Euclid Roxford Co. v. Bolgar
4 Ohio Law. Abs. 733, 1926 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 968
Opinion
Cuyahoga Common Pleas having appointed a receiver on application of Aranka Bolgar, error was prosecuted to the Court of Appeals on the sole ground that no notice had been given to the Euclid Roxford Co. The Court of Appeals held:
1. The general rule is that notice must be given on application for appointment of a receiver.
2. When an emergency exists, requiring immediate action a receiver may be appointed without notice.
3. Every presumption is in favor of the regularity of the order appointing a receiver.
4. In absence of evidence to the contrary, facts necessary to sustain the order will be presumed.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Euclid Roxford Co. v. Bolgar, 4 Ohio Law. Abs. 733, 1926 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 968 (Ohio Ct. App. 1926).
4 Ohio Law. Abs. 733 (Euclid Roxford Co. v. Bolgar) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Hollywood Television Service, Inc. v. Picture Waves, Inc.
136 N.E.2d 617 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1954)
Tonti v. Tonti
118 N.E.2d 200 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1951)
Mulby v. Charles F Johnson, Inc.
22 Ohio Law. Abs. 534 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1936)