McCall v. McCall Brothers Co.

California Court of Appeal Dec 4, 1933 No. Docket No. 9011.Published

Before: Spence

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an ex parte order appointing a receiver is improper absent a showing of great emergency or that irreparable injury would occur during the time required for a noticed hearing.

Issues

Whether a trial court may appoint a receiver ex parte without a showing of irreparable injury or great emergency.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The general rule, no doubt, is that so harsh a measure as the appointment of a receiver to take property out of one’s possession without trial will not be indulged in by a court without previous notice to the defendant.”

“It is obvious that the receiver in this case was appointed without formal notice. Such an appointment, under the established law of this state, cannot be legally made except upon a showing of great emergency.”

SPENCE, J.

Plaintiff brought this action for a dissolution of copartnership, for an accounting and for the appointment of a receiver. Upon the filing of the verified complaint the trial court made an

ex parte

order appoint

[559]

ing a receiver. Defendant Thaddeus D. McCall appeals from said order.

The sole contention made by appellant is that the trial court erred in making an

ex parte

order appointing a receiver as no showing was made that irreparable injury would result unless a receiver was so appointed. In our opinion this contention must be sustained. (A.

G. Col Co.

Superior Court,

196 Cal. 604 [238 Pac. 926];

Fischer

Superior Court,

110 Cal. 129 [42 Pac. 561];

Tyler

Park Ridge Country Club,

103 Cal. App. 117 [284 Pac. 247];

Ryan

Murphy,

39 Cal. App. 640 [179 Pac. 517];

Hobson

Pacific States Mercantile Co.

5 Cal. App. 94 [89 Pac. 866].) In

Fischer

McCall v. McCall Brothers Co.

AI Brief

SPENCE, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief