Legal Opinion

Butler v. Frazer

New York Supreme Court

Decided May 15, 1896PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Action by one Butler against one Frazer and others to foreclose a mortgage. On motion for the appointment of a receiver.

1Opinion of the Court

PEE CUEIAM.

The mortgage not only provides for a foreclosure without regard to the adequacy of the security, but assigns the rents and profits to the holder in the event of a default in payment. That the security is insufficient does not seem to be questioned, but the insolvency of the mortgagor is denied, and is not apparent. Nevertheless, the stipulation for foreclosure and the assignment of the rents as-security entitles the plaintiff to a receiver. MacKellar v. Rodgers, 52 N. Y. Super. Ct. 360; Bryson v. James, 55 N. Y. Super. Ct. 374. It is where the rents are not specifically pledged…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Degener v. StilesNew York Supreme Court · 1889

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. In re BannerDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1907
  2. Hennessy v. SweeneyCity of New York Municipal Court · 1898
  3. Sage v. MendelsonNew York Supreme Court · 1903
  4. Lyng v. MarcusNew York Supreme Court · 1909

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

Powered by the Exa API