Case Name: D. L. AREY et al. v. J. V. WILLIAMS
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1911-04-05
Citations: 154 N.C. 610
Docket Number: 
Parties: D. L. AREY et al. v. J. V. WILLIAMS.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 154
Pages: 610–611

Head Matter:
D. L. AREY et al. v. J. V. WILLIAMS.
(Filed 5 April, 1911.)
Ejectment — Defendant’s Bond — Receiver—Power of Court — Supreme Court — Supersedeas Order — Practice.
Revisal, 453, requiring defendant in ejectment to give bond before putting in a defense to the entire action, does not abridge the power of the court to appoint a receiver to secure the rents and profits; and while the Supreme Court, under its general power of “supervision and control over the proceedings of the Superior Court,” might exercise the extraordinary right to grant a swpersedeas to vacate an order appointing a receiver and permit defendant to give bond, it will not do so except under unusual circumstances, as when there has been a gross abuse of discretion by the trial judge.
Appeal by defendant from Justice, J. From "WASHINGTON.
Tbe facts are sufficiently stated in tbe opinion of tbe Court by Mr. Chief Justice Clark.
Linn & Linn and W. M. Bond for plaintiff.
0. 0. Gaylord for defendant.

Opinion:
Pee. CuriaM.
Revisal, 453, requiring a defendant in ejectment to give bond before putting in a defense to tbe action, does not abridge tbe power of tbe court to appoint a receiver to secure tbe rents and profits. Kron v. Dennis, 90 N. C., 327 ; Durant v. Crowell, 97 N. C., 374.
In tbe present case tbe insolvency of the defendant was admitted, and for that reason and on account of other matters made to appear to tbe court, tbe judge, instead of accepting a bond, appointed a receiver to take charge of tbe property pending tbe litigation. This is an application by tbe defendant to this Court for a supersedeas to vacate tbe order of tbe judge appointing tbe receiver and to permit tbe defendant to give bond. Under tbe general power conferred upon this Court of "general supervision and control over tbe proceedings of tbe inferior courts," we might exercise this extraordinary duty in a proper case, but certainly would not do so except under unusual circumstances and when there has been a gross abuse of discretion on tbe part of tbe judge below. Sucb is not tbe case here, and upon looking into tbe affidavits, if tbe matter were before us for review upon appeal, in tbe ordinary course, we should affirm bis action.
Motion denied.