Trial — Practice—•Judgment—Order of Arrest — Stay of Execution.
Although not altogether orderly, yet it is not error to render judgment on the debt claimed in the main action before the trial of issues raised in proceedings ancillary thereto.
Civil ACTION, beard at December, 1893, Special Term of NORTHAMPTON Superior Court, before Whitaker, J., upon exceptions to a referee’s report. There bad been an order of arrest issued and served in proceedings ancillary to the main action, and at said term the defendants asked to have their motion to vacate the order of arrest continued, which was allowed, though judgment on the money demand was rendered for the plaintiffs. From so much of the judgment as directed a stay of execution against the persons of the defendants the plaintiffs appealed.
Mr. R. B. Peebles, for plaintiffs (appellants).
Messrs. W. PL Day and R. 0. Burton, for defendants.
Per Curiam :
While it would, perhaps, have been more orderly to have postponed the entry of judgment for the debt until after the trial of the issues raised in the ancillary proceedings, we perceive that his Honor was so happy in his ruling as to do what the plaintiffs asked and at the same time fully protect the rights of the defendants.
No Error..