American Manganese Steel Co. v. Alaska Mines Corp.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the CourtGilbert, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above).
It may be conceded that the appellant presented to the court below a strong prima facie showing of fraud in the manner of the appellee’s acquisition of the property of the Dredging Company, and of notice to the appellee of the fraud; but that was not all that was necessary to show in order to entitle the appellant to the appointment of a receiver. It was required to go further, and show the necessity of the .appointment for its protection while the suit was pending in the court below. To establish the necessity of the appointment of a receiver in an…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- American Grain Separator Co. v. Twin City Separator Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1912
- Folk v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1916
- International Trust Co. v. Decker Bros.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1907
- Heinze v. Butte & Boston Consolidated Min. Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1903
- Ryder v. BatemanU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Tennessee · 1898
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Nicholson v. Western Loan & Building Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1932