Case ID: nys_6/html/0408-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Daniels, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

People v. North River Sugar Refining Co.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.
    
    July 9, 1889.)
    Receiver—Stay of Proceedings Pending Appeal.
    Where the judgment appealed from appointed a receiver to take possession of the property of defendant corporation, which had been declared dissolved for forfeiture of its franchises, defendant was not entitled to a more favorable order, staying proceedings, than that made by the court, which directed the receiver to make no sale or distribution of the property that might come into bis hands pending the appeal, or until the further order of the court.
    Appeal from special term, New York county.
    This is an appeal by defendant from an order denying its motion for a “ stay of all proceedings under the judgment” of dissolution of the corporation and appointment of a receiver. For the opinion of Barrett, J., holding that the corporation had forfeited its franchises, and should be dissolved, see 3 N. Y. Supp. 401.
    Argued before Tan Brunt, P. J., and Brady and Daniels, JJ.
    
      John B. Parsons, for appellant. Chas. B. Tabor, A tty. Gen., (Roger A. Pryor, of counsel,) for respondent.
   Daniels, J.

The object of the application was to obtain an order staying all proceedings under the judgment in this action until the hearing and decision of an appeal taken from it by the defendant. The judgment was obtained in an action brought by the "attorney general in the name of the people, to annul the charter of the defendant as a corporation, and terminate its corporate existence. In the action a judgment to that effect was rendered in favor of the plaintiff, providing for the appointment of a receiver, and the distribution of the property of the defendant. By the order which was made on the hearing of the motion the court directed the receiver to make no sale or distribution of the property that might come into his hands'during the appeal, or until the further order of the court; and that seems to be as far as the court, consistently with its own judgment, could proceed, for the judgment itself provided for the appointment of a receiver, who should be authorized to take possession of the property of the defendant. And it appeared upon the hearing of the motion that he had qualified as such receiver, and entered into the possession of the refinery building previously owned by the defendant. He had proceeded no further than he was necessarily required to go in compliance with the direction contained in the judgment, and by no action which he may be permitted to take will any of the rights or interests of the defendant be jeopardized or injuriously affected during the pendency of the appeal, further than that which will necessarily result from the judgment itself. As favorable an order has been made as the circumstances and the authority remaining in the court over the litigation appeared to justify, and the order should therefore be affirmed, with $10 costs and the disbursements. The other justices concurred in the result.