State ex rel. Nayberger v. McDonald
Decision Date | 05 March 1929 |
Citation | 128 Or. 684,274 P. 1104 |
Parties | STATE EX REL. NAYBERGER v. MCDONALD ET AL. |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Department 1.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County; George Tazwell, Judge.
Proceedings for contempt by the State of Oregon, on the relation of D. M Nayberger, against Mrs. G. N. Nichols, in action brought against John F. McDonald and others. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant Nichols appeals. Reversed, and proceedings dismissed.
Everett I. Adcock, of Portland (Ganoe & Ganoe, of Portland, on the brief), for appellant.
S. J Bischoff, of Portland, for respondent.
This is a proceeding for contempt, which, it is claimed, occurred by disobedience to an order of the court authorizing the receiver to take possession of certain effects of one of the defendants, and arising out of the following circumstances:
It appears from the complaint that the plaintiff is the owner and holder of certain notes executed by the defendants John F. McDonald and Mary B. McDonald to Russell E. Butler, and later assigned to the plaintiff and another, and by certain transfers and assignments finally becoming the property of plaintiff. The plaintiff brought this suit to foreclose the mortgage. The mortgage is in the usual form, and contains the following provisions:
The complaint contains the following allegations:
In addition to the usual prayer for foreclosure, it was asked that a temporary receiver be appointed to collect the rents, issues, and profits from the property and to retain the same subject to the order of the court. It is further prayed that the plaintiff be authorized to collect the rents, issues, and profits from the property during the pendency of the suit, and during the period of redemption, and to apply the same to the cost of maintenance of said property as provided in the mortgage to the Pacific Savings & Loan Association.
On October 14, 1927, the plaintiff moved for the appointment of a receiver as prayed for in the complaint, and filed the following affidavit:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Investors Syndicate v. Smith
...it was intimated in Caro v. Wollenberg, 68 Or. 420, 428, 136 P. 866, that a contrary rule existed, in State ex rel. Nayberger v. McDonald et al., 128 Or. 684, 695, 274 P. 1104, the case of Couper v. Shirley, supra, was The general law regarding appointment of a receiver is not at all clear.......
-
Grayson v. Grayson
...order will not lie unless it was void. State ex rel. v. La Follette, 100 Or. 1, 7, 8, 196 P. 412. See also State ex rel. Nayberger v. McDonald et al., 128 Or. 684, 696, 274 P. 1104; McKinney v. Nayberger et al., 138 Or. 203, 215, 295 P. 474, 2 P.2d 1111, 6 P.2d 228, Subsequent to the appoin......
-
Maryland Cas. Co. v. Grays Harbor County, 22645.
...of its deposit claim secured by the depositary bond executed by the sureties. Chapman v. Ross, 152 Wash. 262, 277 P. 854; State v. McDonald, 128 Or. 684, 274 P. 1104; Knaffl v. Knoxville Banking & Trust Co., 133 655, 182 S.W. 232, Ann. Cas. 1917C, 1181; United States v. National Surety Co.,......
-
Polygon Northwest v. NSP Development, Inc.
...to be met in order for the court to issue an injunction. Id. at 9-10, 196 P. 412. Defendants also cite State ex rel Nayberger v. McDonald et al., 128 Or. 684, 694-96, 274 P. 1104 (1929), in which the court held that an order appointing a receiver was void because the information on which th......