Stewart v. Fairchild-Baldwin Co.
New Jersey Court of Chancery
On bill, &C. On application for instruction to receiver.
1Opinion of the Court
Lane, V. C.
The question for determination is whether a receiver appointed in a foreclosure case is entitled to the rents accrued, but unpaid, *140at the time of his appointment. The mortgagee rests his position upon the text in Beach Rec. (Alderson’s ed.) 194; High Rec. (4th ed.) §§ 643, 644, p. 796; 3 Jones Mort. (7th ed.) § 1536 and the eases cited to support the text.
I will first consider the cases cited to support the text. First National Bank v. Illinois Steel Co. (Sup. Ct. of Ill.), 51 N. E. Rep. 200, is not at all in point. Conover v. Grover, 31 N. J. Eq. 539, as will hereafter be pointed…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Freedman's Saving & Trust Co. v. ShepherdSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Teal v. WalkerSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Kountze v. Omaha Hotel Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Willis v. Eastern Trust & Banking Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Howell v. RipleyNew York Court of Chancery · 1843
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Schaffer v. HurdNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1925
- South Amboy Trust Co. v. McMichael Holdings, Inc.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1947
- Ripley v. SchenckNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1924
- Barry, Inc. v. Baf, LimitedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1949
- Camden Trust Co. v. HandleNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1941
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.