People v. Murray Hill Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Murray Hill Bank

44 N.Y.S. 1126

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 9, 1897

StatusPublished

This text of 44 N.Y.S. 1126 (People v. Murray Hill Bank) 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.

Bluebook

People v. Murray Hill Bank, 44 N.Y.S. 1126 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We express no opinion on the question whether Messrs. Trask and O’Brien, having been first appointed the receivers of this corporation, in a proceeding held by this division, and also by the appellate division of the First department, to have been legally instituted, should not have been' continued as receivers by appointment in this action. We think the question is not property before us for determination—First, because the persons who make the present application have no standing in court; second, because the order sought to be resettled property expressed the decision of this court as made at the time, and a substitution of receivers cannot be effected under the guise of a resettlement of that order.

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

PER CURIAM.

We express no opinion on the question whether Messrs. Trask and O’Brien, having been first appointed the receivers of this corporation, in a proceeding held by this division, and also by the appellate division of the First department, to have been legally instituted, should not have been' continued as receivers by appointment in this action. We think the question is not property before us for determination—First, because the persons who make the present application have no standing in court; second, because the order sought to be resettled property expressed the decision of this court as made at the time, and a substitution of receivers cannot be effected under the guise of a resettlement of that order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 N.Y.S. 1126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-murray-hill-bank-nyappdiv-1897.