Rogers v. De Forest
New York Court of Chancery
This was an application on the part of the complainants, in a creditors’ bill, for the appointment of a receiver; not only as to De Forest and T. Darling, the judgment debtors, but also as to the defendants L. Kip and J. F. Darling, the assignees of T. Darling. Cross applications were also made on the part of T. Darling, and also on the part of his as« signees and of De Forest, to dissolve the injunction.
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
There is no ground whatever for the dissolution of the injunction, so far as it relates to the judgment debtors. The motions as to them must therefore be denied with costs. So far as relates to them also, and *273as to any property in their possession or under their power or control, it is a matter of course to appoint a receiver, and to require them to deliver over such property under oath. The fact that a receiver has already been appointed, at the suit of a creditor in another suit, is no answer to the application; as the 193d and the 194th rules have provided for the…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Nicholson v. . LeavittNew York Court of Appeals · 1852
- Landeman v. Wilson & BeardsleyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1887
- Swartz v. HazlettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1857
- Bowen v. ParkhurstIllinois Supreme Court · 1860
- Sumners. v. Hickss.Supreme Court of the United States · 1863
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.