Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

113 Ala. 263

Dreyspring v. Loeb

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided November 15, 1896

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1896-11-15

Bill in Equity for the Foreclosure of a Mortgage and the Appointment of a Receiver. Appeal from the City Court of Montgomery, in Equity. The bill in this case was filed on the 29th of January, 1894, by Leon Loeb, to foreclose two mortgages in said bill set out; one made to him by Elias Judkins and wife, to secure a loan made to said Elias Judkins by Leon Loeb, and the other held by transfer and assignment from the British American Mortgage Company.

Relies on Capital City Water Co. v. Weatherly

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1896-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently March 1938

4 state decisions

1018961900191019201930decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

BRICKELL, C. J.

¶1The act of the General Assembly, approved February 18th, 1895, declares, the chancellor, judge, or register, to whom an application is made for the appointment of a receiver, before making such appointment, “must require the complainant to enter into bond in a sum as such chancellor, judge, or register may prescribe, payable to, and with good and sufficient sureties, to be approved by the register of the court in which the suit is pending, with condition to pay all damages which any person may sustain by the appointment of the receiver, if such appointment is vacated.” It is further declared, that any person injured by the appointment, may sue on the bond, in his own name, for the recovery of damages suffered from the appointment.— Pamph. Acts, 1893-94, p. 585.

¶2The statute is mandatory and prohibitory; without compliance with its requirements, there can not be a valid appointment of a receiver.-Capital City Water Company v. Weatherly, 108 Ala. 412. True, it does not appear affirmatively, that the defendants objected on this particular ground to the appointment of the receiver. The objection need not appear affirmatively; the court was proceeding against them in invitum, and there can be no intendment or presumption that they yielded assent to the irregular action of the court, violative of the plain mandate of the statute.

¶3The decree appointing the receiver must be reversed and vacated, and the cause remanded to the city court.

¶4Reversed and remanded.

/113/ala/263 · .json · Public domain