From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hernandez v. Brookdale Mills, Inc.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Dec 13, 1921
232 N.Y. 552 (N.Y. 1921)

Opinion

Argued November 21, 1921

Decided December 13, 1921

Vermont Hatch and Joseph M. Hartfield for plaintiffs, appellants.

Louis H. Hahlo for receiver, appellant.

Elbridge L. Adams for respondent.


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.

HISCOCK, Ch. J., HOGAN, CARDOZO, POUND, McLAUGHLIN, CRANE and ANDREWS, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed.


Summaries of

Hernandez v. Brookdale Mills, Inc.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Dec 13, 1921
232 N.Y. 552 (N.Y. 1921)
Case details for

Hernandez v. Brookdale Mills, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH E. HERNANDEZ et al., Appellants, v . BROOKDALE MILLS, INC.…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Dec 13, 1921

Citations

232 N.Y. 552 (N.Y. 1921)

Citing Cases

Matter of Staiger

The decree, even though erroneous, was not void, and the executor, while it stood, might rest on its…

Kansas City So. Ry. v. Trust Co.

Many authorities allow solicitor and client costs, even in the absence of a fiduciary relationship, where the…