Majority
Headnote
1. Supplementary Proceedings—Receivers—Illegal Acts.This action was brought to restrain the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of certain real estate in the city of New York. It appeared upon the trial that thepremises in question were originally owned by one Susan Sullivan, who conveyed them in April, 1889, to her aunt Annie Moriarty for the expressed consideration
The facts of this case show the most remarkable instance of illegal usurpation upon the part of a person who claimed to be an officer of the court that has ever come under our observation. Without any adjudication establishing the invalidity of the deed from .the Sullivans to Moriarty, the receiver takes possession of her property, under an order of the court directing him to do so, it is true, but which the court had not the slightest authority to make, as in supplementary proceedings against the Sullivans the validity of conveyances by them to parties not before the court could not, be adjudicated upon,
It is claimed upon the part of the appellant that the plaintiff was not in possession of the premises, but that the receiver was. The learned court has found, upon sufficient evidence, that the plaintiff went into possession of these premises by and with the consent of the defendant; and the question as to' whether these conveyances were made with intent to hinder, delay, and defraud creditors cannot be considered in this action. The claim that the deed to Robinson was absolutely void, and that he could acquire no rights thereunder which entitled him to maintain this action, is entirely without foundation. The court found, upon proper evidence, that the premises were not held adversely, but that possession was surrendered to Robinson by the defendant. The claim that, when the court directs its receiver to take possession of property, it will not permit him to be sued by one claiming the property, is certainly somewhat startling. In the case at bar the court had no jurisdiction whatever to make the order directing him to take possession; the title to the property being in somebody other than the judgment debtor. Upon the whole case, therefore, there seems to be no reason whatever to interfere with the judgment rendered. The interference of the defendant with the possession of this plaintiff was absolutely inexcusable and in bad faith, and he was therefore rightly charged personally with costs. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.