Whiteside v. Prendergast
New York Court of Chancery
This was an appeal, from an order of the late vice chancellor of the eighth circuit, directing the bond of the receiver appointed in this cause to be filed nunc pro tunc. The suit was brought by the representatives of a deceased partner, against a surviving copartner, for an account and settlement of the co-partnership transactions.
Read the full summary
This was an appeal, from an order of the late vice chancellor of the eighth circuit, directing the bond of the receiver appointed in this cause to be filed nunc pro tunc. The suit was brought by the representatives of a deceased partner, against a surviving copartner, for an account and settlement of the co-partnership transactions. And an order was made, in February, 1836, appointing J. Brooks receiver of the partnership effects • connected with the store at Mayville; upon his filing a bond, with such sureties as should be approved of by the parties in this suit, or by a master, conditioned…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
It was no valid objection to the application that the parties in the suit had submitted the matters in controversy between them to an arbitration without the consent of the receiver. For that did not alter, or affect, his liability to account, as receiver, for the property which had come to his hands. Even if there had been a formal discontinuance'of the suit, that would not have discharged him from his trust, as an officer of the court. The discontinuance of a suit does not discharge a receiver appointed therein. But it will entitle him to apply for his discharge, and to pass…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Pacific Bank v. Madera Fruit & Land Co.California Supreme Court · 1899
- In re SulkNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1908
- Larsen v. United States Mortgage & Trust Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1905