The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1903-06-06
COURT BOUNCES ]. ]. COOGAN.
HE WAS RECEIVER OF A MILLION.
DOLLAR CONTRACTING FIRM.
Grants an Application for Wis Removal
as Unft, and Hints That Justice Mccall.
WHO Appoint cd Him. should Have Done
It-OpiniOn says lie Wasn't Candid.


The Appellate Division Of the Supreme
Court handed down an opinion yesterday
to the effect that James j. Coogan, who
was President Of the Borough OF Manhattan
in the Van Wyck administration. Ia unfit
to act AZ receiver for the firm of Brown
4 Fleming. The court also ordered that
Coogan be removed,
1t is the first case of the kind on the rec
ords Of the Appellate Division.
Brown 4 Fleming are contractors in the
rip-rap rock industry, with capital OF
about 81 900, The firm IL thoroughly
solvent and has a growing business, but the
partners couldn't agree. 20 Fleming, through
his lawyer. David Mcclure. began suit
for a dissolution of partnership and asked
that a receiver be appointed for the assets
There were no creditors. The case was
heard by Justice Mccall
William r. Wilder OF the firm of Wilder
4 Anderson, counsel for Brown, asked
that one of the partners or some good
business man outside be appointed receiver
il it was necessary to have receiver at
all Justice Mccall appointed Coogan.
Mr.. Wilder first tried to get rid OF Coogan
without attacking him directly. He asked
the Appellate Division to rule that no re-
ceiver was necessary On that point, how
ever, the Appellate Division ruled that
there was so much hard feeling be-
tween Fleming and Brown that a COM
petent receiver should be appointed
for the benefit Of both. Wilder
then moved before the Supreme Court
that Coogan be removed. Argument on
this motion was heard by Justice Mccall,
who had made the appointment. He
denied the motion, and counsel for Brown
then appealed to the Appellate Division:
In his argument Lawyer Wiloer declared
recorded against him and that as he hadn't
succeeded In conducting his own business
he WAS not fit to run the business of Brown
4 Fleming. which he knew nothing about.
In its opinion unfolding that argument
the Appellate Division says in part:
large and Important. its assets Of very great
value and the busin 30 situated that for
the protection OF the interests Of all parties
great at loss sst would be suffered The technical
parts Of the business had been carried on
eE a ss en Of
that for the successful conduct Of the business
Receiver should hoi have some kno wedss Of the
details and method OF conducting the business
placed In his hands b1t that ne shoIld also
1t Is shown in the moving papers in this
application that the receiver who has been
appointed has no technical knowledge OF
this business, and that fact is not denied by
him. It Ia also made to appear that many
Judgments unsatisfled Of record are standn i
against him. He asserts that most OF such
judgments have been paid and satisfied but
he produces no evidence TO that effect and ne
admits that some OF them are unpa i'd and I'M
satisfied. for reasons which he declares to be
satisfactory to himself. but what those rea-
sons are. Ia not stated to the court.
There should be question of the SOlvenCv
or OF the business capacity Of a receiver in
this case Matters confded to his charge
are too important for both parties to have
ceiyer appointed in this case has not met
with candor and by. a full explanation the
reasons assigned by the appellent as grounds
exercise Of a wise and proper discretion. the
Judge below should have granted the motion
a person Of undoubted solvency and business
q acifY