Broad v. Broad

Appellate Court of Illinois

Broad v. Broad

207 Ill. App. 253, 1917 Ill. App. LEXIS 624

Appellate Court of Illinois·Decided July 19, 1917·No. Gen. No. 23,367·Published

Opinion

Mr. Justice McDonald

delivered the opinion of the court.

6. Receivers, § 2* — when appointment of receiver to protect interest in property is unnecessary. The appointment of a receiver in a suit for a divorce to protect the husband’s interest in property in the wife’s name, and which she owns jointly with a third person, is unnecessary where, upon proper showing, the wife could have been enjoined from disposing or incumbering her interest therein during the pendency of the suit.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Justice McDonald

delivered the opinion of the court.

6. Receivers, § 2* — when appointment of receiver to protect interest in property is unnecessary. The appointment of a receiver in a suit for a divorce to protect the husband’s interest in property in the wife’s name, and which she owns jointly with a third person, is unnecessary where, upon proper showing, the wife could have been enjoined from disposing or incumbering her interest therein during the pendency of the suit.

Broad v. Broad, 207 Ill. App. 253, 1917 Ill. App. LEXIS 624 (Ill. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

207 Ill. App. 253 (Broad v. Broad) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.