Case Name: MORSE et al. v. VAN NESS
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1913-03-28
Citations: 140 N.Y.S. 1043
Docket Number: 
Parties: MORSE et al. v. VAN NESS.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 140
Pages: 1043–1045

Head Matter:
MORSE et al. v. VAN NESS.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
March 28, 1913.)
Receivebs (§ 19 )—Pendente Lite—Gbounds.
Where plaintiff, suing to set aside transfers of property made to defendant, financially irresponsible, by her deceased husband, showed an apparent interest in the property, based on a judgment and a will, and also showed that the property was in the possession of défendant, and that there was great danger of its disposition pending the action the court should appoint a receiver and require defendant to turn over to him the property; but the income therefrom should be paid to defendant pending the action.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Receivers, Cent- Dig. § 27; Dec. Dig. § 19.*]
Lauglilin, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Special Term, New York County.
Action by Harriet B. Morse and another against Alice Wood Van Ness. From an order denying an application for the appointment of a receiver pendente lite, and for a restraining order preventing the transfer of property in a suit to set aside transfers made to defendant by her deceased husband, plaintiffs appeal. Reversed.
Argued before INGRAHAM, P. J., and McLAUGHLIN, LAUGHLIN, SCOTT, and DOWLING, JJ.
Wallace Macfarlane, of New York City, for appellants.
James A. O’Gorman, of New York City, for respondent.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep'r Indexes

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Without expressing any opinion upon the merits of the controversy between the parties, it is sufficient to say that, in our opinion, the plaintiffs have made out a case justifying the granting of their motion for the appointment of a receiver pendente lite, and for a restraining order preventing the transfer by the respondent of any property constituting, in whole or in part, the subject-matter of this action. The plaintiffs have shown an apparent right to or interest in the property involved herein, based not only on the judgment in the action of Harmon v. Van Ness, but also on the will of Emma Louise Van Ness. Such property is' in the possession of the defendant, Alice Wood Van Ness, and it sufficiently appears that there is grave danger of its transfer, gift, or other disposition pending the termination of this action—a conclusion which is supported by the disposition concededly already made by the respondent of a large portion thereof. It appears as well that unless the relief sought is granted a final judgment in favor of the plaintiffs will be ineffectual; for the respondent is financially irresponsible, save for the property in controversy still remaining in her possession. We are of the opinion, therefore, that the interests of justice will be best served by the appointment of a receiver of the property involved in this action pending the trial of the action itself, and by requiring respondent to turn over to said receiver all the property involved herein which is still in her possession; said order, however, to provide that pending the determination of the action the income derived from said property so deposited with the receiver shall be paid over to the respondent for her maintenance and support.
The order appealed from will therefore be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the application for a receiver and injunction granted,-as hereinbefore indicated, with $10 costs.