Lyng v. Marcus
New York Supreme Court
Suit by one Lyng against one Marcus. On defendant’s motion to vacate an order for the appointment of a receiver pendente lite.
1Opinion of the CourtGildersleeve, P. J.
While the usual receivership clause in a mortgage is not of itself alone sufficient to give the plaintiff a right to a receivership of rents pending foreclosure, in the absence of proof that the property is not worth the amount of the mortgage, and that the mortgagor is not responsible (Eidlitz v. Lancaster, 40 App. Div. 446, 59 N. Y. Supp. 54), still, where it is specially stipulated in the mortgage, in addition to the receivership clause, that the rents and profits are pledged as additional security, the rule seems to be different, and the plaintiff has a right to the receivership. Butler…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Eidlitz v. LancasterAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1899
- Butler v. FrazerNew York Supreme Court · 1896
- Sage v. MendelsonNew York Supreme Court · 1903