History
  • No items yet
midpage
Best v. Schermier
6 N.J. Eq. 154
New York Court of Chancery
1847
Check Treatment
The Chancellor.

I have uniformly denied applications to appoint a receiver of rents made on filing foreclosure bills. I have considered that the mortgagor is entitled to the rents while he is in possession by his tenants. I am satisfied that the contrary practice was inconsistent with what is now well understood to bo the nature of a mortgage, and led to great oppression. The view I had taken was sustained by the Court of Errors and Appeals in the case of Sanderson v. Price.

Schermier would not have been restrained from collecting the rents: and, he having assigned them to Ballentine and authorized him to collect them and apply them as payments on his mortgage, I see no reason why Ballentine should not be permitted to collect them.

The order appointing a receiver of the rents and restraining Ballentine from collecting them will be vacated.

Order accordingly.

Case Details

Case Name: Best v. Schermier
Court Name: New York Court of Chancery
Date Published: Mar 15, 1847
Citation: 6 N.J. Eq. 154
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.