4 Edw. Ch. 412 | New York Court of Chancery | 1845
It is too late to raise an objection against the granting of the injunction and an appointment of a receiver of the rents. If any well founded objection existed to either, it should have been made on motion to dissolve the injunction or in opposition to the receivership at the time it was applied for. Submitting to the appointment of a receiver by those who were before the court and had a right to object and who could have appealed from the order, if dissatisfied with it, but did not, is such an acquiescence in the order as renders it the law of the case with respect to the right to have a receiver; and that right being established, the application of the funds must follow so as to accomplish the object intended. Thus, in the case in hand : the original bill of these complainants was deemed sufficient to entitle them to a preliminary injunction, restraining the mortgagor, Dorr, and his assignee in bankruptcy, from collecting the rents of the mortgaged premises then about to become due and those subsequently to accrue; and on the filing of the supplemental bill in the cause, it was also deemed a proper case for the appointment of a receiver to take and collect the rents; and an order (the order of the twenty-third day of May one thousand eight hundred and forty-three) was made accordingly. All this proceeded on the ground of the mortgagor’s bankruptcy and an apprehended deficiency from a sale of the property to satisfy the mortgage debt. It was with a view to provide against such deficiency that the rents were intercepted and placed in the hands of a receiver. The mortgagor and the general assignee in bankruptcy, in whom the equity of redemption or, in other words, the legal estate had become vested, were parties to the suit; and they are
It appears to be an established rule, that a second or third mortgagee, who succeeds in getting a receiver appointed, becomes thereby entitled to the rents collected during the appointment, although a prior mortgagee steps in and obtains a receivership in his behalf and fails to obtain enough out of the property to pay his debt. This is on the principle that a mortgagee acquires a specific lien upon the rents by obtaining the appointment of a receiver of them; and if he be a second or a third incumbrancer, the court will give him the benefit of his superior diligence over his senior in respect to the rents which accrued during the time that the elder mortgagee took no measures to have the receivership extend to his suit and for his benefit : Howell v. Ripley, 10 Paige’s C. R. 43. The same principle is found in Thomas v. Brigstocke, 4 Russ. 64. There, a mortgagee was held not to be entitled to rents collected and brought into court by a receiver appointed in another suit, which rents had accrued intermediate the time of the receiver’s appointment and his discharge on the application of the mortgagee, although but for the receivership the mortgagee would have been entitled to the rents from the tenants. Notwithstanding the right of entry of a mortgagee'has been abolished by our revised stat
There are no conflicting claims to the rents in question, other than those between the complainants as mortgagees and the assignee (in bankruptcy) of the mortgagor and his grantee ; and as between these parties, the mortgagees are entitled, under their receiver, to the rents; and on account of the deficiency shown by them, the prayer of their petition —that the receiver account and pay the money to them— must be granted.