Hardt v. Levy — 61 N.Y. St. Rep. 40

Majority

p. 40

William A. Hardt et al., Pl’ffs, v. Julius Levy et al., Defts. Kings County Trust Company, App’lt.

(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department,

Filed June 15, 1894.)

Headnote

Receiver—Actions against.

The court will not consent that a receiver should he annoyed and vexed by an action charging that he is a trespasser while performing its commands.

Appeal from an order withdrawing* leave of court previously-granted to sue the receiver, etc.

Benjamin N. Cardozo, Jr., for app’lt; George Zabriskie, for the receiver, resp’t.

We have already decided at this term of the court, 61 St. Rep. 38 , that the special term properly refused to vacate the order of May 21, 1891, which, among other things, appointed Henry Winthrop Cray receiver, and rightly directed that the receiver should account before a referee appointed for that purpose, and for the usual action in such cases, upon full compliance with which the order directs that he shall be discharged. -If our position in that case be well taken, it follows that the court should not give consent that its officer, while proceeding in the discharge of a duty imposed upon him by the court, and in the manner directed by it,-should at the same time be subjected to the annoyance and vexation of an action charging that he is a trespasser while performing the commands of the court.

The order should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and printing disbursements.