Butler v. Frazer

New York Supreme Court

Butler v. Frazer

57 N.Y.S. 900

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedMay 15, 1896

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 57 N.Y.S. 900 (Butler v. Frazer) 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

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

Pincite

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

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. -

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 N.Y.S. 900, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/butler-v-frazer-nysupct-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack