Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

41 Ill. App. 405

Edwards v. Rodgers

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided November 2, 1891

Appellate Court of Illinois · decided 1891-11-02

Mubbay F. Tuley, Judge, presiding. On the 31st day of July, 1890, appellee filed in the Circuit Court his creditor’s bill against appellants and others, setting forth the recovery of a judgment by him against Mrs. 3ST. A. Boyd, now Mrs. H. A. Edwards, the issue of execution and return thereon by the sheriff of demand on the judgment debtor, her failure to satisfy the same, and that he, the sheriff, was unable to find any property with which to satisfy the same.

Relies on The St. Louis & Sandoval Coal & Mining Co. v. Sandoval Coal & Mining Co. · Turnbull v. Prentiss Lumber Co. · Lutt v. Grimont

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1891-11-02

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently March 1947

1 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

40189119001910192019301940decided

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 →

Waterman, P. J.

¶1It is urged that the bill being upon information and belief only, and the answers denying positively the ownership of any property such as was pointed out, no equitable ground is shown for the appointment of a receiver. Judgment having been obtained and an execution having been returned unsatisfied, appellee was entitled to whatever relief he could obtain by filing a creditor’s bill. Revised Statutes, Chap. 22, Sec. 49.

¶2It can not be seriously contended that having this right to file his bill, he is not entitled to support the same, if he can by proof, and to have a hearing thereon; in other words he is not concluded by the sworn answers of the defendants. If, then, the suit may go on and may result in a decree for the complainant establishing a lien upon property, why may not the court take reasonable measures to make the decree it may afterward render, effective?

¶3If the defendant and judgment debtor, Mrs. Edwards, has any property or equitable interests not exempt by law from sale on execution, she ought to convey the same to a receiver; and this is all the order requires. If she has no property not exempt from execution, then there is nothing for the order to operate upon and her assignment will transfer nothing.

¶4She now admits the ownership of two lots but she does not explain why she failed to turn them out upon the execution ; she says that she has never concealed her ownership of them, but fails to aver that she ever offered them in satisfaction of the judgment, nor is there a showing that these lots are of sufficient value to make a levy upon them of any avail.

¶5The appointment of a receiver pendente lite upon a creditor’s bill, rests in the discretion of the court. High on Receivers, Sec. 7; Lutt v. Grimont, 17 Ill. App. 308; Bloodgood v. Clark, 4 Paige, 574; Trumbull v. Prentiss Lumber Co., 55 Mich. 387; The St. Louis & Sandoval Coal & Mining Co. v. The Sandoval Coal & Mining Co., 111 Ill. 32-39.

¶6And in this case no sufficient reason is shown for interference with the action of the court below.

¶7Judgment affirmed.

/41/illapp/405 · .json · Public domain