Branch v. Harrington
New York Supreme Court
Motion made by the defendants to set aside this action, for the reason that it was brought by the attorney without authority from the plaintiff as receiver, and that it was irregular for the receiver to employ the attorney of the judgment creditor to bring the action, and for him to bring the same. The motion was made before appearance by the defendants.
1Opinion of the CourtMurray, J.
As to the first ground I find,, as a fact, from the affidavits and papers presented, that the action was authorized by the plaintiff, as such receiver.
As to the» other ground, the general rule is that a receiver in an action cannot appoint, as his attorney, the attorney of either party (9 Bosw., 684; 4 Edw. Ch. B., 416; 1 id., 576; 2 id., 165; 19 How., 394). A receiver appointed in supplementary proceedings has the same author*197ity and performs the same duties as one appointed generally in the action (Code, see. 298).
The same rules must govern them in the performance of their duties.
The…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Cumming v. EgertonThe Superior Court of New York City · 1863
- Warren v. SpragueNew York Court of Chancery · 1844
3Cited by1 opinion
- McMahon v. SharyAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1909