New York Court of Appeals, 1921

Hernandez v. . Brookdale Mills, Inc.

New York Court of Appeals · Decided December 13, 1921 · <italic>Per Curiam</italic>.

232 N.Y. 552; 134 N.E. 568; 1921 N.Y. LEXIS 584

Counsel

Vermont Hatch and Joseph M. Hartfield for plaintiffs, appellants. Louis H. Hahlo for receiver, appellant. Elbridge L. Adams for respondent.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

The order should be affirmed, with costs.

The question certified is answered in the negative. Upon the facts appearing in this record the court at least had the power as a matter of discretion to make provision as it did for payment of the commissions and expenses of the receiver. We do not pass upon the disposition of such items under other circumstances.

His cock, Ch. J., Hogan, Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane and Andrews, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.