Gray v. Council of Newark & the Newark Water & Electric Co.

Citations

• 9 Del. Ch. 171
• 79 A. 735
• 1911 Del. Ch. LEXIS 27

Syllabus

<p>To entitle one to a mandatory preliminary injunction, he must clearly show a prospective irreparable injury, for which he will have no adequate remedy at law.</p> <p>A preliminary injunction is designed merely to preserve the subject of the controversy, and cannot be used to take property from the possession of one party and put it in that of another; and hence, in a suit to avoid a lease of public utilities by a municipality to its co-defendant, the lessee will not be compelled by preliminary injunction to return the property to the municipality, though the transfer occurred shortly before a restraining order was served, where no threatened or prospective injury to the property is shown.</p> <p>The Chancellor can appoint a receiver on his own motion, if justified by the facts and circumstances.</p> <p>The appointment of a receiver, where the relief is necessary for the preservation of the property pending an injunction suit, is a necessary incident to the power of granting an injunction.</p> <p>The mere fact that a corporation is newly created does not warrant an inference of its insolvency, on a question of the propriety of appointing a receiver.</p> <p>A receiver pendente lite should not be appointed merely because it tends to hasten final determination of the suit, nor because it will make it unnecessary to appoint a master to settle accounts, in case of a determination in favor of complainant.</p> <p>A receiver pendente lite should be appointed only when necessary to prevent manifest wrong and injury, and when plaintiff would otherwise be in danger of suffering irreparable loss.</p> <p>A receiver pendente lite is appointed to prevent injury to the thing in controversy, and to preserve it for the security of all parties in interest, to be disposed of as the Court may finally direct.</p> <p>To warrant the appointment of a receiver, it must appear that possession of the property was obtained by the defendant through fraud, or that the property itself or the inc