¶1"We think there is nothing in the papers which gave the receiver, Duffy, a right to come in as a party, and that it was for the court below, in the exercise of its discretion, to determine whether he should be given that permission.
¶2The court, after hearing argument pro and con, concluded that the action might proceed to a determination without the presence of the receiver, and, therefore, denied the application.
¶3We think there was no abuse of discretion. Dunlop v. Ins. Co., 74 N. Y. 145 ; White’s Bank of Buffalo v. Farthing, 101 id. 344; Rosenberg v. Salomon, 144 id. 92.
¶4The order appealed from must, therefore, be affirmed, witli costs.
¶5Yah Wyck and McCarthy, JJ., concur.
¶6Order affirmed, with costs.