Ramage v. McDowell

• Decision Date: 21 December 1933
• Docket Number: 4 Div. 717.
• Citation: 151 So. 849,227 Ala. 675
• Parties: RAMAGE v. McDOWELL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

151 So. 849

227 Ala. 675

RAMAGE v. McDOWELL.

4 Div. 717.

Supreme Court of Alabama

December 21, 1933

Rehearing Denied Jan. 18, 1934.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Pike County; W. L. Parks, Judge.

Bill for appointment of a receiver by J. T. Ramage against Chas C. McDowell. From a decree denying appointment of receiver complainant appeals.

Affirmed.

A. G Seay, of Troy, for appellant.

Walters & Walters, of Troy, for appellee.

BROWN Justice.

This bill is filed by the purchaser at an administrator's sale made for the payment of the debts of the estate, against an heir at law of the decedent for the appointment of a receiver to take charge of and rent out a tract of agricultural lands consisting of thirty-one acres, collect and preserve the rents, pending an action of ejectment brought by the complainant against the defendant to recover the possession of the lands.

The bill alleges "that under the practice of the court in which said (ejectment) suit is filed the same will not stand for trial before the Fall term thereof which convenes in October or November, 1933, and may not be called for trial before the Fall term of 1934; that the reasonable rental value of the said land is Fifty and no/100 ($50.00) Dollars per annum; that the respondent did not cultivate or rent out the same during the year 1931 or 1932, and has made no preparation whatever to cultivate the same during the year 1933; that he did not assess the said land or any interest therein for taxes for the year 1932 or 1933 and has not paid any taxes on same or any interest therein for either of said years; that he returned no property for taxes for either of said years; that he is wholly insolvent and unable to respond to any judgment for damages for the use or occupation of the same; that the larger part of said land is cleared for cultivation and substantially all of it is suitable for cultivation and can be profitably cultivated the present year; that the complainant is entitled to mesne profits and of rents accruing, or which by reasonable diligence could accrue from the use of same," etc.

These averments show that the defendant has not put the property to any use; that he has not rented the premises to another who is cultivating the same, and fall short of showing any necessity for the appointment of a receiver, or that any good would accrue to either of the parties from such appointment.

"The general rule is well established...