State ex rel. Red Dragon Diner, Inc. v. Superior Court of Marion County

Decision Date01 May 1959
Docket NumberNo. 1,M,R,No. 29750,1,29750
Citation239 Ind. 384,158 N.E.2d 164
PartiesSTATE of Indiana on the relation of RED DRAGON DINER, INC., (an Indiana Corporation), Relator, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF MARION COUNTY, Indiana, RoomWalter Bell, Judge of the Superior Court of Marion County, Indiana, Roomoy A. Pope, Judge pro tem., Respondents.
CourtIndiana Supreme Court

John D. Raikos, Indianapolis, for relator.

Joseph F. Quill and John G. McNutt, Indianapolis, for respondents.

Merle H. Miller, Donald F. Elliott, Jr., Indianapolis, amici curiae.

William R. Hunter, Winchester, for appellee. (Ross, McCord, Ice & Miller, Indianapolis, of counsel), amici curiae.

Buschmann, Krieg, DeVault & Alexander, Indianapolis, for General Grain, Inc.

ACHOR, Judge.

In this case the court appointed a receiver without notice, and relator has asked for a writ prohibiting respondents from taking any further action in said proceeding. A temporary writ has issued. Relator asserts among other things that the respondent court was without jurisdiction to appoint a receiver without notice for the reason that the complaint did not state facts which authorized the court to exercise this very extraordinary remedy.

Notice, giving a defendant opportunity to be informed regarding the nature of the action and reasonable opportunity to make a defense, is an essential element of due process. 1 Our statutes 2 which specifically limits the authority of the court to appoint receivers without notice is in implementation of the above constitutional guarantee. Therefore, although courts have general statutory 3 and inherent 4 authority to appoint receivers with notice, they now clearly have no authority to appoint receivers without notice, 'except upon sufficient cause shown by affidavit,' as now provided by statute. 5

This court has heretofore spelled out in specific terms the facts which must be stated and supported by affidavit in order to justify the appointment of a receiver without notice. And since the court looks only to the facts stated in the verified complaint in determining the necessity of dispensing with the giving of notice, the complaint must not only allege facts which support the plaintiff's right to the appointment of a receiver after notice, it must also state specific facts which establish the following ultimate facts: (1) That an emergency exists which renders interference necessary before there is time to give notice in order to prevent waste, destruction or loss. Albert Johann & Sons Co. v. Berges, Ind.1958, 150 N.E.2d 568; Fagan v. Clark, Ind.1958, 148 N.E.2d 407; Tormohlen v. Tormohlen, 1936, 210 Ind. 328, 1 N.E.2d 596; Bookout v. Foreman, 1926, 198 Ind. 543, 154 N.E. 387. (2) That protection cannot be afforded in any other way, as by temporary restraining order. Morris et al. v. Nixon, 1945, 223 Ind. 530, 62 N.E.2d 722; Largura Const. Co. v. Super-Steel Products Co., 1939, 216 Ind. 58, 22 N.E.2d 990; Hawkins v. Aldridge, 1937, 211 Ind. 332, 7 N.E.2d 34, 109 A.L.R. 1205; Tormohlen v. Tormohlen, supra. (3) That plaintiff could not reasonably have anticipated the injury in time to give notice. Albert Johann & Sons Co. v. Berges, supra; Fagan v. Clark, supra.

Section 3-2602, Burns' 1946 Replacement clearly and positively states that a receiver without notice '* * * shall not be appointed, * * * except upon sufficient cause shown by affidavit.' In the case before us the complaint merely alleged 'That the defendant is insolvent and owes a large amount of indebtedness and claims which it is unable to pay.' The allegation is not a statement of facts sufficient to authorize the court to appoint a receiver without notice or, in the face of the above statutory prohibition, to exercise any discretion regarding such an appointment.

Therefore the writ of prohibition heretofore issued is made permanent.


To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Skolnick v. State, PS
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 25 April 1979
    ... ... No. PS 356 ... Court of Appeals of Indiana, Third District ... was convicted twice in the Porter Superior Court of direct criminal contempt on July 16, ... -four hours' incarceration in the Porter County Jail ...         Skolnick has appealed ... See, e. g., State ex rel. Stanton v. Murray (1952), 231 Ind. 223, 108 ... State ex rel. Red Dragon Diner v. Superior Ct. (1959), 239 Ind. 384, 158 ... ...
  • Anderson Federal Sav. and Loan Ass'n v. Guardianship of Davidson
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 13 July 1977
    ... ... No. 2-476A125 ... Court of Appeals of Indiana, Second District ... July ... Indiana Suburban Sewers, Inc. (1972), 257 Ind. 609, 277 N.E.2d 361; Hust v ... "property" interest, Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth (1972), 408 U.S. 564, 92 S.Ct ... 455, 114 N.E. 965; State v. Superior Court of Marion County (1959), 239 Ind. 384, 158 ... ...
  • Abrahamson Chrysler Plymouth, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of North America
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 31 August 1983
    ... ... No. 4-183A16 ... Court of Appeals of Indiana, ... Fourth District ... after the change of venue from Lake County was not perfected, we agree with Abrahamson's ... Superior Court against Lawrence Withrow for the cost of ... See State ex rel. Crane Rentals, Inc. v. Madison Superior ... See, e.g., State ex rel. Red Dragon Diner, Inc. v. Superior Court of Marion County, ... ...
  • State ex rel. Nineteenth Hole, Inc. v. Marion Superior Court, Room No. 4
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • 10 April 1963
    ... ... 132, 162 N.E.2d 505 ...         The case of State ex rel. Red Dragon Diner v. Superior Ct. (1959), 239 Ind. 384, 158 N.E.2d 164 is not in point. The petition in that ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT