What is the proper remedy for a landlord who has a receiver in possession of the property?

court of chancery, as his possession is in law the possession of the court itself. The chancellor said in that case: It is well settled that after a receiver has been appointed, and has taken the rightful possession of the property, it is a contempt of court for a third person to attempt to deprive him of that possession by force, or even by a suit or other proceeding against him, without the permission of the court by whom the receiver was appointed. Where the receiver is in possession of property upon which a third person has a claim for rent, the proper course for the landlord is to apply to the court, upon notice to the receiver, for an order that the receiver pay the rent, or that the landlord be at liberty to proceed by distress or otherwise, as he may be advised. In Wiswall v. Sampson it was held that a sale of real estate in the hands of a receiver, under a judgment pending the equity suit, and while the court was in possession of the estate, without leave of the court, was illegal and void. Therefore, before a legal sale could be made of these buildings upon the execution, application should have been made to the court which appointed the receiver for leave to make the sale, and application might also have been made to the court for payment of the execution out of the proceeds of the sale. But the sale under the execution, without leave of the court, while the property was thus in the custody of the court, was wholly illegal and void. Therefore, as the plaintiff's title rests wholly upon the execution sale, it fails, and for that [108 N.Y. 179]reason he should have been nonsuited at the trial.