March, 1922.
Order reversed upon the law and facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs. Upon all the papers the facts presented do not warrant the appointment of a receiver pendente lite. The proof must be clear and convincing before such a drastic remedy is applied in advance of the trial. Blackmar, P.J., Jaycox, Manning, Kelby and Young, JJ., concur.
Full title:AGNES FLORIAN MULLIN, Individually and as Executrix, etc., of FRANCIS B…
Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Date published: Mar 1, 1922
It seems well established that the court has power to appoint a receiver of a corporation pending a suit by a…
Kirsner v. KirsnerOrder appointing receiver pendente lite in an action by a wife to set aside a conveyance by her husband prior…