Case Name: Harriet B. Morse and Marie B. H. Pierce, Appellants, v. Alice Wood Van Ness, Respondent, Impleaded with Emma Louise Van Ness Dey and Others, Defendants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1913-03-28
Citations: 155 A.D. 633
Docket Number: 
Parties: Harriet B. Morse and Marie B. H. Pierce, Appellants, v. Alice Wood Van Ness, Respondent, Impleaded with Emma Louise Van Ness Dey and Others, Defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 155
Pages: 633–636

Head Matter:
Harriet B. Morse and Marie B. H. Pierce, Appellants, v. Alice Wood Van Ness, Respondent, Impleaded with Emma Louise Van Ness Dey and Others, Defendants.
First Department,
March 28, 1913.
Receiver — suit to set aside assignment — transfer of assigned property-enjoined.
Where in a suit to set aside assignments of property it appears that a final judgment for the plaintiff will be ineffectual because the defendant is financially irresponsible save for the property assigned, and that there is grave danger of the transfer of the property pending the action, a receiver pendente lite will be appointed and an order granted restraining the assignee from transferring the property.
Laughliií, J., dissented, with opinion.
Appeal by the plaintiffs, Harriet B. Morse and another, 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 3d day of February, 1013, denying an application under section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the. appointment of a receiver pendente lite, and for a restraining order preventing a transfer of property in a suit brought to set aside certain transfers made to the defendant Alice Wood Van Ness by her deceased husband.
Wallace Macfarlane, for the appellants.
James A. O'Gorman, for the respondent.

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 ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the application for a receiver and injunction granted as hereinbefore indicated, with ten dollars costs.
Present—Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Scott and Dowling, JJ.; Laughlin, J., dissented.