Delaware Chancery Reports Volume 9

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1913 Excerpt: ...paid the costs and satisfied his mortgage. Then the receiver closed his accounts and the question was whether the mortgaged property was liable for the costs and expenses of the receivership. The Court held not, for it would be to the prejudice of the mortgagee, where the property was not more than sufficient to pay the debt secured by the mortgage on the property. The Court said: "A mortgagee of personal property not more than sufficient to pay his debt, is the only one who needs to borrow trouble about its preservation. If one interefere with it officiously under the plea that he has rights therein but inferior to those of the mortgagee which require the sequestration of the property, he ought to pay all the expenses of such interference if it turn out that the property is insufficient, after satisfying the mortgage, to do so." The Court also said that a receiver should not be appointed where the property was no more than sufficient to pay the mortgage debt. In Lane v. Washington Hotel Co., 190 Pa. St. 230, 42 Atl. 697, a receiver of a hotel was appointed and goods in it which were subject to the landlord's lien for rent, were sold by the receiver. Held, that the landlord had a lien for rent on the fund raised by the sale, and it could not be reduced by any part of expense of the receivership. To the same effect was the case of Moore v. Lincoln Park, etc., Co., 196 Pa. St. 519, 46 Atl. 857, where the receiver of a steamboat company sold vessels of the company on which there were maritime liens fixed prior to the receivership, and it was held that the fund for the lien creditors could not be diminished for the payment of any part of the commissions of the receiver. "The case of Makeel v. Hotchkiss, 190 ///. 311, 60 N. E. 524, was one where a...