Case ID: ohio-law-abs_4/html/0733-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LEVINE, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 919
    EUCLID ROXFORD CO. v. BOLGAR
    Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist., Cuyahoga Co.
    No. 6928.
    Decided March 1, 1926
    1002. RECEIVERS — Notice of application for and appointment of need not be given when emergency exists requiring immediate action.
    Attorneys — O. D. Eshelman for Euclid Roxford Co.; White, Hammond, Brewer and Curtiss for Bolgar; all of Cleveland.
   LEVINE, P. J.

Cuyahoga Common Pleas having appointed a receiver on application of Aranka Bolgar, error was prosecuted to the Court of Appeals on the sole ground that no notice had been given to the Euclid Roxford Co. The Court of Appeals held:

1. The general rule is that notice must be given on application for appointment of a receiver.
2. When an emergency exists, requiring immediate action a receiver may be appointed without notice.
3. Every presumption is in favor of the regularity of the order appointing a receiver.
4. In absence of evidence to the contrary, facts necessary to sustain the order will be presumed.

Judgment affirmed.