Case Name: Myers J. Ross and Others, Respondents, v. Cuban Dominican Sugar Corporation, and Others, Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1932-07
Citations: 236 A.D. 737
Docket Number: 
Parties: Myers J. Ross and Others, Respondents, v. Cuban Dominican Sugar Cor poration, and Others, Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 236
Pages: 737–738

Head Matter:
Myers J. Ross and Others, Respondents, v. Cuban Dominican Sugar Cor poration, and Others, Appellants.

Opinion:
Order appointing receivers reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs. The order appointing receivers herein was improvidently made as no sufficient basis for the appointment of receivers appears in this record. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 974; Gen. Corp. Law, § 150; Nobis v. Nobis, 193 App. Div. 218; Fenn v. Ostrander, Inc., 132 id. 311; Miller v. Albertina Realty Co., Inc., 198 id. 340.) The provision restraining the prosecuting of actions in the Federal courts is erroneous. (Wheeler v. Vimalert Co., Ltd., 235 App. Div. 643, and cases cited therein.) In any event when the Federal court receivers were appointed, the property was not in the constructive possession of the State court and no fraud in respect to jurisdiction was perpetrated upon the Federal court by way of inducing it to take actual possession through its receivers as a consequence of fraud or improper conduct operating to mislead the plaintiffs herein. (Harkin v. Brundage, 276 U. S. 36.) Young, Kapper, Carswell and Tompkins, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., concurs on the second ground stated.
Amd. by Laws of 1929, chap. 650.— [Rep.