Euclid Roxford Co. v. Bolgar
4 Ohio Law. Abs. 733, 1926 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 968
This text of 4 Ohio Law. Abs. 733 (Euclid Roxford Co. v. Bolgar) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
Euclid Roxford Co. v. Bolgar, 4 Ohio Law. Abs. 733, 1926 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 968 (Ohio Ct. App. 1926).
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
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)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
4 Ohio Law. Abs. 733, 1926 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 968, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/euclid-roxford-co-v-bolgar-ohioctapp-1926.