
    JOHN JACOBSON, as Stockholder, etc., Appellant, v. TH DOTY PLASTER MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LE M. BATES and Others, Respondents.
    
      Supplementary proceedings — they need not be instituted in the judicial district in wfo the action was tried.
    
    It is not necessary that proceedings supplementary to execution should he pro cuted in the judicial district in which the action was tried and the judgmc entered. They may he instituted before a justice of the Supreme Court another district, and an order appointing a receiver may he there made hy hi
    Appeal from an order made by the court at Special Term, in t first judicial district in the above entitled action, and entered in Kin county on November 27, 1883, appointing a receiver of the .app lant, a judgment-debtor, in proceedings supplementary to executio
    The judgment upon which the supplementary proceedings we instituted was recovered in Kings county. An order to exami: the judgment-debtor was made by the Hon. Charles Donohue, o of the justices of the Supreme Court, in New York county, and t judgment-debtor was examined in the said county before a refer pursuant to the said order. After the termination of the pi ceedings before the referee he made his report, and the attorney f the judgment-creditors thereupon served upon the attorneys for t judgment-debtor a notice of motion to be made to the court at Special Term for the appointment of a receiver of the said jud ment-debtor, and on the day noticed for the motion the ord appealed from was made by the court at a Special Term and directi to be entered in Kings county.
    
      Carpenter <& Roderick, for the appellant.
    ' S. F. Kneelcmd, for the respondents.
   TEMAN, J:

This is an appeal from an order appointing a receiver in proceed-gs supplementary to execution. The odjection is that tbe order ,n only be made in the judicial district where the action was tried hich was the second, and this order was made in the first district. This objection is invalid. The supplementary proceedings in ds case were instituted and concluded before a judge of the Supreme ourt in the first judicial district, and it was proper for him to ipoint the receiver.

The order should be affirmed, with costs.

Barnard, P. J., and Pratt, J., concurred.

Order appointing receiver affirmed, with costs and disbursements.  