84 Iowa 251 | Iowa | 1892
I. The application for the. appointment of a receiver was in the form of a petition, and
The question, and the only question to be determined, is whether the plaintiff had the right to have a receiver appointed to oust the grantees of J. M. Raymond from the premises, -and to cause the tenants to attorn to the receiver, and to authorize the receiver to refit and manage the land pending further litigation. It may be that, if there was no resistance to such proceeding, a court ought to sustain the application. But the defendants resisted it by answer and by affidavits, which, to say- the least, tended to show that the conveyance of the land to J. M. Raymond was not fraudulent. It is to be remembered that these affidavits were not taken and submitted to the court to determine the question of fraud, but for the purpose of enabling the court to determine whether it was a proper case for the appointment of a receiver. The plaintiff is then in this position: He claims the right to maintain a creditors’ bill to subject the land to the payment of a claim not yet in judgment, and to have a receiver appointed, because he has attached the property which has been conveyed away by his debtor, and because he has garnished the grantees of the land and their
It is strenuously contended on behalf of the appellant th|it the action at bar can be maintained because of the attachment. But we have seen that the attach
II. The appellee filed and submitted with the case a motion in which it is demanded that the appeal be
Another ground of the motion to dismiss is that there are no errors assigned, and we are cited to the
The order appointing a receiver is reversed.