Warner’s action against the company. He was, therefore, regular in issuing his execution upon the entry of judgment, and upon the receipt of the execution, not only had the sheriff the right, but it was his duty, to collect and pay over the money. In the absence of some order restraining the collection or restraining the payment of the money to Warner, there was no reason why he should not have taken it from the sheriff. Nothing which he did can be construed as a contempt of court, and the order of the Special Term was proper and should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Present ■—Barrett, Rumsey, Patterson and Ingraham, JJ.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.  