The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1893-05-03
JUDGE TAYLOR SUSTAINED.
Supreme Court AfIfrms the Iron Hail
Receivership.

The case of the supreme sitting of the
Order of the Iron Hall against Albert
Baker and others was decided Thursday.
The case came up from Judge Taylor OF
the Marion superior court and judgment
was affirmed. Baker ct al. were victims
OF the Iron Hall swindle and brought suit
for the appointment of a receiver. Judge
Taylor decided for the plaintiffs and the
receiver was appointed. The following
is, in substance, the opinion as prepared
by Judge 0lds:
Appellants charged error in the complaint
that it did not state facts sufficient TO oonsti-
tute q cause for action. AS the appeal was
only from the order appointing a receiver. and
II the appointment OF a recover is but auxiliary
10 pending action 10 keep intact fund
sought TO be reached and applied in sstisfsc-
ton of final judgment to be rendered, the
sufhclency OF the complaint will not be tested,
but if the appointment of q receiver IL the
main cause OF the suit then the court must in
vesugate the suffioieney of the complaint
Tested as IL may be, and is, in this case, Ia
this court, for the first time, The complaint will
not be construed by any harsh and technical
rule, but il must state, at least generally. q
cause for the appointment OF a receiver or 10
cannot be sustained.
Inc Coupth4uk Ddheh us demand Tor the ap-
pcintment OF q receiver and the dissolution Of
the corporation on the grounds of its insol.
venoy and the general mismanagemeat of its
affairs by its officers. A court has no power to
dissolve corporation without the authority Of
a statute to that effect. Indiana has no suoh
statute; hence the action for the dissolution of
the corporation cannot be sustained.
A court of equity should not n ihlessly
wrest from the legally constituted officers of q
corporation the management of IFS affairs and
the property OF the corporation and turn ID
over to a receiver; such power should not be
exercised unless 1t is clearly evident that il 10
for the best interests of those concerned, but
We think, under our statute, the court has the
power where IL is clearly made TO appear that
the exigencies of the case demands that 10 be
done. Authorities state that the power to
call into action this power of court rests
alike with q creditor and a shareholder
of q corporation. II the officers of a corpora
ton prove false TO their trust end set about to
bankrupt 1t the end may be reached before q
change in the management can be made, and
unless court OF equity interferes the share
holders may be without remedy. IL 10 upon
this theory that we think proceeding for the
appointment OF q receiver can be maintained,
though as we have suggested the prayer OF
the petitioners would indicate that the pleader
might have had in mind the dissolution of the
corporation; yet the petition states the facts.
and upon the facts it's suficiency must be
juged.
In this case the officers Of the corporation
who are charged with gross acts Of misadmin-
istraton of its affairs are non-rssidenu
of the state; they are charged with al
ready having taken $4,000 Of its
funds from its treasury and depOsiting
them with an insolvent trust outside the state,
controlled by than, and using the same fos
their own benefit, giving no security for Its
payment or reward for its use. To preserve
the usefulness and perpetuate the benehcencs
OF the institution it is necessary that its busi-
mess be continued, the dues collected aud the
benefeiaries paid. Ii Is manifest that any re-
lief which could be obtained by means OF an
injunction would not be an adequate remedy
or meet the emergency existing. While re-
ceiver, If one be appointed, would supercede
the officers. the shareholders could pay money,
il would be secure and the business could be
conducted on q safe basis until remedy could
be had through the organization itself. By re-
moving dishonest or incompetent officers and
eleetinG other and honest or competent ones,
requiring them 10 give responsible bond.
The appelless have a right 20 have the funds
protected and preserved and applied to the
proper use and the corporation perpetuated.
The complaint states good cause for the APP
pointment of . receiver and the presumption is
that the proof made under il fully sustained the
action of the court in the appointment OF re-
ceiyer. Their are some minor questions dis
cussed which We nave considered and in
which there is no error aud We deem II un-
necessary 10 discuss them. The conclusion We
have reached leads to the afirmance Of the
md