Jones v. Wilson
Supreme Court of Georgia
1Opinion of the Court
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) (2 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 until the final disposal of all…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Collins v. HenrySupreme Court of Georgia · 1923
- Hoyt v. WareSupreme Court of Georgia · 1923
- West v. MercerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1908
- Astin v. CardenSupreme Court of Georgia · 1942
- Elam v. ElamSupreme Court of Georgia · 1883
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Irwin v. WillisSupreme Court of Georgia · 1947
- Shaw v. CaldwellSupreme Court of Georgia · 1972
- Hobbs v. HoustonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1943
- Manry v. ManrySupreme Court of Georgia · 1943
- Conner v. YawnSupreme Court of Georgia · 1946
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.