Smith v. D. A. Schulte, Inc.

Second Circuit

Smith v. D. A. Schulte, Inc.

91 F.2d 732, 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 4344

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJune 28, 1937

DocketNo. 345

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 91 F.2d 732 (Smith v. D. A. Schulte, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Smith v. D. A. Schulte, Inc., 91 F.2d 732, 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 4344 (2d Cir. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal presents only one variant upon Central Manhattan Properties, Inc., v. D. A. Schulte, Inc., of New York (C.C.A.) 91 F.(2d) 728, handed down herewith. The lessor, Schulco Company, Inc., mortgaged some of the parcels of land in question to the Central Hanover Bank & Trust Company, together “with the right to receive all rents due or to become due thereunder.” The debtor argues that this passed title to the rents out of the lessor. That is plainly untrue; the transfer was nothing more than a mortgage of future rents, and it is well settled in New -York that until the mortgagee gets a foreclosure receiver, or the equivalent, the rents belong to the mortgagor. Sullivan v. Rosson, 223 N.Y. 217, 119 N.E. 405, 4 A.L.R. 1400; In re Brose, 254 F. 664 (C.C.A.2); In re Kings County Real Estate Corp., 67 F.(2d) 895 (C.C.A.2); Walker v. Irving Trust Co., 73 F.(2d) 270 (C.C.A.2); Prudential Ins. Co. v. Liberdar Holding Co., 74 F.(2d) 50 (C.C.A.2); In re Humeston, 83 F.(2d) 187 (C.C.A.2).

Order reversed; claim allowed for fourteen-fifteenths of the subrents.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal presents only one variant upon Central Manhattan Properties, Inc., v. D. A. Schulte, Inc., of New York (C.C.A.) 91 F.(2d) 728, handed down herewith. The lessor, Schulco Company, Inc., mortgaged some of the parcels of land in question to the Central Hanover Bank & Trust Company, together “with the right to receive all rents due or to become due thereunder.” The debtor argues that this passed title to the rents out of the lessor. That is plainly untrue; the transfer was nothing more than a mortgage of future rents, and it is well settled in New -York that until the mortgagee gets a foreclosure receiver, or the equivalent, the rents belong to the mortgagor. Sullivan v. Rosson, 223 N.Y. 217, 119 N.E. 405, 4 A.L.R. 1400; In re Brose, 254 F. 664 (C.C.A.2); In re Kings County Real Estate Corp., 67 F.(2d) 895 (C.C.A.2); Walker v. Irving Trust Co., 73 F.(2d) 270 (C.C.A.2); Prudential Ins. Co. v. Liberdar Holding Co., 74 F.(2d) 50 (C.C.A.2); In re Humeston, 83 F.(2d) 187 (C.C.A.2).

Order reversed; claim allowed for fourteen-fifteenths of the subrents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 F.2d 732, 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 4344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-d-a-schulte-inc-ca2-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack