Legal Opinion

Mead v. Burk

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided May 9, 1901No. 19,016PublishedCited by 43 opinions

From the Grant Superior Court.

1Opinion of the CourtJordan, J.

Appellees applied for and secured by an interlocutory order of the lower court the appointment of a receiver pendente lite. This appeal is prosecuted upon the grounds that, under the facts, the trial court abused its discretion in awarding to appellees the right for the appointment of a receiver. By their complaint in the principal action appellees seek to enforce a specific performance of a written contract executed by and between them and appellants on May 13, 1899, whereby the latter sold and agreed to convey to the former a certain electric light plant together *578with, the real estate,…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Wayne Pike Co. v. HammonsIndiana Supreme Court · 1891
  2. Naylor v. SidenerIndiana Supreme Court · 1886
  3. Bitting v. Ten EyckIndiana Supreme Court · 1882
  4. Cabinet Makers' Union v. City of IndianapolisIndiana Supreme Court · 1896
  5. Hellebush v. BlakeIndiana Supreme Court · 1889

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by43 opinions

  1. Ray v. BakerIndiana Supreme Court · 1905
  2. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. HadleyIndiana Supreme Court · 1907
  3. Chicago Terminal Transfer Railroad v. VandenbergIndiana Supreme Court · 1905
  4. Forrester v. Southern Pacific Co.Nevada Supreme Court · 1913
  5. Neal v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1938

38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API