Field v. Ripley

W. F. Allen, Justice.

The plaintiff is not, I think, upon his own showing, entitled to a receiver of the property in controversy.

1st. Ripley is a necessary party to the action, is interested in the funds, and is entitled to be heard in regard to its custody and disposal, pendente lite. The court will not ordinarily take from a party the custody of his property without notice to him, and giving him an opportunity to show cause against it. A receiver will not be appointed upon an ex parte application, before the appearance of the defendant, or until he has made default, after service of process,…