
    MITCHELL v. LODERMAN et al.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    February 27, 1906.)
    CoNTEirpi>—Ordeb—Validity.
    Where a debtor is convicted of contempt arising out of proceedings supplementary to execution, an order sustaining the regularity of the contempt proceedings, but assessing only a nominal fine, bearing no relation to the injury done the judgment creditor, is irregular and unauthorized.
    Appeal from City Court of New York, Trial Term.
    In the matter of the proceedings supplementary to execution of Henry W. Mitchell against Gerson Goderman and another. From an order reducing a fine imposed on a judgment debtor, the judgment creditor appeals.
    Reversed.
    Argued before SCOTT, P. J., and GIEGERICH and GREEN-BAUM, JJ.
    Charles Frankel, for appellant.
    A. A. Joseph, for respondents.
   PER CURIAM.

The order appealed from was irregular and unauthorized. If the judgment debtor was guilty of contempt, and the proceedings to punish him were regularly conducted, he should have suffered more than a nominal fine. If the justice upon re-examination of the case found that there was no contempt, or that the proceedings to punish him were irregular, he should have vacated his order in toto. As it now stands, the debtor is convicted of contempt, the proceedings to punish him are sustained as to their regularity, and yet,he is fined a sum which bears no relation to the injury done to the judgment creditor.

Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements.  