Kretschmar v. Stone

43 So. 177, 90 Miss. 375
Mississippi Supreme Court·Decided March 15, 1907·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Mayes, J\,

delivered the opinion of the court.

While there seems to be m.uch conflict of authority as to the right of a receiver to institute suits, the question seems to. have been settled in this state as far back as the case of Freeman v. Winchester, 10 Smed. & M., 577. The weight of modern authority is to the effect that a receiver may bring suit, either in courts of law or equity, when given authority to do so by the court which appointed him. It is expressly alleged in the declaration that the chancery court had empowered the receiver to bring suit to recover the dividends alleged to have been unlawfully paid, and the demurrer admits all the facts alleged. This demurrer should have been overruled. Wilkinson v. Rutherford, 49 N. L. Law, 241, 8 Atl., 507; 1 Pomeroy’s Equitable Remedies, sec. 180; 17 Ency. Plead. & Prac., p. 812, and note; Freeman v. Winchester, 10 Smed. & M., 577.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Kretschmar v. Stone, 43 So. 177, 90 Miss. 375 (Mich. 1907).

43 So. 177 (Kretschmar v. Stone) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bankers Trust Co. v. Hale & Kilburn Corporation
84 F.2d 401 (Second Circuit, 1936)
Metzger v. Joseph
71 So. 645 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1916)