SUPPLEMENTARY PROCEEDINGS. Pro ceedings supplementary to an execution, di rected to the discovery of the debtor's prop erty and its application to the debt for which the execution is issued. They are purely stat utory, and the statute limits the power of the courts to existing rights and things in esse at the time of their institution ; 18 N. Y. L. J. 1517. The New York statute en titles the judgment creditor to an order of examination "upon proof . . . that the judgment debtor has property which he un justly refuses to apply towards the satisfac tion of the judgment, etc." And where it appears from the examination "that the judg ment debtor has, in his possession or un der his control, money or other personal prop erty belonging to him," the judge may order such money to be paid over and such other personal property to be delivered up ; such proceedings are directed against property which, at the time of the order for his exami nation, the judgment debtor has in his pos session or under his control, or which is actu ally due to him. No property subsequently acquired, no future earnings of any kind, and no earnings for personal services rendered within sixty days preceding such order, if necessary for the use of his family, can be reached ; id.; Winters v. McCarthy, 2 Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 357; Potter v. Low, 16 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 549. They do not affect money com ing to the debtor, unless it is actually due when the order is obtained ; id.; Stewart v. Foster, 1 Hilt. (N. Y.) 505 ; Columbian In stitute v. Cregan, 3 N. Y. St. 287; or earn ings due after the service of the order; Ger regani v. Wheelwright, 3 Abb. Prac. (N. S. N. Y.) 264 ; or the salary of a public officer, while in the hands of a disbursing officer in common with other money ; Waldman v. O'Donnell, 57 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 215, 217.
Proof as to the possession or control by the judgment debtor must be clear ; Peters v. Kerr, 22 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 3 ; and doubts whether the money was earned before or aft er the order should be resolved in favor of the debtor ; Potter v. Low, 16 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 549. If the debtor have a family depend ent upon him, he may, if necessary, have six ty days' back earnings exempt ; Code Civ. Proc. N. Y. § 2463 ; and this is held to be a humane provision which should be construed liberally in favor of the debtor ; Miller v. Hooper, 19 Hun (N. Y.) 394. But this does not include money received by a saloon-keep er in his business ; Prince v. Brett, 21 App. Div. 190, 47 N. Y. Supp. 402.
The return of an execution unsatisfied is sufficient to authorize a resort to supplemen tary proceedings ; Klepsch v. Donald, 18 Wash. 150, 51 Pac. 352.
The appointment of a receiver in such pro ceedings dissolves a partnership of which the judgment debtor is a member; Guild v. Mey er, 56 N. J. Eq. 183, 38 Atl. 959.
Where the judgment is against a married woman she may be examined as to her sep arate estate ; [1892] 2 Q. B. 626.
The enforcement of orders in such proceed ings is by treating the defendant as in con tempt, and a debtor is liable thereto for col lecting rent ; Stevens v. Dewey, 13 App. Div. 312, 43 N. Y. Supp. 130; or drawing out a savings bank deposit held in trust for an other ; 18 N. Y. L. J. 1520.
An act (1879) which enables the examine the defendant on oath as to his prop erty, fraudulently concealed, is unconstitu tional, because no one is obliged to give evi dence which may incriminate himself ; Horstman v. Kaufman, 97 Pa. 147, 39 Am. Rep. 802. Another act was passed in 1913.