Court Opinion

ID: 9831907
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:28:28.034389+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:39.289622
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellants in their motion for rehearing resubmit, as in their brief, all of the grounds of error in granting the restraining order and in the appointment of a receiver. In appointing the receiver the district judge evidently acted under subdivision 1 of article 2293 of the Statute, and not under subdivision 4 of that article. Where the facts stated in the petition authorize the appointment of a receiver under the first subdivision of said article; it is not necessary that the party had ho other adequate remedy, and other factá as under the usages of courts of equity. Under subdivision 1 of said article, the judge is authorized to appoint a receiver on the application of any party whose rights to or interest in property, or funds or the proceeds thereof is probable, and when it is shown that the property or fund is in danger of being lost, removed, or materially injured. We think the petition sufficiently alleges all of the facts necessary to be alleged in the appointment of a receiver under the statute.
The district judge having appointed a time for the hearing as to the appointment of the receiver, we said in , the opinion that the exceptions presented to petition, and to the orders made in advance of the hearing and not presented to. or passed upon by the judge, ordinarily were waived. That statement has no application to this case and is withdrawn.
Other than the above statement withdrawn, the motion for rehearing is overruled.