Thompson v. Tower Mfg. Co.
| Decision Date | 10 June 1889 |
| Citation | 87 Ala. 733,6 So. 928 |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
| Parties | THOMPSON ET AL. v. TOWER MANUF'G CO. ET AL. |
Appeal from city court of Anniston; W. F. JOHNSTON, Judge.
This is a bill filed by the Tower Manufacturing Company and others, creditors of V. L. Thompson, to set aside a bill of sale executed by the said V. L. Thompson to his mother, C. A. Thompson, of the stock of goods which is described in the bill. A receiver was appointed in the lower court on the ex parte affidavits of complainants' counsel, and without notice to the respondents. The allegations of the bill and the affidavits were made upon information and belief. This appeal is taken from the order of the court appointing the receiver.
Knox & Bowie, for appellants.
Brothers, Willett & Willett and Cassady & Blackwell, for appellees.
In the absence of an averment that Mrs. C. A. Thompson was and is unable to respond to the recovery complainants allege they are entitled to, the order appointing the receiver in this case must be reversed, on the authority of Moritz v. Miller, ante, 269, (at the present term.) This order is made without prejudice to the right of the complainants to renew the application on proper notice and proofs, as they may be advised. It should be a strong case of emergency and peril, well fortified by affidavits, to authorize the appointment of a receiver without notice to the other party. Hughes v. Hatchett, 55 Ala. 631; Iron Works Co. v. Foster, 54 Ala. 622. In Weis v. Goetter, 72 Ala. 259, notice of the application had been given, and affidavits were produced on both sides.
If it had been shown that Mrs. Thompson was insolvent, we will not say what would have been our ruling, for the bill avers that she is endeavoring to dispose of the goods. The averments of the bill, if made good, show a flagitious case of fraud. Tryon v. Flournoy, 80 Ala. 321.
Decretal order appointing receiver reversed, and cause remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Henry v. Ide
...to retain the possession," and there is "a reasonable probability of success on the part of the complainant." In Thompson v. Tower Mfg. Co., 87 Ala. 733, 6 So. 928, the appointment of a receiver without notice was considered, under a creditor's bill to set aside a fraudulent conveyance, and......
-
Pyeatt v. Prudential Ins. Co.
...the receiver was improvidently made, and should have been set aside." ¶8 The same doctrine is reaffirmed in Thompson et al. v. Tower Manufacturing Co., 87 Ala. 733, 6 So. 928, by the Supreme Court of Alabama, in the following language:"It should be a strong case of emergency and peril, well......
-
Martin Oil Co., Inc. v. Clokey
...receiver, do not justify such appointment without notice. . . .' (87 Ala. at 332, 333, 334, 6 So. at 269, 270) In Thompson v. Tower Manufacturing Co., 87 Ala. 733, 6 So. 928, the case is stated as 'The bill in this case was filed on the 19th April, 1889, by the Tower Manufacturing Company, ......
-
Gettinger v. Heaney
... ... and the underlying, original, corporate entente cordiale is ... unfairly destroyed." 6 Thompson on Corporations (3d Ed.) ... 528, § 4628; Henry et al. v. Ide et al., 208 Ala. 33, 93 So ... applicant." Hayes v. Jasper Land Co. et al., ... 147 Ala. 340, 41 So. 909; Thompson v. Tower Mfg ... Co., 87 Ala. 733, 60 So. 928 ... Where ... the relief takes the form of ... ...