Brand v. Hasbrouck
This text of 149 N.Y.S. 1072 (Brand v. Hasbrouck) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
No written notice of this accounting proceeding ordered against the receiver was given to the surety on the receiver’s official bond, under Code Civ. Proc. § 715, which requirement means a notice in writing. Erving v. City of New York, 131 N. Y. 133, 29 N. E. 1101. Hence the accounting proceedings, and the refereb’s findings, with the orders of the court made thereon, as against the surety, had no effect. Stratton v. City Trust, etc., Co., 86 App: Div. 551, 83 N. Y. Supp. 780. The evidence of the receiver’s default and misfeasance being based only on these accounting proceedings left the complaint totally unsupported as to the surety, so that it was rightly dismissed. The judgment is therefore affirmed, with costs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
149 N.Y.S. 1072, 165 A.D. 924, 1914 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7865, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brand-v-hasbrouck-nyappdiv-1914.