Opinion
13269
November 9, 1931.
Before MAULDIN, J., Greenville, November, 1930. Affirmed.
Messrs. Samuel Want and Melvin Hyman, for appellant, cite: Circuit Court had no power on preliminary motion to take over assets of appellants: 144 S.C. 188; 142 S.E., 343. Appointment of a receiver not granted unless claim adjudicated: 157 S.C. 85; 153 S.E., 640; 49 F.2d 738; 53 C.J., 29; 23 R.C.L., 16. Appointing receiver and granting injunction drastic step: 49 F.2d 738; 157 S.C. 85; 153 S.E., 640; 144 S.C. 188; 142 S.E., 343; 53 C.J., 28; 23 R.C.L., 10; 136 Minn., 236; 161 N.W., 407; 1 A.L.R., 1464; 53 C.J., 39; 73 S.C. 131; 52 S.E., 867; 53 C.J., 40. Intervenors in equity must take case as they find it: 141 S.E., 664; 125 S.E., 62; 47 C.J., 115; 53 C.J., 57; 118 S.C. 90; 110 S.E., 70. Question of intervention by creditors: 47 C.J., 105. Intervenor did not seek appointment of receiver: 80 S.C. 84.
Messrs. Morgan Cothran, for respondents, and Messrs. Nettles Oxner, for certain intervenors, cite: Court right in appointing receiver: 88 S.C. 438; 53 S.C. 364. Intervenors right to a receiver: 161 N.W., 407; 141 S.E., 664; 125 S.E., 62; 80 S.C. 84. Receivership discretionary: 140 S.C. 471.
Messrs. Bowen Bryson, for E.E. Chapman, intervenor, cite: Receivership discretionary: 88 S.C. 438; 70 S.E., 1035; 109 S.C. 283; 96 S.E., 116; 120 S.C. 230; 112 S.E., 925; 140 S.C. 471; 139 S.E., 135. When debtor insolvent: 46 S.C. 251; 24 S.E., 340; 33 S.C. 470; 12 S.E., 165; 42 S.C. 483; 20 S.E., 409; 53 S.C. 364; 31 S.E., 281. Circuit Judge not called upon to decide case on merits where receiver appointed: 109 S.C. 283; 96 S.E., 116; 27 S.C. 416; 3 S.E., 785. When may appoint receiver: Vol. 3, Sec. 524, Code 1922; 140 S.C. 471; 139 S.E., 135. Intervenors may have receiver appointed: 80 S.C. 84; 61 S.E., 249; Interpleader, 33 C.J., 27.
November 9, 1931. The opinion of the Court was delivered by
The appeal here is on the part of the defendant from an order of the late Hon. T.J. Mauldin, Circuit Judge, appointing a receiver for the defendant, a corporation organized under the laws of this State. The matters involved in the appeal relate mainly to questions of fact.
We have examined the record carefully, and have reached the conclusion that the order appealed from was correct. It is unnecessary to go into all the evidentiary matters which caused the Circuit Judge to order the receivership.
The order appealed from is affirmed.
MESSRS. JUSTICES STABLER, CARTER and BONHAM concur.
MR. JUSTICE COTHRAN did not participate.