Summary
In Globe Indemnity Co. v. Roe, D.C., 37 F. Supp. 761, the judgment was that of a New Jersey court, and that made a very different situation; in Young v. Aronson, D.C., 27 F. 241, the order which Judge Brown denied would have subjected the receiver to the orders of two courts.
Summary of this case from Rottenberg v. United StatesOpinion
January 27, 1941.
David Harrison, of New York City, for judgment-creditor.
Foley Martin, of New York City, for judgment-debtor.
Proceeding in the matter of supplementary proceedings by the Globe Indemnity Company, judgment creditor, against Daniel R. Roe, judgment debtor. On motion by the judgment creditor for an order requiring the debtor to show cause why he should not pay over part of his weekly earnings in satisfaction of a judgment alleged to have been obtained in a United States District Court in New Jersey.
Judgment in accordance with opinion.
I can find no warrant for the procedure of this motion. The writ of execution did not run to this district. 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 838, 839. Neither is the procedure authorized by Rule 69, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c. If the judgment creditor desires to avail itself of the machinery here, it should sue on the judgment.