The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1909-12-01
THE WASH HUNTER RECEIVER CASE
AGAIN BEFORE THE STATE COURTS
ny Order of the Supreme Court the Civil Suit involving
the ReCevership of Defendants Property, is
Remanded to the Circuit Court.

|manslaughtcr. his sentence of eighr
years to the penitentiary, and his de-
sign to reduce all his assets to cash
and leave the state for parts unknown
in case his appeal should fail; the
purpose of Hunter to place other liens
of creditors: the great value and high
state of cultivation of the lands, and
the apprehension of the plaintiff that
the lands and other property will fall
under the management of Mrs Evans
and that she will use them for the ben
eft OF Hunter without regard 10 the
rights OF creditors.
In the vcriCcation made by James
NJ. Blair. agent Of plaintif1, it is said
that all the allegations contained i'm
the complaint are made ON information
and belief, except the allegations OF
the incorporation of the plaintiif and
the Indebtedness of the defendant to-
the plaintiif. The complaint is silent
as to the sources and character of the
information from which atlantis be-
lief is derived; but the verifcation
contains this statement on the sub
ject: that the source of information
other allegations of the complaint are
made are information derived from the
clerk S Office at I.aurenS and cor
reSpondence of the said defendant. G..
Wash IInntpr a Stn
made to deponent by the said defend
ant, c. Wash Hunter, personally. i'm
n conversation recently had with said
defendant about this debt
There is nothing to show that an,
incarnation was derived from the
clerks Office, except the fact of the
recording of the several mortgages
set out; the contents of the letters of
the defendant are not stated and the
nature OF the conversation between
the ailiant and Hunter is not disclosed.
Hence we think ii is true. as contend
ed by counsel for appellants that if
we look to the complaint alone Suf-
hcient facts are not brought before
NV 'o"i' lIoIil WHICH lnc court cOulu
reach its own conclusions that the
differences and conclusions stated i'm
the complaint We're we'll founded
There are, however, statements of ract
tending to support the charges set ou
in The complaint.
We have set out the showing on
each side with some fullncSs because
the case involves not only a serious
ISSUE TO the parties but also an impor-
tant principle of law relating to the
appointment Of receivers. In addition
to providing for special conditions i'm
which receivers may be appointed. sec
ton 265 of the code of procedure gives
the old praticc the force of a statute
by the enactment that receiver may
be appointed In such other cases as
are now provided by law, or may be
in accordance with the existing prac-
ticc, except as otherwise provided i'm
this code of procedure The first in
quiry is, whether the record shows a
case warranting the appointment of n
receiver, under the general jurisdiction
and pratice of the court of equity
aside from the special provisions of
the code of procedure and the assign
ment act. The taking Of property from
the hands OF owners and placing it i'm
the hands of receiver has been al
ways regarded by the courts severe
remedy to be applied with great eau
ton. and the statute of 1901 EXPRESSLY
provides for appeal from an interlocu-
tory order for the appointment of a re-
cciver.
The Courts Conclusion.
When a business man, merchant or
manufactures or farmer, tisposes Of
large resources and then. processing
to have nothing, leaves his debts un-
paid, and sets his creditors at arms
length by refusing to give any account
OF his property or to take any interest
in the satisfaction of their claims, the
court is warranted in drawing the in
ference that there has been a fraudu-
lent disposition Of the property. Thus
ii seems to us on the facts here They
may all be explained away, and the de-
PENDANT Hunter may on the trial eXcul-
pate himself entirely. All that we hold
now is that n nrmn fncin pogo nf