174 P. 672 | Cal. Ct. App. | 1918
In a certain action in the superior court, brought for the foreclosure of a mortgage, in which the petitioners here were defendants, an order was made, after decree of foreclosure, appointing the respondent Kinney a receiver to take possession of the property mentioned in the decree. The receiver endeavored to take possession but the petitioners refused to surrender it, and were cited to show cause in the superior court why they should not be punished for contempt. They are here on a petition for a writ of prohibition preventing the respondent court from so punishing them.
It is contended by the petitioners that the order appointing the receiver is void on various grounds, but one only of them need be considered. The petitioners defaulted as defendants in the foreclosure action, but there were no allegations in the complaint upon which a receiver could have been appointed. No notice was given the petitioners of the application *697
for the appointment of a receiver. Therefore, considering the form of the complaint, and notwithstanding the default of the petitioners, the application was an ex parte one. Section
A peremptory writ of prohibition will issue restraining the respondent court from punishing the petitioners for contempt.
Conrey, P. J., and James, J., concurred.