Robinson v. Preswick

3 Edw. Ch. 246
New York Court of Chancery·Decided October 16, 1838·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

The Vice-Chancellor :

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,

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

Robinson v. Preswick, 3 Edw. Ch. 246 (N.Y. 1838).

3 Edw. Ch. 246 (Robinson v. Preswick) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Williams v. Chicago Exhibition Co.
58 N.E. 611 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1900)
McFadden v. . Allen
32 N.E. 21 (New York Court of Appeals, 1892)
Coleman ex rel. Smith v. Stearns Manufacturing Co.
38 Mich. 30 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1878)
Garner v. Cutting
32 Iowa 547 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1871)