Oil City Ironworks, Ltd. v. Pelican Oil & Pipe Line Co.

Citations

• 115 La. 266
• 38 So. 987
• 1905 La. LEXIS 654

Syllabus

<p>RECEIVERS — APPOINTMENT — NECESSITY — EVIDENCE — JUDGMENT — EORM — APPEAL—EIGHTS</p> <p>OP THIRD PASTIES — REHEARING.</p> <p>On Motion to Dismiss.</p> <p>1. It is no ground for dismissing an appeal taken by a third person from an order or judgment of court appointing a receiver under the provisions of Act No. 159, p. 312, of 1898, that the order or judgment was under a confession of judgment by the defendant.</p> <p>2. The law does not contemplate that on an application made to appoint a receiver under .Act No. 159, p. 312, of 1898, the court should render two distinct judgments, the first recognizing the necessity for such appointment, the second making the appointment. The two orders must be read together as constituting one judgment, and the appeal is taken in time if taken within the delay fixed from appeal from the order appointing the receiver.</p> <p>On the Merits.</p> <p>3. Act No. 159, p. 312, of 1898, required no other party to be cited or notified of the application for a receiver made under its provisions than the corporation. Third parties have no right after an order for such appoint1 ment has been made to a rehearing or a reopening of the case in order to resist the application. The law looks, so far as third parties are concerned, to action on the application first and objections or complaints afterwards.</p> <p>4. The statute does not require that the party applying for the appointment of a receiver should be a “judgment” creditor of the corporation.</p> <p>5. The resolution of the board of directors, referred to in the act of 1898 is made by the statute itself evidence (prima facie, at least) of the necessity for the appointment of a receiver.</p> <p>6. The delay fixed by the statute in which the defendant is required to show cause why a receiver should not be appointed is in the interest of the corporation, and may be waived by it.</p> <p>7. Objections made to the proceedings which require the introduction of evidence to support them have to be