Case Name: CONKLIN v. CONKLIN
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1908-03-11
Citations: 109 N.Y.S. 187
Docket Number: 
Parties: CONKLIN v. CONKLIN.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 109
Pages: 187–188

Head Matter:
CONKLIN v. CONKLIN.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
March 11, 1908.)
Divorce—Alimony—Enfobcehent of Payment—Sequestration—Grounds fob Opposition.
Where defendant failed to pay plaintiff alimony due her, she cannot complain of an order to sequester the personal property of defendant and appoint a receiver therefor for her benefit, even though an issue may arise between herself and such receiver respecting the title to certain insurance policies on defendant’s life which are in her possession.
Rich, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Special Term, Kings County.
Action by Jeannie L. Conklin against Henry Conklin. Prom an order granting defendant’s motion for the sequestration of his property to secure the payment of alimony due to plaintiff, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
See 113 App. Div. 743, 99 N. Y. Supp. 310.
Argued before WOODWARD, JENKS, RICH, MILLER, and GAYNOR, JJ.
Thomas Gregory (William H. Hamilton, on the brief), for appellant.
I. N. Jacobson, for respondent.

Opinion:
MILLER, J.
The plaintiff appeals from an order sequestering the personal property and the rents and profits of the real property of the defendant and appointing a receiver thereof for her benefit, but fails to point out how she has been injured thereby. If the receiver gets possession of any property of the defendant, the plaintiff will be benefited; if he does not, she will not be harmed. Much has been said about certain insurance policies; but the order does not determine who has title to such policies, and it is not a good reason for reversing the order that an issue respecting the title to them may arise between the receiver and the plaintiff. If the plaintiff has no title to said policies, it is but just that the defendant should be permitted to have the avails of them applied in payment or reduction of the amount due the plaintiff for alimony. If the plaintiff has title to them, the receiver cannot take them from her, as he is appointed receiver of the defendant's, not the plaintiff's, property.
The order should be affirmed.
Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur, except RICH, J., who dissents.