TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

McFerran v. Grube

McFerran v. Grube, 106 N.E. 719 (Ind. 1914)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Indiana Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 19, 1914
Docket
No. 22,569
Judges
Erwin
Citations
106 N.E. 719182 Ind. 7131914 Ind. LEXIS 178
Disposition
Reversed.
Summary
From Superior Court of Marion County (93,092) ; Clarence B. Weir, Judge. Action by David Grube and others against Ann McFerran. From an interlocutory order appointing a receiver, the defendant appeals.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Erwin

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Erwin, J.

This is an appeal from an interlocutory order appointing a receiver in a suit for foreclosure of a mechanic’s lien *714 for $800 and $200 attorney’s fees, brought by appellees against appellant, and others.

This cause for the appointment of a receiver, was submitted on the showing made by the verified complaint; the affidavit of appellant and certain other affidavits as to the value of the property for which the receiver was appointed. This complaint was sworn to by appellee, Alvin Grube. The affidavit thereto attached, being as follows: “Alvin Grube, being duly sworn upon his oath says that the matters and things set forth in the foregoing complaint are true as he verily believes.” The complaint avers insolvency of appellant and that the property is being neglected and the rental for the same is not being applied to plaintiff’s claim. The averments of the complaint were denied under oath by appellant, except as to the debt due, and she further states in said affidavit that she is worth in real estate, notes and other personal property in Marion County, Indiana, $20,000, and that she is not insolvent, and that the building was worth more than $3,000.

This appeal presents the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the action of the court in appointing a receiver. This case is similar in all respects to the case of Mannos v. Bishop-Babcock-Becker Co. (1914), 181 Ind. 343 , 104 N. E. 579 . On the authority of that case, the interlocutory order appointing a receiver is reversed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1914: 119142026peak 1914 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Stewart v. Swartz106 N.E. 719 (Ind. Ct. App. 1914)

Most recent

  1. Stewart v. Swartz106 N.E. 719 (Ind. Ct. App. 1914)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Mannos v. Bishop-Babcock-Becker Co., 104 N.E. 579 (Ind. 1914) 15

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list