¶1The Code of civil procedure (section *413753, Eevised Statutes 1899), confers on the circuit court, or any judge thereof in vacation, the power to appoint a receiver whenever he shall deem such an appointment necessary for the purpose of keeping and preserving all property, etc., pending in any legal or equitable proceeding, concerning the same. The appointment under the provisions of this section is addressed to the sound judgment and discretion of the circuit court, or judge in vacation, and is rightfully exercised whenever it reasonably appears that the preservation of the property involved in the suit, or the securing and preserving its rents and profits (if real estate), will be jeopardized if a receiver be not appointed. The evidence is that the payment of rent by the tenants has been held up by the parties each fearing to trust the other with their collection; that a majority of the tenants are insolvent; that there is a dispute as to the right of Grimes to rent the property or to collect the rents and of his claim of an interest in the property or its rents. In this condition of affairs, it is apparent that proper attention will not be given to the care of the property, and the probabilities are that most, if not all, of its rents and profits pending the partition suit would be lost if left to the contesting parties’ care. From these considerations, we think the appointment of the receiver was eminently proper and affirm the judgment.
88 Mo. App. 409
Stark v. Grimes
Decided April 9, 1901
Missouri Court of Appeals · decided 1901-04-09
— Hon. David Henry Hby, Judge. STATEMENT OE THE CASE. On May 1,1900, Nancy Grimes, the wife of John Grimes, died childless and intestate. At the time of her death, she was the sole owner of a farm and some town property valued at from eight to ten thousand dollars. In addition thereto she owned an undivided half interest in a house and lot and fourteen acres ■of land adjoining; her husband owning the other half. She also owned a personal estate of about two hundred dollars.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Aeeirmed · Decided 1901-04-09
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently December 1967
5 state decisions
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 →