Wayne Pike Co. v. State ex rel. Whitaker

34 N.E. 440, 134 Ind. 672, 1893 Ind. LEXIS 175
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedJune 6, 1893
DocketNo. 16,618
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 34 N.E. 440 (Wayne Pike Co. v. State ex rel. Whitaker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wayne Pike Co. v. State ex rel. Whitaker, 34 N.E. 440, 134 Ind. 672, 1893 Ind. LEXIS 175 (Ind. 1893).

Opinion

Coffey, J.

This was an action brought by the appellee, in the Jay Circuit Court, against the appellants, to obtain a judgment and decree forfeiting the franchises and property of the appellant, the Wayne Pike Company, a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State for the purpose of constructing a toll road.

It appears from the complaint that at the time of the [673]*673commencement of the action, the property of the corporation was in the hands of the appellant Fleming, as a duly appointed and qualified receiver. The action was brought without leave of the court.

Filed June 6, 1893.

The court overruled a demurrer to the complaint. In overruling a demurrer to the complaint the court, in our opinion, committed an error.

It seems to be settled that a receiver, as a general rule, can neither sue nor be sued, without leave of the court making the appointment is first obtained. High on Receivers, section 254; Barton v. Barbour, 104 U. S. 126; Keen v. Breckenridge, Receiver, 96 Ind. 69; Garver v. Kent, Receiver, 70 Ind. 428; Moriarty v. Kent, Receiver, 71 Ind. 601; Herron, Receiver, v. Vance, 17 Ind. 595; Elkhart Car Works Co. v. Ellis, 113 Ind. 215; Davis v. Ladoga Creamery Co., 128 Ind. 222.

There are other questions presented by the record and discussed by the appellants, but as we are not favored with a brief on behalf of the appellee, and as the action can not be maintained without first obtaining leave of the court to sue its receiver, we deem it unnecessary to examine’them.

Judgment reversed, with directions to the circuit court to sustain the demurrers to the complaint in this cause.

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

Related

Sacks v. American Fletcher National Bank & Trust Co.
279 N.E.2d 807 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1972)
Curtis v. Chicago & Erie Railway Co.
119 N.E. 723 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1918)
Harmon v. Best
91 N.E. 19 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1910)
Harmon v. Perkins
88 N.E. 961 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1909)
Malott v. State ex rel. Board of Commissioners
64 N.E. 458 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1902)
Ayres v. Foster
57 N.E. 725 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1900)
Peirce v. Jones
56 N.E. 683 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1900)
Peirce v. Chism
55 N.E. 795 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1899)
Rhodes v. Hilligoss
45 N.E. 666 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1896)
Hatfield v. Cummings
39 N.E. 859 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1895)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
34 N.E. 440, 134 Ind. 672, 1893 Ind. LEXIS 175, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wayne-pike-co-v-state-ex-rel-whitaker-ind-1893.