22 A.D. 87 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1897
The facts presented upon this application make it quite clear that the proceeding to procure the release of the property covered by the mechanic’s lien upon Amsterdam avenue, and' the giving of the bond to secure the release of such lien, was a scheme devised for
The respondent justified as a surety by claiming to be the owner of certain premises in Wooster street, upon which a building was then in course of construction. The justification was in September, 1894. The witness swore that he had owned the property since the previous March, and that it was worth $225,000, but that there was a mortgage upon the property for $138,000, which, upon the completion of the building, was to be increased to $150,000. The respondent also swore that he owned a lot on Eagle avenue, in the city of New York, worth $3,000, subject to a mortgage of $1,000. Before the judgment upon this bond was obtained against him, this lot had disappeared, and no explanation is given as to what had become of it. Upon his examination in supplementary proceedings, he testified that he had purchased this real estate in Wooster street in the March previous to his executing the undertaking; that he bad paid no money for it at the time, but had simply given a mortgage upon it for $95,000. He further testified that, in October, 1894, the month after he signed this justification in which he swore that the property was finished and was worth $225,000, he conveyed the lot to one Flora Sawyer, without any consideration except that she agreed to assume the payment of the debts on the property. Thus, about a month after he swore that the property in Wooster street was worth $225,000, he conveyed it without receiving any other consideration for it than the assumption of the mortgage or debts upon it, and conveyed it to the one who had acquired the title to the Amsterdam avenue property, upon which was the lieu that was discharged by his giving the bond. His future relation to this Amsterdam avenue property is also quite instructive. He continues as agent of this property down to the time of this application, the only income he receives being the amount which he is paid for earing for it. That the respondent well knew that the property was not worth $225,000, well knew that his bond was absolutely valueless at the time, is apparent, and that it was also a part of the scheme to transfer the Wooster street property to Flora Sawyer, who was the real owner of the property
The condition of the other surety is also instructive. His justification is not annexed to the papers, but he dies soon after executing the undertaking, insolvent, with a judgment against him which is a secured claim upon all his property, and which is largely in excess of all the property he has. It is perfectly apparent that, by this undertaking, the court was imposed upon; that it was a scheme devised to relieve Flora Sawyer from the payment of the lien, and that the sureties upon the undertaking were entirely irresponsible and joined in the' attempt to deceive the court for the purpose of enabling Flora Sawyer to escape the payment of the lien, thereby defrauding the petitioner. It is time that parties who engage in such an attempt as this to deceive the court, and induce it to adopt a course which results in defrauding one whom the court is bound to
The claim of the respondent that this court has no power to punish a person guilty of a contempt under the circumstances, because the proceeding was in the Superior Court, and that the court has since been abolished, is without merit. By section 5 of article 6 of the Constitution of 1894 the Superior Court of the city of New York was abolished. By that section it was provided that all actions and proceedings then pending in such court should be transferred to the Supreme Court for hearing and determination, and the jurisdiction then exercised by the several courts abolished should be vested in the Supreme Court. At the time of the adoption of this Constitution, and at the time of the abolition of the Superior Court, the Superior Court had jurisdiction in this proceeding to punish this
The respondent also claims that there is some limitation to the time within which this proceeding could be commenced which prevents the court from now punishing him for his contempt. We know of no provision limiting the power of the Supreme Court to punish for contempt because of a lapse of time since the commission of the contempt. The fact that two years have expired so that now this respondent is not liable to a criminal prosecution has no relation to the power of the court to punish for a contempt; ' and although it may be that this respondent cannot be punished criminally, we think that he can be punished under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, and that it was the duty of the court below to have granted the application. It is clear that this was a misconduct by which a right of a party to a special proceeding pending in the Superior Court was defeated by the respondent’s offering himself as a fictitious surety, thus bringing the case clearly within subdivision 2 of section 14 of the Code; that such misconduct did actually deceive and prejudice the rights and remedies of the petitioner, and that under section 2281 of the Code it was the duty of the court to punish the respondent by imposing upon him a fine or imprisonment. By section 2284 it is provided that where an actual loss or injury has been produced to a party to an action or special proceeding, by reason of the misconduct proved against the offender, a fine sufficient to indemnify the aggrieved party must be imposed upon the offender. The amount sufficient to indemnify the petitioner in this case would be the amount due upon the mechanic’s lien, with the costs of this proceeding.
The order appealed from is, therefore, reversed, the motion granted, and the respondent adjudged guilty "of contempt and fined the amount remaining due upon the mechanic’s lien, with the costs of tills proceeding in the court below and in this court, and in default of payment the respondent should be committed to the county jail until such fine is jiaid.
Van Brunt, P. J., Rumsbt and Williams, JJ., concurred.
Order reversed and motion granted, with costs of the proceeding in this court and in the court below.