Martin v. . Jonas

188 S.E. 81, 210 N.C. 665, 1936 N.C. LEXIS 195

Opinion

Per Curiam.

There are various contentions set forth in the briefs of the parties to this controversy, which we need not now consider. On the whole record, we do not think the facts justify the appointment of a receiver.

It is said in Neighbors v. Evans, ante, 550: “A receiver may be appointed where a party establishes an apparent right to property, and the person in possession is insolvent, and ordinarily a receiver will be appointed to take charge of the rents and profits during the pendency of the action. Plaintiff does not come within the above rule. The courts look with jealousy on the application for the appointment of a receiver. It is ordinarily a harsh remedy. The right to relief must be clearly shown, and also the fact that there is no other safe and expedient remedy. In some cases a bond is allowed the defendant instead of the appointment of a receiver. Woodall v. Bank, 201 N. C., 428.”

For the reasons given, the judgment of the court below is

Reversed.