Butler v. Frazer

57 N.Y.S. 900
New York Supreme Court·Decided May 15, 1896·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

PEE CUEIAM.

The mortgage not only provides for a foreclosure without regard to the adequacy of the security, but assigns the rents and profits to the holder in the event of a default in payment. That the security is insufficient does not seem to be questioned, but the insolvency of the mortgagor is denied, and is not apparent. Nevertheless, the stipulation for foreclosure and the assignment of the rents as-security entitles the plaintiff to a receiver. MacKellar v. Rodgers, 52 N. Y. Super. Ct. 360; Bryson v. James, 55 N. Y. Super. Ct. 374. It is where the rents are not specifically pledged that insolvency and insecurity must be shown. Quincy v. Cheeseman, 4 Sandf. Ch. 406. InDegener v. Stiles (Sup.) 6 N. Y. Supp. 474, “the security was ample.”' To deny a receiver would be to infringe the contract, rights of the plaintiff. Motion granted, with costs. -

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

Butler v. Frazer, 57 N.Y.S. 900 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1896).

57 N.Y.S. 900 (Butler v. Frazer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lyng v. Marcus
118 N.Y.S. 1056 (New York Supreme Court, 1909)
In re Banner
149 F. 936 (S.D. New York, 1907)
Sage v. Mendelson
42 Misc. 137 (New York Supreme Court, 1903)
Hennessy v. Sweeney
57 N.Y.S. 901 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1898)