Myerscough v. Garrett
Decision Date | 28 January 1932 |
Docket Number | No. 1219.,1219. |
Citation | 45 S.W.2d 1003 |
Parties | MYERSCOUGH et al. v. GARRETT. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Hill County; Walter L. Wray, Judge.
Action by Charles A. Garrett against Joseph Myerscough and another. From an interlocutory order appointing a receiver on an ex parte application, defendants appeal.
Order set aside, and case remanded.
Smithdeal, Shook, Spence & Bowyer, of Dallas, for appellants.
Frazier & Averitte and Collins & Martin, all of Hillsboro, for appellee.
This is an appeal by J. M. Myerscough and John F. Merrick from an interlocutory order entered by the district court in Hill county appointing a receiver to take charge of certain oil leases and personal property in connection therewith in Rusk county on the ex parte application of Chas. A. Garrett. The appointment was made without notice to the defendants. The plaintiff in his original application for a receiver alleged in substance that he was the owner of certain undivided interest in certain oil leases in Rusk county, he having purchased same from the defendants, and in the alternative he alleged that he had a lien on said property to secure certain indebtedness due him by the defendants. The petition then alleged as follows:
The appellants, defendants below, here contend that the petition does not allege facts showing such an immediate and pressing necessity for the appointment of a receiver as to authorize such appointment without notice to them. In passing on the validity of the order appointing the receiver, we are confined to the facts alleged in the petition, as no facts, other than those alleged in the petition, could be properly established, or, if proven, relied upon as grounds for granting the receivership. Delcambre v. Murphy (Tex. Civ. App.) 5 S.W. (2d) 790, 791. As a general rule in order to entitle a plaintiff to the appointment of a receiver upon an ex parte hearing, the petition must not only allege facts sufficient to authorize the appointment of a receiver by an interlocutory order prior to a hearing on the merits, but must go further and show that there is no other remedy which will protect the plaintiff and that there is such a pressing necessity for haste in making the appointment that the plaintiff will likely suffer irreparable loss if the appointment is delayed until notice can be given the defendants and a full hearing had. The plaintiff must allege, not conclusions, but facts showing affirmatively and clearly, not only the irreparable injury that will be sustained, but the pressing necessity which renders it dangerous to delay until the defendants can...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wilkenfeld v. State
...of any counter measure or response on the facts of the controversy they may have made thereto below, if any at all. Myerscough v. Garrett, Tex.Civ.App., 45 S.W.2d 1003; Friedman Oil Corp. v. Brown, Tex.Civ.App., 50 S.W.2d 471; Cash v. Ervin, Tex.Civ.App., 62 S.W.2d 242; Curtis v. McKain, Te......
-
Head v. Roberts
...of a receiver is requested, equity rules apply to the procedure to be followed in securing such appointment. Myerscough v. Garrett, Tex.Civ.App., 45 S.W.2d 1003; Zanes v. Lyons, Tex.Civ.App., 36 S.W.2d 544; Arnold v. Meyer, Tex.Civ.App., 198 S.W. Article 2319, R.C.S., is as follows: 'Rules ......
-
Morris v. North Fort Worth State Bank
...to have a receiver appointed without notice, the rules of equity apply. Arnold v. Meyer, Tex.Civ.App., 198 S.W. 602; Myerscough v. Garrett, Tex.Civ.App., 45 S.W.2d 1003; Zanes v. Lyons, Tex.Civ.App., 36 S.W.2d 544. It is now well settled that the appointment of a receiver without notice to ......
-
State v. Jackson
...exists that those in possession of property are rightly in possession.' 73 C.J.S. Property § 17, p. 211; Myerscough v. Garrett, Tex.Civ.App., 45 S.W.2d 1003, 1005; Swanstrom v. Bell, 67 Idaho 554, 186 P.2d 876, 878; In re James' Estate, 267 Wis. 105, 65 N.W.2d 9, 17. There is no showing tha......