Hellebush v. Blake
| Decision Date | 19 June 1889 |
| Docket Number | 13,551 |
| Citation | 21 N.E. 976,119 Ind. 349 |
| Parties | Hellebush v. Blake |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Howard Circuit Court.
Judgment affirmed.
J. C Blacklidge, W. E. Blacklidge and B. C. Moon, for appellant.
C. E Hendry and A. C. Bennett, for appellee.
The appellee sued out a writ of replevin for the personal property in controversy, but, failing to give the undertaking required by the statute, she did not obtain possession. On the 24th day of November, 1886, she applied for the appointment of a receiver to take charge and control of the property, and a receiver was appointed by the judge of the Howard Circuit Court, in vacation. On the 10th day of the following month she caused notice of the appointment of the receiver to be served upon the appellant at his home in Cincinnati, Ohio. On the first day of the December term of the Howard Circuit Court the appellant entered a special appearance and moved the court to quash the notice and set aside the order appointing the receiver. On the same day the appellee filed a motion to reappoint or continue the receiver previously appointed. On the 3d day of January, 1887, the court made an order appointing a receiver and requiring him to give bond and qualify.
The fact that the defendant was a resident of the State of Ohio did not oust the jurisdiction of the circuit court over the personal property in the county of Howard. It is not here a question of the right of the appellee to a personal judgment against the appellant, but the question is as to the right of the court to appoint a receiver to take charge of personal property within its jurisdiction. We are satisfied that the circuit court did have authority to appoint the receiver, notwithstanding the fact that the defendant was not a resident of this State. The property of which the court was asked to take possession through its receiver was within its jurisdiction, and it had authority to preserve and dispose of the property, through the medium of a receiver, in order to prevent its loss or destruction. Ames Iron Works v. Warren, 76 Ind. 512; Quarl v. Abbett, 102 Ind. 233, 1 N.E. 476.
It may be true, as appellant argues, that when the first order was made there was no suit pending and no authority to appoint a receiver, but this point we do not decide, for we are clear that when the second and effective order was made there was an action pending. When that order was made notice had been served, the defendant had appeared, and there was...
To continue reading
Request your trial