New-York tribune., 1872-08-08
LOCAL MISCELLANY.
MAIZE pANKRIPT BY RECFvFRsHIPs.


A JUSTICE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT DENoUNC-
ING ONE OF M'CUNNS FAvoRITE RECEIVERS.
THE TRIBUNE has heretofore exposed the
xrose abuses Of rower by certain Judges OF the courts
Of the city, in the appointment Of receivers ana IN o'ne
nagitious acts which have exposed the administration Va
Justice ia New-YOrk to dstrust and eontemp@ Au
opinion OF Judge Freedman delivered at the June speca
Term OF the Superior Court and just mace puoc' OK
pressing his decision in the Of Albert H. corey
against Walter p. Long rccites facts and pronouneos
Judgment tnat fully confirm the statements OF lhH
TRIBUNE.
In 1859 Corey sold ont to walter p Long. who was ms
partner all hs interest In the partnership property ana
effects Long contracted and pay the partner
.hr debts Corey subsequently brought an action 10
RESTRAIN Long from interfering with the property OF INC
late firm and asked for the appointment OF receiver
who should take possession OF the partnership property
and effects convert them into money ana pay INC
,obs one Of the Justices OF the Superior Conrt not
named Ia Judge Freodmans opinion granted the nOunc
ZION asked and appointed James NJ. Gano as receiver
Proceedings under these orders were subsequently
stayed appointing the receiver was Nae"ve'
hut the motion dissolve the Injunction was ueteo'
and the Justice authorized the receiver ana an
tber person .o take and hold possession of the prop
erty Gano was afterward reappoinied receiver, and
hled a bond in the Isum Of 5000 Another order was
made BY the same Justice requiring the receiver TO sell
All The personal property of the firm, and TO pay from
the proceeds Of the sale all the necessary expenses
incurred IN carrying the order, and TO hold the bal
nc subject to the order Of Court Long appealed TO
the General Term and the orders reversed the Court
holding Ihai Long absolute title TO the property
creditor OF the firm began proceedings In bankruptcy
aud an assignee was appointed. At special term Of the
Superior Couri an made declaring the action
auatcd end, except 20 pass upon the accounts
60 determine his fees. The assignee
was adiadgcd tU he entitled TO the balance atter the
accounting The receiver filed an account before the
referee had been appointed to report and showed
he had received Ss2J from the sale OF the partner
hiip effects aud that lac had paid the assignee $500
Ho charged sass for fees and disbursements. Inc
referee dsaoWed portion OF the account and the case
came again before the Court exceptions taken by the
assigneo and by Long the report of the referee.
Judge Freedman IN his OpuOn, passed upon the rights
o the assignee. and declared that the receiver GaO
trespassCr and that Long the defendant was the
of the property. Judge Freedman also enlarged
the and duties of receivers Showing inc
importance the cOndded 20 them He held that
fhe receiver In this instance exceeded MS powers, anu
That he had made expenditures wholly unauthorized,
and eaid that he had abused his Office, The Irregular
ties Of the receiver shown 70 be gross neon
ssteut, ami absurd The Judge then passed specncal
upon the items OF the receivers account ana dsaOWed
tho sum OF S3O44 The judgment Of the Court was III
of the assignee IN bankruptcy who was gwen leave
10 recover tue amount withheld by the receiver either
bv execution hy attachment in case OF nOHpaymcnt
of by suit against the sureties upon the re-
oeiver's bond In other words, Judge Freed
man has ordered the receiver TO disgorge
gains which the Judge declares Unauthorized and III
one instance uuaccomtable. Mr. Long, the victim of
proceedings which show the corrupt action of the Judge
VINO granted orders and OF the receiver who acted
under them bankrupt, with the loss OF his
property and with scanty escape from further loss
through the UNJUST and fraudulent accounting OF tine