Moskowitz v. Mark

The plaintiff-respondent argues that a state court receiver, who is subrogated to the rights of creditors, is authorized by statute to pursue “provisional remedies,” 1 that garnishment has been termed a provisional remedy, 2 and that a court-appointed receiver may and should be able to bring actions of garnishment to carry out his duty to gather in the assets of the estate.

Garnishee defendant-appellant counters with the reminder that while garnishment is an action 3 it is not a cause of action 4 and the contention that plaintiff-respondent has not met the statutory requirements for the…