The Wallace miner. [volume] (Wallace, Idaho) 1907-current, 1920-02-12
COURT DECISIONS
ON RECEIVERSHIPS
SOME PHASES DEALT WITH IN
THE SUPREME COURT
RULINGS.


probation of law have resulted from re-
ceivership applications, none more so
than those involving mining proper
ties. Some noted cases have found
their way to the highest courts of the
nation where the meaning and intent
of the law has been defined.
Extracts from decisions in several
cases are cited as follows:
Acts of Observation-Disclosures Corpor-
alton As Defendant.
Where a receivership was procured
by actual authority of mining cor
poration and on its behalf as a de-
PENDANT in a pneding suit, it was as eff
fectual an act of bankruptcy as if the
suit had been directly in the name of
such corporation as complainant; and
it is immaterial that the receivership
was not ordered because of insolvency
biz the mining corporation showed act
ual insolvency at the time the receiver
ship was applied for
James Supply & Hardware Co, vs..
Dayton Coal & Iron Co. 23S. Federal,
s9l. p. 1913, June, 1915
Sufficiency of Application For
Receiver.
A petition by certain minority
stockholders of an oil company aver
ring that the corporation owned prop
erty Of the value of 100000 and owed
debts in the sum Of about $4,000, and
that among that corporations assets
certain named persons in the sum of
about 100000, which claim was for
stock promotion expenses and COM
missions and cash wrongfully and
traudently obtained by such nameo
persons. as fully shown in a prior re-
port of an auditor, and that such nam
ed persons We're disposing of their
stock i'm the corporation for the pur-
pose either of controlling the corpor-
alton and having such claims cancel
ed or TO prevent the corporation from
suit 20 collect such claims.
and also averring that if suit was not
brought the claims would be barred by
the statute of limitations. and aver
ring also that the managing officers Of
the corporation declined and refused
To- bring suit, is not sufficient to au-
horize the appointment Of receiver /
'or the corporation where no cause Of /
tction is asserted i'm the petition /
against any of the defendants. nor any
'ecovery sought in the suit, nor any
elief prayed for except the APP
continent of receiver. as the minor
ty stockholders themselves could. on
proper showing, bring suit to recover
or the benefit of the corporation
Forest OH Co., VS. Wilson CTexas {
'Nl Appeals). us Southwestern. 626. 9
. 63S. June. 1915. s
Appointment Of Reeeiver-Prima y
Facie Case.
Section s. chapter 81. Of the laws IT d
900 of South Dakota. authorizing the t
ppointment of a receiver in a suit j.
commenced for the foreclosure of a "
liners lien upon mining property and h
laking it the duty Of court in such {
ase to appoint receiver does not is
lean that simply upon the filing Of G.
lch suit and a demand for the APP h
'ttAN 'AANAAN Oi a. ANNtAft ct TIE court Is ~
lthorized TO make such appointment, c
5 the effect of the appointment Of a
'ceiver is to take from the owner the P
ght Of possession and control Of his u
'operty and place it under the con- b.
ol Of stranger. and any statute per- Y
itting or authorizing such act with Ell
1t a showing justifying it is funda Of
entally and clearly vod; but the p'
DIVISIONS OF this act so far as they p
late to the appointment of receivers, -
ouid be construed in the light of
her existing laws in relation to re-
ivers. and before a court would be r
thorized to aDpoint a receiver in -
oh an action a showing upon notice
ould be made sufficient to Justify p
ID warrant the appointment
Cessna VS.. Ohio Development &