And adequate remedy for the collection of said claim

This preview shows page 12 - 14 out of 18 pages.

and adequate remedy for the collection of said claim; (4) that the complaint upon which the order appointing a receiver was issued does not show that the plaintiff therein had any interest in the property to be placed under receivership. ISSUE Whether the appointment of the trial court for a receiver is warranted. HELD Authority, however, for the issuance of said order seems clear from the provisions of section 177 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to wit: "If a receiver be appointed upon an ex parte application, the court, before making the order, may require from the plaintiff or person filing the application for such appointment, an obligation with sufficient sureties, to be approved by the court, in an amount to be fixed by the court, to the effect that the applicant will pay to the defendant in the application all damages he may sustain by reason of the appointment of such receiver and the entry by him upon his duties, in case the applicant shall have procured such appointment without sufficient cause; and the court may, in its discretion, at any time after the appointment, require an additional obligation as further security fir such damages, if any, shall be ascertained by the court and, in its final judgment in the action, shall be decreed against the plaintiff and the sureties on the obligation." It is necessary and legitimate inference from the opening statement of this section that an order of receivership may be issued by the court ex parte upon proper showing in appropriate cases. We agree with the suggestions of counsel for the petitioners that the appointment of a receiver, because of its drastic nature and of its character as a special remedy under our Code of Civil Procedure, is a power which should be exercised with great caution. But this does not argue against the existence of the power of the court to appoint a receiver where the necessity therefor has arisen. In such a case, the appointment of a receiver is a matter resting largely in the discretion of the trial court. Upon the other hand, it is not disputed that after the appointment ex parte of the receiver in the present case arguments both written and oral were presented and the defendants in civil case No. 51448 who are petitioners herein made a credible effort to set aside the order issued by the trial court appointing a receiver. These arguments appear to have been carefully weighed by the respondent judge who thereafter, in an order of June 28, 1937, virtually reaffirmed his order of receivership. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the trial judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or that the order of June 13, 1937 issued by him is otherwise illegal for lack of notice to or hearing of the parties. 12 | S A N T I A G O , S A R A A N D R E A N I N A P . | C I V I L P R O C E D U R E
Question No. 04: Provide case digests illustrative of instances when the writ of replevin was denied issuance.

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture