Case Name: EUREKA SPEC. CO. et v. SETTELMEYER et.
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1926-06-07
Citations: 4 Ohio Law Abs. 660
Docket Number: No. 2919
Parties: EUREKA SPEC. CO. et v. SETTELMEYER et.
Judges: 
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 4
Pages: 660–660

Head Matter:
EUREKA SPEC. CO. et v. SETTELMEYER et.
Ohio Appeals, 1st Dist., Hamilton Co.
No. 2919.
Decided June 7, 1926
Attorneys — Burch & Peters for Company: John H. Doyle, Elmer L. Conway, Joseph B. Derbes and George Bailes for Settelmeyer et; all of Cincinnati.

Opinion:
HAMILTON, J.
The Eureka Specialty Co. and other creditors made a motion in the Hamilton Common Pleas to remove a receiver who- had been appointed upon the petition of some of the members of the board of directors, the board alleging that the misconduct in management of the corporation warranted a dissolution and appointment of a receiver.
The motion was asked on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction t opapoint the receiver; and that power granted to such receiver was beyond the jurisdiction of the court The motion was overruled and the creditors prosecuted error claiming that the court's action in the appointment of the receiver was void.
The Court of Appeals held:
1. The power of a court to appoint a receiver cannot be challenged by a motion to dismiss the receiver some five months after the appointment and after the term in which it was made.
2. The common pleas court has jurisdiction to appoint receivers in proper cases.
S. The propriety of the appointment should have been determined at the term in which the appointment was made and in case of an adverse decision, error prosecuted from the ap p ointment.
4. Although the appointment was not proper, the judgment cannot be attacked in the manner followed by the creditors here.
5. The record does not disclose a situation calling for the court, in its discretion, to discharge the receiver, and return the property to the corporation.
Judgment overruling the motion affirmed.