Johnson v. Williams, 12562.
| Decision Date | 16 August 1937 |
| Docket Number | No. 12562.,12562. |
| Citation | 109 S.W.2d 213 |
| Parties | JOHNSON v. WILLIAMS et ux. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Grayson County; R. M. Carter, Judge.
Suit to dissolve an alleged partnership by Hugh M. Williams and wife against J. S. Johnson. From an ex parte interlocutory order appointing receiver and granting a mandatory injunction and for an accounting, defendant appeals.
Reversed and rendered.
O. H. Woodrow, of Sherman, for appellant.
Finley & Wolfe, of Sherman, for appellees.
This is an appeal from an ex parte interlocutory order, appointing a receiver and granting a mandatory injunction in a suit to dissolve an alleged partnership, and for an accounting.
The order was made before the filing of plaintiffs' petition, without notice to the defendant, empowering the receiver "to collect and dispose of all partnership assets, and after payment of all the just debts of said partnership and of the costs of expenses of this action and for said receivership, to divide the proceeds thereof among the parties hereto, according to their respective rights"; and commanding the defendant "forthwith to surrender to such receiver upon his demand of records of accounts due and owing said partnership, the stock book, ledgers and cash belonging thereto, and all other books and records of every description belonging to said partnership, or used in the operation thereof to be kept in the custody of such receiver subject to the orders of this court." In other words, the order condemns the defendant, divesting him of property and placing it in the hands of another, with full power to sell and divide the proceeds without the privilege of a hearing.
The courts recognize that a receiver may be properly appointed without notice and before giving the adverse party an opportunity to be heard in, and only in, extreme and exceptional cases; but we know of no authority, and have been referred to none, which authorizes a trial judge, without notice, to determine the rights of parties to a suit and direct the execution of a judgment divesting one of his property. It is unreasonable to conclude that the judge, in chambers, could appoint a receiver, take charge of, control, manage, dispose of, and distribute property over which the ownership is in controversy; and command the one in possession to deliver such property unto a receiver to be administered by the court without the party being given an opportunity to be heard...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilkenfeld v. State
...guaranty, the very essence of due process of law. Receivership should never be appointed, except in dire necessity." Johnson v. Williams, Tex.Civ.App., 109 S.W.2d 213, 214. If this dire necessity is brought on and occasioned by the contumacious conduct of the defendant, it is but just that ......
-
Krumnow v. Krumnow
...party to be heard only in extreme cases wherein there is great emergency and imperious necessity for immediate appointment. Johnson v. Williams, 109 S.W.2d 213 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1937, no writ); Ames v. Ames, 64 S.W.2d 1067 (Tex.Civ.App.-Eastland 1933, no writ); Bankers' Life & Loan Ass'n......
-
Head v. Roberts
...the privilege of being heard before judgment is a constitutional guaranty, the very essence of due process of law.' Johnson v. Williams, Tex.Civ.App., 109 S.W.2d 213, 214. See also Myerscough v. Garrett, supra. Whether a petition is sufficient to authorize the ex parte appointment of a rece......
-
Best Inv. Co. v. Whirley
...party to be heard only in extreme cases wherein there is great emergency and imperious necessity for immediate appointment, Johnson v. Williams, 109 S.W.2d 213 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1937, no writ); Ames v. Ames, 64 S.W.2d 1067 (Tex.Civ.App.--Eastland 1933, no writ); Bankers' Life & Loan Ass......