Miller v. Loeb
New York Supreme Court
APPEAL from an order made at a Special Term, denying a motion for leave to sne a receiver. An action having been commenced by James E. Miller against Catharine Loeb and Dell P. Peters, all of whom were the members comprising the firm of J. E. Miller & Co., a receiver was appointed in the action, of their effects, contained in the Gflenham Hotel, in Hew York City. On the 20th of December, 1869, D. P. Ingraham, Jr., was appointed such receiver.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from an order made at a Special Term, denying a motion for leave to sne a receiver. An action having been commenced by James E. Miller against Catharine Loeb and Dell P. Peters, all of whom were the members comprising the firm of J. E. Miller & Co., a receiver was appointed in the action, of their effects, contained in the Gflenham Hotel, in Hew York City. On the 20th of December, 1869, D. P. Ingraham, Jr., was appointed such receiver. He took into his possession certain personal property, consisting of carpets, oil cloths, &c., then in said hotel, claimed by Husted & Carll, the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Danforth, J.
Upon the argument of this appeal a motion was also made by the receiver to dismiss this appeal, upon the ground that on the 18th day of March, 1870, by an order of this court made at Special Term, he was discharged from his duties as receiver. The motion to dismiss the appeal was opposed by Husted & Carll, and it is shown by affidavit that no notice of the motion by the receiver to be discharged was served on Husted & Carll, or their attorney, although prior to the time said motion was made and said receiver was discharged, he had notice of their claim.
*448It is claimed…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Davis v. DuncanUnited States Circuit Court · 1884
- Woodruff v. JewettNew York Supreme Court · 1885