Brick v. Hornbeck
New York Supreme Court
Motion by the plaintiff for the appointment of a receiver of the rents in a foreclosure action. ,
1Opinion of the CourtGaynor, J.
That the mortgage contains a clause in so many words mortgaging the rents and profits, does not require the court to appoint a receiver in an action to foreclose the mortgage. It may nevertheless exercise its discretion. Unless the land is inadequate security, the appointment of a receiver is an unnecessary annoyance and hardship. Cases like Shotwell v. Smith, 3 Edw. Ch. 588, are not authorities to the contrary, but only that such a clause in a mortgage is ground for such appointment. In the foreclosure of .a chattel mortgage, the court is not compelled to appoint a receiver. In the case of a…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Degener v. StilesNew York Supreme Court · 1889
- Shotwell v. SmithNew York Court of Chancery · 1842
3Cited by7 opinions
- Aetna Life Insurance v. BroekerIndiana Supreme Court · 1906
- Mortgage Union of Penn. v. KingCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1932
- New York Building Loan Banking Co. v. BeglyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1902
- Chatham-Phenix National Bank & Trust Co. v. Hotel Park-Central, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1931
- Jarvis v. McQuaideNew York Supreme Court · 1898
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.