Court Opinion

ID: 9535373
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:48:32.567917+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:13.768811
License: Public Domain

*185Concurring Opinion
Draper, C. J.
It has been held that legislation such as Burns’ 1946 Repl., §§3-1304 to 1306 does not abridge the power of the court to appoint a receiver for the involved real estate. Maxwell v. Jones (1884), 90 N. C. 324. It was pointed out in that case that there may be less need for extending the equitable remedy because of the enactment of such legislation, but I am unwilling to say that the statutory remedy would always and under all circumstances be adequate. Situations may arise where the statute does not provide an adequate remedy, and I do not believe that the legislature intended to deprive courts of the right to appoint a receiver in actions such as the one at bar where such action is deemed necessary to protect the interests of the parties involved.
I concur in the result reached in this case, however, because under the facts of this case the statutory remedy does seem to be adequate.
Bobbitt, J., concurs in the above.
Note. — Reported in 118 N. E. 2d 126.