From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rabinowitz v. Power

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 1, 1909
131 App. Div. 892 (N.Y. App. Div. 1909)

Summary

In Rabinowitz v. Power (131 App. Div. 892), a case passing through this court, the per curiam opinion was as follows: "The plaintiff having failed to show that the property is inadequate security for the amount due upon the bond and mortgage was not entitled to have a receiver of the property appointed."

Summary of this case from W.I.M. Corporation v. Cipulo

Opinion

March, 1909.

Present — Ingraham, McLaughlin, Clarke, Houghton and Scott, JJ.


The plaintiff having failed to show that the property is inadequate security for the amount due upon the bond and mortgage was not entitled to have a receiver of the property appointed. The order should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion to vacate the order appointing a receiver granted, with ten dollars costs, with leave, however, to the plaintiff to renew the application in case the defendant should unreasonably defend the action.


Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs, with leave to plaintiff to renew as stated in opinion. Settle order on notice.


Summaries of

Rabinowitz v. Power

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 1, 1909
131 App. Div. 892 (N.Y. App. Div. 1909)

In Rabinowitz v. Power (131 App. Div. 892), a case passing through this court, the per curiam opinion was as follows: "The plaintiff having failed to show that the property is inadequate security for the amount due upon the bond and mortgage was not entitled to have a receiver of the property appointed."

Summary of this case from W.I.M. Corporation v. Cipulo
Case details for

Rabinowitz v. Power

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH RABINOWITZ, Respondent, v . JAMES POWER, Unmarried, Appellant…

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

Date published: Mar 1, 1909

Citations

131 App. Div. 892 (N.Y. App. Div. 1909)

Citing Cases

W.I.M. Corporation v. Cipulo

" In Rabinowitz v. Power ( 131 App. Div. 892), a case passing through this court, the per curiam opinion was…

Sussman v. Lakesite Hotel Corporation

( Browning v. Stacey, 52 A.D. 626.) "But it has been said that in the absence of a receiver clause in the…