106 N.J. Eq. 1 | N.J. Ct. of Ch. | 1930
The sole question involved on this petition is whether or not the receiver who was appointed on December 17th, 1929, should be directed to pay to the defendant-petitioner, the mortgagor, rents due and payable in advance on December 1st, 1929, but which were unpaid on the date of the receiver's appointment and thereafter collected by him. It has been repeatedly held in this state that a rent receiver in a foreclosure proceeding has no more rights than a mortgagor in possession would have and therefore is not entitled to rents accrued before his appointment. Stewart v.Fairchild-Baldwin Co.,
I will, therefore, advise an order directing the receiver to pay to the defendant-petitioner rents which were due and payable on December 1st and thereafter collected by him.