Ex Rel. Cameron v. District Court
Nevada Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
Cameron and French are strangers to order, not named therein, not ordered to do anything. Order commands Fairchild and Allied Company to deliver all money to Huntington. It is for alleged refusal to obey order that Cameron is to be punished. Order is ex parte, mandatory, injunctive, restraining, and void because issued without undertaking. It is immaterial that it is called order appointing receiver. 32 C.J. 28; McWaters v. Stockslager, 162 P. 671; Rev. Laws, 5136, 5140. Nor do Cameron and French come within rule against unauthorized interference by strangers with receiver, because rule…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Mellen v. Moline Malleable Iron WorksSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- In re RosserCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1900
- Carpentier v. SmallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
- In re CohenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1855
- Ex parte RickeyNevada Supreme Court · 1909
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Bowler v. LeonardNevada Supreme Court · 1954
- Maitia v. Allied L. & L. S. Co.Nevada Supreme Court · 1926
- Ex Rel. Nenzel v. District CourtNevada Supreme Court · 1925
- Hobbs v. Occidental Life Ins. Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1937
- Seaborn v. First Judicial District CourtNevada Supreme Court · 1934
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.