Case Name: HURWITZ v. HURWITZ
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1943-06-22
Citations: 136 F.2d 800
Docket Number: No. 8156
Parties: HURWITZ v. HURWITZ.
Judges: Before GRONER, Chief Justice, and ARNOLD, Associate Justice.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 136
Pages: 800–800

Head Matter:
HURWITZ v. HURWITZ.
No. 8156.
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Argued April 13, 1943.
Decided June 22, 1943.
Mr. Russell Hardy, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Mr. William R. Lichtenberg, of Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Samuel Barker, of Washington, D. G, was on the brief, for appellee.
Before GRONER, Chief Justice, and ARNOLD, Associate Justice.

Opinion:
ARNOLD, Associate Justice.
This is an appeal from an interlocutory order granting a motion for the appointment of a receiver pendente lite. The nature of the main controversy is set forth in App.D.C., 136 F.2d 796, decided this day, in which we affirm the final judgment of the trial court. Plaintiff's prima facie case disclosed that the defendant was fraudently withholding assets of the estate. In addition there was evidence that the defendant had agreed to set aside the property and money during the pendency of the suit, but that he had been using the money in his business. On this record we cannot say that the lower court abused its discretion in appointing a receiver pendente lite as a conservation measure. See Wood v. Grayson, 1900, 16 App.D.C. 174, 185; Provident Relief Ass'n v. Vernon, 1927, 57 App.D.C. 235, 236, 19 F.2d 709, 710.
The order of the trial court is, therefore, affirmed.