Corlett v. Corlett

Cuyahoga Circuit Court

Corlett v. Corlett

22 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 175, 1907 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 447

DecidedDecember 24, 1907

StatusPublished

This text of 22 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 175 (Corlett v. Corlett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Cuyahoga Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Corlett v. Corlett, 22 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 175, 1907 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 447 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

Although grave doubts were entertained by each member of the court at the hearing, of this case whether there was such usage in equity as to authorize the appointment of a receiver in a case like this, we have reached the conclusion that it may be done. The authorities upon the subject are cited in brief furnished us by the defendant in error, and we note Section 401 of Alderson on Receivers; Section 494 of Beech on Receivers, and Section 576 of High on Receivers, as well as the cases noted in the brief under these authorities, and accordingly we conclude that the court had authority to appoint the receiver.

The facts upon which the court acted are not before us and the result is that the judgment of the court of common pleas is affirmed.

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

Although grave doubts were entertained by each member of the court at the hearing, of this case whether there was such usage in equity as to authorize the appointment of a receiver in a case like this, we have reached the conclusion that it may be done. The authorities upon the subject are cited in brief furnished us by the defendant in error, and we note Section 401 of Alderson on Receivers; Section 494 of Beech on Receivers, and Section 576 of High on Receivers, as well as the cases noted in the brief under these authorities, and accordingly we conclude that the court had authority to appoint the receiver.

The facts upon which the court acted are not before us and the result is that the judgment of the court of common pleas is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 175, 1907 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 447, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/corlett-v-corlett-ohcirctcuyahoga-1907.