Inter-City Contractors Service, Inc. v. Jolley, INTER-CITY
Decision Date | 11 January 1972 |
Docket Number | No. 671S153,INTER-CITY,671S153 |
Citation | 277 N.E.2d 158,257 Ind. 593 |
Parties | CONTRACTORS SERVICE, INC., Appellant, v. Charles JOLLEY, Appellee. |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Julian B. Allen, Gary, for appellant.
F. Laurence Anderson, Jr., Gary, for appellee.
The complaint filed by appellee seeks damages as a result of an alleged breach of a merger agreement. Upon the request of the appellee the court appointed a receiver without notice. Appellant filed a motion to vacate the order appointing a receiver without notice, which motion was denied by the court. Appellant is here appealing the trial court's ruling.
The complaint filed by the appellee alleged that the appellant and the appellee entered into a merger agreement providing that the appellant was to pay the appellee $12,500 on certain contracts assigned to appellee and further to pay appellee $5,980 for equipment which appellee transferred to appellant. Appellant paid the former sum but failed to pay the latter.
It is further alleged the appellant became indebted to the appellee for services rendered in the amount of $2,384.78, which amount remains unpaid.
Appellee further alleges that he is entitled to one-eighth ownership in an equity of $162,758.16 in the appellant corporation.
On December 31, 1970, appellee submitted his resignation to the board of directors of the appellant corporation and made demand for the sums to which he claims to be entitled.
The prayer of plaintiff's complaint asks for a money judgment and for the appointment of a receiver without notice. The trial court granted the appointment of a receiver without notice and denied appellant's motion to vacate such order.
Appellant contends that there was no showing under the requirements of Burns Ind.Stat., 1968 Repl., § 3--2601, IC 1971, 34--1--12--1 which would justify the appointment of a receiver without notice. In Johann & Sons Co., Inc. v. Berges (1958), 238 Ind. 265, at page 268, 150 N.E.2d 568, at page 569, this Court stated what must be shown by a complaint in order to justify the appointment of a receiver without notice:
In State ex rel. Red Dragon Diner v. Superior Court of Marion County, etc. et al. (1959), 239 Ind. 384, at page 386, 158 N.E.2d 164, at page 165, this Court stated beginning:
'This court has heretofore spelled out in specific terms the facts which must be stated and supported by affidavit in order to justify the appointment of a receiver without notice. And since the court looks only to the facts stated in the verified complaint in determining the necessity of dispensing with the giving of notice, the complaint must not only allege facts which support the plaintiff's right to the appointment of a receiver after notice, it must also state specific facts which establish the following ultimate facts: (1) That an emergency exists which renders interference necessary before there is time to give notice in order to prevent waste, destruction or loss. Albert Johann & Sons Company v. Berges (1958), (238 Ind. 265), 150 N.E.2d 568; Fagan v. Clark (1958), (238 Ind. 22), 148...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Environmental Control Systems, Inc. v. Allison
...or embezzle such assets before notice can be given. No such facts are alleged here.' In the recent case of Inter-City Contractors v. Jolley (1972), 257 Ind. 593, 277 N.E.2d 158, the Supreme Court reiterated the language from the above quoted cases and again held that the mere pleading of co......
-
Meek v. Steele
...facts cannot be met by mere allegations, statements of belief or conclusions of the plaintiff. Inter-City Contractors Service, Inc. v. Jolley (1972) 257 Ind. 593, 277 N.E.2d 158. In Environmental Control Systems, Inc. v. Allison (2d Dist.1974) Ind.App., 314 N.E.2d 820, the Petition for Appo......