Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

177 Ill. App. 95

Fluke v. Phelps

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided January 27, 1913

Appellate Court of Illinois · decided 1913-01-27

<p>1. Appeals and errors—when assignment of error is necessary. On an appeal from a decree granting an injunction and appointing a receiver, an assignment of error in appointing the receiver does not bring the restraining order before the court for review.</p> <p>2. Receivers—hand. It is error to appoint a receiver without requiring a bond by the complainant, unless the order of appointment contains a statement or finding that a receiver ought to be appointed without such bond.</p>

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently December 1925

2 state decisions

Relies on Telford v. Patton · Ayres v. Graham Steamship Coal & Lumber Co. · Staar v. Koon

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed in part and reversed in part · Decided 1913-01-27

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mr. Justice Baker

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2The following is the only assignment of error:

“The court erred in entering said decree or order because it did not require complainant, first, to give bond as required by sec. 53, chap. 22, of Hurd’s Revised Statutes, and complainant did not file such a bond.”

¶3This assignment does not bring before us for review the restraining order, but only the order appointing a receiver.

¶4The statute, section 22, chap. 52, R. S., provides that before any receiver shall be appointed, the party making the application shall give bond to the adverse party in such penalty as the court or judge may order, and with security to be approved by the court or judge, conditioned to pay all damages, including attorney’s fees, sustained by reason of the appointment and acts of such receiver. It also provides that bond need not be required when, for good cause shown, and upon notice and full hearing, the court is of the opinion that a receiver ought to be appointed without such bond. The order appointing a receiver does not in terms dispense with the requirement of the statute that the receiver give a bond to the complainant. In Watson v. Cudney, 144 Ill. 624; Staar v. Moy Tong Koon, 145 Ill. App. 341; Ayres v. Graham S. S. Coal & Lumber Co., 150 Ill. App. 137; Aevermann v. Rizek, 160 Ill. App. 648, and Mason v. Hooper, 166 Ill. App. 537, it was held to be error to appoint a receiver without a bond by complainant unless the order of appointment contained a statement or finding that a receiver ought to" be appointed without such bond. We see no reason to alter or modify the views expressed in the cases above cited.

¶5We think that the record shows sufficient grounds for the appointment of a receiver, but if one is appointed the court should require the moving party to give bond as provided by the statute, unless in the opinion of the court a receiver ought to be appointed without such bond, and in that case the order of appointment should so state.

¶6The order appointing a receiver is reversed and the restraining order appealed from is affirmed.

¶7Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

/177/illapp/95 · .json · Public domain