Rider v. . Bagley
Cases that cite this one
21 later published cases cite this decision.
- Kane Associates v. Blumenson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1968)
- Palmieri v. New York Preparatory School (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1931)
- Fairchild v. Gray (New York County Courts 1930)
- Wyckoff v. . Scofield (N.Y. 1885)
- Chase Manhattan Bank v. Brown & East Ridge Partners (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
- Chemical Bank v. Evans & Hughes Realty, L.P. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
- MDFC Loan Corp. v. LaSalle National Bank (District Court, N.D. Illinois 1993)
- Ronbarst Realty Corp. v. Boardwalk Owners Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
- S & H Building Materials Corp. v. European-American Bank & Trust Co. (New York Supreme Court 1980)
- Kane Associates v. Blumenson (N.Y. 1969)
- People ex rel. 342 East 57th Street Corp. v. Miller (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1941)
- White v. Anthony Investment Co. (Fla. 1935)
- New York Life Insurance v. Fulton Development Corp. (N.Y. 1934)
- Monro-King & Gremmels Realty Corp. v. 9 Avenue-31 Street Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1931)
- New Way Building Co.v. Mortimer Taft Building Corp. (New York Supreme Court 1927)
- Deming Investment Co. v. Bank of Judsonia (Ark. 1926)
- In re Clark Realty Co. (7th Cir. 1916)
- In re the Voluntary Dissolution of the Busch Brewing Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1899)
- Gaynor v. Blewett (Wis. 1892)
- Sales v. Lusk (Wis. 1884)
- Hollenbeck v. Donell (New York Supreme Court 1883)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The plaintiff did not have a strict legal right to the appointment of a receiver. Whether, a receiver should be appointed rested in the discretion of the Supreme Court. (Syracuse Bank v. Tallman, 31 Barb. 201.) Assuming that that court had the power to compel Bagley to pay the rents to the receiver after he was appointed, it was not obliged to exercise the power. Whether it. should exercise the power was just as much in its discretion as the appointment of the receiver. But until the receiver was appointed, Bagley, as the owner of the equity of redemption, standing in the place of the mortgagor, had the right to receive the rents and could not be compelled to account for them. By the appointment of the receiver the plaintiff obtained an equitable lien upon the unpaid rents, and upon them only. (Lofsky v. Maujer, 3 Sandf. Ch. 69 ; Howell v. Ripley, 10 Pai. 43; Astor v. Turner, 11 id. 436 ; Mitchell v. Bartlett, 51 N. Y. 447; Argall v. Pitts, 78 id. 242.)
. It matters not that here the rents were received by Bagley during the pendency of the motion for the receiver. It is *466 enough that they were received before the receiver was actually appointed and before plaintiff's equitable lien upon them had attached. If Bagley was guilty of any fraud or contempt upon the Supreme Court in taking the rents while he knew the application for a receiver was pending, it was for that court to deal with such fraud or contempt, and its action in respect thereto is not subject to our review.
The order appealed from should, therefore, be affirmed with costs.
All concur, except Bapallo, J., absent.
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.