From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Alexander v. Valumet Chocolate Company, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 1, 1933
240 App. Div. 769 (N.Y. App. Div. 1933)

Opinion

July, 1933.


Order directing the receiver to account affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Although it is quite doubtful whether the respondent had any standing in this action to make the application involved in this appeal, it is our opinion that, in view of the conceded facts, the order made was proper. In selling the machinery in question without a special order of the court, the receiver acted without authority. A receiver is an officer of the court and subject at all times to its direction and control. When unauthorized acts of a receiver are brought to the attention of the court, it is within its power to direct him to account, irrespective of the manner in which his action is brought to its attention or by whom the application is made. Lazansky, P.J., Young, Kapper, Hagarty and Scudder, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Alexander v. Valumet Chocolate Company, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 1, 1933
240 App. Div. 769 (N.Y. App. Div. 1933)
Case details for

Alexander v. Valumet Chocolate Company, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:EUGENE D. ALEXANDER, as Trustee, Plaintiff, v. VALUMET CHOCOLATE COMPANY…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jul 1, 1933

Citations

240 App. Div. 769 (N.Y. App. Div. 1933)

Citing Cases

Matter of Berkowitz

(Matter of Riker [Browne], 204 N.Y.S.2d 60, 62.) She is "an officer of the court and subject at all times to…

Gracie Tower Realty v. Danos

However title does not pass to him and remains with the owner of the property (Cobb v Sweet, supra). The…