Case Name: In the Matter of the Application of a Majority of the Directors of The Murray Hill Bank for a Voluntary Dissolution of said Bank. Spencer Trask and Miles M. O'Brien, as Receivers of The Murray Hill Bank, Appellants; Frederick D. Kilburn, Superintendent of Banks of the State of New York, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1896
Citations: 9 A.D. 554
Docket Number: No. 2
Parties: In the Matter of the Application of a Majority of the Directors of The Murray Hill Bank for a Voluntary Dissolution of said Bank. Spencer Trask and Miles M. O’Brien, as Receivers of The Murray Hill Bank, Appellants; Frederick D. Kilburn, Superintendent of Banks of the State of New York, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 9
Pages: 554–561

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Application of a Majority of the Directors of The Murray Hill Bank for a Voluntary Dissolution of said Bank. Spencer Trask and Miles M. O’Brien, as Receivers of The Murray Hill Bank, Appellants; Frederick D. Kilburn, Superintendent of Banks of the State of New York, Respondent.
(No. 2.)
Eeceivers—the court will not order the Bank Superintendent to transfer property to one receiver which he has already transfemd to another.
. Where, upon a motion made by the receivers of a bank appointed in proceedings for its voluntary dissolution, to compel the Superintendent of Banks to deliver . to them its assets and books, it appeared that he had, before the motion was argued, delivered them to receivers of the same bank appointed in an action instituted by the Attorney-General, the court considered that any action by it in the matter would be ineffectual as the property had passed out of the possession of the Superintendent of Banks and it, therefore, denied the motion.
Appeal by Spencer Trask and another, as receivers of the Murray Hill Bank, 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 25th day of September, 1896, denying their motion to compel the State Superintendent of Banks to deliver to them, as; such receivers, the books, papers and assets of the bank, or for a peremptory writ of mandamus to compel such delivery, and to restrain said Superintendent of Banks from turning such books and papers and assets over to any other person.
The facts are fully stated in the opinion of Williams,- J.
Samuel Untermyer and Louis Marshall, for the appellants.
T. E. Hancook, Attorney-General, and W. E. Kisselburgh, Jr., Deputy Attorney-General, for the respondents.

Opinion:
Ingraham, J.:
We do not concur in the opinion of Mr. Justice Williams: We do not think, however, that' it is necessary on this appeal to pass upon the questions discussed by him, as this order must be affirmed upon the ground that it appeared on the motion that prior to the time the motion was argued the Superintendent of Banks had turned over to certain receivers appointed in another action all the property, assets and books of the bank then in his possession, and that he was no longer in possession of such property. The motion which resulted in the order appealed from was to compel him to turn over to the receivers appointed in this action all the books, papers and assets of the bank, or to show cause why a peremptory mandamus should not issue against him directing him to deliver possession thereof to the receivers. It appearing that he had not then in his possession any of the property in question, an order directing him to turn over such property would be ineffectual.
The order is, therefore, affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. .
Van Brunt, P. J., Patterson, O'Brien and Williams, JJ., concurred.