
    ROBERT MILLIKEN, et al., Respondents, v. ANDREW L. THOMSON, Appellant.
    
      Proceedings supplementary to execution.—Practice therein.
    
    An order requiring a defendant to answer a question propounded to Mm under examination in proceedings supplementary to execution, that affects no substantial right of defendant, is not appealable.
    Proceedings supplementary to execution are not a part of an action, and an order made therein should not be entitled in the action.
    Before Sedgwick, Ch. J., and O’Gorman, J.
    
      Decided May 2, 1887.
    Appeal by defendant from order requiring him to answer a question propounded to him when under examination in proceedings supplementary to execution, etc.
    
      Sidney I. Cowen, for appellant.
    
      David Milliken, Jr., for respondents.
   By the Court.—Sedgwick, Ch. J.

The appeal should be dismissed. The order is not appealable. It affected no substantial right of defendant. He was called upon by it to do no more than give a name in answer to the question. This affected no interest of his except upon the supposition that the answer might lead to the making of an order that would competently require the application of property of defendant, to payment of the judgment.

It is not necessary to examine the questions that would arise if the order were appealable. It may be further said, however, that proceedings supplementary to execution are not a part of an action and the order should not have been entitled in the action.

Appeal dismissed with $10 costs.

O’Gorman, J., concurred.  