Jones v. Wilson

Bell, Presiding Justice.

1. “A receiver should not be appointed to take possession of property unless it is clearly made to appear that a receiver is required in order to protect the rights of those interested in the property.” Bird v. General Discount Corporation, 194 Ga. 282 (2) (21 S. E. 2d, 651, 653). See Code, §§ 55-301, 55-303, 55-305; Astin v. Carden, 194 Ga. 758 (22 S. E. 2d, 481).

2. “The appointment of a receiver determines no right as between the parties, nor does it affect the title in any way. The purpose of a receivership is to preserve the property contested for pendente lite…