Vincent v. Parker
New York Court of Chancery
This case came before the court upon an appeal from a decision of the vice chancellor of the first circuit. The parties in this suit, or one of them, having an interest in certain premises which was in controversy, an order for a receiver was entered.
Read the full summary
This case came before the court upon an appeal from a decision of the vice chancellor of the first circuit. The parties in this suit, or one of them, having an interest in certain premises which was in controversy, an order for a receiver was entered. Rene Halbert and his wife, in the right of the wife, were entitled to an interest for life in a part of the rents of the same premises; and a common agent had been appointed by them and the defendant to receive the rents, and to distribute the same according to their several rights. But upon the appointment of the receiver, the tenants were…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
It is sometimes necessary to put a receiver upon property, where the interests of the parties to the suit are so connected with those of third persons that the necessary possession of the officers of the court conflicts with the legal rights of such third persons. But the court never divests a previous possession of such third persons unnecessarily. Even where the receiver is in possession, although the court will not permit him to be interfered with without its consent, such third persons are permitted to come in and be heard in relation to their interests. And the court will…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Domingo v. GetmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
- Hopfensack v. HopfensackNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1880
- Verplanck v. VerplanckNew York Supreme Court · 1880