Legal Opinion

Sickles v. Canary

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided July 1, 1896PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Appeal by the defendant, Thomas Canary, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 3d day of July, 1896, appointing a receiver of the rents of the premises described in the complaint, pendente lite.

1Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam :

There was no proof before the court below to show that the mortgaged premises were insufficient security to pay the mortgage debt. The only affidavit upon the subject of the value of the property was *309the affidavit of the attorney for the plaintiff, in which he says that he is informed by the plaintiff that it is extremely doubtful whether the mortgaged premises will sell at a foreclosure sale, subject to the incumbrances mentioned, for enough to pay the amount of the mortgage to the plaintiff. There is nothing to show that the plaintiff had any knowledge as to the value of the…

2Cited by1 opinion

  1. Jarvis v. McQuaideNew York Supreme Court · 1898

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API