From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Baier v. Kelley

Supreme Court, New York Special Term
Jul 1, 1907
55 Misc. 368 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1907)

Opinion

July, 1907.

Charles Foster, for plaintiff.

Charles S. Clark, for defendant.


The papers fail to show that the property is inadequate to secure plaintiff's mortgage. Indeed, I think the contrary is shown. The receivership clause in a mortgage does not prima facie entitle the mortgagee to the appointment of a receiver. See Thomas v. Davis, 90 A.D. 1, where the court says: "The general rule, as I understand it, is, when a mortgage contains such a provision, and it further appears, as here, that the mortgage sought to be foreclosed is a second mortgage, that the parties in possession refuse to pay the interest and taxes, are receiving the rents, and that there is doubt as to whether the security is adequate, that a receiver will be appointed."

Motion granted.


Summaries of

Baier v. Kelley

Supreme Court, New York Special Term
Jul 1, 1907
55 Misc. 368 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1907)
Case details for

Baier v. Kelley

Case Details

Full title:ANNA M.S. BAIER, Plaintiff, v . HANNAH E. KELLEY, Defendant

Court:Supreme Court, New York Special Term

Date published: Jul 1, 1907

Citations

55 Misc. 368 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1907)
106 N.Y.S. 552

Citing Cases

Sussman v. Lakesite Hotel Corporation

The courts have gone so far as to hold that the appointment of a receiver even where there is a receiver…