Case Name: James D. Putnam, Respondent, v. Henderson, Hull & Company (Limited), Appellant, Impleaded with Others
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1900
Citations: 49 A.D. 361
Docket Number: 
Parties: James D. Putnam, Respondent, v. Henderson, Hull & Company (Limited), Appellant, Impleaded with Others.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 49
Pages: 361–362

Head Matter:
James D. Putnam, Respondent, v. Henderson, Hull & Company (Limited), Appellant, Impleaded with Others.
Receiver—an adjudication as to the rights of successive mortgagees should not be made on motion.
The lights of successive mortgagees, to the rents and profits of mortgaged premises, should not be adjudicated on a motion for the appointment of a receiver of such rents and profits, but the receiver should be required to hold the rents collected subject to the further order of the court.
Appeal by the defendant, Henderson, Hidl & Company (Limited), from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 14th day of April, 1899, appointing a receiver of the rents and profits of mortgaged premises described in the complaint in the action.
William C. Wolf, for the appellant.
John Alex. Beall, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam:
In the order appealed from the receiver is directed to apply the rents and profits collected by him, " first, to the reduction and extinguishment of the amount due to the plaintiff herein, and secondly, to apply any surplus to the amount due said Henderson, Hull and Company." The latter claimed by the terms of their bond and mortgage, that the defendant McAllister " pledged the rents as additional security for the moneys secured thereby; " and, having had a receiver appointed, while it was entirely proper for the court on this motion to extend the receivership in the action to plaintiff's claim, we do not think it was right to adjudicate upon the claims of the respective mortgagees to the rents. The order appealed from should accordingly be modified by requiring the receiver to hold the rents collected, subject to the further order of the court, and as so modified, it should be affirmed, without costs.
Present — Van Brunt, P. J., Barrett, Rumsey, O'Brien and Ingraham, JJ.
Order modified as directed in opinion, and as modified affirmed, without costs.