Sweins v. Superior Court

60 P.2d 313, 16 Cal. App. 2d 336, 1936 Cal. App. LEXIS 279
California Court of Appeal·Decided August 28, 1936·No. Civ. No. 10307·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

THE COURT.

An alternative writ of prohibition was issued upon the petitioner’s application showing that, in an action foreclosing a chattel mortgage, the respondents made an ex parte order appointing a receiver without requiring the applicants for such order to give an undertaking.

Section 566 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that: “If a receiver is appointed upon an ex parte application, the court, before making the order, must require from the applicant an undertaking ...”

The provisions of that section are mandatory (22 Cal. Jur., p. 468) and the order was therefore void. (Westphal v. Superior Court, 120 Cal. App. 263, 264 [7 Pac. (2d) 711], where other authorities to the same effect are cited.)

Let a peremptory writ issue as prayed.

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

Sweins v. Superior Court, 60 P.2d 313, 16 Cal. App. 2d 336, 1936 Cal. App. LEXIS 279 (Cal. Ct. App. 1936).

60 P.2d 313 (Sweins v. Superior Court) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Sandhu v. Sandhu CA5
California Court of Appeal, 2023
Avila v. Lin CA4/3
California Court of Appeal, 2014
Panama Timber Co. v. Barsanti
633 P.2d 1258 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 1981)