Izzo v. McKay

No elairri is made that the receiver’s account should not be settled. The contest is, whether or not the first mortgagee is entitled to be paid his *709deficiency out of the rents in the hands of the receiver. Enough is on hand to pay that deficiency, but the objection is that said first mortgagee is not entitled to any part of the collections made by the receiver for the reason that the receiver was appointed upon the application of the second mortgagee, and that the receivership has never been extended to the first mortgage. I think that as between the first and second mortgages the claim of…