Legal Opinion

Verplanck v. Verplanck

New York Supreme Court

Decided September 15, 1880Published

Appeal from an order made at Special Term, denying the petition of Messrs. Man & Parsons, for an order directing tbat a debt,, due to them by the defendant, might be paid by the receiver appointed to collect the rents of certain real estate which this action, was brought to partition.

1Opinion of the Court

Dykman, J.:

This action was commenced several years ago to partition lan daowned by the plaintiff and defendant in common. In June, 18J5r this court appointed a receiver, pendente lite, of the rents, and -ordered the receiver to divide monthly the net proceeds coming to *105his hands, between the plaintiff and defendant. This limited sphere was all the court could rightly create for its officer. Such an appointment disregards, and is against, the legal title of one party,, and is justified only by protection necessarily extended to one of’ the two rights, to which protection the other’s invasion…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Pignolet v. BusheNew York Supreme Court · 1864
  2. Vincent v. ParkerNew York Court of Chancery · 1838

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

Powered by the Exa API