Robinson v. Preswick
This text of 3 Edw. Ch. 246 (Robinson v. Preswick) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Chancery primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Whatever is annexed to the freehold, and would pass as between vendor and vendee, will pass as between mortgagor and mortgagee : Miller v. Plumb, 6 Cowen, 665 ; Union Bank v. Emerson, 15 Mass. R. 159.
For the present, I shall consider the fixtures as included in the mortgage ; and hold the bill to be properly filed for an injunction to prevent the commission of waste by a removal which may impair the mortgage security. The motion to dissolve the injunction is denied.
With respect to the motion made by the complainant for a receiver. The object of the bill is not a sale of the mortgaged property. No part of the debt is yet due. No default has yet been made in the payments. It is merely to prevent waste; - and the injunction answers the purpose, being the appropriate remedy. I find no case where the court has gone further and appointed a receiver,
The costs, on both applications, are to abide the event of the suit.
) See Edwards on Receivers, 445.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
3 Edw. Ch. 246, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robinson-v-preswick-nychanct-1838.