Hoiles v. Watkins

Ohio Supreme Court

Hoiles v. Watkins

5 Ohio Law. Abs. 423

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 22, 1927

DocketNo. 20384

StatusPublished

This text of 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 423 (Hoiles v. Watkins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hoiles v. Watkins, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 423 (Ohio 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

DAY, J.

1. The appointment of a receiver is an extraordinary provisional remedy of ancillary character, regulated by statutory provision and allowable only in cases pending for some other purpose.

2. To justify the appointment of a receiver within the purview of the sixth paragraph of Section 11894, General Code, in “cases in which receivers heretofore have been appointed by the usages of equity,” it must appear that the same is ancillary to some final relief in equity between the parties, and not the sole object sought; nor should such appointment be made if the plaintiff has a full and adequate remedy at law in respect to his alleged rights, .or where the court can find another and less stringent means for protecting the rights of the parties.

Judgment reversed.

Allen, Kinlcade, Robinson, Jones and Matthias, JJ., concur. Marshall, C. J., not participating.

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

DAY, J.

1. The appointment of a receiver is an extraordinary provisional remedy of ancillary character, regulated by statutory provision and allowable only in cases pending for some other purpose.

2. To justify the appointment of a receiver within the purview of the sixth paragraph of Section 11894, General Code, in “cases in which receivers heretofore have been appointed by the usages of equity,” it must appear that the same is ancillary to some final relief in equity between the parties, and not the sole object sought; nor should such appointment be made if the plaintiff has a full and adequate remedy at law in respect to his alleged rights, .or where the court can find another and less stringent means for protecting the rights of the parties.

Judgment reversed.

Allen, Kinlcade, Robinson, Jones and Matthias, JJ., concur. Marshall, C. J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Ohio Law. Abs. 423, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoiles-v-watkins-ohio-1927.