Brand v. Hasbrouck

149 N.Y.S. 1072, 165 A.D. 924, 1914 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7865

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

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

Brand v. Hasbrouck, 149 N.Y.S. 1072, 165 A.D. 924, 1914 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7865 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1914).

149 N.Y.S. 1072 (Brand v. Hasbrouck) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Erving v. . Mayor, Etc., of New York
29 N.E. 1101 (New York Court of Appeals, 1892)
Stratton v. City Trust, Safe Deposit & Surety Co.
86 A.D. 551 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1903)