Rabinowitz v. Power

131 A.D. 892, 115 N.Y.S. 266
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 15, 1909·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The plaintiff having failed to show that the property is inadequate security for the amount due upon the bond and mortgage was not entitled to have a receiver of the property appointed. The order should he reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion to vacate the order appointing a receiver granted, with ten dollars costs, with leave, however, to the plaintiff to renew the application in case the defendant should unreasonably defend the action. Present — Ingraham, McLaughlin, Clarke, Houghton and Scott, JJ. Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs, with leave to plaintiff to renew as stated in opinion. Settle order on notice.

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

Rabinowitz v. Power, 131 A.D. 892, 115 N.Y.S. 266 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1909).

131 A.D. 892 (Rabinowitz v. Power) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Eastbank, N. A. v. Malneut Realty Corp.
180 A.D.2d 442 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Sussman v. Lakesite Hotel Corp.
145 Misc. 815 (New York County Courts, 1932)
W. I. M. Corp. v. Cipulo
216 A.D. 46 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1926)