¶1 (concurring in reversal). I concur with Mr. Justice Potter for the reason that the order appointing the receiver, to which defendants consented, did not authorize the receiver or the court to expend any of the rents and income of the property fior payment of taxes. As the court could not appoint a receiver to collect rents and income and ■make expenditures therefrom without consent of *116 defendants, the order cannot be.extended beyond its plain terms.
262 Mich. 113
247 N.W 125
Straus v. Barbee
Decided March 2, 1933
Michigan Supreme Court · decided 1933-03-02
Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently December 1939
4 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1933-03-02
View the full empirical analysis of this case →