Austin v. Figueira
New York Court of Chancery
This was an appeal by the defendants from an order of the vice chancellor of the first circuit, appointing a receiver of the joint property of the defendants and of the separate property of Spinoia, who alone was served with process in the suit at law.
Read the full summary
This was an appeal by the defendants from an order of the vice chancellor of the first circuit, appointing a receiver of the joint property of the defendants and of the separate property of Spinoia, who alone was served with process in the suit at law. The execution was in the usual form, directing the amount of the judgment to be levied of the goods and chattels, lands and tenements of the two defendants ; with the proper endorsements thereon, according to the directions of the statute. And the sheriff’s return was, in the words of the execution, that the said Fortunatas Ftgueira and John L.…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
Neither of the objections to the order of the vice chancellor is well taken. It has been frequently decided by this court that it is the duty of the complainant in a creditor’s bill, where an injunction has been issued, to apply for the appointment of a receiver without any unreasonable delay, so that the property of the defend*58ant may not be lost for want of some one who is authorized to collect the debts and dispose of perishable articles. And it is a-very, common practice to give notice of the application to appoint a receiver at the time of the service of the injunction and…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Importers & Traders' National Bank v. QuackenbushNew York Court of Appeals · 1894
- Gage v. SmithIllinois Supreme Court · 1875
- Williams v. HubbardMichigan Supreme Court · 1850
- Lambert v. ConverseNew York Supreme Court · 1861
- Paton v. WrightThe Superior Court of New York City · 1858
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.