Brown v. Gump
Brown v. Gump
59 How. Pr. 507
Opinion of the Court
In order to examine a non-resident of the county upon supplementary proceedings, it must appear, in the language of the Code, that the defendant has within the city an office for the regular transaction of business in person (Code, sec. 2458, subd. 1). The legislature, by changing the phraseology of the old Code, evidently intended to permit the examination of a judgment debtor, outside of the county where he resided, only in cases where he has a regular place
Order vacated.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.