Ashley v. Turner

New York Supreme Court

Ashley v. Turner

29 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 226

DecidedSeptember 15, 1880

StatusPublished

This text of 29 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 226 (Ashley v. Turner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ashley v. Turner, 29 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 226 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1880).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam :

On this appeal from the order denying the motion to set aside the order appointing a receiver, we cannot examine the irregularities alleged as to the prior order for examination.

If the examination had been before the judge himself who granted the order, then we see no reason why the plaintiff might not, at once, on the close of the examination, have applied for a receiver without any formal notice. But here the examination was before a referee, and the defendant was entitled to a notice of the , application subsequently made to the judge, for the appointment of a receiver. A legal notice must be in writing. No valid notice was given in this case. It is evident that it would be unjust to make an order which would transfer all of a man’s property to a receiver, without giving him an opportunity to be heard. Such, opportunity must be given in the usual manner, by a written notice.

The order appealed from is reversed, with $10 costs, and disbursements, and the motion to vacate the order appointing a receiver is granted, with $10 costs.

Present, Learned, P. L, Bockes and Westbrook, TJ.

Order reversed, with $10 costs, and disbursements, and motion, granted, with $10 costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam :

On this appeal from the order denying the motion to set aside the order appointing a receiver, we cannot examine the irregularities alleged as to the prior order for examination.

If the examination had been before the judge himself who granted the order, then we see no reason why the plaintiff might not, at once, on the close of the examination, have applied for a receiver without any formal notice. But here the examination was before a referee, and the defendant was entitled to a notice of the , application subsequently made to the judge, for the appointment of a receiver. A legal notice must be in writing. No valid notice was given in this case. It is evident that it would be unjust to make an order which would transfer all of a man’s property to a receiver, without giving him an opportunity to be heard. Such, opportunity must be given in the usual manner, by a written notice.

The order appealed from is reversed, with $10 costs, and disbursements, and the motion to vacate the order appointing a receiver is granted, with $10 costs.

Present, Learned, P. L, Bockes and Westbrook, TJ.

Order reversed, with $10 costs, and disbursements, and motion, granted, with $10 costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 226, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ashley-v-turner-nysupct-1880.