New York & W.U. Tel. Co. v. Jewett
| Decision Date | 25 June 1889 |
| Citation | 21 N.E. 1036,115 N.Y. 166 |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | NEW YORK & W. U. TEL. CO. v. JEWETT. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from supreme court, general term, Fifth department.
Ira D. Warren, for appellant.
William W. MacFarland, for respondent.
In 1875, Hugh J. Jewett was appointed receiver of the Erie Railroad Company, and he continued to be such receiver, and to act as such, until he was finally discharged on the 30th day of December, 1879. On the 20th day of February, 1878, the president of the New York & Western Union Telegraph Company, the appellant here, made an affidavit showing that the Erie Railroad Company and the receiver were indebted to the telegraph company for rent of a line of telegraph from the 1st day of April, 1865, to the 1st day of January, 1878, in the sum of $38,250, and upon that affidavit a motion was made at the special term of the supreme court for an order directing the receiver to pay out of the assets of the railroad company, to the telegraph company, the rents set forth in the affidavit, or, in default thereof, to surrender and deliver to the telegraph company the telegraph lines and property specified in the affidavit. That motion was opposed upon an affidavit made by Jewett, in which he denied any indebtedness for the rent claimed, and controverted the other material allegations contained in the moving affidavit. Thereupon the court made an order appointing a referee to take the proofs of the parties as to all the issues between them, and to report the same to the court, together with his opinion thereon. If the telegraph company has a meritorious claim, it has been exceedingly unfortunate in the prosecution thereof, for after a number of references, and several hearings at the special term, and appeals to the general term, it has been unable to procure a final adjudication that it has made a case for the payment to it of any sum whatever out of the assets of the Erie Railroad Company in the hands of the receiver; and it was in the end defeated at the general term, on the ground that the receiver had been finally discharged, and that all the property under the direction of the court had passed out of his hands. In the actions commenced against the Erie Railroad Company, the court had taken into its possession the property of the company, to dispose of, manage, and administer it for the benefit of all parties interested therein, or having any claims against the same; and the receiver was merely its officer, arm, or agent to take possession of the property, and manage and dispose of the same under its direction, and subject to its control. He could at any time be discharged by the court, and another receiver appointed; or the property could be taken out of his hands and restored to its owner, or otherwise disposed of under the judgment in the actions in which he was appointed. No creditors having a claim against the railroad company or its property could sue the receiver, or obtain payment out of the property, except by the consent of the court. A creditor desiring payment out of the property, in such a case is obliged to apply to the court; and, for the purpose of having the claim adjudicated, it may...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Copeland v. Salomon
...abundant authority for making such an order under circumstances such as are present in this case (Matter of New York & Western Union Tel. Co. v. Jewett, 115 N.Y. 166, 170, 21 N.E. 1036; Matter of Gant v. Levine, 52 A.D.2d 925, 383 N.Y.S.2d 86; 149 Clinton Ave. North v. Grassi, 51 A.D.2d 502......
-
In re Magner
...upon notice of the application for the discharge being served upon plaintiff” --and in support, among others, is cited the Jewett Case, 115 N. Y. 166, 21 N. E. at 1037, left col. The Jewett Case is a construction of Herring's Case, 105 N. Y. 340, 12 N. E. 763. In it there is no controversy ......
-
Archambeau v. Platt
...Ryan v. Hays, 62 Tex. 42, 47; Brown v. Gay, 76 Tex. 444, 13 S.W. 472; Bond v. State, 68 Miss. 648, 652, 9 So. 353; Telegraph Co. v. Jewett, 115 N.Y. 166, 21 N.E. 1036; McNulta v. Ensch, 134 Ill. 46, 24 N.E. Meara's Adm'r v. Holbrook, 20 Ohio St. 137; Gluck & B. Rec. (2d Ed.) § 82; Beach, Re......
-
Miller v. Everest
...commenced their actions or at least filed their claims are not considered to be within that category. New York, Western Union Tel. Co. v. Jewett, 115 N.Y. 166, 21 N.E. 1036; Rockwell v. Portland Sav. Bank., 31 Or. 431, 50 P. 566. But we think such a limited view of 'interested parties' may ......