Opinion
Decided October 10th, 1940.
Order confirming receiver's report, the vice-chancellor having found no merit in objections to the report by one of the parties in interest, affirmed.
Appeal of Ernest Kurzrok.
On appeal from an order of the Court of Chancery advised by Vice-Chancellor Kays, who filed the following opinion:
"This matter came before me on the return of an order to show cause why the report of Alfred L. Kirby, receiver, should not be approved.
"The report of the receiver was filed November 6th, 1939, and covered a period from May 1st, 1939, to November 1st, 1939. The order to show cause was dated November 14th, 1939, and returnable on December 4th, 1939. On the return day of the order it was continued until December 11th, 1939. Mr. Bittles, the mortgagee, filed specifications of objections to the receiver's report. On December 11th, 1939, Mr. Kurzrok filed specifications of objections. Counsel for the receiver stated that in his opinion the objections filed by Mr. Bittles were meritorious and an agreement relative to these objections was reached between Mr. Fast, solicitor of the receiver, and Mr. Harry Lane, solicitor for Mr. Bittles. Mr. Kurzrok's objections to the report were filed on the adjourned date of the return day of the order to show cause and were not served on the receiver or his solicitor prior to that time. The matter, however, was argued.
"The main objection which Mr. Kurzrok made to the receiver's report dealt with payments which were made by the receiver in the first report which he filed on July 20th, 1932. Mr. Kurzrok argued that the receiver's report as of that date had never been approved by this court. I examined the file in the office of the clerk of this court and failed to find such a confirmation. After my examination of the file a certified copy of the order confirming the same was presented to me and read by Mr. Fast. It is dated October 6th, 1932, advised by Vice-Chancellor Bigelow, and among other things approves the first report of the receiver dated July 20th, 1932.
"Mr. Kurzrok also complained because the receiver had not paid certain bills and judgments in which he claimed to be interested and objected to the report because the receiver had not paid the same and accounted to the court therefor. He also objected to payments of taxes which had been made pursuant to orders of the court and to other matters not contained in his specifications of objections.
"After considering the arguments of Mr. Kurzrok I was satisfied that his objections were without merit. Since he insisted that he should be permitted to examine the receiver relative to the matter I decided to refer the matter to one of the special masters of the court in order that Mr. Kurzrok might examine the receiver and his account further. After making this decision Mr. Kurzrok communicated with Mr. Fast, the solicitor of the receiver, advising him that the reference should not be made to the master. Upon receiving this information an order confirming the receiver's report was advised. I found no merit in Mr. Kurzrok's objections and he decided not to proceed with the examination before the special master."
Mr. Ernest Kurzrok, pro se. Mr. Louis A. Fast and Mr. David T. Wilentz, for the defendant.
The order appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion filed in the Court of Chancery by Vice-Chancellor Kays.
For affirmance — THE CHIEF-JUSTICE, PARKER, CASE, BODINE, DONGES, HEHER, PERSKIE, PORTER, DEAR, WELLS, WOLFSKEIL, RAFFERTY, HAGUE, JJ. 13.
For reversal — None.