Blaise v. Security Brewing Co.
Citations
- 124 La. 979
- 50 So. 816
- 1909 La. LEXIS 575
Syllabus
<p>1. Appeal and Error (§ 489*) — Stay of Proceedings — Possession of Receiver.</p> <p>The appointment of a receiver for a business corporation, as a going concern, vests in the receiver, as the court’s officer, title to the property of the corporation and right of possession ; and such right of possession is not affected by an appeal taken under section 4, Act No. 159, p. 314, of 1898, which provides that “such an appeal * * * shah have the effect of suspending the functions of such receiver, except to perform such administrative acts as may be necessary for the preservation of the property”; the possession being necessary for the performance of the acts of administration required for' the preservation of the property.</p> <p>2. Receivers (§ 74*) — Interference with Possession — Contempt.</p> <p>Interference with the possession of a receiver, or obstruction of his attempt to exercise the right of possession, is punishable by proceedings for contempt.</p> <p>3. Receivers (§ 74*) — Interference with Possession — Contempt.</p> <p>It is not necessary that a person, interfering with or obstructing a receiver in the possession of the property or in the exercise of his right to the possession of property included in the receivership, should have been officially notified of the appointment of the receiver or of the orders under which he is acting, in order to render him liable for contempt. Actual knowledge of such appointment or orders is sufficient.</p> <p>4. Receivers (§ 74*) — Interference with Possession — Contempt.</p> <p>Unauthorized interference with the possession of a receiver cannot bo justified on the ground that the person interfering considered the appointment of the receiver ill-advised or illegal.</p> <p>5. Certiorari (§ 29*) — Prohibition (§ 11*)— Review — Findings of Fact.</p> <p>The jurisdiction of the district court to make and to enforce, for certain purposes, orders appointing a receiver for a 'business corporation, and directing him. to make an inven
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “[s]o-called ‘in-and-out transactions’ (those securities both bought and sold within the class period) [should be] excluded from the calculation of approximate losses because any losses from those transactions lack a causal link to the allegedly false or misleading statements or omissions”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Monroe
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.