Micklethwaite v. Rhodes
New York Court of Chancery
October 21st, 1846. The complainants in these cases,.moved for a receiver of their goods, severally consigned to the defendant as a factor, to be sold ; and of the proceeds remaining of' such as had been sold. The complainants had- made a formal demand of the goods and proceeds, and the defendant had refused to surrender any part of them. The bill charged that he was insolvent.
Read the full summary
October 21st, 1846. The complainants in these cases,.moved for a receiver of their goods, severally consigned to the defendant as a factor, to be sold ; and of the proceeds remaining of' such as had been sold. The complainants had- made a formal demand of the goods and proceeds, and the defendant had refused to surrender any part of them. The bill charged that he was insolvent. The motion was opposed on an affidavit of the defendant, and on grounds which were adverted to in the vice-chancellor’s decision. The Vice-Chancellor, in disposing of the motion, made the following observations. It is…
1Opinion of the Court
The Vice-Chancellor.
In the case of Smith, the defen*437dant was regular in petitioning for security. His appearing in the suit, opposing the appointment of a receiver, and demurring to the bill, do not prevent him from enforcing his right under the statute. He is mistaken, however, in supposing that the surety, being the solicitor for the complainant, furnished a ground, of exception. The rule as to bail in the courts of law, has never been adopted in this court in respect of security required by statute. In Studwell v. Palmer, 5 Paige, 57, this was so held by the chancellor, upon an appeal bond.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Studwell v. PalmerNew York Court of Chancery · 1835