Hernandez v. . Brookdale Mills, Inc.

134 N.E. 568, 232 N.Y. 552, 1921 N.Y. LEXIS 584
New York Court of Appeals·Decided December 13, 1921·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The order should be affirmed, with costs.

The question certified is answered in the negative. Upon the facts appearing in this record the court at least had the power as a matter of discretion to make provision as it did for payment of the commissions and expenses of the receiver. We do not pass upon the disposition of such items under other circumstances.

His cock, Ch. J., Hogan, Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane and Andrews, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed.

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

Hernandez v. . Brookdale Mills, Inc., 134 N.E. 568, 232 N.Y. 552, 1921 N.Y. LEXIS 584 (N.Y. 1921).

134 N.E. 568 (Hernandez v. . Brookdale Mills, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In Re Studio 54 Disco, Inc.
21 B.R. 308 (E.D. New York, 1982)
In Re Proving the Will of Staiger
164 N.E. 33 (New York Court of Appeals, 1928)