Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

91 F.2d 732

Docket No. 345.

Smith v. D. A. Schulte, Inc.

Second Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided June 28, 1937.

Second Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1937-06-28

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently March 1943

1 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Relies on Sullivan v. . Rosson · Peirson v. Paris · In re Brose

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1937-06-28

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Rosenberg, Goldmark & Colin, of New York City (Max Freund and Paul A. Landsman, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellants.

¶2Jerome Eisner and Ernst, Gale, Bernays & Falk, all of New York City (Henry I. Fillman, of New York City, of counsel), for appellee.

¶3Before L. HAND, SWAN, and CHASE, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5This appeal presents only one variant upon Central Manhattan Properties, Inc., v. D. A. Schulte, Inc., of New York (C.C.A.) 91 F.(2d) 728, handed down herewith. The lessor, Schulco Company, Inc., mortgaged some of the parcels of land in question to the Central Hanover Bank & Trust Company, together “with the right to receive all rents due or to become due thereunder.” The debtor argues that this passed title to the rents out of the lessor. That is plainly untrue; the transfer was nothing more than a mortgage of future rents, and it is well settled in New -York that until the mortgagee gets a foreclosure receiver, or the equivalent, the rents belong to the mortgagor. Sullivan v. Rosson, 223 N.Y. 217, 119 N.E. 405, 4 A.L.R. 1400; In re Brose, 254 F. 664 (C.C.A.2); In re Kings County Real Estate Corp., 67 F.(2d) 895 (C.C.A.2); Walker v. Irving Trust Co., 73 F.(2d) 270 (C.C.A.2); Prudential Ins. Co. v. Liberdar Holding Co., 74 F.(2d) 50 (C.C.A.2); In re Humeston, 83 F.(2d) 187 (C.C.A.2).

¶6Order reversed; claim allowed for fourteen-fifteenths of the subrents.

/91/f2d/732 · .json · Public domain