MILLER v. VAN SCHAICK


6 F.Supp. 633 (1934)

MILLER v. VAN SCHAICK, Superintendent of Insurance, et al.

District Court, S. D. New York.

April 16, 1934.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Louis F. Reed, of New York City (Charles A. Boston and Edward C. Bailly, both of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff.

Cabell, Ignatius & Lown, of New York City (Hartwell Cabell, Milton B. Ignatius, and M. H. Blinken, all of New York City, of counsel), for defendant George S. Van Schaick.

Hartwell Cabell, Milton B. Ignatius, and L. A. Stone, all of New York City, for defendant National Surety Corporation.

Milton B. Ignatius, of New York City, for defendants Edwin G. Davis and Aaron Rabinowitz, ancillary receivers of Greyling Realty Corporation.

Kaye, McDavitt & Scholer, of New York City (Jacob Scholer, of New York City, of counsel), for defendant Manufacturers' Trust Co.

C. S. Dikeman, of New York City, for defendant National Realty Management Co.

McNamara & Seymour, of New York City (Raymond B. Seymour, of New York City, of counsel), for defendant Empire Trust Co.

Wise, Shepard & Houghton, of New York City (Walter W. Malone, of New York City, of counsel), for defendant Continental Bank & Trust Co.

Cook, Nathan & Lehman, of New York City (Arthur J. Kramer and Mortimer Brenner, both of New York City, of counsel), for defendant Marine Midland Trust Co.

Hays, Wolf, Kaufman & Schwabacher, of New York City (Ralph Wolf and Wolfgang Schwabacher, both of New York City, of counsel), for the Reorganization Committee in charge of the Reorganization of the Mortgage Securities guaranteed by National Surety Co., amici curiæ.

Charles A. Roberts, of New York City, for Reorganization Finance Corporation, amicus curiæ.

Charles L. Woody, of New York City, for Investment Securities Co. of Texas, amicus curiæ.


WOOLSEY, District Judge.

The plaintiff's motion for the appointment of a receiver pendente lite is in all respects denied.

The motion in behalf of George S. Van Schaick, superintendent of insurance of the state of New York, to dismiss the bill of complaint on the ground that the plaintiff has no locus standi in equity under the circumstances shown is granted.

The motion in behalf of the National Surety Company to dismiss the bill of complaint on the...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases