Case Name: William S. Jarvis, Trustee, Plaintiff, v. James P. McQuaide et al., Defendants
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1898-06
Citations: 24 Misc. 17
Docket Number: 
Parties: William S. Jarvis, Trustee, Plaintiff, v. James P. McQuaide et al., Defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 24
Pages: 17–18

Head Matter:
William S. Jarvis, Trustee, Plaintiff, v. James P. McQuaide et al., Defendants.
(Supreme Court, Kings Special Term,
June, 1898.)
Foreclosure — Stipulation in a mortgage authorizing a receiver pendente lite.
Although a mortgage contains a clause providing for the appointment of a receiver of the rents and profits pendente lite, the court will not grant such an application in a summary manner, where no allegations are made as to whether the security is sufficient or insufficient to pay the debt.
Motion for a receiver pendente lite in an action of foreclosure.
Aaron P. Whitehead, for plaintiff.
William L. Stone, for defendant.

Opinion:
Johnson, J.
This is an action to foreclose a mortgage on real property, and motion is made for a receiver of the' rents and profits pendente lite. The motion is based entirely on a clause in the mortgage providing for such a remedy,' no allegation being made as to the sufficiency or insufficiency of the security. On authority this motion must be denied. Sickles v. Canary, 8 App. Div. 308; Brick v. Hornbeck, 19 Misc. Rep. 218; Degener v. Stiles, 25 N. Y. St. Repr. 422. But apart from precedents, I think the results should .be the same. The remedy by receiver is sui generis, and an outgroiyth of the precedents and practice of equity. In a sense it is disseizin before judgment. If a mortgagor should stipulate as a part of the mortgage that he would not defend a suit to foreclose or that the time to answer or notice for trial in such an action should be five days it would hardly be claimed that such a stipulation could be enforced. I am not able to see how an agreement for a receiver pendente lite stands on a different basis. Of1 course, an agreement for a receiver is enforcible, but enforciblé as other agreements are, after trial and by and through a judgment, and not on summary application and practically by mesne process.
The practice allowing a receiver, standing as an exception to the rule, though well recognized and understood, I do not think can be extended by agreement.
Motion denied, with $10 costs in the cause, to defendant, but without prejudice to application on other grounds.
Motion denied, with $10 costs, to defendant, without prejudice ' to application on other grounds.