Rumas v. First Calumet Trust & Savings Bank of East Chicago

• Decision Date: 20 October 1936
• Docket Number: 26580.
• Citation: 4 N.E.2d 179,210 Ind. 464
• Parties: RUMAS et al. v. FIRST CALUMET TRUST savings bank of east chicago/ et al.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

4 N.E.2d 179

210 Ind. 464

RUMAS et al.

v.

FIRST CALUMET TRUST savings bank of east chicago/ et al.

No. 26580.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

October 20, 1936

Suit by the First Calumet Trust & Savings Bank of East Chicago and others against Thomas E. Rumas and others. From an interlocutory order appointing a receiver for the mortgaged property pending foreclosure and sale, the defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

Appeal from Superior Court, Lake County; Lawrence Becker, judge.

Geo. P Rose, of Gary, and E. Miles Norton, of Crown Point, for appellants.

Riley Reed, Murphy & McAtee, of East Chicago, for appellees.

FANSLER, Judge.

This is an appeal from an interlocutory order appointing a receiver for mortgaged property pending foreclosure and sale. In addition to the verified complaint, the court heard oral evidence on the subject of the necessity of the appointment.

The complaint alleges that the defendants (appellants) became indebted to the First Calumet Trust & Savings Bank; that the indebtedness was evidenced by certain bonds or notes, secured by a mortgage executed to the bank, the bonds being payable to bearer; that the plaintiffs, Walter J. Riley, Carl A. Westberg, and Walter O. Harmon, are the owners and holders of the bonds as a bondholders' protective committee; that the indebtedness secured by the mortgage is past due; that no one is looking after the buildings on the mortgaged premises and that they are in a bad state of repair, and are fast depreciating in value, and that the premises will not sell for sufficient to pay the mortgage debt. There was evidence to support these allegations sufficient to authorize the appointment of a receiver.

The only propositions brought forward to support the assignment of errors are:

(1) That the court erred in appointing Theodore F. Hein as receiver, for the reason that he is an interested party, because he was called as a witness as to the value and condition of the property. It appears that he was asked to examine the property so that he might testify as an expert, and that he testified. This is not sufficient to disqualify him because of interest. It is not shown that he has any interest in the controversy. No authority is cited to support appellants' contention upon this proposition.

(2) That the decision of the court is contrary to law because the action is not prosecuted by the real parties in interest. It is said that the evidence conclusively...