*1 if manifest. do failure suggest, We accident, due to requests prescribed file at the time be or gross neglect or other not or wilful involving cause the trial court exercise its discretion fault, may well if no time, prejudice at a later receive them or mate- disadvantage adverse or to the court party, progress rial of the trial would result. delay Farrington Cheponis, 1, 9, Conn. 652. arguments of the further advanced afford

None justification us interference decision on the motion to aside the the trial court set verdict. There is no error.

Joseph Kingston Realty et al. vs. The S. Silver

Corporation. J., Js. Haines, Hinman, C. Maltbie, and Avert Banks Argued 2d, decided February December *2 (defendant). appellant Benjamin Slade, was Solomon brief, whom, on Levy, with David (plaintiffs). Eisner, appellees a mort- to foreclose an action This was J. Banks, 8th, April dated writ estate, by real gage 9th, April and served plaintiffs, upon application 8th, April On a receiver defendant, without April On Peasley. Judge appointed *3 ap- to revoke a written filed defendant May denied hearing, after which, pointment appealed. 1931, 352

The error defendant contends that there was it made with- appointment of the receiver because was out to it,

refusal to neither the revoke it were erroneous because complaint nor

alleged any justifying appointment. such an through has, sequence of notice events, The defendant become immaterial. came vol- into untarily appointment, court after the order at and, hearing upon motion to revoke its opportunity present had the its ob- jections to the had appointment. Having day its court, everything possibly and the benefit it could have present obtained had it been when the objec- cannot now raise the made, tion of of notice. The lack court’s refusal revoke appointment amounted substance to a new ap- pointment made after parties appeared and were Savings Stoneburner, Universal & Trust Co. v. heard. Elwood First 208; Fed. C. C. A. National 251, Greenleaf, Bank Bristow Kan. Pac. Building Home 91 Va. 18, 20 S. E. 946, 947. *4 complaint Neither the nor application the for the appointment of a receiver allegations contained of to justify appointment facts sufficient the of a receiver of appointment was therefore an improvident Mortgage one. Wiltsie on Foreclosure (4th Ed.) In the motion to appoint- revoke the § ment, alleged that property the sub- ject plaintiffs’ mortgage was of sufficient value to furnish for ample payment the of security the first mortgage as well as thereon, the amount due the plaintiffs’ mortgage, and that equitable grounds no appeared for the of a This appointment receiver. required no answer or pleading, other and raised of insufficiency security the issue the of the equi- of the existence and of mortgage plaintiffs’ the a receiver. of appointment grounds table was cov- complaint in the defect motion. the defendant’s allegations by ered complaint to understand chooses When a defendant and liability, to his all the essential to contain supplies he omitted, have been those which answers for the deci- complaint submits the defect pleading. his own the issues raised of the court sion London Vickery New Toomey, 52 Conn. v. Wall Corpus 277; 49 R. Northern 87 Conn. there cited. 1274, and cases p. 864, Juris, § defendant’s motion to hearing upon the At the court had receiver, of the revoke the plain- insufficiency of the it the before equitable grounds the existence of security, and tiffs’ of a receiver. We must assume of law, as well as the defendant’s claims that the facts argument of the all before court were and its denial of revoke the motion to security a conclusion imports the motion grounds appeared for equitable insufficient rents, finding and a of a receiver plaintiffs. favor issues no There is error.